Landscape Planning Framework

Transcription

1 Landscape Planning Framework Fish Habitat Catena Geodatabase Methodology Mary Ramirez 1 Charles Simenstad 1 Phil Trask 2 Allan Whiting 2 Alex McManus 2 Funding provided by the Bonneville Power Administration 1 University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences 2 PC Trask and Associates

2 Contents Figures... 2 Tables... 2 Glossary... 3 Introduction... 5 Database Structure... 6 Describing Habitat Availability... 7 Data Availability... 8 Data Development... 8 Direct Habitat... 8 Fish Habitat Catena... 8 Indirect Habitat Wetland Drainage USACE 2-year Flood Landscape Feature Confluence Potential Beaver Habitat Head of Tide Additional Datasets Isolated Lake Landscape Unit Analysis and Application Reach and Landscape Unit Statistics Site and Landscape Unit Statistics User Manual Case Study How To: Planning Case Study- Brix Bay Deep River Confluence Restoration Quantifying the Site and Landscape Site Comparison Characterizing Landscape Change Future Applications Next Steps References Appendix

3 Figures Figure 1. Location map showing the extent of the Columbia River estuary... 6 Figure 2. Schematic diagram illustrating the hierarchical structure of the LPF classification... 7 Figure 3. Example illustration of fish habitat catenae... 9 Figure 4. Example illustration of surge plain tidal wetlands Figure 5. Example illustration of tidal and tidally impaired drainage area Figure 6. Example illustration of the 2-year flood extent Figure 7. Example illustration of channel confluences Figure 8. Example illustration of potential beaver habitat Figure 9. Tributary channel head of tide locations Figure 10. Illustrative example of isolated lakes Figure 11. Landscape units in the Columbia River estuary Figure 12. Reach summaries of direct FHC and channel confluences Figure 13. Landscape summaries of direct FHC and channel confluences Figure 14. Map of surge plain wetlands in the Grays Bay Landscape Figure 15. Scaling of tidal channel area and channel outlet count with wetland size Figure 16. Map of the Brix Bay - Deep River Confluence restoration site Figure 17. Map of the Deep River Confluence primary restoration actions Tables Table 1. Fish habitat catena attribute table fields Table 2. Wetland attribute table fields Table 3. Drainage attribute table fields Table 4. USACE 2-year flood attribute table fields Table 5. Confluence attribute table fields Table 6. Potential beaver habitat attribute table fields Table 7. Head of tide attribute table fields Table 8. Landscape unit attribute table fields Table 9. Opportunity and capacity metrics used to characterize fish habitat Table 10. Queries used to isolate FHC features for site and landscape analysis Table 11. Summary statistics for the Deep River Confluence restoration case study Table 12. Example site scale calculations of LPF metrics for case study Table 13. LPF metric change to the landscape from potential and project implementation Table 14. Percent of the potential change realized from project implementation

4 Glossary Adjacent wetlands: Herbaceous, scrub-shrub, and deciduous and coniferous forested wetlands that are adjacent to aquatic/direct FHC. *Backwater embayment: Shallow inundated areas connected to main channels but are not channelized (CREEC ecosystem complex). Biocatena: Descriptive name of the dominant land type within a geomorphic catena patch. Biocatena classification is based on cluster analysis groupings of the proportion of landcover classes associated with each catena class (CREEC geomorphic catena). Channel bar: Periodically exposed channel deposits that have little to no vegetation; channel bars have convex-up morphology, indicating formation by fluvial deposition, generally found along tributary channels above significant tidal influence and in reaches of steeper channel gradient (CREEC geomorphic catena). Channel confluence: Confluences of dissimilar fish habitat catena channel types with a point centered on the shared border of the two features. *Channel shallows: Sparsely vegetated beaches and shallow water areas within channels. Direct Fish Habitat: Areas of fish habitat catena that juvenile salmon may directly occupy. Fish Habitat Catena: Aquatic habitat area that is believed to be beneficial to juvenile salmon based on current scientific understanding of how juvenile salmon use estuarine habitat. *Floodplain: Broad, relatively flat portion of tidal freshwater reaches periodically flooded by fluvial discharge; in the Columbia River estuary, these features occur in Reaches D-H (CREEC ecosystem complex). *Floodplain channel: Channels that do not originate outside the flood plain and are not connected to a primary channel at both ends (CREEC geomorphic catena). Floodplain slough: A channel that is inundated seasonally with at least one point of entry. Head of tide: Up-tributary extent (point) of tidal influence. In-channel fill: Former channels that have been filled with human-placed materials. Indirect Fish Habitat: Areas of fish habitat catena that juvenile salmon may not actively occupy, but strongly influence the quality of direct fish habitat catena. *Intermittently exposed: Frequently but not continuously inundated channel and backwater areas between the low-water shoreline and the edge of floodplains or surge plains (CREEC geomorphic catena). Isolated floodplain lakes: Isolated lakes in floodplains that appear not to have a channelized connection to the larger estuary. These features may be located within the MHHW range of the estuary, but do not provide direct fish habitat because of the lack of access. Landscape units: A level of analysis between the scale of an ecosystem complex and hydrogeomorphic reach. Landscape areas are based on complex boundaries and generally extend over a major tributary channel floodplain. 3

5 *Minor tributary: Small channels that originate outside the floodplain or surge plain (CREEC geomorphic catena). Potential beaver habitat: Potential locations of American beaver habitat, based on specific small tributary and vegetation criteria, which is known to benefit juvenile salmon in tidal wetlands (Hood 2012). *Primary channel: Main channels of the estuary (CREEC ecosystem complex). *Secondary channel: Channels that are connected to a Primary Channel at both ends at least seasonally (CREEC ecosystem complex). *Side channel: Channels connected to a Tributary Channel at both ends at least seasonally (CREEC geomorphic catena). Surge plain: Tidal floodplains; intertidal marshes and other wetlands that are dominated by tidal flooding; estuarine floodplains occurring wholly within Reaches A-C (CREEC ecosystem complex). Tertiary channel: Shallow, either permanently flooded or intermittently exposed channels within floodplains or surge plains that have both ends connected to another channel (CREEC geomorphic catena). Tidal channel: Surge plain feature consisting of non-tributary channels (channels without sources outside the estuary) strongly influenced by tides and connected to another channel at a single end (CREEC geomorphic catena). Tidal drainage: Areas below the estimated high water level and are subject to regular tidal influence. Tie channel: Channels that connect floodplain lakes to the main channel (CREEC geomorphic catena). *Tributary channel: Main channels of the major tributaries entering the estuary (CREEC ecosystem complex). Tributary confluence zone: Area of tributary confluences represented by a circle with a radius equal to the width of the tributary channel at its mouth and centered on the midpoint of the line at the tributary channel mouth. Tributary delta: Intermittently exposed deposits within main channels but deposited from tributary streams (CREEC geomorphic catena). *Tributary secondary channel: Channel beginning in a tributary and connected to a larger channel at the downstream end at least seasonally (CREEC ecosystem complex). *Unknown depth: Channel or backwater areas lacking bathymetric data (CREEC geomorphic catena). USACE 2-year flood: An estimate of the area inundated under the 2-year flood elevation (50% annual exceedance probability) or extreme higher high water (mean highest monthly tide), whichever is higher. *as defined in the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification Report Appendix A 4

6 Introduction The Landscape Planning Framework (LPF) is a landscape ecology-based, geospatial approach to strategic planning for restoration and preservation of specific species habitat (in this case, juvenile Pacific salmon (Oncorhynchus spp.)) in the 233-rkm Columbia River estuary. This Bonneville Power Administration supported project adapts the structure of the hierarchical Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification (hence, Classification; Simenstad et al. 2011, USGS 2012) to identify and compare spatially-explicit sites that would most likely benefit unique, at-risk genetic stocks of Columbia River salmon. This adaptation of the Classification could be applied to other species as well, including shorebirds like plovers and sandpipers, wading birds like great blue heron and sandhill crane, amphibians like Oregon spotted frog and western pond turtle, or mammals like the Columbian white-tailed deer or American beaver. University of Washington and PC Trask & Associates delineated aquatic habitat area, called fish habitat catena (FHC), based on the existing scientific data on estuarine habitat requirements of juvenile Chinook salmon (Oncorhynchus tshawytsacha). The LPF is designed to address juvenile Chinook habitat because their ocean-type life history forms tend to be the most dependent on estuarine habitat and because their populations are depleted in the Columbia River basin to the point that five Evolutionary Significant Units (ESU) are listed under the US Endangered Species Act (Bottom et al. 2005; Teel et al. 2014). During outmigration, these fish utilize the many distributary and dendritic channels that provide areas of abundant feeding opportunities, subdued velocity, and low predation pressure (Bottom et al. 2005). Estuarine wetlands provide the necessary backbone of these areas in the form of drainage area and contributions to food web productivity. The Columbia River is the second largest river in the United States, with a 660,480 km 2 drainage basin that includes seven states and two Canadian provinces (Simenstad et al. 2011). The LPF study area covers the entire Columbia River estuary, defined as the stretch of the Columbia River between its mouth and the Bonneville Dam (rkm 234), and the adjacent floodplain, including all areas historically inundated by tides and river floods (Simenstad et al. 2011; Figure 1). Historically, selection of restoration and protection projects in the Columbia River estuary has been based largely on near-term opportunities and limited understanding of what constitutes high-value estuarine habitat for juvenile salmon, especially from a landscape context. Noticeably lacking is a systematic method of (1) assessing where an action would be most beneficial to at-risk stocks within the estuary landscape, and (2) measuring how habitat attributes and availability change under various hydrologic conditions. Recent policy initiatives highlight the need for additional scientific rigor in the identification and selection of projects, to support strategic, long-term investment in estuary restoration and protection for the benefit of ESA-listed salmon. The LPF is an approach for comparing possible estuary restoration and protection scenarios for their potential to benefit juvenile salmon. The LPF objectives are to: 1. use established and emerging science on juvenile salmon habitat requirements in estuaries to identify landscape features that constitute restoration and conservation targets; 2. apply scientifically-based landscape metrics to quantify the structure, composition, and distribution of FHC; 3. analyze characteristics of FHC that constitute beneficial estuarine habitat for juvenile salmon of different ESU; and, 4. establish baseline metrics, from historical and current reference FHC, that strategically identify the types and locations of habitats of priority for restoration and conservation. 5

7 Figure 1. Location map showing the extent of the Columbia River estuary from river mouth to the Bonneville Dam. The eight Hydrogeomorphic Reaches divide the estuary according to distinct estuarine processes and conditions. Database Structure The LPF is designed as a Geographic Information System (GIS) framework to identify and compare areas of the estuary that provide or could provide the most habitat benefit to diverse genetic stocks of salmon migrating through and rearing in the estuary. The geodatabase is organized into nine datasets, each described under the Data Development section (and Appendix). Direct fish habitat that is associated with major ecosystem complexes from the Classification are delineated, as well as three levels of indirect fish habitat: adjacent wetlands, tidal drainage, and USACE 2-year flood extent (Figure 2). The database also defines three types of landscape features: channel confluences, potential locations of American beaver (Castor Canadensis) habitat, and the head of tide in large tributaries to the estuary. These features are attributes of direct fish habitat that suggest further benefits compared to other fish habitat. Additional datasets provided are the isolated floodplain lakes, which were filtered out of the direct FHC, and landscape units, which may provide a useful geographic scale for describing and analyzing data. 6

8 PRIMARY CHANNEL SECONDARY CHANNEL BACKWATER EMBAYMENT TRIBUTARY CHANNEL TRIBUTARY SECONDARY CHANNEL FLOODPLAIN SURGE PLAIN CHANNEL SHALLOWS INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED TRIBUTARY DELTA CHANNEL BAR ADJACENT WETLANDS TIDAL DRAINAGE USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD CHANNEL SHALLOWS INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED TRIBUTARY DELTA CHANNEL BAR SIDE CHANNEL UNKNOWN DEPTH TRIBUTARY CONFLUENCE ZONE CHANNEL ADJACENT WETLANDS CHANNELS FLOODPLAIN SLOUGH FLOODPLAIN CHANNEL MINOR TRIBUTARY SIDE CHANNEL LAKES LAKE/POND TIE CHANNEL ADJACENT WETLANDS TIDAL DRAINAGE CHANNELS TIDAL SLOUGH TIDAL CHANNEL TERTIARY CHANNEL TRIBUTARY DELTA CHANNEL BAR MINOR TRIBUTARY LAKES LAKE/POND ADJACENT WETLANDS LANDSCAPE FEATURE CHANNEL CONFLUENCE TIDAL DRAINAGE USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD LANDSCAPE FEATURE CHANNEL CONFLUENCE HEAD OF TIDE USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD LANDSCAPE FEATURE CHANNEL CONFLUENCE POTENTIAL BEAVER HABITAT TIDAL DRAINAGE USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD LANDSCAPE FEATURE CHANNEL CONFLUENCE POTENTIAL BEAVER HABITAT Figure 2. Schematic diagram illustrating the hierarchical structure of the Landscape Planning Framework classification of direct fish habitat catenae (blue), indirect habitat (green and pink), and landscape features (yellow) under major Ecosystem Complexes (gray). Describing Habitat Availability Direct and indirect fish habitats are assembled into a geodatabase that can be analyzed, both for statistical summarization of juvenile salmon habitats in the estuary, and for designing strategic restoration and protection scenarios. The LPF can be applied at multiple spatial scales, from the reach or landscape level to a user defined individual site level. Once the existing features have been characterized, their spatial attributes, such as occurrence, size, distribution, and complexity, can be quantified. These attributes may then be compared under various hydrologic conditions, such as restored and protected conditions at the site level. The LPF allows users to quantify the expected increase in desirable attributes (habitat area and complexity, etc.) in different locations. Results compare potential restoration or protection opportunities to each other, to averaged values for the geographical area of interest, to reference sites, or to assigned target values. 7

9 Data Availability The FHC geodatabase, and associated metadata and methodology (as described here) are available for public download through BPA s cbfish database and the University of Washington s Wetland Ecosystem Team (depts.washington.edu/wet/lpf.html). Questions about these data and their use should be directed to the WET lab at the University of Washington (wet@uw.edu). Data Development Each of the nine database elements is described below beginning with a general description, steps used in processing the data, followed by descriptions of the fields from the attribute table. See Appendix A for the full list of datasets included in the geodatabase. Direct Habitat Direct habitat references an area that juvenile salmon may directly occupy. The LPF classifies these aquatic features as direct fish habitat catena. Fish Habitat Catena Direct fish habitat catena (FHC) is a unique set of aquatic landscape features that describes opportunity and capacity characteristics of valuable habitat for juvenile salmon. These aquatic catenae are areas that juvenile salmon may directly occupy (Figure 3). The LPF selected aquatic geomorphic catenae from the Classification that are believed to be beneficial to juvenile salmon, such as, large channel shallows (intermittently exposed), backwater embayments, and floodplain and tidal channels, among others. The Classification represents confluence zones of tributary channels as a circle with a radius equal to the width of the tributary channel at its mouth, centered on the midpoint of the channel mouth. Deep water catenae (permanently flooded and deep channel) that are within these confluence zones are included as direct FHC. Open FHC is identified as habitat that juvenile salmon can access without obstruction; however, assumptions are not made about the seasonal accessibility of channels and lakes. Using the Classification s attribution of human cultural features, infrastructure, and modifications, altered FHC is identified where natural tidal-fluvial flooding is regulated or isolated and thus has potential for future restoration or enhancement. Lakes and ponds that appear to be naturally isolated from the larger Columbia River system were removed from the direct FHC (see Isolated Lake below). Data Processing The FHC were based primarily on aquatic geomorphic catenae from the Classification. After careful inspection, it was determined that many significant channel features were not included in the original dataset. Many of these missing channels occurred in diked (leveed) areas that are currently disconnected from the mainstem, although the channel signature still exists. There were also many connected channels that were not included, a majority of these located in very complex surge plain landscapes. Channel areas and water features are the basis for fish habitat catena selection so the inclusion of these channels is very important to the consistency of the dataset. Referencing the LiDAR topography and aerial photos, all channels visible at the 1:500 scale were digitized by reclassifying LiDAR and hand digitizing in areas lacking elevation data. All new channels were quality checked using the LiDAR and aerial photos. Channels were then snapped to the geomorphic catena polygons and fill areas were digitized using the cultural layer from the Classification as well LiDAR and aerial photos. Tributary channels were also digitized using LiDAR and aerial photos, regardless of the scale. These channels are important in identifying all tributary confluences zones. 8

10 From the revised geomorphic catenae, intermittently exposed areas of backwater embayments and large channels (primary, secondary, and tributary) were selected as FHC. Areas attributed as unknown depth where bathymetric data was lacking, were also selected from secondary and tributary channels. Additionally, all moderate to small channels were selected, including: floodplain, minor tributary, side, tertiary, tidal, and tie channels. Lake/pond and channel bar catenae as well as surge plain occurring within a tributary confluence zone were also selected as FHC. Fish habitat status was attributed based on each feature s proximity to the larger Columbia River system. Channels and lakes that form a continuous path to the primary channel were attributed as open. Lakes and ponds that are not connected to a channel and are not adjacent to in-channel fill indicating natural flooding has been modified were attributed as isolated and removed from the direct FHC. All other features were attributed as altered and assumed to be inhibited by a structure (i.e. tidegate, culvert, dike, etc.) or in-channel fill. Assumptions are not made regarding the exchange of water flow in or out of the FHC. Figure 3. Example illustration of fish habitat catenae. Tributary channel shallows (dark blue) and tidal channels (yellow) are accessible to juvenile salmon, while a levee impedes access and natural flooding to altered floodplain channels (light blue). Attributes Five additional fields were created to attribute FHC (Table 1). All other fields are derived from the Classification; please refer to the source metadata for descriptions of those derived fields. 9

11 Table 1. Fish habitat catena attribute table fields. Field FHC Unique ID Fish Habitat Status Channel Type FHC Area Acres Restoration Description Unique identifying number for each FHC feature. Altered features of the same channel type that are disconnected by in-channel fill are considered one unit and assigned the same ID number. The FHC ID number is carried over to all indirect habitat associated with the aquatic feature (i.e. adjacent wetlands). The "FHC_uniqueID" can be queried across all feature classes within the geodatabase in order to understand which features are associated with a unique FHC. An assessment of connectivity, based on human infrastructure and modifications, between the identified fish habitat catena and the larger Columbia River system. Value is either Open or Altered. A descriptive or generalized channel type name that is primarily derived from the associated ecosystem complex or geomorphic catena. The channel type small channel was used to distinguish presumably first order channels that may be at higher elevations with limited flooding. These small channels are thought to provide little benefit to juvenile salmon and may be filtered out for subsequent analyses. The total area (acres) for a unique FHC feature as identified by the FHC unique ID number. Includes the project name and year. Used to note where FHC have been updated as a result of the addition of a restored site since the initial GIS selection of FHC. These updates can be as simple as changing the status from Altered to Open (i.e. a tidegate removal) or as complicated as the addition of entirely new direct and indirect fish habitat (i.e. channel excavation). The associated "FHC_uniqueID" can be queried across all feature classes within the geodatabase in order to understand which features were enhanced by the restoration effort. Detailed information is available for each project, please visit Indirect Habitat Indirect fish habitat are areas that juvenile salmon may not actively occupy, but strongly influence the quality of direct FHC. These include adjacent wetlands and the surrounding extent of tidal drainage and 2-year flood inundation. Wetland The indirect wetland dataset depicts herbaceous, scrub-shrub, and deciduous and coniferous forested wetlands that are adjacent to aquatic/direct FHC (Figure 4). The vegetative structure and extent of influence varies considerably by wetland type, so adjacency is defined for the wetland type as the following: herbaceous wetland polygons are included within a 2-meter border of channel units; scrubshrub wetland polygons are included within a 5-meter border of channel units; and deciduous and coniferous forested wetland polygons are included within a 20-meter border of channel units. These border widths reflect the approximate height of mature forms of each associated wetland class, a rationale typically applied in establishing forested riparian buffers. Wetlands were selected from the 2010 Lower Columbia River estuary classified land cover data set provided by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. The land cover data set emphasizes estuarine and tidal freshwater vegetation types, and was 10

12 derived using high resolution image segmentation and an object-based classification process (LCEP 2010). The vegetation types are classified under three inundation scenarios in the land cover (LCEP 2010). Tidal wetland occurs below the estimated high water level and is subject to regular tidal influence. Diked wetland occurs below the estimated high water level, but there is a human made barrier present partially or completely inhibiting tidal influence. Non-tidal wetland occurs above the estimated high water level and is not subject to tidal inundation. Water and mud land cover classes are also included in the indirect wetland dataset. Figure 4. Example illustration of surge plain tidal wetlands adjacent to a tidal channel (yellow) and tributary channel (blue). Herbaceous wetland (pink) is delineated within 2 meters of a channel, scrub-shrub wetland (purple) within 5 meters, and deciduous (light green) and coniferous (dark green) forested wetland within 20 meters. Data Processing To select wetlands adjacent to the FHC, three buffer polygons were created around open and altered channel and lake features. A 2-meter buffer was used to clip all herbaceous wetlands as well as mud and water land cover. Mud and water areas were retained because these areas in the dataset often represent emergent habitats that bridge wetlands to the fish habitat catena. A 5-meter buffer was used to clip all scrub-shrub wetlands and a 20-meter buffer was used to clip all deciduous and coniferous forested wetlands. All of the clipped features were merged together into a single layer. To remove isolated features, only wetlands contiguous to the fish habitat catena within 1 meter were retained. In order to attribute wetlands and other indirect habitat as being associated with a distinct FHC, zones around each unique aquatic feature were created. The zones were created using the ArcGIS Euclidean allocation tool (Spatial Analyst) and are based on the unique ID number of the FHC. Channel bars, which typically occur along or within a tributary channel, were not assigned a distinct zone. Rather, these active 11

13 features were merged with the adjacent channel to be included in the surrounding channel s zone. The Euclidean allocation output is a raster where each cell is assigned the value of the source (FHC unique ID) to which it is closest according to Euclidean, or straight-line, distance. The raster was then converted to polygon and zone boundaries were manually reviewed and revised. The intent was to create a general area of influence around each FHC. Zones were modified where needed to better represent natural (e.g. higher elevations) and artificial (e.g. levees) barriers that influence tidal inundation and flooding. Finally, the adjacent wetlands are intersected with the unique zones to attribute wetlands with the associated FHC values. Attributes Wetland attributes include a descriptive name and values of the associated FHC (Table 2). Table 2. Wetland attribute table fields. Field FHC Unique ID Fish Habitat Status Channel Type Wetland Name Description Unique identifying number of the associated FHC feature. An assessment of connectivity, based on human infrastructure and modifications, between the associated fish habitat catena and the larger Columbia River system. Value is either Open or Altered and references the status of the associated channel or lake feature, not necessarily the wetlands themselves. A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated FHC. A descriptive name, derived from the source land cover, of the inundation scenario and wetland vegetation type (e.g. Non-tidal Herbaceous Wetland; Diked Coniferous Forest Wetland). Drainage The indirect drainage dataset provides an estimate of tidally influenced and tidally impaired floodplain and surge plain areas adjacent to the FHC (Figure 5). The source data is derived from the 2010 land cover hydrologic information for the Columbia River estuary prepared by the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (LCEP 2010). The original delineation was done by comparing 2010 LiDAR elevation data to an estimated mean higher high water (MHHW) level model for the estuary. Correction factors were also applied based on actual water surface elevation data collected in for 23 off channel sites, which was provided by PNNL (LCEP 2010). Tidal drainage areas occur below the estimated high water level and are subject to regular tidal influence. Tidally impaired drainage areas occur below the estimated high water level, but there is a human made barrier present partially or completely inhibiting tidal influence. Drainage polygons are associated with a unique FHC aquatic feature and are attributed according to the values of the associated FHC. Data Processing The LCEP (2010) hydrologic information was first joined to the direct FHC. The result was merged with the land cover water class to fill any artificial gaps between the tidal dataset and delineated lakes and channels. This data gap was most predominant in low elevation surge plain habitats. Non-tidal and fill polygons were then deleted, retaining drainage areas below the estimated high water level. To remove isolated features, tidal or tidally impaired polygons not contiguous to FHC were also deleted. Finally, these areas were intersected with the unique FHC zones (as described above in Wetland Data Processing) to attribute drainage areas with the associated FHC values. 12

14 Figure 5. Example illustration of tidal (green) and tidally impaired (brown) drainage area surrounding the fish habitat catena (blue). Also shown are levees (red hatched) and fill (gray) from the Classification s attribution of human cultural features to illustrate how and where tidal inundation may be impeded. Attributes Drainage polygons are attributed with the level of tidal inundation and values of the associated FHC (Table 3). Table 3. Drainage attribute table fields. Field FHC Unique ID Fish Habitat Status Channel Type Inundation Description Unique identifying number of the associated fish habitat catena feature. An assessment of connectivity, based on human infrastructure and modifications, between the associated fish habitat catena and the larger Columbia River system. Value is either Open or Altered and references the status of the associated channel or lake feature, not necessarily the drainage area. A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated fish habitat catena. Assessment of tidal impairment (tidal or tidally impaired), derived from the source hydrologic information. Also identified are all areas covered by the direct fish habitat catena and any water (land cover class) occurring between direct fish habitat and tidal drainage. 13

15 USACE 2-year Flood The 2-year flood extent surrounding the FHC is derived from the 2011 modeled 50 percent Annual Exceedance Probability (AEP) Stage Profile for Survival Benefit Unit for the Lower Columbia River Estuary, dated 4 November, from the Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). This was done by determining maximum water surface elevations along the reach annually for the period of complete main stem regulation and performing statistics on the annual dataset to determine a 50 percent AEP stage. The dataset represents an estimate of the area inundated under the 2-year flood elevation or extreme higher high water (mean highest monthly tide), whichever is higher (Figure 6). Flood polygons are associated with a unique FHC aquatic feature and are attributed according to the values of the associated FHC. Figure 6. Example illustration of the 2-year flood extent (brown) above the fish habitat catena (blue). Flood polygons were derived from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers calculated 50% Annual Exceedance Probability (2011). Data Processing To interpolate flood extent, the modeled 50 percent exceedance values were obtained from the USACE, with points occurring every four to five miles. River cross sections were created at each modeled point as perpendicular to the mainstem as possible without overlapping neighboring transects. Points were then assigned along each transect with the same value as the base modeled point. The Topo to Raster tool was used to interpolate linearly between the points, generating a 1-meter resolution raster from the point data. The difference between the LiDAR elevation dataset and the generated raster was determined to identify land that is below (<0) or above (>0) the 50 percent exceedance. The raster was converted to polygon and everything above the 50 percent exceedance was deleted, leaving the estimated extent of the 2-year flood. The resulting flood dataset was joined to the direct FHC. To remove isolated features, flood polygons not contiguous to FHC were also deleted. Finally, these areas were intersected with the unique FHC zones (as described above in Wetland Data Processing) to attribute flood areas with the associated FHC values. 14

16 Attributes Flood polygons are attributed with the values of the associated FHC (Table 4). Table 4. USACE 2-year flood attribute table fields. Field FHC Unique ID Fish Habitat Status Channel Type Inundation Description Unique identifying number of the associated FHC feature. An assessment of connectivity, based on human infrastructure and modifications, between the associated FHC and the larger Columbia River system. Value is either Open or Altered and references the status of the associated FHC channel or lake feature, not necessarily the flood area. A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated FHC. Value is either 2-year Flood or Direct fish habitat catena. Landscape Feature Landscape features of importance to juvenile salmon include channel confluences, small channels where beaver may potentially occur, and the head of tide in large tributaries. Confluence This dataset represents confluences of dissimilar FHC channel types with a point centered on the shared border of the two features (Figure 7). Confluences are attributed with FHC channel information for the two contributing aquatic features as well as the confluence channel area (the upstream channel). The confluence status is determined from the FHC habitat status of the contributing features. The confluence is assigned the open status when both contributing FHC channels are open. Altered confluences have at least one contributing altered FHC feature. A confluence is assigned the channel break status when the channel type is (or would have been) the same for both features, but a modification is present that results in a change in the FHC Status (e.g. tidal channel that is bisected by a levee). Channel confluences provide an important indication of habitat opportunity for juvenile salmon. The dataset maps active access points to surge plain and floodplain habitat, as well as identifies historical and potentially restorable access points. With reference to the Classification s attribution of human cultural features and digital historical topographic survey maps (T-sheets; Burke 2010), a point was created where a confluence most likely occurred. 15

17 Figure 7. Example illustration of open, altered, and channel break confluences. In the illustration, altered confluences (yellow) are shown where a levee impedes access between the tributary and floodplain channels. Channel breaks (purple) occur where branches of a floodplain channel are disconnected by a levee and road fill. Open channel confluences (blue) are noted between the tributary channel and a floodplain, tidal, and side channel. Data Processing To mark confluence points, the direct FHC was first augmented with deep water habitats and in-channel fill from the Classification. In-channel fill was attributed with the adjacent altered channel type to bridge the gap between disconnected channel units. Features were then dissolved on channel type and the dataset was converted from polygon to line, storing polygon neighboring information. This identifies where a shared boundary occurs (i.e. the confluence of different channel types). Selecting these shared lines, a center point was created to represent the confluence. Each point was attributed with the associated FHC values of both contributing channels. Confluence points were manually reviewed and revised with reference to aerial photos, LiDAR topography, mapped human modifications, and historic T-sheets from the lower Columbia River. Attributes Confluence points are attributed with the FHC values of both contributing aquatic features. The two features are distinguished in the attribute table as channel a and channel b. This assignment is not relevant to channel order. Based on the information of the contributing channels, the confluence status, confluence (upstream) channel area, and confluence size were also characterized (Table 5). 16

18 Table 5. Confluence attribute table fields. Field Channel Type Fish Habitat Status FHC Unique ID FHC Area Acres Confluence Channel Confluence Channel Acres Confluence Size Confluence Status Description A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated FHC. Channel type is listed for both channel 'a and channel b. An assessment of connectivity, based on human infrastructure and modifications, between the associated FHC and the larger Columbia River system. Value is either Open or Altered and references the status of the associated FHC channel or lake feature, not necessarily the confluence status. Fish habitat status is listed for both channel 'a and channel b. Unique identifying number of the associated FHC feature. FHC unique ID is listed for both channel 'a and channel b. The total area (acres) for a unique FHC feature as identified by the FHC unique ID number. FHC area is listed for both channel 'a and channel b. Identifies the upstream channel. Value is either 'a or b. The total area (acres) of the upstream channel. Binary field based on the confluence channel area. Confluence size where the channel area is less than 100 square meters (small channel) is 0; all others are 1. These small channels are presumably first order channels that may be at higher elevations with limited flooding. These small channels are thought to provide little benefit to juvenile salmon and may be filtered out for subsequent analyses. An assessment of connectivity based on the fish habitat status and channel type of both contributing FHC channels. Value Open when both contributing channels are open; Altered when at least one channel is altered; or Channel Break when channel type is (or would be) the same but fish habitat status is different. Potential Beaver Habitat This dataset identifies potential locations of American beaver (Castor canadensis) channel habitat, which is known to benefit juvenile salmon in tidal wetlands (Hood 2012; Figure 8). In a survey of tidal channels in the Skagit River Delta (Puget Sound, Washington), Hood found beaver dams at densities equal to or greater than in non-tidal rivers. These dams were found exclusively in small tidal channels within shrub habitat. The considerable amount of sticks and logs in the dams indicated a dependence on woody vegetation for construction material. Additionally, Hood surmised that beaver build dams in small tidal channels to prevent them from draining completely at low tide, allowing for easier mobility. Large, deep channels generally retain water at low tide, thus they remain accessible to beaver in the absence of a dam (Hood 2012). GIS rules were developed to select FHC channels that met these criteria for beaver habitat. Data Processing Potential beaver habitat includes small channels (approximately 1-3 meters wide) within wooded areas with an upland connection. The Classification s biocatena assessment was used to identify forested or scrub-shrub wetland (including diked) ecosystems that were not on an island. Then any FHC tidal or 17

19 floodplain channels that intersected the wooded areas were selected. The perimeter-area ratio (channel length (m) / channel area (m 2 )) was used as a proxy to identify narrow or small channels. Upon review of the data, it was determined that channels with a perimeter-area ratio greater than 0.5 best reflect the size criteria for potential beaver habitat. Figure 8. Example illustration of potential beaver habitat (channels highlighted in yellow) selected from the fish habitat catena (dark blue) based on size, channel type, and location in a wooded ecosystem (biocatena) criteria. Attributes Potential beaver habitat features are attributed with their FHC values and the perimeter-area ratio (Table 6). Table 6. Potential beaver habitat attribute table fields. Field Channel Type Fish Habitat Status FHC Unique ID PARA Biocatena Description A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the FHC channel. An assessment of connectivity, based on human infrastructure and modifications, between the FHC channel and the larger Columbia River system. Value is either Open or Altered. Unique identifying number of the FHC channel. Calculated field to divide channel length (edge) by channel area. To select narrow channels, it was determined they needed to have a ratio greater than 0.5. Ecosystem categorized on the basis of assemblages of primary cover type, derived from the Classification. 18

20 Head of Tide The up-valley extent of channel mapping for tributary channels is defined by the Classification as encompassing all areas of strong tidal influence. This limit was interpreted as the head of tide (Figure 9). Figure 9. Tributary channel head of tide locations. Data Processing A point was created at the up-valley extent of the 43 mapped tributary channels. Attributes Head of tide points are attributed with the tributary channel s name and FHC values (Table 7). Table 7. Head of tide attribute table fields. Field Channel Channel Type Fish Habitat Status FHC Unique ID Description Name of the tributary channel. A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the FHC channel (Tributary channel). An assessment of connectivity, based on human infrastructure and modifications, between the tributary channel and the Columbia River system. Value is either Open or Altered. Unique identifying number of the FHC tributary channel. 19

21 Additional Datasets Additional datasets provided are the isolated floodplain lakes, which were filtered out of the direct FHC, and landscape units, which may provide a useful geographic scale for describing and analyzing data. Isolated Lake Isolated lakes appear not to have, or to have had, a regular, channelized connection to the larger Columbia River system (Figure 10). These features may be located within the MHHW range of the estuary (as mapped in the indirect drainage habitat), but do not provide direct fish habitat because of the lack of suitable access. These features were excluded from the direct FHC because they may be highly variable over time and do not consistently offer viable fish habitat. It is possible some isolated lakes would provide temporary fish habitat (e.g. during flood events); however, they are precluded from the FHC in order to be conservative in fish habitat selection. Figure 10. Illustrative example of isolated lakes (yellow) with comparison to an open (blue) and altered (blue hatched) lake. The area of tidal drainage (light green) surrounding the lakes is also shown. Data Processing Refer to Data Processing for Direct Fish Habitat Catena for complete process steps. Lakes and ponds that are not connected to a channel and are not adjacent to in-channel fill indicating natural flooding has been modified, were attributed as isolated. These features were manually reviewed and revised with reference to LiDAR topography, aerial photos, T-sheets, as well as local knowledge. Attributes Isolated lake features are attributed with Channel Type (Lake/pond) and Fish Habitat Status (Isolated). All other fields are derived from the Classification; please refer to the source metadata for descriptions of those derived fields. 20

22 Landscape Unit A landscape unit represents a level of analysis between the scale of an ecosystem complex and hydrogeomorphic reach (Figure 11). Landscape areas are based on complex (delineated in the Classification) boundaries and generally extend over a major tributary channel floodplain. The Columbia River complex landscape is divided by reach boundaries. Figure 11. Landscape units in the Columbia River estuary. Data Processing To delineate landscape boundaries, features were initially dissolved on the channel field in the Classification s ecosystem complex dataset. Unnamed polygons were then merged with the adjacent channel unit. Surge plain and floodplain islands combine with the adjacent secondary channel to form an island sub-landscape. The island sub-landscape combines with the adjacent surge plain or floodplain to form the total landscape area. Small complexes that are not connected to a large landscape area are attributed as a shoreline sub-landscape and combine with the Columbia River sub-landscape to form the Columbia River landscape. Landscape areas may carry across reach boundaries (see the Cowlitz landscape in reach C), but sub-landscapes do not. Attributes Landscape units are attributed with a descriptive name and include nested sub-landscape units (Table 8). 21

23 Table 8. Landscape unit attribute table fields. Field Landscape Name Sub-Landscape Name Acres Description A descriptive name of the landscape usually based on the major tributary name. Where there is no major tributary, the name is culturally based. Landscapes should be compared to other landscapes. A descriptive name of the smaller landscape that is nested within the landscape unit. Sub-landscapes should be compared to other sublandscapes. Total area (acres) of the sub-landscape unit. Analysis and Application The Landscape Planning Framework allows users to examine patterns in available and potential fish habitat at multiple scales. The scale at which one applies the LPF depends on the objective. Genetic stock identification has provided information on variability in the temporal and spatial distributions of specific populations of juvenile Chinook salmon at the hydrogeomorphic reach scale (Teel et al. 2014). With this improved understanding of stock-specific estuary-wide habitat use, summaries of large scale patterns of habitat opportunity and capacity provide important information to identify areas where discrepancies between fish use and habitat availability occur, therefore enabling a strategic approach to restoration planning. If the objective is to examine patterns at a local scale, restoration site design for instance, evaluating the site within the context of its landscape is more appropriate. Ecological patterns are sensitive to the surrounding landscape processes, and the LPF database provides a tool for comparing landform scaling relationships between multiple sites within a landscape relative to the characteristics and distributions of fish habitat catena in natural, reference regions of the local landscape. This approach analyzes sitespecific deviations from scaling relationships and as Hood (2007a) states, provides a linkage between restoration guidelines for tidal channel form and ecological restoration goals. Reach and Landscape Unit Statistics The LPF database maps over 45,000 acres of open FHC, and over 7,500 acres of altered FHC throughout the Columbia River estuary. Major channel types that contribute to the assemblage of open fish habitat include intermittently exposed areas of primary and secondary channels, as well as tidal channels/sloughs and tributary channels. Together, these channel types account for over 80 percent of the open fish habitat in each reach, except reach F where lakes/ponds comprise half of the total open FHC. In comparison, altered fish habitat is dominated by floodplain channels/sloughs in the lower three reaches (these are typically altered forms of tidal channels), and a mix of lakes/ponds and floodplain channels/sloughs in reaches D through H. When open and altered habitats are combined, direct FHC ranges from 8.6 percent (reach E) to 18.1 percent (reach F) of the total reach area. Over 5,500 acres of wetland habitat are mapped in association with open FHC features, and over 2,300 acres in association with altered FHC features. Additionally, the database maps approximately 3,100 open channel confluence points, with an additional 563 altered confluence points. Spatial metrics are generated by GIS-based (ArcGIS) rules to qualify the FHC (Table 9). 22

24 Table 9. Opportunity and capacity metrics used to characterize fish habitat. Opportunity Metrics Channel Type Occurrence Confluence Density Confluence Nearest- Neighbor Surge Plain/Floodplain Connectivity Capacity Metrics Area Edge Perimeter-Area Ratio SHAPE Index Description The count of distinct FHC summarized by channel type. This provides information about the occurrence and location of individual features, such as backwater embayments which provide juvenile salmon protected areas buffered from strong currents. Confluence Density is a measure of the number of confluence points divided by the analysis area. Confluences are important to juvenile salmonids as entry points into discrete habitat patches. The shortest distance from one confluence to another. The mean nearestneighbor distance of all confluences within a landscape provides information about the relative isolation of habitat patches. Surge or floodplain connectivity may be summarized as the proportion of primary or tributary channel length to adjacent levee or developed land. Description The amount of all or distinct types of direct habitat juvenile salmon may access or indirect habitat that may influence the quality of the FHC. Size may be summarized for an individual patch, an entire class, or as a percent of the landscape. The perimeter length of FHC channel or lake features. Edge Density is a measure of the length of FHC perimeter divided by the analysis area (landscape), and provides information about the amount of edge habitat relative to the size of the landscape. The perimeter-area ratio is a simple measure of shape complexity for a given channel or lake feature. The ratio is dependent on the size of the feature: holding shape constant, an increase in channel size will cause a decrease in the perimeter-area ratio (McGarigal et al. 2012). Measures the complexity of a given channel or lake feature compared to a standard shape (square) of the same size (McGarigal et al. 2012). When a patch is a square, the index will equal 1. As the patch becomes more irregular, the index will increase. SHAPE equals patch perimeter (m) divided by the square root of patch area (m 2 ), adjusted by a constant to adjust for a square standard: 0.25 perimeter SHAPE = area Adjacent Wetland Length Adjacent Wetland Class The length of FHC with contiguous wetland. Wetlands provide a number of services to adjacent aquatic features (e.g. prey resource input, temperature regulation, temper and filter floodplain drainage); knowing the proportion of length with wetland coverage can indicate information about the quality of the FHC feature. The composition of wetland adjacent to the FHC, which may provide information about water temperature regulation or prey resource input. 23

25 FHC Area (acres) FHC % Change Confluence Count Confluence Density % Change Preliminary results from the LPF provide some insight into the framework s utility for conservation and restoration planning in estuarine settings. For example, LPF allows the user to compare the relative gain in the opportunity and capacity of direct fish habitat and confluence density that would accrue with restoring tidal-fluvial flooding to existing altered FHC features among the eight reaches (Figure 12). Initial analyses indicate that proportional increases in direct FHC would be greatest in the mid- to upper reaches E, F, and G. Similarly, proportional increases in confluence density would be greatest in reach A, as well as E through G. Surveys to sample and identify the genetic stock composition of juvenile Chinook salmon in the estuary found stock diversity was greatest in reaches A and E through G (Teel et al. 2014). These results imply the need for multiple conservation strategies that would provide different benefits to different stocks. Analyses of fish habitat among landscape units are highly variable and demonstrate the complexity and patchiness of accessible ecosystems as juvenile salmon move through the estuarine gradient (Figure 13). There are a number of landscapes between reaches D and F that have a high proportion of altered habitat (seen in Figure 13 as a high percent change in FHC area and confluence density with full restoration). This would suggest that this stretch of the estuary may represent a deficiency, or gap, in sufficient habitat for fish as they migrate downriver A B A B C D E F G H 0 0 A B C D E F G H 0 Figure 12. (A) Total area in acres of open FHC (blue) and altered FHC (yellow) by reach. Percent change (dashed line) in FHC by reach that would accrue if all altered habitat were restored to natural tidal-fluvial flooding is shown on the second axis. (B) Count of all open confluences (blue) and altered confluences (yellow) by reach. Percent change (dashed line) in confluence density by reach that would accrue if all altered confluences were restored to natural tidal-fluvial flooding is shown on the second axis. 24

26 Baker Bay Baker Bay shallows Pacific Dunes Trestle Bay shallow Youngs Bay Youngs Bay shallow Cathlamet Bay Grays Bay Grays Bay Shallows Julia Butler Hansen Clatskanie Flats Puget Island Rinearson Cowlitz River Trojan Deer Island Lewis River Multnomah Channel Ridgefield Sauvie Island Scappoose Bay Willamette River Portland Vancouver Washougal River Bonneville Gorge Waterfalls Mirror Lake Confluence Count Confluence Density % Change Baker Bay Baker Bay shallows Pacific Dunes Trestle Bay shallow Youngs Bay Youngs Bay shallow Cathlamet Bay Grays Bay Grays Bay Shallows Julia Butler Hansen Clatskanie Flats Puget Island Rinearson Cowlitz River Trojan Deer Island Lewis River Multnomah Channel Ridgefield Sauvie Island Scappoose Bay Willamette River Portland Vancouver Washougal River Bonneville Gorge Waterfalls Mirror Lake FHC Area (acres) FHC % Change A A B C D E F G H B A B C D E F G H Figure 13. (A) Total area in acres of open FHC (blue) and altered FHC (yellow) by landscape unit. Percent change (dashed line) in FHC by landscape unit that would accrue if all altered habitat were restored to natural tidal-fluvial flooding is shown on the second axis. (B) Count of all open confluences (blue) and altered confluences (yellow) by landscape unit. Percent change (dashed line) in confluence density by landscape unit that would accrue if all altered confluences were restored to natural tidal-fluvial flooding is shown on the second axis. 25

27 Site and Landscape Unit Statistics Through the concept of landscape allometry and its application in restoration ecology, Hood describes the correlation of landscape form and ecological processes (Hood 2002, 2007a, 2007b, 2014, 2015). Working in Puget Sound deltas and the lower Columbia River estuary, Hood has documented patterns between marsh surface area and various metrics of the tidal channels that drain the marshes. By accounting for marsh size, relationships generated from a large number of active reference marshes can be used as a standard for comparison of restoration sites, improving upon restoration design and monitoring (Hood 2007b, 2014, 2015). For example, when designing dike breaching in tidal marsh restoration, managers can cite the number of channel outlets in reference marshes throughout the landscape to determine how many breaches should be made at the restoration site (Hood 2015). Following these principles, the Landscape Planning Framework was used to examine the scaling relationship of tidal channel surface area and channel outlet count with total wetland surface area. In the following example, individual surge plain (active and isolated) wetlands were identified in the Grays Bay Landscape using the Ecosystem Complex designation from CREEC and dike locations (Figure 14). Restored surge plain wetlands were identified where dike breaching has allowed reconnection of tidal channels with the tributary channel; however, dikes were not fully removed. These site were historically wetland before being leveed and converted to agriculture. The proposed Brix Bay Deep River Confluence restoration site was also identified for comparison with active reference wetlands (see the following section for more information on this project). Within each wetland, the number of channel outlets (tidal channel confluences) was counted and tidal channel surface area was summed. The wetland surface area was also calculated, excluding the channel area. Wetland area was plotted against the dependent metrics (channel area and channel outlet count) for all reference wetlands. All variables were log transformed for regression analysis to fit power functions (Hood 2014). The slope of the log-linear regression trendline is equal to the exponent of the power function and describes how the dependent metric changes in relation to wetland area (Hood 2014). Restoration sites were then plotted to examine deviation from the reference wetland regression relationship. Tidal channel area and wetland area in reference surge plain habitats of the Grays Bay Landscape was highly correlated (Figure 15A). The data indicate channel area increased at a slightly more rapid rate than wetland area (scaling exponent equals 1.27). The channel area to wetland area relationship in restored wetlands and the Brix Bay Deep River restoration site was nearly identical to reference wetlands. This suggests an appropriate amount of total channel habitat in restored wetlands compared to reference habitats. The number of channel outlets also scaled with wetland area in reference surge plain habitats, though outlets increased more slowly than wetland area (scaling exponent equals 0.37; Figure 15B). A previous study that looked at the relationship between channel outlet count and marsh area in surge plain islands of the Columbia River Estuary found much higher densities of channel outlets than those reported here (Hood 2015). This difference emphasizes the heterogeneous distribution of fish habitat and the importance of examining relationships within the context of the surrounding landscape. In the Grays Bay landscape, the number of channel outlets in restored wetlands and at the restoration site was consistently lower than surrounding reference wetlands, with all data points falling below the reference trendline. This agrees with results from Hood s (2015) study where completed and proposed tidal marsh restoration projects had on average 5 times fewer channel outlets than reference marshes. In addition, the average channel size per outlet was significantly greater in restored wetlands than in reference wetlands in the Grays Bay Landscape (p<0.001). Average channel area in restored wetlands (including the restoration site) was 2.17 acres, compared to an average channel area of 0.42 in reference wetlands. Such discrepancies in the size of channels and the number of access points may have consequences in the restored habitat s ability to effectively support rearing juvenile salmon. 26

28 FHC Area (acres) Channel Outlet Count Figure 14. Map of surge plain wetlands in the Grays Bay Landscape. Active surge plain is distinguished from isolated surge plain, as well as wetlands with restored tidal channels. Active Wetland Restored Wetland Restoration Site 100 y = x R² = A y = x R² = B Wetland Area (acres) Wetland Area (acres) Figure 15. Scaling of tidal channel (FHC) area (A) and channel outlet count (B) with wetland size in the Grays Bay Landscape. The trendline and equation shows the power function of active wetland data points. 27

29 User Manual Case Study The Landscape Planning Framework allows users to evaluate the effects of restoration to juvenile salmon habitat. Once the existing features, or proposed in the case of restoration planning, have been characterized, their spatial attributes can be quantified and compared to a reference site, other restored sites, other restoration scenarios, or pre-restoration conditions. Discrete project areas and their proposed features can also be assessed for their contribution of open FHC to larger landscapes. This allows the LPF user to quantify the change a project provides to broader landscapes (in terms of open habitat versus potential habitat). The following restoration planning case study will illustrate how to quantify the landscape, calculate LPF metrics, and interpret those metrics to tell a compelling story about the effects of restoration to juvenile salmon habitat. The following case study is just an example, and does not calculate every single LPF metric. However, a new user should be able to replicate the processes outlined below and establish a foundation for using the LPF. To perform the LPF restoration evaluation, the following software is needed: a spreadsheet program (Microsoft Excel, Apache OpenOffice Spreadsheet, Google Sheets) for organizing your landscape values, LPF metrics, and change percentages; a geographic information system (GIS) (ArcGIS, QuantumGIS) for displaying, selecting (using feature attributes and location), geoprocessing FHC features, and quantifying landscape values. All screenshots and directions are written with the use of Microsoft Excel and ESRI ArcMap for Windows desktop. Users performing the LPF restoration evaluation with different software should be able to follow along, but may need to alter some steps slightly to fit within the constructs of different software packages. How To: Planning Case Study- Brix Bay Deep River Confluence Restoration The Brix Bay Deep River Confluence site is located in a transition zone for migrating juvenile salmonids in freshwater tidal rearing habitats before transitioning to the broader Columbia River estuary (Figure 16). The project site, directly adjacent to Deep River, Brix Bay, and Grays Bay, historically provided important rearing habitat within a broader freshwater tidal swamp complex. The project is also very close to the North Channel of the Columbia River estuary. North Channel is a semi-diffused distributary channel off the mainstem that begins upriver from Rice Island and meanders closely to Gray Bay area. Fish tagging studies completed by Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL) in 2010 show a high proportion (87%) of subyearling Chinook migrating across shallows surrounding North Channel (McMichael et al. 2011). The 175-acre project site was historically connected to the Deep River by three large tidal channel systems, providing access to a complex network of tidal meanders and a diverse mosaic of Sitka spruce surge plain wetlands. Today, the site is constrained by a road levee with three tidegates at the historical tidal channel confluences that control minimal juvenile salmonid ingress/egress into the site. The project goal map (Figure 17) characterizes primary restoration actions planned for the Brix Bay Deep River Confluence site. The goal of the project is to re-establish tidal hydrology by removing the tidegates and replacing them with bridge structures that will allow full tidal volume exchange, reshaping and restoring diverse and complex estuarine habitat over time. 28

30 Figure 16. Map of the Brix Bay - Deep River Confluence restoration site. Figure 17. Map of the Deep River Confluence primary restoration actions. 29