I. GENERAL INFORMATION

Transcription

1 STAFF REPORT BARROS VIOLATION RESOLUTION TO: Douglas County Hearing Examiner FROM: Douglas County Land Services Staff RE:, SP DATE: November 7,2016 I. GENERAL INFORMATION Requested Action: An application submitted by Thomas for a shoreline substantial development permit for the resolution of a shoreline violation. Remediation activities include: removal of an unpermitted dock, gazebo and overwater deck; modification of an unpermitted water feature; installation of stormwater controls to eliminate runoff into the Columbia River; and installation of mitigation plantings. Location: The subject property is described as Lot 8, Hurst Landing. The property is further described as being located within Section 27, Township 22 N., Range 21 E.W.M., Douglas County W A. Portions of Parcel # located immediately waterward of Lot 8 Hurst Landing. Subject parcels are and Background: A Notice of Code Violation and Order to Comply (file # CE ) was issued for the property on July 22, This letter identified that the following unauthorized activities had taken place on the property: Disturbance of the riparian buffer for the Columbia River including vegetation removal, grade and fill landward and waterward of OHWM, Rock/mortar and rip rap bulkheads landward and waterward of OHWM, developed shoreline trails. Installation of paved circular driveway, parking, retaining walls, fencing, light posts and a fountain. Installation of 2 docks. Installation of a paved boat launch. Construction of a Boathouse/Gazebo and an overwater deck. Installation of a swim beach. On August 7, 2015; the property owner submitted a Notice of Appeal (APP-15-01) for the Notice of Code Violation and Order to Comply. On October 13, 2015; the property owner's representative submitted a letter placing the appeal on hold while both parties work towards a resolution of the violations. II. SITE INFORMATION Site Characteristics: The subject property is located between the Columbia River and State Route 28. The property is approximately 1,400 lineal feet long and is between approximately 110 and 270 feet deep. The entire property is steeply sloped from SR 28 down to the Columbia River, however, portions of the shoreline have been graded in association with the construction of the single family residence and development of the property. The upriver section of the property is virtually undisturbed; however, this section provides low to moderate level of habitat functions and values. This level of habitat functions and values are based on the lack of mature vegetation and the steep Page 1

2 slope of the shoreline. This section of the property is narrow and consists almost entirely of a steep slope from the OHWM to the top of the slope. The slope of the shoreline is approximately 2.5H: 1 V for almost the entire area, except for an approximately foot wide trail located approximately 10 feet landward of the OHWM. The entire trail is unvegetated and consists of native substrates. The majority of the slope between the trail and the OHWM is vegetated with upland grasses and weedy species; however, sparse trees and shrubs are present. Landward of the trail the slope is moderately vegetated with native shrub steppe species and upland grasses and weedy species. The downriver portion of the subject property has been heavily disturbed over the years in association with the construction of a single family residence and the residential and recreational use of the property. As part of the construction of the single family residence, the historic steep sloped shoreline has been graded to provide numerous benches that consist of lawngrass, landscaped areas, decks, patios, access road and other recreational uses. Vegetation within this portion of the property consists of a rock bulkhead/retaining was, which are located immediately landward of the OHWM and was constructed using large native rock. The shoreline landward of the OHWM is providing little if any habitat functions and values due to the developed nature of the shoreline. This area is virtually devoid of native vegetation. The recreational use of the property primarily occurs within the downriver section. Zoning and Development Standards: The subject property is located within the Rural Resource 2 Acres (RR-2) Zoning District. The purpose of therr-2 rural resource district is to provide an area for low density, rural residential lifestyles that require only rural levels of service for utilities and infrastructure. III. COMPREHENSIVE PLAN: The Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan designates this property as Rural Resource 2 Acres. The following goals and policies set forth in the comprehensive plan are relevant to this development: RURAL: POLICY RD-4: Development and recreational opportunities in rural shoreline and other rural areas shall minimize potential adverse impacts to water quality, slope stability, vegetation, wildlife and aquatic life. CRITICAL AREAS - FISH AND WILDLIFE HABITAT CONSERVATION AREAS GOAL 2: 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: Impacts of new development on the quality of land, wildlife and vegetative resources will be considered as part of the environmental review process and require any appropriate mitigating measures. Such mitigation may involve the retention and/or enhancement of habitats. POLICY CA-16 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. Page 2

3 POLICY CA 17: 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-20: Proper riparian management that maintains existing riparian habitat and is consistent with best agricultural management practices should be encouraged. POLICY CA-21: Ensure that land uses adjacent to naturally occurring wetlands and other fish and wildlife habitat areas will not negatively impact the habitat areas. If a change in land use occurs, adequate buffers will be provided to the habitat areas. POLICY CA-22: Activities allowed in fish and wildlife habitat conservation areas and open space will be consistent with the species located there, including all applicable state and federal regulations and/or best management practices for the activity regarding that species. IV. SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM The Douglas County Shoreline Master Program classifies this reach 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 substantial development permits. This criteria states that a substantial development permit shall be granted only when the proposed development is consistent with: ~ The policies and procedures of the Act; ~ The provisions of this regulations; and ~ The applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. V. ENVIRONMENTAL REVIEW Douglas County issued a Determination of Non-significance on July 11,2016 in accordance with WAC (Optional DNS). Page 3

4 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 NIR WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife 6/2/16 Chelan County PUD 6/17/16 Army Corps of Engineers NIR * N/R =No Reply Yakama Tribes N/R Agency comments have been included as Attachment A. No public comments were received at the writing of this staff report. VII. PRO..IECT 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: The subject property has been significantly altered over the course of time. Numerous improvements have been constructed absent shoreline permitting or critical area permitting and have been identified in the General Information section of this staff report. The site has been modified to such an extent that it is difficult to determine what was the exact function and character of the property's shoreline prior to development; therefore, full remediation of the subject property is not feasible. A series of discussions between the applicant's legal and biological representatives, the Land Services Director and the Prosecuting Attorney were held to identify what actions would be most critical to remediate the impacts of the development activities on water quality and shoreline functions and values. An action plan was agreed to which, while it doesn't require mitigation for all of the violation activities it does address the most critical components. This action plan, when implemented, will resolve the SMA & SMP violations. The components of this application are the result of that agreement. This application proposes: removal of an unpermitted dock, gazebo and overwater deck; modification of an unpermitted water feature to eliminate an unpermitted surface water withdrawal and subsequent unpermitted discharge back to the river; installation of stormwater controls to eliminate runoff into the Columbia River; and installation of mitigation plantings. Page 4

5 There are currently 2 docks located on the subject property. The removal of one dock per the action plan will allow a single use dock to remain. The subject property is within a plat recorded in The shoreline topography of the area is steeply sloped down to water terminating in either a rock face into the water or a very narrow bench at the water's edge. The access points to the water on each lot are approximately 600 feet apart. These conditions are such that locating a joint use dock and developing accesses to that location from the existing residences would create more shoreline disturbance than allowing the single use docks. An overwater deck and the roof structure component of the gazebo will be removed. This will remove the two structures at or below OHWM. A water feature was constructed which draws water out of the river, runs it along an 80 foot long water course and then discharges back to the river. Both the surface water withdrawal and the subsequent discharge have not been permitted. This activity increases the temperature of the discharge and in turn has a negative effect on water quality of the Columbia River in the vicinity. The modification of the feature to a closed loop system will correct this water quality issue. Stormwater from most of the asphalt driveways currently is collected and discharges directly into the river. A portion of the stormwater generated from the driveways runs down the boat launch and into the river. The portion of the stormwater that currently is collected and discharged into the river is proposed to be redirected into a stormwater trench. The stormwater that outfalls down the boat launch is proposed to be redirected to the adjacent grass area to disperse via sheet flow. The direct discharge of stormwater into the river increases water temperature and introduces pollutants which has a negative effect of water quality of the Columbia River in the vicinity. The redesign of stormwater runoff will significantly improve this water quality issue. The installation of mitigation plantings will provide mitigation for the reduction of habitat functions and values that has occurred due to the development activity. As stated earlier, the site has been modified to such an extent that it is difficult to determine what was the exact function and character of the property's shoreline prior to development. The property adjacent upstream has also been significantly altered during residential development. The topography of the adjacent downstream property indicates a steep sparsely vegetated slope down to the water where a narrow band of vegetation exists in areas where facilitated by topography. The mitigation plan proposes a similar vegetation pattern along approximately 60% (800 feet) of the subject property's river frontage. The mitigation will provide similar functions and values as existing riparian areas in the vicinity. Additionally, as the vegetation matures it will provide visual buffering for the existing retaining walls that are located landward of the planting areas which will mitigate for the impact to shoreline character. Comprehensive plan consistency: The activity that was performed is inconsistent with the comprehensive plan. The permit proposes work which will mitigate the impacts of the violation activity. Completion of the work proposed is consistent with policy to protect fish and wildlife and wetland areas. Page 5

6 Residential development and 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 addressed. Critical area policies place preference on the protection of and preservation of wetlands over the alteration and mitigation of impacts to wetlands. The proposal is consistent with the goals and policies of the Douglas County Countywide Comprehensive Plan. Consistency with the Douglas County Shoreline Master Program The activity proposed in the application is to correct and mitigate for unpermitted actions taken within shoreline jurisdiction. Docks are a permitted use in the Rural Conservancy shoreline designation. 4.1 ECOLOGICAL PROTECTION AND CRITICAL AREAS 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; Impact avoidance is not possible. actions have already been taken. This application is for a violation resolution. The 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; Impact minimization is not possible. This application is for a violation resolution. The actions have already been taken and cannot be minimized by limiting the degree or magnitude of the action. 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; Portions of the impact are proposed to be rectified by the application. The overwater deck will be removed. The roof component ofthe gazebo will be removed. These actions will reduce or eliminate the two of the more visual elements ofthe violation activity. Second, the mitigation plantings spaced over 800 lineal feet of shoreline will rehabilitate the affected section of shoreline. d. Reducing or eliminating the impact over time by preservation and maintenance operations during the life of the action; The elimination of stormwater entering the river and conversion of the water feature to a closed loop system will reduce water temperatures in the vicinity and will improve water quality. The growth of the proposed mitigation over time will reduce the impact of the retaining walls. Page 6

7 e. Compensating for the impact by replacing, enhancing, or providing substitute resources or environments; and The application proposes 6, 760 square feet of native vegetation to mitigate for the habitat functions and values that may have been impacted by the development of the property. Suggested conditions of approval require installation of mitigation per the approved plan. t Monitoring the impact and the compensation projects and taking appropriate corrective measures. Suggested conditions of approval require that the mitigation measures be monitored for 5 years after installation to determine survivability and corrective measures be taken if survivability is not achieved. 4.2 WATER QUALITY REGULATION 2: New development shall provide stormwater management facilities designed, constructed, and maintained in accordance with the current stormwater management standards. Deviations from these standards may be approved where it can be demonstrated that offsite 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. The applicant has provided a storm water analysis developed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington. This analysis indicates that design for the facility demonstrates compliance with Douglas County Code and the Eastern Washington Storm water Management Manual. Suggested conditions of approval require implementation of the stormwater plan by April 30, REGULATION 7: Permanent stormwater management systems serving property within the shoreline shall be designed using best management practices ensuring water quality treatment in compliance with the Stormwater Management Manual for Eastern Washington to prevent stormwater runoff from degrading or adding to the pollution of recipient waters or adjacent properties. Maintenance of storm drainage facilities on private property shall be the responsibility of the property owner(s). This responsibility and the provision for maintenance shall be clearly stated on any recorded subdivision, short plat, or binding site plan map, building permit, property conveyance documents, maintenance agreements andlor improvement plans. The applicant has provided a stormwater analysis developed by an engineer licensed in the State of Washington. This analysis indicates that design for the facility demonstrates compliance with Douglas County Code and the Eastern Washington Stormwater Management Manual. Suggested conditions of approval require implementation of the stormwater plan during site development and maintenance covenants for the stormwater system structures be recorded and implemented by April 30, Page 7

8 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. A fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan prepared by Grette & Associates was submitted in the application materials. 4.7 Restoration POLICY 2: Mitigation associated with shoreline development projects shall be designed to achieve no net loss of ecological function. A fish and wildlife management and mitigation plan prepared by Grette &Associates was submitted in the application materials. The plan identifies that the project will mitigate for the estimated reduction to habitat functions and values Moorage: docks, piers, watercraft lifts, mooring buoys, floats POLICY 4: Moorage should be spaced and oriented in a manner that minimizes hazards and obstructions to navigation and other water-oriented activities such as fishing, swimming and pleasure boating, as well as property rights of adjacent land owners. The dock that will remain will not pose a hazard to navigation. REGULATION 2: Residential moorage for individual lots is permitted in subdivisions legally established prior to February 20, 1975, where shared moorage has not already been developed or required; private moorage is also permitted for individual legal lots of record, not part of an approved subdivision. In these circumstances, moorage shall be limited to one private dock per shoreline residential lot. Lot owners shall be encouraged to utilize mooring buoys or to coordinate with adjoining property owners for shared moorage. The subject property is within a plat recorded in The shoreline topography of the area is steeply sloped down to water terminating in either a rock face into the water or a very narrow bench at the water's edge. The access points to the water on each lot are approximately 600 feet apart. These conditions are such that locating a joint use dock and developing accesses to that location from the existing residences would create more shoreline disturbance than allowing the single use docks. The resolution plan agreed to between County staff and the applicant provides that one ofthe two docks could remain. Page 8

9 REGULATION 7: Moorage facilities shall be the minimum size necessary to meet the needs of the proposed waster-dependent use and shall observe the following criteria: a. If allowed, only one private dock with one accessory float, and two watercraft lifts (the combination of one boat and one jet ski or other watercraft together) shall be permitted on a shoreline lot owned for residential or private recreational use. The proposed project is for a single use dock to serve this property. b. Docks with or without a float shall be the minimum required to provide for moorage. Commercial docks shall be the minimum length necessary to serve the type of vessel served. Exceptions to these length standards are addressed below. The proposed project is for one float and is the minimum size necessary. :. Docks on the Columbia River that exceed 100 feet in length or docks which exceed 50 feet in length on a lake or sites with unique characteristics that may create navigational safety hazards shall prepare a navigational safety study. The proposed dock is 50 feet out from OHWM and located within a small cove. A navigational safety study is not required. d. Moorage shall be designed to avoid the need for maintenance dredging. The moorage of a boat larger than provided for in the original moorage design shall not be grounds for approval of dredging. The location does not indicate the need for maintenance dredging. REGULATION 9: In order to minimize impacts on near shore areas and avoid reduction in ambient light level: a. Pier and ramp construction must meet the following standards: 1) The width of piers and ramps shall not exceed 4 feet for single or joint-use docks. Greater widths may be permitted for community, public or commercial docks where use patterns can justify the increase; 2) The bottom of the pier or bottom of the landward edge of a ramp, must be elevated at least 2 feet above the plan of OHWM; 3) Pier and/or ramp surfaces are to consist of either grating or clear translucent material; and 4) Pier and ramp construction shall meet or exceed the standards and/or requirements of the Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources and the United States Army Corps of Engineers. b. Float construction must meet the following standards: 1) Any float materials that are in contact with the water must be white or translucent; 2) Floatation materials must be permanently encased to prevent breakup and release of small flotation pieces; 3) Decking or surface area of the float must consist of either grating or clear translucent material; 4) Floats cannot be located where they could impede fish passage; and Page 9

10 5) Float construction shall meet or exceed the standards and/or requirements of the Washington State Departments of Ecology, fish and Wildlife, and Natural Resources and the United Stated Army Corps of Engineers. The application is not proposing to change the design of the dock proposed to remain. Amendments to the dock design may be required if permits from the state or federal agencies are necessary. No comments indicating a dock design change was received during the comment permit. REGULATION 10: Private docks shall not encroach into the required side yard setbacks for residential development (Both onshore and offshore); provided that, a shared moorage may be located adjacent to or upon a side property line of the affected properties upon filing of an easement agreement or other legal instrument by the affected property owners. The dock proposed to remain is located outside of the required side yard setbacks. REGULATION 15: Moorage facilities shall be marked with reflectors, or shall be otherwise identified to prevent unnecessarily hazardous conditions for water surface users during day or night. Exterior finish shall be generally non-reflective. Suggested conditions of approval require that the dock be marked with reflectors or otherwise identified. REGULATION 21: All moorage facilities must permanently mark all of the components with name, address, telephone number and date of installation. Suggested conditions of approval requires that the dock be permanently marked for identification. Appendix H, Chapter 3: Critical Areas - Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas The unpermitted activity has created impacts to the buffer area. A fish and wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan has been prepared that identifies the unpermitted actions, the actions necessary to correct the unpermitted activity and the measures necessary to mitigate the impacts of these actions. A fish and wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan has determined that a total of 6,760 square feet of native vegetation will be planted to mitigate disturbance to the buffer created by the activity. A planting plan is proposed on pages 6 and 7 of the diagrams in the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan. 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 Page 10

11 Agency Comments WA Department of Fish & Wildlife The department commented that removal of structures within or over the water requires a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from WDFW. Chelan County PLiD The PUD states that as the adjacent property owner to the District's property, the applicant has certain rights to use the property, however those uses must be in compliance with all laws and regulations. The district states that it accepts the proposed resolution should all agencies with jurisdiction approve the application. 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 Doug las County Countywide Comprehensive Plan, and the Douglas County Shoreline Master Program. Staff recommends approval of SP#16-05, subject to the following findings of fact and conditions: Suggested Findings of Fact 1. The applicant is Thomas, 4250 SR 28, Rock Island WA 2. Assessor's Parcel Number is owned by Chelan County PLiD No.1, PO Box 11231, Wenatchee WA The district has signed the application as a property owner. 3. General Description: An application for a shoreline substantial development permit for the resolution of a shoreline violation. Remediation activities include: removal of an unpermitted dock, gazebo and deck; modification of an unpermitted water feature; installation of stormwater controls to eliminate runoff into the Columbia River; and installation of mitigation plantings. 4. The subject property is described as Lot 8, Hurst Landing. The property is further described as being located within Section 27, Township 22 N., Range 21 E.W.M., Douglas County WA Portions of Parcel # located immediately waterward of Lot 8 Hurst Landing. Subject parcels are and A Notice of Code Violation and Order to Comply (file # CE ) was issued for the property on July 22,2015. This letter identified that the following unauthorized activities had taken place on the property: Disturbance of the riparian buffer for the Columbia River including vegetation removal, grade and fill landward and waterward of OHWM, Rock/mortar and rip rap bulkheads landward and waterward of OHWM, developed shoreline trails. Installation of paved circular driveway, parking, retaining walls, fencing, light posts and a fountain. Installation of 2 docks. Installation of a paved boat launch. Construction of a Boathouse/Gazebo and an overwater deck. Installation of a swim beach. Page 11

12 6. On August 7, 2015; the property owner submitted a Notice of Appeal (APP-15-01) for the Notice of Code Violation and Order to Comply. On October 13, 2015; the property owner's representative submitted a letter placing the appeal on hold while both parties work towards a resolution of the violations. 7. The Comprehensive Plan Designation is Rural Resource 2 Acres. 8. The subject property is located in the RR-2 zoning district. 9. The Columbia River Shoreline section of the subject property is designated as "Rural Conservancy" by the Douglas County Shoreline Master Program. 10. WAC establishes minimum review criteria for Shoreline Management Substantial Development Permits. This criteria states that a substantial development permit shall be granted only when the development proposed is consistent with the policies and procedures of the Act; the provisions of this regulation; and the applicable master program adopted or approved for the area. 11. This application implements an action plan agreed to between the Applicant's legal and biological representatives, the Land Services Director and the Prosecuting Attorney which addresses the items most critical to remediate the impacts of the development activities on water quality and shoreline functions and values. An action plan was agreed to which, while it doesn't require mitigation for all of the violation activities it does address the most critical components. This action plan, when implemented, will resolve the SMA & SMP violations. 12. A fish and wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan dated April 2016 was performed for the project by Grette & Associates. 13. A fish and wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan has determined that a total of 6,760 square feet of native vegetation will be planted to mitigate for the estimated reduction in habitat functions and values that occurred due to the activity. A planting plan is proposed on pages 6 and 7 of the diagrams in the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan. 14. The mitigation proposed in the Fish and Wildlife Management and Mitigation Plan meets the requirements of the Douglas County Regional Shoreline Master Program. 15. Comments from reviewing agencies have been considered and addressed where appropriate. 16. The applicant has submitted a Stormwater Analysis dated September 26, 2016, from Erlandsen & Associates. The analysis provides a design that documents compliance with Douglas County Code and the Eastern Washington Stormwater Management Manual. 17. Douglas County issued a Determination of Non-significance on July 11, 2016 in accordance with WAC (Optional DNS). 18. 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. 20. 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. 21. As conditioned, the development will not adversely affect the general public, health, safety and general welfare. Page 12

13 Suggested Conclusions: 1. As conditioned, the site remediation 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 proposed, revised, and conditioned, potential impacts of the project can be mitigated. 3. As conditioned, site remediation will not detrimentally affect the public health, safety and general welfare. 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. Suggested Conditions of Approval 1. The project shall proceed in substantial conformance with the plans and application materials of file submitted on April 14, 2016 except as amended by the conditions herein. 2. The applicant shall comply with all applicable local, state and federal regulations and is responsible for securing any and all state and federal agency permits, as may be required. 3. Prior to building permit issuance, the applicant shall obtain all necessary permits from agencies with jurisdiction and provide copies of the permit approvals to Douglas County. This may include, but is not limited to: Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Hydraulic Project Approval), the United States Army Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch (Section 10 &lor 404). the Washington State Department of Ecology (Section 401 Water Quality Certification), Washington State Department of Natural Resources Aquatic Use Authorization. 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. No later than April , the engineer of record shall provide written verification that the storm design in the September 26, 2017 Stormwater Analysis was installed per plan. 6. No later than April 30, 2017, the Declaration of Stormwater System Maintenance Covenants will be recorded with the Douglas County Auditor. 7. The dock shall be marked with reflectors, or shall be otherwise identified to prevent unnecessarily hazardous conditions for water surface users during day or night. Documentation shall be provided to the County. 8. The dock shall be permanently marked with name, address, telephone number and date of installation. Documentation shall be provided to the County. 9. The project application shall proceed consistent with the Fish & Wildlife Habitat Management and Mitigation Plan prepared by Grette & Associates, dated April A permanent means of irrigation shall be installed for the mitigation plantings that are designed by a professional meeting the requirements of Title 20 Douglas County Code. Said design should address the specific needs of riparian vegetation. Page 13

14 11. Within 30 days of the issuance of this permit; a performance surety agreement in conformance with Title 14, D.C.C. shall be entered into between the property owner and Douglas County Transportation and Land Services. Douglas County must approve quotes for the cost of installation, delivery, plant material, soil amendments, irrigation, seed mix and necessary monitoring visits and reports by the biologist of record and Washington State sales tax. 12. Mitigation plantings and revegetation plantings for the violation remediation shall be installed and the installation report from the biologist of record shall be submitted to the County by April 30, The mitigation site shall be maintained to ensure the management and mitigation plan objectives are successful. Maintenance shall ensure 80% survival during the 5 year monitoring period and shall include corrective actions to rectify problems, include rigorous, as-needed elimination of undesirable plants; protection of shrubs and small trees from competition by grasses and herbaceous plants, and repair and replacement of any dead plants. 14. A five year monitoring period shall commence upon placement of the planting materials and irrigation system. A performance surety agreement in conformance with Title 14 of Douglas County Code shall be entered into between the property owner and Douglas County Transportation and Land Services. Douglas County must approve quotes for the cost of installation, delivery, plant material, soil amendments, permanent irrigation, seed mix, and 3 monitoring visits and reports by a qualified biologist, and the quotes shall include Washington State sales tax. 15. Onsite monitoring and monitoring reports shall be submitted to Douglas County Transportation and Land Services 1 year after mitigation installation; 3 years after mitigation installation; and 5 years after mitigation installation. Monitoring reports shall be submitted by a qualified biologist, as defined by Douglas County Code. The biologist must verify that the conditions of approval and provisions in the fish & wildlife habitat management and mitigation plan submitted by Grette & AssOCiates, dated 3/30/16 have been satisfied. 16. Sequential release of funds associated with the surety agreement shall be reviewed for conformance with the conditions of approval and the management and mitigation plan. Release of funds may occur in increments of 1/3 for substantial conformance with the plan and conditions of approval. If the standards that are not met are only minimally out of compliance and contingency actions are actively being pursued by the property owner to bring the project into compliance, the County may choose to consider a partial release of the scheduled increment. Non-compliance can result in one or more of the following actions: carry over of the surety amount to the next review period; use of funds to remedy the nonconformance; scheduling a hearing with the Douglas County Hearing Examiner to review conformance with the conditions of approval and to determine what actions may be appropriate. 17. 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. 18. Construction of the project for which this permit has been granted must be commenced within two (2) years of the effective date of this permit. Authorization to Page 14

15 conduct development activities granted by the permit shall terminate five (5) years from the filing date of the permit. Attachments Page 15

16 ATTACHMENT A

17 Curtis Lillquist (x6588) From: Sent: To: Subject: Pentico, Eric D (DFW) <Eric.Pentico@dfwwa.gov> Thursday, June 02,20168:18 AM Curtis Lillquist (x6588) Application SP Curtis, I have reviewed the SSDP application submitted by Thomas for the remediation project to resolve shoreline violations. First of all, let me commend Douglas County for getting these remediation actions for past shoreline (and Hydraulic Code) violations. While reviewing the project from the submitted JARPA form, I noticed that although Mr. intends to remove structures from within and over state waters in the Columbia River with heavy equipment, he does not feel the need or intend to apply for a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) from the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, as indicated in Part 10 - SEPA Compliance and Permits. I'd appreciate it if you could please notify Mr. that he will need to acquire an HPA from WDFW in order to be able to do the proposed work legally within the Columbia River. Thank you. Eric Eric Pentico Habitat Biologist Region 2 Office - Ephrata, WA 'if (509) ext. 215 B eric.pentico@dfw.wa.gov..,-. 1

18 Curtis Lillquist (x6588) From: Sent: To: Cc: Subject: Graves, Lisa < Friday, June 17, :35 PM Curtis Lillquist (x6588) Juchmes, Lisa Comment on - SP Curtis: As the adjacent owner to the District's property the applicant has certain rights to use the District's property, however the District maintains that those uses must be in compliance with all laws and regulations. Therefore, the District is accepting of the resolutions proposed in this application should all agencies with jurisdiction over the proposed activities approve the application. Thank you for providing the District an opportunity to review. Lisa lisa Graves Real Estate Specialist PUD No. 1 of Chelan County I Wenatchee, Washington (509) I lisa.graves@chelanpud.org 1