< Back
to Meeting Archives
Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
Steering Committee Meeting
21 March 2007
Attendance:
John Dohrmann, Jen Burke, Miriam Gilmer, Fred Goetz, Jacques
White, Dick Ecker, Andrea Copping, Paul Cereghino, James Schroeder,
Debby Hyde, Theresa Mitchell, Hayden Street, Margen Carlson,
Mike Ramsey, Debbie Rick
Estuary and Salmon Restoration Workshops
Theresa Mitchell provided a briefing on the recent ESRP workshops.
Six workshops were held in the Puget Sound region. The agenda
included a description of the Puget Sound Nearshore Partnership
and the ESRP, a summary of the last round and the coming round.
The selection process was described. Theresa also talked about
the database.
Theresa received 170 projects for entry into the database
by the March 16th deadline. Of those projects submitted 2/3
were new with 1/3 as updates to projects already entered.
571 projects are in the database (300 are Hood Canal Coordinating
Council). These projects represent $322 million in unfunded
need, $46 million in match, for a total of $368 million in
total funding need.
The overall sense is that projects in the database represent
restoration (assessment & acquisition), monitoring/adaptive
management, and dike removal projects.
The website www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
is updated with the current timeline and ’07-09 process
and forms.
Notes from wall - ESRP
Expanded funding necessitates additional staff (Project manager
and additional staff) Very time sensitive.
- Quality of process, ability to continue to work on GI,
etc. All affected by larger ESRP
- Review of proposals and implementing contracts are time
crunches.
Retreat Agenda –
1. Estuary and Salmon Restoration Program
To what extent can criteria/process issues be resolved
before June 5-7? Can the PMT and IT front load the process?
Determine a subset of reviewers from each organization
and breakdown RFPs in to smaller groups of projects to
review – not all reviewers actually review all project
proposals. T Develop a conflict of interest statement.
2. Corps Feasibility Report/Work Plan
Restoration Plan?
3. Change Analysis/SNAR/Feasibility Scoping Meeting
Sound-Wide Change Analysis
4. Future Without Project #2 Workshop
Notes from wall - Retreat
Future Without Project (i.e. FWOP Lite)
Jen Burke from the University of Washington presented class
findings with her synthesis on Future Without Project (Lite).
The students were to identify major drivers, effected past,
and rates and patterns. Additionally, they were to study the
direct/indirect influences and policy drivers and provide
any additional insight.
The research project was supported by Puget Sound Action
Team based on funding designated for FWOP but not available
given delays in that effort. The research team consisted of
Jen Burke, Tom Leschine, Miles Logsdon, Si Simenstad and students:
Scott Stolnack, Justin Boevers, Sarah Spilseth, Emily Howe.
There were 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 a synthetic
report.
The class was divided by physio-geographic-based teams: Northshore;
Duwamish; Southshore; and Vashon-Maury Islands. Information
resources consisted of (a) CommEnSpace data; (b) other available
spatial data; (c) non-spatial (historical/anecdotal information,
maps and photos, interviews and guest speakers. The types
of spatial analyses to test hypotheses were:
(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 shift 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)
Notes from wall – FWOP Lite
THEME: how to turn our information and data
into [applied] knowledge?
Federal Project Manager’s Report
The Puget Sound Nearshore project is seeking a professional
services firm to help us complete the General Investigation
culminating in a Feasibility Report. The firm's staff will
augment our teams as we investigate solutions for sound-wide
restoration problems in the nearshore.
The Nearshore Project Management Team stresses that it is
very important to the integrity of the procurement process
for all firms to be treated fairly and equally. The attached
file describes the terms of the contract and the criteria
we will use to select the firm from the proposals. A single
point-of-contact (POC) has been established for all questions:
Mr. Scott Britt, whose information is provided in the file.
You must direct the individuals who are asking you questions
about what is expected of the firm, the types of disciplines
(or individuals) we are seeking, advice on proposal preparation,
etc. to the POC.
A six-person evaluation team will meet, tentatively April
17-19, to evaluate the proposals and select the best firm.
Our task order for change analysis is largely done since last
fall and we are tentatively scheduling award before the Ft
Worden Retreat, now scheduled for June 5-7. We may task the
contractor to attend a portion of the retreat to introduce
them to the team.
Valued Ecosystem Component White Papers:
The Project Management Team has agreed to look for another
group to publish the VEC white papers. Sea Grant has encouraged
the PMT that the right people are positioned to do the publication.
Unfortunately, the seven remaining papers will not be ready
for the Georgia Basin/PS research conference.
Staff Transitions:
Sheshu Vaddey, the Corps GIS expert, will return to Seattle
for three months and Miriam has tasked him to begin to re-work
the CommEnSpace data set into a more useful, scalable version
for the comprehensive Change Analysis beginning this summer
with the new contractor.
Strategic Needs Assessment Report:
A one-day workshop was held on March 16 to examine every
Accounting Unit by an interdisciplinary team. The results
will populate a second-generation of a provocative multi-variant
analysis that begins to cluster groups of shoreline into logical
clusters for SNAR considerations. This workshop should help
the Implementation Team who is preparing a next draft of the
SNAR by mid-April based on their earlier work and the UW class’
results where they examined future drivers along the WRIA9
shoreline.
Nearshore Science Team Report – Fred Goetz
Future Without Project (FWOP): Marina Alberti, Urban Ecology
Group and the Nearshore Science Team is ending Phase I and
beginning Phase II. The next step is development of hypotheses
about scenarios (step before developing models). 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
Presentation and discussion on Change Analysis
report
Some (few) corrections being considered, e.g., use of modern
stream data to designate beaches in the Change Analysis report.
In general, report will summarize most findings as present
analysis, without post facto corrections. The presentation
of findings will be modified as per NST Change Analysis Work
Group recommendations (e.g., normalization). The 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.
Implementation Team Report
Salmon Recovery Funding Board (SRFB) The SRFB will be hosting
a project conference on April 26, in Tacoma to get lessons
learned information out to a broad audience. Mike Ramsey will
be leading the Nearshore track that includes a Nearshore panel
discussion and four project presentations (Wiley Slough, Nisqually
Estuary, Seahurst Park, and Grays River Conservation). Mike
presented the draft list of topics for the panel discussion
and presenters and asked for suggestions for additional topics
and possible presenters. The IT agreed with the panel discussion
topics:
- Lessons Learned – What has worked, and what has
not?
- What information are we lacking to support restoration
and protection projects?
- Where do funding processes work and not work?
Management Measures Time and funding constraints result in
slower than expected progress of this task. Development of
the Management Measures continues, however, at this time they
are a lower priority than ESRP and SNAR. As a consequence
of necessary prioritization, Management Measures may be reduced
to a descriptive paragraph in the WRIA 9 SNAR, with further
development taking place in FY08. Story lines in the WRIA9
SNAR will include MMs that may be used in restoration alternatives.
MMs (for the most part) are structural answers to loss of
function. MM technical papers should help illustrate the link
between structure and process.
Problem: There is no comprehensive list of functions and
processes.
Conceptual Model & Typology Reports have incomplete lists
of processes.
Paul Cereghino – will present at March NST asking for
a comprehensive list of process and functions. (See Attachment
3 memo from IT to the Change Analysis Work Group).
MMs sent to NST for review and discussion during the April
NST meeting are:
Dike Removal
Re-vegetation
Shoreline Armoring
Beach Nourishment
Strategic Needs Assessment Report IT can give focus of what
is needed from the data we have that tells the story of CA
and move to SNAR. How to move forward with the SNAR?
- Define categories of change.
- Find dominant changes.
- Categorize functioning.
Possible Categories:
Category 1 -
X>X - a Shore form has not transitioned from one
form to another and has not experienced changes in attributes.
Category 2 -
X>Y – a shoreform has transitioned from one
type to another. Example of real change Three Tree Point,
Closed lagoon/marsh à Barrier Beach.
Ask is this type of transition possible? For example,
an area categorized historically as a barrier beach is
now listed as a bluff-backed-beach in the current conditions
– is that possible? If no, is it a method artifact
like mapping the same area as one shore form in historical
and a different shoreform in current – but in reality
no transition has occurred.
Category 3 –
X>Ø - Change of any type of shoreform to Modified.
Need from the Change Analysis group – how to deal
with error? Available to IT for SNAR for questions Jen
Burke, UW
Category 4 –
X>X’ – The shoreform has remained the
same type, but its character has changed through changes
in its attributes, such as channelized drainage, construction
of shoreline armoring, or railroad lines. The character
of the shoreform is dependent upon the process(es) the
shore form provides.
Notes on the Wall regarding Management Measures
and Strategic Needs Assessment Report:
Role management measures (MM) papers play in larger groups
efforts. (ie restoration plan)
Not useful to continue putting effort into MM papers until
structure of other products is clear.
- May also have a role to play in prevention/land use/policy,
though this depends on how they are written.
Need a plan to track/integrate various groups/products
Is this the steering committee’s near-term task?
Item at next meeting
Context beyond GI – what product captures this?
What are steps that take us from SNAR to a justifiable (fundable)
restoration project list.
We need to know contents of restoration plan and work back
to analyses and data.
Is this a good topic for retreat [30 minute presentation
at next meeting to recap history of group on these issues?]
SNAR needs to deliver: “How much of what needs to be
done where? Gap between this and change analysis is large
and no product is defined to determine it.
When will this (or goals that define this) be created?
Need regular (graphic) check-in from Project Managers re:
goals of products and progress towards
SNAR is stalled because we don’t have a link between
shoreform changes and nearshore processes
Can a list of processes help with this?
This element of the conceptual model hasn’t been developed
Which cut is deepest? In absence of answer what will we
deliver?
Additional info/update needed from Miriam/implementation
team?
With Norm Dicks’ office:
We need a Puget Sound governance structure that:
- Has National Scale/Scope
- Demonstrates regional collaboration
- Is scientifically sound
- Issues
- Actions
- Benchmarks
The Steering Committee adjourned early due to Tim Smith not
able to make the meeting because he was meeting with the Select
Committee on Puget Sound. |
