STORMWATER, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, AND LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID)

Transcription

1 STORMWATER, IMPERVIOUS SURFACE AREA, AND LOW IMPACT DEVELOPMENT (LID) 1 Jeanie (2/6/2018) Index # (previously ) 46 1 Your section on Stormwater will not protect the shoreline. Under F. You qualify the review by saying WHEN REQUIRED. But it is not defined when it is required. This is not consistent with the law, if the county is unwilling to define this term In addition why under F...does the county not adopt ALL of the stormwater provisions in Title 3? Section and Only mentioned is section D...which essentially says they county will use as guidance (sections not required) the DOE stormwater manual. AGain WHEN? is this required. The county should mention in the master program that the above sections in TItle 3 will be used as well and define when a stormwater review and plan is required, In addition the county should use this opportunity to place regulation into the SLMP that corrects the loop holes in Title 3 now...where as ALL development within the shoreline jurisdiction should be reviewed for stormwater impacts and given a stormwater management plan. Right now the loop holes allow for county discretion to what is "deemed imfeasible", under Title 3 section SCC and under A. This comment was submitted on a prior draft of the SMP. The stormwater provisions were revised to provide more clarity. Please see September 2018 draft SMP for latest SMP section : Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution, which references Ecology s Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington (EWA Stormwater Manual) for technical design standards and BMPs. Provisions included in Stevens County Development Regulations (Title 3) apply to site-specific development within the County s shoreline jurisdiction, when applicable. SCC and are specific code sections applied to all proposed subdivisions, including those which may be within shoreline jurisdiction. Additionally, SMP (B)(2) clearly states that permits issued under the provisions of this shoreline regulation shall be coordinated with other applicable land-use and development regulatory measures of the respective jurisdiction. SMP (B) further states that In the event provisions of this SMP conflict with provisions of local regulations, the provision that is most protective of shoreline resources shall prevail. See also response to response to comment #2. 2 Futurewise Index # Include a requirement for a maximum of ten percent total impervious surface area in the Conservancy Environment outside Urban Growth Areas. Please see the Stevens County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update pages 21 to 23 and page 67 We were unable to find any regulations meeting [WAC (5)(b)(ii)(D)]. This is necessary to achieve no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and systems. See RCW ; WAC (3)(j) [Further details provided in comment memo] The WAC citation provided does not require that the application of 10% impervious surface standard is necessary to achieve No Net Loss. The cited WAC subsection merely states that this standard is supported by science available at the time the WAC was written. It goes on to clearly state that alternative standards that meet the provisions of the WAC and the goals of the environment designation may be used. Areas with existing lots may allow for greater than 10% impervious cover, provided that they also assure protection of existing functions. In our review of the proposed stormwater management provisions, which defer to the EWA Stormwater Manual alone to achieve this goal, we determined it is less clear how those techniques might be applied in the Conservancy and Rural environments. We therefore acknowledge that impervious surface limitations are an appropriate addition. Add provision for maximum of ten percent total impervious surface area for residential development on parcels in Conservancy and Rural environment designations to SMP : Residential Development as follows: G. All new residential development within Conservancy and Rural Environment Designations shall not exceed a total maximum impervious surface area of 10% of the total lot size. i. The Shoreline Administrator may approve exceedances to the impervious surface area limit if the applicant provides on-site or off-site facilities for the infiltration, detention, or retention for 100% of the proposed impervious surface area. A report provided by a qualified professional (licensed engineer) must indicate that stormwater management facilities are designed to handle runoff from a 10-year, 24-hour storm event; designs are consistent with low impact development standards per Ecology s Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington. Additional provisions that protect the hydrologic character of the shoreline include density provisions included in Partnership zoning designations. SCC , the County s zoning code, which sets the lot density for all parcels in Stevens County. Outside of UGAs and LAMIRDs, the allowed density ranges from 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres to 1 dwelling unit per 20 acres. Additionally, provisions included in SMP Shoreline Vegetation Conservation and SMP Critical Areas Buffers and Mitigation include provisions to protect critical area and buffer vegetation and hydrologic character of shoreline areas. With the addition of new SMP (G) above, these provisions taken together meet the requirements of the WAC and RCW. See also response to response to comment #1. Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 1 of 19

2 3 Jeanie Index # The other concern that we have is that since the storm water control seems rather arbitrary, whereas all development and redevelopment should address this and require a mitigation plan by an expert... If there is NO limits on impervious surfaces and no mandatory requirements for storm water control/analysis. The problems we already have at Loon Lake will simply get worse... not better. Yet a SLMP is suppose to protect the resources for all. Not favor the developer over the long term interests of the public and those who would like to enjoy Loon Lake. Again the standard of"no net loss" should be applied for all redevelopment and development. s noted. See response to comment #1 and response to comment #2 for storm water quality and other water quality protections. See also buffer widths response to comment #12 regarding buffer widths. The County is committed to maintaining no net loss of ecological functions and values for redevelopment and new developments. 4 Jeanie (11/18/2018) Index #130A 5 Eric Davis 6 Eric Davis There is also no definition for stormwater. The document states "when needed". This is hard to understand. Surely development and redevelopment on the shoreline would cause run off. Who determines then when needed. Should this not be addressed for every development on the shoreline? According to ecosystem research, larger buffer width and limits on "impervious surface" areas within the zone likely to contain contaminants are the most important sources of protection against loss of eco-functionality (Booth and Reinelt, 1993; Tufford, et al, 1998; Booth, et al, 2002). Given the 200 foot [shoreline jurisdiction] constraint, a reasonable standard buffer width for shoreline residential development in a forested area of the County would be 85 feet accompanied by an impervious surface footprint limitation of no more than 15% (10% is generally accepted by science to cause functionality degradation). Recognized low impact development techniques (LID) or native riparian vegetation of sufficient type, density and sited to capture at least 90% of runoff would be required as well. Redevelopment would be defined as all replacement of and any expansion of existing development greater than 200 feet or some similar de minimis amount. ENVIRONMENT DESIGNATIONS 7 Futurewise Index # Clarify the Natural and Conservancy designation criteria, make them consistent with Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Guidelines, and then designate more areas as Natural and Conservancy based on those criteria. Please see the Stevens County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update pages 20 to 22 and the draft Environment Designations maps. The text at issue with the commenter was present in earlier SMP drafts and had been removed from consideration prior to assigning environment designations, but erroneously remained in the SMP Draft. The proposed text change clarifies that the ownership status of particular reaches for designation was not determinative. The verbiage change would not result in new or different environment designations. Revise SMP (B)(1) to read: Use one or more of the following criteria when applying a Natural environment designation. Additionally remove (B)(1)(b): b. the shoreline is generally in public ownership. Revise SMP (B)(1) to read: Use one or more of the following criteria when applying a Conservancy environment designation. For the Stevens SMP, a tailored environment designations system was developed and applied. Instead of having a Rural Conservancy designation provided as guidance in the WAC, Stevens County established separate Conservancy, Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 2 of 19

3 Recreation Conservancy and Rural environment designations, along with other tailored designations, with associated designation criteria. This is consistent with the SMP Handbook, Chapter 13 and the WAC. The handbook states: Local governments can establish a classification system different than that included in the Guidelines, or use their current environment designations. However, tailored environment designations must be consistent with the policies and purposes of the general environment designation provisions in the Guidelines and cover the breadth of the environments the complete scheme for shoreline management as included in the Guidelines [WAC (4)(c)]. The tailored environment designations have covered the breadth of the environments included in the WAC, and that these have been consistently applied throughout the County, including the areas around Loon Lake, to protect ecological functions such as those provided by wetlands and other habitat types, and provide for appropriate uses consistent with the environment designations. 8 Jeanie (11/18/2018) Index #130A 9 Jeanie (11/18/2018) Index #130A I was hoping you could give me some explanation as to why portions of wetlands are designated as rural. Was there a reason that Anchor did not use any Natural designations? In looking through the shoreline program I noticed at least for Loon Lake that wetlands were placed into the Rural areas. The front part of the wetland was lime green with the area behind it dark sage green...hence rural. These are wetland areas...as I am familiar with the lake. Would this not designate these areas for development?...but filling in the few remaining wetlands on the lake would be devastating. Can you change this? In all cases, Environment Designations were determined based upon an existing conditions analysis and designation criteria appropriate to each designation. Wetlands may be found under several different environment designations, and may exhibit a variety of conditions from degraded to pristine. The specific Environment Designation applied to a given wetland is not determinative of the type of protection afforded. Wetlands, wetland buffers, and wetland functions are protected to achieve no net loss of ecological functions and value, per SMP Article IV Critical Areas, and are further protected under State and Federal clean water law. Lands received Rural designation if actively or recently used for agricultural activities such as grazing, which was found to have been occurring in many wetlands in shoreline jurisdiction. Roads also provide a functional break from riparian areas. 10 Eric Davis All these shoreline wetlands should be designated "natural" environments to help achieve NNL At least at Loon, these wetlands' designation as "conservancy" strongly indicates the County still intends to encourage development there regardless of their importance to the ecosystem. 11 Eric Davis Loon is also an example of an additional wetland issue that appears at some other waterbodies. This issue is the inclusion of significant land outside the SL boundary in the shoreline jurisdiction. These lands are designated as "rural" environments and abut the shoreline wetlands. If these upland areas are wetlands, meeting the "proximity and influence" test described in the SMP Handbook (Chapter 5, pages 24-25), inclusion in the SMP is permitted. However, if included, they should receive the same environmental designation as the portion of that wetland that lies within the shoreline boundary. If not connected to the SL wetland, they should not be within the SMP's jurisdiction. If they contain isolated wetlands, the treatment of those wetlands would be governed by the County's CAO. Clarification is needed. BUFFERS 12 Futurewise Index #121 Table (B) 43 Adopt up-to-date buffers in Table (B), Shoreline Development Standards Matrix, to protect riparian areas. Please see the Stevens County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update page 43 The State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has recently updated the Priority Habitat and Species recommendations for riparian areas. The updated management The commenter references a two-volume WDFW document on riparian habitat: the final Volume 1 which synthesizes scientific literature, as well as a preliminary public review draft of Volume 2 which provides management recommendations. Note that the results of WDFWs recent literature review did not reveal any surprising new findings and the guide is fundamentally consistent with the previous 1997 recommendations. The draft Volume 2 is currently undergoing review and revision and is therefore premature to cite as state agency guidance. Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 3 of 19

4 recommendations document that fish and wildlife depend on protecting riparian vegetation and the functions this vegetation performs such as maintaining a complex food web that supports salmon and maintaining temperature regimes to name just a few of the functions It is also important to acknowledge that scientific literature does not provide a bright line answer to the question what is necessary to protect ecological functions. As the Growth Management Hearings Board has affirmed (Burien) the SMA process does incorporate the use of scientific information, but it does so as part of the process of balancing a range of considerations such as public access, priority uses, and the development goals and aspirations of the community. The County s obligation is to consider applicable scientific literature, and it has done so in the context of actual environmental conditions present in the County. The County developed a refined understanding of environmental conditions through the completion of a Shoreline Inventory and Characterization (IAC) Report. The IAC report provided the basis for establishing buffers that incorporate consideration of the goals and aspirations of the community, as required by WAC (2)(a). SMP Flood Hazard Reduction addresses Channel Migration Zone issues consistent with WAC (3)(c). This information, along with existing conditions and associated ecological conditions, existing development densities, vegetation conditions and shoreline modifications were considering in applying buffer widths to the various environment designations in both the shrub-steppe as well as forested areas, as the science is also applicable in the forested setting. See buffer widths response to comment #13 for additional information. 13 Futurewise Index #121 Table (B) 43 We recommend that buffers be increased to use the newly recommended 200-year SPTH of 155 feet and that this width should be measured from the edge of the channel, channel migration zone, or active floodplain whichever is wider. This will help maintain shoreline functions. In shrub-steppe habitats, the buffer should be sufficient to remove pollutants such as nitrogen. As described in earlier responses to comments, the County developed its buffers consistent with applicable scientific literature, existing environmental conditions and shoreline modifications and uses. Site potential tree height (SPTH) was factored into the Natural and Conservancy-designated buffers, and to a lesser extent into Recreation Conservancy and other environment designation buffers, as other factors described previously were also considered. Buffers are also applied from the Ordinary High Water Mark instead of the channel migration zone (CMZ). Separate measures are in place for the CMZ as described in SMP Flood Hazard Reduction. Regarding shrub-steppe habitat buffers, findings were applied from an Ecology-funded literature reviews Semi-Arid Riparian Functions and Associated Regulatory Protections to Support Shoreline Master Program Updates (Anchor QEA 2013). This review supplemented the 1997 WDFW Riparian Management Recommendations by applying ecological functions and associated protections directly to conditions found in shrub-steppe shorelines, which was entirely absent from the 1997 WDFW Management Recommendations document. The report (Anchor QEA, 2013), finalized in 2013, included analysis of over 130 documents with specific relevance to semi-arid ecosystems, and underwent peer review by a panel of researchers with specific experience in the riparian ecology of the semi-arid western U.S. Information in this report summarizes at a landscape scale the physical area needed in a semi-arid setting from the edge of the water body upland to where the riparian vegetation community transitions into the shrub-steppe vegetation community as the dominant vegetation cover type. It also includes some science findings for water quality that are applicable to the forested areas of the County. The County adopted specific buffers to apply in the limited shrub-steppe regions of the County. Note the following for nitrogen removal: Nitrogen - Attenuation requires a buffer of as little as 30 feet (Cooper 1990 as cited in Buffler 2005) to 60 feet in slopes up to 15 percent (Schnabel 1995; and Patty et al as cited in Buffler 2005), and up to 100 percent removal of nitrogen with a buffer of 65 feet (Fennessy and Cronk 1997). Findings for other water quality parameters concluded similar protections are provided by 30 to 65 feet. Therefore. the County has concluded that the buffers in the SMP provide water quality protections that meet the no net loss of ecological functions standard for this and other ecosystem functions in the semi-arid setting. This 65-foot value also became a guide for setting riparian buffer widths in areas previously developed forest environs as well as in some of the higher density environment designations, as 65 feet is protective of surface water quality and provides significant habitat space as well, while balancing existing uses and ensuring current ecological functions are protected in these areas. Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 4 of 19

5 14 Futurewise Index # Require adequate setbacks between development and critical areas and critical areas buffers in areas subject to wildfire danger. Please see proposed Stevens County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update page 76 Since a 30-foot-wide Home Ignition Zone is important to protect buildings, we recommend that Shoreline Management Program require a setback at least 30 feet wide adjacent to critical areas and critical area buffers in areas within the Wildland Urban Interface in Stevens County. Combustible structures, such as decks, should not be allowed within this setback to protect the building from wildfires. Proposed buffers provide area to protect from wildfire risk. Building applicants will be provided with FireWise guidance and principles at the time of application, and encouraged to apply these principles in their site planning, but additional clarity relating to the maintenance of the buffer during construction is warranted Add new provision to SMP (A)(2)(e) Buffers and Mitigation as follows to help assure no unauthorized intrusion into buffer area occurs during construction or development activities: (2)(e) The outer perimeter of the buffer shall be marked in the field with temporary clearing limits in such a way as minimize potential for buffer disturbance. This temporary marking shall be maintained throughout construction. 15 Jeanie Index # The science is clear redevelopment (county does not define) of a lot with variances, common line setbacks, buffer reductions, buffer averaging, and reasonable use exceptions, can all pose a significant ecosystem dangers not only to Loon Lake but other critical areas as well. This is why the mitigation needs to be strictly enforced, if the developer is going to develop in such a way as to impact the water and wildlife. What should be imposed is no net loss of the values and function of the critical area Lakes of Significance should be valued and have bigger buffers. The law indicates that SSWS should receive special attention to protect the ecological functionality of the shoreline. Where is that consideration? Should not the impairment level of Loon Lake and other lakes be taken into consideration? Did the county make an analysis for the cumulative impacts to water bodies... such as Loon? s noted. The County is committed to maintaining no net loss of ecological functions and values for redevelopment and new developments. The SMP approach is to make the buffer requirements consistent with environment designations appropriate to current development patterns as required by law and not specific to bodies of water. Environment designations reflect shoreline conditions and existing development and land use patterns. Buffers proposed in the SMP update are more consistent with existing development patterns and includes provisions to maintain no net loss of ecological functions of those buffers. The buffer reductions, averaging, common line setback provisions all must be applied in a way that meets the No Net Loss of ecological functions standard. That said, we find that adding a new provision to SMP (A)(7)(b) providing clarification that buffer modifications are administered consistent with the associated shoreline permitting process as follows, will improve the SMP: (b) Modifications to buffer widths shall be reviewed by the Shoreline Administrator and be consistent with the associated permitting process per SMP through 670. Additional provisions in the SMP to protect ecological functions and values and water quality include mitigation sequencing per SMP (B), SMP Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Standards, SMP Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution, and SMP Critical Areas, Buffers and Mitigation. See also cumulative impacts response to comment # Jeanie Index #133 Table (B) On page 43 the proposed update has reduced the standard buffer of 150 feet to 50 to 65 feet. (apparently no review by the DOE) The county's own CAO brings into question the effectiveness of the 50 foot buffer. Low intensity is 65 to 70 feet. (SLMP) Is that defined (intensity) by the ordinance? We know scientifically that buffer effectiveness increases with buffer width. Again the exceptions, of buffer reductions, buffer averaging, common line set back and variances, simply add to the problem, making the buffer even smaller. Expansions also seems to be allowed at the discretion of the planner. Under the current SLMP the DOE is required to approve shoreline buffer variances, but the reduction of a standard buffer will eliminate that independent review. It is unclear if any expansion is entitled to buffer reduction modifications ( ). The terms extension is also not defined by the ordinance. See buffer width response to comments #12, 13, and 15. Two sets of buffers are provided for forested and shrub steppe. Based on conditions with the County, the forested buffers will be more commonly applied. These buffers have been shared and discussed with Washington State Department of Ecology. See proposed revisions/additions below to help further define where forested and shrub steppe buffers apply within the County: Add new definition to SMP for shrub steppe as follows: Shrub steppe communities form a landscape of open sagebrush (Artemisia spp.) plains, basalt outcropping, and includes vegetation communities consisting of one or more layers of perennial grass with a discontinuous overstory layer of shrubs. For the purposes of this SMP, shrub steppe areas have only scattered, individual trees, if any, and are typified by the presence of bunchgrasses and sagebrush species. Update SMP (B)(3)(a c) to more clearly indicate reaches and portions of reaches where shrub steppe characteristics exist along the shoreline, as follows: 3. Disturbance to vegetation within riparian buffers shall be replaced with a minimum replacement ratio of 1:1, in accordance with mitigation requirements in the General Buffer and Mitigation Requirements of SMP For the protection of habitat along rivers, streams, and lakes, the buffer widths for shrub-steppe habitat as provided in Table Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 5 of 19

6 (B) are applicable to portions of the following reaches where shrub-steppe habitat characteristics exist along the shoreline: a. Kettle River Upper portion of Subreach 1a (largely upstream of 48 59'24.0"N '22.3"W) b. Columbia River: i. Portions of Subreach 3h near Hunters (largely between 48 03'43.5"N '53.0"W and 48 06'49.0"N '08.7"W) ii. Southern portion of Subreach 3i (largely downstream of 47 55'00.8"N '45.1"W) c. Spokane River: i. Portions of Subreach 1d (largely between 47 49'18.9"N '10.6"W and 47 49'20.4"N '17.5"W; and between 47 50'06.9"N '29.0"W and 47 49'20.4"N '17.5"W) ii. Subreach 3d iii. Western portion of Subreach 3e (largely downstream of 47 56'37.1"N '43.4"W) iv. Subreach 3f Revise SMP (B)(3)(d) as follows to provide opportunity for site-by-site review of vegetation conditions: d. Other areas in other reaches within the County where shrub steppe habitat characteristics exist along the shoreline greater than 75% of the vegetation is dominated by shrub steppe vegetation along the shoreline, as demonstrated by a qualified professional. 17 Jeanie Index # Jessie Duroe Hadley (10/31/2018) Index #129 WAC states that counties need to meet the requirement of scientific and technical information How can this be the case when it appears what the county has written, ( once again) an ordinance with loop holes. It also appears that the county is relying upon a Grand County's report. However this study is for "semi arid" regions. Grant county has far less rain that Stevens County which should be taken into consideration. Creating a new SMP is an opportunity to make the [Loon Lake] cleaner and better for the people who love it now and into the future. Make it something you are proud of saving. In the SMP I am asking for: - Setbacks of 150 to 200 ft - Protection, not development of Anderson and McVay meadow wetlands - Requirement of low impact development (LID) building techniques - Vegetation requirements for the shoreline See buffers responses to comments #13, 15, and 16 for discussion on updated buffer widths and provisions to protect ecological functions and values. See also environment designation response to comment #8 for discussion on how wetlands are protected regardless of environment designation. See also stormwater response to comment #2, which includes new provisions related to impervious surface area limitations and references to LID development standards 19 Eric Davis , The Proposal appears to only have one quantifiable type of development standard that is relevant to eco-functionality. That standard is buffer width for shorelines and for shoreline wetland development activity (See Tables (B) and (B)(1 & 2) in the Proposal). 20 Eric Davis The Proposal fails to recognize the complex nature of ecosystems, and, as a result, is an ineffective risk management policy and process for achieving NNL. SMP was developed based on the Shoreline IAC Report that provided an overview of existing functions, a land capacity analysis, and opportunities for protection and restoration. The updated SMP buffers and development of environment designations applied methodologies that considered existing conditions resulting in tailored buffers that protect Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 6 of 19

7 The Proposal not only doesn't take the current level of impairment into account in setting any development standards, it also reduces the standard shoreline buffer width by more than 50% on the most impaired waterbodies. ecological functions as they exist. The proposed buffers are anticipated to reduce the number of buffer modifications made through common line setback approach. See buffers responses to comments #13, 15, and 16 for discussion on updated buffer widths and provisions to protect ecological functions and values. 21 Eric Davis 22 Jeanie (11/18/2018) Index # Eric Davis (11/28/ Eric Davis There is no citation evident in the Proposal to support the 65 foot [forested] buffer. Furthermore, both The DOE and the WDFW refer to buffer effectiveness research published by the USFS and the BLM developed by the "Forest Ecosystem Management Assessment Team" (FEMAT). See the DOE's "Shoreline Master Program Handbook" (Chapter 11, pages /2017 version) and the WDFW's report on "Riparian Ecosystems, Volume 1, 7 /2018 (Chapter 9 for a summary). It is important to note that: The relationship between removal effectiveness and buffer width is non-linear. The FEMAT research was based on largely "undisturbed buffers"--those with natural vegetation and features. Buffers in areas with existing development would require substantially wider buffers to achieve the same level of removal effectiveness. Using a site-specific calculation tool, in its recent letter (page 5) to the County on the Proposal, Futurewise estimated that the average width of an effective, undisturbed buffer in Stevens County should be 155 feet. This strongly suggests that a standard 65 foot (or similar width) will damage eco-functionality unless accompanied by effective mitigation measures. Can you direct me in the program where the common line setback is addressed. There is NO definition...leaving great discretion (no consistency) to the planner. A definition would help application to be specific and one that the public can understand. Maybe I am missing something here? My understanding is that the county would still be using this as a shoreline setback. Where would this be explained in the draft? [For an effective ecosystem protection process] Lateral expansion (parallel to the shoreline) would be prohibited within the standard buffer as would the buffer reduction options identified in A Program with these features is particularly important for the NNL on impaired SSWS It appears that the Proposal has chosen to utilize the wetland buffer option in the DOE's recent publication, No , using Table 8D-3. This option permits very narrow wetland buffers, if the wetland meets certain characteristics This poses a material risk to eco-functionality from those connected wetlands outside the 200 foot shoreline boundary because the County can change the use intensity in the future on the land surrounding the wetland. Assuming original low intensity development with a 50 foot wetland buffer, the County could then use a common line buffer modification to allow a 50 foot buffer for any "in-fill" development. This potential needs to be prohibited. See buffers responses to comments #12 and 13. See Section (A)(6)(a)(ii) Lateral and landward expansion provisions and associated mitigation requirements are included in SMP (C). The SMP allows minor expansions of residences, acknowledging that this is a common practice for pre-existing residential developments where the added cost of requiring variances would cause undue burden on applicants and the County. The SMP mitigation sequencing would still apply for these types of expansions. See also cumulative impacts analysis response to comment #37. See responses to comments #8 through 11. In-fill Development Buffer Modifications per SMP (A)(6) are limited to shoreline riparian buffers and does not apply to wetland buffers. Additionally, wetlands hydraulically connected to shoreline jurisdiction waterbodies outside the 200-foot shoreline buffer have been included in the Partnership s shoreline jurisdiction. Further, any changes to land use intensity in SMP Table (B)(1) could not be changed by the County without going through an SMP amendment and associated public review process. Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 7 of 19

8 25 Eric Davis In addition, the Proposal has made a sly change to the DOE's definition of residential density to qualify for "low impact" treatment (the 50 foot buffer) versus the 75 foot buffer required under "moderate impact" treatment. This alteration needs to be changed to conform to the DOE's definition to avoid adverse eco-functionality impacts. The density for low and moderate land use intensity included in SMP Table (B)(1) was modified to reflect the rural character of residential development in Stevens County. Density for moderate intensity land use was reduced to 1 unit/4.99 acres while low intensity was reduced to 1 unit per 5 or more acres. The commenter correctly identified a typo present in this draft. Fix typo in Table (B)(1) for Moderate Land Use as follows: Residential (1 unit/acre or less, up to 1 /unit per / 4.99 acres) 26 Eric Davis Section Ill, Article IV of the Proposal says that the County has chosen to incorporate its CAO into the SMP for critical areas within the shoreline jurisdiction. It is unclear what this means since the wetland buffers in the Proposal are materially narrower than those in the CAO, posing a risk to the NNL requirement. Are the buffers in the Proposal intended to alter the CAO? If so, that seems inappropriate without going through the modification process required by the GMA. What key CAO provisions are applicable to the SMP Proposal? Clarification is needed. Critical areas provisions from the SMP apply to critical areas only within shoreline jurisdiction (SMP Article IV: Critical Areas). The County s Critical Areas Ordinance applies for wetlands and other critical areas outside of the shoreline jurisdiction. Upon adoption of the updated SMP, the existing SMP documents will be replaced. Additionally, critical areas within shoreline jurisdiction will be governed by the SMP critical areas regulations. The wetlands and other regulations in the SMP for protecting critical areas functions and values are based upon the most recently approved federal and state guidance documents and scientific literature, applied in the Stevens County setting. MITIGATION AND RESTORATION 27 Eleanor Mattice (11/8/2018) Index # Jeanie (11/18/2018) Index #130A Encourage mitigation for riparian areas that are compromised. Can you tell me. When and if the Restoration Plan is required? Is this voluntary? noted. See SMP Environmental Protection, and SMP (B) Critical Areas, Buffers and Mitigation The Restoration Plan is a not a regulatory document nor does it include regulatory requirements. However, the SMP points to the Restoration Plan as a guide, outlining opportunities for improving ecological function within the jurisdiction of the Partnership s shorelines. It s important to note that the Restoration Plan goes beyond no net loss by identifying opportunities to establish an increase in the amount, size, and/or functions of an ecosystem or components of an ecosystem compared to a baseline condition. 29 Eric Davis 30 Eric Davis The exceptions to the standard buffer mentioned earlier allegedly will require mitigation driven by a plan developed by a so-called "qualified professional." That QP is not required to be independent of the permit applicant or the County (the decision-maker), a well known, common risk management policy deficiency (called "moral hazard."). It does not appear that the exceptions and any mitigation plan require a Variance or CUP, so the effectiveness of the plan will not be subject to any independent oversight (a function commonly called "auditing" in an effective risk management process). The focus of any mitigation appears to be on "vegetation" somewhere in the buffer. There is no specification of location, type, density, or removal effectiveness of the vegetation... At a minimum, any vegetation requirement in the buffer should be for native, riparian vegetation in its natural density. Vegetation should be located in areas where runoff from See buffer modification response to comment #15 which includes a proposed revision to clarify that buffer modifications are administered consistent with the associated shoreline permitting process Additionally, buffer reduction mitigation plans undergo a coordinated review per SMP (A)(5)(b), which states: Coordination will occur with Ecology and WDFW during preparation and technical review of the mitigation plan for permitting processes per SMP through 670. Shoreline CUPs and Variances also require Ecology review and approval per SMP (C). See also SMP (94) for definition and criteria for qualified professional. Vegetation management provisions are provided in multiple sections of the SMP. The following SMP provisions include requirements related to vegetation management and/or mitigation: Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 8 of 19

9 development is concentrated and be dense enough to soak up contaminated runoff without contamination getting into the water table, let alone into the waterbody itself. SMP (A)(2)(c) and (d) related vegetation management and mitigation that maintains functions and value, and appropriate for wetlands and riparian buffers. Only certain vegetation management activities can occur in buffers such as: o Invasive species/noxious weed control within riparian buffers, if the criteria listed below are met: Hand removal or spraying of plants only; No area-wide vegetation removal/grubbing; Avoid impacts to existing non-invasive vegetation; and Reseed and replant with plants that provide similar ecological functions to undisturbed shoreline areas. o o Trimming of tree branches for fire control consistent with DNR s Firewise wildfire fuel reduction and defensible space principles (Washington State Department of Natural Resources Fire Prevention Defend Your Home from Wildfire). Removal of hazard trees as necessary because they are dead, dying, or diseased; or present a danger or impact to property, provided the removed trees are the minimum necessary to address the demonstrated safety hazard. Impacts to ecological functions shall be mitigated 31 Eric Davis 32 Eric Davis As part of its currently meaningless "Restoration Plan" the County could start to help fund a revegetation program for existing non-conforming development that is not being replaced or expanded. That funding could be part of a Lake Management District's program. Any LID or vegetation requirements and other conditions of development must be recorded, an amendment to the deed to "ensure" that they will be "binding" on the property. "Ensure" and "binding" being loose terms since there are no long -term monitoring provisions in the proposal and the County has no history of enforcing any development requirements. SMP (D)(4) related to location of wetland compensation mitigation. A minimum mitigation ratio of 1:1 to is established for riparian areas as provided in SMP (B)(3). Wetland mitigation ratios must be consistent with Table (D). SMP Environmental Protection and SMP Shoreline Vegetation Conservation include provisions related to avoidance and minimization of adverse effects. SMP provisions considered the needed flexibility to allow Qualified Professionals to specify what will work best for the site and to accomplish the goals of the SMP. See also stormwater response to comment #2, which includes new provisions related to impervious surface area limitations and references to LID development standards. We can include this as a potential additional action in the Restoration Plan, acknowledging the actions in this plan are not required to be implemented. The plan does help document future restoration opportunities and provides a basis for securing future funding for these actions. See Restoration Plan Table 3. noted. See SMP (B)(2)(a)(iii) and (iv) which state: An implementation schedule for the mitigation plan and a 2-year monitoring program with annual inspection; and Performance and/or warranty or maintenance bonds or other forms of surety to ensure the plan achieves its goals and objectives. FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS 33 Futurewise (B)(4) 91 Amend SCC B.4 to adequately protect endangered, threatened, and sensitive species. See page 91 of the Stevens County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update The Stevens County Partnership believes that the provisions for these species provide adequate protections and that the proposed additional language is not necessary and too open-ended. Index #121 We recommend that proposed SCC B.4a and b be modified to read as follows with our addition double underlined: a. Development proposals within an area needed to comply with a State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife management recommendation or a mapped fish and wildlife SMP (A)(3)(b) also includes provisions for the Shoreline Administrator to increase standard buffer widths if necessary to protect ecological functions and values, if a larger buffer is needed to maintain critical habitat for existing, documented federal- or state-listed endangered, threatened, or sensitive species or a species of local importance. Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 9 of 19

10 habitat conservation area designated under SMP (A)(1) and (2) will be subject to review by the Shoreline Administrator to determine if the development proposal will impair the functions and values of the habitat area Additional provisions in the SMP to protect ecological functions and values include mitigation sequencing per SMP (B), SMP Shoreline Vegetation Conservation Standards, and SMP Critical Areas, Buffers and Mitigation. b. For each development proposal located in an area needed to comply with a State of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife management recommendation or a mapped fish and wildlife habitat conservation area that is determined to have an impact on the functions and values of the habitat, the Shoreline Administrator shall require a report from a qualified professional setting forth management recommendations specific to the site and the proposed development. SHORELINE USE AND MODIFICATIONS 34 Avista Robin Bekkedahl (10/22/2018) Index # (I) I was sending a comment on the certain section of the draft shoreline plan that is outlined in yellow. For some of our utilities conduits under aquatic areas may be feasible but for gas this is an issue. We are required to do leak surveys and additional sleeving would make it much harder to pinpoint any leaks along that section of pipe. Casings, sleeves or conduits are not ideal because if the carrier pipe is steel there is the potential for that pipe to become shorted to the casing which has a negative impact on the cathodic protection for the pipe. This can actually increase the likelihood of a leak depending upon the circumstances. I would request that this section state: Revise SMP (I) as noted: Where utilities cannot cross a shoreline waterbody via a bridge or other existing water crossing, the utilities shall evaluate site-specific habitat conditions and demonstrate impacts can be mitigated. To avoid impacts boring can be used beneath the waterbody such that the substrate is not disturbed. Construction of pipelines placed under aquatic areas shall be placed in a sleeve, if feasible, to avoid the need for excavation in the event of a failure in the future. Construction of pipelines placed under aquatic areas, if feasible, be placed in a sleeve to avoid the need for excavation in the event of a failure in the future. Where utilities cannot cross a shoreline waterbody via a bridge or other existing water crossing, the utilities shall evaluate site-specific habitat conditions and demonstrate impacts can be mitigated. To avoid impacts boring can be used beneath the waterbody such that the substrate is not disturbed. Construction of pipelines placed under aquatic areas shall be placed in a sleeve to avoid the need for excavation in the event of a failure in the future. J. Approve minor trenching to allow the installation of underground pipes or 35 Futurewise Index #121 Table (C) Clarify proposed Table (C), Shoreline Use and Modification Matrix, on pages 37 through 40 of the Stevens County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update - We are concerned that the allowance for fills in the Natural environment to support primary use in proposed Table (C) might be read to allow fills waterward of the ordinary high-water mark to support any allowed primary use. So, we recommend that note 4 be modified to clarify this point. Our recommended additions are double underlined. 4. Minimum amount to support the associated primary use in floodways and those uses and activities allowed by SCC B that are also allowed uses in the Natural environment waterward of the ordinary high-water mark, with associated mitigation, as applicable - We recommend that in-stream structures should also be CUP (SSDP) as provided in footnote 6 Footnote 4 is applied in two different locations within this table. Revise Table (C) for Fill waterward of OHWM and in floodways under the Natural ED as follows for more clarity: Prohibited, except to support associated primary use 4 Delete Footnote number 4 reference here which is unnecessary with the revision above and where the subject defines that this applies to fill waterward of OHWM and in floodways. In-stream structures are required to be compatible with the specific provisions per SMP (B)(1) and a CUP would add additional processing to those circumstances when in-stream structures are consistent with these provisions. The current requirement for review under the SSDP will require SEPA and public review. New flood control facilities are subject SMP and a new footnote is does not provide additional clarification for this table. - We recommend that a new footnote be added to Table (C) noting that all new flood control facilities in all shoreline environments must comply with proposed E.] Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 10 of 19

11 36 Eric Davis Furthermore, there are no mitigation requirements for the most common forms of development (redevelopment) that is occurring on those impaired waterbodies [Redevelopment] always involves larger "lot coverage" (impervious surfaces) which concentrates and channels runoff containing contaminants from those sur faces and surrounding land. That concentration increases the amount of contaminants that reach the water, increasing impairment. This, in turn, will ensure eco-function loss in these situations in violation of State law. These situations include lake SSWS, especially Loon and Deer Lakes. See also stormwater response to comment #2, which includes new provisions related to impervious surface area limitations and references to LID development standards. The Cumulative Impacts Analysis prepared for the County projects future development, including redevelopment, to demonstrate the updated SMP will result in no net loss to shoreline ecological functions. See Cumulative Impacts Analysis Attachment 3 which identifies SMP provisions to address risks from future redevelopment activities, which includes SMP Residential Development, SMP Piers and Docks, and SMP Nonconforming Structure or Other Improvements. CUMULATIVE AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACTS ANALYSIS 37 Jeanie Index # Eric Davis 39 Eric Davis With such possible long term impacts, has the county completed an Environmental Statement? (EIS) If the county is using SEPA, is that adequate to address the long term cumulative effects? The SMP regulations have long required a cumulative impacts assessment in making development decisions, but the County has never done so. As a result, particularly on the lake SSWS, those lakes are materially, impaired, densely developed close to the waterline, and are being redeveloped with much larger structures in the same inappropriate locations. The Proposal requires no mitigation on any of the standard buffer widths, regardless of the size of new or redevelopment. As such, any material amount of new development or redevel opment (cumulative impact) will lead to eco-functionality deterioration on any waterbody and material deterioration--net loss--on currently impaired waterbodies. The County has prepared a Cumulative Impacts Analysis and SEPA checklist and these characterize that the SMP will protect the baseline ecological functions within the Partnership s jurisdiction. The Restoration Plan can help provide functional lift for these functions over time, as improvements are made. Collectively these provisions are expected to result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function in the County and may actually lead to an improvement or gain of ecological function over time. Periodic review of the effectiveness of the SMP is required under SMP See also cumulative impacts response to comment #37. Environment designations were developed considering existing ecological functions and future development projections to result in no net loss of shoreline ecological function. AGENCY COORDINATION 40 Avista Robin Bekkedahl Index # (C) 12, I forgot to ask if there was any possibility of incorporating some areas within the county shoreline also require permission from Avista because of our FERC license. Not exactly sure how to integrate this within Page 12 Line 11 and Page 38 Table (c). This comment is related to policies and permit requirements for Piers, Docks, Buoys, Platforms and Other Types of Moorage Facilities along shorelines where Avista s FERC license applies. Applicants can be reminded by County staff to coordinate with Avista and other agencies for other approvals needed for the proposed development, as applicable, at the time of permit application with the Stevens County Land Services Department. Additionally, SMP (A)(1) states: Applicants should consult with other agencies on any additional permits or approvals beyond those discussed in this section that may apply. The County also intends to prepare an SMP User Guide which can also help define additional entities that applicants may need to coordinate with for additional review and approvals. 41 Futurewise Index # Proposed , Archaeological and Historic Resources, should require site investigations for sites that the Washington State Department of Archeology and Historic Preservation predictive model rates as survey recommended: moderate risk, survey highly advised: high risk, and survey highly advised: very high risk. Please see the Stevens County Partnership Shoreline Master Program Update page 44 Stevens County Partnership members are committed to protecting archaeologic and historic resources consistent with the requirements in Shoreline Management Act. These provisions required by the law are included in the SMP. Notice is also provided to DAHP for projects which require SEPA review. Tribal authorities are given an opportunity to comment through the public process. Stevens County Partnership SMP DRAFT (September 2018) DRAFT Page 11 of 19