Title
Agenda Item:
Shoreline Restoration Plan
Body
Issue:
Introduction and update on the City's proposed Shoreline Restoration Plan.
City Manager’s Recommendation:
No recommendation at this time.
Staff Contact:
Gary Cooper, Project Associate Planner, (360) 570-3957
Presenter(s):
Gary Cooper
Background and Analysis:
Why do we have a Restoration Plan?
As the City nears adoption of an updated Shoreline Master Program (SMP) it will also be adopting a Restoration Plan. The Restoration Plan is a new requirement with this round of SMP updates - all jurisdictions are now required to complete one - and it must include “goals and actions for restoration…of impaired ecological functions.” [WAC 173-26-186(8)(c)]
Listed below are minimum requirements for Restoration Plans:
• Identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for ecological restoration;
• Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and impaired ecological functions;
• Identify existing and ongoing projects and programs that are currently being implemented, or are reasonably assured of being implemented (based on an evaluation of funding likely in the foreseeable future), which are designed to contribute to local restoration goals;
• Identify additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration goals, and implementation strategies including identifying prospective funding sources for those projects and programs;
• Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs and achieving local restoration goals;
• Provide for mechanisms or strategies to ensure that restoration projects and programs will be implemented according to plans and to appropriately review the effectiveness of the projects and programs in meeting the overall restoration goals. [WAC 173-26-201(2)(f)]
Ecology defines “restoration” or “ecological restoration” as:
…"the reestablishment or upgrading of impaired ecological shoreline processes or functions. This may be accomplished through measures including, but not limited to, revegetation, removal of intrusive shoreline structures and removal or treatment of toxic materials. Restoration does not imply a requirement for returning the shoreline area to aboriginal or pre-European settlement conditions.” (WAC 173-26-020(27)).
The emphasis is to achieve overall improvement in existing shoreline processes or functions, where functions are impaired.
What is Our Plan?
The Restoration Plan (Plan) was completed on June 12, 2012. Associate Planner Stacey Ray authored the draft. The Plan will be adopted simultaneously as an element of the SMP.
Existing Conditions
The technical information for the Plan comes from two primary resources. First is the Shoreline Inventory completed by Thurston Regional Planning Council during the early stages of drafting the SMP, and second is the Shoreline Analysis and Characterization Report prepared by ESA consulting in 2008. These documents identify the land uses and environmental characteristics of our shorelines to set a baseline, or starting point, for looking at restoration needs and opportunities.
Restoration Priorities
The Plan establishes the following overall restoration priorities:
1. Improve water quality.
2. Improve riparian vegetation.
3. Restore and improve wildlife habitat.
4. Restore natural sediment transportation processes.
5. Reconnect fish passage to Budd Inlet, and restore mouths of tributary streams.
6. Reduce shoreline armoring, and restore or improve natural shoreline conditions and processes.
7. Reduce in-water and over-water structures.
8. Restore and improve tree canopy coverage in drainage basins and along shorelines.
9. Restore estuarine transition habitat and intertidal influence.
Potential Projects
A key component of the Plan is the identification of potential “on the ground” shoreline restoration projects. A variety of sources, including but not limited to… Department of Ecology’s ongoing toxics cleanup sites, have been used to identify a number of projects. Perhaps the most important source for preparation of the Plan includes 27 potential projects that were identified by the Squaxin Island Tribe, titled Budd Inlet Restoration and Conservation Planning, which was published in 2010. It’s important to note that potential restoration projects are not prioritized in the Plan.
How will the Plan be used or implemented?
Going forward, a key issue with the Plan will be deciding what role it will play in future planning and restoration efforts. Because there is not a requirement under the Shoreline Management Act to complete restoration projects, but only to plan for them, there is some question about what happens once the Plan has been adopted. Whether the Plan is used as a guidance or reference document, or as a robust “action plan,” or as something in between, is to be decided.
Reference and Guidance Document
Probably the most limited use of the Plan would be to use it as a reference document when other entities are proposing to do restoration work. There are many entities with an interest in restoration, ranging from salmon enhancement groups, the Squaxin Island Tribe, to the Port of Olympia, or the City’s Parks and Public Works Departments. Should any one - or combination - of these entities propose restoration work along Olympia’s shorelines, the Plan could be used as a source of guidance for project selection. The Plan could also be useful as a source of leverage for these entities when they apply for grants that score projects in part on whether or not they are identified within a previously adopted plan.
The benefit of the more limited approach is that there is really no cost associated with implementation. The drawback is that without some type of follow-through on implementation, the Plan could lie dormant.
Action Plan
The Plan can be used as the starting point for “on the ground” restoration projects where the idea is that the City take an active role in moving projects forward that have been identified. The benefits of this approach are 1) that it best ensures that the Plan remains a vital document, 2) it is more in keeping with the long-term goals of the Shoreline Management Act to restore the ecology of the State’s shorelines, and 3) it would further the City’s own goals and policies for environmental restoration. To best achieve this objective, we will need to establish a process for prioritizing potential projects included in the plan and an action plan for implementing them.
A key challenge going forward is that there is not presently a clear framework for implementing restoration projects in the City. While there is quite a bit of overlap with the efforts of the City’s Parks and Public Works Departments, who are often in the lead on projects that involve restoration, there is not presently a central location or staff person whose responsibility it is to scope, plan, coordinate or manage restoration projects. In order to successfully implement the restoration plan in Budd Inlet, the City will need to devote resources and energy to it and will need to take a long-term perspective. This should be accomplished through our annual operating budget process, through our Capital Facilities Planning process as well as through grant applications.
The City will also need to work to build relationships and partnerships around Budd Inlet restoration. Restoration of Budd Inlet cannot be accomplished by the City alone. Implementation will require partnerships with other governmental entities such as the Port, the State, the Squaxin Island Tribe, and with private property owners.
Options:
None at this time - briefing only.
Financial Impact:
Not applicable.