using ecosystem functions, goods, and services to scale ... · using ecosystem functions, goods,...
TRANSCRIPT
Why Care About Impacts to Natural Systems?
Using Ecosystem Functions, Goods,
and Services to Scale Changes to
Nearshore Ecosystems in Puget SoundNearshore Ecosystems in Puget Sound
Curtis D. Tanner,
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
Miles Logsdon & Charles “Si” Simenstad,
University of Washington
The Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
Restoration Project (PSNERP)
• …is a General Investigation, sponsored by Seattle District Corps and Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife– Began in 2001, anticipated completion in 2012
– Initiative to protect and restore natural processes – Initiative to protect and restore natural processes and functions in the nearshore
– May result in Corps construction authority
• …is the nearshore component of the Puget Sound Partnership’s strategy to restore Puget Sound
PSNERP Seeks Answers
Changes to Puget
Sound Nearshore:
• Where?• Where?
• What?
• Who cares?
What is the Puget Sound Nearshore?
The shallow water of estuarine deltas & marine shorelines, from the top of the the top of the coastal bank to water depths where light supports plant growth and up rivers to the end of tidal influence
Purpose of the PSNERP
Change Analysis
• To detect and describe changes in the physical and biological structure of the Sound’s deltas, estuaries, and beaches between the past (c.a. 1850) and the between the past (c.a. 1850) and the present (c.a. 2000)
• To inform a process-based, comprehensive, and spatially-explicit assessment of restoration needs in the nearshore ecosystem of Puget Sound
Puget Sound Sub-Basins
PSNERP Change Analysis Tiers
Change Analysis Methods: Shoreforms
Berm/Backshore
Beachface
Low-tide terrace
BARRIERBEACH
Embayments
Stream delta
Vegetated flat
Channels
Tidal flat
Tidal delta
BARRIERESTUARY
BedrockUpland
CoastalWatersheds
Alluvial RiverValley
Vegetated Flats
Tidal flat
Tidal delta
Channels
BARRIERLAGOON
Delta Beaches Rocky Coast
RIVERDELTA
POCKET BEACH
Bluff face
Berm/Backshore
Beachface
Low tide terrace
Berm/Backshore
Beachface
Low tide terraceAlluvial Floodplain
(surge plain)
High tide flat
Low tide flat BLUFF
BARRIERBEACH
Berm/Backshore
Beachface
Low tide terrace
ROCKYPLATFORM
Cliff
Platform
Typical coastal shoreforms in Puget Sound (from Shipman et al. 2008)
Shoreform Transitions in the Whidbey Sub-basin
9
Tier 1 Shoreform
Sub-basin & Sound-wide
Proportional Composition
- historic & current
Puget Sound-wide
Shoreform Transitions
11
Nearshore Birds Dependent on tidal flatsSnow goose
Brant
Gadwall
American Wigeon
Mallard
Northern Pintail
Green-winged Teal
Great Blue Heron
Green Heron
Bald EagleBald Eagle
Black-bellied Plover
Semipalmated Plover
Greater Yellowlegs
Spotted Sandpiper
Sanderling
Western Sandpiper
Least Sandpiper
Pectoral Sandpiper
Dunlin – Snohomish Delta supports over 6000
Short-billed Dowitcher
Long-billed DowitcherFrom Buchanan, J.B. 2006. Nearshore Birds in Puget Sound.
Sound-wide Shoreline
Alterations
13
RestorationAction
RestoredProcesses
StructuralChanges
FunctionalResponse
Sediment supply
Restored Beach profile
Reduced Shorelineerosion
Restorednearshore
Littoral/ Netshore-drift
Increased salmon
Shoreline Armoring Removal
(Restoration) Conceptual Model
Armor Removal
Longer moistureRetention in beach sediment
Accumulation of Wood and detritus
Greater wave dissipation
LWD input
Sediment dynamics
Sediment composition
Substrate heterogeneity
Backshorevegetation
Substrate moisture and temperature
Enhanced foragefish spawning
Clam production
Insect production
Increased eelgrass
nearshoremigration
salmon production
Scaling Observed Changes:
Impairment* of Ecosystem Goods &
Services
TIER 1Shoreforms are ranked by their relative ability to provide,
regulate, support or enhance ecosystem functions, goods Shoreforms are ranked by their ability to
regulate, support or enhance ecosystem functions, goods and services
TIERS 2, 3, and 4Attributes/modifications are ranked by the relative ability to
reduce ecosystems ability to provide functions, goods, and services
*“IMPAIRMENT” is PSNERP estimate of how and where observed changes to nearshore conditions reduces the ability of an ecosystem to provide functions, goods, and services
Functions, goods and services that ecosystems provide to benefit human well-being and other life on Earth
Ecosystem Functions Goods and Services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment/World Resources Institute)
Provisioning:– Food: crops; livestock; capture
fisheries; aquaculture; wild foods
– Fiber: timber and other wood fiber; other fibers
– Biomass fuel
– Water (quantity)
Regulating:– Air quality regulation
– Climate regulation: global; regional and local
– Water regulation (hydroperiod)
– Water purification and waste treatment
Millennium Ecosystem Assessment (MA). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Current State and Trends. Island Press, Washington, DC.
World Resources Institute (WRI). 2005. Ecosystems and Human Well-Being: Synthesis. Millennium Ecosystem Assessment. Island Press, Washington, D.C.
– Water (quantity)
– Genetic resources
– Biochemicals, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals
Supporting:– Nutrient cycling
– Soil formation*
– Food web*
– Photosynthesis*
– Sediment supply*
– Disease regulation
– Pest regulation
– Pollination
– Natural hazard regulation
Cultural:– Ethical value
– Existence values
– Recreation and ecotourism
– Education
Delphi Method
The Delphi method is a systematic, interactive
forecasting method which relies on a panel of
independent experts. The carefully selected
experts answer questionnaires in two or more
rounds. After each round, a facilitator provides an
anonymous summary of the experts’ forecasts
from the previous round as well as the reasons
[1] Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff, Editors Linstone & Turoff (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications
from the previous round as well as the reasons
they provided for their judgments. Thus,
participants are encouraged to revise their earlier
answers in light of the replies of other members of
the group. It is believed that during this process
the range of the answers will decrease and the
group will converge towards the "correct" answer.
Finally, the process is stopped after a pre-defined
stop criterion (e.g. number of rounds, achievement
of consensus, stability of results) and the mean or
median scores of the final rounds determine the
results.[1]
PSNERP Application of
Delphi MethodAssessing Impacts of Observed Change on
Ecosystem Functions, Goods, & Services
Phase 1: DEFINING and SELECTING1. Approve or Modify the definitions of EFG&S’s appropriate for Puget Sound
Phase 2: ASSIGNING INDIVIDUAL RANKS1. Provide Relative Ranks by Shoreforms (Tier 1)
2. Provide Relative Ranks by Anthropogenic Stressors on Nearshore (Tier 2)
3. Provide Relative Rank by Modifications in drainage units to the nearshore (Tier 3
and 4)
Phase 3: CONSENSUS and OVERALL RANKS1. Group Workshop; Review “GROUP RANKS” all Tiers
2. Additions, rewordings, and corrections – leading toward consensus
2. Select the categories and individual EFG&S’s to rank
On-line ResourcesAnonymity – group members do not know which members of a group contributed particular statements or opinions.
Iteration with controlled feedback – Group interaction is carried out through responses to questionnaires or interaction in small informal meetings.
Group response: Typically a group will produce a statement that contains a majority opinion.
Defining and Selecting
EFG&S Appropriate for Puget Sound
Step 1:
Insure that all participants begin with
a common understanding of the
context
Step 2:
Review the Wording and
definition of terms and agree on
its appropriateness for your
setting
Results:
57 questions,
34 suggested changes
17 items all agree to include
12 items where some vote to
exclude
Tier 1
Provide Shared Resources that support a common “context” and
flexibility in participation and share of opinion
Assigning Relative Ranks
for Each EFG&S Individually
among all shoreline attributes
Designed Redundancy in the questionnaires
TIER 1:The River-Dominated River Delta shoreform is recognized as the leading shoreform for provisioning, regulating, and
supporting EFG&S. The Artificial and/or Modified shoreform is thought to be lowest among these shoreforms in
supporting EFG&S along with the Plunging Rocky Coast shoreform. The participants were least consistent in their
views of the Provisioning of Aquaculture as an EFG&S and most consistent in their ranking of the Provision of Crops
TIER 2: Shoreline AlterationsTIER 2: Shoreline Alterations
TIER 2:The attributes of the shoreline which was viewed as being the most impairing to the provision of EFG&S was the
occurrence of ROADS and the loss of oligohaline transition and tidal fresh water wetlands. Overwater structures
was viewed as having the lowest relative impairment to EFG&S. Participants were least consistent in their views of
how these attributes impair the provisioning of food through Captured Fisheries and most consistent in ranking
these attributes in their relative impairment to the Food Web.
TIER 3:
zone of direct zone of direct
Influence (200 m)
TIER 3:The zone of direct influence to the shoreline process unit was viewed as being most impaired when (relative to
these other attributes) it has 50 – 100% of it area in impervious surfaces. This is also true when the percent of
impervious surfaces is as low as 30%. The extent of open space, cultivated crops, and/or hay or pastures was
viewed as having the lowest impairment on shoreline process units. The participants were least consistent in their
views of how these attributes impair the provisioning of Biochemicals and natural medicines, and most consistent in
ranking these attributes in their relative impairment in supporting Photosynthesis.
TIER 4:The upland drainage area to the shoreline process unit was viewed as being most impaired when it has 50 – 100% of
it area in impervious surfaces. The extent of open space, cultivated crops, and/or hay or pastures was viewed as
having the lowest impairment. The participants were least consistent in their views of how these attributes impair the
provisioning of Biochemicals and natural medicines, and most consistent in ranking these attributes in their relative
impairment in supporting Photosynthesis. By group consensus at the final workshop, the attributes of Extent of
Impounded Drainage Area and Extent of Drainage area reduction, were rank very high in relative impairment potential
Tier 1: Shoreform Transitions Tier 2: Shoreline Alterations
Tier 3: 200 m zone of influence Tier 4: Upland drainage area
Puget Sound Puget Sound ScaleScale
Puget Sound Puget Sound ScaleScale
SubSub--basin basin ScaleScale
SubSub--basin basin ScaleScale
Loss of delta
wetlands
Combined loss of Barrier Estuary and
Closed Lagoon/Marsh
Combined loss of Barrier Lagoon and
Closed Lagoon/Marsh
Gain in Barrier Beach and
Barrier Estuary
Gain in Barrier Estuary and
Barrier Lagoon
Nearshore Roads, Abandoned Railroads, Wetland loss –
Oligohaline & Estuarine Mix
Gain of wetlands outweighs negative impact of roads
Relatively more impervious surface and low intensity
development
Impervious surface
Amount of impervious surface throughout
watershed relative to other areas of sub-basin
What’s Next?
• Public distribution of Change Analysis data
• Translation of results into restoration and
protection priorities
• Development of recommended solutions• Development of recommended solutions
– Programmatic description of “management measures”
linked to nearshore processes
– Site specific plans for initial projects
• Analysis of future conditions
– No-action
– Recommended plan
For more information:
Visit PSNERP website :
www.pugetsoundnearshore.org
Or, contact me directly:Or, contact me directly:
(360) 902-2815
The final rank for each shoreform or attributes is assigned based upon:
• First (1st) on the rank order of the Median of respondents values;
• Secondly (2nd), when equal median scores occur (ties), shoreforms or
attributes are ranked lower based upon the lower Mode value [exception for a
MODE=0 meaning that no single value occured more frequently], i.e. less
consistency, and a higher ranking is assigned;
• Third (3rd), when equal combined median and mode assignments occur,
shoreforms are ranked lower by the higher Range value; and
• Fourth (4th) if equal rankings still occur at that point, higher ranks are
assigned based upon the highest individual ranking obtained.
• Fifth (5th) finally, if a clear rank can not be determined at this point the Rank
Sum value is then used.