Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal. Not Applicable

Transcription

1 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal Project Number Project Name Design Fish Passage at Buford Creek Barrier Culvert (HWY 129) Sponsor Nez Perce Tribe List all related projects previously funded or reviewed by RCO: Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship Project # or Name Status to Current Proposal? Not Applicable Choose a status Choose a status Choose a status If previous project was not funded, describe how the current proposal differs from the original. Not Applicable 1. Project Location. The Design Fish Passage at Buford Creek Barrier Culvert (HWY 129) Project is located where Buford creek flows under State Highway 129 at mile post 0.9, near the Oregon/Washington border. The project lies within the external boundary of the NPT s Buford Parcel of their Precious Lands Wildlife Area. The watershed falls within the Lower Grande Ronde Subbassin and is part of the Grande Ronde MiSA. This section is a Steelhead Restoration Priority Reach as well as a Grande Ronde Priority Protection Reach. Buford Creek flows directly into the Grande Ronde River just 2.2 miles below the barrier and provides critical habitat for steelhead in that reach as well as 1.9 miles of critical habitat above the barrier. 2. Brief Project Summary. The Nez Perce Tribe (NPT) proposes a design project that will produce plans to create fish passage beyond a barrier on Buford Creek culvert located at the State Highway 129 crossing. The culvert was identified in 2008 as a barrier to ESU Snake River Steelhead by a Walla Walla Community College Road Crossing Barrier Assessment and in 2009/2010 in a Washington Department of Fish & Wildlife (WDFW) Fishway Assessment Report. Page 1

2 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, Problems Statement. A. Describe the problem including the source and scale. Buford Creek is a tributary to the Grande Ronde River in the very Southeast corner of Washington, less than 0.1 miles north of the Oregon border. A fish passage barrier exists approximately ¼ of the way up the Buford Creek Watershed where it passes under State Highway 129. The barrier poses an imminent threat to anadromous fish (steelhead), and limits their access to nearly 5 miles of stream above the culvert, 2 miles of which are designated critical habitat. As stated in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan, steelhead are especially effective at accessing and utilizing stream reaches with suitable habitat, however, their distribution is limited by environmental issues such as migration barriers. The fish populations within this reach and the land that this creek flows through are of great importance. Buford Creek has been identified as a priority restoration reach for steelhead, and according to the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan, its benefit to the life history diversity within the Lower Grande Ronde steelhead population is considered to be significant. In addition to the unique steelhead population in this area, the land itself holds special value to The Nez Perce Tribe as it lies within the external boundary of the Buford Parcel of their Precious Lands Wildlife Area. B. List the fish resources present at the site and targeted by your project. Endangered Species Life History Present (egg, juvenile, adult) Current Population Trend (decline, stable, rising) Species Act Coverage (Y/N) Steelhead Egg, Juvenile, Adult Unknown Y C. Describe the limiting factors, and limiting life stages (by fish species) that your project expects to address. Fish passage is identified in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan as a primary limiting factor for steelhead in several lower tributaries to the Lower Grande Ronde River, including Buford Creek. Passage at this structure will benefit all life stages of steelhead. The ability for adults to utilize spawning habitat above the culvert will expand capacity for egg to emerging fry (in gravel) life stages. Juvenile rearing capacity of Buford Creek will be greatly increased as fish are able to move up and downstream freely. Water temperature and predation are also limiting factors in the Lower Grande River. Tributaries in this system offer valuable rearing potential for juvenile salmonids. Creating complete passage at this barrier to upstream habitat will improve access to thermal refugia as well as habitat that will allow for enhanced predation avoidance. Within the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan, under section , Figure 24 on page 73, the primary attributes affecting survival in the Lower Grande Ronde Tributaries were determined to Page 2

3 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 be sediment impacting the egg incubation life history stage, and key habitat quantity. By repairing the barrier at the Buford Creek culvert these issues will be alleviated by allowing for natural sediment transport through this reach. In summary, the passage issue impacts passage for the adult life stage form a slope and velocity standpoint. Jump height is an issue for adults and juveniles as sediment ebbs and flows below the fishway. Expanding passage for adults expands potential habitat for eggs and emerging fry. Improper bed-load and sediment transport function impacts egg incubation. Improving the heavily degraded stream habitat upstream and downstream of the culvert will restore juvenile rearing habitat. 4. Project Goals and Objectives. A. What are your project s goals? The goal of this project is to produce an engineered set of plans for restoration of the fish passage barrier that exists at the Buford Creek culvert, under State Highway 129. The design work will entail plans for either modifying or replacing the culvert or installing a bridge that will remedy current passage problems and if possible restore the heavily degraded stream channel immediately upstream and downstream of the at the present culvert. These plans will include, but not be limited to any and all issues related to excessive slope, velocity, water depth, and jump height for all aquatic species of all life stages, especially steelhead. B. What are your project s objectives? The objective of this project is to provide a set of construction-ready designs adequately detailing a restoration action for replacing the culvert on Buford Creek while restoring natural channel morphology upstream and downstream, allowing that will allow for passage of all life stages of steelhead and resident trout and proper bed-load transport. The Nez Perce Tribe will sponsor the design with the intent of seeking funding for implementation with cooperation from the Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) and other partners. The fully vetted design will provide the framework for attaining implementation funding from several sources, including WSDOT, Snake River Salmon Recovery Board (SRSRB), Grande Ronde Model Watershed (GRMW), and others. WSDOT has indicated that a set of designs along with funding from partners quickly raises the priority for them to help fund a project in their system. These design plans should be completed in 2016 followed by application for implementation funding and construction in 2017 and C. What are the assumptions and constraints that could impact whether you achieve your objectives? The scale and scope of this project will require a large investment for implementation. The NPT as the project sponsor assumes that a full set of designs and permits will establish the need and provide incentive for funding. One possible constraint will be to determine right of way for passage of highway traffic around the project. The NPT assumes that our Precious Lands Project Page 3

4 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 Leader can provide a temporary easement with minimal effort or expense. Therefore procurement of right of way was not written into the budget for this proposal. 5. Project Details. A. Provide a narrative description of your proposed project. The intent of this project is to fund design work that will advise a restoration action to successfully restore fish passage at the culvert where Hwy 129 intercepts Buford Creek. Once funding is acquired, the specific project elements will be to: 1. Assemble a restoration team and including representatives from the WDFW, WSDOT, GRMW, Asotin County Conservation District, NMFS, and US Fish and Wildlife Service. The makeup of this team will assure the interests of all concerned entities are considered in design. 2. Establish a set of alternatives for restoration that will range from small scale restoration activities that provide benefit at a lower cost to complete replacement of the culvert and channel restoration upstream and downstream of the culvert. 3. Select the best restoration alternative according to the restoration team with input from all stakeholders Design a project based on the selected alternative that will improve year round passage for all life stages of aquatic organisms in Buford Creek at the project site Design a project based on the selected alternative that will restore natural bed-load and sediment transport processes through the project reach Obtain a project design plan complete with specifications, completed ESA consultation, and all permits in hand appropriate for construction contractor solicitation. B. Provide a scope of work. As the project sponsor and fiscal manager, the Nez Perce Tribe will supervise and guide the project design engineer. Participating team members will ensure that stated objectives are realized in the resulting restoration design project. Each review is intended to make sure that the design is progressing towards stated design objectives and this provides ample time and opportunity to direct progress towards final design. For projects that address fish passage in Washington and propose to use public funding for implementation, additional requirements apply. WDFW fish passage and engineering must review and approve final design. This review specifically addresses jump heights and flow velocities that may occur in the expected range of stream flow in the project area. Both US Fish and Wildlife Service and NMFS engineering support are required to review passage projects that propose to use Federal funding. Engineering support from both State and Federal fisheries management agencies help to ensure that project objectives will be met. It is also appropriate to Page 4

5 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 note that WSDOT will be instrumental throughout the course of this project due to its location at a WSDOT facility. The Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Division will be the responsible party to ensure that each element of the project is complete. Success of the completed design phase will be determined by the completion of the following: 1. Final project design and specification complete, in hand, and ready for construction contractor solicitation will be provide by the a selected contractor by December Complete ESA Section 7 consultation complete for the proposed restoration project including terms and conditions for construction will be provided by the Nez Perce Tribe with potential for assistance from the subcontractor by December At this time it is anticipated that the HIP 3a programmatic consultation will be used. CThis consultation between BPA and NMFS provides coverage for ESA listed steelhead present in the Buford Creek watershed. 3. JARPA permits in hand from both Washington DSL and ACOE complete with terms and conditions of project construction will be provided by the Nez Perce Tribe with potential for assistance from the subcontractor by December by December Cultural Resources clearance received from Washington SHPO, Nez Perce Tribe THPO and CTUIR THPO offices complete with terms and conditions of project construction will be provided by the Nez Perce Tribe with potential for assistance from the subcontractor by December Technical review and design criteria are built into the process at 15%, 30%, 80% and 100% design progress check-ins with the project team. A r a n g e o f a l t e r n a t i v e s w i l l b e p r e s e n t e d a t 1 5 %. T h e r e s t o r a t i o n t e a m w i l l s e l e c t a n a l t e r n a t i v e b a s e d o n c r i t e r i a i n c l u d i n g c o s t / b e n e f i t a n a l y s i s, r e c o m m e n d a t i o n s f r o m t h e S R S R B R T T, i m p l e m e n t a t i o n f u n d i n g p o t e n t i a l, a n d t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r p r o p e r e c o l o g i c a l r e s p o n s e. If for any reason specific criteria cannot be met, exceptions will be discussed, decided upon, and the process will continue. The design criteria that this project will strive to achieve include appropriate flow velocities, jump heights, slopes, and water depths through the culvert at all flows that will allow up and downstream passage of all aquatic organisms that reside in Buford Creek while restoring natural channel morphology upstream and downstream. Completion of the final design and all necessary permitting is projected to be concluded by winter of C. Explain how you determined your cost estimates. Cost estimates for engineering and design were obtained from an engineering contractor. Design review labor estimates were provided by Washington State Department of Transportation, the Page 5

6 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 Grande Ronde Model Watershed, and Nez Perce Tribe Staff. Estimates for labor for permitting, project oversight and administrative activities were provided by Nez Perce Tribe Staff. D. How have lessons learned from completed projects or monitoring studies informed your project? The Nez Perce Tribe has extensive knowledge from past fish barrier projects completed and will use past lessons learned. The scope of the project and the habitat issue being addressed is straight forward and similar to past projects completed we are confident that our past experience and lessons learned will allow for successful project completion. Former two-phased projects, consisting of a design phase and an implementation phase, completed by the Nez Perce Tribe have been successful. 6. If your 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. The most recent Level-A Barrier inventory was completed by WDFW in The designs provided by this project will update passage information providing a much more detailed description of the barrier and the scope and scale of the problem. 7. If your project includes developing a design: A. Will your project be designed by a licensed professional engineer? Yes A qualified and experienced engineering firm is required to produce construction design and specification. To achieve final design the engineer must be able to perform hydraulic modeling, conceptual design, drafting, compose specification documents and deliver final design for review and ultimate job implementation. The NPT will select an engineering firm based on specialized experience, capabilities and technical competence as it relates to the above Scope of Services. Specifically, they will be selected based on the following attributes: Page 6

7 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 Proposed approach (work plan and methodology) for providing the Services, including a description of tasks that will be performed by each member of the project team. How the firm would implement the Services. Resources committed to perform the work and the proportion of the time that staff would spend on the project, including time for specialized services, within the applicable time limits. Record of past performance, including but not limited to price and cost data from previous projects, quality of work, ability to meet schedules, cost control and contract administration. Availability to the project locale. Familiarity with the project locale. Project management techniques. Proposed schedule for performing the Services and any constraints that could affect the project. Ability to perform the Services promptly and efficiently. i. If not, please describe the qualifications of your design team. 8. Will you apply for permits as part of this project s scope? Yes Work done during the design phase will include acquisition of all required permits described under 5.B. Provide a Scope of Work section of this document. This project would produce implementation-ready, engineer-approved, regulatory-agency reviewed plans and specification for the culvert restoration work on Buford Creek in Asotin County, Washington. A. If not, please explain why and when you will submit permits. 9. If your project includes a fish passage or screening design: A. Has your project received a Priority Index (PI) or Screening Priority Index (SPI) number? If so, provide the PI or SPI number and describe how it was generated. The WDFW Fish Passage and Diversion Screening Inventory Database Barrier Priority Index Report (date unknown) lists the PI as It is assumed that this report came from WDFW s 2010 survey. B. For fish passage design projects: Page 7

8 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 i. If you are proposing a culvert or ach, will you use stream simulation, no slop, hydrologic, or other design method? It is likely that an open bottom arch culvert will be appropriate in this instance. The design work proposed will provide a definitive answer. Ultimately the design will provide passage while allowing for a natural stream channel using stream simulation. Mimicking substrate patterns from upstream and downstream of the barrier will provide a seamless transition while maintaining natural sediment and bedload transport though the culvert. ii. Describe the amount and quality of habitat made accessible if the barrier is corrected. There are approximately 5 miles of inhabitable stream above the barrier. NOAA Fisheries (National Marine Fisheries Service) lists Buford Creek as critical habitat for ESA Listed steelhead below the barrier and 1.9 miles above the barrier. The WDFW 2010 Habitat Survey Summary Report describes potential habitat gain including 3233 sq m of spawning area and 14,088 sq m of rearing area for steelhead upstream of the culvert. iii. List additional upstream or downstream fish passage barriers, if any. No barriers have been identified upstream or downstream of the barrier in question. 10. 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 (i.e., addresses a priority action, occurs in a priority area, or targets a priority fish species). The Buford Creek Barrier is listed as a Priority 1 in the SRSRB Work plan as it falls in the Grande Ronde MiSA. Buford Creek is a Steelhead Restoration Priority Reach as well as a Grande Ronde Priority Protection Reach. Habitat limiting factors and objectives for this reach include reducing imminent threats including removing obstructions. Section , Table 6-8 on page 219, of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan (from information provided by the NE Oregon Draft Recovery Plan) identified fish passage as a primary limiting factor for several lower tributaries to the Lower Grande Ronde River, including Buford Creek. Restoring fish passage to good habitats by restoring passage at road-crossing barriers is listed in Table 5-6, page 46, of the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan Supplement, as a strategy for restoring watershed connectivity as part of a framework for identifying priority proposed projects in the Grande Ronde subbasin. Page 8

9 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 Within the Grande Ronde Subbasin Plan, under section , Figure 24 on page 73, the primary attributes affecting survival in the Lower Grande Ronde Tributaries were determined to be sediment impacting the egg incubation life history stage, and key habitat quantity. By repairing the barrier at the Buford Creek culvert it is hoped that these issues will be further alleviated by allowing for natural sediment transport through this reach, as well as access to additional upstream habitat. B. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of later. WDFW s Fish Barrier Removal Board recently asked each salmon recovery region to identify focused (HUC 6) sub-watersheds to prioritize fish passage barrier removal. At its April meeting, the Snake River Salmon Recovery Regional Technical Team identified the Lower Grande Ronde River sub-watershed for this prioritization. Buford Creek falls in this sub-watershed along with a barrier on Rattlesnake Creek which is scheduled for restoration in 2015 and several others. Having designs and permits in hand as this prioritization for implementation funding occurs is imperative. Ultimately, restoring as much habitat as soon as possible for ESA listed Snake River steelhead is of paramount importance. Not Applicable. 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. 11. Project Proponents and Partners. A. Describe your experience managing this type of project. The Nez Perce Tribe has extensive knowledge from past fish barrier projects completed and will use past lessons learned. We successfully sponsored and completed the replacement of two culverts on Pataha Creek in cooperation with the USFS in 2014 with SRSRB funding. The NPT Watershed Division has been engaged in watershed restoration since the 1990 s and has replaced numerous culverts in Idaho, Oregon and Washington. The scope of the project and the habitat issue being addressed is similar to several past projects completed we are confident that our past experience and lessons learned will allow for successful project completion. B. List all landowner names. 1. Nez Perce Tribe 2. Washington State Department of Transportation C. List project partners and their roles and contributions to the project. 1. Nez Perce Tribe Department of Fisheries Resource Management will provide match in the form of contributing the Page 9

10 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 D. Stakeholder Outreach. design review and project administration funded by Bonneville Power Administration. 2. Washington Department of Transportation will review design specifications to ensure that WSDOT requirements are met. 3. Grande Ronde Model Watershed will provide expertise in design review in anticipation of contributing to implementation of the project. 4. Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife will provide expertise in design to ensure that fish passage requirements are met. 5. Asotin County Conservation District has expressed support for the project and interest in helping to sponsor implementation as the project moves forward. The ACCD will be instrumental in the construction phase of this project. There are no known concerns from stakeholders. The NPT Wildlife Division -manager of the Buford Parcel of the NPT Precious lands has expressed full support. The designs will address any mitigation of public safety concerns. Comments Use this section to respond to the comments you will receive after your initial site visits and 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. Draft Application / Site Visit REVIEW PANEL comments Date: June 18, 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: Our field observations during the project site visit showed a heavily degraded stream channel immediately upstream and downstream of the culvert. Because the construction cost to correct the passage barrier will likely be high, we think there would be an economy of scale to also Page 10

11 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 restore natural channel morphology for a few hundred feet upstream and downstream at the same time as replacing the old culvert. In particular, the dredge spoil berms on either side of the channel upstream of the inlet should be removed and natural instream structural elements (rocks and/or large wood debris) should be installed to trap sediment and aggrade the incised channel/improve floodplain connectivity both upstream and downstream of the culvert. The economy of scale to restore natural channel morphology while replacing the culvert has been addressed above in Project Goals, Project Objectives, the Project Narrative and the Statement of work. By adding a set of alternatives we can determine the feasibility of a complete restoration of the stream channel as well as the passage barrier. Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic In the proposal, describe more clearly the life stages and flows at which fish are impacted, if known. In the pipe, approximately 20 juvenile salmonids of different sizes and ages were observed. For clarification purposes, impacts of the barrier and degraded stream channel to steelhead at each life stage have now been summarized in the Limiting Factors section of the proposal. All the Information we could find regarding impacts to each life stage is reflected. Admittedly the degree to which each life stage is impacted is missing. Iit is likely that a more focused study over several seasons would be required to determine that detail due to annual flow variations and the dynamic geomorphology. Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic In the pipe, approximately 20 juvenile salmonids of different sizes and ages were observed. Also describe the design process; more than one alternative should be considered and evaluated. What process will be used to settle on the preferred design? The design process has been updated in Project Goals, Project Objectives, the Project Narative and the Statement of work to reflect the need for a suite of alternatives at the 15% design level. The selection process will need to be vetted and include specific criteria and a predetermined protocol approved by the design team and the stakeholders. Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Please elaborate on the $21,000 budget item for biological assessment. Why is further biological assessment needed at this stage when the culvert has already been identified as a high priority barrier? The Biological Assessment has been removed from the budget. Cultural Resources Survey has been moved from a cash match to a grant request. The new totals are $97,550 requested with a $26,650 match, for a total project cost of $124,200 and a 21.46% Match. Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic 2. Missing Pre-application information: The Supplemental Questions for Fish Passage Projects at the end of the application form need to be filled out. Add dates and responsible party to the scope of work. Supplemental Questions for Fish Passage Projects are part of the application process for implantation projects and are not in the application for design projects. This has been verified by the SRSRB staff. Formatted: Font: Bold, Italic Page 11

12 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 Add dates and responsible party to the scope of work. Dates and responsible party have been added to the scope of work. Formatted: Font: Italic 3. General Comments: Some statements in the proposal indicate an unfamiliarity with doing SRFB-funded fish passage barrier correction projects. Remember that NMFS programmatic Habitat Restoration Program 4(d) Rule, Limit 8 self- certification covers ESA consultation requirements for species under NMFS jurisdiction. Also, designing the new culvert to comply with WDFW s stream simulation design guidelines would make it unnecessary to do hydraulic modeling as part of the culvert design. The sponsor has been resourceful in identifying partnerships and providing a good match for the work. General comments duly noted. As stated there is certainly some unfamiliarity with doing SRFB-funded fish passage barrier correction projects. The Nez Perce Tribe Watershed Division has just completed the first year of our cooperative project in northeast Oregon and southeast Washington. We are grateful to the Board and its staff and all the stakeholders in the region for providing us a seat at the table and guiding us through the process. The guidance and suggestions provided by the reviewers is greatly appreciated. Thank you for the valuable input. 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. Sponsor Response instructions: Revise your project proposals using track changes and update any relevant PRISM questions and attachments. Fill out the section at the end of your project proposal to document how you responded to comments. Response to Post-Application Comments Page 12

13 Planning and Combination (Planning and Acquisition) Project Proposal July 17, 2015July 15, 2015 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 13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20 DESIGN PROJECTS The 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 REQUEST MATCH Budget must account for all costs to complete the project Enter only the amount of the grant request for all sources and types of match need to complete the Source (Grant, Cash, Materials, Category Task Description Qty Rate Amount Amount Match Funding not reported in PRISM Labor, Volunteers, etc) Match Type (federal, state, local) Survey Site investigation: Topographical & Detour ROW $ $ 18,000 $ 18,000 $ - $ - Conceptual design Consultat Staff Time (15%-30%, Hydrolic, StormWater $ $ 52,000 $ 52,000 $ - $ - Preliminary design Consultat Staff Time (80%) $ $ 11,700 $ 11,700 $ - $ - Final design Consultat Staff Time $ $ 9,100 $ 9,100 $ - $ - Cultural resources Survey and Report $ $ 6,750 $ 6,750 $ - $ - Cash NPT/BPA Conceptual design Design Team Review WSDOT (15 %) $ $ 3,000 $ - $ 3,000 $ - Labor State: WSDOT Preliminary design Design Team Review WSDOT (30% - 80%) $ $ 1,500 $ - $ 1,500 $ - Labor State: WSDOT Final design Design Team Review WSDOT $ $ 1,000 $ - $ 1,000 $ - Labor State: WSDOT Conceptual design Design Team Review : Grande Ronde Model Watershed $ $ 1,800 $ - $ 1,800 $ - Labor Local: GRMW Preliminary design Design Team Review : Grande Ronde Model Watershed $ $ 540 $ - $ 540 $ - Labor Local: GRMW Final design Design Team Review : Grande Ronde Model Watershed 8.00 $ $ 360 $ - $ 360 $ - Labor Local: GRMW Conceptual design Design Team Review NPT (15%-30%) $ $ 3,600 $ - $ 3,600 Labor NPT/BPA Preliminary design Design Team Review NPT (80%) $ $ 1,800 $ - $ 1,800 Labor NPT/BPA Final design Design Team Review NPT $ $ 900 $ - $ 900 Labor NPT/BPA Administrative Restoration Team Coordination $ $ 3,600 $ - $ 3,600 Labor NPT/BPA Administrative Engineering Management and Direction $ $ 1,800 $ - $ 1,800 Labor NPT/BPA Administrative Project Review and Oversight $ $ 2,025 $ - $ 2,025 Labor NPT/BPA Cultural resources Archeology Management and Direction 5.00 $ $ 225 $ - $ 225 Labor NPT/BPA Administrative Grants and Agreements Oversight and Tracking $ $ 900 $ - $ 900 Labor NPT/BPA Permits Permit Application (JARPA, SEPA, HPA, 404, 401) $ $ 3,600 $ - $ 3,600 Labor NPT/BPA $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - $ - GTOTAL $ 124,200 $ 97,550 $ 26,650 $ - The Grant Request and Match should equal the total project cost and Budget Check cell should be 0. Sponsors must account

21

22

23

24

25

26

27