Download development of ecosystem health indicator metrics for the

PNWD-3536
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics for
the Lower Columbia River and Estuary
Partnership
R.M. Thom
L.K. O’Rourke
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory
Sequim, Washington
March 2005
Prepared for the
Lower Columbia River and Estuary Partnership
Portland, Oregon
Battelle, Pacific Northwest Division
of Battelle Memorial Institute
LEGAL NOTICE
This report was prepared by Battelle as an account of sponsored research activities. Neither Client nor Battelle nor
any person acting on behalf of either:
MAKES ANY WARRANTY OR REPRESENTATION, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, with respect to the accuracy,
completeness, or usefulness of the information contained in this report, or that the use of any information, apparatus,
process, or composition disclosed in this report may not infringe privately owned rights; or
Assumes any liabilities with respect to the use of, or for damages resulting from the use of, any information,
apparatus, process, or composition disclosed in this report.
Reference herein to any specific commercial product, process, or service by trade name, trademark, manufacturer, or
otherwise, does not necessarily constitute or imply its endorsement, recommendation, or favoring by Battelle. The
views and opinions of authors expressed herein do not necessarily state or reflect those of Battelle.
This document was printed on recycled paper
PNWD-3536
ECOSYSTEM HEALTH INDICATOR METRICS FOR
THE LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER AND ESTUARY
PARTNERSHIP
R.M. Thom
L.K. O’Rourke
Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory
Sequim, Washington
March 2005
Prepared for the
Lower Columbia River and Estuary Partnership
Portland, Oregon
Battelle Memorial Institute
Pacific Northwest Division
Richland, Washington 99352
Executive Summary
The purpose of this report was to develop a set of metrics that could be used to assess the health of the
Columbia River estuary ecosystem. Assessing ecosystem health has been at the forefront of
environmental management for the past decade. The general concept is that, like a physician measuring
the vital signs of a patient, managers can measure analogous vital signs of the ecosystem. A large number
of metrics have been proposed and employed. We developed a suite of metrics that appeared to meet
several criteria, including availability and access of data, cost-effectiveness, and relevance to the Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership's goals for the ecosystem. The metrics are tiered from easiest to
most difficult and costly to acquire. In most cases, data on the metrics are available now, but would
require dedication of time and effort to access and analyze.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
iii
Acknowledgements
We wish to thank the staff of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership for their valuable and
informed input throughout the indicator development process, as well as their unending patience. We so
very much appreciate the latitude they showed us. We also thank the technical expertise of
Dr. Christopher May for his guidance in land use and riparian indicators, and Heida Diefenderfer for her
thoughtful suggestions on habitat metrics. Nathan Evans and Amy Borde provided much needed
information on geographic information system and remote sensing topics.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
iv
Glossary
AFEP
Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program
CCMP
Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan
COC
contaminants of concern
COE
Corps of Engineeers
CORIE
A nowcast-forecast system developed by the Oregon Graduate
Institute for the Columbia River Estuary (CORIE)
DO
dissolved oxygen
Estuary Partnership
Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership
LCRE
Lower Columbia River estuary ecosystem
NASQAN
National Stream Quality Accounting Network (by USGS)
NGO
non-governmental organization
NLCD
National Land Cover Data
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPP
net primary productivity
NRC
National Research Council
ODEQ
Oregon Department of Environmental Quality
ODFW
Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife
PNCERS
Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study
PNW
Pacific Northwest
PSAMP
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
SOER
State of the Environment Report
TSI
trophic state indicator
TSS
total suspended solids
USFWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
VEC
valued ecosystem components
WA DNR
Washington Department of Natural Resources
WDOE
Washington State Department of Ecology
WSDOT
Washington State Department of Transportation
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
v
Contents
Executive Summary .....................................................................................................................................iii
Acknowledgements......................................................................................................................................iv
Glossary ........................................................................................................................................................ v
1.0
Introduction and Background .......................................................................................................... 1
2.0
Review of Regional Programs ......................................................................................................... 3
3.0
National Ecological Indicators......................................................................................................... 6
4.0
Development of Lower Columbia River Estuary Indicator Metrics................................................ 7
5.0
Design and Concept of LCRE Indicator Metrics ............................................................................. 9
6.0
Conclusion and Recommendations................................................................................................ 10
7.0
References...................................................................................................................................... 10
Appendix A: Table of Regional Ecosystem Health Indicators Programs................................................A-1
Appendix B: Lower Columbia River and Estuary Potential Ecological Indicators ................................. B-1
Appendix C: Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem Indicators and Metrics ............................ C-1
Tables
Table 1. Examples of Indicators by Major Category for the Great Lakes Ecosystem ................................. 5
Table 2. Attributes and Indicators of the San Francisco Bay-Delta-River Estuary Ecosystem ................... 6
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
vi
1.0 Introduction and Background
In 1997, the White House proposed developing a “report card” on the health of the nation’s ecosystems
(Science Magazine 1997). Although not fully implemented, the concept of ecosystem health has been the
topic of considerable research and has spawned a journal dedicated to the topic. The concept is to provide
indicators of the health of an ecosystem analogous to measures of human health. Like a physician
examining a patient's health by measuring a set of health indicators (e.g., blood pressure, temperature,
blood chemistry), scientists can measure a set of parameters that indicate the health of an ecosystem. The
human body is a complex system, which cannot be fully understood. Likewise, ecosystems are complex
and not fully understood. However, we should be able to develop key parameters that allow us to
determine whether the ecosystem is suffering. Decision makers can use this information to improve the
ecosystem conditions. Some argue that “ecosystem health” is an inappropriate metaphor for human
health (Suter 1993). Nevertheless, the public needs to know and understand the condition of the
ecosystem to make informed management decisions. The ultimate aim of health indicators is to provide a
periodic “report card” about the status of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem health indicators are now employed world-wide (e.g., Australia, New Zealand, United
Kingdom). Much of the scientific work has focused on health metrics associated with conservation of
biological diversity (e.g., ten Kate 2002, Balmford et al. 2005), ecosystem management (e.g., Larkin
1996, Reitkerk et al. 2004), and fisheries management (e.g., Pikitch et al. 2004). These studies provide
the scientific underpinnings for assessing ecosystem health. They all emphasize the need to understand
the mechanisms causing changes.
The objective of this report is to summarize findings and recommendations for health indicators for the
Lower Columbia River estuary ecosystem (LCRE). The estuary spans 321 km (146 mi) between its
mouth and the Bonneville Dam, and encompasses several tributary streams and rivers. This huge and
complex ecosystem is diverse in terms of habitat types and levels of development. These facts make
assessing the health of the ecosystem challenging.
By definition, an ecosystem includes the biological, chemical, and physical components of the
environment. How well these components are organized and interact reflects how well an ecosystem
functions. Ecosystem functions (e.g., primary production, nutrient cycling) are aspects of the ecosystem
that science can measure, report, and understand, and are therefore important to consider in terms of
monitoring ecosystem health. Although possible to measure, many ecosystem functions are often not
measured over the long term or comprehensively, because they require a large and costly effort. To
overcome the issue of cost, regions have selected metrics (i.e., measures) of ecosystem functions that may
not represent the actual function but are attributes or surrogate measures indicating function. For
example, a surrogate for the function of wetland primary production could be the area of the ecosystem
covered by various wetland types, each type having a typical level of primary production. Hence, it is
important to define terms and measures of ecosystem functions and health.
As more restoration projects are done in aquatic ecosystems, it has become apparent that the long-term
success of these projects depends on the quality of physical processes in the ecosystem. Because the
ultimate goal for most projects is to have a fully functional system that is self-maintaining and resilient to
disturbances, the presence of adequate physical processes is critical. Without these processes, the projects
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
1
will not be self-maintaining in the long run. Therefore, the physical processes that maintain ecosystem
functions can serve as useful indicators. For example, sediment supply in the water is necessary to
support the accretion of marshes. Without sediment, marshes would tend to erode in the face of rising sea
level. Therefore, maintenance of a natural sediment supply through erosion of bluffs and river valleys is
essential to long-term maintenance of marshes and other shallow water habitats. An example of an
indicator of the “health” of sedimentation processes would be the amount of feeder bluff upstream from
tidal marshes.
How measures of functions relate to the ecosystem health can be addressed systematically through the use
of a conceptual model. For example, although primary production has at best a vague relationship with
health, knowing that primary producers are responsible for the organic matter that is the basis for the food
web in the ecosystem, and that some primary producers species are more important than others in their
contributions to the food web, and that losses of these producers can result in a loss of desirable animal
species, makes the assessment of primary production more meaningful as an ecosystem health indicator.
Hence, it is important to be explicit about the relationships between the indicators and the aspects of the
ecosystem that have high relevance to humans.
Aspects of the ecosystem with high value to humans have been termed valued ecosystem components
(VEC). These often include commercially and recreationally important fisheries resources, birds, and
undisturbed native habitat areas. Water can also be a VEC, because clean water is valued for recreation
as well as consumption. How well the VECs are doing reflects at least partially how well the ecosystem
is functioning, and can be a useful indicator of ecosystem health that is understandable and meaningful to
the general public. Science can provide the underpinnings of the quality of the ecosystem elements
required to support or maintain VECs.
Certain metrics can be correlated with generic changes in ecosystem health. Perhaps the most often used
metrics of this type are human population abundance and density. As the population grows in size and
density, land is altered, natural resources are used, and waste builds up to levels that are not easily
processed by the ecosystem. Population density, therefore, can correlate with an alteration in a wide
variety of indicators of ecosystem function and health. Land use and land cover are often used as more
refined indicators of ecosystem health, because they are more closely tied qualitatively to ecosystem
functions and, therefore, can represent a causal, as opposed to a simple correlative relationship.
Indicators communicate information about the status of complex systems in a concise and easily
understood manner. Indicators can also be used to monitor for trends or compare a system with some
“reference” condition. Because it is not typically practical or even possible to measure every component
of a complex system, indicators are necessary. Good indicators have several key characteristics. First,
they quantify information so that its significance is more apparent to all levels of users. Second, they
simplify complex information such that it can better be communicated to non-technical people. Third,
indicators are based on conceptual models of the systems being monitored. Fourth, they are cost-effective
and accurate alternatives to costly multi-parameter monitoring efforts. Finally, indicators allow for trend
analysis and adaptive management feedback. In summary, indicators usually serve as clues that
something more complicated is taking place than can actually be measured accurately (NRC 2000). An
example of the "indicator concept" is the use of economic indicators to monitor the status and trends of
the United States economy.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
2
Ecological indicators should be selected to provide robust, reliable, and easily understood measures of
current conditions in complex ecosystems. These indicators can be used as a measure of ecosystem health
or ecological integrity in comparison with a known set of natural (reference) conditions. Ecological
integrity has been defined as the capacity to support and maintain a balanced, integrated, adaptive
ecosystem having a full range of physical, chemical, and biological elements and processes (structure and
function) found in the natural environment of the region (Karr 1996). To develop and implement sound
environmental policies, accurate and timely data are needed that capture the essence of the dynamics of
ecosystem structure and function (NRC 2000). Ecological indicators are also needed to monitor the
effectiveness and performance of environmental policies and management programs. In addition,
indicators can be used to monitor restoration efforts and provide feedback for adaptive management.
Most importantly, ecological indicators must be clearly linked to the underlying ecological processes
(conceptual model) that they are being used to monitor and must be measured at the appropriate
ecosystem scale (spatial and temporal).
There are practical considerations when selecting health indicators. These include social relevance, easeof-measurement, cost-effectiveness, accessibility of data, and potential for long-term monitoring. Ideally,
an indicator should have strong linkage to ecosystem functions, be socially relevant, be easy to measure
with high confidence, and the data be available very quickly. We have reviewed a wide array of regional
and national programs to arrive at a set of recommended ecosystem health indicators. We used several
criteria, as listed above, to evaluate the indicators relative to the LCRE and the mission of Lower
Columbia River Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership).
2.0 Review of Regional Programs
We selected the following programs to represent a variety of regional ecosystem indicator monitoring and
assessment programs that range broadly in scope, aerial coverage, and complexity. We compiled the
indicators selected and subsequent metrics tracked by each program into a matrix (Appendix A).
Included in the matrix was an evaluation of potential data sources from prior or ongoing monitoring
programs, and relevance of the metrics to the LCRE.
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program
The Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program (PSAMP) was initiated in 1988 by the State of
Washington to address the need for a long-term comprehensive monitoring program to measure
conditions and track changes for the inland marine waters of Washington (i.e., parts of the Strait of Juan
de Fuca, Puget Sound, and the southern portion of the Strait of Georgia). The PSAMP draws on
monitoring programs from several federal (e.g., the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the National Oceanic
and Atmospheric Administration [NOAA] Fisheries, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency), state,
and county resource agencies (e.g., Washington State Departments of Ecology, Fish and Wildlife, and
Natural Resources), and is administered under the authority of the Puget Sound Water Quality Action
Team. Every 2 years, the program integrates and analyzes the monitoring results of the all of the
participating agencies and issues an overall program report, The Puget Sound Update (PSWQAT 2002).
Specific ecosystem indicators that are tracked by the PSAMP are organized into five major topics:
physical environment, pathogens and nutrients, toxic contamination, human health, and biological
resources (Appendix A).
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
3
Georgia Basin – Puget Sound Ecosystem Indicators
To advance a Joint Statement of Cooperation between Environment Canada and the U.S. Environmental
Protection Agency, a Canada-United States Working Group on Environmental Indicators was formed in
1999 to develop a suite of ecosystem indicators to describe the current state and trends of the binational
transboundary region (Puget Sound, Georgia Basin, Strait of Juan de Fuca). Six indicators were selected
to track over time to assess societal impacts on the ecosystem, provide information to help decisionmakers address the issues of concern, and to work toward a more sustainable future (Appendix A).
Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000
In 1998, the Oregon Progress Board initiated an assessment of the status and health of Oregon’s
environment. A panel of volunteer scientists, chaired by Oregon State University president, Dr. Paul
Risser, analyzed existing data to prepare the Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000 (SOER), the
specific purpose of which was to “describe the health of the environment in terms of natural structure and
function, and how the environment contributes to a sustainable production of goods and services”
(Oregon Progress Board 2000). The report was organized by resource (aquatic- and land-based) and
ecoregion. Each resource chapter provided a list of key indicators to quantitatively assess the health of
Oregon’s ecosystems. In addition, the Science Panel recommended a subset of 18 of those indicators to
be used, at a minimum, to guide the State monitoring program (SOER Science Panel 2000) (Appendix A).
PNCERS Indicators of West Coast Estuary Health
The Pacific Northwest Coastal Ecosystems Regional Study (PNCERS) developed a suite of indicators for
West Coast estuary health that encompass both the biological/ecological state of the estuary and the social
and economic state of the human communities connected to the estuary. The criteria for selection
included responsiveness to system structure and function and those associated parameters (or suitable
proxies) that are currently measured, or if not currently measured, that would have a high benefit-to-cost
ratio if included in an existing monitoring program. The PNCERS recognized the considerable variation
among West Coast estuaries and hence categorized estuaries according to their water flow and
geomorphology. The Columbia River Estuary was defined as a “well-flushed drowned river with
predominantly freshwater input.” Based on this definition, a suite of indicators was recommended, each
with constituent parameters and some with suggested proxies (Appendix A) (Parrish and Litle 2001).
In addition to the Pacific Northwest (PNW) programs, two other programs representing highly complex
ecosystems were reviewed but are not included in the matrix.
The Great Lakes Water Quality Agreement (between the United States and Canada) developed a suite of
80 basin-wide indicators that were classified according to the following types:
•
State of the Environment: Indicators that address the state of the environment, the quality and
quantity of natural resources, and the state of human and ecological health
•
Pressure: Indicators that describe natural processes and human activities that impact, stress, or
pose a threat to environmental quality
•
Human Activities (Response): Individual and collective actions that halt, mitigate, adapt to, or
prevent damage to the environment.
Table 1 provides examples of indicators by major category for the Great Lakes ecosystem.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
4
Table 1. Examples of Indicators by Major Category for the Great Lakes Ecosystem
Nearshore
and open
water
Coastal
Wetlands
Nearshore
Terrestrial
Fish habitat –
quality and
amount
Invertebrate
community
health
Extent and
quality of
nearshore land
cover
Prey fish
populations
Amphibian
diversity and
abundance
Benthos
diversity and
abundance
Land Use
Human Health
Societal
Unbounded
Urban density
Trends in
disease
incidence
Aesthetics
Breeding bird
diversity and
abundance
Nearshore land
use
Habitat
adjacent to
coastal
wetlands
Contaminants
in recreational
fish
Economic
prosperity
Threatened
species
Wetland area
by type
Extent of
hardened
shoreline
Habitat
fragmentation
Drinking water
quality
Water
withdrawal
Acid Rain
Phosphorous
concentrations
Sediment
flowing into
wetlands
Artificial
coastal
structures
Land
conversion
Air quality
Solid waste
generation
Sediment
contaminants
Nitrate and
Phosphorous
into wetlands
Nearshore plant
and animal
problem
species
Mass
transportation
Chemical
contaminants in
human tissue
Energy
consumption
Wastewater
pollution
loadings
Gain in restored
wetland area by
type
Protected
nearshore areas
Sustainable
agriculture
practices
Radionuclides
Citizen/
community
place-based
stewardship
activities
Global
warming –
number of
extreme storms
Global
warming – first
emergence of
water lilies in
coastal
wetlands
Exotic species
The CALFED Bay-Delta Program Draft Ecosystem-level Indicators proposal divided the San Francisco
Bay-Delta-River System into four categories of ecosystems: Upland Mountain River-Riparian, Alluvial
(Lowland) River-Floodplain, Delta, and Estuary. The indicators proposed were designed to serve as a
composite measure of the ecological integrity of selected attributes within five categories (Hydrologic/
Hydrodynamic, Geomorphic, Habitat, Native Biological Community, and Community Energetics)
(CMARP 1998). Table 2 below provides examples of indicators by attribute for the estuary ecosystem.
Although the ecosystem health indicators selected by the various programs vary considerably in the detail
and complexity of metrics used to track them, each program addresses all components of the natural
system, both biotic and abiotic, and within this context, the physical, chemical, and biological
components at some level.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
5
Table 2. Attributes and Indicators of the San Francisco Bay-Delta-River Estuary Ecoystem
Attributes
Freshwater inflow and
salinity patterns
Indicator
Distance from bridge where
salinity is 2 ppt
Indicator
Fixed location salinity
measurements
Indicator
Sediment supply
Net sediment accretion rates
(inter- and subtidal)
Elevation of marshes and
mudflats
Habitat mosaic and
connectivity
Spatial extent and distribution of
all natural habitat types
Presence/distribution of
resident and anadromous fish/
migratory bird species
Number/amount of unnatural
barriers interfering with natural
movements of native species,
sediment transport and supply,
nutrient transport, water flow
Water Quality
Toxicity in water, sediment,
tissue
Nutrients (N, P, C)
Dissolved oxygen, salinity,
turbidity
Native biological
communities and
assemblages
Trends in abundance, diversity,
and composition of native phytozooplankton, plant associations,
benthic invertebrate assemblages,
native resident and anadromous
fish/migratory bird species
Population trends of selected
listed species (threatened,
endangered, and other species
of concern)
Invasive species: measures of
new invasions, spatial extent,
and number eradicated or no
net increases
Levels of plankton
productivity sufficient to
support planktondependent fish
populations
Phytoplankton productivity
Zooplankton productivity
Transport/export of
detrital organic matter
Flux of detrital organic matter
(carbon, nitrogen, phosphorous)
between marshes and other
aquatic habitats
3.0 National Ecological Indicators
The indicators used by regional programs were also compared with the national ecological indicators
recommended by a committee of experts convened by the National Research Council (NRC) (NRC 2000)
to determine whether the indicators tracked in these programs follow the recommendations of the NRC,
either directly or indirectly (Appendix A). The NRC committee recommends national ecological
indicators in three categories:
1) Extent and status of nation’s ecosystems
Land Cover – Records percentage of land in each of many land-cover categories in both aquatic
and dryland ecosystems
Land Use – (Recommended) Requires substantial synthesis of existing information, as well as
new information, before land-use metrics can be developed
2) Nation’s ecological capital
Total Species Diversity – Combines a measure of diversity of species actually present with
information about land cover
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
6
Native Species Diversity – Compares the number of native species an area of land supports with
the number of native species the landscape would be expected to support
Soil Organic Matter – Strongly influences processes such as availability of nutrients and energy,
capacity for water retention, susceptibility to erosion, and fate of pollutants (particularly useful as
an indicator for agricultural soil condition)
Nutrient Runoff – measures loss of essential nutrients from the soil and is related to soil erosion.
3) Ecological functioning or performance (aquatic and terrestrial)
Aquatic Indicators:
Stream Oxygen – Measures the critical balance between primary production and respiration in
flowing water systems
Trophic Status of Lakes – Uses nutrient status, net biological productivity, and water clarity to
develop a Trophic State Indicator (TSI) (an indicator of productivity)
Terrestrial Indicators:
Production capacity – Measures total chlorophyll per unit area (terrestrial) or per unit volume
(aquatic)
Net Primary Productivity (NPP) – Measures the amount of plant material produced per area per
year to provide a direct measure of the amount of energy and carbon that has been brought into an
ecosystem
Carbon storage – Measures an ecosystem’s carbon balance to determine whether carbon is being
sequestered or released.
4.0 Development of Lower Columbia River Estuary Indicator
Metrics
As part of a multi-year effort to help the Estuary Partnership define the most relevant issues
facing the LCRE and develop the Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan (CCMP),
the Management Committee developed a list of seven priority issues based on technical findings
from the Bi-State Water Quality Study and input from technical experts and the public
(LCREP 1999):
•
Biological Integrity
•
Impacts of Human Activity and Growth
•
Habitat Loss and Modification
•
Conventional Pollutants
•
Toxic Contaminants
•
Institutional Constraints
•
Public Awareness and Stewardship.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
7
Within the framework of these priority issues, the Management Committee implemented a comparative
list of 21 problems, ranked by level of risk, based on the opinions of the public, focus groups, and science
and technical workgroup experts. Participants were asked to rank the problems based on the risk they
pose to public health, ecological health, and quality of life. Although the results of the ranking varied
considerably between the groups, the loss of wetlands and other habitat was, significantly, seen as the
greatest risk by all three groups. Decline and loss of species was ranked second by both the focus groups
and the technical experts. Various land-use activities (e.g., agriculture, forestry, stormwater runoff) also
ranked high as a risk to the LCRE. Further, the lack of public knowledge was seen by the focus groups
and technical groups as detrimental, highlighting the need for public awareness for effective
environmental stewardship. Overall, the risk-ranking provided the Estuary Partnership with a solid
understanding of what the general public and technical experts perceive as the greatest risks to the health
of the LCRE ecosystem, thereby assisting them in developing goals and a list of actions needed to
accomplish those goals.
After evaluation of the regional indicators matrix (Appendix A) and the supplemental list of potential
indicators (Appendix B), the Estuary Partnership suggested a suite of environmental indicators that, if
measured and tracked appropriately, could provide a scientifically based means to periodically assess the
health of the LCRE and the effectiveness of management actions. The suggested environmental
indicators, like the regional programs evaluated, address physical, chemical, and biological components
of the ecosystem, and are within the context of the seven priority issues identified in the CCMP:
•
Have restoration efforts resulted in more habitat?
- What has been restored?
- What has been protected or conserved?
- What has been lost?
•
What is the change in connectivity of habitat?
•
Are native species increasing or decreasing?
•
What are the changes in land use?
- What is the ratio of impervious to non-impervious surface?
- What are the changes in land-use cover?
•
What is the change in armored vs. natural shoreline?
•
Have the concentrations of toxics in fish and river otter tissues, and in osprey and eagle eggshells
changed?
•
Do water temperature and dissolved gas levels support native species?
The Estuary Partnership also suggested the following stewardship indicators, recognizing that a
knowledgeable public with a strong sense of ownership, connection, and appreciation of the estuary and
its environment is critical to sound stewardship. The key to action and results is to provide opportunities
for all community members to become educated and involved in programs that work to improve the
health of the ecosystem.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
8
•
How many children are provided Columbia River programs through the Estuary Partnership?
- Classroom and related field work
- On-river
- Volunteer restoration and monitoring
•
Are there more opportunities for citizens to enjoy the river safely, leaving no trace?
5.0 Design and Concept of LCRE Indicator Metrics
Thus, provided with guidance from the Estuary Partnership on assessment questions they felt most
pertinent to the problems facing the LCRE, we designed a set of indicators that can provide directly
relevant information about the condition of the estuary. These indicators will provide a synthesis of
complex information, meaningful to both the public and resource managers alike. The areas of concern
addressed and the indicators recommended are as follows:
•
Habitat (loss, opportunity, protection and conservation, restoration, net change)
•
Biotic Integrity (native species assessment)
•
Land Use (land-use changes, riparian integrity)
•
Water Quality (concentrations of toxics in biota, temperature, and dissolved oxygen)
•
Stewardship (children’s educational and field programs, volunteer monitoring, and restoration)
•
Appreciation (park visitors, recreational and shellfish permits, membership in environmental nongovernmental organizations.
Indicators should be measurable, quantifiable, cost-effective, and monitored (or have the potential to be
monitored) for the long term. The metrics we recommend for each indicator are tiered, progressing from
relatively easily measured metrics to those that are more difficult in terms of effort and perhaps cost.
Each tier advances from less meaningful to more meaningful in terms of estuarine environmental quality
or health. The first tier recommends metrics that can be presented singly (e.g., percentage of riparian
zone with native vegetation). When combined with metrics from each higher tier, an environmental
profile is presented for each indicator. Each tier metric, however, is meaningful by itself.
Monitoring programs of sufficient temporal and spatial coverage are very expensive. Therefore, the
health metrics selected by the Estuary Partnership should be able to leverage, to the extent possible,
existing or planned monitoring programs. For example, additional programs that can provide relevant data
include U.S. Geological Survey (USGS) water quality monitoring, NOAA fisheries studies, Oregon
Graduate Institute CORIE system monitoring, the Anadromous Fish Evaluation Program (AFEP), and
Portland District Corps of Engineers studies. In some cases, however, additional monitoring may be
warranted. As more restoration and monitoring programs are undertaken in the LCRE, more data will
become available to allow increasingly more detailed assessments of the health of the system.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
9
6.0 Conclusion and Recommendations
In Appendix C, we summarize specific indicators and metrics that we feel meet the qualifications of good
ecosystem health indicators and that, importantly, can provide a meaningful report on the status of the
LCRE to the public. Many of these are now used to indicate health of ecosystems. The table also
provides tiers of metrics so that the Estuary Partnership can select those that are feasible to acquire under
funding and staffing considerations. We have provided potential sources for the information. Ideally, the
Estuary Partnership can leverage data from existing programs. A critical step is to make sure that the
timing of data delivery from other programs is synchronous with the reporting cycle for the Estuary
Partnership. In addition, the report card needs to provide a synthesis of the data for the public in clear
terms.
Estuarine status and trends analysis is still relatively young. As more research is devoted to developing
and testing estuarine indicators, the methods and protocols used to assess the indicators will continue to
improve. Therefore, with this acknowledgment, it is reasonable to expect that in the future, a different
suite of indicators and metrics may be more appropriate.
7.0 References
Balmford, A., plus 27 co-authors. 2005. "The convention on biological diversity’s 2010 target." Science
307:212-213.
Bertram, P. and Stadler-Salt, N. "Selection of Indicators for Great Lakes Basin Ecosystem Health,"
Version 4. State of the Lakes Ecosystem Conference. Available: http://www.epa.gov/glnpo/solec/.
Comprehensive Monitoring and Assessment Program (CMARP). 1998. Ecosystem-Level Indicators of
Ecological Integrity for San Francisco Bay Estuary Ecosytem. CALFED Bay-Delta Program Draft
Ecosystem-level Indicators.
Karr, R.J. 1996. "Ecological integrity and ecological health are not the same." In P.C. Schulze, ed.
Engineering Within Ecological Constraints. National Academy Press, Washington, D.C., pp. 97-109.
Larkin, P.A. 1996. "Concepts and issues in marine ecosystem management." Reviews in Fish Biology
and Fisheries 6:139-164.
LCREP (Lower Columbia River Estuary Program). 1999. Comprehensive Conservation and
Management Plan. Lower Columbia River Estuary Program.
NRC (National Research Council). 2000. Ecological Indicators for the Nation. National Academy
Press; Washington D.C.
Oregon Progress Board. 2000. Oregon State of the Environment Report 2000 – Statewide Summary.
Oregon Progress Board, Salem, Oregon.
Parrish, J.K. and K. Litle. 2001. PNCERS 2000 Annual Report. Coastal Oceans Program, NOAA.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
10
Pikitch, E.K. and 16 co-authors. 2004. "Ecosystem-based fishery management." Science 305:346-347.
PSWQAT (Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team). 2002. 2002 Puget Sound Update: Eighth Report
of the Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia,
Washington
Reitkerk, M., S.C. Dekker, P.C. de Ruiter, and J. van de Koppel. 2004. "Self-organized patchiness and
catastrophic shifts in ecosystems." Science 305:1926-1929.
Science Magazine 1997, Vol. 276:887.
Suter II, G.W. 1993. "A critique of ecosystem health concepts and indexes." Environmental Toxicology
and Chemistry 12:1533-1539.
ten Kate, K. 2002. "Science and the convention on biological diversity." Science 295:2371-2372.
Transboundary Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Environmental Indicators Working Group. 2002. Georgia
Basin-Puget Sound Ecosystem Indicators Report. Georgia Basin Ecosystem Initiative Publication
EC/GB-01-034; Washington State Department of Ecology Publication 02-01-002. Washington State
Department of Ecology, Olympia, Washington.
.
Ecosystem Health Indicator Metrics
11
Appendix A: Table of Regional Ecosystem Health Indicators
Programs
The following is a draft review of various programs in the Pacific Northwest that serve to report on the state of "the system" - conducted on behalf of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership by Ron
Thom, Chris May, and Lohna O'Rourke of Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory.
y
Ecosystem
Indicator Matrix
Program
PSAMP
Metrics
Nitrogen
Physio-Chemical WQ (TN/Nitrate/Nitrite/Ammonia)
Phosphorous (TP/SRP)
Yes - direct
Fair
Potential eutrophicaton - freshwater
Yes - direct
Fair
No
Good
Yes - direct
Fair
No
Fair
No
Fair
WDFW/USGS/States/Tribes
No
Fair
WDFW/USGS/States/Tribes
See TSS
Fecal Coliform (FC)
Indicator of pathogenic bacteria - also can
No
use EC or other indicator bacteria
Fish stocks
(groundfish,herring,salmonids)
Birds-populations of wintering
nearshore waterbirds
Marine mammals populations
Exotic Species
Generally periodic
samples only
Generally periodic
samples only
Relevance to
LCR
Moderate
Moderate
High
Moderate
Low
Moderate
Moderate
No
Fair
Generally periodic
WA-DOH
samples only
USGS BEST program -one time
in 1997 http://www.cerc.usgs.gov/data/b
Inconsistent
est/search/columbia.htm
No
Fair
WDFW/USGS/States/Tribes
Inconsistent
High
No
Fair
WDFW/USGS/States/Tribes
Inconsistent
High
No
Good
WA-DOH
Good
Low
No
Good
WA-DOH
Good
Low
Trends in PSP
No
Good
WA-DOH
Good
Low
Critical habitat & food web dynamics
No
Good
NOAA/US-ACOE
Good
High
Habitat structure and function
Yes - Indirect
Poor
???
Inconsistent
High
WDFW/NMFS - Pacific
Fisheries Information Network,
www.psmfc.org/pacfin/data.html
Good
& Depts. Of Fish & Wildlife
arsenic/mercury/copper/zinc/lead/si High levels toxic to organisms/affects
lver-sediments
benthic infaunal communities
High levels toxic to organisms/affects
benthic infaunal communities
PAHs/PCBs-sediments
PAHs/PCBs-tissue shellfish, fish, High levels toxic to many
birds, mammals
organisms/potential bioaccumulation
Trends in shellfish growing areas
Indicates sanitation problems/biotoxins
(closures vs. openings)
Cases of Vibrio parahaemolyticus
infections
Biotoxins in shellfish
Abundance and distribution of
submerged aquatic vegetation
Biological Resources (SAV)
Diversity of intertidal
macroinvertebrates
Data Quality
Potential eutrophication - estuary
Turbidity
pH
Potential Data Sources
USGS
http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/dat
Inconsistent
a/provdata/columbia.html
USGS
http://water.usgs.gov/nasqan/dat
Inconsistent
a/provdata/columbia.html
Generally Excellent continuous long-term
measurements are
WDFW/USGS/States/Tribes
common
Generally periodic
WDFW/USGS/States/Tribes
samples only
Generally periodic
WDFW/USGS/States/Tribes
samples only
Total Suspended Solids (TSS)
Dissolved Oxygen (DO)
Human Health
NRC
Data
Recommended? Availability
Increased temp reduces DO/increases O2
demand - also aquatic life criteria for cold
water organisms
Critical range for aquatic life/can change
community structure
Affects water chemistry/range for aquatic
life
Reduces photosynthesis/increase surface
water temp./lowers DO/suffocates
organisms/potential increase adsorbed
contaminants
Water Temperature
Toxics
Purpose
Good
Indicator of biodiversity and overharvest
Yes - Indirect
Good
Habitat health & sufficient prey resource
Yes - Indirect
Good
Habitat health & sufficient prey resource
Threat to native community health
Yes - Indirect
Yes - Indirect
Fair
Fair
Audubon Society bird counts
Some special studies through
NMFS
Baseline survey done in 2002
High
High
High
Periodic Only
Moderate
Inconsistent
Moderate
High
Shoreline
Modifications
% of shoreline modified w/
bulkheads
Nearshore habitat quality/fragmentation
Yes - Indirect
Good
NOAA/US-ACOE
Good
High
Georgia Basin-Puget
Sound
Population
Air Quality
Solid Waste
Persistent Organic
Pollutants in Harbor
Seals
Species at Risk
Terrestrial Protected
Areas
Oregon State of the
Environment
Trends, rates of change & regional Cumulative stresses on ecosystem
distribution
resources
Trends related to concentrations of
Human health risk
inhalable particulates
No
Good
US Census
Good
High
No
Good
US-EPA
Good
Low
Weight of solid weight disposed &
recycled by individuals & business Stress on natural resources
No
Good
US-EPA
Good
Low
No
Fair
NMFS
Inconsistent
High
Good
NMFS/USFWS
Good
High
Good
Land Trusts/DNR
Good
High
Fair
USGS
Depends on gage
coverage
Moderate
Yes - direct
(nutrients and DO) Fair
USGS/US-EPA/States/Tribes
Inconsistent
Moderate
No
Good
NMFS/USFWS
Good
High
Yes - direct
Good
LandSat or C-CAP 2004
Good
High
Yes - direct
Good
LandSat or C-CAP 2004
Good
High
Yes - direct
Good
LandSat or C-CAP 2004
Good
High
Yes - Indirect
Fair
B-IBI
Inconsistent
High
Yes - Indirect
Good
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Good
High
No
Good
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Good
High
Yes - direct
Good
LandSat or C-CAP 2004
Good
High
No
Good
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Good
High
Yes - indirect
Good
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Good
High
PCBs, dioxins, furans
Number of species by major taxa
that have been categorized as
vulnerable to extinction
% land protected through legal
mechanisms
State of contamination of coastal waters
Indicates loss/degradation of habitat types No
Contributes to ecosystem maintenance,
No
species & genetic resources
Degree to which stream flows meet
ecological needs based on inMeasure of impact on in-stream flows
stream water rights met
Water Quantity
An index combining measurements
of temperature, DO, BOD, pH,
ammonia, nitrate-N, total
phosphorous, total solids, fecal
see above
coliform
Water Quality
At-Risk Marine
Indicates loss/degradation of habitat types
As defined by state & fed listing
& food web dynamics
Organisms
Area of estuarine wetlands (tidal
Indicates loss/degradation of critical habitat
marsh/swamp) compared to
& ecosystem service
Estuarine Resources historical (acres & percent)
Change in area of freshwater
Indicates loss/degradation of critical habitat
wetlands compared to historical
& ecosystem service
Freshwater wetlands (acres & percent)
Amount of intact or functional
Indicates loss of important ecosystem
services
Riparian Ecosystems riparian vegetation
Compare existing communities with those
Index of invertebrate populations
expected
Stream Ecosystems
Freshwater fish
communities
Freshwater fish
communities
Biological Diversity
Biological Diversity
Biological Diversity
Indicators of West
Coast Estuary Health
(PNCERS)
Percentage of wild, native
populations (including salmonids)
Measure of Biodiversity
classified as healthy)
Level of harvest for sport &
Long term trends in population health of
commercial
important species
Change in area of native vegetation Indicator of the loss of natural habitat and
types
resilience
Percentage of at risk species
protected in dedicated conservation Identifies gaps in conservation
management
areas
Number of nuisance invasive
Threat to native community health
species
No
Pacific Decadal Oscillation
Has management implications as changes
in PDO from positive to negative
associated with broad changes in ocean
production - measures change in the
Aleutian high expressed in sea surface
No
temperature anomalies
Good
Info at
www.atmos.washington.edu
Provides a broad-scale
understanding of the state of the
Pacific Northwest environment
A composite index that characterizes
Pacific Northwest climate patterns in both
coastal waters and freshwater habitats - it
is a century-long record. The PNI uses
three parameters: 1) air temperature at
Olga in the San Juan Islands, averaged
annually from daily data; 2) total
precipitation at Cedar Lake in the Cascade
Mountains; and 3) snowpack depth at
Paradise on Mount Rainier on March 15 of
each year. For each parameter, annual
values were normalized by subtracting the
average of all years and dividing by the
standard deviation. Finally, the three
variables are averaged yearly giving a
relative indicator of the variations in
climate. Years with positive values of the
PNI are warmer and dryer than average
and those with negative values are cooler
No
and wetter than average
Good
Info at
http://www.cqs.washington.edu/d
ata/pni.html - similar index not
Good
yet available for Oregon
Flushing Rate
Volume
Significance to the residence time of
nutrients, contaminants, suspended
sediments, phytoplankton & zooplankton.
No
Good
Hydro-Physical
Plume Shape
No
Fair
Basin Shape
River Flow
Tidal Flow
No
No
No
Good
Good
Good
Climate
Regional Weather
In-Situ Production
Index
In-Situ Production
Index
USGS/BPA/US-ACOE
CORIE - Oregon Graduate
Institute
Bathymetry-Portland District
COE
USGS/BPA/US-ACOE
NOAA
?
High
High
Good
High
Good
High
Good
Good
Good
High
High
High
River Nutrients
Proxies: rainfall or river flow (assumes
constant upland input of nutrients). To
estimate change in nutrient input, use
additional proxies - watershed population,
% watershed in agricultural area, %
estuarine shoreline in agriculture & forestry Yes - direct
Fair
PAR
Not easily measured, proxy:Cloud Cover
No
Fair
USGS
waterdata.usgs.gov/nwis/,
NOAA NCDC
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.ht
ml - US census bureau and CCAP
NOAA NCDC
www.ncdc.noaa.gov/oa/ncdc.ht
Poor
ml
Ocean Nutrients
Effects estuarine primary productivity and
can also be used to monitor advective
events that control import of larvae of
important resources to estuarine nursery
grounds. Difficult to measure - can use
proxy:Transport Index (based on two
parameters (1) windspeed & direction (2)
number of upwelling/downwelling episodes
above a significant time length threshold. No
Fair
Info at
www.pfeg.noaa.gov/products/
Poor
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Turbidity
Habitat Availability
Index
Habitat Alteration
Exploitation Commercial
Biodiversity of bycatch species
Pollution Index
Fair
USGS/US-EPA/States/Tribes
Fair
PNCERS recommends
choosing suite of three to five
keystone species using species
that create habitat (e.g.
eelgrass, salt marsh) and motile
species with distinct habitat
requirements or preferences
(e.g. Dungeness crab and
???
juvenile salmon)
High
Fair
See Above Metric
???
High
Good
LandSat or C-CAP 2004
Good
High
Good
Potential sources, Dept. of
Agriculture & USACE
Good
Moderate
Good
Pacific Fisheries Information
Network,
www.psmfc.org/pacfin/data.html Good
High
Good
Pacific Fisheries Information
Network,
www.psmfc.org/pacfin/data.html Good
High
Yes - indirect
Good
Pacific Fisheries Information
Network,
www.psmfc.org/pacfin/data.html Good
High
No
Yes - indirect
Good
Good
WDFW/ODFW
NMFS/USFWS
Good
Good
High
High
No
Good
US Census
Good
High
No
Good
No
Good
State & Local Gov't
Good
Timber harvest reports:
www.dnr.wa.gov/htdocs/obe/obe
home4.htm and
www.odf.state.or.us/Portal/medi
Good
a.asp
Dynamic interaction between potential and
realized habitat. It is a measure of
constraints imposed by biological and socio
economic factors (e.g. non-native species
introductions, pollution, habitat alteration).
Dynamic index composed of three
parameters: (1) exposure tolerance, (2)
salinity tolerance and (3) required substrate
Yes - direct
Potential Habitat of a given specie (if applicable).
That portion of the estuary where the
specie is actually found (a subset of the
Yes -direct
potential habitat.
Realized Habitat
Percent of total wetted area under
modification (includes diking, introduced
vegetation, aquaculture, channel dredging,
mitigation areas, dredge-spoil islands, and
built structures -groins,docks, etc.) .
Increase in this index implies decreasing
function of biological & bio--physical
Yes - direct
system.
Areal Modification Index
Total dollars spent on eradication (e.g.
Spartina) and mitigation (e.g. Grays Harbor
mitigation for channel dredging - providing
shell hash habitat for juvenile Dungeness
Compensatory Expenditures
No
crab).
Continued ability of system to produce
biomass & biodiversity for extraction measure of system & socio-economic
No
health. Proxy: Landings.
Biomass
Relative biodiversity of target
species
Exploitation Recreation
Can be measured directly or use
proxy:Significant Storm Events (total
duration of storms above a certain strength
No
threshold).
Biomass
Biodiversity
Population of counties
Direct measurement, reported as a %
relative to the most speciose year.
Direct measurement, reported as a %
relative to the most speciose year.
Continued ability of system to produce
biomass & biodiversity for extraction measure of system & socio-economic
health- Proxy:Fishing Licenses.
Measure of species richness & Diversity
Building permits
Population
Number of building permits within the
drainage. Proxy for sediments
Timber harvest
Board feet of harvested timber in
watershed. Proxy for sediments
Yes - indirect
Inconsistent
Moderate
Moderate
Moderate
Permitted dischargers
Sewage, toxins, and excess nutrients
No
Fair
Agricultural area
% of drainage devoted to agriculture
No
Good
No
Good
No
Fair
Washington State Dept. of
Ecology & Oregon State Dept.
Fair
Environmental Quality
www.nass.usda.gov/wa/ &
Good
www.nass.usda.gov/or/
www.doh.wa.gov/ehp/oehas/EH
A_fish_adv.htm &
www.oda.state.or.us/fsd/sea/stat
Good
us.html
State & Local Gov't - Ports and
Marinas
Fair
Good
State & Local Gov't - USFWS
Good
High
Good
US Census
Good
Moderate
% shellfish harvest area closed
Number of vessels
Appreciation Index
Human Welfare
Measured by: 1) number of visitors to local,
state, and federal parks (2) number of
recreation and shellfish permits issued
within applicable counties, and (3)
Recreational opportunity & use Activities directed at preserving and membership in local chapters of nonconserving natural resources may governmental organizations dedicated to
No
habitat and ecosystem appreciation
offset adverse activities
Moderate
Low
Low
Demographics
(1) age distribution of local population, (2)
median income, and (3) the proportion of
"second" or vacation homes.
Habitat allocation
(1) % of total wetted area devoted to
recreation or conservation (e.g. shellfish
beds/marine parks), and (2) % of adjacent
shoreline (including islands) in habitat setYes
asides (e.g. parks, refuges, etc.)
Good
State & Local Gov't - USFWS
Good
High
Regional economic performance
Financially and socially successful
communities may stay connected & treat
system better than struggling communities.
(1) total earnings and (2) total employment No
Good
State & Local Gov't - USFWS
Good
High
Good
Easy: Pacific Fisheries
Information Network,
www.psmfc.org/pacfin/data.html
and Fish & Wildlife
Departments. See above for
Good
regional income
High
No
Good
State & Local Gov't - USFWS
Good
Moderate
Economic dependence on
estuarine resources
No
Proxy:Total value of extracted marine
resources (both commercial & recreational)
relative to total regional earnings
No
No. employees in management
agencies
Annual cost of habitat restoration
No. species of concern, threat, or
endangered
Proxied as (1) local median income relative
to that of the state and (2) measures of
social stability = average education level
attained, crime rate, divorce rate
Total number of employees and contract
workers in relevant management agencies
(e.g. USFS, state Fish & Wildlife,
Departments of Ecology or Environment,
Natural Resources, etc.)
See left
This includes a subset of those listed that
are increasing in population size
No
No
Good
Good
State & Local Gov't - USFWS
State & Local Gov't - USFWS
Good
Good
Low
High
No
Good
WDFW/ODFW/NMFS/USFWS
Good
High
Water quality violations
See left
No
Good
US-EPA
Good
High
Societal well-being
Management
% shellfish harvest area closed over the
season
Number of vessels docking at all port and
marina facilities
Moderate
Net annual primary production
integrated over entire estuary.
Primary production can be inferred
from satellite data (e.g.SEAWIFS)
and may be proxied by :In-Situ
Production Index.
Primary Production
Spring-Summer net primary
production (April-September).
Proxy:In-Situ Production Index
HABs effect resident biota &
humans - result in shellfish bed
Harmful Algal Blooms closures, fish kills, etc.
Submerged Aquatic
Spartina cover
Vegetation
Tidal marsh cover
Eelgrass cover
Edge to interior ratio of native
marsh
Since many juvenile salmon
species selectively use estuarine
habitat, this is a proxy of estuarine
Salmon Smolt Survival habitat quantity and quality
Aquatic Biomass &
Biodiversity
Upper Trophic
Biodiversity
Biomass - May represent
productive capacity of system, as
well as average trophic level.
Biodiversity - Higher values
generally acknowledged to be
desirable - but may be indicative of
introduced species - must measure
all (native & non-native)
Shorebird Diversity - Upper trophic
level affected by reduced or
disturbed foraging habitat
Drives the system - measure of
ecosystem's ability to provide goods and
services.
Drives the system - measure of
ecosystem's ability to provide goods and
services.
Proxy measurements: (1) number of days
shellfish beds are closed and (2) % of total
shellfish bed area closed
Spartina cover as percent of total mudflat
area
Yes - direct
Fair
Remote-Sensing
Good
High
Yes - direct
Fair
Remote-Sensing
Good
High
No
Fair
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Good
Moderate
Yes - direct
Yes - direct
Yes - direct
Good
Good
Good
Remote-Sensing
Remote-Sensing
Remote-Sensing
Good
Good
Good
High
High
High
No
Good
Remote-Sensing
Good
High
Good
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Fair
High
Good
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Fair
High
Fair
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Fair
High
Good
Audubon Society bird counts
Fair
Low
Good
NMFS/USFWS/WDFW/ODFW
Fair
Low
Good
Moderate
Good
Moderate
Proxy:Survival of hatchery stocks with wirecoded tags, relative survival ranked as lowmedium-high- based on dispersion from
No
mean values, by year.
Ideally estimated from repeated scientific
sampling - but can use proxy: In total
commercial (both target and by-catch) &
No
total recreational catch
Proxy: In commercial & recreational catch Yes - indirect
(1) Number of species present in fall and
spring, (2) abundance of each species, (3)
Yes - indriect
total mudflat area available
(1) Number of species present, (2)
abundance of each species. To account for
Index of Avian Pests - Measure of species-area relationship, diversity should
be standardized by the total wetted area
aquatic bird species that have
experienced population explosions (Species include glaucous-winged gulls,
as a result of human influence (e.g. double-crested cormorants, Canada goose,
prey aggregations at dams)
No
domestic goose, mallards
CORIE
Transport
LCREP - Suggested
Indicators
Environmental
Indicators
Habitat Restoration
Index
Current speed - Velocity profiles
Water physical properties Temperature, salinity, water level
Climate - air temperature, wind
direction, wind speed
How much and what types of
habitat has been restored?
What has been protected or
conserved?
Transport - hindcast, nowcast, and forecast
simulations of 3-D circulation of estuary
and plume
Data used to support circulation models
Atmospheric data compiled to support
circulation models
Tracks CCMP goal to increase wetlands
and habitat by 16,000 acres by 2010.
Good Good
Good
CORIE - Oregon Graduate
Institute
CORIE - Oregon Graduate
Institute
CORIE - Oregon Graduate
Institute
Moderate
What has been lost?
What is the change in connectivity
Habitat Connectivity of habitats?
Are native species increasing or
Biological Resources decreasing?
Land Use
Shoreline
Modifications
Toxics
Water Quality
Stewardship
Indicators
Community
Involvement
References:
What is the ratio of impervious
survace to non-impervious surface?
What are the changes in land use
cover?
What is the change in armored vs.
natural shoreline?
Tracks CCMP goal to eliminate persistent
Have the concentrations of toxins in bioaccululative toxics; reducing PAHs and
fish tissue and river otter, osprey, heavy metals discharges; and reducing
bacterial contamination.
and eagle eggshells changed?
Does water temperature and
dissolved gas support native
species?
How many children are provided
Columbia River programs through
the Estuary Partnership?
Via classroom and related field
work?
Via on-river activities?
Via volunteer restoration and
monitoring?
Tracks CCMP goal to provide education
programs for a range of audiences focusing on children.
1) Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. 2002. 2002 Puget Sound Update: Eighth Report of the
Puget Sound Ambient Monitoring Program. Puget Sound Water Quality Action Team. Olympia,
Washington
2) Transboundary Georgia Basin-Puget Sound Environmental Indicators Working Group. 2002.
3) The Oregon State of the Enironment Report. 2000.
4) Parrish, J.K., K. Bell, E. Logerwell, C. Roegner. 2002. Indicators of Wet Coast Estuary Health.
5) Oregon Graduate Institute. 2004. CORIE Observation Network.
Appendix B: Lower Columbia River and Estuary Potential
Ecological Indicators
Lower Columbia River Estuary
Potential Ecological Indicators
Ecosystem Structure
Land-Use & Land-Cover
Watershed-Scale (based on HUC-8 level analysis as a minimum):
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
% Forest Cover – a measure of overall natural land-cover
% Mature, Coniferous-Dominated Forest – a measure of native land-cover
conditions
% Forest Clear-Cuts – a measure of active or recent (<5 yrs) timber
harvest activity
Forest Patch Size and Contagion – measures of landscape fragmentation
% Agriculture – a measure of human impact (includes row-cropping, fruit
orchards, and livestock grazing)
% Developed - a measure of human impact (includes urban, suburban,
rural residential, as well as commercial and industrial land-use)
Road Density – a normalized measure of landscape fragmentation (length
of roads per basin area)
% Total Impervious Area (%TIA) - a gross measure of human impact
Riparian-Scale (based on 30 m and 100 m “buffer” widths):
•
•
•
•
•
•
% Forest Cover – a measure of overall natural land-cover within the
designated riparian “buffer” zone
% Mature, Coniferous-Dominated Forest – a measure of native land-cover
conditions within the designated riparian “buffer” zone
% Total Impervious Area (%TIA) - a gross measure of human impact
within the designated riparian “buffer” zone
% Channel Modification – a normalized measure of channel alteration,
including dikes, levees, and other engineered channel features (length of
modified streambanks per total length of stream channel)
Stream Crossings - a normalized measure of stream-riparian corridor
fragmentation (number of road crossings per length of stream channel)
Natural Floodplain or Channel Migration Zone (CMZ) area as compared to
pre-development conditions – a measure of floodplain modification
Macro-Habitat-Scale:
•
•
•
•
Habitat Availability Index (based on selected keystone species)
Tidal Wetland Area – a measure of habitat area (marsh, mud flats, etc.)
Freshwater Wetland Area - a measure of habitat area
Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Area - a measure of habitat area
Ecosystem Function
Physio-Chemical Environment:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Climate (ENSO & PDO)
Regional Weather Patterns (Temperature, Rainfall, etc.)
Estuarine Flushing Rate (Tidal & River Plume)
River Flow Regime (Water Quantity and Timing of Flows)
Sediment Load (Turbidity & Nutrients)
Water Quality Impairments or Pollution Index
Toxics in Resident Marine Mammals (Metals & Organics)
Biodiversity:
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Total Species Diversity
Native Species Diversity
Exotic or Invasive Species
Threatened or Endangered Species
Condition of Native Salmonid Species
Closed or At-Risk Shellfish Beds
Freshwater Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
Estuarine Benthic Index of Biotic Integrity
Productivity:
•
•
•
•
•
•
Soil organic matter Content
Net Primary Production
Productivity Index (Nutrients & PAR)
Salmonid Smolt Survival
Salmonid Spawner Counts
Harmful Algal Blooms (HAB)
Social Indicators
•
•
•
•
•
•
•
Population & Population Growth
Average Annual Income
Population Density or Parcel-based Development
Employment Index
Job Statistics
Estuarine Dependent Economic Index
Water use by county
Appendix C: Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem
Indicators and Metrics
Appendix C. Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem Indicators and Metrics
INDICATOR
Habitat loss
Habitat
opportunity
Habitat
protection
and
conservation
Habitat
restoration
AREA OF
CONCERN
TIER 1 METRIC
TIER 2 METRIC
TIER 3 METRIC
DATA SOURCE
HABITAT
Number of
dredging, fill,
and shoreline
development
permits issued
Number of acres of
major habitat types
that are lost by each
action
Amount of
compensatory mitigation
(habitat type, area of
project) associated with
each action, and the
percent of area meeting
the goals for the projects
U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Northwest
Division
HABITAT
Number of
projects
reconnecting
diked or levied
former tidal
habitats with
open water.
Total edge length of
channels
reconnected to open
water, measured on
both sides of the
channel.
Density and sinuosity of
floodplain and tidal
channels reconnected to
open water.
GIS points/lines from
reporting agency (Corps
of Engineers and county
diking districts); WA
DNR/ODFW hydro
layer/watersheds; USGS
10-meter DEM
HABITAT
Number of
protection and
conservation
projects
a) planned; b) in
progress of
implementation;
c) implementati
on completed.
Number of
acres/habitat type
being conserved or
protected: a)
planned; b) in
progress of
implementation;
c) implementation
completed.
The status of the
primary ecological
component that is being
conserved or protected
by each project.
Information on how well
the protection and
conservation project
worked.
Federal and state
resource agencies; tribal
agencies; land trusts;
non-governmental
organizations (NGOs),
Heritage programs.
HABITAT
Number of
restoration
projects
a) planned; b) in
progress of
implementation;
c) implementati
on completed.
Number of
acres/habitat type
being restored:
a) planned; b) in
progress of
implementation;
c) implementation
completed.
Percentage of
completed projects a)
meeting goals and
b) acreage of completed
projects meeting and not
meeting goals. See
comments.
Sources such as
National Estuary
Restoration Inventory
(http://neri.noaa.gov),
Columbia Basin Fish &
Wildlife Authority
(http://www.cbfwa.org/cf
site/projectsindex), and
individual program
sources. These data will
become more available.
COMMENTS/
RECOMMENDATIONS
Compensatory mitigation actions
may be restoration projects.
However, it would be important to
separate compensatory mitigation
projects from purely restoration
projects (covered in Habitat
restoration indicator metrics).
1) This is a key indicator of access
opportunity to productive marshes
and swamps by fish, especially
juvenile salmon. 2) Tier 3 will
require good quality digital photos
or other high-resolution remote
sensing platform.
This can be measured both
qualitatively and quantitatively.
That which is being protected or
conserved can be measured /
counted and tracked over time.
For example, if an area is being
protected as breeding habitat for a
particular species, what is the
reproduction rate of that species
over time?
The RM&E plan proposes that
restoration projects in the LCRE
be required to have a minimum
set of standardized reporting
protocols, e.g., a) location, and
map of project site; b) stage of
project implementation; c) number
of acres of habitat type to be
restored; d) performance of
project relative to goals. This
should be organized in an efficient
manner (e.g., web site) for data
submission and retrieval (e.g.,
San Francisco Bay Institute).
INDICATOR
Net change
in habitats
Native
species
assessment
Land use
changes
Riparian
Integrity
AREA OF
CONCERN
HABITAT
BIOTIC
INTEGRITY
TIER 1 METRIC
Sum of number
of completed
restoration and
compensatory
mitigation
projects minus
the sum of all
habitat loss
projects from
dredge, fill,
diking, etc.
Number of
estuarine and
estuarine-linked
species listed
(federal/state).
Estuary
comprises area
from River Mile
0 to 146.
TIER 2 METRIC
TIER 3 METRIC
DATA SOURCE
COMMENTS/
RECOMMENDATIONS
Sum of number of
acres of completed
restoration and
compensatory
mitigation projects
minus the sum of
acres of all habitat
loss from dredge,
fill, diking, etc.
Net change in restored,
protected and conserved
area = Net change due
to restoration and
compensatory mitigation
project area + sum of
number of acres of
completed protection
and conservation project
areas
Use data from the above
metrics to calculate
these metrics
Tier 3 can be measured both on a
project-by-project basis, and as a
sum total (LCRE-wide) of that
which is being restored, protected,
and/or conserved.
Side note - The number of
employees / contractors dedicated
to habitat restoration, protection,
and conservation would be
interesting and relevant to track.
Population trends of
native estuarine and
estuarine-linked
species of concern
Population trends of key
species (prey and
predator)
USFWS, state Fish and
Wildlife, NOAA
Fisheries, Audubon,
Natural Heritage
Programs
Also recommend tracking of exotic
species; number of exotics and
populations trends / baseline done
in 2002
LAND USE
Percentage of
natural cover in
LCRE versus
developed
cover
1) Percent in native
coniferousdominated forest. 2)
Percent in wetlands.
3) Percent
impervious area. 4)
Road density.
Quantify all land-use /
land-cover categories
and track changes by
category
LAND USE /
HABITAT
Percentage of
riparian zone
(50-m and
100-m buffer)
with native
vegetation
Quantify all Land
Use-Land Cover
categories within
riparian buffer and
track changes by
category
Percentage of channel
modification / length of
modified streambanks
per total length of
stream channel
USGS NLCD dataset
(1992 available, 2001
forthcoming)
http://seamless.usgs.gov
; Garono et al 2002
LCREP classification; CCAP 1992 Landsat
classification. Local road
layers from LCR
counties, SR layers from
WSDOT
WA DNR/ODFW
hydrolayer; one of the
land-cover datasets
listed above (finer
resolution than 30-m
would be better, but very
expensive).
Need to examine whether existing
data sets (Landsat) are of high
enough resolution.
Recommend finding a remote
sensing platform of 1- to 4-m
resolution. This will provide
enough resolution to determine
native vegetation and modified
streambank.
INDICATOR
AREA OF
CONCERN
Concentratio
ns of toxics
in biota
WATER
QUALITY
Temperature
and
dissolved
oxygen
levels
WATER
QUALITY
Public
education
STEWARDSHI
P
Public
opportunity
APPRECIATIO
N
TIER 1 METRIC
Number of
LCRE water
bodies on
303(d) list - in
general or for
contaminants of
concern (COC)
Number of
LCRE water
bodies on
303(d) list - in
general or for
parameters of
concern
Number of
LCRE
educational
programs
offered through
Estuary
Partnership,
NGOs, and
schools
Number of
visitors to local,
state, and
federal parks
TIER 2 METRIC
TIER 3 METRIC
DATA SOURCE
COMMENTS/
RECOMMENDATIONS
Percentage of time
that pesticides /
PCBs / dioxinsfurans / COCs
exceed standards,
correlated with flow
Trends of toxic
contaminants in fish
tissue, river otter, osprey
and eagle eggshells
over time
ODEQ/WDOE 303(d)
listings. USGS
NASQAN, EPA
STORET, SEDQUAL
Tier 3 will require development of
regular toxics monitoring program.
Percentage of time
that temperature
and TDG exceed
standards
Site-specific
exceedence / trends.
ODEQ/WDOE ambient
monitoring, USGS,
COE, habitat restoration
project monitoring
Recommend include DO, bacteria,
TSS and nutrients to portray
bigger picture.
Number of students
(all ages) annually
provided LCRE
educational
programs through
Estuary Partnership,
NGOs, and schools
Number of volunteers
participating in LCRE
restoration and
monitoring programs
Estuary Partnership,
local school districts,
NGOs
Number of
recreation and
shellfish permits
issued.
Membership in local
chapters of
environmental NGOs
City, County, State,
Federal parks, USFWS,
Environmental NGOs