< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
25-26 October 2006

Venue:

Deans Conference Room, Ocean Sciences Building, University of Washington, Seattle

Attendance:

Si Simenstad (UW), Doug Meyers (PSAT), Fred Goetz (USACE), Hugh Shipman (DOE), Megan Dethier (UW), Tom Mumford (DOE), Miles Logsdon (UW), Curtis Tanner (USFWS), Guy Gelfenbaum (USGS), Kurt Fresh (NOAA Fisheries), Jan Newton (UW), Randy Shuman (King Co.), Phebe Drinker (UW)

Guests:

Casey Rice (NOAA), Greg Hood (SSC), Chris Davis (CommenSpace), Bernie Hargraves and Miriam Gilmur (USACE)

Primary Meeting Topics:

(1) Science Morning: Perspectives on Monitoring in Puget Sound (Casey Rice)
(2) Monitoring: How doe we approach ‘lessons learned’ and NST products?
(3) Change Analysis: What should be asked and what can be answered from WRIA9 Change Analysis dataset, in preparation for WRIA9 Strategic Needs Assessment?
(4) Future Without Project: update and discussion around FWOP Workshop #1

Monitoring:

Science Morning (Casey Rice, NOAA, with input from Phil Roni, Martin Liermann, Eric Beamer, Correigh Greene and Kris Kloehn) and group discussion;

  • Monitoring, albeit not scientific research per se, should be designed around a hypothesis(ses) that requires quantitative measures to determine whether you achieved your assumptions of restoration
  • It should at least pose two essential questions: Are we doing any harm? Did we make a change in the system?
  • Statistical design is very important, but often expects too much rigor and statistical power from highly variable environmental and biological variables; parametric statistics often are inappropriate or impractical, and regression or gradient based designs more powerful; BACI (before-after control-impact) and post-treatment comparisons optimum?
  • If you have all the necessary components of the planning diagram (from Roni et al. “Monitoring Stream and Watershed Restoration” AFS), conceptual framework, reference condition contrast of what you want, and what are your meaningful references, then you should be able to make it work.
  • Human dimensions aspects is still not materially incorporated into any monitoring designs.

NST Monitoring Initiative (Tom Mumford);

  • NST is forming Monitoring Working Group to focus on (1) “Lessons Learned” (modeled on Brie Van Cleve’s approach), (2) initial synthesis of restoration monitoring approaches and activities, (3) project-scale monitoring principles for ESRP (due early 2007) and (4) comprehensive, programmatic monitoring plan for Feasibility Report.
  • Three fundamental scales of restoration monitoring: (1) project, (2) responses to restoration beyond the footprint of individual project, and (3) system-scale, cumulative responses of multiple projects. Principles for monitoring compliance and efficiency of individual projects (1) is well established, and just needs to be synthesized; functional monitoring is less well handled. (2) and (3) need to be the NST’s focus.
  • A major difference that we are going to have to deal with is that most monitoring to date has targeted a “species” and associated metrics, not ecosystem processes, e.g., understanding what (controlling factors) are correlated with response variable
  • Monitoring governance structure also an aspect to be addressed, and important for Feasibility Report (aka CWWPRA/LCA Louisiana experience)

WRIA Change Analysis (Curtis and Chris Davis):

  • CommenSpace needs to complete “findings” section for WRIA9 report, seeks feedback from NST on questions aren’t already asking of WRIA9 Change Analysis dataset, and to determine limitations on the ability of the data to address those questions.
  • Suggestions for further data exploration: (1) landscape scale changes (e.g., fragmentation), (2) interaction between shoreform changes and direct shoreline attributes (e.g., modifications such as armoring) and indirect (buffer, drainage area) changes, (3) adjacency, such as shoreform changes adjacent to streams or barrier estuaries), (4) where in accounting units (shoreline or estuary AU) are changes most occurring, and (5) association with dominant sediment sources (bluff-backed beaches).
  • When change analysis points to a system that is relatively intact, is it because that area is actually intact, or is it a flaw in our analysis methodology can’t detect the changes occurring there?
  • Point at transition to SNAR, and need to determine what questions can be answered to best frame SNAR; also need to address question of where Change Analysis and associated data will be “housed.”

Future Without Project (FWOP) Update and Summary and Discussion of Workshop #1 (Fred):

  • See FWOP site for details: http://online.caup.washington.edu/projects/futurewithout/workshop_main.htm
  • FWOP working group, representing all PSNERP teams, worked with Alberti group on developing workshop to develop scenarios for future without project; took 6 mo. to set up
  • Adopted 8-step process to scenario building; literature and interviews to identify drivers, uncertainties, importance, ranking, etc.: we are up to step 4, where scenario logics are selected; next four steps develop (four) scenarios and identify indicators of future attributes; involves everything from qualitative to quantitative/modeling of scenarios, but ultimately evaluate scenarios: their plausibility and uncertainty, etc.
  • From USACE perspective, the workshop process was important: included representation from broad spectrum of people who had influence on nearshore Puget Sound or understanding of it
  • Workshop arrived at two dominant drivers of future change: (1) climate change and (2) human attitudes
  • NST feedback: workshop was interesting and engaging, and worthwhile, but uncertain how we’re going to get focused on nearshore ecosystems; still considerable uncertainty, and some criticism, about how this scenario-building process are going to connect to spatially-explicit future changes specific to nearshore ecosystems
  • We still need to clarify what we want as the endpoint of the FWOP process, and we need help in doing that
  • Perhaps SMA550B class project (“FWOPlite”) will provide interesting alternative or adjunct to this process?