By Orrin H. Pilkey
James B. Duke Professor of Geology
Duke University School of the Environment
Division of Earth and Ocean Sciences
Durham, North Carolina, 27708
Background of this Report
I have had the privilege of spending a 5 month sabbatical leave in Olympia, Washington. During this time I have spoken with most of Washington's coastal geologists and have been in the field with them as well as with a number of state agency staff members and members of community organizations. Of particular interest to me is the SW barrier coast which is similar in geologic makeup to the barrier island coast of North Carolina. I am the author/co-author or co-editor of a number of books on coastal problems, the most recent (1996) of which are Living by the Rules of the Sea and The Corps and the Shore. My address until June 26 is 900 East Bay Drive, Unit A 302, Olympia WA.98506, Phone 360 754 6958. My permanent phone No. after July 2 is 919 684 4238.
Washington State has some of the nation's most beautiful and least developed open ocean barrier beaches. These are the beaches facing the ocean on the sand spits between the mouth of the Columbia River to the rock outcrops at the mouth of the Copalis River. In many ways this shoreline is like the barrier island shorelines of the US East and Gulf Coasts. This is important because many of the lessons learned about beach preservation and beach management on the other coasts will apply to the Washington sandy coast.
There are important differences between east and west coast beaches. For example few people swim on the Washington shore and the Washington beach contains important clam resources. But beach behavior in response to wave and tidal action, sand supply and sea level change is the same everywhere (and is imperfectly understood). It is also true everywhere that there is no erosion problem until someone put buildings right next to the beach. The number of building owners responsible for the problem is very small compared to the number of people who use the beach.
During the time of barrier beach community development here, the shoreline has been accreting or building seaward with sand derived from the Colombia River. This is a most unusual (and most fortunate) situation since at least 80% of America's beaches are assumed to be retreating. Washington coastal geologists believe that at least part of the reason for shoreline accretion is the breakup of the former tidal delta by the jetties at the mouth of the Columbia River. Diminished sand supply due to damming of the Colombia contributes to the problem as well. It is also probable that the same tidal delta breakup occurred at the jettied entrance to Grays Harbor and was responsible for the massive shoreline accretion that occurred until recently in Ocean Shores. It now appears that the states shorelines are beginning a long term erosion phase in response to this reduction of sand supply.
The management of Washington States beaches is at a crossroads. Fundamental and irreversible erosion has begun. Lessons about shoreline armoring learned from New Jersey a hundred years ago are not being applied here. The first beach-destroying seawall was built on a Washington open ocean beach in1996. Action is needed now to save the beaches for future generations.
The situation is best summarized by a June 4, 1997 article in the Ocean Shore's North Coast News: "A summit on coastal erosion was recently held in Westport with special guest Tom Fitzsimmons, the new head of the State Department of Ecology. Hosted by consultant Harry Hosey the meeting included representatives from Pacific and Grays Harbor Counties, the cities of Ocean Shores. Westport, Long Beach and state representatives-----------.
'Under contract with various governments, Hosey is coordinating all of the responses and solutions for coastal erosion in Southwest Washington".
"The local input from Grays Harbor and Pacific counties [to the multi-million dollar, five year study of the Washington Coast by the Department of Ecology and the U S Geological Survey] will be coordinated by Pacific International Engineering and Harry Hosey under a contract let by the counties".
The coastal caucus made up of state legislators urged Ecology to fund Hosey to study "immediate coastal issues". They recommended that some of the money for the USGS-Ecology joint program be directed to Hosey.
[To paraphrase:Hosey acts as lobbyist for the coastal communities both in Washington DC and Olympia. He has lobbied in congress for beach nourishment money for Ocean Shores and apparently successfully lobbied Ecology in July for the $100,000 the coastal caucus wanted him to have for the study of "immediate coastal issues].
"Ecology did not protest the construction of the rock revetment (at Ocean Shores) and actually helped the city and property owners overcome provisions in the law that would have prohibited the structure."
The future of coastal management is completely controlled by a single contractor. In my opinion:
The contractor can be expected to be (and has been) financially motivated and to come up with costly solutions
The contractor can be expected to respond, at best, to the immediate needs of coastal dwellers, with little concern for the larger and longer term picture of preservation of the beaches for future generations.
State policy. or rather lack of enforcement of it, puts the long term (several decade) quality of Washington's beautiful beaches at extreme risk.
Project designs to solve the states erosion problems are mostly hard (rock seawallls and groins), not soft solutions. Hard stabilization eventually destroys beaches.
The contractor's solutions are short term, not long term.
All planning, and design work is being carried out by or under the supervision of Mr. Harry Hosey of Pacific International Inc. This includes identification of problems (some of which I argue are non-existent), getting money (much of which originally came from Ecology) from communities for design work , carrying out of various studies and lobbying in Olympia and in Washington DC for federal and state money, ultimately to be contracted to or through his company. There is no evidence of impropriety but the person who lobbies, designs, coordinates and identifies problems is the same person who makes the profit. It is not a healthy management situation.
Except for the permitting process, the state has backed away from its responsibilities in coastal management. The permitting process does not work well because emergencies can be declared which allows state regulations to be ignored. At the beach every engineering project is an emergency The permitting process, when it is followed, seems to be characterized by a lack of coordination between state agencies, exacerbated perhaps because the design and planning process is carried out entirely outside the bureaucracy.
Meetings such as the erosion summit described above are held for a small invited few with no critics from state agencies or environmental groups and no members of the public. There is a total lack of meaningful public input, public education and societal dialogue in general. Local politicians have significant input but they hear only the voice of Mr. Hosey to inform them of the viability of various management options. Significant local input is useful but state control is a must if long term problems as well as the interests of tourists, surfers, clammers, environmentalists and others who use the beaches a day at a time, are to be considered. Preservation of beaches for future generations has never succeeded in this country under exclusively local control.
That the Director of Ecology is considered a special guest, is a sure indication that the state has backed away from its responsibilities. Clearly this is a system without proper checks and balances and the immediate fault lies mainly with the Department of Ecology. I have no understanding of the undoubtedly complex political history of this state of affairs. As an outsider, I wonder where are State Parks, Fish and Wildlife and the Department of Natural Resources in the picture of beach management? I do know that the problem is not at staff level in these agencies. Ecology staff members concerned with the coast as well as such staff in several other agencies are knowledgeable, competent and dedicated. They are aware of the conflict problem.
There is a strong need for state control of coastal management. The solutions selected by Hosey and his associates are in disregard for the future well being of Washington's beaches. They ignore a principle of modern shoreline engineering: always try the inexpensive and soft solution first. I believe that this contractors work would be unacceptable in East and Gulf Coast beach communities in states with much more experience in shoreline management. However Washington State policy makers can hardly claim a lack of understanding of the problem of shoreline armoring. Many beaches in Puget Sound have been lost due to shoreline armoring.
The Problem:
Erosion at the south end of Ocean Shores is very rapid and a number of recently constructed dwellings are threatened. The buildings are located on a very large jetty fillet which advanced the shoreline as much as 7000 feet in recent decades. Now shoreline advance has turned into shoreline retreat. The reversal of accretion into erosion is best assumed to be a fundamental and permanent change.
The solution:
An 800 ft long seawall called a wave bumper was completed in Nov. 1996 at a site near the jetty at the south end of Ocean Shores. An emergency was declared and as a result no public discussion occurred and a number of state environmental regulations did not apply. Cost: private dollars - $1/2m.
The problem with the solution:
Every seawall in the world is put up in an "emergency situation and if declarations of erosion emergency are allowed in the future there never will be a societal debate on the issue. This is a profound event for the Washington Coast. This is the first seawall on the sandy open ocean spit coast ,formed by sand from the Colombia River. It will almost certainly lead to many more seawalls, eventually leading (in a time frame of concern to my grandchildren) to the loss of the recreational beach over large shoreline reaches. Already the Ocean Shores wall is leading to increased erosion on adjacent downdrift beaches. The wall would be illegal in 4 states (NC, SC, ME and RI)because these states are make in a concerted effort to save beaches for the next generations. Construction of this wall flies in the face of a huge national experience with seawalls beginning in New Jersey more than 150 years ago. NewJerseyization of the SW beaches has begun.
Soft solution:
Replenish the beach or move the buildings back. Replenishment is too expensive for such a lightly developed community although possibly the Corps could be convinced to put "navigation sand" on the beach. Moving the buildings back would be difficult because of the lack of public education in Washington about the open Ocean shoreline problem but this may be necessary to save the beaches.
The problem:
Erosion at Point Chehalis and destruction of the sewer outfall pipe is said to be related to the breech at the south jetty which occurred in 1994. The wastewater treatment plant is said to be threatened by erosion but this is not true. The Corps correctly noted that navigation was not affected by the breech. Point Chehalis erosion is certainly in large part due to the proximity of the navigation channel ( as noted by the Corps) which permanently sweeps away any sand that is lost in a "seaward" direction.
The solution:
The proposed Corps of Engineer alternative involves extending the jetty, making it into a seawall and extending it along the entire shoreline of half moon bay which will be moved to a new seaward location. It is important to emphasize that this is a seawall not a jetty extension. A beach will than be constructed from channel maintenance sand (100,000 cu yds per year) for twenty years) helped along by additional beach nourishment (400,000 cu yds initially) every 4 years. Initial cost $14m, annual maintenance $1.5m
Problems with the solution:
No beach will be maintained and an important recreational beach will be lost. The Corps points out that moving the beach forward (with emplacement of the new seawall or extended jetty) will increase the rate of loss of replenished beach. That rate (which is not to be confused with natural shoreline erosion rates) will be extremely high as indicated by the previous loss of 700,000 cu yds of sand in 2 years from the Half Moon Bay beach in it's current, more landward, lower loss rate position. The proposed amount of sand to maintain a beach in front of the new jetty extension-seawall is probably less than 1/4 of what will actually be needed. Maintaining a beach is probably impossible within any reasonable economic framework.
Soft solution:
Move the sewer pipe to a location behind the Westport seawall and discharge the effluent near the docks. Reopen the gap between the jetty breech, or let nature take its course and reopen the breech which, judging from the beach behavior during the previous breech, will allow sand to pour into half moon bay. Alternatively maintain the nourished beach breech repair and nourish Half Moon Bay frequently with small volumes of sand. There are many possible "soft" variations that could be tried that will assure maintenance of a much used recreational beach lining the bay. If the soft approach doesn't work, the seawall can be built later
The problem:
The mouth of Conner Creek has been migrating to the north since the mid 1800's About a decade ago the migration rate took a jump, threatening some homes and preventing "dry" access to the beach for some property owners. At the present time the mouth of the creek moved 1.3 miles since 1987 and is now located within 100 yds of a beach access point and within 0.2 miles of state property at the Cophalis delta. The access point will be lost, to the consternation of emergency rescue officials
The solution:
Dig a new channel for Conner Creek near where the migration began a decade ago and have the river mouth exit between rock groins spaced 500 feet apart. The old river mouth will be plugged with some sort of cofferdam and the new channel will be partially rock lined. Cost $750,000
Problems with the solution:
It won't work and it will ultimately damage the beach. Emplacement of armoring on a shoreline will lead to erosion and more armoring. This should be an absolute last resort approach. Judging from experience with previous attempts at channelizing Conner Creek, the channel will quickly fill with sand from minor storm overwash coming from the ocean side. When channel plugging occurs and if the cofferdam on the old river channel holds, this will lead to the damming and backing up of the creek. Conner Creek is a very low gradient, low discharge stream making it unlikely that it will remove beach sand plugs even during flood conditions, with out the help of a bulldozer . The contractor predicted flow conditions using data from a stream with 3 to 5X higher discharge and 2X the annual rainfall (Shafer Creek).
The soft solution:
Let the stream continue north as it wishes to do, ultimately to join the Copalis River. Build a small bridge over the stream to allow beach access by vehicles . Allow upstream property owners to access the beach by bridging the stream with small walkovers.
The problem:
Long term erosion of the north side of the inlet due to natural migration of the channel, causing serious property loss and threatened loss of the highway and some cranberry bogs. Initially the loss of homes was driving the response to this problem. When it became apparent that federal highway funds might become available the problem became the road!
The solution:
Making a long story short, the current solution is to build a groin perpendicular to the shoreline at a point where the highway is threatened. The groin will be extended into the upper channel and the channel will be partially blocked by sinking long plastic sand filled "sand bags", The intention ids to divert the channel toward the center of the inlet.
The problems with the solution:
This is purely an experiment and rule #1 in coastal engineering is do not put in a structure unless you have at least a fair idea of what will happen. It cannot be predicted with any accuracy what the channel will do. There is no indication that this will solve the erosion problem. One possibility is that the channel blockage will simply create a meander that, when it impinges back on the shoreline in a more seaward location, will increase the already high erosion rates where homes are now falling in. Studies by the DOT and other state geologists indicate that the channel migration may soon stop because it is impinging on relatively hard rock.
The soft solution:
Move the road. Sufficient funds ($30 to $40m) are available to do this.
The beaches of SW Washington are in mortal danger. The state, especially the Department of Ecology, must wrest back control of beach management if the next generation of beach users is to enjoy the same quality of beaches we do today.
For further information on this subject look at the:
Southwestern Washington Coastal Erosion Project homepage
and/or check into:
Beach Restoration to Reverse the Effects of
Shoreline Erosion
Back to Coastal Estuary Concerns Index Page
Back to What's New Page
Back to Index Page
Grays Harbor County Issues Page