Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-004-00 - CREST Estuary Habitat Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-004-00 - CREST Estuary Habitat Restoration
Project Number:
2010-004-00
Title:
CREST Estuary Habitat Restoration
Summary:
The project objective is restoration of estuary habitat critical to the recovery of Threatened/Endangered Columbia River and tributary salmon ESUs. Specific habitat types targeted by CREST are shallow water, peripheral habitats that are adjacent to the Columbia River mainstem. The recovery of these habitats and their vital importance in the long term health of the salmon resource is described in the following sections. Action effectiveness monitoring will be utilized by CREST to adaptively manage future restoration projects. Scientific review and project selection of habitat restoration actions funded through this proposal will be driven by a process described in Appendix C of the project proposal.

The Columbia River is historically the world’s greatest producer of salmon. The lower Columbia River and Estuary are critical to the viability of all anadromous fish populations for the entire Columbia Basin (NMFS, 2000). Juvenile salmonids, especially juvenile Chinook and coho salmon, reside and feed for lengthy periods in shallow, tidal-fluvial channels and wetlands during their transition from the freshwater to marine environments. In the lower Columbia River and Estuary, historic emergent and forested wetland types with their complex network of dendritic tidal channels and backwater sloughs have been greatly diminished. An estimated 62% percent of marshes and 77% of forested wetlands have been lost in the Columbia River estuary (Thomas 1983). To the extent that survival and productivity of juvenile salmonids is related to interconnected shallow water habitats, the loss of these habitats adversely affect juvenile salmonids in the lower Columbia River.

According to Bottom et al, the most significant changes to the capacity of the Columbia River Estuary to support juvenile salmon are likely the results of habitat loss and recovery of those salmon life histories that depend on shallow-water rearing habitat will require restoration of peripheral estuarine wetlands (Bottom et. al., 2005). Alterations to the historic floodplain and its complex network of shallow waters have created significant limiting factors, presenting substantial restoration opportunities. Recent research describes that even small survival improvements in the estuary and coastal ocean could yield some of the most significant population increases for spring and summer Chinook salmon (Kareiva et al. 2000).

The Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (Estuary Partnership) has for several years developed strategies, partnerships, and prioritization plans which have provided a much needed framework for future implementation actions. CREST’s efforts have complimented the Estuary Partnership’s coordination and planning actions by implementing on-the-ground salmon restoration projects, utilizing our community connections and reputation, staff expertise resulting in high quality habitat restoration projects.

Many of the shallow, peripheral wetlands in this subbasin have been destroyed or impaired by land use activities such as diking, filling, tide gate installation, and shoreline armoring, isolating the lower Columbia River from its extensive historic floodplain. It is estimated that an area of over 80,000 acres of historic floodplain and wetlands are now positioned behind an extensive system of dikes and tide gates, and that urbanization and its associated filling and shoreline armoring account for an additional 20,000 acres of habitat loss (US ACOE, 2003). Extensive loss of historic estuarine wetlands through widespread diking and filling in Northwest estuaries may reduce or eliminate some subyearling migrant life histories that have been linked to the availability of shallow marsh habitats (e.g., Levy and Northcote 1981 and 1982). As stated in the NOAA Estuary Module, the implication of habitat loss is that the area’s habitats must be available through time and space and at sufficient quantities to support more than 150 distinct salmon and steelhead populations.

CREST proposes to target the following primary limiting factors from the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery 6-year Habitat Work Schedule and Lead Entity Habitat Strategy – Estuary Mainstem River Subbasin which contribute towards the restoration critical habitats:

1. Availability of preferred habitat (juvenile rearing for within and out-of-basin subbasin populations pg A-3)
2. Microdetritus-based food web, increase inputs of macrodetritus to increase productivity in estuary food web, such as was supported by the historic food web (juvenile rearing for within and out-of-basin subbasin populations pg A-4)
3. Loss of habitat connectivity (juvenile rearing for within and out-of-basin subbasin populations pg A-4)

These can also be defined in terms of NOAA Estuary Module identified limiting factors: Reduced In-Channel Habitat Opportunity, Food Web (reduced macrodetrial inputs, increased microdetrital inputs), and Reduced Off-Channel Habitat Opportunity.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2010
Ending FY:
2020
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia River ESU
Chinook - Mid-Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Spring ESU
Chinook - Upper Columbia River Summer/Fall ESU
Chinook - Upper Willamette River ESU
Chum - Columbia River ESU
Coho - Lower Columbia River ESU
Coho - Unspecified Population
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - All Anadromous Populations
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Resident Populations
Sockeye - All Populations
Sockeye - Snake River ESU
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None
BiOp Association:

No photos have been uploaded yet for this project.

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  (FY2019 - FY2021)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2019 Expense $3,356,845 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) August FY18 Transfers 08/24/2018
FY2019 Expense $793,837 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Estuary Budget Adjustments (FY19) 6/25/19 06/25/2019
FY2020 Expense $4,543,658 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY20 SOY 06/05/2019

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2020   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
2019 $654,220 14 %
2018 $325,000 5 %
2017 $978,211 24 %
2016 $30,000 1 %
2015 $121,600 4 %
2014 $44,500 1 %
2013 $345,179 12 %
2012 $136,091 4 %
2011 $875,356 44 %

Contracts

The table below contains contracts with the following statuses: Active, 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
80692 SOW Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 2010-004-00 EXP CREST ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION (USFWS-CREST) Issued $178,000 11/1/2018 - 10/31/2019
82217 SOW Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 2010-004-00 EXP CREST ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION (CREST) Issued $7,595,280 7/1/2019 - 6/30/2021
BPA-011269 Bonneville Power Administration FY20 Acquisition Active $50,000 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83368 SOW Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 2010-004-00 EXP CREST ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION (USFWS-CREST) Issued $100,000 11/1/2019 - 10/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):15
Completed:14
On time:14
Status Reports
Completed:48
On time:16
Avg Days Late:16

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
49325 53618, 61940, 69497, 76317, 82217 2010-004-00 EXP CREST ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 07/2010 07/2010 Issued 37 169 29 4 24 226 87.61% 6
26934 REL 30 2010-004-00 EXP GRAYS RIVER RESTORATION MONITORING Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 08/2010 08/2010 Closed 6 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
80692 83368 2010-004-00 EXP CREST ESTUARY HABITAT RESTORATION (USFWS-CREST) Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST) 11/2018 11/2018 Issued 5 3 0 0 1 4 75.00% 0
BPA-011269 FY20 Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/2019 10/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 48 179 29 4 25 237 87.76% 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: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-004-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2010-004-00 - CREST Estuary Habitat Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2010-004-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: D. Columbia River Estuary – effectiveness monitoring—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-004-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2010-004-00 - CREST Estuary Habitat Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2010-004-00
Completed Date: 6/12/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

The project is an important part of a larger set of activities to protect and restore the ecological structure, function and biodiversity of the Columbia River estuary. There has been a significant amount of strategic planning and ecological assessment to provide a foundation for the work. There has also been substantial effort to coordinate activities with an array of agencies/organizations all working towards protection and/or restoration of the estuary.

However, a program goal, "Protect and restore the Columbia River Estuary ecosystem, focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms." is given, rather than a series of objectives. The objectives need to be better defined to focus on key questions, such as: 1) How will protection be achieved? 2) How will be restoration be accomplished? Where will the projects be located? 3) What ecological functions will be restored? 4) What benchmarks and reference sites will be used? The technical background provided was very general, and only a few references are provided for problem to be addressed. The proposal does not specify how CREST will address problems, and detail is lacking.

The objective, actually the goal as noted above, of CREST is succinctly stated as to implement on-the-ground salmon restoration projects and to focus on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms. However the objective does not mention achieving increased survival targets for salmon and steelhead which seems to be a driving element of the work. If it is assumed that survival and habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function are synonymous, it would be helpful to discuss this. 

The sponsors state:

"...Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon and Lower Columbia River Steelhead (NMFS 2012).This plan is the culmination of all the recovery plans for the lower Columbia basin and synthesizes the salmonid recovery plans in Oregon, Washington, White Salmon as well as the Estuary Recovery Plan Module. NMFS anticipates its completion in early 2013. This plan lists limiting factors, threats and identified actions from these plans. This proposal will address those categories of actions that pertain to habitat protection and restoration."

This recovery plan is apparently a new development. It would be useful learn if it is now available. It is not cited in this proposal.

There is a mix of strategic direction referenced, but it is unclear if there is an overarching strategy to guide this complex effort. The questions posed for umbrella habitat projects dealing with the steps to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects were answered. A flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to help understand the procedure.

As part of the landscape assessment process, it does not appear that there has been an assessment of fish and aquatic organism passage, particularly as related to tide gates and road-stream crossings. This information is important to ensure that the maximum connectivity is achieved when acquiring and restoring parcels. Correcting passage issues, on lands adjacent to those restored, can also serve to increase the scope of benefits beyond the immediate area of restoration

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

A good history of project achievements was provided. It appears that the program has had some impressive accomplishments, and there has been sound use of available funding.

The implementation metrics could be useful tools to describe a variety of desired outcomes, but it is not clear how these outcomes are measured. Additionally, in the summary of completed projects, these metrics were not applied. This would have been useful in better understanding and appreciating them.

The photos of each project helped get a perspective on what was done. However, the project result abstracts were lacking detail or references. For example, following the Fort Columbia photo the statement was made "Genetic analysis indicated use by multiple ESUs including up-river stocks." A reference to a CREST report or one by others should be included. The 2011 Annual Report to BPA contained some good data related to fish monitoring for the Fort Columbia site. It is unclear if this monitoring will be continued in the future for Fort Columbia and other sites. The explanations given in the field were essential to understand the significance of technical items such as the setback levees required by USACE.

There does not appear to be any formal documentation of lessons learned through the adaptive management process or their application to adjust current work activities. It appears the sponsors defer to the CEERP adaptive management process under the umbrella. It is not clear that this process is driven by designed experiments.

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

The sponsor has excellent working relationships with the sponsors of other restoration projects in the estuary. There has been good progress in establishing cost share agreements with other entities. However, there is no mention of any accomplishments for community or public involvement in the project/program. Given the landownership of the area and the commitment to sustainable, long-term protection, and restoration, this seems to be a critical element that needs to have elevated importance. Development of the ONCOR data base, described in the proposal, sounds like a good step for improving information sharing with the public and local communities and landowners but is reportedly still under development.

It is difficult to determine from the proposal what procedures are in place to determine when success has been reached and how long monitoring is required. There does not seem to be a long term monitoring program in place. This may be because of irregular funding schedules, but it would be helpful to find out if the sponsor has plans or procedures such as performance bonds or other procedures to ensure funds are available for long term monitoring and adjustment to projects going forward.

The sponsors state the following concerning limiting factors:

"Action effectiveness monitoring will be incorporated in to adaptive management for site maintenance and restoration design moving forward. CREST does address climate change, non-native species, predation and toxics through our project designs and implementation. For example the restoration of natural processes addresses resilience of specific sites to factors like climate change. CREST has also built in topographic diversity within our restoration sites to allow for multiple water elevations and vegetation types within a treated area. Much effort is put in to eradicating non-native plant species as well as improvements of water quality to address non-native fish species."

However, no details are provided on how they will actually deal with these concerns or they will influence project selection and evaluation of the success criterion.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Method 

DELV - 2 "The vast majority of CREST's effort under our contract with BPA is in the designing, permitting, and construction phases." And DELV-4 is mainly coordination. This work is not amenable to scientific review.

Monitor the effectiveness of restoration actions. (DELV-3) - the sponsors state "When funding agencies desire more intensive monitoring CREST biologists assess fish utilization using trap netting, seining, and PIT tag arrays." It would be helpful to clarify what criteria the sponsor uses to determine restoration success and how long they think it take to achieve success.

A strategic framework for project prioritization and selection appears to remain a work in progress (see comments in Q1 regarding needs for a comprehensive, over-arching strategy or strategic framework). Two sets of selection criteria were described, one for the Lower Columbia Restoration Enhancement Partnership and one for the BiOp Technical review group. The LCREP criteria are straight forward and seem logical, but there is no discussion on the logic or basis for how the points/weightings for each of the three major components were developed. The sub-elements under each main component, Ecological benefits, Implementation and Cost, are quite comprehensive but lack individual weights or scoring. Given this, it seems like the current arrangement would allow for a wide range of different interpretations and scoring for individual parcels. As mentioned in Johnson et al. (2013) it appears that there remains a need for additional work to refine and document this process. See programmatic comments for additional comments.

There are a number of metrics described to measure accomplishments. It is not clear when or how these are measured for each land acquisition. This list does seem to provide a good source for use in development of project specific objectives. 

There is a lengthy description of the AEMR process under the CEERP program. It was not apparent what actual monitoring has been selected for individual projects being planned or for those completed under this program. It is not clear if only Level 3 standard extensive metrics will be collected for all project actions unless funding agencies desire more monitoring. It would seem that there should be an opportunity to more actively seek cooperation with other programs to allow more extensive monitoring at some sites in order to allow a more complete evaluation of restoration impact. Additionally, there is no acknowledgement or discussion on how monitoring will be transitioned into the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEM program.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

All methods are satisfactory, except they seem to be only 56% complete. Please see the comments above. The Roegner et al. (2009) document prepared under the umbrella project is the main provider of methods.

Qualification #1 - Qualification #1
See the programmatic comment for the estuary and the response request for LCREP. Continued work on justifying prioritization, coordinating RME, and report results at the programmatic level is recommended. The ISRP's issues can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

The project is an important part of a larger set of activities to protect and restore the ecological structure, function and biodiversity of the Columbia River estuary. There has been a significant amount of strategic planning and ecological assessment to provide a foundation for the work. There has also been substantial effort to coordinate activities with an array of agencies/organizations all working towards protection and/or restoration of the estuary.

However, a program goal, "Protect and restore the Columbia River Estuary ecosystem, focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms." is given, rather than a series of objectives. The objectives need to be better defined to focus on key questions, such as: 1) How will protection be achieved? 2) How will be restoration be accomplished? Where will the projects be located? 3) What ecological functions will be restored? 4) What benchmarks and reference sites will be used? The technical background provided was very general, and only a few references are provided for problem to be addressed. The proposal does not specify how CREST will address problems, and detail is lacking.

The objective, actually the goal as noted above, of CREST is succinctly stated as to implement on-the-ground salmon restoration projects and to focus on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms. However the objective does not mention achieving increased survival targets for salmon and steelhead which seems to be a driving element of the work. If it is assumed that survival and habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function are synonymous, it would be helpful to discuss this. 

The sponsors state:

"...Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon and Lower Columbia River Steelhead (NMFS 2012).This plan is the culmination of all the recovery plans for the lower Columbia basin and synthesizes the salmonid recovery plans in Oregon, Washington, White Salmon as well as the Estuary Recovery Plan Module. NMFS anticipates its completion in early 2013. This plan lists limiting factors, threats and identified actions from these plans. This proposal will address those categories of actions that pertain to habitat protection and restoration."

This recovery plan is apparently a new development. It would be useful learn if it is now available. It is not cited in this proposal.

There is a mix of strategic direction referenced, but it is unclear if there is an overarching strategy to guide this complex effort. The questions posed for umbrella habitat projects dealing with the steps to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects were answered. A flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to help understand the procedure.

As part of the landscape assessment process, it does not appear that there has been an assessment of fish and aquatic organism passage, particularly as related to tide gates and road-stream crossings. This information is important to ensure that the maximum connectivity is achieved when acquiring and restoring parcels. Correcting passage issues, on lands adjacent to those restored, can also serve to increase the scope of benefits beyond the immediate area of restoration

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

A good history of project achievements was provided. It appears that the program has had some impressive accomplishments, and there has been sound use of available funding.

The implementation metrics could be useful tools to describe a variety of desired outcomes, but it is not clear how these outcomes are measured. Additionally, in the summary of completed projects, these metrics were not applied. This would have been useful in better understanding and appreciating them.

The photos of each project helped get a perspective on what was done. However, the project result abstracts were lacking detail or references. For example, following the Fort Columbia photo the statement was made "Genetic analysis indicated use by multiple ESUs including up-river stocks." A reference to a CREST report or one by others should be included. The 2011 Annual Report to BPA contained some good data related to fish monitoring for the Fort Columbia site. It is unclear if this monitoring will be continued in the future for Fort Columbia and other sites. The explanations given in the field were essential to understand the significance of technical items such as the setback levees required by USACE.

There does not appear to be any formal documentation of lessons learned through the adaptive management process or their application to adjust current work activities. It appears the sponsors defer to the CEERP adaptive management process under the umbrella. It is not clear that this process is driven by designed experiments.

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

The sponsor has excellent working relationships with the sponsors of other restoration projects in the estuary. There has been good progress in establishing cost share agreements with other entities. However, there is no mention of any accomplishments for community or public involvement in the project/program. Given the landownership of the area and the commitment to sustainable, long-term protection, and restoration, this seems to be a critical element that needs to have elevated importance. Development of the ONCOR data base, described in the proposal, sounds like a good step for improving information sharing with the public and local communities and landowners but is reportedly still under development.

It is difficult to determine from the proposal what procedures are in place to determine when success has been reached and how long monitoring is required. There does not seem to be a long term monitoring program in place. This may be because of irregular funding schedules, but it would be helpful to find out if the sponsor has plans or procedures such as performance bonds or other procedures to ensure funds are available for long term monitoring and adjustment to projects going forward.

The sponsors state the following concerning limiting factors:

"Action effectiveness monitoring will be incorporated in to adaptive management for site maintenance and restoration design moving forward. CREST does address climate change, non-native species, predation and toxics through our project designs and implementation. For example the restoration of natural processes addresses resilience of specific sites to factors like climate change. CREST has also built in topographic diversity within our restoration sites to allow for multiple water elevations and vegetation types within a treated area. Much effort is put in to eradicating non-native plant species as well as improvements of water quality to address non-native fish species."

However, no details are provided on how they will actually deal with these concerns or they will influence project selection and evaluation of the success criterion.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Method 

DELV - 2 "The vast majority of CREST's effort under our contract with BPA is in the designing, permitting, and construction phases." And DELV-4 is mainly coordination. This work is not amenable to scientific review.

Monitor the effectiveness of restoration actions. (DELV-3) - the sponsors state "When funding agencies desire more intensive monitoring CREST biologists assess fish utilization using trap netting, seining, and PIT tag arrays." It would be helpful to clarify what criteria the sponsor uses to determine restoration success and how long they think it take to achieve success.

A strategic framework for project prioritization and selection appears to remain a work in progress (see comments in Q1 regarding needs for a comprehensive, over-arching strategy or strategic framework). Two sets of selection criteria were described, one for the Lower Columbia Restoration Enhancement Partnership and one for the BiOp Technical review group. The LCREP criteria are straight forward and seem logical, but there is no discussion on the logic or basis for how the points/weightings for each of the three major components were developed. The sub-elements under each main component, Ecological benefits, Implementation and Cost, are quite comprehensive but lack individual weights or scoring. Given this, it seems like the current arrangement would allow for a wide range of different interpretations and scoring for individual parcels. As mentioned in Johnson et al. (2013) it appears that there remains a need for additional work to refine and document this process. See programmatic comments for additional comments.

There are a number of metrics described to measure accomplishments. It is not clear when or how these are measured for each land acquisition. This list does seem to provide a good source for use in development of project specific objectives. 

There is a lengthy description of the AEMR process under the CEERP program. It was not apparent what actual monitoring has been selected for individual projects being planned or for those completed under this program. It is not clear if only Level 3 standard extensive metrics will be collected for all project actions unless funding agencies desire more monitoring. It would seem that there should be an opportunity to more actively seek cooperation with other programs to allow more extensive monitoring at some sites in order to allow a more complete evaluation of restoration impact. Additionally, there is no acknowledgement or discussion on how monitoring will be transitioned into the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEM program.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

All methods are satisfactory, except they seem to be only 56% complete. Please see the comments above. The Roegner et al. (2009) document prepared under the umbrella project is the main provider of methods.

 

  

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:13:01 AM.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Denise Lofman Supervisor Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST)
Anne Creason Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration
Karli Neilson Administrative Contact Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST)
John Skidmore Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Madeline Ishikawa Project Lead Columbia River Estuary Study Taskforce (CREST)
Zachary Gustafson Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration