The ISRP recommends the following conditions be addressed in the next annual report and work plan:

1. Working relationships. Better describe the working relationships and responsibilities among this project, the Estuary Monitoring project (200300700), and the various other projects receiving funds from this project, as well as independently from BPA and other entities. 
   
   
2. Proposed restoration sites (SMART objectives). Provide site-specific information on each new site proposed for restoration during the 2021 to 2025 project period: a) the ecological attributes of the new sites, b) why they were selected, c) the goals and SMART objectives for each site/project (i.e., a quantitative description of desired future conditions), d) the type(s) of evaluation that will be used for each site to determine if actions have successfully met the SMART objectives, e) an objective assessment of potential site-specific contributions to the ecological conditions and resources (e.g., juvenile salmonids) in the Columbia Estuary, and f) the strategy and responsibility for long-term maintenance of the sites.

The bulk of the proposal presents the various general justifications and the processes employed for selecting and restoring sites rather than providing information on the proposed activities for specific sites. In reality, the revised proposal remains two projects in one and thus is difficult to fully evaluate. For instance, it is not clear which organization(s) or project(s) has ultimate responsibility for specific projects and/or specific activities. From the ISRP’s viewpoint, one part of this project conducts site-specific restoration while the second part assists partner organizations in various ways to meet their restoration goals/objectives. This proposal would have been much easier to evaluate if the two major activities had been presented separately, with justifications and budgets for each. It is simply not clear in the complex narrative who is responsible for specific activities. Perhaps a comprehensive table or flow chart would clarify the complex activities, roles, and responsibilities. For instance, the Estuary Monitoring project (200300700) conducts some activities, the Estuary Habitat project (this proposal) conducts other actions as well as restoration, and a variety of partners receive funds from this project, as well as from BPA’s Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program (CEERP) and other entities, to conduct even more activities. These relationships need to be clearly described in terms of responsibilities, site-specific activities and expected outcomes. While the division of labor and responsibilities – and the expected outcomes – appear to be fully understood by the proponents, they are not entirely clear in the proposal.

Further, activities at the sites to be restored and/or protected are not adequately described, nor are the expected outcomes. While we appreciate that the revised proposal describes in great detail the numerous processes involved in selecting sites, conducting restoration, and adaptively managing the processes, these details also mask the actual site-specific activities planned for 2021 - 2025. The site-specific activities are never fully described in the narrative (some general information is provided in Appendix 2 as a Gantt chart and very briefly on p. 31). See Condition 2 above for requested information.

In our preliminary review, we requested additional information and clarifications on several topics. Our final comments are based on the proponents’ responses:

1. Problem Statement. The ISRP is concerned that the LCEP or another organization is not tracking whether restoration activities are keeping up with urban, industrial, and residential development, nor the conversion of native habitats to impervious surfaces. Tracking development along the river and tributaries should be high priority for future investigations, as well as the integration of climate adaptation measures into the restoration activities.
   
   The Columbia Estuary has entered a unique environmental era, and the proponents identify several vitally important issues (p. 7). These include how to manage sites for “novel” species assemblages as organisms move in response to environmental change and shifts in climate and how workings lands can be enhanced to improve sequestration of carbon, retain soil, and improve nutrient cycling (all components of limiting global change effects). Projecting a clear strategy will be essential for charting a successful course forward, and the ISRP is pleased to see the proponents are starting those conversations. 
   
   
2. SMART Objectives. In general, the overall SMART objectives are well stated (p. 17). However, SMART objectives are also needed for each new site proposed for restoration in the 2021 to 2025 period. The ISRP notes that the LCEP requires, through the project application: information on quantifiable objectives, a timeline of activities, maps of the activities, and a description of the post-construction monitoring and management activities, including an adaptive management plan, along with other information. The Project Review Committee also ensures these objectives are clear and well-formulated within their evaluation recommendations to project partners. The ISRP expects the LCEP to share information on the SMART objectives for the new projects in their next annual report and work plan. It is still not clear to the ISRP what the proponents mean by “recover.” The proponents should better explain how the term is used relative to the restoration of specific. Does it mean only the acreage treated or does it include attaining a predetermined objective for fish abundance or other biological characteristics? 
   
   
3. M&E Matrix – Support. The M&E summary and matrix are included in the Estuary Monitoring proposal (200300700). The map and updated tables were also provided to the partners – CREST, CLT, CIT, and WDFW – for inclusion in their responses to the ISRP. As the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program develops efforts to identify monitoring activities and coordination between projects in major subbasins, the ISRP encourages this project to contribute its expertise and resources to help create an effective summary for the lower Columbia River. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. In addition to providing important information for the Fish and Wildlife Program, development of an overall summary of the M&E efforts in the lower Columbia River also would inform and strengthen the restoration efforts of this project. 
   
   
4. New Projects. While the proponents revised the proposal to include more information on the reasons why these projects were selected, they did not fully satisfy the ISRP request. Specific information needed by the ISRP is detailed in the overall comments above and as part of the Conditions.
   
   
5. Benefits to Fish and Wildlife. As the ISRP indicated in our review of the companion Columbia Estuary Monitoring project (200300700), the response by the proponents raises concerns for the ISRP. Despite substantial long-term funding for restoration and protection of juvenile salmonid habitat, the project does not, nor do the other estuary projects (CREST, CLT, WDFW, CIT, LCEP restoration projects), document the benefits to fish from the habitat restoration (e.g., total abundance, size at smoltification, or survivorship). The ISRP agrees with the proponents that an important information gap must be filled to evaluate the usefulness of many of the restoration and protection actions. A starting point could be to use the recently completed 2020 PNNL and NMFS diagnostic study to document that restoration provides immediate benefits to juvenile salmon and steelhead using the lower Columbia River. The ISRP encourages the proponents to partner with the appropriate agencies and groups in the very near future to see that appropriate monitoring data are collected to demonstrate that habitat restoration and protection are producing positive benefits for juvenile salmonids. In other words, the proponents should develop and implement a strategy for collecting the necessary information.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

The ISRP regards the Partnership, as it did during the previous review in 2017, to be an essential project for the Columbia River estuary. It continues to provide a wide variety of services to estuarine partners, as well as actively leveraging funding and other resources to improve environmental conditions for the entire estuarine ecosystem. Specifically, the ISRP appreciates the focus in the current proposal on climate change, the incorporation of appropriate scientific concepts into the programmatic strategy, and the efforts to provide cool-water refuges for migrating fish. 

However, this proposal is, in reality, two projects combined into one. The first project conducts site-specific restoration while the second acts as an umbrella project to assist partner organizations in meeting their restoration goals. This proposal would have been much easier to evaluate if the two activities had been presented separately, with justifications and budgets for each. It was simply not clear in the complex narrative who is responsible for specific actions. The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following points in a revised proposal and to provide a brief point-by-point response to explain how and where each issue is addressed in the revised proposal:

 

1. Problem statement. Provide a problem statement that justifies the activities and restoration actions specific to this proposal. The proponents provide basically the same Problem Statement as the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring project (2003-007-00), but it is not clear what differentiates them.
   
   Many other regional restoration activities are also focused on the estuary. It is essential that the proponents make a strong case here for the significance of this proposal’s activities to fish and wildlife benefits as well as for differentiating this project’s activities from those of other estuarine projects. 
   
   Define the terms “Recover” and “Restore.” These terms are used widely in the proposal and need to be explicitly defined. As well, the proposal should detail the types of “priority” habitats being targeted. 
   
   
2. SMART objectives. Provide SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for the approaches employed to meet the stated general objectives.
   
   Clarify whether the Partnership’s Project Review Committee insists on SMART objectives and a functional adaptive management process for all new activities (p. 27). 
   
   
3. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a matrix to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring Project (200300700) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Lower Columbia geographic area. We ask this project (200301100) to assist them in creating the summary and provide information about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. 
   
   
4. New projects. Provide justifications for the several new projects (e.g., Multnomah Channel Natural Area, cold water pilot project, and others). Since they appear in the budget as one-time costs, it is essential that details be provided of the prioritization process for the five implementation projects, the attributes of the projects, and why they were selected, clear goals and SMART objectives for each project, type of evaluation they will use for each project, and an overall assessment of the cumulative contribution to the ecological resources (e.g., juvenile salmonids) in the Columbia Estuary. 
   
   
5. Benefits to fish and wildlife. Provide empirical information showing that the restoration actions are making an ecologically significance difference. Even though juvenile salmonids make use of restored and reconnected wetlands, no data (or references) are provided to demonstrate that vital life history processes have improved (e.g., total abundance, growth, condition, size at smoltification, survivorship). The species present and those likely to benefit should also be identified, as estuary use varies greatly among species and life history types.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

There is every indication that the project is well conceived and has a strong scientific basis for the proposed activities. Overall, it has a strong track record for the restoration and protection of habitats.

The ISRP agrees with the proponents that climate adaptation and mitigation is where the focus of the work should lie. However, the stated objectives are very general (see p. 19): no net loss and recover 30% of priority habitat by 2030. More detail is provided in the associated narrative about methods and ecological principles to be employed to meet these general objectives. The proponents should provide SMART objectives for the approaches employed during the upcoming funding period.

It is not clear if the climate adaptation and mitigation activities will occur at the expense of working on other objectives. Will staff with different expertise be required? Is additional funding being requested to cover this new focus in work? More information is required to evaluate the shift in project focus.

In the Problem Statement section, the proponents mention creating a guidebook describing climate adaptation techniques and standards, but funding for this effort is not clearly noted. This product would likely benefit others working throughout the Columbia and in other basins as well. Having dedicated funding to develop this guidebook will be essential.

Most importantly, no justifications or other details are provided for several “new” projects (e.g., Multnomah Channel Natural Area, cold water pilot project, and others), yet they appear in the budget as one-time costs. If these are important activities, then adequate detail is needed for the ISRP to evaluate their feasibility and ecological importance.

The proponents should provide the missing details of the prioritization process for the five implementation projects. These should include the attributes of the projects, why they were selected, clear goals and SMART objectives for each project, type of evaluation that will be used for each project, and an overall assessment of the cumulative contribution to the ecological resources (e.g., juvenile salmonids) in the Columbia Estuary.

In the Problem Statement section, the proponents provide striking evidence for challenges related to water quality issues in the LCRE, including describing specific toxics and documented effects on fishes. However, efforts to address water quality are not described in the proposal. The ISRP assumes that water quality is not addressed because BPA does not support research or monitoring of toxins. Nevertheless, the issue of water quality needs to be addressed, and more information on how that will be done would be helpful, including if it will be a focus in the future, even if supported by other sources or conducted by other projects.

In the Progress to Date section, the proponents describe two broad types of achievements: 1) restoration and protection actions and 2) programmatic accomplishments. The programmatic outreach accomplishments are critical to the program’s success but are not adequately described. Specific descriptions of the effects and impacts of outreach efforts as part of the programmatic accomplishments would be helpful going forward.

Under Goals and Objectives, the proponents highlight four types of ecological attributes used to measure biological integrity (natural habitat diversity, focal species, water quality, and ecosystem processes). Somewhat surprisingly, they indicate that only the first two will be addressed by this project. The lack of discussion on targets for water quality and ecosystem processes is a limitation. At a minimum, could the proponents describe how they might identify benchmarks for water quality and ecosystem processes (i.e., perhaps through future workshops)?

Related to this, while the proponents described objectives for habitat diversity in detail (and this was quite helpful), the discussion on focal species was more limited. Some specific mention of species being targeted would be helpful. Later in the proposal, the proponents mention that they are setting habitat restoration targets based on numbers of native species that would be protected. If that set of organisms (60-80% of native species) is the group of target species, stating that would be helpful.

Q2: Methods

The methods, and the fundamental principles guiding the activities, are well accepted in the scientific and conservation communities, and are appropriate for this activity. Earlier in this review, the ISRP noted that: “This proposal would be much easier to evaluate if the two activities had been presented separately, with separate justifications and budgets for each.” If this change was implemented, organizing the methods according to the two types of activities would also be helpful for evaluation.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

This is an umbrella project where, for the most part, monitoring is conducted by a companion LCEP project. Given the difficulties inherent in estuaries as habitats for research and monitoring, the proponents have gone to considerable lengths to have a scientific study design treating restoration as a series of experiments (e.g., BACI), implementing a structured decision-making process, establishing a solid data collection and analysis process, and conducting several levels of scientific and policy review. While this is clearly a large and complex project, it is closely linked with many other projects and entities and has a strong scientific foundation. The ISRP also feels that the project adjustment process is comprehensive and has functioned at a high level for many years. The proponents appear to have an excellent process in place to address existing and emerging Adaptive Management issues.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The program as a whole is well conceived and seems to be effective in providing benefits to fish and wildlife. The collection of site-specific projects is having positive ecological outcomes. Restoring 30% of the estuary to a better ecological status is a formidable challenge, and the LCEP is making steady progress. Nevertheless, even though juvenile salmonids are making use of the restored and reconnected wetland, no data are provided to demonstrate that vital life history processes have improved (e.g., total abundance, growth, condition, size at smolting, survivorship). Are the restoration actions making an ecologically significant difference? The “currency” used to gauge success could be out-migrating salmonids, or other fish-specific metrics, in addition to or rather than acres restored.

The ISRP also suggests that it would be helpful to have the metrics, in addition to the number of projects completed or acres restored, reported relative to some eventual, achievable goal. For instance, what fraction of the realistic total number of projects or acres considered for restoration has already been restored or otherwise addressed? It seems likely that initially the "low hanging fruit gets picked first," and thus the pace of success may be rapid at first but then slow down as more complex projects are tackled, more recalcitrant landowners encountered, and so forth. Even a rough sense of this will be helpful because at some point the costs will exceed the likely gains in fish and wildlife benefits.

 

General observations

The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership provided a comprehensive and thoughtful response to our questions. The Partnership indicated that they are currently focusing on activities that restore fish access and improve habitat that has been cut-off from the mainstem Columbia. In addition, they and their partners are working to combine multiple actions to create larger projects. The roles of the various partners were clearly presented and are coordinated to avoid conflicts over project management and actions. The partners include the Columbia Land Trust, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Cowlitz Indian Tribe, the Partnership, and the Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce. The Partnership is currently developing a broader ecosystem approach for its restoration activities. A description of this method was provided, and it will be used in the future to prioritize areas in the lower Columbia that should be protected or restored.

The Partnership indicated that the AEMR approach it is using (Johnson et al. 2013) to evaluate its projects is a work in progress and they would be receptive to a review of the document by the ISRP if needed. An AEMR leadership team has been created. Since BPA staff members are on the leadership team the sponsors state that the results of their monitoring work will be coordinated with ISEMP, CHaMP, and BPA’s AEM methods so that project data can be used in basinwide analyses. The methods used to determine the level of monitoring each project will receive were described in adequate detail. Some additional discussion about how the Partnership’s 51 reference areas will be used was not addressed. Use of these sites should be indicated in future AEMR designs for the Partnership’s projects.

The Partnership is seeking funding to include socio-economics in its project selection process. Currently it receives no funding for outreach and signage. We recommend that the sponsors work with their partners to include signage as a project endpoint to educate the public on what restoration work was done and the biological benefits it is designed to create. This will be a valuable addition to the significant amount of public education that the Partnership does through its school and volunteer programs.

Comment on specific responses

Question 1: In response to ISRP's concern about monitoring, the sponsors stated the Johnson et al. (2013) plan for AEMR monitoring in the estuary is in a pilot phase of implementation. A qualification is to provide the results of this pilot project as soon as they are available.

Question 2: The integration of the 50+ reference sites into the monitoring program is impressive. In general this appears to be a well thought out RM&E program. In response to the ISRP question about the criteria for determining the level of monitoring needed by a project, the description provided of the scoring method used for selection was adequate but should be qualified. A qualification is to provide some examples of how monitoring sites were justified (including statistical or rating scores) to help understand how these sites were selected.

In response to the question asking for an elaboration of the methods used to select monitoring sites, the sponsor responded that “the proposal format for the ISRP Geographic Review was problematic in that it did not allow for a description of our technical approach.” This seems a programmatic issue that should be addressed, perhaps by enabling appendices to proposals. Note, a reference is to Roni et al. 2002, but this is probably a typo that should be Roni 2005.

Question 3: This question concerned the scientific basis for the numerical goal of acres to be restored. The sponsors stated that the numerical goal for restoration is based on opportunism and the anticipated pace of restoration. What the ISRP was asking for was the biological rationale behind their restoration actions—what are the anticipated biological benefits associated with restoring 25,000 acres and is more protection and restoration needed? The answer was only partially adequate, and the ISRP suggests the sponsor survey the scientific literature for possible methods (e.g. modeling) to improve the scientific basis for establishing targets for restoration and employing more suitable metrics. A good description of the rate of restoration in the estuary was provided.

Question 4: The flow chart was very useful to understand the procedures for restoration site selection. A final metric is an economic/ecological mixture ($/SBU), which puts considerable weight on the veracity of SBU determination. The ISRP should be kept informed as results of restoration are developed and expressed as SBUs.

The ISRP also requested information on how or if a landscape approach was included in site selection, but the response was only partially adequate. The physical landscape is clearly considered in the procedure. However, while numerous partners are consulted, the socioeconomic aspects of a true landscape approach (ISAB 2011-4) do not appear to be addressed or incorporated in the current process.

Question 5: More details were requested on the annual goal of starting and managing four to eight new habitat restoration projects. The response was adequate.

Question 6: Information was requested on chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths, a subproject proposed to resolve a critical uncertainty. The question was not answered directly. The ISRP was referred to a draft publication by Roegner et al. 2013, but no link was provided to this document. A short explanation for how barium and strontium deposition in otoliths are being used to estimate body size at estuary entry and residence times would have been useful.

Question 7: This question related to a proposed habitat suitability index for juvenile salmonids in the estuary and on how its use can be justified in an Ecosystem Management approach. The response was partially adequate. The index was explained and shows promise to be useful. However, its role in an ecosystem management approach was not fully explained and justified.

Question 8: The ISRP asked what is the working definition that LCREP uses for resilience?

The response was adequate although the definition offered by Holling (1973) is rather more restricted than the contemporary meaning described in the ISAB report, Using a Comprehensive Landscape Approach for More Effective Conservation and Restoration (ISAB 2011-4, 179 pages).

In response to ISRP's concern about AEMR monitoring (Question 1), the sponsors stated the Johnson et al. (2013) plan is in a pilot phase of implementation. This document answered a number of important questions regarding the design and rationale for monitoring the effectiveness of the estuary restoration projects. However, because it was a draft, the ISRP or ISAB would like to review the final plan when it is available. An estimated date for completion of the pilot project is also requested.

Please provide details of how the 51 reference monitoring sites were selected and justified (including statistical or rating scores) and any explanatory material that will help to understand how these sites were selected (Question 2). This should be included in the finalized AEMR monitoring plan per Johnson et al. (2013).

The ISRP requests a response on following issues:

1) Does the sponsor plan to use the AEM methods recently produced by Roni et al. (2013) in their Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program? If so how will they use them and how does the Roni et al. (2013) report relate to the Johnson et al. (2013) report on estuary monitoring? What is the status of the Johnson et al. (2013) plan and how close is it to being implemented?

Johnson, G., Corbett, C., Doumbia, J., Schwartz, M., Scranton, R., and C. Studebaker (2013) Draft programmatic plan for restoration action effectiveness monitoring and research in the Lower Columbia River estuary . AEMR Plan version January 29 2013. 31 p. (circulated by LCREP representative Catherine Corbett to review members on March 20 2013) 

Roni, P., R. Scranton, J. O’Neal. 2013. Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. Watershed Program, Fisheries Ecology Division Northwest Fisheries Science Center, NOAA Fisheries. Seattle, WA.

2) What are the criteria for determining the level of monitoring needed by a project?

3) The project has a measurable goal to restore 25,000 acres by 2025 which is commendable. What is the scientific basis for this goal?

4) A flow chart to help understand the procedures for choosing sites to be restored is requested. Details of community involvement in keeping with a true landscape approach would be particularly useful.

5) More details are requested on the annual goal of starting and managing four to eight new habitat restoration projects. It appears that the Partnership performs some of its own habitat restoration work, mainly in the area that lies upstream from Portland to the Bonneville Dam. How many of the new projects will be directly undertaken by the Partnership, and where will they take place?

6) “Chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths from Grays, Coweeman, Lewis, Willamette, Sandy, Priest Rapids, Wenatchee, and Methow; Water chemistry of tidal tributary and main-stem sites to evaluate whether otolith barium can be used to reconstruct salmon entry into tidal-fresh environments; consider strontium marking pending results from 2011 analysis” is a very key objective under “critical uncertainties” and more information is required. What is the design of this work?

7) The Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) may be incompatible with the ecosystem approach advocated by the sponsor and often thought to be problematic in its application to the real world (Petts 2009). Further details are requested on how it can be justified in an Ecosystem Management approach. 

8) The sponsors advocate the incorporation of difficult ecological variables in their Ecosystem Management approach but offer few definitions or ways to measure them. For example resilience which is used 7 times in the proposal either as a deliverable or a scoring attribute. What is the working definition that LCREP uses for resilience?

Also see the ISRP’s programmatic comments for the estuary projects.

1. Purpose: Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives

The project is key to Columbia River estuary restorations programs as it is, as the sponsors state," the umbrella of the “umbrella projects.” Therefore it is very significant to regional programs and is clearly connected to CREST, Columbia Land Trust, Watershed Councils and other related estuarine projects.

The objectives are well stated. The technical background is comprehensive, but the narrative could be improved by clearly stating the uncertainties that are based in lack of scientific knowledge.

Ecosystem management is stated to be a backbone of the project, but some aspects of ecosystem management are poorly known and no definitions of them in the context of the Columbia River Estuary are given. An example is resilience which is used seven times in the proposal either as a deliverable or a scoring attribute. Another is biological integrity.

Objective 3 under Critical Uncertainties Research is given as " – Juvenile salmon rearing to adult return:Evaluate juvenile salmon life history strategies and their contributions to adult returns in selected tributaries (2014 – 2018). Methods: Chemical analysis of adult Chinook otoliths from Grays, Coweeman, Lewis, Willamette, Sandy, Priest Rapids, Wenatchee, and Methow; Water chemistry of tidal tributary and main-stem sites to evaluate whether otolith barium can be used to reconstruct salmon entry into tidal-fresh environments; consider strontium marking – pending results from 2011 analysis."

This is a very key objective, and more information is required. What is the design of this work? It is likely this objective is more important than several of the others in the areas of critical uncertainties.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management (Evaluation of Results)

The history of the project is thoroughly documented. The program has made excellent accomplishment toward estuary restoration. Unfortunately information on how survival of salmonids will be improved is still lacking and is not really focused on as a critical uncertainty (see ISAB 2012-6 review of CEERP). The draft report by Cooney and Holzer (2011) (cited in the proposal) dealing with efforts to establish juvenile survival rates in restored areas at the mouths of tributaries including Coweeman River, Grays River, Germany Creek, Mill Creek and Abernathy Creek is a step in the right direction.

The Partnership appears to be constantly refining its activities over time, and adaptive management is well thought out. The addition of the landscape databases, tools to help prioritize restoration site selection, and the creation of a three level AEMR protocol are just a few examples. There is still the lingering issue of how adaptive management will be practiced to cope with some emerging factors, especially invasive species, but presentations indicated some good progress is being made to control invasive plants. Management modifications are made as a result of evaluation of past actions and results but do not seem to include active experimental manipulation to test and revise hypotheses as a formal adaptive management implementation.

It would be useful to have a listing of reports and papers that have specifically resulted from the efforts of project members, split out by projects under the umbrella and the umbrella project itself. An indication of good coordination and cooperation might be a list of papers co-authored by people in both categories.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions

As described in the proposal, the Estuary Partnership works with many partners. Major funding sources include BPA, USACE, NOAA, and USEPA. Partners performing restoration or other contractual work under the Partnership include CREST, CLT, PNNL, Cowlitz Indian Tribe, WDFW, ODFW, watershed councils, soil and water conservation districts, and other entities. The Partnership has established itself as the focal institution for habitat restoration and protection in the region by its relationships with the above groups and local private and public landowners. It serves as the region’s main means of dispersing habitat restoration monies from federal agencies to local entities. Solicitation, review, and selection criteria are clearly documented. A conflict of interest policy is clearly detailed.

The tailored questions were answered. It was noted that the partners, not LCREP, deal with data management and protocol development.

The integration of the 55 reference sites into the monitoring program is an impressive aspect of the monitoring program. In general this appears to be a well thought out RME program.

A number of emerging limiting factors were identified in the proposal but it should be noted the problems are not really emerging. They are here now. Foremost among those was climate change. Changing weather patterns are expected to create warming trends in water temperature, shift the Columbia River plume and raise sea levels causing inundation of floodplain areas. Additionally, increasing storm intensities and wave heights are expected to exacerbate flooding and coastal erosion. Sustained periods of coastal upwelling caused by climate change will reduce dissolved oxygen in coastal waters and also increase acidification of ocean waters which will likely impact the food web and decrease salmonid survival in near coastal waters. The restoration actions carried out by the Partnership cannot address these large issues. However, the sponsors point out that habitat actions in the lower river can improve water temperatures and food web integrity at landscape scales. The occurrence of contaminants or toxics is another acknowledged emerging limiting factor. Contaminants can clearly influence salmonid survival by inducing sub-lethal effects and by reducing the prey base. Lack of funding to address this issue is a major problem. The Partnership is working with a number of partners including the Yakama Nation to identify high priority contaminant sites in the lower river for potential cleanup actions.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

Deliverables are clearly identified and related to work elements. Objectives are clearly related to deliverables. Metrics and methods are linked to cited documentation.

One specific concern was identified in the Large Habitat Program:

1. Holistic Vision and Plan - It is stated that the Restoration Prioritization Strategy will use a Habitat Suitability Index (HIS) Model for juvenile Chinook salmon, which uses model outputs from an Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) hydrodynamic model to predict times and locations that meet suitable water temperature, depth and velocity criteria (Bottom et al. 2005a) for juvenile salmon. However, HIS can be difficult to interpret ecologically (Petts 2009) and is somewhat incompatible with the ecosystem approach advocated by the sponsor. It would be helpful to find out how HIS results will be used in the various restoration projects.

Reference

Petts, Geoffrey E., 2009. Instream Flow Science for Sustainable River Management. Journal of the American Water Resources Association (JAWRA) 45(5):1071-1086. 

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

This group has developed most of the protocols and methods used in estuary monitoring and most of the techniques are reliable and widely adopted (Roegner et al. 2009).

One question for the Partnership would be how or if they will incorporate or use AEM methods recently produced by Roni et al. (2013) in their Action Effectiveness Monitoring of Tributary Habitat Improvement: a Programmatic Approach for the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program. If so how will they use them and how does the Roni et al (2013) report relate to the Johnson et al. (2013) report cited below on estuary monitoring? What is the status of the Johnson et al. (2013) plan and how close is it to being implemented

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 10:03:20 AM.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 9/26/2013 10:04:13 AM.

The proponents have made a sincere effort to respond to the ISRP's questions. The responses by the LCREP were helpful in revealing the general protocols, monitoring plans, and criteria for prioritization of projects (many completed by other organizations, their collaborators, and personnel). LCREP is clearly supporting a broad suite of estuary restoration project in the Lower Columbia River Basin and funds funnel through it to numerous groups. The Partnership appears to be delegating much of the evaluation of results to the other groups, so their role in the projects needs clarification.

Responses by the sponsors reinforced the ISRP's conclusion that the most important aspect of the project is the adaptive management goal under Objective 2 (Applied Adaptive Management Program for Restoration Projects in the Columbia River Estuary). This objective is currently justified and fundable. The proposed workshop among the many agencies and organizations involved in estuarine research and monitoring should be beneficial in providing a "landscape" review of ongoing and proposed work that will assist in collaboration and prioritizing future research and restoration activities. Results and recommendations of the workshop should be made available on-line.

The qualification in the ISRP's final recommendation concerns a deficiency of the sponsor's response regarding Objective 1 (Habitat Restoration Project Implementation Fund). The ISRP asked explicitly ("provide empirical evidence of whether the projects are progressing toward their objectives") for information on results of restoration projects supported by LCREP. Detailed information, however, was not provided in the response. The proponents need to provide a table documenting all projects funded through LCREP, including dates of initiation and completion, funded dollars, agencies conducting the work, location, type of project (e.g., dike breaching), monitoring protocols, and a link to results or publications evaluating effectiveness of restoration actions. The ISRP asked about the distinction between the Science Team and the Science Work Group and the qualifications of the two groups. The response was very good. Input from LCREP's excellent Science Work Group should be sought when developing the information on results of the restoration projects.

The sponsors provided adequate responses to the ISRP's concerns about methods to be used in Objective 3 "Identify and Characterize Reference Sites for Action Effectiveness Research and Status/Trends Monitoring in the Lower Columbia River." The estuarine classification system being developed in Project #200300700 will provide the basis for sampling site stratification, and the collaboration between the groups appears to be good. However, the former project may not produce a peer reviewed classification system in time for their needs. The ISRP recommends that a contingency plan be developed in case this occurs.

The ISRP appreciated the sponsor's detailed responses to the ISRP's concerns about models and strategies to control invasive vegetation.