Initial 2010 Puget Sound Science Update Outline process
Content/Outline
Section 1: Understanding Future and Desired System States
Lead Authors: Phil Levin and Mark Plummer, NOAA Fisheries’ NW Fisheries Science Center; Mike Brett, College of Civil and Environ. Engineering, Univ. of Washington; Daniel Schindler, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, Univ. of Washington
Section 1 introduces specific attributes of a healthy Puget Sound ecosystem in relation to the PSP’s six goals (i.e., healthy or sufficient species and food webs, habitats, water quality, water quantity, human health, and human well-being), provides a framework for selecting indicators of ecosystem health attributes, establishes transparent criteria for judging an indicator’s ability to track changes in ecosystem health reliably, and evaluates candidate ecosystem indicators against these criteria. Ecosystem indicators are quantitative biological, chemical, physical, social, or economic measurements that serve as proxies for difficult-to-measure attributes of natural and socio-economic systems. Thus, indicators provide a practical means to judge changes in ecosystem attributes related to the achievement of management objectives. They can also be used for predicting ecosystem change and assessing risk. This Section will distinguish vital sign indicators—those providing a coarse assessment of trends in ecosystem health in a format that is suitable for public consumption—and assessment indicators, whose role is to ensure that ecosystem status is assessed reliably. The final sub-section will review existing statements of desired future states in the region to inform discussions of thresholds and long-term objectives for the region (e.g., the PSRC Vision 2040, Shared Salmon Strategy Recovery Plan).
Published section (draft or final – live in winter 2010)
Wiki for registering to provide comments and suggest revisions (live in spring 2010)
Section 2A: The Biophysical Condition of Puget Sound
Lead Authors: Tim Essington, School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington; Terrie Klinger, School of Marine Affairs, University of Washington
Section 2A will characterize the biophysical condition of Puget Sound through the use of indicators. Indicators offer objective, quantitative measures of environmental conditions. Indicators specific to the condition of Puget Sound will be selected based on criteria developed in Section 1. Although selection of indicators has not yet been made, it can be expected that metrics of ecological function (e.g., food webs, habitat provision) will be among those selected. Other likely candidates comprise key harvested species, key support species, invasive species, species of conservation concern, and ecosystem ‘vital signs’ indicators. An important criterion in selection of indicators is the extent to which data are available and analyses have been “vetted” through some form of review. Consequently, data availability is will constitute a selective filter on choice of indicators. Indicators that meet other criteria but for which data are unavailable will be noted but not analyzed, thereby serving as a gap-analysis and signaling the need for data collection where it exists.
Published section (draft or final – live in winter 2010)
Wiki for registering to provide comments and suggest revisions (live in spring 2010)
Section 2B: The Socio-Economic Condition of Puget Sound
Lead Authors: Doug Mercer, Rhizo Environmental; Richard Morrill, Department of Geography, University of Washington
Section 2B is the complement to Section 2A, and includes a synthesis of what is known about how the status and condition of human well-being changes in response to changes in the natural condition of the Puget Sound region. Building off of earlier reports on human well-being indicators developed for the PSP, this section will report on changes in socio-economic and other ‘state’ metrics that are thought to reflect changes in the natural functioning of the ecosystem. In addition to the state indicators, this section also will introduce and report on the status of indicators of resource use and efficiency (relating to economic efficiency and viability), environmental equity (relating to the social distribution of the benefits and costs of resource use) and stewardship capacity. A conceptual framework for what could be measured to describe changes in human well-being over time will be compared to what information exists for these different indicators. A summary of where key information is missing in our ability to track progress in human well being will be provided in the closing sub-sections.
Published section (draft or final – live in winter 2010)
Wiki for registering to provide comments and suggest revisions (live in spring 2010)
Section 3: Impacts of Natural Events and Human Activities on the Ecosystem
Lead Authors: Scott Pearson, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife; John Marzluff, School of Forest Resources, University of Washington; Nathalie Hamel, Puget Sound Partnership
Section 3 will present existing conceptual and quantitative models describing what we know about the primary drivers of change in indicator status and the relative magnitude of pressures, or threats to the condition and state of both natural and human well-being indicators. The section will summarize what is known about natural drivers (e.g., climate, oceanographic processes, geology, etc.) and anthropogenic drivers (e.g., forest practices, urbanization and industrial development, agriculture and aquaculture practices, harvest, introduction of invasive species, etc.). The final sub-sections will present existing information on how indicators of these drivers change as the magnitude of the drivers change (e.g., relationship between impervious surfaces and water quality, quantity and salmon populations). What is known about interactions between natural and anthropogenic drivers and the implications for possible future conditions in the ecosystem also will be summarized.
Published section (draft or final – live in spring 2010)
Wiki for registering to provide comments and suggest revisions (live in summer 2010)
Section 4: Effectiveness of Strategies to Protect and Restore the System
Lead Author: Richard Horner, College of Civil and Environmental Engineering, Univ. of Washington; Co-Authors: Eric Knudsen, John Lombard, and Cleve Steward, Steward and Associates.
Section 4 will review, assess, and summarize the potential strategies investigated in past scientific research for positively affecting the biophysical and socioeconomic condition of the greater Puget Sound ecosystem and addressing identified threats to it. The review and assessment will cover strategies for both protecting resources that remain and recovering or improving resources that have lost function. Concentration will be on determining the level of effectiveness of the candidate strategies, as established by the research, and the relative certainty associated with the reported effectiveness. Of particular interest will be identifying strategies that reduce multiple threats to the ecosystem. As funds allow, the review and assessment will provide information on the cost effectiveness of potential strategies as available in that field of research. It is anticipated that the Section 4 report will include matrices as a convenient summary of strategy attributes and relative cost-effectiveness. The report also will identify key knowledge and data gaps and suggest areas for future research.
Published section (draft or final – live in spring 2010)
Wiki for registering to provide comments and suggest revisions (live in summer 2010)
Synthesis: Implications of Scientific Findings for Adaptive Management of the Action Agenda
Lead Author: Mary Ruckelshaus, Science Program Director (tbd), other staff?, Science Panel members?Key findings
Key remaining scientific uncertainties & research needs
Summary for policy-makers
Lead Author:Section-by-section summary
Summary of key findings
Summary of key remaining scientific uncertainties & research needs