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.