PACIFIC COUNTY
Grant No. G1400525 Shoreline Analysis Report
for Shorelines in Pacific County
Prepared for:
Pacific County 1216 W. Robert Bush Drive PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586
Prepared by:
STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS
2025 First Avenue, Suite 800 Seattle WA 98121
110 Main St # 103 Edmonds, WA 98020
Drafted June 2014, Public Draft September 2014, Revised January 2015, This report was funded in part Final June 2015 through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. The Watershed Company Reference Number: 130727
Cite this document as:
The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering. June 2015. Shoreline Analysis Report for Shorelines in Pacific County. Prepared for Pacific County, South Bend, WA.
Acknowledgements
The consultant team wishes to thank the Pacific County Shoreline Planning Committee, who contributed significant comments and materials toward the development of this report.
The Watershed Company June 2015
T ABLE OF C ONTENTS
Page #
Readers Guide ...... i 1 Introduction ...... 1
1.1 Background and Purpose ...... 1 1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction ...... 1 1.3 Study Area ...... 4
2 Summary of Current Regulatory Framework ...... 5
2.1 Shoreline Management Act ...... 5 2.2 Pacific County ...... 5
Shoreline Master Program ...... 5 Existing Pacific County Shoreline Master Program Designations ...... 6 County Comprehensive Plan ...... 7 Zoning Code ...... 12 Critical Areas ...... 12
2.3 State Agencies and Regulations ...... 14 2.4 Federal Regulations ...... 18 2.5 Tribal Regulations ...... 22 2.6 Regulatory Framework - Special Topics ...... 22
Dredging...... 22 Ocean Energy Projects ...... 23
3 Summary of County Ecosystem Conditions ...... 24
3.1 Climate and Ocean Physical Conditions ...... 24 3.2 Geology and Sediments ...... 24
Willapa Hills ...... 24 Columbia River Estuary ...... 25 Coastal Ocean ...... 26
3.3 Key Species and Habitats ...... 27
Freshwater Habitats ...... 27 Estuarine and Marine Habitats...... 32 Priority Habitats and Species ...... 38 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Non-Native, Invasive Species ...... 45
3.4 Watershed Setting and Conditions ...... 49
Willapa (WRIA 24) ...... 49 Chehalis (WRIA 22/23) ...... 51 Grays/Elochoman (WRIA 25)...... 52 Marine and Estuarine Shorelines ...... 52 Coastal Risks and Emerging Issues ...... 77
4 Shoreline Inventory ...... 89
4.1 Assessment Units ...... 89 4.2 Inventory Data ...... 89 4.3 Inventory Data Summary, Assumptions, Limitations, and Data Gaps ..... 97
Ecological Characterization ...... 97 Land Use Characterization ...... 102
4.4 Assessment Unit Inventory Conditions ...... 110
5 Analysis of Ecological Characteristics ...... 124
5.1 Methods ...... 124
Reach Delineation ...... 124 Approach...... 126 Limitations ...... 139
5.2 Results ...... 140
North River ...... 141 Willapa River ...... 146 Middle Bay ...... 154 Naselle River ...... 160 Upper Chehalis River ...... 166 Grays River ...... 169 Columbia River ...... 174 Willapa Bay ...... 180 Long Beach Peninsula ...... 187 Pacific Coast- North ...... 193 Coastal Ocean ...... 198
6 Land Use Analysis ...... 201
6.1 Approach ...... 201
Analysis Scale ...... 201
The Watershed Company June 2015
Current Land Use ...... 201 Ownership Profile ...... 203 Developing Shorelines and New Uses ...... 204 Shoreline Use Conflicts ...... 206
6.2 Land Use Analysis Results ...... 207
North River ...... 207 Willapa River ...... 214 Middle Bay ...... 224 Naselle River ...... 231 Upper Chehalis River ...... 238 Grays River ...... 241 Columbia River ...... 244 Willapa Bay ...... 251 Long Beach Peninsula ...... 266 Pacific Coast- North ...... 277 Coastal Ocean ...... 281
7 Shoreline Management Recommendations ...... 292
7.1 Environment Designations ...... 292
Background ...... 292 Methodology ...... 301 Recommendations ...... 302
7.2 General Policies and Regulations ...... 302 7.3 Shoreline Modification Provisions ...... 305 7.4 Shoreline Uses ...... 307 7.5 Restoration Plan ...... 311
8 References ...... 313 9 List of Acronyms and Abbreviations ...... 331
APPENDIX A Pacific County Assessment of Shoreline Jurisdiction
APPENDIX B Shoreline Inventory Map Folio
APPENDIX C Values Used in Scoring Functional Analysis
The Watershed Company June 2015
L IST OF F IGURES
Page #
Figure 1-1. Diagram showing areas within shoreline jurisdiction ...... 2 Figure 1-2. Map of Pacific County showing all Shorelines of the State (regulated shorelines) and Shorelines of Statewide Significance ...... 4 Figure 3-1a. Direction of groundwater flow in the northern portion of the Long Beach Peninsula (from Blakemore 1995) ...... 29 Figure 3-1b. Direction of groundwater flow in the central portion of the Long Beach Peninsula (from Blakemore 1995) ...... 30 Figure 3-1c. Direction of groundwater flow in the southern portion of the Long Beach Penisnusla (from Blakemore 1995) ...... 31 Figure 3-2. Example movements of L pod on April 10, 2015 near the mouth of the Columbia River, the Long Beach peninsula, and Grays Harbor (NOAA)...... 38 Figure 3-3. Map of Water Resource Inventory Area boundaries in Pacific County ...... 49 Figure 3-4: Historic NOAA Bathymetric changes at the mouth of the Columbia River from 1877- 1998...... 54 Figure 3-5. Dungeness crab landings along Washington’s outer coast (From WDFW 2014) ...... 57 Figure 3-6. Commercial Ocean Salmon Landings and ex-vessel value by Port (2004-2013) ...... 57 Figure 3-7. Commercial Gillnet Salmon Harvest (2003-2013) for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay...... 58 Figure 3-8. Groundfish (non-whiting) total landings and value 2004- 2013 for counties along the outer coast...... 59 Figure 3-9. Pink shrimp landings and values 2004-2013 for Pacific and Grays Harbor counties...... 60 Figure 3-10. Commercial albacore landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington...... 60 Figure 3-11. Spot shrimp landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington...... 61 Figure 3-12. Commercial sardine landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington...... 61 Figure 3-13. Commercial albacore landings and value 2004-2013 for Pacific and Grays Harbor counties...... 62 Figure 3-14. Commercial Hagfish landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington...... 63 Figure 3-15. Commercial razor clam and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington...... 63 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 3-16. Recreational ocean salmon landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington...... 64 Figure 3-17. Excerpt from Miller et al. (2009) listing of Pacific groundfish populations that are either “overfished”, “not overfished”, “rebuilding”, or “unknown”...... 66 Figure 3-18. Overview of jetty locations at the mouth of the Columbia River...... 73 Figure 3-19. Changes in annual flow cycle near Vancouver, Washington ...... 74 Figure 3-20. Modeled tsunami inundation for the Long Beach peninsula from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake in 25 min intervals (from Venturato et al. 2007)...... 79 Figure 3-21. Maximum inundation levels (left) and current speeds (right) for the Long Beach Peninsula in the case of a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake (from Venturato et al. 2007)...... 80 Figure 3-22. Map showing existing conditions on left and 2-foot sea level rise scenario on the right. Low-lying areas highlighted in green and inundated areas shown in blue...... 84 Figure 3-23. Map showing extent of mean high water (pink) and highest observed water level (blue) under a 3-foot (1m) sea level rise scenario...... 85 Figure 5-1. Example of estuarine zones created through the Euclidean Allocation process...... 126 Figure 5-2. Map of Shoreline Reaches in the North River Assessment Unit ...... 143 Figure 5-3. View of Reach 1 of the North River. Note floating homes mid-channel and perimeter dikes along the River...... 144 Figure 5-4. View of large freshwater emergent wetland in Reach 1 of the Cedar River144 Figure 5-5. View of agricultural development along the upper North River (North River-3)...... 144 Figure 5-6. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Willapa River Assessment Unit ...... 149 Figure 5-7. Diked channel on north side of Reach 1 of the Willapa River...... 150 Figure 5-8. View of Potter Slough on the south side of Reach 1 of the Willapa River. The dike west of the slough has been removed since the picture was taken in 2006...... 150 Figure 5-9. View of overwater structures and derelict piles in the eastern portion of Reach 2 of the Willapa River adjacent to Skidmore Slough...... 150 Figure 5-10. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Middle Bay Assessment Unit ...... 156 Figure 5-11. View of South Fork Palix River. Note clear cut areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction...... 157 Figure 5-12. View of wetlands and forested areas along the Bone River ...... 157 Figure 5-13. View of tidal wetlands, forested areas, and nearby clearcuts along the Niawiakum River...... 157 Figure 5-14. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Naselle Assessment Unit ...... 162 Figure 5-15. View of diked wetlands in Reach 4 of the Naselle River...... 163 Figure 5-16. View of tidal wetlands in Reach 3 of the Naselle River where dike has been breached...... 163 Figure 5-17. View of forested shoreline on the Stanley Peninsula (Naselle River- 2). 163 Figure 5-18. Map of Shoreline Reaches in the Upper Chehalis Assessment Unit ...... 167 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-19. View of Rock Creek and Highway 6 ...... 168 Figure 5-20. Oblique view of Crim Creek and surrounding slopes...... 168 Figure 5-21. Oblique view of Elk Creek with shoreline jurisdiction outlined in yellow .. 168 Figure 5-22. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Grays River Assessment Unit ...... 171 Figure 5-23. View of East Fork Grays River and forested buffers amidst clear-cut forest areas ...... 172 Figure 5-24. View of West Fork Grays River and State salmon hatchery facility ...... 172 Figure 5-25. Oblique view of Grays River ...... 172 Figure 5-26. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Columbia River Assessment Unit ...... 176 Figure 5-27. View of mouth of Chinook River, including tidegate and adjoining agricultural lands...... 177 Figure 5-28. View of ponded area separated from the Columbia River by U.S. 101 (Columbia River-4) ...... 177 Figure 5-29. View of Chinook Marina ...... 177 Figure 5-30. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Willapa Bay Assessment Unit ...... 183 Figure 5-31. View of shoreline armoring along SR 105 (Willapa Bay - 7) ...... 184 Figure 5-32. View of Empire Spit (foreground) and Tokeland (Willapa Bay – 2 and 3)184 Figure 5-33. View of Bay Center (lower left) and adjacent tidal marsh (Palix Estuary-2)184 Figure 5-34. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit . 190 Figure 5-35. View of Tarlatt Slough (Willapa Bay-17)...... 191 Figure 5-36. View of the north jetty at Cape Disappointment (Pacific Coast-8)...... 191 Figure 5-37. View of shoreline access area (Pacific Coast-6)...... 191 Figure 5-38. View of dune, forest, and salt marsh vegetation at Leadbetter Point (Pacific Coast-6)...... 191 Figure 5-39. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Pacific Coast- North Assessment Unit ..... 195 Figure 5-40. Aerial oblique photographs comparing Cape Shoalwater from 1976 (above) and 2006 (below) ...... 196 Figure 5-41. Representative view of shoreline conditions in the Pacific Coast- North AU196 Figure 5-42. Summer upwelling and benthic substrate. Upwelling: dark and light blue show areas with high and moderate levels, respectively...... 199 Figure 5-43. Summer whale relative densities (low to high) for (A) Risso’s dolphin, (B)Pacific white-sided dolphin, (C) Dall’s porpoise and, (D)Northern right whale dolphin...... 200 Figure 6-1. Pacific County Population and Housing Units 1990 to 2013 ...... 205 Figure 6-2. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the North River Assessment Unit (by acre) ...... 212 Figure 6-3. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Willapa River Assessment Unit (by acre) ...... 220 Figure 6-4. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Middle Bay Assessment Unit ...... 228 Figure 6-5. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Naselle River Assessment Unit (by acre) ...... 235 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-6. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Columbia River Assessment Unit (by acre) ...... 248 Figure 6-7. Current Land Use by Reach in the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit (by acre)256 Figure 6-8. DOH Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Growing Areas...... 257 Figure 6-9. Willapa Bay Shellfish Aquaculture Areas ...... 258 Figure 6-10. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit (by acre) ...... 261 Figure 6-11. Current Land Use by Reach in the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit (by acre) ...... 271 Figure 6-12. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit ...... 273 Figure 6-13. Current Land Use by Reach in the Pacific Coast – North Assessment Unit (by acre) ...... 279 Figure 6-14. Commercial and recreational fishing effort (WDFW 2014)...... 282 Figure 6-15. Relative value of fishing grounds for (A) commercial, charter, and private vessel sport boat sectors combined, and (B) commercial passenger fishing vessels (Steinback et al. 2010)...... 283 Figure 6-16. Cumulative use map for selected PROUA layers...... 284 Figure 6-17. Various other activities...... 285 Figure 6-18. Marine renewable energy suitability analyses for wind energy devices: mounted on jacket (A), monopile (B); and wave energy devices: mid-depths (C), nearshore M3 (D), and nearshore (E)...... 286 Figure 6-19. Fishing vessel (vessels involved in fishing activities in the national fishing fleets) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU...... 287 Figure 6-20. Commercial transportation (including cargo, tanker, tug/tow vessels) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU...... 288 Figure 6-21. Pleasure vessel (or any vessel involved in transit and boating activities other than passenger vessels) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU...... 289 Figure 6-22. Military vessel (or any vessel involved in military activities including military operation vessels, replenishment vessels, naval patrol, logistics vessels, and rescue vessels) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU...... 290 Figure 6-23. Wrecks and obstructions...... 291
L IST OF T ABLES
Page #
Table 2-1. Pacific County Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development ...... 8 Table 2-2. Pacific County Comprehensive Plan land use designations ...... 9 Table 2-3. Pacific County Critical Area Buffer Regulations Summary ...... 13 Table 3-1. Priority habitats and features in Pacific County ...... 38
The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 3-2. Priority species in Pacific County and offshore waters ...... 40 Table 3-3. Rare plant species in Pacific County ...... 44 Table 3-4. Salmonid populations in freshwater habitats in Pacific County...... 44 Table 3-5. Non-native, invasive species present within shoreline jurisdiction in Pacific County ...... 47 Table 3-6. Impaired water quality parameters in freshwater shorelines in WRIA 24 in Pacific County https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx ...... 50 Table 3-7. Impaired water quality parameters in freshwater shorelines in WRIA 25 in Pacific County https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx ...... 52 Table 3-8. Impaired water quality parameters in Willapa Bay and the Columbia River Estuary in Pacific County https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx ...... 77 Table 4-1. Shoreline Inventory Elements and Information Sources...... 91 Table 4-2. Water-Oriented Uses Definitions and Examples ...... 104 Table 4-3. Summary of Shoreline Inventory by Assessment Unit ...... 111 Table 5-1. Criteria for Determining Reach Breaks ...... 125 Table 5-2. Summary of Reaches per Assessment Unit ...... 125 Table 5-3. Summary of Shoreline Ecological Functions ...... 127 Table 5-4. Functional Score Ranking by Indicator Metric ...... 136 Table 5-5. Reach Characterization Scores for the North River Assessment Unit .... 145 Table 5-6. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Willapa River Assessment Unit151 Table 5-7. Restoration Opportunities in the Willapa River Assessment Unit ...... 153 Table 5-8. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Middle Bay Assessment Unit 158 Table 5-9. Restoration Opportunities in the Middle Bay Assessment Unit ...... 159 Table 5-10. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Naselle River Assessment Unit164 Table 5-11. Restoration Opportunities in the Naselle River Assessment Unit ...... 165 Table 5-12. Reach Functional Analysis Scores in the Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit ...... 169 Table 5-13. Restoration Opportunities in the Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit 169 Table 5-14. Reach Functional Analysis Scores in the Grays River Assessment Unit 173 Table 5-15. Restoration Opportunities in the Grays River Assessment Unit ...... 173 Table 5-16. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Columbia River Assessment Unit178 Table 5-17. Restoration Opportunities in the Columbia River Assessment Unit ...... 179 Table 5-18. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for Willapa Bay Assessment Unit ..... 185 Table 5-19. Restoration Opportunities in Willapa Bay Assessment Unit ...... 186 Table 5-20. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit ...... 192 Table 5-21. Restoration Opportunities in the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit193 Table 5-22. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for Pacific Coast- North Assessment Unit ...... 197 Table 5-23. Restoration Opportunities in the Pacific Coast- North Assessment Unit . 198 Table 5-24. Restoration Opportunities in the Coastal Ocean Assessment Unit ...... 201 Table 6-1. Summary Characteristics of North River Assessment Unit Waterbodies 208 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 6-2. North River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 209 Table 6-3. North River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 209 Table 6-4. Summary Characteristics of Willapa River Assessment Unit Waterbodies214 Table 6-5. Willapa River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 216 Table 6-6. Willapa River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 217 Table 6-7. List of Historic Sites and Addresses within Shoreline Jurisdiction of the Willapa River Assessment Unit ...... 224 Table 6-8. Summary Characteristics of Middle Bay Assessment Unit Waterbodies 225 Table 6-9. Middle Bay Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 226 Table 6-10. Middle Bay Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 226 Table 6-11. Summary Characteristics of Naselle River Assessment Unit Waterbodies231 Table 6-12. Naselle River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 232 Table 6-13. Naselle River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 233 Table 6-14. Summary Characteristics of Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit Waterbodies ...... 239 Table 6-15. Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 239 Table 6-16. Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 240 Table 6-17. Summary Characteristics of Grays River Assessment Unit Waterbodies 242 Table 6-18. Grays River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 242 Table 6-19. Upper Grays River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 242 Table 6-20. Summary Characteristics of Columbia River (Columbia River) Assessment Unit ...... 244 Table 6-21. Columbia River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 245 Table 6-22. Columbia River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 246 Table 6-23. Summary Characteristics of Upland Areas in the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Waterbodies ...... 252 Table 6-24. Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 253 Table 6-25. Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 254 Table 6-26. Willapa Bay Shellfish Aquaculture Locations, Type and Size ...... 258 Table 6-27. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Reaches ...... 261 Table 6-28. Summary Characteristics of Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Waterbodies ...... 266 Table 6-29. Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 268 Table 6-30. Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 268
The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 6-31. Anticipated Growth for Seaview, Ocean Park and Nahcotta...... 274 Table 6-32. Summary Characteristics of Pacific Coast - North Assessment Unit ...... 277 Table 6-33. Pacific Coast - North Assessment Unit Existing Land Use ...... 277 Table 6-34. Pacific Coast - North Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation by Waterbody ...... 278 Table 7-1. Comparison of Existing and Ecology-Recommended Shoreline Environment Designations ...... 294
The Watershed Company June 2015
R EADERS G UIDE
The main purpose of this report is to provide information about shorelines in Pacific County.
As the County works to update its Shoreline Master Program, the broad-scale overview of shoreline conditions provided in this report should help the County to make decisions about how to manage its shorelines in the years to come. This report should help provide the County with answers to questions such as:
• What kind of land uses occur along shorelines? What kind of land uses might be expected in the future?
• Where can County residents and visitors access shorelines? Are more locations for public access planned?
• What issues threaten the environmental quality of shorelines in the County? What actions can be taken to improve the quality of shorelines?
It is also important to mention what this report is not intended to do. This report is not intended to provide an assessment of shoreline conditions on specific properties. It is also not intended to be used in the future to provide a specific numerical figure of shoreline improvements or losses. Given the complexity of ecological interactions, existing gaps in ecological metrics, and potential ecological tradeoffs that may occur in the future, this report is not intended to provide a quantitative baseline from which to compare future change. Instead, this report describes shoreline conditions through a combination of qualitative and quantitative metrics (as available), and provides a common starting point for development of the SMP.
A brief description of the organization and content of the report is provided below.
• Section 1 provides more detail about the purpose of this report and discusses the basics of how the County manages its shorelines under the Shoreline Management Act.
• Section 2 reviews what laws and agencies are particularly important in shoreline areas.
• Section 3 takes a big-picture look at County shorelines. Topics include climate, geology, topography, drainage patterns, key species and habitats, and major land use changes that have affected, or in some cases, have a potential to affect, shoreline functions in the County.
• Section 4 (Shoreline Inventory) summarizes available data mapped in the Inventory Mapfolio (Appendix B). The shoreline inventory synthesizes available data and identifies data assumptions, limitations, and data gaps. i Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Section 5 (Characterization of Ecological Functions) describes characteristics of shoreline reaches, with specific attention to the extent of existing human disturbance. This section also includes brief descriptions of voluntary restoration opportunities for the shorelines of Pacific County.
• Section 6 (Land Use Analysis) summarizes current land use and planned future land use.
• Section 7 makes recommendations for shoreline management based on the contents of the previous chapters. This section includes a comparison of existing Shoreline Environment Designations and those recommended by the Washington Department of Ecology. The results of this report may prove useful in reviewing the consistency of existing Shoreline Environment Designations with existing conditions and uses, and establishing new or revised Shoreline Environment Designations, where appropriate.
ii The Watershed Company June 2015
S HORELINE A NALYSIS R EPORT
PACIFIC COUNTY
1 INTRODUCTION
1.1 Background and Purpose Pacific County (County) obtained a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) in 2014 to complete a comprehensive update of its Shoreline Master Program (SMP). One of the first steps of the update process is to inventory and characterize the County’s shorelines as defined by the state’s Shoreline Management Act (SMA) of 1971 (RCW 90.58). This analysis was conducted in accordance with the SMP Guidelines (Guidelines, Chapter 173- 26 Washington Administrative Code (WAC)) and project Scope of Work promulgated by Ecology, and includes all unincorporated areas within the County. Under these Guidelines, the County must identify and assemble the most current, applicable, accurate and complete scientific and technical information available.
This Shoreline Analysis Report describes existing conditions and characterizes ecological functions in the shoreline jurisdiction. This assessment of current conditions will serve as the baseline against which the impacts of future development actions in shoreline jurisdiction will be measured. The Guidelines require that the County demonstrates that its updated SMP yields “no net loss” in shoreline ecological functions relative to the baseline (current condition). The no net loss requirement is a new standard in the Guidelines that is intended to be used by local jurisdictions to test whether the updated SMP will in fact accomplish the SMA objective of protecting ecological functions.
1.2 Shoreline Jurisdiction As defined by the SMA, shorelines include certain waters of the state plus their associated “shorelands.” At a minimum, the waterbodies designated as shorelines of the state are streams whose mean annual flow is 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) or greater, lakes whose area is greater than 20 acres, and all marine waters extending three miles offshore. Shorelands are defined as:
“those lands extending landward for 200 feet in all directions as measured on a horizontal plane from the ordinary high water mark; floodways and contiguous
1 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
floodplain areas landward 200 feet from such floodways; and all wetlands and river deltas associated with the streams, lakes, and tidal waters which are subject to the provisions of this chapter…Any county or city may determine that portion of a one- hundred-year-floodplain to be included in its master program as long as such portion includes, as a minimum, the floodway and the adjacent land extending landward two hundred feet therefrom… Any city or county may also include in its master program land necessary for buffers for critical areas (RCW 90.58.030).”
Figure 1-1 provides a diagram conveying the extent of shoreline jurisdiction.
3
1 5
2 4
1. Shoreline-associated wetland located entirely within 200 feet from the OHWM 2. Shoreline-associated wetland located partially within 200 feet from the OHWM 3. Shoreline-associated wetland located beyond 200 feet from the OHWM, but within the 100-year floodplain 4. Shoreline-associated wetland that is beyond 200 feet from the OHWM and outside of the 100- year floodplain, but that is hydrologically connected a shoreline waterbody 5. Wetland that is not considered part of shoreline jurisdiction because it is beyond 200 feet from the OHWM, outside of the 100-year floodplain, and not hydrologically connected to a shoreline waterbody
Figure 1-1. Diagram showing areas within shoreline jurisdiction Source: Ecology The ordinary high water mark (OHWM) is:
“that mark 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
2 The Watershed Company June 2015
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, as it may naturally change thereafter, or as it may change thereafter in accordance with permits issued by a local government or the department: 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” (RCW 90.58.030(2)(c)).
A detailed description of the methods used to depict shoreline jurisdiction is included in Appendix A.
The SMA sets specific preferences for uses and calls for a higher level of effort in implementing its objectives along designated Shorelines of Statewide Significance, these preferences are detailed in Section 4.3.2. All streams and rivers that have mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or greater are considered Shorelines of Statewide Significance, along with their associated uplands. Within Pacific County’s jurisdiction, the following waterbodies qualify as Shorelines of Statewide Significance (Figure 1-2).
• Columbia River
• North River
• Willapa River downstream from the confluence with the South Fork Willapa River
• All areas seaward of the OHWM along the Pacific Ocean coastline, including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets, and all shorelands associated with these waters are also considered Shorelines of Statewide Significance
Pacific County does not have any lakes greater than 1,000 acres which would thereby qualify as a Shoreline of Statewide Significance.
3 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 1-2. Map of Pacific County showing all Shorelines of the State (regulated shorelines) and Shorelines of Statewide Significance
1.3 Study Area The study area for this report includes all unincorporated land within the County’s proposed shoreline jurisdiction. Further, the study area includes relevant discussion of the contributing watersheds.
4 The Watershed Company June 2015
Pacific County encompasses 1,223 square miles. The County is bordered to the south by the Columbia River, to the southeast by Wahkiakum County, to the east by Lewis County, and to the north by Grays Harbor County. The County is bordered to the west by the Pacific Ocean. The County is predominantly rural in nature, with unincorporated areas making up most of the land area. Incorporated areas of the County include the cities of South Bend, Raymond, Long Beach, and Ilwaco. Pacific County is home to the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. The Long Beach Peninsula was also once home to the Chinook Indian Tribe, the federal recognition of which is still pending (History Link, electronic reference).
Federal and State lands make up nearly 4 percent and 12 percent of the total shoreland area, respectively. Federal lands occur in the Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR). Federal lands on which shoreline waterbodies lie are included in this report, but discussion is more limited because the future SMP will only pertain to actions undertaken by non-federal parties on those lands. This generally occurs when a federal agency leases lands to a private party, such as forest tract leases on lands in a National Forest.
2 SUMMARY OF CURRENT REGULATORY FRAMEWORK
2.1 Shoreline Management Act The SMA promotes planning along shorelines and coordination among governments. The legislative findings and policy intent of the SMA states:
“There is, therefore, a clear and urgent demand for a planned, rational, and concerted effort, jointly performed by federal, state, and local governments, to prevent the inherent harm in an uncoordinated and piecemeal development of the state's shorelines (RCW 90.58.020).”
While protecting shoreline resources by regulating development, the SMA is also intended to provide balance by encouraging water-dependent or water-oriented uses while also conserving or enhancing shoreline ecological functions and values. SMPs must be based on state guidelines, but should be tailored to the specific conditions and needs of the local community.
2.2 Pacific County
Shoreline Master Program Pacific County adopted its existing SMP in 2000.
5 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline uses, developments, and activities are also subject to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, County Code, and various other provisions of County, State and federal laws.
Each incorporated City in the County is in the process of its own individual SMP update.
Existing Pacific County Shoreline Master Program Designations The current SMP designations for Pacific County include the four designations included in Ecology’s 1971 Final Guidelines. These designations include:
Natural: “relatively free of human influence… Any activity which would change… the existing situation would be desirable only if such a change would contribute to the preservation of the existing character. The primary determinant for designating an area as a natural environment is the… presence of some unique natural or cultural features considered valuable in their natural or original condition which (is) relatively intolerant of intensive human use.”
Conservancy: resources and valuable historic and cultural areas in order to ensure a continuous flow of recreational benefits to the public and to achieve sustained resources utilization… examples of use that might be predominant in a conservancy environment include diffuse outdoor recreation activities, timber harvesting on a sustained-yield basis, passive agricultural uses such as pasture and range… conservancy would also be the most suitable designation for those areas which present too severe biophysical limitations to be designated rural or urban…”
Rural: “to protect agricultural land from urban expansion, restrict intensive development along undeveloped shorelines,… and maintain open spaces and opportunities for recreational uses is intended for those areas characterized by… or having a high capability to support… agricultural practices and intensive recreational development. New developments in a rural environment are to reflect the character of the surrounding area by limiting residential density, providing permanent open space and by maintaining adequate building setbacks from the water…”
Urban: “to ensure optimum utilization of shorelines within urbanized areas by providing for intensive public use and by managing development so that it enhances and maintains shorelines for a multiplicity of urban uses. The urban environment is an area of high intensity land use including residential, commercial and industrial development. (It) does not necessarily include all shorelines within an incorporated city. Because shorelines suitable for urban uses are limited, emphasis should be given to development within already developed areas priority is also to be given to planning for
6 The Watershed Company June 2015
visual and physical access (by the public) to water in the urban environment industrial and commercial facilities should be designed to permit pedestrian waterfront activities.”
In addition to these four overarching shoreline environment designations, Pacific County also refined these designations for specific circumstances by dividing the conservancy and rural designations into several subcategories. In addition, the County’s existing SMP includes a separate set of designations with distinct regulations for the Columbia River and one for ocean uses. Chapter 7 includes a more detailed comparison of current designations.
For the purposes of this analysis, the County only maintains Geographic Information Systems (GIS) data including the four overarching designations. Therefore, the subcategories for conservancy and rural designations and the separate Columbia River designations are not mapped in Appendix B or reported in this document. Some areas of the proposed shoreline are not currently designated. Chapter 6 identifies the designations that are currently applied for each waterbody.
County Comprehensive Plan The County Comprehensive Plan, last updated in 2010, is a statement of goals and policies that guides growth and development throughout the County. In addition to the basic elements required by the Growth Management Act (GMA), such as environment, land use and rural lands, critical areas and resource lands, housing, transportation, capital facilities, and utilities, the County’s Comprehensive Plan establishes an overall land use pattern. It provides the general distribution, location, and extent of the commercial, industrial, residential, and natural resource land uses.
The Comprehensive Plan’s Land use and Rural Element establishes a future land map along with development intensities and population densities aimed at preserving the County’s rural character and allowing for growth that is sensitive to the environment. The County’s land use preferences and policies also include provisions for protecting groundwater and surface waters, while providing the services and employment base desired for Pacific County.
Consistent with GMA, the Pacific County Comprehensive Plan establishes locations that are appropriate sites for higher intensity and density residential, commercial, and industrial development. Most of these uses will occur within incorporated areas and the County’s designated UGA. These include land in and around the County’s incorporated municipalities of Ilwaco, Long Beach, Raymond, and South Bend. UGAs are also established for areas outside of incorporated towns, in areas that are already characterized by urban growth. The Seaview UGA is the only example of that in the County. The Seaview UGA is generally located outside of shoreline jurisdiction, except that portions of associated wetlands occur within the UGA.
7 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
The Comprehensive Plan also establishes rural areas that are appropriate for growth and rural areas that are appropriate for long term resource uses. The GMA allows for “limited areas of more intensive rural development” within rural areas (RCW 36.70A.070). These areas are typically characterized by existing development or tourist attractions that should be supported by other uses. Pacific County has identified several existing, rural land use patterns that are considered more intense than the surrounding countryside. These areas have been designated as rural villages, rural activity centers, or community crossroads as follows in Table 2-1.
Table 2-1. Pacific County Limited Areas of More Intensive Rural Development Location Area (Acres) Purpose Community Crossroad Purpose: recognize the existing commercial centers located Klipsan Crossing 72 along state highways or county arterials that provide nearby residents, local vehicular traffic, and the traveling public with Lindgren Road 22 everyday convenience shopping goods and services. Community crossroads are generally small, compact, isolated East Raymond 7 commercial centers characterized by small-scale industries and businesses. Surfside Estates 9
Tokeland Road 85
Rural Activity Centers Purpose: Recognize the historic, unincorporated communities Bay Center 251 that are characterized by urban type densities and which may offer some urban services such as community water, limited Chinook 545 commercial uses, and fire protection. Rural activity centers are generally not self-sufficient. This designation provides for the Frances 64 infill, development, or redevelopment of lands within the rural activity center boundary. The rural activities centers are Lebam 165 generally small, compact, isolated rural centers that primarily exist to provide housing, convenience goods, and services to Menlo 305 residents in and around the area
Nahcotta 42
Naselle 1,554
Tokeland 145
Rural Village Purpose: Recognize the historic, unincorporated communities Ocean Park 581 that are characterized by urban type densities, are self-sufficient villages offering a full range of consumer goods and services, and which may offer some urban services. Rural Villages provide for the infill, development, or redevelopment of lands within the rural village boundary. The rural village is generally a compact, self-sufficient town that functions as a small urban center and provides housing, convenience goods, and services to residents in and around the area Source: Pacific County, 2010 The Comprehensive Plan defines the types of development and the uses desired through land use designations. The land use designations differentiate urban, rural and resource lands and
8 The Watershed Company June 2015 determine the types of uses and density. There are three types of rural areas. In an effort to understand planned and future shoreline land use, the Comprehensive Plan land use designations are reported for the shoreline jurisdiction of each shoreline waterbody. Table 2-2 summarizes the Comprehensive Plan land use designations.
Table 2-2. Pacific County Comprehensive Plan land use designations % Acres in Density Land Use Total Total Shoreline Primary Land Uses or Purpose (dwelling units / Designation Acres Area Jurisdiction acre Rural Land Remote Rural 13,212 2.2 476 Farming, forestry, mineral 1 unit / 10 acres extraction, open space, and residential General Rural 100,02 16.9 15,606 Small-scale farms and forestry 1 unit / 5 acres 3 activities, dispersed single-family homes, and open space Rural 7,177 1.3 1,373 Recognize the historic areas 1 unit / 5 acres Agriculture dedicated to cranberry production or areas of potential cranberry expansion Rural Shoreline 1,572 0.3 15.6 Residential development on 1 unit / acre Development parcels that are surrounded by smaller lots and which can physically support development without requiring urban service levels. existing one-acre lots Rural Village 581 0.1 4.2 Single family residences, small- 1 unit / acre scale industries and businesses in a compact core, public facilities such as post offices, schools, and fire departments, and open space with single family residences (seasonal and year round use), and open space Rural Activity 3,073 0.4 766 Single family residences, small- 1 unit / acre Center scale industries and businesses, public facilities such as post offices, schools, and fire departments, and open space. Community 195 <0.1 80 Restaurants, feed stores, garden Intended for Crossroad supplies, greenhouse and plant commercial nurseries, lumber sales, groceries uses and drug stores, gas stations, hotels and other small-scale businesses, including residences in conjunction with such businesses. Industrial 358 <0.1 221 Industrial activities include, but Intended for are not limited to, research, industrial uses manufacturing, processing, fabrication, wholesaling and storage of products, and associated offices. Typical uses
9 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
% Acres in Density Land Use Total Total Shoreline Primary Land Uses or Purpose (dwelling units / Designation Acres Area Jurisdiction acre include building materials storage, boat building and repair, contract construction service shops and storage yards, laboratories, wholesale business and storage, automobile business and storage, feed and fuel storage, warehouses, locally distributed utilities, log storage, saw and lumber mills, rock crushing, welding and sheet metal shops, parking lots, laundries, machinery and transportation sales, service and repair, saw and filing shops, emergency fire and police facilities, recycling accessory drop boxes, community recycling centers and processing plants. Public Preserve 16,309 4.0 4,831 Publicly owned areas pertaining Residential to recreation, fish and wildlife Prohibited habitat conservation, or unique geologic features. Coast Guard 164 <0.1 61 Includes the Cape N/A Disappointment Coast Guard Station located on the Long Beach Peninsula. These lands are owned by the federal government. Resource Land Agriculture 8,063 1.4 1,373 Meant to preserve agricultural and Residential aquacultural lands and to protect development shellfish and fishing industries. discouraged Includes lands meeting the definition for agricultural and aquaculture lands of long-term commercial significance. Forest LTCS 411,67 69.2 12,500 Includes lands meeting the 1 unit / 40 acres 5 definition for forest lands of long- Residential term commercial significance. development discouraged Transitional 32,792 5.5 5,770 The purpose of this designation is 1 unit / 5acre Forest to protect transitional forest areas, primarily located adjacent to rural shoreline areas along Willapa Bay, the Naselle River and the Columbia River. This designation provides for rural types of residential development along with commercial forestry production on parcels in accordance with the protection standards of this subsection and
10 The Watershed Company June 2015
% Acres in Density Land Use Total Total Shoreline Primary Land Uses or Purpose (dwelling units / Designation Acres Area Jurisdiction acre the Critical Areas and Resource Lands Ordinance No. 147. Urban Areas (City/UGA) City of Ilwaco 1,350 0.2 NA- not in The shoreline within the County’s county’s incorporated areas are regulated shoreline through their own SMPs jurisdiction City of Long 1,060 0.2 Beach
City of 3,027 0.4 Raymond
City of South 1,255 0.2 Bend
Unincorporated 263 <0.1 16 The Seaview UGA generally falls Seaview outside of shoreline jurisdiction, except that portions of associated wetlands occur within the UGA. Land within the Seaview UGA has been designated as predominantly residential, with limited commercial use areas. Total Land 594,860 42,007 Area
Source: Pacific County, 2010; BERK, 2014
A 2008 study conducted by the Pacific County Economic Development Council concluded there was insufficient industrial land to support Pacific County’s economy. As a remedy, the Comprehensive Plan identifies and designates additional lands suitable for industrial development. The purpose of the Industrial designation is to recognize areas where industrial activities are located and to provide controls for such activities that protect nearby land uses. The Industrial designation provides for existing industrial users, as well as for the intensification of development, or new development of small-scale industries. The Industrial designation is particularly relevant for shoreline planning because in Pacific County, industrial uses are often associated with natural resources, such as agriculture, aquaculture, aquifer supply, timber or minerals. Industrial lands are often located near natural resources such as shorelines. The major industrial areas in Pacific County include those operated by the Ports of Willapa (e.g., Bay Center and Tokeland), Chinook, and Peninsula. These are primarily located near water bodies.
11 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Zoning Code The Comprehensive Plan is implemented through the development regulations, including the Zoning Code. Title 18 of the Pacific County Code provides zoning standards that more specifically direct uses, building bulk, scale, and location, and other design considerations. The zones match the Comprehensive Plan designations and minimum lot sizes are dictated through the Comprehensive Plan land use designations. Pacific County zoning code includes the zones and abbreviations in the following list.
• Commercial Forestry (FC ) • Transitional Forest Land (FT) • Conservation (CD) • Agricultural (AG) • Aquacultural (AQ) • Remote Rural (RR-1) • Rural Lands (RL) • Rural Residential (RR) • Restricted Residential (R-1) • Resort District (R-3) • Mixed Use (MU) • Community Commercial District (CC) • Industrial (I) • Mixed Use – Tokeland (MU-T)
Critical Areas County regulations applicable to critical areas and natural resources were last updated in 1999. In those regulations, the County specified general stream/river buffers and wetland buffers as summarized in Table 2-3. Per Ordinance 147, wetlands are delineated based on Ecology’s 1997 manual and rated under Ecology’s 1993 wetland rating manual. These standards do not reflect the most current, accurate, and complete scientific and technical information available. State law (WAC 173-22-035) now directs wetland delineation to be conducted in accordance with the 1987 U.S. Corps of Engineers (Corps) Wetlands Delineation Manual and the 2010 Western Mountains, Valleys, and Coast Interim Regional Supplement, rather than the State’s 1997 manual. Ecology’s wetland rating manual was last revised in 2006, and an updated rating system became effective as of January 1, 2015.
The wetland buffers in the County’s critical areas regulations are not consistent with current guidance from Ecology, which proposes wetland buffers ranging from 25-300 feet (Granger et al. 2005). Stream buffers under Pacific County Code are expected to help maintain several
12 The Watershed Company June 2015 functions of riparian areas, yet the existing regulatory buffer widths are on the lower side of literature cited in guidance from Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Knutson and Naef 1997). In addition to stream buffers, the PCC 16.52 establishes standards for new and repaired on-site sewer systems adjacent to shellfish, kelp, eelgrass, herring, and smelt spawning areas, including a 100-foot-wide setback from surface waters. Wetland and stream buffer standards are described in Table 2-3.
Table 2-3. Pacific County Critical Area Buffer Regulations Summary Category Standard Buffer Cat. I 100 Cat. II 75 Wetlands Cat. III 50 Cat. IV 25 Category I, II, and III wetlands may be averaged. Resulting buffer may Averaging be no less than 50% of standard buffer width in any location Stream Type Standard Buffer 1 100 Streams / 2 100 Lakes 3 100 4 50 5 25
PCC 16.58 (Aquifer Recharge Areas) regulates areas with permeable soils, including beaches and dunes. The provisions for aquifer recharge areas establish maximum densities for residential development in aquifer recharge areas depending on the type of sewage treatment proposed. New non-residential development with the potential to contaminate the underlying aquifer requires preparation of an aquifer recharge report.
County regulations for frequently flooded areas (PCC 16.56) reference the County’s flood damage prevention standards (PCC 15.08). PCC 15.08.070 prohibits fill, new construction, or substantial improvements in the floodway that would increase flood levels during the base flood discharge. These provisions help ensure that floodways will maintain their functions in storing and transporting water, as well as their habitat functions. Standards applicable to the floodplain and coastal high hazard areas are primarily focused on minimizing risks to structures and safety. In the future, the County could consider extreme high tide events (e.g. King Tides), NOAA’s highest astronomical tides (HAT), and sea level rise predictions, as well as their added effects in development planning to prevent potential damage to structures.
The County’s geological hazard area regulations (PCC 16.60) apply to areas susceptible to erosion hazards, landslide hazards, mine hazards, seismic hazards, and areas susceptible to
13 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
other geologic events. Many development standards apply to geologic hazard areas, including a 50-foot buffer from the top, toe and sides of landslide and erosion hazard areas. Tsunami hazard areas are not identified as a geological hazard area in the County’s critical areas regulations.
Provisions to fulfill requirements for critical areas on shorelines are addressed in RCW 90.58.100(2) and WAC 173-26-186. Shoreline critical areas that occur in marine and estuarine waters include critical saltwater habitats (WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)). “Critical saltwater habitats include all kelp beds, eelgrass beds, spawning and holding areas for forage fish, such as herring, smelt and sandlance; subsistence, commercial and recreational shellfish beds; mudflats, intertidal habitats with vascular plants, and areas with which priority species have a primary association” (WAC 173-26-221(2)(c)(iii)(A)). Critical saltwater habitats that occur within Pacific County include: spawning and holding areas for herring, and although not documented in the county, potentially for smelt and sandlance; mudflats and eelgrass beds; recreational and commercial shellfish beds; and areas with which priority species have primary associations. The identification of ecologically important areas, as well as surveys to identify priority forage fish and marine mammal habitats will continue to be conducted by the Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) along Pacific County’s coast to inform critical areas designations and the marine spatial planning process (http://msp.wa.gov/msp-projects/). WAC 173-26- 221(2)(c)(iii)(B) also suggests that local management planning should “include an evaluation of current data and trends,” as well as “an analysis of what data gaps exist and a strategy for gaining this information.” The state encourages local governments to be involved in “determining which habitats and species are of local importance.”
2.3 State Agencies and Regulations Aside from the SMA, State regulations most pertinent to development in the County’s shorelines include the State Hydraulic Code, the GMA, the State Environmental Policy Act, tribal agreements and case law, the Watershed Planning Act, the Water Resources Act, and the Salmon Recovery Act. A variety of agencies (e.g., Ecology, WDFW, Washington Department of Natural Resources [WDNR]) are involved in implementing these regulations or otherwise own shoreline areas. Ecology reviews all shoreline projects that require a shoreline permit, but has specific regulatory authority over shoreline conditional use permits and shoreline variances. Other agency reviews of shoreline developments are typically triggered by in- or over-water work, discharges of fill or pollutants into the water, or substantial land clearing.
Depending on the nature of the proposed development, state regulations can play an important role in the design and implementation of a shoreline project, ensuring that impacts to shoreline functions and values are avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. During the comprehensive
14 The Watershed Company June 2015
SMP update, the County will consider other State regulations to ensure consistency as appropriate and feasible with the goal of streamlining the shoreline permitting process. A summary of some of the key State regulations and/or State agency responsibilities follows.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife: Chapter 77.55 RCW (the Hydraulic Code) gives the WDFW the authority to review, condition, and approve or deny “any construction activity that will use, divert, obstruct, or change the bed or flow of any of the salt or fresh waters of the State.” These activities may include stream alteration, culvert installation or replacement, pier and bulkhead repair or construction, among others. In a permit called a Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA), WDFW can condition projects to avoid, minimize, restore, and compensate for adverse impacts. In most cases, if a government agency or any person plans to conduct a hydraulic project they must “secure approval of the department in the form of a permit as to the adequacy of the means proposed for the protection of fish life” (RCW 77.55.021).
WDFW and Washington tribes co-manage fisheries in waters of Washington State.
Section 401 Water Quality Certification: Section 401 of the federal Clean Water Act allows states to review, condition, and approve or deny certain federal permitted actions that result in discharges to State waters, including wetlands. In Washington, the Department of Ecology is the State agency responsible for conducting that review, with their primary review criteria of ensuring that State water quality standards are met. Actions within streams or wetlands within the shoreline zone that require a Section 404 permit (see below) will also need to be reviewed by Ecology.
Washington Department of Natural Resources: Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) is charged with protecting and managing use of State-owned aquatic lands. WDNR manages more than 5.6 million acres of State-owned forest, range, commercial, agricultural, conservation, and aquatic lands. WDNR manages these lands for revenue, outdoor recreation, and habitat for native fish and wildlife.
Water-dependent uses waterward of the ordinary high water mark require review by WDNR to establish whether the project is on State-owned aquatic lands. Certain project activities, such as single-family or two-party joint-use residential piers, on State-owned aquatic lands are exempt from these requirements. WDNR recommends that all proponents of a project waterward of the ordinary high water mark contact WDNR to determine jurisdiction and requirements.
The WDNR also implements and enforces the Forest Practices Act and Forest Practices Rules. The Forest Practices Act applies to primarily all non-Federal and non-tribal forestland. The
15 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
forest practices rules include standards to maintain and restore aquatic and riparian habitat. The rules were incorporated into a State-wide Forest Practices Habitat Conservation Plan for federally threatened and endangered species in 2005.
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission - Seashore Conservation Area: The Seashore Conservation Area (SCA), established in 1967, includes lands between the line of mean high tide and the line of mean low tide from Cape Disappointment to Leadbetter Point, from Toke Point to the south jetty in Grays Harbor County, and from Damon Point in Grays Harbor County to the Makah Indian Reservation, excluding areas within any Indian reservation (RCW 79A.05.605). The SCA also includes lands that have been formed by accretion, which are above the present line of mean high tide, where private landowners have granted State Parks with a deed of dedication. The purpose of the SCA is, “To contribute toward providing people an opportunity to enhance their lives through recreational leisure time experiences and cause our environment to be protected, our heritage preserved, and our natural resources conserved” (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 2001).
The SCA establishes standards for ocean beach management, including provisions that regulate vehicular traffic within the SCA and prohibit mining for sand, except for small quantities and on the Long Beach Peninsula for cranberry growing.
The Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission developed a Long Beach Area Management Plan (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 2009), which identifies the following objectives for the area’s State Parks:
• Recreational resources: Provide and develop an array of compatible and quality overnight, day-use facilities and recreational opportunities that are inspired by and in harmony with the parks’ natural and cultural resources.
• Natural resources: Maintain and enhance habitat for coastal flora and fauna. Interpret these natural resources to the public to create and reinforce stewardship of them.
• Partnership: Provide park visitor services through public and private partnerships and other entrepreneurial programs that are compatible with other park management objectives.
• Cultural resources: Preserve and interpret historical and archaeological resources.
Marine Waters Planning and Management Act: The Marine Waters Planning and Management Act (RCW 43.372) authorizes agencies with marine waters planning and management responsibilities to include marine spatial data and marine spatial planning elements in existing and ongoing planning. The Act also directs Ecology to work with other
16 The Watershed Company June 2015
State agencies with marine management responsibilities, tribal governments, marine resources committees, local and federal agencies, and marine waters stakeholders to compile marine spatial information and to incorporate this information into ongoing plans. The marine interagency team shall coordinate the development of a comprehensive marine management plan for the State's marine waters, which includes marine spatial planning. The goal of the marine spatial planning process is to analyze existing and future uses of Washington’s coastal waters, identify potential conflicts between activities, and recommend policies. The SMP is a regulatory document that will potentially implement these policy recommendations. Because these acts and programs intersect, consistency between the two processes is necessary. The Washington marine spatial planning website provides interactive data layers here: http://www.msp.wa.gov/.
Ocean Resources Management Act: The Ocean Resources Management Act (RCW 43.143) establishes policies that are intended to protect the functions and values of the State’s ocean resources. These policies are summarized as follows:
• No leasing of Washington's tidal or submerged lands for purposes of oil or gas exploration, development, or production;
• Priority to resource uses and activities that will not adversely impact renewable resources; and
• Encourage the conservation of liquid fossil fuels, and explore available methods of encouraging such conservation.
The Act establishes criteria for federally, State, or locally permitted uses or activities that will adversely impact renewable resources, marine life, fishing, aquaculture, recreation, navigation, air or water quality, or other existing ocean or coastal uses. Those criteria are listed as follows:
• There is a demonstrated significant local, State, or national need for the proposed use or activity;
• There is no reasonable alternative to meet the public need for the proposed use or activity;
• There will be no likely long-term significant adverse impacts to coastal or marine resources or uses;
• All reasonable steps are taken to avoid and minimize adverse environmental impacts, with special protection provided for the marine life and resources of the Columbia River, Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor estuaries, and Olympic National Park;
17 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• All reasonable steps are taken to avoid and minimize adverse social and economic impacts, including impacts on aquaculture, recreation, tourism, navigation, air quality, and recreational, commercial, and tribal fishing;
• Compensation is provided to mitigate adverse impacts to coastal resources or uses;
• Plans and sufficient performance bonding are provided to ensure that the site will be rehabilitated after the use or activity is completed; and
• The use or activity complies with all applicable local, State, and federal laws and regulations.
The Act also establishes the Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council to communicate and collaborate with federal, State, and local agencies and entities on coastal issues, including coastal resource policy, planning, and management issues, and to advise the governor, legislature, and State and local agencies on specific coastal waters resource management issues. The Advisory Council’s role also includes identifying and pursuing funding opportunities for relevant programs and activities of member entities.
Growth Management Act (RCW 36.70A.020): The purpose of the Growth Management Act is to guide the development of comprehensive plans and development regulations, including the Shoreline Master Program. These plans are encouraged to: plan urban growth in areas that are already developed to reduce sprawl, create efficient transportation systems, allow for affordable housing and economic development, respect property rights, make decisions on permits in a timely manner, maintain and enhance natural resource industries, allow for open space and recreation, protect the environment, encourage public participation in planning processes, create public facilities and services that support planned development, and preserve sites that have historic value. In 1990, Pacific County, at the option of their Board of County Commissioners, elected to prepare a comprehensive plan under the Act, and thus began a coordinated approach and process to address growth. The incorporated cities of Ilwaco, Long Beach, Raymond and South Bend were also embodied into the growth management planning process.
2.4 Federal Regulations Federal regulations most pertinent to development in the County’s shorelines include the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Clean Water Act, and the Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act. Other relevant federal laws include the National Environmental Policy Act, Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, Clean Air Act, the Marine Mammal Protection Act, the Coastal Zone Management Act, National Historic Preservation Act, and the Migratory Bird Treaty Act, Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2006, Oil Pollution Act of 1990, the Submerged Lands Act,
18 The Watershed Company June 2015
and Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act of 1972. A variety of agencies are involved in implementing these regulations. Review by these agencies of shoreline development by these agencies in most cases would be triggered by in- or over-water work, or discharges of fill or pollutants into the water. Depending on the nature of the proposed development, federal regulations can play an important role in the design and implementation of a shoreline project, ensuring that impacts to shoreline functions and values are avoided, minimized, and/or mitigated. During the comprehensive SMP update, the County will consider other federal regulations to ensure consistency as appropriate and feasible with the goal of streamlining the shoreline permitting process. A summary of some of the key federal regulations and/or federal agency responsibilities follows.
Clean Water Act: Major components of the Clean Water Act include Section 404, Section 401, and the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES).
Section 404 provides the Corps, under the oversight of the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, with authority to regulate “discharge of dredged or fill material into waters of the United States, including wetlands.” The extent of the Corps’ authority and the definition of fill have been the subject of considerable legal activity. As applicable to the County’s shoreline jurisdiction, however, it generally means that the Corps must review and approve most activities in streams and wetlands. These activities may include wetland fills, stream and wetland restoration, and culvert installation or replacement, among others. The Corps requires projects to avoid, minimize, and compensate for impacts.
A Section 401 Water Quality Certification is required for any applicant for a federal permit for any activity that may result in any discharge to waters of the United States. States and tribes may deny, certify, or condition permits or licenses based on the proposed project’s compliance with water quality standards. In Washington State, the Department of Ecology has been delegated the responsibility by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for managing implementation of this program.
The NPDES is similar to Section 401, and it applies to ongoing point-source discharge. Permits include limits on what can be discharged, monitoring and reporting requirements, and other provisions designed to protect water quality. Examples of discharges requiring NPDES permits include municipal stormwater discharge, wastewater treatment effluent, or discharge related to industrial activities.
Rivers and Harbors Act: Section 10 of the federal Rivers and Harbors Appropriation Act of 1899 provides the Corps with authority to regulate activities that may affect navigation of “navigable” waters. Designated “navigable” waters in Pacific County include the Pacific
19 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Ocean, Willapa Bay (including Skidmore Slough), the lower 4 miles of the Bear River, the lower 15.3 miles of the Naselle River, the lower 5 miles of the North River, and tidal waters of the Bear, Willapa, Nemah, and Palix Rivers. Proposals to construct new or modify existing over- water structures (including bridges), to excavate or fill, or to “alter or modify the course, location, condition, or capacity of” navigable waters must be reviewed and approved by the Corps.
Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA): Section 9 of the ESA prohibits “take” of listed species. Take has been defined in Section 3 as: “harass, harm, pursue, hunt, shoot, wound, kill, trap, capture, or collect, or to attempt to engage in any such conduct.” The take prohibitions of the ESA apply to everyone, so any action that results in a take of listed fish or wildlife would be a violation of the ESA and is strictly prohibited. Per Section 7 of the ESA, activities with potential to affect federally listed or proposed species and that require federal approval, receive federal funding, or occur on federal land must be reviewed by the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) and/or U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) via a process called “consultation.” Activities requiring a Section 10 or Section 404 permit also require such consultation if these activities occur in waterbodies with listed species.
Magnuson–Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act (MSA): The MSA is the primary law governing marine fisheries management in United States federal waters. The Magnuson-Stevens Act of 2005 requires the conservation and management of commercial and recreational fisheries within the United States’ exclusive economic zone (EEZ) and beyond to international waters by preparation, implementation, and enforcement of fishery management plans. The Act created eight regional fishery management councils. The Pacific Fishery Management Council is made up of representatives from state and tribal fish and wildlife agencies, as well as fisheries and conservation stakeholders.
The MSA also establishes Essential Fish Habitat (EFH), broadly defined to include "those waters and substrate necessary to fish for spawning, breeding, feeding, or growth to maturity" for designated species. For the State of Washington, EFH has been designated for 3 species of Pacific salmon, 83 species of groundfish, and 5 coastal pelagic species. The MSA requires all Federal agencies to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) on all federal actions that may adversely affect designated EFH.
It also promotes the prevention of impediments or interference with “recognized legitimate uses of the high seas, except as necessary for the conservation and management of fishery resources.”
20 The Watershed Company June 2015
Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA): Section 303 of the CZMA of 1972 declares that “it is the national policy (1) to preserve, protect, develop and where possible, to restore or enhance, the resources of the Nation’s coastal zone for this and succeeding generations; (2) to encourage and assist the states [in]… development and implementation of management programs to achieve wise use of the land and water resources of the coastal zone, giving full consideration to ecological, cultural, historic, and esthetic values as well as well as the needs for compatible economic development…” (3) “to encourage the preparation of special area management plans which provide for increased specificity in protecting significant natural resources…” (4) “to encourage participation and collaboration of the public, state, local governments, and other regional agencies” including Federal agencies. (5) “to encourage coordination and cooperation with and among the appropriate Federal, State, and local agencies, and international organizations where appropriate in collection, analysis, synthesis, and dissemination of coastal management information, research results, and technical assistance…” (6) “to respond to changing circumstances affecting the coastal environment and coastal resource management…” There are currently no requirements for interstate consistency.
The CZMA consists of three programs, the National Coastal Zone Management Program, the National Estuarine Research Reserve System, and the Coastal and Estuarine Land Conservation Program. Section 307 of the CZMA, called the "federal consistency" provision, requires that federal actions that have reasonably foreseeable effects on any coastal use or resource be consistent with the enforceable policies of a state's federally approved coastal management program. In the State of Washington, the coastal management program is encompassed by six state laws, including:
• the Shoreline Management Act (including local government shoreline master programs) • the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) • the Clean Water Act • the Clean Air Act • the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council (EFSEC) • the Ocean Resource Management Act (ORMA)
Federal agency activities must be consistent to the maximum extent practicable with the enforceable policies of a state coastal management program. In Pacific County, where marine fisheries are an integral part of the regional economy, marine fishery resources and activities regularly extend beyond the three-mile limit of state jurisdiction. To the extent that the County’s SMP establishes enforceable policies for uses and modifications in the marine environment, the SMP can be a tool to help ensure that federal actions are consistent with the County’s marine management objectives.
21 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Oil Pollution Act of 1990 (16 U.S. Code Chapter 40): The Oil Pollution Act expands the federal government’s ability to prevent and respond to oil spills; it also calls for the expansion of the National Oil and Hazardous Substances Pollution Contingency Plan, and the ability of the federal government to penalize responsible parties for oil spill damage.
Submerged Lands Act (43 U.S. Code Chapter 29): The Submerged Lands Act of 1953 gives authority to the Department of the Interior to grant leases for mineral exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf. The Department of the Interior is also responsible for formulating regulations associated with exploration and development on the Outer Continental Shelf.
2.5 Tribal Regulations The Shoalwater Reservation is approximately one square mile in size. As a sovereign nation, the Shoalwater Tribe has its own zoning and environmental provisions that apply within the reservation.
2.6 Regulatory Framework - Special Topics
Dredging Dredging projects typically involve multiple agencies. The following discussion assumes that new permits are required for a dredging project (as opposed to performing the dredging under an existing permit). Permits are required to be obtained from: the Corps, Ecology, WDFW, and the local government with jurisdiction. Before applying for a permit, an applicant must obtain a Suitability Determination or other decision document from the Corps’ Dredged Material Management Program that evaluates the proposed project. As part of the Corps’ process, ESA consultation with the US Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service will be conducted. If in-water disposal is proposed, a Site Use Authorization from the Washington Department of Natural Resources is also required. Any dumping of dredge material is managed by the Dredged Material Management Program under the Marine Protection, Research, and Sanctuaries Act (MPRSA) enacted by Congress in 1972. Dumping permits and recommended dumping sites within the territorial seas (3-12 miles out) are issued by the U.S Army Corps of Engineers using the Environmental Protection Agency’s (EPA) environmental criteria. Existing ocean disposal sites in and adjacent to Pacific County are included in this report (Section 6.11).
22 The Watershed Company June 2015
Ocean Energy Projects As is discussed in Section 3.4.5 of this document, there has been some interest in the potential for wave, tidal, and offshore wind energy to be produced in Pacific County. Although some technologies have not been adequately vetted as far as their potential for energy production or environmental impacts, a regulatory framework exists for permitting of potential ocean-based energy production projects. In general, the location of a proposed project would determine the applicable regulatory processes. The permitting process varies according to whether such a project is proposed in State waters (less than three nautical miles offshore) or in federal waters (beyond three nautical miles offshore).
The Federal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC) issues authorizations for such projects in State waters. “Preliminary permits” allow project-related studies to be performed. Licenses allow the actual construction of a project. The licensing process incorporates most State authorizations and typically takes years to complete. Shoreline permits would also be required for projects in State waters.
In federal waters (beyond three nautical miles offshore and outside of shoreline jurisdiction), both the FERC and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management have regulatory authority. For wave, tidal, offshore wind, and current projects, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management has jurisdiction to issue leases, while FERC has jurisdiction to issue licenses. It should be noted that even projects in federal waters will likely require transmission lines that will pass through State waters. These transmission lines would require a FERC license and a shoreline permit.
The 2005 Energy Policy Act gives the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management the authority to lease submerged lands for ocean energy projects. The Renewable Energy Program Regulations (30 CFR 585), however, first require the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to coordinate with the relevant federal, state, and local agencies to avoid conflicts among users and prevent interference with reasonable uses of territorial seas. As discussed above in Section 2.4, the Coastal Zone Management Act also requires any federal agency activity (including permitting of ocean energy projects) within the coastal zone be carried out in a manner that is consistent to the maximum extent possible with the enforcement policies approved by State management programs.
On the west coast of the United States, the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management is engaged in the West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health, which is a partnership between the governors of California, Oregon, and Washington to manage the impact of human activities on ocean resources and ecosystems. The Bureau of Ocean Energy Management will also be involved in the West Coast Regional Planning Body, which will require the Bureau of Ocean
23 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Energy Management to work with other Department of the Interior Agencies to consider all responsibilities and interests in ocean use issues.
3 SUMMARY OF COUNTY ECOSYSTEM CONDITIONS
3.1 Climate and Ocean Physical Conditions Pacific County is located in a temperate maritime climate. Annual rainfall in the Willapa basin averages about 85 inches with a range of 44-145 inches (Smith 1999). Precipitation is concentrated in the winter months, with most precipitation falling as rain below 1,500 feet.
3.1.2 Currents
The most predominant current influencing water transport along the Washington coast is the California Current System. This current system is driven by strong alongshore winds along the narrow continental shelf (Skewgar and Pearson 2011). While the California current flows southward, west of the continental shelf break, the California Undercurrent flows northward over the continental slope (Skewgar and Pearson 2011). The California Undercurrent is responsible for transporting the nutrient-rich waters, which are then brought to the surface during upwelling. Another current that influences the Washington coast during the fall and winter is the Davidson Current, which is a northward current that flows over the continental shelf and slope (Hickey 1979).
3.1.3 Tides
Washington’s outer coast experiences two high and two low tides per day of different heights, called a mixed semidiurnal tidal pattern. The mixed semidiurnal tide range (the vertical range between Mean Higher High Water to Mean Lower Low Water) varies from 7 to 8 vertical feet along the outer coast of Washington (Skewgar and Pearson 2011). Up to half the volume of brackish water in Willapa Bay is flushed into the coastal ocean twice each day due to tidal fluctuations (Hickey and Banas 2003; Skewgar and Pearson 2011).
3.2 Geology and Sediments
Willapa Hills
Pacific County is located in the Willapa Hills physiographic region, which includes the Black Hills, Doty Hills, and the broad valleys that lead to the Pacific Ocean. The following description
24 The Watershed Company June 2015 of the geologic setting is derived from Lasmanis’ “Geology of Washington” (1991) and Wiedemann's description of coastal geology in "The Ecology of Pacific Coastal Sand Dunes" (1984).
Sequences of exposed tertiary igneous and sedimentary rocks of Eocene through Miocene age are present in the Willapa Hills. Geological features and fossils indicate the historical presence of a marine shoreline along the eastern side of the Willapa Hills during the Tertiary period.
During the middle and late Miocene, Columbia River basalt flowed down the Columbia River to the Pacific Ocean, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor. These flows formed many of the basaltic intrusions and headlands that remain today. The Willapa Hills were not subject to subduction or metamorphism. Erosional weathering of the sedimentary beds in the Willapa Hills began in the Pliocene and continued rapidly, resulting in the rounded topography and deep weathering profiles apparent today. The combination of steep slopes, erodible geology, and abundant rainfall contribute to high landslide susceptibility. Most landslides have been shallow slides or debris flows, but deep-seated landslides have also occurred. The hydrologic and vegetative changes that accompany forestry activities have increased landslide activity in the region (Weyerhaeuser 1996, Smith 1999).
Submerged cedar forests and radiocarbon dating techniques provide evidence that estuaries along the coast experienced repeated episodes of sudden submergence during the Holocene associated with subduction earthquakes, followed by uplift. These subsidence and emergence events occurred at an approximately 500-year interval, with last event occurring in 1700 (Ruggiero et al. 2007).
Barrier beaches along the outer coast create the major estuaries of Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. These beaches have formed as a result of currents from the Columbia River, winds, and waves. The easily erodible material also allowed for the creation of wave-cut terraces on which present-day sand dunes have developed. Today, the coastline of Pacific County consists of broad sand beaches, backed by a foredune, parallel dune ridges, and a deflation plain.
Columbia River Estuary The Columbia River estuary was formed by the forces of glaciation, volcanism, hydrology, and erosion and accretion of sediments. The Cascade mountain range was formed 50 to 35 million years ago, at which time, uplift of the Rocky Mountains combined with subduction of the oceanic plates of the Pacific Ocean, creating the flow path for the River (Simenstad et al. 2011). Subsequent glaciation restructured and expanded the extent of the Columbia River basin (Simenstad et al. 2011). Near the end of the last glacial period, the Missoula Floods, first described by J Harlen Bretz in 1923, resulted in the deposition of silt, sand, and gravel that now
25 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report form much of the landscape in the Columbia River basin. Volcanism, lava flows, and lahars occurring in the Holocene period, have contributed much of the bedload of the lower Columbia River (Simenstad et al. 2011). Sea level rise since the late Pleistocene period has submerged river channels and caused deposition of coarse and fine sands (Marriott 2002), which shape today’s shallow estuarine habitats.
Coastal Ocean The surficial geology off the coast from Pacific County in the coastal ocean is primarily composed of soft bottom habitat with sand of varying grain sizes (Reid et al. 2006). The sandy benthic composition of the coastal ocean is partly due to sediment discharge from the Columbia River which travels up the coast of Washington in the Columbia River Littoral Cell (CRLC) (Ruggiero et al. 2005). As sediments travel away from the Columbia River in the CRLC, they become finer (Goldfinger et al. 2014; Ruggiero et al. 2005). In the nearshore, north of the Columbia River to a depth of 50 m, the sea bed is covered in a layer of fine grain sandy sediment ranging in size from 0.21 mm near the mouth of the Columbia River to about 0.16 mm at the tip of the peninsula (Byrnes and Feng 2005; Ruggiero et al. 2010; Di Leonardo and Ruggiero 2015). The sediment composition in this region is variable as discharge from the Columbia River changes throughout the year, with peak flows occurring in May and June and minimum flows occurring in August and September (Byrnes and Feng 2005). Sediment transport is also influenced by large-scale weather systems, which control water circulation including littoral currents, upwelling, and downwelling events (Barnes et al. 1972).
Sediments transported in the CRLC also create migrating sandbars that form offshore from the Long Beach peninsula (Ruggiero et al. 2005). In 2011, sandbars near Long Beach formed between 200 and 1,010 m from the shoreline, at an average depth of 3.9 m (Di Leonardo and Ruggiero 2015). The maximum height of a sandbar off Long Beach was 2.9 m, with an average height of 0.8 m. (Di Leonardo and Ruggiero 2015). The Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study reported that the highest reported sandbars off of Long Beach occurred in 1999, reaching heights up to 6 m (Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study Report). These offshore bars influence regional hydrodynamics, create waves, and absorb a substantial amount of wave energy as storm surge approaches the shoreline and coastal dune system.
Anthropogenic influences such as the damming of the Columbia River and the construction of Columbia River jetties have historically had a significant effect on sediment transport and dynamics along Washington’s coast, especially in Pacific County along the Long Beach Peninsula (reviewed by Ruggiero et al. 2005; Kaminsky et al. 2010; Kaminsky et al. 1999; Gelfenbaum et al. 1999). Shoreline sediment changes over decadal timescales are hypothesized
26 The Watershed Company June 2015 to be driven by “strong gradients in alongshore sediment transport rates and onshore feeding from the lower shoreface” (Ruggiero et al. 2010).
Hard substrate in the near-shore waters of Pacific County is rare and rocky outcrops are predicted occur in deeper waters (i.e. ~200 m) and boulders at approximately 100 fathoms depth (Goldfinger et al. 2014).
3.3 Key Species and Habitats
Key Pacific County habitats considered within the SMP include freshwater, estuarine, and marine shorelines and their associated shorelands. Most species within the County are predominantly associated with one of these habitats, although several (including salmonids) bridge multiple habitats.
Freshwater Habitats Key habitats associated with freshwater shorelines include riparian habitats, floodplains, wetlands, and upland forests and grasslands.
Riparian areas provide a broad range of critical functions for water quality and habitat. Water quality functions include filtration of nutrients, fecal coliform bacteria, sediment, and other contaminants (Naiman and Decamps 1997, Mayer et al. 2007). Functions important to fish and wildlife habitats include microclimate regulation, invertebrate and detrital food sources for juvenile fish, shaded cover, and woody debris recruitment (Naiman and Decamps 1997). Floodplain habitats act as an extension of riparian areas. Floodplains often include off-channel rearing habitats and wetlands, and they provide pulses of organic detritus and insect prey following flood events.
Wetlands provide habitat for fish, and wildlife, moderation of flood impacts, and filtration and assimilation of nutrients and contaminants (Mitsch and Gosselink 2000). The relative value of wetland functions varies based on landscape position; location relative to streams, rivers, and lakes; and surrounding development. In recognition of these differences, the hydrogeomorphic (HGM) approach to wetland classification was developed, which accounts for geomorphic setting, water source, and water transport (Brinson 1993, Smith et al. 1995). The primary freshwater HGM classifications in Pacific County and brief descriptions follow.
• Depressional wetlands occur in topographic depressions. Dominant water sources are precipitation, ground water discharge, and runoff. When present, flow is typically directed toward the center of the depression. Interdunal wetlands, discussed below, are typically depressional.
27 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Riverine wetlands occur in floodplains and riparian corridors. Dominant water sources are overbank flow from the channel or hyporheic flow. Flow is predominantly unidirectional, flowing downstream. Surge plain wetlands, discussed below, are a type of riverine wetland.
• Slope wetlands occur on sloping lands. Dominant water sources are ground water and precipitation. Flow is predominantly unidirectional.
• Flats occur on broad, flat lands, including large, historic floodplains and deflation plains. Water sources are predominantly precipitation; ground water is not a major water source. Water loss primarily occurs through infiltration and seepage. Deflation plain interdunal wetlands, described below, may be classified as flats.
• Lake fringe wetlands occur adjacent to lakes. Dominant water source is the water elevation of the lake. Flow is bidirectional, rising and falling with lake levels.
Interdunal wetlands are common features near coastal areas in Pacific County. They frequently occur behind stabilized foredunes, either in small depressions or as larger deflation plains. Wiedemann (1984) listed 168 species of birds, 31 species of mammals, 10 amphibian species, and 3 reptile species occurring in association with the Pacific Northwest coastal dune ecosystem. In addition to supporting a wide diversity of wildlife, interdunal wetlands are frequently associated with many rare and endangered plant species and their associated fauna (Crawford 2011). Rapid rainwater infiltration in coastal dunes helps recharge freshwater aquifers and limit potential saltwater intrusion. Because there is typically little elevation difference in groundwater between adjacent interdunal wetlands, slight differences in water level may initiate flow from one wetland to another (Crawford 2011). Under natural conditions, individual wetland locations may shift seasonally or inter-annually through natural sand movement and vegetation succession (Crawford 2011). A research study of the Long Beach Peninsula in Pacific County documented high infiltration rates within the sand dunes (Blakemore 1995). Blakemore (1995) identified the direction of drainage on the Long Beach Peninsula, finding that, “most of the natural drainage of the Long Beach Peninsula moves south to north following swales between the dune ridges. Some of this natural drainage has been altered by canals, drainage ditches, and culverts… An example of an altered drainage is the Whiskey Slough watershed where a dune ridge was penetrated, thereby expanding the size of the watershed by more than 50 percent.” Blakemore concluded that approximately two-thirds of the peninsula drainage drains to Willapa Bay, and approximately one-third drains to the Pacific Coast, as shown in Figure 3-1.
During winter months, up to 40 percent of the groundwater recharge occurring in the Long Beach dunes discharges to surface waters (Blakemore 1995). Because interdunal wetlands rapidly drain to the underlying aquifer and the Pacific Ocean, the Shoreline Hearings Board
28 The Watershed Company June 2015 determined in 1993 that interdunal wetlands in the City of Westport, Washington, “are in hydraulic continuity with the Pacific, and so they are associated wetlands of the Pacific, and thus subject to SMA jurisdiction”(Shorelines Hearings Board 1993). Drawing from that conclusion, interdunal wetlands throughout the Pacific County shoreline are likely considered associated wetlands.
Figure 3-1a. Direction of groundwater flow in the northern portion of the Long Beach Peninsula (from Blakemore 1995)
29 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 3-1b. Direction of groundwater flow in the central portion of the Long Beach Peninsula (from Blakemore 1995)
30 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 3-1c. Direction of groundwater flow in the southern portion of the Long Beach Peninsula (from Blakemore 1995)
Coastal forests have also been extensively managed for timber production. Managed forests are typically 20 to 60 years old and are made up of native tree species, primarily Douglas fir and western hemlock. Harvest of old-growth and mature forests for commercial timber and paper production has resulted in loss of species diversity and forest complexity on most of this landscape due to planting of even aged, monotypic stands, and short harvest rotations. Conversion of habitat to residential and nonforest uses has accelerated forest fragmentation.
31 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Land cover has a significant effect on water flow through a watershed. A loss of forested vegetation cover is correlated with increased high flows, increased variability in daily streamflow, reduced groundwater recharge, and reduced summer low flow conditions (Burges et al. 1998, Jones 2000, Cuo et al. 2009). Changes in hydrology related to development are generally associated with soil compaction, draining, and ditching across the landscape, increased impervious surface cover, and decreased forest cover (Moore and Wondzell 2005).
Estuarine and Marine Habitats Key habitats associated with estuarine and nearshore marine areas in Pacific County are described below.
Dunes Coastal sand dunes are a prominent feature along the County’s Pacific Coast shoreline. Historically, coastal marine and wind processes maintained native plant communities in early successional stages on the outer edges of the dunes. Mature native plant communities, such as spruce-dominated forests, developed in the more stable interior systems. Coastal sand dunes provide a number of important functions, including protected habitat for shorebirds and wildlife, groundwater recharge, water quality protection, physical backshore protection, and recreation (City of Long Beach 2000). Interdunal wetlands commonly occur behind stabilized foredunes, either in small depressions or as larger deflation plains. See discussion of interdunal wetlands in Section 3.3.1, above.
Marine Riparian Intact marine riparian habitats provide a variety of essential ecological functions, including water quality protection, sediment control, wildlife habitat, nutrient control, insect food sources for juvenile fish, shaded cover, and woody debris to help build complex habitat and stabilize beach substrate (Brennan and Culverwell 2005). Marine riparian vegetation helps stabilize slopes and protect against landslides and other erosion hazards.
Beaches Sandy flat beaches predominate along the Pacific Coast, North of Cape Disappointment. These fine grained beaches tend to have high levels of primary productivity and support benthic infauna (e.g., amphipods, isopods, polychaete worms, and patches of razor clams) (Dethier 1991 in Skewgar and Pearson 2011).
Intertidal beaches may also provide spawning substrate for forage fish including surf smelt and sand lance. However, a recent survey of potential spawning habitats on the outer coast of Washington did not identify any intertidal forage fish spawning areas along the Pacific County coast (Langness et al. 2013).
32 The Watershed Company June 2015
Cobble to fine sand beaches and tidal sand and mudflats are important habitats for many shellfish species. Shellfish beds perform a number of important ecological functions including cycling nutrients, stabilizing substrates, creating habitat structure, and providing food for a wide variety of marine invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals. Fish such as sole, surfperch, and staghorn sculpins use high energy nearshore beaches (Skewgar and Pearson 2011). Intertidal beaches throughout the County also provide roosting and foraging opportunities for shorebirds.
Estuarine Habitats Shallow water estuarine ecosystems, like tidal marshes in Willapa Bay, provide exceptionally productive habitats. Many estuarine habitats function as nurseries for a wide variety of marine and anadromous species, including several that are of significant ecological and economic interest (Hughes et al. 2014).
Tidal marshes are particularly important for the rearing of small, subyearling ocean-type Chinook salmon during estuarine residency (Levings et al. 1991, 1995, Bottom et al. 2005). Shallow water estuarine habitats may provide spatial separation from aquatic predators that reside in deeper waters, improved protection from predators through higher turbidity levels (Gregory and Levings 1998), as well improved foraging capacity (Levings et al. 1991).
Federally threatened green sturgeon are also found in estuarine habitats of the Columbia River and Willapa Bay in summer months. The habitat value that these estuaries provide to green sturgeon is not fully understood (Adams et al. 2002), but it is hypothesized that green sturgeon take advantage of the warmer temperatures and high productivity in estuarine systems to maximize growth (Moser and Lindley 2006). Their species decline has been attributed to multiple factors including habitat degradation, dams, possibly commercial fishing, or a combination of these factors (Huff et al. 2012). Trawl records suggest that green sturgeon ocean populations are concentrated in the coastal waters of Oregon, Washington, and Vancouver Island (Huff et al. 2012). It is possible that the productive northwest waters provide both optimal foraging and refuge for this species (Huff et al. 2012).
Larger estuaries, such as Willapa Bay and the Columbia River Estuary, support recruitment and juvenile rearing habitat for Dungeness crab (Armstrong et al. 2003).
In addition to their ecological significance, coastal saltmarsh wetlands provide substantial value to the local economy. A recent study by Feagin et al. (2010) found that just in birding and hunting value alone the high saltmarsh community provides more than $4,000/ha in economic service. A study of all Puget Sound watershed habitats using peer-reviewed literature
33 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
established a range of ecosystem values for saltmarshes from $381 to $122,098/ac (Batker et al. 2010). This was the highest appraised value of any natural capital in the study.
Eelgrass beds provide habitat for invertebrates and diverse fish assemblages, including juvenile and subadult salmonids and spawning herring (Hosack and Dumbauld 2006). Eelgrass beds also entrain sediment and detritus, they are a major organic carbon source in nearshore areas, and they attenuate wave and current energy (Miller et al. 1980, Steneck et al. 2003). Eelgrass beds require soft substrate for establishment, and the depth of eelgrass beds is controlled by the level of ambient light (Mumford 2007). Eelgrass provides a significant food source for waterfowl.
Shellfish beds perform a number of important ecological functions including cycling nutrients, stabilizing substrates, enhancing water quality (filtering and retention), and providing food for a wide variety of marine invertebrates, birds, fish, and mammals, as well as humans. Epibenthic shell deposits associated with commercial and wild shellfish beds, supports higher densities of amphipods, harpacticoid copepods, cumaceans, crabs, and gunnels compared to bare mudflats (Reviewed in Feldman et al. 2000). Shellfish growth can be affected by fine sediment loads, changes in salinity, and the establishment of invasive species (e.g., Zostera japonica and Spartina alterniflora). Pathogens and toxic algal blooms related to water quality from upland uses can present health hazards from shellfish consumption (Anderson et al. 2002).
Salt marshes and mudflats are used as roosting and foraging grounds by shorebirds. Tidal wetlands that are fed by freshwater seeps or streams provide localized freshwater input and support species that include native shellfish and shorebirds (Schlenger et al. 2011).
Coastal oceans soft bottom benthic habitat The main benthic habitat type in the coastal ocean off of Pacific County is soft bottom habitat. Soft bottom habitats support a high diversity of macrobenthic organisms including polychaete worms, bivalves (e.g. butter clam and razor clams), echinoderms, and crustaceans. These communities exhibit a variety of feeding mechanisms including: suspension feeding, deposit feeding (surface and subsurface), herbivory, carnivory, and omnivory (Macdonald et al. 2011). Macrobenthic organisms are incredibly important in sediment biogeochemistry and nutrient cycling (Solan et al. 2003). They perform ecological functions by providing stability to sediments, serving as a food source for both people and other organisms, decomposing sediment organic matter and remineralizing nutrients, and improving water quality by filtering water of sediments, nutrients, carbon, and pollutants (Thursh and Dayton 2002; Solan et al. 2003). Soft bottom communities, however, are sensitive to anthropogenic impacts such as habitat disturbance (i.e. dredging, and dredge spoil placement, and mining) (reviewed by
34 The Watershed Company June 2015
Probert 1984), ocean acidification (Dupont et al. 2010), increases in sea surface temperature (Harley et al. 2006), and toxic pollution (Pearson and Rosenberg 1978, Gorostiaga et al. 2004, Borja et al. 2006).
In addition to macrobenthic organisms, the coastal ocean in this region contains a number of commercially important fish and invertebrate species that inhabit the sandy bottom. These fish include: English Sole, rock sole, pacific sandlance, and Dungeness crab. Many of these organisms (e.g., English sole and Dungeness crab) begin their lives in sheltered estuaries habitats (such as Willapa Bay) and may make an ontogenetic habitat shift as an adult to offshore sandy bottom habitats for spawning and/or foraging (Gunderson et al. 1990).
Rocky Shores While soft bottom habitat dominates a majority of the southwest Washington Coast, small areas of rocky and mixed substrate shorelines occur in the southern portion of the County’s shorelines, at Cape Disappointment and North Head. Wave energy is reduced in the lee of rocks and kelp beds, creating diverse habitat structure, including intertidal and subtidal tidepools that support a range of species. The mixed substrate shorelines in the northern portion of the County create habitats occupied by “a unique subset of sand‐loving rocky‐shore organisms” (Skewgar and Pearson 2011). In addition to marine fish and invertebrates that use the rocky shoreline, small mammals and shorebirds forage in and around the rocky shore. Seabirds and birds of prey nest on the rocky cliffs. Harbor seals and fur seals may use rocky platforms as pupping sites and haul-outs (Skewgar and Pearson 2011).
Kelp requires high ambient light, hard substrate, minimum turbidity during settlement, fairly low marine water temperatures, and moderate to high salinities (Mumford 2007). Rocky shores at Cape Disappointment and North Head may support small areas of kelp, and floating kelp mats, which can provide habitat structure in nearshore pelagic habitats (see below). However, there are no known kelp beds in Pacific County waters and there are no kelp beds mapped for Pacific County (Washington Department of Natural Resources 2005).
Nearshore Pelagic Habitat
Pelagic Plankton Plankton forms the base of the nearshore pelagic food web. The distribution and abundance of plankton varies daily, seasonally, and interannually, depending on upwelling, currents, and wind. Phytoplankton production is particularly high on the Washington coast. During spring and summer months, northerly winds transport surface water offshore to the south. This leaves space for cold, nutrient- rich water to flow up to the photic zone and support blooms of phytoplankton. In addition to the nutrients derived from upwelling, coastal waters along the
35 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Washington coast are continually sourced with additional nutrients from the Columbia River plume. During an upwelling event, the Columbia River plume interacts with oceanographic features and prevents the southward transport of waters, causing retention of nutrient- rich waters locally (Banas et al. 2009). When the southern winds along the Washington-Oregon coast taper, the Columbia River plume travels northward along the Washington coast where it becomes temporarily trapped in coastal estuaries such as Willapa Bay (Banas et al. 2009). While these hydrologic features make the southwest Washington coast highly productive, they also create conditions which make the region particularly complex and difficult to model (Skewgar and Pearson 2011). This factor could prove detrimental in the case of an oil spill, where it would be difficult to predict where contaminated waters would travel and to identify regions to protect (Skewgar and Pearson 2011).
Many marine organisms begin their lives as planktonic organisms, called meroplankton. Oceanographic conditions such as wind, currents, temperature, and salinity may affect meroplankton population dispersal, development, survival, and genetics (Botsford et al. 1994). For example, when Dungeness crab reproduce annually in January, their fertilized eggs enter the water column where they metamorphose into zoea. Zoea develop and disperse for about four months as they are transported in offshore and cross-shelf currents. In their later stages of development, larval crabs (called megalopae) will settle onto estuary or nearshore benthos when the temperature and salinity conditions are favorable (Hobbs et al. 1992). The success of Dungeness crab recruitment to the benthos has been attributed largely to the timing and strength of onshore winds, which transport megalopae back to settlement areas nearshore (Hobbs et al. 1992). Thus, oceanographic variables affect meroplankton distribution along the Washington coast, which in turn affects the distribution of many fishes (e.g. rockfish) and invertebrates (e.g. razor clams), as well as the food supply for planktivores and higher trophic level marine life (e.g., fish, seabirds, marine mammals) (Miller 2004).
Pelagic Fish Species Fish species found in the pelagic zone of the coastal ocean include both local and transient species whose populations vary temporally and spatially often depending on water temperature, productivity, and prey. The following is a description of how selected species utilize offshore waters in the coastal ocean of Pacific County.
• Many forage fish species such as Pacific herring (Clupea harengus pallasi) forage close to shore and migrate into Willapa Bay to spawn in February (Brodeur and Percy 1986; Bargmann 1998).
36 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Anchovy populations are known to spend most of their lives offshore, but travel nearshore to the mouth of the Columbia River and Willapa Bay in the summer months (Bargmann 1998; Richardson 1980). • From the month of June to early Fall, north Pacific Hake (Merluccius productus) are found in the waters off Pacific County as they migrate between north and south of the Columbia River (Brodeur and Pearcy 1986). • Adult and juvenile coho and Chinook salmon have been found to inhabit the nearshore pelagic waters off the Washington coast (Krutzikowsky and Emmett 2005). The diet of young adult coho salmon offshore from the Columbia River have been found to be composed of fish (e.g., anchovy, herring, juvenile Chinook salmon, and rockfish), crustaceans, and cephalopods (e.g., squid) (Laufle et al. 1986; Brodeur 1990). • The Pelagic cephalopod, opalescent inshore squid, (Loligo opalescens), have been found to be most abundant off the coast of Oregon, but adults are commonly found in waters off of Long Beach (Brodeur and Pearcy 1986).
Pelagic Marine Mammals In the 1900s, Stellar sea lions (Eumetopias jubatus) declined largely due to population control by humans. However, in the 1970s, protections for the stellar sea lion were put in place and their populations have been increasing at an “average rate of 9.13% from 1989 to 2013” (Wiles 2014). Stellar sea lions feed up to 60 km offshore or in the Columbia River and forage for Pacific hake, rockfish, skates, flounders, herring, salmon, smelt, white cod, and white sturgeon (Wiles 2014). These sea lions are not known to haul out on Pacific County shorelines, but can be found resting nearby on the Oregon side of the Columbia River at the tip of the South Jetty and in Astoria.
A number of whale species migrate offshore of the west coast of the United States. These whales include: grey (Eschrichtius robustus), humpback (Megaptera novaengliae), sei (Balaenoptera borealis), sperm (Physeter microcephalus), fin (Balaenoptera physalus), orca (Orcinus orca), and blue (Balaenoptera musculus) whales (Douglas et al. 2008). These species are susceptible to ship strikes by vessels and increased vessel traffic could pose a threat to these species (Douglas et al. 2008).
Since 2012, NOAA has attached satellite tags to endangered southern resident killer whales and tracked their movements. In March and April of 2015, tagged killer whales from the L and K pod were found to be active in nearshore waters off of Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and the entrance to the Columbia River. Whales were observed in these locations in 2013 as well. Prey and fecal samples were collected by NOAA researchers and future analysis will decipher how killer whales are utilizing the nearshore waters off of Pacific and Grays Harbor Counties (NOAA satellite tagging blog).
37 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 3-2. Example movements of L pod on April 10, 2015 near the mouth of the Columbia River, the Long Beach peninsula, and Grays Harbor (NOAA).
Priority Habitats and Species Table 3-1 includes a list of Priority habitats and features identified by WDFW as occurring in Pacific County. Table 3-2 includes a list of priority animal species, and Table 3-3 addresses priority plant species in the County. Although most of these species and habitats occur in shoreline jurisdiction, it is possible that some of them may occur exclusively outside of shoreline jurisdiction. Where specific occurrences have been identified within shoreline jurisdiction, these are mapped in Maps 15-17 of the Inventory Mapfolio (Appendix B). These maps do not show all occurrences; therefore, it is not possible to definitively identify those species and habitats that do not occur in shoreline jurisdiction at this time.
Table 3-1. Priority habitats and features in Pacific County Species/ Habitats Description Biodiversity Areas and Areas of habitat that are relatively important to various species Corridors of native fish and wildlife.
Caves A naturally occurring cavity, recess, void, or system of interconnected passages (including associated dendritic tubes, cracks, and fissures) which occurs under the earth in soils, rock,
38 The Watershed Company June 2015
Species/ Habitats Description ice, or other geological formations, and is large enough to contain a human.
Cliffs Greater than 7.6 meters (25 feet) high and occurring below 1524 meters (5000 feet).
Coastal Nearshore Relatively undisturbed nearshore estuaries of Washington’s outer coast, including Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay and the mouth of the Columbia River, encompassing shore, intertidal, and subtidal areas.
Freshwater Wetlands and Freshwater wetlands: Lands transitional between terrestrial and Fresh Deepwater aquatic systems where the water table is usually at or near the surface or the land is covered by shallow water.
Fresh deepwater: Permanently flooded lands lying below the deepwater boundary of wetlands (6 feet).
Herbaceous Balds Variable-sized patches of grass and forb vegetation located on shallow soils over bedrock that commonly is fringed by forest or woodland.
Instream The combination of physical, biological, and chemical processes and conditions that interact to provide functional life history requirements for instream fish and wildlife resources.
Old-Growth/Mature Forest Old Growth: Forest stands >3 ha (7.5 acres) having at least 2 tree species, forming a multi-layered canopy with occasional small openings and meeting specific size standards for trees, snags, and downed wood (over 200 years old)
Mature: Stands with average diameters exceeding 53 cm (21 in) diameter at breast height; crown cover may be less than 100%; decay, decadence, numbers of snags, and quantity of large downed material is generally less than that found in old- growth (80 - 200 years old).
Open Coast Nearshore Relatively undisturbed non-estuarine nearshore of Washington’s outer coast, from the Canadian border south to the Oregon border, encompassing shore, intertidal, and subtidal areas.
Oregon White Oak Woodlands Stands of oak or oak/conifer associations >1 acre, where canopy coverage of the oak component of the stand is 25%; or where total canopy coverage of the stand is <25%, but oak accounts for at least 50% of the canopy coverage.
Riparian The area adjacent to flowing or standing freshwater aquatic systems. Riparian habitat encompasses the area beginning at the ordinary high water mark and extends to that portion of the terrestrial landscape that is influenced by, or that directly influences, the aquatic ecosystem.
39 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Species/ Habitats Description Snags and Logs Priority snags have a diameter at breast height of > 51 cm (20 in) and are > 2 m (6.5 feet) in height. Priority logs are > 30 cm (12 in) in diameter at the largest end, and > 6 m (20 feet) long.
Talus Homogenous areas of rock rubble ranging in average size 0.15 - 2.0 m (0.5 - 6.5 feet), composed of basalt, andesite, and/or sedimentary rock, including riprap slides and mine tailings. May be associated with cliffs.
Source: WDFW 2008 Table 3-2. Priority species in Pacific County and offshore waters Category Species/ Habitats State Status Federal Status Bull Trout Candidate Threatened Chinook Salmon Candidate Threatened Chum Salmon Candidate Threatened Coastal Res./ Searun Cutthroat -- Species of Concern Threatened – Coho Salmon -- Lower Columbia Eulachon Candidate Threatened Green Sturgeon -- Threatened Diadromous Fish Kokanee -- -- Pacific Lamprey -- Species of Concern Pink Salmon -- -- River Lamprey Candidate Species of Concern Endangered- Sockeye Salmon Candidate Snake River Steelhead Trout Candidate Threatened Western Brook Lamprey -- Species of Concern White Sturgeon -- -- Black Rockfish Candidate -- Bocaccio Rockfish Candidate -- Brown Rockfish Candidate -- Canary Rockfish Candidate -- China Rockfish Candidate -- Copper Rockfish Candidate -- English Sole -- -- Marine/Estuarine Greenstriped Rockfish Candidate -- Fish Longfin Smelt -- -- Pacific Cod Candidate -- Pacific Hake Candidate -- Pacific Herring Candidate -- Pacific Sand Lance -- -- Quillback Rockfish Candidate -- Redstripe Rockfish Candidate -- Rock Sole -- --
40 The Watershed Company June 2015
Category Species/ Habitats State Status Federal Status Surfsmelt -- -- Tiger Rockfish Candidate -- Walleye Pollock Candidate -- Widow Rockfish Candidate -- Yelloweye Rockfish Candidate -- Yellowtail Rockfish Candidate -- Lingcod -- -- Dunn's Salamander Candidate -- Amphibians Oregon Spotted Frog Endangered Threatened Van Dyke's Salamander Candidate Species of Concern Western Toad Candidate Species of Concern Bald Eagle Sensitive Species of Concern Band-tailed Pigeon -- -- Brandt's Cormorant Candidate -- Brant -- -- Brown Pelican Endangered Species of Concern Cavity-nesting ducks: Wood Duck, Barrow’s Goldeneye, Common -- -- Goldeneye, Bufflehead, Hooded Merganser Common Loon Sensitive -- Common Murre Candidate -- Golden Eagle Candidate -- Great Blue Heron -- -- Marbled Murrelet Threatened Threatened Birds Mountain Quail -- -- Northern Goshawk Candidate Species of Concern Peregrine Falcon Sensitive Species of Concern Pileated Woodpecker Candidate -- Purple Martin Candidate -- Short-tailed Albatross Candidate Endangered Western Snowy Plover Endangered Threatened Sooty Grouse -- -- Northern Spotted Owl Endangered Threatened Streaked Horned Lark Endangered Threatened Trumpeter Swan -- -- Tundra Swan -- -- Vaux’s Swift Candidate -- W WA breeding concentrations of -- -- Cormorants, Storm-petrels, Terns, Alcids
41 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Category Species/ Habitats State Status Federal Status W WA nonbreeding concentrations of Charadriidae, Scolopacidae, -- -- Phalaropodidae W WA nonbreeding concentrations of Loons, Grebes, Cormorants, Fulmar, -- -- Shearwaters, Storm-petrels, Alcids Waterfowl Concentrations -- -- Western grebe Candidate -- Western Washington nonbreeding concentrations of Barrow's Goldeneye, -- -- Common Goldeneye, Bufflehead Wild Turkey -- -- Yellow-billed cuckoo Candidate Threatened Blue Whale Endangered Endangered California Sea Lion -- -- Dall's Porpoise -- -- Gray Whale Sensitive -- Marine Mammals Harbor Seal -- -- Humpback Whale Endangered Endangered Orca (Killer Whale) Endangered Endangered Pacific Harbor Porpoise Candidate -- Sperm Whale Endangered Endangered Steller Sea Lion Threatened -- Green Sea Turtle Threatened Threatened Reptiles Leatherback Sea Turtle Endangered Endangered Loggerhead Sea Turtle Threatened Endangered Columbian Black-tailed Deer -- -- Elk -- -- Terrestrial Fisher Endangered Candidate Mammals Marten -- -- Roosting Concentrations of Big-brown -- -- Bat, Myotis bats, Pallid Bat Townsend’s Big-eared Bat Candidate Species of Concern Butter Clam -- -- Dungeness Crab -- -- Manila Clam -- -- Native Littleneck Clam -- -- Marine Newcomb’s Littorine Snail Candidate Species of Concern Invertebrates Olympia Oyster Candidate -- Pacific Oyster -- -- Pandalid shrimp (Pandalidae) -- -- Razor Clam -- --
42 The Watershed Company June 2015
Category Species/ Habitats State Status Federal Status Oregon Silverspot Threatened Endangered Moths/Butterflies Queen Charlotte's Copper (formerly Candidate Species of Concern Makah Copper) Source: WDFW 2008 In addition to priority species designated by WDFW, the federal government has identified commercially significant fish species warranting additional habitat protection through the Magnuson-Stevens Act and the designation of Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). In Washington State, EFH has been designated for 3 species of Pacific salmon, 83 species of groundfish, and 5 coastal pelagic species.
43 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 3-3. Rare plant species in Pacific County Scientific Name Common Name State Status Federal Status Abronia umbellata var. acutalata pink sand-verbena Endangered Species of Concern Baccharis pilularis ssp. coyotebush Threatened -- consanguinea Boschniakia hookeri Vancouver ground-cone -- Brotherella roellii1 Roll’s golden log moss Threatened -- Carex macrochaeta large-awned sedge Threatened -- Dodecatheon austrofrigidum frigid shooting-star Endangered Species of Concern Erigeron aliceae Alice's fleabane Sensitive -- Erythronium revolutum pink fawn-lily Sensitive -- Euonymus occidentalis var. western wahoo Sensitive -- occidentalis Filipendula occidentalis queen of the forest Threatened Species of Concern Lycopodiella inundata bog clubmoss Sensitive -- Packera bolanderi var. harfordii Harford's ragwort Sensitive -- Parnassia palustris var. northern grass-of- Sensitive -- neogaea parnassus Phacelia bolanderi Bolander's phacelia -- -- Poa laxiflora loose-flowered bluegrass Sensitive -- Poa unilateralis ssp. ocean-bluff bluegrass Threatened -- pachypholis Polemonium carneum1 great polemonium Threatened -- Sanicula arctopoides bear's-foot sanicle Endangered Species of Concern Triglochin striata three-rib arrowgrass -- -- 1. Most recent record in Pacific County was before 1977. Source: WDNR. Accessible at: http://www1.dnr.wa.gov/nhp/refdesk/lists/plantsxco/pacific.html Salmonid populations in Table 3-2 that are listed as threatened or endangered generally spawn and rear in freshwater tributaries to and the mainstem of the Columbia River. Even those coastal salmonid populations that are not federally listed are afforded significant conservation status because of their ecological and commercial role in the County. Additionally, because of their relative health and the lower risks from growth and development, coastal salmon populations are important to long-term success of salmon populations in the Pacific Northwest (Miller 2003). Salmon populations that occur in Pacific County are listed in terms of ESUs and DPSs in Table 3-4.
Table 3-4. Salmonid populations in freshwater habitats in Pacific County. WRIA Salmon Population Washington Bull Trout (Threatened) Southwest Washington steelhead (winter run) Southwest Washington coho Willapa- 24 Pacific coast chum Washington coast Chinook Resident/Sea run cutthroat trout Washington Bull Trout (Threatened) Southwest Washington steelhead (summer and winter runs) Chehalis- 22/23 Southwest Washington coho Pacific coast chum Washington coast Chinook
44 The Watershed Company June 2015
WRIA Salmon Population Resident/Sea run cutthroat trout Washington Bull Trout (Threatened) Lower Columbia River Chinook (Threatened) Grays/Elochoman- 25 Columbia River Chum (Threatened) Lower Columbia River coho (Threatened) Source: WDFW 2008 In addition to the birds listed in Table 3-2, the USFWS (http://ecos.fws.gov/ipac/) lists the following birds of conservation concern in Western Washington:
• Horned Grebe • Hudsonian Godwit • Peregrine Falcon • Red Knot • Solitary Sandpiper • Rock Sandpiper • Lesser Yellowlegs • Short-billed Dowitcher • Upland Sandpiper • Olive-sided Flycatcher • Whimbrel • Smith's Longspur • Bristle-thighed Curlew • Rusty Blackbird
Still other species that occur in Pacific County are considered vulnerable, even if they are not have specific state or federal listings. Additional information on vulnerable and imperiled in Pacific County can be found at http://explorer.natureserve.org/servlet/NatureServe.
Non-Native, Invasive Species A list of many of the non-native and invasive species present in the County are identified in Table 3-5.
Non-native, invasive vegetation often forms dense monocultures that preclude native vegetation and alter the ecosystem. Potential effects of invasive plant species in riparian and instream habitats include increased instream water temperatures, lowered dissolved oxygen, changes in pH, reduced bank stability, altered flow conditions and increased localized flooding. By altering environmental conditions to which native species are adapted, anthropogenic changes may facilitate more frequent and successful biological invasions (Byers 2001). Impacts of non-native species range from trophic and competitive effects to large scale habitat changes. Some species introductions may serve to facilitate future introductions of other non-native species (Williams and Grosholz 2008). Estuaries and coastal marine habitats are particularly susceptible to introductions of nonnative species because they support activities that may serve as vectors for invasive species, such as shipping and boating (Williams and Grosholz 2008).
In Willapa Bay, Japanese eelgrass (Zostera japonica) is expanding into what had likely been unvegetated tidal flat, typically in the tidal range above Z. marina (Dumbauld and Wyllie- Echeverria 2003, Ruesink et al. 2010). Z. japonica converts these tidal flats by adding a complex
45 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
structure of rhizomes and leaf blades. The ecological role of Zostera japonica is not entirely understood, but studies indicate that it has an inverse relationship with the density of some benthic macrofauna (e.g., burrowing shrimp and copepods) and nearshore fish species (e.g., surf smelt, herring, sand lance, and juvenile chum salmon) (Reviewed in Mach et al. 2010). Z. japonica may compete with the native Z. marina at the lower range of its tidal distribution, but conversely, Z. japonica may also facilitate the expansion of native eelgrass into shallower habitats (Ruesink et al. 2010). Japanese eelgrass also provides a foraging source for migratory waterfowl (Reviewed in Mach et al. 2010), and although not the primary spawning substrate, it can provide spawning substrate for Pacific herring in Willapa Bay (Penttila, D, personal communication to Hamel, K, March 5, 2012). A recent study of the effects of Z. japonica on commercial shellfish production found that the growth, productivity, harvest efficiency, and quality of Manila clams (Ruditapes philippinarum) was higher in plots without Z. japonica (Patten 2014). The tidal range of oyster production is normally deeper than the Z. japonica range, and the same study did not find a consistent effect of Z. japonica removal on Pacific oyster production (Patten 2014).
Spartina was introduced into Willapa Bay in the late 1800’s. By 2002, Spartina had colonized 15,000 acres of former mudflat in Willapa Bay (Ecology, electronic reference). By establishing marsh vegetation, Spartina encourages deposition and transforms mud flats into marshes. This change displaces functions associated with mud flat habitats, including shellfish beds and shorebird foraging habitat. Following a coordinated effort among government, non-profit, and private entities to eliminate Spartina, today, only isolated patches of the plant remain in Willapa Bay.
New Zealand mudsnails were first discovered in the lower Columbia River in 1996, and today they can be found throughout the Columbia River Estuary (including peripheral bays, lakes and tributaries) (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, electronic reference). Experimental results indicate that large populations of New Zealand mudsnails could potentially limit the availability of other, more nutritious food sources for native rainbow trout (Vinson and Baker 2008).
Non-native dune grasses (Ammophila spp.) predominate in much of the dune area in Pacific County. Ammophila spp. tend to accumulate sand more quickly than native dunegrass, creating a higher, steeper foredune, and decreasing the supply of sand to interior dunes (Wiedemann and Pickart 1996 cited in Pickart 1997). Increased dune stabilization results in fewer areas of bare sand, which can be an important habitat attribute for several dune adapted species (e.g., federally threatened western snowy plover and streaked horned lark).
Marine invasive species can alter ecosystems and impact important fishery species by inducing new sources of competition, predation, habitat alteration, and affecting food sources (Bax et al.
46 The Watershed Company June 2015
2003). In the coastal ocean, non-native or invasive species may be introduced either naturally or inadvertently by humans. Non-native species can be transported by marine debris including human derived flotsam (e.g. floating wreckage of a ship or cargo) and jetsam (e.g. purposely disposed of cargo from a ship) or on natural structures such as logs or algal mats (Gregory 2009). These debris make their way across oceans through normal current flows, storm activity, or tsunamis. Plankton and other marine species may also be transported and accidentally introduced into their non-native environment by cargo ship bilge and recreational boats (Williams 2009).
Non-native or invasive marine organisms of particular concern to the coastal ocean off of Pacific County includes invasive zooplankton species transported in cargo ships through the Columbia River, Grays Harbor, and Puget Sound. Studies have shown that even with current bilge dumping, invasive plankton introduction still remains a threat (Cordell et al. 2008).
Marine debris associated with the 2011 Japanese tsunami has recently washed ashore in Pacific County. This debris brings with it the potential to transport new non-native, invasive marine species to the shores of Pacific County. The WDFW is the lead State agency for responding to reports of marine debris with respect to potential invasive species. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife has reported that two Japanese skiffs have washed ashore in Pacific County at Cape Disappointment (June 15, 2012) and Long Beach (March 22, 2013) in Pacific County. One skiff carried at least 30 non-native Japanese coastal species. These non-native species may have the potential to settle in Washington waters, posing a threat to local ecosystems.
Climate change induced increases in sea surface temperature may also change the geographic distributions of some fish and plankton species, with some fish species moving north and others moving out of their current habitats resulting in alterations to community patterns and ecosystems (Morgan and Seimann 2011; Osgood 2008; Occhipinti-Ambrogi et al. 2007). For example, WDFW has reported that Humboldt squid (whose habitat ranged from central and South America in the past) has extended its range into North America (off the coast of Washington into the Strait of Juan de Fuca and the Hood Canal) (http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/squid/).
Table 3-5. Non-native, invasive species present within shoreline jurisdiction in Pacific County Riparian/Wetlands Freshwater Estuarine/Marine Vegetation • Knotweed • Eurasian water milfoil • Japanese eelgrass • English ivy • Brazilian elodea • Spartina • Yellow flag iris • Parrotfeather • European and American • Hydrilla • Purple loosestrife beach grass • Common reed • Common gorse
47 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Riparian/Wetlands Freshwater Estuarine/Marine • Scotch broom • Tansy ragwort • Thistles • Knapweeds • Reed canarygrass Aquatic Nutria Nutria mammals Mollusks • Asian clam • Eastern drill • New Zealand mudsnails • Japanese oyster • Japanese oyster drill Crustaceans Non-native freshwater • Green crab crayfish • Chinese mitten crab • Non-native copepods Fish • Goldfish Atlantic salmon • Brown bullhead • Yellow perch Amphibians American bullfrog
Sources: See lists below Invasions by non-native species may occur rapidly and impacts may be unpredictable. The following websites maintain updated information on invasive species in Washington State.
• Washington Noxious Weed List - http://www.nwcb.wa.gov/
• WA Invasive Species Council - http://www.invasivespecies.wa.gov/
• Washington Invasive Species Education - http://www.wise.wa.gov/
• WDFW (Aquatic Invasive Species Species) - http://wdfw.wa.gov/ais/
• WDFW (clam identification) - http://wdfw.wa.gov/fishing/shellfish/clams/
• Marine Invasive Species Monitoring Program - http://vmp.bioe.orst.edu/ Note: This list is no longer actively maintained, but website is still a good resource In addition to the non-native species identified above, anthropogenic alterations have altered community assemblages of native species, resulting in significant changes to food web dynamics, and creating nuisance populations of native species. This is particularly evident at the mouth of the Columbia River where sand islands have resulted from historic dredge disposal practices. In turn, large colonies of Caspian terns and cormorants, which historically did not occur in the area, have colonized these islands. As a result of these large populations, these avian communities account for up to 2-15 percent mortality of federally threatened salmonid smolts (Chinook and steelhead, respectively), outmigrating from the Columbia River (Collis et al. 2001).
48 The Watershed Company June 2015
3.4 Watershed Setting and Conditions The majority of the County is located in the Willapa Watershed, but the County also includes portions of the Chehalis Watershed and the Grays-Elochoman Watershed. Generally, these watersheds are identified by the State as Water Resource Inventory Areas (WRIA). Because of its large size, the upper and lower portions of the Chehalis River Watershed were divided into two WRIAs. Small portions of both the Upper and Lower Chehalis Watersheds occur in Pacific County, although no Shorelines of the State from the Lower Chehalis Watershed occur in Pacific County. A map of the WRIAs within Pacific County is provided in Figure 3-3. Although technically within the Willapa Bay watershed, given their unique functions and characteristics, estuarine and marine waters are discussed separately below.
Figure 3-3. Map of Water Resource Inventory Area boundaries in Pacific County
Willapa (WRIA 24) The Willapa watershed consists of several medium-sized rivers originating in the Willapa Hills and flowing into Willapa Bay. Watercourses include: the Cedar, North, Willapa, Palix, Nemah, Naselle, Niawiakum, and Bear Rivers and Smith Creek. WRIA 24 extends south to Cape Disappointment, at the mouth of the Columbia River.
49 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
The Willapa Hills receive frequent and heavy precipitation, concentrated in the winter months. The Willapa watershed does not include any large mountains with glaciers or regular accumulations of significant snowpack; therefore, drainages in the Willapa Basin tend to have peak streamflows in winter months. Windward slopes in the Willapa Hills frequently experience strong winds during winter months.
Tidal influence extends between 2 miles (Cedar River) and 13 miles (Willapa River) upstream from Willapa Bay.
Historic Changes and Current Conditions Logging, beginning in the mid-1800’s, has had a significant effect on the freshwater shorelines in the watershed. Nearly three-quarters of the land in the County is still used for timber production (Smith 1999).
As a result of forestry uses, the watershed has reduced large woody debris (LWD) densities, reduced riparian tree cover, and excess sediment inputs (Applied Environmental Services 2001). Some areas have naturally low levels of gravel recruitment, and without the large wood in the basin, spawning gravels are not retained (Applied Environmental Services 2001). Fish passage barriers, incised channels, and high summer water temperatures are also conditions associated with past timber harvest that limit natural processes in the basin (Applied Environmental Services 2001).
Several watercourses in WRIA 24 have been identified as impaired for temperature, fecal coliform bacteria, and dissolved oxygen, as indicated in Table 3-6.
Table 3-6. Impaired water quality parameters in freshwater shorelines in WRIA 24 in Pacific County https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx Waterbody Parameter Year of qualifying data Status Elkhorn Creek Temperature 1997 303(d)- impaired Fern Creek Dissolved oxygen 1998 303(d)- impaired Martin Creek Temperature 2001-2002 303(d)- impaired Mill Creek Temperature 2001 303(d)- impaired Naselle River Temperature 2001 303(d)- impaired North River Bacteria 1988-1990 303(d)- impaired Bacteria 1991 303(d)- impaired Pacific County Drainage 1994-1996, 2001- Ditch #1 Pesticides 303(d)- impaired 2002 Temperature 1996-2002 303(d)- impaired Raimie Creek pH 2001-2002 303(d)- impaired Redfield Creek Temperature 2001-2002 303(d)- impaired Smith Creek Temperature 1988 303(d)- impaired Trap Creek Temperature 2001 303(d)- impaired Willapa River Subbasin Temperature 2001 TMDL (2005)
50 The Watershed Company June 2015
Waterbody Parameter Year of qualifying data Status Bacteria and Dissolved 1998-2008 TMDL (2007) Oxygen Source: Ecology 2012
Chehalis (WRIA 22/23) The Chehalis basin consists of approximately 2,766 square miles and spans eight counties. The Chehalis Watershed drains the western side of the Willapa Hills, the Black Hills, an area of low mountains on the west side of the Cascade Range, and the lower south slopes of the Olympic Range.
A portion of the Elk and Andrews Rivers of WRIA 22 extends south into Pacific County. These rivers flow north from the Willapa Hills into the South Bay of Grays Harbor, but within Pacific County, they do not meet the minimum flow criteria for Shorelines of the State.
A portion of WRIA 23 extends into the eastern portion of Pacific County. Shorelines of the State that occur in Pacific County include the following tributaries to the Chehalis River: Elk Creek, Little Elk Creek, Swem Creek, Eight Creek, Rock Creek, and Crim Creek. These tributaries drain east from the eastern edge of the Willapa Hills. Similar to the Willapa Basin, precipitation is concentrated in winter months, and typically falls as rain, except in the highest elevations.
Historic Changes and Current Conditions Timber harvest occurred throughout the WRIA for most of the 20th Century. Riparian conditions are degraded throughout most of the WRIA as a result of past forest and agricultural practices. Riparian buffer protection increased in the mid-1980s, and more recently with the latest Forest Practices Rules. Although these protections do little to improve LWD recruitment potential in the short-term, they improve the long-term LWD recruitment potential for the WRIA (Smith and Wenger 2001).
Excess fine sediment loads throughout the watershed are likely related to a high density of forest roads, the reduction in instream LWD that resulted from logging, logging practices that affect headwater streams, and erosion associated with agriculture (Smith and Wenger 2001, Grays Harbor County Lead Entity 2011). Fish passage barriers, resulting from the high density of roads, are also a concern throughout the WRIA, including those areas within Pacific County (Smith and Wenger 2001).
Several water quality impairments have been identified in the Chehalis River watershed; however, these impairments are located outside of Pacific County.
51 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Grays/Elochoman (WRIA 25) A small portion of the Grays/Elochoman Watershed occurs in the southeastern corner of the County. Subbasins within the Grays/Elochoman watershed consist of relatively short coastal streams and rivers draining from the southern Willapa Hills to the Columbia River. Within Pacific County, with the exception of the Chinook River and Wallacut River, which meander through a low-lying valley, the other small (Class II) tributaries in the County are characterized as fairly steep channels passing through the Willapa Hills.
Historic Changes and Current Conditions Similar to other watersheds in the County, past timber and agricultural practices have affected watershed functions. Riparian functions are degraded, and fish passage barriers are associated with culverts at road crossings (Wade 2002). Tidegates and diking have limited estuarine wetland, floodplain, and side channel connectivity (Wade 2002). In recent years, restoration activities to restore connectivity have been conducted in the lower Chinook and Grays Rivers.
The Grays River and its tributaries have been identified as impaired for temperature, as indicated in Table 3-7.
Table 3-7. Impaired water quality parameters in freshwater shorelines in WRIA 25 in Pacific County https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx Year of qualifying Waterbody Parameter Status data Grays River, East Fork, Temperature 2003-2005 303(d)- impaired South Fork, West Fork, and mainstem Source: Ecology 2012
Marine and Estuarine Shorelines Pacific Coast The Columbia River littoral cell (CRLC) extends for ~135 miles from Tillamook Head, OR in the south to Point Grenville, WA in the north. The CRLC includes three estuaries, the Columbia River estuary, Willapa Bay, and Grays Harbor, and it contains two headlands. The estuaries and headlands divide the CRLC into four sub-cells, Clatsop Plains, Long Beach Peninsula, Grayland Plains, and North Beach.
The primary source of sediment to the CRLC and the shores of Pacific County is the Columbia River. Although Willapa Bay provides some sediment input to the CRLC, the source is small enough that it can be considered negligible (Gelfenbaum et al. 1999). The direction of sand transport through the CRLC is seasonally driven by wave direction relative to the coast; summer conditions result in a weak southerly long-shore current with little transport capacity and winter conditions result in a strong northerly long-shore current with much greater
52 The Watershed Company June 2015 transport capacity. The large source of sediment from the Columbia River combined with the strong northerly long-shore sediment transport regime during the winter results in the transport of Columbia River-sourced sand to Willapa Bay during the winter months via the ebb-tidal deltas and the near-shore zones. Due to the weak southerly summer transport capabilities of the littoral cell, sediment from Willapa Bay primarily remains in the estuary and in the surrounding sub-cells (Gelfenbaum et al. 1999).
From south to north, the following coastal features are prominent along the Pacific County Coast: the Columbia River mouth, Long Beach Peninsula, the entrance to Willapa Bay, and the Grayland Plains (Gelfenbaum et al. 1999). With the exception of the rocky headlands of Cape Disappointment, the coastal shoreline in Pacific County is predominantly characterized by long stretches of sand beaches, backed by low-lying dunes. The beaches and dunes are created and maintained by the sediment transport associated with the CLRC, as well as by erosion of existing landforms. Sand dunes form a complex mosaic of dune forms. In Pacific County, sand dunes are described as a parallel ridge system (Wiedemann 1984). This system is associated with dune progradation, where longshore transport deposits sediment, which becomes stabilized by vegetation, and in turn, a new foredune is formed waterward of the stabilized vegetation (Wiedemann 1984). Depending on the spacing between the parallel ridges, swales, lakes, or ponds have formed. Dune forms change seasonally and interannually related to changes in wind and wave patterns.
Tides for Pacific County are of the mixed semi-diurnal type typical of the North American Pacific Coast, typified by two unequal high and low tides per day.
Historic Changes and Current Conditions Existing and potential anthropogenic stressors relevant to coastal and estuarine ecosystems include the following: habitat loss, water quality degradation, changes to sediment transport processes, harvest, climate change, and potential development of ocean energy facilities. These issues are described below.
Sediment Transport Before the early 1900s, the County’s beaches experienced natural shoreline progradation, or seaward growth by progressive deposition of sediment, as a result of longshore sediment transport from the Columbia River. In the late 1800s and early 1900s, jetties were installed at the mouth of the Columbia River and the entrance to Grays Harbor to improve navigation. Initially, the jetties caused rapid progradation of barrier beaches, but since the construction of dams in the Columbia River and the start of dredging and disposal maintenance programs, the coastline has locally experienced high levels of erosion (Venturato et al. 2007).
53 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Historic NOAA bathymetric charts show the changes in sediment movement over time from 1877 to 1998 (Figure 3-4). As a result of the changes to sediment processes, described above, a shift from sediment deposition to erosion is generally noted.
Figure 3-4: Historic NOAA Bathymetric changes at the mouth of the Columbia River from 1877- 1998. Source: Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study (specific reference not available) The Pacific coastline is a dynamic system that not only changes seasonally, but reacts to inter- decadal and inter-centennial cycles and episodic forcing. Inter-decadal cycles include the Pacific Decadal Oscillation; inter-centennial cycles include natural climate variations such as ice-ages; and episodic influences include the construction of the jetties on the Columbia River and dredging and deposition events in the estuaries and along the coasts. The Pacific County shoreline is very dynamic, featuring spatially variable rates of both accretion and erosion.
The Columbia River’s north and south jetties channelized flow through the mouth of the river and have pushed the ebb-tidal delta seaward from the mouth into the CRLC. The influx of sediment to the CRLC resulted in shoreline accretion of Long Beach to the north in the decades following the construction of the jetties. Over approximately 100 years from 1889 to 1999, the shoreline at the City of Long Beach accreted approximately 2,000 feet to the west (City of Long Beach 2000). In recent decades, however, some areas of Long Beach peninsula, specifically in
54 The Watershed Company June 2015 the area adjacent to the north jetty, have experienced substantial rates of shoreline erosion. The erosion has been occurring due to the lack sediment supply from the exhausted ebb-tidal deltas in the Mouth of the Columbia River. With the former ebb-tidal deltas exhausted, the sediment supply system has been working toward a new equilibrium between the delta and the CRLC (Kaminsky et al. 1999).
Further exacerbating the sediment deficit in the CRLC are the practices of Columbia River flow regulation and sediment trapping by upstream dams. As sediment transport is strongly tied to flow speed, spring freshets have historically provided substantial supplies of sediment to the Lower Columbia River. Flow regulation for irrigation and power production has resulted in a flattening of the hydrologic curve for the Lower Columbia River, and a subsequent decrease in the sediment supply to the CRLC from the Columbia River (Sherwood et al. 1990; Templeton and Jay 2012).
Habitat and Water Quality Changes Early records of the Long Beach Peninsula document extensive meadows, which were used for grazing (Wiedemann 1984). Overgrazing resulted in the loss of vegetation and reintroduction of sand from the former dune areas (Wiedemann 1984). Following agricultural uses, commercial and residential development began on the Long Beach Peninsula to accommodate beach-goers (History Link, electronic reference). Tourism increased with the development of commercial rail and the production of the automobile at the beginning of the 20th century.
As coastal areas were developed, aggressive, non-native plant species were introduced to stabilize sand dunes and protect built infrastructure (Wiedemann 1984). Among these, the European and American beach-grasses now predominate foredune vegetation on the entire west coast. Both pedestrian and off-road vehicle use of dunes trample vegetation.
Each year, the recreational razor clam fishery draws beachgoers to the Pacific Coastal beaches. Potential expenditures on the recreational razor clam fishery in Pacific and Grays Harbor County are estimated at $24.4 million per year (Dyson and Huppert 2010). Offshore waters are frequently used for recreational bottomfish and lingcod fishing, a recreational salmon fishery, and commercial fisheries (Washington Marine Spatial Planning, electronic reference). As an example, on average, since 2008, approximately 60 percent (over 6 million pounds per year) of the total non-treaty commercial Dungeness crab catch on the Washington Coast has occurred north of Cape Disappointment and South of Point Chehalis (WDFW, electronic reference). Additionally, the Pacific County coast has accounted for an average of approximately 722,000 pounds of commercial pink shrimp landings per year since 1998 (WDFW, electronic reference). Marine fisheries in the County often extend beyond the state’s three-mile boundary into federally managed waters.
55 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Fisheries The ten major commercial fisheries occurring along Washington’s outer coast include: Dungeness crab pots, ocean salmon troll, ocean delivery pink shrimp, baitfish lampara, non- shrimp shellfish pots, herring lampara, sardine purse seine, herring purse sein, herring dip bag net, and coastal hagfish pot (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing). Two of the most important commercial fishing ports in Washington, Ilwaco and Chinook, are located in Pacific County. These two ports produce a combined landed weight of 29 million pounds of commercial fish worth $22 million (NMFS 2013a). However, the revenue gained by the harvesters is just a piece of the economic value of these fisheries. Processing and packaging facilities, fish distribution, and sales at local markets and restaurants located in Pacific County create additional local jobs and revenue.
The most valuable fishery along Washington’s outer coast is the Dungeness crab fishery (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing). The fishery has a limited entry of 223 licensed non-tribal commercial fishermen and there are currently 200 active fishermen who are primarily based out of Westport (Grays Harbor county), as well as Ilwaco and Chinook (Pacific County). Between 2004 and 2013, the average Dungeness crab harvested by this fishery in Washington was 21.1 million pounds worth $27 million dollars. While 56.2 % of the fisher landings were from Grays Harbor, Pacific County had the second highest contribution to the catch (Figure 3-5) (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing).
Through the Rafeedie Decision in 1994, federal courts granted Treaty Tribes rights to half of the share of the sustainable Dungeness crab harvest. Today, the Dungeness crab fishery is managed by both the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and the Treaty Tribes. At the start of each Dungeness crab season, the northern coast of Washington is closed to non-treaty commercial fishing to allow tribal fishermen to harvest their share of the total allowable catch. During that time period, all non-tribal commercial crabbing is pushed to south of Westport. The decision has also led to an increase in Dungeness crab catch, and a decrease in the number of days fishers can be out to sea (D. Beasley, personal communication with Jodie Toft, May 8, 2014 and July 11, 2014, Fisher and Velasquez 2008).
56 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 3-5. Dungeness crab landings along Washington’s outer coast (From WDFW 2014)
Although other commercial marine fisheries occur beyond the 3-mile boundary of state waters, the species may occur across boundaries and marine uses beyond the 3-mile boundary may have significant impacts on fisheries originating from Pacific County ports. Trends in these Washington’s outer coast fisheries from 2004- 2013 are described below (figures and information summarized from the 2014 Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-tribal Fishing):
• Salmon: While there has been inconsistent catch over the years, Pacific County has received and average of 49.4% of the ex-vessel revenue for this fishery.
Figure 3-6. Commercial Ocean Salmon Landings and ex-vessel value by Port (2004-2013) Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
57 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 3-7. Commercial Gillnet Salmon Harvest (2003-2013) for Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
58 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Groundfish: Fishing methods for this fishery include bottom trawlers, mid-water trawlers (not targeting whiting species), and mid-water trawlers (targeting whiting species).Total landings (lbs) of non-whiting ground fish in Pacific County increased in 2011.
Figure 3-8. Groundfish (non-whiting) total landings and value 2004- 2013 for counties along the outer coast. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
59 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Pink Shrimp: Due to a bottom trawling ban in Washington State waters, this fishery occurs between 75 and 125 fathoms. Pacific County receives a small portion of revenue from this fishery (~7-17%).
Figure 3-9. Pink shrimp landings and values 2004-2013 for Pacific and Grays Harbor counties. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
• Albacore: This fishery occurs both inside and outside of state waters. Westport and Pacific County receive a majority of the revenue from this fishery.
Figure 3-10. Commercial albacore landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
60 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Spot shrimp: Participation in this fishery is low for Pacific County. There were no active spot shrimp fishers in Pacific County in 2012 or 2013.
Figure 3-11. Spot shrimp landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
• Sardines: Purse seining for sardines along Washington’s coast increased greatly in 2012 and 2013. A majority of landings and revenue for this fishery are based out of Grays Harbor. Pacific County saw an increase in landings for sardines in 2012 and 2013.
Figure 3-12. Commercial sardine landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
61 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Anchovy: Anchovy fishing occurs on the outer coast and in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor. The average anchovy landing for Pacific and Grays Harbor combined has been about 650,000 lbs. In 2009, there was a spike in anchovy landings for Grays Harbor.
Figure 3-13. Commercial albacore landings and value 2004-2013 for Pacific and Grays Harbor counties. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014
62 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Hagfish: The hagfish fishery occurs between the depths of 50 and 80 fathoms on soft bottom habitats. Between 2 and 15 active fishers supply an increasing number of hagfish to Asian markets since 2005.
Figure 3-14. Commercial Hagfish landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014.
• Razor Clams: A majority of the commercial razor clam fishery in Washington occurs in Pacific County along the sand pits located on the mouth of Willapa Bay. Pacific County accounts for about 82% of the revenue for this fishery.
Figure 3-15. Commercial razor clam and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014.
63 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Recreational Fisheries: A total of 720,000 anglers were licensed to fish by DFW between 2012 and 2013 on Washington’s outer coast (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014). These fishers primarily target: razor clam, Dungeness crab, Albacore tuna, bottomfish, halibut, and salmon (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014). A majority (60%) of recreational fishing activity occurs between Point Grenville to the Columbia River with 75% of recreation angler trips leaving from the southwest ports of Westport, Ilwaco, and Chinook (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014). Recreational fishers leaving from Ilwaco and Chinook target mostly salmon and Columbia River sturgeon. In 2008, Long Beach supported the greatest number of recreational razor clam diggers (112,442) in Washington, with each participant spending an average of $114.01/day of digging locally during the razor clam season (October to May) (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014). Recreational ocean salmon fishing is also prevalent in Pacific County with anglers primarily fishing from the port of Ilwaco (Figure ***).
Figure 3-16. Recreational ocean salmon landings and value 2004-2013 for counties along the outer coast of Washington. Graph extracted from Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014.
64 The Watershed Company June 2015
Overfished species
Groundfish are targeted off the coast from Pacific County on both the nearshore soft bottom (e.g. English sole) and offshore rocky reef (outside of SMP jurisdiction) (e.g. rockfish and sablefish). Groundfish along the entire Pacific Coast have been heavily targeted and as a result, their populations are assessed and managed by the Pacific Fishery Management Council’s (PFMC) Groundfish Fishery Management Plan (FMP) order to rebuild stocks. Under this plan, many species populations have been rebuilding (e.g., canary rockfish and widow Rockfish), while others remain overfished (e.g. Bocaccio and yelloweye rockfish) (Miller et al. 2009) (Figure 3-17). While many of these species (including overfished rockfish) are targeted outside of SMP jurisdiction as adults, some species utilize structurally complex inshore habitats such as oyster reefs and eelgrass beds for protection as juveniles (Dumbauld et al. 2011).
65 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 3-17. Excerpt from Miller et al. (2009) listing of Pacific groundfish populations that are either “overfished”, “not overfished”, “rebuilding”, or “unknown”.
Willapa Bay Willapa Bay offers a unique estuarine ecosystem in Washington State. It provides substantial natural capital, supporting one of the nation’s largest commercial shellfish industries, as well as a diversity of high-functioning ecosystems, including salt marshes, eelgrass beds, and mud flats (see Section 3.3.2 for a summary of the significance of these habitats). Its geographic location,
66 The Watershed Company June 2015 separated from significant industrial, commercial, and development, supports high water quality conditions necessary for continued support of successful aquaculture.
Willapa Bay’s surface area is 136 square miles at MHHW (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). The Bay consists of three main channels 30 to 77 feet deep (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981), surrounded by broad tidal flats. One channel extends eastward from the mouth to the Willapa River; the main channel, Stanley Channel, runs from the mouth in a southerly direction to the Naselle River; and a third channel branches off from the Stanley Channel in a southwesterly direction at about Oysterville to terminate in a broad intertidal region with almost no fluvial input. Over sixty percent of the area of Willapa Bay, 84 square miles, is composed of intertidal habitat (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007), and most of the remaining subtidal areas range from approximately one to six feet deep at low tide (Hedgpeth and Obrebski 1981). The northern portion and central portions of Willapa Bay experience strong tidal currents and the substrate is characterized by sandy sediments. The southern part of Willapa Bay has lower currents and wave activity, and substrate is predominantly mud or mixed sand and mud (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007).
In Willapa Bay, tides vary along the lengths of the estuaries. The tidal range at Toke Point on the north side of the entrance to the Bay is about 8.9 feet, whereas the tidal range for South Bend, which is several miles up the Willapa River, is about 9.8 feet. The astronomical tidal range at Nahcotta is about 10 feet, and the extreme range (including barometric tides, setup, surge, etc.) is about 14 feet (NOAA 2014c). The tidal range varies by about 20% over the length of the estuary and by 50% on a neap-spring cycle (Banas et al. 2004). The tidal prism exceeds 2.5 x 107 ft3 and comprises about 45% of the bay’s total volume with the maximum tidal exchange occurring during spring tides (Gingras et al. 1999).
Due to its large tidal prism and relatively small fluvial inputs, currents through the entrance to Willapa Bay are substantial and largely driven by tidal forcing. The current at the entrance, in the tidal channels are significant and during peak flows may reach or exceed about 2.5 knots. The ebb current in the tidal channel with a south wind is greatest and during peak flow conditions may be as high as 5.9 knots. The tidal currents at South Bend are influenced by tides as well as Willapa River flow and are about 1.2 knots on the flood and 1.4 knots on the ebb (NOAA 2014c).
Salinities are lowest in Willapa Bay in the late spring, when wind-driven downwelling directs the Columbia River plume northward along the coast and into Willapa Bay (Banas et al. 2004). Strong tides result in vertical mixing and lower salinities throughout the water column (Banas et al. 2004).
67 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
The detached spits of Willapa Bay support the State’s only non-tribal commercial razor clam fishery.
Historic Changes and Current Conditions Sediment Transport Cape Shoalwater on the north side of the entrance to Willapa Bay experiences the highest rate of shoreline erosion on the Pacific Coast of the United States. The rate of erosion has been approximately 100 to 145 feet per year since the late 1800s (Terich and Levenseller 1986). The northward migration of the channel is closely tied to the unique phenomenon of significant tidal flow in and out of Willapa Bay cyclically (approximately every 5 years) migrating to the north by breaching the nearshore shoals and bars during extreme waves and tidal flow conditions. Previous studies determined that northward migration of the tidal channel may not be naturally confined and would continue until Willapa Bay merged with Grays Harbor if no efforts were made to stem the northward migration of Cape Shoalwater. To constrain migration of the North Channel to the north and to protect the State highway (SR 105), the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) completed the SR 105 project to stabilize the shoreline by constructing in 1998 a flow deflecting rock groin and placement of beach nourishment (Johannessen and MacLennan 2005, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2009). The project was constructed with anticipated 5 to 10 years frequency of maintenance repair of the submerged part of the groin. However, no maintenance work was conducted after construction. The lack of maintenance may partly explain the continued erosion along the Cape Shoalwater shoreline during the last decade (Shepsis 2006, Shepsis et al. 1997). In 2005 and 2006, additional rock armoring was added to the base of SR 105 to address continued erosion (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2009).
Long Beach Peninsula to the south of the entrance of Willapa Bay owes its existence from Columbia River derived sands. As the peninsula grows northward from the Columbia River, the entrance to Willapa Bay is constrained, which results in higher current velocities through the entrance. The higher current velocities result in increased erosion at the mouth, which can be observed at Cape Shoalwater (Terich and Levenseller 1986). Although Cape Shoalwater exhibits much higher rates of shoreline change than anywhere else in Pacific County, other locations are in flux, too. Between the 1950s and the 1990s, Cape Disappointment experienced erosion rates of about 40 feet per year and Leadbetter Point saw erosion rates of about 30 feet per year. The only locations that experienced shoreline accretion between the 1950s and the 1990s in Pacific County were at Grayland (4 feet per year) and at Ocean Park (8 feet per year) (Kaminsky et al. 2009). The accretion at Grayland was likely due to increased sediment supply from the northward migrating Willapa Bay entrance (Buijsman et al. 2003).
68 The Watershed Company June 2015
Dredging of the deep-draft river channel in Willapa Harbor was discontinued by the Corps in 1976 because of marginal benefits. Several sites within the Bay were historically dredged by the Corps, including Tokeland Marina Entrance Channel, the Bay Center Channel and Boat Basin, and the Nahcotta Channel. The Corps discontinued dredging in the Nahcotta Channel in 1987, in the Tokeland Marina entrance channel, and the Bay Center Channel and Boat Basin in 2002. In response to sedimentation and the need for adequate navigation depth at Port facilities, the Port of Willapa Harbor proposed a dredging plan that included hydraulic suction dredging with flow lane disposal using their own small hydraulic dredge. Flow lane disposal of dredged material was proposed by the Port to retain clean sediments within the littoral system and allow sediments to be distributed and dispersed by natural hydrodynamic processes. By 2009, dredging was permitted and the Tokeland Marina was dredged. Numerous other sites in Willapa Bay are dredged and maintained on a regular basis including Bay Center Marina, Raymond City dock, and others. Dredge disposal locations around Willapa Bay include Cape Shoalwater and Goose Point, both dispersive disposal sites (Dredged Material Management Program 2006). Several flow lane disposal sites have been identified and permitted for placement of suitable dredged sediment from various dredging projects in Willapa Bay and the Willapa River. Two of these sites, Tokeland Marina and Bay Center flow lane sites have been successfully used and monitored. Results of monitoring at these placement sites confirmed the effectiveness of flow lane disposal sites for dispersion of the hydraulically placed dredged material and meeting the required water quality conditions. The DMMP Panel, composed of Federal and State agencies has reviewed the results of Willapa Bay flow lane placement site and has encouraged local dredging entities to extend use of this practice at other locations in Willapa Bay and Willapa River areas, subsequent to appropriate analysis of hydrodynamic and sediment transport.
Habitat and Water Quality Changes The most recent estimate indicates that 64 percent of historic estuarine wetlands have been lost in Willapa Bay as a result of diking and filling activities (Coastal Resources Alliance 2007). Tide gates have also restricted natural estuarine connectivity and limited fish passage opportunities (Smith 1999).
Oyster aquaculture began in Willapa Bay in the mid-1800s. By 1880, the native Olympia oyster population was decimated (Applied Environmental Services 2001). Today, non-native oysters and clams are cultivated over approximately 17,000 acres of tidelands, more acreage than all other aquaculture areas in Washington State combined (Northern Economics 2013). The shellfish industry directly provides between 800 and 1,500 jobs in Pacific County, and when indirect economics are considered, it is responsible for 15-24 percent of the labor-earned income
69 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
in Pacific County (Flores and Batker 2014). Successful aquaculture production is dependent on good water quality conditions, low fine sediment loads, and a consistent range of salinities.
Shellfish aquaculture can modify estuarine functions through changes resulting from bivalve digestion (filtration and waste), effects on physical structure, and disturbance associated with harvest and chemical treatments (Dumbauld et al. 2009). Detailed reviews of the potential effects of shellfish aquaculture in Washington’s estuaries have been conducted by Simenstad and Fresh (1995) and, more recently, by Dumbauld et al. (2009). These effects will be only briefly summarized in the following discussion.
Bivalve filtration affects water properties by reducing the concentration of phytoplankton (Dumbauld et al. 2009). Bivalve waste then results in deposition of fine organic material and the release of dissolved nutrients into porewater or into the water column (Dumbauld et al. 2009).
Approximately 80 percent of the bivalve aquaculture tracts within Pacific County overlap with areas of mapped eelgrass beds. To the extent that bivalves improve light availability through filtration of phytoplankton, and increase nutrient concentrations in sediment, they have the potential to improve eelgrass growth (Dumbauld et al. 2009). However, the physical disturbance associated with aquaculture and space occupied by cultured bivalves could limit eelgrass beds (Dumbauld et al. 2009). A study of the potential impact of oyster aquaculture on eelgrass beds in Willapa Bay found that eelgrass density declined with oyster density in all aquaculture areas; however, eelgrass growth rate, plant size, and production did not change with oyster density (Tallis et al. 2009). Another study in Willapa Bay noted a distinct threshold of 20 percent oyster cover, above which shoot density of Z. marina declined markedly (Wagner et al. 2012). The same study found that eelgrass growth was not affected by increased nutrients in sediment an porewater, but that shoot size was reduced (Wagner et al. 2012). A change in eelgrass density was not detectable in long line harvest areas, but eelgrass was smaller and had lower production in these areas (Tallis et al. 2009). Eelgrass growth rates increased in dredged or hand-picked beds, but density, plant size, and production were reduced (Tallis et al. 2009).
Bivalve aquaculture can also interact with invertebrate communities through physical disturbances to the substrate and chemical treatment applications. Mechanical dredges cause more eelgrass disturbance than longline culture or hand picking (Tallis et al. 2009). Despite this disturbance, seedling germination and survival is also greater in dredge-harvested areas compared to longline and control sites, potentially contributing to more rapid recovery (Wisehart et al. 2007).
70 The Watershed Company June 2015
Another study in Willapa Bay found that the densities of small epibenthic invertebrates were higher in eelgrass beds and oyster beds compared to unstructured mudflat (Hosack and Dumbauld 2006), indicating that the physical structure created by oyster beds may provide habitat functions similar to eelgrass beds. Other studies of shellfish aquaculture in West Coast estuaries have similarly found little to no difference between epibenthic, benthic, and fish assemblages between oyster aquaculture and eelgrass beds (Dumbauld et al. 2009).
Populations of native burrowing shrimp (Neotrypaea californiensis and Upogebia pugettensis) impact shellfish growing areas by softening the bottom and making areas unsuitable for shellfish beds (Feldman et al. 2000). Beginning in the 1960’s oyster beds in Willapa Bay have been treated with carbaryl pesticide to control burrowing shrimp populations (Dumbauld et al. 2009). In 2008, Ecology issued a NPDES permit allowing the application of carbaryl pesticide to control burrowing shrimp in shellfish-growing areas within Willapa Bay. That permit expired in 2012, and was not reissued. Estimates of the loss of aquaculture production in Willapa Bay that would result from not applying pesticides range from 60 to 90 percent without pesticide treatments for the control of burrowing shrimp (Washington State Department of Ecology 2014). In 2015, Ecology issued a permit to apply the pesticide imidacloprid to up to 1,500 acres of commercial tidelands in Willapa Bay and 500 acres in Grays Harbor to control burrowing shrimp. Under the permit, Ecology staff would monitor applications, and the growers would be required to conduct intensive water and sediment monitoring throughout the five-year term of the permit through a partnership with the Washington State University Long Beach extension research facility. However, due to public outcry about pesticide use in early May, 2015, the Department of Ecology and the Willapa-Grays Harbor Oyster Growers Association agreed to cancel the recently issued permit.
As noted in Section 3.3.4, Z. japonica is an invasive species that occupies previously open mud flat habitats. Control of burrowing shrimp is correlated with the expansion of the non-native eelgrass, Z. japonica, into previously unsuitable mudflat (Dumbauld and Wyllie-Echeverria 2003), and conversely, eelgrass beds (both native and non-native) reduce the mobility of burrowing shrimp (Reviewed in Feldman et al. 2000). A recent study of the effects of Z. japonica on commercial shellfish production found Z. japonica limited the growth, productivity, harvest efficiency, and quality of Manila clams (Ruditapes philippinarum) (Patten 2014). The same study did not find a consistent effect of Z. japonica removal on Pacific oyster production (Patten 2014). Z. japonica impacts revenue from aquaculture practices where it displaces existing cultivated beds, increases costs for management, or reduces yields (Fisher et al. 2011). In 2014, Ecology issued a permit to apply the pesticide imazamox to control Z. japonica in shellfish beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor.
71 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Willapa Bay has historically been known for its excellent water quality conditions. Nevertheless, several areas within Willapa Bay are listed as impaired for water quality parameters including temperature, fecal coliform bacteria, dissolved oxygen, and pesticides. Table 3-8 lists water quality impairments that have been identified within the Bay.
Recruitment and abundance of many commercially and recreationally important marine species are affected by changes in estuarine conditions. For example, Dungeness crab recruitment is affected by oceanographic currents, but Dungeness crab are also particularly sensitive to the effects of dredging and estuarine habitat conditions during development. WDFW’s recommendations for the conservation of Dungeness crabs include suggestions to minimize the volume of dredged materials, minimize trench widening, prevent material suspension, and dredge during low tides in intertidal areas and during high tides in subtidal areas (Fisher and Velasquez 2008). Similarly, development that affects eelgrass beds and water quality in the estuary can have a detrimental effect on juvenile Dungeness crab, salmon, and rockfish that use these habitats for development.
Columbia River Estuary The Columbia River is the largest river on the West Coast of the US, draining about 260,000 mi2 and extending from British Columbia to the Pacific Ocean between Oregon and Washington. The hydrology of the Columbia River Basin reflects the interaction of topography, geology, and climate. Precipitation in most of the drainage falls as snow in the Rocky Mountains and in the Cascade Range (Simenstad et al. 2011). Annual peak discharges occur in the spring (April to June), and generally result from snowmelt in the interior sub-basin. Historically, flood flows peaked at 1.2 million cfs (Simenstad et al. 2011). Today, as a result of dam regulation, the highest flows occur from April to June, with discharge at the mouth of the river ranging from 100,000 to 500,000 cfs (Marriott et al. 2002). The lower basin, where precipitation generally occurs as rain, contributes to peak winter discharges (Simenstad et al. 2011). The average annual discharge is about 52 mi3 per year, more than twice the average annual discharge of all other rivers in Washington, Oregon, and California combined. The spring tide tidal prism is about 3.85 x 1010 cubic feet (Jarrett 1976).
The Columbia River Estuary in Pacific County experiences extensive mixing, depending on river flows, winds, waves, and tides. Currents through the Columbia River Estuary can be heavily influenced by fluvial forcing. Velocities at the entrance to mouth of the Columbia River in the tidal channels can reach over 5 knots on the ebb, but seldom exceed 4 knots on the flood, and on average reach about 3.5 knots (NOAA 2014b). Tide range decreases moving upstream from the mouth; however, there is spatial variability in tidal ranges in and around Pacific County. The tidal range for the astronomical tide (not including extreme tides) at the Columbia
72 The Watershed Company June 2015
River entrance is 7.5 feet, 7.6 feet at Ilwaco, 8.6 feet at Astoria, and 8.1 feet at Chinook (NOAA 2014b). Extreme fluvial forcing, however, can dampen the flood tide so much that little tidal influence can be felt upstream of the mouth. During low flow periods, tidal forcing can be strong enough to reverse flow through the river up to River Mile (RM) 87 (Beaver Army Terminal) (Kukulka and Jay 2003).
Historic Changes and Current Conditions Sediment Transport The mouth of the Columbia River has three jetties; the north and south jetties and Jetty “A” (Figure 3-18). The north and south jetties flank the mouth to the northwest and southwest while Jetty “A” lies to the east of the north jetty and the west of Sand Island. The primary function of jetties is to constrict flow, increase flow rate, increase bottom shear stress, and promote channel scour. Prior to the construction of the jetties, the mouth of the Columbia River was a spatially and temporally dynamic and unstable system with variations in shoaling and channel location and geometry over time making navigation through the channel challenging. Congress approved a feasibility study for the stabilization of the mouth of the Columbia River in 1882 and construction of the south jetty began in 1885 and did not reach completion until 1913. The south jetty resulted in the northern migration of the main channel, which led to the construction of the north jetty to train the channel between Peacock and Clatsop spits. North jetty construction was started in 1913 and completed in 1917. In order to shield the north jetty from tidal currents, which ultimately would have undermined the south side of the north jetty, Jetty “A” was constructed in 1939 (Hickson and Rodolf 1951).
Figure 3-18. Overview of jetty locations at the mouth of the Columbia River. Source: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
73 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Baker Bay, part of the Columbia River estuary, borders Pacific County to the south. Prior to the construction of the Columbia River jetty system, the entrance was more dynamic; the main channel changed positions and shoaling and bed erosion occurred in varying locations around the mouth of the Columbia River including Baker Bay. Following jetty construction, however, the channel was trained in one direction, the river channel adopted a more static position, and the bay was cut off from flow. As a consequence, sedimentation has occurred in Baker Bay, home to the ports of Ilwaco and Chinook. The construction of the jetties, land use practices, in- filling, and sedimentation have resulted in changes to the tidal prism and sedimentation patterns over time. In addition to a reduction in the tidal prism, channelization of the river with the jetties and the placement of in-stream pile dikes around Sand Island have also resulted in decreased circulation in and increased siltation of Baker Bay in Pacific County from 1870 to 1983.
In addition to changes at the mouth of the Columbia River, the Columbia River dam system has significantly altered flows and sediment transport processes within the Columbia River system. As a result of dam operations, flows in the Lower Columbia River are greatly reduced from historic levels in late spring through summer months (Figure 3-19).
Figure 3-19. Changes in annual flow cycle near Vancouver, Washington Figure from Bottom et al. 2005 A comparison of historic (1859-1899) and recent (1970-1999) sediment transport loads at Vancouver, Washington showed an average annual reduction in total sediment transport of between 10.8 and 12.5 million metric tons, equivalent to 52-61.5% of the total sediment historic sediment load (Bottom et al. 2005).
74 The Watershed Company June 2015
Regular maintenance dredging is required to maintain a navigation channel to the Port of Chinook Marina, the Coast Guard training facility, the Port of Ilwaco, and the public boat yard at Cape Disappointment. The Corps maintains a federal navigation channel from the main channel in the Columbia River through Baker Bay and to the ports of Ilwaco and Chinook. The Ilwaco channel is maintained at 17 feet depth and the Chinook Channel is maintained to a depth of 10 feet per Corps authorization (FBO 2013; Corps 2009). Total amount of dredging is approximately 3 to 5 million cubic yards per year. The Corps maintains numerous dispersive flow-lane and open-ocean dredge disposal sites in and around the Lower Columbia River. Much of the dredge material from the mouth of the Columbia River is used for shallow water open ocean disposal, whose transport pathway takes it to nearby beaches and the backside of the jetties to mitigate recent nearby shoreline erosion and subsequent jetty instability. Some amount of dredged material has been placed historically on designated upland disposal sites; however, this upland placement is now relatively limited. Other disposal uses have included the beneficial use of dredged material and creation of habitat projects. Several attempts were made by the USACE to place dredged material directly on Benson Beach directly north of the North Jetty to enhance the northward littoral drift along the Washington Coast. The concept of the Benson Beach placement project was based on understanding that net sediment transport in the region is toward the North and that a significant part of sediment from Columbia River historically transported to the north forming sandy beaches of Long Beach peninsula and beyond towards Grays Harbor County shorelines. It was also commonly agreed that construction of North Jetty partially obstructed this transport that resulted in shoreline erosion along Long Beach Peninsula, Willapa Harbor, Westport, and other places to the north. Therefore it was assumed that placement of sand at Benson Beach would mitigate a detrimental impact from the jetty and partially restore northward sediment transport.
However studies of the Benson Beach demonstration project did not provide conclusive data on the processes of sediment transport and the benefit from Benson Beach project on rehabilitation of northward sediment transport. For example the U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) study (Stevens et. al. 2012) concluded that the dominant direction of transport at the Benson Beach to be toward the south that is a contrary to the accepted net northerly sediment transport. Most likely the Benson Beach shoreline in combination with North Jetty forms a local littoral cell with specific sediment transport parameters different from that of the remainder of the Long Beach peninsula. However the validity of this concept requires confirmation by future studies. In the meantime placement of sediment (dredged material) to enhance northward littoral transport is recommended at the bottom depressions (deep holes), created by the North, South, and A jetties at the entrance to the estuary. The practical experience from other locations along Columbia River and similar projects along the North Pacific coastline demonstrated benefits of this action to the coastline. The sediment, placed at such depressions (holes) naturally re-nourish the
75 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
littoral transport, restoring and enhancing the historical coastal processes. Placement of dredged sediment at bottom depressions along Columbia River to enhance the littoral transport has been supported by State and Federal Agencies. The placement of dredged material at bottom depressions along Mouth of Columbia River has been discussed previously and supported by various public and state entities, including DOE, WFDW, Columbia River Crab Association, Pilton Bar Association, and others.
The Port of Ilwaco conducts regular maintenance dredging work at the Port of Ilwaco marina and marina approaches. The dredged material from the marina recently has been placed at an upland disposal site due to a number of reasons, including the lack of nearby flow lane disposal sites and contamination of the river bed sediment from up-river sources (Greenwood et. al. 2011). The capacity of this upland disposal site has been exhausted. Therefore, alternatives under consideration include extension of the existing site and/or developing a new flow lane placement site, dependent on sediment quality, to accommodate maintenance dredging needs and to return accumulated sediment into the natural littoral drift system in Pacific County. One approach may include the extension the historic West Sand Island dredge disposal site. This site has been permitted in the past and is the leading candidate site for future port disposal, but would require collaboration of all constituents including the Lower Columbia River Solutions Group.
As noted above in the discussion of Willapa Bay, dredging operations have the potential to adversely affect recruitment of marine species that support commercially and recreationally significant fisheries, notably Dungeness crab. Because of potential conflicts between dredging and fisheries, in 2002, the governors of Oregon and Washington convened the Lower Columbia Solutions Group. The group is comprised of key government, fishing industry, and environmental stakeholders to cooperatively plan dredging projects to achieve economic and environmental objectives. In 2011, the group signed a Regional Sediment Management Plan for the Mouth of the Columbia River. The plan includes planned implementation of dredging projects along with funding for research and monitoring from the Corps, the EPA, WDFW, the Columbia River Crab Fisherman’s Association, the Oregon Dungeness Crab Commodities Commission, and the Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Habitat and Water Quality Changes Flow regulation and diking in the Columbia River have eliminated or limited tidal inundation and disconnected the river from its floodplain, limiting natural disruptions that form new wetlands and create shifting mosaics of wetland habitats (Bottom et al. 2005). Furthermore, channel dredging and flow regulation in the Columbia River have combined to consolidate the river current into a single channel and reduce flow through peripheral wetland and marsh habitats (Bottom et al. 2005). The combination of dikes and water flow regulation has
76 The Watershed Company June 2015 contributed to a 62% loss in the shallow water habitat available to juvenile Chinook salmon in the lower estuary (Kukulka and Jay 2003).
Current wild populations of salmon in the Columbia River basin represent only 12% of their historic numbers (Bottom et al. 2005). Hatchery fish represent approximately 50% of all fall Chinook salmon in the entire basin, and over 85% of the fall Chinook salmon from the lower and middle subbasins of the watershed (Genovese and Emmett 1997). The diversity of salmon life histories, including different ocean-type Chinook salmon strategies, in the Columbia River has decreased substantially since the early 1900s (Burke 2004, Bottom et al. 2005).
Within Pacific County, the hydrologic connectivity of several shallow areas has been cut off by highway causeways. A substantial amount of the Columbia River shoreline within the County has been armored with riprap. Over-water and in-water structures occur along the Columbia, including the marina at Port of Chinook, the Astoria Bridge, the Chinook jetty, and several thousand in-water derelict piles from historic fish traps.
Water quality monitoring from 2004-2007 found elevated levels of PCBs and PAHs in tissues sampled from the Columbia River Estuary (Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership 2010). The legacy pesticide, DDT, was also identified in salmonid tissues in 2007 sampling. Water quality impairments in the Columbia River Estuary that are listed by Ecology are identified in Table 3-8.
Table 3-8. Impaired water quality parameters in Willapa Bay and the Columbia River Estuary in Pacific County https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/wats/approvedsearch.aspx Year of qualifying Waterbody Parameter Status data Bacteria 1998-2009 303(d)- impaired Dissolved Oxygen 1998-2006 303(d)- impaired Willapa Bay Temperature 2002, 2005 303(d)- impaired Pesticides- Mussel tissue 2006, 2008 303(d)- impaired PCBs- Mussel tissue 1996 303(d)- impaired Columbia River Estuary Bacteria- Ilwaco marina 1992 303(d)- impaired Dioxin 1989 TMDL (1993) Source: Ecology 2012
Coastal Risks and Emerging Issues Tsunamis Shorelines of Pacific County, along the Pacific Ocean and within Willapa Bay and the Columbia River estuaries are vulnerable to tsunami inundation. Tsunamis can occur from either local sources like the Cascadia Subduction Zone or from far-field sources such as Alaska or Chile. The recurrence interval of tsunami is estimated at 500 to 1,000 years for a megathrust event (Jacoby et al. 1997; Satake et al. 1996). Apparently the last known Cascadia Subduction Zone
77 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report event to produce significant inundation and run-up in SW Washington was in 1700, for which numerous proxies exist, such as inland marine deposits in Willapa Bay and records of sudden land subsidence indicative of convergent subduction zone inter-plate stress release (Satake et al. 1996). Far-field tsunamis have produced substantial observed run-ups in Pacific County, as well. The 1964 Alaska-Aleutian earthquake and tsunami produced recorded tsunami wave heights at Seaview of 12.5 feet above tide, 4.5 feet above tide at Ilwaco, and 3.5-4 feet above tide at the Raymond docks (Washington 2013).
The Washington State Department of Natural Resources worked with the National Tsunami Hazard Mitigation Program and local officials to develop tsunami evacuation maps for the State of Washington. In addition to the delineation of tsunami evacuation limits for the State, the US Geological Survey and the Washington Military Department Emergency Management Division recently assessed variation in exposure of 24 communities along Washington’s outer coast to tsunami hazard. The report finds that Long Beach peninsula is relatively sensitive to tsunami inundation compared to other areas on the Washington coast (Figures 3-20 and 3-21).
78 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 3-20. Modeled tsunami inundation for the Long Beach peninsula from a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake in 25 min intervals (from Venturato et al. 2007).
79 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 3-21. Maximum inundation levels (left) and current speeds (right) for the Long Beach Peninsula in the case of a Cascadia Subduction Zone earthquake (from Venturato et al. 2007).
Energy Production Potential ocean energy projects include projects generating power from waves, tidal currents, and wind.
The Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) reports that, in general, wave energy resources in Pacific County are abundant (EPRI 2004). Studies identify the region offshore of Pacific County,
80 The Watershed Company June 2015
Ocean Park in particular, as having a relatively high wave power potential. However, there are currently no permitted or pending wave energy projects for Pacific County (FERC 2013).
Similarly, The Georgia Tech Research Company indicates that Willapa Bay has a total tidal energy production potential of 91 MW. However, given the dynamic and unstable condition of the entrance to Willapa Bay, the size of turbines needed to harness tidal power (15-20 feet in diameter), and the location of the highest currents, tidal power production would have to come from the upper 20 feet of the water column, which could interfere with navigation and other uses. There are currently no permitted or pending tidal energy projects for Pacific County.
Schwartz et al. (2010) and Musial et al. (2010) have identified viable wind energy resources in the offshore coastal areas of Pacific County. Wind power tends to be highest offshore and decrease as it approaches land (Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory, electronic reference). The potential for offshore wind energy exists and may develop further as technologies improve, economic factors are improved, and regulatory roles are clarified (Musial et al. 2010, Baker et al. 2014).
An assessment of the environmental effects of ocean energy noted a number of potential ecological effects of offshore renewable energy developments. These include:
• Temporary disturbance during installation; • Alteration of currents and waves; • Alteration of substrates, sediment transport and deposition; • Alteration of habitats for benthic organisms; • Acoustic effects of noise during construction and operation, • Emission of electromagnetic fields; • Toxicity of paints, lubricants, and antifouling coatings; • Interference with animal movements and migrations; and • Alteration of fish and wildlife behavior; • Direct injury and mortality to fish and wildlife; and • Potential unforeseen population and community impacts (Polagye et al. 2010).
Other potential impacts include:
• Loss of fishing areas; and • Restrictions to navigation areas. The same assessment notes that, “effects on the magnitude and scale of hydrodynamic and sediment dynamic changes on fish interaction with structure and on changes to community structure are not well understood, especially for marine mammals and seabirds, in such dynamic and difficult-to-study tidal environments.” Structures may attract species assemblages
81 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
by providing structure, either mid-water or at the water surface, but the extent of the assemblage and the effect of these assemblages on marine populations and communities are not well understood.
A majority of Washington’s coastal ocean is protected under the National Marine Sanctuary jurisdiction which prohibits offshore renewable energy development. That leaves waters off of Grays Harbor and Pacific County as the only allowable areas for offshore development along Washington’s outer coast. Pacific County is also the most marine dependent county in Washington State. These fishing fleets harvest Dungeness crab, herring, salmon, pink shrimp, albacore tuna, salmon, and bottomfish and provide them local and global markets. The estimated value of the Dungeness crab fishery alone in Pacific County in 2013 was over $16 million dollars (PacFIN). Offshore fishing in Pacific County is considered an existing sustainable use of the ocean and offshore development may pose a threat to these important fisheries through, habitat degradation, displacement, and fishery gear entanglement.
Local shellfish growers also note that Willapa Bay does not have appropriate hardened channels to support current generators, and that by changing of flow patterns in the Bay, such devices would alter sediment stability that is important for maintaining shellfish aquaculture production.
Thus, a critical look at the environmental impacts of offshore energy development on important fish, invertebrate, and mammal habitats using best available science will be important to evaluating potential impacts from marine energy. Additionally, a thorough analysis of the economic, social, and safety impacts on culturally and economically significant sustainable uses of the coastal ocean will be critical (Lester et al. 2013).
In a 2014 workshop, the Mid- Atlantic Fishery Management Council created a list of Best Management Practices (BMPs) based on “lessons learned” from offshore development. These recommendations included (Offshore Wind Best Management Practices Workshop 2014):
• Slow down the planning process to allow the fishing industry to become more fully engaged • Begin collecting the data necessary to establish environmental economic baselines. • Begin developing tools and resources to facilitate better communication between developers and the fishing industry (e.g. a database of interested individuals and organizations). • Develop clear guidelines for the selection and responsibilities of the fisheries representative (FR). • Require transparency during all phases of the development process.
82 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Establish guidelines that specify when, where, and how exclusion zones can be established. • Develop models to estimate the impacts of scour and sedimentation. • Establish a role for fishermen in improving safety practices. • Include fishermen in the environmental monitoring • Focus on building trust
Climate Change Although the specific impacts of climate change have yet to be fully understood, some of the potential effects of climate change to coastal shorelines include sea level change, increased frequency and intensity of storm events, ocean acidification, and changes to ocean currents. Huppert et al. (2009) summarized the following physical and biological stressors that may be anticipated to accompany climate change in coastal areas of Washington State:
• inundation of low-lying areas by high tides as sea level rises • flooding of coasts during major storm events, especially near river mouths • accelerated erosion of coastal bluffs • shifting of beach profiles, moving the position of the Mean High Water line landward • saltwater intrusion into coastal freshwater aquifers • increased ocean temperature and acidity
Local sea level change can occur due a combination of factors including eustatic change, which is sea level change due to changes in the total volume of ocean water or changes in the volumetric capacity of the ocean basins, and local effects such as tectonic uplift. Changes in the world’s ocean volume have numerous sources including the melting of ice caps and glaciers and thermal expansion of the oceans due to global warming (Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington et al. 2012). The information on sea level rise along the Pacific County shorelines is relatively limited. Although long term sea level rise records are relatively sparse for the region, there is indication that the rate of eustatic sea level rise exceeds the rate of tectonic uplift for the Central Washington Coast and Pacific County. National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), based on data from long-term tidal station at Toke Point in Willapa Bay, has estimated a mean sea level rise trend of 0.73 mm/year ± 1.05 mm/year between 1973 and 2012 (NOAA 2014a). It is expected that there will continue be a net rise in the sea level in Willapa Bay in the future. Mote et al. (2008) developed three alternatives for sea level rise for the Central Washington Coast that indicate sea level rise of 1 to 18 inches by 2050 and 2 to 43 inches by 2100 (Toke et al. 2008). Not all locations in the region, however, are experiencing sea level rise. Astoria, Oregon, for example, currently has a sea level fall (decreasing) trend of 0.27 mm/year ± 0.35 mm/year. The trend in Astoria is due to tectonic uplift in the area; the uplift is greater than the eustatic sea level rise. It may be possible that
83 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report most southern Pacific County shorelines are also influenced by the same tectonic uplift measured at Astoria and that the rate of sea level rise (0.73 mm per year), estimated at Toke Pt. is smaller in the southern portion of the County or does not exist.
Two different analyses of sea level rise are displayed graphically in Figure 3-22 and 3-23.
Figure 3-22. Map showing existing conditions on left and 2-foot sea level rise scenario on the right. Low-lying areas highlighted in green and inundated areas shown in blue. Source: http://coast.noaa.gov/slr/
84 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 3-23. Map showing extent of mean high water (pink) and highest observed water level (blue) under a 3-foot (1m) sea level rise scenario. Source: Data from Global Ocean Health In addition to sea level rise, climate change is also expected to change local climate patterns. Shifting storm tracks and increased wave heights have already been recognized south of Point Grenville (Huppert et al. 2009). The frequency of extreme precipitation events is expected to increase in Washington State as a result of global climate change (Salathé et al. 2010). These changes are expected to accelerate shoreline erosion and contribute to flashier hydrographs in the rivers and streams of Pacific County. Under these scenarios, coastal flooding would become more frequent.
Increasing sea surface temperature has the potential to create El Nino and La Nina like conditions, which could lead to increased winter precipitation (in La Nina years) and southeasterly winter storms in the winter and spring (in El Nino years). Increased precipitation and storm activity leads to coastal erosion, increased sedimentation, and disturbance to benthic communities (Goldfinger et al. 2014; Komar et al. 1972). Soft bottom habitats, such as those characteristic of the coastal ocean off Pacific County are particularly susceptible to disturbance by surface waves, internal waves, and/or bottom currents up to about 150 m as sediments are highly mobile, especially on the inner coastal shelf (<40 m) (Komar et al. 1972, Goldfinger et al. 2014, Bob Eder, Ronald Briggs pers. Comm.). Evidence for local sediment movement patterns and events can be derived from the reports of crab fishermen whose crab pots can be
85 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
transported or buried by ocean physical conditions (Goldfinger et al. 2014). Crab fishermen off the coast from Pacific County have reported that sediment mobilization in the region can range from 6-8 ft. near Willapa Bay to over 20 ft. and depends on the sediment grain size, shape, and specific gravity, as well as storm strengths and the speed or duration of a storm event (Dale Beasley pers. comm.). Crab fishermen in Pacific County report an approximate sediment redistribution rate of 1 ft. in a 4-5 days with seas greater than or equal to 20 ft within crab fishing zones (7-30 m depths) (Dale Beasley pers. comm; Goldfinger et al. 2014). If storm activity increases along Washington’s coast, crab pot burial may become more frequent. In order to retrieve crab pots, fishermen will have to use a “pot pump” to hydraulically pump crab pots out of the sediments (Goldfinger et al. 2014). In addition to decreased safety for fishermen with increasing storm activity, sediment burial of crab pots will likely lead to a loss of catch and more derelict gear.
Increased coastal flooding could compromise previously compliant septic fields, resulting in water quality concerns in coastal waters. Additionally, sea level rise could compromise existing wells. As described by Blakemore (1995), “In an island ground-water flow system, [such as occurs on the Long Beach Peninsula,] the higher the water table is above sea level, the thicker is the freshwater lens…For every 1 ft of altitude the water table is above sea level, fresh ground water will extend 40 ft below sea level.” Put another way, for every one foot of rise in sea level relative to ground water, the aquifer depth will decrease by 40 feet. For this reason, overuse of the aquifer; development that results in reduced infiltration and aquifer recharge; and sea level rise each present potential threats to the long term sustainability of the Long Beach aquifer.
Another potential effect of climate change relates to ocean acidification. Ocean acidification,
resulting from adsorption of atmospheric carbon dioxide (CO2), reduces pH in marine waters and the availability of carbonate ions that are used for shell formation on marine plankton and shellfish. Since the industrial revolution, the pH of seawater has decreased by approximately 0.1, and reductions of up to 0.4 are predicted by the end of the century from future increases in atmospheric CO2 (Feely et al. 2008). Ocean acidification results in reduced production and growth of oysters (Barton et al. 2012), and therefore is a significant concern for native and commercial bivalve species in Pacific County and along the Pacific Coast. This is particularly of concern along the west coast of the U.S. where seasonal upwelling already results in more corrosive waters being transported into coastal estuaries (Feely et al. 2008). The global increase
in CO2 is expected to result in more frequent, more intense, and longer duration high CO2 events along the Pacific Coast over the upcoming decades (Gruber et al. 2012, Hauri et al. 2013). West Coast shellfish hatcheries have begun to adapt to the problem primarily by buffering the water coming into the hatchery and using selective timing to draw water under ideal conditions (Barton et al. 2012). Scientific research into understanding critical stages of shellfish
86 The Watershed Company June 2015 susceptibility, potential acclimation or adaptations to higher acidity, and potential buffering effects of different estuarine habitats is being actively pursued. Recent studies have found that effects may carry over from one life stage to the next, and that effects may be cross-generational (Parker et al. 2012, Hettinger et al. 2012). Adult oysters conditioned to higher acidity produce larvae that are more resilient to acidification, suggesting that oysters may either adapt to
elevated CO2 over multiple generations (Parker et al. 2012). Seagrass and oyster shells are two communities that could offer potential refugia from the effects of ocean acidification (Waldbusser et al. 2013, Hendriks et al. 2014), although further research is necessary to understand how these estuarine habitats alter carbonate chemistry at the habitat or landscape scale.
Additionally, temperature effects of climate change can stress aquatic and coastal organisms, particularly those at the outer range of their species distributions. This can result in local species extinctions or the shifting of species distributions. Changes in species ranges and depths may alter trophic relationships, as well as fisheries (reviewed in Skewgar and Pearson 2011).
Oil Spills Given the frequent cargo traffic and the challenging navigational conditions in the Pacific Coast and at the mouth of the Columbia River, oil spills are a potential environmental hazard in the region. The risk of oil spills is increased by the transport of crude oil from Canada and the interior United States. Crude oil is heavier, and therefore, presents greater challenges for containment and greater risk to wildlife compared to lighter oils, such as gasoline (Washington Department of Ecology 2015). Crude oil is transported by rail along the Columbia River Gorge and out of the Columbia River mouth on articulated tug barges (ATBs). In describing potential effects of an oil spill on the Columbia River, a recent report by Ecology stated, “Impacts would include toxicity-related mortality to existing fish and shellfish stocks (adults, juveniles, and eggs), decreased fish and shellfish fecundity (reproductive capacity) in future years, and reduced important food sources. Even if marine species mortality rates were relatively low, there is a risk of contamination of marine species food sources, which may lead to a fishery closure” (Washington Department of Ecology 2015). The same report states that the risk of spills to sensitive areas will increase with the full build-out of proposed crude-by-rail facilities in Washington. Should a major oil spill occur in the Lower Columbia River, in addition to impacts at the Columbia River Mouth, depending on wind, waves, and currents, oil could be transported northward in the Columbia River Plume, potentially impacting the Pacific County coastline and Willapa Bay. The U.S. Coast Guard is responsible for restricting vessel traffic at the mouth of the Columbia River when conditions are determined to be too severe for safe passage (i.e. swells over 20 feet and winds over 50 knots). The U.S. Coast Guard is also
87 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report responsible for oil spill response and containment to ensure that water quality impacts are minimized if and when oil spills occur.
Submerged Cables Ocean cables are laid across the ocean floor for power transmission and communication. The placement of these cables requires coordination between multiple agencies and stakeholders. The Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) requires that federal agencies may not grant cable placement licenses without review by state agencies. Under the United States Submarine Cable Act (47 USC 21-23), it is a criminal offence to purposely interfere with submarine cables, thus the placement of cables may have an effect on the distribution of fishing effort in areas where cables have been placed. The direct environmental impact of submerged cables is thought to be low (Burnett et al. 2013). However, buried cables can be either further buried or become exposed due to changes in currents, storm activity, and sediment transport. If cables become exposed and suspended, marine organisms can become disturbed or entangled (Burnett et al. 2013). Additionally, the burying and re-burying of cables involves temporary disturbance of benthic communities. In order to re-bury cables in soft sediments, water injection or jetting is often used, which can create plumes of sediments and displace organisms (Burnett et al. 2013).
Ocean Navigation Pacific County is located at the mouth of the Columbia River which leads to the major shipping ports of Vancouver, WA and Portland, OR and the fishing ports of Ilwaco, WA and Astoria, OR. Vessels may also pass by Pacific County heading to and from Grays Harbor, the north coast of Washington, and across the Pacific.
The number of container vessels shipping goods along the west coast of North America has increased and is projected to increase over time (Douglas et al. 2008). While rail and pipeline oil transport is on the rise in Washington, almost 70% of crude oil is currently transported by vessels (Etkin et al. 2015). Grays Harbor, adjacent to Pacific County, has been proposed as a new oil terminal. If developed, Grays Harbor will receive crude oil by rail and transport the oil from the Harbor by tankers and barges (Etkin et al. 2015). Increased bunkering in Lower Columbia River ports by tank vessels is also projected to increase (Etkin et al. 2015).
An increase in vessel traffic could lead to increased instances of vessel collisions as well as ship strikes to marine mammals (Etkin et al. 2015; Douglas et al. 2008).
88 The Watershed Company June 2015 4 SHORELINE INVENTORY
4.1 Assessment Units In order to facilitate the description of shoreline inventory, analysis, and characterization, the County was generally divided by fifth-order hydrologic units (HUCs). Because of the inherently different processes and functions on marine versus freshwater shorelines, Pacific Coast shorelines and estuarine shorelines in Willapa Bay are addressed in separate Assessment Units (AUs). The HUC for the Long Beach Peninsula was retained as a single AU because the interdunal wetlands and lakes on the peninsula maintain hydrologic interactions with either Willapa Bay or the Pacific Coast. Similarly, an assessment unit has been included for the coastal ocean from the OHWM of the outer coast seaward out to the County’s 3-mile jurisdictional boundary. Pacific County’s marine waters are explicitly included through the Coastal Ocean assessment unit to inform development of coastal designations and protections. Based on this approach, County shorelines were divided into the following AUs, described further in Section 4.3. Figures depicting each AU and their corresponding reaches are shown in Section 5.2.
1- North River 2- Willapa River 3- Middle Bay 4- Naselle River 5- Upper Chehalis Basin 6- Grays River 7- Columbia River 8- Willapa Bay 9- Long Beach Peninsula 10- Pacific Coast-North 11- Coastal Ocean
4.2 Inventory Data Development of a shoreline inventory is intended to record the existing or baseline conditions. At a minimum, local jurisdictions shall gather the inventory elements listed in the Guidelines, to the extent that information is relevant and readily available. Collected information principally included watershed and other basin documents, regional studies, scientific literature, aerial photographs, and GIS data from a variety of data providers. Table 4-1 lists those relevant inventory elements for which spatial data is available for the County’s shorelines. The table also describes the information collected for each of the required inventory elements. Map
89 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report figures provided in the Map Folio (Appendix B) depict the various inventory elements listed in the table.
90 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 4-1. Shoreline Inventory Elements and Information Sources. Inventory Spatial Data Inventory Data Source Use/Assumptions/Limitations Element Gathered Map • Identifies publicly owned land by agency (e.g., US Forest Service, Department of Energy, State, County) • Useful in assessing existing intensity and type of • Current land use • Map 4 development at broad-scale planning level • Land ownership • Pacific County, 2013 • Map 5 • Gross scale characterization (e.g., urban, forest, • Oyster beds • WA Department of Natural • Map 19 rural/agriculture) • Resources Aquatic Land • Data may not be up-to-date Parcels • Additional information relating to shellfish reserves, Land Use aquaculture, and recreational and commercial Patterns fishing areas available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html • Existing Shoreline • Comparison to current use indicates likely changes Environment in intensity and type of development Designations • Useful in planning to accommodate future land use • Map 1 • Comprehensive • Pacific County, 2012, 2013 changes at broad-scale planning level • Map 3 Plan designations • Based on area-wide categorization- includes roads, (future land use) easements, and utilities • Zoning • Washington Department of • Includes established parks and recreation sites, as • Parks Fish and Wildlife well as publicly accessible open space • Trails • US Fish and Wildlife Service • Additional information relating to shoreline use • Boat Launches Public Access • WA Department of Ecology available at: (handheld and • Map 6 Areas • WA Department of Natural https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html motorized) Resources • Public Lands • Bonneville Power • Utility Corridors Administration • US Geological Survey, • Small, intermittent or ephemeral streams may not be Surface water • Streams • Map 8 National Hydrologic Dataset identified in data
91 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Inventory Spatial Data Inventory Data Source Use/Assumptions/Limitations Element Gathered Map • WA Department of Natural • Based on broad scale geologic classifications Resources, Division of • Useful for broad scale assessment of geologic Surficial • Extent and label of • Map 27 Geology and Earth conditions (1:100,000-scale) Geology geologic units Resources, Surface • Not to be used in place of site-specific studies Geology, June 2010 • Sewer lines • Septic surveys have only been conducted in the • Septic tanks unincorporated communities of Frances, Lebam, Sewer and • Ecology-permitted • WA Department of Health, Naselle, and Tokeland • Map 7 Septic sites 2009 • Seaview Sewer District • Based on broad scale soil mapping • Useful for broad scale assessment of soil conditions • USDA NRCS (SSURGO), Soils • Soil types • Map 10 (1:24,000-scale; small soil units, not visible at this 2009 scale are not mapped) • Not to be used in place of site-specific studies • Based on interpretation of multispectral imagery at 30 x 30 m cell resolution • Useful for broad scale assessment of vegetation coverage and extent of existing development • Not useful for accurate characterization of fine scale • Terrestrial data (e.g., City or parcel level, species composition) vegetation type • NOAA Coastal Change Vegetation/Land • Map 12 • May overestimate or underestimate impervious Cover and land cover Analysis Program (CCAP), • Map 9 surface coverage • Impervious surface 2011 • Data may not be up-to-date (Released every 5-10 coverage years; data reflects 2005-2007 conditions) • More detailed vegetation coverage maps of specific areas may be available (for example, vegetation coverage maps are included in the Comprehensive Conservation Plan for the Willapa NWR)
92 The Watershed Company June 2015
Inventory Spatial Data Inventory Data Source Use/Assumptions/Limitations Element Gathered Map • Landslide hazard • Requires site-specific review to verify areas presence/absence of geologic hazards • WA Department of Natural Geologically • Seismic hazard • Map 13 Resources, Geology and hazardous areas areas • Map 27 Earth Sciences Division, • Steep slopes 2010 • Tsunami inundation areas • Floodplain and floodways based on federal models, • Federal Emergency • Floodplains and may contain some inaccuracies Floodplains • Map 14 Management Agency • Floodways • DFIRM data is preliminary; provided by Pacific (FEMA), 2013 County • Mapping of the channel migration zones throughout Pacific County has not been completed. Options Channel • Channel Migration include using the 100-year floodplain as a proxy. • NA • Not Available Migration Zone Zones • Requires site-specific review to verify presence/absence of channel migration zone (CMZ). • Useful for broad scale assessment of soil conditions and potential wetlands (1:24,000-scale) • U.S. Fish and Wildlife • NWI mapping based on interpretation of multi- Wetlands • Potential wetlands • Map 15 Service National Wetlands spectral imagery Inventory (NWI), 2012 • Many wetlands are not identified by NWI mapping; mapped wetlands may not meet wetland criteria • Not to be used in place of site-specific studies
93 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Inventory Spatial Data Inventory Data Source Use/Assumptions/Limitations Element Gathered Map • TNC data set was developed for the Pacific Northwest Coast Ecoregional Assessment; includes terrestrial, freshwater, and marine components. Data set derived from multiple data sets on • Salt marsh estuaries throughout the Northwest Coast Marine • The Nature Conservancy, • Seagrass • Map 24 ecoregion. Vegetation and 2005 (eelgrass) • Map 25 • Habitat mapping does not differentiate between Substrate • WA Department of Natural • Dune grass native and non-native species. Salt marsh areas Resources, 2007 • Marine substrate could include Spartina, seagrass areas could include Zostera japonica, and dunes are frequently dominated by the non-native Ammophila species. • Additional mapping available at: https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html • Principal Aquifers Aquifer • Wells • USGS, 2002 Recharge Areas • Map 11 • Wellhead • WA Department of Health Protection Areas • WDFW maps do not capture every priority species location or habitat, particularly for rare species or species that use shoreline habitats seasonally or intermittently • Priority fish, • Map 16 • Absence of mapping information does not indicate WDFW Priority priority wildlife, • Map 17 • WA Department of Fish and absence of a particular species Habitats and priority habitats • Map 18 Wildlife, 2013 • The number of documented species may reflect the Species (PHS) • Herring spawning • Map 19 relative amount of past survey efforts areas • Map 20 • Herring spawning areas as depicted are not • Shellfish areas accurate or inclusive of Willapa’s shoreline historically utilized by spawning populations. Herring are somewhat opportunistic when spawning.
94 The Watershed Company June 2015
Inventory Spatial Data Inventory Data Source Use/Assumptions/Limitations Element Gathered Map • Dams • WA Department of Natural • Overwater structures may include docks, bridges, • Flow control Resources, 2007 floats, structural support fill, and other structures structures • Pacific States Marine such as floating homes • Stream barriers Fisheries Commission • Fish passage barrier inventory data are statewide in Shoreline • Docks and other • WA Department of Fish and scope but do not represent a comprehensive or • Map 19 Modifications overwater Wildlife, 2014 complete inventory of fish passage barriers structures • Lower Columbia Estuary • Shoreline armoring data derived from ShoreZone • Levees Partnership, 2006 and LCRP shoreline feature types • Armoring • Western Washington University • Net shore drift Shoreforms and cells • Map 24 • WA Department of Natural Shoreline • Estuarine shore • Map 26 Resources, 2007 Processes forms • 303(d) waters and • Water quality impairments are based on monitoring Water quality • WA Department of Ecology, regulated sites • at specific locations Map 22 Water Quality Assessment impairment • Low flow streams • Impairments may extend beyond the mapped area 305(b) Report, 2008 and buffers • Multiple sources, including: • Data not mapped in shoreline inventory report Habitat Work Schedule, • Restoration opportunities are not limited to those Coastal Resources Alliance identified in this report 2007, U.S. Fish and Wildlife • Further expansion on restoration opportunities will Restoration • Site-specific and Service 2011, Washington be completed as part of the Shoreline Restoration opportunities • NA general projects Coast Restoration Initiative Plan 2013, Pacific Conservation District, Applied Environmental Services 2001, 2002
95 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Inventory Spatial Data Inventory Data Source Use/Assumptions/Limitations Element Gathered Map • Historical places • WA Department of • Data represent only known sites; additional, available as point Archaeology and Historic presently unknown sites may exist Historical Sites data, but not • Map 28 Preservation, Washington mapped in State Heritage Register, inventory 2009 • Electric • Data only represent major facilities. Smaller substations • Pacific County facilities occur throughout the County. • Transmission • StreamNet Lines • Federal Aviation Authority • Hatcheries • Washington Department of Major • Seafood • Map 30 Health Facilities/Utilities processors • Bureau of Transportation • Airfields Statistics • Navigation Aids • Bonneville Power • Deep draft Administration waterways • Mapped • Washington Marine Spatial • Regions of upwelling and summer chlorophyll that Ocean • Upwelling in Planning Application were consistently higher or lower than average Conditions • Section • Whale density The Nature Conservancy, values from 1998-2005 are shown. 5.2.11 2013 • Fishing • Vessel traffic and • Washington Marine Spatial navigation Planning Application • Recreation and • Washington State • Mapped cultural uses Department of Fish and Marine Use in • WDFW and PROUA information does not include • Ocean disposal Wildlife, 2014 Patterns Section fishing by coastal treaty tribes. sites • NOAA Marine Cadastre, 6.2.11 • Mining and mineral 2013 extraction • NOAA Electronic Navigation • Military practice Charts, 2010 areas
96 The Watershed Company June 2015
4.3 Inventory Data Summary, Assumptions, Limitations, and Data Gaps The following discussion identifies assumptions and limitations for each of the inventory elements, and may provide a brief countywide or watershed-wide narrative where qualitative descriptions provide more information than quantitative measures. Despite data gaps and limitations, a substantial quantity of information is available for the shorelines of Pacific County to aid in the development of the inventory and analysis report, as well as the SMP update.
Ecological Characterization Vegetation Coverage The data was generated using multi-spectral satellite imagery with 30x30-meter cell resolution. Spectral data was classified using the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration’s (NOAA) Coastal Change Analysis Program (CCAP) Regional Landcover Database. Because each cell represents 900 square meters, the classification may over or under represent coverage when the type of coverage within cells is mixed. The spatial resolution of the CCAP data provides a good foundation for broad scale assessment of vegetation coverage. Its utility is higher in rural areas where vegetative cover is more uniform over broad areas compared to more developed areas.
Because the data is based on interpretation of multi-spectral imagery, classification of some data may be inaccurate. Most notably, early seral stage forest may be miscategorized as “scrub/shrub” vegetation using the CCAP model. So long as the inherent inaccuracies of the data are recognized, the CCAP data provides a good broad-scale assessment of vegetation coverage.
Finally, because the ordinary high water mark changes over time, water is occasionally included within the total shoreline area used for the calculation of vegetation coverage. For this reason, any area identified as “Water” was excluded from the calculation of percent coverage.
Impervious Surfaces Similar to the vegetation coverage data, impervious surface data was generated using the CCAP data (2011) of multispectral satellite imagery with 30x30-meter cell resolution. National Land Cover categories that apply to areas of higher impervious surface coverage include Developed- Low, Medium, and High Intensity categories. The same limitation as the vegetation coverage data apply to impervious surfaces. With these limitations in mind, a comparison of impervious surface coverage among reaches provides useful information on broad scale spatial trends in development.
97 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Wetlands Wetland mapping was assembled from the National Wetlands Inventory (NWI). Pacific County has not completed a County-wide inventory of potential wetlands and therefore the NWI dataset was used as the most relevant and useful information. The NWI dataset is based on many factors, including soil inventories and aerial interpretations. Although it is very comprehensive and is fairly accurate in approximating wetland locations, it is acknowledged that many wetlands, especially small wetlands, are not identified by NWI. Likewise, some areas identified as NWI wetlands may not meet truly meet wetland criteria. Whether or not they are captured by this mapping effort, actual wetland conditions that may or may not be found on a site will determine shoreline jurisdiction (as a potential shoreline associated wetland) on a site-specific basis.
Soils Soil data are derived from the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) national soil survey. This data represents soils over broad areas; therefore, site specific soil characteristics may differ from what is mapped.
Surficial Geology Data on surficial geology are based on information from WDNR. Information on alluvial soil presence and distribution was used to assess hyporheic functions.
Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas WDFW Priority Habitats and Species (PHS) maps are presented as three separate units: Habitat Regions (species or habitat ranges by area), Habitat Species (precise species locations); and Fish (fish species presence).
Other data sources consulted regarding priority fish and wildlife habitats include critical habitat designations for federally listed species, WDFW’s Salmonscape database, and maps of herring spawning areas. Some information on the use of the Pacific Coastline by transient fish, marine invertebrates, and marine mammal was assessed using empirical data on recreational and commercial fisheries from the Washington Marine Spatial Planning mapping application (http://www.msp.wa.gov/explore/).
These maps do not capture every priority species location or habitat in shoreline jurisdiction, particularly rare species or species that use the water for foraging and drinking, but that nest or den farther from the shoreline. Absence of mapping information does not indicate that a particular species does not or could not utilize the shoreline or adjacent lands. Furthermore, the number of documented species may reflect the relative amount of past survey efforts rather than the presence or absence of suitable habitat.
98 The Watershed Company June 2015
The Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership’s Nursery Habitat Assessment (Hughes et al., 2014; Heady et al. 2014) provides a synthesis of scientific literature, expert input, and geospatial data related to the presence 15 focal fish and invertebrate species in West Coast estuaries, including Willapa Bay. The final product from the Pacific Marine and Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership’s Nursery Habitat Assessment is anticipated at the end of 2015.
Frequently Flooded Areas For all practical purposes, “frequently flooded areas” are those areas within the 100-year floodplain. Floodplain and floodway maps were developed using the Federal Emergency Management Agency’s (FEMA) 2013 preliminary Draft Flood Insurance Rate (DFIRM) map for Pacific County.
Channel Migration Zone Existing Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) data was not available for shorelines within Pacific County. The 100-year floodplain may be used as a proxy for the CMZ except where areas may be excluded (per WAC 173-26-221(3)(b)):
• Within incorporated municipalities and UGAs;
• Where available data indicates areas separated from the active river channel by legally existing artificial channel constraints that limit channel movement, those areas are excluded from the channel migration zone;
• All areas separated from the active channel by a legally existing artificial structure(s) that is likely to restrain channel migration, including transportation facilities, built above or constructed to remain intact through the one hundred-year flood, will not be considered to be in the channel migration zone;
• In areas outside incorporated municipalities and UGAs, channel constraints and flood control structures built below the one hundred-year flood elevation do not necessarily restrict channel migration and are included in the channel migration zone unless demonstrated otherwise; and
• Where a visual spot check of aerial photos identifies historic migration outside the floodplain, those areas are considered within the channel migration zone.
Geologically Hazardous Areas Maps of geologically hazardous areas were developed by WDNR. The data primarily focus on seismic hazards, and landslide hazard data seems limited. Data on the distribution and location of steep slopes within the proposed shoreline jurisdiction was not available, and this represents
99 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report a data gap. Steep slopes should be evaluated for landslide hazard potential on a site and project specific basis.
The presence of geologically hazardous areas in shorelines can be a factor in determining suitability of the area for certain activities, including restoration and development. Human safety is an important concern for development in geologically hazardous areas. In addition, geologically hazardous areas can be important sources of LWD and sediment to the aquatic system, the latter to the benefit or detriment of aquatic life.
Water Quality As a requirement of Section 303(d) of the federal Clean Water Act that all waterbodies be “fishable and swimmable,” Ecology classifies waterbodies into five categories, listed below.
• Category 1: Meets tested standards • Category 2: Waters of concern • Category 3: No data • Category 4: polluted waters that either have or do not require a Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) • Category 5: polluted waters requiring a TMDL
Individual waterbodies are assigned to particular “beneficial uses” (public water supply; protection for fish, shellfish, and wildlife; recreational, agricultural, industrial, navigational and aesthetic purposes). Waterbodies must meet certain numeric and narrative water quality criteria established to protect each of those established beneficial uses. Waterbodies may provide more than one beneficial use, and may have different levels of compliance with different criteria for those beneficial uses in different segments of the stream or lake. As a result, many waterbodies may be on the 303(d) list for more than one parameter in multiple locations.
As presented in the Water Quality map of Appendix B, only Category 4 and 5 waters are depicted. For more information on specific waterbodies and their water quality classifications, Ecology provides an interactive on-line viewer at the following website: http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wqawa2008/viewer.htm.
Shoreline Modifications Shoreline modifications are human-caused alterations to the natural water’s edge. The most common types of shoreline modifications include overwater structures and shoreline armoring.
The WDNR has digitized piers and other in-water structures such as boatlifts, boathouses, and moorage covers. Bridges and structures classified as fill were not included in the inventory.
100 The Watershed Company June 2015
Levees were mapped based on statewide data from The Resilience Institute at Western Washington University. Assessment of rip rap armoring was based on data from the WDNR ShoreZone Inventory and Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. These data include anthropogenic modifications of the shoreline, including rip rap.
Road-based stream crossing structures that present a barrier to fish passage were assessed using WDFW data. Barriers with total or partial blockage were included. Source information may not be complete. Local surveys may have more detailed information.
Aquifer Recharge Areas Principal aquifers were mapped using U.S. Geological Survey data.
Marine Ecology Washington State’s Marine Spatial Planning Application is the most current compendium of coastal and marine data from a variety of sources (https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html). While the data on the site are not fully comprehensive, they represent the majority of the major data streams that exist for the region and provide a substantive foundation for characterization of the coastal ocean off of Pacific County. Data are from a variety of sources; data used in this report are described below.
The Nature Conservancy’s Pacific Northwest Ecoregional Assessment (2005, 2013):
Upwelling: These data represent regions of high and low cold water upwelling processes which bring nutrient-rich waters to the surface. The data were developed using NOAA sea surface temperature data from 1998-2004. High and low upwelling were calculated by adding or subtracting 1.5 standard deviations from the average surface temperature of each area.
Benthic substrate: Data collected using lead line soundings, single beam sonar, multibeam sonar, and sidescan sonar were synthesized into one layer of benthic substrate.
Summer whale densities - NOAA/Southwest Fisheries Science Center (2012): These data show information species from 16 ship-based assessment surveys by the Southwest Fisheries Science Center from 1986-2006. Predicted annual densities were smoothed into a continuous grid of density estimates for the surveyed area. Of the 11 species modeled, the following 4 were included because they had higher relative densities in the Coastal Ocean AU: northern right whale dolphin, Dall's porpoise, Pacific white-sided dolphin and Risso’s dolphin.
101 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Wrecks and Obstructions: These data represent locations of reported wrecks and obstructions that are considered navigational hazards by NOAA’s National Ocean Service in U.S. coastal waters. The data was collected by the Automated Wreck and Obstruction Information System beginning in 1981 and was provided in a 2013 report by the Office of Coast Survey.
Forthcoming data Several research projects in support of Washington’s Marine Spatial Planning effort are scheduled for completion in June of 2015. Those that produce data relevant for characterizing the coastal ocean offshore of Pacific County can be used to inform the Shoreline Master Program Update. Projects include WDFW’s project to map marine mammals, forage fish, and to identify ecologically important areas.
Satellite tagging and tracking has been underway since 2012 for Southern Resident Killer Whales. In 2013 and 2015, whales have been traversing the waters offshore of Pacific County. (http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cb/ecosystem/marinemammal/satellite_tagging /blog2015.cfm).
Land Use Characterization This shoreline inventory reviews current and planned land use within shoreline jurisdiction to provide a basis to establish a compatible use pattern over the 20-year planning period of the SMP and to identify current or planned preferred uses in shoreline jurisdiction that should be protected or promoted to meet SMA goals for water-oriented uses, shoreline access, and ecological protection.
The SMA promotes the following use preferences (RCW 90.58.020) for shorelines of statewide significance (identified in Section 1.2) in the stated order:
• Recognize and protect the statewide interest over local interest; • Preserve the natural character of the shoreline; • Result in long term over short term benefit; • Protect the resources and ecology of the shoreline; • Increase public access to publicly owned areas of the shorelines; • Increase recreational opportunities for the public in the shoreline; and • Provide for any other element as defined in RCW 90.58.100 deemed appropriate or necessary.
In addition, the following use preferences apply within shoreline jurisdiction in the following order [from WAC 173-26-201(2)(d)]:
102 The Watershed Company June 2015
1. Reserve appropriate areas for protecting and restoring ecological functions to control pollution and prevent damage to the natural environment and public health. In reserving areas, local governments should consider areas that are ecologically intact from the uplands through the aquatic zone of the area, aquatic areas that adjoin permanently protected uplands, and tidelands in public ownership. Local governments should ensure that these areas are reserved consistent with constitutional limits.
2. Reserve shoreline areas for water-dependent and associated water-related uses. Harbor areas, established pursuant to Article XV of the State Constitution, and other areas that have reasonable commercial navigational accessibility and necessary support facilities, such as transportation and utilities, should be reserved for water-dependent and water- related uses that are associated with commercial navigation unless the local governments can demonstrate that adequate shoreline is reserved for future water- dependent and water-related uses and unless protection of the existing natural resource values of such areas preclude such uses. Local governments may prepare master program provisions to allow mixed-use developments that include and support water- dependent uses and address specific conditions that affect water-dependent uses.
3. Reserve shoreline areas for other water-related and water-enjoyment uses that are compatible with ecological protection and restoration objectives.
4. Locate single-family residential uses where they are appropriate and can be developed without significant impact to ecological functions or displacement of water-dependent uses.
5. Limit nonwater-oriented uses to those locations where the above described uses are inappropriate or where nonwater-oriented uses demonstrably contribute to the objectives of the SMA.
Current Land Use Existing land use provides a baseline for types of land use and land cover found within shoreline jurisdiction. Existing land use data was obtained from the Pacific County Assessor. Mapped assessor use types were sorted into land use categories established in WAC 458-53-030. Land use data from the County Assessor’s office may not be updated as frequently as other property information; however, it represents the best readily available information on current land use at a countywide level.
Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Current Comprehensive Plan designations and zoning provide information on what types of uses are allowed and can be expected in shoreline areas in the future. The County’s 2010 (updated 2012) Comprehensive Plan establishes an overall land use pattern for the entire
103 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
County based on a number of factors including forecast growth, economic development, community preferences and resource protection. The County’s zoning code implements the land use designations through use regulation and development standards.
Water Oriented Use According to Ecology’s SMP Guidelines (WAC 173-26-020), “water-oriented use means a use that is water-dependent, water-related, or water-enjoyment, or a combination of such uses.” The SMA promotes uses that are “unique to or dependent upon use of the State's shoreline,” as well as “ports, shoreline recreational uses including but not limited to parks, marinas, piers, and other improvements facilitating public access to shorelines of the State, industrial and commercial developments which are particularly dependent on their location on or use of the shorelines of the State and other development that will provide an opportunity for substantial numbers of the people to enjoy the shorelines of the State.” (RCW 90.58.020)
Definitions and examples of water-oriented uses are included in Table 4-2.
Table 4-2. Water-Oriented Uses Definitions and Examples Water-Oriented Use Definitions Examples "Water-dependent use" means a use or portion of a use Examples of water-dependent uses may which cannot exist in a location that is not adjacent to the include ship cargo terminal loading areas, water and which is dependent on the water by reason of ferry and passenger terminals, barge the intrinsic nature of its operations. (WAC 173-26- loading facilities, ship building and dry 020(39)) docking, marinas, aquaculture, and sewer outfalls. "Water-related use" means a use or portion of a use Examples of water-related uses may which is not intrinsically dependent on a waterfront include warehousing of goods transported location but whose economic viability is dependent upon by water, seafood processing plants, a waterfront location because: hydroelectric generating plants, gravel (a) The use has a functional requirement for a waterfront storage when transported by barge, oil location such as the arrival or shipment of materials refineries where transport is by tanker, log by water or the need for large quantities of water; or storage, and potentially agriculture and (b) The use provides a necessary service supportive of agriculturally related water transportation the water-dependent uses and the proximity of the systems. use to its customers makes its services less expensive and/or more convenient. (WAC 173-26- 020(43)) "Water-enjoyment use" means a recreational use or other Primary water-enjoyment uses may use that facilitates public access to the shoreline as a include, but are not limited to, parks, piers primary characteristic of the use; or a use that provides and other improvements facilitating public for recreational use or aesthetic enjoyment of the access to the shorelines of the State; and shoreline for a substantial number of people as a general general water-enjoyment uses may characteristic of the use and which through location, include, but are not limited to restaurants, design, and operation ensures the public's ability to enjoy museums, aquariums, scientific/ecological the physical and aesthetic qualities of the shoreline. In reserves, and resorts/hotels (as part of order to qualify as a water-enjoyment use, the use must mixed-use development or with significant be open to the general public and the shoreline-oriented public access or ecological restoration space within the project must be devoted to the specific components), and commercial/office as aspects of the use that fosters shoreline enjoyment. part of a mixed-use development. (WAC 173-26-020(40))
104 The Watershed Company June 2015
Transportation and Utility Infrastructure There are several County, State and federal highway road sections and railroad corridors in Pacific County that either parallel, cross or are otherwise located in existing or future shoreline jurisdiction. Utility infrastructure such as water and wastewater facilities; electrical generation transmission and distribution; and other facilities are found throughout the County with a higher prevalence in populated areas of the County. Data on utility facilities are limited. Where available, the presence of utility infrastructure in shorelines is reported in Chapter 6.
Existing and Potential Public Access Information about Pacific County shoreline public access facilities and potential opportunities was obtained from a review of public parks, federal and State lands, and public access points. The analysis assumes that public lands provide public access. The analysis of public access does not account for public access (either physical or visual) from private lands (e.g., community clubs, restaurants, and hotels). Public road ends may also provide shoreline access, and these are not identified in the inventory maps.
Historical or Archaeological Sites Given the tribal presence in the County over several thousand years and the use of shorelines for sustenance and spiritual practices, archaeological features are expected to be present, particularly in river valleys and around Willapa Bay. Recognized historical sites are mapped; however, details on these sites are often limited. Due to the wealth of cultural resources, the State of Washington Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation requires cultural resources assessments when development or activities are proposed that may affect archaeological or historic resources.
Marine Uses The Ecotrust Marine Fisheries Uses and Values Project (Steinback et al. 2010) and the Washington State Marine Spatial Planning Mapping Application provide substantial data that describe marine uses, as described below.
1. Ecotrust’s Marine Fisheries Uses and Values Project in support of the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan Revision.
Information about the distribution and value of fishing grounds was collected in 2009 and 2010 through interviews with commercial fishermen, charter operators/owners, and recreational fishers in ports along the coast of Oregon. Two maps that were generated from interviews with fishers in Astoria and Warrenton, Oregon show that a substantial amount of fishing occurs in waters off of Pacific County, so are included here.
105 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• All Fishing Sectors Fisheries Uses and Values: this map shows the importance of fishing grounds combined across the commercial, charter, and private vessel sport boat sectors. Commercial grounds included are for Dungeness crab (trap), shelf bottom trawl, and salmon (troll); charter fishing grounds are for Dungeness crab, Pacific halibut, rockfish, and salmon; and recreational fishing grounds are for Dungeness crab, Flatfish, Pacific halibut, rockfish, and salmon.
• Commercial Passenger Fishing Vessel Fisheries Uses and Values: this map is a subset of the previous map, to highlight fishing grounds used just by the commercial passenger fishing vessel (charter) sector, which include grounds used to fish for Dungeness crab (trap), shelf bottom trawl, salmon, rockfish and Pacific halibut.
2. Washington Marine Spatial Planning
Key sources of information and mapping found in the Washington Marine Spatial Planning Application that relate to ocean uses include data from WDFW regarding fishing effort, the Pacific Regional Ocean Uses Atlas, and Surfrider’s recreational use survey. These sources are described in more detail below. All Washington Marine Spatial Planning maps and spatial data are available at https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html.
• Commercial and Recreational Fishing Effort - Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife mapped fishing effort in the commercial groundfish bottom trawl, Dungeness crab pot, Pacific halibut longline, sardine purse seine, pink shrimp trawl, spot prawn pot, hagfish pot, and albacore tuna troll that operate off of Washington. Of these, the crab fleet is the only one shown to be active in state waters. Commercial Dungeness crab fishing effort was mapped based on available catch, effort, and landings information from state and federally managed coastal commercial and charterboat fishery logbooks. Effort was categorized as high, medium, low, or sporadic, and did not include information from coastal treaty tribes.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife also mapped high and medium priority areas targeted by recreational fishers to catch bottomfish (including rockfish, cabezon, kelp greenling, Pacific cod, sablefish, and flatfish), lingcod and salmon. The majority of these areas targeted for bottomfish and lingcod are located in federal waters, with the exception of an area in southern Pacific County. The bottomfish and lingcod maps are derived from available catch, effort and landings information. For salmon, all state waters off of Pacific County were mapped as high priority areas. The salmon map was
106 The Watershed Company June 2015 created from fishery regulations and information from interviews with anglers and charterboat fishers. Given an absence of salmon fishery logbook data, the recreational fishery data can be used to describe where commercial salmon fishing generally occurs. Other recreational fishing for halibut and albacore was also mapped, both of which existed solely in federal waters.
The WDFW maps may be updated after they undergo an additional round of review.
• Participatory mapping of ocean uses – the Pacific Regional Ocean Uses Atlas (PROUA) Project:
Where other information on human uses is unavailable, the results of the Pacific Regional Ocean Uses Atlas (PROUA) Project are used to show general patterns of use in the coastal ocean. PROUA was a participatory mapping exercise conducted in Washington, Oregon and Hawaii from 2012-2015. NOAA and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management (BOEM) led mapping workshops to gather local, expert input from 65 participants on where coastal communities use the ocean. The focus in Washington State was on 32 human activities and ocean uses in the marine areas of the Olympic Peninsula, including the Strait of Juan de Fuca west of Port Angeles, Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay. There was some degree of participation by tribal members, and their information was incorporated into existing categories, not kept in separate categories indicating distinct tribal uses. Information was summarized by two intensities of use: general and dominant for state waters. The following layers occurred in the coastal ocean offshore of Pacific County:
o Recreational dive fishing: areas used for recreational dive fishing, including SCUBA diving, surface supply diving or snorkeling (free diving).
o Recreational kayak fishing: areas used for fishing with hook and line gear from kayaks or other similar vessel.
o Recreational fishing from shore: areas used for recreational fishing from shore with rod and reel gear, surf-casting, fishing from piers, jetties, crab traps, and cast nets.
o Recreational intertidal harvest: areas used for recreational harvest in the intertidal zone of living marine plant or animal species for consumption or aquaria.
o Recreational subsistence fishing and harvest: areas used for shore and boat- based fishing or hunting
107 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
o Beach uses: walking, running, digging, resting, collecting of shells, wildlife viewing, driving on the beach, camping, kite flying, bonfires, picnicking, dog walking, horseback riding, and skim boarding.
o Paddling: includes kayaking, canoeing, rowing, outrigger paddling, and stand- up paddling.
o Sailing: includes transit, mooring, motoring or anchoring by sailboats, including sailing kayaks and canoes.
o Surface board sports: includes tow-in and paddle-in surfing, wind-surfing, kite surfing and sailboarding.
o Swimming: includes short- and long-distance surface swimming and wading any distance from shore, and body surfing.
o Tidepooling: includes the use of the intertidal zone for recreation, science or education.
o Wildlife viewing (at sea): includes boat-based wildlife viewing at sea, usually on a commercial vessel.
o Scientific research areas: includes sites, transects, and monitoring areas where routine research or monitoring is conducted.
o Mining and mineral extraction: includes sand and gravel and sediment extraction, seabed mining for commercial minerals, dredging, and beach re- nourishment.
o Marine debris: includes the collection, monitoring and routine siting of marine debris, including targeted debris removal areas.
o Military operations: includes transit of military vessels related to training activities, ship and submarine maneuvers, war games, and ordinance disposal.
o Cultural uses: includes traditional use of specific ocean, coastal, and shoreline areas based on inherent cultural, spiritual, or aesthetic values and significance.
Other available spatial data from PROUA include: commercial fishing with benthic mobile gear, commercial fishing with benthic fixed gear, commercial pelagic fishing recreational fishing for benthic and pelagic species, commercial shipping, cruise ships, ocean dumping. These layers were not included in the report because maps from other sources were more informative in their depiction of variability within waters of the Coastal Ocean AU, or because they provide higher resolution data:
108 The Watershed Company June 2015
• The Nature Conservancy’s Pacific Northwest Ecoregional Assessment (2005, 2013)
• Ocean disposal site and military practice areas - NOAA Electronic Navigation Charts (2010): The location of ocean disposal sites and military practice areas (naval, military, or aerial exercises) were included.
• Vessel traffic – NOAA Marine Cadastre (2013): These data display an annual cumulative shipping data during 2011, created from AIS broadcast data, and summarized in the following categories.
o Cargo - Cargo vessels are defined as any vessel carrying any cargo including items such as grain, lumber, steel, or scrap metal. o Fishing - Fishing vessels are defined as any vessel involved in fishing activities in the national fishing fleets. o Military - Military vessels are defined as any vessel involved in military activities including military operation vessels, replenishment vessels, naval patrol, logistics vessels, and rescue vessels. o Passenger - Passenger vessels are defined as any vessel involved in transporting people, including ferry and charter vessels. o Pleasure - Pleasure vessels are defined as any vessel involved in transit and boating activities other than passenger vessels. o Tanker - Tanker vessels are defined as any vessel involved in transporting liquids or gases in bulk including oil, liquefied petroleum gas, fresh water, and molasses. o Tug and Tow - Tug and tow include a tugboat and a vessel that is in tow, such as barges, disabled ships, or log rafts. Tugboats maneuver vessels by pushing or towing them and are powerful and strongly built. o All Other - These data include shipping vessel that were not identified by the AIS data. Possible categories include pleasure craft, tanker, passenger, or military vessel, etc.
• Surfrider Foundation’s Washington Ocean and Coastal Recreation Study (2015)
The Surfrider Foundation, in partnership with Point 97 and Washington State conducted a study on non-consumptive recreational uses along Washington’s coast. The study used a survey approach to identify recreational participation rates and trip expenditures and provide a spatial baseline of coastal and ocean recreation use patterns on the outer Pacific Coast of Washington. The study found that Washington residents make an estimated 4.1 million trips to the coast each year, 2.46 million trips of which are primarily for recreation. Spatial results are available at www.msp.wa.gov/explore.
109 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
4.4 Assessment Unit Inventory Conditions Figure 4-1 shows the location of AUs in the County. Table 4-3 expands upon the relevant required inventory elements, providing specific detail and data for each AU. Unless otherwise noted, Table 4-3 considers only information available within the boundaries of shoreline jurisdiction of each AU.
11 - Coastal Ocean
Figure 4-1. Map of Assessment Unit distribution in Pacific County.
110 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 4-3. Summary of Shoreline Inventory by Assessment Unit Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas North River AU (5,302 acres) Vegetation Levee: 11.2% WDFW: • PHS Birds: • Evergreen Forest 23.5% • Smith Creek-North Marbled murrelet, Current Use • Palustrine Forested Wetland Overwater Spotted owl, • Forestry: 66% River State Wildlife 20.8% Structures: 26 Recreation Area Shorebird and • Government/Institution: 17% • floating homes waterfowl Palustrine Scrub/Shrub • Agriculture: 6% Wetland 16.4% (3.5 ac) concentrations Conservation • Not Classified: 4% • Scrub/Shrub 15.1% • PHS Fish: Pacific Organization: • Vacant/Undeveloped: 4% • Palustrine Emergent Wetland Boat Launches: lamprey, 2 • Cedar River Chinook, Chum, • Residential: 3% 6.8% • Deciduous Forest 4.9% Estuary (Forterra) Cutthroat, Coho, Floodplain: 0% Steelhead • Mixed Forest 4.1% • Grassland 3.5% • PHS mammals: • Estuarine Emergent Wetland NWI Freshwater Roosevelt elk Zoning: 2.6% Wetlands: 2,027 • Commercial Forest: 45% acres • Rural Lands: 30% Impervious Salt Marsh: • Transitional Forest: 22% • 0% Impervious: 96.9% 22 acres • <20% Impervious: 2.7% • Remote Rural: 3% • 20-49% Impervious: 0.4% Seagrass beds:
248 acres
Comprehensive Plan: • Forest of Long-Term Significance: 45% • General Rural: 30% • Transitional Forest: 22% • Remote Rural: 3%
111 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Willapa River AU (8,100 acres) Vegetation Levee: 9.9% WDFW: • PHS Birds: Bald • • Current Use Scrub/Shrub 17.11% Willapa Slough eagle, Eastern Armoring: 3.9% wild turkey, • Forestry: 38% • Palustrine Forested State Wildlife Marbled murrelet, • Wetland 14.5% Recreation Area Agriculture: 17% Overwater Wild turkey, • Palustrine Emergent • Potter’s Slough • Government/Institution: 14% Structures: 22 Spotted owl, State Wildlife • Vacant/Undeveloped: 10% Wetland 13.8% (2.1 ac) Band-tailed • Recreation Area • Residential: 9% Pasture/Hay 13.3% pigeon, Shorebird • Boat Launches: and waterfowl • Not Classified: 11% Evergreen Forest 13.0% • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub 1 concentrations • PHS amphibians: Wetland 12.2% Floodway: 0.7% Dunn’s • Deciduous Forest 4.1% salamander, Van Zoning: • Mixed Forest 3.3% Floodplain: 5% Dyke’s • Rural Lands: 63% • Grassland 2.6% salamander, • Commercial Forest 27% Western toad NWI Freshwater • Remote Rural: 4% • Impervious Wetlands: 2,212 PHS Fish: Pacific lamprey, • Industrial: 2% • 0% Impervious: 91.8% acres Chinook, Chum, • Transitional Forest: 2% • <20% Impervious: 6.3% Salt Marsh: Cutthroat, Coho, • 20-49% Impervious: 1.9% 906 acres Steelhead, (Bull trout- one Seagrass beds: documented Comprehensive Plan: 97 acres occurrence in • General Rural: 63% 2002 [USFWS • Forest of Long-Term Significance: 27% 2006]), • Remote Rural: 4% • PHS mammals: • Industrial- Port of Willapa Harbor: 2% Roosevelt elk • Transitional Forest: 2%
112 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Middle Bay AU (3,547 acres) Vegetation Levee: 0.8% State Parks: • PHS Birds: Bald • • Current Use Evergreen Forest 42.9% Palix State Wildlife eagle, Marbled • Overwater murrelet, Spotted • Forestry: 60% Palustrine Forested Wetland Recreation Area 25.7% Structures: 2 owl, Shorebird • Government/Institution: 30% WDNR: • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub (0.2 ac) and waterfowl • Bone River Natural • Vacant/Undeveloped: 3% Wetland 7.0% concentrations • Agriculture: 2% • Scrub/Shrub 8.1% Floodplain: 0% Area Preserve • PHS amphibians: • Residential: 2% • Mixed Forest 5.3% (NAP) Dunn’s • salamander, Van • Not Classified: 2% • Palustrine Emergent Wetland NWI Freshwater Niawiakum River 3.4% Wetlands: 701 NAP Dyke’s salamander • Deciduous Forest 3.2% acres • South Nemah • PHS Fish: Pacific NRCA Impervious Salt Marsh: lamprey, Zoning: • 0% Impervious: 94.1% 807 acres Chinook, Chum, WDFW: • Commercial Forest: 73% • <20% Impervious: 4.9% Cutthroat, Coho, Seagrass Beds: • Nemah River Steelhead • Transitional Forest: 25% • 20-49% Impervious: 1.0% 51 acres Estuary Unit • PHS mammals: • Rural Lands: 2% Roosevelt elk • PHS Regions: Snag-rich areas
Comprehensive Plan • Forest of Long-Term Significance: 73% • Transitional Forest: 26% • General Rural: 1%
113 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Naselle River (6,301 acres) Vegetation Levee: 3.9% USFWS: • PHS Birds: Bald Current Use • Evergreen Forest 29.7% • Willapa NWR eagle, Eastern • Forestry: 56% • Scrub/Shrub 16.5% Armoring: 8.3% wild turkey, • • WDNR: Government/Institution: 16% Palustrine Forested Wetland Marbled murrelet, 15.8% Overwater • Teal Slough • Vacant/Undeveloped: 10% Spotted owl, Structures: 8 NRCA • Residential: 5% • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland 9.5% (0.6 ac) Band-tailed • Agriculture: 5% • Mixed Forest 7.1% WDFW: pigeon, Waterfowl • Not Classified: 5% • Palustrine Emergent Wetland Boat Launches: • Bennos Easement concentrations 5.1% 1 • Resort Hotel Boat • PHS amphibians: • Deciduous Forest 4.5% Launch Dunn’s • Pasture/Hay 3.1% Floodplain: 0% salamander, Van Zoning: • Grassland 2.7% Conservation Dyke’s • Commercial Forest 42% • Estuarine Emergent Wetland NWI Freshwater Organization: salamander • Rural Lands: 31% 2.5% Wetlands: 2,507 • Naselle Marsh • PHS Fish: Pacific acres • Ellsworth Creek • Transitional Forest: 20% lamprey, Preserve Chinook, Chum, • Mixed Use: 6% Impervious • 0% Impervious: 91.5% Salt Marsh: Cutthroat, Coho, 1,058 acres • <20% Impervious: 6.0% Steelhead • 20-49% Impervious: 2.3% • PHS mammals: Seagrass Beds: • 50-79% Impervious: 0.1% Roosevelt elk Comprehensive Plan 1,058 acres • PHS Regions: • Forest of Long-Term Significance: 40% Snag-rich areas • General Rural: 34%
• Transitional Forest: 11% • Public Preserve: 7% • Rural Activity Center- Naselle: 7%
114 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Upper Chehalis AU (902 acres) Vegetation Levee/ None identified • PHS Birds: • Evergreen Forest 29.9% Armoring: 0% Spotted owl Current Use • Palustrine Forested Wetland • PHS Amphibians: • Forestry: 79% 28.3% Overwater None mapped • Government/Institution: 15% • Scrub/Shrub 16.5% Structures: 0 • PHS Fish: • Vacant/Undeveloped: 3% • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Cutthroat, Coho, • Not Classified: 2% Wetland 8.8% Floodplain: 0% Steelhead • Deciduous Forest 6.5% • PHS mammals: • Mixed Forest 6.4% NWI Freshwater Roosevelt elk • Grassland 2.1% Wetlands: 218 acres Zoning: Impervious • Commercial Forest 90% • 0% Impervious: 94.0% • Rural Lands: 10% • <20% Impervious: 5.5% • 20-49% Impervious: 0.5%
Comprehensive Plan • Forest of Long-Term Significance: 90% • General Rural: 10%
115 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Grays River AU (1,663 acres) Vegetation Levee/ DNR: • PHS Birds: Current Use • Evergreen Forest 52.9% Armoring: 0% Willapa Divide NAP Marbled • Forestry: 92% • Mixed Forest 15.2% murrelet, Spotted • Deciduous Forest 13.8% Overwater • Government/Institution: 8% owl • Scrub/Shrub 11.2% Structures: 0 • PHS Amphibians: • Palustrine Forested Wetland Floodplain: 0% Dunn’s 2.9% salamander, Van • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Dyke’s Zoning: NWI Freshwater Wetland 1.7% salamander • Wetlands: 56 Commercial Forest 100% • Grassland 1.4% • acres PHS Fish: Pacific lamprey, Impervious Chinook, Chum, • 0% Impervious: 94.2% Cutthroat, Coho, • <20% Impervious: 5.6% Steelhead Comprehensive Plan • 20-49% Impervious: 0.2% • PHS mammals: • Forest of Long-Term Significance: Roosevelt elk 100%
116 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Columbia River AU (4,478 acres) Vegetation Levee: 3.7% Parks: • PHS Birds: Bald Current Use • Palustrine Forested Wetland • Fort Columbia • Forestry: 36% eagle, Marbled 20.2% Armoring: 13.2% State Park murrelet, • Government/Institution: 20% • Pasture/Hay 20.7% • Dismal Nitch Rest Peregrine falcon, • Vacant/Undeveloped: 11% • Palustrine Emergent Wetland Overwater Area Band-tailed • Agriculture: 13% 20.0% Structures: 28 • Chinook County pigeon, Shorebird • Not Classified: 10% • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub (16.5 ac) Wetland 20.0% Park and waterfowl • Residential: 5% • Scrub/Shrub 5.0% Boat Launches: • Chinook State concentrations • Recreation: 3% • Deciduous Forest 2.9% 1 Wildlife Recreation • PHS Amphibians: • Evergreen Forest 2.7% Floodplain: 21% Area None mapped • • PHS Fish: Zoning: Estuarine Emergent Wetland Marinas: • Rural Lands: 50% 0.4% NWI Freshwater Chinook, Chum, Wetlands: 3,931 • Chinook Marina • Agricultural: 20% Coho, Cutthroat, Impervious acres Steelhead • Rural Residential: 9% • 0% Impervious: 92.6% WDFW: • PHS mammals: • Transitional Forest: 9% • <20% Impervious: 4.6% Salt Marsh: • Chinook Unit Roosevelt elk • Commercial Forest 4% • 20-49% Impervious: 2.4% 355 acres Knappton Boat • Conservation: 3% • 50-79% Impervious: 0.4% Launch • Industrial: 1% • >79% Impervious: 0.1% • Not Classified: 1%
Comprehensive Plan • General Rural: 74% • Transitional Forest: 9% • Rural Agriculture: 8% • Public Preserve: 3% • Rural Activity Center- Chinook: 3% • Not Classified: 1%
117 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Willapa Bay AU (6,276 acres) Current Use Vegetation Levee: 21.6% Parks: • PHS Birds: Bald • Government/Institution: 33% • Evergreen Forest 25.9% • Bruceport County eagle, Brant, • Forestry: 32% • Palustrine Emergent Wetland Armoring: 24.6% Park Brown pelican, • Agriculture: 14% 23.7% • Bush- Pioneer Eastern wild • Palustrine Forested Wetland Overwater • Not Classified: 9% County Park turkey, Marbled 11.5% Structures: 27 USFWS: • Vacant/Undeveloped: 5% • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub (3.4 ac) murrelet, • Residential: 3% Wetland 10.7% • Willapa NWR Peregrine falcon, • Scrub/Shrub 5.9% Boat Launches: WDFW: Purple martin, Zoning: • Estuarine Emergent Wetland 5 • Palix State Wildlife Snowy plover, • Transitional Forest: 39% 3.3% Recreation Area Spotted owl, • Conservation: 25% • Pasture/Hay 5.3% WDNR: Band-tailed NWI Freshwater • Rural Lands: 12% • Unconsolidated Shore 3.0% • Gunpowder Island pigeon, • Wetlands: 3,715 • Mixed Use Tokeland: 8% Mixed Forest 2.5% NAP Shorebird and • acres • Commercial Forest 5% Deciduous Forest 2.3% waterfowl • Grassland 2.0% Port and Marinas: • concentrations, Not Classified: 3% Salt Marsh: • Tokeland Marina • Agricultural: 2% Impervious 4,499 acres • Bay Center Boat Streaked horned • Industrial: 2% Basin lark, Pileated Seagrass Beds: • woodpecker, Rural Residential: 1% 38,018 acres Common loon, • Mixed Use: 1%
118 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas • 0% Impervious: 93.2% • Port of Peninsula/ Goshawk, Sooty • <20% Impervious: 4.1% Nahcotta Boat grouse, • 20-49% Impervious: 2.6% Basin Trumpeter swan, • 50-79% Impervious: 0.1% Conservation Western grebe, Organization: Great blue • Seal Slough heron, Cavity (Forterra) nesting ducks • PHS Amphibians: Comprehensive Plan Dunn’s • Transitional Forest: 39% salamander, Van Dyke’s • Public Preserve: 28% salamander • General Rural: 21% • PHS Fish: • Forest of Long-Term Significance: 3% Chinook, Chum, • Not Classified: 3% Coho, Cutthroat, • Rural Agriculture: 2% Steelhead, Bull • Rural Activity Center- Bay Center: 2% trout, Pacific • Community Crossroad- Tokeland: 1% lamprey, River lamprey, Brook lamprey, Green sturgeon • PHS mammals: Harbor seal, Roosevelt elk; Columbian black- tailed deer, Roosting bats
119 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Long Beach Peninsula AU (5,785 acres) Current Use Vegetation Levee: 8.1% Parks: • PHS Birds: Bald • Government/Institution: 30% • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub • Cape eagle, Brown • Vacant/Undeveloped: 21% Wetland 16.9% Armoring: 8.3% Disappointment pelican, Eastern • • Recreational: 19% Palustrine Forested Wetland State Park wild turkey, 16.9% Overwater • Not Classified: 10% • Lewis and Clark Spotted owl, • Palustrine Emergent Wetland Structures: 27 Interpretive Center • Residential: 9% 11.0% (3.4 ac) Marbled • Agriculture: 5% • Evergreen Forest 10.3% • Leadbetter Point murrelet, • Forestry: 2% • Scrub/Shrub 9.6% Boat Launches: State Park Peregrine falcon, • Estuarine Emergent Wetland 4 • Loomis Lake State Snowy plover, 8.9% Floodplain: 5% Park Streaked horned Zoning: • Grassland 7.9% • • Morehead Park lark, Brant, Conservation: 47% • NWI Freshwater Bare Land 5.7% • Skating Lake Park Common loon, • Rural Residential: 24% • Cultivated 2.5% Wetlands: 4,950 • Surfside Great blue • Agricultural: 15% • Unconsolidated Shore 2.1% acres Playground heron, Pileated • Not Classified: 8% • Mixed Forest 2.2% Salt Marsh: • woodpecker, • • Deciduous Forest 2.2% Seashore Restricted Residential: 4% 297 acres Conservation Area Purple martin, Impervious WDFW: Short-tailed Seagrass Beds: • 0% Impervious: 95.7% albatross, Sooty 10,687 acres • Ocean Park State • <20% Impervious: 2.9% grouse, Common Wildlife Recreation • Comprehensive Plan 20-49% Impervious: 1.3% Area murre, Brandt’s • Public Preserve: 43% • 50-79% Impervious: 0.1% • Oregon Silverspot cormorant, • General Rural: 33% Recovery Area Seabird, • Not Classified: 8% USFWS: shorebird and • waterfowl Rural Agriculture: 15% • Willapa NWR • Military Reservation: 1% Conservation concentrations, Trumpeter swan, Organization: Tundra swan • Swan Marsh
120 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas • PHS Amphibians: None mapped • PHS invertebrates: Oregon silverspot butterfly • PHS mammals: Harbor seal, Roosevelt elk, Columbian black- tailed deer, Roosting bats, Whales, Sea lions, Seals, Porpoises • PHS plants: Pink sand verbena Pacific Coast- North AU (216 acres) Vegetation Armoring 31.2% Parks: • PHS Birds: • Current Use Grayland Beach Peregrine falcon, Overwater Snowy plover, • Vacant/Undeveloped: 25% State Park Structures: 0 • Seashore Streaked horned • Recreational: 20% lark, Brant, Bald Conservation Area • Not Classified: 21% NWI Freshwater eagle, Shorebird • Residential: 17% Wetlands: 462 concentrations • Agriculture: 13% acres • PHS Amphibians: None mapped • Government/Institution 2% Salt Marsh: 243 acres
121 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas • Grassland 23.8% Zoning: • Palustrine Forested Wetland • Rural Residential: 69% 20.6% • Agricultural: 13% • Scrub/Shrub 15.6% • Palustrine Scrub/Shrub • Rural Lands: 9% Wetland 11.2% • Conservation: 8% • Palustrine Emergent Wetland • Not Classified: 1% 6.7% • Bare Land 4.3% • Evergreen Forest 2.2% • Unconsolidated Shore 2.8% Comprehensive Plan • Cultivated 2.1% • General Rural: 66% • Pasture/Hay 1.9 % • Public Preserve: 20% • Rural Agriculture: 13% Impervious • 0% Impervious: 91.3% • Not Classified: 1% • <20% Impervious: 2.6% • 20-49% Impervious: 6.0%
122 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Land Use Patterns Land Cover Modifications Parks/Public Habitats and (Landward of the OHWM) (CCAP landward of OHWM) and Access Species Critical Areas Coastal Ocean AU- 87,976 acres • Soft bottom habitats: Dungeness crab, English Sole; • Pelagics: Pacific salmon species, Pacific Hake, Pacific Herring, anchovy, • • • • Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable Not applicable opalescent inshore squid, leatherback sea turtles; • Marine Mammals: Whale species, stellar sea lion; • Birds: marbled murrelets.
123 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
5 ANALYSIS OF ECOLOGICAL CHARACTERISTICS
5.1 Methods A GIS-based semi-quantitative method was developed to characterize the relative performance of relevant ecological processes and functions by shoreline reach, within the County, as outlined in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i). The assessment used the available information gathered as part of the shoreline inventory and applied ranking criteria to provide a consistent methodological treatment among reaches. These semi-quantitative results will help provide a consistent treatment of all reaches in approximating existing ecological conditions, yet allow for a qualitative evaluation of functions for data that are not easily summarized by GIS data alone. The results are intended to complement the mapped inventory information (Appendix B) and numerical data (Table 4-3) and provide a comparison of watershed functions relative to other reaches in the County.
The analysis of the ecological characteristics of the Coastal Ocean AU is different than the analysis for the other AUs. The main distinguishers for the Coastal Ocean AU are that 1) the Coastal Ocean AU does not contain distinct shoreline segments, and 2) there is a paucity of data on the dynamic, biophysical characteristics in the AU, so they are supplemented with human use data as proxies for nodes of ecological function.
Reach Delineation In order to assess shoreline functions at a local scale, the ten AUs with upland areas within the County were broken into discrete reaches based on a review of maps and aerial photography. The Coastal Ocean AU is considered as a singular section (i.e., no distinct reaches) for this assessment. While there certainly is spatial heterogeneity in the uses and ecology of the Coastal Ocean AU, the boundaries that define the distinct activities are dynamic.
The following criteria were used to determine reach break locations for marine, riverine, estuarine, and lacustrine shorelines (Table 5-1). In many locations in Pacific County, the precise transition between estuarine and riverine characteristics cannot be determined by mapping alone, therefore, in areas of limited development, a single reach may encompass areas with both estuarine and freshwater riverine characteristics.
Land use (e.g., adjacent land use patterns, shoreline uses, vegetation coverage, and shoreline modifications) was weighted heavily in determining reach break locations, in recognition that
124 The Watershed Company June 2015 the intensity and type of land use will affect shoreline ecological conditions. Furthermore, functional analysis outcomes will be more relevant for future determination of appropriate shoreline environment designations if the reach breaks occur at possible transition points in environment designations. In addition to land use, physical drivers of shoreline processes were used to establish an overall framework for determining reach break locations. Regardless, reaches have been created for informational purposes only and are not intended to represent regulatory boundaries. While reach scale analysis of ecological functions is one aspect of evaluating appropriate environment designations, several other inventory elements, including land use characteristics, also play a significant role.
The total number of reach breaks by AU is described in Table 5-2.
Table 5-1. Criteria for Determining Reach Breaks Marine/Estuarine Riverine Lacustrine4 Changes in land use1 Changes in land use1 Changes in land use1 Changes in vegetation Change in shore type Stream/River confluences (coverage and type) Changes in vegetation Changes in channel confinement Significant wetland areas2 (coverage and type) and upland topography Creek/River mouths Tributary confluences Changes in topography Changes in vegetation Artificial barriers (levees, dikes) (coverage and type) 1. Reach breaks were generally identified at the nearest parcel boundary, except with large parcels, where physical or ecological factors changed notably within a single parcel. 2. In general, reach breaks were positioned to avoid dividing large wetlands.
Table 5-2. Summary of Reaches per Assessment Unit Assessment Unit Number of Reaches 1- North River 13 2- Willapa River 22 3- Middle Bay 9 4- Naselle River 17 5- Upper Chehalis Basin 3 6- Grays River 4 7- Columbia River 7 8-Willapa Bay 21 9- Long Beach Peninsula 13 10- Pacific Coast- North 3 11- Coastal Ocean 1
In order to evaluate salt marsh and eelgrass vegetation, as well as aquaculture activities that occur below the ordinary high water mark, reach boundaries were extended waterward using the GIS Euclidean Allocation tool. Euclidean Allocation divides the non-source space (for example, Willapa Bay) into zones based on closest proximity to the shoreline reach. Because
125 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
these zones are determined according to Euclidean, or straight-line, distances, boundaries were adjusted to better represent natural breaks, such as channel centerlines in Willapa Bay (Figure 5- 1).
Generally, associated wetlands were included in the reach functional analysis when any portion of the wetland fell within 200 feet of a shoreline. For the analysis, reach boundaries were also extended to include areas of associated wetlands that occur west of SR 103 on the Long Beach Peninsula and west of SR 105 on the North Pacific Coast, as past studies and management approaches have confirmed hydrologic connectivity of these wetland areas.
Figure 5-1. Example of estuarine zones created through the Euclidean Allocation process.
Approach The analysis of reach functions was based on the four major function categories identified in the Department of Ecology’s guidelines: hydrologic, hyporheic, shoreline vegetation, and habitat. The four primary functional categories were further broken down into relevant functions identified in WAC 173-26-201(3)(d)(i). Table 5-3 provides a brief description of each function, potential effects of land use, and potential indicators for each function from available spatial data, as well as areas of typical human disturbance.
126 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 5-3. Summary of Shoreline Ecological Functions Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Storage of peak flows is provided by floodplains, off channel areas and large wetland complexes; these features help reduce peak flows and contribute to summer low flows. Whereas landslides and bank failures typically contribute sediment in steep upper reaches; overbank flooding, localized bank erosion, and bedload transport represent the major sediment transport processes in lower reaches.
Land use impacts: Vegetation removal alters the water/sediment balance and destabilizes slopes resulting Riverine in excess bed or bank erosion and disconnected floodplains. Encroachment into floodplains and floodways by structures or fill reduces the local flood storage capacity, resulting in increased flood heights and velocities. Shoreline armoring limits local bank erosion. Dams affect hydrologic processes at a watershed scale.
Available Data Indicators: Floodplains, Floodways, Armoring, Road density, Dams, Wetlands
Water storage functions of lakes can help attenuate the severity of downstream flooding. Sediment storage functions alter downstream sediment budgets.
Water and Land use impacts: Artificial dams alter the seasonal storage of water and limit sediment transport Lacustrine downstream. sediment processes
Hydrologic Available Data Indicators: Dams
Sediment transport processes are affected by freshwater inputs, tides, waves, and wind. Sediment erosion and accretion processes are responsible for the formation of estuarine and marine habitats including salt marshes and sand dunes.
Land use impacts: In-water structures and shoreline armoring alter sediment transport processes. Dikes restrict tidal exchange and tidegates result in muted exchange. Armoring of natural bluffs restricts natural erosion, which would otherwise contribute to the sediment balance within the bay or drift cell. Development Marine/ can affect groundwater recharge rates by concentrating and channelizing stormwater and filling wetlands. Estuarine Groundwater well withdrawals can also affect groundwater levels. Dredging and dredge disposal alters water flow and sediment transport processes. Incidental structures related to boating and commercial and recreational fishing can also alter sediment transport processes. These incidental structures include things such as shipwrecks, derelict gear, and other fixed structures.
Available Data Indicators: Armoring, Dikes, (Comprehensive tidegate data not available)
127 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Floodway and floodplain areas and riverine wetlands provide a transition between upland and riverine habitats. Vegetated uplands help to desynchronize flooding impacts downstream. Broad, vegetated floodplains help slow and disperse flood flows.
Riverine Land use impacts: Armored or leveed shorelines tend to accelerate flow, increasing erosional forces downstream.
Available Data Indicators: Floodplains, Floodways, Forested vegetation in floodplain, Armoring, Levees
Shallow gradient shorelines help attenuate wave energy, limiting shoreline erosion and providing sheltered, shallow-water habitat. Emergent and woody vegetation helps attenuate wave energy.
Land use impacts: Armored shorelines create a steep shoreline gradient, and tend to reflect wave energy Lacustrine Energy toward adjacent shoreline areas or the lake bed. attenuation Armoring, Riparian vegetation
Available Data Indicators:
Intertidal and shoreline habitats, such as salt marshes, eelgrass beds, natural beaches, and sand dunes attenuate wave and tidal energy.
Hydrologic Land use impacts: Diking and/or fill of wetlands limits attenuation. Armored shorelines tend to reflect wave energy toward adjacent shoreline areas or the toe of armoring. Dredging and dredge disposal alters wave Marine/ attenuation. Incidental structures related to boating and commercial and recreational fishing can also alter Estuarine energy attenuation. These incidental structures include things such as shipwrecks, derelict gear, and other fixed structures.
Available Data Indicators: In-water structures, Armoring, Dikes, Wetlands, Eelgrass beds
A balanced sediment budget helps to maintain complex channel form and connected floodplains. LWD helps develop and maintain instream habitat complexity. Channel migration contributes to a diversity of Developing floodplain habitats and is a significant factor involved in large wood recruitment in large river systems. pools, riffles, Riverine Land use impacts: Removal of forested vegetation and/or LWD limits sediment storage, cover, and habitat and gravel complexity. bars Available Data Indicators: Floodplains, Floodways, Forested vegetation in floodplain
128 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Periodic flooding and channel migration processes result in the recruitment of LWD into the river channel, which in turn redirects stream flows to shape the channel form and influences sediment storage, transport, and deposition rates. Floodplain vegetation also provides a significant source of detritus and primary and secondary production, which enters the channel during flood pulses. Riverine Recruitment Land use impacts: Removal of forested riparian vegetation or LWD limits these functions. and transport of Available Data Indicators: Floodplains, Floodways, Forested vegetation in floodplain large woody debris (LWD) The periodic tidal inundation of intertidal salt marshes results in significant export of organic detritus. Hydrologic processes in the marine environment result in the accumulation of beach wrack, which supports and organic macroinvertebrates and provides foraging opportunities for shorebirds. material Marine/ Estuarine Land use impacts: Diking and/or wetland fill limits detrital connectivity.
Available Data Indicators: Armoring, Dikes, Wetlands
Floodplain and riparian wetland habitats contribute to nutrient and contaminant filtration. Hydrologic Land use impacts: Fill or isolation of wetlands limits functions. Development increases nutrient and contaminant loads. Failing septic systems and direct wastewater outfalls can directly affect water quality. Riverine Available Data Indicators: Impervious surfaces, Wetlands, Outfalls, (Comprehensive septic mapping not Removing available) excess nutrients Lake-fringe wetland habitats contribute to nutrient and contaminant filtration. and toxic compounds Land use impacts (Lacustrine): Fill or isolation of wetlands limits functions. Development increases nutrient and contaminant loads. Failing septic systems and direct wastewater outfalls can directly affect Lacustrine water quality.
Available Data Indicators: Impervious surfaces, Wetlands, Outfalls, (Comprehensive septic mapping not available)
129 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Periodic tidal inundation of tidal marshes results in nutrient and contaminant uptake.
Land use impacts: Fill or isolation of tidal marshes limits functions. Development increases nutrient and Marine/ contaminant loads. Failing septic systems and direct wastewater outfalls can directly affect water quality. Estuarine Boating uses may degrade water quality.
Available Data Indicators: Dikes, Wetlands, Outfalls, (Comprehensive septic mapping not available)
Nutrients and toxic compounds may be filtered or removed by uptake in shallow alluvial soils. Removing excess Land use impacts: Removal of LWD and changes to hydrology that alter channel complexity may limit nutrients hyporheic functions. and toxic compounds Available Data Indicators: Alluvial soils
Hyporheic flow provides an important source of cool water refugia.
Water and Land use impacts: Removal of LWD, mining, and other changes that simplify channel form may limit sediment hyporheic functions.
storage Available Data Indicators: Alluvial soils Riverine only Hyporheic flow helps support forested riparian areas.
Hyporheic Support of Land use impacts: Fill in the floodplain limits potential hyporheic interactions. vegetation Available Data Indicators: Alluvial soils, Riparian wetlands
Groundwater/surface water interactions are important to maintain base flows and cooler stream temperatures during summer months. Maintenance Land use impacts: Removal of LWD and other changes to hydrology that alter channel complexity (e.g., of base mining) may limit hyporheic functions. flows Available Data Indicators: Alluvial soils
130 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Riparian vegetation helps maintain cool water temperatures through shade and creation of a cool and humid microclimate over the stream. In large rivers and lakes, shading from vegetation has a more limited potential to provide temperature refuge compared to smaller streams. Riverine/ Lacustrine Land use impacts: Vegetation removal limits riparian functions.
Temperature Available Data Indicators: Forested riparian vegetation, 303(d) listings for temperature regulation Tidal marsh vegetation regulates water temperatures locally. Vegetative cover is not a significant factor for marine or open water estuarine shorelines. Marine/ Land use impacts: Vegetation removal limits riparian functions. Estuarine
Available Data Indicators: Salt marsh; Tidal wetlands
Riparian vegetation provides a source of LWD recruitment, and provides organic matter that is the base of the detrital food web in the form of leaves, branches, and terrestrial insects. Vegetation
Riverine/ Land use impacts: Vegetation removal limits riparian functions. Armored shorelines can isolate the river Lacustrine or lake from potential sources of LWD recruitment. Provision of LWD and Available Data Indicators: Riparian vegetation, Armoring other Salt marsh productivity is among the highest reported for any ecosystem. Eelgrass beds and kelp forests organic also support detrital export. matter Marine/ Land use impacts: Fill or isolation of tidal marshes limits functions. Vegetation removal limits riparian Estuarine functions.
Available Data Indicators: Wetlands, Salt marsh, Eelgrass, Armoring, Dikes
131 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Dense riparian vegetation encourages infiltration of surface water. Nutrients and contaminants in subsurface water are filtered out of the soil and taken up by the roots of plants. The root structure of woody vegetation stabilizes shoreline soils and prevents excessive erosion.
Land use impacts: Vegetation removal limits riparian functions. Development contributes to nutrient and Riverine/ contaminant loads. Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways and parking areas tend to produce Lacustrine hydrocarbon pollutants and heavy metals. Where stormwater is piped directly to the waterbody, vegetative functions are ineffective at addressing water quality. Filtering excess Available Data Indicators: Riparian vegetation, Forested riparian vegetation, Impervious surfaces, 303(d) nutrients, listings, Outfalls, (Comprehensive stormwater outfall data is not available) fine sediment, Tidal marshes, shellfish beds, and eelgrass beds support nutrient filtration. Marine- N/A and toxic Vegetation substances Land use impacts: Fill or isolation of tidal marshes, destruction of eelgrass or shellfish beds limits functions. Development contributes to nutrient and contaminant loads. Impervious surfaces related to roadways, driveways and parking areas tend to produce hydrocarbon pollutants and heavy metals. Where Marine/ stormwater is piped directly to the waterbody, vegetative functions are ineffective at addressing water Estuarine quality.
Available Data Indicators: Riparian vegetation, Wetlands, Dikes, Eelgrass beds, Salt marshes, Outfalls, (Comprehensive stormwater outfall data is not available)
Energy (See hydrologic) attenuation
132 The Watershed Company June 2015
Shoreline Processes Functions, Impacts, and Indicators Type Many aquatic species, including salmon species, rely heavily on off–channel areas for rearing. Riparian habitats are important for breeding, foraging, and rearing of many terrestrial species. Continuous riparian vegetation provides dispersal corridors. Larger and wider riparian and wetland areas tend to have more complex vegetation communities and more habitat types.
Riverine Land use impacts: Vegetation removal and wetland fill limit functions. Roads and upland development limit lateral habitat connectivity. Dams and culverts can interrupt longitudinal habitat connectivity.
Available Data Indicators: PHS occurrence, Armoring/Levees, Roads, Vegetation, Wetlands, Dams, Fish passage barriers
Riparian habitats are important for breeding, foraging, and rearing of many terrestrial species. Continuous riparian vegetation provides a dispersal corridor for animals using riparian habitats. Larger and wider riparian and wetland areas tend to have more complex vegetation communities and more habitat types. Physical space and Land use impacts: Vegetation removal and wetland fill limit functions. Roads and upland development
Lacustrine conditions limit lateral habitat connectivity. Overwater structures shade areas of submerged aquatic vegetation and for life create abrupt transitions in shading that can alter habitat use by local species assemblages. history; Habitat Food Available Data Indicators: PHS occurrence, Overwater structures, Roads, Vegetation, Wetlands production and delivery Riparian habitats, including forested, dune, and wetland vegetation communities are important for breeding, foraging, and rearing of many terrestrial species. Continuous riparian vegetation provides a dispersal corridor for animals using riparian habitats. Larger and wider riparian and wetland areas tend to have more complex vegetation communities and more habitat types. Eelgrass beds, mudflats, tidal marshes, coastal dunes, and shellfish beds provide habitat functions for a diverse suite of species.
Land use impacts: Overwater structures shade areas of submerged aquatic vegetation and create abrupt Marine/ light transitions that can alter habitat use by local species assemblages. Shoreline armoring tends to Estuarine truncate the intertidal area. Dikes disconnect open water habitats from tidal marshes. Roads and upland development limit lateral habitat connectivity. Impacts from boating and recreational and commercial fishing may include impacts from derelict gear, anchorage, and water pollution.
Available Data Indicators: PHS occurrence, Armoring/ Levees, Overwater structures, Roads, Vegetation, Wetlands, Fish passage barriers (Comprehensive tidegate data not available)
133 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
The available information gathered in the Shoreline Inventory was used to help characterize the ecological functions for each reach.
Appropriate metrics and indicators of ecological functions may vary depending on shoreline type. For example, hyporheic functions are generally dependent on directional flow, and therefore, hyporheic functions are less applicable in lake, estuarine, and marine environments. Additionally, whereas salt marshes, eelgrass beds, and dune grass vegetation play important functional roles in estuarine environments or along marine shorelines, respectively, these characteristics are not applicable to freshwater environments. Similarly, whereas forest cover might be a reliable metric of vegetative functions in freshwater shorelines, along the Pacific Coast, open, unvegetated areas provide unique habitats that are necessary for nesting by threatened plovers and streaked horned larks. Floodplain and floodway areas provide a good indication of floodplain connectivity in riverine environments, yet the mapped floodplain is less relevant to shoreline functions in estuarine and marine environments, where the floodplain extent is frequently synonymous or very close to the OHWM.
Additionally, some datasets are limited to particular shoreline types. For example, shoreline armoring data are not available for riverine shorelines. In order to aid in the interpretation of data results and the understanding of why different results are included for different reaches within an AU, results in Section 5.2 are grouped by lower reaches (reaches that are influenced by estuarine processes) and upper reaches (reaches that are predominantly influenced by freshwater riverine processes) within an AU. Generally, reaches categorized as lower reaches are associated with at least 5 acres of estuarine or marine areas waterward of the OHWM. If surrounding land uses are similar, an entire creek draining into Willapa Bay may be characterized as a single reach. That reach will be characterized as an “upper” reach if the total estuarine area associated with the reach is less than 5 acres.
For each of the data indicators used in the characterization, the quantitative data were sorted into five categories, ranging from “low” to “high.” The sorting of quantitative data into scoring categories was primarily based on the distribution range of the parameter within the County. For example, vegetation cover is relatively high in shorelines throughout most shorelines in the County. In order to differentiate between shoreline reaches with lower vegetation coverage relative to other reaches in the County, the range of quantitative results classified as “Low” scores was increased (0-40%) and the range of quantitative scores identified as “High” was narrowed to only shorelines with over 90 percent vegetation coverage.
In order to recognize the functions of large areas of salt marsh and eelgrass beds, both percentage cover and total area were factored into the score for those characteristics. Both
134 The Watershed Company June 2015 percentage and total area thresholds were based on the distribution range of those features throughout the estuarine reaches in the County.
Table 5-4 provides a description of the metrics.
For the Coastal Ocean AU, a set of maps have been created from the data described in section 4. Results related to ecological processes are discussed in Section 5.2.11, and those based on human use are discussed in section 6.2.11.
135 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 5-4. Functional Score Ranking by Indicator Metric Applicable Notes Ranking score*
Habitat
Indicator Unit of Metric Measure Low/ Moderate/ Low Moderate High Function Moderate High Marine/ Riverine Estuarine Lacustrine
75-100, or X X NA Floodplain/ % Area in 0-5 5-25 25-50 50-75 floodway Floodway floodplain present Forested X X NA Only applicable if % of vegetation in floodplain is present floodplain 0-5 5-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 the area floodplain
% of NA NA X Only applicable shoreline where armoring Armoring/ length with 75-100 50-75 25-50 5-25 0-5 data is available Levees armoring or
Hydrologic levee Dams/ Number X X X >0 0 Tidegates per reach Number X X X Outfalls >1 1 0 per reach Wetlands, roads, and impervious surfaces are indicators that relate to hydrologic functions and the impairment of those functions; but those indicators are also relevant to vegetation and habitat, and are addressed under habitat functions, below. Dams affect hydrologic function at a watershed, as well as a local scale.
Geology- X NA NA % Area 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 alluvium
Riparian wetlands are related to recharge processes and hyporheic functions, but they are addressed under habitat functions, below. Hyporheic
X X X Tree/Forest % Area 0-20 20-40 40-60 60-80 80-100 cover X X X Not including Vegetation -
Vegetation % Area 0-40 40-60 60-75 75-90 90-100 developed classes total or cultivated crops
136 The Watershed Company June 2015
Applicable Notes Ranking score* Habitat
Indicator Unit of Metric Measure Low/ Moderate/ Low Moderate High Function Moderate High Marine/ Riverine Estuarine Lacustrine % Area X X X Freshwater landward of 0-5 5-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 Wetlands OHWM % area NA NA X Includes native and 75-100% waterward 25-50 or 50-75 or non-native species. Salt marsh 0-5 5-25 or >100 of OHWM / >10 acres >50 acres acres Total area % area NA NA X Includes native and 75-100 or waterward 25-50 or 50-75 or non-native species. Eelgrass 0-5 5-25 >1,000 of OHWM / >100 acres >500 acres acres Total area % NA NA X Includes native and Dune grass shoreline 0-5 5-25 25-50 50-75 75-100 non-native species. length
Armoring and dikes are factors that affect vegetative functions, but those indicators are also relevant to hydrologic functions, and where data are available, they are addressed there.
X X X Final PHS score is average of region, # of 0 1 2 3 >3 occurrences, and regions fish; Analysis
Priority includes areas habitats and within 500 feet of # of wildlife X X X Habitat species 0 1-2 3-4 5-20 >20 reach; Fish species species occurrence is X X NA assumed in all # of fish 0 1-2 3 >3 estuarine and species marine shorelines
137 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Applicable Notes Ranking score*
Habitat
Indicator Unit of Metric Measure Low/ Moderate/ Low Moderate High Function Moderate High Marine/ Riverine Estuarine Lacustrine
Miles of X X X Data does not road encompass forest Roads /Reach >0.02 0.01-0.02 0.005-0.01 <0.005 0 roads area (acres) Fish X X X Including those passage #/reach >1 1 0 identified as partial barriers or complete barriers #/reach (data only available Overwater for 0 1-5 >5 structures estuarine and marine) Armoring and vegetation are also indicators of habitat functions, but they are also relevant to hydrologic and vegetation functions, so they are addressed in the appropriate section above. Similarly, wetlands provide habitat functions, as well as hydrologic functions, but they are addressed under vegetation. * If a number occurs at a break point between categories, it is assigned to the higher functioning category.
138 The Watershed Company June 2015
Limitations The numerical results are intended to complement the inventory information in Chapters 3 and 4. Functional scores should not be viewed as an absolute measure of existing ecological function. This evaluation was limited by the quality and availability of inventory data. Therefore, limitations presented in Section 4.2 also apply to this evaluation.
In general, the following data limitations apply to this analysis:
• Limited resolution of spatial information- in many cases, spatial mapping is done at a broad scale that is not appropriate for site-specific planning (e.g., soils, vegetation, wetlands)
• Limited availability of spatial information- spatial mapping of some information was not available (e.g., shoreline armoring, tidegates, recreational fishing effort). Where possible, site-specific details were investigated to help address limited data.
• Missing temporal information- graphical representation may not reflect seasonal changes in use or condition (e.g., commercial fishing areas).
• Dated references – Some references cited in this report are many years old. Where more recent information is available, it is preferred. But in some cases, the older information provides the only or most complete information on a topic; in other cases, the older information supplements more recent information.
Hydrologic, hyporheic, vegetation, and habitat functions are inter-related, and frequently controlled by similar landscape features. Rather than repeatedly assessing the same indicator to assess functions for each category, each indicator is included only once with the functional category to which it is most closely correlated, as noted in Table 5-4. For example, wetlands play an important role in each habitat category, but wetlands are only incorporated into the scoring of habitat.
The evaluation approach did not take into account that some areas naturally may function “lower” than others, not because of any anthropogenic alteration or natural disturbance, but simply because of the combined effects of a particular locale’s geology, aspect, or topography. For example, many functions operate “better” in this evaluation approach when there is a floodplain to capture sediments or store water, but there are a number of drainages in steep areas that do not have floodplains. Therefore, because of the inherent differences in functions and processes among different AUs, the functional assessment scores should not be used as an absolute comparison of functions. Rather, the analysis provides a simple characterization and assessment approach. In evaluating shoreline characteristics, the area of shoreline impacts and
139 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
conditions assessed was generally limited to the area of shoreline jurisdiction. In many cases, shoreline impacts may occur at a site due to ecological and geomorphological processes that are disturbed at a remote site upstream, further inland, or up-current. This evaluation approach may not identify all of the functional responses occurring as a result of impacts to nearby or remote areas.
The approach was limited to an evaluation of shoreline ecological potential, and it did not integrate this potential with the opportunity to perform a given function based on site-specific conditions.
The OHWM used in the analysis is not an accurate, surveyed line; therefore, the actual jurisdictional area may differ from the area characterized here.
5.2 Results The following discussions describe existing reach characteristics within each of the AUs. In addition to documenting existing conditions, recognized opportunities for restoration within each AU are addressed. Restoration is distinguished from mitigation in that restoration is intended to result in an improvement of ecological functions, whereas the purpose of mitigation is to offset, rather than improve functions.
Restoration opportunities common to estuarine and marine shorelines throughout Pacific County include the removal or improvement of channel barriers, removal of dikes and armoring, and derelict gear removal. Many of these projects have the shared goal of restoring tidal exchange and other nearshore processes to the estuary and allowing for movement and migration of fish and wildlife. Such improvements may also improve the system’s resistance and resilience to changes and disturbances in the environment (Greiner 2010). Derelict fishing gear degrades habitat as well as presents safety issues. Identification and removal of derelict gear can reduce these impacts (The Nature Conservancy 2013).
Restoration opportunities common to freshwater shorelines throughout Pacific County include Road Sediment Reduction Projects, Fish Passage Projects, and In Channel Projects (Applied Environmental Services 2001). Control of non-native, invasive species, both flora and fauna, is also a high priority throughout the County’s shoreline areas. Riparian roads contribute to a high level of fine sediment, a high rate of mass wasting events, loss of off-channel rearing habitat, and reduction of available riparian forest vegetation. Projects to decommission roads, or improve them to reduce sediment production and the risk of slope failure would be appropriate restoration activities (Applied Environmental Services 2001). The removal or replacement of culverts that block fish passage is also important in providing access to
140 The Watershed Company June 2015
additional salmon habitat (Applied Environmental Services 2001). Where the riparian forest is young or intermediate in age, recruitment of LWD will be low. Placement of LWD in areas that are gravel deficient would aid in capturing, stabilizing, and storing spawning gravel, reducing sediment, dissipating flood energy, and creating pools and riffles for rearing habitat (Applied Environmental Services 2001).
It is also recognized that protection of high quality aquatic and riparian areas, wetlands, and upland buffers plays an important role in maintaining and improving habitat functions.
North River The North River AU includes the North River, Smith Creek, and the upper portion of the Cedar River. The lower reach of the Cedar River is in the Willapa Bay AU because the area has extensive estuarine influence and because the land use/ownership in the lower Cedar is consistent with adjacent reaches along Willapa Bay. Figure 5-2 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the North River AU are provided in Table 5-5.
Hydrologic Characteristics Water levels in the lower reaches of shoreline waterbodies in the North River AU are influenced by tides. Dikes, constructed at the turn of the century for agricultural purposes, are present along much of the lower reach of the North River (North River-1). These dikes are equipped with flood gates (Smith 1999), which limit marine influence and connectivity to the large wetland complexes (Figure 5-3).
The upper reaches in this AU do not have any mapped floodplains. This is partially due to the geomorphic position and steep, confined nature of the tributaries in the upper reaches of this AU.
Hyporheic Characteristics The steeper tributaries in this AU do not have extensive alluvial soils, resulting in low ratings for hyporheic functions (Table 5-5). However, as discussed in Section 5.1.2, actual hyporheic functions in the watercourses in this AU are likely determined by local scale geomorphic conditions (Kasahara and Wondzell 2003).
Vegetative Characteristics Forest cover is naturally lower in the lower reaches of the AU (e.g., North Creek-1, Smith Creek- 1, Cedar River-1), where flooding regimes cause emergent wetlands to predominate (example in Figure 5-4). Dikes along the North River likely alter the emergent wetland composition from estuarine salt marsh to palustrine emergent characteristics. A habitat acquisition and
141 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report restoration project, completed in 2005, restored 25 acres of tidal emergent wetlands within the lower reach of the North River (North River-1) (“Habitat Work Schedule”, electronic reference). Extensive tidal wetlands are present in Reach 1 of Smith Creek.
Forest cover is highest in Lower Salmon Creek and Smith Creek-2. Reduced riparian forest cover is associated with rural residential development along the upper reach of the North River (North River-3), Raimie Creek, Redfield Creek, and a portion of Smith Creek (Smith Creek-3) (example in Figure 5-5).
Habitat Characteristics The mouth of Smith Creek is mapped as habitat for shorebird and waterfowl concentrations. According to WDNR, 26 floating homes are moored in the middle of the channel and along the western bank in the lowermost reach of the North River (North River-1) (Figure 5-3). See Section 6.2.1 for further discussion of these floating homes.
Marbled murrelet occurrences are mapped though many of the reaches in the AU (e.g., North River- 1 and 2, Cedar River-1, Elkhorn Creek, and Fall River). The eastern reaches in the AU fall within the winter range for Roosevelt Elk. Spotted owl habitat is also present in the far eastern portion of the AU.
Road densities are generally lower in the North River AU compared to other AUs in the County. Although not identified in this analysis, Weyerhaeuser (1996b) identified several road crossings on Fall River that present fish passage impediments. A fish ladder is located on the Fall River, which is designed to provide upstream passage for coho and steelhead during low and moderate flows (Weyerhaeuser 1996b).
142 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-2. Map of Shoreline Reaches in the North River Assessment Unit
143 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-3. View of Reach 1 of the North River. Note floating homes mid-channel and perimeter dikes along the River.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-4. View of large freshwater emergent wetland in Reach 1 of the Cedar River
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-5. View of agricultural development along the upper North River (North River-3).
(Shoreline jurisdiction outlined in yellow. Photo from Google Earth.)
144 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 5-5. Reach Characterization Scores for the North River Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
cover Alluvium
Reach -
Location
Hyporheic Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tidegates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Eelgrass Beds Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater structures Roads
2 North River - 1 M H H L/M H H L/M NA L/M H L H North River - 2 H H H M/H H M L NA2 L/M H M M/H Smith Creek - 1 M/H H H L/M H M/H M/H M/H L/M M H M/H
Lower Lower Reaches Smith Creek - 2 H H H H H L/M L/M NA2 L H H H Cedar River - 1 L/M L/M M/H H H L M H H M H H Elkhorn Creek - 1 L NA1 H H M/H M/H H L/M L/M H M/H Fall River - 1 L NA1 L H L/M M/H H L/M M H M/H 1 Lower Salmon Creek - 1 L NA H H H H H L M H H 1 North River – 3 L NA H H H L/M H L/M M/H H M/H 1 Raimie Creek - 1 L NA H H H L/M H L/M M H M/H 1 Redfield Creek - 1 L NA H H H M H L L/M H H 1 Smith Creek - 3 L NA H H M/H L/M H L/M M H M/H 1 Upper Reaches Smith Creek - 4 L NA H H L M/H H L L/M H L/M 1. Floodplain vegetation not calculated where floodplains are absent. 2. Scoring for eelgrass only included where potentially suitable habitat exists (i.e. open water marine/estuarine area allocated to the reach).
145 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Potential Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities identified for freshwater shorelines at the beginning of this section are appropriate for the North River AU. These actions include decommissioning roads, replacing culverts that create fish passage barriers, placing LWD, and planting conifers. Applied Environmental Services (2001) noted that additional watershed analysis is needed in the North River AU to better understand data gaps and limiting factors in the watershed. The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) ranked the North River AU as a low priority for restoration because of low salmonid population status, low level of potential impacts, high level of existing ecological impacts (e.g., high water temperatures, loss of off-channel habitat, and loss of estuarine wetland habitat [a portion of which has since been restored]), and low salmonid productive capacity in the watershed.
Willapa River The Willapa River AU extends upstream from the westernmost extent of the Willapa River channel. Figure 5-6 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Willapa River AU are provided in Table 5-6.
Hydrologic Characteristics In the Willapa River, tidal influence extends upstream from Willapa Bay to approximately the confluence with Mill Creek. Several dikes are present in the lowermost reach of the River (Willapa River-1). On the north side of the River, dikes surround the Willapa Harbor Airport and a large former salt marsh area. Hydrologic connectivity between Willapa Bay and several sloughs is restricted by these dikes (Figure 5-7). On the south side of the river, a perimeter dike is located along the River, but several breaches in the dike allow for tidal exchange within the salt marsh there (Figure 5-8). A setback dike is located adjacent to U.S. 101 on the south side of the salt marsh.
In the upper reaches of the AU, mapped floodplains are generally limited. Sullivan and Massong (1994, cited by Smith 1999) determined that the limited off-channel habitat in the upper Willapa River is related to channel incision. As a result of the limited floodplain connectivity, scour of salmonid redds occurs at frequent flood intervals (Smith 1999). Where floodplain areas are mapped, much of the forested vegetation has been cleared in association with rural residential and agricultural development (particularly along the Willapa River, Wilson Creek, and Whitcomb Creek).
There are two weirs located on Fork Creek associated with a Washington State salmon hatchery facility. Fishways are present at both weirs, but they are in need of maintenance (Washington
146 The Watershed Company June 2015
Department of Fish and Wildlife 2013). No other armoring, tidegates, or wastewater outfalls are mapped in unincorporated areas of the AU; however, the recently updated Regional Wastewater Treatment Plant is located in the incorporated limits of the City of Raymond.
The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) identified many areas prone to mass wasting in the upper watershed.
Hyporheic Characteristics Larger and lowland watercourses in this AU typically have a higher proportion of alluvial soils. The broad meanders of the upper reaches of the Willapa River are expected to support hyporheic activity; however the stream substrate in the upper Willapa River is dominated by bedrock with patches of gravel (Smith 1999). The largest concentration of gravels in the upper mainstem is located just downstream of the confluence with Trap Creek (Willapa River-5) (Smith 1999). As discussed in Section 5.1.2, even those reaches identified as having low alluvial soil composition may have significant hyporheic functions, but those functions could only be assessed based on local scale geomorphic conditions (Kasahara and Wondzell 2003).
Vegetative Characteristics Although total vegetation is high in the AU, forest cover is moderate to low throughout most of the shoreline reaches.
In the lower reaches, the limited forest cover may be related to tidal flooding regimes, which are more conducive to the development of emergent and scrub-shrub wetlands. The lowermost portion of the South Fork Willapa River is predominantly composed of salt marsh vegetation. Reaches 1 and 4 in the Willapa River have large wetlands, although as noted above, diking on the north side of the river limits the salt marsh area in Reach 1. Reach 4 in the Willapa River includes some salt marsh area, but most of the wetland area is characterized by tidal freshwater marshes. Total vegetation coverage is lowest in Reach 2 of the Willapa River, where a road, residential, and marine industrial development are located.
In the upper reaches, forest cover ranks low to low/medium due to association with areas of rural residential and agricultural development (e.g., Willapa River-5 and 6, Fern, Half Moon, Mill, Whitcomb-1, and Wilson-1 and 2). Forest cover is relatively intact in Reach 2 of Whitcomb Creek, as well as along Falls Creek and Reach 3 of Wilson Creek. Moderate forest scores for Falls Creek and Reach 3 of Wilson Creek result from data classification of forested areas as scrub-shrub communities, and this may be indicative of a relatively young forest age. The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) noted “a preponderance of immature forests in the riparian zones and throughout the watershed.”
147 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Habitat Characteristics As noted above, large wetland complexes are present in Reaches 1 and 4 of the Willapa River. The wetlands provide habitat for waterfowl concentrations. Dikes on the northern portion of Reach 1 limit habitat connectivity for salmonid rearing. The tidal wetlands on the southern portion of Reach 1 provide salmonid rearing opportunities; however, fish passage barriers at U.S. 101 in Reach 1 of the Willapa River restrict salmonid use of potential wetland habitats southwest of the road.
Numerous occurrences of marbled murrelets have been documented in the upper forested reaches of the South Fork Willapa River and Forks Creek. The upper reaches are also located within the winter range of Roosevelt elk.
Several overwater structures are present, associated with shoreline residential and industrial uses along Reach 2 of the Willapa River (Figure 5-9).
Road densities are highest in Reaches 2 and 3 of the Willapa River, near the Cities of South Bend and Raymond. Although the scoring in Table 5-6 indicates that road densities are relatively low along shoreline waterbodies in the upper watershed, The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) identified high densities of roads in the watershed. This discrepancy could result because the analysis in Table 5-6 does not account for smaller forest roads or smaller tributaries. Although not represented in Table 5-6, fish passage barriers in Fern Creek and Rue Creek limit potential salmonid spawning and rearing habitat (Smith 1999).
148 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-6. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Willapa River Assessment Unit
149 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-7. Diked channel on north side of Reach 1 of the Willapa River.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-8. View of Potter Slough on the south side of Reach 1 of the Willapa River. The dike west of the slough has been removed since the picture was taken in 2006.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-9. View of overwater structures and derelict piles in the eastern portion of Reach 2 of the Willapa River adjacent to Skidmore Slough.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
150 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 5-6. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Willapa River Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Alluvium Reach -
Location
Hyporheic Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Eelgrass Beds Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater structures Roads
Skidmore Slough- 1 M/H H H M H H L NA2 L H H H South Fork Willapa River – 1 H H H M/H H L/M H NA2 M/H L M M/H Willapa River – 1 L H H L H H H L/M L/M L H M/H Willapa River - 2 H H H M L/M L/M L NA2 L/M H L L/M Willapa River - 3 H H H L M/H M L NA2 L/M H M L/M Lower Reaches Willapa River – 4 H H H L/M H H H NA2 M L H M/H Fairchild Creek - 1 L NA1 H H L M H L L/M H H Falls Creek - 1 L NA1 H H L M H L L/M H H Fern Creek - 1 L H H H H L H L L/M H M/H Fork Creek - 1 L NA1 L L/M L/M M H L/M M L M/H Half Moon Creek - 1 L NA1 H H H L H L/M L/M H M/H Mill Creek - 1 L NA1 H H M/H L/M H L M H M/H Rue Creek - 1 L NA1 H H H M H M M H M/H Trap Creek - 1 L NA1 H H M M H L M/H H M/H Upper Reaches Ward Creek - 1 L H H H M M H L L/M H M Whitcomb Creek - 1 L/M L/M H H L L/M H L L H M Whitcomb Creek - 2 L NA1 H H H H H L/M L/M H H Willapa River - 5 L L/M H H H L H L/M M/H L M/H
151 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Alluvium
- Reach
Location
Hyporheic Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Eelgrass Beds Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater structures Roads Willapa River - 6 L/M L/M H H M/H L/M H L M H M/H Wilson Creek - 1 M/H L/M H H H L M/H M L/M H M
Wilson Creek - 2 L/M L/M H H H L/M H L/M M H M Wilson Creek - 3 L NA1 H H L M H L M H H 1. Floodplain vegetation not calculated where floodplains are absent. 2. Scoring for eelgrass only included where potentially suitable habitat exists (i.e. open water marine/estuarine area allocated to the reach).
152 The Watershed Company June 2015
Potential Restoration Opportunities In addition to the opportunities identified for freshwater shorelines at the beginning of this section (e.g., road decommissioning, conifer recruitment, off-channel habitat restoration, conservation of functioning habitats), restoration projects in the Willapa River Unit are highlighted in Table 5-7.
Table 5-7. Restoration Opportunities in the Willapa River Assessment Unit Actions Source • Stringer Creek Barrier Removal and Replacement. This project will remove and Washington replace a complete fish passage barrier, add 1,100 ft of new meandering channel Coast downstream, add a minimum of 50 pieces LWD downstream, replant/restore Restoration Initiative 2015 riparian vegetation, and restore floodplain connectivity. The fish passage barrier correction will open 6.6 miles of habitat for anadromous salmon. This is the number one freshwater fish barrier culvert in Pacific County. • Lower Forks Creek Restoration. This project is designed to restore ~28 miles of Washington habitat. The restoration will remove several in-stream concrete structures that are Coast below the hatchery facility and add LWD from the intake down to the hatchery, Restoration Initiative, 2013 which will provide the reach with much needed channel diversity, channel stability and the ability to capture gravels. The new riparian plantings along the lower reach will lower stream temperatures by providing shade and will provide bank stabilization. • Rue Creek Salmon Restoration. This project will replace two undersized culverts, which are barriers to fish passage and limit the transport of sediment and large woody debris. The project will improve the functions of ~6.5 miles of habitat. • Proposed Skidmore Slough, Tide Gates Project (Cities of South Bend and Habitat Work Raymond) – develop a final design to modify the salmon blockage gates with new Schedule, fish passable gates in the natural channel. Project Sponsor: Willapa Bay Regional Electronic reference Fisheries Enhancement Group • Invasive Species –monitor, control, and determine if restoration is necessary to Coastal restore habitat diversity. Resources • Saltwater wetlands restoration through dike breaching or removal, particularly in Alliance 2007 the Willapa River. • Replace five prioritized culverts to improve fish passage. Prioritized culverts are Pacific located on Rue Creek and on non-shoreline tributaries to the Willapa River. Conservation • Rue Creek Engineered Log Jams and Riparian Planting- Projects identified at RM District n.d. 2 and 3 (Rue Creek- 1 and upstream from upper limit of shoreline jurisdiction). • Willapa River Engineered Log Jams and Riparian Planting- Projects identified between RM 18 and 40.5 (Willapa River-6 and upstream from upper limit of shoreline jurisdiction). • Fern Creek Engineered Log Jams- Projects identified at RM 2 and 4 (Fern Creek- 1).
153 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Middle Bay Those drainages that qualify as Shorelines of the State based on flow conditions over 20 cfs were included in the Middle Bay AU. Areas that meet the criteria for Shorelines of the State based solely on the extent of tidal influence are discussed in the Willapa Bay AU. Reaches identified as primarily estuarine influence (e.g., Palix and Nemah River Estuaries) were included in the Willapa Bay AU. Figure 5-10 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Middle Bay AU are provided in Table 5-8.
Hydrologic Characteristics Reaches in the Middle Bay AU include areas of tidal and riverine influence. These reaches are predominantly undeveloped, and no armoring or levees are mapped. Mapped floodplains are limited to intertidal areas. Numerous historic splash dams in the watershed have likely caused channel incision, disconnecting channels from their historic floodplains (Smith 1999).
A weir and wastewater outfall are present at the State fish hatchery facility on the North Nemah River.
The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) noted a low propensity for mass wasting in the Palix Watershed, but a higher propensity in the Nemah Watershed.
Hyporheic Characteristics Alluvial soils are characteristically more abundant in the lower portions of the waterbodies in this AU. As discussed in Section 5.1.2, even those reaches identified as having low alluvial soil composition may have significant hyporheic functions, but those functions could only be assessed based on local scale geomorphic conditions (Kasahara and Wondzell 2003).
Vegetative Characteristics Forest cover and total vegetation coverage are high throughout shoreline jurisdiction in the AU. Salt marsh vegetation is extensive along the lower reaches of this AU (e.g., South Fork Palix River-1, Bone River- 1) (Figure 5-11 and 5-12). Clear cut areas are apparent in the surrounding forest landscape; however, these areas tend to occur outside of shoreline jurisdiction (Figure 5- 11 and 5-13).
Habitat Characteristics Marbled murrelets are found in forested reaches throughout the watershed. In particular, marbled murrelets and spotted owls have been documented near the Bone River and the forks of the Nemah River.
154 The Watershed Company June 2015
The Canon River and Williams Creek (tributaries to the Palix River) are among the top chum salmon producing streams the Willapa Watershed (Steward and Associates and Knudsen 2007). For this reason, The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) ranked the Palix Watershed as the top salmon production area in the Willapa Watershed.
Freshwater wetlands in the upper portion of the Bone River and South Fork Palix River are located far from spawning habitats, so their direct habitat functions may be limited; however, these wetlands provide important functions for water quality and moderating flows (Smith 1999).
Several partial fish passage barriers and one total barrier are present at tributaries to North Nemah River as a result of forest road crossings. Although ratings for road densities in Table 5-8 are relatively high throughout the AU, Smith (1999) notes that watershed functions are impaired by the high densities of roads in the watershed. The discrepancy between the ratings in Table 5-8 and Smith’s assessment could result because the analysis in this report does not account for smaller forest roads or smaller tributaries.
A fish ladder is present at the fish hatchery weir on the North Nemah River, but it is in need of repairs (WDFW).
155 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-10. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Middle Bay Assessment Unit
156 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-11. View of South Fork Palix River. Note clear cut areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-12. View of wetlands and forested areas along the Bone River
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-13. View of tidal wetlands, forested areas, and nearby clearcuts along the Niawiakum River.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
157 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 5-8. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Middle Bay Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Alluvium
Reach -
Reach Location Reach Hyporheic Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Eelgrass Beds Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater structures Roads Bone River – 1 H H H M/H H M/H H L H H H M/H
Niawiakum River - 1 M/H H L/M H H L/M H L/M M/H H M M/H North Fork Palix River - 1 H L L/M M/H H L/M H NA2 L/M H H H South Fork Palix River - 1 M/H H H M/H H M H L M/H L H M/H
Lower Lower Reaches South Nemah River - 1 H H H M/H H M M NA2 M/H H H M/H 1 Canon River - 1 L NA H H L H H L M/H H H Middle Nemah River – 1 L NA1 H H M H H L/M M/H H M/H North Nemah River - 1 L/M M/H L L/M M/H M/H H L/M H L M/H
Upper Upper Reaches Williams Creek - 1 L M H H L H H L M H M/H 1. Floodplain vegetation not calculated where floodplains are absent. 2. Scoring for eelgrass only included where potentially suitable habitat exists (i.e. open water marine/estuarine area allocated to the reach).
158 The Watershed Company June 2015
Potential Restoration Opportunities In addition to the opportunities identified for freshwater shorelines at the beginning of this section (e.g., road improvements and decommissioning), the Middle Bay Unit presents a number of opportunities for saltwater wetlands restoration and dike removal. Additionally, in 2002, the Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group commissioned the Nemah/Naselle Watershed Assessment to identify and prioritize important salmon resource restoration projects (Applied Environmental Services 2002). Some of the projects prioritized in the assessment may have been completed; however, it is expected that many remain priorities for implementation. Restoration opportunities relevant to the Middle Bay AU are highlighted in Table 5-9.
Table 5-9. Restoration Opportunities in the Middle Bay Assessment Unit Actions Source Palix River Watershed • Restore estuarine habitats through dike removal in locations with willing Coastal landowners and on non-working lands. Resources Alliance, 2007 Nemah River Watershed • Restore estuarine habitats through dike removal in locations with willing Coastal landowners and on non-working lands. Resources Alliance, 2007 • North Nemah River Stream Bank Restoration – identified as a high priority project Applied in the Nemah/Naselle Watershed Assessment, this project, located adjacent to H- Environmental line bridge, improves sediment control. Services, • Middle Nemah River LWD Placement – place several key pieces of LWD or several 2002 engineered log jams at several locations along the Middle Nemah River and re- establish riparian conifer vegetation, improving in-stream complexity and bank stability. • Riparian planting and LWD placement in designated areas along Finn Creek to improve in-stream complexity, riparian function, and bank stability. • Middle Nemah River bridge removal at A-200 Road. • Middle Nemah River Tributary Restoration – abandon portion of the A-line road in- between the junction with the C-line and the H-line. Restore the ditched tributary channel and riparian vegetation. • Upper and Middle Nemah River bridge removal (multiple locations). • Middle Nemah River Road Abandonment – abandon at least 300 feet of road and create a defined channel that connects the wetland to the river and creates off- channel habitat. • North Nemah A-line Stream Bank Stabilization – adjacent to A-line • North Nemah River Spawning Availability Survey – adjacent to H-line bridge above the WDFW hatchery • Middle Nemah River Bridge Washout Restoration • Fish Passage Analysis of Two South Nemah River Culverts • O’Conner Creek Log Jam – determine whether jam is a fish passage barrier
159 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Actions Source • Finn Creek Hardwood Conversion – conifer underplanting • Williams Creek Riparian Restoration • Dike removal and estuarine restoration in the Middle and South Nemah Estuaries Applied Environmental Services 2001
Naselle River Those drainages that qualify as Shorelines of the State based on flow conditions over 20 cfs were included in the Naselle River AU. Figure 5-14 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Naselle AU are provided in Table 5-10.
Hydrologic Characteristics Dikes are present along the lowermost reaches of Bear River (Bear River 1 and 2), as well as most of Naselle River Reaches 3 and 4. The dikes on the Bear River are located to protect U.S. 101, road infrastructure for Jeldness Road and residential development. The perimeter dikes in Reach 4 and the southern part of Reach 3 of the Naselle River restrict flooding to allow for agricultural uses (Figure 5-15), whereas, the northern perimeter dike in Reach 3, which surrounds lands owned by WDFW, includes breaches that allow for tidal channel formation and functions on the western side of the dike (Figure 5-16).
Reach 6 on the Naselle River and Reach 1 of the South Naselle River include mapped floodplain areas; however, forested vegetation is limited in association with existing agricultural and rural residential development.
A weir is located along Reach 6 of the Naselle River, in association with the State fish hatchery there. A private dam is also present on Burnham Creek, a tributary to Reach 2 of the South Naselle River.
The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) rated the Naselle Watershed as high in terms of potential ecological risk. This rating resulted from a large area prone to mass wasting and a high density of roads. Smith (1999) identified a limited quantity of LWD in the watershed; however, The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) noted that riparian forests provide a high potential for recruitment of LWD.
Indian Creek Reservoir is regulated by a dam and is used as the municipal water supply for the City of Ilwaco.
160 The Watershed Company June 2015
Hyporheic Characteristics Alluvial soils are present in Dell Creek and the South Naselle River, indicating potential for higher hyporheic functions in these waterbodies. As discussed in Section 5.1.2, even those reaches identified as having low alluvial soil composition may have significant hyporheic functions, but those functions could only be assessed based on local scale geomorphic conditions (Kasahara and Wondzell 2003).
Vegetative Characteristics Total vegetation coverage is high throughout the AU. Salt marsh vegetation waterward of the OHWM is predominant in Bear River Reaches 1 and 2, as well as in the Naselle River Reaches 1- 3. Freshwater wetlands are also abundant in the lower reaches of the Bear River, Reaches 4 and 5 of the Naselle River, and Reach 2 of the South Naselle River.
Ellsworth Creek is ranked highest for forest cover among the AU; the Nature Conservancy owns most of the area within this reach. Forest cover scores for the lower reaches are highest on the Stanley Peninsula (Naselle River- 2) (Figure 5-17). Other reaches with high levels of forest cover include Reach 3 of the Bear River, Dell Creek, Reach 7 of the Naselle River, and Reach 2 of the South Naselle River; these reaches are predominantly under forestry uses. Lower forest cover rankings in Reach 1 of the South Naselle River and Reach 6 of the Naselle River are associated with rural residential development.
Habitat Characteristics Salt marsh and freshwater wetlands provide diverse habitat opportunities in this AU. The lower reaches of the Bear River and Naselle River support waterfowl assemblages.
Numerous marbled murrelet occurrences have been documented in the eastern portion of the AU (Naselle River-7, Salmon Creek-1). Many marbled murrelet observations have also been made along Ellsworth Creek. The entire AU is in the winter range for Roosevelt elk.
The Bear River is a significant basin for chum salmon productivity (The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance 1996). Several partial and total fish passage barriers are present along Salmon Creek in association with Highway 4 (WDFW 2013). A functional fishway allows for fish passage at the State hatchery weir facility in Reach 6 of the Naselle River (WDFW).
161 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-14. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Naselle Assessment Unit
162 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-15. View of diked wetlands in Reach 4 of the Naselle River.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-16. View of tidal wetlands in Reach 3 of the Naselle River where dike has been breached.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-17. View of forested shoreline on the Stanley Peninsula (Naselle River- 2).
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
163 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 5-10. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Naselle River Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Alluvium Reach -
structures
Location
Hyporheic Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Eelgrass Beds Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater Roads Bear River - 1 L H H M H H H L L/M H H M/H Bear River - 2 L H H L/M H H H NA2 M/H H H M Naselle River - 1 M/H H H M M/H M M M/H L/M M H L/M Naselle River - 2 M H H M/H M/H L L M/H M H M M/H Naselle River - 3 M H H L/M H M H L/M M H H L/M
Naselle River - 4 L/M H H L H M/H M L L/M H H M/H 2 Naselle River - 5 H H H M H M/H M NA L/M H M M/H 2 Naselle River - 6 H L H L/M L L/M L/M NA M H M M 2 Smith Creek 2 - 1 H H H M H M M NA M H H H 2 South Naselle River - 1 H H H L/M M M L/M NA L/M M H M/H 2 Lower Reaches South Naselle River - 2 H L H H M H M/H NA L/M H H M/H Bear River - 3 L NA1 H H L/M M/H M M M/H H H
Dell Creek - 1 L M H H H M/H L/M L/M M H M/H Ellsworth Creek - 1 L M/H H H L/M H M M H H H Naselle River - 7 L NA1 H H L M/H L/M L/M M/H H M/H
Upper Upper Reaches Salmon Creek - 1 L/M M H H L/M M L/M M M/H L M Lakes Indian Creek Dam - 1 M/H L H H H L L/M H H 1. Floodplain vegetation not calculated where floodplains are absent. 2. Scoring for eelgrass only included where potentially suitable habitat exists (i.e. open water marine/estuarine area allocated to the reach).
164 The Watershed Company June 2015
Potential Restoration Opportunities In addition to the opportunities identified for freshwater shorelines at the beginning of this section (e.g., road decommissioning, riparian restoration, addressing fish passage barriers), the Naselle River Unit also presents a number of opportunities for saltwater wetlands restoration. Additionally, in 2002, the Willapa Bay Regional Fisheries Enhancement Group commissioned the Nemah/Naselle Watershed Assessment to identify and prioritize important salmon resource restoration projects (Applied Environmental Services 2002). Some of the projects prioritized in the assessment may have been completed; however, it is expected that many remain priorities for implementation. Restoration opportunities relevant to the Naselle River AU are highlighted in Table 5-11.
Table 5-11. Restoration Opportunities in the Naselle River Assessment Unit Actions Source • Ellsworth Creek Watershed Restoration. This project is designed to restore the Washington health and function of the entire 5,000 acres Ellsworth Creek watershed, with Coast benefits to salmonids and forest and riparian health. WCRI funding for this project Restoration would remove an additional 4 miles of forest road and upgrade another 6 miles. Initiative, 2013 The project will also leverage existing SRFB funding to permanently remove a bridge over Ellsworth Creek and concurrently complete large woody material placement within one mile of Ellsworth Creek. • Greenhead Slough Barrier Removal. This project will replace the existing blocking culvert with a steel bridge. This project will build upon previous project design activities for the bridge and will be the final element in restoring this 2,317-acre watershed and over 18 miles of salmon habitat. • Smith Creek Tidal Restoration. Lands are mostly in Washington Dept. of Fish and Coastal Wildlife ownership and additional wetland acquisitions that will allow for Resources replacement the tide gates with a bride restoring tidal influence to approximately Alliance, 2007 100 acres. • Saltwater wetlands restoration north of Ellsworth Slough, south of Parpala Road. Restoration has been partially competed. A bridge under County road could provide additional lift, although cost would likely be high relative to value. • South Naselle River Riparian Restoration – identified as the highest priority project Applied in the Nemah/Naselle Watershed Assessment, with benefits to riparian functions. Environmental • Tributary to the South Naselle River Stream Restoration – address anchoring of Services, LWD from previous restoration project and plant riparian vegetation to improve 2002 bank stability and riparian functions. • Salmon Creek Road Abandonment – 5900 Road from the Campbell Group Gate to the next bridge, improving off-channel connectivity. • Invasive Vegetation Removal
165 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Upper Chehalis River Figure 5-18 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Upper Chehalis AU are provided in Table 5-12.
Hydrologic Characteristics Mapped floodplains are not present within this AU. The Grays Harbor County Lead Entity (2011) noted that upper Rock Creek, Crim Creek, and Elk Creek are incised, resulting in disconnected floodplain conditions.
Extensive erosion has been documented in Elk Creek and several of its tributaries, including Crim Creek (Grays Harbor County Lead Entity 2011). High sediment loads have also been documented in Rock Creek (Grays Harbor County Lead Entity 2011). Landslides, predominantly associated with roads account for a major portion of sediment in the Upper Chehalis Basin (Grays Harbor County Lead Entity 2011).
Hyporheic Characteristics Shoreline reaches in this AU have moderate to high areas of alluvial soils, and hyporheic functions are expected to play a role in maintaining flows and temperatures in these waterbodies.
Vegetative Characteristics Lower forested vegetation cover along Rock Creek is related to rural residential development and Highway 6, which parallels the creek (Figure 5-19). Although Crim Creek (Figure 5-20) and Elk Creek (Figure 5-21) have relatively high rankings for forested vegetation, the Grays Harbor County Lead Entity (2011) noted that Upper Crim Creek has the highest proportion of immature vegetation (22%) in the Upper Chehalis Mainstem subbasin. The occurrence and coverage of wetlands is lower in this AU compared to other AUs in the County. This result reflects a natural trend toward fewer and smaller wetlands in steeper, confined reaches of the watershed, rather than degradation of functions.
Habitat Characteristics The entire AU is within the winter range for Roosevelt elk.
All of the reaches in the AU provide known spawning habitat for winter steelhead. Use of Elk Creek by coho salmon and resident cutthroat trout is also documented by WDFW. Two fish passage barriers associated with crossings of Highway 6 are located along Rock Creek (one partial and one total) (WDFW 2013).
166 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-18. Map of Shoreline Reaches in the Upper Chehalis Assessment Unit
167 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-19. View of Rock Creek and Highway 6
(Photo from Google Earth)
Figure 5-20. Oblique view of Crim Creek and surrounding slopes.
(Photo from Google Earth)
Figure 5-21. Oblique view of Elk Creek with shoreline jurisdiction outlined in yellow
(Photo from Google Earth)
168 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 5-12. Reach Functional Analysis Scores in the Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Alluvium
Reach -
Passage Barriers Hyporheic Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Priority Habitats and Species Fish Roads Crim Creek - 1 L NA1 H H H M/H H L L H H Elk Creek - 1 L NA1 H H M M/H H M M H H Rock Creek - 1 L NA1 H H M/H L/M H L L/M L M 1. Floodplain vegetation not calculated where floodplains are absent.
Potential Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities in the Upper Chehalis AU are focused on addressing extensive erosion issues that have been observed in each of the shoreline waterbodies. Recommendations are identified in Table 5-13.
Table 5-13. Restoration Opportunities in the Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit Actions Source • Abandon roads on steep geologically sensitive areas. Grays Harbor • Correct cross drains that could trigger mass wasting on geologically sensitive County Lead slopes Entity 2011 • Implement bioengineered methods to address areas of excessive erosion • Reduce road densities • Upgrade logging roads to comply with the 1999 Forest and Fish Agreement • Control invasive species • Interplant conifers in deciduous-dominant areas • Protect key properties of riparian habitat • Revegetate open areas with native plants
Grays River Figure 5-22 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Grays River AU are provided in Table 5-14.
169 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Hydrologic Characteristics Shorelines within this AU are located above the upper extent of tidal influence. Mapped floodplains are not present within this AU. A privately owned diversion dam is located along the Grays River.
Hyporheic Characteristics Alluvial soils predominate in the shoreline reaches in this AU. These soils are conducive to high levels of hyporheic functions.
Vegetative Characteristics Forest cover is high throughout the AU. Much of the watershed area in the East Fork Grays River has been harvested for timber; however, forested buffers remain, resulting in high functional rankings for forest cover in this reach (Figure 5-23). Similar to the Upper Chehalis AU, wetland coverage is lower in this AU compared to most other AUs in the County. This result reflects a natural trend toward fewer and smaller wetlands in steeper, confined reaches of the watershed, rather than degradation of functions.
Habitat Characteristics Numerous marbled murrelet occurrences have been documented along the Grays River and the West Fork Grays River. The entire AU is within the winter range for Roosevelt elk.
Steelhead, coho salmon, and resident cutthroat trout have been documented to occur in all reaches within the AU. The West Fork Grays River provides known spawning habitat for Chinook and chum salmon. Chinook salmon have also been observed in the shoreline reaches in the Grays River and the East Fork Grays River. A State salmon hatchery is located on the West Fork Grays River (Figure 5-24).
170 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-22. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Grays River Assessment Unit
171 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-23. View of East Fork Grays River and forested buffers amidst clear-cut forest areas
(Shoreline jurisidction outlined in yellow. Photo from Google Earth.)
Figure 5-24. View of West Fork Grays River and State salmon hatchery facility
(Shoreline jurisidction outlined in yellow. Photo from Google Earth.)
Figure 5-25. Oblique view of Grays River
(Shoreline jurisidction outlined in yellow. Photo from Google Earth.)
172 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 5-14. Reach Functional Analysis Scores in the Grays River Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Alluvium Reach -
Hyporheic Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Roads East Fork Grays River - 1 L NA1 H H H H H L M H H Grays River - 1 L NA1 L H H H H L H H H Hull Creek - 1 L NA1 H H H M/H H L M H H West Fork Grays River - 1 L NA1 H H H M/H H L/M M/H H M/H 1. Floodplain vegetation not calculated where floodplains are absent.
Potential Restoration Opportunities In 2002, the Washington State Conservation Commission released a report identifying habitat limiting factors for salmon and steelhead throughout WRIA 25 (Wade 2002). Bank erosion and stability and riparian conditions were the limiting factors that received the highest priority for the Grays River (Wade, 2002). The upper watershed has extensive slope instability problems. Roads and timber harvests have contributed to increased peak flows and numerous slope failures in the sub basin, leading to aggrading stream channels and excessive fine sediments in many areas. Table 5-15 highlights recommendations from the report for restoring salmonid habitat in the upper Grays River watershed. Some of the projects prioritized in the assessment may have been completed; however, it is expected that others remain priorities for implementation. The opportunities identified for freshwater shorelines at the beginning of this section are also relevant in the Grays River Unit.
Table 5-15. Restoration Opportunities in the Grays River Assessment Unit Actions Source • Assess and reduce slope failures that increase sediment loads, reduce bank Wade, 2002 stability, and fill pools in downstream reaches. • Restore riparian cover, reduce road densities where possible (especially in areas with unstable slopes), and reduce fine sediment delivery from roads to streams with sediment traps, filters, erosion control blankets, and by minimizing the use of fine materials in constructing stream crossings. • Mitchell Creek WAU has very high road densities, and numerous stream adjacent roads and stream crossings. Two very large slides were noted on Mitchell Creek near the 7250 Road that need assessment and potentially stabilization. A large area 12,000 feet above confluence with Grays River was highly unstable and the
173 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Actions Source major source of turbidity in the South Fork. This area needs assessment and stabilization. • Numerous mass wasting events in the West Fork need assessment and stabilization if possible. • A bedrock cascading falls on Hull Creek (RM 3) was retrofitted by WDFW with a fishway. This fishway has not been maintained and it has subsequently failed, blocking 1 mile of potential habitat.
Columbia River Figure 5-26 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Grays River AU are provided in Table 5-16.
Hydrologic Characteristics Columbia River shorelines in this AU are influenced by tides. A tidegate on the Chinook River at U.S. 101 limits the extent of tidal influence upstream in Chinook River Reach 1. The Chinook and Wallacut Rivers have extensive floodplain areas, which are predominantly used for agricultural production (Figure 5-27).
Shoreline armoring is present along much of Columbia River Reaches 3 and 4. In Columbia River Reach 4, causeways along U.S. 101 limit hydrologic connectivity between the Columbia River from several off-channel areas (Figure 5-28). The Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) and USFWS sponsored a project that was completed in 2011 to restore tidal connectivity to one of these isolated areas at Fort Columbia State Park.
Shoaling is a significant issue in Baker Bay within the Columbia River AU. The navigation channel to the Chinook Marina is maintained through regular dredging.
Hyporheic Characteristics Alluvial soils predominate throughout the AU. These soils are conducive to high levels of hyporheic functions. Hyporheic activity from the Lower Columbia River supplies a significant source of water to Willapa Bay (Smith 1999).
Vegetative Characteristics Forest cover is low to moderate throughout the AU. Forest cover is highest in Columbia River Reach 4, although U.S. 101 parallels the western portion of the reach, limiting vegetation coverage. Forest and total vegetation cover is low in Columbia River Reach 3, which is located in the unincorporated community of Chinook.
174 The Watershed Company June 2015
Reach 2 of the Columbia River includes a large salt marsh and scrub shrub marsh system associated with the lower Chinook River. A narrow fringe of salt marsh, which cumulatively totals more than 120 acres, extends along most of Reach 4 of the Columbia River.
Tidegates on the Chinook River and the Wallacut River have created extensive freshwater wetlands in an area historically influenced tides. Land within the Chinook and Wallacut River shoreline reaches is predominantly in agricultural uses, and forest cover is low.
Habitat Characteristics Bald eagle nests are commonly observed along Reach 4 of the Columbia River. Shorebird and waterfowl concentrations occur in Reaches 1, 2, and 4 of the Columbia River, as well as for the Chinook River. Waterfowl concentrations are also associated with wetlands in Reach 2 of the Wallacut River.
All of the salmonids migrating to and from spawning grounds in the Columbia River watershed pass through the mouth of the Columbia River. Fall Chinook salmon, in particular, tend to rear in the estuary may be associated with shallow water shoreline habitats. The Sea Resources salmon hatchery is located on the western side of Columbia River Reach 4.
The Chinook Marina includes several overwater structures (Figure 5-29). Several derelict structures, piles, and shipwrecks are present along the Columbia River shoreline in Reach 4. Roads running parallel to the shoreline in Columbia River Reaches 1 and 4 limit habitat and hydrologic connectivity there.
175 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-26. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Columbia River Assessment Unit
176 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-27. View of mouth of Chinook River, including tidegate and adjoining agricultural lands.
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-28. View of ponded area separated from the Columbia River by U.S. 101 (Columbia River-4)
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-29. View of Chinook Marina
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
177 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 5-16. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Columbia River Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Alluvium
Reach -
Hyporheic Location Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater structures Roads Chinook River - 1 H H H L H H L H M H M/H
Columbia River - 1 M/H H H L/M H M/H M M/H H H L/M Columbia River – 2 H H H M H H H M H H H Columbia River - 3 L/M H L L L L/M M M H L M Columbia River - 4 L/M L H M M/H M H M/H L L L/M
Lower Reaches Wallacut River - 1 H H H L/M M/H M/H L L/M H H M/H
Sisson Creek - 1 L NA1 H H M/H M/H H L L/M H H
Upper Reaches Wallacut River - 2 L/M L/M H H M/H L/M H H L/M H M/H 1. Scoring for marine vegetation not included where total marine area allocated to the reach is less than 5 acres.
178 The Watershed Company June 2015
Potential Restoration Opportunities In 2002, the Washington State Conservation Commission released a report identifying habitat limiting factors for salmon and steelhead throughout WRIA 25 (Wade 2002). Table 5-17 highlights recommendations from the report for restoring salmonid habitat in the Columbia River AU. Many of the projects prioritized in the assessment may have been completed; however, it is expected that others remain priorities for implementation.
Table 5-17. Restoration Opportunities in the Columbia River Assessment Unit Actions Source • Reduce or remove the existing tidegates at the mouth of the Chinook River to Wade, 2002 reduce fish passage problems, and manage tidegates to restore tidal flushing in the Chinook River estuary. This was identified as a high priority. In 2008, the tidegates were replaced with new flap gates, which still limit fish passage and estuarine connectivity. • Identify and restore floodplain and estuarine habitat in the lower Chinook River where dikes, dredging, the removal of log jams, and tidegates have altered floodplain connectivity (high priority). • Construct log jams in the lower Chinook to increase habitat diversity for rearing salmonids and to provide benefits for other species such as herring (high priority). • Eliminate livestock access and restore and maintain native riparian vegetation wherever possible along the lower reaches of the Chinook River (high priority). • Manage riparian corridors along the Chinook River to eliminate non-native species and increase the percentage of conifers in riparian corridors (high priority). • Encourage beaver activity in the lower Chinook River to aid the reconnection of the stream channel with the valley floor, restoring considerable freshwater habitat (medium priority). • Assess and repair tidegates on the Wallacut River under Stringtown Road that may block fish passage at certain flows (medium priority). • Remove pile dikes and derelict piles in Lower Columbia River Estuary. Prioritize Pacific SMP removal of pile dikes that contribute to shoaling and the need for maintenance 2000 dredging. Retention of some pile dikes for their historic value should be considered. • Restore 98 acres of estuarine intertidal wetlands and associated forested uplands Lower Columbia on the mouth of the Wallacut River. Restoration involves breaching the dike along Fish Recovery the Wallacut River in several places, removing a tidegate, restoring historic tidal Board, electronic channels, removing one culvert crossing, and building a setback levee to protect reference an existing house. Over forty acres would be restored to estuarine intertidal wetlands. Restoration would require property acquisition. • Correct fish passage barriers at the confluence of Megler Creek and Hungry Harbor with the Columbia River. • Acquire and restore up to 230 additional acres of wetland in the Chinook River watershed. • Acquire 420 acres of wildlife habitat on the Columbia River Estuary on Knappton Cove, between the Astoria Bridge and Naselle. The property consists of emergent and scrub-shrub intertidal wetlands. This project was funded in 2011.
179 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Actions Source • Establish measures to support crab populations considering effects of historic and Shoreline ongoing dredge disposal losses. Options could include crab hatcheries or Planning supplementing shell substrate to limit predation on young crabs. Committee • Increase capacity and equipment for response to an oil spill affecting the Columbia River to limit potential damages to natural resources in the Lower Columbia, Pacific Coast, and Willapa Bay. • Study and mitigate the effects of entrapment of fine sediment in reservoirs, to improve nourishment of the littoral cell.
Willapa Bay The Willapa Bay AU includes reaches along the northern and eastern boundary of Willapa Bay, as well as associated wetlands, and waterbodies identified as estuaries (e.g., Nemah Estuary, Palix Estuary). The western shorelines of Willapa Bay are included in the Long Beach Peninsula HUC. Given the hydrologic connectivity between the wetlands and lakes on the Long Beach Peninsula with either the Pacific Coast or Willapa Bay, rather than separating shorelines of Willapa Bay in this area, all of the shorelines within the Long Beach Peninsula HUC were included in the Long Beach Peninsula AU. Figure 5-30 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Willapa Bay AU are provided in Table 5-18.
Hydrologic Characteristics Shoreline armoring and levees limit hydrologic functions in several reaches around Willapa Bay. Armoring associated with SR 105 predominates the shoreline length in Reaches 2, 7, and 8 (example in Figure 5-31). Similarly, armoring occurs along U.S. 101; however, recently over three miles of dike have been removed north of the Bear River. Most of Willapa Bay Reach 4 in Tokeland is armored in front of residential parcels, along Kindred Ave, and extending to the jetty at the marina. A dike across Kindred slough limits hydrologic connectivity within the slough in Willapa Bay Reach 5. Tidegates at Norris and Teal Duck sloughs also limit hydrologic connectivity and access for juvenile salmon rearing in the north Bay (Smith 1999). Bay Center Dike Road limits tidal connectivity in Reach 1 of the Palix Estuary. Finally, dikes at the south end of Willapa Bay (Willapa Bay- Reach 16) limit hydrologic connectivity, although levee removal in 2012 -2014 at Lewis and Porter Point Units of Willapa NWR have restored 300 acres of salt marsh, mud flat, and open estuary in this area.
As noted in Section 3.4.4, the northern shoreline of Willapa Bay near Cape Shoalwater experiences the highest rate of shoreline erosion on the Pacific Coast of the United States. In recent years, the Shoalwater Reservation, just east of Cape Shoalwater, has experienced flooding and storm damage related to the erosion of the barrier dune on Graveyard and Empire Spits.
180 The Watershed Company June 2015
The Corps plans to supplement the substrate material on the eroded and breached dunes, using materials dredged from a borrow site southwest of the project area (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 2013). Replenishment of the natural dune system provides an alternative to structural shoreline stabilization (e.g., riprap) that protects infrastructure and maintains important dune habitat for threatened species, such as the snowy plover and streaked horned lark.
The Corps no longer maintains a deep-draft dredged channel through Willapa Bay; however, continued regular dredging is necessary to maintain navigational access to the boat basin at Bay Center and at the Tokeland marina. As described in Section 3.5.4, recent dredging at both of these sites used flow lane dredge disposal rather than concentrated disposal of dredged material.
The Gunderson Dam in Reach 1 of the Palix Estuary impounds water in Lake Willa. The Mountain Spring Dam and Dohman Creek Dam in Reach 16 of Willapa Bay are owned and operated by the City of Long Beach for its water supply. A small dams is also located on Teal Duck Slough (Willapa Bay-2).
A wastewater outfall is permitted in Tokeland (Willapa Bay- 4). An industrial stormwater discharge permit is in place for an aquaculture facility in reach 2 of the Palix Estuary.
Vegetative Characteristics Eelgrass coverage is high throughout most of Willapa Bay. Eelgrass coverage is slightly lower along the northern shoreline of Willapa Bay (Willapa Reaches 1-3), where strong currents and the navigation channel limits suitable shallow water habitat. Dune grass is also present along Willapa Bay Reaches 1-3. Salt marsh coverage is highest in the Nemah Estuary, Palix Estuary, and Porter Point (Willapa-16) reaches. Where freshwater wetland coverage is high within this AU (e.g., Palix Estuary-1, Willapa Reaches 5-9), it is typically a result of dikes that isolate former salt marshes from tidal influence.
It is important to recognize that areas of sparse vegetation, such as those found on the waterward side of Empire and Graveyard Spits, near Tokeland, provide important habitat functions for shorebirds, such as the snowy plover and streaked horned lark. For this reason, upland vegetation coverage may not be representative of ecological functions in marine and estuarine shoreline areas.
Habitat Characteristics Willapa Bay supports extensive eelgrass beds, oyster and clam beds, tidal marshes and mudflats. These habitats provide nesting and foraging opportunities for shorebird
181 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
assemblages, waterfowl, birds of prey, juvenile salmonids, and other fish species. Extensive tidal wetland habitats in the Palix Estuary (Reach 1) and in Reaches 2, 5-8, and 16 of Willapa Bay provide diverse habitat functions and opportunities.
Long Island and Reaches 13 and 14 of Willapa Bay provide some of the least disturbed shoreline habitat in the AU. These reaches have low road densities, and several species of wildlife documented near the shoreline (e.g., marbled murrelets, bald eagles, harbor seals, and Van Dyke’s salamander). Eelgrass beds to the northwest of Long Island also provide spawning habitats for Pacific herring.
Much of the southern portion of the Bay (Long Island-1 and Willapa Bay- 15-16) is owned by the Willapa NWR. Shoreline habitat in Willapa Bay Reach 15 is limited by U.S. 101, which parallels the Bay. Recent projects have reduced the hydrologic impacts of past diking practices on Parker Slough and the Lewis River (Willapa Bay-16). More projects to improve hydrologic connectivity, limit fish passage constraints, and restore salt marsh habitats are being planned in the vicinity of the Willapa NWR. The Willapa NWR also manages freshwater seasonal marshes for shorebirds and native amphibian habitat (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011). South Willapa Bay is one of two designated Important Bird Areas (IBAs) in the County.
Empire Spit, near Tokeland (Willapa Bay - 2 and 3) (Figure 5-32), is used by federally threatened streaked horned larks and western snowy plovers for nesting and wintering, and this area is designated as critical habitat for both species (Federal Register 2012, 2013).
Within the AU, overwater structures are concentrated in Bay Center (Palix Estuary- 2) and Tokeland (Willapa Bay-4) (example in Figure 5-33). Road densities are highest in Tokeland (Willapa Bay-4), along SR 105 (Willapa Bay-1), and U.S. 101 (Willapa Bay-15). Fish passage barriers are mapped in Reach 2 of the Palix Estuary, and reaches 1, 7, 9, 10, and 15 of Willapa Bay.
182 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-30. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Willapa Bay Assessment Unit
183 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-31. View of shoreline armoring along SR 105 (Willapa Bay - 7)
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-32. View of Empire Spit (foreground) and Tokeland (Willapa Bay – 2 and 3)
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-33. View of Bay Center (lower left) and adjacent tidal marsh (Palix Estuary-2)
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
184 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 5-18. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for Willapa Bay Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Reach Location
Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Forest cover vegetation Total cover Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Eelgrass Beds Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater structures Roads Long Island - 1 M/H H H H H L/M H H H H M H Nemah Estuary - 1 M/H H H M H M H M M H M L/M Nemah Estuary - 2 H H H M/H H L/M H L/M M H M L/M Palix Estuary - 1 L/M L H L H H H M M/H H H M/H Palix Estuary - 2 M/H H L/M M/H H L/M H M M L L M Willapa Bay - 1 M H H L L/M L/M M/H M M M H L Willapa Bay - 2 L L H L/M M/H H H L L/M H H L/M Willapa Bay - 3 M/H H H L/M M L/M M/H M/H M H H M Willapa Bay - 4 L H L/M L L/M L L M/H M H L L Willapa Bay – 5 L H L L H H L H M H H M/H Willapa Bay - 6 M H H L/M H M/H L H M/H H H M/H Willapa Bay - 7 L H H M H M/H L H M M H M Willapa Bay – 8 L H H L/M M/H M/H H H L/M H H L/M Willapa Bay – 9 M H H L H M/H M H L/M L H M Willapa Bay - 10 H H L/M M M/H M M/H H M M H M/H Willapa Bay - 11 M/H H H M M/H M L H M/H H H M Willapa Bay - 12 H H H M/H H M L H M H H M/H Willapa Bay - 13 H H H H H L/M M/H H M/H H M H Willapa Bay - 14 L/M H H H H L/M L H H H H H Willapa Bay - 15 L H H M/H M/H M L H M/H L M L Willapa Bay - 16 L L H L/M H H H H M H H M/H
185 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Potential Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities relevant to the Willapa Bay AU are highlighted in Table 5-19.
Table 5-19. Restoration Opportunities in Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Actions Source • Invasive Species Control – eradicate, monitor, and determine if restoration is Coastal necessary to restore habitat diversity. Resources • Saltwater wetlands restoration through dike breaching or removal. Alliance, 2007 • Restore pastures and impoundments within the Willapa NWR to historic estuarine U.S. Fish and conditions, increasing estuarine habitat by 621 acres. Wildlife • Manage 93 acres of short-grass fields for grassland dependent wildlife. Service 2011 • Maintain and protect freshwater wetlands and riverine habitats near Tarlatt Slough. • Expand the Willapa NWR boundaries by over 6,000 acres in the Nemah, Naselle, South Bay, and East Hills area to expand conservation efforts associated with the Willapa NWR. • Greenhead Slough Barrier Removal- see Table 5-11 • Replace culverts under highway 101 that are undersized or silted in limiting fish passage and hydraulic processes. • Protect and maintain 557 acres and restore 6,182 acres of Sitka spruce zone forest. • Saltwater wetlands restoration of fully impounded parcels (under various Coastal ownership), including the following: east of Wilson Point, Palix estuary west of US Resources 101; east of Wilson Point, Palix estuary east of US 101; Rose Ranch Palix. Alliance, 2007 • Inventory septic systems in Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation to develop Shoalwater comprehensive operations and maintenance program and develop education and Bay Indian outreach information. Tribe 2015 • Implement the Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Noxious Weed Management Plan. • Develop a Habitat Conservation Plan and management strategies to protect snowy plover habitat on Graveyard Spit within the Shoalwater Indian Reservation. • Replace culverts under Highway 101 that are undersized or otherwise limit fish Shoreline passage. Planning Committee • Manage burrowing shrimp and ghost shrimp in accordance with best available science and best management practices. • Control Zostera japonica in accordance with best available science and integrated pest management. • Pursue and develop a Special Area Management Plan for Willapa Bay to strengthen protection and management of aquatic resources through a watershed approach. • Remove hard shoreline armoring where feasible. Where removal is not possible, consider options for bioengineered alternatives. • Identify developed areas and infrastructure vulnerable to the effects of climate change and sea level rise. Revise infrastructure as needed to accommodate future shoreline habitats.
186 The Watershed Company June 2015
Long Beach Peninsula Figure 5-34 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Long Beach Peninsula AU are provided in Table 5-20.
Hydrologic Characteristics The Long Beach Peninsula AU includes shorelines fronting the Pacific Coast, Willapa Bay, and several lakes. Dikes near the southern end of Willapa Bay Reach 17, restrict tidal exchange near Tarlatt Slough and in Albers and Giles Sloughs (example in Figure 5-35). Dikes at the northern end of Willapa Bay Reach 17 include breaches that allow for tidal exchange. There is little occurrence of shoreline armoring throughout the AU. In 2013, Willapa NWR and Washington Department of Transportation removed a dike north of north of Tarlatt Slough and 50 acres was restored.
Cape Disappointment State Park (Pacific Coast-8) includes the two jetties at the mouth of the Columbia River (the north jetty and “Jetty A”, Figure 5-36); these jetties affect shoreline erosion and accretion processes throughout the AU, as described in section 3.5.4.
Multiple stormwater discharges and a wastewater outfall are permitted in Nahcotta (Willapa Bay-17). Correspondingly, the interior half of the Port of Peninsula basin is closed to harvest or storage of shellfish. Public harvest on bed land in Nahcotta and harvest from the basin’s oyster- covered rock jetty is allowed.
Vegetative Characteristics Forest cover is low along the Pacific Coast, and tidal regimes on Willapa Bay naturally favor formation of emergent tidal salt marshes immediately along the shoreline. Salt marsh vegetation is highest in the reaches that include estuarine shorelines sheltered from the Pacific Coast (e.g., Pacific Coast–8 and Willapa Bay-17). Eelgrass beds are limited to areas within Willapa Bay (Pacific Coast-4 and Willapa Bay-17). Freshwater interdunal wetlands are common throughout most reaches in the AU.
Land cover conditions along the Pacific Coast are predominantly sparse herbaceous vegetation with areas of bare ground along trails with frequent human disturbance (example in Figure 5- 37). Dune grass vegetation is present along all of the Pacific Coast reaches. Lower total vegetation scores along the Pacific Coast reflect patchy dune grass vegetation coverage; however, patchy dune grass coverage is actually a desirable characteristic to support several dune-adapted species (e.g., snowy plover and streaked horned lark). In fact, non-native dune grass (Ammophila spp.) can limit habitat opportunity for dune-adapted species because its
187 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
aggressive growth leaves little open area. The Willapa NWR is engaged in efforts to remove non-native dune grasses from Leadbetter Point.
Forest cover is notably higher in Reach 1 of Island Lake and Reach 2 in Loomis Lake compared to other reaches in the AU. These reaches are owned by Washington State Parks or are in conservation ownership by the Columbia Land Trust. The Long Beach Mitigation Bank, certified by Ecology and the Corps in 2013, is located within Reach 1 of Loomis Lake. The Mitigation Banking Instrument (2013) suggests that past logging practices on the Peninsula have reduced the occurrence of western red cedar. The Mitigation Bank will preserve and enhance wetland functions within the bank area by planting western red cedar.
Although forested vegetation is limited within the shoreline area of Cape Disappointment State Park (Pacific Coast-8), inland areas within the park include areas of mature spruce forest.
Total vegetation scoring is lower on Black Lake because much of the associated wetland area is under use as tilled agricultural fields, which are not included in the total vegetation area. Total vegetation scoring is also lower on Paul’s Lake as a result of residential development on the north side of the lake.
Habitat Characteristics Wetland habitats are most intact at Leadbetter Point (Pacific- 4). The Willapa NWR manages habitat at the tip of Leadbetter Point for the federally threatened western snowy plover, streaked horned lark, pink sand verbena, and other native coastal species in accordance with its Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2011) (Figure 5-38). Leadbetter Point is one of two areas in the County designated as Important Bird Areas (IBAs) by the National Audubon Society.
Eelgrass beds along the eastern shoreline of Leadbetter Point (Pacific-4) and the Long Beach Peninsula (Willapa Bay- 17) provide spawning habitats for Pacific herring.
Wetlands associated with the lake systems in this reach also provide important interdunal habitats. A discussion of the functions and values of coastal dune ecosystems and interdunal wetlands is provided in Section 3.4.2.
Several bald eagle nests have been observed on the eastern side of McKenzie Head in Pacific Coast- 8.
The federally threatened Oregon Silverspot butterfly occupies salt spray meadows and stabilized dunes in locations where its obligatory host plant, the early blue violet, is found. A population of the butterfly was last observed on the Long Beach Peninsula in 1991. The Oregon
188 The Watershed Company June 2015
Silverspot Recovery Plan identifies the area west of Loomis Lake (Loomis Lake-1) as the Long Beach Habitat Conservation Area for Oregon Silverspot butterflies (U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 2001). The property, owned and managed by WDFW, provides some of the last remaining salt-spray meadows with preferred forbs (violets) for the butterflies The Willapa NWR is also actively engaged in seed development and habitat restoration and management on the Long Beach Peninsula and Tarlatt Slough.
Overwater structures in the AU are concentrated at Port of Peninsula in Nahcotta (Willapa Bay- 17) and at the Coast Guard Training Facility on the Columbia River (Pacific Coast-8). Road densities are fairly low within shoreline jurisdiction throughout the AU. However, beach access points along the coast experience concentrated impacts from human uses (e.g., trampling of dunes and vehicle use).
189 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-34. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit
190 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-35. View of Tarlatt Slough (Willapa Bay-17).
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-36. View of the north jetty at Cape Disappointment (Pacific Coast-8).
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-37. View of shoreline access area (Pacific Coast-6).
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
Figure 5-38. View of dune, forest, and salt marsh vegetation at Leadbetter Point (Pacific Coast-6).
(Photo from Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference)
191 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 5-20. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Reach
Location
vegetation cover Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Forest cover Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Eelgrass Beds Dune Grass Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater structures Roads
Pacific Coast - 4 H H H M H H M L/M H M M H M/H Pacific Coast - 5 H H H L L/M M/H L NA1 H M H H H Pacific Coast - 6 H L H L L/M L L NA1 H L/M H H M/H Pacific Coast - 7 H H H L M/H M/H L NA1 H M H H M/H Pacific Coast - 8 M/H H H L M/H M/H H NA1 H M/H L L M/H
Marine/Estuarine Willapa Bay - 17 M L L L H H H M/H H H H L M/H Black Lake - 1 H H M M H L H H Cranberry Lake-1 H H M H M/H L/M H H
Hines Marsh-1 H H L H H M H M/H Island Lake - 1 H H H H M/H L H H Loomis Lake - 1 H H M H H M H M/H Loomis Lake - 2 H H M/H H H M H H Pauls Lake - 1 H H L/M M/H M/H H H M/H
Freshwater Lakes Skating Lake - 1 H H M H M/H M/H H L 1. Scoring for eelgrass only included where potentially suitable habitat exists (i.e. open water marine/estuarine area allocated to the reach).
192 The Watershed Company June 2015
Potential Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities relevant to the Long Beach Peninsula AU are highlighted in Table 5-21.
Table 5-21. Restoration Opportunities in the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Actions Source • Restoration of coastal habitats to support several upland species identified as Washington Coast Species of Greatest Conservation Need by the State of Washington. Primary Restoration focus is on areas occupied by streaked horned lark and western snowy Initiative, 2013 plover. Actions include: remove invading vegetation, support collection of native seed and employ established plant production facilities for this unique habitat type. • Compensate for wetland impacts by preserving coastal dune habitats and off- City of Long Beach site high quality wetlands. Dune Management Report, 2000 • Restore pastures and impoundments within the Willapa NWR to historic U.S. Fish and estuarine conditions, increasing estuarine habitat by 621 acres. Wildlife Service • Manage 93 acres of short-grass fields for grassland dependent wildlife at 2011 Tarlatt. • Restore up to 33 acres of native grassland for Oregon silverspot butterflies. • Protect and maintain 557 acres and restore 6,182 acres of Sitka spruce zone forest • Continue to implement the Forest Management Plan. • Maintain and protect 1,581 acres and restore 220 acres of coastal dune habitat on Leadbetter Point. • Control predation on snowy plovers at Leadbetter Point to aid in the recovery of the species. • Maintain and protect freshwater wetlands and riverine habitats near Tarlatt Slough. • Monitor and control invasive species, including Spartina, gorse, scotch broom, and knotweed.
Pacific Coast- North Figure 5-39 depicts the general location of reaches; additional detail on reach locations can be found in maps in Appendix B. Quantitative metrics of functional indicators for reaches in the Pacific Coast-North AU are provided in Table 5-22.
Hydrologic Characteristics As discussed in Section 3.5.2, Cape Shoalwater (Pacific Coast-3) experiences the highest rate of shoreline erosion on the Pacific Coast, with annual land losses of 100 to 300 feet per year since the late 1800s. This erosion is apparent through a comparison of aerial oblique photographs from 1976 and 2006 (Figure 5-40). As a result of the erosion, several houses are located within
193 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report shoreline jurisdiction, and shoreline retreat continues, the area regulated under shoreline jurisdiction will continue to migrate landward. Portions of Reach 3 are protected by armoring and a rock jetty, which was installed in 1998 to protect SR 105. No other shoreline armoring or diking is mapped in this AU.
Vegetative Characteristics The Pacific Coast-North AU is characterized by coastal dunes and interdunal wetlands. Forest cover is naturally low, but total vegetation cover is generally higher (Figure 5-41). Dune grass is present along all reaches in this AU.
Reach 1 consists of shorelines in South Beach State Park. Most active park facilities, including trails and campsites are located in the northern portion of the Park. Reach 2 consists of narrow residential lots, and with a few exceptions, development is located outside of shoreline jurisdiction and east of the mapped interdunal wetlands. A fringe of salt marsh vegetation is mapped along Cape Shoalwater (Reach 3), but the rapid erosion of this reach likely limits the persistence of salt marsh vegetation.
Habitat Characteristics A discussion of the functions and values of coastal dune ecosystems and interdunal wetlands is provided in Section 3.4.2.
Pacific Coast Reaches 1 and 2 provide habitat for federally threatened western snowy plovers and streaked horned larks (Federal Register 2012, 2013). The open landscape and sparse, low- growing vegetation provide suitable habitat, and the beach is used for nesting and wintering.
194 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-39. Map of Shoreline Reaches in Pacific Coast- North Assessment Unit
195 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-39. Aerial oblique photographs comparing Cape Shoalwater from 1976 (above) and 2006 (below)
Source: Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference
Figure 5-40. Representative view of shoreline conditions in the Pacific Coast- North AU
Source: Washington Department of Ecology, electronic reference
196 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 5-22. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for Pacific Coast- North Assessment Unit
Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat
Reach
structures
Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Forest cover cover vegetation Total Wetlands Freshwater Salt Marsh Dune Grass Priority Habitats and Species Fish Passage Barriers Overwater Roads Pacific Coast - 1 H H H L H H M H M/H M H H Pacific Coast - 2 H H H L H H L H M/H H H M/H Pacific Coast - 3 L/M H H L/M M/H M/H H H M H H M
197 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Potential Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities relevant to the Pacific Coast- North AU are highlighted in Table 5-23. In addition to restoration projects, The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team and The Willapa Alliance (1996) identified a need to develop a surface water management plan for the dune area.
Table 5-23. Restoration Opportunities in the Pacific Coast- North Assessment Unit Actions Source • Wash-Away Beach Restoration. Remove approximately 10 houses and Washington Coast associated structures per year, prior to them falling into the ocean and onto Restoration the beach. Properly dispose of materials and any hazard waste in the Initiative 2015 appropriate locations. Hire local contractors to remove the structures. Hire a full time person to manage contractors, provide removal oversight and administration of project. The coastline of the North Cove area is naturally migrating inland at a rate of 50 to 100’ a year, the only solution is to mitigate the environmental impact to the ocean and beaches by removing debris and structures before the erosion takes them. • Restoration of coastal habitats to support several upland species identified as Washington Coast Species of Greatest Conservation Need by the State of Washington. Primary Restoration focus is on areas occupied by streaked horned lark and western snowy Initiative 2013 plover. Actions include: remove invading vegetation, support collection of native seed and employ established plant production facilities for this unique habitat type.
Coastal Ocean The Coastal Ocean AU includes waters west from Mean Lower Low Water line of salt water to the state-federal 3 nautical mile boundary, north to the Grays Harbor county line, and south to Washington Oregon border at 46o 15o. The Coastal Ocean AU boundary extends upriver to Jetty A across the Columbia River deep draft channel to the Oregon-Washington border. The Willapa Bay AU is separated from the Coastal Ocean AU by a specific north south latitude/longitude line connecting 46°44.76 N, 124°05.76 W and 46°38.93 N, 124°04.33 W.
Figure 5-42 shows the summer upwelling signature and benthic substrate in the Coastal Ocean AU. Summer upwelling is concentrated adjacent to the shore throughout the Coastal Ocean AU. Upwelling brings nutrient-rich waters to the surface, which can in turn support primary and secondary production. Substrates in the Coastal Ocean AU are primarily sand, with mud substrate further offshore outside of the Coastal Ocean AU and a couple of small rocky areas.
198 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 5-42. Summer upwelling and benthic substrate. Upwelling: dark and light blue show areas with high and moderate levels, respectively. Substrate: light brown is sand, medium brown is mud and dark brown is rock. Black line is extent of Coastal Ocean AU (3 nautical miles).
199 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 5-43 shows modeled densities of four summer whale species. Risso’s dolphin (A) have the highest densities in the Coastal Ocean AU, and the other 3 species have moderate relative densities.
Figure 5-43. Summer whale relative densities (low to high) for (A) Risso’s dolphin, (B)Pacific white- sided dolphin, (C) Dall’s porpoise and, (D)Northern right whale dolphin.
200 The Watershed Company June 2015
Potential Restoration Opportunities Restoration opportunities relevant to the Coastal Ocean AU are highlighted in Table 5-24.
Table 5-24. Restoration Opportunities in the Coastal Ocean Assessment Unit Actions Source • Supplement sediment to account for lost sediment resulting from management Lower Columbia of the Columbia River dams and to maintain coastal protection from rising sea Solutions Group levels and increased storm frequency and/or intensity. Possible locations include on Benson Beach and/or North Head. Disposal locations should be based on best available science to support maintenance of sediment transport processes along the Long Beach Peninsula. Consider developing a permanent disposal fixture on the North Jetty to support disposal of dredge spoils. • Continue monitoring of short-term and long-term effects of sediment disposal and supplementation programs to inform best management solutions.
• Continue to conduct beach clean-ups Marine Debris Action Team 2013 • Monitor and respond to tsunami debris • Collect and manage data on derelict fishing gear locations and remove derelict fishing gear
6 LAND USE ANALYSIS
6.1 Approach
Analysis Scale Inventory data were used to describe significant land use features. Inventory data were collected at the waterbody and reach-scale for future use in developing appropriate shoreline designations. The data analyzed and reported in this Chapter are, for the most part, restricted to those lands landward of the OHWM. Where necessary to the analysis, uses that occur waterward of the OHWM are identified specifically. For the purposes of understanding broad- scale land use trends, data are summarized by waterbody. Specific uses or trends are described in more detail where appropriate.
Current Land Use Existing land use provides a baseline for types of land use and land use patterns found within shoreline jurisdiction. Existing land use data was obtained from the Pacific County Assessor, and then overlaid on the shoreline jurisdiction landward of the OHWM. Uses that occur waterward of the OHWM are specifically noted. The County Assessor designates a land use
201 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report code, established in WAC 458-53-030, for each parcel in the County. The two digit codes were rolled up into the following broad categories.
• Agriculture • Commercial • Forestry • Government/Institutional • Manufacturing/Industrial • Quasi-Public • Residential • Recreation • Utilities • Vacant/Undeveloped • Others • Not Coded
Use of the Pacific County Assessor’s data requires a certain level of interpretation when using it for describing and analyzing land use. The first item to note is that the assessor’s data does not distinguish between agriculture and aquaculture. Both are coded the same. In general, aquaculture uses are located on tidelands, mudflats and open water areas adjacent to and within marine or estuarine waters, whereas agricultural uses occur in the uplands. Also, as noted above, the land use analysis presented in this chapter is largely based on information and data for the shoreline area landward of the OHWM.
Data pertaining to specific aquaculture area boundaries and activities located waterward of the OHWM are limited. Aquacultural and marine fishing industries are a major shoreline use and are of vital importance to the County’s economy. They are also heavily influenced by upland as well as marine activities. Therefore, aquacultural and marine fishing uses are discussed in this chapter (and others) quantitatively where data exists and qualitatively where it does not. Because most of the aquacultural uses occur in Willapa Bay and the Columbia River Estuary, discussion of aquaculture is largely found in the water-oriented uses discussion of Sections 6.2.7 and 6.2.8. Discussion of marine uses is found primarily in Section 6.2.11. Other activities that occur in estuarine and marine waters, which are not captured in upland land use are marine transportation, mining, and various non-extractive recreational activities.
Because the primary purpose of assessors’ data is to assess property taxes, the Assessor does not collect data on publicly owned and non-profit uses that are exempt from property tax. These uses and lands are coded as “exempt.” For this analysis, ownership data was used to identify
202 The Watershed Company June 2015
the land use as much as possible. Therefore, the following land use categories were used to differentiate those exempt lands:
• Government/Institutional (GI) refers to lands that are owned by Tribal, City, County, Ports, State; and • Quasi-Public (QP) refers to lands that were identified as churches, cemeteries, or the Audubon Society.
Ownership Profile The ownership profile in Pacific Count is varied. Understanding shoreline land ownership helps identify the types of uses and developments that can be expected to occur in those shorelines. The percentage of each waterbody’s shoreline jurisdiction that is owned privately, or by state, federal or quasi-governmental agencies is reported in the analysis. Land ownership categories included in the analysis are identified in the following list.
• City – Ilwaco, Raymond, South Bend, Long Beach • Conservation Organization – Forterra (formerly the Cascade Land Conservancy), Columbia Land Trust, Nature Conservancy • County – County, County departments or School District • Federal– federal departments, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, USA IN TRUST • Port of Chinook • Port of Ilwaco • Port of Peninsula • Port of Willapa Harbor • Private • Private – Timberland – Bascom Pacific LLC, FIA Timber Growth, Hancock Timberland, Hawaii ERS Timberland, Longview Timberlands, Salmon Timberland, Texas Timberlands, Timberlands Holding Company, or Weyerhaeuser • Railroad • State – Others – State or state departments • State – WDFW • State – WSDOT • State – State Parks • State – WDNR • Tribal • Unknown
It is also important to note that the shoreline ownership dataset is incomplete in some areas. Shoreline jurisdictional area that exist over non-parcel areas or areas where the OHWM has
203 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
moved since the parcels were platted do not carry ownership data. The percentage of shoreline jurisdiction with ownership data is listed for each waterbody in the report.
Developing Shorelines and New Uses The State’s SMA guidelines (WAC 173-26) require that jurisdictions preparing SMP updates conduct an analysis to estimate the future demand for shoreline space (WAC173-26-201(3)(D)). This report draws on several sources of information as a means of understanding potential new shoreline development and uses.
New shoreline development, and specifically new shoreline uses, is expected to typically occur on vacant lands. Therefore, the zoning of lands that are classified as vacant and or undeveloped by the Assessor was reviewed to broadly assess the development capacity of the shoreline jurisdiction of each waterbody. Shorelines in the Grays River AU do not have vacant lands, so they are excluded from the Figures in Chapter 6. The County’s zoning districts are presented and described for each shoreline waterbody. It is important to note that this gives a broad measure of capacity, but not likelihood. It also overstates the capacity for two reasons:
1. Associated wetlands and floodplains, to a lesser degree, decrease the building capacity of the shoreline areas; and
2. Generally, parcels in the County are relatively large and property owners have the opportunity to set new construction back on the property out of shoreline jurisdiction.
The County zoning districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designations. In fact, the zoning code refers back to the density limits in the Comprehensive Plan. Both zoning districts and Comprehensive land use designations are presented in Chapter 2.
Likewise, current shoreline environment designations (SEDs) dictate what types of shoreline development are allowed. The existing SEDs along the County’s waterbodies are also presented in Chapter 2.
Two methods were used to assess the likelihood and magnitude of new development. The first was a review of the County’s population and dwelling unit forecasts and land capacity analysis. Consistent with GMA, the County prepared these for the incorporated cities and rural areas of more intense development. Where available and applicable, these forecast and capacity estimates are reported. However, these estimates only cover a small amount of the County and shoreline jurisdiction.
204 The Watershed Company June 2015
The second method to assess the pace of future growth included a review of past population and employment growth trends in the County. The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) provides estimates of intercensal population and housing units for each County. In the past 20 years (1990 – 2010), Pacific County (unincorporated Pacific County in particular) has experienced a low annual growth rate in population and housing units. In 2013, the population of Pacific County was approximately 21,000. Population in Pacific County has remained steady with less than 1% change year to year since 2006. The trend for housing units is consistent with population growth and has 1% average annual growth rate since 1990.
Figure 6-1 compares historical trends for population and housing units for unincorporated Pacific County, years 1990 through 2013.
22,000
20,000
18,000
16,000
14,000
12,000
10,000
8,000
Population - Entire County Population - Unincorporated County Housing Units - Entire County Housing Units - Unincorporated County
Figure 6-1. Pacific County Population and Housing Units 1990 to 2013 Source OFM, 2013; BERK, 2014 The majority of residents in Pacific County reside in its unincorporated areas. In 2013, the population of unincorporated Pacific County was 14,125, which was around 67% of the county population. The annual rate of growth in population for unincorporated Pacific County has been less than 1% since 2007. Housing units have steadily increased an average of 1% year-to- year since 1990. In 2013, there were 11,445 housing units in unincorporated Pacific County, which was around 73% of the county’s total housing units.
205 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Lastly, the County developed 2030 population forecasts as part of its 2010 Comprehensive Plan. That plan forecast a population increase of 4,970, from 21,800 in 2009 to 26,770 in 2030. This would represent an annual growth rate of 1.14 percent, or 22.8 percent for the entire 20-year period. A third of this growth was forecasted for the County’s incorporated areas and two thirds (3,286) were forecasted for the unincorporated areas. This number is higher than the County’s average growth rate over the last twenty years and higher than OFM’s “medium” predictions but less than OFM’s “high” growth rate. The County chose this number because it is consistent with the predictions used in the 1998 plan.
Shoreline Use Conflicts The SMA establishes policy goals implemented through each local jurisdiction’s SMP. The policy goals, which include reserving the shorelines for water-oriented uses, protecting ecological functions, and providing public access, can conflict with each other. The State’s shoreline guidelines require that shoreline use conflicts be identified (WAC 173-26-201) and that approved local SMPs reduce conflicts by including provisions or conditions (WAC 173-26-241) to shoreline use proposals.
Aquacultural and fishing uses are major components of the County’s economy and occur in the nearshore and open waters of Willapa Bay, the Columbia River Estuary, and marine waters of the Pacific Coast. Aquaculture and fishing are reliant on water, substrate and breeding habitat quality. These functions can be affected by upland uses in the watershed. Aquacultural uses themselves, which occupy nearshore areas of Willapa Bay can conflict with other nearshore uses, such as public access.
Upland land uses that contribute to water quality degradation, including fecal coliform bacterial pollution and nutrient enrichment may limit aquacultural uses. Excess nutrient runoff may result from agricultural practices as a result of fertilizer use or livestock waste. Residential, commercial and other uses can also have detrimental effects on water quality through failing septic systems, chemical applications, and untreated stormwater runoff. These effects to water quality may be mitigated through implementation of best management practices, including proper siting and ongoing maintenance.
Forestry and the harvest of timber and other forestry products is also a common use in the County. The development and maintenance of forest roads can contribute sediment to downstream waters. Compliance with road development requirements and best maintenance practices as well as removing unused forest roads can lessen the impacts on watershed processes and functions.
206 The Watershed Company June 2015
The Corps, Port of Willapa Harbor, Port of Peninsula, Port of Ilwaco, and Port of Chinook conduct regular maintenance dredging of port facilities, marinas, and private terminals around the bay. Dredging and dredge material disposal have the potential to cause turbidity or suspend contaminants that may adversely affect juvenile and adult life stages of commercially harvested fish and invertebrates. Section 2.6.1 describes the regulatory framework for dredging.
As noted in Section 3.4.5, Pacific County has been identified as an area of potential renewable energy exploration. The underwater components of tidal energy production may conflict with commercial fisheries production, aquaculture, and the preservation of ecological functions. The potential risks of marine energy are discussed in Section 3.4.5. There are currently two processes on the west coast which are aimed at understanding patterns of use to reduce conflict between ocean activities: the Pacific Regional Ocean Uses Atlas (under the Energy Policy Act of 2005) and Marine Spatial Planning (State process under National Ocean Policy -Executive Order 13547 and RCW 43.372). The Pacific Regional Ocean Uses Atlas is a collaboration between the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration and the Bureau of Ocean Energy Management to understand and specifically plan for conflicts surrounding renewable ocean energy. The final Pacific Regional Ocean Uses Atlas report will be due in June of 2015. Results from participatory mapping exercises have been included in this report, as described in sections 4, 5, and 6. The State Ocean Caucus is an interagency team of state natural resource agencies leading the marine spatial planning process in Washington State. The State Ocean Caucus is chaired by the Governor’s office, and coordinated by the Washington Department of Ecology. Stakeholders from the Washington Coast Marine Advisory Council and the general public are actively engaged in marine spatial planning process as well. The aim of the process is to analyze all ocean uses and potential future uses for ocean planning. In addition to in-water use conflicts, the upland infrastructure needed for marine energy installation, such as roads, overwater structures, and staging areas; and the infrastructure needed for operations, such as substations and transmission lines, could represent conflicts with shoreline uses and public access.
6.2 Land Use Analysis Results
North River The North River AU contains 5,302 acres of shorelines in 8 jurisdictional rivers and streams. More than half of the shorelines (83%) are privately owned. The largest single land owner in the AU is the Weyerhaeuser Company (29%). The State (WDFW) is the other major land owner (17%). Table 6-1 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics including overall shoreline area, ownership, and current shoreline environment designations.
207 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 6-1. Summary Characteristics of North River Assessment Unit Waterbodies Jurisdictional Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Waterbody Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment (Acres) data) Designation Cedar River 576 • Private 98% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 2% • Rural • Conservation Organization <1% (100%) Elkhorn Creek 503 • Private – Timberland 80% • Conservancy • Private 20% • Rural (100%) Fall River 825 • Private – Timberland 88% • Conservancy • Private 12% • Rural (100%) Lower Salmon 109 • Private – Timberland 67% • Conservancy Creek • Private 33% (100%) North River 1,329 • State- WDFW 49% • Conservancy • Private 45% • Rural • Private – Timberland 6% (100%) Raimie Creek 104 • Private 75% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 25% • Rural (100%) Redfield Creek 91 Private 100% • Conservancy (100%) • Rural Smith Creek 1,764 • Private 54% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 31% • Rural • State – WDFW 15% • County < 1% • State- Other < 1% (100%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land Uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Based on Pacific County Assessor data for parcels located within shoreline jurisdiction, the most prevalent existing land use within the North River AU is forestry (69%). Most of the remaining shoreline lands consist of government-owned land (17%) and agricultural land (6%). Specific land use patterns vary by individual waterbody (refer to Table 6-2). Current land uses within the North River AU are summarized below in Table 6-2.
208 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 6-2. North River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Shoreline Acres Percent of Shoreline Jurisdiction Forestry 3,504 69% Government/Institutional 877 17% Agriculture 304 6% Vacant/Undeveloped 230 5% Residential 175 3% Quasi-Public 1 < 1% Recreation < 1 < 1% Commercial < 1 < 1%
Included within North River AU existing uses are 26 floating homes. These homes, moored on the lower North River, are defined by WAC 332-30-106 as a floating structure that has been altered to serve a primary use as a residence. Additionally, moored floating houses are categorized as a water-oriented use by WAC 332-30-171. See additional discussion of floating homes under the water-oriented uses discussion, below.
In general, the County’s Comprehensive Plan designates future uses in the North River AU in a manner that supports the existing timber economy, as well as rural development opportunities. Nearly all of the shorelines in the AU are designated by the Comprehensive Plan as Forest of Long Term Significance, General Rural, and Transitional Forest (97%).
Current zoning generally follows the land use pattern established by the Comprehensive Plan and supports the forestry uses of the AU, with some flexibility for rural development. 98% of the shoreline is zoned Commercial Forest (46%), Rural Lands (30%), or Transitional Forest (22%). Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each of the North River AU’s waterbodies in Table 6-3.
Table 6-3. North River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Cedar River • Forestry 82% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Agriculture 18% 65% Significance 65% • Transitional Forest 35% • Transitional Forest 35% Elkhorn Creek • Forestry 93% • Rural Lands 51% • General Rural 52% • Residential 3% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Agriculture3% 49% Significance 48% • Vacant/Undeveloped 1% Fall River • Forestry 95% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Vacant/Undeveloped 3% 76% Significance 76%
209 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody • Agriculture 2% • Rural Lands 24% • General Rural 24% • Residential <1% Lower Salmon • Forestry 100% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Creek 100% Significance 100% North River • Government/Institutional • Transitional Forest 48% • Transitional Forest 49% • Commercial Forest 48% • Forestry 33% 23% • Forest of Long Term • Agriculture 9% • Rural Lands 22% Significance 23% • Vacant/Undeveloped 6% • Remote Rural 8% • General Rural 22% • Residential 3% • Remote Rural 8% • Quasi-Public < 1% • Recreation < 1% • Commercial < 1% Raimie Creek • Forestry 92% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Vacant/Undeveloped 8% 52% Significance 52% • Remote Rural 33% • Remote Rural 33% • Rural Lands 15% • General Rural 15% Redfield Creek • Forestry 98% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Agriculture 2% 73% Significance 73% • Rural Lands 27% • General Rural 27% Smith Creek • Forestry 67% • Rural Lands 45% • General Rural 45% • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term 16% 35% Significance 35% • Vacant/Undeveloped 7% • Transitional Forest 19% • Transitional Forest • Residential 7% 19% • Agriculture 3% • Commercial < 1%
Water-Oriented Uses Aquaculture is included in the agriculture category of the Assessor’s existing land use data, but most aquaculture activity in Pacific County occurs in Willapa Bay or along the Pacific coastline. The public access sites, boat launches and Smith Creek State Park (listed under Public Access below) are considered water-oriented.
Swimming, boating and recreational fishing and shellfishing are also water-oriented uses that occur in the North River AU.
In addition, other water-oriented uses, including docks and floating homes. There are 26 floating homes on the North River upstream from SR 105. Floating homes are not explicitly permitted under the current County SMP. Prior to 1993, these floating homes were essentially unregulated. At that time, the County found that the floating homes were causing water
210 The Watershed Company June 2015 quality degradation associated with discharge of human sewage and gray water into the North River. In response, the Pacific County Board of County Commissioners passed Resolution 093, which required floating home owners to enter into a Compliance Agreement with Pacific County to mitigate the impacts of sewage and gray water discharge.
These floating homes did not have lease agreements with WDNR. WDNR agreed to allow the floating homes to remain on State-owned aquatic lands provided the owners entered into leases with the State and complied with the terms of the County’s Compliance Agreement.
In 2008, WDNR informed the floating home owners that floating homes and all improvements would need to be removed from State-owned aquatic lands at the end of the lease term in 2020 if the County does not establish floating homes as a permitted use on the North River during its SMP update. There are currently 26 float homes under lease with WDNR, and all leases will expire at that time.
In addition to the requirement that floating homes be included in the SMP, WDNR has requested that Pacific County establish an Open Water Moorage and Anchorage Area (OWMAA) agreement. An OWMAA is required when moorage has no physical connection to the shoreline, under a rule WDNR adopted in 2002 (WAC 332-30-171) to address a similar floating home situation at Bainbridge Island.
Developing Shoreline and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to persist with new development occurring at a slow pace within the established pattern. As noted, zoning in Pacific County follows the land use designations in the County’s Comprehensive Plan. Nearly half of the shoreline jurisdiction in the North River AU is zoned as Commercial Forests (46%). Less than 5% is classified as vacant or undeveloped (230 acres), which is where new uses and development would be expected. The vacant lands are found on 74 parcels that partially touch shoreline jurisdiction. These parcels total 507 acres, with 230 acres lying within shoreline jurisdiction. Figure 6-2 shows the zoning of those vacant lands in each waterbody.
211 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-2. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the North River Assessment Unit (by acre)
Most of the vacant lands in the North River AU are within Reach 3 of Smith Creek (127 acres) and Reach 3 of the North River (53 acres), and those are primarily zoned Rural Lands or Remote Rural. At allowed densities, the 230 vacant shoreline acres could generate up to 37 new shoreline residences. However, the size of the parcels in this area would provide opportunities for homeowners to construct residences outside the shoreline jurisdiction and critical areas would restrict construction as well, thus reducing this number.
Although there are existing floating houses on the lower North River, WAC 173-26-241 identifies floating homes and other new over-water residences as uses that are not preferred and that should be prohibited. Therefore, it is highly unlikely that new floating homes will be developed in the future.
Transportation In general, there is limited road or transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the North River AU. There is also no rail infrastructure within either shoreline jurisdiction or the North River AU in general.
There are approximately 11 miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction of the North River AU. The majority of road infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction is along Smith Creek (7.16 miles). Within the shoreline jurisdiction the majority of road infrastructure is classified as major collector (53%), local access (16%) and SR roads (14%). Transportation infrastructure includes the following major roads, listed below.
212 The Watershed Company June 2015
• U.S. 101 crosses from north to south through the center of the North River AU. U.S. 101 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance by RCW 47.06.140. U.S. 101 crosses both Elkhorn Creek and Reach 3 of Smith Creek.
• SR 105 extends along the north shore of Willapa Bay and crosses over the mouths of North Creek and Smith Creek. SR 105 is designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
There are approximately 11 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction.
• There are five bridges on Smith Creek including one on U.S. 101, one on SR 105 adjacent to Willapa Bay, and three on Smith Creek Road further upstream.
• There are two bridges on Elkhorn Creek including one on U.S. 101 and one on Elkhorn Road which is a local access road.
• There are two bridges upstream on North River. One is located on North River Road near the northern boundary of Pacific County and the other is on Brooklyn Road near the confluence of Raimie Creek and North River.
• There is one bridge on Raimie Creek located on Brooklyn Road.
• There is one bridge on Fall River located on North River Road near the confluence of Fall River and North River.
Public Access
Existing Public Access There are limited established public access facilities within the North River AU. There is one mapped shoreline public access site in Reach 1 of Smith Creek, near the mouth of the creek. There are also two boat launches, one in Reach 1 of the North River and one Reach 1 of Smith Creek. Both are located near the mouth of the water bodies. A WDFW ramp is located at the mouth of the North River.
There are eight mapped shoreline public access points and several miles of mapped shoreline public access in the North River AU. More detailed information about some of the public access sites is provided below.
• Smith Creek State Wildlife Recreation Area is a WDFW site that contains 646 acres and is located 10 miles northwest of Raymond. It is maintained for tidelands and recreation. There is a water access site within the park, and it is popular for sea kayaking, waterfowl hunting, bird watching, and fishing. The Park includes a boat launch and restroom facilities.
213 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Cedar River Estuary is a 275-acre Forterra-managed property that has been protected since 2004. The property is a tidal ecosystem with salt marshes, tidelands, and coniferous forests that hosts shorebirds, waterfowl, and salmon. It includes Oyster Island, Bone Creek, and Norris Slough.
Future Public Access There is no existing information on sites for future public access within the North River AU.
Historic and Archeological Sites There are no historic sites identified within the shoreline reaches of the North River AU in unincorporated Pacific County. However, given the proximity of the AU to the Shoalwater Tribal Reservation, there is a high likelihood that sites of archaeological significance are present.
Willapa River The Willapa River AU contains 8,069 acres of shoreline in 14 jurisdictional rivers and streams that have been divided into 22 total reaches. The AU comprises the Willapa River basin, which is characterized by agricultural uses (along the valley floor), forestry and some of the County’s main population centers near Raymond and South Bend. Approximately 82% of the shorelines are privately owned, with a significant portion of the privately owned land held by timber companies. The largest single land owner is the forest products company Weyerhaeuser (23%). The publicly owned land is held by various state, county, federal, and port agencies. Table 6-4 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics including overall shoreline area, ownership, and current shoreline environment designations.
Table 6-4. Summary Characteristics of Willapa River Assessment Unit Waterbodies Area of Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Upland Ownership Profile Environment Waterbody Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership data) Designation (Acres) Fairchild Creek 215 • Private – Timberland 79% • Conservancy • Private 21% • Rural (100%) Falls Creek 172 • Private – Timberland 74% • Conservancy • Private 26% • Rural (100%) Fern Creek 204 • Private 96% • Rural (96%) Fork Creek 550 • Private – Timberland 78% • Conservancy • Private 20% • Rural • State – WDFW 2% (100%) Half Moon Creek 198 • Private 97% • Conservancy
214 The Watershed Company June 2015
Area of Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Upland Ownership Profile Environment Waterbody Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership data) Designation (Acres) • State – Other 3% • Rural (100%) • Urban Mill Creek 528 • Private 57% • Conservancy • State – Other 23% • Rural • State – WDNR 16% • Private – Timberland 2% • Federal 2% • County < 1% (100%) Rue Creek 150 • Private 86% • Conservancy • State – Other 13% • Rural • County 1% (100%) Skidmore Slough 43 • Private 75% • Urban • Private – Timberland 25% (100%) South Fork 961 • Private 33% • Conservancy Willapa River • State – Other 28% • Rural • Private – Timberland 23% • Urban • State – WDNR 13% • State – WDFW 1% • City < 1% (99%) Trap Creek 242 • State – Other 43% • Conservancy • Private 26% • Rural • Private – Timberland 21% • State – WDNR 10% (100%) Ward Creek 292 • Private 56% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 44% • Rural (100%) Whitcomb Creek 146 • Private – Timberland 70% • Conservancy • Private 30% • Rural • County – Other <1% • Urban (100%) Willapa River 3,699 • Private 79% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 8% • Rural • Port of Willapa Harbor 5% • Urban • State – WDFW 4% • State – Other 1% • Federal 1% • County < 1%
215 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Area of Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Upland Ownership Profile Environment Waterbody Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership data) Designation (Acres) • City <1% • State – WDNR < 1% • County – Other <1% (100%) Wilson Creek 670 • Private – Timberland 89% • Conservancy • Private 11% • Rural • State – WDFW < 1% • Urban (100%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan The Willapa River AU has a varied land use pattern including forestry (43%), agriculture (19%), government/institutional (16%), and residential (10%) uses. In addition, 11% of the land in the shoreline jurisdiction is vacant or undeveloped. Specific land use patterns vary by individual waterbody.
There are several uses of note within the shoreline jurisdiction. The Willapa Harbor Airport is located along the Willapa River on the north side of Reach 1. The airport was built by the Coast Guard in 1946 and is located on SR 105, five miles west of the City of Raymond. It features an asphalt-paved, 3,000-foot-long, 52-foot-wide general aviation service runway on an East-West orientation. The Port of Willapa Harbor is currently expanding the area available for hangars. A summary of current land uses within the Willapa River AU are summarized below in Table 6-5.
Table 6-5. Willapa River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Forestry 3,316 43% Agriculture 1,441 19% Government/Institutional 1,212 16% Vacant/Undeveloped 852 11% Residential 747 10% Manufacturing/Industrial 27 < 1% Quasi-Public 7 < 1% Recreation 6 < 1%
Generally, the land use designations in the County’s Comprehensive Plan establish a land use pattern consistent with localized areas of agricultural use, forestry, institutional uses, such as the airport, and residential development. Residential, commercial and some industrial use are
216 The Watershed Company June 2015 centered around the AU’s more developed areas adjacent to Raymond and South Bend, but also include the Rural Activity Centers of Frances, Lebam, and Menlo. Most of the AU’s shorelines are designated either General Rural (63%) or Forest of Long Term Significance (27%). Smaller areas of designation include Remote Rural, Industrial – Port of Willapa Harbor and Transitional Forrest.
Current zoning of the shorelines follows the established Comprehensive Plan designations, allowing for future rural development in areas that currently reflect forestry or agricultural land use patterns. The majority of the AU (60%) is zoned Rural Lands. Commercial Forest zoning comprises 25% and Transitional Forest comprises 2%. There are also smaller areas of the shoreline zoned as Incorporated (6%), Remote Rural (4%), Industrial (2%), and Mixed Use (1%). Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-6.
Table 6-6. Willapa River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Fairchild • Forestry 100% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Creek 69% Significance 70% • Remote Rural 26% • Remote Rural 25% • Rural Lands 5% • General Rural 5% Falls Creek • Forestry 99% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Recreation 1% 82% Significance 83% • Rural Lands 18% • General Rural 17% Fern Creek • Agriculture 58% • Rural Lands 96% • General Rural 96% • Forestry 32% • Mixed Use 4% • Rural Activity Center – • Residential 4% Frances 4% • Vacant/Undeveloped 3% Fork Creek • Forestry 90% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Agriculture 4% 72% Significance 72% • Residential 3% • Rural Lands 21% • General Rural 21% • Government/Institutional • Remote Rural 7% • Remote Rural 7% 2% • Vacant/Undeveloped <1% Half Moon • Forestry 82% • Rural Lands 49% • General Rural 49% Creek • Vacant/Undeveloped 10% • Remote Rural 36% • Remote Rural 36% • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest • Rural Activity Center – 3% 6% Lebam 9% • Agricultural 3% • Mixed Use 5% • Forest of Long Term • Residential 2% • Industrial 4% Significance 6% • Community Commercial < 1%
217 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Mill Creek • Government/Institutional • Rural Lands 81% • General Rural 81% 41% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Forestry 25% 17% Significance 17% • Vacant/Undeveloped 16% • Remote Rural 2% • Remote Rural 2% • Residential 16% • Agriculture 3% Rue Creek • Vacant/Undeveloped 34% • Rural Lands 96% • General Rural 96% • Forestry 32% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Residential 19% 4% Significance 4% • Government/Institutional • 14% • Agriculture 2% Skidmore • Forestry 77% • Rural Lands 100% • General Rural 100% Slough • Residential 23% South Fork • Government/Institution 48% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Willapa River • Forestry 34% 59% Significance 59% • Vacant/Undeveloped 7% • Rural Lands 41% • General Rural 41% • Residential 4% • Incorporated <1% • Agriculture 3% • Trap Creek • Government/Institution 53% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Forestry 36% 65% Significance 65% • Vacant/Undeveloped 7% • Rural Lands 18% • General Rural 18% • Residential 4% • Remote Rural 17% • Remote Rural 17% Ward Creek • Forestry 83% • Rural Lands 86% • General Rural 87% • Residential 10% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Vacant/Undeveloped 7% 14% Significance 13% • Agriculture <1% Whitcomb • Forestry 83% • Rural Lands 48% • General Rural 48% Creek • Residential 9% • Remote Rural 30% • Remote Rural 31% • Vacant/Undeveloped 5% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Agriculture 1% 21% Significance 21% • Recreation 1% • Government/Institution <1% Willapa River • Agriculture 36% • Rural Lands 87% • General Rural 87% • Forestry 20% • Industrial 5% • Industrial – Port of • Vacant/Undeveloped • Transitional Forest Willapa 5% 17%Residential 13% 4% • Transitional Forest 5% • Government/Institution 12% • Mixed Use 2% • Remote Rural 1% • Manufacturing/Industrial 1% • Commercial Forest • Rural Activity Center – • Quasi-Public < 1% 1% Menlo 1% • Recreation < 1% • Rural Residential 1% • Rural Activity Center – • Remote Rural < 1% Lebam < 1% • Incorporated <1% • Forest of Long Term Significance 1%
218 The Watershed Company June 2015
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody • Remote Rural < 1% Wilson Creek • Forestry 90% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Residential 5% 84% Significance 84% • Vacant/Undeveloped 3% • Rural Lands 10% • General Rural 10% • Agriculture 2% • Remote Rural 5% • Remote Rural 6% • Government/Institution <1%
Water-Oriented Uses Shellfish aquaculture harvest is prohibited within the Willapa River.
Five acres of recreational use are documented in this AU. The public access sites, listed under Public Access, are considered water-oriented.
There are also several docks throughout the Willapa River AU shoreline on which water- oriented uses may exist. Docks are located near South Bend and Raymond as well as some of the other more developed areas along the River. Swimming, boating and recreational fishing and shellfishing are other existing water-oriented uses in the AU.
Developing Shoreline and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to persist with new development occurring at a slow pace within the established pattern. There are approximately 8,069 shoreline acres in the Willapa River AU. A large portion of the land is being used for forestry, with additional lands in agriculture and government/institutional uses, none of which are anticipated to be locations of new development.
Approximately 11% of shoreline lands (852 acres) are classified as vacant or undeveloped, which is where new uses and development would be expected in the Willapa River AU. The majority of the vacant or undeveloped shoreline parcels are found within the Willapa River’s shoreline jurisdiction. Figure 6-3 shows the zoning of those vacant lands in each waterbody.
219 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-3. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Willapa River Assessment Unit (by acre)
Approximately 832 acres of the vacant land located along the Willapa River is zoned Rural Lands. Willapa River – Reaches 1 and 4 – contain 135 and 298 vacant shoreline acres, respectively. The shoreline area zoned Rural Lands could generate over 200 new residences. However, the size of the parcels in this area would provide opportunities for homeowners to construct residences outside the shoreline jurisdiction and critical areas and flood zones would restrict construction as well, thus reducing this number.
There are also approximately 10 acres of vacant land zoned Mixed Use along Fern Creek, Half Moon Creek and the Willapa River. These lands are located in the Rural Activity Centers of Lebam, Frances and Menlo and could generate new commercial uses. There are also seven vacant acres of land zoned Industrial along Half Moon Creek that could accommodate new industrial development.
According to the Port of Willapa Harbor, the Port is currently developing an area north of the taxiway for additional hangar space. Vacant land adjacent to the runway and entrance road is adequate to provide space to accommodate new development. Light industrial uses will be prioritized.
220 The Watershed Company June 2015
Transportation There is a moderate amount of transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Willapa River AU in unincorporated Pacific County.
There are approximately 11 miles of rail infrastructure in shoreline jurisdiction concentrated mainly along the Willapa River (3.05 miles) and Mill Creek (2.18). The entire rail infrastructure within the Willapa River AU, as well as the County as a whole, is abandoned.
There are approximately 18 miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Willapa River AU. The majority of road infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction is along the Willapa River (10.25 miles) and Mill Creek (2.62 miles). Within jurisdiction the majority of road infrastructure is classified as local access (45%), minor collector (24%), and State highway (15%). Transportation infrastructure includes the major roads, bridges, and railroad infrastructure listed below.
Major roads:
• U.S. 101 enters the Willapa River AU through the City of Raymond to the north and then runs westerly through South Bend and toward Willapa Bay. U.S. 101 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance by RCW 47.06.140. The portion of U.S. 101 that extends westerly from Fowler Street in Raymond to the Astoria-Megler Bridge is designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
• SR 105 extends west from the junction of U.S. 101 in Raymond along the north shore of the Willapa River and then runs northwesterly toward the northern shore of Willapa Bay. SR 105 is designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System.
• SR 6 follows the general upstream path of the Willapa River through the center of the Willapa River AU. SR 105 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System.
Bridges: There are approximately 35 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction.
• There are 13 bridges crossing the Willapa River within shoreline jurisdiction.
o SR 6 crosses the Willapa River at 3 locations.
o Camp One Road bridges the Willapa River at 2 locations.
o Elk Prairie Road crosses the Willapa River at 2 locations.
221 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
o From downstream to upstream, the following roads cross the Willapa River once each: Willard Road, Hyland Stringer Road, Hanen Road, Doyle Road, Lebam Road, and Falls Creek Road.
• There are 7 bridges that cross Mill Creek within shoreline jurisdiction. Mill Creek Road crosses Mill Creek on 6 bridges and Wesley King Road crosses Mill Creek on one bridge.
• There are 3 bridges that traverse Rue Creek within shoreline jurisdiction. Two bridges are on South Fork Road and one bridge is on Rue Creek Road.
• There are 2 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction on the Willapa River, South Fork. One bridge is on Fowler Road and the other is on Pehl Road.
• Elk Creek is crossed by 2 bridges. The bridges are respectively located on Monohon Landing Road and Overmeyer Road.
• Fern Creek is crossed by 2 bridges. One bridge is on SR 6 and the other is on Elk Prairie Road. The Elk Prairie Road Bridge has been recommended eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places.
• Half Moon Creek is crossed by 2 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction. One bridge is on SR 6 and the other is on Clark Road.
• Fork Creek is crossed by one bridge on SR 6 within shoreline jurisdiction.
• Trap Creek is crossed by one bridge on SR 6 within shoreline jurisdiction.
• Whitcomb Creek is crossed by one bridge on Wilson Creek Road.
• Wilson Creek is crossed by one bridge located on Monohon Landing Road.
Railroad Bridges: There are approximately 5 railroad bridges within shoreline jurisdiction within the Willapa River AU that are no longer active rails, but are owned by State Parks and not maintained.
• A railroad bridge crosses over the Willapa River downstream of the Lebam Road Bridge.
• A railroad bridge crosses Fern Creek just north of the SR 6 Bridge on Fern Creek.
• A railroad bridge crosses Half Moon Creek just north of the SR 6 Bridge on Half Moon Creek.
• A railroad bridge crosses Mill Creek downstream of the Lebam Road and Butz Road intersection. An abandoned railroad bridge crosses Trap Creek just north of the SR 6 Bridge on Trap Creek.
222 The Watershed Company June 2015
Public Access There are limited established public access facilities. Identified parks or open spaces within shoreline jurisdiction include the Willapa Estuary (Willapa Slough) State Wildlife Recreation Area and the Willapa Wetlands (Potter’s Slough). Several parks and public access sites are located in the vicinity, but are within the municipal boundaries of Raymond or South Bend. There are several miles of mapped public shoreline access and three specific public access sites mapped in the Willapa River AU.
• Willapa Slough is part of the 740-acre Willapa Estuary unit managed by WDFW that sites five miles west of Raymond along the Willapa River. Waterfowl hunting and shellfish harvesting are two of the main activities that occur in the Slough. Opportunities exist to see eagles, shorebirds, songbirds, wading birds, and waterfowl, as well as deer, elk, and other mammals and reptiles. There is a parking area. No restrooms are available.
• Potter’s Slough is part of the 580-acre Willapa Wetlands unit, located two miles west of South Bend and managed by WDFW. It sits on the Willapa River. There are opportunities to view eagles, shorebirds, songbirds, wading birds, and waterfowl, as well as deer, elk, and other mammals and reptiles. There is a parking area. No restrooms are available.
• There is a boat launch in Reach 4 of the Willapa River. It is located at the mouth of Wilson Creek near the unincorporated community of Willapa. The access site has restrooms and a boat launch available and is open year-round.
• The former railroad right-of-way is now owned by State Parks and used for public access.
• The Willapa Hills Trail reaches 56 miles from Chehalis to South Bend following the former Burlington Northern rail corridor. According to the Washington State Parks Commission, there are phased-development plans in the future that call for surface improvements and the addition of primitive campsites along the trail.
Future Public Access There are no future public access sites identified.
Historic and Archeological Sites There are 33 historic sites within the shoreline reaches of the Willapa River in unincorporated Pacific County. Table 6-7 lists the historic sites and their locations in the Willapa River AU. There are two historic sites of particular note.
223 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Fern Creek Bridge. Fern Creek Bridge is located on Elk Prairie Road and was built in 1916. The bridge has been recommended as eligible for the National Register of Historic Places.
• Ward Creek Farm Barn. Ward Creek Farm is located on 277 Ward Creek Road and is listed on the Washington Heritage Barn Register.
In addition, given the proximity of the AU to the Shoalwater Tribal Reservation, there is a high likelihood that sites of archaeological significance are present.
Table 6-7. List of Historic Sites and Addresses within Shoreline Jurisdiction of the Willapa River Assessment Unit Jurisdictional Historic Site Name Historic Site Location Waterbody Fern Creek Fern Creek Bridge Elk Prairie Rd, Pacific County (Recommended Eligible for listing on National Register of Historic Places) Fork Creek Fork Prairie Creek Bridge Lebam, WA Fork Creek Fork Creek Hatchery 1986 SR 6, Raymond, WA Half Moon Creek Half Moon Creek Bridge MP37 Willapa Hills Trail, Lebam, WA Ward Creek Ward Creek Farm Barn 277 Ward Creek Road, Pacific County (Washington Heritage Barn Register) Willapa River Trap Creek Bridge (BN 41) Lebam, WA
Willapa River Northern Pacific Railroad Bridge #45 MP 45 Willapa Hills Trail, Menlo, WA Willapa River BN 48 Raymond, WA Willapa River Lilly Wheaton Bridge SR 6, Menlo, WA (Willapa River Bridge #6/8) Willapa River BN 38 Lebam, WA
Middle Bay The Middle Bay AU contains 3,547 acres within its shoreline jurisdiction. This area has nine jurisdictional rivers and streams. The AU is comprised of areas within the Palix and Nemah watersheds, south of the Willapa River AU. It is primarily characterized by forestry uses.
More than half of the shorelines (72%) are privately owned, which includes privately owned timberlands. The State is the other significant land owner with 18% of the shoreline lands. Table 6-8 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics including overall shoreline area, ownership, and current shoreline environment designation.
224 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 6-8. Summary Characteristics of Middle Bay Assessment Unit Waterbodies Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation Bone River 400 • State – WDNR 73% Conservancy • State – Other 22% • Private 5% • Private – Timberland 1% (100%) Canon River 398 • Private 57% Conservancy • Private – Timberland 42% • State – WDFW 1% (100%) Middle Nemah River 382 • State – Other 70% Conservancy • Private 29% • Private – Timberland 1% (100%) Niawiakum River 356 • State - Other 64% Conservancy • State – WDNR 13% • Private 12% • Private – Timberland 10% (99%) North Fork Palix River 289 • Private – Timberland 65% Conservancy • Private 35% (100%) North Nemah River 724 • Private 61% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 36% • Rural • State – WDFW 2% • Conservation Organization < 1% • County – Other < 1% (100%) South Fork Palix River 305 • Private 93% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 7% • Rural (100%) South Nemah River 317 • Private 47% Conservancy • State – Other 26% • State – WDNR 22% • Conservation Organization 5% (95%) Williams Creek 377 • Private – Timberland 64% • Conservancy • Private 35% • Rural • State – Other 1% (100%)
225 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Based on Pacific County Assessor data, the shorelines in this AU are primarily used for forestry (this AU has a varied land use pattern, which predominantly includes forestry (61%) and government/institutional uses (31%) (See Table 6-9). Publicly owned land is held by various state and county agencies. There are limited (4%) shoreline areas in agriculture and residential development.
Table 6-9. Middle Bay Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Forestry 2,134 61% Government/Institutional 1,080 31% Vacant/Undeveloped 114 3% Agriculture 79 2% Residential 75 2% Fishing 3 <1%
The County’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations establish a land use pattern consistent with the existing forestry uses and localized areas of agricultural and aquacultural use along with limited residential, commercial and industrial use. Most of the AU’s shorelines are designated Forest of Long Term Significance (72%) or Transitional Forest (26%). Smaller areas include the General Rural designation located in the North Fork Palix River waterbody.
Current zoning of the shorelines follows the established Comprehensive Plan future land use designations. The majority of the AU is zoned either Commercial Forest (73%) or Transitional Forest (25%). Both the North Fork Palix River and the Niawiakum River have Rural Lands designations, which comprise 2% of the total shoreline zoning. Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-10.
Table 6-10. Middle Bay Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Bone River • Governmental/Institutiona • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term l 95% 89% Significance 87% • Forestry 4% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 13% • Residential <1% 10% • Vacant/Undeveloped • Rural Lands 1% <1% Canon River • Forestry 99% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Government/Institutional 99% Significance 99% 1% • Transitional Forest 1% • Transitional Forest 1%
226 The Watershed Company June 2015
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody • Middle Nemah • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term River 70% 92% Significance 92% • Forestry 26% • Transitional Forest 8% • Transitional Forest 8% • Vacant/Undeveloped 3% • Residential 1% • Agriculture < 1% Niawiakum • Government/Institutional • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 74% River 78% 65% • Forest of Long Term • Forestry 15% • Commercial Forest Significance 26% • Residential 5% 29% • Vacant/Undeveloped 1% • Rural Lands 6% • Fishing 1% • Agricultural 1% North Fork • Forestry 100% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Palix River 80% Significance 79% • Rural Lands 17% • General Rural 17% • Transitional Forest 3% • Transitional Forest 3% • North Nemah • Forestry 81% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term River • Vacant/Undeveloped 8% 70% Significance 70% • Agriculture 4% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 30% • Residential 4% 30% • Government/Institutional 2% South Fork • Forestry 75% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 63% Palix River • Agriculture 10% 63% • Forest of Long Term • Vacant/Undeveloped 9% • Commercial Forest Significance 37% • Residential 5% 37% • South Nemah • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term River 49% 74% Significance 74% • Forestry 46% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 26% • Agriculture 5% 26% • Residential < 1% Williams • Forestry 93% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Creek • Vacant/Undeveloped 3% 83% Significance 83% • Residential 2% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 17% • Government/Institutional 17% 1% • Agriculture 1%
227 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Water-Oriented Uses There are two identified seafood processing facilities within the AU. These facilities include the Elkhorn Oyster Company on Reach 1 of the North Nemah River and Goose Point Oysters located along Reach 1 of the Niawiakum River. The Nemah Fish Hatchery is also located along Reach 1 of the North Nemah River. There are also numerous docks that may support water- oriented uses in the AU. Swimming, boating, recreational fishing and shellfishing are also water-oriented uses.
Developing Shoreline and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to persist with new development occurring at a slow pace within the established pattern. There are approximately 3,547 shoreline acres in the Middle Bay AU. The preponderance of those lands (90%) are either in forestry use (61%) or government/institutional use (31%), neither of which is anticipated to be locations of new development. 3% (114 acres) are classified as vacant or undeveloped, which is where new uses and development would be expected. The vacant lands are found on around 46 parcels that partially touch the shoreline jurisdiction. Figure 6-4 shows the zoning of those vacant lands in each waterbody.
Figure 6-4. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Middle Bay Assessment Unit Source: Pacific County 2014; TWC 2014; BERK 2014 By far, the most prevalent zoning of vacant land in the AU is Transitional Forest (25% of total zoned acres in the AU). That zone is meant to protect important resource based land areas located adjacent to the rural shorelines of Willapa Bay and Columbia River estuaries or land
228 The Watershed Company June 2015
uses potentially affecting water quality in either of these estuaries. The zoning district provides for small scale farming and forestry activities intermixed with low-density residential uses and open space areas. Residential development is allowed at 1 dwelling unit per 5 acres of land. At this density the Transitional Forest district could generate just over 20 new shoreline residences. There are very few acres of land zoned rural lands. The size of the parcels in this area would provide opportunities for homeowners to construct residences outside the shoreline jurisdiction and critical areas and flood zones would restrict construction as well, thus reducing this number.
Transportation In general, there is limited to no road or transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Middle Bay AU in unincorporated Pacific County.
There is no rail infrastructure either in shoreline jurisdiction or within the Middle Bay AU in general.
There are approximately four miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Middle Bay AU. The majority of road infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction is along North Nemah River (around 1 mile) and South Nemah River (around ¾ mile). Within jurisdiction the majority of road infrastructure is classified as local access (53%), and U.S. Highway (26%) and minor collector roads (20%). Transportation infrastructure includes the major roads and bridges listed below.
Major roads:
• U.S. 101 crosses the Middle Bay AU from north to south along the Willapa Bay marine shoreline. U.S. 101 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance by RCW 47.06.140. U.S. 101 crosses five jurisdictional rivers: Niawiakum River, Palix River, North Nemah River, Middle Nemah River, and South Nemah River. This portion of U.S. 101 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
Bridges: There are approximately 7 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction.
• There are 2 bridges on the North Nemah River. One bridge is on North Nemah Road and one bridge on Nemah Valley Road.
• There is one bridge on the Palix River, South Fork on Trask Road.
• There is one bridge on Williams Creek located on Williams Creek Road near Nemah Flats.
229 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• There is one bridge on the Middle Nemah River on U.S. 101.
• There is one bridge on the South Nemah River on U.S. 101.
Public Access
Existing Public Access Designated public access areas in shoreline jurisdiction of the Middle Bay AU include the Palix State Wildlife Recreation Area, although most of this area is located within the Willapa Bay AU, as well as two Natural Area Preserves (NAPs). More detailed information about some of the public access sites is provided below.
• Bone River NAP is a 2,720-acre preserve that includes salt marshes, tidal flats, sloughs, streams, wetlands, and conifer forests along the Bone River and its tributary into Willapa Bay. It is critical habitat for waterfowl and other threatened species such as the marbled murrelet and the bald eagle. Steelhead and coho salmon are also present in the Bone River NAP.
• Niawiakum River NAP is a 997-acre WDNR-funded preserve with salt marshes at the estuary where the Niawiakum River meets Willapa Bay.
• South Nemah NRCA contains 2,400 acres where the South and Middle Nemah River supports fish and amphibians. It is used extensively as an outdoor environmental classroom. Reach 1 of the South Nemah waterbody passes through this NRCA.
• Nemah River Estuary Unit is a 217 acre unit that contains tidelands, estuary wetlands and salt marsh habitat. There are wildlife viewing opportunities including birds, bear, deer, elk, and reptiles/amphibians. The Nemah River Estuary Unit is located in Reach 1 of the Nemah Estuary waterbody.
• A water access site and boat launch is located in reach 1 of the Palix Estuary waterbody 15 miles south of South Bend off of U.S. 101. There is parking at the site, which is located near the Palix River bridge.
Future Public Access No future public access sites were identified.
Historic and Archeological Sites There are no historic sites identified within the shoreline reaches of the Middle Bay AU in unincorporated Pacific County. However, given the historic cultural significance of Willapa Bay shorelines, there is a high likelihood that sites of archaeological significance are present.
230 The Watershed Company June 2015
Naselle River The Naselle River AU contains 6,301 acres of shoreline jurisdiction within 8 jurisdictional rivers and streams that have been divided into 17 shoreline analysis reaches. The AU makes up the southeast and southern shores of Willapa Bay and extends inland along the Naselle River, Salmon Creek and Bear River to the border of Wahkiakum County. A significant amount of the shorelines are privately owned, with small amounts of shoreline land in federal and state ownership. Additionally, most of the shorelines around Ellsworth Creek are owned by The Nature Conservancy. Table 6-11 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics.
Table 6-11. Summary Characteristics of Naselle River Assessment Unit Waterbodies Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation Bear River 1,084 • Private – Timberland 40% Conservancy • Federal 35% • Private 20% • State – Other 3% • City 1% Conservation Organization < 1% (99%) Dell Creek 101 • Private 52% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 40% • Rural • State – WDFW 8% • Urban (100%) Ellsworth Creek 151 • Conservation Organization Conservancy 83% • Private – Timberland 17% (100%) Indian Creek Dam 67 • City 99% Not Designated • Private – Timberland 1% (99%) Naselle River 3,479 • Private 58% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 36% • Rural • Conservation Organization 2% • Urban • State – Other 2% • State – WDFW 1% • Federal < 1% • County < 1% • State – WDNR < 1% • County – Other < 1% (100%) Salmon Creek 574 • Private 68% • Conservancy • State – Other 26% • Rural • State – WDNR 2%
231 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation • Private – Timberland 2% • Federal < 1% (99%) Smith Creek 2 125 • Private 52% • Conservancy • State – WDFW 42% • Rural • State – Other 6% • Conservation Organization< 1% (100%) South Naselle River 716 • Private 83% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 16% • Rural • County < 1% • Urban • County – Other <1% (100%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Based on Pacific County Assessor data, the most common shoreline land use in this AU is forestry (59%). Other uses include government/institutional uses (17%), residential (6%) agricultural uses (6%). Shoreline areas classified as vacant or undeveloped comprise 11% of the AU. Notably, 98% of the Indian Creek Dam waterbody is owned by the City of Ilwaco.
The AU includes the Rural Activity Center of Naselle (Reaches 5 and 6 in the Naselle River, Reach 1 of the South Naselle River, and Reach 1 of Salmon Creek), which has a population of approximately 600 and is located at the intersection of SR 401 and SR 4. Commercial land uses extend east along SR 4, and south along SR 401. Residential land use densities in the rural activity center are approximately one unit per acre with some denser areas, including multi- family units. Commercial and public uses include banking, grocery and liquor stores, restaurants, health care, hotels, RV parks, nurseries, mini-storage facility, general retail, post office, school, library, parks, and open space. Existing industrial uses located near Salmon Creek, Dell Creek, Naselle River, and South Naselle River include a gravel mine, commercial fueling station, electrical substation, DOT truck shop, and county truck storage. Current land uses within the AU are summarized below in Table 6-12.
Table 6-12. Naselle River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Forestry 3,551 59% Government/Institutional 1,023 17%
232 The Watershed Company June 2015
Existing Land Use Acres Percent Vacant/Undeveloped 639 11% Residential 351 6% Agriculture 334 6% Recreation 25 < 1% Quasi-Public 20 < 1% Commercial < 1 < 1%
The County’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations establish a land use pattern consistent with the area’s current forestry and agricultural uses along with localized areas of more intensive development. The most common land use designations include Forest of Long Term Significance (41%) and Transitional Forest (12%), along with General Rural (34%). The Naselle Rural Activity Center designation includes 413 shoreline acres.
Current zoning of the shorelines follows the established Comprehensive Plan designations. The major zoning districts in the shoreline jurisdiction are Commercial Forest (42%), Rural Lands (32%), and Transitional Forest (20%). The mixed use zones (6%) exist within shorelines near the confluence of the Naselle River, South Naselle River, and Salmon Creek, near the center of unincorporated Naselle. This mixed use zoning is consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s Rural Activity Center, Naselle, which comprises 5% of the Naselle River AU’s shoreline jurisdiction. Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-13.
Table 6-13. Naselle River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Bear River • Forestry 55% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Government/Institutional 51% Significance 49% 40% • Transitional Forest • Public Preserve 38% • Vacant/Undeveloped 5% 48% • General Rural 13% • Residential < 1% • Rural Lands 2% Dell Creek • Forestry 88% • Rural Lands 81% • General Rural 81% • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term 8% 19% Significance 19% • Vacant/Undeveloped 5% • Rural Activity Center – Naselle <1% Ellsworth • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Creek 83% 88% Significance 89% • Forestry 17% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 11% 12% Indian Creek • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Dam 99% 99% Significance 99%
233 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody • Forestry 1% • Rural Lands 1% • General Rural 1% Naselle River • Forestry 65% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Vacant/Undeveloped 14% 49% Significance 48% • Agriculture 8% • Rural Lands 26% • General Rural 28% • Government/Institutional • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 18% 6% 19% • Rural Activity Center - • Residential 6% • Mixed Use 5% Naselle 5% • Quasi-Public < 1% • Rural Residential 1% • Public Preserve 1% • Commercial < 1% • Industrial < 1% • Community Commercial < 1% Salmon Creek • Government/Institutional • Rural Lands 62% • General Rural 65% 29% • Commercial Forest • Rural Activity Center – • Forestry 28% 19% Naselle 18% • Residential 19% • Mixed Use 17% • Forest of Long Term • Vacant Undeveloped 17% • Community Significance 17% • Recreation 2% Commercial 1% • Commercial < 1% Smith Creek 2 • Forestry 52% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest 66% • Government/Institutional 66% • Forest of Long Term 48% • Commercial Forest Significance 34% • Agriculture < 1% 34% South Naselle • Forestry 74% • Rural Lands 85% • General Rural 78% River • Residential 10% • Mixed Use 12% • Rural Activity Center – • Agriculture 8% • Commercial Forest 3% Naselle 19% • Vacant/Undeveloped 7% • Community • Forest of Long Term • Quasi-Public < 1% Commercial < 1% Significance 3% • Government/Institutional < 1% • Recreation < 1%
Water-Oriented Uses There are 25 acres classified as recreational use in the Naselle River AU. Most of the recreational uses are mapped along the Naselle River. The public access sites and boat launch in the AU (listed under Public Access below) are considered water-oriented.
There are four dams mapped on the Naselle River (two dams are mapped for the weir at the State hatchery in Naselle River Reach 6 and a private dam on Burnham Creek, a tributary to Reach 2 of the South Naselle River). There is one dam mapped on Davis Creek. There is also a dam on Indian Creek, which impounds the water for the City of Ilwaco’s water supply (see discussion in Section 5.2.4) forming Indian Creek Reservoir. In addition to these upland uses,
234 The Watershed Company June 2015 there are other water-oriented uses, including docks. Swimming, boating and recreational fishing and shell fishing are also water-oriented uses.
Developing Shoreline and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to persist with new development occurring at a slow pace with the established pattern. There are approximately 6,301 shoreline acres in the Naselle River AU. Almost three quarters of those lands are in forestry (59%) and government/institutional (17%) uses, neither of which are anticipated to be locations of new development. Approximately 11% (639 acres) are classified as vacant or undeveloped, which is where future new uses and development would be expected. The vacant lands are found on 254 parcels that partially touch shoreline jurisdiction. These parcels total around 1,150 acres for an average parcel size of about 4.5 acres. Approximately 645 of those acres are within shoreline jurisdiction. Figure 6-5 shows the zoning of those vacant lands in each waterbody.
Figure 6-2. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Naselle River Assessment Unit (by acre)
Most of the vacant land is located along the Naselle River, primarily in Reach 5. Those vacant shoreline areas are primarily zoned Rural Lands and Transitional Forest, both of which have a maximum residential development density of 5-acre lots. At that allowed density, those vacant shoreline acres could generate up to 78 new shoreline residences. However, the size of the parcels in this area would provide opportunities for homeowners to construct residences outside the shoreline jurisdiction. Critical areas and flood zones would further restrict
235 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
construction, thus reducing the number of potential new residential developments. Salmon Creek and the South Naselle River shoreline also contain vacant lands that could generate new residences, but in much lower numbers.
There are also slightly less than 2 acres each of commercial and industrial zoned lands. These acres are located in the Rural Activity Center of Naselle and could generate new commercial uses.
Transportation There is no rail infrastructure either in shoreline jurisdiction or within the Naselle River AU in general.
There is limited road transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Naselle River AU in unincorporated Pacific County. There are approximately 20 miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction. The majority of road infrastructure is within shoreline jurisdiction of the Naselle River (around 13 miles) with additional amounts along Salmon Creek (three and a half miles) and Bear River (over two miles). Within jurisdiction the majority of road infrastructure is classified as local access (26%), U.S. highway (22%) and State highway roads (20%). Transportation infrastructure includes the major roads and bridges listed below.
Major roads:
• U.S. 101 extends across the Naselle River AU crossing the Naselle River from the north and then running southwesterly adjacent to the shoreline of Willapa Bay. U.S. 101 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance by RCW 47.06.140. This portion of U.S. 101 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
• SR 401 extends southward from the confluence of the Naselle River and the South Naselle River toward the Columbia River. SR 401 is designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
• SR 4 extends easterly from the confluence of the Naselle River and the South Naselle River. SR 4 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System.
Bridges: There are approximately 18 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction.
• There are 7 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction of Salmon Creek including two on Salmon Creek Road, one on SR 4, one on Wildwood Lane, one on Tienhaara Road, one on Alanen Road, and one on South Valley Road.
236 The Watershed Company June 2015
• There are 4 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction of Naselle River including one on SR 4, one on SR 401, and one on North Valley Road.
• There are 2 bridges on the South Naselle River. One bridge is on Nyberg Road and one bridge is on South Valley Road.
• There are 2 bridges on Davis Creek including one on SR 401 and one on Knappton Road.
• One bridge crosses Bean Creek on SR 401.
• One bridge crosses Dell Creek on Parpala Road.
• One bridge crosses Ellsworth Creek on Parpala Road.
• One bridge crosses Smith Creek on Parpala Road.
Public Access
Existing Public Access There is 1 boat launch, called the Naselle Ramp, on Reach 5 of the Naselle River, located where the Naselle River meets Davis Creek at the center of Naselle. There is also shoreline public access and trails associated with the Willapa NWR in Reach 3 of the Naselle River, near the mouth of Smith Creek and Parpala Road.
More detailed information about some of the public access sites is provided below.
• Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is managed by USFWS. It was established by President Franklin Roosevelt in 1937 with the mission of protecting migrating birds and their habitats from rapidly approaching development. This refuge includes a variety of habitats, including a salt marsh, muddy tidelands, forest, freshwater wetlands, streams, grasslands, dunes, and beaches. The headquarters of the refuge has a boat ramp with access to the Naselle River (as well as the south end of Willapa Bay), restrooms, and parking. Designated areas of the refuge are open for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. In addition there are many miles of trails on the refuge.
• Naselle Marsh is a WDFW-managed property that is open to the public. The 128-acre estuarine marsh at the mouth of the Naselle River has been protected since 2011.
• Ellsworth Creek Preserve is a NRCA with a mix of diverse forest as well as estuary and marsh lands that are home to migratory birds and rare species. The Ellsworth Creek Estuary is the highest quality estuary in Willapa Bay. Ellsworth Creek Reach 1 and parts of the Naselle River Reach 3 lie within the Preserve. The Nature Conservancy uses the preserve to test restoration impacts on eight sub-basins within the preserve. The
237 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
property is an active restoration site so public access is not encouraged and no formal public access facilities exist.
• Teal Slough NRCA, with its salt marsh and ancient forest habitats, is home to threatened species such as the spotted owl and the marbled murrelet, among other rare species. Located within the Willapa NWR (Willapa Bay AU), the Teal Slough Unit is open for hunting, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation and has a 0.5 mile trail.
• Bennos Easement is a 1.25 mile easement trail along Salmon Creek where the SR 4 bridge crosses the creek. The trail, restrooms, and boat launch facilities are in the Naselle River Reach 6.
• Resort Hotel Boat Launch is located on Reach 5 of the Naselle River. It is a concrete boat launch found on the south east side of the SR 401 bridge crossing of the Naselle River.
Future Public Access The 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Update includes a line item of $400,000 to construct Phase III of the Naselle River Boat Launch in 2012. It does not appear that the work was completed.
Historic and Archeological Sites There is one historic site within shoreline reaches of the Naselle River in unincorporated Pacific County.
• Naselle River Overflow Bridge #401/12 is located on SR 401 (MP 11.95) and near unincorporated Naselle, WA.
In addition, given the historic cultural significance of Willapa Bay shorelines, there is a high likelihood that sites of archaeological significance are present.
Upper Chehalis River The Upper Chehalis River AU contains only 902 acres of shoreline jurisdiction within 3 jurisdictional rivers and streams. The Upper Chehalis River AU lies along the County’s eastern boundary with Lewis County and does not occupy any marine shorelines. The AU is heavily committed to forestry. Three quarters of its shorelines are owned by the Weyerhaeuser Company and another 14% is owned by the State. Table 6-14 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics.
238 The Watershed Company June 2015
Table 6-14. Summary Characteristics of Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit Waterbodies Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation Crim Creek 31 • Private – Timberland 100% • Conservancy (100%) Elk Creek 783 • Private – Timberland 84% • Conservancy • State – WDNR 8% • State – Other 6% • County – Other 2% (100%) Rock Creek 88 • Private 63% • Conservancy • State – WDNR 10% • State – Other < 1% (74%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land Uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Based on Pacific County Assessor data, nearly all of the shoreline jurisdiction land use is classified as forestry (80%). Government/institutional uses comprise an additional 15% of the shorelines. Three percent of the shoreline is vacant or undeveloped. Current land uses within the AU are summarized below in Table 6-15.
Table 6-15. Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Forestry 715 80% Government/Institutional 137 15% Vacant/Undeveloped 27 3%
The County’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations establish a land use pattern consistent with the area’s forestry uses. Nearly all of the AU’s shorelines are designated Forest of Long Term Significance (90%). The remaining 10%, located in the Rock Creek shoreline jurisdiction, is designation General Rural.
Current zoning of the shorelines follows the established Comprehensive Plan designations with 90% of shorelines zoned Commercial forest and 10% zoned Rural Lands. Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-16.
239 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 6-16. Upper Chehalis River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Crim Creek Forestry 100% Commercial Forest 100% Forest of Long Term Significance 100%
Elk Creek Forestry 84% Commercial Forest 100% Forest of Long Term Government/Institutional 16% Significance 100% Rock Creek Forestry 35% Rural Lands 100% General Rural 100% Vacant/Undeveloped 32% Government/Institutional 12%
Water-Oriented Uses There are no recreational uses classified in the AU. However, recreational shoreline access for activities such as fishing is a water-oriented use that may occur on the Upper Chehalis AU’s waterbodies. There are no identified aquacultural uses.
Developing Shorelines and New Uses There are approximately 902 shoreline acres in the AU. The AU’s land use is dominated by forestry (79%). Government and institutional use comprise and additional 15%, neither of which are anticipated to be locations of new development. There are approximately 27 acres in the shoreline classified as vacant. That shoreline area contains portions of seven parcels that total contain around 60 acres. All of the vacant parcels are zoned Rural Lands. At the current allowed densities the vacant shoreline area could generate 5 new residences. The size of the parcels in the area would provide ample opportunity for land owners to construct residences outside of shoreline jurisdiction, and critical areas would restrict developable area as well, thus reducing this number.
Transportation There is a very limited transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Upper Chehalis River AU in unincorporated Pacific County.
There are approximately 5 miles of rail infrastructure in shoreline jurisdiction concentrated along Elk Creek (3.74 miles), and Rock Creek (1.07). The entire rail infrastructure within the Upper Chehalis River AU is not currently utilized.
There is approximately 1 mile of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Upper Chehalis River AU. The entirety of road infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction is along Rock Creek (0.83 miles). Within jurisdiction the road infrastructure split between State highway (76%) and
240 The Watershed Company June 2015 local access (24%) roads. Transportation infrastructure includes the major roads, bridges, and railroad infrastructure listed below.
Major roads:
• SR 6 traverses the Upper Chehalis AU from east to west. This portion of SR 6 is designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
Bridges:
• There is one bridge within shoreline jurisdiction. The single bridge is located where SR 6 crosses Rock Creek.
Railroad Bridges:
• There is one abandoned railroad bridge within shoreline jurisdiction. The abandoned bridge crosses Rock Creek just north of where SR 6 crosses Rock Creek.
Public Access
Existing Public Access There is little to no existing public access within shoreline jurisdiction of the Upper Chehalis River AU, which reflects the fact that the shorelines are primarily privately owned.
Future Public Access No information could be found on future public access sites on the Upper Chehalis River AU.
Historic and Archeological Sites There are no historic sites identified within the shoreline reaches of the Upper Chehalis River AU in unincorporated Pacific County. However, unmapped archaeological sites could be present.
Grays River The Grays River AU contains 1,663 acres of shoreline jurisdiction within 4 jurisdictional rivers and streams. The AU is located in the southeast corner of the County and contains the upper reaches and headwaters of Grays River, as well as Hull Creek. Nearly all of the shoreline area is privately owned (92%), largely by timber companies (79%). The State owns 8% of the shoreline areas. Table 6-17 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics.
241 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 6-17. Summary Characteristics of Grays River Assessment Unit Waterbodies Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation East Fork Grays River 417 • Private – Timberland 100% • Conservancy (100%) Grays River 785 • Private – Timberland 92% • Conservancy • State – Other 8% (100%) Hull Creek 91 • Private 62% • Conservancy • State – Other 38% (100%) West Fork Grays River 370 • Private – Timberland 50% • Conservancy • Private 40% • State – Other 8% • State – WDFW 3% (100%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land Uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Based on Pacific County Assessor data, nearly all of the shoreline jurisdiction land use is classified as forestry (92%). Government/institutional uses comprise an additional 8% of the shorelines. Current land uses within the AU are summarized below in Table 6-18.
Table 6-18. Grays River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Forestry 1,525 92% Government/Institutional 138 8%
The County’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations establish a land use pattern consistent with the area’s forestry uses. All of the AU’s shorelines are designated Forest of Long Term Significance (99%). Zoning of the shorelines follows the established Comprehensive Plan designations with 100% of shorelines zoned Commercial Forest. Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-19.
Table 6-19. Upper Grays River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody East Fork • Forestry 100% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Grays River 100% Significance 100%
242 The Watershed Company June 2015
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Grays River • Forestry 92% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Government/Institutional 100% Significance 100% 8% Hull Creek • Forestry 62% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term • Government/Institutional 100% Significance 100% 38% West Fork • Forestry 89% • Commercial Forest • Forest of Long Term Grays River • Government/Institutional 100% Significance 100% 11%
Water-Oriented Uses The State-operated Grays River Fish Hatchery is located on the West Fork Grays River where the Shannon Road bridge crosses the river. Swimming, boating and recreational fishing are additional water-oriented uses that may occur within the Grays River AU’s shorelines. The Grays River Salmon Pond, located in Reach 1 of the Grays River waterbody, is a destination for recreational fishing. It is part of Game Management Unit 506 (Willapa Hills Unit).
Developing Shorelines and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to persist with new development occurring at a slow pace within the established pattern. The 1,663 acres of Grays River AU shoreline is nearly all in forestry use (92%). The remaining lands (8%) are State-owned. None of these areas are anticipated to be locations of new development. There are no shoreline lands classified as vacant or undeveloped.
Transportation There is a negligible amount of transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Grays River AU. There is less than one mile of roadway and no rail infrastructure within the shoreline jurisdiction. The entirety of road infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction is along Grays River (0.13 miles) and is classified as private roads (100%). There are no major roads identified. There is one bridge within shoreline jurisdiction, located on Shannon Road where it crosses the West Fork Grays River. There are six additional bridges located within shoreline jurisdiction on the Grays River and the East Fork Grays River.
Public Access There are little to no public access sites in the shorelines of this AU.
• Willapa Divide NAP is a 587 acre preserve along the upper reaches of the Grays River. As part of the WDNR Natural Areas Program, the preserve is dedicated to education,
243 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
scientific research and conservation of native biological diversity and is not primarily for recreation.
No information could be found on future public access sites within the Grays River AU.
Historic and Archeological Sites There are no historic sites identified within the shoreline reaches of the Grays River AU in unincorporated Pacific County. However, unmapped archaeological sites could be present.
Columbia River The Columbia River AU contains 4,478 acres of shoreline jurisdiction within four jurisdictional rivers or streams. It is the only AU along the Columbia and a large proportion of the AU’s shoreline jurisdiction is associated wetland. The unincorporated community of Chinook is located in the AU. Most of the shoreline areas (73%) are privately owned. The State (WDFW) owns approximately 22% of the shoreline area. Although not analyzed in this county level report, the incorporated City of Ilwaco is located within this AU’s boundaries. Table 6-20 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics.
Table 6-20. Summary Characteristics of Columbia River (Columbia River) Assessment Unit Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation Chinook River 2,120 • Private 54% • Conservancy • State – WDFW 45% • Rural • Private – Timberland 1% • City < 1% • County < 1% (100%) Columbia River 876 • Private 69% • Conservancy • State – Parks 21% • Natural • Conservation Organization 3% • Rural • Federal 2% • Urban • State – WDFW 2% • County 1% • State – Other <1% • Port of Ilwaco <1% • Tribal <1% • Port of Chinook <1% (100%) Sisson Creek 94 • Private 94% • Not Designated • Private – Timberland 6% (100%) Wallacut River 1,388 • Private 99% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 1%
244 The Watershed Company June 2015
Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation • Conservation Organization • Rural <1% • (100%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan While forestry is the most common land use (40%), the AU has a varied land use pattern. Several other land uses are relatively common in the Columbia River AU as well. These include, based on Pacific County Assessor data, Government/Institutional (22%), Agriculture (15%), Vacant/Undeveloped (12%), Residential (6%) and Recreational (4%).
The AU includes the Rural Activity Center of Chinook, which has a population of approximately 500 and is located along the Columbia River east of Ilwaco. Residential densities in Chinook are approximately two to four units per acre close to the community center along U.S. 101, with decreasing density to the north and south. There are several RV parks in Chinook. Commercial uses in the Chinook Rural Activity Center are generally rural in nature and include retail stores, taverns, gas stations, restaurants, and gift shops. These uses occur both within and in proximity to the Columbia River and Chinook River shoreline jurisdictions. There are several public facilities including a post office, fire station, and other facilities. The Chinook Marina is also located within the Rural Activity Center (described under Water- oriented uses) and is located in Reach 3 of the Columbia River. Current land uses within the AU are summarized below in Table 6-21.
Table 6-2. Columbia River Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Forestry 1,622 40% Government/Institutional 895 22% Agriculture 594 15% Vacant/Undeveloped 494 12% Residential 223 6% Recreation 148 4% Quasi-Public 19 <1% Manufacturing/Industrial 2 < 1% Fishing < 1 < 1% Commercial < 1 < 1%
245 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
The County’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations establish a land use pattern consistent with the area’s mixed land use pattern. Most of the shoreline area is designated General Rural (74%), which is characterized by a variety of uses and activities including, but not limited to, small-scale farms and forestry activities, dispersed single-family homes, and open space. Other designations in the AU include Transitional Forest (9%), Rural Agricultural (8%), and Public Preserve (3%). A small amount of industrial designation (23 acres) is located at Skinville Crossing. The Chinook Rural Activity Center designation (3% of the shoreline) includes 128 shoreline acres.
Current zoning of the shorelines generally follows the established Comprehensive Plan designations. The major zoning districts in shoreline jurisdiction are Rural Lands (51%), Agriculture (21%), Rural Residential (10%), Transitional Forest (9%), Commercial Forest (4%), and Conservation (3%). Smaller shoreline areas (1% or less) zoned Restricted Residential, General Residential, Resort, Industrial, and Mixed Use are located along the Chinook and Columbia Rivers. Approximately 27 acres of jurisdictional shorelines zoned Resort are located along the Wallacut River. Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-22.
Table 6-3. Columbia River Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Chinook River • Government/Institutional • Rural Lands 98% • General Rural 96% 45% • Agricultural 2% • Rural Activity Center • Forestry 23% • Commercial Forest – Chinook 4% • Agriculture 20% <1% • Forest of Long Term • Vacant/Undeveloped 9% • Industrial <1% Significance <1% • Residential 3% Columbia River • Forestry 32% • Transitional Forest 46% • Transitional Forest • Vacant/Undeveloped 23% • Conservation 18% 46% • Recreation 21% • Rural Lands 9% • General Rural 32% • Residential 14% • Agricultural 8% • Public Preserve 17% • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest 6% • Rural Activity Center 5% • Rural Residential 6% – Chinook 6% • Quasi Public <1% • Mixed Use 4% • Industrial – Port of • Agriculture <1% • Industrial 3% Chinook <1% • Manufacturing/Industrial • Resort 1% • Incorporated – Ilwaco <1% • General Residential <1% • Fishing <1% <1% • Commercial <1% Sisson Creek • Forestry 87% • Commercial 100% • Forest of Long Term • Residential 9% Significance 100% • Vacant/Undeveloped 4%
246 The Watershed Company June 2015
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Wallacut River • Forestry 66% • Agricultural 58% • General Rural 73% • Agriculture 16% • Rural Residential 27% • Rural Agricultural • Vacant/Undeveloped 12% • Rural Lands 8% 25% • Residential5% • Commercial Forest 2% • Industrial – Skinville • Quasi-Public 1% • Industrial 2% Crossing 2% • Government/Institutional • Resort 2% • Incorporated – Ilwaco <1% • General Residential 1% <1% • Transitional Forest <1%
Water-Oriented Uses There are 147 acres classified as recreational use. The public access sites, parks, boat launches, and marinas in the AU are water-oriented uses. They are described in more detail under the Public Access section.
Commercial fishing activities that occur within the AU are water-dependent uses. There are three seafood processing facilities within the AU (TBU Fish Co., Inc., Columbia River Fish Factory, and Bell Buoy Crab Co., Inc.). All three are located in Reach 3 of the Columbia River in Chinook.
The Port of Chinook owns and operates a marina in the community of Chinook that is a water- dependent use. The marina and surrounding property includes 300 slips used by both commercial and recreational vessels. The Bell Buoy Crab Company leases their cannery buildings from the Port. Other lessees include a bait company and a coffee shop.
In addition to these upland uses, there are other water-oriented uses, including the use of docks. Swimming, boating and recreational fishing and shellfishing are also water-oriented uses that occur in the Columbia River AU.
Developing Shorelines and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Comprehensive Plan, and implemented through the County’s zoning code, is anticipated to persist with new development occurring at a slow pace within the established pattern. As noted above, common land uses include Forestry (40%), Government/Institutional (22%), and Agriculture (15%), none of which are anticipated to be locations of new development. A limited amount of the AU’s shoreline lands are classified as vacant. Approximately 12% (494 acres) are classified as vacant or undeveloped.
Figure 6-6 shows the zoning of those vacant lands in each of the Columbia River AU’s waterbodies.
247 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-3. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Columbia River Assessment Unit (by acre) Source: Pacific County, 2014; TWC, 2014; BERK, 2014 Most of the vacant land is located along the Columbia River and is zoned Rural Lands. The majority of vacant lands along the Chinook River are also zoned Rural Lands. Of these waterbodies, most of the vacant shoreline areas along the Columbia River are located north of Chinook in Reach 2 of the Columbia River and vacant lands on the Chinook River are concentrated east of Chinook in Reach 1 of the Chinook River. There are also 421 acres of shoreline lands zoned Rural Residential. Most of these lands (372 acres) are located within the Wallacut River shoreline jurisdiction. Based on allowed residential densities (1 dwelling unit/Acre), shoreline areas with Rural Residential zoning could generate up to 372 new residences. However, there are significant areas of floodplain and wetlands identified along the Wallacut River that would restrict construction as well.
There are three areas of more intensive development within the AU where future development is anticipated. They include the Rural Activity Center at Chinook (Columbia River-3), the Industrial area at the Port of Chinook (Columbia River- 3), and the Industrial area of Skinville Crossing (Wallacut River-1). There are approximately 20 acres of vacant land zoned for industrial development within the Wallacut Rivers shorelines at Skinville Cutoff.
248 The Watershed Company June 2015
Transportation In general, there are small amounts of road or transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Columbia River AU in unincorporated Pacific County.
There is no rail infrastructure either in shoreline jurisdiction or within the Columbia River AU in general.
There are approximately 12 miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Columbia River AU. The large majority of road infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction is along the Columbia River (9.65 miles) with smaller amounts along the Chinook River (1.23 miles) and the Wallacut River (0.82 miles). Within jurisdiction the majority of road infrastructure is split between State highway (35%), U.S. highway (27%), minor collector (18%) and local access (15%) roads. Transportation infrastructure includes the major roads and bridges listed below.
Major roads:
• U.S. 101 runs easterly from the City of Ilwaco along the northern shoreline of the Columbia River to the Astoria-Megler Bridge. U.S. 101 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance by RCW 47.06.140. This portion of U.S. 101 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
• SR 401 enters the Columbia River AU from the north and runs westerly along the Columbia River to the Astoria-Megler Bridge. This portion of SR 401 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System.
Bridges: There are approximately 4 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction.
• Two bridges cross the Chinook River. One bridge is located on U.S. 101 at the mouth of the Chinook River and one bridge is located further upstream of the Chinook river on Chinook Valley Road.
• One bridge crosses the Wallacut River on Stringtown Road.
• The Astoria-Megler Bridge crosses the Columbia River on U.S. 101 at Point Ellice. The Astoria-Megler Bridge is Determined Eligible for National Register listing.
Public Access
Existing Public Access There are several existing public access areas within shoreline jurisdiction. There are several boat launches, including launches in Chinook Park and the Chinook Marina in Reach 3 of the
249 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Columbia River, as well as some public parks. More detailed information about some of the public access sites is provided below.
• Fort Columbia State Park is located at the Chinook Point National Historic Landmark and along 6,400 feet of freshwater shoreline on the Columbia River. The park is 593 acres in size with more than a mile of shoreline access. Twelve structures from the park’s military history still stand.
• Chinook Park is a day-use park in Reach 4 of the Columbia River, with boat launch access for smaller boats. The park provides fishing access and offers access for small water craft to the Columbia. New restrooms and a septic system were installed in 2004. According to the 2010 Pacific County Comprehensive Plan, a parks plan was developed for the Chinook Park.
• Chinook Unit (WDFW) is an 850 acre unit near the mouth of the Columbia River. The focus of the property is estuary restoration, and there are opportunities to view wildlife including birds, deer, elk, and butterflies. The Estuary provides critical habitat, and restoration partners include Ducks Unlimited, USFWS, WDFW, Columbia Land Trust, and the NRCS.
• Dismal Nitch Rest Area along SR 401 provides public access to the shoreline, in addition to restroom facilities and a short trail. The Megler Boat Launch is also located at this site.
• Port of Chinook Marina is located on the Columbia River in Reach 3. It provides access to a restroom facility, boat ramp, boat sling, fuel dock, and repair and maintenance services. Boats berthed in the Port of Chinook Marina’s 358 slips are used for both recreational uses and commercial fishing.
• Knappton Boat Launch is located along SR 401 in the Columbia River Reach 4 jurisdiction. The launch site is gravel and located in a part of the river with underwater hazards.
Future Public Access Proposed improvements to Chinook Park, located West of Fort Columbia State Park on SR101, were identified. These include new playground equipment, a seawall, picnic shelter, interpretive signs, landscaping, and a potential trail along SR101 linking Chinook Park with Fort Columbia. The 2010 Comprehensive Plan Update lists $239,000 for Phase I improvements to the Chinook Park Rest Area. There is $275,000 slated for Phase II in 2015 and an additional $50,000 for Phase III in 2014.
250 The Watershed Company June 2015
The Long Beach Area Parks Management Plan (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 2009) identified trail connections between Station Camp, Fort Columbia State Park, and Sea Resources, as well as enhanced shoreline access at Fort Columbia State Park as preliminary recommendations for the area.
Historic and Archeological Sites There are several historic sites identified within the shoreline reaches of the Columbia River AU. They include the following.
• Fort Columbia State Park. The Park is home to original U.S. Army Coastal Artillery buildings and batteries. This facility was active from 1896 through 1947. It is one of few remaining intact coastal defense sites. The site was once home to the Chinook Indian Nation and was later explored by Robert Gray and the Lewis and Clark expeditions.
• Chinook River Bridge.
• Dismal Nitch. Dismal Nitch was named by Captain William Clark of the Lewis and Clark expedition. The party was forced off the river by a fierce winter storm and Clark wrote of their refuge spot, calling it “that dismal little nitch.”
• Astoria-Megler Bridge. The Astoria-Megler Bridge is located on U.S. 101 and crosses the Columbia River from Point Ellice in Pacific County. The bridge has been determined eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places. In addition, given the historical cultural significance of the Columbia River Estuary, there is a high likelihood that sites of archaeological significance are present.
Willapa Bay The Willapa Bay AU contains 6,276 acres of shoreline within a shoreline jurisdiction. The AU has been divided into four waterbodies and 21 shoreline analysis reaches. Willapa Bay is separated from the Pacific Ocean by the 28-mile-long Long Beach Peninsula.
As noted above, Pacific County’s economy is extensively tied to its aquacultural sector, specifically the growth and farming of shellfish. The epicenter of this sector is Willapa Bay, its shoreline, tidelands, mud flats and open water. There are approximately 34,000 acres of publicly and privately owned tidelands along and within Willapa Bay that are used primarily in aquaculture.
The Bay’s upland ownership profile is varied. Approximately 58% of the shoreline lands are in private ownership. 27% of the shorelines are federally owned and an additional 5% are owned by Forterra. 2% of the shoreline jurisdiction is Tribal land, which is located in the Willapa Bay waterbody. Table 6-23 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics
251 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 6-23. Summary Characteristics of Upland Areas in the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Waterbodies Area of Upland Ownership Profile Jurisdictional Current Upland Shoreline Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Waterbody Environment Designation (Acres) data) Long Island 891 • Federal 97% • Conservancy • Private 3% • Natural • County < 1% (100%) Nemah 236 • Private 53% • Conservancy Estuary • State – WDFW 20% • Rural • Conservation Organization 19% • Private – Timberland 7% • State – Other <1% (100%) Palix Estuary 833 • Private 79% • Conservancy • Private – Timberland 10% • Rural • State – WDFW 6% • Urban • Conservation Organization 2% • State – Other 1% • State – WDNR 1% • County < 1% • Federal < 1% • Port of Willapa Harbor < 1% (100%) Willapa Bay 4,316 • Private 58% • Conservancy • Federal 18% • Natural • Private – Timberland 7% • Rural • Conservation Organization 6% • Urban • Tribal 4% • State – WDFW 3% • State – Other 1% • County 1% • City 1% • Port of Willapa Harbor <1% • State – WDNR < 1% (100%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land Uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Upland land uses vary within the AU. According to the County Assessor, the largest land uses across the entire AU are Forestry (36%) and Government/Institutional (36%), which includes federal, State, and County-owned lands. These shorelines include the Willapa NWR.
252 The Watershed Company June 2015
Agriculture comprises approximately 16%. There is very little shoreline land classified as vacant or undeveloped (6%).
The AU includes the Community Crossroad of Tokeland Road (Willapa Bay- 2 and 5), as well as the Rural Activity Centers of Tokeland (Willapa Bay-4) and Bay Center (Palix Estuary-1). There are marinas at both of these Rural Activity Centers. Both marinas are owned by the Port of Willapa Harbor and are described under water-oriented uses, below.
The Rural Activity Center of Bay Center has a population of approximately 200. Bay Center is located on a peninsula which extends into Willapa Bay (Palix Estuary – 1 and 2). The community is home to several oyster seed hatcheries and a finfish and shellfish industry. Commercial land uses include a neighborhood retail store, restaurant, tavern, and activities at the Bay Center port dock. Industrial activities include fish processing and port activities, such as Shoalwater Bay Oysters, Ekone Oyster Co., Goose Point Oyster Co., Bay Center Mariculture, Micro Light Nutritional Products (light industrial), Intertidal Resources, and Neptune Boats (Pacific County 2010).
The Shoalwater Bay Indian Reservation and the Shoalwater Bay Off-Reservation Land Trust is located in Reach 2 and Reach 3 of Willapa Bay, and in proximity to Reach 5. The Shoalwater Tribe has been actively upgrading their tribal lands by constructing a community center, wellness center, health and dental clinic, library, pharmacy, pre-school/daycare center, and police station, installing new sewer and water infrastructure, and improving their overall housing stock. They are also in the process of constructing a new gas station, in Reach 2 of Willapa Bay, with small retail near the existing casino. The area also has a small motel (Pacific County 2010).
Current land uses within the AU are summarized below in Table 6-24.
Table 6-24. Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Government/Institutional 2,074 36% Forestry 2,034 36% Agriculture 886 16% Vacant/Undeveloped 347 6% Residential 201 4% Recreation 21 < 1% Quasi-Public 10 < 1% Fishing 7 < 1% Manufacturing/Industrial 1 < 1% Commercial < 1 < 1%
253 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
The County’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations establish a land use pattern consistent with the area’s aquacultural and resource protection focus. Most of the shoreline area is designated as one of three designations. These include Transitional Forest (40%), Public Preserve (29%) and General Rural (22%). Additional designations include Forest of Long Term Significance, Rural Agricultural, Community Crossroads – Tokeland, and Rural Activity Center (Bay Center and Tokeland).
Current zoning of the shorelines generally follows the established Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The major zoning districts in shoreline jurisdiction are Transitional Forest (41%), Conservation (25%) and Rural Land (13%). Approximately 8% of the AU’s shoreline acres are zoned Tokeland Mixed Use. All of these Tokeland Mixed Use acres are located within the community of Tokeland. 6% of the shoreline in the Willapa Bay AU is zoned Commercial Forest and 2% is zoned Industrial. There is less than 1% each of Mixed Use, Rural Residential, and Shoalwater Tribe. Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-25.
Table 6-25. Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Long Island • Government/Institutional • Conservation 100% • Public Preserve 100% 97% • Agriculture 1% • Vacant/Undeveloped < 1% Nemah • Forestry 35% • Transitional Forest • Transitional Forest Estuary • Agriculture24% 100% 99% • Government/Institutional • Commercial Forest <1% • Forest of Long Term 20% Significance < 1% • Vacant/Undeveloped 12% • Residential7% • Fishing 2% Palix Estuary • Forestry 72% • Rural Lands 57% • General Rural 54% • Agriculture 8% • Transitional Forest 31% • Transitional Forest • Government/Institutional • Mixed Use 9% 34% 8% • Commercial Forest 1% • Rural Activity Center – • Vacant/Undeveloped 7% • Community Commercial Bay Center 10% • Residential 3% 1% • Forest of Long Term • Recreation 1% Significance 1% • Fishing < 1% • Quasi-Public < 1% • Commercial <1% Willapa Bay • Forestry 36% • Transitional Forest 48% • Transitional Forest • Conservation 16% 46%
254 The Watershed Company June 2015
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody • Government/Institutional • Mixed Use – Tokeland • General Rural 22% 29% 12% • Public Preserve 21% • Agriculture 20% • Commercial Forest 8% • Forest of Long Term • Vacant/Undeveloped 7% • Rural Lands 7% Significance 5% • Residential 4% • Agriculture 4% • Rural Agricultural 4% • Recreation < 1% • Industrial 3% • Community Crossroad • Quasi-Public < 1% • Rural Residential 2% – Tokeland 2% • Manufacturing/Industrial < • Shoalwater Tribe 1% • Rural Activity Center – 1% • Mixed Use < 1% Tokeland 1% • Rural Activity Center – Bay Center <1%
The land use pattern within each shoreline reach of the Willapa Bay AU varies by location. Land use in the southern end of the Bay is dominated by State and federally owned lands, much of which include the Willapa NWR. A majority of shoreline land use in Willapa Bay Reach 16 (67%) and nearly all (96%) of shoreline land use in Long Island Reach 1, are within the refuge and are classified as Government/Institutional use.
Forestry use comprises a greater share of shoreline land use within the reaches on the east side of the Bay. Forestry uses make up at least 40% of shoreline lands in the following reaches: Willapa Bay Reach 1 (44%), Reach 7 (71%), Reach 8 (96%), Reach 10 (63%), Reach 12 (80%), Reach 13 (89%), and Reach 14 (62%). Forestry is also a dominant use in the Palix Estuary, comprising 84% of Palix Estuary Reach 1 and 50% of Reach 2. Most of the shoreline lands classified as agricultural in the AU are found in Reach 5 of Willapa Bay, which is the northern bay area (270 acres – 68% of reach).
Residential uses are relatively common within Willapa Bay shorelines. Residential comprises at least one third of Willapa Bay Reach 3 (42%), Reach 4 (38%), and Reach 11 (31%), which are near the development centers of Tokeland and Bay Center. Nemah Bay Reach 2 is 33% residential. The overall area classified as residential use in in the AU is relatively small (201 acres, or <4%). Figure 6-7 shows the current land use, based on Pacific County Assessors data, for each reach within the Willapa Bay AU. Because they are primarily in government/institutional uses, Willapa Bay Reach 16 and Long Island Reach 1 are excluded from Figure 6-7.
255 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Nemah Estuary - 1 Nemah Estuary - 2 Agriculture Palix Estuary - 1 Commercial Palix Estuary - 2 Fishing Willapa Bay - 1 Forestry Willapa Bay - 2 Government/Institutional Willapa Bay - 3 Manufacturing Willapa Bay - 4 Willapa Bay - 5 Quasi-public Willapa Bay - 6 Residential Willapa Bay - 7 Recreational Willapa Bay - 8 Vacant/Undeveloped Willapa Bay - 9 Willapa Bay - 10 Willapa Bay - 11 Willapa Bay - 12 Willapa Bay - 13 Willapa Bay - 14 Willapa Bay - 15 Willapa Bay - 16
0 500 1000 1500
Figure 6-4. Current Land Use by Reach in the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit (by acre) Source: Pacific County 2014; TWC 2014; BERK 2014
Water-Oriented Uses There are approximately 34,000 acres of publicly and privately owned tidelands within 1,862 lots along and within Willapa Bay that are used for aquaculture. Of these, the County Assessor classifies 26,645 acres as “Oyster Beds” and 7,611 acres as “Tidelands.” The commercial aquacultural activities that occur along and within Willapa Bay are water-dependent uses. Aquaculture activities include the use of public and private saltwater tidelands and beds for growing, farming or cultivating shellfish, including commercial clam, oyster, geoduck and shrimp operations. Willapa Bay produces more oysters than any other estuary in the United States, despite its relatively small size. The Willapa Bay estuary is considered one of the largest pristine estuaries in the country.
The Washington State Department of Health (DOH) licenses and regulates companies that commercially harvest and sell shellfish. DOH tracks levels of pollutants and closes areas to shellfish production where levels are too high. All areas of the State where commercial harvesters obtain a license must be approved by DOH. As shown below in Figure 6-8, nearly all
256 The Watershed Company June 2015 of Willapa Bay has been approved for commercial shellfish growing. Shellfish growing within the Willapa River is prohibited due to the presence of wastewater treatment outfalls. Likewise, shellfish harvesting upriver from Bay Center is prohibited to SR 101 (DOH 2014).
Figure 6-5. DOH Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Growing Areas Source: DOH 2014. A report submitted by the Washington Shellfish Growers, as part of a 2007 Army Corps of Engineers Nationwide Permit 48 (Existing Commercial Shellfish Aquaculture Activities) application, documented the general location, size and type of shellfish culture areas within Willapa Bay (B. Hudson, personal communication, August 1, 2014). As shown in Figure 6-9, shellfish aquaculture areas are located throughout the Bay.
257 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-6. Willapa Bay Shellfish Aquaculture Areas Source: B. Hudson, personal communication, August 1, 2014; BERK 2014.
The 2008 report further identified the general size of the shellfish culture areas and the types of shellfish being harvested. There were 897 culture areas documented. Most were growing both oysters and clams (64%) and most are either 1 – 10 acres (38%) or 10 – 100 acres (50%) in size. Table 6-26 summarizes the number, location (per area shown in Figure 6-9), type and size of aquaculture areas from the Washington Shellfish Grower’s report.
Table 6-4. Willapa Bay Shellfish Aquaculture Locations, Type and Size Location (per Figure 6-9) Oysters Clams Oysters and Clams and Facility Size Willapa 1 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 3 10 – 100 acres 37 > 100 acres 4 Willapa 2 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 1 10 – 100 acres
258 The Watershed Company June 2015
Location (per Figure 6-9) Oysters Clams Oysters and Clams and Facility Size > 100 acres Willapa 3 <1 acres 1 1 – 10 acres 2 22 10 – 100 acres 4 54 > 100 acres 1 Willapa 4 <1 acres 1 1 – 10 acres 10 60 10 – 100 acres 1 42 > 100 acres Willapa 5 <1 acres 4 1 – 10 acres 21 10 – 100 acres 24 > 100 acres 1 Willapa 6 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 1 10 – 100 acres 3 > 100 acres Willapa 7 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 58 10 – 100 acres 4 49 > 100 acres 1 Willapa 8 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 2 14 10 – 100 acres 9 37 > 100 acres 1 Willapa 9 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 1 2 10 – 100 acres 1 18 > 100 acres Willapa 10 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 1 6 10 – 100 acres 4 1 56 > 100 acres 1 2 Willapa 11 <1 acres 2 1 – 10 acres 2 26 10 – 100 acres 46 > 100 acres 1 Willapa 12 <1 acres 3 1 – 10 acres 9 1 82 10 – 100 acres 6 79 > 100 acres 3
259 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Location (per Figure 6-9) Oysters Clams Oysters and Clams and Facility Size Willapa 13 <1 acres 1 – 10 acres 1 23 10 – 100 acres 6 41 > 100 acres 1 Source: B. Hudson, personal communication, August 1, 2014; BERK, 2014 There are five seafood processing facilities within the Willapa Bay AU. One is identified along Willapa Harbor in Tokeland (Willapa Bay-4) and the other four along the Palix Estuary (Palix Estuary-2). These facilities include the Ekone Oyster Company, Custom Seafood Services, Bay Center Mariculture Co./Seasonal Seafoods, Stony Point Oyster Company LLC., and R and B Oyster.
The Tokeland Marina is a water-dependent use located in the north of Willapa Bay (Willapa Bay – 4) at the Tokeland Activity Center. The Tokeland Marina offers both recreational and commercial moorage. It is owned by the Port of Willapa Harbor. The Port facilities are on 40 acres and include two seafood servicing buildings, a light industrial building leased to Ambrosia Technologies, a public fishing pier, a high dock, and RV Park and boat ramp. A fish processing plant is located blocks away from the main Port dock. Port dock facilities provide local fishing and aquaculture industries access to the water.
Bay Center is home to several commercial oyster-growing operations. The Port of Willapa Harbor owns and operates a marina there. The marina is dominated by commercial fishing and aquaculture. The marina in Bay Center provides moorage for oyster barges and fishing vessels and has a capacity for approximately 40 vessels. The marina is located in the navigation channel of the Palix River. The Port owns a single 2.5 acre underwater lot located along the center of the navigation channel, east of the county bridge. The marina consists of two floats accessed by gangway ramps on either side of the channel. The floating docks, gangways and piling were replaced in 2003. The marina provides access to Willapa Bay. A boat launch is located adjacent to the port-owned floats.
The public access sites, parks, boat launches, and marinas in Willapa Bay are described under Public Access and are considered water-oriented. In addition to these upland uses, there are other water-oriented uses, including docks. Swimming, boating and recreational fishing and shellfishing are also water-oriented uses.
Developing Shorelines and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Comprehensive Plan is anticipated to persist within Willapa Bay’s shorelines. New development is anticipated to occur at a slow pace, but within the established pattern and most likely in undeveloped or vacant sites. There are
260 The Watershed Company June 2015 approximately 6,276 shoreline acres in the Willapa Bay AU. Land Use within the Bay’s shorelines are more varied than in many of the County’s other AUs. The most common uses include Government/Institutional (36%), Forestry (61%) and agriculture (16%). Approximately 6% (347 acres) are classified as vacant or undeveloped.
Nearly half (47%) of the vacant shoreline area (347 acres) is found within three reaches: Palix Estuary Reach 2 (42 acres), Willapa Bay Reach 6 (61 acres), Willapa Bay Reach 9 (35 acres), Willapa Bay Reach 11 (52 acres) and Willapa Bay Reach 12 (26 acres). Figure 6-10 shows the zoning of those vacant lands in each waterbody.
Figure 6-7. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit (by acre) Source: Pacific County 2014; TWC 2014; BERK 2014 By far, most of the vacant land is located along Willapa Bay. Those vacant lands are zoned a mix of Transitional Forest (172 acres), Rural Lands (53 acres), Mixed Use -Tokeland (31 acres), Rural Residential (21 acres) and Commercial Forest (13 acres). The vacant shorelines are distributed throughout all of the Willapa Bay AU reaches, excluding Willapa Bay Reach 2. Table 6-27 presents the zoning of vacant shoreline lands within each Willapa Bay AU reach.
Table 6-5. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Willapa Bay Assessment Unit Reaches Vacant and Undeveloped Acres per Zoning District Shoreline Reach CF CC I MU MU-T RL RR TF Nemah Estuary - 1 19 Nemah Estuary - 2 6 Palix Estuary - 1 8
261 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Vacant and Undeveloped Acres per Zoning District Shoreline Reach CF CC I MU MU-T RL RR TF Palix Estuary - 2 3 11 8 19 Willapa Bay - 3 12 Willapa Bay - 4 8 Willapa Bay - 5 1 Willapa Bay - 6 13 10 33 Willapa Bay - 7 2 Willapa Bay - 8 1 1 Willapa Bay - 9 16 Willapa Bay - 10 8 Willapa Bay - 11 5 31 1 Willapa Bay - 12 25 Willapa Bay - 13 11 Willapa Bay - 14 13 Willapa Bay - 15 4 Willapa Bay - 16 21 Note: Refer to section 2.2.4 for zoning abbreviations Source: Pacific County 2014; TWC 2014; BERK 2014 There is an area of densely platted, undeveloped land on the Stanley Peninsula (Willapa Bay- 14). This area was platted long ago, and most of the land is now owned by a single private landowner. There is the potential for development of this area, but it is unlikely in the foreseeable future. Based on allowed densities, these lands could generate up to 85 new residences. However, the size of the parcels in this area would provide opportunities for homeowners to construct residences outside the shoreline jurisdiction. Critical areas would restrict construction as well, thus reducing the number of potential new residences.
There are also approximately 15 acres of vacant land zoned Mixed Use and 31 acres of vacant land zoned Mixed Use - Tokeland. According to the County’s zoning Code (PCC 18.72.010), the Mixed Use – Tokeland zoning district is meant to: “Provide for a broad range of residential, agricultural, commercial, recreational and limited industrial uses reflective of the existing and historical land use patterns found in the developed area of Tokeland.” The County’s 2010 Land Use Capacity Analysis notes estimates that by 2030, the Rural Activity Center of Tokeland will increase in population by 27 persons in 12 new dwelling units (based on 2.27 people/unit). The analysis also notes that Tokeland has a large number of existing small lots. Given the current shoreline development in Tokeland, it is likely that some of this new growth will occur in the shoreline.
According to the Port of Willapa Harbor, the Bay Center Marina is located totally within the designated federal navigational channel of the Palix River. Historically, the Corps has dredged this channel on a 2 to 3 year cycle to maintain depths of 10 feet MLLW. Approximately 10,000 cubic yards of sediment accumulates in this channel annually. Regular dredging is required to maintain the viability of this marina. The federal budget no longer includes funding for the
262 The Watershed Company June 2015
Corps to dredge the Nation’s small Ports. The Port of Willapa Harbor is working to develop a locally managed bay-wide dredging program (Port of Willapa Harbor, electronic reference).
Transportation Compared to other AUs, there is extensive road transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Willapa Bay AU in unincorporated Pacific County.
There is no rail infrastructure either in shoreline jurisdiction or within the Willapa Bay AU in general.
There are approximately 25 miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Willapa Bay AU. The majority of road infrastructure is within shoreline jurisdiction of Willapa Bay itself (17.37 miles) with additional smaller amounts along Palix Estuary (3.92 miles) and Nemah Estuary (2.72 miles). Within jurisdiction the main classifications of roads are U.S. highway (39%), state highway (31%), and local access (14%). Transportation infrastructure includes the following:
Major roads:
• U.S. 101 extends along the eastern and southeastern shoreline of Willapa Bay and crosses in and out of shoreline jurisdiction. U.S. 101 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance by RCW 47.06.140. This portion of U.S. 101 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
• SR 105 runs along the northern shoreline of Willapa Bay crossing in and out of shoreline jurisdiction. This portion of SR 105 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System.
Bridges: There are approximately 12 bridges within shoreline jurisdiction in the Willapa Bay AU including the following:
• There are 3 bridges on Willapa Bay where sloughs are crossed by State highways. One is located on SR 105 over Norris Sough, one is located on SR 105 over Johnson Slough and one is located on SR 101 over Teal Slough.
• One bridge is located on U.S. 101 at the mouth of the Bear River.
• One bridge is located on U.S. 101 over Greenhead Slough.
• One bridge is located on U.S. 101 at the mouth of the Naselle River.
• One bridge is located on U.S. 101 at the mouth of the North River.
263 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• One bridge is located on U.S. 101 at the mouth of the North Nemah River.
• One bridge is located on U.S. 101 at the mouth of the Niawiakum River.
• One bridge is located on U.S. 101 at the mouth of the Palix River.
• One bridge is located on SR 105 at the mouth of the Bone River.
• One bridge is located on Lynn Point Road at the mouth of the South Nemah River.
Public Access
Existing Public Access There are several existing public access areas and sites within shoreline jurisdiction of the Willapa Bay AU, including five boat launches, two marinas, and 16 shoreline public access sites. The following shoreline public access sites and trails are located within Willapa Bay shorelines:
There are also shoreline public access areas and shellfish recreational beaches mapped along Reach 6 of Willapa Bay near the mouth of the Cedar River. Both the Port of Willapa Harbor’s Tokeland Marina and Bay Center Marina are within the AU.
The following are some of the shoreline public access sites and trails located within Willapa Bay shorelines.
• Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is a 5,460-acre property located on the southeastern shores of Willapa Bay and Long Island (Willapa Bay- 15, 16, Long Island-1) and managed by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. It was established in 1937 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt with the mission of protecting migrating birds and their habitat. The refuge has salt marshes, freshwater marshes, grasslands, tideflats, old growth forests, and coastal dunes and beaches. Recreation opportunities include environmental education, fishing, hunting, photography, and wildlife observation. The Refuge has formalized recreation points such as boat launches, trails, and restroom facilities at multiple locations. Designated areas of the refuge are open for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. In addition there are primitive campgrounds located on Long Island, and there are many miles of trails on the refuge.
• Seal Slough is located along Willapa Bay in Reach 13 of the Willapa Bay AU. Columbia Land Trust will conserve 564 acres of this habitat that is home to migratory birds, waterfowl, shorebirds, salmon, steelhead, and coastal fish.
• Bruceport County Park is located 5 miles south of South Bend on SR 101. It offers campsites, RV hook-ups, picnic areas, and beach trail.
264 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Bush Pioneer County Park is located in Bay Center at 2nd Street and Park Street. It is a 40-acre park that was given by the Pioneer Association to the State in 1939, and is now managed by the Chinook Indian Nation. It offers picnic tables, tent and RV camping sites, and access to the Pacific Ocean beach. The park is located in Reach 11 of the Willapa Bay waterbody.
• Willapa Bay Water Trail stretches along the Willapa Bay, from the mouth of the Willapa River to the Willapa NWR and along the east side of the Long Beach peninsula.
• Palix State Wildlife Recreation Area is a WDFW site that contains 240 acres, located in the Palix Estuary at the confluence of the North Fork Palix, Canon, and South Fork Palix Rivers. It provides opportunities for waterfowl hunting, fishing access, hiking, bird watching and wildlife viewing.
• Gunpowder Island NAP is located on a sand island in Willapa Bay. It is a 152 acre preserve that is open to the public for the purposes of science, research and monitoring.
• Tokeland Boat Launch is located at the Port of Willapa. It provides boat launch facilities for a fee, a convenience store, campsites, and restroom facilities.
• Palix River Boat Launch is located in Reach 1 of the Palix Estuary, inland from the confluence of Palix River and Willapa Bay. The launch is a year-round concrete facility.
The recently released coastal recreation study identified recreational participation rates and trip expenditures for coastal and ocean recreation uses on the outer Pacific Coast of Washington. The study found that Washington residents make an estimated 2.46 million trips per year for recreation, spending an estimated $481 million dollars in total direct expenditures for coastal communities and the state (Point 97 and Surfrider Foundation 2015). Predominant recreational activities include beach going (67%), sightseeing (62%), photography (36%) hiking and biking (33%), surfing/kayaking/boating (7%) and wildlife viewing (40%).
Future Public Access In 2012, Pacific County set aside $25,000 for the Bush Pioneer Park Land Acquisition. According to the 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Update, Pacific County plans to transition the Bush Pioneer Park to day use, while maintaining some campsites for use with the proposed Willapa Bay Water Trail system. Proposed improvements to the Park include restrooms with shower facilities, addition of a community center, a shoreline access trail, new playground equipment, interpretive signs, an entrance sign, and landscaping.
Bush Pioneer Park is located on Goose Point Peninsula and is adjacent to the unincorporated community of Bay Center (Willapa Bay-11). It has 4,600 feet of beachfront on Willapa Bay. The park has a few camping sites, but they are in poor condition, and the park is geared more
265 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
toward day use. Amenities include restrooms, playground equipment, picnic tables and shelter, and open space.
Bruceport Park is located on SR 101 (Willapa Bay- 9). This large park offers campsites, picnic shelter, picnic tables, restroom facilities, and nearly 4,000 feet of shoreline. Proposed improvements to Bruceport Park include relocation of the park entrance and new signage, additional campsites for recreational vehicles, new restrooms with showers, office, and concessionaire space, shoreline access trail, playground equipment, picnic shelter, interpretive signs, and landscaping.
Historic and Archeological Sites Although no historic locations were identified in this assessment unit, given the historical cultural significance of Willapa Bay, there is a high likelihood that sites of archaeological significance are present.
Long Beach Peninsula The Long Beach Peninsula is a three-mile-wide, 28-mile-long sand spit that separates Willapa Bay from the Pacific Ocean. The Long Beach Peninsula contains the incorporated city of Long Beach and a portion of Ilwaco. The AU also includes (from south to north) the unincorporated urban area of Seaview, the unincorporated community of Oysterville, the Community Crossroad of Klipsan Crossing, The Rural Village of Ocean Park, The Rural Activity Center of Nahcotta and the Community Crossroads of Surfside Estates.
The Long Beach Peninsula AU contains 5,785 acres within 7 jurisdictional lakes, bays, and marine waterbodies. The AU’s shoreline ownership profile includes a substantial amount of private ownership (45%), federal ownership (28%) and State ownership (Washington State Parks) (20%). The Columbia Land Trust owns 174 acres of shorelines and the Port of Peninsula owns five acres of shorelines. Table 6-28 provides further detail on each waterbody’s characteristics.
Table 6-28. Summary Characteristics of Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Waterbodies Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation Black Lake 416 • Private 97% • Rural • County 2% • State – Parks 1% • City <1% (100%) Island Lake 232 • Private 35% • Conservancy • State – Parks 33% • Rural
266 The Watershed Company June 2015
Area of Upland Ownership Profile Current Shoreline Jurisdictional Jurisdiction (shoreline area with ownership Environment Waterbody (Acres) data) Designation • Conservation Organization 32% (100%) Loomis Lake 525 • Private 83% • Conservancy • Conservation Organization 8% • Rural • State – Parks 7% • State – WDFW 1% • County <1% • County – Other <1% (100%) Pacific Coast 2,969 • Federal 57% • Conservancy • State – Parks 35% • Natural • Private 7% • Rural • State – Other <1% • Urban • Conservation Organization <1% • County <1% (100%) Pauls Lake 75 • Private 96% • Conservancy • County <1% • (96%) Skating Lake 79 • Private 51% • Conservancy • State – Parks 49% (100%) Willapa Bay 1,487 • Private 86% • Conservancy • Conservation Organization 5% • Natural • State – Other 4% • Rural • County 2% • Urban • Port of Peninsula <1% • Federal <1% • State – Parks <1% (99%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Based on Pacific County Assessor data, the most common shoreline land use in this AU is government/institutional (34%), which includes land owned by federal, state, and county government entities. Recreational uses comprise 21% and residential uses comprise 10% of the shoreline area. A substantial amount (1,227 acres – 23%) of the shoreline is classified as vacant or undeveloped.
267 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
This AU includes several unincorporated areas that are characterized by more intense development. Seaview is the largest of these (by population). It is adjacent to Reach 7 of the Pacific Coast. According to the County’s Comprehensive Plan, land uses in Seaview are predominantly residential, with commercial and light industrial uses adjacent to the highway. The character of Seaview is that of a typical beachfront community, a commercial core with seasonal beach cabins and other permanent housing surrounding the commercial areas.
Current land uses within the AU are summarized below in Table 6-29.
Table 6-6. Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Government/Institutional 1,759 34% Vacant/Undeveloped 1,227 23% Recreation 1,099 21% Residential 513 10% Agriculture 281 5% Forestry 94 2% Quasi-Public 10 < 1% Fishing and Associated Uses 4 < 1% Commercial 3 < 1% Utilities < 1 < 1% The County’s Comprehensive Plan land use designations establish a land use pattern consistent with the areas varied existing land use pattern. The AU includes designations for the areas of greater development density including Klipsan Crossing, Nahcotta and Ocean Park. Most of the AUs shorelines are outside of these areas and are designated Public Preserve (46%), General Rural (35%) or Rural Agriculture (16%).
Current zoning of the shorelines generally follows the established Comprehensive Plan land use designations. The major zoning districts in shoreline jurisdiction are Conservation (51%), Rural Residential (26%), and Agriculture (16%). There are also smaller areas, adjacent to existing development areas, zoned Restricted Residential (246 acres), Industrial (39 acres) and Resort (14 acres). Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan land use designations are shown for each waterbody in Table 6-30.
Table 6-7. Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comp Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Black Lake • Vacant/Undeveloped 47% • Agricultural 66% • Rural Agricultural • Agriculture 35% • Rural Residential 25% 64% • Forestry 9% • Industrial 6% • General Rural 36% • Residential 5% • General Residential 2% • Incorporated Ilwaco • Incorporated <1% < 1%
268 The Watershed Company June 2015
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody • Government/Institutional • Community Commercial 2% <1% • Recreation 1% • Restricted Residential • Quasi-Public 1% <1% • Resort <1% Island Lake • Recreation 33% • Rural Residential 51% • Rural Agricultural • Government/Institutional • Conservation 31% 47% 33% • Agricultural 17% • Public Preserve 32% • Residential 14% • Restricted Residential • General Rural 21% • Vacant/Undeveloped 10% <1% • Agriculture 10% Loomis Lake • Vacant/Undeveloped 49% • Rural Residential 57% • General Rural 51% • Residential 18% • Agricultural 29% • Rural Agricultural • Recreation 12% • Restricted Residential 8% 41% • Government/Institutional • Conservation 5% • Public Preserve 7% 9% • General Residential <1% • Shoreline • Forestry 6% • Resort <1% Development 1% • Agriculture 5% • Community Commercial • Community • Quasi-Public < 1% <1% Crossroad – Klipsan Crossing <1% Pacific Coast • Government/Institutional • Conservation 92% • Public Preserve 92% 58% • Rural Residential 5% • General Rural 4% • Recreation 35% • Restricted Residential 3% • Military Reservation • Residential 3% • General Residential 1% 2% • Vacant/Undeveloped 3% • Incorporated <1% • Unincorporated – • Commercial <1% • Resort <1% Seaview 1% • Quasi-Public <1% • Community Commercial • Shoreline • Utilities <1% <1% Development < 1% • Forestry < 1% • Industrial <1% • Incorporated - Ilwaco <1% • Rural Village – Ocean Park < 1% Pauls Lake • Vacant/Undeveloped 45% • Rural Residential 64% • General Rural 96% • Residential 27% • Restricted Residential • Rural Village – • Forestry 19% 36% Ocean Park 4% • Recreation 5% • Government/Institutional <1% Skating Lake • Recreation 58% • Rural Residential 82% • General Rural 55% • Vacant/Undeveloped 31% • Resort 16% • Public Preserve 45% • Residential 7% • Agricultural 3% • Government/Institutional 3% Willapa Bay • Vacant/Undeveloped 45% • Rural Residential 43% • General Rural 81%
269 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody • Residential 19% • Agricultural 27% • Rural Agricultural • Government/Institutional • Conservation 22% 18% 11% • Restricted Residential 7% • Rural Activity Center • Agriculture 7% • Industrial 1% – Nahcotta 1% • Recreation 1% • Community Commercial • Public Preserve <1% • Forestry 1% <1% • Fishing and associated • Mixed Use < 1% uses < 1% • Resort < 1% • Commercial <1%
Shoreline land use patterns within the Long Beach Peninsula AU varies by reach. Recreational use is a predominant use throughout the AU. The northern and southernmost reaches of the AU are comprised primarily of publicly owned parks and preserved lands. Reach 4 of the Pacific Coast consists entirely of the Willapa NWR at the northern end of the Long Beach Peninsula, and Leadbetter State Park just south of it. Reach 8 of the Pacific Coast at the southern end of the Peninsula consists of Cape Disappointment State Park and the Coast Guard Station at Cape Disappointment. Recreational uses are also present in the AU’s lakes, including Island Lake -1 (62 acres), Loomis Lake – 2 (36 acres), and Skating Lake – 1 (42 acres).
This AU also contains a significant amount of shoreline area that is not designated by the Assessor. Undesignated shoreline areas constitute approximately 4% of the total AU shorelines. Three quarters (77%) of this undesignated shoreline land area is located in Reach 1 of the Hines Marsh waterbody Reach 1. These lands appear to be undesignated because they are along the Pacific Ocean and have not been included in County Parcels. Presumably this is because these beach areas are part of the SCA and cannot be developed.
Residential shoreline uses are concentrated in Reach 17 of Willapa Bay (236 acres), Reach 1 of Loomis Lake (90acres), Black Lake (18 acres), Hines Marsh (35 acres), Reach 6 of the Pacific Coast (68 acres), Pauls Lake (19 acres), Cranberry Lake (26 acres). The only commercial land use is found in Reach 17 of Willapa Bay (2.4 acres). There is no manufacturing land use within the Long Beach Peninsula AU.
Substantial vacant shoreline lands are classified in Reach 17 of Willapa Bay (476 acres), Reach 1 of Loomis Lake (239 acres), Black Lake (185 acres) and Hines Marsh (175 acres). Figure 6-11 shows the land use patterns within each shoreline reach.
270 The Watershed Company June 2015
Black Lake - 1 Agriculture Cranberry Lake - 1 Commercial Hines Marsh - 1 Fishing
Island Lake - 1 Forestry Government/Instituional Loomis Lake - 1 Quasi-public Loomis Lake - 2 Residential Pacific Coast - 4 Recreational
Pacific Coast - 5 Utilities Vacant/Undeveloped Pacific Coast - 6
Pacific Coast - 7
Pacific Coast - 8
Pauls Lake - 1
Skating Lake - 1
Willapa Bay - 17
0 500 1000 1500 2000
Figure 6-8. Current Land Use by Reach in the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit (by acre) Source: Pacific County, 2014; TWC, 2014; BERK, 2014
Water-Oriented Uses There are 1,101 acres classified as recreational use. The public access sites, parks, boat launches, and marinas in the AU are considered water-oriented uses and are described in more detail below under Public Access.
Commercial aquaculture activities that occur within the AU are water-dependent uses. These uses are concentrated in the shorelines and tidelands of Reach 17 of Willapa Bay. Public and private tidelands and beds devoted to the process of growing, farming or cultivating shellfish, including commercial clam and oyster grounds and oyster and mussel raft areas fit in this category. There are four seafood processing facilities within the AU (Moby Dick Restaurant/Nahcotta Oyster Farm, Wiegardt Bros. Inc./Jolly Roger Oysters, East Point Seafood Co., Oysterville Sea Farms). All four are located in Reach 17 of Willapa Bay at Port of Peninsula and Oysterville.
The Port of Peninsula is located in the middle of the Long Beach Peninsula at Nahcotta on Willapa Bay (Willapa Bay-17). The Port has about 90 leased slips. A Brow Hoist Boat Sling is
271 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report available for lifting boats (30' and under) into and out of Willapa Bay. Construction of a Public Boat Launch Ramp was completed in 2003. Power and water are available, as well as a boat sewage pump out station, the only one located on Willapa Bay. The Port of Peninsula has the only approved, above ground, commercial fueling facility on Willapa Bay. Much of the fuel sales are to Oyster Dredges working in the Bay. The Willapa Bay Oyster House Interpretive Center is located at the Port of Peninsula and provides visitors with information on the region’s 145-year-old oyster industry.
In addition to these uses, other water-oriented uses include swimming, boating and recreational fishing and shellfishing.
Developing Shoreline and New Uses In general, the land use pattern established in the Long Beach Peninsula AU by the Comprehensive Plan and zoning is anticipated to persist, with new development occurring at a slow pace within the established pattern. There are approximately 5,785 shoreline acres in the Long Beach Peninsula AU with a varied land use pattern.
Land uses within the AU’s shorelines are more varied than in many of the County’s other AUs. The most common uses include Government/Institutional (34 %), Recreational (21%), and Residential (10%). The Long Beach Peninsula AU, while still rural, is more developed and more populated than other unincorporated areas in Pacific County, which results in this more varied land use pattern. A relatively higher percentage of the shoreline is classified as vacant. Approximately 23% (1,227 acres) are classified as vacant or undeveloped. Figure 6-12 shows the zoning of those vacant lands in each waterbody.
272 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 6-12. Zoning of Vacant and Undeveloped Lands within the Long Beach Peninsula Assessment Unit Source: Pacific County 2014; TWC 2014; BERK 2014 Most of the vacant land is located along the Long Beach Peninsula’s eastern shores (Willapa Bay – 17), where a significant amount of residential development currently exists. The vacant lands along the bay are zoned a mix of Rural Residential (570 acres), Agriculture (356 aces), Conservation (151 acres), and Restricted Residential (74 acres). Given allowed densities, the vacant shoreline lands with residential zoning along Willapa Bay could generate a significant number of new residences. There are significant areas of wetlands and a limited area of floodplain identified along the AU’s shorelines that would restrict construction and reduce that potential number. For example, the Terra Mar subdivision at the northeastern tip of the Long Beach Peninsula is undeveloped with dense platting, but critical areas limit potential development within shoreline jurisdiction. New residential development is not anticipated in the Agricultural zoning district and is not allowed in the Conservation zoning district.
The County has prepared population and housing forecasts for the areas of more intense development in this AU. Table 6-31 shows the anticipated growth for Seaview, Ocean Park and Nahcotta.
273 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 6-31. Anticipated Growth for Seaview, Ocean Park and Nahcotta. Vacant Buildable Projected additional Forecast Additional Dwelling
Land Population 2030 Units 2030 Seaview 20 acres 182 80 Ocean Park 298 acres 155 68 Nahcotta 35.5 acres 5 2 Source: Pacific County 2010 Transportation There is limited road and transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Long Beach Peninsula AU in unincorporated Pacific County. There is no rail infrastructure either in shoreline jurisdiction or within the Long Beach Peninsula AU in general.
There are approximately three miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction. The majority of road infrastructure within the shoreline is near the Pacific Coast (2.19 miles) with additional smaller amounts near Willapa Bay (0.38 miles) and Pauls Lake (0.37 miles). Within jurisdiction the main classifications of roads are private (30%), local access (29%), and major collector (17%). Transportation infrastructure includes the following:
Major roads:
• U.S. 101 enters the Long Beach Peninsula AU from the east near Ilwaco and then turns northwest towards Holman. U.S. 101 is designated as a Highway of Statewide Significance by RCW 47.06.140. This portion of U.S. 101 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
• SR 103 runs north from U.S.101 and parallel to the Pacific Ocean on the North Beach Peninsula.
• SR 100 runs south from U.S. 101 to Cape Disappointment.
Public Access
Existing Public Access There are several shoreline public access opportunities within Long Beach Peninsula AU shoreline jurisdiction, including five boat launches, one marina, parks and 13 public access points. A large proportion of public access sites are concentrated in Reach 6 of the Pacific Coast. More detailed information about some of the public access sites is provided below.
• Port of Peninsula/Nahcotta Boat Basin is located at the Port of Peninsula and has 90 slips along with launch facilities.
• Leadbetter Point State Park is located between the southern boundary of Willapa NWR at the north end of the Long Beach Peninsula with the Pacific Ocean to the west and
274 The Watershed Company June 2015
Willapa Bay to the east. It is open to day use and provides access to seven miles of hiking trails, bird-watching, fishing, and clamming.
• Swan Marsh is a140-acre Conservation Registry property located next to Leadbetter Point State Park on the northern end of the Long Beach Peninsula, and located in Willapa Bay. 60 species of birds have been documented here.
• Willapa National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) is located on the shores of Willapa Bay. The refuge was established in 1937 by President Franklin D. Roosevelt for protection of migrating birds and their habitats. Designated areas of the refuge are open for hunting, fishing, wildlife observation, photography, environmental education and interpretation. In addition there is an observation blind located on the Tarlatt Unit and there are many miles of trails on the refuge.
• Cape Disappointment State Park is located on the Long Beach Peninsula with beach access to the Pacific Ocean. The 1882-acre park offers two miles of ocean beach, two lighthouses, an interpretive center, an amphitheater, eight miles of hiking trails, boating opportunities, clamming, and tent and RV camping. Cape Disappointment State Park has one boat ramp and a 135-foot dock at Fort Canby on Baker Bay.
• Island Lake Boat Launch is located in the Island Lake waterbody. It is operated and maintained by PacifiCorp with a grass launch site.
• Loomis Lake Boat Launch is a WDFW site that is open April through October. It has a gravel launch site and there are plans for a future park expansion project with the Department of Ecology and the State Parks and Recreation commission.
• The Seashore Conservation Area (SCA) provides public access to Pacific Coast beaches through state law that establishes the Conservation Area for the recreational use and enjoyment of the public. The Conservation Area consists of the area between the ordinary high tide line and the extreme low tide lines. All areas within this jurisdiction from Cape Disappointment to Leadbetter point are a part Conservation Area.
• Ocean Park Unit is a WDFW site that contains 2 acres of coastal wetland habitat. There are wildlife viewing opportunities for birds and waterfowl. It is also adjacent to the Oregon Silverspot butterfly restoration site.
• Oregon Silverspot Butterfly Recovery Unit is a WDFW site in the Johns River Wildlife Area that contains about 50 acres adjacent to the west side of Loomis Lake. It provides salt-spray meadow habitats for the butterflies. There are wildlife opportunities to view the butterflies and other birds and mammals. Parking and restrooms are available.
275 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
As discussed in Section 6.2.8, the recently released coastal recreation study identified recreational participation rates and trip expenditures for coastal and ocean recreation uses on the outer Pacific Coast of Washington. The study found that Washington residents make an estimated 2.46 million trips per year for recreation, spending an estimated $481 million dollars in total direct expenditures for coastal communities and the state (Point 97 and Surfrider Foundation 2015). Predominant recreational activities include beach going (67%), sightseeing (62%), photography (36%) hiking and biking (33%), surfing/kayaking/boating (7%) and wildlife viewing (40%).
Future Public Access The 2010-2030 Comprehensive Plan Update includes a line item of $750,000 to construct the Port of Peninsula Beach to Bay Trail in 2012 on the Long Beach Peninsula, Willapa Bay side. The Port of Peninsula describes a Human Powered Vehicle and Walking Trail Project on their website, stating that there is renewed interest from the private sector and several public agencies in developing the trail.
According to the 2010-2015 Pacific County Parks and Recreation CIP, there are plans to construct an Ocean Dune Open Space Park in the City of Long Beach along the Pacific Ocean. The year of estimated project completion is unknown.
The Long Beach Area Parks Management Plan (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 2009) identified several preliminary recommendations to improve shoreline public access at state parks on the Long Beach Peninsula. These recommendations include:
• Develop a recreational facilities concept plan to provide additional public access at Leadbetter Point State Park.
• Construct a hand launch site at Leadbetter Point State Park near the parking area one mile south of the main area.
• Possibility of developing hand launch sites at Loomis and Island Lakes.
• Work with other agencies and groups to develop additional recreational facilities and trails linking state park properties on the Long Beach Peninsula.
Historic and Archeological Sites There are two historic sites identified within the shoreline reaches of the Long Beach Peninsula AU in unincorporated Pacific County:
• Fort Canby Searchlight 5. Fort Canby Searchlight 5 is located in Cape Disappointment State Park and was constructed as part of the defense system during WWII.
276 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Fort Canby Searchlight 6. Fort Canby Searchlight 6 is located in Cape Disappointment State Park and was constructed as part of the defense system during WWII.
These sites are located within the Cape Disappointment National Historic District. A National Historic District has also been designated for the unincorporated community of Oysterville.
In addition, given the historic cultural significance of the Long Beach Peninsula, archaeological sites may be present.
Pacific Coast- North The Pacific Coast – North AU consists of the small portion of the Pacific Coast that extends south from Grays Harbor County to the mouth of Willapa Bay. The AU contains 216 acres of shorelines along the Pacific Ocean divided into 3 shoreline reaches for this analysis. More than half of the shoreline area (74%) is privately owned. The publicly owned Grayland Beach State Park comprises 23%. Table 6-32 provides further detail on the shoreline characteristics.
Table 6-32. Summary Characteristics of Pacific Coast - North Assessment Unit Area of Upland Ownership Profile Jurisdictional Current Shoreline Jurisdiction (shoreline area with Waterbody Environment Designation (Acres) ownership data) Pacific Coast 216 • Private 74% • Conservancy • State – Parks 23% • Natural • State – Other < 2% • Rural • County 1% (100%)
Land Use Pattern
Existing Land Uses, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan The Pacific Coast - North AU is located at the northwestern corner of Pacific County, adjacent to Grays Harbor County. It encompasses approximately 216 acres of shoreline lands. Based on Pacific County Assessor data for the area located within shoreline jurisdiction, the AU has a varied land use pattern including the following land uses: Recreation (25%), Residential (22%), and Agriculture (17%). Approximately 32% of the AU’s shoreline jurisdiction is classified as vacant or undeveloped. Current land uses within the AU are summarized below in Table 6-33.
Table 6-33. Pacific Coast - North Assessment Unit Existing Land Use Existing Land Use Acres Percent Vacant/Undeveloped 55 32% Recreation 42 25% Residential 38 22% Agriculture 28 17%
277 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Government/Institutional 4 3% Quasi-Public 2 < 1% Forestry 2 < 1%
In general, the County’s Comprehensive Plan designates the Pacific Coast - North AU for rural residential and recreational uses. Designations include General Rural (67%), Rural Agriculture (13%) and Public Preserve (20%).
Current zoning follows the land use pattern established by the Comprehensive Plan closely. Zoning districts include Rural Residential (70%), Agriculture (13%), Rural Lands (9%) and Conservation (8%). Existing land use, zoning and Comprehensive Plan Land Use Designations are shown for the Pacific Coast - North AU in Table 6-34.
Table 6-34. Pacific Coast - North Assessment Unit Land Use, Zoning and Comprehensive Plan Designation by Waterbody Jurisdictional Existing Land Use County Zoning Comp Plan Waterbody Pacific Coast • Vacant/Undeveloped 32% • Rural Residential 70% • General Rural 67% • Recreation 25% • Agricultural 13% • Public Preserve 20% • Residential 22% • Rural Lands 9% • Rural Agricultural • Agriculture 17% • Conservation 8% 13% • Government/Institutional 3% • Quasi-Public <1% • Forestry <1%
The shorelines of the northernmost reach, Reach 1, are comprised largely of Grayland Beach State Park. The shorelines of Reach 2 are characterized by the broad Pacific Ocean beach and some residential development west of SR 105. The prominent land use classifications within this reach include Residential (38%) and Vacant/Undeveloped (51%).
Reach 3, which includes the southern shoreline of the AU and substantial associated wetlands, contains small areas of more dense residential development. There are 25 acres of shoreline land classified as residential in this reach (26%) while about 28 acres of the reach is used for agriculture (30%). The other prominent land classification in the reach is Vacant/Undeveloped, which comprises 40% of Reach 3. The agricultural uses are mostly inland, adjacent to the associated wetlands. Figure 6-13 shows the overall land use patterns within each shoreline reach.
278 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 6-9. Current Land Use by Reach in the Pacific Coast – North Assessment Unit (by acre) Source: Pacific County 2014; TWC 2014; BERK 2014
Water-Oriented Uses There are 42 acres classified as recreational, 40 of which is located in Reach 1. The public access and recreational sites (listed under Public Access below) are considered water-oriented. In addition to these uses, there are other water-oriented uses, including swimming, boating and recreational fishing and shellfishing.
Developing Shoreline and New Uses The 55 acres of vacant lands are contained in a high number of small parcels (171), many of which are located along the ocean beach and are long and thin, particularly in Reach 2. The total area of those parcels is 397 acres. Most of the vacant shoreline area (86%) is zoned rural residential. At allowed densities this vacant shoreline area could generate up to 47 new residences. The size of the parcels in the area would provide opportunity for land owners to construct residences outside the shoreline jurisdiction in Reach 2. Critical areas in Reach 2, including interdunal wetlands, heavily restrict access and building spaces, thus reducing the number of anticipated residences. Parcel sizes are much smaller in Reach 3, at Washaway Beach. Because this reach is located in a severe erosion hazard area, the likelihood of any new development there is very low.
279 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Transportation There is limited transportation infrastructure within shoreline jurisdiction of the Pacific Coast – North AU in unincorporated Pacific County.
There is no rail infrastructure either in shoreline jurisdiction or within the Pacific Coast – North AU in general.
There are approximately 1.25 miles of roads within the shoreline jurisdiction of the Pacific Coast – North AU. Within jurisdiction the main classifications of roads are local access (61%), state highway (21%) and minor collector (16%). Transportation infrastructure includes the following.
Major roads:
• SR 105 crosses the entirety of the Pacific Coast – North AU from North Cove on Willapa Bay in the south and extends beyond the county boundary to the north. SR 105 is also designated as part of the Scenic and Recreational Highway System by RCW47.39.020 and RCW47.42.140.
Public Access
Existing Public Access There are several existing public access sites within shoreline jurisdiction in the Pacific Coast – North AU, including five public access sites to the Pacific Ocean and Grayland Beach State Park.
• Grayland Beach State Park offers picnic sites, RV and campsites, and access to Pacific Coast beaches. It is a 412-acre park with year-round camping, overnight yurt rentals, and 7,449 feet of shore access. Beach driving is permitted north and south of public beach access. There are no boat launches, marinas and trails identified within shoreline jurisdiction.
• The Seashore Conservation Area (SCA) provides public access to Pacific Coast beaches through state law that establishes the Conservation Area for the recreational use and enjoyment of the public. The Conservation Area consists of the area between the ordinary high tide line and the extreme low tide lines. All areas within this jurisdiction from Toke Point to Point Chehalis in Grays Harbor County are a part of the Conservation Area.
As discussed in section 6.2.8 and 6.2.9, the recently released coastal recreation study identified recreational participation rates and trip expenditures for coastal and ocean recreation uses on the outer Pacific Coast of Washington. The study found that Washington residents make an estimated 2.46 million trips per year for recreation, spending an estimated $481 million dollars
280 The Watershed Company June 2015 in total direct expenditures for coastal communities and the state (Point 97 and Surfrider Foundation 2015). Predominant recreational activities include beach going (67%), sightseeing (62%), photography (36%) hiking and biking (33%), surfing/kayaking/boating (7%) and wildlife viewing (40%).
Future Public Access The objectives of the SCA include acquiring key ocean beach areas; acquiring one right-of-way for public recreational access to State-owned tidelands and beaches per biennium; developing two ocean beach access areas per biennium; and developing a major saltwater, shoreland, or upland park providing public access to State-owned tidelands and beaches in the south Pacific County Coast per biennium (Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission 2001).
Historic and Archeological Sites There are no historic sites identified within the shoreline reaches of the Pacific Coast – North AU in unincorporated Pacific County. However, given the historic cultural significance of the Pacific Coast, archaeological sites may be present.
Coastal Ocean The Coastal Ocean AU contains 87,976 acres of marine waters, under the jurisdiction of the State of Washington.
Water-oriented uses Commercial fishing effort for Dungeness crab is generally high throughout the AU (Figure 6- 14), with lower levels adjacent to shore from the middle of the Long Beach Peninsula northwards to the Grays Harbor County line. Recreational bottomfish and lingcod effort is high in one area at the southern end of the Peninsula out to state-federal waters line.
281 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-14. Commercial and recreational fishing effort (WDFW 2014).
Green shading denotes levels from high (darkest green) to trace (lightest green) for Dungeness crab fishing effort. Dotted areas denote high use areas for recreational fishing for bottomfish and lingcod. Black line is extent of Coastal Ocean AU (3 nautical miles). The relative value of fishing grounds (Figure 6-15A) as identified through interviews with commercial, charter and private vessel fishers from Astoria and Warrenton, Oregon is highest offshore of the southern and central portion of the Coastal Ocean AU, with moderately valuable fishing grounds within the southern portion of the AU. For solely the commercial passenger fishing vessels (Figure 6-15B), valuable fishing grounds are concentrated in the southern portion of the AU, with moderate to low value grounds through the central and northern portion of the AU, respectively.
282 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 6-15. Relative value of fishing grounds for (A) commercial, charter, and private vessel sport boat sectors combined, and (B) commercial passenger fishing vessels (Steinback et al. 2010).
Black line is extent of Coastal Ocean AU (3 nautical miles).
283 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-16 shows the cumulative use across the PROUA participatory mapping results for the following layers: Recreational dive fishing, recreational kayak fishing, recreational fishing from shore, recreational intertidal harvest, recreational subsistence fishing and harvest, general beach uses, cultural use, paddling, research, sailing, surface board, swimming, tidepooling, and wildlife viewing. The heaviest intensity of uses is adjacent to the shoreline along the outer coast. The entire coast is used for recreation shellfish harvest.
Figure 6-16. Cumulative use map for selected PROUA layers.
Darker colors indicate areas with higher concentration of ‘dominant uses’, i.e., more heavily used areas. Black line is extent of Coastal Ocean AU (3 nautical miles).
284 The Watershed Company June 2015
Ocean disposal sites exist just offshore of the Coastal Ocean AU (Figure 6-17), as do several navigational buoys and aids. The primary commercial deep draft waterway is from inside Willapa Bay out through the Coastal Ocean AU do federal waters. In the PROUA, mining and mineral extraction areas and military operations were indicated to exist in the Coastal Ocean AU off of the southern portion of the Long Beach Peninsula and mining and mineral extraction north of the mouth of Willapa Bay. Marine debris was indicated to be highest along the Long Beach Peninsula.
Figure 6-17. Various other activities.
Orange shaded boxes are ocean disposal sites. Blue lines are commercial deep draft waterways. Black dots are buoys and navigational aids. As identified through PROUA participatory mapping: horizontal cross-hatched areas are military operation areas, right-leaning hatch are mining and mineral extraction areas, and left-leaning hatch areas indicate marine debris. Black line is extent of Coastal Ocean AU (3 nautical miles).
285 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Developing Shorelines and New Uses Figure 6-18 shows suitability analyses for 2 types of wind energy devices and 3 types of wave energy devices. All analyses show areas of high suitability for generation of energy within the Coastal Ocean AU.
Figure 6-18. Marine renewable energy suitability analyses for wind energy devices: mounted on jacket (A), monopile (B); and wave energy devices: mid-depths (C), nearshore M3 (D), and nearshore (E).
Black line is extent of Coastal Ocean AU (3 nautical miles).
286 The Watershed Company June 2015
Ocean Navigation Figures 6-19 through 6-22 show vessel transportation tracks in and adjacent to the Coastal Ocean AU provided by the Washington Marine Spatial Planning Portal (https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html). Maps are separated into four vessel types including fishing, commercial shipping, pleasure, and military. Navigation maps were created from 2011 AIS broadcast data collected by NOAA Marine Cadastre (2013). It is important to note that these maps are not a complete picture of vessel traffic as nearshore vessel traffic is not mapped in most regions. Red areas on the maps are regions of relatively higher vessel traffic.
Figure 6-19. Fishing vessel (vessels involved in fishing activities in the national fishing fleets) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU.
Definition of fishing vessel provided by https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html.
287 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-20. Commercial transportation (including cargo, tanker, tug/tow vessels) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU.
288 The Watershed Company June 2015
Figure 6-21. Pleasure vessel (or any vessel involved in transit and boating activities other than passenger vessels) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU.
Definition of pleasure vessel provided by https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html.
289 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Figure 6-22. Military vessel (or any vessel involved in military activities including military operation vessels, replenishment vessels, naval patrol, logistics vessels, and rescue vessels) tracks in and adjacent to the Pacific County Coastal Ocean AU.
290 The Watershed Company June 2015
Historic and Archeological sites: Figure 6-23 shows known locations of wrecks and obstructions, most of which are clustered around Cape Disappointment, with some along the southern half of the Long Beach Peninsula.
Figure 6-23. Wrecks and obstructions.
Black line is extent of Coastal Ocean AU (3 nautical miles).
291 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
7 SHORELINE MANAGEMENT RECOMMENDATIONS
The following are recommended actions for translating inventory and characterization findings into the draft SMP policies, regulations, environment designations, and restoration strategies for areas within shoreline jurisdiction. These recommendations are based on issues identified in this report and on experience and lessons learned from other SMP updates. In addition to the following analysis-specific recommendations, the updated SMP will incorporate all other requirements of the SMA (RCW 90.58) and the Guidelines (WAC 173-26).
7.1 Environment Designations
Background As outlined in WAC 173-26-191(1)(d), “Shoreline management must address a wide range of physical conditions and development settings along shoreline areas. Effective shoreline management requires that the shoreline master program prescribe different sets of environmental protection measures, allowable use provisions, and development standards for each of these shoreline segments.” In WAC 173-26-211(2)(a), the Guidelines further direct development and assignment of environment designations based on “existing use pattern, the biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of the community as expressed through comprehensive plans…” (Note: The methodology discussion in Section 7.1.2, below, describes how the function analysis scores presented in Section 5 may be considered in assigning preliminary designations).
The current SMP utilizes a system of four upland shoreline environment designations: Urban, Rural, Conservancy, and Natural, as well as an Aquatic designation. Appendix 2 of the current SMP modifies the designations with subcategories. Definitions and designation criteria were consistent with the Ecology Guidelines at the time (WAC 173-16-040(4)), and a brief description for each designation is provided in Table 7-1, below. The SMP and shoreline environment designation maps were last updated in 2000, and the shoreline environment designation assignments are expected to generally align with the existing biological and land use character, but changes in development and changes associated with the County’s vision as expressed in the latest Comprehensive Plan update (2010) may support changes to the assignment of shoreline environment designations.
Ecology’s updated Guidelines recommend use of six unique environments: Aquatic, Natural, Urban Conservancy, Rural Conservancy, Shoreline Residential, and High-Intensity. However,
292 The Watershed Company June 2015
each jurisdiction may use alternate environment designations, as appropriate, as long as they provide equal or better protection than the standard. Table 7-1, below summarizes Ecology’s suggested criteria for each of their designations, and shows the approximate correlation between the County’s existing system and Ecology’s system.
293 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Table 7-1. Comparison of Existing and Ecology-Recommended Shoreline Environment Designations
Existing Summary of County Designation Summary of Ecology’s Designation Ecology County Purpose and Criteria Purpose and Criteria Comparison Designation Designation (WAC 173-16-040(4)) (WAC 173-26-211)
Urban The Urban Environment is intended to High Intensity Purpose: “to provide for high-intensity Compared to Ecology’s High “ensure optimum utilization of water-oriented commercial, Intensity designation, the County’s shorelines within urbanized areas by transportation, and industrial uses…” Urban designation includes a providing for intensive public use and Criteria: “shoreline areas within broader scope of uses (e.g. by managing development so that it incorporated municipalities, urban residential). enhances and maintains shorelines growth areas, and industrial or for a multiplicity of urban uses.” The commercial ‘rural areas of more The County could consider using a Urban Environment includes intense development’…if they currently separate residential designation for residential, commercial, and industrial support high-intensity uses related to areas with more intense Single development. commerce, transportation or Family Residential uses. Appendix 1 of the SMP identifies the navigation; or are suitable and planned Urban Environment designation as for high-intensity water-oriented uses.” appropriate for incorporated areas and areas where urban densities exist or are expected to exist in the near future. General The General Development and High Intensity See above The General Development and Development Water-Dependent Shoreland Water-Dependent designations Shorelands designations are located along the along the Columbia River Estuary Columbia River Estuary. are similar to the County’s Urban Water- designation elsewhere throughout Dependent The purpose of the General shoreline jurisdiction. The County Shorelands Development Shorelands designation could consider integrating these is to provide an area when designations, and as noted above, (Columbia commercial uses are allowed that consider establishing a Shoreline River meet the needs of the immediate Residential designation to account Estuary) residential community. for areas of predominantly residential uses. The Water-Dependent Shoreland designation is intended to manage shorelines in urban and jetty areas
294 The Watershed Company June 2015
Existing Summary of County Designation Summary of Ecology’s Designation Ecology County Purpose and Criteria Purpose and Criteria Comparison Designation Designation (WAC 173-16-040(4)) (WAC 173-26-211) that are especially suited for water- dependent and water-related uses and protect these shorelands for water-dependent industrial, commercial and recreational use. Rural The Rural Environment is intended to Rural Rural Conservancy Purpose: “…to For the most part, Ecology’s Rural “protect agricultural land from urban Conservancy protect ecological functions, conserve Conservancy designation is very expansion, restrict intensive existing natural resources and valuable similar to the County’s Rural development along undeveloped historic and cultural areas in order to designation. The County’s Rural shorelines, function as a buffer provide for sustained resource and Conservancy designations are between urban areas, and maintain use…and provide recreational differentiated by a gradient of land open spaces and opportunities for opportunities. Examples of uses that use intensity. The County could recreational uses compatible with are appropriate…include low-impact consider whether this differentiation agricultural activities.” Uses in the outdoor recreation uses, timber is valuable in the application of Rural Environment include intensive harvesting on a sustained-yield basis, shoreline regulations. agricultural and recreational uses. agricultural uses, aquaculture, low- Appendix 1 of the SMP states that intensity residential development and Rural Shorelines may include other natural resource-based low- shorelines that “are being used for or intensity uses.” have the capacity to be used for Rural Conservancy Criteria: “if any of farming, for residences, for various the following characteristics apply: kinds of recreational facilities …currently supporting lesser-intensity including boat-launching ramps, resource-based uses, such as resorts, tourist-serving commercial agriculture, forestry, or recreational facilities.” uses, or is designated agricultural or Examples from Appendix 1 of the forest lands…; …currently SMP include: accommodating residential uses • Farmland and diked tidelands along outside urban growth areas and the Willapa River and Bay and incorporated cities or towns; other rivers drained into the Bay …shoreline is supporting human uses but subject to environmental limitations, such as properties that
295 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Existing Summary of County Designation Summary of Ecology’s Designation Ecology County Purpose and Criteria Purpose and Criteria Comparison Designation Designation (WAC 173-16-040(4)) (WAC 173-26-211)
• The unincorporated stretches of the include or are adjacent to steep banks, Long Beach Peninsula where feeder bluffs, or flood plains or other residential use exists or is planned, flood-prone areas; …high recreational value or with unique historic or cultural except near existing areas of urban resources; …shoreline has low- density and except for a protective intensity water-dependent uses.” strip of dunelands. Rural The Rural Shorelands designation Rural See above The Rural Shoreland designation for Shorelands applies to areas along the Columbia Conservancy the Columbia River Estuary is very River Estuary, and the purpose is to similar to the County’s Rural (Columbia provide for uses and activities designation, and the County could River associated with agriculture, timber consider integration of the two Estuary) management and recreation. designations. Conservancy The Conservancy Environment is Rural Most similar to Rural Conservancy as The County’s Conservancy intended to “protect, conserve and Conservancy outlined above. designation is very similar to manage existing natural resources Ecology’s Rural Conservancy and valuable historic and cultural designation. The County’s Rural areas…” for recreation and sustained and Conservancy designations are resource use. differentiated by a gradient of land Appendix 1 of the SMP states that the use intensity. The County could Conservancy Environment may consider whether this differentiation include “timber harvesting, low- is valuable in the application of density residential development, low- shoreline regulations. intensity recreational uses, agriculture…, and any other uses which may have a noticeable but not permanently overwhelming impact.” Examples include: • Shorelines where timber harvesting is, has been or is anticipated to be practiced
296 The Watershed Company June 2015
Existing Summary of County Designation Summary of Ecology’s Designation Ecology County Purpose and Criteria Purpose and Criteria Comparison Designation Designation (WAC 173-16-040(4)) (WAC 173-26-211)
• Shorelines where there are opportunities for low-intensity recreation • Shorelines where there is low- density year-round or summertime habitation • Unprotected floodplain areas • Tidelands not designated as natural • Steam beds, except for these adjacent to urban environments. Conservation The Conservation Shorelands Rural See above The Conservation designation for Shorelands designation applies to areas along the Conservancy the Columbia River Estuary is very Columbia River Estuary that provide similar to the County’s Conservancy (Columbia important resource or ecosystem designation, and the County could River support functions, as well as low integrate the two designations. Estuary) intensity recreational or sustained yield resource uses or are unsuitable for development. Natural The Natural Environment is intended Natural Purpose: "…to protect those shoreline The County and Ecology’s Natural to “preserve and restore those natural areas that are relatively free of human designations are very similar. resource systems existing relatively influence or that include intact or free of human influence.” minimally degraded shoreline functions Appendix 1 of the SMP states that the intolerant of human use. These Natural Environment may include systems require that only very low shorelines that are “valuable in their intensity uses be allowed...” present condition because they are Criteria: “…if any of the following rare, unique, and especially beautiful characteristics apply: …shoreline is or of great historical or archeological ecologically intact and therefore importance such that it wouldn’t be currently performing an important, irreplaceable function or ecosystem-
297 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Existing Summary of County Designation Summary of Ecology’s Designation Ecology County Purpose and Criteria Purpose and Criteria Comparison Designation Designation (WAC 173-16-040(4)) (WAC 173-26-211) worth changing their present condition wide process that would be damaged or function.” by human activity; …considered to Examples include: represent ecosystems and geologic • A shoreline of old growth timber types that are of particular scientific and educational interest; …unable to • Leadbetter Point and other support new development or uses important wildlife areas without significant adverse impacts to • A publicly-owned shoreline which is ecological functions or risk to human almost untouched at present safety.” • Those tidelands and tidal marshes which are valuable in their natural state • Unstable steep slopes • Certain water supply watershed areas • A protective strip of duneland. Natural The Natural Shorelands designation Natural See above The Natural designation for the Shorelands applies to areas along the Columbia Columbia River Estuary is very River Estuary that are managed for similar to the County’s Natural (Columbia resource protection, preservation, designation, and the County could River restoration and recreation, with consider integrating the two Estuary) severe restrictions on the intensity designations. and types of uses. Aquatic Aquatic Areas are defined in the Aquatic Purpose: “…to protect, restore, and The County should include an County’s current SMP as areas that manage the unique characteristics and Aquatic designation that applies to include, “the tidal waters and resources of the areas waterward of lands waterward of the OHWM. The wetlands of the estuary and non-tidal the ordinary high-water mark.” County should consider whether to sloughs, streams, and wetlands within Criteria: “…lands waterward of the include wetlands within this the shoreland areas. The upper limit ordinary high-water mark…may designation. The County may want of aquatic areas is the line of non- assign…to wetlands.” to consider multiple designations aquatic vegetation or, where such a under the Aquatic environment to
298 The Watershed Company June 2015
Existing Summary of County Designation Summary of Ecology’s Designation Ecology County Purpose and Criteria Purpose and Criteria Comparison Designation Designation (WAC 173-16-040(4)) (WAC 173-26-211) line cannot be accurately account for specific areas important determined.” for conservation or aquatic uses Section 3.B.17 of the County’s current (see below). SMP includes policies for the Aquatic Environment, yet Section 25.F designates lakes, streams and tidal waters, together with the lands underlying them in the Conservancy environment, except that navigation channels, boat basins, lands waterward of harbors, and dredge disposal sites are placed in the Urban environment. Lands waterward of water-dependent uses are classified as Urban or Rural depending on the adjacent upland use.
Natural The Natural Aquatic, Conservation Aquatic See above The County could consider whether Aquatic Aquatic, and Development Aquatic the separate Aquatic designations designations are limited to shorelines are helpful in regulating uses and Conservancy within the Columbia River Estuary. modifications in aquatic areas on the Aquatic The purpose of the Natural Aquatic Columbia River Estuary, and designation is to “assure the whether these more specific aquatic Development preservation and protection of; a) designations could be extended Aquatic significant fish and wildlife habitats, b) throughout the County. essential properties of the estuarine (Columbia resource and, c) research and River education opportunities.” Designated Estuary) areas include major tracts of tidal marshes, intertidal mud-sand flats, and ecologically important subtidal areas.”
299 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Existing Summary of County Designation Summary of Ecology’s Designation Ecology County Purpose and Criteria Purpose and Criteria Comparison Designation Designation (WAC 173-16-040(4)) (WAC 173-26-211) The Conservation Aquatic environment provides for development that does not require major alterations of the estuary, while providing for the long term use and conservation of renewable estuarine resources. Areas include small areas of tidal marsh, intertidal mud-salt flats and open water portions of the estuary and areas needed for recreational use. The Development Aquatic Environment provides for navigation and water-dependent industrial and commercial uses. Areas include existing navigation channel, access channels and turning basins. Ocean The Ocean Environment includes Aquatic See above Although Ecology does not waters of the Pacific Ocean extending specifically recommend an Ocean from Cape Disappointment to the environment designation, given the border of Grays Harbor County from unique characteristics and potential mean high tide seaward out three uses within the Ocean Environment, miles. The purpose of the Ocean the County may wish to maintain the Environment is to protect unique designation in the updated SMP. resources by managing use activities and assuring compatibility between shoreland and ocean uses.
300 The Watershed Company June 2015
Methodology There are very few firm rules guiding a methodology for environment designation recommendations. In general, the environment designation purpose and criteria should be used and further informed by the findings of this Shoreline Analysis Report, including the following GIS data.
• Current land use • Planned land use • Ownership • Wetlands • Floodplains • Vegetation • Impervious surface • Reach characterization scores (provided in Chapter 5 of this Shoreline Analysis Report)
While current and future land use provide the basic context for a given segment of land, recommended environment designations will not always correlate strongly with those parameters, particularly on currently undeveloped shoreline areas and shoreline areas with extensive critical areas (e.g., wetlands, floodways, channel migration zones, other geologically hazardous areas). This may also be the case where parcels are large, and extend well beyond shoreline jurisdiction. In those cases, the current land use code may indicate a single-family residential use, but the actual development could be located outside of shoreline jurisdiction and a more conservative designation could be appropriate to correspond with existing conditions in shoreline jurisdiction.
In some cases, vegetation (including identification of wetlands) and impervious surface data, as well as the ecological function results, may provide better gauges of the existing alteration level in shoreline jurisdiction. For this reason, parcels that have a current or planned land use of residential (or other designation allowing alteration) may ultimately have a Conservancy or even Natural environment shoreline designation if the function score is high and examination of aerial photos and specific data layers provides additional support. In these cases, the parcels can still accommodate the existing or planned uses, perhaps even in shoreline jurisdiction, and satisfy the WAC requirements for consistency between the environment designations and the Comprehensive Plans (see WAC 173-26-211(3) for additional detail about consistency requirements).
In more developed areas, current land use will be more strongly correlated with level of alteration and the resulting environment designation. In these areas, often the entire parcel or a
301 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report large portion of the parcel is in shoreline jurisdiction, and the allowed level of development may already have occurred.
Recommendations Based on the Background and Methodology outlined above, the following specific recommendations are provided for development and assignment of environment designations in the County:
• The County should establish upland environment designations that apply consistently throughout the County depending on existing land use and ecological conditions. The existing environments should be reviewed and updated, with designation criteria along with regulations and policies that incorporate clear applicability and comply with state standards, even if unique designations are utilized.
• The County should consider whether more than one Aquatic environment designation would be useful to offer different provisions as needed to protect various uses (e.g. aquaculture, navigation) or important habitat.
• Sections 21-23 of the County’s current SMP address Dunes, Tidal Wetlands of Willapa Bay, and Columbia River Estuary. Consider whether any of these areas warrant a distinct environment designation to account for the unique functions, characteristics, or development pressures that occur there.
• Substantively utilize inventory and characterization findings, such as GIS information and/or function scores, in this report to inform assignment of environment designations, as outlined in Methodology.
7.2 General Policies and Regulations Archaeological and Historic Resources • The findings of this Shoreline Analysis Report do not suggest a need for additional regulations beyond those mandated by the SMP Guidelines.
Critical Areas • Consider whether the County’s critical areas regulations should be incorporated into the SMP by reference or through direct inclusion. Either method will likely require some modification of the County’s critical areas regulations to meet SMA criteria. For example, any exceptions, such as reasonable use, will need to be removed as the appropriate SMA process for such action is through the Shoreline Variance process.
302 The Watershed Company June 2015
• The County’s critical areas ordinance was last updated in 1999. The critical areas regulations, including any shoreline buffers, will need to be revisited to ensure that they meet State standards. Shoreline critical area buffers will also need to be assessed to determine if changes are needed to recognize existing shoreline conditions and accommodate preferred uses consistent with no net loss of ecological functions.
• Explicitly address the use of mitigation banking to offset unavoidable impacts.
• Recognize that some interdunal wetlands are hydrologically associated with the shoreline and should be considered as shoreline jurisdictional wetlands (associated wetlands), even when they are well beyond 200 feet from the shoreline’s ordinary high water mark.
• Interdunal wetlands are frequently associated with many rare and endangered plant species and their associated fauna and should be given careful consideration for protection.
• Shoreline geological hazard area regulations should include provisions to address future development in areas where rapid erosion is likely (e.g., Washaway Beach). These provisions should also acknowledge that areas characterized by recent coastal accretion could become areas of coastal erosion, depending on sediment supply and transport in the CRLC. Additionally, weathering of the shoreline and geologic activity may present or create new landslide risks on properties.
• Recognized the hazards inherent in a shoreline location, such as geological hazards, channel migration zones, and tsunamis. Include standards to protect people and property from these natural hazards and to ensure if a disaster strikes, adverse impacts on the environment and other uses are avoided. New developments, when possible, should be located outside of the area of tsunami hazards.
Flood Hazard Reduction • Dikes are presently located along Willapa Bay and the lower reaches of the County’s rivers to protect ongoing uses from flooding and to allow for productive agricultural uses. Consistent with the WAC provisions in the Guidelines, the SMP should provide maximum flexibility for developing and maintaining flood hazard reduction measures as needed to continue protection of existing uses while also emphasizing the maintenance of existing ecological functions.
• There is a need to clearly identify how the maintenance of flood hazard reduction measures is regulated to protect ongoing uses. Such standards are presently identified under SMP Section 22- Tidal Wetlands of Willapa Bay.
303 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Public Access • Provide policies and regulations that recognize and facilitate implementation of existing parks, recreation, and open space plans and the Seashore Conservation Act.
• Provide public access, as feasible, in new commercial, industrial and multi-family development as well as publicly sponsored or financed utility and flood control facilities.
• Promote visual access where physical access is not feasible.
Shoreline Vegetation Conservation • Build on the existing protections provided in the County’s critical areas regulations and current SMP, paying special attention to measures that will promote retention of shoreline vegetation and development of a well-functioning shoreline that does not impair physical and habitat-forming processes.
• Ensure that vegetation provisions allow for appropriate modifications to accommodate preferred uses, particularly water-oriented uses and public access.
• Include clear standards for fill, grading, and excavation by environment designation ensuring compliance with WAC requirements.
• Ensure that vegetation management standards, including those applicable to trees, are clear regarding thinning, trimming and pruning of vegetation to maintain views and minimize safety hazards, and regarding shoreline and setback delineations.
• Ensure that vegetation standards allow adequate provisions to allow for treatment and removal of invasive vegetation that poses a threat to shoreline ecological functions.
• Ensure that vegetation standards for coastal dunes acknowledge the habitat value of sparsely vegetated dune communities.
Water Quality, Stormwater, and Nonpoint Pollution • Consider incorporating regulations to facilitate maximum implementation of TMDL plans and controlling actions that would exacerbate impaired conditions in 303(d)-listed waterbodies for which TMDLs have not yet been prepared.
• Consider adding clarifying statements noting that while the SMP regulations apply only within shoreline jurisdiction, the policies of the SMP are also policies of the County’s comprehensive plan and therefore they also apply to activities outside shoreline jurisdiction that affect water quality within shoreline jurisdiction.
• Consider special emphasis on controlling runoff adjacent to and upland of aquaculture facilities.
304 The Watershed Company June 2015
7.3 Shoreline Modification Provisions Shoreline Stabilization • Provide specific standards for shoreline stabilization separate from standards for piers, breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs.
• Ensure “replacement” and “repair” definitions and standards are consistent with WAC 173-26-231(3)(a). Repair activities should be defined to include a replacement threshold so that applicants and staff will know when “replacement” requirements need to be met.
• Reference appropriate exemptions found in the WAC related to “normal maintenance and repair” and “construction of the normal bulkhead common to single-family residences.” These are not exemptions from the regulations, however; they are exemptions only from a Shoreline Substantial Development Permit.
• Give preference to those types of shoreline modifications that have a lesser impact on ecological functions. Policies and regulations should promote "soft" over "hard" shoreline modification measures where feasible and appropriate for the site-specific conditions.
• Consider requiring a Conditional Use Permit for any new hard shoreline stabilization.
• Incentives should be included in the SMP that would encourage modification of existing armoring, where feasible, to improve habitat while still maintaining any necessary site use and protection.
• Consistent with the WAC, only permit shoreline stabilization measures where there is a demonstrated need to protect a primary structure.
• Consistent with the WAC, prohibit new structures that will require shoreline stabilization. Consider identifying areas with high erosion potential, and consider more stringent setbacks in these areas.
Piers and Docks • Provide specific standards for piers and docks separate from standards for bulkheads, breakwaters, jetties, groins and weirs.
• Develop detailed dimensional and material standards for new piers/docks and replacement or modified piers/docks, including length, width, area, and pile size and location. Typically, these standards would apply to residential uses. For other types of uses, such as commercial, industrial, and recreational, it may not be appropriate to have such defined numerical standards but rather standards for these uses should rely on mitigation sequencing to develop an appropriate design.
305 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Consider customizing these standards separately for marine/estuarine, riverine and lacustrine environments. If separate standards are established, define how the break between estuarine and riverine environments will be determined.
• Be consistent, to the extent practicable based on local conditions and requirements for no net loss, with WDFW and Corps design standards, and recognize special local issues or circumstances, including presence of federally listed fish.
• As with the current SMP, continue to place emphasis on joint-use or community piers and docks over single-use structures.
• Similar to the recommendation under Shoreline Stabilization, ensure repair activities are defined to include a replacement threshold so that applicants and staff will know when “replacement” requirements need to be met.
• Ensure that regulations address maintenance and repair of existing floating homes.
• Additional floating homes should be prohibited.
Fill • Fill activity that would restore ecological functions should be permitted or encouraged, including improvements to shoreline habitats, material to anchor LWD placements, and as needed to implement shoreline restoration.
• Fills waterward of the level of extreme high water to create developable land should be prohibited, and should only be allowed landward of level of extreme high water if not inconsistent with the requirement to protect shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes.
Breakwaters, Jetties, Groins and Weirs • Consider prohibiting new breakwaters, jetties, groins, or weirs a conditional use in the SMP, except where they are essential to restoration or maintenance of existing water- dependent uses, or where they would reduce long-term ecological degradation.
Dredging and Dredge Material Disposal • Establish provisions to allow for continued dredging while addressing long term ecological issues.
• Consider allowing the use of flow-path disposal where it is demonstrated to minimize disturbance to epibenthic organisms and result in a net benefit to shoreline functions.
• Consider a preference for dredge disposal that will distribute sediment directly to coastal shoreline of the Long Beach Peninsula.
• Continue to prohibit dredging and fill in tidal wetlands.
306 The Watershed Company June 2015
• Continue to require upland disposal at approved sites of any dredged materials not meeting EPA standards for toxic sediments.
• Require that new development be sited and designed to avoid or, if that is not possible, to minimize the need for new and maintenance dredging.
Shoreline Habitat and Natural Systems Enhancement Projects • Consider incentives to encourage restoration projects, particularly in areas identified as having lower function. For example, allow modification of impervious surface coverage, density, height, or setback requirements when paired with significant restoration. Emphasize that certain fills, such as streambed or nearshore gravels or material to anchor logs, can be an important component of some restoration projects.
Beach and Dunes Management • Consider policies that emphasize the protection of dunes outside of designated public access locations in order to protect the dunes from anthropogenic impacts.
• Ensure that vegetation standards for coastal dunes acknowledge the habitat value of sparsely vegetated dune communities. The Dune Modification Plan should continue to be included (and modified) in the new SMP.
• Recognize that management of European beach grass has different management processes relative to public and federal lands.
• Recognize that coastal beach accretions have increased the value and amount of open space.
• Consider whether the foredune area should be designated as a geologic hazard area.
Ocean Resources • Manage shoreline modifications and uses that affect ocean resources consistent with WAC 173-26-360.
• Develop enforceable policies for marine uses and modifications to help maintain sustainable marine fisheries in the County and adjacent offshore waters.
7.4 Shoreline Uses Agriculture • Maintenance of existing agriculture and support for new agriculture are commercially and locally important to Pacific County. This should be recognized in shoreline policies.
• The findings of this Shoreline Analysis Report do not suggest a need for additional regulations beyond those mandated by the SMP Guidelines.
307 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Continue to allow low-intensity agricultural uses in the Natural environment per WAC 173-26-211(5)(a)(ii)(E).
• Consider whether any special provisions are needed to allow for continued viability of cranberry bogs.
Aquaculture • Maintenance of existing aquaculture and support for new aquaculture are commercially and locally important to Pacific County. This should be recognized in shoreline policies.
• The regulations should differentiate between commercial aquaculture and species restoration aquaculture, and include special provisions for aquaculture activities that are temporary in nature.
Boating Facilities • Pacific County includes a variety of commercial, public and private boating facilities, including marinas, port uses, and community and park boat moorage and launching facilities. Regulations for the over-water components should be developed to provide applicants with as much predictability as possible, while still allowing for an appropriate amount of flexibility based on site-specific conditions and use-specific needs.
• Public access should be included as components of new marinas or expansions, where feasible.
Commercial Development • Recognize commercial uses and provide for a clear priority for water-dependent, water- related and water-oriented uses.
• Consider incentives to attract water-oriented uses in appropriate locations along the shoreline.
• Ensure water-dependent uses are not restricted by other regulatory setbacks/buffers.
• Make provisions for public access and ecological restoration requirements for non- water-dependent uses to provide clear requirements for those areas where water- dependent uses are not practical. Identification of mitigation sites or provisions for mitigation banking also could accommodate such development.
Forest Practices • Maintenance of existing forest practices is commercially and locally important to Pacific County. This should be recognized in shoreline policies.
308 The Watershed Company June 2015
• The current SMP allows timber harvest on any Conservancy shorelines and provides specific regulations for forest practices in each Shoreline Environment. WAC 173-26- 241(3)(e) directs the County that the SMP should rely on the Forest Practices Act for regulation of commercial forestry. It is recommended that the County identify those forest practices that are covered by the Forest Practices Act and evaluate whether the detailed provisions that are provided in the existing SMP are appropriate. There are specific limits on clear cutting provided in RCW 90.58.150 which must be included. Exceptions to this standard should be by conditional use review.
• The SMP standards should apply to Class IV General Forest Practices where shorelines are being converted to non-forestry uses.
• Require or prescribe specific shoreline conservation measures for forest conversions to residential uses.
Industry • Recognize industrial uses and provide for a clear priority for water-dependent, water- related and water-oriented uses.
• Consider incentives to attract water-oriented uses in appropriate locations along the shoreline.
• Ensure water-dependent uses are not restricted by other regulatory setbacks/buffers.
• Make provisions for the public access and ecological restoration requirements for non- water-dependent uses to provide clear requirements for those areas where water- dependent uses are not practical.
In-stream Structural Uses • Small-scale in-stream structures (e.g., dams, tidegates, floodgates) intended to store water and moderate flooding are found in Pacific County. Therefore, policies and regulations should allow such in-stream structural uses in the SMP while also ensuring the continued protection and preservation of ecosystem functions and cultural resources.
• Regulations may distinguish appropriate areas for in-stream structures based on Shoreline Environmental designations or specific ecological functions.
Mining • Ensure consistency with the SCA of Washington State Parks policies addressing mining of sand along the ocean beaches.
• Provide general policies and regulations for mining according to the SMP Guidelines.
309 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
• Consider policies which emphasize relocating mining away from shorelines, floodplains, and streams.
• Clearly differentiate between upland and aquatic mining.
Recreational Development • Policies and regulations related to parks management should provide clear preferences for shoreline restoration consistent with public access needs and uses. Existing natural parks should be protected and enhanced.
• Coordinate with federal, State, County, and private park owners regarding applicable environment designations, existing and future land uses/developments, and restoration opportunities to ensure policies and regulations do not conflict with ongoing or future recreational developments and park management plans.
• Recreation access to the shoreline is a priority of the Act and should recognize that water-dependent recreation is a preferred use in shoreline jurisdiction. Include provisions for existing and potential recreational uses, including boating, kayaking, swimming, and fishing.
• New shoreline access should be located and designed to maintain ecological functions.
Residential Development • Ensure that planned shoreline residential uses demonstrate adequate provision of services and utilities as appropriate to allow for shoreline recreation and ecological protection.
• Address specific unincorporated areas of more intense residential development (e.g., Tokeland, Seaview, Naselle, Chinook, Ocean Park) with appropriate regulations to match the existing conditions.
• Incorporate clear dimensional criteria for residential development, including setbacks/buffers, lot coverage, height limits, etc.
• Include provisions which ensure that new development, including the creation of new lots, would not require new shoreline stabilization in light of anticipated shoreline change, including sea level rise. New primary and accessory residential structures should be located far enough from the shoreline to prevent such a need.
• For residential subdivisions that create five or more lots, require public or community access to the shoreline where consistent with the County’s public access plan.
• Although single-family residential development is a shoreline preferred use, ensure that the master programs include provisions which assure meeting Ecology’s no net loss standard.
310 The Watershed Company June 2015
Transportation and Parking • Allow for maintenance and improvements to existing roads, parking areas, or other transportation facilities.
• There are plans to expand the Willapa Harbor Airport. SMP provisions should direct development to areas that will avoid and minimize impacts to the connectivity and restoration potential of the surrounding wetlands and ensure that any unavoidable impacts associated with the expansion are mitigated.
• For necessary new roads and parking areas, ensure that alternatives are considered that evaluate the feasibility of locating outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
• Consider policies to address uses of the abandoned railways throughout the County. These railways could provide opportunities for restoration or public access facilities.
Utilities • Allow for maintenance and improvements to existing utility facilities.
• Ensure that new utilities are sited based on an evaluation of alternatives with a preference for locating facilities outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
• Provide performance standards for necessary new utilities where other locations outside of shoreline jurisdiction are not feasible.
• Continue to maintain shoreline setbacks for septic drainfields and require connection to a public sewer if one is available.
7.5 Restoration Plan A Restoration Plan document will be prepared at a later phase of the SMP update process, consistent with WAC 173-26-201(2)(f). The Shoreline Restoration Plan must address the following six subjects (WAC 173-26-201(2) (f) (i-vi)) and incorporated findings from this analysis report:
(i) Identify degraded areas, impaired ecological functions, and sites with potential for ecological restoration;
(ii) Establish overall goals and priorities for restoration of degraded areas and impaired ecological functions;
(iii) 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;
311 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
(iv) Identify additional projects and programs needed to achieve local restoration goals, and implementation strategies including identifying prospective funding sources for those projects and programs;
(v) Identify timelines and benchmarks for implementing restoration projects and programs and achieving local restoration goals; and
(vi) 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.
The Restoration Plan will “include goals, policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions. These master program provisions should be designed to achieve overall improvements in shoreline ecological functions over time, when compared to the status upon adoption of the master program.” The Restoration Plan will mesh potential projects identified in this report with additional projects, regional or local efforts, and other programs provided by watershed groups and environmental organizations that contribute or could potentially contribute to improved ecological functions of the shoreline.
312 The Watershed Company June 2015 8 REFERENCES
Adams, P., C. Grimes, J. Hightower, S. Lindley, and M. Moser. 2002. Status Review for North American Green Sturgeon, Acipenser medirostris.
Anderson, D., P. Glibert, and J. Burkholder. 2002. Harmful Algal Blooms and Eutrophication: Nutrient Sources, Composition, and Consequences. Estuaries 25(4):704–726.
Applied Environmental Services. 2001. Pacific County (WRIA 24) Strategic Plan for Salmon Recovery.
Applied Environmental Services. 2002. Nemah/Naselle Watershed Assessment- Final Summary Report.
Armstrong, D. A., C. Rooper, and D. Gunderson. 2003. Estuarine production of juvenile dungeness crab (cancer magister) and contribution to the Oregon-Washington coastal fishery. Estuaries 26(4):1174–1188.
Banas, N. S., B. M. Hickey, P. MacReady, and J. A. Newton. 2004. Dynamics of Willapa Bay , Washington : A Highly Unsteady , Partially Mixed Estuary. American Meteorological Society 34:2413–2427.
Banas, N. S., MacCready, P., and Hickey, B. M. 2009. The Columbia River plume as cross-shelf exporter and along-coast barrier. Continental Shelf Research 29(1): 292-301.
Bargmann, G. 1998. Forage fish management plan. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Barnes, C. A., A. C. Duxbury, and B. A. Morse. 1972. Circulation and selected properties of Columbia River effluent at sea. In: A. T. Pruter and D. L. Alverson (eds.), The Columbia River Estuary and Adjacent Waters. Bioenvironmental Studies. University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA, p. 41-80.
Barton, A., B. Hales, G. G. Waldbusser, C. Langdon, and R. a. Feely. 2012. The Pacific oyster, Crassostrea gigas, shows negative correlation to naturally elevated carbon dioxide levels: Implications for near-term ocean acidification effects. Limnology and Oceanography 57(3):698–710.
Batker, D., M. Kocian, J. McFadden, and R. Schmidt. 2010. Valuing The Puget Sound Basin: Revealing our best investments.
313 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Bax, N., Williamson, A., Aguero, M., Gonzalez, E., and Geeves, W. 2003. Marine invasive alien species: a threat to global biodiversity. Marine policy 27(4), 313-323.
Blakemore, T. E. 1995. Ground-water flow and water quality in the sand aquifer of Long Beach Peninsula, Washington. USGS in coordination with Pacific County Department of Community Development and Washington State Department of Ecology.
Borja, Á., Muxika, I., and Franco, J. 2006. Long-term recovery of soft-bottom benthos following urban and industrial sewage treatment in the Nervión estuary (southern Bay of Biscay). Marine Ecology Progress Series 313(4).
Botsford, L. W., Moloney, C. L., Hastings, A., Largier, J. L., Powell, T. M., Higgins, K., and Quinn, J. F. 1994. The influence of spatially and temporally varying oceanographic conditions on meroplanktonic metapopulations. Deep Sea Research Part II: Topical Studies in Oceanography 41(1):107-145.
Bottom, D. L., D. A. Jay, C. A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A. M. Baptista, D. A. Jay, K. K. Jone, and and M. H. S. Edmundo Casillas. 2005. Salmon at river’s end : the role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia River salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo NMFS-NWFSC 68:246.
Brennan, J., and H. Culverwell. 2005. Marine riparian: An assessment of riparian functions in marine ecosystems.
Brinson, M. M. 1993. A hydrogeomorphic classification for wetlands, Technical Report WRP- DE-4, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Brodeur, R.D. 1990. A synthesis of the food habits and feeding ecology of salmonids in marine waters of the North Pacific. (INPFC Doc.) FRI-UW-9016. Fish. Res. Inst., University of Washington, Seattle. 38 pp.
Buijsman, M.C., Sherwood, C.R., Gibbs, A.E., Gelfenbaum, G., Kaminsky, G., Ruggiero, P., Franklin, J. 2003. Regional Sediment Budget for the Columbia River Littoral Cell: Analysis of Bathymetric and Topographic Volume Change. USGS Open-File Report 02-281.
Burges, S., M. Wigmosta, and J. Meena. 1998. Hydrological effects of land use change in a zero- order catchment. Journal of Hyrdrologic Engineering 3:86–97.
Burnett, D. R., Beckman, R., and Davenport, T. M. (Eds.). 2013. Submarine Cables: the handbook of Law and Policy. Martinus Nijhoff Publishers.
314 The Watershed Company June 2015
Burke, J. 2004. Life Histories of Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Columbia River Estuary, 1916 to Present. M.Sc. Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis.
Byers, J. E. 2001. Invasive Animals in Marshes biological agents of change. Pp. 41–56 in B. Silliman, E. Grosholz, and M. Bertness, editors. Human Impacts on Salt Marshes: A Global Perspective. University of California Press.
City of Long Beach. 2000. City of Long Beach Dune Management Report.
Coastal Resources Alliance. 2007. Final Report: Ranking of Estuarine Habitat Restoration Priorities in Willapa Bay, WA.
Collis, K., D. D. Roby, D. P. Craig, B. A. Ryan, and R. D. Ledgerwood. 2001. Colonial Waterbird Predation on Juvenile Salmonids Tagged with Passive Integrated Transponders in the Columbia River Estuary: Vulnerability of Different Salmonid Species, Stocks, and Rearing Types. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 130(3):385–396.
Committee on Sea Level Rise in California, Oregon, and Washington, Board on Earth Sciences and Resources (BESR), Ocean Studies Board (OSB), Division on Earth and Life Studies (DELS), National Research Council (2012). Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington: Past, Present, and Future. The National Academies Press. 260 pp.
Cordell, J. R., Lawrence, D. J., Ferm, N. C., Tear, L. M., Smith, S. S., and Herwig, R. P. 2009. Factors influencing densities of non‐indigenous species in the ballast water of ships arriving at ports in Puget Sound, Washington, United States. Aquatic Conservation: Marine and Freshwater Ecosystems 19(3):322-343.
Crawford, R. 2011. Ecological Integrity Assessment : North Pacific Coastal Interdunal Wetland. Washington Natural Heritage Program:1–10.
Cuo, L., D. P. Lettenmaier, M. Alberti, and J. E. Richey. 2009. Effects of a century of land cover and climate change on the hydrology of the Puget Sound basin. Hydrological Processes 933:907–933.
Di Leonardo, D., and Ruggiero, P. 2015. Regional scale sandbar variability: Observations from the US Pacific Northwest. Continental Shelf Research.
Douglas, A. B., Calambokidis, J., Raverty, S., Jeffries, S. J., Lambourn, D. M., and Norman, S. A. 2008. Incidence of ship strikes of large whales in Washington State. Journal of the Marine Biological Association of the UK 88(06):1121-1132.
315 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) 2006. Biennial Report: Dredging Years 2004/2005. Puget Sound Dredged Disposal Analysis, Grays Harbor/Willapa Bay Evaluation Procedures, Lower Columbia River Evaluation Framework (Washington). 78 pp.
Dumbauld, B. R., Kauffman, B. E., Trimble, A. C., and Ruesink, J. L. 2011. The Willapa Bay oyster reserves in Washington State: fishery collapse, creating a sustainable replacement, and the potential for habitat conservation and restoration. Journal of Shellfish Research 30(1):71-83.
Dumbauld, B. R., J. L. Ruesink, and S. S. Rumrill. 2009. The ecological role of bivalve shellfish aquaculture in the estuarine environment: A review with application to oyster and clam culture in West Coast (USA) estuaries. Aquaculture 290(3-4):196–223.
Dumbauld, B. R., and S. Wyllie-Echeverria. 2003. The influence of burrowing thalassinid shrimps on the distribution of intertidal seagrasses in Willapa Bay, Washington, USA. Aquatic Botany 77:27–42.
Dupont, S., Ortega-Martínez, O., and Thorndyke, M. 2010. Impact of near-future ocean acidification on echinoderms. Ecotoxicology 19(3):449-462.
Dyson, K., and D. D. Huppert. 2010. Regional economic impacts of razor clam beach closures due to harmful algal blooms (HABs) on the Pacific coast of Washington. Harmful Algae 9(3):264–271.
Eggleston, D. B., Armstrong, D. A., Elis, W. E., and Patton, W. S. 1998. Estuarine fronts as conduits for larval transport: hydrodynamics and spatial distribution of Dungeness crab postlarvae. Marine Ecology Progress Series 164, 73-82.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 2004. Survey and Characterization of Potential Offshore Wave Energy Sites in Washington.E2I/EPRI Offshore Wave Energy Plant Site Assessment – State of Washington.
Electric Power Research Institute (EPRI) 2011. Mapping and Assessment of the United States Ocean Wave Energy Resource. Prepared under contract by The Virginia Tech Advanced Research Institute and the National Renewable Energy Laboratory.
Etkin,D.S., Joeckel, J., Walker, A.H., Scholz, D., Moore, C., Baker, C., Hatzenbuhler, D., Patton, P.G., Lyman, E., Culpepper, D. Washington. 2014. Marine and Rail Transportation Study. Spill Prevention, Preparedness, and Response Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. Olympia, Washington.
316 The Watershed Company June 2015
Feagin, R. a., M. L. Martinez, G. Mendoza-Gonzalez, and R. Costanza. 2010. Salt marsh zonal migration and ecosystem service change in response to global sea level rise: A case study from an urban region. Ecology and Society 15(4).
Federal Register. 2012. Endangered and Treatened Wildlife and Plants: Revised Designation of Critical Habitat for the Pacific Coast Population of the Western Snowy Plover 77(118):36728– 36869.
Federal Register. 2013. Endangered and Threatened Wildlife and Plants: Designation of Critical Habitat for Taylor’s Checkerspot Butterfly and Streaked Horned Lark: Final Rule. Department of the Interior 78(192).
Feely, R. A., C. Sabine, J. Hernandez-Ayon, D. Ianson, and B. Hales. 2008. Evidence for upwelling of corrosive“ acidified” water onto the continental shelf. Science 320(5882):1490– 1492.
Feldman, K. L., D. a. Armstrong, B. R. Dumbauld, T. H. DeWitt, and D. C. Doty. 2000. Oysters, Crabs, and Burrowing Shrimp: Review of an Environmental Conflict over Aquatic Resources and Pesticide Use in Washington State’s (USA) Coastal Estuaries. Estuaries 23(2):141.
Fisher, B. W., and D. Velasquez. 2008. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats and Species Dungeness Crab. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.
Fisher, J. P., T. Bradley, and K. Patten. 2011. Invasion of Japanese eelgrass, Zostera japonica in the Pacific Northwest: A preliminary analysis of recognized impacts, ecological functions, and risks.
Flores, L., and D. Batker. 2014. An assessment of the value of Pacific County’s nearshore ecosystems: Economic data for the Shoreline Master Program planning process. Tacoma, Wshington.
Gelfenbaum, G., Sherwood, C.R., Peterson, C.D., Kaminsky, G.M., Buijsman, M., Twichell, D.C., Ruggiero, P., Gibbs, A.E., Reed, C. 1999. The Columbia River Littoral Cell: A Sediment Budget Overview. In the Proceedings of the 4th International Conference on Coastal Engineering and Coastal Sediment Processes (6/20-24/1999). Long Island, NY, ASCE.
317 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Genovese, P. V., and R. L. Emmett. 1997. Desktop geographic information system for salmonid resources in the Columbia River basin. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-34, 32 p.
Gingras, M.K., Pemberton, S.G., Saunders, T., Clifton, H.E. 1999. The Ichnology of Modern and Pleistocene Brackish-Water Deposits at Willapa Bay, Washington: Variability in Estuarine Settings. PALAIOS 14(4): 352-374.
Goldfinger C, Henkel, SK, et al. 2014. Benthic Habitat Characterization Offshore the Pacific Northwest Volume 1: Evaluation of Continental Shelf Geology. US Dept. of the Interior, Bureau of Ocean Energy Management, Pacific OCS Region. OCS Study BOEM 2014-662. Probert, P. K. 1984. Disturbance, sediment stability, and trophic structure of soft-bottom communities. Journal of Marine Research 42(4):893-921.
Gorostiaga JM, Borja A, Díez I, Francés G, Pagola-Carte S, Sáiz Salinas JI. 2004. Recovery of benthic communities, in polluted systems. In: Borja A, Collins M (eds) Oceanography and marine environment of the Basque Country. Elsevier Oceanogr Ser 70:549–578.
Granger, T., T. Hruby, A. McMillan, D. Peters, J. Rubey, D. Sheldon, S. Stanley, and E. Stockdale. 2005. Wetlands in Washington State. Volume 2: Guidance for Protecting and Managing Wetlands. Appendix 8-C. 2(April):1–24.
Grays Harbor County Lead Entity. 2011. The Chehalis Basin Salmon Habitat Restoration and Preservation Strategy for WRIA 22 and 23.
Greenwood, S., J. Owens, S. Faust, S. Duncan. 2011. Mouth of the Columbia River Regional Sediment Management Plan. Prepared for the Lower Columbia Solutions Group.
Gregory, M. R. 2009. Environmental implications of plastic debris in marine settings— entanglement, ingestion, smothering, hangers-on, hitch-hiking and alien invasions. Philosophical Transactions of the Royal Society B: Biological Sciences, 364(1526), 2013-2025.
Gregory, R. S., and C. D. Levings. 1998. Turbidity reduces predation on migrating juvenile Pacific salmon. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society 127:275–285.
Greiner, C. M. 2010. Principles for Strategic Conservation and Restoration.
Gruber, N., C. Hauri, Z. Lachkar, D. Loher, T. L. Frolicher, and G.-K. Plattner. 2012. Rapid Progression of Ocean Acidification in the California Current System. Science 337(6091):220– 223.
318 The Watershed Company June 2015
Gunderson, D. R., Armstrong, D. A., Shi, Y. B., and McConnaughey, R. A. 1990. Patterns of estuarine use by juvenile English sole (Parophrys vetulus) and Dungeness crab (Cancer magister). Estuaries 13(1):59-71.
Harley, C. D., Hughes, R.A., Hultgren, K. M., Miner, B. G., Sorte, C. J., Thornber, C. S., and Williams, S. L. 2006. The impacts of climate change in coastal marine systems. Ecology letters 9(2):228-241.
Habitat Work Schedule. Electronic Reference. . hws.ekosystem.us. .
Hauri, C., N. Gruber, M. Vogt, S. C. Doney, R. a. Feely, Z. Lachkar, a. Leinweber, a. M. P. McDonnell, and M. Munnich. 2013. Spatiotemporal variability and long-term trends of ocean acidification in the California Current System. Biogeosciences 10(1):193–216.
Heady, W.N., K. O’Connor, J. Kassakian, K. Doiron, C. Endris, D. Hudgens, R. P. Clark, J. Carter, and M. G. Gleason. 2014. An Inventory and Classification of U.S. West Coast Estuaries. The Nature Conservancy, Arlington, VA. 81pp. Available at: http://static.fishhabitat.org/sites/default/files/www/wc_estuaryinventory_final_report_jan15 _2015.pdf
Hedgpeth, J., and S. Obrebski. 1981. Willapa Bay: A Historical Perspective and a Rationale for Research.
Hendriks, I. E., Y. S. Olsen, L. Ramajo, L. Basso, a. Steckbauer, T. S. Moore, J. Howard, and C. M. Duarte. 2014. Photosynthetic activity buffers ocean acidification in seagrass meadows. Biogeosciences 11(2):333–346.
Hettinger, A., E. Sanford, T. M. Hill, A. D. Russell, K. N. S. Sato, J. Hoey, M. Forsch, H. N. Page, and B. Gaylord. 2012. Persistent carry-over effects of planktonic exposure to ocean acidification in the Olympia oyster. Ecology 93(12):2758–68.
Hickey, B. M. 1979. The California Current system—hypotheses and facts. Progress in Oceanography 8(4):191-279.
Hickey, B. M., and Banas, N. S. 2003. Oceanography of the US Pacific Northwest coastal ocean and estuaries with application to coastal ecology. Estuaries 26(4):1010-1031.
Hickson, R.E. and Rodolph, F.W. 1951. History of Columbia River Jetties. 1st Conference of Coastal Engineering Proceedings, 283-298.
319 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
History Link. Electronic Reference. Long Beach History. http://www.historylink.org/index.cfm?DisplayPage=output.cfm&file_id=9596. .
Hobbs, R. C., Botsford, L. W., and Thomas, A. 1992). Influence of hydrographic conditions and wind forcing on the distribution and abundance of Dungeness crab, Cancer magister, larvae. Canadian Journal of Fisheries and Aquatic Sciences. 49(7):1379-1388.
Hosack, G., and B. Dumbauld. 2006. Habitat associations of estuarine species: comparisons of intertidal mudflat, seagrass (Zostera marina), and oyster (Crassostrea gigas) habitats. Estuaries and Coasts 29(6B):1150–1160.
Hudson, Bobbi. 2014. Pacific Shellfish institute, Director. Personal Communication. August 1, 2014. Huff, D. D., Lindley, S. T., Wells, B. K., and Chai, F. 2012. Green sturgeon distribution in the Pacific Ocean estimated from modeled oceanographic features and migration behavior. PloS one 7(9), e45852.
Hughes, B., M. Levey, J. Brown, M. Fountain, A. Carlisle, S. Litvin, C. Greene, W. Heady, and M. Gleason. 2014. Nursery functions of U.S. West Coast estuaries: The state of knowledge of juveniles of focal invertebrate and fish species. Arlington, Virginia.
Huppert, D. D., A. Moore, and K. Dyson. 2009. Impacts of climate change on the coasts of Washington State. Pp. 285–309 in Climate Impacts Group, editor. The Washington Climate Change Impacts Assessment: Evaluating Washington’s Future in a Changing Climate. University of Washington, Seattle, Washington.
Industrial Economics, Inc. 2013. Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-tribal Fishing, Revised Final Report. Prepared for Washington Coastal Marine Advisory Council.
Iribarne, O., Armstrong, D., and Fernández, M. 1995. Environmental impact of intertidal juvenile Dungeness crab habitat enhancement: effects on bivalves and crab foraging rate. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 192(2):173-194.
Jacoby, G., Bunker, D., Benson, B. 1997. Tree-ring Evidence for an A.D. 1700 Cascadia Earthquake in Washington and northern Oregon. Geology 25(11): 999-1002.
Jarrett, J.T. 1976. Tidal Prism-Inlet Area Relationships. General Investigation of Tidal Inlets. US Army Coastal Engineering Research Center and US Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station. 32 pp.
320 The Watershed Company June 2015
Johannessen, J., and A. MacLennan. 2005. Beach Nourishment for Erosion Control with Emphasis on SR-105/ Washaway Beach Emergency Stabilization Project.
Johnson, G.E., Ebberts, B.D., Thom, R.M., Ricci, N.M., Whiting, A.H., Southard, J.A., Southerland, G.B., Wilcox, J.D., Berquam, T. 2003. An Ecosystem-Based Approach to Habitat Restoration Projects with Emphasis on Salmonids in the Columbia River Estuary. PNNL- 14412, Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA.
Jones, J. A. 2000. Hydrologic processes and peak discharge response to forest removal, regrowth, and roads in 10 small experimental basins, western Cascades, Oregon. Water Resources Research 36(9):2621–2642.
Kaminsky, G.M., Gelfenbaum, G. 2000. The Southwest Washington Coastal Erosion Study: A Scientific Research Project to Address Management-Scale Objectives. The Coastal Society 17th Conference. 9-12, July 2000. Portland, Oregon.
Kaminsky, G.M., Daniels, R.C., Huxford, R., McCandless, D., and Ruggiero, P. 1999. Mapping erosion hazard areas in Pacific County, Washington, Journal of Coastal Research, Special Issue #28, pp. 158-170.
Kasahara, T., and S. M. Wondzell. 2003. Geomorphic controls on hyporheic exchange flow in mountain streams. Water Resources Research 39(1):3–14.
Knutson, K., and V. Naef. 1997. Management Recommendations for Washington’s Priority Habitats, Riparian.
Komar PD, Neudeck RH, and Kulm LD. 1972. Observations and significance of deep-water oscillatory ripple marks on the Oregon continental shelf, in Swift DJP, Duane DB, and Pilkey OH eds. Shelf sediment transport. Stroudsburg, Pennsylvania, Dowden, Hutchinson and Ross, Inc.: 601-619
Krutzikowsky, G. K., and Emmett, R. L. 2005. Diel differences in surface trawl fish catches off Oregon and Washington. Fisheries Research 71(3):365-371.
Kukulka, T., and D. A. Jay. 2003. Impacts of Columbia River Discharge on Salmonid Habitat. I. A Non-stationary Fluvial Tide Model. Journal of Geophysical Research – Oceans 108:1978– 2012.
Langness, M., P. Dionne, E. Dilworth, and D. Lowry. 2013. Summary of Coastal Intertidal Forage Fish Spawning Surveys: October 2012 – April 2013.
321 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Lasmanis, R. 1991. The geology of Washington. Rocks and Minerals 66(4):262–277.
Laufle, J.C., Pauley, G.B. and Shepard, M.F. 1986. Species Profiles: Life Histories and Environmental Requirements of Coastal Fishes and Invertebrates (Pacific Northwest) – Coho Salmon. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Biological Report 82(11.48). U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, TR EL-82-4.
Lester, S. E., Costello, C., Halpern, B. S., Gaines, S. D., White, C., and Barth, J. A. 2013. Evaluating tradeoffs among ecosystem services to inform marine spatial planning. Marine Policy 38:80-89.
Levings, C. D., D. E. Boyle, and T. R. Whitehouse. 1995. Distribution and feeding of juvenile Pacific salmon in freshwater tidal creeks of the lower Fraser River, British Columbia. Fisheries Management and Ecology 2(4):299–308.
Levings, C. D., K. Conlin, and B. Raymond. 1991. Intertidal habitats used by juvenile chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytscha) rearing in the North Arm of the Fraser River estuary. Marine Pollution Bulletin 22(1):20–26.
Long Beach Mitigation Bank. 2013. Mitigation Banking Instrument, Long Beach Mitigation Bank.
Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. Electronic reference. http://www.lowercolumbiasalmonrecovery.org/mappage#b [Accessed September 24, 2014]
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 2010. Report on the Estuary.
Macdonald, T. A., Burd, B. J., and Van Roodselaar, A. 2011. Facultative feeding and consistency of trophic structure in marine soft-bottom macrobenthic communities. Marine Ecology Progress Series 445:129-140.
Mach, M. E., S. Wylie-Wscheverria, and J. Ward. 2010. Distribution and potential effects of a non-native seagrass in Washington State. Report for Washington State Department of Natural Resource and Washington Sea Grant.
Marine Debris Action Team. 2013. Marine Debris Strategy for the West Coast Governors Alliance on Ocean Health.
Marriott, D. 2002. Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Subbasin Summary. Pp. Northwest Power Planning Council.
322 The Watershed Company June 2015
Mayer, P. M., S. K. Reynolds, M. D. McCutchen, and T. J. Canfield. 2007. Meta-analysis of nitrogen removal in riparian buffers. Journal of Environmental Quality 36(4):1172–80.
Miller, B., C. Simenstad, J. Cross, K. Fresh, and S. Steinfort. 1980. Nearshore fish and macroinvertebrate assemblages along the Strait of Juan de Fuca including food habits of the common nearshore fish.
Miller, C.B. 2004. Biological Oceanography. Blackwell, Oxford.
Miller, P. E. 2003. Importance of the Washington Coast in Salmon Recovery. White Paper.
Miller, S. D., Clarke, M. E., Hastie, J. D., and Hamel, O. S. 2009. Pacific Coast Groundfish Fisheries. Our living oceans: report on the status of US living marine resources, 6th edn. NOAA Tech Memo NMFS-F/SPO-80. US Department of Commerce, 211-222.
Mitsch, W. J., and J. G. Gosselink. 2000. Wetlands, 3rd edition. John Wiley and Sons, New York, NY.
Moore, R., and S. Wondzell. 2005. Physical hydrology and the effects of forest harvesting in the Pacific Northwest: A review. Journal of the American Water Resources Association 41(4):763–784.
Morgan, E., Siemann, D. 2011 Climate Change Effects on Marine and Coastal Habitats in Washington State. National Wildlife Federation.
Moser, M. L., and S. T. Lindley. 2006. Use of Washington Estuaries by Subadult and Adult Green Sturgeon. Environmental Biology of Fishes 79(3-4):243–253.
Naiman, R. J., and H. Decamps. 1997. The Ecology of Interfaces: Riparian Zones. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 28:621–658.
National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). 2013a Fisheries of the United States 2012. Office of Science and Technology, Fisheries Statistics Division. Alan Lowther, editor.
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) satellite tagging blog: Southern Resident Killer Whale Tagging. December 29, 2015 – April 20, 2015. http://www.nwfsc.noaa.gov/research/divisions/cb/ecosystem/marinemammal/satellite_taggi ng/blog2015.cfm
Natural Renewable Energy Laboratory. Electronic Reference. Wind prospector. http://maps.nrel.gov/wind_prospector. .
323 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Northern Economics. 2013. Economic Impact of Shellfish Aquculture in Washington, Oregon, and California.
Occhipinti-Ambrogi, A. 2007. Global change and marine communities: alien species and climate change. Marine Pollution Bulletin 55(7):342-352.
Offshore Wind Best Management Practices Workshop. 2014. http://www.boem.gov/MAFMC- Offshore-Wind-Workshop/
Osgood, K. E. 2008. Climate Impacts on US Living Marine Resources: National Marine Fisheries Services Concerns, Activities and Needs. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service.
PacFIN http://pacfin.psmfc.org/pacfin_pub/data.php).
Pacific Conservation District. 2008. Willapa Watershed Assessment.
Pacific County. 2010. Pacific County Comprehensive Plan 2010-2030.
Pacific Fishery Management Council (PFMC). 2014. Review of 2013 Ocean Salmon Fisheries: Stock assessment and fishery evaluation document for the Pacific Coast Salmon Fishery Management Plan. February.
Parker, L. M., P. M. Ross, W. a. O’Connor, L. Borysko, D. a. Raftos, and H. O. Pörtner. 2012. Adult exposure influences offspring response to ocean acidification in oysters. Global Change Biology 18(1):82–92.
Patten, K. 2014. The Impacts of Nonnative Japanese Eelgrass (Zostera japonica) on Commercial Shellfish Production in Willapa Bay, WA. Agricultural Sciences 5:625-633.
Pearson, T. H., and Rosenberg, R. 1978. Macrobenthic succession in relation to organic enrichment and pollution of the marine environment. Oceanogr. Mar. Biol. Ann. Rev 16:229- 311.
Penttila, D. 2007. Marine Forage Fishes in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership:23 pp.
Pickart, A.J. 1997. Control of European Beachgrass (Ammophila arenaria) on the West Coast of the United States. California Exotic Pest Plant Council: 1197 Symposium Proceedings.
324 The Watershed Company June 2015
Polagye, B., B. Van Cleve, A. Copping, and K. Kirkendall. 2010. Environmental Effects of Tidal Energy Development. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memo. F/SPO-116, 181 p.
Port of Willapa Harbor. 2014. Bay Center Marina. Electronic reference. http://www.portofwillapaharbor.com/index.php?option=com_content&view=article&id=9:b ay-center-marina&catid=2:facilities&Itemid=5 [Accessed May 12, 2014]
Preuss, J. and G.T. Hebenstreit. 1998. Integrated Tsunami-Hazard Assessment for a Coastal Community, Grays Harbor, Washington. Assessing Earthquake Hazards and Reducing Risk in the Pacific Northwest. Eds: Rogers, A.M., T.J. Walsh, W.J. Kockelman, G.R. Priest. Washington D.C.: U.S. Government Printing Office. Pp. 517-536.
Point 97 and Surfrider Foundation. 2015. An Economic and Spatial Baseline of Coastal Recreation in Washington.
Reid, J.A., Reid, J.M., Jenkins, C.J., Zimmermann, M., Williams, S.J., and Field, M.E., 2006. USSEABED: Pacific Coast (California, Oregon, Washington) offshore surficial-sediment data release: U.S. Geological Survey Data Series 182, version 1.0. Online at http://pubs.usgs.gov/ds/2006/182/
Ruesink, J. L., J.-S. Hong, L. Wisehart, S. D. Hacker, B. R. Dumbauld, M. Hessing-Lewis, and A. C. Trimble. 2010. Congener comparison of native (Zostera marina) and introduced (Z. japonica) eelgrass at multiple scales within a Pacific Northwest estuary.
Ruggiero, P., Buijsman, M., Kaminsky, G. M., and Gelfenbaum, G. 2010. Modeling the effects of wave climate and sediment supply variability on large-scale shoreline change. Marine Geology 273(1), 127-140.
Ruggiero, P., J. Eshleman, E. Kingsley, D. Thompson, B. Voigt, G. Kaminsky, and G. Gelfenbaum. 2007. Beach morphology monitoring in the Columbia River littoral cell, 1997- 2005.
Ruggiero, P., Kaminsky, G. M., Gelfenbaum, G., and Voigt, B. 2005. Seasonal to interannual morphodynamics along a high-energy dissipative littoral cell. Journal of Coastal Research, 553-578.
Ruggiero, P., Voigt, B., and Kaminsky, G. 2000. Beach monitoring for enhanced decision- making. In Coastal Society 17th Conference Coasts at the Millennium-Portland, Oregon (pp. 516-524).
325 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Salathé, E. P., L. R. Leung, Y. Qian, and Y. Zhang. 2010. Regional climate model projections for the State of Washington. Climatic Change 102(1-2):51–75.
Satake, K, K. Shimazaki, Y. Tsuji, K. Ueda. 1996. Time and size of a giant earthquake in Cascadia inferred from Japanese tsunami records of January 1700. Nature 379: 246-249.
Schlenger, P., A. MacLennan, E. Iverson, K. Fresh, C. Tanner, B. Lyons, S. Todd, R. Carman, D. Myers, S. Campbell, and A. Wick. 2011. A Strategic Needs Assessment: Analysis of Nearshore Ecosystem Process Degredation in Puget Sound. Prepared for the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership.
Shepsis, V. 2006. Willapa Bay Shoreline Stabilization Project. Proceedings of Coastal Structures 2007 International Conference, July 2-4, Venice, Italy.
Shepsis, V., R.S. Phillips, R. Lofgren. 1997. Willapa Bay Washington Shoreline Stabilization Project. Proceedings of Western Dredging Association, WEDA, Charleston, South Carolina.
Sherwood, C.R., D.A. Jay, R.B. Harvey, P. Hamilton, C.A. Simenstad. 1990. Historical Changes in the Columbia River Estuary. Progress in Oceanography 25: 299-352.
Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe. 2015. Shoalwater Bay Indian Tribe Non Point Source Pollution Assessment Report and Management Plan. Tokeland, WA.
Shorelines Hearings Board. 1993. State of Washington Department of Ecology vs. City of Westport; Westport by the Sea Developers, Inc., William Cunningham ; Nick Beltrano; and Paul Schaefer.
Simenstad, C. A., J. L. Burke, J. E. O’Connor, C. Cannon, D. W. Heatwole, M. F. Ramirez, I. R. Waite, T. D. Counihan, K. L. Jones, and and K. L. J. Charles A. Simenstad, Jennifer L. Burke, Jim E. O’Connor, Charles Cannon, Danelle W. Heatwole, Mary F. Ramirez, Ian R. Waite, Timothy D. Counihan. 2011. Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification — Concept and Application. Pp. U.S. Geological Survery Open-File Report.
Simenstad, C. A., and K. L. Fresh. 1995. Influence of Intertidal Aquaculture on Benthic Communities in Pacific Northwest Estuaries : Scales of Disturbance. Estuaries 18(1):43–70.
Skewgar, E., and S. F. Pearson (Eds.). 2011. State of the Washington Coast: Ecology, Management, and Research PrioritiesWashington.
Smith, C. 1999. Salmon and Steelhead Habitat Limiting Factors in the Willapa Basin. Washington State Conservation Commission.
326 The Watershed Company June 2015
Smith, C., and M. Wenger. 2001. Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors Chehalis Basin and Nearby Drainages Water Resource Areas 22 and 23. Washington State Conservation Commission.
Smith, R. D., A. Ammann, C. Bartoldus, and M. M. Brinson. 1995. An approach for assessing wetland functions using hydrogeomorphic classification, reference wetlands, and functional indices. Technical Report WRP-DE-9, U.S. Corps of Engineers, Army Engineer Waterways Experiment Station, Vicksburg, MS.
Solan, M., Germano, J. D., Rhoads, D. C., Smith, C., Michaud, E., Parry, D., and Rosenberg, R. 2003. Towards a greater understanding of pattern, scale and process in marine benthic systems: a picture is worth a thousand worms. Journal of Experimental Marine Biology and Ecology 285:313-338.
Steinback, C., Kruse, S., Chen, C., Bonkoski, J., Hesselgrave, T., Lyman, N., Weiss, L., Scholz, A., and E. Backus. 2010. Supporting the Oregon Territorial Sea Plan Revision: Oregon Fishing Community Mapping Project. Supported by The David and Lucile Packard Foundation, Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development, Oregon Wave Energy Trust, Oregon Coastal Zone Management Association. 36pp. Available at: http://archive.ecotrust.org/tsp/101115_Oregon_TSP.pdf
Steneck, R. S., M. H. Graham, B. J. Bourque, D. Corbett, J. M. Erlandson, J. A. Estes, and M. J. Tegner. 2003. Kelp forest ecosystems: biodiversity, stability, resilience and future. Environmental Conservation 29(04):436–459.
Steward and Associates, and E. Knudsen. 2007. Willapa Bay Chum Salmon Investigation- Final Report.
Stevens, A.W., G. Gelfenbaum, P. Ruggiero, G.M. Kaminsky. 2012. Southwest Washington littoral drift restoration – Beach and nearshore morphological monitoring: US Geological Survey Ope-File Report 2012-1175, 67 pp.
Tallis, H. M., J. L. Ruesink, B. Dumbauld, S. Hacker, and L. M. Wisehart. 2009. Oysters and Aquaculture Practices Affect Eelgrass Density and Productivity in a Pacific Northwest Estuary. Journal of Shellfish Research 28(2):251–261.
Templeton, W. and D. Jay. 2013. Lower Columbia River Sand Supply and Removal: Estimates of Two Sand Budget Components. Journal of Waterway, Port, Coastal, and Ocean Engineering 139(5):383–392.
327 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Terich, T. and T. Levenseller. 1986. The Severe Erosion of Cape Shoalwater, Washington. Journal of Coastal Research 2(4).
The Nature Conservancy. 2013. Grays Harbor County Derelict Gear Removal Project - Annual Report. http://www.pacificfishhabitat.org/media/Grays_Harbor_Derelict_Gear_2013_Annual_Repor t_12_16_13.pdf. Accessed May 22, 2014.
The Willapa Fisheries Recovery Team, and The Willapa Alliance. 1996. The Willapa fisheries recovery strategy- First Discussion Draft.
Thrush, S. F., and Dayton, P. K. 2002. Disturbance to marine benthic habitats by trawling and dredging: implications for marine biodiversity. Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics, 449-473.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2009. Shoalwater Bay Shoreline Erosion, Washington: Final Environmental Assessment.
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 2013. Draft Supplemental EA Shoalwater Bay.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Electronic Reference. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge. http://www.fws.gov/refuge/willapa/. .
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2001. Oregon Silverspot Butterfly (Speyeria zerene hippolyta) Revised Recovery Plan. Portland, OR.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2006. Assessment of Shoalwater Reservation Coastal Erosion Project. Prepared for U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Lacey, WA.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2011. Willapa National Wildlife Refuge: Final Comprehensive Conservation Plan and Environmental Impact Statement. Ilwaco, WA.
Venturato, A., D. Arcas, and U. Kanoglu. 2007. Modeling tsunami inundation from a Cascadia subduction zone earthquake for Long Beach and Ocean Shores, Washington.
Vinson, M. R., and M. a. Baker. 2008. Poor Growth of Rainbow Trout Fed New Zealand Mud Snails Potamopyrgus antipodarum. North American Journal of Fisheries Management 28(3):701–709.
Wade, G. 2002. Salmon and Steelhead Limiting Factors Water Resource Inventory Area 25.
328 The Watershed Company June 2015
Wagner, E., B. R. Dumbauld, S. D. Hacker, A. C. Trimble, L. M. Wisehart, and J. L. Ruesink. 2012. Density-dependent effects of an introduced oyster, Crassostrea gigas, on a native intertidal seagrass, Zostera marina. Marine Ecology Progress Series 468:149–160.
Waldbusser, G. G., E. N. Powell, and R. Mann. 2013. Ecosystem effects of shell aggregations and cycling in coastal waters: An example of Chesapeake Bay oyster reefs. Ecology 94(4):895– 903.
Walsh, T.J., C.G. Caruthers, A.C. Heinitz, E.P. Myers, III, A.M. Baptista, G.B. Erdakos, R.A. Kamphaus. 2000. Tsunami Hazard Map of the Southern Washington Coast: Modeled Tsunami Inundation from a Cascadia Subduction Zone Earthquake. Washington Divisions of Geology and Earth Resources. Geologic Map GM-49.
Washington Coast Restoration Initiative. 2013. Washington Coast Restoration Initiative Project List and Funding Request.
Washington Coast Restoration Initiative. 2015. Washington Coast Restoration Initiative Project List and Funding Request.
Washington Department of Ecology. Electronic Reference. Washington’s Coast. http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/coast/erosion/jetty.html. .
Washington Department of Ecology. Electronic Reference. Washington State Coastal Atlas. https://fortress.wa.gov/ecy/coastalatlas/tools/ShorePhotos.aspx. .
Washington Department of Ecology. 2015. Washington State 2014 Marine and Rail Oil Transportation Study.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2008. State of Washington Priority Habitats and Species List.
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. 2013. Fish Passage and Diversion Screening Inventory.
Washington Department of Health. 2014. Washington Licensed Shellfish Growing Companies 8/4/2014. http://www.doh.wa.gov/Portals/1/Documents/4400/332-104-sf-co-alpha.pdf. Accessed August 01, 2014. Washington Department of Natural Resources. 2005. Washington State Floating Kelp Inventory of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Outer Coast.
329 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Washington Marine Spatial Planning. Electronic Reference. Washington Marine Spatial Planning Viewer. https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/mspmaps/index.html#. Accessed on May 15, 2015.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2012. Water Quality Assessment for Washington. http://apps.ecy.wa.gov/wats/Default.aspx. Accessed April 10, 2015.
Washington State Department of Ecology. 2014. Draft environmental impact statement control of burrowing shrimp using imadacloprid on commercial oyster and clam beds in Willapa Bay and Grays Harbor, Washington.
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 2001. Seashore Conservation Area Administrative Manual.
Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission. 2009. Long Beach Area Parks Management Plan.
Weyerhaeuser. 1996. Fall River Watershed Analysis: Public Works and Water Supply Assessment.
Wiedemann, A. M. 1984. The ecology of Pacific Northwest coastal sand dunes: a community profile.
Wiles, G. J. 2014. Draft Washington State Periodic Status Review for the Steller Sea Lion.
Williams, P. 2009. Invasive species management: a handbook of techniques. M. N. Clout (Ed.). Oxford University Press.
Williams, S. L., and E. D. Grosholz. 2008. The invasive species challenge in estuarine and coastal environments: Marrying management and science. Estuaries and Coasts 31(1):3–20.
Wisehart, L. M., B. R. Dumbauld, J. L. Ruesink, and S. D. Hacker. 2007. Importance of eelgrass early life history stages in response to oyster aquaculture disturbance. Marine Ecology Progress Series 344:71–80.
Wood, N. and C. Soulard. 2008. Variations in Community Exposure and Sensitivity to Tsunami Hazards on the Open-Ocean and Strait of Juan de Fuca Coasts of Washington. US Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report 2008-5004.
330 The Watershed Company June 2015 9 LIST OF ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS
AU ...... Assessment Unit CCAP ...... Coastal Change Analysis Program CFS ...... Cubic Feet per Second
CO2 ...... Carbon Dioxide CMZ ...... Channel Migration Zone Corps ...... U.S. Army Corps of Engineers CREST ...... Columbia Estuary Study Taskforce CRLC ...... Columbia River Littoral Cell DMMP ...... Dredged Material Management Program Ecology ...... Washington Department of Ecology EPA ...... Environmental Protection Agency EPRI ...... Electric Power Research Institute ESA ...... Endangered Species Act FEMA ...... Federal Emergency Management Agency FERC ...... Federal Energy Regulatory Commission GIS ...... Geographic information systems GMA...... Growth Management Act HPA ...... Hydraulic Project Approval LWD ...... Large Woody Debris NAP ...... Natural Area Preserve NOAA ...... National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration NPDES ...... National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System NRCS...... Natural Resources Conservation Service NWI ...... National Wetlands Inventory NWR ...... National Wildlife Refuge OFM ...... Washington State Office of Financial Management OHWM ...... Ordinary High Water Mark PAH ...... Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbon PCB ...... Polychlorinated biphenyl PHS ...... Priority Habitats and Species RCW ...... Revised Code of Washington RM ...... River Mile RV ...... Recreational Vehicle SCA ...... Seashore Conservation Area
331 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
SMA ...... Shoreline Management Act SMP ...... Shoreline Master Program SR ...... State Route SSURGO ...... Soil Survey Geographic Database TMDL ...... Total Maximum Daily Load UGA ...... Urban Growth Area USDA ...... U.S. Department of Agriculture USFWS ...... U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS ...... U.S. Geological Service WAC...... Washington Administrative Code WDFW ...... Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife WDNR ...... Washington Department of Natural Resources WRIA ...... Water Resource Inventory Area WSDOT ...... Washington State Department of Transportation
332 The Watershed Company June 2015
A PPENDIX A
Pacific County Assessment of Shoreline Jurisdiction
October 1, 2014
Faith Taylor Pacific County, Department of Community Development 1216 W. Robert Bush Dr. PO Box 68 South Bend, WA 98586
Re: Pacific County SMP Update — Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction The Watershed Company Reference Number: 130727
Dear DCD staff:
The Watershed Company, working in collaboration with the project team, has developed the enclosed Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction maps showing the draft shoreline jurisdiction for the Shoreline Master Program (SMP) update for Pacific County (County).
The draft shoreline jurisdiction shown in the maps is determined based upon the State Shoreline Management Act (SMA) and current Washington Department of Ecology (Ecology) rules and guidance documents. Under the SMA, the following areas are regulated as “Shorelines of the State” under the SMP:
• Marine waters;
• Streams and rivers with over 20 cubic feet per second (cfs) mean annual flow; their floodway and contiguous floodplain areas extending 200 feet from the floodway;
• Lakes 20 acres or greater in size, measured from ordinary high water mark (OHWM);
• Shorelands 200 feet landward from the OHWM of all marine waters, jurisdictional streams, rivers, and lakes; and
• Associated wetlands that are hydrologically connected to any of the shorelines described above, located entirely/partly within 200 feet of a jurisdictional waterbody, or are entirely/partly located within the waterbody’s 100-year floodplain.
GIS DATA
A first step towards updating the County’s shoreline jurisdiction was to compile and review existing GIS data to determine the best available data from which to assemble shoreline
Pacific County SMP Update Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction October 1, 2014 Page 2 jurisdiction. Table 1 below lists the specific GIS data components that were used to assemble shoreline jurisdiction.
Table 1. Shoreline jurisdiction component data.
Component Source Layer File Name, Date Agency Notes River and SMA_Pnts_Sugg.shp, 2010 Ecology For rivers and streams, provides stream flow the upstream extent of shoreline (20 cfs, jurisdiction and the upstream 1,000 cfs) extent of Shorelines of Statewide Significance based on a USGS study (described below). OHWM NHDFlowline, 2013 USGS Coastal data from National Hydrography Dataset (NHD). Used for OHWM of partial Pacific coastline, Willapa Bay and estuary system. OHWM.shp, 2010 City of Long Used in identifying the OHWM Beach for Pacific coastline. SMP Shoreline, 2014 The Watershed Dataset represents coastline Company segments interpreted from 2011 NAIP aerial. Used for OHWM of Pacific coastline. Pacific_County_SMP_hydro_delin Olympic Natural Used in all stream centerlines; eations.shp, 2013 Resources OHWM of Pacific coastline, Center (marine Willapa Bay and estuary system, spatial planning) and rivers. NHDWaterbody, 2013 USGS From National Hydrography Dataset. Used for certain rivers. SMA_Poly_Sugg.shp, 2010 Ecology Used for waterbodies. SMA_Poly_Adopt.shp, 2012 Ecology Used for waterbodies. Lakes.shp, 2014 Pacific County Used for waterbodies. estuary_veg_sub_combine_pnwm The Nature Upper limit of saltmarsh area , 2005 Conservancy was used to modify OHWM in estuary systems. Floodway S_FLD_HAZ_AR.shp, 2013 FEMA Preliminary DFIRM data. Areas (provided by coded FW under FLOODWAY Pacific County) field. 100-year S_FLD_HAZ_AR.shp, 2013 FEMA Preliminary DFIRM data. floodplain (provided by Mapped are areas coded either Pacific County) A, AE, AO or VE under FLD_ZONE field. Pacific County SMP Update Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction October 1, 2014 Page 3
Component Source Layer File Name, Date Agency Notes Potentially NWI.shp, 2011 US Fish and Subset of National Wetland associated Wildlife Service Inventory. These wetlands have wetlands (provided by not been field verified and are for Pacific County) informational purposes only.
While the draft shoreline jurisdiction reflects the best available GIS data, the level of accuracy remains limited and may require ground-truthing at the time of development action review. Particularly in areas with dynamic ecological processes, such as areas with estuarine or marine influences or stream/river meandering, site-specific analysis of the OHWM, wetland boundary and/or hydrologic connectivity may be needed. Each jurisdiction map therefore includes the following disclaimer, derived from Ecology’s recommendation:
All features depicted on this map are approximate. They have not been formally delineated or surveyed and are intended for planning purposes only. Additional site- specific evaluation at the project level may be needed to confirm/verify information shown on this map.
SHORELINE JURISDICTION
Marine waters Marine shorelines, extending waterward for up to 3 miles, and the area 200 feet landward of the OHWM are included under the County’s draft shoreline jurisdiction, except for marine shorelines within the Cities of Ilwaco and Long Beach. Shorelines within the Shoalwater Indian Reservation are included in the maps and will be included in the analysis; however, the SMP development process for tribal areas will be separate from the County process.
Coastal data from the National Hydrography Dataset (NHD) published by the U.S. Geological Service (USGS) was used extensively in mapping the marine OHWM along the Pacific Coast. Additionally, the OHWM for the Long Beach Peninsula coastline north of Long Beach was delineated based on extrapolation of OHWM data obtained from the City of Long Beach and aerial photo interpretation. A combination of datasets was used to map the OHWM within Willapa Bay and the nearshore estuary system.
The Pacific Coast shoreline including harbors, bays, estuaries, and inlets, seaward from the OHWM and all shorelands associated with these waters are also considered “Shorelines of Statewide Significance,” a special category of shorelines where specific priority uses are preferred.
Streams/Rivers The upstream limit of shoreline jurisdiction for streams and rivers is that point where the mean annual flow shifts from greater than 20 cfs to less than 20 cfs. The upstream 20 cfs point is Pacific County SMP Update Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction October 1, 2014 Page 4 based on a 1998 study by USGS provided by Ecology1. For purposes of this preliminary map set, draft shoreline jurisdiction is shown extending up to the USGS 20 cfs points as directed by Ecology.
Additionally, per the SMA, all areas within the floodway are included as part of shoreline jurisdiction, as well as the area up to 200 feet landward of the floodway where a contiguous floodplain is present. The current County preliminary FEMA DFIRM flood data (2013) was used to identify both the floodway and 100-year floodplain, where present. Floodway is present in the County in two general locations: along the Willapa River near its confluence with Half Moon Creek, and at the confluence of the Naselle, South Naselle, Salmon and Dell Rivers. Rivers which have mean annual flow of 1,000 cfs or greater are considered Shorelines of Statewide Significance. Within Pacific County, the rivers listed in Table 2 below meet this definition.
Table 2. Rivers qualifying as Shorelines of Statewide Significance.
Name Extent North River The segment of the mainstem from Willapa Bay north to the County boundary (the segment in the eastern portion of the County does not meet the 1,000 cfs threshold). Willapa River From Willapa Bay east for approximately 9.81 river miles. Columbia River Entire extent.
Lakes Under the SMA, lakes 20 acres or greater in size qualify as Shorelines of the State. Within unincorporated Pacific County, Ecology data suggests that 13 waterbody features be considered for designation as Shorelines of the State. These 13 features were evaluated using multiple GIS datasets, including Ecology’s SMA Adopted Shoreline Lakes and Suggested Shorelines Polygons, US Fish and Wildlife Service’s National Wetlands Inventory (NWI), and the county’s lake inventory. Boundaries and measurements of these features were compared among the datasets, and corrected based on open water surface (OHWM) observed from 2013 NAIP aerial photo. Those features that appear to meet the criteria of Shorelines of the State are included in Table 3. Those features that do not appear to meet the criteria of Shorelines of the State are listed in Table 4.
1 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pubs/USGS_reports/WRIR%2096-4208.pdf Pacific County SMP Update Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction October 1, 2014 Page 5
Table 3. Ecology’s suggested waterbodies that appear to meet the criteria of Shorelines of the State.
Feature GIS Object Estimated size Shoreline of the State Status Name ID Number (acres) Skating 49766 32.2 (open water Included. NWI data identifies as wetland, NHD Lake area is 26.2) identifies as lake or pond. Pauls 49832 20.3 Included. Lake Loomis 49881 308.96 Included. Lake Island 49889 53.1 Included. Lake Indian 50110 37.9 Included. Creek Reservoir Hines 49721 51.8 Included. Marsh East Hines 49735 83.6 Included. Marsh West Cranberry 49935 21 Included Lake
Two other waterbodies in unincorporated Pacific County not suggested by Ecology data appear to qualify as Shorelines of the State. These two waterbodies are identified in Table 4 below.
Table 4. Additional waterbodies qualifying as Shorelines of the State.
Estimated size Feature Name Shoreline of the State Status (acres) Mallard/Lost Lakes, just 21.5 Included. Appears to be of sufficient size to meet 20- east of Loomis Lake acre threshold. Unnamed Lake just north 55.05 Included. Appears to be of sufficient size to meet 20- of Loomis Lake acre threshold.
Additionally, although Black Lake (33.02 acres) itself is located entirely within the City of Ilwaco, the 200-foot –shoreline jurisdictional area extends into Pacific County.
Boundaries for the waterbody features included in the draft maps were based on three datasets (see Table 1) and a review of aerial imagery. Pacific County SMP Update Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction October 1, 2014 Page 6
Lakes greater than 1,000 acres are defined by the SMA as Shorelines of Statewide Significance. No lakes within unincorporated Pacific County meet this criterion.
Associated wetlands Associated wetlands are those wetlands that are “in proximity to and either influence or are influenced by … tidal waters or a lake or stream subject to the Shoreline Management Act” and “[t]he entire wetland is associated if any part of it lies within the area 200 feet from either the ordinary high water mark or floodway” or “if any part is located within the 100 year floodplain of a shoreline”2. Wetlands meeting the latter two criteria are mapped as “Potentially Associated Wetlands” in the attached maps. The locations and boundaries of these wetlands are drawn from National Wetlands Inventory (NWI) GIS data.
Non-associated wetlands are intentionally omitted from this map set. However, wetlands that are either outside of the floodplain or the 200-foot standard shorelands area may still be associated on the basis of a hydraulic connection to the shoreline. Wetlands that are separated by an obvious topographic break from the shoreline are not associated, provided they are outside the shoreland zone, and that the break is not an artificial feature such as a berm or road. Along the coast, all wetlands directly behind the primary dune are considered associated. Wetlands behind the second dune must have a direct hydrologic (surface) connection or be part of a continuum of associated wetlands to be associated.3 These possible additional shoreline- associated wetlands can only be determined on a project-level basis at the time of permit application. Further, the NWI wetland data are drawn from high-resolution aerials and might not be completely accurate at a parcel level. Therefore, actual wetland presence and boundaries must be verified at the project level.
Optional shoreline jurisdiction boundaries The information above describes assembly of the minimum shoreline jurisdiction. The County may further elect to expand jurisdiction to include:
1) All or part of the 100-year floodplain (as it is shown on the jurisdiction map), and/or
2) Buffers of associated wetlands4 that would otherwise encompass areas outside of shoreline jurisdiction.
2 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/jurisdiction/Shorelands.html 3 http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/st_guide/jurisdiction/Shorelands.html 4 The RCW actually allows for expansion of jurisdiction to include critical area buffers, not just wetland buffers. However, this generally is limited to wetland buffers in practice. The nature of non-shoreline streams as a mostly perpendicular element to a shoreline waterbody already brings their full buffer into shoreline jurisdiction. Geologically hazardous areas are generally assigned a setback, not a buffer. Critical aquifer recharge areas are not addressed in the SMA or SMP Guidelines, and CARAs further are not assigned a setback or a buffer. Pacific County SMP Update Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction October 1, 2014 Page 7
Under either of these options, the area of shoreline jurisdiction increases and additional properties or areas of properties would be subject to the SMP and its permitting requirements.
RCW 36.70A.480(6) says “If a local jurisdiction's master program does not include land necessary for buffers for critical areas that occur within shorelines of the state, as authorized by RCW 90.58.030(2)(f), then the local jurisdiction shall continue to regulate those critical areas and their required buffers pursuant to RCW 36.70A.060(2).” Ecology’s SMP Handbook chapter on Shoreline Jurisdiction explains the implications of this RCW as follows:
If the local government chooses not to extend its shoreline jurisdiction under RCW 90.58.030(2)(f)(ii), the CAO will protect the entire critical area and its buffers (see RCW 36.70A.480(6)). The CAO will continue to apply to the entire critical area and its buffers, even after SMP approval. However, the SMP will also apply to the portion(s) of the critical area and its buffers that lie within shoreline jurisdiction. This means the subject critical area and some or all of its buffers will have “dual coverage” with regulation by both the SMP and the CAO.
Thus, extending SMA jurisdiction helps to reduce regulatory duplication in the future. This is a fundamental issue that should be carefully considered by the County. The attached map currently does not include expanded shoreline jurisdiction to include critical area buffers and/or floodplain. Classification of associated wetlands, which would ultimately determine the regulatory buffer, has not been conducted and would be done on a site-by-site basis at the time of a development application. Evaluation of the impact from expanding jurisdiction to include floodplains can be assessed by viewing the floodplain extent as shown on the jurisdiction maps.
Federal and tribal land ownership The SMA generally does not include federal and tribal lands in shoreline jurisdiction. As stated in RCW 90.58.280: “The provisions of this chapter shall be applicable to all agencies of state government, counties, and public and municipal corporations and to all shorelines of the state owned or administered by them.” However, WAC 173-27-060 says that “lands subject to nonfederal ownership, lease or easement, even though such lands may fall within the external boundaries of a federal ownership” are subject to the SMA. For these purposes all federal and tribal lands will be included in the mapping and analysis. Provisions can be included in the County SMP addressing any future unanticipated nonfederal leases or easements on federal lands adjacent to shoreline waterbodies. SMP development for tribal and federal areas will be a process separate from the remainder of the County’s shorelines.
The proposed shoreline jurisdiction maps exclude areas within the Cities of Raymond, South Bend, Ilwaco, and Long Beach. Pacific County SMP Update Preliminary Shoreline Jurisdiction October 1, 2014 Page 8
Please call if you have any questions or if we can provide you with any additional information.
Sincerely,
Dan Nickel Environmental Engineer
Enclosures Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
A PPENDIX B
Shoreline Inventory Map Folio
The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering
June 2015
A PPENDIX C
Values Used in Scoring Functional Analysis
Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report
Road % % Fish Density Assessment Reach % % Forested % % Dams/ % % % % % % % Shellfish PHS PHS Passage Overwater (mi per Unit Name Floodway Floodplain Floodplain Armoring Levee Tidegates Alluvium Forested Vegetated Wetland Saltmarsh Eelgrass Dunegrass beds Region Wildlife PHS Fish Barrier structures ac) Cedar River - 1
June 2015
Road % % Fish Density Assessment Reach % % Forested % % Dams/ % % % % % % % Shellfish PHS PHS Passage Overwater (mi per Unit Name Floodway Floodplain Floodplain Armoring Levee Tidegates Alluvium Forested Vegetated Wetland Saltmarsh Eelgrass Dunegrass beds Region Wildlife PHS Fish Barrier structures ac) South Fork Willapa River - 1
Road % % Fish Density Assessment Reach % % Forested % % Dams/ % % % % % % % Shellfish PHS PHS Passage Overwater (mi per Unit Name Floodway Floodplain Floodplain Armoring Levee Tidegates Alluvium Forested Vegetated Wetland Saltmarsh Eelgrass Dunegrass beds Region Wildlife PHS Fish Barrier structures ac) South Fork Palix River - 1
June 2015
Road % % Fish Density Assessment Reach % % Forested % % Dams/ % % % % % % % Shellfish PHS PHS Passage Overwater (mi per Unit Name Floodway Floodplain Floodplain Armoring Levee Tidegates Alluvium Forested Vegetated Wetland Saltmarsh Eelgrass Dunegrass beds Region Wildlife PHS Fish Barrier structures ac) Elk Creek - 1
Road % % Fish Density Assessment Reach % % Forested % % Dams/ % % % % % % % Shellfish PHS PHS Passage Overwater (mi per Unit Name Floodway Floodplain Floodplain Armoring Levee Tidegates Alluvium Forested Vegetated Wetland Saltmarsh Eelgrass Dunegrass beds Region Wildlife PHS Fish Barrier structures ac) Willapa Presence Bay - 12
June 2015
Road % % Fish Density Assessment Reach % % Forested % % Dams/ % % % % % % % Shellfish PHS PHS Passage Overwater (mi per Unit Name Floodway Floodplain Floodplain Armoring Levee Tidegates Alluvium Forested Vegetated Wetland Saltmarsh Eelgrass Dunegrass beds Region Wildlife PHS Fish Barrier structures ac) Pacific Presence Coast - 8
The Watershed Company, BERK, and Coast and Harbor Engineering
June 2015
A DDENDUM TO THE S HORELINE A NALYSIS R EPORT FOR S HORELINES IN P ACIFIC C OUNTY
Final comments and additional information provided by members of the Pacific County Shoreline Planning Committee
1. Final comments on the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report from The Nature Conservancy
2. Final comments on the Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report fromthe Columbia River Crab Fisherman's Association
3. The Nature Conservancy's Coastal Vulnerability Assessment for Pacific County's Coastal and Marine Shorelines
June 1, 2015
Final Comments on the Pacific County Shoreline Inventory and Characterization Report
• Page 32: Dunes Dune discussion does not mention that a majority of dune grasses along Pacific County’s Long Beach peninsula are invasive species. I do see that on page 46 the invasive dune grasses are described, but a mention of this on page 32 may be helpful as well.
• Page 34: Shellfish Beds o Ecological functions of shellfish beds also include shoreline protection. o Also, there are both native and non-native farmed oysters in Pacific County. Maybe there should be a distinction mentioned here that both are present in Pacific County. o Toxic algae blooms can be related to water quality, but they can also be associated with offshore oceanographic conditions such as the “warm blob” that is causing toxic algae blooms and impacting shellfish harvest this year on the Washington Coast.
• Page 38: Priority Habitats: Table 3-1 - Please add the following, or equivalent text to the description of the Open Coast Nearshore habitat type: Subtidal areas extend to 100 meters depth, which includes the entirety of the Pacific County study area. WDFW indicates that areas with rocky substrate, native vegetation (e.g., eelgrass, macroalgae), or habitat-forming species (e.g., corals, sponges) are of particular importance. Additionally, soft benthic habitat composed primarily of sediments derived from the Columbia River Plume serves as an important habitat for a diversity of marine invertebrates and groundfish.
• Page 42: Marine Mammals: While not listed in WDFW’s PHS list, please include Risso’s dolphin, Pacific white-sided dolphin, Dall’s porpoise, and northern right whale dolphins in this list as they are found offshore from Pacific County (Figure 5-43).
• Page 46: Spartina Please include reference to the following report to support the statement that “isolated patches of the plant remain in the Bay”: Bennett, K. 2011. Willapa Bay: Spartina Survey 2011. University of Washington, Olympic Natural Resource Center. 43 pp. Available online: http://www.onrc.washington.edu/MarinePrograms/SpartinaSurvey2011.pdf
• Page 55: Habitat and Water Quality Changes (last paragraph regarding fisheries) o This paragraph repeats some information from the following section on Fisheries. o The information from this section could be integrated into the Fisheries section on pages 56-65
1
• Page 64: Recreational Fisheries (first sentence, first paragraph) Please correct this sentence - “A total of 720,000 anglers were licensed to fish by DFW between 2012 and 2013 on Washington’s outer coast…” - to read “A total of 720,000 recreational anglers were licensed to fish in by DFW in fresh and marine waters between 2012 and 2013 in Washington State (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014). Along the outer coast, fishers primarily target: razor clam, Dungeness crab, Albacore tuna, bottomfish, halibut, and salmon (Marine Sector Analysis Report: Non-Tribal Fishing 2014).”
• Page 84: Climate Change Global Ocean Health has updated their maps of sea level rise for Pacific County. We consider these the best available maps, to be included in the SIAC. They can be directly included in the “Climate Change” section or referenced as an addendum. Accordingly, please delete the sentence beginning “Two different analyses…” and Figures 3-22 and 3-23, and replace with either of the following: o [if text and maps included as an addendum]: In 2015, Global Ocean Health and Marine Conservation Institute completed the most up to date set of sea level rise maps using best available LiDAR surveys. The methods and selected maps are provided in Addendum __. o [if text and maps included directly into the SIAC ; text provided to TNC by Global Ocean Health]: In 2015, Global Ocean Health and Marine Conservation Institute completed the most up to date set of sea level rise maps using best available LiDAR surveys. The maps were generated as follows.
Estimates for sea level rise were applied from the 2012 National Academy of Sciences report to illustrate the best available predicted increases in sea level rise for the northwest coast for 2030, 2050, and 2100. The sea level rise predictions for 2030, 2050, and 2100, are 6.8cm, 27.5cm, and 91.6cm increases in sea level respectively. To explore the influence of tide, sea level rise is represented on top of MHHW (Mean Higher High Water), HAT (Highest Astronomical Tide), and HOWL (Highest Observed Water Level). Tidal data in Pacific County was gathered from NOAA’s tidal monitoring stations in Willapa Bay. Sea level rise predictions were mapped on top of MHHW and HAT for Oysterville, Bay Center, and South Bend/Raymond. MHHW and HAT tidal estimates were gathered from the Nahcotta, South Bend, and Toke Point tidal monitoring stations. Sea level rise predictions on top of HOWL were mapped for South Bend and Bay Center based on the only measure of HOWL for Willapa Bay at the Toke Point tidal monitoring station. The HOWL for Toke Point was 18.93 ft.
One caveat about the accuracy of these projections is that it does not accurately reflect the effects of dikes. However, diking is not as big an influence in Willapa as it is in many other areas.
2
The base maps of Pacific County used for this analysis were taken from LiDAR surveys of Southwest Washington conducted by the Oregon Department of Geology and Mineral Industries and Watershed Sciences, Inc. on May 24th, 2010. The laser points were ground-truthed against real time kinematic (RTK) ground survey points. For this survey, 9,187 ground survey points were collected. For over 90% of the data, the accuracy was between 1-5cm, and about 3% of data was only accurate to 11-15cm.
The following are example maps of sea level rise predictions in 2030, 2050, and 2100 for Bay Center and South Bend/Raymond over MHHW, HAT, and HOWL and Oysterville over MHHW and HAT. The data layers used to generate these maps are housed at the Pacific County Department of Community Development, so that county staff can view the high-resolution maps similar to those included here anywhere in Pacific County.
Figure_. Bay Center MHHW with sea level rise predictions over MHHW for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
3
Figure_. Bay Center HAT with sea level rise predictions over HAT for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
Figure_. Bay Center HOWL with sea level rise predictions over HOWL for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
4
Figure_. South Bend/ Raymond MHHW with sea level rise predictions over MHHW for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
Figure_. South Bend/ Raymond HAT with sea level rise predictions over HAT for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
5
Figure_. South Bend/ Raymond HOWL with sea level rise predictions over HOWL for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
Figure_. Oysterville MHHW with sea level rise predictions over MHHW for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
6
Figure_. Oysterville HAT with sea level rise predictions over HAT for 2030, 2050, and 2100.
References: Board, O. S. 2012. Sea-Level Rise for the Coasts of California, Oregon, and Washington:: Past, Present, and Future. National Academies Press.
7 • Page 123: Table 4-3 o Land Use Patterns – please add the following text: all CO AU waters are waters of the State. The following uses occur: commercial and recreational fishing, marine transportation, mining, various non-extractive recreational activities. o Land Cover – please add the following text: benthic habitat: 99.9% sand, 0.01% rocky reef.
• Page 257: DOH Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Growing Areas Figure 6-5: needs a description about what each color on the map means.
• Page 260: DOH Commercial and Recreational Shellfish Growing Areas Please add the following text after Table 6-4: Additional information on location, species, bed type, and harvest method for shellfish growing in Willapa Bay is presented in the forthcoming manuscript: Dumbauld, B.R. and L.M. McCoy. 2015. The effect of oyster aquaculture on seagrass (Zostera marina) at the estuarine landscape scale in Willapa Bay, Washington (USA). Aquaculture Environment Interactions, in pre-press.
• Page 263: Willapa Bay Transportation Is there any information about navigation/ boat traffic in Willapa Bay?
• Page 305: Shoreline Stabilization (Final bullet point) o Current wording: “Consistent with the WAC, prohibit new structures that will require shoreline stabilization. Consider identifying areas with high erosion potential, and consider more stringent setbacks in these areas.” o Consider adding: TNC has conducted Coastal Vulnerability analyses that identify shorelines susceptible to erosion and inundation. Preliminary results are included in an addendum to this report and additional mapping products will be provided to Pacific County.
8 SIAC Final Comments – Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association (CRCFA) 22 May 2015
These comments are meant to encourage improvements in Pacific County wellbeing and support economic security
Page 32 Distorts reality of forage fish & indicates the beaches of Pacific County are spawning grounds. No surf smelt or other spawning forage fish were discovered in 2 years of study. Surf Smelt preferred spawning substrate is 1 - 7 mm substrate according to WDFW. Pacific County Beaches are 0.20 or less mm grain size = no spawning substrate
Why not state that substrate in Pacific County beaches is beyond the preferred spawning substrate and in 2 years of WDFW investigations NO forage fish spawning was found.
Page 35 Distorts reality of Kelp beds in Pacific County by indicating there could be
Why not flatly say there are NO Identified Kelp beds in Pacific County Marine waters as available hard substrate and environmental conditions do not support kelp matts
Page 75 Destroys Concept of Coastal Sediment Rights by indicating disposal in deep scour hole just south of Columbia River buoy #7 is the proper place for dredge disposal deposition. This ignores the volumes of scientific materials supplied by CRCFA. It also ignores the unanimous conclusions of the Cape Disappointment Technical Forums of 2007 and 2009 where the BEST option to address SW Washington coastal erosion is to place sediments directly on the beach or surf zone.
Page 77 Declares that historical fish trap pilings are detrimental to Baker Bay and are contributors to the bay filling in without any science to back this up.
Real cause of Baker Bay filling with sediment is the USACE retraining the Columbia River Flow through Jetty and pile dike construction as well as channel dredging with restricts water flow in Baker Bay cause the sediment to settle out.
Page 82 – 83 Sanctions Ocean Energy as a preferred use of the ocean which could undermine the coastal people’s values by substituting the Space Needle crowd’s values and could lead to an economic disaster for Pacific County. This needs to be rewritten.
Page 104 Does not list Seafood Receiving Stations as a Water Dependent Use (Vital to Pacific County to maintain).
Page 111 Only list 2 public boat launches in the county; should have a list of all public boat launches and other public access points in the county
Page 118 List Pelicans in Willapa Bay, yet lists none in Columbia River, other listings of nuisance predator species are ignored (Caspian terns, cormorants, sea lions), these have a very detrimental impact on Pacific County economy. Willapa wildlife list is missing for the Columbia River.
Page 120 Short tailed albatross are mentioned but this needs expansion as a deterrent to offshore wind. Offshore wind must be held to the same standard as fishing. If there are
1 SIAC Final Comments – Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association (CRCFA) 22 May 2015
just 2 takes of these albatross in 2 years the fishery is shut down. NOAA fisheries has tagged and tracked short tailed albatross of SW Washington and Wind energy MUST be held to the same NO take standard as fishing.
Page 200 Neglects whale densities but calls them out and then lists dolphins??
Page 206 Claims aquaculture restricts public access. This needs clarification. Offshore fixed finfish or mussel aquaculture can restrict public access. Shellfish aquaculture is different and most does not restrict public access to navigable waters
Section 2.6.1 Framework for dredging needs attention
No overall map of public access points
No maps of boat launch points
Page 282 Needs bathymetric isobars for better reference; latitude longitude would also improve the presentations
Page 283 Ecotrust (fishermen based) & WDFW value fishing areas differently – local values vs. central government values – the Pacific County SIAC needs to display emphasis on local values
Page 284 PROUA maps are only useful for installing ocean energy utilizing BOEM leases and honestly have NO place in the Pacific County SIAC. Western Regional Director of BOEM stated that BOEM has no dedicated process to locate and avoid high value fishing areas and went one step further stating clearly, “Fishing is everywhere so it makes no difference where BOEM makes energy leases.” This is exactly what the PROUA maps show and fits into with BOEM leasing policy. Energy requests, BOEM leases; it is that simple and fishing is totally disregarded. Pacific County SIAC MUST support that fishing areas are vital to the Pacific County economic wellbeing and that some if not all areas off Pacific County are too valuable to the county to be eliminated. Hans Radtke, renowned NW marine economist state that the Brookings Institute understated Pacific County’s economic reliance on Seafood placing it at # 4 in the nation, Hans valued the local seafood dependency at almost 4X Brookings Institute figures with a 19.2% reliance on seafood for economic security.
Page 285 Dredge disposal sites on the map are over-stated; 3 listed are currently de-activated and will not be used again. Willapa offshore dredge disposal site needs investigation, the site has not be used for over 20 years and permits are no longer valid & therefore not a disposal option. Shoalwater Tribal Reservation dredge disposal site is not listed. Tokeland and Bay Center dredge disposal sites are not mapped. Flow lane Disposal is missing in the Columbia River
Page 286 Ocean energy in offshore waters does not reflect state law which requires offshore energy maps to be constructed in such a manner the ocean energy must be mapped to show areas of little conflict with existing uses, not simply where ocean energy would be best suited for ocean energy. Some ocean energy devices are too area/Kw intensive to be able to avoid conflict. Example: OPT wave energy buoys would require
2 SIAC Final Comments – Columbia River Crab Fishermen’s Association (CRCFA) 22 May 2015
approximately 2400 square miles of ocean real estate to equal the output of just 1 Bonneville Dam. Even the most efficient ocean energy device available today is Principle Powers WindFloat Pacific proposal and would still require 520 square miles to produce the same amount of electricity as just 1 Bonneville Dam in a years’ time. Without these simple comparisons the honest reality of offshore energy’s usefulness is way over stated by Space Needle ideologist and will lead to destruction of the Pacific County economy. We get all the pain and no one gets any realistic gain. There is NO cost benefit ratios offered either. The OPT waves buoys to = just 1 Bonneville Dam is over $27 billion FOB Portland, not installed. Back when nuclear energy was the supposed best future alternative it resulted in the nation’s largest public bond default in history at a meager $2.25 billion default.
Page 287 These are AIS tracks of vessels required to have AIS, 65 feet in length and over, the smaller more prolific vessels are not shown in this map
Page 290 Area adjacent to MCR vessel track needs explanation for density; probably USACE bathymetric survey vessel judging by area of intensity
Page 294 – 300 Why is this changing??
Page 300 Ecology history is to suppress the ocean unit and regulations; past ocean unit enacted in 1997 spent several years in a desk in Olympia with NO action when only a single public hearing was necessary to put the ocean unit into the SMP
Page 301 Sec. 7.1.3 recommendations?
Page 301-303 Need critical area discussions & relevancy to SMP expanded & able to be implemented
Page 305- 311 Review shoreline modifications
Page 324 BOEM best offshore wind practices do not include exclusionary floating wind projects, only monopole installations including all European examples
Note: all references need to be available to public via at a minimum ready internet accessibility
Some of these clarifications may seem minor until Pacific County attempts to support protection and preservation of existing sustainable uses and restrict new emerging fixed uses that will displace and disrupt the county economic wellbeing where county JOBS are lost and new opportunity is transferred to Seattle at our expense. I did not review the shoreside portions of the SIAC
3
Coastal Vulnerability Assessment for Pacific County’s coastal and marine shorelines
The Nature Conservancy of Washington, with support from the Natural Capital Project, is mapping the vulnerability of coastal and marine shorelines in Pacific County to coastal hazards. Specifically, we are investigating where habitats such as seagrasses, dunes, and shellfish reefs buffer shorelines from storm- induced erosion and inundation. The intent is to provide a clearer understanding of where in Willapa Bay and along the outer coast specific habitats provide the most protection, so that adaptation, protection and restoration efforts can be designed with this information in hand. We have undertaken this effort to provide information for use in the County’s Shoreline Master Plan (SMP) update currently underway. We highlight the methodology used here, initial results and discuss how results can be used in the SMP update. The final set of results will be completed this summer and made readily available to interested parties in the online viewer1 that we have generated for this region, as static maps, and/or as files for use in a GIS.
APPROACH We conduct our analysis using the Natural Capital Project’s Integrated Valuation of Environmental Services and Tradeoffs (InVEST) Coastal Vulnerability model (http://www.naturalcapitalproject.org/models/coastal_vulnerability.html). InVEST is an open-source decision-support tool developed by the Natural Capital Project. The Natural Capital Project, an innovative partnership between Stanford University’s Woods Institute for the Environment, the University of Minnesota’s Institute on the Environment, The Nature Conservancy and the World Wildlife Fund, is working to understand how to value nature and the services it provides so that leaders of countries, companies, and communities can make smarter decisions for both the planet and their bottom lines.
THE MODEL The InVEST Coastal Vulnerability model produces estimates of how vulnerable different areas of the shoreline are to erosion and inundation during coastal storms (Arkema et al. 2013; Langridge et al. 2014). Shorelines considered highly vulnerable are those that are most likely to experience erosion and inundation. That vulnerability is a based on six characteristics of the shoreline – 1) its geomorphology, 2) surrounding coastal habitats that may or may not buffer the shoreline, 3) its exposure to wind and waves, 4) the surge potential, 5) the surrounding relief, and 6) projected sea level rise. Each of these characteristics are ranked for the shoreline segment and those ranks are then combined and rescaled to produce an index of vulnerability from low to high. We are using the following data, as ArcGIS shapefiles, in the model to characterize shorelines of Pacific County.
Geomorphology of shoreline segments is from the Shorezone dataset (DNR Nearshore Habitat Program 2001). The input is in the form of a polyline, where each line segment represents a different type of geomorphology (e.g., rocky cliff, sandy beach). Shorezone shoreline classifications were viewed at a fine scale (~1:2,000) overlaid on Esri’s imagery and each segment ranked from 1 to 5. The rankings reflect
1 * http://tnc.maps.arcgis.com/apps/webappviewer/index.html?id=b5cd0dd9975045fda354415b41f6fc81 relative degree of susceptibility to erosion and inundation; for example, rocky cliffs are given a rank of ‘1’, meaning that they are less susceptible than sandy beaches (rank=5). Note – Shorezone was also used to define the boundary of the coastline, with one adjustment made at Toke Point.
Coastal habitats in the waters of Willapa Bay and on land are included as polygons and are from the following sources. The model ranks the natural habitat adjacent to each shoreline segment based on these habitat layers. Habitat layers are shown in Figure 1.
Estuarine habitats: Eelgrass beds, saltmarsh, emergent wetlands, and shellfish reefs are included as unique layers, and were all derived from the National Wetland Inventory (NWI; USFWS 2014). The NWI for this region is based on imagery from 2011. For eelgrass beds, there is no distinction in the mapped beds between native (Zostera marina) and non-native (Zostera japonica). Within the NWI’s classification scheme, eelgrass beds are considered aquatic beds within the intertidal zone; saltmarsh are emergent vegetation within the intertidal; emergent wetlands classified as freshwater emergent wetland; and shellfish reefs as reefs.
Terrestrial habitats: Dunes are classified as low or high depending on if foredune areas are projected to be overtopped by storm surges in the year 2050. Low dunes are those that are overtopped, and high dune are those not projected to be overtopped. Input data were derived from cross-dune LiDAR transects. Methods and data from Mull and Ruggiero (2014) and Serafin and Ruggiero (2014) were used in 2015 by Reuben Biel of OSU to process the data. We then performed further analyses to create polygons representing high and low dunes using the points as inputs to the ArcGIS Euclidean Allocation tool and clipping that output to only include areas between the dune toe and dune heel. Forests are characterized from two sources. The primary source is NOAA’s Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) 2010 land cover data at 30m resolution (NOAA 2014). Classes include: 'Deciduous Forest', 'Evergreen Forest', 'Estuarine Forested Wetland', 'Mixed Forest', 'Palustrine Forested Wetland', 'Palustrine Scrub/Shrub Wetland', 'Scrub/Shrub', 'Estuarine Scrub/Shrub Wetland'. We also added the coastal forest class from the NWI. Grass or Agriculture is also from C-CAP (NOAA 2014). Classes include: 'Cultivated', 'Pasture/Hay', 'Grassland'. . Wind and wave exposure is determined from Wave Watch III data (Tolman 2009) provided by NOAA and included as a default data set in the InVEST software suite. The point shapefile contains values of observed storm wind speed and wave power across an area of interest (i.e., Pacific County and its offshore waters).
Surge potential is generated from by measuring the distance from the shoreline segment to the edge of the continental shelf. In general, the longer the distance between the coastline and the edge of the continental shelf at a given area during a given storm, the higher the storm surge.
Relief is represented by a 30m resolution topography-bathymetry dataset from NOAA.
2
THE ROLE OF NATURAL HABITATS A key use of the model is to understand the role that natural habitats – both those on land and those in the water – have in buffering the shoreline from erosion and inundation. In the current set of analyses, we have explored the role of habitat by running the model with different arrangements of habitats:
1. Current conditions: All terrestrial and estuarine habitats are included. 2. No habitats: In this scenario, all terrestrial and estuarine habitats are excluded. 3. Terrestrial habitats: Here, all estuarine habitats have been excluded from the model. 4. Estuarine habitats: Here, all terrestrial habitats have been excluded from the model.
We recognize that a system devoid of all natural habitat, or even just terrestrial or estuarine habitats in isolation, is an extreme and is unlikely to occur. The purpose of these scenarios is to bookend the range of what levels of vulnerability could exist and understand where which habitats are playing the largest role in buffering shorelines.
RESULTS We can see the different levels of vulnerability of coastal and marine shorelines in Pacific County under current conditions (Figure 2A). Vulnerability ranges from high (warm colors) to low (cool colors). Areas with highest level of vulnerability currently are those at the inlet to Willapa Bay, by Washaway Beach, Toke and Leadbetter Points, as it to be expected due to their direct exposure to ocean waves.
The role of natural habitats is highlighted in Figure 2B, where terrestrial and estuarine habitats were excluded from the model. The levels of vulnerability are higher throughout the region. We further highlight where in Willapa Bay and along the outer coast habitats provide the most buffering in Figure 2C, which is a map to show the difference between Figures 2A and 2B. Here, darker green shows where excluding habitat led to the largest increase in coastal vulnerability. Again, Leadbetter and Toke Points are hotspots for the importance of habitat. Within the Bay, habitats are also providing a substantial buffer in and around Bay Center, as well as closer to the mouth of the Bay. Finally, we wanted to further understand which groups of habitat types – terrestrial or estuarine – were providing protection. Both play a role, with terrestrial habitats (Figure 3A) providing generally more protection than estuarine habitats (Figure 3B).
LIMITATIONS While we believe the results are informative, we recognize that the model does not provide a quantitative estimate of the absolute amount of erosion or inundation for a shoreline segment. It is a relative simple model, built to aggregate several complex processes into one metric. Further limitations are listed at: http://data.naturalcapitalproject.org/invest- releases/documentation/current_release/coastal_vulnerability.html#limitations-and-simplifications.
Invasive Species Habitat layers used in the InVEST Coastal Vulnerability model currently include both native and non- native species. Some of the non-natives species are invasive and while some of them may contribute to shoreline protection, they can also be detrimental to other ecosystem services. It is not the intention of this analysis to encourage Pacific County to prevent the removal of these invasive species. Shoreline protection is just one function of coastal habitats and the impact of invasive species on renewable resources, ecological services, and biodiversity should also be taken into account when making management and restoration decisions. The negative effects of some of these invasive species (e.g.
3
Ammophila spp., Zostera japonica, and Spartina) are discussed in the 2015 Pacific County Shoreline Inventory and Analysis Report.
NEXT STEPS This work will continue in the following directions throughout the summer: 1. Additional analyses: Based on input from those engaged in the SMP update and our own team’s interests, we are beginning to identify which additional analyses to conduct. Potential scenarios include an analysis of the role of shellfish reefs in providing protection, and various site specific habitat restoration options. 2. Eelgrass data: Native and non-native eelgrass are not currently distinguished from one another in the eelgrass layer. We plan to separate the two using information presented in a forthcoming manuscript: Dumbauld, B.R. and L.M. McCoy. 2015. The effect of oyster aquaculture on seagrass (Zostera marina) at the estuarine landscape scale in Willapa Bay, Washington (USA). Aquaculture Environment Interactions, in pre-press. 3. Include SLAMM results and Sea Level Rise: We are currently running the Sea Level Affecting Marsh Model (SLAMM) for Willapa Bay, to explore how distribution of a variety of marsh habitats is likely to change under scenarios of sea level rise. We are including an extension to SLAMM to evaluate migration of submerged aquatic vegetation, as well. We will use the SLAMM results in future model runs, along with layers of shoreline and geomorphology that we will recharacterize given higher water levels. The results of these model runs will give us a clearer perspective on how vulnerability may change given redistribution of habitats in response to sea level rise.
USE IN THE SMP PROCESS The SMP aims to create standards that protect people and property from natural hazards including erosion and inundation. General Master Program Provisions (WAC 173-26-211) state that Master Programs shall:
1. “Include planning provisions that address vegetation conservation and restoration, and regulatory provisions that address conservation of vegetation; as necessary to assure no net loss of shoreline ecological functions and ecosystem-wide processes, to avoid adverse impacts to soil hydrology, and to reduce the hazard of slope failures or accelerated erosion.” 2. “Allow new structural flood hazard reduction measures in shoreline jurisdiction only when it can be demonstrated by a scientific and engineering analysis that they are necessary to protect existing development, that nonstructural measures are not feasible, that impacts on ecological functions and priority species and habitats can be successfully mitigated so as to assure no net loss, and that appropriate vegetation conservation actions are undertaken consistent with WAC 173-26-221(5).”
The InVEST Coastal Vulnerability model can help Pacific County achieve these provisions by educating county planners on what shorelines are relatively more vulnerable to coastal hazards and where vegetation conservation is especially critical to maintaining shoreline protection (an important ecological function). Our results demonstrate the importance of terrestrial and estuarine habitats to increasing coastal resilience to storm activity and sea level rise. If protected and maintained, these habitats may reduce the need for some structural hazard reduction measures which could reduce costs to the county and prevent net loss of ecological functions.
4
The models can also be utilized by shoreline planners to make decisions on setbacks and buffers for both the SMP environmental designations and the Critical Area Ordinances. For example, areas zoned for development located near relatively vulnerable coastlines either now or in the future may need more stringent setbacks or buffers to protect developers and homeowners from structural damage.
These results could also be incorporated into the Pacific County Restoration Plan to help guide restoration practitioners planning projects in Pacific County. Currently, SMP Restoration Plans tend to be lists of current, ongoing, or future restoration projects. Model outputs, such as the ones shown here from InVEST, can be added into these plans to help managers make decisions on the most strategic locations to conduct restoration projects for different objectives. For instance, the maps shown here will allow restoration practitioners aiming to decrease coastal vulnerability to: (1) pinpoint sites where restoration of habitats may have the greatest impact on shoreline vulnerability and (2) identify what habitat types (e.g., terrestrial or estuarine) may be most essential to reducing shoreline vulnerability at a given site.
REFERENCES Arkema, K., G. Guannel, G. Verutes, S. A. Wood, A. Guerry, M. Ruckelshaus, P. Kareiva, M. Lacayo, and J. M. Silver. 2013. Coastal habitats shield people and property from sea-level rise and storms. Nature Climate Change 3:1–6. DNR Nearshore Habitat Program (Washington State Department of Natural Resources, Aquatic Resources Division). 2001. Washington State ShoreZone Inventory linear unit features. Olympia, WA. Available for download: https://fortress.wa.gov/dnr/adminsa/DataWeb/dmmatrix.html Langridge, S., E. Hartge, R. Clark, K. Arkema, G. Verutes, E. Prahler, S. Stoner-Duncan, M. Caldwell, A. Guerry, M. Ruckelshaus, A. Abeles, C. Coburn, K. O’Connor. 2014. Key lessons for incorporating natural infrastructure into regional climate adaptation planning. Ocean and Coastal Management 95:189–197. Mull, J. and P. Ruggiero. 2014. Estimating Storm-Induced Dune Erosion and Overtopping along U.S. West Coast Beaches. Journal of Coastal Research 30 (6): 1173-1187. NOAA (National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration). 2014. Coastal Change Analysis Program (C-CAP) Regional Land Cover. NOAA Office for Coastal Management. Accessed 2015 at http://coast.noaa.gov/digitalcoast/tools/lca Serafin, K.A. and P. Ruggiero. 2014. Simulating extreme total water levels using a time-dependent, extreme value approach. Journal of Geophysical Research: Oceans, 119 , doi:10.1002/ 2014JC010093. Tolman, H.L. 2009. User Manual and System Documentation of WAVEWATCH III version 3.14 Technical Note. US Department of Commerce, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration, National Weather Service, National Centers for Environmental Predictions. USFWS (U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service). 2014. National Wetlands Inventory website. U.S. Department of the Interior, Fish and Wildlife Service, Washington, D.C. http://www.fws.gov/wetlands/
FOR MORE INFORMATION Please contact Jodie Toft, The Nature Conservancy, Senior Marine Ecologist – [email protected]
Document prepared by: Molly Bøgeberg – Marc Hershman Marine Policy Fellow Jamie Robertson – Spatial Analyst Jodie Toft – Senior Marine Ecologist
5
FIGURES
Inset to show High and Low Dunes
Figure 1. Location of estuarine and terrestrial habitats included in the model
6
A B C
VULNERABILITY PROTECTIVE ROLE OF HABITAT LOW HIGH LOW HIGH
Figure 2. Vulnerability of shorelines from low to high with current natural habitats (A), and without those habitats (B). Difference map (C) to highlight the variability in protection provided by habitats (estuarine and terrestrial habitats combined).
7
A B
PROTECTIVE ROLE OF HABITAT LOW HIGH
Figure 3. Difference maps to highlight the variability in protection provided by terrestrial (A) and estuarine habitats (B). Darker colors indicate provision of more protection.
8