Talk:River Delta Adaptive Management Strategy/6. Core Monitoring Strategy

Gap in biotic response Isawoo (talk) 22:15, 12 July 2013 (PDT)

I'm curious about what references or experiences contributed to the basis of this assumption? Thanks.

Biodiversity and food web development Generally where sediment accretion is present, and predicted vegetation has begun to establish, and there is not clear impediment to fish access, we assume that food webs will develop parity with reference sites over time with a similar elevation, salinity regime and level of connectivity. Given the high spatial and temporal variability in invertebrate communities, and the high mobility of vertebrate communities, we don’t propose these activities as part of our core monitoring strategy.

These comments are driven primarily by a brief review of Grey et al 2002, Schreffler et al 1992, Desmond et al 2002, Simenstad & Thom 1996, and Cordell et al 1998 {and yes I need to get these incorporated into the wiki). The statement is defined as an assumption, which should be challenged and tested. We are working to assemble evidence regarding delta biodiversity and food webs, and delta salmon utilization, and welcome contributions. All authors identify complex factors affecting change in community composition over time, and utilization by salmonids, and costs for representative sampling are high enough that we believe that useful investigations cannot be supported with a few years sampling at less than $10k per year--and thus are over the line we have proposed for dividing 'core monitoring' from 'learning projects'. Pcereghino (talk)

Also for Veg: there's not a lot known about freshwater forested transition zones. but planting has been needed in these areas. Otherwise, yes, I agree planting is not needed in low/marsh plain, unless monitoring shows need (i.e., high marsh transition, reduce weeds, etc.) or management goal is for plant diversity or rare plant spp.

Systematic Qualitative Observation: I'd also add that with processes that act over many years, such as climate change, we've lost some opportunities for longterm datasets that can clearly show status and trends of over time (i.e.,What are the longterm sedimentation rates post-restoration? and how do biota respond to estuarine restoration as the habitat mosaic shifts over time?).

I'd agree that there are certainly tradeoffs. The goal of the 'core monitoring' strategy is the establish a minimum set of observations, so that we can reserve as much of our monitoring resource base as possible for 'learning projects'. You two examples of long term sedimentation and biotic shifts require complex and site specific design implemented over time. By minimizing core monitoring, and defining criteria of learning projects, we hope to force the question over what topics and learning projects are most relevant to capital restoration project implementation. If there are specific opportunities to inexpensively and efficiently capture a snapshot of invertebrate conditions at significant moments in time that could be useful, but we are unaware of that opportunity. Pcereghino (talk)

It may be difficult to recommend actual monitoring methods (i.e., SET vs. stake method). There can be a tiered approach to monitoring that needs to be assessed by the monitoring agency for the tradeoffs to accuracy, costs/time. the bottom line though is comparability over time and between sites. I think whatever the method, there should be some sort of error estimate or accuracy level associated with it.

Other informal comments have also made this point. We anticipate that initial sites like Nisqually Refuge Restoration or Port Susan Restoration may provide opportunities to test and compare lower cost sediment sampling methods to SETs, and are actively negotiating to incorporate those tests into proposed monitoring work there. Pcereghino (talk)

Re: Gap in invertebrate development Tofty (talk) 16:10, 30 July 2013 (PDT)

I like the division of the "core monitoring projects" and the "learning projects", mostly because a decision has to made about the allocation and scale of funds, and what can be learned from each scenario. However, along with this chain of thought, I wonder if some further development of what should be included in the "core monitoring projects" should be done before implementation, as once implementation is in effect than it will be hard to change, and not as strong of a dataset if changes are made.

Specifically, there seems to be a gap that the emphasis is on physical/vegetation components for the core monitoring. The argument for this is clear, since they are easier to monitor with a limited budget, have somewhat established techniques, and are robust in their foundation parameters across sites. Even though it is unknown whether it is possible to "inexpensively and efficiently capture a snapshot of invertebrate conditions" that would be useful, this may be seen as an opportunity to develop this before implementation. With the knowledge that exists on the ecological components (e.g., invertebrates, fish, birds?), it may be plausible to develop a protocol that could rapidly assess presence/absence, species lists, % coverage, that may be useful when applied across many sites, standardizing for time of year, etc, when these are most important (e.g. Spring for juvenile salmon outmigration, presence or absence of important juvenile salmon invertebrate prey items).

Such protocol development is being scoped elsewhere, for instance in New York/New Jersey harbor, where there is a recent RFP: "NY-NJ HARBOR & ESTUARY PROGRAM: A Standard Protocol for Assessing the Habitat Quality of Ecologically Enhanced Urban Shorelines": http://www.neiwpcc.org/neiwpcc_docs/rfp/rfp20/NYNJ%20HEP%20Urban%20Shorelines%20%20RFP.pdf Which most likely will focus on "techniques that aim to boost biological productivity, biodiversity, or quality of habitat for native invertebrates, vertebrates, plants and algae". The RFP is for 117K, which may be an appropriate amount to invest at the start of implementation, so that a rigorous and sound protocol can be developed that merges both physical and ecological components for the core monitoring projects. Additionally, this could facilitate the merging of physical and ecological parameters in the learning projects as well, so that we further collaboration across disciplines.

Reframing the 'Core Monitoring of Invertebrates' Question (Pcereghino (talk))

Here are my fundamental questions about invertebrates:

1. If vegetation and sediment deposition systems are functioning in intertidal sites, what is the likelihood that invertebrate populations will develop patterns of abundance or composition over time (i.e. 20 years) that are substantively different in terms of how they support a trophic web compared to a control sites?
2. If we were to detect such patterns would we be able to attribute them to anything other than stochasticity or unmeasured site variation, and what management regime could these findings initiate?
3. Are we able to detect this kind of deviation in invertebrate development with anything less than a learning project--with an either sustained or intensive effort?

My initial proposition is that "rigorous and sound protocols that merges physical and ecological parameters" at the scale of a 100s of acres of delta are not attainable, without sacrificing the opportunity to conduct more intensive and targeted investigations at specific locations, to resolve specific known risks, or isolate potential cause-effect relationships. The ESRP program is currently sustaining support for delta learning at roughly 10% of total project cost, which is high for the restoration industry. At this level, we are unable to sustain rigorous physical and ecological monitoring at project on the Skagit, Snohomish and Nisqually, let alone approximately 50 other sites across Puget Sound. Vegetation monitoring is radically reduced under this proposal for the same reasons.

I expect that studies like NJ/NY, that quantify the effects of experimental structural modification of artificial shorelines are relatively easy to stratify and control. I have not yet heard the compelling argument that defines a low cost assessment of invertebrates that might generate actionable and transferable knowledge. I have not yet heard a compelling argument that invertebrate communities are other than symptomatic of physical conditions (texture, inundation, salinity) and vegetation structure, with high stochasticity from climate drivers. While the dynamics within invertebrate systems are ecologically interesting, are they interesting to a capital program? The arguments for monitoring that I have heard to date follow the logic: invertebrates are important in tropic systems, invert populations change rapidly following restoration, therefore we must monitor them as they change. There is a logic gap between statement two and statement three. What is the proposed risk of allowing a slightly higher level of ignorance (after all, by doing inexpensive monitoring we are by no means banishing ignorance). Are we proposing that invertebrate communities, unmonitored, will commonly follow an unpredictable developmental pathway that imperil the function or resilience of delta ecosystem?!

In short, we has stripped invertebrate monitoring out of a basic protocol so that we are positioned to conduct strategic invertebrate monitoring of consequence in fewer locations (for example there are opportunities to support invert sampling at Nisqually, Skagit and Snohomish in combination with fish growth patterns across salinity gradients).

I'd agree to the addition of a 'development of a delta invertebrate rapid assessment protocol' as a potential learning project to compete with other opportunities based on proposed criteria. I disagree that adding to core monitoring would be difficult, as we are currently proposing 'no protocol' for invertebrates. Restoration project work will continue regardless of the core monitoring effort. In some cases, implementation of core monitoring may involve some "catch-up work" at multiple sites, as a way of testing methods and samplind design guidance.

-- Phicks (talk) 15:48, 2 August 2013 (PDT)

1. Given our recent discussions about the patchiness of vegetation recruitment and plot size, should the core veg metric be more focused on line transect sampling and not plots?
2. Under channel feature baseline, give the work Hood is currently doing for ESRP, recommend having project proponents compare their results to Hood's predictions and models in order to refine those tools.

particles of clay, silt, sand, gravel, or cobble, transported by water, are called sediment.

facts or skills acquired by a person through experience or education.