FY07-09 proposal 200731900
Jump to Reviews and Recommendations
Section 1. Administrative
| Proposal title | WRIA-Based Restoration Project Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization, Kalama River |
| Proposal ID | 200731900 |
| Organization | Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group |
| Short description | Conduct assessment of Tier 1 & 2 reaches in Kalama basin to identify/develop site-specific restoration projects to address limiting factors. Projects will be ranked & prioritized based on geomorphic, biologic, land ownership, and cost factors. |
| Information transfer | A final report with a prioritized project list to include methodology, concept designs, costs, GIS maps, and landowner information will be prepared. This report will be posted on the LCFEG's website and can be used by multiple project sponsors and will lead directly to detailed design and construction of habitat restoration projects in the Kalama River basin. |
| Proposal contact person or principal investigator | |
Contacts
| Contact | Organization | |
|---|---|---|
| Form submitter | ||
| Merri Martz | Tetra Tech, Inc. | [email protected] |
| All assigned contacts | ||
| Merri Martz | Tetra Tech, Inc. | [email protected] |
| Tony Meyer | Lower Columbia Regional Fish Enhancement Group | [email protected] |
Section 2. Locations
Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / Kalama
| Latitude | Longitude | Waterbody | Description |
|---|---|---|---|
| Kalama River and Tributaries | Tier 1 and 2 reaches in the Kalama River sub-basin |
Section 3. Focal species
primary: Chinook Lower Columbia River ESUprimary: Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU
secondary: Chum Columbia River ESU
secondary: Coho Lower Columbia River ESU
secondary: Coastal Cutthroat Southwest Washington/Columbia River ESU
Section 4. Past accomplishments
| Year | Accomplishments |
|---|
Section 5. Relationships to other projects
| Funding source | Related ID | Related title | Relationship |
|---|---|---|---|
| PCSRF - WSRFB | [no entry] | Project Development - Lower Cowlitz | The SRF Board funded project to identify and develop restoration projects in the Lower Cowlitz River is on-going. A draft approach for that study is complete and is attached as Attachment 2. |
Section 6. Biological objectives
| Biological objectives | Full description | Associated subbasin plan | Strategy |
|---|---|---|---|
| Increase aquatic habitat quantity | Salmonids require an array of complex habitat types to carry out freshwater life stages. Pools are limiting in some reaches in the Kalama sub-basin, and off-channel habitats have been significantly reduced in much of the lower and middle mainstem. | Lower Columbia | This proposal will identify and provide concept designs and feasibility of increasing aquatic habitats, including pools, LWD, off-channel habitats, floodplains, etc. |
| Protect high quality habitats and processes | Protect key habitats, corridors, riparian zones, and floodplain connections in areas of probable future development. | Lower Columbia | Acquire easements and properties to maintain corridors and allow floodplain connections and channel migration. Also, protect key in-channel and floodplain habitats. |
| Remove fish passage barriers | Fish passage barriers that limit habitat connectivity and access to spawning and rearing habitats are a significant factor affecting salmon populations in many Northwest watersheds. Numerous barriers have been identified already in the Kalama sub-basin. | Lower Columbia | This feasibility assessment will evaluate opportunities for replacing culverts and setting back or breaching levees/dikes or reconnecting side channels and floodplains. |
| Restore habitat diversity | Salmonids require an array of complex habitat types to carry out freshwater life stages. Habitat diversity is listed as a primary limiting factor for several species for fry colonization and both summer and winter rearing | Lower Columbia | This proposal will identify and provide concept designs and feasibility of restoring a variety of habitat types, including pools, riffles, LWD, off-channel habitats, floodplains, riparian zones, etc. |
Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)
| Work element name | Work element title | Description | Start date | End date | Est budget |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Identify and Select Projects | Conduct Multi-disciplinary Field Assessment of Potential Restoration Projects | Conduct assessment to determine site-specific locations for multiple habitat restoration types (riparian, in-stream structures, floodplain restoration, off-channel habitats) and determine feasibility based on geomorphic constraints, on-going land use activities, land ownership, access, cost, etc. Includes installation and monitoring of multiple temperature gages strategically placed throughout the watershed. | 5/1/2007 | 9/1/2007 | $60,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase aquatic habitat quantity Remove fish passage barriers Restore habitat diversity |
Metrics |
||||
| Manage and Administer Projects | Manage Feasibility Assessment | Manage methodology development, fieldwork, analysis, concept designs, cost estimates, screening/prioritization, reporting and outreach activities | 1/1/2007 | 1/1/2008 | $25,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase aquatic habitat quantity Remove fish passage barriers Restore habitat diversity |
Metrics |
||||
| Outreach and Education | Conduct Outreach with Landowners for Restoration Willingness | Conduct outreach with individual and groups of landowners to discuss restoration needs, opportunities, constraints, and site-specific projects. Determine willingness of landowners and develop relationshiops for future implementation of projects and/or land acquisition. | 1/1/2007 | 12/31/2008 | $40,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase aquatic habitat quantity Remove fish passage barriers Restore habitat diversity |
Metrics * # of general public reached: Conduct workshops and contact individual landowner |
||||
| Produce/Submit Scientific Findings Report | Prepare report of prioritized restoration projects | Produce draft and final reports documenting results of restoration feasibility assessment. Document will include methodology, documentation of geomorphic and habitat conditions/constraints in watershed, initially identified projects, concept designs, costs, screening and prioritization, documentation of landowner outreach, GIS mapping of project locations and conclusions. | 10/1/2007 | 6/1/2008 | $60,000 |
|
Biological objectives Increase aquatic habitat quantity Remove fish passage barriers Restore habitat diversity |
Metrics |
||||
Section 8. Budgets
Itemized estimated budget
| Item | Note | FY07 | FY08 | FY09 |
|---|---|---|---|---|
| Personnel | LCFEG | $45,000 | $15,000 | $0 |
| Fringe Benefits | [blank] | $5,000 | $2,000 | $0 |
| Overhead | [blank] | $4,000 | $1,000 | $0 |
| Travel | Mileage | $2,000 | $2,000 | $0 |
| Supplies | Field equipment (temp gages, staff gages, piezometers, etc.) | $5,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Other | Consultant contract | $104,000 | $0 | $0 |
| Totals | $165,000 | $20,000 | $0 | |
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
| Total itemized budget: | $185,000 |
| Total work element budget: | $185,000 |
Cost sharing
| Funding source/org | Item or service provided | FY 07 est value ($) | FY 08 est value ($) | FY 09 est value ($) | Cash or in-kind? | Status |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| Totals | $0 | $0 | $0 | |||
Section 9. Project future
|
FY 2010 estimated budget: $0 FY 2011 estimated budget: $0 |
Comments: |
Future O&M costs:
Termination date: 12/31/08
Comments: This assessment and outreach project will terminate in 2008. However, the design and implementation of individual and grouped restoration projects identified as a result of this assessment would be the subject of future funding requests. The future funding requests will be done as new projects.
Final deliverables: Final report documenting methodology, GIS mapping, landownership/willingness, initially identified projects, screening, selected and prioritized projects, concept designs, and cost estimates.
Section 10. Narrative and other documents
| Responses to 200731900 | Jul 2006 |
| Kalama Attachment 1 | Jul 2006 |
| Attachment 2 | Jul 2006 |
Reviews and recommendations
| FY07 budget | FY08 budget | FY09 budget | Total budget | Type | Category | Recommendation |
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
| NPCC FINAL FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Oct 23, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | Expense | ProvinceExpense | Do Not Fund |
| NPCC DRAFT FUNDING RECOMMENDATIONS (Sep 15, 2006) [full Council recs] | ||||||
| $0 | $0 | $0 | $0 | ProvinceExpense | ||
ISRP PRELIMINARY REVIEW (Jun 2, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: This proposal would conduct a feasibility assessment and prioritization of habitat restoration on the Kalama River. The proposal is quite generally written and describes activities that would normally have been part of the Subbasin Planning process. The project will produce a feasibility study report but will not conduct habitat restoration. The technical and scientific background describes the project area and limiting factors as identified in the Subbasin Plan. It notes that the Subbasin Plan identifies the Kalama Subbasin as having good potential for recovery. Priority habitat and areas for restoration were identified, as well as the most effective measures for restoration. Subsequently, the LCFRG developed a habitat work schedule to prioritize recovery actions. These priorities are general, and this proposal is to conduct a feasibility assessment of their more specific application, identify project locations, establish landowner contacts, design projects and prioritize projects. It is believable that the assessment will allow quick segue into project development and implementation, but it is not clear why much of this assessment is not contained in the Subbasin Plan assessment section, or why research development and design (a normal investment in proposal preparation) should be separately funded. The proposal notes the strong link between the assessment and the high priority measures identified in the Subbasin Plan, as well as the highly ranked projects identified in the habitat work schedule derived from the Subbasin Plan. Material from Section B, justifying the need for this work, is repeated here. It notes that the assessment won't duplicate other baseline assessment work, but rather will be a "rapid, multidisciplinary assessment of restoration need and specific opportunity/feasibility." The proposed assessment would seem to duplicate the type of assessment and strategy development that was required of the Subbasin Plans. The only relationship to another project is the adoption of methodologies used in the Lower Cowlitz River assessment project. Four general objectives are taken from the Subbasin Plan. This project would indirectly relate to those objectives by developing project designs and proposals that would address these objectives. The objectives of this project are to conduct assessments to identify feasibility of projects, then to prioritize them. It also includes landowner outreach to develop willing collaborators. Work elements are generally described, and consist of the tasks involved in conducting feasibility assessments, making landowner contacts, and developing budgets and priorities for projects. No specific measurable elements are included. This is a feasibility study and does not include monitoring and evaluation.
ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)
Recommendation: Not fundable
NPCC comments: The response merely repeats information provided in the original proposal. Problems identified by the ISRP review remain. The proposers request support to do general research planning and prioritization. This is an inadequate proposal. The ISRP maintains its preliminary recommendation of "not fundable." ISRP comments (June 2006): Not fundable. This proposal would conduct a feasibility assessment and prioritization of habitat restoration on the Kalama River. The proposal is quite generally written and describes activities that would normally have been part of the Subbasin Planning process. The project will produce a feasibility study report but will not conduct habitat restoration. The technical and scientific background describes the project area and limiting factors as identified in the Subbasin Plan. It notes that the Subbasin Plan identifies the Kalama Subbasin as having good potential for recovery. Priority habitat and areas for restoration were identified, as well as the most effective measures for restoration. Subsequently, the LCFRG developed a habitat work schedule to prioritize recovery actions. These priorities are general, and this proposal is to conduct a feasibility assessment of their more specific application, identify project locations, establish landowner contacts, design projects and prioritize projects. It is believable that the assessment will allow quick segue into project development and implementation, but it is not clear why much of this assessment is not contained in the Subbasin Plan assessment section, or why research development and design (a normal investment in proposal preparation) should be separately funded. The proposal notes the strong link between the assessment and the high priority measures identified in the Subbasin Plan, as well as the highly ranked projects identified in the habitat work schedule derived from the Subbasin Plan. Material from Section B, justifying the need for this work, is repeated here. It notes that the assessment won't duplicate other baseline assessment work, but rather will be a "rapid, multidisciplinary assessment of restoration need and specific opportunity/feasibility." The proposed assessment would seem to duplicate the type of assessment and strategy development that was required of the Subbasin Plans. The only relationship to another project is the adoption of methodologies used in the Lower Cowlitz River assessment project. Four general objectives are taken from the Subbasin Plan. This project would indirectly relate to those objectives by developing project designs and proposals that would address these objectives. The objectives of this project are to conduct assessments to identify feasibility of projects, then to prioritize them. It also includes landowner outreach to develop willing collaborators. Work elements are generally described, and consist of the tasks involved in conducting feasibility assessments, making landowner contacts, and developing budgets and priorities for projects. No specific measurable elements are included. This is a feasibility study and does not include monitoring and evaluation.