|
EROSION: Opponents say beach armoring destroys beaches for the pubic, is costly, and often does not work. OCEAN SHORES - A barricade of rocks dumped on a public beach to save a row of condos from the hungry Pacific is at the heart of a growing battle over the fate of Washington's wind-swept ocean beaches. The central question: Should the state allow rock walls and other "beach armoring" to protect development from erosion on the state's largely untouched south coast? Property owners, developers and some local government officials so far are saying yes - at least to temporary walls like the one here. It's an approach neighboring Oregon has already rejected, choosing to let nature take its course. Without intervention, seawall supporters say, millions of dollars in property will be lost to beach erosion, which, for reasons not entirely understood, has been quickening in recent years. |
OTHER STATES
The 850-foot seawall thrown up here to protect condominiums from the Pacific Ocean would be illegal in at least four coastal states and was recently rejected as a solution by fifth - Oregon. North Carolina, South Carolina, Maine and Rhode Island "are making a concerted effort to save beaches for the next generation" said Orrin Pilkey, a Duke University geology professor and an expert on ways to preserve beaches in the face of human development. Seawalls and other "hard solutions" to beach erosion are outlawed in those states because they destroy beaches, Pilkey said. Several other coastal states virtually ban "armoring" as the practice is called. One of those states is Oregon, whose governor, John Kitzhaber, refused to bend state rules to save 32 luxury homes threatened by a sloughing-dune at Oceanside. The homeowners are still trying to find a way to save their properties. |
The beach at ocean Shores receded by 35 feet in the winter of 1996, after the 850-foot-long rock seawall was installed. Geologists say it would have receded another 35 feet, and taken out the condos, had the wall not been there. Other areas along the south coast are seeing similar erosion.
The wall "has been absolutely fabulous. It has done more than we had hoped for," said Terra Tosland of Point Brown Resort, which manages the wooden timeshare condos for out-of-towners.
State regulators, environmentalists and a national expert of beach erosion say they're fighting to protect Washington's ocean beaches too. They just disagree over what that means.
Seawall opponents say beach armoring destroys beaches for the public, is costly, and often does not work. At best, they say, what little beach is left eventually gets washed away, leaving only the seawall. Gone is an open beach for strollers, surfers, clammers and beachcombers.
At worst, the sea goes around the wall and turns it into an island, foes say.
"Construction of this wall flies in the face of a huge national experience with seawalls beginning in New Jersey 150 years ago," says Duke University geology professor Orrin Pilkey, a national expert on beach erosion.
"Newjerseyization of the southwest beaches has begun," he said in a 1997 study titled Management of Washington's Ocean Beaches: A Banana Republic Approach?
Pilkey, director of Duke's Study of Developed Shorelines, dismisses state regulators' characterization of the wall here as a "temporary measure."
"That's not a temporary wall. It's going to get bigger and longer. That's speaking statistically," he said.
Pilkey and other geologists say pent-up wave energy simply transfers to the unprotected beach at each end of such walls, increasing erosion there and requiring construction of more wall.
In fact, the city has already asked the state for permission to extend the barrier with 600 feet of "geotube," 112-foot wide plastic tubing filled with sand.
The dispute has shaken state regulators awake.
Despite seemingly tough environmental laws, Washington has no coherent policy for dealing with the beach-erosion problem. The 15-foot-high "wave revetment" at Ocean Shores, financed by property owners, has become the flash point for the issue in Washington.
The rock-pile wall, also called a "wave bumper" is the first on a Washington ocean beach and could set a precedent for erosion-control revetments at a score of other erosion hot spots.
The wall, just north of the city's North Jetty at the mouth of Grays Harbor, was erected in October 1996 as the ocean licked at a row of condominiums. It was build under an emergency decree that allowed the city to bypass necessary hearings and permits under the state Shoreline Management Act.
Scientists believe the erosion is the result of a loss of replenishing sand that once flowed from the Columbia River and was swept north by ocean currents. That sand now is trapped by the 14 dams constructed along the river since 1930, scientists believe, causing a shrinkage of beaches up and down the south coast. The erosion began after decades of beach expansion.
State and local government officials and regulators at both levels now argue over how to deal with coastal erosion.
"What we're finding is that there isn't much policy to address these issues. A lot of this stuff is like going back to the drawing board, and unfortunately we don't have a lot of time," said Sue Patnude, Ocean Shores' city planner.
At the state level, the departments of Ecology and of Fish and Wildlife only reluctantly removed environmental hurdles to building the wall, which they specified must be removed after two winters - by late May. The state hasn't decided whether to extend the temporary permit or order homewoners to tear out the wall.
Fish and Wildlife granted a permit after initially resisting on grounds the wall could threaten habitat of a fish species, the surf smelt
Ecology did not intervene when the city bypassed restrictions in the state Shoreline Management Act on grounds it faced an emergency - the loss of condos. But records of internal mail among Ecology regulators show debate raged hot and heavy.
"If armoring is permitted at this location, we may have great difficulty arguing against it anywhere else on ocean beaches," Hugh Shipman, Ecology's geologist, told superiors a few months before the wall was built.
The man who represented Ecology in its dealings with Ocean Shores, Chuck Gale, championed construction of the wall, to the chagrin of many colleagues. Gale helped the city and its consultant, Harry Hosey, figure out how to bypass his agency's permitting and public-review processes.
Gale's boss, Sue Mauermann, removed him from his role as go-between last spring, in part because the ill will between Gale and his coworkers. In January, Gale quit his 10-year job to work for Hosey's company, Pacific International Engineering of Edmonds.
On another front, Pilkey collided with Hosey over the consultant's advice and methods at Ocean Shores.
Hosey's solution to coastal erosion "are in disregard to the future well-being of Washington's beaches," Pilkey says.
Calling the rock barricade "very temporary," Hosey says it was a necessary stop-gap while the parties forge long-term solutions.
"My company's mandate for our clients is to save them from pending disaster," he said.
Strong disagreement over how to deal with shoreline erosion continues within the city of Ocean Shores as well.
Patnude, the city planner, has clashed with Hosey and some of his city-government backers over what is best for the beach and shoreline homeowners.
She favored moving the condos back from the brink, saying construction so close to the shore should never have been allowed.
"I totally do not agree with hard stabilization structures," Patnude said. "I've seen what happens on the beach, and beaches are too precious to mess with."
City Manager Jack McKenzie, who took office after the wall was built, defends the seawall and the request to extend it with geotubes. He doesn't believe the condos should have been moved.
"Those are big structure," he said, "not built to move."
Back to Estuary Index Page
Back to Whats New Index Page
Back to Chehalis River Council Index Page
Grays Harbor County Issues Page