Loading...
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