Kramer et al 2010 shoreline no net loss framework

Product
A product is any output of an effort, including datasets, documents, graphics, or websites.

Create A New Product Page

Last Ten Products

Product Categories

Dataset‎ (1 C, 6 P)

Document‎ (5 C, 158 P, 520 F)

Graphic‎ (3 C, 78 F)

Website‎ (35 P)

Google scholar search
Linked To This Product

Wiki Rules

Wiki text does not reflect the policy or opinion of any agency or organization
Please adhere to our Social Contract and Style Guide
Complain here, and be nice.

File Link: Kramer et al 2010 shoreline no net loss framework.pdf

Kramer, J., C. MacIlroy, and M. Clancy. 2010. No net loss framework: ideas for measuring and maintaining ecological functions to achieve no net loss. Prepared for National Fish and Wildlife Foundation, Washington, D.C. project# 2010-0060-002. 19 pp.

Notes[edit]

Describes a four step systematic approach for quantifying SMP implementation:
References proposed indicators by WDOE in 2010.
Describes exploratory work in Jefferson County and Clallam County
Uses a process-structure-function model of nearshore ecosytem service provision as described by PSNERP

Detailed Notes Pcereghino (talk)[edit]

The report offers a framework, and the team was seeking additional funds to implement in the context of Clallam and Jefferson county SMP.
No Net Loss is undefined in the Act or Guidelines.
The Handbook offers the following description in Chapter 4: "Over time, the existing condition of shoreline ecological functions should remain the same as the SMP is implemented. Simply stated, the no net loss standard is designed to halt the introduction of new impacts to shoreline ecological functions resulting from new development."
Implementation requires a scientifically valid logic chain: 1) we can measure condition, 2) condition describes function, 3) development affects function, 4) that comparison of two points in time determines change in function, 5) that change in function can be attributed to development.
"We need to be better able to differentiate ecological changes that occur due to SMA-regulated development from those that occur due to actions outside shoreline jurisdiction."
- Pcereghino (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC) - this analysis makes assumptions about what "baseline" is and whether SMP is responsible for general ecological decline. This completely misses a reponse to climate change or other broadscale impacts as part of "baseline". The ability to adapt is a baseline attribute.
Author describes three needs of a framework:
1. "Provide a systematic way to support shoreline master program updates by quantitatively relating shoreline master program management decisions to ecological functions;
2. "Provide site- and reach-specific information to support shoreline master program implementation, namely permitting and technical support/outreach to shoreline property owners; and"
3. "Enable quantitative and spatially explicit monitoring and assessment to document changes in ecological conditions over time."
References Diefenderfer et al 2007 for conceptual model.
Proposes three elements of condition that affect shoreline function:
- Intrinsic quality - relative habitat functions in a reach
- Alteration - modifications of shoreline that affect habitat functions
- Watershed condition- modifications of watershed that affects habitat functions.
- Pcereghino (talk)This is interesting in that watershed condition is generally determined as "outside of SMA jurisdiction", while watershed condition clearly affects shoreline functions. How is this scientific discrepancy handled between GMA/SMA?
Pcereghino (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC) - It could be easy to obscure subtle change within a system that summarizes fuction into some kind of consolidated rating.
Pcereghino (talk) 22:55, 27 February 2021 (UTC) - this framework doesn't consider restoration potential as an attribute of value, and loss of restoraiton potential as an impact.
Author proposes evaluation of potential land use, and considertion of these particular impacts, when defining code restrictions.
"Understanding better in advance specifically where conflict between ecological functions and development and private property is likely will better position local governments and partners to come up with solutions by targeting and focusing voluntary incentives, acquisition and/or technical assistance in key areas." (p14)
- This places obligation on government to remedy private action through government programs rather than creating private burden for actions that would damage public trust resources.
"With data about IQ, level of alteration, and expected land use change for specific parcels and reaches, local governments can make more informed decisions about whether to permit new developments, how to condition permits, and what type of mitigation is necessary. Knowing that baseline conditions have been quantified and will be tracked over time provides support to permit staff and elected officials to make hard decisions, weigh trade-offs and positions them to more clearly articulate where regulations do not apply and other partnerships are necessary for success." (p.15)
p. 16 summarizes the values of using a quantitative approach.
The comments from reviewes identified the discrepancy between "ecosystem recovery" and no net loss, the lack of consideration of climate change as related to baseline.
The framework references planned future work in Clallam and Jefferson counties.