Trout Unlimited ("TU") has completed this project and provided final plans/specifications for a fish habitat restoration project along the Yakima River outside Ellensburg, WA. TU completed the steps below to design a levee breach, flood-fence, and side-channel restoration/enhancement project that will increase the Yakima River floodplain connectivity, provide the landowner with a similar level of flood protection, and significantly increase the amount of side-channel habitat for juvenile salmonids in this area of the Yakima River. Moreover, this project will allow for riparian restoration while maintaining an active agricultural (cow-calf) operation. TU thinks this project is one offering a balanced approach to fish habitat in a working lands landscape. The designed project includes about 2,000' of side-channel, 900' of flood-fence, >2.5 acres of riparian restoration, and increased floodplain activation at the 2-year flow recurrence. Fish targeted to benefit from this project include Chinook Salmon, steelhead, reintroduced Sockeye Salmon, and Coho Salmon. The specific steps taken are described below. First, a Technical Advisory Group was formed to provide technical review of the designs from Concepts to Final. The "TAG" provided significant guidance and assistance to move this project forward. Specifically, initial project concepts included constructing a set-back levee. However, the TAG noted that this option provided little near-term (or certainty for long-term) fish habitat benefits. As such, the concepts were altered and a suite of alternatives proposed to the TAG. These alternatives were then vetted with the TAG and the most favorable options moved to preliminary (again for TAG review) and then final design. The TAG was critical for the design success. Second, TU worked with the engineering firm Herrera Environmental Consultants to develop the designs, conduct necessary field investigations, and model the changes to floodwater extent and direction. The design work required significant effort due to the TAG's direction for a side-channel rather than the early concepts, which were levee setbacks with less design effort necessary. Herrera did fine work and communicated well with the TAG, landowner, and TU when it came to explaining designed elements/features and their risks/benefits. The design work also included a cultural resources survey (in coordination with geotechnical test-pits). TU was able to contract with the cultural resources consultant (Reiss-Landreau) for significantly less than the originally expected amount due to the local knowledge and experience of the consultant (considerable cost-savings). TU used this cost savings to help cover engineering/design services.The cultural resources consultant provided the report to TU and submitted it to the state for review. No cultural resources were identified. Another major element of the design work was the hydraulic modeling. Herrera subcontracted with WSE to complete the hydraulic modeling to effectively determine how the proposed project would alter the flooding patterns for the project. WSE, TU, and Herrera regularly communicated to ensure the impacts from the designs were well understood and incorporated into any landowner communications and design modifications. Third, TU completed a basic habitat assessment of the proposed project area. The assessment identified potential areas for habitat improvements/restoration. This assessment helped guide the design efforts. Finally, all three (TU, Herrera, WSE) coordinated and collaborated to complete the design reports for this project. The engineers provided all necessary technical expertise (from the engineering side) for the reports and design interpretations. In addition to the steps above, we also requested several agreement amendments to complete the project. Time amendments were requested and granted to allow for unexpected challenges with the project. We encountered two main issues. First, the change in conceptual designs from levee setback to a more intensive breach and side-channel required more time and money to complete. This also delayed the project because the design work was more intensive than originally proposed. Second, Herrera's lead engineer accepted a different position with a county toward the original end date of the project. Herrera offered and TU accepted a new engineer; however, the change again required significant time and money to educate the engineer on the project's history, direction, and site conditions. The engineer performed excellently and was very responsive and worked with TU to keep costs reasonable. Finally, the last amendment requested was for additional funds near the conclusion of the project. These funds were necessary to cover final design costs that increased for the above stated reasons. We were awarded the time extension and cost increase and, as such, were able to complete the project. TU originally anticipated and proposed this project for completion by May 2017. However, the changes mentioned above required additional time to complete the project. The project also included hydraulic modeling, which increase the overall project cost by $2,016.55 as compared to their original agreement.