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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 2015

Table 5-6. Reach Functional Analysis Scores for the Willapa River Assessment Unit

Hydrologic Vegetative Habitat

Alluvium

- Reach

Location

vegetation cover Hyporheic Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover 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

vegetation cover Hyporheic Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Floodplain/Floodway in vegetation Forested floodplain Forest cover 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 -

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 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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

cover

Reach

Location

Armoring/Levees Armoring/Levees (Marine/Estuarine) Dams/Tide gates Wastewater outfalls Forest cover vegetation 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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 May 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