SUMMARY SHEET- Shoreline Stabilization
Existing Regulations






New stabilization allowed when demonstrated as necessary to protect existing primary
structures, public facilities and allowed land area (25 feet).
Require location of new primary structures so as to avoid need for stabilization.
Where allowed, soft stabilization is required unless applicant demonstrates such
measures are not technically feasible.
Minor repair permitted but repairs of significant failures or loss of integrity do not qualify
Major repair is considered “new” stabilization and must meet the standards for
construction of new stabilization.
Existing setback from OHWM is preserved with permit approval when hard stabilization
is replaced with soft stabilization.
WAC 173-26-231 (3)






Recognize the shoreline is, by varying degrees, naturally unstable with erosion and
accretion providing the ecological functions that sustain the ecology of the shoreline.
Development of the shoreline is thought to have deleterious effects that result in
negative impacts to ecological functions.
Strong preference for avoiding stabilization to the extent feasible.
New structural stabilization is prohibited except when geotechnical analysis
demonstrates, that existing structure is in danger from wave-caused shoreline erosion.
Must show nonstructural measures, such as placing development farther from the
shoreline, planting vegetation, or installing drainage improvements are not feasible.
Any stabilization must ensure no net loss of ecological function.
Draft Code Development Direction

Draft Policy SH-114: Where stabilization is required (based on feasibility test above)
maintain preference for soft stabilization.
 Sh-90 & SH-116: Create standards that ensure no net loss of ecological function.
 Draft Policy SH-117: Remove regulatory obstacles to use of soft stabilization options.
 Planning Commission Direction: Provide predictable prescriptive standards and a
process to deviate.
 Planning Commission Direction: Avoidance preferred—but create realistic feasibility test
that reflects the developed condition of the shoreline.
 Planning Commission Direction: Guide the maintenance, repair, and replacement of
stabilization through clear prescriptive standards and definitional clarity that recognize
existing conditions and provide process to depart from prescriptive standard.
Draft Regulations

20.25E.080.F Shoreline Stabilization
Standards
Avoidance. Primary policy objective is to avoid the need for
new stabilization. Development avoids erosion risks locating
the primary structure at a safe distance from OHWM.
Code Reference
LUC 20.25E.080.F.2.e.
LUC 20.25E.080.F.4.a.
April 2011
Standards
Code Reference
Feasibility Test. Where applicants perceive the need for
stabilization on a site without it, they must prove it is needed by
hiring a qualified professional to conduct the required feasibility
test. The test assesses a number of site specific factors,
information about wind direction, speed, fetch and likely wave
height, as well as potential risk to the structure and other
factors. (Not required for repair of existing structures)
LUC 20.25E.080.F.3
Priority for Soft. Preference is for “soft” stabilization; hard
stabilization is an option only when soft options are not
technically feasible or the structure to be protected is so near
(less than 10 feet) to OHWM that hardened stabilization is the
default option. In picking soft solutions the applicant has a
wide range of options—outlined in order of priority—ranging
from vegetative and bioengineered techniques to a combination
of the first two options with some rigid structures incorporated
LUC 20.25E.080.F.4.b
for added structural stability.
LUC 20.25E.080.F.4.c
Hard Options. When site conditions warrant the use of hard
stabilization, an applicant is directed to a list of prioritized
solutions ranging from 3:1 revetments with extensive live
staking and other vegetative enhancement, a 2:1 revetment
with some planting, to a near-vertical rock structure not to
exceed 1.5:1.
LUC 20.25E.080.F.4.d
Location. When allowed, new stabilization shall be located at
or behind the OHWM. There is a significant exception to this
requirement: where a documented flood hazard area exists
only soft stabilization is permitted within the area of special
flood hazard except that low-angle planted revetments are
permitted due to their limited impact on flood storage. Note
that stabilization measures are prohibited waterward of the
OHWM except where those measures incorporate approved
habitat improvements.
LUC 20.25E.080.F.4.d.iii
Retention of Setback with Soft Stabilization. Where
replacement of hard stabilization with soft stabilization moves
the OHWM, applicable structure setbacks may be measured
from the previously determined OHWM. Similar protection
exists where expansion of the shoreline jurisdiction occurs
because of efforts designed to improve ecological function.
LUC 20.25E.080.4.h- i
Repair of Existing Shoreline Stabilization. Repair of existing
legally-established shoreline stabilization is allowed subject to
certain thresholds, provided damage or destruction is not so
severe as to cause loss of structural integrity that jeopardizes
the structures protective function. Where that condition exists,
or where the cumulative reconstruction exceeds 50 percent of
the structure’s linear length over a three year period, the repair
is no longer minor and is subject to the standards for new
stabilization measures, except that major repair of a legallyestablished stabilization is presumed necessary—the feasibility
test required to established whether or not stabilization is
LUC 20.25E.080.F.2.f- g
necessary is not required.
LUC 20.25E.080.F.5.a-b
Resources: http://www.bellevuewa.gov/permit_submittal_requirements.htm
April 2011