HomeMy WebLinkAbout05-21-2015 Planning Commission Meeting PacketPLANNING COMMISSION - AGENDA
REGULAR MEETING
I. CALL TO ORDER:
II. ROLL CALL:
III. PLEDGE OF ALLEGIANCE
IV. APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
V. OLD BUSINESS:
A. Preliminary Plat
B. Zoning Determination
VI. PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit
VII. WORKSHOP:
A. Code Amendment
'.4
VIII. OTHER BUSINESS:
IX. ADJOURNMENT:
7:00 P.M.
Declaration of Quorum
April 16, 2015
May 21, 2015
Preliminary Plat for Maiestia Place (Peter Strizhak)
(MF# PP 2015-001)
Zoning Determination for Sharma Annexation Area
(City of Pasco) (MF# ZD 2015-002)
Location of a mini -storage facility (Galin Tebay) (MF#
SP 2015-003) - This item will need to be dismissed
Arterial Corridors Commercial Design Standards
(MF# CA 2015-003)
Shoreline Master Program - Reports (MF# PLAN
2013-001)
This meeting is broadcast live on PSC -TV Channel 191 on Charter Cable and streamed at
www.pasco-wag.com/psctvlive.
Audio equipment available for the hearing impaired; contact staff for assistance.
REGULAR MEETING
PLANNING
CALL TO ORDER:
MEETING
The meeting was called to order at 7:OOpm by Chairman Cruz.
POSITION MEMBERS PRESENT MEMBERS ABSENT
No.
1
Tanya Bowers
No.
2
Tony Bachart
No.
3
Paul Mendez
No.
4
No.
5
Joe Cruz
No.
6
Loren Polk
No.
7
Zahra Khan
No.
8
Jana Kempf
No.
9
Gabriel Portugal
APPEARANCE OF FAIRNESS:
Alecia Greenaway
April 16, 2015
Chairman Cruz read a statement about the appearance of fairness for hearings on land
use matters. Chairman Cruz asked if any Commission member had anything to declare.
There were no declarations.
Chairman Cruz then asked the audience if there were any objections based on a conflict
of interest or appearance of fairness question regarding the items to be discussed this
evening. There were no objections.
ADMINISTERING THE OATH:
Chairman Cruz explained that state law requires testimony in quasi-judicial hearings
such as held by the Planning Commission be given under oath or affirmation. Chairman
Cruz swore in all those desiring to speak.
APPROVAL OF MINUTES:
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Polk that the minutes dated
February 19, 2015 be approved as amended. The motion passed with six votes and
Commissioner Bowers and Commissioner Mendez abstaining.
OLD BUSINESS:
A. Rezone Rezone from RS -12 (Suburban) to R-3 (Medium
Density Residential) (Harvey Prickett) IMF# Z 2015-
0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane ONeill, Planner I, discussed the rezone application from RS -12 to R-3. He stated
that there had been no changes to the staff report since the previous meeting.
-1-
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, to adopt the findings of
fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the March 19, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Khan, based on the findings of
fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City Council
approve the rezone of the Walker property in the 4600 Block of Crescent Road from RS -12
to R-3. The motion passed unanimously.
PUBLIC HEARINGS:
A. Special Permit Special Permit to Locate Mini -Storage Facility in C-
1 (Retail Business) Zone (Calin Tebav) (MF# SP
2015-0031
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, explained that the applicant had withdrawn his special
permit application and asked for it to be removed from the agenda. No public hearing was
held.
B. Special Permit Special Permit to locate a modular office adiacent
to Fire Station 81 (City of Pasco) (MF# SP 2015-
004)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the special permit application to locate a modular
office adjacent to Fire Station 81. In 1999 the City relocated the main downtown fire
station to Oregon Avenue and built a 7,000 square foot fire station facility with offices and
other ancillary uses. In 1999 the City was approaching a population of 27,000 and
currently the population is nearing 68,000. With that growth there is a need for
additional facilities in the Fire Department.
Recently the Planning Commission recommended a special permit for an addition to the
Police Station and part of that project required the removal and relocation of a modular
office that had been used by the Police Department and Records Storage. That modular
office is what is being proposed to be relocated to the north side of the fire station parking
lot to be utilized for an office.
Attached to the staff report was a letter received by staff from a neighboring property
owner, Mr. David Meheen, who was opposed to locating the modular office at this site. Mr.
McDonald read the letter into the record. The letter indicated concern for the appearance
of a modular building, the potential of it becoming a permanent structure and the effect it
could have on the neighboring property values.
Mr. McDonald stated that one of the purposes for special permit review is for the Planning
Commission to determine if there are any mitigating circumstances that can be applied to
a particular application and use to allow it to fit in a given location. In this particular
-2-
case, any private business on Oregon Avenue could locate a modular office, not requiring
a special permit. The only reason the special permit is required in this case is because it
is a governmental facility and governmental/quasi-governmental activities require special
permits. To help address some of the concerns Mr. Meheen had, staff suggested the
modular office be pit set which would make it look more like a permanent structure and to
have it painted to complement the fire station and some landscaping could also be added.
The building itself will be located about 150 feet from Oregon Avenue. Staff recommend
the special permit be granted with the special conditions as contained in the staff report.
Chairman Cruz asked if there is a landscape screen proposed.
Mr. McDonald responded that there is currently a row of arborvitaes that will be removed
and the modular office will be located on that lawn. The Planning Commission could
consider replanting the hedges. Also, where the hedges end there are some opportunities
to plant shrubbery to provide an additional screen for the structure itself. The structure
will also be partially hidden by a booster station from Oregon Avenue.
Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification where the modular would be placed.
Mr. McDonald pointed to a location on the PowerPoint slide.
Commissioner Bowers asked what the cost would be to require additional shrubbery.
Mr. McDonald answered that it would just be the cost of the shrubs but he doesn't have
the amount. There could also be a cost to have a contractor plant them or the Parks
Department personnel could plant them, which would probably be the case since the
budget is pretty low.
Chairman Cruz guessed it would cost a couple thousand dollars but no more.
Commissioner Polk asked if the original arborvitaes were planted by choice or were they
planted as a part of an agreement - how long have the plants been there.
Mr. McDonald replied that the arborvitaes have been in place since 1999 or 2000 when
the project was completed.
Chairman Cruz asked how long the modular building would be located on this site.
Mr. McDonald answered it would be there as long as it is needed - it is not a temporary
structure.
Commissioner Portugal asked staff what their response would be in terms of Mr. Meheen's
concern of negative impacts to the neighborhood.
Mr. McDonald responded that it would not negatively impact the neighborhood as any one
of the surroundings property on Oregon Avenue could place a modular office on their
property today without a special permit and there would be no conditions attached to
require setting, painting or landscaping. There are modular offices around town - some
are pit set and some are not.
-3-
Commissioner Khan asked for an explanation of "pit set".
Mr. McDonald explained that a regular modular office when set on the ground, the floor is
2 '/z-3 feet off of the surface of the ground so a set of stairs is needed and it doesn't look
like a site built facility. A pit set is when a pit or foundation hole is excavated in the
ground, concrete runners are placed down and the unit is set in that hole and it is
backfilled to five a more permanent look and there will not be any steps to walk up.
Mary Mahoney, 5017 W. Pearl, started to make public comment for another item on the
agenda.
Chairman Cruz explained to Ms. Mahoney that public comment for that item would need
to take place during that public hearing.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
Mr. McDonald suggested adding a condition to require shrubbery to be planted on the east
side of the building to address Mr. Meheen's concerns.
Chairman Cruz put it to a vote and the majority was in favor, with Commissioner Polk,
Commissioner Greenaway, Commissioner Bachart, Commissioner Portugal and
Commissioner Mendez were in favor of adding that condition. Commissioner Khan and
Chairman Cruz did not feel that condition was necessary and Commissioner Bowers was
undecided.
Chairman Cruz stated that the City has made reasonable accommodations to make sure it
will look more like a permanent structure and less like a modular building.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, to adopt the amended
findings of fact and conclusions therefrom as contained in the amended April 16, 2015
staff report. The motion passed unanimously.
Commissioner Khan moved, seconded by Commissioner Portugal, based on the amended
findings of fact and conclusions as adopted the Planning Commission recommend the City
Council grant a special permit for the location of a modular office for Fire Station 81 on
tax parcel # 112-104-035 with conditions as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report.
The motion passed unanimously.
C. Preliminary Plat Preliminary Plat for Majestic Place (Peter Strizhak)
(MF# PP 2015-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O Neill, Planner I, discussed the preliminary plat application for Majestia Place.
The applicant prroposes to subdivide 10 '/2 acres into single-family lots. The site is zoned
R-1 (Low Density Residential) which permits homes on lots with minimum lot sizes of
7,200 square feet. The lots on this plat range from 7,500sgft-13,000sgft. The subdivision
will function as a continuation of the surrounding Broadmoor Estates Subdivision. The
staff report contains standard conditions that would be found in most preliminary plats in
terms of utilities and storm water. Staff has included a condition to require a 6 foot tall
block estate wall along the southern border of the property to match the wall that
Mediterranean Villas has on their property.
Commissioner Bowers asked if the school impact fee is a set fee of $4,700 per home or if it
varies.
Mr. O'Neill replied that it is a set fee that some of the Planning Commissioners were
involved in setting a few years back.
There were no public comments and the public hearing closed.
Commissioner Kempf moved, seconded by Commissioner Bachart, to close the public
hearing on the proposed preliminary plat and initiate deliberations and schedule adoption
of findings of fact, conclusions and a recommendation to the City Council for the May 21,
2015 meeting. The motion passed unanimously.
D. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Road 80 Area (City of
Pasco) IMF# ZD 2015-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community 8v Economic Development Director, discussed the zoning
determination for the Road 80 Annexation Area. The area is a little less than 700 acres
and has nearly 440 dwelling units and an estimated population of 1,250. City Council
indicated a possible interest in annexing this area in January and in doing so, approved
the formation of an Annexation Facts Committee which was a process used in 2012 to
annex a the middle portion of the County Unincorporated Island. The Annexation Facts
Committee took a side by side look at County regulations and formed a matrix to show
differences that might be applicable for people living in the City versus living in the
County. The committee just concluded their work and their final document was
distributed on April 10th.
Currently while in the County, most of the zoning is RS -20 (Residential Suburban) with
20,000 square foot lot minimums. Roughly 97% of the proposed annexation area has an
RS -20 zone and a very small percentage has a RT (Residential Transition) Zone. For the
most part the zoning districts in the City and the County match exclusively, however, the
RT zone is one that does not. The RT zone in the County does permit commercial, stables,
riding academies, veterinary clinics, nurseries and greenhouses. The only place this
applies in the Road 80 Annexation Area is the veterinary clinic on the corner of Road 92.
The other RT zone is already developed with single-family homes on existing lots so there
would be little impact to those properties themselves. The existing development pattern in
the area is a lack of through streets, little sewer extensions and the areas that sewer does
touch are identified in the staff report. It is not attractive for redevelopment due to its
existing development pattern and the way the parcels have been created through a variety
of plats or short plats over the years. Staff is recommending RS -20 zoning, which is the
same zoning that occurs in the County for this area, to be established through the zoning
determination process.
This zoning determination process is slightly different from those done in the past.
162
Several residents or property owners within the proposed annexation area have indicated
that they would feel more comfortable with the annexation, should they be annexed, if the
zoning was determined in advance of the annexation hearing. Normally the Planning
Commission will make a recommendation and it won't be forwarded to City Council until
the annexation hearing. After consultation with the City Attorney, a process using state
law and municipal code regulations was developed to provide certainty. The first Planning
Commission hearing on the zoning determination will be repeated by City Council on April
20th and again on June 1st due to state law criteria in which there is a mandatory 30
window between the first and second hearings. The hearing will most likely conclude on
June 1st and as soon as it moves forward, City Council will entertain a proposal and make
a decision on annexation possibly in July.
Mr. White stated that he distributed information to the Planning Commission; the work of
the Annexation Facts Committee, a City response to a proposal to establish zoning with
conditions by one or several members of the committee, a document that was distributed
to City Council, the Annexation Facts Statement and Matrix that was developed by the
committee and a memo prepared transmitting all of the information to City Council.
Chairman Cruz reiterated that the proposed zoning is comparable to what they have
today.
Mr. White agreed and added that they will be referring to the 2015 Annexation Facts
document during the hearing as well as other documents handed out.
Commissioner Polk stated that 3% of the zoning is currently RT (Residential Transition)
and the City doesn't typically keep RT zoning. She asked what the zoning would become.
Mr. White answered that the staff recommendation is for RS -20 zoning effective for a 5
year period.
Commissioner Polk asked if the veterinary clinic would be zoned RS -20.
Mr. White responded that it would. Staff had discussions on non -conforming uses
because that zoning would make the veterinary clinic a non -conforming use. The City has
a rather liberally written non -conforming use clause and interpretation of that clause.
There is a non -conforming use and a non -conforming structure. The use itself can
continue as long as it doesn't become abandoned for a year or more. The structures
themselves can be rebuilt in case of catastrophic causes, contingent on meeting setbacks
which are identical in the City and County and building code which is also identical.
Chairman Cruz summarized that current uses will be allowed even after annexation.
Mr. White also added that the property could be sold to a new property owner who wishes
to continue the same land use.
Commissioner Bachart referred to the staff report and noted that there was also a paving
company, a welder and excavator and if they are still in business and how the zoning
determination would affect them.
Mr. White stated that assuming they are conforming they are legal uses and they will not
be affected.
Chairman Cruz added that he is familiar with the welding operation. It is in a residential
home with a small office building and low rise shop on the south side of Argent Road and
is pretty innocuous.
Commissioner Bowers asked what it would take for the area to get sanitary sewer service.
Mr. White responded that it would take a Capital Improvement Project, done in phases
and is not a likely priority given the development pattern and that there aren't many
through streets. It would have to be a systematic, multi-year phased approach to
providing sewer in the area. He added that his impression is that most of the property
owners aren't interested in connecting. That could change over time which is why these
types of things are done in multi-year phases.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he and Commissioner Portugal went through the most
recent annexation and the City isn't interested in connecting to sewer. If the property
owner wishes to do so then they need to do it and pay for it with other property owners in
the form of an LID.
Chairman Cruz stated that another way would be for a developer to purchase a large piece
of land, put in a new subdivision and they would be required to put in sewer. In general,
people are not going to be forced to give up their septic tanks to connect to sewer.
Michael Waldron, 8901 E. Calden Avenue, Spokane Valley, WA spoke on behalf of this
item. He stated that he owns some acreage on Road 80 and wanted to know if he could
continue leasing his property to Washington State University to farm on that land.
Mr. White responded that it would still be allowed.
Chairman Cruz reiterated that the goal is to continue existing uses.
Steven Schlegel, 9304 W. Richardson Road, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that
he was a member of the Annexation Facts Committee and that they came up with a list of
concerns and code adjustments they would like to see happen to which the City
responded; there would be a city within a city, cost to taxpayers, against state law and
unnecessary. A few members felt their stipulations were necessary, to form a concomitant
agreement or overlay, to address some of the codes to protect their current lifestyles. The
area is rural and they like it rural. They want to see zoning locked in for 20 years so that
the zoning doesn't get changed over time through public hearings. Mr. Schlegel also
suggested making some changes to the code in other areas and if the City did so, much of
the animosity would go away.
Chairman Cruz discussed the urban growth boundary and driving increasing density
inside the boundary. State law dictates moving development to more urban densities to
prevent sprawl. He added that RS -20 will provide for the most flexibility in maintaining
current lifestyle and character of the neighborhood that is allowed under state law and
that locking in the zoning for 20 years is unrealistic and isn't in the best interest for the
City.
-7-
Mr. Schlegel responded that their area in 95% developed and there aren't many pieces of
property left to be developed.
Chairman Cruz stated that in that case if someone really wanted to develop urban density
they would have to round up several property owners willing to sell and purchase all of
that property to develop. That scenario is highly unlikely in the foreseeable future. Some
possible changes will be code enforcement because the City actually does code
enforcement. There is a balance of the future needs of the City and preserving property
rights.
Mr. Schlegel stated that it is not uncommon to see slightly different codes in rural and
semi -rural areas - he has seen it elsewhere where he has lived.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he has been through an annexation himself and
recommended continued involvement on boards and committees to work with the City.
Jane Beyer, 11300 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of this item. She stated that she feels
the zoning should be RS -12 based on the property owners needs and that the property
owners should follow the directives of the state requirements for urban growth.
Mark Mansell, 2715 Road 96, spoke on behalf of this item. He stated that 5 years is too
short to lock in the RS -20 zoning and would like to see 20 years. The area is fairly rural
with many streets only wide enough to drive one vehicle. There are no plans for the City
to connect sewer lines. He said that residents have problems with skunks, raccoons and
coyotes that can harm their livestock. Currently, he said that we has the right to protect
his livestock but in the City he cannot, which he said was noted in a handout given to City
Council.
Chairman Cruz asked Mr. Mansell to clarify what he meant by "rights to protect livestock".
Mr. Mansell responded that in the County residents have the right to use deadly force with
a firearm if necessary to protect livestock from predators or animals that carry disease.
Many citizens are asking to keep that right as many have horses, sheep and cattle and
need to protect them.
Dr. Bill Venema, 8517 W. Court Street, spoke on behalf of this item. He said that he has
been a resident in this area since 1991 and in that time only 17 homes have been
developed. He sold some of his land and subdivided it for some more homes. He stated
that Pasco is changing and there may be a need for development in this area in the future
and locking zoning in for 20 years would be too long. Not everyone will need 1/2 acre lots in
the city limits of Pasco. Finally, he addressed "predators" and stated that he hasn't seen
them as a problem.
Chairman Cruz added that after 5 years, a rezone application would have to be presented
to the Planning Commission in order to rezone the property to anything other than RS -20,
at which time the Planning Commission would look at the character of the neighborhood
before making a recommendation to rezone.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
In
Commissioner Polk discussed the right to protect livestock from raccoons and skunks and
asked what the City's response is to taking care of animals that might pose a threat.
Mr. White responded that it is unlawful to discharge a firearm in the city limits. It is also
unlawful to discharge a firearm and air operated gun in the Riverview Area from an
ordinance the County developed in 1971, however, there is a clause in that ordinance (7-
71) that states in the event of an imminent threat to livestock.
Commissioner Polk asked what would be the City's approach to resolving those problems.
Mr. White answered that there is no approach to resolving that problem. It will not be
declared lawful to discharge a firearm in that portion of Riverview.
Chairman Cruz added that the definition of a firearm is rather broad. He asked staff what
the thought is behind not being allowed to discharge a firearm in the city limits.
Mr. White responded that this area contains 688 acres and in that area there is no way a
firearm could safely be discharged without endangering a home, school or person. There
are two schools in the middle of this area.
Commissioner Polk stated that in her neighborhood there have been issues with dogs
killing chickens and asked if traps from Animal Control would be the way to handle
animal nuisances.
Mr. White answered that he wouldn't recommend using traps for raccoons or skunks,
however it can be done that way.
Commissioner Bachart moved, seconded by Commissioner Kempf, the Planning
Commission adopt the findings of fact as contained in the April 16, 2015 staff report. The
motion passed unanimously.
E. Zoning Determination Zoning Determination for Sharma Annexation (City
of Pasco) IMF# ZD 2015-002)
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Dave McDonald, City Planner, discussed the zoning determination for the Sharma
Annexation. Staff has worked with the property owners for some time in an effort to have
the property annexed. The site consists of three separate parcels with a total of 144 acres.
The site is within the urban growth boundary and designated for low-density residential
development in the Comprehensive Plan. Under low-density residential the property could
either be zoned RS -20, RS -12, R -S-1, R-1 or R -1-A. Staff recommended zoning the area
RS -1 (Low -Density Residential).
Chairman Cruz asked why RS -12 zoning isn't proposed. The site is has a lot of agriculture
around it, there is a surplus of R-1 and RT zoning. He suggested splitting the zoning to
have some RS -1 and some RS -12.
Mr. McDonald responded that eventually the property to the south will be developed and
the property owner seeking zoning similar to what is on the east side of the road. The
School District recently bought a site to the east which will likely be a middle school.
Property to the west in the County is starting to be converted to single-family residential.
Another thing to consider is the expense of extending utilities larger the lots make the
extensions more expensive.
Chairman Cruz stated that if the goal is to drive population to the center of the city then
the zoning on this property should be lower and have the higher density neighborhoods
closer to the city center. This site is on the edge of town and RS -1 zoning might be a little
too dense. He added that he would feel more comfortable splitting the zoning and having
R-1 zoning on the south end of the property and RS -12 or RS -20 on the north end of the
property.
Commissioner Khan asked what the average lot sizes are of the homes to the west.
Mr. McDonald answered RS -20 due to the fact that there's no sewer.
Commissioner Khan asked what the other surrounding parcels are zoned.
Mr. McDonald explained the surrounding zoning.
Commissioner Khan asked if there are plans to the north.
Mr. McDonald answered that currently that land is outside of the urban growth boundary
so it will remain that way until the urban growth boundary is modified.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, added that the City's urban
boundary is surrounded by production agriculture and owned by many of the same
individuals. At this time they are not interested in selling property for urban development.
Price of agricultural commodity is very high and everyone is doing well. Water rights are
also getting more difficult to purchase. There might be a time in the near future when the
City will have to take a look at the urban boundary in this area and possibly make some
difficult decisions on holding the line on density and utilities. The School District paid a
great deal of money for their property but they had to do it.
Commissioner Khan stated that she is in agreement with Commissioner Cruz in
transitioning to RS -12 due to the land to the west being larger lot sizes.
Chairman Cruz responded that the reason he suggested the RS -12 zoning is to
concentrate density and commercial property around nodes.
Commissioner Bowers was also in agreement with Chairman Cruz. She asked if his
proposed zoning could encourage growth off of Road 100.
Chairman Cruz answered that it could allow for a better balance and transition from more
intense to less intense zoning districts.
Commissioner Bowers asked staff how they felt about the Chairman Cruz's proposal.
Mr. McDonald replied that it has merit and staff likes to see a higher density closer to
-10-
major intersections for dispersing the traffic and it could work well with the bottom half of
the site being RS -1 and the top half being RS -12. Keeping part of it R -S-1 would help
spread the cost of the utilities making it more affordable to purchase those lots and
homes.
Chairman Cruz noted that it is important to have a variety of zoning and homes.
Commissioner Bachart added that he would like to see RS -20 zoning in the top and R -S-1
in the bottom.
Commissioner Greenaway stated that she would like to see some RS -12 zoning in along
the I-182 Corridor on the northern half since there isn't much of that zoning offered there.
Commissioner Bowers asked where she could find the land use definitions for the different
zones.
Mr. McDonald responded that they are found in the zoning regulations and he briefly
defined them.
Chairman Cruz stated developers tend to maximize their property and build as many
homes allowed to maximize their return.
Mr. White stated you will get what you allow.
Commissioner Khan asked for clarification on the RT zone to the south.
Mr. McDonald responded that it is a holding zone until the time it is ready to be rezoned
and developed. The Comprehensive Plan has the northern part of that property as low
density residential and a band of high density residential on the southern portion followed
by commercial.
Joseph Flerchinger, 7215 Byers Road, owns a small vineyard and the thought of
development moving towards his property is concerning but having RS -12 or RS -20,
preferably RS -20, zoning would make him feel more comfortable.
Chairman Cruz stated that in the future when subdivision plats come forward to the
Planning Commission they can look at conditions requiring walls, barriers and buffers.
Commissioner Polk asked if there would be a specific timeline.
Chairman Cruz answered that there isn't a timeline. It is all dependent on when a
developer is ready to develop the property.
Commissioner Bowers asked what the zoning is for the vineyard on Burden Boulevard
near Road 60.
Mr. McDonald answered that it is zoned C-1. They had to get a special permit.
-11-
Commissioner Bowers asked Mr. Flerchinger if that zoning would be appropriate near his
property for his vineyard.
Mr. Flerchinger responded that close to his property he would like to see closer to one acre
lots but then wouldn't mind a gradient to smaller lot sizes.
Commissioner Bachart stated that when the site is developed there cannot be complaints
on the vineyard since it is already existing.
Rick Aldrich, 7216 Byers Road, stated that he is a resident north of the proposed site and
has lived there since 1978. It has been a very rural area and appreciates the idea of
zoning larger lots to keep the character of the neighborhood. He would like to see RS -20
zoning, roughly one acre, lots.
Mr. McDonald clarified that RS -20 zoning is half acre lots.
Mr. Aldrich stated that he would prefer to see acre lot sizes. One of his concerns is the
effect new development might have on his ability to raise cattle as well as pesticides
sprayed on crops.
Ashok Sharma, 1201 Brentwood Avenue, Richland, WA spoke on behalf of his application.
He stated that he is the property owner of one of the southern parcels in the proposed
zoning determination and would like to develop the property. His property has water,
electric and sewer is roughly 2 blocks away from his site. He would like to have this
developed as soon as possible.
Chairman Cruz responded that most of his concern is the northern part of the proposed
site and that there needs to be a gradient. There also needs to be careful planning used so
that there aren't split plats.
Commissioner Portugal asked for clarification as to where there is R-1 zoning in the
County.
Mr. White answered that there are minimum of 5 acre lots currently in the County.
Commissioner Bowers had concerns about splitting the zoning into three separate zones
but instead respect some of the current lot sizes and zone it as an "L" shape.
Chairman Cruz responded that he isn't too picky as long as the integrity is maintained for
the character of the area and that staff should work it out it bring it back to the
Commission.
With no further comments the public hearing closed.
The Planning Commission recommended to deliberate and make a decision at the next
meeting.
WORKSHOP:
-12-
A. Code Amendment Emergency Aircraft Landing Code Amendment IMF#
CA 2015-0011
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Shane O'Neill, Planner I, discussed the code amendment regarding emergency aircraft
landing. The code amendment is to PMC, Title 9 - Health, Safety and Morals. The code
amendment would make it lawful for aircraft to land within the city limits in emergency
situations. Comments have been received by the Fire Chief to include a subsection to the
code allowing training operations to be conducted within the city limits. In future
meetings the staff report will contain revised code language including the Fire Chief's
recommendation along with any comments from the FAA.
Commissioner Bachart asked for clarification on "training purposes" and if that included
when the Army lands helicopters at the schools.
Mr. O'Neill stated that he would have to look at the Fire Chiefs notations.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, stated it did not include the
Army, however it could.
Commissioner Bachart stated that he has just seen it happen and didn't know if it should
be addressed.
Mr. White discussed air traffic during boat race weekend flying over residential
neighborhoods which was prohibited without special permits.
Chairman Cruz said the federal government didn't need to get a special permit for
anything.
Commissioner Bowers suggested that in the case of a catastrophe that would supersede
any restrictions that the City has.
Mr. White stated that is the point of the revision to the code.
Chairman Cruz added that if it is a genuine emergency there isn't much that can be done.
Commissioner Portugal asked if this would apply to Franklin County, such as the "donut
holes".
Chairman Cruz responded that the County would have to address any emergency landings
in their jurisdiction.
Commissioner Polk asked what the definition is of an emergency landing.
Mr. White answered that he will check to see if there is a definition or they would use a
dictionary definition.
-13-
Commissioner Polk asked if the emergency was due to negligence on the part of the pilot
and the City has to pay for costs incurred, would the pilot be held responsible. She stated
that she is concerned with the impact on Pasco residents.
Mr. White was unsure.
Chairman Cruz stated that the he didn't want to belabor the point as an emergency is an
emergency.
B. Plan Shoreline Management Act - Draft Shoreline Master
Program
Chairman Cruz read the master file number and asked for comments from staff.
Rick White, Community & Economic Development Director, discussed the Draft Shoreline
Master Program. The consultant from Anchor QEA, Ben Floyd, incorporated comments
and feedback he received from the Planning Commission from previous meetings. The
table in the memo to the Planning Commission is addresses concerns from staff and
simplifies and provides certainty for when it goes to the Department of Ecology in terms of
conditional uses, which the Department of Ecology tends to frown upon. The revision
allows more flexibility to the City.
The Planning Commission will see a draft with Department of Ecology comments with an
additional public hearing and it will be placed in the PMC.
Commissioner Polk asked if the draft could be provided electronically rather than a paper
copy.
Mr. White responded that the draft can always be viewed on the City's website.
There were no further comments or discussion.
COMMENTS:
With no further discussion or business, the Planning Commission was adjourned at
9:11 P.M.
Respectfully submitted,
David McDonald, City Planner
-14-
REPORT TO PLANNING
MASTER FILE NO: PP 2015-001
HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015
ACTION DATE: 5/21/2015
REQUEST: Preliminary Plat: Majestia Place
1. PROPERTY DESCRIPTION:
APPLICANT: Peter Strizhak
6159 W. Deschutes Ave., Ste #509
Kennewick, WA 99336
Legal: Lots 12, 18 and 19 Coles Estates with adjoining vacated Road 92
General Location: 6000 Block of Road 90 and at the south end of Kent Lane
Property Size: 10.53 Acres
Number of Lot/ s Proposed: 38 single-family residential lots
Square Footage Range of Lots: 7,570 ft2 to 13,037 ft2
Average Lot Square Footage: 8,300 ft2
2. ACCESS: The property has access from Road 90
3. UTILITIES: Utilities exist in in Road 90.
4. LAND USE AND ZONING: The site is zoned R-1. Surrounding properties are
zoned and developed as follows:
NORTH: R-1 - Single -Family Residences
SOUTH: C-1 - Vacant
EAST: R-3 - Single -Family Residences/Vacant
WEST: R-3 - Multi -Family & Single -Family Residences
5. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the site is
intended for residential development. Policy H -1-E encourages the
advancement of home ownership and Goal H-2 suggests the City strive to
maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the community. Goal
LU -2 encourages the maintenance of established neighborhoods and the
creation of new neighborhoods that are safe and enjoyable places to live.
6. ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
The proposed plat encompasses 10.53 acres of land and contains 38 single-family
residential lots. This property was assigned RT (Residential Transition) when it
was annexed to the City in 1982. In 2014 Council adopted Ordinance #4176
rezoning the subject site to R-1 (Low -Density Residential) to allow future single-
family residential development. The rezone was approved without the use of a
concomitant agreement. The site is designated in the Comprehensive Plan for
mixed residential development which provides the option to develop single-family
homes. The proposed plat is a functional continuation of the surrounding
Broadmoor Estates subdivisions. The overall density and average lot size between
the proposed subdivision and Broadmoor Place to the north and east are similar.
LOT LAYOUT: The proposed plat contains 38 residential lots; with the lots varying
in size from 7,570 to 13,037 square feet. The average lot size is 8,300 square feet.
RIGHTS-OF-WAY: All lots have adequate frontage on streets which will be
dedicated.
UTILITIES: Currently, municipal sewer and water lines are located both in Road
90 and Road 92. The developer will be responsible for extending utilities into the
plat. A utility easement will be needed along the first 10 feet of street frontage of
all lots. The final location and width of the easements will be determined during
the construction design phase of the platting process. The front yard setbacks for
construction purposes are larger than the requested easements; therefore the front
yard easements will not encroach upon buildable portions of the lots.
The City Engineer will determine the specific placement of fire hydrants and
streetlights when construction plans are submitted. As a general rule, fire
hydrants are located at street intersections and with a maximum interval of 500
feet between hydrants on alternating sides of the street. Streetlights are located at
street intersections, with a maximum interval of 300 feet on residential streets,
and with a maximum interval of 150 feet on arterial streets. The intervals for
street light placements are measure along the centerline of the road. Street lights
are placed on alternating sides of the street.
STREET NAMES: Streets continuing from surrounding subdivisions will carry the
names from the other subdivisions and streets without names will all be named
prior to final platting.
IRRIGATION: The municipal code requires installation of irrigation lines as a
part of infrastructure improvements.
WATER RIGHTS: The assignment of water rights is a requirement for subdivision
approval per Pasco Municipal Code Section 26.04.115(B) and Section 3.07.160. If
no water rights are available to transfer to the City the property owner/developer
must pay a water right fee in lieu thereof. The Public Works Director may waive
2
the fee if the developer mixes a soil additive in the ground that provides 30%
retention of irrigation water. In this case there are no water rights to deed to the
City as a result the current fee will be required before a final plat is approved.
FINDINGS OF FACT
State law (RCW 58.17.110) and the Pasco Municipal Code require the Planning
Commission to develop Findings of Fact as to how this proposed subdivision will
protect and enhance the health, safety and general welfare of the community. The
following is a listing of proposed "Findings of Fact":
Prevent Overcrowding: With an average lot size of 8,300 square feet the proposed
development will address the overcrowding concern by providing manageable lots
and usable open spaces. R-1 zoning requires a 20 -foot front yard setback, five-foot
side yard setbacks and a rear yard equal to or greater than the height of the
house.
Parks Opens Space/Schools: The proposed plat is located within a third of a mile
from Vintage Park. Vintage Park is located directly south of Maya Angelou
Elementary School. The developer will be required to pay the current park fee prior
to receiving building permits.
A new elementary school (Franklin) opened this year on the north end of Road 52.
Two additional elementary schools are currently under construction with an
opening date of this fall. Delta High School is also under construction on
Broadmoor Boulevard. The developer will be required to pay the current school
impact fee prior to receiving building permits. The City is required by RCW
58.17.110 to make a finding that adequate provisions are being made to
ameliorate the impacts of the proposed subdivision on the School District. At the
request of the School District the City enacted a school impact fee in 2012. The
imposition of this impact fee addresses the requirement to ensure there are
adequate provisions for schools. A school impact fee in the amount of $4,700 will
be charged for each new home at the time of building permit issuance.
Effective Land Use/Orderly Development: The plat is laid out for low-density
residential development consistent with surrounding residential developments
with the exception of Mediterranean Villas to the west.
Safe Travel & Walking Conditions: The Plat will connect to the community
through the existing network of streets. Sidewalks are installed at the time homes
are built on individual lots. The sidewalks will be constructed to current City
standards and to the standards of the American's with Disabilities Act (ADA). The
ADA ramps at the corners of each intersection will be installed with the
construction of the road improvements.
Adequate Provision of Municipal Services: All lots within the plat will be
provided with water, sewer and other utilities.
3
Provision of Housing for State Residents: The proposed preliminary plat
contains 38 building lots, providing opportunities for the construction of 38 new
homes for Pasco residents.
Adequate Air and Light: The maximum lot coverage limitation of 40 percent and
building setbacks will assure adequate movement of air and light is available to
each lot.
Proper Access & Travel: The access streets will be paved and developed to City
standards to assure that proper access is maintained to each lot. The discussion
under safe travel above applies to this section also.
Comprehensive Plan Policies & Maps: The Comprehensive Plan indicates the
site is designated for single-family and mixed -residential development. Policies of
the Comprehensive Plan suggest the City strive to maintain a variety of housing for
residents.
Other Findings:
• The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Area Boundary.
• The State Growth Management Act requires urban growth and urban
densities to occur within Urban Growth Boundaries.
• The Comprehensive Plan identifies the site for single-family and mixed -
residential development
• The site is currently zoned R-1.
• The Housing Element of the Comprehensive Plan encourages the
development of a variety of residential densities and housing types.
• Per the ITE Trip Generation Manual 8th Addition the proposed subdivision,
when fully developed, will generate approximately 380 vehicle trips per day.
• The current traffic impact fee is $709 per dwelling unit. The impact fees are
collected at the time permits are issued and said fees are used to make
traffic improvements and add traffic signals in the I-182 Corridor when
warranted.
• RCW 58.17. 110 requires the City to make a finding that adequate provisions
have been made for schools before any preliminary plat is approved.
• The City of Pasco has adopted a school impact fee ordinance compelling new
housing developments to provide the School District with mitigation fees.
The fee was effective April 16, 2012.
• Past correspondence from the Pasco School District indicates impact fees
address the requirement to ensure adequate provisions are made for
schools.
• There are no water rights associated with this plat therefor a payment in
lieu of dedication of water rights will be required to receive final plat
approval.
4
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON THE FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of the proposed Plat the Planning
Commission must develop Findings of Fact from which to draw its conclusion
(P.M.C. 26.24.070) therefrom as to whether or not:
(1) Adequate provisions are made for the public health, safety and general
welfare and for open spaces, drainage ways, streets, alleys, other public
ways, water supplies, sanitary wastes, parks, playgrounds, transit stops,
schools and school grounds, sidewalks for safe walking conditions for
students and other public needs;
The proposed plat will be required to develop under the standards of the Pasco
Municipal Code and the standard specifications of the City Engineering Division.
These standards for streets, sidewalks, and other infrastructure improvements
were designed to ensure the public health; safety and general welfare of the
community are secured. These standards include provisions for streets, drainage,
water and sewer service and the provision for dedication of right-of-way. The
preliminary plat was forwarded to the Franklin County PUD, the Pasco School
District, Cascade Gas, Charter Cable and Ben -Franklin Transit Authority for
review and comment. The PUD requested easements along the front of all lots for
utility service.
Based on the School Districts Capital Facilities Plan the City collects school
mitigation fees for each new dwelling unit. The fee is paid at the time of building
permit issuance. The school impact fee addresses the requirements of RCW
58.17.110.
(2) The proposed subdivision contributes to the orderly development and
land use patterns in the area;
The proposed plat makes efficient use of vacant land and will provide for additional
housing within the City.
(3) The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies, maps and narrative
text of the Comprehensive Plan;
The Comprehensive Plan land use map designates much of the site for mixed -
residential development. Single-family homes are identified as one of the permitted
residential uses within the mixed residential designation. Plan Goal H-2 suggests
the City strive to maintain a variety of housing options for residents of the
community while Plan Policy H -1-B supports the protection and enhancement of
the established character of viable residential neighborhoods.
(4) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of any
applicable policies or plans which have been adopted by the City Council;
5
Development plans and policies have been adopted by the City Council in the form
of the Comprehensive Plan. The proposed subdivision conforms to the policies,
maps and narrative text of the Plan as noted in number three above.
(5) The proposed subdivision conforms to the general purposes of the
subdivision regulations.
The general purposes of the subdivision regulations have been enumerated and
discussed in the staff analysis and Findings of Fact. The Findings of Fact indicate
the subdivision is in conformance with the general purposes of the subdivision
regulations provided certain mitigation measures (i.e. school impact fees, park
development and boundary fence construction) are included in approval
conditions.
(6) The public use and interest will be served by approval of the proposed
subdivision.
If approved the proposed plat will be developed in accordance with all City
standards designed to insure the health, safety and general welfare of the
community are met. The Comprehensive Plan will be implemented through
development of this Plat. These factors will insure the public use and interest are
served.
PLAT APPROVAL CONDITION$
1. At the time lots are developed, all abutting roads and utilities shall be
installed to City standards as approved by the City Engineer. This includes,
but is not limited to water, sewer and irrigation lines, streets, street lights and
storm water retention. The handicapped accessible pedestrian ramps must be
completed with the street and curb improvements prior to final plat approval.
All proposed utilities must be installed underground by the developer at the
developer's expense. Sidewalks within the Plat must be located adjacent to the
right-of-way line and off -set from the curb. Lot 27 may be accessed from Kent
Lane provided the driveway is located in the southern 30 feet of the lot.
2. There is an existing water line east of Lots 34, 33, and 32. The developer will
be responsible for relocating and reconnecting the two existing meters
connected to the existing line. The blow -off at the end of the existing water
line may be used instead of the proposed waterline cap south of Lot 32. The
water line must terminate at a blow -off. The proposed irrigation line along
Road 90 must be 8 -inch pipe and is required to connect to the existing
irrigation line at Road 90 and Cheshire Court.
3. All lot frontages must be wide enough to accommodate the placement of all
utilities while maintaining the necessary separations between the various
utility service lines.
M
4. Road 90 must be over -laid from curb -to -curb from the manhole cut for
Majestia Lane to the last utility cut for Lot 11.
5. The developer must comply with PMC 26.04.115(B) and PMC 3.07.160
dealing with water rights acquisition.
6. No utility vaults, pedestals, or other obstructions will be allowed at street
intersections.
7. All corner lots and other lots that present difficulties for the placement of yard
fencing shall be identified in the notes on the face of the final plat(s).
8. All storm water is to be disposed of per City and State codes and
requirements.
9. The developer shall insure active and ongoing dust, weed and litter abatement
activities occur during the construction of the subdivision and construction of
dwellings thereon.
10. The developer shall prepare a dust, weed and erosion control plan to be
approved by the City prior to approval of any construction drawings for the
first phase of the subdivision.
11. The developer shall be responsible for the creation of record drawings. All
record drawings shall be created in accordance with the requirements detailed
in the Record Drawing Requirements and Procedure form provided by the
Engineering Division. This form shall be signed by the developer prior to
construction plan approval.
12. All engineering designs for infrastructure and final plat(s) drawings shall
utilize the published City of Pasco Vertical Control Datum and shall be
identified on each such submittal.
13. The final plat(s) shall contain a 10 -foot utility easement parallel to all streets
unless otherwise required by the Franklin County PUD.
14. The final plat(s) shall contain the following Franklin County Public Utility
District statement: "The individual or company making improvements on a lot
or lots of this Plat is responsible for providing and installing all trench,
conduit, primary vaults, secondary junction boxes, and backfill for the PUD's
primary and secondary distribution system in accordance with PUD
specifications; said individual or company will make full advance payment of
line extension fees and will provide all necessary utility easements prior to
PUD construction and/or connection of any electrical service to or within the
plat".
15. Street lighting must be installed to the City of Pasco/Franklin County PUD
standards and as directed by the City Engineer. Residential street lights are
typically installed every 300 feet, and collector/ arterial type street lights are
typically installed every 150 feet. Street light positioning is alternating and is
measured along the centerline of the road.
16. Prior to the City of Pasco accepting construction plans for review the
developer must enter into a Storm Water Maintenance Agreement with the
City. The developer will be responsible for obtaining the signatures of all
parties required on the agreement and to have the agreement recorded with
the Franklin County Auditor. The original signed and recorded copy of the
7
agreement must be presented to the City of Pasco at the intake meeting for
construction plans.
17. The developer will be required to conform to all conditions set forth in the
Storm Water Maintenance Agreement including, but not limited to, regular
cleaning and maintenance of all streets, gutters, catch basins and catch basin
protection systems. Cleaning shall occur on a regular basis to ensure that no
excess buildup of sand, trash, grass clippings, weeds or other debris occurs in
any portion of the streets, gutters, or storm water collection facilities.
Cleaning and upkeep of the streets, gutters, and storm water collection
facilities must be to the satisfaction of the City Engineer. The developer will be
responsible for operating and maintaining the storm drain system in
accordance with the Storm Water Maintenance Agreement.
18. The developer will be required to comply with the City of Pasco Civil Plan
Review process.
19. The developer/ builder shall mitigate impacts to the Public School System by
the "school impact fee" established by Ordinance at the time of issuance of
building permits for homes.
20. The developer/builder shall pay the City a "common area maintenance fee" of
$375 per lot upon issuance of building permits for homes. These funds shall
be placed in a fund and used to finance the maintenance of arterial boulevard
strips.
21. The developer/ builder shall pay the "traffic impact fee" and "park fee"
established by ordinance at the time of issuance of building permits for
homes.
22. The developer shall install common estate type masonry wall/fence 6 feet in
height adjacent the south line of Lots 1, 2, 3, & 4 as a part of the
infrastructure improvements for the Plat. Said estate wall shall be no closer
than twenty (20) feet from the east property line of Lot 4.
RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move to adopt Findings of Fact and Conclusions therefrom as
contained in the May 21, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move based on the Findings of Fact and Conclusions, as adopted,
the Planning Commission recommend the City Council approve the
Preliminary Plat for Majestia Place with conditions as listed in the
May 21, 2015 staff report.
8
Vicinity Item: Preliminary Flit
Ma AppHcantr: Peter Stra'zhak
Map File #: PP2015 -001
WEI:L:K, TON, DR '
CT
,
r� I NCENZO
N\'NOMM�
Z
'i
1E
N T O of
p O'
--r - - - -
x; a
J .
SANtDIFUR ,PKwv
_-
c .n
K-11
CITY LI.IJTTS
11
S�
�
o
•
F
�
A
4 {
7 n
r;
1
I y
Y
�
I
> x
1
t
i
I�
xnPoxlxsrM'oosrd w a�raol xaewaensr
... JnotlD N'JIs3o j „p �
33VId VIlS3('�dW
�xod irla earxiwneaa
e � ; E a
s •�
Ya
<I I zli
wlR
an 0
OM
OVOi13NIlU3MOd
�I II
� J
o--
L7HHnci�
/
/
I @
3A 6 NOIONIll3M%
11 qi�`�i i� SE n 103HIHS3H0- -
m Y m j�--
n..0
\ [I s
_r, avOa..,Q
ll II I '
�_- L
3NVl \
VIlS3MW `ate Txm.aou6 3NVl VI1S3f'V �� �/ I
la
i
__________________-
---------------
LLz-------
----------
J
-
_AVMNNVd dndwNVS
NSVM'OOSVd d0 Alp 3NA NI 03 AY m W0909tl
33VId VIIS3rVW Is Is z I', I N
0!0! xr,d ALAN AUtlMMYl3tld
�BX
aa=
10 aNIHS3H0 1
I i �j as I Isi Ij �
I
Y
E.1 I 1•t
I I I jl••,
of t
I q
=3 " `I
sal 14 � m� I
_#
I
I 31
01% (� I OOv 6 i
I
REPORT TO PLANNING COMMISSIONER
MASTER FILE NO: (MF# ZD2015-002) APPLICANT: City of Pasco
HEARING DATE: 4/16/2015 PO Box 293
ACTION DATE: 5/21/2015 Pasco, WA 99301
BACKGROUND
REQUEST: Develop zoning recommendation for the Sharma Annexation Area
1) AREA ID: Area Size # of Dwellings Population
Sharma Annexation Area 144 acres 2 5
2) UTILITIES: City water lines are located at the corner of Burns Road and
Broadmoor Boulevard. A water line is also located in Burns Road along the
southern boundary of the proposed annexation area.
3) LAND USE AND ZONING: The proposed annexation area is currently zoned
AP 20 under the County zoning regulations. Most of the site in being
farmed.
4) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Comprehensive Plan designates the proposed
annexation area for low density residential development. Surrounding
properties are also designated for low density residential development.
5) ENVIRONMENTAL DETERMINATION: The City of Pasco is the lead agency
for this project. Based on the SEPA checklist, the adopted City
Comprehensive Plan, City development regulations, and other information, a
threshold determination resulting in a Determination of Non -Significance
(DNS) has been issued for this project under WAC 197-11-158.
ANALYSIS
On November 11, 2014 the City Council approved Resolution 3547
accepting a Notice of Intent to commence annexation proceedings for a 157
acre area located at the northwest corner of Broadmoor Boulevard and
Burns Road. Following acceptance of the Notice of Intent and prior to
Council action on an annexation petition, the Planning Commission is to
hold a zoning determination hearing. The purpose of said hearing is for the
Planning Commission to recommend appropriate zoning for the proposed
annexation area in the event it may become part of the City.
In determining the most appropriate zoning for the annexation area the
Planning Commission needs to consider the existing land uses, development
patterns, current County zoning and policies of the Comprehensive Plan and
the land use designations of the land use map. The Planning Commission
E
also needs to be guided by the criteria in PMC 25.88.060 (as discussed
below) in developing a zoning recommendation.
The annexation area contains a farm and two dwellings. The largest parcel
is 119 acres and is being farmed. The other two parcels are vacant with the
exception of a mobile home and an abandoned house.
The Comprehensive Plan designates the annexation area for low-density
residential development. The Comprehensive Plan describes low-density
development as residential development with two to five units per acre.
Zoning districts applicable to the low-density designation include RS -20,
RS -12, RS -1, R-1 and R -1-A. Zoning must be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan which limits the range of districts to the ones
previously listed. No commercial or industrial zoning can be considered for
the annexation area.
There are no subdivisions within the annexation area to provide an
established development pattern from which to consider zoning. The
Broadmoor Estates subdivision to the Southeast of the annexation area is
the closets subdivision from which to draw a comparison. Broadmoor
Estates was zoned R-1 with conditions establishing an average lot size of
around 9,000 square feet. The RS -1 zoning district would most closely meet
the established development configuration of Broadmoor Estates. To
achieve a development pattern similar to Broadmoor Estates the annexation
area would need to be zoned R-1 with a concomitant agreement.
The Planning Commission had a lengthy discussion over the range of low-
density zoning that would be appropriate for the annexation area.
Considering input from adjoining property owners the general consensus
was that the areas should be zoned with densities similar to Broadmoor
Estates near the southern end of the site and then transitioning to lower
densities toward the north end of the site. The site then would be zoned R-1
and RS -1 near the intersection of Broadmoor Boulevard and Burns Road
with RS -12 and RS -20 for areas to the north. The northern edge of the site
would be zoned RS -20.
The initial review criteria for considering a rezone application are explained
in PMC 25.88.030. The criteria are listed below as follows:
1. The changed conditions in the vicinity which warrant other or additional
zoning:
• The property is located within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
• The property in question may be annexed to the City of Pasco.
• The major change is the annexation of the parcels in question.
Upon annexation the area will need to be zoned.
2
• Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard have both been extended
past the annexation site.
• A major water line has been installed in Burns Road and is being
installed north in Dent Road.
• Properties along Dent Road are being platted and developed with
single-family dwellings.
• The Six Year Capital Facilities Plan includes the installation of a
major sewer trunk line in Burns Road.
• Broadmoor Estates is located directly to the southeast of the site.
• The Pasco School District has purchased property 1,400 feet to the
east of the annexation area for a future school.
2. Facts to justify the change on the basis of advancing the public health,
safety and general welfare.
The property may be annexed to the City and will need to be zoned. The
justification for the rezone is the fact that if a zoning designation is not
determined the property could become annexed without a zoning. For
the advancement of the general welfare of the community the property
needs to be zoned consistent with the established development patterns.
3. The effect rezoning will have on the nature and value of adjoining
property and the Comprehensive Plan.
Zoning the southeast corner of the proposed annexation area to generally
reflect the current zoning in the closest subdivision to the east will
maintain the current nature and value of Broadmoor Estates.
Graduating zoning from R-1 to RS -20 in a south to north direction with
RS -20 along the northern boundary of the annexation area will provide
consistency with the lower density development in the County. The RS -
20 zoning would match the zoning of the new subdivisions being
developed along Dent Road to the west in the County. Past annexation
rezones have not negatively altered the value of adjoining properties in
the City or the County
4. The effect on the property owners or owner of the request is not granted.
Without the annexation area being assigned a specific zoning district, the
area will essentially be un -zoned upon annexation. The area needs to be
zoned for the benefit of the property owners and property owners
adjoining the proposed annexation area.
5. The Comprehensive Plan land use designation for the property.
The Comprehensive Plan designates all of the annexation area for low-
density residential development. The Growth Management Act requires
zoning to be consistent with the Comprehensive Plan. R-1, RS -1, RS -12
3
and RS -20 are all listed residential zoning districts that are consistent
with the low-density residential land use designation of the
Comprehensive Plan.
FINDINGS OF FACT
Findings of fact must be entered from the record. The following are initial findings
drawn from the background and analysis section of the staff report. The Planning
Commission may add findings to this listing as the result of factual testimony and
evidence submitted during the open record hearing.
1) The site is within the Pasco Urban Growth Boundary.
2) The Urban Growth Boundary was established by Franklin County in 1994.
3) The property is being proposed for annexation by August 2015.
4) The annexation area is identified in the Comprehensive Plan for low-density
residential uses.
5) The Comprehensive Plan indicates RS -20, RS -12, RS -1 R-1 and R -1-A
zoning district are applicable to the low-density land use designation
6) The Growth Management Act requires zoning to be consistent with the
Comprehensive Plan.
7) Burns Road and Broadmoor Boulevard have both been extended past the
annexation site.
8) A major water line has been installed in Burns Road and is being installed
north in Dent Road.
9) New single-family residential subdivisions are being developed along Dent
Road north of Burns Road.
10)The new subdivisions along Dent Road are zoned RS -20 in the County.
11)Broadmoor Estates directly across Broadmoor Boulevard to the southeast of
the annexation area is zoned R-1.
12)In 2014 the Pasco School District purchased 40 acres of land located 1,400
feet directly east of the proposed annexation area. The land was purchased
for a new school to be built in the future
13)The Six Year Capital Facilities Plan includes the installation of a major
sewer trunk line in Burns Road.
14)RS-1 zoning will permit development with lots sizes similar to those in the
Broadmoor Estates subdivision to the southeast of the annexation site.
CONCLUSIONS BASED ON STAFF FINDINGS OF FACT
Before recommending approval or denial of a rezone the Planning Commission
must develop its conclusions from the findings of fact based upon the criteria
listed in PMC 25.88.060 and determine whether or not:
(1) The proposal is in accord with the goals and policies of the Comprehensive
Plan.
0
Zoning the area low-density (R-1 through RS -20) will reflect the land use
designations in the Comprehensive Plan and will cause the proposal to be in
accord with the Plan.
(2) The effect of the proposal on the immediate vicinity will not be materially
detrimental.
Zoning the area R-1, RS -1, RS -12 and RS -20 will support the land use
designations of the Comprehensive Plan for the annexation site and
surrounding properties.
(3) There is merit and value in the proposal for the community as a whole.
It is in the best interest of the community and neighborhood to have the
annexation area zoned to support the low density nature of the area. Without
zoning, the value and character of the neighborhood would not be protected or
maintained.
(4) Conditions should be imposed in order to mitigate any significant adverse
impacts from the proposal.
Conditions should be imposed on any R-1 zoning to ensure lots sizes are
consistent with development within the Broadmoor Estates subdivision to the
southeast.
(5) A concomitant agreement should be entered into between the City and the
petitioner, and if so, the terms and conditions of such an agreement.
A concomitant agreement is needed to maintain lot size consistency with
Broadmoor Estates for the area at the northwest corner of Broadmoor
Boulevard and Burns Road.
STAFF RECOMMENDATION
MOTION: I move the Planning Commission adopt the Findings of Fact as
contained in the May 21, 2015 staff report.
MOTION: I move, based on the findings of fact as adopted, the Planning
Commission recommend the City Council zone the Sharma
Annexation Area to R-1 through RS -20, as indicated on the zoning
map identified as Exhibit # 1 attached to the May 21, 2015 staff
report.
5
Zoning
Map
Item: Sharma Annexation
Applicant: City of Pasco
File #: ZD 2015-002
AP -2o
(Agricultural Production)
AP 2Q SITE � County
I
CITY LIMITS
�i R1 IT
RT o Low -Density ResidentiaC;
Residential Transition o
�
o
R-3
R., Medium -Density Residential-
C-1
C-1 Retail Business -
Retail Business l 11
Sandifur Parkwa
C-1 I 1
I %CR _
I-182
Exhibit
#A
AP -20
County
Item: Sharma Annexation
Applicant: City of Pasco
File #: ZD2015-002
R-1
RT
Residential Transition
C-1
Retail Business
JD
AP -20
Agricultural Production
(County)
0
0
i
i
I
CITY LIMITS
fT R-1
Low -Density Residential
R-3
I-182
Residenti
C-1 1
Retail Business
moi.
I -i
CR T_
MEMORANDUM
RANDUM
DATE: April 29, 2015
TO: Planning Commission
FROM: Jeffrey B. Adams, Associate Planner
SUBJECT: Arterial Corridors Commercial Desivn Standards (MF# CA 2015-003
At the April 16, 2015 Planning Commission meeting Community 8v Economic
Development Director Rick White distributed photos of a recently constructed
GESA records storage building on Sylvester Street. The structure is a stark
white pole building which dramatically contrasts with the rather handsome
GESA bank adjacent. This project is permitted under the current code. Mr.
White asked the Planning Commission if they would like to see proposals by
staff for a code amendment establishing minimum design standards in the
future, particularly on our main streets. The Planning Commission was in
agreement to have a proposed code amendment brought to them.
Code amendment options may include the following:
1) Do nothing
2) Extend the I-182 Corridor Design Standards to all or selected zones
outside the I-182 Corridor.
3) Develop specific standards for zones outside the 1-182 Corridor or for
selected corridors and/or arterials outside the I-182 Corridor.
Option #1—Do nothing:
Doing nothing would be the least expensive and easiest path in the short run.
It would also leave the City vulnerable to design abuse by lack of minimum
standards.
Option #2—Extend the 1-182 Corridor Design Standards to all or selected
zones outside the 1-182 Corridor:
This would require more up -front developer investment, but would be the
simplest route code -wise. The I-182 standards have already been "road tested"
and proven effective to some degree in increasing the value and aesthetic
quality of those commercial areas. The aesthetic quality derived from the I-182
standards has drawn more commercial investment to the area.
Option #3—Develop specific standards for zones outside the I-182
Corridor or for selected corridors and/or arterials outside the 1-182
Corridor.
This third option would be the most labor intensive, code -wise; but would also
allow for a better "fit' for areas outside the I-182 Corridor.
The advantages might include a set of standards and aesthetics which could be
more adaptable to the financial resources of the area.
Staff requests Planning Commission discussion and direction.
z
ANCHOR
OEA
MEMORANDUM
8033 W. Grandridge Avenue, Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 99336
Phone 509.491.3151
www.anchorqea.com
To: Rick White and Jeff Adams, City of Pasco Date: May 7, 2015
From: Ben Floyd, Anchor QEA Project: 131050
cc:
Re: Draft Restoration Plan and Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report
Anchor QEA has prepared a draft Restoration Plan and Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report
for City staff and Planning Commission consideration.
Restoration Plan
The purpose of the Restoration Plan is to describe how and where shoreline ecological
functions can be restored within the City's SMP jurisdiction area. It is a non -regulatory
document that is implemented by the City based upon available funding. Funding is not
expected to be guaranteed; Ecology expects the City will seek funding and participate in
supporting projects by other organizations to implement restoration improvements. The
restoration plan can also be used for identifying mitigation opportunities. The City staff and
Planning Commission should review the document to verify information is accurate and
identify additional restoration actions (see Table 3), as appropriate. The plan accompanies
the submittal of the draft SMP to Ecology.
The SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)) articulate that the Plan is to include specific
elements:
1. An identification of degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with
potential for ecological restoration — see Section 4
2. An establishment of overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and
impaired ecological functions — Section 4
3. An identification of existing and ongoing projects and programs that are currently
being implemented that are designed to contribute to local restoration goals such as
capital improvement programs and watershed planning efforts — Section 3
Rick White and Jeff Adams
March 2, 2015
Page 2
4. An identification of additional projects and programs needed to achieve local
restoration goals and implementation strategies including identifying prospective
funding sources for those projects and programs — Sections 4 and 5
5. An identification of timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects
and programs and achieving local restoration goals — Section 5
6. Provisions for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs
will be implemented according to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of
the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals — Section 5
It is important to clarify that restoration as it is discussed here is distinct from the concept of
protection or no net loss. The WAC defines "restoration" or "ecological restoration" as follows:
... the reestablishment or upgrading ofimpaired ecological shoreline processes or
functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to,
revegetation, removal ofintrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of
toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline
area to aboriginal or pre -European settlement conditions. "
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report
The purpose of this report is put the draft SMP through a "test run" to see how the SMP
provisions will work to meet the various SMP requirements including achieving "no net loss
of ecological functions." City staff and Planning Commission should review the document to
verify the projected buildout and associated effects appear to be reasonable and accurately
described. The report is included with the draft SMP submittal to Ecology.
Combined with the Restoration Plan, the Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report is one of the
final analysis and documentation steps for the City's comprehensive SMP update. This
report includes a brief introduction to the City setting; a more detailed discussion of the
setting is available through the Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization (IAC) Report
(Anchor QEA 2014). Also included is a discussion of anticipated development for the next
20 years. This is based on the land capacity analysis presented in the IAC Report, which is
further refined based on the foreseeable rate of development within each shoreline reach
over the next 20 years. Potential impacts to ecological functions from this development are
Rick White and Jeff Adams
March 2, 2015
Page 3
identified, along with provisions to address these impacts. Finally, based on all of these
inputs, the anticipated future performance for each shoreline area is addressed. Overall, the
report will serve to demonstrate that future development under the proposed SMP will result
in no net loss of shoreline ecological function in the City.
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS REPORT
Prepared for
City of Pasco
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
8033 West Grandridge Boulevard, Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 99336
Prepared with assistance from
Oneza & Associates
3131 Western Avenue, Suite 316
Seattle, Washington 98121
This report was funded through a grant from the Washington State Department ofEcology
April 2015
rCA:l4*•1X4I•Ll1W4R
1 INTRODUCTION ......................................
1.1 Report Purpose ....................................
2 SETTING.
............................................1
..............................................1
............................................ 4
3 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL
IMPACTS TO ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION...............................................................................6
3.1 Foreseeable Future Development....................................................................................6
3.2 Potential Impacts to Ecological Function from Development......................................9
4 PROTECTION PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
AND ESTABLISHED REGULATION......................................................................................11
4.1 Critical Area Protection and Mitigation.......................................................................11
4.2 Beneficial Effects of Established Regulation and Recreational Land Management
Agreement......................................................................................................................11
4.3 Restoration Opportunities.............................................................................................13
4.4 Environment Designations............................................................................................18
4.5 Exempt Activities...........................................................................................................19
4.6 Response to Unanticipated Impacts..............................................................................20
5 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS...................................................................22
6 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................39
List of Tables
Table 1 Existing Land Use within Pasco Shoreline Jurisdiction ...................................... 5
Table2 City Shorelines...................................................................................................... 6
Table 3 Site-specific Restoration and Protection Opportunities in Pasco .................... 15
Table 4 Pasco Cumulative Impacts Analysis.................................................................. 23
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update i 131050-01.01
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
City
City of Pasco
CWA
Clean Water Act
Ecology
Washington State Department of Ecology
ESA
Endangered Species Act
HPA
hydraulic project approval
IAC
Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NPDES
National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System
OHWM
ordinary high water mark
RCW
Revised Code of Washington
RR
regulatory reach
SMA
Shoreline Management Act
SMP
Shoreline Master Program
SR
Subreach
UGA
urban growth area
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WAC
Washington Administrative Code
WDFW
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WQC
Water Quality Certification
WSDOT
Washington State Department of Transportation
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 131050-01.01
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Report Purpose
The City of Pasco (City) received grant funding from the Washington State Department of
Ecology (Ecology) to update the existing Shoreline Master Program (SMP). A primary
purpose of this effort is to develop an SMP that complies with Chapter 90.58 of the Revised
Code of Washington (RCW), the Shoreline Management Act (SMA), and Ecology's 2003
SMP Guidelines (Chapter 173-26 Washington Administrative Code [WAC]), while still
meeting local goals and planning objectives.
The guidelines require the City to demonstrate that the updated SMP will result in no net
loss to shoreline ecological functions during implementation. Developing this conclusion
requires an examination of projected future development, how this development may risk
ecological function, and regulatory and non -regulatory actions, including restoration plans,
which can influence this risk.
WAC 173-26-201(2)c provides the following guidance for protection of ecological functions of
shorelines:
' Masterprograms shall contain policies and regulations that assure, at minimum, no net
loss of ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources. To achieve
this standard while accommodating appropriate and necessary shoreline uses and
development, masterprograms should establish and apply.-
• Environment designations with appropriate use and development standards; and
• Provisions to address the impacts ofspecific common shoreline uses, development
activities and modification actions,- and
• Provisions for the protection of critical areas within the shoreline; and
• Provisions formitigation measures and methods to address unanticipated impacts.
When based on the inventory and analysis requirements and completed consistent with
the specific provisions of these guidelines, the master program should ensure that
development will be protective of ecological functions necessary to sustain existing
shoreline natural resources and meet the standard. The concept of net'as used herein,
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 1 131050-01.01
Introduction
recognizes that any development has potential or actual short-term or long-term impacts
and that through application ofappropriate development standards and employment of
mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence, those impacts will be
addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not diminish the
shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that
impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives ofRCW 90.58.020,
masterprogram provisions shall, to the greatest extent feasible, protect existing ecological
functions and avoid new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing
other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions.
Master programs shall also include policies that promote restoration of ecological
functions, as provided in WAC 173-26-201 (2)(t), where such functions are found to have
been impaired based on analysis described in WAC 173-26-201 (3)(d)(i). Itis intended
thatlocalgovernment, through the masterprogram, along with other regulatory and
nonregulatoryprograms, contribute to restoration byplanningfor and fostering
restoration and that such restoration occur through a combination ofpublic and private
programs and actions. Localgovernment should identify restoration opportunities
through the shoreline inventoryprocess and authorize, coordinate and facilitate
appropriate publicly and privatelymniated restoration projects within theirmaster
programs. The goal of this effort is masterprograms which include planning elements
that, when implemented, serve to improve the overall condition ofhabitat and resources
within the shoreline area of each city and county. "
Combined with the Restoration Plan (Anchor QEA 2015), the Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Report is one of the final analysis and documentation steps for the City's comprehensive
SMP update. This report includes a brief introduction to the City setting; a more detailed
discussion of the setting is available through the Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization
(IAC) Report (Anchor QEA 2014). Also included is a discussion of anticipated development
for the next 20 years. This is based on the land capacity analysis presented in the IAC
Report, which is further refined based on the foreseeable rate of development within each
shoreline reach over the next 20 years. Potential impacts to ecological functions from this
development are identified, along with provisions to address these impacts. Finally, based on
all of these inputs, the anticipated future performance for each shoreline area is addressed.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 2 131050-01.01
Introduction
Overall, the report will serve to demonstrate that future development under the proposed
SMP will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function in the City.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 3 131050-01.01
2 SETTING
The City is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers within Franklin
County in the southeastern portion of Washington. The Columbia River is to the south of
the City, and the Snake River is to the southeast. The portion of the Columbia and Snake
rivers within the City is part of the upstream portion of Lake Wallula. The lake is created
from the impoundment of the Columbia River by McNary Dam. The segments of the
Columbia and Snake rivers around the City are located in a wide valley comprised primarily
of alluvial soils with relatively high infiltration rates. Within upland areas, particularly areas
farther from the confluence of the river, outburst flood deposits of gravel occur as well.
The City falls within the Central Basin region of Washington, which has the lowest
precipitation rates in Washington. High temperatures in January can range from 35 to 45 °F
(1.6 to 7.2 °C), with low temperatures between 25 to 35 °F (-6.7 to -1.1 °C). Summer high
temperatures are usually in the high 80s to low 90s, with low temperatures in the high 50s
(WRCC 2015).
The Columbia and Snake rivers are major surface water resources in the City. Because the
planning area is within the Lake Wallula portion of these rivers, water levels are generally
stable. Both the Columbia and Snake river floodplain levels are confined due to the levy and
dam system maintained by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). The northern part of
the City Urban Growth Area (UGA) is just below the Hanford Reach National Monument's
Wahluke unit of the Columbia River.
The City is part of the Tri -Cities Metropolitan Area in southeast Washington and includes
25,247 acres in the current incorporated limits and an additional 5,433 acres in the UGA.
The City and its associated UGA compose about 72% of the 55 square miles of designated
UGA in Franklin County (Franklin County 2008).
The City's shoreline is dominated by Open Space land use comprising 60% of the total
shoreline area. Industrial land use composes more than 25% of the shoreline. Much of the
Open Space area is owned by USACE and is developed with flood protection levees.
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission also owns Open Space (Sacajawea State
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 4 131050-01.01
Park) within the shoreline. Other major public landowners include Port of Pasco and
Washington State Department of Transportation. Industrial land along the shoreline is
mostly owned by the Port of Pasco on the south and southeast sides of the City. Residential
uses are mostly concentrated on the south side of I-182. See Table 1 for a summary of land
use within the shoreline jurisdiction.
Table 1
Existing Land Use within Pasco Shoreline Jurisdiction
Land Use Category
Acres in Shoreline
Land Use
Open Space
307.30
60.2%
Low Density Residential
68.24
13.3%
Mixed Residential
2.53
0.5%
Mixed Residential Commercial
2.38
0.5%
Industrial
130.21
25.5%
Commercial
0.02
0.0%
Total
510.7
100%
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 5 131050-01.01
3 REASONABLY FORESEEABLE FUTURE DEVELOPMENT AND POTENTIAL
IMPACTS TO ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION
3.1 Foreseeable Future Development
The City has an estimated population of 67,770, based on 2014 Office of Financial
Management data. From 2010 to 2014, the population growth is estimated at about 13%
with annual growth rate ranging from 2% to 5% (OFM 2014). With the positive population
trends, some additional development within the City's shoreline is anticipated throughout
the next 20 years. However, unlike the rest of the City, the shoreline is mostly developed
with residential, recreational, and industrial uses and flood protection levees. Future
development would mostly include recreational improvements with limited new residential,
commercial, and industrial developments. Potential for future development is summarized
in Table 16 of the IAC Report. Table 2 below presents a number of development indicators
and details for each shoreline reach by environment designations. Information described in
the table includes:
• Developable Areas — Presents the vacant areas either subdivided or not yet platted
• Anticipated Development — Includes the anticipated residential, commercial, or
recreational development in the next 20 years
• Environment Designations — Identifies the environment designations for each reach
that are tied to the anticipated development
Table 2
City Shorelines
Pasco —Reach 1
Developable Areas: The entire shoreline area in SR 1a and vacant parcels in SR 1b, id, and le
Future Development Constraints: USACE ownership of land, existing road, and gravel pit (Broadmoor) with
long-term lease
Environment Designations
Anticipated Development
Natural
Potential expansion of Sacajawea Heritage Trail and raised viewing decks,
river access points and parks to connect to Shoreline Road, and potential
restricted, non -motorized -only boating area near wildlife reserve area.
Urban Conservancy
Potential river access points to conned to Shoreline Road, expansion of
Sacajawea Heritage Trail and raised viewing decks, and boat basin and
launch.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 6 131050-01.01
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Potential Impacts to Ecological Function
Shoreline Residential
Potential expansion of Sacajawea Heritage Trail. Although there is capacity
for 32 new residential units, five units could be built on an existing
developed area (a pig farm). Therefore, 27 potentially new units could be
built on undeveloped land with portions of the potential future
development parcels in shoreline jurisdiction.
Recreation
Limited recreational development, including public access expansion on
Dent Road right-of-way adjacent to the Pasco Ranch boat moorage.
Potential development of boat basin and marina in SR ld according to
Broadmoor Concept Plan.
Pasco — Reach 2
Developable Areas: Vacant parcels within the shoreline
Future Development Constraints: Mostly built -out
Environment Designation
Anticipated Development
Shoreline Residential
Residential development is limited only to the currently vacant parcels;
three new units are anticipated with portions of these parcels in shoreline
jurisdiction.
Recreation
Limited recreational development; potential access improvement on the
Irrigation District's property.
Pasco — Reach 3
Developable Areas: No developable areas except for recreational facilities improvement on the park
Future Development Constraints: Chiawana Park and USACE ownership
Environment Designation
Anticipated Development
Urban Conservancy
Parking facility improvement at the terminus of Road 76. Installation of
seating areas and drinking facilities along the trail. Develop a "pocket park"
with restrooms at Road 84.
Recreation
Potential park improvement for additional boat launch and beach area; trail
and parking facility improvement and park extension at the terminus of
Road 84. Potential addition of a community center type structure at
Chiawana Park.
Pasco — Reach 4
Developable Areas: No private development; vacant lots behind the levee and the drainage ditch
Future Development Constraints: Mostly built -out, USACE ownership of land and levee, and Wade Park
Environment Designation
Anticipated Development
Public Flood Protection
Lowering the levee has been discussed contingent upon USACE approval.
Potential development of beach area and parks with boats and access points
along Roads 60 and 68.
Recreation
Potential development of a beach area at the Roads 39/40 Wade park
entrance. Potential development of a riverside dining venue.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 7 131050-01.01
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Potential Impacts to Ecological Function
Pasco — Reach 5
Developable Areas: Park development on vacant BNSF land; development of the industrial area only after
the abandonment of the BNSF rail track
Future Development Constraints: Public ownership by USACE, WSDOT, City of Pasco, Port of Pasco, and
BNSF Railway Company; existing levee and rail track
Environment Designation
Anticipated Development
Urban Conservancy
None
Public Flood Protection
Improvement of open space area near W. Haystad Street; access
improvement from the levee to the river. Potential development of
riverview decks and steps on parts of the levee down to the river on SR 5d.
Recreation
Potential access and park improvement with addition of beach area south of
the Riverview Park.
High Intensity Use
Potential mixed use development in SR 5d, about 1,600 square feet. Park
facilities expansion.
Pasco — Reach 6
Developable Areas: The Port's vacant industrial property (SR 6a) could be developed within the shoreline.
However, this is contingent upon the Pasco Marine Terminal remediation process. Future development is
currently being planned. The pace of redevelopment depends on the remediation process and market
factors. The Boat Basin/Marine Terminal Plan indicates high-density mixed use development in SR 6a. The
Plan recommends upper floor residential or commercial office use with ground floor retail and parking
with a potential building height of three to five stories.
Plans for Osprey Pointe development in SR 6c include office and commercial development. This would
include parking area development within the shoreline. Proposed commercial office buildings are mostly
located outside the 200 -feet shoreline jurisdiction with some portions of the buildings potentially within
the shoreline.
Future Development Constraints: BNSF rail track; remediation approaches and institutional controls to
address remaining contamination areas on the Port of Pasco property
Environment Designation
Anticipated Development
Urban Conservancy
None
Recreation
Potential access, trail, park, and marina improvement; potential addition of
public beach, viewpoints, and a new marina park. The under crossing
between the boat basin and marina has recently been approved and is
anticipated to be built in the near future.
High Intensity
Potential trail improvement
High Intensity Mixed Use
Approximately five acres of developable area in SR 6a. With 75% land
coverage, potential mixed use development of 166,000 square feet (ground
floor commercial, upper floor residential and office, plaza, view point and
other development. Development of parking lot at Osprey Pointe; about
18,672 square feet of office -commercial building area is proposed in SR 6c.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 8 131050-01.01
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Potential Impacts to Ecological Function
Pasco — Reach 7
Developable Areas: Park areas
Future Development Constraints: Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission ownership
Environment Designation
Anticipated Development
Urban Conservancy
Limited trail improvements and potential addition of camping facilities
Recreation
Potential park and trail improvements. Potential development of Sacajawea
Heritage Trail to connect with Columbia Plateau trail.
Pasco — Reach 8
Developable Areas: Low development potential. Industrial area is less likely to have additional
development within the planning timeframe: Potential for trail connection to the east.
Future Development Constraints: BNSF rail track, Ainsworth historic town, and industrial area is mostly
developed with fuel tanks.
Environment Designation
Anticipated Development
High Intensity
Trail improvements and Sacajawea Heritage Trail extension
Notes:
IAC = Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization Report
RR = Regulatory Reach
SR = Subreach
USACE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
WSDOT = Washington State Department of Transportation
WSU = Washington State University
3.2 Potential Impacts to Ecological Function from Development
Conventional development can lead to negative impacts to the ecological function of
shorelines. The degree of impacts can be tied to the intensity of development, the intensity
of human use, the buffer distance between upland development and the shoreline, whether
shoreline features such as overwater structures and bank hardening are included, and the
maintenance operation procedures and materials used. Potential impacts are described
below based on the categories of Hydrology, Sediment, Water Quality, and Habitat.
Hydrology: Impervious surfaces affect subsurface storage and flows; shoreline hardening can
affect subsurface water supply cycle, impacting hyporheic exchange. Overwater structures can
affect surface flow dynamics, creating eddies (localized changes in water velocity).
Sediment: Sheet flow from impervious surfaces can increase soil erosion and impact the
natural nutrient cycles. Vegetation removal also increases soil erosion. Shoreline hardening
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 9 131050-01.01
Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development and Potential Impacts to Ecological Function
can affect the sediment supply cycle impacting hyporheic exchange; it can also increase wave
energy and thus soil/sediment erosion at the toe of the slope and transfer energy
downstream/downcurrent of the hardened area. Wakes from recreation vessels can further
exacerbate soil and sediment erosion issues.
Water Quality: Impervious surfaces affect nutrient cycling, and runoff from these surfaces
may include toxins or pathogens that affect water quality. Vegetation alterations have
similar impacts and may also increase water temperatures due to the loss of overhanging
canopies. Landscaped areas where fertilizers, herbicides, and/or pesticides are used
contribute to harmful toxin inputs into the aquatic environment. At boat ramps, gasoline
and other chemicals associated with vessel and truck operations and maintenance can
potentially enter the aquatic environment.
Habitat Development, including shoreline infrastructure, can replace habitat patches and
fragment patches and/or corridors. Disturbance may increase invasive wildlife and plant
species limiting resources for native species. Overwater structures alter sediment, organic
material pathways, and the photic zone. Aquatic fill can affect spawning habitat, and
shoreline hardening may replace variable -sized nearshore sediment materials with large
homogenous substrates less conducive to threatened and endangered aquatic species.
Artificial light and increased noise can disturb native wildlife species.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 10 131050-01.01
4 PROTECTION PROVISIONS OF THE PROPOSED SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
AND ESTABLISHED REGULATION
The City's SMP will work in conjunction with other city, state, and federal regulations and
programs that aim to protect ecological resources and the health and well-being of citizens.
The following section summarizes the critical area state and federal regulations and plans for
restoration. It also describes activities that will be exempt from shoreline development
permits that are administered through the SMP.
4.1 Critical Area Protection and Mitigation
The City has critical area regulations for wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, and fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas. The Critical Areas Code also describes general mitigation
requirements, including avoiding, minimizing, rectifying, or compensating for adverse
impacts to these areas or their buffers. Existing City critical area regulations were updated
for the shoreline to be consistent with Ecology's Washington State Wetland Rating System
for Eastern Washington (Ecology 2014) and will be updated for critical areas outside the
shoreline.
4.2 Beneficial Effects of Established Regulation and Recreational Land
Management Agreement
Certain state and federal agencies have jurisdiction over certain types of potential
development impacts within the City's shoreline jurisdiction, in addition to the SMP
requirements. Development thresholds that commonly lead to federal agency consultation
include proposals that may impact federally listed fish or wildlife, wetlands, and streams;
affect the floodplain or floodway; or include clearing and grading of land.
The updated SMP regulations are meant to be consistent with and work in concert with the
following existing state and federal regulations:
• Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) — The HPA is administered by the Washington
Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW). Any work that uses, diverts, obstructs, or
changes the natural flow of beds or banks of waters of the state is subject to WDFW
regulation and could require HPA approval. This could include any projects within
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 11 131050-01.01
Protection Provisions of the Proposed Shoreline Master Program and Established Regulation
the shoreline jurisdiction that require construction below or over the ordinary high
water mark (OHWM) of lakes, rivers, and streams. This could also include projects
that propose creating new impervious surfaces that would increase stormwater runoff
to the waters of the state.
• National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) — NPDES permits are
administered by Ecology. Any activity that results in the discharge of wastewater to
surface water from industrial facilities to municipal wastewater treatment plants
requires an NPDES permit. In addition, activities that result in stormwater discharge
from industrial facilities, construction sites larger than 1 acre, and municipal
stormwater systems that serve more than 100,000 people require an NPDES permit.
• Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404 Permit (Section 404) — The federal CWA
provides the regulatory structure that authorizes the discharge of pollutants from
point sources to waters of the United States. Section 404 of the CWA regulates the
discharge of dredged or fill material into the water of the United States, including
wetlands. USACE administers and enforces the 404 permit, including individual
permit decisions and jurisdictional determinations.
• CWA Section 401 Water Quality Certification (Section 401) — Section 401 of the
CWA requires that activities under Section 404 meet the state water quality
standards. Ecology reviews and certifies that a proposed project meets the state's
standards with the issuance of the Section 401 Water Quality Certification (WQC).
The WQC is required for all general and individual Section 404 permits.
• Section 10 Rivers and Harbors Act (Section 10) — In conjunction with the Section 404
permit, USACE also administers the Section 10 permit. All projects and activities that
take place in navigable waters of the United States are subject to Section 10.
• Endangered Species Act (ESA) Compliance — The ESA serves to protect and recover
threatened and endangered species and the habitat that the species depend upon. The
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(USFWS) jointly administer ESA compliance. Projects that are associated with federal
funding or that require approvals for activities that may affect ESA -listed species will
trigger compliance.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 12 131050-01.01
Protection Provisions of the Proposed Shoreline Master Program and Established Regulation
4.3 Restoration Opportunities
The SMP objective is to maintain no net loss of ecological shoreline functions necessary to
sustain shoreline natural resources. It also should aim to improve the shoreline natural
resources through restoration planning. Many groups are involved in shoreline restoration
and protection in the region containing the City, including the federal and state government,
Franklin Conservation District, and local cities and towns. The following list of key parties
may not name all groups that have contributed to shoreline restoration or protection in the
past or may in the future, as there may be others that arise.
• City Parks and Recreation Department
• Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
• Ducks Unlimited
• Ecology
• Franklin Conservation District
• Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society
• Mid -Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group
• NMFS
• Pheasants Forever
• The Nature Conservancy
• USACE
• U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
• U.S. Department of Agriculture
• USFWS
• WDFW
• Washington Native Plant Society, Columbia Basin Chapter
• Washington State Conservation Commission
• Washington State Department of Natural Resources
• Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office
• Washington Trout
While most restoration plans and programs from the SMP jurisdictional area address
large-scale direction and management, there is a small set of actions that are named or
planned for specific areas. Table 3 lists these restoration locations and opportunities and
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 13 131050-01.01
Protection Provisions of the Proposed Shoreline Master Program and Established Regulation
provides the source document or project proponent, as well as the impairment to be
addressed and the key benefits to ecological function expected as a result of the project
implementation. Projects have been reordered in this table from the list of projects in the
City's SMP Restoration Plan (Anchor QEA 2015) to match chronological order of reaches,
but the project number has remained consistent with the Restoration Plan.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 14 131050-01.01
Table
Side -specific Restoration and Protection Opportunities in Pasco
Fnrodind. Plan Apn130/5
Ci,.farm SMP UPdan 15 131050-0/01
1.
MAora\Ionnhopeclat OM ortins.,
P[IarXy
source
hey (.Pat—s
Ray BemM, to Eealoglaal fudd
Set inuo, to or or undr, rrpar n and upland ...... nm,,t,l
rot es ImItnlry.11alle neitherMSMP
Very High
R IW[Ian vegetation rev forohnnot nadoe terrestrial species
laraging/breetlirig/netlirig Fahlta[
Managebulh emlronm int encroachers or reveatunu eta
nonnnins, Glstur0ana to Undalne vegetation and aqu do, habitat
High
IAC/FLAP/
MSMP
nt,ti—ter./of,ulve0 mygen l.,—.a.,,
Imp.M[axles/patnagen otioragernall mpatchn.
Prontle'mce.tives to on nets to replace law n with native
man
RodBend HeblWt Unit —USACE
vegetation antllmplement BMP'fa water"'c"r n application
o/fe 1111x¢1, pesticitles, antl Ferbadc.(.,.dmoor luture pl annetl
Motlerate
BPI
Habitat lass
Increased nabitat U,terreatrlal species foraging/breedr{/nestinei
protect shelter dol, orel pathogen wurus
g
wean!¢Hdeadd Manarm.nt An.
Iaouawn ponlan of sR l[—Px[o n.nrn
aM .Il of as la—Hatlpn (.rm el
devel.... ml
Vroom, to manulo and anon, ayurticand nwmnannratm.not
values mduaing fish and washe habitat
High
MUMP
mmeesed robust fm[meariol and aquanespeeat,
forxhg/breadiv/nmmghorlrg/mlVauon
Poorest and ones... existing ripadn, and shrub sreppe habitat
.,an
IAVMSMP
Protection for aquatic and terrestrial spMes
Establish riparian buffer Mmeen aggregate so" Until and Mer
Moderate
IAVMSMPIncreased
habitat for dinti[ and tenderer Pel
roraeing/breeaing/ne'nn8/mlBratlon
rotor,nppnl s, for... brl g ifcoronnel habitat at woadna
mellembeymenb used for Mat —act (,a,, tient... dlaM eas
make !orris UsouM
Very thanIAV.sh
Habitat loss
Increased nabibt or, w4 anahired, ia(ipenee
lora8ing/brretlin8/neslin8/ml8 ration% eaing
RIW[lan vegetation revuhment
Predict and enhance riparian WXer M1abltat [nrougF out the rytk and
[mowetl lawnce rip rias difforha ouch th line
fronIn,r,a,,dh,bUal
an
IAVM3MP
Habhat loss
temperature/dissolved oxygen knit—oc eMe
Impwenonn/path yen routedroint onergeies
for arbas, and ta—drral spxiee
foraging@reedln8/retina/mlBratlon
Implemem vegNahon manYement program for purple(—onto
Infestation
HIgF
TCAM
Habitat loss
Incre... d robint for terretrial speuev fdonm reandrn8/neso,
Ill. a Park lots., park N.aea from
protect adong shrub -steppe habrHt
lisp
IAC
Habitat less
Increased lon not shrub -[repot M1abltat for torrential spwus
loranna/breadeng/nestinereadhon
a
U3ACE: all of SR 3 at
Rs,doe/updan eaindng boat launch to arrant staMartls concnning
8rnrn8 and reduction In oo—aner cover
Hlgn
BPl
Habitat loss
orotertena for Bquahc cul
form[nB/breeding/nestlnemi.ratlon/rearIM
Manage existing and planned Mall intensity recrealronal development
to mimua disturbance toshnaarn, vegention and around habitat
an
IAC/h Wp/
MSMP
Habhan loss
Protettloni for equal and terrestrial spedes
loragn,fln edrn8/nening/mrgratlon
Fund. ration than onned.n
m[ sed inforanic,aN ondurdwati, rathers,
Requires mo'e bull[ environment to manage
stormenterm interment l nfrasruc ural
protettlons lar surlacewMer yualiry
avid, iWornwater wTrols and Incorporate LID measure
Moderate
IAC
Fnrodind. Plan Apn130/5
Ci,.farm SMP UPdan 15 131050-0/01
Table 3
Sitespeeifo Restoration and Probstlon Opportunities In Pasco
Aettonrion Plan
Pril1U1
Gry ofPasro SMP UPdare 16 131,550-01,011
sea
Rasbntbn/PmiMbn opportunities
AI.My
sour.
Nay lmWhmanh
gey gan.Rts he E[abp'ul...a.
RIWri,n vegA,tlon wassir est
Establish ripairran buffers wbne.b.nt,na/p rem... Involves
ss of nualarat and organic Inputs and
Tempera [e/alisolvea mygenmprovments
haphave tosi"Im".... management.W>IIIties
where present
"an
IAC
reaucea ev ranspnauon ..it
Increased habitat for antl perennial specs
confllra Lon
forging/b,eetling/nntins/m lira[
Producer assistant roaHan and shrub steppe habitat
Hiff
IPC/MSMp
Habitat less
Proteerions for aquatic and terrestrial species
fongl^g/dttaing/^esidnec ring
3
gusset Aneal3R3biownaaby U5ACE1
p terrom for aquatic species
Remove ole coalHIgM1
TCRM
Na>Itat loss
enraging/b,eeairUln.niog/mie,aronp.,ing
Include clusters of wildlife habitat In personnel future sapammn W
P,Mectioni for aqusaitm .narmaral apear
,had atvemprrem
High
all
xabiut lois
m.giN/breed,W,eaInemlgranoNrearin8
Rlimufan vegetation recruitmentn,nen lie ten..nnl species
onent enoachroma namwrpwxe net ae
Manage built e4mm
m
m,gmgro,eeaiWmong rubber
vegetation rest on non with orating and planned uplaNdevelogn en
huressions,
IFC
Habitat lois
Improvedroam/pathogen management republift-
Teragerature/duchilved era eanimpi em.nh
Improve spenwmer, pond habitat east of the fork, including aWaan
unce,trican restoration
Hign
socked
.,bit., lois
Increased habitat v aquae[ and mmachisi.",a
for ine/b,..airy/ne Lndmig,.Lon
5mer soft-enelledii techniques ling wood it
Rlwrvlaw P.d,IgRS,)
lu
and vegetation to increase habitat naion almg tendered Who
Remove where reasonaby praal.l or manage (trim o, thin) Russian
High
IAC/MSMP
Habitat lord
Olive to varma, fraging Meter for birds and replant with native
Riparian vegetation rtvuilment
vegeta
Allow bunch— in aupt.8mans, of shoreline to restoration and
Increased native an soudwe ppe and riparian h isiat for to char, al
wasswe species removal
Moderate
TCRM
Habitat loss
species foreging/br.eaiog/neati^g/m igntlon
Pmixt eiisting riparian vegetation and door mow wordy species
Xair
IAC/MSMP
Habitat los.
Protection 5 for apuatic and Ynestasl species
toying/breMire/nestaremalgratio^/rearlre
s
oaprey Pbmalana Pauo('a.,
Ri..... v e
Establish riparian bufferSwM1ere absem a nd/w ramoe invasivrs
sem pe/dbsolvea mygen im provemenn
r.!h
Iraan
In/Winoae^management [apabilitles
where prelim
XiBM1
IAC
lattice,lox.
imh+nlnHn, ,ria r, nal spittles
es
faraginp/b,eeaing/ne ln8/m iBrMion
Aettonrion Plan
Pril1U1
Gry ofPasro SMP UPdare 16 131,550-01,011
Tableil
Siteapecific Restoration and Protection Opportunities in Pasco
be—
I Caval are be,
Path (Isomer ans. xrynlm s[bn y—mayma Moderate (am.... that sastnn banner nrvnund. funaM onium venula take pl.Hty pve'pmerpmtess wM1Fln ¢a.b [Neeory.
n dna Bvnafin amgw tome lom iable3 pl[M1ls ga[omionsPlvn. .ma
BM P=best is
In, =that nmaa.ml sae .m
n munt.and cLasubmean.I gapers
Ho. to, from ba.d'ohn"t
as m.rum Manaemmt Her
pe¢hnn unlet. and Arl Re.
sn wermngten scan ..is
.RM. TmChies Rbrual.re Masnr Plan
armah" ion Plan Ap1i/N45
C mm'JIP.. SMP Indere /] 1]/0500(01
she
gestmetlon/NO counts. Op ortualll.s
%irony
geum
a, lmp.lrmerm
gay gen.Ms\e Ecultandl fuectloms
g lwrlan vegeritlon modilment
EsmebsF rlw^an ImUn, where atesem antl/., remove lnvaslves
iemperaemoi... sand mygen mprover-ths
Improve tmin/wthgen management mwbllmes
where present
Hied
AlI
Habitat loss
mw..and Lacher lw agnan, and mr—trel ageele,
loraging/brcetllne/nestlng/mlg rattan
Proust Intel shrub nepw
Very High
IA4MSMP
Habitat loss
Inoeaxtl nerve shrvbsteppe, and rlwrlan habitat for terrestrial
specs foragme/breemng/neslme/migration
Manage built environment encroachment n reclusion we
upri vegetationrematment for terrestrial species
mirtmo, to di -mine deleffebort and .qu. is Fabhat
Muter
MS MP
Habitat lois
fesaing/boolnumestng Lablta
Explore opporr—ems for seat ... 9 ofM1ch,n,,l Fabllat duaing rhe
Ctgp/
Wate,.usal unions mr.1miumment
Incrcaxa habitat for aquatic and terrestrial spetles
b
Swi.vneSbre Peh igR 6c—Pond P..m
Snake it.,
Very High
MSMp
Hall loss
ens Pea I—Stem Peres)
el ni emn ent.R1.
foraging/breeding/... ting/migration/reariry
Increassa habitat br i......i.1 ands aquatic speuea
Restorelarna sera iiy wellanas, drub -steeps. and sWher,
(engiq/breetling/neNng/mierati. n/reanry
habitat
Very nigh
CUD
Nabita[Ioss
.sea absurd... annandem and flow; prMectSure—water
quality
Repacomnpaale enanng box h unai to a,..nstandard ... n.emmeProtestants
for equal spaces
gralirc and reduction in overwmer ave,
risen
CUD
xabinnoaa
myingroruaeinemening/m ig,.ennheaHry
Preserve Wining smubtlappe and Iderian Palmer
Very high
IAC/MSMP
NMltat loss
Peactions for aqua[), and tor r..bind species
longmil/braetlmg/nesting/,...If,
Ineorpwam wh-mmineemng te.nniques to moderate slopes along
Increased natmat(m aquatic and terrestrial spavin
hammed bads
Motlera[e
CUD
HaolumI ss
forging/breeding/nentng/mleratl.n/rearing
Lmpvatur./tllssolvea ..an lmprosemenC
Establish ripmlan buffers where abxm and/or remove invasive:
Loss at nmcm and orcamcinpWa dna
Improve Iso viethgen manummmt-pa l�hi�s
wnwepremnr. wlinm tau mrria n,
Plan
rean.eaev.Ir.imnaplranon and
seen.birrtfor equal .net termeturnal spetles
moi mtl tab.
tongme/bre.aing/nenm /m ignnon
s.mNwea He Me
In.reama native snrue-steppe anariwnan habitat fortwresnial
/
ens plennNM shmm.1omamlanann[
enilonsl ell ne[nesi
Prates enhancerub
and enhance sFsteppe and ripainn habitat
Very HlgF
Habimtloss
spetles leragmg/breedngs-ming/migratlon
Runoff ,hr than lnfllnNl.n
La
m
Inea.ea infiffedon antlro undwrter ,ether e
les associated with
Provide stamwale, mnerds for Impervious facllnsso
the[rul
Moderate
More built envbonment requires to manage
Protection f.,
mwaty management lnirasvusure
sutra water quality
be—
I Caval are be,
Path (Isomer ans. xrynlm s[bn y—mayma Moderate (am.... that sastnn banner nrvnund. funaM onium venula take pl.Hty pve'pmerpmtess wM1Fln ¢a.b [Neeory.
n dna Bvnafin amgw tome lom iable3 pl[M1ls ga[omionsPlvn. .ma
BM P=best is
In, =that nmaa.ml sae .m
n munt.and cLasubmean.I gapers
Ho. to, from ba.d'ohn"t
as m.rum Manaemmt Her
pe¢hnn unlet. and Arl Re.
sn wermngten scan ..is
.RM. TmChies Rbrual.re Masnr Plan
armah" ion Plan Ap1i/N45
C mm'JIP.. SMP Indere /] 1]/0500(01
Protection Provisions of the Proposed Shoreline Master Program and Established Regulation
4.4 Environment Designations
The City has designated shoreline environments pursuant to Chapter 90.58 RCW by defining
them, providing criteria for their identification, and establishing the shoreline ecological
functions to be protected. Project proponents are responsible for determining whether a
shoreline exists and is regulated pursuant to this SMP. The SMP classifies the City's
shoreline into the following eight shoreline environment designations:
• Aquatic — The designation protects, restores, and manages the unique characteristics
and resources of the areas waterward of the OHWM.
• Natural — The designation protects those shoreline areas that are relatively free of
human influence or that include intact or minimally degraded shoreline ecological
functions less tolerant of human use. These systems require that only very
low -intensity uses be allowed in order to maintain the ecological functions and
ecosystem -wide processes. Consistent with the policies of the designation, restoration
of degraded shorelines within this environment is appropriate.
• Urban Conservancy — The designation protects and restores ecological functions of
open space, floodplain, and other sensitive lands where they exist in urban and
developed settings while allowing a variety of compatible uses.
• Public Flood Protection — The designation provides flood protection features, while
protecting shoreline ecological functions with limitations imposed by the flood
protection features, and provides recreational opportunities. In addition to existing
levees, examples of uses that are appropriate in a Public Flood Protection shoreline
designation include public access and recreation uses consistent with the protection of
public safety and property by the flood protection features.
• Recreation —The designation provides for water -oriented recreational uses with some
commercial uses to support recreational uses while protecting existing ecological
functions, conserving existing natural resources, and restoring ecological functions in
areas that have been previously degraded.
• High Intensity — The designation provides for public and private commercial and
industrial uses that need a shoreline location for operation and are associated with
water -oriented commerce and industry. Examples of appropriate uses include water -
oriented commercial uses, water supply diversion, transportation, navigation uses,
barge and conveyance facilities, and similar uses. This environment may also provide
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 18 131050-01.01
Protection Provisions of the Proposed Shoreline Master Program and Established Regulation
for some recreation while protecting existing ecological functions and restoring
ecological functions in areas that have been previously degraded.
• High Intensity Mixed Use — The designation provides for public and private
commercial and employment uses to accommodate land uses such as office, retail,
transportation, and mixed use developments, along with water related and water
enjoyment uses. This environment may also provide for recreation, while protecting
existing ecological functions and restoring ecological functions in areas that have
been previously degraded.
• Residential — The designation provides primarily residential development and
appurtenant structures but also allow other types of development consistent with this
designation. An additional purpose is to provide for appropriate public access and
recreational uses.
4.5 Exempt Activities
The following types of developments are exempt from substantial development permit
requirements (WAC 173-27-040). However, these activities must comply with all
development standards, such as setbacks and other regulations in the local SMP.
• Normal maintenance or repair of existing structures — Maintenance or repair of
existing lawful structures and developments is exempted when they are subject to
damage by accident, fire, or the elements.
• Owner -occupied single-family residences — These residences are exempt when they
are less than 35 feet above ground level. This exemption includes appurtenant
structures such as garages, decks, driveways, fences, utilities, and earthwork totaling
less than 250 cubic yards of material.
• Building bulkheads to protect single-family residences — State rules specify that a
bulkhead should be installed at or near the OHWM and be for the sole purpose of
protecting an existing single-family residence and/or appurtenant structures. A
bulkhead cannot be exempted if constructed for the purpose of creating dry land.
• Constructing docks designed for pleasure craft — This exemption is for a dock
designed for pleasure craft only and for the private noncommercial use of the owner,
lessee, or contract purchaser of single- and multiple -family residences. The fair
market value of the dock should not exceed $10,000 in fresh waters.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apr112015
City of Pasco SMP Update 19 131050-01.01
Protection Provisions of the Proposed Shoreline Master Program and Established Regulation
• Certain farming and ranching construction and practices — These practices include
feedlots, processing plants, and other commercial ventures; irrigation and drainage
activities, including operation and maintenance of existing canals, reservoirs, and
irrigation facilities; and operation of dikes, ditches, drains, and other facilities existing
on September 8, 1975.
• Emergency construction to protect property from the elements — This exemption applies
for emergency construction that is necessary to protect property from damage by the
elements. Emergency construction does not include building new permanent protective
structures which previously did not exist. Restoration actions include controlling aquatic
noxious weeds; improving fish or wildlife habitat or fish passage; cleaning toxic waste;
controlling weeds; or restoring watersheds. A special kind of exemption, defined in the
Model Toxic Control Act RCW 70.105D, is exempt from all procedural requirements but
not substantive requirements of the SMA and the local SMP.
• Site exploration and investigation activities — Activities performed in preparation for
applying for a development authorization are exempt if they conform to conditions
listed in RCW 90.58.030.(3).(e).xi.
• Building navigation aids and marking property lines — Navigational aids such as
channel markers and anchor buoys are exempt from permit requirements.
4.6 Response to Unanticipated Impacts
Policies within the SMP provide the process for protecting shoreline ecological function
from anticipated and unanticipated development through the environment designations,
setbacks, and mitigation standards. Additional provisions for unanticipated development,
conditional uses, and unique development situations are as follows:
• A reasonable description of shoreline uses through the environment designations
• Buffers and setbacks
• Public input required for conditional use permitted development
• Review by the City and Ecology for conditional use permitted development and
variances
• Civil penalties for unauthorized development
• SMP provides a strict no net loss policy
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City ofPasco SMP Update 20 131050-01.01
Protection Provisions of the Proposed Shoreline Master Program and Established Regulation
• The Restoration Plan (Anchor QEA 2015) provides actions to improve habitat
over current conditions and also provide ideas for how to mitigate for
development impacts
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 21 131050-01.01
5 ASSESSMENT OF CUMULATIVE IMPACTS
The assessment of cumulative impacts combines existing conditions and environment
designations and anticipated development by proposed environment designation with the
potential ecological risks that characterize unregulated development. The provisions within
the proposed SMP that can address the risks to ecological functions are also identified,
allowing an assessment of the future performance of net effect. Table 4 summarizes these
elements for each shoreline reach.
Anticipated development is based on a qualitative land capacity analysis and discussions with
City planners through the environment designation development process. The environment
designations also determine permitted, permitted as an accessory unit, permitted as special use,
and prohibited uses of the shoreline as shown in the Use Tables within the SMP regulations.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City ofPasco SMP Update 22 131050-01.01
Table e
casco Cumulative Impacts Analysis
laawn
Environment
Deggnatems
Level of
Existing
Friction
Typesof AMklpg"
Development
Degree Of lmund to
Embglol Functions
Pmviriom to Address Pink
Future Petrochemical Effect
Peacbl
Shoreline
Partially
21 units of
Hydrology: Moderate
Residential development provisons (29.01.420)
The Shoreline Pesitlential environment designation was
Residential
Functioning
holudential
Sediment fore Water
pj Single-family residential development is a preferred use when it is developed ince
applied to impacted areas that are witable for future
development
quality: Moderatemanner
nsistent with SMPprovisions.
development or redevelopment based upon walverd
"Rial MMerab
(2) Restlentlal development shall be located and constructed to result in no net loss of
impairmentofemlogical functions. ImWctitoremaining
shoreNne ecological funi
ecological functions m this reach will be avoided,
(3) lots far resitlen[ial use shall have a maximum density consistent with City's
minimized, and mitigated per the SMP provisions
Comprehensive Plan and zoning regulations.
described In the Provisions to Addrew Risk column.
14) Accessory uses and structures shall be located omsNe Ofthe riparian buffer unless
the structure is or supports a water dependent use. Storage structures to support
Welland buffers sort be applied based upon wetland type
water -related uses are not water dependent uses and therefore, shall be located
and land use nsity to protect—hand functions,
outside of the riparian buffer.
Riparian buffers will be applied to protea both riparian
(5) All residential development shall be located or designed in such a manner as W
and upland habitat, water quality, and other functions.
Prevent measurable degradation of water quality from stormwater runoff.
Addttlonallyr anvainmental and water quality protection
Adequate mitigation measures shall be required and implemented where there is
and vegetroon conservatenmovial will be applied to
the reasonable potential fur such adverse Weer on water quality
protect snorelme tunctlons from future development.
(6) New shoreline reskenas and appuoenam structures Shall e suffickntp set have
Unsociaable impacts from Wrote development will be
from steep slopes and shorelines vulnerable to erospn so structural improvements,
munflated consistent with mitigation uquendng
Inducting bluff wal6 and other sboreAne stabilization and flood control structures,
provisions. Private resiaentbl aeelopment could be as
are not necessary to protect proposed residences and associated may.
many as 27 units within the Shoreline Residential area.
(7) New floating residences and overwater residential structures shall be prohibited in
Any dock development for these units would require
shoreline jurisdiction.
mitigation under the MMary Pool Management Plan.
(g) New,multFunit residential development, including duplexes, posses xes and the
subdivision of lana into five or more lots, shall make adequate precomm, for pubNc
No net loss of ecological function is anticipated as SMP
access consistent with tine regulations act forth in PMQ9.01.260, Public Access,
provision are strictly enforced.
(9) New residential development shall conned with hewer central as required by the
P.C.
(30)AII new residential development shall meet the vegetation management provisions
cortained in PMC 2901.240, Shoreline Vegetation Conservator, and PMC
2901.530, Fish and Wildlife Xabiu¢onurvanon Areas.
(11)Reskential development clustering may be required by the Shoreline Administrator
where appropriate t0 minimize ecological and visual impacts on shorelines,
Including minimization of impacts on shoreline vegetation consistent with pMt
2901 Shoreline Vegetation Conservation.
Pers and Docks provisions (2901400)—a uleetion
(9) New moorage to sernsingle-famllyresMre enmaybe allowed only if:
(a) It is consistent with the OSACE Mi Pool Management Plan.
cumularuc m er—,hos/ryi Jeri ami'2011
Or, MPasco SMP Update 23 13105001.01
taObn
Environment
Ordinal
heed of
EaiXmg
Function
Tyreworgntichowe4
Cevelopment
Degree of Impact to
Emunflal Funttbn;
Provlrpnsta Ftltlms Risk
Future Petrochemical Ethics
(b) An applicant demonstrates that existingfacilities moat launchesand public and
priv marinas) are o r niblV avarade to meet demand
)d The lot does not haveacceuto shared moorage In an existing su ginsion,and
mere is no homeowners association or other command entity mpable of
developing shared moorage.
)d) Incases where a new dock or pier is approved, the Eity may require an
agreement toshare the dock with nearby residences with water frontage and
provide for expanslon to serve such additional users.
)1018 dock or pier serving a single Firmly residence shall meet the mill standards:
(a) Piers and Ramps:
),I To prevent damage to shallowwater habiht, piers and ramps shall expand
at least 00 feet perpendicular lmm the OXWM. In some instances and
sites, It may not be practical W extend a ramp 00 reef from OXWM (for
hnAance, where this could wnfint with navigation). The CO may grant
exceptions on a ou-hµose bask depending on dacumenrignme or specific
IlmaWtio
n that exist and In ordinan with other permitting agencies.
Ili) Persand ramp shall be no more than 4 feet In width.
)iii) The bottom or either the pier or landward edge of the ramp shall be
eNvated at least E feet above the plane of Gravel
(iv) Grating shall cover the entire surface area(100i of the pier or ramp. The
open area of grating shall be at least 50%, as rated by the manufacturer.
(v) Skiding shall not be placed on piem, ramps, or floats. Protective bumper
material will be allowed along the outside edge or the Goat as long as the
materiel does not extend below the bottom edge of the ficat frame or
Impede light penetration.
(v) Shoreline concrete anchors must be placed at east 10 fed landward from
the OXwm and shall be abed no larger Man 4 wt wide by 4 feet long.
unless otherwise approved by the City, does JMCE, and W DFW. The
maximum anchor height shall be only what is necessary to elevate the
bottom or either the pier or landward edge of the ramp at least E fees
above the plane of OHWM. The intent of this criterion is to limit impacts to
riparun vegetation along the shoreline. The City may grant exceptions from
the Midi landward requirement it she conditions warrant Exceptions
shall he mad, on a caseby-nse basis and based on documentation Via
specific Iimnabon that ease and an i,ormnaron with other Permming
agen
of Preservatives:
(i) The dm* shall be built with materials that do not leach preservatives or
Other malsomm.
(ii) No treated wood of any kind shall be used on any morwater structure
)float, pier, or amp).
CnmWariI.riFalmrr
Ciry n1 9irrSM,lpwly,
Locrtbn
Envlronment
Cesignrtions
used of
Fvbting
Function
Typeaof Anfaiditetl
Development
Degree of Impart to
Erobgkal Functions
Proeimanato Mdprom Risk
future Perbmuncefiet EHeR
(lii) No paint stain, or preservative shall be applied to the overesaterstruccure.
)c) General:
)i) No electricity shall be F ovNetl to, or on, the overwaterstructure.
)ii) No boat lifts or watercraft lifts le.g., let Ski lifts) ofany typewill be placed
on, or inaddition to, the overwater structure. The City maygrant
•ceptions on a use bycese, basis in coordination with other Parmitlis,
agencidSImp applWntcon demonsbatethatthe Proposed boat liA meets
the intent of the criteria to minimize structure, madmiae light penetration,
and m ae depth. However,these structures must meet the sae criteria
ofthe plan ltotzu50 equarefeet).
thi)Shoreline arm, (i.e., bulkheads, riprap, and retaining walls) shall not
occur in dov
ation with installation ofthe erwater structure.
ial Constructors fthe overwaterstructure shall becompleted duringtha im
w.k window(November 110 February 38).
(d) Piling and float Anchors:
Ip Piling shall not exmed 8 inches to diameter. The intent fthis criterion is
not to require existing pilings to be removed, out, or capped, but to place
limits on the size of new pilings. The City may grant exceptions to mow for
larger pilings on a wse-bpuse basis and in coordination with other
permittlng agencies in areas where safery consideration, ..,it ll.
Ili) Pilings shall he spared alleast 18 Ret apart on the same side rdi
component of the ovenvater structure. The pier/ramp and Float are
separate components.
half EaN overwaser Structure shall utilize no more than four piles total for the
entire project A combination of two piles and four helical anchors may be
used., place of four'Ilwa
tv) All pilings shall be fived with devices to prevent perching by plselvom s
(fish -einng)bNds.
(v) Submerged float anchors will be constructed from concrete and shall be
horizontally compressed in form, by a factor of five or more, for a minimum
profile above the stream bed (the horizontal length and width will be at
least five times the vertical height). A helical screar anchor may be utilized
where Substrate allows. The owner shi be responsible for demonstrating
Ieasibllt, and for proper ln9allation such that anchor displacement does
not firrour.
(vN No irvwater fill material will be allowed, with the exception of pilings and
float anchors.(Nots: unwred concrete or its by, products shall not be
allowed.]
k) Firmly:
(it Float mmfionentsshall not exceed the dimensions of by 20feeboran
aggregate roel of360square RegbraNOoatcomponen6.
C)du/an-GryxmAnelyz iR torr A"i/Z0)5
cgvnrvarm.snfPopdaze ss 13105 101
Location
gnvironmeM
Designations
Level of
Fasting
FonoHon
Types of Anticipated
Development
Degree of Impact to
Ecological Functions
mosltloMto Aaididd Rsk
Future Performance/NttEHM
Hit Flotation materials shall be perm only encapsulated to prevent breakup
m
intosall pieces and dispersal in water (e g., rectangular Doormat.
lily Grating shall cover 10M ofthe surface area Mthe DOMsl. The open area
ofthegrrting shaA be no lessthan SM, as rahtl by the manufacturer.
liv) Functional grating will coverno less than 50%ofthe float.
lv) Floatsshall not be looted In shallow -water habitat where they could
ground or impede the passage or rearing ofany salmonid life stage.
(vi) Nothing shall be placed on Pe overwater structure thetwlll reduce natural
light penetration through the structure.
Lou) Floats shall be positioned at lea4<Ofeet horiaontallyfrom the OHWM and
no re than 1W platform the 011 M, as measured from the landward
most edge ofthe float Adjustmentsto this requirement may be made on
an individual basis where street compliance with this standard may present
,.tory issues .,be mancessevefor Sm wndidon,.
Fail project connrvR onehau cease Coring high now conditions that mold
result In inundation of the projed area, except air exons to avoid or
minimize moomre it.m.La.
1111shamd residential docks and piers shallgenerally meetthe standards for single
family docks above, e.rept that he number offloads and the she of piers and other
facilities may be increased to serve additional 9p, to provide one moorage space
per resider served.
llzlDrcks and plain shall be set back a minimum of TO feethom side proper iines.
heatthatpmoose faaxtks may be implied closer to, or upon, a side property line
when agreed to by contract or covenant wdh the owners of the affected prope ties.
This agrmmentshall be recorded with vheeounty Auditor and a copy filed with the
sitcom. permlupplication.
Reach
Urban
Functioning to
None
Hydrology: Low
No development 6antiipated. High priority restoration is
Conservancy
por lly
Sediment: Low Water
planned, including riparian enhancement and of -channel
limllioning
Quality Low
habitat Improvements, resulting in a net gain to emlogWl
Habitat: Ww
function.
Cumulai ho kneAnalWy ReNn ApMXJ5
C v`Jn;xo3MPUpdare 26 131ZO4101
Location
Enviroinsint
Resignations
LwN of
ExbNng
Function
Types of Anticipated
potentiator,
Repay of lmpad to
Emlgkal Functions
Provisionsto Address Risk
to. Performanothi EHttt
Reach 1
Natural
Pondering
None
Hydrology'. taw
No development is anticipated High Priority restoration s
Sediment : Low
planned includingriparianenhancemoff ent and ochannel
Water Quit.: Low
Whitat improvements, resulting in a net gain to ecological
Habitat Low
function.
Reach 1
Recreation
Funyrioningto
Limited recreation
Hydrology: Mem rane
Recreation Provisions 29La4tR)
The Recreation environment designation was applied to
Randall,
related development
Setliment'. taw Watch
(1) General Preferences:
impacted areas that are suitable for future recreational
Functioning
Quality: Moderate
(a) Recreational uses and facilities shall include features that relate to acres$,
development redevelopment based upon existing
Harlmt, Moderate
enjoyment and use ofthe Ctlys shorelines
impairment of evlogintfuncions. ImpaMtonersomme
@I Both pasiveand active shoreline recreation uses are allowed,
ecological functions in this reach will be mowed,
(c) Wate rated reneational uses and attMties are preferred in shorelinends,
m
and Rgatetl per the SMP provisions
jurisdiction. Water dependent recreational uses shall be preferred as a first
described
bed in the Provisions to address Risk column.
priority and water related and water -enjoyment recreational uses as a second
priority.
WNlantl buffer$ will be applied based upon wetland ryce
(it) Existing passive recreational opportunities including nature appreciation, non-
and land use intensity W protect wimand functions,
mobrized trails, public education regarding shoreline ecological functions and
Riparian buffers will be applietl W protect shoreline
pmcsses, environmental Interpretation, and native habitat profession, shall be
functions from Future tlevelopment Unavoidable Impar',,
maintained OppOrtuniGes incorporating educational and interpretive
from Future development will be mitigated consistent with
information shall be included in de$Kr and Ooara[i0n Of recreation facilities
mitigation sequencing provisions.
and nature Bail$ when fee crime.
(N Prefereneeshan be given to the development and ennar,cementof Pull,
No net oss ofemwgiwl function is anthatated as slip
woessto the shoreline to increase fishing, boating, and other water -related
Provisions estri¢ryenforoed and restoration is
ational opportunities.
implemented.
(E) General Performance Standards'.
(a) The Pm,n,ial adverse impacts of an recreational uses shall be mkgated, and
adequate prosisionsfor shoreline remmmatmn shill be made met of my
proposed recreational use or development omsore no net oss of Feature
ecological function.
@) Sites with haple and unique shoreline conditions such as high-quality antibody
and wildlife habitus, shall be used only for nom intensive recreation activities
so& as hails, viexpoims,interpretive signaee,andsimilarpassiveandmw-
impactfacilitiesthatresultinno net loss of shoreline ecological function, and
do not require the construction and placemen, of permanent scrindoures
(c) For proposed recreation developmentsthat thaequire the use offeninaers,
pesncme, or other toxic chemical, the proponent shall specif, the RMPs to be
@mal lm% cm Amlp'ie Feryrs AP1112015
CrivofPascosmPupdare 37 131650-0)01
promises
Environment
Deslgmtlons
Level of
Eairting
Function
Types of Anticipated
Development
Degree of Impact to
moor til Functions
Presto. to Addms Risk
Future Perfarmana/Net Effect
used to preermthere spp madam, and resultant kaNate tram entmng
adjacent waters.
Id) Recreational developments shall be located and designed to preserve, enhance,
este scenic mews and vistas.
lel In approving shoreline recreational developments the shoreline Administrator
shall ensure the development will maintain, enhance, or re5mre desirable
shoreline features, including unique and fragile areas, sank views and
aesthete values. The Shoreline Administrator may, therefore, adjust or
prescribe project dimensions, onsite location of project components, powdelr,
of use .screening, lighting, parking, and setback requirements.
131 Signs offmartng the publlCsright to access shoreline areas shall be installed and
maintained in conspicu0us locations at all points of access.
(4) Recreational developments shall provide facilities for norvmotoriied access Toy the
shoreline such as pedestrian and amide patsy and equestrian access, as
applicable. New motorized vehicle access shall be muted and managed to protect
riparian, wetlands, and mrubareppe habitat functions and value.
15j proposes for recreational developments shall include a landscape plan Mounting
how native, say notaming vegetation is incorporated into the proposal to comment
est
ecological functions. The removal of onsite native vegetation shall be limited to the
minimum necessary for the development of permitted structures or facilities and
shall be consistent with provisions of PMC 3901340, Shoreline Veestamion
Conservation, and PMC 3901, Anicle V, Critical Areas.
16) Accessory uses and support fac hties such as maintenance fa Pities, milmos, and
other non-waunoriented uses shall be consolidated and located in upland areas
onside shoreline, wetland. and riparian buffers unless such facilities utilities, and
usese allowed in shoreline buffers based an the regulations oRMs SMP.
V1 The placement of pimic tables, playground apparatus, and other similar minor
components within the floodways shall be permitted, provided inch structures are
looted and Installed m such a manner as to prevent hem from being swept away
doling a flood ever.
191 Recreational faciries shall make adequate prOv6ions, such as screening,
landscaping buffer strips, fences, and signs, to preventtrespass on adjacent
properties and to prated the value and enjoyment of adjacent or nearby private
properties and natural areas, as applicable.
(9) Recreational holder or structures are only allowed to be built over water when
they provide public a or facilitate a Water dependent use and shall be the
minimum re, moreSsary to accommodate the permitted adiviry.
(10) Recreational developments Shall make adequate prop n5 for:
(a) On-site and off site sand, where appropriate, equestrfun access;
@) Appropriate water supply add wage disposal methods; And
(c) Sewriryand fire protection.
comem lar,or'u Anahze Re/vrR q),ri/1015
Clv alAxo SMP Updare 29 13105001.01
laatlon
Environment
Designations
Level of
Cxirtmg
Pmction
Troesof Antklwtea
Development
oegreem Impact to
Ecological Functions
Provisions to Atltlms Risk
future Performance/Net EXmt
(II)SIma uresass ndated wim recreational tlnelopment shall not exceed 35 feet in
height, except for as noted in PMC 1903 310, Development Standards, when seat
structures document that the height above 35 fret will not obstruct the vww of
substantial number of adjoining residences.
(12) Recreational development shall minimieeeffective impervious surfaces in shoreline
junsdiation and in[orpomR low-imwatlevelopmenttechniques.
Reach
shoreline
Partialry,
3units
Hydrology: Moderate
see Residential(zs.ol.azo)and Pen and Docks provisions j2g.01.400j above.
The Shoreline Residential en'Ment deAgnanon was
Reslnl
idenn[tlomng
W
Sediment Low w
winner
m
applied impacted amosthatare suitable for future
Quarry: Moderate
developmentor redevelopment based upon existing
Habitat Moderate
impairment of ecological functions. Impach 0 remaining
ecological functions in this reach will be avoided,
manninarded, and mitigated per the SMP provisions
described M the Provisions to Ailareu Risk column.
wetland buffers will be applied based upon wetland type
and land use intensity to protect wetmm functions.
Riparian buffers will be applied to protect both riparian
and upland habitat water quali, and other functions
Admod hall, environmental and water quality protection
and vegetation conservation provisions will be applied to
protect shoreline functions from future tlevelopment.
Resmmten and preservation efforts are planned for all
reaches along the Sacajawea Heritage Trail coater;
programs could include establishing riparian buffers,
protectMg existng riparian and sh utrsu ppe hebiUt and
provging low impact-dewlopme twatertontrols
for new features associated with the trail. Unavoidable
imparts from future development will be mitigated
nvstent with mitigation sequencing provisions. Private
residential tlevelopment could be as mannas three units
witMn the Spending, Residential area. Any back
development for hese units would require mitigation
under me MCNary Ppol Management Plan.
No net loss of ecological function is anticipated as SMP
provisions are strictly enforced.
G muotiveImp crsAnaWs Fepmt Agai/TO)5
OirvafAsm SM➢ Updam 1 13105001.0)
Location
EnWnnmeut
Oeslgnrtlons
Lercl of
Exlelry
Functions
Types of AMicipated
Development
Degree of Impart to
Founder. FunMbns
Provlsiom to Addreas Mak
Future Performance/NN EXeR
Reach
Recreation
partially
limited recreation
Hydroas, law
gee Recreation (2901410) prowiians above.
The Recreation environment designation was applied to
Fu ithimang
related development
Sediment Low
impacted areas that arecuitable for future recreational
Water Quality: Low
development or redevelopment based upon existing
Habitat Low
ImpairmentofemlogicalfunRions. Impatlsto remaining
ecologral functions in this reach will be avoided,
minimized. and nimmated per the SMP provisions
desced in the Fractions to Marcos Risk column.
Wetland buffers will be applied based upon wetland type
and land use intensity to stated wetland functions.
Riparian buffers will be appNed to protect sboseline
functions "in Future development Restoration and
waservaum. aff its are insured for all reaches along the
Financier Heritage Tran conldoc programs could Include
establishing riparian buffers protecting existing riparian
and shru schappe habitat, and providing lowimpact
development stormwater controls for new features
associated with the trail.
Unavoidable Impacts hum future development will be
mitigated consistent with mitigation sequencing
provisions.
No net Was ofemlogiral function is anticipated as SMP
promdo estrictry enforced and restoration as
implemented
Reach
Recreation
partially
Moderate recreation
Hydrology: Moderate
See Recreation (29.01.410) provillons above.
The Recreation environment designation wasapplied to
Functioning
related development
Sediment LOW Water
impacted areas that are suitable forfuture development
Quality: Maderate
or redevelopment based upon existing impairment of
Habitat'. Moderate
ecologicalfunctom lmpaartoremainamecoludical
funizons in this reach wdl be assured, minimized, and
mitigated per the SMP provisions described In the
provisions to Address Risk column.
Wetland buffers will be applied based upon wetland type
and land use intensity to protect wrtland functions,
Riparian buffers will be applied to protect shorenne
functions from future development Restoration and
prese neffort re planned for all reaches .01 the
Socamovea Heritage Trails idm: programs could Include
establishing riparian buffers protecting existing riparian
Af/i/1ni
13100,01 OF
GymWegrelml sh""y¢kHe,or, Ap 112015
City olHsro SMP Updare 31 13105001.01
Level of
Environment
Whaing
Types of Amkipated
Oepece of Impact to
Loeation
Desynrtlons
Function
Development
Embgkal Functions
musubans as AtlUreu Risk
Future Performmoe/Net Eff.
and shrub steppe babltal and proNEing low impact -
development smrmwater controls for naw Ro ures
associated with the trail.
Unavoidable impacts from outure developmem will be
mFigated consistent with mitigation sequencing
pm icons.
No net man of erological function Is anticipated as 3MP
Provisions are strictly enforced and translation is
implemented.
Reach
Urban
Partially
None
Hydrology: low
No development is anutipated High priority rertoration
Conservancy
Functioning
Sediment', Low
within Sunset Acres is planned; program elements may
Water Quidly: I.A.
Indude removing an old dock and eManchng and
Habitat low
protecting existing riparian and shrub steppe habitat.
Additionally, restoration and preservation effortsare
planned forall reaches spord, the SauNwea Heritage Trail
corridor as de shi ed above. These efforts will result in a
net gain to ewloginl function.
Reach
Natural
Partially
None
Hydialogy:I
No rewsopment Is amaiated Hi an priority restoration is
Funtlioning
Sediment', Law Water
planned along the Sacapwea Heritage Trail wail
Quality: Lucy
resulting in a net gain 0 ecdoglol function.
Hamm low
GymWegrelml sh""y¢kHe,or, Ap 112015
City olHsro SMP Updare 31 13105001.01
Luras iN, Mesa ..MalyvsReryrt Apr112015
a', A",— 5.111".1, 32 1310"]01
.1 of
invlronment
mYkting
Typeaaf Anti[iprted
Demse of Impact to
London
Designaticns
Function
Development
Fmlogbl Functions
provisansto Address Risk
Future Perfarmance/tat Etat
Reach
Public Flood
Im .s.
Moderate recreation
Hydrology'. Moderate
See Recreation (2901 410( provisions above.
The Recreation and Public Flood Protectionenvironment
Protection and
(Public Flood
related development
Sediment Low Water
designations were applied to Impacted areas that are
Rachman,
Prote1101(xnd
Quality: Moderate
suitable forfuture development redevelopment based
Partially
Habitat Moderate
upon existing impairment of ecological functions. Impairs
Functioning
to remaining ecological fusel in this ma6 will be
Recreation)
avolded, unmarried, and mHigated per the SMP provisions
described in the Provisions to Address Rick column.
Wetland buffers will be applietl based upon wetland type
and land use intensity protect wetland functions.
Riparian buffers will be applied to protect shoreline
Ministers from future development. Restoration and
prose on offorts are planned for all reaches along the
Saca(awea heritage Trail normal, programs could include
establishing riparian buffers, proffering enlsar$ riparian
and shruirsteppe habita5 and providMg law-Impattff
development stormwater controls for new features
toted with the trail.
Unavoidable Impacts ham future development will be
mitigated consistent with mitigation sequencing
pravisious.
No net may of emioeiol function is andmatm as IMP
provisions are strictly enmmed and restoration is
implemented
Reach
Natural
Partial
tone
Hytlmlogy'. Law
No development is anticipated. High priority restoration is
Functioning
Sediment LOw Wa[a
planned along the 5acapwea Heritage Trail mnidor,
Quality: low Habitat
resulting Ina net gain to ecological function.
Low
Reach 5
Public Flood
impaired and
Modnate recreation
Hydrology: Moderate
See Recreation (29.01.410) provisions above.
The Recreation and Public flood Protection environment
Protection and
Partially
related development
Setliment'. LOw Water
designations were applied to impacted areas that are
Recreation
Functioning
Quality'. Moderate
suitable for future development or redevelopment based
Habitat Moderate
upon tingimpatrentotemOglaltunctions. Impacts
to remaininge[ologloltunttbns in this reach will be
voided, minimized, and mitigated per the SMP profusions
Merged in the Provisoes to Address Risk Wlturb
Wetland ii will be applied based upon wetland tyre
and land use imenoty to protect wetland functions.
Riparian buffer w111 he applied to pmtettfioreline
Luras iN, Mesa ..MalyvsReryrt Apr112015
a', A",— 5.111".1, 32 1310"]01
healon
Environment
Designed—
Leveled
gelating
Function
Types of Amldpnen
Development
Degessoflmwello
geological Functions
Prvvisionslo Atltlms Risk
Future PmHm2naa/Net FRttt
functions from future development Restoration plans for
Rivervkw Park include improving open water habitat at
the east end of the park and removing Invasive species
such as Russian Olive. Add'dianally, restoration and
preservation efforts are planned for all reaches along the
Sacajawea Heritage Trail corrpor as described above.
Unavoidable impacts from future development will be
mitigated consistent with mitigation sequencing
provisions.
No net loss ofemld,ii function is anticipated asSMP
provisions are acridly enforead and restoration.,
implemented.
Reach
High Intensity
Impaired
Industrial
Hydrology'. Moderate
Industrial Development Provisions (29.01.370)
The High Intensity enviro ment designation was applied to
Development
Sediment: Low Water
(3) Water-dependent industrial development shall be given priority over
admitted areas that are suitable for future development
Duality: Moderateeredependent
commercial useswithin shoreline environments. Secondarily
redevelopment based upon existing Impairment of
Habitat: Moderate
waterrelated and water oriented uses shall be given priority over non water,
ecolordral fun and functional breaks from existing
Tented commercial uses,
tlevelopment Impacts to remaining ecologial functions In
(2) Non water-oriented industrial uses shau be allowedifmaycan demonstrate one or
this ream will be avoided, minimhed, and mitigated Par
more of the following:
the SMP provisions described mthe Provismnsm Adereas
(a) The industrial use is part ota mixed use project thatlneudenwater dependent
Risk column.
uses and provides asignreant public bandit with reaped to the objectives of
the SMA.
Wetland and riparian buffers will be applied to protect
(b) Navigability is severely limited at the proposed ute, including opportunities for
both riparian and upland habitat, water quality, and other
non-midorized boating or other water oriented uses.
Nnctians. Additioni environmental and water quality
(elThe induslMl use is physically separated from the shoreline by another
protection and vegetation conservation provisions will by
property, public right-of-waV, or levee.
applied to prdett shoreline functions from future
(d) The Industrial use is farther upland than 200 feet from the OHWM; therefore, a
development. Restoration antl presiervallsho efforts are
water -oriented use is not a viable option
planned for all reaches along the Saojawea Heritage Trail
(3) Mere industrial use is proposed for location on land In public ownership publiccorridor;
programs could include establishing riparian
access should be required unless such public access is demonstrated by the
bufferi protecting existing riparian and shrub steppe
proponent to be infeasible or inappropriate for the shoreline pursuant o PMC
habitat, and providing low-impact development
2901.264 Public Access.ne
controls for w Natures associated with the
trail
14) Industrial uses shall provide for suitable measures to rehabilitate and enhance the
Unavoidable impacts from Arms development will
shoreline ecology as a condition of Ummoval,
be mitigated consistent with mitigation sequencing
ISI Unit Ovate-oriented Industrial mays shall net be allowed over water in any shoreline
provision.
nt.
(6) All industrial loading and servire areas shall be looted upland or away from the
No net lass of emlogiol functions h anticipated as SMP
shoreline, except when loading services are water-dependent such as barye
mwisions are strictly enforced, and protection and
humptain actions are implemented.
G'umWarive /: �rtt Ann/)x6 Re➢car A(reil MlS
City o!➢axoSM➢(lyAare J3 /3/0521-010/
Location
E.I.merrt
Designation
.a.[ l
Existing
guetbn
Types of Aminpnef
Candipment
[hoped of Imgn to
Ecological funnbns
Pmimns W Mdms Risk
Future Performance/Net EHect
facilities. Provisions shall be made to screen upland Nation, areas with walls, knees,
and landscaping and to minimize aesthetic impacts.
(T) The new storage of potentially hemandous or dangerous substances or wastes is
prohibited In the Oootiway or within 2W bet of the OHWM, whichever boundary
..ends behest lantiar..
(8) Industrial development will be located, deeper, oz mmmaidea m. manner that
et how of shoreline rvloginl functions and such Nat it does not have
tignuficant adverse imports toother shoreline resources and values.
Reach
High Intensity
Inswired
One mixed-use
Hydrology: Moderate
Commercial 0evelopment Provisions 129.01.3401
The High intensity—Mixed use ro ent designation
—Mixed USP
M g with parking
bui'rn
di
Sediment Low Water
1( Waerdependentcommercial development shall be given prioritypriorityover
was applied to imparted areas thalareuibble for future
lot
Quarry: Motierateu
- endependentcommeeialuseswithinslrorelinnNr
eeonmeels, Secondarily,
-related
development or andeveNpment based upon existing
Habitat'. Moderate
and water -oriented uses shall be given priority over nomwateo
Impairment of emlogiol functions and fun[6onal breaks
oriented commercial uses
from existing development. Impacts to remaining
(2( Non-waterarienled communal uses rush the allowed if they Pon demonstrate at
ecological funRions in this reach will be avoided,
least one or more ofthe following'.
ized, and mitigated per the SMp provisions
(a) The commercial use is pan of a mike max, project that Includes
described in the Prove on, in Address Risk column.
wa or-depanaem uses and provides a eigninant public Nevem with respect to
the objenivemfthe SMA.
Weiland and riparian buffers wYl be applied to pmbtl
(b) Navigability h severely limited at the proposed site, Including opportunities for
both riparian and upland habitat, water yualitp and Other
non motorized boating or other water-orientetl uses
funnions.Additlonell environmental and water duality
(cj The commercial use is phWialN separated from the shoreline instruction
protenbn and vegetation conservation provisions will be
propert, public right of way, or levee
applied to protect importer, fundlemer from future
hill The commercial use is farther upland than 2100 feet from the OHWM; therefore,
development. Restoration and preservation efforts are
- entetl use is not. viable Option.
planned for all reaches along the Sacapand Heritage Trail
(3) Nona atergrworted uses ,including, but not limited to, residential uses, may bP
direct and also forareas ar Osprey Pointe; programs
located with water- oriented wmmeeial uses, provided'.
could include establishing riparian buffers, protecting
(a) The mixeFure project includes one or more war,, dependent uses.
existing riparian and shrvbneppe habitat, and providing
1bj W..,dOpendent commercrzl uses, as well as other water oriented
low -impart -development stormwater controls for new
commercial um; have preferential locations along N. ehmere.
features associated with the trail Unavoidable impacts
(c) The underlying zoning district permits residential um together with
from future development will be mitigated consistent with
commercial miss.
mitigation seyuenc'mg provisions.
(d) Publa¢essh provided anti/or ecological restoration h provided as a prior,
benefit.
No net and Of colugical functions is anticipatM as SMP
(6) Review Criteria. The Cityshall utilize the following information in its review Lall
provisions are sNnly enforced, and protection and
commercial development applications:
restoration acronsare implemented,
(a) Whether there is awaer-oriented aspectonbe proposed commercial use or
activity when it is located within 200 feet of me OHWM;
(b) Whether the proposed,ommeraal use is consistent with the Shoreline Use and
Modi(cman Matrix ho 2901300 OR;
RI Whether the apic irauon has the abnty to enhance compatibility with the
shoreline environment and solus,,,
Lumrizer" heirs,o-Mafri, Street gwn/T015
Cilvo!➢asmSMP Apparel 36 /31050.0)01
beemon
Environment
Designations
level of
Finaing
furadmn
Types ofAMkipated
Oeseebpment
Degree of Impact to
Emlglcel functions
Provivans to Address Risk
Future Performance/Net Effect
(d( Whether adequate provisions are made for public and privavivisual and
physical shoreline A.,,. antl
let Whether the application makes adequate provisions to prevent adverse
environmental impacts and pn ice It shoreline analogical a If let
mitigation, where appropriate.
(sl commercial development shall be designed and maintained in a manner
compatible with the character and features Of surrounding areas. Developments
raged to lnmrpoatelow-impact development techniques Into new and
existing protests and integrate architectural and landscape wernars that recognize
the river and lake environments. The City may prescribe and modify protect
dimensions, screening standards, setback; or operation intensities to acMeve this
purpose.
(6I Eating and tlriaking fatuities and lodging facilities shall be oriented to protide views
m the waterfront, when such view is available from the site.
(7( Commercial uses shall Provide for public ttess as a condition of approvalunless
such public access' a demonstrated by the proponent to be infeasible or
inappropriate for the shoreline pursuant to PMC]90i Public At ass.
(8) Commercial uses shall provide for suitable measures to rehabilitate and enhance
the shoreline eviony as a condition of approval.
(9) Non- water -rented commercial uses shall not be allowetl over water in any
shoreline Amerm ryas.
(THAR commercial leading and service areas shall he looted upland or away from the
shoreline. Provisions shall be made to screen such areas wlit walls, fentts, and
landscaping and to minimize aesthetic impacts.
JIHUe tarage of potentially hazardous or dangerous substances or wastes is
pmmblted In the floodemy or within 3M feet of the ONWM, whichever boundary
[end, farthest landward.
Illi Development shall he located, designed, and constructed in a manner that ensures
n. et loss of shoreline scrappiest funttlons and without significant adverse impacts
n other preferred land uses and public access features.
Death 6
Recreation and
Partially
Moderate reaertion
Hydrology: Moderate
.1 Reaeadon('A.1 A'.)provisions above.
The Recreation and Nigh Intensity environment
High salam lty
funcharing
related development
Sediment: fax Water
designations were applied W Imparted areas that are
QuaIT': Moderate
suitable forfuture development or redevelopmentbased
Habitat'. Museum
upon evident impairment ofemlogiml functions. Impacts
to remaining ewlogical functions in this reach will be
voided, minimized and mitigated per the SMP provieiom
described in the Provisions to Pecress Risk column.
Wetland buffers will he applied based upon wetlantl type
and land use intensity to protect wetland funttions.
Riparian buffers will be applied to Protect shoreline
CuanularirelmParrsMalY+is Reryrr
Or, olParro SMP Update 3S
CumWbbin,ImOurrrsAaeWSRiSpert Aptl/T015
Cr"m`FxxWk WPU'kxm
IJ1050.0101
Level of
Environment
Existing
Types of Anticipated
Cegmeof Imoves to
Loc Won
De5isr ions
Fora ion
Development
Ecalgktl Pointon;
provisions to add,,, Risk
Futurepeh-ba oottlet Effect
functionsfromfutum tlevelopment Restoration and
preservation efforts are planned for all reaches along be
smajawe r Heritage Tell corridor and also Within
Saeahawea State park, programs could include restoring
off channel habitat within the park, establisbng riparian
buffers, proms existing riparian and shrub steppe
hablbt, and providing loco -impact -development
stormwater controls for new features armam ed with the
trail. Unavoidable impacts from future development will
be mitigated consistent with mitigation sequentlng
prowamne.
No net bas of enclogial function is anticipated as SMR
primuldons are strictly enforced and resmrmlon is
implemenhtl.
Reach
Natural
partially
None
Hytlrology: Low
No development is anticipated,
Funpioning
Sediment Low Water
Quality: Law
Habitat: Low
Reach ]
Recreation and
partially
Moderate recreation
Hytlroing, Moderate
See Recreation (29.01.410) provisions above.
The Recreation and Urban Conservancy environment
Urban
functional
related development
Samimene Low Water
tlesignations were applied to lmpatted areas that are
Conservancy
Quahty: Moderate
suitable forfuture dnelepment or redevelopment based
Habitat Moderate
upon ealsti ng impairment Of eeologiralfuncNOns. Impacts
to remaining ecological Ponetions in this reach will be
voided, minimal and mitigated per the SMR provisions
described in the provisions to Atltlress Risk column.
Wetland buffers will be applied based upon wefland type
and land use intensity tO protest wetlantl functions.
Riparian buffers will be applietl to protect shomime
brothers from future development. Restonbon and
Preservation efforts are planned for all reaches a long the
Sacajawea Heitage Tray corridor and also within
Sacajawea State park; programs could include resbdng
off-eltannel habitat within the Park, establishing riparian
Logics, protecting existing riparian and shrub steppe
habitat, and providing low impact-tlevelopment
stormwater controls for new features associated with the
trail. Unexcitable'unpac[s from future development will
be mitigated comment with mitigation advancing
prow
CumWbbin,ImOurrrsAaeWSRiSpert Aptl/T015
Cr"m`FxxWk WPU'kxm
IJ1050.0101
Lo[atbn
Environment
Dasignrtbns
Level of
Erkting
Function
TOa,cf Mtklpned
Devebpment
DegrceOflmpact to
Erologiul Functions
Pmvlslonsto Address Risk
Future Peft mance/Net Effect
No net b55 of emlogiol GR on Is anticapatetl as SMP
provisions are strictly enforstl and restormion is
implemented.
'Now,,
High Intensity
parthlly
moderate recreation
Ninrobgy: Moderate
See Reanti0nl]9.01A101 provisions above.
The High Intensity and Urban Conurvanry environment
and Urban
Functioning and
related developments
Sediment: Low WaM
damns were applied to imWcted area, If. are
Comprvanry
Impaired
Quarry: Moderate
Suitable For future development or retlevelopment based
Habitat'. Moderate
upon existing impartment of... sho al functons. Impacts
No remaining erologl¢al funelions in this reach will be
avoided, minimized, and noticed per the Ship prouision5
tlesmbed in the Provkions to Morass Risk column.
wemnd buffers will be .1i bated upon wetland ryce
and land use inten,ity t0 protect wetland funRI0n5.
Riparian buffer, will be applied W protect shoreline
functions from future development Restoration and
preservation efforts are plannetl for all reaches along the
Sacapwea Heritage Trail corridor (this includes planned
-.'arms .1 the trail within day each), programs could
ncude establishing riparian buffers, protecting existing
riparian and sMUFAeppe hi and providing kW.
impact-desebpment nonmember controls for new features
<irt dwNM1 the trail. UnavOidablelmWcts from future
development will be mitigated consistent with mmadmin
aemuennng pmvisirns.
No net loss of ecological function is anntlpTed as SMls
provisions are strirlNenfrrsed and rertOration is
implementetl.
Notes
grap = best management prarAim
OHWM- ordinary high water mark
PMC- Paaro Municipal code
RR= xegulatOry Beer,
SMP= Shoreline Management
SMp=Shoreline Mailer licamm
VSFCF = V. S. Army Corps of Engineers
adiW Washlninch Department of Fish and Wild life
0" OJPasro SMP Up&rc 97 191050L1.01
Assessment of Cumulative
As described in Table 4, the SMP will protect the baseline ecological functions within the
City. The features that will provide this protection include the SMP environment
designations and general requirements, and the shoreline modification and use provisions.
The Restoration Plan (Anchor QEA 2015) identifies actions to improve ecological functions
over time. The SMP is expected to accommodate reasonable foreseeable shoreline
development while affording these protections and restoration initiatives throughout the
next 20 years. All of these provisions will result in no net loss of shoreline ecological
function in the City and may actually lead to an improvement or gain of ecological function
over time.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Apri12015
City ofPasco SMP Update 38 131050-01.01
6 REFERENCES
Anchor QEA, LLC, 2015. Draft Restoration Plan. City of Pasco Shoreline Master Program
Update. Prepared for the City of Pasco. January 2015.
Anchor QEA, 2014. Draft Shoreline Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization Report. City
of Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update. Prepared for the City of Pasco.
October 2014.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2014. Washington State Wetland
Rating System for Eastern Washington. Publication No. 14-06-030. October 2014.
Franklin County, 2008. Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted February 27, 2008.
OFM (Office of Financial Management), 2014. Population of Cities, Towns and Counties
Used for Allocation of Selected State Revenues State of Washington.
Updated: April 1, 2014. Cited: March 31, 2015. Available from:
http://www.ofin.wa.gov/pop/aprill/default.asp.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center), 2015. Kennewick, Washington: NCDC 1981-
2010 Monthly Normals. Cited: March 31, 2015. Available from:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/cgi-bin/cliMAIN.pl?wa4l54.
Cumulative Impacts Analysis Report Ap,612015
City of Pasco SMP Update 39 131050-01.01
RESTORATION PLAN
Prepared for
City of Pasco
Prepared by
Anchor QEA, LLC
8033 W. Grandridge Blvd., Suite A
Kennewick, Washington 99336
This report was funded through a grant from the Washington State Department ofEcology
April 2015
TABLE OF CONTENTS
1 INTRODUCTION................................................................................................................1
1.1
Purpose and Scope of Plan ...............................................................................................1
1.2
Key Elements of Restoration Planning in Shoreline Master Program Process .................3
2 BACKGROUND...................................................................................................................4
2.1
Planning Area Characteristics.........................................................................................4
2.
1.1 Geology.......................................................................................................................5
2.1.2
Climate........................................................................................................................5
2.1.3
Water Resources.........................................................................................................5
2.1.3.1 Columbia and Snake Rivers.............................................................................
6
3 EXISTING RESTORATION PLANNING, PROGRAMS, AND PARTNERS .......................7
3.1
Franklin Conservation District........................................................................................7
3.2
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation..............................................8
3.3
Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office................................................8
3.4
National Marine Fisheries Service...................................................................................8
3.5
Nonprofit Groups.............................................................................................................8
3.6
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.........................................................................................9
3.7
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation.............................................................................................9
3.8
U.S. Department of Agriculture....................................................................................10
3.9
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.......................................................................................10
3.10
Washington State...........................................................................................................10
3.11
Washington State Conservation Commission..............................................................10
3.12
Washington State Department of Ecology...................................................................11
3.13
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife....................................................11
3.14
Washington State Department of Natural Resources..................................................11
3.15
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission.................................................11
3.16
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation............................................12
4 RESTORATION CONTEXT, GOALS, AND PRIORITIES................................................13
4.1 Shoreline Impairments...................................................................................................13
4.2 Restoration Goals and Objectives..................................................................................16
4.3 Restoration Opportunities.............................................................................................16
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 131050-01.01
Table of Contents
4.3.1 General Restoration Opportunities.........................................................................16
4.3.2 Site-specific Restoration and Protection Opportunities........................................20
4.4 Project Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria.............................................................24
5 IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND REVIEW....................................................25
5.1 Potential Restoration Funding Partners.......................................................................25
5.2 Timelines, Benchmarks, and Monitoring.....................................................................27
5.3 SMP Review...................................................................................................................28
6 REFERENCES....................................................................................................................29
List of Tables
Table 1 Ecological Processes and Structures Affected by Major Alterations ................ 14
Table 2 Restoration and Protection Opportunities and Priorities in Pasco .................. 18
Table 3 Site-specific Restoration and Protection Opportunities in Pasco .................... 21
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update ii 131050-01.01
LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
ALEA
Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account
BiOp
Biological Opinion
BMP
best management practice
City
City of Pasco
CRP
Community-based Restoration Program
CTUIR
Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
DNR
Department of Natural Resources
Ecology
Washington State Department of Ecology
ESA
Endangered Species Act
FCRPS
Federal Columbia River Power System
IAC
Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization
LCBAS
Lower Columbia Basin Audubon Society
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA
National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration
OHWM
ordinary high water mark
Plan
Restoration Plan
RCO
Recreation and Conservation Office
RCW
Revised Code of Washington
SMA
Shoreline Management Act
SMP
Shoreline Master Program
TMDL
total maximum daily loads
UGA
Urban Growth Area
USACE
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USBR
U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WAC
Washington Administrative Code
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 131050-01.01
List of Acronvms and Abbreviations
WDFW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
WRIA Water Resource Inventory Area
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 131050-01.01
1 INTRODUCTION
This Restoration Plan (Plan) has been prepared in support of the City of Pasco's (City's)
Shoreline Master Program (SMP). The SMP is being prepared to comply with the Washington
State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) requirements (Revised Code of Washington [RCW]
90.58) and the state's SMP guidelines (Washington Administrative Code [WAC] 173-26, Part
III -201 2[f]), which were adopted in 2003. The SMP is composed of policies and regulations
that regulate the use and development of the river, stream, and lake shorelines and this Plan.
The area covered by this Plan includes the SMP jurisdiction within the City.
The scope of this document, the definition of restoration, and the key elements in restoration
planning in the SMP process are discussed in the following sections.
1.1 Purpose and Scope of Plan
The purpose of this Plan is to describe how and where shoreline ecological functions can be
restored within City SMP jurisdiction. The SMP guidelines (WAC 173-26-201(2)(0)
articulate that the Plan is to include specific elements. These elements are identified below
along with the section in which the element occurs in this Plan:
1. An identification of degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with
potential for ecological restoration — Section 4
2. An establishment of overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and
impaired ecological functions — Section 4
3. An identification of existing and ongoing projects and programs that are currently
being implemented that are designed to contribute to local restoration goals such as
capital improvement programs and watershed planning efforts — Section 3
4. An identification of additional projects and programs needed to achieve local
restoration goals and implementation strategies including identifying prospective
funding sources for those projects and programs — Sections 4 and 5
5. An identification of timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects
and programs and achieving local restoration goals — Section 5
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 1 131050-01.01
Introduction
6. Provisions for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs
will be implemented according to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of
the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals — Section 5
While the Plan incorporates elements of other shoreline restoration planning documents
that involve the shorelines under the City's SMP jurisdiction, the scope of this Plan under
the SMA guidance does not extend to that of a master document combining and aligning
priorities of other shoreline restoration documents, plans, or efforts. It is expected that
alignment or conflict between this Plan and the goals of other plans (such as Comprehensive
Plans) that occurs during implementation will be addressed within the context of the
applicable regulations and associated regulatory reviews.
It is important to clarify that restoration as it is discussed here is distinct from the concept of
protection or no net loss. The WAC defines "restoration" or "ecological restoration" as follows:
"... the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or
functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to,
revegetation, removal ofintrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of
toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline
area to aboriginal orpre-European settlement conditions. "
The state's SMP policies include a standard of no net loss of ecological functions that are
necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources that must be adhered to by new SMPs. The
Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology) has clarified that no net loss means that
"establishing uses or conducting development are identified and mitigated with a final result
that is no worse than maintaining the current level of environmental resource productivity"
and "no uses or development supersede the requirement for environmental protection"
(Ecology 2004). Thus, mitigation activities are the method by which no net loss is
compensated. The distinction between no net loss and SMP restoration is that restoration
goes beyond no net loss by establishing an increase in the amount, size, and/or functions of
an ecosystem or components of an ecosystem compared to a baseline condition
(Thom et al. 2005). Therefore, mitigation activities, including redevelopment and new
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 2 131050-01.01
Introduction
development that include mitigation activities, could not be considered as part of restoration
under this Plan unless there was a "beyond no net loss" component to the work.
1.2 Key Elements of Restoration Planning in Shoreline Master Program Process
Washington's guidelines state that the SMP must give preference to certain shoreline uses, in
the order as follows: 1) reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological
functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public
health; 2) reserve shoreline areas for water -dependent and associated water -related uses;
3) reserve shoreline areas for other water -related and water -enjoyment uses that are
compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives; 4) locate single-family
residential uses where they are appropriate and can be developed without significant impact
to ecological functions or displacement of water -dependent uses; and 5) limit
non -water -oriented uses to those locations where the above described uses are inappropriate
or where non -water -oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the SMA
(WAC 173-26-201(2)(d)).
The guidelines also state that SMPs are to "include goals, policies and actions for restoration
of impaired shoreline ecological functions" (WAC 173-26-186). The impaired functions are
to be identified based on a detailed inventory and characterization of the shoreline
ecosystem, and a restoration plan is to be formulated based on that information
(WAC 137-26-201). The results of the inventory assessment were presented in the Shoreline
Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization Report (IAC Report) for the City
(Anchor QEA 2014). This Plan uses the information from the IAC Report to address the
restoration plan requirements discussed in the SMP guidelines. This Plan is not a regulatory
document or a set of regulatory requirements. However, the SMP points to this Plan as a
guide outlining opportunities for improving shoreline ecological function.
Restoration Plan ApriI2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 3 131050-01.01
2 BACKGROUND
The City is located at the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers in southeastern
Washington within Franklin County. The City is located at the southern edge of Franklin
County, bounded by the Columbia River to the south and the Snake River to the southeast.
The City is part of the Tri -Cities Metropolitan Area in southeast Washington and includes
25,247 acres in the current incorporated City limits and an additional 5,433 acres within its
associated Urban Growth Area (UGA). The City is the major urban area within Franklin
County. The City and its associated UGA compose about 72% of the 55 square miles of
designated UGA in Franklin County (Franklin County 2008). The study area for this Plan
includes all land currently within the shoreline jurisdiction for incorporated City limits and
the City's unincorporated UGA (Anchor QEA 2014).
2.1 Planning Area Characteristics
Land within the City is mostly under private ownership. Public lands are dominated by
City -owned parcels. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) owns lands at various
locations along the shoreline of Columbia River. Sacajawea State Park is a public space
owned by Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission at the confluence of the
Columbia and Snake rivers.
Land ownership within shoreline jurisdiction includes upland lands (above the ordinary high
water mark [OHWM]) and aquatic lands (below the OHWM). Upland shoreline jurisdiction
lands are primarily publicly owned. USACE is the largest public owner of shoreline lands
below the OHWM. Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission owns Sacajawea
State Park, which comprises 6% of shoreline lands. The Port of Pasco owns the industrial area
between State Route 397 bridge and Sacajawea State Park. The rest of public ownership can be
found at various locations in Reaches 1, 5, and 6. Aquatic shoreline jurisdiction lands (below
the OHWM) are almost entirely publicly owned among various federal and state agencies.
Land cover in the City is dominated by developed areas and shrub/scrub habitat (not
including open water) within the City limits and within the shoreline jurisdiction.
The dominant land cover in the City consists of developed areas (56%) and shrub/scrub
habitat (20%). Other land cover types include agriculture (14%), wetlands, and pasture grass
Restoration Plan April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 4 131050-01.01
areas. Residential and industrial/business park and commercial use composes the majority of
the City's land area, with natural and developed open space composing less than 20% of the
City's area (Anchor QEA 2014).
2.1.1 Geology
The geology, soils, and topography of the City area are primarily dictated by glacial outburst
flooding that occurred near the end of the last major glacial period, approximately 18,000 to
20,000 years ago. This event is referred to as the Missoula Floods. The geologic makeup is
the result of erosion of pre -flood geologic units, deposition of sediments carried by the
floodwaters, and the formation of unique topographic features that influence present-day
hydrology. Prior to the Missoula Floods, the geology of Franklin County consisted primarily
of Miocene -aged Columbia River Basalt flows that were in some places (e.g., plateaus) capped
with varying thicknesses of wind-blown fine sands and silt known as loess (Grolier and
Bingham 1978). The segments of the Columbia and Snake rivers around the City are located
in a wide valley primarily comprising alluvial soils with relatively high infiltration rates.
Within upland areas, particularly areas farther from the confluence of the river, outburst
flood deposits of gravel occur as well.
2.1.2 Climate
The City falls within the Central Basin region of Washington, which has the lowest
precipitation rates in the state. Annual precipitation averages around 7.15 inches, and
precipitation is commonly associated with summer thunderstorms, winter rains, and
snowfall. Snowfall depths rarely exceed 2 to 3 inches and occur from November to March.
High temperatures in January can range from 35 to 45 OF (1.6 to 7.2 °C) with low
temperatures between 20 to 30 OF (-6.7 to -1.1 °C). Summer high temperatures are usually in
the high 80s to low 90s with low temperatures in the high 50s (WRCC 2012).
2.1.3 Water Resources
The planning area is mostly located in the Esquatzel Coulee basin (Water Resource
Inventory Area [WRIA] 37). A small area along the eastern boundary of the planning area is
located in the lower Snake River basin (WRIA 33). The Columbia and Snake rivers are major
surface water resources.
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City ofPasco SMP Update 5 131050-01.01
2.1.3.1 Columbia and Snake Rivers
Lake Wallula is the major surface water resource for the planning area. The portion of the
Columbia and Snake rivers within the planning area is part of the upstream portion of
Lake Wallula. The lake is created from the impoundment of the Columbia River by
McNary Dam.
Sections of the Lake Wallula shorelines are designated as protected shoreline areas set aside
to maintain or restore fish and wildlife habitat; to maintain or restore cultural, aesthetic, or
other environmental values; to prevent development in areas subject to heavy erosion,
excessive siltation, or exposure to high wind, wave, or current action; or where development
would interfere with navigation.
Generally, no private recreation facilities are permitted in these designated protected areas,
except for some existing private docks along a short stretch of shoreline within the City. The
location of each of these docks has been designated as a "site-specific" limited development
area. The docks will be allowed to remain in their locations, and a change in ownership will
not affect the status of the site-specific limited development area. However, upon removal of
the dock for anything but maintenance or replacement, the limited development status will
be revoked, and the dock site will be designated as protected (USACE 2012).
The Columbia River's active continuous U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) gage nearest to the
Planning area is gage No. 12514500 (on Clover Island in Kennewick, Washington). The
Columbia River at this gage drains 104,000 square miles. This gage is a water surface elevation
gage and has records from Water Year 1988 to present. The water surface elevation at this
gage ranges from 335 feet to 344 feet (National Geodetic Vertical Datum 1929).
The closest Snake River historic USGS gage that measured streamflow near the City is
gage No. 13353000 (below Ice Harbor Dam, Washington). The Snake River at this gage
drains 108,500 square miles. It has records from Water Years 1913 to 2000.
Because the planning area is within the Lake Wallula portion of the Columbia and Snake
rivers, water levels are generally stable. Floodplain levels are also confined due to river
regulation.
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 6 131050-01.01
3 EXISTING RESTORATION PLANNING, PROGRAMS, AND PARTNERS
This section describes the range of restoration planning, programs, and partners at work in
the area.
There is a sizable body of literature on recent habitat and environmental planning that
pertains to shoreline ecosystems, flora, and fauna in the region, as well as several documents
that specifically address shoreline conditions within the City. These documents collectively
describe a number of plans and projects and the status of science regarding restoration of
shorelines within the interior mid -Columbia basin. The documents are as follows:
• ICBEMP 2003
• MIG 2012
• Tri -Cities Pubershore Enhancement 1997
• Pasco Aivershore Enhancement Vision 2012
• Pasco 2012
• Link et al. 2006
• USFWS 2008
• USACE 2012
Many organizations are involved in shoreline restoration and protection in the City, including
federal and state government, tribal government, Franklin Conservation District, and local
conservation organizations. The work of many of these organizations overlap and coordinate
in a number of different ways. The more prominent organizations and their contributions are
described in the following sections; the descriptions may not name all groups that have
contributed to shoreline restoration or protection in the past and may in the future, as there
may be other groups that arise or that Anchor QEA is unaware of at this time.
3.1 Franklin Conservation District
The Franklin Conservation District (District) helps landowners to develop solutions to local
resource concerns (e.g., soil, air, and water) by providing technical and financial assistance.
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 7 131050-01.01
Existing Restoration Planning, Programs, and Partners
3.2 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (CTUIR) is a fish and wildlife
co -manager of the mid -Columbia Basin. CTUIR works for the protection and enhancement
of treaty fish, wildlife, and habitats within the City and the region for present and future
generations.
3.3 Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office
The Washington State Recreation and Conservation Office (RCO), formerly the Interagency
Committee for Outdoor Recreation, administers the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for
funding habitat protection and restoration projects and associated activities to benefit salmon
(see also Section 3.10).
3.4 National Marine Fisheries Service
The National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), a division of the National Oceanographic and
Atmospheric Administration Fisheries Department (NOAA), regulates development of in -
water actions within waterways that provide habitat for Endangered Species Act (ESA) -listed
salmonid species. NMFS issued a Biological Opinion (BiOp) related to the USACE
management of the McNary Pool shoreline, which included conservation measures and
recommendations for shoreline and riparian improvement along the Columbia River,
including within the City. NMFS also leads recovery efforts for populations of salmon and
steelhead in Washington and other states, which often includes consideration of protection
and restoration of shoreline habitat that supports various life stages of these fish. NMFS also
administers the Watershed Program, which evaluates the effectiveness of habitat and
watershed restoration strategies or techniques.
3.5 Nonprofit Groups
Washington Trout is a nonprofit conservation ecology organization that seeks to preserve,
protect, and restore Washington's wild fish and their habitats. Pheasants Forever contributes
to the restoration of grasslands to benefit upland game birds. The Lower Columbia Basin
Audubon Society (LCBAS) seeks to conserve and restore regional ecosystems, focusing on
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 8 131050-01.01
Existing Restoration Planning, Programs, and Partners
birds and wildlife. LCBAS also provides environmental education opportunities for the
general public and advocates responsible public policy and legislation for natural resources.
3.6 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USACE administers federal shoreline lands in the City. The various shoreline reaches within
the City are classified by USACE as either Limited Development Areas, Public Recreation
Areas, Protected Shoreline Areas, or Prohibited Access Areas, based on an analysis of current
land use, bathymetric information, habitat requirements, and known environmentally and
culturally sensitive areas (USACE 2012).
These designations serve to facilitate management and protection of the environment and the
public, while allowing some level of private development to adjacent property owners. The
entire Lake Wallula reservoir was designated as critical habitat for eight stocks of fish found in
Lake Wallula (upper Columbia River spring Chinook salmon, upper Columbia River steelhead,
mid -Columbia River steelhead, Snake River sockeye salmon, Snake River spring/summer
Chinook salmon, Snake River fall Chinook salmon, Snake River steelhead, and bull trout). The
fish were listed as either threatened or endangered under ESA; therefore, habitat protection is
a federal priority on the Snake and Columbia Rivers (USACE 2012).
The City leases and manages much of the land owned by USACE and complies with
provisions to protect and manage resources, including shallow -water habitat along shorelines
important to juvenile salmonid survival for resting and foraging during their migration to the
ocean and riparian vegetation along the shoreline providing benefits to fish and a wide range
of wildlife (USACE 2012).
3.7 U.S. Bureau of Reclamation
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR) manages the federal Columbia Basin Project, with
irrigation operations provided locally by the South Columbia Basin Irrigation District. The
Columbia Basin project provides irrigation water. It is located in east central Washington and
currently serves about 671,000 acres, or approximately 65% of the 1,029,000 acres originally
authorized by Congress, and includes agricultural lands in the City and Franklin County.
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 9 131050-01.01
Existing Restoration Planning, Programs, and Partners
The Columbia River Basin project is subject to the terms and conditions of the BiOps for the
Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) developed by NMFS for the 14 hydropower
projects owned and operated by USACE and USBR. The NMFS Reasonable and Prudent
Alternative includes a suite of required actions to mitigate the impacts of operation of the
FCRPS on threatened or endangered fish species and their habitats in the Columbia River. In
2008, USBR entered into agreements to support the 2008 FCRPS BiOp and anadromous fish
recovery though funding of restoration efforts and other actions included in those agreements.
3.8 U.S. Department of Agriculture
The U.S. Department of Agriculture administers several programs through its Natural Resource
Conservation Service that protect and restore shorelines, including the Wetlands Protection
Program, the Resource Conservation and Development Program, the Wildlife Habitat
Incentives Program, and the Conservation Reserve Program, among several others.
3.9 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) administers a number of programs that restore
and protect other shoreline and aquatic habitats. The Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
helps private landowners restore wetlands and other habitats on their properties through
voluntary cooperative agreements. The Water Management and Evaluation Program
coordinates and manages issues that affect instream flows and shorelines.
3.10 Washington State
The State of Washington Office of the Governor coordinates restoration efforts with state
agencies under the legislation of the Salmon Recovery Planning Act and the Salmon
Recovery Funding Act. Washington State administers the RCO, as discussed in Section 3.2.
3.11 Washington State Conservation Commission
The Washington State Conservation Commission provides incentives to restore and improve
salmon and steelhead habitat on private land under its Conservation Reserve Enhancement
Program.
Restoration Plan Ap,612015
City ofPasco SMP Update 10 131050-01.01
Existing Restoration Planning, Programs, and Partners
3.12 Washington State Department of Ecology
Ecology works with local jurisdictions, agricultural interests, and others to develop cleanup
plans, or total maximum daily loads (TMDLs) for waterbodies, which contain pollutants that
exceed state water quality criteria. The Columbia and Snake rivers are on the Ecology 303(d)
list of impaired waters for temperature within the planning area. The Columbia River also
has a TMDL for total dissolved gas and is a 305(b) water of concern for pH. Additionally, the
Snake River has TMDLs for dioxin and total dissolved gas, and it is a 305(b) water of concern
for pH and dissolved oxygen (Anchor QEA 2014).
Ecology provides water quality monitoring grants and administers the Watershed Planning
Act, which supplies grants to local groups to produce watershed plans.
3.13 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) participates in the management of
the McNary Pool. WDFW participates and directs the restoration of natural environments
and the ecological communities that inhabit them and promotes protection and restoration of
aquatic and shoreline ecological functions for public benefit and sustainable social and
economic needs (WDFW 2010). WDFW works to protect and restore natural habitat for fish
and wildlife near rivers and streams statewide through the following mechanisms: providing
technical assistance to public agencies, non-profit groups, and landowners on habitat
protection measures; managing wildlife areas; and protecting water quality for fish.
3.14 Washington State Department of Natural Resources
Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) restores freshwater and marine
habitat under its Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account Grant Program.
3.15 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission manages Sacajawea State Park located at
the confluence of the Columbia and Snake rivers and has been involved in a planning and
design project that included restoration of the shoreline and native riparian, wetland, and
shrub steppe habitat at the park (Anchor QEA 2006),
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 71 131050-01.01
Existing Restoration Planning, Programs, and Partners
3.16 Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation
CTUIR is a union of the following three tribes: Cayuse, Umatilla, and Walla Walla. As part
of the Columbia Basin Fish Accords', CTUIR is annually implementing more than 19
contracts for work related to habitat enhancement, fish passage improvement, hatchery
supplementation, and monitoring and evaluation. The goal of these projects is increased
spawning success, rearing capacity, smolt escapement, and adult holding in CTUIR project
areas of the Umatilla, Walla Walla, John Day, Grande Ronde, North Fork John Day, and
Tucannon basins. In addition, CTUIR seeks to achieve healthy watersheds (Jones et al. 2008)
and provide sustainable harvest opportunities for aquatic species of the first food orderz by
protecting, conserving, and restoring native aquatic populations and their habitats
(Federal Caucus 2015).
' Under the Columbia Basin Fish Accords, federal agencies, tribes, and states work together as partners to
provide tangible survival benefits for salmon recovery by upgrading passage over federal dams, restoring river
and estuary habitat, and through scientific hatchery management.
s CTUIR's Department of Natural Resources has adopted a mission based on "First Foods" ritualistically served
in a tribal meal.
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City ofpasco SMP Update 12 131050-01.01
4 RESTORATION CONTEXT, GOALS, AND PRIORITIES
Shoreline restoration is a response to habitat impairment that has occurred as a result of
alterations to the hydrology and physical structure of the shore. To plan restoration, there
must be an understanding of the major existing impairments, an overarching set of goals to
guide the work, a prioritization context to organize the efforts, and a list of the available
opportunities.
4.1 Shoreline Impairments
The ecosystem -wide processes and structure of City shorelines were described in detail in
the IAC Report for the City (Section 5; Anchor QEA 2014). In addition, the alterations to
these processes were discussed in terms of how the processes are interrupted or curtailed
within the City and how physical and biological functions of habitat are affected.
Table 1 provides a summary of the major City shoreline processes, alterations, and
impairments. As shown in Table 1, alterations have occurred and impacted shoreline
processes involving hydrology, sediment, water quality, and habitat. These alterations
include Columbia and Snake River Basin water storage and conveyance, impervious surfaces,
vegetation alterations, water quality impacts, structural effects on habitat, shoreline
hardening/stabilization, channel realignment, and other alterations such as lighting, noise,
recreation, and species competition.
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 13 131050-01.01
Table
Ecological Processes and Structures Impaired by Major Alterations
ReRontipn Pion
Ap
C.. efla sminV i 19
fJ105,0f 10, 0/
BeelturumI
Praarses and
struetum
Hydrology
I andogramorl
Water puahty
Habtat
p
ad
3
g
�ad
as
It
e
as
.vdeY
e? C
u_
gg8
x
a
g
no
}
a
ro
¢�
figanargoodarkine
Ingetirroseark,
Restricts water movement
1
Snake and tdlumhia
Restricts sediment movement
Basin Proecgsl Storage
New lakes and wetlands
More rapid pool elevation fluctuations
Snake and Columbia
New or rel orated channels and wetlands
Basin projeet
New recharge areas
'memo./ omwanee
WehrveloehyinveaSea
Runoff rather then infihrao0n
mpewiOus Surkces
iaormwater m ..gement/Infrastructure
HapbUoss
Was of nutrient and organic inputs, retluced ewporrandarrati0n and blolnfiltration, antl increased toxin and nutrient loadirg
VegeOtbnSheratbns
Invasive species )terrestrial and aquatic)
X
aquatic species
i
Increased non erosion
fen?icer/demcme/Teri Inputs
Water Quart Indeed
BMue.unputs
Temperature Increase.
Bbattumulation of tOxlns
Nadta[fiagmmtaaiOn EV rods
Strurlmal fNects on
Header
Overawav snucWres akersecilmmt,organic material wthmW and the phone zone
square fill and ren water itaagp
Habitat bss and replacement olvariable,ieed materiel with large homogenous substrate
Stores-
Invented wave energy attoe trusts, and energy transkr downnream/tlownmrrent of M1aMening
lo-dedueSenhoston
Sedlmem and mbsuunee widegde air up no
Organic mutation cycle nonunion
Waterveam Hy inveasex
Chane 0.ealgnmen[
Reduced /birplan eonneedon and functions
Necreased temp orary .sage of declared, and nation, toxin-, or pathogen'laden water In streams
ReRontipn Pion
Ap
C.. efla sminV i 19
fJ105,0f 10, 0/
Table
Ecological Processes and Structures Impaired by Major Alterations
R,,, -- P],. APn13015
G'Yo{P..o SMP UPdare 15 13100-01.01
Faob
bl Proeuaes
end
strvnure
Xydrobgy
SealmeM
Wa4r
cmuny
Xa
Mat
y
S
P
A
°
$_
If
ni
�"
F
f
a
b
e
i
a
to
a
s
8
mY
4
C
a
a;
A
e
so
5 F
MajorAhration
hea me Ma
Aificial ligM1tim
ngneasesllgMEelireryatunnatunitimei
brt¢ era no
Ober Alterations
Roc eetion infnshudure lnneaaes—v energy at shoreline (boa ramps aM Aann)
homnatnespeclespreaation
Compeatlon (or r¢swrm ham nornative sceeirs
R,,, -- P],. APn13015
G'Yo{P..o SMP UPdare 15 13100-01.01
Restoration Goals and
4.2 Restoration Goals and Objectives
As described in Section 3, much work has been done to set the direction for habitat
management and restoration planning in the region. The general management goals identified
in the plans for these areas were used to formulate a list of goals and example objectives for this
Plan. These goals and objectives will guide the restoration actions described herein and can be
used to formulate metrics to monitor progress in implementing the Plan.
The goals and objectives are as follows:
1. Protect, maintain, and, where feasible, enhance or restore riparian, shrub -steppe,
wetland, and floodplain areas within SMP jurisdiction. Example objectives include
removing or managing invasive vegetation and re -planting natives and consolidating
recreation access away from sensitive habitats.
2. Promote and enhance habitat diversity, especially for sensitive or rare areas
(e.g., shrub -steppe and riparian zones). Example objectives include incorporating
habitat complexity and vegetative components into soft bank stabilization techniques
or reconnecting off -channel habitat.
3. Protect and maintain water quality, which contributes to the recovery of sensitive
species and improves impaired temperatures and contaminant conditions. Example
objectives include implementing best management practices (BMPs) for soil erosion
and for applying pesticides, herbicides, and fertilizers in irrigated areas, as well as
reducing unnecessary impervious surface area.
4.3 Restoration Opportunities
Several opportunities now exist for restoration of the City shorelines, presented in the
following sections by reach and by specific projects or sites.
4.3.1 General Restoration Opportunities
Various ecological benefits can be realized if shoreline impairments are addressed by
restoration in the City. Opportunities can be identified and compared against various criteria
to prioritize implementation. The habitat plans and programs described in Section 3 describe
direction and/or recommendations for actions to address many of the impairments that occur
within the City. Table 2 shows the restoration or protection opportunities that these plans and
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 16 131050-01.01
Restoration Goals and
programs have identified, including the reasons for the habitat impairment and a summary of
the ecological benefits to be realized from the actions. The IAC Report (Anchor QEA 2014)
also recommended actions for specific areas within City SMP boundaries, shown in Table 2 by
reach and sub -reach (see the IAC Report for reach extents).
Major opportunities include establishing or protecting sensitive habitats such as riparian,
wetland, off -channel, and shrub -steppe habitats. This could be accomplished by
consolidating or restricting access to these areas for recreation purposes and development in
general. WDFW has recommended specific measures for shrub -steppe habitat restoration
(WDFW 2011a) and has given direction for managing these habitats in developed areas
(WDFW 2011b). Protecting or improving water quality was also a key element of habitat
management under these plans, particularly water temperature. Examples of measures that
could be used to improve or protect water quality include implementing the most recent
state stormwater controls, as well as using BMPs for soil erosion and control of pesticides,
herbicides, and fertilizers to irrigated areas in agricultural areas within the City's UGA.
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 17 131050-01.01
Tablet
Restoration and PFote[tinn Opppr Perthes and Priorities In PaSW
ithe'ahationturposection
palm
RexR
green
Reach
Reach
R—b
Rurs
Reach
Reach
Reach
ReecM1
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
Reach
needs
Peach
Reach
Ree[M1
o Cris
gay lmpalrmenti
my Renefih to E[dagbl Fundions
(All Reached
lA
M
IC
to
lE
Z
3A
aB
M
SA
So
SC
in
the
1.
PC
>
aA
as
Riparian vegetation recruitment
Temperature/tllnolveE oxygen
Establar, ripanan burets
L.1d of nut-ent and
improvements
Improved toxin/pari management
where ab sent antl/ororganic
inputs and
1 'Mides shine,reduced
a
capabilities
IAC
IAC
laC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
pettmt
aAd boingitratonnn
Pronspied habitat for .,.at and
terrestnal spe[in faraging/breetlingl
tlng/migranon
Pastore/ephan[e shrub-
Sh,,,A-r a habitat
Increaud nati a shrubsteppe habltat
itappe a long Publishes
lois ntl
for tan6[rial par as
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
fragmentation
foraging/breeding/neaung/migrition
protest intact shrub.
Shrub -Anne M11bitat
Increased nAlan ussubsteppe habitat
3 smppe habitat
loss and
for tertestMl species
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
fragmentation
foraging@readina/nesting/migntion
Increased native ripanan banner for
Pmtect/enhance ripe nen
.,,.,Mit al and Ara ipetits
I"'Ag/breadl ng/neding/misdion
vegetation along
rclln es
ral lies loss
Protections for aquatic and terrestrial
IAC
IPC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IAC
IPC
IAC
IAC
s pe[Iesf 'SuPJbreeding/
nesting/readng
m[roim infltrabors and groundwater
Add aegentme Cher
recharge
Apps nasi, or woody
nor rather man
nffrsoon, habitat
Support naive 6rai and mmb
5 piers l on..A
'A"" /estates
IPC
adjacent
lois, and tempest�re
watercoend
adjacent watercourses
Impairment
Increased habitat kr tarresthal species
mragina/bmeerog/nestWmlerdion
ansa. hwu
Riparian vegetation recmitmentmr
men,
native terrestrial spends
clamed or
to raging/Ere[ding/neding habitat
b recreation use to
Xabitatlos5
Temperature/desolved oxygan
IAC
IAC
IAC
IPC
IAC
IqC
IPC
IAC
IPC
IPC
IPC
UC
IAC
IPC
IAL
IAC
IAC
Anintraze disturbance to
Impmvemen,s
Shoreline seats son and
Imon_ toxin/pdM1ogen management
apuatiC habitat
capabilities
Reemmiw Plan 11n/T015
Gry olFsrm SMP U d.. is 1310504101
Table Z
Restoration and Prolel Opportunities and Priorities'in Pager
Rztorrtlon/ProteRlon
Pzmea<F
R1A
Reach
young
ia-,,
R-1
Rea[F
Rea[F
all
Real
Reach F
Reath
RxtF
Reach
Reach
Repay
Ree[M1
Ree[F
glitch
Opportunities
Rey lm imenb
pentagonal Key general to geological
IAII Reetlwil
3B
1C
10
]
aT
3B
aA
G0
SA
SB
SCSo
aA
11
gt
7
g..
I
non rather than
Increased infllhstion and groundwater
service intervener
infiltration
recharge
1controls
Surnnever
IAC
or mcnV
Protections for surface water quality
infra:
Oem ndonwater
Reduced demand onwaler supply for
urea Management
supply for irrigation
Irrigation
IAC
IAC
lanaxapm
erliruer/pesnnee/he
IM,a=m,
ealeaareai/Prmme
Fe Icer, mpnh
e mtenneeao
xamtat ions
Rmnaipns in evapmra nSpRann n:
ce rin convert
Fwn
-em
Improved tempmatu,eldiisolvea
IAC
lawn area no native
area
Perature
oxygen and Prounion ,limit toast and
plantings
impairment
Bu scruseundon id
pathogen oom[ei
ny
Bioa[<umulallch ed
Replattnstructures din-
loeins
Reduced hood, sources
Kabltal loss
Improved habitat foraqualicspenes
9 water
andmolrlame.g.,
tlocks antl tlolpbms)
earinggration
la
many,
Protect water quality
Set amno chain or
laslore emlronvintal
Maintained or increased habitat for
10
valuesmtludlnefliFand
N/A
terrestrial and aquatic species
MSMP
MSMP
MSM,
MSMP
MSMP
M
MSMP
wimif, mhbt
hamlauoss an,
Mamtereed ormcneasm habitatfor
Inventories, soft shore
ihmeline
equetc spades rearing/m igration
sGbdlnum, where
30
appropriate (large woody
IAC
IPC
IAC
IAC
jl�IIAC
In eased wave
gado ttd iolleroiion/sediment
debris a no vegetation)
nergy tlue to
'men
shoreline armoring
'ad show, in. angry, .111 lactions that milmre e<nryNem fonttlonl shown in I ,itModerate taction that restore robust nru[tu,el mc_ In Tidies.
E lmpanmem and benerseermal swasy nlorme mcc iade Softh is Restoration Plen
N/A =not applicable
MSMP=M<Naryliomr, Management Plan
van v a
Inventory, grew, and CAaccidn'tion
Spureetry ,a., mvenbry.<nolyly me CAorrcomeemsn PePon l>n[AOI OEA E01Gl
Resnoneion➢lan Aon/NIS
OyalArro3MPUydare 19 131050.0101
Restoration Goals and
4.3.2 Site-specific Restoration and Protection Opportunities
While most plans and programs from the SMP jurisdictional area address large-scale
direction and management, there is a small set of actions that are named or have been
suggested for specific areas. Table 3 lists these locations and opportunities and includes the
source document, the impairment to be addressed, and key benefits to ecological function
expected as a result of the project implementation.
Restoration Plan April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 20 131050-01.01
Table 3
Site-specific Restoration and Protection Opportunities in Pasco
Restoration Plan APril"15
Cirya/nxo SMP Ueda e 9 1310540101
brawn/prat ,Oppism"Inn
PhoMy
Source
May lmphrmnM1
qy 8,n to biological runctlons
Set sde to marna am Himanan and upland imanmora
retlll(e
value mclusinB wJhabitat
VeryHrgF
MSMP
RIW Han vegebr nr for Ove terrestrial speon
he"I'roreeaing/mogrrg mbm
Manage quit environment cr .. Ml recreation use to
IAURM P/
"amposwee/dIssowns ww,n imprn eras
runi. uetliAurhow, to Shdellne warmanon and aqua chsblG
Xrgh
MS P
Improved twin/pill management capapities
Pion de incentives b homeuwnera to resew, lawn with native
w,mil ion and implement ginus far water comervaeon, appllunan
Increased Fabiut for tennbial species louging/bre
rtliugh-sung:
Richland Bund Habitat Unit -VSACE
ofrw,haer. warkades, and mosglues(Broabnoor future planners
MaEarte
Bpi
Habitat loss
wouldou
agalmt train end
S
WNtlIHa Ma bet Managaman, areas
deaelapmentl
pathogens rtes
houtem pHbn MSR Sc-paua Mnan
Set Hit, to maintain antl restores qunif and riparian environmental
Increasers habitarldidresteiala
eM all of SR Sd-Xanlean 8armsl
life
vMueertandrelairgwassse
High
MSMP
mlgrahcapeces
ration
foragingon
ding ri ntat
Protect and enenre virling riparian and shrub itepR Fehlta!
XIgM1
IAC/M SMP
for aquae, and nowlrp/mlg
protection for ayuadc antl [errenrial species
Establish riparian butter proveenaRansil so" facllny and Mer
Mummus
"MM"SMP
Increased lubita[Iv aquatic end terrestrial spxin
and
lncreasedwarng/nesquatic
Emallre opportunities lorrntters off channel habitat at twaexixting
embaymen4 used for boat attest Over Oent Based) an as
Very High
IAC/MSMP
Habitat loss
smaYirq/m alrMeaquatiicand
Inaeasah mal aquatic and formal spcin
ter Intake farther Huth
foMen n8
Rivaelan vegdation arruitment
iersuchow/dwowdl oxygen lmprovemnRx
ct Wf/er hahi4ttregine cut the ark and
Improve toxlNpathgen management a bllltles
tcW
Half mowed law, rrlpdian
mowers lawnareax era lending Wihe shoreline
than
IAC/MSMP
Nabnat loss
fin-suHalf
spedes
nowinesetlebitaa(dequadcantlterrertiral
(orglne/brredlry/ne ting/mi8ra<
Implement Matron management program forpurple loose ranfe
inmun
let
High
TCRM
Habitat loss
Increased habitat for berrectral ipenes fa rag mg/preedlr$/ne ting
s
resew in nb Mubme pW naEltat
High
IAC
XabiGr lass
mdeasedrutroe abmbMepW Mena far tenvalla haves
S
ons.... Par4lpubMe pnhluratl from8s
foraging/Laabne/nesting/migration
CE; all of an 3 e1
Replace/update line boat launch to current standards concerning
P.ections for hallipow
aerating and retlucdon in ave -wee cover
Nigh
BPl
Habitat lass
oragin reMing/nesaing/m%,Mion/reariM
Manage -sting and planned M1igM1 intensity recrea<ionel development
IAC/RIAP/
Protettloni for aquatic and tenestrlal species
o minlmiae quit-pme to Shdellne.,.allonana aquatic habiat
XIgF
MSMP
Xabltat loss
famanngfloweerm/neRing/m igraaion
Runoff raber tMn infiltration
and groundw
Inc setl lnnitratm at worse
mesa buds environment to nage
Provim,--water controls and incurpown, MID measuresBull
IHormwater management iMrsam al
Protections lar sures, wMer quality
Restoration Plan APril"15
Cirya/nxo SMP Ueda e 9 1310540101
Table
Site-sWiflg Restoration and Pratection Opportunities in PasgR
Railroads. PGn rie"J O"
Gtv d!➢axo SNP UPd.. TE )3/050.0601
H.P.
reel on/pmesaebn oppe Xu.Ples
Ptlmlry
Source
geelmplrments
Xey Ramose to EceleBlel furniture'
Half veeAMian recru iemene
Temperatoredissdwtl..an lmpnvemants
EyraIf rlothrsb."r, wPere H,.M anWor remove innsives
Loss 0 —1 and organic In pun a M
Jmprm, frall/rostropen management riget,thess
.Here present
HIgM1
IAC
rNual evapdrecolrak., and
increased father nor aquatic and potential nein
mom/unanom
lashing/breeder/manner, gration
Prolacl couing n ian....d slide steppe rebilel
High
IAC/MSMP
HaHXat ion
Protea iom for equadc and par r..Intel spetles
fnraglryDreedin8/1etine/re ting
3
S sN Ams ISP 3 In owned be WACEI
Pmendon...... at. speces
kner-, ntd dock
High
TCAM
Haurn loss
torldingnern mi n/nesting/marstiom/..rine
hatud, "Iter, of WMllte habitat In rytemial ban, apanslon of
Protections for aquatic and terrestrial species
Houk development
Hip
PUP
Habitat loss
foraging/brttdlrig/neni ry/mint
Pleaan lgibresiionrenule for tithe to
tithe territorial spaces
nonment encroachment
Bann id a ned.nate
Mtentio
In reging/brcMing/mni. habitat
restorilt
vgaaeian rcSWratlon wHM1 an s[iT and penned uplatA tlevelopm en[
and utters
MMmae
IAC
Habitat loss
Impaoretl tonin/paeM1ogen managem ant papa dllpies
...g
Temperatureudi... had rn en Improvements
mpron, apnhwaterini habitat ease of the park, Including al WHan
vide[
High
iCPM
Habitat loss
Increased habitat for aquatic and terrestrial specie,
C-oderosoft engineering bachr ou.rismaing wood structure
st
foraging/Heregra/neoing/mi8ramn
a
alvek
rvw pah ge 3cl
andv"eadon to Inc reau habHatfunction along hardened ben4s
Pemove where menumbly praalwl or manage lawn or thin) Puss lin
High
IA4MSMP
Xeatatlan
Olive to enhance(waging Fabian for birds and replant won natve
uparian vegHtlion revuHment
veguesid—
olse, busneseark toard,stsegments of shoreline for reseoraton and
MMer
-a-H.W-
Itis.
w
Increased na a thrubeteppe and alWXan habitat for eerrestia
nv
Ioval
inner, /oaging/Hreedlryspin
/neg/mi
Protectecked, rip na vegaatlan and don mow wooty,pece
high
IAC/MSMP
Habits loss
Prot ... for aquatic and to rialx W...
foaging/bre MIng/nerting/mig atan/rcaalag
s
IXpay Pureal In. ISP gel
Plp— vage[alon recruitment
Cutablich riparian buffers where a bunt and/or remove Involves
neemperaturiddesolued nower, Improvements
Improve heir/prim, management capaaides
whercp..nl
Plan
All
"allot 'a
sed habitat for anual, , and a eArad specles
III
Hraging/breetliry/tie tng/mlgra
Railroads. PGn rie"J O"
Gtv d!➢axo SNP UPd.. TE )3/050.0601
Table 3
Sita Wi0c Restoration and Protection Opportunities in Pasco
I Cartel we ars, Eh flarchat arproo—ami. High Ian s that rude eaoaMam fumteni, antl Moderate Indiana 11.1 -rare nabaaf aervnrrei. 'and. pmracri wwul In. partum, ncar he, project. within each category,
n and aeneuty eatgenta soma tram tars. 3 of does gotoranen Plan.
ut
ds
Beat gy
Judgment
CLSID =Cornwall rd shorclma beach Memorandum
= n annual antl"answmann a ... n
uD.bow lmpaaDrv.IP.—
Motors snn..un.heangemenars,
nobi ame
and Anity Plan
..a Hods
TC HM. TIConLiYaeCan gem hn.e Mani or Plan
USAGE. u5. Nmy Corp, of E ryimen
R .. a,..— Idea Apri/2015
On, o!➢uro SWi Oyd.. 23 13105MI01
8Na
Ntenrmlon/%Metlbn potential
sieve,.
source
on unintentional Had prodidstal tura
finds. wall reerul<manl
ESGbleas houlien Its.. where ab5em ally, remote maasires
themperaturwassoarabou,seen amphrowarmeno
where presem
.'an
IAC
Habual loss minor wlNWtnyen management app;alie
easatl header h—quad, and runtral species
mrgloflimen m✓ne bne/mi8ra
robecl Inner alrub.,I.,,
Very High
seque MP
Habitat loss Increased native ahrutrstepns and rIparlars habitat for terrestrial
species loragmg/attdiWneamOmlgration
Manage burr ert,honmem encroachment or recreation use W
MWnses
MSMP
harder soy klparlan wand revuiMent for Grreflorl apecies
s
xe disturbance orsnwehne winaltlon aM aquatic habitat
Ioren,hieetlirar ...ln8 habitat
Explore oppnnu her for rectonng oRcnamel habitat incident the
CLSD/
Wafer qua li im pale ant at em Laymen[
D
Ie —Porth Patio
geeefeil
vna l l e mbayment off the an ke Hire r
rY HiBF
MSMP
Habitat less Increased habitat for aquatic and Internet ipxiez
I—
end NetM1 )—sten PnYtl
wark.)
lora(ngAreatline/nestln8/mlgraMan/reanng
Increased nater for ferteslrGlaM aquato petln
Hestare/enhance exlsting warlantlz, aMuaeteppe, and riparian
for, n breeding/nustin ing
✓
M1epltet
VerynlgM1
CL50
HabHat loss i
marred
sad wbiurfaca infil[rauon and doe; prated surixewale
—andflogran—new,pr
unlit
prol eel— boat current SGMartls cencnning
PrMethonsfor aqua4espales
greflrg and retluc in werwlaunch
finance and red er cow
Hign
Curb
NabiGl lots
loryirig/hrtttllrg/nesting/migra[an/reerirg
Preserve exlsting shrub ^ste antl unfl en habitat
Van cosh
IA All
Here. lass Pra diem for aquatic and countries combat
forgihatereednspho in ...this
Incorporate soltenglneering 4Cnniques to morerate slopes aloT
barrels fix rrest
aquatic and terial spMes
hardened barn
Motlerate
cull
Houses ranIncreasetl
forging/LreM;ndnert;n8 mi,ation/rearing
of nu em antl span ole inputs aM emperature/dssdred...a. improvements
EstWas
buffers where spends Indian rendre invsivei
Hlen
reduced evapMnnzpir,tinn and Ira wova Icon/perogen managementu addles
whebumnparnn
are present within eau mrnan,
blolmAranon Increased habitat in aunitand tmresdal species
mragne/areedmg/nenln✓migratinn
1
NuPwaa Hamega Tran Carril la.Isane
eruct and enhance snrub9eppantl,panel habitat
I., NIBh
Her ass Increasedmtlau hrunfloptt and riparian habitat for financial
M
aphnnetl emnneni; ell —.ash
spetles foraging/breetlirig/nestlne/m l{Gtlon
Hu ion
doff -her than infinrat Inc ssd nnNfllon and grwntlwM rrerlose
) mweteaonvom covin i--- cup,spied
,he o",a
[N tall
Matler
=Iquatonm inland adage
Pra ecLonafor ru fece water quaity
whater managemenn nfunuc we
I Cartel we ars, Eh flarchat arproo—ami. High Ian s that rude eaoaMam fumteni, antl Moderate Indiana 11.1 -rare nabaaf aervnrrei. 'and. pmracri wwul In. partum, ncar he, project. within each category,
n and aeneuty eatgenta soma tram tars. 3 of does gotoranen Plan.
ut
ds
Beat gy
Judgment
CLSID =Cornwall rd shorclma beach Memorandum
= n annual antl"answmann a ... n
uD.bow lmpaaDrv.IP.—
Motors snn..un.heangemenars,
nobi ame
and Anity Plan
..a Hods
TC HM. TIConLiYaeCan gem hn.e Mani or Plan
USAGE. u5. Nmy Corp, of E ryimen
R .. a,..— Idea Apri/2015
On, o!➢uro SWi Oyd.. 23 13105MI01
Restoration Goals and
4.4 Project Evaluation and Prioritization Criteria
Projects and opportunities in this Plan can be evaluated against various criteria to prioritize
implementation. The following list includes a description of criteria that indicate that a
project is viewed as implementable under this Plan.
Potential projects should meet the following requirements:
• Meet goals and objectives for shoreline restoration as described in Section 4.2
• Maintain consistency with existing plans and programs as described in Section 3
• Have public support
• Be located on public property or property owned by a willing partner in restoration
projects
• Restore ecosystem processes or provide habitat protection (those that restore function
by providing habitat structure only would take a lesser priority)
• Improve a rapidly deteriorating habitat condition
• Have high benefit to ecosystem function relative to cost
• Provide riparian, shoreline, or instream habitat for spawning and rearing listed
salmonids or improve conditions in sensitive shrub -steppe systems for state and
federally listed native wildlife (WDFW 201 lb).
All specific projects or actions that compose a project listed in Table 2 exhibit some, if not all, of
the above criteria. To prioritize these actions, they were assigned to a category of Very High,
High, and Moderate relative to their value in achieving the SMP goal of no net loss for shorelines
within the City's SMP jurisdiction (see Table 2). Projects were categorized as follows:
1. Very High: Habitat protection projects or actions
2. High: Restoration of ecosystem functions (funded actions take higher priority within
this category)
3. Moderate: Restoration of habitat structure (funded actions take higher priority within
this category)
Restoration Plan April 2015
City ofPasco SMP Update 24 131050-01.01
5 IMPLEMENTATION, MONITORING, AND REVIEW
Implementation of the restoration plan will require close coordination among the City,
Ecology, and other organizational partners noted in Section 3.
5.1 Potential Restoration Funding Partners
There are currently no confirmed funds available for the identified projects. Accordingly,
the restoration described in this Plan is dependent on grant funding and the variety of
outside funding sources available for restoration work. Funds are distributed through grant -
making agencies at the local, state, and federal level; opportunities described below are
primarily administered by state and federal agencies. It is expected that funding will be
derived from various sources. Sources listed here do not represent an exhaustive list of
potential funding opportunities but are meant to provide an overview of the types of
opportunities available. These sources include the following:
• American Sportfishing Association's Fish America Foundation Grants
• City Parks and Recreation Department
• Ecology
- Aquatic Weeds Financial Assistance Program
- Water Quality Grants, including federal Clean Water Act Section 319 Program
- Coastal Protection Fund (Terry Hussman) Grant Program
- Coastal Zone Management Administration/Implementation Awards
• U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10: Pacific Northwest
- The Clean Water State Revolving Fund Program
- Nonpoint Source Implementation Grant (319) Program
- Wetland Protection, Restoration, and Stewardship Discretionary Funding
• Franklin Conservation District
• National Fish and Wildlife Foundation
- Bring Back the Natives: A Public -Private Partnership for Restoring Populations of
Native Aquatic Species
- Five-star Restoration Matching Grants Program
- Marine Debris Prevention and Removal Program
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City ofPasco SMP Update 25 131050-01.01
Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
- Native Plant Conservation Initiative
- The Migratory Bird Conservancy
• Recreation and Conservation Office of Washington
- Salmon Recovery Funding Board
- Aquatic Lands Enhancement Account (ALEA)
- Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program
- Family Forest Fish Passage Program
- Land and Water Conservation Fund
- Washington Wildlife Recreation Program
• USFWS
- Partners for Fish and Wildlife Program
- National Fish Passage Program
- Cooperative Endangered Species Conservation Fund
- North American Wetlands Conservation Act Grants Program
• USBR Columbia Basin Project implementation funding
• NOAA Restoration Center
- Community-based Restoration Program (CRP)
- NOAA CRP 3 -Year Partnership Grants
- NOAA CRP Project Grants
• WDFW
- ALEA Volunteer Cooperative Projects Program
- Landowner Incentive Program
• Private foundations, businesses, and other groups administer grant programs that
include funding for shoreline habitat and ecosystems, including:
- The Russell Family Foundation
- William C. Kenney Watershed Protection Foundation
- Northwest Fund for the Environment
- Kongsgaard-Goldman Foundation
- The Bullitt Foundation
- The Compton Foundation
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 26 131050-01.01
Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
- Doris Duke Charitable Foundation
- The Hugh and Jane Ferguson Foundation
- Washington Trout
- Mid -Columbia Fisheries Enhancement Group
5.2 Timelines, Benchmarks, and Monitoring
The City's restoration work as it relates to this Plan should be monitored and evaluated on a
set timeline against a suite of benchmarks to determine consistency with the State's SMP
policy standard of no net loss of ecological functions. This Plan will be implemented when
the SMP is adopted by Ecology and could be implemented with a suggested timeline (shown
below), depending on funding availability.
Within 10 years of Plan adoption, objectives could include the following:
• Explore and solidify funding opportunities for projects
• Fund and complete two to five restoration projects, depending upon success of
securing restoration funding.
• Identify and implement communication approaches for periodically updating
residents on the City's shoreline restoration efforts.
Quantifiable benchmarks should also be established to track changes in shoreline conditions
and to document no net loss of shoreline functions. This can be tracked through permitting
activity at the City.
Information that could be tracked and monitored can be sourced from permit information,
project applications, and completion reports. Possible tracking topics are as follows:
• Shoreline variances and reasons/nature of variance
• Linear distance of new hard armoring or hard armoring removed above the OHWM
• Linear distance of new soft shoreline stabilization
• Linear distance of new or enhanced riparian vegetation or vegetation removals
• Number of new docks and coverage area
• Number of new piles or piles removed
• Cubic yardage and coverage area of fill removed or replaced below the OHWM
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 27 131050-01.01
Implementation, Monitoring, and Review
• Number of new boat ramps or boat ramps removed
• Number of new outfalls or outfalls removed/consolidated
• Wetland acreage existing, restored, and lost
• Increase or decreases in impervious surface area
5.3 SMP Review
The City will be required to conduct periodic SMP updates, which will include an evaluation of
the efficacy of the SMP and this Plan. This review will involve comparing past conditions with
existing conditions and assessing whether the actions, policies, and regulations set since the last
SMP update have been valuable in ensuring no net loss. The evaluation will be an opportunity
to adjust these measures as applicable for the benefit of future shoreline conditions.
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 28 131050-01.01
6 REFERENCES
Anchor QEA, LLC, 2014. Draft Shoreline Inventory, Analysis, and Characterization Report,
Pasco Shoreline Master Program Update. Prepared for the City of Pasco.
March 2014.
Anchor QEA, 2006. Sacajawea State Park Conceptual Level Shoreline Design Options.
Prepared for The Confluence Project. April 2006.
Jones, K.L., G.C. Poole, E.J. Quaempts, S. O'Daniel, and T. Beechie, 2008. Confederated
Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation Department of Natural Resources. Umatilla
Reber Vision. October 1, 2008.
Ecology (Washington State Department of Ecology), 2004. A Department offcologyReport.
What Does No Net Loss Mean in the 2003 SMA Guidelines? June 2004.
Federal Caucus, 2015. Columbia Basin Fish Accords. Cited: April 1, 2015. Available from:
https://www.salmonrecovery.gov/Partners/FishAccords/UmatillaTribes_copyl.aspx.
Franklin County, 2008. Franklin County Growth Management Comprehensive Plan.
Adopted February 27, 2008.
Grolier, M.J. and J.W. Bingham, 1978. Bulletin No. 71: Geology of Parts of Grant, Adams,
and Franklin Counties, East-Central Washington. Washington State Division of
Geology and Earth Resources.
ICBEMP (Interior Columbia Basin Ecosystem Management Project), 2003. Interior
Columbia Basin Strategy. Available from: http://www.icbemp.gov/.
Link, S.O., W.H. Mast, and R.W. Hill, 2006. Shrub -steppe. In Restoring the Pacific
Northwest, edited by D. Apostol and M. Sinclair. Washington D.C.: Island Press,
216-240.
MIG (MIG, Inc.), 2012. Tri-citiesRivershore MasterPlan. February 2012.
Pasco (City of Pasco), 2012. Rivershore Linkage andAmenityPlan. July 2012.
Thom, R.M., G. Williams, A. Borde, J. Southard, S. Sargeant, D. Woodruff, J.C. Laufle, and
S. Glasoe, 2005. Adaptively addressing uncertainty in estuarine and near coastal
restoration projects. journal of Coastal Research 40: 94-108.
Restoration Plan April 2015
City of Pasco SMP Update 29 131050-01,01
References
USACE (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Walla Walla District), 2012. McNary Shoreline
Management Plan Revised Programmatic Environmental Assessment.
December 2011. Available from:
http://www.nww.usace.army.mil/Portals/28/docs/programsandprojects/msmp/FinalE
A-AttachedFONSI.pdf.
USFWS (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service), 2008. Final Hanford Reach National Monument
Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement.
Updated: September 24, 2008. Available from:
http://www.fws.gov/uploadedFiles/Region_I/NW RS/Zone_2/Mid-
Columbia_River_Complex/Hanford_Reach_National_Monument/Documents/final-
ccp.pdf.
WDFW (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife), 2011a. Shrub -Steppe and Grassland
Restoration Manual for the Columbia River Basin. Updated: October 2011. Available
from: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01330/.
WDFW, 2011b. Management Recommendations for Washington's Priority Habitats.
Managing Shrub -steppe in Developing Landscapes. Updated: November 2011.
Available from: http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/01333/wdfwOl333.pdf.
WDFW, 2010. Conserving Washington 's fish and wildlife. Available from:
http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/00729/wdfw00729.pdf.
WRCC (Western Regional Climate Center), 2012. Cooperative Climatological Data
Summaries. Accessed: December 4, 2012. Available from:
http://www.wrcc.dri.edu/summary/Climsmwa.html.
Restoration Plan Apri12015
City of Pasco SMP Update 30 131050-01.01