Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutAttachment C TF Documents on Sea Level 2020 10091 Lisa Grueter From:David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2020 8:37 AM To:Lisa Grueter Cc:David Wayne Johnson Subject:FW: L2020 SMP Comments as Shorter Doc and CAC/SMP Attachments:Local2020SummaryMatrixMcConnell.docx FYI    From: Judy Surber <jsurber@cityofpt.us>   Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 5:24 PM  To: CindyJ <cindyj911@yahoo.com>; David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>  Subject: RE: L2020 SMP Comments as Shorter Doc and CAC/SMP    CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.  Hello Cindy,   Thanks for the short version of Local 2020 Comments on the SMP.  Michelle McConnell of Ecology had also summarized  Local 2020 comments – see matrix attached.    It’s hard to judge, but I’m going to estimate 20 minutes total:  about 5‐8 minutes for an overview, remainder for  comment, Q&A.      Yes, I think it would be great to have the County join us.  I’ve cc’d David Wayne Johnson herein.  David – would you like  to provide a presentation to the Climate Action Committee?    Judy Surber | Planning Manager  City of Port Townsend | www.cityofpt.us | jsurber@cityofpt.us  250 Madison St. Suite 3, Port Townsend, WA 98368  P:(360) 379‐5084  |   F:(360) 344‐4619        From: CindyJ <cindyj911@yahoo.com>   Sent: Wednesday, October 7, 2020 3:22 PM  To: Judy Surber <jsurber@cityofpt.us>  Subject: L2020 SMP Comments as Shorter Doc and CAC/SMP    Judy - FYI, I created a shorter version of Local 20/20's SMP comments to make them a quicker read. (Dave W shared these w/ the county SMP task force.) See attached. Also, I need to start working on the agenda for the CAC. I know you said that you would want some time to review the SMP. How much time are you thinking? Given the county is also updating theirs, do you think it would make sense to see if they want some time as well? If so, if you wouldn't mind checking with them, I would appreciate it. Thanks! Cindy 2    CITYOFPT NOTICE REGARDING PUBLIC DISCLOSURE: Public documents and records are available to the public as required under the Washington State Public Records Act (RCW 42.56). The information contained in all correspondence with a government entity may be disclosable to third party requesters under the Public Records Act.     ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***         Page 1 of 4 Port Townsend SMP – PR | Summary of Local 2020 Comments ‐ CC/SLR proposed edits Prepared to aid review, these comments were excerpted from the materials provided for 8/27/20 City Planning Commission meeting: Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments Chapter 4 MASTER PROGRAM ELEMENTS: Goals & Policies 1. 4.2 Shoreline Use Element Policy 4.2.5  Sea level rise and increased frequency and magnitude of extreme storm events as a result of climate change should be taken into account when considering and evaluating shoreline uses. (From Island County example, WASMP)Or, alternative New Policy to align w/ existing Jefferson County SMP: Encourage all use and development to address potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea level rise (From Jefferson County example, WASMP) This could also be modified to: “global climate change including ocean acidification and sea level rise.” 2. 4.2 Shoreline Use Element Policy 4.2.6  The City of Port Townsend shall establish a program to monitor the effects of ongoing climate change on the marine environment by annually measuring sea level and marine water pH at a minimum of five established sites spread throughout Island County. (From Island County example, WASMP)  3. 4.2 Shoreline Use Element Policy 4.2.7  The City should develop information about the impacts of sea level rise on the shoreline and other affected properties; the City should develop plans to address the impacts of sea level rise in collaboration with impacted property owners, the community and the Department of Ecology. These plans should include at minimum flood prevention approaches, shoreline environment impact considerations and financing approaches. The City should amend the Shoreline Master Program and other policy and regulatory tools in the future as necessary to implement these plans. (Example from Olympia, WASMP).  4. 4.2 Shoreline Use Element DR XX: New or modified shoreline development shall be located and designed to withstand sea level rise projections for the expected life of the development without the need for property‐specific structural shore defense. We propose adding one new design standard here to apply to all below. The wording here is phrased to allow a broader effort to protect against sea level rise that spans multiple properties. Else, individual properties will design the buildings to withstand sea level rise w/o individual sea walls, bulkheads, etc. 5. 4.8 Restoration and Adaptive Management Element Policy 4.8.2 Encourage projects that restore/rehabilitate/ enhance shoreline resources, and make the shoreline more resilient to climate change. Strategies may include but are not limited to a simplified permit process, reduced or waiver of permit fees, public outreach, encouraging landowners to replant with native vegetation, tax relief, and city participation in a pilot project.     Page 2 of 4 Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments 6. 4.8 Restoration and Adaptive Management Element Policy 4.8.7 Climate Change: Consideration should be made for potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea level rise when designing restoration and remediation projects (From Gig Harbor example, WASMP)  Chapter 5 Shoreline Environments 7. 5.7 Natural Policy 5.7.1 Encourage uses that are in keeping with the primary goal of environmental protection. To the extent feasible, new uses and activities should be limited to restoration projects and public access or recreational/ educational uses, or sea level rise adaptation uses.  8. 5.8 Conservancy Policy 5.8.4 Establish best management standards for shoreline stabilization measures, vegetation conservation, water quality, and shoreline modifications within the Conservancy Designation to ensure that new development does not result in a net loss of shoreline ecological functions or further degrade other shoreline values, and which take into account sea level rise projections.  9. 5.9 Shoreline Residential Policy 5.9.12 to align with Jefferson County SMP: Proponents of a development on no‐bank or low bank marine shorelines are encouraged to locate the bottom of a structure's foundation higher than the level of expected future sea‐level rise. (Jefferson County example, WAECMSP).  10. 5.10 Urban Development Regulations ‐ Uses DR‐5.10.4 Multi‐family residential or transient accommodation (hotel and motel) uses may be permitted as a conditional use provided they meet the requirements for non‐water oriented uses listed above and further that said use meets the following terms: … … g. Restoration/Public Access Incentive ‐ The requirement in DR 5.10.4(c)(i) above, regarding dedication of no less than 25% of the total floor area to water‐oriented uses, may be waived in whole or in part when the proposal provides restoration of ecological functions, habitat enhancement, and/or provision of public access improvements (e.g., parks, esplanades, etc.) that constitute a significant public benefit beyond that which would be required as mitigation for the development. (Thus allowing for an additional 25% of residential/transient or non‐water oriented uses accessible to the general public). In addition to the Conditional Use‐approval criteria, the following criterion shall apply: i. The proposal will provide "greater public benefit" consistent with this Master Program without additional probable significant adverse impacts to public health, safety or the environment, that cannot be adequately mitigated.     Page 3 of 4 Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments ii. Items that may constitute a "greater public benefit" include: 1.) Preservation of critical shoreline habitat, 2.) Restoration of impaired ecological functions, 3.) Dedication to the city of land for a public park or open space, 4.) Preservation of scenic resources, and 5.) Enhanced public access amenities, and. 6.) Enhance the Urban area’s resiliency to sea level rise 11. 5.11 Historic Waterfront Management Policies ‐ Uses Policy 5.11.1 Encourage a mixture and variety of uses and activities in the Historic Waterfront Designation, particularly those that: a. Preserve and restore the historic character of Port Townsend. b. Support and reinforce the design and architectural qualities of the Water Street National Historic District when located within or adjacent to its boundaries. c. Provide an opportunity for the public to actively or passively enjoy the community’s waterfront amenity. d. Provide a physical link or connection open to the public between the upland and the shoreline. e. Are water‐oriented uses or are accessory to, complimentary to or support water‐oriented uses. f. Enhance the character and flavor of the Port Townsend urban waterfront. g. Enhance the resiliency of the waterfront to sea level rise  12. 5.12 Boat Haven Design Elements Policy 5.12.16 Work with the Port to enhance the resiliency of the Port to sea level rise.  13. 5.13 Point Hudson Management Policies ‐ General Policy 5.13.1 Pursuant to Resolution 94‐148, the following general goals provide the foundation for planning within Point Hudson: 1. Point Hudson must be financially self‐supporting. 2. Protect small‐scale nature. 3. Provide a high degree of public access/use. 4. Preserve the historic character. 5. Encourage the marine trades and water‐oriented uses. 6. Maintain property in Port/public ownership. 7. Enhance the resiliency of Point Hudson to sea level rise.      Page 4 of 5 Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments 14. 5.13 Point Hudson Design Elements Policy 5.13.9 Preserve Point Hudson’s historic character. Encourage adaptive reuse of existing buildings. Require new structures to be designed in a manner that is compatible with Point Hudson’s historic character. Encourage the rehabilitation of the original Point Hudson East buildings through adaptive reuse. Limit exterior modifications to those necessary for life/safety improvements, building code compliance, historic restoration of buildings, sea level rise resiliency, or public access improvements. Allow additions necessary to accommodate water‐oriented and adaptive reuse of existing buildings.  15. 5.13 Point Hudson Future Planning Policy 5.13.15 Work in collaboration with the Port of Port Townsend to help keep Point Hudson financially self‐supporting and resilient to sea level rise.  16. 5.13 Point Hudson Point Hudson East sub‐district (see map Appendix A page 8) DR‐5.13.4 The following development, uses and activities are permitted within this subdistrict: a. Water‐dependent, water‐related, and non‐commercial water‐enjoyment uses b. Commercial water‐enjoyment uses (e.g. restaurants) in existing buildings c. Public access uses, including construction of accessory buildings that promote public access (such as restrooms and gazebos), and d. Adaptive reuses i. Adaptive reuses (see Table 5.13‐1 for list of allowable adaptive reuses; other unlisted non‐wateroriented uses may be allowed by conditional use) in the following eligible buildings, provided they do not exceed the listed percentages: Hospital (30%); Main Building (30%); Shower Building (30%). ii. Modifications/additions to allow water‐oriented uses or adaptive reuse of existing structures may be permitted as follows: 1.) Exterior modifications limited to those necessary for life/safety improvements, sea level rise resiliency, and/or compliance with building codes are permitted. 2.) Additions of 10% or less of the existing square footage are permitted. 3.) Additions of greater than 10% of the existing square footage may be permitted as a conditional use.  Chapter 6 Environmental Protection 17. 6.3 Impacts, Mitigation, Management Policies Policy 6.3.6 Provide for long term environmental protection by taking into account that climate change brings a rapidly changing ecosystem, and     Page 5 of 6 Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments Bonding and Monitoring environmental impacts must always include a forward looking analysis of the anticipated ecological condition and needed mitigation. 18. 6.3 Impacts, Mitigation, Bonding and Monitoring Development Regulations ‐ Mitigation DR‐6.3.4 Where mitigation for loss of or impact to shoreline ecological functions is required, a mitigation plan shall be required. Mitigation plans shall be prepared by a qualified professional as determined appropriate by the Shoreline Administrator. In addition to the requirements for critical areas special reports contained in Chapter 19.05, the mitigation plan shall contain the following: a. Inventory existing shoreline environment including the physical, chemical and biological elements and provide an assessment of their condition. b. A discussion of the project’s impacts and their effect on the ecological functions necessary to support existing shoreline resources. c. A discussion of any federal, state, or local special management recommendations which have been developed for wetlands or nearshore species or habitats located on the site; d. An assessment of habitat recommendations proposed by resource agencies and their applicability to the proposal; e. A discussion of measures to preserve existing habitats and opportunities to restore habitats that were degraded prior to the proposed land use activity. f. Planting and soil specifications; success standards; and contingency plans; g. A discussion of proposed measures which mitigate the impacts of the project to ensure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and proposed success criteria; h. An evaluation of the anticipated effectiveness of the proposed mitigation measures to ensure no net loss of ecological functions; i. A discussion of proposed management practices which will protect fish and wildlife habitat both during construction, and, after the project site has been fully developed, including proposed monitoring and maintenance programs; j. Contingency plan if the mitigation fails to meet established success criteria; k. Any additional information necessary to determine the impacts of a proposal and mitigation of the impacts. l. An evaluation of the climate change projections on the plan  19. 6.4 Environmental Elements Development Regulations ‐ Water Quality DR‐6.4.24 As a condition of approval of a permit issued in accordance with this master program, the Shoreline Administrator may apply the following conditions to protect water quality:     Page 6 of 7 Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments a. The development, use or activity shall utilize Best Management Practices (BMPs) to minimize any increase in surface runoff and to control, treat and release surface water runoff to protect the quality and quantity of surface and ground water. Such measures may include but are not limited to catch basins or settling ponds, installation and required maintenance of oil/water separators, biofiltration swales, interceptor drains and landscaped buffers. Such measures shall take into account climate change projections including future expected storm intensity, e.g. 24 hr rainfall events. …  20. 6.4 Environmental Elements Development Regulations ‐ Earth DR‐6.4.6 All shoreline uses and activities shall be located, designed, constructed and managed to minimize interference with beneficial natural shoreline processes such as littoral drift, sand and gravel movement, erosion, and accretion. How such processes will be impacted by sea level rise shall also be considered. For projects proposing clearing and grading see Section 9.3 Alteration of Natural Landscape – Clearing, Grading and Vegetation Removal, Chapter 9 Specific Modification Policies and Performance Standards.  21. 6.6 Critical Saltwater Habitats (Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas) Policy 6.6.5 Habitat protection and restoration projects in the shoreline jurisdiction shall consider implications of sea level rise and other climate change impacts to promote resiliency of habitats and species (Example from King County and from Shelton, WASMP)  22. 6.7 Frequently Flooded Areas and Tsunami Inundation Areas Policy 6.7.5 Applicants for development in low lying shoreline areas and other areas where flood elevation is controlled by tide level shall be provided with information on sea level rise (From Bainbridge Island example, WASMP)   23. 6.7 Frequently Flooded Areas and Tsunami Inundation Areas Policy 6.7.6 When reviewing projects that could be affected by sea level rise adjust development standards such as building setbacks or elevation as necessary to minimize potential damage from flooding. (Island County and Langley examples, WASMP)  24. 6.9 Wetlands Policy 6.9.1 Preserve and protect wetland ecosystems, and mitigate impacts, so that there is no net loss of wetland acreage and functions. Where feasible, improve wetland quality. Maintaining or restoring vegetated buffers is the preferred method for protecting/improving wetland functions. Shoreline wetland subject to sea level rise must plan for development of wetland to avoid no net loss.     Page 7 of 8 Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments Chapter 8 Specific Use Policies and Development Regulations 25. 8.3 Agriculture Policy 8.3.2 Require buffer zones of permanent vegetation between tilled areas and associated water bodies in order to retard surface runoff, reduce siltation, and promote valuable shade for fish habitats. Include climate change projections of more intense precipitation when considering surface runoff.  26. 8.7 Industrial and Port Facilities DR 8.7.1 Only water‐dependent industry and water‐related industry shall be permitted in the shoreline jurisdiction. This shall include areas of future shoreline based on sea level rise projections. We realize this may be a significant change. The idea is how do we be sure our port and water dependent industry continue to have access to the shoreline as it moves inward? Chapter 9 Specific Modification Policies and Development Regulations 27. 9.2 General Policies and Regulations Policy 9.2.1 Locate and design all new development in a manner that prevents or minimizes the need for shoreline modifications today and in the foreseeable future, given sea level rise projections.  28. 9.7 Shoreline Stabilization Measures & Flood Protection Works Policy 9.7.8 When new development occurs within the shoreline jurisdiction, the following measures apply: City of Port Townsend should notify all prospective developers of new that their development may be impacted by sea‐level rise and should encourage all such new development to be set back a sufficient distance to avoid the need for shoreline protection during the expected life of the development. (King County example, WASMP).  29. 9.7 Shoreline Stabilization Measures & Flood Protection Works Policy 9.7.9 Fill should be allowed to accommodate berms or other structures to prevent flooding caused by sea level rise, when consistent with the flood hazard reduction provisions in this Shoreline Program. Any such fill should include mitigation assuring no net loss of ecological functions and system‐wide processes. (Olympia example, WASMP).   Chapter 14 Shoreline Restoration (Plan) 30. 14.6 Restoration Goals, Priorities and Objectives  The goals and objectives included here are developed for the Port Townsend shoreline and are consistent with the basin wide general recommendations related to nearshore habitats in the Watershed Management Plan for the Quilcene‐Snow Water Resource Inventory Area 17 (October 28, 2003), which includes Port Townsend. Overarching goals for restoring the Port Townsend shoreline are to: improve water quality, restore degraded and lost habitat and corridors, and improve connectivity of the shoreline environments in terms of     Page 8 of 8 Item #  SMP Section Local 2020 Proposed Edit  Local 2020 Comments both space and time, and include considering sea level rise projections for all of these goals. Chapter 15 Definitions 31.  Ordinary High Water Mark (often abbreviated OHWM) That mark on all lakes, streams, and tidal waters that will be found by examining the bed and banks and ascertaining where the presence and action of waters are so common and usual, and so long continued in all ordinary years, as to mark upon the soil a character distinct from that of the abutting upland in respect to vegetation as that condition exists on June 1, 1971 or as it may naturally change thereafter; or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by the local government or the Washington State Department of Ecology; provided that in any area where the ordinary high water mark cannot be found, the ordinary high water mark adjoining salt water shall be the line of mean higher high tide, and the ordinary high water mark adjoining fresh water shall be the line of mean high water. Note that per WA State Ecology “Determining the Ordinary High Water Mark for Shoreline Management Act Compliance in Washington State”, page 105 (and also noted on page 75), one of the factors that should be taken into consideration when determining OHWM is sea level rise data.         1 Lisa Grueter From:David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us> Sent:Thursday, October 8, 2020 11:28 AM To:Lisa Grueter Cc:David Wayne Johnson Subject:FW: SMPs Should Address Sea Level Rise says Dept of Ecology Attachments:System.Byte[]pdf.pdf; ATT00001.htm FYI    From: RON <rrempel2@msn.com>   Sent: Thursday, October 8, 2020 11:23 AM  To: David W. Johnson <djohnson@co.jefferson.wa.us>  Subject: SMPs Should Address Sea Level Rise says Dept of Ecology    CAUTION: This email originated from outside your organization. Exercise caution when opening attachments or clicking  links, especially from unknown senders.    This Department of Ecology document is informative about sea level rise and addressing it in SMPs. It  would probably be good to provide it to all the task force members.      Ron       https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/publications/parts/1106010part19.pdf      Brenda S. Johnson, Ph.D.  530‐771‐7756 cell    ***Email may be considered a public record subject to public disclosure under RCW 42.56***       SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 1 7/10; rev. 12/17 Appendix A Addressing Sea Level Rise in Shoreline Master Programs Introduction One widely accepted consequence of a changing climate is an increase in the rate of sea level rise (IPCC, 2007). Although there is scientific uncertainty about the precise amount of sea level rise by the end of this century, projections for Puget Sound range from 14 to 54 inches relative to year 2000 (Mauger et al, 2015). Rates could be higher or lower, depending on the rate of vertical land motion locally. Sea level rise will have significant effects on both human and natural systems (Shipman, 2009), increasing the risk from coastal hazards and the pressure on shoreline resources. These effects present a serious challenge to shoreline planning and coastal management. Figure A – 1: An unusually high tide in January 2010 caused water to spill over the seawall at Alki Beach in Seattle. Even modestly higher sea levels will cause the frequency of events such as this to increase, along with the potential for associated damage. (Photo by Hugh Shipman.) SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 2 7/10; rev. 12/17 The Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) Guidelines contain no requirements for SMPs to address climate change or sea level rise. However, they require local jurisdictions to take into account scientific and technical information pertinent to shoreline management issues. The Guidelines require local governments use “the most current, accurate and complete scientific and technical information available” [WAC 173-26-201(2)(a)]. The Guidelines also encourage local governments to consult Ecology’s guidance for applicable new information on emerging topics such as sea level rise [WAC 173-26-090(1)]. Some local governments have already incorporated sea level rise considerations into their Comprehensive SMP updates. Ecology recommends local governments include SMPs into their broader planning framework for addressing rising seas. This SMP Handbook appendix presents background information on projected sea level rise in Washington State, potential impacts of sea level rise, and suggestions for local governments to address sea level rise in their SMP updates. This appendix addresses only sea level rise, but climate change may also result in other environmental impacts that will affect shorelines and the ecosystems they support. Some anticipated effects of climate change include: • Altered hydrological cycles that may affect flooding and water resources. • Increased sediment in glacier-fed rivers that may result in increased aggradation, flooding and channel movement. • Increased landslides, which may result in more sediment and wood inputs to streams, potentially increasing flooding, channel movement, and transport of wood to hazardous positions (Beason and Kennard, 2006). • Changes in ocean chemistry driven by higher levels of atmospheric carbon dioxide that will impact marine ecosystems. • The potential for invasive species to increase their ranges as the ocean warms. More information about the anticipated effects of climate change on Washington’s coasts, as well as a number of other sectors such as water resources, endangered species, and human health, can be found at the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group website and Ecology’s Climate Change web pages. Projected sea level rise in Washington State When planning for sea level rise, it is helpful to understand the potential extent of sea level rise and the effects this will likely have on coastal areas in Washington State. Distinct regions of the Washington coast will experience different levels of sea level rise due to vertical land movement in those regions. This movement is driven primarily by tectonic forces such as those responsible for the formation of the Olympic Mountains. Western Washington is located on the edge of the North American continental plate, and as the Juan de Fuca oceanic plate moves underneath it a gradual uplift in the northwestern part of the state is produced. Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State, co-authored by the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group and Ecology, explains these variations and provides high, SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 3 7/10; rev. 12/17 Table A-1: Sea level rise projections Puget Sound NW Olympic Peninsula Central & Southern Outer Coast 2050 Low 3” Medium 6” High 22” Low -5” Medium 0” High 14” Low 1” Medium 5” High 18” 2100 Low 6” Medium 13” High 50” Low -9” Medium 2” High 35” Low 2” Medium 11” High 43” Table A-1: Sea level change projections for 2050 and 2100 in Washington’s coastal regions. Note that the low projections for the NW Olympic Peninsula are negative values due to vertical land movement. Adapted From: Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State. medium, and low sea level change projection scenarios for three broad regions of Washington’s coasts. Table A- summarizes the report’s projections. Environmental impacts of sea level rise Sea level rise will have a variety of impacts on Washington state coastal areas. Increased sea level will allow high tides to reach farther into low-lying areas and higher against flood control structures such as dikes and tide gates. Coastal flooding will persist longer and will be more difficult to drain due to higher sea level. Higher water levels will result in faster rates of erosion on beaches and coastal bluffs (Shipman, 2009). An important consequence of higher sea level will be increased frequency of high-tide flooding and the potential for storm damage. A rise in sea level of one foot might lead to as much as a ten- fold increase in the frequency of any particular flood event. This means that events that currently occur only once every decade may become annual events, increasing the severity and frequency of flood and storm-related damages to coastal development (Shipman, 2009). These events could pose an increasing threat to coastal development and infrastructure. The prospect of more flooding, erosion, and storm damage may lead communities and property owners to seek to build seawalls, dikes, and tidal barriers. The construction and placement of these structures will have a direct and immediate impact on natural shoreline environments. These structures will also lead to the progressive loss of beach and marsh habitat as those areas are squeezed between the rising sea and a more intensively engineered shoreline. Predicted SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 4 7/10; rev. 12/17 decreases in size or transitions in tidal marshes, salt marshes, and tidal flats will affect the species these habitats support. It is predicted that while some species may be able to locate alternate habitats or food sources, others will not (Glick, 2007). Shellfish, forage fish, shorebirds, and salmon are among those identified as examples of species at risk (Glick, 2007). Sea level rise will also lead to other changes in coastal ecosystems, such as shifting of stream mouths and tidal inlets, reconfigured estuaries and wetlands, and more frequently disturbed riparian zones. Coastal landforms and impacts The impacts of rising sea level will differ substantially between locations, based on landform (bluff, estuary, spit), the character of development (urban, agricultural, rural), and the capacity of the shoreline to adjust to changing conditions. Below is a list of areas particularly vulnerable or resilient to the impacts of sea level rise and anticipated impacts to these areas. • Low-lying areas – river deltas, historically filled lands, spits and barrier beaches. These areas will experience more frequent and more persistent flooding and damage to infrastructure. In developed low lying areas, there will be an increased need for more robust dikes and drainage systems if the existing uses are to continue. • Coastal bluffs. In general, sea level rise will result in higher erosion rates and greater instability of landslide prone areas. Demand for seawalls is expected to increase, as will the adverse effects of such structures on shoreline habitat and on erosion patterns on nearby beaches. • Spits and other barrier beaches. These low-lying features will be subject to increased flooding during storms and high tides and in many situations will experience more rapid erosion. • Tidal environments – beaches and tide flats. These areas are expected to experience additional inundation and either be lost or undergo conversion to another habitat type. • Marshy shorelines found in small estuaries and river deltas. These areas will be subject to increased flooding and increased erosion. Loss of salt marsh and related habitats may be significant in systems constrained by surrounding development. • Developed shorelines – ports, marinas, roads and railroads, urban and residential shorelines. Typically, these are heavily armored with seawalls and ripap. Their level of vulnerability may be largely a function of their elevation. Developed shorelines of all types in low-lying areas will be vulnerable to losses from erosion, storms, or flooding. • Rocky shorelines. Fairly resilient to modest increases in sea level. Addressing sea level rise in SMPs In the absence of advance planning, human reaction to sea level rise will likely be driven by our incremental responses to damaging storms and floods, not by our desire to reduce the long-term impacts of a gradually rising sea. SMPs are among many planning measures that local governments may need to deploy to assure the wise development of coastal areas and the protection of public resources as sea level increases. Many potential problems associated with SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 5 7/10; rev. 12/17 sea level rise will intensify existing management challenges such as development in flood prone areas, construction of shoreline armoring, protection of beaches and salt marshes, and siting a variety of shoreline uses. Local governments that are evaluating potential ways to adapt to or prepare for rising sea levels should consider how these plans may be reflected in their SMPs. The guidance below identifies different areas of SMP planning where sea level rise can be considered. Shoreline jurisdiction As sea level rises, the ordinary high water mark (OHWM) will move inland as well, altering the line from which shoreline jurisdiction is measured. Although the SMA does not specifically mention shifts in shoreline jurisdiction due to sea level rise, it does identify that the OHWM is located “as it may naturally change” [RCW 90.58.030 (2)(c)]. The location of the OHWM often changes, even without sea level rise, due to erosion, accretion, or shoreline modification. Local governments may respond to new sea level rise projections or local date by updating shoreline jurisdiction maps. In some cases, this may call for adjustments to environment designations, policies, or regulations. Public participation Sea level rise has the potential to generate considerable interest among shoreline property owners and other interested citizens and organizations and can be incorporated into public participation activities. Local information could be presented to the public along with options for addressing sea level rise in the SMP update. Sea level rise adaptation should be part of most if not all public participation activities. For example, the City of Olympia presented technical information to the public about the anticipated impacts of climate change to hydrologic regimes and area sea levels. The meeting closed with a presentation by city staff about the SMP update process and their plans to incorporate climate change adaptation into the update process. Providing this information during the early stages of the SMP allows local governments to alert interested parties about potential ways the draft SMP can address sea level rise or other climate change adaptation elements. Shoreline inventory and characterization The inventory and characterization provides an opportunity to identify shoreline areas that will be particularly vulnerable or resilient to rising sea level. One fairly straightforward way to characterize vulnerability is to classify the shoreline according to coastal landform. Landform types include coastal bluffs, marshes, rocky s horelines, and armored shorelines. Each type of landform will experience different long-term effects of rising sea level. Once coastal landforms have been mapped, local governments can determine the level of vulnerability to sea level rise for the extent of the shoreline. This type of characterization does not require a precise estimate of the rate of sea level rise. SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 6 7/10; rev. 12/17 Some urban jurisdictions have used high resolution coastal topographic data to develop maps of low-lying areas subject to inundation by higher water levels. Such maps can be used to illustrate the consequences of different sea level scenarios and storm and tide combinations. This type of approach can be useful for identifying coastal areas subject to increased flooding and to help direct appropriate future land use or development types to appropriate locations. These maps and projections may be particularly helpful for guiding engineering questions, such as structural elevations, drainage requirements, construction techniques, and hazard mitigation measures. Some local governments have already prepared a detailed analysis of sea level rise predictions and potential effects. These local products have been produced by academic researchers, independent consultants, and local government public works departments or other agencies responsible for stormwater or wastewater infrastructure. For an example of a detailed local analysis, view the City of Olympia’s “Sea Level Rise” web page. Olympia’s vulnerability assessment illustrates why a comprehensive assessment is needed – the areas subject to flooding at all projected sea level rates extend far beyond shoreline jurisdiction. Public access As part of the shoreline inventory and characterization, local governments identify existing physical and visual public access sites and opportunities. During this process, sites where sea level rise may pose a threat to public access can be identified. For example: • Parks in low lying areas may be subject to increased flooding. • Public tidelands may become inaccessible if shoreline armoring prevents the tidelands from migrating inland. • Publicly accessible spits may be lost to erosion. • Visual access sites along coastal bluffs may become hazardous due to landslides. Local governments also may be able to identify opportunities to preserve or replace those sites. For example, consider expanding the upland reach of coastal parks to accommodate shifting shorelines in low lying areas, or planning for new public access sites in areas less vulnerable to flooding or erosion. Additional potential techniques for ensuring that public access is provided in the future include: • Building public docks and piers that are more resilient to sea level rise. • Removing shoreline armoring or moving it inland to allow the public to walk on the beach even as the sea level rises. • Locating boardwalks or trails above the elevation of projected sea level rise. Shoreline use analysis In conducting the shoreline use analysis, take into account the effects of rising sea levels on existing and projected development. The use analysis estimates the future demand for shoreline space and identifies projected development trends and potential use conflicts. The objective is to ensure that shorelines are available for uses that are unique to or dependent on the shoreline. The SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 7 7/10; rev. 12/17 use analysis can be helpful in identifying developed and undeveloped areas that may be vulnerable to sea level rise. Where possible, use analyses should build upon the inventory and characterization to project areas where future infrastructure will be necessary to address sea level rise impacts. This may include corridors along developed shorelines for new or expanded flood control structures, elevation of structures, or locations for pump stations and larger storm drainage facilities. These types of efforts will require detailed planning beyond the SMP and large public and private investments. Goals, policies, and regulations SMP goals, policies, and regulations can address sea level rise adaptation. These sea level rise provisions can help to create awareness of the impacts of sea level rise and other climate change effects among shoreline property owners and development proponents. Enhanced awareness of impacts may in turn result in project designs that incorporate measures to decrease the risk of flooding and storm damage to these developments as sea level rises. Sea level rise adaptation can be incorporated into several different sections of the goals, policies, and regulations. Examples of goals and policies addressing sea level rise are provided below. General policies The King County SMP contains the following explanation and policies related to climate change. F. Preparing for Climate Change As discussed in Chapter 4 of the King County Comprehensive Plan, climate change has the potential for significant impacts on shorelines and shoreline habitats. Sea-level rise and storm surges may place at risk infrastructure, habitat restoration projects, and other development, including residential development. New development and maintenance or replacement of existing development should take into account the potential for harm that may result from sea-level rise (VII, Environment Protection Policies). S-650 King County shall ensure that new projects for and major maintenance or replacement of utilities, roads, and other public infrastructure consider the impacts of sea-level rise in the location, design, and operation of the projects. S-651 Habitat protection and restoration projects in the shoreline jurisdiction shall consider implications of sea-level rise and other climate change impacts to promote resiliency of habitats and species. SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 8 7/10; rev. 12/17 Shoreline use policies Consideration of sea level rise can be incorporated into shoreline use goals and policies. Jefferson County’s SMP contains the following shoreline use goal: 10. Encourage all use and development to address potential adverse effects of global climate change and sea level rise (Article 3, 7. Shoreline Use, B. Goals). The City of Seattle’s SMP call for strategies to balance shoreline uses with protection of ecological functions. LUG52 Address and minimize the impacts of sea level rise on the shoreline environment with strategies that also protect shoreline ecological functions, allow water-dependent uses and provide public access (Shoreline protection and restoration). Island County’s SMP incorporates sea level rise in the shoreline use element. II.D. 6. Sea level rise and increased frequency and magnitude of extreme storm events as a result of climate change should be taken into account when considering and evaluating shoreline uses. Flood hazard policies SMPs must address flood hazards and seek to reduce the damage caused by floods. Goals and policies addressing flood hazards are another opportunity to address sea level rise and the increased threat from flooding that will accompany it. The Jefferson County SMP provides an example of a policy designed to reduce future flooding from sea level rise: 2. Proponents of a development on no-bank or low bank marine shorelines are encouraged to locate the bottom of a structure’s foundation higher than the level of expected future sea-level rise (Article 6, 4. Shoreline Setbacks and Height, A. Policies). The City of Burien’s SMP includes a sea level rise policy in the Flood Prevention element. This policy articulates the intention to incorporate updated sea level rise predictions in their future SMP updates and alter policies as needed: Pol. FLD 4 - Monitor sea level rise and accordingly adjust development standards and building setbacks to minimize flooding potential (Chapter II, 20.20.045, Flood Prevention and Minimization Element). Island County’s flood hazard policies call for future sea level projections to be incorporated into site-specific development review to minimize flood damage. V.C.6. When reviewing projects that could be affected by sea level rise, adjust development standards such as building setbacks or elevation as necessary to minimize potential damage from flooding. SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 9 7/10; rev. 12/17 Shoreline modifications policies As sea level rises, some property owners may wish to install shoreline armoring. If there are particular sections of the shoreline where armoring is not appropriate and is prohibited, state this clearly in the shoreline modifications policies and regulations. Incorporate planning for sea level rise into permit conditions for shoreline modifications. Policies and regulations should recognize the role that shoreline erosion and accretion play in preserving ecological functions, and to encourage softer armoring techniques where appropriate. King County’s SMP encourages developers to consider sea level rise in projects along marine shorelines. This policy will help to prevent future unnecessary shoreline armoring. S-778 King County should notify all prospective developers of new development along Vashon and Maury Islands that their development may be impacted by sea-level rise and should encourage all such new development to be set back a sufficient distance to avoid the need for shoreline protection during the expected life of the development (VIII, Shoreline Use and Shoreline Modification). Development regulations Shoreline buffers and setbacks are one way to ensure that future development is not threatened by sea level rise. Buffers and setbacks along with restrictive building standards near low lying or erosion prone shorelines will help reduce flooding and the need for shoreline armoring. In intensely developed urbanized settings, the likely policy response to sea level rise will be to defend the existing developed area. In these locations, it might be appropriate to establish a setback to accommodate a future dike or elevated sea wall. The level of investment and intended life of the improvement are important considerations in addressing long-term sea level rise issues. Environment designations Environment designations should reflect the results of the inventory and characterization and take into account existing shoreline development. Undeveloped areas that are designated as “natural” will remain less developed and therefore less likely to contain infrastructure that may be damaged by storms or flooding exacerbated by sea level rise. These shorelines may also prove better able to shift and change in response to sea level rise than those in more highly developed areas. Environment designation regulations can also state where and what types of armoring are or are not acceptable. Restoration plan Developing a restoration plan provides an excellent opportunity to implement sea level rise adaptation measures. Restoration plans may identify restoration actions that improve resilience to sea level rise. Projects that protect and restore natural geomorphic processes such as erosion, sediment transport, tidal flooding, and marsh accretion are likely to be more successful than SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 10 7/10; rev. 12/17 those that target the creation of historic habitat configurations that may be inundated or sustain increased flood damage due to sea level rise. In addition, sea level rise predictions should be factored into restoration planning, perhaps including larger inland areas in restoration or habitat protection efforts to accommodate increasing inundation and to allow the shoreline to shift farther inland. Jefferson County recognized the potential need to alter the restoration plan as the effects of sea level rise become more evident. The “Obstacles and Challenges” section of County’s Restoration Plan includes the following text: Climate change: Rising temperatures and sea levels have the potential to dramatically alter Jefferson County’s shoreline jurisdiction, processes, and functions over time. Depending on the scale of change and time period over which changes occur, restoration priorities could shift substantially within a relatively short period of time. Language such as this would allow local governments to alter their restoration plan over time to address emerging impacts from climate change. Figure A -2: A high tide event at a restored beach in the City of Seattle. Restoration projects such as this pocket beach should be selected and designed in ways that accommodate rising sea levels. Photo by Hugh Shipman. SMP Handbook Appendix A Publication Number 11-06-010 11 7/10; rev. 12/17 References and resources Beason, S. R. and P.M. Kennard, 2006, Environmental and Ecological Implications of Aggradation in Braided Rivers at Mount Rainier National Park, Pages 52–53 in J. Selleck, editor. Natural Resource Year in Review—2006. Publication D-1859. National Park Service, Denver, Colorado. Climate Impacts Group, 2009, The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment, M. McGuire Elsner, J. Littell, and L Whitely Binder (eds). Center for Science in the Earth System, Joint Institute for the Study of the Atmosphere and Oceans, University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Glick, P., J. Clough, J., and B. Nunley (2007) Sea-level Rise and Coastal Habitats in the Pacific Northwest: An Analysis for Puget Sound, Southwestern Washington, and Northwestern Oregon. National Wildlife Federation, Reston, VA. Mauger, G.S., J.H. Casola, H.A. Morgan, R.L. Strauch, B. Jones, B. Curry, T.M. Busch Isaksen, L. Whitely Binder, M.B. Krosby, and A.K. Snover. 2015. State of Knowledge: Climate Change in Puget Sound. Report prepared for the Puget Sound Partnership and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration. Climate Impacts Group, University of Washington, Seattle. doi:10.7915/CIG93777D IPCC, 2007: Climate Change 2007: The Physical Science Basis. Contribution of Working Group I to the Fourth Assessment Report of the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change, [Solomon, S., D. Qin, M. Manning, Z. Chen, M. Marquis, K.B. Averyt, M. Tignor, and H.L. Miller (eds.)], Cambridge University Press, Cambridge, UK and New York, NY, USA, 996 pp. Mote, P., A. Petersen, S. Reeder, H. Shipman, and L. Whitely Binder, 2008, Sea Level Rise in the Coastal Waters of Washington State, University of Washington Climate Impacts Group and the Washington Department of Ecology, University of Washington, Seattle, WA, 11 pp. Shipman, H., 2009 (in press), The Response of the Salish Sea to Rising Sea Level: A Geomorphic Perspective, Puget Sound Georgia Basin Ecosystem Conference, February 8-11, 2009, Seattle, WA, 8pp.