Report to Jurisdictions on Lake Washington: by otvrKE6

VIEWS: 6 PAGES: 32

									       Wildlife-Friendly Shoreline Modifications on Lake Washington:
    Summary of Shoreline Property Owner Survey and Regulatory Interviews


  A report prepared for the jurisdictions and regulatory agencies of Lake Washington




 An electronic version of this report and supplementary materials including raw data
                                 can be downloaded at:
                       http://courses.washington.edu/lkwasrvy


                                    Prepared by:

                             The Fish-Friendly Team
Ruth Howell, Gregg Casad, Dave Fries, Kelli Roberts, Bryan Russo, and Angela Wallis
       Environmental Management Keystone Project, University of Washington

                                    June 1, 2007
                                                    Table of contents
INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................................................ 3

SUMMARY OF REGULATORY INTERVIEWS .................................................................................... 5

SUMMARY OF SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY ........................................................... 6

APPENDIX A: LAKE WASHINGTON SURVEY INSERT..................................................................23

APPENDIX B: LAKE WASHINGTON SHORELINE PROPERTY OWNER SURVEY ..................25

APPENDIX C: LAKE WASHINGTON REGULATORY INTERVIEW QUESTIONS ....................32




                                                                          2
Introduction


           Wildlife-Friendly Shoreline Modifications on Lake Washington:
        Summary of Shoreline Property Owner Survey and Regulatory Interviews

This report summarizes the results of a survey of Lake Washington shoreline property
owners and interviews with Lake Washington city planners regarding shoreline
management. This report has been designed primarily for the jurisdictions around Lake
Washington but may prove useful for other stakeholders. The survey and interviews
were part of a University of Washington graduate student project that focused on
developing strategies for enhancing Lake Washington‟s shoreline habitat. We are an
independent and interdisciplinary group of graduate students enrolled in the University of
Washington‟s Environmental Management Certificate Program, and this project is part of
our yearlong (2006-2007) Keystone course with community partner NOAA.

The goal of this project was to identify effective methods to encourage creation of natural
shoreline habitat on private property in Lake Washington. The scope of our study focused
solely on incentives for single-family private property owners to engage in habitat-
enhancing shoreline modifications. We did not evaluate incentives for multi-family
properties, commercial entities, shoreline contractors, regulatory groups, lake
jurisdictions, or the general public. This project also excluded dock modifications (except
for the purpose of demographics) because several efforts sponsored by NOAA and others
have addressed docks in Lake Washington. The shoreline property owner survey focused
on four research questions:

   1) What are the perceived and real barriers to making wildlife-friendly
      modifications to private property along Lake Washington
   2) What are potential incentives to encourage creation of wildlife-friendly
      modifications?
   3) What are the most effective vehicles to deliver wildlife-friendly outreach
      messages to Lake Washington shoreline property owners?
   4) What is the knowledge level of Lake Washington shoreline property owners
      about the ecological functions of their shoreline?

We chose to utilize an internet survey as it would allow us to contact all shoreline
residents. A postcard requesting participation in our online survey was mailed to the
entire population of 2280 single-family residences on Lake Washington. (We excluded
zip code 98118 in south Seattle at the request of Seattle Public Utilities, since they were
conducting their own property owner survey in that area.) Reminder postcards were sent
two weeks, and again at one month, after the original card to increase response rates. The
postcards explained the purpose of the survey and asked them to log on and complete our
20-minute survey. We also provided a phone number for people to request a paper copy
of the survey, if desired, and provided a pre-paid return envelope for all paper surveys.
We received 441 completed surveys, including both mailed in and online responses,
giving us a response rate of 19.3%. We allowed two months for residents to complete the


                                             3
survey. A copy of the survey introductory insert and the survey questions can be found in
Appendix A and Appendix B, respectively.

The purposes of the regulatory component of this project are to understand the shoreline
construction permitting process for implementing natural modifications and to catalog
existing or planned incentive programs. The interviews aimed at answering two research
questions:

   1) How are or could incentives (economic or social) be used to encourage the
      development of more natural shorelines?
   2) What could make the permitting process operate more smoothly for the city
      and/or landowners?

We interviewed five of the eleven regulatory jurisdictions on Lake Washington:
Kirkland, Bellevue, Lake Forrest Park, Mercer Island, and Seattle. These jurisdictions
were chosen based upon their progress in revising their Shoreline Master Program
(SMP), population size, and length of shoreline. We also interviewed King County,
which has jurisdiction over unincorporated areas of the lake and is considering incentive
programs as a part of its SMP update.

Two-person teams conducted semi-structured interviews with a representative of each
jurisdiction. The interviews lasted about one hour and were completed at a location of the
informant‟s choosing, typically their office. One member of each team prepared a
written summary of the meeting within 48 hours following the survey, which was
reviewed by the other team member. The regulatory interview questions can be found in
Appendix C.

More information on our project, the survey, and the regulatory interviews can be found
online at http://courses.washington.edu/lkwasrvy.

Thank you for taking the time to review our report. We hope you find it informative and
useful for developing further outreach programs and incentives for Lake Washington
shoreline property owners to adopt more “Wildlife Friendly” shorelines.

Sincerely,

The Fish Friendly Team
Ruth Howell, Gregg Casad, Dave Fries, Kelli Roberts, Bryan Russo, and Angela Wallis

And our faculty mentor:
Professor Thomas Leschine




                                            4
Summary of Regulatory Interviews

The regulatory portion of our project focused on the institutional structures surrounding
the development of wildlife-friendly shorelines through interviews with five Lake
Washington municipalities (Bellevue, Kirkland, Lake Forest Park, Mercer Island, and
Seattle) and King County. For each of these jurisdictions, we interviewed planners
regarding local incentives and barriers to creating more natural shoreline conditions on
Lake Washington. We learned that none of the municipalities offer incentives to
encourage property owners to consider natural shorelines or to implement natural
shoreline modifications. Under Shoreline Master Programs (SMP), municipalities often
require mitigation measures to compensate for a project‟s impacts, which results in the
incorporation of more natural conditions along the shoreline. We recognize the statutory
responsibility to use mitigation measures to maintain the shoreline‟s baseline conditions,
however, jurisdictions should consider whether projects with a focus on incorporating
natural conditions should be afforded a different level of permitting assistance or review.

Planners in each of the jurisdictions provided a variety of ideas for potentially effective
incentives in their communities. They include:
    o Waiving permitting fees for natural modifications;
    o Streamlining the permitting process for natural actions;
    o Encouraging or allowing free-standing boat lifts;
    o Awarding grants;
    o Providing outreach materials;
    o Instituting tax breaks or credits for implementing natural conditions;
    o Making allowances to develop land away from shoreline;
    o Education about the ecological functions of the lake; and
    o Expanding the existing Rural Stewardship Program to include shoreline
        preservation.

In the end, while the planners suggested many incentives, little overlap existed between
ideas among the jurisdictions. This conclusion highlights the need for a forum for
planning staffs to engage in brainstorming and discussions about the various means of
encouraging shoreline modifications. One potential option for an incentive program is the
King County Public Benefit Rating System (PBRS). The PBRS encourages the
preservation or creation of natural shorelines on private property through property tax
relief and is available to all Lake Washington‟s municipalities.

The interviews also highlighted that several jurisdictions have recently completed
shoreline restoration projects on city property. Given property owners‟ survey responses
supporting the use of demonstration projects, these and future restoration efforts should
be highlighted and advertised as examples of how to incorporate natural conditions along
the shoreline.




                                              5
Summary of Shoreline Property Owner Survey
Question 1: Which description best describes your shoreline?


                                                             Percentage of
                                                              respondents
                                  Hardened                        60.6
                                  Partial                         27.0
                                  Natural                         12.4
                                                                (N=438)
    Percentage of responses (by city)




                                         100.00%

                                          80.00%

                                          60.00%

                                          40.00%

                                          20.00%

                                           0.00%
                                                              Hardened                        Natural                         Partial

                                        Bellev ue   Bothel   Kenmore     Kirkland   Lk Forest Park   Medina   Mercer Island   Renton    Seattle

Remarks: In 2001, Toft1 conducted a GIS analysis and physical inventory of Lake
Washington‟s shoreline types. The report found 70.65% of the shoreline was
characterized by riprap or bulkheads, with the remainder listed as unretained.
“Unretained” included beaches, natural vegetation, or landscaped waterfront. The
differences between Toft‟s characterization of the shoreline and the results of this study
can likely be attributed to the more limited nature of our study, which sampled only
private property owners and excluded all other ownerships.




1
 Toft, J.D. 2001. Shoreline and dock modifications in Lake Washington. Technical Report
SAFS-UW-0106, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle,
Washington.


                                                                                          6
Question 2: Does your shoreline include a dock or pier?

                    Percentage of
                     respondents                                         120.00%
         Yes             97.3                                                         97.30%
                                                                         100.00%




                                         Percentage of total responses
         No               2.7
                       (N=438)                                               80.00%

                                                                             60.00%

                                                                             40.00%

                                                                             20.00%
                                                                                               2.70%
                                                                             0.00%
                                                                                       yes      no




Remarks: Toft (2001)2 reported a total of 2,626 recreational docks within Lake
Washington. The report also provides a historical perspective on the urbanization of the
lake over the past 50 years. From the property owner side, our interviews with regional
Real Estate agents highlighted that lake front property without a dock would decrease
property value and would be considered less desirable to potential buyers. The responses
to question 3 provide additional insight.




2
    ibid, p. 20.


                                                                         7
Question 3: How do you use your shoreline (not including your backyard)? Please select
all uses in the last 3 years.
                                         Percentage of
                                          respondents
Lake view (sunset/sunrise, etc)               94.1
Swimming                                      91.6
Wildlife viewing                              86.4
Motorized recreational boating                85.0
Boat storage                                  80.7
Parties/BBQ/social gatherings                 75.2
Non-Motorized recreational boating            70.7
Sunbathing                                    67.7
Gardening/landscape design                    60.7
Fishing (dock, shore or boat)                 46.1
Pet usage                                     33.4
                                            (N=440)

Remarks: These responses show there are a variety of different usages for shoreline
property around Lake Washington. The property owners‟ top choices align with many of
the desirable features of a healthy Lake Washington. This is particularly interesting when
considering the scope of an outreach plan at either the regional or city level. Jurisdictions
considering implementing a program might consider addressing these areas individually
(e.g. how can a fish-friendly action improve a property owner‟s usage).

Question 4: Are you knowledgeable about alternatives to bulkheads such as
bioengineered or natural stabilization techniques?
                                                                                    50.0%
                             Percentage of                                                                     43.2%
                                                    Percentage of total responses




                              respondents                                           40.0%

Never heard of them               29.1                                              30.0%
                                                                                            29.1%

Heard of them but not sure
                                 18.6                                                               18.6%
 what they mean                                                                     20.0%

Basic understanding              43.2                                               10.0%                               7.8%
Advanced understanding           7.8                                                                                              1.3%
Expert understanding             1.3                                                0.0%
                                                                                            Never   Heard of   Basic   Advanced   Expert
                               (N=398)                                                               them



Remarks: The survey results show that property owners have received very limited
information about alternatives to using retained or hardened designs for their shorelines.
According to interviews with engineers and landscape architects familiar with natural
stabilization techniques, depending on the shoreline site, soft alternatives can offer
equivalent protection from wave/wake damage and erosion without compromising
ecological functions. Questions 11 and 12 demonstrate a consistent lack of available
information for property owners about Lake Washington‟s shoreline. This information
gap was also apparent during interviews with the various jurisdictions, which indicated
that very few programs or incentives are available to encourage or promote more natural
shorelines.


                                             8
Question 5: Which of the following do you think are desirable natural functions of Lake
Washington‟s shoreline? (Check all that apply)

                                    Percentage of
                                     respondents
Refuge for juvenile salmon               79.4
Provide shade for aquatic life           75.5
Salmon spawning                          74.5
Protection from erosion                  74.1
Roosting place for birds                 73.6
Juvenile salmon migration                68.7
Provide food for „food web‟              65.9
Provide habitat for bass                 56.8
Drain urban stormwater from
                                        38.1
   the land
Provide sediment and wood
                                        21.0
   to the lake
Sewage discharge collection             7.0
Grow milfoil                            4.7
                                      (N=428)


              Provide shade                                                          75.5%
           Salmon spaw ning                                                          74.5%
      Protection from erosion                                                       74.1%
     Roosting place for birds                                                       73.6%
   Juvenile salmon migration                                                     68.7%
  Provide food for Ōfood w ebÕ                                                 65.9%
             Habitat for bass                                             56.8%
  Stormw ater runoff reservoir                                38.1%
 Provide sediment and w ood                     21.0%
                       Other           8.9%
 Sew age discharge collection        7.0%
                 Grow milfoil       4.7%
                               0%       15%          30%       45%       60%        75%      90%
                                                    Percentage of total responses

Remarks: Survey responses show that property owners understand the importance of
their shorelines for salmon habitat. Interestingly, over 50% of the individuals classified
bass habitat as a natural function, despite their categorization by ecologists as an invasive
species to the lake system.




                                                      9
Question 6: Have you attempted or considered modifying your shoreline in the past 10
years?
                  Percentage of                                        70.0%
                   respondents                                                         62.7%

   Yes                 27.0                                            60.0%




                                       Percentage of total responses
   Considered          10.2                                            50.0%
   No                  62.7
                                                                       40.0%
                     (N=440)
                                                                       30.0%   27.0%

                                                                       20.0%
                                                                                                10.2%
                                                                       10.0%

                                                                       0.0%
                                                                                Yes     No     Considered


Remarks: Property owner‟s responses to this question in combination with Toft‟s (2001)
findings demonstrate the high level of maintenance and/or continued urbanization of
Lake Washington. In addition, this particular statistic should be considered in
conjunction with the two residency statistics collected in the demographics section.
According to the survey, 86% of the respondents living in their Lake Washington home
year around with 60% having lived in the residence for 10 years or more. Specifically,
the length of ownership and use of the property show that survey respondents have been
at the property long enough for some maintenance needs to occur. Given that the process
of listing the Puget Sound Chinook salmon was completed in March 1999, modifications
during the time period of the question were subject, at some scale, to the rules and
regulations to protect the species‟ habitat. The responses of individuals who have
attempted or considered modifying their shoreline are in the position to comment on their
experiences in dealing with the additional complexity to the regulatory framework
created by the Endangered Species Act listing.




                                                                        10
Question 6a: What type(s) of modifications did you attempt or consider?

                               Percentage
                                   of                                                Percentage of total responses
                              respondents                                    0.0%     20.0%        40.0%   60.0%      80.0%
 Build or repair dock             75.9
                                                           Build or repair dock
 Repair or replace existing                                                                                          75.9%
                                  42.6       Repair/replace existing bulkhead                          42.6%
 bulkhead
 Incorporate natural                            Incorporate natural conditions                25.9%
                                  25.9
 conditions                                              Create pocket beach               19.8%
 Create pocket beach              19.8                                   Other             19.8%
 Other                            19.8      Build bulkhead or other protection      8.0%
 Build bulkhead or other
                                  8.0                                  Add fill     8.0%
 shore protection
                                                 Build or repair other structure    8.0%
 Add fill                         8.0
 Build or repair other
                                  8.0
 structure
                                (N=162)

Remarks: The survey results show that the majority of modification projects on the water
involve docks or repairs to existing shoreline fortifications. In considering the responses
to the following suite of questions regarding the property owners‟ experience with
modifying their shoreline, it is important to consider the 2003 dock design guidelines
established by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, NOAA, WA DOE, and WDFW‟s.
Individuals who conducted repairs or built a dock after the implementation of this
program likely had a different experience. However, the survey questions about
modifications were not designed to take a detailed look at pre- and post-authorization of
the regional general permit. Additionally, people who stated they pursued incorporation
of natural conditions were more likely to have fully or partially completed their project (p
= .037).




                                            11
Question 6c: What type(s) of mitigations (i.e. special permit requirements), if any, were
required?
                                                                                                 Percentage of total responses
                                                                                   0.0% 5.0% 10.0% 15.0% 20.0% 25.0% 30.0% 35.0% 40.0% 45.0%
                          Percentage of
                           respondents                                         Other                                                40.4%
Other                          40.4                                             None                                               39.0%
None                           39.0
                                                           Plant native
Plant native vegetation        30.5                          vegetation                                                   30.5%
Plant native trees             15.6       Plant native trees                                             15.6%
Shallow sloping shore          9.2
                                           Shallow sloping
Small grain sediments          7.8                  shore                                        9.2%
Install drift logs             7.1                                Small grain
                                                                   sediments                    7.8%
                             (N=141)
                                            Install drift logs                               7.1%


Remarks: The percentage of people stating they were not required to pursue mitigation
measures potentially indicates some projects are incorporating conditions into their
design that maintain the baseline ecological function of their shoreline. However, further
follow-up with permitting personnel would be necessary to determine if property owners,
contractors or consultants are driving this shift.

Question 6d: Was the project completed?

                    Percentage of
                     respondents                                              60.0%
   Yes                   50.0                                                           50.0%
                                                                              50.0%
                                              Percentage of total responses




   Partially             14.5
   No                    35.5
                       (N=152)                                                40.0%                     35.5%

                                                                              30.0%

                                                                              20.0%                                  14.5%

                                                                              10.0%

                                                                              0.0%
                                                                                          Yes            No         Partially

Remarks: The process of engaging in a shoreline project appears to include substantial
difficulties, and only 50% of the time the project is completed. The responses to question
7 highlight a selection of these barriers. Jurisdictions should evaluate their processes to
determine if conditions exist that perpetuate these and other barriers. Specifically,
incentives to avoid permitting challenges should be paramount to encouraging natural
shoreline modifications.




                                                                              12
Question 6e: How long did it take to get your permit(s)?

                               Percentage of
                                respondents
 1 month                            2.3
 2-3 months                         6.1
 4-6 months                         8.3
 7-12 months                        6.1
 More than 1 year                   25.0
 No permit required                 23.5
 Pursued permit but withdrew        6.1
 Don‟t know                         22.7
                                  (N=132)



         Don't know                                                    22.7%
     Withdrew permit                6.1%
  No permit required                                                    23.5%
    More than 1 year                                                       25.0%
        7-12 months                 6.1%
         4-6 months                        8.3%
         2-3 months                 6.1%
            1 month         2.3%

                       0%      5%          10%         15%   20%        25%        30%
                                       Percentage of total responses



Remarks: In the written comments, several individuals expressed extreme displeasure
regarding the permitting process. As part of a process to promote more natural shoreline
modifications, jurisdictions should incorporate a streamlined review processes for permit
application meeting ecological goals. The number of respondents who claimed that no
permit was required is surprising and raises questions about whether our use of the term
modification was understood or if property owners knew their contractors obtained
permits. If the latter is the case, the lack of information on the regulatory system on Lake
Washington (see question 12) is further exemplified here.




                                                  13
Question 7: We are interested in learning about the barriers that prevent shoreline
property owners from voluntarily choosing to create more natural conditions along Lake
Washington‟s shoreline. Please indicate how much you personally agree or disagree that
each of the following factors is a barrier to creating natural conditions on Lake
Washington‟s shoreline:



                                        Strongly                                                Strongly
                                                     Disagree        Neutral       Agree
 Barriers:                              Disagree                                                 Agree
 Cost (N=418)                              2.2          7.4            20.6         31.8          38.0
 Time (N=412)                              3.2          10.4           32.3         32.5          21.6
 Personal safety (N=401)                  11.0          28.7           40.9         14.5           5.0
 Loss of view (N=408)                     13.5          26.0           27.5         18.1          15.0
 Washed up logs (N=402)                    9.0          25.9           37.1         18.9           9.2
 Permitting process (N=417)                1.9          4.6            15.1         26.6          51.8
 Decrease in property value (N=415)        7.5          20.2           31.3         21.9          19.0
 Different from neighborhood
                                          9.6           24.8           37.5         20.1           8.1
 aesthetic (N=408)
 Ineffective protection from boat
                                          2.9           12.0           22.0         32.3           30.9
 wakes (N=418)
 Ineffective protection from wind and
                                          3.4           11.5           23.7         31.7           29.7
 wave energy (N=417)
 Ineffective protection from erosion
                                          2.9            9.6           21.8         33.8           31.9
 (N=417)
 Shoreline maintenance cost (N=411)       2.9           13.4           41.8         28.5           13.4
 Attracts unwanted animals (N=408)        10.8          23.8           35.8         20.3           9.3
 Compromises privacy (N=403)              13.4          35.0           38.7          7.9           5.0
 Recommended natural conditions
                                          10.5          26.1           39.3         16.6           7.6
 won‟t improve habitat (N=410)
 Unattractive (N=403)                     13.4          29.8           35.5         14.1           7.2
 Lack of personal interest (N=402)        10.0          23.1           42.5         18.4           6.0
 Negatively affects neighbors‟
                                          12.4          29.3           40.7         11.4           6.3
 properties (N=396)
                                                     Top three in each response category placed in red bold.




                                                14
           Permitting process
                          Cost
    Ineffective erosion control
  Ineffective wake protection
  Ineffective wave protection
                         Time
            Maintenance cost
    Decreased property value
                  Loss of view
   Attracts unwanted animals
      Neighborhood asthetics
              Washed up logs
     Lack of personal interest
       Won't improve habitat
                  Unattractive
               Personal safety
  Effect others property value
        Compromises privacy

                                 0%    20%         40%        60%         80%       100%

                                                  Strongly Agree/Agree

Remarks: Property owners perceive cost, permitting processes, time, and issues with
protection of their shorelines as the greatest barriers to creating natural conditions. The
level of frustration and difficulty for property owners regarding the permitting process
was a consistent theme during interviews with the jurisdictions. Potentially, given the low
level of knowledge about alternative shoreline designs (see question 4), property owners
are projecting a level of anxiety regarding the costs associated with implementing these
designs and their effectiveness in protecting against erosion. The creation and distribution
of a detailed “life-cycle cost” framework, designed to inform property owners about the
costs and performance of alternatives, could address the conception mentioned above.

Property owners who modified or considered modifying their shoreline:

Remarks: The individuals that have modified or considered modifying their shorelines
are in a unique position to provide real information on the barriers they experienced. For
analysis purposes our team combined those individuals mentioned above against the
responses from individuals who had not modified their shoreline in the past ten years.
The only barrier, in the top eight, with a statistical significant difference was time. Those
individuals who considered or modified their shoreline were more likely to strongly agree
or agree with time as a barrier (p = .002).


                                             15
Question 8: Which of the following would encourage you to incorporate natural
conditions along your shoreline? Please rate how effective each incentive below would
be for you personally.


                                                                    Wouldn‟t
                                      Strong                                                          Strong
                                                 Disincentive        Affect  Incentive
                                    Disincentive                                                     Incentive
                                                                    Decision
 Streamlined permitting process
 (i.e. less hassle for applicant)       0.7          0.2                23.6            35.8             39.6
 (N=419)
 Fast permitting process
                                        0.7          0.2                24.7            35.0             39.3
 (N=417)
 Clearly defined requirements
                                        1.7          1.7                21.4            38.3             36.9
 (N=407)
 Tax breaks/credits/deductibles
                                        0.5          0.7                17.5            31.9             49.4
 (N=417)
 Partial or matching funds for
                                        0.7          1.0                21.8            30.1             46.5
 work (N=409)
 Assistance from a
 neighbor/community action
                                        4.7          5.4                41.1            32.5             16.3
 group (i.e. financial, labor,
 guidance, etc) (N=406)
 Sense of belonging to
 community movement                     4.4          5.4                41.1            32.5             16.3
 (N=407)
 Voluntary “Fish-Friendly”
 Shoreline Certification                3.4          6.1                54.3            27.3              8.8
 Program (N=407)
 Environmental stewardship
                                        3.7          2.4                37.3            43.7             12.9
 (N=410)
 Public recognition (N=404)            12.9          15.3               62.6             7.4              1.7
 Neighbors are doing it (N=405)         7.7          10.1               57.8            20.5              4.0
 Property value increase
                                        3.9          2.9                31.5            37.8             23.9
 (N=410)
 Being on the cutting edge of
                                        7.6          9.4                59.9            17.7              5.4
 shoreline design (N=406)
 Seeing successful example of
                                        3.0          3.9                35.0            45.6             12.6
 modified shoreline (N=406)
                                                            Top three in each response category placed in red bold.




                                               16
          Tax incentives

          Matching funds

  Streamlined permitting

      Clear requirements

        Faster permitting

  Property value increase

         Example project

    Sense of stewardship

       Ass't from groups

    Certification program

      Sense of belonging

     Neighbors "doing it"

       Prestige of design

       Public recognition

                            0%      20%          40%          60%       80%          100%

                                 Strongly Disagree/disagree   Strongly Agree/Agree


Remarks: Despite the relatively high incomes of the individuals with property along Lake
Washington (e.g. more than 36% earning over $300K per year), incentives with financial
ties ranked extremely high. The results also show that outreach programs should target
the ecological benefits of soft shoreline designs to capitalize on the relatively strong
environmental ethos of shoreline property owners. In addition, the concept of
demonstration projects ranked highly, lending credence to the desirability of NOAA‟s
and SPU‟s projects. These data also inform planners about what types of incentive
programs are likely to be less attractive to property owners.

Comparing property owners by modification of their shoreline in the past 10 years:

Remarks: Utilizing the same process as described in question 7, there were four items
that showed a statistical difference between individuals who considered/modified and
those who did not. The four items were a streamlined permitting process (p = .004), faster
permitting process (p = .006), clearly defined requirements (p = .001), and tax breaks or
credits (p = .019). In all four instances individuals who considered/modified their
shoreline considered the incentives a stronger incentive.




                                            17
Question 9: What are your primary sources of information and/or news about your
neighborhood? (Please check all that apply)




                          Percentage of
                           respondents                      City
                                                                                                                       80.0%
                                          newspapers/newsletters
City newspapers or
                              80.0              Neighbors/friends                                                     77.2%
newsletters
Neighbors/friends             77.2                       Mailings                                          58.5%

Mailings                      58.5        Community newsletters                                   45.2%
Community/neighborhood
                              45.2              Local national TV                                 43.8%
newsletters
Local national TV             43.8                      Websites                      29.7%

Websites                      29.7                    Community
                                                                                    24.4%
                                                    organizations
Community/shoreline
                              24.4                Local public TV                  22.4%
organizations
Local public TV               22.4          City council meetings               20.5%

City/community council                        Community events               15.9%
                              20.5
meetings
                                                 Email list serves           15.2%
Community/neighborhood
                              15.9         Local public access TV       11.1%
events
Email list-serves             15.2                          Other     6.9%

Local public access TV        11.1                               0%   10%    20%     30%    40%    50%    60%   70%   80%   90%
                            (N=435)                                            Percentage of total responses




Remarks: The survey results show that property owners utilize city
newspapers/newsletters, word-of-mouth, and local mailings as their primary sources of
information. The prevalence of social networking in the dissemination of knowledge is an
important consideration when conducting an outreach plan. This discovery highlights the
need to keep disinformation and rumors about the costs, permitting process, and
ecological conditions of the lake at a minimum.




                                           18
Question 10: What would be an effective way for you to receive information related to
your shoreline?



                          Percentage of                    Mailings
                           respondents          City newspapers or
                                                                                                                    72.5%
                                                                                                            52.2%
Mailings                      72.5%                    newsletters

City newspapers or                          Community newsletters                                   41.8%
                             52.2%
newsletters                                        Email list-serves                              37.9%
Community/neighborhood
                             41.8%                Neighbors/friends                               37.2%
newsletters
Email list-serves            37.9%                  Websites (city,
                                                                                               34.4%
                                                neighborhood, etc)
Neighbors/friends            37.2%            Community/shoreline
                                                                                          27.7%
Websites                     34.4%                 organizations

Community/shoreline                           Shoreline contractors                    24.0%
                             27.7%
organizations                                     Local national TV                    23.3%
Shoreline contractors        24.0%        Community/neighborhood
                                                                                       22.4%
Local national TV            23.3%                         events

Community/neighborhood                              Local public TV             15.7%
                             22.4%
events
                                              City council meetings            13.2%
Local public TV              15.7%
City council meetings        13.2%                      Boat shows         11.5%

Boat shows                   11.5%           Local public access TV     5.8%
Local public access TV        5.8%
                                                              Other     5.1%
                            (N=434)
                                                                   0%           20%            40%            60%       80%
                                                                                 Percentage of total responses




Remarks: In concert with question 9, the above responses provide a roadmap for
determining what type of media to use to reach shoreline property owners. Specifically,
an outreach plan should consider utilizing direct mailings and/or city and community
newsletters to distribute messages. Interestingly, 34% of the individuals who have
conducted or considered modifying their shoreline indicate contractors are considered an
effective source for information (p = .000). This implies an outreach plan might consider
incorporating developing a means of informing and interacting with contractors. This
result aligns with comments heard during jurisdictional interviews that contractors are
influential with property owners.




                                             19
Question 11: How would your rate the amount of information you receive about the
health of Lake Washington?

             Percentage of                                           100.0%
              respondents




                                    Percentage of total responses
Too little        73.7
                                                                     80.0%     73.6%
Just right        24.9
Too much          1.4
                (N=437)                                              60.0%


                                                                     40.0%
                                                                                            25.0%
                                                                     20.0%

                                                                                                          1.4%
                                                                      0.0%
                                                                              Too little   Just right   Too much




Question 12: How would your rate the amount of information you receive about Lake
Washington shoreline regulatory processes?

             Percentage of
              respondents                                            100.0%
                                     Percentage of total responses




Too little        79.7                                                         79.7%
Just right        16.3                                                80.0%
Too much          4.0
                (N=429)                                               60.0%


                                                                      40.0%

                                                                                            16.4%
                                                                      20.0%
                                                                                                         4.0%
                                                                       0.0%
                                                                              Too little   Just right   Too much



Remarks: These data demonstrate that jurisdictions have a significant amount of work
ahead of them to educate their constituents about the ecological and public policy
processes at work around the lake. It also demonstrates that property owners want more
information about the lake and regulatory processes governing its shoreline. During the
course of this project, our group experienced the sentiment expressed by the property
owners about the lack of information. The task of locating information about the
permitting process and health of the lake proved difficult for shoreline property owners
because of the absence of a centralized resource providing the desired information.



                                                                         20
Question 14: Public policy decisions sometimes require difficult trade-offs between
ecological and economic considerations. Where would you locate yourself concerning
these issues?

                                     Percentage of
                                                                                          60.0%
                                      respondents




                                                          Percentage of total responses
 Highest priority to environmental
                                                                                                                             41.8%
 protection even if there are             6.5                                             40.0%
 negative economic consequences                                                                                 28.5%

                                         27.9                                                                                             20.3%
                                                                                          20.0%

 Environmental and economic                                                                         6.5%
 factors should be given equal           40.6                                                                                                          2.8%
                                                                                          0.0%
 priority
                                                                                                  Highest to     More        Balance       More      Highest to
                                                                                                  ecological    ecologic    economic     economic    economic
                                         19.7                                                     protection      than     and ecology      than     protection
                                                                                                               economic                   ecologic
 Highest priority to economic
 considerations even if there are
                                          2.7
 negative environmental
 consequences
                                       (N=429)




Remarks: The majority of respondents to our survey indicate that a balanced approach to
making trade-offs between ecological and economic factors is most desirable. The
centralist approach requires the jurisdictions to make hard decisions about how to
preserve a balanced approach. These results also show that Lake Washington property
owners value ecological protection and thus could be receptive to well-designed policies
to enhance shoreline habitat.




                                                     21
Demographics
Age:                                       Children under 12
         Percentage of                                Percentage of
          respondents                                  respondents
 <35          2.8                           1-2           79.0
 36-45       11.5                           3-4           10.9
 46-55       29.3                           4-6            7.9
 56-65       27.0                           6-8            2.3
 >65         29.5                                       (N=433)
           (N=435)
                                           Shoreline length
Length of ownership:
                                                      Percentage of
                Percentage of                          respondents
                 respondents                <20ft         1.2
 <2 years            8.5                    21-35ft       4.1
 2-5 years          12.8                    36-50ft       17.5
 5-10 years         17.2                    51-65ft       20.7
 10-15 years        12.4                    >65ft         56.5
 >15 years          49.1                                (N=434)
                  (N=437)

                                           Household income
Annual residency at Lake Washington
                                                               Percentage of
property:
                                                                respondents
                Percentage of
                                            >$100k                 19.4
                 respondents
                                            $100-300k              44.2
 <3 months           1.4
                                            $300-500k              12.5
 3-6 months          1.4
                                            $500-1000k             12.2
 7-9 months          3.2
                                            >$1000k                11.6
 10-11 months        7.8
 All year           86.2                                        (N=319)
                  (N=435)
                                           City of residence
Number of people at the property                                 Percentage of
                                                                  respondents
          Percentage of
                                            Seattle                  31.0
           respondents
                                            Mercer Island            25.3
 1-2          53.5
                                            Bellevue                 14.9
 3-4          35.3
                                            Kirkland                  9.6
 4-6          10.8
                                            Medina                    6.5
 6-8           0.5
                                            Lake Forrest Park         5.4
            (N=434)
                                            Kenmore                   3.8
                                            Renton                    3.4
                                                                   (N=410)




                                      22
Appendix A: Lake Washington Survey Insert

Introduction
This survey is being conducted to collect information on shoreline property owners‟ use of their
shoreline and opinions about what best promotes healthy shorelines in Lake Washington. Our
goal is to identify challenges to and potential incentives for improving shoreline habitat. We are
an independent and interdisciplinary group of graduate students enrolled in the University of
Washington‟s Environmental Management program and we thank you for taking the time to
complete this survey.
        The survey should take about 20 minutes to complete. Your response will remain
anonymous and confidential and information gathered will only be reported in aggregate in our
final project report (your name will not be connected to answers). We request that a property
owner complete the survey and return it in the pre-addressed, stamped envelope by March 25,
2007.
        Below you will find important definitions and background information for completing the
survey. Please read this material before completing the survey.

Important Definitions

Shoreline - For the purposes of this survey, please consider the „shoreline‟ to be the zone within
10 feet to either side of where a body of water meets dry land.

Modification - For the purposes of this survey, „modification‟ to a shoreline is any major change
to your shoreline. This may include dock construction/replacement, the addition of a boathouse,
planting or removing vegetation, repair/replacement/removal of a bulkhead or riprap, filling area
with sand or fill, and other similar changes.

Natural conditions – For the purposes of this
survey, „natural conditions‟ refers to a shoreline
with intact habitat functions. Features of a
shoreline with „natural conditions‟ include shallow
sloping shore, overhanging vegetation, small grain
sediments, and drift logs beached along the
shoreline. Examples of natural conditions on Lake
Washington include Seward Park and Saint
Edwards Park.                                                                        Natural Conditions




Bulkhead – A man-made retaining wall typically
made out of concrete located at or near a shoreline.
Bulkheads are constructed to reinforce shorelines by
reflecting waves and their energy back into the body
of water from where they originated.

                                                                                         Bulkhead


                                                23
Riprap - Any type of rocky material used to help reinforce
a shoreline. In contrast to a bulkhead, riprap functions by
dissipating wave energy as the wave strikes the coarse and
angular rocks. Riprap is also known as revetment, shot
rock or rock armor.




                                                                               Riprap along a shoreline
Pocket Beach – A small beach between
two headlands, usually tucked into the
shoreline, and can be man-made or natural.
Pocket beaches are frequently utilized as
mitigation measures along developed
shorelines because they naturally dissipate
wave energy and provide habitat for fish
and bird species.


                                                                           Lake Washington Pocket Beach

Fill – For the purposes of this survey, „fill‟ is the addition of any sediment (such as rock, sand,
clay, or gravel) into a shoreline environment.

Milfoil – Common aquatic plant found throughout Lake
Washington.

Property Shoreline Types
Natural Shoreline - A shoreline utilizing natural
techniques/installments to help reinforce and protect a shoreline and
the property behind the shoreline. Such techniques/installments
include the use of vegetation to help anchor and secure the shore,
possibly small and subtle reinforcing walls to help minimize                              Natural Shoreline
sediment transport/movement, and other ecological principles and
practices to achieve shoreline protection. (picture right)

Hardened Shoreline - A shoreline utilizing a bulkhead or riprap as
the principle method of shoreline reinforcement. (picture right)

Partially Hardened Shoreline - A shoreline which employs a
combination of both natural shoreline reinforcement as well as
bulkhead or riprap to stabilize the shore. (no picture)
                                                                                      Bulkheaded Shoreline




                                                 24
Appendix B: Lake Washington Shoreline Property Owner Survey

Questions 1-4 address your shoreline and how it is used.

1. Which of the images and descriptions below best describes your shoreline? Please see insert for
   additional information on these shoreline types. (Please check only one)

 Hardened Shoreline                       Natural Shoreline             Partially Hardened
Shoreline
The majority of the shoreline is        The majority of the shoreline    The shoreline is a combination
comprised of a bulkhead or riprap.      is beach, vegetation, and logs. of bulkhead/riprap and natural
                                                                        beach and vegetation.



                                                                             (no image)




2. Does your shoreline include a dock or pier?           Yes  No

3. How do you use your shoreline (not including your backyard)? (Please check all uses in the last 3
years)

 Swimming                                        Boat storage
 Fishing (dock, shore or boat)                   Parties/BBQ/social gatherings
 Sunbathing                                      Pet usage
 Wildlife viewing                                Lake view (sunset/sunrise, etc)
 Motorized recreational boating                  Gardening/landscape design
 Non-Motorized recreational boating
 Other (please list all that apply): ________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________

4. Which of the following do you think are desirable natural functions of Lake Washington‟s shoreline?
(Please check all that apply)

 Provide shade for aquatic life           Roosting place for birds
 Sewage discharge collection              Provide food for „food web‟
 Salmon spawning                          Provide sediment and wood to the lake
 Provide habitat for bass                 Grow milfoil
 Refuge for juvenile salmon               Juvenile salmon migration
 Protection from erosion                  Stormwater runoff reservoir
 Other (please list all that apply): ________________________________________________________




                                                   25
Questions 5-7 address logistics of conducting shoreline modification projects.

5. Have you attempted or considered modifying your shoreline in the past 10 years?

 Yes  No  Considered
If no, please go to Question 6.

    a) What type(s) of modifications did you attempt or consider? (Please check all that apply)

             Build bulkhead or other shore protection  Add fill
             Repair or replace existing bulkhead         Incorporate natural conditions
             Create pocket beach                         Build or repair terrestrial structures (gazebo,
            etc.)
             Build or repair dock
             Other (please list all that apply):______________________________________________
            __________________________________________________________________________
            __________________________________________________________________________

    b) Why did you attempt or consider the above modifications? Please describe:
    ___________________________________________________________________________
    ___________________________________________________________________________

    c) What type(s) of mitigations (i.e. special permit requirements), if any, were required? (Please
       check all that apply)

             None                          Install drift logs
             Plant native vegetation       Fill with small grain sediments
             Plant native trees            Create shallow sloping shore
             Other (please list all that
            apply):____________________________________________________________________
            __________________________________________________________________________
            __________________________________________________________________________

            If mitigations were required, who required them? ______________________  Don‟t Know

    d) Was the project completed?                 Yes  No  Partially

    e) How long did it take to get your permit(s)?

     1 month  2-3 months  4-6 months               7-12 months     more than 1 year      No permit
    required   Pursued permit but withdrew           Don‟t know

    f) Please describe any obstacles or challenges that you encountered during the process of attempting
    to modify your shoreline that you WERE ABLE to overcome:
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________




                                                     26
    g) Please describe any obstacles or challenges that you encountered that you were NOT able to
       overcome:
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________
    _________________________________________________________________________________



6. We are interested in learning about the barriers to creating natural conditions along Lake Washington‟s
shoreline. In your opinion, please indicate how much you agree that each of the following factors is a
barrier to creating natural conditions on Lake Washington‟s shoreline.

                                    Strongly        Disagree        Neutral    Agree        Strongly
                                    Disagree                                                Agree
     Cost                                 1               2             3          4             5
     Time                                 1               2             3          4             5
     Personal safety                      1               2             3          4             5
     Loss of view                         1               2             3          4             5
     Washed up logs                       1               2             3          4             5
     Permitting process                   1               2             3          4             5
     Decrease in property value           1               2             3          4             5
     Neighborhood norms                   1               2             3          4             5
     Ineffective protection from          1               2             3          4             5
     boat wakes
     Ineffective protection from          1               2             3          4             5
     wind and wave energy
     Ineffective protection from          1               2             3          4             5
     erosion
     Shoreline maintenance cost           1               2             3          4             5
     Attracts unwanted animals            1               2             3          4             5
     Compromises privacy                  1               2             3          4             5
     Recommended actions                  1               2             3          4             5
     won‟t improve habitat
     Unattractive                         1               2             3          4             5
     Lack of personal interest            1               2             3          4             5
     Other (please list all that
     apply)




                                                   27
7. Which of the following would encourage you to incorporate natural conditions along your shoreline?
Please rate how effective each incentive below would be for you personally.

                                    Strong         Disincentive   Wouldn‟t Incentive     Strong
                                    Disincentive                  Affect                 Incentive
                                                                  Decision
 Streamlined permitting process          1              2             3        4              5
 (i.e. less hassle for applicant)
 Fast permitting process                 1              2            3           4            5
 Clearly defined requirements            1              2            3           4            5
 Tax breaks/credits/deductibles          1              2            3           4            5
 Partial or matching funds for           1              2            3           4            5
 work
 Assistance from a                       1              2            3           4            5
 neighbor/community action
 group (i.e. financial, labor,
 guidance, etc)
 Sense of belonging to                   1              2            3           4            5
 neighborhood movement
 Voluntary “Fish-Friendly”               1              2            3           4            5
 Shoreline Certification
 Program (similar to Audubon‟s
 Backyard Sanctuary program)
 Environmental stewardship               1              2            3           4            5
 Public recognition                      1              2            3           4            5
 Neighbors are doing it                  1              2            3           4            5
 Property value increase                 1              2            3           4            5
 Prestige/trend-setting/cutting          1              2            3           4            5
 edge of shoreline design
 Seeing successful example of            1              2            3           4            5
 modified shoreline
 Can you suggest other
 incentives? Please list:




                                                   28
Questions 8-12 address sources of information about Lake Washington.

8. What are your primary sources of information and/or news about your neighborhood? (Please check all
that apply)

 City newspapers or newsletters                  City council meetings
 Community/neighborhood newsletters              Local public access TV
 Local public TV (KCTS)                          Local national TV (KOMO, KING, KIRO, Q13 FOX)
 Websites (city, neighborhood, etc)              Community/neighborhood events
 Neighbors/friends                               Mailings
 Email list-serves                               Community/shoreline organizations
 Other (please list all that apply): _________________________________________________
       ______________________________________________________________________________
       ______________________________________________________________________________
       ______________________________________________________________________________


9. What would be an effective way for you to receive information related to your shoreline?

 City newspapers or newsletters                  City council meetings
 Community/neighborhood newsletters              Local public access TV
 Local public TV (KCTS)                          Local network affiliates (KOMO, KING, KIRO, Q13
                                                 FOX)
 Websites (city, neighborhood, etc)              Community/neighborhood events
 Neighbors/friends                               Mailings
 Email list-serves                               Community/shoreline organizations
 Boat shows                                      Shoreline contractors
 Other (please list all that apply): _________________________________________________
       ______________________________________________________________________________
       ______________________________________________________________________________
       ______________________________________________________________________________


10. How would your rate the amount of information you receive about the health of Lake Washington?

          Too little  Just right  Too much


11. How would your rate the amount of information you receive about Lake Washington shoreline
regulatory processes?
         Too little  Just right  Too much

12. What additional information about the health of the lake and/or shoreline regulatory processes would
you like to receive?
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________




                                                   29
13. Public policy decisions sometimes require difficult trade-offs between ecological and economic
considerations. Where would you locate yourself concerning these issues? (Circle the number that best
represents your opinion)

Highest priority to                          Environmental and                            Highest priority to
environmental                                economic factors                             economic
protection even if                           should be given                              considerations
there are negative                           equal priority                               even if there are
economic                                                                                  negative
consequences                                                                              environmental
                                                                                          consequences
         1                    2                         3                   4                       5


Please provide some additional information about yourself. Providing this information is voluntary,
but it will help us a great deal if you complete the following questions.

  a.   How old are you?
        35 yrs and younger  36-45 yrs            46-55 yrs        56-65 yrs      65 yrs and over
  b. How long have you lived in this Lake Washington Shoreline property?
        less than 2 years         2-5 years      6-10 years       11-15 years  longer than 15 years
  c. Do you own or rent this property?
        Own                       Rent
  d. How much of the year do you live at this residence?
        less than 3 months        3-6 months  7-9 months  10-11 months  all year
  e. How many people currently live at this property?
        1-2     3-4              4-6            6-8              more than 8
  f.   How many of residents are under the age of 12?
       0       1                2              3                 more than 3
  g. Approximately how long is your shoreline (in feet)?
        20ft or less  21-35 ft            36-50 ft         51-65 ft     over 65 ft
  h. Total yearly household income before taxes?
        $100k or less  $100-300k  $300-500k               $500k -1 mil  over $1 mil
  i.   What is your zip code? __________
  j.   Are you a member of any community groups? If so, please list here: ______________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________
____________________________________________________________________________________




                                                        30
Would you be willing to be contacted for an interview? If so, please enter your email address here.
___________
Otherwise, your return is anonymous and we will not know your email address.


Is there anything else you would like to add about your experiences with shoreline modification on Lake
Washington?


Thank you for taking the time to complete this survey. The results will be available online in May 2007
at http://courses.washington.edu/lkwasrvy.




                                                   31
Appendix C: Lake Washington Regulatory Interview Questions

Purpose of interviews
Conduct interviews with five primary jurisdictions and King County governing Lake
Washington shorelines to understand shoreline construction permitting process, identify
regulatory barriers towards implementing fish friendly modifications, and catalog existing
incentive programs at the local level.

Overall research questions:
o How are or could incentives (economic or social) be used to encourage the development of
   more natural shorelines?
o What could make the permitting process operate smoother for the city and/or landowners?

Primary Interview Questions (Items in italics are notes/reminders for the interview team)

1. Beyond the requirements of the Shoreline Management Act, do any municipal programs exist
   to encourage or protect natural shorelines?
2. Has the city conducted any projects to improve the ecology of its shorelines?
         Follow-up: Are there plans for future projects?
3. Do you expect the process of revising your Shoreline Master Program to impact how private
   property owners make shoreline modifications?
         Looking to gather: What are the major features? What are your tactics?
4. What are your goals (policy, ecological, and social) for the Shoreline Master Program update?
5. Does your planning include any incentives (economic or social) for landowners to develop a
   more natural shoreline (i.e., consideration for future construction or modification projects, tax
   credits, title considerations, easements, etc.)?
6. What type of incentives do you think would be effective?
         Need to be ready with examples (e.g. certification program)
7. What could make the permitting process operate smoother for the city and/or landowners?
         If multiple people ask: is there anything else?
8. Have your elected officials taken any positions on what the shoreline should look like or the
   conditions under which it may be modified?
         Right to contest a project that may impact your property; i.e. neighbor’s removal of a
           bulkhead will cause greater erosion to my property.
9. How do jurisdictions coordinate/cooperate with regard to the SMP update to ensure
   consistency?
         Follow-up: do you know of any jurisdictions that are tracking your progress? Are you
           keeping tabs on any other jurisdiction’s efforts, particularly neighboring
           jurisdictions?

Other Questions
1. Do you have any reports on ongoing projects for your shoreline that you are willing to share
   with us?
        Reports submitted to Federal, State, County, the City Council, or made available to the
          public?


                                                    32

								
To top