Geotechnical Engineer itemizes concerns about rules for existing bulkheads in Renton’s draft SMP

The issue of how Renton’s updated Shoreline Master Program addresses existing bulkheads on Renton’s waterways has really heated up in the last two weeks. This is different than in the case of NEW bulkheads, where we seem to have largely achieved agreement among property owners (at least the vocal ones), DOE officials, and city officials. (For background on this issue, see my previous blog entry HERE.)

Yesterday we received an email from an expert in geotechnical engineering. In his email he itemizes significant concerns regarding the way we are addressing existing bulkheads.

I feel the concerns have enough merit that we should at least discuss them as a full council. I’m hoping to do this on Monday night. And because this issue could have impacts of tens of millions of dollars on both public and private property, I may wish to refer this topic into Committee of the Whole for a couple of weeks. I’ll explore this on the floor of the council on Monday night, and see if I can get support.

I have my own related concerns about ever-growing deposits of sand and silt under out downtown bridges, and the way these deposits put our downtown properties at risk during storms. Getting dredging permits becomes more difficult each year, and yet we are embarking on rule-making which will increase the potential for these deposits to build up. If I get a chance later today, I will try to describe this concern in more detail.

You can read the email from the Geotechnical expert below. I have also attached his resume for those who wish to know more about him.

Dear Council Members:

Attached please find attached for your review both (1) a draft letter from engineering geologist Jon Koloski of GeoEngineers providing his written comments relating to the current portions of Renton’s Draft SMP concerning new and existing shoreline stabilization structures and (2) his resume.

I will be forwarding you a PDF of the finalized and signed version of his letter on Monday.

Note that, to increase the likelihood that you will have an opportunity to review Mr. Koloski’s letter prior to Monday night’s City Council meeting, I elected to send you the attached materials today via this email, realizing that you might check your Council email this weekend.

Thank you for your anticipated consideration.

Sincerely,

Dave Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
1019 Regents Blvd, Suite 202
Fircrest, Washington 98466-6037
(206) 443-4684 Seattle
(253) 627-6680 Tacoma

From: Jon W. Koloski
Sent: Saturday, September 11, 2010 2:27 PM
To: David Halinen
Subject: Letter to Halinen

Mr. Halinen,

Attached please find my unsigned draft letter to you commenting on portions of the City of Renton’s draft SMP. I have also attached a copy of my resume. Because I completed this draft letter after my support staff left for the day yesterday, I will not be able to get a finalized, signed version of the letter to you before Monday morning.

I understand that you have an immediate need to email out the attached draft letter and resume to Renton City officials this weekend. You may do so with the understanding that you must forward out to them the finalized and signed version once you receive a PDF of it via email from my office on Monday.

Regards,

Jon W. Koloski, LG, LEG
Senior Principal
GeoEngineers, Inc.

Office: 253-383-4940

__________________________
DRAFT LETTER FROM GEOENGINEERS, INC

September 10, 2010

David Halinen
Halinen Law Offices, P.S.
1019 Regents Boulevard, Suite 202
Fircrest, WA 98466

Re: DRAFT RESPONSE
Renton’s Draft Shoreline Management Plan (SMP)—The City’s Currently Proposed Provisions Concerning Existing Shoreline Stabilization Structures and September 9, 2010 Changes Proposed by the Renton Shoreline Coalition

Dear Mr. Halinen:

Thank you for providing me with an opportunity to provide written comments relating to the current portions of Renton’s Draft SMP concerning new and existing shoreline stabilization structures, the September 9, 2010 changes proposed by the Renton Shoreline Coalition in relation to existing shoreline stabilization structures, and portions of the State SMP Guidelines concerning new and existing shoreline stabilization structures. I have reviewed these materials as well as the draft SMP’s proposed section entitled “Content of Geotechnical Report.” I have extensive experience with the City of Renton and the Cedar River. Here are my initial comments:

1. The City of Renton has a responsibility to see that the Cedar River gets through the City without causing damage to City property or facilities, private property and the property and improvements of other jurisdictions.

2. For about ½ mile upstream of the Old Stoneway property, the entire left bank of the Cedar River (“left” when facing downstream) is undeveloped until the river crosses under I-405. (Actually, the left bank is “developed” in terms of being the location of the pedestrian/bicycle trail along the former railroad alignment.) In my opinion, if the City wants to encourage a more “native” condition to occur along the river, it should be directed to “unimprove” the left bank instead of the right bank where Stoneway, the City, and other private uses dictate that the City should do everything in its power to protect existing uses and development from damage by the river.

3. The consequences of removal of the existing 1,200 lineal feet of bulkhead along the Old Stoneway property, or of replacing that bulkhead with something of less certainty of protection – like so-called “soft bank protection” – include: risk to the upstream apartment complex, SR-169, the City’s water and sewer pipelines, the City’s Cedar River Park buildings, theatre, new swim park, and so on, in addition to the Stoneway property.

4. The SMP text talks repeatedly about “preventing damage” to a “primary structure”. That limited premise is dead wrong and irresponsible. It is just as important to consider risk to the infrastructure that is key to the function of the primary structure, e.g., the sewer, water, power, drainage and other utilities on the shoreline properties.

5. The premise that the Stoneway property should be subject to a geotechnical evaluation of the rate of erosion as part of a future “demonstration of need” for shoreline stabilization is absurd because, without a bulkhead, a single extraordinary flood event could be sufficient to completely change the course of the entire river – at least upstream of I-405 to well above the Stoneway land. A “demonstration of need” analysis might have an application somewhere else, although with my nearly 50 years of experience as a geotechnical specialist I cannot think of one place where it would truly have scientific validity.

6. The probable extent of channel migration at the subject location in areas without bulkheading is clearly defined by the existing walls of the Cedar River valley; at least that applies in this reach of the river (I-405 to Maplewood).

7. I think the “adverse consequences” that should be a factor in the City’s consideration of bulkhead removal should include consideration of whether such removal will result in an increase of required insurance coverage or an increased premium for flood protection insurance.

8. If the City wants to restore pristine bank conditions by bulkhead removal, then it should remove the left bank levee and revetment and let the river migrate across the bike trail and dog park instead of adding risk to already developed sites already in use along the right bank.

9. Re the City’s proposed “Content of Geotechnical Report”: There might be a time and place for estimating the time frame and rate of erosion, but that should be a possible consideration depending on site circumstances and not a requirement – especially where it is so obvious that the impact of a single river flow event is so much more important than river channel avulsion over time. Where the banks are already defined and constrained, and where existing development (no matter if residential, industrial or commercial) already exists along the river banks, it is a LOT more important to maintain the integrity of the existing protections and channel position than it is to estimate the rate of erosion. As noted in point 1, above, I believe that the City has more responsibility to maintain function and service than it does to impose some arbitrary standard of “returning to pristine conditions.”

10. The WAC standards are just as flawed as the draft SMP in regard to existing shoreline stabilization. They conflict with the reality of obvious situations where we as a society already recognize that a given shoreline is now developed, will stay developed, and should be preserved as developed and redeveloped over time, and should be accorded all reasonable assurance of protection from natural disaster—in contrast to being restored to some imaginary ecologic standard.

11. I see that protection of “primary structures” appears again and again in both the draft SMP and the State SMP Guidelines as well as protection of “principal uses and structures”, so I emphasize that it is NOT just “primary structures” or “principal uses structures” that should be considered and protected – in this case by preserving or replacing the existing bulkhead as is where is – but also the support infrastructure.

12. In my judgment, it is important that several revisions be made to the draft SMP’s provisions relating to shoreline stabilization structures, especially existing structures, before the City Council can responsibly approve the SMP and send it off to Ecology.

I would be happy to appear before the City Council to discuss these issues in person. Unfortunately, I will be on vacation next week and unable to attend Monday night’s Council meeting.

I have attached a copy of my professional resume for you to forward to the Council with a copy of this letter in case the Council wishes information on my background.

Please let me know if I can be of further assistance.

Sincerely,

GeoEngineers, Inc.

Jon W. Koloski, LG, LEG
Sr. Principal

Attachment: JWK resume

JON W. KOLOSKI, LG, LEG, SENIOR PRINCIPAL ENGINEERING GEOLOGIST

___________________________________________
RESUME FOR JON W. KOLOSKI

Education
B.S., Geology, University of Washington, 1963
Graduate courses in engineering, geology, erosion control, stream rehabilitation, blasting, business and environmental law
Affiliation
Association of Engineering Geologists

Registration
Washington, Professional Geologist, Licensed Engineering Geologist #1008, 2002
Oregon, Registered Professional Geologist, Certified Engineering Geologist, #633, 1978
California, Registered Geologist #1701, Certified Engineering Geologist #542, 1970

Experience
Jon Koloski has specialized in applied engineering geology since 1962. He has been the principal geologist on several thousand investiga¬tions involving the evaluation and mitigation of geologic processes and geologic hazards for geotechnical engineering assessments and designs. Jon’s experience includes work on highways, bridges, buildings, power lines, utilities, river and marine shoreline stabilization, rock and gravel quarry development and reclamation, ground water resources, pipelines, industrial and residential land development, and landslide and abandoned mine hazard mitigation. His consultations frequently involve presentations to technical or non-technical audiences, public meetings, the legislature or local government regulators, and as an expert witness in litigations and permit hearings. In addition, Jon was an assistant professor of Geology for the University of Washington Tacoma in 2002. Jon was invited by the Washington State Geologist Licensing Board to help develop the publication “Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Report in Washington” and he was also an invited member of a two-State committee to revise and update the Geologist Registration Examination. The following are just a few examples of Jon’s extensive experience:

DBM Contractors, Inc., Geotechnical Consultation, SR 705
Tacoma, Washington
Provided consultation and geotechnical design criteria for temporary and permanent retaining walls, falsework supports and use of on-site soils as fill during construction of southbound lanes of SR 705. Numerous boulders were encountered during construction of soldier pile walls along the 1-mile section of freeway through downtown Tacoma. The frequency and size of boulders was a “changed condition” from that represented in the contract documents. We reviewed the original design geotechnical studies, the contract documents, the contractor’s daily reports and we observed and recorded conditions in many of the soldier pile and pier borings. We prepared trial exhibits and provided practical consultation, expert testimony and review of other experts’ testimony in the course of the litigation. The result was a judgment supporting the contractor’s claim.

Panama Ports Commission, Quarry Resource Evaluations, Port of Balboa
Panama City Panama
Provided a detailed qualitative and quantitative evaluation of thirteen existing and prospective quarry sites for production of construction materials for improvements to the Port of Balboa container terminal. The container terminal improvements are a part of the Panama Canal Widening project supervised by the Panama Ports Commission. The evaluations were based on review of past production together with reconnaissance-base projections of the remaining available rock resources. Each quarry site was classified based on the rock type and physical characteristics, development issues, transportation to the port facility, and environmental impact issues.

Panama Ports Commission, Excavation and Dredging Evaluation, Diablo Island, Port of Balboa
Panama City, Panama
Provided a detailed evaluation of the means to excavate a rock and soil island that projected into the shipping channel and turning basin for the proposed improvements to the Port of Balboa. The review included examination of exploration borings and seismic exploration profiles of an island left unexcavated during the original Panama Canal construction project. The evaluation resulted in classification of materials that comprise the island as to potential for dredge excavation and/or requiring drill and blast excavation methods. The resulting classification was used by contractors for construction bid development.

City of Edmonds, Geotechnical Evaluation of the Large Meadowdale Landslide
Edmonds, Washington
The landslide took place in an area which includes more than 300 residences. Included development of a scheme for classification of likely slide movement type and probability and frequency of occurrence. The work also included detailed recommendations for improved stabilization and evaluation of the effectiveness of slide stabil¬ization measures and testimony at public hearings.

Manke Lumber Company, Geologic Evaluation
Pierce County, Washington
Geologic evaluation of a 400-acre site of which 100 acres is to be developed as a sand and gravel surface mining facility. Study involved detailed review of local well records and other ground water data. Results were included in a Draft Environmental Impact Statement and were presented in public hearing testimony.

Miles Sand and Gravel Company, Surface Mining Facilities
Pierce, Skagit, Thurston and Mason Counties, Washington
Principle-in-charge of geologic and hydrological investigations for several large surface mining facilities. Services addressed resource quality and quantity, along with surface and ground water in the surrounding areas. Our recommendations were used in a draft environmental impact statements as well as mine operation and reclamation plans. Three of these projects involve excavating gravel below the regional water table to create a permanent lake. Extensive public hearing testimony was required.

Northern Tier Pipeline, Geotechnical Evaluation and Preliminary Design
Washington State
Provided geotechnical and preliminary design recommendations for the overland route and more than 60 river and marine crossings. Responsibilities included field work, development of a classification scheme for geologic hazards and for each river/stream crossing, recommendations for bank erosion and channel scour protection, evaluation of sedimentation resulting from construction, report preparation, and extensive expert testimony at meetings and public hearings.

Port Blakely Communities, Proposed Grand Ridge Residential Subdivision
King County, Washington
Principal-in-charge of geotechnical studies of a 480-acre site in Issaquah. Services included an evaluation of erosion potential, surface water runoff, ground water recharge, coal mine hazards, and seismic considerations in addition to detailed geotechnical recommendations for roads and utilities. The results were used in the development of the plat design and for preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement. Testimony at numerous public hearings also was provided.

Seattle Water Department, Fish Ladder & Deflection System, Landsburg Diversion Structure
Landsburg, Washington
Principal-in-charge of providing geotechnical design recommendations for a combined fish deflection and fish ladder system. Identified probable fish ladder routes, evaluated soil and shallow ground water conditions and developed recommendations for excavation, construction dewatering, temporary shoring, foundation support, drainage, earthwork criteria and temporary and permanent erosion control. Evaluated sediment generation and transport issues, scour protection measures and made remedial recommendations. Provided input for an Environmental Impact Statement, attended technical meetings and provided testimony at public hearings.

City of Tacoma Water Division, No. 5 Pipeline, Geologic Hazards Evaluation
Pierce County and King County, Washington
Principal-in-charge for reconnaissance and evaluation of geotechnical hazards along the route of a 33 mile water pipeline. The pipeline crosses 12 streams and rivers and two documented wetlands. Hazards that were identified included landslides, wetlands, abandoned coal mines, river and stream crossings, seismically sensitive areas, erosion, adverse soil conditions, and areas which required unusual foundation support. Work on this project also included mapping the hazards and working with the design team to develop remedial measures and alternatives. Extensive public hearing testimony was also provided.

City of Issaquah, Tibbets-East Cougar Subdivision
Issaquah, Washington
Principal-in-charge of a geologic evaluation of the 3,000-acre Tibbets-East Cougar area. Work included interpreting geologic and hydrogeologic conditions based on literature research and geologic reconnaissance of areas that included steep slopes, abandoned coal mines, landslides and severe erosion hazards. The product included a detailed report and testimony at numerous public hearings.

City of Kelso, Investigation and Evaluation of the Aldercrest- Banyon Road Landslide
Kelso, Washington
Principal-in-charge and lead investigator regarding the cause of a landslide that destroyed nearly 70 of 160 residences in the Aldercrest subdivision. The investigation also evaluated possible mitigation measures. One area was stabilized by construction of a buttress and drain and residences in that area were saved. Other areas could not be stabilized and more than 60 damaged residences were abandoned. The work included numerous public presentations as well as presentations to the Kelso City Council. The consultation also included assistance with litigation that followed the landslide event; all claims against the City were dismissed.

Publications and Presentations

2008, Invited member of a two-State committee to revise and update the Geologist Registration Examination.

2006, Washington State Geology Licensing Board, Engineering Geology Guidelines Committee, “Guidelines for Preparing Engineering Geology Reports in Washington.”

2005 & 2006, “The Aldercrest-Banyon Drive Landslide, 1998, Kelso, WA & the Rest of the Story”, presented to: Washington State Claims Adjusters Association; University of Washington Graduate Engineering Research Seminar; Portland State University Graduate Engineering Geology Case History Seminar; American Society of Civil Engineers, Tacoma, WA

2004, “Case History of the Failure of Swift Reservoir, Cowlitz County, Washington”, Portland State University

2003-2004, Invited participant to development and revision of ordinances concerning geologic/geotechnical hazards, Pierce County Land Use Services Division, Pierce County, Washington.
(with Tubbs, D.W. and Tuttle, J.K.), 2003, Mitigation of Landslide Hazards Along Puget Sound Shorelines”, Geological Society of America.

2001, “Living on the Edge- the Causes and Mitigation of Puget Sound Shoreline Landslides”, Washington State University Annual Land Use Planning Seminar, Port Townsend, Washington.

1998-1999, Seattle Landslide Public Involvement Committee. Requested by the City of Seattle to be a panel member and speaker in a series of seminars for the general public about landslide risks in Seattle and their mitigation.

1998, “Humans as a Geologic Agent”, at Landslides in the Puget Sound Region, sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the University of Washington and the U.S. Geological Survey.

1972, 1979, 1990, 1996, Invited participant to development of ordinances and regulations concerning geologic/geotechnical hazards, King County Department of Development and Environmental Services.

1995, “The Implications of Building On or Near Steep Slopes or Landslide Hazard Areas”, at Continuing Law Education Seminar re: Sensitive Areas.

1994, “Locating, Delineating, and Utilization of Sensitive/Critical Areas”, at Continuing Law Education Seminar re: Sensitive Areas.

1993, “Coal Mine Hazards in Washington State Under the Washington Growth Management Act of 1990”, at Continuing Law Education Seminar re: Sensitive Areas.

(with Beaman, B.R.), 1992, “An Engineered Approach for Prediction and Mitigation of Ground Subsidence Over Steeply Inclined Mined Out Coal Seams”, at Society of Mining Engineers Mining and Metals Conference.

1990-1992, Appointed representative of the American Society of Civil Engineers, Geotechnical Division, and of the Association of Engineering Geologists to the City of Seattle Critical Areas Task Force.

1991, “Engineering Properties of Geologic Materials” at Geology of Puget Sound and Landslide Hazards, sponsored by the American Society of Civil Engineers, the Association of Engineering Geologists, and the University of Washington.

(with Beaman, B.R.), 1990, “Coal Mine Hazards in Western Washington – Identification and Ground Response Evaluation”, at Association of Engineering Geologists National Conference.
(with Tubbs, D.W., and Schwartz, S. D.), 1989, “Engineering Properties of Geologic Materials” in Engineering Geology in Washington, Vol. II, Bulletin 78, Washington Division of Geology and Earth Resources, Richard W. Galster, Editor.

1988, “Geology and Engineering Curricula for Engineering Geologists as Consultants”, at Association of Engineering Geologists National Conference.

1987, Invited representative of the Association of Engineering Geologists to the City of Seattle Engineering Department committee to develop guidelines for preparation of technical reports concerning geologic/geotechnical issues.

1977, Appointed representative of American Society of Civil Engineers and Association of Engineering Geologists to City of Seattle Department of Construction and Land Use regarding Seattle’s original “Sensitive Areas” ordinance.