Environmental Solutions E-Newsletter

Periodically, ESA Adolfson sends out "Environmental Solutions," our electronic newsletter. This newsletter is a resource for our clients and colleagues, focusing on current issues and how our industry is affected. If you would like to receive our e-newsletter, please email your name and email address to ESAnews@esassoc.com. Your information will not be sold or used for any other purposes.

Environmental Solutions, Summer 2009

Gearing Up for 2011 GMA Comprehensive Plan Updates
The next round of comprehensive plan updates is fast approaching. According to the new Department of Commerce, Local Government Division (aka CTED), candidate jurisdictions will be sent grant opportunities later this month.

Many jurisdictions have or are in the process of updating shoreline master programs (SMP) and can capitalize on those work products to assist with comprehensive plan updates and other planning efforts. For entities who are just getting started, the SMP update process can be used to facilitate future long-range planning.

A good deal of effort has been invested in the ecosystem-wide analysis required for SMP updates. At the ecosystem scale, flow of water, sediment and nutrient transport, fish/wildlife and human use of the land are the major processes that determine ecosystem health. The SMP update evaluates how well these processes are working and establishes measures to protect healthy processes and restore those functions that have been impaired or lost.

Using the ecosystem analysis as the baseline for the GMA comprehensive plan process will also provide a solid foundation from which to re-evaluate a community’s overall vision, goals, and policies from the last update in 2004. The first of the comprehensive plan’s required elements - land use – would benefit tremendously from an ecosystem-wide analysis. For instance, one item (Item g) of the Comprehensive Plan Checklist asks: Does the plan identify open space corridors within and between urban growth areas including lands useful for recreation, wildlife habitat, trails and connection of critical areas? The ecosystem analysis may have already provided a running start. See the example below from City of Tacoma’s working documents in progress.

Most of the other Checklist items under the Land Use element (Items j – x) focus heavily on resource and critical areas, but could similarly be informed with work from your SMP update effort.

Comprehensive plans may include some optional elements such as conservation, recreation, environmental protection, and natural resource lands. An SMP ecosystem analysis can pay dividends to update these elements and help chart a course for the next seven years. Jurisdictions should keep in mind that “biodiversity” is becoming a new focus in many arenas. Washington State has a unique and diverse natural heritage. Integrating biodiversity into comprehensive planning work would look to measures to increase diversity of species and landscapes.

For more information contact Ikuno Masterson, AICP, LEED® AP at (206) 789-9658, or download the Comprehensive Plan Checklist.

Ikuno is Director of Community Development at ESA Adolfson and brings over 27 years of experience in land use and environmental policy and strategy development.

National Flood Insurance and Shoreline Master Program Updates — Responding to the NMFS September 2008 Biological Opinion
As reported in our 2008 Fall newsletter, the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) determined the current National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) causes “jeopardy” to some Puget Sound salmon populations, orcas, and their habitat.* NMFS issued a Final Biological Opinion and Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives (Biological Opinion) that requires the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and local Puget Sound jurisdictions to change the way floodplains are managed.

November 2008 flood in the lower Snohomish Valley.

FEMA took several initial steps to address the Biological Opinion, including notifying all affected communities in the Puget Sound area and recommending measures to reduce harm to listed species, including development or adoption of more restrictive development standards. FEMA has continued efforts to improve the NFIP to reduce the hazards of flooding as well as to ensure protection of salmon habitat. ESA Adolfson has been assisting FEMA with these efforts.

Although FEMA has yet to release guidance, coordination and review with local, tribal, and state floodplain managers, environmental planners, and engineers has begun. One approach under consideration is to provide a path by which a community may adopt a model floodplain ordinance consistent with the Biological Opinion requirements. Other potential response strategies available to NFIP participating communities could include documenting that existing regulations (including SMPs) are consistent with the Biological Opinion requirements; or ensuring compliance on a permit by permit basis.

The Biological Opinion presents some complex technical, regulatory, and procedural challenges for local governments. As a result, there are many questions that need to be resolved before the pathway for compliance is fully illuminated. Under any scenario, however, local floodplain planners and managers must ensure that floodplain development will not adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or refuge habitat for listed salmon populations**.

During SMP and GMA comprehensive plan update efforts there are several initial steps that local jurisdictions could take to set the framework for response to the Biological Opinion. These steps will aid communities in responding to new minimum NFIP criteria from FEMA:

• Assess the extent of Special Flood Hazard Areas and floodways within the jurisdiction;
• Analyze existing and anticipated land use patterns within the floodplain;
  
• Consider how future development within the Special Flood Hazard Areas would adversely affect water quality, water quantity, flood volumes, flood velocities, spawning substrate, and/or floodplain refugia for listed salmon populations; and
  
• Consider the extent to which existing land use regulations (Critical Areas, SMP, stormwater, low impact development) mitigate adverse effects of land use and development.

The analysis may show that floodplains and associated riparian areas are sufficiently protected. Confirmation of this would require coordination with FEMA, facilitated by the Regional Office, since at present the standards for making such a demonstration are undefined and model regulations have not been developed.

Alternatively, the analysis may determine that additional regulations are required to meet the Biological Opinions minimum criteria. In such instances, the SMP update may provide an avenue for improving floodplain policies and regulations. The spatial area of shorelines under Shoreline Management Act jurisdiction frequently overlaps with the floodplain and riparian areas specified for consideration by the Biological Opinion. Incorporating protection, especially with regard to variances, reasonable use exceptions, and other exempt activities and processes may need to be addressed.

Complying with the Biological Opinion will likely have implications beyond the SMP. Our initial analysis of one Puget Sound jurisdiction, as part of supporting their SMP update, found this to be the case, because of water bodies that are not within the SMA jurisdiction. For many Puget Sound communities compliance with the Biological Opinion will be achieved using a comprehensive, integrated strategy with changes to land use/zoning and development regulations, particularly with respect to critical areas, stormwater/drainage (low impact development), floodplains, and shorelines.

NOTES:

*Species identified in the Biological Opinion are Puget Sound Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha), Puget Sound steelhead (O. mykiss), Hood Canal summer-run chum salmon (O. keta), and Southern Resident killer whales (Orcinus orca).

** The Biological Opinion establishes a 2010-2011 timeline for compliance for all NFIP participating communities within the Puget Sound Basin. The Biological Opinion prioritizes certain fish populations to assist FEMA in focusing its implementation efforts on areas most important to the survival and recovery of the listed species. Jurisdictions that influence higher priority habitat have an earlier deadline (see Appendix 3 of the Biological Opinion).

For more information contact Aaron Booy at (206) 789-9658.

Aaron is a scientist specializing in both aquatic ecology and environmental planning. His knowledge of local, state and federal regulatory processes have contributed to a wide range of regulatory documents, permit acquisition strategies, shoreline plans, and community land use planning efforts.

ESA Offers New Interactive Mapping Tool with GeoPDFs
With a growing number of projects relying on mapping tools, ESA Adolfson has integrated several new technologies into the solution matrix. One of the most popular and cost-effective new collaboration tools is the GeoPDF.

This geospatial tool allows any user that has Adobe Acrobat Reader (available free online) to obtain more information from a digital map PDF document. Once created, users can access coordinate (XY) information, turn spatial data layers on and off, and access tabular information about a specific data layer directly in the digital PDF document.

The GeoPDF is a cost-effective method that can provide up-to-date information to project managers and clients in an easy to understand format. This tool has been applied to many of our current projects including biological assessments, SMP Update programs, and field-based monitoring projects.

For ways of incorporating GeoPDF technology into your project, contact Mike Leech at (206) 789-9658.

Mike is a Senior GIS Analyst and certified GIS professional (GISP) specializing in GIS mapping and database development.