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

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

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

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 Trust is the foundation of all relationships (Sather 2009).

Adaptive Management Approach

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.

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!

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.

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

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

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

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

Acknowledgements 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 For more information, please contact Blaine D. Ebberts @ (503) 808-4763