Tucannon Ranch Phase 1 Implementation

Home , Tucannon River

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

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

Project Title: Tucannon Ranch Phase I Implementation

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

First Name: Terry Last Name: Bruegman

Address: 202 South 2nd Street City/Town: Dayton State: WA Zip: 99328 Telephone # (509) 382-4773 Cell # (509) 520-8532

E-mail address: [email protected]

First Name: Debby Last Name: Nordhein

Address: 202 South 2nd Street City/Town: Dayton State: WA Zip: 99328 Telephone # (509) 382-4773 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 is located in the Tucannon River mSA, Priority Restoration reach. Anchor QEA under contract for the Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessement and Habitat Restoration Study (April 2011) delineated the 50 river miles assessed into 10 Reaches. Included within this contract was a 30% Design Report, Tucannon Ranch River Reach Design/Feasibility (May 2011) RCO# 09-1595. Project incompasses all of Reach 2, river mile 0.7-4.5 and targets various life cycle stages for Spring & Fall Chinook, Steelhead & Bull Trout.

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). Project viciniity, 30% Design & Construction Plan maps attached.

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

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!

Project is located in the Tucannon River mSA, Priority Restoration reach between river mile 0.7 and 4.5 (Reach 2) & targets various life cycles stages for ESA listed Spring & Fall Chinook, Steelhead & Bull Trout. Historic and past human intervention establishing agricultural alternatives & flood fights have impacted the natural ecosystem & landscape throughout the basin including Reach 2. Under current conditions floodplain connectivity & complexity is highly impacted in Reach 2 & represents the second- highest potential for floodplain rehabilitation potential in the basin, Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment & Habitat Restoration Study, (Anchor, April 2011). Working from the five Restoration Framework Actions; 1) Protect and maintain natural processes, 2) Connect disconnected habitat, 3)Address roads, levees, other anthropogenic infrastructure impairing processes, 4) Restore riparian processes and 5) Improve instream habitat conditions & these four criteria; expected biological response, consistency with natural geomorphic processes, benefit-to-cost ratio & reach priority. Phase I implementation task include the construction of an approximately 4,300' long offset dike, modification & removal of various levees which restrict floodplain connectivity & complexity rehabilitation on 73 acres of floodplain. This approach is a direct result of utilizing the assessment, design and prioritizing work completed by Anchor QEA under RCO #09-1595P and supported by landowner.

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

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) Tucannon Ranch Phase I Implementation design is the direct result of Tucannon Ranch River Reach Design/Feasibility RCO #09-1595P completed by Anchor QEA. This work produced the Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration Study(April 2011) and 30 percent Design Report(May 2011). 30% Design Report breaks Reach 2 into 6 sub reaches and prioritizes proposed actions into 3 tiers across all sub reaches. Proposed actions address landowner concerns, prioritizes riparian and instream actions that enhances floodplain connectivity/complexity, promotes natural processes development and enhances instream, floodplain and high flow refugia habitats. Preliminary design is based on the Anchor 30 Percent Design Report with offset dike construction plans completed by SE Washington cluster professional engineer. Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration Study provides the basin scale assessment, hydrologic analysis, sediment transport and mobility analysis, sediment budget, reach characteristics and conceptual rehabilitation alternatives and benefits. A on-site walk through was completed with landowner designated representative, CCD staff and WSCC Cluster Engineer identifying minor dike location adjustments that have been included in construction designs. Due to project scale and scope, project completion is planned as a Phased Implementation project. Phase I is planned and designed to complete offset dike construction and levee modification and removal of existing floodplain connectivity restricting levees. Materials from modified levees will be utilized in offset dike construction. All of the Tucannon Ranch properties being considered for this project are enrolled in the USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Contract encompasses both right and left streambanks and covers 73 acres. Columbia Conservation District staff has been working with local Farm Services Agency County Executive Director and County Office Committee members reviewing site plans, potential impacts to CREP buffer and conducted site field visits. Although not all potential levee modification sites have been reviewed this winter due to conditions those that have, received approval for planned actions. Considerations include disturbance related to desirable and non-desirable vegetation for site access, removal/modification. Some proposed modification sites may not be cost/benefit viable due to establishing access routes. Those sites will be considered for simple breeching with materials dispersed on site as recruitment materials during high flows if minimal disturbance can be achieved or addressed during later phases when equipment may be positioned with lesser impacts to established riparian buffer. This critical first phase provides landowner assurances that salmon habitat recovery can occur while insuring the continued agricultural production and associated infrastructure protections required by producers. Additional floodplain and instream habitat enhancement actions promoting natural processes development will be proposed in phased stages in future grant rounds. All proposed actions, Phase I and future phases are based on five framework actions; 1) Protect and maintain natural processes, 2) Connect disconnected habitat, 3) Address roads, levees, other anthropogenic infrastructure impairing processes, 4) Restore riparian processes, 5) Improve instream habitat conditions. These framework actions lead to expected biological responses, consistency with natural geomorphic processes, benefit-to-cost ratio and reach priority. These criteria were identified reflecting watershed specific goals and objectives and in response to Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) conditions to support the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board-Bonneville Power Administration funded BiOp, Tucannon Habitat Programmatic agreement. However, the current criteria were developed specifically for Reaches 6-10 and rely heavily on the presence of spring Chinook spawning/rearing(BPA BiOp priority species) and do not take other ESA listed species and life stages such as migration and overwintering into consideration. Contracted Anchor QEA/CCD work in 2012 includes the development of a Integrated Prioritization Framework to include the other ESA listed species/life cycles for Reaches 2-10.

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

Estimated Budget: List SRFB request match and total project costs Budget Items Cost/Unit Unit Matching SRFB Project Cost Funds Request Dike $135,504.00 $396,914.00 $532,418.00 Removal/setback Permits/A & E $10,000.00 $55,435.00 $65,435.00 Fencing $5,000.00 $35,045.00 $40,045.00 Revegetation $6,000.00 $20,975.00 $26,975.00 Total Matching $$156,504.00 Total SRFB Request $$508,369.00 Total Project Cost $$664,873.00 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. Restore Floodplain Connectivity & Function, #35-004-07, Reach 2 Project 1-6 Tucannon Ranch #35-004-66

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.

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

SRFB Draft Application Information

Draft Date Submitted to SRSRB

Project Type: (check one)

Acquisition Acquisition/Restoration

Passage, Diversion, Barrier Upland Inventory/Design

Non-Capital In-Stream Riparian

Applicant / Organization Information

Organization Name: Columbia Conservation District

Organization Type (check one) City/Town County Conservation District Native American Tribe Non-profit Organization RFEG Special Purpose District State Agency

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:

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

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) $664,873.00

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 $6,504.00 Donated Property Interest Force Account Force Acct – Equipment Force Acct – Labor Force Acct – Material Grants Grant – Federal $150,000.00 Grant – Local Grant – Private Grant – State Grant – IAC Grant – Other Total Sponsor Match Contribution (15% Minimum Match Required of a total $156,504.00 Project Cost)

B. SRFB Contribution (grant request) $508,369.00 $5,000 Minimum Request

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.

Pre Application Due Date: Fri, March 9 2012 Draft Application Due Date: Fri, April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: Wed, July 11, 2012

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

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 final application. Final 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. Mort Bishop III Address: PO Box 3030 City/Town: Portland State: Or Zip: 97208

Current Landowner(s) of the site (name and address). Remember to complete the Landowner Acknowledgement Form. Name: Mr. & Mrs. Cecil Harrison Address: PO Box 296 City/Town: Starbuck State: WA Zip: 99359

Driving Directions (provide directions that will enable staff to locate the project): From Dayton travel east on Highway 12 ~15 miles to Highway 261/Starbuck. Turn left at junction proceed to Starbuck. Project is located between Starbuck (upper project end) and Highway 261 bridge on the downstream project end.

This is the END of the DRAFT APPLICATION.

Section 4: Project Proposals

In this section, you’ll learn about:

 Supplemental application information to attach in PRISM for all projects.

All Applicants

Every SRFB applicant must fill out one of three project proposals and attach it in PRISM. Each project proposal pertains to a different project type. They are:

• Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Restoration and Acquisition Projects.

• Planning (Assessment, Design, and Study) or Combination Planning and Acquisition Projects

• Barrier Inventory Projects

Please select the project proposal that best fits your project. WORD document templates of these proposals may be downloaded from the RCO Web site at www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/app_materials.shtml#salmon.

2012 Project Proposals for Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Restoration and Acquisition Projects

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 eight pages.

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

NOTE: Acquisition, combination, fish passage, diversions, and screening projects have supplemental questions embedded within this worksheet. Please answer the questions below and all pertinent supplemental questions.

Page 41

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals

1. Project Overview

A. Describe the primary goal and objectives of this project. When answering this question please refer to chapter 4 of the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines for a definition of restoration goals and objectives. Link to Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00043 Primary project goal is to enhance floodplain connectivity and complexity with levee modification and removal. Objective is dedicating floodplain to the preservation, rehabilitation and enhancement of stream habitat natural processes.

B. Describe the location of the project in the watershed, including the name of the water body(ies), upper and lower extent of the project (if only a portion of the watershed is targeted), and whether the project occurs in the near-shore, estuary, main stem, tributary, off channel, or other location. Project is located in the Tucannon River mSA, Priority Restoration reach. Anchor QEA under contract for the Tucannon Ranch River Reach Design/Feasibility (May 2011) RCO# 09-1595 which produced documents; 1)Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration Study (April 2011) delineated the 50 river miles assessed into 10 Reaches and 2) 30% Design Report,. Project in-compasses all of Reach 2, river mile 0.7-4.5 and targets various life cycle stages for Spring & Fall Chinook, Steelhead & Bull Trout. Phase I implementation actions occur along the Tucannon main stem floodplain.

C. Is the project located on state owned aquatic lands? Please refer to page 20 of this manual for information on state owned aquatic lands and who to contact at the Washington Department of Natural Resources for assistance. N/A

D. Provide an overview of current project site conditions and the nature, source, and extent of salmon recovery problem(s) that the project will address. Include current and historic factors important to understanding the need for this project. Be specific – avoid general statements. (acquisition, fish passage, diversions, and screening projects should refer to the supplemental questions later in this worksheet for information to include in the problem statement.) When possible, list your sources of information by citing specific studies, reports, and other documents.

Historic and past human intervention establishing agricultural alternatives and flood fights have impacted the natural ecosystem and landscape throughout the basin including Reach 2. Under current conditions floodplain connectivity and complexity is highly

Page 42

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals impacted in Reach 2 and represents the second-highest potential for floodplain rehabilitation potential in the basin, Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration Study, (Anchor April 2011). Working from the five Restoration Framework Actions; 1) Protect and maintain natural processes, 2) Connect disconnected habitat, 3)Address roads, levees, other anthropogenic infrastructure impairing processes, 4)Restore riparian processes and 5) Improve instream habitat conditions and these four criteria; expected biological response, consistency with natural geomorphic processes, benefit-to-cost ratio and reach priority, Phase I elements were identified, establishment of offset dike and levee modification and removal. All of the Tucannon Ranch properties being considered for this project are enrolled in the USDA Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP). Contract encompasses both right and left streambanks and covers 73 acres. Additional floodplain and instream habitat enhancement actions promoting natural processes development will be proposed in phased stages in future grant rounds. All proposed actions, Phase I and future phases are based on the five Restoration Framework Actions and the four additional criteria; expected biological response, consistency with natural geomorphic processes, benefit-to-cost ratio and reach priority. These criteria were identified reflecting watershed specific goals and objectives and in response to Independent Scientific Review Panel (ISRP) conditions to support the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board Bonneville Power Administration funded BiOp Tucannon Habitat Programmatic agreement. However, the current criteria were developed specifically for Reaches 6-10 and rely heavily on the presence of spring Chinook spawning/rearing(BPA BiOp priority species) and do not take other ESA listed species and life stages such as migration and overwintering into consideration. Contracted Anchor QEA/CCD work in 2012 includes the development of a Integrated Prioritization Framework to include the other ESA listed species/life cycles for Reaches 2-10.

E. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project, including project size, scope, design, and how it will address the problem(s) described above. Describe specific restoration methods and design elements you plan to employ. (Acquisition-only projects need not respond to this question.) Phase I implementation includes the construction of an approximately 4,300' long offset dike and modification and removal of various levees which restrict floodplain connectivity and complexity rehabilitation on 73 acres currently enrolled in CREP. This approach is a direct result of utilizing the assessment, design and prioritizing work completed by Anchor QEA under RCO #09- 1595P and supported by landowner.

Page 43

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals F. If restoration or acquisition 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 of these steps is included in this application. Project implementation will occur in phases and is a part of the larger basin recovery strategy. The larger basin recovery strategy is based on the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan and the basin wide assessment, design and prioritization work being completed by Anchor QEA. Future implementation phases for Reach 2 will include tributary side channel and instream habitat enhancement. Sequencing will be reflective of responses occurring from Phase I, funding availability and work timing opportunities. CCD acknowledges the important work being undertaken and accomplished within the Snake River Salmon Recovery Region by various entities and has elected to approach larger scale/scope projects on a phased bases in lieu of requesting unrealistic amounts of funding at one time. That approach if awarded would take multiple years to implement based on environmental compliance, cultural resource review, permitting and work window opportunities and would take funding away from other regional viable projects that could be accomplished in the short term. This management and implementation approach also allows for the opportunity of earlier work to develop natural processes which will reduce potential investment in rehabilitation implementation.

G. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the project or acquired land. For acquisition and combination projects, identify any planned use of the property, including upland areas. Dike structural integrity will be assessed and monitored by Cluster Engineer and CCD staff visually and photos. Floodplain rehabilitation and enhancement will be assessed and monitored by CCD staff and Regional Technical Team and Snake River Salmon Recovery Board staff members.

H. Has any part of this project previously been reviewed or funded by the SRFB? If yes, please provide the project name and SRFB project number (or year of application if a project number is not available). If the project was withdrawn from funding consideration or not awarded SRFB funding, please describe how the current proposal differs from the original. Yes, Tucannon Ranch River Reach Design/Feasibility, RCO #09-1595P which produced; Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration Study, Anchor QEA (April 2011) and Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration Study 30% Design Report (May

Page 44

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals 2011).

2. Salmon Recovery ContextDescribe the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project.

Species Life History Current Population ESA Life History Target Present (egg, Trend (decline, stable, Coverage (egg, juvenile, juvenile, adult) rising) (Y/N) adult) Spring Juvenile, adult Stable/rising Y Juvenile, adult Chinook Steelhead Egg, juvenile, adult Stable/rising Y Egg, juvenile, adult

Fall Egg, juvenile, adult Stable/rising Y Egg, juvenile, adult Chinook Bull Trout Juvenile, adult Decline/stable Y Juvenile, adult

B. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan or local lead entity strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat in the watershed (i.e., does the project address a priority action, occur in a priority area, or target priority fish species?). Project is direct relation in Snake River Salmon Recovery Habitat Work Schedule, Restore Floodplain Connectivity & Function #35- 004-07 and Reach 2 Project 1-6 #35-004-66

C. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of at a later date. Consider its sequence relative to other needs in the watershed and the current level and imminence of risk to habitat in your discussion. A delay in implementing Phase I will obviously set back time and opportunity required for natural processes to develop from this rehabilitation and enhancement approach which will have impacts on four ESA listed species and their associated life cycles. Delay may also influence this landowner as well as others in the basin in their commitment to be involved in cooperative voluntary projects. By nature large scale projects require a extended time frame to assess, design, secure funding and associated permitting and implementation. Landowner has been working on this process since summer of 2009 at which time he requested CCD technical assistance in identifying a long term solution to issues stemming from high flow impacts to his property. At the recommendation of the state technical review committee CCD expanded the original scale/scope of proposal to include more of the basin and secured funding from BPA for the expanded scope. The expanded effort has currently identified 34 potential projects throughout the basin.

Page 45

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals 3. Design and Implementation Questions for Restoration Projects (Acquisition-only projects need not respond to these questions.)

A. Will the project design be (or has it been) developed by a licensed professional engineer? If your project will not be designed by a professional engineer, please describe the qualifications and experience of your project design team. Project is direct results of landowner request to identify alternatives for a long term approach to reduce flood flow impacts to his production agriculture and supporting infrastructure. His request and recommendations from the technical review team has led to the assessment, conceptual and 30% designs by Anchor QEA and construction designs completed by SE Area Cluster Professional Engineer. Cluster Engineer will perform construction management oversight.

B. Describe your experience managing this type of project. Please describe other projects where you have successfully used a similar approach. Tucannon Ranch River Reach Design/Feasibility, RCO #09-1595P. Tucannon River Offset Dike Assess and Design, RCO #09-1742P. Tucannon Offset Dike, RCO #09-1596R as well as various other resource restoration projects.

C. Please describe who will provide construction management for the project. Construction management will be provided by WSCC SE Area Cluster Engineer and district staff.

D. The design process for restoration projects is expected to follow that described in Appendix D1-4. If your process differs from those

Page 46

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals

expectations, please describe your process and how it differs. This includes projects where you intend to follow a “design-build” process. Please describe the design and construction process you intend to follow. Project designs originated with assessment and conceptual designs, Tucannon Ranch River Reach Design/Feasibility, RCO #09-1595P completed by Anchor QEA that produced two documents; 1) Tucannon River Geomorphic Assessment and Habitat Restoration Study (April 2011) 2) 30% Design Report (May 2011) both were reviewed with landowner and supported. SE Area Cluster Engineer has taken the information from these two reports and worked with Anchor QEA staff to complete the construction plans which are part of this request.

E. As-built drawings must be prepared if changes are made to the final design during construction and if the sponsor is using a design-build construction approach. Describe how you anticipate documenting as-built conditions. Project management includes project completion As-built drawings and final report.

F. Describe other approaches, opportunities, and design alternatives that were considered to achieve the project’s objectives and why the preferred alternative was selected. Alternatives considered were No Action, support landowner spot treatments which impact floodplain connectivity/complexity. Easement, which may still be considered in the long term. Even with easement in place the rehabilitation and enhancement actions would have been requested. The preferred alternative is the phased approach in rehabilitation and enhancement as proposed in this and future funding request.

G. Have members of the community, recreational user groups, adjacent landowners, or others been contacted about this project? Describe any public safety or other concerns about the project raised from these contacts and how those concerns were or will be addressed. CCD staff has met with adjacent landowners, Starbuck City council as well as various landowners throughout the basin providing information on this recovery approach. Anchor QEA staff has also participated in some of these meetings addressing technical questions.

4. Project Development

A. Explain how the project’s cost estimates were determined. Please include a detailed project cost estimate and attach in PRISM. Clearly label the Page 47

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals attachment in PRISM “Cost Estimate.” 30% Design Report included a "cost opinion" (estimate) that CCD staff compared to past local efforts and made minor adjustments.

B. Include a Partner Contribution Form (Appendix J), when required, from each partner outlining the partner’s role and contribution to the project. Refer to Section 3 of this manual for information on when a Partner Contribution Form is required. N/A

C. List all landowner names. If the proposed project occurs on land not owned by the grant applicant, attach a signed Landowner Acknowledgement Form (Appendix K) in PRISM, when applicable, from each landowner acknowledging that his or her property is proposed for SRFB funding consideration. Refer to Section 3 of this manual for information on when a Landowner Acknowledgement Form is required. Mr. Mort Bishop III, Mr. & Mrs. Cecil Harrison 5. Tasks and Schedule

A. List and describe the major tasks and time schedule you will use to complete the project.

Environmental Compliance/Cultural Resource review, May 2013 Select Contractor, June 2013 Construction, July-December 2013 (conditions may cause delays in construction expanding time frame for completion) Planting, may occur in cycles depending on construction progression Fall 2013, Spring 2014

Page 48

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals

6. Constraints and Uncertainties

A. Each project should include an adaptive management approach that provides for contingency planning. State any constraints, uncertainties, possible problems, delays, or unanticipated 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. Uncertainties that are most likely to impact project completion is seasonal weather impacts that could restrict access to floodplain levees that are planned for modification. Wet conditions could limit access prolonging completion. Project will also be working around landowner/producer agriculture production cycles which may extend completion time.

Supplemental Questions

1. Acquisition Projects (applies to both acquisition-only and combination projects) answer the following questions:

A. Information to include in item 1D above: Describe the habitat types, size, and quality on site (forested riparian/floodplain, wetlands, tributary, main stem, off-channel, bluff-backed beach, barrier beach, open coastal inlet, estuarine delta, pocket estuary, uplands, etc.), critical areas on site, and any other features that make the site unique. Describe existing land use.

B. Describe the type of acquisition proposed (e.g., fee title, conservation easement).

C. State the size of the property to be acquired. Attach a site map in PRISM showing the property boundary, habitat features, easements, roads, and buildings, as appropriate.

D. Describe the property’s proximity to publically owned or protected properties in the vicinity. Attach a map in PRISM that illustrates this relationship.

E. If uplands are included on the property to be acquired, state their size and explain why they are essential for protecting salmonid habitat.

F. State the percentage of the total project area that is intact and fully functioning habitat.

G. Property restoration needs. Explain the degree to which habitat on site is impaired and the nature and extent of required restoration. Are there levees, riprap, infrastructure, or other features on this or nearby properties that inhibit channel migration or floodplain-stream interaction? Describe Page 49

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals the likely prioritization, timeframe, and funding sources for proposed restoration activities.

H. List structures (home, barn, outbuildings, fence) on the property and any proposed modifications. Note: In general, buildings on SRFB-assisted

Page 50

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals

acquisitions must be removed. Refer to Section 2 of this manual for information about ineligible project elements.

I. Describe adjacent land uses (upstream, downstream, across stream, upland).

J. Describe the:

i. Zoning/land use

ii. Shoreline Master Plan designation

iii. Portion of site within 100-year floodplain

iv. Portion of site within designated floodway

Explain why federal, state, and local regulations are insufficient to protect the property from degradation.

K. If buying the land, explain why the acquisition of conservation easements to extinguish certain development, timber, agricultural, mineral, or water rights will not achieve the goals and objectives of the project.

L. For acquisition projects intending to purchase multiple properties within an area, identify all the possible parcels that will provide similar benefits and certainty of success and provide a clear description of how parcels will be prioritized and how priority parcels will be pursued for acquisition.

2. Fish Passage Projects (Answer the following questions)

NOTE: For fish passage design and evaluation guidance, applicants should refer to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual at wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00061, and the Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage manual at wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/cm/. For prioritization questions or technical assistance, contact Susan Cierebiej at Department of Fish and Wildlife at (360) 902-2561 or [email protected]. For engineering design questions or technical assistance, contact Don Ponder at (360) 902-2547 or [email protected].

A. Information to include in item 1D above: Concisely describe the passage problem (outfall, velocity, slope, etc). Describe the current barrier (age, material, shape, and condition). Is the structure a complete or partial barrier? Describe the amount and quality of habitat to open if the barrier is corrected.

Page 51

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals

B. Project Design

i. If a culvert is proposed, does it employ a stream simulation, no slope, hydraulic, or other design?

ii. Has the project received a Priority Index (PI) number? If so, provide the PI number and indicate the method used: Physical survey, reduced sample full survey, expanded threshold determination, or Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife generated PI (list source, such as a study or inventory).

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

iv. Complete and attach the Barrier Evaluation Form and Correction Analysis Form. These forms are available in Appendix Q of this manual and on the RCO Web site at www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/app_materials.shtml#salmon.

3. Diversions and Screening Projects (Answer the following questions:)

NOTE: For questions or technical assistance, contact Pat Schille, Department of Fish and Wildlife at (509) 575-2735 or [email protected]. Refer to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual (August 2000) at wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/fishbarr.htm for further guidance.

A. Information to include in Salmon Recovery Context above in item 1D: If the diversion is equipped with a fish screen, provide details of why it is not functioning properly from a fish protection perspective (entrainment or impingement).

B. Project design

i. Has the project received a Screening Priority Index (SPI) number? If yes, provide the SPI and indicate if the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife developed the SPI.

ii. Is this a pump or gravity diversion?

iii. What is the flow of the diversion in gallons per minute (gpm)? How was the flow determined (water right, meter – system meter, calculated from irrigation system components, or direct measurement during peak spring/summer diversion using a flow meter)?

Page 52

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Section 4: Project Proposals

iv. If it is not possible to determine the flow, then provide the bankfull, cross-sectional area of the ditch, measured 100-300 feet downstream of the point of diversion. Refer to page 25 of the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual for instructions on how to collect this information. v. How much water, if any, will be saved as a result of this project? Will water be put into trust, or are there plans to transfer water rights?

Page 53

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18  January 2012 Draft Application Due Date: April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: July 11, 2012

Restoration Cost Estimate ~ In-Stream IN-STREAM HABITAT includes those freshwater items that affect or enhance fish habitat below the ordinary high water mark of the water body. Items include work conducted on or next to the channel, bed, bank, and floodplain by adding or removing rocks, gravel, or woody debris. Other items necessary to complete the project may include livestock fencing, water conveyance, and plant removal and control.

Complete only items that apply to your project. TOTAL COST must include the SRFB and Sponsor’s Match Contribution. Use only whole dollar amounts. Item Unit Qty. Total Description Description (60 characters Cost Needed max.) Bank stabilization Linear ft Describe Carcass placement Linear ft Describe Channel Linear ft Optional connectivity Channel Linear ft Describe reconfiguration Complex log jams Each Optional Deflectors/barbs Each Optional Dike Linear ft 4,300 493,436 Optional removal/setback Remove & replace, 4 strand barb Livestock fencing Linear ft 10,000 37,450 Material wire Log control (weir) Each Optional Off-channel habitat Acres Describe Lump Permits 15,000 Optional Includes cultural resource review sum Plant Acres Optional removal/control Riparian plant Includes plant material and Sq ft 25,000 Describe installation conservation cover seeding Riparian plant Describe Each materials species Rock control (weir) Each Optional Roughened channel Linear ft Describe Signage Each Describe Lump Site maintenance Describe sum Spawning gravel Sq yds Optional placement Wetland restoration Acres Describe Woody debris Each Describe placement Sales Tax 44,737 Sub-Total 615,623 Architecture, Engineering, & 8% 49,250 Admin. (30% of Sub-Total) TOTAL COSTS 664,873 Draft Application Due Date: April 13, 2012 Final Application Due Date: July 11, 2012

LEGEND

Tucannon Riwr Assessment Reaches - {Ticks lndicate River Mile) Tributary to Tucanrcn R@d [--]- Tucannon River Basin f-l-j crunty Boundary Publlc L8nd Areas Vlbshington Stale - VI/DFW Wldlife Ar€a U.S. Forest Service - Wenaha Tu€nnon Vvilderness U.S. Forest Servic€ - Umatilla National Forest

'-=LO

NOTES: 1. Hodzontal Datum: V\rA State Plam South Zone, MD 83, Feet. 2. Public lands data provided by Vvashington State Dept. NaluEl Rsoures.

Figure { ANCHOR Basin Vicinity and Project Reach Map 30 Percent Design Report - Tucannon River QEAfr Columbia Conservation District /s /u*u

!l i i''ilr'' 't&' i

.;]j .i,"\"* $ ,.\ ;i:l ' i .' :: iFs, .,' -,,,'ftp, l": s!,?tr' 'i.i "{

.i , 'll :; rii- l;El*,;.I /{lit':..

I.EGEND 236+00 237+Ao Exi6ting Features Proposed Feature6 - Main Channel Proposed LWD/ELJ Locations ' Channel Cenierline r;;tl Existing Flow path Singte LWD -- Setback pivot Levee Crest Center (Track/Extenl) Multiple LWD (Anchored to Setback Levee Trees) Priority Footprint Multiplie Level Key LWD (Anchored to Boulders) # ,:ji{. lntensive Re_Vegetation rr\l*{.!l #'l Htqh Barb ELJ ''i l'5:1 Channel Excavation #2 BarApex '*.:.\,i 1 Levee/Berm Removal ELJ $i'i ffi'ffi l${ffi fl$iftijpxffi di*kfr itrj:*l".ffi '- ....--...-..''".*-:"!**]L n 'j:: ! j ;, iil ''r Feef 'g-.,: :]: l o too )n^ f:=rEr{" Project Reach Restorarion ptan (Station roo_oo 30 percent r[tLlli*?, Design Report _ tucann;;;i;;i Columbia C"nseruation Oisi.,"t r-.,r *--- Ilr ;-T; IIIT Match Line I l' :ijfi:. ei. r; :r! I ; .,* "d..;,i

? .|' t I gt €r Ftopo"uo, =r , ^._, /qnDe/ I I I

',: lli 4 See Figure 14 for profite I l{t ,-si" ,i' I - I r,! 1i . !. I I Frn- -Posh-.-, S', ,,u: :1, LA^.q44e./ ". s-". &''i . l: ". I *1, ? LEGEND Existing Featurcs Proposed Features Proposed LWD/ELJ Locations - - ' Main Channel Channel Centerline Single LWD Existing Flow Path Setback Levee Crest nilultiple LWD (Anchored 10 Trees) Center Pivot (Track/Extent)- Setback Levee Footpriot , lrulliplie LWD (Anchored to Boulders) Priority Level Key lntensive Re-Vegetataon Batu ELJ I All feature loGations are approximate and subiect to revision. Levee removals and setback lovees #1 High Channel Exmvation their exients are outlined. Siogle LWD and Multiple BarApex ELJ are not incorporated into the topography but I #2 'l revee/Berm Removal LWD placemants a.e shown al a minimum spactng of 5-7 bankfull channel widths. Selection of LWD I type and the final location will be determined based on feld conditions. River staloning in feet from #3 Low the mouth follows the existing main channel centerlin€. I

Figure 3a tBr". Drf, N"t* Project Reach Restoration Plan (Station 223+50 lo 205+00) -.* : i\:i i;,li-r1l Feet othorphotos ot 2O1o relative elevailotl $ shown. Relafive f, .i '. 12010 Report - River 100 lelevahon is calculated peryendiculat to the 2010 LTDAR measurcd 30 Percent Design Tucannon i'r| ;1 eleu-atpn. U..r -*'-* FE=FE-I lmli ! chan,tl! wgtelsliace Columbia Conservation Distrlct l:rg .9 l>

! 2010 Avulsion Path I I t

-.und g{oQ"". '''''.,r';i''

, ad,.; ,

5l ;l t,',i. , !d., *i 1:.;ii.. 211+00

2011 Avulsion Path '193+00 ..:i , '&l *osr I .,_t " 8l+l a t I c o \" I ao Abandoned Main Channel

LEGEND Exlstlng FeatuBs Propoged Features Proposed LWD/ELJ Locations '-- "-' Main Channel Channel Centerline Single LWD Existing Flow Path Setback Levee Crest ft/tultiple LWD (Anchored to Trees) Center Pivot (Track/Extent)- Setback Levee Footprint r, Multiplie LWD (Anchored lo Boulde.s) Priority Level Key lntensive Re-Vegetation Barb ELJ NOTES: feature loGations ate approximate and subject lQ revleon. Levee removals and setback levees #1 Hjgh Channel Ex€vation BarApex ELJ re not in@rporaled into the topography, but their exlents are outlned. Single LWD and Multiple placem;nts wdths. of LWD #2 'l rcvee/Berm Removal WD are strown at a minirirum spacing of5-7 banktull channel Selection I ind the tinal locption will be determined basd on field @nditions. River stationing irl feet lrom #3 Low mouth follows the existing main channel 6enterline.

Figure 4a lB" Project Reach Restoration Plan (Station 212+50 lo 192+50) '..! jillr. Feet 12010 olhot1hotos or 2O1O retative e/evatlon is shown Relative ,i!i\r{ i 30 Percent Design Report - Tucannon River 'lud.*, l' 0 100 200 letevalion i calculated peeendicutil to lhe 2O1O LiDAR measured i-ti:i. iii-?- I mai n chdn ne I walercuaface elevatpn. Columbia Conservation District FEI-EIq L_ _ I I I I !e = r€

LEGEND Existing Features Proposed FeatureE proposed LWD/ELJ Locations --- * Main Channel Channel Centeiine Single LWD . Existing Flow Path Setback Levee Crest Mtuttiple LWD (Anchored to Trees) center Pivot (Track/Extent) .i - setback Levee Footprint Muttiplie LWD (Anchored to Boulders) Priority Level Key lntensive Re_Vegetation Barb ELJ #1 High Channel Excavation feature locations are approximate - and €ubject to revision. Levee temovals and setback levees A BarApex ELJ are notnol incorporatedlncoroorated into lhe toooqraphv.toooor^nhy, Ez tevee/Be.m Removal but'theirbut thei. extentse*e-nrs are ouilrned. i;;i^Singte l-WO ana Vfutiiofe I LWD ptacemenrs a.e shown ".";;;J #3 I.iw at i minr'irum spacing of 5-/ bankfurt cnannet wioiii. tLie;;; ;iilfii; llllT:^,11,,T.?l H:"l.9l.ylpg*lTryqlmJoi" i"ra i"iiiti"ni'-iiu"i in reer hom mouth follows the existing main chanoel centerline "tntionins

Feet E*"O":"ffi othorphotos at 2010 rctatle elevahon Project plan 100 200 12010 6 shown. Relativel Reach Restoration (Station ,n,.uo r5'rnTf!?1 Jereya&on /s catcutated perpendDular to the 2O1O LiDAR measuredl percent 30 Design Report _ Tucannon lmatn channel watersudace elMtioL River -=I.-- Columbia Conservation District ^, I ""9 J) $, t

eri,' -:i'tri i*,ir;,r:1i..: ,t -i ,fr,!" , |:i ,,.t r-*- I t\ IIGEND Exlsting Feature6 proposed Features proposed I.I/VD,/ELJ Locations ''--' Main Channel - Channel Centerline .- Singte LWD Exjsting Flow pa Setback Levee Crest Multjple LWD (Anchored to Trees) center Pivot (Tracki Extent) setback Levee Footprint ji. Multiplie LWD (Anchored to Boulders) Priority Level Key lntensive Re-Vegetation Barb ELJ #1 High Channel ".:,_-,,.Excavation #z + ._ .- BarApex ELJ I Levee/Berm Removal #3 Low

,, *" r:q{llitrl,. Feet \l r-1; .1 c--*,L, o Project Reach Restorarion plan .,rr.ro r 1O0 2OO (Station rS?U'rtfutol &"",ir '. 1- .' \ --,-:-i -- percent 30 Design Report _ Tucannon River -rE_lEq Columbia Conservation District I I I I le I o r€ :ca l= !la I =l I I I I I I I

I i,i$ I ll "ai I I I I \ : I

LEGEND I Exisling Features Propo6ed Features proposed LWDIELJ Locations *" ..1 -. Majn Channel -- Channel Centerline Singte LWD ' .,, Existing Flow Path Sehack Levee Crest Multiple LWD (Anchored to Trees) tl Center Pjvot (Track/Extent)- Setback Levee Footprint Multiplie LWD (Anchored to Boulders) Priority Level Key lntensive Re-Vegetation Ba|b ELJ I #1 High Channel Excvation feature locations are approximate and subject to revision. Levee rcmovals and setback levees Bar Apex ELJ not incorporaled into the lopography, but theh extents are ou$ined. Single LWD and Multiple t2 T Levee/Berm Removal ) placements are shown at a minrmum spacing of 5-7 banktull channel widths. I Selection of LWD I #3 Low and the final location will b€ detemined based on tield conditions. River stationino in feet from the mouth follows the exasting main channel centerline. I

Feet ptan l2O1O othorphotos ot 2O1O retative eievation 6 shown. Relativel Project Reach Resro ration (starion r uo -,l o,5TJ[f otoi 0 100 200 le/eyaron is calculated perpendicular to the 2O1O LIDAR measuredl 30 Percent Design Report - Tucannon River channel Mtersuiac.e elevation. FT=FE- Lmain _ _ l Columbia Conservation Di$trict General Notes Permits

1) This installation shall be constructed to the lines The SE Area Engineer does not assume any responsibility and grades as shown on the drawings and detailed in in the determination, application and/or securing of any the construction specifications. necessary permits. All permits for the construction and 2) Construction activities will be conducted in a operation of this facility are the responsibility of the manner that minimizes soil, water and air pollution Owner, Operator, Sponsor and/or Contractor. LOCATED IN SEC. 11, 13, 14, T12N, R37E, W.M., and is consistent with all safety regulations COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON necessary for this installation. Review and Acceptance Utilities The Drawings and Construction Specifications for this project have been reviewed with me and are accepted for The SE Area Engineer does not make any installation. I also acknowledge that any modifications representation to the existence or non-existence of prior to review by the SE Area Engineer before any public and private buried and overhead utilities. implementation may result in disapproval of this Where utilities are shown on the drawing there installation. I hereby acknowledge receipt of copy(ies) of location and depth or height is approximate. The this plan. exact location and depth or height shall be determined by the responsible utility. Any work Owner/Sponsor______within the utility easement will conform to the Date______HWY 261 OFFSET DIKE #3 requirements of the utility. 1,071.45 L.F.

TUCANNON RIVER

OFFSET DIKE #1 2,508.21 L.F. STARBUCK, WA.

SHEET INDEX OFFSET DIKE #2 PROJECT OVERVIEW 1 708.83 L.F. DIKE #1 - PLAN & PROFILE: 0+00 - 11+00 2 DIKE #1 - PLAN & PROFILE: 11+00 - 21+00 3 DIKE #1 - PLAN & PROFILE: 21+00 - 25+11.05 4 DIKE #2 - PLAN & PROFILE: 0+00 - 7+08.83 5 DIKE #3 - PLAN & PROFILE: 0+00 - 10+72.5 6 CONSTRUCTION NOTES & DETAILS 7

600 300 600 1200 1800 LOCATED IN SEC. 11, 13, 14, T12N, R37E, W.M., COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

STRUCTURAL DIKE MATERIAL SHALL BE: 6.0 - APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION. - PLACED IN 1FOOT LIFTS. - COMPACTED TO 95% OF THE MODIFIED PROCTOR. - FREE OF ANY ORGANIC MATERIAL

2H:1V OR FLATTER

2H:1V OR FLATTER NATIVE ORGANIC MATERIAL

TOPSOIL AND OTHER ORGANIC MATERIAL SHALL BE STRIPPED FROM NATIVE STRUCTURAL MATERIAL THE FOOTPRINT OF THE DIKE PRIOR TO PLACING ANY STRUCTURAL FILL. ROCK TOE: - MATERIAL SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO INSTALLATION. - SHALL BE KEYED INTO THE TOW OF THE SLOPE. - REFER TO TABLE BELOW FOR PLACEMENT LOCATIONS.

ROCK TOE PLACEMENT LOCATIONS DIKE CONSTRUCTION - VOLUME TABULATIONS

STATION RANGE QUANTITY (TN) AREA (S.F.) TOPSOIL EX. (C.Y.) STRUCTURAL FILL (C.Y.) DIKE #1 7+60 - 14+00 1662 DIKE #1 29,934 1662 3365 DIKE #1 24+00 - 25+08 1662 DIKE #2 11,038 613 1338 DIKE #2 0+00 - 7+09 613 CONSTRUCTION DETAIL NOTES: DIKE #3 15,962 872 1801

DIKE #3 0+00 - 1+00 872 - ALL TABULATED VALUES SHOWN ON THIS SHEET HAVE BEEN ESTIMATED, ACTUAL LOCATIONS AND QUANTITIES WILL VARY AT TIME OF CONSTRUCTION.

- ANY PROPOSED CHANGES TO THESE PLANS SHALL BE APPROVED BY THE ENGINEER PRIOR TO CONSTRUCTION.

- UPON COMPLETION OF DIKE CONSTRUCTION ALL DISTURBED SOIL SHALL BE SEEDED WITH GRASS. CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

REFER TO SHEET 7 FOR... - TYPICAL DIKE CROSS-SECTION DESIGN. - TABULATED EXCAVATION AND IMPORT VOLUMES.

LOCATED IN SEC. 11, 13, 14, T12N, R37E, W.M., COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

HATCHING & SHADING LEGEND

EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MAJOR) 8 EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MINOR) V-Scale 1" = 8' H-Scale 1" = 80' PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT 4 PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) 80 40 80 160 240 PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) PROPOSED FILL CL FINISH GRADE PROFILE 4 EXISTING GROUND PROFILE PC: 10+44.47 PT: 10+78.36

10+00 CL FINISH GRADE PROFILE EXISTING GROUND PROFILE PROPOSED FILL PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MINOR) EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MAJOR) CONSTRUCTION NOTES: REFER TO SHEET 7 FOR... HATCHING & SHADING LEGEND - TABULATED EXCAVATION AND IMPORT VOLUMES. - TYPICAL DIKE CROSS-SECTION DESIGN.

11+00

12+00 PC: 11+79.95

13+00 PT: 12+13.19

14+00 PC: 13+72.98 PT: 13+96.49 LOCATED IN SEC. 11, 13, 14, T12N, R37E, W.M.,

15+00 COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON PC: 16+31.41

16+00 17+00

PT: 16+69.10

18+00 19+00 80 40

4 4 8 20+00 H-Scale 1" = 80'

V-Scale 1" = 8'

80 21+00

160 22+00 240 CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

REFER TO SHEET 7 FOR... - TYPICAL DIKE CROSS-SECTION DESIGN. - TABULATED EXCAVATION AND IMPORT VOLUMES.

LOCATED IN SEC. 11, 13, 14, T12N, R37E, W.M., COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON

HATCHING & SHADING LEGEND

EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MAJOR) EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MINOR) 8 PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT V-Scale 1" = 8' H-Scale 1" = 80' PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) 4 PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) 80 40 80 160 240 PROPOSED FILL CL FINISH GRADE PROFILE EXISTING GROUND PROFILE 4 CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

REFER TO SHEET 7 FOR... - TYPICAL DIKE CROSS-SECTION DESIGN. HATCHING & SHADING LEGEND - TABULATED EXCAVATION AND IMPORT VOLUMES. EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MAJOR) EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MINOR) LOCATED IN SEC. 11, 13, 14, T12N, R37E, W.M., COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) PROPOSED FILL CL FINISH GRADE PROFILE EXISTING GROUND PROFILE

8 V-Scale 1" = 8' H-Scale 1" = 80' 4

80 40 80 160 240

4 CONSTRUCTION NOTES:

REFER TO SHEET 7 FOR... - TYPICAL DIKE CROSS-SECTION DESIGN. - TABULATED EXCAVATION AND IMPORT VOLUMES. LOCATED IN SEC. 11, 13, 14, T12N, R37E, W.M., COLUMBIA COUNTY, WASHINGTON 8 V-Scale 1" = 8' H-Scale 1" = 80' 4

80 40 80 160 240

HATCHING & SHADING LEGEND

EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MAJOR) EXISTING GROUND CONTOURS (MINOR) PROPOSED CENTERLINE ALIGNMENT PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) PROPOSED CONTOURS (MAJOR) PROPOSED FILL CL FINISH GRADE PROFILE EXISTING GROUND PROFILE Appendix K: Landowner Acknowledgement Form

Landowner Information

Name of Landowner: C. M. Bishop III Landowner Contact Information: EI Mr. I rvr. Title: First Name: Mort Last Name: Bishop III Contact Mailing Address: P.O. Box 3O3O-Portland OR. 97208 Contact E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Property Address or Location: Sec. 11, L3, L4, T1-2N, R37E L. Mr. C. M. Bishop III 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.

.-' /2'----\ /L--4 'Tn z f tj !, - Landowner Signature Date Project Sponsor Information

Project Name: Tucannon Ranch, Phase I Implementation Project Applicant Contact Information: E Mr. I Vt. Title Columbia Conservation District Manager First Name: Terry Last Name: Bruegman Mailing Address: 2025.2nd Street-Dayton, WA. 99328 E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Manual 1,8 c January 20L2 Appendix K: Landowner Acknowledqement Form

Landowner Information

Name of Landowner: Landowner Contact Information: ffi t,..o*S tr. . Titre: First Name: C Ur, I LastName: hl ,rrtian ContactMaitingnoai"s, { O,'BOX e 1t" ContactLOnIaCTE-Mall E-Mail AOOfeSS:Address: z t r I TJsr property >+ t,K! w k '/ Address or Location: ",1-P,n t*fr 1*r..-* 1. ;;#, o, o,nuntul,-, o,l" ow'-nerof 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. aoD

Date Project Sponsor Information

Project Name: Tucannon Ranch Phase I Implementation Project Applicant Contact Information: EI Mr. tr Vr. Title: Columbia Conservation District Manager First Name:Terry Last Name: Bruegman Mailing Address: 202 S.2nd Street Dayton, WA. 99328

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Manual 1-8 r January 20L2 LEGEND

Tucannon River Assessment Reaches - (Ticks lndicate River Mile) '- Tributary to Tu€nnon [-_--l Tucannon River Basin a:1:,,, Tucannon River Sub-Basins Geomorphlc Reache! 10 (RM 50.3 - RM 44.0) . Reach S (R.M. 44.0 - R.M. 40.0) \. _. -_ . _" \,.. -Reach - i,i,ri I (R.M. 40.0 - R.M, 32.1) ) CReach 7 (R.M.32j -27.51 .\'+- --'\..\ -Reach , 6 (R.M. 27.5 - R.M. 20.0) It4arengo /'r_.. \ i 5 (R.M. 20.0 - R.M. 't3.2) \' ' '" ) -Reach *,yr-r'..-,11_' '';J t t,_ _\ -Reach 4 (R.M. 13.2 - R.M. 8.9) -R€chr.$Bilii,Reach 3 (R.M. 8.9 - R.M. 4.5) , __ ,// i, 2 (R.M. 4.5 - R.M. 0,7) ,-.-r.\".".._r\ rlReach-Reach l (R,M.0.7- R.M.0.0) _....._.._,-_-.-./..- '-'"^"--1"'''t .i,rr__ .\":,.%" '-ii .'i).

i)?\% 1i; tl , ',p ', I 1,,,'" 't i "'i,,.)'''

i' ,') ) '-*fuO

Ck. \-, I

t-1. NOTES: '\.- 1. Horizontal Datum: WA State Plane South Zone, l'lAD 83, I Feet. I '\. 2. Subbesir6 *e based on USGS HUC basin ares. ,-, t-'''

Flgure 5 ANCHOR Geomorphic Reach Extents Tucannon River GeomorphicAssessment and Habitat Restoration Study QEAffi Columbia Conservation Districi