[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
PACIFIC OCEAN BEACH EROSION ACCRETION REPORT 14 lp .1 GB 454 .B3 P 5 1978 PACIFIC OCEAN BEACHES EROSION AND ACCIIETION IIEPOR@/ By -Y James B. Phipps John M. Smith Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Washington July 1978 S - DEPARTMENT OF "OMMERCE NGA, 1, -0A01AJ'SFRVjrF1-' CLNTE P '@'234 SOUTH HOE,'-JON AVENUE S 0 N , S C 4 0 5 - 2 4 1 The preparation of this report was financed through a grant from the I Section 305 Coastal Zone Manage- @ashington State Department of Ecology: ment contract number 78-080. Michael Ruef and Michael Kirk were Doe coordinators. ABSTRACT Approximately 100 years of historical shoreline changes on the coastal beaches of Southwestern Washington have been mapped, and the rates of erosion and/or accretion have been calculated. These data show that., in general, the Washington coastline has been prograding since the turn of the century. Nota- ble exceptions to this general accretional pattern occur on the spits abutting Willapa Harbor, especially Cape Shoalwater, and on the entire beach north of Copalis Head. More recently the area south of the South Jetty has become erosional. The various factors that affect the erosion-accretion rates are considered in light of a sand budget. As the sand enters the longshore drift system from the Columbia River and is moved northward by seasonally reversing currents, its voltune is diminished by bay entrapment in Willapa and Grays Harbor, by beach accretion, and by losses to the offshore. The erosion north of Copalis Head is probably due to the lack of sand in the system to nourish these beaches. Projections of recent changes in the shoreline are used to construct a shoreline map for the year 2000. Man-induced dune modifications are considered in the last section of this report. On the Long Beach Peninsula decreased amounts of eolian sand accretin- on the seaward slopes of the primary dune are related to sand removal activities and perhaps to recreational vehicle traffic. It is observed that removal of the primary dune by landowners makes their dwellings considerably more vulnerable to destruction by storm waves and subjects them to increased quantities of wind- blown sand. TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Setting . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1 Ptirpose . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 3 EROSION-ACCRETION PATTERN AND RATES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Long Beach Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Grayland . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 6 North Beach . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 10 Bay Mouth Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Grays Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Willapa Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A PRELIMINARY SAND BUDGER. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Sources of the Sand . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Longshore Drift . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 26 Bay Entrapment. 27 S, 28 T@?ansport Down ubmarine Canyons . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cross-shelf Transport . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 28 Loss to the Dune System . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Beach Accretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Sea Level Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 YEAR 2000 PROJECTION . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Introduction . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Procedure . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Assumptions . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 Discussion .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33 SAND DUNES AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35 Tolerance of Dunes to Activities of Man . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 36 Measured Sand Dune Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 37 Recent Dune Stabilization Attempts . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 4o Man-induced Dune Modification . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Recreational Vehicles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Access Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Alterations to Primary Dunes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43 Driftwood Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Sand Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 48 APPENDICES . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix A - Map Sources . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix B - Shoreline Measurements . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 54 Appendix C - Year 2000 Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 65 Appendix D - People Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 75 LIST OF FIGURES Number Title Page 1 Location Map . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2 2 Shoreline changes on Long Beach Peninsula . . . . . . 7 3 Changes in the relative locations of the +8-foot elevation, Long Beach Peninsula . . . . . . . . 8 4 Shoreline changes in the Grayland area . . . . . . . 9 5 Changes in the relative locations of the +8-foot elevation, Grayland . . . . . . . . . . . . 11 6 Shoreline changes in the North Beach area . . . . . . 13 7 Changes in the relative locations of the +8-foot elevation, North Beach . . . . . . . . . . . 16 8 Bay mouth changes adjacent to Grays Harbor . . . . . . 18 9 Erosion-accretion near the South Jetty, Grays Harbor . . 20 10 North Cove erosion rates . . . . . . . . . . . . 22 11 Shoreline changes on Leadbetter Point . . . . . . . 23 12 A preliminary sand budget for the longshore drift system . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 25 13 Changes in the depth of accumulated sand on the I'grass-line" markers on the Long Beach Peninsula . . . 38 INTRODUCTION Setting The beaches of Southwestern Washington are composed of a singl e, contin- uous sand body that stretches northward from the Columbia River for a distance of '@bout 60 miles (Figure 1). Although the landward edge of this sand sheet is interupted by Grays Harbor and Willapa, Harbor, its continuity is maintained offshore. Studies by Ballard (1964) show the dominant source of sand is the Colum- bia River and that the sand is moved northward by a seasonally reversing long- shore currents. These currents are wave generated and move the sand northerly in the winter and southerly in the summer. Because the northerly component of this c urr ent system is driven by the high energy winter waves, as compared to the lower energy southerly waves, the predominant drift direction is northerly. The seasonality of the longshore drift is matched by the seasonality on the beaches themselves. The high energy, short period winter waves draw the sand from the exposed portions of the beaches making them steep and narrow. The summer waves push the sand back on to the beaches and they become wider and flatter. Thus the beaches of the Washington coastline represent the edge of a sand body that is continuously moving northward (with a lesser southward component) from its source, the Columbia River. As the sand moves north, its volume is diminished; by entrapment in the estuaries on the landward edge, by accretion to the existing beaches, and draining down the several prominent submarine can- yons that intersect the Washington continental margin. So by the time the sand reaches the Copalis Rocks, there is not enough to produce the wide accretional beaches typical of Pacific County. From Copalis Rocks north, the sea cliffs -1- 15 maclips Pacific Beach -10 COPALIS H NORTH BEACH -05 Ocpan Coty Oce n Shores G rays POINT BROWN Harbo -55 pOINT CHEHALIS WPsIpart -50 Grayland GRAYLAND -45 APE SHOALWATER 4d ADBETIER POINT LU JM -35' Oysterville -J - 30' LONG Ocean Park Klopsan BEACH -25' Ocea sede Long Beach ----------------- spaview 20 NOR U HEAD cApE DISAPPOINIMENT -15 0/1 EAD Figure 1. Location Map abut the high tide zone and the shoreline is erosional. The beaches of Grays Harbor and Pacific Counties then, are part of an extremely complex, dynamic system that moves the sand along the coast. Purpose It is the purpose of this report to describe approximately 100 years of changes in the shorelines, and with this historical prespective, reflect on some of the factors that may have been responsible for the observed changes. Procedure The primary data used to denote changes in the shoreline were U.S. Coast and Geodetic Surveys, Army tactical Trapping, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Con- dition reports, aerial photography, and Washington State Department of Fisheries beach profiles. The older mapping done by the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey was most useful, although there were troublesome datum changes required to make the maps conform with the modern 1927 North Am erican Datum used on the more recent maps. Modem shorelines were mapped using aerial photography. All the maps and sources used in this report appear in Appendix A. For those of you who would follow through these footsteps, a word of caution. Many modem maps, like the U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Sheets, rely on the U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Navigational Charts for their hydrography, including the shore- line. These U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts are very accurate for navi- gation, but since the shoreline is not of much significance (i.e., one does not normally drive vessels there), they are the least accurate part of the map. Furthermore, annual charts issued do not mean annual surveys of the shoreline, so it is entirely possible to have old shoreline on a new map. In 1951, the Washington State Department of Fisheries started surveying -3- selected areas of the beaches, in conjunction with their razor clam sampling program. These surveys measure the beach profiles from established reference points. The locations and elevations of these points were originally deter- mined by tying them to available bench marks. Generally, the areas are sur- veyed twice a year., once in the late summer (August) and again in the early fall (October). The same profile is surveyed bi-annually, but different pro- files,, within the same Ceneral area, are surveyed on different years. These surveys constitute the most precise data available over a long time span, partly because they remove the seasonality factor by surveying at the same time of each year. The maps in this report show the shoreline at the approximate high tide line. This designation is deliberately vague. The often-used designation of 11mean high water" (approximately a +8-foot tide) or "mean higher high water" (approximately a +9.3-foot tide) lose their meaning when comparisions with older surveys done at "high tide." Furthermore, the aerial photomapping is commonly done on some geomorphological feature (commonly the dry-sand/wet-sand line) whose relationship to actual elevations is vague at best. These problem, coupled with the inaccuracies attendant to the datum changes, the scale changes, and non-linear reproductions all tend to reduce the amount of precision. In order to overcome some of the problems inherent in comparing many dif- ferent kinds of mapping, relatively long time periods (i.e., 20 years or greater) were used. Of course, where consistent mapping on shorter time periods was available, such as the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Condition Surveys and the Fisheries data, shorter time periods were used. Thus, only the longer time trends are discussed in this report. It is entirely possible that a series of bad winter storms could erode the beach and yet this erosion be masked by a longer tem accretional phase so that the area where the erosional damage occurred -4- would be listed in this report as accretional. This report deals with long-term trends and does not consider the seasonal variations in the beach profiles which, in some years, may be greater than the annual changes. For example, the Washington State Department of Fisheries data show a August to October horizontal change in the position of the +8.0-foot elevation that ranges up to 100 feet. And this represents only a port-ion of the maximum possible seasonal changes in the profiles. In this report the shoreline precision is approximately 100 feet. -5- EROSION-ACCRETION PATTERNS AND RATES Long Beach Peninsula Mapping and photography on the Long Beach Peninsula was available for the years 1871-73, 1926, 1936, 1948, 1955, and 1977. The shoreline for each of.these years is plotted on Figure 2, and the annual rates of change (erosion or accre- tion) are shown in Appendix B. A pattern of 106 years of accretion is clearly displayed in the area adjacent to North Head. The over-all rate at 460 191 north latitude is approximately 33 feet per year. To the north along the peninsula, the shorelines become confused and crisscross one another. At the northerly limits of the mapping (460 361), it appears that the beach was generally ero- sional from the 1870's to about 1955,and from 1955 to 1977, the beach was ac- cretional. Indeed, the entire Long Beach Peninsula was accreting-from 1955 to 1977. Data collected over the last 25 years by the Washington State Department of Fisheries shows Long Beach to be accreting over that time period also (Figure 3). However, the rates of accretion are not constant over the entire beach (Appendix B). The rates are largest on the northernmost (21.4 ft/yr) and southern- most (17.1 ft/yr) portions, while the center curve (at 460 31') shows a mini- mum accretion rate. The northernmost curve also shows the largest variations. Such variations are probably the result of bay mouth effects, as similar large, variations occur on the southernmost section of the Grayland beaches. Grayland Mapping was available in the Grayland area for the years 1926, 1936, 1952, and 1977. These shorelines are portrayed in Figure 4 and the associated accre- tion-erosion rates in Appendix B. These data show a stable central section with -6- 36- 35- Long Beach 34- 33 - 32- 31 - 30- 29- Of 28- 46* 27' 27- 26- 25- 24- 23- 22- 0so 21 - 20- (;" 00, ro A 19- .01 0 2 Horizontal Scale: feet X looo Figure 2. Historical Shoreline Changes on the Long Beach Peninsula Figure 3. Changes in the relative locations of the +8.0 foot elevation. Taken from Washington State Department of Fisheries data. Relative Movement: 200 Feet per Inch -erosion accretion CD fu 0) CD -4- -4 0) a) 0) Ce tn. 52 Grayland 51 - 50- 49 - '48 46 48 47 .46- 45[ 44 0 1 2 Horizontal Scale: feet X 1000 Figure 4. Historical Shoreline Changes in the Grayland area maximum changes occurring at the north and south ends of the beach. The southern section is accretional in a westerly direction, and shows the largest amount of change in the entire Grayland area. While this portion of the beach is accreting in a westerly direction, it is being eroded in a northerly direction as the mouth of Willapa. Harbor migrates northward. Curves of the Department of Fisheries data (Figure 5) show a general decrease in the accretion rates northward along the Grayland beaches. This northern portion of the beach, up to 460 521, is reasonably stable in that it shows little change over the last 50 years. North Beach Mapping was available for the North Beach area from 1887, 1913., 1926, 1936., 1952.1 1955, and 1977. These shorelines are portrayed on Figure 6 and the asso- ciated accretion-erosion rates in Appendix B. Here the pattern is similar to that of Long Beach with a great deal of accretion occ urr ing next to the North Jetty. Indeed, the highest accretion rates encountered in the study were at 460 59' where a 100-year rate of 35 feet per year occurs. 'Ihe width of accreted sand diminishes rapidly northward to Copalis Rocks where it becomes zero. North of Copal4.,; Head the sea cliffs meet the high tide line and the beach is generally erosional. The erosional retreat of the cliffs is so slow that it was below the limits of precision for the older mapping. A comparison of the 1952 and 1977 air photos for the area just north of Copalis Rocks show a retreat of approximately 20 feet or about 0.8 feet per year. Near by, Copalis Head is actively slumping seaward, possibly-as fast as the sea can remove the material. Between Copalis Head and Iron Springs, the sea cliffs are overgrown with vegetation and do not appear to be actively eroding. North of Iron Springs to _10- 46%0' 46049" Lm (D CL 46472 46*45.3' LAW Grayland 51 56 61 66 71 76 Y e a r S Figure 5. Changes in the relative locations of the +8.0 foot elevation. Taken from Washington State Department of Fisheries data. I I I I I I I Figure 6. Historical Shoreline Changes in the North Beach area I I I I I I I I I I I I m m m m = m m m m m North Beach 09- CM 08- 4708 07 - 06- 05- g 04- 03- 02- 01 - 00- 59- 58 0 2 Horizontal Scale: fe Pacific Beach, there is no vegetation on the sea cliffs and they are actively eroding, but not very fast. In this section there is a U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey marker called "Bluff" that is no closer to the edge of the sea cliff now than it was in 1927 when it was implaced. From Pacific Beach to Moclips, the Burlington Northern Railroad runs along the base of the sea cliff., 20 to 30 feet higher than the high tide level. The entire section is riprapped. A conversation with Harry Nordquist, the BN main- tenance supervisor, revealed that the riprapping apparently stopped the erosion and that it required very little maintenance. At the town of Moclips the sea cliffs retreat and a small pocket beach forms. Here the residents have built summer homes on the very edge of the ero- sion line, and are able to maintain the homes with pole bulkheads they implace themselves. All these observations lead to the conclusion that, although the shoreline from Copalis Head to Moclips is geomorphologically erosional, it has not been eroding very fast, at least for the past 20 years. The Fisheries data (Figure 7) confirm this general picture of high accre- tion rates on the southern portion of this beach, diminishing northward until the curves at Moclips are almost flat. Note the abrupt change in the character of the curves from 470 04, to 470 11'. These curves represent changes south and north of Copalis Head which is the northern limit of active accretion. The North Beach section is the only section in the study that has streams large enough to show the effects of the longshore drift. For example, the mouth of the Copalis River moved 2,700 feet northward in the 25-year period from 1952 to 1977. Even more spectacular is Conner Creek which lies to the south of the Copalis River. Durine; the life of Conner Creek, its moitth has moved northward 2.4 miles. Further to the north, the mouths of the Moclips River and Joe Creek (at Pacific Beach) appear to be presently moving south. The streams appear to _14- I I - I I I I I Figure 7. Changes in the relative locations of the +8.0 foot elevation. Taken from Washington State Department of Fisheries data. I I I I I I I I I I I I 47 13 47 11 4704 4703.5 47001 CL L16 4700 CD C4 46 59 E North Beach 51 56 61 d6 76 Y e a r s be behaving in a cyclic fashion. Their mouths are pushed northward by the long- shore drift, thus extending the channel length and reducing the gradient. This continues until the stream system becomes so inefficient that the northerly prograding bar is cut off and the stream starts the cycle again. Bay Mouth Changes The major changes in the configuration of the shorelines have occurred at the mouths of Grays Harbor and Willapa Harbor; as well as adjacent to the Col- umbia River. In these areas the sand is not only moved by ocean waves, but also by tidal and river currents. Bay mouths are commonly characterized by rapidly shifting sands and this is true for the bay mouths along the Washington coast. Grays Harbor The earliest mapping in Grays Harbor (1852) shows a relatively narrow chan- nel between Point Brown on the north and Point Chehalis on the south. Off the southernmost part of Point Brown laid Eld Island which was a prominent enough feature to be mapped in the Goverment Land Office Surveys in the 1850's. Suc- cessive maps show that between 1862 and 1891, Eld Island eroded away and Point Brown eroded in a northerly direction about 4,000 feet (approximately 140 feet per year). During the same time period, Point Chehalis accreted about 4,300 feet in a northwesterly direction as shown in Figure 8. By 1898 construction had commenced on the South Jetty. The 12,000-foot- long jetty was completed in 1902. This jetty provided an excellent barrier to the northernly longshore drift, and by 1904, the area behind the jetty had ac- creted 3,000 feet west. Between 1904 and 1933, the jetty subsided and eroded and the area behind it eroded back about 2,700 feet by 1939. A jetty rehabili- tation project commenced in 1933, was completed in 1939, and by 1946, the area south of it had accreted 1,100 feet from the 1939 position. Subsequent jetty -17- Pt. Brown 46'55' (C Pt. Chehalis 0 5 10 ;cale ' X 103 Ft. Figure 8. Bay Mouth Changes adjacent to Grays Harbor CP The arrows are both 4,300' long, indicating relatively similar rates of change on Pt. Brown and Pt. Chehalis. erosion led to shoreline retreat after 1959 and the jetty rehabilitation in 1966 spurred another short period of accretion (Figure 9). Presently the area south of the South Jetty is in an erosional phase and it will probably remain so unless the jetty is again rehabilitated. The construction of the North Jetty began in 1907 and the first 10,000 feet was completed by 1910. An additional 7,000 feet was added to the jetty between 1910 and 1913. BY 1916 the jetty had to be reconstructed and raised. The jetty construction stopped the northward erosion of Point Brown, and prevented, to a degree, the southward accretion of it. So Point Brown accreted southwesterly along the north side of the jetty some 10,000 feet by 1930. Jetty reconstruc.- tion in 1942 was preceded by a slight erosional period, but ultimately resulted in another 3,000 feet of accretion to 1960. From 196o to 1968, there was about 400 feet of erosion. It seems likely that jetty rehabilitation in 1975 will result in a few more years of accretion next to the jetty. Comparison of the erosion-accretion rates next to the jetties of Grays Harbor leads to the following observations. a) Whether the beaches are eroding or accretirZ is dependent to a large degree upon the state of repair of the jetty system. b) The area behind the North Jetty has accreted faster and further west than the land behind the South Jetty. c) The effect of the South Jetty only extends a couple of miles down (southward) the beach while the accretion next to the North Jetty is probably responsible for the beach configuration up (northward) to Copalis Rocks. Willapa Harbor In the later part of the 1800's the spits on both sides of Willapa Harbor were migrating towards one another so that by the 1880's the bay mouth was only _19- 4000- 00 0)2000- 00 LZ .......... .......... .......... .......... ..... .......... ........... IQ OL ............. 1900 3 0 4'0 5'0 60 1910 Years Figure 9. Erosion-accretion rates measured at a point 800 feet south at the South Jetty of Grays Harbor. The stippled pattern indicates periods of jetty construction or rehabilitation. three miles wide. Between 1852 and 1887, Cape Shoalwater migrated southward 2,500 feet (71 ft/yr), while Leadbetter Point migrated northward about 7,000 feet (200 ft/yr). Sometime between 1890 and 1911., this situation was reversed and both spits started to erode apart. The northward erosion at Cape Shoalwater has been continuous although at varying rates (Figure 10). But the erosion at Leadbetter Point has been interupted by periods of accretion so that, in total, its posi- tion has not changed a great deal since 1887 (Figure 11). The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers describes the cyclic nature of the erosion rates as follows: "Periods of no erosion are attributed to the extended length of the outer bar and entrance channel southward resulting in reduced wave action on and temporary stabilization of the inner bar. The channel ultimately becomes too long to be efficient and breaks through the northern part of the outer bar, severing the bar., leaving the south- ern portion without a sand supply for nourishment. The severed por- tion of the outer bar is then driven onto the inner bar by ocean waves. The resultant enlarged inner bar crowds the north (main en- trance) channel tight against Cape Shoalwater and narrows the channel. Resulting increased tidal velocities causes accelerated erosion of the shoreline. The restricted main channel also tends to force de- velopment of a secondary channel to the south near Leadbetter Point. Subsequent widening of the north channel due to erosion of the north bank and development of the south channel tends to relieve the pres- sure on the Cape Shoalwater shoreline, with erosion diminishing. The northern portion of the outer bar begins to build southward again and the cycle is repeated. This cycle appears to take from 13 to 20 year, normally." The erosion at Cape Shoalwater will continue its northward path, being con- strained somewhat by the old sea cliffs, until the channel entrance abi-uptly jumps to the area near Leadbetter Point and the northward migration process starts over again. There is some weak evidence that this may have happened in the past prior to 1890. The evidence is the intersecting dune ridges on the Leadbetter Spit that show periods of erosion on the spit. There are no data in this report predicting when such an event might occur and considering that the channel has been moving northward since 1890, it seems reasonable to assume that it will continue northward at least for the time period covered in this report. -21- 250- North Cove Erosion Rates 200- . ...... ............ ........... ........... ........... ...... ........... ... ..... ........... .. ..... ........... ........... ........... ........... ........... @.,l 50 .................. ................. .... .................. :: -* ................. -* ........... ............................ ........... ....................... ............ ...................... - - -- ----------- ................... ................ ........ ... ................................... ........................... .................... ............................................ ................. .... ............... CL .......... :.................... ...... ............................................... .......... .................. ............... .............................. ............... ........ .... ... ............... .................. ........ ..................... ............. ....... ............... ......... . ....... ........ ....... ......................... ..... ....... ........... ................. ,*_100- .............. ............... ........... .............. . ............. ................................................... .................... ....... ............ ...................... ................... . ....... ............. ..... ...................... . ............. ..... .................................. ......................... ................ ..................... ...... ........ ............. .......... ................. .... ........ @.... .:.: ............................ ............................... ........... ................... . ....... ... ..... ................................. ............... .................. .......... ........... ............ ................. . ............. r- 50- ............I. ..... .................. ........... .................. .......... .................................................. ............... ...... .................. ....... ...... .................. ..................................................... .................. .................................. .............. .................................... ....................... . ........... ..........I......................... . ........ ............... ............... .... ........ ........ ................. ........... .......................................... LAJ .......................................................... ............................................. ....... ....... .................. ............. . ......................................... ... .............................. .......... ............ ............................... ........................................... OL ... ..................... ............... !.... **'*"* ...... * I ....... I... " *.... *'*"*****'**I*''* ............;. .....I .... 1890 1910 1930 1950 1967 1955 1965 1975 Years Long Term Short Term Figure 10. North Cove erosion rates. Long-term rate data was taken from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reports (1969) and the short-term data from the Pacific County Assessors Office. ray Lf) 00 04 46*37'30' Scale 1: 24 00 0 Figure 11. Historical Shoreline Changes on Leadbetter Point A PRELIMINARY SAND BUDGET The factors involved in a sand budget are shown in Figure 12. Many of these factors are poorly known. In some cases there are differences of opinion as to the direction of movement of the sand which must be resolved before the rates of sand movement and the volumes moved can be considered seriously. It is the pur- pose of this section to summarize the "state of the art" as described in the literature concerning the factors in the sand budget. Sources of the Sand Heavy mineral studies done by Ballard in 1964, and confirmed by others (Lockett, 1965; Scheidegger and others, 1971) show that the beaches of South- western Washington are composed of sand of Columbia River origin. It is pos- sible that sea cliff erosion from the area north of Copalis Head, and some of the rivers of the Olympic Peninsula contribute sand to the system, but this contribution has never been identified by sediment analyses. The sand is carried as bed load in the Columbia River system and the bed load volumes have not been measured directly. They are usually attained by measuring the suspended load volumes and assuming the bed load to be a percent of the suspended load. Sternberg, et al (1977) list the following estimates of suspended load Annual Suspended Investigator Year River Position Load (tons/year) Van Winkle (1914) 1910-11 Bonneville 7.0 x 106 Judson & Ritter (1964) 1950-52 Denudation Rate 3.3 x lo7 Calculation Haushild, et al (1966) 1962-63 Vancouver 8.4 x 106 Whetten (1969) who also reported some of the above figures estimated that the bed load was 10% of the suspended load estimated the Columbia River bed load at -24- 411kL Submarine Caqyons A (0.7) .... . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ... . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Columbia ......... .. ... . Longshore D r i f t S y s it E m River Dunes Bays Beaches (1) (2.5) Figure 12. A preliminary sand budget for the longshore drift system. The figures in parentheses are very rough estimates of annual volumes in millions of cubic yards. somewhat less than 106 tons/year. This estimate was.based on his study of sand wave movement in the Bonneville resevoir. Gross (1972) estimated ten million tons as the total sediment discharge of the Columbia River. By reworking long- term scour and fill data published by Lockett (1962), he concludes that 4.5 million tons (45%) is deposited within 10 kilometers (6 miles) of the river mouth and 2.5 million tons (35%) is deposited within the entrance channel annually. Jay & Good (1977) report unpublished U.S. Geological Survey data on sedi- ment transport in the Columbia River. According to U.S. Geodetic Survey esti- mates the proportion of sand,as a percentage of the total sediment transport at Vancouver, varies from 0% for flows of 100,000 cfs to 65% for flows of 700,000 cfs. The U.S. Geological Survey approximates the coarse sediment trans- ported by the Columbia and Willamette Rivers as 2.41 million tons during the water year 1963. Please note that the sediment load of the Columbia River is extremely variable, ranging from 5.8 to 41 million tons for years 1968 to 1970. Another example of the variability of sediment transport is that in 1965, a single storm contributed 8.6 million tons of sediment during a single week. Jay & Good (1977),- using the U.S. Geological Survey, estimate the bed load trans- port at Vancouver as ranging from 1 to 10 million tons annually from 1963 to 1970. Longshore Drift The direction of longshore drift displays a seasonality which is northward in the winter and southward in the sumer (Ballard, 1964). Thus the beaches display accretion patterns characteristic of drift in both directions. Because of the greater intensity of the winter storms, the rate of drift is greater in the summer than it is in the winter. This results in a net northward drift along the Washington coast. -26- This general scheme of longshore movement of sand is altered somewhat by local wave refractions; for example, next to the North Jetty of Grays Harbor (Dave Schuldt, personal comunication, 1978). So there are, indeed, local al- terations to the general sand movement. It is important to note that, although there is a net northernly drift, the winter storm that are moving the sand in this direction are also removing the sand from the beaches. Conversely, the summer southward component moves the sand onto the beaches. So structures and headlands that block this sLumier sand movement appear to accrete very fast as compared to the structures that are in a position to block the northward sand drift. The volumes of sand involved in the drift have been calculated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973). These calculations were done by several methods but were all hindered by a lack of wave data. The averages of the methods used are 4.7 x 10 6 cubic yards/year northward and 2.5 x 106 cubic yards/year southward in the area of North Beach. The same in- vestigations (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973) also point out the accumulation rates of sand behind the North Jetty of Grays Harbor at 2.3 x 10 6 cubic yards/ year from 1910 to 1928 and 1.7 x 106 cubic yards/year from 1942 to 1959. Bay Entrapment The estuaries involved in this study are drown river valleys. Such estu- aries appear to be sediment traps removing sand from the longshore drift by the bottom flow of water associated with the salt wedge (Rusnak, 1967; Meade, 1969). Heavy mineral analyses led Scheidegger & Phipps (1976) to conclude that "Grays Harbor receives marine sands of Columbia River origin." The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1973, p. A-33) calculate from dredging data that (at the time) about 610,,000 cubic yards /year of the dredging results from the littoral drift entering the estuary from North Beach. This volume of -27- of sediment comes from a very small portion of the estuary, the channel, and there are no calculations of how much marine sand is deposited in the estuary outside of the channel. It would seem reasonable to consider that at least as much is deposited at non-channel sites. Using this logic we can assign an an- nual net loss to the longshore drift system of about half a million cubic yards into Grays Harbor. The conditions at Willapa Harbor suggest that it can entrap more sand than Grays Harbor because it lacks the jetties. A possible offsetting factor is the erosion at Cape Shoalwater. Some of this sand may enter the littoral system. Considering these factors, it appears that Willapa Harbor can be assigned to entrap about half a million cubic yards of sand annually. Transport Down Submarine Canyons The removal of sediment from the near shore system by channeling it down the submarine canyons is well documented. Studies from Oregon State University show sand with a Columbia River mineralogy in the submarine caryons along the Oregon-Washington coast. Using one of these studies (Nelson, 1966) it is esti- mated that approximately one-third million yards of sand per year has been going out on the Astoria Fan, via the Astoria Canyon (averaged over the past 6,600 years). The other canyons, like Willapa, Grays, and Quinault Canyons, probably act in a similar fashion, but not necessarily similar volume. Cross-shelf Transport Nittrouer (1978) describes the sediment on the Washington Continental Shelf as relict on the outer shelf, bounded by a mid-shelf silt deposit, bounded near shore sands. This pattern precludes cross-shelf transport of sand from the near shore except through submarine canyons as mentioned above. -28- Loss to the Dune System The dune system along the Washington beaches is a typical progradational dune system with a series of long dunes formed parallel to the coast line. The positions of the dunes are stable; they do not generally migrate. In most areas the recent losses to the dune system would be manifest as vertical growth in the primary dune. Interviews with beach residents suggest that this is occur- ring along, many areas of the beaches but the data was not quantifiable. Beach Accretion The data presented in this report allows a crude approximation of beach accretion volumes. A much better estimate could be obtained from studies of nearshore and beach profiles, if they were available. Approximately 21-2 million cubic yards annually were added to the beaches between 1952 and 1977. This figure involves the following assumptions: 1) The accretion extended uniformly out to a depth of -10 feet (arbitrarily chosen) and back to the base of the dunes at +10 feet elevation. 2) From the Copalis River south to North Head, the beach was accreting al- though at different rates. There was no contribution from beach or cliff erosion. Sea Level Changes Long-term sea level changes for the West Coast have been determined by Hicks (1972). His data, taken from tidal information, suggest a 10 cm rise (averaged over the West Coast) for the period from 1890 to 1970. If it is further assumed that the average beach slope is about one degree, then such a sea level rise would account for about 19 feet of erosion for that time period. The two closest stations to the area of interest were not used by Hicks -29- (1972) because of "river discharge variations" (Astoria), or "acute land emer- gence from recent glacial melting" (Neah Bay). However, one can calculate the shoreline change based on Hicks' apparent secular trends (1940-1970) for each of these stations. Assuming a one-degree land slope, the trend from the Astoria station would produce an accretion rate of 5 cm/yr while the trend from Neah Bay yields a 7 cm/yr accretion rate. Even though the local stations show accretion and the regional West Coast data suggests erosion, it is clear that in any case the changes in the beaches caused by secular sea level changes are at least two orders of magnitude smaller than the other measurements in this study. Discussion The factors involved in the preliminary sand budget are not well known and the volumes of sediment quoted in this section must be considered approximations. For all the inaccuracies, however, a budget approach allows one to consider the total system a little more rigorously than would be otherwise allowed. Simplistically, the system appears closed with Columbia River sand input and outputs by beach accretion, bay entrapment, dune growth, and transport down submarine canyons. When one of these factors is affected by man or nature, the others will respond to balance the budget. The construction of the jetties on Grays Harbor and the Columbia River al- tered the system by considerably increasing the accretion rates behind them, and by forcing sediment from the Coltimbia River into deeper water, where its return to the longshore drift system was less efficient. At roughly the same time the spits bounding Willapa Harbor started to erode apart. So the trapping of sand by the jetties removed large quantities of sand from the longshore drift system. However, the areas behind the jetties may be -30- nearly filled, so if the jetties are maintained in their present conditions, then there should be relatively more sand available for beach nourishment. Historically, dams act as sediment traps, and there has been some concern that dams on the Columbia River might effect the sediment volume in the long- shore drift system. Apparently such has not been the case, to date, with the Columbia River system. Most of the sand is transported during high flow times, and as the dams control the high river flow periods, the rate of sand transport will diminish. Furthermore, Lockett (1962) and Jay & Good (1977) both express concern that dams on the Columbia River and its tributaries have greatly reduced the spring freshets which flush sediment from the estuary. The amount of sediment t-ans- fered from the estuary to the longshore drift system is one of the weakest por- tions of the budget considerations. None the less, observations from his study do not indicate diminished beach accretion rates attributable to the dams. Dredging on the Columbia River and in Grays Harbor involves large volumes of sediment. About the same order of magnitude as is involved with any factors in the sediment budget. This may well become an important factor in future beach budget considerations. -31- YEAR 2000 PROJECTION Introduction It is a simple matter to graphically extrapolate historical data to project future shoreline conditions. The accuracy of the projection is dependent upon the consistancy of the dynamics of the beach system. That is, if the beach be- haves for the next 22 years the way it behaved for the last 25 years, then the projection will be very accurate. Unfortunately, the factors in the recent past are only scarcely identified and poorly quantified. A comparison with the wea- ther predictions might be useful. The driving force of sediment movement along the coast is the weather. It's the rain that erodes the lard and brings sand to the seashore, and it is the wind that generates the waves (and some of the currents) that move sediment along the shoreline. Who would make a projection for the next 22 years of weather conditions? Yet for all the inaccuracies, a projection of future conditions is a use- ful thing for seveal reasons. First, some sort of projection is fundamental to managing the shoreline and, second, if such a projection exists and is agreed upon, it may help the various shoreline managers to be more consistent in their planning. Third, and perhaps most important, a projection is really a hypothe- sis that is tested each year. Thus, shorter term changes can be observed and considered relative to the over-all scheme, rather than considering such sho rt- term changes as incoherent, random events. Procedure The year 2000 shoreline was projected using the following procedures: 1) The changes between the 1950's and 1977 are the most recent and thus the best data to use. Erosion-accretion rates from this time -32- frame will be the fundamental data for the projection. 2) Me primary rates used come from measurements from aerial photo- graphy. These measurements are modified in the area of the Fish- eries profiles as the latter are considered to be at least an order of magnitude more precise. 3) The Fisheries profiles accretion rates were obtained by regression analyses on all the data that were available for any given profile. Assumptions The following assumptions are inherent in the projection: 1) The climatic conditions for the next 22 years will be about the same as for the last 25 years. 2) The source of sand available to the beaches will be the same., as will be the quantities. 3) The present jetty systems will remain the same, or at least be maintained at about their present conditions. 4) The bay mouth changes at Willapa Harbor will continue without a drastic change (to the south) of the channel. Discussion The Year 2000 map consists of several sheets., each representative of a M. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map (Appendix C). The maps are designed so that the future shoreline can be scaled off, at even minute intervals, and transferred to the appropriate quad sheet. Scaling should be done east-west from the line of longitude on the Year 2000 map. The vertical scale of the sheets is one inch equals one minute of latitude (6,000 feet), while the hori- zontal scale is one inch equals 1,000 feet. In the erosion areas where the -33- change is too small to show up on this scale, a stippled pattern is used. Areas where the shoreline is questionable or based on inadequate data are dashed. The changes at the tip of Leadbetter Point are not included in the maps on Appendix C, but rather the reader is referred to Figure 11. On that figure, the Year 2000 shoreline will presumably lie somewhere between the 1887 shoreline and the 1967 shoreline. The problem on Leadbetter Point is that the apparent lor- term erosional trend reversed itself between 1967 and 1973, and from 1973 to 1976 it started eroding again. The latter is far too short a time span upon which to base a projection. Changes in the Cape Shoalwater area were taken from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1969) projections. The projected shoreline is dated 1994 rather than Year 2000 and appears on a Xerox copy of a portion of the North Cove Quadrangle in Appendix C. -34- SAND DUNES AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES The sand dunes of coastal Wahsington occur as parallel dune ridges. These ridges are formed by the vegetation catching and holding the wind-born sand. As the shoreline has prograded, new ridges are formed in front of the older ones, leaving a shallow depression between and leaving the older dune ridge without a source of sand. Across the Long Beach Peninsula,, there are approximately 20 mappable dune ridges. The height of the ridge is probably a function of its active life span (the longer it's active, the higher it gets) and the efficiency of the vegetation to trap the sand. The present western-most ridge called -the primary dune (or foredune) is relatively high which may be a function of man's efforts at stabili- zation through the introduction of European beach grass Ammophilia arenaria (L. Lind). According to Cooper in a personal communication to Wiedeman in 1965, the height of the present primary dune has developed since the introduction of the European beach grass. This grass was introduced to Washington and Oregon in the late 1800's from Europe (Wiedeman, 1966). It has been used in Europe for centu- ries for sand dune control. This grass attains maximum growth and vigor where sand deposition by wind is greatest, i.e., the open ocean beach. The grass has a strong stabilizing effect on sand and effectively reduces the amount.of.sand moving inland off the beach. Another plant that establishes itself in the foredune and is a pioneer in the ecological succession is Ambrosia chamissonis (Less), the silver beach weed. Lupinus littoralis and Poa macrantha are two other pioneer plants of the dry, shifting sand area of the foredune. The European beach grass and the silver beach weed are the dominant pioneer -35- plants observed in the ecological succession pattern of Washington beaches in this study. They are vigorously controlled by the shifting surface of the sand due to wind and wave action. As the plants increase in number and size, the sand becomes stabilized and there are related changes in plant associations (Kumler, 1966). However, drifting sand and/or wave action can cause either advances or retreats in the succession of dune plants. Similarily man-caused removal of sand in the foredune area can cause a retreat of the dune vegetation. Alter- ation or sand removal from a stabilized primary dune also may cause consider- able change in the number and location of pioneer plants of the foredune and their role in the dune stabilization dynamics. Tolerance of Dunes to Activities of Man Ian McHarg (1969) reports on the guidelines developed in Holland through years of experience in the chapter "Sea and Survival" in his book, Design With Nature. Battelle Northwest adapted McHarg's work in their report, "The Future of the Long Beach Peninsula" (1970) to list the general tolerance characteristics across the Long Beach Peninsula. The Battelle study points out that the primary dune is a "defensive line protecting lands behind it from storm waves and high tides and should be considered intolerant to unnatural disturbances." They go on to say that the beaches, the trough, and the back dune are considerably more tolerant to the activities of man. This concern for the primary dune is addressed in the National Flood In- surance Program, Section 1910.3 (e). This section of the program suggests that the primary and secondary dunes are not only keys to the survival of the beach and coastal areas, but that they are important as protection against loss of life and property during flooding. Because of such concerns, a new provision -36- was added to the revised rule requiring communities to prohibit man-made alter- ation of sand dunes. Measured Sand Dune Changes In the Long Beach area the Pacific County Engineering Office set 55 steel pole markers in the primary foredune in September and October 1976 as part of a Department of Ecology grant to establish a referral line. The markers were set in concrete which was flush with the surface of the sand in the foredune a few feet west of the most dense vegetation. By visiting 36 of those markers and digging down to the concrete and then measuring the depth of the sand removed, it was possible to measure vertical increase in sand in the primary foredune. The average increase in depth in approximately 20 months was 20.3 inches, with a range of zero to 33 inches (Figure 13). The areas that had minimal growth appear to be associated with access roads to the beach. Minimal vertical dune growth is indicated in Figure 13 at four locations: near 14th Street in Long Beach, in the vicinity of Cranberry Road, approximately one mile south of Klipsan Road, and near Bay Avenue in Ocean Park. At the 14th Street location and the south Klipsan location, there is no maintained access road. However, heavily- used, four-wheel drive roads are located in both of these areas. These gaps in the dune permit sand to move through the foredune and be blown out of the dune area. During the study, trucks were observed removing sand 0.2 mile south of Cranberry Road at the rate of approximately 40 cubic yards per hour. Trucks were not observed at other approach roads during the brief time alloted for this study, but it is believed that in recent years beach sand has been removed from time to time from the vicinity of beach roads. It appears that the concentrated removal of sand from the beach is a major contributing factor in inhibiting -37- 3 30 25- 20- 15 10- now 19 20 21 22 23 24 2'5 26 27 2@ 29 30 311 32 313 314 315 3.6 Latitude: minutes Figure 13. Changes in the depth of accumulated sand on the "grass-line" markers on the Long Beach Peninsula. Note that the areas of least amount of land accumulation are generally associated with an access road. vertical dune growth. By using the Pacific County beach marker mentioned above, it is possible to make an estimate of foredune advance or retreat since October 1976. There was only one area of foredune accretion, that being the post located 0.'36 mile south of D Street in Seaview, where an estimated 20 feet of growth has occ urr ed. The only other area of noticeable change was the retreat of the foredune in the vicinity of marker posts located north and south of Cranberry Road. The southern end of this retreating foredune is 0.20 mile south of Cranberry Road and the northern end is 2.07 miles north of Cranberry Road. Five marker posts in this retreating foredune area averaged a loss of 46 feet, as indicated by the retreat of vegetation in an easterly direction. Although the retreating dune area is only based on the subjective judgement of relation of vegetation to the marker posts, it does reinforce the more quan- titative indicator of lack of vertical dune growth in the Cranberry Road area. Maximum, vertical dune growth on the Long Beach Peninsula since the marker posts were established in September 1976 was 33 inches. This post was located 0.46 mile south of Klipsan Road, and is 0.42 mile north of a marker post that measured only one inch of vertical growth. These two marker posts, only 0.42 miles apart, present the greatest variability in the set of 36 posts measured. Table 2 shows the vertical dune growth at various posts in the vicinity of Klipsan Road. -39- Table 2: Vertical dune growth in the vicinity of Klipsan Road since September 1976. Station Miles from Vertical Dune Number Klipsan Road Direction Growth in Inches 020 2.26 South 22 021 1.85 South 20 022 1.43 South 9 023 0.88 South 1 024 0.46 South 33 025 0.27 North 28 026 0.55 North 28 027 0.87 North 23 In observing the sand dune around Stations 022 and 023, several man-caused features may explain the lack of vertical growth. At Station 022 the dune buggy road through the dune approximately 900 feet to the north may be a factor. The continual driving of dune buggies and four-wheel drive vehicles in the foredune and primary dune in this area may contribute to the problem. Station 023 has a dune buggy road through the dune approximately 1,100 feet south of the marker post. There are 12 dune buggy roads through the dune between Cranberry Road and Klipsan Road. Also, 200 feet south of Station 023, it appears that the primary dune was cut down to open the view for a residence. This type of alteration probably contributed to the lack of vertical growth at Station 023. Recent Dune Stabilization Attempts A dune stabilization project has been started at Twin Harbors State Park. The installation of snow fences on top of a secondary dune in March 1978 has accumulated approximately 22 inches of sand on both sides of the fence. A planting schedule of European beach grass and fertilization has been set up beginning in October 1.978 and continuing for three years. The goal of this co- operative project-with the Soil Conservation Service of the Department of Agri- culture is to halt the eastward movement of the dune towards Highway 101. -4o- A second dune stabilization project is under way in the Ocean Shores area. Here, at the southern end of the beach, on the northern side of the North Jetty, limited accretion and vertical dune growth have occurred. The sand is now as high as the North Jetty, and northerly winds pick the sand up and carry it in a southerly direction into the channel entrance. In order to stabilize this area, a beach grass planting project has been implemented by the City of Ocean Shores and the Soil Conservation Section of the U.S. Department of Agriculture. European beach grass was planted in approximately two acres of unstable., wind-driven sand just north of the North Jetty in the Fall of 1976. Fertilizers were applied at the rate of 250 pounds of 16-16-16 (P-N- potash) per acre along the foredune for a distance of approximately 1-12 miles. IN adition, two 500-foot snow fences were installed in the summer of 1976 to aid in the deposition of sand to rebuild the primary dune which was washed away during the destruction of the North Jetty. Some of the planted grass apparently did not have sufficient time to get rooted, since winter storms removed many of the plantings. However, some of the grass plantings did stabilize blowout areas and areas of disturbed dune vegeta- tion. Although the snow fences were accreting sand effectively at about a rate of two inches per month, winter storms and high tides took out the fences in November 1976. A second group of fences established further inland in the same area were destroyed by a storm and high tides in March 1977. The fence program has been abandoned,, but plantings of European beach grass and dune fertilization is planned for 1978 and 1979., since these plants are capable of surviving under marginal conditions. -41- Man-induced Dune Modification Recreation Vehicles A considerable recreational vehicle problem exists in the dunes in the area from Oyehut to Ocean City. The dunes in the city of Ocean Shores have been de- clared Natural Areas, and use by motorcycles,.horses, and four-wheel drive vehicles is prohibited. By comparison of aerial photographs, one can see the multiplicity of trails in the area north of Ocean Shores where such a prohibition is not en- forced. While there is less evidence of trails through the dunes in the Ocean Shores Natural Areas. Police Chief Gale Stokes of Ocean Shores stated that dur- ing the recent, prohibition of driving on the beach and dunes south of the Ocean Shores.access road., the primary dune increased in height as much as five feet in some areas where four-wheel drive vehicles were previously destroying the dune. The use of recreational vehicles in and through the dunes seems to be the most vexing problem caused by man along Washington beaches. The drivers of dune buggies and four-wheel drive vehicles, the motorcyclists, and the horseback riders do not feel compelled to use existing access roads. If this type of use were infrequent, the dune vegetation would recover and dune stability would be maintained. However., two areas along the Washington beaches, one between Klip- san Road and Cranberry Road at Long Beach and the other in the dunes that are part of Ocean Shores, demonstrate the destructive impact of increasing numbers of vehicles driving through the dunes. Access Roads Various local officials., such as county commissioners, county planners, and various city officials were unanimous in saying there are adequate access roads, with one exception. Grays Harbor County Commissioner Youmans expressed a need for at least one new road near Roosevelt Beach. The roads are very expensive -42- to maintain, and even though some support funds are available from state agencies, no one felt more access roads are a solution to traffic bottlenecks,, especially during clam tides. Reducing the number of clam diggers by some management tech- nique or delaying the exit of some of the people from the beach were mentioned as possible ways to improve the bottleneck situation. Various local officials and citizens were unanimous in their desire to be- able to drive on the beaches and to park cars on the beaches during clam digging. The alternative of not driving on the beaches during a clam tide and providing parking in the dune area was not accepted as a realistic solution by people in- terviewed. According to these people, even during closed clam seasons, driving restrictions would in effect create private beaches between approach roads, since many people will not walk very far away from the roads. It was the feeling that if adequate parking for clam diggers were to be provided, hundreds of acres of valuable dunes would have to be paved or other- wise altered. The resulting aesthetic and ecological effects of trying to cope with parking cars behind the dunes would cause many new problem that need care- ful study as to their long-range effects. Alterations to Primary Dunes The other major problem in the dune area is the removing of a section of dune by home owners and developers in order to maintain a view of the ocean. Such excavations have beenmade on the beach near Klipsan as well as at Gray- land and the beaches north of Grays Harbor. An opening such as this allows the sand to move through the gap by wind action, and removes protection from winter storm waves. Both of these effects could create some problems for the home owner. First, his home may become a giant sand trap and, second, the home is much more vulnerable to destruction by catastrophic storm waves. Furthermore, this type of opening is used by recreational vehicles for access to the beach, -43- further destroying pioneer vegetation seeking to stabilize the sand. Obviously, the lowering of the primary dune should be avoided except at designated access roads. It is the opinion of several people interviewed that sand dunes and atten- dant vegetation will "heal" if given the opportunity. However, the increasing popularity of the ocean beach areas for view cabins and recreational vehicles are not conductive to the "healing" process. The inability of various levels of government to adequately cope with the problems associated with the primary dune is frustrating for field personnel, who are apprehensive about the future of the beach environment. Driftwood Removal Another impact of man on the sand dune stability is the removal of drift- wood and logs from the beach. Driftwood and logs have probably always been re- moved by man from the beach. However, in recent years this activity has become more efficient with the widespread use of chain saws and four-wheel drive vehi- cles. People remove the wood before it has a chance to become incorporated into the foredune. The net result is to make the foredune and primary dune more vulnerable to erosion by wind and wave. Sand Removal Long Beach - Pacific County has a dual permit system allowing sand removal for both cranberry and construction purposes. All construction sand and any cran- berry-use sand over $1,000 value requires both a shoreline management perr,.dt and a "job ticket" permit issued by the county. Cranberry-use sand of $1,000 or less requires only the "job ticket" permit. The Pacific County Master Program allows sand removal only between mean high tide and a point 50 feet west of the grass line. It does not allow removal below mean high tide. -44- So far in 1978,, seven shoreline management permits and two "job ticket" permits have been issued by the Pacific County Public Works Department. The permit system amounts to a license to remove unlimited amounts of sand. No one knows how much sand is actually being removed since there is no monitoring of sand removal. During the study a group of trucks were loading sand just south of Cranberry Road at the rate of approximately 40 cubic yards per hour. A significant pit had been dug, since the loading proceeded for several days. Ob- servations of the pit area after approximately 36 hours of not being used re- vealed that the depression had already been partially filled by wind and tide. In spite of this apparent rapid recovery of the area, the continuous removal of sand from the same area does seem to affect the growth of the foredune, as in- dicated by the lack of vertical dune growth shown near Cranberry Road in Figure 13. The need for sand is considerable and falls into three main categories: cranberry bog fill, septic tank drain fields, and housing foundation fill. The volume of sand for cranberry bogs is minor compared to the need for construction and drain field use. And the amounts needed for the latter two uses will probably ircrease as housing starts continue to increase. Also, new housing must conform to the higher elevation requirements for the Nation Flood Insurance Program, which will require even more fill than has been used in the past. The long-term removal of sand appears to be concentrated in limited beach areas near access roads, e.g., Cranberry Road. It would appear prudent to spread the removal out over a longer stretch of beach. By a system of rotating areas open to sand removal on a quarterly or semi-annual basis, the effect on the dunes would be mitigated. Significant volumes of sand are used at Long Beach to maintain beach approach roads. Much of the sand is used to form shoulders five to six feet high along the approach road. These shoulders protect the dirt-gravel fill that is period- -45- ically put on the approach road. Grayland - Grays Harbor County allows sand removal for cranberries only if a variance is granted. A shoreline management permit is required where project value is over $1,000. The Grays Harbor County Master Program limits sand re- moval to the "upper beach" but does not allow removal from the primary dune. It should be noted that the North Cove area is in Pacific County and is governed by Pacific County Regulations. During recent years no permits have been filed with Grays Harbor County to remove sand from the beaches, since cranberry growers are assumed to be under the $1,000 sand-value limit, and other people are assumed to get sand elsewhere. The non-cranberry users are able to purchase other sand fill from private owner- ship (Hindman property) in the approximately 40-foot high sand dune in the North Cove area. The city of Westport has adopted the regulations of the National Flood In- surance Program. Illegal beach sand removal at Twin Harbors-Grayland does occur in the vi- cinity of County Line Road, and further north to a lesser degree. The impact of this removal on the dunes is unknown. The cranberry growers do not appear to take enough sand from limited areas to make a detectable impact on the dunes. It would be very helpful if steel marker posts were installed along this beach so that more objective measurements could be carried on over a number of years. North Beach - This area is also part of Grays Harbor County, and therefore sand is only permitted to be removed for cranberry culture. The city of Ocean Shores, in its access road maintenance program, makes limited amounts of sand available to contractors filling home sites within the limits of the city. There are only -46- a very few cranberry bogs in the area north of Grays Harbor, so that demand for sand for bogs is minimal. Ocean Shores has adopted the regulations of the National Flood Insurance Program. Homes in the city of Ocean Shores are now required to have their foun- dation begin at 18 inches elevation above the roadway. This calls for a consid- erable potential need for fill over the years. Much of this fill could come from the dirt-gravel pit in the Hogans Corner area. Other portions of the beach are governed by county regulation, and in new construction by the National Flood Insurance Program regulations. Rcw 43.51.685 gives the Washington State Parks and Recreation Commission jurisdiction of certain accreted lands including both public and private pro- perties in the Seashore Conservation area along the Pacific Ocean and also pro- vides in part as follows: "Sale of sand from accretions shall be made to supply the needs of cranberry growers for cranberry bogs in the vicinity and shall not be prohibited if found by the state Parks and Recreation C=Issinn to be reasonable, and not generally harmful or destructive to the character of the lands ...... "Provided further, that the state Parks and Recreation Commission may grant leases and permits for the re- moval of sands for construction purpose form any lands within the Washington State Seashore Conservation area." The present position of the state Parks and Recreational Commissi-on is to allow the counties to administer the sand removal program. However, the com- mission has several proposals related to sand removal which were outlined in their June 19, 1978, meeting under Agenda Item E-2; Ocean Beaches; Pacific and Grays Harbor Counties; Sand Permits, Blanket Authority. The approval of the.Shoreline Master Program for Pacific County and Grays Harbor County by the Washington Department of Ecology further complicates the management jurisdiction of sand removal from the beach. Resolution of the diverse and conflicting authority over who controls beach sand removal needs to be solved soon. Increasing demand for beach sand can be managed if some guidelines and monitoring are implemented. -47- BIBLIOGRAPHY Ballard, R. L. 1964. Distribution of beach sediment near the Columbia River, Washington. MS Thesis. University of Washington, 'Seattle, WA. 82 pp. Battelle Northwest. 1970. The future of the Long Beach Peninsula. Battelle Northwest, Richland, WA. Connission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. 1969. "Marine Engi- neering and Technology", Industry and Technology. Panel Reports. Volume 2, Part IV. February. Cooper, W. S. 1958. Coastal dunes of Oregon and Washington. Geological Society of America, Memoir 72. Gross., M. G. 1972. Sediment-associated Radionuclides from the Columbia River. Chapter 28 in: The Columbia River estuary and adjacent ocean waters (A. T. Pruter and D. L. Alverson, eds.) University of Washington Press, Seattle, WA. Haushild, W. L., Perkins, R. W., Stevens, H. H., Dempster, G. R., Jr., and Glenn, J. L. 1966. Radionuclide transport in the Pasco to Vancouver, Washington., reach of the Columbia River July 1962 to September 1963. Open-file Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR. 188 pp. Hicks, S. D. 1972. On the classification and trends on long-period sea level series. Shore & Beach, 40. pp. 20-23. Jay, D. and Good, J. 1977. Columbia River estuary sediment and sediment trans- port. Section 208 of Columbia River Estuary Inventory of Physical, Biologi- cal, and Cultural Characteristics. Crest, Astoria, OR. Judson, Sheldon and Ritter, D. F. 1964. Rates of regional denudation in the United States. Journal Geophysical Reseach, v. 69(16). pp. 3395-3401. Kumler, M. L. 1969 Plant succession on the sand dunes of the Oregon Coast. Ecology, v. 50(4). pp. 695-704. -48- Lockett., J. B. 1962. Phenomena affecting improvement of the Lower Columbia River estuary. Chapter 40 in: Proceedings of the 8th Annual Conference on Coastal Engineering (J. W. Johnson, ed.). Lockett., J. B. 1965. Some indicators of sediment transport and diffusion in the vicinity of the Columbia estuary and entrance, Oregon and Washington; pre- sented be-fore the International Association for Hydraulic Research, Port- land, OR, U.S. Army Engineers Division, North Pacific, 7 P. McHarg, I. L. 1969. Design With Nature. The Natural History Press, Garden City, NY. Meade, R. H. 1969. Landward transport of bottom sediments in estuaries of the Atlantic.Coastal Plain: Journal Sediment Petrology, v. 39. pp. 222-234. Nelson, 0. H. 1968. Marine geology of Astoria deep-sea fan. PhD Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 287 PP. Nittrouer, C. A. 1978. In preparation. PhD Thesis. University of Washington, Seattle, WA. Rusnak, G. A. 1967. Rates of sediment accumulation in modern estuaries: in Lauff, G. H. (ed.), Estuaries: American Association for the Advancement of Science, Publication 83, PP. 180-184. Scheidegger, K. F., Kulm, L. D., and Runge, E. J. 1971. Sediment sources and dispersal patterns of Oregon continental shelf sands: Journal Sediment Petrology, v. 41. pp. 1112-1120. Scheidegger, K. F. and Phipps, J. B. 1976. Dispersal patterns of sands in Grays Harbor estuary, Washington. Journal Sediment Petrology, v. 46. pp. 163-166. Schuldt, D. 1978. Hydrologist, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle office. personal com=ication. -49- Sternberg, R. W., Creager, J. S., Glassler, W., and Johnson, J. 1977. Aquatic disposal field investigations, Columbia River disposal site, Oregon. Ap- pendix A. Technical Report 0-77-30. U'.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Vicks- burg, Mississippi. Tegelberg, H., Magoon, D., and Leboki, M. 1969. The 1968 razor clam fisheries and sampling program . Washington State Department of Fisheries Research Division, Olympia, WA. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. 1969. Feasibility study, navigation and erosion, Willapa River and Harbor and Niselle River, Washington. Seattle District, WA. Van Winkle., W. 1914a. Quality of the surface waters of Washington. Water Supply Paper 339. U.S. Geological Survey. 105 PP. Whetten., J. T. . Kelley, J. C., and Hanson, L. G. 1969. Characteristics of Columbia River sediment and sediment transport. Journal Sediment Petrology, v. 39. PP. 1149-1166. Wiedeman, A. M. 1966. Contributions to the plant ecology of the Oregon coastal snad dunes. PhD Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis., OR. -50- I I I I I I I APPENDIX A I MAP SOURCES I I I I I I I I I I I MAP SOURdES Shoreline Date Source Long Beach 1871-73 U.S. C. & G. S. T-Sheets: 1341a, 1341b, 1293 1926 U.S. C. & G. S. T-Sheets: 42513- 4252 1936 U.S. Army Tactical Mapping 1948 Washington State Department of Natural Resources Surveys 1955 Aerial Photography 1977 Aerial Photography Grayland 1926 U.S. C. & G. S. H-Sheets 4620, 4621 1936 U.S. Army Tactical Mapping 1952 Aerial Photography 1955 Aerial Photography 1977 Aerial Photography North Beach 1887 U.S. C. & G. S. T-Sheets 1701, 1781.@ 1782 1913 U.S. G. S. Ocosta Quad 1926 U.S. C. & G. S. H-Sheets 47103, 4715 1952 Aerial Photography 1955 U.S. G. S. Quadrangles 1977 Aerial Photography -52- I I I I I I I APPENDIX B SHORELINE MEASUREMENTS I ACCRETION-EROSION RATES I DEPARTMENT OF FISEERIES DATA I I I I I I I I I I I LONG BEACH Distance from 1240 041 (feet) Year 1871-73 1926 1936 1948 1955 1977 371 -920 -340 300 361 -540 160 500 750 650 400 351 420 340 1080 1170 1200 950 341 1290 1090 1450 1620 1900 1600 331 2040 1500 1600 1870 2000 1900 321 2500 1750 2150 2180 2300 2050 311 2750 2130 2300 2340 2600 2100 301 2930 2340 2500 2550 2600 2300 4) 291 3170 2500 2700 2640 2700 2500 Ez 281 3170 2590 2800 2780 2650 2500 271 3250 2750 3000 2800 2650 2450 261 3275 2840 3000 2760 2700 2300 ru 25' 3330 2920 2900 2740 2600 2250 241 3360 2920 2800 2680 2400 1900 23' 3250 2840 2900 2180 2200 1650 221 3225 2670 2600 2190 2000 1400 211 3000 2390 2300 1770 1400 1000 201 2500 2000 1600 1140 800 400 19, 1790 1170 950 400 200 -300 Positive distances indicate the shoreline lies east of 1240 04'. Negative distances indicate the shoreline lies west of 1240 041. -54- GRAYLAND Distance from 1240 071 (feet) Year 1926 1936 1952-55* 1977 541 -3000 -4700 53' -2000 -1700 -2250 521 - 200 00 200 - 100 51 1400 1400 1650 1400 501 2700 2500 2900 2700 491 3900 3650 3900 3750 481 4700 4600 4800 4500 +J 471 5400 5400 "5200 5100 461 5750 5750 *5450 5350 451 6100 5500 *5400 5250 441 6100 5900 -- -- 431 7200 -- -- *denotes 1955 photographs Positive distances indicate the shoreline lies east of 1240 071. Negative distances indicate the shoreline lies *west of 1240 071. -55- NORTH BEACH Distance from 1240 101 (feet) Year 1887 1926 1936 1952-55* 1977 gI -5580 -5375 -5500 81 -3900 -3830 -4100 71 -2660 -2870 -3000 61 -2100 -1830 -2500 -2300 -2650 4J 51 -1330 -1080 -1550 -1500 -1900 41 - 580 - 420 - 700 -1100 -1500 31 00 00 - 250 - 650 -1050 4J rd 2f + 540 + 420 + 100 - 400 - 900 if + 900 + 670 + 300 - 50 - 750 Of +1400 + 580 + 300 -*300 - 900 -59' t2100 + 540 + 400 -*300 - 950 581 +3000 + 375 + 350 -*600 -1200 *denotes 1955 photographs Positive distances indicate the shoreline lies east of 1240 10'. Negative distances indicate the shoreline lies west of 1240 101. -56- LONG BEACH Annual Accretion-Erosion Rates (feet/year) 1877- 1926- 1936- 1948- 1955- 1926- Year 1926 1936 1948 1955 1977 1955 361 -12.9 -34 - 2.1 14.2 11.36 -17 351 1.4 -74 - 7.5 - 4.2 11.36 -30 34t 3.7 -36 -18.3 _40.0 13.6 -28 331 10.0 -10 -22.5 -18.5 4.5 -17 321 13.8 -40 - 2.5 -17.0 11.3 -19 311 11.5 -17 - 3.3 -37.0 22.7 -16.2 301 10.9 -16 - 4.0 - 7.1 13.6 - 9 cu 291 12.4 -20 - 5.0 - 8.5 9.0 - 7 4 281 10.7 -21 1.6 -18.5 6.8 - 2 271 9.2 -25 17.0 -21.4 9.0 3.4 261 8.0 -16 20.0 - 8.5 18.0 5 251 7.6 2 13.0 -20.0 15.9 11 241 8.1 12 10.0 -40.0 22.7 17 231 7.6 - 6 60.0 - 2.8 25.0 22 221 10.3 7 34.0 27.0 27.0 23 211 12.2 4 44.0 53.0 18.0 32 201 9.2 40 38.0 48.0 18.0 41 19, 11.5 22 45.0 28.0 27.7 33 Negative rates indicate erosion. Positive rates indicate accretion. -57- GRAYLAND Annual Accretion-Erosion Rates (feet/year) 1926- 1936- 1952- Year 1936 1952 1977 541 -90 531 -30 W 521 -20 -12 12 a) _4J :1 r. 511 0 - 9 10 501 20 -25 8 491 25 -16 6 rd @4 481 10 -12 12 471 0 *10 *4.5 461 0 *16 *4.5 451 60 5 *6.8 441 20 *denotes 1955 photographs Negative rates indicate erosion. Positive rates indicate accretion. -5'8- NORTH BEACH Annual Accretion-Erosion Rates (feet/year) 1887- 1926- 1952- Year 1926 1952 1977 91 - 5 81 - 2 71 - 5 61 - 7 is 14 r= 51 - 6 16 16 18 41 - 4 26 ro 3 0 25 16 21 3 31 20 11 6 28 28 ot 21 33 27 59' 40 32 31 58t 67 34 27 Negative rates indicate erosion. Positive rates indicate accretion. -59- WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Fall Beach Surveys Annual changes in the position of the +8.0 foot elevation on the beach as measured from an arbi- trary baseline. Fisheries profile designations are in parentheses. Sunset Beach Bluff Copalis Ocean City Ocean City Oyehut 470 13.71 (MP) 470 Ill (CP) 470 061 (GS) 470 04' (M) 470 03.51 (XL) 470 Oll (L) Date Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) 1951 550 480 52 560 480 53 540 440 54 540 460 55 580 520 56 590 560 550 57 650 560 590 58 690 680 610 59 700 690 650 60 230 250 680 690 680 61 270 220 750 720 680 62 300 230 670 - 670 63 300 230 740 770 760 64 340 260 800 790 800 65 300 260 690 820 760 870 66 330 240 690 780 870 860 67 - 280 710 800 900 870 68 260 250 730 870 900 930 69 290 260 670 900 890 900 70 300 230 - 930 900 - 71 300 240 680 940 930 890 72 350 290 760 980 1000 1000 73 350 300 750 - 990 970 74 - 280 1000 1050 1000 75 310 300 1020 980 76 320 300 1050 1000 1040 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Fall Beach Surveys Annual changes in the position of the +8.0 foot elevation on the beach as measured from an arbi- trary baseline. Fisheries profile designations are in parentheses. Ocean Shores Ocean Shores Twin Harbors Grayland County Line Gould Road 470 001 (XK) 460 591 (K) 460 50' (1) 460 491 (XH) 460 47.21 (H) 460 45.3' (G) Date Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) 1951 450 350 490 590 52 520 330 480 600 53 490 260 440 640 54 550 320 480 630 55 620 300 500 770 56 - 300 530 780 57 730 360 610 840 58 670 800 400 460 620 910 59 680 820 350 470 590 840 60 700 800 - - - - 61 810 860 340 530 650 800 62 - 810 350 500 640 850 63 880 960 400 540 680 1000 64 890 1030 410 520 750 1030 65 930 1100 430 520 750 1140 66 980 1130 370 540 710 1090 67 1000 1090 410 610 690 1070 68 940 1120 380 540 725 840 69 1140 390 540 700 890 70 440 520 740 860 71 1030 1140 - - - 830 72 1140 1210 370 570 740 950 73 1280 350 550 740 900 74 1170 1220 410 530 700 980 75 1140 1280 400 520 680 1200 76 1190 1320 460 580 780 1300 WASHINGTON STATE DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES Fall Beach Surveys Annual changes in the position of the +8.0 foot elevation on the beach as measured from an arbi- trary baseline. Fisheries profile designations are in parentheses. Leadbetter Oysterville Joe John's Road Ocean Park Klipsan 460 371 (E) 460 34.6' (D) 460 311 (XB) 460 28.51 (B) 460 27.51 (XA) Date Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) Distance (feet) 1951 530 360 360 52 560 350 - 53 570 340 330 54 550 410 330 55 580 460 320 56 540 460 350 57 - 490 500 390 400 58 760 500 570 380 440 59 800 540 600 420 490 60 860 640 580 480 460 61 1040 610 600 460 510 62 1100 630 580 450 480 63 1160 690 - 450 500 64 1200 720 620 480 580 65 1140 710 640 510 580 66 730 - 530 550 67 1060 720 600 580 620 68 1080 700 640 550 620 69 1010 690 590 570 690 70 960 750 650 570 700 71 970 700 630 570 670 72 740 680 620 670 73 770 800 730 710 720 74 930 760 640 660 680 75 1020 700 670 660 650 76 1190 830 760 740 790 FISHERIES CURVES SLOPES Linear Regression Analysis produced the following slopes for the Fisheries curves, Figures 3, 5, and 7. Latitude Slope 470 131 3.3 470 11' 4.0 470 041 21.2 470 03.5' 23.5 470 011 25.0 470 00' 28.7 460 591 34.8 460 501 4.4 460 491 3.8 460 47.2' 11.8 460 45.3' 17.7 460 371 21.4 460 34.6' 18.0 460 311 8.1 460 28.5' 16.1 460 27.61 17.1 -63- I I I I I I I APPENDIX C I YEAR 2000 MAP I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I I CAPE I DISAPPOINTMENT 1. 22/ - I % "t 0 0 1 21/- q1T N V- I 1 20' - I 1 19 - I 1 46* 18 2060 idoo I I Scale: ft I I I I I OCEAN PARK 1 46530' 1 1 29 - 1 28 / - I 1 27' - 0 0 N 0 0) I Cv I- 1 26 - 1 25' - '5- 1 0 0-T CN I If I- 24 - I 1 23' - I I 1 1000 2060 Scale: f t. I OYSTERVILLE 37 36"- 35- 34"- 33 CN 32 31 4930 20oo Scale: ft. _00 r % h Beac 2 B "1 05 M is 711 31 32 33 sbo re L Lar in e z,l Cape Shoalwater S \@T I Y - - - - - - - - - - - - - --- - - T 14 N kv sm 6 r 1 V. - I0 WILLAPA NAT i. Cemetery 0 % WILDLIFE REFUGE 4 fl - North Co oo I BM"10 7 + WILLAPA NATIONAL WILDLIFE I 8 9 Is- - r - - - - - - - - - - - - - 52- GRAYLAND 51- 50- 49- .0 0 'IT CN 48- 47- 46- 4e45- F 0 Scale. f t. 5060 55- PT. BROWN 4110 S o u t h J e t t y 0 54- ,q 53 4652*'W- WESTPORT 30bO Scale: f t. PT. BROWN 47000- 59- 40 58" ON 57" 56- t Nor e 3obo Scale: f to og'-' MOCLIPS 08 07- COPALIS BEACH 06' 40 05" -& 0, o 03- 02'-' b Scale: f t. 3000 oi- 47000- MOCLIPS 15 ........... 14 13- note offset 12*** 12 10 8 10 09" 081- 470 07"3 r Distance from 124010": ft x 103 I I I I I I I APPENDIX D I PEOPLE INTERVIEWED CONCERNING DUNE MANAGEMENT I I I I I I I I I I I LIST OF PEOPLE INTE@VIEWED CONCERNING DUNE MANAGEMENT Ken Kimura Planner, Pacific County Public Works Department Norman Greer Engineer, Pacific County Public Works Department Andy Hahn Engineer, Pacific County Assessors Office Jerry Rystad Former Pacific County Assessor Bill Crossman Commissioner, Pacific County Arnold Sbotwell Former member, Pacific County Public Works Department Stanley Gillies Former member, Pacific County Planning Commission Rolland Omar Youmans Commissioner, Grays Harbor County John Pearsall Commissioner, Grays Harbor County Tom Mark Planner, Grays Harbor County Planning Commission Rodger Lackman Engineer, Grays Harbor County Public Works Department Judy Rodgers Resident, Ocean Shores Bill McDeavitt Manager, City of Ocean Shores Beth Jordan Resident, Ocean Shores Gale Stokes Police Chief, City of Ocean Shores Clifton Todd Police Chief, Aberdeen & Resident of Ocean Shores Ed Hammersmith Washington State Department of Ecology Don Kirk Washington State Department of Ecology Phil Kauzloric Washington State Parks & Recreation Commission Steve Cothern Ranger, Grayland State Park Dean Grubb Manager, Twin Harbor State@Park Clyde Sayce Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries Dennis Tufts Biologist, Washington State Department of Fisheries John Erak State Representative, Washington State Legislature Lee Matteson Resident, Westport -75- STATR STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WASHINGTON Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-2800 Dixy Lee Ray Gouernor September 26, 1978 National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Office of Coastal Zone Management Grants/Loans Operations Staff 3300 Whitehaven Street, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20235 Dear Sir or Madam: Enclosed are three copies of the State of Washington's project completion report for Grant #04-7-158-44100 under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Managemeht Act. Included are project completion reports submitted by each of the Department of Ecology's subcontractors, together with the materials developed by the subcontractors. Should you have any questions, please direct them to Emily Ray at (206) 753-3829. Sincerely, Pfl@-@ D. Rodney Mack Assistant Director Office of Land Programs DRM:mg Enclosures 3 STATE OF WASHINGTON DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY PROJECT COMPLETION REPORT FOR GRANT #04-7-158-44100 UNDER SECTION 305 OF THE COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972. September 1978 I'NTRODUCTI,QN The Department of Ecology received $99,000 in federal funding under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act for completion of the energy facility siting, erosion control and beach access planning processes required by the 1976 amendments to that Act. The grant period for this work was July 1, 1977 through June 30, 1978. The majority of the $99,000 in federal funds allocated to this grant were not used. This is because development of the three planning elements was principally a staff effort requiring minimal cash outlay. The projects which were contracted are explained on the following pages, and information relative to final expenditure of federal funds is provided. (The federal funding amounts are based on D. Rodney Mack's February 7, 1978 letter to Carol Sondheimer.) In June 1978, the Department published a document containing drafts of the three planning processes, and distributed it for public review. Following the receipt of comments, the Department issued an addendum of corrections. In September, the Department held a public hearing on the three draft planning processes. TASK ONE - BEACH ACCESS Federal Funds Allocated $50,593 Spent 1 -0- Unused $50,593 In preparing the beach access planning element, the Department began by contacting other state agencies for relevant information. Material on all existing studies and plans was obtained. Staff then synthesized the information to provide a definition of "beach" and to describe the planning process for the protection of, and access to, public beaches and other public coastal areas of environmental, recreational, histor- ical, aesthetic, ecological or cultural value. The draft planning process was given preliminary review by interested agencies. It was then revised, through an addendum of corrections. A public hearing on this and the other elements was held in September. A copy of the beach access planning element is included in the attached draft "Amendments and Refinements" package. TASK TWO - ENERGY FACILITY SITING Federal Funds Allocated $5,774 Spent $2,600 Unused T3-,174 Work began in October on the first draft of the state's response to Section 305(b)(8) of the Coastal Zone Management Act. During this month, the approach was defined and the first outline developed. After discussion in-house and with the staff of the Energy Office and the Energy Facility Site Evaluation Council, a first rough draft was prepared. After comments were received, a second draft was prepared and distributed for review. Ultimately, four drafts were prepared. In June, the fourth draft was circulated widely for review along with the other planning elements. (See the draft "Amendments and Refine- ments," attached.) Based on comments received, an addendum of correc- tions was prepared. Following the public hearing in September, further changes were made in response to comments. A student intern from the University of West Florida was hired under this task to work on development of the three planning elements. The original contract provided employment from January to March 1978. Subsequently, the contract was amended to provide for an ending date of May 21, 1978 and an increase in total value to $3,000. The student intern hired by the Department did excellent work and was in large measure responsible for the timely completion of the amendments and refinements package. The project completion report on the intern contract is attached. TASK THREE - EROSION Federal Funds Allocated $42,633.00 Spent $26,263.64 Unused $16,369.36 Two contracts were issued under this task. 1) Contract #78-078 Western Washington University (Dr. Thomas Terich) Contract Amount: $14,796.00 Billed $14,699.92 Unused T 126.08 Purpose of the contract was to investigate the basic processes that cause erosion in Puget Sound, and to evaluate the overall efficiency of the erosion abatement structures most frequently used by owners of private waterfront property. The product was a 55-page report (attached), titled "Puget Sound Shore Erosion Protection Study." It explains erosion processes in simple language, discusses several examples of erosion protec- tion techniques, analyzes seven case examples, and offers general advice on erosion abatement methods. Also included is information on the requirements for shoreline substantial development permits. The contract was completed in a satisfactory manner. 2) Contract #78-030 Grays Harbor College (Drs. James B. Phipps and John M. Smith) Contract Amount: $14,991.00 Spent $11,563.72 Unused T3,427.28 Purpose of the contract was to analyze and summarize all existing information on accretion and erosion processes between the Columbia River estuary and Moclips. Groundproofing of data was also supported. The product was an 80-page publication, "Pacific Ocean Beach Erosion and Accretion Report." Findings are integrated into the erosion control planning element and will be of help to the Department in resolving some questions relating to management of the dune area. The contract was completed in a satisfactory manner. In addition to the assistance provided by the two contractors, an advisory committee also participated. Agencies represented included the City of Seattle; Island County; the State of Washington's Department of Natural Resources and Department of Emergency Services; the University of Washington Coastal Resources Program; and the U.S. Corps of Engineers, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, Geological Survey, and Soil Conservation Service. Once completed, the erosion planning element was incorporated into the attached "Amendments and Refinements" package, published in June and circulated for review. 'T A T., STATE OF DEPARTMENT OF ECOLOGY WASHINGTON Olympia, Washington 98504 206/753-2800 1,89 Dixy Lee Ray Governor July 13, 1978 M E M 0 R A N D U M TO: Mike Kirk FROM: Mike Hambrock SUBJ: Project Completion on Rick Hall's Work Rick Hall wa@ provided as a student intern through the University of West Florida via contract #78-079. The contract value was $3000. The original contract was signed on 1/9778 with a contract value of $1400 and an expiration date of March 31st. On 3/731 the contract was amended to increase the contract value to $3000, extend the completion date to 5/31 and change the scope of work to include work on the beach access and shoreline erosion planning elements. Rick started work on January 9th and spent several days reviewing the federal planning process requirements, the Shoreline Act, Final Guidelines and draft energy planning process. During the latter part of January and all of February, Rick spent most of his time on the beach access planning process. The following tasks were completed during this time: 0 A revised draft of the supply/demand section was written 0 Summarized the Open Space Taxation Act 0 Prepared a tabular presentation of the Final Guidelines for the three planning elements , V 0 Revised the definition of beach using the Manual for Management of Coastal Aquatic Area and Glossary of Geology 0 Drafted a description of the functions and authorities of the State Parks and Recreation Commission as they pertain to the planning process 0 Drafted a section of the report entitled "Public Areas Meeting the Definition of 'beach'" During March Rick worked on the energy facility planning process. The following tasks were completed: 0 Prepared a draft report on State non-EFSEC energy facility managing authorities 0 Prepared diagrams of energy facility planning process and EFSEC process 0 Reviewed draft energy facilty planning process April and May were spent working on all the planning elements. The following tables were completed: 0 First draft of shoreline erosion planning process was completed 0 Project initiated with State Energy Office to identify and describe existing and proposed energy facilities in the coastal zone 0 Redrafted shoreline erosion and beach access planning element; major revisions were made on the sections articulating state policies. A shore profile and flow charts of permitting procedures were prepared for the beach access element 3 A Projection Completion on Rick Hall's Work Page 2 July 13, 1978 Rickts contract terminated on May 31. 1 feel Rick made a substantial contribution to the development of the three planning elements. The quality of his work was excellent and was of overall benefit to the Washington Coastal Zone Management Program. NH:cjl cc. Don Peterson DATE DUE GAYLORDINo 2333 3 6668 14107 4551