[From the U.S. Government Printing Office, www.gpo.gov]
COASTAL'@ON-E INFORMATION CENM S r TAT COASTAL ACCRETION AND EROSION IN SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON GB 459.4 Dqg= P45 1978 1979 Ribur G. Hallauer Dwector 14077 Phipps, James B. CZIC COLLECTION COASTAL ACCRETION AND EROSION IN SOUTHWEST WASHINGTON/ Property of CSC Library COASTAL ZONE INFORMATION CENTER By James B. Phipps and John M. Smith Washington Dept of Ecology Grays Harbor College Aberdeen, Washington DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE NOAA COASTAL SERVICES CENTER 2234 SOUTH HOBSON AVENUE CHARLESTON, SC 29405-2413 The preparation of this report was financed through a National Oceanic and Atmospheric, Administration grant under Section 305 of the Coastal Zone Management Act. Department of Ecology PV-11 Olympia, Washington 98504 78-12 ABSTRACT Approximately 100 years of historical shoreline changes on the coastal beac hes of Southwesterri Washington have been mapped, and the rates of erosion and/or accretion have been calculated. These data show that., in general, the 0 Washington coastline has been prograding since the turn of the century. Nota- ble exceptions to this general accretional.pattern occur onthe 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 volume is diminished by bayentrapment in Willapa and Grays Harbor, by beach@ accretion,'aaad 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 inthe shoreline are used to construct a shoreline map for the year 2000. Man-induced dune modificat.1,ons are considered in the last section of this report. On the Long Beach.Peninsula, decreased amounts ofleolian sand accreting 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. 0 TABLE OF CONTENTS INTRODUCTION . . . .. . . . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 1 Setting . . . . . . .. . . . . . . .. . . . 1 Purpose 3 Procedure 3 0 EROSION-ACCRETION PATTERN AND RATES . . . . . . . . . . . 6 Long Beach Peninsula . . . . . . . . . . .. . 6 Grayland.- 6 North Beach . . .. . . . . .... . . . . 10 Bay Mouth Changes . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 Grays Harbor .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 17 0 Willapa Harbor . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 19 A PRELD14INARY SAND BUDGET . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . 24 Sources of the'Sand . . . . . . . 24 Longshore Drift . . . . .. . . .. . . . . . 26 0 Bay Entrapment . . . . . . . 27 Transport Down Submarine Canyons. 28 Cross-shelf Transport ., . . . 28 Loss to the Dune System . . . . 29 Beach Accretion . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 29 Sea Level Changes, . . . . . . . 29 Discussion . . . . . . . . . . . . . 30 0 YEAR 2000 PROJECTION.-- . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 32 Introduction . . . .. . . . . . . . 32 Procedure . . . . ... . . . . 32 Assumptions. 33 Discussion .0 . . . . . 33. SAND DUNES AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES . . . . . . . .. . . . .. . 35 Tolerance of Dunes to Activities of Man . . . . .. . . . 36 Measured Sand Dune Changes. . . . 37 Recent Dune Stabilization Attempts . . . . . .. . . . . . 40 0 Man-induced Dune Modification . . . . . . . . .. . . . 42 Recreational Vehicles . .. . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Access Roads . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 42 Alterations to,Primary Dunes . . . . 1 43 Driftwood-Removal . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 44 Sand Removal . . . . . . . 44 0 BIBLIOGRAPHY . . . . . . .. . . 48 APPENDICES. . . . . . . . . . . 51 Appendix A - Map Sources . . . . . . . . . . 52 Appendix,B - Shoreline Measurements . . . . . . . . . .. . 54 0 Appendix C - Year 2boo map . . . .. . . . . . . . . . . 65 Appendix D -People Interviewed . . . . . . . . . . 75 0 LIST OF FIGURES Nwaber 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 Changesin the depth of accumulated sand on the 11grass-line" markers on the Long Beach Peninsula. . . 38 INTRODUCTION Setting The beaches of Southwestern Washington are composed of a single, contin- uous sand body that stretches northward from the Columbia River for a distance of about 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 tN3 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 current 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 p'ortions of the beaches making them steep and narrow'.. The suma@--r waves push the sand back on to the beaches and they become wider and flatter. Thus the beaches ofthe Washington.coastlind 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 Radius -10 CO PA L IS H EAD ER NORTH BEACH -05 0 C cpa 4Lf --Q0' Ocean Shores Grays POINT BROWN Harbor -55 POINT CHEHALIS Westport 50' Grayland GRAYLAND 45' CAPE SHOALWATER -46 LEADRETTER POINT low LLI :% -35' 01steryffle 41 -30" Ocean Park LONG, Klepsan BEACH 25' Qcaans6de LonLy Reach ------------- 41- avoew -2d 19 WORTH HEAD CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT 46 15 0/1 Figure 1. Location Map abut the high tide.zone and the,shoreline is erosional. Me beaches of Grays Hartor 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 mapping, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.Con- dition reports, aeria 1 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 confom with the modern 1927 North American Datum used on the.more recent maps. Modern shorelines were mapped using aerial photography. All the maps and sources used in this report appear in Appendix A. . Many modern maps,'like 'the U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Sheets, rely on U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey Navigational Charts for their hydrography, including the shoreline. These U.S. Coast and Geodetic Survey charts are ac- curate for navigation,'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 areasof the beac?ies, 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 orofile is surveyed bi-annually, but different pro- files, within the same general area, are surveyed on different years. These surveys constitute the most precise data avilable 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 "mean high water" (approximately a +8-foot tide) or "mean higher high wateril (approximately a +9.3-foot tide) lose their meaning when compared with older surveys done at "hightide." Furthermre, the aerial photomapping is commonly based on some geomorphological feature (like the dry-sand/wet-sand boundary) whose relationship to actual elevations is vague at best. These problems, cou- pled with the inaccuracies attendant to datum changes, scale changes, and non- linear reproductions all tend to reduce the amount of precision. In order to overcane some of the problems inherent in couparing 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. It is possible that a series of bad winter storms in one year could erode the beach and yet this erosion be masked by a longer term accretional phase. Therefore, the area where the ero- sional damage occurred would be listed as accretional. -4- SIBLI0811APHIC DATA 11 Report No. pient's Acc7-7 ------ 2.. 3. Reci ession No. SHEET @qA/boE/CZ/78-12' - I . . 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Published 11/78 Coastal ACcretionand Erosion ih-Southwest Washington 6. -1. -Authat(s) S. Performing Organization Rept. James B. Phipps and John M. Smith No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/ F Unit No. Grays Harbor College 11. Contract/Grant No. Aberdeen, Washington 98520 78-080 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & F@rl@-d Covered Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504 14. ---------- 15. Supplementary Notes Preparation of this report was financially aited by the Nation.l__ Oceamic and Atmospheric Administration with Section 305 funds under the Coastal Zone Management Act. 16. Abstracts Approximately 100 years of historical shoreline changes on the coastal beaches of southwestern Washington have been mapped, and the rates of erosion and accretion have been calculated. Indications are that the coastline has been extending seaward since the turn of the century. Notable exceptions occur on the spits abutting Willapa Harbor., and the entire beach north of Copalis Head. . The factors that affect the erosion-accretion rates are considered in light of a sand budget. Projections of recent changes in.the shoreline are used to construct a shor-eline- niEp_ fdr -the YeAf -2000-.- Man-induced dune modifications are also considered, and dune-stablization methods are explored. 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17c. Descriptors Beach Erosion Dunes 17b. Identifiers/Open-Ended Terms Southwest Washington 17c. COSATI Field/Group 18. Availability Statement 19.. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages Report) U Cl A51;[FILP Release unlimited 20. 9ecurNity Class (This 22. Price Pa UNCLASSIFIED m?19-35 (REV- 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCD. THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED USCOMIA-DC 82da' rIhis report discus.ses; 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 an 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 portion of the maximum possible seasonal changes inthe profiles. In this report the shoreline precision is approximately,� 100 feet. 0 -5- EROSION-ACCRETION PATIERNS AND RATES 0 Long Beach Peninsula Mapping and photography on the Long Beach Peninsula was available for,the years 1871-73, i926, 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 20 feet per year. To the northalong the peninsula, the shorelines become confused and crisscross one another. At the northerly limits of the mapping (46P 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 Depaxtment 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- Long Beach 35- 34- I C) 33 N 40 32- 31 - L G@ 30-, E 29- cm 281- 46" 27 27 26- 25- 24- 23- 22- 1001/ 21 .000, 20- ro 19L 0 2 Horizontal Scale: feet X 1000 Figure 2. Historical Shoreline Changes on the Long Beach Peninsula Relative Movement: 200 Feet per Inch -erosion accretion- U1 (n M cr 01 0) VIP C0410 Ce Figure 3. Changes in the relative locations of the +8.0 foot elevation. Taken from Washington State Department of Fisheries data. A Grayland 52 51 #A 50- 49- E 46 48 47 -.46- 45- 44L 2 Horizontal Scale: feet X 1000 Figure Historical Shoreline Changes in the Grayland area maximn changes occurring at the north and south ends of the beach. The southern section is accretional in a westerly direction, and shows the 1wgest amount of change in the entire Grayland area. Unfortunately, while the southern section of the beach is accreting towards the west, 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 52". 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, 1955, and 1977.' 1hese 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 occurring next to the North Jetty. Indeed, the highest accretion rates encountered in the study were at 460 58, where a 90-year rate of 47 feet per year occurs. The width of accreted sand diminishes rapidly northward to Copalis Rocks where it becomes zero. North of Copalls 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. New, 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' 46*49" CL 41?47 2' 46045.3' cz N rz I E C 'A c I g Grayland 51 96 @1 @6 76 Y e a r s Figure 5. Changes' in'the relative locations of the +8.0 foot elevation. om@ Taken fr Washington State Department of Fisheries data. North Beach C T- 09- 14 04 08- 4708 07 06 - rm 05 IL 04- 03 - 02@ ma 01 % 00 59 0 1 2 3 Horizontal Scale: feet X 1000 Figure 6. Historical Shoreline Changes in the North Beach area 00 Pacific Beach, there is no vegetation on the sea cliffs and they are actively eroding, but not vel-j fazt. 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 emplace 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 04.1 to 470 111. 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 theeffects of the longshore drift. @Fbr 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 Comer Creek which lies to the south of the Copalis, River. During the life of Conner Creek, its mouth has moved northward 2.4 miles. Further to the north, however, the mouths of the Moclips River and Joe Creek (at Pacific Beach) appear to be presently moving south. The streams -14- Figure 7. Changes.in the relative locations of the +8.0 foot elevation. Taken from Washington State Department of Fisheries data. 47 13 4711 47 04 4703.5 C 7@01' CL W6 4700 CD 44 as 4d 59" C E North Beach .51 96 61 66 il Years seem to be behaving in a cyclic fashion. Their mouths are pushed northward by the longshore drift, thus extending the channel length and reducing the gradient. This process continues until the stream system becomes so inefficient that the northerly prograding bar is cut off and the stream erodes a new mouth to the south and the cycle starts again. Bay Mouth Changes *0 The major changes in the configuration of the shorelines have occurred at theMouths 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. Offthe southernmost part of Point Brown laid Eld Island which was a prominent enough feature to be mapped in the Government Land Office Surveys in the 1850's. Suc- cessive maps show that between 1862 and 1891, Eld Island eroded away completely_ and Point Brown receded in a northeasterly direction about.4,300 feet (approxi- mately 140 feet per year). During the same time period, Point Chehalis accreted about,4,300 feet ina 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 1.902. 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 Peet by 1939., A Jetty rehabili- tation project commenced in 1933, was completed in 1939, and by 1946, the area -17- Pt. Brown Pt. Chehalis \-CIO 0 5 10 Scale x 103 Ft. Figure 8. Bay Mouth Changes adjacent to Grays Harbor The arrows are both 4,300' long, indicating relatively similar rates of change 'on Pt. Brown and Pt. Chehalis. south of it had accreted 1,100 feet from the 1939 position. Subsequent jetty erosion led to shoreline retreat after..1959 and the jetty rehabilitation in 1966spurred 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 19@0. An additional 7,000 feet was added.to the jetty between 1910 and 1913. By 19'16 the jetty had to be rec onstructed 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 tothe jetties of Grays, Harbor,leads to thefc-1lowing observations. .a) Whetherthe beaches are eroding or acereting is dependent to a large degree upon the state of repair of the jetty system. 00 b) The area behind-the North Jetty has accreted faster and further west than the land behind the South.Jetty. c) The.effect 6f-th-@ South Jetty only extends acouple'of miles.down (southward)',the beach while the-accretion next to the No Irth 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 sid.es,of Willapa Harbor _19- (.4;) quilgioqs 8691 moi; gouv4sla 4@6 0 ct 0 (D (D ct (D ct (D co ca It (D (D cn @l (D G) Ch 0 C, @* ct ct C) (D C) ct (D (D 0 ct ca ct 0 ct P- 0 ct 0 g (D ct C-A @-6 (D ct clt ct 0 were migrating,towards one another so,that by the 1880's the bay month was only three miles wide. Between 1852 and 1887, Cape Shoalwater migr-ated southward 2,500 feet (71 ft/yr), while Leadbetter Point migrated northward about 7,000 feet (200,ft/yr). Sometime between 18,90 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 0 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 southern portion.without a sand supply for nourish- ment. The severed portion of the outer bar is then driven-onto the inner bar by ocean waves. The resultant enlarged inner bar crowds the north (main entrance.) channel tight against Cape Shoalwater and narrows the channel. Resulting in- ,creased tidal velocities causes accelerated erosion of the shoreline. The re- stricted main channel also tends to force development of a secondary channel to the.south hear Leadbetter Point. Subsequent widening of the north channel due to erosion of the north bank and development of the south channel tends to re- lieve the pressure 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 years, normally." It is likely that the erosion.at Cape Shoalwater will continue its cyclic northward path, until the channel entrance moves'back to the area near Leadbetter Point and the northward migration process starts over again. There is sane weak evidence that this may have happened in the past pr .ior to 1890. The evidence is 0 the intersecting dune ridges*on the Ieadbetter 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 thatit will continue northward'at least for the time period covered in this report. _21- 250- North Cove Erosion Rates. 200- ..... ......... fri X ........... 150- ........... . .............. x %%% .... e%% V %................ ..... .............%........................ .... . . ........ V. ......... .... . . ...... ......................... KXX. .. .. .... ... ................... ................................................. ..... ..... .................... ................. :% 100- ......................................... ........... :::.*-.:.....-.*.*..:..'...:.*-....%-.-.-.-.%%-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.-.......-.........-....-e-.-e-.-..- .......... .......... . :....... ...... :X. ...................................... ............ .. ........................... ................. soft X .......... ............. ......... % ............... V.- .......... %...... Nee". . ........ ........... ...... ......... X.X-* %.... ................... .... ...... % ........... .......... .............. " , * " " @. e........ @ee. e %%%.%. .... ... ... %% V x ............................... leee.*e..@.@.*.e*e..e,.e@@e,.....e ........ . .. .... ........... ............... so- v .................. .% Xe:.. .... ..................................... x :xA x. . %%% ....... .............. :-:-:-% .% ... ............... ................... .. ......... . X %V . ......... ... .. .............. ... X . ... . . ....... ............... .... .. x ... ...........X . . .... .............. %% ......... ............ ............ .. XIX . . . ....... ....... . . .. %.. .............. .. .... %.......... ........ X.. . .... Xv. ....... .............................. **-.*.*:*-*.'*,*,*-.,..,.,*.,%.,%.,.. X-N-ex. ... .............. Xe XX ............... ........... . X"X@ . ................ eelle .............. X.... ........ ".:-X-e . ... . .............. x. x %..... % . .......... X. X: ................................. ........... ......... . . . ......... ....... %...............%. ...... OL ..... .. e... ............. % -x X Xe:Xee: .... %%-.. e.. 1890 1 ilo 1930 1950 1067 li55 1965 1975 Years Long Term Short Term Figure 10. North Cove erosion rates. Long-term data was taken from U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Reports (1969) and the short-term data from the Pacific County Assessors Office. 11000-0000 rc 00 04 46 37"30 Scale 1:24000 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 mm.,ement 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 sumnarize the "state of the art" as described in the literature concernin g 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 altho@@ 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 susp ended load estimated the Columbia River bed load at -24- Submarine Ca yons ............. (0.7) ...... ...... ........................ . e --:X Xb Columbia .. ..... Q) .::Aongshore Drift S y s e in River . .................... . .... . ...... Dunes 'Pays Beaches (2.5) Figure 12. A preliminary sand budget for:th6 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 number was based on his study.of sand wave movement in the Bonneville resevoir. Gross (1972) figures ten million tons as-the total sediment descharge of the Columbia River. By reworking long-term scour and fill data published by Lockett (1962), he concludes that about 45% of the sediment discharge is deposited within 10 kilometers (6 miles) of the river mouth and 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 7001,000 cfs. The U.S. Geological Survey approximates the c oarse sediment trans- ported by the Columbia and Willamette Rivers as 2.41 million.tons during the water year 1963. It should be noted that the sediment load of the Columbia River --is-extremely variable, ranging from 5.8 to 41 million tons for the years1 1968 to 1970. Another example of the variability of sediment transport is that in 1965, a single storm contributed 8.6 million tons of sediromit during one week. Jay and Good (1977), using U.S. Geological Survey data, estimate the bed load transport at Vancouver as ranging from 1 to 10 million tons annually from 1963 to 1970. 0 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 winter than it is in the summer. 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, as is the case next to the North Jetty of Grays Harbor (Dave Schuldt, personal communicationl 1978). Thus there are, indeed, local alterations to the general trend of sand movement. It is important to note that, a lthough there is a net northerly 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 accretion adjacent to structures and headlands that block this summer sand movement appears to be faster than in other areas. The volumes of.sand involved in the drift havebeen 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 .lo6 cubic yards/year northward and 2.5 x 106 cubic yards/year southward in the area of North Beach- The.same investigations (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1973) also point out,the accLmiulation rates.of sandbehind the North Jetty of Grays Harbor at @-3 x 1061cubic yards/year fonn 1910 to 1928 and 1.7 x lo6 cubic yards/ year from 1942 to.,1959. Bay Entrapment The estuaries involved in this study are drowned.river valleys. Such estu- aries appear to be sediment traps removing sand fromthe longshore drift by the bottom-in flow of seawater associated with the salt wedge (Rusnak, 1967; Meade, 1969). Heavy mineral analyses led Scheidegger & Phipps UW6) to conclude that "Grays Harbor receives marine sands of Columbia River origin." The U.S. Army,Corps'of Engineers (1973., p. A-33) calculated from dredging data that as a result,of Jetty deterioration at that time, about 610,000 cubic yards/year of the dredging in Grays Harbor results from the littoral drift -27- entering the estuary from North Beach. This volum 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 seein reasonable to consider that at least as much is deposited at non- channel sites, making a total of about a million cubic yards of sediment enter- ing the estuary annually. However, with the subsequent jetty repair the amount of sand entering the estuary would be decreased. After considering the volumes of sediment involved, we estimate that the net annual lossto the longshore drift system is roughly 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 my 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 Coluarbia River mineralogy in the submarine canyons along the Oregon-Washington coast. Using one of these studies (Nelson, 1966), it is esti- 0 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 do not necessarily carry similar volumes. Cross-shelf Transport Nit.troder (1978) describes the sediment on the Washington continental shelf -28- as: relict on the outer shelf; bounded by a mid-shelf silt deposit; bounded by near shore sands. This band-like pattern parallel to the shore precludes cross- shelf transport of sand from the near shore except through submarine canyons as mentioned above. Loss to the Dune System The dune system'along the Washington beaches is progradational, 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. Inter- views with beach residents,suggest that this is occurring along many areas of the beaches but the data was not quantifiable. Beach,Accretion The data presented in this report allows only 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@ mil- lion 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 although at different rates. There was no significant contribution of sand to the system from beach or cliff erosion, Sea Level Changes Long-ter.n.sea,level changes for the West Coast have been determined by -29- Hicks (1972). His data, taken from tidal information, suggest a 10 cm rise (averaged over the West Coast) for a period from 189o to 1970. If it is further assumed that the average beach slope is about onedegree, 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 (1972) because of "river discharge variations" (Astoria), or "acute emergence from recent glacial melting" (Neah Bay). However, one can calculate the shore- line change based on flicks' 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 erosionj it is clear that the beach changes caused by secular sea level changes are at least two,orders of magnitude smaller than the other mea- surements, in this study. Discuss Ion 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 lettle mores rigorously than would be otherwise allowed. Simplistically, the littoral system appears closed with Columbia River sand imput 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 at Grays Harbor and the Columbia River, altered the system by considerably increasing the accretion rates behind them _30- and by forcing sediment from the Columbia River offshore into deeper water, where 0 its return to the longshore drift system was less effi@cient. At roughly the same time the natural spits bounding Willapa Harbor started to erode apart. Thus the trapping of sand by the jetties removed large quantities of sedi- ment from the longshore drift system. In the meantime., the areas.behind the jetties appear to be'nearly filled. Hence, if the jetties are maintained in their present conditions, there should be relatively more sand available for beach nourishment in the future. Historically, dams act as sediment traps, and there has been concern that .the impoundment o f,the Columbia River might reduce the sediment volume in the longshore drift system. Apparently-such has not been the case, to date, with the Colurfbia River system. Most of thesand is transported during high flow times,,and as the dam 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 fresh- ets which flush sediment from the estuary. The amount of sediment transferred frorn the estuary to the longshore drift system is one of the weakest portions 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.. Disposal of these dredged materials may well become an important factor in future beach budget,considerations. -31- YEAR 2000 PROJECTION Introduction It is possible to F ;raphically extrapolate historical data to project future shoreline conditions. The accuracy of the projection is dependent upon the con- tinuity of the individual processes that make up the total beach system. That is, if the beach behaves for the next 22 years the way it behaved for the last 25 years, then the projection will be accurate. Unfortunately, variables in the recent past are only scarcely identified and poorly quantified. For in- stance, the driving for6e of sedimnt movement along the coast is the weather. It's the rain that erodes the land 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 wea- ther conditions? Nevertheless, for all the inaccuracies, a projection of future conditions is useful because it Is fundamental to managing the shoreline in that it facil- itates land use planning. Also, a projection is really a hypothesis that is tested each year. Thus, shorter-term changes can be observed and considered relative to the over-all scheme rather than considering such short-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 ifim this time frame will be the fundamental data for the projection. 2) The primary rates used come from measurements from aerial photography. _32- These measurements are modified in the area of the Fisheries pro- files as the latter are considered to be at least an order of mag- nitude 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. 9 2) The source.of sand available to the beaches will be the same, a .s will be the quantities. 3) The present jetty systems will remain the same, or at least be maint ained 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 ofseveral sheets, each representative of a U.S. Geological Survey Quadrangle Map (Appendix C). The maps are designed so that the.future shoreline can be scaled off 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 horizontal scale is one inch equals 1,000 feet. In the prosion,areas where the change is too small to show up on this scale, a stippled pattern is used. Areas where the shoreline is questionable or.where data maybe inadequate are clashed. -33- The changes at the tip of Leadbetter Point are not included in the maps on Appendix C, but the reader is referred to Figure 11. On that figure, the year 2000 shoreline will presumable lie somwhere between the 1887 shoreline and the 1967 shoreline. The problem on Leadbetter Point is that the apparent long-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 f'xxn U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (1969) projectiQns. The projected shoreline is dated 1994 rather than the year 2000 and appears on a copy of a portion of the North Cove Quadrangle in Appendix C. -34- SAND DUNES AND MANAGEMENT ISSUES The sand dunes of coastal Washington occur as parallel dune ridges. The ridges are formed by vegetation catching and holding 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 duneridge 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 especially the efficiency of the vegetation to trap the sand. Tlie present western-most ridge called the pri- mary dune (or foredune) is relatively high which may be a result of stabiliza- tion through the,introduction of European beach grass Ammophila arenaria (L.) Link. According,to Cooper in a personal communication to Wiedeman in 1965, the height of the. present primary dune has developed since the establishment of the European beach grass. This grass was introduced to Washington and Oregon in the late 18001s.from Europe (Wiedeman, 1966). It has b een used in Europe for centu- ries for sand dune control and attains maximmn growth and vigor where sand de- position by wind is greatest, i.e., in the upper reach of the backshore. The grass has a strong stabilizing effect on sand and.effectively reduces the amount of sand moving inland off the beach. It grows closely associated and inter- spersed with American dunegrass (Elymus mollis Trin.) and in many locations it .has nearly replaced,t@s native species because of its more aggressive growth. Other plants-that become established in the foredune as pioneers in the ecological succession are the silver beach weed (Ambrosia chamissonis Less.), yellow abronia (Abronia latifolice Esch.), American sea rocket (Cakile edentula Bigel.), seashore lupine (Lupinus littoralis), and seashore bluegrass (Poa macrantha). 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. These and other pioneer plants mentioned 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). 0 However, drifting sand and/or wave action can cause either advances or retreats in the succession of dune plans. Similarily man-caused removal of sand in the foredune area can lead to a retreat of the dune vegetation. Alter- ation or sand removal from a stabilized primary dune also my be the reason for considerable change in the number and location of pioneer plants of the foredune and their role in the dune stabilization. Tolerance of Dunes to Activities of Man Ian McHarg (1969) reports on guidelines developed in Holland through years of experience in his book, Design With Nature (chapter, "Sea and Survival"). 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.11 They go on to say that the beaches, the trough, and the back dune are considerably more toler- ant 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 along.the seaward edge of the foredune in September and October 1976 as part of a Department of Ecology grant to establish a base line from which certain dune characteristics and changes could be measured. 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. It is assumed that a general re- lationship exists between the accumulation of sand above the base of the marker posts and the amount,of,sand available to build the foredune along a particular beach sector. By visiting 36 of those markers and digging down to the concrete and then measuring the dipth 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.rrdnimal 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 theseareas. These gaps in the dune permit sand to movethrough the foredune and be blown out of the back- shore area. By using the Pacific County beach markers mentioned above, it is possible to make an estimate offoredune advance or.retreat since October 1976. There -37- 30 25 2 2r 15 10 5 28 29 19 20 21 22 23 24 25. i6 27 do di 3@2 d3 i4 35 36 Latitude: minutes Figure 13. Q-ianges in the depth of accumulated sand on the vegetation markers on the Long Beach Peninsula. Note that the areas of least amount of land accumulation are generally associated with an access road. 0 * A IrO5.1 @e,4@ 5 was only one area of foredune accretion, that being the post located 0.36 mile so uth of D Street in Seaview., where an estimated 20 feet of growth has occurred. 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. Althoug1a the receding 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. Maximumvertical dune growth onthe 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 m .arker post that.@ measured only one.inch of vertical growth. These two marker posts, only 0.42, miles apart, present.thegreatest 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. 0 Station Miles from Vertical Dune Number. Ki@psan 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 0 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 Attenpts A dune stabilization project has been started at TWin Harbors State Park. The installation of "snow" fences of 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 High@ay 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-K) per acre along the foredune for a distance of-approximately Di miles. In addi- tion, 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 ofthe North Jetty. Some of the planted grass..apparently did not hava.,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 mont h, winter storms.and high tides took out the fencez) 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 ofEuropean 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 vehi- cles is prohibited. By comparison of aerial photographs, one can see the multi- plicity of trails in the area north of Ocean Shores where such a prohibition is not enforced, while there is less evidence of such features through the dunes in the Ocean Shores Natural Areas. Police Chief Gale Stokes of Ocean Shores stated that the initial prohibition of driving on the beach and dunes south of the Oyehut access road caused the primary dune to increase in height as much as five feet in one year in sane areas where four-wheel drive vehicles were pre- viously 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 -42- for at least one hew road near Roosevelt Beach." The roads are expensive to maintain, and even though some support funds are available frm state agencies, no one felt more access roads are a solution to the traffic jams, especially during clam tides. Reducing the number of clam diggers by some management tech- nique of delaying the exit of some of the people from the beach were mentioned as possible ways to improve this 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 problems that need care- -ful study as,to their long-range effects. Alterations of Primai- 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 vi ew of the ocean. Such excavations have been made on the beach near Klipsan as well as at Gray- land and the beaches north of Grays Harbor. An opening, such a's 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 'L-,o destruction by catastrophic storm waves. Furthermore, -43- this type of opening is used by recreational vehicles for access to the beach, further destroying pioneer vegetation seeking to reestablish and 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 result is that the foredune beccMes more vulnerable to ero- sion by wind and waves. Sand Removal Long Beach Pacific County allows sand removal for both cranberry and construe- tion purposes. All construction sand and any cranberry-use sand over $1,000 0 value requires both a shoreline management permit and a "Job ticket" permit is- sued by the county. Cranberry-use sand of less than*$1,000 requires only the "Job ticket" permit. The Master Program allows sand removal only between mean 0 high tide and a line 50 feet west of the vegetation boundary. It does not allow -44- removal below mean high tide or within the foredune. Tb the date of this report, seven shoreline management permits and two "Job ticket" permits have been issued by the Pacific County Public Works Depart- ment for 1978. The permit system amounts to a license to remove unlimited amounts of sand. It is unknown how much sand is actually being extracted due to the lack of mon- itoring. Durihg 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 large pit had been dug because the loading continued for several days. Observations of the excavation 36.hou'rs after it had been abandoned showed that the depres- sion had been.partially filled by wind and tide. In spite of this apparent rapid recovery,@in the longer time -frame of 20 months.,'the continuous removal of sand from the same area did seem to affect the growth of the foredune, as in- dicated by the lack of vertical dune growth shown near Cranberry Road, as seen 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 increase as residential projects continue.to increase. Also, new housing must conform to the higher elevation requirements for the National 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 overa longer stretch of beach.. By a system of rotating areas open to s.and removal opa quarterly or semi-annual basis,' the effect on the dunes would be mitigated. -45- Significant volumes of sand are used at Long Beach to maintain beach ap- proach roads, for instance to form shoulders five to six feet high. These shoul- ders protect the dirt-gravel fill that is periodically 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 0 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 controlled .0 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 4) 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 0 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 to a lesser degree further north. The impact of this removal on the dunes is unknown. The cranberry gro wers do not appear to take enough sand to have a detectable effect on the dunes. If steel marker posts were installed along this beach, more objective measurements could be car- ried 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. '1he city of Ocean Shores, in its access road maintenance program, makes limited amounts of sand available to contractors filling home sites within city limits. There are only a few -46- 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. City homes are now required to have their foundation footings set 18 inches above the roadway elevation. This requires a considerable amount of fill over the years althoup come from the dirt-gravel pit in the ,h much of it could Hogans Corner area. Other portions of the beach are governed by county regula- tion, and in new construction by the National Flood'Insurance Program regulations. RCW 43-51.685 gives the Washington State Parks and RecreationCommission. 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 sup- ply the needs of cranberry growers for cranberry bogs in the.vicinity and shall not be prohibited if found by -the state Parks and Recreation Comission to be reasonable, and not generally harmful or destructive to the character of the lands...." "Provided further, that the'state Parks and Recreation 'Conrdssion may grant leases and permits for the removal of sands for construction purpose from any lands within,the Washington State Seashore Conservation area. The present position of the,state Parks and Recreational Commission is to allow the counties'to administer the sand removal program. However, the com- mission hasseveral@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 o.f,the Shoreline Master Program for Pacific County and Grays Harbor County by the'Vlashingtoh Department of Ecology further complicates the management jurisdlc@tio'n of sandIremoval from the beach. Resolution of the.diverse-and.conflicting authority over who controls beach sand removal needs is important. Increasing demand for beach sand can be man- aged if some guidelihes.,and.monitoring are in4plemented.. 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. Commission on Marine Science, Engineering, and Resources. 1969. "Marine Engi- neering and Technology", Industry and Technology. Panel Reports. Volume 25 Part IV. FebruaiW. Cooper, W. S. 1958. Coastal dunes o f 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, 0-) reach of the Columbia River July 1962 to SepterdDer 1963. Open-file Report. U.S. Geological Survey, Portland, OR. 188 pp. .Hicks, S. D. 1972. On the classificationi,and trends on long-period sea level series. Shore & Beach, v. 40. pp. 2@1_23- Jay, D. and Good, J. 1977. Columbia RivU." estuary sediment and sediment trans- port. Section 208 of Columbia Rive., Estuary Inventory of Physical, Biologi- cal, and Cultural Characteristics CREST, Astoria, OR. Judson, Sheldon and Ritter, D. F. !964 r. Rates of regional denudation in the United States. Journal Geo "Iysical Reseach,, v. 69(16). pp. 3395-34ol. Kumler, M. L. 1969 Plant succesion on the sand dunes of the Oregon Coast. Ecology, v. 500). pp. 1 5-704. 19, -48- Lockett, J. B. 1962. Phenomena affecting improvement of the Lower Columbia River estuary. Chapter 40 in: Proceedings of the 8th Annu@l 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 before.the International Association-for Hydraulic Research, Port- land, OR, U.S. Army Engineers Division, North Pacific, 7 PP. 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, C. H.@ 1968. Marine geology of Astoria deep-sea fan. PhD Thesis. Oregon State University, Corvallis, OR. 28TPP. Nittrouer, C. A. 1978. In preparation. PhD.'Ihesis. University of Washington, Seattle,.WA.. Rusnak, G. A. 1967'. Rates of sediment accumulation in modem estuaries: in G. H. (ed.'),,Estuaries: American Association for-the Advancement Lauff, of Science., Publication 83, PP. 180-184. Scheidegger, K. F.:, Kulm, L. D.,, and Runge, E. J. 1971.1 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 programs. 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 Naselle 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. APPENDIX A MAP SOURCES MAP SOURCES 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: 42511 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 47104 4715 1952 Aerial Photography 1955 U.S. G. S. Quadrangles 1977 Aerial Photography -52- APPENDDC B SHORELINE MEASUREMENTS ACCRETION-EROSION RATES DEPARTMENT OF FISHERIES DATA 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 V 291 3170 2500 2700 2640 2700 2500 0 .r4 281 3170 2590 2800 2780 2650 2500 10 271 3250 2750 3000 2800 2650 2450 :j 4j 4) 261 3275 2840 3000 2760 2700 2300 251 3330 2920 2900 2740 2600 2250 241 3360 2920 2800 2680 2400 1900 231 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 041. 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 531 -2000 -1700 -2250 521 200 00 260 100 51 .1400 1400 1650 1400 501 2700 2500 2900 2700 491 3900 3650 3900 3750 48t 4700 4600 4800 4500 V 47.1 5400 *5200 5100 461 5750 5750 *5450 @5350 451 6100 5500 *5400 5250 .44! 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- 0 NORTH BEACH Distance from 1240 101 (feet) Year 1887 1926 1936 1952-55* 1977_ 9.1 -5580 -5375 -5500 81 -3900 -3830 -4100 71 -2660 -2870 -3000 61 -2100 -1830 -2500 -2300 -2650 V -1330 -1080 -1550 -1500 -1900 51 0 41 580 420 - 700 -1100 -1500 4J .,1 31 00 00 - 250 - 650 -1050 4J 21 + 540 +@,420 + 100 - 400 - 900 11 + 900 + 670 + 300 - 50 - 750 ot +1400 + 580 + 300 -*300 - 900 59' +2100 t 540 + 400 -*300 - 950 581 +3000 + 375 + 350 -*600 -1200 *denotes 1955 photographs Positive distances indicate the shoreline lies east of 1240 101. Negative distances indicate the shoreline lies west of 1240 101. -56- LONG BEACH Annual Accretion-Eros'ion Rates (feet/year) 1955- 1926- 1872- 1926- 1936- 1948- Year 1926 1936 1948 1955 1977 1955 36.1 -12.9 -34 2.1' 14.2 11.36 -17 351 1.4 -74 7.5 4.2, 11.36 -30 341 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 +j 301 10.9 -16 - 4.0 - 7.1 13.6 - 9 291 12.4 -20 5.0 8.5 9.0 - 7 4J r4 281 10.7 -!-21 1.6 -19.5 6.8 2, 4J 1.4 271 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 41 191 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 -30 521 -20 -12 12 +j 511 0 - 9 10 501 20 -25 8 491 25 -16 6 4J 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. NORTH BEACH Annual Accretion-E rosion Rates (feet/year) 1887- 1926- 1952- Year 1926 1952 1977 91 5 81 2 V 5 V :3 r. 61 7 18 14 51 6 16 16 V 41 4 26 18 4J ;31 0 25 16 21 3. 31 20 11 28 28 0, 21 33 27 591 40 32 31 581 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) 470 041 (M) 470 03.51 (XL) 470 Oll (L) Date Distanc.e (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 105.0 1000 75 310 300 1020 -- 980 76 320 300 1050 1000 1040 ID --j -4 -j -4 -4 -1 m m m o m m m m m m Ln w w Ln o w (.n Ln Ln rt C) w -P w "'PA 0 w w -4 m (n -P w t1i @-L Q w w -3 M Ln -P w @A (D CO xr 0 rt 0 rt 1-4 @-A I-A. @-A I-A I-b 0 0 z @A I-A 1 "0 1 IWOWWWW OD -4 0) ol m P w I lrowwtowl @-% 0 OD -j En @-4 Q Q 0 00 0 C) O.C) 0 0 0000 :3r t:r 0 su 0 m v :j m to P. (a -P 0 P. C+ C) 0 rA .1 r 0. m :r m Al m N) . . . 0 @-AL @-A 0 W W W W W W -4 0) Uq -P Ln 0 :j 11110 "W"Mi"r I " (.n w " Ln (D P- 0 o C> 0 0 C> 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 C) 0 0 Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 En (D M ::r Cl) P. 0 m M (A co H. 0 z (D 0 0 M (D z rt 0) P. P. + "I En oo (g -P -pr 47 CA) CA) .9 CA) CA) @P CA) -P -Ir -Ir W (A) w -P w w w w w w CD C) rt t1l (P C) F-& r-n -j I rr (D OD @-h @4 CA) @-& 0 Ln -P 1 (-n 0 0) C) 0 N) M (A) Ln P- W 0 0 0 0 0 0000000000 000000000 0 0 (D 0 :3 0 0) tm (D H co (+0 @o m El > r+ P) (D A) z + (D -3 P. 4.4 10 0 (A 0 (D Ar 0) :j "I r+ 0) 0 0 4r Cf) Ln (.n r-n c-n Ln w Ln (,n cy) (.n (.n (.n Ln Ln un (1) @o F- rt co " CA) (.n -4 1 " _p -rr @- -P K> t) 4r ow 1 -4 m 9 :71 tri 00000 0000000000 00 ''-.N W(D w (D (a v ti (D (D cn r+ 0) 0 &a cn 0 (D C-t 00 A) -4 -4 -4 -4 0) -4 -4 -4 0) M 0) Ul a) (p Ln (n -P -P -r-r -P (D (D Co co o p I p 0 " tD @-A tn Cn a) -P cp i to N) @-L C4 0 co 4r cD tO N) 0, 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 w 0 0 0 40 O'C) C) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 t-4 Fh P. m :1 (D m r+ fu En C)0 F.. rt 00 0 (A) N> (D W CO 00 00 00 OD 0 0 I-A 00 00 W w w w @4 -4 m 0 0 Ln oo w o Ln W 0 W p -4 W p W 0 0 0 1 p 1-4 p w -4 W -P 0 W oaooooooooooaooo 0 F-h aj m CL, m Q r+ 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 34.61 (D) 460 311 (XB) 460 28.51 (B) 460 27.51 (XA) Date Distance (feet) Distance (feet) @Dis.tance (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 13' .3 470 1l' 4.0 470 04' 21.2 470 03.5' 23.5 470 O1' 25.0 470 00' 28.7 460 59' 34.8 460 50' 4.4 460 49' 3.8 460 47.2' 11.8 460 45.3' 17.7 460 37' 21.4 460 34.6' 18.0 460 31' 8.1 460 28.5' 16.1 460 27.6' 17.1 -63- APPENDIX C YEAR 2000 MAP CAPE DISAPPOINTMENT 22 21 C4 20' - 19 46018 2060 idoo 0 Scale: f t OCEAN PARK 4e3o" 29 - 28 - 27 - CY 26 - 25 of If 24 23@ 1000 200o Scale: f t. OYSTERVILLE 37 35-- 34-, 33- C4 32:@- ------------ 200o Scale:. ft. "J- 1005 0 ?00 % _0 Beach2 Bm 15 32 31 z 33 0 Of 19 S/10 rel A @pe S hoalwater. Q) 0 \1@15 N - - - - - - - - - - - - - T 14 A M 16 6 0 A W ILLAPA N A 0 Cemetery WILDLIFE R E FUGE 100 North 0 e ol 0 "d am 1 - - - - - - - - - - + WILLAPA NATIONAL WILDLIFE REFUGE 40 '3 @3 PO - - - - - - - - - - - - - 52- GRAYLAND 50- 49- 48- 47, 46- 4e45- 0 50W Scale f t. 55- PI BROWN -South Jetty 54" 53 4e52"3e___WE_STPORT 3000 Scale: f t. PT. BROWN 47000 59" 58- 57 J- Norih JettV 6 3000 scale: f t, .09- MOCLIPS 08** 07- COPAIIS BEACH 0,6 05' 0 4- 03@- 02" b Scale: f t. 30.00 01" 47000 MOCLIPS 00 15 ............ ............. 14 ......... 13- note offset 12" 12 .......... 10 09" 47007"3 Distance from 12e.11:6- ft x. 103 APPENDIX D PEOPLE INTERVIEWED CONCERNING DUNE MANAGEMENT LIST OF PEOPLE INTERVIEWED 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 Shotwell 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.Sh.ores Ed Hammersmith Washington State Department of Ecology Mike 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- BIBLIOGRAPHIC DATA 1. Report No. 2. Recipient's Accession No.' SHEET FA/bOE/CZ/78-12 4. Title and Subtitle 5. Report Date Published 11/78 Coastal Accretion and Erosion in Southwest Washington 6. 7. Author(s) 8. Performing Organization Rept. James B. Phipps and John M. Smith No. 9. Performing Organization Name and Address 10. Project/Task/Work Unit No. Grays Harbor College 11. Contract/Grant No. Aberdeen, Washington 98520 78-080 12. Sponsoring Organization Name and Address 13. Type of Report & Period Covered Department of Ecology Olympia, WA 98504 14. IS. Supplementary Notes Preparation of this report was financially aided by the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration with Section 305.funds under the Coastal Zone Management Act. 16. Abstracts Approximately 100 years of historical shoreline changes on the coastal beaches of southwestern Washington have been mapped, and the rates of erosion and accretion have been calculated. Indications are that the coastline has been extending seaward since the turn of the century. Notable exceptions occur on the spits abutting Willapa Harbor, and the entire beach north of Copalis Head. The factors that affect the erosion-accretion rates are considered in light of a sand budget. Projections of recent changes in the shoreline are used to construct a shoreline map for the year 2000. Man-induced dune modifications are also considered, and dune-stablization methods are explored. 17. Key Words and Document Analysis. 17a. Descriptors Beach Erosion Dunes 17b. Identi fiers/Open-Ended Terms southwest Washington 17c. COSATI Field/Group 18. Availability Statement 19. Security Class (This 21. No. of Pages Report) UkJCLA 20. Security Mari s- Release unlimited (His 22. Price P NCLASSIFIED FORM NTIS-35 tREV- 10-73) ENDORSED BY ANSI AND UNESCO. THIS FORM MAY BE REPRODUCED USCOMM-OC 8265-P74 DATE DUE GAYLORD No. 2333 PRINTED IN U.S.A.