Provide a list of project actions to date.

Fort Columbia

In the winter of 2011 CREST completed the Fort Columbia tidal reconnection project near Fort Columbia State Park in Chinook Washington.  The project returned full tidal influence by reconnecting a 96 acre wetland to full tidal influence through the installation of a new 12 feet by 12 feet culvert through hwy 101.

CREST Biologists performing action effectiveness monitoring post construction.  Fish access and use was immediate post construction inside the wetland.  Genetic analysis indicated use by multiple ESU’s including upper river stocks.

Otter Point

In July and August of 2012 CREST completed the final phase of the Otter Point restoration project by completing the cross levee and breaching the outer levee.  The project restored 33.5 acres of isolated wetland to full tidal inundation through channel excavation, large wood debris installation, marsh plain lowering and revegetation.  The project was completed in coordination with the National Park Service.

Post construction aerial image from January 2013 shows cross levee on the right side of the image along with restored tidal channel and levee breach locations.

Gnat Creek

The Gnat Creek restoration enhanced a 20 acre wetland by removing 550 linear feet of a levee to restore full estuarine influence to the wetland associated with tidal Gnat Creek.  The project also involved removing an earthen dam constructed through a logging access road to restore 1 ½ mile of potential rearing and spawning habitat.  The project was completed in cooperation with the landowner Oregon Department of Forestry and fully implemented in August of 2012.

South Tongue Point

The South Tongue Point restoration project removed an antiquated non fish passable tidegate and installed a 10 feet culvert through a road to restore tidal connection and fish access to a 15 acre wetland.  The project was completed during the in water work window in August and September of 2012 and was coordinated with the City of Astoria, Clatsop Community College, and the landowner the Oregon Department of State Lands.  

Colewort Creek

The Colewort Creek restoration project involved enhancing full estuarine connectivity to a 40 acre wetland associated with the Lewis and Clark River.  Restoration actions involved excavating and enhancing over a mile of new tidal channel, marsh plain lowering, reed canary grass eradication, and revegetation.  The project was completed in August and September of 2012 in cooperation with the National Park Service.

Post construction oblique aerial image from January 2013 clearly shows new tidal channels created on the southern portion of the site (left side of the image) as well as enhanced tidal channels on the north side of Colewort Creek.

Fee – Simon

In August 2012 CREST completed the construction of a cross levee on the Simon property in coordination with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Diking District # 9.  This is the first phase of this project that will ultimately restore tidal influence to a 40 acre forested wetland along the Klaskanine River.  The second phase will be breaching the outer levee in the summer of 2013 based on approval by the Army Corps under the Section 408 program and regulates levee modifications.  The cross levee phase of the project was completed in coordination with the landowners and the Diking District.  In 2013 the restoration actions will occur entirely on the Fee property.

Diblee Point

In January of 2013 CREST began construction at the Diblee Point restoration project near Rainier Oregon.  The project is to reconnect isolated floodplain wetlands and a small pond to full tidal influence through creation of a wetland channel and installation of a 14 feet diameter culvert through a quarry access road.  The site is predominately created land from dredged material and owned by the Oregon Department of State Lands.  This is one of the first restoration projects to beneficially use dredged material for habitat improvements.

CREST is in the design and environmental compliance phase for a number of other projects.  Each of these project will also go through the multiple levels of technical and scientific review described below.  A complete list of restoration actions completed by CREST since the early 200’s are included at the end of this section.

Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation?

Estuary actions are reviewed using both broader fish and wildlife criteria and more focused juvenile salmonid criteria as is illustrated in the graphic below.  Both sets of criteria are informed by the best available science and are applied by technical experts to help prioritize and identify high value actions for restoration.  Both sets of review criteria are adaptively managed incorporating new information as it becomes available.  The review criteria will continue to improve and the resulting prioritization will become more refined. 

Action Review Criteria in the Columbia River Estuary

Every project implemented by CREST under the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program within the Columbia River estuary is required to undergo technical review at both the project^[1](ISRP) and action^[2] level.  Because readers are familiar with the project level ISRP review, this section will focus on the review and prioritization of actions.  The Estuary Partnership has developed a set of broad action review criteria that evaluate potential benefits to both fish and wildlife, consistent with the Council Program.  BPA and the Corps have developed additional review criteria that emphasize benefits to juvenile salmonids in response to emerging needs from the FCRPS BiOp.  These juvenile salmonid review criteria are meant to supplement the broader estuary Partnership review criteria during the BiOp period (through 2018). The evolution and current state of both sets of action review criteria are described below.

Juvenile Salmonid Review Criteria

The juvenile salmonid criteria were developed in response to the FCRPS BiOp and are intended to evaluate the benefits of restoration action for interior ESA listed juvenile salmonids. The juvenile salmonid review criteria incorporate the following elements:

Estuary Recovery Plan Module (NMFS, 2011) 

Habitat-Related Limiting Factors

• Reduced in-channel habitat opportunity
  • Flow-related estuary habitat changes
• Reduced off-channel habitat opportunity
  • Flow-related changes in access to off-channel habitat
  • Bankfull elevation changes
• Reduced plume habitat opportunity
  • Flow-related plume changes
• Water temperature

Food Web-Related Limiting Factors

• Food Source Changes
  • Reduced macrodetrital inputs
• Competition and Predation
  • Exotic plants

Threats and Management Actions

The Recovery Module lists 23 management actions that address priority threats (see NMFS 2011; Table 5-1).

Implementation Metrics

Implementation metrics describe the magnitude of a given action.  Below is a table showing which implementation metrics are collected for a given action type:

Habitat Opportunity/Access

Habitat access/opportunity is a habitat assessment metric that "appraises the capability of juvenile salmon to access and benefit from the habitat's capacity," for example, tidal elevation and geomorphic features (cf. Simenstad and Cordell 2000).  Expert opinion informed by the best available science is used to assign a score from 1-5 where:

5 -- High connectivity of site for most species, populations and life history types coming down river at most water level stages; located in a mainstem area or a priority (TBD) reach; unencumbered access to site.

4 – Intermediate connectivity of site for most species, populations and life history types coming down river at most water level stages; located in a mainstem area or a priority (TBD) reach; unencumbered access to site.

3 – Intermediate connectivity; only accessible to a few life history types or species coming down river at most water level stages; located in a mainstem area, lower end of tributary or a priority (TBD) reach; moderate site access.

2 -- Intermediate to low connectivity; only accessible to specific life history types or one species coming down river at most water level stages; located in a mainstem area, lower end of tributary or a priority (TBD) reach; moderate site access.

1 – Low to no connectivity for any species, populations or life history types coming down river at most water level stages; located in areas far from main stem or lower ends of tributaries; poor site access. 

As used here, connectivity refers to the degree to which water and aquatic organisms can move between the project site and the surrounding landscape. Typical barriers to movement include dikes and levees (complete barrier), tidegates and culverts (complete to partial barriers depending on configuration), jetties, groins, etc. Site proximity to population sources or to migratory corridors also affects connectivity. Assuming no barriers to organismal movement or water flow, sites near tributary junctions to the mainstem Columbia River have high connectivity; likewise sites surrounded by river distributaries are highly connected. Connectivity may also be seasonal. Sites where connectivity occurs only during occasional high flow conditions are less connected than those that are connected during low flows.  

Habitat Capacity/Quality

Habitat capacity/quality is a habitat assessment metric involving "habitat attributes that promote juvenile salmon production through conditions that promote foraging, growth, and growth efficiency, and/or decreased mortality," for example, invertebrate prey productivity, salinity, temperature, and structural characteristics (cf. Simenstad and Cordell 2000).  Expert opinion informed by the best available science is used to assign a score from 1-5 where:

 5 -- Maximum natural habitat complexity; well-developed natural disturbance regime and ecosystem functions; extensive channel and edge network and large wood; much prey resource production and export; no invasive species or nuisance predators; water quality/temperature quality excellent; site relatively large (> 100 acres).

4 – Very good natural habitat complexity; natural disturbance regime and ecosystem functions; very good channel and edge network and large wood; much prey resource production and export; minimal invasive species or nuisance predators; water quality/temperature quality very good; site moderate to large in size (30-100 ac)

3 -- Moderate habitat complexity; moderately-developed natural disturbance regime and ecosystem functions; some channel and edge network and large wood; moderate prey resource production and export; moderate potential invasive species or predators; water quality/temperature quality moderate; site intermediate in size (~30 to 100 acres).

2 – Moderate to low habitat complexity; moderately-developed natural disturbance regime and ecosystem functions; some channel and edge network and large wood; moderate to low prey resource production and export; moderate potential invasive species or predators; water quality/temperature quality moderate to low; site intermediate to small in size (≥30 acres).

1 – Low habitat complexity; poorly developed natural disturbance regime and ecosystem functions; poor channel and edge network and large wood; moderate to poor prey resource production and export; moderate to high potential invasive species or predators; water quality/temperature poor; site small in size (<30 acres).

As used here, habitat complexity refers to the diversity of habitat types and structures within a given area.

Certainty of Success

Certainty of Success refers to the likelihood that an action will function as intended over time. Expert opinion informed by the best available science is used to assign a score from 1-5 where:

 5 -- Restoring a natural process or landforms; proven restoration method; highly likely to be self-maintaining; little to no risk of detrimental effects; highly manageable project complexity3; minimal to no uncertainties regarding benefit to fish, minimal to no exotic/invasive species expected.

4 – Largely restoring a natural process or landforms; proven restoration method; likely to be self-maintaining; minimal risk of detrimental effects; manageable project complexity; minimal uncertainties regarding benefit to fish; minimal exotic/invasive species expected.

3 – Partially restoring a natural process or landforms; proven restoration method; potentially self-maintaining; minimal risk of detrimental effects; manageable project complexity; moderate uncertainties regarding benefit to fish; exotic/invasive species expected.

2 – Partially restoring a natural process or landforms; poorly proven restoration method; unlikely to be self-maintaining; risk of detrimental effects; moderate project complexity; moderate uncertainties regarding benefit to fish; exotic/invasive species expected.

Adaptive Management

These juvenile salmonid review criteria are evaluated and updated regularly as part of the CEERP adaptive management process.  In 2012, scientists from PNNL and NOAA developed a Synthesis Memorandum (SM) (Thom et al. 2012) summarizing RM and E results relevant to habitat restoration in the LCRE.  Key findings from the SM and other regional studies have been incorporated into our review criteria.  Literature results on fish densities were used to update weightings between different restoration actions.  For example, the weightings for hydrologic reconnections were based on the ability of fish to access the surface of the restored wetland habitat during high tide or flood stage (Hering et al. 2010, Bass 2010).

Juvenile Salmonid Criteria Reviewers

The following individuals review estuary actions using the juvenile salmonid criteria:

Estuary Partnership Review Criteria

All BPA-funded restoration actions go through the Estuary Partnership’s Science Work Group (SWG) technical review process for habitat restoration actions at or before the 30% design phase at a minimum. More complex actions or those that generate comments or concerns are required to undergo subsequent reviews as necessary. The review process is described in greater detail in Estuary Partnership 2012 and within project #2003-011-00 proposal, but is summarized below.

1) Advertisement and Proposal Receipt – an announcement of the next review cycle is released during three cycles of each calendar year. An electronic announcement is sent to the restoration community, posted on the Estuary Partnership website, and distributed widely in the monthly Estuary Partnership E-update. Proposals received by the due date are distributed to the Project Review Committee members, a subcommittee of the Estuary Partnership Science Work Group (see below for membership). Committee members also receive the evaluation criteria, a scoring sheet and a copy of the funding announcement.

2) Site Visits – Members of the Project Review Committee visit each proposed restoration site with sponsors. Sponsors lead tours of the sites and answer questions raised by Committee members.  The site visits allow reviewers to review the restoration site, ask questions of sponsors and allow sponsors to provide an overview and additional information to Committee members.

3) Design Review (optional, as needed)- Engineers, modelers and landscape architects well familiar with designing, permitting and implementing restoration and mitigation actions review project proposals, attend site visits and the Project Review Committee meeting. These experts evaluate the actions from an implementation, engineering and cost over-run perspective. They then provide an assessment of each action to Project Review Committee members.

4) Technical Review and Scoring - The Project Review Committee convenes to formally review and score the proposals. The Project Review Committee focuses largely on providing scientific review of potential ecosystem benefit from restoration actions and concerns they have with designs, long term success of actions, community support, cost or constructability. The Committee provides clear guidance on whether a action should be funded as proposed, and if not, provides recommendations on potential improvements to ensure a scientifically – based, successful action. They can, and often have, requested to see the action again at a further phase to ensure sponsors are addressing their recommendations.

The Committee scores actions, using the Estuary Partnership’s evaluation criteria (see below for criteria through 2012). These criteria were developed in a regional workshop with over 100 participants and have been reviewed by the Northwest Power Conservation Council’s Independent Scientific Review Panel (NPCC’s ISRP). These criteria were updated by the Science Work Group in 2012 to include emerging scientific research results and the results from the Lines of Evidence 1-3 described in Estuary Partnership 2012. The updated criteria will be used in 2013 after the Geographic Review.

Estuary Partnership staff tally project scores and rank them by median scores. Estuary Partnership staff then provide results from the scientific review and funding recommendations to BPA, who then makes funding decisions.

Project Review Committee members include federal and state representatives from fish and wildlife management agencies and include a wide range and depth of expertise such as fisheries biologists, restoration program managers and salmon recovery planners; representative agencies include US Fish and Wildlife Service, US Environmental Protection Agency, NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service, US Army Corps of Engineers, Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board, Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife, and Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife.

Ms. Amy Horstman – Ms. Horstman has worked for United States Fish and Wildlife Service in the Pacific Northwest since 2000. She works in the Service's habitat restoration programs assisting with habitat improvement project design, permitting, and implementation in the Lower Columbia River and along Oregon's northern coast. Her work is primarily with private landowners who voluntarily wish to restore habitat through the Service's Partners for Fish and Wildlife and Coastal Programs. She served the Oregon statewide coordinator for the Partners for Fish and Wildlife program from 2003 through 2009, overseeing the program's strategic planning and focus area development.

Mrs. Cynthia Studebaker – Mrs. Studebaker is a fish biologist with the USACE’s Portland District. Mrs. Studebaker manages the estuary AFEP projects and provides regular input on the USACE’s Section 536 projects. She has worked at NOAA and City of Portland on restoration and fish recovery projects.

Mr. Pat Frazer - Mr. Frazer is the Salmon Recovery and Watershed Program Manager for the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board.

Ms. Yvonne Vallette – Mrs. Valette is a Regional Coordinator for the Environmental Protection Agency, Region 10.  Ms. Vallette is a Wetlands Ecologist at the EPA Oregon Operations Office in Portland where she supports the Wetlands Protection Program for Region 10. She has spent the last 10 years as an ecologist in EPA's Region 6 office in Dallas, Texas

Mr. Robert Anderson – Mr. Anderson is a biologist for the National Marine Fisheries Service in the Oregon State Habitat Conservation Division.

Mr. Tom Murtagh – Mr. Murtagh is a Oregon Department of Fish and Wildlife district biologist for the North Willamette watershed.  The North Willamette Watershed District (NWWD) covers fish management duties primarily on the west-side of the Willamette basin from the Columbia River south to the upper reaches of the Yamhill River. This new district was established to better manage the fisheries resources, improve angling opportunities and access.

Ms. Donna Bighouse – Ms. Bighouse has been a member of Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife's Watershed Stewardship Team for seven years. She is a professional fish biologist with over 20 years of experience working in SW Washington on the Lower Columbia River. Donna is a member of several local watershed groups from Wahkiakum to Skamania counties, providing technical assistance and fostering partnerships with local communities, state and federal agencies, tribes, private businesses and the Lower Columbia Fish Recovery Board. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife

The Estuary Partnership is working to expand the PRC membership to include US Forest Service and National Resource Conservation Service representatives amongst others.

2013 REVISED Estuary Partnership Project Review Criteria

The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Science Work Group, Project Review Committee uses the following criteria when evaluating habitat restoration proposals.  These criteria are broader than the juvenile salmonid criteria and evaluate benefits to both fish and wildlife.  Actions are scored on how well they meet three general criteria: ecological benefit, implementation, and cost.  The maximum score an action can receive is 100 points.  The maximum point values for each criterion are:  60 points for ecological benefit, 30 points for implementation, and 10 points for cost.  Each general criterion contains a number of elements that may influence a action’s score.  These criteria are designed to be applicable to any review process which the Estuary Partnership administers.  As necessary, the Estuary Partnership may modify the criteria, or designate more weight to specific elements, to accommodate the objectives of particular funding sources with which the Estuary Partnership may partner.  If the criteria are modified, restoration sponsors and reviewers will be notified when the availability of funding is announced.  Explanations for the criteria follow.     

Ecological Benefit (60 points)

The most important criteria to consider when evaluating a project are those related to the project’s potential ecological benefits.  The end goal of any proposed habitat restoration action is the ultimate improvement in the ecosystem; as such, ecological benefits should receive the most consideration, and thus weight, when determining a action’s final score.  The Ecological Benefit criteria are used to evaluate the potential ecological uplift resulting from project implementation.

Linkage to recovery plans, FCRPS BiOp, or other plans – Is the action/project identified in regional plan(s)?  What specific action(s) will the project address?  If the project is not included in regional plan(s), was an explanation given for why it should be considered for funding?

Location – Is the project located in a high priority area for restoration?  For example, has the area been identified as a priority in the Estuary Partnership’s Restoration Prioritization Strategy?  Is the project located in an area where restoration will ultimately be successful?  What is the condition of the surrounding habitat?  Will the project result in a loss of currently functioning habitat?

Habitat Restored – Is the project located in an area where an important historic habitat type has been lost?  What specific habitat types will be restored?  If this is an acquisition project, what type of habitat will be protected? 

Connectivity – Will the project improve the site’s connectivity with the Columbia River or other water bodies?   How will the project improve salmonid access to spawning, rearing, or refuge habitat?  Will the project result in unencumbered access to the site?  Will connectivity be improved at all times, or only during specific flow/water level conditions?

Threats and Limiting Factors – What are the threats and limiting factors at the project site?  Are invasive plant or animal species found at the project site?  Why is the restoration action necessary?  If this is an acquisition project, what is the threat to the property if it is not acquired?

Natural Processes and Ecosystem Function – Will the project improve or restore natural processes and ecosystem function?  How will the project improve habitat capacity?  What specific functions or conditions will be improved (i.e. – food web support, organic matter export, sediment retention, water quality, habitat complexity)?  How will the project improve conditions not only at the project site, but within a larger geographic area (i.e. – watershed)?  Will the project require ongoing maintenance to function as proposed? 

Adequate Size and Scale – What is the size of the project (in acres or miles)?  What is the area affected by individual actions included as part of the larger project?  Is the project’s scale appropriate for its objectives?     

Species – What species will benefit from the project?  Which specific ESUs (salmon) or DPSs (steelhead) of ESA listed salmonids will benefit from the project?  What specific life stages will the project benefit?

Implementation (30 points)

Though the ecological benefits of a project should be the primary focus during project evaluation, it is important to determine how likely it is that the project will meets its goals.  To evaluate this likelihood, it is important to consider the implementation strategy for the project.  The Implementation criteria are used to evaluate both the certainty that the proposed project will work as designed, and the likelihood that the project will achieve its goals.  Additionally, to determine if the project was successful in meeting its goals, it may be important to implement a monitoring strategy.  Ideally, baseline monitoring should be completed prior to implementation, and effectiveness monitoring should be conducted upon project completion. 

Approach – Does the project use a proven restoration method?  Has the proposed methodology been used for other projects?  What uncertainties/constraints exist?  Will the project rely on natural processes or is the restoration dependent on an engineered solution?  If the project is dependent on an engineered solution, is there a monitoring plan in place to verify the solution is functioning as intended (i.e. – if a passage project is dependent on a certain water velocity being met, is there monitoring in place to verify that velocity is being maintained)?

Timeline – Is the project’s timeline well thought out/developed?  Does the project’s sequencing make sense?  Is the project likely to occur within the proposed timeframe?  Can the necessary permits be obtained within the proposed timeframe?

Scope – Is the overall scope well thought out/developed?

Long Term Management – Will the project require a formal management plan or long term management?  Who will be responsible for the long term management of the site?  Is funding secured for the long term management of the site?  Is the long term functioning of the site threatened by invasive species, and if so, is there a plan to address that threat?

Support – Does the local community support the project?  Do affected landowners support the project?  Is the project’s ultimate success dependent on community support?  What partners are involved with the project?  Are any outreach activities included as part of the project?

Capacity – Is the project sponsor capable of implementing the proposed project?  Have they implemented similar projects in the past?

Monitoring – Has the project sponsor adequately explained how they will evaluate project success? Have success criteria and performance criteria been developed?  Was baseline monitoring completed at the project site?  Has a post-project monitoring plan been developed?  Has funding been secured for post-project monitoring? 

Cost (10 points)

Because habitat restoration funding is limited, projects should be evaluated to determine if the requested funding is appropriate given the project’s likely outcome. 

Is the funding request appropriate for the desired outcome?

Is the project’s cost commensurate with its projected benefits/ecological uplift?

Is the cost in line with similar projects?

Is this funding source the most appropriate one for this project 

Guidance for Reviewers

Design Projects – Though the review criteria may be most directly applicable to restoration projects, reviewers will also need to evaluate design projects.  For these projects, reviewers should focus on how the actual restoration project resulting from the design work will function.  For example, when evaluating the project’s ecological benefit, reviewers should consider how the restoration component of the project will affect natural processes, what threats it will address, and what species it will benefit.  As the effects of the actual restoration work are directly tied to the design, reviewers should closely analyze the proposed design and evaluate, to the best of their ability, what the outcomes of the proposed design will be.

Acquisition Projects – It is likely that reviewers will also evaluate acquisition projects. For acquisition projects containing a restoration component, reviewers should evaluate them similarly to other restoration projects.  For acquisition projects without a restoration component, reviewers should focus on the necessity of the acquisition as it relates to protecting or improving ecosystem function.  Reviewers should focus on potential threats to the property, and the seriousness of those threats if the property was not acquired. 

Monitoring – All proposals should include a description of how the sponsor will evaluate project success and determine if adjustments to the completed project are necessary.  Reviewers should determine, to the best of their ability, if the monitoring activities or plan included as part of the project are sufficient to meet these goals. 

Critical Flaws - It is important that reviewers identify project components they believe may be critical flaws to a project.  It is possible that a particular element within one of the criteria may be such a flaw, even though a project may receive a favorable total score.  For example, if projects score high in the Ecological Benefit and Implementation categories, their overall score will be high, as those two criteria are worth the majority of possible points a project can receive.  However, if reviewers feel the cost of a project is out of line with its expected benefits, they should identify this as a possible critical flaw, even though the project may receive a high score overall.  As another example, if project success relies on long term management, but no management plan has been developed, this may be a critical flaw the project sponsor would be required to address before funding was awarded to the project.  

Additional Resources for Reviewing and Prioritizing Actions

The Estuary Partnership’s Restoration Prioritization Strategy and Restoration Inventory as well as BPA’s Landscape Planning Framework are tools that will be used to identify priority habitats for protection and restoration, gaps in restoration activities and subsequently determine methods of filling them. The overarching goals of these tools are to aid in the recovery of historic habitat diversity, diversity in salmonid life history strategies and natural habitat forming and trophic food web processes to the extent possible. These new tools undergo technical review in spring 2013 and where appropriate incorporated into existing review processes going forward.

Restoration Prioritization Strategy

The Restoration Prioritization Strategy uses a “multiple-lines-of-evidence” approach to identify priority areas for habitat protection and restoration (see Estuary Partnership 2012). The approach uses this approach to identify areas in the lower river that will provide the greatest ecological uplift through restoration or protection actions using multiple selection factors. Two of these selection factors are applicable to CEERP goals:

1) a habitat change analysis, which compares historical land cover conditions (derived from late 1800s topographical survey maps), to current land cover conditions (derived from 2010 remotely sensed imagery)

2) a Habitat Suitability Index Model for juvenile Chinook salmon, which uses model outputs from an Oregon Health and Science University (OHSU) hydrodynamic model to predict times and locations that meet suitable water temperature, depth and velocity criteria (as identified in Bottom et al. 2005) for juvenile “ocean-type” salmonids.

Additionally, the Estuary Partnership and BPA are working together to incorporate BPA’s Landscape Planning Framework as an additional Line of Evidence that will be used to prioritize geographic locations within the lower river.

Additional tools in assessing the landscape and identifying potential restoration actions are used by the lower Columbia restoration community. These are housed at the Estuary Partnership and are available over their website or upon request:

Landscape Assessment Tools

• Disturbance Model ­- uses existing data for a series of stressors such as diking, toxic contaminants, roads, population, flow restrictions, etc. to model disturbances on individual site and landscape scales. Management areas (HUC 6 watersheds) and individual sites (on average 130 acre parcels) are assigned rankings of  “low”, “moderate”, or “high” disturbance based on results of this model. This evaluation is useful in determining the types of restoration (preservation, conservation, enhancement, restoration or creation) that is appropriate for each location and the likelihood of success of restoration actions based on disturbances on the surrounding landscape.
• Tidally Impaired Dataset – polygon GIS file that maps areas in the floodplain that could be inundated but are currently impaired by structures such as dikes, levees, culverts, tidegates, etc. 
• Lower Columbia River Terrain Model - seamless elevation model which includes the most current topographic and bathymetric data that have been collected for the Lower Columbia mainstem and floodplain. All topographic data and the majority of the bathymetric data were collected subsequent to 2008.  Historical bathymetric data was included in gap areas, in order to provide as complete coverage as possible.  The data sets were compiled and merged into the seamless model by the United States Army Corps of Engineers, in 2010. Much of the recent shallow water bathymetric data was collected under contract by the Estuary Partnership. The model has seen a variety of applications, including hydrodynamic and sediment modeling, as well as simple flood inundation predictions in GIS. 
• Columbia River Estuarine Ecosystem Classification (Classification) - Developed through collaboration between the Estuary Partnership, University of Washington, and USGS, the CREEC is a hierarchical classification which characterizes the unique ecosystem of the lower Columbia River. The various hierarchical levels define the hydrologic regimes, as well as the geophysical processes which have formed the unique landscape over geologic time.  Four of the six overall levels are directly applicable to estuarine research, restoration, monitoring, and management.
• Lower Columbia River Shoreline Condition Inventory - In 2006, the Estuary Partnership collected georeferenced video footage of 630 miles of the Lower Columbia River mainstem, side channels, and sloughs. The video can be viewed in a geospatial context, using a proprietary ArcGIS plug in, in order to examine the shoreline at any desired location.  The Estuary Partnership created a shoreline features GIS data set, based on information derived from the digital video, which can also be used to assess the shoreline condition at any location. The primary shoreline characterization attribute distinguishes modified versus unmodified shoreline. Additional attributes provide further detail, such as modification type (e.g., levee, dredge material, residential, road/rail fill) or natural habitat type (i.e., riparian, tidal marsh, tidal swamp). Point features indicate locations of in water and over water structures (pile structures, outflows, culverts, tidegates, navigation structures, etc.). 
• Reference Sites data – dataset describing habitat structure at approximately 51 undisturbed locations within the lower Columbia. These sites represent how the ecosystem ideally functions in the absence of some of the major anthropogenic impacts which are currently impacting much of the floodplain habitat and can be considered benchmarks for measuring the success of restoration practices, or the restoration trajectory, at neighboring sites. 

Identification of Gaps in Restoration

An important step is to identify gaps in restoration and protection actions. The Estuary Partnership maintains a comprehensive list of acquisition and restoration actions within the lower river, compiled from several regional databases, including www.cbfish.org, LCFRB and OWEB in a Restoration Inventory geodatabase. This list can be used to identify areas where little restoration activities have occurred. Additionally, users can overlay the Restoration Inventory on the results of the Lines of Evidence to identify gaps in locations that have been delineated as high priority based upon potential ecological uplift. These areas will be tracked in the Restoration Inventory geodatabase and comments, such as landowner willingness and other constraints noted.

Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives.

Juvenile salmonids are using restored habitat.  Some two-thirds of the estuary’s historic wetland habitat has been lost to development but monitoring demonstrates that fish are quickly making use of reopened and restored wetlands.  Reconnecting floodplain habitat is a key element of our program and research has found that doing so improves habitat availability and use by juvenile fish.  Reconnected floodplain wetlands also produce and export macrodetritus and associated prey that fish feed on.  It also improves thermal conditions.  Research now underway is exploring fish responses to estuary habitat actions at an even finer scale by examining salmonid residence time, prey availability, salmonid growth, and other factors.

CREST monitoring in 2011 demonstrated fish utilization of the Fort Columbia restoration site and pre project monitoring at the Colewort Creek and Otter Point projects on the Lewis and Clark River.  Monitoring results demonstrated juvenile salmon presence at these restoration sites.  Genetic analysis of the larger Chinook salmon CREST handled links the use of restoration sites in the Estuary to multiple ESU’s including upper river fish.  CEST has not been able to conduct juvenile fish use monitoring at our restoration sites since 2011 due to inability to obtain scientific take permits.  CREST is participating in the Action Effectiveness Monitoring and Research Strategy moving forward.

Habitat improvements benefit salmonids even if they do not directly use the habitat.  Research has found that tidal wetland habitats provide much of the prey and related food available to fish migrating in the mainstem Columbia River as far as seven kilometers away.  All salmonids sampled in the mainstem, including stream-type salmonids, had consumed prey items produced in the kind of estuary wetland habitats targeted for restoration by our program.  Research indicates that juvenile salmonids prefer prey and other food items directly linked to tidal wetland habitats, further underscoring the relationship between habitat restoration and fish growth and survival.

The larger yearling Chinook salmon are during their early marine exposure, the more likely they are to survive the marine stage of their life cycle.  Research has linked larger size and early marine growth with higher yearling Chinook survival in the ocean and similar analyses are underway to assess correlations for other salmonids.  These size-dependent survival improvements are currently attributed to reduced predation during the first few months juveniles spend in the ocean and less starvation during their first winter in the ocean.

 Where are project results reported?  Who is responsible for reporting and data management?

CREST produces annual reports on restoration and effectiveness monitoring efforts that are uploaded to Pisces.  We also participate in the Estuary Partnership Science Work Group and other regional partner meetings and have participated in the creation of the Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program and the programmatic approach to effectiveness monitoring moving forward.  Currently, there is no centralized database for AEMR or other RME data in the lower river.  A geospatial database is being constructed through the USACE AFEP project (EST-P-12-01) to store past and future RME data, facilitate data sharing among research and restoration practitioners, and be used as the basis for synthesis and evaluation of lower river data. The Oncor database will be developed to relate to other relevant regional data systems (e.g., StreamNet, CBFISH) with the intent to provide a publicly accessible, interactive map-centered interface to access AEMR and other data for comprehensive analyses.  During 2013, quality assurance protocols, data access and sharing policies, and uploading procedures will be constructed for the database, while the project is expected to be completed in 2014.  CREST staff are responsible for annual reporting in Pisces and will submit our effectiveness monitoring data to the Oncor database on a regular basis as this tool comes on line.

Describe problems encountered, lessons learned, and any data collected, that will inform adaptive management or influence program priorities.

The CEERP adaptive management process is describes in detail by Thom et.al. (2012a). Briefly, this process involves five phases,  – decision, actions, monitoring/research, synthesis and evaluation, and strategy (Thom 2000). The CEERP proceeds through each of these phases adaptively based on the results from the preceding phase(s).  The adaptive management process informs decisions that can be reconciled relative to the context of the long-term CEERP goals and objectives. As management questions are answered by RME results, program objectives and strategies will be revised as necessary and inform future restoration and RME actions.  The strategy report is the deliverable from the Strategize Phase in the CEERP adaptive management process. Activities to support all phases of the CEERP adaptive management process are underway in the Estuary, thereby institutionalizing the process regionally across stakeholders/partners.

Adaptive management, however, is only successful when the parties to the program commit sustained cooperation and responsibilities. Adaptive management can be efficient if existing, required reporting functions are adapted to ensure the flow of information from project monitoring staff to project planning staff, and if RME is funded appropriately.   The CEERP uses existing regional coordination efforts, such as the Corps’ AFEP, the Council’s Fish and Wildlife Program, and the Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s (EP’s) programs.

Existing work groups contributing to CEERP purposes include the federal Estuary/Ocean Subgroup for Federal RME (EOS), the ISRO and others. Many federal, state, and local agencies and non-governmental organizations are working to restore and understand the estuarine and tidal freshwater habitats for juvenile salmon in the LCRE and are cooperating and collaborating within the CEERP.

Action Effectiveness Monitoring and Research under CEERP

The objective of action effectiveness monitoring and research (AEMR) is to determine if a restoration action is successful, in need of adaptive management to meet restoration goals or whether an overall restoration technique is effective as implemented in specific cases. AEMR can be used at the site scale and when applied systematically, to the landscape and estuary-wide scales to assess improvements to ecosystem structure and function. Restoration project implementers receiving funding under the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program (CEERP) are applying the programmatic AEMR approach found in “A Programmatic Plan for Restoration Action Effectiveness Monitoring and Research in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary (Johnson et al. 2012). This approach was developed by an AEMR Working Group composed of BPA, USACE, Estuary Partnership and PNNL staff; it was then vetted to the Estuary Partnership’s Science Work Group in fall 2012. The approach provides a framework to determine AEMR level of effort (Table 1), outlines a spectrum of possible indicators (intensive versus extensive) monitored at each site (Figure 1), and offers an overall sampling design.

The approach calls for three levels of AEMR (Table 1), which denote the level of intensity, or effort in the data collection effort. Figure 1 lists the potential AEMR indicators in a spectrum of intensive indicators versus extensive indicators. All restoration projects will receive a minimum of Level 3, or standard extensive indicators for pre and post construction time periods. A subset of sites will be chosen for Levels 1 and 2, which include more intensive indicators and higher level of effort, depending on the outcome of a prioritization of restoration projects on an estuary-wide basis. The ultimate goal on a programmatic level is to correlate the results of the Level 3 AEMR with results of Levels 1 and 2 AEMR. This approach was designed to be a cost effective mechanism of assessing benefits of restoration actions on an estuary-wide basis by capturing as much AEMR data as possible, recognizing that intensive AEMR cannot be done at all sites.

Table 1.  AEMR Levels

Prioritization of the AEMR data collection allows for the best use of limited resources. Criteria for AEMR prioritization are based on multiple sources and a detailed explanation of the methodology for the prioritization process can be found in Johnson et al. 2012. The criteria used to prioritize sites include: 1) types of restoration actions, 2) landscape location related to density of restoration, 3) spatial gaps in previous AEMR work, 4) if a restoration action addresses a key uncertainty, 5) salmon survival benefit unit (SBU) score and 6) scientific implications for implementation.  For criterion 1, Types of Restoration Actions, the Working Group applied “A review of Stream Restoration Techniques and Hierarchical Strategy for Prioritizing Restoration in Pacific Northwest Watersheds” by Roni et al. (2002) who offered five levels (decreasing order of priority):  5=Actions which are synonymous with protection; 4=Actions which deal with restoring habitat connectivity; 3=Restoring long-term process-water quality/quantity +habitat quality/quality; 2=Restoring long term processes-riparian; 1=Restoring short term processes (enhancement projects). For criterion 2, Landscape Location related to Density of Restoration, the Working Group divided the lower river into three zones by combining reaches of the Columbia River Estuary Ecosystem Classification (Simenstad et al. 2011): upper zone (Reaches G-H); middle/transition zone (Reaches C-F); and lower zone (Reaches A-B). The Working Group then examined the concentration of planned restoration actions from the Restoration Inventory, a list of project identified by project implementers in September 2011. The Working Group then assigned scoring (3=much; 2=some; 1=little), depending on the density of planned projects in these 3 zones. For criterion 3, Spatial Gaps in Previous AEMR work, the Working Group applied a similar approach by identifying the concentration of previous AEMR and assigned scoring (3=little; 2=some; 1=much). Criterion 3 may drop in importance over time if sufficient AEMR is undertaken for a given zone, or it may gain in priority if spatial gaps continue. For criterion 4, Addresses a Key Uncertainty, the Working Group examined whether the AEMR project addresses uncertainties identified by the Expert Regional Technical Group (ERTG). These will be updated and prioritized in 2013. For criterion 5, Survival Benefit Units (SBU), the assigned SBUs reflect the project’s size, likelihood of ecological success, and anticipated benefits to fish access and habitat capacity (ERTG 2010b). The scoring measure is based on the average of the SBU values for ocean- and steam-type fish.  The final topic, Scientific Implications for Implementation, is intended to inform future actions under CEERP.

These six criteria are weighted based on relative importance to information needs in the lower river and then combined to generate a final score. An AEMR working group individually scores potential restoration projects, using these criteria, and sites are ranked by the median score.

After sites are prioritized, the AEMR level of monitoring (Table 1) required for a site is then designated by the AEMR Working Group. To determine the AEMR level, the Working Group developed separate decision criteria.  Actual AEMR levels will depend on restoration project implementer’s goals and estuary-wide program needs.  The criteria used to determine AEMR levels are based on the project sponsor’s AEMR site plan and additional estuary spatial and statistical guidance questions.  Initial consideration for AEMR levels is based either on an established AEMR plan for the restoration site or an AEMR template.  These AEMR plans provide information to complete a monitoring matrix which summarizes the monitoring plans for all sites.  Specifically, the monitoring matrix codifies AEMR plans and templates to address the following:

• limiting factors identified at the restoration site
• specific restoration actions implemented to address those limiting factors
• objectives for addressing the limiting factors through the restoration actions
• performance criteria of project implementer’s definition of success
• metrics for evaluating the success of actions 
• and whether a reference site or control sites has been identified and defines the intended statistical design (i.e., BACI or Accident response).

To further guide AEMR level designation, the Working Group considered additional river and estuary-wide spatial and statistical considerations:

• if AEMR related to a specific restoration action has occurred within a reach, with emphasis on monitoring actions in reaches that have had no previous AEMR;
• capturing within reach habitat variability, prioritizing the monitoring of restoration actions that have been monitored within a reach but not a specific habitat; 
• prioritizing sites that provide insight into increased habitat capacity, opportunity or realized function for juvenile salmonids. 
• strengthening the link between extensive and intensive monitoring by supporting higher AEMR levels for sites that can provide data to inform intensive/extensive ratio estimators.
• and prioritizing sites based on level of precision required for a given restoration action, with emphasis on sites needed to meet the level of precision specified by Johnson et al. 2012. 

These guidance questions incorporate larger spatial and statistical questions in site level AEMR planning process and help inform which sites should be considered for more intensive monitoring.  Based on project goals, estuary wide considerations, and available funding, Action Agencies and collaborating partners will then make the final determination on AEMR levels for restoration sites.

Once sites have been prioritized and AEMR levels are determined, an appropriate sampling design will be created for sites designated for all levels. Sampling design includes metrics for collection, methods of collection, frequency of data collection and statistical analysis to evaluate the effects of restoration actions. Johnson et al. (2008) recommend sampling frequencies for many of the monitored indicators in Table 2, while all metrics will be collected under standardized protocols. Most of these protocols are described in Roegner et al. (2009) “Protocols for Monitoring Habitat Restoration Projects in the Lower Columbia River and Estuary”, which are now documented, maintained and updated by the Estuary Partnership under www.monitoringmethods.org. 

As part of the sampling design for an individual site, reference and control sites will be identified. The Estuary Partnership and USACE have collected a suite of site condition data at over 55 reference sites throughout the lower Columbia River for use in AEMR (see www.lcrep.org for more information). A reference site is a target endpoint, similar to the intended eventual outcome of the affected site after restoration, whereas a control site is similar to the affected site before restoration. Using reference or control sites paired with each impact site allows for a robust analysis of environmental changes at the site related to restoration actions.

As part of the sampling design for an individual site, metrics and frequency of data collection must be determined. These will be chosen based upon the objective of the restoration actions at a site and the intended outcome. For example, suitable performance metrics for intertidal reconnections with the intended outcome of increasing fish access and decreasing water temperature include water surface elevation, water temperature, fish presence/absence, fish density, etc. However, some of these are cost prohibitive to collect at every site, such as fish presence/absence and fish density. These latter metrics are reserved for Levels 1 and 2 sites. However, water surface elevation and water temperature, both of which are Level 3 standard extensive indicators, can be used to assess the ability of fish to access the site and to evaluate improvements over pre-restoration conditions. 

There are many potential indicators which range over a spectrum from extensive monitoring to intensive research (Figure 1). Standard monitoring for action effectiveness will entail deployment of equipment for continuous data logging (e.g., water surface elevation and temperature), periodic (once per year for 5-10 y) measurements of sediment accretion and photo points and aerial photographs. Data on standard extensive monitored indicators (Table 2) will be collected at all project sites unless otherwise noted. These data will serve to document key environmental conditions at the site and suggest whether the restoration action is having the desired effect.

Figure 1.  Monitored Indicators for Action Effectiveness Over the Monitoring/Research and Extensive/Intensive Spectrum (modified from Johnson et al. 2012).  *Signifies a derived indicator, i.e., one calculator using data from another indicator.

Table 2.  Standard Monitored Indicators by Restoration Action.  These are Level 3 monitored indicators (Table 2).  Levels 1 and 2 are more intensive and will depend on project objectives. 

[1] We use the term project to refer to the larger BPA/Council effort described as the Columbia Estuary Restoration Program. 

The following is a list of projects completed by CREST since the early 2000's.  The data presented here was organized by BPA and the Estuary Partnership.