Views/Actions
Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2003-006-00 - Effectiveness Monitoring of Estuary Restoration in the Grays River and Chinook River Watersheds Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2003-006-00 - Effectiveness Monitoring of Estuary Restoration in the Grays River and Chinook River Watersheds
Project Number:
2003-006-00
Title:
Effectiveness Monitoring of Estuary Restoration in the Grays River and Chinook River Watersheds
Summary:
This project will evaluate the effectiveness of a suite of estuary restoration projects in the Grays River and Chinook River watersheds.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2003
Ending FY:
2011
Stage:
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Burbot
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Chub, Oregon (endangered)
Chum - Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU (threatened)
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Freshwater Mussels
Kokanee
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
OBSOLETE-Carp, Common
OBSOLETE-Catfish
OBSOLETE-Crappie, Black
OBSOLETE-Crappie, White
OBSOLETE-Perch, Yellow
OBSOLETE-Pike, Northern
OBSOLETE-Pikeminnow, Northern
OBSOLETE-Trout, Brown
OBSOLETE-Trout, Lake
OBSOLETE-Walleye
Shad, American
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Trout, Brook
Trout, Bull (threatened)
Trout, Interior Redband
Trout, Rainbow
Whitefish, Mountain
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
None

Historic Habitat Types of Grays Bay Area (source: CREST, 1994)

Figure Name: Figure 1

Document ID: P105043

Document: Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring in the Grays River

Page Number: 3

Project: 2003-006-00

Contract: 28223

Grays Bay Conservation Project Areas

Figure Name: Figure 2

Document ID: P105043

Document: Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring in the Grays River

Page Number: 4

Project: 2003-006-00

Contract: 28223

Grays River monitoring sites. X = seining sites. Trap netting site is located the restored tidal wetland.

Figure Name: Figure 3

Document ID: P105043

Document: Restoration Effectiveness Monitoring in the Grays River

Page Number: 6

Project: 2003-006-00

Contract: 28223


Summary of Budgets

To view all expenditures for all fiscal years, click "Project Exp. by FY"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2017 (Previous) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2018 (Current) $0 $0 $0 $0

FY2019 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Oct-2017

No Decided Budget Transfers

Pending Budget Decision?  No


No Project Cost Share

FY2009 0 %
FY2008 0 %
FY2007 0 %
Fiscal Year Cost Share Partner Total Proposed
Contribution
Total Confirmed
Contribution

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Complete, History, Issued.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Contracted Amount Dates
22699 SOW Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 2003-006-00 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY History $79,000 5/15/2005 - 9/30/2006
28223 SOW Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 2003-006-00 EXP EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING CHINOOK R. ESTUARY History $45,808 8/1/2006 - 12/31/2007



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):1
Completed:1
On time:1
Status Reports
Completed:9
On time:2
Avg Days Late:92

Earliest Subsequent           Accepted Count of Contract Deliverables
Contract Contract(s) Title Contractor Start End Status Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
22699 28223 2003-006-00 EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 05/2005 05/2005 History 9 20 0 0 0 20 100.00% 0
Project Totals 9 20 0 0 0 20 100.00% 0


Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2003-006-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2003-006-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 3 - Does not appear reasonable
Comment: M&E for effectiveness of a variety of estuary projects (not just BPA-funded estuary projects); other estuary project producers authorized/required to evaluate effectiveness; query whether cost-share here is sufficient.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-006-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2003-006-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-006-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2003-006-00 - Effectiveness Monitoring of Estuary Restoration in the Grays River and Chinook River Watersheds
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Does Not Meet Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The sponsors did not provide a systematic and explicit response to the ISRP's comments. Instead, they submitted a revised proposal that was only marginally improved over the original proposal. They provided more data describing results but very little interpretation as requested by ISRP.

Although the sponsors organized the results of past work (project history) according to the objectives of the original proposal as the ISRP recommended, the results should have been better explained. The sponsors simply re-iterated the results of their baseline data gathering but did not add any further interpretation or show how the data would be used to evaluate success or failure of the restoration. The abundance and residence of hatchery and naturally spawning fish were not distinguished, as called for in the original objectives, nor did the sponsors differentiate results from pre- and post restoration activities. The data given in several graphs were not interpreted adequately (e.g., water quality graphs) and some graphs received no interpretation at all. The narrative of the main proposal has errors in figure numbering, making the document difficult to follow. The sponsors did not adequately present overall conclusions derived from the first three years of work. Based on the results presented by the sponsors, it does not appear that the objectives of the original proposal were achieved satisfactorily.

The objectives of the current proposal are improved somewhat over the original proposal, but essential information is still missing. For example, the sponsors appear to be evaluating fish use of restored sites by comparison with reference sites, although they do not say so explicitly. If this is the case, the sponsors should have provided a more complete description of both the restoration and reference sites to demonstrate that the reference sites are similar in physical characteristics to the restored sites prior to initiation of restoration activities. They refer to the reference sites as "undeveloped" but do not describe what "undeveloped" means. Does it mean relatively pristine or disturbed with no restoration actions taken? The sponsors propose to compare fish use of mainstem sites with wetland sites. It is unclear what this comparison will reveal since fish could move regularly between the mainstem and wetlands. The rationale for selection of the trapping and seining sites is not given.

The information given on some key elements such as characteristics of the habitat to be restored is sketchy. The broad vegetation types are provided, but important data are lacking. The description of Devils Elbow, one of the areas to be restored, is not put in the context of the main proposal. The sponsors propose to measure prey utilization by fish and prey abundance in the wetland areas, but they do not describe the analytical methods that will be used to link the two. The proposal has no objective for measuring physical changes in the habitat.

The sponsors rely on the assumption that, "Restoration of historic habitat diversity will restore life history diversity within populations (salmon will occupy restored estuarine habitats and derive survival benefits from that use)." The sponsors proposed possible life history patterns of salmon in the Chinook River but did not explain these patterns or describe how they were derived. Overall, the objectives and approach do not appear to have been adequately thought through; therefore, it is doubtful whether meaningful results can be obtained from this work.



Documentation Links:

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2003-006-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2003-006-00 - Effectiveness Monitoring of Estuary Restoration in the Grays River and Chinook River Watersheds
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Do Not Fund
Comments:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Robert Warren (Inactive) Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST)
Kristi Van Leuven (Inactive) Bonneville Power Administration
Paul Krueger (Inactive) Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
John Baugher (Inactive) Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration