FY07-09 proposal 200727700

Jump to Reviews and Recommendations

Section 1. Administrative

Proposal titleHamilton Creek Stabilization and Habitat Rehabilitation
Proposal ID200727700
OrganizationSkamania County
Short descriptionThe stablization and habitat rehabilitation of 5300 feet of Hamilton Creek, North Bonneville, Skamania County, Washington.
Information transferAnnual Reports to BPA, Project design, construction process success and lessons learned papers to be presented at symposia, exchange of fish counts and monitoring information with Washington and US fish and wildlife biologists
Proposal contact person or principal investigator
Contacts
ContactOrganizationEmail
Form submitter
Bryn Mills LEE-PACE Engineers, Inc. brynm@lee.paceengrs.com
All assigned contacts
Russ Lawrence LEE-PACE Engineers, Inc. russl@lee.paceengrs.com
Tod Lefevre Skamania County Public Works lefevre@co.skamania.wa.us
Tony Meyer Lower Columbia Regional Fish Enhancement Group cwfish@comcast.net

Section 2. Locations

Province / subbasin: Lower Columbia / Columbia Lower

LatitudeLongitudeWaterbodyDescription
45.6399 121.9775 Hamilton Creek North Bonneville, WA

Section 3. Focal species

primary: Chum Columbia River ESU
secondary: Chinook Lower Columbia River ESU
secondary: Coho Lower Columbia River ESU
secondary: Steelhead Lower Columbia River ESU

Section 4. Past accomplishments

YearAccomplishments

Section 5. Relationships to other projects

Funding sourceRelated IDRelated titleRelationship
Other: Local Geomorphic Asse Hamilton Creek Geomorphic Assessment County/City/SWCD caused a survey and fluvial geomorphic assessment to be performed in 2003. This assessment, together with input from WDFW and LCFEG is the basis for this proposal.
Other: State WDFW Chum Monitoring WDFW is monitoring chum useage of the Columbia main channel and Hamilton Creek main channel confluence area on an on-going basis. The corridinator for that work is Mr. Todd Hilson (Vancouver office)
Other: Federal USGS Hamilton Springs Chum Channel USGS is monitoring Chum usage of the Hamilton Springs Chum Channel

Section 6. Biological objectives

Biological objectivesFull descriptionAssociated subbasin planStrategy
Restore trib. Chinook to a high viability level provide for a 75-95% probability of persistance level over 100 years Lower Columbia increase the following tributary habitat potential from 77% to 85% of historical potential: pool/riffle habitat; increase LWD; decrease Width/Depth ratio; increase riparian corridor; enhance sediment transportation competence
Restore trib. winter steelhead to viability level Providing a 95% or better probability of persistance over 100 years Lower Columbia increase the following tributary habitat potential from 77% to 85% of historical potential: pool/riffle habitat; increase LWD; decrease Width/Depth ratio; increase riparian corridor; enhance sediment transportation competence
Restore tributary Chum to a high viability level Providing a 95% or better probability of persistance over 100 years Lower Columbia increase the following tributary habitat potential from 77% to 85% of historical potential: pool/riffle habitat; increase LWD; decrease Width/Depth ratio; increase riparian corridor; enhance sediment transportation competence
Restore tributary coho to a high viability level Providing a 95% or better probability of persistance over 100 years Lower Columbia increase the following tributary habitat potential from 77% to 85% of historical potential: pool/riffle habitat; increase LWD; decrease Width/Depth ratio; increase riparian corridor; enhance sediment transportation competence

Section 7. Work elements (coming back to this)

Work element nameWork element titleDescriptionStart dateEnd dateEst budget
Produce Environmental Compliance Documentation NEPA and ESA compliance for project work for Hamilton Creek stabilization, habitat rehabilitation and riparian planting and monitoring. Complete a NEPA Checklist and write a Biological Assessment within the context of the existing NOAA (Fisheries) 10a.1A, for stream stabilization, habitat restoration and riparian planting and monitoring activities and submit to BPA’s Environmental Compliance Group. 10/1/2006 5/30/2007 $36,250
Biological objectives
Metrics
Increase Instream Habitat Complexity Hamilton Creek Stabilization and Habitat Rehabilitation Implement designed stabilization and instream habitat complexity development activities for Hamilton Creek. 6/3/2007 9/30/2007 $149,800
Biological objectives
Metrics
* # of stream miles treated: 1.0
* # of structures installed: 36
* End lat of treated reach: 45.6361
* End long of treated reach: 121.9819
* Start lat of treated reach: 45.6454
* Start long of treated reach: 121.9830
Plant Vegetation Plant and monitor vegetation in the riparian zone along the restored reach of Hamilton Creek. Design planting plan to restore native vegetation in the project riparian zone. This will include the removal of invasive species such as Himalaya blackberries (Rubus discolor), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and other noxious invasive species. 10/15/2007 2/2/2008 $28,675
Biological objectives
Metrics
* # of acres of planted: 6.1
* # of riparian miles treated: 1.0
Realign, Connect, and/or Create Channel Restore sinuosity, and create and connect side channels in Hamilton Creek. Implement designs for sinuosity restoration and creation and connection of side channel activities for Hamilton Creek. 6/30/2007 9/30/2007 $249,180
Biological objectives
Metrics
* # of stream miles before treatment: 1.0
* # of stream miles treated, including off-channels, after realignment: 1.1
* End lat of treated reach: 45.6361
* End long of treated reach: 121.9819
* Start lat of treated reach: 45.6454
* Start long of treated reach: 121.9830
Remove vegetation Remove invasive species in the riparian zone along the restored reach of Hamilton Creek. Remove invasive species such as Himalaya blackberries (Rubus discolor), Scotch broom (Cytisus scoparius) and other noxious invasive species in preparation for planting native riparian species in the riparian zone along the restored reach of Hamilton Creek. 7/30/2007 10/15/2007 $21,750
Biological objectives
Metrics
* # of acres treated: 6.3
Maintain Vegetation Maintain trees and shrubs planted in the riparian zone along the restored reach of Hamilton Creek. [Work Element Description Not Entered] 6/15/2008 9/30/2009 $9,700
Biological objectives
Metrics
Operate and Maintain Habitat/Passage Maintain stabilization and habitat enhancement structures and LWD in the restored reach of Hamilton Creek. Annually inspect, maintain the stabilization and habitat enhancement structures, and LWD in the restored reach of Hamilton Creek. 6/30/2008 9/30/2009 $36,800
Biological objectives
Metrics
Conduct Pre-Acquisition Activities Acquire Conservation Easements from adjoining land owners develop descriptions, obtain signatures for conservation easement over creek and riparian area for private properties adjoining the project. 10/1/2006 6/15/2007 $393,540
Biological objectives
Metrics
Manage and Administer Projects Hamilton Creek Stabilization and Habitat Rehabilitation Project management and administrative work related to the contract excluding Environmental Compliance Documentation. This work will include Pisces Status reports (WE 185) and annual reports (WE 132). 10/1/2006 10/1/2009 $78,600
Biological objectives
Metrics
Produce Design and/or Specifications Hamilton Creek Stabilization and Habitat Rehabilitation Design Design, detail and develop specifications for stabilization and habitat complexity development activities for Hamilton Creek. 10/1/2006 5/2/2007 $102,250
Biological objectives
Metrics

Section 8. Budgets

Itemized estimated budget
ItemNoteFY07FY08FY09
Personnel Contract administration $3,200 $8,544 $8,544
Fringe Benefits [blank] $800 $2,136 $2,136
Supplies Project Maintenance $0 $9,920 $9,920
Other Subcontractor $965,270 $87,325 $8,750
Totals $969,270 $107,925 $29,350
Total estimated FY 2007-2009 budgets
Total itemized budget: $1,106,545
Total work element budget: $1,106,545
Cost sharing
Funding source/orgItem or service providedFY 07 est value ($)FY 08 est value ($)FY 09 est value ($)Cash or in-kind?Status
George DeGroot Conservation Easement $189,680 $0 $0 In-Kind Confirmed
Lower Columbia NOAA 10(A)(1)(a) & Project admin $7,000 $1,500 $1,500 In-Kind Confirmed
Richard Beckman Equipment $21,500 $5,000 $5,000 In-Kind Confirmed
Richard Beckman Conservation Easement $203,860 $0 $0 In-Kind Confirmed
Skamania County Force Acct. Labor $0 $6,680 $6,680 In-Kind Confirmed
Skamania County Force Acct. Materials $0 $9,920 $9,920 In-Kind Confirmed
Totals $422,040 $23,100 $23,100

Section 9. Project future

FY 2010 estimated budget: $32,050
FY 2011 estimated budget: $32,050
Comments: Final two years riparian plant and instream structure maintenance and reporting

Future O&M costs: In the event a sediment pulse occurs of a magnitude to bury, or seriously fill the stability and habitat structures, Skamania County is prepared to excavate the material necessary to maintain the reaches stability and habitat values.

Termination date: Summer 2011
Comments:

Final deliverables: Final report and documentation showing the project development, implementation and monitoring process and results.

Section 10. Narrative and other documents


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: The ISRP found this proposal to be not fundable. The problems in Hamilton Creek regarding the degraded spawning habitat for the primary focal species, chum salmon, are only generally described. Documentation and references are mostly lacking in the background section, other than referring to the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan (2004) several times. The proposal would be improved if several specific recommendations for habitat restoration of Hamilton Creek were included/cited in the text. The proposal also needs much more specific detail regarding habitat requirements of species to be rehabilitated. Not only for chum salmon but also for the secondary focal species - chinook, coho, and steelhead. Seven objectives are listed in bullet format, but they are not well defined or justified. Measurable benefits are lacking. The work elements (taken directly from the subbasin plan) following the objectives are good explanations for the biological rationale for various habitat restoration actions. However, the work element/methods descriptions stop short of providing the details of techniques to be used, locations of engineered logjams and cross vanes to be installed, and only cites the Work Element and objective numbers from the subbasin plan, in bold. The general statement that the Rosgen Natural Stream Design Methods (NRCS 2005) will be followed and used to locate engineered structures is not adequate. A description of how this standard design protocol will be specifically applied is needed.


ISRP FINAL REVIEW (Aug 31, 2006)

Recommendation: Not fundable

NPCC comments: The ISRP found this proposal to be not fundable. The problems in Hamilton Creek regarding the degraded spawning habitat for the primary focal species, chum salmon, are only generally described. Documentation and references are mostly lacking in the background section, other than referring to the Lower Columbia Salmon Recovery Plan and Fish and Wildlife Subbasin Plan (2004) several times. The proposal would be improved if several specific recommendations for habitat restoration of Hamilton Creek were included/cited in the text. The proposal also needs much more specific detail regarding habitat requirements of species to be rehabilitated. Not only for chum salmon but also for the secondary focal species - chinook, coho, and steelhead. Seven objectives are listed in bullet format, but they are not well defined or justified. Measurable benefits are lacking. The work elements (taken directly from the subbasin plan) following the objectives are good explanations for the biological rationale for various habitat restoration actions. However, the work element/methods descriptions stop short of providing the details of techniques to be used, locations of engineered logjams and cross vanes to be installed, and only cites the Work Element and objective numbers from the subbasin plan, in bold. The general statement that the Rosgen Natural Stream Design Methods (NRCS 2005) will be followed and used to locate engineered structures is not adequate. A description of how this standard design protocol will be specifically applied is needed.