FACT SHEET – Grays Harbor LTMS

Published May 10, 2012

The Grays Harbor Long Term Management Strategy study
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers initiated the Long-Term Management Strategy study because of the recognition that shoreline erosion in the vicinity of the South Jetty could again result in the breaching of the landmass adjacent to the jetty and adversely impact the federal navigation project. The objective of the Long-Term Management Strategy study is to assess the risk that such a breach may occur, to evaluate the threat of adverse impact to the Grays Harbor Navigation Project resulting from any breach, and – if action is determined to be warranted – assess and recommend the most appropriate long-term strategy for continued maintenance of the authorized Grays Harbor navigation project features.

This LTMS study is being conducted under the Corps’ authority to operate and maintain the completed federal navigation project in the most efficient and effective manner. The current investigation is being completed at 100 percent federal cost. The study area under consideration includes those project features and adjacent environment affected by the erosion. The area includes the south jetty, revetment, navigation channel, South Beach, Half Moon Bay, and east to Whitcomb Flats.

Key points

  • The Corps’ mission is to provide a safe navigation channel in Grays Harbor. The Corps will continue to operate and maintain the federally authorized navigation project to ensure navigational safety.
  • The Corps’ goal is to make the best use of federal navigation funds in maintaining and protecting the federal navigation project features.
  • The objective of the LTMS study is to identify the most cost effective and environmentally sound strategy to operate and maintain the project. In order to identify this strategy the Corps evaluated alternatives for the continued operation and maintenance of the authorized Grays Harbor Navigation Project.
  • The Seattle District has followed the Corps’ deliberate and methodical planning and evaluation process in an effort to arrive at the best strategy for the taxpayers’ money. The strategy must take into consideration engineering feasibility, cost-effectiveness and environmental impacts. The strategy must be complete, effective, efficient and acceptable to state, local and public entities.
  • The study process allowed the team to recommend the best possible strategy for the long term, taking into consideration many factors particularly including cost-effectiveness and environmental impact.
  • The preferred alternative put forward in the Draft Letter Report is actually a combination of measures. The alternative, known as 1B, is a modification of the current practice, placing sediment when a trigger is met to minimize risk of breaching, combined with an extension of the jetty root to help stabilize the Half Moon Bay shoreline.

Study Timeline: 
    • Status Meeting with Interested Parties August 2004
    • Interested Party Interviews August 2004-January 2005
    • Information Sharing Event (science fair) November 2004
    • Collaborative Workshop February 2005
    • Information Event Criteria, ITR progress July 2005
    • Information Event (ITR conclusions) September 2005 
    • Follow-up workshop on alternatives September 2005
    • Mid-study update vie e-mail & web Winter 2005-2006
    • Public Status Meeting January 2006
    • Test dredging notice and news release January 2007
    • Alternatives Public Meeting January 2009
    • Final Array of alternatives June 2010 
    • Draft letter report and environmental assessment April 2012
    • Public Informational meeting May 2012
    • Public Review period ends June 2012
    • Respond to comments/Finalize letter report July - August 2012
    • Final letter report September 2012