Progress Report

CICEET Progress Report for the period 9/01/08 Through 2/15/09

Project Title: In-Situ Multichannel Wireless Sensor Networks and iButton Temperature Logger Arrays for Characterizing Habitat Drivers in Tidal Wetland Reference Sites
Principal Investigator(s): Craig Young and Craig Cornu
Additional Investigator(s): Laura Brophy, Paul Adamus, John Christy
Project Start Date: The official project start date was 9/1/06, but our funding agreement with CICEET was not finalized until March 1, 2007. Therefore, for practical purposes, the project began in March 2007.

Note: Full-resolution versions of the images referenced in this report are available on a web gallery at http://greenpoint.smugmug.com/gallery/7334151_6sZgL/1/471952044_YwMuc. At that website, you can view, download or print the images at full resolution. To do so, in gallery view, hover your cursor over the image at the right and use the menu that appears.

Project Objectives for This Reporting Period
Our project has been granted a no-cost one-year extension until 9/30/09, so the objectives and timeline below reflect that revised schedule.

Objectives
1. Work with NOAA/COOPS to model inundation regimes for study plots and sites, including river flow effects, and to develop user-friendly metrics for the data.
2. Analyze relationships between elevation, tidal inundation regime, salinity, groundwater level, soil characteristics, and biological data at all study sites.
3. Develop first draft pilot reference conditions database.
4. Validate the iButton method using water level data and NGS elevations.
5. Assist AO with further steps in product development for wireless multichannel sensor networks.
6. Continue development of web data portal for reference conditions database.

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
1. Create GIS layers of site elevations, sample plots, and instrumentation.
2. Analyze elevation data for study areas, generating average elevations for study plots and spot elevations for instrumentation.
3. Correlate elevations of study areas and instrumentation to tidal datums provided by NOAA/COOPS.
4. Collaborate with NOAA/COOPS to model inundation regimes for study sites, and express the results using metrics appropriate for both research publications and end-user outreach.
5. Analyze 2008 vegetation and macroinvertebrate data.
6. Analyze relationships between 2007 and 2008 biological data (vegetation, benthic macroinvertebrates) and physical data (soils, tidal inundation, groundwater, and salinity).
7. Summarize project data and begin development of reference conditions database.
8. Use water level data and NGS elevations of iButton deployment locations to validate the iButton "temperature comparison method" for determining tidal inundation regime.
9. Test wireless "beta" dataloggers from Alpha Omega.
10. Work with the INR Information Program to post project results to the Oregon Explorer web portal.
11. Explore advantages and disadvantages of hosting summarized vs. raw datasets at the INR portal.

Progress on Work Tasks
1. Create GIS layers of site elevations, sample plots, and instrumentation.
We created comprehensive GIS maps of our study areas, including study plot locations (Figure1.gif, Figure3.gif, Figure5.gif, Figure7.gif), locations and elevations of wetland surface iButtons (same figures; iButtons were deployed at plot corners), locations and elevations of other instrumentation including Alpha Omega dataloggers, YSI sondes, and groundwater wells; and NGS elevation survey points (Figure2.jpg, Figure4.jpg, Figure6.jpg, Figure8.jpg). Although we have also created these GIS layers for Coal Creek, we are not making those images public due to landowner privacy concerns.

2. Analyze elevation data for study areas, generating average elevations for study plots and spot elevations for instrumentation.
We used the RTK elevation data provided to us by Kevin Jordan, Douglas Adams, Steve Breidenbach and Justin Dahlberg of NOAA/NGS within our project GIS (Figure2.jpg, Figure4.jpg, Figure6.jpg, and Figure8.jpg) to determine elevations of instrumentation and study plots. Instrument elevations were used for two purposes: 1) Provide tide gauge sensor elevations to our collaborators at NOAA/COOPS (Allison Allen, Stephen Gill, and Lijuan Huang), for their use in developing the tide model and establishing ties between geodetic and tidal datums at our study sites; and 2) Validate iButton results (see work task 8, below). Terrain points were used to determine the average elevations of our study plots relative on the NAVD88 datum (Table 1).

3. Correlate elevations of study areas and instrumentation to tidal datums provided by NOAA/COOPS.
During the previous reporting period, our collaborators at NOAA/COOPS developed tide models for our study sites, establishing tidal datums relative to station datum (tide gauge sensor elevation). We used the NOAA/NGS elevation survey data to determine tide gauge sensor elevations and average study plot elevations on the NAVD88 datum. We then converted NGS's NAVD elevations to tidal datums to establish the average elevation of each study plot relative to tidal datums. The results constitute a critical new reference dataset to help guide Pacific Northwest tidal wetland restoration. Tables 1 and 2 provide draft results; final summaries and additional presentations of the data will be provided after further analysis.

4. Collaborate with NOAA/COOPS to model inundation regimes for study sites, and express the results using metrics appropriate for both research publications and end-user outreach.
During this reporting period, we were pleased to have the opportunity to continue our collaboration with Allison Allen, Lijuan Huang, and Stephen Gill of NOAA/COOPS. The goal of our collaboration is to build an accurate model of inundation regimes at our sites. In December 2008 we submitted winter tide gauge data to NOAA/COOPS, and they are currently developing an inundation model that incorporates river flow effects, which are substantial in our coastal watersheds. Our collaboration with NOAA/COOPS continues to deepen with Laura Brophy's completion of a series of NOAA web courses on tidal theory and tidal datum computations during January 7-9 2009 (see Collaborative Activities and Contact with End Users below).

Our team has developed a preliminary set of "user-friendly" tidal inundation regime metrics, and we are awaiting the outcome of the NOAA modeling to see which of these metrics may be most appropriate for expressing results of our modeling.

5. Analyze 2008 vegetation and macroinvertebrate data.

6. Analyze relationships between 2007 and 2008 biological data (vegetation, benthic macroinvertebrates) and physical data (soils, tidal inundation, groundwater, and salinity).
Tasks 5 and 6 are ongoing at this time. Our draft reference conditions database is a major milestone in analysis of these relationships (Tables 1 and 2).

We initially planned to collect groundwater and salinity data using Alpha Omega dataloggers, but we were hindered by AO's delayed development schedule. To provide validation of AO results and independent data on salinity for longer time spans, we deployed YSI sondes in tidal channels at our marsh sites in spring to summer 2008 (Siletz Keys and Millport Slough), and for all of 2008 at our tidal swamp sites (Coal Creek and Blind Slough). We are currently analyzing these data.

Data on inundation regimes and macroinvertebrates are currently being analyzed by our collaborators (NOAA/COOPS and Cramer Fish Sciences). We will complete these analyses during the next reporting period, culminating in our project's final report.

We have taken advantage of our one-year, no-cost extension to improve the groundwater data collected in this study. Our study is among the first to quantify groundwater levels in Oregon's forested tidal wetlands. The first year of this study, along with other monitoring conducted by our team, showed that traditional groundwater observation well construction methods do not work well in these habitats. Highly organic soils, low summer groundwater levels, large tidal ranges, windy conditions, flashy hydrocurves, and logistically difficult access create numerous challenges. For example, ambient summer groundwater levels are strikingly low; yet surface inundation occurs regularly during spring tide cycles. Hydraulically conductive soils appear to respond quickly to the rising tide, but it is difficult to exclude surface flows and get an accurate picture of tidal effects on groundwater.

To address these challenges in monitoring groundwater levels in forested tidal wetlands, we upgraded our shallow observation wells by adding tall risers and bentonite seals in January 2009. The tall risers and bentonite seals are intended to reduce flooding of the wells by surface water (inundating tides).We followed standard methods for constructed shallow groundwater observation wells (http://el.erdc.usace.army.mil/elpubs/pdf/tnwrap00-2.pdf), but omitted sand filters which could channel surface tidal flows into otherwise unsaturated profiles. Risers were constructed tall enough to extend above the highest predicted tides for the monitoring period, and were cemented to the original low risers to form a watertight seal. Soil was removed from a circular area ("annulus") about 16in in diameter and about 6in deep around the original riser base, using a small saw to sever roots and create a vertical sidewall. We poured granular bentonite (8 mesh) into the annulus to a depth of 4-6in and then covered the bentonite seal with about 4in of native soil, creating a slight mound around the riser. We deployed automated water level loggers in each well, which will record water levels at 12min intervals through July 2009. We plan to download data midway through this recording period to check on the performance of the wells. We hope that these upgraded wells will provide a more realistic picture of groundwater level, which is a key ecosystem driver (controlling factor) in these habitats.

7. Summarize project data and begin development of reference conditions database.
Tables 1 and 2 present draft summaries of project data to date. We are currently interpreting these data, but it is already clear that the data constitute a major improvement to Pacific Northwest estuarine science. Our data show that elevations (relative to tidal datums) are related to vegetation type, but the relationship is not as straightforward as has been suggested in existing literature on Pacific Northwest tidal wetlands. Salinity, landscape setting, and system engineers (beaver in particular) clearly play a very strong role in controlling vegetation development at these sites. For example, the Millport Slough site is a diverse, forb-rich high marsh, and its tidal elevation (elevation relative to tidal datums) is considerably higher than the forested wetlands at Coal Creek. Salinity appears to be the major controlling factor affecting vegetation in this comparison. Another example is found at Blind Slough Plots 1 and 2. Here, scrub-shrub tidal wetlands (willow swamp, Plot 2) occur at the same elevation as forested tidal wetlands (Sitka spruce swamp), but groundwater hydrology (currently being analyzed) is very different between the two plots. The presence of beaver may be the key factor controlling development of willow vs. spruce communities here.

During the next reporting period, we will relate our findings to existing literature, discuss the insights generated by our project, and recommend further work to fill data gaps and deepen our understanding of Pacific Northwest estuarine wetlands.

8. Use water level data and NGS elevations of iButton deployment locations to validate the iButton "temperature comparison method" for determining tidal inundation regime.
We used water levels from our HOBO tide gauges, along with NGS surveyed elevations, to validate our iButton results. Using the tide gauge data, we determined the time at which the water level reached the surveyed elevation of each iButton ("predicted inundation"). That time was compared to the time of the iButton "inundation signal" (sudden temperature rise). Validation was conducted for four tide cycles in summer 2007 and winter 2008; at 1 tidal swamp plot (Blind Slough) and 1 tidal marsh plot (Siletz Keys); and at 1 vertical post deployment (Coal Creek).

Our iButton results were successfully validated for all sites and plots, with the exception of one individual iButton. We defined successful validation as follows: 1) the iButton inundation signal should occur at the same time as predicted by the HOBO gauge, unless the iButton was located far enough from the validating HOBO logger to cause a delay due to water movement across the site; 2) groups of iButtons near each other should show a consistent relationship between their inundation signals and the predicted inundation times (because any time differences due to distance from the HOBO would be similar for these groups of iButtons). Figure9.jpg illustrates successful validation of an iButton signal: The predicted inundation time for one iButton (vertical yellow line) matches the inundation signal for that iButton (sudden rise in temperature on the yellow temperature curve).

For the test plot located near the HOBO gauge (Blind Slough P1), iButton inundation signals closely matched the predicted inundation time (within expected error), except for one iButton at BSP1NW. The iButton at BSP1NW inundated at the same absolute time as the others, suggesting it provided an accurate inundation signal, but its predicted inundation time was an hour earlier. We believe the non-matching predicted inundation time is due to an erroneous surveyed elevation; indeed, this iButton's elevation was unusually low compared to the plot in general. Dense vegetation made elevation survey work very challenging at this site, and therefore survey accuracy was not always high. The aberrant outcome for this iButton does not affect our conclusions for the validation process.

For test plots located further from the HOBO gauge (Blind Slough P2, Siletz Keys P2), there was a delay between predicted inundation and the iButton inundation signal. The delay is related to the distance between the HOBO logger (located in a main tidal channel) and the iButton sensor. For example, Plot 1 at Blind Slough was much closer to the HOBO logger than Plot 2, so we could expect a longer delay at Plot 2 than Plot 1. As expected, Plot 1 showed a mean delay of 3 minutes after predicted inundation times (excluding the problematic iButton at BSP1NW), while Plot 2 showed a 22-minute delay. This delay provides a good illustration of how iButtons can be used for spatially explicit tracking of inundation lag time across a large site.

We considered predicted inundation time and iButton inundation signals to be matching if they were within 12min of each other. Differences of up to 12 min could be expected because the precise time of predicted inundation cannot be determined, so it was considered to occur at the midpoint of the appropriate logging interval. Logging interval was 12min for HOBO loggers and the iButtons, so for both instruments, the interval's midpoint could differ from actual inundation time by 6min, leading to a possible 12min additive error.

The success of the validation process lends additional support for the use of iButtons as an economical method for detecting tidal inundation without installing a tide gauge. Validation also helped us recognize some additional guidelines for end users:

The faster the inundation, the clearer the iButton inundation signal. Spring tides rise faster than neap tides, so deploying iButtons during spring tides will give better results.
Using smaller intervals between temperature logging events should help the end-user accurately detect the inundation signal. However, with the iButton models we used (DS1921G), memory is sufficient for only 3 weeks at 12-minute logging intervals. More frequent logging will limit the duration of iButton deployments.
Based on our observations, the greater the distance between an iButton and the source of water level validation data (HOBO level logger), the longer the inundation delay. Therefore, iButtons can be used to detect differences in inundation time across large sites.
If iButtons are to be used to detect delays in inundation time across large sites, deploying at least one tide gauge for reference enhances interpretation.
When launching iButtons and other instruments, be sure to set them to the same time logging interval, start time, and time zone (including daylight/standard time adjustments). Users should set their PC clock to standard time regardless of the time adjustment (daylight/standard) at the time of launch.

9. Test wireless "beta" dataloggers from Alpha Omega.
AO is still manufacturing the "beta" units with onboard data storage and wireless data transmission, and we are still awaiting delivery of these units � currently scheduled for March 19, 2009. Although the process has been lengthy and the delays frustrating, the final design (Figure10.jpg) provides many innovative solutions to usability issues, the result of our input to AO's design process and AO's expertise in engineering. Examples of innovative solutions include:

Outer housing (case) is divided into upper and lower halves. The two halves can be opened by the user; removing the cap from the top half allows battery replacement in the field without exposing the circuit boards (in the lower half) to the elements. (Many competing devices have batteries that can be replaced only at the factory, resulting in costly downtime. Some have circuit boards that are exposed to the elements when the unit is opened for battery replacement.)
Tie rods are used to fasten the two halves together, simplifying assembly and disassembly. (Many competing units assemble with threaded or bayonet connectors. The twisting action these require creates challenges for alignment, threading, and seating of o-ring seals in the field.)
A signal LED provides feedback on unit operation, allowing the user to verify device status and correct operation without the need for computer equipment or data downloading operations.
Outer housing (case) is made of clear tubing, making the signal LED highly visible, and allowing visual verification of condition and alignment of internal parts. (Competing units have opaque housings.)
A wireless radio transmitter located at the top of the unit allows data retrieval without wired connections in the field, under any weather conditions. Wireless data transmission will also enable the next step in product development: creating a sensor network. (Many competing units use hard-wired connections, which are vulnerable to water damage and mechanical damage.)
A SD (secure digital) card provides non-volatile onboard data storage. Removing the top cap provides access to the card, and data can then be accessed with a SD card reader attached to a computer's USB port if the user prefers this approach or if wireless transmission fails. (Most competing units lack wireless data transmission, and most do not have removable data storage.)
Conductivity electrodes are mounted in a removable board in the lower half of the device, allowing replacement of the electrodes in case of deterioration. Competing units require replacement of the entire device.

During this reporting period, we worked closely with AO to help articulate a list of project tasks and a milestone schedule for the completion of seven units. As of the first week in February, the AO team has completed circuit board design/manufacturing, partially completed housing manufacture, and partially completed software development. They are within several days of finalizing software, device assembly, and precision and accuracy tests on the temperature and conductivity sensors. Delivery of the wireless prototypes ("beta" units) is AO's highest priority, as are our efforts to shepherd AO's manufacturing, assembly and testing progress towards the delivery date.

10. Work with the INR Information Program to post project results to the Oregon Explorer web portal.
We have posted our first series of raw data files on the Oregon Explorer website, and are still in the throes of understanding the best way to present our project data within the constraints of the website requirements. Three test data files have been uploaded to the site including CICEET Tidal Wetland Soils 2007, CICEET Tidal Wetland Herbaceous Vegetation 2007, and CICEET Tidal Wetland Woody Vegetation 2007. PDF file formats are recommended, but both PDF and Excel formats were used.

Spatial data (site and possibly transect locations) have yet to be posted. Additional information such as a project description and additional site descriptions will be compiled and posted as well. Information made public for at least one site may be limited by request of the private landowner.

11. Explore advantages and disadvantages of hosting summarized vs. raw datasets at the INR portal.
Our initial posting of CICEET data has been in the form of minimally processed data summaries (plot averages). We are still discussing the format in which data should be made available to restoration practitioners, researchers and others. We will continue this discussion at our next team meeting in mid February.

Have the results/data gathered during this reporting period changed the project objectives when compared to your original proposal? Please explain.
No, our objectives have not changed.

Dissemination activities during this reporting period (please include the number of participants where applicable).
Publications and presentations:
Brophy, Laura. Site-Scale Monitoring for Tidal Wetland Restoration and Conservation. Presentation to Joint Meeting of the Association of State Wetland Managers and the Pacific Northwest Chapter of the Society of Wetland Scientists, Portland, Oregon, September 2008. (about 60 participants)

Brophy, Laura. Steps to Successful Tidal Wetland Restoration. Presentation to OWEB Biennial Conference of the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Eugene, Oregon, November 2008. (about 60 participants)

Cornu, Craig. Piloting a Regional Reference Site Network Designed to Improve Tidal Wetland Restoration Planning and Monitoring. Presentation to Restore America's Estuaries National Conference, Providence, Rhode Island, October 2008. (Presentation described the CICEET project concept and early results; about 40 participants)

Laura Brophy explained CICEET studies at the Oregon Coast National Wildlife Refuge Complex sites during a west coast visit by coastal restoration science leaders from USFWS and USGS in September 2008. (6 participants)

Laura Brophy presented CICEET project methods and results to students of Coastal Ecology and Resource Management (Oregon State University/Hatfield Marine Science Center) during a lecture and field trip in the Yaquina River Estuary, September 2008. (15 participants)

Collaborative Activities and Contact with End Users
Laura Brophy completed a series of NOAA web courses during January 7-9 2009, on the following topics: Introduction to Geodetic Leveling, GPS and Tidal Theory, Introduction to Geodetic and Tidal Datums, and Tidal Datum Computations. The coursework has raised the level of her collaboration with NOAA/COOPS on this project, and enhanced her ability to advise Oregon government agencies responsible for coastal resource management and land use planning.

Brophy's recent discussions with NOAA/COOPS include review of tidal datums and geodetic/tidal datum ties for the Oregon coast, and Brophy is providing technical input to several state agencies on this issue, including the Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD)'s Oregon Coastal Management Program (OCMP) and the Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL). Upcoming conference calls between Brophy, OCMP, DSL and NOAA/COOPS will build on the working relationships established during this CICEET project. We hope to continue this fruitful collaboration, and broaden its reach to address issues of critical concern to multiple state and regional resource and land use planning agencies.

During this reporting period, we maintained and strengthened the contacts listed in our previous progress reports, and established new contacts, including the following organizational "key players" in tidal wetland restoration on the Oregon coast: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); U.S. Forest Service (USFS); Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife (ODFW); North Coast Land Trust (NCLC); The Wetlands Conservancy (TWC); Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board (OWEB); Oregon Department of State Lands (DSL); Oregon Department of Land Conservation and Development (DLCD); Battelle Marine Sciences Laboratory/Pacific Northwest National Laboratory (PNNL); The Nature Conservancy (TNC); Ducks Unlimited (DU); Coos Watershed Association (CWA); Coquille Watershed Association (CoqWA); MidCoast Watersheds Council (MCWC); Salmon-Drift Watershed Council (SDWC); Siuslaw Watershed Council (SWC); Siuslaw Soil and Water Conservation District (SWCD); Confederated Tribes of Coos, Lower Umpqua and Coquille Indians (CTCLUSI); and the Oregon Department of Transportation (ODOT). These personal contacts are a very effective way to spread the word about our CICEET activities to our close-knit community of estuarine restoration practitioners, researchers and planners. Our interactions with these groups confirm a very high level of interest in the technologies and data we are developing.

Difficulties
No difficulties have been encountered during this period, except for the continuing challenge presented by Alpha Omega's delays (see work task 9 above).

Data Generated to date
Water levels/tidal elevations: To maximize the completeness of our datasets and provide some redundancy, we continued monitoring water levels at most of our sites through January 2009. As of February 2009, we are collecting water level data only at Coal Creek Swamp, where the 2007-2008 data may have been adversely affected by strong winter storms in late 2007. The 1- 1.5 yr datasets at the other sites are complete.

Salinity: We continued monitoring salinity at our tidal swamp sites, Coal Creek and Blind Slough, during September-December 2008. We collected these data using YSI sondes.

Project Objectives for Next Reporting Period

Objectives
1. Complete the description of tidal inundation regimes at study sites.
2. Finalize analysis and interpretation of results, including reference conditions database, with the goal of providing practical guidance for tidal wetland restoration practitioners.
3. Post project data to the Oregon Explorer web portal.
4. Submit project results to CICEET.

Work Plan to Meet Objectives
1. Continue working with NOAA/COOPS to complete inundation models for study sites, and to express inundation regimes using accessible, user-friendly metrics.
2. Incorporate end user feedback into reference conditions matrix.
3. Prepare a brief "user's guide" on using iButtons to detect tidal inundation.
4. Prepare a brief "user's guide" to the reference conditions database generated by this project.
5. Review existing literature and compare to insights gained during this project.
6. Write final report and submit to CICEET.
7. Contribute project results to NERRS/NOAA Restoration Center.
8. Continue to assist AO with steps towards final delivery of the wireless multichannel sensor networks.
9. Field-test the AO wireless multichannel sensor networks.
10. Finalize decisions regarding appropriate formats for web presentation of reference conditions data.
11. Post final project results and project information on the OR Explorer website.

Dissemination Objectives for next reporting period
The next reporting period will be our final one. We will distribute our final results in five ways: 1) our project Final Report; 2) the Oregon Explorer web portal; 3) brief "user guides" to iButtons and the reference conditions database generated in this project; 4) discussions with our colleagues and practitioners; and 5) presentations at professional meetings.

Overall Project Timeline Update
Our timeline remains the same as in the last progress report (no-cost extension granted through September 30, 2009). The objectives and work tasks listed above for the next reporting period reflect this extended timeline.

Expenditures
Our technical lead, Laura Brophy, has spent more time on the project than anticipated, and co-PIs John Christy and Paul Adamus have spent less time than anticipated. We are revising project subcontracts to reflect this change. Total expenditures are in the range expected.

End User Advisor Feedback
End User Advisor: Jon A. Souder
Organization: Coos Watershed Association
Location: Charleston, OR 97420
Phone number: (541) 888-5922
E-mail: jsouder@cooswatershed.org

SPECIAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS PROGRESS REPORT: Please comment on the two versions of the reference conditions database provided (Table 1 and Table 2).

1. What changes would you like to see in these tables?
Feedback: Table 1 seems much more useful to me compared to Table 2, which is basically a summary. While the sample site numbers are low, additional analyzes (such as cluster analysis) might help differentiate between the physical/chemical conditions that indicate the likelihood that a specific vegetation community might be able to be established. The ranges provided in Table 2 are less useful due to the significant overlap among many of the variables regardless of vegetation community type.

PI response: We appreciate Jon's input. In our final report, we will provide both tables (data on individual sites, and averages by wetland class). Following Jon's feedback, we separated out the Columbia River (Blind Slough) data in Table 2 in order to demonstrate that the large range in tidal elevations for this wetland class was due to the unexpectedly low tidal elevations of the Columbia plots. We are rechecking the Columbia results and comparing them to existing literature and current research in the Columbia estuary. In our final report we will provide details, statistical summaries, and interpretation for these data.

In our final report, we plan to address Jon's comments by providing means and standard deviations rather than just ranges. For this draft, we displayed ranges because the table is currently based on a very small number of examples of each wetland class, so we felt that means and standard deviations would not be useful. As we add sites to build a more robust reference conditions database, we will continue recalculating means for each habitat class, and we expect standard deviations to become smaller.

Finally, Julie Custer (M.S. student on our team) is conducting cluster analysis of salinity data and plant community composition for numerous tidal wetlands on the Oregon coast, including the CICEET study sites. We will report on the results in our final report.

2. How do you envision using the information in the tables?
Feedback: I can foresee a couple of uses of the information developed from the reference sites. First, on existing sites where we have the potential to reconnect tidal influence, knowing the acceptable inundation range, bed elevations, soil salinity, etc. will allow us to predict which vegetation communities will come in naturally. Second, with this information, we can design bed elevations in sites that will be required to restore target vegetation communities.

PI response: These are precisely the types of uses we envisioned when we began this project. We also hope that this information will allow practitioners to locate and select appropriate sites for restoring specific habitat classes. Sites that are already at the appropriate elevation are cheaper to restore and have higher likelihood of success, since grading compacts wetland soils and disrupts soil profiles.

3. What additional information would you like to see in the tables? (Note that the next draft will include summaries of groundwater levels, tidal inundation regimes and macroinvertebrates � information currently being analyzed.)
Feedback: Without seeing how the groundwater levels, tidal inundation regimes, and macroinvertebrate data will be displayed it is difficult to make a recommendation. PI response: We are currently developing the above data and will provide them in the next draft.

GENERAL QUESTIONS AS REQUESTED FOR ALL PROGRESS REPORTS:

At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
Feedback: We will be using the reference data in the design of tidal wetland restoration projects. The forested tidal swamp and scrub-shrub tidal swamps are two types that are presently quite rare in our area (but according to historic information they were fairly common). Having good, quantitative data that we can use to design these restoration projects will be extremely beneficial.

The improvements in the groundwater monitoring well installation procedures will be used at one of our project sites as we move into the monitoring phase. We have noticed that our existing wells suffer from the same problems identified in the CICEET report.

PI response: We are gratified by Jon's feedback and pleased that he has a solid technical approach to restoration of these highly impacted habitat classes. We will emphasize to Jon and other end users that our revised groundwater monitoring well redesign is experimental, and we are not yet certain whether it will be successful in excluding surface tidal flows.

Feedback: We anticipate working for the Principal Investigators to test these technologies at one of our restoration projects in 2009. I think the use of the iButton temperature sensors as indicators of tidal inundation will only be useful if there is a macro program that can accurately predict tidal cycles from the downloaded temperature data. Otherwise the cost savings from using the inexpensive iButtons will be outweighed by the costs associated with determining whether temperature changes were the result of diurnal fluctuations or inundation.

PI response: We hope that as Jon works with the iButtons, he will find (as we did) that inundation is easily detected when it occurs at night; only daytime inundation events are obscured by diurnal temperature fluctuations. For this reason, our end user guidelines -- provided in previous progress reports -- suggest that iButtons be deployed when the higher high tide occurs at night. (A concise user guide to deploying iButtons for detection of tidal inundation will be included in the final products from this grant.) However, we agree with Jon that an automated procedure for detecting inundation from the iButton temperature curves would be useful.

Feedback: The Alpha Omega dataloggers will be useful only if their reliability and cost are competitive with similar units. There will be competition from the likes of YSI and Onset who can provide similar units, but are limited due to their expense. To be useful, the AO datalogger must be both cheap and reliable. Just cheap won't be sufficient; just reliable without a cost advantage will not be competitive with other manufacturers.

PI response: We totally agree with Jon and are have been emphasizing these points to AO during the course of this grant.

Questions/comments/ suggestions for the researchers?
Feedback: I've discussed our suggestions with Laura Brophy during the review of a previous version of this progress report. I'm hoping that the final report will incorporate additional statistical/quantitative evaluation that differentiates among the conditions that lead to vegetation communities in the reference sites. I'm less interested in the macroinvertebrate communities than the physical-chemical boundaries.

PI response: We greatly appreciate Jon's input to an earlier draft of this progress report; we made substantial revisions in response to his comments. We are currenly developing the statistical and quantitative analyses he requests, and are greatly looking forward to providing the results in our final report.

Has anything changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period (not applicable to the first Progress Report)?

Feedback: No, just the passage of time.

End User Advisor: Stan Van de Wetering
Organization: Confederated Tribes of Siletz Indians
Location: Siletz, OR
Phone number: 541-444-8294
E-mail: stanv@ctsi.nsn.us

Laura Brophy met with Stan on 2/25/09 and discussed our progress in detail. The following pages summarize Stan's feedback.

SPECIAL QUESTIONS FOR THIS PROGRESS REPORT:
Please comment on the two versions of the reference conditions database provided (Table 1 and Table 2).

1. What changes would you like to see in these tables?
Feedback: Stan agrees that the "user-friendly" tidal inundation regime (TIR) metrics we are proposing to add to the table, such as number of days inundated in winter vs. summer, would be a good "reality check" for less technical end users. For his own use, Stan finds tidal elevation (elevation relative to tidal datums like MHHW) to be a useful metric because he is very familiar with Oregon tide cycles and inundation regimes.

PI response: We will proceed as planned, incorporating both tidal elevations and more "user-friendly" TIR metrics.

2. How do you envision using the information in the tables?
Feedback: Stan envisions using the database to inform his research on estuarine productivity and wildlife habitat functions, particularly foraging opportunities for juvenile salmonids and lamprey.

PI response: We are pleased that Stan will find this information useful.

3. What additional information would you like to see in the tables? (Note that the next draft will include summaries of groundwater levels, tidal inundation regimes and macroinvertebrates � information currently being analyzed.)
Feedback: Stan suggested we incorporate some metrics specific to fisheries and fish habitat into the tables. Specifically, he is interested in data on seasonal changes in channel water salinity and temperature. He requested the following metrics: mean and running average of high tide channel water salinity by month; mean and running average of high tide channel water temperature by month. If we need to limit the data displayed in the reference conditions database, Stan suggested we show data for June and August.

PI response: We appreciate this excellent feedback and will follow Stan's suggestions.

At this stage, what are the potential applications for this research? Please discuss how you and others could potentially use the technology.
Feedback: Besides the applications mentioned in Stan's feedback on previous progress reports, Stan also hopes to use the Alpha Omega dataloggers to investigate juvenile salmonid use of tidal wetlands. He is interested in seasonal patterns of channel water salinity, and how timing of juvenile outmigration relates to late spring/early summer reductions in streamflow, and the associated rise in tidal channel water salinities.

PI response: These are the types of end uses we envisioned when we initiated this project; we are glad to see that our products will be useful.

What are the key challenges to application of this technology? Please consider the technology itself as well as issues related to regulation, politics, socio-economic pressures, trends in the field etc.
Feedback: Stan does not see any obstacles to widespread adoption of the multichannel wireless sensor networks (AO) or iButton technologies. He was interested in learning the projected price for the Alpha Omega devices.

PI response: Alpha Omega has not yet provided that information, but they have promised to provide an estimated price point after field testing of the "beta" devices.

Has anything changed about this project's potential applicability since the last reporting period?
No.

Questions/comments/ suggestions for the researchers?
Feedback: Given the challenges with measuring groundwater levels in tidal wetlands, Stan asked if soil moisture monitoring at different soil depths could be a simpler way of tracking soil conditions.

PI response: We weighed the benefits of using soil moisture meters vs. shallow observation wells during methods development for this project. We decided to use shallow observation wells since they are much more commonly used in wetlands research, and we sought maximum comparability of our data with other research. Also, we weren't certain that soil moisture meters would be well suited for resolving the critical distinctions between wetland and nonwetland conditions (i.e., soil moistures just below and above saturation). Commercially available soil moisture meters are aimed at the agricultural market, and the focus is therefore on soil moisture levels near field capacity. However, given the challenges we have encountered during groundwater monitoring, a combined approach using both shallow observation wells and soil moisture monitoring might provide good results. We will consider this approach in future research.