FY07-09 proposal 200301100

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Contacts

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Columbia Estuary / Columbia Estuary

Section 3. Focal species

Section 4. Past accomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Section 6. Biological objectives

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget

Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets

Cost sharing

Section 9. Project future

Future O&M costs: The future operations and maintenance costs associated with this project are reflected in the comments on the outyear budget.

Termination date: Not determined
Comments: Habitat restoration in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary is a long term commitment. It is unclear at the present time as to when, and if, habitat restoration at the landscape scale should terminate.

Final deliverables: Thousands of acres habitat reconnected to regular tidal and riverine wetting for the purposes of species recovery and the improvement of ecosystem function.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents

Reviews and recommendations

ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)

Recommendation: Response requested

NPCC comments: This proposal identifies a number of important impediments to effective restoration in the Columbia River estuary (CRE) and directly addresses some of them. The sponsors propose to 1. continue restoration efforts in the estuary, 2. develop an adaptive management program, and 3. select sites as part of a monitoring program. The scientific background and need for the proposed work are clearly explained. The project involves numerous activities, some of which are strictly administrative. For example LCREP is a "pass-through" organization that presents awards to proposing agencies, but they should be able to document results and effectiveness of these efforts. The most important aspect of the project is therefore the adaptive management goal under Objective 2. This objective is currently justified and "fundable." However, the ISRP needs a response on Objectives 1 and 3 before making a final recommendation on the proposal. Regarding Objective 2, there is clearly a need to evaluate the major restoration projects that have already been completed. Tools to evaluate the restoration projects are key as well as consideration of long term maintenance needs. The workshop they propose should also be useful in coordination and evaluation of recent work but the proponents should also consider direct interviews with stakeholders and people who have actually done the restoration. The project has collaborated with and provides funding in support of a number of BPA-funded estuary restoration projects. The proposal would be improved by clarification of a number of issues under Objectives 1 and 3. Objective 1 “Continue the success of the habitat restoration program for the lower Columbia River and estuary (Bonneville Dam to mouth of River) The objectives of this part of the proposal are all excellent: to increase shallow water side-channels, to protect spawning and rearing habitats, and to restore connectivity. All of these actions would benefit fish and wildlife in the lower Columbia River estuary. However few details are given on the how these issues will be addressed other than in general terms. A number of restoration projects have been funded since the inception of the project but their success is not well documented in the proposal. Where have the restoration activities been performed? What groups or agencies were funded to do the work? The sponsors need to indicate whether monitoring is occurring for the projects they funded and provide empirical evidence of whether the projects are progressing toward their objectives (e.g., juvenile salmon are using areas where dikes have been removed, removal of culverts and tidegates has actually improved habitat opportunity A. Most of the tasks listed under this objective seem to be plans to develop plans (ie for soliciting specific restoration projects) although a number of major restoration projects are poised to begin or past work supplemented. A perspective on how the restoration projects are going to be maintained would be helpful. Some restoration projects in the lower Columbia have been affected by invasive species such as reed canary grass. Has the type of problem been anticipated? B. Further details on the work of the Science Team and the Science Work group on this objective would be useful. Who are the personnel in the two groups and what are their qualifications? C. How will the Restoration Prioritization Strategy be used in project selection, specifically in relation to Tasks 1a and b? The sponsors need to provide a better description of the Conceptual Model. For the effectiveness monitoring approach, what kinds of data and methodology will be used to make the past-present comparisons? What is the current M&E requirement for funded programs and have reports been written on results (none are cited)? Will the proposed project monitoring approach substitute for on-the-ground M&E? How will on-the-ground M&E be integrated with the proposed present-past comparison approach? This information on experiment design or prioritization of habitats for restoration or protection would enhance the proposal. D. Reviewers would appreciate further explanation of how the FRAGSTATS model would be used for planning/prioritization of estuarine fish habitat restoration. It would be helpful if the proponents explained how the model would work with juvenile salmon. The fish exploit and move between food patches and habitats at various time and spatial scales. Are there sufficient data on movement to calibrate the model? Objective 3 “Identify and Characterize Reference Sites for Action Effectiveness Research and Status/Trends Monitoring in the Lower Columbia River” A. Further information would be helpful on the rationale for using vegetation communities and their ecological requirements as the primary metrics to assessment “success” of habitat restoration for F&W in the estuary and lower river. Can these metrics been linked with focal species? B. Further specifics are required on how the proponents will identify the “32 sites, 4 in each of the 8 reaches of the estuary characterized in recent university research” proposed as reference sites. If this is a reference to Project 200300700, elaboration on the degree of collaboration between the projects would be appreciated. If the EMAP methodology proposed in 200300700 does not withstand peer review do the proponents have an alternate method? Are the proponents convinced the reference sites have not been disrupted in the past?

ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Fundable (Qualified)

NPCC comments: The proponents have made a sincere effort to respond to the ISRP's questions. The responses by the LCREP were helpful in revealing the general protocols, monitoring plans, and criteria for prioritization of projects (many completed by other organizations, their collaborators, and personnel). LCREP is clearly supporting a broad suite of estuary restoration project in the Lower Columbia River Basin and funds funnel through it to numerous groups. The Partnership appears to be delegating much of the evaluation of results to the other groups, so their role in the projects needs clarification. Responses by the sponsors reinforced the ISRP's conclusion that the most important aspect of the project is the adaptive management goal under Objective 2 (Applied Adaptive Management Program for Restoration Projects in the Columbia River Estuary). This objective is currently justified and fundable. The proposed workshop among the many agencies and organizations involved in estuarine research and monitoring should be beneficial in providing a "landscape" review of ongoing and proposed work that will assist in collaboration and prioritizing future research and restoration activities. Results and recommendations of the workshop should be made available on-line. The qualification in the ISRP’s final recommendation concerns a deficiency of the sponsor’s response regarding Objective 1 (Habitat Restoration Project Implementation Fund). The ISRP asked explicitly ("provide empirical evidence of whether the projects are progressing toward their objectives") for information on results of restoration projects supported by LCREP. Detailed information, however, was not provided in the response. The proponents need to provide a table documenting all projects funded through LCREP, including dates of initiation and completion, funded dollars, agencies conducting the work, location, type of project (e.g., dike breaching), monitoring protocols, and a link to results or publications evaluating effectiveness of restoration actions. The ISRP asked about the distinction between the Science Team and the Science Work Group and the qualifications of the two groups. The response was very good. Input from LCREP’s excellent Science Work Group should be sought when developing the information on results of the restoration projects. The sponsors provided adequate responses to the ISRP's concerns about methods to be used in Objective 3 “Identify and Characterize Reference Sites for Action Effectiveness Research and Status/Trends Monitoring in the Lower Columbia River.” The estuarine classification system being developed in Project #200300700 will provide the basis for sampling site stratification, and the collaboration between the groups appears to be good. However, the former project may not produce a peer reviewed classification system in time for their needs. The ISRP recommends that a contingency plan be developed in case this occurs. The ISRP appreciated the sponsor's detailed responses to the ISRP’s concerns about models and strategies to control invasive vegetation.