May-June 2006 Sandpiper Newsletter Grays Harbor Audubon Society
Grays Harbor County’s Shoreline Master Program...GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY GRANT NO. 1400448 C U M U L A...
Transcript of Grays Harbor County’s Shoreline Master Program...GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY GRANT NO. 1400448 C U M U L A...
-
GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY GRANT NO . 1400448
C U M U L A T I V E I M P A C T S A N A L Y S I S
Grays Harbor County’s Shoreline Master Program
Prepared for:
Prepared by:
February 2017
The Watershed Company
Reference Number:
130726
Grays Harbor County
100 West Broadway
Montesano, WA 98563
STRATEGY | ANALYSIS | COMMUNICATIONS
2025 First Avenue, Suite 800
Seattle WA 98121
This report was funded in part
through a grant from the
Washington Department of Ecology.
http://www.co.grays-harbor.wa.us/GHCoHazardsMitigation/index.html
-
Cite this document as:
The Watershed Company and Berk. February 2017. Cumulative Impacts Analysis
of Grays Harbor County’s Shoreline Master Program. Prepared for Grays Harbor
County, Montesano, WA.
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
I
TA B L E O F C O N T E N T S
Page #
1 Introduction ......................................................... 1
1.1 Background ....................................................................................................... 1 1.2 Document Approach and Overview ................................................................. 3
2 Summary of Existing Conditions ...................... 4
2.1 Queets-Quinault (WRIA 21) .............................................................................. 5
2.1.1 Environment .......................................................................................................... 5 2.1.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................... 6
2.2 Chehalis (WRIA 22/23) ...................................................................................... 7
2.2.1 Environment .......................................................................................................... 7 2.2.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 12
2.3 Willapa (WRIA 24) ........................................................................................... 12
2.3.1 Environment ........................................................................................................ 13 2.3.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 13
2.4 Marine and Estuarine Shorelines ................................................................... 13
2.4.1 Environment ........................................................................................................ 13 2.4.2 Land Use ............................................................................................................. 15
3 Future Development ......................................... 15
3.1 Analysis of Development Trends ................................................................... 16
3.1.1 Existing Land Use .............................................................................................. 16 3.1.2 Growth and Permit History ................................................................................ 17
3.2 Analysis of Vacant Lands ............................................................................... 18 3.3 Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development ........................ 20
3.3.1 Queets-Quinault (WRIA 21) ............................................................................... 20 3.3.2 Chehalis (WRIA 22/23) ....................................................................................... 20 3.3.3 Willapa (WRIA 24) ............................................................................................... 20 3.3.4 Marine and Estuarine Shorelines...................................................................... 21
4 Application of the SMP ..................................... 21
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
4.1 Shoreline Environment Designations ............................................................ 22
4.1.1 Potential Use Conflicts ...................................................................................... 25
4.2 General Shoreline Regulations ...................................................................... 25
4.2.1 Shoreline ecological functions ......................................................................... 25 4.2.2 Flood hazard reduction ...................................................................................... 26 4.2.3 Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution ........................................ 26 4.2.4 Other general regulations .................................................................................. 27
4.3 Shoreline Uses ................................................................................................ 27
4.3.1 Agriculture .......................................................................................................... 27 4.3.2 Aquaculture ......................................................................................................... 28 4.3.3 Marinas and boating facilities ........................................................................... 30 4.3.4 Commercial development .................................................................................. 31 4.3.5 Forest practices .................................................................................................. 32 4.3.6 Industrial development ...................................................................................... 33 4.3.7 Instream structural development...................................................................... 34 4.3.8 Mining .................................................................................................................. 35 4.3.9 Recreational development ................................................................................. 36 4.3.10 Residential development ............................................................................... 37 4.3.11 Transportation development ........................................................................ 39 4.3.12 Utilities ............................................................................................................ 40
4.4 Shoreline Modifications .................................................................................. 41
4.4.1 Beach and dune management .......................................................................... 41 4.4.2 Breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs ............................................................ 42 4.4.3 Dredging and dredge material disposal ........................................................... 43 4.4.4 Fill ........................................................................................................................ 44 4.4.5 Piers and docks .................................................................................................. 45 4.4.6 Shoreline habitat and natural system enhancement projects ....................... 46 4.4.7 Shoreline stabilization ....................................................................................... 47
4.5 Coastal Ocean Use and Modification Provisions.......................................... 49
4.5.1 General provisions ............................................................................................. 49 4.5.2 Oil and gas uses ................................................................................................. 50 4.5.3 Ocean mining development .............................................................................. 50 4.5.4 Ocean energy development .............................................................................. 51 4.5.5 Ocean disposal development ............................................................................ 52 4.5.6 Ocean transportation ......................................................................................... 53 4.5.7 Ocean research................................................................................................... 54 4.5.8 Ocean salvage .................................................................................................... 55
4.6 Shoreline Restoration Plan ............................................................................ 56
5 Effects of Other Regulatory Programs ........... 58
5.1 County Regulations and Programs ............................................................... 58
5.1.1 Grays Harbor County Comprehensive Plan and County Code ..................... 58
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
III
5.2 Tribal Regulations ........................................................................................... 58
5.2.1 Quinault Indian Nation ....................................................................................... 58
5.3 State Agencies/Regulations ........................................................................... 59
5.3.1 Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) ................................ 59 5.3.2 Washington Department of Ecology ................................................................ 59 5.3.3 Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife .................................................. 59 5.3.4 Ocean Resources Management Act ................................................................. 59 5.3.5 Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission – Seashore Conservation Area 60 5.3.6 State Forest Practices Act ................................................................................. 61 5.3.7 Surface Mining Act ............................................................................................. 61
5.4 Federal Agencies/Regulations ....................................................................... 61
5.4.1 Clean Water Act .................................................................................................. 61 5.4.2 Rivers and Harbors Act, Section 10 ................................................................. 62 5.4.3 Federal Endangered Species Act (ESA) .......................................................... 62 5.4.4 Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA) ........................................................... 62 5.4.5 Dredged Material Management Program ......................................................... 63
6 Net Effect on Ecological Functions ................. 63 7 References ........................................................ 65
L I S T O F TA B L E S Table 2-1. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Queets River AU 5 Table 2-2. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Quinault River AU6 Table 2-3. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Moclips/Copalis River AU
................................................................................................................ 6 Table 2-4. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Chehalis River AU8 Table 2-5. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Satsop River AU . 9 Table 2-6. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Wynoochee River AU
................................................................................................................ 9 Table 2-7. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Cloquallum and Mox
Chehalis AU .......................................................................................... 10 Table 2-8. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Humptulips River AU
.............................................................................................................. 10 Table 2-9. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Hoquiam River AU11 Table 2-10. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Wishkah River AU
.............................................................................................................. 11 Table 2-11. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the South Grays Harbor
Tributaries AU ....................................................................................... 12 Table 2-12. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the North River AU 13
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
Table 2-13. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Grays Harbor Estuary AU ......................................................................................................... 14
Table 2-14. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Pacific Coast AU14 Table 3-1. Shoreline Land Use Pattern in Grays Harbor County. ............................ 16 Table 3-2. Vacant Land by Zoning District and Shoreline Environment Designation.18 Table 3-3. Vacant Industrial Lands by Shoreline Environment Designation. ........... 20 Table 4-1. Summary of potential impacts from agriculture. ..................................... 28 Table 4-2. Summary of key agriculture regulations that protect ecological functions.28 Table 4-3. Summary of potential impacts from aquaculture. ................................... 29 Table 4-4. Summary of key aquaculture regulations that protect ecological functions.29 Table 4-5. Summary of potential impacts from marinas and boating facilities. ........ 30 Table 4-6. Summary of key marinas and boating facilities regulations that protect ecological
functions. ............................................................................................... 30 Table 4-7. Summary of potential impacts from commercial development. .............. 31 Table 4-8. Summary of key commercial development regulations that protect ecological
functions. ............................................................................................... 31 Table 4-9. Summary of potential impacts from forest practices. .............................. 32 Table 4-10. Summary of key forest practices regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 33 Table 4-11. Summary of potential impacts from industrial development. .................. 34 Table 4-12. Summary of key industrial development regulations that protect ecological
functions. ............................................................................................... 34 Table 4-13. Summary of potential impacts from instream structures......................... 35 Table 4-14. Summary of key instream structural development regulations that protect
ecological functions. .............................................................................. 35 Table 4-15. Summary of potential impacts from mining. ........................................... 35 Table 4-16. Summary of key mining regulations that protect ecological functions. ... 36 Table 4-17. Summary of potential impacts from recreational development. .............. 37 Table 4-18. Summary of key recreational development regulations that protect ecological
functions. ............................................................................................... 37 Table 4-19. Summary of potential impacts from residential development. ................ 38 Table 4-20. Summary of key residential development regulations that protect ecological
functions. ............................................................................................... 38 Table 4-21. Summary of potential impacts from transportation facilities. .................. 39 Table 4-22. Summary of key transportation regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 39 Table 4-23. Summary of potential impacts from utilities. ........................................... 40 Table 4-24. Summary of key utilities regulations that protect ecological functions. ... 40 Table 4-25. Summary of potential impacts from beach and dune alterations. ........... 41 Table 4-26. Summary of key dune management regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 41 Table 4-27. Summary of potential impacts from breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs.
.............................................................................................................. 42 Table 4-28. Summary of key breakwaters, jetties, groins, and weirs regulations that protect
ecological functions. .............................................................................. 43 Table 4-29. Summary of potential impacts from dredging. ........................................ 43 Table 4-30. Summary of key dredging regulations that protect ecological functions. 43 Table 4-31. Summary of potential impacts from fill. .................................................. 44 Table 4-32. Summary of key fill regulations that protect ecological functions. ........... 44 Table 4-33. Summary of potential impacts from piers and docks. ............................. 45
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
V
Table 4-34. Summary of key piers and docks regulations that protect ecological functions. .............................................................................................................. 46
Table 4-35. Summary of potential impacts from shoreline habitat and natural system enhancement projects. .......................................................................... 47
Table 4-36. Summary of key shoreline habitat and natural system enhancement projects regulations that protect ecological functions. ......................................... 47
Table 4-37. Summary of potential impacts from shoreline stabilization. .................... 48 Table 4-38. Summary of key shoreline stabilization regulations that protect ecological
functions. ............................................................................................... 48 Table 4-39. Summary of potential impacts from oil and gas uses. ............................ 50 Table 4-40. Summary of key oil and gas use regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 50 Table 4-41. Summary of potential impacts from ocean mining.................................. 51 Table 4-42. Summary of key ocean mining regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 51 Table 4-43. Summary of potential impacts from ocean energy. ................................ 52 Table 4-44. Summary of key ocean energy regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 52 Table 4-45. Summary of potential impacts from ocean disposal. .............................. 53 Table 4-46. Summary of key ocean disposal regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 53 Table 4-47. Summary of potential impacts form ocean transportation. ..................... 54 Table 4-48. Summary of key ocean transportation regulations that protect ecological
functions. ............................................................................................... 54 Table 4-49. Summary of potential impacts from ocean research. ............................. 55 Table 4-50. Summary of key ocean research regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 55 Table 4-51. Summary of potential impacts from ocean salvage. ............................... 55 Table 4-52. Summary of key ocean salvage regulations that protect ecological functions.
.............................................................................................................. 56
L I S T O F F I G U R E S Figure 1-1. Framework to achieve no net loss of ecological function. (Department of
Ecology) .................................................................................................. 2 Figure 3-1. Population and housing units from 1990-2010 in unincorporated Grays Harbor
County. Source: OFM, 2013; BERK, 2013 ............................................. 17 Figure 3-2. Shoreline permit applications in Grays Harbor County, 1972-2013. ....... 18 Figure 4-1. Distribution of proposed Shoreline Environment Designations within Grays
Harbor County. ...................................................................................... 24 Figure 4-2. Shellfish growing areas in Grays Harbor. ............................................... 29
file://///ws01/Company/PROJECTS/2013/07%20-%20July/130726%20-%20Grays%20Harbor%20SMP/Documents/CIA/Grays%20Harbor%20County%20DRAFT%20CIA%20013117.doc%23_Toc474315888file://///ws01/Company/PROJECTS/2013/07%20-%20July/130726%20-%20Grays%20Harbor%20SMP/Documents/CIA/Grays%20Harbor%20County%20DRAFT%20CIA%20013117.doc%23_Toc474315888
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
1
C U M U L AT I V E I M PA C T S A N A LY S I S GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY SHORELINE MASTER PROGRAM
1 INTRODUCTION This Cumulative Impacts Analysis assesses the January 2017 proposed Grays Harbor
County Shoreline Master Program (SMP) policies and regulations in relation to current
shoreline conditions documented in the Shoreline Analysis Report (TWC et al. 2015) to
assess if future development approved under the proposed SMP could achieve no net
loss of ecological function. This Cumulative Impacts Analysis can help the County make
adjustments where appropriate in its proposed SMP if there are potential gaps between
maintaining and degrading ecological functions.
1.1 Background
The State Master Program Approval/Amendment Procedures and Master Program
Guidelines (SMP Guidelines; WAC 173-26) require local shoreline master programs to
regulate new development to “achieve no net loss of ecological function.” The
Guidelines (WAC 173-26-186(8)(d)) state that, “To ensure no net loss of ecological
functions and protection of other shoreline functions and/or uses, master programs shall
contain policies, programs, and regulations that address adverse cumulative impacts
and fairly allocate the burden of addressing cumulative impacts.”
The Guidelines further elaborate on the concept of net loss as follows:
“When based on the inventory and analysis requirements and completed consistent with
the specific provisions of these guidelines, the master program should ensure that
development will be protective of ecological functions necessary to sustain existing
shoreline natural resources and meet the standard. The concept of “net” as used herein,
recognizes that any development has potential or actual, short-term or long-term impacts
and that through application of appropriate development standards and employment of
mitigation measures in accordance with the mitigation sequence, those impacts will be
addressed in a manner necessary to assure that the end result will not diminish the
shoreline resources and values as they currently exist. Where uses or development that
impact ecological functions are necessary to achieve other objectives of RCW 90.58.020,
master program provisions shall, to the greatest extent feasible, protect existing ecological
functions and avoid new impacts to habitat and ecological functions before implementing
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
2
other measures designed to achieve no net loss of ecological functions.” [WAC 173-26-
201(2)(c)]
In short, updated SMPs shall contain goals, policies and regulations that prevent
degradation of ecological functions relative to the existing conditions as documented in
that jurisdiction’s inventory and characterization report. For those projects that result in
degradation of ecological functions, the required mitigation must return the resultant
ecological function back to the baseline. This is illustrated in the figure below. The
jurisdiction must be able to demonstrate that it has accomplished that goal through an
analysis of cumulative impacts that might occur through implementation of the updated
SMP. Evaluation of such cumulative impacts should consider:
(i) current circumstances affecting the shorelines and relevant natural
processes [Chapter 2 below and the Shoreline Analysis Report];
(ii) reasonably foreseeable future development and use of the shoreline
[Chapter 3 below and the Shoreline Analysis Report]; and
(iii) beneficial effects of any established regulatory programs under other local,
state, and federal laws.” [Chapter 5 below]
Figure 1-1. Framework to achieve no net loss of ecological function. (Department of Ecology)
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
3
The Cumulative Impacts Analysis assesses the policies and regulations in the draft SMP
to determine whether no net loss of ecological function will be achieved as new
development occurs. SMP regulations fundamentally rely on the concept of mitigation
sequencing to avoid, minimize, and mitigate for any unavoidable losses of function. An
accompanying component of the SMP process that can bring environment conditions to
an improved level is the Shoreline Restoration Plan, which identifies and prioritizes
potential actions and programs that may be implemented on a voluntary basis. These
actions, intended to improve existing environmental conditions through a combination
of enhancement, restoration, and protection, cannot be required by SMP regulations, but
Section 173-26-201(2)(f) of the Guidelines says: “master programs shall include goals,
policies and actions for restoration of impaired shoreline ecological functions.” In certain
communities or shoreline areas, the SMP may not be able to achieve no net loss of
functions through regulations alone. For example, a community may expect a significant
reduction in riparian vegetation coverage to accommodate a water-dependent use.
Compensatory mitigation would be implemented to offset unavoidable impacts,
perhaps through replanting of riparian vegetation in an adjacent site; however, it may
take many years before the benefits from the compensatory mitigation are realized. In
such a circumstance, as with others, the Shoreline Restoration Plan may help bridge the
gap between the SMP-required mitigation outcome and no net loss of ecological
function.
As the SMP is implemented, the County will need to identify methods to track shoreline
conditions, permit activity, and policy and regulatory effectiveness. County planning
staff will be required to track land use and development activity, including exemptions,
within shoreline jurisdiction, and may incorporate actions and programs of the other
departments as well. With each project application, staff should consider whether
implementation of the SMP is meeting the basic goal of no net loss of ecological
functions relative to the baseline condition established in the Shoreline Analysis Report.
A complete reassessment of conditions, policies and regulations will be considered
every eight years, during the scheduled SMP update. To conduct a valid reassessment of
the shoreline conditions, the County will need to identify metrics and then monitor,
record and maintain key environmental metrics to allow a comparison with baseline
conditions. As monitoring occurs, the County should assess environmental effects of
development and restoration objectives. With this level of attention to conditions,
permitted development, and adaptive management as needed in the long term, the
County should be able to ensure that the regulations and mitigation sequencing
required by the SMP will maintain shoreline functions over time.
1.2 Document Approach and Overview
This Cumulative Impacts Analysis was prepared consistent with direction provided in
the Shoreline Master Program Guidelines as described above. The ultimate goal of this
document is to determine whether future development in the County’s shorelines taking
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
4
place under the proposed SMP would result in no net loss of ecological functions
relative to the baseline conditions documented in the Shoreline Analysis Report. To the
extent that existing information was sufficiently detailed and assumptions about
possible new or re-development could be made with reasonable certainty, the following
analysis is quantitative. The analysis in this document is focused on unincorporated
County lands.
Existing conditions were first evaluated using the information, both textual and graphic,
developed and presented in the Shoreline Analysis Report. A summary of existing
conditions, including ecological conditions and land use, is provided in Chapter 2. More
detailed analysis of specific shoreline functions, uses, and public access can be found in
the Shoreline Analysis Report.
To understand what future development activities in the County’s shorelines might
occur that could alter existing conditions, Chapter 3 presents the brief results of an
assessment of likely future development. This assessment is based on existing land use
conditions, growth trends, land ownership and zoning, and permit history. This
approach is based on the rationale that future changes in land use trends will be roughly
comparable to past trends. Given the expansive area of the County’s shorelines, this
approach helps provide a realistic estimate of the level of foreseeable development.
The effects of likely development were then evaluated in the context of SMP provisions,
as well as other related plans, programs, and regulations. For the purpose of evaluating
impacts, areas with a likelihood of high densities of new development were evaluated in
greatest detail. Chapter 4 summarizes this evaluation, describing how foreseeable
development could affect shoreline conditions, and what specific provisions of the
proposed SMP will help maintain existing conditions in spite of likely future
development. Chapter 5 describes the beneficial effects that other established regulatory
programs may have on the County’s shorelines.
Finally, Chapter 6 zeroes in on the most probable types of development in the County,
and synthesizes the information from the previous chapters to assess anticipated
cumulative impacts and summarize whether and how the SMP ensures no net loss of
ecological functions for shorelines in Grays Harbor County.
2 SUMMARY OF EXISTING CONDITIONS This summary of existing conditions is intended to provide an overview of conditions in
the County’s shorelines, and is based on the Shoreline Analysis Report. More detailed
information on specific shoreline areas is provided in the Shoreline Analysis Report.
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
5
2.1 Queets-Quinault (WRIA 21)
WRIA 21 is a largely undeveloped WRIA of 755,674 acres that includes the watersheds
of the Queets/Clearwater, Quinault, Moclips, Raft, and Copalis Rivers, Kalaloch Creek,
and several small stream systems. All of these watersheds originate in the Olympic
Mountains and flow directly into the Pacific Ocean.
2.1.1 Environment
For the purposes of the Shoreline Analysis Report, County shorelines were divided into
individual Assessment Units (AU), defined as fifth-order hydrologic units. Within
WRIA 21, these include the Queets River AU, the Quinault River AU, and the
Moclips/Copalis River AU.
Queets River AU
Only a small portion of the Queets River basin is located within Grays Harbor County,
and all shoreline reaches of this AU are located within the Quinault Indian Reservation
(QIR), including reaches for the Queets River, Harlow Creek, and the Salmon River.
Logging is the primary land use activity for the watersheds in this AU, and past logging
activities have “legacy” effects including impacts to sediment and large woody debris
(LWD) processes. Table 2-1 summarizes ecosystem process conditions and primary
sources of cumulative impacts within the Queets River AU.
Table 2-1. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Queets River AU
Queets Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper (Olympic National Park)
Excellent – Forest cover and floodplain processes intact
Natural processes
Lower Good – Forest cover and floodplain processes intact
Legacy forest issues
Quinault River AU
The Quinault River AU is primarily undeveloped and has good forest cover, though the
density and diversity and complexity of age classes has been negatively impacted by
past logging practices. The lower basin is located in the QIR; above Lake Quinault, the
basin is in federal ownership. Lake Quinault traps most sediment and wood that are
transported from the Olympic Mountain headwaters (O’Connor et al. 2003), and
therefore affects these processes downstream of the lake.
While hyporheic exchange is expected to be high in the braided reaches of the Quinault,
the clearing of mature forest from the floodplain has contributed to increased channel
instability. In the lower watershed, smaller rivers such as the Raft, Whale, Camp, and
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
6
Duck have been severely impacted by past logging practices which affects fish passage.
Table 2-2 summarizes ecosystem process conditions and primary sources of cumulative
impacts within the Quinault River AU.
Table 2-2. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Quinault River AU
Quinault Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper Good to Excellent – Forest cover and floodplain processes intact
Low to Moderate – Hyporheic and wetland functions
Clearing of floodplain vegetation and recreational, residential development around Lake Quinault
Lower Good – Forest cover and floodplain processes intact
Forest operations and reduced LWD
Moclips/Copalis River AU
The smaller coastal creeks and rivers of this AU have relatively undeveloped upper
watersheds dominated by forestry, with reaches closer to the coast impacted by
recreational and residential development. Streams and rivers in this AU do not have
extensive alluvial soils and as a result rate lower for hyporheic functions.
Table 2-3. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Moclips/Copalis River AU
Moclips/Copalis Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper Moderate to Good – Forest cover and floodplain processes intact
Poor– Hyporheic and wetland functions
Forest operations and reduced LWD
Lower Poor to Moderate – Extensive clearing in lower reaches
Recreational and residential development, forest operations
2.1.2 Land Use
WRIA 21 includes areas that are relatively pristine, as well as areas that have been
greatly affected by logging and land-use activities over the last century. The entire
WRIA is included in the Usual and Accustomed Fishing and Hunting Area for the
Quinault Indian Nation (QIN) (WRIA 21 Lead Entity 2011). Although the QIN is the
only tribe with federally adjudicated rights in Grays Harbor, the Confederated Tribes of
the Chehalis Reservation and other tribes also have gathering interests in upland areas,
most notably the Grays Harbor National Wildlife Refuge. These interests include
collection of sweetgrass (Schoenoplectus pungens) used for basketweaving.
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
7
Much of WRIA 21 is in federal, state, or tribal ownership. Approximately 70 percent of
the WRIA lies within the Olympic National Park or Olympic National Forest. Most or all
of the forests within the QIN and U.S. Forest Service ownership have been harvested at
least once (Smith and Caldwell 2001). About one-third of the QIN is owned by the tribe,
and approximately 50 percent is owned in Trust status by individuals and families of
different tribes. The remaining lands (less than 15%) are owned “in fee” by non-Indians
and timber companies.
Timber harvest began in 1916, spurring the need for railroads and roads for access and
transport. Timber harvest peaked between 1950 and the mid-1980’s (Smith and Caldwell
2001). Following the 1994 Northwest Forest Plan, the management focus of National
Forest lands shifted from fiber production to ecological restoration. Today, variable-
density thinning (VDT) is the primary commercial thinning method used in Olympic
National Forest. Currently, less than 0.5 percent of total forestlands are treated with this
approach each year (USFS, electronic reference). Commercial harvest on private and
DNR lands primarily in the Clearwater sub-basin continued following the passage of the
Northwest Forest Plan, although at a lower rate than that seen during the 1980s (Smith
and Caldwell 2001).
2.2 Chehalis (WRIA 22/23)
The 2,766 square mile Chehalis Watershed drains the western side of the Willapa Hills,
the Black Hills, an area of low mountains on the west side of the Cascade Range, and the
lower south slopes of the Olympic Range. The largest two tributaries to the Chehalis, the
Satsop and Wynoochee Rivers, originate in the southern Olympic Mountains and drain
into the low gradient Chehalis River.
The Humptulips, Hoquiam, and Wishkah Rivers also originate in the southern Olympic
Mountains and flow into Grays Harbor. The Johns and Elk Rivers flow into the South
Bay of Grays Harbor. Within Grays Harbor County, the topography includes steep,
forested slopes of the southern Olympic Mountains; expansive alluvial floodplains
associated with the Chehalis River valley; steep, forested slopes along the Coast Range
foothills; and estuarine wetlands associated with Grays Harbor.
2.2.1 Environment
Chehalis River AU
This AU is characterized by a large undeveloped surge plain in the lower reaches, with
the balance of the upstream reaches dominated by commercial agricultural operations.
The Chehalis River surge plain is the largest surge plain in the state and much of the
area is owned and managed by DNR. It features a large tidal wetland dominated by
Sitka spruce, including diverse sloughs and islands with emergent, shrub, and forested
vegetation. The slow moving sloughs provide substantial off-channel habitat for
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
8
anadromous salmonids and other fish species, including the Olympic mudminnow
(WDNR 2009).
Riparian and floodplain vegetation cover is sparse in the upstream reaches due to
historic and ongoing agriculture. This has impacted floodplain processes and functions,
including water quality functions for water temperature, dissolved oxygen levels, and
fecal coliform.
Riprap is present in some of the tributaries, and splash dams have probably limited
LWD processes and floodplain connectivity. Riparian conditions in the lower reaches of
the Black River, Porter, Garrard, Cedar, and Rock Creeks are limited by agricultural
development and narrow buffers.
Table 2-4. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Chehalis River AU
Humptulips Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Surge plain – upper reaches
Good to Very Good – Floodplain processes are intact with high riparian and floodplain forest cover; impacts to water flow and water quality processes
Agriculture and forestry operations
Lower reaches Poor – Floodplain processes impaired; riparian and floodplain clearing extensive
Agriculture in floodplain; forestry operations
Satsop River AU
Extensive forest operations in the upper watershed have reduced forest cover, increased
road density, and created high peak flows, very low base flows, and high sediment
loads. Disturbance to forest cover is low in the National Forest compared to private
timber land areas; however, fish passage barriers associated with forest roads are
present in shoreline jurisdiction in the National Forest. Recent channel incision has
limited floodplain and off-channel connectivity (Grays Harbor Lead Entity 2011).
Historic splash damming, removal of LWD, and clear-cutting have also likely
contributed to a reduction in riparian functions, limited LWD, floodplain disconnection,
and reduced hyporheic activity (Grays Harbor Lead Entity 2011).
The lower watershed is predominantly in agricultural use. Riparian forest cover in these
areas is the lowest in the watershed. Riprap is present in places in the lower mainstem,
and a perimeter dike around the former gravel mining ponds limits flooding of
approximately 40 acres.
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
9
Table 2-5. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Satsop River AU
Satsop Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper Poor – Extensive clearing of forest cover; high density of roads; watershed processes impaired
Forestry operations
Lower Poor – Floodplain processes impaired; channel incision and disconnected floodplain and channel armoring; riparian and floodplain clearing extensive; gravel operations
Agriculture in floodplain; forestry operations
Wynoochee River AU
The upper Wynoochee Watershed is partially within the Olympic National Forest,
resulting in high performance of watershed processes and functions, including habitat
for Roosevelt elk and marbled murrelets. Reaches downstream are within commercial
forest lands and floodplains cleared for agricultural operations. Consequently, shoreline
processes and functions are impaired. This includes impacts to sediment, low flow, and
temperature processes created by the Wynoochee Dam.
Table 2-6. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Wynoochee River AU
Wynoochee Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper Poor to Good – Forest and floodplain processes impacted below Wynoochee Lake, especially sediment supply, low flow support and temperature processes; extensive clearing of forest cover
Forestry operations
Lower Poor to Good – Floodplain processes impaired; some channel incision and disconnected floodplain areas; riparian and floodplain clearing extensive; some gravel operations in floodplain; watershed processes affected by forest clearing and roads
Agriculture in floodplain; forestry operations
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
10
Cloquallum and Mox Chehalis AU
These are low gradient streams with contributing watersheds impacted by rural
residential and agricultural uses. Clearing of forest and riparian cover by these uses has
impaired floodplain and watershed processes. Low flows are an issue for Mox Chehalis
and Wildcat Creeks. Functional analysis showed some of the lowest performance of
functions within the County.
Table 2-7. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Cloquallum and Mox Chehalis AU
Cloquallum/Mox Chehalis Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper and Lower Very Poor – Floodplain and watershed processes impaired
Agriculture and rural residential in the floodplain and contributing watershed
Humptulips River AU
While the upper two thirds of the East and West Fork drainages are within the Olympic
National Forest, the balance is in private forest ownership. The high density of forest
roads and ongoing forest activities in the lower third of the watershed affects watershed
processes and functions, including sediment, water temperature, and fish passage.
Extensive floodplain wetlands are present in the lower reaches and riparian forests have
been diminished in these areas. The lower, tidally influenced reaches of the Humptulips
River consist of fairly undeveloped floodplain and tidal slough habitats. Gravel bar
mining was conducted in the lower reaches, altering sediment processes. Some
channelization is present which limits channel migration processes.
Table 2-8. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Humptulips River AU
Humptulips Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper (2/3 Olympic National Park)
Excellent – Forest and floodplain processes intact; forest cover reduced
Natural processes and legacy impacts from forestry
Lower Poor to Good – Floodplain processes intact but floodplain and riparian forest reduced
Agriculture and rural residential and gravel operations
Hoquiam River AU
As a result of past forestry practices and scattered rural residential development in the
East Fork and West Fork Hoquiam River, riparian and floodplain conditions are reduced
compared to their historical condition (Grays Harbor Lead Entity 2011). Vegetation
coverage is most limited in the reaches closest to the City of Hoquiam. Diversion dams
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
11
on Davis Creek and the West Fork Hoquiam River provide water storage for the City of
Hoquiam; these dams limit downstream sediment transport and fish passage (WDFW
2013).
Table 2-9. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Hoquiam River AU
Hoquiam Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper Poor – Forest cover reduced, floodplain processes impacted; channel migration restricted on west fork
Forestry operations, rural residential, agriculture, US Highway 101
Lower Poor – Floodplain not completely intact due to some armoring at mouth, riparian forest clearing
Forestry operations and rural residential, agriculture, and urban development at mouth (City of Hoquiam)
Wishkah River AU
Commercial timberlands predominate in the upper watershed. Historic splash dams and
flashy flows associated with extensive forest clearing have resulted in incised,
straightened channels in the upper watershed, and disruption of floodplain connectivity
in the middle reaches of the watershed (Grays Harbor Lead Entity 2011). Hyporheic
functions are also expected to be degraded as a result of past splash dam operation. Fish
passage barriers are common throughout most of the AU, and the Malinowski Dam may
affect sediment transport.
Table 2-10. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Wishkah River AU
Wishkah Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper Poor – Forest and floodplain processes impacted; extensive clearing of forest cover, high road density, incised channels, fish barriers
Forestry operations
Lower Poor to Good – Floodplain intact immediately above Aberdeen; cleared elsewhere
Legacy effects from splash dams; forestry operations, agriculture, rural residential
South Grays Harbor Tributaries AU
The majority of the basin is managed as commercial timberlands, with rural residential
development concentrated in the lower reaches near the highway. The AU has some of
the highest road densities in the Chehalis Basin, resulting in many fish passage barriers.
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
12
A combination of estuarine and diked freshwater wetlands occur in the lower reaches of
the South Grays Harbor tributaries.
Table 2-11. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the South Grays Harbor Tributaries AU
South Grays Harbor Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper and Lower Poor to Good – Watershed and floodplain processes generally intact but impaired by dikes, reduced riparian cover in areas and by forest clearing and high road density; sediment and erosion processes most impacted
Forestry operations
2.2.2 Land Use
Today, the majority of the total basin area (87%) is forestland; however, most urban,
agricultural, and industrial development is concentrated along the river valleys (Grays
Harbor County 2004). In fact, the Chehalis Watershed Management Plan reports that 42
percent of land within one mile of the major rivers in the basin is in agricultural, urban,
or industrial uses. Both agricultural and forestry uses have resulted in significant
alterations to the shorelines of the South Fork Chehalis River.
Gravel mining operations from the 1950s to the 1990s in and along the Chehalis,
Wynoochee, Satsop, Skookumchuck, and Newaukum Rivers have modified sediment
transport processes and substrate within those watersheds (Collins 1995). These gravel
operations account for 50 floodplain mine lakes, or approximately one-fifth of the total
floodplain mine lakes in Washington State (Collins 1995).
The Chehalis Indian Reservation is located near the mouth of the Black River in the
southeastern corner of Grays Harbor County. Although the Quinault Indian Reservation
was established outside the Chehalis Basin boundaries, members of the Quinault Indian
Nation have fished and hunted in the Chehalis Basin for centuries and its recognized
usual and accustomed fishing areas include Grays Harbor and the Chehalis Basin,
including the Humptulips River (Grays Harbor County 2004).
2.3 Willapa (WRIA 24)
The northern portion of WRIA 24 extends into Grays Harbor County. The North River
flows north from the hills of Pacific County into Grays Harbor County, before heading
south and draining into the northern portion of Willapa Bay. Major tributaries within
Grays Harbor County include the Salmon, Lower Salmon, Vesta, and Pioneer Creeks,
and the Little North Fork River.
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
13
2.3.1 Environment
North River AU
The North River AU consists mostly of private forest lands. Riparian forest cover is high
along most shoreline watercourses, with the exception of lower forest cover observed on
Pioneer and Raimie Creeks, and in areas of rural residential development near the town
of Artic. Wetland area is naturally low in these upper watershed reaches. Water
temperatures are identified as impaired in these reaches, as well as just upstream in the
Salmon River. Roads, railroads, and forestry uses have resulted in numerous landslides
in the North River AU (Smith 1999).
Table 2-12. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the North River AU
North River Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Upper and Lower Poor to Good – Floodplain and watershed processes generally intact; riparian and floodplain clearing limited and forest clearing is low to moderate
Forestry operations
2.3.2 Land Use
The North River Watershed is primarily in commercial forest uses. Residential and
agricultural land uses generally occur along the stretch of the North River and its
tributaries around Vesta and Artic. Recreational land use is concentrated near Artic.
Water-dependent uses include a dam on the North River south of Salmon Creek. Roads
within shoreline jurisdiction are concentrated on the North River east of U.S. Highway
101 and the downstream reaches of the Little North River.
2.4 Marine and Estuarine Shorelines
The Pacific Coast along Grays Harbor County is part of the Columbia River Littoral Drift
Cell. Sediment from the Grays Harbor estuary feeds into and out of the Columbia River
littoral cell (CLRC). South of Point Grenville, the primary source of sediment is the
Columbia River, and the nearshore environment in Grays Harbor County is
characterized by long stretches of sand beaches with low-lying dunes. North of Point
Grenville, outside the CLRC, the coast is composed of narrow beaches backed by steep
cliffs.
2.4.1 Environment
Grays Harbor Estuary AU
The Grays Harbor Estuary supports numerous tidal marshes and mudflats and also
contains many areas that were historical tidal marshes that may have been impacted by
diking and fill to build and protect roads, railroads, bridges, and residential
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
14
development. Existing habitats provide nesting and foraging opportunities for shorebird
assemblages, birds of prey, juvenile salmonids, and other fish species. Areas west of
South Arbor, Beardsley Slough, Grass Island, and Damon Point also supports eelgrass
beds, which provide nursery habitats for a range of aquatic species.
Some of the least developed shorelines along the harbor are found in North Bay,
Beardsley Slough, and Damon Point. These reaches do not have shoreline armoring, and
they have few, if any roads in shoreline jurisdiction. North Bay is characterized by
undeveloped forested and emergent wetlands.
Ongoing dike breaches are restoring historic tidal marsh habitat throughout this AU.
However, existing armoring, dikes, and groins remain in places, such as the 1000 feet of
“truck tire” armoring east of Bottle Beach State Park.
Maintenance and operation of the navigation channel in this AU causes further impacts
to shoreline processes and functions.
Table 2-13. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Grays Harbor Estuary AU
Grays Harbor Estuary Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Estuary shoreline Poor to Excellent – Estuarine shoreline processes and functions are intact within locations of undeveloped shoreline but significantly impaired in development areas. Dikes, berms, fill, and armoring either reduce or eliminate tidal processes and significantly impair biological functions
Residential, road, and railroad development; navigation channel maintenance
Pacific Coast AU
North of Point Grenville, the coast is composed of narrow beaches backed by steep cliffs
with forested vegetation. Shoreline armoring is present along the coast where
development or roads occur at river and stream mouths at Taholah, Wreck Creek, and
Joe Creek. This armoring affects sediment and longshore drift processes. South of Point
Grenville, the nearshore environment in Grays Harbor County is characterized by long
stretches of sand beaches with low-lying dunes with herbaceous and shrub vegetation.
Table 2-14. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Pacific Coast AU
Pacific Coast Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
Coast shoreline Good – Total vegetation limited in northern reaches;
Natural processes;
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
15
Pacific Coast Watershed Position
Ecosystem process conditions
Primary source(s) of cumulative impacts
marine vegetation limited in southern reaches; sediment processes impaired in some places; hydrologic processes intact
armoring
2.4.2 Land Use
Within Grays Harbor, the inner harbor is heavily industrialized with major port
facilities, an airport, pulp mills, landfills, sewage treatment plants, and log storage
facilities. Grays Harbor provides commercial shipping access to cities and ports up the
Chehalis River.
In 1982, Simenstad et al. estimated that about 30% of historic estuary area had been lost.
The loss of estuarine habitat has resulted from fill to build the cities of Aberdeen and
Hoquiam, and diking and fill elsewhere in the estuary and lower portions of rivers
(Smith and Wenger 2001).
Nine hundred acres, approximately three percent of the total tidelands in Grays Harbor,
are commercially farmed for oysters or clams. Approximately 6,600 to 8,000 acres of
tidelands within Grays Harbor have been designated as resource lands of long term
commercial significance for their oyster resources.
A concentration of recreational land use is located near the town of Laidlow.
Within the QIR, the Pacific Coast shoreline is predominantly undeveloped, with the
exception of the Town of Taholah. Outside of the QIR, the Pacific Coast shoreline is
managed under the Seashore Conservation Act.
3 FUTURE DEVELOPMENT State SMA guidelines require that jurisdictions preparing SMP updates conduct an
analysis to estimate the future demand for shoreline space (WAC 173-26-201(3)(D)).
Because Grays Harbor County does not have the requirement to plan under the Growth
Management Act (RCW 36.70), many of the standard data sources used to estimate
future growth, such as buildable lands analyses, are not available. Therefore, the land
use analysis completed as part of the Shoreline Analysis Report drew from several
alternative sources of information in order to understand potential future demand for
shoreline space.
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
16
This section summarizes the results of the land use analysis, including existing land use
patterns, ownership of shoreline land, and trends in population and housing growth
and shoreline permit applications. It then presents an analysis of future development
potential by analyzing the amount and distribution of vacant lands in the County within
the context of the County’s existing zoning designations and proposed shoreline
environment designations. The section concludes with a summary of reasonably
foreseeable future development within County shorelines based on the information
presented.
3.1 Analysis of Development Trends
3.1.1 Existing Land Use
Existing land use provides a baseline for the types of land use and land use patterns
found within shoreline jurisdiction. As part of the land use analysis in the Shoreline
Analysis Report, existing land use data were obtained from the Grays Harbor County
Assessor and overlaid on the shoreline jurisdiction landward of the ordinary high water
mark.
Grays Harbor County’s economy has historically been heavily focused on resource
extraction, including forestry, fishing, mining, agriculture, and aquaculture. This focus
has a strong influence on the County’s land use pattern, including shoreline land use. A
significant amount of shoreline area that the County Assessor has classified as
“undeveloped land” is functionally timber land that is unlikely to change use during the
20-year planning horizon of the SMP. In order to better represent areas with potential for
future development, shoreline areas classified as Forest Site Class I or II or Red Alder
(RA) in the WDNR Forest Site Class data were reclassified from undeveloped to forestry
in the land use analysis.
Table 3-1 presents a summary of land use in Grays Harbor County shorelines. The
Quinault Indian Reservation, Olympic National Forest (ONF), Olympic National Park
(ONP), and Chehalis Indian Reservation comprise substantial portions of Grays Harbor
County. The County Assessor does not assess taxes for these areas and, therefore, does
not maintain land use information for them. These areas are reported as “unknown” in
the table below.
Table 3-1. Shoreline Land Use Pattern in Grays Harbor County.
Land Use Shoreline
Acres
Percent of
Shoreline
Jurisdiction
Forestry 34,958 55%
Vacant/Undeveloped 9,773 15%
Unknown 9,168 14%
Residential 4,245 7%
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
17
Land Use Shoreline
Acres
Percent of
Shoreline
Jurisdiction
Agriculture 3,438 5%
Cultural, Entertainment and Recreation 1,901 3%
Manufacturing/Industrial 410 1%
Transportation, Communications and Utilities 134
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
18
It is important to note that the pace of shoreline permit applications has slowed
dramatically in recent years. Since 2000, only 122 (15 percent of the total) shoreline
permit applications have been submitted. Some of this decrease may be attributable to a
reduction in shoreline activities. However, the decrease is also attributable to the
increase in the number of exemptions that have been added since the SMA was adopted.
Figure 3-2 shows the shoreline permit trend in the County over time.
Figure 3-2. Shoreline permit applications in Grays Harbor County, 1972-2013.
3.2 Analysis of Vacant Lands
In addition to identifying current land use patterns, the location and amount of vacant
lands were analyzed as a means to evaluate development capacity within the County’s
shorelines. The County’s zoning districts and the proposed shoreline environment
designations (see Section 4.1 of this document) dictate what types of shoreline
development are allowed where. Together, these three elements – vacant land, zoning,
and shoreline environment designation – provide a framework for future development
in Grays Harbor County. Table 3-2 summarizes vacant lands by zoning district and
proposed shoreline environment designation.
Table 3-2. Vacant Land by Zoning District and Shoreline Environment Designation.
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
19
Zoning Districts
High
Intensity
Natural -
Uplands
Coastal
Community
Rural
Development
Shoreline
Residential
Total
Acres
Agricultural 1 76 140 0 217
Agricultural 2 1 280 12 294
Commercial (General) 0 2 6 0 9
General Development 5 1 3131 5 2102 28 5268
Industrial 96 209 458 763
Not Zoned 0 34 5 497 18 554
Residential (General) 8 2 36 16 59
Residential (Lake Quinault) 89 89
Residential (Resort) 98 33 133 200 464
Residential (Restricted) 2 3 7 12
Rural Residential 13 13
Satsop Multi-Use District 13 13
Total Acres 105 3549 49 3770 281 7753
Shoreline Environment Designations (Acres)
The majority of vacant land within shoreline jurisdiction (5,268 acres, or 70%) is zoned
General Development (G5). Permitted uses in the G5 District are predominantly low-
intensity uses such as single-family homes, public and semi-public uses, parks, public
utilities, and marijuana processing and production. Conditional uses include airports
and motor vehicle sports tracks. While these uses are greater in intensity, there is likely
not a high demand for this type of development within shoreline jurisdiction.
Additionally, such uses would only be permitted if consistent with the shoreline
environment designation. The vast majority of vacant lands (7,319 acres, or 94%) in
shoreline jurisdiction are within the Natural and Rural Development environment
designations, which allow for limited low-density development with an emphasis on
preserving and restoring ecological functions.
Land zoned for industrial use within shoreline jurisdiction allows for the most intense
development and has the most potential for adverse impacts. Approximately 763 acres
of vacant land within shoreline jurisdiction is zoned for industrial use, including 458
acres in the Rural Development environment and 209 acres in the Natural environment.
These lands are concentrated on the east side of Grays Harbor at the mouth of the
Chehalis River, adjacent to the cities of Aberdeen and Cosmopolis. Industrial use is not
permitted in the Rural Development and Natural environments, which will prevent
future industrial development within shoreline jurisdiction despite the zoning
designation.. 717 acres, or 94 percent of vacant lands zoned for industrial use within
shoreline jurisdiction, contain wetlands (Table 3-3). This high concentration of wetlands
will be a significant limiting factor for future development in these industrially-zoned
areas.
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
20
Table 3-3. Vacant Industrial Lands by Shoreline Environment Designation.
Vacant Land
High
Intensity
Natural -
Uplands
Rural
Development Total Acres
Industrial Zoning 96 209 458 763
Wetlands 81 206 431 717Developable Industrial Land (Acres) 16 3 27 46
Shoreline Environment Designations
3.3 Summary of Reasonably Foreseeable Future Development
3.3.1 Queets-Quinault (WRIA 21)
Land use in the Queets-Quinault AUs is defined by significant tribal and public
ownership. The Olympic National Park, Olympic National Forest, and private and
public timber lands limit future development potential. Shoreline permit activity has
historically been low, with only one Shoreline Substantial Development permit recorded
since the early 1970s in the Queets and Quinault River AUs. The Moclips/Copalis AU
has experienced the highest rate of development and has the greatest potential for future
development of residential, recreation, and commercial development, with 30 percent of
its land within shoreline jurisdiction classified as vacant. Future development is
expected to continue to be composed of low-density residential and recreation uses in
concentrated areas.
3.3.2 Chehalis (WRIA 22/23)
Land use in the Chehalis AUs is dominated by forestry, with smaller areas of
vacant/undeveloped land, low-density residential, recreation, and limited areas of
commercial and industrial development. The majority of the AUs have limited
development capacity, and future land use and growth patterns are generally expected
to be consistent with the County-wide trend. The Chehalis AU has the most significant
potential for new development, with approximately 58 percent of its land within
shoreline jurisdiction classified as vacant or undeveloped. An estimated additional 250
homes could be developed within the AU based on existing development capacity.
However, development and permit trends suggest continued low rates of growth and
development in the near term.
3.3.3 Willapa (WRIA 24)
Existing land use in the North River AU is dominated by forestry uses with limited areas
of residential, agricultural, and recreation uses. The area has limited shoreline lands
available for future development, with approximately 49 acres classified as vacant or
undeveloped. While this number does not account for possible conversions of forestry
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
21
land to non-forestry uses, permit activity has been low since 1972, with only six
shoreline permits issued since 2000, all for transportation projects. Based on the limited
development capacity and historically low permit activity, future development is
expected to be very limited.
3.3.4 Marine and Estuarine Shorelines
Land use in the Pacific Coast AU contains less forestry use than the rest of the County,
and instead is dominated by residential and recreation uses with concentrated areas of
greater intensity development, including commercial uses within coastal communities.
However, the most prevalent shoreline use category in the Pacific Coast AU is
vacant/undeveloped land, which comprises 384 acres, or 31 percent of the total shoreline
area in the AU. Fifty-three percent of the vacant land is located in the north portion of
the County within the Quinault Indian Reservation, and 42 percent is located in the
southern reaches and zoned for residential development. However, due to the fact that
the Pacific Ocean beaches in the County are very wide, most of the beach fronting
structures are located outside of shoreline jurisdiction. This will likely be true for new
development as well.
Land use in the Grays Harbor Estuary AU is primarily classified as undeveloped (48%)
and forestry (22%). Concentrations of undeveloped areas occur along the northern and
southern shorelines of Grays Harbor. Residential, manufacturing, and recreational uses
are concentrated in unincorporated areas of existing development along the harbor.
Limited development potential exists within Estuary shorelines, as 87 percent of the
vacant and undeveloped land is zoned for low density development. Those areas zoned
for industrial and residential uses that are close to urbanized areas are the most likely to
support future development.
4 APPLICATION OF THE SMP This chapter describes how foreseeable development could affect shoreline conditions,
and what specific provisions of the proposed SMP will help maintain existing conditions
in spite of likely future development. This chapter begins, in Section 4.1, with a
summary of the County’s proposed environment designation scheme and a discussion
of how the scheme allocates allowed uses by relating environment designations to
ecological functions. Section 4.2 presents key general standards and regulations in the
SMP intended to protect the ecological functions of the shoreline. Sections 4.3 and 4.4
include the following for each specific use or modification, respectively, listed in the
SMP:
• An assessment of the future development potential for the use or
modification, if allowed by available data;
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
22
• A summary of the potential impacts that could result from future
development of the specific use or modification; and
• A summary of key regulations in the SMP that would avoid, minimize, or
mitigate potential impacts.
Section 4.5 includes these sections for each specific ocean resource use listed in the SMP.
Chapter 4 concludes, in Section 4.6, with a discussion of the potential beneficial effects of
the Shoreline Restoration Plan.
4.1 Shoreline Environment Designations
The first line of protection of the County’s shorelines is the shoreline overlay district
environment designation assignments. According to the Guidelines (WAC 173-26-211),
the assignment of environment designations must be based on the existing use pattern,
the biological and physical character of the shoreline, and the goals and aspirations of
the community as expressed through a comprehensive plan.
The assignment of environment designations can help minimize cumulative impacts by
concentrating development activity in lower functioning areas that are not likely to
experience significant function degradation with incremental increases in new
development or redevelopment.
Consistent with WAC Shoreline Master Program Guidelines, the County’s environment
designation system is based on the existing use pattern, the biological and physical
character of the shoreline, and community interests. The Shoreline Analysis Report
provided information on shoreline conditions and functions that informed the
development of environment designations for each of the shoreline waterbodies. The
proposed upland environment designations are as follows:
• High Intensity
• Coastal Community
• Shoreline Residential
• Rural Development
• Natural
The purpose of the High Intensity environment designation is to provide for high-
intensity water-oriented and water-related commercial, transportation, and industrial
uses that protect existing ecological functions and allow opportunities for restoration.
Within this designation, priority should be given to water-dependent, water-related, and
water-enjoyment uses. The designation is appropriate for those shoreline areas that
currently support or that are identified in the comprehensive plan as suitable for high-
intensity commercial and industrial uses, or those areas that are degraded due to
existing and past development patterns. Approximately 226 acres, or < 1 percent of the
County’s shorelines, are designated High Intensity environment.
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
23
The purpose of the Coastal Community environment designation is to accommodate
limited areas of more intense rural development and planned unit developments along
the Pacific Coast and Lake Quinault shorelines that protect existing ecological functions
and allow opportunities for restoration. The designation is appropriate for shoreline
areas within rural activity centers that support a mix of development, including planned
unit developments, and are generally served by public facilities and services at low
urban densities. Approximately 191 acres, or < 1 percent of the County’s shorelines, are
designated Coastal Community environment.
The purpose of the Shoreline Residential environment designation is to provide for
residential and low-intensity water-oriented commercial and public access development
along shorelines at appropriate densities that protect existing ecological functions and
allow for restoration opportunities. The designation is appropriate for shoreline areas
that support or are suitable for single-family and small scale water-oriented commercial
development at lower densities of one- to five-acre parcels. Shoreline Residential
shoreline areas should be able to provide water-oriented public access and recreation
development and protect or restore ecological functions. Approximately 1,170 acres, or 2
percent of the County’s shorelines, are designated Shoreline Residential environment.
The purpose of the Rural Development environment designation is to provide for the
protection of designated resource lands of long-term significance and open space,
allowing low-density single-family residences, and promoting low-impact outdoor
recreation use. Development characteristics for this environment designation emphasize
maintaining rural character and managing resource lands in a sustainable manner while
protecting existing ecological functions and promoting restoration opportunities. The
designation is appropriate for shoreline areas that support resource lands of long-term
commercial significance, contribute to critical aquifer recharge, accommodate rural, low-
density residential development, or have otherwise been identified as suitable for
resource use or low-intensity residential or recreational development. Approximately
51,251 acres, or 73 percent of the County’s shorelines, are designated Rural Development
environment.
The purpose of the Natural environment designation is to protect shoreline areas that
are ecologically intact or minimally degraded and retain value because of their natural,
unaltered condition or scientific, educational, or historic interest. The designation is
appropriate for shoreline areas that perform an important, irreplaceable function that is
susceptible to damage from human activity, or those areas that cannot support new
development without significant adverse impacts to ecological functions or risk to
human safety. The environment designation includes shoreline areas both above and
below the ordinary high water mark. Above the ordinary high water mark,
approximately 8,044 acres, or 12 percent of the County’s shorelines, are designated
Natural environment.
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
24
Approximately 8,899 acres, or 13 percent of the County’s shorelines, fall within tribal
lands and are not designated.
Figure 4-1. Distribution of proposed Shoreline Environment Designations within Grays Harbor County.
In addition, the following environment designations are proposed for areas waterward
of the ordinary high water mark:
• Aquatic
• Pacific Ocean
• Natural
Note that the Natural designation applies to both upland and aquatic areas.
The Uses by Environment Designation, Shoreline Modifications by Environment
Designation, and Ocean Management Actions by Environment Designation tables (SMP
Tables 1, 2, and 3, respectively) identify the prohibited and allowed uses and
modifications in each of the shoreline environments, and clearly show a hierarchy of
higher-impacting uses and modifications being allowed in the already highly-altered
shoreline environments, with uses more limited in the less developed areas either
through prohibition or a requirement for a shoreline conditional use permit. The
allowed and prohibited uses established in these tables help minimize cumulative
impacts by concentrating high intensity development activity in lower functioning areas
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
25
that are less likely to experience significant function degradation with incremental
increases in development. Additionally, allowed uses are subject to the general
provisions of the SMP (see Section 4.2), as well as the provisions specific to that use or
modification (see Section 4.3). These provisions are intended to minimize adverse
impacts from shoreline uses, and help ensure that such uses result in no net loss of
ecological functions.
4.1.1 Potential Use Conflicts
In general, the proposed SMP includes prohibited and permitted uses specific to
environment designations that limit potential conflicts between neighboring uses.
Environment designations are generally consistent with comprehensive plan
designations and zoning, with a few notable exceptions. The area at the mouth of
Newskah Creek, where a dike was breached to restore tidal functions is assigned a
natural environment designation; however, the comprehensive plan designation for the
area is high intensity and the zoning is industrial. The County should review this area in
its next comprehensive plan update to ensure consistency.
Another area for consideration is the residential community north of Satsop, which is
located within the floodway of the Satsop River. The area is designated as Shoreline
Residential, which is consistent with existing conditions; however, provisions that
prohibit development in the floodway would prohibit future development or
redevelopment in this area. Additional planning and coordination specific to this area
could be beneficial.
Although there is potential for future use conflict, particularly in land use zones that
provide a wide variety of land uses, the proposed SMP provides guidance and a
regulatory framework that helps minimize or avoid future use conflicts in shoreline
jurisdiction. Similarly, the proposed SMP provides a framework for allowing and/or
encouraging shoreline preferred uses in the shoreline jurisdiction.
4.2 General Shoreline Regulations
4.2.1 Shoreline ecological functions
Critical Areas in Shoreline Jurisdiction
The proposed SMP incorporates by reference GHCC Chapter 18.06, Critical Areas
Protection Ordinance (SMP Section 1.5). SMP Section 1.5.1 lists various exceptions to the
Critical Areas Ordinance, including use of a shoreline variance process and allowed
water-oriented uses within shoreline buffers. As defined in GHCC 18.02, all waters of
the state are included as Fish and Wildlife Habitat Conservation Areas, and therefore,
critical areas regulations will apply to any shoreline development waterward of the
OHWM or within the shoreline buffers applied to Type S (Shorelines) waters and
defined in Section 3.3.3(E) of the SMP.
-
Grays Harbor County Cumulative Impacts Analysis
26
The Critical Areas Protection Ordinance was revised and approved in 2012, based on
best available science; therefore, protection standards for shorelines, other fish and
wildlife habitat conservation areas, wetlands, geologically hazardous areas, frequently
flooded areas, and critical aquifer recharge areas should be sufficient to maintain
existing shoreline ecological functions.
Vegetation Conservation
The proposed SMP includes shoreline vegetation conservation standards in Section 3.3.3.
As with the critical areas standards described above, these standards refer to the
County’s critical areas code to regulate removal of vegetation within shoreline buffers.
Additional standards include requiring that development retain vegetation to the
greatest extent feasible within critical area buffers; limiting pathways, limiting thinning
of shoreline vegetation to create or protect views; and requiring shoreline review to
determine that the removal of shoreline vegetation within critical areas will not result in
a net loss of ecological function.
Mitigation Sequencing and No Net Loss of Ecological Function
GHCC 18.06.020, Critical Area Protection Special Studies, establishes the requirement for
a special study for projects that may affect critical areas. The special study must include
a discussion of mitigation sequencing measures, including avoidance, minimization, and
compensation, proposed to preserve the existing critical protection area and, if
appropriate, restore degraded functions. The mitigation sequencing preference is
identified in GHCC 18.06.080, Mitigation. The proposed SMP refers to these provisions
for development that degrades existing shoreline ecological functions (SMP Section 3.3).
4.2.2 Flood hazard reduction
Per GHCC 18.06.125, incorporated by reference, as described above, development in the
floodway may not result in an increase in the base flood elevation and new residential
development in the floodway is prohibited. Development and subdivision of land is not
allowed in floodways, channel migration zones, or coastal flooding zones if flood hazard
reduction measures would be necessitated. (SMP Section 3.4.3).
4.2.3 Water quality, stormwater, and nonpoint pollution
The proposed SMP would apply standards in the most current Stormwater Management
Manual for Western Washington (3.8.3A.). Additionally, on-site sewage systems would
be required to be placed as far from the OHWM as possible (3.8.3.C.). In addition to the
applicable standards of the Stormwater Management Manual, the proposed SMP
requires that new and expanded development within the High Intensity and Coastal
Community environments, as well as subdivisions of more than four parcels implement
use low impact development to control stormwater (3.8.3.B. and 3.8.3.D).
-
The Watershed Company and BERK February 2017
27
4.2.4 Other general regulations
In addition to the critical area buffers stipulated in GHCC18.06.125, the proposed SMP
applies a 10-foot structural setback to any buffer required by the SMP (3.6.3.E.), which
helps to limit buffer disturbance. The proposed SMP includes policies and regulations
for shorelines of statewide significance that among other criteria, give preference to
sustainable, long-term uses, water-oriented uses, and activities that include shoreline
restoration or enhancement (3.7.2).
4.3 Shoreline Uses
The following three subsections (4.3, 4.4, and 4.5) provide a brief summary of the
primary potential ecological impacts that may arise from various shoreline uses,
shoreline modifications, and ocean uses, as well as a summary of the proposed SMP
regulations intended to conserve ecological functions and prevent adverse cumulative
impacts. The sections are organized according to the document structure of the
proposed SMP.
Regulations that help ensure that impacts are avoided, minimized, and mitigated can be
separated into the following three general categories: (1) provisions that allow,
condition, or prohibit specific types of development depending on Shoreline
Designation; (2) provisions that apply specific standards that help avoid and minimize
potential impacts; and (3) provisions that require mitigation of impacts and/or
demonstration of no net loss of functions.
The potential impacts described in the sections below account for the more significant or
most likely impacts, but may not account for the full suite of potential impacts from a
given use or modification. These less significant or less likely impacts, while not
specifically discussed below, would be addressed during the permitting process through
mitigation sequencing requirements. Also, the listing of potential impacts does not mean
that these impacts occur in every instance of a certain use or modification.
4.3.1 Agriculture
Ongoing ag