View and print project details including project summary, purpose, associations to Biological Opinions, and area. To learn more about any of the project properties, hold your mouse cursor over the field label.
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.
Province | Subbasin | % |
---|---|---|
Columbia River Estuary | Columbia Estuary | 100.00% |
|
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: 57806 Location: 46.225253° N, -123.392846° E Dimensions: 1536 x 2048 Description: Elochoman Creek immediately following restoration prior to re-planting. Contract: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 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: 58762 Dimensions: 816 x 1056 |
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
Acct FY | Acct Type | Amount | Fund | Budget Decision | Date |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
FY2020 | Expense | $450,000 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY20 SOY | 06/05/2019 |
FY2020 | Expense | $90,000 | From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA | Accord Transfers (WA-MOA) 2.11.2021 | 02/11/2021 |
FY2021 | Expense | $455,625 | From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) | FY21 SOY | 06/09/2020 |
FY2021 | Expense | $850,000 | From: Fish Accord - Washington MOA | WA Estuary MOA Transfer | 06/22/2020 |
FY2021 | Expense | $850,000 | To: Fish Accord - Washington MOA | WA Estuary MOA Transfer 7/13/20 | 07/13/2020 |
Number | Contractor Name | Title | Status | Total Contracted Amount | Dates |
---|---|---|---|---|---|
49040
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) | 2010-070-00 EXP ELOCHOMAN TIDAL RESTORATION | Closed | $140,410 | 8/15/2012 - 8/14/2013 |
58762
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
Historical Research Associates, Inc. | CHINOOK RIVER ESTUARY RESTORATION PROJECT- LIT REVIEW / CR SURVEY | Closed | $22,507 | 1/20/2014 - 3/14/2014 |
64298
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
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
![]() |
Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) | 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT (WDFW) | Issued | $450,000 | 9/1/2020 - 8/31/2021 |
Annual Progress Reports | |
---|---|
Expected (since FY2004): | 17 |
Completed: | 13 |
On time: | 13 |
Status Reports | |
---|---|
Completed: | 73 |
On time: | 24 |
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 |
49040 | 54137, 58762, 62792, 67400, 70052, 73721, 74314 REL 16, 74314 REL 51, 74314 REL 84, 74314 REL 115 | 2010-070-00 EXP WA ESTUARY MOA PROJECT SCOPING | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) | 08/2010 | 08/2010 | Issued | 41 | 83 | 12 | 1 | 9 | 105 | 90.48% | 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 | ||
BPA-011459 | FY14 | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/2013 | 10/2013 | 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 | Closed | 6 | 6 | 0 | 0 | 1 | 7 | 85.71% | 0 | |
BPA-010614 | FY19 Land Aquisitions/other | Bonneville Power Administration | 10/2018 | 10/2018 | Active | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | 0 | ||
Project Totals | 104 | 162 | 12 | 1 | 21 | 196 | 88.78% | 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 |
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 | 104 | 162 | 12 | 1 | 21 | 196 | 88.78% | 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 |
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 | 104 | 162 | 12 | 1 | 21 | 196 | 88.78% | 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 |
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 | 104 | 162 | 12 | 1 | 21 | 196 | 88.78% | 5 |
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. |
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.
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.
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 | Project Lead | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |
Catherine Clark | Env. Compliance Lead | Bonneville Power Administration |
Anne Creason | Project Manager | Bonneville Power Administration |
Jason Karnezis | Supervisor | Bonneville Power Administration |
Laura Brown | Project Lead | Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) |