STAFF REPORT CHELAN COUNTY PUD DAROGA DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM

Transcription

1 STAFF REPORT CHELAN COUNTY PUD DAROGA DOMESTIC WATER SYSTEM TO: Douglas County Hearing Examiner FROM: Douglas County Land Services Staff RE: Chelan County PUD, SCUP DATE: July 5, 2012 I. GENERAL INFORMATION Requested Action: An application for a shoreline conditional use permit for the construction of a domestic water system. System improvements include a new well, new water lines, new waterworks building to house chlorination system, pump controls and electric service for the island, and new electrical conduit. Location: The subject property is described as Daroga State Park and located in Sections 33 and 34, Township 26N., Range 21 E., W.M., Douglas County, Washington. II. SITE INFORMATION Site Characteristics: The property consists of a public park and campground. The vegetation on the property consists of almost entirely mowed and maintained lawngrass. Varied native and non-native vegetation patterns are presents and are described in the fish and wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan. Zoning and Development Standards: The subject property is located within the Rural Recreation (R-REC) Zoning District. The purpose of the rural recreation (R-REC) district is to provide the opportunity for the development, redevelopment and infill of existing intensely developed rural recreational areas for residential, recreation, and tourist related development consistent with the rural character in the vicinity. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan designates the property as rural recreation. The following goals and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan are relevant to this development: CRITICAL AREAS - WETLANDS: GOAL: Douglas County s wetlands will be protected to the greatest extent reasonable because they provide important functions that help define the quality of life in Douglas County POLICY CA-1: Protection of and preservation of wetlands shall be preferred to alteration and mitigation of impacts to wetlands. POLICY CA-2: Wetlands will be rated consistent with the Washington State Department of Ecology s Wetlands Rating System for Eastern Washington (Publication Nos and , as amended). Page 1

2 POLICY CA-3: Wetlands will be identified according to the methodology described in the Washington State Wetlands Identification and Delineation Manual, 1997, publication #96-94, as amended. POLICY CA-9: Development that encompasses wetland areas will have a site-specific review process required to determine the classification. POLICY CA-10: Projects containing a wetland should submit a comprehensive wetland mitigation plan that included sufficient monitoring and contingencies to ensure natural wetland persistence. CRITICAL AREAS FISH & WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS GOAL: Protect fish and wildlife habitat areas as an important natural resource for Douglas County, particularly in regard to their economic, aesthetic and quality of life values. POLICY CA-15: The maximum amount of vegetation should be maintained in its natural state and be disturbed only as minimally necessary for the development. Disturbed areas should be re-vegetated with native vegetation as soon as possible. Re-vegetation will be maintained in good growing conditions, as well as being kept free of noxious weeds. POLICY CA-16: If a development proposal is located in or near a habitat conservation area shown on the reference maps, a consultation and subsequent mitigation measures, if needed, should be encouraged from the WDFW or other appropriate agency. POLICY CA-19: Proper riparian management that maintains existing riparian habitat and is consistent with best agricultural management practices should be encouraged. IV. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The Douglas County Shoreline Master Program classifies this portion of the Columbia River shoreline as Rural Conservancy. The purpose of the rural conservancy environment is to protect ecological functions, conserve existing natural resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to provide for sustained resource use, achieve natural flood plain processes, and provide recreational opportunities. A listing of the applicable policies and regulations are found in the analysis section of this staff report. WASHINGTON ADMINISTRATIVE CODE (WAC) WAC provides updated rules for administering the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58) and the local master program. WAC , establishes minimum review criteria for conditional use permits. This criteria states that 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: That the proposed use is consistent with the policies of RCW and the master program; That the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; 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 shoreline master program; Page 2

3 That the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and That the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. In granting of all conditional use permits, consideration shall be given to the cumulative impact of additional requests for like actions in the area. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Chelan County PUD is SEPA Lead Agency for this project and has determined that the project is exempt from a SEPA threshold determination per WAC (4)(b) and (24)(b). VI. AGENCY AND PUBLIC COMMENTS: Applicable agencies have been given the opportunity to review this proposal. The following agencies have been sent copies of the proposal and have commented as indicated below: Agency Notified Response Received Agency Notified Response Received WA Department of Ecology N/R Chelan County PUD 5/14/12 Chelan Douglas Health District 6/14/12 Dept of Arch & Hist Pres N/R Colville Tribes N/R Yakama Nation N/R Douglas County PUD WA State Parks * N/R = No Reply 5/21/12 Dept of Health Drinking Water N/R N/R Agency comments have been included as Attachment A. No public comments were received at the writing of this staff report. VII. PROJECT ANALYSIS Upon review of the application materials, site plans, public and agency comments, the Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, and applicable codes and requirements, planning staff offers the following analysis and recommendations for the subject application: Comprehensive plan consistency: Utility development for recreational opportunities in shoreline areas of the Rural Recreation land use designation can be considered when potential adverse impacts to water quality, slope stability, vegetation, wildlife and aquatic life have been sufficiently Page 3

4 addressed. Critical area policies place preference on the protection of and preservation of wetlands over the alteration and mitigation of impacts to wetlands. As conditioned, the project is consistent with the goals and policies of the Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the Douglas County Shoreline Master Program The water system construction/expansion are a shoreline conditional use permit within the rural conservancy shoreline environment. NOTE: The applicant has provided an analysis of how the application meets the applicable goals, policies and regulations from the SMP. 4.1 ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND CRITICAL AREAS POLICY 1: Shoreline use and development should occur in a manner that assures no net loss of existing ecological functions and processes and protects critical areas. Uses should be designed and conducted to avoid, minimize, or to fully mitigate in so far as practical, any damage to the ecology and environment. The biologist of record has documented in the management and mitigation plan that the project will have no net loss of ecological function. REGULATION 1: Mitigation sequencing applicants shall demonstrate all reasonable efforts have been taken to mitigate potential adverse impacts in the following prioritized order: a. Avoiding the impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action. b. Minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action and its implementation, by using appropriate technology, or by taking affirmative steps, such as project redesign, relocation, or timing, to avoid or reduce impacts; c. Rectifying the impact by repairing, rehabilitating, or restoring the affected environment to the conditions existing at the time of the initiation of the project; d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and f. Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Because of the configuration of the property (island and narrow causeway) and the required location of the components (well, pump house etc) impact to the buffer cannot be avoided. The extent of the disturbance will be minimized to the greatest extent possible and disturbed areas are proposed to be restored to its condition prior to the proposed activity (maintained lawngrass, dirt or gravel). 4.2 WATER QUALITY REGULATION 3: Best management practices (BMP s) for control of erosion and sedimentation shall be implemented for all development in shorelines through an Page 4

5 approved temporary erosion and sediment control plan, identified in the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington, as amended. The applicant is proposing erosion and sediment control during work and stabilization of the sites. 4.3 VEGETATION CONSERVATION REGULATION 2: Where impacts to buffers are permitted under Section 4.1, Ecological Protection and Critical Areas, new developments shall be required to develop and implement a management and mitigation plan. When required, management and mitigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified biologist and shall be consistent with the requirements of Appendix H. Management and mitigation plans shall describe actions that will ensure no net loss of ecological functions. Vegetation shall be maintained over the life of the use and/or development by means of a conservation easement or similar legal instrument recorded with the County Auditor. REGULATION 4: Native vegetation clearing shall be limited to the minimum necessary to accommodate approved shoreline development. The project proposes no native vegetation disturbance. REGULATION 5: Removal of noxious weeds and/or invasive species shall be incorporated in management and mitigation plans, as necessary, to facilitate establishment of a stable community of native plants. As conditioned, the project is consistent with this section RECREATION POLICY 7: Recreational uses and facilities should be designed and located to ensure no net loss of critical areas and shoreline ecological functions. REGULATION 5: Recreational uses and facilities should be designed and located to ensure no net loss of critical areas and shoreline ecological functions. Page 5

6 5.17 UTILITIES POLICY 1: New public or private utilities should be located inland from the water unless, a. Perpendicular water crossings are unavoidable; or b. Utilities are required for authorized shoreline uses consistent with this Master Program. The application is for the improvement of a water system which supplies a state park. The park is a use which is consistent with and allowed by the Master Program. POLICY 3: Utilities should be located, designed, constructed, and operated to result in no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and processes. POLICY 5: Utilities should be located in existing rights of way and corridors. Of the 3,700 feet of utility trench proposed, all but 150 feet will be located within an existing utility corridor. REGULATION 1: All applicants shall document that the facility cannot be feasibly located outside of shoreline jurisdiction due to the uses served or the need to cross shorelands to connect specific end points. An analysis of alternatives may be required. New or expanded public or private utilities should be located inland from the water, preferably out of shoreline jurisdiction. The applicant has identified in the application materials that site testing determined the preferred location for the well to provide sufficient quality and quantity of water. The location of other new components are necessary in order to connect the new components to the existing supply and distribution infrastructure. REGULATION 2: All applicants shall document that the proposed facilities comply with critical area regulations in Section 4.1 Ecological Protection and Critical Areas. REGULATION 3: All applicants shall document how the location, design and use achieves no net loss of ecological functions and incorporates appropriate mitigation. Page 6

7 REGULATION 6: Applications must demonstrate that the utility facility has located in existing right-of-way corridors where feasible. Of the 3,700 feet of utility trench proposed, all but 150 feet will be located within an existing utility corridor. The applicant has demonstrated that to the greatest extent possible that the new components will be located within an existing utility corridor. Appendix H, Chapter 3: Critical Areas Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The applicant has submitted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan from Grette & Associates dated April The plan details that no native vegetation will be disturbed. The area is all lawn grass, dirt or gravel. The well and waterworks building are the only components that are above ground and are located outside of the buffer. The work inside of the buffer is pipe and electrical conduit and therefore will be covered over and restored to original condition. The plan analysis determines that there will be no loss of function and value provided by the existing riparian buffer. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with this section. Consistency with WAC and RCW 90.58: As conditioned below, the project appears consistent with the requirements and criteria of the Shoreline Management and Enforcement Procedures, and the Shoreline Management Act VIII. RECOMMENDATION As conditioned below, this application does not appear to be detrimental to the general public health, safety or welfare and meets the basic intent and criteria associated with Title 18 and 19 of the Douglas County Code, the Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, and the Douglas County Shoreline Master Program. Staff recommends approval of SCUP#12-01, subject to the following findings of fact and conditions: Suggested Findings of Fact 1. The applicant is Public Utility District No. 1 of Chelan County, PO Box 1231, Wenatchee WA. 2. General Description: An application for a shoreline conditional use permit for the construction of a domestic water system. System improvements include a new well, new water lines, new waterworks building to house chlorination system, pump controls and electric service for the island, and new electrical conduit. 3. The subject property is described as Daroga State Park and located in Sections 33 and 34, Township 26N., Range 21 E., W.M., Douglas County, Washington. 4. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Rural Recreation (R-REC). 5. The subject property is located in the R-REC zoning district. 6. The Columbia River Shoreline section of the subject property is designated as Rural Conservancy by the Douglas County Shoreline Master Program. 7. WAC establishes minimum review criteria for Shoreline Management Conditional Use Permits. This criteria states that a conditional use permit shall be Page 7

8 granted only when the development proposed is: consistent with the policies of RCW and the master program; the proposed use will not interfere with the normal public use of public shorelines; 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 shoreline master program; the proposed use will cause no significant adverse effects to the shoreline environment in which it is to be located; and the public interest suffers no substantial detrimental effect. 8. The applicant submitted a Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan from Grette & Associates dated April Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan identifies that no native vegetation disturbance will occur as a result of the project. The disturbed area is entirely lawn grass, dirt or gravel within an existing, developed, public recreation park. The disturbance within the buffer is limited to trenching, placement of water line and electrical conduit, closure of the trench and restoration of the disturbed area back to lawn grass, dirt or gravel. 10. The Fish and Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan has determined that since the project proposes no disturbance of native vegetation, no permanent change to the buffer and therefore no disturbance to existing habitat function and value that no compensatory mitigation is required by the Master Program. 11. Chelan County PUD is SEPA Lead Agency for this project and has determined that the project is exempt from a SEPA threshold determination per WAC (4)(b) and (24)(b). 12. Surrounding property owners were given the opportunity to comment on the proposals, can request a copy of the decision, and can appeal the decision subject to the requirements outlined in DCC Title Proper legal requirements were met and surrounding property owners were given the opportunity to comment on the proposal at a public hearing. 14. WAC requires that construction must be commenced within 2 years of the effective date of the shoreline permit and that authorization for construction shall terminate 5 years after the effective date of the shoreline permit. 15. As conditioned, the development will not adversely affect the general public, health, safety and general welfare. Suggested Conclusions: 1. As conditioned, the development meets the goals, policies and implementation recommendations as set forth in the Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan and the Douglas County Shoreline Master Program. 2. As conditioned, this proposal is consistent with applicable federal and state laws and regulations. 3. As proposed, revised, and conditioned, potential impacts of the project can be mitigated. 4. Public interests will be served by approval of this proposal. 5. As conditioned, the proposal is consistent with Title 18 Zoning and Title 19 Environment of the Douglas County Code. Page 8

9 Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. The project shall proceed in substantial conformance with the plans and application materials of file submitted on May 10, 2012 except as amended by the conditions herein. 2. Prior to commencing work, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from agencies with jurisdiction. This may include, but is not limited to: the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Hydraulic Project Approval), the United States Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch (Section 10 &/or 404) the Washington State Department of Ecology (Section 401 Water Quality Certification), Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Use Authorization. 3. The applicant shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations. 4. A copy of this permit and attached conditions shall be kept on-site and provided to the contractor and all others working within the shoreline area at all times. The applicant, contractor, machinery operators and all others working within the shoreline area shall have read this permit and attached conditions and shall follow its conditions at all times. 5. The erosion control fencing shall be installed waterward of all excavation areas and remain in place and be maintained until the installed vegetation has taken hold to protect the buffer from erosion and siltation. 6. Where a condition imposed herein may be found inconsistent with the requirements of the Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, HPA Permit, or permitting issued by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, the Douglas County Land Services Director shall have discretion to allow for project redesign consistent with the approvals granted by said agencies; if the redesign can be found consistent with the Douglas County Code, the Shoreline Master Program, and the Shoreline Management Act. 7. Substantial progress toward construction of the project for which this permit has been granted must be accomplished within two (2) years of the filing date of this permit. Authorization to conduct development activities granted by the permit shall terminate five (5) years from the filing date of the permit. Respectfully Submitted, Curtis Lillquist, A.I.C.P. Senior Planner Page 9