1 University of Washington School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences

2 PC Trask and Associates

Landscape Planning Framework

Fish Habitat Catena Geodatabase Methodology

Mary Ramirez 1

Charles Simenstad1

Phil Trask2

Allan Whiting2

Alex McManus2

Funding provided by the Bonneville Power Administration

1

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 ....................................................................................................................................... 10

Wetland ............................................................................................................................................... 10

Drainage .............................................................................................................................................. 12

USACE 2-year Flood .......................................................................................................................... 14

Landscape Feature................................................................................................................................... 15

Confluence .......................................................................................................................................... 15

Potential Beaver Habitat ..................................................................................................................... 17

Head of Tide ....................................................................................................................................... 19

Additional Datasets ................................................................................................................................. 20

Isolated Lake ....................................................................................................................................... 20

Landscape Unit ................................................................................................................................... 21

Analysis and Application ............................................................................................................................ 22

Reach and Landscape Unit Statistics .................................................................................................. 22

Site and Landscape Unit Statistics ...................................................................................................... 26

User Manual Case Study ......................................................................................................................... 28

How To: Planning Case Study- Brix Bay | Deep River Confluence Restoration ............................... 28

Quantifying the Site and Landscape ................................................................................................... 30

Site Comparison .................................................................................................................................. 33

Characterizing Landscape Change ...................................................................................................... 34

Future Applications | Next Steps ................................................................................................................ 35

References ................................................................................................................................................... 37

Appendix ..................................................................................................................................................... 38

2

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 ...................................................................... 11

Figure 5. Example illustration of tidal and tidally impaired drainage area ................................................. 13

Figure 6. Example illustration of the 2-year flood extent ........................................................................... 14

Figure 7. Example illustration of channel confluences ............................................................................... 16

Figure 8. Example illustration of potential beaver habitat .......................................................................... 18

Figure 9. Tributary channel head of tide locations ..................................................................................... 19

Figure 10. Illustrative example of isolated lakes ........................................................................................ 20

Figure 11. Landscape units in the Columbia River estuary. ....................................................................... 21

Figure 12. Reach summaries of direct FHC and channel confluences........................................................ 24

Figure 13. Landscape summaries of direct FHC and channel confluences ................................................ 25

Figure 14. Map of surge plain wetlands in the Grays Bay Landscape ........................................................ 27

Figure 15. Scaling of tidal channel area and channel outlet count with wetland size ................................. 27

Figure 16. Map of the Brix Bay - Deep River Confluence restoration site................................................. 29

Figure 17. Map of the Deep River Confluence primary restoration actions ............................................... 29

Tables

Table 1. Fish habitat catena attribute table fields ........................................................................................ 10

Table 2. Wetland attribute table fields ........................................................................................................ 12

Table 3. Drainage attribute table fields ....................................................................................................... 13

Table 4. USACE 2-year flood attribute table fields .................................................................................... 15

Table 5. Confluence attribute table fields ................................................................................................... 17

Table 6. Potential beaver habitat attribute table fields ................................................................................ 18

Table 7. Head of tide attribute table fields .................................................................................................. 19

Table 8. Landscape unit attribute table fields ............................................................................................. 22

Table 9. Opportunity and capacity metrics used to characterize fish habitat .............................................. 23

Table 10. Queries used to isolate FHC features for site and landscape analysis ........................................ 31

Table 11. Summary statistics for the Deep River Confluence restoration case study ................................ 32

Table 12. Example site scale calculations of LPF metrics for case study ................................................... 33

Table 13. LPF metric change to the landscape from potential and project implementation ....................... 34

Table 14. Percent of the potential change realized from project implementation. ...................................... 34

3

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.

4

*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

5

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 km2 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.

6

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.

7

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.

PRIMARY CHANNEL

SECONDARY CHANNEL

BACKWATER EMBAYMENT

CHANNEL SHALLOWS

INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED

TRIBUTARY DELTA

CHANNEL BAR

ADJACENT WETLANDS

TIDAL DRAINAGE

USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD

LANDSCAPE FEATURE

CHANNEL CONFLUENCE

TRIBUTARY CHANNEL

TRIBUTARY SECONDARY

CHANNEL

CHANNEL SHALLOWS

INTERMITTENTLY EXPOSED

TRIBUTARY DELTA

CHANNEL BAR

SIDE CHANNEL

UNKNOWN DEPTH

TRIBUTARY CONFLUENCE ZONE

CHANNEL

ADJACENT WETLANDS

TIDAL DRAINAGE

USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD

LANDSCAPE FEATURE

CHANNEL CONFLUENCE

HEAD OF TIDE

FLOODPLAIN

CHANNELS

FLOODPLAIN SLOUGH

FLOODPLAIN CHANNEL

MINOR TRIBUTARY

SIDE CHANNEL

LAKES

LAKE/POND

TIE CHANNEL

ADJACENT WETLANDS

TIDAL DRAINAGE

USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD

LANDSCAPE FEATURE

CHANNEL CONFLUENCE

POTENTIAL BEAVER HABITAT

SURGE PLAIN

CHANNELS

TIDAL SLOUGH

TIDAL CHANNEL

TERTIARY CHANNEL

TRIBUTARY DELTA

CHANNEL BAR

MINOR TRIBUTARY

LAKES

LAKE/POND

ADJACENT WETLANDS

TIDAL DRAINAGE

USACE 2-YEAR FLOOD

LANDSCAPE FEATURE

CHANNEL CONFLUENCE

POTENTIAL BEAVER HABITAT

8

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.

9

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.

10

Table 1. Fish habitat catena attribute table fields.

Field Description

FHC Unique ID 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.

Fish Habitat Status 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’.

Channel Type 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.

FHC Area Acres The total area (acres) for a unique FHC feature as identified by the

FHC unique ID number.

Restoration 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 http://www.cbfish.org/EstuaryAction.mvc/Actions.

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; scrub-

shrub 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

11

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

12

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 Description

FHC Unique ID Unique identifying number of the associated FHC feature.

Fish Habitat Status 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.

Channel Type A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated

FHC.

Wetland Name 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 2009-2010 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.

13

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 Description

FHC Unique ID Unique identifying number of the associated fish habitat catena feature.

Fish Habitat Status 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.

Channel Type A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated fish

habitat catena.

Inundation 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.

14

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.

15

Attributes Flood polygons are attributed with the values of the associated FHC (Table 4).

Table 4. USACE 2-year flood attribute table fields.

Field Description

FHC Unique ID Unique identifying number of the associated FHC feature.

Fish Habitat Status 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.

Channel Type A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated

FHC.

Inundation 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.

16

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).

17

Table 5. Confluence attribute table fields.

Field Description

Channel Type A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the associated

FHC. Channel type is listed for both channel 'a’ and channel ‘b’.

Fish Habitat Status 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’.

FHC Unique ID Unique identifying number of the associated FHC feature. FHC

unique ID is listed for both channel 'a’ and channel ‘b’.

FHC Area Acres 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’.

Confluence Channel Identifies the upstream channel. Value is either 'a’ or ‘b’.

Confluence Channel

Acres

The total area (acres) of the upstream channel.

Confluence Size 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.

Confluence Status 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

18

floodplain channels that intersected the wooded areas were selected. The perimeter-area ratio (channel

length (m) / channel area (m2)) 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 Description

Channel Type A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the FHC channel.

Fish Habitat Status 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’.

FHC Unique ID Unique identifying number of the FHC channel.

PARA 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.

Biocatena Ecosystem categorized on the basis of assemblages of primary cover

type, derived from the Classification.

19

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 Description

Channel Name of the tributary channel.

Channel Type A descriptive or generalized channel type name of the FHC channel

(Tributary channel).

Fish Habitat Status 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’.

FHC Unique ID Unique identifying number of the FHC tributary channel.

20

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.

21

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).

22

Table 8. Landscape unit attribute table fields.

Field Description

Landscape Name 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.

Sub-Landscape Name A descriptive name of the smaller landscape that is nested within the

landscape unit. Sub-landscapes should be compared to other sub-

landscapes.

Acres 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 site-

specific 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).

23

Table 9. Opportunity and capacity metrics used to characterize fish habitat.

Opportunity Metrics Description

Channel Type

Occurrence

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 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.

Confluence Nearest-

Neighbor

The shortest distance from one confluence to another. The mean nearest-

neighbor distance of all confluences within a landscape provides

information about the relative isolation of habitat patches.

Surge Plain/Floodplain

Connectivity

Surge or floodplain connectivity may be summarized as the proportion of

primary or tributary channel length to adjacent levee or developed land.

Capacity Metrics Description

Area 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.

Edge 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.

Perimeter-Area Ratio 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).

SHAPE Index 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 (m2), adjusted by a constant to

adjust for a square standard:

𝑆𝐻𝐴𝑃𝐸 =0.25 ∗ 𝑝𝑒𝑟𝑖𝑚𝑒𝑡𝑒𝑟

√𝑎𝑟𝑒𝑎

Adjacent Wetland

Length

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.

Adjacent Wetland Class The composition of wetland adjacent to the FHC, which may provide

information about water temperature regulation or prey resource input.

24

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.

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.

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

2000

4000

6000

8000

10000

12000

14000

A B C D E F G H

FH

C %

Change

FH

C A

rea (

acre

s)

A

0

10

20

30

40

50

60

70

0

400

800

1200

1600

2000

A B C D E F G HC

onfluence D

ensity %

Change

Confluence C

ount

B

25

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.

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

1000

2000

3000

4000

5000

6000

Ba

ke

r B

ay

Ba

ke

r B

ay s

ha

llow

s

Pa

cific

Du

ne

s

Tre

stle B

ay s

ha

llow

Yo

un

gs B

ay

Yo

un

gs B

ay s

hallo

w

Ca

thla

me

t B

ay

Gra

ys B

ay

Gra

ys B

ay S

hallo

ws

Julia

Bu

tle

r H

anse

n

Cla

tska

nie

Fla

ts

Pu

ge

t Is

land

Rin

ea

rso

n

Co

wlit

z R

ive

r

Tro

jan

De

er

Isla

nd

Lew

is R

ive

r

Mu

ltno

mah

Ch

an

ne

l

Rid

ge

fie

ld

Sa

uvie

Isla

nd

Scap

poo

se B

ay

Will

am

ette

Riv

er

Po

rtla

nd

Va

nco

uve

r

Wa

sh

ou

ga

l R

ive

r

Bo

nn

evill

e

Go

rge W

ate

rfa

lls

Mir

ror

La

ke

A B C D E F G H

FH

C %

Change

FH

C A

rea (

acre

s)

A

1450

1500

1550B

0

20

40

60

80

100

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

Ba

ke

r B

ay

Ba

ke

r B

ay s

ha

llow

s

Pa

cific

Du

ne

s

Tre

stle B

ay s

ha

llow

Yo

un

gs B

ay

Yo

un

gs B

ay s

hallo

w

Cath

lam

et

Bay

Gra

ys B

ay

Gra

ys B

ay S

hallo

ws

Julia

Bu

tle

r H

anse

n

Cla

tska

nie

Fla

ts

Pu

ge

t Is

land

Rin

ea

rso

n

Cow

litz R

ive

r

Tro

jan

Dee

r Is

lan

d

Lew

is R

ive

r

Mu

ltno

mah

Ch

an

ne

l

Rid

ge

fie

ld

Sa

uvie

Isla

nd

Scap

poo

se B

ay

Will

am

ette

Riv

er

Po

rtla

nd

Va

nco

uve

r

Wa

sh

ou

ga

l R

ive

r

Bo

nn

evill

e

Go

rge W

ate

rfa

lls

Mir

ror

La

ke

A B C D E F G H

Confluence D

ensity %

Change

Confluence C

ount

26

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.

27

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

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.

y = 0.0087x1.2735 R² = 0.9486

0.01

0.1

1

10

100

1 10 100 1000

FH

C A

rea (

acre

s)

Wetland Area (acres)

A y = 1.1099x0.3682 R² = 0.765

1

10

1 10 100 1000

Channel O

utlet

Count

Wetland Area (acres)

B

28

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.

29

Figure 16. Map of the Brix Bay - Deep River Confluence restoration site.

Figure 17. Map of the Deep River Confluence primary restoration actions.

30

Quantifying the Site and Landscape The first step in using the LPF is choosing the scales of analysis. For the Brix Bay – Deep River

Confluence restoration project, the Grays Bay Landscape and Deep River Sub-landscape were chosen to

highlight contributions of the project in the context of these larger landscapes (see Figure 16). This

approach provides a nested landscape consideration to understand the contributions of the project to the

Deep River system and the Grays Bay Landscape as a whole. These local landscapes all reside within

Reach B, a reach situated near the freshwater tidal – oligohaline transition within the estuary. Habitat

transitions in the estuary near the ocean are considered relevant to rearing and migrating juvenile

salmonids, as this transition involves dramatic shifts in prey and predators (Simenstad, Cordell 2000).

At the site scale, the Brix Bay – Deep River Confluence project site is compared to an upstream wetland

that was breached 12 years ago on the Deep River. The site was historically wetland before being leveed

and converted to agriculture. The site underwent restoration in 2004 and has had twelve years of tidal and

fluvial inundation and propagation of native wetland vegetation, primarily characterized as tidal

coniferous forest. As the restored site has responded to the reintroduction of increased hydrologic

volumes, coniferous forest die-off and shrub scrub propagation has been observed. It could be expected

that the project site will evolve on a similar trajectory. The project site is also compared to two

undeveloped surge plain sites of approximately the same size located within the Grays Bay Landscape.

Reference Site A is located along Grays River and is primarily characterized as a mixed coniferous-

deciduous forested tidal wetland; Reference Site B is a mixed tidal and non-tidal coniferous forested

wetland located along Crooked Creek. These sites serve as references for wetland conditions where

development has not impeded the geomorphic structure of the habitat and are suggestive of an endpoint

target for the project site as hydrologic processes are restored.

Once the scales of analysis are selected, the user must define which LPF metrics to calculate (see Table 9

in the Data Summary section above). In this example, Confluence Density (CD), Direct FHC Percent

Landscape (PLAND), Direct FHC Edge Density (ED), and SHAPE Index were chosen. Confluence

Density is a measure of the number of confluence points divided by the analysis area (acres), multiplied

by 100 (to convert to confluence count per 100 acres). Confluences are important opportunities for

juvenile salmonids as entry points into discrete habitat patches. Percent Landscape is a measure of FHC

area divided by landscape area, multiplied by 100 (to convert to a percentage). Understanding the percent

of the landscape that is made up of direct FHC can inform the user of the relative amount of habitat within

a defined landscape that is regularly available to juvenile salmonids. Edge Density is a measure of the

length of FHC perimeter divided by the analysis area, and provides information about the complexity and

foraging interface of the FHC relative to the total landscape area. SHAPE Index is calculated at the site

scale for the largest tidal channel in each of the selected wetlands and equals the channel perimeter

divided by the square root of the channel area, adjusted by a constant to adjust for a square standard

(McGarigal et al. 2012). The index equals 1 when the feature is square and increases as the shape

becomes more irregular. The largest channel represents a significant portion of the available fish habitat

(ranging from 33 to 80 percent in the selected wetlands) and this index provides a representative measure

of channel irregularity, or complexity, which can be compared among sites.

The site is a marsh located in the surge plain (although it is currently isolated from tidal influence) with

floodplain channels as the main hydrologic feature. Since these features are the focus of the restoration,

they will also be the focus of the analysis. In the selection process (below), only surge plain and surge

plain isolated complexes will be included for the marsh area and only floodplain and tidal channels will

be included for the confluences, Direct FHC area, and Direct FHC edge. For this analysis, small channels

(where total channel area is less than 100 square meters; Confluence Size = 0) will also be omitted.

To populate the metrics table with values, FHC must be selected with a combination of selection tools

within GIS: select by location, select by attribute, and manual selection. Try selecting features from the

31

FHC based on their location (completely within, intersect, etc.) relative to your scale of analysis polygon

(site, sub-landscape, landscape). Be careful when using select by location with polygons that do not

originate from the FHC layers (project site or reference site polygons) because they may not share the

same boundaries as the FHC polygons. It may help to alter your project site or reference site polygon (if

possible) to better fit within the FHC polygon boundaries. This is a good time to zoom in and make sure

all the FHC features on your site have been selected, and no external features are included. If the selection

needs to be adjusted, use the manual selection tool to add or subtract features from the selection. After

using the select by location tool, isolate just open or just altered FHC using the select by attribute tool

(and selecting from the current selection). Repeat the selection process until the table has all the necessary

values. Alternatively, instead of using the selection tools within GIS, geoprocessing tools like intersect

and union also isolate features for analysis using the scale of analysis polygon (project site, sub-

landscape, landscape) and an FHC layer as inputs to the tools. Table 10 lists the queries used to isolate the

target features. With the scales of analysis and LPF metrics chosen, the user can quantify the features to

calculate metrics. For the four metrics mentioned above (CD, PLAND, ED, SHAPE) the values needed

for each scale of analysis calculation are listed in Table 11.

Table 10. Select by attribute queries used to isolate FHC features for site and landscape analysis.

Target Feature Select by Attribute Query

Open Floodplain and Tidal

Channel Confluence

(("ChannelType_a" = 'Floodplain channel' OR

"ChannelType_a" = 'Tidal channel') OR

("ChannelType_b" = 'Floodplain channel' OR

"ChannelType_b" = 'Tidal channel')) AND

("ConfluenceSize" = 1 AND

"ConfluenceStatus" = 'Open')

Altered Floodplain and Tidal

Channel Confluence

(("ChannelType_a" = 'Floodplain channel' OR

"ChannelType_a" = 'Tidal channel') OR

("ChannelType_b" = 'Floodplain channel' OR

"ChannelType_b" = 'Tidal channel')) AND

("ConfluenceSize" = 1 AND

"ConfluenceStatus" = 'Altered')

Open Floodplain and Tidal

Channel Direct FHC

("ChannelType" = 'Floodplain channel' OR

"ChannelType" = 'Tidal channel') AND

("Complex" = 'Surge plain' OR

"Complex" = 'Isolated surge plain') AND

"FishHabitatStatus" = 'Open'

Altered Floodplain and Tidal

Channel Direct FHC

("ChannelType" = 'Floodplain channel' OR

"ChannelType" = 'Tidal channel') AND

("Complex" = 'Surge plain' OR

"Complex" = 'Isolated surge plain') AND

"FishHabitatStatus" = 'Altered'

Complex Selection "Complex" = 'Surge plain' OR

"Complex" = 'Surge plain (isolated)'

32

Table 11. Summary statistics used to quantify landscape metrics at each scale of analysis for the Deep River Confluence restoration case study.

Confluence

(Count)

Direct FHC Area

(Acres)

Direct FHC

Length

(1,000 Feet)

Largest

Channel

Area

(Acres)

Largest

Channel

Length

(1,000

Feet)

Surge

Plain

(Acres)

Isolated

Surge

Plain

(Acres)

Total

Complex

(Acres) Scale Open Altered Open Altered Open Altered

Grays Bay

Landscape 89 31 64.45 94.90 211.55 228.87 -- -- 1,887.05 1,716.32 3,603.37

Deep River

Sub-landscape 13 13 4.75 57.22 8.20 122.88 -- -- 291.93 1,024.31 1,316.24

Reference Site A 10 -- 4.89 -- 15.45 -- 1.63 5.00 131.70 -- 131.70

Reference Site B 5 -- 5.66 -- 17.07 -- 4.52 12.55 192.66 -- 192.66

Restored Site 3 -- 5.67 -- 14.38 -- 4.47 10.30 142.12 -- 142.12

Project Site -- 3 -- 12.69 -- 29.96 5.77 15.48 -- 175.69 175.69

33

Site Comparison Many of the LPF metrics are densities or percentages (as is the case for the metrics in this example),

which allows for comparing among landscapes of varying sizes. Using the values quantified through the

selection process described above, the formulas for CD, PLAND, ED, and SHAPE can be calculated and

used for comparison and evaluation of site scale change (Table 12).

Table 12. Example site scale calculations of LPF metrics for the Deep River Confluence restoration case study. Open

habitat is summarized for the Reference and Restored Sites, and potential habitat (altered) is summarized for the Project

Site.

Scale

Confluence

Density

(Count per 100

acres)

Direct FHC %

Landscape

Direct FHC

Edge Density

(Feet per

landscape acre) SHAPE Index1

Reference Site A 7.59 3.71 117.29 4.68

Reference Site B 2.60 2.94 88.60 7.08

Restored Site 2.11 3.99 101.20 5.84

Project Site 1.71 7.22 170.51 7.72 1SHAPE Index is calculated for the largest channel in the wetland.

Confluence Density is a measure of the number of confluence points per 100 acres of analysis area.

Confluences are important opportunities for juvenile salmonids as entry points into discrete habitat

patches. The CD of open confluences at the restored site is 2.11 compared to 1.71 for the potential open

confluences at the project site. Both sites have three confluences, but the project site is approximately 30

acres larger, decreasing the CD score. When compared to reference marshes, both the project site and the

restored site have lower confluence densities. From a purely ecological perspective, this could suggest

that the restoration approaches at both the project site and restored site are conservative in the number of

breaches planned, and the sites could benefit from additional levee breaches or complete levee removal. A

more aggressive breaching or levee removal plan could provide more opportunity for channel (and thus

confluence) development, higher confluence densities, and a more natural marsh development trajectory,

mimicking reference marshes nearby.

Direct FHC Percent Landscape (PLAND) is a measure of FHC area divided by complex area and

represents the capacity of a site or landscape. Understanding the percent of the landscape that is made up

of direct FHC can inform the user of the amount of habitat that is regularly available to juvenile

salmonids. The project site potential PLAND is almost twice that of the restored site. This discrepancy in

PLAND scores can be attributed to more area of direct FHC on the project site than on the restored site.

In this case, there is the same number of channel features (three) for both sites, but the project site

channels are larger. When compared to reference marshes, the Direct FHC PLAND values for the project

site and restored site were similar or higher. The number of channel features on the project site and

restored site were fewer and larger than the relatively smaller and more numerous channels on reference

sites.

Edge Density is a measure of the length of FHC perimeter divided by the analysis area and provides

information about the complexity and extent of foraging interface of the FHC. In this example, the project

site has the greatest density of edge habitat compared to both the reference and restored sites.

Additionally, the SHAPE Index for the largest channel in each of the wetlands was greatest at the project

34

site, suggesting this channel had a relatively irregular shape. High irregularity in channel shape

demonstrates a potential for a particularly sinuous and complex channel habitat. Greater sinuosity and

complexity of channel features offers a better foraging interface for juveniles to interact with adjacent

wetland vegetation.

Overall, the project site differs from reference sites primarily in terms of confluence density and channel

size, and compares similarly with the restored site. The project proposes to open the same number of

confluences as the restored site while providing a greater density and complexity of direct FHC. The

comparison to the restored site, along with the project sites adjacency to the confluence of Deep River and

Grays Bay/Mainstem Columbia River make it a strong candidate for restoration in the future.

Characterizing Landscape Change To demonstrate the change a project provides to the landscape, it is important to understand the FHC that

is currently open versus the FHC that is altered and has potential for restoration. By adding the altered

FHC from the project site, which will be restored to open, to the open values that already exist in the

Deep River and Grays Bay landscapes, the user can see how the LPF metrics change with the

implementation of the project (Table 13). These values are relative to size and unit of measurement and

do not always convey change clearly. However, if you quantify the project’s proportional change of the

total potential change for the landscape, a more intuitive picture comes into focus. Percent of potential

change is calculated as:

% 𝐶ℎ𝑎𝑛𝑔𝑒 = 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛 𝑤𝑖𝑡ℎ 𝑃𝑟𝑜𝑗𝑒𝑐𝑡 − 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛

𝑃𝑜𝑡𝑒𝑛𝑡𝑖𝑎𝑙 − 𝑂𝑝𝑒𝑛∗ 100

Table 13. LPF metric change to the landscape from potential (open + altered) and project implementation.

Landscape

Confluence Density

(Count per 100 acres) Direct FHC % Landscape

Direct FHC Edge Density

(Feet per acre)

Open Potential Open Potential Open Potential

Grays Bay 4.72 3.33 3.42 4.42 112.11 122.23

Deep River 4.45 1.98 1.63 4.71 28.08 99.59

Open Open w/ Project Open Open w/ Project Open Open w/ Project

Grays Bay 4.72 4.46 3.42 3.74 112.11 117.08

Deep River 4.45 3.42 1.63 3.73 28.08 81.59

By describing the project’s change relative to the potential change for the landscape, you convey the

proportion of potential change capitalized with the envisioned project (Table 14).

Table 14. Percent of the potential change for the entire landscape realized from project implementation.

Landscape Confluence Density Direct FHC % Landscape Direct FHC Edge Density

Grays Bay 18.49 32.21 49.16

Deep River 41.63 68.23 74.83

Grays Bay and Deep River fish habitat availability would increase from the proposed restoration. These

landscapes, Reach B, and the Columbia River estuary would derive benefit, as would the salmonid stocks

35

that utilize the estuary. The Grays Bay landscape and Deep River sub-landscape CD scores decrease with

project implementation. The CD metric decreases for the landscape and sub-landscape because the project

opens a large acreage of surge plain habitat with relatively few confluences that provide access to the site

(see Table 11 CD values). When compared to reference marshes, the project site’s confluence density is

much lower. Re-introducing a site with low confluence density lowers the landscape and sub-landscape

confluence densities that include both restored and reference sites. This illustrates an argument for more

breach locations for planned restoration, as argued by Hood (2015). The Grays Bay landscape would

realize 18.49 percent of its CD change from restoration, while Deep River would realize 41.63 percent of

its CD change. The metric of Direct FHC PLAND realizes approximately 32 percent and nearly 70

percent of the potential for Grays Bay and Deep River, respectively. The ED metric also sees a dramatic

increase with almost 50 percent and almost 75 percent realized potential lift for the Landscape and Sub-

landscape. As mentioned previously, the channels in altered marshes are larger and fewer in number than

open reference marshes, which exhibit numerous smaller channels as a result of exposure to tidal and

riverine flows. These open reference marshes could provide a template for restoration design,

recommending not only to reconnect the larger channels seen in altered marshes, but to create additional

smaller channels to increase opportunity and capacity of restoration sites. There is more restoration

potential in Deep River and Grays Bay. Much of the surge plain wetland habitat has been isolated by

levees and water control structures. With the implementation of the Brix Bay – Deep River Confluence

restoration project, a large piece of habitat will be restored and accessible to juvenile salmonids. The

changes from this project will have significant impacts to Deep River and the Grays Bay landscape as a

whole, making a major stride towards restoring FHC in the landscape.

Future Applications | Next Steps

The Landscape Planning Framework (LPF) is a landscape ecology-based, geospatial approach to identify

and compare spatially-explicit sites that would most likely benefit unique, at-risk genetic stocks of

Columbia River salmon. 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). While the framework

has been highly specialized to date, its versatility transcends species and geography.

The LPF process of developing guiding principles, identifying habitat requirements, and applying those

tools to create a spatial database classifying habitat is pertinent to any species of concern in any estuary.

For researchers in the Columbia River estuary, the spatial database framework is already in place with the

Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification (Simenstad et al. 2011 and USGS 2012). In the

Columbia River estuary, the LPF approach could be applied to other species including other salmonids

like Coho or steelhead, 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 Columbian

white-tailed deer or American beaver. These species inhabit a variety of estuary habitat types that are

covered in detail by the Classification.

In other estuaries, a robust ecosystem classification is the first step to developing the LPF. Some

estuaries, like the Sacramento River, are already poised to develop the LPF approach on top of an existing

classification system. Undoubtedly, there are a large number of estuarine researchers with a firm grasp on

species habitat requirements and guiding principles. These individual pieces are important, but realize

their true potential when combined into the Landscape Planning Framework.

Currently, the LPF would not be well positioned for species that primarily utilize subtidal habitats such as

sturgeon or lamprey. The Classification that serves as the basis for LPF is considerably underdeveloped

36

for subtidal ecosystems. An effort to classify those ecosystems would be valuable in the application of

LPF for species that utilize those habitats.

The LPF is a powerful tool for understanding the spatial distribution of species specific habitats in estuary

ecosystems. The LPF can be used to quantify landscapes and individual sites, which can inform

restoration and conservation planning. LPF has the versatility and scientific rigor for a variety of

applications. Whether the application is setting habitat restoration and conservation targets, informing a

strategy to identify the priority types and locations of habitats for restoration and conservation, or

understanding how a site contributes to the landscape, LPF has the tools and metrics to provide those

insights. Moving forward, the LPF team is exploring further analysis and intuitive metrics for

understanding landscapes and telling compelling stories of restoration and conservation.

37

References

Bottom, D. L., Simenstad, C. A., Burke, J. L., Baptista, A. M., Jay, D. A., Jones, K. K., Casillas, E., and

Schiewe, M. H. 2005. Salmon at river’s end: The role of the estuary in the decline and recovery

of Columbia River salmon. U.S. Department of Commerce, NOAA Technical Memorandum.

Burke, J. L. 2010. Georeferenced historical topographic survey maps of the Columbia River estuary.

School of Aquatic and Fishery Sciences, University of Washington, Seattle, Wa.

Hood, W. G. 2015. Predicting the number, orientation and spacing of dike breaches for tidal marsh

restoration. Ecological Engineering 83: 319-327.

Hood, W. G. 2014. Differences in tidal channel network geometry between reference marshes and

marshes restored by historical dike breaching. Ecological Engineering 71:563-573.

Hood, W. G. 2012. Beaver in tidal marshes: Dam effects on low-tide channel pools and fish use of

estuarine habitat. Wetlands 32: 401-410.

Hood, W.G. 2007a. Landscape Allometry and Prediction in Estuarine Ecology: Linking Landform

Scaling to Ecological Patterns and Processes. Estuaries and Coasts 30: 895-900.

Hood, W. G. 2007b. Scaling tidal channel geometry with marsh island area: a tool for habitat restoration,

linked to channel formation process. Water Resources Research 43, W03409. Doi:

http://dx.doi.org/10.1029/2006WR005083.

Hood, W. G. 2002. Application of landscape allometry to restoration ecology. Restoration Ecology 10:

213-222.Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership. 2011. High Resolution Land Cover Mapping in

the Lower Columbia River Estuary. Prepared by Sanborn Map Company.

McGarigal, K., S. A. Cushman, and E. Ene. 2012. FRAGSTATS v4: Spatial Pattern Analysis Program for

Categorical and Continuous Maps. Computer software program produced by the authors at the

University of Massachusetts, Amherst. Available at the following web site:

http://www.umass.edu/landeco/research/fragstats/fragstats.html

McMichael, G. A., R. A. Harnish, J. R. Skalski, K. A. Deters, K. D. Ham, R. L. Townsend, P. S. Titzler,

M. S. Hughes, J. Kim, and D. M. Trott. 2011. Migratory behavior and survival of juvenile

salmonids in the lower Columbia River, estuary, and plume in 2010. PNNL-20443, Pacific

Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, Washington.

Simenstad, C. A., Burke, J. L., O’Connor, J. E., Cannon, C., Heatwole, D. W., Ramirez, M. F., Waite, I.

R., Counihan, T. D., and Jones, K. L. 2011. Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification –

Concept and Application: U.S. Geological Survey Open-File Report 2011-1228, 54 p.

Simenstad, C.A., Cordell, J.R. 2000. Ecological assessment criteria for restoring anadromous salmonid

habitat in Pacific Northwest estuaries. Ecological Engineering. 15: 283-302.

Teel, D. J., Bottom, D. L., Hinton, S. A., Kuligowski, D. R., McCabe, G. T., McNatt, R., Roegner, G. C.,

Stamatiou, L. A., and Simenstad, C. A. 2014. Genetic identification of Chinook salmon in the

Columbia River estuary: Stock-specific distributions of juveniles in shallow tidal freshwater

habitats. North American Journal of Fisheries Management. 34: 621-641.

U.S. Geological Survey. 2012. Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification. Vector digital data.

38

Appendix

Appendix A. Datasets and descriptions included in the Fish Habitat Catena geodatabase (FHCv1_FINAL.gdb).

Dataset Description Data Sources Analysis Metric(s)

Direct_fish_habitat_ catena

Polygon; categorized as open or altered habitat that may be directly utilized by juvenile salmon

CREEC Catena (2012) CREEC Cultural Features

(2012) OR NAIP (2009) WA NAIP (2009) LiDAR/Columbia River Terrain

Model (1930-2010) T-sheets (1868-1901)

Capacity area edge

Opportunity channel type diversity tributary

confluence connectivity

Indirect_wetland Polygon; adjacent wetlands occurring within 2 meters (herbaceous), 5 meters (scrub-shrub), or 20 meters (forested) of fish habitat catena

Lower Columbia River Estuary Land Cover (2010)

Capacity wetland type area channel

connectivity

Indirect_drainage Polygon; estimate of tidally influenced and tidally impaired areas around the fish habitat catena

Lower Columbia River Estuary Land Cover Hydrologic Information (2010)

Lower Columbia River Estuary Land Cover (2010)

Capacity area

Indirect_USACE_ 2y_flood

Polygon; estimate of area inundated under the 2-year flood elevation around the fish habitat catena

USACE 50% AEP Stage for Columbia River Estuary (2011)

LiDAR/Columbia River Terrain Model (1930-2010)

Capacity area

LandscapeFeature_ confluence

Point; channel confluence point where dissimilar FHC aquatic features converge

CREEC Catena (2012) CREEC Cultural Features

(2012) OR NAIP (2009) WA NAIP (2009) LiDAR/Columbia River Terrain

Model (1930-2010) T-sheets (1868-1901)

Opportunity occurrence nearest neighbor

LandscapeFeature_ potential_beaver_ habitat

Polygon; potential locations of American beaver habitat selected from the fish habitat catena based on size, channel type, and location in a wooded ecosystem criteria

CREEC Catena (2012) Opportunity occurrence

LandscapeFeature_ head_of_tide

Point; up-valley extent of strong tidal influence, defined by the Classification

CREEC Catena (2012) Opportunity occurrence

Isolated_lake Polygon; naturally isolated lakes with no channelized connection to the Columbia River system

CREEC Catena (2012) CREEC Cultural Features

(2012) OR NAIP (2009) WA NAIP (2009) LiDAR/Columbia River Terrain

Model (1930-2010) T-sheets (1868-1901)

Landscape_unit Polygon; level of analysis between the scale of an ecosystem complex and hydrogeomorphic reach

CREEC Complex (2012) Scale of analysis