"a bi-monthly journal of environmental news and commentary..."

How to Fix the Beach

Harry Branch

Much of the shoreline of South Puget Sound has been armored with concrete and rock. This has had a negative impact on several important natural processes. There are currently only weak incentives for anyone to remove any concrete or rock. The common perception is that even the mention of restoration can unleash a bureaucratic minefield and bring all work to a stop. The current system is actually perceived as standing in the way.

The nearshore is the nexus between two very different environments, land and sea. It impacts water quality and food production and provides spawning and rearing habitat for numerous species. The structure of the nearshore should be as natural as possible with salt marsh plants in some locations (as at Mud Bay) and vine maple or cedar in others (as at Priest Point Park). Natural features are not necessarily inconsistent with human activities.

Nearshore improvement is a hot topic at the Puget Sound Partnership. So far the discussion has centered on how to assess and prioritize sites. This hasn't been easy because all the nearshore is important and it all will need help eventually. Actions that might be taken after sites are assessed and prioritized have not been considered. The whole idea has waterfront property owners jittery.

This shouldn't be so. Environmental improvements increase value. The shoreline of Puget Sound as it naturally exists is more beautiful than concrete, rock, lawn and artificial landscaping. How can property owners be willingly brought on board?

One solution would be to amend the permitting process into a set of tiers:

• Tier one: If restoration can be conducted in a way that is practicable and won't impede basic plans, restoration should occur.
• Tier two: If restoration would negatively impact other plans, then enhancement should occur.
• Tier three: Only if restoration and/or enhancement are impracticable should maintenance or improvements occur with neither. -}

  For example, a hypothetical concrete wall along the waterfront is collapsing and needs replacement. If the area is low bank with no apparent history of erosion and the wall could be removed, the project falls under the first tier. If there's a risk of sloughing or erosion the wall might be replaced and the bank stabilized with boulders, artificial beach, tide pools and plantings. In this case it falls under the second tier. If the wall supports a ferry dock we look elsewhere for opportunity and call it the third tier. The same methods could be applied to culverts and other modifications.

  This is work whose time has come. The property owner is on board automatically because s/he is already looking at some expense. If costs to a property owner were to exceed benefits, compensation by the public would be a bargain. Some of the money we're spending assessing, prioritizing and endlessly meeting with stakeholders could be diverted directly to those impacted.

  By addressing locations in the order they would be addressed for reasons of entropy of economics we would all get the most from our investment.

  Harry Branch is a retired captain of fishing, charter and research vessels. He has a Masters of Environmental Studies degree from The Evergreen State College.

  
  

  Back to Home page.