ABCDEFGHIJKLMNOPQRSTUVWXYZAA
1
LIO Action Plan Table - Healthy Shorelines (HS)
2
LIO Name:Action Agenda Topic Description: Protect and restore marine shorelines with a focus on bluff-backed beaches by improving regulations, incentives, strategic planning, and restoration implementation rooted in an understanding of coastal processes.
Purpose of this LIO Action Plan table: Capture actions and activities that address priority needs, barriers, and opportunities related to protecting and restoring marine shorelines, especially focused on bluff-backed beaches. Table inputs will populate the LIO HS Action Plan and clearly articulate the most important actions needed to support marine shoreline protection and restoration in Puget Sound. Actions should be feasible to pursue between now and 2030. *Please provide a maximum of three actions (one per row) for each HS objective.
3
HS STRATEGY 1 - Regulatory: Regulation implementation, compliance, enforcement, and communication
4
HS Action Agenda Action (See Table Key tab for further column descriptions)Select Activity Type Briefly summarize the barrier or opportunity.
Describe any tools, resources, or changes needed to address the barrier or opportunity (specify numbers of outputs when able).
List the urgency of this need from a local perspective.Select the organization type(s) that is responsible for this need.Provide specific implementation suggestions or projects to pursue this.
5
EXAMPLE: 2. Implement shoreline regulations, and adaptively address future shoreline climate impactsPolicy and Regulation Development  Update shoreline master plan to account for impacts due to sea level rise and storm surge.Require property owners to plan for sea level rise impacts when retrofittng properties along shorelines. MediumCounty
6
1. Improve existing shoreline regulation and policiesPolicy and Regulation Development  Shoreline Master Program (SMP) rules make it difficult to reduce development footprints on already developed shorelines, as properties are often grandfathered under old regulations. This can lead to increased hard development when permits are renewed. HPA requires the landowner to show a need but it can be matched to the neighboring need, which leads to a justrification for more armoring or hard development. There is not a climate adaptation lens to already developed shorelines. Integrate a climate adaptation lens into SMPs and state permitting to address already developed shorelines. Revise policies to encourage footprint reduction and prioritize restoration during re-permitting, while strengthening standards to limit new hard armoringMediumState, City, County
9
2. Implement shoreline regulations, and adaptively address future shoreline climate impacts
12
3. Conduct and improve state agency regulatory compliance monitoring and enforcement
15
4. Develop local jurisdiction regulatory requirements and funding mechanisms to address compliance and enforcement barriers at local level.
18
5. Fund and support inter-local and local-state collaborationCompliance and Enforcement   Enforcement of unpermitted work varies across jurisdictions. Enforcement should be consistently applied to both contractors and landowners. “After-the-fact” permitting of unpermitted actions, such as shoreline armoring, does not fully address the resulting environmental impacts.Coordination with local governments and the Department of Ecology is needed to evaluate current penalties, identify gaps in local enforcement practices, and ensure consistent application of regulations

Funding and capacity for compliance. Currently it is a complaint-driven system.		MediumStateImplementation of this action requires close coordination between local and state agencies with shoreline jurisdiction and regulations.
19
Mobilizing Funding  Leverage the Puget Sound LIO Action Plans for Healthy Shorelines to guide investment planning under the NEP geographic funds through the Marine Strategic Initiative Lead.Coordinate with the Marine Strategic Initiative Lead and the Puget Sound Action Agenda Planning Team to align local priorities with Puget Sound recovery goals and ensure funding is directed to high-priority shoreline projects identified in LIO Action Plans
HighStateLIOs are developing action plans to address Puget Sound recovery priorities. Local partners bring geographic expertise to implement these actions, but a strategy is needed to guide state and federal funding investments toward approved plans
21
6. Increase public communication about shoreline regulationsEducation and Awareness  Enforcing shoreline regulations is often unpopular and politically sensitive, particularly when property owners act out of concern for protecting their property.Develop and implement a proactive public outreach campaign to increase awareness of shoreline regulations and the long-term risks of sea level rise. Tailor messaging to help property owners understand regulatory requirements and promote alternatives to unpermitted shoreline modificationsMediumCounty
24
7. Provide guidance and capacity funding for local SLR vulnerability and climate resiliency components of SMP
27
OtherCapacity Building and CoordinationLeadership transitions at federal agencies create uncertainty and delays, causing projects to stall or restart. This paralysis also raises concerns about decision-making consistency and maintaining policies at the local level
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92
93
94
95
96
97
98
99
100
101
102
103
104
105
106
107
108
109
110
111
112
113
114
115