project pre-application · pre application due date: tues, march 5 2013 draft application due date:...

Pre Application Due Date: Tues, March 5 2013 Draft Application Due Date: Tues, April 30, 2013 Final Application Due Date: Thurs, July 11, 2013

1

Project Pre-Application (Please use the Up, Down, Left & Right Arrows to move from Field to Field)

Project Title: East End Irrigation Diversion Improvement

Submitting Organization: Columbia Conservation District

Project Contact Information (Complete for each contact)

For additional Contact Info Sheets go to: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Mrs. Ms. First Name: Terry Last Name: Bruegman

Address:202 S 2nd Street City/Town: Dayton State: WA. Zip: 99328

Telephone # (509) 382-4773 ext 5 Cell # ( ) -

E-mail address: [email protected]

Mrs. Ms. First Name: Debra Last Name: Nordheim

Address:202 S 2nd Street City/Town: Dayton State: WA. Zip: 99328

Telephone # (509) 382-4773 ext 5 Cell # ( ) -

E-mail address: [email protected]

Project Locations: Provide a brief description of the project location including watershed, stream

reach and position in watershed. Project located in, Upper Touchet River MSA. Diversion site located

at end of Fourth Street at junction of Fourth Street and flood control dike.

Maps: Provide both a map illustrating project vicinity and a site map. Map descriptions can be placed

in this section but maps should be attached as a separate page. (Contact SRSRB staff to construct

maps and set up project in the HWS prior to pre-application deadline).

http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html


2

Short Description of Project Describe project, what will be done, and what the anticipated benefits

Will be in 1500 characters or less.

NOTE: Many audiences, including the SRFB, SRFB’s Technical Review Panel, media, legislators, and

the public who may inquire about your project use this description. Provide as clear, succinct,

and descriptive an overview of your project as possible – many will read these 1-2 paragraphs!

• The description should state what is proposed.

• Identify the specific problems that will be addressed by this project, and why it is important to do

at this time.

• Describe how, and to what extent, the project will protect, restore, or address salmon habitat.

• Describe the general location, geographic scope, and targeted species/stock.

• This short description should be the summary of the detailed proposal set out under the

Evaluation Proposal, with particular emphasis on questions 1-4.

The PRISM database limits project descriptions to 1500 characters (including spaces); any excess text will be deleted. Additional detail should be provided in the project proposal!

Columbia Conservation District will administer/coordinate consultant services to assess, develop alternative conceptual plans, stakeholder meetings and complete Preliminary Design package on a selected preferred alternative design to improve the East End Irrigation Ditch diversion. Project is located in the Upper Touchet River MSA, a Priority Restoration Reach and Identified within the GeoEngineer Geomorphic Assessment document(RCO#09-1593) as river reach North Fork River-1. River reach is identified as a spawning, rearing and migration corridor for steelhead and spring Chinook and overwintering and migration for Bull trout. Project scope covers ~ 1,500' of assessment of N. Fork Touchet River with focus on identifying a preferred alternative diversion structure design. Currently annual diversion maintenance requires the establishment of a push-up berm to ensure intake flows. The location and timing of this streambed disturbance is detrimental to fish habitat and life cycles. Also to be considered in this assessment is the potential for side channel habitat improvements in the existing 600' diversion channel. Habitat improvements in this channel would enhance juvenile rearing and high flow refugia, these improvements are contingent on compatibility with identified preferred alternative designs. Project intent is to provide a sustaining diversion system design, reducing extent of current maintenance needs and improving instream habitats.


3

Preliminary Design Description: Describe the preliminary project design that will be used to address the need described above. This section may be used to provide a more detailed description than provided above. Not required for pre-application (Max one page) Project proposal is to contract with consultants to assess site and provide alternative designs to CCD, landowner and East End Irrigation Ditch for consideration and selection of preferred alternative. Contractor will then develop 60-75% design meeting RCO Preliminary Design critera for frame work to develop project proposal for Round 15 submission. Estimated Budget: List SRFB request match and total project costs Budget Items

Cost/Unit Unit Matching Funds

SRFB Request

Project Cost

Design Consultant

$80,000 $80,000

CCD staff, project administrative management & coordination

8,500 8,500

Total Matching $ Total SRFB Request $88,500

Total Project Cost $88,500 Evidence that this project is part of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan: List the HWS project number and title of project as stated in the 3 Year Plan. If project is not directly stated in the 3 Year Plan list the general project category your project pertains to and describe the correlation. Project is identified in General category #32-00388-Imminent Threat and project specific #32-00588, Upper Touchet River MSA-Priority Restoration Reach

This is the end of the PRE-APPLICATION When submitting your draft application, make sure to updates the pre-application information where pertinent as well as completing the following draft application. The pre-application will become part of the draft application to reduce redundant forms.


4

SRFB Draft Application Information

Draft Date Submitted to SRSRB April 30, 2013

Project Type: (check one)

Acquisition Acquisition/Restoration

Passage, Diversion, Barrier Inventory/Design

Upland

Non-Capital In-Stream Riparian

Updated Vicinity / Site Maps & Photos Please submit photos as JPEG or other non PDF picture format. Maps and designs maybe submitted

in photo or PDF format.

Vicinity Map Attached: Site Map Attached: Aerial or Site Specific Photos Attached: Preliminary Designs or Field Sketches:

Project Proposal Guides To complete this section download the Project Proposal template that fits your proposed project and attach as a separate document. Check appropriate box below. NOTE: This project proposal will be used primarily to evaluate your project. Please include appropriate metrics within the body of the text. The below documents can be found at http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Attached 1) Restoration, Acquisition and Combination (Restoration & Acquisition) Project 2) Planning Projects (Assessment, design, and Study) and Combination (Planning &

acquisition) Projects 3) Barrier Inventory Projects



5

Summary of Funding Request and Match Contribution

Remember to update this section whenever changes are made to your cost estimates.

TOTAL PROJECT COST (A + B) (Sponsor Match & SRFB Contribution) $88,500

A. Sponsor Match Contribution (15% minimum is required for match) Appropriation/Cash Bonds – Council Bonds – Voter Cash Donations Conservation Futures Donations Donated Equipment Donated Labor Donated Land Donated Materials Donated Property Interest Force Account Force Acct – Equipment Force Acct – Labor Force Acct – Material Grants Grant – Federal Grant – Local Grant – Private Grant – State Grant – IAC Grant – Other Total Sponsor Match Contribution (15% Minimum Match Required of a total Project Cost)

B. SRFB Contribution (grant request) $5,000 Minimum Request

$88,500

Note: *Be sure to identify the name and type of any matching grant in the Application Questionnaire Section. *The Total Project Cost must equal the totals from the following Cost Estimate Sections.


6

Landowner Information

Landowner Acknowledgment Forms (Remember to complete the Landowner Acknowledgement form for each Landowner.)

To complete this section download the landowner acknowledgment form and have the landowner complete the form and submit a copy with the draft application. Draft applications without signed agreement forms may not be considered by the SRSRB for final scoring and ranking. These forms can be found on the SRSRB web site at: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Current Landowner(s) of the site (name and address). Remember to complete the Landowner Acknowledgement Form. Name: Mr. Gerald Magill Address: 108 S Touchet Road City/Town: Dayton State: WA. Zip: 99328

This is the END of the DRAFT APPLICATION.

Don’t forget to update the pre-project information to reflect

changes, if didn’t submit in the pre-application round fill out the pre-application information on your draft submittal.



7

SRFB Final Application In completing your final application make sure to update changes in your project on the sections listed under Pre-Application and Draft Application in track changes to aid in final review and comment of your project. It is also important to update previous sections to reduce replication in the final application.

Final Date Submitted to SRSRB 07/10/13

Barrier Removal and Barrier Assessment / Design Projects Barrier Information Form: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html Project Proposal Cost Estimate Template To complete this section complete the budget template that pertains to your project type Found on the SRSRB website at: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html and check the appropriate attachments box below. OR you may submit a detailed budget in your own format. Attached 1) Personal Format Budget 2) Assessments 3) Property Acquisition 4) In-stream Restoration 5) Diversion and Screen 6) Barrier Inventory or Fish Passage Design 7) Riparian

Non-profit organizations must answer the following questions

Is your organization registered as a non-profit with the Washington Secretary of State? If so, what is your Unified Business Identifier (UBI) number?

No Yes, UBI #: 071-001-198

What date was your organization created? June 1949

How long has your organization been involved in salmon and habitat conservation? Columbia Conservation District has been involved with natural resource conservation since 1949. CCD has been directly involved in fish habitat recovery since the early 1990s thru our BPA Model Watershed activities in the Tucannon, these same recovery principles and actions have been applied to the Touchet River watershed thru the conservation district.




8

Permits Check the appropriate boxes to indicate required and/or anticipated permits. General permit information can be obtained at the Dept. of Ecology Permit Assistance Center 1-800-917-0043 or on their Internet site http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pac/index.html.

Permits Comments Regarding Permit Status

Aquatic Lands Use Authorization (Dept of Natural Resources)

Building Permit (City/County)

Clear & Grade Permit (City/County)

Cultural Assessment [Section 106] (CTED-OAHP)

Dredge/Fill Permit [Section 10/404 or 404] (US Army Corps of Engineers)

Endangered Species Act Compliance [ESA] (US Fish & Wildlife/NMFS)

Forest Practices Application [Forest & Fish] (Dept of Natural Resources)

Health Permit (Dept of Health/County)

Hydraulics Project Approval [HPA] (Dept of Fish & Wildlife)

NEPA (Federal Agencies)

SEPA (Local or State Agencies)

Shoreline Permit (City/County)

Water Quality Certification [Section 401] (County/Dept of Ecology)

Water Rights/Well Drilling Permit (Dept of Ecology)

Other Required Permits (identify)

None – No permits Required

http://www.ecy.wa.gov/programs/sea/pac/index.html


9

Application Questionnaire All applicants must answer the following questions

Driving Directions (provide directions that will enable staff to locate the project): Project located in, Upper Touchet River MSA. Diversion site located at end of Fourth Street at junction of Fourth Street and flood control dike. Heading east on Main street (#12) turn right on 4th Street, continue to end of city limits.

For any grants listed in the Summary of Funding Request and Match Contribution Section, are there any restrictions on the use of these grant funds (double click on box to select it)? No Yes When and how long will the grant funds be available to this project? NA

Describe the type of donated labor (skilled and unskilled), donated equipment, and donated materials that will be used for this project, identified in the Summary of Funding Request and Match Contribution Section. NA

What is the current land use of the site, and its history? Describe past human uses and salmon habitat functions. Are there any structures on site? Site has historically been utilized as a diversion point for water with-drawls conveyed by the East End Irrigation Ditch to its multiple water users. Flood events in 1996-97 severely impacted the diversion point/channel intake. Annual maintenance has required excavation at intake, confluence with Touchet River. This disturbance impacts wild steelhead spawning/rearing

Section 4: Project Proposals

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18 January 2013

2013 Project Proposal for Planning Projects (Assessment, Design, and Study) and Combination Planning and Acquisition Projects, Excluding Barrier Inventories

Please respond to each question individually – do not summarize your answers collectively in essay format. Local citizen and technical advisory groups will use this information to evaluate your project. Limit your response to ten pages (single-sided) You may delete the italicized portion of the questions and inapplicable supplemental questions to shorten the proposal).

RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants section and appendix references are available at www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/manuals_by_number.shtml.

Submit this proposal as a PRISM attachment titled “Project Proposal.”

NOTE: Sponsors of barrier inventory projects should NOT fill out this proposal. They should instead use the Barrier Inventory Project Proposal.

1. Problem Statement

Provide an overview of fish resources, current habitat conditions, site or reach conditions, gaps in knowledge, and other key salmon recovery problem(s) in the watershed that this project is intended to address.

This mainstem river reach and diversion side channel is utilized by steelhead for spawning, rearing and migration, Bull trout, overwintering and migration and re-introduced Spring Chinook spawning, rearing and migration. Mainstem habitat conditions in general are degraded due to infrastructure and flood control diking influences as identified in Geomorphic Assessment Touchet River GeoEngineers November 2011. The focus of the assessment was on mainstem conditions with limited consideration on the irrigation diversion system. Historically, annual streambed disturbance occurs (push up gravel berm) to insure flow intake for irrigation purposes. Work is completed with an excavator and large rip rap type boulders have been incorporated as a stablizing factor for the gravel berm. Actions commonly produce a berm that extends 80-90% of channel width and over time has encouraged a channel gradation break toward the left bank which in turn requires additional berm configuration to ensure irrigation withdrawl flows. Diversion side channel habitat is likewise impacted due to continuous cleaning maintenance to ensure sufficant intake flows. The result of the annual disturbance created at the diversion point and the leveed and confined system leads to a simple channel with low complexity and plain bed form through much of the reach. Additionally, winter rearing habitat or soft water habitat in the form of off channel and side channel habitat are limited or completely absent in the reach through the town of Dayton. The current actions and annual channel access have also accelerated left bank erosion and incission. This project would advance the information developed in the Touchet River Assessment 09-1593 into a preliminary

http://www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/manuals_by_number.shtml



design for the selected preferred alternative that has the greatest fish benefit and meets the landonwers/irrigation district requirments for operation of the diversion.

2. Project Purpose

When answering the questions below, please refer to Chapter 4 of the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00043) for a definition of restoration goals and objectives.

A. State the project goal(s).

Primary goal of project is to identify a preferred sustaining irrigation diversion structure system requiring minimal or no instream maintenance disturbance on a annual basis. Preliminary design process will assess reach site, identify an array of potential alternative actions, select a preferred alternative action and complete a final Preliminary Design package. Reduced annual stream bed manipulations will benefit redd, egg disturbance and impacts to steelhead spawning. Actions may include increasing roughness and increasing complexity in the channel and developing the ditch into a perennial side channel with its own complexity.

B. List the project’s objectives.

Project objectives are to assess, identify alternative actions benefiting salmonid life cycles. Alternatives will be presented to CCD, landowner, East End Irrigation Ditch board members, SRSRB staff and RTT members for review, consideration and selection of preferred alternative. A primliminary design will be completed on the preferred alternative.

3. Project Context

A. Describe the location of the project in the watershed,

Project is located in the Upper Touchet River MSA a Priority Restoration Reach and is considered an Immenent Threat project due to the annual stream bed disturbance. Site location is near to the end of Fourth Street at the junction of the City of Dayton/USACOE flood control dike beginning point, Identified within the GeoEngineer Geomorphic Assessment document as river reach North Fork River-1.

B. List the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project.

Species Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult)

Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising)

ESA Coverage (Y/N)

Life History Target (egg, juvenile, adult)

Steelhead Egg, juvenile, adult

Stable Y Juvenile, adult

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00043



Bull Trout

Juvenile, adult Decline Y Juvenile, adult

Spring Chinook

Juvenile, adult Rising N Juvenile, adult

C. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan and local lead entity’s strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat in the watershed

Project fits regional recovery plan actions, Habitat Work Schedule general catagory #32-00388, Imminent Threat and more specifically Upper Touchet River MSA-Priority Restoration Reach #32-00588. Addresses a priority action for fish compatable, compliant irrigation diversion. Diversion site is located in spawning, rearing reach utilized by steelhead and spring Chinook.

D. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of at a later date.

Project implementation will allow progression toward completion of selected alternative being implemented in potentially 2 years rather than extend undesirable current diversion practices. This type of habitat project is directly focused on addressing imminent threats to salmonid species. It will not have substantial impacts to general overall habitat defiencies within the system but may contribute to incremental improvements depending on selection of preferred alternative. It is assumed at this point that selected alternative will provide multiple resource benefits.

E. If any part or phase of this project has previously been reviewed or funded by the SRFB, please fill in the table below.

Project # or Name Status Status of prior phase deliverables and

relationship to current proposal?

Touchet River Geomorphic Assessment RCO #__09-1593________

Completed

� In Process

� Not Funded*

Completed assessment focus was on general overall conditions, includes some alternative designs for LWD in vacinity of diversion point but did not assess alternatives specifically for diversion.

* If previous project was not funded, describe how the current proposal differs from the original.

4. Project Description



NOTE that projects that include acquisition have supplemental questions at the end of this proposal. Please answer the questions below and all pertinent supplemental questions.

A. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project and how it will address the problem described above.

Project will include review of Geomorphic Assessment 09-1593 completed by GeoEngineers, site review/assessment for current conditions, development of alternative actions that address diversion defiencies. Alternative actions will be reviewed by local participants involved in project with selection of preferred alternative. Selected alternative with be developed to a preliminary design level meeting RCO Manual 18 deliverable requirements.

B. Clearly list and describe all products that will be produced (i.e., project deliverables).

Project deliverables will include conceptual designs for alternative actions to guide selection of preferred action. Selected action will have a preliminary design completed to RCO Manual 18 requirements

C. If the project will occur in phases or is part of a larger recovery strategy, describe the goal of the overall strategy, explain individual sequencing steps and which steps are included in this application.

Project is not planned as a phased project. Review of alternative actions developed as part of contract deliverables will lead to selection of a preferred alternative. Potential future project implementation funding will be assessed as a independent project. Action consideration will take into account previous assessment and alternative actions previously identified.

D. If your proposal includes an assessment or inventory (NOTE: project may extend across a wide area and cover multiple properties):

i. Describe any previous or ongoing assessment or inventory work in your project’s geographic area and how this project will build upon rather than duplicate completed work.

The previous geomorphic assessment work completed by GeoEngineers November 2011 (09-1593) was a broader based assessment identifying various habitat defiencies and alternative restoration actions. Some alternative actions identified LWD and floodplain improvements but did not focus on improvements to the diversion point for the purpose of ensuring flows. Project proposal will draw from previous assessment work, expand with focus on alternative actions to ensure intake flows which may or may not be in direct association with general habitat improvements. Project focus will entail an ~1,500



foot river reach which allows for consideration of previous assessment findings and include an ~600' existing diversion ditch.

ii. Describe how the assessment or inventory addresses the stages and elements in Guidance on Watershed Assessment for Salmon (Joint Natural Resources Cabinet, May 2001, www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/governorlocke/gsro/watershed/watershed.pdf).N/A

E. If your proposal includes developing a design:

i. Will the project design be developed by a licensed professional engineer? Yes

ii. For final design projects, if you do not intend to apply for permits as part of this project’s scope of work, please explain why and when permit applications will be submitted. Permit applications will be pursued during the construction phase.

iii. Has Washington Department of Natural Resources confirmed that your project is or is not on state-owned aquatic lands?

Shane Early, Regional DNR representivehas been contacted, no SOAL properties on the upper Touchetproject reach.

iv. For design projects intending to provide no match, verify you meet ALL of the following eligibility criteria. [Answer: n/a, Yes, or No]

1. The project addresses a particular problem at a specific location. Yes

2. Funding request is $200,000 or less. Yes

3. The project will be completed within 18 months of the SRFB funding meeting. Yes

4. The project will develop a preliminary design or final project design. Completed project deliverables will include a Preliminary design as defined in Manual 18.

F. If your proposal includes a fish passage or screening design: N/A

i. Has the project received a Priority Index (PI) or Screening Priority Index (SPI) number? If so, provide the PI or SPI number and describe how it was generated:

http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/governorlocke/gsro/watershed/watershed.pdf

http://www.digitalarchives.wa.gov/governorlocke/gsro/watershed/watershed.pdf



Physical survey, reduced sample full survey, expanded threshold determination, or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife generated (list source, such as a study or inventory). Refer to the Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual at wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00061 for guidance.

ii. For fish passage design projects:

1. If a culvert or arch is proposed, will it employ a stream simulation, no slope, hydraulic, or other design?

2. Describe the amount and quality of habitat made accessible if the barrier is corrected.

3. Identify if there are additional fish passage barriers downstream or upstream of this project.

G. Describe other approaches and design alternatives that were considered to achieve the project’s objectives and why the proposed alternative was selected.

In consultation with RCO and SRSRB staff it was determined that the most efficient approach was to pursue a design only approach at this time. Project results will include alternative actions identified with a preferred alternative being selected by local involved participants. Assuming preferred alternative provides fish habitat benefits an implementation project will be brought forth in future SRFB proposal.

H. Describe your experience managing this type of project.

Tucannon River Reach Design/Feasibility, RCO #09-1595P, Tucannon River Offset Dike Assess and Design, RCO #09-1742P, Tucannon Offset Dike, RCO #09-1596 as well as numerous other restoration projects funded thur BPA.

I. Explain how the project’s cost estimates were determined.

Review of past assessment/design actions, consideration of previous document review and relationships. alternative action review meetings leading to development of project estimate of cost. There will be donated time by various parties in the review/selection of alternative actions that is not calculated into project cost. Request covers consultant contract services and project sponsor administrative services and coordination.

J. List Project Partners and their role and contribution to the project. Attach a Partner Contribution Form (Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants,

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00061



Appendix J) from each partner in PRISM, when required (refer to Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Section 3 for when this form is required). N/A

K. List all landowner names. Mr. Gerald Magill, landowner. Mr. William Hubbard and Mr. John Delp, East End Irrigation Ditch Board Members.

L. Contingency Planning: State any constraints, uncertainties, possible problems, delays, or additional expenses that may hinder completion of the project. Explain how you will address these issues as they arise and their likely impact on the project. There are no anticipated constraints or uncertainties associated with this design project proposal.

In the event that consultant bids exceed estimated budget CCD will reduce scope of requested services under this proposal and roll them over to implementation phase.

M. List and describe the major tasks and schedule you will use to complete the project. (Planning projects should typically be completed within two years of funding approval).

Scope of Services, Estimated Budget Allocation

Task 1: Landowner, Stakeholder Organizational Meeting, $7,500*

1. Identify limits of project proposal and footprint.

2. Identify, review alternative action selection criteria.

3. Identify, review conceptual alternatives.

Task 2: Field Reconnaissance, $16,000*

1. Review of existing documents and data on project reach.

2. Field reconnaissance, collection of data to inform potential alternative designs.

Task 3: Review/Update of Hydraulic Model, $9,000*

1. Review existing HEC-RAS hydraulic model data of project area.

2. Update, run model if required for varification based on potential alternatives.

Task 4: Prepare Draft Preliminary Designs (50%) for Alternative Actions, $20,000*.

1. Engineering analysis and design based on field reconnaissance data.



2. Landowner/stakeholder meeting, review 50% designs, confirm participants acceptance. Document comments for response and potential incorporation into designs.

3. Review Selection criteria outcomes on alternative actions.

4. Select Preferred Alternative.

Task 5: Draft Design Review Meeting, $7,500*.

1. Follow-up on Draft Preliminary Design meeting, confirmation of Selected Alternative.

2. Contractor prepars memorandum on documented comments, modifications affecting Selected Alternative prior to Draft 75% Design.

Task 6: Prepare Draft 75% Preliminary Design and Report on Selected Alternative, $13,500*.

1. Present preliminary design/report package to landowner and stakeholders.

2. Document comments, reponses.

Task 7: Final Preliminary Design and Report, $9,000*.

1. Incorporate comments where appropriate.

2. Complete design/report package to RCO Manual 18 Preliminary standards.

3. Provide 2 hard copies and 1 electronic copy to CCD.

Task 8: Project Management, $6,000*.

1. Coordination, correspondence, project managment activities in-house and with project sponsor.

*estimated line item budget, selected contractor negotiations may vary.

Project sponsor, project administration and coordination cost included throughout identified task.

.

Supplemental Questions for Projects that Include Acquisition

(Applies to combination projects; These are not included in the ten-page limit)

A.

Scope of Services, Estimated Budget Allocation

Task 1: Landowner, Stakeholder Organizational Meeting, $7,500* 1. Identify limits of project proposal and footprint. 2. Identify, review alternative action selection criteria. 3. Identify, review conceptual alternatives. Task 2: Field Reconnaissance, $16,000* 1. Review of existing documents and data on project reach. 2. Field reconnaissance, collection of data to inform potential alternative designs. Task 3: Review/Update of Hydraulic Model, $9,000* 1. Review existing HEC-RAS hydraulic model data of project area. 2. Update, run model if required for verification based on potential alternatives. Task 4: Prepare Draft Preliminary Designs (50%) for Alternative Actions, $20,000*. 1. Engineering analysis and design based on field reconnaissance data. 2. Landowner/stakeholder meeting, review 50% designs, confirm participants acceptance. Document comments for response and potential incorporation into designs. 3. Review Selection criteria outcomes on alternative actions. 4. Select Preferred Alternative. Task 5: Draft Design Review Meeting, $7,500*. 1. Follow-up on Draft Preliminary Design meeting, confirmation of Selected Alternative. 2. Contractor prepares memorandum on documented comments, modifications affecting Selected Alternative prior to Draft 75% Design. Task 6: Prepare Draft 75% Preliminary Design and Report on Selected Alternative, $13,500*. 1. Present preliminary design/report package to landowner and stakeholders. 2. Document comments, responses. Task 7: Final Preliminary Design and Report, $9,000*. 1. Incorporate comments where appropriate. 2. Complete design/report package to RCO Manual 18 Preliminary standards. 3. Provide 2 hard copies and 1 electronic copy to CCD. Task 8: Project Management, $6,000*. 1. Coordination, correspondence, project management activities in-house and with project sponsor. *Estimated line item budget, selected contractor negotiations may vary. Project sponsor, project administration and coordination cost included throughout identified task.

Total Project Cost=$88,500

Appendix K:

LandownerAcknowledgement Form


Name of Landowner: East End Irrigation Ditch, Board Member

Landowner Contact Information:

E Mr. f] wr. Title: Landowner

First Name: Gerald Last Name: Magill

Contact Mailing Address: 108 S. Touchet Road-Dayton WA. 99328

Contact E-Mail Address:

Property Address or Location:

1. Mr. Gerald Magill is the legal owner of property described in this grant application.

2. I am aware that the project is being proposed on my property.

3. If the grant is successfully awarded, I will be contacted and asked to engage in negotiations.

4. My signature does not represent authorization of project implementation..t/ t '

(

c-/V,; ^rc+- J , ,' trr, /- t -l ":[7- ,l'2)

Landowner Signature

Project Sponsor Information

Project Name: Tucannon Ranch Habitat Improvement

Project Applicant Contact Information:

El Mr. I wr. Title: Columbia Conservation District Manaqer

First Name: Terry Last Name: Bruegman

Mailing Address: 2025.2nd Street-Dayton, WA. 99318

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Date

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual L8 o January 20L3

Appendix K: Landowner Acknowledgement Form

Appendix K:



Name of Landowner: East End lrrigation Ditch, Board Member


E Mr. tr fvr. Title: Board Member

First Name: William Last Name: Hubbard

Contact Mailing Address: L22LS.5th Street-Dayton WA. 99328






4. . My signature does not represent authorization of project implementation.Ia)




E Mr. I fr4r. Title: Columbia Conservation District Manager


Mailing Address: 2O2S.2nd Street-Dayton, WA. 99318


Landowner Signature

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 1-8 o January 201-3

Appendix K: Landowner Acknowledgement Form

Appendix K:



Name of Landowner: East End Irrigation Ditch, Board Member


I Mr. f] vr. Title: Board Member

First Name: John Last Name: Delp

Contact Mailing Address: L227 S.5th Street-Dayton WA. 99328






4. a-My si

Landowner\fignature




El Mr. n Ur. Title: Columbia Conservation District Manager


Mailing Address: 202 S.2nd Street-Dayton, WA. 99318


Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18 o January 2013

Appendix G: Salmon Recovery Funding Board Individual Comment Form

1

Date Status

Lead Entity:

Snake River Salmon Recovery Board Lead Entity Early Application Review/Site Visit

6/14/13 Reviewed

Project Number:

13-1400 Post Application

Project Name:

East End Irrigation Diversion Improvement Final

Project Sponsor:

Columbia Conservation District Early Application Status Option

Grant Manager:

Kay Caromile REVIEWED SRFB Review Panel has reviewed and provided comments.

Post-Application & Final Status Options

NMI Need More Information

POC Project of Concern

CONDITIONED SRFB Review Panel has applied conditions

CLEAR Project has been reviewed by SRFB Review Panel and is okay to continue in funding process

EARLY APPLICATION REVIEW AND SITE VISIT – REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS

Date: 06/14/2013

Panel Member(s) Name: Tom Slocum And Kelley Jorgensen

Early Project Status: Reviewed

Project Site Visit? Yes No 1. Recommended improvements to make this a technically sound project according to the SRFB’s criteria. The design-only project proposal is to identify alternatives and produce a preliminary design for the chosen alternative to modify an existing irrigation diversion to minimize disturbance activities in the stream (annual push up dams to back water the diversion channel) and provide increased channel complexity (roughness) in the 1500-foot project reach. The project goals include evaluating the potential to modify the 500-foot diversion channel into better quality side channel habitat while maintaining the point of diversion. These actions would improve in-stream conditions, increase off-channel habitat opportunities and increase habitat complexity. The idea seems like it has potential, but the proposal is lacking in details about why this is a good site to work in for fish. It’s a promising site but the proposal could be strengthened by addressing the following in the final application: • Please ensure that the design will develop a viable array of alternatives including the potential for the water company who runs the diversion to leverage the project by installing a new pumped system that could potentially be powered using solar panels given the low usage discussed on site. • Are fish known to use the existing diversion channel? • If WDFW would stop permitting push up dams, then that would help create other opportunities to replace that archaic practice sooner than later. • Could the diversion be taken off line altogether and replaced with a well? • The proposal needs to more clearly define deliverables – will the preliminary design be for the diversion ditch/side channel, diversion pumping station alterations, and in-channel improvements?


2

2. Missing Pre-application information.

3. Comments/Questions:

4. Staff Comments:


3

EARLY APPLICATION REVIEW AND SITE VISIT – LEAD ENTITY AND PROJECT SPONSOR RESPONSES

Directions: By the final application due date, applicants must revise their project proposals using “track changes” and update their PRISM applications and attachments, as needed, to respond to the review panel comments. In addition, please fill out the “Response to Early Review Comments” form and attach the form in PRISM labeled “Response to Early Review Comments.”

Special Note: To help speed the local and SRFB Review Panel evaluation process, if for any reason throughout the application review process you update your project proposal based on SRFB Review Panel comments please update your project proposal using WORD “track changes” and re-attach your proposal in PRISM. This step will save time and focus the reviewer on the changes.

POST APPLICATION – REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS

Date:

Review Panel Member(s) Name:

Application Project Status: NMI

1. Is this a Project of Concern (POC) according to the SRFB’s criteria? (Yes or No)

2. Why?

3. If YES, what would make this a technically sound project according to the SRFB’s criteria?

4. If NO, are there ways in which this project could be further improved?

5. Other comments:

POST APPLICATION – LEAD ENTITY AND PROJECT SPONSOR RESPONSES

Directions: All projects will be reviewed at the September 23-26 review panel meeting. A status will be assigned to each project by October 4, 2013. By October 17, applicants of projects assigned a status of Project of Concern, Conditioned, or Need More Information, must update their project proposals using “track changes” and update their PRISM application and attachments, as needed, to respond to the review panel comments. In addition, please fill out the “Response to Post-Application Review Comments” form, attach the form in PRISM labeled “Response to Post-Application Review Comments,” and send your grant manger an e-mail that your response is complete.


4

FINAL REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS

Date:

Panel Member(s) Name:

Final Project Status: POC

1. Is this a project of concern (POC) according to the SRFB’s criteria? (Yes or No)

2. Why?

3. If YES, what would make this a technically sound project according to the SRFB’s criteria?

4. If NO, are there ways in which this project could be further improved?

5. Other comments:

Appendix G-1: Response to Early Review Panel Comments Form


Appendix G-1: Response to Early Review Panel Comments Form

NOTE: By the final application due date, applicants must revise their project proposals using “track changes” and update their PRISM applications and attachments, as needed, to respond to the review panel comments. In addition, this document must be attached in PRISM as part of their final applications (unless they received no comments to address). Please label the attachment “Response to Early Review Panel Comments.”

PRISM Project Number: 13-1400 ________________________________________________________________

Project Name: East End Irrigation Diversion Improvement ____________________________________

Project Sponsor Columbia Conservation District _______________________________________________ Directions: Please check one:

ALL review panel comments have been addressed in the revised application.

REMINDER: To help speed the local and SRFB Review Panel evaluation process, if for any reason throughout the application review process you update your project proposal based on SRFB Review Panel comments, please make all changes using WORD “track changes” and re-attach your proposal in PRISM. This step will save time and focus the reviewers on the changes.

� ALL comments were addressed with the exception of the following: (and go on to explain your reason for NOT addressing those specific comments.)

project pre-application · pre application due date: tues, march 5 2013 draft application due date:...

Documents