Thanks to everyone who was able to participate in the second meeting for the ‘adaptation alignment’ project in Astoria on September 16. We think it was a good meeting; we achieved what we intended to do, which was to develop some preliminary ‘management objectives for adaptation.’
We have transcribed and compiled the preliminary objectives for each of the four workgroups and posted the objectives for each workshop here. Please take a look at the objectives – in particular those from your work group – and see if you think any objectives are missing that should be included in the list for your management sector/work group. If you feel any are missing, please post them to the comments section of this blog post by October 9,2014 or email them to Monty (you should have his email, already).
After this opportunity to comment, the project team will be doing some initial synthesis of all the management objectives, and expects to post the result of that synthesis in early November. We will send out another message when that synthesis is available for your review, in preparation for the November 18 meeting.
Thanks again for your contribution and effort! – Project Team
Workgroup #1: Infrastructure Mgmt Obj.
Workgroup #2: Public Health and Safety Mgmt Obj.
Workgroup #3: Natural Systems Mgmt Obj.
Workgroup #4: Working Lands and Economy Mgmt Obj.
I looked over the objectives for the public health workgroup.
Look quite inclusive and a great start for seeking the specificity needed in years to come.
Thanks.
Suggested edits to the Natural Systems Workgroup #3 Management objectives for Marine Food Webs:
Marine food webs
• Decrease other stressors: improve water quality and reduce take, where warranted.
• Restore estuary habitat to provide nursery habitat for marine species
• Monitor fisheries and fishery species to determine signs of change in species present, and shifts (increase or decrease) in recruitment success and abundance. Take management or incentive actions to shift or modify fisheries to respond to changes.
• Implement buffers (e.g., eelgrass beds can raise local pH).
Comments on Management Objectives for each workgroup:
Workgroup #1
Management Objectives #2 – guiding away from risk is one method. Could it also say “. . . when possible or design for the risk”
Management Objectives #4 – it questions whether to include “private” infrastructures. I would recommend that it does include it especially when you consider subdivisions and private infrastructures
Workgroup #2
Management Objectives #14 (second from last) – “food insecurity” does not clearly define what we intended. It was to address “potential insufficient supply of affordable healthy foods”. The thought was that with decline of good food products (vegetables, etc.) and the increased cost, that people would tend to buy what they could afford leading to poor health choices such as pastas and low cost carbs.
Management Objective #15 (last one) – the natural hazard ordinance was intended to protect “all” people not just “vulnerable humans”. Vulnerable gives a wrong impression that some people such as elderly or poor or whatever are exposed while others are not. The hazard ordinance would protect others who do not live in the hazardous area from secondary impacts of construction in the hazardous areas.
Workgroup #3
Habitat fragmentation and loss #5 – is listing “eelgrass beds” too specific for this type of report or is it a very definite issue that should be listed (I’m not a pro on this)
Marine food webs #1 & 4 – “reduce take” is not clear to me. Does it mean any harvesting commercial or sport? Also, this is a political hot point and with the change in fishing patterns over the years, do we want to identify something as specific as reducing the fishing. Maybe it should state “manage the harvesting/fishing industry based on the current supply and demand” or something like that.
Workgroup #4
Risk of Increased Forest Fire #1 – “Opportunity for Invasives” needs to be clearer. Invasive what? Species, plants, what?
Risk of Increased Forest Fire #5 – what is “risk of landscape”. Should that be “risk to landscape”.
Increased temperature #2 – “Invasives moving in” needs to be clearer. Invasive what? Species, plants, what?
Reduced summer base flows in late summer – should this title be “. . . base water flows . . .”
Reduced summer base flows in late summer #6 – “urban/rural fights”. Not sure what this means, may need to be clearer.
Management Objectives #2 – incintivise should be incentivize