Riverside Lake Spokane

Transcription

1 Riverside Lake Spokane CAMP Project Plan April 2017 Michael Hankinson

2 Project Summary This planning process will address existing management issues primarily within the Riverside State Park Lake Spokane management area in an effort to develop a strategic vision for the future. Deliverables for this project include: A public involvement program specific to the Lake Spokane Area, consisting of three public workshops and correspondence. A Commission agenda item, conveying final staff recommendations for land classifications and long-term boundaries for Riverside s Lake Spokane. A Riverside Lake Spokane Area management plan, including staff-reviewed management objectives and recommendations. An update to the existing Riverside Area management plan, if necessary, to address unresolved issues. For example, consideration may be given to Spokane House and the Clark Barnes or other locations within the current long-term boundary of Riverside. Project Plan Approval Diana Dupuis, Operations Manager Steve Brand, Partnerships and Planning Program Manager Ryan Layton, Eastern Region Manager Michael Hankinson, Project Manager

3 Project Scope Project Need A public planning process for Riverside s Lake Spokane area is needed for a variety of reasons: For the past several decades, State Parks has assembled additional properties adjacent to Riverside and has also accepted additional management responsibilities of lands in the vicinity of Lake Spokane. As a result, the management area has grown in size. This planning process will primarily address new properties now under the care of State Parks, but not located within the established long-term boundary of the park. In addition, there are other land acquisition opportunities in the vicinity of the park and lake and a planning project will allow staff to engage the public and key stakeholders to better understand the merit of these opportunities. Lake Spokane represents a complicated patchwork of lands that are owned and managed by a mix of public and private entities. For example, Avista Corporation manages Lake Spokane for hydro-electric production and controls many water-access points on private lands that surround the lake. Over time, State Parks has accepted management of boat-in sites for purposes of recreation. The Department of Natural Resources owns properties in the area including the Lake Spokane campground. State Parks has accepted management of the site and would benefit with development of a plan. A key location for boat access and camping, it is recognized that this location is beautiful and a popular recreation destination. It is not understood, however, how this property fits within the system of properties. Spokane County owns hundreds of acres on the lake. Some of these properties are now managed by State Parks through inter-agency agreements. There are likely additional partnership opportunities that warrant further exploration through the planning process. The Fisk property, located on the south shores of Lake Spokane, has languished for several decades without the benefit of a clear vision. The park is vulnerable to overuse as many visitors make their way to the extraordinary waterfront to recreate. A comprehensive plan, vetted by the public and stakeholders, will guide decision makers in the future. There remains a fundamental need to understand how this popular property fits into the overall network of recreational lands on Lake Spokane to determine its full potential. Public access to Lake Spokane, for boating, swimming, and fishing holds significant potential for visitors of Riverside State Park. It has been noted that the lake lacks developed boat-in sites for fuel and provisions and as a destination. Locations such as Fisk and Lake Spokane are popular swimming destinations. Lake Spokane campground is a popular boat launch for fishing. Also, consider carp, weeds, and stumps. Rock climbing, bicycling, hiking, and other activities should be identified as this may influence how this collection of lands is classified. The State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) will help guide why State Parks will emphasize certain uses over other uses simply based on identified recreation trends. Additional overnight facilities may be required to accommodate visitors to Riverside. Where should these facilities be located? Use SCORP to help identify trends in camping in addition to park visitor data. Consideration should be given to identifying infrastructure that requires either replacement or perhaps closure.

4 Consider Geographic Information System (GIS) mapping for fire vulnerability, resource allocation, and weed distribution. There may also be a need to address specific management problems at Riverside State Park that are currently unknown. Further discussions with staff and stakeholders will bring these issues to light. Project Objectives Provide opportunities for park patrons, the general public, and stakeholders to engage in participation-based, long-range planning for Riverside Lake Spokane. Develop land classification and long-term boundary recommendations for Riverside Lake Spokane including the Fiske property and Spokane Campground. Develop management and program improvement recommendations that will allow for the continued development of the Fisk property and Lake Spokane Campground. Examine, if it appears appropriate from the Operations point of view, park facility management, efficiency, and development options. Explore with park staff if there is a need for a planning advisory committee to assist with planning and park advocacy. Project Deliverables Write reports based on public workshops, stakeholder & staff response, and correspondence regarding the Riverside Lake Spokane area. Post in-process and final planning documents on the agency s planning webpage. Develop management plan, including staff-reviewed management objectives. Develop in consultation with interpretive staff a conceptual interpretive plan. Compose a Commission agenda item conveying final staff recommendations for land classifications and long-term boundaries for Riverside Lake Spokane. Project Scoping Issues to be Resolved Identify level or complexity of park improvement(s) needed to transform Fisk into a functional park property.

5 Investigate how properties such as Fisk and Lake Spokane campground contribute to the recreational experience as a whole and determine their potential among all other recreational opportunities on the lake. Determine CAMP scope for facilities, interpretive, and business planning. Determine scope/need for advisory committee development and/or other political strategies. Confirm planning team roles and responsibilities (availability) and need/source(s) for external skills or knowledge. Identify existing ( ) and potential ( and beyond) capital project program goals and information/permit needs.

6 The CAMP Team Under the direction of: Peter Herzog, Assistant Director, Parks Development Team Members Diana Dupuis, Riverside Area Manager Ryan Layton, Eastern Region Manager Steve Brand, Partnerships and Planning Program Manager * = Core Member Parks Development (HQ) *Michael Hankinson, Project Lead Steve Brande, Partnerships and Planning Manager Nata Hurst, Program Specialist 3 Rachel Decker Administrative Assistant Eastern Region *Diana Dupuis, Area Manager *Andrew Fielding, Region Stewardship Manager *Brian Patnode, Eastern Region Planner Consultants Charles Luttrell, Archaeology (limited) Jessica Logan, Environmental Program Lead (SEPA TD) Ryan Karlson Consultant Interpretation For a breakdown of the skills and knowledge requested from the CAMP team see matrix below.

7 Skills and Knowledge Needs Inventory Skills/Knowledge Project Manager (project facilitation; research, writing, media relations) Core Project Needs Area Operations and Local Outreach Resource Stewardship Planning Rec. Facilities Planning & Improvements Team Member Michael Hankinson Diana Dupuis Andrew Fielding Michael Hankinson and Brian Patnode Specialized Project Needs Skills/Knowledge Environmental Permits & Review Environmental Engineering SEPA Determination Team Member Jessica Logan Undetermined Jessica Logan and Michel Hankinson Specialized Project Needs (Continued) Skills/Knowledge Program Support GIS Support Interpretive Planning Team Member Nata Hurst Kathryn Scott Ryan Karlson or designee Archaeological Review Charles Luttrell Design Guidelines Michael Hankinson and Brian Patnode Specialized Project Needs (Continued) Skills/Knowledge Statewide CAMP Coordination Trail Management Program Specialist Volunteer Coordinator Team Member Steve Brand Undetermined Lara Gricar Danny Murphy Skills/Knowledge Operational Issues and Area Supervision Regional Management Project Needs Business Maintenance & Planning & Preservation Programming Issues Team Member Ryan Layton Todd Tatum Dave Jaquish and Alex McMurray

8 Stakeholders and Partnerships The CAMP process provides great opportunities to work with existing stakeholders and partners, as well as generate new partnerships, if opportunities come to light, to enhance the Lake Spokane area. Following is a list of known stakeholders and partners and their anticipated needs from this process: Tribal Groups Spokane Tribe of Indians Carol Evans, Chairwoman 6195 Ford-Wellpinit Road PO Box 100 Wellpinit WA Phone: (509) Coeur d Alene Tribe Chief Allan, Chairman Coeur d Alene Tribe HQ PO Box A Street Plummer ID Phone: (208) Kalispel Tribe of Indians Glen Nenema, Chairman Kalispel Tribal Headquarters P.O. Box 39 Usk WA Phone: (509) The Confederated Tribes of the Colville Reservation Dr. Michael E. Marchand, Chairman The Lucy F. Covington Government Center 21 st Colville Street Nespelem WA Phone: Inchelium District (509) ; Omak District (509) Park Groups (See below for full listing of partners and stakeholders) Friends of the Centennial Trail, Loreen McFaul, (509) Friends@spokanecentennialtrail.org Friends of Mount Spokane State Park, Cris Currie, (509) Criscurrie22@gmail.com

9

10

11 Anticipated Project Schedule and Target Deadlines * = Planning Team attendance by phone or in person requested Information Gathering & Project Preparation March May 2017 Information Gathering Mailing List Development Distribute Notification/Invitation letters March 21 Initial Site Tour March 27, 28, and 29 *Planning Team Kickoff Meeting (Riverside HQ) March 28 Select CAMP Scope ID methods for public participation/political strategy Compile Resource Inventories/ GIS base maps Set-up project webpage Stakeholder meeting *Issues Identification Public Workshop May 17 th May 24 th and 25th Alternatives Stage Late-May through July *Draft Long Term Boundaries w/team May 30 Conduct Stakeholder/Tribal Consultations May 31 *Alternatives Meeting w/team (Charrette #1) June 1 SEPA Environmental Implications Due June through August Prepare Alternatives Workshop Materials/Correspondence June through August *Alternatives Public Workshop Late September *Planning Team Post-Workshop Debrief Late September Preliminary Recommendations Stage Prepare preliminary recommendations for Team Charrette #2 *Preliminary Recommendations Team Meeting (Charrette #2) Prepare Preliminary Draft CAMP for Internal Review Conduct Internal and Stakeholder Site Tours & Reviews SEPA Checklist Due Prepare Preliminary Recommendations Workshop Materials *Preliminary Recommendations Public Workshop *Planning Team Post-Workshop Debrief September -- December September Late September Early October Early October Late October Early November Day after Commission Action (Proposed Staff Recommendations) December April 2018 Prepare and Submit Agenda Item Checklist December 2017 Prepare Draft Land Classifications, LTB, and January 2018 Management Plan Prepare Commission Mtg. Presentation/Correspondence/Agenda February 2018 Item Commission Tour of Lake Spokane Area (for CAMP issues) May 15, 2018 Present Commission Vancouver Commission Mtg. May 17, 2018 Review and Finalize Management Plan for Approval Submit Final Management Plan for Approval May 17, 2018

12 Phases of the Riverside Lake Spokane CAMP Project 00: Project Scoping Consult park staff, administration, and key stakeholders Contact Tribes Identify known or potential issues Refine planning process for Riverside Lake Spokane and create anticipated timeline 1: Issues What are the important issues regarding management of the park? What size should the park be in the future? Where should recreational activities occur? How should the conservation of natural resources be prioritized? Which historic buildings and structures should be preserved? Where should administrative facilities be located? Where are we vulnerable to fire? Are weeds a problem throughout the properties? What are people s hopes and dreams for this park? These kinds of questions are asked in the issues phase, which serves as a kind of brain storming process between staff, stakeholders, and the public; getting everything on the table to discuss the merit of ideas. This is the stage where most people feel as though they are listened to as the widest spectrum of ideas are seriously discussed regardless if they are unrealistic or even impossible to realize. No idea is a bad one in this phase. Develop Information Needs Assessment Park management objectives Park Management Objectives How will the CAMP project advance the mission of State Parks at Riverside Lake Spokane? 1. Natural Resources 2. Cultural Resources 3. Recreation 4. Interpretation and Environmental Education 5. Partnerships 6. Park Enterprise 7. Fire 8. Park Access 9. Water Access and Boating 10. Facilities Management (disposal, retention, and proposed) 11. Administrative Facilities and Infrastructure 12. Long-term Boundary Lake Spokane 13. Land Classification Lake Spokane Staff Issues (including Lake Spokane and inside established long-term boundary of Riverside State Park) 1. Co-management of lands with Avista Corporation, DNR, Spokane County 2. Relationship with friends groups and park foundations 3. Staffing 4. Fire 5. Weed management

13 Public Comments Regarding management of the park, acquisition and disposal of lands, and classification of park properties State Park Staff Meeting Stakeholder Meeting 2: Alternatives This phase categorizes identified issues into one of three alternatives including natural resources, cultural resources, or recreation. For example, a recreation oriented alternative may include more parking lots, campgrounds, and boat launches, which influences the configuration of the long-term boundary and how the land is ultimately classified. In this case, more weight is placed on the value of buildable land that provides water access. This is an educational stage that creates a setting for participants to gain perspective: People who care about a single issue are exposed to all competing interests. One person may believe all park lands should be set aside for wildlife, while others want recreational development to increase access. The public may view each weighted option as extreme and observe that recreational development is at the expense of conservation of natural resources. Likewise, a natural alternative will likely restrict recreational opportunities. Each option is provocative, but necessary to facilitate a robust dialogue. The goal of this phase is to examine the options and consider them deeply, allowing the most important issues to surface through analysis. Individuals are enlightened through a process that gives them a voice and chance to evaluate the merit of their ideas against others. Unfortunately, some may feel as though they are not listened to in this phase as discussions progress in a way that emphasizes one idea over another. This is why it is important to always validate opinions, but just as important, to take time and explain why some ideas are abandoned in favor of others. Issues for consideration include: Natural Resources 1. Water Quality 2. Flora and Fauna 3. Fire 4. Flooding 5. Weed control 6. Stream Rehabilitation 7. Strategic Property Acquisition Cultural Resources 1. Archaeology 2. Historic Preservation of Buildings and Structures 3. Replacement or Maintenance of Existing Buildings and Structures 4. Vehicular and Pedestrian Circulation

14 Recreation 1. Hiking 2. Biking 3. Running 4. Wildlife Viewing 5. Boating 6. Swimming 7. Fishing 8. Climbing 9. Camping 10. Day-use 11. Equestrian State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) After the initial public meeting, staff begins to examine alternatives and evaluate them for their potential impacts on the environment. Staff must compare and contrast each alternative to culminate in an environmental matrix needed in advance of development of SEPA associated with the preliminary recommendations. The final impacts will include elements of all three alternatives, which will be associated with the preliminary recommendations. 3: Preliminary Recommendations Recommendations are derived by assimilating or discarding ideas into a single plan that incorporate the very best analyzed during the alternatives phase. The primary purpose is to strike a pragmatic balance between cultural, natural, and recreational resource management. The plan explains recommendations for use and development of land, changes to property boundaries, and ways to address issues that arose during the alternative phase. Another important document completed at this stage is SEPA documentation that describes environmental impacts of the recommendations. 4: Final Recommendations At this stage, final adjustments are made to recommendations and submitted to the sevenmember Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission for approval of the long-term boundary and land classification. The meeting will be held by the Commission in the Spokane area to ensure that residents will attend the meeting and provide testimony or written comment. Management, interpretive, and facilities concept plans are not approved by the Commission, but rather the Director, although the document will be formatted as a single plan.