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?

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================

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================