Presentation Abstract
The construction of seawalls and similar structures along Puget Sound’s shoreline impacts geomorphic processes and ecological functions. The extent of shoreline armor has been adopted by the Puget Sound Partnership as a vital sign indicator, is used by local, state, and federal groups as a measure of ecosystem function, and has been employed as a tool for prioritizing restoration actions.
As a result, we recognized the importance of accurately characterizing the extent, character, and distribution of shoreline armor. The objectives of our project were to review existing data sources, assess methodologies, identify gaps in data quality or coverage, and to recommend steps for developing a reliable baseline for future monitoring and analyses.
Previous efforts have suggested that approximately 27% of the region’s 4000 km of shoreline is armored, but our ability to answer important questions has been hampered by the quality and consistency of datasets, poorly documented methodologies, and the ability to relate armor with other shoreline information. In particular, we had difficulty associating armor with its geomorphic setting – bluffs and spits, small estuaries, river deltas, and artificial human landscapes – which greatly influences ecological impacts, management decisions, and restoration strategies.
We noted the need for clear definitions and protocols for mapping and characterizing shoreline structures. Some attributes, such as condition and waterward extent, are ecologically important but difficult to measure. Environmentally friendlier soft or hybrid structures are particularly hard to identify and categorize.
Our preliminary results provide a clearer picture of where armoring occurs and where there remain significant problems with data reliability and geographic consistency. We have begun a collaborative process to develop a high quality regional dataset of shoreline armor that will provide better understanding of the impacts of existing armor, a reliable baseline for assessing future change, and a tool to support prioritization for protection and restoration.
Session Title
Integrating Science with Landowner Outreach to Increase Coastal Resiliency
Conference Track
Shorelines
Conference Name
Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference (2016 : Vancouver, B.C.)
Document Type
Event
Start Date
2016 12:00 AM
End Date
2016 12:00 AM
Location
2016SSEC
Type of Presentation
Oral
Genre/Form
conference proceedings; presentations (communicative events)
Contributing Repository
Digital content made available by University Archives, Heritage Resources, Western Libraries, Western Washington University.
Subjects – Topical (LCSH)
Shore protection--Washington (State)--Puget Sound; Shorelines--Washington (State)--Puget Sound; Coastal zone management--Washington (State)--Puget Sound
Geographic Coverage
Salish Sea (B.C. and Wash.); Puget Sound (Wash.)
Rights
This resource is displayed for educational purposes only and may be subject to U.S. and international copyright laws. For more information about rights or obtaining copies of this resource, please contact University Archives, Heritage Resources, Western Libraries, Western Washington University, Bellingham, WA 98225-9103, USA (360-650-7534; heritage.resources@wwu.edu) and refer to the collection name and identifier. Any materials cited must be attributed to the Salish Sea Ecosystem Conference Records, University Archives, Heritage Resources, Western Libraries, Western Washington University.
Type
Text
Language
English
Format
application/pdf
Included in
Fresh Water Studies Commons, Marine Biology Commons, Natural Resources and Conservation Commons
Armoring on Puget Sound: Progress towards a better baseline
2016SSEC
The construction of seawalls and similar structures along Puget Sound’s shoreline impacts geomorphic processes and ecological functions. The extent of shoreline armor has been adopted by the Puget Sound Partnership as a vital sign indicator, is used by local, state, and federal groups as a measure of ecosystem function, and has been employed as a tool for prioritizing restoration actions.
As a result, we recognized the importance of accurately characterizing the extent, character, and distribution of shoreline armor. The objectives of our project were to review existing data sources, assess methodologies, identify gaps in data quality or coverage, and to recommend steps for developing a reliable baseline for future monitoring and analyses.
Previous efforts have suggested that approximately 27% of the region’s 4000 km of shoreline is armored, but our ability to answer important questions has been hampered by the quality and consistency of datasets, poorly documented methodologies, and the ability to relate armor with other shoreline information. In particular, we had difficulty associating armor with its geomorphic setting – bluffs and spits, small estuaries, river deltas, and artificial human landscapes – which greatly influences ecological impacts, management decisions, and restoration strategies.
We noted the need for clear definitions and protocols for mapping and characterizing shoreline structures. Some attributes, such as condition and waterward extent, are ecologically important but difficult to measure. Environmentally friendlier soft or hybrid structures are particularly hard to identify and categorize.
Our preliminary results provide a clearer picture of where armoring occurs and where there remain significant problems with data reliability and geographic consistency. We have begun a collaborative process to develop a high quality regional dataset of shoreline armor that will provide better understanding of the impacts of existing armor, a reliable baseline for assessing future change, and a tool to support prioritization for protection and restoration.
