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

The program is very significant because extensive areas are sought for habitat restoration; 13 ESUs and several RPAs in the 2008 BiOp are addressed.

The sponsors are mainly relying on the LCREP Science Work Group for technical background, although they are also involving graduate students. In general, not a lot of specific technical background is given for the projects. Specific restoration sites are to be chosen with input from expert panels. Much of the narrative is from other planning documents dealing with the estuary (Johnson et al. 2012) which seems to be appropriate as the project is being conducted under an umbrella type project with five other lead agents. Specific detail on how the primary elements of the Johnson (2012) document were incorporated into the design of the program would have been useful.

The project objective is the same one used by other umbrella projects, "Protect and restore the lower Columbia River Ecosystem focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity, and realized function for aquatic organisms." As stated this is a goal and to refine to objectives should answer questions such as: Protect how and where? How much capacity? Which functions for which stocks or species?

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

The project has been in existence for just five months, so there are no project-specific accomplishments as of yet. However, during the past ten years the CIT has helped identify, and implement eleven habitat restoration projects. Therefore, the sponsors have experience performing habitat restoration work in the lower Columbia River. Additionally, the CIT states that it is committed to using utilizing new information to inform its current and new projects using the tribe’s adaptive management guidelines.

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

Project relationships are well-described and the sponsors have obviously reached out to a network of collaborators. Involvement of community and recognition of tribal values shows a true landscape approach is being taken.

Climate change was recognized as a future limiting factor, but the potential effects of climate change, for example, low dissolved oxygen of coastal waters due to prolonged upwelling, ocean acidification, increases in storm intensities and frequencies were not mentioned. Additionally, potential interactions between contaminants and restoration action were not considered. The sponsors state that restoration of normative processes in project areas will help to ameliorate the impacts of climate change.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has three deliverables: 1) Identify and prioritize habitat protection and restoration actions in the lower Columbia River and its estuary, 2) Design, permit, construct, and manage restoration actions, and 3) Monitor the success and effectiveness of its restoration actions for adaptive management. Some clarification on how these deliverables will be achieved is needed. First, it appears that CIT staff will identify project sites and these will be reviewed and prioritized by the Estuary Partnership. Selected projects will go through a cycle of analysis, design, permitting etc. that will be done by CIT staff and their consultants. Then apparently the projects go through the Estuary Partnership selection process for potential funding? Second, if funded CIT staff will be responsible for final designs, construction, permitting, and project management. However, funds from the Estuary Partnership will be used to perform the restoration work. And third, CIT staff will be responsible for AEMR after project completion. Is this the actual process that the CIT anticipates will be used?

The methods used for project prioritization, selection, and AEMR are those previously established by the Estuary Partnership and are generally adequate. Additional detail on the definition and weighting of main and sub elements of this prioritization is needed.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Protocols and methods for estuary sampling and monitoring are appropriate for the project following Roegner et al. 2009 in MonitoringMethods.org. No metrics are described.

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

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

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

The program is very significant because extensive areas are sought for habitat restoration; 13 ESUs and several RPAs in the 2008 BiOp are addressed.

The sponsors are mainly relying on the LCREP Science Work Group for technical background, although they are also involving graduate students. In general, not a lot of specific technical background is given for the projects. Specific restoration sites are to be chosen with input from expert panels. Much of the narrative is from other planning documents dealing with the estuary (Johnson et al. 2012) which seems to be appropriate as the project is being conducted under an umbrella type project with five other lead agents. Specific detail on how the primary elements of the Johnson (2012) document were incorporated into the design of the program would have been useful.

The project objective is the same one used by other umbrella projects, "Protect and restore the lower Columbia River Ecosystem focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity, and realized function for aquatic organisms." As stated this is a goal and to refine to objectives should answer questions such as: Protect how and where? How much capacity? Which functions for which stocks or species?

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

The project has been in existence for just five months, so there are no project-specific accomplishments as of yet. However, during the past ten years the CIT has helped identify, and implement eleven habitat restoration projects. Therefore, the sponsors have experience performing habitat restoration work in the lower Columbia River. Additionally, the CIT states that it is committed to using utilizing new information to inform its current and new projects using the tribe’s adaptive management guidelines.

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

Project relationships are well-described and the sponsors have obviously reached out to a network of collaborators. Involvement of community and recognition of tribal values shows a true landscape approach is being taken.

Climate change was recognized as a future limiting factor, but the potential effects of climate change, for example, low dissolved oxygen of coastal waters due to prolonged upwelling, ocean acidification, increases in storm intensities and frequencies were not mentioned. Additionally, potential interactions between contaminants and restoration action were not considered. The sponsors state that restoration of normative processes in project areas will help to ameliorate the impacts of climate change.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The project has three deliverables: 1) Identify and prioritize habitat protection and restoration actions in the lower Columbia River and its estuary, 2) Design, permit, construct, and manage restoration actions, and 3) Monitor the success and effectiveness of its restoration actions for adaptive management. Some clarification on how these deliverables will be achieved is needed. First, it appears that CIT staff will identify project sites and these will be reviewed and prioritized by the Estuary Partnership. Selected projects will go through a cycle of analysis, design, permitting etc. that will be done by CIT staff and their consultants. Then apparently the projects go through the Estuary Partnership selection process for potential funding? Second, if funded CIT staff will be responsible for final designs, construction, permitting, and project management. However, funds from the Estuary Partnership will be used to perform the restoration work. And third, CIT staff will be responsible for AEMR after project completion. Is this the actual process that the CIT anticipates will be used?

The methods used for project prioritization, selection, and AEMR are those previously established by the Estuary Partnership and are generally adequate. Additional detail on the definition and weighting of main and sub elements of this prioritization is needed.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Protocols and methods for estuary sampling and monitoring are appropriate for the project following Roegner et al. 2009 in MonitoringMethods.org. No metrics are described.

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

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