< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
9-10 November 2005

Attendance:

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

Guests: Jim Brennan (WSG)

Primary Meeting Topics

(1) Research Questions/Research Plan
(2) Monitoring Plan
(3) Update on VEC white papers
(4) Science Morning: Tom Leschine--social-economic benefits of restoration and public response to restoration

Research Questions/Research Plan:

  • Fundamental decision: Bring closure and “release”
  • Best use will be as “living appendix” to Research Plan; Tom and Guy feel that research questions could belong in Plan, but implementation is still lacking; Research Plan has already gone through major review
  • Review of Research Plan was based on four questions:
    • (1) Will the Plan result in increased knowledge about Puget Sound ecosystem and reduce risk in taking restoration actions?
    • (2) Does the Plan meet the stated objective through its six research goals to identify the research and information gaps that need to be addressed?
    • (3) Does the Plan give a clear sense of priorities to potential researchers to develop well-focused, pertinent research proposals? (not really); and
    • (4) Does the Plan give research funders and restoration managers a clear sense of research needs and priorities in order for them to make strategic decisions about research funding? (qualified yes)
  • Primary criticism was that no priority or ranking was provided, and that there is “a” research question for any particular management action; same issue applies to criticism of research questions
  • NST recommendation for closure of research plan:
    • Prioritization will only be internal
    • Will go in some form into Research Plan
    • Needs an expanded preamble developing explanation of how it was generated, rationale, etc.
    • NST web based “living” version
    • All final review comments by end of November

Monitoring Plan:

  • Should be independent document from Research Plan
  • Differentiation from Puget Sound Initiative:
    • Project/program specific monitoring
    • Narrower focus than nebulous “health of Puget Sound”
    • Monitoring focus on accountability and feedback to adaptive management
    • Is there a role of reference sites in monitoring and institutionalizing reference sites for monitoring?
  • Recommendations for monitoring needs at programmatic level
  • Fundamental components:
    • 1. General monitoring principles
    • 2. Management actions with toolbox associated with each
    • 3. One fully developed example (demonstration)
  • We need to explicitly define user community
  • Next step: develop outline (TomM and Guy)

Update On VEC White Papers: Megan Dethier

  • Presently revising outline for distribution to authors
  • NST consensus: Nearshore ecosystem processes that support the VEC should be the focus, not what the VEC does in support of other VECs
  • The VEC attribute table will be expanded to include landscape scale attributes
  • Suggest linking Typology (shoreforms of relevance) to VEC
  • Late-February or March workshop will cover all white papers
  • Internal review will be conducted among NST members

Science Synthesis (Science Afternoon): Tom Leschine

  • Message: At some point, PSNERP is going to have (by law) to conduct a benefits analysis; what is the NST’s responsibility?
  • Louisiana Coastal Area (LCA) as example of assessing the benefits of ecosystem restoration
    • categorize ecosystem restoration benefit, where “value” measured by wetland habitat use by representative species
    • “Framework Elements” classes as Increase (high benefit given 50% increase in eco functions), Maintain (intermediate benefits associated with achieve no net loss) and Reduce (reduce projected loss rates by 50% or more)
    • Cost effectiveness/incremental cost analysis
    • Metrics are necessary for both environmental and economic evaluations
    • “Efficient frontier” as the framework that produces a given level of benefit for unit cost
    • Metrics for PSNERP?
      • Meters of nearshore for which processes restored (where formerly broken)?
      • Meters of shoreline for which nearshore functions recovered (via process restoration)?
      • Habitat quality (aggregate of expected quality of life support for VECs)?
  • Restoration and Enhancement Opportunities for the Lower Cedar River, A Public Opinion Survey (MMA work of Melissa Montgomery)
    • Mail survey; looking for differences between “interested parties” and property owners, and importance of “verifying the agenda”
    • High response rate: 418 of 826 returned 50.6%; property owners 274 of 598 45.8%; interested parties 143 of 228
    • Perceptions and opinions about watershed issues
      • strong response rate suggests interest in watershed
      • large number of uncertain opinions
      • many expressed interests in stewardship activities