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

The project is an important part of a larger set of activities to protect and restore the ecological structure, function and biodiversity of the Columbia River estuary. There has been a significant amount of strategic planning and ecological assessment to provide a foundation for the work. There has also been substantial effort to coordinate activities with an array of agencies/organizations all working towards protection and/or restoration of the estuary.

However, a program goal, "Protect and restore the Columbia River Estuary ecosystem, focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms." is given, rather than a series of objectives. The objectives need to be better defined to focus on key questions, such as: 1) How will protection be achieved? 2) How will be restoration be accomplished? Where will the projects be located? 3) What ecological functions will be restored? 4) What benchmarks and reference sites will be used? The technical background provided was very general, and only a few references are provided for problem to be addressed. The proposal does not specify how CREST will address problems, and detail is lacking.

The objective, actually the goal as noted above, of CREST is succinctly stated as to implement on-the-ground salmon restoration projects and to focus on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms. However the objective does not mention achieving increased survival targets for salmon and steelhead which seems to be a driving element of the work. If it is assumed that survival and habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function are synonymous, it would be helpful to discuss this. 

The sponsors state:

"...Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon and Lower Columbia River Steelhead (NMFS 2012).This plan is the culmination of all the recovery plans for the lower Columbia basin and synthesizes the salmonid recovery plans in Oregon, Washington, White Salmon as well as the Estuary Recovery Plan Module. NMFS anticipates its completion in early 2013. This plan lists limiting factors, threats and identified actions from these plans. This proposal will address those categories of actions that pertain to habitat protection and restoration."

This recovery plan is apparently a new development. It would be useful learn if it is now available. It is not cited in this proposal.

There is a mix of strategic direction referenced, but it is unclear if there is an overarching strategy to guide this complex effort. The questions posed for umbrella habitat projects dealing with the steps to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects were answered. A flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to help understand the procedure.

As part of the landscape assessment process, it does not appear that there has been an assessment of fish and aquatic organism passage, particularly as related to tide gates and road-stream crossings. This information is important to ensure that the maximum connectivity is achieved when acquiring and restoring parcels. Correcting passage issues, on lands adjacent to those restored, can also serve to increase the scope of benefits beyond the immediate area of restoration

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

A good history of project achievements was provided. It appears that the program has had some impressive accomplishments, and there has been sound use of available funding.

The implementation metrics could be useful tools to describe a variety of desired outcomes, but it is not clear how these outcomes are measured. Additionally, in the summary of completed projects, these metrics were not applied. This would have been useful in better understanding and appreciating them.

The photos of each project helped get a perspective on what was done. However, the project result abstracts were lacking detail or references. For example, following the Fort Columbia photo the statement was made "Genetic analysis indicated use by multiple ESUs including up-river stocks." A reference to a CREST report or one by others should be included. The 2011 Annual Report to BPA contained some good data related to fish monitoring for the Fort Columbia site. It is unclear if this monitoring will be continued in the future for Fort Columbia and other sites. The explanations given in the field were essential to understand the significance of technical items such as the setback levees required by USACE.

There does not appear to be any formal documentation of lessons learned through the adaptive management process or their application to adjust current work activities. It appears the sponsors defer to the CEERP adaptive management process under the umbrella. It is not clear that this process is driven by designed experiments.

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

The sponsor has excellent working relationships with the sponsors of other restoration projects in the estuary. There has been good progress in establishing cost share agreements with other entities. However, there is no mention of any accomplishments for community or public involvement in the project/program. Given the landownership of the area and the commitment to sustainable, long-term protection, and restoration, this seems to be a critical element that needs to have elevated importance. Development of the ONCOR data base, described in the proposal, sounds like a good step for improving information sharing with the public and local communities and landowners but is reportedly still under development.

It is difficult to determine from the proposal what procedures are in place to determine when success has been reached and how long monitoring is required. There does not seem to be a long term monitoring program in place. This may be because of irregular funding schedules, but it would be helpful to find out if the sponsor has plans or procedures such as performance bonds or other procedures to ensure funds are available for long term monitoring and adjustment to projects going forward.

The sponsors state the following concerning limiting factors:

"Action effectiveness monitoring will be incorporated in to adaptive management for site maintenance and restoration design moving forward. CREST does address climate change, non-native species, predation and toxics through our project designs and implementation. For example the restoration of natural processes addresses resilience of specific sites to factors like climate change. CREST has also built in topographic diversity within our restoration sites to allow for multiple water elevations and vegetation types within a treated area. Much effort is put in to eradicating non-native plant species as well as improvements of water quality to address non-native fish species."

However, no details are provided on how they will actually deal with these concerns or they will influence project selection and evaluation of the success criterion.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Method 

DELV - 2 "The vast majority of CREST's effort under our contract with BPA is in the designing, permitting, and construction phases." And DELV-4 is mainly coordination. This work is not amenable to scientific review.

Monitor the effectiveness of restoration actions. (DELV-3) - the sponsors state "When funding agencies desire more intensive monitoring CREST biologists assess fish utilization using trap netting, seining, and PIT tag arrays." It would be helpful to clarify what criteria the sponsor uses to determine restoration success and how long they think it take to achieve success.

A strategic framework for project prioritization and selection appears to remain a work in progress (see comments in Q1 regarding needs for a comprehensive, over-arching strategy or strategic framework). Two sets of selection criteria were described, one for the Lower Columbia Restoration Enhancement Partnership and one for the BiOp Technical review group. The LCREP criteria are straight forward and seem logical, but there is no discussion on the logic or basis for how the points/weightings for each of the three major components were developed. The sub-elements under each main component, Ecological benefits, Implementation and Cost, are quite comprehensive but lack individual weights or scoring. Given this, it seems like the current arrangement would allow for a wide range of different interpretations and scoring for individual parcels. As mentioned in Johnson et al. (2013) it appears that there remains a need for additional work to refine and document this process. See programmatic comments for additional comments.

There are a number of metrics described to measure accomplishments. It is not clear when or how these are measured for each land acquisition. This list does seem to provide a good source for use in development of project specific objectives. 

There is a lengthy description of the AEMR process under the CEERP program. It was not apparent what actual monitoring has been selected for individual projects being planned or for those completed under this program. It is not clear if only Level 3 standard extensive metrics will be collected for all project actions unless funding agencies desire more monitoring. It would seem that there should be an opportunity to more actively seek cooperation with other programs to allow more extensive monitoring at some sites in order to allow a more complete evaluation of restoration impact. Additionally, there is no acknowledgement or discussion on how monitoring will be transitioned into the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEM program.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

All methods are satisfactory, except they seem to be only 56% complete. Please see the comments above. The Roegner et al. (2009) document prepared under the umbrella project is the main provider of methods.

See the programmatic comment for the estuary and the response request for LCREP. Continued work on justifying prioritization, coordinating RME, and report results at the programmatic level is recommended. The ISRP's issues can be dealt with in contracting and future project reviews.

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

The project is an important part of a larger set of activities to protect and restore the ecological structure, function and biodiversity of the Columbia River estuary. There has been a significant amount of strategic planning and ecological assessment to provide a foundation for the work. There has also been substantial effort to coordinate activities with an array of agencies/organizations all working towards protection and/or restoration of the estuary.

However, a program goal, "Protect and restore the Columbia River Estuary ecosystem, focusing on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms." is given, rather than a series of objectives. The objectives need to be better defined to focus on key questions, such as: 1) How will protection be achieved? 2) How will be restoration be accomplished? Where will the projects be located? 3) What ecological functions will be restored? 4) What benchmarks and reference sites will be used? The technical background provided was very general, and only a few references are provided for problem to be addressed. The proposal does not specify how CREST will address problems, and detail is lacking.

The objective, actually the goal as noted above, of CREST is succinctly stated as to implement on-the-ground salmon restoration projects and to focus on habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function for aquatic organisms. However the objective does not mention achieving increased survival targets for salmon and steelhead which seems to be a driving element of the work. If it is assumed that survival and habitat opportunity, capacity and realized function are synonymous, it would be helpful to discuss this. 

The sponsors state:

"...Proposed ESA Recovery Plan for Lower Columbia River Coho Salmon, Lower Columbia River Chinook Salmon, Columbia River Chum Salmon and Lower Columbia River Steelhead (NMFS 2012).This plan is the culmination of all the recovery plans for the lower Columbia basin and synthesizes the salmonid recovery plans in Oregon, Washington, White Salmon as well as the Estuary Recovery Plan Module. NMFS anticipates its completion in early 2013. This plan lists limiting factors, threats and identified actions from these plans. This proposal will address those categories of actions that pertain to habitat protection and restoration."

This recovery plan is apparently a new development. It would be useful learn if it is now available. It is not cited in this proposal.

There is a mix of strategic direction referenced, but it is unclear if there is an overarching strategy to guide this complex effort. The questions posed for umbrella habitat projects dealing with the steps to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects were answered. A flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to help understand the procedure.

As part of the landscape assessment process, it does not appear that there has been an assessment of fish and aquatic organism passage, particularly as related to tide gates and road-stream crossings. This information is important to ensure that the maximum connectivity is achieved when acquiring and restoring parcels. Correcting passage issues, on lands adjacent to those restored, can also serve to increase the scope of benefits beyond the immediate area of restoration

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

A good history of project achievements was provided. It appears that the program has had some impressive accomplishments, and there has been sound use of available funding.

The implementation metrics could be useful tools to describe a variety of desired outcomes, but it is not clear how these outcomes are measured. Additionally, in the summary of completed projects, these metrics were not applied. This would have been useful in better understanding and appreciating them.

The photos of each project helped get a perspective on what was done. However, the project result abstracts were lacking detail or references. For example, following the Fort Columbia photo the statement was made "Genetic analysis indicated use by multiple ESUs including up-river stocks." A reference to a CREST report or one by others should be included. The 2011 Annual Report to BPA contained some good data related to fish monitoring for the Fort Columbia site. It is unclear if this monitoring will be continued in the future for Fort Columbia and other sites. The explanations given in the field were essential to understand the significance of technical items such as the setback levees required by USACE.

There does not appear to be any formal documentation of lessons learned through the adaptive management process or their application to adjust current work activities. It appears the sponsors defer to the CEERP adaptive management process under the umbrella. It is not clear that this process is driven by designed experiments.

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

The sponsor has excellent working relationships with the sponsors of other restoration projects in the estuary. There has been good progress in establishing cost share agreements with other entities. However, there is no mention of any accomplishments for community or public involvement in the project/program. Given the landownership of the area and the commitment to sustainable, long-term protection, and restoration, this seems to be a critical element that needs to have elevated importance. Development of the ONCOR data base, described in the proposal, sounds like a good step for improving information sharing with the public and local communities and landowners but is reportedly still under development.

It is difficult to determine from the proposal what procedures are in place to determine when success has been reached and how long monitoring is required. There does not seem to be a long term monitoring program in place. This may be because of irregular funding schedules, but it would be helpful to find out if the sponsor has plans or procedures such as performance bonds or other procedures to ensure funds are available for long term monitoring and adjustment to projects going forward.

The sponsors state the following concerning limiting factors:

"Action effectiveness monitoring will be incorporated in to adaptive management for site maintenance and restoration design moving forward. CREST does address climate change, non-native species, predation and toxics through our project designs and implementation. For example the restoration of natural processes addresses resilience of specific sites to factors like climate change. CREST has also built in topographic diversity within our restoration sites to allow for multiple water elevations and vegetation types within a treated area. Much effort is put in to eradicating non-native plant species as well as improvements of water quality to address non-native fish species."

However, no details are provided on how they will actually deal with these concerns or they will influence project selection and evaluation of the success criterion.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Method 

DELV - 2 "The vast majority of CREST's effort under our contract with BPA is in the designing, permitting, and construction phases." And DELV-4 is mainly coordination. This work is not amenable to scientific review.

Monitor the effectiveness of restoration actions. (DELV-3) - the sponsors state "When funding agencies desire more intensive monitoring CREST biologists assess fish utilization using trap netting, seining, and PIT tag arrays." It would be helpful to clarify what criteria the sponsor uses to determine restoration success and how long they think it take to achieve success.

A strategic framework for project prioritization and selection appears to remain a work in progress (see comments in Q1 regarding needs for a comprehensive, over-arching strategy or strategic framework). Two sets of selection criteria were described, one for the Lower Columbia Restoration Enhancement Partnership and one for the BiOp Technical review group. The LCREP criteria are straight forward and seem logical, but there is no discussion on the logic or basis for how the points/weightings for each of the three major components were developed. The sub-elements under each main component, Ecological benefits, Implementation and Cost, are quite comprehensive but lack individual weights or scoring. Given this, it seems like the current arrangement would allow for a wide range of different interpretations and scoring for individual parcels. As mentioned in Johnson et al. (2013) it appears that there remains a need for additional work to refine and document this process. See programmatic comments for additional comments.

There are a number of metrics described to measure accomplishments. It is not clear when or how these are measured for each land acquisition. This list does seem to provide a good source for use in development of project specific objectives. 

There is a lengthy description of the AEMR process under the CEERP program. It was not apparent what actual monitoring has been selected for individual projects being planned or for those completed under this program. It is not clear if only Level 3 standard extensive metrics will be collected for all project actions unless funding agencies desire more monitoring. It would seem that there should be an opportunity to more actively seek cooperation with other programs to allow more extensive monitoring at some sites in order to allow a more complete evaluation of restoration impact. Additionally, there is no acknowledgement or discussion on how monitoring will be transitioned into the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEM program.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

All methods are satisfactory, except they seem to be only 56% complete. Please see the comments above. The Roegner et al. (2009) document prepared under the umbrella project is the main provider of methods.

 

  

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/12/2013 9:13:01 AM.