Peter Hummel, ASLA, - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

1 / 56
About This Presentation
Title:

Peter Hummel, ASLA,

Description:

Peter Hummel, ASLA, Anchor Environmental. Living with the Nearshore: Beaches, Seawalls and What lies ... Embayment. Ecological Functions of Nearshore Habitats ... – PowerPoint PPT presentation

Number of Views:41
Avg rating:3.0/5.0
Slides: 57
Provided by: sar6212
Category:
Tags: asla | embayment | hummel | peter

less

Transcript and Presenter's Notes

Title: Peter Hummel, ASLA,


1
(No Transcript)
2
Living with the Nearshore Beaches, Seawalls and
What lies in Between
Presented to
University of Washington Department of Landscape
Architecture
Prepared by
Peter Hummel, ASLA, Anchor Environmental
May 13, 2005
3
Presentation Overview
  • Understanding the Nearshore
  • Blending Human Uses with Habitat
  • Nearshore Project Examples
  • Summary-Key Questions
  • Questions and Discussion

4
Understanding the Nearshore
  • What is the Nearshore
  • Nearshore Physical Processes
  • Ecological Functions of the Nearshore
  • Location in the Landscape
  • Habitat Modifications and Effects

5
Understanding the Nearshore
Source King County Department of Natural
Resources
6
Nearshore Physical Processes
Source http//meted.ucar.edu/marine/ripcurrents/N
SF/print.htm
7
Understanding Waves
Source http//meted.ucar.edu/marine/ripcurrents/N
SF/print.htm
8
(No Transcript)
9
Sediment Supply
  • Drift cell based
  • Sediment supply potential
  • none ? high
  • low ? exceptional
  • moderate
  • Sediment supply connectivity
  • none ? moderate
  • low ? high

10
SedimentSupplyAnalysis
11
Essential Functions of Nearshorefor Juvenile
Salmon
  • Food Production
  • Predator Refuge
  • Physiological Refuge
  • High-energy Refuge
  • Migratory Corridor

12
Ecological Functions of Nearshore Habitats Ecological Functions of Nearshore Habitats Ecological Functions of Nearshore Habitats Ecological Functions of Nearshore Habitats Ecological Functions of Nearshore Habitats
Food Resources Predator Refuge Physiol. Refuge Energy Refuge Migration Corridor
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Embayment
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Forage Fish Distributions
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Eelgrass
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Proximity to Salmon Trib.
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Emergent Marsh
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Riparian Overhang
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Intertidal Vegetation
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Extended Segment Importance in habitat-forming processes Importance in habitat-forming processes Importance in habitat-forming processes Importance in habitat-forming processes Importance in habitat-forming processes
Beneficial Habitat Parameters Habitat Type/ Sediment Sup. Unquantified importance / importance in habitat-forming processes Unquantified importance / importance in habitat-forming processes Unquantified importance / importance in habitat-forming processes Unquantified importance / importance in habitat-forming processes Unquantified importance / importance in habitat-forming processes
Notes This attribute only applied for
shoreline segments identified as having
exceptional or high sediment supply
potential Yellow text Habitat parameters that
receive a weighting factor
13
Landscape Position South Sound
14
LandscapePosition Seattle
15
Nearshore Habitat Modifications Effects
Conceptual Model
Impacts
Controlling Factors
HabitatStructures
HabitatProcesses
Juvenile Salmonid Needs
  • Shoreline modifications
  • Pollution
  • Depth
  • Substrate
  • Slope
  • Light
  • Salinity
  • Vegetation
  • Vegetation density
  • Vegetation biomass
  • Diversity
  • Patch size and shape
  • Landscape position
  • Production
  • Shading
  • Sediment flux
  • Nutrient flux
  • Food production
  • Predator Refuge
  • Physiological Refuge
  • Energy Refuge
  • Migratory Corridor

Source Williams and Thom (2001)
16
Blending Human Uses with Habitat
  • Habitat Perspective
  • How Good and How Altered
  • Human Use Perspective
  • Existing Proposed Uses and Facilities
  • Space and Property Lines
  • Cost/Benefits
  • Feasibility
  • Restoration Versus Enhancement of Specific
    Ecological Functions

17
Restoration Prioritization
Site Features
Habitat Opportunities
Habitat Constraints
Site Location
Landscape Considerations
Habitat Improvement Potential
No Action- Conserve Site
Park Use Constraints
Park Use Opportunities
Combined Improvement Potential
Restoration Feasibility
  • Reach Restoration Priority
  • No Action- Conserve Site
  • High Priority
  • Medium Priority
  • Low Priority
  • No Action- Use Conflict

Source Seattle Parks Shoreline Inventory and
Habitat Assessment
18
Results of Prioritization
19
How Good and How Altered
20
Restoration Example Rainier Beach Lake Park
21
Rainier Beach Lake ParkRestoration Opportunities
22
Rainier Beach Design Concept
23
Rainier Beach Design Concept
24
Restoration Example Martha Washington Park
Existing Conditions
25
Martha Washington ParkRestoration Opportunities
26
Martha Washington Design Concept
27
Martha Washington Design Concept
28
Martha Washington Park Construction
29
Martha Washington ParkCompletion
30
Restoration Example Seahurst Park
  • Microcosm of Puget Sound Shoreline Habitats
  • Habitat Forming Processes Restoration Opportunity
  • Shoreline and Park Master Plan

31
Shoreline Restoration Goals
  • Preserve
  • existing functioning nearshore habitats
  • Remove
  • existing shoreline protection structures
  • Model
  • restored beach slopes and substrates after
    natural on-site and adjacent reference beaches
  • Replenish
  • gravel and sand lost to bulkhead induced erosion
  • Restore
  • and protect the natural hillside sediment
    delivery paths

32
Station 1000 Pre-Construction
33
Station 1000 Construction(Sand/Gravel over Base
Gravel)
34
Station 1000 Completed Beach
35
Lower Beach Rock Removal
Mid Project Before
Mid Project After
36
Beach Monitoring Initial Results
Beach Profiles 1973, 2004, 2005
Beach Sediment Sample
Source Johannessen, Coastal Geologic Services,
2005
37
Required Biological Monitoring Pre-Project
Initial Results
Eelgrass Survey
Forage Fish Monitoring
38
Desirable Biological Pre-Project Monitoring
Initial Results
Location Comparisons
Epibenthic On-Site Sampling
Source Toft, UW Wetland Ecosystem Team, 2005
39
Restoration Example Squalicum Waterway
Existing Conditions
40
Restoration Example Dickman Mill Park
41
(No Transcript)
42
(No Transcript)
43
Restoration Example Golden Gardens Park
44
(No Transcript)
45
Terracing Example Sunnyside Beach Park
46
Terracing Example Thea Foss Esplanade
47
(No Transcript)
48
(No Transcript)
49
Terracing Example Theas Park
50
(No Transcript)
51
Seawall Beach Fill Example Seacrest Park
52
Seawall Beach Fill Example Olympic Sculpture Park
53
(No Transcript)
54
(No Transcript)
55
Summary-Key Questions
  • What is the Position of the Site in the Larger
    Nearshore Landscape?
  • What were the Sites Historic Conditions and
    Ecological Functions?
  • Can Habitat Forming Processes be Restored?
  • What are the Spatial Requirements of Existing and
    Proposed Human Uses and Facilities?
  • What are the Costs/Benefits of Restoration at
    This Site?
  • What Specific Ecological Functions can the
    Project Enhance?

56
Questions and Discussion
Write a Comment
User Comments (0)
About PowerShow.com