Columbia Land Trust’s land acquisition and restoration program involves developing and implementing restoration actions on its conservation land holdings. Since 2000, Columbia Land Trust has acquired and permanently protected 6,222 acres of estuarine habitat in the Columbia River estuary for the purpose of salmon recovery.  These lands serve as a platform from which on-the-ground restoration projects are being implemented. Of these 6,222 acres, 2,516 acres were acquire as intact and functioning estuarine habitats that serve as habitat reference conditions.  923 acres of diked Columbia River floodplain has been reconnected to tidal processes and 2,783 acres are in the process of being restored or are awaiting additional acquisitions to occur before the  reconnection to estuarine proccesses can occur. Assembling the properties necessary to make a restoration project functional without impacting neighboring property owners with tidal flooding is a deliberate process that can take a number of years.  Once acquired these lands comes with a perpetual stewardship responsibility to maintain the restoration conducted on these properties.

All the actions within this project occur within the lower Columbia River and estuary.  The estuary is delineated in this proposal by that which encompasses the entire complex of gradients ranging from fluvial to nearshore ocean ecosystems and includes the tidally influenced portions of the Columbia River mainstem and its tributaries and floodplain from the River’s mouth to Bonneville Dam and the Willamette Falls. This definition is based on tidal variation, rather than salinity. This definition follows the CREEC (Columbia River Estuary Ecosystemn Classification) system developed by the Lower Columbia River Estuary Partnership (2003-007-00), University of Washington and the United States Geological Survey (Simenstad et al. 2011)  The development of the CREEC was a ten year long effort and will now serve as important landscape planning framework for the development of monitoring sampling design and restoration planning in this region.

The restoration actions that are developed within this program are largely tidal reconnection actions that restore full or near full tidal influence to areas that have been historically disconnected from tidal and fluvial  hydrologic processes by levees, roads, dredge material and railroad causeways.  These restoration actions intend to restore such natural habitat forming processes as tidal hydrology, sediment accretion, and the movement of macro-detritus that shape and maintain estuarine wetland habitats. 

a. Provide a list of project actions to date. Include background information on the recipients of funding, including organization name and mission, project cost, project title, location and short project summary, and implementation timeline.

Since 2010, Columbia Land Trust has completed six land acquisitions within the Columbia River historic floodplain as part of its effort to secure a land base for future restoration.  A summary of those actions is below.

Wallacut River

This 117-acre property located near the mouth of the Columbia River in Baker’s Bay, was acquired through fee purchase in 2012. This property is bounded by the Columbia River to the south, the Wallacut River to the north and west, and Stringtown Road to the east.  The property contains five distinct habitat type types and nearly 3,200’ of Columbia River shoreline and 3,800’ Wallacut River shoreline. The property has extensive forested wetland communities composed of slough sedge and red alder as well as non-forested wetlands (44 acres).  Other wetland obligate and facultative species that can also be found within the forested and non-forested wetlands are: skunk cabbage, twinberry, and water parsley.   A high, narrow agricultural dike is found along the northern edge of the property along the Wallacut River. This dike impedes natural tidal exchange and access to wetland habitat for juvenile salmon entering from the Wallacut River. 

Columbia Stock Ranch

This is a 920 acre acquisition that was completed in January or 2012.  The property contains 370 acres of historic Columbia River floodplain that is presently disconnected from the river by an Army Corps of Engineers flood control levee, 200 acres of intact floodplain habiat and a remaining 370 acres  of mixed Douglas fir and hardwood upland forest. The property’s Columbia River frontage, intact forested uplands, substantial floodplain acreage and restoration possibilities make it a rare opportunity to preserve and restore Columbia River floodplain and associated forested uplands. Columbia Land Trust is working with it partner the Army Corps of Engineers to design and construct a restoration project on the property in 2014.   

Tide Creek West

This property contains approximately 40 acres of historic Columbia River floodplain. The wetlands and floodplain areas of the property are currently disconnected from the river. The property is located immediately to the south of Columbia Stock Ranch which made it an important acquisition target. Acquisition of the floodplain portion of this property will create greater flexibility and cost efficiencies when restoration of the Columbia Stock Ranch is completed.

Deep River

In 2012, Columbia Land Trust acquired a 65 acres of diked Deep River floodplain and wetlands, and 10 acres of uplands. The property contains 3,300 feet frontage on the Deep River and Grays Bay. The diked floodplain area was used for livestock before being acquired for salmon restoration. A 15-acre palustrine emergent wetland and associated borrow ditch is found within the eastern half of the property and adjacent to the county road.  This emergent wetland was  cleared in the past to provide grazing and hay for cattle.  Many obligate and facultative wetland species can be seen within this wetland and borrow ditch such as small-flowered bulrush, Douglas spirea, water plantain, smartweed, juncus species, sparganium, purple loosestrife, reed canary-grass, yellow-flagged iris, and spike rushes.  Several historic tidal channels enter the property from the northeast and meander within the property towards the southwest.  These tidal channels are fitted with tidegates to limit natural tidal exchange.  North of the acquired property WDFW owns 50 acres of dike floodplain.  Three additional properties will need to be acquired before restoration can occur. Columbia Land Trust is working with all of these land owners to secure these additional properties.

Knappton Cove

This acquisition consists of a total of 438 acres comprised of 119 upland/riparian acres and 319 tideland acres. The property extends 3,960 feet along the Columbia shoreline on the Washington side between Grays Bay and the Meagler Bridge. There are eight tributary streams running through the property into the Columbia River. Seven of the streams are high gradient and not fish bearing.   The eighth stream is a shallow gradient, and is fish-bearing.  All of the streams contribute cool freshwater into the estuary.

Lower Elochoman River - Phase II

In 2008, Columbia Land Trust acquired a 190 acre forested wetland property for the purpose of restoration.  In 2010, the Land Trust acquired two additional 5 acre inholding.  Finally, in 2012 the Land Trust acquired the adjacent 105-acre site that includes includes 4,500 feet of Elochoman River frontage; creating a 305 acre restoration site.  This reach of the river is tidally-influenced and empties into the mainstem Columbia River 2.5 miles downstream and provides important salmon habitat for both local and  Columbia River stocks. With restoration, the property in intended to provide critical juvenile off-channel habitat for ESA-listed Columbia River salmon.  In the summer of 2014, the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will reconnect the interior portions of the property to greater tidal exchange by removing two tide gates that are located under State Highway 4 and replacing them with 20’ wide 100% fish passable arched culverts (see Project 2010-070-00).

In addition to the aforementioned properties developed since 2010, the following list encompasses the entirety of the restoration and acquisition work that has been accomplished by Columbia Land Trust with BPA funding.  This set of tables was auto generated by cbfish.org.  In the below tables, when it lists the Primary Sponsor as LCEP, this is an indication that Columbia Land Trust recieved funding for the action through project (2003-011-00).  All of these action went through the project selection and prioritization process described in Section b. (below).

Columbia Land Trust Tidal Reconnection Efforts: What We Have Learned

Columbia Land Trust has implemented five tidal reconnection projects over the previous seven years and is poised to implement an additional three projects.  The central goal of these projects is to restore rearing habitat for juvenile salmon through the reestablishment of the tidal hydrology that creates habitat opportunity and eventually promotes increased habitat capacity. Two of the completed projects (Kandoll Farm and Johnson Farm) has been intensively monitored (Level 1 described below) by researchers from NOAA and PNNL (EST-P-02-04).

Estuarine Restoration: Findings

Researchers from NOAA and PNNL, with funding from the USACE, have monitored two Columbia Land Trust restoration projects for five years (project EST-P-02-04).  These two projects, the Kandoll and Johnson Farms, are situated between the confluence of Grays River and Seal Slough in Wahkiakum County, Washington. Both sites had flood control levees and tide gates constructed in the early 20^th century to create pastureland for dairy production. Restoration actions at the two sites included removal of the tide gate structures and constructing breaches in the levees. At the Johnson Farm restoration site, a dike along the Grays River was breached in 2004. At Kandoll Farm, two 4.2-m-diameter culverts were installed in the dike during 2005 to reconnect tides via Seal Slough, an arm of the Grays River. Both treatments reestablished connections to relic tidal channel networks and resulted in tidal flooding on the pasture surface.

Hydrology

Tidal forcing is the principal controlling factor affecting estuarine wetland structure and function and is the main driver in the control of water characteristics, topographic evolution and vegetation community development.. Water elevation associated with tidal variation also determines the period in which fish can successfully access and use wetland habitats (habitat opportunity).  Juvenile salmonids enter tidal wetlands during high water to forage on emergent insects and other wetland-derived prey (Healey 1980).  With hydraulic reconnection, tidal forces shape wetland drainage and vegetation patterns. The restoration actions at the Kandoll and Johnson Farm restoration projects included tidegate removal and dike breaching.  At each site pre-breach water level fluctuations moved from a highly muted tidal signal to a full semidiurnal tidal prism.

Tide gate removal immediately effected water level fluctuations within the Kandoll Farm site. Pre-breach water level fluctuations changed from a weak tidal signal to a fully semidiurnal tidal pattern.  Exposure–height curves indicated that maximum amplitudes increased from about 2.0 to 3.0 m, although pre-connection water levels were less than 1.0 m for 85% of the time period evaluated, and mean water level increased from 0.6 to 1.5 m in the 2- week period around the tide gate removal. These results show that habitat opportunity at both sites were increased for juvenile salmonids (Diefenderfer et al 2010).  

Fish Monitoring

It was hypothesized by researches from NOAA and PNNL that increased hydraulic connectivity would lead to increased habitat opportunity by juvenile salmonids. An objective of the monitoring was to conduct assessments of fish community structure and salmon abundance, size, and diet in wetland and adjacent riverine habitats.  At the Kandoll Farm site fish communities were sampled before (2005) and after (2006 and 2007) tide gate removal.  Reference sites not directly affected by the restoration activity (Seal Slough and the Grays River) were sampled. At Johnson Farm, fish populations were monitored after the tide gate removal (2005–2007), which occurred in summer 2004. 

Dike breaching at Kandoll and Johnson Farms resulted in an immediate return of full semidiurnal tidal fluctuations to what had been diked pasturelands.  Juvenile Pacific salmonids quickly expanded into this newly available habitat and used prey items that were presumably produced within the marshes (Roegner et al. 2010).   

At the Kandoll Farm restoration site 15 tides were sampled by trap net in 2006 and 2007, and 25 tides were sampled at the Johnson Farm restoration site from 2005 to 2007. Semidiurnal tidal fluctuations were the primary determinants of access to productive marsh zones. Wetland inundation varied nonlinearly with tidal height, and fish had access to the productive marsh edge for only about 40 to 50% of the time periods evaluated. The marsh surface was available <40% of the time. Interannual variation in salmon presence had a strong impact on the cumulative hours salmon could use the wetland habitat. The marsh was thus used by the different salmon species for different lengths and periods of time. Tidal inundation levels constrained access to productive marsh habitat, but biological factors dictated the realized cumulative benefit to the salmon run.

Nearly 52,000 individual fish were identified. Threespine sticklebacks dominated most samples (93.6% of total). The next most abundant species was chum salmon (2.1%) followed by the introduced banded killifish (1.6%), coho salmon (0.9%), prickly sculpin (0.5%), Chinook salmon (0.5%), and peamouth (0.5%) (Roegner 2010).   The habitat use varied by species and life history stage. The fry of chum salmon  migrated rapidly through the system, whereas populations of Chinook salmon resided from March to at least July and were composed of fry, fingerlings, and (for coho salmon) yearlings.  The presence of adipose-fin-clipped Chinook indicates that hatchery-raised fish from beyond the Grays River system are also using the restored wetland site. Large numbers of juvenile chum salmon were sampled in the tidal channels at the Kandoll Farm restoration site, implying the sampling covered the main outmigration (Roegner 2010).   

The goal of the 2007–2009 fish sampling was to explore the spatial-temporal distribution of salmonid habitat use in the Kandoll Farm restoration site. During 2009, biweekly trap net sampling was continued for fish species, abundance, and size at two adjacent intertidal channels. The study was initiated in May 2007, and sampling during 2008 and 2009 extended from early February through the end of June. Three years of data from trap net site 1 (TN1) and 2.5 years of data from trap net site 2 (TN2) have been collected.

Result of Research and Monitoring

Findings from this research on Columbia Land Trust restoration and reference sites by researchers from PNNL, CREST and NOAA (reported by Johnson et al. 2008, pp. vii – viii) include:

•  “Hydraulic Geometry and Channel Morphology Relationships – There were strong, positive correlations between the three monitored indicators: catchment area, total channel length, and cross-sectional area at outlet. Measurement of these indicators in hydraulic geometry and channel morphology at restoration sites may now be compared with these established relationships to assess the restoration trajectory.

• Elevation-Vegetation Relationships – Data from several locations in the estuary reveal differences between habitat types (e.g., marsh versus swamp), as well as locations in the floodplain (e.g., island versus tributary floodplain area). Information about plant species tolerances in a given region of the estuary floodplain, coupled with pre-restoration data about elevations in restoration sites, provides managers with the ability to forecast the plant communities that may develop based on existing conditions or to elect to alter existing elevations to support desired plant communities.

• Sediment Accretion Rates in Tidal Wetlands – The sediment accretion rate was 2.4 cm/yr for Columbia Land Trust Johnson and Kandoll restoration sites combined over 2005 through 2007. Comparison of sediment accretion rates with the initial elevation of restoration sites and with the elevations of reference sites supporting target plant communities can help restoration managers predict the length of time it will take for ecological processes in a watershed to increase land elevations sufficiently to achieve project goals; if necessary, the process can be augmented through adaptive management with active restoration techniques.

• Similarity Indices of Vegetation – An example shows very little similarity between indices of vegetation at restoration and reference sites (13.1–53.2%) before and in the first year after restoration. Managers can assess the rate of change and whether change is occurring in the direction of the plant community target using similarity indices.

• Juvenile Salmon Use of Tidal Reconnection Sites – At Columbia Land Trust Kandoll and Devils Elbow sites, Chinook salmon were eating Chironomidae. Chum and coho diets included Chiromonidae, Heteroptera, and other insects. Species collected in insect traps and benthic cores at the sites included Chironomidae and Corophium, respectively. This key result supports management decisions to restore tidal wetlands and supports future restoration actions of this kind. “

Findings reported by Johnson et al (2008, pp. iv – vi) include:

• “Water Elevation and Wetted Area Relationship – Frequency of floodplain inundation at a restoration site, the Kandoll Farm, was 54% compared with 18% at the associated Kandoll Reference site. This was because the mean floodplain elevation of the restoration site was 0.7 m lower than the adjacent reference swamp; further, the microtopography was greater at the reference swamp. This implies that the area inundated on a particular recurrence interval will decrease as land surfaces rise due to sediment accretion. Thus the typical use of wetted area as an indicator of the effective size of tidal floodplain restoration projects, for the purpose of measuring available fish habitat, is likely to overestimate the areal extent of the inundation that will be seen some decades after implementation.
• Water Temperature and Fish Abundance Relationship – Chinook salmon catch per unit effort (CPUE) was greatest at temperatures 11 to 16 °C, although Chinook salmon were present in water up to 20 °C. CPUE for chum salmon was highest during temperatures 9 to 12 °C. Coho salmon CPUE peaked at 12 to 18 °C. Water temperature is a key indicator to monitor at habitat restoration sites.

• Large numbers of juvenile chum salmon were sampled in the tidal channels at the Kandoll restoration site, implying the sampling covered the main outmigration.
• As in previous years, juvenile Chinook salmon were present in the trap-net samples in low numbers

• The elevations of vegetation are higher at the restoration site than at the reference site at  Kandoll Farm
• Accretions rates are higher at restoration sites than at reference sites.
• All tidal wetlands examined in this study exist within a 3-m vertical range, which increases as longitudinal distance upstream from the Columbia River mouth increases.
• Channel density is not likely a good indicator of habitat development where preexisting channels are present, but it may be a useful indicator for constructed wetlands.
• Channel cross-sectional area typically changes most at the mouth proximal to the restoration action.
• Line-intercept data from Kandoll Farm during 2009 show 26 herbaceous plant species that were not present in 2005–2006.”

Columbia Land Trust Reference Sites: Seal Slough, Crooked Creek and Secret River 

From 2006 – 2009 researchers from PNNL, CREST and NOAA conducted monitoring at three Columbia Land Trust reference sites:  Seal Slough, Secret River and Crooked Creek.  All three of these remnant Sitka spruce (Picea sitchensis) swamps contain the same dominant tree species: Sitka spruce, red alder, Western red cedar, western hemlock.  The Secret River reference site monitored both a spruce swamp and a tidal marsh.

Findings from their research have implications for practitioners involved in designing and monitoring tidal reconnection projects. Those reported by Diefenderfer et ak(2010):

• “Large wood in forested tidal channels can produce a forced step-pool channel type, regulating pool spacing as well as associated habitat functions, hydrodynamics, and bidirectional material fluxes.
• Restoration project designs need to be informed by reach-scale data and research on pool forming factors in forested reference areas subject to similar hydrodynamics following restoration actions, pool spacing and large wood can serve as monitoring indicators.

• Although wood can become available to previously diked restoration sites through tree fall and reexposure of previously buried wood due to changing hydrodynamics, alternative sources may be required to meet restoration goals.
• The ecohydrological processes that provide large wood and produce ecosystem structures in tidal channels may be important in the restoration of hitherto uninvestigated, historically or prehistorically forested tidal environments.” 

Action effectiveness and validation monitoring conducted at Columbia Land Trust restoration and reference sites in the estuary is critical to developing an adaptive process for effective implementation of restoration in the Columbia River estuary. 

b. Describe how the restoration actions were selected for implementation, the process and criteria used, and their relative rank. Were these the highest priority actions? If not, please explain why?

Every project implemented under the Columbia Basin Fish and Wildlife Program within the Columbia River estuary is required to undergo technical review at both the project (ISRP) and action level.  Because readers are familiar with the project level ISRP review, this section focus on the review and prioritization of actions.  In project 2003-011-00 a set of broad action review criteria that evaluate potential benefits to both fish and wildlife, consistent with the Council Program were established. 

BPA and the Corps, as part of Columbia Estuary Ecosystem Restoration Program (BPA/USACE. 2012a) developed additional review criteria that emphasize the benefits of restoration actions to out-migrating juvenile salmonids in response to emerging needs from the FCRPS BiOp.  These juvenile salmonid review criteria are meant to supplement the broader review criteria (2003-011-00) 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 for each restoration action describe the magnitude of a given action.  Below is a table showing which implementation metrics are collected for a given action type and that are evaluated by Juvenile Salmonid Criteria Reviewers (described below):

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 (2003-011-00)

All BPA-funded restoration actions go through the Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee 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 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.  Project Review Committee members (see below for membership) 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.

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.  

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

Project Review Committee members represent federal and state representatives from fish and wildlife management agencies and include the following:

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

2013 REVISED Estuary Partnership Project Review Criteria

The Lower Columbia Estuary Partnership’s Project Review Committee uses the following criteria when evaluating habitat restoration proposals.  These criteria are broader than the juvenile salmonid criteria and described above.  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.

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.

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.

C. Describe the process to document progress toward meeting the program’s objectives in the implementation of the suite of projects to date. Describe this in terms of landscape-level improvements in limiting factors and response of the focal species.

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 Columbia Land Trust restoration projects 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 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. 

d. Where are project results reported (e.g. Pisces, report repository, database)? Is progress toward program objectives tracked in a database, report, indicator, or other format? Can project data be incorporated into regional databases that may be of interest to other projects?

Project results are presently reported through Pisces and CBfish.  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.

e. Who is responsible for the final reporting and data management?

It is anticipated that the aforementioned Oncor database will be able to relate to other relevant regional data systems (e.g., StreamNet, CBFISH) and provide final reporting and data management.  This is an area of weakness in the Lower Columbia River as identified in the Synthesis Memorandum (Thom et al. 2012)  

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

The CEERP adaptive management process is described 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). Teams of key staff perform specific functions and assume certain responsibilities to produce desired outcomes. 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 LCRE, 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.