May 15-16, 2001 (WSU - Vancouver, Student Services Center) Meeting Summary Meeting Minutes Meeting Agenda Presentations Attendees Meeting Summary SEI Science Panel Fish and Estuarine Ecology Workshop, May 15-16, 2001 Main Points Estuarine/Early Ocean Conditions The NMFS Cumulative Risk Initiative's (CRI) lambda analysis established that early life-history stages are critical in recovery of endangered salmonids The CRI analysis is not detailed enough to determine the extent to which estuarine or early ocean stages of salmonids are the most vulnerable to changes in ecosystem conditions While it is difficult partition among different physical and ecological factors operating in the estuary/early ocean conditions, the panel felt that ocean conditions must be important to the salmonids Data and information Gaps Data gaps (food use, habitat use, residence time, prey base, etc.) in estuarine ecology were identified regarding juvenile and adult salmonid use of the estuary Juvenile, ocean-type salmonids may use the estuary for months; however two months may be the maximum that any one fish is present in the estuary at any one time Preliminary data suggest that some sampled juvenile fish leave the estuary with empty stomachs, indicating that they may not obtaining adequate food while rearing in the estuary More data and information are needed to quantify the role of the estuary in providing feeding and growth opportunities for juvenile salmonids Estuarine Habitat Issues The Columbia River estuary has a strong estuarine turbidity maximum The fact that there are few reference conditions in the Columbia River estuary and no comparable unmodified estuarine systems makes it difficult to use comparison information to assess impacts to the system While mean flow conditions affect estuarine vegetation, the panel suggested that would useful to model extreme low flow Antonio Baptista of OGI, (the panel was in agreement) suggested that habitat opportunity is a useful means to evaluate habitat change PFC for the Estuary Proper Functioning Condition (PFC) is not ready for use in estuarine systems; it is currently at the stage of "best professional judgment." NMFS is in the process of developing PFC for estuarine systems. Adaptive management may be a way to further development of a PFC model. Upstream River Issues The panel asked for, and received, discussion of upstream areas. Even a few inches change here might have some impact on vegetation type Modeling Issues The panel critiqued the conceptual model, indication that it had value as an descriptive tool for ecosystem function, but also indicated that it needs further development Cody proposed evaluating the matrix of the conceptual model for degrees of impact to physical and biological systems The group was updated on the biological matrix The final plan for the physical models (WES and OGI) was discussed, with discussion of the need to incorporate biological impacts A list of project management tasks was developed for follow-up by the project managers Meeting Goals Identify data/information and information gaps on salmonid use of the estuary and the Lower Columbia River. Validate the Conceptual Model development effort to date, review Conceptual Model as a tool for describing the estuary/lower river ecosystem and relations, and analyzing Project impacts to estuarine/lower river structure and functions. Review and critique the spatio-temporal biological and physical parameters planned for use in models, using the Physical Modeling Matrix. Review and critique tools and strategies to model estuarine/lower river physical processes. Goal Attainment Data gaps were identified extensively throughout the meeting. The workshop's focus on juveniles, as opposed to adult salmon, is appropriate, given the paucity of knowledge about juveniles, and the importance of the estuary to this stage of the life-history. There is also a need to incorporate adult salmon, cutthroat trout, and upstream migrants into the analysis. Critique of conceptual model and recommendation showed that it needed to be better connected to both the physical modeling effort and matrix. Ultimately, though, the conceptual model offers some organizational value and provides a potential link to PFC. More work needs to be done on the matrix, by agency staff. The group reached closure on Baptista's model and the need for further work. Highlights of the May Proceedings Cumulative Risk Initiative McClure presented a regional approach for evaluating risks at each anadromous salmonid life stage. The mortality of adults is relatively low, especially in comparison with other age classes (explains in part the workshop focus on juvenile populations). Several factors affecting estuarine-early ocean survival were identified. The effects of mortality were highest in early life-history stages. The panel felt that information on estuarine-early ocean survival of fall chinook was lacking. NMFS agreed that the data gap "could be looked into." The panel felt that ocean conditions play a large role in salmon mortality. Lambda values were less than one, indicating declining populations. The panel explored the option of attempting to partition the mortality experienced in the life-history stage (estuary-early ocean). McClure listed the various factors affecting estuary survival, but was unable to assign relative values to the factors, or to determine whether in-estuary mortality was large or small relative to early ocean mortality. Overview of Listed Salmonids Weitkamp presented an overview of the habitat requirements of listed species, food web relationships, and ecosystem roles and effects. Discussion focused on whether the estuary was a 'pasture or a trap'. Most salmonids are present in the estuary for only a short time, but they still need to do some growth and rearing there. Surprisingly however some fish have been found with empty stomachs. There is a need to collate the information on densities of fish in different areas. The Columbia estuary has one of the strongest turbidity maxima. However there are few unmodified estuaries to compare with the Columbia in terms of food webs. information. So what do you think is really happening? There was extensive discussion of the length of time that fish spend in the estuary, with consensus being that cutthroat trout and bull trout stay longest, and that two months is about the maximum expected. Quinn indicated that studies suggest that year-to-year variation in survival is almost independent of size. That within a year, the larger fish survive and that's a comparatively small effect to time. So in hatchery studies that compare time of release and size, the date makes much more difference than size. In fact, at many release dates, the smaller fish survive at higher rates than the larger fish. So the date is probably a much more important factor. Courtney asked whether we are going to be able to associate a stock with a particular time when they're in the estuary. "How good are the data going to be when we try to do that?" Weitkamp replied that it depends on where the stock comes from. "We can make reasonable estimates of how long they're going to be there." Columbia Estuary 'Ecoscape' Simenstad offered an overview of the Columbia River ecosystem and salmon in a landscape context. Discussion focused on the importance of predicting project impacts against the background of natural variability. There was also some discussion of the utility of different modeling projects underway, as applied to the vegetation. It was agreed that mean conditions were the most important to model, with a model of extreme low conditions being useful. Habitat opportunity, largely a function of tide, bathymetry, and river discharge, includes the access of fish to desired side-channel habitat. Project or other impacts may be measured against changes in habitat opportunity. This may be of importance when carrying out physical modeling and in guiding the placement of monitoring and modeling stations. Conceptual Model Pearson provided an overview of how the model will be used to describe ecosystem function and interactions relative to effects of the project on fish. The panel questioned exactly how the model addresses the effect of the project on habitat opportunity. Proper Functioning Condition Tortorici reviewed NMFS's efforts to define PFC for estuarine and riverine systems. At present NMFS does not have a set of criteria that can be used in the Columbia River estuary to serve as PFC. This is not going to be available in time to help evaluate the channel deepening project. The panel discussed whether PFC and the conceptual model were related. We have a long way to go with 2 of 3 criteria - the model will provide descriptive and qualitative indications (Yes) of historical conditions (No) and/or PFC (No because of it didn't give us some specific kinds of indicators, or criteria, that are used in the other PFC examples). Dunne expressed doubt about the ability to integrate PFC with the matrix. "I don't understand how you can incorporate historical conditions when they're so poorly, or incompletely, understood. We hardly even understand current conditions, let alone historical conditions. What's your strategy or timeline?" Tortorici replied that NMFS is struggling with these questions as well. "We're essentially using our best professional judgment of what's in the literature. What we need to do next is to send that around to the scientists in the region and ask them where can you get the information from to build those more detailed metrics? Because of the general lack of information, I suspect it's going to rely heavily on their best professional judgment." The panel discussed the value of an adaptive management approach to developing PFC standards. Boesch urged the group to take a broad, open-minded perspective about managing the estuary. "One of the things about estuaries, the common pitfalls that people get into in trying to understand and manage them, is that they think they're static features. And really they're quite dynamic and ephemeral. Inherently, they're about change. I would urge you rather than always thinking about the past, to think about the future in terms of what are the opportunities to manage for positive values with the changes that are taking place. Channel deepening maintenance is just one of those changes. Then determine where are our opportunities to manage those processes constructively for the value of the habitat. Rather than always thinking about we want to reconstruct some picture of the past." Panel Discussion Boesch encouraged the group to be more proactive in sharing information and information that is within the context of the project. "Waiting until you have everything on the table may not be the best approach. We're trying to understand the relationship of all this tremendous amount of information, and lack of information, to try to put it in the context with what we understood was the charge to help all of you think through the potential impacts of the project to all these listed fish. So I would hope that we would always try to come back to a discussion of the impacts of the project." "Secondly, I think I've heard a continued strand of concern about the subtle importance of these shallow-water habitats. We know that there's been a historic reduction of these habitats. We know that these habitats have been affected by a number of physical processes, which could conceivably be affected by altering the morphology of the lower estuary. And we know that in some general sense we've lost the complexity of those habitats, which has allowed diverse genotypes and phenotypes to use this system. Maybe the upcoming sediments workshop could focus on these shallow-water habitats. I'd really like to get our arms around that. The relationship of altering the morphology, and then maintaining that alteration over the long-term to these shallow-water habitats, I think is the essence of our task." "Having said that, I want to qualify it. We've been focusing on the brackish water portion of this system. That's only about 1/6 or 1/7 of the channel deepening portion. I'm curious about the area of the river that is more constricted where the alteration of the channel is a more significant alteration to the cross-section of the system. To what degree is that part of the river important to the salmon? And in that context, how can we understand the consequences of channel deepening? How does channel deepening affect depth and flow in that part of the river?" Goldman seconded Boesch's concern about the lack of focus on upstream areas, as they relate to project effects. "One of the things that bothers me is that we seem to be totally focused on the estuary. Maybe there's a feeling that nothing can be done upstream. Yet these fish are going to come down the river. Maybe I'm jumping ahead to mitigation, but it seems to me that if you can get an increase in littoral habitat along the mainstem of the river, you might be mitigating downstream migration problems with a better source of food, maybe slightly warmer water. Rather than focusing on an area where there seem to be so many unknowns that we're kind of back to the adage that 'No level of sophistication in modeling can compensate for having missed the most important variable.' It seems to me we have to look a little harder in the estuary, and at least come to the decision -- whether it's food supply, toxics, not enough shallow-water habitat, or predators -- and get some numerical insight into that if we can extract it from this estuary or from another estuary." Cody: "My impression of what we've heard today is that I've gotten an increasingly detailed picture of the diversity of processes and components in the estuarine system. Although fascinating, they are not perhaps the tools we need to meet our charge. I see a strong parallel between the conceptual model and the PFC. I think the conceptual model simply says that these are the processes that take place in the estuary, and I think for a good reason, the focus is on the estuarine ecosystem.. And when the PFC is completed, presumably it will enumerate the same sorts of important processes and put values on them. So the two are very close. I still haven't fully embraced this idea of PFC because I'm not sure that it can accommodate the fact that similar ecosystems can function in different ways.. One size -- the PFC -- does not fit all ecosystems." "I think perhaps the closest we came today to approaching our charge is the penultimate slide Walter [Pearson] showed on the issues. I thought if the rows of that matrix could be prioritized with respect to what we imagine the impacts of the project might be, it would simplify things. But then if we were to add a couple of columns like the first column would ask, 'what is a reasonable consensus of the impact of the project on the issues Walt listed in his first column?' It seems to me that we might be able to come to consensus on whether this is not worth considering as a potential impact because it's essentially negligible, or whether we might want to give that considerably more thought. And then in the second column, I would add to that slide, is basically given that this is the consensus of the impact of the project, then we read over and we see that that issue affects say habitat-forming processes and then we have to make the decision about its importance." Day 2 Summary of Day 1 Courtney began by revisiting the meeting goals: Evaluate adequacy of and completeness of data and the approaches that are going to be adopted - we're in good shape. There was some critique of our ability to reach quantitative conclusions, but I did hear that we as a group identified all the issues and that we identified all the data sets, and with one or two exceptions, there was nothing else that the panel could identify that needed to be done. So in terms of our meeting goal -- adequacy and completeness of the data sets -- it's a qualified yes that we're looking at the appropriate scope. The group also heard the panel's suggestion that it adopt as quantitative and as explicit an approach as possible. Nevertheless, the panel understood the use and the need for a conceptual model that will tie things together. The panel expressed interest in hearing more about upstream areas. Cody suggested prioritizing the concerns raised during the consultation documents and the reconsultation process. A suggestion was made to go through Document 2 in light of the conceptual model. Casillas mentioned four major areas of concern raised in the BO: 1) uncertainty, 2) modeling verification, 3) toxics, and 4) monitoring and restoration. NMFS expressed satisfaction that the proceedings are addressing all four issues. Overview of Matrix Progress The Fish and Wildlife Service and Corps provided an overview of multi-agency efforts to update and refine the matrix. Young explained that the modeling outputs would link to a 'post-processing output' that would identify an effect from the project. The conceptual model would be used to indicate where further analysis would be needed. "It's very important that we have a good baseline developed... It's also important when we write our effects analysis that we've addressed every single linkage we can think of in the estuary that might have an effect from the project. So the conceptual model is, in effect, giving us a roadmap to where we need that biological group to do tough discussions of what are the true effects." Courtney recommended that Sullivan provide information relevant to the discussion on water velocity values. Curtis said model needs to employ a gradient of velocities because velocity is different throughout the estuary. Dunne criticized the items in the matrix's cells as being "too cryptic." Outputs need to be more explicit. Larson explained the results represent "a first cut;" that biological information will be melded with the matrix over time. Boesch felt the group is 'on the right track,' provided more detail is added. He saw the value in having the effort defined 'before the fact, before the model results are actually produced.' He also praised the effort as collaborative, involving all the parties. Some concern was expressed about whether critical parameters of concern have been left out. Larson explained that this is an iterative process, seeking input from the group. Courtney suggested the model integrate biological concepts of connectivity and access as they are affected by the various physical factors. He further suggested looking at whether a change in connectivity can be predicted as a result of the project. Courtney summarized that potential other data on velocity should be looked at, and matrix should be modified accordingly. Model is missing potential biological effects and needs to be tied in better with the conceptual model. No mechanism by which a significant or insignificant project effect can be identified. Update on Physical Modeling Baptista presented an overview of cooperative efforts to integrate physical modeling efforts to allow better analysis of shallow water habitats and the lower river, specific tasks, anticipated outputs, and timeframes. The panel discussed running the model to capture the system extremes of lowest flows and highest river temperatures. The panel also saw the value in comparing the outputs of the two models to help validate the approach. Baptista's model was praised for addressing the issue of uncertainty. Cody recommended adding a 'fourth column' on the biological responses, using the conceptual model. Analysis Techniques Discussion The group worked through the document, "Consultation Conferencing: Technical Issues," and discussed the level of knowledge for each issue. NMFS expressed general satisfaction with the scope of discussions in the workshops. Young asked if there are any existing techniques for superimposing a project impact on modeling information to decide whether that's biologically significant. Existing EIS uses a difference in salinity maximum and concluded there would be no significant impact. What analyses and thresholds should be used in shallow-water habitats? Cody: Ultimate test is whether there are differences to the salmon. Quinn remarked that, "Since the status quo [in the estuary] is so lousy, we shouldn't necessarily assume that change [from the project] is a bad thing." Curtis offered that the use of scientific judgment, as opposed to quantitative estimates, may be the only course for drawing biological conclusions. Courtney asked whether it is it useful to try and do some simple analysis (e.g., T-test, sign test) on the results that come out of Antonio's model? Baptista said there will be some statistics on these. "It would be difficult for me to conceive any output that doesn't have some level of statistical analysis of before and after." Potential Upstream Impacts Eriksen explained why during the EIS there wasn't a lot of Corps effort to look at upstream impacts. Whitney felt that even though the Corps model showed few upstream impacts, that a couple of inches of water level change in wetlands could be significant. Mishaga acknowledged Whitney's concern, but stressed the need to come back to looking at the system as a whole. How does a particular change affect the system as a whole and how it operates? Tortorici expressed concern that the Corps had done upland habitat surveys only for disposal sites. Cody agreed with Whitney: "If we knew what plants were there, constituting riverine vegetation, if they were short-generation time then almost certainly they could readjust quite easily. If they were longer generation, then I wouldn't be so sure. The panel, NMFS, and FWS would like to be assured that the projected drop in water level will not have a serious impact on the riverine/wetland habitats." Whitney reiterated concern about "averaging away" wetlands and urged that the issue be comprehensively addressed in restoration plans. Synthesis of Project Manager Notes/'Homework Assignments' Missing data: adult migration routes (not much information exists; need to state it) If any concerns with Bottom et al. analysis/outputs/regions, get to Baptista immediately Get additional dissolved oxygen data Add extra column to Baptista's matrix: biological response Refine matrix for velocity (0.3 cm/sec) and temperature (lethal, sublethal) PFC: Develop a better understanding of how to link to process Baptista: Add 1 more month (low flow/high temperature) Review existing data for more ocean/stream type migration timing River: More emphasis on the analysis Shoreline wetting and drying Take the conceptual model to a more analytical level Regionalize riverine portion of the model Panelists asked to review the matrix and have the opportunity to comment.