visioning summary report · shoreline policies, the county and cities initiated a series of...

FINAL VISIONING REPORT | May 2015 1

VISIONING SUMMARY REPORT

WALLA WALLA COUNTY REGIONAL SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM UPDATE

1.0 INTRODUCTION

Walla Walla County and the Cities of Prescott, Waitsburg and Walla Walla are working cooperatively to

develop a regionally prepared Shoreline Master Programs (SMP). The County and Cities of Waitsburg

and Walla Walla will be updating their existing SMPs originally created in the mid-1970s; Prescott will be

creating its first SMP. The County and Cities are working collaboratively through an intergovernmental

agreement approved in May 2013.

The Shoreline Management Act requires the County and Cities to “not only invite but actively encourage

participation” by people and agencies interested in SMPs (RCW 90.58.130). Implementing rules (WAC

173-26-090) also direct the County and Cities to execute a robust public participation process that

informs, involves, and encourages participations of persons and agencies:

… the department and local governments… shall make all reasonable efforts to inform,

fully involve and encourage participation of all interested persons and private entities,

and agencies of the federal, state or local government having interests and

responsibilities relating to shorelines of the state and the local master program.

Counties and cities planning under chapter 36.70A RCW, shall establish and broadly

disseminate to the public a public participation program ... Such procedures shall provide

for early and continuous public participation through broad dissemination of informative

materials, proposals and alternatives, opportunity for written comments, public

meetings after effective notice, provision for open discussion, and consideration of and

response to public comments.

To further encourage public participation in the SMP update process and inform the creation of

shoreline policies, the County and Cities initiated a series of visioning activities to gather input from

Walla Walla County residents. These activities consisted of three visioning workshops, held in late July

2014 in Waitsburg, Touchet, and the City of Walla Walla. These workshops were designed for active

participation by residents and included a briefing on the overall SMP update process and the

requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, a Question & Answer session, and interactive activities

for residents to provide comments on issues and geographic areas of importance to them. Section 2.0 –

Visioning Workshops describes these visioning workshops in greater detail and summarizes the

comments and feedback received at each.

In addition to the visioning workshops, an online visioning survey was created and advertised to local

residents. The survey contained questions similar to the topics discussed at the visioning workshops,

asking residents for their opinions regarding current use and enjoyment of shoreline areas, future

shoreline uses desired, public access needs and opportunities, environmental conditions, and shoreline

WALLA WALLA COUNTY REGIONAL SMP UPDATE

2 FINAL VISIONING REPORT | May 2015

conservation. A detailed description of the online survey and a summary of results are contained in

Section 3.0 – Visioning Survey.

2.0 VISIONING WORKSHOPS

2.1 DESCRIPTION OF WORKSHOPS

As described in the introduction, three visioning workshops were held in Waitsburg (July 29), Touchet

(July 30), and Walla Walla (July 30). Each workshop began with a description of the SMP update process

and a summary of existing shoreline conditions on SMA-regulated waterbodies in the vicinity of the

meeting location, as well as a general comment and question-and-answer session. Participants also

engaged in small group discussions to identify important shoreline locations and issues. Groups were

provided with maps of local shoreline jurisdiction and asked to indicate general areas with

environmental issues, conservation needs/opportunities, and public access potential. Both general

comments and small group comments received are summarized in Section 2.2 – Summary of General

Comments and Group Discussions.

Following the Q&A, attendees were given time to participate in an independent dot-voting exercise

where they were asked to select their highest and lowest priorities on several shoreline issues, including

shoreline uses, public access, and shoreline conservation. The results of this exercise are summarized for

each workshop in Section 2.3 – Summary of Dot Voting Exercise.

2.2 SUMMARY OF GENERAL COMMENTS AND GROUP DISCUSSIONS

Waitsburg Workshop (7/29/2014) The Waitsburg workshop was attended by seven members of the public. A summary of questions asked

by attendees is presented in the table below, followed by a summary of general comments.

Attendee Questions Staff Answers

How will the SMP be enforced? Similar to a zoning action. Call the City or County about violations, depending on location.

Is there money for restoration? Not necessarily, but grants may be available.

Restoration activities are voluntary.

Comments from General Discussion

Areas of interest:

o Touchet River

o Lower Mill Creek

Prior meetings held on flooding a few years ago with Corps:

o Not directly related to this effort.

o The SMP will look at existing environmental conditions.



Comments from Small Group Discussions

Attendees at the Waitsburg visioning workshop were divided into small groups based on whether they

were City of Waitsburg residents or residents of other areas of the county. The following sections

summarize comments received from these two breakout groups, and Exhibit 1 shows map comments

provided by the City resident group.

County Residents

Concerned about sedimentation and flooding issues.

Filter/vegetation strips should be promoted in agricultural areas.

Enforcement is an issue.

o Unauthorized filling of stream.

o Need to avoid trespassing and garbage.

Flooding is a very big concern in the area, particularly west of Waitsburg.

City of Waitsburg Residents

Flooding is primary issue.

o Need to dredge river channel.

o City placed vegetation in river from levee control.

o Small levee in eastern Waitsburg is “pushing” a gravel bar in the river.

o Coppei Creek experiences flooding issues, as well.



Exhibit 1. Small Group Discussion Map – City of Waitsburg Residents

Touchet Workshop (7/30/2014) The Touchet workshop was attended by 15 members of the public. A summary of questions asked by

attendees is presented in the table below, followed by a summary of general comments.


How was SMP jurisdiction determined? Seems larger or smaller in some areas than the floodplain?

Minimum 200 feet from Ordinary High Water Mark

Includes associated wetlands

Includes floodways and portions of contiguous floodplain up to 200 feet from the edge of the floodway.

Is the floodplain based on data from 1996 flood?

Floodplain used for the jurisdiction maps is based on the latest FEMA floodplain maps.

Will existing agriculture be allowed to continue? Yes, existing agriculture can continue under the new SMP.

How accurate are Shoreline jurisdiction maps?

Why are we using FEMA maps if there are known errors?

Why can’t the County say “no” to using FEMA maps? Is it required?

Why is the County putting the onus on the property owner to prove the maps right or wrong?

SMP jurisdiction maps are informational.

Using the best available data, including latest FEMA flood maps.

FEMA maps are known to not be 100% accurate.

Precise location of jurisdiction is determined on the ground at time of permit application.



Comments from General Discussion

Specific Areas of Interest for Touchet workshop participants:

o Touchet River

o Walla Walla River

The existing floodway & 200’ floodplain is caused by management of Walla Walla River.

City of Walla Walla regulated.

Channelized, forces water downstream.

If FEMA expands the floodplain, then more permitting is required.

Flood control is important

o Desire for reservoirs & more flood control

Corps is reluctant.

Bennington Lake needs work.

o Vote to dam Touchet River in 1977 failed.

o Concern that FEMA is regulating based on 1996 flood, which was an unusually large event.

o Erosion and siltation on the Touchet River is very bad.

Keep things the way they are (agricultural, residential)

Property owners often allow informal public access for fishing, hunting, camping, etc. Concern about

littering.

Concerned about WSDOT’s highway plans. Highways are often placed on prime land.

High speeds on roads often lead to vehicles killing bees.

Water flow, dredging, and erosion are concerns.

o Vegetation in stream channel blocks flow.

Farmers are good stewards of the land.

o Planting trees along stream banks to anchor soil and prevent erosion.

The extent of the shoreline jurisdiction is not fair when it is expanded to cover the

floodway/floodplain in some areas by not others.

Not all “restoration” projects are well done. The Bridge to Bridge project along the Walla Walla River

has been a failure and is causing bank erosion issues.


Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) site located on Walla Walla River west of

Touchet.

Erosion is an issue on the Walla Walla River east of Lowden, near confluence with Mill Creek.



Walla Walla Workshop (7/30/2014) The Walla Walla workshop was attended by 14 members of the public. A summary of questions asked by

attendees is presented in the table below, followed by a summary of general comments.


Is Dry Creek part of jurisdiction?

It is in the SMP now.

Proposed for exclusion due to low flows.

Would the SMP jurisdiction occur on new areas that are unused?

Jurisdiction can extend beyond 200 feet based on flood plain or wetlands.

Existing uses can continue.

I own a barn right next to Mill Creek. Will the SMP affect my existing uses?

No, existing uses can continue.

SMP applies to new development, including expansion of existing uses.

Are there any lakes other than Bennington Lake? No other lakes are 20 acres or more in size.

Is there a flow gauge elsewhere on Yellowhawk Creek? No. Some information is available at the diversion.

Could the SMP jurisdiction change in the future? Yes, if flow is measured at 20 cfs or more. However, multi-year data would be necessary to verify the flow rates.

Is jurisdiction still 200 feet on either side of Mill Creek, even though it is channelized?

Yes. Jurisdiction is measured from the edge of the channel.

How are critical areas protected? The SMP needs to protect these.

Streams with flow less than 20 cfs are still regulated under the Critical Areas Ordinance.

What is Ecology’s role? Ecology will also adopt the SMP and has approval authority.

Ecology also reviews Shoreline Conditional Use Permits.

Is mapping based on FEMA maps? Yes, the maps use existing data.

SMP would be applied at the time of permitting.

Best available information on the property would be determined at that time.

Summary of General Discussion Comments

Re-routing water at Mill Creek Diversion to Yellow Hawk

o Diversion is due to a Memorandum of Understanding to maintain flows for fish.

SMP States Water-dependent uses are preferred

o Balance of uses/activities

o Existing uses can remain

o Look at today’s condition

Dry Creek – proposed exclusion

Yellow Hawk – newly included

Unincorporated Mill Creek needs additional public access points, both above and below Walla

Walla.

Why can’t the County plan to purchase shoreline properties that are for sale now?



Not all public lands need to become parks. Some can remain as open space.

The Heavy Industrial zone at west end of town on the north side of Mill Creek is undeveloped, but

will likely develop soon if/when the property is sold. The City will need to account for the likelihood

that new development is not likely to be water oriented. Given the levee and lack of connectivity to

the water, City should not restrict non-water oriented industrial uses.


Similar to the Waitsburg workshop, attendees at the Walla Walla workshop were divided into two

groups for detailed discussion: one group for City of Walla Walla residents and another for residents of

other portions of the county. The following sections summarize comments from these two groups.

City of Walla Walla Residents

Improve shoreline along Mill Creek

o Examples of riverfront amenities, community spaces include:

Seoul, South Korea

Caldwell, Idaho

South Platt, Colorado

o Solutions to keep value of buildings but move towards renovation.

o Move floodwater outside of present channel and add fish passage.

o Need money

o Where do you get water?

o Need study

o As development occurs get access & veg enhancements

o Appreciate Pioneer Park

o Incentives

Planting or Access with willing landowner

Free trees, shoreline beautification

Create services, provide security

Help homeless

o Address privacy

Downtown Renovation along River

o Study to repair existing channel as an early step

o Grants – Alternatives?

o Missing

City is inventorying Bridges

Look at all of them

Age of bridges



Incentives for County & City

o Wineries

Consider property rights costs

o Avoid direct & indirect costs

o Address individual properties

Form a downtown vision for access, economics, and recreation.

o As new development occurs, add vegetation and public access in downtown.

Shoreline trail system

o Rails to Trails

o Build trail system over 100 years to be an economic engine.

o Allow access with willing landowners

Avoid littering

Consider security

County Residents

Mill Creek public access

o Bike path located in 25’ easement.

o Mix of public and private property along Mill Creek.

o Ownership needs to be clarified to prevent people from trespassing.

What is the difference between floodway and floodplain?

Would Yellowhawk Creek be a shoreline if it was not controlled?

No more development along Mill Creek. Continue existing activities.

What type of restoration plans are proposed on Mill Creek?

2.3 SUMMARY OF DOT VOTING EXERCISE

The transition between general discussion and small group discussions consisted of a self-guided dot-

voting exercise for expressing their preferences on different shoreline uses, environmental issues of

concern, adequacy of public access opportunities, and shoreline conservation. The following questions

were presented on display boards for participant voting:

What future uses would you most or least desire in city shoreline areas?

What future uses would you most or least desire in county shoreline areas?

What public access amenity should be more/less common in shoreline areas?

Which shoreline environmental condition are you most/least concerned about?

Where would you list to see more conservation of shoreline natural areas?

Each display board included several response options, and participants were asked to place one green

dot for their most preferred response and one red dot for their least preferred response. Some



workshop participants chose not to answer every question, and some participants did not vote equally

in “most preferred” and “least preferred” categories.

Dot-voting responses for each of the questions are presented below, including a breakdown of

responses from participants at each of the three workshops. Photographs of the display boards are

contained in Appendix A.

Shoreline Uses At each workshop, participants were asked to vote on their most and least desired shoreline uses for

both city and county areas. Responses to these questions varied significantly between workshops, likely

as a result of the differing makeup of the attendees at each workshop. For example, responses regarding

uses for city shoreline areas were very low at the Waitsburg and Touchet workshops, which were

attended primarily by residents of the unincorporated county. The Walla Walla workshop, on the other

hand, was attended by a roughly even mix of city and county residents. A breakdown of responses from

each workshop is provided below in Exhibit 2 and Exhibit 3.

Exhibit 2. Dot Voting Responses – City Shoreline Uses

As shown above in Exhibit 2, attendees at the Waitsburg and Touchet workshops provided very few

responses regarding city shoreline uses, but they expressed preferences in favor of shoreline residences

and against parks/open space and entertainment uses. By contrast, attendees at the Walla Walla

workshop expressed a desire for commercial uses with shoreline public access, as well as moderate

interest in shoreline parks and open space. Walla Walla participants were strongly against shoreline

residences in the city, and some were also opposed to commercial uses, a category that received

relatively strong support.

Waitsburg Touchet Walla Walla Waitsburg Touchet Walla Walla

Shoreline Residences 1 1 0 0 0 6

Restaurants/Entertainment

Uses0 0 1 1 0 1

Commercial Uses with

Public Access to the

Shoreline

0 0 4 0 0 2

Parks and Open Space 0 0 2 0 2 0

Most Desired Least Desired

WHAT FUTURE USES WOULD YOU MOST OR LEAST DESIRE IN CITY SHORELINE AREAS?

Uses



Exhibit 3. Dot Voting Responses – County Shoreline Uses

Exhibit 3, above, shows that Waitsburg and Touchet participants provided more feedback regarding

shoreline uses in county areas than in city areas. Waitsburg attendees favored agricultural use of the

shoreline, with some interest in shoreline residences and wildlife preserves/natural open space.

However, wildlife preserves and natural open space also received all the “least desired” votes at the

Waitsburg workshop. Touchet workshop participants strongly favored agriculture and strongly opposed

shoreline residences. Opinions were split regarding wildlife preserves/natural open space.

Walla Walla workshop participants supported all the use categories relatively evenly, indicating no

strong preferences. Walla Walla attendees cast fewer “least desired” votes than “most desired” votes,

indicating mild opposition to shoreline residences and industrial uses.

Public Access Similar to responses regarding shoreline uses, participant responses regarding public access amenities

varied between workshops, though some universal trends can be observed. Wildlife Viewing

Areas/Natural Preserves were favored by participants at all three workshops with only one vote against.

Likewise, Boating Facilities received “least important” votes at all three workshops with no positive

votes.

Participant responses also reveal several localized trends. Touchet participants considered Wildlife

Viewing Areas and Natural Preserves to be the most desired category of public access but were strongly

opposed to streambank fishing access. At the Walla Walla workshop, trails received the most votes both

in favor and against. Exhibit 4 shows the results for each category by workshop location.


Shoreline Residences 1 0 2 0 5 2

Shipping, Agricultural

Processing, and Industrial

Uses

0 0 2 0 0 1

Agriculture 2 6 3 0 0 0

Wildlife Preserves and

Natural Open Space1 1 2 3 2 0

UsesMost Desired Least Desired

WHAT FUTURE USES WOULD YOU MOST OR LEAST DESIRE IN COUNTY SHORELINE AREAS?



Exhibit 4. Dot Voting Responses – Public Access

Environmental Conditions Based on dot voting responses, the single environmental condition of universal concern is erosion and

shoreline stabilization. This category received a significant portion of the votes at all three workshops,

with no “least concerned” votes. In addition, floodplain development and wildlife habitat were topics of

concern, but opinions were generally mixed. In both cases, nearly as many participants voted these

categories to be the least important issues and voted it the most important issue.

Attendees at the Touchet workshop expressed strong concern about invasive species in shoreline areas,

as well as the overall amount of water flow in the Touchet River. The latter condition was not one of the

responses originally provided in the exercise, but several attendees felt strongly about the issue, and it

was added as an option for the exercise.

Walla Walla participants expressed the greatest concern over water quality, but this response also

received nearly as many “least concerned” votes. Exhibit 5 shows the breakdown of responses for each

category.


Parks and Recreation

Areas0 0 0 0 1 0

Trails (walking, hiking,

biking)1 0 6 1 0 4

Boating Facilities 0 0 0 2 2 1

Wildlife Viewing

Areas/Natural Preserves1 4 2 0 1 0

Streambank Fishing Access 1 1 1 0 5 1

Other 0 0 0 0 0 3

WHAT PUBLIC ACCESS AMENITIES SHOULD BE MORE/LESS COMMON IN SHORELINE AREAS?

AmenitiesMost Important Least Important



Exhibit 5. Dot Voting Responses – Environmental Conditions

Shoreline Conservation Preferences regarding which waterbodies should be targeted for additional shoreline conservation

varied considerably between workshops. Only Mill Creek received “most desired” votes at all three

workshops. Votes for other waterbodies were generally split on geographic lines. For example, only

Waitsburg participants favored additional conservation of shoreline areas along the Touchet River.

Walla Walla participants were ambivalent regarding conservation in this area, and Touchet participants

strongly opposed it. Touchet participants also strongly opposed conservation on the Walla Walla River,

which was viewed favorably by participants at the Walla Walla workshop.

Exhibit 6 shows the responses for each waterbody by workshop. Based on these results, any

conservation efforts as part of the SMP update process may need to be carefully targeted to specific

areas to satisfy widely differing desires of residents in various portions of the county.


Water Quality 0 0 4 0 0 2

Erosion and Shoreline

Stabilization4 4 2 0 0 0

Preserving Shoreline

Vegetation0 0 0 0 0 0

Flooding (development in

floodplain)2 1 2 0 1 2

Wildlife Habitat 1 0 2 1 2 1

Invasive Species in

Shoreline Areas0 6 3 0 2 0

More Water in the River* - 3 - - - -

* Write-in condition suggested by attendees at the Touchet workshop.

WHICH SHORELINE ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITION ARE YOU MOST/LEAST CONCERNED ABOUT?

ConditionsMost Concerned Least Concerned



Exhibit 6. Dot Voting Responses – Shoreline Conservation


Snake River 0 0 0 0 0 0

Columbia River 0 1 0 0 1 0

Walla Walla River 0 1 4 0 6 0

Touchet River 4 0 0 0 5 1

Mill Creek 1 2 4 0 0 1

Yellowhawk Creek (from

Cottonwood Creek to

Walla Walla River)

0 0 1 0 0 1

Bennington Lake 0 1 0 0 0 3

WHERE WOULD YOU LIKE TO SEE MORE CONSERVATION OF SHORELINE NATURAL AREAS?

WaterbodiesMost Desired Least Desired



3.0 VISIONING SURVEY

In cooperation with Walla Walla Joint Community Development Agency staff, Consultant staff created

an online visioning survey to gather feedback from Walla Walla County residents on several topics. The

survey consisted of 14 questions and was made available both online at SurveyMonkey.com and in a

print version, made available at Walla County offices, as well as City offices in Prescott, Waitsburg, and

Walla Walla. The survey was made available online between July 17 and September 14, 2014.

The first four survey questions gathered information on where in the county respondents lived, whether

they owned shoreline property, how they currently use shoreline areas, and how often they use the

county’s shorelines. The remaining questions focused on what types of uses respondents desired most

in shoreline areas, their opinions on the amount and type of public shoreline access, adequacy of natural

area conservation along the shorelines of each of the SMA-regulated waterbodies, and areas with poor

environmental conditions that could need restoration.

The survey garnered a total of 46 responses, all from online participation. The following sections

summarize the responses received. A complete record of responses to the survey is included in

Appendix B.

3.1 RESPONDENTS

City of Walla Walla residents were the largest group of participants, accounting for 66.7% of survey

responses, and approximately one-quarter of respondents live in the unincorporated county.

Participation from Prescott and Waitsburg residents was relatively low, accounting for 2% and 7% of

responses, respectively.

3.2 CURRENT USE OF SHORELINES

Survey participants indicated that they used shoreline areas for a variety of activities, but several

categories were especially popular. The survey asked respondents to identify the ways in which they

currently use shoreline areas and allowed them to select as many activities as they desired. At least 75%

of respondents selected hiking/jogging/walking/bicycling, wildlife/nature observation, and

views/general enjoyment. Parks and recreation areas was the next most popular category at 50%.

Exhibit 7 shows the survey results for current use of the shoreline.



Exhibit 7. Online Survey Responses – Current Use of the Shoreline

Respondents who selected “Other” had the option to submit additional responses not included in the

list of available answers. These additional responses included activities such as dog walking,

skateboarding, and general enjoyment of the rural feel provided by the presence of the water (specific

to Mill Creek).

3.3 DESIRED FUTURE USES

Survey participants were asked to identify which uses they would like to see more of in shoreline areas

throughout the county and to rate them by importance. Exhibit 8 summarizes responses regarding

desired future shoreline uses.

84.1%

75.0%

50.0%

20.5%

27.3%

27.3%

81.8%

11.4%

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%

Wildlife viewing/bird watching/natureobservation

Hiking/walking/jogging/bicycling

Parks or recreation areas (including picnic andswimming area)

Hunting

Watercraft activities (fishing, boating,kayaking, wind surfing, sailing, etc.)

Streambank Fishing

Views and general enjoyment

Other (list up to 3):

In what ways do you enjoy the shorelines along the specified rivers, creeks, and Bennington Lake? Please

check all that apply.



Exhibit 8. Online Survey Responses – Future Shoreline Uses: Countywide

Based these responses, natural areas, trails, and scenic viewpoints were considered the most important,

while fishing access enjoyed mostly moderate support, and docks and boat ramps were considered

mostly unimportant or of moderate importance.

City of Waitsburg In addition to desired uses for county shoreline areas, survey respondents were asked to identify which

uses they would specifically like to see along the Touchet River in the City of Waitsburg. Exhibit 9

summarizes responses regarding desired future shoreline uses and relative levels of priority.

34

27

15

5

12

22

4

10

14

16

20

10

4

5

11

18

8

7

3

1

1

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Natural areas for wildlife viewing,hunting, and environmental protection

Trails for hiking, walking, and bicycling

Parks and recreation areas

Docks, boat ramps, and launching areasfor watercraft

Stream bank fishing access points

Scenic viewpoints

Number of Respondent Votes

What types of uses would you like to see more of along the specified rivers, creeks, and Bennington Lake? Please indicate how important these

uses are to you below. For each use, please check one rating or No Opinion.

Very Important

ModeratelyImportant

Not Important

No Opinion



Exhibit 9. Online Survey Responses – Future Shoreline Uses: City of Waitsburg

Based on these results, parks and open space were considered the highest priority, and shoreline

residences were considered the lowest priority. However, while this question asked specifically about

uses within Waitsburg city limits, it should be noted that, as described in Section 3.1, participation from

Waitsburg residents was very low. The results displayed in Exhibit 9 primarily reflect the opinions of

residents of the City of Walla and the unincorporated county.

City of Walla Walla In addition to desired uses for county shoreline areas, survey respondents were asked to identify which

uses they would specifically like to see along Mill Creek in the City of Walla Walla. Exhibit 10 summarizes

responses regarding desired future shoreline uses and relative levels of priority.

6

22

3

2

6

7

3

1

14

1

20

22

6

13

8

13

14

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Other (please specify High, Medium, orLow priority)

Commercial uses with public access to theshoreline

Parks and open space

Restaurants and entertainment uses

Shoreline residences


What types of uses would you like to see more of along the Touchet River within the Waitsburg city limits? For each use please check one priority or

No Opinion.

High Priority

Medium Priority

Low Priority

No Opinion



Exhibit 10. Online Survey Responses – Future Shoreline Uses: City of Walla Walla

Similar to the results for Waitsburg, parks and open space were considered the highest priority, while

shoreline residences, entertainment, and commercial uses were considered low priority uses.

3.4 PUBLIC ACCESS

Survey respondents were asked to rate the level of shoreline public access available in different areas of

each of the regulated water bodies, indicating whether they considered the current level of physical

access to be too much, too little, or adequate. Exhibit 11 summarizes the responses regarding public

access.

8

32

4

3

11

8

9

3

22

3

26

32

8

1

2

2

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Other (please specify High, Medium, andLow priority)

Commercial uses with public access to theshoreline





What types of uses would you like to see more of along Mill Creek within the Walla Walla city limits? For each use please check one priority or No

Opinion.

High Priority

Medium Priority

Low Priority

No Opinion



Exhibit 11. Online Survey Responses – Public Access

As shown in Exhibit 11, responses were generally mixed, with few strong trends apparent. A significant

number of respondents did not have strong opinions regarding public access for many locations. In

particular, more respondents voted “No Opinion” for the Touchet River within Waitsburg than for all

other categories combined. “No Opinion” was also the largest category for Yellohawk Creek, the

Touchet River outside Waitsburg, and all areas of the Snake River.

Public access at Bennington Lake was overwhelmingly considered adequate, while Mill Creek was

generally considered to need more access, though Mill Creek also received the largest number for votes

indicating that the stream already has too much public access.

1

1

1

1

4

3

3

2

2

17

16

18

11

12

10

13

14

10

7

32

5

5

9

16

6

13

17

19

20

14

1

19

18

13

13

23

17

7

6

8

19

6

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Snake River – Burbank Area

Snake River – Upper Area

Columbia River

Walla Walla River

Touchet River – Within City of Waitsburg

Touchet River – Outside Waitsburg

Mill Creek – Within City of Walla Walla

Mill Creek – Upstream of City of Walla Walla

Mill Creek – Downstream from City of Walla Walla

Yellowhawk Creek – From Cottonwood Creek to the Walla Walla River

Bennington Lake


How would you rate the amount of physical public access to the shorelines of the following? For each location please check one rating or No Opinion.

Too Much

Adequate

Too Little

No Opinion



3.5 SHORELINE CONSERVATION

Survey respondents were asked to rate the level of shoreline natural area conservation of each of the

regulated water bodies, indicating whether they considered the current level of physical access to be

adequate, or if more conservation is needed. Exhibit 12 summarizes the responses regarding shoreline

conservation.

Exhibit 12. Online Survey Responses – Shoreline Conservation

With the exceptions of Bennington Lake and the Snake River, the majority of respondents indicated that

every water body needs additional shoreline conservation. In particular, additional conservation

received the most support on Mill Creek and the Walla Walla River.

12

11

8

9

9

9

22

17

20

27

21

30

22

13

10

8

4

8

2

8

3

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40 45

Snake River

Columbia River

Walla Walla River

Touchet River

Mill Creek

Yellowhawk Creek – From Cottonwood Creek to the Walla

Walla River

Bennington Lake


How would you rate the current level of conservation of natural areas along each of the following shorelines? For each shoreline area, please

select one rating or No Opinion.

Conservation isAdequate

More ConservationNeeded

No Opinion



3.6 ENVIRONMENTAL CONDITIONS

Survey respondents were asked to rate the environmental condition of the each of the regulated water

bodies, indicating whether they considered the current environmental conditions to be adequate or in

need of improvement. Exhibit 13 summarizes these responses.

Exhibit 13. Online Survey Responses – Shoreline Environmental Conditions

For the most part, respondents did not have strong opinions on this issue. “No Opinion” was the largest

voting category for all but three water bodies. Bennington Lake was considered adequate, and while

conditions on Mill Creek and the Walla Walla River were both considered to need improvement, a

significant number of respondents voted “No Opinion” for these streams, as well.

Write-in comments regarding shoreline environmental conditions included the following concerns:

9

9

8

5

8

7

17

9

10

16

13

19

12

8

17

16

12

16

11

16

10

0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 40

Snake River

Columbia River

Walla Walla River

Touchet River

Mill Creek

Yellowhawk Creek – From Cottonwood Creek to the Walla

Walla River

Bennington Lake


Do any of the following shorelines have poor environmental conditions that should be corrected (erosion, invasive species, impaired water quality,

etc.)? For each shoreline area, please select one rating or No Opinion.

AdequateEnvironmentalConditions

Poor EnvironmentalConditions

No Opinion



Reducing the amount of Mill Creek that is channelized and creating a more natural shoreline

environment would be preferred.

Many native vegetation buffers have been replaced by ornamental vegetation.

Invasive weeds need to be controlled.

Water flow in Mill Creek is low in summer months.

Water quality is generally impaired and needs to be improved.

3.7 OTHER COMMENTS

The survey allowed respondents to write-in general comments on shoreline issues, the planning process,

or other suggestions. A complete record of those comments in included in Appendix B, but common

themes are listed below:

Too much development is currently located in the floodplain, and future development in these areas

should be restricted.

The County should work with local groups to improve shoreline conditions (Conservation District,

Tri-State Steelheaders, etc.).

Long-term protection and sustainability should outweigh short-term commercial gains.

Greater financial assistance is desired for compliance with new regulations, and the County and

Cities should fund enforcement of the SMP.

Minimize new regulations and government involvement.

Consider safety (public access locations, hunting areas, etc.)

4.0 CONCLUSIONS

Input received from the public during the visioning process indicates that residents of different areas of

Walla Walla County hold a variety of opinions and priorities regarding shoreline areas. The diversity of

responses to the visioning workshop activities and the online survey reinforce the need to customize

SMP regulations to respond to the needs of different cities and areas of the county.

The most prominent trends and high-profile issues identified during the visioning process are

summarized below:

Overall Trends

Shoreline residences should be a low priority in urban areas and a higher priority in rural areas.

Agriculture is a high priority in rural areas, and rural character should be protected.

Trails and wildlife viewing areas are popular for shoreline public access, but private property rights

need to be respected. Public and private areas need be clearly distinguished for the public to

prevent trespassing.

Flood control and management of stream flows are important issues throughout the county.



City of Waitsburg

Flooding is a primary concern on the Touchet River and its tributaries. Shoreline regulations should

be crafted with this in mind.

Enforcement has been a problem in the past and needs to be improved (littering, trespassing,

unauthorized modifications, etc.)

City of Walla Walla

Mill Creek:

o Interest was expressed in redeveloping Mill Creek to create an urban waterway with amenities

that can be enjoyed by residents.

o Interest was also expressed in restoring Mill Creek to more natural conditions (removing or

modifying flood control channel).

o A customized shoreline environment designation probably needs to be developed for Mill Creek

within the city to address its unique status and provide flexibility for future planning by the City

of Walla Walla.

Water quality and water flow in Mill Creek is a concern, especially in summer.

Public access is both popular and contentious. People enjoy using trails along Mill Creek, but private

property owners are concerned about property rights and trespassing.

Unincorporated County

Flooding and bank erosion are concerns on the Touchet and Walla Walla Rivers.

County residents want to maintain a rural character, including agriculture and residences.

Property owners are concerned about being overburdened by regulations and how fairly policies

and regulations are applied. In particular, residents expressed a lack of trust in FEMA flood maps and

a concern that government will over-regulate them based on erroneous data.



This page intentionally blank.

FINAL VISIONING REPORT | May 2015 A-1

APPENDIX A

DOT-VOTING EXERCISE RESPONSES


A-2 FINAL VISIONING REPORT | May 2015




Waitsburg Meeting (7/29/2014): Shoreline Environmental Conditions



Waitsburg Meeting (7/29/2014): Shoreline Conservation



Waitsburg Meeting (7/29/2014): Public Access



Waitsburg Meeting (7/29/2014): Shoreline Future Uses



Touchet Meeting (7/30/2014): Shoreline Environmental Conditions



Touchet Meeting (7/30/2014): Shoreline Conservation



Touchet Meeting (7/30/2014): Public Access



Touchet Meeting (7/30/2014): Shoreline Future Uses



Walla Walla Meeting (7/30/2014): Shoreline Environmental Conditions



Walla Walla Meeting (7/30/2014): Shoreline Conservation



Walla Walla Meeting (7/30/2014): Public Access



Walla Walla Meeting (7/30/2014): Shoreline Future Uses

FINAL VISIONING REPORT | May 2015 B-1

APPENDIX B

ONLINE SURVEY RESULTS


B-2 FINAL VISIONING REPORT | May 2015


2.22% 1

6.67% 3

66.67% 30

24.44% 11

Q1 Which area of Walla Walla County areyou a resident of?

Answered: 45 Skipped: 1

Total 45

# Other areas in Walla Walla County (optional: write in below) Date

1 Mill Creek 9/11/2014 7:29 PM

2 Near Whitman Mission 8/6/2014 4:56 AM

3 College Place 8/4/2014 9:17 PM

4 yellow hawk 7/30/2014 8:12 PM

5 Abbott's Meadow - I believe this is considered county? 7/30/2014 6:17 PM

6 Biscuit Ridge Road, Dixie 7/30/2014 11:19 AM

7 Along mill creek above Blue creek 7/29/2014 5:38 AM

8 walla walla county 7/26/2014 11:06 AM

9 Walla Walla County outside College Place 7/24/2014 11:18 AM

10 Unincorporated rural area near Waitsburg 7/24/2014 10:49 AM

11 Burbank 7/18/2014 1:55 PM

Answer Choices Responses

City of Prescott

City of Waitsburg

City of Walla Walla

Other areas in Walla Walla County (optional: write in below)

1 / 14

Walla Walla County Regional SMP Visioning Survey

2.17% 1

0.00% 0

6.52% 3

10.87% 5

6.52% 3

4.35% 2

2.17% 1

6.52% 3

67.39% 31

Q2 Do you own property or live along anyof the following rivers and streams in Walla

Walla County and the Cities of Prescott,Waitsburg, and Walla Walla? Please check

all that apply.Answered: 46 Skipped: 0

Total Respondents: 46

# Other (please specify) Date

There are no responses.


Snake River

Columbia River


Mill Creek – Outside City of Walla Walla

Walla Walla River


Touchet River – Outside City of Waitsburg


I do not live on or own property along any of these rivers or creeks.

2 / 14


84.09% 37

75.00% 33

50.00% 22

20.45% 9

27.27% 12

27.27% 12

81.82% 36

11.36% 5

Q3 In what ways do you enjoy theshorelines along the specified rivers,creeks, and Bennington Lake? Please

check all that apply.Answered: 44 Skipped: 2

Total Respondents: 44

# Other (list up to 3): Date

1 wonderful sound of the water that drowns out the city noise 9/12/2014 12:20 PM

2 Natural habitat. 7/31/2014 11:03 AM

3 great place to walk the dog 7/31/2014 9:34 AM

4 3 friends and I have been walking a loop walk along Mill Creek and Bennington Lake every weekday for 24 years,in all weather. The natural, rural feel to that area is priceless.

7/30/2014 8:23 PM

5 Skateboardinh 7/18/2014 1:56 PM


Wildlife viewing/bird watching/nature observation

Hiking/walking/jogging/bicycling

Parks or recreation areas (including picnic and swimming area)

Hunting

Watercraft activities (fishing, boating, kayaking, wind surfing, sailing, etc.)

Streambank Fishing

Views and general enjoyment

Other (list up to 3):

3 / 14


25.58% 11

27.91% 12

20.93% 9

18.60% 8

6.98% 3

Q4 How frequently do you use the specifiedrivers, creeks, and Bennington Lake for anyof the above activities? Please check one:


Total 43


Every day

At least weekly

At least monthly

Several times a year, but not regularly

Once a year or less.

4 / 14


Q5 What types of uses would you like tosee more of along the specified rivers,creeks, and Bennington Lake? Please

indicate how important these uses are toyou below. For each use, please check one

rating or No Opinion.Answered: 42 Skipped: 4

80.95%34

9.52%4

9.52%4

0.00%0

42

64.29%27

23.81%10

11.90%5

0.00%0

42

37.50%15

35.00%14

27.50%11

0.00%0

40

11.90%5

38.10%16

42.86%18

7.14%3

42

29.27%12

48.78%20

19.51%8

2.44%1

41

55.00%22

25.00%10

17.50%7

2.50%1

40

VeryImportant

ModeratelyImportant

NotImportant

NoOpinion

Total

Natural areas for wildlife viewing, hunting, and environmentalprotection

Trails for hiking, walking, and bicycling

Parks and recreation areas

Docks, boat ramps, and launching areas for watercraft

Stream bank fishing access points

Scenic viewpoints

5 / 14


Q6 What types of uses would you like tosee more of along Mill Creek within the

Walla Walla city limits? For each use pleasecheck one priority or No Opinion.


7.50%3

7.50%3

80.00%32

5.00%2

40

9.76%4

21.95%9

63.41%26

4.88%2

41

19.05%8

26.19%11

52.38%22

2.38%1

42

74.42%32

18.60%8

6.98%3

0.00%0

43

# Other (please specify High, Medium, and Low priority) Date

1 Hunting access-- High 8/5/2014 9:21 AM

2 Natural corridors - High Priority 7/31/2014 11:08 AM

3 Mill Creek shorelines are important for flood management and risk reduction which is best left as a natural bufferzone since we have adequate structures such as riprap and levees. Only "development" that should be allowed isenhancement of naturalized buffers with non-linear widening of buffers. Do not interefere or exterminate existingnatural enhancement projects performed by conservation groups and Boy Scouts, etc. High Priority.

7/31/2014 10:53 AM

4 Day-lighting the creek through the downtown area would be very nice. With walking path access near the water. 7/31/2014 9:49 AM

5 natural and "wild" areas 7/31/2014 9:36 AM

6 Undeveloped open space is essential for wildlife as well as people. ANY development is likely to damage this. 7/30/2014 8:34 PM

7 Shorelines are flood areas...right? No building near shorelines! 7/24/2014 11:00 AM

8 Viewpoints 7/18/2014 1:58 PM

High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Total



Commercial uses with public access to the shoreline


6 / 14


Q7 What types of uses would you like tosee more of along the Touchet River within

the Waitsburg city limits? For each useplease check one priority or No Opinion.


5.13%2

2.56%1

56.41%22

35.90%14

39

7.69%3

7.69%3

51.28%20

33.33%13

39

15.38%6

15.38%6

35.90%14

33.33%13

39

57.89%22

18.42%7

2.63%1

21.05%8

38

# Other (please specify High, Medium, or Low priority) Date

1 Natural Corridors - High Priority 7/31/2014 11:08 AM

2 See same comment above for Mill Creek. 7/31/2014 10:53 AM

3 I'm not familiar enough with where the Touchet River goes through Waitsburg, but in general I'm more in favor ofpreserving the riverbanks for open space and parks than for commercial usage of any kind, or residences.

7/31/2014 9:49 AM

4 I'm not familiar with the Touchet River area, but my high priority in general is to leave river and stream areas asnatural as possible--with trails, perhaps--so as to leave animals and native plants a viable habitat.

7/30/2014 8:34 PM

5 Same as above, we do not want construction impacted by floods! And how about restoring riparian functions... 7/24/2014 11:00 AM

6 Kayak access 7/18/2014 1:58 PM

High Priority Medium Priority Low Priority No Opinion Total



Commercial uses with public access to the shoreline


7 / 14


Q8 Do you have any other suggestions forspecific types of uses you would like to seeon other shorelines in Walla Walla Countyand the Cities of Prescott, Waitsburg, and

Walla Walla?Answered: 16 Skipped: 30

# Responses Date

1 TRAILS!! along the Walla Walla River would be great, but I'm in favor of all trails. It's good for public health! Let'swalk/bike more!

9/14/2014 2:46 PM

2 Access as little as possible. 9/8/2014 1:15 PM

3 Whether it fishing, boating, or watching pelicans in the Columbia or Walla Walla rivers, or many other pastimes, Iwant the shoreline access protect for the public to use.

8/4/2014 9:25 PM

4 Public access along the Mill Creek corridor in Downtown Walla Walla. Public access points along the othershorelines in the County.

7/31/2014 11:08 AM

5 Please, we need public access on Mill Creek before it is channeled. The closest true natural area is Harris Park. 7/31/2014 10:37 AM

6 More or preserved natural and "wild" areas. Trees, wildlife habitat, etc. 7/31/2014 9:36 AM

7 No commercial establishments, or housing developments, at least not outside city boundaries. 7/30/2014 8:34 PM

8 All shorelines need to be protected to maintan clean water resources as well as offer refuge for wildlife. 7/30/2014 6:50 PM

9 Need to keep the EPA out of these areas and areas of the Forrest and parks. We need to have access. 7/30/2014 6:32 PM

10 Hiking trails, historic interpretation 7/30/2014 5:57 PM

11 We must maintain irrigation rights and access and fish, as well as develop more scenic and commercialopportunities.

7/30/2014 11:22 AM

12 Protection from development within the flood plain. 7/30/2014 10:15 AM

13 Leave it as is. 7/26/2014 11:06 AM

14 Just maintain the Mill Creek streams to prevent any flooding in the west end of town by the hotels and Smithrestaurant..

7/24/2014 11:28 AM

15 Wildlife and viewing. Restoration of vegetation for wildlife and fish habitat. 7/24/2014 11:21 AM

16 Strong protections for flood zones--in 1996 an enterprising person replaced what had been strawberry fields withlots for doubl-wide trailers. They flooded, (and who cares, these were low income people) and I still rememberthe Lots for Sale sign jutting above 3 feet of standing water!

7/24/2014 11:00 AM

8 / 14


Q9 How would you rate the amount ofphysical public access to the shorelines of

the following? For each location pleasecheck one rating or No Opinion.


0.00%0

41.46%17

12.20%5

46.34%19

41

2.50%1

40.00%16

12.50%5

45.00%18

40

2.44%1

43.90%18

21.95%9

31.71%13

41

2.44%1

26.83%11

39.02%16

31.71%13

41

0.00%0

29.27%12

14.63%6

56.10%23

41

2.44%1

24.39%10

31.71%13

41.46%17

41

9.76%4

31.71%13

41.46%17

17.07%7

41

7.14%3

33.33%14

45.24%19

14.29%6

42

7.32%3

24.39%10

48.78%20

19.51%8

41

4.76%2

16.67%7

33.33%14

45.24%19

42

4.88%2

78.05%32

2.44%1

14.63%6

41

Too Much Adequate Too Little No Opinion Total

Snake River – Burbank Area

Snake River – Upper Area

Columbia River

Walla Walla River


Touchet River – Outside Waitsburg


Mill Creek – Upstream of City of Walla Walla

Mill Creek – Downstream from City of Walla Walla


Bennington Lake

9 / 14


Q10 How would you rate the current level ofconservation of natural areas along each of

the following shorelines? For eachshoreline area, please select one rating or

No Opinion.Answered: 41 Skipped: 5

30.77%12

43.59%17

25.64%10

39

28.21%11

51.28%20

20.51%8

39

20.51%8

69.23%27

10.26%4

39

23.68%9

55.26%21

21.05%8

38

21.95%9

73.17%30

4.88%2

41

23.08%9

56.41%22

20.51%8

39

57.89%22

34.21%13

7.89%3

38

Conservation isAdequate

More ConservationNeeded

NoOpinion

Total

Snake River

Columbia River

Walla Walla River

Touchet River

Mill Creek

Yellowhawk Creek – From Cottonwood Creek to the Walla WallaRiver

Bennington Lake

10 / 14


Q11 Do you have any comments regardingshoreline conservation (specific locations,

conservation needs, etc.)?Answered: 8 Skipped: 38

# Responses Date

1 Bennington Lake has a huge amount of non-natives. I have been meaning to stop by their office and see if I couldjoin a poison hemlock eradication effort. I support conservation, but not super familiar with existing conservationprograms.

9/14/2014 2:48 PM

2 Shoreline conservation is overall important for fish and water quality (more is better). 8/11/2014 10:05 AM

3 Ensure adequate erosion control while preserving natural tone of rivers - especially near county roads andbridges.

8/6/2014 5:01 AM

4 Need to work more closely with property owners regarding the benefits of preserving and establishing nativevegetation buffers.

7/31/2014 11:15 AM

5 Concerning #9, Mill Creek basically has no present access in much of the areas indicated. It needs to bereconstructed to offer better protection to clean water and wildlife refuge areas along with protection againstfloods

7/30/2014 6:55 PM

6 More natural areas along the rip-rap areas of Mill Creek. Keeping the flood control in place, but please expandthe natural flow and gravel bed areas for spawning fish.

7/30/2014 11:25 AM

7 Huge problem developing within Ecology as they adopt mandatory buffer widths (from NOAH) that are impactingparticipation in riparian buffer programs. E.g., the very successful program Creating Urban Riparian Buffers hasbeen eliminated form funding because urban landowners cannot install 75' buffer zones but Ecology won't fundthe 35' buffers that are quite adequate to protect small streams like Yellowhawk.

7/24/2014 11:04 AM

8 East of WW city lits 7/18/2014 2:00 PM

11 / 14


Q12 Do any of the following shorelines havepoor environmental conditions that should

be corrected (erosion, invasive species,impaired water quality, etc.)? For each

shoreline area, please select one rating orNo Opinion.


25.71%9

25.71%9

48.57%17

35

25.71%9

28.57%10

45.71%16

35

22.22%8

44.44%16

33.33%12

36

14.71%5

38.24%13

47.06%16

34

21.05%8

50.00%19

28.95%11

38

20.00%7

34.29%12

45.71%16

35

48.57%17

22.86%8

28.57%10

35

Adequate EnvironmentalConditions

Poor EnvironmentalConditions

NoOpinion

Total

Snake River

Columbia River

Walla Walla River

Touchet River

Mill Creek

Yellowhawk Creek – From Cottonwood Creek to the WallaWalla River

Bennington Lake

12 / 14


Q13 Do you have any comments regardingshoreline environmental conditions

(specific locations, environmental issues,etc.)?


# Responses Date

1 Mill Creek is channeled into concrete or rock artificial beds for much of its length. Any amount of its length thatcould be more natural, encourage plants and wildlife, and allow public access to enjoy the water would be great.

9/14/2014 2:50 PM

2 I fear the nuclear pollution from Hanford's leaking tanks on the Columbia 9/12/2014 12:25 PM

3 Much of the native vegetation buffers have been replaced with ornamental vegetation which impacts the naturalfunctions and values of the shorelines.

7/31/2014 11:18 AM

4 I don't know of specific issues on most of the waterways. I'm concerned that the CRP program is being eliminatedin the farms along the Snake River. Erosion has been much alleviated under the CRP and the poor soil and otherconditions in that area will quickly bring the erosion problems back when the CRP program is gone.

7/31/2014 9:55 AM

5 Opinions are of no importance on this topic. What is important is to have professionals do these evaluations. 7/30/2014 6:56 PM

6 All the above have impaired water quality. Invasive weeds are a problem along most of the streams (Bohemianknotweed, false indigobush, purple loosestrife, etc.)

7/30/2014 10:20 AM

7 Not enough water flow in Mill Creek during the summer months.Too much water is being diverted down theYellowhark Creek.

7/26/2014 11:06 AM

8 Invasive weeds need to be controlled along streams. Reed Canary Grass, Japanese Knotweed, Indigo. PlantNative species Cottonwood, Willow, Alder, Conifers, Elderberry, Chokecherry, ect.

7/24/2014 11:25 AM

9 Actually much of the rivers have improved environmental condition but there is still more work to be done, so it'snot poor but also not adequate.

7/24/2014 11:05 AM

10 None 7/18/2014 2:00 PM

13 / 14


Q14 Do you have any other suggestionsthat could help us as we update the

shoreline regulations for Walla WallaCounty and the cities of Prescott,

Waitsburg, and Walla Walla?Answered: 19 Skipped: 27

# Responses Date

1 Thank you for seeking public opinion! 9/13/2014 7:13 PM

2 Keep our waterways clean and vibrant for the benefit of us and those who follow us. 9/12/2014 12:25 PM

3 If you make a rule, FUND ENFORCEMENT for all. (See Corliss on Yellowhawk) 9/11/2014 7:34 PM

4 Restoration and preservation of water and shoreline quality and abundance for future generations must trumpcommercial or selfish concerns; non-degrading uses may be okay.

8/11/2014 10:11 AM

5 For everyone's safety...please delete hunting from the Fish & Game area by Swegle Bridge.... Too many homesnearby and becoming overpopulated with recreationists, not just fishermen and hunters.

8/6/2014 10:50 AM

6 Do the best you can to balance natural, public areas with protecting the rights of the private land owner. 8/5/2014 8:20 PM

7 Be sure and include the information contained in the Downtown Master Plan and the Walla Walla Urban AreaComprehensive Plan when addressing Mill Creek through the Downtown Walla Walla area.

7/31/2014 11:21 AM

8 no specific suggestions; City of WW doing adequate job. 7/31/2014 9:38 AM

9 I understand current farming practices will not be affected. However, if cropping changes, the Management Planshould REQUIRE another look at the effect the proposed change will have on conservation.

7/30/2014 8:41 PM

10 Critical for us to protect our shorelines for their long-term sustainability and contribution to our sustainability. 7/30/2014 6:57 PM

11 EPA need to stay out of our lives. And the farms and ranches and national Forrest's 7/30/2014 6:36 PM

12 Protect public access and environmental integrity as a condition of all shoreline development. 7/30/2014 6:05 PM

13 Are these the only stream impacted on this plan? You should offer free planning assistance to all the streamownerships in the county to improve these area. The entire watershed works in concert, so the offer of help inplanning would be nice. Just don't add any new regulations. There are way too many already.

7/30/2014 11:28 AM

14 Do not allow development, commercial or residential, within the floodplains or on associated wetlands. 7/30/2014 10:21 AM

15 Less public access along Mill Creek. Too much garbage, trash, dogs etc. 7/26/2014 11:06 AM

16 It is very important that they all be maintained even if I myself don't frequent all of them. 7/24/2014 11:42 AM

17 Stop permitting buildings/developments within the flood plane. Engage groups that want to restore streamfunctions. CTUIR, Tri-State Stealheaders, Conservation District.

7/24/2014 11:28 AM

18 Work with the Conservation District, Tri-State Steelheaders, WW Basin Partnership. 7/24/2014 11:06 AM

19 No 7/18/2014 2:01 PM

14 / 14


visioning summary report · shoreline policies, the county and cities initiated a series of...

Documents