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


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


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


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


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


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)


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


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.


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


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



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



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.


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


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



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.


9

Table 2-5. Summary of ecosystem conditions and impairments in the Satsop River AU

Satsop Watershed Position



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


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



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



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



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



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


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



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



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.


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



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.


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



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


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



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



Coast shoreline Good – Total vegetation limited in northern reaches;

Natural processes;


15

Pacific Coast Watershed Position



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.


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%


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


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.


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.


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


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;


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.


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.


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


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.


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).


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

Grays Harbor County’s Shoreline Master Program...GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY GRANT NO. 1400448 C U M U L A...

Documents

Transcript of Grays Harbor County’s Shoreline Master Program...GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY GRANT NO. 1400448 C U M U L A...