Download Document

Restoration
in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary
September 13, 2007
Debrah Marriott, Executive Director
Evan Haas, Habitat Restoration Coordinator
Lower Columbia Challenges
Bi-State Investment 1989 - 1995
Combined monitoring efforts at over 500 sites –
looking at fish tissue, sediment and water quality
• Habitat decreased by as much as 75% from historical levels
• Beneficial uses impaired
• High levels of sediment contamination
–DDEs, PCBs, dioxins and furans, and PAHs
• Contaminants are bioaccumulating at harmful levels
–Bald eagle, osprey, and river otters
• High water temperature and dissolved gas levels
Lower River & Estuary
Management Plan
Objectives
•Protect the ecosystem and species -restoring 16,000 acres of wetlands
and habitat by 2010
•Reduce toxic and conventional pollution -conducting long term
monitoring.
•Provide information about the river to a range of audiences compiling and evaluating data, offering education programs for children
and building public and private partners.
Science Program Components
Habitat Restoration
• Regional Prioritization Strategy
• Shoreline Videography: Assessment of Conditions/
Landscape Analysis
• Inventory
• Project Implementation & Effectiveness Monitoring
• Sediment Management
Species Recovery
Monitoring and Toxic Reduction
Historic Habitat Loss
Restoration Tools & Data: Defining
Regional Strategies and Priorities
•Emerging Information
– Monitoring for toxic contaminants
– Fish Surveys
– Ecosystem Classification: Lidar
•Prioritization Strategy
– Classifies lower river based on landscape
characteristics
– Defines needed restoration activities
– Improves cost effectiveness
•Project Review Criteria
– 100 Scientists, Directs project selection
•Shoreline Inventory
– 630 miles videographed and classified
shoreline features
– Identifies high priority restoration sites
Regional Restoration Inventory
Active Partners
•Council / BPA: $4,000,000 2003-2007; estimated
$4,500,000 2008-2010
•Council / BPA: Pile Dike Removal (proposed)
•NOAA – Community Based Restoration Partnership:
$666,250 2004-2007, est. $750,000 2008-2010
•NOAA – Marine Debris: $100,000 2008
•EPA – Targeted Watershed $700,000 2003-2005
•Corps of Engineers - Section 536: $2M since 2002
Implementers
Estuary Partnership, Local Governments,
Conservation Organizations, Watershed Councils,
CREST, WA Fish Recovery Board
Deep River Dike Breach
Potential Marbled
Murrelet Nesting
Habitat
Existing Cross Dike
Active Bald Eagle
Nest
Tidegate
Removal
Backwater Channels
Existing Dike
Partial Road
Removal
4 Listed
Salmonid Species
Dike Breach
Tidegate
Removal
Dike Breach
Active Bald
Eagle
Nests (3)
Grays Bay and Columbia River
Confluence
Columbia Land Trust and
partners restoring 154 acres
Salmon protection, Flood
Prevention, Water Quality
Post Project Monitoring =
juvenile salmon using site
and water temps are
cooling.
Brownsmead/Blind Slough
Tidal Reconnection
CREST and project
partners reconnected 7
miles of slough to tidal
influence
Remove culvert
barriers
Install fish friendly
tidegates
Post Monitoring shows
water temperatures are
declining.
Restoration Projects - 2008
Restoration
• Otter Point: dike breach
• Stephens Creek: CSO pipe removal/wetland grading
• Mirror Lake: culvert replacement
• Scappoose Bottomlands: wetland revegetation
• Crazy Johnson Creek: land acquisition
Marine Debris
• Coal Creek Slough: remove abandoned pile dikes.
Pile Dike Removal
• Proposed for 2008: build off work at Coal Creek Slough and
increase removal throughout the estuary
Sediment Management
Sediment Plan will:
– Provide regional decision making context
– Assess Contamination Issues
– Identify disposal issues: location, costs
– Impacts to habitat
• Creation of predator habitat
• Loss of instream habitat
Species Recovery
NWPCC, BPA & NOAA
Confirm recovery priorities in Management Plan:
• Sub Basin Plan for lower river and estuary, 2004 –
six priority areas: hydro system effects, habitat,
toxic contaminants, non-native species, predation,
and uncertainty
• Phase 2 Recovery module for lower river and
estuary 2007 Threats: flow, sediment impairment,
structures, food web and predators, riparian
practices and toxic contaminants.
• Action Agencies- Comprehensive Analysis – August
2007
Estuary Partnership
Monitoring Strategy
Developed 1996-1999 with USGS and large work
group of public and private sector scientists
–Assessed current activities, needs and gaps
–Defined plan to fill gaps
The plan includes the following components:
•Monitoring Oversight
•Data Management
•Habitat Monitoring
•Exotic Species
•Conventional Pollutants
•Toxic Contaminants
•Primary Productivity and Food Web Dynamics
Monitoring to Date
• 1989 – 1996: Bi-State $6,000,000: Gives us Baseline at over 500 sites
• 1996- 2005: One time Snapshots gives us quick look
–EPA EMAP: $500,000 & USGS BEST: $3,000,000
• 2003-2007: Council & BPA investment $2,300,000 gave us:
–Ecosystem Classification System
–Habitat Monitoring (exotic species)
–Water Quality Monitoring – USGS matched BPA funds
–Salmonid Sampling –NOAA matched BPA funds
–Toxics Model Development
• 2008-2010: Council & BPA investment $1,875,000 will give us:
–Trend Ability
–Ecosystem Classification System
–Habitat monitoring (exotic species)
–Salmonid Sampling (No toxics) – NOAA matching
Results of Monitoring Project
Legacy, Bioaccumulative, Persistent
• Contaminants banned from 1970s still detected in sediments and fish,
including pesticides, (DDT), coolants and lubricants (PCBs)
• PCBs in salmon tissue and PAHs present in salmon prey exceed estimated
thresholds for delayed mortality, increased disease susceptibility, and
reduced growth
Emerging, sublethal
• Flame retardants (PBDEs) on the rise and salmon in the vicinity of Portland
have levels within the top 10% of those reported for resident fish in the
region
• Copper detected at concentrations known to interfere with salmon olfaction:
imprinting, homing, schooling, shoaling, predator detection, predator
avoidance, and spawning
• Juvenile Chinook salmon collected from the Portland area have abnormal
levels of an estrogen-regulated yolk protein
Future Activities:
Based On What We Know, What Do We Need?
•More strategic approach
•More aggressive identification of projects
•Continue tidal reconnection projects and
increase marine debris and pile dike removal
projects
•Link effectiveness monitoring to results
•Expand knowledge of fish use in tidal
freshwater portion of the estuary
•Expand involvement from local, state, federal
and tribal partners