Why Care About Impacts to Natural Systems? Using Ecosystem Functions, Goods, and Services to Scale Changes to Nearshore 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 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? What? Who cares?
What is the Puget Sound Nearshore? The shallow water of estuarine deltas & marine shorelines, from 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 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 Stream delta Vegetated flat BARRIER Channels ESTUARY Tidal flat Tidal delta Alluvial River Valley Coastal Watersheds Embayments Bedrock Upland Vegetated Flats Tidal flat BARRIER Tidal delta LAGOON Channels Berm/Backshore Beachface Low-tide terrace BARRIER BEACH Cliff ROCKY Platform PLATFORM Alluvial Floodplain (surge plain) High tide flat Low tide flat RIVER DELTA Bluff face Berm/Backshore Beachface Low tide terrace BLUFF Berm/Backshore BARRIER Beachface Low tide terrace BEACH Berm/Backshore Beachface Low tide terrace POCKET BEACH Delta Beaches Rocky Coast 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 flats Snow goose Brant Gadwall American Wigeon Mallard Northern Pintail Green-winged Teal Great Blue Heron Green Heron Bald 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 Dowitcher From Buchanan, J.B. 2006. Nearshore Birds in Puget Sound.
Sound-wide Shoreline Alterations 13
Shoreline Armoring Removal (Restoration) Conceptual Model Restoration Action Restored Processes Structural Changes Functional Response Armor Removal Sediment supply Littoral/ Net shore-drift Sediment dynamics Greater wave dissipation Restored Beach profile Restored nearshore migration Sediment composition Reduced Shoreline erosion Increased salmon production Enhanced forage fish spawning LWD input Substrate heterogeneity Clam production Accumulation of Wood and detritus Backshore vegetation Increased eelgrass Insect production Longer moisture Retention in beach sediment Substrate moisture and temperature
Scaling Observed Changes: Impairment* of Ecosystem Goods & Services TIER 1 Shoreforms are ranked by their relative ability to provide, regulate, support or enhance ecosystem functions, goods and services TIERS 2, 3, and 4 Attributes/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
Ecosystem Functions Goods and Services (Millennium Ecosystem Assessment/World Resources Institute) Functions, goods and services that ecosystems provide to benefit human well-being and other life on Earth Provisioning: Food: crops; livestock; capture fisheries; aquaculture; wild foods Fiber: timber and other wood fiber; other fibers Biomass fuel Water (quantity) Genetic resources Biochemicals, natural medicines and pharmaceuticals Supporting: Nutrient cycling Soil formation* Food web* Photosynthesis* Sediment supply* Regulating: Air quality regulation Climate regulation: global; regional and local Water regulation (hydroperiod) Water purification and waste treatment Disease regulation Pest regulation Pollination Natural hazard regulation Cultural: Ethical value Existence values Recreation and ecotourism Education 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.
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 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] [1] Harold A. Linstone and Murray Turoff, Editors Linstone & Turoff (1975). The Delphi Method: Techniques and Applications
PSNERP Application of Delphi Method Assessing Impacts of Observed Change on Ecosystem Functions, Goods, & Services Phase 1: DEFINING and SELECTING 1. Approve or Modify the definitions of EFG&S s appropriate for Puget Sound 2. Select the categories and individual EFG&S s to rank Phase 2: ASSIGNING INDIVIDUAL RANKS 1. 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 RANKS 1. Group Workshop; Review GROUP RANKS all Tiers 2. Additions, rewordings, and corrections leading toward consensus
On-line Resources Anonymity 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.
Step 1: Insure that all participants begin with a common understanding of the context Defining and Selecting EFG&S Appropriate for Puget Sound
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 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 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 Scale
Puget Sound Scale
Sub-basin basin Scale
Sub-basin basin Scale Gain of wetlands outweighs negative impact of roads Loss of delta wetlands Gain in Barrier Estuary and Barrier Lagoon 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 Nearshore Roads, Abandoned Railroads, Wetland loss Oligohaline & Estuarine Mix Impervious surface Relatively more impervious surface and low intensity development 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 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: curtis_tanner@fws.gov (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.