keystone

2007-2008 Environmental Management Keystone Projects 1. “Zoo Footprints” – A 21st Century Environmental Sustainability Plan for Woodland Park Zoo, - Mithun/Woodland Park Zoo Society 2. Evaluating approaches for determining compatible uses that foster ecosystembased management in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary - NOAA 3. Assessment of Alternative and Traditional Shoreline Designs for Lake Washington - NOAA, Restoration Center 4. Salmon Recovery Strategic Adaptive Management Plan: Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 6 – Island County Marine Resources Committee Project Descriptions 1. Project Title: Zoo Footprints: Environmental Sustainability Analysis and Planning for Woodland Park Zoo Community Partner: Woodland Park Zoo Society, Mithun, Project Description: Woodland Park Zoo has been an international leader in the design of innovative animal exhibit environments since the adoption of it’s landmark Long Range Plan in 1976. In 2004 Seattle City Council approved a new Long Range Physical Development Plan for the Zoo that includes new animal exhibits, buildings and facilities resulting in a net increase of 58,000 sf of new “non-exhibit” development over the next twenty years. In 2006, Woodland Park Zoo is once again leading its industry by embarking on a landmark new study to accompany the 2004 Long Range Plan by developing the zoo’s institutional philosophy, and a scientifically-based road map to ensure that its facilities and operations will exemplify the institution’s sustainability goals as it grows into the future. The Woodland Park Zoo is a conservation organization with a mission to “save animals and their habitats through conservation leadership and engaging experiences, inspiring people to learn, care and act.” Operating the 92 acre Zoo campus, with its 1000 animals, 300 employees and 700 visitors requires significant use of natural resources. The intent of the “Zoo Footprints” project is to:    Help develop an institutional philosophy and guidelines regarding resource use and sustainability at the Zoo. Develop critical baseline information and options for short and long-term goals and implementation strategies. Create a campus-wide sustainability plan that will help significantly reduce the institution’s environmental impact over time, and ultimately serve as a model for Zoos across America and throughout the world. The project will be broken into 4 components: 1) Analysis of Existing Campus Facilities and Operations    Analysis of historical and annual water use, energy use, habitat, biomass, and greenhouse gas emissions. Analysis of past and existing governmental, institutional, and organizational (AZA) policies which have had an impact on the environmental performance of the institution (e.g. water management policies, Mayor’s Kyoto goals, ). Cost/benefit analyses of environmental measures, including costs related to facility construction and operations, including water use, energy use, and habitat and biomass issues. 2) Analysis of 20 Year Long Range Physical Development Plan    Analysis of predicted Water Use, Energy Use, Habitat, Biomass and Greenhouse Gas Emissions in a “business as usual” scenario. Analysis of predicted impacts of governmental, institutional, and organizational (AZA) policies that create either opportunities or obstacles to improving environmental performance. Cost/benefit analyses of, predicted impacts to Woodland Park Zoo including costs related to facility operations, in relation to cost of facility construction and operations, including water use, energy use, and habitat and biomass issues. 3) Goal Setting    Working with key staff, board and outside experts to develop institutional philosophy Develop alternative potential goals and evaluate consequences of these scenarios Engage key groups to establish environmental conservation goals to accompany 20 Year Long Range Physical Development Plan. 4) Campus-wide Sustainability Plan  Develop 20 Year Sustainability Plan to achieve goals o Assemble a team of experts who can evaluate existing infrastructure and develop design scenarios and renovation options for existing and new facilities to meet goals. Develop list of recommended policy revisions to allow for achievement of longterm environmental goals. Develop financial cost/benefit analysis of recommended environmental measures.   2. Project Title: Evaluating approaches for determining compatible uses that foster ecosystem-based management in the Olympic Coast National Marine Sanctuary Community Partner: NOAA Project Location: Seattle and the Olympic Peninsula of Washington. Project Description Ocean governance issues are at the leading edge of science and public policy at a global scale. Climate change, depleted fisheries stocks, impacts of marine debris, energy development, and international marine transportation are leading concerns of scientists, business, politicians, and the public. National Marine Sanctuaries are in the convergence zone of each of these issues. In Washington, the OCNMS was established to manage 3,189 square miles of ocean, almost two and a half times larger than Olympic National Park. Twenty nine species of marine mammals and scores of seabird species spend parts of their lives there; gray whales visit as part of the longest mammal migration on earth and albatross gather food to return to nestlings on mid-Pacific islands and atolls. Sea otters forage on macro-invertebrates such as urchins, which in turn graze on kelp forests. Fishes occupy myriad niches from the deepest ocean canyons to the shallowest tide pools. The human story is equally important. For millennia, Native American cultures have lived in a unique relationship with the ocean. And beginning in the 16th century, European exploration and eventually settlement have left a compelling historical legacy on the Olympic Coast. OCNMS’ relationship with federally recognized tribes is unique within NOAA’s National Marine Sanctuary Program. The trust responsibility of OCNMS to the Hoh, Makah, Quileute tribes and Quinault Nation is articulated in several judicial decisions, OCNMS regulations and in Executive Order 13175 of November 6, 2000, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal Governments. These laws, executive orders, and court rulings have a significant bearing on a number of Sanctuary policies and regulations, including special provisions of OCNMS regulations and permitting procedures as they affect Tribes. This includes the provision allowing the permitting of a prohibited activity that promotes the welfare of one of these tribes, if the activity is found to not substantially injure sanctuary resources. Marine Sanctuaries are areas of multiple use, impossible to fence off from their surroundings. Ships transit the sanctuary, commercial fisheries take place, native people carry out traditional activities, urban dwellers recreate there, scientists explore its depths, and business seek to develop its resources. Sanctuaries cannot be managed in isolation; they must be managed in the context of the ecosystem in which they reside. In fact, the National Marine Sanctuaries Act is one of the first pieces of ocean legislation to promote ecosystem approaches to management in the U.S. The challenge in this context is to craft a Sanctuary management plan that incorporates polices grounded in science that are compatible with ecosystem based management goals but do not loose sight of the economics of ocean-dependent use. This Keystone Project seeks to put Environmental Management Graduate students in the crux of this dilemma. The OCNMS is dealing with a broad range of compatible use issues that are relevant to the Keystone project. One example is a wave energy demonstration project that would generate electricity from buoys placed in the Sanctuary. While this particular project is relatively small in scope, a commercial scale project could cover a much larger area. Such a project would create a complex intersection of science, policy, and economic issues to consider:       What are the ecological impacts of a large scale buoy field? What is the potential impact of buoys on fish, bird, and mammal migration? Is it appropriate to grant exclusive commercial access to a sanctuary resource? Should there be a commercial gain to the sanctuary for the project? Should preference be given to commercial activities that offset climate change? How does tribal participation influence the compatibility determination? This Keystone Project will engage Environmental Management students in developing approaches for evaluating compatible uses within a National Marine Sanctuary. The work will require researching methods, considering public opinion, and understanding conflicting agendas. The Keystone Project will flow along three interwoven paths, depending in part on the backgrounds of specific students on the project team, with a focus on the OCNMS. The project components are: 1. Working with Sanctuary staff to support preparation of a Scoping Summary Document and to develop white papers on critical issues as a component of the OCNMS Management Plan review. The student team will participate in public meetings and work with Sanctuary staff to characterize and prioritize the critical issues. 2. Evaluating compatible use determinations in Sanctuaries. This would start by looking at examples issues such as submarine cables and renewable energy, in combination with research on what is being done by other sanctuaries, agencies, and countries. 3. Investigating the scientific, economic, and policy issues associated with renewable energy development in Sanctuaries. This would examine issues such as exclusive use of a Sanctuary, tradeoffs with respect to global warming, conflicting use, and designation of new sanctuaries. Project goals and objectives: (What is to be accomplished and why?): Goal: Determine how to best guide management polices for determine compatible uses in National Marine Sanctuaries. Objectives:    Understand the intersection between science, policy, commerce in evaluating compatible uses within or affecting a national marine sanctuary; Evaluate the relevance of approaches for resolving compatible use issues in terrestrial areas to marine managed areas; and Examine how a public meeting process can help to identify approaches for incorporating ecosystem-based management principles into a sanctuary management plan. 3. Project Title: Assessment of Alternative and Traditional Shoreline Designs for Lake Washington Partner Organization: National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA), Restoration Center Project Location: Lake Washington, King County, WA Project Description: NOAA, SDPD and SPU propose to work with the University of Washington’s Program on the Environment to address the data gaps identified during the 2006-2007 project. These include: 1. How do the construction and long-term maintenance costs of softshorelines compare with those of more traditional shoreline designs (i.e. riprap and bulkheads); 2. How effective are alternative shoreline designs at attenuating erosion and protecting private property in comparison to the more traditional structures; 3. What are the various regulatory hurdles involved with constructing an alternative shoreline versus traditional bulkheads; and 4. How effective are the different shoreline approaches at providing habitat and restoring ecological functioning. These assessments comparing soft-shoreline designs with traditional designs will provide important information for collaborating with private landowners and the construction community. Each of these information gaps is an interdisciplinary question that draws on two or three of the main Program on the Environment dimension areas of business, science, and policy as outlined below. Business (needed to address gap 1) To compare the costs of construction and long-term maintenance of soft shorelines and traditional bulkheads, the group will need to conduct research and interview the construction community to identify prevailing rates for materials as well as time needed to construct different shoreline designs. The group should also think outside of the box when evaluating costs for construction and long-term maintenance. Incentives and grants for soft-shoreline construction must be incorporated into this assessment as well as the potential for landowners to collaborate with neighbors and local jurisdictions to link projects and thus share or reduce mobilization and other costs. Science (needed to address gaps 1, 2 & 4) Soft-shoreline design is relatively new to the Lake Washington area; the assessments will need to draw from existing soft-shoreline projects along Lake Washington. If there is a lack of information on Lake Washington projects, the group may need to pull information from other lake communities. Other lakes may have different structural characteristics and forces, such as erosion, fetch, and sediment sources; therefore, the group will need to use scientific understanding to be able to relate the success and costs of projects along other lakes to potential projects along Lake Washington. Comparing the effectiveness of soft-shoreline techniques and traditional bulkhead designs for protecting private property against erosion and providing critical habitat will require a background in engineering and fisheries or at least an understanding of these basic scientific principles. Policy (needed to address gap 1 & 3) The gap assessments will feed directly into the outreach and educational approaches of a number of local and federal agencies. As a result, policy is inherent in the application of each information gap. More specifically, an understanding of regulatory requirements surrounding shoreline construction is necessary to properly account for construction and maintenance costs because some techniques may require a higher level of monitoring or additional permits. As part of these assessments, the group should keep in mind potential policy recommendations that agencies and local jurisdictions could implement to further encourage the use of more natural shoreline designs. Some of this information can be drawn from the work of the 2006-2007 Program on the Environment group. Project goals and objectives: To be effective resource managers, local, state and federal agencies must start to work proactively with a variety of stakeholders including private landowners and the construction community to develop and implement effective land management strategies that benefit threatened resources and habitats as well as private citizens. Soft-shoreline construction has the potential to restore critical functioning habitat to Lake Washington while protecting private property. However, more information about these alternative construction methods, such as their immediate and long-term costs, permitting hurdles and ability to attenuate erosive forces and provide good habitat, is needed before many private landowners will be willing to undertake these new construction practices. By conducting an assessment of alternative shoreline designs and comparing them to the more traditional stabilization methods, UW will provide NOAA, SDPD, and SPU some of the tools necessary to proactively encourage ecologically friendly shoreline construction and management on private property. 4. Project Title: Salmon Recovery Strategic Adaptive Management Plan: Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 6 Organization: Island County Marine Resource Committee (MRC) Project Location: WRIA 6/Island County Project Description: Island County’s Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 6 has many active projects related to salmon recovery but no systematic, strategic and adaptive method to prioritize future work. The Governor and state leaders have placed a high value on restoring key aspects of Puget Sound. Salmon recovery is one vital element. WRIA 6’s missing salmon recovery link is a strategic, adaptive plan that would synthesize and analyze scientific data, and recommend a related public policy plan and a business vision of marketing research, social marketing and appropriate operational tools such as financing and management. The resulting adaptive management plan will guide the Marine Resource Committee (MRC) as it works to restore salmon to the nearshore. It will also address Goal 4, Objective 3 of the Island County Salmon Recovery Plan (SRP), within. Water Resource Inventory Area (WRIA) 6. The MRC has many existing tools and assets for prospective interns to use and optimize in the project’s deliverables. Over the past few years the MRC has collected and manages many important data sets related to local marine resources. Those data sets include current assessments of eel grass beds; forage fish use information, juvenile salmon habits, as well as other important information. Beyond access to data, interns will also find available a strong network of scientists, community leaders and scientific, government and business organizations to draw upon in completing the project. The project will support local salmon recovery by developing an adaptive management plan. The project will incorporate science, policy and business dimensions by:    Scientific integration and analysis of related WRIA 6 salmon recovery data and projects resulting in prioritized current and future projects Providing policy recommendations for the MRC, local government and other agencies to help optimize public processes and decision making for salmon recovery Business and management improvement through marketing research, social marketing and improved financing and management functions. The goals of the adaptive management plan for the WRIA 6 Salmon Recovery Plan include identifying indicators of progress, identifying potential thresholds that could cause changes in program activities, and collaboratively identifying monitoring structures for monitoring indicators and making decisions if thresholds are reached. By-products of the adaptive management plan include assessing active salmon recovery projects ranging from landowner forums to physical restoration actions that are being conducted by WSU/Shore Stewards, Island County MRC, Island County Planning Department, Island County Parks Department, Skagit River System Cooperative, Whidbey Island Conservation District, Whidbey Watershed Stewards, Whidbey Camano Land Trust, and Washington State Parks. Further, it will recommend how to prioritize and continue the most valuable projects and how to strategically plan for the next phases of those projects. Next, the plan will provide policy guidance. The MRC will use this to work with local decision makers and agency staff of local government to prioritize needed policy efforts. Finally, the plan will use contemporary business practices to conduct citizen marketing research to determine attitudes and behaviors of the community and recommend how to integrate those findings into later social marketing plans. Social marketing will focus on the many residents of Island County who are not aware of their marine resources, how to value them and what contributions they make directly to their lives as well as indirectly to residents of the entire Puget Sound region. Underlying those social marketing objectives will be habitat and specie focused marketing of the unique assets of Island County marine waters as well as other objectives determined by intern initial marketing research findings. All these results will be underpinned by the recommended business operational tools of how to optimize project financing and management. Project goals and objectives: (What is to be accomplished and why?): The project’s goal is to support salmon recovery in WRIA 6 by implementing a strategic adaptive management plan. Specifically, the adaptive management plan for the SRP will identify indicators of progress, identify potential thresholds that could cause changes in program activities, and collaboratively identify structure for monitoring indicators and making decisions if thresholds are reached. The project’s three main objectives are:    Scientific integration and analysis of related WRIA 6 salmon recovery data and projects resulting in a prioritization of efforts and recommended plan for future phases and new projects Policy recommendations for MRC, local government and other agencies for optimized public processes and decision making for citizen involvement, resource protection and salmon recovery Marketing improvement through implementation of marketing research, social marketing results, as well as improved business operations through implementation of recommended improvements in finance and management functions.