River Delta Restoration Workshop Outputs4/16/2012

Facilitated by Roger Fuller (TNC)Paul Cereghino (NOAA) Kit Crump (TNC)

Normal text describes the activities conducted at the workshop. Bold text describes input from project participants, frequently interpreted by facilitators. Text in brackets are from the facilitators, commenting on input.

Feedback on proposed workshop activitiesWe provided some initial information about our work to date and workshop purpose. We presented eight attributes of deltas that are important for consideration in restoration, based on the previous workshop.

The conceptual model and intent behind restoration needs to be crystal clear. If that is not well developed, you are lost in a sea of questions without a clear sense of direction.

The absence of a solid conceptual framework for what we are doing makes evaluation difficult – how do we know that this framework serves our purposes?

Rice suggests reviewing his Snohomish work for his perspectives on a robust conceptual and attribute framework.

Feedback on Adaptive Management ObjectivesFor each of the eight attributes, draft priority adaptive management questions have been identified, based on input from the first two workshops and other sources. Full text of the potential adaptive management objectives (Appendix ##), and a set of evaluation criteria (Appendix 2) were presented to small groups who had 45 minutes to complete the following tasks 1) clarify or add questions so that they were better fitted to our criteria 2) identify which questions provide the most advantageous first steps for investigation. To address task 2 some groups awarded stars to priority questions, others provided written comments on priorities, while in other cases no prioritization was done.

Hydrodynamics

General comments Can Hd1-3 become one question, or perhaps combine 2 and 3?

Comments on specific objectives

HD1 Predict change in water quality parameters at site and system scales from varying degrees of hydrologic reconnection. (6 stars)

Replace “water quality parameters” with salinity, temperature and turbidity Rapid protocols (standardized protocols are needed) Uncertainties: baseline data resolution [meaning not clear; this could refer to the limited

availability of baseline data to describe water quality patterns] On Criticality: examine alternative (lower cost) models to 3D hydrodynamics models and

strategic data necessary to validate those models. On Feasibility: a 2D and GIS empirically-based model may be feasible (based on water

level, current velocity, and water quality along transect). On the Recommendations for Study:

o Some situations may be more complicated than as described o In reality using a reference site is very difficult as these parameters vary systematically

over sites based on multiple controlling factors—what is the reference?o Regarding standard modeling methods: It would be helpful to have at least one

method that could be used as a standard to calibrate across different projects/sites/models.

o Regarding data sharing regionally: even before that, helpful to share monitoring design and approaches

HD2 . Predict site scale change in inundation, velocity and channel structure based on change in tidal prism. (3 stars)

Suggest deleting this and moving inundation to HD1 and velocity/channel structure to CF3.

HD3 Predict effect of relative sea level rise on site scale inundation regime. (3 stars) More info needed to get to the site scale SLR inundation regime. Scale down regional

models. Twice it was mentioned that there is a link between HD3 and sediment dynamics –

sediment is where the uncertainty is regarding sea level rise. There was a suggestion to move HD3 to Sediment.

HD4 [Suggested new addition] Dike breach vs.levee removal and effects on inundation, velocity, and channel structure (1 star)

HD4 feeds into HD2 and is connected to CF3 Capture effects on inundation under HD1 and effects on velocity/structure under CF3

HD5 [Suggested new addition] Interrelationship of hydraulic dynamics and channel formation (1 star)

Channel Formation

General comments Suggest changing name to “channel function” [intent of title was to describe process while

functions are addressed in salmon and biodiversity questions] There seem to be 2 sets of questions, one set focused on-site (CF1 and 3: effect of

treatments including no active treatment on channel development) and another on off-site (CF2 and 3: effect on adjacent blind tidal and distributary channels). Perhaps combine them all, or re-org them into on or off site effects.

Tidal channel questions and distributary questions are fundamentally different.

Comments on specific objectives

CF1 Predict effect of ditch filling, tillage, and channel excavation on future channel structure (1 star)

Transferability may require additional parameters e.g. soil types, compaction, veg, hydrodynamics, etc.

Somewhat a function of the hydraulic/hydrodynamic modeling discussed in HD2/3, as mentioned in the Recommendations for Study

This should include the effect of no channel treatment (relying on natural hydraulic energy for channel development).

CF2 Predict the effect of restoration on nearby distributary channels Work to date: modeling study by Yang & Khangaonkar in Snohomish delta, published.

CF3 Predict development of local channel structure over time following tidal reconnection based on basin tidal prism and elevation (1 star)

Both on-site, as well as changes in structure in adjacent areas.

CF4 Predict the effect of Site LWD budget on local channel structure

CF5 Predict the effect of beaver population on channel structure Nutria too! Or, what is the effect on beaver populations from channel reconfiguration? Work to date: add Hood 2012. Wetlands June issue, early view available on web

CF6 [Suggested new addition] Predict effect of distributary channel restoration (1 star) This feeds into HD2 and is connected to CF3 Closely related to HD1

Social Dynamics

General comments Be careful with landscape suitability analysis that locks the discussion in specific metrics

and make sure you are addressing the key social questions stakeholders have the greatest interest in.

Should this group be called “socio-economic benefits” since they’re all about trade-offs and ecosystem services?

Comments on specific objectives

SD1. Develop replicable methods to support landscape suitability analysis to support tradeoffs between transportation, urban, agricultural, and habitat land use.

Add “and other economic analysis” to landscape suitability analysis This is more about zoning and planning than landscape suitability Include flood and drainage in tradeoffs listed Potential rewrite, “Develop analytical framework to evaluate social tradeoffs associated

with competing land uses (transportation, urban, agriculture, habitat and flooding/drainage) to support delta specific trade-off analysis

Clarity needed in how project monitoring would address this – seems like a landscape scale question

SD2. Predict what restoration actions produce what type of socioeconomic benefits Rewrite to “Predict what restoration actions produce what type of ecosystem services and

Identify which services are the ones that the public cares the most about and frame it in a language that resonates with them to support delta specific trade off analysis.

Acknowledge both losses and gains from restoration actions

SD3. Predict how ecosystem services valuation directly influences stakeholder support for restoration actions

This is an enabling condition to get community support Change stakeholder support to stakeholder understanding and support

Floods and Drainage

General comments Consider collapsing this into the social dynamics section

Comments on specific objectives

FD1. Predict sensitivity to the composition and configuration of conveyance, tide gating, and restoration to maximize field drainage and habitat function in a delta setting

Predict sensitivity of what? Is it sensitivity of the drainage system?

FD2. Develop and reduce costs of robust standard methods to predict the reduction in frequency and/or duration of flood events resulting from project change in flood storage capacity scenarios

This is more relevant to communities in floodplains than in river deltas

FD3. Develop and reduce costs of robust standard methods to predict the effect of climate change parameters (sea level rise, reduced snowpack storage, reduced precipitation, etc.) on future flood frequency and duration

Add, in order to cite restoration/protection in the best places to allow greatest resiliency Clarify how project monitoring would inform this question – seems bigger in scale Note: precip won’t be reduced, though precip patterns will change

FD4. Develop and reduce costs for standard method for predicting how tidal reconnection affects field drainage and groundwater salinity at timing important for agricultural stakeholders

Remove “at timing” and place this (breaching, removal and/or SRT’s) in its place

FD5. [Suggested new addition] Condition of flood/drainage infrastructure (e.g. surrounding restoration projects and potentially impact restoration results

FD5 is potentially a really important question from a feasibility standpoint although restoration dollars should not be primary source of funding for this work (funding pilot projects might be ok)

Salmon Utilization

Comments on specific objectives

S1. Predict how plan view connectivity and hydrodynamics affect use of estuarine habitat through estuarine outmigration (8 Stars)

Add “of restoration site’s” to objective between view and connectivity Clarifications needed on the following

o Scale is important-both of the site and the relationship of site to systemo Temporal scale-Historical (Where), future potential [meaning not clear]o What do we mean by use (Who and How) (Density, growth, survival…) for all salmon

species Criticality-insert “and biologic” in between hydraulic and connectivity Feasibility-add site scale effectiveness monitoring Policy Impact-Types, designs of projects that are successful for juveniles-could inform SMP

updates

S2. Predict the relative benefit to fish in beaver modified habitat as compared to habitats without beavers

Consider lumping with VB4 which also deals with Beavers What was the scale of Beaver occupation historically? Extent of beaver zones (eg scrub-

shrub) Work to date (from Hood’s paper)

o Beaver impoundments provide habitat at low tideso What are the implications for design, selection etc? emphasize zones like scrub-shrubo Site scale design issues

Criticality-interest in beaver could result in greater conservation emphasis on certain wetland types

Policy Impact-Whether to increase emphasis on tidal scrub-shrub/forest wetlands and riparian management in deltas and adjacent upstream

S3. Predict the relative use and realized benefits from different landscape settings (tidal fresh, oligohaline transition, estuarine marsh) over the course of outmigration

Clarify species, life history differences Criticality-for different species, are there delta habitat zones that are more critical? Work to date: SRSC

S4. Predict growth rate for juvenile Chinook salmon through estuarine outmigration (1 Star) Replace growth with survival but how do you measure this This is parallel with question 5 so consider lumping Simplifying salmon requirements: survival (Q4) and carrying capacity (Q5) Work to date: SRSC measures growth

S5. Predict the carrying capacity of a marsh to support juvenile salmon based on tidal channel structure (6 Stars)

Need this in order to get S6 Replace marsh with habitat unit Eliminate based on tidal channel structure, after salmon

Marsh and channels are specific examples, and sampling generally in the channel (convenience)

Is there an optimum channel area? Work to date: SRSC Feasibility-importance of site scale and context--and what about prey resources?

S6. Predict the contribution of restoration to salmon population recovery at the major population group and ESU scale (5 Stars)

This is a question that should focus on 1 or 2 deltas to build the tools Add “watershed” before “major population” Criticality-This is a major piece of uncertainty and is important to rating each of the project

types Work to date: SRSC Intensively Monitored Watersheds (IMW)

S7. Predict how vegetation heterogeneity and buffer proximity affects realized habitat functions (1 Star)

Rewrite to be a fish question Vegetation can create physical structure in channel, as well as on marsh plain Links with invertebrate prey for salmon Clarify what would be measured (detritus, newston, …) Criticality-Compare projects that admit fish to barren/low quality channel versus complex

habitat

S8. Predict interaction between hatchery and wild salmon within the delta (1 Star) Work to date: Skagit and Nisqually Is this appropriate for restoration project monitoring? Or is this a research question.

Vertebrate Biodiversity

General comments Have a focus on prey resources as invertebrates draw in vertebrates Bird use is both a communication problem and a science problem. We need to define the

biological response not just the structure, therefore function.

Comments on specific objectives

VB1 Predict associations between delta components and vertebrate biota (3 stars) Replace components with habitat zones and add inverts to vertebrate biota OR better yet, Rewrite to “Predict the relative use and realized benefits from different

landscape settings/habitat zones for vertebrate biota and their prey resources VB2 is related to this question but VB1 is at a larger scale

VB2 Predict the effect of vegetation structural heterogeneity on vertebrate community composition Replace Vertebrate with Faunal (Non-Salmonid ie. Inverts, Birds and Mammals) and

change composition to compositions Vegetation structure affects non-vertebrates as well

VB3 Predict relationship between project action and salinity gradient and biological response Is this more of a hydrodynamic question?

VB4 Define effects of beaver modification of vertebrate community composition (2 Stars)

Potentially replace this with “What factors encourage and/or control colonization of beavers in an estuary?” because we already know how beavers modify vertebrate community composition

VB5 Define the effect of buffer vegetation structure on vertebrate community composition Lump this question with VB2

VB6 [Suggested new addition] Predict how invertebrate community composition affects vertebrate community composition.

Sediment Dynamics

General comments SD1, 3, and 5 are related and could be lumped as part of a more pivotal question

regarding the sufficiency of sediment accretion at site scale to meet vegetation targets and sufficiency under SLR. In particular SD1 and SD5 are critical components of sediment budget analysis.

Standardization of methods is important for making comparisons. Methods should be derived for carefully defined questions. Methods exist but are not used consistently among researchers.

SD1, 3 and 5 sound like system scale research projects. Suggest clarifying how these relate specifically to project monitoring efforts.

Comments on specific objectives

SD1 Develop standard methods for predicting delta sediment input from alluvial sources. SD1 was identified twice as a critical starting point for investigation. SD1 was related to SD3 and 5 as an interrelated question. This sounds like overall sediment delivery to delta from river (not a restoration question);

seems like the restoration issues are: predict sediment delivery to site, and predict effect of restoration on delivery to rest of system.

SD2 Standardize methods for predicting effect of variable hydrologic connectivity (breach vs. removal) on accretion rate.

This question is crosscutting. Its importance is diminished if only considered in the context of sediments.

Adequate investment in effects on multiple phenomena would be important in fully developing this idea.

This covers 2 scales: effect on site accretion and effect of project on accretion off-site Methods should be the same used to measure accretion in other objectives, so this

objective should be focused on predicting effects, not standardizing methods. We’re not going to do this is so many places that standardizing methods will be an issue.

SD3 Develop standard methods and reduce costs for predicting sediment routing and accretion in delta settings.

SD3 was identified thrice as critical starting point for investigation. Goal is to predict sufficiency of sediment input to site to support target vegetation,

particularly given SLR. Or is goal to predict effect of project on routing and accretion across system?

An important element is to quantify what is getting into the marsh so that analytical methods report what is happening at specific sites.

SD4 Standardize methods for predicting the effect of vegetation structure on sediment accretion rates.

This could be a refinement to a sediment transport model once developed through SD1,3,5 Do we need to standardize methods or just predict effect of veg structure? Probably won’t

do this in too many places.

SD5 Develop standard methods for predicting delta sediment input from nearshore sources. SD5 was related to SD3 and 1 as part of a single question, and was identified once as a

critical question. Suggest lumping 1 and 5 to predict overall sediment inputs and sources.

Vegetation and Soils

General comments Terms like physiognomy should be replaced by assemblage or structure Sediments are not soils—what is the importance of this difference? Consider separating and grouping soil and vegetation questions:

o VS2 and VS10 describe drivers of plants.o VS3 and VS6 drives soil development. Rate may be more important for funding

agencies while function more important to ecosystem.o VS5,7 & 9 all consider export of ecosystem services, through the dynamics of nutrients

and organic matter.o VS 1 & 8 are concerned with vulnerability and control of invasive species.o The woody debris question is a smaller scale question, important in its own right.

A missing issue is the linkage between vegetation and support for target species (fish).

Comments on specific objectives

VS1. Predict effectiveness of invasive species controls (Spartina, Typhus, Phalaris, Lythrum) Are these the 4 focal species, or just examples (in which case add an “e.g.”)

VS2. Predict potential vegetation physiognomy using physical controlling factors (elevation, salinity, soils).

VS2 got six to seven stars, more than any other question, and the central issue among a network of questions including VS 5, 8 and 10.

VS3. Predict the rate of vegetation and soil development following restoration It was suggested that observation of soil function development was critical issue, as

vegetation has been observed to be controlled by soil characteristics. VS3 got three stars. The importance of the difference between sediment and soil functions should be clarified. There are likely many sources of data that could be used to develop some meta-analysis of

this question. Linked with SD4.

2 Sub questions on treatment effects:o Predict effect of planting/seeding on vegetation development and accretion rate. o Predict the effect of soil treatments (disking, composting, filling) on vegetation

development.

VS4. Predict accumulation of woody debris based on topography and hydrodynamics

VS5. Predict the role of nutrient availability on soil characteristics and vegetation changes VS5 was identified once as a critical question and identified with VS2, 8 and 10 as part of

an interrelated set of questions

VS6. Compare relative function of natural and restored soils This was related to VS3

VS7. Predict the dispersal of delta vegetation detritus Link to breach vs. Levee removal question as this phenomena may be strongly affected

VS8. Predict risk of invasive species recruitment at a site This can be linked to VS2 and VS10

VS9. Predict the effect of delta vegetation and soils on nitrogen cycling

VS10. Predict future vegetation composition from controlling factors VS10 was identified twice as a critical question and was associated with VS2, VS8, and VS5 The relationship to VS2 was pointed out twice. The difference in importance between

predicting physiognomy and predicting composition should be evaluated. Some suggested lumping.

Grain size should be included as a controlling factor Are there biological controlling factors?

Feedback on Initial Monitoring The term “initial” monitoring may more fully capture the goals of this kind of effort, rather than

“basic”. This would be the component of monitoring that is the responsibility of the project, as compared to subsequent investigations managed by agencies and their partners to learn about estuary restoration.

Limited monitoring need not necessarily only look at post construction. A brief observation 5 or 10 years after treatment may be more effective for some objectives.

It may be useful to look at the benefits gained from projects with and without monitoring to show the value of monitoring – a meta analysis of the effectiveness of monitoring as a practice.

Monitoring may be legitimate for reasons that don’t have to do with advancing scientific theory. Political interest, local concerns, and accounting may all drive monitoring.

There were serious questions that generalized low intensity project monitoring provides any scientific value. There are no shortcuts to robust ecological investigation.

Projects that implement novel situations might deserve more monitoring interest. Work on defining protocols can distract from developing good questions. It can lead

inexperienced investigators to believe that you don’t need to develop a good study design.

Projects are then left with trying to invent good questions to go along with weak observations, rather than designing robust observations based on solid questions.

Use of volunteers to capture generalized documentation of species assemblage (presence, absence, generalized abundance, with birds as the example), can provide ‘natural history’ documentation of sites.

The power of photo points is dramatically improved where photos are accompanied by narrative observations by skilled and qualified observers. In addition to narrative, expert plant or geomorphology observers could generate quick 2D mapping of gross morphology or vegetation. Also event-based photo point visits are valuable, not just regular periodic visits. Different methods can be considered such as telescoping poles to add aerial perspective.

A systematic qualitative observation (checklist?) could be used to trigger monitoring where observations suggest that the systems is not developing as anticipated.

Aerial photography, multi-spectral combined perhaps with RTK cross sectional surveys, perhaps combined with vegetation observations, may provide the lowest cost combination of observations to rapidly document site condition.

With aerial photography, measure development of channels and vegetation, also LWD dynamics With aerials, suggest pre-restoration, just after restoration, and 5-10 years later Developing better remote sensing vegetation classification methods could greatly reduce the

cost of monitoring [Snohomish group is working on this] Aerial photography, survey work and water level loggers lend themselves to bulk purchasing and

regional blitz sampling across multiple systems. The existence of supporting data associated with system function (for example, smolt traps, or

system wide fish monitoring, or analysis of sediment budgets) can strengthen and thereby justify a limited monitoring effort.

The ‘urgency to build’ undermines monitoring effectiveness, and the development of tools (like channel allometry or vegetation models) that would make future monitoring more efficient.

Most watersheds have multiple groups active in some form of field work, and some efficiencies in cost/effort are possible by increasing coordination among groups, including equipment loans, logger downloads, etc.

Water level loggers are relatively inexpensive and can provide a lot of data on hydrodynamics and water quality.

Sediment pins can provide gross accretion information very inexpensively. Metadata should be carefully documented in case a future researcher wishes to evaluate site

performance several years later. If a before/after approach to documenting structure isn’t possible, then focus on processes/rates

so that can predict what will likely happen to site looking forward. In terms of a funding model, consider the SRFB approach, or a hybrid approach (e.g. 3 rd party

does the monitoring across multiple sites) For tide gate projects, key monitoring elements are fish assemblage and water levels inside vs.

outside.

Feedback on Initial Spatial Framework Development Quantity is important but also quality and context. Work should result in being able to better attribute landscape context in terms of system

dynamics. Current historical data don’t provide information about historical distributary extent that can be

used to evaluate current distributary patterns. How much distributary can one river support (compared to evolution of blind sloughs in relic distributaries).

When you reduce a delta to metrics, you have to be careful in the assumption that change in metrics is equivalent to degradation. For example, the Swinomish Slough is now channel, but is in a different context than real distributary channels, and does not replace distributary channel function in the Skagit. Location and configuration is important. Similarly one metric might not show a change from historic (e.g. channel area) while another metric changes dramatically (e.g. channel density).

Minor changes in the PNSERP wetland extent layers is not particularly compelling. Work should be a solid step toward defining desired future condition. This is the compelling

pathway. The work as proposed seems still focused on describing the current state, rather than preparing to step into the future.

Telling this story helps convey the message that restoration efforts are not attempting to restore a system to pre-settlement conditions, as some stakeholders fear.

We need to better define ‘properly functioning conditions’ in deltas Can we advance our understanding of density dependence and connectivity effects of services to

juvenile salmonids?

Closing feedback Provide a single conceptual framework as foundational for the adaptive management strategy,

consider work by Rice and RITT. The team should forgo any additional group process, and instead focus on developing a rational

argument for a final adaptive management strategy that can receive critical review. The development of scalable systems (as attempted by Rice in the Snohomish), so that tradeoffs

and value of different monitoring components can be evaluated would be useful. There may be a value in distributing investment among many sites in that unifying patterns

among multiple systems may become apparent, compared to if investments were concentrated at a few sites

Appendix 1: Full text of Draft Adaptive Management ObjectivesThe following text was provided to small discussion groups

Hydraulic Dynamics and Channel Formation

HD1. Predict change in water quality parameters at site and system scales from varying degrees of hydrologic reconnection

Criticality - While we can generalize about likely water quality effects based on limited sampling, our ability to predict water quality response is dependent on expensive modeling and we lack standard methods for evaluating proposed actions. As tidal flow is increasingly regulated, our ability to predict water quality impacts decreases. Feasibility - Water quality can easily be measured before and after treatment at delta restoration projects. We are unaware of any current low-cost method for using these observations to create a predictive model. Policy Impact - Prediction of water quality impacts from tidal flow regulation may result in design changes to tide gates, improved project prioritization, and better accounting of how tide gate regulation affects fishery habitat, and the effectivenes of regulated tidal connections as a restoration measure. sensitivity.

Medium intensity – moderate duration - Pre-project installation of a network of water quality loggers spanning anticipated ranges of salinity distribution will capture project effects. Boundary conditions should be monitored, and an appropriate nearby reference site should be monitored with a similar logger array to control for external factors. Standard methods for modeling should be developed and distributed. Data should be shared regionally to facilitate rapid model development and calibration, and to reduce modeling costs.

Work To Date

Fisher Slough Restoration is monitoring the effects of a self regulating tide gate of fish passage The Tide gate effects analysis project, funded by ESRP is monitoring physical conditions and fish passage

at multiple tide gate sites in Puget Sound and the Oregon Coast.

The Skagit River Systems Cooperative has completed some observations of tide gate effects of fish passage which are accompanied by some environmental data.

The USGS monitors nearshore water properties and hydrodynamics at Nisqually Delta to quantify variability and the response of nearshore habitat structure to the increases tidal prism associated with the 2009 Nisqually Restoration.

HD2. Predict site scale change in inundation, velocity and channel structure based on change in tidal prism

Criticality While modeling methods currently exist, they are expensive and standard analytical approaches have not been developed. Difficulty Development or evaluation of standard modeling method could be implemented as a project task. Policy Strongly vetted and standard approaches to risk analysis would reduce project cost and increase project support, while reducing unanticipated consequences.

High intensity – short duration - Inundation can be measured with surveyed level loggers accompanying the water quality loggers described in HD1. The incorporation of simple temperature loggers capable of tracking inundation period may reduce costs, though method testing and validation with level loggers is necessary. Velocity may require an acoustic doppler current meter (ADCP). ADCP’s are very expensive for most projects, though temporary, short-

term deployment is possible. Careful attention should be placed on selecting the location for placement of all equipment and channel measurements in order to separate the effects of restoration from external factors. A reference site is important.

Work To Date

The Nisqually Refuge Restoration is monitoring change in on-site and off-site channel structure as a result of increased tidal prism.

Yang & Khangaonkar 2007 documents modelling work cumulative impacts of increased tidal prism at the Snohomish Delta

HD3. Predict effect of relative sea level rise on site scale inundation regime

Criticality While modeling methods currently exist, they are expensive and standard analytical approaches have not been developed. The difference between a hydrodynamic analysis of inundation compared to a simple projection of sea level landward using GIS may less than the error in local sea level rise predictions. Feasibility Development and peer-review of standard modeling methods could be implemented as a project task. Policy Simple GIS analyses can illustrate the risks of limited delta restoration under sea level rise. Strongly vetted and standard approaches would allow for more accurate discussion of restoration benefits, and affect the design of project resilience, and define long term conservation needs at delta sites.

High intensity - short duration - A high resolution digital elevation map (DEM) is required, along with inundation regime. However to understand the potential effect on vegetation would also require, at a minimum, local rates for accretion, erosion and subsidence, as well as salinity and sediment distribution.

Work To Date

Skagit River System Cooperative - has developed simple GIS-based predictions of future marsh elevation relative to sea level to predict effect of sea level rise on vegetation.

USGS led by Eric Grossman is working on a Coastal Resilience Tool to model potential sea level rise impacts in Puget Sound river deltas.

CF1 Predict effect of ditch filling, tillage, and channel excavation on future channel structure

Criticality - We have no empirical basis for understanding what treatments are critical for maximizing development of complex natural channel structure. Feasibility - Both retrospective analysis and experimental designs can be incorporated into restoration sites. Policy- Understanding of anthropogenic factors that affect channel structure can result in optimization of benefit through design.

Moderate intensity – long duration Combination of remote sensing and channel surveys to track development of channel system over time. Requires paired experimental units to derive a direct comparison. Should be linked with hydrodynamic monitoring program. Channel development can take many years and go through different phases.

Work to Date

Skokomish Delta Restoration phase 1 involved variable manipulation of the marsh surface before restoration of tidal flow.

Nisqually Refuge Restoration included variable tillage of the marsh surface before restoration.

CF2 Predict the effect of restoration on nearby distributary channels

Criticality - We currently have little basis to predict how restoration affects off-site channels and related system connectivity. Feasibility - Analysis of restoration sites and experiments can be used to generate predictive models. Policy - Understanding of off-site restoration effects would inform project selection, prioritization and design.

Low intensity – moderate duration Combination of remote sensing and channel surveys can track changes in nearby channels over time. Should be combined with monitoring of tidal prism and marsh plain area.

CF3 Predict development of local channel structure over time following tidal reconnection based on basin tidal prism and elevation

Criticality - We currently have limited basis to predict when and why channels form or fail to form in some settings Feasibility - Both extensive retrospective analysis of restoration sites, and more controlled experimental approaches can be developed through monitoring tasks and enhancements. Policy - Understanding of channel formation processes will result in improved design.

Moderate intensity - long duration Similar to CF1 though without the experimental complexity. Basic predictive models can be developed using existing channel/marsh plain relationships in the system, then tested with project monitoring.

Work to Date

The Skagit River System Cooperative has been developing allometric models describing reference channel geometry in the Skagit and Snohomish Deltas.

CF4 Predict the effect of Site LWD budget on local channel structure

Criticality - While we have some understanding of wood function in structuring alluvial channels, we have limited basis for predicting the effect of wood on tidal channels. Feasibility - Restoration sites could provide some data points to support an organized effort. Experimental approaches possible. Policy - Understanding of wood function may affect site design, and increase attention to LWD recruitment and routing as part of system design.

Moderate intensity – long duration LWD supply and transport can be monitored on sites with remote sensing, and linked with channel development monitoring. However the effects of wood on tidal channel development is best tested experimentally with paired sites.

CF5 Predict the effect of beaver population on channel structure

Criticality - While there has been repeated informal observation of beaver in delta systems, we have no basis for predicting their effect on channel structure. Feasibility - Evaluation of reference sites may contribute to an organized effort Policy - Beaver are relatively independent agents and their activities may not be strongly affected by design or site selection.

Sediment Dynamics and Vegetation

SD1 Develop standard methods for predicting delta sediment input from alluvial sources.

Criticality - We lack common standards for estimating the contribution of alluvial sediment sources to delta accretion. Feasibility - Development and testing of predictive approach could be developed as a project monitoring task. Policy- Understanding would allow analysis of how basin management affects the resilience of delta investments, potentially changing the focus of future project selection.

Moderate intensity – moderate duration Sediment rating curves for rivers require system-scale data collection, but projects can contribute by deploying an array of short-term sediment deposition stations to track annual, seasonal and event driven rates of deposition. Data should be linked with river discharge and seasonal changes in sediment source (e.g. fall/winter rainfall driven runoff versus snowpack/glacier-melt driven spring/summer runoff) that characterize suspended sediment concentrations and transport.

The USGS has synthesized the current state of knowledge of fluvial sediment loading by Puget Sound Rivers (Czuba et al 2011). While sediment rating curves for the Skagit and Nisqually Rivers have been significantly refined in 2011, uncertainties in sediment loads of other Puget Sound rivers continue to limit predictions of sediment inputs and estuary responses.

SD2 Standardize methods for predicting effect of variable hydrologic connectivity (breach vs. removal) on accretion rate.

Criticality - We have no basis for evaluating the effect of loss of tidal sheet flow on sediment accretion at a site. Feasibility - Comparison of treatment and control could be integrated into project monitoring. Policy- Understanding may result in design changes. Other factors may strongly affect accretion rate making extrapolation difficult.

Moderate intensity – moderate duration Should be coordinated with hydrologic monitoring of marsh plain inundation regime and channel hydrodynamics. Should include treatment and reference sites. May be possible to use historic breach sites as a control. Approach would likely involve deployment of a SET along with an array of horizons at each site to track deposition and accretion.

SD3 Develop standard methods and reduce costs for predicting sediment routing and accretion in delta settings.

Criticality - Some methods are being developed. Cost and unfamiliarity limits use and the basis we have for evaluating the effect of landscape configuration on sediment routing and site development. Feasibility - Refinement and peer review of sediment analysis could be incorporated as part of a project task. Complex interactions between drivers and boundary conditions may make accurate modeling difficult. Policy- Accessible delta sediment routing models would facilitate understanding the effect of landscape configuration on site and system resilience and allow project prioritization and design based on system-scale sediment routing outcomes.

Moderate intensity – moderate duration Can be linked with SD1 and hydrodynamic monitoring with project data contributing to a larger system-scale study. Inundation, velocity, suspended sediment and sediment deposition would be monitored in an array of stations dependant on site and system configuration. Simple routing models can be

developed based on inundation periods, boundary suspended sediment condition, channel sizes and deposition rates, then tested with project monitoring.

Work to Date

The USGS has developed a "rapid assessment protocol" for assessing marsh sedimentation potential where sediment delivery is tidally controlled. The simple GIS modeling technique relies on topographic elevation, tidal, and sediment input data to scale sediment load by tidal connectivity across marsh elevations. The team is implementing the approach at Nisqually Delta where a lack of sediment input may limit the capacity for the marsh to accrete under present and projected rates of sea-level rise. The model is being tested by quantifying sediment fluxes into and out of the marsh, repeat topographic mapping, and monitoring sedimentation with SETs and marker horizons.

SD4 Standardize methods for predicting the effect of vegetation structure on sediment accretion rates.

Criticality - We are unable to predict how different vegetation types affect accretion rates, introducing inaccuracy to our predictions. Feasibility - Data collection at restoration and reference sites could contribute to an organized effort. Policy- Understanding would improve accuracy of future elevation predictions and the spatial prioritization of projects within a system.

SD5 Develop standard methods for predicting delta sediment input from nearshore sources.

Criticality - We have no cost effective method for estimating the contribution of longshore sediment sources to delta accretion. Feasibility - Development and testing of predictive approach could be developed as a project monitoring task. Policy- Understanding would increase accurate estimation of benefits; low policy impact.

VS1. Predict effectiveness of invasive species controls (Spartina, Typhus, Phalaris, Lythrum)

Criticality - We have limited data to support effectiveness of invasive control over time. Feasibility - Monitoring is relatively simple. Long term evaluation is necessary to demonstrate effectiveness. Policy Impact - Data would guide best practices for invasive control.

VS2. Predict potential vegetation physiognomy using physical controlling factors (elevation, salinity, soils).

Criticality - We have some information on elevation and salinity tolerance, but have limited ability to predict restoration outcome, or predict future vegetation productivity. Feasibility - Data on site parameters associated with vegetation structure would be easier to capture than more detailed vegetation assessments. Some challenge to accurately characterizing controlling elements of hydrologic regime. Policy Impact - Would allow prediction on the gross structure of delta vegetation under restoration scenarios and sea level rise. Vegetation structure anticipated to define many habitat services.

VS3. Predict the rate of vegetation and soil development following restoration

Criticality - We have no mechanism to predict how rapidly a site moves from bare ground to fully recovered potential vegetation and the response to tillage, surface modification, or sediment supplementation. Feasibility - Duration would be long, and there are many treatment and setting factors that increase the complexity of measuring and interpreting results. Treatment methods may only be viable at a small sub-set of sites. Policy Impact - Understanding may affect project design where effects are clearly linked to causal factors.

VS4. Predict accumulation of woody debris based on topography and hydrodynamics

Criticality - We have a limited ability to predict wood accumulation. Feasibility - Such a study would likely require system specific hydrodynamic modeling for prediction of wood distribution. Policy Impact - Wood accumulation may control some habitat functions and the development of vegetation and may be affected through design decisions.

VS5. Predict the role of nutrient availability on soil characteristics and vegetation changes

Criticality - Key to understanding the relative role of nutrients and soil quality in influencing tidal marsh plant species diversity. Feasibility - Can be problematic in terms of cost and time involved. Policy Impact - Would have utility in increasing certainty of achieving restoration targets.

VS6. Compare relative function of natural and restored soils

Criticality - Observation of differences are obvious, but we have no basis for demonstrating functional equivalence where restoration follows agricultural development or fill. Feasibility - Soil sampling is relatively simple. Policy Impact - While useful for defining functional trajectory and resilience of systems, it does not strongly change decision making.

VS7. Predict the dispersal of delta vegetation detritus

Criticality - We assume but are unable to demonstrate that delta detritus increases the functions of adjacent ecosystems in an area dependant manner. Feasibility - A cost effective method for tracking is unclear and may require extensive sampling over a wide area, but could be resolved over a short time period. Policy Impact - Demonstration of benefit increases the importance of delta restoration and our ability to quantify delta services.

VS8. Predict risk of invasive species recruitment at a site

Criticality - Site and vicinity observation provides reasonable indicators of risk. Feasibility - Relative invasion of sites following restoration is relatively easy to track, quantification of predictor variables difficult. Policy Impact - Prediction would allow for more accurate planning should invasive control be a project objective.

VS9. Predict the effect of delta vegetation and soils on nitrogen cycling

Criticality - We have no basis for reporting the effect of delta restoration on nitrogen cycling in coastal ecosystems. Feasibility - Measurement of nitrogen pools and fluxes is difficult and likely to be highly variable over time and space. Policy Impact - Measurement of nitrogen sequestration and denitrification would increase understanding of service benefits of restoration.

VS10. Predict future vegetation composition from controlling factors

Criticality - While we have some information of elevation and salinity tolerance, we have limited ability to transfer an understanding of composition to effect on function. Feasibility - Composition is controlled by factors other than site conditions like neighborhood composition. Policy Impact - Compared to physiognomy or other factors, composition is likely to have a less significant effect on ecosystem services.

Salmon Utilization and Vertebrate Biodiversity

S1. Predict how plan view connectivity and hydrodynamics affect use of estuarine habitat through estuarine outmigration

Criticality - Important in demonstrating the role of hydrologic connectivity in the estuary with estuary habitat.

Feasibility - Potentially achievable with coarse scale spatial analysis and modeling

Policy Impact - Would lend strong support for large scale estuary restoration as being critical for juvenile Chinook

S2. Predict the relative benefit to fish in beaver modified habitat as compared to habitats without beavers

Criticality - Need to understand the role beavers play in this and what controls exist on Beaver populations

Feasibility - No models and little data on beaver populations and the key variables controlling them

Policy Impact - Would likely yield new understanding of the importance to manage beaver populations because we could predict their beneficial roles in Salmon Recovery

S3. Predict the relative use and realized benefits from different landscape settings (tidal fresh, oligohaline transition, estuarine marsh) over the course of outmigration

Criticality - Need to sort out the relative importance of different landscape setting during outmigration.

Feasibility - Project monitoring can support an larger organized effort to track fish use.

Policy Impact - Would focus efforts on the most critical landscape settings.

S4. Predict growth rate for juvenile Chinook salmon through estuarine outmigration

Criticality - Important to determining the role of estuaries in juvenile Chinook salmon.

Feasibility - Difficult due to compounding factors.

Policy Impact - Would illustrate the importance of estuaries on juvenile Chinook Salmon growth (and subsequent ocean survival).

S5. Predict the carrying capacity of a marsh to support juvenile salmon based on tidal channel structure

Criticality - Determine the importance of marsh habitat for juvenile salmon and how much is needed to support how many fish.

Feasibility - Difficult to isolate marsh influence from other parameters governing juvenile salmon carrying capacity.

Policy Impact - Would define the significance of marshes to juvenile salmon-.

S6. Predict the contribution of restoration to salmon population recovery at the major population group and ESU scale

Criticality - Important uncertainty and increase support.

Feasibility - Very Difficult to create the links between restoration actions and population level at the site scale. Even more difficult to roll up to the system and region scale.

Policy Impact - Will more accurately link the return on investment of salmon dollars to salmon recovery.

S7. Predict how vegetation heterogeneity and buffer proximity affects realized habitat functions

Criticality - Would increase our ability to link buffer proximity and vegetation structure with salmon recovery.

Feasibility - Very difficult to link multiple buffer proximity and vegetation structural variables Salmon Recovery-LOW PRIORITY NEED, DIFFICULTY

Policy Impact - Would increase our ability to demonstrate the importance of buffer proximity and vegetation structural heterogeneity on salmon recovery.

S8. Predict interaction between hatchery and wild salmon within the delta

Criticality - Could be a significant factor in determining the success of estuary restoration and salmon recovery efforts.

Feasibility - Would be very difficult to determine the relative significance of this effect if it in fact is an issue.

Policy Impact - Would most likely not change hatchery practices as they are considered life support for Chinook population persistence.

VB1 Predict associations between delta components and vertebrate biota

Criticality - Existing studies provide a poorly analyzed basis for defining associations

Feasibility - Project monitoring can support a larger organized effort.

Policy Impact - Would increase our ability to demonstrate benefits to multiple vertebrate species.

VB2 Predict the effect of vegetation structural heterogeneity on vertebrate community composition

Criticality - We have a limited basis on which to predict the response of vertebrates to structural heterogeneity.

Feasibility - Project monitoring can support a larger organized effort.

Policy Impact - Would increase our ability to demonstrate the importance of vegetation structural heterogeneity on vertebrate community composition.

VB3 Predict relationship between project action and salinity gradient and biological response

Criticality - We have little basis for linking vertebrate response water quality changes.

Feasibility - Difficult to evaluate the linkage of salinity to effect restoration and recovery of multiple conservation targets.

Policy Impact - Would support the importance of focusing on system-scale hydrodynamics by illuminating its role for multiple species restoration.

VB4 Define effects of beaver modification of vertebrate community composition

Criticality - We have little basis for linking vertebrate community composition to beaver modified estuarine wetland composition.

Feasibility - May be difficult to isolate beaver-mediated effects from other factors at a landscape scale.

Policy Impact - Would likely yield new understanding of the importance of estuarine beaver populations and habitats, and could affect project location and prioritization.

VB5 Define the effect of buffer vegetation structure on vertebrate community composition

Criticality - Would better define the importance of buffer vegetation for vertebrate community composition.

Feasibility - Difficult to separate buffer variables from other structural variables.

Policy Impact - Could alter project design and evaluation.

Social Dynamics and Flood and Drainage

SD1. Develop replicable methods to support landscape suitability analysis to support tradeoffs between transportation, urban, agricultural, and habitat land use.

Criticality - Tradeoff analysis critical to defining the accurate cost and benefits of restoration projects. Feasibility - Difficult to identify key variables of landscape suitability. Policy Impact - Would allow for better allocation of landscape uses.

SD2. Predict what restoration actions produce what type of socioeconomic benefits

Criticality - Key to quantifying benefits that exist for current and future restoration projects. Feasibility - This is described at the site scale but there is a need for predictive capacity in this area for the benefits that can be quantified. Policy Impact - Would make ecosystem benefits more tangible to stakeholders which could increase stakeholder support.

SD3. Predict how ecosystem services valuation directly influences stakeholder support for restoration actions

Criticality - The key to long-term recovery of multiple conservation targets. Feasibility - Extremely difficult to accurately gauge the relative importance of the multiple steps in this sequence. No current predictive models. Policy Impact - Would have enormous policy impact by increasing the scale and scope of recovery of multiple biodiversity targets. This would elucidate how strong the link is in putting value on ecosystem goods and services is in terms of increasing stakeholder support for restoration.

FD1. Predict sensitivity to the composition and configuration of conveyance, tide gating, and restoration to maximize field drainage and habitat function in a delta setting

Criticality - We have no toolbox of identifying the combination of live storage, flood gates, and restored estuary that would maximize habitat, flood control, and field drainage. Feasibility - analysis could be integrated into contract tasks. Policy Impact - Strategies for organizing flood control and drainage elements could allow for strategic location of restoration and define opportunities to combine agricultural development and restoration funds.

FD2. Develop and reduce costs of robust standard methods to predict the reduction in frequency and/or duration of flood events resulting from project change in flood storage capacity scenarios

Criticality - While project specific methods have been developed there has been limited analysis of how these models meet the needs of stakeholders. Feasibility - Costs may be high and with complex stakeholder coordination requiring a coordinating partner. Policy Impact - Understanding would allow strategic placement of restoration sites to increase benefits.

FD3. Develop and reduce costs of robust standard methods to predict the effect of climate change parameters (sea level rise, reduced snowpack storage, reduced precipitation, etc) on future flood frequency and duration

Criticality - While modeling is available it is expensive, and has not been evaluated to meet the needs of delta stakeholders. Feasibility - Costs may be high and with complex stakeholder coordination requiring a coordinating partner. Policy Impact - Efficient standard methods would increase the incorporation of climate change in project evaluation.

FD4. Develop and reduce costs for standard method for predicting how tidal reconnection affects field drainage and groundwater salinity at timing important for agricultural stakeholders

Criticality - We do not have a well vetted method for evaluating frequent concerns about how restoration affects groundwater. Feasibility - Costs may be high and with complex stakeholder coordination requiring a coordinating partner. Policy Impact - Standard methods would increase support and reduce costs of project development.

Appendix 2: Criteria for ranking of adaptive management objectives

CRITICALITY FEASIBILITY POLICY IMPACT

Level of uncertainty in our ability to predict project outcomes.

(greater uncertainty in prediction assumes greater uncertainty in effectiveness of project selection and design)

The extent to which an objective could be achieved using a project funding program.

(consider the relative time and cost to address the objective, with higher intensities being candidates for research)

New understanding would change a specific decision process.

(likely to result in a change in the polices that govern how projects are identified, designed and funded)

High Inability to make accurate predictions strongly undermines our ability to make good decisions (e.g. identify, design and implement effective projects).

This issue could be substantively resolved through use of project monitoring and enhancements.

New understanding would change how we identify and develop projects.

Medium We have some predictive ability to support decision making but it is very imprecise at this time.

Project monitoring and enhancements could contribute toward resolution of this uncertainty.

New understanding is likely to result in some changes.

Low We have sufficient capacity to make predictions and good decisions.

Project monitoring and enhancement is unable to make meaningful contributions towards resolving this uncertainty.

It is unclear that increased understanding will result in a change in how we do business.