< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
22-23 March 2005

Venue:

WDFW Offices, 2nd Floor Conference Room, 600 Capitol Way North, Olympia, WA

Attendance:

Si Simenstad (UW), Doug Meyers (PSAT), Fred Goetz (ACOE), Hugh Shipman (DOE), Tom Mumford (DOE), Tom Leschine (UW), Guy Gelfenbaum (USGS), Curtis Tanner (USFWS), Kurt Fresh (NOAA Fisheries), Phebe Drinker (UW)

Guests: Beth Coffey (USACE), Mariam Gilmur (USACE); Emily Howe (UW)

Primary Meeting Topics:

(1) Update on Change Analysis Working Group
(2) Discussion and revision of Strategic Needs Assessment concepts and outline
(3) Science Morning: Eelgrass and Kelp VEC White Paper (Tom Mumford, WDNR)
(4) Initial conceptualization and discussion of approaches to Case Studies

Change Analysis Working Group (Si):

  • Discussion reached ‘relative’ consensus of how change analysis would be organized by two nearshore regimes: beach (wave energy, sedimentation processes) and delta (fluvial-tidal mixing processes). The division of these regimes would be fixed based for both historic and current conditions, but we will document potential changes in process-based subunits in both regimes, e.g., estuarine salinity/hydrology regimes. We also agreed tentatively that fundamental units for the beach regime would be delineated by ShoreZone division, and hence aggregated up to beach accounting units.
  • Moderate sized estuarine embayments that historically had estuarine wetlands may be analyzed under both regime approaches; this may result in small gaps in the analysis associated with “beach” accounting unit (WG will investigate a procedure that ensures it is captured).

Strategic Needs Assessment Report (SNAR) (Beth Coffey):

  • Beth provided the SNAR context to the Feasibility Report, in which it covers (a) the problem definition and (b) information gathering on historical, exist, and future without project conditions, that together constitute Phase II of the process. Phase III, completing the Feasibility Report, covers (c) development of plans, alternatives, and portfolio of restoration actions, (d) comparison of these plans alternatives and portfolios, and (e) selection and recommendation of the final plan.
  • A broad, collaborative discussion revolved walking through the draft (IT based) outline that Beth provided. Some of the key recommendations involved:
    • Need to incorporate critical ‘regional’ conditions and change descriptions and analyses, such as environmental (e.g., climate), historical and cultural, and social.
    • Addition of case studies that are not comprehensive across Puget Sound but that provide value-added insight and depth into frequency of change, differentiation between anthropogenic change and natural variability, etc.
    • Emphasis on the logic sequence in our analyses, rather than the products per se, where the products are described (in detail in some cases) as tools to address the relationships between nearshore ecosystem processes, structure, functions, goods and services and (peripherally) VECs
    • In most cases, while VECs were cited as examples to translate these relationships, their role in SNAR was considered to be more appropriate for the Conclusions and Recommendations (e.g., implications) and, more directly, the Phase III part of the process.
  • This discussion resulted in a modest reorganization of the SNAR report outline, albeit keeping most of the fundamental components
  • However, the NST emphasized critical gaps in the existing outline, that should be incorporated into the next revision, including change analysis emphasizing just as much about what is intact as what has changed, and more social values (change) analyses and context.

Science Morning (Tom Mumford): Eelgrass and Kelp (VEC)

  • Take-home points:
    • For both kelps and eelgrass, it is important to realize that all life history phases occur in nearshore ecosystems, and that they are photosynthetic benthic plants very dependent on nearshore conditions
    • Upper tidal elevation distribution dictated by sensitivity to desiccation and lower elevation (depth) distribution by light (turbidity effects on)
    • Important to know that kelps have sporophyte and gametophyte stages
    • Limits on distribution are relatively unknown, e.g., Nereocystis kelps in Hood Canal and eelgrass in southern Puget Sound basin
  • Social Values of Kelp: wide use in other parts of the world as food
    • Historically harvested Macrosystis for herring roe.
    • Large source of chemicals, i.e., alginates
    • Harvest is concentrated on young and attached plants.
  • Status and trends:
    • While eelgrass abundance and distribution is stable Sound-wide, notable declines have been recently noted in embayments in several regions (notably Hood Canal and San Juan Islands); see previous Science Morning presentation
    • Thom and Hallum show 400% increase in kelps 1850-1990, but serious issues about quality of data, and some indications of decline in Nereocystis in central PS
  • Need to incorporate landscape-scale attributes, e.g., patchiness, links to drift cells and sources of sedimentispersal of kelp gametophyte and of eelgrass seeds.
    • Landscape scale attributes important to functions for other ecosystem factors (i.e. conductivity of eelgrass; importance to ecosystem functions; importance to salmon?)
    • Both kelp and eelgrass act as ecosystem engineers in terms of providing important structure that itself modifies ecosystem processes (e.g., hydrodynamics)
  • Major information needs:
    • The >600 taxa of seaweeds in Puget Sound are not addressed at all
    • Factors limiting distribution, particularly eelgrass and floating kelps
    • kelp and eelgrass functions, such as in food webs, nutrient cycling, etc.
    • Effects of different types of stressors on plants and their function

Case Studies: (all)

  • SNAR tells us what’s broken and why, and case studies would expand on synoptic change analysis would help us to really understand why we would choose particular restoration actions, e.g., what happened and why it happened
  • Case studies would also allow us more opportunity to identify scales of natural variability
  • Initial exploration of what case studies will constitute, and what role they will play in SNAR highlighted the primary “types” of cases studies, e.g. (a) examples of finer temporal- or spatial-scale change; (b) functional relationships between ecosystem structure and processes; (c) social values; (d) traditional values; (e) VEC link to nearshore ecosystem processes
  • Criteria for case studies might include: (a) Can be well documented, (b) is it compelling – easily understood by a national audience; (c) is there sufficient historic data; (d) is it linked to the ecological function or VEC that we care about; and (e) inform us where restoration can be most effective.