The ISRP recommends the following conditions be addressed in the next annual report and work plan:

1. Working relationships. Better describe the working relationships and responsibilities among this project, the Estuary Monitoring project (200300700), and the various other projects receiving funds from this project, as well as independently from BPA and other entities. 
   
   
2. Proposed restoration sites (SMART objectives). Provide site-specific information on each new site proposed for restoration during the 2021 to 2025 project period: a) the ecological attributes of the new sites, b) why they were selected, c) the goals and SMART objectives for each site/project (i.e., a quantitative description of desired future conditions), d) the type(s) of evaluation that will be used for each site to determine if actions have successfully met the SMART objectives, e) an objective assessment of potential site-specific contributions to the ecological conditions and resources (e.g., juvenile salmonids) in the Columbia Estuary, and f) the strategy and responsibility for long-term maintenance of the sites.

The bulk of the proposal presents the various general justifications and the processes employed for selecting and restoring sites rather than providing information on the proposed activities for specific sites. In reality, the revised proposal remains two projects in one and thus is difficult to fully evaluate. For instance, it is not clear which organization(s) or project(s) has ultimate responsibility for specific projects and/or specific activities. From the ISRP’s viewpoint, one part of this project conducts site-specific restoration while the second part assists partner organizations in various ways to meet their restoration goals/objectives. This proposal would have been much easier to evaluate if the two major activities had been presented separately, with justifications and budgets for each. It is simply not clear in the complex narrative who is responsible for specific activities. Perhaps a comprehensive table or flow chart would clarify the complex activities, roles, and responsibilities. For instance, the Estuary Monitoring project (200300700) conducts some activities, the Estuary Habitat project (this proposal) conducts other actions as well as restoration, and a variety of partners receive funds from this project, as well as from BPA’s Columbia River Ecosystem Restoration Program (CEERP) and other entities, to conduct even more activities. These relationships need to be clearly described in terms of responsibilities, site-specific activities and expected outcomes. While the division of labor and responsibilities – and the expected outcomes – appear to be fully understood by the proponents, they are not entirely clear in the proposal.

Further, activities at the sites to be restored and/or protected are not adequately described, nor are the expected outcomes. While we appreciate that the revised proposal describes in great detail the numerous processes involved in selecting sites, conducting restoration, and adaptively managing the processes, these details also mask the actual site-specific activities planned for 2021 - 2025. The site-specific activities are never fully described in the narrative (some general information is provided in Appendix 2 as a Gantt chart and very briefly on p. 31). See Condition 2 above for requested information.

In our preliminary review, we requested additional information and clarifications on several topics. Our final comments are based on the proponents’ responses:

1. Problem Statement. The ISRP is concerned that the LCEP or another organization is not tracking whether restoration activities are keeping up with urban, industrial, and residential development, nor the conversion of native habitats to impervious surfaces. Tracking development along the river and tributaries should be high priority for future investigations, as well as the integration of climate adaptation measures into the restoration activities.
   
   The Columbia Estuary has entered a unique environmental era, and the proponents identify several vitally important issues (p. 7). These include how to manage sites for “novel” species assemblages as organisms move in response to environmental change and shifts in climate and how workings lands can be enhanced to improve sequestration of carbon, retain soil, and improve nutrient cycling (all components of limiting global change effects). Projecting a clear strategy will be essential for charting a successful course forward, and the ISRP is pleased to see the proponents are starting those conversations. 
   
   
2. SMART Objectives. In general, the overall SMART objectives are well stated (p. 17). However, SMART objectives are also needed for each new site proposed for restoration in the 2021 to 2025 period. The ISRP notes that the LCEP requires, through the project application: information on quantifiable objectives, a timeline of activities, maps of the activities, and a description of the post-construction monitoring and management activities, including an adaptive management plan, along with other information. The Project Review Committee also ensures these objectives are clear and well-formulated within their evaluation recommendations to project partners. The ISRP expects the LCEP to share information on the SMART objectives for the new projects in their next annual report and work plan. It is still not clear to the ISRP what the proponents mean by “recover.” The proponents should better explain how the term is used relative to the restoration of specific. Does it mean only the acreage treated or does it include attaining a predetermined objective for fish abundance or other biological characteristics? 
   
   
3. M&E Matrix – Support. The M&E summary and matrix are included in the Estuary Monitoring proposal (200300700). The map and updated tables were also provided to the partners – CREST, CLT, CIT, and WDFW – for inclusion in their responses to the ISRP. As the NPCC Fish and Wildlife Program develops efforts to identify monitoring activities and coordination between projects in major subbasins, the ISRP encourages this project to contribute its expertise and resources to help create an effective summary for the lower Columbia River. The ISRP has provided additional information on the summary of monitoring and evaluation for geographic areas in the Programmatic Comments of this report. In addition to providing important information for the Fish and Wildlife Program, development of an overall summary of the M&E efforts in the lower Columbia River also would inform and strengthen the restoration efforts of this project. 
   
   
4. New Projects. While the proponents revised the proposal to include more information on the reasons why these projects were selected, they did not fully satisfy the ISRP request. Specific information needed by the ISRP is detailed in the overall comments above and as part of the Conditions.
   
   
5. Benefits to Fish and Wildlife. As the ISRP indicated in our review of the companion Columbia Estuary Monitoring project (200300700), the response by the proponents raises concerns for the ISRP. Despite substantial long-term funding for restoration and protection of juvenile salmonid habitat, the project does not, nor do the other estuary projects (CREST, CLT, WDFW, CIT, LCEP restoration projects), document the benefits to fish from the habitat restoration (e.g., total abundance, size at smoltification, or survivorship). The ISRP agrees with the proponents that an important information gap must be filled to evaluate the usefulness of many of the restoration and protection actions. A starting point could be to use the recently completed 2020 PNNL and NMFS diagnostic study to document that restoration provides immediate benefits to juvenile salmon and steelhead using the lower Columbia River. The ISRP encourages the proponents to partner with the appropriate agencies and groups in the very near future to see that appropriate monitoring data are collected to demonstrate that habitat restoration and protection are producing positive benefits for juvenile salmonids. In other words, the proponents should develop and implement a strategy for collecting the necessary information.

Preliminary ISRP report comments: response requested

Response request comment:

The ISRP regards the Partnership, as it did during the previous review in 2017, to be an essential project for the Columbia River estuary. It continues to provide a wide variety of services to estuarine partners, as well as actively leveraging funding and other resources to improve environmental conditions for the entire estuarine ecosystem. Specifically, the ISRP appreciates the focus in the current proposal on climate change, the incorporation of appropriate scientific concepts into the programmatic strategy, and the efforts to provide cool-water refuges for migrating fish. 

However, this proposal is, in reality, two projects combined into one. The first project conducts site-specific restoration while the second acts as an umbrella project to assist partner organizations in meeting their restoration goals. This proposal would have been much easier to evaluate if the two activities had been presented separately, with justifications and budgets for each. It was simply not clear in the complex narrative who is responsible for specific actions. The ISRP requests the proponents to address the following points in a revised proposal and to provide a brief point-by-point response to explain how and where each issue is addressed in the revised proposal:

1. Problem statement. Provide a problem statement that justifies the activities and restoration actions specific to this proposal. The proponents provide basically the same Problem Statement as the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Monitoring project (2003-007-00), but it is not clear what differentiates them.
   
   Many other regional restoration activities are also focused on the estuary. It is essential that the proponents make a strong case here for the significance of this proposal’s activities to fish and wildlife benefits as well as for differentiating this project’s activities from those of other estuarine projects. 
   
   Define the terms “Recover” and “Restore.” These terms are used widely in the proposal and need to be explicitly defined. As well, the proposal should detail the types of “priority” habitats being targeted. 
   
   
2. SMART objectives. Provide SMART objectives (see proposal instructions) for the approaches employed to meet the stated general objectives.
   
   Clarify whether the Partnership’s Project Review Committee insists on SMART objectives and a functional adaptive management process for all new activities (p. 27). 
   
   
3. 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. We ask this project (200301100) to assist them in creating the summary and provide information 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. 
   
   
4. New projects. Provide justifications for the several new projects (e.g., Multnomah Channel Natural Area, cold water pilot project, and others). Since they appear in the budget as one-time costs, it is essential that details be provided of the prioritization process for the five implementation projects, the attributes of the projects, and why they were selected, clear goals and SMART objectives for each project, type of evaluation they will use for each project, and an overall assessment of the cumulative contribution to the ecological resources (e.g., juvenile salmonids) in the Columbia Estuary. 
   
   
5. Benefits to fish and wildlife. Provide empirical information showing that the restoration actions are making an ecologically significance difference. Even though juvenile salmonids make use of restored and reconnected wetlands, no data (or references) are provided to demonstrate that vital life history processes have improved (e.g., total abundance, growth, condition, size at smoltification, survivorship). The species present and those likely to benefit should also be identified, as estuary use varies greatly among species and life history types.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

There is every indication that the project is well conceived and has a strong scientific basis for the proposed activities. Overall, it has a strong track record for the restoration and protection of habitats.

The ISRP agrees with the proponents that climate adaptation and mitigation is where the focus of the work should lie. However, the stated objectives are very general (see p. 19): no net loss and recover 30% of priority habitat by 2030. More detail is provided in the associated narrative about methods and ecological principles to be employed to meet these general objectives. The proponents should provide SMART objectives for the approaches employed during the upcoming funding period.

It is not clear if the climate adaptation and mitigation activities will occur at the expense of working on other objectives. Will staff with different expertise be required? Is additional funding being requested to cover this new focus in work? More information is required to evaluate the shift in project focus.

In the Problem Statement section, the proponents mention creating a guidebook describing climate adaptation techniques and standards, but funding for this effort is not clearly noted. This product would likely benefit others working throughout the Columbia and in other basins as well. Having dedicated funding to develop this guidebook will be essential.

Most importantly, no justifications or other details are provided for several “new” projects (e.g., Multnomah Channel Natural Area, cold water pilot project, and others), yet they appear in the budget as one-time costs. If these are important activities, then adequate detail is needed for the ISRP to evaluate their feasibility and ecological importance.

The proponents should provide the missing details of the prioritization process for the five implementation projects. These should include the attributes of the projects, why they were selected, clear goals and SMART objectives for each project, type of evaluation that will be used for each project, and an overall assessment of the cumulative contribution to the ecological resources (e.g., juvenile salmonids) in the Columbia Estuary.

In the Problem Statement section, the proponents provide striking evidence for challenges related to water quality issues in the LCRE, including describing specific toxics and documented effects on fishes. However, efforts to address water quality are not described in the proposal. The ISRP assumes that water quality is not addressed because BPA does not support research or monitoring of toxins. Nevertheless, the issue of water quality needs to be addressed, and more information on how that will be done would be helpful, including if it will be a focus in the future, even if supported by other sources or conducted by other projects.

In the Progress to Date section, the proponents describe two broad types of achievements: 1) restoration and protection actions and 2) programmatic accomplishments. The programmatic outreach accomplishments are critical to the program’s success but are not adequately described. Specific descriptions of the effects and impacts of outreach efforts as part of the programmatic accomplishments would be helpful going forward.

Under Goals and Objectives, the proponents highlight four types of ecological attributes used to measure biological integrity (natural habitat diversity, focal species, water quality, and ecosystem processes). Somewhat surprisingly, they indicate that only the first two will be addressed by this project. The lack of discussion on targets for water quality and ecosystem processes is a limitation. At a minimum, could the proponents describe how they might identify benchmarks for water quality and ecosystem processes (i.e., perhaps through future workshops)?

Related to this, while the proponents described objectives for habitat diversity in detail (and this was quite helpful), the discussion on focal species was more limited. Some specific mention of species being targeted would be helpful. Later in the proposal, the proponents mention that they are setting habitat restoration targets based on numbers of native species that would be protected. If that set of organisms (60-80% of native species) is the group of target species, stating that would be helpful.

Q2: Methods

The methods, and the fundamental principles guiding the activities, are well accepted in the scientific and conservation communities, and are appropriate for this activity. Earlier in this review, the ISRP noted that: “This proposal would be much easier to evaluate if the two activities had been presented separately, with separate justifications and budgets for each.” If this change was implemented, organizing the methods according to the two types of activities would also be helpful for evaluation.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

This is an umbrella project where, for the most part, monitoring is conducted by a companion LCEP project. Given the difficulties inherent in estuaries as habitats for research and monitoring, the proponents have gone to considerable lengths to have a scientific study design treating restoration as a series of experiments (e.g., BACI), implementing a structured decision-making process, establishing a solid data collection and analysis process, and conducting several levels of scientific and policy review. While this is clearly a large and complex project, it is closely linked with many other projects and entities and has a strong scientific foundation. The ISRP also feels that the project adjustment process is comprehensive and has functioned at a high level for many years. The proponents appear to have an excellent process in place to address existing and emerging Adaptive Management issues.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

The program as a whole is well conceived and seems to be effective in providing benefits to fish and wildlife. The collection of site-specific projects is having positive ecological outcomes. Restoring 30% of the estuary to a better ecological status is a formidable challenge, and the LCEP is making steady progress. Nevertheless, even though juvenile salmonids are making use of the restored and reconnected wetland, no data are provided to demonstrate that vital life history processes have improved (e.g., total abundance, growth, condition, size at smolting, survivorship). Are the restoration actions making an ecologically significant difference? The “currency” used to gauge success could be out-migrating salmonids, or other fish-specific metrics, in addition to or rather than acres restored.

The ISRP also suggests that it would be helpful to have the metrics, in addition to the number of projects completed or acres restored, reported relative to some eventual, achievable goal. For instance, what fraction of the realistic total number of projects or acres considered for restoration has already been restored or otherwise addressed? It seems likely that initially the "low hanging fruit gets picked first," and thus the pace of success may be rapid at first but then slow down as more complex projects are tackled, more recalcitrant landowners encountered, and so forth. Even a rough sense of this will be helpful because at some point the costs will exceed the likely gains in fish and wildlife benefits.