Agenda for Improving Lake Washington’s Shoreline Habitat

July 19, 2007

Ruth Howell, Kelli Roberts, Bryan Russo, Angela Wallis,

Gregg Casad, and Dave Fries

UW Program on the Environment

Environmental Management Certificate Keystone

Faculty mentor:

Dr. Tom Leschine

Acknowledgments

• Polly Hicks and Paul Cereghino, NOAA Restoration Center• Dr. Thomas Leschine• Henry Luce Foundation• UW Program on the Environment• Jurisdictional interviewees, survey respondents, and other informants

http://courses.washington.edu/lkwasrvy

Purpose of this Presentation

Present our interview and survey findings

Provide living recommendations for jurisdictions and citizen groups for creating wildlife-friendly shorelines on Lake Washington

Start dialogue and collaboration

Lake Washington: History and Conditions

Heavily urbanized lake80 miles of shoreline, largest natural lake west of Cascades in WA StateModified lake system (c.1916)

Lowered water level by 9 ft, exposing 5.4 km2 of shore habitatLevel regulated by locksMaintained within 2 ft range year round and opposite to natural cycle

Home to a threatened chinook salmon run

Z.Thomas (2006)

Seattle

Lake Washington

Regulatory Framework

Governing Jurisdictions 11 Cities 1 County At least 2 State Agencies:

WDFW, DOE At least 4 Federal Agencies:

USACE, NOAA, EPA, and USFWS

Governing LegislationShoreline Management Act

(SMA) requires implementation of Shoreline Master Programs (SMP)

Growth Management Act (GMA)

Other statutes such as ESA, NEPA, and SEPA

All Lake Washington cities are currently revising their SMPs by a 2009 deadline.

Lake Washington: Current Status

Socioeconomics:• 3,600 tax parcels• 2,400 single family

residences• 44% of shoreline

residents report annual income between $100,000-$300,000

Shoreline (Toft 2001):

• 70% Hardened- Bulkhead, riprap

• 30% Not hardened- Beach, landscaped,

naturally vegetated,

• 2,737 docks

Problem DescriptionMore than 70% of Lake Washington shoreline hardenedMajority of shoreline privately ownedNo incentive programs currently exist to explicitly encourage fish-friendly modifications on Lake WANo recent studies assessing the perceived and actual barriers or incentives for property owners to engage in fish-friendly modifications

Project GoalIdentify effective methods to encourage creation of fish-friendly habitat on private property in Lake Washington

Methodology

1) Perceived and real barriers to making fish-friendly modifications

2) Potential incentives to encourage fish-friendly modifications

3) Effective vehicles to deliver outreach messages

4) Knowledge level of shoreline ecological functions

Postcard announcing online survey, paper option available

All 2,300 Lake WA single-family private shoreline property owners

REGULATORY INTERVIEWSPROPERTY OWNER SURVEY

Research Questions

Six interviews conducted with municipalities planning staffs

60 minute semi-structured interviews conducted by two-person teams

1) Incentives (economic or social) that could be used to encourage fish-friendly modifications

2) Strategies to make the permitting process operate more effectively and efficiently

Research Questions

Who participated in the survey?

Profile of Respondents(n = 441, 19.4% response rate)

Shoreline type 61% hardened 27% partially 12% natural

Age84% are over 45

years old

Piers97% have a

dock/pierResidency

86% live in the property year

around

Number of people

54% have 2 people or fewer

Income44% have yearly income between

$100-300k

Length of ownership

Over 62% have lived on the lake for more than 10

years

Length of shoreline

57% of the shorelines are

over 65ft

Respondents By City (zip code)

13

17

21

21

40

66

126

106

0 40 80 120 160

Renton

Kenmore

Lake Forrest Park

Medina

Kirkland

Bellevue

Mercer Island

Seattle

n = 396

Shoreline Modifications

Yes27%

Considered10%

No63%

n = 441

Alternatives considered:

• 42% who attempted or considered modification did not consider natural stabilization alternatives

“I agree that these ‘man made’ natural shorelines are an improvement over the proliferation of concrete bulkheads. For my own concrete

bulkhead, I softened the impact by adding rip rap against the bulkhead and a rock groin near the swimming beach.”

Have you modified your shoreline in the past 10 years?

0% 20% 40% 60% 80%

Compromises privacy

Effect others property value

Personal safety

Unattractive

Won't improve habitat

Lack of personal interest

Washed up logs

Neighborhood asthetics

Attracts unwanted animals

Loss of view

Decreased property value

Maintenance cost

Time

Ineffective wave protection

Ineffective wake protection

Ineffective erosion control

Cost

Permitting process

Strongly Agree/Agree

What are the perceived barriers?

n ≥ 396

“Haven’t pursued the improvements partly because my perception is that the regulatory process is a pain (and I am a land use attorney)!”

0% 15% 30% 45% 60% 75% 90%

Public recognition

Prestige of design

Neighbors "doing it"

Sense of belonging

Certification program

Ass't from groups

Sense of stewardship

Example project

Property value increase

Faster permitting

Clear requirements

Streamlined permitting

Matching funds

Tax incentives

Strongly Agree/AgreeStrongly Disagree/disagree

What are the perceived incentives?

n ≥ 404

“The best way to improve the Lake Washington Shoreline is to provide incentives and resources for property owners to improve their shoreline voluntarily.

Mandating shoreline changes through the permit process or other government regulation is the wrong approach.”

Desire For Information

About shoreline regulatory system

Too littleJust rightToo much

About health of Lake Washington

80%

16%

4%

74%

25%

1%

Information VehiclesINFORMATION SOURCES:

• 79% City newspapers or newsletters

• 76% Through word of mouth

• 58% Direct mailings

• 45% Community newsletters

MOST EFFECTIVE:

• 72% Direct mailings

• 52% City newspapers or newsletters

• 41% Community newsletters

“It is hard to get information regarding what is happening with the lake”

Regulatory Interview Results

No direct incentives exist; some indirect requirements via mitigation. Some existing programs could be expanded to shorelines

Many incentives suggested; little overlap among jurisdictions

Lack of coordination between jurisdictions on permitting, SMP revision or incentives

At least three jurisdictions have restored city shoreline (LFP, MI and Kirkland)

Outreach Products1) Life on Lake Washington: A Guide

to Wildlife-Friendly Living for Shoreline Owners

2) Survey Summary for Jurisdictions

3) “Agenda for Lake Washington” Presentation to Jurisdictions

4) Website:http://courses.washington.edu/lkwasrvy“I wish that we could have more information on how we as waterfront property owners can help

keep the lake healthy…it would be nice to receive some ‘guidelines’ on how to be a good

steward to the lake.”

Recommended Action Plan

I. Outreach Recommendations

II. Regulatory Recommendations

Outreach Recommendations

Continuation of newsletter for property owners

Based on ALL lake issues (geese, noise, wakes)Build dialogue, trust & receptivenessRaise awareness through relationshipLogistics:

Who – collaborative, neutralFrequencyFunding

Develop appropriate outreach materials for shoreline contractors and other stakeholders

Outreach Recommendations

Website - Dynamic resourceOur project will be statichttp://courses.washington.edu/lkwasrvy/

Press Editorials; build relationships with local reporters

Demonstration projectsHighlight existing restoration projects within jurisdictions

Information VehiclesINFORMATION SOURCES:

• 79% City newspapers or newsletters

• 76% Through word of mouth

• 58% Direct mailings

• 45% Community newsletters

MOST EFFECTIVE:

• 72% Direct mailings

• 52% City newspapers or newsletters

• 41% Community newsletters

“It is hard to get information regarding what is happening with the lake”

Regulatory Recommendations

Create Financial Incentives:

Matching funds

Tax incentives- KC Public Benefit Rating System

Other models: KC Rural Stewardship Program

Regulatory RecommendationsAddress Permitting Challenges:

Streamline permitting for natural or partially-natural modificationsPublicize streamlined process to shoreline property ownersIdentify permitting hurdles for conducting soft and hard shoreline modification

“The best way to improve the Lake Washington shoreline is to provide

incentives and resources for property owners to improve their shoreline

voluntarily. Mandating shoreline changes through the permit process or other government regulation is the wrong

approach.”

Questions?