CITY OF PORT ANGELES GRANT NO. G1000051 S H O R E L I N E R ESTORATION P LAN for City of Port Angeles’ Shoreline: Strait of Juan de Fuca Prepared for: City of Port Angeles Community and Economic Development 321 East 5th Street Port Angeles, WA 98362 Prepared by: 1904 3rd Avenue, Suite 725 Seattle, Washington 98101 Date: This report was funded JuneSeptember, 2012 in part through a grant from the Washington Department of Ecology. Port Angeles Shoreline Restoration Plan Cite this document as: Shoreline Restoration Plan for the City of Port Angeles’ Shoreline: Strait of Juan de Fuca. Prepared for the City of Port Angeles, WA. The Watershed Company and Makers Architecture + Urban Design. DecemberJune 2012. Table of Contents Section Page 1.0 Introduction ................................................................................................................... 5 2.0 Shoreline Inventory Summary ...................................................................................... 7 2.1 Introduction .................................................................................................... 7 2.2 Shoreline Boundary ........................................................................................ 7 2.3 Inventory ........................................................................................................ 8 2.3.1 Land Use and Physical Conditions .......................................................... 10 2.3.2 Biological Resources and Critical Areas .............................................. 1311 3.0 Restoration Goals and Objectives ......................................................................... 1513 4.0 Ongoing City Plans and Projects ........................................................................... 2119 4.1 Comprehensive Plan ................................................................................ 2119 4.2 Port Angeles Harbor Shoreline Habitat Assessment ................................ 2119 4.3 Stormwater Management Program (SWMP) ............................................ 2120 4.4 Community and Economic Development Department .............................. 2220 5.0 Partnerships ............................................................................................................ 2221 5.1 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) .................................................. 2221 5.1.1 Outer Ediz Hook .................................................................................. 2221 5.1.2 Elwha Dam .......................................................................................... 2321 5.2 U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) ............................................................... 2322 5.3 Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) .................... 2322 5.4 Strait of Juan de Fuca Ecosystem Recovery Network (ERN) ................... 2422 5.3 North Olympic Peninsula Lead Entity (NOPLE) ........................................ 2423 5.6 Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 18 Participation ......................... 2523 5.6.1 Elwha-Dungeness Planning Unit.......................................................... 2523 5.6.2 Washington State Conservation Commission ...................................... 2523 5.7 Clallam Marine Resource Committee (MRC) ............................................ 2524 5.8 Lower Elwha Klallam Tribe ....................................................................... 2624 5.9 Puget Sound Partnership ......................................................................... 2625 5.10 Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Project (PSNERP) ........ 2725 5.11 Clallam County Streamkeepers ................................................................ 2927 6.0 Potential Projects and Prioritization ...................................................................... 2928 7.0 Strategies to Achieve Local Restoration Goals..................................................... 3433 7.1 Capital Facilities Program ........................................................................ 3534 7.2 Development Opportunities ...................................................................... 3534 7.3 Development Incentives ........................................................................... 3534 7.4 Tax Relief / Fee System ........................................................................... 3534 7.5 Resource Directory .................................................................................. 3635 Draft Port Angeles Shoreline Restoration Plan 7.6 Volunteer Coordination............................................................................. 3635 7.7 Regional Coordination .............................................................................. 3635 8.0 Proposed Implementation Targets and Monitoring Methods ............................... 3837 8.1 Project Evaluation .................................................................................... 3837 8.2 Monitoring and Adaptive Management ..................................................... 3938 8.3 Reporting ................................................................................................. 4039 9.0 References ............................................................................................................... 4241 List of Tables Table 1. Main land use features in shoreline reaches. ........................................... 1110 Table 2. Land in critical areas by shoreline reach. ................................................. 1312 Table 3. Main restoration goals and objectives addressing natural processes in the City of Port Angeles. ................................................................................ 1816 Table 4. PSNERP Management Measures for restoring Puget Sound nearshore areas (from Clancy et al. 2009). ......................................................................... 2725 Table 5. Restoration project recommendations and opportunities in the City of Port Angeles’ shoreline jurisdiction listed by shoreline reach. .......................... 3028 Table 6. General program recommendations for the restoration, enhancement, and protection of water quality, water quantity, and habitat along the City’s shorelines. Recommendations were drawn from WRIA 18, the Strait of Juan de Fuca Ecosystem Recovery Network (ERN), and from the Shoreline Inventory and Analysis report (TWC 2010). .............................................. 3635 List of Figures Figure 1. Shoreline reach breaks .................................................................................. 9 City of Port Angeles Shoreline Restoration Plan SHORELINE RESTORATION PLAN CITY OF PORT ANGELES 1.0 INTRODUCTION Port Angeles’ Shoreline Master Program applies to activities in the shoreline jurisdiction zone. Activities that have adverse affects on the ecological functions and values of the shoreline, when permitted, must be mitigated. By law, the proponent of that activity is required to return the subject shoreline to a condition equivalent to the baseline level at the time the activity takes place. It is understood that some individual uses and developments cannot always be mitigated fully, resulting in incremental and unavoidable degradation of the baseline condition. However, in the aggregate, the Shoreline Master Program must ensure that development will not cause a net loss of shoreline ecological functions. The subsequent challenge is to improve the shoreline over time in areas where the baseline condition is currently degraded, severely or marginally. WAC Section 173-26-201(2)(f) of the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines (Guidelines)1 says: “master programs shall include goals and policies that provide for restoration of such impaired ecological functions. These master program provisions shall identify existing policies and programs that contribute to planned restoration goals and identify any additional policies and programs that local government will implement to achieve its goals. These master program elements regarding restoration should make real and meaningful use of established or funded nonregulatory policies and programs that contribute to restoration of ecological functions, and should appropriately consider the direct or indirect effects of other regulatory or nonregulatory programs under other local, state, and federal laws, as well as any restoration effects that may flow indirectly from shoreline development regulations and mitigation standards.” Degraded shorelines are not just a result of pre-Shoreline Master Program activities, but also of unregulated activities and exempt development. The new Guidelines also require that “[l]ocal master programs shall include regulations ensuring that exempt development in the aggregate will not cause a net loss of ecological functions of the shoreline.” While some actions within a shoreline jurisdiction are exempt from a permit, the Shoreline Master Program should clearly state that those actions are not exempt 1 The Shoreline Master Program Guidelines were prepared by the Washington Department of Ecology and codified as WAC 173-26. The Guidelines translate the broad policies of the Shoreline Management Act (RCW 90.58.020) into standards for regulation of shoreline uses. See http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/sma/guidelines/index.html for more background. 5 City of Port Angeles Shoreline Restoration Plan from compliance with the Shoreline Management Act or the local Shoreline Master Program. Because the shoreline environment is also affected by activities