General observations

The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership provided a comprehensive and thoughtful response to our questions. The Partnership indicated that they are currently focusing on activities that restore fish access and improve habitat that has been cut-off from the mainstem Columbia. In addition, they and their partners are working to combine multiple actions to create larger projects. The roles of the various partners were clearly presented and are coordinated to avoid conflicts over project management and actions. The partners include the Columbia Land Trust, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Partnership, and the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. The Partnership is currently developing a broader ecosystem approach for its restoration activities. A description of this method was provided, and it will be used in the future to prioritize areas in the lower Columbia that should be protected or restored.

The Partnership indicated that the AEMR approach it is using (Johnson et al. 2013) to evaluate its projects is a work in progress and they would be receptive to a review of the document by the ISRP if needed. An AEMR leadership team has been created. Since BPA staff members are on the leadership team the sponsors state that the results of their monitoring work will be coordinated with ISEMP, CHaMP, and BPA’s AEM methods so that project data can be used in basinwide analyses. The methods used to determine the level of monitoring each project will receive were described in adequate detail. Some additional discussion about how the Partnership’s 51 reference areas will be used was not addressed. Use of these sites should be indicated in future AEMR designs for the Partnership’s projects.

The Partnership is seeking funding to include socio-economics in its project selection process. Currently it receives no funding for outreach and signage. We recommend that the sponsors work with their partners to include signage as a project endpoint to educate the public on what restoration work was done and the biological benefits it is designed to create. This will be a valuable addition to the significant amount of public education that the Partnership does through its school and volunteer programs.

Comment on specific responses

Question 1: In response to ISRP's concern about monitoring, the sponsors stated the Johnson et al. (2013) plan for AEMR monitoring in the estuary is in a pilot phase of implementation. A qualification is to provide the results of this pilot project as soon as they are available.

Question 2: The integration of the 50+ reference sites into the monitoring program is impressive. In general this appears to be a well thought out RM&E program. In response to the ISRP question about the criteria for determining the level of monitoring needed by a project, the description provided of the scoring method used for selection was adequate but should be qualified. A qualification is to provide some examples of how monitoring sites were justified (including statistical or rating scores) to help understand how these sites were selected.

In response to the question asking for an elaboration of the methods used to select monitoring sites, the sponsor responded that “the proposal format for the ISRP Geographic Review was problematic in that it did not allow for a description of our technical approach.” This seems a programmatic issue that should be addressed, perhaps by enabling appendices to proposals. Note, a reference is to Roni et al. 2002, but this is probably a typo that should be Roni 2005.

Question 3: This question concerned the scientific basis for the numerical goal of acres to be restored. The sponsors stated that the numerical goal for restoration is based on opportunism and the anticipated pace of restoration. What the ISRP was asking for was the biological rationale behind their restoration actions—what are the anticipated biological benefits associated with restoring 25,000 acres and is more protection and restoration needed? The answer was only partially adequate, and the ISRP suggests the sponsor survey the scientific literature for possible methods (e.g. modeling) to improve the scientific basis for establishing targets for restoration and employing more suitable metrics. A good description of the rate of restoration in the estuary was provided.

Question 4: The flow chart was very useful to understand the procedures for restoration site selection. A final metric is an economic/ecological mixture ($/SBU), which puts considerable weight on the veracity of SBU determination. The ISRP should be kept informed as results of restoration are developed and expressed as SBUs.

The ISRP also requested information on how or if a landscape approach was included in site selection, but the response was only partially adequate. The physical landscape is clearly considered in the procedure. However, while numerous partners are consulted, the socioeconomic aspects of a true landscape approach (ISAB 2011-4) do not appear to be addressed or incorporated in the current process.

Question 5: More details were requested on the annual goal of starting and managing four to eight new habitat restoration projects. The response was adequate.

Question 6: Information was requested on chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths, a subproject proposed to resolve a critical uncertainty. The question was not answered directly. The ISRP was referred to a draft publication by Roegner et al. 2013, but no link was provided to this document. A short explanation for how barium and strontium deposition in otoliths are being used to estimate body size at estuary entry and residence times would have been useful.

Question 7: This question related to a proposed habitat suitability index for juvenile salmonids in the estuary and on how its use can be justified in an Ecosystem Management approach. The response was partially adequate. The index was explained and shows promise to be useful. However, its role in an ecosystem management approach was not fully explained and justified.

Question 8: The ISRP asked what is the working definition that LCREP uses for resilience?

The response was adequate although the definition offered by Holling (1973) is rather more restricted than the contemporary meaning described in the ISAB report, Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration (ISAB 2011-4, 179 pages).

In response to ISRP's concern about AEMR monitoring (Question 1), the sponsors stated the Johnson et al. (2013) plan is in a pilot phase of implementation. This document answered a number of important questions regarding the design and rationale for monitoring the effectiveness of the estuary restoration projects. However, because it was a draft, the ISRP or ISAB would like to review the final plan when it is available. An estimated date for completion of the pilot project is also requested.

Please provide details of how the 51 reference monitoring sites were selected and justified (including statistical or rating scores) and any explanatory material that will help to understand how these sites were selected (Question 2). This should be included in the finalized AEMR monitoring plan per Johnson et al. (2013).

The ISRP requests a response on following issues:

1) Does the sponsor plan to use the AEM methods recently produced by Roni et al. (2013) in their Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program? If so how will they use them and how does the Roni et al. (2013) report relate to the Johnson et al. (2013) report on estuary monitoring? What is the status of the Johnson et al. (2013) plan and how close is it to being implemented?

Johnson, G., Corbett, C., Doumbia, J., Schwartz, M., Scranton, R., and C. Studebaker (2013) Draft programmatic plan for restoration action effectiveness monitoring and research in the Lower Columbia River estuary . AEMR Plan version January 29 2013. 31 p. (circulated by LCREP representative Catherine Corbett to review members on March 20 2013) 

Roni, P., R. Scranton, J. O’Neal. 2013. Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Watershed Program, Fisheries Ecology Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Seattle, WA.

2) What are the criteria for determining the level of monitoring needed by a project?

3) The project has a measurable goal to restore 25,000 acres by 2025 which is commendable. What is the scientific basis for this goal?

4) A flow chart to help understand the procedures for choosing sites to be restored is requested. Details of community involvement in keeping with a true landscape approach would be particularly useful.

5) More details are requested on the annual goal of starting and managing four to eight new habitat restoration projects. It appears that the Partnership performs some of its own habitat restoration work, mainly in the area that lies upstream from Portland to the Bonneville Dam. How many of the new projects will be directly undertaken by the Partnership, and where will they take place?

6) “Chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths from Grays, Coweeman, Lewis, Willamette, Sandy, Priest Rapids, Wenatchee, and Methow; Water chemistry of tidal tributary and main-stem sites to evaluate whether otolith barium can be used to reconstruct salmon entry into tidal-fresh environments; consider strontium marking pending results from 2011 analysis” is a very key objective under “critical uncertainties” and more information is required. What is the design of this work?

7) The Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) may be incompatible with the ecosystem approach advocated by the sponsor and often thought to be problematic in its application to the real world (Petts 2009). Further details are requested on how it can be justified in an Ecosystem Management approach. 

8) The sponsors advocate the incorporation of difficult ecological variables in their Ecosystem Management approach but offer few definitions or ways to measure them. For example resilience which is used 7 times in the proposal either as a deliverable or a scoring attribute. What is the working definition that LCREP uses for resilience?

Also see the ISRP’s programmatic comments for the estuary projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The project is key to Columbia River estuary restorations programs as it is, as the sponsors state," the umbrella of the “umbrella projects.” Therefore it is very significant to regional programs and is clearly connected to CREST, Columbia Land Trust, Watershed Councils and other related estuarine projects.

The objectives are well stated. The technical background is comprehensive, but the narrative could be improved by clearly stating the uncertainties that are based in lack of scientific knowledge.

Ecosystem management is stated to be a backbone of the project, but some aspects of ecosystem management are poorly known and no definitions of them in the context of the Columbia River Estuary are given. An example is resilience which is used seven times in the proposal either as a deliverable or a scoring attribute. Another is biological integrity.

Objective 3 under Critical Uncertainties Research is given as " – Juvenile salmon rearing to adult return:Evaluate juvenile salmon life history strategies and their contributions to adult returns in selected tributaries (2014 – 2018). Methods: Chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths from Grays, Coweeman, Lewis, Willamette, Sandy, Priest Rapids, Wenatchee, and Methow; Water chemistry of tidal tributary and main-stem sites to evaluate whether otolith barium can be used to reconstruct salmon entry into tidal-fresh environments; consider strontium marking – pending results from 2011 analysis."

This is a very key objective, and more information is required. What is the design of this work? It is likely this objective is more important than several of the others in the areas of critical uncertainties.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The history of the project is thoroughly documented. The program has made excellent accomplishment toward estuary restoration. Unfortunately information on how survival of salmonids will be improved is still lacking and is not really focused on as a critical uncertainty (see ISAB 2012-6 review of CEERP). The draft report by Cooney and Holzer (2011) (cited in the proposal) dealing with efforts to establish juvenile survival rates in restored areas at the mouths of tributaries including Coweeman River, Grays River, Germany Creek, Mill Creek and Abernathy Creek is a step in the right direction.

The Partnership appears to be constantly refining its activities over time, and adaptive management is well thought out. The addition of the landscape databases, tools to help prioritize restoration site selection, and the creation of a three level AEMR protocol are just a few examples. There is still the lingering issue of how adaptive management will be practiced to cope with some emerging factors, especially invasive species, but presentations indicated some good progress is being made to control invasive plants. Management modifications are made as a result of evaluation of past actions and results but do not seem to include active experimental manipulation to test and revise hypotheses as a formal adaptive management implementation.

It would be useful to have a listing of reports and papers that have specifically resulted from the efforts of project members, split out by projects under the umbrella and the umbrella project itself. An indication of good coordination and cooperation might be a list of papers co-authored by people in both categories.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

As described in the proposal, the Estuary Partnership works with many partners. Major funding sources include BPA, USACE, NOAA, and USEPA. Partners performing restoration or other contractual work under the Partnership include CREST, CLT, PNNL, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, WDFW, ODFW, watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and other entities. The Partnership has established itself as the focal institution for habitat restoration and protection in the region by its relationships with the above groups and local private and public landowners. It serves as the region’s main means of dispersing habitat restoration monies from federal agencies to local entities. Solicitation, review, and selection criteria are clearly documented. A conflict of interest policy is clearly detailed.

The tailored questions were answered. It was noted that the partners, not LCREP, deal with data management and protocol development.

The integration of the 55 reference sites into the monitoring program is an impressive aspect of the monitoring program. In general this appears to be a well thought out RME program.

A number of emerging limiting factors were identified in the proposal but it should be noted the problems are not really emerging. They are here now. Foremost among those was climate change. Changing weather patterns are expected to create warming trends in water temperature, shift the Columbia River plume and raise sea levels causing inundation of floodplain areas. Additionally, increasing storm intensities and wave heights are expected to exacerbate flooding and coastal erosion. Sustained periods of coastal upwelling caused by climate change will reduce dissolved oxygen in coastal waters and also increase acidification of ocean waters which will likely impact the food web and decrease salmonid survival in near coastal waters. The restoration actions carried out by the Partnership cannot address these large issues. However, the sponsors point out that habitat actions in the lower river can improve water temperatures and food web integrity at landscape scales. The occurrence of contaminants or toxics is another acknowledged emerging limiting factor. Contaminants can clearly influence salmonid survival by inducing sub-lethal effects and by reducing the prey base. Lack of funding to address this issue is a major problem. The Partnership is working with a number of partners including the Yakama Nation to identify high priority contaminant sites in the lower river for potential cleanup actions.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are clearly identified and related to work elements. Objectives are clearly related to deliverables. Metrics and methods are linked to cited documentation.

One specific concern was identified in the Large Habitat Program:

1. Holistic Vision and Plan - It is stated that the Restoration Prioritization Strategy will use a Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) Model for juvenile Chinook salmon, which uses model outputs from an Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) hydrodynamic model to predict times and locations that meet suitable water temperature, depth and velocity criteria (Bottom et al. 2005a) for juvenile salmon. However, HIS can be difficult to interpret ecologically (Petts 2009) and is somewhat incompatible with the ecosystem approach advocated by the sponsor. It would be helpful to find out how HIS results will be used in the various restoration projects.

Reference

Petts, Geoffrey E., 2009. Instream Flow Science for Sustainable River Management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 45(5):1071-1086. 

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This group has developed most of the protocols and methods used in estuary monitoring and most of the techniques are reliable and widely adopted (Roegner et al. 2009).

One question for the Partnership would be how or if they will incorporate or use AEM methods recently produced by Roni et al. (2013) in their Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. If so how will they use them and how does the Roni et al (2013) report relate to the Johnson et al. (2013) report cited below on estuary monitoring? What is the status of the Johnson et al. (2013) plan and how close is it to being implemented

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 10:03:20 AM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 10:04:13 AM.

Programmatic Comments

1) ISRP Comment:

Improving Strategic Planning for Estuary Restoration

The estuary effort benefits from numerous plans including the Action Agencies’ Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program (CEERP); the BiOp and Estuary Module; the Lower Columbia Recovery Plan; and the Subbasin Plan. However, the estuary effort would benefit further by a strategy that builds on CEERP and focuses on the task at hand but also considers issues such as upslope/upstream disturbances, for example sediment, toxics and water temperature, and public outreach and involvement at more than the individual project scale. This strategic plan should extend beyond a one-year or project review time frame and cover a decade. The current prioritizations are useful but are very broad. A finer scale prioritization is needed.

A strategic plan could describe a division of duties among the various estuary projects that is scientifically credible, maintains autonomy but coordinates and makes efficient use of the particular strengths and skills of each entity, fosters cooperation, and promotes healthy competition. Delegation and cooperation is especially important in terms of land protection and acquisition. The estuary program is made of a multitude of projects (Columbia Land Trust [CLT], Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce [CREST], Cowlitz Indian Tribe Estuary Restoration Program Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Estuary Memorandum of Agreement [WA MOA], and Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership [LCREP]). Thus the program certainly needs to avoid the hypothetical situation where various projects might compete for the purchase of a property using BPA funds, and drive up the cost and confuse landowners. A strategic plan could help avoid such a situation. A strategic plan could also broaden the approach to restoration of salmon habitat by linking well-developed tributary plans such as the Willamette River program. The Willamette River program (2009-012-00) offers an example of anchor areas, that is, critical areas of aquatic habitat for native fish species that might provide a useful template when a strategic plan is developed. Abernathy Creek might be serving this purpose to some extent in the Estuary and lower Columbia. Another example of planning is offered by the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program wildlife projects which also acquire property to conserve and restore habitat where the overall process is supported by Management Plans. It is not clear if the estuary projects develop similar documents that describe ongoing O&M, M&E, restoration, and invasive species treatments.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  Near term - The current restoration strategy for the lower Columbia River under CEERP is to reach 45 SBUs for ocean type salmonids and 30 SBUs for stream type by 2018 as called for in the 2008 FCRPS BiOp (see BPA/USACE 2012). To achieve this goal, regional restoration partners (Estuary Partnership, CREST, CLT, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, WDFW) focus on hydrologic reconnection activities that restore fish access and improve the quality of habitats that have been cut off from the mainstem lower Columbia River. The CEERP strategy emphasizes large projects, located on or close to the mainstem lower Columbia to maximize access for a diversity of juvenile salmonids, specifically upriver species. A key requirement of projects is that they include an improvement in juvenile salmon access or “habitat opportunity” to historic floodplain wetland habitats and restoration of natural physical processes (i.e., hydrologic connectivity). 

Restoration partners employ strategies on a local level similar to the OWEB anchor areas example by explicitly working to combine multiple actions together to make larger projects, with larger uplift, that allow restoration of natural processes and greater likelihood of long term success. An example is CLT’s strategy for the Deep River project. They are in the process of working with multiple land owners to acquire multiple contiguous parcels, using a central property as the “anchor” for the remaining parcels. The overall objective is to ultimately reconnect a large section of floodplain wetland habitat to Grays Bay by replacing three tide gates with culverts to improve hydrologic connectivity and fish access. If the actions were done to the central property alone, CLT would need to construct setback levees to protect neighboring private lands. CLT’s strategy is to continue working with neighboring landowners in hopes that they will ultimately acquire multiple contiguous parcels where setback levees are not necessary. CLT uses a similar strategy in the Grays, lower Elochoman and Wallacut Rivers, amongst others.

The restoration program under CEERP employs a division of roles, as described in project specific Question #4 below, but it also allows some degree of flexibility for innovation. The general roles are summarized in Table 1 below, also included within each of the estuary projects’ proposals. Of the five estuary projects, only CLT, WDFW and the Cowlitz Indian Tribe can hold easements or acquire lands, CLT historically being the most active in this role.  BPA and the Estuary Partnership coordinate acquisition and restoration activities and resolve issues as they arise by keeping track of projects and who’s doing which project. When a new project is identified, a partner will inform BPA and/or the Estuary Partnership, who then inputs it into the database and shares the information with the other partners.

Nonetheless, it is important to note that multiple entities work outside CEERP and the Estuary Partnership’s umbrella partnership, including mitigation banks. With mitigation requirements of the Portland Harbor Superfund, Columbia River Crossing, LNG, coal terminals, port expansions, etc., there are multiple mitigation banks that have popped up in the lower Columbia. These other entities can pay above appraised value to landowners and can drive up the cost of land. They can and have approached landowners and outcompeted CLT and others for the acquisition of parcels, creating challenges for CEERP. Thus, the overall program needs the flexibility to allow innovation to keep up with other business models for restoration activities, including allowing partners to provide financial incentives for the conservation of valuable floodplain wetland habitats.

 

Longer term - Beyond the CEERP strategy, the Estuary Partnership is creating a broader ecosystem restoration plan for the lower Columbia. The Estuary Partnership is developing a collaborative stakeholder vision for the lower river, where spatially explicit priority areas for protection and restoration, similar to “anchor areas,” as well as measureable targets are identified. We anticipate that it will take several years to complete. Several analyses for this plan were funded by a USEPA Wetlands Program grant, but ongoing efforts for developing this plan are not funded under CEERP or this NPCC/BPA project. All work is supported by our USEPA NEP base funding or leveraged through partners’ efforts. Estuary Partnership staff continue to seek grant funding for analyses, including an analysis that will map marginal agricultural versus high production agricultural lands. The concept for this analysis resulted from discussions with agricultural community members as one method of incorporating socio-economic interests into the restoration strategy. 

The expanded strategy is compatible with CEERP, broader than Pacific salmon recovery, and is focused on multiple focal species from the Subbasin Plan (NPCC 2004), including avian using Pacific flyway habitats and Columbia White-tailed deer. Having spatially explicit target areas for Pacific salmonids as well as other focal species will allow the region to compare priorities for different species across the lower river, and better understand the tradeoffs of restoring individual areas focusing on a subset of species over others. This may alleviate the need to return to our restoration sites in the future and retrofit the actions to improve habitat for other species. Water control structures put in place to control invasive weeds (e.g., reed canarygrass) or provide waterfowl habitat but did not include fish passage provide a good contemporary example of this problem. Restoration partners are now “recycling” these projects by either removing or modifying them to improve fish access to habitats blocked by these structures and emphasizing restoration of natural floodplain processes. We wish to avoid repeating this problem with our current activities focused on salmonids by recognizing the needs of other species upfront in our planning.  

A first draft of strategy components was completed in fall 2012 (see Estuary Partnership 2012), and is undergoing a major revision this summer. The next iteration should be available in fall 2013. We welcome NPCC staff and ISRP participation and review of drafts as well as the final product and will work with NPCC staff to offer opportunities.

The ultimate goal of the Estuary Partnership is to recover and protect the biological integrity of the lower Columbia River. We use USEPA’s definition of the term “biological integrity” as “capable of supporting and maintaining a balanced, integrated, adaptive community of organisms having a species composition, diversity, and functional organization that is comparable to representative natural habitat in the region” (Karr and Dudley 1981; Frey 1977). After a lengthy discussion with the Estuary Partnership’s Science Work Group, we identified USEPA’s Biological Condition Gradient (BCG) (Davies and Jackson 2006), similar to an Index of Biological Integrity (IBI) (Karr 1981), as the framework to assess the biological integrity of the lower Columbia as well as establish spatially explicit and measureable biological targets. The BCG has been applied in freshwater streams, and USEPA is in the process of adapting it to estuaries. The lower Columbia is a pilot in this effort.

Briefly, the original BCG, describes how 10 ecological attributes change in response to increasing levels of stressors. The stressors follow a gradient of biological conditions and are broken into six tiers. The original model was tested by determining how consistently a regionally diverse group of biologists assigned samples of macroinvertebrates or fish to the six tiers (Davies and Jackson 2006).

The BCG model the Estuary Partnership is employing is similar in that it uses the regional scientific community to identify ecological attributes of importance, and then identify spatially explicit and measureable targets for those attributes or components of the attributes. Essentially, stakeholders identify “minimally disturbed” conditions for the estuary and a stakeholder vision of what conditions they want for the estuary in the future (Cicchetti and Pryor 2008; Cicchetti 2010; USEPA 2011). This framework is then used to focus restoration actions as well as research and monitoring activities.

The following are ecological attributes chosen by the lower Columbia River science community at a workshop in April 2012 (Corbett 2012), adapted in spring 2013 to incorporate the NPCC’s Subbasin Plan’s focal species and key Pacific flyway avian species:

1. Natural habitat diversity or mosaic
2. Focal species
   • Pacific salmonids
   • Pacific lamprey
   • Green and white sturgeon
   • Bald eagle
   • Columbia White-tailed deer
   • Pacific flyway species
3. Water quality
4. Ecosystem processes
   • Natural Hydrologic Processes and Sediment Dynamics
   • Natural Food web and trophic processes
   • Natural Habitats and habitat forming processes

The next step is to identify spatially explicit and measureable targets for each of these four attributes, a significant effort. The Estuary Partnership is taking a phased approach by first focusing on Attribute 1 – natural habitat diversity or mosaic. We’ve chosen to focus on this attribute first for two primary reasons: 1) this attribute is key to the other three attributes, and 2) identifying habitat coverage targets is relatively straightforward and simple, compared to the other attributes. It is also important to demonstrate how the process works and can be applied to the other attributes.

To identify habitat coverage targets, first the Estuary Partnership undertook a habitat change analysis by comparing late 1800’s maps with 2010 land cover data, recently created for the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification, for the historical floodplain. This marks the first time such a comparison of “pre-development” to current habitat has been calculated for the entire lower Columbia. The objective was to first identify the natural habitat diversity that existed in the lower Columbia and identify habitats in which significant coverage was lost or those that were rare, and are still rare. Results from this effort demonstrated a 70% loss of vegetated tidal wetlands and 55% of forested uplands (Estuary Partnership 2012). There was also a significant conversion of tidal wetlands to non-tidal wetlands. The majority of these losses was due to conversion of land for agriculture and urban development.

The next step was to prioritize protecting any remaining intact areas of these habitats or restore them where practical to protect what’s left of historic habitat diversity. The areas of remaining habitats become priority locations for protection activities, while areas that are restorable to priority historic habitat conditions are deemed “recoverable” habitats (i.e., areas currently in low intensive landuse). Generally, tidal herbaceous wetland, tidal wooded wetland, forested and herbaceous habitats are the priorities for protection within the lower Columbia, but the analysis identifies specific priority habitats for each of eight reaches. Maps of remaining priority habitats as well as “recoverable” areas are available from our website:

http://www.estuarypartnership.org/historical-habitat-change and are our spatially explicit target areas for protection and restoration (Figure 1).

The final step is to identify quantities of the various priority habitats the region wants to protect and restore (Figure 2). The Science Work Group is now considering methods that other management programs (e.g., Tampa Bay Estuary Program: Cicchetti and Greening 2011) have used to set habitat coverage targets. An overview of the draft method, approved at the June 25, 2013 Science Work Group meeting is available upon request. Results of this effort are expected in summer 2013.

  

Figure 1. Coverage of priority and “recoverable” habitats within Reaches A and B (from Estuary Partnership: http://www.estuarypartnership.org/historical-habitat-change). Green polygons are areas where priority habitats currently exist. Yellow polygons are “recoverable” meaning they are in low intensive land use and can be restored to a priority habitat if landowners are willing. Red polygons are impervious surface and likely impractical to restore. 

Once spatially explicit and measureable targets are established for the multiple attributes, regional managers can discuss which parcels are key to protect and/or restore for individual attributes and understand associated tradeoffs. This then will lead to a more “anchor habitat” type strategy and coordination amongst the many resource management agencies working in the lower river. Additionally, Estuary Partnership staff will work with regulatory and planning agencies to incorporate the priorities within their landuse zoning and permitting assessments. Additionally, the Estuary Partnership staff will work with BPA, NOAA, USEPA, USFWS, OWEB, LCFRB and others to integrate the priorities into their funding decisions (projects funded under CEERP, NAWCA, NOAA Community Based Restoration, etc).

We’ve also begun efforts to identify targets for focal species (Pacific salmonids, Columbia White-tailed deer, Pacific flyway species) and water quality (via the Yakama Nation and USEPA Toxics Reduction Working Group). The list of indicators for each attribute is available from Corbett (2012, 2013).

 

Figure 2. DRAFT habitat coverage targets for River Reaches A and B. The first column represents historical floodplain coverage, while the second column represents remaining floodplain habitats that are considered “recoverable”. Columns in green represent intact priority habitats, while columns in red represent additional acres needed if we are to meet the historic ratio of priority habitats. This is one method of identifying quantifiable targets, but several others will also be considered. An overview of the draft method, approved at the June 25, 2013 Science Work Group meeting is available upon request.

Table 1. Description of roles of the five estuary projects funded under CEERP.

Roles of the Five “Umbrella” Project Organizations
Partner	Roles	Geographic Study Area
Estuary Partnership	Coordinates restoration and RME activities, including Level 3 AEMR through regular SWG meetings and providing coordination and information sharing events Provides technical review of restoration actions through SWG Funds restoration actions outside estuary umbrella projects, inc. private lands (e.g., watershed councils) Implements restoration actions on public lands, focusing upstream of Portland Implements Level 3 AEMR data collection on Estuary Partnership actions Manages Level 2 AEMR and ecosystem condition status and trends monitoring through Ecosystem Monitoring Program (#2003-007-00)	Mainstem lower Columbia River from Bonneville Dam to the mouth, including tidally influenced areas of tributaries in WA and OR
Columbia Land Trust (CLT)	Acquires lands from private landowners Implements restoration actions on CLT lands Implements Level 3 AEMR data collection on CLT actions Participates regularly in SWG meetings and other coordination and information sharing events	John Day River to the mouth, including tributaries in WA and OR.
Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST)	Implements restoration actions on public and private lands, focusing downstream of Portland Implements Level 3 AEMR data collection on CREST actions Provides RME data collection and analysis to Ecosystem Monitoring and AEMR through project #2003-007-00 Participates regularly in SWG meetings and other coordination and information sharing events	Columbia River estuary, including tributaries in WA and OR, focusing on areas downstream of Portland
Cowlitz Indian Tribe (CIT)	Acquires lands from private landowners Implements restoration actions on CIT and public lands Implements Level 3 AEMR data collection on CIT actions Participates regularly in SWG meetings and other coordination and information sharing events	Columbia River, including tributaries in WA and OR, focusing on areas downstream of Bonneville Dam
WA Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)	Acquires lands from private landowners Implements restoration actions on WDFW lands Implements Level 3 AEMR data collection on WDFW actions Participates regularly in SWG meetings and other coordination and information sharing events Implements salmon recovery and IMW monitoring on tributaries within WA	Mainstem lower Columbia River, including tributaries in WA

 

References:

Bonneville Power Administration/U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (BPA/USACE). 2012. Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program: 2013 Strategy Report. Final report, prepared by Bonneville Power Administration and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Portland, OR.

Cicchetti, Giancarlo. 2010. Summary of a Technical Workshop held October 28 and 29, 2009: Developing a Biological condition Gradient for Narragansett Bay. Available from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Cicchetti, Giancarlo and Margherita Pryor, 2010. Summary of the Estuarine BCG Workgroup November 2008 Workshop, and a Proposed Organizing Framework for Bioassessment of Estuaries. Product of Estuarine BCG Workgroup, Available from the US Environmental Protection Agency.

Cicchetti, G. and H. Greening. 2011. Estuarine biotope mosaics and habitat management goals: An application in Tampa Bay, Florida, USA. Estuaries and Coasts (May):1–15. doi: 10.1007/s12237-011-9408-4.

Corbett, Catherine A. 2012. Summary of a Technical Workshop held April 4-5, 2012: Developing an Estuarine Indicator System for the Lower Columbia River and Estuary, Workshop Sponsors: Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, USEPA Office of Water, Bonneville Power Administration, Available from the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR.

Corbett, Catherine A. 2013. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program, Presentation to the Science to Policy Summit, Vancouver, WA, May 10, 2013. Available from: http://www.estuarypartnership.org/sites/default/files/4.%20EP%20Science%20to%20Policty%20CR%20Treaty%20EBM%20Corbett.pdf.

Davies, S. P. and S. K. Jackson. 2006. The Biological Condition Gradient: a descriptive model for interpreting change in aquatic ecosystems. Ecological Applications 16: 1251-1266.

Frey, D. 1977. Biological integrity of water: an historical approach (PDF). Pages 127-140 in R.K. Ballentine and L.J. Guarraia (editors). The Integrity of Water. Proceedings of a Symposium, March 10-12, 1975, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Washington, D.C.

Karr, J. R. 1981. Assessment of biotic integrity using fish communities. Fisheries (Bethesda) 6: 21-27. (7 pp., 193K)

Karr, J.R., and D.R. Dudley. 1981. Ecological perspectives on water quality goals. Environmental Management 5:55–68.

Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 2012. A Guide to the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program, Second Technical Review Draft, Prepared by Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, December 14, 2012.

Northwest Power and Conservation Council (NPCC). 2004. Mainstem Lower Columbia River and Columbia River Estuary Subbasin Plan, Prepared for the Northwest Power and Conservation Council by Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership and Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board.

USEPA. 2005. Use of biological information to better define Designated Aquatic Life Uses: Tiered Aquatic Life Uses. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, EPA-822-R-05-001.

USEPA. 2011. A Primer on Using Biological Assessments to Support Water Quality Management , U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, Office of Science and Technology,  Office of Water, Washington, DC EPA 810-R-11-01.

 

2) ISRP Comment:

Improved Monitoring Strategy for Estuary Restoration Projects

Johnson et al. (2013) described a draft programmatic plan for restoration Action Effectiveness Monitoring and Research (AEMR) in the Lower Columbia River estuary. This document should receive a separate scientific review as it includes a number of important conceptual and statistical issues that are highly relevant to estuary monitoring.

While a preliminary review revealed the document was helpful and forward looking, the ISRP noted there are several key items that need to be resolved before the plan is implemented, especially the creation of an AEMR Leadership Team to approve the plan. It was also noted that the specific examples of monitoring projects were preliminary in nature. Thus several important questions remain concerning AEMR in the estuary:

• A discussion is needed concerning how monitoring will be coordinated or transitioned with ISEMP/CHAMP/AEM.
• Estuary proposals would be improved by clarifying which sites are receiving level 1, 2, and 3 monitoring, that is, standard, core, and intensive, and how the decision is made about level of monitoring. It would be helpful to clarify the criteria for moving between levels. Johnson et al. (2013) provides guidance questions used to assist in designation of AEMR levels in Table 4, but it is not clear if these questions have been asked for the set of projects dealing with the estuary in the current Geographic Review.
• Metrics for AEMR should be tied to objectives, this was acknowledged in Johnson et al. (2013), but it would be useful to give some examples of the range of objectives that the various projects encompass. Some projects appear to have objectives over and above a straight-forward restoration goal and, for example involve research to improve our understanding of ecosystems.
• The plan needs to ensure there is timely incorporation and sharing of lessons learned into program activities.
• More detail is required concerning the reference areas for the present set of projects. Another project aligned with LCREP is providing, “a suite of reference sites for use as endpoints and to place results the RME in context with the larger ecosystem (via 2003-007-00)” (page 1 of proposal 2003-011-00). Fifty-one reference sites have been chosen in the estuary. But, as pointed out by Johnson et al (2013), a rigorous statistical analysis is required to decide which of them should be used and how long they should be monitored to document natural variation.

 

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The majority of the AEMR Strategy (Johnson et al. 2013) was included within CEERP Strategy and Action Plan documents reviewed by the ISAB in 2012. Updates to these documents are anticipated in fall 2013. Nonetheless, the Estuary Partnership will provide assistance to the ISRP, NPCC and/or BPA on a review of Johnson et al. (2013) as deemed appropriate.

An AEMR Steering Committee exists, composed of BPA, USACE, PNNL and Estuary Partnership staff; this is described in Johnson et al. (2013). BPA representatives are familiar with Basin-wide efforts like tributary AEM and CHAMP and are working with us to ensure estuary data can be rolled up in basin wide analyses. We’ve input data collection methods into www.monitoringmethods.org, are creating a centralized database (through a USACE project) for all estuary data with the intent that it will augment tributary databases, and participate in PNAMP meetings to coordinate data collection and management efforts. More detail on the estuary database under development (Oncor) will be available in the 2014 CEERP Strategy Report and Action Plan, expected in fall 2013. 

Johnson et al. (2013) describes the criteria used to determine levels of monitoring (level 1, 2 or 3) (see pages 17-18 and Table 7) and lists the actions planned for construction in 2013 and 2014, and the level of monitoring chosen for each as well (see pages 18-20 and Table 8). However, given the dynamic nature of restoration activities, this list requires periodic updates, and the flexibility to allow these updates. Additionally, metrics chosen for data collection at individual sites and their associated reference and/or control sites depend on the restoration actions at each site.  Goals and objectives for the restoration actions define the appropriate performance criteria for the actions. A matrix with these and each individual site’s statistical design (e.g., BACI or BARI) listed by restoration action is included within Appendix B of Johnson et al. (2013).

A more thorough presentation of the use of reference and control sites will be included in the next version of the AEMR Strategy as recommended.

Reference:

Johnson, G., Corbett, C., Doumbia, J., Schwartz, M., Scranton, R., and C. Studebaker (2013) Draft programmatic plan for restoration action effectiveness monitoring and research in the Lower Columbia River estuary. AEMR Plan version January 29 2013.

 

3) ISRP Comment:

ISRP Review Role in the CEERP Program

The ISRP’s review role in the estuary and Lower Columbia has evolved into a review of the scientific soundness of a project prioritization process, RME planning, and the results of projects, when reported. The ISRP review does not look at the justification for individual restoration or acquisition actions or the site specific restoration designs. The Estuary Partnership, mainly through LCREP, has developed science review criteria for their Scientific Work Group (SWG) to review each of the projects for preliminary selection. The Expert Regional Technical Group (ERTG) then seems to be a key science group that has an important role in final project selection by estimating Survival Benefit Units (SBUs) for proposed projects and in making recommendations regarding RM&E. The Action Agencies and Bonneville mainly then appear to make funding decisions based on ERTG recommendations on estimated Survival Benefit Units for the proposed restoration actions.

As this program, through efforts of the umbrella projects (LCREP, CREST, CLT) has demonstrated over the years, it has done a thorough job in developing a comprehensive program to attempt major improvements in restoring important habitat functions for aquatic organisms of the Columbia River Estuary and lower Columbia River. They have helped to assemble a strong team of federal, state, and local agencies and organizations to work together on these habitat improvement projects. As these projects have proceeded over the past several years, the ISRP has not been closely involved in their development or review. However, there seems to be strong evidence that reasonable science review and expertise, from the ERTG, has been well-applied during their development and implementation.

At this point it appears that the ISRP could be involved in a less direct role in review of the program by doing a check-in review once every five years or so. The ISRP could continue to review project prioritization criteria, RME plans, and synthesis reports of results, especially evidence that Survival Benefits are actually being realized. It would be preferable to review the Corps’ Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program projects concurrently with the Fish and Wildlife Program projects. The ISRP looks forward to discussing this review model as the next review process is developed.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The Estuary Partnership looks forward to providing assistance to the ISRP, NPCC and/or BPA as requested. 

 

4) ISRP Comment:

Public Outreach, Education, and Involvement

The estuary projects should include objectives for community/public outreach and engagement. This would help foster a true landscape approach to estuary management (ISAB 2011-4). It is not clear if current LCREP prioritization criteria for choosing restoration sites involve socio-economics. The present strategy uses a “multiple-lines-of-evidence” approach which is also known as a “multi-criteria decision analysis” from Malczewski (1999) to identify priority areas for habitat protection and restoration. This approach appears to emphasize the physical or geographic landscape.

 Most proposals discussed getting community and landowner approval for implementation of specific projects. For real sustainable restoration, a change in attitude and actions by a large number of people that live in/adjacent to the estuary will need to occur. At present, most of the projects are staffed by people with good technical talents, but fostering public involvement may require an expanded viewpoint of program goals and tasks, and staff with different skills including public involvement and communications. The project sponsors demonstrated some work in this area including attending community meetings; the Cowlitz Tribe envisioned a cultural meeting place and access at the Walluski Confluence project; and LCREP performs education outreach with canoe trips and restoration opportunities for volunteers. Some simple outreach efforts, however, such as signage at ongoing and completed projects would enhance their visibility and if done correctly increase public acceptance and interest in these and future habitat restoration efforts.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The Estuary Partnership is seeking funding for including socio-economic aspects into our restoration strategy (see response to first comment above). We believe that the only way to effect the changes needed to restore and protect the lower river is to first understand the needs and values of those who live, work and recreate in the area. From that, we can build common goals and put plans into place to achieve them.

Additionally, please note that while the Estuary Partnership has an overarching public engagement and outreach strategy (see below), implementation of the strategy is not funded under CEERP or under the NPCC/BPA project. Restoration partners each work individually to engage the community and landowners, but widespread public education efforts, signage, etc. are not a component of CEERP funding. We welcome the opportunity to talk more about this with the ISRP and NPCC, including our approach and the rationale behind our approach.   

Estuary Partnership Background

The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership supports, coordinates, and advances regional protection of the lower Columbia River from Bonneville Dam to the Pacific Ocean. The Estuary Partnership is scientifically-based using an ecosystem-based approach and best available information to make decisions, and we provide a regional focus to unify, collaborate, and build on existing efforts, create partnerships, and fill gaps on this shared waterway. 

We develop and manage habitat restoration projects, working with hundreds of partners to restore over 20,077 acres of habitat since 2000. We continue to refine our scientific framework to assure our investments in restoration are strategic and have assembled and developed extensive GIS database for the lower Columbia River. We monitored toxic contaminants in the lower river, published the only report on toxics specific to this region; compiled known contaminant data into a central database; analyzed data to identify potential “hot spots” and hosted multiple collection events to keep toxics from entering the river. We have provided 50,000 students with over 200,000 hours of instruction in outdoor education programs; helping over 1,500 teachers meet science benchmark requirements. Over 10,000 volunteers and students have planted over 47,000 native trees and shrubs to help protect riparian corridors and restore habitat.

The Estuary Partnership was created in 1995 by the governors of Washington and Oregon and the USEPA when USEPA designated the Columbia River ‘an estuary of national significance,’ making it one of 28 National Estuary Programs (NEP). They wanted a regional entity of public and private stakeholders to coordinate and advance scientific understanding and get on-the-ground results. 

NEPs support and expand local efforts, including securing resources for the region, and empower citizens from all sectors to engage and improve their estuary for future generations. NEPs improve water quality and focus on the integrity of the whole system: its chemical, physical, and biological properties, as well as its economic, recreational, and aesthetic values. An NEP is not a single program or the staff of an agency or organization; instead, it is a regional, community-based collaboration made up of many partners, interests, and perspectives.

Estuary Partnership Community Engagement Strategy

Recognizing our resources and expertise and that of partners, the Estuary Partnership:

1. Engages citizens in activities to develop a personal connection and demonstrate how their actions make a difference in the health of the lower Columbia River:
   • Builds K-12 programs to get students outdoors and helps teachers meet science benchmark requirements; connects science in classroom to outdoors, trains teachers in field teaching, provides service learning and connects with parents; and
   • Builds a volunteer program to provide hands-on experiences for citizens, students and supporters and donors (e.g., water trail paddles, habitat restoration plantings).
2. Provides information about the lower Columbia River on a range of ecosystem topics, including water quality, contaminants, land use practices, habitat loss and restoration, biological diversity, impacts on species, including human health, and lifestyle practices:
   • Invests in data collection and analysis, technical assistance and GIS based information for the region to make scientifically based, informed decisions. 
   • Provides up-to-date data and information to the public through publications, newsletters and an interactive website; and 
   • Builds awareness through signage to showcase activities, e.g., water trail markers and restoration sites (funding needed).
3. Builds regional collaboration, supports tribal, federal, regional and local efforts, and fills gap and brings parties together to increase strategic investment in restoration and contaminant reduction.
   • Hosts regular habitat coordination meetings of key stakeholders to develop information, share projects, discuss project needs, including outreach and community support; and
   • Hosts forums, summits and workshops to present emerging information or issues and define actions for the Estuary Partnership to support regional needs.

Staffing & Resources

The Estuary Partnership is more than its staff of nine scientists, six educators, two communications and community relations staff, and the Executive team. It is the Board of Directors, Science Work Group, Water Trail Committee, 60 corporate sponsors and foundations, tribal and federal and state governments, watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, 1,600 teachers, 100 restoration partners, industry and port representatives, farmers, foresters, fishers, recreationists, each with specific extensive experience. 

NEPs work in all program areas (habitat restoration, water quality monitoring and contaminant reduction, education and civic engagement and collaboration) to build on, not duplicate, existing efforts and fill gaps and maintain active public engagement and involvement. With landowner work for example, we partner with experts in that field, including Columbia Land Trust or The Wetlands Conservancy. For work with communities, we partner with local entities, including CREST, Tribes, watershed councils, soil and water districts or local governments. We don’t duplicate the skills, knowledge or relationships they have. When they need skills, for technical assistance, for data, communication, or for landowner work, we help. A case in point, we have hired a field based restoration ecologist housed with three lower river entities to help them identify restoration sites, work with landowners and communities, and provide technical expertise to design and scope projects. We have technical experts on staff and under contract.  We have communications experts on staff, and we augment those resources with contractors as needed for specific activity. Our Communications and Executive staff have over 80 combined years’ experience in public involvement and outreach at the tribal, regional, state and local level. 

Our commitment is to understand what matters to the people who live, work and recreate in the lower Columbia River communities and connecting that to the Columbia and its care.  It is not telling people what to do or how to think. It is about giving them good information and by acknowledging what matters to them. The only way to effect the change(s) needed to restore and protect the lower river and estuary is to first understand the needs and values of those who live, work and recreate here.

 

 

ISRP Project Specific Questions

1) Does the sponsor plan to use the AEM methods recently produced by Roni et al. (2013) in their Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program? If so how will they use them and how does the Roni et al. (2013) report relate to the Johnson et al. (2013) report on estuary monitoring? What is the status of the Johnson et al. (2013) plan and how close is it to being implemented?

Johnson, G., Corbett, C., Doumbia, J., Schwartz, M., Scranton, R., and C. Studebaker (2013) Draft programmatic plan for restoration action effectiveness monitoring and research in the Lower Columbia River estuary . AEMR Plan version January 29 2013.

Roni, P., R. Scranton, J. O’Neal. 2013. Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Watershed Program, Fisheries Ecology Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Seattle, WA.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The implementation of the AEMR Strategy in Johnson et al. (2013) was initiated in spring 2013. The implementation of the plan is relatively complex: the Estuary Partnership collects Level 3 AEMR data for their restoration actions under this project (2003-011-00).  In addition, the Estuary Partnership coordinates all Level 3 monitoring of other partners (CREST, CLT, WDFW, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, watershed councils) under CEERP through the Estuary Partnership monitoring contract (2003-007-00) including data management and quality assurance. The Estuary Partnership will compile AEMR data from partners and transfer it to the USACE Oncor database. The Estuary Partnership will manage Level 2 monitoring under the monitoring contract (2003-007-00) and ensure data collected is transferred to the USACE Oncor database. The USACE will implement Level 1 monitoring through an AFEP project led by PNNL. The Estuary Partnership, working with its partners (CREST, CLT, NOAA, PNNL, USACE), also refines and updates the standardized monitoring protocols (Roegner et al. 2009) within www.monitoringmethods.org.

The AEM methods described in Roni et al. (2013) document were designed to evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions in tributary habitats. Most of the key measurements outlined in Roni et al. (2013) would not be germane to habitats found in tidally influenced areas of the lower river. For example, physical measurements such as pool and riffle area, bank erosion, sinuosity, bankfull width and depth, and biological measurements related to salmonid redds and spawners would not be applicable to tidally influenced habitats. Parameters and metrics should be thoughtfully selected based on the objectives of the study, not because they were used in other studies (Roni et al. 2005). In addition, there are hundreds of tributary habitat actions in some action categories each year; in the lower Columbia, fewer actions are implemented annually (<10). The designs of both tributary and estuary AEM programs accommodate these differences in scale.

To evaluate the effectiveness of restoration actions in tidally influenced areas, the lower river restoration and science community developed a standardized set of protocols back in 2007 through the USACE “Cumulative Effects of Restoration” project. These protocols provide the rationale and procedures for standardized metrics specific to the tidal water of the Columbia River estuary (Roegner et al. 2009). These protocols were updated in 2009, integrating lessons learned during the earlier implementation of the methods to “Protocols for Monitoring Habitat Restoration Projects in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary” (Roegner et al. 2009). These methods were used by the Estuary Partnership and PNNL in the development of the suite of reference sites across the lower river. Researchers under the Estuary Partnership’s Ecosystem Monitoring Program (2003-007-00) use these methods for the relevant metrics. Additionally, the methods have been used at the Estuary Partnership’s four AEM pilot sites (Fort Clatsop, Scappoose Bay, Sandy River Delta and Mirror Lake) as well as at CREST and other project sponsor sites since 2007. The Roegner et al. (2009) protocols are now used by restoration practitioners in to collect baseline data, identify site limiting factors and to help design ongoing restoration projects. Finally, in 2009, researchers from PNNL, Estuary Partnership, NOAA, USACE and CREST, compiled AEM data from multiple restoration sites in a pilot meta-analysis for the USACE Cumulative Effects of Restoration project. Results verified the need to ensure comparable data collection methods and metrics across sites and across time. Thus, it is important to consider the tradeoffs in altering monitoring protocols substantially at this stage. Such a change would inject data comparability issues across sites, and eliminate the possibility of pre and post construction comparisons for previous and current projects.

Although AEM methods between Roni et al. (2013) and Johnson et al. (2013) differ, the similar goals of standardizing methods, metrics, and reporting are invaluable toward evaluating the impact of restoration activities across landscapes.  Both plans have identified the need for statistically robust study designs to ensure quantifiable results.  Having standardized datasets for multiple habitats will increase the ability to evaluate habitat restoration strategies and successes through the basin. Biological measurements like macroinvertebrate composition; vegetation plant composition and structure; and juvenile fish abundance, although not comparable across tributary and estuary habitats, can be used to elucidate the overall benefit of restoration actions across the basin. 

Currently, the Johnson et al. (2013) plan is in a pilot phase of implementation.  Based on experiences and outcomes of pilot implementation, the Johnson et al. plan will updated with lessons learned and modified as needed.

References:

Roni, P., M.C. Liermann, C. Jordan, E.A. Steel. 2005. Steps for designing a monitoring and evaluation program for aquatic restoration. Monitoring stream and watershed restoration. American Fisheries Society, Bethesda, Maryland, 13-34.

Roegner, G.C., H.L. Diefenderfer, A.B. Borde, R.M. Thom, E.M. Dawley, A.H. Whiting, S.A. Zimmermann, G.E. Johnson. 2009. Protocols for Monitoring Habitat Restoration Projects in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary.  NOAA Technical Memorandum NMFS-NWFSC-97.

 

 

2) What are the criteria for determining the level of monitoring needed by a project?

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The proposal format for the ISRP Geographic Review was problematic in that it did not allow for a description of our technical approach. As a result, we chose to insert a description in the “Problem Statement” section, and this information was briefly presented towards the end of this section. The criteria for identifying monitoring levels are also listed within Johnson et al. (2013; pages 17-18). The criteria for prioritizing sites for AEMR are focused on elements important to successful multi-scale programmatic RME as opposed to needs of specific restoration projects, and derived from multiple sources.  The criteria are:

• Topic A (Type of Restoration Actions) – The AEMR Steering Committee (BPA, USACE, Estuary Partnership) applied the categorization and relative importance tiers given by Roni et al. (2002) to determine scoring levels for AEMR, as follows:  5=Actions that are synonymous with protection; 4=Actions affiliated with restoring habitat connectivity; 3=Actions restoring long-term processes-water quality/quantity and habitat quality/quality; 2=Actions restoring long term processes-riparian; 1= Actions restoring short term processes (enhancement projects). 
• Topic B (Landscape Location Related to Density of Restoration) – The AEMR Steering Committee divided the lower Columbia River into three zones by combining reaches of the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification (Simenstad et al. 2011):  upper zone (Reaches G-H); middle/transition zone (Reaches C-F); and lower zone (Reaches A-B). The Committee examined the concentration of planned restoration actions from the Restoration Inventory, a list of project identified by project sponsors. The Committee then assigned scoring (3=high; 2=medium; 1=low), depending on the density of planned projects in these three zones.
• Topic C (Spatial Gaps in Previous AEMR Work) – The AEMR Steering Committee applied a similar approach by identifying the concentration of previous AEMR and assigned scoring (3=low; 2=medium; 1= high). Topic B may drop in importance over time if sufficient AEMR is undertaken for a given zone, while Topic C may gain in priority if spatial gaps continue.
• Topic D (Addresses a Key Uncertainty) – The AEMR Steering Committee examined whether the AEMR study addresses uncertainties in the ERTG list or the recommendations of Thom et al. (2013) in the CEERP 2012 Synthesis Memorandum.  These will be prioritized over the next year.
• Topic E (Survival Benefit Units) – Assigned SBUs reflect the project’s size, likelihood of ecological success, and anticipated benefits for fish access and habitat capacity (ERTG 2010b).  The scoring measure is based on the average of the SBU values for ocean- and stream-type fish. 

The total score for a project is the sum over the five topics of the product of the scoring value and the weighting factor:  minimum score = 9 and maximum = 28.  The prioritization scores provide one means to rank the restoration projects for AEMR.  The prioritization process will be applied periodically (at least once per year) by the Steering Committee (composed of representatives from BPA, USACE, and Estuary Partnership).  It is important to emphasize that this process needs to be responsive to progress in the implementation of restoration actions, and new AEMR developments.  The result of this process is a set of recommendations to the AA estuary program leads.  The AAs will then consider timing, cost and certainty of implementation in their final decision of which AEMR level to apply to each restoration project.

Reference:

Johnson, G., Corbett, C., Doumbia, J., Schwartz, M., Scranton, R., and C. Studebaker (2013) Draft programmatic plan for restoration action effectiveness monitoring and research in the Lower Columbia River estuary . AEMR Plan version January 29 2013.

 

3) The project has a measurable goal to restore 25,000 acres by 2025 which is commendable. What is the scientific basis for this goal?

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The Estuary Partnership undertook a habitat change analysis by comparing 1870’s maps with 2010 land cover data for the historical floodplain. Results from this effort demonstrated a 70% loss of vegetated tidal wetlands and a 55% loss of forested uplands (Estuary Partnership 2012). There was also a significant conversion of tidal wetlands to non-tidal wetlands. In total, approximately 114,050 acres of natural habitat was lost (Estuary Partnership 2012). The majority of these losses were due to conversion of land for agriculture and urban development, approximately 115,554 acres (Estuary Partnership 2012). The twenty-five thousand acres goal represents less than 22% of the habitat lost since the 1870s.

Our approach for setting our restoration and protection goal was to establish a realistic target, based on prior performance. Our initial target in 1999 was 16,000 acres restored or protected by 2010, which was updated in 2011 to 19,000 acres by 2014 and 25,000 acres by 2025 (Estuary Partnership 2011). The restoration and protection goal is periodically updated based on recent performance – or rate of implementation of protection and restoration projects since 2000. Regional partners have been acquiring or restoring an annual average of 809 acres (Figure 3). As of June 2013, the region has restored or protected 20,077 acres of habitat. Estuary Partnership funding alone has supported approximately 72 actions that have restored or protected over 4,111 acres and opened over 75 miles of stream habitat. We anticipate the rate of implementation to slow when the majority of larger parcels are placed into protection status or restored.

Finally, the Estuary Partnership is working with regional partners to establish habitat-specific targets for the lower Columbia as described above in the programmatic comments (comment #1 above). We anticipate results from this effort in late summer 2013, and we will update our 25,000 acre goal accordingly.

 

 

Figure 3. Acres restored or protected since 2000, produced using the Estuary Partnership’s Restoration Inventory, a geodatabase of restoration and protection projects occurring within the lower Columbia River. Results show that an annual average of 809 acres have been protected or restored (single-counted) annually by regional partners since 2001, when the Estuary Partnership began tracking restoration acreage for the region. Prior to 2001, no organization tracked these numbers. The Estuary Partnership has back-tracked a lot of information to determine a reasonable estimate for the 1990-2000 decade.

References:

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 1999. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 2011. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Update. Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR.

Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 2012. A Guide to the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program, Second Technical Review Draft, Prepared by Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, December 14, 2012.

 

 

4) A flow chart to help understand the procedures for choosing sites to be restored is requested. Details of community involvement in keeping with a true landscape approach would be particularly useful.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:   

 

 

Figure 4. CEERP Action Prioritization Process.

In September 2011, restoration practitioners familiar with restoration possibilities in the lower river (CREST, CLT, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, WDFW, ODFW, watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts and the Estuary Partnership) met to collaboratively identify and inventory a running list of potential restoration actions. The goal was to identify all large intertidal reconnection opportunities, the likelihood of implementing them, the partners who were interested in working on the actions or in discussion with the landowner, and the general range of expected costs. Discussion focused on public and large private parcels within the floodplain of the lower Columbia River and on parcels and activities that would allow access to and improve the capacity of juvenile salmon rearing habitats. Partners reviewed the entire lower river floodplain and tidal tributaries from Bonneville Dam to the Pacific Ocean and considered the following:

• Size of parcels (larger or multiple contiguous parcels would allow greater impact, improved ability to restore larger scale natural processes)
• Potential for intertidal reconnection to allow fish access to historic floodplain habitat, including remnant historic channels
• Anthropogenic disturbance of surrounding parcels that could affect the likelihood of success, need for long term maintenance and restoration of natural processes to the parcel

The Estuary Partnership facilitated the discussion by providing an interactive map with the following data layers:

• Parcel ownership – polygon map of public and private lands (generally large tracts only)
• Tidally impaired – polygon map of historic floodplain currently cut off or impaired from tidal influence by levees, dikes, tidegates or other structures (areas behind structures that could be inundated by restoration actions)
• Restoration inventory – sites that are planned, completed or have actions underway that are being tracked by the Estuary Partnership

Restoration partners then reviewed and discussed all public and large private parcels to provide information about each restoration opportunity and whether landowner outreach had occurred and by whom. This information, including general information on possible actions, interested sponsor, potential for implementation or social constraints, range of costs were tracked within a database. The list was subsequently uploaded within the Estuary Partnership’s Restoration Inventory. The projects were assigned preliminary SBU scores, and the list was prioritized by BPA and the USACE. The subset of actions identified for implementation under CEERP are included within a separate database maintained by BPA under www.cbfish.org (in progress). Opportunities expected to be completed by 2014 were listed within BPA/USACE 2012.

Partners work with landowners on an individual basis to determine if mutual goals can be met, and if the goals meet CEERP objectives, practitioners begin the steps outlined in Figure 4.

 

5) More details are requested on the annual goal of starting and managing four to eight new habitat restoration projects. It appears that the Partnership performs some of its own habitat restoration work, mainly in the area that lies upstream from Portland to the Bonneville Dam. How many of the new projects will be directly undertaken by the Partnership, and where will they take place?

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The four to eight projects by year is an estimate based on prior performance of project sponsors. Historically, the region implemented an annual average of 11 project phases (Figure 5); project phases include acquisition; feasibility analysis through preliminary design; design/permitting and construction. This number reflects projects funded through the Estuary Partnership’s project, as well as LCFRB, OWEB and other funding sources, and it includes CREST, CLT, WDFW, USACE, watershed councils and other partners’ efforts.

 

Figure 5. Number of project phases implemented by year, produced using Estuary Partnership’s Restoration Inventory. Results show that regional partners implement 11 project phases on an annual average (excluding the 1990-2000 decade).

Through the Estuary Partnership’s project with NPCC/BPA, the Estuary Partnership has historically funded as few as one project and as many as 12 projects annually. As a result of BPA’s direct contracts with CREST, CLT, WDFW and Cowlitz Indian Tribe, a smaller number of projects are now funded through the Estuary Partnership’s project than previously. As a result, we estimate a smaller number of projects being implemented through our contract, mostly focusing on watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, etc. – entities that do not have direct contracts with BPA, although we will continue to partner with CREST, Cowlitz Indian Tribe and CLT when additional funding is needed by them.

Additionally, the Estuary Partnership anticipates implementing its own projects, focusing within and upstream of the Portland area, and anticipates an average of two to three project phases being implemented per year. The Estuary Partnership is presently working at the following sites: Horsetail and Oneonta Creeks; Sandy River Delta Thousand Acres; Steigerwald Lake National Wildlife Refuge; Wapato Access and two East Fork Lewis River La Center Wetlands sites. Due to time constraints, the ISRP was unable to visit these sites during the estuary tour. However, we welcome the chance to showcase these projects to the ISRP if another site visit opportunity arises.

 

6) “Chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths from Grays, Coweeman, Lewis, Willamette, Sandy, Priest Rapids, Wenatchee, and Methow; Water chemistry of tidal tributary and main-stem sites to evaluate whether otolith barium can be used to reconstruct salmon entry into tidal-fresh environments; consider strontium marking pending results from 2011 analysis” is a very key objective under “critical uncertainties” and more information is required. What is the design of this work?

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  See Roegner et al. DRAFT for design of this project. This project is funded by the USACE under their Anadromous Fish Enhancement Program and is referenced in this proposal as a method of addressing key critical uncertainties and for providing key information to CEERP and the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program.

Reference:

Roegner, Curtis, Daniel Bottom, Antonio Baptista, Lance Campbell, Andrew Claiborne, Kurt Fresh, Susan Hinton, Regan McNatt, Charles Simenstad, David Teel, Rich Zabel. DRAFT. “The contribution of tidal fluvial habitats in the Columbia River Estuary to the recovery of diverse salmon ESUs”, Report of research by Fish Ecology and Conservation Biology Divisions, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration for the Portland District, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DRAFT 26 February 2013.

 

7) The Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) may be incompatible with the ecosystem approach advocated by the sponsor and often thought to be problematic in its application to the real world (Petts 2009). Further details are requested on how it can be justified in an Ecosystem Management approach. 

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The Estuary Partnership is using a model similar to a Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) to identify times and locations that meet suitable water temperature, depth and velocity criteria (as identified in Bottom et al. 2005) for juvenile “ocean-type” Chinook salmonids (see Estuary Partnership 2012 for more information). We partnered with Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) to produce model outputs from their SELFE 3D hydrodynamic model for high, low and medium flow years. PNNL interpreted model results and provided maps of locations where these three criteria are met for specified frequency thresholds.

Results of this effort demonstrated spatial and temporal trends in areas or “patches” suitable for juvenile “ocean-type” Chinook salmon. Under all flow conditions, the quantity of suitable habitat patches and size of patches increased moving downstream from Bonneville Dam to the mouth. The opposite trend was seen in the variability of suitable habitat patch size and location going upstream. We found river reaches A, B and C as having rather stable suitable habitat patches that remained under different flows and months, while upriver, in reaches F, G and H, the opposite was true. Upriver river reaches are characterized by a high variability in suitable habitat patch location and size. Gaps in habitat generally occurred near armored areas, such as around Swan Island, on the Willamette River in the city of Portland and near Longview, WA. These results demonstrate that different restoration techniques are needed in order to restore or protect suitable juvenile salmon habitat for upstream versus downstream areas.

One result of this analysis is that inundation of habitats, while valuable in assessing habitat opportunity for juvenile salmon, if used alone in assessing the value of habitats will result in higher prioritization for habitats within the lower river reaches. This is because these areas are more stable and less influenced by dam discharge than upstream areas. On the one hand, flow and river stage conditions within the upper reaches will yield less time for access of habitats by juvenile salmon, but on the other, the amount of habitats in this area is greatly minimized and therefore highly valuable.

We use results in multiple ways:

1. To identify areas within the mainstem lower Columbia River where suitable in-water conditions are located. However, CEERP restoration activities are focused on reconnecting historic floodplain habitats. We hypothesize that it is more valuable to focus floodplain reconnection activities in areas where nearby in-water conditions are favorable for those juvenile salmonids with subyearling life history types that extensively use estuarine floodplain habitats for rearing and refugia.
2. To fill gaps in suitable in-water habitats. We can use model outputs to determine which of the three variables (water temperature, velocity and depth) limit the suitability of specific locations, and if practical determine methods of improving in-water conditions.
3. To track how these in-water conditions (water temperature, velocity and depth) change over time, over different flow conditions and post restoration activities.

Similar model outputs are also being used for Columbia River Treaty deliberations to evaluate different flow scenarios and their impacts within the estuary for the “habitat opportunity” metric.  Thus, our effort provides an evaluation tool consistent with Basin-wide assessments and across management program topics.

References:

Bottom, D. L., C. A. Simenstad, J. Burke, A. M. Baptista, D. A. Jay, K. K. Jones, E. Casillas, M. H. Schiewe. 2005. Salmon at river's end: The role of the estuary in the decline and recovery of Columbia River salmon. U.S. Dept. of Commerce, NOAA Tech. Memo., NMFS-NWFSC-68, 246 p.

Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 2012. A Guide to the Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program, Second Technical Review Draft, Prepared by Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, December 14, 2012.

 

8) The sponsors advocate the incorporation of difficult ecological variables in their Ecosystem Management approach but offer few definitions or ways to measure them. For example resilience which is used 7 times in the proposal either as a deliverable or a scoring attribute. What is the working definition that LCREP uses for resilience?

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The Estuary Partnership was concerned about the length of our proposal, and to save space we omitted extensive details about how we implement and assess the program, such as fundamental assumptions and working definitions of ecological terms. We welcome an opportunity to discuss these with the ISRP.

The Estuary Partnership’s Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP) identified two vision statements for the lower Columbia River. These are:

•  Integrated, resilient, and diverse biological communities are restored and maintained in the lower Columbia River and estuary and
• Habitat in the lower Columbia River and estuary supports self-sustaining populations of plants, fish, and wildlife (Estuary Partnership 1999; Estuary Partnership 2011).

The ultimate goal of the Estuary Partnership is “restoring and maintaining the biological integrity of the system” (Estuary Partnership 1999; page 7). The Estuary Partnership’s Management Conference did not explicitly create a working definition of “resilient” when developing these vision statements nor how the program will assess resiliency. The Estuary Partnership has focused instead on the ultimate goal of biological integrity. Our definition and method of assessing the term “biological integrity” is included in our response to the programmatic comments in the first section above. For more information, we can provide information on our efforts to develop an estuarine indicator system and welcome opportunities to have ISRP participation and review of that effort.

In short we used resiliency as a general ecological concept to refer to the ability of estuarine habitats and populations of aquatic organisms to recover from disturbances (Holling 1973). We use the concept as a goal in restoration activities, based on the fundamental assumption that by restoring natural processes to a site or landscape, we are improving the capability of the biologic community to withstand short and long term perturbations without permanent damage.  

References:

Holling, C.S. 1973. "Resilience and stability of ecological systems", Annual Review of Ecology and Systematics 4: 1–23. doi:10.1146/annurev.es.04.110173.000245.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 1999. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 2011. Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan Update. Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR.

 

 

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The project is key to Columbia River estuary restorations programs as it is, as the sponsors state," the umbrella of the “umbrella projects.” Therefore it is very significant to regional programs and is clearly connected to CREST, Columbia Land Trust, Watershed Councils and other related estuarine projects.

 The objectives are well stated. The technical background is comprehensive, but the narrative could be improved by clearly stating the uncertainties that are based in lack of scientific knowledge.

 Ecosystem management is stated to be a backbone of the project, but some aspects of ecosystem management are poorly known and no definitions of them in the context of the Columbia River Estuary are given. An example is resilience which is used seven times in the proposal either as a deliverable or a scoring attribute. Another is biological integrity.

 Objective 3 under Critical Uncertainties Research is given as " – Juvenile salmon rearing to adult return:Evaluate juvenile salmon life history strategies and their contributions to adult returns in selected tributaries (2014 – 2018). Methods: Chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths from Grays, Coweeman, Lewis, Willamette, Sandy, Priest Rapids, Wenatchee, and Methow; Water chemistry of tidal tributary and main-stem sites to evaluate whether otolith barium can be used to reconstruct salmon entry into tidal-fresh environments; consider strontium marking – pending results from 2011 analysis."

 This is a very key objective, and more information is required. What is the design of this work? It is likely this objective is more important than several of the others in the areas of critical uncertainties.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  For definitions of scoring criteria and how they are used see response to question #3 above.

For “objective 3 under critical uncertainties research,” please see Roegner et al. DRAFT for the research design. The objective 3 project is funded by the USACE under their Anadromous Fish Enhancement Program. The study is referenced in the project proposal, as results of this research will have implications for the lower Columbia restoration program.

Roegner, Curtis, Daniel Bottom, Antonio Baptista, Lance Campbell, Andrew Claiborne, Kurt Fresh, Susan Hinton, Regan McNatt, Charles Simenstad, David Teel, Rich Zabel. DRAFT. “The contribution of tidal fluvial habitats in the Columbia River Estuary to the recovery of diverse salmon ESUs”, Report of research by Fish Ecology and Conservation Biology Divisions, Northwest Fisheries Science Center, National Marine Fisheries Service, National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration for the Portland District, Northwestern Division, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, DRAFT 26 February 2013.

 

 

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The history of the project is thoroughly documented. The program has made excellent accomplishment toward estuary restoration. Unfortunately information on how survival of salmonids will be improved is still lacking and is not really focused on as a critical uncertainty (see ISAB 2012-6 review of CEERP). The draft report by Cooney and Holzer (2011) (cited in the proposal) dealing with efforts to establish juvenile survival rates in restored areas at the mouths of tributaries including Coweeman River, Grays River, Germany Creek, Mill Creek and Abernathy Creek is a step in the right direction.

The Partnership appears to be constantly refining its activities over time, and adaptive management is well thought out. The addition of the landscape databases, tools to help prioritize restoration site selection, and the creation of a three level AEMR protocol are just a few examples. There is still the lingering issue of how adaptive management will be practiced to cope with some emerging factors, especially invasive species, but presentations indicated some good progress is being made to control invasive plants. Management modifications are made as a result of evaluation of past actions and results but do not seem to include active experimental manipulation to test and revise hypotheses as a formal adaptive management implementation.

It would be useful to have a listing of reports and papers that have specifically resulted from the efforts of project members, split out by projects under the umbrella and the umbrella project itself. An indication of good coordination and cooperation might be a list of papers co-authored by people in both categories.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  The following list includes annual reports under the Estuary Partnership’s monitoring contract as well as other reports (e.g., reference sites, toxic contaminant assessment), and does not include the annual reports from the habitat contract (see proposal for those). It also does not include multiple USACE and BPA reports that Estuary Partnership staff co-authored. However, the Estuary Partnership is working to make all these reports accessible online from our website.

 

From Habitat Contract (2003-011-00):

Borde, AB, SA Zimmerman, RM Kaufmann, HL Diefenderfer, NK Sather, RM Thom. 2011. Lower Columbia River and Estuary Restoration Reference Site Study, 2010 Final Report and Site Summaries. Prepared for Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Borde, AB, SA Zimmerman, VI, Cullinan, J Sagar, HL Diefenderfer, KE Buenau, RM Thom, CA Corbett, RM Kaufmann. 2012. Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program Reference Site Study: 2011 Restoration Analysis, Prepared for Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory.

Evans, N., G. Williams, A. Borde, R. Thom and S. McEwen. 2006. Prioritization of restoration sites in the Columbia River estuary. By Pacific Northwest National Laboratory for Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership, Portland, OR.

Thom, Ronald M., Evan Haas, Nathan R. Evans and Gregory D. Williams. 2011. Lower Columbia River and Estuary Habitat Restoration Prioritization Framework, March/June 2011 Ecological Restoration 29:1–2.

 

From Monitoring Contract (2003-007-00):

Sagar, J.P., A. B. Borde, L. L. Johnson, C. A. Corbett, J. L. Morace, K. H. Macneale, J. Mason, R.M Kaufmann, V.I. Cullinan, S. A. Zimmerman, R. M. Thom, C.L. Wright, P.M. Chittaro, O. P. Olson, S. Y. Sol, D. J. Teel, G. M. Ylitalo, W.B. Temple. 2013. “Juvenile Salmon Ecology of Tidal Freshwater Wetlands in the lower Columbia River: Synthesis of the Ecosystem Monitoring Program, 2005-2010”, Prepared by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration, April 2013.

• Comprehensive status and trends analysis of Ecosystem Monitoring Program data from 2005-2010

Sagar, J.P., A. B. Borde, L. L. Johnson, J. L. Morace, T. Peterson, K. H. Macneale, W.B. Temple, J. A. Needoba, R.M Kaufmann, V.I. Cullinan, S. A. Zimmerman, R. M. Thom, C.L. Wright, P.M. Chittaro, O. P. Olson, S. Y. Sol, D. J. Teel, G. M. Ylitalo, D. Lomax, A. Silva and M.A. Maier. 2013. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Program Annual Report for Year 8 (October 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012). Prepared by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Sagar, J.P., K. E. Marcoe, A. B. Borde, L. L. Johnson, J. L. Morace, T. Peterson, K. H. Macneale, R.M Kaufmann, V.I. Cullinan, S. A. Zimmerman, R. M. Thom, C.L. Wright, P.M. Chittaro, O. P. Olson, S. Y. Sol, D. J. Teel, G. M. Ylitalo, D. Lomax, W.B. Temple, A. Silva, C. A. Simenstad, M. F. Ramirez, J. E. O’Connor, C. Cannon, and M. Schwartz. 2012. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Program Annual Report for Year 7 (September 1, 2010 to December 31, 2011). Prepared by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Sagar, J.P., K. E. Marcoe, C. A. Simenstad, M. F. Ramirez, J. L. Burke, J. E. O’Connor, T. D. Counihan, I. R. Waite, A. B. Borde, S. A. Zimmerman, N. K. Sather, R. M. Thom, J. L. Morace, L. L. Johnson, P.M. Chittaro, K. H. Macneale, O. P. Olson, S. Y. Sol, D. J. Teal, G. M. Ylitalo, and L. K. Johnson. 2011. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project Annual Report for Year 6 (September 2009 to November 2010). Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Jones, K. L., K. E. Marcoe, C. A. Simenstad, M. F. Ramirez, J. L. Burke, J. E. O’Connor, T. D. Counihan, I. R. Waite, A. B. Borde, S. A. Zimmerman, N. K. Sather, R. M. Thom, J. L. Morace, L. L. Johnson, P.M. Chittaro, K. H. Macneale, O. P. Olson, S. Y. Sol, D. J. Teal, G. M. Ylitalo, and L. K. Johnson. 2009. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project Annual Report for Year 5 (September 2008 to August 2009). Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Jones, K. L., C. A. Simenstad, J. L. Burke, T. D. Counihan, I. R. Waite, J. L. Morace, A. B. Borde, K.L. Sobocinski, N. K. Sather, S. A. Zimmerman, L. L. Johnson, P.M. Chittaro, K. H. Macneale, O. P. Olson, S. Y. Sol, D. J. Teal,  G. M. Ylitalo and L. K. Johnson. 2008. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project Annual Report for Year 4 (September 1, 2007 to August 31, 2008). Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Jones, K. L., J. C. Leary, J. L. Morace,  K. McCarthy, C. A. Simenstad, J. L. Burke, T. D. Counihan, I. R. Waite, K.L. Sobocinski, A. B. Borde, L. L. Johnson,  P.M. Chittaro, K. H. Macneale, O. P. Olson,  K. Peck, S. Y. Sol and G. M. Ylitalo. 2007. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project Annual Report for Year 3b (September 1, 2006 to August 31, 2007). Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Leary, J. C., J. L. Morace, C. A. Simenstad, J. L. Burke, T. D. Counihan, J. R. Hatten, I. R. Waite, K.L. Sobocinski, J. Dietrich, J. Spromberg and L. L. Johnson and G. M. Ylitalo. 2006. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project Annual Report for Year 3 (September 1, 2005 to August 31, 2006). Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Leary, J. C., J. L. Morace, C. A. Simenstad, J. L. Burke, T. D. Counihan, J. R. Hatten, I. R. Waite, K.L. Sobocinski, J. Dietrich, F. Loge, B. Anulacion, J. Spromberg, M. Arkoosh and L. L. Johnson. 2005. Lower Columbia River Ecosystem Monitoring Project Annual Report for Year 2 (September 1, 2004 to August 31, 2005). Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership). 2004. Columbia River Habitat Monitoring Plan. Prepared for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Simenstad, C. A.,  J. L. Burke, J. E. Connor, M. F. Ramirez, I. R. Waite, T. D. Counihan and K. L. Jones. 2011. Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification: Concept and Application. U.S. Geological Survey Scientific Investigations Report, Report 2011-1228, Prepared with the University of Washington and Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership.

 

Toxic Contaminant Assessments (funded by BPA in 2005-2007; afterwards funded by NOAA using EMP samples):

Johnson, L. L., B. F. Anulacion, M. R. Arkoosh, O. P. Olson, C. A. Sloan, S. Y. Sol, J. A. Spromberg, D. J. Teel, G. K. Yanagida, G. M. Ylitalo. 2012. Persistent Organic Pollutants in Juvenile Chinook Salmon in the Columbia Basin: Implications for Stock Recovery. Transactions of the American Fisheries Society (in press).

Johnson, L. L., G. M. Ylitalo, C. A. Sloan, B. F. Anulacion, A. N. Kagley, M. R. Arkoosh, T. A. Lundrigan, K. Larson, M. D. Siipola, T. K. Collier. 2007. Persistent organic pollutants in outmigrant juvenile chinook salmon from the Lower Columbia Estuary, USA. Science of the Total Environment, 374:342-366.

Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership. 2007. Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring: Water Quality and Sampling Report.

Sloan, C. A., B. F. Anulacion, J. L. Bolton, D. Boyd, O. P. Olson, S. Y. Sol, G. M. Ylitalo, L. L. Johnson. 2010. Polybrominated Diphenyl Ethers In Outmigrant Juvenile Chinook Salmon from the Lower Columbia River and Estuary and Puget Sound, WA. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology 58(2):403-414.

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA).  2009.  Columbia River Basin:  State of the River Report for Toxics.  USEPA Report EPA 910-R-08-004.  U.S. U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Region 10, Seattle, WA.  60 pp. 

Yanagida, G. K., B. F. Anulacion, J. L. Bolton, D. Boyd, D. P. Lomax, O. P. Olson, S. Sol, M. J. Willis, G. M. Ylitalo, L. L. Johnson. 2012. Polycyclic aromatic hydrocarbons and risk to threatened and endangered Chinook salmon in the Lower Columbia River estuary. Archives of Environmental Contamination and Toxicology  62(2):282-295.

 

Action Effectiveness Monitoring reports (habitat contract through Sept 2011, monitoring contract thereafter)

Sagar, J. P., S. Y. Sol, O. P.Olson, K. H. Macneale, P. M. Chittaro, L.L. Johnson, G.L. Kral, M.A. Rowe Soll, J. M. St. Pierre, R. M. Beaston, S. Holman, A. S. Cameron, M. Russell, A. Silva and M.Schwartz. 2012. Action Effectiveness Monitoring for the Columbia River Estuary Habitat Restoration Program: Annual Report for September 15, 2010 – December 31, 2011. Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

• Includes 3 year status and trends analysis of AEM data

Schwartz, M.D., L.L. Johnson, S.Y. Sol, O.P. Olson, K.H. Macneale, P.M. Chittaro, D.J. Teel, G.M. Yitalo, G.L. Kral, M.A.R. Sol, A. Silva, J. Smith, J.P. Sagar.  2013. Action Effectiveness Monitoring for the Lower Columbia River and Estuary Habitat Restoration Program Annual Report for Year 8 (September 1, 2011 to September 30, 2012), Prepared by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Sagar, J. P., S. Y. Sol, O. P.Olson, K. H. Macneale, P. M. Chittaro, L.L. Johnson, G.L. Kral, M.A. Rowe Soll, J. M. St. Pierre, R. M. Beaston, S. Holman, A. S. Cameron, M. Russell and A. Silva. 2011. Action Effectiveness Monitoring for the Columbia River Estuary Habitat Restoration Program: Annual Report for September 15, 2009 – December 31, 2010. Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Sagar, J. P., A. B. Borde, K. L. Sobocinski, N. Sather, S. A. Zimmerman, C. Collins, S. Y. Sol, O. P.Olson, K. H. Macneale, P. M. Chittaro, L.L. Johnson, G.L. Kral, M.A. Rowe Soll, J. M. St. Pierre, R. M. Beaston, K. N. Norton, A. S. Cameron, M. Russell, A. Silva and D. Sigrist. 2010. Action Effectiveness Monitoring for the Columbia River Estuary Habitat Restoration Program: Annual Report for September 15, 2008 – December 31, 2009. Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

Jones, K. L., A. B. Borde, K. L. Sobocinski, N. Sather, S. A. Zimmerman, C. Collins, S. Y. Sol, O. P.Olson, K. H. Macneale, P. M. Chittaro, L.L. Johnson, G.L. Kral, M.A. Rowe Soll, J. M. St. Pierre, R. M. Beaston, K. N. Norton, A. S. Cameron, M. Russell, A. Silva and D. Sigrist. 2009. Action Effectiveness Monitoring for the Columbia River Estuary Habitat Restoration Program: Annual Report for September 15, 2007 – March 31, 2009. Prepared by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for the Bonneville Power Administration.

 

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

As described in the proposal, the Estuary Partnership works with many partners. Major funding sources include BPA, USACE, NOAA, and USEPA. Partners performing restoration or other contractual work under the Partnership include CREST, CLT, PNNL, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, WDFW, ODFW, watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and other entities. The Partnership has established itself as the focal institution for habitat restoration and protection in the region by its relationships with the above groups and local private and public landowners. It serves as the region’s main means of dispersing habitat restoration monies from federal agencies to local entities. Solicitation, review, and selection criteria are clearly documented. A conflict of interest policy is clearly detailed.

The tailored questions were answered. It was noted that the partners, not LCREP, deal with data management and protocol development.

The integration of the 55 reference sites into the monitoring program is an impressive aspect of the monitoring program. In general this appears to be a well thought out RME program.

A number of emerging limiting factors were identified in the proposal but it should be noted the problems are not really emerging. They are here now. Foremost among those was climate change. Changing weather patterns are expected to create warming trends in water temperature, shift the Columbia River plume and raise sea levels causing inundation of floodplain areas. Additionally, increasing storm intensities and wave heights are expected to exacerbate flooding and coastal erosion. Sustained periods of coastal upwelling caused by climate change will reduce dissolved oxygen in coastal waters and also increase acidification of ocean waters which will likely impact the food web and decrease salmonid survival in near coastal waters. The restoration actions carried out by the Partnership cannot address these large issues. However, the sponsors point out that habitat actions in the lower river can improve water temperatures and food web integrity at landscape scales. The occurrence of contaminants or toxics is another acknowledged emerging limiting factor. Contaminants can clearly influence salmonid survival by inducing sub-lethal effects and by reducing the prey base. Lack of funding to address this issue is a major problem. The Partnership is working with a number of partners including the Yakama Nation to identify high priority contaminant sites in the lower river for potential cleanup actions.

 

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are clearly identified and related to work elements. Objectives are clearly related to deliverables. Metrics and methods are linked to cited documentation.

 One specific concern was identified in the Large Habitat Program:

1. Holistic Vision and Plan - It is stated that the Restoration Prioritization Strategy will use a Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) Model for juvenile Chinook salmon, which uses model outputs from an Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) hydrodynamic model to predict times and locations that meet suitable water temperature, depth and velocity criteria (Bottom et al. 2005a) for juvenile salmon. However, HIS can be difficult to interpret ecologically (Petts 2009) and is somewhat incompatible with the ecosystem approach advocated by the sponsor. It would be helpful to find out how HIS results will be used in the various restoration projects.

Reference

Petts, Geoffrey E., 2009. Instream Flow Science for Sustainable River Management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 45(5):1071-1086. 

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  See response above to question #7.  

 

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This group has developed most of the protocols and methods used in estuary monitoring and most of the techniques are reliable and widely adopted (Roegner et al. 2009).

One question for the Partnership would be how or if they will incorporate or use AEM methods recently produced by Roni et al. (2013) in their Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. If so how will they use them and how does the Roni et al (2013) report relate to the Johnson et al. (2013) report cited below on estuary monitoring? What is the status of the Johnson et al. (2013) plan and how close is it to being implemented.

 

Estuary Partnership Response:  See response above to programmatic comments on AEM.