Local or MSRT Comments: Project received a Not Fundable recommendation from ISRP. In keeping with OSPIT recommendations, OSPIT will not prioritize a project not deemed fundable by ISRP.

Local or MSRT Comments: It appears that there may be duplication with project number 200301000. If recommended for funding these two projects should be closely coordinated. This project will direct on-the-ground work in the Estuary Province, and therefore should be prioritized

Local or MSRT Comments: See Washington guidance

The ISRP asked the proponents to explain how the historical data would relate to current indicators of ecosystem health. The proponent’s response did not specify how their broad geochemical approach would account for important dynamic aspects of food web ecology in the Columbia River estuary. Published research has shown that factors such as living space, temperature, flow, and others, interact with productivity to determine salmon survival. Based on current scientific knowledge, the assumption of a direct relationship between carbon production in the estuary and salmon is not defensible.

Comparison of carbon production in the Columbia River estuary with Grays Harbor and Willapa Bay would be an interesting research question. However, extrapolation from the latter two areas to the Columbia River estuary is problematic because the latter two estuaries have had different sorts of histories and perturbations. Historical baselines of the three estuaries are likely not directly comparable.

The application of the data to management actions was queried by the ISRP. This aspect remains a weak point and is a primary reason why the project is not fundable. While the proponents have good working relationships with researchers in the estuary, collaboration with LCREP and other restoration-oriented management agencies is not as evident. For example there is no mention of the present project in the LCREP’s proposal 200301100, and in fact this group has a different conceptual model that they are using to plan restoration. Historically, a mosaic of habitats existed in the estuary (including marshes, mudflats, riparian, and others) at different elevations with characteristic vegetation units. It is difficult to see how the core information from the limited number of sites mentioned in the proposal would help plan the restoration of these complexes.

The ISRP appreciated the detailed answer to the question of how the core data would be controlled to accurately document historical changes.

The way the proposal is written seriously detracts from its value and makes a fair evaluation of its merits very difficult. Better explanations of the work are required. The proposal is fraught with specialized jargon.

The investigators need to provide more detail about how this work will relate directly to estuary restoration. The key question would be whether measurements of sediment attributes provide the appropriate indicators of habitat or aquatic community health. How would the link be made between variables of interest to paleoecologists and current indicators of ecosystem health? The proposal needs much more detail as to how it would apply the core sample data to answer current restoration questions, and how it would tie in with other projects that also are looking at historical conditions and their relation to the present (e.g., 200301000). Historically there was a mosaic of habitats in the estuary (including marshes, mudflats, riparian, and others) at different elevations. It is difficult to see how the core information from a limited number of sites would help plan the restoration of these complexes.

Additionally, to accurately document historical changes requires that the cores be taken from sites that are neither depositional nor erosional. How will the investigators ensure that sample sites meet this criterion?

Collaborative work is mainly internal, i.e., with USGS and other agencies interested in the sediment record. It would be more effective if other key agencies directly involved in restoration planning and fish and wildlife research and management were involved in the project instead of merely being "informed" about the work.