< Back to Meeting Archives

December Meeting Summary
Wednesday, December 14 and 15, 2005
Dean’s Conference Room, Ocean Studies Building
University of Washington, Seattle

Attendance (NST):

Si Simenstad (UW), Curtis Tanner (USFWS), Fred Goetz (ACOE), Hugh Shipman (DOE), Kurt Fresh (NOAA Fisheries), Tom Mumford (DOE), Tom Leschine (UW), Bernie Hargrave (ACOE), Randy Shuman (Kind County), Guy Gelfenbaum (USGS), Megan Dethier (UW), Phebe Drinker (UW). Guests: Marina Alberti (UW), Jeff Hepinstall, Michal Russo (UW), Stephanie Madson (UW); Jim Johannessen

Day 1 December 14, 2005

Nearshore Ecosystem Processes:

Relationship to management measures

  • Curtis Tanner (CT) moving Puget Sound project list to web-accessible database: http://www.iac.wa.gov/oiac/prism.htm
  • CT showed management measure list developed by IT (25 MM) and identified that he needs NST help on nearshore processes affected by MM. NST will review MM and processes matrix during the January 2006 meeting. All tables available on NST website.

Future Without Project:

Marina Alberti Team - Marina Alberti (UW), Jeff Hepinstall, Michal Russo (UW), Stephanie Madson (UW)

  • FWO Workgroup developed a work plan that identified the UW Urban Ecology Group (UEG) to do a first phase in scoping futures analysis (FWO) for PSNERP. The scope was prepared by Marina in July 2005 and was funded by PSNERP using end of year Corps funding. It recommends Marina Alberti to begin developing a FWO scenario(s) described as Phase I in the scope. Phase I includes development of a conceptual model for futures analysis using a workshop to define the parameters of the model.
  • The FWO workgroup requested that Marina do an initial presentation to the NST so they can get a first look at what she is proposing. Marina came with her graduate student team with a powerpoint overview and to begin discussion with NST on refining/modifying her approach. The NST asked some hard questions about methods and ability to change the scope/approach now and/or in the future.
  • Marina provided an overview of their approach. They are using a human health conceptual model they developed from a PRISM model as their starting point; this model will be modified to fit the needs of PSNERP. They recommend Scenario building as the preferred futures approach to identify the parameters of our futures analysis. The approach has nine steps - Define focal issue or decision; Identify Valued Ecosystem Functions; Identify key driving forces; Rank driving forces based on importance and uncertainty; Develop Scenario Logics; Select indicators to represent ecosystem functions; Assess impacts on ecosystem functions under scenarios; Identify alternative restoration strategies; and Evaluate of alternative restoration strategies.
  • Critical questions include - Which indicator do we select? An ecological function, VEC, other. Workshop groups – include scientific and nonscientific groups to define this. Indicators must be important to people – linked to people and processes, they must be measurable, they must be sensitive to driving forces, they must also be able to discriminate between alternative restoration strategies. Selection of indicators can also be a means to identify alternative strategies based on indicators.
  • Comments, discussion and actions: The NST requested that the UEG provide more information on additional strategies (apart from models) – Marina will provide a summary report on alternative approaches by January 23; Working Group should meet with MA Team to discuss today’s meeting – FWO workgroup is planning on meeting with Marina in early February to discuss NST views and how we will proceed with approach; Model approaches need to be fully explored and discussed with the NST; Reopen membership on Future Without Workgroup to include more NST members – Guy G., Tom L. and Si S. are participating as additional members; Strengthen MA team – bring in marine expertise to compliment their landform work; Make MA Team endpoint very clear. The workshop should focus on defining parameters for Scenario Building. A critical factor is who do we involve in the workshop – experts, stakeholders?
  • NST Synopsis: We buy into idea of creating scenarios, the NST question is - what is the best method to create scenarios and once you have a scenario created how do you identify the modeling approach?

Monitoring – Guy Gelfenbaum and Tom Mumford

Guy and Tom discussed need over the long-term to develop a monitoring plan for PSNERP. This would be part of the GI Feasibility Report (Stage 3) but we should start discussing the scope of it now. In short-term the group can review restoration principles which provide a starting point.

VEC White Paper Update

  • Conceptual Model – will be explored through workshop in Jan or Feb, involving authors and NST.
  • VEC meeting with all authors, NST, and possible select Steering Committee members - March 14.

Beaches and Bluffs White Paper – Jim Johannessen

  • Jim is contracted by the Corps to complete the Beaches and Bluffs white paper. Jim met with the NST to further develop his outline for the paper. He provided an outline of the Scope of work for discussion.
  • Jim also provided a draft report as an example nearshore paper (contract report for WRIA 8 and 9) Historic Conditions for bluffs and accretion beaches including current conditions for feeder bluffs, restoration and conservation measures.
  • NST discussion included need to focus on connection between VEC to nearshore processes.
  • Selected discussion items - Bulkheading – focus of NST is on Beach/Bluff interaction – should modifications (such as bulkheading) be listed for both B&B and described together? Need to still distinguish between the effects on process of bulkheads on beaches vs. bulkheads on bluffs. Discussion variation of B&B across PS and good and bad examples – subtle and drastic changes. No new science is expected. Make sure time-scale is obvious. Include discussion of how groundwater, wave action, drift cells interact with B&B. Other
  • Deadlines for reporting - Draft Early February with final on March 3.

Day 2 December 15, 2005

Science Morning Presentation - Bioinvasions in Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration Program, Phebe Drinker

  • Phebe is the NST Graduate Student supported by PSNERP. Her master’s research is on how national ecosystem restoration programs have addressed non-native species invasions. She has had feedback from the NST on a regular basis.
  • Her research builds on and acts as an extension of the Lessons Learned investigation begun by Brie VanCleve that is a PSNERP technical report. She is reviewing other program’s invasive species control programs and is using a question and answer survey aimed at program managers and invasive species experts.
  • Phebe delivered an update on her thesis research – for a copy of her powerpoint, please contact Fred or Si.

New NST Website – Training Session

  • The UW received FY06 funding to redevelop the NST website through a series of phases with phase 1 and 2 funding provided so far. The NST went through a training session at the Fisheries Science building during the afternoon on December 15.
  • The website has a new architecture allowing for better organization of documents and allows individual users to modify, post, and download documents without need for a web-manager. This architecture could be used to reorganize the IT and Partner websites.
  • Please visit the new site at: http://sal.ocean.washington.edu/nst/index.jsp
  • The site is still under construction based on comments/additional needs from NST...so bear with us!

Revision of Research Plan

  • Tom Mumford and Guy Gelfenbaum discussed potential revisions for Research Plan based on external peer review comments.
  • Reviewers noted that - which the questions and research topics are all high priorities, but no ranking has been applied. The NST discussion noted that the plan does not have a single research question that we think should be addressed (because of multiple stressors and scenarios), nor do we think just one question should be focused on and no further prioritization should be applied.
  • The Reviewers also noted that there is no comprehensive implementation section. The research plan team is very interested in developing this section more. Discussion included how research should be implemented as well as examples of how it is being implemented - Governor’s Initiative and other efforts going on; Pew report, USCOP, Millennium Report; and show how those fit into our research scheme.