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

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: North Fork Touchet River Fish Passage Improvement at Forest Road 650 Crossing

Submitting Organization: Confedederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation (Sponsor for Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger 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: Jerry Last Name: Middel

Address: 813 S Touchet Road City/Town: Dayton State: WA Zip: 99328 Telephone # (541) 969-9925 Cell # (541) 969-9925

E-mail address: [email protected]

Project Locations: Provide a brief description of the project location including watershed, stream reach and position in watershed. This project would be in the Upper North Fork of the Touchet River, which is in the Walla Walla River watershed (Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC]1707010203) and the Upper North Fork Touchet subwaterwshed (HUC 170701020301). It is about 17 miles South of Dayton, first on County Road 9115, then Forest Road 6400.

The project would be at the crossing of Forest road 6400-650 over the North Fork of the Touchet River. The 6400-650 road is the entrance road to Ski Bluewood. This site is at river mile 19.6, GPS location N46.0910734 W117.8533349, and is in the upper headwaters of the North Fork of the Touchet River.

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). Three maps sent separately

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!

This project would correct a fish passage barrier where Forest Road 6400-650 crosses over the North Fork of the Touchet River. This culvert is the last remaining fish passage barrier in the North Fork of the Touchet River. The culvert is long, about 121 feet, is at a high gradient (5.25%) has a small outlet drop (not backwatered), and is less than ½ bankfull width in diameter. This combination of factors makes this culvert a severe fish passage barrier. We propose to replace it with a bottomless arch which would allow a natural stream bottom and natural or near natural channel width and gradient to facilitate fish passage. A few bull trout and rainbow/steelhead trout have been observed upstream of this culvert (DC, personal observations, Glen Mendel, pers. comm.), which is evidence of suitable habitat there. The upper North Fork of the Touchet River is a very cold stream, with highest summer temperatures in the mid 50’s. There is at least ¼ mile, and perhaps more, suitable fish habitat upstream of this culvert. This culvert is in the upper part of bull trout spawning and rearing habitat in the North Fork Touchet River. Steelhead spawn in the North Fork Touchet farther downstream. Chinook salmon are not known to use this part of the North Fork Touchet. This project would make more habitat more easily accessible for both rainbow/steelhead trout (Oncorhynchus mykiss) and bull trout (Salvelinus confluentis), but the primary beneficiary would be bull trout, as they are the primary salmonid occupants of this part of the river. The Forest Service has recently (2005) replaced two road culverts at Forest Road 6400 crossings of the North Fork Touchet downstream of these project sites in order to facilitate fish passage. In 2010 the Forest Service removed an upstream fish passage barrier culvert at the 6400-600 road crossing of the North Fork Touchet. Also in 2010, and in partnership with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife and Tri-State Steelheaders, and supported by Snake River Salmon Recovery funding, the Forest Service replaced a fourth passage barrier culvert with a bridge at the road 6400-700 crossing of the North Fork Touchet.

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

The proposed project would complete removal of the last fish passage barrier in the North Fork Touchet River. Both the entire NEPA process and ESA consultation have been completed for this project.

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)

Estimated Budget: List SRFB request match and total project costs Budget Items Cost/Unit Unit Matching SRFB Project Cost Funds Request NEPA, ESA & $3,000.00 $3,000.00 $0.00 $3,000.00 permitting Site survey and $21,000.00 $21,000.00 $0.00 $21,000.00 design Implementation, $161,000.00 $25,000.00 $136,000.00 $161,000.00 construction, channel & floodplain restoration contract $15,000.00 $15,000.00 $15,000.00 Administration Total Matching $$49,000.00 Total SRFB Request $$151,000.00 Total Project Cost $$200,000.00 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. The culvert at the 650 road crossing of the North Touchet has been assigned the HWS code 32-00245

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: Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reseervation (Sponsor for Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger 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) $200,000.00

A. Sponsor Match Contribution (15% minimum is required for match) Appropriation/Cash $25,000.00 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 $9,000.00 Force Acct – Material Grants Grant – Federal $15,000.00 Grant – Local Grant – Private Grant – State Grant – IAC Grant – Other Total Sponsor Match Contribution (15% Minimum Match Required of a total $49,000.00 Project Cost)

B. SRFB Contribution (grant request) 151,000.00 $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: United States (Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District) Address: 1415 West Rose St, City/Town: Walla Walla State: WA Zip: 99362

Driving Directions (provide directions that will enable staff to locate the project): From US highway 12 in Dayton, WA, take county road 9115 South about 14 miles. County road 9115 becomes Forest road 6400. Follow Forest road 6400 about 3-1/2 miles to spur road 650 on the left. This is the end of the pavement. Project site is at the 650 road crossing of the North Fork Touchet River, which is just a few feet from the junction of Forest Road 6400 and the 650 spur road.

This is the END of the DRAFT APPLICATION.

2013 SRFB Project Proposal

Restoration, Acquisition, or Combination Restoration and Acquisition Projects

SRFB applicants must respond to the following items. 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.

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.

1. Project Overview

A. Provide a brief summary of the project (note that further elaboration of this summary information is requested in Questions 2 and 3). When possible, list your sources of information by citing specific studies, reports, and other documents. Be sure to include:

i. Location of the project in the watershed, including the name of the water bodies, 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. This project would be in the Upper North Fork of the Touchet River, (subwaterwshed Hydrologic Unit Code [HUC] 170701020301) which is in the Walla Walla River watershed (HUC 1707010203). It is about 17 miles South of Dayton, first on County Road 9115, then forest road 6400. The project would be at the crossing of forest road 6400-650 over the North Fork of the Touchet River. This site is at river mile 19.6, GPS location N46.0910734 W117.8533349, and is in the upper headwaters of the North Fork of the Touchet River.

ii. Overview of current project site conditions. The culvert that conveys the North Fork Touchet River under the 6400-650 road is a fish passage barrier because of its length, small size, and gradient. There is high quality fish habitat upstream and downstream of the culvert. This is the only remaining fish passage barrier culvert in the North Fork Touchet River. iii. Description of the proposed project and primary project objectives, such as how this project will contribute to restoring salmonids within the ecosystem. This project would correct the fish passage barrier by replacing the culvert with a bottomless arch. The stream bottom under the replacement structure would be formed in as near a natural configuration as possible by creating a wider channel, normal channel sinuosity and roughness for the site, and a width/depth ratio similar to adjacent stream reaches. This would restore natural accessibility to the upstream part of the North Fork Touchet for salmonids, and would make at least ¼ mile more of high quality habitat available for spawning and rearing, primarily for bull trout, although some use by steelhead/redband trout would be expected as well.

B. Has any part of this project been previously 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 or not awarded SRFB funding, please describe how the current proposal differs from the original. SRFB personnel have visited the project site together with the project proponents. Two years ago (2009-2010) this project was proposed to the SRFB as part of a larger project. This part of the proposed project was withdrawn at that time because the higher total cost of the combined projects. The name of the 2009-2010 project was: “Fish Passage Improvement on the North Fork Touchet River.”

2. Salmon Recovery Context

A. Describe the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project.

Species Life History Current ESA Coverage Life History Target Present (egg, Population (Y/N) (egg, juvenile, juvenile, adult) Trend (decline, adult) stable, rising)

Bull trout (Salvelinus All (adults Low, recent Y Spawning & confluntis) seasonally, decline (Threatened) juvenile rearing juveniles year – round)

Few Rainbow/ Juvenile (rearing) Y Juvenile rearing (Threatened) Redband/steelhead

B. Describe the nature, source, and extent of the problem that the project will address. Include a detailed description of site conditions and other 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. The problem to be addressed is impediment of fish passage, caused by a culvert installation. Currently there is a four foot diameter, round, spiral corrugated culvert, 121 feet long and at a 5.25% gradient, with a small culvert outfall (not backwatered) and with an apron at the upstream end. Flow over the smooth surface of the apron creates a fast flowing, thin sheet of water that makes exit from the culvert (for those few fish that make it that far) especially challenging. Because the culvert is long, undersized at less than ½ bankfull width, and on a gradient of 5.25%, it produces a velocity barrier at high flows. Because of the length, diameter, and gradient, this culvert constitutes a severe fish passage barrier.

There is about 30 feet of road fill over the culvert at this site.

The North Fork of the Touchet River at the site is a cold, clear, stream with thick vegetative cover and strong shading except immediately above the culvert where brush has been cut to permit surveying for project engineering design. It is productive bull trout habitat, as evidenced by collection of 54 bull trout over a distance of about 120 feet of stream during fish rescue for another habitat improvement project about 3/8 mile downstream in 2010.

There are no additional remaining fish passage barriers in the North Fork Touchet River downstream or upstream of this site. In the summer of 2010 one culvert barrier downstream was replaced with a bridge to accommodate fish passage and the only remaining barrier upstream was removed and not replaced. Prior to that, two culverts farther downstream, inside of the National Forest were removed and replaced with bridges to improve fish passage.

C. 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?). This project would address a high priority action, fish passage improvement, and so fits within the WRIA 32 work plan.

D. Describe the consequences of not conducting this project at this time. Consider the current level and imminence of risk to habitat in your discussion. Based on spawning ground surveys and observations by local fisheries biologists, the bull trout population in the Touchet River system, especially the North Fork Touchet, appears to be in a declining trend and at imminent risk of extirpation, probably due largely to loss or degradation of habitat. This project would improve access to some high quality spawning and rearing habitat, and could help to stabilize and restore the population. Not doing this project at this time would forgo the opportunity to correct one important factor in the decline of the bull trout population here, and would allow the decline to continue, possibly resulting in extirpation of bull trout from the North Fork of the Touchet River. Of course, it is not clear that correcting this passage problem alone would save the bull trout in the North Fork Touchet or that not correcting them would necessarily result in their extirpation, but is seems clear that this project would contribute to strengthening the weak North Fork Touchet River bull trout subpopulation.

3. Project Design

A. Provide a detailed description of the project size, scope, design, and how it will address the problem described in question 2B. Describe specific restoration methods and design elements you plan to employ. (Acquisition-only projects need not respond to this question.) Project entails removal of the existing culvert. The undersized culvert will be replaced with a 14’ to 16’ diameter structural plate arch installed on pre-cast concrete footers with stem walls. The channel through the work area will be reconstructed using current stream simulation practices based on a reference reach not affected by the current culvert. The stream simulation will model the pool-riffle channel occurring outside the culvert influenced area. By eliminating the long run through the high velocity flow inside the culvert and the shallow water exit over the apron at the upper end, this barrier would be completely eliminated. Normal fish access to upstream reaches would be restored.

B. If restoration will occur in phases, explain individual sequencing steps, and which of these steps is included in this application. (Acquisition-only projects need not respond to this question.)

i. Initial site survey was completed in 2009. The USFS Region 6 Design Assistance Review Team evaluated the site in 2009 as well. Design is planned for fiscal year 2012 with the intent of implementing the project as early as fiscal year 2013, depending on funding availability. ii. Actual “on-the-ground” project implementation would be in a single phase, consisting of culvert removal and replacement with bottomless arch, all done during the in-water work window of one summer (2013, assuming funding available), followed by revegetation in the fall of the same year. iii. Vegetation regrowth will be monitored, and if necessary additional planting would follow the next year.

C. 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. At the conclusion of the project, the new structure will become National Forest property and maintenance will be the responsibility of the Forest Service.

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 attachment in PRISM “Cost Estimate.” Project Estimates were determined using information from previous similar projects, current equipment and material costs, and current wage rates. Project costs include (rough estimates): NEPA, ESA & Permitting, $3000, Survey-$6,000, Design-$15,000 (including specialists work), Contract Administration - $15,000, Implementation/Construction - $161,000.

B. Describe other approaches, opportunities, and design alternatives that were considered to achieve the project’s objectives.

i. Other design alternatives included removing culvert and constructing a bridge. This alternative proved too costly due to the large span required to maintain the current roadway elevation. ii. A larger culvert is not feasible because it would have to be installed below grade and backfilled to provide a natural, easily passable substrate. Compacting the substrate through the culvert becomes challenging, if not impossible, due to the confined area to work in. This will, in all likelihood, result in sediment transport throughout the culvert and an eventual loss of material completely. iii. Backwatering the culvert with step-up weirs is not feasible because the culvert is too long to be adequately backwatered and step-up weirs to accomplish the backwatering would present access problems themselves. iv. Installing baffles in the culvert would not be satisfactory because the culvert is already undersized, and baffles would further constrict available space for high flows.

C. Have members of the community, recreational user groups, adjacent landowners, or others been contacted about this project? Describe any concerns about the project raised from these contacts and how those concerns were or will be addressed. This project was included in the NEPA process for the paving of Forest Road 6400. No concerns specific to this project were raised. D. 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.

E. List all landowner names. If the proposed project occurs on land not owned by the grant applicant, include a signed Landowner Acknowledgement Form (Appendix K), when applicable, from each landowner acknowledging that his or her property is proposed for SRFB funding consideration. Refer to RCO Section 3 of this manual for information on when a Landowner Acknowledgement Form is required. Landowner is the Umatilla National Forest.

F. Describe your experience managing this type of project.

David Crabtree, Ph.D., Walla Walla Ranger District Fisheries Biologist. Involved in a variety of aquatic habitat restoration projects, including responsibility for the fisheries component of the two previous culvert-to-bridge projects on road 64 in the North Fork Touchet River in 2004, and the Touchet Corral culvert-to-bridge project in 2010. David is the project proponent and would be the project lead for the Forest Service and would be responsible for ensuring that project activities comply with biological components of NEPA, ESA consultation requirements, (Terms and conditions of the pertinent Biological Opinions from National Marine Fisheries Service and U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service) and for keeping adverse impacts of the project to aquatic organisms minimal.

Jerry Middel M.S, Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation, Physical Geographer and Fisheries/Wildlife Biologist. Prior to Jerry’s employment with the Umatilla and as a private consultant, Jerry led projects across the PNW that evaluated road stream crossings using a wide variety of methods. For the Olympic National Forest Jerry conducted Rosgen 3 type surveys around 13 stream crossings and evaluated culverts before and after removal as part of the Road Restoration Treatment Effectiveness Monitoring Program. For the Oregon Department of Forestry, Jerry helped develop and used the Rapid Road Watershed Assessment to determine fish passage through culverts on over 2500 miles of road in the Oregon Coast Range. For the Confederated Colville Tribes, Jerry led crews that evaluated road stream crossings on over 5000 miles of forest roads. For the Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board, Jerry conducted field measurements on recently installed culverts and analyzed the stream crossing data using the Fish Xings software. Jerry also led a field crew for the Coeur d’ Alene Tribe that conducted stream measurements at culverts and analyzed the data for specific species using Fish Xings. Jerry has extensive Project Management experience stemming from running a private consulting company for 15 years. He will act as lead on this project. Paul Gerber, B.S. Civil Engineering. Project Engineer, Umatilla National Forest. Paul has designed and implemented a number of fish passage projects on the Umatilla National Forest including the Touchet Corral culvert-to-bridge project in 2010. He has taken coursework directly related to this project (“Designing for Aquatic Organism Passage at Road-Stream Crossings”). Paul will be responsible for the design of this fish passage project and will act as Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) during implementation. In addition he will oversee work done by other engineers during the design process and oversee the work done by inspectors during construction.

Stacia Peterson, Forest Service Hydrologist. Performed the hydrologic analysis for culvert-to-bridge projects on the North Fork Touchet in 2010 and 2004 and on the Tucannon River in 2010.

Joe Neer, Forest Engineer, Umatilla National Forest. B.S. Degree in Civil Engineering. Joe has managed and designed multiple projects across National Forest Lands in Region 6 (Pacific Northwest), including aquatic restoration projects, and has taken coursework directly related to the proposed project (“Restoration of Aquatic Species Passage Using Stream simulation”). Joe would be responsible for supervision of other Forest Service engineers, project inspectors, contracting officers, or contracting officer’s representatives.

5. Tasks and Schedule

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

a. NEPA analysis and preparation of Environmental Assessment. Completed in 2004.

b. Biological Assessment as per ESA requirements: Completed in 2004.

c. Hydrological Survey of site. Competed in 2009

d. Engineering Surveys: Completed Summer 2009. Any additional survey points needed will be done late spring 2012.

e. Engineering and Design work: Will be completed by end of fiscal year 2012 (September 30th)

f. Contract advertisement: If project is awarded/funded, pre-solicitation/synopsis should go out April 1, 2013. The actual solicitation should be advertised around April 15, 2013.

g. Contract awarded: Contract should be awarded in late May 2013. h. On-site work activities: July 15, 2013 through August 20, 2013. Work above or outside the bankfull channel may commence or extend beyond these dates.

i. Revegetation of exposed soil at work site: Approximately October 15, 2013 (depending on weather).

6. Constraints and Uncertainties

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.

Constraints:

1) in-water work window. Implementation would be planned so that instream work could be completed within the designated dates of the in-water work window for this stream.

2) possible wildfire. Wildfire could make work in the area dangerous and could shut down operations. Work would resume when safe, extended to the following summer if necessary.

3) Access to Ski Bluewood by permittee/lessee. Project work would make Ski Bluewood briefly inaccessible by motor vehicle. These access limitations would be brief and in midsummer when Ski Bluewood is not operating. Bluewood personnel would be advised of access limitations so they could plan accordingly.

Supplemental Questions

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

A. Information to include in item 2B above: Describe the habitat types 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.), their size in acres, quality, and existing land use. Describe any features that make the site unique. Included in 2B above.

B. Describe the type of acquisition proposed (e.g., fee title, conservation easement). Not an acquisition project.

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. Not an acquisition project. D. Describe the property’s proximity to publically owned or protected properties in the vicinity. Attach a map in PRISM that illustrates this relationship. Maps included.

E. If uplands are included on the property to be acquired, state their size and explain why they are essential for protecting salmonid habitat. Not an acquisition project.

F. State the percentage of the total project area that is intact and fully functioning habitat. See 2B (Steam above and below project is high quality habitat)

G. Explain the degree to which habitat on site is impaired and the nature and extent of required restoration. Included in 2B above. If the property is in the channel migration zone, is that function intact (i.e., do existing levees, riprap, infrastructure, or other features on this or nearby properties inhibit channel migration)? Describe the likely prioritization, timeframe, and funding sources for proposed restoration activities.

H. List existing structures (home, barn, outbuildings, fence) on the property and any proposed modifications. Note: In general, buildings on SRFB-assisted acquisitions must be removed. Refer to Section 2 of this manual for information about ineligible project elements. NA

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

J. Describe why the acquisition is needed. Explain why federal, state, and local regulations do not provide enough protection. State the zoning and Shoreline Master Plan designation. NA

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. NA

L. For multi-site acquisition projects, 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. NA

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 http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00061, and the Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage manual at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/cm/. For prioritization questions or technical assistance, contact Dave Collins at Department of Fish and Wildlife at (360) 902-2556 or [email protected]. For engineering design questions or technical assistance, contact Michelle Cramer at (360) 902-2610 or [email protected].

A. Information to include in item 2B 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. Included in 2B above

B. Project Design

i. If a culvert is proposed, does it employ a stream simulation, no slope, hydraulic, or other design? Culvert is not proposed.

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). Included in 2B above

iii. Identify if there are additional fish passage barriers downstream or upstream of this project. None

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

3. Diversions and Screening Projects – Answer the following questions: (not a diversion/screening project)

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 http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/fishbarr.htm for further guidance. A. Information to include in Salmon Recovery Context above in item 2B: 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)?

iv. If it is not possible to determine the flow, then provide the bank-full, 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?

Appendix K: Landowner Acknowledgement Form

Landowner Information

Name of Landowner: United States, Umatilla National Forest, Mike Rassbach, District Ranger, Walla Walla Ranger District. Landowner Contact Information: X Mr. Q Ms. Title: District Fisheries Biologist First Name: David Last Name: Crabtree Contact Mailing Address: 1415 West Rose Street, Walla Walla, WA 99362 Contact E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Property Address or Location: Township 7N, Range 40E, Section 18, NE x/4 1. The United States (Umatilla National Forest) (Landowner or Organization) 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.

A; \r Signature (Mike Rassbach, District Ranger) Date

Manual 18 • January 2012

Appendix J Project Partner Contribution Form

Project Partner: Umatilla National Forest

Partner Address: Walla Walla Ranger District,

1415 West Rose Street

Walla Walla WA 99362

Contact Person

X Mr. Ms. Title:

First Name: David Last Name: Crabtree

Mailing Address: 1415 West Rose Street

Walla Walla, WA 99362

E-Mail Address: [email protected]

Description of contribution to project:

Local Partner

Estimated value to be contributed: $ $24,000

______

Partner’s signature Date Appendix R Barrier Information Forms

Purpose of Forms

The purpose of the Barrier Evaluation and Expanded Barrier Evaluation forms are to document information on fish passage barriers submitted to lead entities and the SRFB for funding consideration. An updated version of the Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage Manual is available through the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife Web site at http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/cm/. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife technical staff is available to provide assistance to applicants. For barrier evaluation questions contact Dave Collins, Department of Fish and Wildlife, at (360) 902-2556 or at [email protected]. For engineering design questions or technical assistance contact Michelle Cramer at (360) 902-2610 or [email protected]. The SRFB strongly encourages applicants to take advantage of this service.

To simplify the information being collected and make it add value for the applicant, the SRFB has elected to try a new approach by using the same but slightly modified forms from the Family Forest Fish Passage Program. These forms are divided into three steps: 1) Barrier determination – is the structure a fish passage barrier and is the stream fish bearing? This initial determination is captured on the Barrier Evaluation Form. 2) Background information – if the site is determined a barrier and the stream fish bearing, then use the Expanded Barrier Evaluation Form to capture detailed information including fish species and use, site information, upstream and downstream channel conditions, and potential habitat gain if the barrier was corrected. 3) Site Visit Documentation and Correction Alternative Form – This step will help capture important information from site observations by developing conceptual alternatives and rough cost estimates. No Substitute for Local Knowledge

Your help in providing information on a project is greatly appreciated. There is no better information source than a landowner, applicant, or local habitat biologist who lives or works in a particular watershed. The Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will develop a map of each project site listing the species using the stream system, the amount of habitat opened above the barrier, and the distance to the next known man-made barrier or natural barrier gradient break. If you would like this information for completing your application, please contact your SRFB grant manager. Form Descriptions

Barrier Evaluation Form – Provides the basic information for identifying the location, landowner, evaluator contact information, and the barrier measurements. The three key pieces of information are: 1) Is the stream fish bearing (anadromous or resident) 2) Is the structure a fish passage barrier (determined by the Washington State fish passage criteria) and 3) Landowner identification. The evaluator should have professional training to determine if the structure is a barrier and if the stream is fish bearing.

Barrier Evaluation Form - Single Culvert at Crossing

Location Information

Project Name: North Fork Touchet River Fish Passage Improvement SRFB Project #: County: Columbia at Forest Road 650 Crossing

HPA #: Parcel #:

GPS Location: Datum - WGS84 -decimal degrees Latitude: N46.0910734 Longitude: W117.8533349

¼ Section: NE Section: 18 Township: 7N Range: 40E East West

Stream Name: North Fork Touchet River Tributary To: Touchet River WRIA #: 32

Driving Directions: From US highway 12 in Dayton, WA, take county road 9115 South about 14 miles. County road 9115 becomes Forest road 6400. Follow Forest road 6400 about 3-1/2 miles to spur road 650 on the left. This is the end of the pavement. Project site is at the 650 road crossing of the North Fork Touchet River, which is just a few feet from the junction of Forest Road 6400 and the 650 spur road.

Landowner Information

Landowner: Federal Government (Us Department of Agriculture, Mailing Address: 1415 West rose St., Walla Walla, WA 99362 Umatilla National Forest, Walla Walla Ranger District)

City: Walla Walla State: WA Zip: 99362 Phone: (509) 522-6293

Cell: (509) 386-6724 Fax: (509) 522-6000 Email: [email protected]

Landowner Agent: Mike Rassback Mailing Address: 1415 West Rose St.

City: Walla Walla State: WA Zip: 99362 Phone: (509) 522-6293

Cell: (509) 386-2000 Fax: (509) 522-6000 Email: [email protected]

Evaluator Information

Evaluator Name: David Crabtree Affiliation: USDA Forest Service

Mailing Address: 1415 West Rose St. City: Walla Walla State: WA Zip: 99362 Phone: (509) 522-6042 Fax: (509) 522-6000 Cell: (509) 520-8450 Email: [email protected]

Barrier Information (measurements in meters)

Is the stream fish-bearing? X Yes No Unknown Species: bull trout, steelhead, Date of Visit: Multiple visits rainbow through Fall of 2011

Fish-bearing criteria: X Fish Observation Stream Type SASSI/Stream Catalog Physical Criteria Other:

Stream flow: X Perennial Intermittent Unknown Source of information:

Will this culvert be entered into the WDFW-FPDSI (formerly SSHEAR) database? Yes No If yes, Site ID #: Shape: Round Material: Spiral CMP Apron: None X Upstream Downstream Both Span: 4ft

Rise: 6.36 Length: 212.1 ft Water Depth in Culvert: Water Surface Drop:

Drop Location: Outlet Inlet Inside Countersunk: Yes X No Unknown Culvert Slope(%): 5.25

Bankfull Width (outside influence of culvert): 8.5 ft Culvert Span/Bankfull Width Ratio: 0.47

Plunge Pool: Length (culvert to tail-out): OHW width: Max depth: 2.13 ft Road fill DS: Road width: 16 ft

Fishway Present? Yes X No (if yes, describe in Comments) Tide gate Present? Yes X No Unknown Is this culvert a fish passage barrier? X Yes No Unknown Level B needed Problem with culvert: WS drop X Slope X Velocity X Depth Percent Passability: 0% X 33% 67% 100%

Habitat Quality: X Excellent Good Poor Unknown

Comments(Describe crossing condition, fish observations, habitat quality etc):

This is a very long culvert at a steep gradient and less than ½ bankfull width.

There is at least ¼ mile, probably more of high quality habitat upsltream of this culvert. The channel is timbered up to the stream bank with dense shade except in the vicinity of the mouth of the culvert. Habitat is complex with abundant esxcape and hiding cover for fish provided by aquatic and emergent vegetation, overhanging shrubs, and Instream woody debris. The stream is small here (bankfull width about 8.5 feet, but both Oncorhynchus mykiss and Salvelinus confluentis have been observed upstream of this culvert (D. Crabtree and others), so fish will use this habitat when they can.

This stream is very productive fish habitat, as evidenced by removal of 54 juvenile bull trout from a 120 foot long stretch of stream a short distance downstream as part of a fish removal & relocation exercise for a culvert-to-bridge project a short distance downstream in 2010.

This culvert is the last remaining fish passage barrier in the North Fork of the Touchet River.

Barrier Evaluation Form Instructions

How to Fill Out this Form

Following are definitions, descriptions, and standards for information to be included in the Barrier Evaluation Form. Four types of Barrier Evaluation Forms are available. These are for a single culvert at a road crossing, multiple culverts at a road crossing, non-culvert crossings, and dams.

Location Information – Project name: This is the landowner’s last name followed by the creek name. If more than one site per landowner is evaluated on the same creek, designate each site with a letter, e.g. Franklin – Boulder Creek Site A.

SRFB Project Number – This will be provided by PRISM database.

Other Location Information – Please provide the Hydraulic Project Approval tracking number for the existing culvert if available. Record the GPS coordinates of each site in decimal degrees using the WGS84 Datum. Record the stream name, the tributary it flows into, Watershed Resource Inventory Area number, and stream number if known as well as detailed driving directions to the site.

Landowner Information – This can be found on the Landowner Application and work order.

Evaluator Information – Provide contact information for the person(s) assessing the site.

Barrier Information – All measurements should be in meters.

Is the Stream Fish-bearing? – If unknown, fish-bearing status will be determined by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, or individuals trained in the department’s Fish Passage Protocol.

Fish-bearing Criteria – Check Fish Observation if fish are observed upstream or downstream of the culvert. If mapped as a Type S, F, 1, 2, or 3 by the Department of Natural Resources, check stream type. Check the SASSI/Stream Catalog box if fish use is based on information in SASSI (Salmon and Steelhead Stock Inventory) or the Catalog of Washington Streams and Salmon Utilization. SASSI is available at http://wdfw.wa.gov/fish/sassi/sassi.htm. If based on Washington Administrative Code 222-16-031, Interim Water Typing System, check the physical criteria box.

Fish Passage Diversion and Screening Inventory (FPDSI) Database Entry – Provide FPDSI site ID number assigned to the site, if available.

Culvert Shape – Choices are: RND (round); BOX; ARCH (bottomless arch); SQSH (squash); ELL (elliptical); or OTH (other). Other can be two different shapes joined end to end. Describe in Comments.

Culvert Material – Choices are: PCC (precast concrete); CST (corrugated steel); CAL (corrugated aluminum); CPC (cast-in-place concrete); SPS (structural plate steel); SST (smooth steel); PVC (plastic); SPA (structural plate aluminum); TMB (timber); MRY (masonry); OTH (other – often two different materials joined end to end, describe in Comments).

Apron – Horizontal extension of culvert invert with human-made materials.

Culvert Size –Span: measure inside diameter, rise: measure inside dimension from culvert invert to crown of non-circular culverts, length: measure culvert length including aprons, if present.

Water depth in culvert: Measure at downstream end, about 6 inches inside culvert.

Water surface drop – A drop may occur at the culvert inlet, outlet or inside the culvert. Measure the difference in water surfaces at the top and bottom of the drop. Indicate drop location.

Countersunk – A yes indicates streambed material is present throughout the entire culvert length. The downstream invert is countersunk below the channel bed a minimum of 20 percent of the culvert rise.

Culvert slope – Measure the vertical difference between the culvert invert or apron elevations at inlet and outlet. Divide this value by the culvert length (including aprons) and multiply by 100. If slope varies within culvert, provide the overall measurement and describe how the slope varies in the comments.

Bankfull Width – The stream width measured perpendicular to flow at the stage at which water begins to overflow into the active floodplain. Bankfull width requires a floodplain or a bench not present in many channels. In those cases, use OHW (see below). Enter the average of several bankfull width measurements taken upstream and/or downstream of the culvert, outside the influence of the culvert.

Culvert Span to Bankfull Width Ratio – Divide the culvert span by the stream channel bankfull width. If there are multiple culverts, add the spans of each culvert together then divide by the stream channel bankfull width. Enter as a number to two decimals, not a percent.

Plunge Pool – Length to tail-out: Distance from the culvert outlet to the plunge pool tail-out (downstream control).

OHW width: Ordinary high water width is the widest part of the plunge pool measured at the ordinary high water mark. OHW is where the regular stream flow makes a line on the bank marking soil or vegetation with a character distinct from that of the abutting upland. Also defined as the lowest point at which perennial vegetation grows on the stream bank.

Max depth: Maximum depth is measured at the deepest point in the plunge pool.

Road Width – Measurement should include shoulders.

Road Fill – Measure height of material from top of culvert to top of fill at downstream end.

Fishway or Tide Gate Present – If either of these structures are present, they affect the way barrier status is determined. Tide gates are automatic barriers. Fishways require specialized training and must be done by Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife. Measure and record water surface drops and pool depths at each step in comments

Is this Culvert a Fish Passage Barrier? – This is concluded from the collected data, according to WDFW Level A assessment protocol*.

Problem with Culvert – Check WS drop if > 0.24 meters, check slope if equal to or greater than 1.0 percent. If a level B was done, check the depth or velocity boxes corresponding to the results of the level B analysis.

Percent Passability – Based on professional judgment. Generally, 67 percent passable blocks juvenile salmonids; 33 percent passable blocks juveniles and some adults; 0 percent passable has a water surface drop of at least 4 feet and/or a slope greater than 5 percent.

Habitat Quality – Within site of the culvert, how does the quality of the habitat rate? Consider water clarity and temperature, canopy and in-stream cover, sedimentation of gravels, surrounding land use, number of fish observed.

Comments – Provide any additional information such as culvert condition, fish use/observation, landowner comments, habitat quality, and site conditions.

Attachments Photos – Please attach photographs of culvert inlet, outlet, upstream habitat, downstream habitat, road and surrounding land use. Name the jpg files using project name, site letter, and description, Examples: Jones_A_inlet; Jones_B_DShab.

Level A Assessment – If available, please attach the Level A assessment. *Level A assessment protocol is described in the Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife, August 2000, available online at www.wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/fishbarr.htm

Site Map – A site map is needed to help verify project location. Plot and label each site on a map. Non Culvert Evaluation Form Instructions

Crossing Type – Choose the type that best fits the situation. A bridge has footings outside the ordinary high water line. A Ford is intended to be driven across. A Puncheon/Fill is logs laid in the stream channel with dirt piled on top. Eventually the logs rot away leaving a tunnel or the road fill collapses into the channel and the water perks through. An abandoned crossing has had the culvert removed and the road fill pulled back so the stream runs freely. Often the road has also been abandoned or put to bed. A washout is a structure intended to provide water flow under a road but the road and or the structure has been washed out by high flows. Dam Evaluation Form Instructions

Is There a Road on Top of the Dam? – To be eligible the barrier must have a road associated with the dam.

Primary Purpose – What is the primary purpose for the dam?

Type – What materials were used to construct the dam, check all that apply.

Span – Check ‘Full’ if the dam spans the entire width of the stream, ‘Partial’ if it does not.

Spillway Type – What type of structure allows water to pass the dam? Spillway applies if water flows over the top of the dam or down a flume, standpipe with horizontal culvert.

Flashboard risers are removable boards placed vertically in concrete or metal slots. Often there is just a culvert for overflow.

Operation Timing – Dams with flashboard risers can be opened up allowing for seasonal operation. This information is obtained from the dam owner/operator.

Length – Length of the dam span from bank to bank.

Height – Measured from the front base (DS side) of the dam to the crest.

Water Surface Difference – If water is flowing over the crest of the dam, measure the difference between the water surface elevations above and below the dam. Leave blank if equipped with a standpipe or culvert.

Plunge Pool Depth – Maximum depth of the plunge pool below the dam crest.

Fishway Present – If yes, passability is based on the fishway attached to the dam if present (see below).

Description/Comments – Describe the dam and spillway and why it is a barrier.

Is this Dam a Barrier/Percent Passability – If equipped with a standpipe or it has a water surface drop of at least 12 feet, it is 0 percent passable. If the drop is less than 12 feet, the plunge pool depth should be at least 1.3 times the water surface difference to be passable. Use a culvert evaluation if it has a culvert spillway. If there is a fishway present, base passability on the water surface difference to plunge pool depth ratio for each step. Every dam is different, use your best judgment.

Problem with dam – Check ‘Water Surface Drop’ if drop is greater than 0.24 meters (0.80 feet), check ‘Depth’ if there is a fishway present and pool depth is less than 1.3 times the water surface difference for any step. Expanded Barrier Evaluation Form Instructions

This form will be used by the Fish Passage Team to assess the potential benefit of correcting the barrier. Primary factors are the number and type of fish species using the stream, the number, passability and location of other barriers, and the quality and amount of upstream habitat. Following are definitions, descriptions, and standards for information to be included in the Expanded Barrier Evaluation Form. Project Information

Project Name – This is the landowner’s last name followed by the creek name. If more than one site per landowner is evaluated on the same creek, designate each site with a letter, e.g. Franklin – Boulder Creek A.

RCO/SRFB Project Number – This will be provided by PRISM database.

Evaluator Information - Provide contact information for the person completing the Expanded Barrier Evaluation Form.

Watershed Information

Amount of Habitat – Length of fish-bearing habitat, in meters, that would be made available by barrier correction.

Basin Area – This is the area, in square miles, that drains into this tributary upstream from the project.

Stream Flow – Indicate whether stream is perennial or intermittent, if known. Include source of information.

Barrier Inventory – This is an inventory conducted using Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife,, August 2000. It may cover a county or watershed, and be road or stream-based (indicating the stream was walked and all other barriers located).

Stream Walked to – Indicate end point of the upstream and downstream surveys. Plot the main stem and tributary end points on the map provided.

Known Upstream and Downstream Barriers – Record the distance, passability, and site ID#s of other culverts, dams, bridges, and natural barriers upstream and downstream of the site, in meters. Location can be a road or private landowner name. Discuss any scheduled corrections and time frames. List information source. Fish Species and Habitat Quality

Species Present at the Site – Identify fish species known to reach the site. Include source of information. If species are blocked by a man-made structure downstream, please describe.

Range of Gradient Downstream – Some species are limited by gradient. This information may explain why some species are not present.

Range of Gradient Upstream – Gradient may limit which species can use upstream habitat.

Upstream Lakes and Wetlands – Estimate the size, in square meters, of any upstream lakes or wetlands.

Predominant Land Use – Land use impacts habitat, and helps describe spawning and rearing habitat quality.

Canopy Cover – Estimate the overall percentage of canopy cover for the upstream habitat.

In-stream Cover – Estimate the overall amount of in-stream cover from boulders, overhanging vegetation and woody debris for the upstream habitat as low, medium or high.

Channel Stability – Estimate the overall channel stability for upstream habitat as low, medium, or high. Signs of instability include numerous debris jams, subsurface flows, streambed material piled up on the banks, braiding, incisement, dredging spoils, lack of large woody materials, excess fines in the spawning gravel, scour, and fill.

Rearing Quality – Based on flow duration, off-channel areas, water quality and temperature, shade, cover, riffle and pool ratio, large woody materials, channel complexity and stability.

Spawning Quality – Quality is based on the amount of fines present in spawning gravels. Some low gradient streams are naturally high in fines, which reflects quantity of fines, rather than spawning quality. An unstable stream is likely to have poor quality.

Describe Habitat Upstream from Barrier – Include any significant features not captured in the above questions.

Correction Analysis Form Instructions

This will be completed for projects determined to be of potential high benefit to fish resources based on the information provided in Barrier Evaluation Form and Expanded Barrier Evaluation Form. The completed forms will be used to develop a prioritized list of projects to be presented to SRFB for potential funding. Site Information

RCO/SRFB Project Number – This will be provided by PRISM database.

Bankfull Width – The stream width measured perpendicular to flow at the stage at which water begins to overflow into the active flood plain. Bankfull width requires a floodplain or a bench not present in many channels. In those cases, use Ordinary High Water (OHW). OHW is where the regular stream flow makes a line on the bank marking soil or vegetation with a character distinct from that of the abutting upland. Also defined as the lowest point at which perennial vegetation grows on the stream bank. Enter the average of several bankfull width measurements taken up and/or downstream of the culvert, outside the influence of the culvert.

Utilities Crossing – Include any water, gas, phone or electrical utilities at the crossing to be affected by project construction.

Road Fill at Downstream End – Measure height of material from top of culvert to top of fill at downstream end.

Road Width – Measurement should include shoulders.

Road Description/Condition – Provide a brief description of the road surface, use, condition, etc. Evaluator Information

Provide contact information for the person(s) completing the CAF. Upstream Habitat and Channel Description

Channel Slope – This is measured outside of the culvert influence.

Re-grade Potential – Subtract the downstream streambed elevation from the upstream streambed elevation at the site.

Dominant Substrate – Identify the size category most prominent in the substrate.

Additional Information – Provide any additional upstream information that may be important to the project.

Downstream Habitat and Channel Description

Channel Slope – This is measured outside of the culvert influence.

Additional Information – Provide any additional upstream information that may be important to the project. Correction Options and Preferred Alternative

Options to Consider – The purpose of this section is to provide the sponsor some guidance on the intended fix. Most small forest landowner projects should be relatively straightforward; however each site is different.

Preferred Alternative – Describe the recommended correction and site-specific concerns to be addressed during design and construction. Cost Estimates

Rough cost estimate – Provide estimated costs for correction options listed above. Costs should be based on cost estimate templates, provided separately, for culverts, bottomless arch culverts, and bridges. Attach the corresponding completed template for each estimate. These represent approximate costs; actual costs may vary depending on specifications identified during final project design.