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 ecosystem-
based 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 long-
term 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 soft-
shorelines 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.