River Delta Restoration Workshop Outputs

4/16/2012

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 activities

We 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 perspectiveson a robust conceptual and attribute framework.

Feedback on Adaptive Management Objectives

For 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 ##), [RF1]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)[KIT2][RF3]

Replace “water quality parameters” with salinity, temperature and turbidity[PRC4]
Rapid protocols (standardized protocols are needed)[PRC5]
Uncertainties: baseline data resolution [meaning not clear; this could refer to the limited availability of baseline data to describe water quality patterns][PRC6]
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 doable feasible (based on water level, current velocity, WQ and water quality along transect).[KIT7]
On the Recommendations for Study:
Some situations may be more complicated[PRC8] than as described
Iin reality using a reference site is very difficult as these parameters vary systematically over sites based on multiple controlling factors—what is the reference?
rRegarding 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.
Rregarding 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 CF3CF3.

HD3Predict effect of relative sea level rise on site scale inundation regime. (3 stars)

Moreinfo 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 [PRC9][RF10]

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

CF1Predict 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).

CF2Predict 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 thegreatest 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[PRC11]
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 [RF12]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 [PRC13]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[RF14]

This[KIT15] 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

General comments

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
Scale is important-both of the site and the relationship of site to system
Temporal scale-Historical (Where), future potential [meaning not clear][PRC16]
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)
Beaver impoundments provide habitat at low tides
What are the implications for design, selection etc? emphasize zones like scrub-shrub
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/forestwetlands 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 theredelta 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)[PRC17][RF18]

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][RF19] 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 [RF20]to[P21] 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:
VS2 and VS10 describe drivers of plants.
VS3 and VS6 drives soil development. Rate may be more important for funding agencies while function more important to ecosystem.
VS5,7 & 9 all consider export of ecosystem services, through the dynamics of nutrients and organic matter.
VS 1 & 8 are concerned with vulnerability and control of invasive species.
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:
Predict effect of planting/seeding on vegetation development and accretion rate.
Predict the effect of soil treatments (disking, composting, filling) on vegetation development.

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