coastal geolo gic services i nc - salish sea · eschine 2010 re used to p argeted outr nducted in p...
Post on 20-Oct-2020
3 Views
Preview:
TRANSCRIPT
-
Pre
1711
LISA/NWSthose num
Pre
eparers: An
Ellis St. Suite
SF Action Itemmbers. This ha
FeeIslan
epared by: C
ndrea MacLe
e 103, Belling
Cover co
ms in YELLOWas not been d
eder Blund and E
Coastal Geo
ennan, Jim
ham, WA 982
[Repould use prop
W. Recommendone.
uff RestoEast Jeff
ologic Serv
Johanness
Ma
COASTA
225 (36
.
port Titleposal cover up
nd check figur
oration Aferson C
vices, Inc. an
sen, Brande
ay 30, 2017
AL GEOLO
60) 647-1845
e] pdated (M dr
re and table n
AssessmCounties
nd Northwe
en Rishel, A
OGIC SER
www.c
ive).
numbers and
ment fors — FINAest Straits F
Alison Lubec
RVICES, I
coastalgeo.co
reference to
r AL Foundation
ck, and Lisa
INC.
m
a Kaufman
-
Feeder Bluff
Table of F
Table of T
Executive
Introduct
Process
Project
Armor Re
Method
Armo
Struc
Shor
Shor
Feas
Bene
Synthes
Top a
Data Utilit
Outreach
Mailers
Worksh
Site Ass
Permit‐Le
Beckett
Maylor
Waterm
Seahor
Conclusio
Reference
Appendix
ff Restoration Ass
Figures ..........
Tables ...........
Summary ....
ion and Purpo
ses and Ratio
t Approach ...
moval Feasib
ds and Result
or Removal F
cture Setback
re Change Me
re Change Res
ibility Screen
efits of Armor
sis ................
and High Ben
ty .................
Efforts to Att
s ...................
hops .............
sessments ....
evel Designs ..
t Point ..........
r to Forbes Po
man ..............
se Siesta ......
ons ................
es .................
....................
sessment for Isla
.....................
.....................
.....................
ose ...............
nale .............
.....................
bility and Bene
ts ..................
easibility ......
k Distances ...
ethods ..........
sults .............
ing ...............
r Removal .....
.....................
nefit Parcels fo
.....................
tain Landown
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
oints ..............
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
and and East Jeffe
Table .....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
efits Assessm
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
or Armor Rem
.....................
ner Willingnes
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
ferson Counties —
of Conte......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
ment ...............
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
moval ............
......................
ss ..................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
ents .....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 2
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
.....................
C SERVICES,
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
......................
INC.
....... 3
....... 3
....... 4
....... 5
....... 5
....... 5
....... 6
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
....... 7
..... 10
..... 11
..... 12
..... 14
..... 16
..... 17
..... 17
..... 17
..... 17
..... 19
..... 19
..... 21
..... 22
..... 25
..... 26
..... 28
..... 29
..... 30
-
Feeder Bluff
Figure 1. Figure 2. Figure 3. AFigure 4. Figure 5. Figure 6. WFigure 7. AFigure 8. AFigure 9. AFigure 10Figure 11Figures 12
Table 1. STable 2. BTable 3. P ...............Table 4. STable 5. STable 6. STable 7. NTable 8. WTable 9. PTable 10.
ff Restoration Ass
Project workfBluff crest digAverage erosRatio of maxiFrequency diWorkshop locAerial photo Aerial photo Aerial photo . Before and . Aerial photo2–24. Map fo
Shore orientatBluff erosion rProposed “like.....................Scoring categoSummary of reSummary of reNumber of paWorkshop outPre‐workshopDesign proje
sessment for Isla
flow. .............gitizing examsion rate (FT/yimum benefitstribution of cations, site vlooking northlooking northlooking west after bulkheao looking soutolio, appended
tion and fetchrates (FT/yr) fely safe” setb.....................ories, metric esults of restestoration bercels, prioritytreach, particp survey respoct elements.
and and East Jeffe
Table.....................ple. ...............yr) by shore ot value associarmor removvisits and preheast at the Bhwest at the Mat the Waterad removal atthwest at thed to this docu
Tableh categories ffrom shore chback distances.....................rationale, scooration beneenefit data foy ranking, andcipation, and onses. ................................
ferson Counties —
e of Figur............................................orientation anated with diffval benefit scoliminary desigBeckett Point Maylor to Forrman armor rt Waterman se Seahorse Sieument
e of Tablefor feeder bluhange data, ws (FT) for arm......................ores and explafit scores. .....r all parcels ind presence ofevaluations o............................................
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
res ..........................................nd fetch categfferent scorinores for all fegn projects. .armor removrbes Point armremoval site.site................esta armor re
es uffs. ..............with orientatimor removal f.....................anation of ca.....................n which armof house. ........overview. ...............................................
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 3
.....................
.....................gories. ..........g categories. easible parcel.....................val site. .........mor removal ..........................................emoval site. ..
.....................on and fetch rom bluffs of.....................alculation ...........................or removal wa....................................................................................
C SERVICES,
......................
......................
...........................................s. ..............................................................site. ................................................................................
......................categories. ..
f various heig..................................................................as feasible. ...........................................................................................
INC.
....... 6
....... 9
..... 11
..... 14
..... 15
..... 20
..... 21
..... 23
..... 25
..... 26
..... 27
....... 8
..... 10 hts...... 12 ..... 13 ..... 15 ..... 16 ..... 17 ..... 18 ..... 19 ..... 21
-
Feeder Bluff
The primaprioritizedbenefit do
The projevalues ando not typmain concWithout ebenefits. Sit is often services (Laction, weproject’s tsurveys cowould be
The projesets includ(PSNERP) prioritize restoratioperforme
Phase Twincrease aarmoring,and directarmor implandownestructure drift cell; etc.). Thisthe Island
Phase Thrwas feasibsediment Straits proCompanioallowed fo
ff Restoration Ass
ary objective d list of privatown‐drift sho
ct was a targd concerns, tpically view acern (CGS laneducational oShoreline armperceived asLeschine 2010ere used to ptargeted outronducted in pat risk witho
ct consisted oding feeder bstrategies anbluff restoraton priority andd by Coastal
o used the teawareness of , and establist outreach topacts as well ers gave a siteand septic seproximity to fs phase was led and Jefferso
ree forwardedble and landosupply to shoovided the lanon funds fromor the start o
sessment for Isla
of the Feederte and publicaoreforms and
eted developo identify priormor removandowner needopportunities mor embodiess benefiting h0). Landowneursue armor reach reflectepriority areas ut armor.
of three phasbluff mappingnd shoretypestion sites withd by landownGeologic Serv
echnical analycoastal proceh landowner managers ofas a venue foe‐specific asseetback distancforage fish sped by the Noron Marine Res
d the site assowner willingnoreline procendowner coom Washingtonf the permitt
and and East Jeffe
Executr Bluff and Arally‐owned arhabitat.
pment strategority projectsal as an accepds assessmenand/or incens many contruman well‐beer outreach aremoval on ped the values and removal
ses of work: Pg, drift cells, Ps, LIDAR, habih the highest ner type. Thisvices.
ysis to develoesses, encourwillingness fof public landsor engaging wessment and ces; bluff recepawning habitrthwest Straitsources Comm
essments to pness was obtass units throu
ordination andn Departmenting process a
ferson Counties —
ive Summrmor Removarmor remova
gy, informed bs and build lanptable option t 2010, NWS
ntives, landowadictory aspeeing despite nnd educationprivately ownand concern would not b
Phase One waPuget Sound Nitat mapping,potential to technical ass
p and implemrage the consor armor remprovided edu
with decision mgauged feasiession rates; tat; proximityts Foundationmittees (MRC
permit‐level dained. Four pugh the remod Coastal Geots of Fish andnd work tow
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
mary al Assessmental projects tha
by both sounndowner willand consisteF landowner wners are unaects of humannegatively affn, along with ced land. The s identified ine recommend
as a technical Nearshore Eco, and parcel drestore procesessment and
ment a targetsideration of amoval. Workshucation on comakers. Free bility based oand armor rey to pocket esn and accompCs) and Coast
designs for thprojects were oval of the shoologic Serviced Wildlife andards impleme
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 4
t project was at were feasib
d science andingness. Privantly identify ‘needs assessaware of altern relationshipfecting ecosyclear incentivmessaging ann landowner ded at sites w
analysis usinosystem Restdata layers to esses. Sites wd database de
ed outreach salternatives thops for privaoastal processtechnical site
on a combinatemoval benefstuaries and nplished in collal Geologic Se
hose propertiidentified thoreline armoes completed Natural Resoentation of th
C SERVICES,
to build a ble and would
d landowner ate land own‘erosion’ as thsment 2012). rnatives and tps with naturestem goods aves for positivnd content ofneeds assesswhere structu
ng existing dattoration Projeidentify and
were sorted byevelopment w
strategy to to hard shoreate landowneses and shoree visits offeretion of factorfit (location wnatal streamsaboration wiervices.
es where remat would restr. Northwest the designs. ources also he projects.
INC.
d
ers heir
their e, as and ve f this ment ures
ta ect
y was
eline ers eline ed to rs: w/in s, th
moval tore
-
Feeder Bluff
ProcessSedimentthe primaSound Pahighlighteprojects aprojects isbeaches, likely due
The impacsimplifies complex fbeach stehydrodynimpacts. Trestoratioeventually
Private owthis nearsprevent laShoreline perceived(Leschine reflected emphasizremoval isarmor pre
Project This pilot sediment approach team of pand ecolowith CoasCommitte
By reachinshorelinesservices, aapproach
ff Restoration Ass
ses and Ra supply is theary restoratiortnership (PSed the need foare on low eles certainly no33% (317 mil to the lack o
cts of shorelinthe shorelineform. It can bepening and amics and groThe objectiveon (armor remy attained, cu
wnership of Pshore restoratand owners frarmor embo
d as benefiting2010). The mthe values deing the ecosys not recommesent.
Approachproject aimesupply restobecause sed
professionals eogy, facilitatiostal Geologic Sees.
ng out to the s, this projectas well as amenhances un
sessment for Isla
Inationale e target procen managemeP), PSNERP, aor more projeevation shoreot due to a laces) of which af willing land
ne armor are e, often straigbury upper intnarrowing, imoundwater fle of this projemoval) areas iulminating in
Puget Sound btion. In additirom viewing aodies many cog human welmessage and cescribed in thystem goods amended along
d to carve a nration in Pugeiment supplyexperienced on and projectServices, our
landowner, et has the poteeliorate the mnderstanding
and and East Jeffe
ntroductio
ess of the PSNnt measure rand the Estuaects of this stes in which seck of opportuare armored owners amen
not limited tghtening and tertidal foragempede cross sow, and causct was to idenn which targethe developm
beaches and bion, societal varmor removontradictory al‐being despitcontent of thee land‐ownerand services tg sites in whic
navigable patet Sound. Islay restoration tin the field oft planning. Leteam also en
educating andential to direcmany deleterof landowner
ferson Counties —
on and P
NERP beach rerequired to efry and Salmorategy, as madiment supplnity as over 9(Simenstad enable to remo
o precluding shortening the fish spawnishore connecse habitat fragntify and prioeted land‐owment of a high
bluffs presentvalues and peval as an acceaspects of humte negatively e targeted our surveys as athat are enhach existing str
h through theand and Jeffertargets are abf outreach anead by the Nontailed collabo
d engaging thctly benefit neious impacts r values and n
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
Purpose
estoration strffectively reston Restorationany existing ply would not 950 miles of Pet al. 2011). Toving armor f
sediment suphe shoreline ng areas, leadctivity, reducegmentation, aoritize feasiblewner outreachh‐quality rest
ts an immeaserceived needptable optionman relationsaffecting ecoutreach efforta means of buanced as a resructures wou
e complex corson Countiesbundant. Thend education, orthwest Straoration with
hem in the maearshore ecoassociated wnurtures awa
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 5
rategy and artore this procn Program (Eproposed bulkbe restored. Puget Sound ahe lack of profrom their pro
pply processeinto a more ld to sedimene riparian shaamong numee, highly beneh would be fotoration desig
surable constds for shorelinn regardless oships with naosystem goodts developed uilding commsult of armor ld be compro
onstraints assos were select project was GIS, coastal gits Foundatiolocal Marine
anagement oosystem procewith shorelineareness of the
C SERVICES,
rmor removalcess. The PugeSRP) have all khead removaThe lack of are bluff backojects is moreoperty.
es; armoring inear, less t coarsening,ading, alter erous other eficial feedercused and gn.
traint to achiene armor largof benefit. ature, as it is ods and servicefor this projeon ground anremoval. Armomised witho
ociated with ted to apply tcompleted bygeomorpholoon in collaborResources
of Puget Sounesses, goods ae armor. This e human
INC.
is et
al
ked e
,
r bluff
eving gely
often es ect nd mor ut
his y a ogy ration
d and
-
Feeder Bluff
connectioand bette
The projeefforts to armor remof this rep
Figure 1. P
The objecThe assesfeeder bluriprap or oincludes tIsland.
ff Restoration Ass
on as a part ofer shoreline st
ct was initiatattain landowmoval designsport.
Project workflo
Armorctive of this sesment was fouffs. Armoredother similar the marine sh
sessment for Isla
f the nearshotewardship to
ed with a GISwner willingns (Figure 1). E
ow.
r Removaection is to doocused exclusd bluffs are thstructure, ha
hores of Island
and and East Jeffe
ore ecosystemo benefit nea
S analysis of sness, and finaEach element
al Feasibiocument and sively on parchose where a as been constd and east Jef
ferson Counties —
m, as well as imrshore proces
ite feasibility lly develop a of this appro
lity and Bdescribe the
cels within theshore defensructed to redfferson Count
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
mproves prosses in the st
and benefit, portfolio of hoach is discuss
Benefits Ae various eleme study area tse structure, sduce bluff toeties, excludin
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 6
perty owner udy area.
followed by thighly beneficsed in the ind
Assessmments of the Gthat encompasuch as a bule erosion. Theng the west sh
C SERVICES,
understandin
targeted outrcial permit‐redividual sectio
ment GIS assessmeass armored khead, seawae study area hore of Whidb
INC.
ng
reach eady ons
nt.
all,
bey
-
Feeder Bluff
MethodThe methcriteria instructure benefit ofshore‐drifprioritized
Armor ReAssessingpredictionarmor remdistances determine
Prior to cofeasibility
Bth
Shp
Pco
StructureStructure risk to thethere is nfeasible, b
Setback dmeasuringstructuresvalue.
Shore ChThe objeccoastal blarmor rembluffs throunarmorestratified exposed t
ff Restoration Ass
s and Resods used to a GIS, both of setback distaf armor remoft cell in whicd by benefit s
emoval Feas the feasibilitn of bluff recemoval is not li(from the blue feasibility.
onducting they assessment,
luff crest delihe bluff crestshoreline strucarcels with aruget Sound Sommercial ow
e Setback Dissetback distae structure froo apparent riby default.
istances wereg the distances were locate
hange Methoctive of the shuffs to informmoval projectoughout the sed feeder blufstructure of tto low, mediu
sessment for Isla
ults assess the feawhich are deances combinval was assesh the parcel iscores and so
sibility ty of armor reession. This aikely feasibleuff crest), blu
e analyses, se including:
neation of Isls of east Jeffectures of Islanrmored feedehoreline Parcwnership (pre
stances ance, or the dom bluff cressk to a struct
e calculated we between thed waterward
ods hore change am what a safet. To reach thstudy area. Tffs with variathe feeder bluum, and high
and and East Jeffe
asibility and bescribed in deed with bluffssed by analyis located. Parted by owne
emoval is compproach was . Using a serieff characteris
everal GIS dat
land County (erson County nd County weer bluffs, cel geodatabaeviously only
distance a strut recession (bure from bluf
within each phe bluff crest of or straddl
analysis was t setback distais goal, bluff he first step ible levels of euff sample refetch (the op
ferson Counties —
benefits of armtail below. Arf recession ratzing nearshorcels deemedership type to
mplex, as consdeveloped toes of GIS analstics, bluff rec
ta sets were c
(completed bfor all armorere augmente
ase was augmresidential pa
ucture is frombluff erosion)ff erosion and
parcel with a dand the mosted the bluff c
to quantify thance is for strrecession ratn conductingexposure, shoquired that een water dist
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
mor removal rmor removates within there conditionsd feasible for o guide later o
siderable unco identify andlyses, we assecession rates,
compiled and
y CGS in 2013red feeder blued to include
mented to incarcels).
m the bluff cre. If there is nod armor remo
digitized struct waterward ecrest, the set
he range of blructures locates were meag the shore chore orientatioequal portionstance over wh
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 7
were appliedal feasibility we study area. s within each armor removoutreach effo
certainty existd filter out paessed structu, and landslid
d augmented
3) was augmeuffs, east Jefferso
lude parcels w
est, is indicato structure ooval can be co
cture and bluextent of the back distance
uff recessionted landwardsured from 3hange analysion, and surfics of the feedehich wind‐ge
C SERVICES,
d as two diffewas informed The potentiaparcel and thval were thenorts.
ts regarding trcels in whichure setback e history to
to facilitate t
ented to inclu
on shores for a
with public a
ive of the levn the parcel, onsidered
uff crest by structure. We was a negat
from a varietd of a potentia9 unarmoreds was to idenial geology. Ter bluffs werenerated wave
INC.
rent by al he net n
the h
he
ude
all
nd
vel of then
Where tive
ty of al d ntify The e es
-
Feeder Bluff
form) cateorientatedthen invevisible sho
Table 1. Sh
OrienNorth (13)
South (27)
Total (39)
We identithe shore2003, Mo
Opan
U U U A
ch C
trThe largesstudy areahighest lowaterwaridentifiedwere presbe interprmet the s
All shore cfor analysthe locatiposition wlandward shoreline historical
ff Restoration Ass
egories. Rougd to the southstigated for eoreline condit
hore orientatio
ntation
ified and emp change analyrton et al. 20
Only bluffs freromontories,nd/or shore ase of the largse of the mosse of a singlen automatedhange betweehange rates wrends within ast scale histora. Many histoocal accuracy rd and landwa for analysis dsent for accurreted with adtratification c
change work sis. Breaks in ton of the blufwas not reliabfeatures canproxy was noaerial photo
sessment for Isla
ghly one‐thirdh (Table 1). Teach bluff in ttions was an
on and fetch ca
Low (1
5
11
16
search to redu09, Fletcher e
were selectedatic sediment
00) ff (bluff crest e error assocnalysis System
d from each t
red and compng, which was). For examply of the shorehotos, where aded to the dbluffs were r
1:1,000 scalee shore was tn some locatioard shoreline(Ruggerio et ae year that feed on availab
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 8
ng and the rebluff stratigran aerial photoff selection.
f recession rate
0)
uce sources oet al. 2003, R
d for analysis,t supply loss i
or bluff toe) ciated with intms (DSAS) was
transect to nu
piled in ArcGISs conducted te, control poeline. Some oinsufficient cdegree that fereplaced with
es and storedtoo heavily foons where the proxy was seal. 2003). Theeature represbility and the
C SERVICES,
emaining phy data werography with
es were measu
of uncertaintyuggerio et al.
, such as: bedn the drift ce
terpretations used to mea
ullify localized
S throughoutto achieve thints were plaf the bluffs control pointseatures couldh another site
in a geodataorested to dishe bluff crest elected, as me delineated sented. Differability to clea
INC.
re
ured.
y in .
drock ell,
asure
d
t the e ced
s d not e that
base cern
ore
ent arly
-
Feeder Bluff
view the sranged frophotograpLIDAR imadigitizatio
Figure 2. Bimagery ofrepresents
SupportinSound Feebluff mapbluff excefrequencyand recorlocal geolSchasse aavailable
All of the to assure
ff Restoration Ass
subject featuom years 195phs of high reagery (Island on process fro
Bluff crest digitf bluff (shorefos the measured
ng data was theder Bluff mapped along theptional shorey as comparerded from theogy (high resnd Slaughter for the site.
original featuconsistency i
sessment for Isla
re with a high56 to 1969. Cuesolution (JeffCounty 2002,om both histo
izing example orm ID) 2754 od bluff crest re
hen populateapping geodaat shore reaces contribute d to feeder be subject bluffolution; 1:24,2005, WDOE
ure digitizing n feature inte
and and East Jeffe
h level of conurrent featureferson Count, Jefferson Coorical and LIDA
from 1956 histn southwest Ccession across
d in the GIS atabase (MacLch was also noa greater volluffs (MacLenf to the most,000, WDGERE 1979, WDOE
was completeerpretation, a
ferson Counties —
fidence. Photes were digitiy 2009, Islandounty 2004). FAR imagery.
torical vertical amano Island. the period of
attribute tableLennan et al. oted (feeder blume of sedimnnan et al. 20 distant land.R 2014 in prepE 1978), and w
ed by a singleand preclude
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
tos were typiized from thed County 201Figure 2 prov
image (top) an The distance banalysis.
e using the sh2013) to idenbluff or feedement to the n013). The max. Shore orientp, Contreras ewhether or n
e, well‐qualifiunnecessary
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 9
cally scaled ae most recent13) or more covides an exam
nd 2002 LIDARbetween the tw
horeform ID fntify each bluer bluff excepnearshore witximum fetch wtation was reet al. 2013, Poot bluff strat
ied staff memy bias associat
C SERVICES,
at 1:12,000 ant vertical aeriaommonly fromple of the
R slope changewo bluff crest
from the Puguff. The type optional). Feedh greater was measurecorded, as waolenz et al. 20igraphy data
mber (MacLented with mult
INC.
nd al m
lines
et of er
ed as 013, were
nnan) tiple
-
Feeder Bluff
analysts. Asecondarypotential
The DigitaEnvironmchange stallowing fbaselines were creashorelines(25‐metershoreline annual chnumber owithin eac
Shore ChThe averageology m(31%) or VSchasse amapped arates, howrelationsh
The averawith the lSurface geglacial dehad over 4as both uncaptured FT/yr, n=7
Table 2. Bldeviations,
Bluff ErosRates (FT/
Minimum
Maximum
Average Standard d
Range
ff Restoration Ass
All digitizing wy QA/QC stepproblem area
al Shoreline Aental Systematistics for a tfor greater efwere createdated by expors landward ofr) intervals acfeature from
hange which eof years betwech individual
hange Resultage length of mapping showVashon outwand Slaughter across one or wever there whips as part of
age measuredeast erosion eology of theposits that oc41 miles of fendivided Frasin the standa7) eroded con
uff erosion rat, with shore or
sion /yr)
-0
-0
-0deviation 0
-0
sessment for Isla
was QA/QC’dp was appliedas.
Analysis Systes Research Intime series officiency and rd from which rting reaches f the feature cross the samm each transecequates to theeen those feafeeder bluff a
ts individual showed that the mash deposits 2005, WDOEmore of the
was not an adf this effort.
d erosion ratemeasured 0.2 bluff was maccurs in the Petch. The surfser and Pre‐Frard deviation nsiderably fas
tes (FT/yr) fromrientation and
Low N S
0.22 -0.
0.34 -0.
0.27 -0.0.05 0.
0.11 -0.
and and East Jeffe
by senior coafter the ero
m (DSAS) is anstitute (ESRI)f shoreline vereducing opptransects woof the WDNRdigitizing. Cu
mpled bluffs. Dct and calculae measured datures (e.g., 1and across ex
ore change mmajority of th(23%) (WDGEE 1979, WDOEbluffs that wedequate numb
e was 0.36 fee22 FT/yr and apped as glacuget Sound. Tficial geology raser deposit(0.26 FT/yr).ster than feed
m shore changefetch categori
S N
.13 -0.2
.64 -1.0
.31 -0.416 0.36
.51 -0.7
ferson Counties —
astal geologisosion rates we
a free softwar) and USGS (Tector data. DSortunities forould be drawnR Shorezone smulatively, oDSAS then calated an end pdistance betw1957 and 2009xposure and o
mapping area he bluffs wereER 2014, ContE 1978). At leere analyzed.ber of bluffs t
et per year (Fwas from a social till, one ofThe bluff withof the bluff ws. The extentAs one mightder bluffs (0.3
e data, includines.
Mod S
25 -0.24
02 -0.77
48 -0.366 0.18
78 -0.53
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
st Jim Johannere calculated
re applicationThieler et al. 2SAS automater error. Prior tn perpendicushoreline (WDover 910 translculated the dpoint rate (EPween the two 9). The EPR morientation ca
analysis was e comprised otreras et al. 2east nine othe. Bluff geologto explore the
T/yr) across aouth‐facing bf the most resh the greateswas mapped at of the ranget expect, feed35 FT/yr, n=32
ng average ero
N
4 -0.30
7 -1.53
6 -0.710.53
3 -1.23
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 10
nessen to ensd to identify a
n that was dev2013). DSAS ces the shore cto running thlar to the shoDNR 2001) ansects were pldistance betwR), a measure features divimeasures werategories.
approximateof either Vash2013, Polenz eer surficial geogy is relevant e strength of
all bluffs (Tabbluff with onlysistant and prt erosion wasas Qguc, whice of erosion rader bluff exce2).
osion rates, ran
High S
-0.12
-0.77
-0.34 0.17
-0.65
C SERVICES,
ure accuracyand resolve
veloped by thcomputes ratchange procehe software, oreline. Baselnd buffering taced at 82‐foween each ement of aveided by the re then analyz
ely 350 FT. Suhon lodgemeet al. 2013, ology units wto bluff recesthese
ble 2). The bluy 2‐miles of ferevalent posts north‐facingch is characteates is well‐eptional units
nges, and stand
All Bluffs
-0.03
-1.53
-0.36 0.26
-1.5
INC.
. A
he e of ess,
ines those oot
erage
zed
rface nt till
were ssion
uff etch. t‐g and erized
(0.57
dard
-
Feeder Bluff
North‐facfetch amoTable 2, Fmoderateexposure to approxand Rosarrates of ndocument
Figure 3. Afetch (5 to
FeasibilitThe stratiapplied toshore chaarmored srecession
Historical in this casexample, rise, wavepredictedthe rate afactor waon the asslandslides
Bluff heigrecession
‐0.80
‐0.70
‐0.60
‐0.50
‐0.40
‐0.30
‐0.20
‐0.10
0.00
Average Erosion Ra
te (F
T/yr)
ff Restoration Ass
cing bluffs hadong the modeigure 3). Thise to high expoin northern Pximately 25 mrio Strait, wheorth‐facing bted in north‐f
Average erosion10 miles), Hig
ty Screeningfied samplingo categorize aange analysis shores. The erates (Table
erosion ratesse). However,relying on hine energy, and for the shoreat which coasts added to thsumption thas were presen
hts ranged corates were m
sessment for Isla
d consistentlyerate to high s pattern coulosure categorPuget Sound. miles. In contraere maximumluffs are slighfacing bluffs.
n rate (FT/yr) bh fetch (>10 m
g g approach toall armored bwere then userosion rates w2) by 75 year
s are commo, there are send‐casting alo other implices of the Pacital bluffs recehe 75‐year recat there was nnt, then they
onsiderably ameasured wer
Low
and and East Jeffe
y higher bluff exposure catd be due to tries at 10‐mileIn this part oast, north‐facm exposure cahtly higher tha
by shore orientmiles).
o select unarmluffs in the stsed to estimatwere projecters and adding
nly used to foveral assumpone assumes ations of climfic Northwesede. Because cession distanno previous hwere treated
cross the studre typically hi
M
North
ferson Counties —
erosion ratesegories (S‐facthe sampling es. However, of Puget Souncing bluffs canan be 50 milean south‐faci
tation and fetc
mored bluffs fudy area. Thete bluff recesed forward 75an additiona
orecast the fuptions that mathat conditio
mate change st (Huppert etof these uncence. The resuistory of larged differently. T
dy area (8–25gher in eleva
Mod
South
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
s, which is likcing 12.9 mileand the somea similar patt
nd, maximum n be exposeds or more. Alng bluffs, con
ch categories. L
for shore chae bluff recessssion if armor5 years by mual safety facto
uture positionake this approons will not chsuch as increat al. 2009), eaertainties, anlting setback e landslides wThese details
50 FT), howevation than the
Hi
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 11
kely due to thees, versus N‐fewhat arbitratern exists in fetch to the
d to the Strait though the ansiderably mo
Low fetch (
-
Feeder Bluff
Jefferson height). Hlandslidesless than t
Table 3. Pr
Fetch Low
Moderate
High
Large landQls in surfand Slaugarmor remstructureslandslide 500 FT of flagged foattributed
If there wpreviouslyadditiona
Benefits The potenarmored fthe aforemdescribed
Nine metrdirect andand embaaddressedmetrics dcame frombluff func
Each scorgeoprocedrift shorecell (from
ff Restoration Ass
and Island CoHigher elevatios. Therefore, tthe higher ele
roposed “likely
Bluffs 75 FNorth 45
49
65
e USGS and W13, Polenz etandslides at tre no structucated within dslides were 1979), then thwas left in qu
al was conside assessmentbility.
cels that encooval was deemveloped and a
val. Potential t supply to doed, except thae points awarortion of the tsulting from r
parcel geomeaddress the leong the length
C SERVICES,
ter than 60 Fmore frequee 3) were sligh
heights.
FT High South 48
48
55
WDNR (mappt al. 2013, Schthe site, thenres. If there w500 FT of a lamapped withhe parcel wasestion (feasib
ered feasiblet tool, and
ompassed med infeasibleapplied are
benefits incluown‐drift beacat which rded to other total ranking restored feed
etry. Consideength of dowh of its littora
INC.
T in nt htly
ped as hasse were arge hin s bility
e. As
e by
uded ches
score er
erable n‐l drift
-
Feeder Bluff
Table 4. Sc
Category
Sustains Down-drift
System (30 pts)
Beach Sediment
Sustenance(45 pts)
Direct HabitaBenefits (45 pts)
Indirect Habitat Benefits (30 pts)
ff Restoration Ass
coring categoriMetric Name
t
Down-drift lagoon/ estuary
e
Length of down-drift
shore
Percent of cell down-
drift
Potential volume of sediment
input (totalparcel)
at
Forage fishspawn
Restorablelength (FT)
Adjacent opportunity
?
Down-drift forage fishspawning
habitat
Down-drift forage fishspawning
habitat
sessment for Isla
es, metric ratio
Metric
Sediment susubject blu
valuedshoreform
Sediment susubject bluconsidera
down-d
Sediment susubject bluf
the downnormalizavailable
provides regiona
Compare poof potent
sediment yard
h Armor re
immediateburied/cons
e )
Measured learmor re
y
This would feasibility sthere is noproperty
fea
Measur
documentedto potentiallysediment su
Percent of dwith spaw
Assures benot skewed
c
and and East Jeffe
onale, scores a
c Rationale
upplied from the uff will support
d down-drift s and habitats.
upplied from the uff will support
able lengths of drift shores.
upplied from the ff sustain X% of n-drift shore, zed out of 15 e points. This a measure of
al influence.
otential volumes tially restored supply (cubic
ds/year)
emoval would ely recover this strained habitat.
ength of potentialemoval area.
be results of the screening. So if o house on the it is generally asible.
red length of d spawning area y benefit from theupply restoration.
down-drift shore wning habitat. enefit scores are d to longer drift cells.
ferson Counties —
and explanatioScore Type
Present/Absent
H/M/L/0
0-15
H/M/L/0
Present/Absent
l H/M/L/0
2 shores, 1 shore, or partial
e
H/M/L/0
H/M/L/0
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
on of how eachMax
Score
30 30 poi
lag
15
Thepar
pointsmile
points
15
The lirela
expres
15
Tertilethe [a
thepoint
>18
15 15 pdoc
15
Length>100 F
(5 po
15
Potenalong
= 1ma
15
Sum oloca
High poin
m
15
Percspawdrift s
(mmodefor 3 miles; mee, low (5 points) s are given for pa
down-dr
nearly referenceative to the full lessed as a percen
the neare
e 5/10/15 of [erosarmor length in the [mean bluff heigts) is >111 cy/yr, 87 cy/yr, low (5 p
points f
points if forage fiscumented on the
poi
h of armor on paFT, moderate (10oints) is >20 FT,
F
ntial to increase leadjacent shores15 pts, one adjacaybe/perhaps = 3
of length of foragated down-drift (d(15 points) is >1nts) is >0.5 miles
miles, with 0 point
cent of the downwning habitat plusshore with sand lax 200%). High
erate (10 points) =30%, and zero p
spaw
C SERVICES,
alculated.
of Calculation
ier beach with las located down-de 0 points.
hore from the suell terminus. Highedium (10 pointsis >0 miles, and
arcels with zero mrift shore.
ed address of theength of the drift nt, times 15, rounest integer.
sion rate in FT/yrhe parcel in feet]ght in feet]. Highmedium (10 poi
points) is >0 FT, for 0 FT.
sh spawning has parcel. Otherwisints.
arcel. High (15 po0 points) is >60 Fwith 0 points for
FT.
ength of armor res? Both adjacent cent shore = 10 3 per adjacent sh
ge fish spawning dissolved by spec.5 miles, modera
s, low (5 points) its given for 0 mile
-drift shore with ss the percent of dance spawning h(15 points) is >8is >30%, low (5 points for no dowwning.
INC.
ndward drift,
ubject h (15 s) is >1 zero
miles of
e parcel cell, nded to
r] times ] times (15 nts) is or 0
been se, 0
oints) is FT, low 0 es.
smelt down-habitat 5%, points)
wn-drift
-
Feeder Bluff
Figure 4. R
Some metto assure found in ssediment and integLiDAR and
SynthesClose to 7were maparmored fminimummapping lengths w
Feasibilitythat werecritical eledistances assessmemost casethe presestructuresthem infe
Structuresparcels, 4
DiInd
ff Restoration Ass
Ratio of maxim
trics, such as that longer dshorter drift cwas estimaterating those dd the potentia
sis 7,500 parcels pped as armofeeder bluffs mapping uniboundaries w
were as low as
y was assessee amenable toement of detedue to structnt was condues, state or lonce of structus. Air photo reeasible for arm
s were not ap55 were resid
Restorat
rect habitat bedirect habitat b
sessment for Isla
um benefit val
beach sustendrift cells werecells are assumed by extrapodata with siteally restorabl
were assembored. Approximor bluff‐backit for the preswere not spats 7 FT. The ave
ed for all parco armor remoermining armture shading oucted to gain cal land use dures. After reeview revealemor removal.
pparent on aldential parce
tion bene
enefitsbenefits
and and East Jeffe
lue associated
nance, use boe not overly‐wmed to be eqolating bluff ee characteriste shoreline le
bled into the imately 1,300 ked beaches (sence of armoially coincideerage potent
els, which redoval to 501 pamor removal feor a lack of ascertainty of sdata combineviewing land ed that both
most half of tls, and the re
efit rankin
SustainsBeach s
ferson Counties —
with different
oth the lengthweighted for ually significaerosion rates ics within theength.
initial projectof these parcMacLennan eor in the datant with parceial armor rem
duced the totarcels (Table 5easibility. Howssessor data. structure presed with air phuse data, onparcels had s
these parcelsmaining 46 w
ng criteri
s down‐drift syediment suste
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
t scoring catego
h and percentrestoration, ant locally. Thderived frome subject parc
t geodatabasecels encompaet al. 2013, Sia set was 20 Fel boundariesmoval length w
tal number of5). Structure wever, 24 paTo address tsence and armhoto reviews wly 2 parcels atructures on
s. Of the 501 pwere under pu
a
ystemenance
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 14
ories.
t of down‐drias sediment ahe potential vm the shore chcel, including
e for analysisassed shores menstad et aFT; however, s; therefore awas 137 FT.
f parcels withsetback distarcels did not his data gap, mor removal were used to ppeared likelthe face of th
potentially feublic or comm
C SERVICES,
ft shore. Thisand habitats volume of reshange analysibluff height f
, 2,862 of whmapped as al. 2011). The many armor rmor remova
hin the study ances were a have structuadditional feasibility. In gain insight oly to contain he bluff, mak
easible restoramercial owne
INC.
s was
stored s, from
hich
al
area
re
n on
ing
ation rship.
-
Feeder Bluff
Table 5. Su
RestoratioCriteria Sustains d
Length of d
Percent of
Potential v
On-site for
Restorable
Adjacent o
Down-drift Percent dospawning *adjacent
Parcel chaintersectiCounty) amile of shCounty wremoval wencompas
The potenwas deem(mean) scdistributio
Figure 5. F
0
10
20
30
40
50
60
70
Parc
el C
ount
ff Restoration Ass
ummary of res
on Benefit Sco
own-drift emba
down-drift shor
cell down-drift
ol. sediment in
age fish spawn
e length
pportunity
forage fish spaown-drift with fo
property feasi
aracteristics ang parcels in t greater parhore in Jeffersere armored were likely skssed forage fi
ntial benefit omed feasible fcore was 80.0on of scores w
requency distr
sessment for Isla
ults of restorat
oring ToPa
ayments 2
e
put 4
ning 2
4
awning 4orage fish 4
bility flagged a
also varied acIsland Countycel density (3son). In additi(44% versus ewed by the ish spawning
of armor remfor armor rem0 points, and twas normal (F
ribution of arm
and and East Jeffe
tion benefit sc
otal arcels Bre
256
501 >3 501
428 >111 252
414 >100176 2 sid420 >1.5
421 >85
as “maybe”
cross the study (4,474 parc32 parcels perion, a greater30%) as compgeography asareas (3,252
oval was assemoval scored the median scFigure 5).
mor removal be
Be
ferson Counties —
ores.
High
eak # Parcels
mi 177
cy/yr 177
0 FT 170
des 43
5 mi 160
5% 145
dy area in botels in Island Cr mile of shorr proportion opared to Jeffes considerablyin Island Cou
essed for all p143 points oucore was 79 p
enefit scores fo
nefit Scores
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
M
s Break
P
>1 mi
Scored
>37 cy/yr
P
>60 FT
1 side
>0.5 mi
>30%
h counties, wCounty versusre in Island Coof the shorelierson Countyy more parceunty versus 1,
parcels. The mut of a total opoints. The lo
or all feasible p
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 15
od #
Parcels P/A
167
d as %
167
P/A
131
127
161
140
with many mos 3,004 parceounty, versus ne parcels foy. The benefitels in Island Co,015 in Jeffer
maximum scoof 150 points. owest score w
parcels.
C SERVICES,
Low
Break # P
>0 mi
>0
>20 FT
Maybe*
>0 mi
>0% 136
ore shoreline‐els in Jefferso17 parcels peund in Islands of armor ounty son County).
ring parcel thThe average
was 6 points. T
INC.
Parcels
156
156
113
5
99
6
‐n er
hat
The
-
Feeder Bluff
Feasible abenefit scas many aAs expectfeasible pparcels).
The resultstudy areaprovide sepotential and rangithe drift c
Table 6. Supresence/aRestoratioCriteria Length of d
Percent of
Potential v
Restorable
Down-drift Percent dospawning (
Top and HThe parcewere higharmor remnext higheremoval wareas werHarbor, aappendedCounty wToandos Pwidesprea
Specific qstudy arearanking paon the pro
ff Restoration Ass
armor removacores). Some as 48. On aveted based on parcels for arm
ts of the benea. Half of the ediment to doto restore seng up to 14.2cell length (lo
ummary of restabsence data son Benefit Sco
down-drift shor
cell down-drift
ol. sediment in
e length (FT)
forage fish spaown-drift with fo(%)
High Benefitels in which arhlighted as prmoval represeest scoring tewere located re identified and the northed to this docuith some clusPeninsula (soad coverage t
ueries of the a and to selecarcels with ovoperty. Table
sessment for Isla
al parcels werdrift cells hadrage, 8 parcethe contrastimor removal w
efit scoring prparcels identown‐drift bardiment to co2 miles down‐cated down‐d
toration benefsummarized in oring
e (mi)
(%)
put (cy/yr)
awning (mi) orage fish
t Parcels for rmor removaiorities for ouent the top scertile (34‐66%along the shoalong the eastern shore of Pment. Top rastered in Discutheast of Dathroughout b
database canct parcels for ver 500 FT of e 7 displays th
and and East Jeffe
re identified id only one feals were identng parcel chawere identifie
rovide interestified as feasirrier embaymnsiderable le‐drift. On avedrift of the pa
fit data for all pTable 5. Average
Value 3.1 mi
51%
168
137
1.6
51%
Armor Remol would likelyutreach and ecoring tertile %), respectivelores of Islandt and west shPenn Cove. Foanking parcelsovery Bay, noabob Bay). Higoth counties
n be conductetailored outrarmored sho
he number of
ferson Counties —
in 61 drift celasible armor rtified as feasibaracteristics aed in Island (3
sting data on ble for armor
ment systems ngths of dowrage, armor rarcel).
parcels in whic
Min
0
0%
4
7
0
0%
oval y provide the eventual impl(top 33%), anly. Far more o County. Clushores of southor large scales were scatteorth of Hood gh‐priority pa(Figures 12–2
ed to explorereach efforts.ore. Two of thparcels acros
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
ls across the removal parcble for armoracross the two331 parcels) v
the values ofr removal hav(Tables 5 and
wn‐drift shoreremoval could
ch armor remo
Max
14.2
100%
7,236
7,230
10.2
79%
greatest benementation. nd the high raof the higheststers of high rhern Camanoe maps, see Mred throughoHead, and aloarcels were si24).
e the range of. For examplehese parcels ass the differe
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 16
study area (wcel identified wr removal wito counties, coversus Jeffers
f feeder bluffve the potentd 6). Most pars, with an aved potentially
val was feasib
efit to nearshThe top rankanking parcelt ranking parcranking armoo Island, westMap Folio Figuout the shoreong the west imilarly distri
f opportunity e, there were appeared to cnt priority ra
C SERVICES,
with variable while others hin each driftonsiderably mson County (1
fs throughouttial, if restorercels had the erage of 3.1 mbenefit 51% o
le. Parcels with
hore resourceking parcels fos represent tcels for armor removal priern Holmes ures 12–24 s of Jeffersonshore of the buted with m
throughout t9 top or highcontain a strunkings, owne
INC.
had t cell. more 170
t the ed, to
miles of
h
es or he r iority
n
more
the h‐ucture ership
-
Feeder Bluff
categorieparcels is
Table 7. NParcel TypResidentia
Non-reside
Structure
No structur
Total
The resultimplementhe parceThese pararmor remassessme
A variety landowneto a broadSeparate this lando
Mailers Postcardsworkshoplimited toalso a goa
Additionaand incenassistance
WorkshWorkshopworkshoptwo workpertainingand at the
ff Restoration Ass
s, and whethshown in Fig
umber of parce
pe Tl
ential
re
ts of these GInt armor remls identified frcels may repmoval may nont efforts aim
Outreof outreach mers of the highd scale of shooutreach effoowner type. O
s were sent byp informationo only armoreal.
al mailers sentntives available for removal
hops ps for this prop in the Seattlshops at the g to Island Coe Stanwood C
sessment for Isla
er or not a houres 12–24.
els, priority ran
Top 160
8
103
65
168
S analyses ideoval and feedfor outreach iresent “low‐hot exist. The dmed at advanc
each Effomethods incluhest ranking aoreline properorts existed foOutreach met
y mail to land as well as offed parcels as p
t only to armle to the prop of armor tha
oject spannedle metro areaPort Hadlockounty were heCommunity an
and and East Jeffe
ouse was digi
nking, and pres
High 148
16
68
96
164
Daentified optimder bluff restoinclude parcehanging fruit”database and cing feasible a
orts to Atuding mailersarmor removrty owners reor public agenhods are desc
downers of thfering technicprevention of
ored parcels perty owners.at was provid
d three counta to reach non Library, one eld at South Wnd Senior Cen
ferson Counties —
tized on the p
sence of house
Other 147
22
58
111
169
ata Utilitymal parcels tooration in Islaels that appea” where constmaps were uarmor remov
ttain Land, workshops, al parcels whegardless of thncies as morecribed below
he feeder blufcal site visits tf the installat
included a ra. This includeed by a comp
ies to accommn‐resident laneach in MarcWhidbey Highnter in Snoho
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
property. The
e.
o focus outreaand and east Jar to not havetraints that mused to guideval sites towa
downer Wphone calls,
hile also proviheir shore type direct initialw.
ff parcels in eto interestedion of new ar
ack card that hd the design panion grant.
modate landondowners (Tach and Novemh School for reomish County
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 17
e spatial distr
ach efforts anJefferson coue structures (might otherwi outreach anrd implement
Willingnesand media wding outreacpe or project l contact was
each county pd parties. Outrmor along fe
highlighted thservices as w
owners and iable 8). Jeffermber of 2015.esidents of Wfor residents
C SERVICES,
ribution of the
nd work to unties. Many houses) on thise preclude d additional tation.
ss were used to th and educatfeasibility. s appropriate
providing reach was noeeder bluffs w
he various sewell as permitt
ncluded a son County st. Workshops Whidbey Islans of Camano
INC.
e
of hem.
target tion
for
ot was
rvices ting
taged
d,
-
Feeder Bluff
Island. Woheld on Cafter a simprotection
Table 8. W
County
Jefferson
Snohomish
Island King (for noresident owof Jeff., Isla& SJ Coun
Island
Jefferson
TOTAL
As noted mailers, band sociaand includ
WorkshopNot all paregistered
Workshopnet shorearmor, itshabitats tit relates tWorkshopJohanness
ff Restoration Ass
orkshops weramano Islandmilar one hosn education t
Workshop outre
Date March2015
h March2015 April 42015
on-wners and, ties)
April 22015 Octob2015 Novem14, 20
above, targetbut also includl media annoded shoreline
p participantsrticipants regd the same da
p topics and c drift, driverss impacts, andhey form wasto slope stabps included a sen to demon
sessment for Isla
re held in Aprd at the Four Sted by Island to area contra
each, participat
Locah 7, Coun
Port Hh 28, Stanw
Cente4, South
Langl
22, ShoreConfeShore
ber 29, Four Hous
mber 015
CounPort H
ted outreach ded general muncements, ae property ow
s were asked gistered this way therefore t
concepts coves and rates of d alternativess of great inteility were alsoclassroom senstrate the to
and and East Jeffe
ril and MarchSprings HousCounty to practors.
tion, and evalu
tion ty Library, Hadlock wood Senior er, Stanwood h Whidbey HS,ley
eline erence Center,eline Springs e, Camano ty Library, Hadlock
to shoreline methods throand radio spowners of all sh
to complete way and not athe informati
ered coastal aerosion, ands to hard armoerest to manyo discussed, pegment followopics discusse
ferson Counties —
of 2015, respe in October rovide coasta
uations overvieTotal Mailings
664 1,478, incl Camano
505
1,119
505
807
11,989
property ownugh communots. As a resulhoreforms.
an on‐line suall questions won does not f
and bluff proc landslides asor. Connectivy participantsproviding manwed by a beaced in the field
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
pectively. On2015; this wol processes a
ew.
Attendees
60
46
38
13
24
35
430
ners was donnity associatiot, participatio
rvey as part owere answerfully represen
cesses includs well as inforvity of the coas. Vegetation ny dos and doch walk whend.
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 18
e additional workshop was nd alternativ
Surveys Completed
34
25
18
0
11
15
170
e through poons, press releon at the wor
of their registred. Many parnt all attende
ing Puget Sourmation and eastal processeand drainageon’ts for bothn practical wit
C SERVICES,
workshop waheld immediae shoreline
, # Surveys Complete
56%
54%
47%
0
46%
43%
39.5%
ostcards and eases, websitrkshops was v
tration (Tablerticipants ees.
und shoreforexamples of ses and the e managemenh topics. th Jim
INC.
as ately
ed, %
te varied
e 9).
ms, shore
nt as
-
Feeder Bluff
Table 9. Pr
Workshop Location Jefferson (March 201Stanwood (March 201Island, Wh(April 2015King (April 2015Island, Cam(Oct 2015)Jefferson (Nov 2015)Average A
Site AssA total of County, wWatermaa design p
All of the professionmanagemre‐establihad potenstability. Drecommefor 12 of tforage fisprogress tpermit‐lev
The primaintended other coaidentifiedfeasibilityIsland Couwith the fconcrete
ff Restoration Ass
re‐workshop su
PermaneResident
15) 76%
15) 59%
idbey 5) 77%
5) 25%
mano 75%
) 68%
All 63%
sessments21 site asses
with three resn). The remaproject (Becke
site assessmenal that visite
ment recommshment of nantial benefits Drainage mannded for fivethe sites, fromh spawning athrough the dvel designs, w
ary purpose oto restore costal processe as feasible thy for armor reunty projects four projects bags and ang
sessment for Isla
urvey response
ent ts
Lived on Shore 5 Years or Longer
HB
68%
68%
70%
71%
92%
76%
74%
s sments wereulting in permining eight sitett Point).
ents for this ped the properendations, raative plants onfor forage fisnagement, inc of the propem full to partireas nearby, design phase.which are des
of this projectnnectivity bees at the site. hrough the coemoval and exwere selectecombined, wgular rock pro
and and East Jeffe
es.
High Bluff
Low BaBeach
56% 44
68% 32
83% 17
33% 67
73% 27
24% 76
56% 44
completed fomit‐level desigte visits were
project had atrty. Nine of thanging from mn the propertsh spawning hcluding tightlerties. Shore aial removal ortwo of which Four progrescribed in deta
Permit-Lt was feeder between the blThe four projonceptual moxamined eached. Approximawith approximoposed for rem
ferson Counties —
ank or
PerceivedMedium oHigh Erosion
% 33%
% 37%
% 45%
% 50%
% 50%
% 40%
% 43%
or this projecgns (Maylor tcompleted in
t least one rehese sites hadminor improvety. In most cahabitat and dine replacemarmor removar modificationh were likely cssed through ail in the next
Level Desbluff restoratuff and beachjects that weodel. Site asseh site in detaiately 1,034 linately 1,178 limoval, giving
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
d or
Have Shore Armor
29%
66%
39%
43%
83%
64%
54%
ct. Of these, 1to Forbes Poin Jefferson Co
ecommendatid varying degements and cases, suggesterainage, as w
ments and redal was one ofn. Several procandidates fo the project at section (Fig
signs tion through rh to restore fre selected foessments for l. One Jeffersnear feet of anear feet of aa total of 2,2
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 19
Of Armored, Would Consider Removal
OWCoReM
23%
15%
20%
0%
20%
19%
16%
13 were locatnts, Seahorseounty, one of
on from the crees of vegetcontinued maed vegetationwell as generairecting runof the main recoperties had dor armor remoand resulted iure 6 and Tab
removal of shfeeder bluff seor permit‐leveeach project son County prarmor is propadditional fai212 linear fee
C SERVICES,
f Armored, Would
onsider emoval w/
More Info
ConInstErosProt
54%
60%
40%
100%
50%
63%
61%
ed in Island e Siesta, and f which result
coastal ation aintenance ton managemenlly increasing
off, was commendatiodocumented oval but did nin preliminaryble 10).
hore armor. Tediment inpuel designs weconfirmed roject and thrposed for remled armor of et of removal.
INC.
nsidering alling sion tection
21%
33%
27%
20%
0%
53%
26%
ted in
o full nt g bluff
ons
not y
This is ut and ere
ree moval
.
-
Feeder Bluff
Figure 6. W
The followDiscoverylocated onSeahorse located inprotrudinbeach of tsoutheast
ff Restoration Ass
Workshop locat
wing table proy Bay approximn Naval Air StSiesta is the cn the westerng structures ithe previous t of Langley, W
sessment for Isla
tions, site visit
ovides an ovemately 6 miletation Whidbcommunity b portion of Lain the residenWaterman EnWA.
and and East Jeffe
s and prelimin
erview of the es west of theey near Oak Hbeach and beaangley. The shntial portions nterprises pro
ferson Counties —
ary design pro
projects. Bece town of PortHarbor on theach access arehore structurof Island Couoperty 1.75 m
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
ojects.
ckett Point is t Townsend. e south facingea of the Seare at Seahorseunty. Watermmiles north of
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 20
located on thMaylor Pointg shore near horse Siesta e Siesta is oneman is the easf Clinton and
C SERVICES,
he east shore t to Forbes PoCrescent Harcommunity e of the largest‐facing bluff3.5 miles
INC.
of oint is rbor.
er f and
-
Feeder Bluff
Table 10.
Project Name Becket Point
Maylor Point to Forbes Point
Waterman
Seahorse Siesta
BeckettBecket Poin Jeffersoestimate ccell JEFF‐2area in Di
Figure 7. A
ff Restoration Ass
Design proje
Linear FeArmor Pro
for Remo
165 (-25
381 LF of bulkhead; 1of additionaarmor and
440
136 (-63 rock
t Point oint proposedon County, Wcost of projec25 is down‐drscovery Bay.
Aerial photo loo
sessment for Isla
ct elements.
eet of posed oval
InB
Un
gap)
intact ,178 LF
al failed debris
58,6
kery) 9,49
d to remove aWA. Figure 7 shct implementrift of the pro
oking northeas
and and East Jeffe
Cost estimate
ntertidal Beach covered E
N/A $
600 SQ FT $2
N/A
90 SQ FT $3
a treated soldhows the oblitation is just uoject area. Do
st at the Becke
ferson Counties —
includes conti
Cost stimate Ar
$24,819 S
228,920
Intatim
faileba
bas
N/A C
316,790 G
ier pile wall fique of the prunder $25,000cumented he
ett Point armor
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
ingency, access
rmor Type
oldier Pile
act: treated mber, tires; ed: concrete ags, gabion skets, stone
Creosoted wood
Grounded barge
from the soutroject area al0 (CGS 2015aerring spawn
r removal site.
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 21
s, mobilization
Doc. Forage Fish
Spawning
Herring
Surf smelt 5,000 FT down-drift
Sand lance 1,000 FT down-drift
Sand lance 700 FT
down-drift
theast portionong with a gra). Approximais just offsho
C SERVICES,
n, tax, and bon
Length of Down-Drift
Shore 8% of JEFF25 (2,025 FT
90% in WHID16 and WHID
15 (10,073and 7,000 FT
25% of IS-1(13,150 FT
91% of WHID1 (18,875 FT
n of Beckett Pround photo.ately 8% of drre of the proj
INC.
ding.
f t
F-T)
D-D-
3 T)
1 )
D-T)
Point The rift ject
-
Feeder Bluff
Along withead remremoval. Abase of thwork requ2015a). P
Bulkhead site. No nSedimentanticipatesmall excaalong 165at and abgrade andsufficient These cro
No chemitreatmentconsideredisposal a
Sedimentremoval fthereforetime requ
Sufficient offsite. Tharea for tto reduce
Maylor tThe MayloNaval Air peninsulaalong with2015b). T16. ApproapproximCrescent
ff Restoration Ass
h coastal prooval, a small A bulkhead che high marinuired to comportions of tha
removal itseourishment s currently imed that equipavator would5 FT of shore wove beach grad those that hwood for pul
oss members
cal testing wat. Given the ped contaminatat an approve
currently imfollowing extr the most suiuired for proje
space appeahe small turnaruck loading/e impacts to th
to Forbes or to Forbes PStation Whid between Oah a ground phhis project is oximately 90%ately 5,000 feHarbor.
sessment for Isla
cesses restoramount of diomprised of we bluff. The Bplete restoratat memo are
lf should provsediment is repounded by tment access be capable owith approximade to allow have completlling. Some pishould be rem
as completedprevalence ofted until tested upland faci
pounded by traction. The stable materiaect completio
rs available foaround at the/unloading ache residentia
Points Point project dbey Island, lok Harbor andhoto. The estlocated at th% of each drifeet down drif
and and East Jeffe
ration due to irect habitat rwooden soldiBecket Point Btion at the sitparaphrased
ve to be relatecommendedthe bulkhead and materialsof removing tmately 102 ora grip‐and‐puely broken ofiles appearedmoved prior t
d as part of thf creosote treing is performility that acce
the bulkhead ediment appal for filling voon.
or stacking ree end of Becktivities. Howel properties t
site is the soocated south d Crescent Haimate cost ofe beginning ot cell is downft of the proje
ferson Counties —
cross shore arestoration wier piles was pBulkhead Reme and details here where a
tively straightd at the site dwould be exs transport cahe majority or more piles pull method. Piff will required to be attachto pulling the
his project to datment in themed. All contaepts creosote
should be allears to be cooids in the be
emoved piles ett Point Roaever, blockagthere.
uth‐facing bluof Oak Harborbor. Figure 1f project implof two differen‐drift of the pect within WH
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
and along showill occur whepresent alongmoval design the preliminappropriate.
tforward remue to the smapected to fill an all be accoof piles with lipresent. Maniles that are se a small amohed to adjacene piles.
determine the Puget Sounaminated wotreated woo
lowed to colllluvium resuleachface. This
at the removad may be usege of the road
uff and beachor, WA, locate11 shows theementation ient diverging project area. HID‐16 on the
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 22
ore connectivere the beachg approximatmemoranduary permit‐le
oval of the piall footprint oany voids lef
omplished froimited effort.y piles have sseverely weatunt of excavant piles by sm
he natural of wd, all piles shod should bed.
apse into theting from blus will reduce
val site for sued as a tempod should be ke
h of Maylor Ped on the ende oblique of ths just under $drift cells, WDocumentede east facing s
C SERVICES,
ity from bulk is exposed btely 165 FT atm describes tevel design (C
iles for haul oof the bulkheft by removal.om the upland. Piles are locsufficient matthered at beaation to exposmall whalers.
wood pile ould be e hauled to
e hole left by uff erosion, anboth the cost
bsequent hauorary stockpilept to a minim
oint Housing d of a small he project are$230,000 (CGHID‐15 and Wd surf smelt isshore toward
INC.
head y pile the the CGS
off ad. . It is ds. A ated terial ach se
nd is t and
ul le mum
on
ea GS WHID‐s ds
-
Feeder Bluff
Figure 8. Aexamples o
The southMaylor Pocrest. Therequired tthat mem
It is anticimain elemare timbeautomotiv
The prelimbeach aretreated tismall angtechnique1,178 lineapproximof debris fthe Maylo
ff Restoration Ass
Aerial photo looof site conditio
heastern poinoint. The site e Maylor Pointo complete r
mo are paraph
pated that eqments of the per and tire bulve tires, angu
minary designea. The projecmber verticalular rock undes, concrete aear feet of shoately 1,559 lifrom failed gaor to Forbes P
sessment for Isla
oking northweons along the le
nt of the peninfaces south tt Bulkhead Rrestoration athrased here w
quipment andpreliminary dlkhead removular rock, and
n includes remct will removel bulkhead. Lader 1 FT in noand other shoore. Therefornear feet of aabion basketsPoints propos
and and East Jeffe
st at the Mayloength of the sh
nsula is Forbeto Saratoga Paemoval prelimt the site andwhere approp
d materials tresigns for coaval as well as concrete.
moving all ante 300 LF of tirarge armor stminal diametore‐perpendice, Maylor to anthropogenis, armor stonsed prelimina
ferson Counties —
or to Forbes Pohore.
es Point; the sassage. Navy minary design details the priate.
ransport will bastal habitat removal of in
thropogenic sre and treatedtones on the oter from failedcular structurForbes Point ic coastal proe revetment,ry project.
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
oint armor rem
southwesternresidential hn memorandupermit‐level d
be accessed aenhancemenntertidal debr
structures and timber postorder of 2.5 td gabion baskres will be remproposed pre
ocess impacts, and concret
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 23
moval site. Gro
n point of thehousing is landum describesdesign (CGS 20
and provided nt and feeder ris, including
d material frot bulkhead, ato 5.5 FT nomkets and othemoved from aeliminary wil. Just over 58te bags will be
C SERVICES,
ound photos pr
e peninsula is dward of the s the work 015b). Portio
by barge. Thbluff restoratreated wood
om the projecs well as 81 L
minal diameteer shore armoapproximatelyl remove 8,000 square fe removed fro
INC.
rovide
bluff
ns of
e tion d,
ct LF of er, or y
feet om
-
Feeder Bluff
Originallyyards (CY)burlap baIN by 22 IIN by 22 I1970s strusubtidal oremove aconcrete
Large armrevetmenarmor stoarmor boApproximremoval.
Smaller, aproject. Aas toe roccan be remareas will
The armoerosion rinearby shconcrete been protvertical buset far enbluff toe aremoval w(erosionarecomme
Currently,We recomshould be3 FT in elewithin theone‐third that the Bthe risk coshore arm
ff Restoration Ass
, 8,400 concr) of concrete.gs. The concrN. Therefore,N). Only a veucture. Thereof the project pproximatelybag removal.
mor stones onnt and betweeone can be reulders can be
mately 16,000
angular rock oApproximatelyck, placed watmoved from tbe uncovere
r removal invsk of the exishore armor habag (15% covtected from eulkhead are tough back thare closer thawill not increal hot spots atnd full anthro
, there is a summended thise at least one‐evation abovee project limitburied near t
Baker Court hontinues to inmor in concert
sessment for Isla
ete bags wer. Of these, 4,4rete bags obs, approximatery small numefore, approxarea or erody 70% of them
the order of en some treatmoved from te removed froSF of upper b
of approximaty 300 tons of terward of althe intertidald with small
volved in this sting Baker Coas failed manyver) and anguerosion in decthe only intacat their erosian the tire buase erosion rit the end of stopogenic stru
ubstantial piecs piece of woo‐third buried e mean highets that need tthe base of thouses are thrncrease due tt with bluff en
and and East Jeffe
re installed du400 were insterved during ely 1.8 squareber of bags reimately 8,000ed to smallerm. At least 10,
2.5 to 5.5 FTtment sectionthe failed revom throughoubeach and int
tely 0.25 FT tthis smaller al other techn and beach. Aangular rock
feeder bluff rourt houses. Fy years ago wlar rock (40%cades. The tirt sections of on risk will nolkhead, but bsk. Most likeltructures) anducture and de
ce of large wood remain in at the toe of er high water to be temporhe bluff nearereatened, a bo natural pronhancement
ferson Counties —
uring the 197talled as dry bthe site visit e feet (SF) of emain where 0 bags have br pieces of agg,000 SF of the
T nominal diamns from the 1vetment near ut the rest of tertidal areas
o 1 FT nominangular rock wiques. ApproxApproximatelremoval.
restoration pFor the Bakerwith only a mi% cover). The be bulkhead athe 1970s shoot change. Thbecause of thely, these armod exacerbateebris removal
oody debris nplace. If it hathe bluff nea(MHHW). Anarily stockpileest the closesluff vegetatioocesses, the laand privacy f
COASTAL
— FINAL May 30,
0s project, usbags while 4,0were on avearea is cover they were plbeen depositegregate. Of the intertidal ar
meter were u1970s project Forbes Pointthe project t will be uncov
al diameter wwas installed ximately 225 ly 28,500 SF o
project will nor Court houseinority of sevebluff toe of thnd approximaore protectiohe sporadicalleir poor placeor stones act erosion near.
near the bluffas moved befoarest the closey other substed for installast houses. If iton enhancemandowner coufence realignm
GEOLOGIC
0, 2017, p. 24
sing approxim000 were instrage approximed by each sclaced within ted within the hese 8,000, itrea will be un
used within th. Approximatt. An additiontowards Maylvered with ar
was used withwithin the ga CY of the smof upper beac
ot significantlyes closest to teral mid interhe Baker Couately half of ton. The Bakerly‐placed armement and deually create er the houses.
f toe of the Baore the projeest Baker Coutantially largeation should at is determineent plan coululd then lookment.
C SERVICES,
mately 130 cutalled as wet mately 12 IN cattered bag the toe of theintertidal or t is practical tncovered thro
he Forbes Poitely 525 CY ofnal 575 CY of lor Point. rmor stone
hin the 1970sabion baskets
mall angular roch and interti
y change the he bluff crestrtidal areas wrt bluff has nthe treated ti Court house
mor stones at esign, their end area erosTherefore, w
aker Court hoect is installedurt house, at e wood piecesalso be at leaed at a later dld be designek into appropr
INC.
ubic
by 5 (12 e
to ough
nt f large large
s s and ock dal
t, all with ot mber s are the
sion we
ouses. d, it least s st date ed. If riate
-
Feeder Bluff
ImplemenAction Aggrant fromsummer 2
WatermThe Wateproperty oThe site faground phproject paDocumen
Figure 9. A
The prelimbeach andproject wbulkhead treated wstones wiproject, su
All equipmmaterial fshall be dwood) or
The nearetop of bluclosest thlandward
ff Restoration Ass
ntation Statusgenda update m the US Fish2018. Permitt
man erman projecton Whidbey Iaces east to Photo. The estartner needs ted sand lanc
Aerial photo loo
minary designd bluff toe areill remove thewas estimate
wood will be rell be removeduch as broken
ment used forfrom the projisposed of in upland dispo
est known infuff, in the areae County righof the bulkhe
sessment for Isla
s: NWSF submNear‐Term A and Wildlife ting is being le
t site is the eaIsland, locatePossession Soimate cost of(CGS 2015c). ce is approxim
oking west at t
n includes remea, including e entire lengted as approxiemoved fromd with the pron pieces of co
r implementaect will be stoan approved
osal area.
frastructure isa well landwaht‐of‐way roaead and there
and and East Jeffe
mitted this proAction procesService’s Puged by US Nav
ast‐facing blud 1.75 miles ound. Figure 1f project implApproximate
mately 1,000
the Waterman
moving all antbut not limiteth of bulkheamately 45 CY
m the nearshooject. A minoorrugated dra
ation will be dockpiled and recycling fac
s an Island Coard of the buld gets to the efore the risk
ferson Counties —
oject for funds. It has receiget Sound Covy personnel w
ff and beach north of Clint12 shows the ementation wely 25% of drifeet down dr
armor remova
thropogenic sed to creosotd, which is 44Y of lagging/pore. Approximor amount of oainage pipes a
delivered to thauled awaycility (includin
ounty ri
top related