DOCSLIB.ORG

Grays Harbor, Washington, Navigation Improvement Project, Feasibility

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text

Load more

______________________________________________________________________ Grays Harbor, Washington Navigation Improvement Project General Investigation Feasibility Study FINAL Limited Reevaluation Report Prepared by: U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District June 2014 Grays Harbor, Washington, Navigation Improvement Project Feasibility Study Final Limited Reevaluation Report June 2014 Executive Summary This Limited Reevaluation Report (LRR) and attached appendices document the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) reevaluation of the economic justification of authorized depths and potential environmental impacts of deepening the federal deep-draft navigation channel in Grays Harbor, Washington from the currently maintained depth of -36 feet mean lower low water (MLLW) to the full legislatively authorized project depth of -38 feet MLLW. Congress authorized the Grays Harbor, Washington, Navigation Improvement Project (NIP) in the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Public Law 99-662. This reevaluation focused on two alternatives that would deepen approximately 14.5 miles of the 27.5-mile federal navigation channel, along with a No Action alternative. Channel deepening would occur from the South Reach upstream to Cow Point Reach adjacent to the Port of Grays Harbor Terminal 4. The recommended plan, based on the economic and environmental analyses conducted for this reevaluation, is Alternative 3: Deepen Channel to -38 feet MLLW. Alternative 3 maximizes net benefits (average annual benefits less average annual cost) and is the plan that maximizes net benefits for National Economic Development (NED). This is the federal recommended plan. The depth in the recommended plan is the original legislatively authorized project depth and no additional congressional authorization would be required to implement the recommended pan. The Grays Harbor NIP is located 50 miles west of Olympia on the southwest coast of Washington. Grays Harbor is approximately 110 miles south of the entrance to the Strait of Juan de Fuca and 45 miles north of the mouth of the Columbia River. The cities of Aberdeen, Hoquiam, Ocean Shores, and Westport are located within Grays Harbor. The segment of the channel that was evaluated for deepening is from South Reach upstream to Cow Point Reach. The 1986 authorization provided for deepening the navigation channel to a project depth of -38 feet MLLW. Post-authorization engineering, environmental and economic studies, reflected in a General Design Memorandum (GDM) of February 1989 resulted in a justified channel depth of - 36 feet MLLW from the bar to Cow Point and -32 MLLW feet from Cow Point to Cosmopolis (economic analysis was based on timber industry and log vessels that, at that time, did not need -38 ft MLLW.) The Corps deepened the channel in 1990, in accordance with the 1989 GDM. This is the current depth of annual maintenance dredging. The reevaluation documented in this LRR and appendices focused on the following problem: As a result of the current channel depth of -36 feet MLLW, and narrow tidal windows, deep draft vessels calling at Grays Harbor have to be partially loaded or experience tidal delays due to insufficient channel depth. The purpose of the economic analysis in this study is to estimate the NED benefits associated with harbor improvements, specifically channel deepening, that are designed to allow for more efficient navigation in Grays Harbor by the existing and projected future deep-draft vessel fleet over the 50 year period of analysis. The Corps economist determines the current vessel fleet composition then projects the future one based on numerous Grays Harbor, Washington, Navigation Improvement Project Feasibility Study Final Limited Reevaluation Report June 2014 factors such as projected commodity flows, commerce, current fleet, port capacity and limitation. The purpose of the environmental analysis in this study is to assess the potential environmental impacts of channel deepening. This final LRR includes a net benefit analysis. The attached final supplemental environmental impact analysis (SEIS) (Appendix C) includes a full environmental evaluation of potential impacts from deepening the existing channel. Elements of the environmental evaluation are summarized in the LRR. The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document for this study is a SEIS that supplements the 1982 EIS prepared during the NIP feasibility study and a 1989 SEIS. Non-Federal Sponsor: The Port of Grays Harbor, Washington (Port) is the non-federal sponsor of this study. The Port sponsored the 1982 feasibility study. The Port includes four marine terminals, supported by large, paved, secured cargo yards; an on-dock rail system and more than 104,000 sq ft of on-dock covered storage. Historically, Port business focused on timber, with diversification away from timber starting in 2007. Port growth since 2007 includes over $200M in private investments. Based on 2012 data, approximately 1.9M short tons moved through Grays Harbor; approximately 96% were exports going mostly to Asia. Main commodities include barge and bulk liquid, agricultural processing and autos. Alternatives Evaluated: For this reevaluation, the project delivery team (PDT), which included Corps representatives from Seattle District (NWS) and Port representatives, evaluated the following three alternatives to address the study objectives and identify a plan that is technically feasible, economically justified and is environmentally acceptable (see Section 5 for detailed descriptions): • Alternative 1: No Action (Continue Current Channel maintenance to -36 Feet MLLW) • Alternative 2: Deepen Channel to -37 Feet MLLW • Alternative 3: Deepen Channel to -38 Feet MLLW Economic Analysis: The economic feasibility and justification of the recommended plan for this study were determined by comparing the future without-project condition under the No Action Alternative to the future with-project condition under the two action alternatives. This involved comparing the average annual costs and benefits during the 50-year period of analysis. The plan that maximizes net benefits (benefits less cost) is the plan that maximizes net benefits for National Economic Development (NED). This plan is the federal recommended plan. The plan that maximizes NED benefits, based on this economic analysis, is Alternative 3: Deepen Channel to -38 feet MLLW. Transportation cost savings were calculated using the HarborSym model, a planning-level simulation designed to assist in the economic analysis of coastal harbors using data such as port layout, vessel calls and transit rules to calculate vessel interactions within the harbor. (The terms ‘vessel transit’ and ‘vessel call’ appear throughout the tables and the text of the entire report. For purposes of this report a transit can be interpreted as an individual arrival or departure, and a call can be interpreted as a cycle (arrival and departure).) The table below documents this comparison. (Note: For the economic analysis, the No Action Alternative – as a baseline for comparison - does not have a benefit to cost ratio i Grays Harbor, Washington, Navigation Improvement Project Feasibility Study Final Limited Reevaluation Report June 2014 associated with it). However, the depth of the No Action Alternative (i.e. -36 ft MLLW) does have a BCR based on the 1989 GDM. These 1989 numbers are reflected here under No Action.) NED Analysis Summary Alternative 2 Alternative 3 Deepen channel to -37 Deepen channel to -38 ft MLLW ft MLLW Average Annual Benefits $3,661,000 $7,142,000 Average Annual Cost $751,000 $1,382,000 NED Benefits $2,910,000 $5,760,000 Benefit to Cost Ratio 4.9 5.2 Environmental Analysis: For the environmental analysis, the Corps analyzed project-related effects of the three alternatives. The environmental consequences analyses presented in the SEIS determined that the effects of the proposed action on the quality of the human environment, over and above the effects of continuing execution of the present management regime of annual maintenance dredging as evaluated in prior NEPA documentation, would be minor. Alternative 3 would have a slightly greater effect on the natural environment compared to Alternative 2 because the navigation channel would be dredged to a greater depth. Alternative 3 would remove a greater volume of material during the initial deepening of the channel, which could have potentially greater effects on invertebrates, fish and wildlife, and water quality. In addition, Alternative 3 would require the use of two clamshell dredges during dredging of the inner channel reaches, compared to the use of one clamshell dredge under Alternative 2, to allow for a larger volume of material to be dredged during the same in-water work window. The use of two dredges as opposed to one would result in a greater effect on air quality, noise, artificial lighting, and greenhouse gas (GHG) emissions. Alternative 3, however, would also have a greater benefit to the human environment compared to Alternative 2. Deepening the navigation channel would alleviate tidal delays and light loading of the current vessel fleet, which is currently caused by insufficient channel depths at all tidal stages. Because Alternative 3 would be deepening the navigation channel to its legislatively authorized depth of –38 feet MLLW, compared to –37 feet MLLW under Alternative 2, greater benefits would be achieved under Alternative 3, such as increasing the Port’s efficiency to transport goods in and out of the harbor. Implementation: Implementation
Recommended publications
  • 2019 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation

    2019 Oregon Administrative Rules Compilation

    2019 OREGON ADMINISTRATIVE RULES COMPILATION CHAPTER 736 Parks and Recreation Department Published By DENNIS RICHARDSON Secretary of State Copyright 2019 Office of the Secretary of State Rules effective as of January 01, 2019 DIVISION 1 PROCEDURAL RULES 736-001-0000 Notice of Proposed Rules 736-001-0005 Model Rules of Procedure 736-001-0030 Fees for Public Records DIVISION 2 ADMINISTRATIVE ACTIVITIES 736-002-0010 State Park Cooperating Associations 736-002-0015 Working with Donor Organizations 736-002-0020 Criminal Records Checks 736-002-0030 Definitions 736-002-0038 Designated Positions: Authorized Designee and Contact Person 736-002-0042 Criminal Records Check Process 736-002-0050 Preliminary Fitness Determination. 736-002-0052 Hiring or Appointing on a Preliminary Basis 736-002-0058 Final Fitness Determination 736-002-0070 Crimes Considered 736-002-0102 Appealing a Fitness Determination 736-002-0150 Recordkeeping, Confidentiality, and Retention 736-002-0160 Fees DIVISION 3 WILLAMETTE RIVER GREENWAY PLAN 736-003-0005 Willamette River Greenway Plan DIVISION 4 DISTRIBUTION OF ALL-TERRAIN VEHICLE FUNDSTO PUBLIC AND PRIVATELY OWNED LANDMANAGERS, ATV CLUBS AND ORGANIZATIONS 736-004-0005 Purpose of Rule 736-004-0010 Statutory Authority 736-004-0015 Definitions 736-004-0020 ATV Grant Program: Apportionment of Monies 736-004-0025 Grant Application Eligibility and Requirements 736-004-0030 Project Administration 736-004-0035 Establishment of the ATV Advisory Committee 736-004-0045 ATV Operating Permit Agent Application and Privileges 736-004-0060
  • Scientific Program Chair

    Scientific Program Chair

    Science Program 44th Annual Meeting of the Pacific Seabird Group 22-25 February, 2017 Daily Schedule Overview Tacoma Convention Center (TCC) Comments or questions, please contact Local Committee: [email protected] Tuesday, 21 February 2017 (pre-conference) Hotel Murano, Lido Boardroom 1300-1700 Short-tailed Albatross Recovery Team (START) Meeting – by invitation Wednesday, 22 February 2017 0730–1700 REGISTRATION DESK OPEN (TCC Lobby) Committee Meetings – all welcome, unless otherwise indicated. Boardroom N, Ballroom AB, Boardroom S, Commencement Bay N, 1 TCC TCC TCC CUW Aleutian Tern Tech 0900-1230 EXCO MAMU Tech Comm TUPU Tech Comm Comm 1230-1300 BREAK Seabird Monitoring SCMU and GUMU Tech 1300-1500 EXCO MAMU Tech Comm Comm Comm FWS Pacific Seabird SCMU and GUMU Tech 1500-1700 EXCO MAMU Tech Comm Program Comm 1700-1830 KIMU Tech Comm 1800-2100 WELCOME RECEPTION (Hotel Murano, Venice Ballroom) 1 Center for Urban Waters (CUW), 326 East D St. Tacoma WA 98421. https://www.urbanwaters.org 1 Thursday, 23 February 2017 0730–1700 REGISTRATION DESK OPEN (TCC Lobby) Ballroom AB Meeting Room 315 Meeting Room 316 0830-0900 Welcome and Opening Remarks PLENARY: P. Dee Boersma (Ballroom AB) 0900-1000 Natural History and Long-Term Studies Are Fundamental to Science 1000-1030 Coffee Break SPS 2: Sound to Sea: 1030-1200 Marine Birds Across the Population Biology Tools and Techniques Salish Sea Lunch (on your own) and Meetings 1200-1330 NOAA Fisheries Seabird Workgroup (1200, Boardroom N) – by invitation Former Chairs Meeting (1215-1320,
  • Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment: 2012 Annual Report

    Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment: 2012 Annual Report

    Grays Harbor Juvenile Fish Use Assessment: 2012 Annual Report Prepared for the Chehalis Basin Habitat Work Group February, 2013 Prepared by: Todd Sandell, James Fletcher, Andrew McAninch and Micah Wait Setting the net in Half Moon Bay, Grays Harbor Estuary, 2012 Sculpin displaying in a Wild Fish Conservancy “photarium”, April 2012 Table of Contents Executive Summary .................................................................................................... 1 Section 1: Introduction ................................................................................................ 7 1.1 Purpose and Objectives ................................................................................................7 1.2 Study Area ...................................................................................................................8 Specific Hypotheses: ......................................................................................................... 10 Section 2: Methods ................................................................................................... 12 2.1 Habitat Inventory/ Sample Site Selection.................................................................... 12 2.2 Field Sampling Methodology ....................................................................................... 15 Data Recording/Water Quality Measures ............................................................................................ 17 2.3 Age Class Assignments ..............................................................................................
  • Cultural Context

    Cultural Context

    Cultural Resources Assessment for the Grays Harbor Rail Terminal, LLC Proposed Liquid Bulk Facility, Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington Contains Confidential Information—Not for Public Distribution Prepared by: Jennifer Chambers, M.S. With contributions by: Melanie Diedrich, M.A., RPA Revised by: Katherine M. Kelly, MES, RPA Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 March 11, 2014 Cultural Resources Assessment for the Grays Harbor Rail Terminal, LLC Proposed Liquid Bulk Facility, Hoquiam, Grays Harbor County, Washington Contains Confidential Information—Not for Public Distribution Prepared by: Jennifer Chambers, M.S. With contributions by: Melanie Diedrich, M.A., RPA Revised by: Katherine M. Kelly, MES, RPA Prepared for: Karissa Kawamoto HDR, Inc. 500 108th Ave NE, Suite 1200 Bellevue, Washington 98004 Submitted by: Tierra Right of Way Services, Ltd. 2611 NE 125th Street, Suite 202 Seattle, Washington 98125 Tierra Archaeological Report No. 2013-080 March 11, 2014 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction ........................................................................................................................................................ 1 Project Information ........................................................................................................................................... 1 Regulatory Context ............................................................................................................................................ 5 Background Review ..........................................................................................................................................
  • Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington

    Chapter 13 -- Puget Sound, Washington

    514 Puget Sound, Washington Volume 7 WK50/2011 123° 122°30' 18428 SKAGIT BAY STRAIT OF JUAN DE FUCA S A R A T O 18423 G A D A M DUNGENESS BAY I P 18464 R A A L S T S Y A G Port Townsend I E N L E T 18443 SEQUIM BAY 18473 DISCOVERY BAY 48° 48° 18471 D Everett N U O S 18444 N O I S S E S S O P 18458 18446 Y 18477 A 18447 B B L O A B K A Seattle W E D W A S H I N ELLIOTT BAY G 18445 T O L Bremerton Port Orchard N A N 18450 A 18452 C 47° 47° 30' 18449 30' D O O E A H S 18476 T P 18474 A S S A G E T E L N 18453 I E S C COMMENCEMENT BAY A A C R R I N L E Shelton T Tacoma 18457 Puyallup BUDD INLET Olympia 47° 18456 47° General Index of Chart Coverage in Chapter 13 (see catalog for complete coverage) 123° 122°30' WK50/2011 Chapter 13 Puget Sound, Washington 515 Puget Sound, Washington (1) This chapter describes Puget Sound and its nu- (6) Other services offered by the Marine Exchange in- merous inlets, bays, and passages, and the waters of clude a daily newsletter about future marine traffic in Hood Canal, Lake Union, and Lake Washington. Also the Puget Sound area, communication services, and a discussed are the ports of Seattle, Tacoma, Everett, and variety of coordinative and statistical information.
  • CR-102 (June 2012) PROPOSED RULE MAKING (Implements RCW 34.05.320) Do NOT Use for Expedited Rule Making Agency: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    CR-102 (June 2012) PROPOSED RULE MAKING (Implements RCW 34.05.320) Do NOT Use for Expedited Rule Making Agency: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

    CR-102 (June 2012) PROPOSED RULE MAKING (Implements RCW 34.05.320) Do NOT use for expedited rule making Agency: Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Preproposal Statement of Inquiry was filed as WSR 14-24-118 filed 12/3/14;or Original Notice Expedited Rule Making--Proposed notice was filed as WSR ; or Supplemental Notice to WSR Proposal is exempt under RCW 34.05.310(4) or 34.05.330(1). Continuance of WSR Title of rule and other identifying information: See attachment A. Hearing location(s): Submit written comments to: Civic Center Name: Wildlife Program Commission Meeting Public Comments 411 South Balsam Street Address:600 Capitol Way North Moses Lake, WA 98837 Olympia, WA 98501 e-mail [email protected] fax (360) 902-2162 by (date) 2/24/15 Date: March 20-21, 2015 Time: 8:00 AM Assistance for persons with disabilities: Contact Tami Lininger by March 1, 2015 Date of intended adoption: On or after April 9, 2015 (Note: This is NOT the effective date) TTY (800) 833-6388 or (360) 902-2267 Purpose of the proposal and its anticipated effects, including any changes in existing rules: See attachment A Reasons supporting proposal: See attachment A Statutory authority for adoption: RCW 77.04.012, 77.04.055, Statute being implemented: RCW 77.04.012, 77.04.055, 77.12.047, 77.12.150 and 77.12.240. 77.12.047, 77.12.150 and 77.12.240. Is rule necessary because of a: CODE REVISER USE ONLY Federal Law? Yes No Federal Court Decision? State Court Decision? Yes No If yes, CITATION: Yes No DATE February 2, 2015 NAME (type or print) Joanna Eide SIGNATURE TITLE Rules Coordinator (COMPLETE REVERSE SIDE) Agency comments or recommendations, if any, as to statutory language, implementation, enforcement, and fiscal matters: When filing the permanent rule-making order (CR-103P), the WAC sections containing rule amendments will be consolidated into two or three Order Typing Service (OTS) documents.
  • State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan 2015 Annual Report

    State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan 2015 Annual Report

    R E S O U C ▲ Juvenile coho salmon observed by a DNR field crew State Trust Lands while surveying a tributary to the Clearwater River on the Olympic Peninsula. Launched Habitat Conservation Plan in 2015, DNR’s Riparian Validation Monitoring Program will test whether 2015 Annual Report current forest management practices in the Olympic .......................................................... Experimental State Forest will restore and maintain habitat For Fiscal Year 2015 capable of supporting viable .......................................................... salmonid populations. Published April 2016 N A T U R L State Trust Lands Habitat Conservation Plan 2015 Annual Report .......................................................... For Fiscal Year 2015 .......................................................... Published April 2016 Prepared by Washington State Department of Natural Resources Forest Resources Division Acknowledgements Jason Angehrn Michelle Argyropoulos Julie Armbruster Janet Ballew Emma Barnett Richard Bigley Angus Brodie Mike Buffo Ellis Cropper Dan Donato Allen Estep Glenn Glover Bruce Gleason Jason Goldstein Josh Halofsky Renae Hamilton Andrew Hayes Michael Kearney Doug Kennedy Thomas Laxson Kyle Martens Teodora Minkova Candace Montoya Calvin Ohlson-Kiehn Kristen Ohlson-Kiehn Luis Prado Bob Redling Justin Schmal Barbara Simpson Deborah Whitney David Wilderman Cover photo courtesy of Ellis Cropper. All contributors are staff of the Washington State Department of Natural Resources unless otherwise indicated. For information
  • Impacts of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts from the Columbia and Snake Rivers 2004-2009 Synthesis Report

    Impacts of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts from the Columbia and Snake Rivers 2004-2009 Synthesis Report

    U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Walla Walla District Impacts of Avian Predation on Salmonid Smolts from the Columbia and Snake Rivers 2004-2009 Synthesis Report 2004-2009 SYNTHESIS REPORT IMPACTS OF AVIAN PREDATION ON SALMONID SMOLTS FROM THE COLUMBIA AND SNAKE RIVERS This 2004-2009 Synthesis Report has been prepared for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers – Walla Walla District for the purpose of assessing project accomplishments. This report is not for citation without permission of the authors. Prepared by Daniel D. Roby, Principal Investigator USGS - Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3803 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541-737-1955 Ken Collis, Co-Principal Investigator Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Internet: [email protected] Telephone: 541-382-3836 Donald E. Lyons, Jessica Y. Adkins, Peter Loschl, Yasuko Suzuki, Tim Marcella, and Lauren Kerr USGS - Oregon Cooperative Fish and Wildlife Research Unit Department of Fisheries and Wildlife Oregon State University Corvallis, Oregon 97331-3803 2 Allen Evans, Bradley Cramer, and Nathan Hostetter Real Time Research, Inc. 52 S.W. Roosevelt Ave. Bend, Oregon 97702 Benjamin P. Sandford, Richard D. Ledgerwood, and David R. Kuligowski Fish Ecology Division, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, 2725 Montlake Boulevard, Seattle, Washington 98112-2097 Scott Sebring Pacific States Marine Fisheries Commission 205 Southeast Spokane Street, Suite 100, Portland, OR 97202 Submitted and Revised: October 2011 3 TABLE OF CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY………………………………………………………….. 5 CHAPTER 1: COLONY SIZE, NESTING SUCCESS, AND LIMITING FACTORS OF PISCIVOROUS COLONIAL WATERBIRDS IN THE COLUMBIA PLATEAU REGION, 2004-2009……………………………………..
  • Roadmap to a Climate Action Plan Port of Bellingham

    Roadmap to a Climate Action Plan Port of Bellingham

    Roadmap to a Climate Action Plan Port of Bellingham Photo by Garrett Parker on Unsplash December 31, 2019 1801 Roeder Avenue 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 615 Bellingham, WA 98225 Seattle, WA 98101 360-676-2500 206-823-3060 For over 40 years ECONorthwest has helped its clients make sound decisions based on rigorous economic, planning, and financial analysis. For more information about ECONorthwest: www.econw.com. ECONorthwest prepared this Roadmap to a Climate Action Plan for the Port of Bellingham. It received substantial assistance from the Port of Bellingham staff, including Adrienne Hegedus and Brian Gouran, among others. Other firms, agencies, and staff contributed to other research that this report relied on. That assistance notwithstanding, ECONorthwest is responsible for the content of this report. The staff at ECONorthwest prepared this report based on their general knowledge of urban, transportation, and natural resource planning, and on information derived from government agencies, private statistical services, the reports of others, interviews of individuals, or other sources believed to be reliable. ECONorthwest has not independently verified the accuracy of all such information and makes no representation regarding its accuracy or completeness. Any statements nonfactual in nature constitute the authors’ current opinions, which may change as more information becomes available. ECONorthwest staff who contributed to this report include Adam Domanski, Jennifer Cannon, Annalise Helm, and Sarah Reich. For more information about this report contact: Adam Domanski, Ph.D. [email protected] 1200 Sixth Avenue, Suite 615 Seattle, WA 98101 206-823-3060 ECONorthwest | Portland | Seattle | Los Angeles | Eugene | Boise | econw.com ii Table of Contents 1.
  • National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)

    National List of Beaches 2004 (PDF)

    National List of Beaches March 2004 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Office of Water 1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW Washington DC 20460 EPA-823-R-04-004 i Contents Introduction ...................................................................................................................... 1 States Alabama ............................................................................................................... 3 Alaska................................................................................................................... 6 California .............................................................................................................. 9 Connecticut .......................................................................................................... 17 Delaware .............................................................................................................. 21 Florida .................................................................................................................. 22 Georgia................................................................................................................. 36 Hawaii................................................................................................................... 38 Illinois ................................................................................................................... 45 Indiana.................................................................................................................. 47 Louisiana
  • Net Shore-Drift and Artificial Structures Within Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay

    Net Shore-Drift and Artificial Structures Within Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay

    Western Washington University Western CEDAR WWU Graduate School Collection WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship Spring 1995 Net Shore-Drift nda Artificial Structures within Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and Mouth of the Columbia River, Washington B. Patrice (Berenthine Patrice) Thomas Western Washington University Follow this and additional works at: https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet Part of the Geology Commons Recommended Citation Thomas, B. Patrice (Berenthine Patrice), "Net Shore-Drift nda Artificial Structures within Grays Harbor, Willapa Bay, and Mouth of the Columbia River, Washington" (1995). WWU Graduate School Collection. 812. https://cedar.wwu.edu/wwuet/812 This Masters Thesis is brought to you for free and open access by the WWU Graduate and Undergraduate Scholarship at Western CEDAR. It has been accepted for inclusion in WWU Graduate School Collection by an authorized administrator of Western CEDAR. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WWU LIBRARIES NET SHORE-DRIFT AND ARTIFICIAL STRUCTURES WITHIN GRAYS HARBOR, WILLAPA BAY, AND MOUTH OF THE COLUMBIA RIVER, WASHINGTON by B. Patrice Thomas Accepted in Partial Completion of the Requirements for the Degree Master of Science Dean of Graduate School Advisory Committee Chair, Dr. Christopher A. Suczek Director, Dr. Maurice L. Schwartz Member, Dr. Thomas A. Terich MASTER’S THESIS In presenting this thesis in partial fulfillment of the requirements for a master’s degree at Western Washington University, I agree that the Library shall make its copies freely available for inspection. I further agree that extensive copying of this thesis is allowable only forscholarly purposes. It is understood, however, that any copying or publication of this thesis for commercial purposes, or for financial gain, shall not be allowed without my written permission.
  • Cascade Loop

    Cascade Loop

    CASCADE LOOP INDEX Sites Page Sites Page INFO KEY 1 36 Pearrygin Lake State Park 7 1 Edmonds Marsh and 2 37 Methow Wildlife Area: Sullivan Waterfront Pond 2 Lowell Riverfront Trail 38 Big Valley Wildlife Area 3 Jetty Island 39 Tawlks-Foster Suspension 4 North and South View Park Bridge 5 Spencer Island 40 North Cascades Lodge/ 8 6 Ferguson Park 3 Audubon Trails 7 Bob Heirman Wildlife Preserve 41 Klipchuck Campground 8 Index Cliff 42 Washington Pass Overlook 9 Iron Goat Trail 43 Rainy Pass Picnic Area 10 Fish Lake 44 Colonial Creek Campground 11 Upper Meadow Creek 45 North Cascades National Park 12 Swiftwater Picnic Area Visitor Center 13 Leavenworth National Fish 4 46 Marblemount Boat Launch Hatchery 47 Skagit River Bald Eagle 9 14 Icicle Gorge Loop Trail Natural Area 15 Waterfront Park 48 Howard Miller Steelhead Park 16 Devil’s Gulch 49 Rockport State Park 17 Wenatchee Confluence State 50 Skagit County Cascade Trail Park 51 Rasar State Park 52 Shadow of the Sentinels 18 Entiat Wildlife Area: Swakane Canyon 53 Skagit Wildlife Area: Johnson/ 19 Entiat Park 5 Debay’s Swan Reserve 20 Mud Creek 54 Deming Homestead Eagle Park 21 Silver Falls Campground 55 Marine Park 10 22 Columbia Breaks Fire Interpre- 56 Birch Bay State Park tive Center 57 Tennant Lake Wildlife Area 23 Lake Chelan State Park 58 Whatcom Falls Park 24 Stehekin/Lake Chelan National 59 Larrabee State Park Recreation Area 60 Skagit Wildlife Area: Samish Unit 25 Chelan Riverwalk Park 61 Bayview State Park 11 26 Wapato Lake Park 62 Washington Park 27 Wells Wildlife Area: 6 63 Deception