Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Project Number:
2003-007-00
Title:
Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Summary:
The Estuary Partnership in conjunction with USGS will provide dissolved oxygen, temperature, and conductivity data at habitat and fish monitoring locations. USGS will develop a summary report documenting the results of the sampling that will be included in the Estuary Partnership' s Year 5 annual report.
Proposer:
None
Proponent Orgs:
Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2003
Ending FY:
2024
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 50.00%
Lower Columbia Columbia Lower 50.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
RM and E
Focal Species:
All Anadromous Fish
All Anadromous Salmonids
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Deschutes River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Snake River Fall ESU
Chinook - Snake River Spring/Summer ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Upper Willamette River ESU
Chub, Oregon
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Crappie, Black
Crappie, White
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
Other Resident
Perch, Yellow
Pikeminnow, Northern
Sockeye - All Populations
Sockeye - Lake Wenatchee ESU
Sockeye - Okanogan River ESU
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Middle Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Snake River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Columbia River DPS
Steelhead - Upper Willamette River DPS
Sturgeon, White - All Populations except Kootenai R. DPS
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Trout, Brook
Trout, Brown
Trout, Bull
Trout, Lake
Trout, Rainbow
Walleye
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:
FCRPS 2008 – view list of FCRPS 2008 BiOp Actions

RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.1 Evaluate smolt survival and/or fitness from Bonneville Dam through the estuary,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.3 Evaluate juvenile salmonid growth rates & prey resources,
RPA 58.4 Evaluate juvenile salmonid predators,
RPA 58.4 Evaluate juvenile salmonid predators,
RPA 58.4 Evaluate juvenile salmonid predators,
RPA 58.4 Evaluate juvenile salmonid predators,
RPA 58.4 Evaluate juvenile salmonid predators,
RPA 59.1 Map bathymetry and topography of the estuary as needed,
RPA 59.1 Map bathymetry and topography of the estuary as needed,
RPA 59.1 Map bathymetry and topography of the estuary as needed,
RPA 59.1 Map bathymetry and topography of the estuary as needed,
RPA 59.2 Establish habitat classification system ,
RPA 59.2 Establish habitat classification system ,
RPA 59.2 Establish habitat classification system ,
RPA 59.2 Establish habitat classification system ,
RPA 59.2 Establish habitat classification system ,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.4 Understand habitat use & importance to juvenile salmonids,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 59.5 Monitor habitat conditions periodically,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 60.1 Develop limited number of ref. sites for typical habitats ,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.1 Define importance of tidal freshwater/estuary/plume/nearshore,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 61.3 LCR-investigate early life history of salmon populations,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 71.4 Implement std metrics, biz practices, & info collection,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.1 Participate & jointly fund support in reg coordination forums ,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data,
RPA 72.3 Develop a reg mgmt strategy for water, fish & habitat data

Description: Page: 17 Figure 1: Lower Columbia River and estuary (LCRE) with hydrogeomorphic reaches (A-H) outlined and specified by color (2009 version of hydrogeomorphic reaches).

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1048 x 1091

Description: Page: 24 Figure 2: Map of Final Level 5 Geomorphic Catenae for Reaches D–H.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1379 x 1774

Description: Page: 25 Figure 3: Map of Final Level 4 Geomorphic Complexes for Reaches D–H.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1373 x 1774

Description: Page: 26 Figure 4: Map of Final Cultural Features for Reaches D–H.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1410 x 1814

Description: Page: 27 Figure 5: Map of Final Cultural Features and Level 5 Geomorphic Catenae for Reach C.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1410 x 1814

Description: Page: 28 Figure 6: Map of Final Level 4 Geomorphic Complexes for Reach C.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1410 x 1814

Description: Page: 29 Figure 7: Map of Final Level 5 Geomorphic Catenae for Reaches A & B.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1982 x 1387

Description: Page: 30 Figure 8: Map of Final Level 4 Geomorphic Complexes for Reaches A & B.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1982 x 1387

Description: Page: 31 Figure 9: Map of Final Cultural Features for Reaches A & B.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 2012 x 1409

Description: Page: 33 Figure 10a: 2010 Land cover classification: Example of Classified land cover segments

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1285 x 857

Description: Page: 33 Figure 10b: 2010 Land cover classification: Aerial Image of classified area shown in A

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1200 x 800

Description: Page: 38 Figure 11: Map of Reaches A to H, showing the location of the 2011 monitoring sites.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1210 x 935

Description: Page: 41 Figure 12: Close-up maps of Reach E depicting historical conditions and the current shoreline.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1189 x 1056

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13a: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 561 x 421

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13b: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 561 x 421

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13c: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 561 x 429

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13d: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 561 x 421

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13e: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 561 x 420

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13f: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 561 x 420

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13g: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 560 x 420

Description: Page: 42 Figure 13h: 2011 Ecosystem Monitoring sites: (a) Ilwaco ; (b) Whites Island, Cut-Off Slough; (c) Burke Island slough; (d) Goat Island slough; (e) Deer Island south slough; (f) Cunningham Lake; (g) Campbell Slough; and (h) Franz Lake.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 560 x 420

Description: Page: 68 Figure 22: Locations of Ecosystem Monitoring sites in sampled in 2011.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 769 x 491

Description: Page: 68 Figure 23: Locations of Ecosystem Monitoring sites in Reach E sampled in 2011.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 770 x 528

Description: Page: 69 Figure 24: Location of Franz Lake long-term monitoring site in Reach H of the Lower Columbia River and Estuary.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1067 x 845

Description: Page: 69 Figure 25: Location of Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) long-term monitoring sites in Reach F of the Lower Columbia River and Estuary.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1028 x 740

Description: Page: 70 Figure 26: Location of Whites Island long-term monitoring sites in Reach C of the Lower Columbia River and Estuary.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 757 x 556

Description: Page: 70 Figure 27: Location of Ilwaco long-term monitoring site in Reach A of the Lower Columbia River and Estuary.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1082 x 782

Description: Page: 71 Figure 28a: Photographs of 2010 fish sampling Sites A) Deer Island; B) Goat Island; C) Burke Island D) Franz Lake, E) Campbell Slough F) Whites Island, and G) Ilwaco

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 384 x 257

Description: Page: 71 Figure 28b: Photographs of 2010 fish sampling Sites A) Deer Island; B) Goat Island; C) Burke Island D) Franz Lake, E) Campbell Slough F) Whites Island, and G) Ilwaco

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 360 x 262

Description: Page: 71 Figure 28c: Photographs of 2010 fish sampling Sites A) Deer Island; B) Goat Island; C) Burke Island D) Franz Lake, E) Campbell Slough F) Whites Island, and G) Ilwaco

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 375 x 276

Description: Page: 71 Figure 28d: Photographs of 2010 fish sampling Sites A) Deer Island; B) Goat Island; C) Burke Island D) Franz Lake, E) Campbell Slough F) Whites Island, and G) Ilwaco

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 360 x 271

Description: Page: 71 Figure 28e: Photographs of 2010 fish sampling Sites A) Deer Island; B) Goat Island; C) Burke Island D) Franz Lake, E) Campbell Slough F) Whites Island, and G) Ilwaco

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 375 x 269

Description: Page: 71 Figure 28f: Photographs of 2010 fish sampling Sites A) Deer Island; B) Goat Island; C) Burke Island D) Franz Lake, E) Campbell Slough F) Whites Island, and G) Ilwaco

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 300 x 225

Description: Page: 71 Figure 28g: Photographs of 2010 fish sampling Sites A) Deer Island; B) Goat Island; C) Burke Island D) Franz Lake, E) Campbell Slough F) Whites Island, and G) Ilwaco

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 378 x 245

Description: Page: 101 Figure 46: Map of the four fixed water quality monitoring sites monitored in 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 939 x 464

Description: Page: 106 Figure 47a: (A) Google Earth image showing Franz Lake Slough location in relation to Franz Lake and the Columbia River. This image was taken on July 5, 2010, when water in the slough was within its channel. (B) Photo of Franz Lake Slough taken on June 20, 2011 showing the Columbia River (behind the trees) flooding into Franz Lake Slough in the foreground.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 827 x 380

Description: Page: 106 Figure 47b: (A) Google Earth image showing Franz Lake Slough location in relation to Franz Lake and the Columbia River. This image was taken on July 5, 2010, when water in the slough was within its channel. (B) Photo of Franz Lake Slough taken on June 20, 2011 showing the Columbia River (behind the trees) flooding into Franz Lake Slough in the foreground.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 563 x 422

Description: Page: 118 Figure 57a: Google Earth images showing the location of the monitored tidal channel at Ilwaco, WA relative to the main stem of the Columbia River (Baker Bay). The star indicates approximate monitoring location in 2011. (A) Imagery taken September 20, 2009, showing connectivity between the tidal channel and Baker Bay; (B) Imagery taken September 10, 2009, showing the exposed mudflat and poor connectivity between the monitored tidal channel and Baker Bay at low tide.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 763 x 440

Description: Page: 118 Figure 57b: Google Earth images showing the location of the monitored tidal channel at Ilwaco, WA relative to the main stem of the Columbia River (Baker Bay). The star indicates approximate monitoring location in 2011. (A) Imagery taken September 20, 2009, showing connectivity between the tidal channel and Baker Bay; (B) Imagery taken September 10, 2009, showing the exposed mudflat and poor connectivity between the monitored tidal channel and Baker Bay at low tide.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 765 x 437

Description: Page: 130 Figure 68: Photo of the Ilwaco water quality monitoring site, taken June 22, 2011 at low tide. At the deepest part of the channel, the water is less than one foot deep.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 756 x 567

Description: Page: 132 Figure 69: Map of the Lower Columbia River showing the location of moorings outfitted with suites of sensors that collect continuous high-resolution water quality data (BAT=Beaver Army Terminal; Rose City Yacht club, Portland, OR). The mooring at the yacht club will be installed in early 2012.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 447 x 336

Description: Page: 139 Figure 74a: Images showing evidence for zoosporic chytrid infections of the dominant fluvial primary producers in freshwaters of the Lower Columbia River. Shown are two images of Asterionella formosa with attached chytrid sporangia. A) fluorescence microscope image (Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope) showing sporangium stained with a f fluorophore specific for fungi; b) light microscope image showing loss of cell contents presumably due to infection (photo credit for B: M. Maier, OHSU)

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 423 x 437

Description: Page: 139 Figure 74b: Images showing evidence for zoosporic chytrid infections of the dominant fluvial primary producers in freshwaters of the Lower Columbia River. Shown are two images of Asterionella formosa with attached chytrid sporangia. A) fluorescence microscope image (Laser Scanning Confocal Microscope) showing sporangium stained with a f fluorophore specific for fungi; b) light microscope image showing loss of cell contents presumably due to infection (photo credit for B: M. Maier, OHSU)

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 148 x 171

Description: Page: 174 Appendix B-Map 1: Vegetation Site Maps: Baker Bay, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1649 x 1274

Description: Page: 175 Appendix B-Map 2: Vegetation Site Maps: Whites Island, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1851 x 1430

Description: Page: 176 Appendix B-Map 3: Vegetation Site Maps: Burke Island, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1105 x 1430

Description: Page: 177 Appendix B-Map 4: Vegetation Site Maps: Goat Island, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1851 x 1430

Description: Page: 178 Appendix B-Map 5: Vegetation Site Maps: Deer Island, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1851 x 1430

Description: Page: 179 Appendix B-Map 6: Vegetation Site Maps: Cunningham Lake, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1851 x 1430

Description: Page: 180 Appendix B-Map 7: Vegetation Site Maps: Campbell Slough, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1851 x 1430

Description: Page: 181 Appendix B-Map 8: Vegetation Site Maps: Franz Lake, 2011

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P126759

Dimensions: 1851 x 1430

Description: Page: 26 Figure 2: Classification Level 4 Draft Aquatic Ecosystem Complexes illustrated for entire LCRE.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 992 x 1280

Description: Page: 28 Figure 3: Classification Level 5 (Geomorphic Catena) illustrated for Hydrogeomorphic Reaches D,E,G,H.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 992 x 1280

Description: Page: 29 Figure 4: Classification Level 5, Cultural Features (Geomorphic Catena) illustrated for Hydrogeomorphic Reaches D,E,G,H.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 992 x 1280

Description: Page: 31 Figure 5: Existing bathymetric gaps ranked by priority for data collection at 2007 workshop.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 1100 x 700

Description: Page: 32 Figure 7: Bathymetry survey plan showing LCRE divided into 11 data collection groups. In 2010, gaps in Groups 6,10 & 11 were targeted, in addition to gaps in remaining groups which were missed in 2009.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 975 x 637

Description: Page: 34 Figure 8: Map of LCRE showing bathymetry data collected in 2009 (green), and 2010 (pink).

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 896 x 609

Description: Page: 36 Figure 9: Draft land cover sample from map generated for the 2nd field effort.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 948 x 711

Description: Page: 38 Figure 10: Map of EMP sites throughout the LCRE by year and monitoring type.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 1170 x 900

Description: Page: 40 Figure 11a: Map showing 2010 sampling sites in Reach C.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 1300 x 1000

Description: Page: 41 Figure 11b: Map showing 2010 sampling sites in Reaches F to H.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 1300 x 1000

Description: Page: 43 Figure 12a: Historic (1880s) map of the Reach C monitoring area. The most recent shoreline delineation is shown in orange.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 676 x 375

Description: Page: 43 Figure 12b: Present day map of the Reach C monitoring area. The most recent shoreline delineation is shown in orange.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 676 x 375

Description: Page: 43 Figure 13a: Photos of Reach C sites: Whites Island

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 586 x 440

Description: Page: 43 Figure 13b: Photos of Reach C sites: Jackson Island

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 586 x 440

Description: Page: 44 Figure 13c: Photos of Reach C sites: Wallace Island

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 586 x 440

Description: Page: 44 Figure 13d: Photos of Reach F sites: Campbell Slough

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 586 x 440

Description: Page: 44 Figure 13e: Photos of Reach F sites: Cunningham Lake

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 586 x 440

Description: Page: 46 Figure 15: Map of Reach A to F, showing the location of the 2010 sampling sites.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 798 x 530

Description: Page: 65 Figure 22a: Campbell Slough, Roth Unit, Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge. Ponded area, yellow arrow shows direction to water-quality monitor.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 615 x 461

Description: Page: 65 Figure 22b: Campbell Slough, Roth Unit, Ridgefield Wildlife Refuge. Pipe housing used to deploy water-quality monitor. (This picture is from 2008. In 2009, an extra piece of pipe was added so that the monitor was not left out of the water as happened in 2008.)

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 621 x 463

Description: Page: 73 Figure 25: Locations of Ecosystem Monitoring sites in Reach C.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 1125 x 858

Description: Page: 73 Figure 26: Location of Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge (NWR) long-term monitoring sites in Reach F of the Lower Columbia River and Estuary.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 881 x 478

Description: Page: 111 Figure 49a: Cunningham Lake photos from 2005-2009 (2006 was not available). Photos all taken during the period between July 18 and July 26.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 369 x 278

Description: Page: 111 Figure 49b: Cunningham Lake photos from 2005-2009 (2006 was not available). Photos all taken during the period between July 18 and July 26.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 367 x 277

Description: Page: 111 Figure 49c: Cunningham Lake photos from 2005-2009 (2006 was not available). Photos all taken during the period between July 18 and July 26.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 369 x 277

Description: Page: 111 Figure 49d: Cunningham Lake photos from 2005-2009 (2006 was not available). Photos all taken during the period between July 18 and July 26.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 367 x 275

Description: Page: 123 Figure 66: Locations of long-term monitoring sites at a) Campbell Slough in the Ridgefield National Wildlife Refuge in Reach F of the Lower Columbia River and b) Franz Lake in Reach H of the Lower Columbia River.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 898 x 700

Description: Page: 160 Figure 86: Study site locations for community characterization of tidal forested wetlands of the Columbia River estuary.

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 919 x 602

Description: Page: 183 Figure 100: Hydrogeomorphic reaches of the Columbia River estuary (Data courtesy of Jennifer Burke, University of Washington. Imagery is ESRI World Imagery, December 2009).

Project(s): 2003-007-00

Document: P122310

Dimensions: 823 x 561


Summary of Budgets

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

To see more detailed project budget information, please visit the "Project Budget" page

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $1,114,013 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2024 Expense $1,163,030 From: General FY24 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2023

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2024   DRAFT
Cost Share Partner Total Proposed Contribution Total Confirmed Contribution
There are no project cost share contributions to show.
Previous Fiscal Years
Fiscal Year Total Contributions % of Budget
2023 $4,000 0%
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018 $14,142 1%
2017
2016 $20,000 2%
2015 $20,000 2%
2014 $840,399 43%
2013 $1,333,788 54%
2012 $1,628,174 57%
2011 $1,065,087 51%
2010
2009 $1,975,000 67%
2008 $1,225,600 56%
2007 $1,300,000 67%

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, Closed, Complete, History, Issued.
* "Total Contracted Amount" column includes contracted amount from both capital and expense components of the contract.
Expense Contracts:
Number Contractor Name Title Status Total Contracted Amount Dates
15114 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 LOWER COL. RIVER/EST ECOSYSTEM MONITOR Closed $985,494 9/1/2003 - 8/31/2005
24617 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 LOWER COL RIVER/EST ECOSYSTEM MONITOR Closed $534,309 9/1/2005 - 8/31/2006
24482 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 200300700 EXP LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER/ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $50,503 10/1/2005 - 9/30/2006
24483 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 200300700 EXP LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER/ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $59,995 10/1/2005 - 8/31/2006
28838 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 LOWER COL RIVER/EST ECOSYSTEM MONITOR Closed $434,301 9/1/2006 - 11/30/2007
29737 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL R ESTUARY/ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $60,000 9/1/2006 - 8/31/2007
29395 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $155,985 10/1/2006 - 11/30/2007
33959 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP ESTUARY/ECOSYSTEM MONITORING?IMPLEMENT MONITORING Closed $39,321 9/1/2007 - 8/31/2008
33960 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP ESTUARY/ECOSYSTEM MONITORING-DEVELOP RM&E METHODS Closed $76,441 9/1/2007 - 8/31/2008
33854 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LCR ESTUARY/ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $531,950 9/1/2007 - 8/31/2008
39272 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $778,478 9/1/2008 - 8/31/2009
39594 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR (USGS) Closed $86,000 9/1/2008 - 8/31/2009
45816 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $795,368 9/1/2009 - 11/15/2010
44032 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP USGS LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $131,495 9/1/2009 - 8/31/2010
49230 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP USGS LWR COL RIVER/EST ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $271,000 9/1/2010 - 12/31/2011
49138 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $692,565 9/1/2010 - 12/31/2011
54907 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LCREP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $1,024,062 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
54891 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP USGS LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $170,000 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
59063 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LCREP LWR COLUMBIA ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $774,885 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
59129 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $170,000 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
62931 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LCREP LWR COLUMBIA ECOSYSTEM MONITORING Closed $912,165 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
62998 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $149,500 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
66764 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITOR Closed $967,065 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
66667 SOW US Geological Survey (USGS) 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING Closed $39,020 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
70380 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING (EP) Closed $1,075,371 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
73977 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING (EP) Closed $1,085,505 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
77318 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING (EP) Closed $1,072,241 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
80237 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING EP Closed $1,047,096 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
83053 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING (EP) Closed $974,992 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
86282 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP ECOSYSTEM MONITORING & AEMR LCEP Closed $920,150 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
88795 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LCRE ECOSYSTEM MONITORING/AEMR (LCEP) Closed $1,057,376 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
90999 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING (LCEP--MON) Issued $1,114,013 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
93202 SOW Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING (LCEP--MON) Issued $1,114,013 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):32
Completed:30
On time:30
Status Reports
Completed:132
On time:89
Avg Days Late:10

                Count of Contract Deliverables
Earliest Contract Subsequent Contracts Title Contractor Earliest Start Latest End Latest Status Accepted Reports Complete Green Yellow Red Total % Green and Complete Canceled
15114 24617, 28838, 33854, 39272, 45816, 49138, 54907, 59063, 62931, 66764, 70380, 73977, 77318, 80237, 83053, 86282, 88795, 90999, 93202 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING (LCEP--MON) Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership 09/01/2003 09/30/2024 Issued 78 337 18 0 16 371 95.69% 5
24483 29737, 33959, 33960, 39594, 44032, 49230, 54891, 59129, 62998, 66667 2003-007-00 EXP LWR COL RIVER/EST ECO MONITORING US Geological Survey (USGS) 10/01/2005 09/30/2015 Closed 45 45 1 0 1 47 97.87% 1
24482 29395 2003-007-00 EXP LOWER COLUMBIA RIVER ESTUARY ECOSYSTEM MONITORING US Geological Survey (USGS) 10/01/2005 11/30/2007 Closed 9 10 0 0 0 10 100.00% 0
Project Totals 132 392 19 0 17 428 96.03% 6


The table content is updated frequently and thus contains more recent information than what was in the original proposal reviewed by ISRP and Council.

Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-NPCC-20230310
Project: 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to address conditions in future project proposals.

[Background: See https://www.nwcouncil.org/2021-2022-anadromous-habitat-and-hatchery-review/]

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-ISRP-20230308
Project: 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Completed Date: 3/14/2023
Final Round ISRP Date: 2/10/2022
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

The ISRP found this a difficult project to review without a site visit, given the collaborations with multiple partners. Nevertheless, the ISRP recommends that this project Meets Scientific Review Criteria with three conditions, all of which should be addressed in the next annual report and work plan:

  1. SMART objectives. Establish SMART objectives for the Ecosystem Monitoring Program (EMP) objectives, as much as possible, including succinct empirical statements of expected outcomes (with timelines).
  2. Benefits to fish and wildlife. Develop a strategy for collecting, analyzing, and reporting information to quantitatively demonstrate benefits to fish and wildlife from restoration and protection actions.
  3. Budget. Remove the proposed carbon sequestration study (Objective 7) from the budget and the budget justification.

The ISRP also has a recommendation for the proponents, but it is not a condition. The monitoring data do not appear to be used to in a model that could predict responses or conditions at other estuarine sites within this geographic area. If this is correct, then we encourage the proponents to develop a strategy for constructing such a model, which could be an important tool for understanding the effectiveness of estuarine restoration efforts.

In our preliminary review, we requested responses on the following nine topics. Our final comments follow each item:

  1. SMART Objectives. While the proponents made the goals and objectives for the two monitoring programs somewhat clearer, they did not establish SMART objectives for the EMP, which remains unnecessarily vague. Even though the EMP requires multiple partners to complete the monitoring protocol, this should not preclude establishing SMART objectives for their collective actions and requiring partners to develop SMART objectives for subprojects. The ISRP expects the lead project to be responsible for seeing that all partners submit analyses in a timely manner. The ISRP has requested other large, coordination projects to provide similar SMART objectives and assist partners in developing SMART objectives (e.g., Grande Ronde Model Watershed, Upper Columbia Programmatic Habitat).

    An attempt should be made to put the objectives into a SMART format as much as possible. For instance, EMP Objective 1 could be revised as follows: “Monitor status and trends in ZZ characteristics of the of biogeochemistry of mainstem surface waters of the lower Columbia River estuary at XX sites at YY times annually, as well as at XX sites and YY times above the confluence with the Willamette River. These data will be used to quantify the impacts of tidal seawater fluxes and environmental change on habitat capacity for juvenile salmonids.”

    No attempt is made to provide succinct empirical statements of expected outcomes (with timelines). One would expect the proponents to provide reasonable projections of expected changes, especially since the project has been active for more than 20 years.

  2. M&E Matrix – Lead. In the revised proposal, the proponents provide tables of locations, sampling levels, and metrics for each level of Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM), as well as the partners responsible for specific M&E efforts. The project has previously submitted these tables and figures in annual reports to BPA for its regular update of the Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program (CEERP) Plan. Notably, the proponents also give this information in a timely manner to their partner projects, including CREST, CLT, WDFW, and CIT. The proposal describes the monitoring methods, analyses, and specific metrics for each overall monitoring objective and provides supporting documentation and links to MonitoringResources.org. The proponents work with their partners to produce a State of the Estuary report to USEPA every five years. The most recent report (2020) includes a story map with spatially explicit information on land use, ecological conditions, project accomplishments, and monitoring results for water quality and habitat conditions. The 2020 State of the Estuary Report is comprehensive yet concise, and the story map is an exceptional contribution to better understanding the complex nature of the estuary and the monitoring and restoration program. 

  3. Project Evaluation and Adjustment. The proponents’ response generally addresses the ISRP concerns. However, it remains unclear when an AEM protocol can be discontinued. Table 4 (p. 37) lists the schedule for when AEM activities are to occur but not when they can be discontinued. Perhaps it is not possible to determine when an activity can be terminated (for both AEM and EMP) since no quantitative levels are established to judge if the restoration actions or the environmental conditions are deemed adequate or successful. The proponents should consider how “success” is determined so that specific monitoring activities can be discontinued or transferred to other sites. The program also should consider establishing “thresholds of probable concern” for some environmental characteristics. If measurements consistently fall below a pre-established, ecologically acceptable level (threshold), then resources could be transferred elsewhere for monitoring other important parameters.

  4. Carbon Sequestration and Methane Fluxes. The proponents removed this activity from the proposal. However, the proposed carbon sequestration study (original Objective 7) still needs to be removed from the budget and the budget justification. 

  5. Discussion of Toxic Chemicals. The ISRP is pleased to see that the Problem Statement section has been revised significantly, including the discussion of toxic chemicals, and that readers are now referred to the habitat restoration proposal (200301100) for more information on limiting factors and threats within the lower Columbia River region. 

  6. Accounting for Changes in (Land Use) Development. The proponents’ response revealed a major information gap for the lower Columbia River. Recent changes in land use in the geographic area have been substantial, especially in close proximity to the river and tributaries. These land-use changes have significant environmental impacts on the Columbia Estuary and associated habitats, even with existing riparian protections. That said, the ISRP is impressed by the information and analyses presented on land use in the 2020 State of the Estuary report using the limited available data. We encourage the proponents, and the states of Oregon and Washington, to seek support for expanding the land-use analyses, which are essential for developing a better understanding of causes for change in the estuary as well as for predicting environmental future changes. The ISRP encourages the Council staff to convey the importance of this informational gap to BPA and other regional agencies with restoration activities in the estuary.
  7. Evaluation of Disturbed Sites. The proponents provide a reasonable response to the ISRP query about expanding the monitoring program to sites significantly altered by human actions. Because funding for EMP and AEM is capped, we agree that the best strategy is to remain focused on minimally human-altered habitats as they provide a suite of reference sites for restoration designs and actions.

  8. Benefits to Fish and Habitat. The response by the proponents is concerning to 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), quantify the benefits to fish from the habitat restoration (e.g., total abundance, size at smoltification, or survivorship). The ISRP agrees with the proponents that this is an important, and essential, information gap to fill in order 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 benefiting juvenile salmonids. In order words, the proponents should develop and implement a strategy for collecting the necessary information.

    A related concern is that the monitoring data do not appear to be used to populate a model that could predict responses or conditions at other estuarine sites within this geographic area. The proponents note that the data are used to assess habitat capacity within a site (p. 23), but it is unclear how the data are used to accomplish this. Further, the proponents note (p. 24) that data collected under Objective EMP 4 are analyzed in conjunction with data collected under the other objectives to determine relationships between habitat structure, capacity, and juvenile salmonid habitat usage – and the findings are used to assess juvenile salmon habitat usage throughout the lower Columbia River and in comparisons with restoration sites. The ISRP would expect that this would be well known after 18 years of research and monitoring. Yet, there is no mention in the proposal that the data are used to populate a predictive model, one that is powerful enough to be used more widely in the estuary. Is there a model that uses the information to predict the fish capacity of the site, or environmental conditions? If not, then one is needed if only to synthesize the two decades of information already acquired.

    Note: The Jeffres et al. (2008) study is impressive but took place under experimental conditions in rice fields of a highly altered California river. The ISRP wonders to what extent this study is applicable to the lower Columbia River.

  9. Process for Determining Number of Monitoring Sites. The proponents’ response to this concern is adequate. Since monitoring funding is capped, a Steering Committee composed of BPA, the USACE, and LCEP guide the prioritization of AEM levels to individual restoration sites. This appears to be a reasonable approach.

Specific Comments:

  1. EMP Goal 3 (p. 20) cannot be accomplished without a quantitative analyses of spatial trends in land use associated with the river/estuary. The Goal needs to be re-worded to reflect what is actually being investigated.
  2. The use of the term “biogeochemistry” throughout the proposal is vague, and therefore confusing as to what is actually being monitored. It needs to be clearly defined early in the proposal or another, more appropriate, term or terms used.
  3. The ISRP agrees that vegetation composition is important for the production of organic matter (released to the river in the form of macrodetritus, p. 32). However, the proponents should consider monitoring microdetritus (< 1 mm diameter) and dissolved organic matter (< 0.5 um). These are the dominant sizes, in terms of mass, of detritus exported to the river. Further, DOM reacts quickly with seawater at low salinities to become biologically available to the foodweb.
  4. The abundance of pelagic zooplankton (p. 33) is not a valid method for estimating secondary production. The description of the method should be revised to reflect what is actually measured, zooplankton abundance. If the project needs estimates of secondary production, another method should be used.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

The project has been highly productive for many years, providing monitoring for restoration activities conducted throughout the Lower Columbia River. The proponents have received high marks from the ISRP during past reviews for their comprehensive approach. Despite the proponent’s strong track record of accomplishments, the proposal’s length and inclusion of too much previous work make it difficult for reviewers to differentiate past results from actions being proposed for the next funding cycle, and to evaluate if the activity needs to be continued or if enough has been learned so that the activity can be deemed successful, and thereby considered complete. It would have helped greatly if the proponents had adhered to the suggested guidelines for proposal preparation. In addition, the proposal did not adequately tie together the monitoring actions with the roles of other estuarine restoration groups. For instance, often it was not clear how specific monitoring activities informed other projects.

The Columbia River estuary is ecologically important and is highly altered by multiple processes, including dams and processes unrelated to dams. Therefore, assessment and monitoring of the numerous restoration actions are surely warranted. The proposal gives the appearance of seeking to measure everything, without specific motivating hypotheses and questions. Some baseline monitoring is understandable, but given the many levels of complexity and variation in the estuary, greater focus would be beneficial. The proposal's two major programs—Ecosystem Monitoring (EM) and Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM)—could be better integrated, and the Ecosystem Monitoring could use clearer goals.

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. SMART objectives. Provide succinct objectives in a SMART format (see proposal instructions), as well as succinct empirical statements of expected outcomes (with timelines). 

  2. M&E matrix - lead. One of the challenges for ISRP reviewers is understanding the specific monitoring that is being conducted for multiple implementation projects. Habitat restoration projects or hatchery projects implement actions that are intended to address limiting factors and benefit fish and wildlife. Most of these projects do not directly monitor habitat conditions or biological outcomes, but most identify other projects in the basin that monitor aspects of physical habitat or focal fish species. The monitoring project(s) in the basin provides essential monitoring data for habitat, juvenile salmonid abundance and distribution, outmigration, survival, and adult returns for salmon and steelhead. Some monitoring projects focus on status and trends in basins, while others focus on habitat relationships and responses to local actions. It is unclear what monitoring the project(s) conducts for each implementation project.

    Given the regional leadership responsibilities of this programmatic project, the ISRP requests the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring Project (200300700) to summarize the linkages between implementation projects and monitoring projects in the Lower Columbia geographic area. The summary should provide a table or matrix to identify what is being monitored for each implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. The summary also should explain how the projects are working together to evaluate progress toward addressing limiting factors and identify future actions. A map or maps could help identify the locations of monitoring actions. The monitoring information should clearly explain whether the biological monitoring is local information for the specific implementation site or basin scale monitoring of status and trends or fish in/fish out. We are asking implementation and other monitoring projects to assist your project in producing this summary. 

  3. Project evaluation and adjustment. Provide a brief narrative of how information generated from this project informs an adaptive management process, both for improving monitoring activities and for modifying specific restoration activities. Explain how the project determines when monitoring has been completed for a specific objective and can be discontinued. 

  4. Carbon sequestration and methane fluxes. While the importance of understanding carbon sequestration is clear, folding Objective 7 into this project seems to represent a major shift in focus. Objective 7 requires different types of monitoring than what is already occurring, and it is not clear whether or not it requires different expertise than what the project currently contains. Would the addition of this objective diminish the ability of the program to address the first six objectives? Unless a clear link can be established showing tangible benefits to fish and wildlife, the proposed new activity, measuring carbon sequestration and methane fluxes, should be removed from this proposal and funding sought from another source. 

  5. Discussion of toxic chemicals. The ISRP agrees that the presence and accumulation of toxic chemicals in the estuary are vitally important to ecosystem and salmonid recovery. However, this topic is not specifically addressed by the monitoring or research program since BPA currently does not fund monitoring for toxins in the estuary. As a result, the ISRP considers a discussion of toxins in the Problem Statement to be tangential. The discussion of toxins should be moved from the Problem Statement to the section on Confounding Factors. 

  6. Accounting for changes in development. The overview states, “Presently, we are not tracking whether our restoration activities are keeping up with urban, industrial, or residential development or the conversion of native habitats to impervious surfaces.” If changes in development are not being accounted for, then it is not clear to the ISRP how the effectiveness of restoration actions can be monitored. This should be clarified since it calls into question the ability to evaluate restoration efforts.
  7. Evaluation of disturbed sites. The overview states that the focus of the project is on minimally disturbed, tidally influenced emergent wetland sites. While this is important, it is not clear if disturbed sites are also being evaluated for comparison. In the confounding factors section, the proponents note that it may be necessary to broaden sampling efforts to assess “working lands and other less than optimal habitats.” Understanding how monitoring results for minimally disturbed locations compares with disturbed locations seems key to a program intended to evaluate restoration actions. Given this basic need, the proposal should describe how the additional sampling could occur. 

  8. Benefits to fish and habitat. In the section entitled Progress to Date, some broad benefits to salmon and steelhead are described, but it is not always clear if these are tied to quantitative measures of the fish or to habitat actions taken at specific locations. More information on this is warranted. 

  9. Process for determining number of monitoring sites. How are numbers of sites determined each year (see Table 5)? Fewer sites will be sampled in 2022 than in previous years, for example. Factors that determine differences in sample sites each year should be explained. Processes for evaluating and adjusting the project are not fully described and seem to occur informally. It would be helpful to describe the specific meetings in which the focus is in on evaluation versus outreach.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The Problem Statement had a suggested length of 2 pages or less, but this ran from pages 4-18 including figures. It would be helpful if proponents could more closely adhere to the formatting suggestions and better focus their narrative. As it stands, this section includes many details on methods that would better be presented elsewhere. This excessive length makes it difficult to discern the essential objectives, as well as the fundamental questions and hypotheses driving the work. The importance of estuaries for salmon is well known, as is the degradation of the Columbia River's estuary and the importance of long-term monitoring. Similarly, the statement of Goals and Objectives is too long and includes many details on methods that obscure the goals. The project is so large and complicated that efforts should be made to streamline the proposal and focus on essential information and applications.

The objectives and outcomes are buried in the details. For instance, the information needed, for the most part, to articulate SMART objectives is relegated to the narratives. It should be provided as succinct SMART statements that can be used for future evaluation.

While the authors describe value in integrating climate adaptation and mitigation measures into the project, it would be helpful to understand what (if any) aspects of the current monitoring efforts would be lost if this work was added. Would this change the focus of ongoing efforts by the EMP or the AEM?

An excessive amount of information is included in the problem statement. Presenting a more succinct summary of the need for the program would be helpful as would potentially including information in tables or figures.

In the section on Progress to Date, some broad benefits to salmon and steelhead are described, but it is not always clear if these are tied to quantitative measures of the fish or to actions taken at specific locations. More specific information in the Progress to Date section is warranted.

Q2: Methods

The methods are based largely on established best management practices and are reasonable for the actions being proposed.

While the methods are sound, the questions motivating them are not always clear, contributing to a sense of a program that is very large and growing, with an increasingly broad scope. Many details are presented related to a large number of objectives (biogeochemistry, nutrient cycling, fish sampling, contaminants, temperature, flow).

In terms of details, is there a reason why stable isotope (SI) data are collected at lower trophic levels but not included among the metrics for the fish, or in Table 3? One would think collecting diet, lipid, and SI data from the fish would be standard. Perhaps this is done but not mentioned?

Building on a point in the previous section, the emphasis on sampling undisturbed sites seems to limit the ability to understand if restoration actions are effective.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

The proponents have a strong record of analyses, presenting results at numerous meetings and conferences, as well as conferring with colleagues on related estuarine projects. Nevertheless, it is not clear how the lessons learned are inserted into a formal Adaptive Management process. It also is unclear how the proponents determine that enough has been learned from a specific monitoring activity so that the activity can be considered complete. Are hypotheses being tested or quantitative objectives that are achieved? A discussion focused on determining when the monitoring has completed a specific objective – and thus can be discontinued – would be helpful.

Given the level of detail in other sections of this proposal, the section on Project Evaluation and Adjustment Process is overly brief. It consists primarily of a list of work groups and conferences but does not indicate feedback loops between data being collected and actions, implementations, adjustments to sampling plan, and so forth. Formal processes for evaluating and adjusting the project should be fully described.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The importance of estuaries to salmonids, the alterations to the Columbia River estuary, and the needs for assessment and restoration are obvious, though certainly not all species and life history types benefit equally. However, the proposal does not make sufficiently clear how the monitoring results will be used and how benefits to fish and wildlife will be assessed. Perhaps this is regarded as self-evident, but the already broad program is proposed to grow even broader to include methane emissions and carbon sequestration, so it is incumbent on the proponents to justify in more detail how the status quo, as well as the expansion, will benefit fish and wildlife.

The proponents have demonstrated in past reports and analyses the potential benefits for fish and wildlife from the restoration activities. While benefits to fish and wildlife are likely, the authors should attempt to support the program’s benefits with more quantitative measures of changes occurring over time as a result of the collective restoration actions.

There is a new activity – measuring carbon sequestration and methane fluxes – proposed along with a request for additional financial support. The ISRP feels this is an important research activity that will produce useful scientific information that will be broadly used in climate mitigation. However, it is not apparent how this information will be used to protect or enhance estuarine fish and wildlife. The ISRP feels that the proponents should seek funding elsewhere for these new activities.

The proposal’s introduction discusses toxic chemicals, a monitoring component that could generate information helpful to assessing the benefits restoration actions for estuarine salmonids. While vitally important to ecosystem and salmonid recovery, this topic is never addressed by the monitoring or by the research program. The ISRP understands that BPA declines to fund such an activity. The ISRP feels that it should be part of the monitoring program and encourages the proponents to add it as a specific objective in the proposal (and for BPA to provide interagency support and funding), even if funded from another source.

 

Documentation Links:
Review: RME / AP Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-NPCC-20101103
Project: 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal: RMECAT-2003-007-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 6/10/2011
Recommendation: Fund (Qualified)
Comments: Implement current activities through FY 2012 with conditions: Sponsor to develop a comprehensive report on the monitoring that has occurred under the project itself, for review by the ISRP. In addition, the agencies involved in the estuary are to develop the synthesis report described in programmatic issue #3 also for ISRP review. Funding beyond 2012 based on the outcome of the review of both reports by the ISRP and Council. Do not implement Objective 1, Task 1 (g).
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 Programmatic Issue: RMECAT #3 Monitoring and evaluating the effectiveness of habitat actions in the estuary—.
Council Condition #2 Do not implement Objective 1, Task 1 (g).

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-ISRP-20101015
Project: 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2003-007-00
Completed Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Date: 12/17/2010
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
This is a worthwhile project that promises to provide vital information necessary to recovery of estuarine habitats and improvement of estuarine survival of salmonids. However, the ISRP recommended one major qualification and concluded one particular task did not meet scientific review criteria, as follows:

Qualification: The proponents should prepare a synthesis and integration of results (as mentioned in Objective 2, Deliverable 6), detailing major conclusions after the estuarine classification system is completed and a monitoring design is fully developed, preferably at the end of 2011. Preparation of this document should involve all the partners (NOAA, PNNL, Columbia Lands Trust, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce) and should also include methods and monitoring protocols from all subcontractors. The synthesis should be reviewed by the ISRP.

In Part: Objective 1, Task 1 (g) - Does not meet review criteria

“Evaluate the historic shift in base of salmon food web from macrodetrital to microdetrital sources and terrestrial versus marine derived organic matter sources.” A version of the proposal for this subproject was requested in the 2007/2009 project solicitation (200702600-Historic Changes in Organic Nutrient Sources and Productivity Proxies in the Columbia River Estuary in Relation to Juvenile Salmon Habitat Restoration Priorities). The ISRP concluded the project did not meet review criteria primarily because of weak application of the data to management actions, and this comment is still valid.

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

The proposal is very significant to regional programs and describes a key project for implementation of the BiOp. The project is responsive to many regional programs/plans - 2008 BiOp (many RPAs), NOAA’s recovery plan for the estuary (Estuary Module, in press), MERR, and the NPCC Research Plan (regarding the overall estuary program). However, connections to estuary-wide goals of other agencies, such as the 16,000 acre restoration goal of EPA described at the September 2009 Astoria Science-Policy meeting, are not evident.

2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management

The project has a list of impressive accomplishments that should contribute significantly to improving understanding of estuarine ecology and serve as a basis for estuarine restoration efforts that should benefit salmon. Specific results were sometimes lacking, but this can be expected for a project of this scope. The proponents’ publication record can be improved; more documentation in the proposal is needed on results as the ISRP should not have to refer to papers and reports for results. Complete evaluation of the proposal would likely require review of partners’ proposals or statements of work. Furthermore, almost all accomplishments are models or studies that are under subcontract and in various stages of completion.

A major synthesis is needed that includes major results and data analyses. The synthesis should be prepared after the estuarine classification is completed (August 2011) and a monitoring design is fully developed, preferably at the end of 2011. The synthesis should be reviewed by the ISRP.

The proponents have accurately stated their commitment to adaptive management.

3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging)

The proponents work cooperatively with numerous agencies and a university. As a major coordination/umbrella project, this project is very closely linked to many different ongoing projects in the region and this is well documented in the proposal. In particular it integrates with NOAA-Fisheries’ Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead, MERR, and the Subbasin Plan.

The proponents have identified low dissolved oxygen, changing pH levels in the estuary in relation to offshore ocean processes, and climate change (increased temperature and changing precipitation patterns) as emerging factors that could affect estuarine ecosystems. The ISRP agreed these are important areas of near term or future studies.

Tracking fish via PIT tags installed by others is being done in collaboration with regional PIT tag database managers and is well coordinated. PIT tag detection in the estuary is a valuable new advance in technology.

This is clearly an RME project, but the proponents’ partners seem to be doing most of the reporting and publishing of the data from the project. A critical review of the reporting by primary authors and their affiliations should be included in the recommended synthesis.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has numerous important deliverables, including a classification system that will form the basis of a monitoring sampling design as well as specific projects to address estuarine habitat, food web structure, and salmon distribution and abundance.

As noted previously, the ISRP needs further details on methods and metrics to evaluate the scientific merit of this proposal. In several instances the information is given in cited documents (e.g., Roegner et al. 2008). More information is also required on document deliverables (reports, scientific papers) that give results of previous work.
First Round ISRP Date: 10/18/2010
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria - In Part (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

This is a worthwhile project that promises to provide vital information necessary to recovery of estuarine habitats and improvement of estuarine survival of salmonids. However, the ISRP recommended one major qualification and concluded one particular task did not meet scientific review criteria, as follows: Qualification: The proponents should prepare a synthesis and integration of results (as mentioned in Objective 2, Deliverable 6), detailing major conclusions after the estuarine classification system is completed and a monitoring design is fully developed, preferably at the end of 2011. Preparation of this document should involve all the partners (NOAA, PNNL, Columbia Lands Trust, Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce) and should also include methods and monitoring protocols from all subcontractors. The synthesis should be reviewed by the ISRP. In Part: Objective 1, Task 1 (g) - Does not meet review criteria “Evaluate the historic shift in base of salmon food web from macrodetrital to microdetrital sources and terrestrial versus marine derived organic matter sources.” A version of the proposal for this subproject was requested in the 2007/2009 project solicitation (200702600-Historic Changes in Organic Nutrient Sources and Productivity Proxies in the Columbia River Estuary in Relation to Juvenile Salmon Habitat Restoration Priorities). The ISRP concluded the project did not meet review criteria primarily because of weak application of the data to management actions, and this comment is still valid. 1. Purpose, Significance to Regional Programs, Technical Background, and Objectives The proposal is very significant to regional programs and describes a key project for implementation of the BiOp. The project is responsive to many regional programs/plans - 2008 BiOp (many RPAs), NOAA’s recovery plan for the estuary (Estuary Module, in press), MERR, and the NPCC Research Plan (regarding the overall estuary program). However, connections to estuary-wide goals of other agencies, such as the 16,000 acre restoration goal of EPA described at the September 2009 Astoria Science-Policy meeting, are not evident. 2. History: Accomplishments, Results, and Adaptive Management The project has a list of impressive accomplishments that should contribute significantly to improving understanding of estuarine ecology and serve as a basis for estuarine restoration efforts that should benefit salmon. Specific results were sometimes lacking, but this can be expected for a project of this scope. The proponents’ publication record can be improved; more documentation in the proposal is needed on results as the ISRP should not have to refer to papers and reports for results. Complete evaluation of the proposal would likely require review of partners’ proposals or statements of work. Furthermore, almost all accomplishments are models or studies that are under subcontract and in various stages of completion. A major synthesis is needed that includes major results and data analyses. The synthesis should be prepared after the estuarine classification is completed (August 2011) and a monitoring design is fully developed, preferably at the end of 2011. The synthesis should be reviewed by the ISRP. The proponents have accurately stated their commitment to adaptive management. 3. Project Relationships, Emerging Limiting Factors, and Tailored Questions for Type of Work (Hatchery, RME, Tagging) The proponents work cooperatively with numerous agencies and a university. As a major coordination/umbrella project, this project is very closely linked to many different ongoing projects in the region and this is well documented in the proposal. In particular it integrates with NOAA-Fisheries’ Columbia River Estuary ESA Recovery Plan Module for Salmon and Steelhead, MERR, and the Subbasin Plan. The proponents have identified low dissolved oxygen, changing pH levels in the estuary in relation to offshore ocean processes, and climate change (increased temperature and changing precipitation patterns) as emerging factors that could affect estuarine ecosystems. The ISRP agreed these are important areas of near term or future studies. Tracking fish via PIT tags installed by others is being done in collaboration with regional PIT tag database managers and is well coordinated. PIT tag detection in the estuary is a valuable new advance in technology. This is clearly an RME project, but the proponents’ partners seem to be doing most of the reporting and publishing of the data from the project. A critical review of the reporting by primary authors and their affiliations should be included in the recommended synthesis. 4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods The project has numerous important deliverables, including a classification system that will form the basis of a monitoring sampling design as well as specific projects to address estuarine habitat, food web structure, and salmon distribution and abundance. As noted previously, the ISRP needs further details on methods and metrics to evaluate the scientific merit of this proposal. In several instances the information is given in cited documents (e.g., Roegner et al. 2008). More information is also required on document deliverables (reports, scientific papers) that give results of previous work.

Documentation Links:

2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-BIOP-20101105
Project Number: 2003-007-00
Review: RME / AP Category Review
Proposal Number: RMECAT-2003-007-00
Completed Date: None
2008 FCRPS BiOp Workgroup Rating: Response Requested
Comments: BiOp Workgroup Comments: BPA has questions regarding the study design and would like to follow up with a discussion on sample sites for clarification on the rotational panel design to support RPA 58.3.
BPA would like to discuss further coordination in data management needs of this project to support RPA 72 and potentital coordination with PNAMP Data workgroup.


The BiOp RM&E Workgroups made the following determinations regarding the proposal's ability or need to support BiOp Research, Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) RPAs. If you have questions regarding these RPA association conclusions, please contact your BPA COTR and they will help clarify, or they will arrange further discussion with the appropriate RM&E Workgroup Leads. BiOp RPA associations for the proposed work are: ( 58.1 58.3 58.4 59.1 59.2 59.4 59.5 60.1 61.1 61.3 )
All Questionable RPA Associations ( 58.3 71.4 72.1 72.3) and
All Deleted RPA Associations (56.1 57.3 58.2 58.2 60.2 71.1 71.2 71.3 )
Proponent Response:

We look forward to working with BPA in providing clarification on our rotational panel design to support RPA 58.3 and in working with PNAMP on data management coordination to support RPA 72.

We also appreciate the opportunity to provide comments on the BiOp RM&E Workgroup determinations of 2008 BiOp RPA associations with our project. Our understanding is that the Workgroup determined that RPAs 56.1, 57.3, 58.2, 60.2, 71.1, 71.2 and 71.3 are not associated with this project. In addition, the Workgroup had questions about 58.3, 71.4, 72.1 and 72.3. We agree with the Workgroup determinations for the RPAs 56.1 and 57.3. Our responses to the remaining determinations are listed below:

 58.2     Develop an index and monitor and evaluate life history diversity of salmonid populations at representative locations in the estuary.

Response: This project fills data gaps needed to complete this RPA. We are collecting fish occurrence data, including salmon stock identification and species diversity, at all monitoring sites. Hence, the information collected under this project will be needed to fill spatial and/or temporal gaps, including habitat usage by salmonid stocks, needed to evaluate life history diversity. As an example, the salmon occurrence data collected under this project has been compiled and reported with AFEP project EST-P-10-New titled “The Contribution of Tidal Fluvial Habitats in the Columbia River Estuary to the Recovery of Diverse Salmon ESUs” by NMFS and UW. 

 58.3     Monitor and evaluate juvenile salmon growth rates and prey resources at representative locations in the estuary and plume.

Response: Our project directly implements this RPA.  We are collecting fish age (via otoliths) and prey availability and preference at all monitoring sites. The Estuary/Ocean RME Workgroup in June 2009 included this as a project associated with this RPA (see Attachment 7: https://www.pnnl.gov/main/publications/external/technical_reports/PNNL-18907.pdf).

 60.2     Evaluate the effects of selected individual habitat restoration actions at project sites relative to reference sites and evaluate post-restoration trajectories based on project-specific goals and objectives.

Response: This project is indirectly associated with this RPA. The focus of sites monitored under the Ecosystem Monitoring Program is relatively undisturbed emergent wetlands, or reference sites. To reduce costs in data collection efforts, there has been overlap in site locations and data collection for this project and our Reference Site project within our habitat restoration project #2003-011-00. Hence, the data from this project is used for comparison of restoration site action effectiveness data with reference sites.

We feel we are indirectly associated with the remaining RPAs 71.1, 71.2, 71.3, 72.1 and 72.3. These RPAs require participation and coordination with various regional efforts, such as AFEP, NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program and PNAMP. In some cases, we lead coordination activities in the estuary such as through annual estuary RME coordination meetings supported by the Ecosystem Monitoring Program funding that involve AFEP, state and NPCC/BPA-funded RME projects. In other cases, such as PNAMP workgroups, we are strong supporters and active participants, providing information and staff time.

 Thanks again for allowing us the opportunity to address these comments. Please feel free to contact us for further information or clarification on any of these responses.

Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-NPCC-20090924
Project: 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Approved Date: 10/23/2006
Recommendation: Fund
Comments: Budget reductions not specific. Project to be implemented as proposed with reduced scope. Fund consistent with ISRP comments - prioritize the completion of tasks associtated with finalizing the classification system. Regional M&E Programmatic Issue.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-ISRP-20060831
Project: 2003-007-00 - Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 8/31/2006
Final Round ISRP Date: None
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:
The sponsors provided thorough responses to most of the ISRP's comments. They provided additional details to clarify most of the concerns the ISRP raised. It is gratifying to see a well thought-out approach to sampling the neglected freshwater tidal habitats of the Columbia River. The presentation of results related to contaminant monitoring in the lower Columbia River and estuary was especially well done. Of particular importance is the close cooperation of this project and Project # 200301000 "Historic Habitat Opportunities and Food-Web Linkages of Juvenile Salmon in the Columbia River Estuary and Their Implications for Managing River Flows and Restoring Estuarine Habitat." Both projects should benefit considerably from this collaboration.

Some concerns were not addressed very well by the sponsors, specifically those dealing with salmonid survival-habitat relationships and plans for publications. The sponsors adequately responded to the question of contaminant effects on survival, as the sponsors described models that would be used to forecast survival given body burdens and physiological limitations. A comparable response was not given on the relationship between survival and physical habitat/food supply.

It is unfortunate that this powerful team of researchers seems to be approaching the survival-habitat issue in oblique and indirect ways (through models, inference, etc) instead of trying to obtain some empirical data on juvenile salmonid survival in the Columbia River estuary. Perhaps the close cooperation with Project # 200301000 will help close the gap. Possibly, the current proposal could be refocused to increase critical mass on #200301000. Survival in relation to habitat factors is notoriously difficult to assess in estuaries, and a large team with good funding is required to make progress, especially in large systems like the Columbia River estuary.

The proponents make the statement, "The Ecosystem Monitoring Project is an ongoing monitoring project in the lower Columbia River and estuary whose goals are to create a consistent approach to protocol development and status and trends monitoring of estuarine habitats." In reality, therefore, the Project is really a research program to develop monitoring tools. The real monitoring program is yet to be set up.

Although a substantial amount of work has been completed, some tasks defined in the original proposal are still in progress (see pages 19-21 of the sponsor's response). A major concern is that delays in completion of the tasks in the original proposal would set back completion of the work proposed for 2007-2009. Completion of some of these tasks is apparently contingent on finalization of the Lower Columbia River and Estuary Ecosystem Classification System. New technologies and approaches will always arise that allow refinement of the habitat classification system, but the classification is so crucial to the habitat work that it should be completed as expeditiously as possible and submitted for peer review in the early stages of the project.

Qualification: The sponsors should finalize the classification system as soon as possible so that it can used to complete the tasks contingent upon it.
Documentation Links:

Legal Assessment (In-Lieu)

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-INLIEU-20090521
Project Number: 2003-007-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 10/6/2006
In Lieu Rating: Problems May Exist
Cost Share Rating: 2 - May be reasonable
Comment: Development of an ecosystem based monitoring program for estuarine habitats; fishery managers, others, authorized/required; need confirmation that cost share is sufficient.

Capital Assessment

Assessment Number: 2003-007-00-CAPITAL-20090618
Project Number: 2003-007-00
Review: FY07-09 Solicitation Review
Completed Date: 2/27/2007
Capital Rating: Does Not Qualify for Capital Funding
Capital Asset Category: None
Comment: None

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Catherine Corbett Project Lead Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership
Anne Creason Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Sarah Kidd Project Lead Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership
Elaine Placido Supervisor Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership
Shawn Skinner Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration