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:

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.