Adaptive Management for the Ecosystem Restoration Program in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary

1. Adaptive Management for the Ecosystem Restoration Program in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary Blaine D. Ebberts Presented at the NPCC Science to Policy Exchange Astoria, Oregon, September 2009

2. Presentation Outline • Purpose • Description and approach • Needs • Evolution and status • Use of research • Issues for implementation • Applications to policy-making • Conclusions and recommendations

3. Purpose Present the adaptive management plan for ecosystem restoration so that the NPCC and the region understand the approach appreciate its need and usefulness enhance regional buy-in Coordinate, advance, and apply AM Ecosystem restoration goal understand, conserve, and restore the estuary ecosystem to improve the performance of ESA-listed salmonids

4. Adaptive Management (AM) • AM is a systematic framework to make informed decisions • AM elements: goal, conceptual model, evaluation framework • AM incorporates research that reduces uncertainty • AM requires trust and collaboration among participants

5. Adaptive Management Approach

6. Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Adaptive Management Needs There are many authorities to develop ecosystem restoration projects. There is a legal mandate to restore juvenile salmon habitat from the Biological Opinion on operation of the FCRPS. Ecosystem restoration is an important component of the effort to recover ESA-listed species. Multiple regional entities are working on restoration. Millions of dollars have been and many more will be spent.

7. Evolution and Current Status of Adaptive Management for Ecosystem Restoration • AM plan developed (Thom et al. 2008) • Currently early stages of implementation • Regional coordination is underway • Progress has been slow, but positive • AM will be the central theme for the biennial Columbia River Estuary Conference in 2010 • We’re adaptively managing the AM program!

8. Use of Research Research informs decision-making. Site-specific action effectiveness research (AER) (e.g., Micah’s talk on effectiveness monitoring). We use these data to evaluate site specific actions. Ecosystem-based AER work (e.g., Ron’s talk on Cumulative Effects). CE is an estuary-wide synthesis of project-specific AER. We use these data to evaluate ecosystem wide actions. Critical uncertainties research (e.g., Nikki’s and Ed’s talks on juvenile salmon ecology). We use these data to help prioritize restoration actions.

9. Issues for Implementation • Insufficient funding for effectiveness monitoring • Incomplete regional collaboration and buy-in • Uncertainty about restoration benefits • Inadequate data analysis, management, and dissemination

10. Application to Policy-Making Coordination and integration with other regional AM efforts NPCC F&W Program AM BiOp AM Estuary Partnership AM Ecosystem restoration What Where How much Analysis of restoration benefits

11. Conclusions and Recommendations Conclusion: we have a basis for a regional AM program for ecosystem restoration in the lower Columbia River and estuary. Recommendations to implement AM, i.e., turn the plan into a program: Standardized monitoring protocols (Roegner et al., 2009) Increased funding for effectiveness monitoring Organized data management and information dissemination system Timely analyses and periodic evaluations Improved regional ownership and coordination

12. Closing Really though, adaptive management is just…Common Sense

13. Acknowledgements For more information, please contact Blaine D. Ebberts @ (503) 808-4763 Co-authors: Ron Thom, Heida Diefenderfer, Catherine Corbett, and Gary Johnson Practitioners – CREST, CLT, & consultants Researchers – NOAA, ODFW, PNNL, USGS, USFWS, UW, & WDFW Estuary Partnership State Agencies Portland District COE