Appendix C-3: Restoration Project Proposal

Transcription

1 Appendix C-3: Restoration Project Proposal Project Number Project Name Alpowa Creek Instream PALS Phase II Sponsor Pomeroy CD List all related projects previously funded or reviewed by RCO: Project # or Name Status Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship to Current Proposal? Completed Asotin IMW First PALS Completed w/monitoring Completed Asotin IMW PALS Completed w/monitoring P Completed Alpowa Creek Habitat Assessment Completed 1 st Project as a result of Alpowa Creek Assessment Limit the response to ten pages (single-sided), excluding supplemental questions.. Submit this proposal as a PRISM attachment titled Project Proposal. Project brief. We are proposing to install 200 Posted Assisted Log Structures(PALS) in 1.5 miles of Alpowa Creek for wild summer steelhead. This is the second phase of restoration work and we have installed 202 with a previously completed SRFB Project # on 1.5 miles of the 18 miles of available steelhead habitat in Alpowa Creek. Project location. The project is located on the main stem of Alpowa Creek, which is a direct tributary to the Snake River about five miles west of the Confluences of the Snake and Clearwater Rivers. The project is located in document summer steelhead spawning and rearing areas based off the SRFB Project # P. Problem statement. Alpowa Creek supports an ESA listed Snake River wild summer steelhead (A-Run) population and ESA listed Snake River fall Chinook Page 1

2 spawning has been documented in the lower half mile the past three years by the Nez Perce Tribe (Jay Hesse, personal communication 2013). A habitat assessment (2013 Alpowa Creek Habitat Assessment SRFB Project # P) has documented 2.8 pools per 100 meters. Lack of suitable resting and rearing pools, temperature and sediment deposition in spawning grounds are factors limiting salmonid production throughout the Snake River region. Alpowa Creek has over 65% percent of the riparian areas enrolled in the Conservation Reserve Enhancement Program (Duane Bartels, personal communication 2013). Landowners have been installing sediment basins adjacent to Alpowa Creek for over 30 years to catch sediment from intermittent tributaries and use the material to build up soil depth on fields in the valley bottoms (Sam Ledgerwood, Landowner, personal communication 2013). Best management practices have been implemented in the riparian and upland areas of Alpowa Creek for the past 30 years. The next steps in restoring instream habitat for salmonids is to work with private landowners to increase pool habitat with complex cover. Our goal is to increase available pool habitat from 2.8/100 m to over 8/100 m with Post Assisted Log Structures (PALS). Structures will be installed and material will be keyed with post that are designed to hold wood in place and rack any material that comes downstream. These structures have been successfully installed in the upper reaches of Asotin Creek in conjunction with the Asotin Creek Intensively Monitored Watershed (IMW), Little Tucannon River, Alpowa Creek Phase I. Increasing both pools and wood as well as floodplain connections and sediment reduction will help all freshwater lifestages for wild steelhead in Alpowa Creek. List the fish resources present at the site and targeted by this project. Species Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult) Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising) Endangered Species Act Coverage (Y/N) A-Run Summer Steelhead Egg, juvenile & adult Part of Asotin Creek wild steelhead population - rising Yes Describe the limiting factors, and limiting life stages (by fish species) that your project expects to address. This project will address wild summer steelhead habitat within Alpowa Creek. We will be addressing all freshwater life history stages for steelhead (egg, juvenile and adult) with an emphasis on juvenile habitat, especially over-wintering habitat. We completed an Alpowa Creek Habitat Assessment (SRFB Project # P) and the lack of suitable resting and rearing pools were identified as well as lacking suitable wood. This project will install PALS with a minimum of three logs to provide future pools and immediate wood and refugia for juveniles and adult steelhead. More importantly the structures will provide eddies and slower velocities above and below the structures for rearing juveniles. These structures will also help reduce sediment Page 2

3 by building up areas both above and below the strucutures in eddies and will help provide floodplain connection. Structures will be placed to encourage more connections between the floodplains and spring channels that can be used in summer and during higher spring flows for slower water refugia. Project goals and objectives. A. What are the project s goals? The goal would be to increase pools in Alpowa Creek. Key attributes such as pools, bars and wood appear to be low compared to similar surveys in Asotin Creek. In Asotin Creek, based on four years of monitoring LWD and pool abundance, it appears that not only is there less LWD and pool habitat lower in Asotin Creek compared to broad scale reference conditions, but the size distributions are different when compared to reference sites (Figure 17). Comparable reference sites in the Umatilla National Forest (UNF) and other eastern Washington locations consistently had more pieces of LWD > 25 cm diameter compared to Asotin Creek IMW sites. Of particular note was that pieces of LWD cm diameter were 3-4 times more abundant in reference sites than Asotin Creek sites. The same trend exists for residual pool depths with more pools with residual pool depths > 50 cm in UNF sites (Figure 18). Residual pool depths > 60 cm were absent from any of the Asotin Creek sites. These results suggest that the abundance of LWD and pools in Asotin Creek and its tributaries are likely well below reference conditions (see Bennett and Bouwes 2009, Bennett et al. 2010, and Bennett et al in preparation for more analysis of LWD and pools). (Wheaton, Bennett, Bouwes, Camp 2012). This is significant because Asotin Creek has been shown to have low densities of these key stream attributes compared to reference conditions (Bennett and Bouwes 2009). Figure 17. The size class distribution of LWD in Asotin Creek (Charley Creek, North Fork, and South Fork combined) based on sampling 2,153 m of stream habitat monitoring sites (n = 11) in July and August 2008 (total number of LWD counted = 314) versus Umatilla National Forest reference sites (n = 24) that sampled 4,284 m of habitat (total number of LWD counted = 853). Page 3

4 Figure 18. The size class distribution of residual pool depths in Charley Creek, North Fork, and South Fork (combined) based on sampling 2,153 m of stream habitat monitoring sites (n = 11) in July and August 2008 (total number of pools = 68) versus Umatilla National Forest reference sites that sampled 4,284 m of habitat (total number of pools = 159). Summary statistics for Charley Creek, North Fork, and South Fork in the Asotin Creek IMW project compared to Alpowa Creek. Stream Sinuosity % Slope Bar Area (m 2 ) / 100 m Pools/ 100 m LWD / 100 m Alpowa Charley North Fork South Fork Alpowa Creek has similar sinuosity and slope to Charley Creek, but it lacks pools and large woody debris compared to the reference sites identified in the IMW. SRFB Project # resulted in 202 PALS that increased pool habitat from 2.8/100 meters to over 8/100 meters. It has been noted that the restoration goal for LWD outlined in the Salmon Recovery Plan for SE Washington (2011) identifies 1 piece of LWD per channel width (approx. 50/100m) is much higher than the 8.2 structures/100m proposed in this application. This is partially explained in that the structures will have wood racked on them, with some structures having multiple piecies. Aditionally the objective of the structures are to change channel conditions which will promote the recruitment and retention of wood. The structures themselves will also rack and shed wood as conditions change which will trend us toward the restoration goal. Specific benefits to steelhead Page 4

5 will be immeditate with improved over-wintering habitat for juveniles and resting and rearing pools for adults and juveniles. Juveniles will also benefit in the spring when runoff flows are high they will be able to seek out the soft water created by these structures and get out of violent current velocities. This project will increase both pools and LWD which are lacking in Alpowa Creek. What are the project s objectives? This project is identified over a two year instream work windown. 100 PALS installed in 2018 where there is available floodplain with spawning and rearing steelhead and landowner support and 100 structures in Increasing available pool habitat from the current condition of 2.8 pools per 100 meters to over 8 pools per 100 meters is the projects objectives in Alpowa Creek over the two field seasons. The addition of wood and complex pool habitat will benefit all freshwater lifestages of ESA listed wild steelhead. Adding 200 pools to Alpowa Creek is our main objective that is specific, measurable, achievable, relevant and time-bound or SMART. B. What are the assumptions and constraints that could impact whether you achieve your objectives? We do not forsee any assumptions or constraints (OTHER THAN NO FUNDING) that could affect this project. The trust and credibility gained in SE Washington has resulted in prioritized projects implemented in areas where salmonids need improvements in water quality, fish habitat and riparian cover. We have taken into account the hydrology of Alpowa Creek and have identified factors limiting production for the summer steelhead freshwater life stages. We are confident these instream structures will provide benefits to adults and juvenile wild steelhead and address the lack of wood and pool habitat that was identified in Alpowa Creek Habitat Assessment SRFB Project # P. Project details. A. Provide a narrative description of the proposed project. The Alpowa Creek Post Assisted Log Structures Phase II will increase pool habitat from 2.8 pools per 100 meters to over 8 pools. We have identified over 1.5 miles of instream habitat in prime spawning and rearing habitat that needs increased pools and associated cover. By installing 200 structures over two years, we will be increasing pool habitat and density and over time these structures will become more complex in nature as they rack native materials from the stream. Driving 4-5 wooden posts (< 3 diameter x 6-7 long) into the stream bed (2 3 minimum) to act as an anchor point for 6 10 long pieces of wood placed upstream and against the posts. Branches and tree tops will be added to structures to simulate trees and provide complex cover. Additionally, alder trees make up a significant proportion of riparian trees in the Alpowa and are currently reaching maturity supplying signicant Page 5

6 debris to the watershed. However the nature and size of this material is not sufficient to provide key anchor point needed to bring the stream channel into equilibrium supporting pools and floodplain connectivity. The use of PALS to alter stream flow and help build more heterogeneous flows, diverst channel widths and water depths, and reduce incision is a growing and well test restoration method (Zeedyk and Clothier 2009). Using these structures will enable us to direct flows into existing structures and available floodplain channels for increase stream length, which will dissipate the stream energy causing meanders and pools to form. This will help us get to our goal of over 8 pools per 100 meters. B. Provide a scope of work and detailed list of project deliverables. Bradely Johnson will be responsible for the following: Task Time Schedule Decription 1. Stream Classification and structures placement identification Spring/Summer 2018 and Phase II 2019 Site visits identify PALS placements utilizing habitat assessment and GIS info from spring of 2012 and Permit Application Spring 2018 and Phase II 2019 Apply for JARPA, Shoreline and other required permits for project 3. Identify and secure wood for implementation project 4. Stage wood and supplies and prepare materials for implemenation 5. Install Structures 100 Post Assisted Log Structures in Post Assited Log Structures in Assess structures Pre and post assessment in fall 2018 & spring 19. Spring/Summer 2018 and 2019 Late summer 2018 and 2019 Instream work windows 2018 and 2019 Fall of 2018 and 2019 and Spring 2019 Acquire source of wood (USFS has already indicated a supply and partnership with this project) Wood to staging area, purchase wooden posts and get posts and cut wood pieces to proper lengths Use post pounder to install 4 5 posts at each flagged site similar to Asotin IMW Add wood pieces and branches in between and upstream of posts to simulate wood structures that naturally fall into streams. Complete as-built design, GIS and photo monitoring of structures Monitor structures after run-off and compare pre and post GIS info and Page 6

7 Pre and post assessment in fall prepare for Phase II and complete as-builts and photo documentation of Phase I and Phase II C. Explain how the sponsor determined cost estimates. The project sponsor has 20 years experience with Bonneville Power projects, the Asotin IMW and other SRFB projects. He has completed over 200 of these structures already. These structures range in price from $450 - $500 per structure depending on individual project locations. This cost includes getting the donated wood material from the US Forest Service delivered to project locations and structure installation. We are confident the budget is not only accurate, but it is very cost-effective. D. Describe the design or acquisition alternatives considered to achieve the project s objectives. The preferred alternative (PALS) was chosen due to the low cost and because the hand placed structures are less destructive to existing riparian areas. Alpowa Creek has an average flow of 9 cfs, which is very conducive to these types of structures and the results we are hoping with increasing wood and pool habitat for adult and juvenile wild steelhead. Additionally the Asotin IMW is studying the effects on both the stream and associated steelhead populations so using this method was a no-brainer for a stream that is similar in size and flow to Charley Creek from the Asotin IMW. E. How have lessons learned from completed projects or monitoring studies informed this project? As stated above, we are working in concert with the Asotin Creek IMW and SRFB Project # which have been completed. We are patiently awaiting Tetra Tech s project scale Effectiveness Monitoring for the Asotin IMW. Local landowners were impressed with the structures and associated stream and fish habitat benefits. We are working with the local Regional Technical Team from the Snake River and there is consensus that PALS are very effective in small tributary streams that are home to ESA listed steelhead. F. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the project or acquired land. We will be installing these PALS on private ownership in the mid/upper Alpowa Creek watershed. We do not anticipate any long-term stewardship or maintenance obligations for the landowner or the funding entity. Having a watershed that is spring fed and not flashy in nature will result in these projects in the mid/upper reaches being installed and providing immediate habitat for juvenile steelhead and then in the following spring adults will utilize the cover and resulting pools. If there is any stewardship or maintenance obligations for the PALS it will be taken over by the associated landowner, during the 10 year minimum required Page 7

8 under RCO for salmon projects. We are proposing two consecutive years of implementation and will employ adaptive management if any issues arise. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of later. Alpowa Creek wild summer steelhead are an important part of the stock that makes up the Asotin Creek wild steelhead population. This is an important tributary for reaching and maintaining the eight-year geometric mean for having 500 adult steelhead. This project will increase pool habitat from current conditions of 2.8 pools per 100 meters to over 8 pools per 100 meters. This is consistent with the information that has been gleaned from the Asotin Creek IMW and is consistent with numerous planning and implementation documents (including the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan and 3 Year Implementation Work Schedule). Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife has an adult enumeration trap at the mouth. Watershed landowners are familiar with similar projects throughout the Snake River region and are interested in protecting and restoring instream habitat for steelhead. The momentum for habitat projects is gaining and landowner support is evident by the signed agreements. Having the ability to partner with landowners in a watershed that is almost entirely privately owned will result in projects that benefit ESA listed Asotin Creek wild steelhead population into the future. Phase I of this project has been completed and we need to maintain momentum while continuing to protect and restore habitat for wild steelhead in Alpowa Creek. If the 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. Attach a map in PRISM that illustrates how this project fits into the overall strategy, if relevant. Describe the sponsors experience managing this type of project. Working for the Asotin County Conservation District for 10 years prior to becoming the Middle Snake Watershed Director, we completed a meander reconstruction project on George Creek with Salmon Recovery Board Funding. This was the first project identified by the SRFB s Technical Panel as being very cost effective and I was questioned in a public meeting as to how I was able to complete over 5,115 feet of meander reconstruction for under $130,000 (with an engineered design estimate of over $990,000). This project has been functioning for over 12 years with minimal operation and maintenance and has survived two flows that exceeded bankfull over this period. I pride myself in completing very complex habitat restoration and protection projects for ESA listed salmonids and this type of project is very cost effective and provides Dynamic Wood Structures that promote pool development and provide complex habitat for juvenile and adult salmonids. Over the past five years, I have worked in concert with the Asotin Creek IMW Project installing these structures in the southfork and we completed these structures the two previous years on Alpowa Creek. I am a firm believer Page 8

9 their cost-effectiveness, simplistic implementation and their complex features have the perfect fit for a systems such as Alpowa Creek. There is a very limited environmental footprint left after completion and the ability for future material to rack on these structures is bound by how much material is naturally available for recruitment in the stream system. List all landowner names. Dick Ledgerwood and Son s Sam Ledgerwood List project partners and their role and contribution to the project. USFS Pomeroy Ranger District --- will provide woody material for PALS Ecological Research INC. --- will provide technical and implementation support Stakeholder outreach. This project is consistent with the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, WRIA #35 Middle Snake Watershed Plan, the 3 Year Implementation Work Schedule and the WRIA #35 Detailed Implementation Plan. There has been enormous outreach with the Alpowa Creek Habitat Assessment and adjacent landowners are aware of this application. We are utilizing projects that can be hand placed to eliminate any downstream impacts if material is moved off-site with high flows. We believe that there has been adequate outreach with the Regional Technical Team and landowners throughout the Alpowa Creek watershed. Supplemental Questions Restoration Project Supplemental Questions Answer the following supplemental questions: A. Will the sponsor complete, or already completed, a preliminary design, final design, and design report (per Appendix D) before construction? YesNo B. Will a licensed professional engineer design the project? No Our design process is from the Asotin Creek IMW project which has been ongoing since They have provided us conceptual sketch drawings and technical assistance. They have worked closely with the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board, Regional Technical Committee, and local engineers and restoration professionals to assess restoration needs and develop suitable conceptual drawings. We will follow the design process as outlined in Appendix D1-4. Many of the requirements described in Appendix D have already been completed. For example, we have done extensive watershed scale assessments of the condition and limiting factors in Alpowa Creek as well as reviewed numerous past assessments, we have consulted with local landowners and management agencies and are finalizing a restoration plan for the Alpowa Creek watershed. Due to Alpowa size and Page 9

10 consistent features with Asotin Creek IMW and we have the ability to work closely with their findings and strategies, which will benefit this project. Our design build process due to the extensive number of structures to be placed in the field and the need to be site specific for each adapting it to conditionstraditional preliminary designs will not be developed. In stead we propose to flag in the field with technical assistant from Steve Bennett of ELR location, type (left bank, right bank, mid channel etc) and the expected outcomes of each to be recorded on a data tablet. Wood will then be placed and crews will follow behind and secure with posts. Following installation, we will document what was done where on an as-built document report. The document would provide position, purpose and photo of each structure. This Project will not be developed by a licensed engineer since all parts of this project will be completed using manual labor and only trees that can be and moved by individuals for the Post Assisted Log Structures. We will be using a pneumatic post driver, small wooden posts and then key pieces of trees that are less than 20 inches in diameter and less than 10 feet long. Alpowa Creek has a bankfull width of less than 10 feet in the upper reaches and these structures will be dynamic in nature but small in size compared to larger systems. We will be utilizing the equipment and design that was developed by Ecological Research and utilized on the Asotin Creek IMW. We are envisioning a project that will cost less than $500 per structure to install. Having a licensed professional engineer would only add to project costs and the techniques that are being proposed have worked well for the Asotin Creek IMW and they are sharing all their info with this project. This project will be designed with the help from Stephen Bennett from Ecological Research and Bradley Johnson, who were part of the Asotin Creek IMW and SRFB Project # s and and Alpowa Creek completed PALS SRFB # These three projects have been successfully implemented and studies are underway for pre- and post-monitoring. These two individuals have over 50 years of combined instream habitat restoration experience coupled with their ability to ensure projects are cost-effective and leave a small environmental footprint after installation. These PALS are very effective and we will ensure that stream processes and desired future conditions are taken into account in each stream section and structures will be placed for the best outcome, which is to increase available pool habitat in the Alpowa. Page 10

11 C. If this project includes measures to stabilize an eroding stream bank, explain why bank stabilization there is necessary to accomplish habitat recovery. Not applicable, no bank stabilization measures identified with SRFB funding. D. Describe the steps the sponsor will take to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species during construction and restoration. All the woody material that we will be utilizing for the PALS will be coming from the USFS Pomeroy Ranger District. The trees will be from areas that are maintained noxious weed free by the USFS. They have maintained the road system into the area as well and there will be minimal if any esposure to noxious weeds. At the individual sites we will be utilizing man power to get the material from a gravel road to the individual sites and don t anticipate much if any disturbance during staging or installation. This project will leave a very light footprint and we should have minimal to no invasive species pathways. If, in fact, we do we will take appropriate action to mitigate for any disturbed areas by reseeding and weed spraying. Working on private lands, we want to ensure we do not have any major disturbances and will work with the landowner to make sure that we do not have any introduction of invasive species from either on or off-site locations. The area we will be working in is currently enrolled in the CREP Program and the landowners sprays the weeds. Comments Response to Site Visit Comments Please describe how the sponsor responded to the review panel s initial site visit comments. RCO recommends that the sponsor list each review panel comment and question and identify the response. The sponsor may use this space to respond directly to the comments. Response to Post-Application Comments 1. Review Panel Comments: This project is focused on installation of additional PALS in Alpowa Creek, a steelhead stream. This builds on the work of the Pomeroy CD which installed Phase 1 already. The number of pools in the creek was increased as a result of the first phase. Please provide data on the effects of Phase 1 on the level of steelhead spawning in the creek did the project lead to increases in spawning? As stated during the site visit there was no monitoring money for doing spawning ground surveys. WDFW operates an adult weir at the mouth of Alpowa Creek and there is 167 adult wild steelhead that are released on average above the trap and spawn in Alpwa Creek. This past year there were only 58 adults captured due to low spring flows and terrible ocean conditions. We cannot say after four years if we have increased spawning. The difference in the photos included in the application is striking be sure to identify that those are only one Page 11

12 month apart! Thanks good point noted and changed Alpowa does not seem to have a temperature issue or a sediment issue as it is spring fed, so these structures would be primarily for pool formation. That being said, there is also a fairly intact riparian corridor along the creek. The land owner stated that the CREP funding he is receiving is not matching what he would earn from allowing cattle to graze in the area. He also stated that if the area came out of CREP he would likely thin the area to open it up for cattle. Thinning the riparian area (light touch) would likely provide some benefits to the creek in terms of introducing some larger, more complex (branched) trees to this system. It is recommended that the design approach include some addition of larger trees (on site trees would work) to the creek and not just install PALS to add further diversity and structure to the stream. Noted, we incorporate any material on site and bring in trees from Umatilla Forest that have been freshly cut and should last longer than alder or cottonwood from the site. Please also comment on the priority of this creek as compared to others in the area/basin. This creek seems like it is in pretty good shape, so maybe there are others that need help more right now? I cannot speak to other streams that are in more need of help at the current time, but I can say that Alpowa riparian area is currently in a very good recovery state. With that being said we just completed a riparian assessment and most of the trees within Alpowa Riparian areas are white alder, cottonwood or boxelder trees. They are on average, 14 years old with the older ones being around 30 years. Alder and cottonwood trees usually start to die from the inside out and when core samples were taken from the older trees this is what was found. This woood when it gets incorporated into the stream has been dead from the inside out and breaks down quickly. Most times when these trees that are hollow in the middle hit the ground they break up and don t provide much for instream habitat. We are trying to slow the water and eventually provide some form of floodplain connection and with regards to the Alpowa riparian area that looks really good, in all actuality looks can be deceiving. We need to get more areas where a wider swath of riparian areas can establish and hopefully get pine, willows and more diversity of species for a filter strip and also for shade, food and cover for insects and steelhead. I believe that Alpowa is important at this time because of the low wood recruitment potential, lack of instream pools and how important the wild steelhead in Alpowa Creek are for the Asotin Creek steelhead population. Additionally landowners are interested in completing these inexpensibe projects that will help with wood and pools, which provide immediate habitat for all freshwater lifestages for summer steelhead in Alpowa Creek. Please describe how the sponsor responded to the review panel s post-application comments. RCO recommends that the sponsor list each of the review panel s comments Page 12

13 and questions and identify the response. The sponsor may use this space to respond directly to the comments. Page 13

14

15

16 Alpowa Instream PALS ( )

17 Arial Image before Implementation Alpowa Instream PALS ( ) Arial Image before Implementation Alpowa Instream PALS ( )

18 Alpowa Creek In-Stream Post Assisted Log Structures Draft Cost Estimate Permitting $ 3, Trees For US $ 14, Install PALS $ 61, Site Cleanup $ 0.00 Tree Haul $ 8, Subtotal: $ 87, Sales Tax $ Construction Total $ 87, Engineer, Engineering Tech, and Survey Tech $ Admin $ 10, Total A&E Cost $ 10, Construction Mgmt $ 9, Trees from US Forest Service $ 14, Permitting $ 3, Construction Total $ 61, A&E Total $ 10, Total Project Cost $ 98, Total SRFB Request $ 83, Match $ 14, Total Project Cost $ 98,000.00

19 Appendix 1 Schematic of the potential response to Post Assisted Log Structure (PALS) placement or whole trees added to a relatively simple plane bed channel to constrict the flow. The constrictions in flow will be created by post deflectors with LWD added to increase their complexity (pictured above), or whole trees.

20 Appendix 1 continued General design schematic for installation of Post Assisted Log Structures (PALS).

21 Append ix F: La ndowner Acknowledgement Form Landowner Information Name of Landowner:Dick Ledgerwood and Sont - Sam Ledgerwood '1.,' ' Landowner Contact lnformation: X vr. E ws. Titre: First Name: Sam Last Name: Ledgerwood Contact Mailing Address: 141 Howell Grade Rd, Clarkston, Wa Contact Address: silwood 58@gmail.com Property Address or Location:Alpowa Creek Road - RM Dick Ledgerwood and Son's (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. lf the grant is successfully awarded, lwill be contacted and asked to engage in negotiations. 0,,/.,!:"n'"'y-?;:".'*-o**^*nw:"n"'^o'"-::'J'::/, Landowner Signature Project Sponsor I nformation Date Project Name: Alpowa Creek lnstream PALS - Phase ll Project Applicant Contact Information:! vr. n vr. Titte First Name: Bradley Last Name: Johnson Mailing Address: Pomeroy CD PO 8ox 468 Pomeroy, WA Address: bradleyj@palousecd.org Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants. March 2017

22 Appendix G: Project Partner Contribution Form Appendix G: Project Pa rtner Contribution Form Project Partner: US Forest Service - Pomeroy Ranger District Partner Address: zt w Contact Person X vr. First Name: Blaine n vr. Main Pomeroy, WA Title: Forestry Tech Last Name: Beehler Mailing Address: 71 W. Main Pomeroy, WA Address: bbeehler@fs.fed.us Description of contribution to project: The Umaltilla National Forest - Pomeroy Ranger District will be providing about 600 christmas tree sized material for the Alpowa Creek PALS - Phase ll Project. The estimated value of these trees is $16.66/tree. ln the past we have used $20 Per tree, but the US Forest Service is only allowed to donate $5,000 per year or a total of $10,000 for this two year project. Pa rtner',s sig natu re :: /u(>z n -Va,-nplS' Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants. lvlarch 2017

23 Appendix J: SRFB Application Authorization Form Appendix J: Salmon Recovery Funding Board Application Authorization Form Organization Name PomeroyConservation District Project Name and Number (s) Alpowa Creek lnstream PALS-Phase ll This form authorizes submitting application(s) for grant funding assistance for salmon recovery project(s) to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board as provided in RCW 77.85, WAC 420 and other applicable authorities. WHEREAS, under the provisions of the Salmon Recovery Act, state grant assistance is requested to aid in financing the cost of enhancement [insert: ocquisttion, restorotion, enhoncement, pto n n tng, ond/or moni.tor[ng]; and WHEREAS, our organization considers it in the best public interest to complete the project described in the application(s). NOW, THEREFORE, BE IS RESOLVED that: 1. The Duane Bartels, District Manager linsert nome and titlel is authorized to make formal application to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for grant assistance. 2. Our organization has reviewed the sample project agreement on the Recreation and Conservation Office's Web site at: and authorizes Duane Bartels. District Manaoer [insert nome ond titlel to enter into such a project agreement, if funding is awarded. We understand and acknowledge that the project agreement will contain the indemnification (applicable to any sponsor) and waiver of sovereign immunity (applicable to Tribes) and other terms and conditions that are contained in the sample project agreement. The sample project agreement may be revised Manual l8,5almon Re(overy Grants. lvarch 2017

24 periodically by the Recreation and Conservation Office. Our organization recognizes that such changes might occur prior to our authorized representative signing the actual project agreement, and we accept the responsibility and the presumption that our authorized representative shall have conferred with us as to any such changes before he/she executes the pro1ect agreement on behalf of our organization and so executes with our authorization. 3. Any grant assistance received will be used for only direct eligible and allowable costs that are reasonable and necessary to implement the pro.ject(s) referenced above. 4. Our organization expects our matching share of proyect funding will be derived from US Forest Service Pomeroy Ranqer District linsert your anticipoted sourcesl and meets the requirements of WAC ln addition, our organization understands it is responsible for supporting all non cash commitments to this project should they not materialize. 5. We acknowledge that if the Salmon Recovery Fund Board approves grant assistance for the project(s), the Recreation and Conservation Office will pay us on only a reimbursement basis, except for a specially approved advance payment. We understand reimbursement basis means that we will only request payment from the Recreation and Conservation Office after we incur eligible and allowable costs and pay them. The Recreation and Conservation Office may also determine an amount of retainage and hold that amount until the project is complete. The Recreation and Conservation Office may approve advance payments in limited circumstances, pursuant to WAC and the policy outlined in Manuol 8, Reimbursements. 6 L facqu[sition Projects OnLy] We acknowledge that any property acquired with grant assistance must be dedicated for salmon recovery purposes for perpetuity unless otherwise agreed to by our organization and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board in the project agreement or an amendment thereto. We agree to dedicate the property in a signed "Deed of Right to Use Land for Salmon Recovery Purposes" for fee acquisitions, or an "Assignment of Rights" for other than fee acquisitions (which documents will be based upon RCO's standard versions of those documents), to be recorded on the title of the property with the county auditor. facqu[sltion Projects Onlyl We acknowledge that any property acquired in fee title must be accessible to the public unless the Recreation and Conservation Office director or the Salmon Recovery Funding Board agrees to other restrictions. lvlanual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants. Vlarch 2017

25 Appendix J: SRFB Application Authorization Form 8. lrestorotion Projects OnM We acknowledge that any property restored be maintained for a period of ten years after the project is complete unless otherwise provided and agreed to by our organization and the Salmon Recovery Funding Board rn the project agreement or an amendment thereto. 9. lnon-profit Orgonbotions OnLyl Our organization certifies it is a registered nonprofit corporation with the Washington Secretary of State and has been active in protection and enhancement of natural resources. Should our organization dissolve or disband during the period of this project, we agree to name a successor organization pursuant to Salmon Recovery Funding Board policy. 10. This application authorization becomes part of a formal application to the Salmon Recovery Funding Board for grant assistance We provided appropriate opportunity for public comment on this application. 12. We certify that this application authorization was properly and lawfully adopted following the requirements of our organization and applicable laws and policies and that the person signing as authorized representative is duly authorized to do so. [Notive Americon Tribes, locol governments, ond non-profit orgonbotions only] This application authorization was adopted by our organization during the meeting held: Location Date [AIl oppliconts] Signed and approved on behalf of the resolving body of the organization by the following authorized representative: Signed Title /'Z/.- t,.- Date Washington State Attorney General's Office Approved as to form B,*- g-"pq..^,- March 18, 2016 Assisto nce Attorn ey Ge ne ro I Date You moy reproduce th[s form in your own formot; text however moy not change. Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants. March 2017