The organization, technical background, site selection/descriptions, reporting, vision, and planning described in this umbrella proposal seem to be a model for many of the other estuary projects, if future work plans are successfully achieved. The sponsors also did a good job describing the emerging limiting factors by raising the issues and describing how they were being addressed. Their inclusion of hypotheses for adaptive management was also commendable.

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

The Inter-Agency Coordination effort described in the proposal is noteworthy. It would be interesting to see results of an evaluation by participants. The project goals and objectives are linked to many regional programs/plans such as the Council’s FWP 2004 Subbasin Plan, the NMFS Estuary Module (2011), and the 2008 BiOp.

The problem statement is well crafted and the objectives are realistic. The sponsors have provided an excellent technical background document which could almost be a template or model for the other estuary umbrella projects.

Although the proposal is lengthy, it is well organized and easy to follow. The work is supported by solid science, and the sponsors appear to have made a serious attempt to incorporate the latest scientific findings into their selection and implementation of projects. Program activities are well-coordinated with other restoration groups/programs in the Lower Columbia River Estuary. 

Program objectives are similar to the other projects reviewed. For individual projects, a hierarchy of expectations is presented as vision, goals, and objectives. In most cases, the objectives tie well to the vision and goals and link to proposed treatments. The objectives are generally not quantitative and do not include an expected timeframe for results. A positive aspect is that unique success criteria are developed for each project. It appears that these are mostly qualitative statements with no time frame for expected results. 

A positive feature of the proposal was a description of how the program linked to and incorporated information and direction from other sources. There was a very useful description of how elements of The Ecosystem Approach to Restoration of the LCRE by Johnson (2003) have been incorporated into the program. Similar discussions would have been useful in the other proposals that were reviewed. This section also mentioned the NPPC program and mentioned MERR but did not discuss how this linked to proposed activities.

Although it was noted that community and landowner support is critical to the long term success of the program, there are no programmatic goals, vision statements or objectives that address this critical element. It appears that this support is limited to landowner and community support for individually proposed projects. Additionally, in the discussion of emerging limiting factors, it was acknowledged that development and resource management in upstream portions of treated watersheds were important in helping to define downstream conditions, but it was stated that influencing watershed land uses was beyond the control of the program. This seems to be a key area that could be addressed in activities designed to involve and inform the local communities and landowners and the general public.

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

History of the project is documented in a well written narrative. Diagrams on funding flows and arrangements were presented which make it easy to understand what has been done. The abstracts of project reports are detailed and include photos, so it is easy to see the results of the restoration projects.

This is a fairly new project, but some initial work has been started. Nice photos showing sites are included and some good preliminary data providing fish use by species is included in tables. The accomplishments are well documented and the project’s timely completion of deliverables is 90%. The program appears well organized and managed.

A good example for the incorporation of adaptive management is given for the Chinook restoration project. Additionally, examples were provided to indicate how recent research findings have been incorporated into revised designs for restoration treatments. The adaptive management framework is explained very well. Figure 1, based on Johnson et al. 2013, is very informative and provides good context for a discussion of uncertainties.

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

Project relationships look excellent, and it is especially gratifying to see coordination with the long-term IMW study (Kinsel et al. 2009) which is monitoring and evaluating effects of the Abernathy Tidal Restoration in the context of fish population and monitoring in the Abernathy Creek watershed. This type of work is needed to obtain data on the effects of estuary habitat restoration on salmonid survival.

Three emerging limiting factors were identified: 1) land conversion in the contributing watersheds, 2) potential changes to the hydrologic regime because of factors including climate change and FCRPS operations, and 3) invasive plant species. The sponsors have suggested buffers as possible ways to deal with 1 and 2. Control of invasive species, in particular reed canary grass, is a more difficult task, and no real plan to deal with it is offered.

Each tailored question was appropriately answered.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 “Identify and scope 5-10 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE. (DELV-1) and Design, permit, and plan construction for 2 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE; build at minimum 1 new project. (DELV-2)”: these deliverables are mainly plans to develop a plan but are appropriate for this kind of project.

“Continue AEMR and O&M for ongoing restoration projects and initiate AM for at least 1 new restoration project to ensure sustainability and resilience. (DELV-3)”: it would be useful to determine how the sponsors plan to assess “sustainability and resilience.” Metrics for these deliverables are not given in MonitoringMethods.org and presumably are being developed in the “science for critical uncertainty” component of the estuary umbrella project. This should be clarified.

Although there have been only five projects to date, an average 90% accomplishment rate is reported. Quantitative metrics are limited to acres and miles. There are a number of other metrics described, but they are in generally qualitative terms. 

The summary of completed projects is well organized and informative. The reporting template that is used would serve as a good example for reporting other Lower Columbia River Estuary project accomplishments. 

The methods provided in MonitoringMethods.org are partially done (41%) following Roegner et al. 2009.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Current monitoring occurs within the CEERP framework following Roegner et al. 2009. The Abernathy Creek project is contained within an IMW being monitored by the Washington Department of Ecology. Implementation monitoring appears well done and supported by success metrics for each project. A limitation of these metrics is that they are stated qualitatively.

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

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

See the programmatic comment for the estuary and the response request for LCREP. Continued work on justifying prioritization, coordinating RME, and reporting of results at the programmatic level is recommended.

For restoration site selection criteria, WDFW uses a blend of their own criteria and those used by the Estuary Partners. Some more details describing and explaining these differences in the criteria should be included in the proposal. It would also be useful to determine if any differences arose between the results of the expert panel process and Washington's original benefit estimate in any of the projects in this proposal. Some "disagreements" are mentioned in Table 1 under the Results: Reporting, Accomplishments, and Impact section of the proposal, but they are not elaborated upon.

The organization, technical background, site selection/descriptions, reporting, vision, and planning described in this umbrella proposal seem to be a model for many of the other estuary projects, if future work plans are successfully achieved. The sponsors also did a good job describing the emerging limiting factors by raising the issues and describing how they were being addressed. Their inclusion of hypotheses for adaptive management was also commendable.

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

The Inter-Agency Coordination effort described in the proposal is noteworthy. It would be interesting to see results of an evaluation by participants. The project goals and objectives are linked to many regional programs/plans such as the Council’s FWP 2004 Subbasin Plan, the NMFS Estuary Module (2011), and the 2008 BiOp.

The problem statement is well crafted and the objectives are realistic. The sponsors have provided an excellent technical background document which could almost be a template or model for the other estuary umbrella projects.

Although the proposal is lengthy, it is well organized and easy to follow. The work is supported by solid science, and the sponsors appear to have made a serious attempt to incorporate the latest scientific findings into their selection and implementation of projects. Program activities are well-coordinated with other restoration groups/programs in the Lower Columbia River Estuary. 

Program objectives are similar to the other projects reviewed. For individual projects, a hierarchy of expectations is presented as vision, goals, and objectives. In most cases, the objectives tie well to the vision and goals and link to proposed treatments. The objectives are generally not quantitative and do not include an expected timeframe for results. A positive aspect is that unique success criteria are developed for each project. It appears that these are mostly qualitative statements with no time frame for expected results. 

A positive feature of the proposal was a description of how the program linked to and incorporated information and direction from other sources. There was a very useful description of how elements of The Ecosystem Approach to Restoration of the LCRE by Johnson (2003) have been incorporated into the program. Similar discussions would have been useful in the other proposals that were reviewed. This section also mentioned the NPPC program and mentioned MERR but did not discuss how this linked to proposed activities.

Although it was noted that community and landowner support is critical to the long term success of the program, there are no programmatic goals, vision statements or objectives that address this critical element. It appears that this support is limited to landowner and community support for individually proposed projects. Additionally, in the discussion of emerging limiting factors, it was acknowledged that development and resource management in upstream portions of treated watersheds were important in helping to define downstream conditions, but it was stated that influencing watershed land uses was beyond the control of the program. This seems to be a key area that could be addressed in activities designed to involve and inform the local communities and landowners and the general public.

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

History of the project is documented in a well written narrative. Diagrams on funding flows and arrangements were presented which make it easy to understand what has been done. The abstracts of project reports are detailed and include photos, so it is easy to see the results of the restoration projects.

This is a fairly new project, but some initial work has been started. Nice photos showing sites are included and some good preliminary data providing fish use by species is included in tables. The accomplishments are well documented and the project’s timely completion of deliverables is 90%. The program appears well organized and managed.

A good example for the incorporation of adaptive management is given for the Chinook restoration project. Additionally, examples were provided to indicate how recent research findings have been incorporated into revised designs for restoration treatments. The adaptive management framework is explained very well. Figure 1, based on Johnson et al. 2013, is very informative and provides good context for a discussion of uncertainties.

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

Project relationships look excellent, and it is especially gratifying to see coordination with the long-term IMW study (Kinsel et al. 2009) which is monitoring and evaluating effects of the Abernathy Tidal Restoration in the context of fish population and monitoring in the Abernathy Creek watershed. This type of work is needed to obtain data on the effects of estuary habitat restoration on salmonid survival.

Three emerging limiting factors were identified: 1) land conversion in the contributing watersheds, 2) potential changes to the hydrologic regime because of factors including climate change and FCRPS operations, and 3) invasive plant species. The sponsors have suggested buffers as possible ways to deal with 1 and 2. Control of invasive species, in particular reed canary grass, is a more difficult task, and no real plan to deal with it is offered.

Each tailored question was appropriately answered.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

 “Identify and scope 5-10 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE. (DELV-1) and Design, permit, and plan construction for 2 ecosystem restoration projects in the historical floodplain of the LCRE; build at minimum 1 new project. (DELV-2)”: these deliverables are mainly plans to develop a plan but are appropriate for this kind of project.

“Continue AEMR and O&M for ongoing restoration projects and initiate AM for at least 1 new restoration project to ensure sustainability and resilience. (DELV-3)”: it would be useful to determine how the sponsors plan to assess “sustainability and resilience.” Metrics for these deliverables are not given in MonitoringMethods.org and presumably are being developed in the “science for critical uncertainty” component of the estuary umbrella project. This should be clarified.

Although there have been only five projects to date, an average 90% accomplishment rate is reported. Quantitative metrics are limited to acres and miles. There are a number of other metrics described, but they are in generally qualitative terms. 

The summary of completed projects is well organized and informative. The reporting template that is used would serve as a good example for reporting other Lower Columbia River Estuary project accomplishments. 

The methods provided in MonitoringMethods.org are partially done (41%) following Roegner et al. 2009.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

Current monitoring occurs within the CEERP framework following Roegner et al. 2009. The Abernathy Creek project is contained within an IMW being monitored by the Washington Department of Ecology. Implementation monitoring appears well done and supported by success metrics for each project. A limitation of these metrics is that they are stated qualitatively.

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

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

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:14:57 AM.