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

The program is highly significant and is one of the key restoration programs in the estuary and relates to major regional documents as the Council's Monitoring Evaluation Research and Reporting (MERR) plan, the BiOp, and subbasin plan for the estuary. This is a generally solid proposal, and activities are well organized and explained. Justifications for estuarine restoration are well supported, but the sponsors do not specify how their program will meet these restoration needs.

The Columbia Land Trust is continuing to improve connections to other projects in the estuary and to improve effectiveness and transparency of project solicitation, review, and selection activities.

Objective statements are stated as goals. Objectives should be quantified and include a projected date or time frame for completion. Both elements are important to aid in tracking actual accomplishment of actions. There are three stated objectives (actually goals) covering re-accessing of habitats, increasing productivity and capacity of habitats and for improving realized function of the ecosystem. Deliverables for each of the objectives (goals) are included, but to see the details, the ISRP was referred to the 2012 Synthesis Memorandum which was developed by CEERP. No linkage to the document was provided.

Projects under the habitat umbrella are supposed to describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. This was done fairly well in the proposal, but it appears the sponsor totally delegates these steps to others, especially The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee. Therefore a flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to understand the procedure.

The sponsor is sometimes a subcontractor to LCREP, but some projects are conducted independently. Although this seems to be a workable arrangement, it would be helpful to clarify how the sponsors determine which projects they will independently implement and if there are any criteria for the sponsor to conduct projects separately. Is this a function of the solicitation process?

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

The Columbia Land Trust has permanently conserved 6,222 acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last twelve years which is about 30% of the LCREP 19000 acre goal by 2014. The sponsors should be complimented for this achievement. It is encouraging to note that several applied research projects are being conducted by NOAA and others on areas purchased by the sponsor.

No results were reported specifically by this project, only those reported by others were given. The history of reporting accomplishments is not stellar.

In general, the sponsors seem well aware of the needs and benefits of adaptive management and have identified a number of lessons learned, for example weed control, but do not appear to have fully incorporated it into the current project design. One reason given is that invasive plant control could not occur due to prohibition of using necessary chemicals. It seems that the sponsors should have been aware of this prohibition before the activity was planned. Another delay was due to unresolved permitting issues which may be beyond the control of the sponsors.

It would be helpful to clarify what role the sponsor actually has in adaptive management since they do not appear to do any monitoring themselves. The CEERP adaptive management approach is used. A summary of accomplishments and recent research findings of others is provided, but there is no discussion as to how these findings are actually being applied in the current program. A number of the findings appear particularly relevant to prioritizing sites for acquisition and for the design of restoration treatments. 

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

It is stated that there are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal, but elsewhere in the narrative many are given. The sponsors presumably are relying on monitoring data produced by others under the umbrella.

All current projects are assigned a Level 3 monitoring status under the CEERP Action Effectiveness program. It is stated that a subset of CLT projects are included in more intensive Level 1 and 2 monitoring. It is not clear how or when these projects are selected for more intensive monitoring.

There is no discussion of transitioning from the current CEERP action effectiveness monitoring approach to the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEP protocols.

There are a number of emerging factors that the sponsors recognize, especially sea level rise and invasive species. For the latter, the sponsors state, "Columbia Land Trust actively manages newly restored lands to ensure that these invasive species do not gain a foothold on these sites is an ongoing responsibility," but no details are given on how this is done.

The relationship of this project with other projects in the estuary is described fairly well. However, there is no discussion regarding community, landowner or public outreach engagement. This appears to be an important component for the project that needs future consideration.

A useful table showing limiting factor prioritization is provided. Two principal factors limiting the amount of habitat opportunity in the estuary are the loss of estuarine wetlands and the reduction in the spring freshets due to the hydrosystem. It is not clear if the constraints imposed by the hydrosystem operations mean that making changes to the first factor will have limited impact.

The review process for this umbrella project is outlined in the proposal but is described in greater detail in project proposal #2003-011-00. The evaluation criteria have been reviewed by the ISRP. Membership on the Project Review Committee is listed in this proposal. The proposal states that the Estuary Partnership may modify the review criteria to accommodate the objectives of particular funding sources. This flexibility seems reasonable.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The discussion of the two-level process for project prioritization was clearly stated. There is a solid review process that includes site visits and application of a two-step prioritization screening. The Estuary three-component prioritization model is used for the first stage. This scores projects on a 100 point scale. There is limited discussion of how the primary components were weighted and the sub-elements of each are qualitative and are not assigned individual weights or points. Including this in the model would be an improvement. Selection of three focus areas for acquisition and restoration is a solid foundation for a more strategic and efficient program. 

Given the complexity of achieving meaningful restoration of the estuary, an overarching strategic approach is needed. There is discussion about development of an improved strategy for restoration using the Estuary Partnership Restoration Priority Strategy and Restoration Inventory in conjunction with the BPA Landscape Planning Framework. Also, completion of an ESA Recovery Plan is mentioned. Both are to be completed in the spring of 2013. It is not clear if they will replace the current sources of guidance for prioritization or if they will ultimately be synthesized into a single unified strategy. A review of these final products by the ISRP may be worthwhile.

Metrics for gauging accomplishment appear limited to acres and miles of acquired and/or restored habitat. They do not link with the three stated objectives for the project. Doing so would provide a more complete picture of accomplishments relative to the stated objectives.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No link to monitoring.methods.org is provided.

On a budgetary note, it is not clear why a fully equipped office is need in both Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.

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

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

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

The program is highly significant and is one of the key restoration programs in the estuary and relates to major regional documents as the Council's Monitoring Evaluation Research and Reporting (MERR) plan, the BiOp, and subbasin plan for the estuary. This is a generally solid proposal, and activities are well organized and explained. Justifications for estuarine restoration are well supported, but the sponsors do not specify how their program will meet these restoration needs.

The Columbia Land Trust is continuing to improve connections to other projects in the estuary and to improve effectiveness and transparency of project solicitation, review, and selection activities.

Objective statements are stated as goals. Objectives should be quantified and include a projected date or time frame for completion. Both elements are important to aid in tracking actual accomplishment of actions. There are three stated objectives (actually goals) covering re-accessing of habitats, increasing productivity and capacity of habitats and for improving realized function of the ecosystem. Deliverables for each of the objectives (goals) are included, but to see the details, the ISRP was referred to the 2012 Synthesis Memorandum which was developed by CEERP. No linkage to the document was provided.

Projects under the habitat umbrella are supposed to describe all the steps in the program's process to solicit, review, prioritize, and select habitat projects for implementation. This was done fairly well in the proposal, but it appears the sponsor totally delegates these steps to others, especially The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee. Therefore a flow chart or road map of some kind would be useful to understand the procedure.

The sponsor is sometimes a subcontractor to LCREP, but some projects are conducted independently. Although this seems to be a workable arrangement, it would be helpful to clarify how the sponsors determine which projects they will independently implement and if there are any criteria for the sponsor to conduct projects separately. Is this a function of the solicitation process?

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

The Columbia Land Trust has permanently conserved 6,222 acres of Columbia Estuary floodplain over the last twelve years which is about 30% of the LCREP 19000 acre goal by 2014. The sponsors should be complimented for this achievement. It is encouraging to note that several applied research projects are being conducted by NOAA and others on areas purchased by the sponsor.

No results were reported specifically by this project, only those reported by others were given. The history of reporting accomplishments is not stellar.

In general, the sponsors seem well aware of the needs and benefits of adaptive management and have identified a number of lessons learned, for example weed control, but do not appear to have fully incorporated it into the current project design. One reason given is that invasive plant control could not occur due to prohibition of using necessary chemicals. It seems that the sponsors should have been aware of this prohibition before the activity was planned. Another delay was due to unresolved permitting issues which may be beyond the control of the sponsors.

It would be helpful to clarify what role the sponsor actually has in adaptive management since they do not appear to do any monitoring themselves. The CEERP adaptive management approach is used. A summary of accomplishments and recent research findings of others is provided, but there is no discussion as to how these findings are actually being applied in the current program. A number of the findings appear particularly relevant to prioritizing sites for acquisition and for the design of restoration treatments. 

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

It is stated that there are no RM&E protocols identified for this proposal, but elsewhere in the narrative many are given. The sponsors presumably are relying on monitoring data produced by others under the umbrella.

All current projects are assigned a Level 3 monitoring status under the CEERP Action Effectiveness program. It is stated that a subset of CLT projects are included in more intensive Level 1 and 2 monitoring. It is not clear how or when these projects are selected for more intensive monitoring.

There is no discussion of transitioning from the current CEERP action effectiveness monitoring approach to the ISEMP/CHAMP/AEP protocols.

There are a number of emerging factors that the sponsors recognize, especially sea level rise and invasive species. For the latter, the sponsors state, "Columbia Land Trust actively manages newly restored lands to ensure that these invasive species do not gain a foothold on these sites is an ongoing responsibility," but no details are given on how this is done.

The relationship of this project with other projects in the estuary is described fairly well. However, there is no discussion regarding community, landowner or public outreach engagement. This appears to be an important component for the project that needs future consideration.

A useful table showing limiting factor prioritization is provided. Two principal factors limiting the amount of habitat opportunity in the estuary are the loss of estuarine wetlands and the reduction in the spring freshets due to the hydrosystem. It is not clear if the constraints imposed by the hydrosystem operations mean that making changes to the first factor will have limited impact.

The review process for this umbrella project is outlined in the proposal but is described in greater detail in project proposal #2003-011-00. The evaluation criteria have been reviewed by the ISRP. Membership on the Project Review Committee is listed in this proposal. The proposal states that the Estuary Partnership may modify the review criteria to accommodate the objectives of particular funding sources. This flexibility seems reasonable.

4. Deliverables, Work Elements, Metrics, and Methods

The discussion of the two-level process for project prioritization was clearly stated. There is a solid review process that includes site visits and application of a two-step prioritization screening. The Estuary three-component prioritization model is used for the first stage. This scores projects on a 100 point scale. There is limited discussion of how the primary components were weighted and the sub-elements of each are qualitative and are not assigned individual weights or points. Including this in the model would be an improvement. Selection of three focus areas for acquisition and restoration is a solid foundation for a more strategic and efficient program. 

Given the complexity of achieving meaningful restoration of the estuary, an overarching strategic approach is needed. There is discussion about development of an improved strategy for restoration using the Estuary Partnership Restoration Priority Strategy and Restoration Inventory in conjunction with the BPA Landscape Planning Framework. Also, completion of an ESA Recovery Plan is mentioned. Both are to be completed in the spring of 2013. It is not clear if they will replace the current sources of guidance for prioritization or if they will ultimately be synthesized into a single unified strategy. A review of these final products by the ISRP may be worthwhile.

Metrics for gauging accomplishment appear limited to acres and miles of acquired and/or restored habitat. They do not link with the three stated objectives for the project. Doing so would provide a more complete picture of accomplishments relative to the stated objectives.

Specific comments on protocols and methods described in MonitoringMethods.org

No link to monitoring.methods.org is provided.

On a budgetary note, it is not clear why a fully equipped office is need in both Portland, Oregon and Vancouver, Washington.

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

Modified by Dal Marsters on 6/11/2013 11:59:29 AM.