Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 1 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

List all related projects previously funded or reviewed by RCO:

Project # or Name Status

Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship to Current Proposal?

08-2087 Completed Walla Walla River Frog Hollow to Last Chance Rd Geomorphic Assessment with LiDAR

14-1895 Choose a statusCompleted

Part of the greater WRIA 32. Also a design restoration project.

Choose a status

If previous project did not receive funding, describe how the current proposal differs from the original.

Project brief.

This project will develop and provide an engineered design that, once implemented, will restore/protect aquatic habitat and protect the natural riparian vegetation and re-connect the floodplain.

Project location.

This project is located on the Walla Walla River starting at river mile 35.5 and extending upstream about one half river mile. The site is west and downstream of the Cities of College Place and Walla Walla in Walla Walla County near the center of WRIA 32.

Problem statement.

Project Number 18-2088 Project Name Walla Walla River Restoration @ RM 35.5 Design Sponsor Walla Walla County Conservation District Planning Type Final Design

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 2 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

This reach has one of the widest areas of established mature trees on the Walla Walla River. The project reach has recently exhibited significant lateral migration of the channel and disconnection of the floodplain resulting in concentrated erosion and loss of established riparian vegetation and cropland. Two diversions on this stretch require annual in-stream dredging as maintenance. A secondary goal would be to provide structure in channel to alleviate such frequent in-channel work. There are Steelhead, Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout found in this stretch. The proposed design will incorporate large woody debris placement, side/overflow channel connection, setback levees in strategic locations and control structures. These design elements, once implemented, will reduce limiting factors for steelhead recovery and increase resiliency during flood events.

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

Species Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult)

Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising)

Endangered Species Act Coverage (Y/N)

Steelhead Egg, Juvenile, Adult Stable Y Chinook Salmon

Juvenile, Adult Decline Y

Bull Trout Juvenile, Adult Decline Y

Describe the limiting factors, and limiting life stages (by fish species) that the project expects to address.

This design, once implemented will enhance instream restoration by reducing erosion and sediment input, creating vegetative cover, re-connect side channels, and establishing habitat structures for fish. These practices will allow for better habitat conditions including spawning/rearing for Steelhead and pooling and vegetative cover for Chinook Salmon and Bull Trout.

Project goals and objectives.

A. What are the project’s goals?

Upon implementation of the design, increase the quantity and quality of instream habitat for all species and create off channel rearing and over wintering habitat for Steelhead and Chinook Salmon. Limiting factors according to the Geomorphic Assessment (2010) include high temperatures, restricted floodplain and low large woody debris (LWD) counts. The design will include LWD structures to promote sediment sorting and accumulation, pooling and side channels.

B. What are the project’s objectives?

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 3 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

The objective of this project is to provide a set of construction-ready designs within 2 years of funding.

What are the assumptions and constraints that could impact whether the sponsor achieves the objectives? Constraints on the project are predominantly time. The conditions of the river may alter during the design window and/or prior to the construction window. This may require adjustments to the design. Prompt implementation of the design will reduce the likelihood of design edits.

Funding is always an issue and the sponsor will pursue funding from multiple sources. The flow conditions will also dictate longevity; this will be addressed by using BMP’s to install structures that will withstand to certain flows.

Project details.

A. Provide a narrative description of the proposed project.

The project reach is immediately downstream of the confluence with Garrison Creek. Additional flows exacerbate erosive force and loss of riparian vegetation. This design will include habitat elements such as large woody debris, engineered log jams and reactivate side channels. This design will lead to the implementation of much needed habitat restoration to enhance river conditions to benefit aquatic species.

B. Provide a scope of work and detailed list of project deliverables. The Walla Walla County Conservation District will perform the following:

• Coordinate with private landowners (within 2 months of funding) • Develop and engineer a series of in-stream structures. Review the

design with WDFW, RCO and applicable agencies (within 18 months of funding)

• Complete a cultural resources assessment of the project (within 6 months after completion of the design, within 24 months of funding)

• Provide final construction ready-engineered designs (within 2 years of funding).

C. Explain how the sponsor determined cost estimates.

The costs were estimated based on design projects with a similar scope that were previously completed by the Walla Walla County Conservation District in consultation with their engineer. Additional published papers related to estimating restoration cost by Bonham & Stevenson (2004), Bair, EPA (1994), and Clemson University (2008) helped revise the cost estimate. Costs from these papers were adjusted for inflation to reflect 2018 values.

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 4 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

D. How have lessons learned from completed projects or monitoring studies informed the project?

Previous design projects have helped fine-tune the engineering of in-stream structures.

If the project includes an assessment or inventory.

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

There has been a TEAMSA Geomorphic assessment for the Frog Hollow to Last Chance Road reach of the Walla Walla River with LiDAR (PRISM 08-2087 completed in 2010) was done on the project reach and it will be incorporated into the design, where applicable. A recent design (14-1895) addresses similar components as the subject site and may be dublicated in part according to the engineer.

B. If a design is NOT a deliverable of this grant, please describe how this project meets all of the required criteria for filling a data gap that are list in Section 2 of Manual 18.

If the project includes developing a design or a feasibility study:

A. Will a licensed professional engineer design the project? Yes

B. If the project includes a fish passage or screening design, has the project received a Priority Index (PI) or Screening Priority Index (SPI) number? Not Applicable

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 5 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

C. Will you apply for permits as part of this project’s scope? No, permits will be acquired during implementation phase of the project.

D. For fish passage design projects: N/A

i. If you are proposing a culvert or arch, will you use stream simulation, no slope, hydrologic, or other design method? Please describe.

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

iii. List additional upstream or downstream fish passage barriers, if any.

Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of later. (Consider its sequence relative to other needs in the watershed and the current level and imminence of risk to habitat).

This project is important to do now to protect the vast mature riparian and retain the wood that is already in the river as well to reconnect side channels and alleviate erosive pressure where the river has migrated laterally, specifically where the river has encroached into farmed fields. If we to wait then there would be more damage to property as well as ongoing annual in-channel dredging as maintenance of the two diversion sites.

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.

This application is to complete the design portion of a larger construction project. There is potential to expand restoration to upstream areas in addition to the proposed reach.

Describe the sponsors experience managing this type of project.

The Walla Walla County Conservation District has designed and implemented several habitat restoration projects with engineered structures. Most of these involved collaborating with the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board and RCO under previous grants.

List all landowner names.

Mike Klicker- a Landowner Acknowledgement Form is included

List project partners and their roles and contributions to the project. N/A

Stakeholder outreach. We have discussed this project with the property owner, WDFW, CTUIR, TSS and other groups and have not received any concerns.

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 6 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

Structures will be engineered to withstand flood events to prevent downstream migration and impacts to a municipal bridge at Last Chance Road. The Walla Walla County Conservations District will work with the RCO grant manager and area agencies if concerns arise.

Supplemental Questions

For acquisition and planning combination projects, applicants will need to answer the acquisition supplemental questions found in the “Restoration, Acquisition, and Combination Proposal.”

Comments

Use this section to respond to the comments received after the initial site visits and after submitting the final application.

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 of the review panel’s comments and questions and identify the response. The sponsor may use this space to respond directly to the comments.

Date: June 5, 2018 Project Site Visit? X Yes No Review Panel Member(s): O’Neal and Slocum

1. Recommended improvements to make this a technically sound project according to the SRFB’s criteria:

This project has good potential for restoring habitat forming processes in the reach, but as it is currently scoped, does not seem likely to produce a design that will optimize the potential. The approach currently described would address spot issues involving erosion but would not optimize the habitat potential for the reach. Installing a few rock and log structures without fully understanding the relevant geomorphic and hydraulic factors does not address the fish benefit in terms of process-based restoration. The sponsor should rescope the project as either 1) an Appendix D-1 feasibility study, looking at the LiDAR and flow regime (low flow to high flow), and conduct a geomorphic assessment to try to identify opportunities for off-channel habitat reconnection, or 2) increase the budget to hire a qualified consulting firm to do a preliminary design that meets the above requirements, a similar level of effort as CTUIR’s effort on the NF Touchet or Tri State Steelheader’s effort on the Bridge to Bridge reach. After some additional sleuthing, the Geomorphic Assessment for this reach including LiDAR data was found (PRISM 08-2087 Walla Walla River Frog Hollow to Last Chance Road. This information will be used to develop the designs. We apologize for this omission in the draft application.

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 7 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

The modeling for the site should be run at relevant habitat flows for the life stages of salmon that will be most affected by the project actions, and that are most limiting in the system. For example, if overwintering habitat is limiting, run the hydraulic models at flows that are average for the overwintering period, and then evaluate the depths and velocities against optimum depths and velocities for that species and life stage to determine the level of habitat uplift. This approach can be used to compare restoration scenarios to help optimize the design approach. Where feasible, the design should include removing rock barbs and rock bank armoring, as these are not serving their original intended purpose and are serving to exacerbate the erosion and channel migration issues. Removal of rock barbs/armoring will be reviewed by the engineer during the design process. Additionally, cross sections at the site will be needed to update the current LiDAR in order to accurately assess the hydraulics. Further, objectives should be updated to include an estimate of the quantity of habitat enhanced, created, or protected under this application. Objectives such as habitat enhancement will apply to the implementation phase of this project which will be applied for after completion of the current project.

2. Missing Pre-application information.

3. General Comments:

4. Staff Comments: The PRISM project description can include a discussion of the problem, but try to keep it focused on the salmon/steelhead issues rather than the infrastructure issues. That can be a secondary benefit of the project but should not be the focus of the discussion. We want to know we have a salmon/steelhead recovery project, not a water intake improvement project. Complete the worksite description on the worksite map and details page in PRISM. In the property details page you indicate that you have a landowner agreement that lasts in perpetuity for the restoration work, this is unusual. I think it should probably more likely be fixed # of years. The landowner agreement section was edited to be a fixed amount: 10 years. The project description says the project will benefit bull trout, and the proposal lists chinook. However neither of these species are indicated on the restoration metrics page. Please make sure the fish benefit is consistent across all materials and pages. Metrics were reviewed and edited to be consistent. Thank you for your observation.

Appendix C-2: Planning Project Proposal

Page 8 Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants March 2018

Please provide more detail in the attached cost estimate. Are you going to do surveys? What is the cost between preliminary and final design? What other data are you going to gather? Are you going to be purchasing any supplies? What about project reporting? A revised cost estimate is loaded in PRISM. Additional comments are included above under 8c. The discussions in the project proposal could be improved by telling a more compelling story about salmon/steelhead recovery. There’s not much to go off of to feel like this project will make an impact. Also, I was a little concerned from discussion on-site that this project is going to focus on bank stabilization. While this can be a secondary benefit, bank stabilization would not be eligible for funding if that is the primary purpose of the restoration project. Please keep that in mind as you go through the design process.

Response to Post-Application Comments

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

Cartographer: Lisa Stearns4/2/2018

DISCLAIMER: While every precaution was taken in preparing this map, the publisherdisclaims any warranty of fitness or accuracy of the data.The map is approximate in nature, based on compilation of data from multiple sources,and should not be relied upon or referenced in legal documents, including propertydeeds, title reports, and contract documents, nor substituted for appropriate surveyand\or engineering analysis. The user of the map acknowledges its limitations, assumesall responsibility for its use, and agrees to hold the publisher harmless for anydamages that may result from the use of this map. This map is subject tochange without notice.

Document Path: \\SERVERWWCD\gis\Grant Proposals\Walla Walla River Restoration RM 35.5\WW Riv_35.5_location_ and_Vicinity_Map_20180330.mxd

Walla Walla River Restoration RM 35.5 Location and Vicinity Maps

Project Location

.1:24,0000 0.35 0.7 1.05 1.40.175 Miles

LegendProject_AreaWalla_Walla_ RM 35.5_2018

MORORD

BIRDS

EYE VIEW

NARC

ISSA P

L

DANIEL LN

LAST

CHA

NCE R

D

MISSION RD

STOVALL RD

Cartographer: Lisa Stearns

APE_Walla_Walla_ Restoration_2018Klicker_ ParcelsSectionTownshipWalla Walla County RoadsRivers and Streams

·0 0.15 0.30.075Miles

1:6,0004/2/2018

DISCLAIMER: While every precaution was taken in preparing this map, the publisherdisclaims any warranty of fitness or accuracy of the data.The map is approximate in nature, based on compilation of data from multiple sources,and should not be relied upon or referenced in legal documents, including propertydeeds, title reports, and contract documents, nor substituted for appropriate surveyand\or engineering analysis. The user of the map acknowledges its limitations,assumesall responsibility for its use, and agrees to hold the publisher harmless for anydamages that may result from the use of this map. This map is subject to

Document Path: \\SERVERWWCD\gis\Grant Proposals\Walla Walla River Restoration RM 35.5\APE Map WW River restoration RM 35.5.mxd

Walla Walla River Restoration RM 35.5 Design

DESIGN PROJECTSThe costs on this page are for design projects, not for the design phase of a restoration grant. See Manual 18, Appendix D for additional information regarding allowable costs.

OVERALL PROJECT GRANT REQUESTBudget must account

for all costs to complete the project

Enter only the amount of the grant

request

Amount Amount MatchFunding not reported

in PRISM

Source (Grant, Cash, Materials, Labor, Volunteers, etc)

Match Type (federal, state, local)

Category Task Description Qty RateFinal design Development, engineering and review 1.00 47,000.00$ 47,000$ 47,000.00$ -$ Assessments (geologic, hydraulic, etc.) HEC-RAS modeling 1.00 6,000.00$ 6,000$ 2,000$ 4,000$ -$ grant StateCultural resources 1.00 3,000.00$ 3,000$ 3,000$ -$ grant StateAdministrative Project administration, reporting and 1.00 5,200.00$ 5,200$ -$ 5,200$ -$ grant State

-$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$ -$

STotal 61,200$ 52,000$ 9,200$ -$

Description Approved Rate Total Project Base Indirect 0.000% -$ -$ -$ -$ $ - Indirect 0.000% -$ -$ -$ -$ $ -

STotal -$ -$ -$ $ -

GTOTAL 61,200$ 52,000$ 9,200$ -$

The Grant Request and Match should equal the total project cost and Budget Check cell should be 0. Sponsors must account for all sources and types of match need to complete the project.

MATCH

Indirect Costs

Design Costs

ÑÒ

`

!$

o!$

"J

!$

!$!$

!$

!$

!$

!$

!$

!$

ÑÐ!$

!$!$!$

!$

!$

!$

!$¡»

!$I

!$

!$

!$

!$

!$!$

=

=

=

=

>@

>@

>@!C

Beginning point at Frog Hollow Bridge(Approx. 46.0239/-118.4270)

!C

End point at Last Chance Bridge(Approx. 46.0308/-118.4512)

MISSION RD

LAST

CHA

NCE

RD

DANIEL LN

FROG HOLLOW RD

PANORAMA LN

MOJO

NNIER

RD

BEET RD

MORO RD

CROSS CREEK RD

STOVALL RD

BIRDS EYE VIEW

LONGVIEW CT

Walla Walla R iver

Garris

on C

reek

UV36Walla Walla River Assessment Reach>@ Rock Barbs

ROADSRiver MilesFloodway & 100 Year FloodplainLow Stream TemperatureSide ChannelsIrrigation Ditches

= Irrigation Pump StationsAbandoned Railroad BedConstricted FloodplainWalla Walla RiverPossible AvulsionDirection of Flow

Assessment PointsStructureÑÒ Bridge

o Log structure` Old bridge supports

Pebble CtÑÐ Pool Undercut bankI Pool wier!$ Pool¡» Rock Structures

"J Unstable bank

±

0.25Miles

Walla Walla County Conservation District

Johnson Site

Figure #60