 |
|||
 |
|
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|||
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
 |
|
 |
|
|
|
|||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
Meeting Summary SEI Science Panel Final Meeting, August 28-29, 2001 Main Points
Meeting Goals
Goal Attainment
Highlights of the August Proceedings Overview of the SEI Process/Summary of meetings and panel questionnaire Courtney provided the overview, reiterating that SEI was tasked solely with addressing issues relevant to conservation of threatened and endangered salmonids. He stated that the panel had generally determined the knowledge base to be adequate based on its comprehensive discussion of the issues in "Document 2" and other relevant issues. He provided the following summary of previous meetings and the panel questionnaire: Numerical modeling The reconsultation parties identified five hydraulic parameters of concern for the estuary: Salinity, surface-water elevation, depth, velocity, and temperature. Assuming that Baptista and McAdory would have no new revelations on the modeling, Courtney indicated that the panel was in general satisfied with the results of the original modeling. While some outstanding issues remain to be integrated into the numerical model, it nevertheless provides valuable information on a range of physical factors from which inferences can be made about their effects on fish. Moreover, since the model makes the case that the project would have little impact on the channel, 'physical reasoning' dictates that even less impact would occur in the periphery. And, finally, the model alone does not necessarily translate into salmon habitat attributes, and therefore, more information on the periphery is needed. NMFS, however, must define a finite set of parameters of concern for the periphery. In addition to the WES salinity model, the panel in general felt that it could usefully: 1) Be compared with the Baptista model, using the same inputs. 2) Model other estuarine physical processes (temperature, depth, and velocity). 3) Model a worst-case scenario for low-flow conditions for the period August-September. Once these data are available, managers will be in a good position to understand physical effects of the proposed project for development of the analysis of biological effects to listed fish. Sediments and sediment quality The panel was in general agreement that the vast majority of material that would be dredged is sand, which is relatively clean and continuously moving in sand waves. The sand has a low surface to volume ratio, is constantly abrading, and not much contamination stays on it. The panel generally felt, therefore, that due to the mid-channel's relatively clean sediments and low percentage of fine organic material, channel deepening would not stir up a large contaminant reservoir in the channel. Thus, the panel did not see "a clear and present danger" with regard to the impacts of sediment and sediment quality on fish. The panel in general felt there is no reason to believe that the project would increase suspended load, and even if it did, it wouldn't matter since the sediment is relatively clean. Total organic carbon (TOC) is generally below detection levels in the estuary. Therefore, the panel felt that contamination was essentially a non-issue, even if suspended on fine sediments, and especially with regard to channel deepening where the sediments are known to be relatively clean. In sum, sediments appear to have little risk, although some uncertainty remains. Therefore, the panel viewed them as a second-order priority for monitoring. Fish Reliable, detailed information on how the different Evolutionary Significant Units (ESUs) use the river and estuary is generally lacking. The role of the estuary for feeding and growth of fish is unclear. The pathways for fish contamination and food chain contamination are also not well understood. All of these remain important areas for further investigation. However, it is difficult to link the effects of the project to effects on threatened and endangered salmonids. The panel: 1) Recommended an emphasis in the analysis on some of the more vulnerable species (e.g., ocean-type chinook and chum) as indicators of the impacts of changing estuarine conditions. 2) Endorsed the opinion that the most significant feature of habitat that could be impacted by the project is the amount of diverse habitat (particularly in side channels and peripheral and shallow-water habitats). 3) Noted the possibility of effects of projected reductions in water surface elevation on riverine/wetland habitat loss. Collier clarified that some amount of contaminant exposure is presumed via diet and that there's a known contribution from hatchery fish. Goldman added that if dredging extends into contaminated areas (e.g., around the ports), filter feeders would presumably ingest contaminated suspended sediments, would ultimately impact fish. "It's the washload [suspended sediments], not the bedload, that's of concern." Monitoring and adaptive management The panel viewed these to be essential based on its understanding of the risks and uncertainties of the project. However, both approaches need to be flexible, relevant, and of an appropriate scale to the project. In terms of scale of a monitoring program, risks need to be balanced with predictive effects. Physical issues are considered to be of lower priority than biological issues, however, they should continue to be monitored as they relate to effects of the project. Issues of high risk and high uncertainty are the first priority of things to monitor; issues of low risk and high uncertainty are a second-order priority. The panel recommended use of a 'decision tree' to determine in advance how results will be used, and endorsed the formal establishment of an 'inter-disciplinary team' to periodically review information and to develop a set of management recommendations, as appropriate. The scope of the team's charge remains to be determined. Some monitoring is already under way that could be integrated with the monitoring needs of the project. Five years is the minimum amount of time for monitoring. Ideally, an adaptive management framework is pursued over the lifetime of the project. Listed fish in side channels and peripheral and shallow-water habitats, within the project area, are the main monitoring priorities. Issues of concern for these habitats include: monitoring of emergent vegetation, fish use and growth, habitat opportunity and quality, wild fish vs. hatchery fish in the periphery, food as a component of habitat. Goldman stated that he thought a monitoring program of less than 10 years would not be adequate. Questionnaire Courtney stated that SEI developed a questionnaire, which asked the panel specific questions on technical topics of the project, particularly those where there was past or continuing dispute. The general goal was to obtain panel comments on scientific issues of physical modeling and the ecosystem conditions, risks and uncertainties evaluation, monitoring and adaptive management, as well as to guide the prospective agenda planning. In general, the panelists found the science materials to be comprehensive, and to be adequate to the task of making an informed decision. The reviewers noted that significant progress had been made during the course of the panel process, and that the different parties had examined all issues of significance. However reviewers also noted some areas where more information would be helpful, notably biological issues. There was general satisfaction with the physical modeling that has been carried out. Panelists were unanimous in their agreement that amount of diverse habitat in peripheral and side-channel areas was among the most scientifically significant issues. The panel (to the most part) agreed with the agency strategy of using ocean-type chinook as a surrogate for the many other stocks in the estuary. Panelists reiterated their view that physical issues are well understood relative to biological issues. They evaluated fish contaminant pathways as incompletely understood, but as less risky than the effects of habitat alteration on salmonid populations. Panelists endorsed pro-active approaches to lack of information. This included a comprehensive monitoring program, and adaptive management. Although there was considerable variability in response among panelists, they identified the following issues as of highest monitoring interest: Salmonid ecology, prey assemblages, vegetation surveys, and habitat changes. Salmonid ecology was also the issue selected with highest priority for research. It was suggested that monitoring would last for at least five years, with the possible need to modify and extend the program. Presentation on Modeling Results (Baptista) In terms of preliminary conclusions, Baptista stated that 1) There is no evidence that the project will have a significant impact on salinity intrusion; the impact is dwarfed by the natural variability of the system, it is 'small' by the metrics used, and it appears to be reversible through 'small' changes in river discharge. 2) There is no evidence of 'significant' impact on habitat opportunity. Tortorici wanted to know what the predictive capability of the model is. Baptista reminded the audience that the model base represents existing conditions. "I think these results give you a framework to think about the problem. That's all they are intended to do. You can make predictions, but not on a two- or three-month-long effort. I think we are giving you an ability to think about the problem." Larson followed up by asking Baptista what he thought would be the long-term changes given that the modeling showed relatively small changes. Baptista replied that if the channel deepening is the only change that is done to the system, "then my guess is that the long-term changes will be small." Bartell wanted to know whether the information Baptista presented brought NMFS any closer to developing scientifically defensible criteria by which the agency could use the information to make a decision regarding salmon. Casillas said that Baptista's information improves our knowledge about physical conditions in the estuary, but that the gap between physical changes and biological consequences remains to be bridged. Bottom concurred. "The question is how do you translate these numbers to what actually happens to the individual fish. Clearly, that's where we started out as a problem and it is still a problem." Bottom reminded the audience that NMFS needs to do everything it can to avoid surprises. "…we don't accept small changes in a model as saying there will be no suprises." Nevertheless, Bottom agreed with Bartell that at least the additional modeling could have some utility when designing a monitoring and adaptive management program. Courtney clarified for the record that one contribution of Baptista's additional modeling was confirmation of the panel's general belief that there is no 'smoking gun' in terms of physical changes. Beasley returned to the issue of surprise, wanting to know if surprises might arise from not looking at the project from a holistic approach. "We're not looking at the incremental assaults that have occurred over time. In a way, we're looking at it with blinders on." Baptista stated that his charge was specific, not holistic, and that therefore, he could not address her question. Casillas said that NMFS is interested in the full range of flows. He also objected to Baptista's extrapolations and value-laden terminology -- such as classifying the physical changes as 'insignificant' or 'small' - and suggested that Baptista should stick to the "factual changes." Boesch said that Baptista did exactly what the panel asked him to do, and that in fact, the additional modeling helps to bridge the gap between the physical and the biological because the model was written "to predict criteria on the basis of biological parameters." Casillas disagreed, saying that the gap still exists because the numbers are not empirically derived; they are a range. Curtis praised the presentation for validating the value of the calibration of the models. Baptista closed by saying that the model results will soon be undergoing a year-long certification process. "At the end of the one year, it will be fairly fool proof." Presentation on Modeling Results (McAdory) Per a previous panel request, McAdory presented a worst-case scenario for low-flow conditions for the period August-September. Jay made the case that intermediate flows, not extreme low- or high-flow conditions - are really the parameter of concern, and that ideal flow conditions are on the order of 120-200 cfs. McAdory agreed, but said that he had a specific charge from the panel to look at extreme low flows. Bartell wanted to know how deep the channel would have to be before big changes in salinity intrusion could be detected in the estuary. McAdory said that deepening is not the issue because salt would simply stay in the channel ("salt has a hard time getting up out of the channel"). For the biggest change to the estuary, McAdory suggested letting the channel fill back up. Bartell asked if this modeling approach has been applied to other systems. McAdory pointed to Galveston Bay. Goldman thought maximum impact (salinity intrusion) would be detected "when you've got high-high tide with a strong wind behind it". He asked if the model considered that kind of extreme. McAdory said no, but that it could be done. Conceptual Model Throughout the review period, the reconsultation parties worked collaboratively to develop a "conceptual model" - an ecosystems-based diagram that illustrates integrated physical and biological relationships for the lower Columbia River that relate to channel deepening. The conceptual model also helped to clarify risks and uncertainties, guide the analysis of effects, and provide a framework for a management program. The panel cautioned that the conceptual model is not a panacea, but recognized its value as an integrative tool. The panel agreed that the question of what constitutes an "appropriate standard" is a policy decision beyond the scope of the panel's charge. Further, the panel agreed that the baseline for evaluating information should be the current conditions or state of the physical and biological components and relationships of lower Columbia River ecosystems. The information that is evaluated should be the incremental changes to these current baseline conditions. The magnitude or significance of any current incremental changes to baseline conditions should be evaluated not only in terms of the current variation within the lower Columbia River ecosystems but also in terms of historical physical and biological conditions that originally defined the lower Columbia River ecosystems. Mishaga pointed out that the conceptual model is merely a guidepost with more detailed analysis to follow. "… The model helps us identify all the issues we might want to look at… We use the model to trace relationships." Bartell encouraged the modelers to place the model in the context of risk assessment and uncertainty. Goldman concurred, saying he thought it would be important to embed on top of the model the importance of an uncertainty like climatic change to physical forcing. Whitney wondered how the conceptual model, which appeared to him to be an ecosystem-type of approach, jibed with SEI's charge of looking only at the potential effects of the project on listed salmonids. Courtney replied that he saw no conflict; that "we need to understand all the pathways that could affect salmon." Whitney then said that he thought the conceptual model falls short of looking at all the p0ssible association with salmonids. "If you're going to take an ecosystem approach, you need to look at the ecosystem - all of it." Courtney said that the Biological Assessment will address all those other associations. Bartell defended the model's simplicity, pointing out that no one has ever completely characterized any ecosystem on the planet. "The question," he said "is to try to determine what are the simplifying assumptions that we can get away with to make our job easier, but still capture the salient features of the system to get a reliable answer." Young agreed, saying that even the ESA consultation process sets sideboards for analysis to make it tractable. Whitney agreed that simplicity is useful, but insisted that an acknowledgment of other functions needs to be made. "There's the appearance that we're taking an ecosystem approach here and it applies to all aspects of the Columbia River. I don't think it does." Mishaga reminded Whitney that the panel had requested a simplified model. "This is a conceptual model for a particular project. I think that's the difference. This is not a generalized conceptual model." Outstanding Issues Courtney led a discussion of outstanding issues (see attachment). Several brief presentations were made on a number of outstanding issues, including the status of coastal cutthroat trout in the estuary (paper will be made available on the SEI web site), effects of ship wakes on salmonids, timing of dredging, stranding and crab larvae. Courtney confirmed from the panel and agencies that ETM is of secondary importance, and that no new information exists or is required. Boesch wanted to make certain that ETM and increased turbidity are separate and distinct, and that neither is of primary concern. As for a futuristic component, such as climate change, Courtney explained that "the project managers elected not to incorporate that on the grounds that it was outside the scope of the project, as defined by existing and reasonable future conditions. It's been incorporated into the public record and will be addressed in some fashion at some point, but it's not going to be a focus of the BA." Courtney stated that the issue of shoreline drying will be addressed through the continued physical modeling. Whitney noted that McAdory's presentation did not include "the upstream, Vancouver portion. It was interesting how the influence of depth was increasing as you went upriver. It would be interesting to carry the model upstream to see if that depth trend continues." McAdory said that his model was not designed to go above Longview, but that Baptista's model eventually will be useful all the way up to Bonneville. He doubted that any surprises would be had, though, given the relatively small changes he had determined in his own modeling. Whitney doubted that "an inch or two" in water surface elevation can be dismissed as 'small'. "In a modeling exercise, if you want to look at the consequence of an action, sometimes you need to look at the extreme. If you just look at the small interval, it would appear that there's no consequence." Jay concurred with McAdory that tidal effects upriver would be minimal as a result of dredging. Tortorici wanted to clarify that NMFS regards the baseline as "a snapshot in time", which nevertheless, takes into consideration "everything it's taken to build it up to today." Courtney indicated that there is no new information for several of the issues, including information on adult salmon, upstream migration, sources of toxins in estuarine fish, concentration of contaminants, and what's happening in the washload (suspended sediments). Buck said that the FWS is interested in knowing more about the concentration of contaminants in suspended particles and in surface sediment, especially in relation to ETM. He also tied ship wake effect to re-suspension. Curtis said that the panel had largely concluded that the material dredged in the channel is clean and that the project would therefore not likely present a threat of unleashed contamination. (He clarified, however, that this opinion is strictly confined to dredging within in the channel, and not to other areas, such as the Willamette River.). Curtis also raised the issue of the sources of contamination in fish. Collier said that we have some knowledge of some of the sources (e.g., hatcheries and the estuary), but that "we don't have an idea how much variability there is around these parameters, and we don't have a handle on what's coming from upstream." Curtis re-emphasized that "we still don't know the pathway," and that dredging in the channel most likely is not a direct contributor. Boesch further admonished that, with regard to project effects, the focus needs to be on the flux of fine material. "Flux is dominated, not by bedload, but by suspended load. If, indeed, fish are picking up contaminants in the lower Columbia River estuary as the evidence indicates, that's got to be the source. So we have to understand whether it's disturbance of the ETM or a disturbance of the bed by dredging. All we're doing in that case is re-mobilizing the material, which is fluxing through the system. That is the vector for a lot of the contaminant transport to the estuary. It's not alien material; it's material coming through the system. So in terms of the basic questions of where is this stuff coming from and how does it get there, there are a whole series of questions. But from the perspective of this particular project, the fundamental question is whether the dredging activity will increase the mobilization of that material compared to the absence of dredging… If you focus on that question, then I think you come to the conclusion that it's relatively trivial, and that you can't put all of the concerns about the fact that there is contamination on dredging because this is material that is naturally contaminated upriver..." Perry wanted to clarify that all the ports were tested for contaminants in the FEIS and that any re-testing will be done separately from this project. Goldman made the point that the type of dredging makes a huge difference in the suspension. "Suction dredging, for example, can be quite clean and that probably ought to be required where you have contaminated sediments in the ports." On the issue of dissolved oxygen, Marsh reported that new studies have been made, but that no conclusions have been drawn yet. He indicated that it is difficult to determine the causes of changes in dissolved oxygen, given all that occurs on the river. Courtney revived an issue raised during David Jay's presentation in a previous workshop that perhaps too much sand is being removed from the system. Courtney saw this as an adaptive management opportunity, and asked the Corps to comment on it. Hicks said that the Corps traditionally relies on a mix of upland disposal, ocean disposal, and beach nourishment. She indicated that in the event information becomes available showing that more material needs to stay in the system, the Corps would have "the flexibility to adapt between dredging practices and disposal options." Eriksen talked briefly about sediment discharge to the ocean. He indicated that Corps "keeps good track of sediment changes in the river from river mile 3 on up stream. To date, no disruption of the sediment budget has been identified in that area. In the ocean, however, "there's a long-term trend of degradation in some areas in the… channel and off shore. What we don't know is the flux of material in and out of the entrance." … There's a "large in-flow of material on the north side of the channel down by river miles 5 and 6." Eriksen stressed that "changes happen in the river all the time. To begin to identify a deficit of material, it's going to take a lot more work." Boesch followed up asking if the loss of sand poses a threat to salmon. Eriksen replied that there is sand in the system all the way from Bonneville to the mouth. What the Corps removes is a relatively small volume of sand. Jay seconded Eriksen's statement that "we need to keep track of what's coming in and how much is being taken out." Malek mentioned that an EPA regional program is already looking at these issues to some extent, and that it will be looked at more closely by the agency. Boesch concluded the discussion by saying this topic is one that could and should be addressed by monitoring and adaptive management. Courtney raised the last remaining issues - a commitment by the Corps and writers of the BA to provide more information on materials on channel slopes, pre-dredge samples, and off-channel areas to resolve issues about dredge disposal estimates. Young made a brief statement about timing of dredging. Essentially, in-water work periods are established to minimize effects on a particular species. FWS looks carefully at such things, and negotiations are under way. On the issue of ship wakes, Larson asked if Hermans had analyzed hull shape, or direction of the ship against or with current. Hermans said not for this presentation. Goldman asked about wave height and its effect on suction. Hermans said it would be small. Curtis pressed further, asking if wave height and suction are a direct relationship. "If you get a one percent increase in suction, is the wave one percent bigger?" Hermans replied that it is not a direct relationship, but only work with formulas could answer that. Curtis recommended it be looked into. Curtis then wanted to know if the channel deepening might result in a change in hull design that could potentially affect suction. Eriksen said no; that the current class of ships has a very effective design for ports around the world. Huhtala asked whether we could expect to see fewer ships with a deepened channel, given that they would be able to transport more. Eriksen said the expectation is for larger, but fewer ships, as stated already in the EIS. Buck raised the issue of ship speed in the channel, asking if there is a speed limit that is obeyed and enforced. Hermans said there is a range of speeds for the channel. Edmondson felt that river pilots have incentives to travel quickly up the channel, and therefore, to disobey the range of speed limits. Hermans thought this unlikely. "My personal opinion is that they would not recklessly exceed the speed limit." Young said that FWS would work with project managers to recommend ship speeds under the ESA. "I guess I would propose that this might be something that should be put in the final proposed action by the Corps. Boesch reminded Young that he would have to support that measure with some evidence that ship wakes are deleterious to the survival of juvenile salmonids. Larson made a brief presentation on how fish are affected by stranding. Beasley wanted to know if the Corps had looked at stranding as a result of backwater filling due to tidal action. Larson replied 'no'; only at stranding on beaches. He added that the water in backwater areas goes up and down for a variety of natural and man-made reasons. Marsh made a brief presentation on the effects of dredging and dredge disposal on crab larvae, a source of food for salmonids. Beasley suggested that since salinity is so important to crab life cycles that perhaps the dredging could be timed around biological windows related to salinity intrusion. Beasley also expressed concern about his perception of a loss of salinity and increasing sedimentation in the lower estuary in terms of their effects on primary productivity there. He urged the parties to look closely at the issue, saying that it could well prove to be one of the long-term surprises of the project's effects. Courtney affirmed the agencies' commitment to long-term monitoring with attention to risk and uncertainty. Overview of the Reconsultation Process Jay expressed concern about changes in river flow and its effects on salinity intrusion as caused by Bonneville Dam operations. Young explained that any proposed change would trigger a reconsultation. Tortorici stated that NMFS would be looking closely at the hydropower BO and the project BO to make certain they mesh. "... for both of those BOs, there's the opportunity to re-initiate consultations if significant changes appear to be happening." Tortorici added that she couldn't recall "the extent to which, if at all, the hydropower BO calls for changes in flows that are going to result in significant changes in flows below Bonneville Dam." Jay said he thought it was a "cumbersome" process to have to re-initiate a consultation every time someone wants to make a change that might affect the lower estuary. He urged reliance on adaptive management. Young said that he was hoping to develop a system that would trigger adaptive management before triggering a re-initiation. "If we looked at a wide enough change of flows in our modeling, I would hope that we'd done a good sweep for the interim, short term, long term..." Whitney asked about mitigation. Young differentiated between mitigation and a conservation measure. He explained that if the effects analysis determines that the project will have no measurable effect, but some risk or uncertainty, then a conservation measure is necessary. However, if the effects analysis determines a measurable effect somewhere, and FWS determines that there's a degree of risk and uncertainty based on an ESU, then mitigation is necessary. Any mitigation would be negotiated in the BA. Courtney segued into monitoring and adaptive management. Bartell made a presentation on a framework for monitoring and adaptive management. No questions were asked. Tortorici discussed monitoring and adaptive management in the context of risk and uncertainty (see Presentations). Boesch said he was pleased to see in Tortorici's presentation some of the things that came out in the July meeting "because I think there were some important points about a framework to identify which of the things are really important to monitor with respect to the project." Courtney asked the panel to comment on where it felt the process was to date relative to monitoring and adaptive management. Curtis expressed disappointment that the SEI process had not ended on a presentation by the agencies of their plans for a monitoring and adaptive management program. He did, however, concede that the issue is complex and that the group had covered a lot of material in a very short time. He urged the agencies not to put off the hard work now, but to begin immediately designing a long-term monitoring and adaptive management program. Goldman supported Curtis, adding that such a program is in the Corps' best interest. "If the salmon run is going to decline, and there's a lot of prospects that it will decline from just the existence of the dams -- we've lost so much spawning area upstream -- that the Corps is very likely to get the blame for further decline in the salmon runs if they don't have the scientific basis to show that the clean dredging of the main channel is not responsible." He stressed careful planning to ensure against useless monitoring (i.e., the collection of irrelevant data). Boesch said it was more than just protecting the Corps' interest; that it's about "doing what is right for the American public in terms of making very difficult decisions in the face of uncertainty, about resources that are imperiled and at serious risk of extinction. So we have a responsibility to make sure that if this project moves forward there are systematic observations called monitoring, which can assure us that we're not having an effect that we don't anticipate having." He then urged the development of "a targeted monitoring program that answers specific questions about dredging activities and the channel deepening in the context of a much broader array of information. It's really necessary to do both -- to answer specific questions in an adaptive management framework, as well as contribute to and take advantage of the broader array of environmental monitoring that's generated from research and modeling efforts." Boesch acknowledged the dilemma faced by the agencies: "You want to be targeted to a specific set of questions related to the channel deepening, but you also want to put that in the context of a broader ecosystem context. I might add that it's not just about the lower Columbia estuary. It seems to me there's another important element of integration that needs to be considered since the focus here is the salmonids. And that's what's happening throughout the whole range of environments -- from the spawning areas upstream, the issues related to the dams, the survival in the estuary, and the ocean experience, and fisheries management issues -- there needs to be some level of integration across those environments on these resources." Boesch echoed his colleagues' frustration about the slow progress on development of a monitoring and adaptive management program. "When we [the panel] came into this it was because the forces were at loggerheads about this Biological Opinion. My reading of this was that a large dimension of that disagreement had to do with a common understanding of what was going to be required for monitoring and further studies. And I guess we're still there. We have a framework, we've had a lot of discussion, we've got a better understanding of what we think the risks may be -- a sharper articulation of those concerns. But I guess the parties, if I can characterize it, know they need to dance, but they still don't quite know where they can put their hands. I would urge you to figure that out pretty soon with respect to the model that in the parameters have been laid out here." On the issue of monitoring duration, the panel had provided a range of answers in the SEI questionnaire from five to fifty years. Boesch took the opportunity to clarify his answer, which Cody had similarly supported in the July meeting: "In the July meeting, we had a discussion about how long the monitoring program should be. My answer was five years, and we were asked to articulate that at the meeting. It's not that I didn't think that there were longer term questions that needed to be addressed, but that five years seemed to be a reasonable framework for a plan of action that you could logically develop and execute and toward the end of that period, re-evaluate with respect to which of the issues you were monitoring in that initial plan you needed to continue or discontinue, or which new issues needed to be addressed. So it was in that context that I felt five years might be a reasonable first-installment interval and then a re-assessment of what, if anything, was going to be necessary and where should it go. Finally, Boesch urged the agencies to acknowledge the interrelatedness of the physical and the biological. "...If you're going to understand the changing effects with respect to salmon, you're going to have to measure physical properties. It just doesn't mean.... You shouldn't interpret this that whatever monitoring is going to be required should only be biological because obviously you need the physics to understand it. This is an area where the modeling and the monitoring need to be closely interactive. We've got some two sets of models here that are very impressive. But models tell the truth based on the assumptions that we bring to the model. It will only get better as we are able to bring in not only new observations, but new understandings as well. You're going to understand the changing effects with respect to salmon, you're going to have to measure physical properties. It just doesn't mean.... You shouldn't interpret this that whatever monitoring is going to be required should only be biological because obviously you need the physics to understand it. This is an area where the modeling and the monitoring need to be closely interactive.... So we ought to be looking at designing a monitoring program that is highly integrated with the modeling effort that we've seen and that will be ongoing. A classic mistake is the separation of those two into different camps of different technical experts. It's a bad, bad mistake." Bartell stressed the importance of incorporating the effects of historical, ongoing, and future land use changes relative to impacts on water quality and quantity. He urged the adoption of an appropriate environmental or ecological scale in setting up an adaptive management program, and at the same time, acknowledged the difficulties of doing so because jurisdictional overlap and institutional barriers. He urged a comprehensive, regional approach to monitoring and adaptive management that goes beyond just the effects of the project. "If you're going to effectively address adaptive environmental management in the context of protecting salmonids, perhaps there's a larger picture that somehow you have to explore the opportunity to see to what extent that can be characterized." Finally, he recommended development of a monitoring framework in the context of a quantifiable, operational model, rather than a conceptual one. "If nothing else, it certainly allows you to do some screening-level assessments of potential impacts of changes in salinity, temperature, water depth, toxic chemicals, and looking at the relative contributions of the production dynamics, or decreased biomass, of the salmonids…." Courtney asked one of the project managers to address the issue of a timeframe for having a monitoring and adaptive management program in place. Young spoke on behalf of the project managers, saying the group is in the process of coming "to some conclusions based on our knowledge of existing information characterizing risk and uncertainty and decide whether a monitoring effort for those specific aspects is necessary. We're within two or three weeks of coming to some of those finer decision points... The effects analysis needs to be done through this scientific process first. And then we would need time to develop the monitoring program on top of that. So I would say we would probably have pieces of this in a month and a half." He added that, "We've been carefully going through a process that provides a documentable, logical flow based on the fact that this is a re-initiated consultation, based on potential litigation, based on the concerns that all the parties have expressed about this process. So we are not moving into some of these point as rapidly as this SEI process has moved along." Curtis offered to review any monitoring plan the parties develop, provided it does not require an inordinate investiture of time. Audience Discussion Whitney expressed concern over the viability of an adaptive approach from the standpoint of institutional inflexibility. He urged use of a hypothesis-setting approach. Courtney said institutional inflexibility is a shared concern and that the project managers are addressing it. Boesch and Bartell saw a hypothesis-setting approach as excessive and not necessarily effective. Mishaga pointed out that the adaptive management is a flexible approach with a set of well-formulated hypotheses at its core. "...any good monitoring program there is a contingency plan. A contingency plan is essentially... a hypothesis, which says that if the monitoring doesn't go as you planned you to need to be able to react to that, which is essentially what are you going to do..." Perry praised the SEI process for informing the re-consultation process, and added that, "...for the project to move forward, the project has to come out of NEPA, it has to come out of both states' Clean Water Act... there's a multi-jurisdictional framework of standards that have to be met for a whole array of issues. So when you talk about monitoring, yes, there are institutional considerations. Further, the project is occurring in a basin where there are larger issues going on... I guess what I'm struggling about with your question, Paul [Whitney] is is it that your are concerned that those standards won't be met by the other jurisdictions that are involved, or is it that because this process is focused on endangered species the other objectives won't be met?" Whitney replied that the SEI process is inherently limited because of its sole focus on effects of the project on salmon. "If we could have good science brought to bear on salmon, the way it should have the first time, and that could be carried out to the rest of the EIS then I would be very happy. But I don't think that it's going to be. So I think the limitations of this process need to be made very clear -- the limitations of the good science that's been brought to bear. And make it very clear from an institutional point of view what it applies to and what it does not apply to." Boesch pointed to the strength of a process which focuses on salmon, but which implies a broader focus. "... the Corps is still responsible for an EIS that addresses all of the issues beyond just the salmon issues. So, on one hand we're focused on salmon but the agency is still responsible for a broader assessment. And on the other hand, by focusing on salmon, it really does force you to look at multiple dimensions of this ecosystem." Courtney acknowledged that the SEI process has its limitations. "This analysis of salmonids shouldn't necessarily carry over to an assumption of no effect on anything else." Johnson wanted to know to what degree the panel would be available for follow-up questions. Courtney said part of his job was to insulate the panel from a barrage of stakeholder questions; that he would be willing to act as a go-between. Panelists said they were more than willing to continue to offer assistance, provided it does not require too much of their time. Hicks pointed out that due to the presence of multiple federal jurisdictions in the region that great opportunity exists for a systematic approach to the lower estuary. However, she wanted to make sure that people do not have the expectation that the BO will outline a system-wide approach. The BO resulting from this particular reconsultation will address only the effects of the proposed action. She thanked the panel for their work and indicated that the agencies would take up the panel on its offer to stay involved in the agencies' development of a monitoring program before the final consultation is completed. Courtney thanked the audience for attending and all who had been involved in the SEI process. * * * Outstanding Issues Loose ends as determined from minutes prepared for the various panel meetings, etc., and identified by SEI. (Page numbers in parentheses are from the minutes for each meeting.).
March
April
May
June
July
Questionnaire Some of the above points were raised again in the questionnaire when panelists were asked 'what other topics should be discussed at the last panel meeting?' In addition panelists raised other issues:
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||
|
|
|
||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||||