< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
14-15 February 2007

Venue:

WDFW Offices, 600 Capitol Way North (Day 1) and Capitol Court, Attorney General’s Office (Day 2) Olympia, Washington

Attendance:

Si Simenstad (Co-Chair; UW), Fred Goetz (Co-Chair; USACE), Hugh Shipman (DOE), Tom Mumford (DOE), Megan Dethier (UW), Miles Logsdon (UW), Curtis Tanner (USFWS), Guy Gelfenbaum (USGS), Kurt Fresh (NOAA Fisheries), Tom Leschine (UW), Jennifer Burke (UW)

Guests:

Miriam Gilmer (USACE); Marina Alberti (UW); UW SMA550B students: Scott Stolnack, Justin Boevers, Sarah Spilseth, Emily Howe

Primary Meeting Topics:

(1) Future Without Project update and presentation of proposed Phase 2
(2) Science Morning: SMA550B course and research report on WRIA9 Future Without Project
(3) Incidental: update on and discussion of Change Analysis for WRIA9 Future Without Project (FWOP): Marina Alberti, Urban Ecology Group

  • Where are we now? Ending Phase I and beginning Phase II.
    • Next step to develop scenarios is development of hypotheses about scenarios (step before developing models), based on existing models what would other variables look line under alternative driving forces? How do these scenarios change with the 8 other driving forces (climate change and human behavior are primary drivers). These can be detailed as specific as a model – testing, sensitivity, review by experts, input from agencies. Currently developing synthesis of storylines as end of Phase I preliminary assessment.
  • Phase II Objectives:
    • Scenario Development – description of scenario through driver trajectories
    • Metrics Selection – relational database for ranking of structural metrics
    • Model Development – selection and integration of existing model runs to assess nearshore impacts.
  • Final Products from FWOP with UEG
    • Final Scenarios
    • Develop a list of “structural” metrics to quantify impacts of each scenario on nearshore; develop a relational database with – functions, processes, structures, VECS, metrics.
    • Use metrics to design modeling for spatially explicit nearshore assessment
  • NST began developing metrics to link FWOP to Change Analysis

Science Morning: WRIA9 Future Without Project (FWOPlite); J. Burke, T. Leschine, M. Logsdon, S. Simenstad and students (Scott Stolnack, Justin Boevers, Sarah Spilseth, Emily Howe)

  • UW SMA550B Winter Qtr class and research project supported by PSAT based on funding designated for FWOP but not available given delays in that effort
  • Four components to class: (1) examine CommEnSpace WRIA9 Change Analysis results; (2) explore historic drivers of change and develop primary hypothesis testable by spatial data analysis; (3) examine role of (more recent) regulatory changes; and, (4) propose future scenarios based on status quo trend and one alternative; Jen Burke is preparing synthetic report
  • School for Marine Affairs class, co-listed with UW School of Oceanography, drew on diverse student participation from four different departments, unusual for SMA; strong GIS data analysis component, led by Miles and Jen;
  • Divided the class of 14 students up by physiogeographic-based teams: Northshore; Duwamish; Southshore; and Vashon-Maury Islands
  • Information resources: (a) CommEnSpace data; (b) other available spatial data; (c) non-spatial (historical/anecdotal information, maps and photos, interviews and guest speakers)
  • Types of spatial analyses to test hypotheses: (a) empirical; (b) patterns/changes over times; and, (c) regulatory permits
  • Northshore Team (Emily Howe)
    • Decided to drop attention of main Seattle waterfront; focus on Smith Cove north
    • Hypothesis: landscape topography dictates the driver
    • Smith Cove: level ground adjacent to deepwater port requires shoreline expansion (fill) and bank stabilization; Magnolia Bluff: armoring of residential development
    • Shoreline armoring tended to occur in known landslide zones
    • Wish: type of armoring
    • No armoring in park areas
    • Decreasing distance to shoreline was significantly correlated to increasing armoring
    • Future Scenarios: Smith Cove--Status quo, cruise destination; Alternative, urban aesthetic, water center; Magnolia Bluff--Status quo, concrete bluff condos; Alternative, beach-bluff tide park (Park Creep Scenario)
    • Discomfort with how they assembled a future scenario: so socially/policy driven, hard to understand how that might change
  • Duwamish Team (Scott Stolnack)
    • Total build-out
    • Hypothesis: economic development pressures (i.e., level ground for industry and trade/transportation)
    • Historical research (maps, documents, reports) and GIS/database queries (land use/ownership, superfund site locations, historic aerial photos); one of few teams to do time series of change
    • Conclusions: (a) industry and trade caused changes in estuary; (b) most significant alterations occurred by 1921; (c) trajectory is unlikely to change as long as the economic drivers remain unchanged
    • Futures: Status quo—maintenance of trade-based industry with Port dominating; Alternative--“A shift in status quo trajectory is not likely without a dramatic, landscape-changing event (e.g., a Kobe-type earthquake) accompanied by a dramatic shit in economic and social priorities”
  • Southshore Team (Sarah Spilseth)
    • Main difference was loss of closed lagoon and marshes, and barrier estuaries (only 3 left); estuaries were filled only when economically feasible
    • Primary drivers: (1) Access (topography, transportation) and (2) value (surrounding land developed, investment potential)
    • Hypotheses: (1) Physical (smaller surface area filled earlier, steep slopes filled later) and (2) social (proximity to major city, closest to a densely populated urban center filled in earlier, proximity to transportation)
    • None of drivers alone responsible for filling estuaries
    • Considered restoration trend in status quo
    • Utility infrastructure a major driver (another level land issue)!
    • Constraint and data need: Biggest hurdle was finding date of estuary fill
  • Vashon-Maury Islands [VMI] Team (Justin Boevers)
    • 57% armored; very little change in shoreform; over 80% bluff-backed beaches
    • Constraint is water; septic systems second; desire to keep rural character
    • Hypothesis: Residential development has been the major driver of shoreline changeèshape and size of waterfront parcels have resulted in increased housing density; undeveloped parcels are split 50/50 between armored and unarmored parcels
    • Future scenarios: Status quo--remaining a rural island community, armoring of the shoreline and overwater structures will continue as demand for waterfront property increases, supply of waterfront parcels is fixed due to water and septic constraints, additional open space or conservation lands will be acquired through conservation easements and the Vashon Maury Land Trust, but not much done along shoreline; Future--water constraints alleviated through desalination technology or cistern use, Vashon incorporates and develops its own Shoreline Master Program, a bridge is built, impacts: high density housing, industrial, mixed use commercial and residential
    • Need: Human behavior driving relationship between parcel size, house size and location, and armoring
  • Integrating and Enhancing (Jen)
    • Jen is synthesizing student team reports, conducting common analysis for all WRIA9 and preparing synopsis including new analyses
      • Using new approaches identified by students (e.g., zoning relative to slope: armoring and zoning was most important data for students, particularly high density housing for future)
      • Pursuing her own analyses (e.g., drift cell AUs, upland buffer and drainage units in Change Analysis data

Update on Change Analysis:

  • Presentation and discussion on change analysis report
  • Some (few) corrections being considered, e.g., use of modern stream data to designate beaches
  • In general, report will summarize most findings as present analysis, without post facto corrections
  • Presentation of findings will be modified as per NST CAWG recommendations (e.g., normalization)
  • Report will present and discuss sources of error and uncertainty, and make recommendations for improvement in protocol and analysis
  • Further analysis, especially organized around Fresh-Tanner-Simenstad types of questions will move forward in (SNAR?) stage, with major effort scheduled for Feb 23 WG meeting.
  • What are next steps discussion - Minimize uncertainty and error:
    • Evaluate current methods – tweaked (simplified), torqued (changed) or tossed (start over) – example - error analysis using current method (assuming there is value in current methods): What is best working group to evaluate method(s) – Jenn suggests a team of experts – maybe Jenn, Jessemine, and Tracy (USGS).
    • What can we do with current data to carry out next level of questions. Next level of change – what questions within shoreform (attributes) change must we ask. If shoreform A changes to shoreform A what questions would we ask; B to B will have different questions.
    • Evaluate other methodologies to get at change analysis that may be a better application appropriate to the materials to improve certainty. Apply that to another area to evaluate results. See Jim J. or Skagit River Systems Cooperative examples.