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 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report code, established in WAC 458-53-030, for each parcel in the County. The two digit codes were rolled up into the following broad categories. • Agriculture • Commercial • Forestry • Government/Institutional • Manufacturing/Industrial • Quasi-Public • Residential • Recreation • Utilities • Vacant/Undeveloped • Others • Not Coded Use of the Pacific County Assessor’s data requires a certain level of interpretation when using it for describing and analyzing land use. The first item to note is that the assessor’s data does not distinguish between agriculture and aquaculture. Both are coded the same. In general, aquaculture uses are located on tidelands, mudflats and open water areas adjacent to and within marine or estuarine waters, whereas agricultural uses occur in the uplands. Also, as noted above, the land use analysis presented in this chapter is largely based on information and data for the shoreline area landward of the OHWM. Data pertaining to specific aquaculture area boundaries and activities located waterward of the OHWM are limited. Aquacultural and marine fishing industries are a major shoreline use and are of vital importance to the County’s economy. They are also heavily influenced by upland as well as marine activities. Therefore, aquacultural and marine fishing uses are discussed in this chapter (and others) quantitatively where data exists and qualitatively where it does not. Because most of the aquacultural uses occur in Willapa Bay and the Columbia River Estuary, discussion of aquaculture is largely found in the water-oriented uses discussion of Sections 6.2.7 and 6.2.8. Discussion of marine uses is found primarily in Section 6.2.11. Other activities that occur in estuarine and marine waters, which are not captured in upland land use are marine transportation, mining, and various non-extractive recreational activities. Because the primary purpose of assessors’ data is to assess property taxes, the Assessor does not collect data on publicly owned and non-profit uses that are exempt from property tax. These uses and lands are coded as “exempt.” For this analysis, ownership data was used to identify 202 The Watershed Company May 2015 the land use as much as possible. Therefore, the following land use categories were used to differentiate those exempt lands: • Government/Institutional (GI) refers to lands that are owned by Tribal, City, County, Ports, State; and • Quasi-Public (QP) refers to lands that were identified as churches, cemeteries, or the Audubon Society. Ownership Profile The ownership profile in Pacific Count is varied. Understanding shoreline land ownership helps identify the types of uses and developments that can be expected to occur in those shorelines. The percentage of each waterbody’s shoreline jurisdiction that is owned privately, or by state, federal or quasi-governmental agencies is reported in the analysis. Land ownership categories included in the analysis are identified in the following list. • City – Ilwaco, Raymond, South Bend, Long Beach • Conservation Organization – Forterra (formerly the Cascade Land Conservancy), Columbia Land Trust, Nature Conservancy • County – County, County departments or School District • Federal– federal departments, National Park Service, U.S. Forest Service, USA IN TRUST • Port of Chinook • Port of Ilwaco • Port of Peninsula • Port of Willapa Harbor • Private • Private – Timberland – Bascom Pacific LLC, FIA Timber Growth, Hancock Timberland, Hawaii ERS Timberland, Longview Timberlands, Salmon Timberland, Texas Timberlands, Timberlands Holding Company, or Weyerhaeuser • Railroad • State – Others – State or state departments • State – WDFW • State – WSDOT • State – State Parks • State – WDNR • Tribal • Unknown It is also important to note that the shoreline ownership dataset is incomplete in some areas. Shoreline jurisdictional area that exist over non-parcel areas or areas where the OHWM has 203 Pacific County Shoreline Analysis Report moved since the parcels were platted do not carry ownership data. The percentage of shoreline jurisdiction with ownership data is listed for each waterbody in the report. Developing Shorelines and New Uses The State’s SMA guidelines (WAC 173-26) require that jurisdictions preparing SMP updates conduct an analysis to estimate the future demand for shoreline space (WAC173-26-201(3)(D)). This report draws on several sources of information as a means of understanding potential new shoreline development and uses. New shoreline development, and specifically new shoreline uses, is expected to typically occur on vacant lands. Therefore, the zoning of lands that are classified as vacant and or undeveloped by the Assessor was reviewed to broadly assess the development capacity of the shoreline jurisdiction of each waterbody. Shorelines in the Grays River AU do not have vacant lands, so they are excluded from the Figures in Chapter 6. The County’s zoning districts are presented and described for each shoreline waterbody. It is important to note that this gives a broad measure of capacity, but not likelihood. It also overstates the capacity for two reasons: 1. Associated wetlands and floodplains, to a lesser degree, decrease the building capacity of the shoreline areas; and 2. Generally, parcels in the County are relatively large and property owners have the opportunity to set new construction back on the property out of shoreline jurisdiction. The County zoning districts are consistent with the Comprehensive Plan’s land use designations. In fact, the zoning code refers back to the density limits in the Comprehensive Plan. Both zoning districts and Comprehensive land use designations are presented in Chapter 2. Likewise, current shoreline environment designations (SEDs) dictate what types of shoreline development are allowed. The existing SEDs along the County’s waterbodies are also presented in Chapter 2. Two methods were used to assess the likelihood and magnitude of new development. The first was a review of the County’s population and dwelling unit forecasts and land capacity analysis. Consistent with GMA, the County prepared these for the incorporated cities and rural areas of more intense development. Where available and applicable, these forecast and capacity estimates are reported. However, these estimates only cover a small amount of the County and shoreline jurisdiction. 204 The Watershed Company May 2015 The second method to assess the pace of future growth included a review of past population and employment growth trends in the County. The Washington State Office of Financial Management (OFM) provides estimates of intercensal population and housing units for each County. In the past 20 years (1990 – 2010), Pacific County (unincorporated Pacific County in particular) has experienced a low annual growth rate in population and housing units. In 2013, the population of Pacific County was approximately 21,000. Population in Pacific County has remained steady with less than 1% change year to year since 2006. The trend for housing units is consistent with population growth and has 1% average annual growth rate since 1990. Figure 6-1 compares historical trends for population and housing units for unincorporated Pacific County, years 1990 through 2013. 22,000 20,000 18,000 16,000 14,000 12,000 10,000 8,000 Population - Entire County Population - Unincorporated County