This strong proposal is part of a set of estuary restoration projects. The ISRP does not have Conditions and is not asking for a response to any issue on this proposal. Some recommendations for improving the project are provided in the following sections.

The overall purpose of this program is clearly expressed in the Problem Statement, "In order to effectively address the issues facing the ecological integrity and recovery of listed salmonid species, Columbia Land Trust is focused on conserving and restoring key [lower river and estuary] floodplain habitats that provide the most significant opportunity to provide ecological lift and address as many of the limiting factors identified above as feasible." Later, in the Goals and Objectives section, there is a clear statement of the overall goal, "Protect and restore the Columbia River Estuary ecosystem, focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms." This is followed by a series of specific, quantitative, measurable objectives.

The proponents are well organized and have been doing this type of work in the region for a number of years. The budget appears reasonable for what they propose. Comments responding to past ISRP reviews are generally of high quality. The timeline and narrative indicate that they propose to work on various portions of six projects from 2023 to 2027; this timeline and text discussion are useful in providing details on specific activities.

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. During the response loop (September 24 to November 22, 2021), we ask this project to assist them in creating the summary and provide information to them 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.

Q1: Clearly defined objectives and outcomes

The objectives are provided in a SMART format and the outcomes in terms of acreage by project are listed. However, as for other land acquisition projects, the proponents describe the other regional plans but do not articulate how their proposed project directly relates to those plans (p. 5). The ISRP would like to learn more about the coordination.

The ISRP recommends that the proponents describe how landscape connectivity is considered in project selection and evaluation. This issue (e.g., distance from the main channel) can have a significant effect on project performance. A project outside the main channel will benefit fewer juvenile salmon than one next to the main channel. How is the distribution of projects in different reaches determined in project selection? Is there an effort to spread projects out throughout the eight reaches? Projects in Reach A will have different potential benefits than ones in Reach E, for example. Projects undertaken at upriver sites will have a different mix of stocks than projects farther downstream. These differences do not necessarily make the sites good or bad choices, but they relate to the mix of projects and overall benefits estuary-wide. Restoration actions should be distributed throughout the estuary and, if possible, benefit multiple species, populations, and life history forms.

Q2: Methods

The approaches are standard for this type of activity. The ISRP is pleased to see a list of proposed sites and acreage to be restored (p. 18). Given the extensive history of floodplain restoration in the Columbia Estuary, it would be informative to also estimate the outcomes in terms of juvenile salmonid carrying capacity and performance (e.g., improvements in growth, residence time, survivorship, and so forth).

Habitat condition for this project is determined based on the current status of habitat condition as compared to the Desired Future Condition (DFC; p. 24). Why not use desired “achievable” condition instead? It would be more realistic.

This section (p. 29) does not really address “relationships,” which is concerning since there are significant overlaps with other projects acquiring and restoring floodplains. Please describe any significant competition and conflicts between this and other projects, if they exist, and how they are resolved.

The proponents note six components to the project’s work and describe and discuss each one. However, a better explanation of how a project is initially identified or selected to proceed through the process would be helpful. For instance, where does the list of projects picked from originate? Perhaps this comes from Land Trust Conservation Planning, but that was not clear.

There were several methods (e.g., EIA) that need to be defined when first introduced.

Q3: Provisions for M&E

There are clear paths for Action Effectiveness Monitoring (AEM), evaluation of results, and the adaptive management process. The proponents state that the projects completed during the reporting period have not been included as AEM Level 1 monitoring sites (p. 12). While true, this does not constitute an excuse for not collecting quantitative information on species-specific benefits.

As with all estuary projects, AEMR monitoring is largely controlled by the Action Agencies as part of the CEERP process. The structure of the monitoring is not very satisfying when attempting to evaluate progress since the Action Agencies seem to decide what monitoring is conducted and where.

Q4: Results – benefits to fish and wildlife

It is implied that the restoration actions and areas protected generally benefit fish and wildlife, and that is undeniably true. The proponents state (p. 27) that “The cumulative evidence from AEMR projects in the LCRE demonstrates that restoration actions are improving ecological processes in the estuary, although spatial and temporal variability influence site-scale responses. Based on analyses, ecosystem restoration is improving habitat conditions for juvenile salmon in the estuary. These improvements are reflected in both direct (onsite) and indirect (offsite) benefits to salmon (Johnson et al. 2018).” Nevertheless, the ISRP is not fully convinced of supporting evidence and therefore the validity of the last sentence. As far as we are aware, no project reviewed so far has provided empirical evidence to support this statement. Is this project able to provide that evidence?

The ISRP recognizes that estuaries are important for salmonid ecology, though to different extents for different species (and stocks), and many other forms of wildlife and fishes benefit from quality estuarine habitats. The nature of the project does not entail specific quantification of benefits in terms of survival or abundance. However, the project relies on and is closely linked to other entities conducting estuary planning and assessments. It is thus understandable that this project is focused on land acquisition. Given this, extensive benefits to fish and wildlife are a reasonable inference, though more information on which species and forms may benefit would be helpful.

The ISRP is surprised that expanding rural development, and its associated land use, are not considered confounding issues. Are they not issues, as they are in other nearby areas?