[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
SHORELINE ACCESS OPPORTUNITIES ON THE GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY JUNE 1986 Property of CSC Library U.S. OEP, COASTAL OF COMMERCE NOAA ES CENTER 3ON AVENUE 29405-2413 CHARLE S1 GRAYS HARBOR REGIONAL PLANNING COMMISSION 2109 SUIVER AVENUE, SUITE 202 ABERDEEN, WASHINGTON 98520 Janet A. Richardson, Executive Director Teresa Clocksin, Planner-in-charge David Osaki, Planner Tim Triesch, Planner Aide and Graphics Rosemarie Ratcliff, Office Manager Donna Channell, Secretary/Receptionist *-0 co NI) The preparation of the report was financially aided through a grant the Washington State Department of Ecology with funds obtained from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, and appropriated Section 306 of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972. from the for Z-: 1---1 CN II r4 TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION PAGE CHAPTER 1: 1 2 3 4 6 7 7 8 9 9 10 12 13 13 15 16 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 2: INTRODUCTION 2.1 Purpose . . . . . . . . . 2.2 Regional Profile . . . . 2.3 Study Area . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . CHAPTER 3: PLANNING PROCESS 3.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . 3.2 Citizen Advisory Committee . . . . .. 3.3 Goals and objectives . . . . . . . . . 3.4 Public participation . . . . . . . . 3.5 Citizen opinion questionnaire ... 3.6 Relationship to other plans: . . . . . 3.6.1 Shoreline Master Programs . . . 3.6.2 Grays Harbor Estuary Management 3.6.3 Comprehensive Development Plans 3.6.4 Parks and Recreation Plans 3.6.5 Special Studies . . . . . . . . 3.7 Potential Funding Sources . . . . . . ... ... ... Plan 4. . .. . . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. . . . . .. .. . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . .�. CHAPTER 4: SITE ANALYSIS 4.1 Introduction and Methods . 4.2 Ocean Shores Sub-area . . 4.3 North Bay Sub-area . . . . 4.4 Urban Waterfront Sub-area 4.5 South Shore Sub-area . ; . 4.6 Westport Sub-area . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 ....... .......... � .21 . . . . . . . . . 21 . . . . . . . . . 28 . 28 . . . . .. .. ... .33 . . . . . . . . . 39 . . . . . . CHAPTER 5: SITE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS 5.1 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . 5.2 Sunrise Avenue Park, Ocean Shores . . 5.3 Grays Harbor City Railroad Corridor 5.4 Urban Area High Elevation Vista Point 5.5 Chapin Creek Wayside, South Shore . . 5.6 Bottle Beach, Ocosta . . . . . . . . . 5.7 Conclusion and Recommendations . . . . 42 42 45 51 54 57 61 . . . . .. ... .: . .. . . . . .. .. .. . . . . . . . .. . . . . . . . .. .� .� . � . e. APPENDIX A: B: C: INVENTORY OF GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS RESULTS OF CITIZEN OPINION QUESTIONNAIRE . REFERENCES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . SITES . . . . A-1 . . . . . . . B-l . . . . . . . C-l D: SUGGESTED PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES AND REGULATIONS . . . D-1 E: SUPPORT FACILITIES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . E-1 ii LIST OF FIGURES TITLE PAGE 1. Study Area and Sub-areas ... 5 2. Grays Harbor Estuary Shoreline Access Inventory . . .... 19 3. Shoreline Access Sites, Ocean Shores Sub-area ....... 22 4. Shoreline Access Sites, North Bay Vicinity ....... 25 5. Shoreline Access Sites, Grays Harbor City Vicinity . .... 27 6. Shoreline Access Sites, Urban Sub-area ........... 30 7. Shoreline Access Sites, South Shore Vicinity . . . . .... 34 8. Shoreline Access Sites, Markham/Ocosta Vicinity . . . ... 36 9. Shoreline Access Sites, South Bay Vicinity . . . . ..... 37 10. Shoreline Access Sites, Westport Sub-area ....... 40 11. Proposed Sunrise Avenue Park, Ocean Shores ......... 43 12o Proposed Sunrise Avenue Park, Site Design ....... 44 13. Grays Harbor City Railroad Corridor ............ 46 14. Grays Harbor City, Proposed Site Design . . . . . 48 15. Grays Harbor City, Proposed Site Improvements ...... 49 16. Grays Harbor City, Proposed Viewing Platform . . . . ... 50 17. High Elevation Vista Point, Highway 101-109 Bypass ..... 52 18. Proposed Vista Point, Highway 101-109 Bypass ........ 53 19. Looking west from the mouth of Chapin Creek . . . . . ... 55 20. Proposed Chapin Creek Wayside . . . ..56 21. Proposed Improvements to Bottle Beach Access Road, Ocosta 58 22. Bottle Beach Access, Proposed Foot Bridge . . . . . ... 59 23. Bottle Beach Access, Proposed Site Design . . . . ..... 60 iii Ex ecu tiv e Su mm ary CHAPTER 1 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY This study is a compilation of information on shoreline access opportunities around the Grays Harbor estuary, and includes recommendations for increasing availability of such access. The plan was prepared by the Grays Harbor Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee, as assembled by the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. The Commission provided staff support through funds made available by the Washington State Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Management (Section 306) monies. The planning process for the study emphasized citizen input regarding shoreline access needs around Grays Harbor through the formulation of the Citizen Advisory Committee and the community-wide distribution of a shoreline access survey. Coordination with local government and state resource agencies occurred through their involvement with the Advisory Committee. This plan's completion would not have been possible without the dedication of the committee members and the involvement of other members of the public. Forty-five existing and potential shoreline access sites were identified throughout the estuary. Analyses were completed on each of the sites and five were chosen as candidate sites for future public access development. The five top priority sites were: Site Number 6, Sunrise Avenue Park, Ocean Shores; Site Number 12, Grays 1-arbor City Railroad Corridor; Site Number 13, High Elevation Vista Point at the 101-109 Bypass; Site Number 29, Chapin Creek Wayside; and gite Number 34, Bottle Beach, Ocosta (see map, Figure 2, page 19). In coming years it is intended that information, proposals, and recommendations contained in this report will provide a resource to direct future policy decisions regarding shoreline access, and will encourage access development throughout the Grays Harbor estuary. This document is organized into five sections. Chapter Two is an overview of the study area and sub-areas. The planning and coordination process is outlined in Chapter Three, and potential funding sources are identified. Chapter Four presents the shoreline access site inventory, with a discussion of issues, potentials, and priorities for each sub-area of the estuary. More detailed discussions of the five candidate sites, which are accompanied by site design options, appear in Chapter Five, and Section 5.7 contains a summary of recommendations. The detailed shoreline access site inventory, summary of the shoreline access questionnaire, references, recommended public access policies, and a brief description of shoreline access support facilities appear in a series of appendices to this plan. I Introdu ction CHAPTER 2 INTRODUCTION 2.1 PU-RPOSE Since passage of the Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, Wiashington State Shoreline Management Act (1971), and Washington State Aquatic Land Enhancement Act (1984), shoreline and aquatic land management issues have come to the fore, with increased emphasis being placed on use of the state's shorelines for public recreation. Each of these acts establishned public access as a priority policy and specified improvement of shoreline access as a major goal. Growing awiareness of public access issues led several, reviewers of the Draft Grays Harbor Estuary -Management Plan to suggest that more comprehensive shoreline access policies be adopted in that plan. These facts, coupled with a need in Grays Harbor for wgaterfront redevelopment and economiic revitalization, prompted the Grays H4arbor Regionial Planning Comimission to seek a grant from the Washington State Department of Ecology's Coastal Zone Management (Section 306) monies to undertake a study of opportunities for public access to the shorelines of the Grays Harbor estuary. The Gravs Harbor area has traditionally been dependent on natural resource; for its economic base. in light of this fact, and the area's outstanding natural amenities, it has been easy to conclude that Grays t'arbor residents would turn to waterside resources for their recreation as well as their livelihood. Unfortunately, opportunities for access to saltwater recreation around the estuary are few. MAany factors have contributed to this slhortage. Access points are not adequately signed and in many cases they are closely guarded secrets. In some areas, trespass on private property is becoming a problem. Some popular areas do not have adequate facilities to accommodate inte-nsive use, and environmental damage has resulted. With some activities, such as viewing the working waterfront, safety and liability are factors inhibiting development of public access. In addition to those mentioned above, acquisition and construction costs and lack of a local shoreline access development plan also have been factors which limit development of adequate public shoreline access around the Grays H4arbor estuary. 1Improvements to public shoreline access around Grays lHarbor could have many benefits to the region. Increased awareness on the part of county citizens and visitorg regarding the estuary's recreational amenities would direct use toward public access Points which are capable of accommodating such activities, and decrease incidence of trespass on private shorelands and tidelands. It is also thought that increasing ktnoxwledge and quality of public access to estuary shorelines wiould enhance tourism to the county. indeed, mere signing of public access points would increase the use of these sites by both residents and visitors, and high quality, well miaintained access points, in a variety of settings, could attract more tourists to the area and encourage. them to stay longer. Further, the presence of such recreational amenities would enhance citizen 's perceptions of Grays Harbor as a beautiful area in which to live. 2 The purpose of this study is to inventory existing and potential waterfront viewing and public shoreline access sites around the Grays Harbor estuary. The study also sets forth proposals for public access development at selected sites. It was prepared under the direction of a citizen advisory committee (Section 3.2 lists the members) made up of people concerned about the existing and future availability of adequate shoreline access for the general public. Potential sites are analyzed and prioritized, and detailed design and implementation studies have been completed on the top five potential sites. The study recommends these top sites as being the most advantageous Lo develop. in coming years it is intended that information and proposals contained in this report will encourage continued shoreline access development and enhancement efforts, and its recommendations will provide a resource to direct future policy decisions regarding shoreline access. F L l -- - - - -t'. Westport Viewing Tower 2.2 REGIONAL PROFILE Grays Harbor County, Washington, is at the base of the Olympic Peninsula, about mid-way between the Columbia River and the Strait of Juan de Fuca. It is bounded on the north by the Olympic Mountains, on the east by the Black Hills and a low pass over them to Puget Sound, on the south by the Willapa Hills of the Coast Range, and on the west by the Pacific ocean. Most of the land in the county drains into the Chehalis River which empties into the Grays Harbor estuary. The climate, while generally described as mild and damp, varies with 3 distance from the ocean, altitude, and northward or southward slope. Soils are generally very acidic, but can vary greatly, with as many as fifty different types in one square mile. The dominant land use is forest lands. The economnic base, while resource-oriented, involves both heavy and light manufacturing, fisheries, commercial recreation services, and several types of specialized agriculture. The estuary itself covers approximately 60,000 acres (94 square miles) of wiater and tidal marsh, surrounded by 89 miles of shoreline. It is one of two large embayments on the coast of Washington and is considered to be among the most important of coastal bays on the Pacific coast of North America. Along its shores appear a variety of environments, from sandy beaches and salt marshes to man-made bulkheads and urban i-ndustrial waterfront. The economies of five cities and towns depend on shorefront industries such as forest products processing, marine terminals, commercial seafood harvest and processing, and recreational activities. The commercial-industrial core of Grays Harbor County consists of three cities situated at the head of the estuary. They are Aberdeen, Cosmopolis, and Hoquiam, and have a combined population of approximately 28,000 (1985 estimate), almost half the total county population. The fishing and recreational community of Westport (population 1,850) lies at the mouth of the harbor to the south, and Ocean Shores, a recreational and retirement community of about 2,100, borders the harbor mouth to the north. In addition, several small communities border the estuary: Burrows Road, Chenois Creek, Grass Creek and Grays Harbor City along North Bay, and South Arbor, Markham, Ocosta, and Bay City along the south shore. 2.3 STUDY AREA The study area for this shoreline access plan comprises the shorelines of the Grays Harbor estuary from the harbor entrance and jetties up the Chehalis River to Cosmopolis. overall, river shorelines wiere excluded from the study area; however, excepti-ons include the portion of the Chehalis River from its mouth to Cosmtopolis, and banks of rivers whete boat launches (providing boating access to the estuary) are located. Another area generally excluded from the study was Bowerman Basin, since issues concerning the future of public access in that area are, as yet, unresolved. The study area is 'Lurther broken down into f ive sub-areas, shown on Figure 1. They are: SUB-AREA APPROXIMATE BOUNDARY Ocean Shores North Jetty to north Ocean Shores city limits North Bay Ocean Shocres city limits to Grays Hiarbor City Urban Waterfront Grays H'arbor City to Cosmopolis to South Aberdeen South Shore N'ewskah Creek to W4estport city limits Westport Westport city limits to the South Jetty 4 e H 0 lzJ Fn-3 cn 0 tTj t)0D m p C..1 L H7 - I_nl 0 3 P l a n n i n g P r o c e s s CH-APTER 3 TFE PLANNING PROCESS 3.1 INTRODUCTION The study design developed 'for this plan stressed public involvement at every stage of the planning process. Also important was coordination with.local government and state resource agencies. Below is a description of the year-long planning process which led to the completion of this plan. The first step wyas to establish a citizen advisory committee to oversee the project and provide the input of various interest groups. The committee consisted of representatives from local recreation and environmental groups, business and industry, state resource agencies, and cities in the study area. In order to determine community interest and needs, an initial public informational mieeting was held and a questionnaire distributed throughout the community. The second phase included research activities suchi as literature reviews and field work. Comprehensive land use plans, parks and recreation plans, shoreline master programs, and other special studies and plans were reviewed so that an analysis of coordination between those plans and this study could be do-ne. Potential and existing sho-reline access sites and viewpoints were inventoried and mapped. The following information wias collected for each identified site: o Ownership, where possible; o Size (acres and shoreline length wihere possible); o Access to the site; o Potential interest in activities available at the site; o Available facilities and/or potential for development; o Environmental and safety issues; o Zoning and adjacent land use; o Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan management category. During the next phase in the project, the committee made two field trips, includinag a boat tour of the estuary, to view a number of the inventory sites. They also held a series of meetings at which they reviewed the inventory, analyzed the sites, and rated them according to the following criteria: o Ability to withstand use while providing a minimum impact to adjacent land uses and to the environment; o Medium to high potential for use; o Located in an area wqhich is identified as lacking sufficient shoreline access; o The site offers an opportunity to develop a needed type of access or facility. Five candidate sites were chosen by the committee as having top priority for development of shoreline access. Criteria f'or selection of candidate sites included: o Expressed public interest in the location or type of access; 6 o medium to high use potential; o Satisfies geographic distribution of access; o Compatible with surrounding land use; o Provides access currently unavailable or in short supply; o Provides a unique opportunity, for example, adjacent land use requires interpretation, unique vista, special use, etc.; o Accessible by automobile, transit bus, or bicycle., Based on the committee's decisions, the f olloxwing completed for each of the candidate sites: analyses were o Site design proposals; o Issue identification; o Recommended implementation. Finally, a draft plan was prepared, including maps and site designs. The committee reviewed this draft, and a second public informational meeting was held to gain further input to the process. This year-Iona effort resulted in the final plan before you. .3.2 CITIZENi ADVISORY COMtMITTEE To aid in the preparation of this study a citizen advisory committee wgas appointed by the Grays Parbor Regional Planning Commission. Widely varying interests were represented, from business and industry to local recreation and environmental groups. Representatives of various local resource agencies were also involved. Members of the committee were: Dan Guy, Chairman Janet Anthony Dan Craig Helen Dorsey Rick Grimnes Barbara Jorgenson Mike Linn Jim Mankin Tom Northup Bill Pickell Liz Preble Edith SipilaI Florence Carlson Tim Smith/Lance Caputo William Stute Don Vahl Washington Dept. of Game, Aberdeen Friends of Bowerman Basin Grays Harbor Poggie Club Ocean Shores City Council Bus ines sman Grays Harbor Olympians Oyster grower Westport Planning Commission Washington Dept. of Fisheries, Montesano Landowner (Grays H4arbor City area) Aberdeen Parks and Recreation Board Grays Harbor Bird Club City of Hoquiam Citizen of Westport Weyerhaeuser Company 3.3 GOALS ANID TASKS To help focus the intent of this study, the Grays Harbor Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee adopted the following goals: 1. Serve the interests and general welfare of County residents and visitors by identifying Grays Farbor opportunities 7 for enhancement of public shoreline access around the Grays tHarbor estuary, while preserving the natural characteristics of the area's environment and private property rights. 2. Encourage maintenance and improvement ofL existing access and development of new shoreline access around the Grays Harbor estuary. 3. Promote coordination between jurisdictions around the harbor by developing a comprehensive study of access potentials and regional -priorities for public shoreline access development. 4. Improve accessibility to harbor shoreline areas for the elderly, handicapped and physically disabled. 5, Promote public shoreline access on the Grays Harbor estuary as a method to attract increased tourism, enhancing the economic development potential of the Grays Harbor area. 6, support public and private redevelopment of urban waterfront areas whtich include public shoreline access. 'Four primary tasks were identified as a framewqork for this study: 1, inventory existing and potential shoreline access around the Grays Hdarbor estuary and identify ownership for those sites. 2. Prepare site summaries for the most promising potential public access sites, including physical descriptions and activity potentials. 3. Evaluate potential sites and identify the highest priority sites for development. 4. Present design, funding, a-nd implementation options on the highest priority sites as a resource for future development of those sites. 3.4 PUBLIC PARTICIPATION Additional public participation was desired beyond the input provided by the citizen advisory committee. In order to involve more members of the community, an initial public information meeting was held very early in the process so thiat comments from the general public could be heard and used as guidance. in addition, a questionnaire was distributed at thie meeting, and throughout the community, soliciting opinions and commeats about activities of shoreline users, facilities needed, and areas around the estuary requiring more shoreline access. A draft plan was presented at a second puiblic information meeting so that citizens' comments and suggestions on that draft could be incorporated into the final plan. 8 3.5 CITIZEN OPINTION QUESTIONINAIRE The results of the questionnaire are detailed in Appendix B. Generally, most respondents indicated that, while shoreline access wias important to both residents and visitors, the present level of shoreline access w-as inadequate. The three estuary sub-ateas which were targeted for additional access included North Bay, the urban waterfront, and the south shore. Many thought that inadequate knowledge existed about public access points to the estuary's slhorelines. Methods which were suggested to increase the public's knowiledge wvere: o Place signs directly at the access point; o Provide information o-n the locations of shoreline access at tourist in-formation centers; o Develop and distribute maps, brochures, and/or guides to public shoreline access points; o Advertise using the media; o Educate the public as to the benefits of shorelines. When asked about shoreline accessibility for the elderly or handicapped, most responded that this type of access was inadequate. Also, a great majority of those returning questionnaires indicated that the public sector should develop public shoreline access. General uses which viere most wiidely enjoyed included scenic viewing, nature study, bird watch-ing, and walking. General use facilities wiere favored for development, such as benches, picnic tables, restrooms, trails/paths, and~ parking areas. 3.6 RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PROGRAMS AND PLANS Two' state proarams address public access to shoreline areas of the state, the Shoreline Management Act of 1971, administered by the Washington State Department of Ecology (DOE), and the Aquatic Lands Enhancement Act of 1984, administered by the Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR). A major objective of the Shoreline Management Act is to increase public access to shoreline areas. Most local jurisdictions have policies requiring dedication of public access coincident with development ot the shoreline, but many such accesses have not resulted in significant public opportunities. Three reasons cited are design deficiencies, failure to record easements, and inability of public agencies to follow up wgith maintenance and public information. Actions being taken by DOE include a program for installation of a standardized shoreline access sig-n to mark public access sites, development of a coastal public access guide, and coordination of other public information programs. The Aquatic Land Enhancement Act clarifies policies regarding DNR management of the state's aquatic lands. Although water-dependency is the highest priority, the Act states that management practices will balance public access, environmental protection, use of renewable resources, and promotion of water-dependent uses. Portions of the revenues from leases of state-ow-ned aquatic lands will help improve 9 public recreation' shoreline access, en-vironmental protection, and other public benefits. In their Aquatic Land Policy Plan (1985), DNR established three general policies in relation to Dublic use and access. These include active improvement of public access and recreational use of state-owned aquatic lands, encouragement of public access and recreational use through lease terms and conditions, and coordination of public use and access programs with local recreational planners and the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. In addition to programs managed by DOE and DNIR, the Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation (IAC) is responsible for the Washington Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCOIRP, 1985) and manages funds for recreation development in the state. SCORP states that aquatic lands and beaches continue to bave high priority for resource protection, public use, and other values, but lack adequate funding. The plan proposes that funding capabilities for such projects be increased, and that aid to other state agencies and departments, through public information programs and project funding, be enhanced. The two main objectives in this proposed action are to maintain a viable aquatic environment for future generations and to acquire and develop public access to public beaches and related aquatic lands. Funding objectives include the encouragement of public access to key resources of the state, and priority for funding is given to the acquisition, development, and/or renovation of water-oriented resources. Following is an overview of public access policies and recommendations for the jurisdictions x-ithin the study area. First is an analysis of local shoreline master Drogram public access provisions, then Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan public access policies are presented. This is followed by discussions of public access policies appearing in city and county comprehensive plans, parks and recreation plans, and special studies, including waterfront development plans and county Tourism and Bike Plans. 3.6.1 Shoreline M4anagement Master Program Policies and Reaulations The Washington State Shoreline M4anagement Act of 1971 provides for the development and administration of master programs at the local level. Those local master programs outline each jurisdiction'~s soecific implementation of the state shoreline management provisions. The jurisdictions of the Grays Harbor region are somewhat unique in that all of their shoreline master programs were originally developed as part of a regional planning process. All governments in the county took part in the development of a master program wqhich was then customized for each entity. Although there are some differences (owing to unique circumstances and subsequent revisions) between the programs for each community, the policies, performance standards, and environments are wqell coordinated. For instance, adjacent areas in separate jurisdictions have coordinated environment designations. This resulted in a high level of intergovernmental consistency and a more uniform protection of the shoreline areas. The cities of Aberdeen, Cosimopolis, and Ocean Shores still follow- the 10 shoreline master programs they adopted in the mid-1970's. lHowever, three jurisdictions within the study area, the cities of Foquiam and Westport, and the County, have revised their master programs since initial adoption. The following discussion applies to all jurisdictions within the study area, with any differences so noted. Generally, the goal for public access in local shoreline master proorams is "To mainitain and improve our existing public access facilities, to seek miore facilities and devices to increase opportunities for public access to our region' s waters. Further, public access should be as safe as possible, cause no ill effect on other shorelines uses or features , or ill effect on the waters themselves, or infringement uponi private property rights. Yet fragile areas should not be destroyed through over use, rather that the volume of access be only that which the waters and shorelands can withstand.t' The goal for recreation in shoreline areas is "tTo seek and provide proper recreational opportunities for the local citizenry, to see that the at-home recreational needs are met. Further, to maintain and enhance our tourism resources, to stabilize these resources and to guide resource development such that the very development is not fatal to the original resource." Policies relating to public shoreline access address a number of issues, including protection of environmental resources, provision of public access at port facilities, linkage of accesses to evenly distribute public use , shoreline access along appropriate transportation corridors, protection of private property rig-hts, and siting of non-water-dependent developments (sucb as parking) awiay from shoreline areas. Stronger provisions are made for developments along shorelines of statewide significance (including the Grays Hiarbor estuary and Chehalis River), such as giving priority to linear access along shorelines (e.g. trails) and locating development back from the ordinary high water line so that access to the general public is facilitated. Several of the master programs adopt regulations relating to shoreline access. Some of those programs require, as a condition for issuance of a shoreline substantial development permit, the granting of easements or dedication of lands specifically for public access, depending on the type of development to occur. Easements or dedications can include strips along the shoreline, access road rights-of-way, or other usable dedications. Additionally, shoreline administrators may require public access improvements, or they may exempt certain projects from any public access requirements. The followiing three regulations from the Grays Harbor County Shoreline Master Program apply to public access requirements on shorelines of statewide significance: o Residential, recreational, and commercial development fronting on shorelines of statew-ide significance shall provide a linear public easement or dedication at least 25 feet wide alona the ordinary high water line or as near thereto as can conveniently accommodate Pedestrian use. Such easement shall only permit non- 11 motoriged veh-icle and pedestrian use during daylight houi7s and at night during business hours. Such easements may be waived where surrounding development precludes the possibility of extending the public easement, or where topography or the environment makes it undesirable or impractical for predestrian access; o Heavy commercial and industrial uses fronting on shorelines of statewide significance shall provide an easement or dedication for one or more vista points located as near to the outer harbor line as is reasonable, considering the nature and siting of the use. The access and vista point area shall be caDable of handling passenger vehicles safely and conveniently, unless topography or other limitations preclude this, in wlhich case safe and convenient pedestrian access shall be sufficient; o The propDerty owner shall not be required to install or maintain improveme-nts for such public access and vista facilities unless a subdivision is required, in wihich case improvements may be required as a condition for plat approval. Public use shall not be allowed until reasonable improvements and provisions have been made by the appropriate public agency so that trespassing on adjacent private property, littering, and environmental abuse will be minimized. 3.6.2 Grays Tiarbor Estuary Manaaement Plan. The Grays Harbor Estuary Ma-nagement Plan is a guide for the use and protection of the Grays Harbor estuary and its shorelines. The plan is intended to guide economic development and to protect natural resources within the area. it is a long-range, coordinated, comprehensive land and water use plan designed to provide fot a balance between future development activities and the biological resources of the estuary,, to minimize conflicts betwieen various interests, and to address the cumnulative effects of development projects. The Plan designates eiaht "Planning Areas" within the estuary for.which general goals weke developed, and defines f'orty- three specific "Management Units" along the shorelines of the estuary, with detailed management objectives, allowvable activities, and any applicable special conditions. This study of public shoreline access was initiated in response to comments received on the Grays H4arbor Estuary Management Plani and Program Draft Environmental Impact Statement (February 1983). Several reviewers felt that public access had not been adequately addressed in that plan, and the final revised Crays Harbor Es-tuary Manaaement Plan (January 1986) included policies regarding the public access issue. Shoreline access development recommendations in this plan are consistent with management unit objectives of the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan. Public access policies of the Grays Hgarbor Estuary Management Plan are as follows: 12 o Public access in Natural and Conservancy Nlatural areas will be discouraged unless facilities are spa~cifically provided to accommodate public use of the area, or unless the public use does not impact the resources of the area. o Opportunities for public viewing of all industrial waterfront areas are strongly encouraged, but in a manner where neither public safety nor industrial operations are jeopardized. o Public agencies are encouraged to provide specific facilities for viewing barbor resources and for achieving direct physical access to the water area. Such facilities must be located and designed to minimize impact on resources. o In all cases, planned public access, either as a part of a private project approved through a local substantial development permit or as a public project initiated by a public agency, must be consistent with the Management objectives, Allowable Activities, and Conditions of the Management Unit within which the project is located. o Planned public access should be located wghere it will not cause unnecessary disruption to adjacent private property. 3.6.3 Comprehensive Development Plans: Although no site specific recommendations are made regarding shoreline access development, most comprehensive development plans for cities within the study area indicate that the waterfront-oriented nature of development in each of these cities should be maintained. Most also suggest that revitalization of waterfront areas occur and that public uses along the area's shorelines (includina recreational public access) be facilitated and enhanced. Generally, all proposals and recommendations set forth in this document are found to be consistent with the comprehensive development plans of the affected governments. 3.6,4 Parks and Recreation Plans: Grays Hiarbor County, in its 1982 Parlks and Recreation Plan, set forth a number of objectives to further recreation development in the unincorporated county. Among those objectives is to provide recreational facilities which are uniquely suited to development by the county because of locational requirements or county-wide recreational, historical, or cultural significance. The county plan also encourages the donation of land suitable and appropriate for recreational use, and encourages maintenance of parks, recreational, and cultural facilities by volunteers and service organizations. Another objective is to communiicate local recreational priorities to state and federal land managers in order to encourage the development of priority facilities under their control and to provide access to priority areas such as shorelines and waterways. 13 The 1980 Parks and Recreation Plan for the City of Aberdeen identified Ia great need to develop a waterfront park" in the city. There are fifteen total miles of waterfront in Aberdeen, and at that time only 250 feet were de-veloped as a boat launch. The plan recommended Morrison Riverfront Park be built along the Chehalis River east of Wishkah Mail, and phase one of that park was completed in 1985. Development plans included picnic areas, play areas, trails and walkways (now complete) and restrooms, a fishing pier, a boat launch, and day use moorage. "Acquisition and development of adequate portions of the shoreline for recreational purposes"' are given a high priority in that plan. The most recent park plan completed for Cosmopolis proposed a waterfront park at the intersection of "F" street and the Chehalis River. Facilities were to include a new bulkhead with a trail an top, picnic tables, a play area, viewing/fishing benches, a covered recreation area (and possible snack bar, etc.), restrooms, a boat launch, landscaping and parking, and a display area for industrial equipment and products. A trail would lead from this waterfront park north to the mouth of Mill Creek and the Lions Club park, and the path would eventually link up with an extensive urban trail system. The project had a very high cost compared to other identified projects, and, subsequently, lower priority, and has not been implemented. The City of Hoquiamn cited a need to develop a waterfront park in its 1980 park plan. Ptoquiam boasts 12.5 miles of shoreline along the Grays liarbor estuary and HRoquiam and Little Hoquiam Rivers. An existing boat launch is located on the Little Hoquiam River, outside of the present study area. In that plan the city specified a need for a river access park wiith a boat launch, trail system, open space, picnic area, restrooms and parking. The emphasis was on Hoquiam River, Little Floquiam River and East Fork Iloquiam river shorelands, and no estuary access was discussed. Most of the recreational facilities in Ocean Shores are privately owned, which can be attributed to thie private community club which was established when Ocean Shores was first conceived. As a result, while most recreation facilities are accessible to land owiners in Ocean Shores, tourists and visitors are not allowed access to those facilities. However, the "Sink" (Oyhut Habitat Management Area, Washington Department of Came) and the newly accreted "Protection Island" (now called Damon Point, owned and managed by the state Department of Natuiral Resources) are two large publicly owned recreation areas in Ocean Shores. The 1982 Ocean Shores Parks and Recreation Plan calls for the conservation and preservation of important natural areas (the "Sink" and "Protection Island") and other shorelines. An inventory identifies the North Jetty, the "Sink," Damon Point, and the private marina as recreation sites. Also identified is the Bayshore Clubhouse, fronting iNorth Bay, which is a private club for land owners. A parcel of city-owned land along the shore of North Bay is noted as an undeveloped recreation site. Emphasis in that plan is for ocean beach access aad recreation development along 'Duck Lake, and no estuary s-horeline access is planned. The plan referenced a survey which identifies a "high need for all-weather picnic facilities." Priority is to be given to 14 development of city-owned property. Westport's 1985 park plan also idenitifies a need for an all-wieather picnic facility. That plan also suggests an interpretive walkincg tour to various recreational facilities in the city. A parcel of city- owned property at the end of Pacific Avenue, along the shores of South Bay, is identified as parks/preserve land, and is earmarked for future recreational development. 3.6.5 Special Studies: In 1981 a studv of the Grays Harbor urban waterfront wqas initiated by Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. The study area included all shorelines within city limits of the urban area, and all land use types, including industrial, commercial and recreational, were considered. The first phase of this study, titled Revitalization Potentials on the Grays Harbor Urban Waterfront, analyzed the factors which influence development on the urban waterfront, evaluated potential for development along the waterfront, and identified areas suitable for redevelopment. It also i-nventoried current land use for eighteen prime rehabilitation opportunity areas along the waterfront, discussed resource, natural hazard, and regulatory constraints, presented cultural/historic use, ownership, and planned improvements for thoGe areas, and identified specific development potentials. In 1982 the 'Revitalization Action Plan for the Grays 14arbor Urban Wtaterfront recommended actions to encouraae wqaterfront redevelopment. Area specific recommendations, issue summaries, and design standards were presented for each of the eighteen primie rehabilitation opportunity areas defined in the first project phase. in addition, the report recommended actions which local public agencies could take to encourage the revitalization of the urban waterfront, and presented potential public funding sources. Information and recommendations from both of these teports wiere used extensively in the development of the shoreline access plan, and recommendations in the current study are consistent with those put forth in the Urban Waterfront reports. The Grays Harbor Regional Bike Plan (1981) advocated the consideration of bicycle transportation issues when proposing recreational development projects. CoordinAtion elements which have been considered in the development of this plan include the provision of bicycle access to recreational resources, development of recreational facilities which are along, bicycle routes, and placement of bike racks and similar devices to secure bicycles at destination points. Funding of bicycle system imiprovements should be considered in conjunction with other improvement projects. The Grays Miarbor Tourism Plan (1982) analyzed the usage and value of recreational attractions in the county, and presented Grays Harbor Tourism Council-goals and objectives for the enhancement of tourism in the county. Several attractions listed in the tourism plan are also shoreline access sites which are included in the current access study inventory. The development of a plan to enhance shoreline access in Grays 'Harbor contributes to the stated goals of that plan. 15 The State of Washington Natural tleritage Plan (DDNR, 1985) provides for the establishment of natural areas as a way to preserve some of the state's pristine resources. The thrust of that program is to preserve designated areas by minimizing alterations from human activities. Management of many of these areas precludes recreational use, and two locations throughout the harbor have been deleted from consideration in tais shoreline access study due to their designation as Natural Area Preserves. 3.7 POTENTIAL FUNDING SOURCES A wide variety of funding sources are available to carry out acquisition and development or improvements to public shoreline access facilities. Most methods involve a cooperative effort betw-een local government and state or federal grants, or cooperation between community groups and local government. One source for funding of recreational development is general city/county revenues, but their ability to do so is limited because of budget constraints. Also, public acquisition of shoreline access sites can occur through dedication of easements or rights-of-way in conjunction with shoreline substantial development permits. This dedication is governed through regtulations specific to the shorelines permitting process of each jurisdiction. Private recreation and civic groups can accomplish much in the way of shoreline access improvements through donations of labor and materials, and, in cooperation with local government, can provide volunteer maintenance of a devreloped site, thus reducing, government costs for that service. Private foundations can often be solicited to donate monies for recreational improvements. In addition to the sources listed above, the Washington State Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation CIAC) administers several grant programs: o Outdoor Recreation - Acquisition and Development Purpose: Acquisition and development of outdoor recreation facilities (not operation and maintenance). Type of Assistance: Project grants. Who Can Apply: Local governments. Grant match: 50 percent local, 50 percent state. o HJR 52 Bonds Purpose: Acquisition and improvement of parks and recreation areas. Type of Assistance: Project grants. Who Can Apply: Local governments Grant Match: 50 percent local, 50 percent state. 16 o Initiative 215 Bonds Purpose: Acquisition and improvement of marine (boating) related recreation areas and facilities (e.g. docks, boat ramps). Type of Assistance: Project grants. Who Can Apply: Local governments. Grant Match: 50 percent local, 50 percent state. o Aquatic Land Enhancement Account (ALEA) Purpose: Public access and aquatic lands enhancement, acquisition, and/or development. Who Can Apply: Local government. Grant Match: 25 percent local, 75 percent state. Comments: Joint administration by IAC and DNR. Maximum ALEA contribution shall not exceed $75,000. Projects funded through ALEA monies must comply with requirements which, in some cases, differ from normal IAC requirements. Water dependent projects are eligible, and low cost pedestrian access projects are favored. Finally, the Washington State Department of Ecology administers two grant programs through Section 306 of the federal Coastal Zone Management Act. Grants for shoreline planning studies (such as this shoreline access plan) are funded through this account, and a limited amount of Section 306 monies are available for acquisition and/or development of shoreline access. 17 S i t e A na ly si s CHAPTER 4 SITE ANALYSIS 4.1 INTRODUCTION AND METHODS This inventory of shoreline access sites around the Grays Harbor estuary was developed through suggestions collected from many different sources. Several of the sites were suggested by advisory committee members, many were also mentioned in replies to the shoreline access questionnaire, and field research yielded a few extra sites. Each site was visited to verify reasonable access and existing amenities and attractions, and to assess potentials for shoreline access development or evaluate existing development. A preliminary inventory was distributed to the advisory committee and discussed at a series of meetings. Sites deemed inappropriate for promotion as public shoreline access points by the majority of committee members were deleted from the final inventory. This is by no means a complete listing of available shoreline access in Grays Harbor, but it does represent the majority of access points where safe access can be gained with minimal disturbance to private property rights and natural environments. Figure 2 shows the locations of identified shoreline access sites around the Grays Harbor estuary. A legend follows the map, and links site identification numbers with site names. The estuary is divided into five sub-areas: Ocean Shores, North Bay, Urban Waterfront, South Shore, and Westport. A summary description of each of the sites inventoried in each sub-area is followed by a general discussion of issues and potentials, and a statement of the committee's priorities for each sub-area. Further details for each site in the inventory may be seen in Appendix A. A pou a s, A .be A popular shoreline access location behind Wishkah Mall, Aberdeen 18 0 0 0 H r~ Ca 0 9 H) 0d Figure 2, Cont. (LEGEND) Site Number Site Name OCEAN SHORES SUB-AREA 1 N 2 O 3 O 4 D i: orth Jetty yhut Habitat Mgmt. Area, O.S. Blvd. yhut Habitat Mgmt. Area, Tonquin St. amon Point cean Shores Marina ity park off Sunrise Avenue lineral P1. and Oyster P1. street ends cean Shores Airport area NORTH BAY SUB-A URBAN SUB-AREA: SOUTH SHORE SUB WESTPORT SUB-AR 5 O 6 C 7 M 8 O0 iREA: 9 Burrows Road 10 Humptulips Habitat Management Area 11 Grass Creek 12 Railroad Corridor, Grays Harbor City 13 Highway 101-109 bypass vista point 14 Bowerman Basin Trail 15 Hoquiam Moon Island RV Parkway 16 ITT Rayonier Longshore Parking Lot 17 Hoquiam Fish Base 18 Port of Grays Harbor Temporary Boat Launch 19 Rennie Island 20 Broadway Street end 21 Port of Grays Harbor Indus. Dev. Dist. 2 (Hake Plant) 22 Wishkah Mall Parking Lot (SE corner) 23 Morrison Riverfront Park 24 South Aberdeen Boat Launch 25 WIeyerhaeuser Longshore Parking Lot 26 Weyerhaeuser Boat Launch, Cosmopolis B-AREA: 27 Newskah Creek Mouth 28 South Shore Railroad Corridor 29 Chapin Creek mouth 30 South Arbor Road end 31 Markham, Old Highway 32 Johns River Habitat Management Area 33 Markham Island 34 Bottle Beach 35 Ocosta-Bay City Road 36 South Bay Gun Club Boat Launch 37 Washington Dept. of Game land at Laidlaw REA: 38 Pacific Avenue City Park 39 Westport Boat Launch 40 Westport Marina 41 Westport Viewing Tower 42 Revetment Drive Viewing Platform 43 Westport Fishing Pier 44 Half Moon Bay 45 South Jetty 20 4.2 OCEAN SHORES SUB-AREA 4.2.1 SITES: (1) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: ( 2) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: North Jetty Ocean Shores, So. end of Pt. Brown Rock jetty, sand dunes, dune grass, sandy beach Jetty fishing off rocks, good views of harbor and Westport, adjacent to ocean beach The city plans to build a viewing tower similar to Westport's near the base of the jetty. Habitat Mgmt. Area, 0.S. Blvd. Shores, south end of Pt. Brown dunes, shrubs and dune grass, as, marshy areas, gentle slope ad as a natural area, hunting ng is available just off Ocean Shores to beach area. Oyhu t Ocean Jetty, beache Manage Parkin Walk t mud and sand Blvd. East. ( 3) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Oyhut Habitat Mgmt. Area, Tonquin St. Ocean Shores, south end of Pt. Brown dunes, shrubs, marshy areas, sloughs, sand/mud shores Managed natural area, hunting, trails for nature study and birdwatching Could use some interpretive materials on the kiosk. ( 4) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Damon Point Ocean Shores, S.E. tip of Pt. Brown Accreting sand dune spit, sand/pebble beaches with exposure to harbor entrance (south side) and North Bay, dunes/grass. Gravel access road, parking lot, lots of beach and dunes. A portion of the spit is used for sand extraction. Recommend banning ORV use in this area. Any development on Damon Point should not be allowed to negatively impact wildlife resources, Low to moderate intensity recreation uses should be stressed over any high intensity use. Snowy plover (endangered species) breeding area. ( 5) L Desc Ocean Shores Marina Location: Ocean Shores, S.E. end of Pt. Brown :ription: privately owned marina, restaurant, motel, large paved parking lot, generally commercial Summary: large paved parking lot with nice harbor view, good disabled access by automobile, paved boat launch is blocked. Domments: Much could be done to improve the recreational opportunities of this area. C 21 Figure 3 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, OCEAN SHORES SUB-AREA 22 ( 6) Location: Description: Summary. Comments: Potential Ocean Shores City park off Sunrise Avenue Ocean Shores, East side of Pt. Brown on North Bay currently vacant land in a natural condition, sand, grass, sand and pebble beach (mud) Potential city park on North Bay, view of bay and harbor. City of Ocean Shores Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for public use as a city park. ( 7) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Oyster Place and Mineral Place Street Ends Ocean Shores, east side of Pt. Brown on North Bay Paved street ends Paved street ends are ideal for drive-up access to views of North bay and Grays Hiarbor, particularly for disabled. Recommended as a park-and-view area only. Bank is unstable, beach is private. (8) Ocean Shores Airport area Location: Ocean Shores, east side of Pt. Brown on North Bay Description: Natural uplands and tidelands adjacent to Ocean Shores Airport Sumnmary: natural area maintained by Washington Dept. of Game, not intended for intense public use and primarily inaccessible (fenced) Comments: The Game Department desires to keep this area in a natural state, no development should occur. 4.2.2 ISSUES AND POTENTIALS a) Past recreational development emplhasis has been o-n Duck Lake and the ocean beaches , as evidenced by the lack of a bay-side public park. b) ORV (Off-Road Vehicles) are shown to be disruptive to natural systems and wildlife at both the Oyhut Habitat Management Area and Damon Point. Damon Point hosted eight breeding pairs of the state-listed "endangered" snowy plover in 1985, and protection of this and other sensitive wildlife and plant species is of interest. c) The private marina near Damon Point is not beina used to its fullest capacity and is in need of maintenance. Thiis marina could be a major shoreline access attraction if improved provisions for public use wqere made. d) The City of Ocean Shores plans to construct a viewing tower, similar to that at Westport, at the base of the North Jetty. This will be a welcome addition to the attractiveness of this area. Potentials for further development include expanded parking, and restrooms. e) Signage could be improved to help lead visitors to these areas. 4.2.3 PRIORITIES a) Development of a city park at Sunrise Avenue-, b) Resolution of the ORV issue. 23 4�3 NORTH BAY SUB-AREA 4.3.1 SITES (9) Burrows Road Location: North Bay Description: County road crosses Jessie and Campbell Sloughs and runs along North Bay for about one mile. Summary: Roadside views of North Bay. Best viewing location for the North Bay area. Comments: Roadway adjacent to marsh and tidelands. Limited parking on shoulder of road. Access across dike to marsh and Humptulips River mouth, but tidelands between road and slough are privately owned. (10) Humptulips Habitat Management Area Location: North Bay, mouth of the Humptulips River Description: Managed as a natural area. Humptulips River, sloughs, marsh and mudflats, grassy areas Surmmary: Washington Dept. of Game boat launch, parking area, restrooms, adjacent to natural uplands and tidelands Comments: Interpretive and informational displays on the existing kiosk would enhance this area. (11) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Grass Creek North Bay at Grass Creek Old county road ends at creek. Wayside view, mouth of Grass Creek and part of North Bay. "Shore View" recommended rather than actual public access to shoreline in order to avoid conflicts with adjacent land owners. (12) L Desc Railroad Corridor, Grays Harbor City 5ocation: Grays Harbor City to Pt. New :ription: Abandoned Burlington Northern Railroad Right-of-way lies between bluff and shoreline from Grays Harbor City to Pt. New. Summary: Potential for development of a parking area and trail (approximately two miles)-along harbor shoreline. 'omments: Property owners at Grays Harbor City should be protected from high intensity use and trespass. C 24 Figure 4 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, NORTH BAY VICINITY 25 4.3.2 ISSUES AND POTENTI-ALS a) North Bay is the sub-area of Grays Hiarbor with the least public access available. Most of the uplands and tidelands are in private ow-nership. b) A proposal exists for the conversion of the old North Shore Rod and Gun Club and adjacent properties, near Hogans Corner, to public access use in conj'unction with pond development resulting from a proposed peat extraction project. This access would revert to private gun club use during the autumn. Since no specific decisions have been made on this proposal, the site has not been included in this inventory. The potential does exist, howqever, for this public access development. c) The best access to North Bay occurs at the Humptulips Habitat Management Area, where a boat launch provides access into the estuary and surrounding 195 upland acres provide ample hiking opportunities. d) Very few views of North Bay are available from Higlhway 109, but excellent views are available at Burrows Road. The shoulder is very narrow, however, and there are few places to safely pull off the road to admire the view. e) Trespass on private property is an issue as hunters and hikers seek shorelines. f) The abandoned railroad right-of-way from Grays Harbor City to James (a.k.a. Ned's) Rock provides a unique opportunity for exceptional shoreline recreation, with excellent views of the estuary and an easy grade for hiking. Unfortunately, the railroad right-of-way crosses private residential property in several places and infringement of private property rights is a possibility. in addition, ownership reversion remains a mystery; easements granted to the railroad revert to the property owner while railroad-owned parcels are being offered for sale. Determination of the ownership status of this right-of-way has not been completed due to these difficulties. g) A traffic hazard exists at the Grays Ilarbor City curve of ilighway 109, and hazards will increase as more people begin to access the railroad right-of-wiay at this location. The Washington State Department of Transportation has plans to realign the curve, superelevating it to increase safety. Any wetland fills during this project will probably require mitigation, possibly along the north shore of Bowerman Basin east of Grays Harbor City. 4.3.3 PRIORITIES a) Development of a shoreline access point for the railroad right- of-way at Grays Harbor City, including safe vehicular access from Highway 109. b) Additional public access on North Bay should be a high priority for acquisition and development. 26 Figure 5 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, GRAYS HARBOR CITY VICINITY 27 4.4 URBAN WATERFRONT 4.4.1 SITES (13) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: (14) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Highway 101-109 bypass vista point Ridge north of Bowerman Basin Ridge overlooking Bowerman Basin and entire harbor Sweeping view of Grays Harbor Committee suggests a trail climbing along the highway right-of-way to a simple vista point. Bowerman Basin Trail Bowerman Field, Hoquiam Marshland surrounding airfield; undeveloped trail to end of spit; mud, shrubs, affords good view of Bowerman Basin Excellent access to Bowerman Basin birdwatching areas. Parking is limited to shoulder of road. (15 ) L Desc Hoquiam Moon Island RV Parkway location: Hoquiam :ription: Old airport road, dead-ends at Hoquiam sewage treatment plant. Rock revetment, sandy beach, adjacent to sewage lagoon. Summary: Rare opportunity in the urban area to view the harbor and ship-loading activities. 'omments: The City of Hoquiam has several phases planned for this site. The first is simply grading and paving, which may be followed by more specific develop-ment for RV use. C (16) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: ITT Rayonier Longshore Parking Lot Hoquiam, adjacent to ITT loading dock Paved, fenced parking lot for use by longshoremen. View of harbor and ship-loading activity. Visitors are allowed into the parking lot. Recommend staying within the fenced parking lot area. (17) L Desc Hoquiam Fish Base Location: Hoquiam, foot of Adams Street cription: Rip-rap, sand and driftwood shore, area used as log salvage yard. Summary: Historic site - only pilings remain of what was once a major fish landing and processing facility. Nice harbor views. Comments: Harbor seals can sometimes be seen on the beach and driftwood here. Parking is available along the shoulder of Moon Island (Airport) Road. c (18) Location: Description: Port of Grays Harbor Boat Launch Mouth of Fry Creek, Hoquiam Potential industrial site contains a temporary 28 undeveloped (gravel) boat launch. Crushed rock surface/shore. Summary: Currently a temporary boat launch, potential for a developed access. Viewq of Rennie Island, industrial waterfront. Comments: This launch is a temporary boat launch provided as a public service by the Port. The boat launch is in its third location, and will probably be moved again as industrial development in the area expands into the present boat launch location. (19) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Rennie Island Grays Harbor near the mouth of the Chehalis River Natural area, settling ponds, mud, marsh, grass. Natural area, attractive to waterfowl and hunters. Boat access only. (20 ) L Desc Broadway Street end location: Aberdeen, foot of Broadway St. ~ription: Currently undeveloped industrial property, street right- of-way recently regained by city. Summary: Potential for developed city street-end park with view of harbor and industrial/commercial wyaterfront. 3omments: Access to this property from Broadway Street is blocked by the Chehalis River Bridge Truck Route ramps, and is further complicated by the presence of the railroad tracks. C (21) Port of Grays Harbor Industrial Dev. Dist. 2 (Hake Plant) Location: Mouth of Wishkah River, Aberdeen Description: Industrial site with fish processing plant buildings, Location of passenger ferry dock. Summary: View of Chehalis River, industrial waterfront, shipping cha-nnel. Potential for city park, museum, and motel development. Comments: Proposed site for "Tall Ships" moorage and maritime museum, together wiith appropriate tourist-commercial development (motel/shops). Urban pathway could link Morrison Riverfront Park through this area to Zelasko Park on the southwest shore of the Wishkah River. (22 ) I Desc Wishkah Mall Parking Lot (SE corner) location: Wishkahi Mall, Aberdeen .ription: Paved parking lot (and drive, behind mall). View of Chehalis River, shipping activity, South Aberdeen industrial waterfront. Summary: View of Chehalis River, shipping channel, and inidustrial waterfront activities. Popular lunch spot. 'omments: Future urban pathway could link Morrison Riverfront Park through this area and the "Tall Ships" site to Zelasko Park. C 29 Figure 6 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, URBAN SUB-AREA 30 (23) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: (24) Locat ion: Description: Su imary: Comments': (25) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Morrison Riverfront Park North shore of the Chehalis River, Aberdeen Urban waterfront park Urban waterfront park with grassy areas, play area, promenade, picnic barbecue pits. View- of Chehalis River, shipping, etc. This park is being completed in phases; current plans are to build a public pier. Future plans include day-use boat moorage. South Aberdeen Boat Launch South Aberdeen, on the Chehalis River City street-end with one-lane paved boat launch. Paved boat launch with limited parking. Adjacent to proposed Corps of Engineers South Aberdeen 'Dike flood control project. Parking is limited. Potential for additional development and maintenance of boat launch and parking area. Weyerhaeuser Longshore Parking Lot South Aberdeen, west shore of the Chehalis River Paved fenced parking lot for longshoremen. Scenic view of river and industrial ship-loading activity. Visitors a-re aliowed into the parkinig lot area, but should stay inside of fence. (26 De s 6) ~ Weyerhaeuser Boat Launch, Cosmopolis Location: Downtown Cosmopolis scription: Gravel parking lot, mud bank, grass and brushi uplands, unpaved boat launch. Summary: River access for fishing a-nd boating, site includes picnic table and boat launch. Comments: Adjacent to historic site: Cosmopolis Indian Treaty Grounds (also indian village at mouth of Mill Creek). Weyco has plans for a haul road through this area, but public access would remain (or possibly improve). 4.4.2 ISSUES AND POTENTIALS a) Mitigation required as a result of highway improvements at the Grays Harbor City curve could result in shoreline access developmenat along the north shore of Bowerman Basin. Potentials include parking, interpretive displays, and a view-ing blind or tower. b) Eventually, access along, the north side of Bowerman Basin could include nature trails wqith occasional overlooks. c) A great need exists for a high elevation vista point accessible to the urban area. The study has identi-fied a possible vista point location along the 'Highway 101-109 bypass route and suggests this as a candidate for future implementation. However, this site poses several problems. A foot path is proposed, which 31 leads up the Washiinaton State Department of Transportation right- of-way grade to a hilltop vista point. Due to the steep grade, the path wiould probably be accessible onl:y for those who are physically fit, and would discourage use by the elderly and disabled. Vehicular access in this particular location is impossible. Also, maintenance is sure to be a problem, as much vandalism and trail bike usage are known to occur in this area. Liability is also of concern with this project. di) Ability to view ships and ship loading activity is a very high -priority for the urban area. The Port of Grays Harbor could provide such opportunities adjacent to one of their marine terminal operations. e) Boat access to the estuary and Rennie island is also a need for the urban area. Permanent boat launch facilities currently available (Cosmopolis, South Aberdeen, Little Hoquiam River, Humptulips Habitat Management Area) are too far away for many boaters. The temporary boat launch provided by the Port of Grays Harbor satisfies some of this need, but the future of this launch is uncertain and more permanent facilities shiould be contemplated. (For example, two, potential sites have been discussed along the Hoquiam River south of the Simpson Avenue Bridge. The floquiam Waterfront Design Study, 1986, presents one of these options in detail.) f) In 1985, urban design students presented the City of Aberdeen with hypothetical options for its downtown and waterfront. A recurring theme was the development of a promenade at the foot of Broadway Street (linking to walkways and parkways along the Chiehalis to the Wishkah River). Unfortunately, access to the foot of Broadway is very poor and development of any public use at this location seem unlikely at this time. g) The proposed "Tall Ships" project would be located at the old "hake plant" at the mouth of the Wishkah River. Adjacent to the Tall Ships moorage would be a maritime museum, with potentials for motel, restaurant, and other tourist-commercial developments. A current proposal under study by the City of Aberdeen includes a boardwalk from Morrison Riverfront Park, through the Tall Ships site to Zelasko Parkt on the west shore of the Wishkah River. h) A highly popular spot for feeding sea gulls and ship viewing is the parking lot at the Wishkah Mall, behind the drug store. A surprising number of people frequent this site. i) The South Aberdeen Boat Launch is falling into disrepair, and parking space is very limited. This is a very convenient launch for boaters wuishing to cruise the estuary or hunt on Rennie Island. j) Weyerhaeuser Company has plans to build a haul road between their sawmill in South Aberdeen and the pulp mill in Cosmopolis. it is anticipated that any mitigation which may be required will be directed toward improvements at the Cosmopolis Boat Launch. k) Hoquiam's "Fish Base" at the foot of Adams Street is rich in history and is a very good public access location. city ownmership here facilitates improvements in access at some point in the future. At the present, this location provides nice views of the harbor. 32 4.4.3 PRIORITIES a) Development of the proposed 101-109 bypass vista point is a priority of the shoreline access citizen advisory committee; b) An urban waterfront trail system from Morrison Riverfront park to Zelasko Park in Aberdeen should be developed; c) The Tall Ships Restoration Society project should be located at the former Hake Plant site, and a maritime museum should be built; d) A boat launch accessing the estuary should be developed in the urban area; e) Development of a parkway adjacent to the Hoquiam Sewage Treatment facility is encouraged; f) Enhancements to shoreline access at Bowerman Basin should be studied. 4.5 SOUTH SHORE SUB-AREA 4.5.1 SITES (27) L Desc Newskah Creek Mouth .ocation: South shore of Grays Harbor at Newskah Creek -ription: Industrial site, maintenance road along creek to edge of fill berm adjacent to railroad track. Grass, trees, shrubs. Mostly Port of Grays Harbor ownership. Sunmary: View across harbor to urban waterfront, semi-natural area attracts many species of birds and wildlife. 3omments: No easy direct shore access. Weyerhaeuser settling ponds may be hazardous. Improvements to shoreline access could be incorporated into any future development projects. C (28' ) L Desc SouthShore Railroad Corridor location: South shore of Grays Harbor :ription: Railroad corridor follows south shore of Grays Harbor from Aberdeen to Markham. Summary: Potential for shoreline trail along the south shore of Grays Harbor from Newskah Creek to Markham. ]omments: If use of the railroad ceased, and the right-of-way completely abandoned, this would be an outstanding opportunity for a shoreline trail along the south shore of Grays Farbor. C (29) Chapin Creek mouth Location: South shore of Grays Harbor at Chapin Creek Description: Small stream flows into the harbor. Adjacent shores are marsh, grass and shrubs. Summary: Wide shoulder for parking west of bridge, south side of road. Scenic view of harbor and urban area. Comments: A sign to be placed at the bridge identifying the creek and shoreline access is recommended. Other potential development includes shoulder parking and a path to the shoreline. 33 Figure 7 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, SOUTH SHORE VICINITY <XR.~"' t\ Z~~~~~~~ ,0~~~~~~~~~~ - ' 0 ': , i ol~~~~.; to cm 34 ------~~~~~~~~~~~~ .- (30) Locat ion: Description: Summary: Comments: (31) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: South Arbor Road end South shore of Grays Hiarbor at South Arbor Marshy shore, grass, shrubs, trees. County road terminates at railroad adjacent to shoreline. Parking for approximately five cars. root access to marsh and extensive mud flats. Views of wildlife habitats and urban areas. Potential exists for trespass onto private property. Markham, Old Highway Markham, south shore of Grays Harbor Old highway end, view of marshy shore and Mqarkham Island. Old highway dead-ends adjacent to oyster and cranberry processing plants. Park and view harbor and Markham island. Paved road end with little traffic provides an opportunity to enjoy the outdoors away from the crowds. (32 ) L Desc I ~Johns River Habitat Management Area Location: Mouth of Johns River, Markham :~ription: WDG managed natural area along Johns River, sloughs, grasses and shrubs. Summary: Parking for 75 cars. Restrooms, boat launch, access for foot and boat travel to marshlands and estuary. ,omments: Recent improvements have been made to foot trails, including installation of foot bridges. C (33) Location. Description: Summary: Comments: MAarkham Island Mtarkham, off mouth of Johns River Low, grassy, natural island. Natural island attracts wildlife. Accessible by boat only. No development will probably occur on Markham Island. (34) L Desc Bottle Beach Iocation: South shore of Grays Harbor at Ocosta ,ription: County road-end leads to sandy beach, dunes, grasses; mud flats beyond. Summary: Sandy beach wgith county road access, view across South Bay to Westport and harbor entrance. 3omments: Road needs work, "bridge" over Redman Slough has washed out, so must cross slough (deep ravine) to reach trail to beach. Recommend no vehicle access past slough and deny access to ORVs. Recommended development includes construction of a foot bridge across the slough and improvements to the parking area. C 35 Figure 8 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, MARKHAM/OCOSTA VICINITY 36 Figure 9 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, SOUTH BAY VICINITY 37 Ocosta-Bay Ci.ty Road location: South Bay east of Elk River estuary ,ription: old highway from Ocosta to Bay City, south of unnamed slough are several short trails to muddy beach and marshlands. Summiary: Rough but scenic old highway from Ocosta to Bay City. Shoulder parking with a few mud trails to shoreline. 3omments: Road is very rough (gravel)! Lots of garbage has been dropped along the shoulder of the road. Beach along this stretch is not particularly inviting for walking as there are many small sloughs to cross. (35) L I Desc C (36) Location: Description: Summnary: Comments: South Bay Gun Club Boat Launch South Bay, Elk River estuary (Beardslee Slough) County road ends at unpaved boat launch. Boat launch in Elk River estuary allows access to estuary and South Bay. No parking available. (37 ) Location: Descript ion: Summary: Commients: Washington Department of Game land at Laidlaw South Bay, west of Elk River Bridge, at Laidlaw Pasture land slated for reversion to wetlands. NTatural area, grassy salt marsh. Potential for low- intensity recreation. W4DG plans to move existing dike inland and let the area revert to salt marsh. Potential to develop small parkinig area and foot path when dike is relocated. (This area was deeded to the Game Department as mitigation for Ocean Shores Airport development.) 4.5.2 ISSUES AND POTENTIALS a) H ighway 105 follows the south shore of Grays Hiarbor for several miles, and the motorist is afforded a number of peelks at the estuary. However, there are no marked waysides to encourage tourists to pull off and admire the view. b) The newly abandoned railroad right-of-way along the south shore, although still in use, could, at some time in the future, provide a unique opportunity for a ten-mile shoreline trail stretching from South Aberdeen to Markham. c) The potential exists for disturbance of a bald eagle nesting and roosting area along the south shore, and any development considered for this area should have the lowest possible impacts on I:hese endangered animals. d) Garbage dumping has become a problem in the area of Ocosta and the old highwiay between ocosta and Bay City. Steps should be talken to reduce the incidence of dumping in all shoreline areas. e) Ocean Avenue in Ocosta has been a public shoreline access since a large dock existed these in the early 1900's. Currently known as Bottle Beach (named for the bottle works which used to be located here), this area remains in public ownership as a county road end. 38 f) Increasing conflicts has become access around South Bay increases the potential for between beach goers and the oyster grower. Poaching a serious problem for the private oyster culture. 4.5.3 PRIORITIES a) Improvements should be made at the Bottle Beach access; b) A wayside should be developed at the mouth of Chapin Creek, allowing motorists to pull off the highway to view the harbor; c) Future efforts should be directed toward acquisition and development of a linear public access along the south shore railroad right-of-way, should its use be curtailed. 4.6 WESTPORT SUB-AREA 4.6.1 SITES (38) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Pacific Avenue City Park Westport Salt marsh adjacent to flood control dike Natural salt marsh. Westport Parks and Recreation Plan designates this area for park development. (3 q De s Westport Boat Launch Location: Westport Boat Basin scription: Four-lane paved boat launch with service pier, adjacent parking. Summary: Public boat launch with service pier, adjacent parking and restrooms. Comments: New sign needed. (40) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Westport Marina Westport marina Scenic boat basin and center of marine commercial recreational fishing. Placement of benches at the head of each float (next the sidewalks) would enhance public enjoyment of area. and to this (41) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Westport Viewing Tower Westport Viewing tower with interpretive displays. Viewing tower and interpretive displays. entrance, Ocean Shores, entire harbor. Used heavily by the public. View of harbor 39 Figure 10 GRAYS HARBOR SHORELINE ACCESS SITES, WESTPORT SUB-AREA 40 (42) L Desc Revetment Drive Viewing Platform ,ocation: Westport, Pt. Chehalis :ription: Wheelchair-accessible viewing platform atop rock revetment. Summary: Viewing platform with interpretive displays is wheelchair accessible. Adjacent to paved parking and restrooms. 'omments: Shares parking and restrooms with public fishing pier and Fisherman's Memorial. C (43) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: (44) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: (45) Location: Description: Summary: Comments: Westport Fishing Pier Westport Marina Public floats and fishing pier. Public access across floats to fishing pier atop marina bulkhead. Scenic view of harbor. Benches. Public pier with great view of harbor, Ocean Shores, and entrance to boat basin. Due to tidal fluctuations, ramps up/down to float are occasionally steep. Half Moon Bay Westhaven State Park sandy beach, sand dunes. Park in state park paved lot (restrooms) and walk to this sand/pebble beach on the harbor side of the jetty. ORVs (off-road vehicles) are restricted by law. A sign and sorae interpretive displays would enhance public enjoyment of this area. South Jetty Westhaven State Park, Westport Rock jetty adjacent to sand/pebble beach. Can climb on rock jetty, jetty fishing. Interpretive displays would enhance public enjoyment this area. of 4.6,2 ISSUES AND POTENTIALS a) Currently, with the exception of the Pacific Avenue site, no South Bay access has been identified within the City of Westport. b) Signs should be installed directing people to Half Moon Bay, and interpretive signs would enhance the area. c) ORV regulations should be more strictly enforced in the dune areas adjacent to the Westhaven State Park. 4.6.3 PRIORITIES a) Access to the South Bay at Pacific Avenue should be developed. 41 S i t e Develo pment Pot ent ials CHiAPTER 5 SITE DEVELOPMENT POTENTIALS 5.1 INTRODUCTION This chapter identifies the five shoreline access sites deemed by thie Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee as having the highest priority for development or improvements. They are: Site Number 6, Sunrise Avenue Park, Ocean Shores; Site Number 12, Grays Hiarbor City Railroad Corridor; Site NTumber 13, High Elevation Vista Point at the 101-109 Bypass; Site Number 29, Chapin Creek Wayside; and site Number 34, Bottle Beach, Ocosta (refer to Figure 2, page 19). Community priorities, as determined through results of the shoreline access questionnaire, together with conclusions drawyn while reviewing the inventory of shoreline access sites, were important considerations in the process of choosing these sites. Other primary criteria used in selecting these candidate sites were: (1) a need for access in a particular location; (2) an outstanding opportunity; or (3) existing use as shoreline access wliich could be enhanced at relatively low cost. Another aspect of site selection was the ability of each particular site to wiithstand intensive use whben compared to other potential sites with similar characteristics. Many other issues, such as safety factors and potentials for confllict with adjacent land uses, wiere also addressed when selecting these final candidate sites. 5.2 SUNRISE AVENUE CITY PARK, OCEAN SHORES The proposed Sunrise Avenue City Park (Site Number 6) is located in Ocean Shores on the east side of Point Browin along North Bay. with approximately 400 feet of bay frontage and an easement from Sunrise Avenue, this 1.8 acre site provides excellent view *access to the bay. Owned by the city of Ocean Shores, the site is currently vacant, but is designated for public use as a park in the Ocean Shores Comprehensive Development Plan. Its management category under the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan is Urban Residential, and the parcel is zoned for single-family development. The shoreline environment designation for this area is Urban, and parks are a permitted use in the Ocean Shores Urban shoreline environment. Several parcels of undeveloped residential property lie betwyeen the park and the stree-t but, since it was known at the time any sale occurred that a park was planned to be sited there, no objections regarding view obstruction are anticipated from.adjacent land owners. Some potential exists for disturbance to private oyster tidelands. Objectives in developing this park were to provide all-weather picnic facilities and a view of the bay (Figure 11). The size of the site and availability of street access allows for on-site parking. Possible activi ties include scenic viewing, walking, and picnicking. Designs for the site (Figure 12) include gravel access road and parking lot, bike rack, picnic shelter, benches along the bluff, trash bins, and landscaping to separate the park from adjacent private land. 42 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 cn M tzi cn t-- (11 E (D tzj 0 cin N m1 T.- Development could occur in stages, with the first being grading and paving of the road and parking lot, possibly provided by the City. Additional development could be sponsored by a local civic or recreational group through donated labor and materials. Other possible sources of funding include IAC and ALEA grants (see Section 3.7). Recommendation: The City of Ocean Shores is encouraged to solicit a co-sponsor (i.e. private recreational or civic group), complete detailed plans, seek funds, and proceed with development of the Sunrise Avenue City Park in Ocean Shores. Figure 12 PROPOSED SUNRISE AVENUE PARK, SITE DESIGN MFOSED SUNRIE AIVFuE lBRK LO1 . a I U F 9 PubLV 5AOZ ', s%I -I_ 44 5.3 GRAYS HARBOR CITY RAILROAD CORRIDOR In 1983, Burlington Northern Railroad abandoned its line from west Hoquiam to Aloha. Tracks and trestles were removed in 1985, leaving a level bed for most of the railroad's length. Approximately two miles of this railroad grade skirt the estuary shoreline between Gravs Harbor City and Pt. New (Site Number 12). This has become a popular hiking area (Figure 13), and, indeed, few areas offer such a spectacular view of Grays Harbor. its proximity to Bowerman Basin makes this site id-eal for recreational development. The current land ownership lies with Burli.ngton Northern, although it is understood thAt most parcels will revert to private ownership as the abandonment process is completed. In 1984 Burlington Northern approached Grays Harbor County with an offer to sell the 21-mile line for $632,040. However the County was forced to decline this offer as no mLonies were available. The Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee places a high priority on the acquisition of the Grays Harbor City portio-n (approximately two miles) of this line for recreational use. The site is presently being used by 'hikers, birdwatcher*s, and other outdoor enthusiasts. Jurisdiction for this site falls to Grays H.arbor County. The shoreline environment designation in this area is rural, which allows public access areas and devices as permitted uses. This portion of the county is zoned General Development, with industrial zoning to the east, adjacent to Grays Harbor City. The Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan also splits this area into two different management categories; the Point New area is designated Rural Low Intensity wihile the Grays Harbor City portion is designated as Urban Development (to accommodate the transportation corridor). Safety issues are of concern for this site. Any turns off Fighway 109 are dangerous near the Grays Harbor City curve, and more intensive use will increase the potential for serious traflfic accidents at this location. The site design presented in this document takes into account future highway improvements which are planned by the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), including superelevat ion of the curve. Some concern was also expressed regarding the stability of the bluff next to the railroad bed, since winter slides have also been a problem. Another issue to be addressed is the potential for conflict with land owners. Several hiomes are located adjacent to the railroad right-of- way beginning, ;approximately two miles from Highway 109 at Grays Harbor city, and *a few problems have arisen involving recreationists trespassing on private property. It is for this reason that the proposal put forth in this plan extends no further than two miles along the railroad corridor, and measures are proposed to protect private property owners from trespass. At this time, ownership along the right-of-wiay is in question, therefore no definite suggestions can be made as to procedure for acquisition of these properties. 45 Figure 13 GRAYS HRARBOR CITY RAILROAD CORRIDOR 46 Objectives for this project can be split into two separate categories. One priority is the acquisition of twio miles of the railroad corridor to serve as a shoreline trail. Appropriate facilities would be installed to discourage trespassing on private property beyond the trail end. A second proposal is the development of a shoreline access viewing platform at the trailhead adjacent to Hlighway 109 in Grays Harbor City. This platform, overlooking the western edge of Bowerman Basin, would provide unique opportunities for interpretation of the tideland environment and wiildlife which are present in this vicinity. The former shake mill adjacent to Highway 109 in Grays Harbor City is presently for sale, and this location is being considered for the proposed recreational development. The design (Figure 14) includes a parking area with access from Highway 109 situated wqell away from the curve (Figure 15). As mentioned above, a wheelchair-accessible vtiewing platform would extend across the railroad right-of-way, with a ramp leading to the trail (Figure 16). It is anticipated that this design would inhibit the use of off-road vehicles along the railroad corridor. Potentially, interpretive displays could be installed along the viewina platform if it was determined that vandalism would not destroy the utility of such a display. Restrooms, a bike rack, informational kiosk, and trash bins complete the proposed design. Recommendation: Due to the complexity of issues surrounding acquisition of the railroad corridor and development of a shoreline access site at Grays Harbor City, it is recommended that a study be initiated which would determine the feasibility of these proposed projects. If the projects proved to be feasible, the study would identify the best suited project sponsor, detail funding alternatives, and outline a procedure for acquisition of approximately two miles of railroad corridor and the access development site. 47 Figure 14 GRAYS HARBOR CITY, PROPOSED SITE DESIGN GRKAYS (HARBOR CITY V'IEW PLATFOM 4- G,KAVEL FIAMN& ?,lKF- F?A - RpsTplook~ K105 K, EX57r(9( P?AMLROAD ~ ?~D I -'l F~MAY INc I > P5 sRE 0 ~~~iqo' 5 ETMCK 1.LIEV -rvpNs AA)1 5i&t4 p~rUTijKr- HI- JIG.WA; I AAPRdMJS.MAEA17 4K13(p\ GanJC Ifi6 48 Figure 15 GRAYS HARBOR CITY, PROPOSED SITE IMPROVEMENTS 49 0 0 0 a7 Pd ar- 0 PO H H. 0 5.4 URB3AN AREA HIGH ELEVATION VISTA POINT HIGHWAY 101-109 BY-PASS A need exists for an overlook of the entire harbor located near the urban area. No formal viewpoint exists, and although there are several informal vistas scattered throughout residential areas of each city, none quite fulfills the need. An opportunity exists for such a development to be incorporated into the construction of the 101-109 bypass route west of Hoquiam, and although several issues have been raised with regards to this particular siting, the project was identified as a priority by the committee because of its overall importance to both residents of and visitors to the Grays 1-larbor community. The vista point (Site Number 13) is proposed for the west bypass- highway right-of-way atop the ridge north of Bowerman Basin (Figure 18). This location affords a sweeping viewi of the urban area from the Basin east and, with the thinning of a few trees, would extend to Westport and the harbor entrance, giving a vista of Grays Harbor which surpasses any other view area around the harbor. The area adjacent to this proposed vista point is currently being. developed as a bypass route between Fighway 101 to the north, and Highway 109 which runs west from floquiam along the north shore of Bowerma-n Basin. The bypass itself bisects the Hoquiam City limits such that the proposed site is situated in the unincorporated county. Adjacent private lands along the ridge are owned by the Port of Grays Har'bor. The zoning and comprehensive plan designations are both Industrial, due to the proximity of nearby industrial areas. Since the area along the ridge is not immediately adjacent to shoreline areas, Shoreline Management jurisdiction and the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan do not apply. One limitation of this site is that vehicular access to a ridge-top viewpoint in this particular location is impossible, because the width of the right-of-wiay is too narrow for this type of development. Also, maintenance is sure to be a problem, as much vandalism and trail bike usage are know-n to occur in this area. The Washington State Department of Transportation is very concerned about these issues, and also about the problem of liability. Several options are available regarding funding of this project. Originally it was thought that this type of development could be included with the WSDIOT highway construction project. The Port of Grays Harbor has offered an easement for the actual vista point on Port property at the top of the ridge. Materials and labor could be solicited from the community, or IAC funding could be souaht for viewpoint and trail development. WSDOT is hesitant to become involved with this project unless maintenance issues can be resolved. Further investigations into this project are recommended. The objective for development of this project is to provide a public viewvpoint from which the entire harbor and urban area can be'observed. Proposed site design includes a trail within the highway right-of-way 51 leading to a concrete pad vista point, with benches and trash bins, at the crest of the ridge. The opportunity exists for installation of inaterpretive displays and oblique maps, but only if Tnainteniance could be ensured. Parking would be provided in the shoulder of the highway north of the trailhead (Figure 18). Howe'ver, the proposed foot path, which leads up the steep right-of-way grade, would probably not be accessible to elderly or disabled persons. Recommendation: The Grays Harbor Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee should continue investigations into the development of a high elevation vista point at the Highway -101-109 Bypass, further the dialogue between personas affected by the project, and seek agreement as to design, implementation, and maintenance of this vista point. Figure 17 HIGH ELEVATION~ VISTA POINT, HIGHWAY 101-109 BYPASS (TOP RIGHT) 52 0 S 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1IlG14WAY AN -1101 ZYPAS IvisTA 0 txj H 0 H xi Z w H-gGQ -r. P't Z - 0 0zc PORT -~ CIRAS I-AYAoP. FROM 'Kry PUBUCr, .54OR ,,,51 (, 0 qoo' i 04M~C IV86 505 CHAPIN CREEK WAYSIDE - SOUTH SH4ORE As motorists travel wiest from Aberdeen along Highway 105 they begin to catch glimpses of the hiarbor north of the road. The first real break in the vegetation which separates the highway from the harbor occurs at the mouth of Chapin Creek (Site 'Number 29), and it is here that a wayside is proposed for viewing and access to the south shore of the harbor. This location has many advantages. First, it is immediately adjacent to the shoreline, so motorists are not required to leave their cars to experience the viewq, and no extensive trail system need be developed to achieve access to the shore. Secondly, this site is located far enough away from a south shore bald eagle nest that disturbance of these endangered birds would be avoided. Finally, the views available at the site (Figure 19) are spectacular, especially as perceived by the fLirst time visitor, and a developed wayside at this location gives the motorist an opportunity to pull out of traffic to enjoy the scenery. The proposed development occurs mostly within established right-of-wqay for Highway 105 a-ad the Burlington Northern Railroad corridor. Shorelands and tidelands north of the railroad are privately owned. Jurisdiction belongs to Grays Harbor County. A Conservancy shoreline environment is specified, and the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan designates this area as Conservancy Managed. The location is zoned General Development, consistent with the General Development classification given in the Comprehensive Plan. Design options include signage, and a widened shoulder north of the highway for parking (Figure 20). (issues concerning safe access from the highway will have to be investigated.) Additional structures proposed would include a kiosk for interpretive materials, trash bins, and a bicycle rack. Developed trails could be added if usage creates a demand for them in order to protect the mars'hland environment. Easements for this access site would be obtained from WqSDOT,' Burlington Northern Railroad, and the adjacent land owner. Funding could be solicited from IAC or ALEA Funds, or the project could be developed through community donations, and it could be maintained through an agreement with a local interest group, WSDOT, and Grays H4arbor County. Recommendation: The Grays Harbor Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee should solicit a sponsor for development of shoreline access at the mouth of Chapin Creek. All persons who would be affected by the project should be contacted and easements or use agreements obtained, safety issues resolved, and development of this site should proceed. 54 0 0 0 0 0 1, 1. L- 0 H 0 fti1 0 z fti ~A I t-n t-n Figure 20 PROPOSED CHAPIN CREEK WAYSIDE C,AIN GREEK WAYSIDE SOOtN $RRE 56 5.6 BOTTLE BEACH, OCOSTA Bottle Beach (Site Numiber 34) has provided public access to Grays Harbor and South Bay since the turn of the century, when the City of Ocosta wias a thriving community. Until recently a bridge provided vehicular access across Redman Slough and access to the sandy beach was relatively easy. This ready access, however, also provided the opportunity for garbage dumping which irritated adjacent property .owners, urgingy them to seek closure for this public beach access. When the bridge across the slough washed out in early 1984, automobile access to the road end was obliterated, thus easing the litter p-roblem. However, recreational users of this access were forced to cross the resulting deep ravine and slough to gain access to the beach. The access to Bottle Beach falls under Grays Harbor County ownership as the end of a county road (formerly Ocean Avenue, Ocosta). The shoreline environment is Rural, and the Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan anticipates Rural Agriculture use for the Ocosta shoreline area. Thie Grays Harbor Comprehensive Plan states this area to be Urbanizing, and zoning is for General Development. Issues regarding this project include the potential for disturbance to adjacent residential property, and a remote possibility that privlately grown commercial oysters may be disturbed through beach use. A desire to exclude off-road vehicles from the sensitive beach areas has also been expressed. The history of conflict between beach users and private property owners probably could be resolved through responsible facility development which concentrates recreationists away from conflict areas. This project could be accomplished utilizing grant monies from ALEA or the IAC, in cooperation with County support. Maintenance of the development could be shAred between local recreation clubs and Grays Harbor County. Improvements to the access road and a gravel parking area are proposed for the Bottle Beach access point (Figure 21). Additionally, a foot bridge could be installed (Fiaure 22) including a design to discourage access by ORV's. The path to the beach would remain undeveloped unless future use patterns indicate trail development is necessary to preserve the environment. As wqith other proposed developments, a bicycle rack, trash bin, and kiosk are iRcluded in the proposed site design (Figure 23). This area provides a particularly unique opportunity for interpretive displays, and such displays should be encouraged. Recommendations: It is suggested that Grays Harbor County take the lead in development of the Bottle Beach project. 57 Figure 21 PROPOSED IMPROVEMENTS TO BOTTLE BEACH ACCESS ROAD, OCOSTA 58 0 0 0 0 ~0 0 0 0 0 0 H txj 0 ~01 0 m -4 t_n Figure 23 BOTTLE BEACH ACCESS, PROPOSED SITE DESIGN p.~ ~ ~ ~ ~ ~~~~~~~~oF - �kK 4~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~VFK 4c -~~~~~~~~~51, ~~4PU~~~UL Si-OL BOTT LE SACC U PdtUL 5 _ 60 5.7 CONCLUSION AND RECOMMENDATIONS Initiation of action on any of these proposals must come from a sponsoring agent, usu ally the property owner. At the present time, two of these candidate sites are owned entirely by public entities; Sunrise Avenue Park site is owned by the City of ocean Shores and the Bottle Beach Access Road falls under Grays H4arbor County management. Roadside developmaent at Chapin Creek wqould occur within the existing rights-of-wiay, but easements and use agreements must be obtained from Burlington Nlortlhern, Washington State Department of Transportation, and the adjacent shorelands property owner. Further researcht is needed to resolve safety and maintenance issues for the proposed Highway 101-109 Bypass Vista Point before that project can go forward. Finally, ownership issues along the Grays Harbor City railroad corridor must be settled, property acquired, anid funding options for construction of access facilities further researcbed so that this important recreational development may become a reality. SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS:- o The City of Ocean Shores is encouraged to solicit a co-sponsor (i.e. private recreational or civic group), complete detailed plans, seek funds, and proceed with development of the Sunrise Avenue City Park in Ocean Shores. o It is suggested that Grays Harbor County take the lead in development of the Bottle Beach project. o The Grays Harbor Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee should solicit a sponsor for development of shoreline access at the mouth of Chapin Creek. All persons wiho would be affected by the project should be contacted, easements or use agreements obtained, safety issues resolved, and development of this site should proceed. o Due to the complexity of issues surrounding acquisition of the railroad corridor and development of a shoreline access site at Grays Harbor City, it is recommended that a study be initiated which would determine the feasibility of these proposed projects. If the projects proved to be feasible, the study would identify the best suited project sponsor, detail funiding alternatives, and outline a procedure for acquisition of approximately two miles of railroad corridor and the access development site. o The Grays Harbor Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee should continue investigations into the development of a high elevation vista point at the Highway 101-109 Bypass, further the dialogue betwgeen persons affected by the project, and seek agreement as to design, implementation, and miaintenance of this vista point. 61 o Public information and educational materials should be developed regarding recreational amenities along the shores of the Grays Harbor estuary. o Fuirther studies on acquisition of appropriate linear access along the south shore of Grays Harbor utilizing the railroad right-of- way should be initiated so that implementation is facilitated at such time as use of this rail line is curtailed. o Washington State Department of Ecology standard shoreline access signs should be placed at appropriate access points. 62 Appendix *: APPENDIX A INVENTORY This inventory of shoreline access sites around the Grays Harbor estuary was developed from suggestions offered in the shoreline access questionnaire, discussions with advisory committee members, and field research. This is by no means a complete listing of available shoreline access in Grays Harbor, but represents the majority of access points where safe access can be gained with minimal disturbance to private property rights and natural environments. ~ach of the forty-five sites listed in the inventory was visited by Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commnission staff. Sevteral types of information were collected by observation at the site, including vehicular access to the site, a description of the natural effVitonments types of facilities, adjacent land use, hazards and Prer-autions, and summary of attractions for the site. Ownership, size (a Uroimate acres or shoreline length), and management data were also gathe red. The levels of public use for these sites were evaluated by ide-ntifying available or potential activities and facility types at each site. (On the forms, potentials are denoted by enclosina them in. parenthesis.) The Shoreline Access Citizen Advisory Committee agreed on an appropri-ate "Use intensity" based upon a combination of all of these factors. Activities were generalized into the followiing catagories: Scenic view- picnicing hunting nature study fishing boating birdwatching shellfishing boat launching wialking diving boat moorage photagraphy wind surfing biking Facilities include the existing developments at the site and potentials for further development: benches/seating parking viewpoint/view structure picnic areas play area camping spots restrooms public pier boat launch (paved/unpaved) walking trail boat moorage disabled access bike trail paved urban pathi Data on jurisdictioni refers to the political boundary into whiich the access site falls, and also lists agency ownership or management of the site (e.g. Department of Game) where applicable. The shoreline management, comprehensive plan, and zoning designations apply to the local governmental unit's jurisdiction. In addition, information collected regarding Grays Hlarbor Estuary Management Plan designation includes Planning Area, Management Unit, and Mianagement Category. Comments are offered for each site based on additional information gathered and recommendations of the Citizen Advisory Committee. A- I GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: North Jetty No.: 1 LOCATION: Ocean Shores], So. end of Pt. Brown ACCESS: South on Pt. Brown Blvd. UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Rock jetty, sand dunes, dune grass, sandy beach ACTIVITY: Fishing, picnic, walking, photography, nature study FACILITY: Parking, (view structure) USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Sandy ocean beach, residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Wave action, slippery rocks, undertow ATTRACTION SUYMARY: Jetty fishing off rocks, good views of harbor and Westport, adjacent to ocean beach JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores/COE SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MUI/CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public/high density residential ZONING: Private recreation/multi-family resid. COMMENTS: The city plans to build a viewing tower similar to Westport's near the base of the jetty. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-2 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Oyhut Habitat Mgmt. Area, O.S. Blvd. No.: 2 LOCATION: Ocean Shores, south end of Pt. Brown ACCESS: Ocean Shores Blvd. East, near treatment facility UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 683 Acres DESCRIPTION: Jetty, dunes, shrubs and dune grass, mud and sand beaches, marshy areas, gentle slope ACTIVITY: Scenic view, nature study, birdwatching, walking, picnic, hunting, beachcombing FACILITY: (Parking) USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Ocean Shores Sewage Treatment HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ORV use damages fragile dune environment ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Managed as a natural area, hunting JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores/WDG SHORELINE MANAGE1NNT DESIGNATION: Natural GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MU2/N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONING: Private recreational COMMENTS: Parking is available just off Ocean Shores Blvd. East. Walk to beach area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGl = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-3 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Oyhut Habitat Mgmt. Area, Tonquin St. No.: 3 LOCATION: Ocean Shores, south end of Pt. Brown ACCESS: Marine View Dr. to Tonquin St. UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 683 Acres -------------------------------------------------------------------__----- DESCRIPTION: Dunes, shrubs, marshy areas, sloughs, sand/mud shores -------------------------------------------------------------__----------- ACTIVITY: Hunting, walking, nature study, birdwatching FACILITY: Parking, restrooms, kiosk, trail USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ORV use damages fragile environments ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Managed natural area, hunting, trails for nature study and birdwatching ------------------_-_---_----__-_____----_____________________------------ JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores/WDG SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Natural/Conser. GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/14GMTo UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MU2/N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONING: Private recreational COMMENTS: Could use some interpretive materials on the kiosk. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-4 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Damon Point No.: 4 LOCATION: Ocean Shores, S.E. tip of Pt. Brown ACCESS: Pt. Brown Blvd. to Marine View Drive UPLANDS OWNER: DNR TIDELANDS OWNER: DNR APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 330 Acres DESCRIPTION: Accreting sand dune spit, sand/pebble beaches with exposure to harbor entrance (so.) and North Bay, dunes/grass. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, nature study, birdwatching, walking, beachcombing, picnic, fishing FACILITY: Parking, (benches), (picnic), (restroom), (public pier), (view structure), (disabled access) USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Natural/marina/sand extraction HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Disturbance of snowy plover nesting/feeding site ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Gravel access road, pkg. lot, lots of beach and dunes. JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores/DNR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MU3/CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: n/a ZONlITG: Private recreational COMMENTS: A portion of the spit is used for sand extraction. Recommend banning ORV use in this area. Any development on Damon Point should not be allowed to negatively impact wildlife resources. Low to moderate intensity recreation uses should be stressed over any high intensity use. Snowy Plover (endangered species) breeding area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH. = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-5 GRAYS KARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Ocean Shores Marina No.: 5 LOCATION: Ocean Shores, S.E. end of Pt. Brown ACCESS: Pt. Brown Blvd. to Marine View Drive UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: n/a DESCRIPTION: Marina, restaurant, motel, large paved parking lot, generally commercial ACTIVITY: Scenic view, photography, private boat moorage, (boat launch), (shellfishing), (fishing), (picnic) FACILITY: Paved parking, moorage for 200, (benches), (picnic), (restrooms), (public pier), (view structure), (paved launch) USE INTENSITY: (High) ADJACENT USE: Commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Piers and marina structures are in disrepair ATTRACTION SUMMARY: large paved parking lot with nice harbor view, good disabled access by automobile, paved boat launch is blocked JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban/Cons. GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGIC. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MU4/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Marine Commercial ZONING: Heavy Commercial COMMENTS: Much could be done to improve the recreational opportunities of this area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, PA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port. of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-6 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: City park off Sunrise Avenue No.: 6 LOCATION: Ocean Shores, East side of Pt. Brown on North Bay ACCESS: Duck Lake Drive to Pearsall Ave. to Sunrise Ave. UPLANDS OWnER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 2 Acres/400 Ft. DESCRIPTION: Currently vacant land in a natural condition, sand, grass, sand and pebble beach (mud) ACTIVITY: (Scenic view), (walking), (picnic) FACILITY: (Parking), (picnic), (restrooms), (trail) USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Adjacent to private oyster tidelands ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Potential city park on North Bay, view of bay and harbor. JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MU5/UR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONING: Single family COMMENTS: City of Ocean Shores Comprehensive Plan identifies this area for public use as a city park. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmto Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WT,G = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 7 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Mineral P1. and Oyster P1. street ends No.: 7 LOCATION: Ocean Shores, east side of Pt. Brown on North Bay ACCESS: Mineral P1. and Oyster P1. off Duck Lake Drive UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < I Acre DESCRIPTION: Paved street ends ACTIVITY: Scenic view FACILITY: Parking USE IFTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Possible disturbance to adjacent homes ATTRACTION SUMMAARY: Paved street ends are ideal for drive-up access to views of North bay and Grays Harbor, particularly for disabled JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MU6/UM/N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Single family ZONING: Single family COMMENTS: Recommended as a park-and-view area only. Bank is unstable, beach is private. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-8 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Ocean Shores Airport area No.: 8 LOCATION: Ocean Shores, east side of Pt. Brown on North Bay ACCESS: Chance a la Mer to Albatross St. UPLANDS OMNER: WDG/Ocean Shores TIDELANDS OWNER: WDG APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 185 Acres -------------------------------------------------------------------------- DESCRIPTION: Natural uplands and tidelands adjacent to Ocean Shores Airport --------------------------------------------------------------__---------- ACTIVITY: FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Airport/residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Natural area maintained by WDG, not intended for intense public use and primarily inaccessible (fenced) ------------------------------------------------------------------__------ JURISDICTION: Ocean Shores/WDG SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VI/MU6/UM/N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public (runway-heavy commercial) ZONING: Private recreational COMMENTS: WDG desires to keep this area in a natural state, no development should occur. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-9 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Burrows Road No.: 9 LOCATION: North Bay ACCESS: Burrows Road off Highway 109 UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: County road crosses Jessie and Campbell Sloughs and runs along North Bay for about one mile. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, birdwatching, hunting FACILITY: Roadside parking USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Roadside views of North Bay. Best viewing location for the North Bay area. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor county SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: V/MU8-9/RL-RA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Agriculture ZONING: Agriculture COMMEFTS: Roadway adjacent to marsh and tidelands. Limited parKing on shoulder of road. Access across dike to marsh and Humptulips River mouth, but tidelands between road and slough are privately owned. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CM = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR. Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 10 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Humptulips Habitat Management Area No. : 10 LOCATION: North Bay, mouth of the Humptulips River ACCESS: Highway 109 UPLANDS OWNER: WDG TIDELANDS OWNER: WDG APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 835 Acres DESCRIPTION: Managed as a natural area. Rumptulips River, sloughs, marsh and mudflats, grassy areas ACTIVITY: Birdwatching, fishing, hunting, boating, boat launching FACILITY: Boat launch, parking, restrooms, kiosk USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Rural residential, agriculture HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMM1ARY: WDG boat launch, parking area, restrooms, adjacent to natural uplands and tidelands JURISDICTION: WDG/Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT, AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: V/MU9/RL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Agriculture ZONING: General development COMMENTS: Interpretive and informational displays on the existing kiosk would enhance this area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-11 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Grass Creek No.: 11 LOCATION: North Bay at Grass Creek ACCESS: County road-end W. of Hwy. 109, So. of Grass Creek UPLAINDS OWNER: Private TIDELANiDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Old county road ends at creek. ACTIVITY: Scenic view FACILITY: Parking USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Adjacent to private land ATTRACTION SUMIARY: Wayside view of mouth of Grass Creek and part of North Bay. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: V/MU10/RL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General development ZONING: General Development COMMENTS: "Shore View" recommended rather than actual public access to shoreline in order to avoid conflicts with adjacent land owners. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 12 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE MAME: Railroad Corridor, Grays Harbor City No.: 12 LOCATION: Grays Harbor City to Pt. New ACCESS: Highway 109 at Grays Harbor City UPLANDS OWNER: Corporate TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 3 Mi./3.5 Acres DESCRIPTION: Abandoned Burlington Northern Railroad Right-of-way lies between bluff and shoreline from Grays Harbor City to Pt. Nbew ACTIVITY: Scenic view, walking, birdwatching, nature study, photography FACILITY: Trail, (parking), (disabled access), (bike trail) USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Rural residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Eroding bluff, difficult traffic situation ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Potential for development of a parking area and trail (approximately three miles) along harbor shoreline. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINtE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Rural GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: (*) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial (Pt. New General Development) ZONING: Industrial (Pt. New General Development) COMMENTS: *GHEMP:III-V/10-11/RL-UD (boundary between MU 10 & 11 is approximately half-way between Grays Harbor City and Pt. New). Property owners at Grays Harbor City should be protected from high intensity use and trespass. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CM = Conservancy Natural, CMY Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 13 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Highway 101-109 bypass viewpoint No.: 13 LOCATION: Ridge north of Bowerman Basin ACCESS: Highway 109 to the 101-109 Bypass UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: n/a APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Ridge overlooking Bowerman Basin and entire harbor ACTIVITY: (Scenic view), (walking) FACILITY: (Parking), (view structure), (trail) USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Forest land HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Sweeping view of Grays Harbor JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: n/a GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGSPATION: n/a COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Industrial COMMENTS: Committee suggests a trail climbing along the highway right-of-way to a simple viewpoint. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Came DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 14 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Bowerman Basin Trail No.: 14 LOCATION: Bowerman Field, Hoquiam ACCESS: Moon Island (Airport) Road to Bowerman Field UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 3 Acres DESCRIPTION: Marshland surrounding airfield; undeveloped trail to end of spit; mud, shrubs, affords good view of Bowerman Basin ACTIVITY: Scenic view, birdwatching, nature study, photography, walking FACILITY: Trail, parking USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Airfield HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Pedestrians must stay clear of runway ATTRACTION SUM4ARY: Excellent access to Bowerman Basin birdwatching areas. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County/PGH SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HPARBOR ESTUARY MGtfIT AREA/MGNT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: III/MU12/SP COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Industrial COMMENTS: Parking is limited to shoulder of road. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 15 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME : Hoquiam Moon Island RV Parkway No.: 15 LOCATION: Hoquiam ACCESS: Moon Island (Airport) Road, Hoquiam UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 7 Acres DESCRIPTION: Old airport road, dead-ends at Hoquiam sewage treatment plant. Rock revetment, sandy beach, adjacent to sewage lagoon. ACTIVITY: Scenic view. birdwatching, view of ship-loading facility, walking FACILITY: Parking, (benches), (picnic), (restrooms), (disabled access), (RV overnight parking and facilities) USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Sewage Treatment, industrial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Sewage treatment lagoons ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Rare opportunity in the urban area to view the harbor and ship-loading activities. Potential overnight RV parking. JURISDICTION: Hoquiam SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: III/MUL4/UD COMIPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Heavy Industrial COMMENTS: The City of Hoquiam has several phases Dlanned for this site. The first is simply grading and paving, which may be followed by more specific development for RV use. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 16 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: ITT Rayonier Longshore Parking Lot No.: 16 LOCATION: Hoquiam, adjacent to ITT loading dock ACCESS: Moon Island (Airport) Road UPLANDS OWIER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Paved, fenced parking lot for use by longshoremen. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, view of ship-loading activities FACILITY: Parking, disabled access USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Industrial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Heavy industrial activity ATTRACTION SUMMARY: View of harbor and ship-loading activity. JURISDICTION: Hoquiam SHORELINE MANAGENENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS PARBOR ESTUARY MGMTo AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: III/U14/UD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Heavy Industrial COMMENTS: Visitors are allowed into the parking lot. Recommend staying within the fenced parking lot area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 17 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Hoquiam Fish Base No.: 17 LOCATION: Hoquiam, foot of Adams Street ACCESS: Fifth Street Extension to Adams Street UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Rip-rap, sand and driftwood shore, area used as log salvage yard. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, photography, birdwatching, nature study FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Industrial/commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUM4ARY: Historic site - only pilings remain of what was once a mojor fish landing and processing facility. Nice harbor views. JURISDICTION: Hoquiam SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: III/MU15/UD* COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Heavy Industrial COMMENTS: * The Fish Base, itself, is protected from development in the GHEMP, since it is recognized as an important fish rearing area and migration route. Harbor seals can sometimes be seen on the beach and driftwood here. Parking is available along the shoulder of Moon Island (Airport) Road. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 18 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Port of Grays Harbor Boat Launch No.: 18 LOCATION: Mouth of Fry Creek, Hoquiam ACCESS: Foot of 28th Street, off Industrial Road UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OTWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < I Acre DESCRIPTION: Potential industrial site contains a temporary undeveloped (gravel) boat launch. Crushed rock surface/shore. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, boat launching, walking, boating, fishing, (picnic) FACILITY: Parking, boat launch, (benches), (picnic), (restrooms), (kiosk), (disabled access) USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Industrial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Adjacent industrial use ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Currently a temporary boat launch, potential for a developed access. View of Rennie Is., industrial waterfront. JURISDICTION: Hoquiam SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: III/MU15/UD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Heavy Industrial COMMENTS: This launch is a temporary boat launch provided as a public service by the Port. The boat launch is in its third location, and will probably be moved again as industrial development in this area expands into the present boat launch location. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 19 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE FAME: Rennie Island No.: 19 LOCATION: Grays Harbor near the mouth of the Chehalis River ACCESS: By boat, from PGH boat launch or Aberdeen launch UPLANDS OWNER: Corporate TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: n/a DESCRIPTION: Natural area, settling ponds, mud, marsh, grass. ACTIVITY: Boating, hunting FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Industrial, shipping channel HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Natural area, attractive to waterfowl and hunters. JURISDICTION: Hoquiam SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: III/mU15/UD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: n/a COMMENTS: Boat access only. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR =-Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH Port of Grays Harbor COE =U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-20 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Broadway Street end No.: 20 LOCATION: Aberdeen, foot of Broadway St. ACCESS: none at present UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: n/a APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < I Acre DESCRIPTION: Currently undeveloped industrial property, street right-of-way recently regained by city. ACTIVITY: FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: ADJACENT USE: Industrial/commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Potential for developed city street-end park with view of harbor and industrial/commercial waterfront. JURISDICTION: Aberdeen SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: II/MU16/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Waterfront low-intensity manufacturing ZONING: Heavy Commercial-Light industrial COMMENTS: Access to this property from Broadway Street is blocked by the Chehalis River Bridge Truck Route ramps, and is further complicated by the presence of the railroad tracks. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-21 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: PGH Industrial Dev. Dist. 2 (Hake Plant) No.: 21 LOCATION: Mouth of Wishkah River, Aberdeen ACCESS: Heron Street to Newell Street UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 7.5 Acres DESCRIPTION: Industrial site with fish processing plant buildings. Location of passenger ferry dock. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, ferry dock FACILITY: Ferry dock USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: View of Chehalis River, industrial waterfront, shipping channel. Potential for city park, museum, and motel development. JURISDICTION: Aberdeen SHORELINE MANAGEmENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: I/MU 17/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Waterfront low-intensity manufacturing ZONING: Service Commercial COMMENTS: Proposed site for "Tall Ships" moorage and maritime museum, together with appropriate tourist-commercial development (motel/shops). Urban pathway could link Morrison Riverfront Park through this area to Zelasko Park on the southwest shore of the Wishkah River. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N= Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-22 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Wishkah Mall Parking Lot (SE corner) No.: 22 LOCATION: Wishkah Mall, Aberdeen ACCESS: Heron Street through mall pkg. lot to Pay & Save UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < I Acre DESCRIPTION: Paved parking lot (and drive, behind mall). View of Chehalis River, shipping activity, So. Abdn. industrial waterfront. ACTIVITY: Scenic view FACILITY: Parking, walking, disabled access USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: High water ATTRACTION SUMMARY: View of Chehalis River, shipping channel, and industrial waterfront activities in South Aberdeen. Popular lunch spot. JURISDICTION: Aberdeen SHORELINE MANAGENENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: II/MU17/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Shopping Center ZONING: Service Commercial COMMENTS: Future urban pathway could link Morrison Riverfront Park through this area and the "Tall Ships" site to Zelasko Park. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-23 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Morrison Riverfront Park No.: 23 LOCATION: North shore of the Chehalis River, Aberdeen ACCESS: Eastbound on Wishkah Ave. to Sargent St. (old hwy) UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: UI Acres DESCRIPTION: Urban waterfront park ACTIVITY: Scenic view, birdwatching, walking, picnic, fishing, biking FACILITY: Parking, benches, picnic, urban path, bike trail, play area, (fishing pier), disabled access USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Commercial/industrial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Urban waterfront park with grassy areas, play area, promenade, picnic barbeque pits. View of Chehalis R., shipping, etc. JURISDICTION: Aberdeen SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: II/MTJ17/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONING: Industrial COMMENTS: This park is being completed in phases; current plans are to build a public pier, future plans include day-use boat moorage. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CM = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: I-.DG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-24 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NANE: South Aberdeen Boat Launch No.: 24 LOCATION: South Aberdeen, on the Chehalis River ACCESS: Curtis Blvd. (Hwy. 101), foot of Boone Street UPLANDS OWNER:' Public TIDELANDS OWDER: APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: City street-end with one-lane paved boat launch. ACTIVITY: Boat launching FACILITY: Boat launch USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Industrial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Paved boat launch with limited parking. JURISDICTION: Aberdeen SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS PARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: II/MU25/UD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Waterfront low-intensity manufacturing ZONING: Industrial COMMENTS: Adjacent to proposed Corps of Engineers South Aberdeen Dike flood control project. Parking is limited. Potential for additional development and maintenance of boat launch and parking area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN= Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-25 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Weyerhaeuser Longshore Parking Lot No.: 25 LOCATION: South Aberdeen, west shore of the Chehalis River ACCESS: Curtis St./West Blvd. (Hwy. 101) to Taylor Street UPLANDS OWNER: Corporate TIDELANDS OWNER: APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Paved fenced parking lot for longshoremen. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, industrial ship-loading view FACILITY: Parking USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Industrial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Adjacent industrial activity ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Scenic view of river and industrial ship-loading activity. JURISDICTION: Aberdeen SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: II/MU25/UD COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Industrial COMMENTS: Visitors are allowed into the parking lot area, but should stay inside of fence. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM= Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGF = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-26 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Weyerhaeuser Boat Launch, Cosmopolis No.: 26 LOCATION: Downtown Cosmopolis ACCESS: First Street (Hwy. 101) to "F" Street UPLANDS OWNER: Corporate TIDELANDS OWNER: Corporate APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 1 Acre DESCRIPTIONT: Gravel parking lot, mud bank, grass and brush uplands, unpaved boat launch. ACTIVITY: Picnic, fishing, boating, boat launching FACILITY: Parking, picnic, boat launch, (benches) USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Industrial/commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: River access for fishing and boating, site includes picnic table and boat launch. JURISDICTION: Cosmopolis SHORELIINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: II/MU25/UD COMPWREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public use (park) ZONING: Mixed use COMMENTS: Adjacent to historic site: Cosmopolis Indian Treaty Grounds (also indian village at mouth of Mill Creek). Weyco has plans for a haul road through this area, but public access would remain (or possibly improve). (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGM = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-27 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Newskah Creek Mouth No.: 27 LOCATION: South shore of Grays Harbor at Newskah Creek ACCESS: Highway 105 UPLANDS OWnER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Industrial site, maintenance road along creek to edge of fill berm adjacent to railroad track. Grass, trees, shrubs. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, walking, birdwatching, nature study FACILITY: Trail USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Rural/industrial potential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Adjacent to Weyco settling ponds ATTRACTION SUMMARY: View across harbor to urban waterfront, semi-natural area attracts many species of birds and wildlife. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban/Conserv. GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: * COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Industrial ZONING: Industrial COMMENTS: * GHEMP: IV-II/MU26/UD-CM (conservancy managed shoreward of railroad tracks). No easy direct shore access. Weyerhaeuser settling ponds may be hazardous. Improvements to shoreline access could be incorporated into any future development projects. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UN = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-28 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE I,TAME: South Shore Railroad Corridor No.: 28 LOCATION: South shore of Grays Harbor ACCESS: Highway 109 UPLANDS OWNER: Corporate TIDELANDS OWNER: various APPROXIIIATE SIZE/LENGTH: 10 Miles DESCRIPTION: Railroad corridor follows south shore of Grays Harbor from Aberdeen to Markham. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, walking FACILITY: n/a USE INTENSITY: (Medium) ADJACENT USE: Rural HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUNMARY: Potential for shoreline trail along the south shore of Grays Harbor from Newskah Creek to Markham. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy? GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: * COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General development ZONING: General Development COMMENTS: * GRE-P: IV/MU26-27/CM-RL. If use of the railroad ceased, and the right-of-way completely abandoned, this would be an outstanding opportunity for a shoreline trail along the south shore of Grays Harbor. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-29 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Chapin Creek mouth No..: 29 LOCATION: South shore of Grays Harbor at Chapin Creek ACCESS: Highway 105 to Chapin Creek bridge UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Small stream flows into the harbor. Adjacent shores are marsh, grass and shrubs. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, walking FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Rural/forest land HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Wide shoulder for parking west of bridge, south side of road. Scenic view of harbor and urban area. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MNAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: IV/MU26/UD-CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General development ZONING: General development COMMENTS: A sign to be placed at the bridge identifying the creek and shoreline access is recommended. Other potential development includes shoulder parking and a path to the shoreline. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources POR = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-30 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: South Arbor Road end No.: 30 LOCATION: South shore of Grays Harbor at South Arbor ACCESS: Highway 105 to South Arbor Road UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWtER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < I Acre DESCRIPTION: Marshy shore, grass, shrubs, trees. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, walking FACILITY: Parking USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Rural residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Avoid disturbance to neighboring private homes ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Wide "turn-around" at end of county road ideal for parking. Cross railroad tracks to scenic view of harbor. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: tV/MU27/RL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General development ZONING: General Development COMMENTS: Potential exists for trespass onto private property. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 31 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Markham, Old Highway No.: 31 -----------------__--------------__--_------__-----_-_----__-------___--__ LOCATION: Markham, south shore of Grays Harbor ACCESS: Hwy. 105, northwest on old highway UIJPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre ----------------------------------------------------------------------__-- DESCRIPTION: Old highway end, view of marshy shore and Markham Island. ACTIVITY: Scenic view FACILITY: Parking, disabled access USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Commercial/industrial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Old highway dead-ends adjacent to oyster and cranberry processing plants. Park and view harbor and Markham Island. -------------------------------------------------------------__----------- JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGTf. AREA/MGMTo UNIT/DESIGNATION: IV/MU28/UD-CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: General development ZONING: General development COMMENTS: Paved road with little traffic provides an opportunity to enjoy the outdoors away from the crowds. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, URP = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WTDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-32 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Johns River Habitat Management Area No.: 32 LOCATION: Mouth of Johns River, Markham ACCESS: Highway 105 to old hwy. west of Johns river bridge UPLANDS OWNER: W,DG TIDELANDS OWNER: n/a APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 1447 Acres DESCRIPTION: WDG managed natural area along Johns River, sloughs, grasses and shrubs. ACTIVITY: Nature study, birdwatching, walking, fishing, hunting, boating, boat launching, dog training FACILITY: Parking, boat launch, restrooms, trail, kiosk USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Residential/forest land HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUM4ARY: Natural area with boat launch. WDG has made improvements to trails including some foot bridges. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County/WDG SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conserv./Rural GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMTo AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: IV/MU29/CM-N COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Urbanizing ZONING: General development COMMENTS: Recent improvements have been made to foot trails, including installation of foot bridges. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, PA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UN = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 33 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Markham Island No.: 33 LOCATION: Markham, off mouth of Johns River ACCESS: Boat access only, Johns River WDG boat launch UPLANDS OWNER: DNR TIDELANDS OWNER: DNR APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 221 Acres DESCRIPTION: Low, grassy, natural island. ACTIVITY: Hunting, birdwatching FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Industrial/commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Possible disturbance of wildlife ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Natural island attracts wildlife. Accessible by boat only. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County/DNR SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Rural/Conserv. GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: IV/MU28/CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Recreational ZONING: General development COMMENTS: No development will probably occur on Markham Island. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: Nt Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RI, Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 34 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Bottle Beach No.: 34 LOCATION: South shore of Grays Harbor at Ocosta ACCESS: Hwy. 105, county road-end at bend (Ocean Ave.) UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public/private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 4 Acres DESCRIPTION: County road-end leads to sandy beach, dunes, grasses. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, nature study, birdwatching, walking, picnic FACILITY: (Parking), (sign), trail USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Possible disturbance to adjacent oyster beds ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Sandy beach with county road access, view across South Bay to Westport. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMNT DESIGNATION: Rural GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: IV/MU31/RA COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Urbanizing ZONING: General development COMMENTS: Road needs work, "bridge" over Redman Slough has washed out, so must cross slough (deep ravine) to reach trail to beach. Recommend no vehicle access past slough and deny access to ORVs. Recommended development includes construction of a foot bridge across the slough and improvements to the parking area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-35 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Ocosta-Bay City Road No.: 35 LOCATION: South Bay east of Elk River estuary ACCESS: Hwy. 105 to old highway just past Ocosta UPLANDS OWNER: DNR TIDELANDS OWNER: DNR APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 1.5 Miles DESCRIPTION: Old highway from Ocosta to Bay City, south of unnamed slough are several short trails to muddy beach and marshlands. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, nature study, birdwatching FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Residential/forest land HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Rough but scenic old highway from Ocosta to Bay City. A few mud trails to shoreline. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Rural GRAYS -ARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VII/MU32/RL COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Urbanizing ZONING: General development COMMENTS: Road is very rough (gravel)! Lots of garbage has been dropped along the shoulder of the road. Beach along this stretch is not particularly inviting for walking as there are many small sloughs to cross. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-36 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: South Bay Gun Club Boat Launch No.: 36 LOCATION: South Bay, Elk River estuary (Beardslee Slough) ACCESS: Highway 105, south on Bay City Road UPLANDS OWNER: Private TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: County road ends at unpaved boat launch. ACTIVITY: Boat launching, boating, scenic view FACILITY: Boat launch USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: Residential/private club HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: No parking available. ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Boat launch in Elk River estuary allows access to estuary and South Bay. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VII/MU33/UM-CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Urbanizing ZONING: General development COMMENTS: No parking available. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-37 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: WDG land at Laidlaw No.: 37 LOCATION: South Bay, west of Elk River Bridge, at Laidlaw ACCESS: Highway 105 UPLANDS OWNER: WDG TIDELANDS OW11]ER: WDG APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 56 Acres DESCRIPTION: Pasture land slated for reversion to wetlands. ACTIVITY: (Scenic view), (birdwatching), (nature study), (walking), (hunting) FACILITY: (Parking), (trails), (kiosk), (restrooms) USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Rural residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUM.ARY: Natural area, grassy salt marsh. Potential for low-intensity recreation. JURISDICTION: Grays Harbor County SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Rural GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/HGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VII/MU36/RL-CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Recreational/residential ZONING: General development COMMENTS: WDG plans to move existing dike inland and let the area revert to salt marsh. Potential to develop small parking area and foot path when dike is relocated. (This area was deeded to WDG as mitigation for Ocean Shores Airport development.) (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmto Plan Designations: N Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WUG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-38 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Pacific Avenue City Park No.: 38 LOCATION: Westport ACCESS: Montesano St. To Pacific Ave. street end UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Private APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Salt marsh adjacent to flood control dike ACTIVITY: Scenic view, walking, nature study, birdwatching, hunting FACILITY: None USE INTENSITY: Low ADJACENT USE: Residential HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Adjacent private residences ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Natural salt marsh. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban/Conserv. GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU38/UM-CN COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONIqNG: Recreation and park COMMENTS: Westport Parks and Recreation Plan designates this area for park development. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A- 39 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Westport Boat Launch No.: 39 LOCATION: Westport Boat Basin ACCESS: foot of Wilson Street UPLANDS OWNER: PGH TIDELANDS OWNER: PGH APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 3 Acres DESCRIPTION: Four-lane paved boat launch with service pier, adjacent parking. ACTIVITY: Boat launching FACILITY: Boat launch, service pier, parking, restrooms USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Commercial/Coast Guard Station HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Public boat launch with service pier, adjacent parking and restrooms. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU39/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Marine Industrial ZONING: Marine industrial COMMENTS: New sign needed. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, PA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-40 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Westport Marina No.: 40 LOCATION: Westport ACCESS: Dock Street, Westhaven Drive UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 60 Ac./7000 Ft. DESCRIPTION: Marina ACTIVITY: Scenic view, view industrial/commercial activities, photography, fishing, boat moorage FACILITY: Benches, restrooms, public pier, moorage USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Scenic boat basin and center of marine commercial and recreational fishing. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU39/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Tourist commer./Marine Commer. & Indust. ZONING: General commercial COMMENTS: Placement of benches at the head of each float (next to the sidewalks) would enhance public enjoyment of this area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-41 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Westport Viewing Tower No.: 41 LOCATION: Westport ACCESS: Intersection Westhaven Drive and Revetment Drive UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: n/a APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: < 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Viewing tower with interpretive displays. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, photography, picnic FACILITY: View structure, interpretive display, picnic USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: High winds, stairs ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Viewing tower and interpretive displays. View of harbor entrance, Ocean Shores, entire harbor. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU39/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Tourist Commercial ZONING: General commercial COMMENTS: Used heavily by the public. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGII = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-42 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Revetment Drive Viewing Platform No.: 42 ---------------------------------------------------------------------__--- LOCATION: Westport, Pt. Chehalis ACCESS: Foot of Revetment Drive UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWTER: n/a APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 1 Acre DESCRIPTION: Wheelchair-accessible viewing platform atop rock revetment. ----------------------------------------------------___________---------__ ACTIVITY: Scenic view, photography, picnic FACILITY: Parking, restroom, disabled access, picnic, view structure, benches, interpretive displays USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Viewing platform with interpretive displays is wheelchair accessible. Adjacent to paved parking and restrooms. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMTo AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU39/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public/Touist Commercial ZONINTG: General commercial COMMENTS: Shares parking and restrooms with public fishing pier and Fisherman's Memorial. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN = Conservancy Natural, CM - Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-43 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Westport Fishing Pier No.: 43 LOCATION: Westport Marina ACCESS: Foot of Revetment Drive UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 1700 Feet DESCRIPTION: Public floats and fishing pier. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, photography, birdwatching, fishing FACILITY: Benches, parking, restrooms, public pier, view structure USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: Marina, commercial HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Public access across floats to fishing pier atop marina bulkhead. Scenic view of harbor. Benches. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Urban GRAYS HtARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU39/UM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONING: General commercial COMMENTS: Public pier with great view of harbor, Ocean Shores, and entrance to boat basin. Due to tidal fluctuations, ramps up/down to float are occasionally steep. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CM = Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-44 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: Half Moon Bay No.: 44 LOCATION: Westhaven State Park ACCESS: Montesano Avenue to state park access road UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 79 Acres DESCRIPTION: Sandy beach, sand dunes. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, nature study, birdwatching, walking, fishing, shellfishing, diving FACILITY: Trail USE INTENSITY: High ADJACENT USE: State park/PGH industrial site HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Wave action, undertow ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Park in state park paved lot (restrooms) and walk to this sand/pebble beach on the harbor side of the jetty. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMT. AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU40/CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONING: Recreation & parks COMMENTS: ORVs are restricted by law. A sign and some interpretive displays would enhance public enjoyment of this area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N Natural, CN Conservancy Natural, CM = Conservancy Managed, SP = Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL = Rural Low Intensity, UR Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-45 GRAYS HARBOR PUBLIC SHORELINE ACCESS INVENTORY SITE NAME: South Jetty No. , 45 LOCATION: Westhaven State Park, Westport ACCESS: Montesano Avenue, state park access road UPLANDS OWNER: Public TIDELANDS OWNER: Public APPROXIMATE SIZE/LENGTH: 79 Acres DESCRIPTION: Rock jetty adjacent to sand/pebble beach. ACTIVITY: Scenic view, walking, fishing FACILITY: Parking, restrooms USE INTENSITY: Medium ADJACENT USE: State park, ocean beach HAZARDS/PRECAUTIONS: Wave action ATTRACTION SUMMARY: Can climb on rock jetty, jetty fishing. JURISDICTION: Westport SHORELINE MANAGEMENT DESIGNATION: Conservancy GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY MGMTo AREA/MGMT. UNIT/DESIGNATION: VIII/MU4o/CM COMPREHENSIVE PLAN DESIGNATION: Public ZONING: Recreation and parks COMMENTS: Interpretive displays would enhance public enjoyment of this area. (Potential sites/activities/facilities/use levels appear in parenthesis) Estuary Mgmt. Plan Designations: N = Natural, CN= Conservancy Natural, CM Conservancy Managed, SP Special, RA = Rural Agriculture, RL Rural Low Intensity, UR = Urban Residential, UM = Urban Mixed, UD = Urban Development Definitions: WDG = Washington Department of Game DNR = Washington State Department of Natural Resources PGH = Port of Grays Harbor COE = U.S. Army Corps of Engineers A-46 APPENDIX B RESULTS OF CITIZEN OPINION QUESTIONINAIRE A questionnaire soliciting citizen's opinions on shoreline access was distributed early in the process (November-December 1985). The Shoreline Access Advisory Committee members were asked to distribute these questionnaires among their acquaintances and publication of a news article on the subject generated several additional requests for questionnaires. The questionnaire asked citizens to answer questions and give comments regarding adequacy of existing shoreline access, activities enjoyed along the shoreline, areas requiring additional access, and types of facilities that should be developed in the future. A total of sixty-seven questionnaires, representing a diversity of interests, were returned. The majority of the respondents (34�3%) showed general interest in shoreline access issues, and more specifically identi- fiable groups included outdoor sportsmen (fishing/hunting/general outdoors) (19.4%), bird enthusiasts (14.9%), senior citizens (11.9%), business and industry (4.5%), and others. An overwhelming 92.5 percent of those responding indicated that access to the estuary shorelines is important to Grays Harbor residents and visitors. Most responded that shoreline access around the Grays Harbor estuary is inadequate (67.2%), but some (19.4%) indicated that enough access already exists. The general feeling was that there is inadequate knowledge about the locations of existing shoreline access. When asked how to encourage use of shoreline access, 37.8 percent of those responding said some form of publicity would help. A large number (35.6%) specifically mentioned brochures, guides and/or maps as a way to encourage use, and 33.3% suggested that signs be placed at access points. Several good suggestions were provided on ways to improve shoreline access for elderly and handicapped people; those centered around paved or boarded walkways, automobile-accessible viewpoints, and locations serviceable by transit buses. Most respondents indicated that government should be responsible for developing shoreline access. However, a large number (47.8%) also listed industry (and/or the Port) as potential developers of shoreline access. Other suggestions included user groups and civic organiz- ations, and several said that all should cooperate in developing shoreline access. The most widely enjoyed activity was "scenic viewing," followed in order by walking, bird watching, nature study, watching shipping activity, fishing, picnicking, and boating. Other activities were photography, hunting, and shellfishing (mostly bait-shrimp digging). Write-in activities included tideflat combing, dog training, and running, with several indicating that they would bicycle if bike paths were available. B-1 Three areas were especially targeted as needing additional access: North Bay (52.2%), South Shore (50.7%), and urban waterfront (49.2%). Fewver people (26.9%) indicated that Ocean Shores needed more estuary access and only 6 percent indicated a need for more access in Westport. Two-thirds of those responding thought more restrooms and trails/walkways should be developed. The order of priority for development of other facilities was: parking, benches/seatina, picnic facilities, disabled access, viewpoints, and boat launches. Man y people -noted that more of every facility type should be developed. Wh-en asked which facilities were most important, the top five were: trails/walkways, 46.3 percent; parking, 26.9 percent; restrooms, 23.9 percent; viewipoints, 16.4 percent; and boat launch, 14.9 percent. Boat mootage was deemed the least important facility for priority development. Play areas, public piers, and camping facilities were also identified as less-needed facilities. Citizens responding to this questionnaire fav'ored public access and parks as the most important use for urban waterfront property. Secondary importance was given to tourist-commercial development (restaurants, motels, etc.), followed by water-related industry. General commercial development was rated least important as an urban waterfront use. High levels of interest were show-n for all of the categories presented as subjects for viewing and educational displays. Wildlife and general environment were the most popular topics, but historic sites and industrial waterfront viewing were also favored. Forty percent indicated they would like to see a museum or aquarium somewhere on the Grays Harbor shoreline. General comments emphasized the importance of increased shoreline access for improving tlhe quality of life for Grays Harbor residents aiid the area's attractiveness to tourists. Most wiould like to see more information on shoreline access made available. Specifically, accesses should be signed. Preservation of the natural environment was a high priority and low-impact development or several minimally developed accesses seemed to be desired. However, some commenters pointed out that open and highly developed access attracts less garbage and vandalism than undeveloped places. They suggested that a few highly developed access points would be preferred over many smaller anid potentially trashy ones. It was also mentioned that highly developed sites are more accessible to a wider range of users. handicapped, elderly, tourists, and others wishing access to the shoreline. Specific suggestions included banning off-road- vehicles from shoreline areas, use of trees at access poinkts, improved boat launch facilities, identifying public shellfishing areas (and adequately marking private commercial shellfish beds), and obtaining more cooperation from private landowners in provi'ding access to public shorelines. B- 2 RESULTS OF QUESTIONNAIRE SHORELIIE ACCESS AROUND THE GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY 67 persons returned questionnaires. Numerical results are represented as [#], percent results (percent of persons replying) represented as (%). Results for questions receiving multiple responses by individual commenters (indicated by an "*") will not total number of respondents or 100 percent. 1. Is shoreline public access around the Grays Harbor estuary adequate? Yes [13] (19.4%) No [451 (67.2%) Don't know (or no answer) [9] (13.4%) If not, why not? "Government control and regulation"; High development costs, lack of responsibility; Most Grays Harbor shoreline is privately owned, lack of right-of-way for private lands; No safe place to park (off highway); Information on available access is limited; Boat launches inadequate in number and condition; Too few access areas; Inadequate improvements (e.g. parking, restrooms) 2. Do you think there is adequate public knowledge of existing access points on the estuary? Yes [16] (23.9%) No [45] (67.2%) Don't know (or no answer) [6] (9.0%) If not, what can be done to encourage use of existing shoreline access? Of those answering no:* Place signs at access points [15] (33.3%) Produce brochures/maps/guides [161. (35.6%) General publicity [17] (37.8%) Public education [2] (4.4%) Other comments: "Key access development to identified user group"; "catalog access for public use"; Post signs on and off site telling what is available (e.g. tourist information signs); publish shoreline access maps in tide books. 3. Do you feel that access to the estuary shorelines is important to Grays Harbor residents and visitors? Yes [621 (92.5%) No [41 (6.0%) Don't know (or no answer) [11] (1.5%) B-3 5. Is there adequate estuary shoreline access for the elderly, handicapped and physically disabled? Yes [5] (7.5%) No [50] (74.6%) Don't know (or no answer) [12] (17.9%) If not, how can this access be improved? Suggestions included: paved parking lots; wheelchair capable (paved or boarded) walkways/paths; paved (smooth) ramps; automobile-accessible viewpoints; shelters; increase total number of accesses; develop access at locations servicable by transit buses; require that certain major access points be handicap accessible. 6. Who should develop shoreline public access? (Check all that apply.)* [35] (52.2%) city government [16] (23.9%) business [451 (67.2%) county government [321 (47.8%) industry/Port [491 (73.1%) state government [111 (16.4%) private landowners [25] (37.3%) federal government Other suggestions included: Sport fishing groups and other user groups; civic organizations (Lyon's Club, Kiwanis, Scouts, etc.); State Interagency Commission on Outdoor Recreation and State Parks and Recreation Department; private landowners allow access; all cooperate. 7. Do you have a favorite access point on the estuary shoreline? Yes [381 (56.7%) No [29] (43.3%) If so, where is it? What do you use it for? Several interesting suggestions appeared. These have been incorporated into the inventory and will not be repeated here. 8. What general activities do you enjoy on or near the Grays Harbor estuary shorelines? (Check all that apply.)* [50] (7Lo6%) scenic view [331 (49.2%) nature study [38] (56.7%) birdwatching [40] (59.7%) walking [20] (29.8%) photography [31] (46.3%) watching shipping activity [25] (37.3%) picnicking [271 (40.3%) fishing [14] (20.9%) shellfishing [41 (6.0%) diving [01 (0.0%) wind surfing [181 (26.9%) hunting [24] (35.8%) boating [16] (23.9%) boat launching [53 (7,5%) boat moorage [6] (9.0%) biking Other activities included: Gather aluminum cans, dog training, running, tideflat combing. Two mentioned they would bike if bike paths were available. 9. Which areas of the harbor need more public shoreline access: (Refer to map for area delineations.)* [181 (26.9%) Ocean Shores area [351 (52.2%) North Bay [331 (49.2%) Urban waterfront [34] (50.7%) South shore [41 (6.0%) Westport area Specific areas mentioned included: Grays Harbor City to Ned's Rock (railroad right-of-way); north shore of Bowerman Basin (along highway); Grass and Chenois Creeks; South shore generally; downtown Aberdeen. Three people responded "all areas." 10. What types of facilities should be developed as part of new or improved shoreline access areas? (Check all that apply.)* [331 (49.2%) benches/seating [33] (49.2%) picnic facilities [45] (67.2%) restrooms [451 (67,2%) trails/walkways [43] (64.2%) parking [9] (13.9%) play areas [181 (26.9%) public pier [29] (43.3%) disabled access [271 (40.3%) viewpoint/structure B-5 10. (continued) [10] (14.9%) camping [27] (40.3%) boat launch [11] (16.4%) boat moorage Other suggestions : signs (see question 2); wind shelters; gravel access roads; self-guided interpretive walks, guided walks; bike routes; "generally all." Of the facilities you chose, which two are the most important? MOST IMPORTANT: 1) trails/walkways [31] (46.3%) 2) parking [18] (26.9%) 3) restrooms [16] (23.9%) 4) viewpoint/structure [11] (16.4%) (A few people expressed a dislike for the "structure" aspect, but desired a "viewpoint.") 5) boat launch [10] (14.9%) 6) (tie) public pier and disabled access [71 (10.4%) 7) picnic facilities [4] (6.0%) 8) benches/seating [3] (4.5%) Which one is least important? LEAST IMPORTANT: 1) boat moorage [91 (13.4%) 2) (tie) play areas public pier camping each [7] (10.4%) 3) (tie) restrooms viewpoint each [5] (7.5%) 4) (tie) benches/seating picnic boat launch each [31 (4.5%) 11. What should be the primary use for urban waterfront property? (Ranked from 1 = most important to 4 = least important. The number of responses under each rank for each category was tallied, then scored: rank 1 = 5 pts., rank 2 = 4 pts., rank 3 = 3 pts., rank 4 = 2 pts., blank or no answer = 1 pt.) Total pts. Use category 272 public access/parks/open space 195 restaurants/hotels/other tourism-related development 117 general commercial development 189 water-related industry B-6 Other suggestions: One response each for: land/water *transportation, "nature," general industrial; 2 responses for "natural/wildlife habitat, 12. What in particular would you like to view and/or learn about around the estuary? (Check all that apply.)* [441 (65.7%) Nature/ecosystems/habitats in general [49] (73.1%) Wildlife [37] (55.2%) Historic or archeological sites [24] (35.8%) Industrial waterfront (shipping activity) viewing/interpretation [27] (40.3%) Museum/aquarium Other ideas included: Ocean farming/ranching operations; views of shipping traffic. 13. What is YOUR interest in public shoreline access? Specifically identifiable interest groups returning questionnaires: [23] (34.3%) General interest [13] (19.4%) Outdoor sportsmen (fishing/hunting/general outdoors) [10] (14.9%) Bird enthusiasts [8] (11.9%) Senior citizens (no other specific interest) [3] (4.5%) Industry [3] (4.5%) College student [2] (3.0%) Hiking enthusiasts Other Interests represented included: oyster farming charterboat fishing photography land owners "no interest" 14. Where do you live? URBAN AREA: [44] (65.7%) (Aberdeen, I-Hoquiam, Cosmopolis) EAST COUNTY: [5] (7.5%) (Central Park, Montesano, Elma) NORTH COUNTY: [61 (9.0%) (North Bay, North Beaches, Ocean Shores, North Grays Harbor County) SOUTH COUNTY: [6] (9.0%) (South Bay, South Beaches, Westport) OUTSIDE GRAYS HARBOR COUNTY: [3] (4.5%) (Thurston and Pacific counties) UNKNOWN: [31 (4.5%) B-7 15. Do you have other comments about public sboreline access around the Grays Harbor estuary? "We shoulcl try to develop all the urban waterfront. Most cities would be envious of all the waterfront property we have. " (e.g. remove pilings along the Chehalis River in Aberdeen and clean tip the shoreline). "Identify a few particular areas for easy access by tourists, elderly and the handicapped and develop them for easy access and identification. Hopefully this will promote tourism and pride in our area. Access points should be open and modern so they are readily available to everyone. I've noticed that open, well established areas will not collect garbage like the little out-of-the-wiay places will. A small number of easily accessible, well established areas will go a long way compared to many areas which are not as well maintained." "I would like to see parking access and R.V. (limited time parking) spaces for tourists to stay and view our indust-rial activities. There seems to be a lot of space around the North Bay area that could be developed for public access." "Open up a very unique outdoor area to be used by tourists and locals. Educate locals into enjoying and understanding estuary benefits." "Interested in protection of natural resources from over- development of shorelines by either industry or public access." "Motorized vehicles should be prohibited from using shoreline areas!" "IConfine three-wheelers to one area -the~y are very destructive." "II need to know more about shorelines and how they can benefit the community. I w-ould like to know more locations where I can enjoy the estuary shorelines." "I would like to be able to walk along the shoreline and not intrude or trespass." "Communit ies with well-developed public facilities on the shorelines are considered good places to live and to visit. The ferry and Port facilities at Westhaven dock are good beginniings. Morrison Park is. nice, too. Commercial shellfisheries should be well marked, but people shouldn't be intimidated to keep off the entire intertidal area." "Improve and maintain boat launch facilities f'or access to the Grays Hiarbor estuary for hunting and fishing." "I do not want TOO much access, but enough to enjoy wildlife quietly." B- 8 I"Present shoreline access is adequate." "Too much changing of the shorelines spoils it for some." "With the high percentage of private ownership of the waterfront, it is important to bring into focus the potential for public access to the estuary, the demand for such use, and the possibilities for methods of accomplishment." "Oysters and large groups of people don't mix. I would like to see the numbers of people 'kept manageable." "Inner bay shorelines are not much good for walking. The areas that are good for wal'king are already accessible." "My interest is in permitting non-impacting access for viewing wqildlife and nature. I do not want big projects or motorized access that would further degrade the estuary shoreline. Tourism and public access can be accoinplished without large developments which wiould impact the environment." "Access should be multi-purpose." "We must make sure the public maintains the right of access to as much of the estuary as possible. That doesn't mean a great capital outlay for fancy developed access, just make sure it is open to the public, with a developed access for the handicapped and aged." "We need more marked access points and a map showing the access." `These access areas are important to attract tourism and I also feel that people right here at home would make more use of the existing access areas and any new areas if th-ey only knew wihere they were. Most of these areas are very poorly marked." "The shoreline is one of the region's most underutilized resources. Well designed shoreline access can benefit area residents and businesses as well as tourists. Shoreline access appropriate to the use should be required for ALL uses of a permanent nature - appropriate improvements and maintenance should allso be required. in particular, access to the port industrial area should be the hiighest priority." "Developing shoreline access should be the area's top priority." "tInterested in boat access (kayak and canoe), areas for our children and us to play and relax near the wqater, prevention of more industry from building along the water - some of it needs to be more natural and usable by the public." "II would like to see scenic areas on both sides of the bay set aside for organized pathways -where bicyclists, bird watchers and B- 9 general walkers can use and enjoy our harbor in a pristine environment. "tLittle has been done to provide access to our shorelines and nothing has been done to show what is private and what is public.""I would like to see private landowners encouraged to take an interest in providing safe, sensible access routes to the wat e-rf ront ." "Other than insufficient numbers. of sites, there is a lack of walkways and parking areas for the sites that do exist." "Shoreline access is good urban design and would be an important cornerstone for future economic development in Grays Harbor." "We don't want bald accesses. People likce to holiday where there are at least groves of trees." "More shoreline access - more people. Some may stay around to fish (and spend dollars in other ways]. I am very interested in non-consumptive forms of marine activities - these things will really help promote local tourism." "Efforts to date h-ave been minimal but very nicely donie. Much more needs to be done, however. A marine information center (e.g. O.S.U.'s center at iNewport, Oregon) would be super." B- 10 SHORELINE ACCESS AROUND THE GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY PUBLIC OPINION SURVEY The Grays Harbor Public Shoreline Access Advisory Committee would like to know your opinions about shoreline access around the Grays Harbor estuary. The committee is assisting the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission with a public access study of the estuary which will inventory existing access sites and identify potentials for new access. Citizen input is important in determining what kinds of activiLies people enjoy along estuary shorelines, what types of facilities are needed, and where they should be located. Access can range from a mud trail to a paved parking lot and viewing tower, and can includ.?. both public and private property in rural and urban environments. This study limits itself to the shorelines of the Grays Harbor estuary and Chehalis River, from Lhe north and south jetties up to Cosmopolis. The study does not include the ocean beaches, nor will access along the shares of other rivers be addressed. Please take-a few minutes to complete this survey, then return it to Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission (see last page for address) before December 6Lh. Another public information meeting will be held next spring to review the results of the study. STUDY AREA AND SUB-AREAS GRAYS HaRO < ~ B-li SHORELINE ACCESS AROUND THE GRAYS HARBOR ESTUARY Please recurn this survey to Grays Harbor RegionaL Planning Commission before December 6th! Thank you. 1) is shoreline public access around the Grays Harbor estuary adequate? Yes No Don't know If not, why not? 2) Do you think there is adequate public knowledge of existing access points on the estuary? Yes No Don't know If not, what can be done to encourage use of existing shoreline access? 3) Do you feel that access to the estuary shorelines is important to Grays Harbor residents and visitors? Yes No Don't know 4) Who do you think uses public shoreline access on the Grays Harbor estuary? 5) Is there adequate estuary shoreline access for the elderly, handicapped and physically disabled? Yes__ No Don't know If not, how can this access be improved? 6) Who should develop shoreline public access? (Check atl that apply.) city government business __county governmnent industry/Port state government __private landowners __federal government __other 7) Do you have a favorite access point on the estuary shoreline? Yes No__ If so, where is it? What do you use it for? B-12 8 ) What general activities do you enjoy on or near the Grays Harbor estuary shorelines? (Check all that apply.) scenic view nature study birdwatching walking photography watching shipping other: -picnicking fishing shellIfishing .diving wind surfing activity b_ unting __boating __boat launching boat moorage biking 9) Which areas of the harbor need more public shoreline access: (Refer to map for area delineations - check all that apply.) Ocean Shores area North Bay Urban waterfront South shore ___Westport area ___specific areas: 10) What types of facilities should be developed as part of new or improved shoreline access areas? (Check all that apply.) __benches/seating __picnic facilities restrooms __trails/walkways other: -parking -play areas -public pier disabled access viewpoint/structure camping boat launch boat moorage Of the facilities you chose, which two are the most important? I1 ) 2) Which one is least important? 11) What should be the primary use for urban waterfront property? (Please rank them from l-most important to 4=least important.) __public access/parks/open space restaurants/hotels/other tourism-related development __general commercial development __water-related industry __other 12) What in particular would you like to view and/or learn about around the estuary? (Check all that apply.) ___Nature/ecosystems/habitats in general Wildlife Historic or archeological sites ___Industrial waterfront (shipping activity) viewing/interpretation ___Museum/aquarium Other: B-1 3 13) What is YOUR interest in public shoreline access? 14) Where do you live? 15) Do you have other comments about public shoreline access around the Grays Harbor estuary? Thank you very much for completing this questionaire! Please mail your completed survey before December 6th to (or drop it by) the Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission office at the address below: Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission 2109 Sumner Avenue, Suite 202 Aberdeen, Washington 98520 (206) 532-8812 If you would like your name to be placed on a mailing list to receive further information about the Grays Harbor public shoreline access study, please indicate by filling out the information requested below: Name: Address: City: State: Zip: GHRPC 11/85 B-14 APPENDIX C REFERENCES City of Aberdeen. 1980. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan. City of Aberdeen. 1975. Shoreline Master Program. Anthony, Janet L. 1985. A report on the distribution, numbers and human disturbance of snowy plovers at Damon Point, Washington. Washington Department of Game, Non-game Wildlife Program. 24 p. California Coastal Commission and State Coastal Conservancy. (1983). Designing Accessways. CASE Report - Coastal Access Standards Element of the California Recreation Plan. 95 p. City of Cosmopolis. 1973. Parks and Recreation Plan, 1973-1990. (Updated 1979.) City of Cosmopolis. 1974. Shoreline Master Program. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1976. Washington State Coastal Zone Management Program. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands Division. 153 p. Washington State Department of Ecology. 1985. Shoreline public access sign manual. Washington State Department of Ecology, Shorelands Division. 8 p. Fox, Nancy, and Susan Heikkala, et. al. 1983. Shoreline Master Program Handbook. Prepared for the Washington State Department of Ecology. 242 p. Grays Harbor County. 1975. Shoreline Master Program. Revised 1977, 1978, 1980. Grays Harbor County Planning Department and Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1982. Parks and Recreation Plan, Grays Harbor County. 92 p. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1972. Grays Harbor County, Washington, shorelines inventory. A descriptive analysis. 120 p. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1981. Revitalization potentials on the Grays Harbor urban waterfront. 101 p. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1932. Revitalization action plan for the Grays Harbor urban waterfront. 64 p. C-1 Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1982. Adjacent lands report for the shoreline master program of the cities of Cosmopolis, Elma, Oakville, Montesano, Ocean Shores, and Westport in Grays Harbor County, Washington. 36 p. Grays HarbOr Regional Planning Commission. 1982, Grays Harbor Estuary Management Program, Inventory mitigation sites. 39 p. of potential Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1983. Grays Harbor Tourism Plan, 1982-1987. Prepared for the Grays Harbor Tourism Council. 67 p. Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1986. Grays Harbor Estuary Management Plan, final revision, 114 p. plus appendices. January 1986. City of Foquiamo 1976. Shoreline Master Program. Revised 1980, 1985. City of Hoquiam. 1980. Comprehensive Parks and Recreation Plan for the City City of Hoquiam Department of Parks and Recreation. Interagency Committee for Outdoor Recreation. 1985. Washington's Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Edition. 309 p. of Hoquiam. Plan. 6th Island County Planning Department. 1977. Shoreline access study, Island County, Washington. 128 p. Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1985. State of Washington Natural Heritage Plan. Washington Heritage Program. 153 p. Natural Washington State Department of Natural Resources. 1984. Draft Aquatic Land Policy Plan. 51 p. plus appendices. City of Ocean Shores. 1974. Shoreline Master Program. City of Ocean Shores. 1982. City of Ocean Shores Parks and Recreation Comprehensive Plan. 42 p. Port of Seattle. 1985. Comprehensive public access plan for the Duwamish Waterway. Scott, James W. An evaluation of State Department 1983. public access to Washington's shorelines. Washington of Ecology, Shorelands Division. WDOE 83-9, 62 p. Sharpe, Grant W. 1977. An Interpretive survey of the Grays Harbor area. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 508 p. Prepared for the C-2 Skagit County Planning Department. 1978 Skagit County Shoreline Access Study. City of Tacoma. 1981. Shoreline amenities study, City of Tacoma, Washington. 53 p. City of Westport. 1975. Shoreline Master Program. Revised 1980. City of Westport and Grays Harbor Regional Planning Commission. 1985. City of Westport Parks and Recreation Plan. 43 p. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division. 1971. National Shorelines Study. Inventory report, Columbia - North Pacific Region, Washington and Oregon. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, North Pacific Division, Seattle, Washington. 80 p., 24 plates. C-3 APPENDIX D SUGGESTED PUBLIC ACCESS POLICIES AYD REGULATIONS The following public access element, incorporating policies and regulat ions, is excerpted from the Grays Harbor County Shoreline Management Master Program and the Department of Ecology Shoreline Master Program Hiandbook. This element is appropriate as a basis for shoreline master program amendments and revisions for all Grays Ilarbor jurisdictions. PUBLIC ACCESS ELEMENT This element deals with providing public access to publicly-ow-ned shorelines and assessing the need for public access to all shoreline areas. GOAL: To develop a citylcounty shoreline public access system that increases the amount and diversity of public access to shoreline areas, consistent with private rights, public safety, and the natural shoreline character. A) POLICIES: 1) A shoreline element in the parks acquisition and development program should be encouraged so that future shoreline access is acquired and developed as part of an overall master plan, includina but not limited to the following: street end and public right-of-wTay developmient, shoreline park acquisition and improvement, pedestrian and bicycle trail development, and viewi observation points. Priority for access acquisition should consider resource desirability, availability, and.population proximity. 2) Public access should be provided in newi shoreline development. a) Private property owners should be encouraged and offered incentives to provide shoreline access. b) Specified public pedestrian accessways and improvements should be required in future land use authorizations whenever shoreline features are appropriate for public view. 3) Shoreline and wetland viewpoints, lookouts, and vistas should be provided, 4) Shoreline recreational facilities and other public access points should be connected by trails, bicycle pathways, and other access links, where appropriate. 5) Access development should respect and protect ecological, aesthetic, historical, and archeological values in the shorelines of the state, as well as private property rights. D- 1 6) Public access design should provide for public health, safety, and enjoyment. 7) Public access areas should be maintained and provided witlh ancillary facilities such as parking and sanitary facilities when appropriate. 8) The nature, time, number of people, and area open to public access may be reaulated where there are spawning grounds, fragile aquatic life habitats, or potential hazards for pedestrian injury. 9) Residential and commercial development on shorelines of statewide significance should be encouraged to provide linear accessways along the shorelines. 10) industrial uses located on shorelines of statewide significanice should be encouraged to provide vista points along the wqaterfront, recognizing the incompatibility of linear accessways through high hazard areas. 11) Marine terminals and related facilities should be designed to permit viewing of harbor areas from viewpoints and sim.ilar public facilities which would not interfere wiith port operations or endanger public health and safety. 12) Scenic road and railroad corridors within shoreline areas should have provision for safe pedestrian and other non- motorized travel. Also, provisions should be made for sufficient viewpoints, rest areas, and picnic areas in corridors adjacent to public shorelines. Priority should be given to acquisition and development of public access along abandoned transportation corridors which border on shorelinaes of statewide significance. B) PUBLIC ACCESS R~EGULATIONS: Based upon the goal and policies established above, the following regulations are established for all shoreline use activities. 1) No development sball block or interfere with public. access to publicly-owned shorelines and wvater bodies wjithout provision of comparable access alternatives. 2) All developmnents shall be designed to protect and enhance views and visual access and public access to the water and shorelines. 3) All developments, whether recreational, residential, commercial, or industrial, located along public shorelines or unique shoreline areas may be required to provide view corridors, public accessways, trail easements, or other amenities or improvements upon a-determination by local government that the action would enhance public enjoyment of the shoreline and not unduly conflict with the proposed use, D- 2 adjacent uses, or public safety, nor adversely impact the shoreline environment. For all projects, the Administrator shall examine the possibility of requiring public access easements, dedications and/or improvemaents, and shall make record of his or her findings in each case. 4) Public access requirements shall be commensurated with: a) nature and size of the project; b) shoreline frontage of the project; c) characteristics and limitations of thie body of water involved; d) expected demand resulting from the project; e) existing access facilities; f) design of the project; g) existino street or highway access pattern; h) type of access to be given, wihether actual, scenic, boat, swimming, or other type. 5) All methods of satisfying public access requirements shall involve accessways, improvements, easements, or the dedication of lands. Such accessways, improvements, easements or dedications may be provided in any alignment appropriate and compatible witlh the project design, subject to plan approval. These can include, but are not limited to, strips along the shoreline, access road riglhts-of-way, or other usable dedications. 6) Developers may be required by local government to install or maintain improvements for public access or vista facilities on dedicated parcels as a condition for the shoreline substantial development permit. Additionally, if a subdivision is required, improvements may be required as a condition for plat approval. Public ase shall not be allowed until reasonable improvements and provisions have been made, and approved by the appropriate public agency, so that trespass on adjacent private property, littering, and environmental abuse will be minimized. 7) The following shall be specified in shoreline substantial development permit conditions: a) Any required public accessway, easement or dedication shall be recorded on a permit, property deed or face of a plat as a condition running for the life of the project or in perpetuity with the land. b) Any required public access improvements, according to approved plans, must be specified, and any improvements must be fully developed and available for public use at the time of occupancy or onset of use of the development. c) operation, liability, and maaintenance criteria and responsibilities must be specified. d) Department of Ecology standardized signs which indicate the public's right of access shall be installed and maintained by the property owner in conspicuous locations at required public access sites. Public use D- 3 may be limited to daylight hours or hours of operation of the proposed development. 8) Public access to the shoreline shall be required on all public property, except as exempted by local governme-nt. 9) As far *as possible, public access sites shall have direct and easy access from the street or highway. 10) If public access results in the abuse of the environment by the public, thie access may be limited or closed. 11) Residential, recreational, and comnercial development fronting on shorelines of statewiide significance shall provide appropriate public access to the shoreline. Where appropriate, a linear public easement or dedication at least 25 feet wide along the ordinary highi water line or as near thereto as cat conveniently accommodate pedestrian use shall be provided. In addition, access to the shoreline from a public right-of-way may be required. 'Such accessways shall permit only non-motorized vehicle and pedestrian use, and shall be accessible during daylight hours and at night during business hours. Public access improvements may be required, commensurate with the criteria outlined in paragraph (4) above. 12) Hleavy commercial and industrial developments fronting on shorelines of statewide significance shall provide an easement or dedication for one or more vista points located as near to the outer harbor line as is reasonable, considering, the nature and siting of the use. The access and vista point area shall be capable of handling passenger vehicles safely and conveniently, unless topographiy or other limitations preclude this, in which case safe and convenient pedestrian access shall be sufficient. Specific public access improvements may be required, commensurate with the criteria outlined in paragraph (4) above. 13) Public access may be considered not feasible and not required, at the discretion of the local government, where: a) Unavoidable hazards to the public in gaining access exist; or b) inherent security requirements of the use cannot be satisfied; or c) Unavoidable interference with the use would occur; or d) Unacceptable environmental impacts would occur; or e) The cost of provTiding the access ig unreasonably disproportionate to the total cost of the proposed development; or f) Public access is available in close proximity to the proposed development and no furthe.r access is needed; or g) Public access at the particular location cannot be designed or developed to provide an interesting or pleasant view or recreational experience. D- 4 APPENDIX E SUPPORT FACILITIES Signs: A new shoreline access sign was adopted by DOE in 1984. The sign contains a standardized logo, with the phrase "PUBLIC SHORE," used to mark places with direct access to the shore (shown below), or "SHORE VIEW," used to mark vistas and viewpoints. The signs are manufactured of a sturdy blue and white polyethylene plastic. Signs are available at no cost from DOE, but their use is limited to marking shoreline access sites and viewpoints which are open to the public. Specifications for sign location and installation are given in the Washington State Department of Ecology "Shoreline Public Access Sign Manual." In addition to the shoreline access sign, a notice reminding users to respect private property rights may be appropriate at some access locations. Miscellaneous support facilities: Support facilities add to public enjoyment and ease of maintenance of recreational developments. They include signs, trash receptacles, bike security racks, informational kiosks, benches, picnic tables, restrooms, and parking areas. Design examples for some of these facilities are presented on the following page. Department of Ecology Shoreline Access Sign B U >~~~~~~~~ _ E-1 MISCELLANEOUS SUPPORT FACILITIES I ;1 I~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~ ' 'SK ' - : :'2-: ______ ~ ji -~: -] TR,As5 CANJ5 d.~~~~.. Illffr : ., ' . - I;''.~: � ~ o.~, �-�� ,� �� io, �~~~ ~ . .++ , � � . ,...'.'., ;..,. E-2