Shoreline Protection

ShoreScore Update
May 12, 2011 /

Shoreline Protection

In this issue of ShoreScore we update you on shoreline stabilization. The City SMP proposes dramatic changes to how your property will be separated from lake waters. While estimates of the number of parcels protected by bulkheads vary, any change in either lake water level or the type of protection provided will affect your property - higher than normal/unmanaged water levels will impact shorelines, whether they’re “protected” or not.

Traditionally, bulkheads have been used to protect properties and to extend land waterward. The latter is no longer acceptable. At issue is whether existing protection can be safely removed. If over 50% of your bulkhead needs repair, City staff recommends the only condition acceptable for continued use of the bulkhead is to protect your home. Other structures would not be included. State code is more generous, providing for protection of these other structures.

Staffs’ code calls for replacement of bulkheads with “soft” stabilization. But even the federal government recognizes that, given wave energy on our larger lakes, soft stabilization may not hold up. Even partial replacement of a bulkhead (which staff recommends when less than 50% of the bulkhead is involved) would expose properties to dangerous erosive water action. Of course, staff would provide you an alternate path allowing you to prove an exception to their rules is justified. Their option calls for an expensive geotechnical report which most property owners would find exceedingly expensive.

WSSA’s Sensible Plan recommends – (1) all repairs, including full replacement of stabilization be allowed whether a primary residence is involved or not, (2) no elaborate/costly reports be required for either repair or replacement, and (3) a pathway be created in the regulations encouraging voluntary changes to vertical-faced bulkheads. On this last point, techniques such as boulders would be used to help dissipate detrimental wave energy associated with vertical bulkheads. Pages 2 through 6, below, review staffs’ stabilization display boards from last month’s Open House.

Next Event – May 25th

WSSA alone cannot convince the Planning Commission that the draft regulations are unacceptable and WSSA’s Sensible Plan is. We will attempt to gain more than the standard 3 minutes to address some of the points we’ve been briefing you on. IT’S CLEAR WE NEED YOU AND YOUR NEIGHBORS TO ATTEND ON May 25th!

If you can attend and plan to speak, we encourage that: (a) you submit your comments in writing stipulating you want them “made part of the record”, (b) not merely complain, but indicate any personal impacts the regulations would impose on you, and (c) that you support WSSA’s Plan.

Should you not be able to attend, comments can be sent to the City at until May 25th.

Contact us at if you have any questions.

City Display / WSSA Critique
Existing Stabilization – Minor Repair
/ WSSA’s position is that the City’s action in restricting or requiring removal of stabilization will have serious unintended consequences. Our lakes have been “urbanized” and are protected by water management systems such as the locks on LakeWA and weirs (small dams) on the other lakes. The latter have not been properly managed and this doubles the need to retain conventional stabilization.

CONTINUED BELOW / 50% is arbitrary AND replacement is an acceptable form of repair.
Any repair should be acceptable, especially if warranted due to poor water level management or to protect existing structures.
City Display / WSSA Critique
Existing Stabilization – Major Repair
/ City staff has modified State code to shift repair of more than 50% of existing bulkheads to be considered full replacement. This would construe them as “New”. But staff also modifies State requirements and would restrict new bulkheads only to those absolutely needed to protect existing homes, not other property features.
But, that’s not all. Staffs’ code also restricts the “path” to bulkhead justification. An applicant will have to prove that all means to avoid use of a bulkhead have been exhausted.
/ WSSA believes staff has been overly restrictive and notes that State code allows that “An existing shoreline stabilization structure may be replaced with a similar structure… (and) “replacement” means the construction of a new structure.
/ See comments above. They apply equally here.
City Display / WSSA Critique
New Stabilization – “Avoidance” – Vegetation Option
/ See comments above. They apply equally here.
If adopted, these regulations would allow undue discretion for staff to demand additional, unwarranted, untested, and dangerous changes.
Action – Install plants to help reduce erosion and improve habitat.
New Stabilization – “Avoidance Not Feasible” –Option 1 - Bioengineering
Increasing level of stabilization allowed when avoidance or lesser form of stabilization
Is not feasible. A determination of feasible alternatives shall consider the following
Factors: Slope, Ability to Mitigate, Wave height, Nearsore Depth, Fetch, Wind Direction,
Risk to Structure, Cost. / An expensive, complex report process will be required of the applicant, not the City.
Slope contouring, Beach nourishment, and Plantings
/ See comments above. They apply equally here.
CONTINUED BELOW / Unnecessary and extremely expensive. Leaves interpretation to staff.
City Display / WSSA Critique
New Stabilization – “Avoidance Not Feasible” – Option 2 – Rock & Wood
Action – Place semi-natural arrangements of rock and wood, with transition to neighbors bulkheads. / See comments above. They apply equally here.
/ See comments above. They apply equally here.
New Stabilization – “Avoidance Not Feasible” – Option 3 – Rigid Structure
Action: Place semi-natural arrangements of rock and wood, with greater rigidity to protect primary structure and adjacent properties. (Including logs)
/ See comments above. They apply equally here.

CONTINUED BELOW

City Display / WSSA Critique
New Stabilization – “Avoidance Not Feasible” – Hard Stabilization Options 4, 5, and 6
Action – Place sloped bulkhead varying the design depending on site conditions and location of dwelling. / See comments above. They apply equally here.
/ Have these scenarios been prepared by qualifiedhydrologic professionals and tested under the extreme conditions that occur along Bellevue shorelines?


/ See comments above. They apply equally here.
A mix of hard and soft stabilization techniques may be used on different portions of the same property.

WSSA believes there are serious deficiencies reflected in these and other aspects of the draft SMP. We encourage your involvement and support to prevent obvious safety issues, loss of property value, and needless costs that would result from adoption of such a program. Please plan to attend the May 25th Commission Hearing and object!