Shoreline Armoring Reduction Project Northwest Straits ...€¦ · • Summarize workshop and assistance outcomes based on participant feedback to update lessons learned and best

1

Final Report for the Habitat Strategic Initiative

Shoreline Armoring Reduction Project

Northwest Straits Foundation

NTA 2016-0001

WDFW Contract 17-08294

October 18, 2019

2

Title: Shoreline Armoring Reduction Project

Authors: Lisa Kaufman, Nearshore Program Manager

Organization: Northwest Straits Foundation

Year: 2019

Keywords: Armor, Soft Shore, Incentives, Barriers

Series Name: Puget Sound National Estuary Program

Grant Program: Habitat Strategic Initiative

Granting Agencies: Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife, Washington Dept. of Natural Resources

EPA Grant Number: PC-01J22301

Sub-recipient Grant No (Agency + No): Washington Dept of Fish and Wildlife 17-08294

Grant name: Shoreline Armoring Reduction Project

Near Term Action Number: 2016-0001

Reference Number in other databases (e.g. PRISM XXXX):

Summary:

The Shoreline Armoring Reduction Project built upon ongoing efforts to reduce shore armor in north Puget Sound. Shoreline armoring is a pressure on the nearshore ecosystem altering a variety of nearshore sediment and biological processes which in turn alter the structure and function of the nearshore. This project supports behavior change of property landowners through educational outreach as well as through assistance programs designed to address previously identified barriers reducing shoreline owners’ willingness to remove or soften shore armor.

The program introduced landowners to coastal processes and management principles as well as the benefits of natural shorelines, armor removal, soft protection alternatives, and use of native vegetation for protection and habitat enhancement through workshops, community forums, and local beach walks. Landowners received technical assistance to assess erosion risk, shoreline protection and stewardship options, use of native vegetation, and drainage management. Site assessments also focused on feasibility to either forego shoreline armor, employ alternatives to hard armor, or remove it where conditions allowed and helped landowners overcome their personal barriers to change. For landowners willing to remove or soften shore armor or forego armoring, the project provided technical consultation, engineering

3

design, permitting assistance, and development of grant applications for future implementation of construction.

This project has been funded wholly or in part by the United States Environmental Protection Agency under assistance agreement PC-01J22301 through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. The contents of this document do not necessarily reflect the views and policies of the Environmental Protection Agency or the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, nor does mention of trade names or commercial products constitute endorsement or recommendation for use

4

Table of Contents Project goals and objectives ................................................................................................................. 5

Methods ................................................................................................................................................. 5

Landowner Workshops and Targeted Outreach ............................................................................ 5

Technical Site Visits .......................................................................................................................... 6

Engineering Design Services............................................................................................................ 7

Permitting Assistance ....................................................................................................................... 8

Project Implementation Assistance ................................................................................................. 9

Results ................................................................................................................................................. 10

Project outcomes ............................................................................................................................. 10

Landowner Workshops and Targeted Outreach ...................................................................... 10

Technical Site Visits .................................................................................................................... 14

Engineering Design Services ...................................................................................................... 20

Permitting Assistance ................................................................................................................. 26

Success of achieving performance measures ................................................................................ 28

Conclusions ......................................................................................................................................... 28

Lessons Learned ............................................................................................................................. 29

Landowner Workshops and Targeted Outreach ...................................................................... 29

Technical Site Visits .................................................................................................................... 29

Design .......................................................................................................................................... 29

Permitting Assistance ................................................................................................................. 30

Project Implementation Assistance (Grant Writing) ................................................................ 30

Recommendations for future work ............................................................................................... 30

Appendix A: Workshop Evaluation Summary Results ................................................................... 32

Appendix B: Site Visit Request Form ................................................................................................ 34

Appendix C: Site Visit Breakdowns .................................................................................................. 36

Appendix D: Site Visit Evaluations ................................................................................................... 39

5

Project goals and objectives Shoreline landowners hold a unique connection to Puget Sound and are deeply invested in their property. Heightened understanding about the effects of concrete bulkheads, seawalls and other types of armor is an important step toward reducing unnecessary threats to shorelines. The Northwest Straits Foundation and its partners work with shoreline property owners to reduce the impacts from existing armor, and prevent unnecessary installation by offering incentives and services in addition to providing education and resources. We aim to accomplish this and hope to influence landowners to remove, soften, or forego armor on their property by:

• Conducting informational workshops for landowners in priority Marine Resource Committee (MRC) partner areas;

• Providing individual site technical consultations, as well as design assistance, permitting assistance, and grant writing assistance for landowners willing to consider armor removal or soft shore protection who meet qualifications and prioritization criteria.

To measure success and determine if behavior change is occurring as a result of our efforts, we:

• Summarize workshop and assistance outcomes based on participant feedback to update lessons learned and best practices;

• Periodically reach out to past participants and recipients of services to track changes undertaken as a result of information provided.

Methods The development of incentives for landowners based on their concerns and values is consistently identified as a desirable element of an outreach program by shoreline property owners. This program has been a continuation of efforts to reach shoreline property owners with the explicit goals of reducing the impacts of shoreline armor throughout the Northwest Straits region and is affiliated with the Shore Friendly brand and strategy.

LANDOWNER WORKSHOPS AND TARGETED OUTREACH Landowners were introduced to coastal processes and management principles as well as the benefits of natural shorelines, climate change projections and local implications, native riparian vegetation, armor removal, and soft protection alternatives through workshops, community forums, and local beach walks. Landowners were invited to workshops through social media (Facebook, Twitter, etc.), emails to known landowners or community associations, radio and newspaper ads, and postcard mailings using assessor and shoreline landowner database information. Phone calls or meetings focusing on smaller geographic scales were other

http://www.shorefriendly.org/

6

strategies used to reach landowners and community associations identified as high priority and high feasibility for armor removal or prevention.

Workshops and outreach activities usually represent our first opportunity to interact with landowners and determine their motivations and barriers.

TECHNICAL SITE VISITS Professional coastal geologists and vegetation management specialists provided property-specific recommendations relative to erosion potential and management at the site. Site visits occurred in six of the seven MRC counties based on priorities that included potential for armor removal, perceived desire of the landowner to make beneficial changes, and opportunities to prevent future armoring. Landowners completed a questionnaire detailing the status of their property (armored/unarmored, bank height, setback distances of structures and septics), primary concerns, potential to consider armor removal or other soft shore options, and whether they were considering installing armor on an unarmored site.

Generally, the following prioritization was used to determine allocation of site visits. While armored sites received the highest priority for assessments to reach those identified as having high feasibility for armor removal, many criteria were considered in determining who would receive a visit and we did not want to forego opportunities to prevent the installation of new armor. Based on available budget following each outreach effort, we would attempt to provide site visits to most who requested them once the priority sites were scheduled.

Site Visit Prioritization 1. Any armored site where landowner expressed desire to

consider removal or sites that had previously been identified as having feasibility for armor removal

2. Any unarmored site where landowner expressed plans or strong consideration for new armor installation

3. Armored feeder bluff site with adequate setback 4. Communities or groups of neighbors (armored or

unarmored) 5. Known forage fish beaches (to meet our goal of

protecting or improving habitat through increased stewardship by landowners)

6. Unarmored sites along feeder bluffs 7. Requests from local permitters/planners for specific

landowner assistance prior to permit process completion to determine if soft shore options existed.

7

Landowners receive a summary memo detailing armor necessity, removal and alternative options for the site, and preventative best management and stewardship practices.

ENGINEERING DESIGN SERVICES Achieving our goals to identify and provide engineering design services for implementation of shoreline armor removal comes only when we reach the necessary intersection of a feasible site, desirable and significant habitat gains through removal, and a willing landowner.

Feasibility is determined by factors including: adequate set-back of homes, structures, and septics; low to moderate rates of erosion; and the condition of neighboring properties that could impact the sustainability and benefit of removal.

Habitat gains need to be significant and sufficient such that implementation of the project would be eligible for grant funding. Shoreline parcels we encountered have averaged a minimum of 100 linear feet in length. This is the minimum length of shoreline armor removal we would consider for design service incentives. Less than that and we would opt to provide landowners with adequate resources and knowledge to complete the project on their own. Desired habitat improvements following removal needed to include, at a minimum, sustainable forage fish spawning habitat and a restored marine riparian zone.

Landowner willingness often requires on-going communication. Building trust and understanding that we will support the landowner throughout the process has been the keystone for successful project development. Several projects completed to date took more than two years to gain willingness and buy-in to see the project through to design and several more to get to implementation. On more than one occasion, we recognized that the constraints the landowner was identifying would not achieve the desired outcomes, therefore the project was dropped from consideration. In most instances, we needed to find a compromise to allow for long-term beach access as a trade for removal of the armor. This often requires that some amount of protection remain intact rather than a full removal action.

All potential design projects started with an initial baseline assessment such as those completed for the requested site visits. If we felt there was a high known likelihood of feasibility prior to the site visit, Lisa Kaufman as well as a local representative from the Marine Resources Committee would attend along with the coastal geologist or engineer. This was necessary to begin the development of the working relationship and establish a partnership between the Foundation, the engineer/geologist, and the landowner. Once a landowner or community association has agreed to participate, Coastal Geologic Services would begin the design process with one or more site visits. From there an engineered design suitable for permitting was developed, in some cases along with alternatives for the landowner to consider.

8

PERMITTING ASSISTANCE Qualifying landowners are assisted by Northwest Straits Foundation (NWSF) in acquiring permits for armor removal or soft shore replacement. NWSF contracted with experts for biological and cultural resources assessments; participated in permit meetings, and submitted permit applications acting as an agent for the landowners.

The following permits or approvals need to be considered in the application process, although not all are applicable to every project:

PERMIT/PROCESS AGENCY

SEPA County

NEPA N/A

Shoreline Substantial Development Permit Exemption County

Clearing & Grading County

Floodplain Development Permit County

Building Permit County

Discharge Permit (Section 404) USACE

Section 10 USACE

Nationwide Permit USACE

ESA Compliance/Concurrence NMFS/NOAA/USFWS

Hydraulic Permit Approval WDFW

Section 401 Water Quality Dept of Ecology

CZM Certification Dept of Ecology

NPDES Construction Stormwater General Permit Dept of Ecology

Aquatic Use Authorization or Right of Entry Dept of Natural Resources

EO 05-05 Cultural & Historical Review // Section 106 Cultural & Historical Review

DAHP // Federal lead

Archaeology Monitoring and Inadvertent Discovery Plan DAHP

Biological assessment for FEMA/ESA County/City/USACE

In most cases, local jurisdictions accept the Joint Aquatic Resources Permit Application (JARPA) Form which is the standardized form used by USACE, Ecology, and Washington DNR for basic

9

project information. WDFW requires applications be submitted on-line following the SEPA determination using their APPS system.

PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION ASSISTANCE Landowners are assisted in applying for public and private grants to forward feasible armor removal or soft shore replacement projects toward final design and implementation. A project had to be in the process of or had completed permits to qualify for project implementation assistance.

10

Results PROJECT OUTCOMES Landowner Workshops and Targeted Outreach NWSF and partners hosted 11 workshops and outreach events reaching 311 participants. Five of these events were funded through either NWSF’s companion grant through the Marine & Nearshore Grant Program or partner funding which reached an additional 146 participants. A total of 16 workshops and outreach events reached over 420 participants.

Target Population

MRC Partner

Date Workshop Focus/Presenters Attendance Notes

Skagit Skagit MRC

9/23/17 Living with the Coast: Jim Johannessen

48 10 site visit requests from workshop participants

Snohomish /Camano Island

Snohomish/Island MRCs



Whatcom Whatcom MRC



Skagit Skagit MRC

1/28/18 Healthy shorelines: Lisa Kaufman

40 Coordinated and advertised by Skagit Indivisible

Jefferson Jefferson MRC

2/13/18 Discovery Bay Shoreline Landowners discussion & presentation – benefits and opportunities for armor removal: Lisa Kaufman / Cheryl Lowe

12

Funded through Shore Friendly companion grant

Jefferson Jefferson MRC

3/22/18 Vegetation Management/Coastal Processes: Ben Alexander / Lisa Kaufman

45 Funded through Shore Friendly companion grant 14 site visit requests from workshop participants

Island Island MRC



Clallam Clallam MRC

5/5/18 Living with the Coast – Andrea MacClennan


Whatcom Whatcom MRC

7/18/18 Living with the Coast Beach Walk - Andrea MacClennan

10

11

Target Population

MRC Partner

Date Workshop Focus/Presenters Attendance Notes

Whatcom Whatcom MRC


22 Other partners: Whatcom CD / BBWARM

Whatcom/ Skagit

Skagit/ Whatcom MRCs

10/10/18 Realtor Workshop 18 Funded through Shore Friendly companion grant

Snohomish/Camano

Island/Snohomish MRCs


Skagit Skagit MRC


20

Island / Snohomish

Island / Snohomish MRCs


50 Sound Water Stewards

Island Island MRC

10/25/18 Realtor Workshop 29 Funded by Island County Shore Friendly

Jefferson/ Clallam

Jefferson/ Clallam MRCs


TOTAL WORKSHOP and OUTREACH

16 Events: 11 funded through NTA; 5 through MNGP

457

12

‘Living with the Coast’ workshop participants were asked to provide an assessment of their change in awareness and understanding of coastal processes, habitats, solutions, and the value of natural shorelines.

The majority of respondents noted their primary concern about their property was erosion. Second to that was interest in implementing better stewardship practices. Across all ‘Living with the Coast’ workshops, 44% of respondents live on high bluff properties with a high of 68% in Clallam County. 60% of total respondents had unarmored sites, however, 58% of respondents in Skagit County had some form of armor.

Prior to the workshops, 53% of workshop respondents highly valued the effectiveness of erosion protection provided by natural shorelines as compared to armored shorelines. This increased significantly to 93% after the workshops. In future efforts to follow up with both workshop and site visit participants, we will place focus on this result to assess whether this impacted decisions to remove or forego hard armor.

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had not considered it Little value Some value Highly value

Q8. How would you rate the value you placed on natural shorelines versus modified shorelines with regard to

effectiveness of erosion management over timeSkagit BEFORE Skagit AFTER Whatcom BEFORE Whatcom AFTER

SnoCo BEFORE SnoCo AFTER Clallam BEFORE Clallam AFTER

13

Attendees in the vegetation management workshops were also surveyed for knowledge change resulting from their participation. Generally, most had previous knowledge of the value of native vegetation, but there was still a significant increase in their understanding of this by the end of the workshop.

Similarly, most had some knowledge of the value of natural shorelines over armored shorelines before, but there was a twofold increase in those that highly valued natural shorelines after the workshop.

Summaries of workshop evaluations are included in Appendix A.

7% 4%

36%

54%

0% 0% 4%

96%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had notconsidered it

Little value Some value Highly value

How would you rate the value of use of native vegetation for erosion management, aesthetics, habitat benefits?

Before After

25%

7%

30%38%

0% 4% 9%

88%

0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Had notconsidered it

Little value Some value Highly value

How would you rate the value of unarmored shorelines versus armored shorelines

Before After

14

Technical Site Visits NWSF contracted with Coastal Geologic Services to provide 85 site visits across six of the seven Northwest Straits counties. An additional 34 site visits were completed through the MNGP funding. Site visits in San Juan County were conducted by other partners including the Conservation District and Friends of the San Juans. Two additional site visits were provided by Peninsula Urban Forestry specific to landowner concerns about vegetation management. Of the 85 coastal processes site visits, 27 did not have armor therefore recommendations were provided to slow erosion, improve drainage and native vegetation, and encourage the maintenance of natural shorelines.

Site visits spanned several shoretypes: 15 accretion shoreform/barrier beach; 58 Feeder bluff/Feeder bluff exceptional; 1 low energy shore; and 11 within transport zone.

The predominance of site visits on feeder bluff and feeder bluff exceptional shoreforms is a result of our directed outreach to landowners in these areas as well as the general concern and perceptions that many bluff property owners have with erosion. Previous work in Island and Jefferson counties generated a database of armored feeder bluffs. The need to preserve and protect sediment sources from these bluffs continues to inform our work.

Of the 58 armored shorelines, armor removal was determined to be infeasible on 19 sites and another 19 had some degree of feasibility from partial to full, with 10 not requiring soft shore alternatives. Further investigation of these sites is needed to determine if constraints exist based on landowner issues such as maintaining access.

The map on the left shows the parcels that have some feasibility for removal and identifies additional recommendations for landowners to consider to enhance habitat and slope stability. The map on the right shows similar types of recommendations, but for unarmored sites.

https://salishsearestoration.org/wiki/File:CGS_ESRP_BeachStrategies_SummaryReport_20171025.pdf

15

Additional breakdowns of site visits are included in Appendix B.

Site Visit Evaluations Site visit reports were sent to the landowners by email with a link to an on-line survey. A fillable copy of the evaluation was also attached for those who wished to send them by mail. Additionally, hard copies were provided to CGS to hand to the landowners at the time of the visit. This proved to be unsuccessful as an option with only a few returning hard copies.

The evaluations are intended to help us measure desired outcomes for site visits:

• Landowners gain increased knowledge of their specific property related to their management concerns, permitting considerations, and alternatives to consider.

• Landowners make informed decisions regarding property management actions.

We received 22 evaluations from the 85 reports completed. While a 25% return rate is generally acceptable for surveys, we had hoped for a higher rate given the services and support

https://www.surveymonkey.com/r/SiteVisitEval-2017

16

landowners are receiving. Future programs will reassess how we can increase the return rate of these evaluations.

Of the 22 responses, 14 (63%) rated the site visits as extremely valuable (scale of one to five) for addressing specific concerns about their property. Seven rated it as a four, and one rated it a three.

Respondents were asked if the site visit changed the way they viewed their concerns: 81% responded yes; 19% responded no. Most who provided comments made note of a specific concern that they now had a better understanding of.

Overall, landowners gained knowledge and increased their awareness of issues related to living on the shoreline. Additional comments are included in Appendix D.

Follow-up Surveys of Past Site Visit Recipients NWSF sent surveys to 207 recipients of site visits from 2013 through 2018 to determine behavior changes and actions taken since landowners received the technical assistance and report. Over 20% responded to the survey with only 7 emails bouncing back as undeliverable.

Responses will be used to begin the next phase of Shore Friendly incentives and resources NWSF and its partners will consider to reduce the impacts of shoreline armor and encourage changes to their shorelines to benefit habitat and prey species. These resources and incentives will likely include advanced levels of technical assistance such as vegetation plans, drainage management support, assessments on the viability of relocating homes, structures and septics to prevent new armor installation and potentially allow for future armor removal where is may not have been advised previously.

86.36%

13.64%

Yes No0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Did the site visit increase your awareness of the range of alternatives for managing erosion on your property?

Responses

77.27%

4.55%13.64%

Yes No Undecided0%

20%

40%

60%

80%

100%

Do you plan to implement any of the recommendations you received from the

site visit?

17

Future surveys of this type will separate out questions that indicate completed actions versus plans to complete actions to better gauge shoreline changes to date. Not all respondents provided names; for those that did we will continue to follow up.

Describe the height of your marine waterfront:

Does your shoreline property contain armoring (bulkhead, rip rap, seawall)?

Have you completed or are planning to complete any modifications or changes to your shoreline property? If so, what have you done?

• Twelve respondents completed or plan to complete at least one action. Most of actions were an intention to add native vegetation.

Armor Type Responses: • A few wooden posts from an old seawall • Old Stone and Mortar Wall. Some Concrete at

Steps. • Planks with creosote pilings. • Rip-rap, One section is failing • Wooden pile bulkhead • Break water of large rocks • Damaged bulkhead replaced with an all rock

bulkhead by Sound Bulkhead. • Rocks (2) • Log bulkhead installed in the early 1960s • Concrete bulk head • Had a wall that collapsed

18

• Eight respondents completed or plan to complete at least two actions. • Two respondents completed or plan to complete at least three actions. • Four completed or plan to complete four or more actions. • The one notation of armor removed will be completed in 2020 and was forwarded

through the Shore Friendly program with NWSF (Seahorse Siesta). Common barriers that prevented landowners from applying the considerations and recommendations.

• Cost was the most common response as to why no action was taken. Prices quoted in responses ranged from $50,000-$150,000. (19%);

• Surrounding existing structures/armoring (30%); • Confusing and complicated process for proposals; • Confusing and frustrating county regulations; • Neighbors and/or homeowners were the second most common reason (20%); • Some homeowners responded that no action was needed.

Did any information obtained from your site assessment influence your decision?

50% of responses included yes. Next steps some respondents took were:

• Speaking with their neighbors and making a plan to remove the bulkhead • Getting them thinking about next major steps even if they think their proposals need

revisions • Reinforced their concerns with facts that lead to actions.

Those that took next steps included, grant retrieval, site inspections, construction bid, complete process and removal of armor.

19

Do you feel the site assessment provided adequate information to make decisions in maintaining your shoreline property?

62% of respondents answered yes. Those that either answered no or provided another response gave a variety of comments as to why. A few examples:

1. “No. The program is far too focused on construction-based mitigation. Site assessors not able to provide any real guidance on vegetation-based erosion control. In hindsight, I don't think that I was a good candidate for the current version of the site assessment. I don't have hard armoring and would not have ever considered it. The funding would have been better spent on my sea-walled neighbors.”

2. “Since we are not a candidate for soft armoring, it would be very helpful to provide education regarding other choices and resources.”

3. “No, needed more time. we had another assessment done for which we paid.” 4. “It made me give up hope”

20

Engineering Design Services 1. Hidden Beach (Shoretype: Low bank (historic feeder bluff)). This project will restore 770 linear feet of shoreline located north of Greenbank on Whidbey Island. Project partners include Northwest Straits Foundation, Island County Marine Resources Committee, and Washington State Department of Natural Resources. Shore armor and debris include creosote-treated pilings, rock armor, concrete bags, and other materials that are infringing on and burying potential surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat. Removal of the shore armor and fill could recover between 12,000 and 20,000 square feet of intertidal and backshore beach habitat. Partial shoreline protection will be needed across three segments of the project reach to limit erosion of fill. All protection will be located above OHWM, reuse existing rock, and will be buried and planted. Protection segments were assessed for feasibility of soft shore options, however the presence of fill made this untenable. https://nwstraitsfoundation.org/project/hidden-beach-shoreline-restoration/

The site’s proximity to the Beachcomber’s Community Association as well as the adjoining neighborhoods above the bluff resulted in a need for a thorough public process before design began. To abate concerns of some members of these communities, NWSF contracted for the creation of artistic renderings. This was funded through the MNGP.

NWSF identified and approached DNR about this site after searching shoreline photos and landowner databases for potential outreach to properties with dilapidated armor. DNR’s restoration funding had been allocated to other projects for the biennium, therefore we formed a partnership to accelerate the project timeline including a site visit, community outreach, and design in preparation for inclusion in budget requests and the WRIA6 salmon recovery funding process.

Implementation of the restoration has been included in the 2019-2021 capital budget for DNR’s Aquatic Lands Restoration Program and is on track to receive a Puget Sound Acquisition and Restoration program grant for WRIA6. Construction is planned for summer/fall 2020. Without NEP funding, this site would likely not have been identified and moved to implementation for several more years.

https://nwstraitsfoundation.org/project/hidden-beach-shoreline-restoration/

21

Hidden Beach 2016-Dept of Ecology Coastal Atlas

Hidden Beach - Current View

22

Hidden Beach 5-10 years post restoration

Hidden Beach 5-10 years after - Beach View

2. Similk Bay Redesign (Shoretype: Low bank): This project located near the head of Similk Bay in Skagit County was originally designed under our companion grant through the Marine & Nearshore Grant Program. The start of the permitting process included completion of an archaeological and historical assessment. This revealed high potential for discovery of cultural resources. The Swinomish Tribe requested the removal of excavation of fill behind the armor as a restoration element, necessitating a partial redesign and delay of permitting.

23

Funding for construction implementation has been secured by USFWS Puget Sound Coastal Program, Estuary Salmon Restoration Program Small Grants, and cash contributions from both landowners. Pending receipt of permits, construction is planned for summer/fall 2020.

3. Discovery Bay (Shoretype: Historic feeder bluff): The site located near the start of a drift cell that is over 1.4 miles in length moving from north to south towards the head of Discovery Bay. It contains 900 linear feet of failed shoreline armor that is burying forage fish spawning habitat and interrupting nearshore sediment transport processes. The site was mapped in the 1990’s as surf smelt and sand lance spawning habitat, however, failed armor is currently resulting in the direct burial of spawning habitat necessary for surf smelt and sand lance, two species that are critical prey for Bull trout and Pacific salmonids. Portions of the site will include full removal of armor with beach nourishment added; some will include removal of rock from the mid to upper intertidal; and a to ensure protection of upland structures, approximately 128 linear feet of the failed rock will be restacked near the OHWM. 4. Penn Cove (Shoretype: Historic feeder bluff): Two adjacent parcels in Penn Cove contain approximately 285 linear feet of derelict bulkhead installed in the 1960’s. Also present are several rock groins perpendicular to shore. Most of the structure sits at the mean high water tidal elevation along a stretch of shoreline identified as suitable for forage fish spawning. The

24

westernmost parcel is 200 feet in length. This landowner is interested in removal, but has not committed to implementation due to family member dissent. The design was completed with his permission to include removal options on his parcel as well. NWSF used funds from MNGP to create an artistic rendering of the site five to ten years post-restoration.

Note: Rock groins shown will be removed.

25

5. Brutus HOA Feasibility (Shoretype: Historic feeder bluff): Representatives from the Brutus Homeowners Association had begun assessing options for the replacement of their 250-foot wood pile bulkhead on Camano Island. WDFW indicated that replacement in-kind would be permittable, however the HOA was interested in soft shore options due to concerns over the cost of a replacement structure. They contacted the Island County Shore Friendly program for assistance and resources. NWSF provided a site visit and baseline conceptual design to further encourage consideration of bulkhead removal in lieu of a replacement of the existing structure. As with many communities and shoreline landowners, maintaining beach access through trails or stairs is a constraint that must be considered in the design.

Brutus HOA Pile Wall (photo CGS) The bluff area protected by the existing wood pile wall has had three different walls over the years with the original wood pile wall having been installed in 1978. Following storm damage, the original wall was replaced in the 1980s. The most-recent wall was constructed in 2002. Deferred and on-going erosion is likely with full bulkhead removal and a trail would not be sustainable under those conditions. A partial removal along 145 feet along with a return wall and soft shore protection was determined to be a feasible alternative.

26

The HOA is still determining how they will proceed, but NWSF will follow up and continue to encourage alternatives to the replacement bulkhead, especially given the extensive encroachment of the current structure waterward of MHW.

Permitting Assistance 1. Similk Bay A permit application was submitted to Skagit County Planning and Development for SEPA review and a shoreline development permit exemption letter. The application was submitted on September 12th and we are awaiting the SEPA determination before submitting the Hydraulic Project Approval (HPA) application to WDFW. It was determined through communications with the US Army Corps permitter that no Corps permits were required since all work will be completed above MHHW including placement of beach nourishment material. The project received funding support for construction through the US Fish and Wildlife Service Puget Sound Coastal Program, therefore Endangered Species Act (ESA) compliance as well as tribal consultation will be completed by USFWS staff. This project is fully funded and will go to construction in summer/fall 2020 pending receipt of all permits/approvals and completion of final design and development of specifications and contract documents. 2. Hidden Beach NWSF contracted with Advanced Environmental Solutions (AES) of Bellingham to complete a biological evaluation of the project for ESA compliance and Washington DNR completed the archaeology and historic resources survey. NWSF completed the JARPA and SEPA documents for eventual submittal by DNR. DNR is coordinating with Whidbey Telecom who has an

27

easement across a portion of the project site. Once this is completed, DNR will submit the permit applications to Island County, USACE, Ecology, and WDFW. As noted above, pending receipt of permits and approvals, construction is on track to be completed in fall 2020. 3. Discovery Bay Marine Surveys & Assessments (MSA) of Port Townsend completed the biological evaluation of the project site for ESA compliance. The BE included an assessment of eelgrass beds across the area of potential effect as the site will require access by barge. Further completion of the permit process is on hold pending communications with tideland owners who have oyster tracts adjacent to the northern parcel. We learned later in the project development that the upland owner did not own the entirety of the tidelands. This was an oversight that we should have recognized earlier in the process. We have also recently learned that there may be proposals on these and other tracts for propagation of geoduck in the intertidal zone.

Project Implementation Assistance

Status Hidden Beach Construction planned Summer/Fall 2020

Salmon Recovery Funding Board SRFB approved for funding-requested $126,000. Pending legislative approval of budget.

Discovery Bay NTA Proposal Estuary Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Not funded NOAA Coastal Restoration Program (Pre-application) Not funded Sustainable Seafood Coalition No determination Salmon Recovery Funding Board Not funded USFWS Puget Sound Coastal Program Funded $75,000

Seahorse Siesta Construction planned Summer/Fall 2020 Terry Hussemann Acct (Ecology) Not funded Fish America Foundation Not funded National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Not funded Pacific Marine & Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership (PMEP)

Not funded

Estuary Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Small Grants

Funded $46,815

Seal Rock (project cancelled) NTA Proposal Estuary Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Not funded

Similk Bay Construction planned Summer/Fall 2020

28

Estuary Salmon Restoration Program (ESRP) Small Grants

Funded $60,500

USFWS Puget Sound Coastal Program Funded $50,000 Sunlight Shores Construction completed Fall 2018

Terry Hussemann Acct (Ecology) Not funded Honda Marine Science Foundation Funded $65,000 Fish America Foundation Not funded National Fish & Wildlife Foundation Funded $30,600 plus project management

(part of multi-task grant for SRKW recovery)

Pacific Marine & Estuarine Fish Habitat Partnership (PMEP)

Not funded

Salmon Recovery Funding Board Funded $99,050 TOTAL AWARDED $426,965

SUCCESS OF ACHIEVING PERFORMANCE MEASURES We met or exceeded our targets for performance in each of the program areas with the exception of the permitting task. We had a goal of submittal of permit applications for four projects and did not meet this. In the case of Discovery Bay, as noted above, the ownership issue could have been dealt with earlier in the process, but we have the information necessary to proceed. In the case of the Penn Cove project, it took longer than anticipated to determine the scope of the design based on decisions of the second landowner to participate or not. This pushed the design process until the last month of the funding and therefore we were unable to begin the permit process.

Conclusions NWSF has been providing increasing levels of outreach and services to shoreline landowners for over a decade. Most shoreline property owners have a basic understanding through direct observation of what is happening along their beaches, but taking on large and complicated projects such as a bulkhead removal requires more effort and knowledge of the complexities of the shoreline than simply installing or replacing a hard structure. A bulkhead or riprap can be designed easily by a general contractor, requiring little thought as to how the structure will interact with the waves and processes of the Salish Sea or how long it will last under these conditions. To the landowner, there is little risk and potentially great benefit to their investment if they opt for a hardened shore. In the face of sea level rise, this is also the defense that landowners perceive to be most effective.

Many of the landowners we encountered who have armor have not been motivated to remove it without some sort of financial assistance. If there is no urgency for protection from erosion, they are generally content to leave it in place if the expense is theirs to take on. If we want to see

29

change, programs such as Shore Friendly will need to continue to offer financial incentives and assistance to accelerate the rate of change. Given the small sample size of landowners who have received the full suite of services, we have had only positive verbal feedback on the value of the incentives to these participants. We will work to survey those who have received designs and other services as we progress through the next round to better gauge what level of contributions they may be willing to give to help a project succeed and the value placed on the incentives provided.

LESSONS LEARNED Landowner Workshops and Targeted Outreach Coastal process centered workshops provide a broad overview of issues and opportunities; however, they also may have provided a sense to many participants that soft shore alternatives are feasible under most conditions.

For high bluff landowners concerned about the rate of erosion who attended workshops and then received a site visit, some felt as though their options were limited and they were given information in the workshop that did not apply to them at all. We need to revisit how the topic of soft shore protection will be presented in future workshops and include more details on the specific set of circumstances that need to align at a site to allow for its use.

Expanding our outreach and education to include more detailed information such as vegetation management was intended to provide opportunities to re-engage landowners who had previously attended workshops. While we did get several repeat attendees, our broad outreach to the entirety of shoreline landowners in each community resulted in attendance by participants who were new to the Shore Friendly programming. We anticipated this and provided a brief overview of coastal living to start off the presentation.

Technical Site Visits Site visits continue to be requested and appreciated by landowners. Joining landowners on their beach to hear their concerns and stories first-hand provides the necessary connection that builds trust and helps change perceptions of what can be done to protect investments while also improving habitat. For those who need only make small changes such as vegetation or drainage repairs, these visits can be the primary motivator to move them to action. If funding were limited, free site visits should be the minimum service that continues to be provided.

Design In previous years of working through the development of a project from feasibility through design, permitting agencies accepted what was referred to as 30% or preliminary design with the understanding that following review, changes could be made to the design details to meet the requests of the regulators. More recently, designs stamped as “preliminary” or “draft” are no longer accepted and designs must be completed to an estimated 60% of design completion,

30

therefore the design needs to be nearly complete in order to be submitted for permitting. This has increased the time and cost to provide designs in this process, and we will need to adjust for this in future efforts.

Permitting Assistance A recent site visit tour by the Multiagency Review Team (MART) made up of federal and state regulatory agencies discussed the strong potential for required mitigation for projects where any level of hard armor will be used on a site. NWSF was asked how this would impact our ability to continue to lead and encourage armor removal and our answer was that we would not be able to do so. As noted above, many armor removal projects require some level of protection to remain in order to protect existing infrastructure or fill that cannot be removed, especially where it interfaces with a road or parking area. We often have to compromise with a landowner to allow structures such as stairs or pathways to the beach and protection at the toe of these is necessary to maintain them, and there is always an effort to place the limited protection as high on the shoreline as possible. Since grant funding will not pay for mitigation actions, we may lose opportunities to see valuable projects through to implementation.

Project Implementation Assistance (Grant Writing) The addition of a grant writing task was critical to moving several projects towards implementation. The landowners we are working with do not have the expertise or capacity to move a project through from feasibility to funding and construction (with the exception of DNR), and as a non-profit organization NWSF staff also do not have capacity to complete unfunded work. We have also not had a project that cost under $100,000 for construction and engineering. Without this task, these projects would be left at the design stage and likely take many additional years to complete. While the landowners are motivated to see the projects completed, they were not willing or able to fund this work themselves.

RECOMMENDATIONS FOR FUTURE WORK As opportunities for new armor removal projects become more challenging to find, NWSF and partners will turn some of our focus to reconnecting with landowners previously reached through past outreach and technical assistance efforts. These landowners have demonstrated an interest in ecologically friendly protection and management practices along the shoreline, and are more likely to engage in further actions at their property to protect Puget Sound.

To ensure on-going participation in workshops and educational events, we will add to the programming and include more in-depth details on actions that landowners can pursue themselves such as drainage and septic management and location. Since vegetation management was consistently recommended as a viable action for most site visit recipients, we will also strive to provide greater resources in this area. An intact marine riparian zone is necessary for protection of forage habitat and is a tangible and relatively inexpensive task for

31

most landowners to take on. Through either direct assistance or through mini-grants, we intend to provide planting plans and assistance with installation as requested.

As shown above, the need for grant funding assistance to implement the construction phase of armor removal projects proved worthwhile with nearly $427,000 secured to date for a relatively small investment from the NEP program ($7,500). This resulted in one project being completed in 2018, and at least three projects fully funded for implementation in 2020 resulting in a total of almost 1,500 linear feet of armor removed and habitat restored. This task was not funded through the upcoming ESRP Shore Friendly grant and we will need to find other sources to continue this part of the program which will likely delay implementation of future projects.

The path towards armor removal and permanent prevention of new armor installation is not a direct one. The barriers to removal do not just lie in changing perceptions of the landowners. The location of on-site septics and dwellings are a limiting factor in protection of nearshore habitats and processes. Armor simply cannot be removed until the infrastructure is relocated away from the shoreline. In the case of septics, this will be become even more urgent along low lying shores as we encounter sea level rise. Shore Friendly leads and other entities will need to reassess the timeline under which we hope to see armor removed. Funding sources need to be identified and be phased to include all the necessary steps including septic relocation and/or development of community septics/sewer to then enable armor removal or to prevent its installation entirely. Similarly, relocation of homes needs to be discussed as a serious option for parcels where it is feasible. We need to create a pathway for the desired final conditions of our nearshore ecosystem that includes more than just armor removal.

32

Appendix A: Workshop Evaluation Summary Results

Q1. How did you hear about this workshop?Total responses: 47 Skagit 14 Whatcom 5 Snohomish 9 Clallam 19

Postcard in the mail 19 40% 36% 5 60% 3 56% 5 32% 6Saw it on the internet 1 2% 7% 1 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0Read about it in the paper 10 21% 14% 2 20% 1 33% 3 21% 4Received an email about it 5 11% 7% 1 20% 1 11% 1 11% 2Friend/colleague told me about it 10 21% 29% 4 0% 0 0% 0 32% 6Other 2 4% 7% 1 0% 0 0% 0 5% 1

Q2. Which term best describes your property Total responses: 45 Skagit 14 Whatcom 4 Snohomish 8 Clallam 19High bluff 20 44% 14% 2 50% 2 33% 3 68% 13Low/medium bank 14 31% 64% 9 50% 2 11% 1 11% 2No bank beach 5 11% 14% 2 0% 0 22% 2 5% 1I don't own waterfront property 4 9% 7% 1 0% 0 11% 1 11% 2other 2 4% 0% 0 0% 0 11% 1 5% 1

Q3. Does your property contain some form of armoring currently? Total responses: 40 Skagit 12 Whatcom 4 Snohomish 8 Clallam 16

Yes 12 26% 58% 7 25% 1 22% 2 11% 2No 28 60% 42% 5 75% 3 67% 6 74% 14

Q4. If you currently have specific concerns regarding the management of your shoreline property, please indicate the nature of your concerns. 90 Skagit 31 Whatcom 9 Snohomish 17 Clallam 33Rate of bluff erosion 25 28% 16% 5 33% 3 24% 4 39% 13Health of beach and nearshore habitats 15 17% 26% 8 33% 3 18% 3 3% 1Interest in implementing better stewardship pra 21 23% 19% 6 22% 2 18% 3 30% 10Rate of beach erosion 6 7% 10% 3 0% 0 12% 2 3% 1Integrity of protective structures 8 9% 13% 4 11% 1 18% 3 0% 0Drainage issues 12 13% 6% 2 0% 0 12% 2 24% 8other 3 3% 10% 3 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0

Total responses (Multiple

Selections):

Total responses: 46 Skagit 14 Whatcom 5 Snohomish 9 Clallam 18Somewhat aware 23 50% 50% 7 60% 3 67% 6 39% 7Aware 16 35% 29% 4 20% 1 22% 2 50% 9Very aware 7 15% 21% 3 20% 1 11% 1 11% 2

Total responses: 45 Skagit 13 Whatcom 5 Snohomish 9 Clallam 18Somewhat aware 1 2% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 6% 1Aware 22 49% 31% 4 60% 3 67% 6 50% 9Very aware 22 49% 69% 9 40% 2 33% 3 44% 8

Q6 (Before). What was your level of awareness of Puget Sound marine shoreline characteristics before the workshop?

Q6 (After) What was your level of awareness of Puget Sound marine shoreline characteristics after the workshop?

33

Total responses: 44 Skagit 12 Whatcom 5 Snohomish 9 Clallam 18

Somewhat knowledgable 30 68% 92% 11 60% 3 78% 7 50% 9Knowledgable 13 30% 8% 1 40% 2 22% 2 44% 8Very knowledgable 1 2% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 6% 1

Total responses: 44 Skagit 12 Whatcom 5 Snohomish 9 Clallam 18Somewhat knowledgable 6 14% 17% 2 0% 0 0% 0 22% 4Knowledagble 28 64% 67% 8 80% 4 100% 9 39% 7Very knowledgable 10 23% 17% 2 20% 1 0% 0 39% 7

Q7 (BEFORE) What was your level of knowledge of local shoretypes and processes Before the workshop?

Q7 (AFTER) What was your level of knowledge of local shoretypes and processes After the workshop?

Total responses: 43 Skagit 14 Whatcom 5 Snohomish 8 Clallam 16Had not considered it 8 19% 21% 3 20% 1 38% 3 6% 1Little value 2 5% 7% 1 20% 1 0% 0 0% 0Some value 10 23% 29% 4 0% 0 38% 3 19% 3Highly value 23 53% 43% 6 60% 3 25% 2 75% 12

Total responses: 42 Skagit 14 Whatcom 5 Snohomish 7 Clallam 16Had not considered it 1 2% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 6% 1Little value 0 0% 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0Some value 2 5% 14% 2 0% 0 0% 0 0% 0Highly value 39 93% 86% 12 100% 5 100% 7 94% 15

Q8. (BEFORE) How would you rate the value you placed on natural shorelines versus modified shorelines with regard to effectiveness of erosion management over time BEFORE the workshop?

Q8. (AFTER) How would you rate the value you placed on natural shorelines versus modified shorelines with regard to effectiveness of erosion management over time AFTER the workshop?

34

Appendix B: Site Visit Request Form

35

36

Appendix C: Site Visit Breakdowns

1

5

2

9

16

2 2 2

8

2 21

19

4

1 1 1

6

1

0

2

4

6

8

10

12

14

16

18

20

Accr

etio

n Sh

oref

orm

/Bar

rier B

each

Feed

er B

luff

Tran

spor

t Zon

e

Accr

etio

n Sh

oref

orm

/Bar

rier B

each

Feed

er B

luff

Feed

er B

luff

- Exc

eptio

nal

Tran

spor

t Zon

e

Accr

etio

n Sh

oref

orm

/Bar

rier B

each

Feed

er B

luff

Feed

er B

luff

- Exc

eptio

nal

Tran

spor

t Zon

e

Accr

etio

n Sh

oref

orm

/Bar

rier B

each

Feed

er B

luff

Tran

spor

t Zon

e

Accr

etio

n Sh

oref

orm

/Bar

rier B

each

Low

ene

rgy

shor

es

Accr

etio

n Sh

oref

orm

/Bar

rier B

each

Feed

er B

luff

Tran

spor

t Zon

eClallam Island Jefferson Skagit Snohomish Whatcom

Site Visits By Shoretype

37

2

1

3

5

1 1 1

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Partial Yes with softshore

protection

Partial Yes withoutsoft shoreprotection

Yes withoutsoft shoreprotection


Partial

Improved drainage mgt-athouse and driveway

Improved vegetation mgt-bluff crest veg. buffer

Increasesetback for

new building

Large woodwith veg toavoid armor

NA (blank)

Primary Recommendations for Unarmored Sites

38

2

1

3

5

1 1 1

5

0

1

2

3

4

5

6

Partial Yes with softshore

protection

Partial Yes withoutsoft shoreprotection



Partial

Improved drainage mgt-athouse and driveway

Improved vegetation mgt-bluff crest veg. buffer

Increasesetback for

new building

Large woodwith veg toavoid armor

NA (blank)

Secondary Recommendations for Armored Sites with Removal Feasibility

39

Appendix D: Site Visit Evaluations

Q2 How long have you owned your shoreline property?Answered: 22 Skipped: 0

# RESPONSES DATE

1 60 years in family; 18 years self 9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 16 years 9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 7 years 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 3 years 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 20+ years 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

6 50+ years 3/8/2019 2:52 AM

7 8 1/2 years 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

8 Three (3) years 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

9 6 years 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

10 13 years 8/20/2018 3:39 AM

11 7 years 8/11/2018 10:48 AM

12 6 months 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

13 18 years 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

14 Since 2000. 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

15 11 years 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

16 7 years [purchased July 2011] 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

17 3 years 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

18 14 months 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

19 18 years 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

20 2 years 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

21 approx. 27 years 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

22 47 years 3/28/2017 11:33 AM

1 / 16

Northwest Straits Initiative: Shore Friendly Site Visit Evaluation 2017-2018 SurveyMonkey

4.76% 1

95.24% 20

Q3 Was the property in your family prior to your ownership?Answered: 21 Skipped: 1

TOTAL 21

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%

ANSWER CHOICES RESPONSES

Yes

No

2 / 16


31.82% 7

13.64% 3

50.00% 11

77.27% 17

9.09% 2

Q4 What motivated you to pursue this opportunity for a free site visit toyour property? (Check all that apply)

Answered: 22 Skipped: 0

Total Respondents: 22

# OTHER/COMMENT (PLEASE SPECIFY) DATE

1 This last winter all logs washed away, most of the berm washed away. Concerned more land willwash away. Hadn't seen this much wash away for the years we have owned the property. Wantedto know why it was happening; will it continue and get worse and what options are available topreserve land and historic dwelling. Our stretch of beach owners have beach with logs; the othersaround the point have hard armoring. How does that affect our property?

9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 We want to learn how to protect against future shoreline erosion as well as how to create aneffective wind break by planting sustainable vegetation.

9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 Concerns about erosion, acquired adjcacent lot and interested in a habitat master plan with goodrecreation potential

9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 Low bank property, more vulnerable to ocean level rise. 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

5 Slide on Bluff Endangering Beach Access Rd 3/8/2019 2:52 AM

6 High bluff erosion 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

7 Friend notified me of these site visits 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

8 Long term malfunction of neighbors drain causing top down erosion & undermining my property 8/11/2018 10:48 AM

Workshopattendance

Postcard inthe mail

Immediateconcern for ...

Learn moreabout my...

Other (pleasespecify below)

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Workshop attendance

Postcard in the mail

Immediate concern for the property (if yes, please identify the nature of your concern in the comment box below)

Learn more about my property for future management

Other (please specify below)

3 / 16


9 because of a bulkhead on a neighbors property our bank is getting undermined 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

10 Neighbor attended workshop. We were concerned about erosion control. 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

11 bluff erosion abatement & trees falling 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

12 I was worried about the stability of the bluff 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

4 / 16


Q5 On a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 being ‘not of any value’ and 5 being‘extremely valuable, please rate the value of the site visit with respect to

addressing your specific concerns about your property:Answered: 22 Skipped: 0

# RESPONSES DATE

1 5 9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 4 9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 5 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 4 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 4 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

6 5 3/8/2019 2:52 AM

7 5 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

8 3 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

9 5 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

10 4 8/20/2018 3:39 AM

11 5 8/11/2018 10:48 AM

12 5 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

13 4 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

14 5 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

15 5 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

16 5 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

17 5 - fantastic resource; I find it Encouraging to feel I know “someone who’s on my side”. 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

18 4 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

19 5 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

20 5 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

21 5 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

22 4 3/28/2017 11:33 AM

5 / 16



how much you learned about the characteristics of your property as itrelates to management:


# RESPONSES DATE

1 5 9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 4 9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 5 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 5 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 5 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

6 5 3/8/2019 2:52 AM

7 5 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

8 4.5; The identification of two (2) water loving plant types growing on the bluff was an eye opener. 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

9 5 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

10 5 8/20/2018 3:39 AM

11 5 8/11/2018 10:48 AM

12 5 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

13 4 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

14 5 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

15 5 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

16 5 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

17 5 - I find it helpful for someone else to see what I am dealing with and hope to achieve. 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

18 5 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

19 5 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

20 4.5 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

21 4 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

22 4 3/28/2017 11:33 AM

6 / 16



the visit providing specific suggestions for management actions thataddress your concerns:


# RESPONSES DATE

1 4 9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 4 9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 5 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 5 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 4 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

6 5 3/8/2019 2:52 AM

7 5 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

8 3; explicit options covered ranged moving cabin back from bluff edge, tree planting at top of bluffand vegetation that could be planted on bluff but did not address or provide options on how tolessen bluff toe erosion due to tidal action.

10/24/2018 2:39 AM

9 5 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

10 4 8/20/2018 3:39 AM

11 5 8/11/2018 10:48 AM

12 4 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

13 3 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

14 5 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

15 5 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

16 5 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

17 5 - I want to do any work myself. I plan to chip away at it in a vertical fashion. I had thoughthorizontally previously. This is much less daunting to me.

5/22/2018 10:57 AM

18 4 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

19 4 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

20 5 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

21 5 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

22 4 3/28/2017 11:33 AM

7 / 16


Q8 What was your specific concern prior to the site visit?Answered: 22 Skipped: 0

# RESPONSES DATE

1 Land washing away Preserving old dwelling 9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 Shoreline erosion and need to learn how to create an appropriate, suitable wind break 9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 Erosion, vegetation that supports habitat, but stays low enough to see over on a mid-height bank. 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 Cliff erosion management 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 Beach erosion and ocean level rising. 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

6 Having a definitive plan to re-plant the slide to prevent further erosion 3/8/2019 2:52 AM

7 Erosion from top of high bluff 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

8 Erosion of toe due to shallow beach depth (i.e. distance of water from bluff at high tide) asexasperated by the neighbors bulkhead (it curves at the end into our bluff)

10/24/2018 2:39 AM

9 learn more about our drainage situation and bluff management 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

10 shoreline erosion undermining beach cabin 8/20/2018 3:39 AM

11 Excessive erosion from bad drain & how to preserve remaining land 8/11/2018 10:48 AM

12 Understanding current state of bluff, how to improve state moving forward. 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

13 because of a bulkhead on a neighbors property our bank is getting undermined 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

14 The sloughing of the bank. 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

15 Preventing cliff erosion 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

16 How to maintain the bluff to slow erosion & maintain the trees on the bluff 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

17 How I could do a professional job without a professional background. 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

18 As per the comment on question 4, I was concerned about the stability of the waterfront bluff 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

19 The erosion. 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

20 Little knowledge regarding the management of the bank incl. choosing the right native plants. 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

21 Mostly impending future development 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

22 Erosion control 3/28/2017 11:33 AM

8 / 16


80.95% 17

19.05% 4

Q9 Did the site visit change the way you view your concerns about yourshoreline property? If yes, please specify below:


TOTAL 21

# COMMENTS DATE

1 Probably don't need to remove boat ramp. Verified logs and land have scoured away. Learned theproperty is at the neck of the point and water moving north.

9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 We were told our previous efforts were pretty effective considering the environment we planted in.Told our beach is unique in vegetation types and occurrence and we are okay to keep removingRussian poplar shoots on the beach.

9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 Neighbor arranged visit. Learned anecdotally and based on beach vegetation that we were a lowenergy beach.

9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 Relocation of house was recommended and something to consider 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 The beach is in a good spot to pick up beach materials from natural sediment migration. 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

6 It is a natural process, but can be slowed. 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

7 Made more anxious by asking if we considered moving the cabin further away form bluff edge 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

8 questions about our drainage situations were answered 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

9 Better understanding of "feeder bluff" 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

10 It will help us take out ivy. It makes us concerned that there isn't a positive way to save our bankand save the fish habitat.

6/14/2018 12:56 PM

11 It confirmed many of my beliefs and reinforced what we can do correctly 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

12 I think I can do a great job, personally. 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

13 The assessment of a fairly stable bluff alleviated my immediate concerns 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

14 The estuary is moving west, that will happen naturally. Not by something homeowners did. 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

15 Will be more observent. Planting a 20ft vegetation buffer landward of the bluff. 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

16 Will focus more on types of vegetation we allow and encourage 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

9 / 16


86.36% 19

13.64% 3

Q10 Did the site visit increase your awareness of the range ofalternatives for managing erosion on your property? If yes, please

specify:Answered: 22 Skipped: 0

TOTAL 22

# COMMENTS DATE

1 Grading would help the level of our land - bringing in gravel. Could raise the house to a bit moreabove flood plain.Looking forward to the report to list alternatives that I may have forgotten duringthe visit.

9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 We are still waiting for suggestions/report to arrive and were told to wait until fall to do anyplanting.

9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 Nothing seemed urgent. Let trees tip that are starting to lean. Already attended one workshop. 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 For our property, there aren't many things for us to do to manage erosion. We thought there mightbe options.

9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 Native plants 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

6 With respect to adding vegitation but not with respect to options against bluff toe erosion 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

7 ground cover plant recommendations 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

8 It helped understand the value of native plants 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

9 He said just let the bank erode to a gradual slope, no bulkheads or cement blocks. 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

10 We learned that small shrubs contribute to water management more than we knew before. 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

11 I have a better idea about how I can do what I had hoped to do. 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

12 Let the bank fall and gradually slope. 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

13 Planting the right plants with deep roots. 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

14 I think a more detailed analysis when development further along 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

Yes

No

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

10 / 16


77.27% 17

4.55% 1

13.64% 3

Q11 Do you plan to implement any of the recommendations you receivedfrom the site visit? Please elaborate below:


TOTAL 22

# COMMENTS DATE

1 Need to consider cost, risks, etc before taking any action. 9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 We very much enjoyed the education and look forward to the report and suggestions. Ourconcerns have been for five years and we are grateful for any assistance received.

9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 Purge non-native volunteer trees from the lot. 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 Lots of vegetation planting and possible moving of the deck away from the cliff edge. 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 we will definitely work to add more native plants and remove non-native plants. 9/6/2019 7:36 AM

6 Increase buffer strip at top of bluff to native plants, instead of lawn 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

7 Awaiting the details of report. 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

8 will do some planting near bluff toe in spring 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

9 Neighbors drains have been repaired & I’m planting a lot this fall 8/11/2018 10:48 AM

10 Deal with invasive species (Scotch Broom) 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

11 Started taking out ivy 6/14/2018 12:56 PM

12 It’s happening naturally. 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

13 Will be planting additional native plants above our cliff/beach as suggested. 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

14 Watch ponds closely to ensure not leaking, potentially "decommission" these man-made ponds 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

15 Replace ivy with natives. If I win the lotto, I will remove thebulkhead 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

Yes

No

Undecided

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

Undecided

11 / 16


16 As time and funds allow, I will swap out the pvc drain pipe for HDP, and also try to betterunderstand the drainfield of the property.

1/20/2018 5:00 AM

17 Extend drainage pipe. 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

18 See above, reinforcing thesairs with cross braces. 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

19 More aggressively manage invasive non native plants 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

20 Permitting process is expensive and likely won't get approved anyway 3/28/2017 11:33 AM

12 / 16


6.25% 1

37.50% 6

6.25% 1

Q12 If your property currently has hard armoring, are you nowconsidering options such as full removal, reduction in the amount of

armoring, or replacement with a soft shore protection alternative? Pleasespecify:


TOTAL 16

# COMMENTS DATE

1 N/A 9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 N/A 9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 N/A 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 N/A 9/27/2019 5:31 AM

5 No hard amoring 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

6 N/A 10/24/2018 2:39 AM

7 NA 9/15/2018 2:18 AM

8 N/A 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

9 No armoring present. 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

10 No armoring 5/23/2018 10:08 AM

11 If I win the lotto 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

12 NA 1/20/2018 5:00 AM

13 It is not advised in our case. 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

Yes

No

Undecided

0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100%


Yes

No

Undecided

13 / 16


Q13 Is there any other input you would like to provide regarding the valueof receiving a free professional sitevisit of any outcomes that were

derived as a result of the site visit to your shoreline property?Answered: 19 Skipped: 3

# RESPONSES DATE

1 The site visit is a great starting point for information gathering, options, and a comfort zone formoving forward to protect land in responsible way.

9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 We have spoken with the county, several plant nurseries and done a lot of on-line research.Having professionals visit and actually see what we are dealing with and making/giving specificuseful suggestions is invaluable to our shoreline conservation.

9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 Wealth of knowledge that was just interesting. Anxious to see the report. 9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 some illustration of the geography and property heights would be helpful in comparison to theneighbors' properties. maybe some sort of estimate of tides looking forward, although, I'm awarethat no one really knows how much the ocean levels will rise. or maybe looking at some of thelocal estimates, and an analysis of impact due to the specific details of the property.

9/6/2019 7:36 AM

5 Need to receive site visit report much sooner. We were hoping to take immediate action beforefurther erosion occured. Now sufferred further damage to the site from continuing storms.

3/8/2019 2:52 AM

6 It was invaluable. The geologists were fantastic help. 1/16/2019 4:18 AM

7 The time provided to conduct the site visit and the enthusiasm of the team was very muchappreciated. I should have read this questionnaire before the start of the property survey. I wouldhave had more explicit questions I think.

10/24/2018 2:39 AM

8 The report is hugely valuable. I really appreciate the documentation of site conditions (soils, bluff,and beach profile)

8/20/2018 3:39 AM

9 Big help battling uninformed neighbor! He reluctantly fixed his drains & i’m Planting as much as Ican this fall.

8/11/2018 10:48 AM

10 Hard to parse this question, but: found it very useful, educational. (Thank you) 6/28/2018 2:09 PM

11 It would be helpful to have more concrete (no pun intended) ideas of how exactly to go abouttrying to save our bank. There were ideas thrown out but nothing that we the experts said we couldgo ahead and implement.

6/14/2018 12:56 PM

12 Glad this was made available as it is influential to our maintenance of the shoreline. 6/4/2018 11:14 PM

13 We consider owning this shoreline a privilege and responsibility thus getting professional adviceon how to maintain and enhance this environment was very valuable. We currently grow andharvest shellfish on this beach and want to continue to protect the fish spawning grounds.

5/23/2018 10:08 AM

14 No 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

15 Both the workshop and the site visit much enhanced my understanding of the processes thatimpact potential erosion of my property - an obvious prerequisite for effective action.

1/20/2018 5:00 AM

16 Jim was great, professional and passionate about his job. 12/15/2017 1:00 AM

17 The booklet I received prioe to the site visit was full of valuable advise. 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

18 Very nice of you. I will employ more professional help as I go along with future changes 11/17/2017 12:11 PM

19 It was a pleasure meeting Jim. Sadly the rules stipulate that dwellings are key to allowing any kindof protection. Our property value is 95% land and 5% dwelling. We lose land every year to risingsea levels yet we cannot do a darn thing because our dwelling is not threatened.

3/28/2017 11:33 AM

14 / 16


Q14 In addition to workshops and free site visits offered through thisproject, what other offerings, programs, or incentives might motivate youand/or other marine shoreline property owners to take actions that would

reduce negative impacts from shoreline armoring? (Informationresources; streamlined permitting for bulkhead removal, relocation, or

replacement with soft shore protection; tax incentives, etc.)Answered: 14 Skipped: 8

# RESPONSES DATE

1 Cost matching so property owners don't have to cover the whole cost since preserving habitat iscommunity cost. Private property owners are guardians of the shoreline - but all benefit from ourefforts. But at the same time, we need to protect our property and structures.

9/27/2019 8:46 AM

2 I believe site visits are imperative to assisting people in learning about their specific concerns -there is so much to consider with each site. It can easily become overwhelming trying torestore/conserve on your own and having professional advice ensures you won't be makingmistakes or causing further damage.

9/27/2019 8:06 AM

3 Funding for improvements. Tours of successful beaches like the Sustainable Homes Tours sopeople can see and experience what it's like.

9/27/2019 7:59 AM

4 seeing the other properties on our beach remove their bulkheads. maybe a way to have ananalysis of the whole beach, irrelevant of the owners of the property. maybe showing what thebulkheads are doing to the beach as compared to what it would look like without them?

9/6/2019 7:36 AM

5 More workshops, especially in summer when we are at the property. Recordings or summaries ofworkshops when one is unable to attend. Tax incentives.

1/16/2019 4:18 AM

6 Attended the Vegetation Management for Shoreline Landowners Workshop on 17Oct. Wish I hadknown of this type of workshop 3 years ago when we first purchased our property. Plan to plantwillow and snowberry on our bluff as a consequence of the workshop.

10/24/2018 2:39 AM

7 Consider signage on the beach at the "Port of Mabana" entrance, with the goal of educating beachgoers about the kind of beach/bluff ("feeder bluff"), the species that spawn there (who knew?), andthe importance of not disturbing beach / bluff (say, by driving on the beach).

6/28/2018 2:09 PM

8 It would be nice to get direct consulting on what we can do and how to do it specifically rather thanjust an overview of the subject.

6/14/2018 12:56 PM

9 The workshops and visits are great. Maybe mail out the brochure to all waterfront owners. 6/11/2018 9:10 AM

10 Awareness is key - mailers offering free assessments and describing their benefits would be agood idea. There are a great number of shoreline property owners who do not seek out thisinformation (they don't sign up for classes/ they don't think about these issues). This informationneeds to be "pushed" to them or they don't get it.

6/4/2018 11:14 PM

11 We have no armoring and anticipate other homeowner that do would need more education on thebenefits for armor removal.

5/23/2018 10:08 AM

12 A small web site with all of the above on it! 5/22/2018 10:57 AM

13 As pointed out in the report (and workshop), a major issue with respect to property damage is thearmoring of neighboring properties, i.e., this is really a community issue. People being what theyare, I think that community based efforts, in addition to individual appeals, might be morepersuasive. For example, here on Guemes Is. there are a number of organizations (e.g., homeowners associations) which are fairly inclusive. I would encourage your organization to offerpresentations to these GROUPS at the Guemes Community Center. In a group setting, I think thatthere would be at least a modest pressure to address the problem of individual property armoringthat is otherwise absent when dealing with people in (effectively) private, one-on-one (so to speak)discussions/appeals.

1/20/2018 5:00 AM

15 / 16


14 The removal in our case is only reasonable if we can do it with the adjoining neighbors. 11/21/2017 12:19 AM

16 / 16


Documents

Shoreline Armoring Reduction Project Northwest Straits ...€¦ · • Summarize workshop and assistance outcomes based on participant feedback to update lessons learned and best