Download Draft Shoreline Armoring Recommendations

DRAFT WRIA 9 Shoreline Armoring Recommendations
RCW 90.58.030 defines Substantial Development as: “any development of which the
total cost or fair market value exceeds five thousand dollars, or any development which
materially interferes with the normal public use of the water or shorelines of the state…”
The definition also allows an “exemption” from the definition of substantial development
for single family bulkheads as follows:
“Construction of the normal protective bulkhead common to single family residences.”
This exemption from the definition of substantial development has caused some
confusion by local jurisdictions regulating shoreline development under the Shoreline
Management Act and their individual Shoreline Master Programs (SMP). Although the
exemption (if the proposal qualifies) does not require the approval of a Shoreline
Substantial Development permit, the proposal must still comply with the requirements of
the SMA and the local SMP, which may include provisions for technical studies to
evaluate the need for the proposal, soft armoring alternatives to the proposal, and
mitigation of environmental impacts under the State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA).
Confusion also arises over the applicability of the exemption. Not all bulkheads (or other
forms of hard armoring) serve a protective function; therefore the evaluation of the need
for the bulkhead is essential. Smaller jurisdictions that do not have their own in-house
technical staff (e.g. geotechnical experts) have the option of having an applicant’s
technical study evaluated by an objective third party working on the local jurisdictions
behalf and charging the cost of that evaluation to the applicant.
The bluffs, beaches, and nearshore1 areas of Puget Sound are completely connected as
integral parts of a coastal system. Past and current management of parts of bluffs and
beaches (primarily bulkheading) treated in isolation from the coastal system has resulted
in substantial negative impacts to coastal erosion, fish, and wildlife. Protecting and
restoring sediment pathways is fundamental to conserving beaches, fish spawning and
salmon rearing habitat, wildlife foraging, and coastal wetlands.
There is a substantial amount of scientific information and the understanding of marine
coastal systems is improved to begin making informed decisions on managing the
nearshore. Most notably, the marine nearshore environment plays a critical role in the
life history and ecology of threatened Chinook salmon and many other species in Puget
Sound. Subsequent to the adoption of the WRIA 9 Salmon Habitat Plan, two key
technical studies were completed that provide additional data on the importance of
marine nearshore processes with particular emphasis on the importance of feeder bluffs.
The Inventory and Assessment of Current and Historic Beach Feeding Sources/Erosion
and Accretion Areas for the Marine Shorelines of Water Resource Inventory Areas 8 and
1
The nearshore zone is defined as that area between the lower limit of the photic zone
(approximately minus 30 meters mean lower low water) and the upland aquatic interface. The
nearshore zone extends landward to include coastal landforms such as coastal bluffs, the
backshore, sand spits, and coastal wetlands, as well as marine riparian zones on or adjacent to
any of these landforms and aquatic features. The nearshore zone includes sub-estuaries such as
the tidally influenced portions of river and stream mouths.
6/30/2017
9 report (2005) documents historic and current marine nearshore conditions. The report
includes detailed mapping of feeder bluff and accretions shoreforms along all 90 miles of
Puget Sound shoreline within WRIA 9. The report also characterizes feeder bluffs by
their significance (e.g. “exceptional,” “modified”). Building on the 2005 Inventory and
Assessment report, the Prioritization of Marine Shorelines of WRIA 9 for Juvenile
Salmonid Habitat Protection and Restoration report (2006) identifies Puget Sound
shoreline salmon habitats in southern King County that should be preserved or restored.
The 2006 report made specific recommendations for twelve subareas on Vashon-Maury
islands and from Magnolia bluffs to Federal Way that can be used by WRIA 9 marine
nearshore jurisdictions in evaluating armoring requests and in updating their SMP’s.
RECOMMENDATION:
1. Adopt the 2005 and 2006 marine nearshore reports cited above as part of the WRIA
9 Strategic Assessment.
2. Develop policy that specifically addresses marine nearshore armoring that will serve
to provide support and guide WRIA 9 marine nearshore jurisdictions during updates to
their SMP’s and in exercising their authority under the SMA, their SMP, and SEPA to
regulate, and when appropriate to deny exemption requests for single family bulkheads.
Policy Guidance for Armoring in the Nearshore would include the following elements:
 Shoreline exemption requests for single-family house hard armoring proposals
shall document the need for hard armoring and evaluate “soft” armoring
alternatives.
 State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) and the Shoreline Management Act
(SMA) should be used to require mitigation of adverse environmental impacts.
 Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) should be
consulted regarding Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) prior to making a
decision on the exemption request.
 Current WRIA 9 marine nearshore technical documents should be used in
evaluating shoreline armoring proposals.
 Protect existing undeveloped shoreline areas in WRIA 9 from development
practices that would be detrimental to the nearshore ecosystem. Develop
protection, acquisition, and incentive strategies for lands that would contribute
to maintaining or restoring ecosystem processes and functions to the benefit of
nearshore ecosystem health.
 Protect and enhance marine riparian vegetation.
 Protect forage fish spawning areas and other upper intertidal habitats and
species. Concentrate restoration and enhancement efforts on areas with
shoreline armoring and other development practices that reduce ecological
processes and functions that support habitat quality.
 Develop a restoration strategy for the WRIA 9 nearshore that takes an
ecosystem perspective within the landscape and helps to build our knowledge
of the nearshore environments.
 Identify critical areas for protection, restoration, and enhancement in WRIA 9.
Then protect, restore, and enhance them.
 Reduce the amount of existing shoreline armoring in WRIA 9, and prevent new
installations of shoreline armoring.
6/30/2017
 Restore natural physical and biological processes lost as a result of shoreline
armoring and other bank stabilization practices.
 Determine and restore natural drift cell processes, specifically sediment budges
(i.e., rates, volumes, distribution). Feeder areas are particularly important.
Where sediment supply is unimpeded, protect it. Where it is impeded, restore
or enhance it. Prevent the loss of sediment supply from armoring and other
structures within the drift cell.
 Develop and implement technical guidance for alternatives to traditional
shoreline armoring that maintain natural shoreline processes and functions.
6/30/2017