< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
12-13 October 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)

Additional: (IT) Beth Coffey, Terry Wright, Jacques White, Jeff Dillon, Randy Carman, Paul Cerrighino

Primary Meeting Topics

(1) Joint IT-NST meeting: Strategic Needs Assessment and Non-Specific Solutions Map
(2) Change analysis
(3) Science Morning: Native Shellfish VEC

Joint IT-NST meeting: Non-Specific Solutions Map (NSSM): Strategic Needs Assessment (SNAR)

• SNAR: A spatial description of the ecosystem needs of Puget Sound as “broken nearshore ecosystem processes report” BUT also explicitly identifying “intact nearshore ecosystem processes”!
• Product: “non-specific solutions map” for each region of Puget Sound, attributed to condition of nearshore ecosystem processes at shoreform segment level
• Change Analysis will summarize changes in shoreform and complexes, and attributes associated with complexes
• changes in shoreform, complexes and attributes interpreted as nearshore ecosystem processes, with narrative connecting to VECs (VEC white papers can provide basis)
• still some uncertainty about how human issues and social effects fits into SAR beyond attribution to VECs; lingering question of whether it is this PSNERP responsibility to drive the debate about the social value of restoring Puget Sound?....general consensus was “no.”
• Primary activity was revising SNAR outline, based on scientific paper model
  • Key changes:
    • Explicit use of adaptive management (iterative approach)
    • Removing weighting and ranking of specific management actions
    • Recognition and inclusion of uncertainty and need for demonstration projects in an adaptive management framework
• SNAR outline and “road map” will be sent to group, solicit comments, and then co-leads and project managers will create a road map to accomplish goals of the SNAR – have it ready for next NST (and other) meetings.

Change Analysis: Historic Conditions Report and Link to Change Analysis—lessons learned from CommEnSpace analysis of WRIA9 and Whidbey Basin

• Issues:

1) Units: crucial to think about unit at which all of that gets tallied: for different audiences; you may want to aggregate and disaggregate at different scales.

2) Changes Are Present/Absent at moment, but need to address quantitative changes (in attributes) where possible

3) Current Conditions: How do we take the results of current conditions translation data and relate the current attribute data to the historic attribute data and show changes through that?.

4) Current/Historic Sources: How do we decide which of the many available sources for Current Conditions we are going to use? Tie to VECs?.

5) Case Studies

• Bottom line: Strengthen the quality of analysis in order to make it appropriately applicable to other WRIAs.
• Rivers History Project change analysis MAY be adaptable to shoreform-based change analysis; need to integration of the two
• CommEnSpace will continue to work on historic conditions for WRIA 5 and 6, then check back in w/ NST; next task for CommEnSpace will be test case for change analysis on WRIA 9; before next Change Analysis WG meeting, CommEnSpace will provide list of complexes and info on them, and look at splicing together those w/ Collins complexes

Science Synthesis (Science Morning): Megan Dethier, Native Shellfish VEC White Paper

• Take-home messages:
  • VECs are the currency used to discuss the values of the ecosystem
  • Alteration of sediment type or quantity will affect shellfish. Also loss of eelgrass, at least for Dungeness crab
  • Alteration of water column characteristics will affect shellfish: temperature, salinity, toxins, turbidity
  • Similar with alteration of groundwater and runoff
  • Biological changes in plankton, competitor, predators may be an issue
  • Need to include restorable aspects....what can PSNERP do to restore habitat, etc
• VEC white paper discussion, using Megan’s as model
  • Address basic questions:
  • Does the VEC have a problem?
  • What appears to be the process(es) that are broken, causing the problem? [direct and indirect linkages]
  • How/why does this VEC “need” nearshore ecosystems?
  • What are the strengths of nearshore ecosystem associations?
• Issues
  • How did you narrow scope, or tackle long list of species (pick representative species)
  • Do we need to highlight connections with how the VEC is used in the nearshore or how the VEC affects the nearshore itself? (no)
  • Do we stress human value? (no, it was already chosen as a VEC)
  • Include non-native species? (no)
  • Should we include some “measure” for each VEC for quantifying success of restoration? (no)

NST reworked basic VEC white paper outline, and discussed process for preparation and editing