chem ergent

係ionic
MgCl2

City of Moses Lake
Shoreline Master Program Update
Response to Comments from the Public and the Planning Commission
Related to the January/February 2006 Drafts of Chapters 6, 7, 8, 9, and 11,
and the June 2005 Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Prepared by Anne Henning, City of Moses Lake, with assistance from Sandra Strieby, Highlands Associates;
Anthony Gabriel, Central Washington University; Doug Pineo and Chris Merker, Department of Ecology; and
Eric Pentico, Department of Fish and Wildlife
Notes:
1. Bracketed information [x] identifies who made each comment. Some comments have been summarized or edited
for clarity, some are reproduced verbatim . Numbers correspond to the list of Commentors at the end of this

(Continued from previous page) If there are specific sections that seem to exceed the
This specific project is beyond the scope of a Shoreline
Master Program; however, recreation and public access
are allowed and encouraged by the Shoreline
Management Act.
Make Moses Lake a more people-friendly community to
live and work in [1]
City government works hard to make Moses Lake a good
place to live, work, and visit. Updating the shoreline
regulations will help to protect our lake, one of the main
attractions for residents and visitors alike.
Enforcement: too much government control [1] Any time regulations are necessary, enforcement
provisions are also necessary, to address the situations
where we don’t get voluntary compliance.
SMP needs to address cumulative impacts of many small
developments such as short plats, since most of the
remaining shoreline area is small lots. [7]
Once the draft is near completion, Central Washington
University will prepare a “cumulative impacts analysis”, a
required component of an SMP update.
Will maintenance of existing improvements (docks,
irrigation pumping systems) be allowed? [6]
Repair and maintenance of existing structures or
developments is exempt from the requirement for a
shoreline substantial development permit (see WAC 173-
27-040). All provisions of the SMA and local SMP must
still be met however. W ithin the guidelines established by
the SMP, repair of the specific items mentioned would be
allowed, but a blanket answer for all improvements is not
possible.
Should state specifically that maintenance and restoration
are allowed. [6]
Some aspects of dock maintenance are addressed in
Chapter 7, General Dock Regulations 5 and 6; however,
for the most part, maintenance and restoration will be
addressed in the Administration chapter, which is not yet
written.
The SMP should allow a shoreline mitigation bank: a site
that has been or is in the process of being restored to
increase ecological functions, so that when people
develop their shoreline, they can pay into the bank for off
site mitigation, rather than having to mitigate on site. This
would meet the requirement of no net loss of ecological
function. [PC]
The concept of a shoreline mitigation bank is good and is
included in the Restoration Plan (Chapter 11), but there
are some issues that will need to be worked out:
1. It would be important to have sites ready for
enhancement at the outset. Ideally there would be an
enhancement project completed and proven to be
functional (i.e., performing valuable shoreline ecological
functions) before the developer’s payment was accepted