< Back to Meeting Archives

PSNERP-Nearshore Science Team (NST)
Monthly Meeting Synthesis
27-28 September 2006

Venue:

Old WDFW Building, 600 Olympia Way N, Olympia, WA

Attendance:

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

Guests:

Mariam Gilmur (USACE), Randy Carmen (WDFW)

Primary Meeting Topics:

(1) Monitoring principles
(2) Future Without Project updates
(3) Management measures conceptual models

Monitoring (Tom M):

  • NST discussion is focusing on how to monitor and evaluate response at multiples scales to restoration actions; monitoring of status and trends in ecosystem processes, goods and services is a related monitoring issue but not our primary focus
  • PSNERP needs to overcome a prevalent attitude (and sometimes policy, e.g., USACE) resistance against monitoring by most funding agencies, including restoration programs: persistence of ‘trust us’ attitude with no recognition of uncertainties
  • NST should address the fundamental principles of monitoring at four different scales: project, local, regional and system
  • Involves at least six different monitoring approaches:

    (1) compliance “as built”);
    (2) adaptive (“what needs to be fixed?”);
    (3) effectiveness (“meeting goals?”;
    (4) program (“programmatic learning”);
    (5) cumulative/synergistic (“response to multiple projects”); and,
    (6) systematic (“ecosystem processes, involving variation in climate and other forcing”)

  • NST should provide guidance for at least compliance, adaptive and effectiveness monitoring at project scale, but needs to focus quickly on systematic and programmatic evaluation/monitoring, looking at entire system, regardless of specific projects, but more oriented at large spatial areas (i.e. entire basin, or bigger) or specific issues/processes across all of sound (i.e. wave action across north sound).
  • In addition to assessing the performance of restoration elements within a program, whether individually or as a system or community of projects, need to evaluate the effectiveness of the program overall, which will involve different and an expanded scope of metrics, and including evaluation of the governance and institutional structure
  • NST proposes two initiatives: (1) new NST graduate student (UW graduate research assistant) work on development of PSNERP monitoring plan, following format of Van Cleve et al.’s Lessons Learned, to look at and review other programs’ monitoring structure (both Sound-wide and Nation-wide); and, (2) another student (or state agency person or consultant) focus on science-side of monitoring specifics in short-term (i.e., 9 mo.) project.
    • Issues we need to address:
      • Should individual projects be conducting their own monitoring, or should there be an independent, comprehensive effort across multiple projects?
      • Should individual project monitoring be restricted to compliance and adaptive monitoring approaches, and independent, comprehensive monitoring to effectiveness and larger scale monitoring.
  • Performance measures are integral component of monitoring
    • performance measures should unambiguously link to change in the system.
    • But, performance measures are scientifically measurable aspects unique to nearshore ecosystems, not the response of things like VECs. Do not want to be held responsible to the responses of salmon and orcas; those are not processes and not being “fixed” in the nearshore.
    • conceptual models represent a tool to indicate what the performance of the management measures taken should look like.
  • How much and what to restore is more of a social question: determine those goals is ultimately up to the public/stakeholders. Once that goal statement is determined, the NST can scientifically determine the solution set and how to measure whether its implementation is working toward achieving those socially-determined goals and objectives.
  • Greg Hood’s (Skagit System Cooperative) Wiley Slough ESRP restoration proposal, that will address and relate to adjacent areas, i.e. Deep Water Slough, and cover site-scale as well as system-level-scale, will serve to inform the NST monitoring deliberations and development of monitoring principles.

Future Without Project Working Group (Fred):

Scenario Building Workshop #1 scheduled for 9/29, to be run by UW Urban Ecology Group

  • NST will needs to hear from FWOP about process they envision arriving at Future Without, including next step in UW UEG scenario-building process, so that NST can contribute to discussions and talk to PMT.
  • In preparation for next NST meeting, FWOP WG will discuss what the results are going to look like and how they will intersect with the Change Analysis results.
    Management Measures Conceptual Models (Miriam):
  • In preparation of Feasibility Report, Miriam needs to understand and be able to document rationale that defines what NST has determined are “important” nearshore ecosystem processes and the management measures they propose to fix those processes.
  • Conceptual models can be used to explain the relationship between management measures and at least nearshore processes, maybe also nearshore structures.
  • NST happy to help build conceptual models for management measures, as long as they stop short of attributing “importance” to functional responses and VECs. Leads: Si Simenstad, Kurt Fresh, Curtis Tanner, Guy Gelfenbaum.
  • It would be potentially helpful to build a matrix of management measures, ecosystem processes and ecosystem goods and services as a starting point for showing these relationships.