HomeMy WebLinkAbout06-12-13 YPC PacketCOMMUNITY DEVI,71,01'A4EN7'DEIIA.R7ME)V7'
p1trwil fig Dn 11,11 S1 ton
,1,250 Aii,': rih 1`1g^co n /�/ "�:wm �P, , �::"�� ° :;:';ry w t akimlir.�' K'a h:ng:"on 5108901
�"�u"4uw,�S���!I'���`�����,� . ��°�.�;��"n�i��'"����� ��„���� i � d�� u,�i�✓�a�m;������';�ti��P ��"�M'����nM1��' m� � "���� �a"��d°
City of Yakima Planning Commission
STUDY SESSION
2nd Floor Conference Room
Wednesday June 12, 2013
2:00 pm - 5:00 pm
YPC Members:
Chair Ben Shoval, Co -Chair Dave Fonfara, Ron Anderson, Al Rose,
Scott Clark, Paul Stelzer, Bill Cook
'IOWTH:E
City Planning Staff:
Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director/Planning Manager; Bruce Benson, Supervising
Planner; Jeff Peters and Joseph Calhoun, Associate Planners; Chris Wilson, Assistant Planner; and
Rosalinda Ibarra, Administrative Assistant
Aged
Announcement: This meeting is a study session on the City's Master Program in which the
general public is invited to participate and comment.
I. Call to Order
II. Roll Call
III. Staff Announcements (Steve Osguthorpe)
IV. General Audience Participation Not Associated with an Item on the Agenda
V. Shoreline Master Program Review:
Task#1 - Review City of Yakima Draft SMP Cumulative Impact Analysis
& Restoration Plan Addendum
VI. Continuation: Discuss Shoreline Master Program Materials from Previous Meeting
VII. Other Business
VIII. Adjourn to June 26, 2013
PLEASE WRITE LEGIBLY
",OEM
.........._.
............ ---- ._.......................... ...............................................................................
_...-_______
Page 1
III 11 AIII
CITY OF YAKIMA
GRANT No. G1200051
ADDENDUM TO THE YAKIMA COUNTY
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
For the City of Yakima's Shoreline 'Master Program
Prepared by:
Prepared for:
City of Yakima
129 North 2nd Street
Yakima, WA 98901
THEWATERSHED
750 Sixth Street South
Kirkland. WA 98033
p 425.822.5242
f 425.827.8136
watershedco.com
Rt
111 BERK
STRATEGY `ANALYSIS I COMMUNICATIONS
2025 First Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle WA 98121
June 2, 2013
The Watershed Company
Reference Number:
121207
Cite this document as:
The Watershed Company. June 2013. Addendum to the Yakima County
Cumulative Impacts Analysis for the City of Yakima's Shoreline Master Program.
Prepared for the City of Yakima.
The Watershed Company Contacts:
Amy Summe/Sarah Sandstrom
BERK Contact:
Lisa Grueter
TABLE
O
Page #
1 Introduction...............................................................................1
2 Methodology..............................................................................2
3 Areas of Divergence in the Proposed City of Yakima SM'MP.... 2
3.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction.......................................................................................2
3.1.1 Shoreline Waterbodies............. ........ ..... - ...»....................... .................. 2
3.1.2 Shorelands ......... ......... ....»....,........ ............................................................ »....4
3.2 Environment Designations and Allowed Uses..........................................,.......4
3.2.1 Environment Designations ................ .................. ....... ........ ..................4
3.2.2 Allowed Uses........................................................................................................7
3.3 Regulations for Shoreline Uses and Modifications.........................................8
3.4 Critical Areas Regulations..............................................................................11
3.4.1 Wetlands .................................... ........ ......... ..-- .................. ... ...............11
3.4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System ...........................11
3.4.3 Flood Hazard Areas ...................................................... .......»..».........................12
3.4.4 Geologically Hazardous Areas ........ ......... ......... ....... »...».. ................12
3.5 Shoreline Restoration Plan.............................................................................13
4 Net Effect on Ecological Function.........................................15
5 References...............................................................................16
UST OF -TABLES
Table 1. Summary of changes in the proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to
the Yakima County Regional SMP and the anticipated effect on ecological
functions.................................................................................................. 8
Table 2. Proposed shoreline buffer widths in the High Intensity and Shoreline
Residential environment designations....................................................11
Table 3. Summary of key features of the proposed SMP that differ from the
Regional SMP and effects on ecological functions.................................15
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
ADDENDUM TO THE YAKIMA COUNTY
CUMULATIVE IMPACTS ANALYSIS
For the City of Yakima's Shoreline baster Program
1 INTRODUCTION
The City of Yakima participated in a regional Shoreline Master Program (SMP)
update process with Yakima County. The Yakima County Regional SMP was
completed in 2007 and approved by Washington Department of Ecology
(Ecology) in 2010, along with supporting documents, including a regional
analysis report, restoration plan, and cumulative impacts analysis (CIA), which
demonstrated no net loss on a County basis. The City's shorelines were
addressed in the supporting documents, including the CIA. Near the end of the
County's local adoption process, the City chose to complete the update
independently. The City subsequently adopted the County's supporting
documents and adapted the County's SMP to prepare a locally based SMP that
meets State Guidelines and the Shoreline Management Act requirements.
This CIA addendum identifies the major areas where the proposed City SMP
diverges from the County's SMP, and it updates and amends the Regional CIA
accordingly and determines whether no net loss of shoreline functions will be
maintained under the City's proposed SMP.
The State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master
Program Guidelines (SMP Guidelines; WAC 173-26) require local shoreline
master programs to regulate new development to "achieve no net loss of
ecological function."
As directed in the Guidelines, this CIA Addendum will consider:
"(i) current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural
processes;
(ii) reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline;
and
(iii) beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other
local, state, and federal laws."
An accompanying component of the SMP process that can bring environment
conditions to an improved level is the Shoreline Restoration Plan, which identifies
and prioritizes potential actions and programs that may be implemented on a
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
voluntary basis. This CIA will include and consider additional City -specific
restoration elements that may not have been addressed in the County's
restoration plan.
2 METHODOLOGY
This CIA Addendum was prepared consistent with direction provided in the
Shoreline Master Program Guidelines as described above. However, information
already referenced or provided in the Regional CIA will not be repeated here.
The effects of likely development were evaluated in the context of the City's SMP
provisions. This Addendum focuses on areas of the proposed City of Yakima
SMP that substantively differ from what was included in the County's Regional
SMP and Regional CIA. These main areas of divergence include the following:
0, Shoreline Jurisdiction (corrected)
0 Environment Designations and Allowed Uses (customized)
Regulations for Shoreline Uses and Modifications (updated)
Critical Areas Regulations (customized)
• Shoreline Restoration Plan (updated)
Cumulative impacts were analyzed quantitatively where possible. Where
specific details regarding redevelopment likelihood or potential were not
available at a level that could be assessed quantitatively or the analysis would be
unnecessarily complex to reach a conclusion that could be derived more simply,
a qualitative approach was used.
3 AREAS OF DIVERGENCE IN THE
PROPOSED CITY OF YAKIMA SM
3.1 Shoreline Jurisdiction
3.1.1 Shoreline Waterbodies
Cowiche Creek
The City's SMP excludes Cowiche Creek from shoreline jurisdiction based on the
combined weight of stream gauge data which does not include 10 consecutive
2
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
years, United States Geologic Survey (USGS) modeling, and the opinions of
various local agency experts. Ecology concurred with this assessment on May
22, 2013.
Consistent with the Yakima County Regional SMP, Washington Department of
Ecology's GIS data set shows that the Yakima and Naches Rivers are Shorelines
(20 cfs or greater), and further are Shorelines of Statewide Significance (200 cfs or
greater). Cowiche Creek is also noted in Yakima County's current SMP as a
Shoreline. However, Cowiche Creek is not identified in Ecology's suggested
shoreline data set as a Shoreline.
USGS published a report in 2003 that updated its earlier 1971 work identifying
the upstream limit of 20 cfs mean annual flow. The 2003 report predicted the
boundary point for streams in southeastern Washington by applying a multiple -
linear -regression equation that relates mean annual discharge to drainage area
and mean annual precipitation (Higgins 2003). An equation was developed for
the lower Yakima hydrologic region (Higgins 2003). Cowiche Creek is not
identified in the USGS report as a waterbody with a minimum mean annual flow
of 20 cfs.
In addition to consulting the Ecology and USGS sources mentioned above, one or
more representatives of the United States Bureau of Reclamation (Joel Hubble),
Washington Department of Ecology (Stan Isley, Chuck Springer, Gary Graff,
Cathy Reed), Yakima County Surface Water Management Division (Joel
Freudenthal), and the Yakima Tieton Irrigation District (Richard Dicker) were
also consulted. Available gauge data was reviewed and found to be generally
inconclusive. According to a full year of data from a USBR gage (2/1/91— 2/1/92),
the mean annual flow was 16.75 cfs; this was not a drought year according to
USBR. According to Chuck Springer at Ecology, the agency only has a complete
water year of data for 2006, which showed a mean annual flow of 47 cfs, but that
was a "very atypical year." By comparison, water year 2005, which is missing
data for October and half of November, showed a mean annual flow of 11 cfs.
Because of the mixed professional opinions of the agency staff contacted, USGS
(Johnna Higgins) was re -contacted to ascertain if a modeled mean annual flow
was available (it was not reported in the 2003 report). USGS updated the prior
calculations on May 10, 2013, using a new prism of precipitation data from 1971-
2000 (30 -year norm). The result was a mean annual flow of 8.67 cfs, well below
the 20 cfs minimum for shoreline jurisdiction (even considering any margin of
error or future inter -basin transfers of water).
Buchanan Lake
Buchanan Lake meets the minimum shoreline jurisdiction criteria based on its
size (larger than 20 acres), and thus would be a shoreline waterbody. However,
3
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
because the lake was constructed as part of a gravel mining operation and
continues to have an active Surface Mining Permit from the Washington
Department of Natural Resources, it is not regulated as a shoreline lake until
such time as the Surface Mining Permit lapses. In anticipation of that future
event, the City has pre -designated the lake and the associated shorelands.
3.1.2 Shorelands
The upland extent of potential shoreline jurisdiction was also revisited by re-
examining mapping of FEMA floodplain and floodway, associated wetlands,
levees, and the determination of shoreline waterbodies as described above under
Section 3.1.1.
3.2 Environment Designations and Allowed Uses
3.2.1 Environment Designations
The first line of protection of the County's shorelines is the environment
designation (ED) assignments. According to the Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211),
the assignment of EDs must be based on the existing use pattern, the biological
and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the
community as expressed through a comprehensive plan.
The Urban ED under the County's SMP grouped several distinct land uses
within the City. In place of the Urban designation, the City has proposed three
new EDs that better reflect the site-specific conditions, including: Shoreline
Residential, High Intensity, and Essential Public Facilities. The City SMP also
proposes an Aquatic designation, which was not included in the County's
Regional SMP. The Urban Conservancy ED from the County's SMP is retained,
except that one area designated as Urban on the Naches River in the City's UGA
is reclassified as Urban Conservancy to be more consistent with existing
conditions. The Floodway/CMZ ED from the County's SMP is generally retained
in the proposed City SMP (with corrections to address existing levees that limit
channel migration). Because the Urban Conservancy and Floodway/CMZ EDs
were generally retained from the County's SMP, these designations will not be
discussed further.
A discussion of existing conditions in each of the newly proposed EDs and
anticipated development is provided below.
Shoreline Residential
The Shoreline Residential ED is assigned to lands that are predominantly single-
family or multifamily residential development or are planned and platted for
residential development.
4
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
The two shoreline areas that include Shoreline Residential designations occur
along Willow Lake and Lake Aspen. The Shoreline Residential ED areas on these
lakes are largely developed. In addition to the City's M-1 and R-3 zoning
standards for light industrial and multi -family development, development in
Lake Aspen's "Aspen Village" residential community is subject to Covenants,
Codes & Restrictions that more tightly govern the land uses and character of
development. Within shoreline jurisdiction, land zoned M-1, but designated as
Shoreline Residential, consists of a trail. Land zoned R-3 in shoreline jurisdiction
is fronted by small lot single family dwellings. No significant changes in
development are anticipated. It is likely that activities would include
maintenance, repair, and expansions of existing uses.
High Intensity
Shorelands that presently support or are planned to accommodate commercial,
industrial, urban recreational, transportation, or high-intensity water -oriented
uses are assigned to the High Intensity ED.
Willow Lake: Several vacant industrially zoned parcels that range in
size from 5 to 14 acres are located on the south and western portions
of Willow Lake, and are designated as High Intensity in the SMP.
Future use inside and adjacent to shoreline jurisdiction will include
industrial activities. One large lot has approved industrial
development extending within 37 feet of Willow Lake (Grette 2012).
Lake Aspen: Properties along the eastern side of the lake are zoned
and used for B-1 Professional Business activities (e.g. office) and
accordingly designated as High Intensity. As much of the land is
currently developed for offices along the shoreline, including a
cantilevered overwater platform, no additional development is
anticipated. It is likely that activities would include maintenance,
repair, and expansions of existing uses.
Buchanan Lake: The north side of Buchanan Lake is highly altered as
a result of its present use as an active Surface Mine. The area has
Suburban Residential zoning, and following reclamation, the property
could be redeveloped. Present zoning would assume possible
residential, agricultural, and some limited service uses. However, the
property owner indicated during the SMP process that future interest
is in redevelopment for commercial purposes, including water
oriented recreation and retail (e.g. floating restaurant). Following
reclamation, the property owner could request a rezone.
• Yakima River — Terrace Heights Drive: General Commercial (GC)
zoning applies on the south bank near Terrace Heights Drive, and
5
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
current uses include restaurants and hotels. The Yakima River
Greenway Trail is located waterward of the commercial uses,
separating these uses from the River. These lands are already
developed and unlikely to substantively change apart from
maintenance, repair, and expansions of existing uses.
Yakima River — Keyes Road: Land zoned for M-1 Light Industrial uses
lies along the Yakima River and is designated as High Intensity in the
SMP. Much of the land is in use for industrial purposes, but other
parcels are in single family residential uses and could convert to
industrial uses over time. The Yakima River Greenway Trail is
situated waterward of the parcels, which separates uses from the
River.
Yakima River — West Birchfield Road: Land is in use for auto sales
and service uses (humane society). A levee separates development
from the River. The property is zoned Suburban Residential (SR).
Present zoning would assume possible residential, agricultural, and
some limited service uses. Given the current investment and
alteration, current development is likely to continue. It is likely that
activities would include maintenance, repair, and expansions of
existing uses if allowed by underlying zoning.
Blue Slough: The lands along the Blue Slough are designated as M-1
Light Industrial, and there are lands developed for low intensity
industrial uses, retail, mining, and residential uses, as well as vacant
lands that could add some light industrial uses. Parcels range in size
from 2 to 15 acres. The largest undeveloped lands are two parcels
around 15 acres in size each that could add light industrial uses along
SR 24.
Essential Public Facilities
The Essential Public Facilities ED includes shorelands containing state or
regional transportation facilities and waste water handling facilities.
Within roadways, the most likely activities include repair, maintenance, and
expansion. Most repair and maintenance activities would be considered exempt
and subject to a proposed programmatic exemption for Transportation facilities
under the responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation
to allow for routine maintenance and repair of existing highways and associated
facilities. This programmatic exemption is similar to one applied by Yakima
County and would be included in the SMP Appendix.
M
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
The wastewater treatment plant could also be the subject of maintenance, repair,
and expansion. A planned levee setback will require a change to how
wastewater is treated and released to the Yakima River. In order to address this
need, a new side channel is proposed with habitat improvements, and an
extended mixing zone project is planned south of the treatment plant (See
Section 3.5 for additional details).
Aquatic
The Aquatic ED applies to areas waterward of the ordinary high water mark of
shoreline lakes.
Currently, Lake Aspen and Willow Lake waters are used for boating. Docks
extend from residential areas. Ongoing maintenance needs would include
repairing existing shoreline stabilization (only in front of the residential areas)
and piers, and managing water quality and aquatic vegetation (milfoil and
algae). Aquatic vegetation control for milfoil has included a variety of
mechanical mechanisms, but success was finally achieved with introduction of
grass carp. However, the increased clarity resulting from control of milfoil has
resulted in algae blooms. Possible solutions could include planting native water
lily and "floating islands" [currently in place at Buchanan Lake].
3.2.2 Allowed Uses
The SMP identifies specific uses and modifications permitted, prohibited, or
allowed as conditional uses within each ED. The proposed SMP allows a few
specific uses not identified in the County's SMP. These allowed uses and the
rationale for changes from the County SMP are as follows:
Non-commercial aquaculture: This allows for conservation hatchery
facilities, and other facilities that benefit shoreline functions.
• Public, community, and commercial boat launches, as well as private
boat launches in the High Intensity ED: Boat launches are needed to
improve access for river rescue safety and public access. Few boat
launches would be anticipated, and they would need to follow
mitigation sequencing to avoid impacts.
Piers and docks in the High Intensity, Shoreline Residential, and Aquatic
EDs: Piers and docks are only allowed on lake shorelines, and this
allowance is consistent with existing conditions.
• Expansion of roads, highways, bridges, and railroads: Any expansion of
transportation infrastructure would need to follow mitigation
F
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for effects on shoreline
functions.
3.3 Regulations for Shoreline Uses and Modifications
The proposed SMP contains numerous shoreline modification and use policies
and supporting regulations intended to protect the ecological functions of the
shoreline and prevent adverse cumulative impacts. The following table provides
a brief summary of the differences in the County's adopted Regional SMP and
the City's proposed SMP, as well as the likely effects of those differences on
ecological functions. As noted in Table 1, the majority of the proposed changes
to the SMP either help to improve or maintain shoreline functions, and some
changes are not directly applicable to shoreline functions (e.g., formatting
changes and public access). None of the proposed changes to regulations for
shoreline uses or modifications identified in Table 1 reduce protections of
shoreline functions.
Table 1. Summary of changes in the proposed City of Yakima SMP compared to the
Yakima County Regional SMP and the anticipated effect on ecological functions.
General Renu
Environmental
Protection -
17.05.020
Shoreline
Vegetation
Conservation -
17.05.030
........
Water Quality,
Stormwater, and
Non -Point
Pollution -
17.05.040
Public Access -
17.05.050
Changes in City SMP compared to
County's Regional SMP
New section that applies to all areas in
shoreline jurisdiction, not just critical areas
and their buffers.
• Requires no net loss of functions (A).
• Requires mitigation sequencing and
preparation of a mitigation plan for any
shoreline use or modification that is not
entirely addressed by specific, objective
_standards in the proposed
New section that applies in and outside of
critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction.
• Requires mitigation for adverse impacts
resulting from ve etation removal.
• Added a general standard that
development shall maintain surface and
groundwater quantity and quality, and
maintain no net loss of ecological functions
(A).
• Added standards that new development
and redevelopment must comply with the
latest edition of the Stormwater
Management Manual for Eastern
Washington, and best management
practices must be employed, even if the
Manual's thresholds (e.g., area of
disturbance) are not met C 1).
Section consolidated from many areas of the
Regional SMP and added provisions
consistent with the SMP Guidelines.
Effect on Ecological
Functions
Maintains- provisions protect
ecological functions
Maintains- provisions require
mitigation sequencing for
vegetation removal
Maintains- implementation of
BMPs will help maintain water
quality functions
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
Effect on Ecological
Functions
Maintains- limits potential new
restrictions/obstructions on the
CMZ and floodway
Maintains- concentrated
feedlots are prohibited under
Aquaculture-
Changes in City SMP compared to
Maintains/Improves- potential
County''s Regional S_MP
Flood Hazard
New section that establishes uses and
Reduction-
standards for modifications within the
17.05.060
channel migration zone (CMZ) and floodway
Adds standards for boat ramps to ensure that
• Only development and subdivision in the
and Private
floodway or CMZ that will not require
required to minimize (and
structural shoreline stabilization measures
hydraulics (G)(1).
is allowed (F).
Facilities-
• Prohibits flood hazard reduction measures
Environmental Protection
that will channelize stream flows, interfere
with hydraulic processes, or undermine
Commercial-
existing structures or downstream banks
Improves- provides incentive
E.
Shoreline Uses
and Modifications
Agriculture-
provide public benefit such as ecological
Added provision prohibiting concentrated
a
17.07.nimal
010
restoration and public access (C).
feeding operations (D).
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
Effect on Ecological
Functions
Maintains- limits potential new
restrictions/obstructions on the
CMZ and floodway
Maintains- concentrated
feedlots are prohibited under
Aquaculture-
Add standard that encourages aquaculture
Maintains/Improves- potential
17.07.020
that promotes recovery of listed species or
to bolster listed species
ublic recreation C
recover
Boating Facilities
Adds standards for boat ramps to ensure that
Maintains- Boat ramps will be
and Private
they minimize the effect on channel form and
required to minimize (and
Moorage
hydraulics (G)(1).
mitigate) for impacts per
Facilities-
Environmental Protection
17.07.030
standards 17.05.020
Commercial-
..........
Added provision that mixed-use commercial
Improves- provides incentive
17.07.040
development in shoreline jurisdiction must
for restoration
provide public benefit such as ecological
restoration and public access (C).
Dredge and
• Added standards that new development
Maintains- Development will
Dredge
shall be sited and designed to avoid or, if
not exacerbate the need for
Disposal-
that is not possible, to minimize the need
dredging, and dredging will
17.07.050
for new and maintenance dredging (A).
require mitigation sequencing
• Add standard that where dredging is
permitted, mitigation sequencing must be
followed �B .
Fill- 17.07.060
Fills shall meet no net loss of ecological
Maintains- provides standards
function (A)
to ensure that fill does not
• Establishes allowed applications of fill in
affect ecological functions
sensitive areas and upland areas (B -C)
• Erosion control measures and BMPs must
be implemented G
Industrial-
No substantive change
NA
17.07.070
In -Water
New Section
Maintains- Standards maintain
Structures-
• New standard that in -water structures do
functions and processes
17.07.080
not degrade water quality (C).
• New standard requiring in -water structures
to provide for the protection and
preservation of ecosystem -wide
processes, ecological functions, and
cultural resources (F .
Mining-
No substantive change
NA
17.07.090
9
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
10
Changes in City SMP compared to
Effect on Ecological
Co+un ''s Regional SMP
Functions
Recreation-
Added provision that recreational uses shall
Maintains- ensures no net loss
17.07.100
not result in a net loss of ecosystem
functions.
Residential-
Added provision to ensure that shoreline
Maintains- minimizes
17.07.110
stabilization and flood control structures are
occurrence of new stabilization
not necessary to protect proposed
features and encourages
residences (C).
ade nate shoreline setbacks
Shoreline
New section to provide standards to ensure
Improves- maximizes benefits
Habitat and
that shoreline enhancement is based on the
of shoreline enhancement
Natural System
best available science and that they are
Enhancement-
maintained and monitored for long-term
17.07.120
sustainabilit .
Shoreline
No substantive change
NA
Stabilization -
17.07.130
Transportation-
Added provision requiring that new or
Maintains limits potential
17.07.150
expanded transportation and parking
effect of new pollutant
facilities be designed and located to have the
generating impervious
least possible adverse effect on unique or
surfaces on water quality and
fragile shoreline features, and that they will
quantity, as well as habitat
not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological
connectivity
functions (B).
...........
Utilities-
Added provision prohibiting new or expanded
Maintains- minimizes habitat
17.07.160
non -water -oriented utilities within shoreline
fragmentation resulting from
jurisdiction unless no feasible alternative
new utility corridors.
exists B).
Redevelopment,
Section added to provide a process for multi-
Maintains- provides
Repair, and
year management plans for maintenance
administrative clarity on
Maintenance-
and repair for:
exempt development. Exempt
17.07.170
1. Dredging
development must still meet
2. Private development and facilities on
SMP provisions.
private lakes
Application criteria include
3. Public Parks and Recreation
providing information
4. Transportation facilities
regarding:
5. Utility facilities, including, but not limited
. aquatic habitat protection
to wastewater and water systems
measures
• riparian and wetland
protection measures
• stormwater management
practices
• erosion and sediment control
practices
• re -vegetation or restoration
activities
• chemical and nutrient use
and containment practices
Existing Uses,
Amends standards to be consistent with
NA
Structures and
WAC requirements for existing residential
Lots- 17.11
development.
10
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
3.4 Critical Areas Regulations
The City's critical area regulations that apply outside of shoreline jurisdiction are
amended and integrated into the City's proposed SMP critical areas regulations
in order to meet Shoreline Management Act requirements and maximize
regulatory consistency and clarity. Some critical area buffers are reduced in the
proposed SMP compared to the County's Regional SMP; however, the proposed
shoreline buffers are consistent with existing conditions, and wetland buffers are
consistent with Ecology's guidance. Additionally, because the proposed SMP
applies environmental protection and conservation standards to the entire area
of shoreline jurisdiction, and not just critical areas and their buffers (as in the
County's SMP), the City's proposed SMP is expected to maintain shoreline
functions.
3.4.1 Wetlands
Proposed wetland buffers are consistent with Ecology's Guidance for Small Cities
Eastern Washington Version, revised October 2012. Required buffers are reduced
compared to the County's SMP; however, because they comply with Ecology's
guidance, they are expected to maintain wetland functions.
3.4.2 Fish and Wildlife Habitat and the Stream Corridor System
The proposed regulations establish allowed and prohibited uses within
hydrologically related critical areas, as well as vegetative buffer standards for
streams and lakes. Unlike the County SMP, which established a 100 -foot buffer
for all shoreline streams and lakes, the City's SMP proposes regulations based on
existing conditions, environment designations, and stream typing. The 100 -foot
buffer is maintained in the Essential Public Facilities, Urban Conservancy, and
Floodway/CMZ EDs. Proposed buffers are reduced in the Shoreline Residential
and High Intensity EDs, as indicated in Table 2. Proposed buffers in the High
Intensity and Shoreline Residential EDs are consistent with, and are expected to
maintain, existing functions.
Table 2. Proposed shoreline buffer widths in the High Intensity and Shoreline Residential
environment designations.
Buffer
Streams 1 75 feet
Existing Conditions
City and UGA on Yakima
River: High intensity
development is separated
from the shoreline by the
Yakima Greenway Trail
and a levee. Shoreline
vegetation is limited
UGA on Blue Slouoh: 30 -
Shoreline Residential
Proposed Existing Conditions
Buffer
NA City: NA
11
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
For streams and ponds within shoreline jurisdiction that do not meet the
standards for Shorelines of the State, buffers apply depending on the
classification of the waterbody. Buffers on these waterbodies range from 75 feet
for Type 2 streams and lakes, to no required buffer for Type 5 ephemeral
streams. The County's SMP does not explicitly set a buffer for non -shoreline
streams and lakes. These buffers are lower than the 100 -foot standard buffer
applied to hydrologically related critical areas in the County SMP, but the
proposed City buffers appropriately reflect the varying width of vegetated
buffers needed for aquatic habitat functions.
Buffer averaging is allowed if averaging will improve stream protection, or if
averaging is necessary to allow reasonable use of a parcel (17.09.030(P)(4)).
Buffers may be reduced if a road or railway crosses the buffer if the reduction
would not result in a loss of vegetative functions (17.09.030(P)(3)).
3.4.3 Flood Hazard Areas
The proposed Flood Hazard Area regulations permits projects that avoid altering
the flow of water in the floodway, causing erosion, filling the floodway, or
increasing the base flood discharge.
3.4.4 Geologically Hazardous Areas
The City's Geologically Hazardous Areas regulations are similar to those found
in the County's SMP, except that Channel Migration Zones are explicitly
included in the City's Geologically Hazardous Areas regulations.
12
I fth Intensity__Shoreline
Residential
Proposed
Existing Conditions
Proposed
Existing Conditions
Buffer
Buffer
100 feet of intact
vegetation separates
Blue Slough from low
intensity industrial uses.
-�
Lakes
50 feet
# City: 0-50 foot setback for
20 feet
Fully developed residential
high intensity industrial
development with structural
areas
setbacks ranging from 0-50
o Three large vacant lots.
feet, most commonly in the
One large lot has
range of 15-25 feet.
approved industrial
Vegetation commonly
development extending
consists of maintained lawn
within 37 feet of Willow
extending to the water's
Lake (Grette 2012).
edge.
For streams and ponds within shoreline jurisdiction that do not meet the
standards for Shorelines of the State, buffers apply depending on the
classification of the waterbody. Buffers on these waterbodies range from 75 feet
for Type 2 streams and lakes, to no required buffer for Type 5 ephemeral
streams. The County's SMP does not explicitly set a buffer for non -shoreline
streams and lakes. These buffers are lower than the 100 -foot standard buffer
applied to hydrologically related critical areas in the County SMP, but the
proposed City buffers appropriately reflect the varying width of vegetated
buffers needed for aquatic habitat functions.
Buffer averaging is allowed if averaging will improve stream protection, or if
averaging is necessary to allow reasonable use of a parcel (17.09.030(P)(4)).
Buffers may be reduced if a road or railway crosses the buffer if the reduction
would not result in a loss of vegetative functions (17.09.030(P)(3)).
3.4.3 Flood Hazard Areas
The proposed Flood Hazard Area regulations permits projects that avoid altering
the flow of water in the floodway, causing erosion, filling the floodway, or
increasing the base flood discharge.
3.4.4 Geologically Hazardous Areas
The City's Geologically Hazardous Areas regulations are similar to those found
in the County's SMP, except that Channel Migration Zones are explicitly
included in the City's Geologically Hazardous Areas regulations.
12
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
3.5 Shoreline Restoration Plan
The SMP guidelines state that "master programs shall include goals, policies and
actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions." Although the
SMP is intended to achieve no net loss of ecological functions through regulatory
standards, practically, despite required practices to follow mitigation sequencing
to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts on a site-specific scale, an
incremental loss of shoreline functions may still occur at a cumulative level.
These losses may occur through minor, exempt development; illegal
development; failed mitigation efforts; or a temporal lag between the loss of
existing functions and the realization of mitigated functions. The Restoration
Plan, and the voluntary actions described therein, can be an important
component in making up that difference in ecological function that would
otherwise result.
The County's restoration plan included several projects underway or planned
within the City, and since the County Restoration Plan was completed, several
additional projects have been proposed or are underway within the City. City
projects identified in the County's Shoreline Restoration Plan include the
following.
Yakima Habitat Improvement Project (YHIP)
The City of Yakima and Union Gap started a project to improve aquatic and
riparian habitats in and around the Yakima Urban Growth Area. This project
works in concert with past and ongoing efforts in the basin.
• Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial
Habitat
This program includes direct purchase of lands within 25 feet of either side of
existing streams, creeks, and rivers, and purchase of "development rights"
for lands between 25 feet and 50 feet of either side of existing streams, creeks
and rivers within the Yakima Urban Area Boundary. As resources become
available, the protected riparian corridors will be enhanced and/or restored.
In addition to these projects, other restoration projects planned or underway
within the City and its UGA include:
• Instream Flow Enhancement
The U.S. Bureau of Reclamation (USBR), with funding from the Yakima River
Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP), purchased a former
campground and its water right. As a result of the purchase and a water
13
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
right transfer, an additional 2.8 cubic feet per second of stream flow will be
provided to Blue Slough and the Yakima River.
Gap to Gap Levee Setback
The project will setback and upgrade the existing Drainage and Irrigation
District (DID) 1 levee on the east side of the Yakima River. The project will
restore 400 acres of floodplain and reduce flood hazards for urban
infrastructure and development. This project, led by the City of Yakima,
involves cooperation with multiple agencies, and is part of an integrated
approach to watershed restoration. For example, the acquisition of the
campground (above), and the relocation of the wastewater outfall location
(discussed below) were necessary to eliminate constraints that would
otherwise render the levee setback infeasible.
City of Yakima Floodplain Ecosystem Restoration
The proposed levee setback, described above, has the potential to jeopardize
the functionality of the outfall structure for the City of Yakima Regional
Wastewater Treatment Facility (YRWWTF) on the west side of the river by
allowing the thalweg of the channel (and the optimal mixing zone for sewage
effluent) to migrate away from the current outfall location. In order to
alleviate this constraint, the City proposes to construct an outfall system that
is integrated into restored floodplain surrounding the site. The first phase of
the project was funded in 2012 by the Salmon Recovery Funding Board. This
phase will reshape a shallow gravel -pit pond in the floodplain, restore the
pond's outlet to the Yakima River, and enhance the value of intergravel flow
on the site and downstream. This project will ultimately set back the west -
bank levee, adding an additional 200 to 300 acres of floodplain restoration
within the Gap to Gap reach.
The City, in coordination with Yakima County, the City of Union Gap, and the
Yakama Nation, developed a flood hazard management plan to identify and
prioritize flood hazard reduction opportunities (YFCZD 2012). In addition to
proposed structural actions, recommended actions fell into several programmatic
categories, including inventory and study, planning and regulatory, maintenance
and management, public outreach, and flood response. Recommendations were
prioritized based on anticipated flood benefits. The majority of the proposed
actions would have secondary benefits of restoring floodplain processes and
associated ecological functions.
On an individual project basis, implementation of each of the above-described
projects and programs will result in a net improvement in shoreline functions
within the City of Yakima.
14
The Watershed Company and BERK
June 2013
k A
4 I`ET EFFECT ON ECOLOGICAL FUNCTION
This Addendum to the Yakima County Regional CIA indicates that the proposed
City of Yakima SMP is expected to maintain existing shoreline functions within
the City of Yakima while accommodating the reasonably foreseeable future
shoreline development. As discussed above, major elements of the SMP that
diverge from the County's Regional SMP fall into five general categories:
1) shoreline jurisdiction, 2) environment designations and allowed uses,
3) regulations for shoreline uses and modifications, 4) critical area regulations,
and 5) voluntary components of the shoreline restoration plan. A summary of
the areas of divergence and the effect on shoreline ecological functions are
identified in Table 3.
Table 3. Summary of key features of the proposed SMP that differ from the Regional SMP
and effects on ecological functions.
City SMP Features that Differ from the Effects on Ecological Functions
Regional SMP
Cowiche Creek is excluded from shoreline
jurisdiction because it does not meet minimum
flow criteria.
County's Urban ED is split into High Intensity,
Shoreline Residential, and Essential Public
Facility EDs. An Aquatic ED applies
waterward of the ordinary high water mark in
lakes.
Several uses are permitted to improve public
access, economic growth, and ecological
enhancement.
Several new provisions pertain to shoreline
uses and modifications, including:
Application of mitigation sequencing and
vegetation conservation throughout
shoreline jurisdiction, not just in critical
areas
Reduced threshold for mandatory
implementation of stormwater best
management practices
• Standards to ensure that flood hazard
management measures do not impair
ecological processes
Critical area buffers are reduced in areas
where existing conditions or state guidelines
support the use of smaller buffers than those
proposed in the Regional SMP.
No effect on shoreline ecological functions.
Land use outside of City limits along Cowiche
Creek will still be regulated by the County's
SMP until annexed by the City, at which point
it and the portion of Cowiche Creek outside of
shoreline jurisdiction in City limits would be
regulated by the City's Critical Areas
Regulations.
No adverse effect on shoreline ecological
functions. Environment designations, allowed
uses, and buffers are more closely correlated
with land use and ecological conditions.
Allowed uses are strictly regulated, such that
no net loss of functions is anticipated.
Improved protection of ecological functions
throughout shoreline jurisdiction.
• Shoreline buffers are consistent with
existing vegetation widths in High Intensity
and Shoreline Residential EDs. Standard
buffer widths for non -shoreline waterbodies
are scaled to the size and functions of the
15
DRAFT City of Yakima Cumulative Impacts Analysis
City SMP Features that Differ from the Effects on Ecological Functions
Regional SMP
Several restoration actions are planned or
underway, including and in addition to those
identified in the County's Restoration Plan.
waterbody.
• Wetland buffers are consistent with
Ecology's guidance for Eastern
Washin ton,
Implementation of voluntary restoration
actions will improve shoreline functions.
Given the above provisions and areas of divergence, implementation of the
City's proposed SMP is anticipated to achieve no net loss of ecological functions
in the shorelines of the City of Yakima. Voluntary actions identified and
prioritized in the Shoreline Restoration Plan will provide the opportunity to
enhance and restore shoreline functions over time.
5 REFERENCES
Higgins, J.L. 2003. Determination of upstream boundary points on southeastern
Washington streams and rivers under the requirements of the Shoreline
Management Act of 1971: U.S. Geological Survey Water -Resources
Investigations Report 03-4042. 26 p.
wri(n 4 D4i r (t r r (42 i m
Washington Department of Ecology. 2011. Shoreline Master Program Guidelines.
Chapter 173-26 WAC, Part III.
Washington Department of Ecology. 2012. Appendix 8-1): Guidance on Widths of
Buffers and Ratios for Compensatory Mitigation for Use with the Eastern
Washington Wetland Rating System. In Wetlands in Washington State Volume
2.
Yakima County. No date. Yakima County Shoreline Mater [sic] Program Update
Cumulative Impacts Analysis.
Yakima County Department of Public Services. 2012. Ahtanum-Wide Hollow
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan. Yakima County, Yakama
Nation, City of Yakima, City of Union Gap. September 2012.
16
Yakima County Shoreline Mater Program Update
Cumulative Impacts Analysis
I. Introduction
The updated Yakima County Shoreline Master Program contains policies and standards for the
regulation of development that achieves a no net loss of ecological function. The intent of this
analysis is to address the potential cumulative impacts on shoreline ecological functions that
would result from reasonably foreseeable future shoreline development and uses. Cumulative
impacts result when the effects of an action such as land development are added to or interact
with other effects at any particular place and within any particular time. It is the combination of
these effects that is the focus of this analysis.
While impacts can be singled out by direct, indirect, and cumulative, the whole concept of
cumulative impacts takes into account all impacts, considering cumulative impacts result in the
compounding of the effects of all actions over time. Thus, the cumulative impacts of an action
can be viewed as the total effects on shoreline areas.
To comply with the requirement to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological function, state
guidelines assert that cumulative impacts must be evaluated along with the direct effects and
indirect effects of each policy and regulation. By requiring the consideration of cumulative
impacts, the regulations ensure that the range of actions that is considered in development
includes not only the project proposal, but also all actions that could contribute to cumulative
impacts.
a. Regulatory Setting and Guidance
Evaluating and addressing cumulative impacts shall be consistent with the guiding principle
found in the Washington Administrative Code (WAC) 173-26-186 (8)(d). An appropriate
evaluation ofcumulative impacts on ecological functions will consider the factors identified
in WAC 173-26-186 (8)(d)(i) through (iii)
(i) Current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural processes;
(ii) Reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline, and;
(iii) Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local, state, and
federal laws.
The above guidelines must be used to ensure that the County's actions achieve a no -net loss
of ecological functions. For such commonly occurring and planned development, policies
and regulations should be designed without reliance on an individualized cumulative impacts
analysis. Local government shall fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative
impacts. For development projects that may have unanticipatable or uncommon impacts that
cannot be reasonably identified at the time of master program development, the master
program policies and regulations should use the permitting or conditional use permitting
processes to ensure that all impacts are addressed and that there is no net loss of ecological
function of the shoreline after mitigation.
Similarly, local government shall consider and address cumulative impacts on other
functions and uses of the shoreline that are consistent with the act.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 1 -
b. Current Circumstances
Important current circumstances to consider are (1) ownership patterns, (2) level of development,
and (3) zoning designations. As described in Section III, below, the majority of Shoreline
jurisdiction in Yakima County is within public and tribal ownership, which greatly reduces the
jurisdiction of Yakima County. In addition, a large potion of the Shorelines in private ownership
are already developed, which also limits the impacts of new development on Shorelines.
A large portion of the Shorelines within Yakima County jurisdiction are zoned for rural and
natural resource use, thereby limiting densities of development within the Shoreline. Yakima
County currently has the Rural/Extremely Limited Development Potential (R/ELDP) zoning
designation along the major Shorelines with a FEMA designated floodway. The R/ELDP zone
has a minimum lot size of 40 acres, which has a significant affect on the density of development
within that zone.
The current draft of the updated SMP contains the proposed Floodway/CMZ environment, which
is similar to zoning. The Floodway/CMZ environment is comprised of the FEMA designated
Floodway and a landscape inventory of Channel Migration Zones (CMZ) for select Shoreline
reaches. The basic concept of the Floodway/CMZ environment is that it is the most hazardous
and environmentally sensitive area of the Shoreline, with a limited number of allowed uses. By
concentrating the most restrictive standards within the Floodway/CMZ environment, standards in
the other environments can be more flexible.
c. Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development.
While current circumstances are important to consider as a baseline, they can also be used to
predict potential future development. Important attributes to consider are (1) public/private/tribal
ownership, (2) zoning, (3) potential sub -division, and (4) existing level of development. Publicly
owned lands have limited development pressure. Developed parcels may not be more intensely
developed. The rural and natural resource zoned areas outside of the urban areas generally do
not get rezoned for other uses. An analysis of existing zoning and the potential for sub -division
can predict where future development and parcel division may occur.
The proposed Floodway/CMZ environment is intended to concentrate the more protective
standards to the most sensitive and hazardous Shoreline areas. So, parcels within this
environment have limited development potential. By focusing the more restrictive standards in
the Floodway/CMZ environment, more commercial uses have the opportunity to be established
in other environments; generally at the edges of Shoreline jurisdiction, within the lower elevation
Shoreline reaches where more development happens.
For those Shoreline parcels that are developed, future development will generally consist of
additions, outbuildings, and the occasional bulkhead. Most future development on undeveloped
lots will probably consist of residential construction, which is exempt from a Substantial
Development Permit. There are very little commercial or industrial areas within Shoreline
jurisdiction, and where there are, it is usually an existing use. Any small scale commercial
development will probably occur in the rural areas, generally as support for agricultural and
recreational uses. Undeveloped and partially developed lots are expected to see some
degradation due to owner use; especially due to incremental yard encroachment, which can be
influenced but not totally controlled through land use permitting. The analysis also attempts to
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 2 -
consider some of the environmental limitations that can affect developability within Shoreline
jurisdiction.
d. Beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs
There are numerous local, state, and federal controls that affect development within Shoreline
jurisdiction, and fortunately within the Yakima Basin, there are numerous agencies and
organizations that foster voluntary programs to protect and restore important Shoreline
ecological functions. The Shorelines of Yakima County make up a very small percentage of the
total area of Yakima County, and therefore have not seen an intense level of development since
the adoption of the SMP in 1974. State and Federal regulatory authorities that also contribute to
no net loss of Shoreline ecological function include, but may not be limited to:
• Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Hydraulic Code authority;
• Washington Department of Ecology Shoreline Management Act authority;
• Washington Department of Ecology Clean Water Act authority;
• Washington Department of Natural Resources Forest Practices Act authority;
• Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface Mining Act authority;
• Washington Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Lands Act authority;
• US Army Corps of Engineers Rivers and Harbors Act authority, and;
• US Environmental Protection Agency/ Army Corps of Engineers Clean Water Act authority.
II. Mapping Methodology
The Yakima County Geographic Information Systems (GIS) Department conducted an analysis,
utilizing existing data, to assess the potential development opportunities and limitations within
Shoreline areas.
a. Private and Public Land Ownership Data: The Shoreline jurisdictional area was over -laid
with the county's Parcel map layer. Parcel information was used to determine how much of the
shoreline jurisdictional area is owned privately or publicly. The information contained in the
public/private land ownership data was based on just the land contained within shoreline
jurisdictional area. Many parcels extend out beyond the shoreline jurisdictional area and the
areas outside the jurisdictional area were not included in the data. Public ownership includes any
government owned agency or organization (i.e. Yakima City, Yakima County, Yakama Indian
Nation). Private was an individual or private held company or organization (i.e. Yakima
Greenway Foundation, Yakima Fruit & Cold Storage).
b. Developed, Minor Developed, and No Development Data: Using just privately owned lands
within the shoreline jurisdictional area, parcel information was utilized to determine if a parcel
had been developed or not. The parcel attribute table contains a value that shows estimated value
of land improvement on the parcel as determined by the Yakima County Assessor. Three
categories were determined:
• No Development — No improvement value listed for that parcel
• Minor Developed — improvement value was greater than 0, but less than $30,000.
• Developed — improvement value was greater than $30,000.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 3 -
c. Yakima Zoning Data: Privately owned parcels that are contained or partially contained
within the jurisdictional area were used in this analysis. Zoning for each parcel was determined
using county and city zoning maps.
d. Dividable Parcel Data: Privately owned parcels that are contained within the Shoreline
jurisdictional area were used in this analysis. A land use zone from county and applicable city
zoning ordinances for each parcel was determined. Most land use zones have a minimum parcel
size. This minimum parcel size was used to determine how much a parcel could be divided till it
reached the minimum parcel size for that zone.
e. Environmental Limitations: Privately owned parcels that are contained or partially contained
within the Shoreline jurisdictional area were used in this analysis. An analysis of potential
development limits included the presence of FEMA Floodway, geologic hazards, degree of
slope, and wetlands within the shoreline area.
III. Current Circumstances
There are three (3) key factors relating to current circumstances that affect shoreline
development: land ownership, level of development and current zoning of the parcel. Using these
three factors, a baseline can be established of the current conditions along Yakima County's
shoreline areas so as to provide the County with a clear picture of how development may affect
Shoreline areas. While these three factors set a baseline of current conditions, land ownership
and zoning also provide a view into foreseeable future development. Public ownership generally
remains stable or in the case of conservancy ownership, actually increases. Current zoning
within Shoreline areas, which determines development potential, generally remains stable,
especially within resource lands (agriculture and forestry).
a. Land Ownership
Yakima County has a diverse array of ownership dispersed between federal, state, tribal and
private entities. The majority of federal ownership is divided between the Forest Service and the
Department of Defense. The majority of state ownership is divided between the Department of
Natural Resources and the Department of Fish and Wildlife. The Yakama Nation is also divided
between the Closed Area and the Open Area. Yakima County has limited jurisdiction within the
Yakama Nation Open Area and no jurisdiction within the Yakama Nation Closed Area. Public
ownership is not distributed evenly across the County, but is generally concentrated to specific
areas. Federal ownership is generally segregated, with National Forest and Wilderness Areas
dominating the western half, and Department of Defense ownership occupying the northeast
corner of the County. State ownership generally comprises a checkerboard pattern along the
fringe of federal ownership, and a large portion along the boundary with Kittitas County to the
north. The Yakama Nation Closed Area dominates the southwestern 1/3 of the County; Figure 1
depicts this general pattern. The distribution of ownership, as outlined in Table 1, identifies the
amount of private and public ownership within Shoreline jurisdiction.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 4 -
1:645064
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 5 -
Figure 1
Table 1. Land Ownership
Shoreline Area
Total Acres
Private Acres
Public Acres
Streams
Ahtanum Creek (N & S Fork)
2,827.17
1,598.51
1,228.66
Bumping River Basin
5,122.28
44.20
5,078.08
Cowiche Creek
899.29
563.40
335.89
Klickitat River Basin
9,590.40
411.48
9,178.92
Little Naches River
1,757.36
2.21
1,755.15
Naches River
5,812.39
3,029.32
2,783.07
Rattlesnake Creek
1,298.76
165.09
1,133.67
Sams Creek Basin
4,090.14
242.99
3,847.15
Tieton River Basin
3,775.74
235.77
3,539.98
Toppenish Creek Basin
8,186.60
1,501.17
6,685.43
Yakima River
22,852.50
4,312.69
18,539.81
Lakes
Bumping Lake
1593
3.94
1589.06
Big Elton Pond
46.72
3.54
43.18
Byron Ponds
181.83
0.00
181.83
Priest Rapids Pool/Columbia
River
2,495.31
101.03
2,394.27
Buchanan Lake
86.10
65.70
20.40
CB -E-300
52.62
10.15
42.47
Clear Lake
329.90
14.29
315.61
CB -E-301
84.37
22.80
61.57
Dewey Lake
81.94
0.00
81.94
Cowiche Reservoir
58.62
54.25
4.36
Cougar Lake
122.16
0.00
122.16
Griffin Lake
210.68
0.00
210.68
Horseshoe Lake
128.59
18.17
110.42
Grandview WWTP
230.07
0.00
230.07
Freeway Lake
46.28
0.00
46.28
Fish Lake
129.27
0.00
129.27
Dog Lake
93.67
0.00
93.67
Graham & Morris Pits
108.89
20.43
88.46
Pear Lake
46.23
0.00
46.23
Leech Lake
71.55
0.00
71.55
Lake Aspen/Willow Lake
143.96
96.63
47.32
Horseshoe Pond
81.52
0.00
81.52
Howard Lake
82.92
0.00
82.92
Parker Pits
114.19
39.90
74.29
PS -E-311
90.55
0.00
90.55
Mud Lake
67.62
0.01
67.60
Mt Adams Lake
105.25
0.00
105.25
Morgan Pond
74.95
0.03
74.92
Rimrock Lake
2,971.04
6.65
2,964.40
Selah Pits
375.42
292.37
1 83.05
Slaughterhouse Lake
80.37
26.64
53.72
Swamp Lake
82.06
0.00
82.06
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 6 -
Shoreline Area
Total Acres
Private Acres
Public Acres
Totus Rd Pond 41
105.96
0.00
105.96
Totus Rd Pond 42
140.00
0.00
140.00
Totus Rd Pond 43
233.12
0.00
233.12
Twin Sisters Lake
233.02
0.00
233.02
Two Lakes - Lower
216.91
0.00
216.91
Two Lakes - Upper
327.22
0.00
327.22
Un -named
60.94
0.00
60.94
Unnamed Lake
33.01
32.89
0.12
Wenas Lake
158.34
81.93
76.41
Totals
76,549.06
12,990.72
63,558.34
Percent %
17%
83%
Table 1 above illustrates that only 17% of the total shoreline area is privately owned, while the
publicly owned land encompasses 83% of the total. A small percentage of land within the
shoreline areas is privately owned, therefore only a small percentage of land has development
potential. An important distinction between public and privately owned land can be viewed as
those lands which have the greater possibility of developing. Typically, public land is not
available for development, while privately owned land will probably be developed over time.
When public land is developed, it is generally developed for public access, and therefore
consistent with the SMA. Figure 2 below illustrates how limited the private development
potential is within a portion of the Upper Naches River.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 7 -
Naches River
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 8 -
Figure 2
Land Ownership - Naches River
SR 410
Private Ownership Within SMP
0
Public Owned Land
US Bureau of Land Management
US Bureau of Reclamation
US Dept. of Defense
0 US Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
US ForestService: National Forest
US Forest Service: Wilderness
®Other Federal Agencies
WA Dept. of Fish and Wildlife
WA Dept. of Natural Resources
WA Dept. of Transportation
eOther State Agencies
Yakima County
eMunicipal
Fire Districts
pig Irrigation Districts
School Districts
n Yakama Nation
b. Level of Development
The second factor to help identify the current circumstances along shoreline areas is the level of
existing development. Identifying the parcels that have already been developed allows us to
easily record "what's on the ground" or the current circumstances. This ultimately provides for a
baseline to estimate future development. Table 2 below identifies total acreage within Shoreline
jurisdiction that has been developed, contain minor development or no development at all, as
defined in the GIS methodology in section 11.
Table 2 Level of Development
The data in Table 2 identifies that approximately 45% of all the private land within the Shoreline
areas has been developed. While the 55% of undeveloped private parcels have the potential for
development, not all can be fully developed. Many of the undeveloped parcels are located
within areas that limit or restrict their development potential such as the FEMA Floodway and
the Channel Migration Zone. This analysis also does not take into account the presence of critical
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 9 -
Minor
SHORELINE
Total Acres
No Development
Development
Developed
Ahtanum Creek
1,598.51
702.07
256.42
640.02
Buchanan Lake
65.70
65.66
0.00
0.05
Bumping River
44.20
0.74
8.46
35.00
CB -E-300
10.15
0.40
0.62
9.13
CB -E-301
22.80
3.78
4.29
14.72
Clear Lake
14.29
0.00
0.00
14.29
Cowiche Creek
563.40
246.29
84.79
232.32
Cowiche Reservoir
54.25
5.40
46.23
2.63
Graham & Morris Pits
20.43
12.58
0.66
7.19
Horseshoe Lake
18.17
0.00
0.00
18.17
Klickitat River
411.48
411.48
0.00
0.00
Lake Aspen
96.63
65.37
0.00
31.27
Little Naches River
2.21
0.00
0.92
1.29
Morgan Pond
0.03
0.00
0.00
0.03
Mud Lake
0.01
0.00
0.00
0.01
Naches River
3,029.32
1,341.66
331.73
1,355.93
Parker Pits
39.90
27.18
10.19
2.53
Priest Rapids Pool
101.03
77.35
0.00
23.68
Rattlesnake Creek
165.09
112.25
10.75
42.08
Rimrock Lake
6.65
0.00
0.65
6.00
Sams Creek
242.99
229.11
0.33
13.55
Selah Pits
292.37
276.56
2.68
13.13
Slaughterhouse Lake
26.64
0.00
0.00
26.64
Tieton River
235.77
202.14
1.64
31.99
Toppenish Creek
1,501.17
867.55
195.05
438.56
Unnamed Lake
32.89
26.87
0.89
5.13
Wenas Lake
81.93
48.96
32.74
0.23
Yakima River
4,312.69
2,373.67
373.31
1,565.71
Totals
12,990.72
7,097.07
1,362.35
4,531.30
55%
10%
35%
The data in Table 2 identifies that approximately 45% of all the private land within the Shoreline
areas has been developed. While the 55% of undeveloped private parcels have the potential for
development, not all can be fully developed. Many of the undeveloped parcels are located
within areas that limit or restrict their development potential such as the FEMA Floodway and
the Channel Migration Zone. This analysis also does not take into account the presence of critical
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 9 -
areas (wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, and wildlife habitat) that may limit the level of
development. Figure 3 below illustrates the overall development pattern within the Lower
Naches River area.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 10-
Figure 3
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 11 -
c. Zoning
The third key factor to help with identifying the current circumstances and potential future
development of shoreline areas is zoning. Each parcel is zoned for a particular use; this can
range from commercial to residential to agricultural. Each zone has its own development
standards and restrictions, which can limit a parcel's potential for development. Zoning also
determines the division potential, since the minimum parcel size and densities are located in the
Zoning Ordinance. Table 3 below identifies the number and type of zoned parcels within
Shoreline areas.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 12-
Table 3. Current Zoning
Number of parcels in each
group
Zoning
All
Count
AG
B-1
CBD
CBDS
CBS
CLSD
FED
FAV
HC
I
L-1
LIM
M-1
MIN
MR
PD
PRc
PKO
R-1
R-2
R-3
RL -1
RLDP
RS
RT
SCC
SR
TRIB
IT
VR
W/W
Total
Reach
AhtanumCreek
442 1
59
0
1 0
0 1
0
3
0
123
1 0
0
6
0
0
1 0
0
0
2 1
0
63 1
3
1
0
42
0
9
0
3
1
1 1
126
0
442
Buchanan Lake
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
4
Bum in River
113
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
106
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
113
CB -E-300
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
5
0
9
CB -E-301
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
12
CLEARLAKE
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
CowicheCreek
209
88
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
4
0
0
16
0
0
0
39
0
0
46
0
209
CowicheReservoir
4
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
Graham&MorrisPits
11
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
11
KlickitatRiver
21
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
LakeAspen
122
0
21
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
97
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
122
LittleNachesRiver
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
Mor anPond
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
MudLake
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
NachesRiver
1428
70
0
0
0
0
0
0
25
6
4
0
29
0
0
182
15
0
0
22
0
0
0
841
61
23
0
26
0
0
124
0
1428
ParkerPits
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
2
PriestRapidsPool
18
9
0
0
0
0
0
9
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
18
RIMROCKLAKE
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
69
Rattle snakeCreek
38
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
8
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
20
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
38
SatusCreek
108
9
0
0
0
0
73
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
21
0
0
0
0
5
0
0
0
108
SelahPits
26
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
10
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
15
0
26
Slaughterhouse Lake
1
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
TietonRiver
58
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
22
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
35
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
58
ToppenishCreek
129
96
0
0
0
0
1
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
16
13
0
0
0
3
0
0
0
129
Unnamed Lake
14
2
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
12
0
0
0
0
0
0
14
WenasLake
11
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
7
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
4
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
11
YakimaRiver
842
177
0
5
6
8
0
0
0
1
3
0
136
50
15
0
3
0
2
39
2
0
5
223
2
7
0
78
12
0
64
4
842
Totals
3708
522
21
5
6
8
78
9
390
7
7
6
165
53
28
1 204
18
2
2
140
9
98
5
1186 1
115
51
1
150
21
1
396
4
3708
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 13 -
Table 3. Current Zoning (Continued)
Zoning
AG
B-1
CBD
CBDS
CBS
CLSD
FFD
FW
HC
I
L-1
LIM
M-1
MIN
MR
PD
PRc
PKO
R-1
R-2
R-3
RL -1
RLDP
RS
RT
SCC
SR
TRIB
IT
VR
W/W
Total
Reach
Percentage
Ahtanum
Creek
13.35%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.68%
0.00%
27.83%
0.00%
0.00%
1.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.45%
0.00%
14.25%
0.68%
0.23%
0.00%
9.50%
0.00%
2.04%
0.00%
0.68%
0.23%
0.23%
28.51%
0.00%
100.00%
Buchanan
Lake
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Bumping
River
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
93.81%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
6.19%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
CB -E-300
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
44.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
55.56%
0.00%
100.00%
CB -E-301
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Clearlake
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Cowiche
Creek
42.11%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
7.66%
1.91%
0.00%
0.00%
7.66%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
18.66%
0.00%
0.00%
22.01%
0.00%
100.00%
Cowiche
Reservoir
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Graham&
Morris
Pits
36.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
27.27%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
36.36%
0.00%
100.00%
KlickitatRiver
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.76%
0.00%
95.24%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
LakeAs en
0.00%
17.21%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.46%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
79.51%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.82%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
LittleNaches
River
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Mor anPond
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
MudLake
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
NachesRiver
4.90%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1.75%
0.42%
0.28%
0.00%
2.03%
0.00%
0.00%
12.75%
1.05%
0.00%
0.00%
1.54%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
58.89%
4.27%
1.61%
0.00%
1.82%
0.00%
0.00%
8.68%
0.00%
100.00%
ParkerPits
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
PriestRapids
Pool
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
50.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Rimrock Lake
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Rattlesnake
Creek
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
26.32%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
21.05%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
52.63%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
SatusCreek
8.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
67.59%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
19.44%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
4.63%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
SelahPits
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
38.46%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
3.85%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
57.69%
0.00%
100.00%
Slaughterhouse
Lake
100.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
100.00%
TietonRiver
1.72%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
37.93%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
1 0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
60.34%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Toppenish
Creek
74.42%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.78%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
12.40%
10.08%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
2.33%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
Unnamed
Lake
14.29%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
85.71%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
WenasLake
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
63.64%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
36.36%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
100.00%
YakimaRiver
21.02%
0.00%
0.59%
0.71%
0.95%
0.00%
0.00%
0.00%
0.12%
0.36%
0.00%
16.15%
5.94%
1.78%
0.00%
0.36%
0.00%
0.24%
4.63%
0.24%
0.00%
0.59%
26.48%
0.24%
0.83%
%
9.26%
1.43%
0.00%
7.60%
0.48%
100.00%
Zone
Percentage
14.08%
0.57%
0.13%
0.16%
0.22%
2.10%
0.24%
10.52%
0.19%
0.19%
0.16%
4.45%
1.43%
0.76%
5.50%
0.49%
0.05%
0.05%
3.78%
0.24%
2.64%
0.13%
31.98%
3.10%
1.38ON%
rOO
4.05%
0.57%
0.03%
10.68%
0.11%
100.00%
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 14 -
The data provided in Table 3 indicates that the Agricultural (AG), Remote/Extremely Limited
Development Potential (R/ELDP), and Forest Watershed (FW) zones make up approximately
57% of the private lands within Shoreline areas. The minimum lot size allowed in the R/ELDP
and AG zone is 40 acres (with limited smaller lots available in the AG zone), and the minimum
lot size in the FW zoned is 80 acres, which suggests that those parcels within these zones have
limited development potential and pose limited residential impacts to shoreline areas. Valley
Rural (VR) and Mountain Rural (MR) make up approximately 16% of the Shoreline area. Both
of these zones have a 5 to 10 acre minimum lot size depending on location and road conditions.
The addition of these two categories, resource and rural zones, equates to approximately 73% of
the private Shoreline area. The Residential Zones, which include all of the R zones (R-1, R-2, R-
3, RL -1), the Suburban Residential, (SR), and the Rural Settlement (RS) zones comprise
approximately 15% of the private Shoreline area. The business and commercial zones (B1,
CBD, CBDS, BBS, HC, W/W) equal about 1%, and the industrial zones (I, L-1, M-1) equal
about 2%. Minimum parcel size and density within the residential, business, commercial, and
industrial zones is dependent on the availability of public sewer and water. Without public sewer
and water, development potential is very limited. Tribal (TRIB, TT, CLSD) and federal (FED)
zoning equals about 3%. Recreational (PRc) and Open Space zoning (PKO) account for only
.1 %. The "city limit" zone (LIM) is an anomaly of the County Zoning data to acknowledge a
boundary with the cities, and is not actually a zoning designation. Yakima County no longer has
a Planned Development zone, which only makes up .49%, and has been replaced with a Master
Planned Resort zone, of which none have been designated. Figure 4 below depicts the zoning
distribution of private lands at the confluence of the Ahtanum Creek and the Yakima River. This
area includes that cites of Yakima and Union Gap, portions of their Urban Growth Areas (UGA),
and the border with the Yakama Indian Nation.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 15 -
Figure 4
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 16-
IV. Foreseeable Future Development
The specific methods of determining reasonably foreseeable future development varies according
to local circumstances, including economic and demographic characteristics, as well as the
physical extent of local shoreline areas. Cumulative impacts are the impacts on the shoreline
areas resulting from the accumulation of the incremental impacts of past, present, and reasonably
foreseeable future actions regardless of who undertakes such actions. Cumulative impacts can
result from individually minor actions occurring over time, most of which are land use projects.
Local land use projects are often the result of private and public planning and investments. The
general public is usually unaware of specific private project plans, or funding until local project
permit applications are submitted, and that is when these private projects are typically available
for public review. Therefore, many specific land use developments over the next 20 years cannot
be reasonably identified. However, it is reasonable to assume that some level of development
will occur (both public and private actions), with resulting developmental impacts mitigated
through the permitting process. The overall level of development can only be predicted at this
point and time. There are many factors that can directly affect the future development: parcel
ownership, the availability of developable land, potential segregations, zoning, and especially the
economy or future job market.
The demographic characteristics of Yakima County can provide current population, and
population projections, which can help with predicting the foreseeable future development.
Population projections can identify potential additions to the housing stock as well, although for
the most part the vast majority of the County's projected population increases will be absorbed
by the incorporated cites, not the rural areas, and not the restrictive shoreline areas. The
Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) has an estimated 2005 population of
229,3001 and a projected population of 283,8842 by 2025 for Yakima County. That equates to
roughly a 1% annual growth rate for Yakima County. The County's estimated annual growth
rate is less then the state's projected average annual growth rate of 1.09%, which suggests that
Yakima County will remain behind the state's average for the next 20 years and is projected not
to experience significant growth. Those OFM numbers are just estimates and projections and are
based only on current circumstances affecting the county. The County growth rate can change at
anytime. Also, it was not possible to attribute any specific population data to the Shoreline area
based on current census tract configuration.
a. Parcel Ownership
Table 1 in Section III identifies the ownership distribution within the Shoreline area. This is a
useful tool in estimating the foreseeable future growth along shoreline areas. As illustrated in
Table 1, only 17% of the total shoreline areas are privately owned. Typically, publicly owned
lands are not available for future development. There are however situations where publicly
owned lands are sold to private parties and developed, however those situations are rare and
should not be counted on. Generally, when public lands are developed, it is so for public
purposes. Generally, private ownership is concentrated in the valley bottoms at lower elevations.
This is where most of the development has occurred over the last 150 years. Most of the
1 Office of Financial Management, Forecasting Division, June 28t11 2005.
2 Office of Financial Management, WA. State County Population Projections, Release
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 17-
developable land has already been converted to farmland of residential uses. Generally, the
remaining parcels are un -developable due to a number of limiting factors, including but not
limited to flood hazards.
b. Availability of Developable Land
Table 2 in Section III identifies that approximately 45% of all the private land within the
shoreline areas is developed. However not all of the undeveloped private parcels can be
developed, many of the parcels are located with areas that limit their development potential, such
as the FEMA Floodway and the Channel Migration Zone. Of the 75,703 acres of undeveloped,
private land within Shoreline jurisdiction, 32,599 acres, or 43%, is within the proposed
Floodway/CMZ environment. There are other factors that can limit development potential,
including the availability of services and the presence of critical areas (i.e. wetlands, geologic
hazards, wildlife habitat).
c. Parcel Division Potential
Table 4, below, indicates the number of potential divisible parcels, based on zoning, within the
shoreline area. A particular parcel's zoning designation and minimum parcel size is the basis for
determining it's potential for division, although the minimum lot size does not take into
consideration the area necessary for services and easements for those services. As stated in
section IIc, the zoning distribution within Shoreline jurisdiction is heavily weighted to the
resources zones, such as Ag, R/ELDP, and FW. These zones have very limited division
potential. It is important to note that the existence of a divisible parcel along a shoreline area
doesn't necessarily provide for an indication of the foreseeable development. The parcels may
have several limits to development besides minimum lot size. In Table 4, below, the number of
potential parcels that could theoretically be created has been calculated. GIS analysis clipped the
private, divisible parcels to the Shoreline jurisdiction, thereby reducing the size of the existing
parcel to the area only within Shoreline jurisdiction. 145 parcels have a dividable area within
Shoreline jurisdiction. There are 101 parcels within Shoreline jurisdiction that are zoned Single
Family (R-1). Division within the residential, commercial, and industrial zones is dependant on
the availability of public sewer and water. In the R-1 zone, minimum parcel size is limited to 2i/2
acre without public water or sewer. Of the 145 parcels with potential divisibility, only 20 are not
currently developed. Of those, 16 are R-1, and 1 is Highway Commercial. Of those 20
undeveloped parcels, 12 intersect with proposed Floodway/CMZ environment, which may limit
development potential. This is a general calculation that does not take any other conditions into
account. Figure 5 below depicts the potential divisibility of the lower Ahtanum Creek, in and
around the City of Union Gap.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 18-
Table 4 . Parcel Division Potential
Zone
Total Number of Dividable
Parcels within Zone
Number of Potential
Parcels
Agriculture
1
2
Highway/Tourist Commercial
6
40
Industrial
3
19
Multi -family
5
55
Professional Business
6
13
Rural/Limited Development
Potential
2
5
Single Family R-1
101
1359
Two Family (R-2)
6
74
Valley Rural
1 3
1 8
Total
1 145
1 2484
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 19-
Figure 5
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM -20-
d. Environmental Limitations.
Analysis of environmental limitations included the presence of the FEMA designated floodway,
FEMA designated Floodplain, geologic hazards, wetlands, and Type 1 through 5 streams. All 5
factors were determined to be present or absent, and the additive score for limitations are
calculated for each parcel, with a maximum score of 7. The FEMA floodway is double
weighted, since development within it is severely restricted. A significant number of parcels
contained more than one geologic hazard, so a parcel could get two points for multiple geologic
hazards. Table 5, below, illustrates the distribution of parcels with environmental limitations.
The presence of an environmental limitation does not prohibit development, but these are factors
that will have to be taken into consideration when permitting any development. Most
development impacts on streams and wetlands can be mitigated to provide for no net loss of
ecological function, but some geologic hazards can be cost prohibitive to develop. Construction
of any permanent residence, which is the main development choice, is prohibited in the FEMA
floodway. Figure 6 below depicts a portion of the Naches River in and around the City of
Naches, and the distribution of environmental limitations. It is important to note that the more
limitations a parcel has, the more difficult and costly it is to develop. This reduces the likelihood
that parcels with several limitations will be developed. 54% of the Shoreline parcels have 2 or
more limitations.
Table 5
Number of Limitations
Number of Parcels with
Limitations
% of Total
0
727
19%
1
1037
27%
2
704
18.36%
3
642
16.7%
4
501
13.06%
5
189
5%
6
31
.8%
7
3
.08%
Total
3834
100%
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM - 21 -
Figure 6
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM -22-
V. Benefits of Established Regulatory Programs.
As noted in the introduction, there are numerous federal, state, and local regulatory programs
that also protect Shorelines, and which all work to manage the cumulative impacts on Shoreline
areas.
Yakima County has a number of codes that regulate development, from zoning and subdivision
to the building and nuisance codes, all of which have an affect on development in Shoreline
jurisdiction. But the basis for regulating development within Shoreline jurisdiction is the
Shoreline Master Program. Yakima County has recently drafted an updated Shoreline Master
Program that also integrates GMA Critical Areas and Flood Hazard standards.
The updated SMP contains goals, policies, and regulations that address individual and
cumulative impacts on Shoreline ecological functions. The existing SMP contains standards for
variances, conditional uses, exemptions, and substantial developments, all of which the County
has the authority to require mitigation of impacts on a project by project basis. The existing
CAO, adopted in 1995, is a partially integrated SMA/GMA ordinance that incorporates
mitigation sequencing and the use of restoration as mitigation. The updated CAO/SMP has re-
emphasized mitigation sequencing and incorporated more specific standards for reports that may
be required to ensure that there is no net loss of ecological function.
As a matter of perspective, Yakima County has processed approximately 420 Shoreline
applications since 1974. Approximately 186 of those were exemptions, which leaves
approximately 234 full permits, which averages out to 8 permits per year. While Yakima County
has a large amount of Shoreline area, the majority of it is in public or tribal ownership that has
next to no development pressure. Shoreline areas within the incorporated cities of Yakima
County are generally already developed, or are maintained as recreational open space. The
greatest potential for development in the Shoreline is found in the rural areas. It is the rural areas
where most of the limits to development exist (i.e. zoning, limited services, access, and public
ownership). The majority of development within the rural areas will be limited to single family
homes on existing lots. The development of single family homes is exempt from the Shoreline
Substantial Development permit process, but the County has authority to condition such
developments to ensure a no net loss of ecological function.
The updated CAO/SMP has specified low impact or maintenance uses that are allowed without a
permit or review in order to add more clarification on what is and what is not regulated. In
addition, the updated CAO/SMP has explicitly outlined what developments are exempt from the
permit process, what it means to be exempt, and what the project proponent must do to be
exempt from the permit process. This will ensure, to the extent that development controls can, no
net loss of Shoreline ecological functions.
VL Conclusion.
Cumulative impacts from future development are difficult to predict. Although, from the data
analyzed above, additional impacts from future development within Yakima County Shorelines
will most likely be limited, based on the following data:
• 83% of Shoreline jurisdiction is publicly/tribally owned;
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM -23-
• 17% of the Shoreline jurisdiction is privately owned;
• There are 3708 parcels, or 3.6%„ out of 101,891, with Shoreline jurisdiction;
• Only 297 parcels, or 8%, of the 3708 parcels, have division potential;
• Only 2484 parcels have the potential to be created within Shoreline jurisdiction across the
entire county. Mainly concentrated within the cities Urban Growth Areas;
• 45% of the private lands within Shoreline jurisdiction are already developed to some
degree, with impacts already established;
• Development of the remaining 55% will be subject to the Critical Areas Ordinance and
the Shoreline master Program, which will consider and address existing environmental
limits;
• 81%, of the private Shoreline parcels have one or more environmental limitations. 54%
have two or more limitations. This increases the difficulty in developing, and reduces the
likelihood of their development;
• Other beneficial regulatory programs listed in Section V, will also protect Shorelines and
reduce cumulative impacts.
The cumulative impacts of foreseeable future development within Yakima County can be
adequately addressed through the land use permitting process by requiring developments to
closely follow mitigation sequencing, and relying on the conditional uses established in the SMP.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:32:00 PM -24-
SHORELINE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
AND
SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN
FOR
YAKIMA COUNTY, WASHINGTON
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item 4 RestoPlan.doc
TABLE OF CONTENTS
PART 1
SHORELINE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Shoreline Areas
Table 1. - Jurisdictional Shoreline Areas
Key Yakima Subbasin Documents
Summary of Detailed and General Assessments for Shorelines Areas
Detailed Yakima County Shoreline Characterization
General Yakima County Shoreline Characterization
Table 2. Shoreline Habitat Conditions / Problems
SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN
Introduction
Regulatory Setting
Use of this Restoration Plan
Restoration Planning Approach
Goals, Policies and Prioritization for Restoration
Restoration Activities
Table 1. Yakima County Activities and Implementation Strategies
Non -County Activities
APPENDIX A
Existing and Proposed Restoration Programs
APPENDIX B
Existing and Proposed Projects for Habitat Restoration
APPENDIX C
Prioritization For Restoration
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item 4 RestoPlan.doc
— — 2
PART I
SHORELINE ASSESSMENT SUMMARY
Shoreline Areas
The Department of Ecology (DOE), which is the state agency responsible for overseeing the
regulation of the shorelines of the state, has identified the rivers, streams and lakes and portions
thereof, which constitute shorelines of the state (see below). The criteria set forth for identifying
these rivers and streams is defined in WAC 173-18-040 and states;
The streams have been identified from the point at which the stream reaches a mean annual
flow of twenty cubic feet per second down to the mouth of said stream or river. Rivers which
constitute shorelines of statewide significance are identified by the point at which the mean
annual flow exceeds two hundred cubic feet per second.
The criteria set forth for identifying Lakes and "Lakes of Statewide Significance" is defined in
WAC 173-20-030 and states;
"Lakes " means all the surface water areas of the state, including reservoirs; except lakes less
than twenty acres in size; and the Lakes ofstatewide significance means those lakes, whether
natural, artificial or a combination thereof, with a surface acreage of one thousand acres or
more measured at the ordinary high-water mark.
Table 1 below identifies all the shoreline areas that meet the statutory requirements of the
Shoreline Management Act. A large number of Shorelines listed in the table were not identified
as Shorelines in the Yakima County Shoreline Master Program or the Shoreline Administrative
Code (WAC 173-18, WAC 173-20), but were identified in the 2003 report titled, "Determination
of Upstream Boundary Points on Southeastern Washington Streams and Rivers Under
Requirements of the Shoreline Management Act of 1971". Water -Resources Investigations
Report 03-4042. US Geological Survey prepared in Cooperation with the Washington
Department of Ecology, and "Lakes of Washington Volume II Eastern Washington". 1973.
Water Supply Bulletin No. 14. Washington Department of Ecology. Due to the date of Water
Supply Bulletin No. 14, all of the lakes that were determined to meet the size criteria were
analyze through GIS to determine areal extent. Some of the lakes identified in the report were
part of irrigation systems that are no longer functioning; a few no longer exist, or were reduced
in size below the criteria to qualify as a Shoreline. A large number of identified Shorelines are
located in the Yakama Nation Closed Area, where Yakima County and the State of Washington
have no jurisdiction. In addition, a large number of identified Shorelines are within Federal
ownership, where Yakima County and the State of Washington have limited jurisdiction.
Much of the available shoreline assessment information focuses on a basin -wide analysis and
fails to mention some of the smaller jurisdictional streams or lakes. Therefore many of the tables
in the Restoration Plan are designed to associate the smaller shoreline tributaries, lakes, and
ponds with the larger basins that have assessment documentation. In most cases the larger basin
assessments provide information about their tributaries, though it is a lower level of detail than
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\ltem 4 RestoPlan.doc
3
the basin information. At a minimum, general statements of a basins' condition can be
extrapolated to the tributaries to some extent.
(TABLE FOLLOWS)
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item 4 RestoPlan.doc
Table 1. - Jurisdictional Shoreline Areas
Shoreline River
Associated Shoreline Tributaries
Associated Shoreline
Basin
Lakes or Ponds
Ahtanum Creek
North Fork Ahtanum
South Fork Ahtanum
American River*
Rainier Fork Creek*
Dewey Lake*
Union Creek*
Bumping River*
Deep Creek
Bumping Lake*
Cougar Creek
Twin Sister Lake*
Columbia River
Priest Rapid Pool
Cowiche Creek
South Fork Cowiche Creek
Cowiche Reservoir
Cis us River #
Muddy Fork Creek*
Klickitat River*
Big Muddy Creek*
Cougar Lake*
Bird Creek*
Fish Lake*
Brush Creek*
Howard Lake*
Butte Meadows*
Mt. Adams Lake*
Clearwater Creek*
Swamp Lake*
Crawford Creek*
Two Lakes — Lower*
Diamond Fork*
Two Lakes — Upper*
Dry Creek*
Fish Lake Stream*
Hellroaring Creek*
Huckleberry Creek*
Little Muddy Creek*
Piscoe Creek*
Rusk Creek (Avalanche Valley)*
Summit Creek*
Surveyors Creek*
Swamp Creek*
Teepee Creek*
Trappers Creek*
Trout Creek*
West Fork Klickitat River*
White Creek*
Little Naches River
South Fork Little Naches River*
Little Naches Middle Fork, Crow Creek*
Naches River
Willow Lake, Lake Aspen
Rattlesnake Creek*
Sams Creek*
Lo Creek*, North Fork Dry Creek*
Unnamed Lake Sec. 9 & 10, T9N, R22E
Tieton River
North Fork Tieton River*
Clear Lake*, Rimrock Lake*, Pear
South Fork Tieton River*
Lake*
Indian Creek*, Conrad Creek*
Leech Lake*, Dog Lake*
Clear Creek*
Toppenish Creek*
Simcoe Creek*
Mud Lake
(Grandview WWTP)
3 - Unnamed Lake Sec. 3,
T8N, R23E
(Graham & Morris Pits)
Unnamed Lake Sec. 32,
T1IN, R20E
Note: An asterisk (*) denotes that the stream or river or a portion thereof is located in an area with little to no Yakima County jurisdiction —i.e.
closed area of the Yakama Nation or wilderness areas. Note: The number sign (#) denotes that the majority of the River Basin is not in Yakima
County's shoreline jurisdiction only its tributaries.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item 4 RestoPlan.doc
Table 1 (Cont.) - Jurisdictional Shoreline Areas
Rivers
Associated Tributaries
Associated Lakes or Ponds
Wenas Lake
White Salmon
Gotchen Creek*
Creek#*
Hole in the Ground Creek*
Morrison Creek*
Unnamed Creek (Sec 29 & 31,
T7N, RIOE)*
Yakima River
Byron Ponds
Big Elton Pond
Buchanan Lake
Freeway Lake
Giffen Lake
Horseshoe Lake
Horseshoe Pond
Morgan Pond
Slaughterhouse Lake
Unnamed Lake Sec. 7 & 8,T9N,R22E
Unnamed Lake Sec.20, T9N, R22E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 18, T9N, R22E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 20, T9N, R21E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 21, TI IN, R20E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 17&20,TI IN,R20E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 35, T12N, R19E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 7, 8, 17 & 18, T9N, R22E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 31, T14N, R19E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 31, T14N, R19E & Sec. 6,
TON, R19E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 31, T14N, R19E
(Selah Pits) Unnamed Lake Sec. 30&31, T14N,
R19E
(Parker Pits) Unnamed Lake Sec. 20, T12N, R19E
Unnamed Lake Sec. 20&21, T12N, R19E
Note: An asterisk (*) denotes that the stream or river or a portion thereof is located in an area with little to no Yakima County jurisdiction —i.e.
closed area of the Yakama Nation or wilderness areas. Note: The number sign (#) denotes that the majority of the River Basin is not in Yakima
County's shoreline jurisdiction only its tributaries.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item 4 RestoPlan.doc
Key Yakima Subbasin Documents
Over the years the Yakima River basin has been extensively studied resulting in the development
of a number of comprehensive basin -wide reports, such as; the Watershed Management Plan',
the Yakima Subbasin Plan, the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plana, the Salmonid Habitat
Limiting Factors Analysis4 and the Yakima County Shoreline Characterization stud y5. The
information that these reports provided was crucial in the development of this Restoration Plan.
Brief excerpts from the introduction sections of each report are provided below to summarize the
different documents.
The Yakima Subbasin Plan The purpose of the Yakima Subbasin Plan (YSP) is to
provide the Council with a coherent and measurable plan for allocating Bonneville Power
Administration (BPA) fish and wildlife mitigation and restoration funds within the Yakima
Basin. The plan is intended to provide guidance to BPA and the Council on the general
locations and types of projects that would mitigate the impacts of the Federal Columbia
River Power System (FCRPS) on basin fish and wildlife resources, and also to aid the
Council in development ofstrategies for compliance with the Endangered Species Act (ESA)'
in tributaries such as the Yakima River. The plan identifies short and long term non -
regulatory strategies for restoring species habitat, and prioritizes those strategies relative to
type and location within the basin. An objective of the prioritization is to idents early
funding opportunities that provide basin -wide and species -wide restoration results. The
primary revenue source to implement plan strategies is BPA electric utility ratepayer funds
which fund restoration actions through the enactment by Congress of the 1980 Pacific
Northwest Electric Power Planning and Conservation Act (Power Act [P.L. 96-501]). Once
adopted by the Council, the Yakima Subbasin Plan, along with the plans from the other
subbasins within the Columbia system will become an amendment to the Columbia Basin
2000 Fish and Wildlife Program.
The Salmon Recovery Plan A recovery plan is a template for the recovery of a
threatened or endangered species and its habitats. The recovery plan describes a process to
remove the threats to the long-term survival and reverse the decline of a listed species. In
this plan, recovery is generally defined as the restoration of listed species such that they
become viable and harvestable components of their ecosystem. A recovery plan is a
'Watershed Management Plan — Yakima River Basin, Yakima River Basin Watershed Planning Unit and Tri -
County Water Resources Agency.
Yakima Subbasin Plan — November 26, 2004.
3 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan — 2005, Yakima Subbasin Fish and Wildlife Planning Board.
4 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors — Yakima River Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39,
Washington State Conservation Commission, December 2001 and Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors - Water
Resource Inventory Area 30, Klickitat December 2001.
s Yakima County Shoreline Characterization study, Central Washington University, 2005.
6 The Endangered Species Act of 1973 was passed to provide for the conservation of species which are in danger of
endangerment or extinction throughout all or a significant portion of their range and the conservation of the
ecosystems on which they depend. "Species" is defined by the Act to mean a species, a subspecies, or, for
vertebrates only, a distinct population.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item 4 RestoPlan.doc
— — 7
guidance document, intended to provide information to Federal Agencies (NOAA Fisheries
and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) that will lead to recovery of listed species and their
associated habitats. The plan provides information necessary to describe the current status
of the listed species as well as ongoing or proposed actions designed to aid in the recovery of
the species.
The Yakima Salmon Recovery Plan will describe a process to remove or minimize the threats
to steelhead and bull trout long-term survival and reverse their decline within the Yakima
Basin. This plan should also benefit other sensitive or at -risk species.
Habitat Limiting Factors Yakima River Watershed Section 10 of Engrossed
Substitute House Bill 2496 (Salmon Recovery Act of 1998), directs the Washington State
Conservation Commission, in consultation with local government and treaty tribes to invite
private, federal, state, tribal, and local government personnel with appropriate expertise to
convene as a Technical Advisory Group (TAG). The purpose of the TAG is to idents limiting
factors for salmonids. Limiting factors are defined as "conditions that limit the ability of
habitat to fully sustain populations of salmon, including all species of the family
Salmonidae. " Although the report is titled as a habitat limiting factors analysis (per the
legislation), it is important to note that the charge to the Conservation Commission in ESHB
2496 does not constitute a full limiting factors analysis in the true scientific sense. A full
habitat limiting factors analysis would require extensive additional scientific studies for each
of the subwatersheds in the Yakima Basin (Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA) 37-39
(see location in Figure 1)). Analysis of hatchery, hydro, and harvest impacts would also be
part of a comprehensive limiting factors analysis; these elements are not addressed in this
report, but are being considered in other forums.
Watershed Management Plan Yakima River Basin The Yakima River Basin
Watershed Planning Unit was formed in 1998 to develop a comprehensive watershed
management plan for the Yakima River Basin. The Planning Unit represents local
governments, citizens and landowners, irrigation districts, conservation districts, State
agencies and others.. The Watershed Plan provides a "road map" for maintaining and
improving the Basin's economic base, planning responsibly for expected growth in
population, managing water resources for the long-term, and protecting the Basin's natural
resources and fish runs. This Watershed Plan was developed under local leadership, using a
grant from the State of Washington under the provisions of the Watershed Management Act
(Chapter 90.82 RCW). During the four year period for Plan development, landowners, local
governments, the Yakama Nation and state and federal agencies have continued to work on
improving watershed conditions throughout the Yakima Basin. This planning process
provides additional support and focus for many of these ongoing activities.
Watershed Assessment - Yakima River Basin In 1998, the Tri -County Water
Resources Agency (TCWRA) initiated development of a water -resource management
program for the Yakima Basin, under the State of Washington's Watershed Management Act
(WMA). TCWRA invited interested persons and agencies to join the Yakima River Basin
Watershed Planning Unit. During Phase I of the planning process, the Planning Unit was
organized. During Phase II (documented in this report), a Watershed Assessment was
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item 4 RestoPlan.doc
— — 8
conducted to compile technical information. During the upcoming Phase III, key issues for
planning are further outlined and a set of water -resource management strategies will be
developed for the Watershed Plan.
The Watershed Assessment summarizes technical information only. It does not include
decisions or development of water -resource management strategies. It provides information
for a work product that is expected to evolve further during the Planning Phase.
Summary of Detailed and General Assessments for Shorelines Areas
In addition to the above documents, an inventory and assessment of the Yakima County
Shorelines has been conducted by Central Washington University. Unfortunately, the Shoreline
Inventory and Characterization was completed with out the information from the 2003
USGS/Department of Ecology report that identified a substantial number of new Shorelines in
Yakima County. This is a detailed inventory and assessment concentrated on the Shorelines
identified in the existing SMP and the Shoreline WACs. The Shoreline reaches covered are the
ones primarily affected by development. The remaining Shorelines not covered by the CWU
analysis are addressed in this report. Generally, these Shorelines are in federal or tribal
jurisdiction, or have extremely limited development pressure.
Detailed Yakima County Shoreline Characterization.
Parts of section 1 (Introduction) is provided below to summarize the detailed assessment of
Shorelines in Yakima County.
"The purpose of this study is to conduct a baseline inventory of abiotic, biological and
cultural conditions in Yakima County's shoreline jurisdiction to provide the basis for
the County's Shoreline Master Program update as defined by the state's Shoreline
Management Act (RCW 90.58). This characterization will help the County identify
existing conditions, determine functions and values of shoreline resources, and explore
opportunities for conservation and restoration of ecological functions within the
shoreline jurisdiction. These findings will help provide a framework for future updates
to the County's shoreline environment designations and shoreline management policies
and regulations."
General Yakima County Shoreline Characterization To extend the shoreline
characterization to the remainder of shoreline areas in the County, the documents referenced
above were reviewed. As discussed above, significant efforts have been made on the
management and restoration of aquatic wildlife and habitat in the Yakima River basin, which
have resulted in many assessment documents that cover the entire basin. Table 2, below,
provides a brief assessment description of the jurisdictional shoreline areas of Yakima County.
This is only a brief description of the general condition of each shoreline area that focuses on the
descriptions of problems or degraded areas. For detailed assessment information on these
shoreline areas, a "Referenced Sources" column is provided that lists additional resources of
information. The form and much content of the table itself is derived from Tables 2-7 and 2-8
(Habitat Conditions and Problems Matrix) from the Watershed Management Plan. Other
additional assessment information was used to fill any data gaps or data clarification.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\ltem 4 RestoPlan.doc
9
Table 2. Shoreline Habitat Conditions / Problems
Shoreline River
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
Basin & Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Yakima River
Reach highly channelized in Yakima Canyon where complexity is low and
watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002 pg. 2-20 through 2-23.
( Wilson Creek - Parker
flow velocities from reservoir release higher than optimal for rearing juveniles
➢ Habitat Limiting Factors
Dam)
which need side channel refuge. Water quality generally excellent although
Yakima River watershed
(4) Unnamed Lakes,
high sediments are periodically received from Wilson Creek and Teanaway
water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. loo
Buchanan Lake,
River. Sediment settles behind Roza Dam and is a problem to downstream
Freeway Lake
spawning areas when flushed out. Woody debris nearly absent as recruitment
Plan
➢ November 6 Yakima 26th,
, 2004 pg. 274
limited to up river sources. Levees/highways confine channels near the City of
Yakima restrict floodplain function.'
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg.28
Yakima River
Reach important as a migratory corridor and of secondary importance for
watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002 pg. 2-20 through 2-23.
(Parker Dam -
spawning; instream flow significantly lower than upstream reaches, serious
Habitat Limiting Factors
Toppenish Crk)
water quality problems, including fecal coliform, sediment loads from
Yakima River watershed
(2) Unnamed Lakes,
agricultural drains and associated pesticide residues. Portions of reach
water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. loo.
3 Unnamed Lake
O
channelized with deficient riparian cover, off channel habitats exist with
potential for more connectivity to local sloughs and oxbow lakes.'
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 274
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 28
Yakima River
Reach seriously degraded by toxicants (metals, PCBs, pesticides), fecal
➢ watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002 pg. 2-20 through 2-23.
(Toppenish Crk —
coliform, and elevated temperatures. Sediments from drains blanket slough
Habitat Limiting Factors
Mouth)
like river bottom. Flows significantly reduced in 10 mile stretch near Prosser
Yakima River watershed
(4) Unnamed Lakes
due to Chandler Power Plant. Localized deficiencies in riparian shade and off
water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. loo.
Slaughterhouse Lake,
channel rearing. Important migratory corridor. Fall chinook spawn in this
Morgan Lake,
reach.
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 274
Gwen Lake
Horseshoe Lake &
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 28
Pond, Bron Ponds
Note: The above information should be used as general guidance and verified by qualified biologists or engineers to ensure accuracy and exact location before starting any potential restoration
program. Note: An asterisk (*) denotes that the stream or river or a portion thereof is located in an area with little to no Yakima County jurisdiction — i.e. closed area of the Yakama Nation,
wilderness areas, or US Forest Service areas.
' Tables 2-7 and 2-8 Habitat Conditions and Problems Matrix — Mainstem River Reaches Chapter 2 — Existing Conditions, Watershed Management Plan Nov.
2002, pg. 2-20 through 2-23.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
10
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Ahtanum Creek
Fish passage barriers and dewatered reaches due to irrigation diversions
watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
North Fork Ahtanum Creek
(some unscreened) block access to upper forested watershed where habitat is
Habitat Limiting Factors
South Fork Ahtanum Creek
generally good. Livestock impacts in riparian areas. Riparian areas
Yakima River watershed
water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 174.
suboptimal. Sedimentation from roads. Pesticide residues documented in
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
water, sediment and fish tissue. 7
Central Washington University 2005
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 274.
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 28
American River
Generally excellent habitat with good spawning gravels and abundant woody
watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
Rainier Fork Creek*, Union
debris, fish passage problems in natural gorge during low flow. Some
➢ Habitat Limiting Factors
Dewey
Creek*, Dewe Lake*
impassable waterfalls.
Yakima River Watershed
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 22 1.
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
Central Washington University 2005
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 362.
Bumping River
Supports spawning below unladdered dam, high flows during spawning
➢ watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
Bumping Lake
elevated water temperatures.' Ecological functions along Bumping Lake are
principally impaired by residential development, which covers 21.5% of the
Habitat Limiting Factors
Yakima River watershed
jurisdiction. These land uses, in addition to the 1.6 miles of roads, account
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 217.
for the majority of the estimated 17% of the reach that is greater than 10%
impervious. There is one impassable dam within the SMP jurisdiction.
➢ Yakima County Shoreline inventory and Characterization Study,
Upland vegetation has been removed and replaced with buildings and lawns,
Central Washington University 2005 Section 4
which can promote increased runoff and nonpoint source pollution. One
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
DOE site/facility is found in the SMP jurisdiction, though the lake is not
November 26th, 2004 pg. 345.
listed is a 303(d) -listed waterbody. Much of the reach is presently
undeveloped (70.5%), hile 2.2% is covered by wetlands. The reach provides
habitat for one species of concern, the Townsend's big -eared bat, three
wildlife heritage locations, and aquatic habitat for three fish species. 8
Note: The above information should be used as general guidance and verified by qualified biologists or engineers to ensure accuracy and exact location before starting any potential restoration
program. Note: An asterisk (*) denotes that the stream or river or a portion thereof is located in an area with little to no Yakima County jurisdiction — i.e. closed area of the Yakama Nation, US
Forest Service areas or wilderness areas.
'Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study, Central Washington University 2005,
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
11
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Bumping River
High quality habitat for bull trout, anadromous fish migration blocked by
watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
Twin Sister Lake*
dam. Fine sediment problems in gravels in selected tributaries. Natural
Habitat Limiting Factors
Dee Creek*
P
waterfall barriers in watershed.
Yakima River watershed
water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 217.
Cougar Creek*
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
Central Washington University 2005
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 362.
Columbia River
Species including coho, fall chinook, Sockeye, Spring chinook, summer
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
Priest Rapids Pool
chinook, summer steelhead, and winter steelhead are all present along this
Central Washington University 2005
stretch of the Columbia River.
The waters that lie below the passable dam along the Columbia River SMP
jurisdiction are identified as spawning and rearing habitat for fall chinook and
summer chinook (WDFW, 2004c). Adequate habitat is expected for 26
species of resident fish in this reach, including black bullhead, black crappie,
bridglip sucker, brown bullhead, brown trout, burbot, carp, channel catfish,
chiselmouth, crappie, lake whitefish, largemouth bass, longnose sucker,
mottled sculpin, Pacific lamprey, pumpkinseed, rainbow trout, redside shiner,
sculpin, smallmouth bass, sunfish, three spine stickleback, walleye pike,
white crappie, yellow bullhead, and yellow perch. The American shad is the
only species listed as being blocked by the Priest Rapids Dam. Ecological
functions along Reach 1 are principally impaired by government and
industrial -transportation development, which covers 49.8% of the
jurisdiction. These land uses, in addition to the 0.6 miles of roads and 8.4
miles of abandoned railroad, account for the majority of the estimated 3.8%
of the reach that is greater than 10% impervious. In addition, one dam occurs
along the reach (Priest Rapids Dam). Much of the reach is presently
undeveloped (41.5%), while 2.3% is covered by wetlands. The reach
provides habitat for six species of concern, as well as five priority habitats
and aquatic habitat for 33 fish species, including anadromous fish.
Cowiche Creek
Numerous barriers and diversions (some unscreened), degraded riparian areas
watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
South Fork Cowiche Creek
and low flows in North Fork, Sediment problems (e.g. bank Sloughing) and
➢ Habitat Limiting Factors
Cowiche Reservoir
water temperature exceedanceS.
Yakima River Watershed
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 194.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
12
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
13
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
Central Washington University 2005
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 345.
Cispus River#
Cispus River Watershed
➢ Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery And Fish & Wildlife
Muddy Fork Creek*
The Cispus River watershed is located in the eastern half of WRIA 26, in the
Subbasin Plan Volume II — Subbasin Plan Chapter F —
northeast portion of the region. The Cispus River originates on the flanks of
Cowlitz, Coweeman and Toutle - Grays-Flochoman and
Cowlitz Rivers (WRIAS 25-26) Watershed Management Plan
Mt. Adams and the higher peaks along the Cascade Crest. The watershed is
comprised of 37 subwatersheds covering a total of approximately 278,800
acres (436 sq mi)...
Current Conditions.— Hydrologic conditions across the Cispus River
watershed range from functional to moderately impaired, with functional
subwatersheds located in most headwaters areas and along the mainstem of
the Cispus River. Subwatersheds rated moderately impaired include the upper
NF Cispus (40902-40904), Iron Creek (50501-50503), and Muddy Creek
(40401, 40402), upper Adams Creek (40502) and Goat Creek (40101). The
Muddy Fork, Adams Creek and Goat Creek subwatersheds are all located in
Wilderness Areas, and originate in high elevation areas above the tree line.
Therefore, hydrologic conditions within these subwatersheds are expected to
be functional as opposed to moderately impaired. Hydrologic conditions in
the Cispus and its smaller tributaries subwatersheds, including Yellowjacket
Creek, are in good condition. As shown in Figure 31, the relatively intact
hydrologic conditions in the Cispus headwaters appear to buffer hydrologic
conditions in the mainstem subwatersheds and the lower areas of the NF.
Predicted Future Trends.— Nearly all of the land area in the Cispus River
watershed lies within GPNF, and is managed by the USFS. Wetland area in
the uplands of the Cispus River is limited. Hydrologically mature forest cover
in these subwatersheds is generally higher than in other areas of the region
(averaging 60%) and road densities are low to moderate (28 subwatersheds
<3 mi/sq mi). Due to the high percentage of public land ownership, forest
cover within these subwatersheds is predicted to generally mature and
improve. Based on this information, hydrologic conditions are predicted to
trend stable or improve gradually over the next 20 years.
Other streams referred to in the LFA include Greenhorn Creek (50401), Iron
Creek
(50501-50503), Orr Creek (40702), and Woods Creek (50601) (Wade 2000).
Orr and Greenhorn Creeks are headwaters tributaries, and are characterized
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
13
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
14
by functional hydrologic conditions. The subwatersheds in the Iron Creek
drainage and the Woods Creek subwatershed are characterized by moderately
impaired hydrologic conditions. All of these subwatersheds have moderate to
high road densities (3.0-4.4 mi/sq mi), and three out of four of these
subwatersheds have moderately high stream crossing densities. Given the
high road densities and the public land ownership, hydrologic conditions in
these subwatersheds will probably remain constant or improve gradually over
the next 20 years.
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Klickitat River
Streams in the forested portion of the subbasin, both on and off the
➢ Klickitat Subbasin Plan
Big Muddy Creek*
Reservation, have suffered from past and current forest practices, including
May 28th 2004 pgs. 126-179
Bird Creek*
timber harvest and road construction in riparian areas, poor design and
p p g
➢ Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors
Brush Creek*
Butte Meadows*
maintenance of roads and crossings, skidding on steep slopes and upstream
water Resource Inventory Areas 30
Clearwater Creek*
channels, off-season use of wet roads with resulting erosion, and facilitation
Klickitat watershed 2001 pg. 29.
Crawford Creek*
of overgrazing by providing cattle access over logging roads to riparian areas.
Diamond Fork*
Most of these are continuing. 9
Dry creek*
Fish Lake Stream*
problems
Development of flood lain and wetlands is limited over a large portion of
p p g
Hellroaring Creek*
the watershed by the geology and topography of the basin. Deeply incised
Huckleberry Creek*
canyons with narrow valley floors comprise most of the mainstem, as well as
Little Muddy Creek*
substantial portion of most fish bearing tributaries. 10
Piscoe Creek*
Rusk Creek (Avalanche
On the plateau, relatively low valley gradients have allowed for alluvial
Valley)*
floodplain development along the mainstem above Castile Falls (RM 64.5),
Summit creek*
The portion of the river around Castile Falls (RM 64.0). This is a series of 11
Surveyors Creek*
falls with a net elevation change of approximately 80 feet over one-half mile.
Swamp Creek*
Teepee Creek*
This is considered the historic upper limit of anadramous fish use on the
Trappers Creek*
mainstem.. Quality of potential habitat above the falls is very good for
Trout creek*
Steelhead, spring Chinook, and Coho, perhaps the best in the watershed. Its
West Fork Klickitat River*
location far above the hatchery greatly reduces the potential for interaction
White Creek*
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
14
Cougar Lake*
with hatchery fish, increasing the likelihood of eventual development of true
Fish Lake*
11
wild StOC1CS.
Howard Lake*
Mt. Adams Lake*
W. Fork Klickitat River Falls (RM4.6). This 12 -foot falls is regarded as a
Swamp Lake*
barrier to all species. Habitat quality above the falls is considered fair to poor
Two Lakes — Lower*
due to high gradients and high sediment loads from alpine glaciers, and cold
Two Lakes —Upper*
(<6oC) water temperatures year round. No flow regulation occurs within the
watershed; all flows in the watershed occur within a natural flow regimen,
with the exception of portions of Outlet Creek, Hellroaring Creek, Swale
Creek, and the Little Klickitat River, where diversions for water supply and
irrigation occur." In the upper subbasin, an unpaved major haul road follows
the upper Klickitat River from RM 66 to RM 78. Within this section, the road
is directly in the floodplain for 40 percent of its length, cutting off side
channels and river meanders. Notable tributaries include Diamond Fork (RM
76.8) and McCreedy creek. Low egg survival for fall chinook is believed to
be the result of glacial sediment from Big Muddy Creek in the Klickitat
River. In addition, culverts on White Creek and Trout Creek traversed by
logging roads within the reservation have been identified as potential barriers.
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Little Naches River
Extensively logged watershed with sediment erosion problems (e.g.
➢ Watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
South Fork Little Naches
embedded gravels, riparian zone damage), deficient large woody debris. High
Habitat Limiting Factors
River, Crow Creek
water temperatures. Natural waterfall barriers.
Yakima River Watershed
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 224.
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
Central Washington University 2005
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
9 Klickitat Subbasin Plan, May 28`11 2004, pg. 126
10 Klickitat Subbasin Plan, May 28`11 2004, pg. 12
11 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors — Water Resource Area 30, Klickitat Watershed, 2001 pg. 29
12 Klickitat Subbasin Plan, May 28t11
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
15
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
16
November 26h, 2004 pg. 345.
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 27.
Naches River
Reach highly productive for spawning, second best in basin. Problems
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan — 2005
Willow Lake, Lake Aspen
include lack of off channel rearing habitat; channel confinement by
Habitat Limiting Factors
levees/road limiting riparian function (e.g. LWD recruitment), numerous
Yakima River Watershed
diversions resulting in low flow problems mainly associated with Wapatox
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 184.
Power Canal which significantly impact flow in a 7 mile reach and cause
water temperature increaseS.6 Most of these braided, alluvial floodplain
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
reaches have been simplified by artificial confinement and profound
Central Washington University 2005
alterations of the flow and sediment transport regime, with the most severe
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
effects on the lower Naches below the Tieton confluence. Highways, gravel
November 26th, 2004 pg. 274 & 345.
pits, levees, local roads, agriculture, irrigation diversions, rural and urban
development have become permanent fixtures on the landscape. These
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 27.
floodplain activities and structures have degraded, removed, or altered the
functional condition of the river -floodplain ecosystem. 13
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Rattlesnake Creek
Accessible high quality habitat. Peak flows scour channel. Some waterfall
watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
barriers and culvert passage problems.' Rattlesnake Creek provides good to
excellent habitats in its middle and upper reaches. In the lower reaches of
➢ Salmon Recovery Plan
Rattlesnake Creek, irrigation diversions and low flow, floodplain loss, and
Habitat Limiting Factors
accumulation of coarse sediments limit habitat availability and diversity, and
Yakima River Watershed
can present significant in -migration barriers for steelhead and bull trout.
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 208.
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
Central Washington University 2005
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 345.
Toppenish Creek*
This watershed is quite large, and has the potential to be a major producer of
Habitat Limiting Factors
Simcoe Creek*
steelhead and perhaps Coho. It is currently one of the two largest tributary
Yakima River watershed
Mud Lake
producers of steelhead in the Yakima River watershed (Evenson/Lind).
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 154.
However, the watershed is heavily impacted by the Wa ato irrigation Project.
Yakima Subbasin Plan
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
16
13 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan — 2005, Section 3.4.5 Naches River, pg. 27.
14 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Yakima River Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39, Washington State Conservation
Commission, December 2001, pg. 155.
" Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Yakima River Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39, Washington State Conservation Commission,
December 2001, pg. 146-153.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
17
The watershed suffers from several distinct types of habitat problems (first
four are directly attributable to WIP operations), including: Dewatered
reaches, Degraded water quality (i.e., temperature, suspended sediment,
agricultural chemicals), Fish passage problems, altered and simplified
channels in middle and lower Toppenish and Simcoe creeks, Hunting club
waterfowl ponds, riparian degradation, Loss of floodplain, riparian wetlands,
and multiple channels. 14
November 26h, 2004 pg. 274
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 27.
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Sams Creek
Natural low stream flows in lower Dry creek impair spawner, postemergent
➢ watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
North Fork Dry Creek,
fry, and parr movement and survival; low stream flows in the creek may be
➢ Habitat Limiting Factors
Logy Creek,
exacerbated by upslope land -use practices. The largest impacts from
Yakima River watershed
Unnamed Lake
floodplain confinement are associated with SR 97 construction and prior
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 146.
presence of Lakebeds Road in upper Sams Creek (YSS 2001 DRAFT).
Major floods in 1996 and 1997 extensively destabilized the channels
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26�, 2004 pg. 274
throughout the mid -elevations of the Sams Creek watershed (G. McCoy).
Substrate condition in Sams Creek is rated as good, with sedimentation rated
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 27.
as fair/good (CBSP 1990). Sams Creek has excessive fines throughout, but
improves somewhat in the upper reaches upstream of High Bridge (RM 30.1).
The presence of fines is highly variable throughout the Sams Creek watershed
(YSS 2001 DRAFT). Logy Creek substrate condition is generally good, with
the exception of the lower reach in the Sheep Camp area, where grazing has
resulted in presence of excess fines in the gravels. Dry Creek has excessive
fines in the lower portion, and improves significantly in the upper reaches.
Fairly large areas of the Sams watershed have suffered riparian damage from
13 Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan — 2005, Section 3.4.5 Naches River, pg. 27.
14 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Yakima River Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39, Washington State Conservation
Commission, December 2001, pg. 155.
" Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Yakima River Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39, Washington State Conservation Commission,
December 2001, pg. 146-153.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
17
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
18
past "unrestricted streamside grazing" (CBSP 1990), and from irrigation
drains, which have lowered the water table along the creek (YSS 2001
DRAFT). Overall riparian condition is rated as fair/good in Dry Creek,
fair/good in Logy Creek. Riparian damage is not uniformly distributed (G.
McCoy), with much of the damage consisting primarily of bank sloughing;
many impacted areas still support fair numbers of large trees that often
provide adequate shading. "
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
Tieton River
Tieton Dam blocks access to upper watershed, increased flow releases during
➢ watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
Rimrock Lake
September (flip-flop) suboptimal for rearing salmonids, low winter flows due
➢ Habitat Limiting Factors
to storage, deficient gravel recruitment and deficient large woody debris/ pool
Yakima River watershed
development below dam.'
water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 196.
Ecological functions along Rimrock Lake are principally impaired by
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
industrial -transportation, governmental, and residential development, which
Central Washington University 2005
covers 7.3% of the jurisdiction. These land uses, in addition to the 6.1 miles
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
of roads, account for the majority of the estimated 35.3% of the reach that is
November 26th, 2004 pg. 345.
greater than 10% impervious. In addition, 1 bridge crossings and one
impassable dam occur along the reach. Upland vegetation has been removed
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 27.
and replaced with buildings and lawns, which can promote increased runoff
and nonpoint source pollution. Much of the reach is presently undeveloped
(86.1%), while 16.2% is covered by wetlands. The reach provides habitat for
one species of concern, the Townsend's big -eared bat, four natural heritage
sites, and three priority habitats. 8
North & South Fork
Generally excellent habitat for bull trout with generally abundant woody
debris and pool development. Inaccessible to anadromous fish due to
➢ watershed Management Plan Nov. 2002
➢ Habitat Limiting Factors
Tieton River
Indian & Conrad Creeks,
unladdered dam. Sediment erosion problems attributed to logging, grazing
Yakima River watershed
Clear Creek*, Clear Lake*
and recreation. 7
Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39 Dec. 2001 pg. 196.
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study,
Central Washington University 2005
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan
November 26th, 2004 pg. 345.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
18
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
19
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, 2005 pg. 27.
Shoreline River Basin
Habitat Condition
Referenced Sources
& Associated
Shoreline
Tributaries, Lakes,
Ponds
White Salmon Creek#
Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 29 is a historically important Source
for production of anadromous fish in the Lower Columbia river basin. Two
➢ Habitat Limiting Factors wind/White Salmon watershed
(WIR A 29)
Gotchen Creek*
Hole in the Ground Creek*
large stream systems, the Wind and White Salmon rivers historically provided
Morrison Creek*
abundant habitat for natural spawning salmon and steelhead. Small stocks in
several small WRIA 29 tributaries provided lesser amounts of production.
Hydroelectric development in the White Salmon river, construction of
Bonneville Dam with its associated pool, logging in the Gifford Pinchot
National Forest, poorly designed and installed culverts, especially along state
highway 14, and other factors have had a serious detrimental effect on the
aquatic resources in WRIA 29. The Wind River remains as a viable
anadromous fish producer even though its habitat has been severely impacted.
Stream cleanouts, past timber harvest, particularly in riparian areas, the
presence of a dam with a poorly designed fish ladder, a lack of large woody
debris, mass bedload movement, loss of floodplain capacity and increased
siltation are a few of the impacts evident in the Wind River
The habitat picture in WRIA 29 is not totally bleak. The United States
Northwest Forest Plan coupled with an active watershed council is making
significant progress in restoring habitat in the Wind River basin. One the
White Salmon River negotiations are underway to remove Conduit Dam, a
hydroelectric facility that has blocked anadromous fish passage at river mile
3.3 since 1919.
This report lists the major habitat limiting factors in WRIA 29. Limited
restoration funds should be targeted at this area. Over time, It may be possible
to restore this once highly roductive watershed to near its former level
Wenas Lake
Wenas Lake, at RM 14.7, was constructed in the early 19305 as an irrigation
➢ Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Yakima River
storage reservoir, and the reservoir also provides recreational fishing
Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39,
Washington State Conservation Commission, December 2001,
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
19
opportunities. The dam at the outlet of the lake does not have fish passage. pg. 234
Water retention in the lake also results in increased water temperatures that
would likely be lethal to salmonids. 16
Note: The above information should be used as general guidance and verified by qualified biologists or engineers to ensure accuracy and exact location before starting any potential restoration
program. Note: An asterisk denotes that the stream or river or a portion thereof is located in an area with little to no Yakima County jurisdiction — i.e. closed area of the Yakama Nation,
wilderness areas, or US Forest Service areas.
16 Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Yakima River Watershed, Water Resource Inventory Areas 37-39, Washington State Conservation Commission,
December 2001, pg. 234.
C:ADocuments and Settings\philr\Desktop\John\Item_4 RestoPlan.doc
20
PART 2
SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN
Introduction
Based on the new Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (hereafter referred to as the Guidelines),
Washington Administrative Code 173-26, local governments are required to develop goals,
policies and implementation strategies (a restoration plan) to address the restoration of degraded
shoreline areas during the review and update of their shoreline master programs. A restoration
plan is a guide to upgrade or reestablish ecological shoreline functions through measures that
rehabilitate or reestablish the physical, chemical, or biological site characteristics. A restoration
plan must be coordinated with all other components of the shoreline master program while
encouraging the protection of shoreline areas from significant degradation resulting from
development or other human activity. This Restoration Plan will follow the same update
schedule as the CAO/SMP.
The Guidelines require Yakima County to assemble the most current and complete scientific and
technical information available on shoreline ecosystems. This comprehensive inventory of
material include all known current or planned habitat and restoration programs in the County.
The development of this Restoration Plan represents an important precedent in creating an
integrated, comprehensive program for the restoration of degraded shoreline areas in Yakima
County. It shows a clear commitment on the part of the County to influence restoration of
shoreline and habitat areas as a whole, rather being one of a number of independent programs
working separately with little to no knowledge of area -wide restoration programs.
Re2ulatory Setting
The mandate for preparing the restoration plan is found in the WAC 173-26-186 (8) (c) and 173-
26-201 (2) (f) and states:
WAC 173-26-186 Governing principles of the guidelines
(8) Through numerous references to and emphasis on the maintenance, protection,
restoration, and preservation of'fagile" shoreline "natural resources, " 'public health, " "the
land and its vegetation and wildlife," "the waters and their aquatic life," "ecology," and
"environment, " the act makes protection of the shoreline environment an essential statewide
policy goal consistent with the other policy goals of the act. It is recognized that shoreline
ecological functions may be impaired not only by shoreline development subject to the
substantial development permit requirement of the act but also by past actions, unregulated
activities, and development that is exempt from the act's permit requirements. The principle
regarding protecting shoreline ecological systems is accomplished by these guidelines in
several ways, and in the context ofrelated principles. These include:
(c) For counties and cities containing any shorelines with impaired ecological functions,
master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such
impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall idents existing
policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and idents any
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 21
additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals.
These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use
of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration
of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of
other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as
well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development
regulations and mitigation standards.
Shoreline Restoration Planning. Consistent with principle WAC 173-26-186 (8) (c), master
programs shall include goals, policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline
ecological functions. These master program provisions should be designed to achieve overall
improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon
adoption of the master program. The approach to restoration planning may vary
significantly among local jurisdictions, depending on:
(a) The size of the jurisdiction;
(b) The extent and condition of shorelines in the jurisdiction;
(c) The availability ofgrants, volunteer programs or other tools for restoration; and
(d) The nature of the ecological functions to be addressed by restoration planning.
Master program restoration plans shall consider and address the following subjects:
■ Idents degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for
ecological restoration;
■ Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and impaired
ecological functions;
■ Idents existing and ongoing projects and programs that are currently being
implemented, or are reasonably assured of being implemented (based on an evaluation of
funding likely in the foreseeable future), which are designed to contribute to local
restoration goals;
■ Idents additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration goals, and
implementation strategies including identifying prospective funding sources for those
projects and programs;
■ Idents timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs
and achieving local restoration goals;
■ Provide 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.
Use of this Restoration Plan
The Shoreline Assessment Summary and Shoreline Restoration Plan describes to the general
public Yakima County's restoration goals and strategies, degraded shoreline areas, existing and
planned restoration programs, timelines and benchmarks, incentives and tools for restoration
planning. This document is intended to provide information regarding both public and private
sector restoration activities.
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 22
There is limited information regarding private restoration projects; nevertheless, private property
owners planning for the future can use the information in this Restoration Plan to help guide
them on restoring or protecting their shoreline areas. If a private property owner has property
that needs some level of shoreline restoration, there are a number of options available: selling
their property, developing their property, or restoring their property. Property owners can use
the information in this document to determine what types or levels of restoration are possible on
their property, and what levels of mitigation may be required if they were to develop their
property and go through the permitting process. Other property owners seeking mitigation sites
could find potential opportunities in this document as well.
In addition, public or private entities with potential restoration funds can use the information in
this document to identify potential restoration sites. But ultimately the document provides all
interested parties with a source that addresses local restoration goals, identifies the degraded
shoreline areas, and identifies those existing programs or opportunities to restore degraded areas.
It is important that the information from habitat and restoration programs be made available for
the general public. Therefore, having restoration programs and other pertinent information
cataloged and stored in easily accessible locations for future reference provides interested
individuals and agencies with the opportunity to utilize these programs. In order to increase
awareness of potential restoration opportunities, the County will make this document available to
property owners owning properties that have been identified as presenting restoration
opportunities. It will also be referenced in pre -application materials provided to potential
applicants for shoreline permits.
Agencies could list their restoration information on their websites and include links to other
known restoration resources. Yakima County Public Services Department has made this plan
available to the public via the county website at www.co.yakima.wa.us and copies are available
at the Department of Public Services.
Restoration Planning Approach
There are few river basins in the state that have more restoration efforts under way than the
Yakima River Basin. Because of this Yakima County's role in shoreline restoration is of
reduced importance than in other basins with fewer independent restoration efforts.
Consequently, Yakima County's method of restoration planning is a two -prong approach.
• The first approach is planning for those County activities that affect or perform restoration.
• The second approach is providing guidance to non -County restoration projects to help focus
them on high priority restoration opportunities.
This two -prong approach recognizes that Yakima County cannot dictate how other independent
agencies or entities in the restoration field will choose projects to undertake or how they will
prioritize their activities. Yakima County can only control its own activities relating to
restoration and suggest restoration actions to others.
In developing this Restoration Plan, Yakima County had discussions with key players in
shoreline and habitat restoration, which provided the participating jurisdictions and organizations
the opportunity to exchange information, coordinate their planning efforts, and generally share
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 23
the problems and experiences related to development and management of their individual habitat
and restoration programs. There are over twenty-five non -county restoration programs currently
being implemented and/or planned in Yakima County. The bulk of the programs, which are
described in detail in Appendi A, support and foster habitat restoration, specifically for
salmonids. Many of the non -county programs are supported and implemented by multiple
agencies working together to accomplish a common goal.
To successfully gather as much information on restoration programs as possible, it was necessary
to consult with a variety of federal, state and local agencies or organizations, as listed below.
These entities are actively involved in shoreline and habitat restoration in Yakima County.
(1) Environmental Protection Agency
(EPA),
(2) Bonneville Power Administration
(BPA),
(3) Yakama Nation (YN),
(4) Natural Resources Conservation
Service (NRCS),
(5) United States Forest Service (USFS),
(6) United State Fish and Wildlife
(USFW),
(7) United State Department of
Agriculture (USDA),
(8) Bureau of Reclamation (BOR),
(9) US Army Corps of Engineers
(ACOS),
(10) Washington Stat Department of
Natural Resources (WADNR),
(11) Salmon Recovery Fund Board
(SRFB),
(12) Washington Department of Fish and
Wildlife (WDFW),
(13) Central Washington University (CWU),
(14) Washington State Conservation
Commission.
(15) City of Yakima
(16) City of Union Gap
(17) North Yakima Conservation District
(18) South Yakima Conservation District
(19) Irrigation Districts — Roza,
Sunnyside, Naches Selah, Selah &
Moxee
(20) Cowiche Canyon Conservancy
(21) The Nature Conservancy
(22) Yakima Greenway
Yakima County encourages future collaborative partnerships among public and private agencies
that have similar restoration goals and programs. These types of partnerships often eliminate
redundant policies and regulations thus streamlining the restoration process and enabling the
programs to be more effective.
Goals, Policies and Prioritization for Restoration
Goals and Policies The goals and policies listed below are existing goals and policies
from the Yakima County Comprehensive Plan 2015 (Plan 2015), the existing shoreline master
program (SMP), or are new proposed policies as part of the CAO/SMP update(un-numbered at
this time).
Goal 1 — Maintain, restore and where necessary improve the shoreline terrestrial and aquatic
ecosystems so that they maintain viable, reproducing populations of plants and animals while
providing the maximum public benefit of limited amounts of shoreline areas. (Plan 2015 Goal
NS 7)
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 24
Policy 1 - Provide, where feasible and desirable, restoration of degraded areas along the
shorelines of Yakima County (SMP, Ch 3, Restoration, pg 18) (Plan 2015 NS 7.8).
Goal 2 - Protect all shorelines so that there is no net loss of ecological functions from both
individual permitted development and individual exempt development (NS X.X).
Policy 2 - Assure that shoreline development in Yakima County is consistent with the character
and physical limitations of the land and water. Promote a viable pattern of land and water uses
while minimizing adverse effects upon environmental quality. (SMP, Ch 3, Shoreline Use, pg
17).
Priorities for Restoration It is the intent of Yakima County to implement these goals
and policies through development review and permit enforcement. Many of the county -wide
degraded shoreline areas have been prioritized for non -county project restoration based upon
processes established by various plans, such as; the Watershed Management Plan, the Yakima
Subbasin Plan, the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, and Salmonid Habitat Limiting
Factors Analysis. Even with the complexity and detail of the previously mentioned reports,
prioritizing shoreline restoration is very difficult. With the lack of consistent methods to assess
implementation success and the lack of defined benchmarks, only broad generalizations
regarding the effectiveness of current activities can be given.
Each plan has identified specific restoration opportunities directly or indirectly through their
assessment sections. The Watershed Management Plan's prioritization method is a good
example of an approach taken by a non -County program that places a higher priority on
protecting the best shorelines first. This is to avoid the loss of those valuable high-quality
shoreline areas before restoration can begin on non -county degraded shoreline projects. This
prioritization approach is identified in Appendix C.
It is the intent of Yakima County to continue to be a major player in the current or future
development of plans, such as those listed above. However, with regards to degraded shoreline
areas Yakima County has no authority to initiate, fund or prioritize restoration projects on private
property. Yakima County can only review, monitor and enforce those restoration projects under
permit review.
Restoration Activities
Yakima County Activities
Yakima County activities can be described as those projects being conducted by the County
(public projects), or those projects within the County's regulatory jurisdiction and under project
permit review (public and private property owners). Both public and private projects are
required to meet all applicable federal, state and local regulations; however Yakima County can
not force property owners to perform shoreline restoration unless it is specifically required for
the approval of a permit.
Yakima County's strategy for achieving the restoration potential on projects needing permits is
to require or encourage applicants to include activities that restore shoreline functions as a
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 25
component of new development or redevelopment, to the extent allowed by law. Therefore, the
schedule and extent of restoration by private property owners is a function of timing and other
decisions made by the private sector.
For County activities, this Restoration Plan can serve as guide to help identify potential areas and
perform restoration where feasible. Table 1 below identifies the Yakima County activities that
perform or promote shoreline and habitat restoration and the mechanism and strategy for
implementation.
Table 1. Yakima County Activities and Implementation Strategies
Yakima County Activities
Mechanisms & Strategies For Implementation
Salmon Recovery Plan — Leadership Role
Planning and Funding (Grants)
Watershed Plan — Partnership Role
Planning and Funding (Grants)
Comprehensive Flood Hazard Management Plan
Planning and Funding
Permitting Public/Private Projects
Enforcement - Permit Review & Conditions
Enforcement of Violations and Permit Conditions
Enforcement - Permit Review & Conditions
Stormwater Permit Program
Enforcement - Permit Review & Conditions
Stormwater Retro Fit for Roads
Case by Case. Design & Implementation during
construction, including Permits
Bridge Upgrade w/Replacement
Case by Case. Design & Implementation during
construction, including Permits
Maintenance Practices to Benefit Fish
• Chemical (salt for roads), Noxious Weed Control
• Ditches and Dust Control
Coordination within County Departments
Development & Implementation of Restoration
Projects
Funding (Grants) & Construction
Timelines — Timelines for on-going programs are generally also ongoing, rather than defined.
Timelines for implementing County restoration projects are typically integrated within the
project and describe specific goals and end conditions for completion and success of the project.
Timelines for County permit approval or enforcement actions are typically included in the formal
permit or action, and continued review and monitoring is often required to ensure that conditions
are being met. In summary, there are not specific timelines that can be defined at this time for the
Restoration Plan.
Benchmarks and Monitoring - A benchmark is a standard by which something can be measured
or judged. For the purpose of identifying the effectiveness of any shoreline restoration project a
benchmark must be set at the onset of the project. The intent of setting benchmarks on most
projects is not necessarily to achieve pre -settlement shoreline conditions, but rather to define the
existing shoreline conditions relative to conditions that existed before Euro -American settlement.
Benchmarks are necessary for identifying whether the restoration projects have achieved their
program specific requirements as well as local restoration goals. However, unless there is a
known or hypothesized relationship between the existing conditions and the conditions that
shorelines and habitat were adapted to, our ability to forecast the effects of management actions
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 26
is very low. 17
Yakima County has developed a general county -wide assessment that describes
the condition of the shoreline areas at this point in time. This provides decision -makers with a
benchmark, and as changes occur over time they can be compared to those benchmarks in future
updates.
A monitoring and review program is necessary to assure that restoration plans and actions at all
levels are accountable for the funds spent and are effective in meeting their restoration
objectives. It is the intent of Yakima County to monitor the effectiveness of specific County
restoration projects. The benchmark will be set for that specific project and any subsequent
improvement on that site could be monitored and then ultimately measured. This would allow
Yakima County to track the improvements of those shoreline areas regardless of their original
condition. It is important to note that Yakima County can only monitor or measure restoration
programs related to specific county projects.
Non -regulatory critical areas and natural resources program overview
Yakima County is currently working on a non -regulatory program as a component to the Critical
Areas Ordinance and Shoreline Master Program update project. The purpose of this non -
regulatory program is to protect and restore priority natural resources and critical areas through
non -regulatory measures, utilize and revise tools/procedures for fee -simple acquisition,
conservation easement, property tax reduction and donation of critical properties, establish
ownership, operations, maintenance guidelines and receiving entities (trusts, etc.), and secure and
maintain links between projects, landowners, receiving entities and funding sources to leverage
outside dollars. This program will:
• Offer property owner's options and choices to complement, minimize or reduce reliance
on regulatory measures (i.e., GMA Critical Areas, SEPA, SMA Shorelines, zoning) to meet
federal and state mandates.
• Utilize non -regulatory tools to protect and enhance priority critical areas (geological
hazards, wetlands, streams, shorelines, flood -prone areas) and the biological attributes (high
value fish and wildlife habitats) dependent on the structure and function of those landscapes. A
GIS database of physical and biological data will be used to identify and evaluate locations to
pursue or implement non -regulatory protection measures.
• Collaborate with entities and agencies acquiring fee -simple and conservation easements
and assist integration of monitoring and management of the properties (BOR, Nature
Conservancy, Yakama Nation and any lead agency established under Salmon Recovery Act).
• Foster stewardship by private property owners to promote environmental awareness,
good land stewardship, and public understanding, support and use of non -regulatory programs
and tools.
• Partner with public/private/agency team to target funding sources to meet the goals of
citizens, agencies and County plans, policies, programs and proprietary responsibilities.
• Develop and implement stewardship objectives: enhance forest ecosystems, restore and
improve land health and water quality. Develop monitoring and benchmarks to measure success.
• Watershed restoration and maintenance and restoration, maintenance and improvement of
wildlife and fish habitat, and control of noxious and exotic weeds.
17 Yakima Subbasin Plan section 3.3 pg. 4-31 — November 26, 2004
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 27
• Improved cooperative relationships among people and agencies that use and manage
these lands.
The Yakima County Non -Regulatory Program has completed a conservation tool called the
"Linked Funding Database", which is a database of 30+ GIS covers that portray the likely
physical extent of grants and funding programs particular to landscapes and land uses within
Yakima County. The database assists property owners, organizations, and agencies in identifying
grant -funding resources for non -regulatory alternatives to the impairment of natural resources
and critical areas often linked with specific types of development and land use patterns on
properties.
Non -County Activities
A brief description of the existing and proposed non -County shoreline restoration programs are
listed in Appendix A and categorized by managing entity. Complete detailed descriptions and
contact information of restoration programs are available for reference in Table 5 in Appendix B.
Timelines - Timelines for implementing non -County restoration programs are defined by the
individual program manager or the funding source. Yakima County has very limited control
over specific timelines as it pertains to shoreline restoration of private property, unless in some
extent it related to project specific mitigation currently under County review. Unfortunately, the
future success of many of the non -County restoration programs is solely dependant on funding
from outside resources. This creates a problem in meeting specific timelines, partly due to the
irregularity of grant funding and bureaucracy. Within this plan the timelines for each of the
individual projects have not been identified. Many of the programs have limited timeline
information available, however if specific timeline information is needed each restoration
program's contact information is listed in Table 5 in Appendix B.
Benchmarks and Monitoring - As mentioned earlier, a benchmark is a standard by which
something can be measured or judged. For the purpose of identifying the effectiveness of any
shoreline restoration project a benchmark must be set at the onset of the project. Non -County
programs establish their own benchmarks and monitor them throughout the life of the specific
restoration project. Non -County activities require a systematic monitoring and review program
as well. Monitoring is necessary to ensure that non -County restoration plans and actions are
accountable for the funds spent and are effective in meeting their restoration objectives. Within
each restoration plan or program is a series of mechanisms and strategies to ensure that the
project will be implemented and completed successfully. It is the responsibility of the specific
program manager, whether it is local government, conservation organization, tribe or funding
source, to not only implement the program but monitor its progress as well. Monitoring
programs are needed to track the annual changes in shoreline conditions, and ultimately
monitoring the effects of management actions will allow us to separate environmental from
human impacts.
Shoreline Restoration Opportunities - The Watershed Management Plan, the Yakima Subbasin
Plan, the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan, Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis,
and the Yakima County Shoreline Characterization study have documented a variety of shoreline
restoration opportunities throughout the Yakima Subbasin. Because of this extensive collection
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 28
of restoration opportunity data this Restoration Plan will only provide references to those
respective plans and the related chapters, as listed below.
➢ Watershed Management Plan - Nov. 2002
➢ Yakima Subbasin Plan - November 26, 2004 pgs. — 292, 360 and 370.
➢ Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan — 2005, Chapter 5 pg. 54.
➢ Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Yakima River Watershed, Water Resource
Inventory Areas 37-39. Section Habitat Limiting Factors pg. 87 and Assessment of Limiting
Factors pg. 308.
➢ Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis — Klickitat River Watershed Water Inventory
Area 30
➢ Yakima County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Study, Central Washington
University, August 2005, Sections 3-11.
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 29
APPENDIX A
Existing and Proposed Restoration Programs
A brief description of the existing and proposed shoreline restoration programs are listed below
and categorized by managing entity. Complete detailed descriptions and contact information of
restoration programs are available for reference in Table 5 in Appendix A.
(a) Yakima River Watershed TMDL's — Department of Ecology
The State of Washington Department of Ecology is required by the Federal Clean Water Act
to determine and calculate Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs) for water quality
parameters in water bodies where those parameters do not meet state standards. Ecology has
completed TMDLs for turbidity, pesticides, bacteria and temperature impairments in the
Yakima River Watershed, and will continue to monitor water quality, develop and implement
TMDLs as required by the Clean Water Act.
(b) Yakima Habitat Improvement Project (YHIP) — City of Yakima and Union Gap
The City of Yakima and Union Gap using Bonneville Power Administration (BPA) funding
has started a project intended to improve the aquatic and riparian habitat in and around the
Yakima Urban Growth Area. In addition, this project works in concert with past and
ongoing efforts in the basin such as the Yakima River Basin Enhancement Program, the
Cowiche Creek Riparian Restoration project, the Yakima/Klickitat Fisheries Project, efforts
by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDFW, the Yakima Spring Chinook Study,
the Yakima Basin Environmental Education Teacher Training Program and a host of others.
(c) Protect Normative Structure and Function of Critical Aquatic and Terrestrial Habitat — City
of Yakima
Direct purchase of lands within 25 feet of either side of existing streams, creeks, and rivers,
and purchase of "development rights" for lands between 25 feet and 50 feet of either side of
existing streams, creeks and rivers within the Yakima Urban Area Boundary. This project
would initiate a long term commitment to the preservation, protection, and future opportunity
to restore the normative structure and function to aquatic and terrestrial habitat.
This acquisition program will be directed to purchases along the Yakima River, Naches
River, Wide Hollow Creek, Bachelor Creek, Hatton Creek, Ahtanum Creek, Cowiche Creek
and tributaries within the Yakima Urban Area Boundary. Initial efforts will be directed to
lands within the City of Yakima and within the lands designated for Urban Growth of the
City. The Yakima Urban Area Boundary also includes lands under the jurisdiction of Yakima
County (Terrace Heights and West Valley) and the City of Union Gap. If funding remains
available following completion of the initial efforts, these resources will be utilized for
purchases in these areas.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:36:00 PM 30
This acquisition program also includes lands at the outfall of existing storm drainage
pipelines and ditches to surface waters within the Yakima Urban Area Boundary as identified
in the City of Yakima 1993 DRAFT Comprehensive Stormwater Management Plan.
Direct purchase of lands and "development rights" will provide immediate protection of the
aquatic and terrestrial habitat from the pressure of growth. As resources become available,
and/or as community volunteer efforts are organized and implemented, the protected riparian
corridors will be enhanced and/or restored through water quantity and water quality
improvements, channel and substrate improvements, removal of fish access restrictions, and
restoration of ecological interactions.
This project was part of the Jim Waldo Yakima Basin packet submitted to Governor Gary
Locke and was recommended for BPA funding.
(d) Yakima Tributary Access & Habitat Program (YTAHP) — Multiple Agency
The Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program (YTAHP, Program) was organized to
restore salmonid passage to Yakima tributaries that historically supported salmonids and
improve habitat in areas where access is restored. Specifically, this program is designed to a)
screen unscreened diversion structures to prevent fish entrainment into artificial waterways;
b) provide for fish passage at man-made barriers, such as diversion dams, culverts, siphons
and bridges; and c) provide information and assistance to landowners interested in to
contributing to the improvement of water quality, water reliability and stream habitat.
The YTAHP developed from a number of groups actively engaged in watershed
management, and/or habitat restoration within the Yakima River Basin. These groups include
the Washington State Fish and Wildlife (WDFW), Kittitas County Conservation District
(KCCD), North Yakima Conservation District (NYCD), Kittitas County Water Purveyors
(KCWP), and Ahtanum Irrigation District (AID). The US Bureau of Reclamation
(Reclamation) and Yakama Nation (YN) both participated in the development of the
objectives of YTAHP. Other entities that will be involved during permitting or project review
may include the YN, the federal Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS), the US
Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and US
Army Corps of Engineers (COE).
(e) Little Naches River Riparian and In -Channel Habitat Enhancement — Yakama Nation
199705000
Enhance and restore degraded riparian and habitat conditions in the Little Naches River by
revegetating eroding banks and unstable channels, restricting vehicular traffic in the
floodplain, and enhancing habitat by placement of trees and boulders. Project not funded at
this time.
(f) Yakima Klickitat Fisheries Program (YKFP) — Yakama Nation
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 31
The YKFP is a supplementation project designed to use artificial propagation in an attempt to
maintain or increase natural production while maintaining long-term fitness of the target
population and keeping ecological and genetic impacts to non -target species within specified
limits. The Project is also designed to provide harvest opportunities. The framework
developed by the Regional Assessment of Supplementation Project (RASP 1991) guides the
planning, implementation, and evaluation of the Project.
The purposes of the YKFP are to:
enhance existing stocks of anadromous fish in the Yakima and Klickitat river basins while
maintaining genetic resources;
reintroduce stocks formerly present in the basins; and
apply knowledge gained about supplementation throughout the Columbia River Basin.
(g) Yakima River Basin Side Channel Survey and Rehab — Yakama Nation
Reconnect tributaries and side channels, create new side channels, construct instream
deflectors along straightened reaches, and overbuild portions of levees such that riparian
trees will be permitted to thrive. Focus on the Wapato Reach of the Yakima River.
(h) Yakima Basin Side Channels — Yakama Nation
Protect, restore and reestablish access to productive off -channel rearing habitats, and protect
and reconnect floodplains associated with the mainstem Yakima and Naches Rivers.
(i) Yakima Habitat Enhancement Selah/Union Gap — Yakama Nation
Protect and enhance the section of Yakima River between Selah and Union Gaps through
purchase and habitat enhancement.
0) Little Naches Sediment Monitoring — Yakama Nation
Cooperative sediment sampling in the Little Naches system between the Yakama Nation,
Plum Creek Timber Company and the United States Forest Service (USFS).
(k) Riparian/Wetlands Restoration — Yakima Nation
This project has been designed to restore wetlands and riparian habitats along anadromous
fish -bearing streams in the agricultural portion of the Yakama Nation Reservation. Overall
goals include the protection, restoration and management of 27,000 acres of floodplain lands
along the Yakima River, Satus and Toppenish Creeks. Direct mitigation is being realized for
losses identified in the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program relating to the
construction and operation of the lower Columbia River Hydropower System. Extensive
partnership and cost -share components provide savings to this project.
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 32
Land securing methods include purchase, easement, or long-term lease depending on the
nature of the land ownership and the cost-effectiveness of the activity. Approximately 2,000
- 3,000 acres are secured each year. By the end of FY01 over 16,000 acres will be secured
into the project. At the current rate of implementation, nearly 24,000 acres of floodplain
habitats should be protected and restored by the end of FY06. Restoration activities seek to
restore historic conditions. Land disturbing activities are subject to cultural and
archaeological surveys, and are used only on properties which have suffered past
disturbances. Native vegetation re-establishment, and a return to some semblance of historic
floodplain hydrology are the goals on the restoration sites. Restoration efforts are designed
to be as self-sustaining as possible to minimize the O&M needed to maintain habitat values.
The outcomes of the project are native riparian and wetland floodplain complexes along the
anadromous fish -bearing streams on the Yakama Nation Reservation. Results are monitored
using HEP to account for the direct mitigation earned toward the construction, operation and
cumulative effect wildlife impacts of the Columbia River hydropower system. Specific
vegetational, population and hydrologic results are also monitored at each property to ensure
that restoration goals are being met in a cost-effective manner.
(1) Lower Yakima Valley Riparian/Wetlands — Yakama Nation
Continue implementation of YN Wetlands/Riparian Restoration Project by protecting and
restoring native floodplain habitats along anadromous fish -bearing waterways in the
agricultural area of the Yakama Reservation (2,500 acres per year).
(m)Ahtanum Creek Watershed Assessment — Yakama Nation
Map irrigated lands & water delivery stems, measure water discharge & temperature.
Determine efficiency of irrigation water conveyance & use. Gather data on stream channel
condition, riparian function & salmonid populations in the Ahtanum Creek watershed.
Ahtanum Creek was historically important for production of salmon and steelhead. The creek
and its southernmost tributaries form part of the north boundary of the Yakama Indian
Reservation. Spring Chinook and Coho are found in small numbers today; there is no current
information on steelhead presence. Bull trout have been found as far downstream as the
lowermost major irrigation diversion. A watershed analysis for the upper, forested portion of
the watershed is nearing completion. Water withdrawal, diking and channelization, grazing
practices and residential development on the floodplain adversely affect the lower, largely
agricultural portion of the watershed. Restoration of significant salmon and steelhead
production in the watershed can be accomplished, but science -based strategies are needed for
protecting stream flow, stream channels and floodplains. The Yakama Nation is currently
developing techniques under the Toppenish-Simcoe Project which will be applied to the
Ahtanum watershed.
(n) Upper Toppenish Creek Watershed Analysis — Yakama Nation
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:36:00 PM 33
Analyze the key hydrologic features of the upper Toppenish Creek watershed which have a
spatially disproportionate influence on runoff processes. Determine those areas with high
storage capacity and implement restoration plans.
(o) Yakima Watershed Restoration — Satus Creek — Yakama Nation
Improve fish habitat in the Satus Creek watershed (Yakama Indian Reservation) by
ameliorating the major land -use impacts.
(p) Protect, enhance, and maintain habitat on the Sunnyside Wildlife Area to benefit wildlife and
fish assemblages. — Yakama Nation
Located in Yakima County, the Sunnyside Wildlife Area (SWA) encompasses approximately
4,265 ha (10,538 ac) along the Yakima River floodplain in the lower Yakima Valley and 2,510
ha (6,202 ac) of shrubsteppe habitat on Rattlesnake Ridge in Benton County. The Sunnyside,
Byron, and I-82 management units (Units) are located on or near the Yakima River floodplain
and adjacent to the Yakama Indian Reservation, while the Thornton and Rattlesnake Slope
Units are located on Rattlesnake Ridge north of Benton City, Washington.
The SWA Units found within the Yakima River floodplain provide habitat for a host of wetland
and riparian obligate species such as waterfowl and includes approximately 21 km (12.6 mi)
of shoreline along the Yakima River, which supports ESA listed steelhead. In contrast, the
Rattlesnake Ridge Units are dominated by shrub steppe habitat and are managed primarily
for shrub steppe obligate wildlife species such as sage grouse.
Near term habitat enhancement, maintenance, and protection measures planned for the
Sunnyside Wildlife Area include: seeding herbaceous cover, controlling introduced weedy
vegetation including Russian olive trees, enhancing wetlands, increasing open water to cover
ratios in lacustrine habitats, maintaining moist soil paddocks and fences, planting shrubs and
trees, mowing goose pastures, and enhancing waterfowl feeding and loafing areas (WDFW
1998).
(q) Toppenish-Simcoe Instream Flow Restoration and Assessment — Yakama Nation
The Toppenish Creek basin comprises only 10% of the Yakima River subbasin, but
contributes 20% of the Yakima's summer steelhead run (Mid -Columbia ESU, Threatened,
March, 1999). The Toppenish Simcoe-Unit (Unit) of the Wapato Irrigation Project (WIP)
diverts streamflow from Toppenish Creek and its tributaries to irrigate roughly 2,000 acres.
In doing so, these and other private diversions can desiccate long reaches of streams, killing
juvenile steelhead. Land status, water use and the extent of steelhead utilization within the
Unit must be determined to identify parcels of land with water that can be leased or
purchased to return diverted streamflow into natal streams, maintaining aquatic species
assemblages. In addition, a comprehensive accounting of the Unit will allow us to identify
possible sources for water substitution, leaving flows instream for aquatic species. The main
objectives and approach of this Project are to monitor all steelhead life stages as to location
and timing of habitat utilization, quantify and locate all sources of diversion and
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 34
augmentation, model consumptive use, and identify land status. This will lead to the
development of an adaptive Management Plan and decision support system to actively pursue
lands available for acquisition to return irrigation water for instream use. If land acquisition
is not possible, we hope to work with landowners to restrict diversion timing to periods when
surface discharge is not limiting (spring runoff), or identify alternative water sources for
substitution. We expect that providing perennial flow to all stream reaches in the Project area
will have a positive effect on steelhead populations, measured by yearly spawner surveys and
juvenile censuses. By FY2002, we will have completed four seasons of field data collection,
the Project GIS, and the Project Management Plan. Integrating Project products and those of
other activities in the basin will supply us with a decision support system to begin
implementing and adaptively evolving the Management Plan early in FY2002.
(r) Fish Passage Inventory and Corrective Actions on WDFW Lands in The Yakima Subbasin —
Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Fish passage barriers and inadequate screening conditions at diversions and lake outlets exist
on WDFW-owned and managed lands. These problems must be corrected in order to
accomplish agency salmonid recover efforts and to comply with several fish passage and
screening laws (RCW 77.16.210, 77.55.040, 77.55.060, 77.55.070). Problem facilities
include culverts, dams, fishways, lake outlets, and water diversions.
This is a proposal to correct all fish passage and screening problems on WDFW lands within
the Yakima Subbasin. WDFW's Salmonid Screening, Habitat Enhancement, and Restoration
(SSHEAR) protocols will be used for all activities. Lands must be inventoried for fish
passage structures. Fish passage parameters will be assessed for each structure. Structures
will be prioritized for corrective actions based on fish presence, suitable habitat availability,
correction costs, etc. Structure replacement, correction or removal will be scheduled and
completed. Lastly, passage and screening facilities will be annually inspected and
maintained to ensure long-term fish passage and protection.
(s) Wenas Wildlife Area In holdings — Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW)
Strategic private parcels within the Wenas Wildlife area represent significant threats to fish
and wildlife habitat from potential future development. This project would acquire these
parcels with BPA dollars and add them to the existing wildlife area. The parcels include
approximately 1.25 miles of Umtanum Creek, an anadromous fish bearing stream known to
contain steelhead, Chinook and Coho salmon, and red -band rainbow trout. It would also
protect the lower reaches of Roza Creek, which holds populations of resident red -band
rainbow trout. Significant shrub -steppe and riparian habitats would be protected in this
project, and the long term integrity of a large proportion of the Wenas Wildlife Area would
be ensured.
(t) Upper Yakima Comprehensive Flood Control Management Plan (Proposed) — Yakima
County
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:36:00 PM 35
Plan that sets the policy basis for reconfiguration of the levee system and other adjacent
infrastructure to improve sediment transport, lessen flood hazard, improve fish habitat and
increase available floodplain on Yakima River.
(u) Removal of Automobile Wrecking Yards from Yakima and Naches River Floodplains —
Yakima County
This project will evaluate the feasibility of relocation of one or more existing automobile
recycling yards from their present locations to a site or sites which are more appropriate
locations for such businesses from the standpoint of flood hazard, aquatic habitat, and water
quality. Main project areas are habitat for threatened salmonid species, and extremely prone
to flooding and flood damage. One site is on an island in the Yakima River (Donald Wapato
Bridge), another site is in a flood prone area of the Naches River (Ramblers Park) that could
be prime spawning and rearing habitat (hyporheic zone) if properly restored. Based on past
communications with at least 2 owners, there is a high likelihood of a successful relocation
effort. Multiple agencies have expressed interest in the relocation and restoration effort
(Ecology, WADOT, Yakama Nation, WDFW, Yakima County Public Works Department,
Yakima County Planning Department, Yakima County Flood Control Zone District, Bureau
of Reclamation, and Corps of Engineers). This project will coordinate among these different
parties.
Project goals: Restore properly functioning floodplain conditions. Remove potentially
hazardous materials that could be released to the river during a high flow event. Remove
sources of hazardous materials that could contaminate the soil and groundwater in the future.
Move important businesses to more appropriate location, keeping economic benefits to
Yakima County and increase compatibility with existing land uses. Reduce flood hazard and
the need for emergency response, repair of existing flood control facilities, and flood damage
insurance claims.
(v) Yakima Phase II Screens — Construction — Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
The on-going Yakima Phase II screen construction program is replacing obsolete Yakima
basin fish screens constructed in the 1930's, 40's, 50's, 60's, and 70's. The new screens
comply with current regional fish screen biological protection criteria adopted by the
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Authority (CBFWA) in 1995. The target objectives of the
program are designed to meet three criteria which will: (1) reduce delay to a degree
approaching zero; (2) reduce the possibility of injury or mortality to a degree approaching
zero; and (3) allow fish to pass with little additional expenditure of energy. The new screens
protect all species and life stages of anadromous and resident salmonids, including bull trout
and steelhead which are now listed as "threatened" under ESA.
Old screens in the Yakima basin, and in other Columbia River subbasins, may provide fair
protection for large (4-6 inch long) yearling smolts, but provide poor protection for fry and
fingerling life stages. Mortality of fry and fingerlings by irrigation diversions may reduce
subsequent smolt production, and hamper efforts to restore depressed salmonid populations
through natural production or hatchery supplementation. Battelle Pacific Northwest National
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:36:00 PM 36
Laboratory (PNNL), under Project# 198506200, has evaluated and quantified survival and
guidance rates at Phase II sites approaching 100% (ranging from 90 to 99%).
The Phase 11 program directly addresses measure 7.11B.1 of the 1994 Columbia Basin Fish
and Wildlife Program as amended in 1995. Phase II is consistent with the High Priority
Projects listed in the 2000 CBFWA program and addresses RPA 149 of the National Marine
Fisheries Service (NMFS) 2000 Biological Opinion on operations of the Federal Columbia
River Power System (FCRPS). The Phase II program is outlined in the Yakima Subbasin
Summary (Feb 2000). This funding proposal will allow completion of the few remaining
Phase II diversion screens by the year 2003. Due to delays a number of screens remain to be
constructed and is anticipated to be completed by 2005.
(w)Operate & Maintain (O&M) Yakima Basin Phase II Fish Screens — Bureau of Reclamation
(BOR)
The Yakima Basin Phase 11 O&M program provides preventive and emergency maintenance
and operational adjustments on completed Yakima basin Phase II fish screening facilities.
The main objective of this project is to assure that the potential benefits of BPA's capital
investment in fish screens are realized by performing operations that assure optimal fish
protection and long facility life through a rigorous preventative maintenance program, while
helping to restore ESA listed fish stocks.
(x) Operate & Maintain of Yakima Phase II Fish Facilities — Bureau of Reclamation (BOR)
This proposal provides for continuation of funding for the existing comprehensive operation
& maintenance program by the USBR of BPA owned Yakima Phase II fish screening and
trapping facilities. USBR currently operates and maintains twenty-four sites, with an
estimated 3 more sites due to be added by the end of the Phase II construction program in
2003. These facilities are located at irrigation diversions throughout the Yakima River Basin,
and were constructed to bring the old screensites into compliance with current regional fish
screen biological protection criteria adopted by the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife
Authority (CBFWA) in 1995. The target objectives of that program are (1) reduce fish delay
to a degree approaching zero; (2) reduce the possibility of injury or mortality to a degree
approaching zero; and (3) allow fish to pass with little additional expenditure of energy.
(y) Yakima Spring Chinook Supplementation and Research Program — NOAA Fisheries
This study addresses the issue of precocious male reproductive maturation in spring Chinook
salmon produced by the Yakima Supplementation and Research Facility and other salmonid
hatchery programs. The specific aims of the project are to quantify precocious maturation
rates of wild and hatchery spring Chinook and develop hatchery rearing protocols to control
unnaturally high levels in hatchery stocks.
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 37
(z) Spatial Scales of Homing and the Efficacy of Hatchery Acclimation Facilities — NOAA
Fisheries
The overall goal of this project is to describe the spatial and temporal homing and spawning
patterns of wild salmon vs. hatchery -reared salmon released from acclimation facilities.
(aa) Monson Project Phase 1 and 2 — North Yakima Conservation District
This Project is part of an overall effort to re-establish the "Taylor Ditch" as a side channel of
the Yakima River in the east- Selah floodplain area. This Project will restore riparian habitat
along 2500 ft. of the waterway. Project activities are supported as a result of findings within
the "Taylor Ditch Habitat Assessment Project: phase one report". This assessment identified
lack of riparian area and water quality to be the limiting factors in the use of the Taylor Ditch
as a side channel habitat. The assessment also identifies the ditch as being used by spring
Chinook, Coho, and rainbow trout. The Yakima Mainstem in this area also supports
steelhead and has the potential for bull trout rearing and migration.
This project shares the same general description as "Monson Project phase V. Project
activities include restoration of eastside of "Taylor Ditch" 2500 ft. and re-establishment of
approximately 3 acres of associated wetlands. This project is part of an overall effort to re-
establish the "Taylor Ditch" as a side channel habitat to the Yakima River in the East-Selah
area.
(bb) Buchanan Ranch Restoration Project — North Yakima Conservation District
This Project is located at the mouth of the Wenas Creek at the Yakima River (RM 122AR).
The project will provide funds for full restoration of the riparian/flood plane habitat (100
acres and 2 miles) of this property. This project has been done in conjunction with the
Bureau of Reclamation. Riparian restoration project generally need several years to see the
"high success, however this project shows high levels of plant survival and in addition two
fish barrier on the property were modified and or removed. Continue to work with adjacent
landowners (three underway) to implement riparian restoration, seek willing
landowners/water right holders to improve instream flow and seek alternatives to address
passage or removal of irrigation dam located approximately 10 miles up -stream.
(cc) Yakima Basin Environmental Education
The Environmental Education Training Program offers teachers throughout the Yakima
Basin the opportunity to become involved with their students in projects to protect, enhance,
analyze and provide solutions to water resource problems in their community. These projects
address the needs of anadromous and resident fish as it relates to the agricultural and other
water users in the Basin. This ongoing program is in its seventh year of operation. In excess
of 250 teachers throughout the region have been involved and annually over 2000 students
are actively involved in hands-on activities related to understanding the on-going stewardship
of our watershed. Activities range from math and science investigations to language arts,
journal writing, historical investigations of the watershed, civics, economics. It addresses
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:36:00 PM 38
responsible citizenship through knowledge of water issues like water quality monitoring,
salmon life cycle needs, stream hydrology, riparian habitat functions, wetlands and their role
in a healthy ecosystem, as it relates to the needs of all the water users involved in these
issues.
Students have developed community partnerships to monitor water quality, restore riparian
corridors, raise salmon in their classrooms for release in various tributaries, monitor storm
run-off and collect data annually on salmon redds in the upper Yakima River. Each year
additional teachers will be trained adding additional schools and students to the ever-growing
number of involved participants. An independent evaluation of the program was conducted
in 1998 and will be an on-going part of the program documenting program outcomes, teacher
reactions, and community involvement as well as the long term impact of the program on
teaching essential learning as delineated by the Washington State Office of Education.
Last printed 1/ 10/2008 3:36:00 PM 39
APPENDIX B
Existing and Proposed Proiects for Habitat Restoration
(TABLE FOLLOWS)
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 40
APPENDIX C
Prioritization For Restoration
The WAC guidelines specifically require that Yakima County identify goals and priorities for
restoration. Undoubtedly a large portion of Yakima County's shoreline areas have been
adversely impacted by a broad collection of land uses, most of which would benefit from
some form of shoreline restoration. Within this plan many of those identified degraded
shoreline areas are considered a priority for restoration; however there are a number of
shoreline areas that remain in relatively good condition, where existing ecological functions
should be protected, or where acquisition/easement should be considered vital for future
restoration success. It is those high quality shoreline areas that serve as the foundation upon
which shoreline restoration efforts are most effectively built. Protection of functional
shoreline areas is typically more cost effective and provides greater certainty of long-term
success than restoration of degraded shoreline areas. Protection of functional shoreline areas
can be provided through acquisition, conservation easement, or under critical area ordinances
or other regulatory processes administered by local land use managers.
Restoration projects in general, often have to be done opportunistically and may not always
follow a strict prioritization list. It is not practical to prioritize only those shoreline areas
recommended for acquisition or conservation easement, because restoration opportunities
often only arise as willing property owners surface, and there is typically a very limited
timeframe in which to respond. Thus ranking or prioritizing degraded shoreline areas doesn't
necessarily guarantee that the high priority shorelines will get restored first. Degradation of
shoreline areas can vary widely along the same reach, and determining which area is worse
than the other can be subjective.
Therefore, it is the intent of this section to outline a process that ranks those shoreline areas
that are in relatively good condition, where existing ecological functions should be protected
and prioritize those streams for restoration.
The prioritization process for this Restoration Plan was developed using information from a
variety of habitat and shoreline assessments and reports, specifically: the Watershed
Management Plan, the Subbasin Plan, the Yakima Subbasin Salmon Recovery Plan,
Salmonid Habitat Limiting Factors Analysis, and the Yakima County Shoreline
Characterization study. The prioritization process applied qualitative assessments, findings
and recommendations from the Technical Advisory Groups participants and staff knowledge.
However, the nature of these types of shoreline and habitat assessments makes it difficult to
accurately rank or prioritize shoreline areas as compared to a standard or precise quantitative
assessment. The stream assessments identified a number of key aquatic habitat factors that
evaluate each shoreline area. The Watershed Management Plan's prioritization process was
used as a model to help construct Yakima County's prioritization list. For the purposes of
this plan the prioritization process described below is a combination of other ranking
methodologies and assessment data using the referenced documents previously mentioned.
A brief description of the prioritization process and tables are provided, however if specific
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 41
detailed information on the overall process and tables is needed please refer to the referenced
documents.
Prioritization Process: The Watershed Management Plan prioritized streams/shoreline areas
based upon a number of guiding principles and river data comparisons. The guiding
principles are described below:
1) Guiding Principle 1 - stresses the protection of high quality habitats. It was
determined that streams that fell in this category are best suited for protection. The best
tributary habitats were identified through the watershed assessment process and ranked
in further evaluations of habitat condition and water quality. In general, the best
tributaries drained wilderness areas or other protected lands. These included the
American River and Rattlesnake Creek in the Naches drainage.
2) Guiding Principle 2 - stresses the protection and enhancement of damaged
river or shoreline areas that are still functional. Enhancement activities should
concentrate on "at risk" systems and not emphasize enhancement of highly -degraded
systems until such systems have reached a point where recovery is possible.
3) Guiding Principle 3 — this pertains to water quality and recognizes the need to
protect beneficial uses that include in -stream and diversionary uses. Other
considerations affecting prioritization of project actions include potential impacts on
productivity within other reaches. For example, a project may help improve fish
passage to higher quality habitats upstream or mitigate water quality problems affecting
downstream habitats.
4) Guiding Principle 4 - is an anti -degradation goal to ensure that highly -
degraded habitats are not further degraded. Over time, these habitats may slowly
recover naturally if protected from further degradation. Future opportunities for
enhancement of these lower priority areas will be identified as higher priority reaches
are addressed.
The following stream reaches are identified as important to ensure continued ecological
function of high quality shorelines, or areas that are critical to restoration of natural shoreline
function. Each of the river or stream reaches were generally categorized into priority groups
using the four guiding principles, the qualitative assessment information, and professional
judgment. In developing the Restoration Plan's Prioritization table (Table 4, below) the
Watershed Management Plan's Table 7.1 (see Appendix C) was used as the template.
(TABLE FOLLOWS)
Table 4. Prioritization of Shoreline Areas in Yakima County
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 42
Guiding Principal
Priority
Rationale, Strategy and Response
Stream Name
1: Protect the
1
Preserve existing high quality habitat with
Yakima River
highest quality
specific enhancements directed at fish passage
Reaches 1 & 2
and access concerns.
(not in Yakima
County)
High Priority for Preservation.
1: Protect the
1
Preserve existing high quality habitat with
American River
highest quality
specific enhancements directed at fish
Rattlesnake Creek
access/migration concerns.
High Priority for Preservation.
2: Protect and
2
Migration corridor should be protected
Yakima River
enhance damaged
enhanced because it is the only route to all
Reaches 3, 4 & 5
but still functional
spawning and rearing areas of the basin.
habitat
2: Protect and
2
Restore at risk sections in lower reaches of
Bumping River
enhance damaged
each tributary due to barriers, riparian
Naches River
but still functional
degradation or flow issues.
Little Naches River
habitat
Tieton River
High priority for enhancement.
2: Protect and
3
Restore larger reaches of each tributary due to
Cowiche Creek
enhance damaged
habitat problems mainly associated with
Ahtanum Creek
but still functional
compromised riparian conditions, low flows
habitat
and watershed erosion impacts.
Medium priority enhancement.
3: Improve water
4
Restore lower reach degraded habitat
quality for
conditions mainly associated with water
regulatory
quality, loss of riparian function; barriers and
requirements and
flow. Higher quality habitat in upper reaches
to provide access to
need connectivity for fish migration.
upstream habitats
Priority should be reviewed where projects
improve connectivit .
4: Protect
5
Protect seriously degraded habitat mainly
significantly
associated with false attraction flows, water
degraded habitat
quality, degraded channels and riparian areas.
from further
degradation
Priority for protection to stop continued
degraded.
None: Wasteways,
6
No near term enhancement potential except
drains, intermittent
for possible rearing habitat near the
streams, or other
confluence. These streams may cause high
Beverly degraded
mortality and may be unsuitable habitat for
systems
certain life stages. False attraction flow
problems exist. Protect from further
degradation.
Source: Watershed Management Plan — Yakima River Basin, Yakima River Basin watershed Planning Unit and Tri -County water
Resources Agency, Ch 7 —Fish Habitat Enhancement. Note: In the event of data gaps with certain shoreline areas an attempt was
made to prioritize them in this table using the as much information that was available for this plan.
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 43
Prioritization of river reaches conducted during the Watershed Management Plan was
strongly influenced by the idea that the best tributaries drained wilderness areas or other
protected lands, which stresses protection of connecting migration corridors as well as the
enhancement of damaged but still functioning habitats.
Accordingly, all five mainstem Yakima River reaches and the Naches River were assigned
high priority for both protection and enhancement as reflected in Table 4. Needs of the
individual reaches vary as illustrated in the habitat and water quality condition qualitative
assessment summaries in Tables 2-11 and 2-12 (See Appendix B). However, all mainstem
river reaches and the Naches River are considered to have equal priority even though details
concerning enhancement approaches will differ significantly between the lower and
uppermost sections of the river.
Last printed 1/10/2008 3:36:00 PM 44
1i'0 R T['I.IIK
List of Shoreline Master Program Potential Inconsistencies
For Planning Commission Wrap-up Discussion
On
June 12, 2013
In reviewing the City of Yakima Planning Commission's suggested modifications to the
Shoreline Use Matrix Table the following permitted uses were found to be inconsistent with the
goals and policies of the Shoreline Master Program, City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan,
Zoning Ordinance, and thus Revised Code of Washington indicated below.
The Revised Code of Washington (RCW):
1. 36.70A.130 (d) requires that "...Any amendment of or revision to development regulations
shall be consistent with and implement the comprehensive plan."
2. 36.70A.030(7) defines "development regulations" as, "the controls placed on development or
land use activities by a county or city, including, but not limited... shoreline master
programs..."
3. 36.70A.280(1) states that, "The growth management hearings board shall hear and
determine only those petitions alleging [that] ... a state agency, county, or city planning under
this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW
as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master programs or amendments thereto..."
Further information may be found in the attached March 20, 2013, memo from Steve
Osguthorpe, Community Development Director titled: Legal Re uirem+ents for Determining
Shoreline Uses.
Shoreline baster Program Potential Inconsistencies
The allowance of outdoor manufacturing, processing and storage as a Substantial
Development Permit (including auto wrecking yards, cement and concrete plants,
concrete, gypsum and plaster products, sawmills and planing mills, ect) is
inconsistent with the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act, the policies of the
City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan, and draft Shoreline Master Program as listed
below:
Shoreline Purpose Statements:
a. Promote a high quality of environment along the shorelines.
b. Preserve and protect fragile natural resources and culturally significant features.
c. Protect public and private properties from adverse effects of improper development
in hazardous shoreline areas.
d. Recognize and protect the statewide interest.
Existing Comprehensive Plan:
a. Goal 10.6: Protect the City's supply and quality of shoreline areas to ensure their
most efficient and environmentally sound use.
b. Policy 10.6.7: Limit commercial development to those activities that are
particularly dependent upon a shoreline location. Other commercial uses should
be encouraged to located upland.
c. Policy 10.6.8: Encourage new commercial developments on shorelines to locate
in those areas where current commercial uses exist.
d. Policy 10.6.10: Industrial Facilities: Careful consideration should be given to
determine the potential effects of industrial facilities and their location on the
shoreline and surrounding area.
e. Policy 10.6.11: Discourage industries that have proven to be environmentally
hazardous from locating along the shorelines.
Draft Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies:
a, 10.3.10: Water -oriented commercial, industrial, and recreational uses should be
given high priority in the High Intensity environment. First priority should be
given to water -dependent uses. Second priority should be given to water -related
and water -enjoyment uses. Non -water oriented uses should not be allowed
except as part of a mixed-use developments. Nonwater —oriented uses may also
be allowed in limited situations where they do not conflict with or limit
opportunities for water -oriented uses or on sites where there is no direct access
to the shoreline. Public benefits such as ecological restoration or public access
may be required in association with nonwater-oriented development.
b. 10.3.14: Where feasible, visual and physical public access should be required as
part of development in the High intensity designation unless it already exists to
serve the development or other safety, security, or fragile environmental
conditions apply.
c. 10.3.43: Limit Commercial and service development to those activities that are
dependent upon a shoreline location. Nonwater-oriented commercial uses may
be allowed when part of a mixed-use development including water dependent
activities, or on sites separated from the shoreline, or when pubic benefits such
as public access and ecological restoration are provided.
d. 10.3.44: Commercial and service uses which are not shoreline dependent
should be encouraged to locate upland.
e. 10.3.46: Discourage industries which have proven to be environmentally
hazardous in shoreline areas.
Zoning Ordinance:
The use of outdoor manufacturing /processing is generally not permitted in the shoreline
area as the majority of the shoreline is zoned Suburban Residential with small areas that
are zoned General Commercial. However, where it is allowed, uses such as auto
wrecking yards, cement and concrete plants, concrete, gypsum and plaster products,
sawmills and planing mills which would fall under this category may have detrimental
effects to the shoreline area and are either not permitted in the GC zoning district or
require a Type 3 review. These differences between shorelines and zoning create a
potential inconsistency between regulations.
2. The allowance of Manufactured Home Parks or Subdivisions as a Substantial
Development Permit in the High Intensity shoreline environment is inconsistent with
the purpose of the Shoreline Management Act, the policies of the City of Yakima
Comprehensive Plan, and draft Shoreline Master Program as listed below:
Shoreline Purpose Statements:
a. Protect public and private properties from adverse effects of improper
development.
Existing Comprehensive Plan:
a. Goal 10.6: Protect the City's supply and quality of shoreline areas to ensure their
most efficient and environmentally sound use.
b. Policy 10.6.2: Encourage shoreline -dependent economic activities along
shorelines that will enhance the quality of life for residents while mitigating
significant adverse environmental impacts
c. Policy 10.6.6: Design subdivisions at a density, level of site coverage, and
occupancy compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline and water.
d. Goal 10.9: Manage development in floodplains to protect public health and
safety. Prevent increased flooding from storm water runoff.
e. Policy 10.9.1: Project Natural drainage systems associated with floodways and
floodplains.
f. Policy 10.9.2: Ensure that new development will not affect the flood elevations in
surrounding areas.
g. Policy 10.9.3: Ensure adequate protection of life and property from flood events.
h. Policy 10.9.4: Limit development located within the 100 -year floodplain unless it
is possible to mitigate and restrict development within the floodway.
Draft Shoreline Master Program Goals and Policies:
a. 10.3.89: Design subdivisions at a density level of site coverage and occupancy
that is compatible with the physical capabilities of the shoreline and ensure
proposals are located to prevent the need for new shore stabilization or flood
hazard reduction measures.
b. 10.3.90: Restrict subdivisions in areas subject to flooding.
To: Planning Commission Members
From: Steve Osguthorpe, Community Development Director
Date: March 20, 2013
Subject: Legal Requirements for Determining Shoreline Uses
At the last Planning Commission meeting, the Staff provided recommendations on uses
suggested by individual Planning Commission members. Some suggested uses were
incorporated into the table of uses prepared by our consultant because there was obvious
consensus among Commission members on said uses, and because Staff agreed that they
were uses supportable by law. Other suggested uses were not incorporated into the Table
because it was not yet clear that there was consensus on them amongst Commission
members without further discussion, and/or because Staff could not recommend uses that
were inconsistent with the law.
Specifically, staff stated that incorporating either duplexes or mixed use buildings into
low density single family development was inconsistent with the underlying base zones.
Staff further stated that the Shoreline Master Program should be considered an overlay
zone that can establish more strict standards than the underlying zone in order to protect
the more sensitive environment the Master Program is intended to regulate. However, it
should not be used to introduce uses inconsistent with and more liberal than the
underlying zone.
In response to Staff comments, the Planning Commission Chair stated that he wanted the
staff to provide reference in the RCW's (Revised Code of Washington) to verify this
restriction rather than just provide staff's opinion. Accordingly, I have attached specific
references from the RCW',s to address this request:
1. RCW 36.70A.130(d) states that " . . . Any amendment of or revision to
development regulations shall be consistent with and implement the
comprehensive plan."
2. RCW 36.70A.030(7) defines "development regulations" as, " the controls placed
on development or land use activities by a county or city, including, but not
limited to ... shoreline master programs . . ."
3. RCW 36,70A.280(1) states that, "The growth management bearings board shall
hear and determine only those petitions alleging [that] .... a state agency, county,
or city planning under this chapter is not in compliance with the requirements of
this chapter, chapter 90.58 RCW as it relates to the adoption of shoreline master
programs or amendments thereto. . ."
In terms of reference #1 — consistency with the comprehensive plan — it should be noted
that the Yakima Urban Area Comprehensive Plan defines the purpose of Low Density
Residential as "[p]rimarily free standing single-family residences. . ." (See
Comprehensive Plan, Page 111-14). Duplexes are not listed under the Low Density
Residential land use category; they are listed as a characteristic use of the Medium
Density Residential land use category. Likewise, mixed use buildings are not listed under
the Low Density Residential land use category; they are listed under High Density
Residential land use designation. Therefore, to allow under the Shoreline Master
Program duplexes and mixed use buildings in the Low Density Residential district would
create an inconsistency with the Comprehensive Plan that, if challenged, would be
appealable to the Growth Management Hearings Board.
Related to the question of allowing duplexes along the shoreline, it is significant that the
state's preference for residential uses along the shoreline is limited to single-family
residences only. The State Legislature has laid out specific policies on preferred.
shoreline uses, and has stated that,
" . . . uses shall be preferred which are consistent with control of pollution and
prevention of damage to the natural environment, or are unique to or dependent
upon use of the state's shoreline. Alterations of the natural condition of the
shorelines of the state, in those limited instances when authorized, shall be given
prLority. for single-family residences and their appurtenant structures, ports,
shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and
other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the state, industrial
and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location
on or use of the shorelines of the state and other development that will provide an
opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the
state. . ." (RC W 90.58.020 — emphasis added).
But equally important is the fact that the update to the Shoreline Master Program was not
intended to be a process for quietly introducing more intense uses into underlying zoning
districts without public notice and without soliciting broad public input, This can
significantly change the character of single-family neighborhoods, and has broader
planning implications as well. If the City wishes to amend its zoning ordinance to allow
commercial or mixed use buildings in single family zones, staff suggests that this should
be a separate process advertized for that purpose. In any event, it would have to begin
with an amendment to the policies of Comprehensive Plan.
I hope this provides the information requested by the Commission. If there are further
questions on this topic, I'll be happy to address them at the next meeting. I'm also happy
to meet individually with Commission members to discuss ideas you might like to
explore and to provide whatever guidance, suggestions, or information I can offer.
Please feel free to call me at (509) 575-3533 if you would like to arrange a time to meet.
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
This document provides draft regulations for the following sections of City of Yakima Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) Update:
• Section 17.05.440-050 Public Access*
• Section 17.07.050 Commercial Development
• Section 17.07.090 Industry
• Section 17.07.120 Recreational Development
• Section 17.07.130 Residential Development
• Section 17.07.170 Transportation
• Section 17.07.180 Utilities
• Section 17.07.190 Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance*
• Chapter 17.11 Existing Uses, Structures and Lots*
Typically, the base language is from the Yakima County Regional SMP, and then amended with
strikeout/underline to be more consistent with City conditions or SMP Guidelines. In some cases,
sections are "all new" and noted as such.
Particular topics of focus at the April 10, 2013 Planning Commission meeting are anticipated to include
public access, maintenance, and existing uses, structures, and lots (noted with an asterisk * above).
The draft sections should be read in conjunction with the following documents distributed to the
Planning Commission at prior meetings:
• Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designations & Use and Modification Matrix Framework
(distributed for 3/13 meeting — updated through discussion at 3/27 meeting)
• Excerpts From Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Submittal Checklist (distributed for 3/27
meeting)
• SMP Update Guidance — Consistency (distributed for 3/27 meeting)
City staff has provided an initial review, but is also reviewing this document in parallel with the Planning
Commission. As a result, there may be additional input at the next Planning Commission meeting on
April 10, 2013.
H O If li II O NJI OF 0 M II I IIf II.. IR 17 05,, II HU 0. ��, 0..,11 CACCESS
17.05.050 Public Access
Consultant Note: In the Regional SMP, public access requirements are scattered (e.g. Residential,
Commercial, and Recreation) with no consolidated regulations on standards and exceptions. The
Consultants propose a more discrete section of regulations designed to meet SMA Goals and SMP
Guidelines, the public trust doctrine, and private property rights.
A. Shoreline development shall not interfere with public access and enjoyment of any nearby publicly
owned land areas.
B. The City, �q l_not vacate any road, street, or alley abutting a body of water except as provided under
RCW 35.79.035.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 1
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
C. Efforts to implement the public access provisions of this section shall be consistent with all relevant
constitutional and other legal limitations on regulation of private property and the principles of
nexus and proportionality. Public access requirements on privately owned lands should be
commensurate with the scale and character of the development and should be Corm )tbl d -shoed'
o meet -needs of affected parties including, but not limited to, the landowner and the public.
D. Public access does not include the right to enter upon or cross private property, except on dedicated
public rights-of-way or easements or where development is specifically designed to accommodate
public access.
E. Except as provided in Subsection F below, shoreline substantial developments and shoreline
conditional uses shall provide for safe and convenient public access to and along the shoreline
where any of the following conditions are present:
1. the development is proposed by a public entity or on public lands;
2. the nature of the proposed use, activity or development will likely generate a public demand for
one or more forms of physical or visual access to the shoreline;
3. the proposed use, activity or development is not a water -oriented or other preferred shoreline
use, activity or development under the Act, such as a non -water -oriented commercial or
industrial use; or
4. the proposed use, activity or development will interfere with the public use, activity and
enjoyment of shoreline areas or waterbodies subject to the public trust doctrine.'
F. An applicant shall not be required to provide public access where the City determines that one or
more of the following conditions apply:
1. reasonable, safe and convenient public access to the shoreline is accessible within one-quarter
mile (1,320 feet) of the site, and the City's adopted parks and recreation plans do not indicate a
need for a trail or access at the property;
2. the site is within or part of an overall development which has previously provided public access
through other application processes;
3. the economic cost of providing for public access upon the site is unreasonably disproportionate
to the total long-term economic value of the proposed use, activity or development;
4. the proposed use, activity or development only involves the construction of four or fewer single-
family or multifamily dwellings;
5. the proposed use, activity or development only involves agricultural activities;
•...... di 1 to the W ashin�trar� ,p iEtLLif., �t cif Fcglg�-,y� tFut_`" .._P Public Trust Doctrine €s_�a I -z 1C P_i �c€PCt_ e ived
frrarr7Fnflish Common Law. The essence of the doctrine is that the waters of the state pare iLpubl€c resource owned
kap �ar�c� �av_�a€C�ak�C� tra �aCC_c€t€z�r�s_�c.�€��aC� frar� tFu� €�rras�s c�fr"a�av��at€rara�_crar�c�€�ct€r�_crar"r�r"r��rc�� f€sFu€ra�� r�cr��at€rar"a
and similar uses and that this trust €sscat €rav�aC€c��at�c� kty�€ €v_�at� cawra�rsFu�_caf CLiLL( ." Arid "The Public
1Tr€ast Doctr€r"ae—does not_aHow the ti€c to tr�s��ass_cav�r r €v�at�Cy cawra�c� €a�C�ar�c�s to access the t€del andse_It does
Fucaw v_ r _ r rat ct__ €ILlic _ use of _ n ave aktCe _ water _ bodies _ below__the card c�€L r�Iu�Fu _ w�ater__mark." __See
Tutt �wwweicy_w�a rave rra r�arr7ls a�sr �� Craws r€ C pI€c_tr€ st Futni1..
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
6. the proposal consists of a new or expanded road or utility crossing through shoreline jurisdiction
serving development located outside of shoreline jurisdiction;
7. the nature of the use, activity or development or the characteristics of the site make public
access requirements inappropriate due to health, safety or environmental hazards based on
evidence provided in the proposed application;
8. the proposed use, activity or development has security requirements that are not feasible to
address through the application of alternative design features or other measures;
9. significant and unmitigable harm to the shoreline environment would be likely to result from an
increase, expansion or extension of public access upon the site;
10. public access is deemed detrimental to threatened and/or endangered species under the
Endangered Species Act.
G. Public Access Standards. When public access is provided, the following standards shall apply.
Physical public access is preferred to solely visual access. Where physical public access is not
feasible, the applicant shall incorporate visual public access. Visual public access may consist of
view corridors, viewpoints, or other means of visual approach to public waters. Physical public
access may consist of a dedication of land or easement and a physical improvement in the form
of a trail, park, or other area serving as a means of physical approach to public waters.
Physical public access shall be designed to connect to existing or future public access features on
adjacent or abutting properties, or shall connect to existing public rights-of-way or access
easements, consistent with design and safety standards.
3. Public access proposals shall be designed consistent with parks and recreation standards or
plans contained in applicable City, County, State, or Federal codes or approved plans.
H. Shared community access may be allowed if there is no existing or planned public access along the
shoreline as determined by a review of adopted parks and recreation plans. Where provided,
community access is subject to all applicable development standards of this section.
Off-site public access, either physical or visual, may be permitted by the City where it results in an
equal or greater public benefit than on-site public access, or when on-site limitations of security,
environment, or feasibility are present. Off-sire_pulrl c, cr ess s_prcfrrred! where it it _2Ler e_-mts
g(jg?:E ; ty� ; gfty, rlr° '�k rr7r �r-een nra rk_aa( r'tme_il on . la s. Of-site_ss r�rrly_
irr l udrbut is not limited to enhancin L rlta by urbliicp o . rt � �rx s�JEL, . blic recreation sure°
L
x sri aubl c �rq�essrrror� ser er arrrall�r l_bu�tr irrg rbq_dr a vra errq_r s nL rr in accordance with
; y s r1n r sr rq_vi rrf _ rntara v r� a r nl In in ublir � esr a n 3 q�thf_ ralp - :y_lun�'erL the
control of the a liic n / . o .agjltrnt,r r° Lrrro�:hr�r�rq�u valent measurer.
J. The City may condition public access proposals to ensure compatibility with existing public access or
transportation facilities, address environmental conditions or environmental impacts, and/or
address compatibility with adjacent properties. Public access facilities shall be made compatible
with adjacent private properties through the use of techniques to define the separation between
public and private space.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
This portion of Chapter 17.07 addresses the following uses and activities: Commercial, Industry,
Recreation, Residential, Transportation, and Utilities, and Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance
17.07.050 Commercial and Service Development
Consultant Note: The following provisions were re -ordered to focus on preferred uses first, then
conditions of development such as public access. The language regarding preferred uses and non -water -
oriented uses was modified to more closely match SMP Guidelines, which in some ways is more flexible
or more directive than the original Regional SMP language. The undergrounding provision is eliminated
in this section in favor of addressing topic in Section 17.07.180, Utilities.
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land or water for
commercial and community service purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction.
A. Water -dependent commercial development shall be given priority over non -water -dependent
commercial uses. Secondarily, water -related and water -oriented uses shall be given priority over
non -water -oriented commercial uses.
B. Application for new commercial or community services shall demonstrate either:
1. How the use qualifies as a water -oriented use and how facilities function as such, or;
2. The use is part of a mixed-use project that includes water -dependent uses, or;
3. Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site, and the use will provide a significant public
benefit towards meeting SMA objectives, such as providing public access consistent with Section
17.05.040 and ecological restoration, or;
4. That a non -water -oriented use is physically separated from the shoreline by either a public
right-of-way or a separate parcel.
C. Mixed-use buildings, as defined in Section 17.01.090, may be allowed subject to compliance with all
of the following criteria:
1. The project includes one or more water -dependent uses.
2. Water -dependent commercial uses as well as other water -oriented commercial uses have
preferential locations along the shoreline.
3. The underlying zoning district permits residential uses together with commercial uses.
4. Public access is provided for substantial numbers' of persons in accordance with Section
17.05.040 and ecological restoration is provided as a public benefit. The Shoreline Administrator
shall interpret substantial numbers of persons consistent with the Act, SMP Guidelines, and
Shorelines Hearings Board cases.
',,,Substfant€gal rlUrTibers is------------------------------------------ not defined in the Shoreline M a¢�agLaILIe¢it Act or Guidelines. In Shorelines He a€�€¢1 Board
cas s,_ h_t.re has been some discussion of_ substantial _rlUrTibers_of_re, id s_jy€L _r����arc�_to who wra€aCd_be
Lin vv ktica k�a e Iri E'coLm v.P�acesetter Corr tr.Cca—Ir�c R Vt�r�2c 2Ci� 212 � 71 Pe2c 1 i 1 77 tFu
Shoreline Hear€ra-gs_ Board _fo uric- _RCVt—90.58.32lJ_iiC€cable whee i -five-residences _were affected.- Ir"a _Grill__v__
Araaiccart s,_SkiB No. 02-001�:LQQ2� �a. r€�x€rriatel�_12 res€c��r�c�� w�r� cc�r2s€c3�r�c� s€�kt�t�ar�t€�aC_fca€_psl�cas�s of ftCVt�
90.58.32O. -In Alexander the -number -of residences impacted—was € nci gar butlLjgy uLiv k e . ----------------
n as few as 18.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 4
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
5. Residential uses meet requirements of Section 17.07.130.
D. If required by Section 17.05.040, commercial and community services uses shall be designed to
facilitate public access to and enjoyment of nearby shoreline areas.
E. Non -water -oriented commercial uses shall not be allowed over water in any shoreline environment
unless they are accessory to and support water -dependent uses.
17.07.090 Industry
Consultant Note: Similar approach as Commercial section above, where preferred uses are a focus first.
Refinements to language made to more closely respond to SMP guidelines for conditions under which
non -water -oriented uses are allowed.
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land for industrial purposes
within Shoreline jurisdiction:
A. Water -dependent uses shall be given preference over non -water -dependent uses. Water -oriented
industrial uses shall be given preference over non -water -oriented uses.
B. Facilities and structures shall be designed and screened with vegetation to minimize degradation of
shoreline aesthetic qualities.
C. The location, design, and construction of industrial uses and redevelopment are required to
demonstrate no net loss of ecological functions and that significant adverse impacts to other
shoreline resources and values are avoided. Industries which have proven to be environmentally
hazardousrrr�rrol� bt _4 from locating along the shorelines PLvided such
.industries rnry_b� rllll„�sw�r au coirlcJsLei"IL Mdh Lhe Shollr hour;; Use acrid Moa; ffi zffiour Matil ori Q f zfl-fle 03 4 70.
L if r� I� rzr�rrd rrriti �a is n alLrrL is 12pL( vfrd b :he Shoreline Ad'rnin strator2p2n r3r�inu inL,1±rt �:he_ }alLrr"D
w o u I d a d e_grL.0).rrilt La1re_e3�ar�Ls.L) �7C"�rVl Q errnr r6ar �Lssr eLC 2L'1L' ,..V.��I[.icLIDS.II..•......ILf....L.h.�.=....II2.II�.��.i!..b....i.:"!q"
fou irid filasur�nnilr::iei" L noir iuruoLrd^U: olr of Llhe shour^Ilillrrrd^ Lhe Shour^Ilillrie AdirruillrrilshaLourna
aIrri ZA'Llie aI' ' IIr aII`iL s ex 9eII`ise"
D. New industrial uses and redevelopment of industrial uses shall provide for environmental cleanup
and restoration in degraded or contaminated locations.
E. Application for new industrial activities shall demonstrate either:
1. How the use qualifies as a water -oriented use and how facilities function as such, or;
2. That a non -water -oriented use is part of a mixed-use development that includes a water -
dependent use, or;
3. Navigability is severely limited at the proposed site and the use will provide a significant public
benefit towards meeting SMA objectives, such as providing public access and ecological
restoration, or;
4. That a non -water -oriented use is physically separated from the shoreline by either a public
right-of-way or a separate parcel.
F. New or expanded industrial developments shall be required to make adequate provisions for public
and private visual and physical shoreline access unless such a requirement would interfere with
operations or create hazards to life or property or another exception is met consistent with Section
17.05.040.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
17.07.120 Recreational Development
Consultant Note: Refinements to language made to more closely respond to SMP guidelines and to
reflect City specific environment designations.
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land or water for
recreational purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction, whether public or commercial.
A. Recreational activities must be compatible with existing or proposed uses in the area and must not
create a noise, traffic, visual or similar problem.
B. The location, design, and operation of recreational facilities shall be consistent with the purpose of
the environmental designation.
C. Recreational uses and facilities located within shoreline jurisdiction shall include features that relate
to access, enjoyment and use of the water and shorelines of the state. Access to recreational areas
should emphasize botha4-corrsolidatt2d ark arr 0 _rr sp)(Le areas and 4 _ --trail access. Linkage
of shoreline parks and public access points by means of linear access should be encouraged.
D. Different uses within a specific recreational facility must be compatible with each other.
E. Commercial components of the use that are not explicitly related to the recreational operation must
also conform to the Commercial use standards of section 17.07.050 (Commercial and Service
Development).
F. Recreational development shall demonstrate achievement of no net loss of ecological functions.
G. Applicants may apply for a multiyear recreation maintenance plan for exempt and non-exempt
repair and maintenance activities consistent with Section 17.07.190.
17.07.130 Residential Development
Consultant Note: Refinements to language made to more closely respond to SMP guidelines and to
reflect City conditions rather than rural conditions. The undergrounding provision is eliminated in this
section in favor of addressing topic in Section 17.07.180, Utilities. The limitation on subdivision design
requiring new flood control facilities is based on the SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26). In the consultants'
experience the minimum language is shown below on this topic; in other communities Ecology has
required that the performance standards include a hydrogeologic study.
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land for residential
purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction.
A. New multiunit development, plats or subdivisions containing land adjacent to publicly owned or
controlled bodies of water shall allow for pedestrian access to such water bodies for residents
.and the�?ubl c consistent with Section 17.05.040.
B. Residential development and preliminary plats shall contain plans indicating how shoreline
vegetation will be preserved and erosion controlled. A vegetation protection and/or erosion
control plan shall demonstrate adr aU2, :e�rrartr�tir�rr ark yr � rt or�r�rrd avoidancearfsr�il erosion.V�
Thr ralr�rr is ou�r�d ' _- : � � ..... , 9 F4 < -)-b--- insufficient for protection of the
shoreline environment .. -e _ i i « the Shorerline dhdministr-a� r-rn2,y_Lt irle
Lhir -prly reLiLy LA±!e app Ilcant's f p rise
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
C. Applications for new shoreline residences shall ensure that shoreline stabilization and flood control
structures are not necessary to protect proposed residences. Age( technical analysis ^�r�aJehi"JLiien
i rr 1"MC 17,,01,,090 shall ber?rov_ dee to demonstrate that such structures are uunnecessary_t r?ra��:e
.pa op(osed' residencesrtl�is stud rr72 bre ruaiv __ b� he Shovel ne Administrator -if a stu d air
.info rmationr?rr�v �r� br�l�� <J�dh�;E FEMA Ecolo�y�r�r a��lr�r r���ro�� r� s�s_and—pLgv des su fficient
.information to conclude -that de that shoreline stabilization and flood -control -structures are riot n qq ssrj y.
D. New floating residences and over -water residential structures shall be prohibited in shoreline
jurisdiction.
E. Private lake owners or homeowners associations may apply for a multiyear residential maintenance
plan for exempt and non-exempt repair and maintenance activities consistent with Section
17.07.190.
17.07.170 Transportation and Parking
Consultant Note: Revisions in this section are intended to clarify when standards apply to new or
expanded facilities versus maintenance and repair (allowed to have multiyear maintenance plans), and
to allow for flexibility in the location of parking areas due to site constraints or ADA requirements. Some
clarifications on performance standards were added to align with SMP Guidelines.
The following provisions shall apply to the location and construction of roads, railroads, bridges,
watercrossings, and parking within shorelines.
A. Transportation and parking activities consistent with exemptions in 17.13.050 are exempt from the
requirement to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, but shall meet applicable
provisions of this Master Program. Applicants may apply for a multiyear transportation maintenance
plan for exempt and non-exempt repair and maintenance activities consistent with Section
17.07.190.
B. New or expanded transportation and parking facilities must be designed and located where they will
have the least possible adverse effect on unique or fragile shoreline features, will not result in a net
loss of shoreline ecological functions, and will not adversely impact existing or planned water -
dependent uses.
C. New or expanded roads and railroads shall not be located within a designated stream corridor
except where it is necessary to cross the corridor, or where existing development, topography, and
other conditions preclude locations outside the stream corridor. Applications for new or expanded
roads and railroads shall demonstrate through engineering studies that a shoreline location is the
most feasible of the available options.
1. Construction of roadways or railroads across stream corridors shall be by the most direct
route possible having the least impact to the stream corridor.
2. Roadways or railroads that must run parallel to stream or wetland edges shall be along routes
having the greatest possible distance from stream or wetland and the least impact to the
corridor�iLcli.
3. Roadways or railroads within the stream corridor shall not hydrologically obstruct, cut-off or
isolate stream corridor features.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 7
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
.... Material excavated from the roadway area to achieve the design grade shall be used as fill where
necessary to maintain grade, or shall be transported outside the corridor if it contains material
unsuited to the current construction Droiiect. SDoilo construction waste, and other debris shall not
be used as road fill or buried within the stream corridor.
----------------------------------
I�.I td ,ts,_vrrater,-cr,ossin structures or, _INriecessary fill to elevate roadways shall not constrict the
stream channel; impede the normal flow of floodwaters sediment and woodyrbrs;-or cause
__________________...... , ._______� _______
displacement that would increase the elevation of flood waters such that it would cause properties
not in the floodplain to be flood -prone.
a Natural stream channels and drainage ways shall be preserved through the use of bridges for
crossings, unless the use of culverts is demonstrated to be the only technically feasible means for
crossing. The use of bridges shall be the preferred means to preserve natural streams and
drainageways. Where bridges are not feasible, large, natural bottom culverts; multi -plate pipes;
and bottomless arches shall be used, and shall be designed consistent with the latest guidance from
the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
W.,& Roads and bridges within floodways must meet flood hazard regulations of Section 17.09.020.
l.o„H,, Parking — the standards in this section only apply to new or expanded uses within Shoreline
jurisdiction.
1. Parking facilities in shorelines are not a preferred use and shall be allowed only as necessary to
support an authorized use consistent with the use matrix and definitions in Sections 17.03.070
and 17.01.090, respectively.
2. Parking areas shall be located upland of the areas they serve, unless:
a. A location waterward is required to meet Americans with Disabilities Act requirements,
or
b. No other feasible location upland of the area served is possible due to topographical or
other physical constraints.
c. In the above cases 2a and 2b, parking shall be located as far upland from the OHWM as
feasible, recognizing the limited supply of shoreline areas.
3. Proposals for new or expanded parking facilities shall minimize environmental and visual
impacts of parking facilities through compliance with Section 17.05 General Regulations, Section
17.09 Critical Areas, and applicable City zoning standards addressing lighting and landscaping.
17.07.180 Utilities
Consultant Note: Revisions in this section are intended to clarify when standards apply to new or
expanded facilities versus maintenance and repair (allowed to have multiyear maintenance plans). Some
clarifications on performance standards were added to align with SMP Guidelines. Streamlining of
standards was also an objective (e.g. removing multiple references to flood hazard standards).
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
The following provisions shall apply to the location, construction, or installation of utility transmission
lines and facilities (such as those for wastewater, water, communication, natural gas, etc.) within
shoreline jurisdiction:
A. Utilities activities consistent with exemptions in Section 17.13.050 are exempt from the requirement
to obtain a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, but shall meet applicable provisions of this
Master Program. Applicants may apply for a multiyear utilities maintenance plan for exempt and
non-exempt repair and maintenance activities consistent with Section 17.07.190.
B. New or expanded non -water -oriented utility production and processing facilities, such as power
plants and sewage treatment plants, or parts of those facilities that are non -water -oriented, shall
not be allowed in shoreline jurisdiction unless it can be demonstrated that:
1. No other feasible option is available, or
2. The new location is necessary due to channel migration or levee setback, or
3. The facilities are being added or improved to meet federal or state mandates
C. Utility transmission lines and facilities shall be permitted within the stream corridor only where
it is necessary to cross the corridor or where existing development, topography, and other
conditions preclude locations outside the stream corridor. Fair e tL_ple _,:.lines and facilities that are
essential[ ubl c faciliJts . r° a n �l se�nr _LLac lines h rr7 us ross the stream are -LE iItt( ,
1. Utility transmission lines and facilities across stream corridors shall be by the most direct route
possible having the least impact to the stream corridor.
2. The construction of utility transmission lines and facilities within a stream corridor shall be
designed and located to ensure minimum disruption to the functional properties specified
under Section 17.09.030.
D. Utility lines under streams and wetlands shall be placed in a sleeve casing to allow easy replacement
or repair with minimal disturbance to the stream corridor.
E. Buried utility transmission lines crossing a stream corridor shall be buried raw
.ice _ k sufficient dth below the bankfull depth of the
waterway, _ _ .raw awl r « _'' --awl associated floodway and
floodplain to the maximum extent of potential channel migration as determined by hydrologic
analysis.
F. Preference shall be given to utility systems contained within the footprint of an existing right-of-way
or utility easement over new locations for utility systems. Wherever possible, new above ground
installations shall use available, existing bridge and utility locations and stream corridor
crossings as opposed to creating new locations and stream corridor crossings.
G. Above ground electrical support towers and other similar transmission structures shall be located as
far upland as is practical.
H. Transmission support structures shall be located clear of high flood velocities, located in areas
of minimum flood depth which require the least floodproofing, and shall be adequately
floodproofed.
I. Underground utility transmission lines shall be constructed so they do not alter, intercept or
dewater groundwater patterns that support streams, wetlands and hyporheic flow.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 9
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
J. All new and replacement water supply systems and wastewater systems within a special flood
hazard area must meet the requirements of 17.09.020 Flood Hazard Areas.
K. Utility transmission lines within the Floodway Fringe or Floodway shall meet the standards of
Section 17.09.020 Flood Hazard Areas
Additional Shoreline Standards for Utility Transmission Lines and Facilities. The requirements
below shall apply to all utility transmission lines and facilities within Shoreline jurisdiction. Utility
services to individual projects undergoing Shoreline review, including those where the primary use
may be in a different Shoreline environment than the utility service, shall not require separate
Substantial Development Permits for utility service installations, but are subject to all of the
provisions in this section, except those listed below. Utility service to projects outside Shoreline
jurisdiction is subject to normal Shoreline permitting, and is subject to all of the provisions in this
section, except those listed below.
1. Where feasible, utilities shall be placed underground unless such undergrounding would be
economically or technically prohibitive.
2. New utility facilities shall be designed and located to preserve the natural landscape, and
minimize conflicts with present and planned land and shoreline uses, especially recreation,
residential and public access.
3. Expansion, updating, and maintenance of existing facilities is allowed but shall be designed to be
located to avoid adverse impacts to shoreline resources as much as possible.
4. Permit applications shall meet the following submittal review standards:
a. Applications shall submit studies (social, economic, environmental, engineering, etc.) to
demonstrate that a shoreline location is the most feasible of the available options.
b. Applications to locate transmission lines shall submit a location plan that shows existing
utility routes in the vicinity of the proposed transmission line. Failure of utility lines to
follow existing routes, where feasible, shall cause denial of the application.
c. Applications shall include a reclamation plan that provides for re -vegetation and
protection of shoreline areas from erosion and siltation. A re -vegetation or erosion
protection plan shall_demonstrate a1 kg_qate_PrQ_ttct on 2f_v_�I'ftati fir_ a nd-avoi dance of
sol erosion.fe?nis found insufficient for,otection of the shoreline environment
bIrrr
the Shoreline AdminislL_ rrra1r ire rtl�ir rr r°eview a her�ra alir rn rs ex rrsr.
17.07.190 Redevelopment, Repair, and Maintenance (All New)
Consultant Note: This is not a required section, but based on discussions with stakeholders such as
WSDOT, State Parks, Wastewater Treatment Plan staff, and private lake owners, the ability to apply for
multi-year maintenance plans was seen as valuable to streamlining permitting and also to ensuring
consistent interpretation.
This section addresses how regulations apply to redevelopment, repair, or maintenance activities;
clarifies how SMP standards proportionally apply to redevelopment activities; and provides a process for
multi-year management plans for maintenance and repair.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 10
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
A. SMP provisions shall not apply retroactively to existing uses and developments.
B. Legally established uses and developments may be maintained, repaired, and operated within
shoreline jurisdiction and within shoreline and critical area buffers established in this SMP. Normal
maintenance and repair, as specified in Section 17.13.050, do not require shoreline permits.
C. Consistent with the Applicability provisions of Section 17.01.020, SMP standards shall apply to
expansions or alterations of uses or developments and to new development or redevelopment of a
property as follows:
1. The Shoreline Administrator shall determine the extent of compliance with SMP provisions.
2. The required provisions shall be related to and in proportion to the proposal. For example, if an
upper story is added to a structure, requirements related to building heights and views may
apply. If vegetation is removed beyond normal maintenance pursuant to Section 17.05.030,
vegetation conservation and shoreline buffer standards may apply.
D. In order to provide consistent interpretation of SMP exemptions, streamline permitting, determine
applicable SMP standards regarding maintenance or repair activities, apply best management
practices or protocols to ensure no -net -loss of shoreline ecological function, and identify the need
for notification of activities, the City may approve multi-year programmatic shoreline exemptions
consistent with specific exempt activities allowed in Section 17.13.050 for the following types of
uses and modifications.
1. Dredging
2. Private development and facilities on private lakes
3. Public Parks and Recreation
4. Transportation facilities
5. Utility facilities, including, but not limited to wastewater and water systems
E. Applicants for multi-year maintenance plans shall provide the following information for
consideration by the Shoreline Administrator:
1. Description of proposed maintenance activities and best management practices;
2. Type, methods, and frequency of maintenance or repair activities;
3. Length of requested multi-year maintenance plan. Multi-year maintenance approval should not
exceed five years, except where expressly allowed in this Master Program;
4. Specification of which activities the applicant will regularly notice the City or which do not
require advanced notice;
5. Description of aquatic habitat protection measures and any applicable permits received for that
work;
6. Description of riparian and wetland protection measures and any applicable permits received
for that work;
7. Description of stormwater management practices to reduce both water quantity and water
quality impacts and any applicable permits received for that work;
8. Description of erosion and sediment control practices that prevent off-site movement;
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 11
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
9. Description of re -vegetation or restoration activities following maintenance or repair; and
10. Description of chemical and nutrient use and containment practices such as Integrated Pest
Management (IPM).
11. Description of compliance with use -specific criteria in Sections F to J below.
F. Dredging. Applications for dredging maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in Section 17.07.060.
G. Private development and facilities on private lakes
1. A multi-year maintenance plan for private development and facilities on private lakes shall be
consistent with covenants, codes, and restrictions of a property owners association, where such
an association exists.
2. The applicable use or modification performance standards of Chapter 17.07 shall be
demonstrated to be met by applications for multi-year maintenance plans.
H. Public Parks and Recreation.
1. A multi-year maintenance plan for public parks and recreation facilities shall describe
management objective or desired outcome for shoreline habitat and water quality topics stated
in application criteria E.3 to E.9 above, specific performance requirements for each standard,
and corrective actions that would be implemented if the performance requirement(s) is not
met.
2. Applications for parks and recreation maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in Section 17.07.130.
I. Transportation facilities.
1. Appendix X contains a programmatic exemption for Transportation facilities under the
responsibility of the Washington State Department of Transportation to allow for routine
maintenance and repair of existing highways and associated facilities.
2. This Appendix is considered an interpretation by the Shoreline Administrator pursuant to
Section 17.13.020 and may be addended or clarified pursuant to the process of Section
17.13.020. It is not subject to SMP Amendment procedures of Section 17.13.140.
3. The duration of the programmatic exemption shall be eight years from the effective date of this
SMP (effective XXX 2014).
4. The programmatic exemption may be renewed as part of the regular SMP Update process
consistent with the Shoreline Management Act at RCW 90.58.080.
5. Applications for transportation maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in Section 17.07.170.
J. Utility facilities. Applications for utility maintenance plans shall demonstrate compliance with
regulations in Section 17.07.130.
K. City authorization of multi-year programmatic maintenance plans.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 12
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
1. The City may approve multi-year programmatic maintenance plans that solely contain exempt
activities consistent with the interpretation process of Section 17.13.020, when consistent with
the following criteria:
a. The policies and procedures of the SMA;
b. The provisions of WAC 173-27;
c. Chapter 10, Section 3 of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan; and
d. This Title 17.
2. The City may approve multi-year programmatic maintenance plans that include a combination
of exempt and non-exempt activities. The permit process shall follow the permit process
consistent with non-exempt activities pursuant to Section 17.03.070, Shoreline Use and
Modification Matrix. The criteria for approval shall follow the applicable criteria for the permit
type in Chapter 17.13, e.g. Shoreline Substantial Development Permit or Shoreline Conditional
Use Permit.
3. The City may attach conditions to the approval of multi-year maintenance plans as necessary to
assure consistency of the project with the Act and this SMP. Additionally, nothing shall interfere
with the City's ability to require compliance with all other applicable laws and plans.
y 9',.'y y EXl� ST LJ S0. S, ST LJC, T LJ IR E S /� II%J]D 0..,0 �'r s ( / � II_. _Ir�jj E W)
Consultant Note: This section relies on Ecology's non -conforming rules plus the allowances for treating
pre-existing single family homes as legal consistent with the recent amendments to the Shoreline
Management Act. The Ecology rules on non -conforming uses and structures are found at:
http://apps.leg.wa.gov/wac/default.aspx?cite=173-27-080.
Nonconforming uses or developments are shoreline uses or development which were lawfully
constructed or established prior to the effective date of this Master Program, or approved amendments
to the Master Program, but which do not conform to present regulations or standards of the Master
Program. The intent of this chapter is to provide regulations regarding nonconforming uses, structures,
and lots as well as to establish residences as pre-existing legal uses, conforming to the Master Program
as allowed by the Act.
17.11.010 Nonconforming Uses
A. Uses and developments that were legally established and are nonconforming with regard to the use
regulations of the Master Program may continue as legal nonconforming uses. Such uses shall not
be enlarged or expanded unless expressly allowed by Sections 17.11.010.13 and 17.11.040.
B. Nonconforming single-family residential uses that are located landward of the ordinary high water
mark may be enlarged or expanded in conformance with applicable 4-. d --dimensional standards
by the addition of space to the main structure or by the addition of normal appurtenances as
defined in WAC 173-27-040 (2)(g) upon approval of a conditional use permit by the Hearing
Examiner.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 13
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
C. A le Lllrtstg blishe�Luse prlorto the effective date of tht MastLr Pr�'�r gm L)�1C1C1C dr�t.ejwhich is
listed as a conditional use but _Pwag ak
for which a conditional use permit has not been obtained shall be considered a
nonconforming use.
D. A structure which is being or has been used for a nonconforming use may be used for a different
nonconforming use only upon the approval of a conditional use permit by the Hearing Examiner. A
conditional use permit may be approved only upon a finding that:
1. No reasonable alternative conforming use is practical; and
2. The proposed use will be at least as consistent with the policies and provisions of the Act and
the Master Program and as compatible with the uses in the area as the preexisting use.
In addition such conditions may be attached to the permit as are deemed necessary to assure
compliance with the above findings, the requirements of the Master Program and the Shoreline
Management Act and to assure that the use will not become a nuisance or a hazard. A use
authorized pursuant to subsection 17.11.010.D of this section shall be considered a conforming use
for purposes of this section.
E. If a nonconforming use is discontinued for twelve consecutive months or for twelve months during
any two-year period, the nonconforming rights shall expire and any subsequent use shall be
required to conform to this title.
17.11.020 Nonconforming Structures
A. Structures that were legally established and are used for a conforming use but which are
nonconforming with regard to setbacks, buffers or yards; area; bulk; height or density may be
maintained and repaired and may be enlarged or expanded provided that said enlargement does
not increase the extent of nonconformity by further encroaching upon or extending into areas
where construction or use would not be allowed for new development or uses.
B. A structure for which a variance has been issued shall be considered a legal nonconforming
structure and the requirements of this section shall apply as they apply to preexisting
nonconformities.
C. A nonconforming structure which is moved any distance must be brought into conformance with
the Master Program and the Act.
D. If a nonconforming development/structure is damaged to an extent not exceeding (seventy-five
iLG21percent of the replacement cost of the original development, it may be reconstructed to those
configurations existing immediately prior to the time the development was damaged, provided that
application is made for the permits necessary to restore the development within six months of the
date the damage occurred, all permits are obtained and the restoration is completed within two
years of permit issuance.
17.11.030 Nonconforming Lots
Consultant Note: Paragraph B adds some flexibility and has been developed based on interpretations
and discussions with Ecology in other jurisdictions.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 14
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
A. In any district, any permitted use or structure may be erected on any existing lot or parcel. This
provision shall apply even though such lot fails to meet the minimum dimensional requirements of
this SMP, provided that such structure is allowed within the shoreline environment and all uses of
the nonconforming lot shall comply with all other provisions of the SMP and underlying zoning
requirements including setbacks, dimensional standards, and lot coverage requirements.
B. Structures and customary accessory buildings on non -conforming lots shall be set back from the
OHWM to the greatest extent feasible. Development proposed inside required buffers shall go
through mitigation sequencing and shall require a mitigation plan.
17.11.040 Pre-existing Legal Uses — Conforming Residential Structures
Notwithstanding Sections 17.11.010 to 030, the following shall apply to preexisting legal residential
structures constructed prior to the effective date of this SMP (XXXX, 2013):
A. Residential structures and appurtenant structures that were legally established and are used for a
conforming use, but that do not meet standards for the following shall be considered a conforming
structure: Setbacks, buffers, or yards; area; bulk; height; or density.
B. The City shall allow redevelopment, expansion, change with the class of occupancy, or replacement
of the residential structure if it is consistent with the SMP, including requirements for no net loss of
shoreline ecological functions.
C. For purposes of this section, "appurtenant structures" means garages, sheds, and other legally
established structures. "Appurtenant structures" does not include bulkheads and other shoreline
modifications or over -water structures.
D. Nothing in this Section 17.11.040: (a) Restricts the ability of this SMP to limit redevelopment,
expansion, or replacement of over -water structures located in hazardous areas, such as floodplains
and geologically hazardous areas; or (b) affects the application of other federal, state, or City
requirements to residential structures.
May 30, 2013 Prepared by BERK/TWC 15
YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
Preliminary Chapter 17.01
IHIR0:LIIIMIIIP']AIR Y 17. 0y 1,LJRI1,0S0. AIICJID G0..IICJI0.;IRALIIHIROVIISIIGICJIS
17.01.010 Authority
Consultant note: The County's Regional SMP addressed not only its shoreline jurisdiction, but also
critical area regulations outside of shoreline jurisdiction. We have amended the sections below to be
applicable to the City's shoreline jurisdiction only.
A. Title 17 of the Yakima Municipal Code is established pursuant to RCW Chapter 90.58 (Shoreline
Management Act)„ WAC 173-26 (State master program approval/amendment procedures and
master program guidelines), and WAC 173-27 (Shoreline management permit and enforcement
procedures). This title shall be known as the "Shoreline Master Program Regulations."
B. The Shoreline Master Program Regulations shall, for the purposes of 36.70A.480 (GMA and
Shorelines of the State) be considered a set of use regulations applying only to shoreline areas as
specified in RCW 90.58 (SMA) and WAC 173-26 (State master program approval/amendment
procedures and master program guidelines). These regulations are intended to be substantive legal
rules and procedures used to implement the goals and policies of the Master Program (these
goals ad policies are contained in the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan, Chapter 10, Section 3 —
General Shoreline Planning Sub -element). These regulations shall be applied and interpreted in a
manner consistent with the remainder of the Master Program or the Act.
17.01.020 Applicability
Consultant note: We have amended the sections below to be applicable to the SMP only (not to critical
areas regulations outside of shoreline jurisdiction); we have removed references to activities we believe
are not applicable to the City and UGA. Please also note, we will have a separate section on non-
conforming or pre-existing uses in Chapter 17.11.
C. The provisions of this title shall apply to any new development, construction or use within the
incorporated portion of the City of Yakima. However, this title does not apply to the situations
below:
1. Interior building improvements that do not change the use or occupancy are not subject to this
title;
2. Exterior structure maintenance activities, including painting and roofing, are not subject to this
title, as long as such activities do not expand the existing footprint of the structure or
impervious area;
3. Routine landscape maintenance of established, ornamental landscaping, such as lawn mowing,
pruning and weeding are not subject to this title;
May 30, 2013
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:�:�►ll !�
4. Maintenance of the following existing facilities that do not expand the affected area is not
subject to this title: septic tanks (routine cleaning), wells, and individual utility service
connections.
5. Changing agricultural crops within an existing farming operation is not considered new
development, construction or use. SMP regulations do apply to the following: 1) new
agricultural activities on land not meeting the definition of agricultural land, 2) conversion of
agricultural lands to other uses, and 3) other development on agricultural land that does not
meet the definition of agricultural activities (e.g. processing plants);
6. Minor, temporary or transient activities, including those of a recreational nature, that do not
alter the environment or require a dedicated staging area, use area, or route are not subject to
this title, and including temporary signs (election, sale, rent, etc.);
D. The following subsections guide the determination of applicability of SMP regulations on federal
lands:
1. Federal development on federally owned land is not subject to this SMP nor required to obtain a
Shoreline permit unless otherwise required by federal law, or unless the state by statute has
ceded all regulatory authority over the federal ownership;
2. Federal development on a federally owned lease is not subject to this SMP nor required to
obtain a Shoreline permit unless otherwise required by federal law, or unless the state by
statute has ceded all regulatory authority over the federal ownership as long as the
development is consistent with the purpose of the lease;
3. Development on federally owned land under a federal lease or easement for a non-federal
activity is subject to this SMP and must obtain a Shoreline permit; for example, the SMP applies
to private activities on federal land such as leases where the private citizen owns the structure
but the federal government owns the land;
4. Non-federal development or use on federally owned land is subject to this SMP and must obtain
a Shoreline permit;
5. Development on non-federal land is subject to this SMP and must obtain a Shoreline permit,
even if it is leased, rented, etc. to the federal government, or it is within the boundaries of
federal ownership unless the state by statute has ceded all regulatory authority over the federal
ownership.
17.01.030 Findings
Consultant note: Section to be inserted at time of Planning Commission recommendation to Council.
Typically, findings would state natural and built environment conditions that illustrate local
circumstances. For example, the findings could describe the Yakima Greenway as an important
consideration in the SMP. Another factor could be the presence of existing development along
manmade lakes. Yet another could be the importance of the Yakima River in terms of flood control and
habitat.
17.01.040 Purpose
The purpose of YMC Title 17 is to establish a single, uniform system of procedures and standards to be
applied to development within Shoreline jurisdiction of the City of Yakima. The SMP regulations are
May 30, 2013
intended to carry out the responsibilities imposed on the City of Yakima by the Shoreline Management
Act (RCW 90.58) and its Administrative Rules (WAC 173-18, WAC 173- 20, WAC 173- 22, WAC 173- 26
and WAC 173- 27) insofar as regulations can, and the adoption of these regulations does not remove
other responsibilities imposed by the Act. The purposes of the Shoreline Master Program Regulations
are to:
A. Promote reasonable and appropriate use of the shorelines that will protect the public and
private interest;
B. Protect against adverse effects to the public health, the land, its vegetation and wildlife and the
waters and their aquatic life within the City of Yakima;
C. Protect public rights of navigation;
D. Recognize and protect private property rights consistent with public interest;
E. Promote a high quality of environment along the shorelines;
F. Preserve and protect fragile natural resources and culturally significant features;
G. Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines where increased use levels are
desirable;
H. Protect public and private properties from adverse effects of improper development in hazardous
shorelines areas;
I. Recognize and protect the statewide interest;
J. Give preference to uses that result in long-term over short-term benefits; and
K. Provide for no net loss of ecological functions cumulatively from both individual permitted
development and individual exempt development.
L. Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.
17.01.050 Relationship to Other Codes, Ordinances and Plans
A. All applicable federal, state, and local laws shall apply to properties in the shoreline jurisdiction. At
the time of application or initial inquiry, the Shoreline Administrator shall inform the
applicant/proponent of other local laws and rules that may be applicable to the project. The
responsibility for determining applicable federal, state or special district statutes and regulations
and complying with the same rests with the applicant/proponent or responsible person carrying out
the activity, use, or development in question.
B. This SMP includes critical areas regulations applicable only in the shoreline jurisdiction, and shall
control within shoreline jurisdiction over other City critical area regulations adopted pursuant to the
Growth Management Act.
C. Other rules and regulations, including but not limited to the City of Yakima development regulations
addressing subdivision, zoning, building and construction shall remain in full force and effect as they
apply to a designated Shoreline.
D. Wherever the requirements of this Title 17 conflict with the requirements of City rules or
regulations, the most restrictive standards shall govern.
May 30, 2013 3
CITY of YA I A SHORELINE ASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
17.01.060 Liberal Construction
As provided for in RCW 90.58.900, the Act is exempted from the rule of strict construction; the Act and
this SMP shall therefore be liberally construed to give full effect to the purposes, goals, objectives, and
policies for which they were enacted.
17.01.070 Severability
If any provision of the ordinance codified in this title, or its application to any person or legal entity or
circumstances is held to be invalid, the remainder of said ordinance or the application of the provision to
other persons or legal entities or circumstances shall not be affected.
17.01.080 Effective Date
The SMP is hereby adopted on the XX date of XX, 2013. This SMP and all amendments thereto shall
become effective upon final approval by Ecology.
17.01.090 Definitions
Consultant Note: Definitions are addressed in a separate document as they will continue to evolve
frequently as the Draft SMP is prepared.
17.01.100 Shoreline Jurisdiction
Pursuant to the authority of RCW 90.58.030(2)(f) and WAC 173-22-040(2-3), the jurisdictional limits of
the Shoreline Master Program within the City of Yakima for areas that are subject to these regulations,
are listed below. The City of Yakima has developed maps to generally depict the extent of Shoreline
jurisdictional boundaries for all Shorelines within the county. These maps are for informational and
illustrative purposes only and are not regulatory in nature. Where such maps are not available or do not
correspond with physical features on the ground, jurisdictional boundaries shall be controlled by the
criteria listed below, WAC 173-22, and the Act itself. It is understood when the maps and the actual
physical features do not correspond, the physical features will dictate the extent of the jurisdictional
boundaries. It is understood that the actual physical features may change. The physical features will
dictate the extent of the Shoreline jurisdictional boundaries. Shoreline jurisdictional area shall include:
A. .i .ker,.e.....5. ... r e.. ° Ie..� r�- ; �u:. ° ... ° .......A p ... : ' .' : ............]..he.
followingw t:erbodies in the Cit: / a nd a orn �rnrnox�t:iorn in the JUGA:
................................................................................................................................................................................................%..............................R..............W.."............................................................................................R...........................................................................
4. I...ako Asraono �rnd
B. Buchanan I...ako shall be re.ul�t:od urndor this SMP whore t:ho W�shirn torn U:�o �rt:mornt: of Natural
........................0..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................g...........................................P......................................................................................................................
Resources Surface Mine Reclamation Permit: laDsos or is terminated. or when the Cih/ receives a
ormit: licat:iorn for new dovolo mornt: on or uses of Buchanan I...ako.
r .............................................. p. p............................................................................................................................................... p..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
May 30, 2013
FRI-*.T-,TM
Bn C,,Subject to Subsection H below, wherever the "floodway" has been established by a flood
insurance study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA), shoreline
jurisdiction shall be the floodway plus 200 feet, measured on a horizontal plane, or the 100 -year
floodplain, whichever is lesser.
C„ Subject to Subsection H below, whenever the 100 -year floodplain has been identified by a
flood insurance study prepared by the Federal Emergency Management Agency but where no
"floodway" has been identified, shoreline jurisdiction shall be the 100 -year floodplain boundary or
200 feet, measured in a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark, whichever is
greater.
d 7, Whenever there are no detailed floodplain or floodway studies, shoreline jurisdiction shall be 200
feet, measured on a horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark.
Where a Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) has been identified, and extends beyond the jurisdiction
established by Subsection B above, jurisdiction shall extend to the extent of the CMZ, but not
beyond the limits of Subsection D.
f.G,,Those wetlands and river deltas which are in proximity to and either influence or are
influenced by the Shorelines. This influence includes, but is not limited to, one or more of the
following: periodic inundation, location within a floodplain, or hydraulic continuity;
C;. : ...............Under no circumstances shall shoreline jurisdiction be less than 200 feet, measured on a
horizontal plane, from the ordinary high water mark of the Shoreline waterbodyy„ �Zc2„pt; that; those
Dorno ns of Buchanan I...ako within 2.00 foot: of the Yakima Livor aro excluded from shoreline
i..I.r!sjc�Ipr�r�!l�chararAakeisr�uea owired .
... .. .G......::..........!... .......:..........p
May 30, 2013
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
1 /0 . 1 ,fib A D IM I� NJI I � SII R lC"' , II I � O NJI A NJI D E NJI FO R C E IM E �� �I T
Consultant note: This Chapter is all new and is not drawn from the Regional SMP.
17.13.010 Roles and Responsibilities
The City shall administer the Shoreline Master Program (SMP), collectively Title 17 and the associated
goals and policies contained in Comprehensive Plan Chapter 10, Section 3, according to the following
roles and responsibilities:
A. Shoreline Administrator. The Shoreline Administrator in the City of Yakima is the Community
Development Director. The Shoreline Administrator shall have overall administrative responsibility
of the SMP. The Shoreline Administrator or his/her designee is hereby vested with the authority to:
1. Administrate this SMP.
2. Make field inspections as needed, and prepare or require reports on shoreline permit
applications.
3. Grant or deny exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requirements of this
SMP.
4. Authorize, approve or deny Shoreline Substantial Development Permits.
5. Authorize, approve or deny Shoreline Conditional Use Permits exce t for those., irrvolvirr � rrorr
cc_rr„c..rr .j.Ye.g.._u:`�.�'.:`�.P.....�!.!.e'.�!.....`�..d..�..y..........:�...�.,.....resi onsibilrt.�L. ceFd i�earin�?Exarrq'nerr.
6. Make written recommendations to the Hearing Examiner, Planning Commission, or City Council
as appropriate.
7. Advise interested persons and prospective applicants as to the administrative procedures and
related components of this SMP.
8. Collect fees for all necessary permits as provided in City ordinances or resolutions. The
determination of which fees are required shall be made by the City.
9. Make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of this SMP
and the Act in accordance with the Yakima Municipal Code.
B. SEPA Official. The responsible SEPA official or his/her designee is authorized to conduct
environmental review of all use and development activities subject to this SMP, pursuant to WAC
197-11 and RCW 43.21C. The responsible SEPA official is designated in accordance with the City's
SEPA implementation ordinance.
C. Hearing Examiner. The Hearing Examiner shall have the authority to:
1. Decide on appeals from administrative decisions issued by the Shoreline Administrator of this
SMP.
Grant or deny variances from this SMP.
23.Grant or den conditional LA e �2Ernits associated with non-conforr�rirr � LA se
............... .................................................................Y.......................................................................................................p................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ..............................
44:.,...The Hearing Examiner may, at the request of the Shoreline Administrator, receive and examine
available information, conduct public hearings and prepare records and reports thereof, and
issue recommendations to the council based upon findings and conclusions on applications for
shoreline substantial development permits and conditional use permits.
May 30, 2013 1
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
D. Planning Commission. The Planning Commission is vested with the responsibility to review the SMP
as part of regular SMP updates required by RCW 90.58.080 as a major element of the City's planning
and regulatory program, and make recommendations for amendments thereof to the City Council.
E. City Council. The City Council is vested with authority to:
1. Initiate an amendment to this SMP according to the procedures prescribed in WAC 173-26-100.
2. Adopt all amendments to this SMP, after consideration of the recommendation of the planning
commission, where established. Amendments shall become effective upon approval by Ecology.
17.13.020 Interpretation
A. The City shall make administrative decisions and interpretations of the policies and regulations of
this SMP and the Act in accordance with the Yakima Municipal Code.
B. The City shall consult with Ecology to ensure that any formal written interpretations are consistent
with the purpose and intent of chapter 90.58 RCW and 173-26 WAC.
C. The application of this SMP is intended to be consistent with constitutional and other legal
limitations on the regulation of private property. The Shoreline Administrator shall give adequate
consideration to mitigation measures and other possible methods to prevent undue or
unreasonable hardships upon property owners.
17.13.030 Statutory Noticing Requirements
Applicants shall follow the noticing requirements of the City. At a minimum, the City shall provide notice
in accordance with WAC 173-27-110, and may provide for additional noticing requirements. Per WAC
173-27-120 the City shall comply with special procedures (public notice timelines, appeal periods, etc.)
for limited utility extensions and bulkheads.
The following subsections provide a summary of noticing days. The City shall consult the most current
version of WAC 173-27-110 and 120 to confirm the days. In case of conflict state statutes or rules shall
control:
A. Issuance of notice of application. Notice of application shall be provided within fourteen days after
the determination of completeness of the application.
B. Statement of public comment period. The notice of application shall state the public comment
period which shall be not less than thirty days following the date of notice of application, unless
otherwise specified for limited utility extensions or single family bulkheads below.
C. Notice of application prior to hearing. If an open record predecision hearing, as defined in RCW
36.7013.020, is required for the requested project permits, the notice of application shall be provided
at least fifteen days prior to the open record hearing.
D. Limited utility extension or single-family bulkhead. An application for a Substantial Development
Permit for a limited utility extension or for the construction of a bulkhead or other measures to
protect a single-family residence and its appurtenant structures from shoreline erosion shall be
subject to all of the requirements of this chapter except that the following time periods and
procedures shall be used:
May 30, 2013
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
1. The public comment period shall be twenty days. The notice provided shall state the manner in
which the public may obtain a copy of the City's decision on the application no later than two
days following its issuance;
2. The City shall issue its decision to grant or deny the permit within twenty-one days of the last
day of the comment period specified in subsection (2)(a) of this section; and
3. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the Hearing Examiner, the
appeal shall be finally determined by the Hearing Examiner within thirty days.
17.13.040 Application Requirements
A. A complete application for a Shoreline Substantial Development, Shoreline Conditional Use, or
Shoreline Variance Permit shall contain, at a minimum, the information listed in WAC 173-27-180. In
addition, the applicant, including those applying for exemption status, shall provide the following
materials:
1. An assessment of the existing ecological functions and/or processes provided by topographic,
physical and vegetation characteristics of the site and any impacts to those functions and/or
processes, to accompany development proposals, provided that proposals for single-family
residences, as long as they meet the exemption criteria, shall be exempt from this requirement
if proposal is located outside required buffers. When the project results in adverse impacts to
ecological function and/or processes, a mitigation plan must be provided that describes how
proposed mitigation compensates for the lost function or process.
2. Site plan or division of land depicting to scale the location of buildable areas, existing and
proposed impervious surfaces (building(s), accessory structures, driveways), and allowed
landscaping and yards (including proposed water access trails, view corridors, wildfire defensible
space, if applicable), general location of utilities, well and septic system, if applicable and
location of storage and staging of materials and equipment during construction. Plans shall
show area calculations of each feature.
3. The location of any mapped channel migration zone floodplain, and/or floodway boundary and
critical Areas, if known, and respective setback/buffer areas on and within 250 feet of the
vicinity of the project site and all applicable buffers.
4. Where a view analysis is required per WAC 173-27-180 it shall address the following:
a. The analysis shall include vacant existing parcels of record as well as existing structures.
Vacant parcels of record shall be assumed to be developed with structures complying
with the applicable regulations of the City and the maximum height limitation allowed
under the SMP.
b. The view corridor analysis shall include residential buildings or public properties located
outside of the shoreline jurisdiction if it can be clearly demonstrated that the subject
property has significant water views.
r. r°r.x�•s-rrrc� vy�,�- �r-�-��aY7 v � �„,,,''�r
�... .F� 4G4b4 F -cagy A a -�.- ,"....(:.�:�....:g'-'F�r . ani- 9-t --�-' " r,1 �,^� 4, ,,.. 4, tl- (" �,^ -i.: .- 4
., rr-rnxrr r-r-rv.., --rrc-rm�
May 30, 2013 3
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
...............fid"ova ym� i y..tiy.i.. it li kV �ald { i 4 d� d.�. ....(��.....�.��i—par�j 'r iGat.e4
B. The Shoreline Administrator may vary or waive these additional application requirements according
to administrative application requirements on a case by case basis, but all applications for a
substantial development, conditional use, or variance permit shall contain the information found in
WAC 173-26-180.
C. The Shoreline Administrator may require additional specific information depending on the nature of
the proposal and the presence of sensitive ecological features or issues related to compliance with
other City requirements, and the provisions of this Title.
17.13.050 Exemptions from Shoreline Substantial Development Permits
A. The City shall exempt from the Shoreline Substantial Development Permit requirement the shoreline
developments listed in WAC 173-27-040 and RCW 90.58.030 (3)(e), 90.58.140(9), 90.58.147,
90.58.355 and 90.58.515.
B. Letters of exemption shall be issued when a letter of exemption is required by the provisions of
WAC 173-27-050. Otherwise the exemption status shall be documented in the project application
file.
17.13.060 Shoreline Substantial Development Permits
A. A Shoreline Substantial Development Permit shall be required for all development of shorelines,
unless the proposal is specifically exempt per Section 17.13.050.
B. A substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is
consistent with:
1. The policies and procedures of the SMA;
2. The provisions of WAC 173-27;
3. Chapter 10, Section 3 of the City of Yakima Comprehensive Plan; and
4. This Title 17.
C. The City may attach conditions to the approval of permits as necessary to assure consistency of the
project with the Act and this SMP. Additionally, nothing shall interfere with the City's ability to
require compliance with all other applicable laws and plans.
17.13.070 Shoreline Conditional Use Permits
A. This section provides procedures and criteria guiding the review of shoreline conditional use
permits, which require careful review to ensure the use can be properly installed and operated in a
manner that meets the goals of the Act and this Program in accordance with any needed
performance standards. After a Shoreline Conditional Use application has been approved by the
City, the City shall submit the permit to Ecology for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions or
denial. Ecology shall review the file, in accordance with WAC 173-27-200.
B. Uses specifically classified or set forth in this Shoreline Master Program as conditional uses shall be
subject to review and condition by the City v rv^ - w and by the Department of Ecology.
May 30, 2013
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
C. Other uses which are not classified or listed or set forth in this SMP may be authorized as
conditional uses provided the applicant can demonstrate consistency with the requirements of this
Section and the requirements for conditional uses contained in this SMP.
D. Uses which are specifically prohibited by this SMP may not be authorized as a conditional use.
E. Uses which are classified or set forth in the applicable master program as conditional uses may be
authorized provided that the applicant demonstrates all of the following:
1. That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and the master program;
2. That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines;
3. That the proposed use of the site and design of the project is compatible with other authorized
uses within the area and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and
SMP;
4. That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in
which it is to be located; and
5. That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect.
F. In the granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact
of additional requests for like actions in the area. For example, if conditional use permits were
granted for other developments in the area where similar circumstances exist, the total of the
conditional uses shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not
produce substantial adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
G. In authorizing a conditional use, special conditions maybe attached to the permit by the City or
Ecology to prevent undesirable effects of the proposed use and/or to assure consistency of the
project with the SMA and this SMP.
H. Nothing shall interfere with the City's ability to require compliance with all other applicable plans
and laws.
17.13.080 Shoreline Variance Permits
A. The purpose of a variance is to grant relief to specific bulk or dimensional requirements set forth in
this Shoreline Master Program where there are extraordinary or unique circumstances relating to
the property such that the strict implementation of this Shoreline Master Program would impose
unnecessary hardships on the applicant or thwart the policies set forth in RCW 90.58.020. Variances
from the use regulations of the SMP are prohibited.
B. After a Shoreline Variance application has been approved by the City, the City shall submit the
permit to Ecology for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions or denial. Ecology shall review
the file in accordance with WAC 173-27-200.
1. Variance permits should be granted in circumstances where denial of the permit would result in
a thwarting of the policy enumerated in RCW 90.58.020. In all instances the applicant must
demonstrate that extraordinary circumstances shall be shown and the public interest shall suffer
no substantial detrimental effect.
2. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located landward of the OHWM, as
defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), and/or landward of any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030
(2)(h), may be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
May 30, 2013 5
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the SMP precludes, or significantly interferes with, reasonable use of the property;
b. That the hardship described in criterion "a" of this subsection is specifically related to
the property, and is the result of unique conditions such as irregular lot shape, size, or
natural features and the application of the SMP, and not, for example, from deed
restrictions or the applicant's own actions;
c. That the design of the project is compatible with other authorized uses within the area
and with uses planned for the area under the comprehensive plan and SMP and will not
cause adverse impacts to the shoreline environment;
d. That the variance will not constitute a grant of special privilege not enjoyed by the other
properties in the area;
e. That the variance requested is the minimum necessary to afford relief; and
f. That the public interest will suffer no substantial detrimental effect.
3. Variance permits for development and/or uses that will be located waterward of the OHWM, as
defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(b), or within any wetland as defined in RCW 90.58.030 (2)(h), may
be authorized provided the applicant can demonstrate all of the following:
a. That the strict application of the bulk, dimensional or performance standards set forth in
the applicable master program precludes all reasonable use of the property;
b. That the proposal is consistent with the criteria established under Regulation B.2 above;
and
c. That the public rights of navigation and use of the shorelines will not be adversely
affected.
C. In the granting of all variance permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of
additional requests for like actions in the area. For example if variances were granted to other
developments and/or uses in the area where similar circumstances exist the total of the variances
shall also remain consistent with the policies of RCW 90.58.020 and shall not cause substantial
adverse effects to the shoreline environment.
17.13.090 Duration of Permits
Time duration requirements for Shoreline Substantial Development, Shoreline Variance, and Shoreline
Conditional Use Permits shall be consistent with the following provisions.
A. General provisions. The time requirements of this section shall apply to all Shoreline Substantial
Development Permits and to any development authorized pursuant to a Shoreline Conditional Use
Permit or Shoreline Variance authorized by this Chapter. Upon a finding of good cause, based on the
requirements and circumstances of the project proposed and consistent with the policy and
provisions of this SMP and this Chapter, the City may adopt different time limits from those set forth
in Subsections B and C of this section as a part of an action on a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit.
May 30, 2013
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
B. Commencement. Construction activities shall be commenced or, where no construction activities
are involved, the use or activity shall be commenced within two years of the effective date of a
Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance.
Commencement means taking the action on the shoreline project for which the permit was granted
shall begin. For example, beginning actual construction or entering into binding agreements or
contractual obligations to undertake a program of actual construction. However, the City may
authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed one year based on reasonable factors, if a
request for extension has been filed with a complete extension application submittal before the
expiration date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the Shoreline
Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance and to
Ecology.
C. Termination. Authorization to conduct development activities shall terminate five years after the
effective date of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or
Shoreline Variance. However, the City may authorize a single extension for a period not to exceed
one year based on reasonable factors, if a request for extension has been filed before the expiration
date and notice of the proposed extension is given to parties of record on the Shoreline Substantial
Development Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance, and to Ecology.
D. Effective date. The effective date of a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit, Shoreline
Conditional Use Permit, or Shoreline Variance shall be the date of receipt as provided in RCW
90.58.140(6). The permit time periods in subsections B and C of this section do not include the time
during which a use or activity was not actually pursued due to pending administrative appeals or
legal actions or due to the need to obtain any other government permits and approvals for the
development that authorize the development to proceed, including all reasonably related
administrative or legal actions on any such permits or approvals. The applicant shall be responsible
for informing the City of the pendency of other permit applications filed with agencies other than
the City and of any related administrative and legal actions on any permit or approval. If no notice of
the pendency of other permits or approvals is given by the applicant to the City prior to the date of
the last action by the City to grant permits and approvals necessary to authorize the development to
proceed, including administrative and legal actions of the City, and actions under other City
development regulations, the date of the last action by the City shall be the effective date.
E. Revisions. Revisions to permits may be authorized after original permit authorization has expired,
provided that this procedure shall not be used to extend the original permit time requirements or to
authorize substantial development after the time limits of the original permit.
Notification to Ecology. The City shall notify Ecology in writing of any change to the effective date of
a permit, as authorized by this section, with an explanation of the basis for approval of the change.
Any change to the time limits of a permit other than those authorized by RCW 90.58.143 as
amended shall require a new permit application.
May 30, 2013
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
17.13.100 Initiation of Development
A. Amortization to begin construction. Each permit for a Substantial Development, Shoreline
Conditional Use or Shoreline Variance, issued by the City shall contain a provision that construction
pursuant to the permit shall not begin and is not authorized until twenty-one (21) days from the
date of receipt with Ecology as defined in RCW 90.58.140(6) and WAC 173-27-130, or until all review
proceedings initiated within twenty-one (21) from the date of receipt of the decision, except as
provided in RCW 90.58.140 (5)(a) and (b). The date of receipt for a Substantial Development Permit
means that date the applicant receives written notice from Ecology that it has received the decision.
With regard to a permit for a Shoreline Variance or a Shoreline Conditional Use, date of receipt
means the date a City or applicant receives the written decision of Ecology.
B. Forms. Permits for Substantial Development, Shoreline Conditional use, or Shoreline Variance may
be in any form prescribed and used by the City including a combined permit application form. Such
forms will be supplied by the City.
C. Data sheet. A permit data sheet shall be submitted to Ecology with each shoreline permit. The
permit data sheet form shall be consistent with WAC 173-27-990.
D. Construction Prior to Expiration of Appeal Deadline. Construction undertaken pursuant to a permit
is at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.
17.13.110 Review Process
A. After the City's approval of a conditional use or variance permit, the City shall submit the permit to
the department for Ecology's approval, approval with conditions, or denial. Ecology shall render and
transmit to the City and the applicant its final decision approving, approving with conditions, or
disapproving the permit within thirty days of the date of submittal by the City pursuant to WAC 173-
27-110.
B. Ecology shall review the complete file submitted by the City on conditional use and variance permits
and any other information submitted or available that is relevant to the application. Ecology shall
base its determination to approve, approve with conditions or deny a conditional use permit or
variance on consistency with the policy and provisions of the SMA and, except as provided in WAC
173-27-210, the criteria in WAC 173-27-160 and 173-27-170.
C. The City shall provide appropriate notification of the Ecology's final decision to those interested
persons having requested notification from local government pursuant to WAC 173-27-130.
17.13.120 Appeals
A. Administrative review decisions by the Administrator, based on a provision of this SMP, may be the
subject of an appeal to the Hearing Examiner by any aggrieved person. Such appeals shall be an
open record hearing before the Hearing Examiner.
B. Appeals of exemptions are allowed only for exemptions where a letter is required pursuant to
Section 17.13.050, of this SMP
C. Appeals must be submitted within fourteen (14) calendar days after the date of decision or written
interpretation together with the applicable appeal fee. Appeals submitted by the applicant or
aggrieved person shall contain:
May 30, 2013
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
1. The decision or interpretation being appealed, including the file number reference and the
specific objections in the decision document;
2. The name and address of the appellant and his/her interest(s) in the application or proposed
development;
3. The specific reasons why the appellant believes the decision or interpretation to be erroneous,
including identification of each finding of fact, each conclusion, and each condition or action
ordered which the appellant alleges is erroneous. The appellant shall have the burden of proving
the decision or interpretation is erroneous;
4. The specific relief sought by the appellant; and
5. The appeal fee established by the City.
D. Per WAC 173-27-120, the City shall comply with special procedures for limited utility extensions and
bulkheads. If there is an appeal of the decision to grant or deny the permit to the Hearing Examiner,
the appeal shall be finally determined by the Hearing Examiner within thirty days.
E. Appeals to the Shoreline Hearings Board of a final decision on a Shoreline Substantial Development
Permit, Shoreline Conditional Use Permit, Shoreline Variance, or a decision on an appeal of an
administrative action, may be filed by the applicant or any aggrieved party pursuant to RCW
90.58.180 within thirty (30) days of receipt of the final decision by the City or by Ecology as provided
for in RCW 90.58.140(6).
17.13.130 Amendments to Permits
A. A permit revision is required whenever the applicant proposes substantive changes to the design,
terms or conditions of a project from that which is approved in the permit. Changes are substantive
if they materially alter the project in a manner that relates to its conformance to the terms and
conditions of the permit, this SMP, and/or the policies and provisions of chapter 90.58 RCW.
Changes which are not substantive in effect do not require approval of a revision.
B. When an applicant seeks to revise a permit, the City shall request from the applicant detailed plans
and text describing the proposed changes. Proposed changes must be within the scope and intent of
the original permit, otherwise a new permit may be required.
C. If the City determines that the proposed changes are within the scope and intent of the original
permit, and are consistent with this SMP and the Act, the City may approve a revision.
D. "Within the scope and intent of the original permit" means all of the following:
1. No additional over water construction is involved except that pier, dock, or float construction
may be increased by five hundred (500) square feet or ten percent (10%) from the provisions of
the original permit, whichever is less;
2. Ground area coverage and height may be increased a maximum of ten percent (10%) from the
provisions of the original permit;
3. The revised permit does not authorize development to exceed height, lot coverage, setback, or
any other requirements of this SMP except as authorized under a Shoreline Variance granted as
the original permit or a part thereof;
4. Additional or revised landscaping is consistent with any conditions attached to the original
permit and with this SMP;
5. The use authorized pursuant to the original permit is not changed; and
6. No adverse environmental impact will be caused by the project revision.
May 30, 2013 9
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
E. The revision approval, including the revised site plans and text clearly indicating the authorized
changes, and the final ruling on consistency with this section shall be filed with Ecology. In addition,
the City shall notify parties of record of their action.
F. If the revision to the original permit involves a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit or Shoreline
Variance, the City shall submit the revision to Ecology for approval, approval with conditions, or
denial, and shall indicate that the revision is being submitted under the requirements of this
subsection. Ecology shall render and transmit to the City and the applicant its final decision within
fifteen (15) days of the date of Ecology's receipt of the submittal from the City. The City shall notify
parties of record of Ecology's final decision.
G. The revised permit is effective immediately upon final decision by the City or, when appropriate per
Subsection F, upon final action by Ecology. Construction undertaken pursuant to a permit is at the
applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.
1. Filing. Appeals of a revised permit shall be in accordance with RCW 90.58.180 and shall be filed
within twenty-one (21) days from the date of receipt of the City's action by Ecology or, when
appropriate under Shoreline Variances or Conditional Uses, the date Ecology's final decision is
transmitted to the City and the applicant.
2. Basis of appeals. Appeals shall be based only upon contentions of noncompliance with the
provisions of Subsections A and B. Appeals shall be based on the revised portion of the permit.
3. Risk. Construction undertaken pursuant to that portion of a revised permit not authorized under
the original permit is at the applicant's own risk until the expiration of the appeals deadline.
4. Scope of decision. If an appeal is successful in proving that a revision is not within the scope and
intent of the original permit, the decision shall have no bearing on the original permit.
17.13.140 SMP Amendments
A. This Shoreline Master Program carries out the policies of the Shoreline Management Act for the
City. It shall be reviewed and amended as appropriate in accordance with the review periods
required in the Act and in order to:
1. To assure that the master program complies with applicable law and guidelines in effect at the
time of the review; and
2. To assure consistency of the master program with the City's comprehensive plan and
development regulations adopted under chapter 36.70A RCW, if applicable, and other local
requirements.
B. This SMP and all amendments thereto shall become effective immediately upon final approval and
adoption by Ecology.
C. The SMP may be amended annually or more frequently as needed pursuant to the Growth
Management Act, RCW 36.70A.130(2)(a)(iii).
D. Initiation. Future amendments to this Shoreline Management Plan may be initiated either by any
person, resident, property owner, business owner, governmental or non-governmental agency,
Shoreline Administrator, Planning Commission, or City Council as appropriate.
May 30, 2013 10
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
E. Application. Applications for shoreline master program amendments shall specify the changes
requested and any and all reasons therefore. Applications shall be made on forms specified by the
City. Such applications shall contain information specified in the City's procedures for
Comprehensive Plan and development regulation amendments pursuant to RCW 36.70A, the
Growth Management Act, and information necessary to meet minimum public review procedures in
Subsection F.
F. Public Review Process — Minimum Requirements. The City shall accomplish the amendments in
accordance with the procedures of the Shoreline Management Act, Growth Management Act, and
implementing rules including, but not limited to, RCW 90.58.080, WAC 173-26-100, RCW 36.70A.106
and 130, and Part Six, Chapter 365-196 WAC.
G. Roles and Responsibilities. Proposals for amendment of the Shoreline Management Plan shall be
heard by the Planning Commission. After conducting a hearing and evaluating testimony regarding
the application, including a recommendation from the Shoreline Administrator, the Planning
Commission shall submit its recommendation to the City Council, who shall approve or deny the
proposed amendment.
H. Finding. Prior to approval, the City shall make a finding that the amendment would accomplish #1 or
#2, and must accomplish #3:
1. The proposed amendment would make this Program more consistent with the Act and/or any
applicable Department of Ecology Guidelines;
2. The proposed amendment would make this Program more equitable in its application to
persons or property due to changed conditions in an area;
3. This Program and any future amendment hereto shall ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological
functions and processes on a programmatic basis in accordance with the baseline functions
present as of the effective date of this SMP [insert date].
I. After approval or disapproval of a Program amendment by the Department of Ecology as provided in
RCW 90.58.090, Ecology shall publish a notice that the Program amendment has been approved or
disapproved by Ecology pursuant to the notice publication requirements of RCW 36.70A.290.
17.13.150 Enforcement
The City shall apply 173-27 WAC Part II, Shoreline Management Act Enforcement, to enforce the
provisions of this SMP whenever a person has violated any provision of the act or any master program
or other regulation promulgated under the Act.
17.13.160 Monitoring
A. The City will track all shoreline permits and exemption activities to evaluate whether the SMP is
achieving no net loss of shoreline ecological functions. Activities to be tracked using the City's
permit system include development, conservation, restoration and mitigation, such as:
1. New shoreline development
2. Shoreline Variances and the nature of the variance
3. Compliance issues
4. Net changes in impervious surface areas, including associated stormwater management
5. Net changes in fill or armoring
6. Net change in linear feet of flood hazard structures
May 30, 2013 11
� � ►1� rid: ► ►1� : `:� :�►ll l:�� '
7. Net changes in vegetation (area, character)
B. Using the information collected Subsection A, a no net loss report shall be prepared every eight
years as part of the City's Shoreline Master Program evaluation or Comprehensive Plan Amendment
process. Should the no net loss report show degradation of the baseline condition documented in
the City's Shoreline Analysis Report changes to the SMP and/or Shoreline Restoration Plan shall be
proposed at the time of the eight-year update to prevent further degradation and address the loss
in ecological functions.
May 30, 2013 12
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
This document provides draft regulations for the following sections of City of Yakima Shoreline Master
Program (SMP) Update:
• Section 17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources (all new)
• Section 17.05.040 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution (all new)
• Section 17.07.010 Agriculture
• Section 17.07.020 Aquaculture
• Section 17.07.060 Fill
• Section 17.07.090 Mining
• Section 17.07.120 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects (all new)
• Section 17.07.140 Signs
Typically, the base language is from the Yakima County Regional SMP, and then amended with
strikeout/underline to be more consistent with City conditions or SMP Guidelines. In some cases,
sections are "all new and noted as such.
Additional revisions to these draft ro ulatiorns have been
.m .d.W..or P.l .r.rir9Commissiordiscussions hold orA ..ril 1, 7; p.r.oh.i hliFhtodi .../
....... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................W....................... ..............................................a........l...l...o........w..............
.
The draft sections should be read in conjunction with the following documents distributed to the
Planning Commission at prior meetings:
• Preliminary Shoreline Environment Designations & Use and Modification Matrix Framework
(updated version distributed at 4/10 meeting)
• Excerpts From Ecology's Shoreline Master Program Submittal Checklist (distributed at 3/27
meeting)
• SMP Update Guidance — Consistency (distributed at 3/27 meeting)
• Comment letter (dated 1/31/13) from the Yakama Nation.
,H G(i I 0 II',,1, OF 0 �, NI' ER 17.05 ,,. G EI' J E R/ � I,. IR E G LJ LAT I 0 N] S
17.05.010 Archaeological and Historic Resources (All New)
Consultant Note: Designed to meet WAC 173-26-221(1) and Yakama Nation comment letter to City in
February 2013.
A. The City shall require that permits issued in areas documented to contain archaeological resources
require a site inspection or evaluation by a professional archaeologist. Auger tests may be required
before construction and representatives of the Washington State Department of Archaeology and
Yakama Indian Nation may be invited to observe any tests and construction work. If auger or
historical data indicate probable presence of cultural resources which may be disturbed by
excavation, the City shall meet the shoreline permit applicant and may impose conditions on any
shoreline permit to assure that such resources are protected, preserved or collected.
B. Developers and property owners shall immediately stop work and notify the City, the Washington
State Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation, and the Yakama Indian Nation if
archaeological resources are uncovered during excavation. Following such notification, the City may
follow the provisions of Subsection C.
May 30, 2013 1
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
C. Where a professional archaeologist or historian, recognized by the State of Washington, has
identified an area or site as having significant value, or where an area or site is listed in national,
state or local historical registers, the City may require an evaluation of the resource, and
appropriate conditions, which may include preservation and/or retrieval of data, proposal
modifications to reduce impacts, or other mitigation authorized through the State Environmental
Policy Act, or other local, state, or federal laws.
17.05.040 Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution (All New)
Consultant Note: The County SMP has some jurisdiction -wide policies, but most policies are limited to
critical areas and buffers and the regulations appear to be applied only to critical areas and buffers. The
Consultants propose a more jurisdiction -wide set of regulations based on direction in the SMP
Guidelines and relying on locally adopted manuals.
..........Do not degrade c q1c g.%ca„I...f. „rpct..iorns. Design, construction and operation of shoreline uses
and developments shall incorporate measures to protect and maintain surface and groundwater
quantity and quality in accordance with all applicable laws, so . at°, ° °cast --i per: - es#4e4e
adi °a that there is no net loss of ecological
functions.
I?o rnot: dt:ructiorn and o eratiorn of shoreline
uses 22d develo mernt:s shall irncor or t:e measures t:o rot:ect rnd mai rn t: irn surface rnd
p...........................................................................................................P.......................................................................................................................P.......................................................................................................................................................................................
rourndw�t:er u�rnt:it: �rnd unlit: irn �ccord�rnce with SII � lic�ble I�ws so t:h�t: si rnific�rnt: im accts
to aesthetic act: to aesthetics
y S � � .
or recrr. .tiorn_vuou ....c:ccur i....:... f :�ui irmaw nir I. �ci it..... nia n n�+i ir;;Ir1 niaF ° h:�.!I + F�+i r1 + ....n ” C) 11
Cui 11C 11 fi nF UII S law: .flh( In uflg iaF ,fl! block or irr� ��ir � view of shoreline waters from public land Muir„
m a :....
L+I M< p a.lnt nl iWinial E „t„J m < id iac m <: E:E: 1 FIC.W 90,58,320 . .o..r if water quglity ware visibly.
de . r ded such that: the color and character were unattractive and discouraged rnorm2l uses such as
g............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ g...............................................................................................................................................
.swimmig fishirnv boat:irn or viewirn .
BC,, Requirements for new development.
1. New development and re -development shall manage short-term and long-term stormwater
runoff to avoid and minimize potential adverse affects on shoreline ecological functions through
&A ,compliance with the latest edition
of the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington or approved local equivalent if
applicable to the project. Ilf...ce..r:ta.!..rn....:t.h.res.hq.I.ds....a..re.....rnot....me:t....b.Y....a.....cjeyelogme�tri er
coni alirnce with t:he St:ormwt:er Mrn emernt: Mrnul or aroved local e Luivalernt: best:
rn .emernt: r ct:ices RMPs must: stall be em to ed to avoid and mirnimize ot:erntial adverse
g.............................................r..........................................................................................).........................................................................................................r.............v.................................................................................................................................................................P......................................................................................................
effects.
..............................................
2. When the Stormwater Management Manual applies, deviations from the standards may be
approved where it can be demonstrated that off-site facilities would provide better treatment,
or where common retention, detention and/or water quality facilities meeting such standards
have been approved as part of a comprehensive stormwater management plan.
Chemical a Iicatiorns. Pesticides herbicides and fertilizers should be � lied in a manner which
.............................................................................................W..."....W..."........................................................................................................................... R..................................................................... R......................................................................................................................................................................W..."....W....................................................................................................................................................
minimizes direct or indirect: entrance into nearby...w2.t.....e.r.s....A icatorn of PeSticideS irterded to abate
.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
mos uit:oes or similar water -related infestations should be administered inaccorda accordance with
q.........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
..Erpvirorn..!"�.e..rn:ta..I.....Pr.oLeco.io n.....ge_rnc..V...s:ta standards.
May 30, 2013
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
I:„,Sewage management. To avoid water quality degradation, sewer service is subject to the
requirements outlined below.
1. Any existing septic system or other on-site system that fails or malfunctions will be required to
connect to an existing municipal sewer service system if feasible, or make system corrections
approved by Yakima Public Health.
2. Any new development, business, single-family or multi -family unit will be required to connect to
an existing municipal sewer service system if feasible, or install an on-site septic system
approved by Yakima Public Health.
Materials requirements. All materials that may come in contact with water shall be untreated or
approved treated wood, concrete, approved plastic composites or steel, that will not adversely
affect water quality or aquatic plants or animals.
&G..,.Low Impact Development (LID). Use of the most current version of the Yakima Region Low Impact
Development (LID) Stormwater Design Manual throughout the various stages of development,
including site assessment, planning and design, site preparation, construction, and ongoing
management, is encouraged.
,H Gf C d II aP'rJJ s aI:; 0 �AI H 0.. IR 17.07— A II CJI D IM UD II II II Ca A PI aP' I
17.07.010 Agriculture
Consultant Note: This section amends the Regional SMP language which is more geared to rural Yakima
County. Text is simplified and matched to SMP Guidelines as well as City zoning, which allows most
agricultural activities except feedlots.
A. For Shoreline purposes, WAC 173-26-020 (Definitions) and WAC 173-26-241(3)(a) (Agriculture) shall
determine the need for shoreline review for agricultural activities.
B. The provisions of this SMP do not limit or require modification of agricultural activities on
agricultural lands as of the date of adoption of the SMP.
C. SMP provisions shall apply in the following cases:
1. new agricultural activities on land not meeting the definition of agricultural land;
2. expansion of agricultural activities on non-agricultural lands or conversion of non-agricultural
lands to agricultural activities;
3. conversion of agricultural lands to other uses;
4. other development on agricultural land that does not meet the definition of agricultural
activities; and
5. agricultural development and uses not specifically exempted by the Act.
D. :H+4f+eirar„i,tCC. 111cr:riFiat(: d ain i!')'Wl feeding operations.. are prohibited iii s[o, i (dh' (�g iscd ctk!� in,'.,.
' I lrr ` aIkhrna lvlC ini ,.!DDQ2w;�' Jffhr w -h o�omrations a `. C onr( int i at('d...anin'd R (1dinz�..2o(i aPiorl irwan
K r i z �r]ldir�z..r]f�!rI rrW, s or �rr�rsllr ,..inck1din.g, b; :s D: 21 lirni :'d to,
lrrerlrers� rri....lrr'i"r`� for 1 rs� rr�rrrs�rrlrral���w 1s�s�,..wirr rrr.... •� A. Y �`
rrrrws ra td( SIrr'rsrr or swirm I his wiffhnitiorr inck.id('s Jah-V ronfirmrrmrr1: al rias shholoirrp 1mrrrrirral
May 30, 2013
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
E. New agricultural activities and facilities shall utilize best management practices established by the
USDA Natural Resources Conservation Service or other similar agency.
F. Development in support of agricultural uses shall be consistent with the environment designation
intent and management policies, located and designed to assure no net loss of ecological functions,
and shall not have a significant adverse impact on other shoreline resources and values.
17.07.020 Aquaculture
The following provisions apply to any development, construction, or use of land or water for
aquacultural purposes within Shoreline jurisdiction.
A. All structures located within waterbodies shall not preclude navigability of those waters at any time,
and shall be clearly marked so as to provide no hazard to navigation on those waters.
B. Aquaculture facilities shall be designed and located to avoid significant conflict with water -
dependent uses, the spreading of disease, introduction of non-native species, or impacts to
shoreline aesthetic qualities.
C. Aquaculture that supports recovery of endangered or threatened fish species or supports public or
community recreation is encouraged provided it is conducted within the bounds of subsections A
and B.
17.07.060 Fill
Consultant Note: The County SMP language was supplemented to provide more clarity about fills in
sensitive areas and in non -sensitive upland areas. Text is better matched to SMP Guidelines. Much of
the existing language from the County SMP is identical to material found in the City's critical areas
regulations and has been retained. The redundant language will not be included in the future shoreline
critical areas section (to be discussed at the 5/16 meeting).
A. All fills shall be located, designed and constructed to protect shoreline ecological functions and
ecosystem -wide processes, including channel migration. Any adverse impacts to shoreline
ecological functions shall be mitigated.
B. Permissible fill in sensitive areas, including fill within wetlands, floodways, channel migration zones,
or waterward of the OHWM, shall only be permitted in limited instances for the following purposes
and when other required state or federal permits have been obtained, with due consideration given
to specific site conditions, and only along with approved shoreline use and development activities
that are consistent with this SMP, such as:
1. Water -dependent uses, public access, and cleanup and disposal of contaminated sediments as
part of an interagency environmental clean-up plan;
Disposal of dredged material considered suitable under, and conducted in accordance with, the
Dredged Material Management Program of the Department of Natural Resources and/or the
Dredged Material Management Office of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (see Section
17.07.060 of this SMP);
z , " .Y " Zg I 1�er fal,1 _, ��ssb a.lrldry ;`��f\iC
�r� �w.�„i�. �r:�r�=�,�,� rr�:s 1i„ �;r��w r;ai :�.. ,,i,r��w:erlir;,ar� 1�ri i1;,;i:�=� �r��w...
� I;:s1.�tr�:�=� r�ra:o ir�rl:erl..� �;i�iio��
May 30, 2013 4
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
3. Expansion or alteration of transportation facilities of statewide significance currently located on
the shoreline where alternatives to fill are infeasible;
4. Ecological restoration or enhancement when consistent with an approved restoration plan;
5. Maintenance or installation of flood hazard reduction measures consistent with a
comprehensive flood hazard management plan and Section 17.05.060, Flood Hazard Reduction.
6. Protection of cultural or historic resources when fill is the most feasible method to avoid
continued degradation, disturbance or erosion of a site. Such fills must be coordinated with any
affected Indian tribes and comply with applicable provisions of Section 17.05.010 of this SMP.
All fills waterward of the OHWM not associated with ecological restoration, flood control or
approved shoreline stabilization shall require a Shoreline Conditional Use Permit.
C. Permissible upland fill. All other upland fill is permitted, provided it:
1. Is conducted outside applicable buffers, unless specifically allowed in buffers;
2. Is part of an approved shoreline use or modification, or is necessary to provide protection to
cultural or historic resources;
3. Is the minimum necessary to implement the approved use or modification;
4. Is planned to fit the topography so that minimum alterations of natural conditions will be
necessary;
5. Does not adversely affect hydrologic conditions or increase the risk of slope failure; and
6. Is consistent with applicable provisions of Chapter 17.09, particularly regulations governing
floodways and 100 -year floodplains.
D. Fill shall be the minimum necessary to accomplish the use or purpose and shall be confined to areas
having the least impact to the shoreline area. Other alternatives shall be preferred over fill to
elevate new structures in the floodplain, such as use of pile or pier supports, posts, columns, other
zero -rise methods, or increasing foundation height.
E. Unless site characteristics dictate otherwise, fill material within surface waters or wetlands shall be
sand, gravel, rock, or other clean material obtairned from a State -certified sourco with a minimum
.................................................................................................................................................................................................................,
potential to degrade water quality ��jrnd moot:irn t:ho s �ocific�t:iorns irncludod irn ro`oct: �I�rns � � arovod
X...................................R..........................:............................................�.............�..............................�................�.......................9.....�.......................�.......'
oc st:tc ern c c r rc.v.c.w c rncic s
F. Fill placement shall be scheduled at times having the least impact to fish spawning, nesting patterns,
and other identified natural processes.
G. Erosion control. A temporary erosion and sediment control (TESC) plan, including BMPs, consistent
with the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington, or the most recent adopted
stormwater manual, shall be provided for all proposed fill and excavation activities, and approved by
the Shoreline Administrator prior to commencement of activity. Disturbed areas shall be
immediately protected from erosion using weed -free straw, mulches, hydroseed, or similar methods
and revegetated, as applicable.
H. Projects that propose fill shall make every effort to acquire fill onsite (also known as compensatory
storage) where appropriate.
Fill should not obstruct, cut off, or isolate stream corridor features
May 30, 2013
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
17.07.090 Mining
Consultant Note: The County SMP language was modified to indicate that post -mineral extraction
processing activities are regulated as an industrial use. Much of the existing language from the County
SMP is identical to material found in the City's critical areas regulations and has been retained, or
tweaked to better match the City's critical areas regulations. The redundant language will not be
included in the future shoreline critical areas section (to be discussed at the 5/16 meeting).
The following provisions shall apply to commercial mining within shoreline jurisdiction. Processing and
other activities that occur off. sit:o or after act:ivo mineral oxt:ract:iorn has concluded orn sit:o are also
..............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
regulated as an industrial use (see Section 17.07.070):
A. Prior to the authorization of a commercial mining operation, the project proponent shall provide
maps to scale which illustrate the following:
1. The extent to which excavation and processing will affect or modify existing stream corridor
features, including existing riparian vegetation;
2. The location, extent and size in acreage of any pond, lake, or feature that will be created as a
result of mining excavation;
3. The description, location, and extent of any proposed subsequent use that would be different
than existing uses.
B. the operations and any subsequent use or uses shall not cause permanent impairment or loss of
floodwater storage, wetland, or other stream corridor features. Mitigation shall provide for the
feature's replacement at equal value, except wetlands which shall be mitigated according to
guidance in the Washington State Department of Ecology's Wetland Mitigation in Washington State,
Parts 1 and 2 (March 2006 or as updated).
C. Except where authorized by the City in consultation with the State Department of Fish and Wildlife
and Department of Ecology, the following shall apply:
1. The excavation zone shall be located a minimum of one hundred feet upland from the ordinary
high water mark (OHWM) of the stream channel.
2. Equipment shall not be operated, stored, refueled, or provided maintenance within one
hundred feet of the OHWM.
3. Washing, crushing, screening, or stockpiling of mined materials shall not occur within one
hundred feet of the OHWM.
D. Mining proposals shall be consistent with the Washington Department of Natural Resources Surface
Mine Reclamation standards (WAC 332-18, RCW 78.44).
E. Additional Shoreline Standards for Industrial Mining -
1. Applicants shall submit a mining and reclamation plan to the Shoreline Administrator describing
the proposed site, quantity of material to be removed, method of removal, and measures that
will be taken to protect lakes and streams from siltation and sedimentation. A surface mining
plan or a reclamation plan judged by the Shoreline Administrator to be insufficient for
protection or restoration of the shoreline environment shall cause denial of a Shoreline permit.
May 30, 2013 6
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
2. Mining stockpiles shall be sited in such a manner so as to avoid damage or loss resulting from
flooding.
3. New mining and associated activities shall assure that proposed subsequent use of the mined
property is consistent with the provisions of the environment designation and that reclamation
of disturbed shoreline areas provides appropriate ecological functions consistent with the
setting.
17.07.120 Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects (All New)
A. Applicability. Shoreline habitat and natural systems enhancement projects include those
activities proposed and conducted specifically for the purpose of establishing, restoring or
enhancing habitat for priority species in shorelines. Such projects may include shoreline
modification actions such as modification of vegetation, removal of non-native or invasive
plants, shoreline stabilization, dredging, and filling, provided that the primary purpose of such
actions is clearly restoration of the natural character and ecological functions of the shoreline.
This section does not apply to mitigation.
B. Approved plan. Restoration and enhancement shall be carried out in accordance with an approved
shoreline restoration plan.
C. Protect adjacent resources. All shoreline restoration and enhancement projects shall protect the
integrity of adjacent natural resources, including aquatic habitats and water quality.
D. Maintenance and monitoring. Long-term maintenance and monitoring (minimum of three years, but
preferably longer) shall be arranged by the project applicant and included in restoration or
enhancement proposals.
E. Adverse affects. Shoreline restoration and enhancement may be allowed if the project applicant
demonstrates that no significant adverse changes to sediment transport or river current will result
and that the enhancement will not adversely affect ecological processes, properties, or habitat.
F. Use of best information and BMPs. Shoreline restoration and enhancement projects shall be
designed using the best available scientific and technical information, and implemented using best
management practices.
G. Public use of waters and lands. Shoreline restoration and enhancement shall not interfere with lands
or waters dedicated specifically for public use, as determined by the Shoreline Administrator,
without appropriate mitigation. For projects on state-owned aquatic lands, project proponents
must coordinate with the Washington Department of Natural Resources to ensure the project will
be appropriately located prior to the solicitation of permits from regulatory agencies.
H. Relief for OHWM shifts. Applicants seeking to perform restoration projects are advised to work with
the City to assess whether and how the proposed project is allowed relief under RCW 90.58.580, in
the event that the project shifts the OHWM landward.
17.07.140 Signs
A. Outdoor advertising signs must conform to size, spacing and lighting provisions of the Washington
State Scenic Vistas Act of 1971, where applicable.
B. Signs shall meet applicable City municipal code requirements regarding size, location, lighting, and
other relevant performance standards.
May 30, 2013
CITY OF YAKIMA SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM DRAFT
C. Proposals for signage shall submit plans for signage at the time of application for shoreline permits,
including shoreline exemptions.
May 30, 2013 8
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects
10.3.1. Restoii'ation and enhancement of shoi['elines should be desjg.� inp i
g, .. . . . . .. ..... p
!.i.nc.p
........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................ ........ ...................... ... ............ ... .................. ......
and conseii,v tio.n e ol�o y 22!d ii,estoii,e oii, enhance chem.ica.J.,
.... .. .................................................................................... 2 ................... ........ ........ ..................... g . ....... g..! d ..... ..... . . . . ............................................................................................................................................................................... ................. ..
jp] Y� d biologicA watei['shed p hat cii,eate and sustain shoii,eline
r.JcA an
... ...................... I ............. ......
........ .............................................. .................................................................................................. . .. ..... ........ ........................................................................................................................................................................................................................
habitat su,uctuii,es and functions.
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................
10.3.2. Restoii'ation and enhancement actions should im s i
.......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... . .... . p
2y?
.. ......... ... ............ ..... �J n e e c o I oRi c a 1� f u n c t o ins
..
,2..! p -......J.ng ? . .. . . . . . . of sid e Ip i h
cusses and sh o.0 . . . . . ..... .1� . . .... . . . v t and
... ..................................................................................... ........ ... ........ ...... .. .. .................................. ..... !.2.1 ...... ...... f s ...................................
�Lfldljf
.................... ........ ?
peciies as ident.ifi.ed by g p ..,.p
....... . .........................................................np
?
........................................................................................... ........... ................. ........ . ..... g..! ..m e n t o f FJ s Ih. a n d W.J.] d �J f e
Vf ..in p ?....Ip tment of Natuii'A R souii,ces NationA Maijne FisheiJes Seii'vice
... ... ........ .. , 2..! p 2.! .................................................................................................................... ........ ? .................................................... I .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
„inU.S. Fish and Wildlife Seii'vice.
.... ............................................................................................................................................................................................................
10. 3.3. "'1" h 0
................................................................... ? !�Jty entffies..a.ii,e enc
. ...... a I.g . .... f2.� dj.ng fi.g 5.a.t?..,
g..! Ip
! iv te
........ ......................................................................................... ........ ............. ................................ ...................... ... ........ ...... ...... ..
ijvate and otheii, souii,ces t , -i t
2.1., P .............................................................................................................................................................................. o i.m.Ip ?.! p .......... !,.?
......... ... ............ ...... .. . .. .......... 2..u° 2. i o n ... . ...... e n Ih. a n c e m e n t a n d.
,2.L.q. U.isition t cu.l� 1I
.... ............................................. p 2J.?,..LL . .. ....... P..2..! J. a.I[,.Y
.! .! .2.1 aii,e identified in the Restoii'ation Plan of
..... ... ............... .. ........ ........ .. .. ..........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
this SMP o ii t Ih. e 1� o c a p ns.
...................................................................... ... .. . ... ..... . ..... .... .... !g ....................
10. 3.4. "'1" h it C
................................................................... ? L .......... Y 2 i.np
! 2.2.!d L.Y.P.12p . ...... ........ .. ..... g.u..i d e �J n e s t Ih. a t w i.!J� s t ii,...e a m IJ n e t..I.h e ii e..v i e w o f
!,..e s t o ii.,..a. tJ o !n...,.,.only
... ..... ... ... ..... .. . .... .. .. ...... ...... p
.................... ......
10.3.5. Allow foii, the use of fax incentive DIMP11'aMS. MitiPation banlkinp, Pii'ants, hand SWaDS, 011'
.. .. .. .. ..
2! 121.2pu 21 Is.1 2Z ty 21 d.e.2212.22.d.1 12 �221,
..e !,estoii'ation and
.. . . .....................................................................................................
enhancement of shoii,eij.ne ecoll.op and to p habitat foii, fish
............................................................................................................................................................ ... ................. ........................... ......... ... . .. i c a 1� f u n c tJ o ins .............. ................ ............... ...... !2. ?
. ..............................................................................................................
w i 1� d IJ f e a n d p
......... . . ..... .. .. .. ..... .... ..... ..... ......
Flood Hazard Management Element
10. 3.6. "'1" h e C i t s v t v olp llications site..and d in
............................................................................... y
.......... Ip
2.t.�J c and Ip
.................. ........... ......................... ..... 1�'.J ........... a e d e. e 1�
.............................. ..... 1 2.p p .............................................. ....................................... .......................... ......... L., !.F
fllood conu,olI measuii,es consistent Jnr a iate . .. .. .. s
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........ ........ ......... Ip..p !.2.1p.!� ................................ eng.!!.�
................. ..... g Ip ............ ..........
i n.c ip
.i n c 1l u d i n g g.!�J d e IJ n e s o f t Ih. e N a t u ii,...a 1I Res o u ii,...c e C o n s e ii,..v a t i o n S e ii,.YJ c e t Ih. e IJ S A..11,.m
.. ..... .............
f e s Yalkima Count Flood Hazaii'd Ma.nap '!.!a..! . ...... . . ..... . . . .
.. ........ 2 .......... F J n e ........... ii I ................................................................................................... Y .............................................................................................. ...................... ................ �L2 td,
Ip
I.i�� c t A , a f d . .........
g.! ..on p ... ......... ................. .. ............................. .............. ............................ ................................... ...... IaJ.n iie ul�.a Jons and
i . ................. ...... .. ...... �.! i ic J aii e ii eg.2].g.jj on s l�oo p ... ........ ..... .. ............ ........ 1 ........................... .........................
stoii,mwateii, manag.� .....ggj!.�t ions in oi[,de.i[,..to p .1 f I.g.gd g.
.? ...................................................................................... ...... ............... ......
.......................................................................... ...... ..................................... ... p !g..! g..! .� ! ? !.� a
,..m a i n t a i n t.Ih e n a t u ii.2.1� Ih. Y d ii,...a U.IJ c Cap s seii've limited
......... .... .. ..... .. .... . ..... ... . .... ..... ..... .... .. .... .. . ..... .. .... ...... 2.�it 0 fl.00dw y
..... . .....
........ ... ........... .............. ......... Y . ........ 1 . ....... ...................................... .....................................................................................
ii,esouii,ces such as fish habitat . .... wa.teii, and soilI.
........................................................................................................................................................................................................ ................... ...... .............. I ..............................................................
10.3.7. Wheii,e feasible . ..... non-sU'uctuii'A methods t p
2 g..� g.� estoii,e shoii,eline
q ?..! Jh.g.� L? ..............................................................................................................
functions and Ip
... ......
. ........ rind otheii, shoii,eline ii,esouii,ces should be
......................................................................................... ........ ................. .......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
--su'uctuii'A
g..! gjteii, native to su,uctuii'A fllood conu,ol1 woii,lks. Non
...........................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
methods may i.nd..ude but aii,e not llim.ited to, shoii,eline buffe.ii's hand use cont.11,0.IIs
....................................................................................... .......... .................. ......................... .................................................................................................... ......................... ............... ...................................................................................................... ........... .......................................................................................... ............. ..........
,..0 s e ii,...e 1� o c a.IJ o n wetl�and ii,estoiil.ati.on d i.Ike ii,em.ov.A biotechnicA measuii,es
..... ... ..... ... ..... . ..... .... .... ..................... ..................................................................................................................... ................. ............ ............... ........................... ............... ........... I ........................................................................................ .................................................................
stoil,mwat11,
.................................................................. ? ........... p 2.9.1.2..! s t ....... ...... Y
..... . ..... [a..! !2.! e a s e m e n t a c..qgj sition, v o Il
.... ............................ .................... ........ ..............
1p..I�,.otection and enhancemen Ip
.... .....
t e t ve p ms
.......................................................................................................................................................................................... g i n c ............ n i ................ ...... !.2g.! � .........................
10.3.8. New o ii'...exp t
g..! dj n g
! ent gii, uses in s Ih o ii e J n.e �..u..!.isd.ic.ion incl.udin subdivision of
................................................................................. ............... ............... ............ ........................................................................................... ......................................... ............ ........ .................. ............... ... ................. ....................... ............................. 9 .................................................................................................
Il d that woulld IiI ely !.�
k . . .... g..g..k,e su,uctuii'A fl1ood conu,ol� woiijks such as dilkes I.e e s,..
......................................................................................................... ................................................................................................................................................................................ ............................ d . ..............................
...... ..... d ............................................................................................. v e
ii,evetmen s fl.00dw II channO ii,ealJg! ga..�Jons oii, ii, ijp--I�,.�.p thin a iniveii
... ..... ..... �LJ
.................................................................. d . ....... ! ...................................... g.!.! ...... ........................................................................................ ... ............................ ............... ........ ..... ......................................... ....... .....................
fj1.2.2.±E2.y oii, l�alke should not be allowed.
... .............................................................................................................................................................................................................
10.3.9. New sU'uctuii'A f11 conu,ol1 woii,lks should onll be allowed in shoii, lline
......................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... Y ................................................................................................................................... e .............................. j.2.!J..s d i c t i o n w I.h e n.
it can be dem oins u'ated a.lysis h a t Ih.e a ii, e
�.y . . . .. . . ....... ... ............... ................. .............. ........ Y ...........................
�Jentific and e
........................................................................................................................................................... ....................................................................................... � 911 .? DI p
t t2 ?
I ?,.L.21 211 .2 p s in de el.op 1 g . .... imp
. . ................. y .......... -,icA functions
............ F .... ...... ...... ................. ...... .........................................................................................
9Indp 00rity s.p �..�ies and habitats can be succes.sf.u.1j.y. jtjg.�ted so as to assure no
.......................... .......................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........... ........ .. ......... ... ...................................................................................................................................................
net loss, that aDDII'Wiriate vevetation conservation actions are undertaken, and
where non-structurA fllood hazard reduction measures are infeasible.
.....................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................
1 C modifications should be
10.3.10. Flood control� works and shoreline..use . . ..... de 0 .......................................................................................................................................................................
.............................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................. ....................... ... ................ ............ Q.P
1.2c. LAI du i.g.! L�l �2! ,...,..tructed and maintained so their resultant effects on
F .
...................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................................... ........ . .. .....
bY dl 2.2lic s h 0 11' 1, u
........... .............................. ? !�..! .? p s will not ca se sip i . . . . . . . . t2 p ies
... .. ...... 1�,ocesse if..ca.nt dam a g.� .. ...... ! 2p
..... ................................................................................................................................. ............... .......... ........... .............. .............. ........ ....... ..................... ...... ...... ...... ? ..................
or shoreline resources, and so that the DhVSiCA intepiritv of the shoreline corridor is