1. What is a Shoreline Master Plan?
“A Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) is a locally prepared set of policies and regulations required by State law, that govern development in shoreline areas. “
SMPs are designed to:
• Encourage appropriate shoreline development;
• Promote public access to the shoreline; and
• Provide environmental protection.
From Klickitat County’s Open House Announcement
(for Nov. 15, 2017 meeting)

2. What is a Shoreline Analysis Report?
A Shoreline Analysis Report (SAR) is an inventory and characterization of the County’s shorelines as define by the Shoreline Management Act.
“Under State Guidelines, the County must base the master program provisions on an analysis of the most relevant and accurate scientific and technical information (WAC (3)(c)and(d)). This includes meeting the mandate of “no net loss” of shoreline ecological functions as well as providing mechanisms for restoration of impaired shoreline functions.”
From p. vii, 1; SAR (TWC, Dec draft)

3. What a Shoreline Analysis Report is not:
“The SAR is not a binding regulatory document but rather provides guidance for potential future updates to the SMP. “
From p. vii, SAR (TWC, Dec draft)

4. Four Primary Issues 1. Use of “available information”
(Much more out there.)
2. Length of reaches
(Some much too long.)
3. Rankings (H, M, L) relative to “other
waterbodies and reaches” “within the County”
(Should be relative to within watershed.)
4. Use of “best professional judgment”
(Whose? Not yours, not mine.)

5. Based on “Best Professional Judgment”
“The available information gathered County-wide in the Shoreline Inventory Map Folio (Appendix B) was used to determine the performance of these functions (High, Moderate, or Low). Metrics were developed based on best professional judgment related to known impacts of different parameters and the data available (Table 5-4). Rankings were developed for each function based on the distribution of conditions within the County, so that each ranking provides a relative measure of functions compared to other waterbodies and reaches. “
From p. 45 of SAR (TWC, draft Dec. 2016)

6. Rankings of reaches based on four:
Ecological Functions
_______________________________
Hydrologic Functions
Vegetative Functions
Habitat Functions
Hyporheic Functions
Ranking system:
H=High function
M=Moderate function
L=Low function
Adopted from p. 45, SAR (TWC, Dec draft)

7. Processes within Ecological Functions
_____________________________________________________
Hydrologic Functions
Erosion processes, transport of water & sediment, instream habitat features
Vegetative Functions
Large woody debris, organic matter, filtering , erosion, bank stabilization
Habitat Functions
Wetlands, riparian, physical space, conditions for life history
Hyporheic Functions
Water and sediment storage, cool water refugia, base flows, support of vegetation
Adopted from p. 45, SAR (TWC, Dec draft)

8. Note: EDT model used 4 reaches
Buck Creek
Note: EDT model used 4 reaches

9. Note: EDT model used 6 reaches
Rattlesnake Creek
Note: EDT model used 6 reaches

10. Note: EDT model used 18 reaches vs 4 to BB Falls
White Salmon River
Note: EDT model used 18 reaches vs 4 to BB Falls

11. Four Primary Issues 1. Use of “available information”
(Much more out there.)
2. Length of reaches
(Some much too long.)
3. Rankings (H, M, L) relative to “other
waterbodies and reaches” “within the County”
(Should be relative to within watershed.)
4. Use of “best professional judgment”
(Whose? Not yours, not mine.)

12. ___________________________________
Recommendations
___________________________________
1. Create a Technical Advisory Team
that includes experts with local knowledge.
2. Slow down and do it right.
3. Provide adequate funding.