Using the Open Standards to Advance Puget Sound Recovery Kari Stiles, PhD Puget Sound Partnership...
-
Upload
baby-magnus -
Category
Documents
-
view
219 -
download
0
Transcript of Using the Open Standards to Advance Puget Sound Recovery Kari Stiles, PhD Puget Sound Partnership...
Using the Open Standards to Advance Puget Sound Recovery
Kari Stiles, PhDPuget Sound Partnership
Conservation Measures PartnershipOct 7-9, 2014
• National Estuary Program (EPA)
• 16,500+ sq miles• International border• 12 counties• 100+ cities• 20+ tribes
Snowcaps to Whitecaps … with a focus on the watery bits
6 goals: Habitat
Species
Water Quality
Water Quantity
Human Health
Human Well
Being
“swimmable, fishable, diggable, drinkable”
Recover Puget Sound by 2020
Puget Sound restoration and protection (2007)Washington State Statute at RCW 90.71.200(2)
• Puget Sound Partnership: coordinate and lead the effort to restore and protect Puget
Sound. The partnership will:
– Define a strategic action agenda (2-year cycle)
• prioritizing necessary actions, both basin-wide and within specific areas
• addressing complex connections among land, water, species, human needs
• based on science
• include clear, measurable goals for the recovery of Puget Sound by 2020
– Determine accountability for performance, oversee the efficiency and effectiveness of
money spent
– Educate and engage the public
– Track and report results to the legislature, the governor, and the public
– Not have regulatory authority
• Partners: All governmental entities, including federal and state agencies, tribes, cities,
counties, ports, and special purpose districts
– Support and help implement the partnership's recovery efforts
PUGET SOUND RECOVERY CONTEXT
2008
Death by 1,000cuts
Recovery by 1,000
uncoordinated actions
Localswatershedsaction areas
(cities, countiestribes, NGOs)
RegionStatefeds
1 regional Chinook
recovery plan (NOAA)
16 watershed Chinook recovery plans (NOAA)
Scientists
Decision makers
2008
Priorities
Actions
Gaps & needs
Locals Region
Scientists
Decision makers
Actions
Actions
Actions
ActionsActions
Actions?
Adaptive Management of Puget Sound Recovery Efforts
2009-2014
Open Standards, Miradi, Miradi Share
Locals Region
Scientists
Decision makers
2008
Locals Region
Scientists
Decision makers
Recovery PrioritiesPriority Threats
Monitoring & GapsEcosystem Status
Effectiveness & Impacts
2014
Locals Region
Scientists
Decision makers
Common language
Common database
Puget Sound TaxonomiesEcosystem & Human WellbeingPressuresStrategic InitiativesAction TypesBarriers, Corrective Actions
Common tools
Theories of Change (aka. Results chains)
Standard taxonomy for ecosystem components
Status in Puget Sound
Status within watershed• geographic unit
Status Goal
90%100%
(% of mainstem)
Status Goal
0.27
1.3
(key pcs/100 m)
Status Goal
29%
75%
% of historic length
Status Goal
0.31
0.7
(#/channel width)
ACCESSIBLE HABITAT
LARGE WOOD POOL FREQUENCY
POOR
FAIR
GOOD
VERY GOOD
Small river channels
16 Chinook watersheds regional story
CHEM-K09.03. Riparian function
CHEM-K01.09. Coastal sediment dynamics - condition of wind and wave features
CHEM-K01.04. Coastal sediment deposition & accretion-condition of sediment
CHEM-K09.02. Riparian community structure
CHEM-K08.07. Intertidal habitat zone - condition
CHEM-K01.07. Coastal sediment supply - distribution
CHEM-K08.04. Estuarine habitats - condition
CHEM-K01.06. Coastal sediment supply - extent
CHEM-K01.05. Coastal sediment deposition & accretion-condition of impoundment
CHEM-K01.03. Coastal sediment deposition & accretion - extent
CHEM-K02.01. Fluvial sediment dynamics - condition
CHEM-K03.02. Tidal circulation - dependent water condition
CHEM-K06.02. Detritus recruitment & retention-extent of supply
CHEM-K09.01. Spatial extent and continuity of riparian area
CHEM-K03.01. Tidal circulation - extent of biological activity
CHEM-K01.08. Coastal sediment dynamics - extent of wind and wave features
CHEM-K08.09. Tidally influenced wetlands - condition
CHEM-K01.02. Coastal sediment dynamics in drift cells - landscape context
CHEM-K08.05. Estuarine habitats - distribution
CHEM-K06.01. Detritus recruitment & retention-extent
CHEM-K04.01. Freshwater hydrology - dependent water condition
CHEM-K05.02. Tidal channel formation - connectivity of channels
CHEM-K08.08. Tidally influenced wetlands - extent
CHEM-K05.01. Tidal channel formation - extent of channels
CHEM-K08.01. SAV beds - condition
CHEM-K08.02. SAV beds - extent
CHEM-K04.02. Freshwater hydrology - condition
CHEM-K01.01. Coastal sediment dynamics in drift cells - condition
CHEM-K08.03. Estuarine habitats - extent
CHEM-K07.01. Habitat connectivity condition
CHEM-K08.10. Water quality
CHEM-K08.06. Intertidal habitat zone - extent
0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35
# of Estuarine & Marine Indicators by Key Ecological Attribute
Extent of intertidal habitat
Distribution of estuarine habitat
Riparian community structure
Estuaries
Puget Sound: Vital Signs linked to Ecosystem Components
Chinook watersheds contribute to regional goals
Shellfish Beds
2009 Puget Sound Threats and Soundwide Rating
X
Puget Sound Pressure Taxonomy
SOURCES of pressure on Puget Sound ecosystems and people (41)
STRESSORS - proximate actors on ecosystem (47)
SOURCE – STRESSOR DIAGRAMS illustrating source-stressor relationships
Pathways of Effect
Pressure (Source)
StressorEcosystem Component
(Stressed)source of acts on
Development Land conversion
Reduced floodplain
habitat extent
StressorStressor
Flight Paths
Gathering Terrestrial Plants
Invasive species and other problematic species
Hunting & Collecting Terrestrial Animals
Renewable (e.g. Tidal) Energy
Fire & Fire Suppression
Garbage & Solid Waste
War, Civil Unrest & Military Exercises
Wood & Pulp Plantations
Marine shellfish aquaculture
Industrial Wastewater
Release of Excess Energy (light, heat, sound)
Air-Borne Pollutants/Climate Change
Industrial Runoff
Onsite Sewage Systems (OSS)
Tourism & Recreation Areas
Shipping Lanes and Dredged Waterways
Utility & Service Lines
Dams
Freshwater Levees, Floodgates, Tidegates
Livestock Farming & Ranching
Mining & Quarrying
Oil Spills
Sewer - Domestic & Municipal Wastewater to Sewer
Commercial & Industrial Areas (Including Ports)
Freshwater shoreline infrastructure
Recreational Activities
Annual & Perennial Non-Timber Crops
Abstraction of surface water
Agricultural & Forestry Effluents
Fishing & Harvesting Aquatic Resources
Logging & Wood Harvesting
Marine & Freshwater Finfish Aquaculture
Abstraction of ground water
Housing & Urban Areas
Marine Levees, Floodgates, Tidegates
Marine shoreline infrastructure
Roads & Railroads (Including Culverts)
Runoff from residential and commercial lands
0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100
StormwaterRoads & railroads
Marine shoreline armoring
DamsUtility Lines
Onsite Sewage Systems
Invasive Species
Chinook watersheds & Puget Sound pressures
(%)
Pressure
Ecosystem Endpoint
Intrinsic Vulnerability
Potential Impact
Assessment units: watershed marine basin Puget Sound
Pressures posing greatest risk(Puget Sound example)
Land Cover Conversion – Development- Transp. & utilities
Large Spills
Pressures
Most vulnerable parts of the ecosystem(Puget Sound example)
specieshabitats & processes
Cuthroat TroutCoho salmon
Chinook salmon
Riparian vegetationSmall, high-gradient streams
Ecosystem Components &
KEAs
Theories of Change: Actions linked to desired outcomes All 16 Chinook watershed plans (2005) (2005 plans expect lots of miracles) 2014-2015: Regional “Implementation Strategies” focused on key Vital Signs
Theories of Change + Puget Sound Taxonomies
2016 and beyond Refine common language
• multi-scale information sharing and assessments
Refine and apply common tools • improve prioritization of recovery goals, pressures, actions and
science needs
Develop Steelhead recovery plan (NOAA)
Develop regional theories of change (“Implementation Strategies”)
as basis for• 2016 Action Agenda• 2016 Biennial Science Work Plan• Effectiveness Assessment• (2015 &) 2017 State of the Sound reporting