< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
21 December 2006

Venue:

Dean’s Conference Room, Ocean Sciences Building, University of Washington

Attendance:

Si Simenstad (UW), Fred Goetz (USACE), Hugh Shipman (DOE), Tom Mumford (DOE), Miles Logsdon (UW), Jan Newton (UW), Curtis Tanner (USFWS), Kurt Fresh (NOAA Fisheries), Tom Leschine (UW), Randy Shuman (METROKingCo), Bernie Hargraves (USACE)

Guests:

Miriam Gilmer (USACE)

Primary Meeting Topics:

(1) GIS data management meeting
(2) Future Without Project case studies

GIS Data Management:

  • Miriam Gilmer and Miles Logsdon described the results of the GIS Data Management Meeting held December 14, 2006 at Corps. Frank Roberts, Coeur d'Alene Tribe, and Phil Bloch, WSDOT, facilitated the meeting. Frank presented metadata standards/principles based on Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) template.
  • Dale Gombert brought over-water structure dataset to use as an exercise in metadata development for PSNERP. They found that the dataset has many problems with it since metadata was not developed, e.g., boat ramps are categorized into fill and thus they can’t be extracted as a separate data file. Agency people don’t understand how data will be used, much less the need to deal with metadata, archiving, delivery, etc.
  • A data partnership is needed to develop a language on sharing data, where each and every dataset will have a steward to care for the data for the partnership. If the creating organization, or if no one owns it, does not want to care for it over time, someone else in the partnership will be responsible. Once done, we will have a thesaurus, dictionary of data in common data/metadata language describing what is meant by data, how it will be used, who is steward of the data, it will be a shared data set by various organizations. This is not “standardization” but rather development of common data/metadata language.
  • NST needs to provide required field descriptions for FGDC fields, and decide what optional fields we will use, and we need to be specific of what words (language) we use to fill in the fields. Should start with Change Analysis data, and perhaps transition to Future Without Project data? NOTE: This MUST be done before we scale up Change Analysis to comprehensive Puget Sound scale.
  • USGS is very interested in being ‘mega-steward’ of Sound-wide data.

    Fundamental steps:

    1. Identify data
    2. Identify data steward
    3. Assess data
    4. Create/modify/assess metadata
    5. Validate metadata via. stylesheet (template)
    6. If necessary, edit the metadata to bring it into conformity; or add aliases

  • Identified need for follow-on meeting to better structure how to move forward, including a scoping or discussion meeting with NST members creating data so we can create metadata that is useful for doing Change Analysis. Miles offered to host a working lunch with Theresa Fuentes (USACE), Tracey (USGS), Jen Burke, Chris Davis, Phil Bloch, etc. to come up with list of terms to define NST Change Analysis shoreform change data; suggested that this lead to GIS data leadership team of Miriam, Tracey and Jen Burke (+ Phil Bloch?).

Future Without Project (FWOP) Case Studies:

  • Kurt posed critical questions that NST should be addressing: 1. How do we provide focus and guidance to Marina’s group to move them towards a product that relates to the nearshore Puget Sound. 2. What is NST looking for in future’s analysis? What are other approaches we could use? and, 3. What are explicit uses for FWOP case studies?
  • How can we use case studies?
    • explore data that isn’t sound wide so we can extrapolate sound-wide;
    • test hypothesis of how stressor affects a nearshore ecosystem attribute, so you will know importance and predictability of assumption;
    • describe public attitudes about shoreline armoring and how does it varies around Puget Sound.
  • There is an important definition of the case study method as research method: as originated in social sciences, a case study approach is selected when complexity and interactions of multiple things cannot be defined, to expose variance within relationships. Goal is to use case with expressly stated hypothesis of what should happen, and then describe variation that occurs by exposing all the elements involved in interaction (exposing relationships between objects). It might be considered similar to a hindcast—looking at things that already occurred with variability amongst them.
  • A primary goal of case study analysis is to illuminate temporal resolution of change - Studies within a place that would give finer resolution of change over time, more frequent time intervals.
  • Exploration of important case study issues or topics for Change Analysis or FWOP?
    • understand the drivers of change and how applicable they are to the future, and spatial variability;
    • explore the social drivers FWOP identified that will result in shoreline change;
    • understand human attitudes about nearshore and relate them to potential/future physical structural change in the nearshore;
    • explore how drivers (within each scenario) will effect shoreline change by each of the systems (estuary/shoreline);
    • link the identified drivers that influence various processes and then explore changes in processes; and,
    • explore spatial resolution of the alternative drivers.
  • There’s a fundamental agreement that PSNERP wants to know future condition in terms related to change in “ecosystem goods & services” or “ecosystem functions” in comparison between future without and future with restoration scenarios. The NST needs to define ecosystem goods & services/functions that the Corps will evaluate as a result of changes in nearshore structure; this will involve considerably more than VECs (VECs cover but one or two of the oft-cited 23 regulation, production, habitat and information functions.
  • Having Marina deconstruct the VEC conceptual models finding multiple functions linked to a nearshore ecosystem structure would be a good initial step forward but the NST needs to make sure other goods&services/functions are addressed and to relate structures identified in VEC conceptual models to Change Analysis structure?
  • Happy Holidays!