Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program
RSS Feed for updates to Project 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration Follow this via RSS feed. Help setting up RSS feeds?

Project Summary

Project 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Project Number:
2010-073-00
Title:
Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Summary:
Columbia Land Trust will accelerate the development, design and construction of on-the-ground habitat restoration actions in the Columbia River Estuary that benefit threatened and endangered salmonid species and help meet survival benefit targets/goals required under the 2008 Federal Columbia River Power System (FCRPS) Biological Opinion (BiOp). The Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration Project is intended to implement the following RPA required by the FCRPS BiOp. RPA action 37 states:

“Estuary Habitat Implementation 2010-2018 - Achieving Habitat Quality and Survival Improvement Targets. The AAs will provide funding to implement additional specific projects as needed to achieve the total estuary survival benefits identified in the FCRPS BA.”
All restoration actions conceived of and implemented within this project are intended to benefit threatened and endangered salmonid species rearing and migrating in main stem and tidal habitats of the Columbia River estuary. As a principle implementer of restoration in the Columbia Estuary, Columbia Land Trust has conserved over four thousand acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last nine years. Columbia Land Trust accomplished this by permanently securing a land base from willing land owners through fair market processes. These lands now serve as a platform from which on-the-ground restoration projects are able to be implemented. Columbia Land Trust restoration projects result in some of the highest survival benefits for threatened and endangered salmon in the estuary (Johnson et al. 2007).

Columbia Land Trust will its specific land protection and restoration goals by working closely with land owners, local, state and federal agencies, providing risk capital through a revolving transaction fund, negotiation capacity, legal expertise and an ability to leverage significant sources of project funding. Columbia Land Trust has identified and is developing numerous estuary habitat acquisition and restoration projects within priority areas identified within the that this project supports.

The projects developed within this program are largely tidal reconnection actions that restore full or near full tidal influence to areas that have been historically disconnected from tidal and fluvial hydrologic processes by levees, roads, dredge material and railroad causeways. These restoration actions intend to restore such natural habitat forming processes as tidal hydrology, sediment accretion, and the movement of macro-detritus that shape and maintain estuarine wetland habitats. Specific restoration objectives are to: 1) Restore connectivity between river and floodplain, as well as in-river habitats; 2) Increase shallow water peripheral and side channel habitats toward historic levels. In addition to the ISRP review of this proposal there are two levels of scientific review for all estuary habitat restoration projects identified and implemented under this project.

Columbia Land Trust will coordinate with the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership’ s Science Work Group for the initial level of scientific review for on-the-ground habitat projects. The second level of scientific review will be done by the RPA 37 Expert Regional Technical Group as required in the 2008 BiOp; this review will be conducted in coordination with the Science Work Group.
Proposer:
Proponent Orgs:
Columbia Land Trust (Non-Profit)
Starting FY:
2011
Ending FY:
2024
BPA PM:
Stage:
Implementation - Project Status Report
Area:
Province Subbasin %
Columbia River Estuary Columbia Estuary 50.00%
Elochoman 5.00%
Grays 5.00%
Lower Columbia Columbia Lower 30.00%
Kalama 5.00%
Sandy 5.00%
Purpose:
Habitat
Emphasis:
Restoration/Protection
Focal Species:
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
Lamprey, Pacific
Sockeye - All Populations
Steelhead - All Populations
Steelhead - Lower Columbia River DPS
Sturgeon, Green
Sturgeon, White - Lower Columbia River
Wildlife
Species Benefit:
Anadromous: 100.0%   Resident: 0.0%   Wildlife: 0.0%
Special:
None

No photos have been uploaded yet for this Project.

Summary of Budgets

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

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

Decided Budget Transfers  (FY2023 - FY2025)

Acct FY Acct Type Amount Fund Budget Decision Date
FY2023 Expense $5,000,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) FY23 SOY Budget Upload 06/01/2022
FY2023 Expense $37,000 From: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Estuary budget change (FY23) 2/21/2023 02/21/2023
FY2023 Expense $37,000 To: BiOp FCRPS 2008 (non-Accord) Estuary budget change (FY23) 3/23/2023 03/23/2023
FY2024 Expense $3,316,100 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
2017
2016
2015
2014
2013
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
BPA-005926 Bonneville Power Administration Template Active $0 10/1/2009 - 9/30/2010
BPA-005924 Bonneville Power Administration Land Acquisition Active $1,348 10/1/2010 - 9/30/2011
52484 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE Closed $770,044 4/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
BPA-006247 Bonneville Power Administration Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Active $5,394,175 10/1/2011 - 9/30/2012
55910 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP KANDOLL FARM Closed $552,328 1/23/2012 - 12/31/2012
39727 REL 68 SOW Applied Archaeological Research CR SURVEY FOR KANDOLL FARMS Closed $13,699 6/7/2012 - 8/31/2012
59773 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE Closed $570,806 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
BPA-006847 Bonneville Power Administration Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Active $1,721,990 10/1/2012 - 9/30/2013
59863 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP KANDOLL FARM Closed $1,349,792 1/1/2013 - 12/31/2013
39807 REL 57 SOW Historical Research Associates, Inc. WALLICUT-BAKER BAY COL LAND TRUST Closed $21,762 3/13/2013 - 5/24/2013
62810 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE (CLT) Closed $694,371 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-007491 Bonneville Power Administration CLT Land & Stewardship Active $718,187 10/1/2013 - 9/30/2014
BPA-007862 Bonneville Power Administration FY15 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $159,021 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
66801 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE (CLT) Closed $548,888 10/1/2014 - 9/30/2015
BPA-008516 Bonneville Power Administration FY16 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $60,798 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
70448 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE (CLT) Closed $1,728,374 10/1/2015 - 9/30/2016
BPA-008517 Bonneville Power Administration FY17 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $108,947 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
73737 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE (CLT) Closed $598,632 10/1/2016 - 9/30/2017
BPA-009578 Bonneville Power Administration FY18 CLT Land & Stewardship Active $170,178 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
77222 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE (CLT) Closed $471,145 10/1/2017 - 9/30/2018
80023 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2010-073-00 EXP USFWS CWTD TRANSLOCATIONS Closed $203,843 8/1/2018 - 10/31/2019
80251 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE (CLT) Closed $724,698 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
BPA-010613 Bonneville Power Administration FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Active $492,294 10/1/2018 - 9/30/2019
83076 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION (CLT) Closed $758,676 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
BPA-011337 Bonneville Power Administration FY20 Land Acquisitions/Misc. Active $204,337 10/1/2019 - 9/30/2020
83590 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2010-073-00 EXP USFWS CWTD TRANSLOCATIONS (USFWS) Closed $178,002 11/1/2019 - 10/31/2020
86056 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION (CLT) Closed $1,268,775 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
BPA-012049 Bonneville Power Administration FY21 Land Acquisitions Active $84,663 10/1/2020 - 9/30/2021
86415 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2010-073-00 EXP USFWS CWTD TRANSLOCATIONS (USFWS) Closed $65,414 11/1/2020 - 10/31/2021
88632 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION (CLT) Closed $2,777,814 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
BPA-012680 Bonneville Power Administration FY22 Land Acquisitions Active $1,999,843 10/1/2021 - 9/30/2022
89146 SOW US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE--CWTD (USFWS) Closed $44,026 11/1/2021 - 10/31/2022
91066 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION (CLT) Issued $1,556,178 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
BPA-013175 Bonneville Power Administration FY23 Land Acquisitions Active $488,610 10/1/2022 - 9/30/2023
93479 SOW Munger Bros, LLC. 2010-073-00 EXP PROJECT OASIS Issued $400,000 9/30/2023 - 3/31/2024
93079 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION (CLT) Issued $1,138,299 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
BPA-013720 Bonneville Power Administration FY24 Land Acquisitions Active $1,906,527 10/1/2023 - 9/30/2024
CR-333135 SOW Falling Springs, LLC 2010-073-00 EXP SVENSEN ISLAND DSBU RESTORATION Pending $8,626,915 10/1/2024 - 12/31/2025
BPA-013882 Bonneville Power Administration FY25 Land Acquisition Active $50 10/1/2024 - 9/30/2025
CR-372584 SOW Columbia Land Trust 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION Pending $1 10/1/2024 - 9/30/2025



Annual Progress Reports
Expected (since FY2004):30
Completed:29
On time:28
Status Reports
Completed:86
On time:19
Avg Days Late:15

                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
BPA-5924 Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2010 09/30/2011 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
52484 59773, 62810, 66801, 70448, 73737, 77222, 80251, 83076, 86056, 88632, 91066, 93079, CR-372584 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE RESTORATION Columbia Land Trust 04/01/2011 09/30/2025 Pending 51 176 16 0 28 220 87.27% 24
BPA-6247 Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2011 09/30/2012 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
55910 59863 2010-073-00 EXP KANDOLL FARM Columbia Land Trust 01/23/2012 12/31/2013 Closed 8 11 0 0 2 13 84.62% 0
BPA-6847 Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2012 09/30/2013 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7491 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2013 09/30/2014 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-7862 FY15 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2014 09/30/2015 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8516 FY16 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2015 09/30/2016 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-8517 FY17 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2016 09/30/2017 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-9578 FY18 CLT Land & Stewardship Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2017 09/30/2018 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
80023 83590, 86415, 89146 2010-073-00 EXP COLUMBIA LAND TRUST ESTUARINE--CWTD (USFWS) US Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) 08/01/2018 10/31/2022 Closed 21 15 0 0 1 16 93.75% 0
BPA-10613 FY19 Land Aquisitions/other Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2018 09/30/2019 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-11337 FY20 Land Acquisitions/Misc. Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2019 09/30/2020 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12049 FY21 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2020 09/30/2021 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-12680 FY22 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2021 09/30/2022 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13175 FY23 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2022 09/30/2023 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
93479 2010-073-00 EXP PROJECT OASIS Munger Bros, LLC. 09/30/2023 03/31/2024 Issued 6 4 0 0 0 4 100.00% 0
BPA-13720 FY24 Land Acquisitions Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2023 09/30/2024 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
BPA-13882 FY25 Land Acquisition Bonneville Power Administration 10/01/2024 09/30/2025 Active 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Project Totals 86 206 16 0 31 253 87.75% 24


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: 2010-073-00-NPCC-20230316
Project: 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Review: 2022 Anadromous Fish Habitat & Hatchery Review
Approved Date: 4/15/2022
Recommendation: Implement
Comments: Bonneville and Sponsor to take the review remarks into consideration in project documentation.

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

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-073-00-ISRP-20230308
Project: 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
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
Final Round ISRP Comment:

This strong proposal is part of a set of estuary restoration projects. The ISRP does not have Conditions and is not asking for a response to any issue on this proposal. Some recommendations for improving the project are provided in the following sections.

The overall purpose of this program is clearly expressed in the Problem Statement, "In order to effectively address the issues facing the ecological integrity and recovery of listed salmonid species, Columbia Land Trust is focused on conserving and restoring key [lower river and estuary] floodplain habitats that provide the most significant opportunity to provide ecological lift and address as many of the limiting factors identified above as feasible." Later, in the Goals and Objectives section, there is a clear statement of the overall goal, "Protect and restore the Columbia River Estuary ecosystem, focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms." This is followed by a series of specific, quantitative, measurable objectives.

The proponents are well organized and have been doing this type of work in the region for a number of years. The budget appears reasonable for what they propose. Comments responding to past ISRP reviews are generally of high quality. The timeline and narrative indicate that they propose to work on various portions of six projects from 2023 to 2027; this timeline and text discussion are useful in providing details on specific activities.

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. During the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021), we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them 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.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The objectives are provided in a SMART format and the outcomes in terms of acreage by project are listed. However, as for other land acquisition projects, the proponents describe the other regional plans but do not articulate how their proposed project directly relates to those plans (p. 5). The ISRP would like to learn more about the coordination.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe how landscape connectivity is considered in project selection and evaluation. This issue (e.g., distance from the main channel) can have a significant effect on project performance. A project outside the main channel will benefit fewer juvenile salmon than one next to the main channel. How is the distribution of projects in different reaches determined in project selection? Is there an effort to spread projects out throughout the eight reaches? Projects in Reach A will have different potential benefits than ones in Reach E, for example. Projects undertaken at upriver sites will have a different mix of stocks than projects farther downstream. These differences do not necessarily make the sites good or bad choices, but they relate to the mix of projects and overall benefits estuary-wide. Restoration actions should be distributed throughout the estuary and, if possible, benefit multiple species, populations, and life history forms.

Q2: Methods

The approaches are standard for this type of activity. The ISRP is pleased to see a list of proposed sites and acreage to be restored (p. 18). Given the extensive history of floodplain restoration in the Columbia Estuary, it would be informative to also estimate the outcomes in terms of juvenile salmonid carrying capacity and performance (e.g., improvements in growth, residence time, survivorship, and so forth).

Habitat condition for this project is determined based on the current status of habitat condition as compared to the Desired Future Condition (DFC; p. 24). Why not use desired “achievable” condition instead? It would be more realistic.

This section (p. 29) does not really address “relationships,” which is concerning since there are significant overlaps with other projects acquiring and restoring floodplains. Please describe any significant competition and conflicts between this and other projects, if they exist, and how they are resolved.

The proponents note six components to the project’s work and describe and discuss each one. However, a better explanation of how a project is initially identified or selected to proceed through the process would be helpful. For instance, where does the list of projects picked from originate? Perhaps this comes from Land Trust Conservation Planning, but that was not clear.

There were several methods (e.g., EIA) that need to be defined when first introduced.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

There are clear paths for Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM), evaluation of results, and the adaptive management process. The proponents state that the projects completed during the reporting period have not been included as AEM Level 1 monitoring sites (p. 12). While true, this does not constitute an excuse for not collecting quantitative information on species-specific benefits.

As with all estuary projects, AEMR monitoring is largely controlled by the Action Agencies as part of the CEERP process. The structure of the monitoring is not very satisfying when attempting to evaluate progress since the Action Agencies seem to decide what monitoring is conducted and where.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

It is implied that the restoration actions and areas protected generally benefit fish and wildlife, and that is undeniably true. The proponents state (p. 27) that “The cumulative evidence from AEMR projects in the LCRE demonstrates that restoration actions are improving ecological processes in the estuary, although spatial and temporal variability influence site-scale responses. Based on analyses, ecosystem restoration is improving habitat conditions for juvenile salmon in the estuary. These improvements are reflected in both direct (onsite) and indirect (offsite) benefits to salmon (Johnson et al. 2018).” Nevertheless, the ISRP is not fully convinced of supporting evidence and therefore the validity of the last sentence. As far as we are aware, no project reviewed so far has provided empirical evidence to support this statement. Is this project able to provide that evidence?

The ISRP recognizes that estuaries are important for salmonid ecology, though to different extents for different species (and stocks), and many other forms of wildlife and fishes benefit from quality estuarine habitats. The nature of the project does not entail specific quantification of benefits in terms of survival or abundance. However, the project relies on and is closely linked to other entities conducting estuary planning and assessments. It is thus understandable that this project is focused on land acquisition. Given this, extensive benefits to fish and wildlife are a reasonable inference, though more information on which species and forms may benefit would be helpful.

The ISRP is surprised that expanding rural development, and its associated land use, are not considered confounding issues. Are they not issues, as they are in other nearby areas?

Documentation Links:
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review

Council Recommendation

Assessment Number: 2010-073-00-NPCC-20131126
Project: 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal: GEOREV-2010-073-00
Proposal State: Pending BPA Response
Approved Date: 11/5/2013
Recommendation: Implement with Conditions
Comments: Implement through FY 2018. See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.
Conditions:
Council Condition #1 ISRP Qualification: Qualification #1—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.
Council Condition #2 Programmatic Issue: D. Columbia River Estuary – effectiveness monitoring—See Programmatic Issue and Recommendation D for monitoring in the estuary.

Independent Scientific Review Panel Assessment

Assessment Number: 2010-073-00-ISRP-20130610
Project: 2010-073-00 - Columbia Land Trust Estuarine Restoration
Review: 2013 Geographic Category Review
Proposal Number: GEOREV-2010-073-00
Completed Date: 6/11/2013
Final Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
Final Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria
Final Round ISRP Comment:

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

The program is highly significant and is one of the key restoration programs in the estuary and relates to major regional documents as the Council's Monitoring Evaluation Research and Reporting (MERR) plan, the BiOp, and subbasin plan for the estuary. This is a generally solid proposal, and activities are well organized and explained. Justifications for estuarine restoration are well supported, but the sponsors do not specify how their program will meet these restoration needs.

The Columbia Land Trust is continuing to improve connections to other projects in the estuary and to improve effectiveness and transparency of project solicitation, review, and selection activities.

Objective statements are stated as goals. Objectives should be quantified and include a projected date or time frame for completion. Both elements are important to aid in tracking actual accomplishment of actions. There are three stated objectives (actually goals) covering re-accessing of habitats, increasing productivity and capacity of habitats and for improving realized function of the ecosystem. Deliverables for each of the objectives (goals) are included, but to see the details, the ISRP was referred to the 2012 Synthesis Memorandum which was developed by CEERP. No linkage to the document was provided.

Projects under the habitat umbrella are supposed to describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. This was done fairly well in the proposal, but it appears the sponsor totally delegates these steps to others, especially The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee. Therefore a flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to understand the procedure.

The sponsor is sometimes a subcontractor to LCREP, but some projects are conducted independently. Although this seems to be a workable arrangement, it would be helpful to clarify how the sponsors determine which projects they will independently implement and if there are any criteria for the sponsor to conduct projects separately. Is this a function of the solicitation process?

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

The Columbia Land Trust has permanently conserved 6,222 acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last twelve years which is about 30% of the LCREP 19000 acre goal by 2014. The sponsors should be complimented for this achievement. It is encouraging to note that several applied research projects are being conducted by NOAA and others on areas purchased by the sponsor.

No results were reported specifically by this project, only those reported by others were given. The history of reporting accomplishments is not stellar.

In general, the sponsors seem well aware of the needs and benefits of adaptive management and have identified a number of lessons learned, for example weed control, but do not appear to have fully incorporated it into the current project design. One reason given is that invasive plant control could not occur due to prohibition of using necessary chemicals. It seems that the sponsors should have been aware of this prohibition before the activity was planned. Another delay was due to unresolved permitting issues which may be beyond the control of the sponsors.

It would be helpful to clarify what role the sponsor actually has in adaptive management since they do not appear to do any monitoring themselves. The CEERP adaptive management approach is used. A summary of accomplishments and recent research findings of others is provided, but there is no discussion as to how these findings are actually being applied in the current program. A number of the findings appear particularly relevant to prioritizing sites for acquisition and for the design of restoration treatments. 

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

It is stated that there are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal, but elsewhere in the narrative many are given. The sponsors presumably are relying on monitoring data produced by others under the umbrella.

All current projects are assigned a Level 3 monitoring status under the CEERP Action Effectiveness program. It is stated that a subset of CLT projects are included in more intensive Level 1 and 2 monitoring. It is not clear how or when these projects are selected for more intensive monitoring.

There is no discussion of transitioning from the current CEERP action effectiveness monitoring approach to the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEP protocols.

There are a number of emerging factors that the sponsors recognize, especially sea level rise and invasive species. For the latter, the sponsors state, "Columbia Land Trust actively manages newly restored lands to ensure that these invasive species do not gain a foothold on these sites is an ongoing responsibility," but no details are given on how this is done.

The relationship of this project with other projects in the estuary is described fairly well. However, there is no discussion regarding community, landowner or public outreach engagement. This appears to be an important component for the project that needs future consideration.

A useful table showing limiting factor prioritization is provided. Two principal factors limiting the amount of habitat opportunity in the estuary are the loss of estuarine wetlands and the reduction in the spring freshets due to the hydrosystem. It is not clear if the constraints imposed by the hydrosystem operations mean that making changes to the first factor will have limited impact.

The review process for this umbrella project is outlined in the proposal but is described in greater detail in project proposal #2003-011-00. The evaluation criteria have been reviewed by the ISRP. Membership on the Project Review Committee is listed in this proposal. The proposal states that the Estuary Partnership may modify the review criteria to accommodate the objectives of particular funding sources. This flexibility seems reasonable.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The discussion of the two-level process for project prioritization was clearly stated. There is a solid review process that includes site visits and application of a two-step prioritization screening. The Estuary three-component prioritization model is used for the first stage. This scores projects on a 100 point scale. There is limited discussion of how the primary components were weighted and the sub-elements of each are qualitative and are not assigned individual weights or points. Including this in the model would be an improvement. Selection of three focus areas for acquisition and restoration is a solid foundation for a more strategic and efficient program. 

Given the complexity of achieving meaningful restoration of the estuary, an overarching strategic approach is needed. There is discussion about development of an improved strategy for restoration using the Estuary Partnership Restoration Priority Strategy and Restoration Inventory in conjunction with the BPA Landscape Planning Framework. Also, completion of an ESA Recovery Plan is mentioned. Both are to be completed in the spring of 2013. It is not clear if they will replace the current sources of guidance for prioritization or if they will ultimately be synthesized into a single unified strategy. A review of these final products by the ISRP may be worthwhile.

Metrics for gauging accomplishment appear limited to acres and miles of acquired and/or restored habitat. They do not link with the three stated objectives for the project. Doing so would provide a more complete picture of accomplishments relative to the stated objectives.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No link to monitoring.methods.org is provided.

On a budgetary note, it is not clear why a fully equipped office is need in both Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.


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

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 results reporting at the programmatic level is recommended. The ISRP's concerns, questions, and comments can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.
First Round ISRP Date: 6/10/2013
First Round ISRP Rating: Meets Scientific Review Criteria (Qualified)
First Round ISRP Comment:

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

The program is highly significant and is one of the key restoration programs in the estuary and relates to major regional documents as the Council's Monitoring Evaluation Research and Reporting (MERR) plan, the BiOp, and subbasin plan for the estuary. This is a generally solid proposal, and activities are well organized and explained. Justifications for estuarine restoration are well supported, but the sponsors do not specify how their program will meet these restoration needs.

The Columbia Land Trust is continuing to improve connections to other projects in the estuary and to improve effectiveness and transparency of project solicitation, review, and selection activities.

Objective statements are stated as goals. Objectives should be quantified and include a projected date or time frame for completion. Both elements are important to aid in tracking actual accomplishment of actions. There are three stated objectives (actually goals) covering re-accessing of habitats, increasing productivity and capacity of habitats and for improving realized function of the ecosystem. Deliverables for each of the objectives (goals) are included, but to see the details, the ISRP was referred to the 2012 Synthesis Memorandum which was developed by CEERP. No linkage to the document was provided.

Projects under the habitat umbrella are supposed to describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. This was done fairly well in the proposal, but it appears the sponsor totally delegates these steps to others, especially The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee. Therefore a flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to understand the procedure.

The sponsor is sometimes a subcontractor to LCREP, but some projects are conducted independently. Although this seems to be a workable arrangement, it would be helpful to clarify how the sponsors determine which projects they will independently implement and if there are any criteria for the sponsor to conduct projects separately. Is this a function of the solicitation process?

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

The Columbia Land Trust has permanently conserved 6,222 acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last twelve years which is about 30% of the LCREP 19000 acre goal by 2014. The sponsors should be complimented for this achievement. It is encouraging to note that several applied research projects are being conducted by NOAA and others on areas purchased by the sponsor.

No results were reported specifically by this project, only those reported by others were given. The history of reporting accomplishments is not stellar.

In general, the sponsors seem well aware of the needs and benefits of adaptive management and have identified a number of lessons learned, for example weed control, but do not appear to have fully incorporated it into the current project design. One reason given is that invasive plant control could not occur due to prohibition of using necessary chemicals. It seems that the sponsors should have been aware of this prohibition before the activity was planned. Another delay was due to unresolved permitting issues which may be beyond the control of the sponsors.

It would be helpful to clarify what role the sponsor actually has in adaptive management since they do not appear to do any monitoring themselves. The CEERP adaptive management approach is used. A summary of accomplishments and recent research findings of others is provided, but there is no discussion as to how these findings are actually being applied in the current program. A number of the findings appear particularly relevant to prioritizing sites for acquisition and for the design of restoration treatments. 

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

It is stated that there are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal, but elsewhere in the narrative many are given. The sponsors presumably are relying on monitoring data produced by others under the umbrella.

All current projects are assigned a Level 3 monitoring status under the CEERP Action Effectiveness program. It is stated that a subset of CLT projects are included in more intensive Level 1 and 2 monitoring. It is not clear how or when these projects are selected for more intensive monitoring.

There is no discussion of transitioning from the current CEERP action effectiveness monitoring approach to the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEP protocols.

There are a number of emerging factors that the sponsors recognize, especially sea level rise and invasive species. For the latter, the sponsors state, "Columbia Land Trust actively manages newly restored lands to ensure that these invasive species do not gain a foothold on these sites is an ongoing responsibility," but no details are given on how this is done.

The relationship of this project with other projects in the estuary is described fairly well. However, there is no discussion regarding community, landowner or public outreach engagement. This appears to be an important component for the project that needs future consideration.

A useful table showing limiting factor prioritization is provided. Two principal factors limiting the amount of habitat opportunity in the estuary are the loss of estuarine wetlands and the reduction in the spring freshets due to the hydrosystem. It is not clear if the constraints imposed by the hydrosystem operations mean that making changes to the first factor will have limited impact.

The review process for this umbrella project is outlined in the proposal but is described in greater detail in project proposal #2003-011-00. The evaluation criteria have been reviewed by the ISRP. Membership on the Project Review Committee is listed in this proposal. The proposal states that the Estuary Partnership may modify the review criteria to accommodate the objectives of particular funding sources. This flexibility seems reasonable.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The discussion of the two-level process for project prioritization was clearly stated. There is a solid review process that includes site visits and application of a two-step prioritization screening. The Estuary three-component prioritization model is used for the first stage. This scores projects on a 100 point scale. There is limited discussion of how the primary components were weighted and the sub-elements of each are qualitative and are not assigned individual weights or points. Including this in the model would be an improvement. Selection of three focus areas for acquisition and restoration is a solid foundation for a more strategic and efficient program. 

Given the complexity of achieving meaningful restoration of the estuary, an overarching strategic approach is needed. There is discussion about development of an improved strategy for restoration using the Estuary Partnership Restoration Priority Strategy and Restoration Inventory in conjunction with the BPA Landscape Planning Framework. Also, completion of an ESA Recovery Plan is mentioned. Both are to be completed in the spring of 2013. It is not clear if they will replace the current sources of guidance for prioritization or if they will ultimately be synthesized into a single unified strategy. A review of these final products by the ISRP may be worthwhile.

Metrics for gauging accomplishment appear limited to acres and miles of acquired and/or restored habitat. They do not link with the three stated objectives for the project. Doing so would provide a more complete picture of accomplishments relative to the stated objectives.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No link to monitoring.methods.org is provided.

On a budgetary note, it is not clear why a fully equipped office is need in both Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.


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

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:59:29 AM.
Documentation Links:

Project Relationships: None

Name Role Organization
Ian Sinks Project Lead Columbia Land Trust
Anne Creason Project SME Bonneville Power Administration
Shawn Skinner Env. Compliance Lead Bonneville Power Administration
Jason Karnezis Supervisor Bonneville Power Administration
Jason Karnezis Project Manager Bonneville Power Administration