< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
27-28 June 2007

Venue:

UW campus, Seattle, WA

Attendance:

Si Simenstad (Chair; UW), Fred Goetz (USACE), Justin Boevers (UW), Kurt Fresh (NOAA), Guy Gelfenbaum (USGS), Bernie Hargraves (USACE), Miles Logsdon (UW), Tom Mumford (DOE), Randy Shuman (MetroKC), Hugh Shipman (DOE), Curtis Tanner (USFWS), and Jan Newton (UW).

Guests:

Katharine ‘Trina’ Wellman, Susan Burke and Michael Taylor (Northern Economics, Inc.), Margen Carlson, Miriam Gilmur (USACE), Jen Burke (UW)

Primary Meeting Topics:

  • Science Morning: Use of Stakeholder Involvement Process: Capitol Lake as Case Study
  • Puget Sound basins delineation
  • NST peer review recommendation to PMT
  • Reformulation of Change Analysis/SNAR workgroups
  • Formulating PSNERP goals and objectives
  • New Shoreline Armoring Workgroup (SAW)

Science Morning: Use of Stakeholder Involvement Process: Capitol Lake as Case Study:

  • Trina Wellman and Susan Burke presented on the value of comprehensive stakeholder involvement, based on study designed to evaluate whether restoration of Deschutes River estuary (Capitol Lake) is a feasible option to lake management. Study involved CLAMP steering committee (9 individuals representing 9 agencies). Objective of the study was to identify most likely socioeconomic affects of removing lake and returning the estuary.
  • They performed a net benefits analysis using a Benefits Assessment Framework to assess how people viewed changes in benefits from estuary restoration (social and economic changes resulting from biological and physical changes in estuary). They then mapped attributes to (Millenium Ecosystem Assessment Framework) ecosystem functions and services; attributes that fell outside framework that are economic impacts were addressed separately.
  • They found that many people connect to Capital Lake through cultural services. While most people don’t know about estuary function, they do care about the environment, and see the lake as a place to visit. But, stakeholders’ opinions were often opposing: mud flat vs. kayaking in an estuary; mosquitoes will be a problem vs. mudflats represent life connection with nature.
  • Respondents liked: the lack of politics involved in process; how much their input was used and considered; and, the structured framework. Conversely, the participants didn’t understand a net benefits analysis, most of whom confused it with an economic impacts assessment. Thus, the output of this analysis might not have been what sponsors were looking for.
  • Lesson learned: create a superset of restoration actions based on biological and physical assessments and then a subset of actions based on legal, regulatory, political, social, and economic realities that can be evaluated as trade-offs.
  • This analytical approach can be scaled up to Sound-wide. Likely Sound-wide, people have strong emotional attachments to a place as it is. Some stakeholders can interfere with the process; their opinion will not change. In any restoration project, you cannot achieve consensus; rather, the goal is to minimize difference between winners and losers. Perhaps the most ignificant value of stakeholder process is that some opinions are modified from interacting with others.

Puget Sound Sub-Basins Delineation:

  • PSAMP‘s latest version of the Puget Sound sub-basins (Option 6 – Hybrid Regional Management Convention, with eight basins) potentially conflicts with the seven sub-basins in Puget Sound Partnership legislation. PSNERP Steering Committee wants to start with the PSP map.
  • Concerns over sub-basins delineations center on (1) technical and (2) administrative/practical issues: Does Admiralty Inlet deserve is its own sub-region or should it be merged with the Strait of Juan de Fuca? Is there a technical rationale for splitting the Strait into two regions? Dividing sub-basins based on scientific criteria will likely confuse management arrangements.
  • The NST will prepare and submit to the PMT a list of criteria and decision rules for delineating the Puget Sound sub-basins based on PSNERP science concepts.

NST Peer-Review Recommendation to PMT:

  • Si resubmitted for consideration a recommendation to identify NST desire for a formal peer review process to be submitted to PMT and EC.
  • The NST is in full agreement about the need for a peer review process, including a programmatic review panel/committee; and, for peer review to be effective it needs to be implemented early enough in the process that the results can still affect constructive change in GI, and not just a rubber stamp. The most pressing needs for peer review are to evaluate PSNERP science strategy & direction, and programmatic structure.
  • Si will try to condense recommendation into 2-pg document in time for PMT/SC/EC review this summer.

Reformulation of Change Analysis/SNAR Workgroups:

  • Change analysis needs to start to develop/morph into SNAR, but there is some concern about a full transition from CA into SNAR, CA group still has some unfinished business (e.g., EAU, CA workplan needs to address data gaps such as 700 miles of shoreline without armoring data).
  • Some tasks should be ready for contractor (Anchor Environmenal) to move ahead with; Jen will act as liaison. The other activities will need closer inspection by the NST.
  • Suggested that we maintain a merged SNAR workgroup, with a CA (subcommittee) component. This should help to structure contractor’s work and provide opportunities to check-in. Monthly meetings at a minimum. Anchor’s main role will be CA, Anchor can observe meetings and assist with SNAR as process moves along.

Formulating Goals and Objectives:

  • Based on the Retreat, Jacques, Doug, and Tom M. would form a group to define how goals and objectives will be defined, used, etc. First task is to draft a scoping paper. What are the program needs for identifying G&O? G&O might be more defined by social preferences as opposed to scientific/ecological preferences. There isn’t a technical answer to ‘how much restoration needs to be done?’ Instead ask question ‘how much restoration needs to be done in order to (fill-in the blank)?’ Include trade-offs from restoration in discussion? Consequences are not necessary for defining G&O
  • NST hasn’t been clear to-date on establishing processes as goals and this is how to measure them. Restoration of processes is not the ultimate goal, it is the means to an end, the end being a social value. But, NST needs to be explicit on why objectives can’t be framed in quantitative terms, if this is the case.

New Shoreline Armoring Workgroup (SAW):

  • 1st meeting of group has occurred; next meeting is 7/18. Guy has draft prospectus for group
  • Propose interdisciplinary team of coastal scientists to review existing science on coastal ecosystem processes related to shoreline armoring in Puget Sound (much information exists on open coasts, but not protected waters).
  • Before moving much further, need resolution on budgets, NST recommendations, and PMT support. PMT supports idea, but needs specifics before writing checks.
  • There was some concerned expressed that resources might be taken away from GI to work on armoring studies; conversely, there was some anticipation that the USGS should fund this study.
  • Si has given approval to proceed as planned until final decisions come from PMT or SC.