Shoreline Master Program Update Public Visioning City of Kelso Planning Commission November 13, 2012
Schedule Jurisdiction Inventory Analysis Visioning Topics Process Governing Principles Structure of the SMP Constitutional Issues/Existing Development
WE ARE HERE Required Steps Determine Jurisdiction, Inventory & Analysis Public Visioning SMP - Environment Designations - Goals - Policies - Regulations Cumulative Impacts Analysis Local Adoption Restoration Plan 2012 2013 2014 Public Participation Ecology Review and Adoption
Phase Products Phase 1 Phase 2 Phase 3 Phase 4 Phase 5 SMP Schedule Shoreline Jurisdiction Determination Public Participation Plan Shoreline analysis and characterization Involves: Gathering relevant existing information, and Synthesizing this information into a map portfolio and Shoreline Characterization Report that describes both ecological functions and human use of the shoreline. Develop the Shoreline Master Program Includes shoreline environmental designation, policies, and regulations Visioning NOW An initial draft will be prepared in the Spring of 2013 (?) for public review The final Draft will be prepared in late 2013 and will incorporate changes in response to comments Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Restoration Plans Adoption Schedule This has been Completed June to December 2012 A Draft is currently being reviewed by agencies and the public. Copies are available at the project website and the Kelso and Longview Libraries November 2012 to December 2013 Initial SMP Draft target April 1, 2013 Opportunities for public involvement and input will be provided throughout the process November 2013 (?) to January 2014 January to June 2014 Each jurisdiction adopts their local Shoreline Master Program and sends to the State Department of Ecology for approval Phase 6 Ecology conducts the state approval process June to November 2014
Washington s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) was adopted by the public in a 1972 referendum to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state s shorelines. The SMA incorporates four broad policies: Encourage water-dependent uses Protect shoreline natural resources Promote public access Provide for restoration of ecological functions
Why Update the Shoreline Master Program (SMP)? Integrate SMP with other plans (RCW 36.70A.480) Shoreline Master Programs must be updated every 7 years Incorporate New Shoreline Guidelines WAC 173-26 adopted December 2003 Incorporate new guidance for Critical Areas RCW 90.58.060 December 1, 2014 target for update of Cowlitz County and cities (RCW 90.58.080)
Where does the SMA apply? Streams with greater than 20 cubic feet per second mean flow; Upland areas called shorelands that extend 200 feet landward from the edge of these waters; floodplain areas 200 feet from the floodway, The following areas when they are associated with one of the above: Associated wetlands and river deltas; and Some or all of the 100-year floodplain including all wetlands within the 100-year floodplain
Shoreline Jurisdiction Lands extending landward 200 feet from the ordinary high water mark, floodways, and floodplain areas 200 feet landward of the floodway
Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction 200 from OHWM Floodplain 200 from Floodway Probable Associated Wetlands
Analysis Report
What does the Analysis Report do? Develops current baseline condition (i.e. inventory) Ecologic conditions Public Access Analyzes existing shoreline ecological functions Analyzes current land use and identifies likely future changes Identifies potential restoration opportunities
How is it utilized? Provides an inventory of today s condition Guides Environment Designations Provides basis for management recommendations Starting point for future restoration plan
Draft Shoreline Inventory and Characterization
Report Outline Jurisdiction (Task 1.1) Methodology Shoreline Inventory (Task 2.1) Analysis of Ecological Functions Restoration Opportunities Land Use and Public Access Analysis Recommendations
Inventory Elements Jurisdiction Soils Current Land Use Geologic Hazards Land Ownership Habitats and Species Vacant Parcels Shoreline Modifications Public Access Water Quality Impervious Surfaces Assessment Units Land Cover (veg) Reach Breaks Floodplains and Wetlands Zoning* Surface Water Comprehensive Plan* Geologic Units
Reach Breaks 1- Columbia River 35 2- Lewis River 55 3- Kalama River 46 4- Cowlitz River 127 5- Mill, Abernathy, Germany Creeks 22 6- South Fork Chehalis River 1 7- City of Castle Rock and UGA 12 8- City of Kalama and UGA 11 9- City of Kelso and UGA 25 10- City of Woodland and UGA 6
Functional Analysis Synthesis of Inventory elements Conduct systematic, quantitative analysis of all shorelines within the County Use existing studies to supplement countywide analysis
Results of Ecological Function Analysis Table 5-36. Waterbody Columbia River Owl Creek Cowlitz River Coweeman River Functional scores for reaches in City of Kelso Assessment Unit. City/ UGA Label Hydrologic Overall Hyporheic Overall Habitat Overall Vegetative Overall City Columbia 20 1 4 5 4 City Columbia 42 3 4 4 4 UGA Columbia 43 3 3 4 5 Cowlitz 002 3 4 4 4 Cowlitz 003 2 4 3 4 City Cowlitz 004 1 3 3 3 Cowlitz 005 1 3 3 3 Cowlitz 006 1 3 2 3 Cowlitz 007 1 4 4 4 UGA Cowlitz 008 1 2 2 2 Cowlitz 032 3 4 4 5 City Cowlitz 033 1 3 3 2 Cowlitz 034 1 3 3 2 UGA Cowlitz 035 3 4 4 5 Cowlitz 036 3 4 4 4 City Cowlitz 037 3 4 4 4 Cowlitz 038 1 3 2 2 Cowlitz 039 1 3 3 2 UGA Cowlitz 040 1 4 4 3 Cowlitz 041 1 3 4 2
What scores provide: Quantitative, objective evaluation of relative functions within assessment units What scores are not: Absolute metric of ecological function
Restoration Opportunities General recommendations based on ecological functions analysis Preliminary review of site specific opportunities from previous planning efforts and assessments (LCSRB Recovery Plan, LCREP, etc.) Restoration plan will elaborate on opportunities, priorities, implementation schedule, funding sources, etc.
Land Use Analysis Gauge potential development given existing conditions and regulations see vacant lands Evaluate 10 year trends in land use change and vacant parcels 2002 vs 2012 Assess past trends in shoreline permits
Public Access Evaluate existing shoreline public access opportunities
Process Local and state roles Relation to other plans Governing Principles Use Preference Public Access No net loss Structure of the SMP Visioning Constitutional Issues/Existing Development Discussion Questions
SMAOverview Process - Local, State and Other Plans State mandate - Shoreline Management Act RCW 90.58 Must be consistent with statute and Shoreline Guidelines WAC 173-26 Ecology must approve Local government has wide latitude in how the requirements are met
Use Preference Non-Residential Use - Priority for Water-dependent uses Water-related uses Water-enjoyment uses Non water-oriented uses
SMAOverview Use Preference Non Water-related uses - Permitted when Navigability is Severely Limited and Provides Significant Public Benefit o Public Access and/or o Restoration Site is physically separated from the shoreline
Governing Principles Public Access WAC 173-26-221(4)(a) Applicability. Public access includes the ability of the general public to reach, touch, and enjoy the water's edge, to travel on the waters of the state, and to view the water and the shoreline from adjacent locations. Public Access Plan Public Access in Development Public Private
Governing Principles No Net Loss Maintenance and Enhancement of Ecological Processes WAC 173-26-186(8) Identifies, inventories, and ensures meaningful understanding of current and potential ecological functions Policies and regulations designed to achieve no net loss of those ecological functions Evaluate and consider cumulative impacts of reasonably foreseeable future development
Governing Principles SED Shoreline Geographic Environment Designations WAC 173-26-211(4)(c)(i) Local governments may establish a different designation system or may retain their current environment designations, provided it is consistent with the purposes and policies of this section and WAC 173-26-211(5).
Governing Principles SED Shoreline Geographic Environment Designations WAC 173-26-211(5) Environment Designations Natural Rural Conservancy Urban Conservancy Residential High Intensity Aquatic
Alternative Designation Systems Natural Urban Conservancy Residential High Intensity Aquatic Natural Conservancy/Recreation Urban Conservancy Single Family Residential Multi Family Residential Mixed Use Residential Port Port and Industrial Waterfront Commercial Commercial Mixed Use Special Opportunity Areas Aquatic Aquatic Natural Aquatic Conservancy Aquatic High Intensity
Governing Principles Modifications WAC 173-26-186(8) WAC 173-26-231. Allow structural shoreline modifications only where they are demonstrated to be necessary Reduce the adverse effects, limit in number and extent Allow only shoreline modifications appropriate to the specific type of shoreline Cumulative no net loss of ecological functions.
Governing Principles CAO Critical Areas RCW 90.58.060 SMPs provide a level of protection for critical areas that assures no net loss of shoreline ecological functions necessary to sustain shoreline natural resources as defined by department of ecology guidelines (EHB 1653) [emphasis added]
Governing Principles Constitutional Issues WAC 173-26-186(5) Planning policies should be pursued through the regulation of development of private property only to an extent that is consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations
Governing Principles Constitutional Issues WAC 173-26-186(5) Planning policies should be pursued through the regulation of development of private property only to an extent that is consistent with all relevant constitutional and other legal limitations
Governing Principles Existing Non Conforming Uses Ecology Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Handbook Not asking local governments to eliminate all nonconforming development Grandfathered (nonconforming) existing legal uses and structures may continue Expansion of structures may expand if they do not increase the nonconformity
Governing Principles Existing Uses Ecology Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Handbook Apply regulations fairly to new and existing development Local governments have the right to terminate nonconforming development May phase out nonconforming development over time
SMAOverview Governing Principles Potential Vision Issues Interactive Discussion
SMP Process Potential Vision Issues How important is it to integrate the SMP into the Comprehensive Plan and zoning? Are there issues unique to the shoreline that are not currently covered in the Comprehensive Plan and zoning? Are there insights from looking at issues relating to the shoreline that indicate that the county should consider upland changes to policies or regulations?
Governing Principles Use Priority Potential Vision Issues Is there sufficient land in the community for waterdependent, port uses? Does the county have adequate support for maintaining navigable waters, particularly those with a maintained dredged channel? Is there a need for recreational water-dependent uses such as marinas?
Governing Principles Use Priority Potential Vision Issues Is there a need for water enjoyment uses that provide opportunities for the public to enjoy the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline?
Governing Principles Public Access Potential Vision Issues Is there sufficient area in the community for public access to the water?
Governing Principles Public Access Potential Vision Issues Are there specific types of public access that are not currently adequate? parks boat launches trails swimming areas other recreation areas
Governing Principles Public Access Potential Vision Issues Are there areas where the public should not have greater shoreline access because of sensitive ecological resources? Are there areas in public ownership that could provide additional public access? Are there publicly financed projects that could provide additional benefits of providing public access?
Governing Principles Public Access Potential Vision Issues Are properties that make use of public navigable waters making adequate provisions for public access? Should new development along the shoreline provide additional public access? Should public agencies increase public access by purchasing land and/or easements?
Governing Principles No Net Loss Potential Vision Issues Are there important species of fish or wildlife in the area that are threatened by current patterns of use of the shoreline? Are there areas of the community that should be preserved in their natural state? Does this include privately owned lands?
Governing Principles No Net Loss Potential Vision Issues Are there areas of the community that have been so altered that there are few natural ecological functions and future changes should be relatively unconstrained? Are there areas of the community that have important ecological functions, but that also are important for port of other uses that should take precedent over preservation?
Governing Principles No Net Loss Potential Vision Issues Are there areas of the community that have been altered but should be targeted for restoration? If there is a need to preserve or enhance ecological values of certain areas, what is the fair share between private parties and the general public? Are there actions that individual private property owners on the shoreline can take that will make a positive contribution to preserving or enhancing ecological functions over time?
Governing Principles Modifications Potential Vision Issues Shoreline stabilization guidelines template discourages hard armoring Piers and docks: increased pier height, grated reduced width, avoid nearshore environments Dredging and dredge material disposal explore programmatic permits
Governing Principles CAO Potential Vision Issues Keep the existing regulations with minor changes to address Ecology issues Separate CAO regulations for shorelines different than nonshorelines Integrate critical area regulations for aquatic species in the SMP instead of a separate CAO
SMA Schedule Phase Products Schedule Phase 1 Phase 2 Shoreline Jurisdiction Determination Public Participation Plan Shoreline analysis and characterization Involves: Gathering relevant existing information, and Synthesizing this information into a map portfolio and Shoreline Characterization Report that describes both ecological functions and human use of the shoreline. This has been Completed June to December 2012 A Draft is currently being reviewed by agencies and the public. Copies are available at the project website and the Kelso and Longview Libraries Phase 3 Develop the Shoreline Master Program Includes shoreline environmental designation, policies, and regulations Visioning NOW An initial draft will be prepared in the Spring of 2013 (?) for public review The final Draft will be prepared in late 2013 and will incorporate changes in response to comments November 2012 to December 2013 Initial SMP Draft target April 1, 2013 Opportunities for public involvement and input will be provided throughout the process Phase 4 Phase 5 Cumulative Impacts Analysis and Restoration Plans Adoption Each jurisdiction adopts their local Shoreline Master Program and sends to the State Department of Ecology for approval November 2013 (?) to January 2014 January to June 2014 Phase 6 Ecology conducts the state approval process June to November 2014
Questions/Comments? Submit to: Nancy Malone Community Development Manager (360) 423-9922 nmalone@kelso.gov Please cc to David Sherrard, Parametrix dsherrard@parametrix.com