19-104208-Technical Memo-09-17-2020-V1
North Fork Environmental
TECHNICAL MEMORANDUM
The City of Federal Way has requested that we provide a narrative addressing the criteria contained
within FWRC 15.05.050(1). Our responses can be found in bold below each item.
15.05.050 Shoreline modifications.
1) Shoreline stabilization. Shoreline stabilization may be permitted in the shoreline residential
environment. Hard armoring (e.g., bulkheads and riprap) is subject to a shoreline conditional use permit
in the urban conservancy environment. Soft-shore stabilization may be permitted in the urban
conservancy environment. Shoreline stabilization proposals shall address the following:
The Grealish project appears to be in a shoreline residential environment
(a) Shoreline stabilization, including bulkheads, shall not be considered an outright permitted use on the
city’s shorelines. In order for shoreline stabilization to be permitted the city must find that:
(i) The applicant shall provide a geotechnical report, prepared by a qualified professional, that estimates
the rate of erosion and evaluates alternative solutions; the urgency associated with the specific
situation; and demonstrates the project is consistent with WAC 173-26-231; and
Envirotech Engineering provided a geotechnical report for the proposed project.
(ii) Soft-shore stabilization alternatives such as slope drainage systems, vegetative growth stabilization,
gravel berms, and beach nourishment shall be prioritized over structural options such as bulkheads and
riprap. The “softest” effective alternative shall be utilized; and
Envirotech Engineering and North Fork Environmental (NFE) analyzed the Grealish site for softshore
options. Please see Envirotech Engineering geotechnical report for their conclusion. NFE uses the
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Marine Shoreline Design Guidelines (MSDG) to
evaluate all of their projects. Because of the amount of wave fetch and the built-environment, the
MSDG does not recommend softshore for this location.
Date: August 2, 2020
To: City of Federal Way
Attn: Stacey Welsh, Principal Planner
From: North Fork Environmental, Inc.
Bill Rehe, Senior Biologist
Subject: Grealish Replacement Bulkhead (19-104206-SH)
FWRC 15.05.050(1) narrative
North Fork Environmental
(iii) In the case of proposed hard armoring stabilization solutions (e.g., bulkheads and riprap), erosion
from waves or currents presents a clear and imminent (damage within three years) threat to a legally
established primary structure, one or more substantial accessory structures, water-dependent
development, ecological restoration/toxic clean-up remediation projects, or public improvements; and
The existing concrete bulkhead was damaged by an “average” storm event. The erosion from waves
presents a clear and imminent threat to the Grealish’s boat ramp, beach access stairs, davit crane and
shed (substantial accessory structures and water-dependent development) and to the neighbor’s
primary structures.
(iv) In the case of bulkheads and riprap, the proposed shoreline stabilization is located landward of the
ordinary high water mark; and
The existing concrete bulkhead is slightly below OHW. We are proposing to construct the replacement
bulkhead at or above OHW.
(v) The proposed shoreline stabilization is the minimum size necessary to protect existing
improvements; and
Based on input from the project structural and geotechnical engineer, the slight increase in height (to
72 inches) is the minimum size necessary to protect the existing improvements.
(vi) The applicant shall demonstrate that impacts to sediment transport are minimized to the greatest
extent possible; and
The current concrete bulkhead does not seem to be impacting sediment transportation. Moving the
replacement bulkhead landward will further reduce impacts to sediment transportation impacts.
(vii) Shoreline stabilization shall not have an adverse impact on the property of others and shall be
designed so as not to create the need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere; and
The proposed, replacement shoreline stabilization will not have any adverse impacts on the property
of others or shall not create the need for shoreline stabilization elsewhere. The proposed design will
help protect the neighbor home to the south that currently gets flooded during storm events.
(viii) Shoreline stabilization shall not significantly interfere with normal surface and/or subsurface
drainage into the water body and shall be constructed using an approved filter cloth or other suitable
means to allow passage of surface and groundwater without internal erosion of fine material; and
The proposed shoreline stabilization will not significantly interfere with normal surface and/or
subsurface drainage into the Puget Sound. The proposed replacement concrete bulkhead will be
constructed using an approved filter cloth and/or drainage rock to allow passage of surface and
groundwater without internal erosion of fine material.
North Fork Environmental
(ix) Shoreline stabilization shall not be used to create new lands; and
No additional land will be created.
(x) Use of chemically treated wood is prohibited for any shoreline stabilization proposal within fresh
water lake shorelines; and
No chemically treated wood is being used.
(xi) Use of creosote-treated wood is prohibited within marine shorelines; and
No creosote treated wood is being used
(xii) Revegetation with native plants is required as part of the shoreline stabilization project; and
The disturbed area behind the replacement bulkhead will be revegetated after completion of the
shoreline stabilization.
(xiii) Shoreline stabilization shall not otherwise result in a net loss of ecological functions.
The proposed project will not result in a net loss of ecological function. See FEMA habitat assessment
for further details.
(b) When a bulkhead or other structural alternative is permitted subject to subsection (1)(a) of this
section, the following standards shall apply:
(i) The maximum height of the proposed bulkhead or other stabilization structure is no more than one
foot in height above the elevation of ordinary high water mark on lakes, measured from grade on the
waterward side of the bulkhead or structure; and the minimum necessary to protect the upland
structure(s) or development proposal(s) along tidal waters. Minimum necessary bulkhead height
requirements must be supported by both recorded tidal events and geotechnical documentation by a
qualified professional. The city may employ an outside consultant at the applicant’s expense for third-
party review of the report.
The geotechnical report states that the replacement bulkhead needs to be 72”, as a minimum to
protect the existing infrastructure. This is a minor increase of 9 to 16 inches in height.
NFE analysis, using WDFW’s MSDG, was to increase the bulkhead height for storm surge by 1 to 2 feet,
plus and additional 1 to 2 feet for sea-level rise (Chapter 7.1 MSDG).
Based on these two independent reviews, the recommendations of Envirotech are the minimum
height necessary.
North Fork Environmental
(ii) When a bulkhead or other stabilization structure has deteriorated such that the ordinary high water
mark has been established by the presence and action of water landward of the existing bulkhead, then
the replacement bulkhead or structure must be located at or landward of the ordinary high water mark.
The existing bulkhead has not deteriorated or allowed for OHW to reestablish behind the structure.
We are proposing to relocate the replacement structure to be at or landward of OWH.
(iii) Repair of an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is permitted; provided, that the
repaired bulkhead or structure is not relocated further waterward or increased in height.
The existing concrete bulkhead has been damaged by recent storms, necessitating the replacement of
the structure. The replacement structure will be located landward, not waterward of its current
location. Please see our comment above about the need to increase the height of the bulkhead
slightly.
(iv) If an existing bulkhead or other stabilization structure is destroyed it may be replaced as it existed
prior to destruction, provided application for required permits is made within one year of destruction.
Additions to or increases in size of existing shoreline stabilization measures shall be considered new
structures.
The existing structure is still functioning.
(v) Soft-shoreline stabilization measures that provide restoration of shoreline ecological functions may
be permitted waterward of the ordinary high water mark.
N/A
(vi) The project satisfies the provisions of FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b).
FWRC 15.05.040(5)(b) states Shoreline modification structures may intrude into critical salmonid
habitats only where the proponent demonstrates all of the following conditions are met: (i) An
alternative alignment or location is not feasible;
(ii) The project is designed to minimize its impacts on the environment;
(iii) If the project will create unavoidable adverse impacts, the impacts are mitigated by creating in-
kind replacement habitat near the project. Where in-kind replacement mitigation is not feasible,
rehabilitating degraded habitat may be required as a substitute;
(iv) The project satisfies all provisions of FWRC 15.05.050, Shoreline modifications.
The proposed bulkhead replacement project will not intrude into critical salmon habitats. We are
proposing to move the replacement structure landward, which will provide a minor increase in critical
salmon habitat.
North Fork Environmental
(c) Creation of new lots shall be prohibited where development and use on new lots would require
structural shoreline stabilization over the life of the development. The following standards shall apply to
new development:
(i) New development that would require shoreline stabilization which causes significant impacts to
adjacent or down-current properties and shoreline areas should not be allowed.
No new development is being proposed.
(ii) New development, including newly created parcels, is required to be designed and located to
prevent the need for future shoreline stabilization as documented by a geotechnical analysis.
No new development is being proposed.
(iii) New development on steep slopes and bluffs is required to be set back sufficiently to ensure that
shoreline stabilization is unlikely to be necessary during the life of the project as demonstrated by a
geotechnical analysis.
No new development is being proposed.