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

Project Summary

Project 2010-070-00 - WA Estuary MOA Project 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:
WA Estuary MOA Project 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
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"

Expense SOY Budget Working Budget Contracted Amount Modified Contract Amount Expenditures *
FY2018 (Previous) $6,209,058 $1,370,000 $1,200,000 $1,146,154 $561,862

Fish Accord - Washington MOA $1,370,000 $1,200,000 $1,146,154 $561,862
FY2019 (Current) $450,000 $621,567 $675,413 $402,746

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $450,000 $621,567 $675,413 $402,746
FY2020 (Next) $0 $0 $0 $0

BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) $0 $0 $0 $0

* Expenditures data includes accruals and are based on data through 31-Mar-2019

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2018 - FY2020)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2018 Expense $2,193,125 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Washington MOA adjustments (11/7/2011) 11/07/2011
FY2018 Expense $169,095 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Washington MOA adjustments (11/7/2011) 11/07/2011
FY2018 Expense $528,719 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Accord Budget Transfers (Washington & CRITFC) 8/4/2016 08/05/2016
FY2018 Expense $28,124 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Accord Budget Transfers (Washington & CRITFC) 8/4/2016 08/05/2016
FY2018 Expense $518,999 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Accord Budget Transfers (Washington & CRITFC) 8/4/2016 08/05/2016
FY2018 Expense $268,812 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Accord Budget Transfers (Washington & CRITFC) 8/4/2016 08/05/2016
FY2018 Expense $1,355,912 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Accord Budget Transfers (Washington & CRITFC) 8/4/2016 08/05/2016
FY2018 Expense $1,146,272 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Estuary Budget Transfers (12/22/2016) 12/22/2016
FY2018 Expense $1,000,000 To: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Estuary Budget Transfers (12/21/17) 12/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,000,000 To: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Estuary Budget Transfers (12/21/17) 12/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,000,000 To: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Estuary Budget Transfers (12/21/17) 12/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,000,000 To: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Estuary Budget Transfers (12/21/17) 12/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $1,000,000 To: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Estuary Budget Transfers (12/21/17) 12/21/2017
FY2018 Expense $160,942 From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA Accord Budget Transfers (Idaho, WS, WDFW) 5/25/2018 05/25/2018
FY2019 Expense $450,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY19 WDFW SOY Budgets 12/14/2018

Pending Budget Decision?  No


Actual Project Cost Share

Current Fiscal Year — 2019   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
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, 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
BPA-006772 Bonneville Power Administration WA-MOA Land Acquisition & Support Active $577,150 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
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 Issued $700,000 6/15/2018 - 6/14/2019
74314 REL 51 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Issued $500,000 9/1/2018 - 8/31/2019
BPA-010614 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Active $171,567 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
CR-332437 SOW Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT DEVELOPMENT Pending $450,000 9/1/2019 - 8/31/2020



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):14
Completed:10
On time:10
Status Reports
Completed:61
On time:24
Avg Days Late:8

Historical from: 2010-005-00
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
47336 201000500 EXP ABERNATHY TIDAL RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 05/2010 05/2010 History 8 8 0 0 0 8 100.00% 0
54420 58336 2010-005-00 EXP ABERNATHY RESTORATION DESIGN Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 09/2011 09/2011 History 9 15 0 0 0 15 100.00% 0
Project Totals 91 140 10 0 24 174 86.21% 5


Historical from: 2010-020-00
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
26934 REL 35 2010-020-00 EXP PNNL-CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION Pacific Northwest National Laboratory 06/2011 06/2011 Closed 2 5 0 0 1 6 83.33% 0
53956 60411, 65408 2010-020-00 EXP CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/2011 08/2011 Closed 19 25 0 0 8 33 75.76% 2
BPA-006144 Land Acquisition (Chinook) Bonneville Power Administration 10/2011 10/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 91 140 10 0 24 174 86.21% 5


Historical from: 2010-017-00
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
53901 2010-017-00 EXP DUNCAN CREEK RESTORATION Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group 07/2011 07/2011 History 6 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 0
Project Totals 91 140 10 0 24 174 86.21% 5


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
49040 54137, 58762, 62792, 67400, 70052, 73721, 74314 REL 16, 74314 REL 51 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/2010 08/2010 Pending 33 67 7 0 9 83 89.16% 1
57806 2010-070-00 EXP ELOCHOMAN TIDAL RESTORATION Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) 08/2012 08/2012 Closed 4 7 0 0 0 7 100.00% 1
BPA-006772 WA-MOA Land Acquisition & Support Bonneville Power Administration 10/2012 10/2012 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) 02/2014 02/2014 Closed 9 6 0 0 2 8 75.00% 1
BPA-010317 FY18 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/2017 10/2017 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) 06/2018 06/2018 Issued 1 0 3 0 4 7 42.86% 0
BPA-010614 FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Bonneville Power Administration 10/2018 10/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 91 140 10 0 24 174 86.21% 5


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: 2010-070-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2010-070-00 - WA Estuary MOA Project 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 - WA Estuary MOA Project 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 2010-020-00 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.

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 2010-005-00 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.


Name Role Organization
Alex Uber Technical Contact Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Nicole Czarnomski Project Lead Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW)
Tabatha Rood Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Douglas Knapp Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Steven Gagnon Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration