Notice of Public Hearing

City of Ocean Shores Coastal Erosion Long Term Management Strategy .

Determination of Significance and Request for Comments on Scope of Environmental Impact Statement

Description of proposal: The City of Ocean Shores is developing a long-term strategy for coastal erosion management. As part of the process, the City has developed an Interdisciplinary Team of state and local government representatives, local citizens, and experts in the fields of socioeconomic impact analysis and coastal and geological processes. This team has identified four main categories of proposals to be addressed through the SEPA/EIS process. The categories, No Action, Retreat, Replenishment, and Structural, are compilations of the twenty alternatives gathered from previous meetings and studies. Each category is outlined below with a description of the included action and alternatives. This public notice marks the initiation of scoping for the Environmental Impact Statement process.

1. ACTION: No Action No Action is a choice of not responding to the future shoreline recession.

Alternative 1.1 No Action - This alternative is defined in terms of potential impacts to public and private property and infrastructure. Future shoreline positions, as created by natural processes, were estimated to year 2021 for the 1997 Beach Stabilization Study. The timing and location of the shoreline and elevation in the 2.4 mile length of shore, north of the North Jetty, are base conditions against which other alternatives will be evaluated. This alternative includes alternative #1, from the original long list of alternatives.

2. ACTION: Retreat The Retreat category uses estimates of future shoreline positions as a baseline for designing built coastal erosion management on a 2.4 mile length of beach. Alternatives include physical removal of all structures in harms way and defining limits of erosion, past which structures will be protected by a constructed dune.

Alternative 2.1: Structure Removal with Dune Construction - This alternative involves protecting the upland area beyond the projected erosion line by a constructed dune similar to the preexisting frontal dune. The constructed dune would be located sufficiently landward so that the potential of loss to erosion is minimal as the shoreline position reaches stability. All structures west of this line would be removed. This alternative includes alternative #3 from the original long list of alternatives.

Alternative 2.2: Structure Removal and No Action On the Beach - This alternative does not provide for any shore protection and allows natural processes to establish a new shoreline position. Structures would be removed and infrastructure on the property would be rerouted inland. An analysis of this alternative will establish the cost of removal, which could be borne by either government or private interests. This alternative includes alternative #7 from the original long list of alternatives.

3. ACTION: Replenishment These management strategies would be used to replace beach sand lost to erosion. Sources of material could be sand dredged from the navigation channel, offshore sites, Grays Harbor, or sand mined from upland sources.

Alternative 3.1: Direct/Onshore Beach Nourishment - This is a process of mechanically placing sand on the beach for long-term maintenance of the existing beach configuration and shoreline position. This alternative involves placing about one million cubic yards of sand in a 6,000-foot long reach Northward from the North Jetty. The material would be placed as a berm behind temporary sand dikes at the shoreline and upper portions of the beach profile, and shaped to match adjacent beach grades. Renourishment would be required. In the first 25 years the average rate of adding sand to the nourishment area would be 100,000 cubic yards per year then half that rate for the following 25 years. Unusual storms can dramatically alter the required amount. The frequency of renourishment would range from two years to longer intervals. This alternative can be used alone or in combination with other alternatives. This alternative includes alternative #'s 5, 19, and 20 from the original long list of alternatives.

Alternative 3.2: Indirect/Offshore Beach Nourishment - This alternative is a method that can be used to a) assist the restoration of the original offshore sand bar that was performing both as a sand feeder for the beach and a wave attenuator, and b) to provide sand in the nearshore area at a lower cost than direct beach placement, to wash up on the beach and reduce shoreline erosion. This alternative can be used alone, in conjunction with direct beach placement of sand, or with other structural alternatives. This alternative includes alternative #'s 6, 9, and 17 from the original long list of alternatives.

4. ACTION: Structural Structural alternatives make use of human intervention by using rock, concrete, or other hard material to create structures that either block waves, dissipate wave energy, redirect waves or sand, or funnel or move sand around.

Alternative 4.1: Bulkheads - Bulkheads include wave bumpers, revetments, and geotubes and are used to protect the uplands from wave impacts. These structures generally run the length of the area to be protected. This alternative includes alternative #'s 2 and 4 from the original long list of alternatives.

Alternative 4.2: Jetty Modification - This generally refers to rebuilding the North Jetty or modifying the South Jetty. A portion of the Grays Harbor North Jetty was rehabilitated in 1975-76. The outer portion of that rehabilitated section has not undergone significant deterioration since that time. An older section of the jetty, now submerged, extends 3,000 feet seaward of the end of the rehabilitated section. This alternative would restore this outer-most, submerged, portion of the jetty to a condition that would block the shoreline north of the north jetty from southwest storm waves and longshore sediment flow. The south jetty could be modified to allow a "controlled breach " between it and the mainland, thereby preventing some sand from being exported offshore. More sand would enter the navigation channel and would be dredged along its north side and disposed of so that it stimulates accretion to the north along the coastline of Ocean Shores. This alternative includes alternative #'s 12 and 13 from the original long list of alternatives.

Alternative 4.3: Tidal Structures - These structures include the "X-Term" System and the "Undercurrent Stabilizer Technology. " The X-Term System was pioneered and patented in Sweden in 1986. Each system is tailored to the individual sites. The System features underwater concrete structures placed in a V-shape to funnel sand toward the beach. The structures eventually are buried by sand. The Stabilizer Technology is a similar technique used in the Great Lakes and Atlantic Ocean. Specific information on these alternatives is available at the Department of Community Development iii Ocean Shores. This alternative includes alternative #'s 14 and 15from the original long list of alternatives.

Alternative 4.4: Floating Breakwaters - This alternative involves constructing an anchored floating structure of a segment of eroding shoreline. It can act as a wave barrier to dampen wave energy on the shoreward side. This alternative includes alternative # 8 from the original long list of alternatives.

Alternative 4.5: Offshore Reefs - This approach involves restoring the original offshore sand bar. The bar was performing as a sand feeder for the beach and a wave attenuator. The offshore bar or reef would confine a portion of the beach material from being transported offshore. This barrier would be constructed with submerged rock or other materials in the location of the former offshore bar in a portion of the area fronting the shore erosion area. An option may include the placement of dredged sand between the barrier and the shore. The dissipating effect on the waves and the confining of the sand would eventually raise the level of the nearshore bottom to that of the former level. Another option would involve dumping large rocks into the offshore "trench." This alternative includes alternatives #'s 6 and 18 from the original long list of alternatives.

Proponent: The City of Ocean Shores

Location of Proposal: Erosion is projected to impact 2.4 miles of beach on the Southwest coast of the City of Ocean Shores

Lead agency: City of Ocean Shores

Environmental Impact Statement Required. The lead agency has determined this proposal is likely to have a significant adverse impact on the environment. An environmental impact statement is required under the Revised Code of Washington 43.21C.030 (2)(c) and will be prepared. Materials indicating likely impacts can be viewed at the following locations. Ocean Shores City Hall, 765 Pt. Brown Ave. NW, Ocean Shores; the Department of Community Development, 710 Pt. Brown Ave. NW, Ocean Shores; and the Ocean Shores Library, 573 Pt. Brown Ave. NW, Ocean Shores.

Relevant issues to be addressed:

All elements of the environment as listed in Washington Administrative Code 197.11.444 will be reviewed initially. Specific elements will be analyzed for potential impacts. As required by Ocean Shores Municipal Code 19.04.125, an economic analysis of impacts will be conducted to accompany the Environmental Impact Statement. The City will identify mitigation measures for impacts in both the EIS and economic analysis.

Scoping: Agencies, affected tribes, and members of the public are invited to comment on the scope of the EIS. You may comment on alternatives, mitigation measures, probable adverse significant impacts, and licenses or other approvals that may be required. There is a 21 -day comment period to end on December 23, 1998. If you would like to send written comments, please mail, fax, or e-mail the responsible official listed below, no later than December 23, 1998.

Sue Patnude

Director of Community Development

7 1 0 Pt. Brown Ave. NW

Ocean Shores, WA 98569

Phone:(360) 289-2754

Fax: 360/289-2022

osplan@techline.com

Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to CRC Index Page
Back to Estuary Index Page
Back to Grays Harbor County Issues Index Page