Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-070-00 - Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping & Implementation Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-070-00 - Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping & Implementation

Please Note: This project is the product of one or more merges and/or splits from other projects. Historical data automatically included here are limited to the current project and previous generation (the “parent” projects) only. The Project Relationships section details the nature of the relationships between this project and the previous generation. To learn about the complete ancestry of this project, please review the Project Relationships section on the Project Summary page of each parent project.

Project Number:
2010-070-00
Title:
Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping & Implementation
Summary:
Contract Description:

This Inter-governmental contract will be to fund WDFW to coordinate and work with the Action Agencies to implement the WA Estuary MOA.

The work WDFW performs under this project is in support of the information needed by BPA and the COE to make informed joint decisions in coordination with WDFW to select projects. Tasks include:
1. Scoping and developing projects.
2. Work with the Action Agencies (BPA and the COE) to prioritize estuary projects listed in the MOA and subsequent projects brought forward by project developers.
3. Coordinate and work with the Action Agencies (AAs) to decide which prioritized projects will be preliminarily scoped and developed.
4. WDFW will conduct basic preliminary scoping activities that will assist WDFW in developing the fundamental elements of proposed projects. These scoping activities will support the COE’s preliminary project requirements and in addition, will provide the minimal information needed to be scored through the AA criteria and ERTG if requested by the AAs. The specific scoping tasks are outlined in the SOW.
5. WDFW will coordinate and come to a consensus with the AAs to determine whether a scoped and scored project should move forward.
6. WDFW will write the proposal narrative for the ISRP review process and respond to any ISRP concerns from the review in an agreed upon timeframe with the AAs.
7. Work with the COE to identify the tasks WDFW can perform during the 536 Feasibility Study and assist in writing the Task Order and FCSA within the timeframe identified by the COE.
8. Write the Pisces SOW and budget for identified work in the FCSA 90 days before the anticipated start date. (i.e., adhere to the BPA 90 day contracting period).
9. Participate in coordination meetings with the Action Agencies on a regular basis.
10. Coordinate site visits with Action Agencies to gain a more in-depth understanding of specific habitat projects.
11. For projects being considered for the 536 Feasibility process, WDFW will send a draft letter of intent to the COE & BPA for review prior to sending the final letter of intent to the COE with a cc: to BPA.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) (Govt - State)
Starting FY:
2010
Ending FY:
2032
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 100.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
Bass, Largemouth
Bass, Smallmouth
Carp, Common
Catfish
Chinook - All Populations
Chinook - Lower Columbia 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
Cutthroat Trout, Coastal - Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Freshwater Mussels
Lamprey, Pacific
Lamprey, River
Lamprey, Western Brook
Other Anadromous
Perch, Yellow
Pikeminnow, Northern
Shad, American
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Walleye
Whitefish, Mountain
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

Description: This short term restoration project included removal of this abandoned logging road and some collapsed culvert underneath. Two tide gate lids were also removed.

Contract(s):

57806

Location: 46.225253° N, -123.392846° E

Dimensions: 1536 x 2048

Description: Elochoman Creek immediately following restoration prior to re-planting.

Contract(s):

57806

Location: 46.226381° N, -123.390124° E

Dimensions: 2048 x 1536

Description: This old culvert will be removed and replaced as part of the restoration project.

Contract(s):

57806

Location: 46.226395° N, -123.389984° E

Dimensions: 1200 x 1600

Description: These two side-by-side photos show Duncan Creek before spawning ground restoration by installation of logs along the toe of slope, installation of spawning gravel, but before the riparian plantings occured later.

Contract(s):

58762

Dimensions: 1024 x 377

Description: Buckire Slough showing the water way with the an green mat floating on the surface and an outlet structure in teh background and the blackberries dominated riparian area.

Contract(s):

58762

Dimensions: 1600 x 1200

Description: This is a photograph of Buckmire Slough at a high water level. The slough varies in width from just a few feet to areas as large as shown. This riparian habitat varies as well.

Contract(s):

58762

Location: 45.677079° N, -122.748750° E

Dimensions: 1600 x 1200

Description: This map shows the Buckmire Slougn and portions of the Shillapoo sites property ownership map with ownerships indicated by different colors.

Contract(s):

58762

Dimensions: 816 x 1056

Description: This map shows the WDFW ownership of the Shillapoo Wildlife Area as it is in 2013. The blue lines are Clark Counties parcel maps. There is a large private inholding in the lake basin that currently prevents floodiing of this area.

Contract(s):

58762

Dimensions: 816 x 1056

Description: The blue shading indicates possible inundation area with the Shillapoo Restoration Project if connection to the Columbia River was to be restored.

Contract(s):

58762

Dimensions: 816 x 1056


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 $461,320 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2023 Expense $1,100,000 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Budget transfer (2008-710-00, BCR#103)--2/24/2023 02/24/2023
FY2023 Expense $1,100,000 To: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Budget transfer (2008-710-00, BCR#103) part 2 --2/24/2023 02/24/2023
FY2023 Expense $27,000 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Budget Transfers (2010-070-00 to 2008-710-00) 9/28/2023 09/28/2023
FY2024 Expense $481,618 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) 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
2022
2021
2020
2019
2018 $100,000 7%
2017
2016
2015 $1,644,956 40%
2014 $38,418 1%
2013 $82,196 4%
2012
2011

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
49040 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING Closed $405,385 8/1/2010 - 7/31/2011
54137 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING Closed $349,542 8/1/2011 - 8/31/2012
57806 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP ELOCHOMAN TIDAL RESTORATION Closed $140,410 8/15/2012 - 8/14/2013
58762 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING (2012) Closed $325,816 9/1/2012 - 8/31/2013
BPA-006772 Bonneville Power Administration WA-MOA Land Acquisition & Support Active $577,150 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
60411 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION Closed $538,720 2/1/2013 - 3/31/2014
62792 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING Closed $717,225 9/1/2013 - 8/31/2014
BPA-011459 Bonneville Power Administration FY14 Active $3,279 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
64066 SOW Historical Research Associates, Inc. CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION PROJECT- LIT REVIEW / CR SURVEY Closed $22,507 1/20/2014 - 3/14/2014
64298 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP ELOCHOMAN RIVER TIDAL RESTORATION Closed $54,960 2/1/2014 - 12/31/2014
65408 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION Closed $997,250 4/1/2014 - 5/31/2016
67400 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING Closed $871,717 9/1/2014 - 8/31/2015
68918 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP ELOCHOMAN RIVER TIDAL RESTORATION Closed $1,383,434 5/1/2015 - 8/31/2016
70052 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA UMBRELLA CONTRACT Closed $770,248 9/1/2015 - 8/31/2016
73721 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA UMBRELLA CONTRACT Closed $858,384 9/1/2016 - 8/31/2017
74314 REL 16 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING Closed $543,300 9/1/2017 - 8/31/2018
BPA-010317 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 Land Acquisitions Active $0 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
74314 REL 41 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA SOUTH BACHELOR Closed $937,146 6/15/2018 - 11/29/2019
74314 REL 51 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Closed $329,384 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2019
BPA-010614 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Active $171,567 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
74314 REL 84 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Closed $231,080 9/1/2019 - 8/31/2020
74314 REL 115 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT (WDFW) Closed $431,732 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021
74314 REL 146 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOU (WDFW) Closed $393,698 9/1/2021 - 8/31/2022
84042 REL 14 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA (WDFW) Closed $358,983 9/1/2022 - 8/31/2023
84042 REL 48 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING (WDFW) Issued $383,105 9/1/2023 - 8/31/2024
CR-371901 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY PROJECT SCOPING Pending $1 10/1/2024 - 9/30/2025



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):20
Completed:19
On time:19
Status Reports
Completed:86
On time:34
Avg Days Late:13

                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
49040 54137, 58762, 62792, 67400, 70052, 73721, 74314 REL 16, 74314 REL 51, 74314 REL 84, 74314 REL 115, 74314 REL 146, 84042 REL 14, 84042 REL 48, CR-371901 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY PROJECT SCOPING Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/01/2010 09/30/2025 Pending 54 125 13 1 15 154 89.61% 2
57806 2010-070-00 EXP ELOCHOMAN TIDAL RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/15/2012 08/14/2013 Closed 4 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 1
BPA-6772 WA-MOA Land Acquisition & Support Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11459 FY14 Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2013 09/30/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
64298 68918 2010-070-00 EXP ELOCHOMAN RIVER TIDAL RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 02/01/2014 08/31/2016 Closed 9 6 0 0 2 8 75.00% 1
BPA-10317 FY18 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2017 09/30/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
74314 REL 41 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA SOUTH BACHELOR Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 06/15/2018 11/29/2019 Closed 6 6 0 0 1 7 85.71% 0
BPA-10614 FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2018 09/30/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 117 204 13 1 27 245 88.57% 6


Historical from: 2010-020-00
                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
26934 REL 35 2010-020-00 EXP PNNL-CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 06/01/2011 05/31/2012 Closed 2 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
53956 60411, 65408 2010-070-00 EXP CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/01/2011 05/31/2016 Closed 19 25 0 0 8 33 75.76% 2
BPA-6144 Land Acquisition (Chinook) Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 117 204 13 1 27 245 88.57% 6


Historical from: 2010-005-00
                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
47336 201000500 EXP ABERNATHY TIDAL RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 05/01/2010 12/31/2011 History 8 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
54420 58336 2010-005-00 EXP ABERNATHY TIDAL RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 09/01/2011 07/31/2013 History 9 15 0 0 0 15 100.00% 0
Project Totals 117 204 13 1 27 245 88.57% 6


Historical from: 2010-017-00
                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
53901 2010-017-00 EXP DUNCAN CREEK RESTORATION Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group 07/15/2011 12/31/2012 History 6 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
Project Totals 117 204 13 1 27 245 88.57% 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: 2010-070-00-NPCC-20230316
Project: 2010-070-00 - Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping & Implementation
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to address condition #1 (objectives) and #2 (ecological benefits) in future project proposals.

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

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-070-00-ISRP-20230308
Project: 2010-070-00 - Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping & Implementation
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 recommends that the following conditions be addressed in future work plans and annual reports:

  1. SMART Objectives. Present all objectives in a SMART format. Comments are provided to aid in this step for three objectives below. Additionally, the basis for addressing each specific goal and objective should be described, including an explicit emphasis on how addressing goals and objectives will lead to increases in survival, abundance, and condition of fish.
  2. Ecological benefits of proposed projects. Include expected ecological benefits for each proposed project. These outcomes should ultimately be linked with SMART objectives. This will be especially important given the fact that the budget will increase substantially over the next 5 years.
  3. Benefits of completed projects. Use biological data collected by other WDFW programs and Federal agencies or analyses conducted by others to provide evidence of the effectiveness of this project based on benefits to fish and wildlife.

In our preliminary review, we requested a response on the eight topics listed below. Our final comments based on the response are provided after each topic:

1. SMART Objectives. The ISRP appreciates the effort by the proponents to reframe the project goal and objectives. The revised goal emphasizes the protection of habitat for “listed salmonids,” while the biological emphasis in the previous goal was on “aquatic organisms.” Additionally, the objectives are more clearly organized and are closer to being framed in a SMART format than the objectives presented in the original proposal. A few questions remain, however, on several specific objectives. 

Objective 1: Protect and maintain 1,000 acres of public estuary habitat to support no net loss of native habitats in the Lower Columbia River estuary. 

What is the time frame for this objective? How does it relate to the emphasis that, “WDFW protects the existing functional estuarine habitat owned by the agency within the Lower Columbia River estuary”? What is the specific ecological benefit of achieving this objective? This objective would be more effective if the proponents could do more than simply maintain the habitats they acquire. Can actions be taken to improve the habitats? For example, could invasive plant species be removed for conservation purposes?

Objective 2: Restore ecological function to 773 acres of tidal wetland habitat by 2027 to restore access to, and increase capacity of, estuarine habitats used by juvenile salmonids and other species.

The emphasis on the relationship to CEERP objectives is helpful, but a specific statement on benefits should be included in the proposal. Additionally, projects that will contribute to Objective 2 should be listed, and proponents should indicate when they will be initiated.

Objective 3. Engage with 500 Washingtonians regarding the potential tidal reconnection of 687 acres of public tidal wetland habitat by 2027.

The emphasis on outreach is an important part of this project. While engaging 500 individuals will be useful, how will that lead to more trust? This objective could be strengthened by providing context on the mechanisms by which these individuals will be engaged, as well as the organizations they represent.

As one additional comment to consider, the proponents emphasize that other programs monitor fish presence at restored and reference sites. Those data should be evaluated so that biological outcomes can be clearly identified in the objectives. Data and analyses of benefits for fish and wildlife and available summaries from other programs should be provided in the next annual report.

2. M&E matrix – support. The ISRP appreciates that the proponents contributed information for the M&E Matrix. The Council and Council staff have indicated that developing summaries and matrices of the types and locations of monitoring efforts across projects in major geographic areas would provide important information. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. The Fish and Wildlife Program may identify the specific elements and formats for these RM&E summaries and matrices in the near future. The information and expertise of this project would strengthen future coordinated M&E summaries for geographic areas.

3. List of projects. The addition of the number and acres restored along with the start and end date for each project provides good context, but it would be more useful to state the expected ecological benefits of each project listed as well.

4. Scoring and evaluation processes. The ISRP appreciates the thorough description of the scoring and evaluation process and references for key documents. The explanation of the changes in the scoring and evaluation process in 2020 clarified the process for the ISRP and strengthened the revised proposal.

5. Project selection. The information provided on how projects are selected is helpful.

6. Project evaluation and adjustment. Again, this is good context. Are other projects on properties owned by WDFW in the Lower Columbia River incorporated in the project’s adaptive management? If so, this should be added to Table 1 for more clarity.

7. Confounding factors. The additions made to provide information on efforts to mitigate confounding factors are helpful.

8. Benefits to fish and wildlife. The proponents emphasize that data on growth, survivorship, condition, and other metrics for juvenile salmon are not collected at project sites, but this information is collected by other WDFW programs and Federal agencies and disseminated through CEERP. Those data should be used to partially address the recommendation of the ISRP to document the benefits to juvenile salmonids. Additionally, data may be available on other focal species (i.e., birds) that could be used in a similar manner. Incorporating such biological information in future reports and proposals will be needed to document the efficacy of the program.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

The ISRP recognizes the value of the work and the fact that the activities appear to be well coordinated with other estuarine projects. Aspects of the proposal, however, are unclear making it difficult for the ISRP to adequately evaluate the proposed project.

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 project objectives in a SMART format (see proposal instructions), with an emphasis on describing the expected physical and biological outcomes. This proposal (as well as most other estuary projects) frames objectives in terms of acreage but not fish, and this is a limitation for effectively evaluating the activities. 

  2. M&E matrix - support. As habitat projects and monitoring projects are not presented as part of an integrated proposal or plan, the need for a matrix to identify the linkages between implementation and monitoring is extremely important for basins or geographic areas. The ISRP is requesting a response from the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring Project (200300700) to summarize the linkages between implementation and monitoring projects in the Lower Columbia geographic area. We ask this project (201007000) to assist them in creating the summary and provide information about what is being monitored for this implementation project and where and when the monitoring occurs. A map or maps of locations of monitoring actions would be helpful in this regard. 

  3. List of projects. Provide a complete list of projects for this proposal in an appendix or table. The ISRP noted that each annual report provides a table with details for each project, including what stage the project is in, when it began, and anticipated completion date. These annual reports could be used to generate the project list being requested here. A summary of what is being monitored could also be provided in this table, along with expected outcomes. 

  4. Scoring and evaluation processes. For Survival Benefit Unit (SBU) and the Project Benefit Unit (PBU) scores, describe what these “units” mean ecologically and how they are determined. A citation and a short summary of how the new Expert Regional Technical Group (ERTG) scoring criteria differs from the SBU evaluation would explain the scoring process more clearly. 

  5. Project selection. There are detailed methods presented about how projects are evaluated once selected, but little information on how projects are initially selected. The selection process should be described in more detail. 

  6. Project evaluation and adjustment. Explain the provisions for any overlap with the LCEP AEM monitoring project. While the proponents state that there is a project adjustment process, no specific examples are provided as to where and how it has been used. In fact, the proponents list only one project (Chinook Estuary) subject to an adaptive management process. 
  7. Confounding factors. Provide details on what the project is doing to mitigate for the confounding factors as well as the forward-looking actions that are being implemented as part of the on-the-ground activities. As the proponents note, there are serious confounding factors relevant to ecosystem restoration in the LCRE, all of which have roots in landscape-scale effects: 1) climate change, 2) land conversion, and 3) invasive species. 

  8. Benefits to fish and wildlife. Provide empirical information on how the project is restoring capacity, opportunity, and function. Are restoration actions working as intended? Clarify whether or not actions are improving growth, survivorship, condition, or other fish-related factors for juvenile salmon in the restored areas. Also, if possible, provide evidence that actions are not simply creating sites for predators and competitors of juvenile salmon.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The project is part of CEERP and is working with four other projects to meet the CEERP goal of restoring 4500 acres by 2035 or an average of 300 acres per year. There are general objectives given for this project in that they are going to scope 5-10 projects over a five-year period, design and plan two projects, and build at least one by 2027. Unless this one restoration action was 1500 acres, they would not attain their goal. The ISRP asks the project to provide some insight and perspective on how this goal can be attained.

This proposal, like the others from the Columbia Estuary, is difficult to evaluate because the projects have substantial overlap. The proponents tout the objectives of others while present their objectives in the internal narrative. This project provided objectives in a somewhat SMART format but never proposed specific restoration actions that could be evaluated for potential ecological benefits. In fact, the objectives are based on acreage rather than ecological outcomes. While physical outcomes are useful, the ISRP recommends that the proponents also articulate ecological outcomes for their projects.

An issue in this proposal also common to the other Columbia Estuary proposals is that, while fish performance is a stated criterion, no one seems to be measuring growth, survivorship, condition, or other fish-related factors that would indicate if the actions are benefiting fish. One would expect this to be necessary for a truly functioning adaptive management process.

How does the information in the bulleted list described as “outcomes of the Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping and Implementation Project” relate to the projects listed in Table 1?

Q2: Methods

The proponents are implementing restoration actions (reconnecting shallow water habitats to the river) using standard engineering approaches. A description of how principles of landscape ecology influence the work being proposed would strengthen the proposal.

The social techniques are never explained in detail, perhaps because each restoration action is unique and requires a tailored approach. The proposal should include a description of the activities to expand public access such as trail bridges, hunting and fishing access, and boating, which should be documented for existing projects.

The methods to evaluate projects are well described once a project begins. The methods for evaluating cost, however, are unclear. What is the decision-making process for assessing cost? Does this affect how and what projects are accomplished?

It would be helpful if information in the Methods was tied to specific project objectives. As presented, it is very difficult to track. The proposal should include specific restoration activities that can be evaluated for their potential ecological outcomes.

In the section on Key Lessons Learned, the authors indicate the importance of conducting outreach with landowners, local governments, user groups, and the general public, as well as the need to formulate a strategy to do this. Is this being done, and if so, what is the plan/approach that will be taken to do this?

Q3: Provisions for M&E

Monitoring projects in the estuary occurs in three tiers, with level 3 occurring for all projects and levels 1 and 2 being applied more selectively. It is not clear when and how the Action Agencies decide to apply each level of monitoring. A better explanation of this would be helpful.

The adaptive management process seems to be more focused on evaluating how projects make it on the list, and this seems to occur continuously. How does geographic location affect how a project is selected and evaluated? While it is clear that substantial monitoring occurs under the AMER, it is not clear how the information and analyses feed back into project selection and evaluation. The only project where adaptive management seems to be occurring specifically within this project is the Chinook Estuary Restoration, but it is not clear what is being done with this information.

In the Project Evaluation and Adjustment Process section, the proponents state that decisions about what projects to advance are informed by results of a prioritization exercise based on disturbance theory applied at site and landscape scales. The proposal should explain the specific application of disturbance theory in the project prioritization process.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The proponents describe anticipated benefits and objectives from the other regional plans (p. 5) but do not articulate how their proposed project directly relates to them.

At one level, it is understandable that specificity around future projects can frequently damage project potential, as landowners and land managers rarely like to see restoration projects and actions on their properties proposed for the future without their knowledge and consent (p. 29). However, the level of detail in the proposal is insufficient, and more information is needed within the constraints of uncertainty about the exact restoration actions in the future. This is especially perplexing when the proponents are requesting approximately $45,000,000 over 5 years to implement a few restoration actions. The ISRP requires additional details to evaluate if the request is reasonable in terms of the potential ecological outcomes.

Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-070-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2010-070-00 - Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping & Implementation
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2010-070-00
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 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #2—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.
Council Condition #3 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: 2010-070-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2010-070-00 - Lower Columbia River Estuary Scoping & Implementation
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2010-070-00
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:

The organization, technical background, site selection/descriptions, reporting, vision, and planning described in this umbrella proposal seem to be a model for many of the other estuary projects, if future work plans are successfully achieved. The sponsors also did a good job describing the emerging limiting factors by raising the issues and describing how they were being addressed. Their inclusion of hypotheses for adaptive management was also commendable.

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

The Inter-Agency Coordination effort described in the proposal is noteworthy. It would be interesting to see results of an evaluation by participants. The project goals and objectives are linked to many regional programs/plans such as the Council’s FWP 2004 Subbasin Plan, the NMFS Estuary Module (2011), and the 2008 BiOp.

The problem statement is well crafted and the objectives are realistic. The sponsors have provided an excellent technical background document which could almost be a template or model for the other estuary umbrella projects.

Although the proposal is lengthy, it is well organized and easy to follow. The work is supported by solid science, and the sponsors appear to have made a serious attempt to incorporate the latest scientific findings into their selection and implementation of projects. Program activities are well-coordinated with other restoration groups/programs in the Lower Columbia River Estuary. 

Program objectives are similar to the other projects reviewed. For individual projects, a hierarchy of expectations is presented as vision, goals, and objectives. In most cases, the objectives tie well to the vision and goals and link to proposed treatments. The objectives are generally not quantitative and do not include an expected timeframe for results. A positive aspect is that unique success criteria are developed for each project. It appears that these are mostly qualitative statements with no time frame for expected results. 

A positive feature of the proposal was a description of how the program linked to and incorporated information and direction from other sources. There was a very useful description of how elements of The Ecosystem Approach to Restoration of the LCRE by Johnson (2003) have been incorporated into the program. Similar discussions would have been useful in the other proposals that were reviewed. This section also mentioned the NPPC program and mentioned MERR but did not discuss how this linked to proposed activities.

Although it was noted that community and landowner support is critical to the long term success of the program, there are no programmatic goals, vision statements or objectives that address this critical element. It appears that this support is limited to landowner and community support for individually proposed projects. Additionally, in the discussion of emerging limiting factors, it was acknowledged that development and resource management in upstream portions of treated watersheds were important in helping to define downstream conditions, but it was stated that influencing watershed land uses was beyond the control of the program. This seems to be a key area that could be addressed in activities designed to involve and inform the local communities and landowners and the general public.

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

History of the project is documented in a well written narrative. Diagrams on funding flows and arrangements were presented which make it easy to understand what has been done. The abstracts of project reports are detailed and include photos, so it is easy to see the results of the restoration projects.

This is a fairly new project, but some initial work has been started. Nice photos showing sites are included and some good preliminary data providing fish use by species is included in tables. The accomplishments are well documented and the project’s timely completion of deliverables is 90%. The program appears well organized and managed.

A good example for the incorporation of adaptive management is given for the Chinook restoration project. Additionally, examples were provided to indicate how recent research findings have been incorporated into revised designs for restoration treatments. The adaptive management framework is explained very well. Figure 1, based on Johnson et al. 2013, is very informative and provides good context for a discussion of uncertainties.

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

Project relationships look excellent, and it is especially gratifying to see coordination with the long-term IMW study (Kinsel et al. 2009) which is monitoring and evaluating effects of the Abernathy Tidal Restoration in the context of fish population and monitoring in the Abernathy Creek watershed. This type of work is needed to obtain data on the effects of estuary habitat restoration on salmonid survival.

Three emerging limiting factors were identified: 1) land conversion in the contributing watersheds, 2) potential changes to the hydrologic regime because of factors including climate change and FCRPS operations, and 3) invasive plant species. The sponsors have suggested buffers as possible ways to deal with 1 and 2. Control of invasive species, in particular reed canary grass, is a more difficult task, and no real plan to deal with it is offered.

Each tailored question was appropriately answered.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 “Identify and scope 5-10 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE. (DELV-1) and Design, permit, and plan construction for 2 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE; build at minimum 1 new project. (DELV-2)”: these deliverables are mainly plans to develop a plan but are appropriate for this kind of project.

“Continue AEMR and O&M for ongoing restoration projects and initiate AM for at least 1 new restoration project to ensure sustainability and resilience. (DELV-3)”: it would be useful to determine how the sponsors plan to assess “sustainability and resilience.” Metrics for these deliverables are not given in MonitoringMethods.org and presumably are being developed in the “science for critical uncertainty” component of the estuary umbrella project. This should be clarified.

Although there have been only five projects to date, an average 90% accomplishment rate is reported. Quantitative metrics are limited to acres and miles. There are a number of other metrics described, but they are in generally qualitative terms. 

The summary of completed projects is well organized and informative. The reporting template that is used would serve as a good example for reporting other Lower Columbia River Estuary project accomplishments. 

The methods provided in MonitoringMethods.org are partially done (41%) following Roegner et al. 2009.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Current monitoring occurs within the CEERP framework following Roegner et al. 2009. The Abernathy Creek project is contained within an IMW being monitored by the Washington Department of Ecology. Implementation monitoring appears well done and supported by success metrics for each project. A limitation of these metrics is that they are stated qualitatively.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

 The ISRP’s issues can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.

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 reporting of results at the programmatic level is recommended.
Qualification #2 - Qualification #2
For restoration site selection criteria, WDFW uses a blend of their own criteria and those used by the Estuary Partners. Some more details describing and explaining these differences in the criteria should be included in the proposal. It would also be useful to determine if any differences arose between the results of the expert panel process and Washington's original benefit estimate in any of the projects in this proposal. Some "disagreements" are mentioned in Table 1 under the Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact section of the proposal, but they are not elaborated upon.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

The organization, technical background, site selection/descriptions, reporting, vision, and planning described in this umbrella proposal seem to be a model for many of the other estuary projects, if future work plans are successfully achieved. The sponsors also did a good job describing the emerging limiting factors by raising the issues and describing how they were being addressed. Their inclusion of hypotheses for adaptive management was also commendable.

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

The Inter-Agency Coordination effort described in the proposal is noteworthy. It would be interesting to see results of an evaluation by participants. The project goals and objectives are linked to many regional programs/plans such as the Council’s FWP 2004 Subbasin Plan, the NMFS Estuary Module (2011), and the 2008 BiOp.

The problem statement is well crafted and the objectives are realistic. The sponsors have provided an excellent technical background document which could almost be a template or model for the other estuary umbrella projects.

Although the proposal is lengthy, it is well organized and easy to follow. The work is supported by solid science, and the sponsors appear to have made a serious attempt to incorporate the latest scientific findings into their selection and implementation of projects. Program activities are well-coordinated with other restoration groups/programs in the Lower Columbia River Estuary. 

Program objectives are similar to the other projects reviewed. For individual projects, a hierarchy of expectations is presented as vision, goals, and objectives. In most cases, the objectives tie well to the vision and goals and link to proposed treatments. The objectives are generally not quantitative and do not include an expected timeframe for results. A positive aspect is that unique success criteria are developed for each project. It appears that these are mostly qualitative statements with no time frame for expected results. 

A positive feature of the proposal was a description of how the program linked to and incorporated information and direction from other sources. There was a very useful description of how elements of The Ecosystem Approach to Restoration of the LCRE by Johnson (2003) have been incorporated into the program. Similar discussions would have been useful in the other proposals that were reviewed. This section also mentioned the NPPC program and mentioned MERR but did not discuss how this linked to proposed activities.

Although it was noted that community and landowner support is critical to the long term success of the program, there are no programmatic goals, vision statements or objectives that address this critical element. It appears that this support is limited to landowner and community support for individually proposed projects. Additionally, in the discussion of emerging limiting factors, it was acknowledged that development and resource management in upstream portions of treated watersheds were important in helping to define downstream conditions, but it was stated that influencing watershed land uses was beyond the control of the program. This seems to be a key area that could be addressed in activities designed to involve and inform the local communities and landowners and the general public.

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

History of the project is documented in a well written narrative. Diagrams on funding flows and arrangements were presented which make it easy to understand what has been done. The abstracts of project reports are detailed and include photos, so it is easy to see the results of the restoration projects.

This is a fairly new project, but some initial work has been started. Nice photos showing sites are included and some good preliminary data providing fish use by species is included in tables. The accomplishments are well documented and the project’s timely completion of deliverables is 90%. The program appears well organized and managed.

A good example for the incorporation of adaptive management is given for the Chinook restoration project. Additionally, examples were provided to indicate how recent research findings have been incorporated into revised designs for restoration treatments. The adaptive management framework is explained very well. Figure 1, based on Johnson et al. 2013, is very informative and provides good context for a discussion of uncertainties.

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

Project relationships look excellent, and it is especially gratifying to see coordination with the long-term IMW study (Kinsel et al. 2009) which is monitoring and evaluating effects of the Abernathy Tidal Restoration in the context of fish population and monitoring in the Abernathy Creek watershed. This type of work is needed to obtain data on the effects of estuary habitat restoration on salmonid survival.

Three emerging limiting factors were identified: 1) land conversion in the contributing watersheds, 2) potential changes to the hydrologic regime because of factors including climate change and FCRPS operations, and 3) invasive plant species. The sponsors have suggested buffers as possible ways to deal with 1 and 2. Control of invasive species, in particular reed canary grass, is a more difficult task, and no real plan to deal with it is offered.

Each tailored question was appropriately answered.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 “Identify and scope 5-10 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE. (DELV-1) and Design, permit, and plan construction for 2 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE; build at minimum 1 new project. (DELV-2)”: these deliverables are mainly plans to develop a plan but are appropriate for this kind of project.

“Continue AEMR and O&M for ongoing restoration projects and initiate AM for at least 1 new restoration project to ensure sustainability and resilience. (DELV-3)”: it would be useful to determine how the sponsors plan to assess “sustainability and resilience.” Metrics for these deliverables are not given in MonitoringMethods.org and presumably are being developed in the “science for critical uncertainty” component of the estuary umbrella project. This should be clarified.

Although there have been only five projects to date, an average 90% accomplishment rate is reported. Quantitative metrics are limited to acres and miles. There are a number of other metrics described, but they are in generally qualitative terms. 

The summary of completed projects is well organized and informative. The reporting template that is used would serve as a good example for reporting other Lower Columbia River Estuary project accomplishments. 

The methods provided in MonitoringMethods.org are partially done (41%) following Roegner et al. 2009.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Current monitoring occurs within the CEERP framework following Roegner et al. 2009. The Abernathy Creek project is contained within an IMW being monitored by the Washington Department of Ecology. Implementation monitoring appears well done and supported by success metrics for each project. A limitation of these metrics is that they are stated qualitatively.


===========QUALIFICATIONS FOLLOW================

 The ISRP’s issues can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:14:57 AM.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: This project Merged From 2010-005-00 effective on 2/12/2013
Relationship Description: The WA-MOA had 3 projects (2010-005-00, 2010-017-00, 2010-020-00); but now all scoping/implementation will be managed under 2010-070-00.

This project Merged From 2010-017-00 effective on 2/12/2013
Relationship Description: The WA-MOA had 3 projects (2010-005-00, 2010-017-00, 2010-020-00); but now all scoping/implementation will be managed under 2010-070-00.

This project Merged From 2010-020-00 effective on 2/12/2013
Relationship Description: The WA-MOA had 3 projects (2010-005-00, 2010-017-00, 2010-020-00); but now all scoping/implementation will be managed under 2010-070-00.


Name Role Organization
Alex Uber Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Nicole Czarnomski Interested Party Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Catherine Clark Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jason Karnezis Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Laura Brown Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Jason Karnezis Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration