Date post: | 16-Dec-2015 |
Category: |
Documents |
Upload: | conrad-golden |
View: | 213 times |
Download: | 0 times |
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.”
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.”