Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship to Current Proposal?

Transcription

1 Restoration, Acquisition, and Combination Project Proposal Project Number Project Name Steptoe Creek perched culvert replacement Sponsor Palouse Conservation District List all related projects previously funded or reviewed by RCO: Project # or Name Status Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship to Current Proposal? P In progress Culvert design for project implementation Choose a status Choose a status If previous project was not funded, describe how the current proposal differs from the original. NA 1. Project Location. The project is located on Steptoe Creek, Steptoe Canyon Rd., approximately 8 miles WNW of Clarkston, WA in Whitman County ( o N, o W). Steptoe Creek is a small, perennial tributary to the Lower Middle Snake River (WRIA 35). The perched culvert is roughly 0.5 mile upstream from the mouth of Steptoe Creek. 2. Brief Project Summary. These funds will be used to replace a perched culvert on Steptoe Creek, 0.5 mile upstream from the Snake River, which is currently a complete passage barrier to ESA listed steelhead. The design for the culvert replacement is in progress utilizing Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB) funds (agreement # P). Once this barrier issue is addressed, steelhead will have access to the upstream habitat. Additionally, the upstream habitat will have Farm Service Agency (FSA) listing for Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (CREP) eligibility. Problems Statement. A. Describe the problem including the source and scale. The Steptoe Creek Watershed is a minor tributary (Minor Spawning Area (msa) listed watershed) to the Lower Middle Snake River, Whitman County, WA. The watershed encompasses roughly 14,000 acres comprised mostly of steep canyon lands. This watershed is comprised of has two (2) creeks, Steptoe Creek and Stuart Creek. The confluence of the two creeks is at river mile 2.5 upstream from its mouth at the Snake River. The canyon is primarily Page 1

2 used for grazing and wintering of livestock. A minor portion of the watershed is farmed but restricted to the tops of the bluffs. Steptoe creek and Stuart creek are spring fed perennial creeks (in average rainfall years; this year is a designated drought) that are listed as impaired for both habitat condition and temperature in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington (2011). Over the past century, these creeks have been heavily impacted by land management practices, a factor leading to these impairments. Although there are stretches of good habitat cover, much of the streams have no over-story/understory cover. The existing riparian forests are primarily white alder, black cottonwood, blackberry, willow and a few black locust as primary canopy components. The major riparian gaps are mostly canary grass, annual grasses and forbs. These streams are listed as impaired for temperature and habitat complexity in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington. Commented [p1]: Did citation get added? JohnF? Foremost, at river mile 0.5, there is a perched culvert that has been a barrier to anadromous fish for more than 50 years. This culvert barrier has cut off up to 3.5 miles of additional steelhead habitat. B. List the fish resources present at the site and targeted by your project. Species Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult) Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising) Steelhead egg, juvenile, Presence below culvert, not present Y above culvert barrier Trout, bull Unknown unknown Y Trout, rainbow Unknown Unknown N Endangered Species Act Coverage (Y/N) C. Describe the limiting factors, and limiting life stages (by fish species) that your project expects to address. There are multiple factors that are limiting life stages of steelhead in the Steptoe Creek Canyon. The perched culvert, as a complete barrier, is certainly the primary limiting factor as it effectively blocks up to 3.5 miles of suitable habitat for steelhead. Additionally, the high summer water temperatures and lack of riparian forest habitat and habitat complexity are also significant factors affecting the rearing and survival of steelhead juveniles. The number one goal of this project is to replace the perched culvert. The new culvert design is currently being drafted using SRSRB funds (agreement # P). The design is being drafted by the Conservation District s Area Engineer, Gary Ausman, P.E. with consultation and technical assistance from Bruce Heiner, WDFW Habitat Engineer, P.E. A secondary component of this project is that this perched culvert replacement will open up to 3.5 miles of stream habitat to steelhead which will allow this land to be listed in FSA database for CREP eligibility. The Page 2

3 landowner upstream of this culvert has expressed interest in enrolling the riparian areas into the CREP program to include livestock exclusion. Once the barrier issue is resolved, the stream impairments, temperature and lack of habitat, can be addressed and enhanced in the CREP program. The culvert replacement is just one small step in revitalizing the entire watershed. Commented [p2]: Moved to Goals 5.3. Project Goals and Objectives. A. What are your project s goals This project will replace the fish passage barrier, the culvert at river mile 0.5, with an open bottom arch. However, this project will address two issues; first and foremost, the removal and replacement of a perched culvert fish barrier and second, FSA listing of the streams above this culvert for CREP eligibility. Up to 3.5 miles of stream will be opened up as steelhead habitat when this culvert is replaced. Once these upstream reaches are listed in the FSA database, they will be enrolled in CREP and the riparian areas will be planted heavily with native plants to increase habitat complexity to aid in imminent stream impairments. The upstream habitat has great potential to support steelhead redds, for rearing of fry and offering natal stream protection as the juveniles grow to parrs before downstream migration. The number one goal of this project is to replace the perched culvert at river mile 0.5. The new culvert design is currently being drafted, now in its second phase of design, using SRSRB funds (agreement # P). The design is being drafted by the Conservation District s Area Engineer, Gary Ausman, P.E. with consultation and technical assistance from Bruce Heiner, WA Dept. Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) Habitat Engineer, P.E. and Mark Storey, P.E., Whitman County Dept. Public Works, County Engineer. A secondary component of this project is that this perched culvert replacement will open up to 3.5 miles of stream habitat to steelhead which will allow this land to be listed in FSA database for CREP eligibility. The landowner upstream of this culvert has expressed interest in enrolling the riparian areas into the CREP program to include riparian plantings and livestock exclusion. The upstream habitat has great potential to support steelhead redds for rearing of fry and offering natal stream protection as the juveniles grow to parrs before downstream migration. Once this barrier issue is resolved, the stream impairments, temperature and lack of habitat, can be addressed and enhanced in the CREP program. The culvert replacement is just one small step in revitalizing the entire watershed. Objectives: C.B. What are your project s objectives? Page 3

4 i. A design for an open bottom arch a pre-casted bridge stream crossing to replace the perched culvert will be completed by fall ii. Replace perched culvert at river mile 0.5 on Steptoe Creek with a an open bottom arch pre-casted bridge. The construction will include stream simulation with rocky aggregate and small boulders to enhance stream conditions with adequate pools. Construction will be completed by fall iii. Post open bottom arch bridge installation, steelhead will have access of up to 3.5 miles of stream habitat on Steptoe Creek and Stuart Creek by fall 2017 iv. The reaches of Steptoe Creek and Stuart Creek above the project site will be listed in FSA database allowing for CREP eligibility by fall 2017 D.C. What are the assumptions and constraints that could impact whether you achieve your objectives? As with all major projects, unexpected expenses and delays can arise. Efforts are being made to minimize these potential issues. As the culvert replacement is currently being designed using SRSRB funds, it is planned that all expenses will be solidified prior to final draft submission. Additionally, all fluvial-geomorphic attributes to the site will be addressed prior to implementation. It should be reiterated that both the landowner and Whitman County Public Works (WPW) are on board for this project. Marc Storey, Whitman Co. Engineer, P.E. is willing to add significant in-kind cost share to this project perform all site prep and construction of the bridge along with significant in-kind cost share contributions. All issues, if they arise, will be addressed in a time-direct professional manor. Recently, one un-anticipated cost, associated with this project was the fact that landowners are not able to shut the road down to traffic exclusion. Thus, reflected in the new budget was an addition of a temporary stream crossing. This added cost is included in the new budget (as well as the old). With this added cost, our estimates are still well under the 250K for total project. Estimated project total of 242k, with roughly 45k in contributions from WPW, putting the Boards at 195k to get this project though. This is a work in progress, and we, as PCD and WPW will find the most cost effective way to make it happen Project Details. A. Provide a narrative description of your proposed project. The specific project elements are three fold; 1) replace the culvert barrier, 2) open up to 3.5 miles of stream habitat to steelhead, and 3) list upstream habitat in FSA database for CREP eligibility. The culvert design (second phase) is currently being drafted by the District s Area Engineer, Gary Ausman, P.E. with consultation and technical assistance from Bruce Heiner, P.E., habitat engineer with WDFW, and Mark Storey,P.E., Whitman County Dept. Public Works, County Engineer using SRSRB funds (agreement # P). This six foot round, perched culvert will be replaced with a ft open bottom arch pre-casted bridge. The arch replacement bridge Page 4

5 and stream-bed simulation will allow steelhead and potentially other threatened and endangered native fish species to access stream habitat above this barrier, to include but not limited to bull trout and native rainbow trout. Once this habitat is opened up to both anadromous and fresh water fish species, these stream reaches will be FSA listed for CREP eligibility. Upon which point, the landowners are interested and willing in to enroll ing in the CREP program to include riparian plantings and livestock exclusion fencing using NRCS specs. Expected results from intensive and extensive riparian plantings, along with livestock exclusion is that the listed impairments, as outlined in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE WA, will eventually be alleviated. B. Provide a scope of work. Palouse Conservation District (PCD) will act as lead on this project. PCD will coordinate, consult, and contract various parties through various state, federal entities and landowners. PCD will coordinate and acquire all permitting and cultural resource surveys to ensure state and federal compliance. Deliverable Description Completion Date Project Management and Project management, December 31, 2017 Administration coordination, project reporting Permitting and Cultural Complete and apply for all December 31, 2017 Resource Survey necessary permits Construction of Culvert All aspects of construction December 31, 2017 Replacement and implementation FSA listing of Streams Above Culvert December 31, 2017 i) PCD, with assistance from the District s regional engineer and consultation from Whitman County Public Works and WDFW habitat engineering staff are currently completing designs for this culvert replacement. These designs will be reviewed by WDFW and completed prior to final draft submission to SRSRB for RCO/SRFB funded grant. ii) PCD will be liaison to all consultations and TA for installation of new fish friendly bottomless arch bridge. iii) PCD will conduct all contracting through private and public entities to ensure replacement arch bridge is built to SRSRB, WDFW, NRCS, and any other pertinent entities at required specifications. iv) PCD has already initiated contact and has acquired consent and willingness of land owners for CREP riparian enrollment to include livestock exclusion. Page 5

6 v) PCD, as lead sponsor, will submit all progress report, annual reports, and final reports to SRSRB, or other entities, as required. C. Explain how you determined your cost estimates. As the design for this project, culvert replacement is currently being funded by SFSRB grant P, which is on its preliminary design phase (now on second phase, and alternate designs and budget being drafted), costs for culvert replacement are estimated. However, with preliminary designs in conception and nearing final stages, the cost estimates should be relatively accurate. Costs for project implementation, as outlined in the new detailed project budget breakdown, attached, are reasonably accurate with addition of project management and administration added for PCD s efforts as outlined in 4b. D. Describe the design or acquisition alternatives that you considered to achieve your project s objectives. This proposal initially was submitted with designs and budget for a bottomless arch as replacement for the perched culvert. Through the draft proposal process and comments from both the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board, it was suggested that other alternatives may be more cost effective. These conversations and comments led us to investigate alternatives to include a pre-cast bridge. In late June, the lead entity contacted an engineer from Family Forest Fish Passage Program (FFFPP) to discuss possible alternatives and gather advice. This conversation led to a group meeting with Mark Storey P.E. (Whitman Co. Lead Engineer), Gary Ausman P.E.(Conservation District Area Engineer), John Foltz (Lead Entity Coor. SRSRB), Jennifer Boie (PCD Director) and Patrick Rahilly (PCD Ag Resources Coor.) to discuss alternatives. Through this meeting, it was determined to develop a design and budget for a bridge in order to make economic comparisons. An estimated budget for a bridge, as an alternative to the open bottom arch, was developed. This exercise proved to be advantageous, as the initial bridge designs have dropped the total budget by $60,000 for a total project budget of $242,000, with roughly $45,000 of total project budget as partner contribution in the form of in-kind services. Additionally, in this meeting, Mark Storey has offered to use his crew and equipment to construct the bridge in a turnkey package. Additional comments that were made referenced past SRSRB funded projects using pre-cast bridges as culvert replacements. There are some major difference in project budgets between those examples and this project. The primary difference is the necessity for streambed alterations conducive to fish passage. The streambed simulations using native aggregate and boulders adds a significant cost to the project. The design process for this culvert replacement has been in progress over the past several months as funded by SRSRB agreement # P. Consultation and technical assistance has been gathered by WDFW habitat engineering staff to ensure re-engineered designs are in line with fish passage and habitat improvement guidelines following WDFW standards. Other Page 6

7 options, such as bridges, although in the conversation as viable options, have been deemed less cost effective for achievable goals. F.E. How have lessons learned from completed projects or monitoring studies informed your project. There have been limited monitoring studies within the watershed of Steptoe Canyon. As part of the current SRSRB project for the Steptoe Creek Canyon Culvert Replacement ( P), habitat and upstream culvert surveys have been conducted. These assessments were conducted by Sean Taylor, Biologist, WDFW. The assessment reports will be were submitted to SRSRB in due timejune Outside of these efforts, unfortunately, there is a lack of monitoring studies within this watershed of Steptoe Canyon. Although there have been multiple on-going efforts to assess salmonid usage within adjacent tributaries within Whitman County, water quality assessment within the tributaries is lacking. Outside of recent studies conducted by WDFW staff biologists, what monitoring efforts that have been conducted have led to minimal informative decision making for this project. There is much need for more intensive and extensive monitoring efforts in all watersheds of Whitman County to include habitat usage and water quality both pre and post project implementation. G.F. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the project or acquired land. This proposed project is to directly replace a culvert fish passage barrier on a Whitman County, WA road. All long term maintenance of project site will be carried out by the Whitman County Public Works Agency. Additionally, considering this project implementation for culvert replacement will include FSA listing of up-stream for salmonid habitat, these lands will be eligible for CREP enrollment. The landowners upstream of this culvert are willing and able to enlist these riparian reaches within the CREP program to include livestock exclusion. Once CREP enrolled, these stream reaches will be enhanced with riparian plantings. Upstream CREP enrolment plans are aimed at alleviating the immanent stream threat of temperature and habitat complexity of both Steptoe and Stuart Creeks as outlined in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington Context within the Local Recovery Plan. A. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan and/or local lead entity s strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat Steptoe Creek Canyon is listed as an imminent threat, msa area, to steelhead survival within the report Snake River Salmon Recovery for SE WA. This project will open up to 3.5 miles of habitat area for steelhead. Additionally, these reaches, with the of this project culvert replacement, will open these reaches to CREP eligibility. The upstream landowners are willing and able to enroll in the CREP program for riparian enhancement/restoration to include livestock exclusion fencing and off stream watering facilities. Page 7

8 B. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of later. At this moment, this project has a lot of momentum behind it. The culvert replacement is just one small step in revitalizing the entire watershed. There are WA state Dept. of Ecology (DOE) funds in place to remove stream side corals and cattle weaning lots off steam. Yet, the landowners are interested enrolling the entire stretches of stream-side habitat both below and above this culvert replacement into the CREP program. These additional projects are outside of this proposal. If this project is delayed, this opportunity to revitalize this watershed may never occur again. C. If your project is a part of a larger overall project or strategy, describe the goal of the overall strategy, explain individual sequencing steps, and which of these steps is included in this application for funding. This project is most certainly within the greater goals of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board. This project will not only, and foremost, resolve a critical habitat barrier, opening up to 3.5 miles of habitat, but will also allow up-stream habitat to be enrolled in and restored under CREP. As Steptoe Creek is listed as an imminent/critical habitat area, PCD, along with landowner support, has chosen to move forward with this project. This culvert passage barrier is just one small step in revitalizing this entire watershed. PCD is currently working with the landowner on multiple fronts. First, PCD is working with the landowner, utilizing DOE Water Quality funds (centinial 319) to help move their livestock facility off the floodplain and off stream to include corrals, weaning pens, winter feeding area, and heavy use area. Secondly, once these facilities are relocated, this lower reach will be enrolled in CREP. Additionally, as stated above, once this culvert is replaced the upstream reaches of these creeks will be eligible for FSA listing and CREP enrollment. The landowner that we have been working with is on board to enroll all streamside riparian areas into this program to include livestock exclusion. As stated above, this culvert replacement is just one small, vital, step in restoring this entire watershed Project Proponents and Partners. A. Describe your experience managing this type of project. This proposed project for culvert replacement is just one small step in revitalizing the entire watershed. Current on the ground projects, led by PCD, coordinated and managed by Patrick Rahilly, include relocation of livestock facilities off-stream, livestock exclusion fencing, offstream water access, enrollment in CREP and restoration of riparian areas downstream of project location; and hopefully, if this project comes through, enrollment into CREP above this barrier. The team: Patrick Rahilly, M.S. (PCD, Project Coordinator, Lead), has a broad background in soils and water quality best management practices for decision support system design and implementation. Page 8

9 Patrick will be coordinating all aspects of project implementation to include permitting, cultural resource surveys and contracting. Patrick will be responsible for all project reporting and final project documentation. Jennifer Boie, Ph.D. (PCD, Director) Jennifer s primary responsibility in this project will be to work with PCD staff to ensure overall completion of project tasks in a timely and professional manner. Drew Schuldt (PCD, Natural Resources Coordinator) has extensive knowledge in riparian buffers establishment, conservation planning, and education activities and events. He will provide technical assistance with landowners. Pam Furchtenicht (PCD, Administrative and Financial Coordinator) will be the financial lead for the grant. Pam will be responsible for all accounting and will ensure that all grant components are invoiced on time and in an efficient manner through the RCO PRISM vouchering system by following all procedures as set forth in the administration requirements for RCO grants procedures manual. Gary Ausman, P.E. (SE WA Area Engineer) - Gary's position is funded through both the Washington State Conservation Commission and the RCO grant, Steptoe design, agreement # P. Gary serves as the area engineer for SE Washington. Gary has designed and overseen construction for many projects throughout SE WA including riparian buffer design, wetland enhancement, stream bank stabilization, large woody debris placement, livestock heavy use area, off-stream water, and aquatic passage. Gary will be responsible for project components where licensed engineer design is required. B. List all landowner names. - Uhlenkott family, landowners from the Snake river to well above the confluence of Stuart and Steptoe Creek. - Whitman County Pulbic Works Agency The The major landowner for this project site is the Uhlenkott Family. Please see land owner acknowledgement form attached. Additionally, as this is a county road, Whitman County Public Works owns the right away. considering this is a Whitman County Road, Mark Storey, County Engineer, P.E., has been a great support of this project. Whitman Co. Public Works is the primary cost-share, in kind service of this project and will provide all construction efforts. Land acknowledgment forms and partnership contribution forms from WPW will follow. C. List project partners and their role and contribution to the project. The primary project partner of this project is Whitman County Public Works (WPW). PCD has been in close contact with WPW, Mark Storey, P.E. Mark is willing to put forth in-kind contributions to this culvert replacement and perform all site prep and construction in the form of, not limited to, county truck use, excavators, water trucks, road pack, labor, etc. WPW is Page 9

10 willing to fulfill a minimum of the 15% match as required for this project implementation. The CREP program implementation will be counted separate and outside of SRSRB match. D. Stakeholder Outreach. As PCD has been working on this project, and as SRSRB has funded the culvert replacement design with agreement # P, and with support from both landowner and WPW, there is no opposition to this project moving forward to completion. Safety concerns, as well as all pertinent permitting and cultural resources surveys will be addressed appropriately as detailed in cost in the attached detailed budget. Supplemental Questions Restoration Project Supplemental Questions Answer the following supplemental questions: A. Will you complete, or have you already completed, a preliminary design, final design, and design report (per Appendix D) before construction? Yes B. Will your project be designed by a licensed professional engineer? Yes 1. If not, please describe the qualifications of your design team. NA C. If this project includes measures to stabilize an eroding stream bank, explain why bank stabilization there is necessary to accomplish habitat recovery. Stream bank stabilization is not a critical part of this project. Yet, all measures will be taken to ensure no erosion or excess sedimentation will occur during project implementation. All permitting with pertinent/various entities will be concluded and obtained. Post construction, measures will be taken to ensure erosion will not occur. D. Describe the steps you will take to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species during construction and restoration. All equipment used in this project will be cleaned of vegetation and dirt prior to delivery to site. Much care will be taken to alleviate any possibility of introduction of any sort of invasive aquatic species. Page 10

11 Fish Passage Project Supplemental Questions A. Describe the passage problem (outfall, velocity, slope, etc.) Refer to Appendix E, Barrier Evaluation Form for Single Culvert, attached B. Describe the current barrier (age, material, shape, and condition). Refer to Appendix E, Barrier Evaluation Form for Single Culvert, attached C. Is the current barrier a complete or partial barrier? Complete Barrier D. If a culvert or arch is proposed, does it employ a stream simulation, no slope, hydraulic, or other design? The replacement of this barrier will be an open bottom archa bridge with stream simulation following WDFW guidelines, slope involved with simulated pools and drops designed with technical assistance from WDFW salmonid habitat engineering staff. E. Describe the amount and quality of habitat made accessible if the barrier is corrected. Has the project received a Priority Index (PI) number? Quality of habitat that will be opened by this culvert replacement is good to poor. The greatest attribute of this project is that it will open this up-stream habitat to the CREP program which the landowners are more than willing to enroll into. These up-stream reaches will be enrolled into CREP and protected to include livestock exclusion fencing. F. Identify if there are additional fish passage barriers downstream or upstream of this project. There is a partial barrier at river mile two (2), just below the confluence of Steptoe and Stuart Creeks. From personal conversations with WDFW staff, there may be a cheap remedy to enhance fish passage. As there is a large plunge pool at the base of culvert and the fact that it is not perched, the suggestions are to install a few post assisted log structures (PALS) in order back the water up the pipe allowing for fish passage. Contact has been made with Ecologic Solutions to help design the fix. Ecologic Solutions has had extensive experience with cheap fixes to hydraulic problems and has completed many projects using SRSRB funding. Site investigations will occur after this grant has been submitted. G. Engineering licensing requirement. Will your project be designed by a licensed professional engineer? Yes Page 11

12 Comments Use this section to respond to the comments you will receive after your initial site visits, and then again after you submit your final application. Response to Site Visit Comments Please describe how you ve responded to the review panel s initial site visit comments. We recommend that you list each of the review panel s comments and questions and identify how you have responded. You also may use this space to respond directly to their comments. I will first state, as Patrick Rahilly of PCD, this process is much appreciated. There have been many comments and all comments that have been made thus far are much appreciated and hopefully addressed in this updated final draft. I would like to thank all the various persons and entities involved in this process to include, specifically, John Foltz, whom has been a tremendous help in this entire process. Thank you to all. Formatted: Font: Italic DRAFT APPLICATION / SITE VISIT REVIEW PANEL COMMENTS Date: June 17, 2015 Project Site Visit? Yes No Review Panel Member(s): Slocum and Tyler 1. Recommended improvements to make this a technically sound project according to the SRFB s criteria: The overall plan to correct the steelhead passage barrier is technically sound, but because of the limited steelhead utilization of this seasonal creek system, the relatively high cost of the project should be carefully evaluated against the benefit that is likely to be realized. In particular, the experience of the review panel and of RCO s Family Forest Fish Passage Program (FFFPP) suggests that a culvert replacement in a small creek under an unpaved rural road typically costs significantly less than the $295,000 that is estimated for this project. Rather than installing an 80-foot long bottomless arch culvert on cast concrete footings, a modular, pre-fabricated concrete bridge would seem to be a more cost-effective design choice. A similar barrier correction project (SRFB # ) using a 40 prefab concrete bridge over the Little Tucannon River was completed in 2010 for about $127,500. Because no alternatives analysis has been provided in the current project s PRISM file, we do not have any information regarding whether special circumstances at the site would preclude using a prefab bridge, but in general, we prefer to see this technique used instead of a large steel culvert. We recommend that the design team seek input from an engineer with experience with RCO s FFFPP program to independently assess the cost versus benefits of a bridge option. Page 12

13 The project sponsor and partners met with the project engineer and Whitman County following the project tour. Through re-analysis and re-design with all Professional Engineers (PE s) associated with this project, a bridge was determined to be most cost effective. There are not any pre-conclusions that would dictate using an open bottom arch over a bridge. The open bottom arch was the initial recommendation. However, thanks to this process of draft proposals and stakeholder commitment to using these funds most appropriately, alternative concepts to rectify the perched culvert replacement in the most cost effective approach have been hashed out. Formatted: Font: Italic One of the largest factors that differentiates this project to other projects that SRFBoard has funded is that there is going to be significant stream bed modification; stream bed simulation for appropriate means of up-stream migration for salmonids. In the proposal, clearly identify the partial barrier that is upstream of the project site (i.e. just downstream of the confluence of Steptoe and Stuart creeks). On whose ownerships is the upstream barrier? Clarify in the proposal if there are current plans for correcting it. Please provide more information on the inexpensive remedy proposed by WDFW for the upstream barrier. If feasible, including the correction of this upstream barrier within the scope of the current proposal would strengthen the overall benefit of the project. Done. Please see above, Supplemental Questions, F. The landowner above this partial barrier is the same as the lower barrier. Formatted: Font: Italic 2. Missing Pre-application information: Please include the Manual 18, Appendix D-2 preliminary design deliverables in the final application. Also include a partner contribution form from Whitman County DPW. This information will be provided by the August 7 th date. Formatted: Font: Italic 3. General Comments: The area above the second barrier, at the confluence with Stuart Creek, was evaluated during the site visit; water was flowing and a spring was evident during the site visit. Unfortunately, as we are in a drought year, the streams were not flowing as they typically do. But I am glad to have had the opportunity to take leading board members up to the springs and allow them to witness first hand. As mentioned in this comment, there were springs bubbling out of the stream banks and enough flow created for the upper reaches of Steptoe creek to create a long stream of adequate cool water pools for juvenile steelhead survival. Formatted: Font: Italic Page 13

14 Please avoid using abbreviations and acronyms in the proposal, particularly for terms that may be little known outside of the regional recovery circles. Any acronyms used should be written out at first usage. This should be completely resolved. Formatted: Font: Italic The eligibility of upstream landowners in the CREP program is an added benefit of correcting this barrier. As mentioned above, the landowner is on board to enroll the entire reaches of stream into CREP, both above and below this culvert replacement. Formatted: Font: Italic 4. Staff Comments: Please be sure to address all comments I provided when I reviewed the application in May/June (if you haven t already done so), along with completing all other final application requirements listed in Section 3 of RCO Manual 18 All changes to your proposal should be made using Track Changes in Word. Done. Response to Post-Application Comments Please describe how you ve responded to the review panel s post-application comments. We recommend that you list each of the review panel s comments and questions and identify how you have responded. You also may use this space to respond directly to their comments. Page 14

15

16

17

18

19 Step Toe Culvert Replacement - bridge Engineer Construction Cost Estimate Mark Story, Patrick Rahilly. Item Quanity Unit Unit Cost Total PCD project mng and admin $38,000 permitting and CRS coordination $6,000 $6,000 permits $4,250 $4,250 CRS $12,000 $12,000 Mobilization/Demob. 1 LS $25,000 $25,000 Detour - Install and remove 1 LS $20,000 $20,000 Traffic Control 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Clearing and Grubbing 1 LS $2,000 $2,000 Dewatering 1 LS $5,000 $5,000 Culvert Removal 1 LS $2,500 $2,500 Fence Removal 250 LF $2 $500 Excavation 500 CY $25 $12,500 Embankment Compaction 500 CY $20 $10,000 Pile Foundation 12 EA $1,000 $12,000 Solideck Bridge Girders 6 EA $6,000 $36,000 Abutment and Backwall 2 EA $3,500 $7,000 Crushed Rock Backfill 80 TN $35 $2,800 Stream Simulation Aggregate 400 TN $55 $22,000 Crushed Base Course (Road Surfacing) 150 TN $35 $5,250 Hydro Seeding 500 SY $3 $1,500 Fence Install 250 LF $5 $1,250 Bid Total $167, Sales Tax 7.80% total instal $180,888 permits $22,250 admin/coor $38,000 inkind $45,000 total project $241,138 total RCO funds $196,138

20

21 Barrier Evaluation Form Single Culvert at Crossing Location Information Project Name: Steptoe Creek Perched Culvert Replacement SRFB Project #: - County: Whitman Co. WA HPA #: - Parcel #: GPS Location: Datum - WGS84 -decimal degrees Latitude: o N Longitude: o W ¼ Section: Section: 8 Township: T11N Range: R45 East West Stream Name: Steptoe Creek Tributary To: Lower Sanke River WRIA #: 35 Driving Directions: From Clarkston WA, take Hwy 12 west, turn left onto Bridge St, turn right onto ID-128 E, turn left onto WA-193 W (North bank of Lower Snake River), continue straight onto Steptoe Canyon Rd. Landowner Information Landowner: Herman Uhlenkott (C/O Toby Uhlenkott) Mailing Address: 1610 Birch Dr. City: Lewiston State: ID Zip: Telephone: Cell: ( ) Fax: ( ) Landowner Agent: Mailing Address: City: State: Zip: Telephone: ( ) Cell: ( ) Fax: ( ) Evaluator Information Evaluator Name: Patrick Rahilly Affiliation: Palouse Conservation District Mailing Address: 1300 NE Henley Ct. #6 City: Pullman State: WA Zip: Telephone: Fax: Cell: patrickr@palousecd.org Barrier Information (measurements in meters) Is the Stream Fish-bearing? Yes No Unknown Species: Steelhead Date of Visit: Apr 7, 2015 (last visit Fish-bearing Criteria: Fish Observation Stream Type SASSI/Stream Catalog Physical Criteria Other: Stream Flow: 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: steel Apron: None Upstream Downstream Both Span: 6 diam. Rise: Length: ~80 Water Depth in Culvert: 5 Water Surface Drop: ~36 Drop Location: Outlet Inlet Inside Countersunk: Yes No Unknown Culvert Slope(%): ~8% Bankfull Width (outside influence of culvert): Culvert Span/Bankfull Width Ratio: - Plunge Pool: Length (culvert to tail-out): OHW width: Max depth: Road Fill DS: Road Width: Fishway Present? Yes No (if yes, describe in Comments) Tide Gate Present? Yes No NA Is this Culvert a Fish Passage Barrier? Yes No Unknown Level B needed Problem with Culvert: WS drop Slope Velocity Depth Percent Passability: 0% 33% 67% 100% Habitat Quality: Excellent Good Poor Unknown Comments (describe crossing condition, fish observations, habitat quality etc):