200731900 - WRIA-Based Restoration Project Feasibility Assessment and Prioritization, Kalama River
Sponsor: Lower Columbia Fish Enhancement Group
Budgets: FY07: $165,000 | FY08: $20,000 | FY09: $0
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.
Final Council recommendation (Nov 2006)
Funding category: Expense
Recommended budgets: FY07: $0 | FY08: $0 | FY09: $0
ISRP final recommendation: Not fundable
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.
Response loop edit
See the sponsor's revised proposal from the response loop. You'll be taken to CBFWA's proposal system in Section 10 where most sponsors uploaded revised narratives or other responses to the ISRP comments.
State/province recommendation: Washington
Review group: Washington list
Recommended budgets: FY07: (n/a) | FY08: (n/a) | FY09: (n/a)
Comment: See Washington guidance