It is not the intent of the owners of this website to confuse or irritate those who are involved in the process of restoring and stabilizing tidewater shorelines.  The statements and assertions made herein are those of the author who has been following this issue for over twenty five years first from a flood mitigation viewpoint, then from a fisheries management standpoint.  From this perspective, it is the author’s opinion that a major breakthrough occurred when Chesapeake Bay beaches were given as much consideration as tidal wetlands and restoration of fisheries habitat was directly attributed to preservation and enhancement of the historic tidewater shoreline.   The re-nourishment of ocean beaches for recreational value is widely accepted.  However, the regard for estuarine beach strands as an essential component to Bay-wide recovery is a recent development.  Terrapins and horseshoe crabs in particular have been influential in promoting the value of a comprehensive approach to shoreline stabilization which preserves and restores all elements of the tidewater shoreline.  Living shoreline design restores the sand material to a sustainable volume and gradient as well as the tidal vegetation and has demonstrated the value to dependent species. 

The loss and destruction of natural beaches in the tidewater landscape has a direct impact on the health of those species which depend on these un-vegetated areas for reproduction.  Clearly, alterations of the tidewater edge, both vegetation and topography, affect the living resources in the water column.  In the author’s opinion, the term “living shorelines” means restoring a natural repose, i.e. extent, slope, gradient, to the tidewater edge which works with the daily, seasonal, and catastrophic dynamics within the interface of land and water.   Comprehensive living shoreline design strives to recreate the natural topography and geomorphology as well as the native vegetation at the water’s edge.  Living shorelines involve the replacement of beaches using comparable sand material in conjunction with native tidal wetland vegetation which is considerate of the off-shore material, gradients, orientation, submerged conditions and adjacent landscapes.

Perhaps less obvious, alterations of the edge, i.e. piers, bulkheads, and other shore erosion mitigations measures almost always are situated in the public domain, on those submerged lands which belong to the public.  These alterations of the public domain minimize the quality of the submerged habitat, compromise the shore’s ability to withstand storm events, and limit the public’s access to the water, i.e. fishing rights.  At a time when restoring the fish in the Chesapeake Bay has become the benchmark of success in environmental recovery, it seems logical that fish habitat would be of paramount concern.  Although apparently there is little hope for restricting private property rights, there should be an increased awareness of what may be allowed to occur on and within the public domain.  Therefore, the public should not always be expected to yield to private property rights for the measures necessary to protect or stabilize private waterfront property.  However, the case can be made to offer up the public domain if the shore erosion mitigation measures actually restore habitat and enhance the quality of the tidewater edge for the benefit of fish and the public interest.  Use of the public domain for the replacement of beaches, tidal wetlands, and submerged fisheries structure is reasonable.