Sea Wall Spurs Preservation Dispute -- Beach Sacrificed To Save Condos, Opponents Say

OCEAN SHORES, Grays Harbor County - 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 windswept 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 southwest 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, sea-wall 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.

The beach at Ocean Shores receded by 35 feet in the winter of 1996, after the 850-foot-long rock sea wall 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 southwest coast have 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 time-share condos..

State regulators, environmentalists and an expert on beach erosion say they're fighting to protect Washington's ocean beaches, too. They just disagree over what that means.

The flat, windy expanses of gray sand and treacherous currents are said to lack the charm of sheltered Puget Sound, with its wooded coves and islands, or of the Oregon coast, with its white sand, majestic cliffs, dunes and peaceful coves. But many consider the empty, untamed atmosphere of Washington's Pacific beaches a national treasure.

Sea-wall opponents say 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 sea wall. 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 sea walls, beginning in New Jersey 150 years ago," says Duke University geology professor Orrin Pilkey, an expert on beach erosion. "Newjerseyization of the southwest beaches has begun," he said in a 1997 study.

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," 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," 12-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, which has been addressed, and in some cases resolved, by other states.

Oregon Gov. John Kitzhaber recently refused to bend his state's beach laws and allow a sea wall that might save threatened homes at an exclusive, gated Oceanside development.

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 hot spots, from Fort Canby near the Oregon border as far north as Taholah at the mouth of the Quinault River.

The wall was erected in October 1996 as the ocean licked at a row of five condominium complexes. It was built under an emergency decree that allowed the city to bypass necessary hearings and permits under the state Shoreline Management Act.

Scientists think 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 on the river since 1930, scientists say. The erosion began after decades of beach expansion.

"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 Fish and Wildlife 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 homeowners 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.

Chuck Gale, who represented Ecology in its dealings with Ocean Shores, championed construction of the wall, to the chagrin of many colleagues. Gale helped the city and its consultant, Harry Hosey, bypass his agency's permitting and public-review processes.

"People are scared. One can only imagine how he or she would act in the place of the owners," Gale told Ecology officials in an e-mail sent months before the wall was approved and built.

Gale's boss, Sue Mauermann, removed him from his role as go-between last spring, in part because of the ill will between Gale and his co-workers. 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.

"They ignore a principle of modern shoreline engineering: Always try the inexpensive and soft solution first. I believe the contractor's work would be unacceptable in East and Gulf coast beach communities, in states with much more experience in open-ocean shoreline management."

Hosey counters that Pilkey isn't "living in the real world."

Calling the rock barricade "very temporary," Hosey says it is a necessary stop-gap while the parties forge long-term solutions.

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.