# *Draft Notes: 040506*

# "Sound Science" Workshop

**I. Overview**

On March 31, 2006, the Northwest Fisheries Science Center (NWFSC) of the
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) hosted the "Sound
Science" Workshop at the NOAA Sand Point Facility in Seattle,
Washington. The workshop served as a forum to gain support for the
content of the "Sound Science" document and to generate ideas for
upcoming Puget Sound Partnership science workshops and discussions.

**Introduction and objectives**

Usha Varanasi (NWFSC) and Jim Kramer (Shared Strategy) welcomed
participants to the workshop and thanked those present for their work
and comments to date. Nancy Tosta (Ross & Associates) facilitated the
overall discussion and reviewed the meeting agenda and objectives:

-   Gain support for the content of the "Sound Science" document,
    including four key topics: Puget Sound ecosystem components, primary
    threats to ecosystem functions, key gaps or uncertainties in
    understanding ecosystem responses to human and natural activities,
    and key findings from document and implications for Partnership
    recommendations.

-   Discuss the process for developing and finalizing the Sound Science
    document.

-   Discuss content on key sections of the document to identify areas of
    agreement and disagreement

Mary Ruckelshaus (NWFSC), a lead author of the document, briefed
participants on the current draft of the "Sound Science" document,
including the four major sections: humans and Puget Sound, processes,
habitats, and food webs. She asked the participants for assistance in
exploring these topics and identifying areas of agreement, disagreement,
and clarification on threats and gaps identified in the document.

Participants were subsequently divided into four facilitated groups
focusing on the main sections of the document. Each group addressed the
following:

-   *Areas of agreement for each section*

-   *Concerns, areas of disagreement, or suggestions for each section*

-   *Identification of additional threats or threats that should not be
    included*

-   *Key gaps in the science with a sense of priority*

The discussions from the breakout groups are recorded in sections II-V
in this document. Participants reconvened after lunch to hear a summary
of the morning breakouts (section VI) and then broke into three groups
to discuss key findings. These are presented in sections VII-IX.

**Overall Structural Ideas from the Breakout Groups**

-   Write an executive summary or condensed 10 page summary of the
    document. Alternatively, consider a more concise version of the
    current document (reduce length to 30-40 pages) by removing the
    language or discussion of generic science information. For each
    topic, provide the key information and refer to appendices for more
    information.

-   All science facts must be cited. Create a footnote system or
    bibliography. For example, use numbers in the text and refer to
    citations in a bibliography.

-   Include a discussion of trends, including future projections and
    reasons for why issues are important to address now

-   Include pull out boxes with captions and more detailed information
    on specific subjects.

-   The following suggestions were offered as alternative approaches for
    overall organization:

    -   Alternative Organization #1:

        -   What are the key drivers?

        -   What are the key uncertainties around those drivers?

        -   What are the interactions between drivers?

        -   How do those interactions and drivers change over time?

    -   Alternative Organization #2:

        -   Definition of Puget Sound

        -   Valuation of Puget Sound

        -   Assessment of Puget Sound

        -   Recommendations

    -   Alternative Organization #3:

        -   Define the ecosystem -- recognizing that a major cause of
            change is human actions.

        -   Describe why it is important to keep the ecosystem healthy
            (e.g., define links between human health and oceans)

        -   Discuss how people can help change the downward trends in
            the environment.

    -   Alternative Organization #4:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Describe management and the effects of management
    (successes/failures)

-   Describe the driving forces of change (trends and scenarios)

-   Characterize the state of the interrelationships between humans and
    the ecosystem

**Key Messages/Suggestions from the Breakouts**

-   Clearly define the audience

-   Acknowledge humans as a component of the ecosystem and better
    integrate their actions and effects throughout the document (not
    only in a "humans" section).

-   Do not always refer to humans as the "problem," but recognize they
    are a component of the ecosystem and can provide solutions and
    opportunities.

-   Clearly acknowledge what are facts in the document, clarify where
    there are questions and gaps -- and cite the references.

-   Include disclaimer that the document is not a comprehensive review
    of Puget Sound science topics, but a concise overview of key
    scientific issues in the region.

# II. Humans and Puget Sound Breakout Group

**Participants**

-   Mark Plummer -- NOAA's NWFSC

-   Usha Varanasi -- NOAA's NWFSC

-   Jim Kramer -- Shared Strategy

-   Tom

-   Scott

-   Randy

-   Marina Alberti -- UW

-   Dave Fluharty -- UW School of Marine Affairs

-   Patrick Christie -- UW School of Marine Affairs

-   Karen

-   Casey Rice -- NOAA's NWFSC

-   Stewart Toshach

-   Nat Scholtz -- NOAA's NWFSC

-   Walt Dickhoff -- NOAA's NWFSC

**Discussion of the overall structure of the document**

***Note-taker's comment:***

*These notes read like a script, where the words in italics were not
actually stated. Much of the discussion can be broken into parts, in
retrospect. The parts are: 1) a discussion of the overall structure of
the document, 2) a discussion of the questions that should be raised in
the "humans" section of the document, 3) a discussion key science gaps,
and 4) a discussion of the decision framework section of the document.*

Mark: There's pressure to make this document short, so when you identify
possible changes, think in terms of sentences or paragraphs, not pages.

Usha: Will there be appendices to the document?

Jim: That's an option.

Mark: *As an overview of the document*:

-   the diagrams in the "humans" section of the document are one-sided

-   aquaculture is described mostly as a "threat," not in terms of its
    value

-   maybe its value can be worked into the decision framework section at
    the end

-   the "humans" section is boiled down

-   introduce the concept of "human valuation" later in the document

    Scott: Who is the presumed audience for the document?

    Mark: Partnership-level people. The "humans" section of the document
    should allow them to see how humans fit in with the other topics.

    Scott: Are people supposed to be able to read the section and make
    decisions based on it?

    Randy: What people want is to make a list and prioritize it for how
    to spend money. This document can support making that list.

    Marina: Had the same concern as Scott, but applauds the work done
    thus far, but what are the questions that we are trying to answer
    with the document?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What potential futures are we looking at?

-   Where should we invest our resources to best protect ecosystem
    functions?

-   What is driving ecosystem functions? (both human and non-human
    drivers)

-   Once the drivers are identified, then ask what are the uncertainties
    about those drivers.

    We need to develop scenarios about the future

    Jim: You're saying: "we need to understand what the future will
    bring." But most of the document is about the past and present.

    Dave: The purpose of the document is to provide a baseline to
    generate discussion. This is what science is predicting will happen
    -- this is what is happening. Hopefully, the document will be read
    widely, for education and ideas. The document is more of a starting
    point.

    Tom: Changing people's values and behavior is critical. This may be
    part of what we need for the future. Not so much changes to the
    ecosystem, but changes in the people inhabiting it.

    Patrick: *Identifies himself as an environmental sociologist, then
    goes on to say that:*

    He was struck by the tone of the document. There was a clear message
    that humans are the problem. However, people are also the sources of
    opportunities and innovative solutions. If the document is framed in
    terms of "people = the problem," then this leads to traditional
    environmental solutions. He also noted that the document doesn't
    call for empirical research on management systems -- in other words,
    questioning why management systems are in the form that they are in.
    How humans manage their environment and how that management can be
    improved is a well-established are of scientific study.

    Karen: *agrees with Patrick, and then observes that*: the social
    science section of the document is very short relative to the
    natural resource sections. The document needs a deeper set of
    questions about humans. It doesn't discuss social management
    systems. Threats aren't linked back to either natural sciences or
    social sciences.

    Mark: Patrick wants to examine the idea that we can look at
    ecosystem institutions scientifically. Could the "key science
    findings" include something about ecosystem institutions?

    Marina: Can we, as a group, propose that the synthesis is done
    differently so there is a more explicit connection between humans
    and natural processes? If we pose humans as threats, then we've
    failed. The synthesis needs to be developed around scenarios for the
    next 20 years. The entire document needs to be shaped around
    different questions. For example:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   What are the key drivers?

-   What are the key uncertainties around those drivers?

-   What are the interactions between drivers?

-   How do those interactions and drivers change over time?

    Usha: You have to define the ecosystem in the document. This is
    "part 1." Regardless of whom you attribute change in the environment
    to, the underlying major cause of change is human actions. That's a
    fact. Stating it won't offend people. It's a fact. The second part
    of the document can answer certain questions like: 1) why is it of
    value to keep the ecosystem in good shape, 2) what are the links
    between human health and oceans, and 3) why is it important to keep
    the ecosystem healthy? This second part is what Congress has been
    interested in as a message. The third part of the document can
    answer the question: how can people help change the downward trends
    in the environment. People want to know this. Overall, the facts are
    what they are. The tone of the document can change, but the facts
    cannot. If you have these three parts, there is the synthesis.

    Karen: This structure of the document (i.e., Usha's, outline above)
    makes more sense than its current format.

    Stewart: Science is one possible solution for the current
    environmental problems. There are other possible solutions:
    political, social, economic, legal. If legislators only look at the
    scientific solution, then they miss the other possibilities.

    Jim: Legislators understand this. There are other groups making
    similar documents.

    Casey: There needs to be a critical evaluation of science and
    management in Puget Sound somewhere in the document. What the
    legislators are asking us is "What's going on? Why are our
    management policies not working?" In reading this document, it's
    difficult to know which answers are conventional wisdom supported by
    real data, and which answers are "expert opinion." To inform society
    (i.e., the readers of the document), you need to acknowledge what
    the facts are, but also acknowledge where the gaps are.

    Marina: Facts about what? We need to define the questions here.

**Discussion about questions raised in the "human" section of the
document**

-   Brainstorming about the questions the document should raise?

    -   Why have the actions taken by scientists to make Puget Sound
        healthy not worked?

    -   Is it that we're doing the wrong things, or not enough of the
        right things?

    -   What are the major drivers of change in Puget Sound -- both
        biophysical and human?

    -   How do humans manage the environment?

    -   What is the jurisdictional landscape of Puget Sound?

    -   What are peoples' perceptions of Puget Sound? (lack of research
        on this topic)

    -   What are the drivers of change in Puget Sound?

    -   What are the trajectories of change?

    -   What are the uncertainties surrounding the drivers?

    -   What is the spatial distribution of human use? How will the
        distribution change?

    -   How do you do good science without data management? (databases
        are a mess.)

    -   What are the full dimensions of human actions that create stress
        on the environment?

    -   What values are driving people?

    -   How are human actions related to the larger picture?

    -   Why is there resistance to current management laws and mandates?
        How can the situation be improved?

    -   What has worked elsewhere in terms of management? Are there
        better management models in other countries?

    -   How can we involve Canadians in drafting the document? They are
        part of Puget Sound.

    -   What would make human systems more resilient/adaptable to future
        changes in the environment?

    -   How do humans respond to changes in the environment?

    -   How do we fund science that occurs over a long temporal scale?

-   The Great Lakes have a long-term plan. The cost of the plan is \$12
    billion, but there's no funding for it, so we do need to consider
    costs here. How much is society willing to pay?

-   Where do these questions fit into the structure of this document?
    Here is an alternative structure:

    -   Definition of Puget Sound

    -   Valuation of Puget Sound

    -   Assessment of Puget Sound

    -   Recommendations

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   We need to pull back from making recommendations about what lies
    ahead. We need to maintain the boundary between making this a
    science document and making this a science-informed policy document.

-   Some of these questions can be answered in terms of social science,
    others in terms of natural science.

-   Which questions need to go in the "humans" section of the document?
    Which questions are for the broader document? And which are really
    beyond the scope of the document?

-   These questions can be lumped into 2 groups: 1) management and the
    effects of management (successes and failures), and 2) the driving
    forces of change (trends and scenarios -- basically Marina's
    questions).

-   There is also a third group: accurately characterizing the state of
    the interrelationships between humans and the ecosystem.
    Urbanization is a huge topic that brings together many of the
    questions. The drivers of urbanization are interrelated:

    -   Human population growth / demographics

    -   Land conversion

    -   Coastal sprawl

    -   Climate change

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Future scenarios could be used to integrate the human section and
    the biophysical section of the document. They shouldn't just be
    limited to the human section.

**Discussion of key science gaps**

-   Stewart: The "key science gaps" identified in the document only
    constitute a small list.

-   Mark: The connections between drivers and the ecosystem should go
    into the "key science gaps" section.

-   Tom: A lot of drivers are symptoms, rather than causes. Why do these
    drivers happen? There's a history to them.

-   Marina: Yes, but that's outside the scope of the document. What
    legislators want to know is how to invest money. We don't know how
    the climate trajectory will affect urbanization. "Where do the
    interactions occur?" That is the most important scientific question.

-   Mark: That isn't a science gap that belongs on p. 30 (in the
    existing "key science gaps" section), but a question for a section
    that doesn't exist yet.

-   Casey: One gap is that we need a better understanding of the link
    between human activities and ecosystem structure/function. We need
    to link these trends/drivers (i.e., human activities) to the
    biophysical.

-   Nat: We should also link these trends/drivers to the appropriate
    policies that already exist (e.g., the C.A.O. in King County, and
    the Clean Water Act).

-   Patrick: There needs to be a coherent section on the options for
    methodologies. With new methodologies, you can integrate data sets.
    Having a coherent section about how you go about implementing some
    of the suggestions in the document would go a long way.

**Discussion of the decision framework section of the document**

-   Marina: The document has a lot of frameworks that aren't very
    consistent with one another. Lines should be drawn between
    assessment tools (like UrbanSim) and decision making tools.
    Regarding the decision framework: who are the agents (the decision
    makers)? They, and their interactions, need to be stated and
    understood. What decisions are we making and at which scales?

-   Stewart: It's a waste of money to build decision support systems
    until you have data to populate the system.

-   Dave: Good science can come out of a data-poor or data-rich
    environment.

-   Tom: The decision support system, as stated, is unclear. What do the
    boxes and arrows represent?

-   Mark: The decision support system (DSS) section was supposed to
    include not only the DSS but also a part about integrated science.
    The integrated science part got cut.

-   Patrick: Should Box 3.4 on p. 84 be placed first in the document,
    and used to motivate questions?

-   Mark: You'll notice that government is only a small part of Fig.
    3-4.

-   Tom: There is the notion of top-down and bottom-up forms of
    management. The document seems to speak about top-down management
    (or at least it does in Fig. 3-4).

-   Marina: This is why we need to identify the "agents." Are they
    individuals? Are they agencies?

-   Mark: What are the laws, regulations, means, governance instruments,
    etc. that we currently have in place to affect Puget Sound? It may
    be that only 33% of the actions on Puget Sound lie within those
    means/instruments.

-   Randy: This list (of laws, etc.) has already been made

-   Walt: A major gap is in understanding how human activities influence
    ecosystem processes and pathways.

-   Nat: One suggestion would be to begin with the DSS rather than
    diluting human activities throughout the document.

-   Karen: Human impacts should be better integrated into the rest of
    the document.

-   Jim: The best way to grab the decision-makers' attention is to say:
    "We know that you're going to make X, Y, and Z decisions. This draft
    will help you make those decisions."

-   Tom: Ultimately, the individual is the decision-maker, not some
    god-like being.

# 

# 

#  

# III. Processes Breakout Group

**Participants:**

-   Al Duxbury (UW Oceanography)

-   Alan Chapman (Lummi Tribe)

-   Anglea Grout (Metro King County)

-   Ann Seiter (Sound Science document editor)

-   Brad Gaolach (WSU/ King County Extension)

-   Carol Maloy (Washington Department of Ecology)

-   Cindy Barton (USGS)

-   Dave Beauchamp (UW School of Aquatic and Fisheries Sciences)

-   Fred Goetz (US Army Corps of Engineers)

-   Kim Stark (King County)

-   Mitsuhiro Kawase (UW Oceanography)

-   Nate Mantua (UW Climate Impacts Group)

-   Jan Newton (UW Applied Physics Lab)

-   Rick Palmer (UW Civil and Environmental Engineering)

-   Jeff Richey (UW Oceanography)

-   Tim Quinn (Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife)

**Overall suggestions for processes section**

-   Increase the utility of the document by including trends in Puget
    Sound processes. This should include not only historical trends, but
    future projections to identify potential problems or challenges and
    discuss why these issues should be addressed now.

-   Write a disclaimer for the section on processes: this is a basic
    overview of natural processes in the Puget Sound. Discuss and
    acknowledge the amount of variation that exists for all processes
    (including benthic).

-   Consider moving all of the language on human activities and
    influences to human actions sections or consistently discuss how
    humans impact the processes throughout the section.

-   Consider organizing the processes section by geographic scale and
    discuss how the processes work at various scales (global, regional,
    WRIA level, small scale - coastal streams, etc). Scale is a good
    organizing principle. Reorganize the section to start with the Puget
    Sound basin and then discuss terrestrial and aquatic inputs at the
    watershed level. After discussing these inputs, move to discuss
    larger external influences such as climate change.

    **Suggestions -- with general agreement and areas of concern**

-   Revise the presentation of scales in section 2.3. Does not work to
    combine global, aquatic, terrestrial, marine, and near shore
    processes. Describe the effects of various processes at different
    scales -- e.g., climate has effects local to sound-wide.

-   Broaden the geographic range to include the Fraser River as part of
    the Georgia Basin (information could be extracted from the Georgia
    Basin Conference recommendations). The map on page 35 needs to
    include the Fraser River.

-   Discuss the circulation patterns of the Strait of Juan de Fuca
    (which are different than Puget Sound). The Straits Commission
    produces materials which could provide useful information on this
    subject.

-   Include a description of local climate patterns. Local climate
    language should focus on rain shadows, simple local variability,
    local climate history, and insert a few illustrations (Nate Mantua
    of the Climate Impacts Group will provide language and diagrams as
    necessary).

-   Fred will revise the diagram on page 36 (send a revised diagram and
    several other illustrations from an older document).

-   Emphasize the importance of upwelling: nitrite concentrations at the
    entrance of the Strait of Juan de Fuca and Admiralty Inlet are much
    higher than nitrite concentrations in the Puget Sound.

-   Include a discussion of water quality issues: USGS has vast amounts
    of information on water quality in the Puget Sound (Mary and Cindy:
    discuss USGS and Department of Ecology water quality information
    which was cut out in second draft of the document).

-   Revise the section to include more "meat" or substance for
    management professionals. The document should not be written in a
    journalistic style.

-   Create a simple conceptual diagram at beginning of the processes
    chapter (a triangle with three parts: process  bottom; structure 
    right; function  left of side).

-   Include a list of processes discussed in the document for global,
    terrestrial, fresh water, and marine processes. Fred will provide
    the list of near shore processes. Create a diagram to illustrate the
    relationship of all processes. Fred will send several examples from
    King County water and land documents.

-   If more water quality information is needed, the Department of
    Ecology may provide a set of water quality indicators. Cindy (USGS)
    will email Mary Ruckelshaus (NOAA) the links to the USGS freshwater
    inflow data online. Add language on freshwater inputs to the Puget
    Sound. Include a diagram showing the input of the Skagit River and
    other rivers in the area. An additional suggestion: review the Puget
    Sound Water Quality Authority's ambient monitoring program document
    which did not receive much attention. It may have failed for
    political reasons: what is the lesson learned in this case?

-   Discuss the "net effect" of tides in the region.

-   The Elwha River example on page 53 is a good one -- the Elwha
    affects water inflow processes and the river should be mentioned in
    any general discussion of circulation processes.

-   Jeff suggested changing the diagram on page 16 to separate marine,
    freshwater and terrestrial components. Focus the reorganization of
    the diagram on the box in middle of Figure 1-2 (marine, freshwater,
    and terrestrial processes) and try to capture or include more on
    terrestrial and freshwater interactions as well as climate and land
    processes.

-   Discuss tradeoffs: there are some benefits to certain land uses or
    agricultural practices that directly affect fresh water quality --
    developments create more stormwater.

-   Introduce the concept of indicators in the processes section. This
    helps augment the discussion of trends. Fred will send in factoids
    on Puget Sound indicators.

-   Add a discussion of quality models such as ENVVEST or other models
    which are used by port managers and other city or county officials.
    Any discussion of models must include a disclaimer: every model
    needs validation and calibration to achieve some level of accuracy
    -- models still have a long way to go in terms of predicting
    outcomes in the area.

-   Add language to recognize off shore processes and the importance of
    these processes for juvenile salmon populations.

**Key threats**

-   Consider earthquakes and volcanic events as long term threats:
    recognize that such events are a threat on a different time scale.

-   Consider new terminology -- threat is not the correct word for this
    section. Alternative words which are more policy neutral include:
    drivers, uses, agents of change, and consequences

    -   Primary impacts and primary consequences

    -   Drivers may be a more prudent term (threats are a type of
        driver)

-   Climate change as a threat falls under Humans and Puget Sound
    section.

-   Do not include harmful algal blooms under human impacts or
    activities.

-   Do not prioritize or order the key threats for this section.

-   Toxics and oil spill should be split into separate bullets.

-   Point source pollution or loading should be covered under human
    activities (including wastewater treatment plants). Similar
    biological processes should be covered in the section on food webs:
    add a cross-reference to the processes section if necessary.

-   Separate climate variability from climate change (multi-directional
    change).

-   Land use is a driver and it directly affects the health of Puget
    Sound (causes major changes in vegetation).

-   Fresh water diversions should be mentioned in the bullet on water
    diversions (do not use the term "withdrawal" because it may cause
    confusion).

-   Tsunamis should be in the same category as earthquakes and volcanic
    eruptions (long term geological threats). Landslides fall under
    short term geological threats.

-   Include descriptions of threats in each bullet to improve
    consistency. Also include information on the biological impact under
    each bullet (this will link the section on impacts back to the
    discussion of ecosystem values).

-   Additional threats include: watershed development/ land use change,
    large woody debris, fish transport, floodplain development, over
    water structures, human product use (changes in vegetation), air
    pollution, tide gates and culverts, fish hatcheries, and
    aquaculture.

**List of key science gaps**

-   Air deposition and air quality (currently the chapter does not
    discuss either topic).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Linkage of near-off shore processes

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Discussion of physical, chemical, and biological cycling needed

-   Pelagic -- benthic coupling

-   Land use changes and influences

-   Impact of climate change on water demand and the consequences for
    regional water supplies

    -   Is there too much emphasis on climate change?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Lack of baseline information and monitoring programs

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Legacy of historical and current activities which affect processes
    such as transport.

-   Impacts of pharmaceuticals and personal care products (these topics
    may fall under the food web section)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   How do natural processes affect the distribution of harmful algal
    blooms?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Historical perspective: what did the regional ecosystem to look like
    several hundred years ago?

-   Surface circulation in Puget Sound may be broken into two elements:
    toxics and oil spills

    -   What data do we need to know?

    -   What kind of detail do we need to know in terms of scale to be
        able to make meaningful management decisions?

-   Spatially specific definition of processes in different locations

-   Lessons learned from those who worked on the Chesapeake Bay and San
    Francisco Bay projects.

    -   Ask to review any lessons learned or best practices documents
        from these projects.

-   Inability to make long term economic and demographic forecasts

-   Page 55 (top bullet): What are the time frames to see effects, both
    positive and negative, on restoring the mechanisms that support
    natural habitats?

# IV. Habitats Breakout Group

**Participants**

-   Randy Carmen

-   Terrie Klinger

-   Michelle McClure

-   Alan Mearns

-   Tim Quinn

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Michael Rylko

**Breakout Discussions: Habitats**

-   (Michelle providing overview of how the document is structured,
    specifically around habitat structure (typology)). For the habitat
    section we ended up with near shore benthic, offshore benthic and
    open water. Did we miss anything important, did incorrectly capture
    anything, what do we need to add, etc.?

-   How will people use this document and what is the target audience?
    Was there a decision to be general?

    -   (Michelle) There was a desire to not recreate the wheel, and not
        to define the weeds of a particular habitat. The audience is
        policy-makers so we need to be general. If you think we need to
        go into more detail/the weeds, you should tell me that.

-   This section (Habitat) collapses on the marine-section, but it does
    not really fit well with the ecosystem services section.

-   Lost the **freshwater** in the marine content of the document.

-   We (Puget Sound shore group) define offshore (nearshore?)
    differently than you do, so we might want to use common definitions.
    We need to **show the link with riparian vegetation.**

-   Did not see **floodplains** in this section of the document.

-   Ecosystem management and some other human disturbed landscapes is
    very detailed classification. One approach is saving a bit of all
    pieces. **By collapsing, lose diversity of various habitats. We need
    to be careful about saying there are three habitats that need to be
    saved (i.e., we do not want policy-makers to think that there are
    only three habitats that need to be saved).**

-   We do not want to lose **variability of habitat** in Puget Sound.

-   Ecology mapping of habits done about 15 years ago may be helpful to
    reference. Plays into concept of continuum and diversity. (Contact
    Michael Rylko for further information about mapping.)

-   (Michelle) We went back and forth and decided to keep Food Web and
    Habitat as separate sections because we wanted to show the link to
    Processes.

    -   I would keep these separate. Based on the lessons we have
        learned in terrestrial environments, they do not have all the
        linkages and ecology figured out (which they will not for a
        while). We need to give managers an alternative for conserving
        ecosystems. TNC (the Nature Conservancy?) for diversity would be
        a good reference.

-   Need to make **linkage of processes supporting habitats**. In
    beginning of section we should discuss drift cells, sediment.

    -   Many of these things were in an earlier draft and pulled out to
        simplify the document. We need some detail, but it became very
        difficult to include detail at the appropriate level for the
        entire Puget Sound.

-   (Michelle) We have been trying to find maps. If you have ideas,
    please email Michelle. It is important to create the visual grab in
    this document.

    -   Perhaps drawings could be used as visual aids.

-   Play to/use examples presented in other section to show your link in
    habitats

-   Geographical scope, hopefully it eventually goes beyond Canada.

-   **Missing from institutional framework is reference to international
    linkages.**

    -   Both sides of the border did an assessment of habitat. This
        would be a good compendium to reference.

-   Ecosystem diversity matrices are used to describe potential
    vegetation and what exists on the site. Is this done for marine
    environments?

    -   Carl Shock attempted to predict the biology or community
        structure from a number of parameters; this has been done to
        smaller extent.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   All things that drive type of plant communities to sustainability.
    We do this more and more in terrestrial environments. Would this be
    helpful for marine environments? Key person to contact about this is
    Megan T (?)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Set of drawings of near Puget Sound and Strait of Juan de Fuca
    habitats from 25 years ago. This would need to be recreated. UW Sea
    Grant published booklets, NOAA technical studies, and Rick
    Stricklend did a plankton book. (Contact Michael Rylko for further
    information.)

-   What happened to citations and references in this version?

    -   (Michelle) We left out, but will add when closer to final
        document. References will focus on key papers/research.

-   Have you seen TNC's typology of the most important bio-rich areas in
    Puget Sound? Consists of habitat typing and species distribution
    data. May be alternative way of looking at deep water
    habitat/species. May be of some value for open water.

-   **Salt marshes** need to be addressed more rigorously in this
    document. It is really compelling to see the percentage we have lost
    to building dikes for agricultural reasons. Discuss sub-estuary,
    where rivers meet marshes. 2020 is not that big of a timeframe.

-   (Michelle) In the framework, we tried to lay out a way that allows
    policy makers to determine which activities will be pursued. Not all
    can be done, so someone will need to figure out which are best to
    pursue based on tradeoffs.

    -   Breakdown level of habitats that people will address. Focus on
        how long it may take to recover a habitat.

-   There is a section in the document that implies that the habitats
    are stable, which they are not; we need to **capture what can change
    them (habitat)**, like sea level (e.g., Restoration Puget Sound
    Natural Area Preserve, the only thing that was not agreed upon the
    county mapping sea level and impact to habitats).

-   Is the document really part of a way to monitor changes over time,
    as an assessment tool? The way it is structured, it is really
    descriptive on background versus being written for future
    monitoring. What is the document meant to be, descriptive or
    prescriptive? Is it going to be a measuring tool? If it is we need
    to be smart about what we call a habitat.

-   On the use of the document, Mary says the document is less about the
    technical quality and more a rallying call for scientist to point
    out big problems - take broader scan and point out the red flags.

**Michelle recap of what she is hearing from participants:**

1.  Start out with clearer connection between habitat and processes,
    then

2.  Greater detail on habitat types that is more consistent with Pilsner
    work, then

3.  Take types of those items that are striking (the red flags),
    including distribution and trends, then

4.  Present problems based on information communicated in prior
    items/sub-bullets

-   Also need to set the stage for filling the gaps, so we can
    eventually have a big picture view

-   Also need the continuum idea of habitats -- head waters.

    -   Difficulty of achieving this with a space limitation. There is
        no way to be fully comprehensive; you might do better to choose
        a couple iconic habitats as examples. We do not want people to
        think this is comprehensive report/document.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   From terrestrial perspective, what if we articulate that everything
    that happens upstream matters without going into extreme detail.

    -   Use examples to demonstrate this idea (e.g., salt marshes). What
        is missing is any complexity at all.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   You can almost introduce habitat at the larger scale. Big scale to
    small scale (e.g., habitats are on an oyster shell). Show/capture
    scale, but state that the document will focus on the bigger scale.

    -   Representatives should go in front of policy makers with a map
        of the whole picture, but indicate that we can only put our
        focus in so many places. It is so important to capture scale.

    -   Represent greater complexity, scale, and scope in the document.
        Not in detail, but to get the message across.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   (Michelle) Participants should email Michelle if they have ideas on
    how to do this. Polite and cogent comments/suggestions are welcome!!

**Sufficiency of Detail**

What other habitats that rise to level of salt marshes and floodplains,
with respect to important habitats to include in the Habitat section

-   Shorelines and riparian shorelines (going from riparian to armor
    shorelines)

-   Seasurface microlayer

-   Rocky shores (real rock)

-   Deeper habitats (below photic zone where soft, mushy, and dark)

-   Mesopelagic fauna of Puget Sound

-   Cores taken that show pollutant level from 1880. We need people to
    recognize big picture and understand trade offs. (Contact Alan
    Mearns for further information)

**Threats**

Identify the things that should be on the list of threats, and
prioritize the threats. End goal is having the right threats.

-   Ocean cycles are a natural variability; this is not a threat. The
    threat is if the ocean cycles disappear. Uncomfortable with the word
    "cycles." Cycle implies symmetric oscillation versus variability.
    **Ocean "conditions"** would be more appropriate. Management should
    know to recognize ocean variability as a threat. But this does not
    belong in this category (natural phenomena).

    -   Maybe climate change should include/incorporate ocean conditions

-   Having a difficult time with threats. You can directly impact
    habitats and you can have a long-term impact to habitat. Should we
    represent the scale of threat? You may not change the area, but you
    have damaged the habitat (e.g., fragmentation with a dike).

-   Having problems with dichotomy. Some of the natural phenomena are
    indirect human impacts.

-   There are certain input processes that cannot be managed (natural
    variability) so have less risk approach (precautionary approach).
    E.g., cutting management acts is too thin, but cutting reserve is
    riskier.

-   Natural phenomena are sources of natural variability; **threats come
    from human activities -- direct and indirect cumulative type. Also
    missing non-linear responses (e.g., climate change, happening
    quicker than we thought (exponential = non-linear).**

-   **We need more upfront in document to discuss how threats affect the
    system - tipping point, cumulative impact, etc.**

-   **Show the point at which the system breaks.** Concept of armoring
    of shorelines is important to management; analysis of bays on
    Bainbridge Island of docking system to show that if the same
    management regime is used this is what the shoreline will look like
    eventually. Docks are a really good example of cumulative impact --
    one isn't so bad, but 800 are bad (e.g., Sandy Hook).

-   Need more emphasis on upslope processes under human
    influence/threats. We should reward those land owners that implement
    the large scale riparian lands. Could have two slides to demonstrate
    wrong and right actions (e.g., Sandy Hook). Good distinction -- know
    vs. judgment. Where do you put the burden of proof for the impact?

-   Do we want to know what Puget Sound was like 200 years ago?

    -   (Michelle) That was a component we wanted to get in here, but
        were not able to

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Look for work by Timothy Eagan

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Putting invasive species last may convey/indicate that it is less
    important. Because they are biological in nature and reproduce they
    are far less manageable and a greater challenge than other issues,
    so you might consider moving this up in the list.

    -   (Michelle) The threats are not in order. We need to make
        distinction of dependencies with respect to elevation of
        threats.

-   (Michelle) Are there other things that should get the attention that
    invasive species gets?

    -   Depends on how the document/threat section is used. Will it be
        used at face-value or will there be background expertise.
        **Identify threats with enough information that you can work
        toward fixing -- low hanging fruits.**

-   **Use approach of being comprehensive and then focus on the main
    things we are worried about, and rely on examples and best judgment
    of threats.**

-   (Michelle) What are the five big threats?

-   New dams are not an issue, so change title or put into water
    regulation. Are we trying to say that the existence of dams is a
    threat because we still want to remove? We could put "**Dams" or
    "Existence of Dams"** as threat.

-   Commercial and recreational fishing is a difficult threat. Not sure
    if the Puget Sound Partnership will grapple with this.

    -   (Michelle) The partnership is not the only recipient of this
        document. We should state threats that need to be stated,
        remembering that there are other audiences.

    -   This is only one aspect of biomass removal.

    -   Perhaps we need to distinguish between uses and threats. Fishing
        is a use. Some pose threats. Aquaculture is a use but there are
        many threats that result from it. The threat as a result of
        fishing is target species removal. **Suggest a
        section/threat/use of aquaculture with subsections
        underneath/within.**

-   Shoreline development should be "**shoreline modification**."
    Development is a use and not a threatening impact based on use.

-   **Need consistency of "use" versus "threatening impact."**

-   Stormwater releases should be "runoff." Is it water or the toxics in
    the water that is the threat? In an undisturbed area, runoff is not
    a threat. Hydrological shift - there is a delivery problem of
    getting all at once. Surface water runoff is the better threat
    because it includes runoff, delivery (hydrological shift), and what
    is in it the water (toxics). Toxics should be "pollutants". **Toxics
    as the threat, with water regulation as a sub? Physics and chemical
    threats.**

-   Harmful Algal Blooms should be **Algal Blooms**. These are part of
    natural variability. Not all are bad or harmful. It comes down to
    temperature and nutrients. This comes down to riparian protection.

    -   **New threats are temperature, nutrients, and circulation that
        modifies waterbodies and the outcome is algal blooms.
        Circulation, flushing, exchange of nutrients.**

-   For oil spills, it is the **undocumented leakage** that is a
    problem, which **cause cumulative effects of oil spills. Change to
    "Toxics and Spills".** Might all be lumped into contaminants. Maybe
    a sidebar on the potential to harm, compare all the threats to each
    other to identify level of causing harm.

-   **Atmospheric deposition** is not in list/document. This is a data
    gap.

-   Direct damage to benthic habitat -- are **pipelines and cables**
    (include in description). The actual pipelines are dangerous, not
    just the laying of them.

-   Additional comments on threats should be sent to Michelle by email.
    (Contact Randy Carmen, he specifically stated that he had comments
    for the Shoreline Development regarding wording.)

**Key Science Gaps**

What are the priorities to filling the gap? Compelling science that has
the potential to change policy by regulation or changing human behavior.
Identify the "if we had X (the gap topic/item) we could do more
effective management" gaps

-   We have examples and knowledge to change our behavior, but we are
    not doing it. So where is the break in the administrative side?

    -   How do you take science information and get it into a decision
        making system and have it acted on?

    -   Having historic vs. current pictures/views could be so dramatic
        it might compel human behavior -- need really powerful maps.

    -   We need to talk about changing habitats as the critical point,
        not the detailed description of habitats.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   It is very difficult to identify critical habitat. You need the
    historical comparison to the current distribution. Do not spend a
    lot of effort unless you have a story to tell.

    -   **Gap in policy and implementation**. Lack of ability to get
        what we know into the decision-making mechanism (social science
        gap -- why no action when info exist).

    -   It is not a lack of science, because information is identified
        all the time, for last 10 years.

-   Perhaps the data we have is not the right level. We are missing
    status and trends.

-   We also do not know the interconnection of processes -- integrative
    science.

    -   Shared strategy worked well because there was a back and forth
        between the scientist and the policy people to identify what
        they can and cannot have with regard to information.

    -   Problem of **scale of science**.

-   The science we have is not adequate to mention the management
    questions; however we have enough information now to start acting.

-   Long-term and short-term science information -- short and long-term
    strategy behind science. We don't know enough about science but that
    should not be an obstacle.

-   We need to make this statement in the key findings portion. Status,
    trends, interconnection, scale, etc.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Status and trends may not be a real gap. But there is a question of
    where these are necessary for certain issues. Threshold and tipping
    points along the line might be the missing gap.

-   What is the measure of success by 2020? You need the good and bad
    tipping points -- inflection point.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   The decline and recover timeframe will not be symmetric, we do not
    want that message to be conveyed to policy makers. We need to
    monitor that we are on the right path.

-   Yes, but we need to be judicious about it, by monitoring the
    appropriate projects and the performance.

-   **Threshold and tipping point** -- is carrying capacity part of
    this, including variation of the carrying capacity?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Third bullet -- impact of marine reserves -- if you go down that
    road you need to look at impact of management measures or
    strategies. Look at marine reserves as one of those (management
    measure/strategy), and then you can look at the network.

-   Ecosystem value -- we need a value of property and Puget Sound --
    link to ecosystem services and habitats.

#   

# V. Food Webs Breakout Group

**Areas of Agreement (among the group, if not with the document)**

-   Food webs and other species interactions are complex

-   The integrity of the ecosystem is important to maintain for the
    important species

-   It's all connected, but it's hard to show and know it all

-   Base of the Puget Sound food web is phytoplankton and detritus

-   Energy flows up the food web

-   Ecosystem-based management requires an understanding of these
    interaction (particularly as pertains to human interactions)

-   Human activities and uses influence species interactions

-   Important threats

    -   Broader ones (climate, ocean cycles) are more important than
        more localized

-   Threat criteria should be developed to prioritize importance

    -   Likelihood of occurrence

    -   Severity of impact

    -   Scale of impact

    -   Increasing trend?

    -   Persistence of impact

    -   Cumulative impact?

    -   Magnification of effect?

    -   Are there indicators?

-   Priority for study are actions that directly affect distribution,
    abundance and productivity of predators and prey

-   Need to be clear who the audience is (managers and policy makers,
    not scientists)

-   Should be more up front in the section as to why it is important to
    know what is going on in the Puget Sound food web

    -   It seems like it just drops out of nowhere

    -   Need to provide context (maybe cite Chesapeake Bay as example?)

-   Need to emphasize that gaps are knowledge gaps and not programmatic
    gaps

-   Other interactions need to be brought into the discussion

    -   Food web is okay as an example, but should mention other
        interactions (competition, parasitism, disease, positive
        interactions)

**Areas of Disagreement (w/the document)**

-   Should be more about threats/impacts in the section

-   Plankton issue from Andrea C. (she will help write the section)

-   Where are macro algae apart from kelp?

-   Detrital base of the food web is given short shrift

-   Allochthonous input is underemphasized

-   More detail

    -   Should be more specific with "have increased" statements (e.g.
        Zostera increase; how much is it? A lot? A little? What's the
        rate?)

    -   Should be more specific about \# of invertebrate species
        (1000s?)

    -   Should be consistent in detail

-   Should be general in the food web diagram and present details in
    boxes

    -   E.g. charismatic fauna, important or key trophic linkages

    -   Example that describes how some fauna undergo ontogenetic change
        and occupy different place in the food web over time

    -   Orca-salmon-sea lion box

    -   Maybe show sub food webs in additional diagrams

    -   E.g. West/O'Neill figure showing bentho-pelagic coupling

    -   John Field CA current EcoSim model (could show complexity but
        then highlight segments

    -   Detritus box---what it is

-   Human use examples

    -   Harvest

    -   Habitat

    -   Toxics

    -   Climate

    -   Could have a box to demonstrate a top-down and bottom up human
        impact

-   Should clarify some threats

    -   Is it climate (change)?

    -   Which ocean cycles?

    -   What about atmospheric deposition?

# VI. Summary of morning breakout group discussion

**Summary of Small Group Discussions**

Purpose is to describe areas of agreement and disagreement and identify
areas needing additional discussion/work. Michelle volunteered to
summarize the key areas of agreement and disagreement from the breakout
session groups.

-   Human group: humans are a process and need to be integrated into the
    system (ecosystem), with the thought that social science can add a
    lot and should be involved in effective management.

-   Processes group: need to start local and then go global, and
    enhancement of fresh water.

-   Habitat group: habitats are not static and are dynamic components of
    the system (ecosystem). Start with general description and then hone
    in on examples.

-   Food Web group: discussion on other ecological interactions
    (pathogens)

-   There was convergence of thought among the groups. All four groups
    thought there should be more on trends, including historic. Habitat
    and processes, discussed that threats are uses and
    consequences/impacts of the use. Some desire that the threats were
    more consistent. Integrative data management needs to be pulled
    together.

    **Review Process**

-   Participants can provide comments until April 10. The third draft of
    the Sound Science document will be available by April 17. Comments
    on the third draft are due by [Friday, April 21.]{.mark} The
    document will be sent to the printer by May 22, and available in
    June.

    -   Why such a quick schedule? This is one of the Partnerships main
        supporting documents, so schedule is theirs.

    -   Shouldn't you move up the date prior to the 10th and then give
        additional time on next round. We would be delighted to do that,
        if people are fine with this.

    -   What is the process for taking comments and making revisions?
        Michelle and Mary will determine a process for managing received
        comments; this process will be circulated to participants.

    -   Will there be a public record of all the comments submitted?
        Yes, comments will be publicly available on a website, which is
        underway.

    -   This is a process rather than a document -- living document. The
        first draft release will be sent to the Partnership in June;
        additional changes can be made to this document after.

    -   Organizers will speak with the Partnership and other people
        involved about idea of putting out a draft this Spring and
        following up with something more final this Fall.

    -   What is the time when the document is accepted as the gospel? If
        it is a process/living document, hopefully we can counteract
        natural tendency to close out the document.

# VII. Key Findings from Group 1

**Participants**

-   Al Duxbury (UW Oceanography)

-   Brad Gaolach (WSU/ King County Extension)

-   Glenn Cannon (UW Oceanography)

-   Jeremy Davies (NOAA)

-   Karen Terwilleger (WA State Legislature)

-   Lyman Thorsteinson (USGS)

-   Mary Ruckelshaus (NOAA)

-   Randy Shuman (King County Metro)

-   Scott Brewer (Hood Canal Coordinating Council)

-   Tim Quinn (Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife)

-   Now is the time to act -- what are the options available from a
    scientific standpoint?

-   Land use affects salmonoids population in freshwater systems (4.3.2)
    -- link freshwater and terrestrial systems.

-   Add more information on what is known (versus what is unknown) to
    assist policy makers in their decisions.

-   Not taking action may create a more dramatic impact on humans -- an
    important point which is yet to be discussed in the document.

-   How do we manage growth sustainably? There is a need to balance our
    growth against ecosystem services.

-   Be more explicit about tradeoffs -- converting agricultural land
    into sub developments may have a negative impact on freshwater
    quality.

-   One unknown is the source and disposition of toxics into the Sound
    -- there is a need to quantify rate and quantity of toxics entering
    the Sound.

-   Emphasize that prevention is cheaper than mitigation.

-   Stormwater is an important issue that is not discussed within the
    document.

-   Efforts to restore and protect Puget Sound will help salmon
    populations (there is a need to make an explicit link to salmon
    recovery efforts).

-   Human effects on the ecosystem limit the ability of natural systems
    to respond to changes.

-   We need to focus attention on invasive species as an important topic
    -- this area is not pristine or unaffected.

-   This could be a very scholarly reference for a review of the state
    of science on PS.

-   Understand the difference between key findings and key science
    needs.

-   Different basins and different sections are interconnected -- how do
    we make the explicit links between systems?

-   The human dimension is lacking or missing in ecosystem science.

-   What is the "future ecological service"? Should it be valued more in
    the future than it is now?

-   Be careful not to create a research agenda or send any messages
    asking for research funding.

-   Ecosystem research is largely in its infancy. The governance of area
    is critical in terms of relevance of research and management of
    ecosystems.

-   The goal is of the Sound Science document is to summarize the
    current and past research briefly. The authors want to summarize
    what is known, what is unknown, what are the management
    implications, and how do we move forward.

-   What is uncertainty? What is the risk? It is best to start with what
    we know and can do and present the uncertainties later -- even if
    there isn't much space to address all of them.

-   In terms of audience -- ask ourselves: why would Ron Sims want to
    read this?

    -   Discuss how the Puget Sound has changed since the 1970s and
        provide data to augment the discussion.

-   Micro level changes in regulations and land use changes are having a
    positive effect on in the area.

-   Another positive outcome: land is being set aside for sustainable
    forestry.

-   Lump some findings together (use e.g. to provide more details)

-   Near shore habitat loss: salt marsh declines (60% loss) -- habitat
    loss is dramatic.

-   Discuss issues surrounding how to improve the communication of
    scientific research results

-   Discuss the ability to better communicate the results of science and
    the ability to use science for decision making.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Crucial finding: there is current scientific information to support
    new action, but it is not communicated effectively.

**Findings that should not be in the Sound Science document**

-   Rising sea levels are out of our control.

-   It may be important to mention some findings, even if funding to
    research or address the problem does not exist (the presence of high
    concentrations of PCBs in Puget Sound Orcas).

-   It is a slippery slope to remove any of the current findings.

-   One goal is to help the reader envision: what will the Sound look
    like in 2020? What will land coverage look like? How will
    populations be distributed? What can we do about it? -- add some
    detail about what this means.

# 

# VIII. Key Findings from Group 2

**Participants**

-   Jim Kraemer -- Partnership for Puget Sound

-   Casey Rice -- NOAA's NWFSC

-   Cindy Barton -- USGS

-   Patrick Christie -- UW School of Marine Affairs

-   Tim Essington -- UW SAFS

-   Mark Plummer -- NOAA's NWFSC

-   Mitchell -- (I'm not sure about this name)

-   Tom Hubbard

-   Phil Levin -- NOAA's NWFSC

-   Dave Beauchamp -- UW SAFS

-   Alan Devol

-   Jim: What are the "key findings" in this document for management
    (with the term "management" used loosely -- it could be a single
    individual or a large agency)? Are there key findings that are
    missing?

-   Casey: The document lacks a critical evaluation of historical
    management in Puget Sound.

-   Cindi: Puget Sound proper is a recipient of everything that goes
    into the basin. Increases in the human population lead to changes in
    land use. This will lead to changes in what ends up in Puget Sound.
    So one key finding is that one can expect changes in the delivery of
    water at what the water contains.

-   Patrick: If you break down the key findings in the document:

    -   5 are ecological findings

    -   2 are climate findings

    -   1 relates to the human population

    -   We can't frame the issues of Puget Sound purely as a natural
        science question.

        The one finding related to humans is problematic. This approach
        doesn't work, and the fact that it doesn't work has been proven.
        The document also should highlight instances where Puget Sound
        management is working.

-   Tim: The document takes the increases in human demands as a given
    without looking at the potential to change human demands. What are
    the incentives that drive those increases?

-   Mark: Is this a gap in knowledge or a key finding?

-   Patrick: Maybe a gap is a key finding.

-   Mark: Then one key finding is: "understanding gaps will lead to
    better management."

-   Mitchell: Under traditional management, we're screwed.

-   Tom: Key finding 4.2.3 is the only one that tackles humans

-   Cindi: But it says nothing about humans' alterations of surface
    water and how that will impact Puget Sound.

-   Phil: Just as Puget Sound needs a wider "ecosystem-based" management
    model, there are a lot of wider threats/drivers that come from
    outside the ecosystem. For example, aquaculture is driven by wider
    economics. With contaminants, one can regulate Puget Sound sources,
    but not what's entering the Sound from outside.

-   Patrick: Ecosystem-based management within Puget Sound alone will
    not be sufficient. You need to address outside sources of
    contaminants and outside drivers of the economy.

-   Phil: Regarding key findings 4.3.1 -- 4.3.3: these ecological
    findings aren't very satisfying. They basically say "we don't know
    anything" in 3 different ways. Maybe condense this into one finding.
    As for additional findings, how about: "fundamentally altering food
    chains, either by pulling thins out (harvest) or putting things in
    (hatcheries), is likely to have impacts throughout the food web on
    ecosystem services?"

-   Mark: Can we say more than just "altering food chains will change
    things?" Can we be more specific?

-   Tim: Anything more that we state will have to be probabilistic.

-   Mark: Will your probabilities narrow or become wider depending on
    what species you're talking about?

-   Dave: Yes, definitely. There is information that can focus some of
    the probabilistic findings. There is not much known about
    phytoplankton/zooplankton, but we do know about season food habits
    and life stages[^1].

-   Phil: We have enough information about the ecosystem to be able to
    build rudimentary models about management, but we don't have enough
    information to build better models.

-   Tom: The key findings start off very wide and get narrower. It would
    be better if the findings stayed broad throughout. The last finding
    (the one related to armoring) is a very narrow opinion without much
    science to back it.

-   Casey: Yes, there's no distinction in this finding between what is
    actually known about Puget Sound and what is just expert opinion.

-   Dave: If you can identify the bottlenecks that may be absorbing
    restoration efforts, you may be able to improve management. For
    example, salmon restoration focuses on the nearshore (as in finding
    4.4.1), but a lot of mortality occurs offshore in the Sound at a
    later life stage.

-   Mark: *Objects to the implications of the shoreline armoring finding
    (4.4.1)*

-   Patrick: *Reads his own list of key findings*[^2]

-   Mark: Expresses interest in the scale of management. Is the nested
    structure of management most effective, even if it's not most
    rational? Should there be a single unit of management, or multiple
    units drawn from multiple scales?

-   Patrick: The definition of ecosystem-based management is debated.
    Some believe humans are part of the ecosystem, others do not. The
    document could be strengthened by a more statement about what flavor
    of ecosystem-based management we're espousing.

-   Casey: *Other possible key findings*:

    -   Puget Sound is an asset -- we value it.

    -   Puget Sound is not dead -- it's a rich and productive place.

    -   But the historical research/management has failed to
        sufficiently protect/recover the Sound.

    -   There are data gaps.

    -   The proposed solutions may be part of the problem (e.g.,
        hatcheries)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Why are hatcheries not mentioned anywhere in this document?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Phil: The message one gets from reading this document is that Puget
    Sound is not unique. Puget Sound is degraded. There are lots of
    different users with conflicting interests. The message should be
    that the Sound is not dead. We have a unique opportunity to change
    things in a potentially short amount of time. It's not a lost cause.

-   Alan: The problem is not unique, but the ecosystem of the Sound is
    more complex.

-   Dave: Is the idea that "if you do right for salmon, then you fix the
    rest of the ecosystem" correct? Or is it too narrow?

-   Casey: Wild Chinook are an ecologically diverse species that still
    have a wild component, so in a lot of ways Chinook are not a bad
    focus. But if you just say that you want healthy Chinook, then
    people will just manufacture them or protect a tiny part of the
    environment that they need.

-   Phil: If you do single-species management successfully, then you
    screw things up in the wider ecosystem. The details are altered.
    Maybe nobody cares about those details, but maybe they end up being
    important, overall.

-   Patrick: Iconic species, like Chinook, are good to bring people of
    very different backgrounds together (e.g., tribes and sport
    fishermen). In Puget Sound, there are still iconic species - like
    Chinook and orcas - that can be a unifying force.

-   Tom: But you need iconic species that are at the bottom of the
    ecosystem, as well as top predators like orcas and Chinook.

-   Mark: If you embrace ecosystem services as a guide for managing
    ecosystems, then you may end up with unexpected tradeoffs (e.g., if
    we tweak the ecosystem to increase numbers of some iconic species,
    you may do it at the expense of other species).

-   Jim: From a human perspective, there is a value/benefit of focusing
    on iconic species. On one level, this makes sense, but there are
    some tradeoffs/unexpected consequences. There is a limitation to
    managing only for iconic species. The Partnership for Puget Sound
    will not have the vision to see this. But they will have the
    influence to make vision into reality.

-   Tom: PSNERP picked "valued ecosystem components" (VECs). Scientists
    recoiled because the VECs were all iconic species. However, the idea
    was the VECs would simply be a way to communicate. In other words,
    stay away from using VECs as actual goals; just use them to
    communicate the value of what you're trying to accomplish. Keep the
    iconic species as a rallying point, not as goals.

-   Mitchell: The benefit of VECs is that they cross habitat types.

-   Phil: *Offering a dissenting opinion*: Icons are good, but if you
    manage icons in order to get to an ecosystem state, then you'll end
    up with a very different ecosystem than if you manage for a list of
    indicators of ecosystem health.

-   Casey: We need a historical baseline. How many graphs of indicators
    have humans (i.e., population growth through time) on their x-axis?

-   Patrick: The document should say that we would like to get to a
    state of monitoring in Puget Sound as in such-and-such a place. For
    instance, can we model Puget Sound monitoring after Great Barrier
    Reef monitoring?

-   Phil: Maybe Great Barrier Reef monitoring is such a good scheme
    because the reef itself is an icon. Puget Sound, as a whole, is not
    an icon.

# IX. Key Findings from Group 3

**Participants**

-   Liz Duffy

-   Kurt Fresh

-   Tom Good

-   Ann Sieter

-   Carol Maloy

-   Michelle McClure

-   Alan Mearns

-   Patricia Michaud

-   Jan Newton

-   Tony Paulson

-   Jacques White

-   (Michelle McClure) Quick summary of key findings. Four divisions --
    ecosystem wide, water quality and quantity, species, and habitat.
    Systems approach to management allows you to manage more, better.
    This (ecosystem) is key point. Others are things that are relatively
    important. Partnership separated water quality and quantity; we did
    not because we found that they are linked.

    -   Quality and quantity should be separated out.

        -   (Michelle) When you sit down to write them, you wind up with
            some of the same things in both bins, which is why it was
            together.

-   Suggestion that "ecosystem-wide" in 4.1 should be "system-wide"

    -   Most participants support the term "ecosystem-wide"

    -   Many staff/people contributed to this document and many used
        different language/terminology

-   (Michelle) The Partnership focus is on everything, not just fish.
    Healthy ecosystems and economies for Puget Sound. This document is
    not intended to be a fisheries oriented document; it is intended to
    be an ecosystem focused document. We do recognize that the key
    findings and the rest of the document are not 100 percent in sync.
    We want to focus on nailing the key findings then customizing the
    document to the findings

-   Shouldn't we say that smarter decisions will be made with
    quantitative modeling of ecosystems, that this is a way to
    implement? I do not see 4.1 as a finding because it is the premise
    of the document. The things we have as implications become findings,
    with the addition of quantitative/qualitative modeling. This should
    be the first sentence in bullet one re: Hood Canal. Example of
    Ecosystem model -- Chesapeake is an example.

    -   But partnership wants to do something that has not been done
        elsewhere; Chesapeake did not work.

    -   Recommendation should be to go outside of Puget Sound, only to
        see what the experiences are.

-   There isn't a place where ecosystem-wide modeling has been 100
    percent effective.

-   If we build the document toward quantitative decision-making point,
    we need to say it is a key finding.

-   The problem is that the Hood Canal model is not a good model because
    it does not include fish.

    -   The model will include fish in year two.

-   We could use the Lake Washington example/model. One components of
    this is that it had/has a link to the public.

    -   They were able to do this because the system is much simpler;
        Puget Sound is much more complex. The model will need to be more
        complicated with the complexity of the system that is being
        modeled.

    -   Lead off with Lake Washington example to set premise. When you
        get further into the document, note that Lake Washington is a
        good example but complexity of the Puget Sound requires more
        complex quantitative models.

    -   The success of Lake Washington was tying policy and politics
        with the science, and including the decision process

    -   Suggested change-- smarter decisions and supportive quantitative
        modeling.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   New suggestion -- what makes good ecosystem-wide modeling and list
    various components that make a model good (e.g., includes link to
    public, appropriate quantitative modeling for level of complexity of
    system, link to policy, etc.)

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   4.2.1 and 4.2.2 fit together, and the Partnership should plan for it
    (climate impacts).

-   There was a lot of discussion of including trending in that section.
    If that happens you might want to intersperse trending throughout
    the document.

-   Climate impacts cut across everything. **Climate impacts and how we
    manage them in the future is the issue, and will be clear in the
    document.**

-   Another major finding is that we will have to do more to counteract
    climate and resource population. Where does this belong?

-   Rethink structure. 4.2 is slightly off. Climate, population growth,
    contaminants. Group considering that these are the key high-level
    themes, and that water quality and quantity, habitat, and species
    are subs under each key theme.

-   **New finding: need to do more prevention than cleanup of what
    already exists in environment/ecosystem**

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Much of what we are talking about is what can we do better in the
    future. But where is the element of how we can fix the damage we
    have done? We need restoration. The status quo is a decline, just to
    tread water you have to do more. Where does this fit into the
    document?

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   State of the Sound report is organized by trends and indicators, but
    does not go deeply into the future. Doesn't the Partnership want to
    look to the future?

    -   (Michelle) This document is supposed to be a big picture
        approach.

    -   What extent of our problems today comes from our legacy sources?
        **Suggest that we just indicate that we want to fix our legacy
        problems and provide steps for prevention in the future.**

-   Suggest reorganization of findings section:

    -   Key or overarching points/philosophies or bill of rights for
        findings

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   ecosystem approach, is beneficial when it has these elements (well
    informed by science, connected by policy, etc)

-   prevention is a better cure

-   Education sooner than later (status quo is a decline)

    -   Organizations

-   population growth as an agent of change has wide reaching
    implications

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   contaminants

-   development

-   shoreline modification

    -   Climate change as an agent of change has wide reaching
        implications

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Water quality

-   Water quantify

-   Habitats

    -   Ecosystem understanding is poor

-   Food web

-   Connection

-   Habitat modification

-   Processes

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   There was a philosophical basis for threat evaluation. Threats
    should be evaluated based on their scale, longevity, likelihood to
    occur (this should be added to threats section). Second, a lot of
    the science part of this document will discuss connectivity between
    land, freshwater, and Puget Sound. The degree of connectivity and
    complexity is important because if our actions are not well
    informed, this could have deleterious and negated results. This is a
    point under the ecosystem finding.

    -   With regards to threat evaluation, maybe we can identify where
        the road blocks/obstacles are. Incorporate into philosophical
        bill of rights -- modeling -- you need to do something to
        address road blocks.

-   Connectivity of the science and policy makers is lacking. Maybe
    scientist are not going out on a limb and saying this is bad, stop
    doing it.

    -   Is there a finding that there is a science to policy
        communication failure? Thinks there is a lack of education and
        focus to get the information to the public. Maybe there are
        simple recommendations on what the public can do (e.g., picking
        up dog poop). This all fits into ecosystem finding.

Comments, suggestions, or clarifications should be sent to Mary
Ruckelshaus at <mary.ruckelshaus@noaa.gov> or Michelle Mclure at
michelle.mclure@noaa.gov

[^1]: Dave was speaking quickly and I didn't capture half of what he
    said here. It might be worth asking him to repeat it.

[^2]: I asked Patrick to send me his list. I'll forward it separately.