Project Pre-Application

Pre Application Due Date: Tues, March 5 2013 Draft Application Due Date: Tues, April 30, 2013 Final Application Due Date: Thurs, July 11, 2013

1

Project Pre-Application (Please use the Up, Down, Left & Right Arrows to move from Field to Field)

Project Title: Mill Creek Passage 9th Ave Extension - Construction

Submitting Organization: Tri-State Steelheaders

Project Contact Information (Complete for each contact)

For additional Contact Info Sheets go to: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Mrs. Ms. First Name: Brian Last Name: Burns

Address: PO Box 1375 City/Town: Walla Walla State: WA Zip: 99362

Telephone # (509) 529-3543 Cell # (509) 529-3543

E-mail address: [email protected]

Project Locations: Provide a brief description of the project location including watershed, stream

reach and position in watershed.

Mill Creek concrete channel at approx. RM 6.8, upstream of the 9th Ave bridge, in the Walla Walla

Watershed.

Maps: Provide both a map illustrating project vicinity and a site map. Map descriptions can be placed

in this section but maps should be attached as a separate page. (Contact SRSRB staff to construct

maps and set up project in the HWS prior to pre-application deadline).

http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html


2

Short Description of Project Describe project, what will be done, and what the anticipated benefits

Will be in 1500 characters or less.

NOTE: Many audiences, including the SRFB, SRFB’s Technical Review Panel, media, legislators, and the public who may inquire about your project

use this description. Provide as clear, succinct, and descriptive an overview of your project as possible – many will read these 1-2

paragraphs!

• The description should state what is proposed.

• Identify the specific problems that will be addressed by this project, and why it is important to do at this time.

• Describe how, and to what extent, the project will protect, restore, or address salmon habitat.

• Describe the general location, geographic scope, and targeted species/stock.

• This short description should be the summary of the detailed proposal set out under the Evaluation Proposal, with particular emphasis on

questions 1-4.

The PRISM database limits project descriptions to 1500 characters (including spaces); any excess text will be deleted. Additional detail should be provided in the project proposal!

This project will complete construction of passage improvements in a 1,000 foot long section of the concrete flume, connecting with 200 feet completed in 2011 (09-1587). Final designs and specs are being completed in project 12-1634P. Flood control measures on Mill Creek include a concrete channel that extends over two miles through Walla Walla. The Mill Creek Barrier Assessment completed in 2009 identified and described barriers for ESA listed steelhead and bull trout, and for reintroduced spring chinook. Returning adults encounter flow dependent depth and velocity barriers, and a lack of resting opportunities. Juvenile fish encounter low spring flows, and high water temperatures in late spring. Often by mid-May adults and juveniles become trapped in the flood control channel where they experience lethal temperatures. Many of these passage issues are considered as imminent threats in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan. Mill Creek, upstream of the flood control project, is a critical and under-utilized area for spawning and rearing of ESA listed species, and provides for an important recovery opportunity for those listed fish, as well as good habitat for other native fish and reintroduction efforts for spring chinook.

Preliminary Design Description: Describe the preliminary project design that will be used to address the need described above. This section may be used to provide a more detailed description than provided above. Not required for pre-application (Max one page) Designs tested in the Physical Model Study and revisions to the designs implemented in 2011 (09-1587) are the basis of the project design. Estimated Budget: List SRFB request match and total project costs Budget Items

Cost/Unit Unit Matching Funds

SRFB Request

Project Cost

A&E 11,050 50,050 61,101 Travel 112 112 Supplies 400 400 Construction 880,000 320,000 1,200,000

Total Matching $891,450


3

Total SRFB Request $370,162 Total Project Cost $1,262,613

Evidence that this project is part of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan: List the HWS project number and title of project as stated in the 3 Year Plan. If project is not directly stated in the 3 Year Plan list the general project category your project pertains to and describe the correlation. 32-00473 Mill Creek Flood Channel Fish Passage Reach Type 3-8 (Concrete Flume)

SRFB Draft Application Information

Draft Date Submitted to SRSRB

Project Type: (check one)

Acquisition Acquisition/Restoration

Passage, Diversion, Barrier Inventory/Design

Upland

Non-Capital In-Stream Riparian

Updated Vicinity / Site Maps & Photos Please submit photos as JPEG or other non PDF picture format. Maps and designs maybe submitted

in photo or PDF format.

Vicinity Map Attached: Site Map Attached: Aerial or Site Specific Photos Attached: Preliminary Designs or Field Sketches:

Project Proposal Guides To complete this section download the Project Proposal template that fits your proposed project and attach as a separate document. Check appropriate box below. NOTE: This project proposal will be used primarily to evaluate your project. Please include appropriate metrics within the body of the text. The below documents can be found at http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Attached 1) Restoration, Acquisition and Combination (Restoration & Acquisition) Project 2) Planning Projects (Assessment, design, and Study) and Combination (Planning &

acquisition) Projects 3) Barrier Inventory Projects



4

Summary of Funding Request and Match Contribution

Remember to update this section whenever changes are made to your cost estimates.

TOTAL PROJECT COST (A + B) (Sponsor Match & SRFB Contribution) 1,261,613

A. Sponsor Match Contribution (15% minimum is required for match) Appropriation/Cash Bonds – Council Bonds – Voter Cash Donations Conservation Futures Donations Donated Equipment Donated Labor Donated Land Donated Materials Donated Property Interest Force Account Force Acct – Equipment Force Acct – Labor Force Acct – Material Grants Grant – Federal 835,000 Grant – Local Grant – Private Grant – State Grant – IAC Grant – Other 56,450 Total Sponsor Match Contribution (15% Minimum Match Required of a total Project Cost)

891,450

B. SRFB Contribution (grant request) $5,000 Minimum Request

370,163

Note: *Be sure to identify the name and type of any matching grant in the Application Questionnaire Section. *The Total Project Cost must equal the totals from the following Cost Estimate Sections.


5

Landowner Information

Landowner Acknowledgment Forms (Remember to complete the Landowner Acknowledgement form for each Landowner.)

To complete this section download the landowner acknowledgment form and have the landowner complete the form and submit a copy with the draft application. Draft applications without signed agreement forms may not be considered by the SRSRB for final scoring and ranking. These forms can be found on the SRSRB web site at: http://www.snakeriverboard.org/leadentity/applicationdocs.html

Current Landowner(s) of the site (name and address). Remember to complete the Landowner Acknowledgement Form. Name: Walla Walla County Commissioners, Perry Dozier, Jim Johnson, Greg Tompkins Address: PO Box 1506 City/Town: Walla Walla State: WA Zip: 99362

This is the END of the DRAFT APPLICATION.


Section 4: Project Proposals

Salmon Recovery Grants Manual 18 January 2013

2013 Project Proposal Mill Creek Passage – 9th Ave Extension Construction

1. Problem Statement

Provide an overview of fish resources, current habitat conditions, site or reach conditions, and other key salmon recovery problem(s) in the watershed that this project is intended to address.

The Mill Creek flood control channel was completed in the 1940s. At the time, fish passage was not an important consideration in the channel design. The concrete channel is over two miles long and varies in its cross-sectional shape throughout.

The project site is a 1,000 foot long section of the 50 foot wide, vertical-walled, concrete channel. At the center of the channel is a 9 foot wide trench with 6 foot wide baffles which alternate from side to side, spaced at 60 feet. The “overbank” area slopes at 5:1 between the trench and vertical walls.

At low flow, each baffle creates shallow sheet flow that extends many feet downstream, presenting a depth barrier. At high flow, velocities in the channel exceed 8 feet per second, and there are no resting areas. These problems were identified and described in the Mill Creek Fish Passage Assessment (Powers, et. al. 2009; Project #06-2203). This project will address all three problems for adult and juvenile summer steelhead, bull trout, and spring chinook.

Upstream of the flood control project (Bennington Dam, RM 11) there are over 40 miles of Mill Creek and headwater tributaries. The Mill Creek Municipal Watershed is protected, and described as pristine.

2. Project Purpose

When answering the questions below, please refer to Chapter 4 of the Stream Habitat Restoration Guidelines (wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00043) for a definition of restoration goals and objectives.

A. State the project goal(s).

1. Improve low flow passage for juvenile and adult steelhead, bull trout, and spring chinook

2. Improve high flow passage for adult steelhead, bull trout, and spring chinook

3. Provide resting opportunities where none currently exist

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00043



B. List the project’s objectives.

1. Reconfigure concrete baffles in Mill Creek channel

2. Install surface roughness to provide a low velocity boundary layer

3. Install resting pools in the concrete channel

3. Project Context

A. Describe the location of the project in the watershed,

The project is a 1,000 foot long reach between 9th and 6th Avenues in Walla Walla, at approximately river mile 6.8 of Mill Creek, a tributary of the Walla Walla River, in the Walla Walla Watershed. All activities are instream.

B. 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)

ESA Coverage (Y/N)

Life History Target (egg, juvenile, adult)

Summer Steelhead

Adult, juvenile Y

Adult

Bull Trout Adult, juvenile Y Adult

Spring Chinook

Adult, juvenile N Adult

Resident Rainbow Trout

Juvenile N

Margined Sculpin Adult

N

C. Discuss how this project fits within your regional recovery plan and local lead entity’s strategy to restore or protect salmonid habitat in the watershed

The Limiting Factors & Threats section of the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan notes that,“the Mill Creek steelhead population continues to be suppressed by reduced habitat diversity, key habitat, and obstructions.” (p. 156)

The Plan further states in the Potential Effects of Proposed Recovery Actions notes that, “The removal of obstruction problems in Mill Creek would result in increased production in this spawning aggregation.” (p. 249)



This project falls under Mill Creek Flood Channel Fish Passage Reach Type 3-8 (#32-00473) listed in the Snake River Salmon Recovery Board 3-year Provisional Work Schedule.

From the Snake River Salmon Recovery Plan Appendix A Table A-3 Walla Walla Summer Steelhead Population:

Prioritized Strategies

Spawning Area (MaSA/MiSA)

VSP Parameter(s) Addressed

Limiting Factor(s) Addressed

Action Type Specific Action(s)

Specific Geographical Location(s)

Total Estimated 10-Year Cost ($)

Implementing Entity *Lead

3. Improve passage and connectivity between habitat areas and screen irrigation diversions MaSA Abundance,

Productivity, and Life History Diversity

Passage Restore/Enhance passage and habitat connectivity

Improve passage in Mill Creek

Mill Creek concrete channel

$14,000,000 WDFW

D. Explain why it is important to do this project now instead of at a later date. Consider its sequence relative to other needs in the watershed and the current level and imminence of risk to habitat in your discussion.

The existing imminent threats will remain imminent threats. There is some likelihood that project costs will increase if the project is implemented in later years. Mill Creek passage is arguably the most important issue in our watershed.

E. If any part or phase of this project previously has been reviewed or funded by the SRFB, please fill in the table below.

Project # or Name

Status Status of Prior Phase Deliverables and Relationship to Current Proposal?

Mill Creek Fish Passage

Assessment 06-2203

X Completed

� In Process

� Not Funded*

Describes the nature of the barriers in the project reach

Mill Creek Flume Transitions

09-1587

X Completed

� In Process

� Not Funded*

Implemented passage designs in 200 foot long section connecting to this project

Mill Creek Passage – 9th Ave Extension

12-1634

� Completed

X In Process

� Not Funded*

Design only project completing final designs & specs. This proposal requests the associated construction funding.

* If previous project was not funded, describe how the current proposal differs from the original.

4. Project Description

A. Provide a detailed description of the proposed project, including project size, scope, design, and how it will address the problem(s)



described above. Describe specific restoration methods and design elements you plan to employ.

The project is a 1,000 foot long section of the concrete channel that is continuous with the passage improvements on the lowermost 200 feet of channel at 9th Ave completed in 2011 (Project 09-1587).

At low flow, each baffle creates shallow sheet flow that extends many feet downstream, presenting a depth barrier. By moving all baffles to one side of the trench, and changing the spacing to 20 feet, the baffles will backwater each other at low flow, providing adequate depth. At high flow, velocities in the channel exceed 8 feet per second. Surface roughness (pre-cast panels) will be added to the overbank areas on one side of the trench. The roughness is designed to mimic the roughness of a natural channel, providing a lower velocity boundary layer. Resting pools will be cut into the side of the trench to provide low or no velocity resting water.

The project involves saw-cutting concrete, removing concrete, adjusting the underlying grade, then placing pre-cast roughness panels, and pouring new concrete in place to create the new baffles and to seal the precast panels to the existing concrete.

B. If this project includes measures to stabilize an eroding stream bank, explain why bank stabilization at this location is necessary to accomplish habitat recovery.

NA

C. If restoration or acquisition will occur in phases or is part of a larger recovery strategy, describe the goal of the overall strategy, explain individual sequencing steps, and which of these steps is included in this application. Attach a map in PRISM that illustrates how this project fits into the overall recovery strategy, if relevant.

Due to the extent of the channel, and the costs associated with the passage improvements, it has been assumed that passage projects will proceed one section at a time, limited by funding and by the amount of treatment that can be completed in one work window.

D. Describe the long-term stewardship and maintenance obligations for the project or acquired land.

Maintenance should be minimal on concrete structures. Walla Walla County Public Works maintains the flood control channel, mostly by clearing and removing debris annually.



E. Describe other approaches and design alternatives that were considered to achieve the project’s objectives and why the preferred alternative was selected.

An early design alternative that would have provided better passage was abandoned due to the high cost of implementing the design, and because it would preclude access for maintenance. The current designs were tested and refined in a physical model study, where a scale model of the channel was constructed to test the performance of the passage designs. Results of the model study were included in the final designs for the Mill Creek Flume Transitions (09-1857). Some minor revisions to those designs will be incorporated into this project, primarily the design of the roughness elements on the roughness panels.

F. List all landowner names.

The Walla Walla County Commissioners are the landowners

G. Has the Washington Department of Natural Resources confirmed that your project is or is not on state-owned aquatic lands?

Yes, see correspondence with DNR below: Thank you for the inquiry on whether or not your project might be located on SOAL. At this time, the State does not assert any ownership of the riverbed or shorelands of Mill Creek, nor for even the Walla Walla river itself. Neither are/were considered to be navigable by court standards as they existed at the time of statehood (Nov 11, 1889). Not to confuse the issue, the Army Corps of Engineers does consider the first 14 miles of the Walla Walla river to be navigable for their purposes. We appreciate the opportunity to confirm ownership of the aquatic parcels at your project site, but there is no SOAL in that locality. Best of luck in your endeavors! Regards, Shane Early Aquatic Land Manager Aquatic Resources Division / Rivers District Washington State Department of Natural Resources (DNR) Desk (509) 925-0960 Cell (509) 607-9724 [email protected]

H. List project partners and their role and contribution to the project.

The Mill Creek Work Group has been the guiding body for all of the passage efforts on Mill Creek. The Work Group is an affiliation of managers and technical professionals, representing federal, state, local, and tribal government and non-

mailto:[email protected]



governmental organizations. The Confederated Tribes of the Umatilla Indian Reservation has provided the matching funds through direct contracts with BPA.

I. Stakeholder Outreach:

Leading up to the construction of Mill Creek projects in 2011 (09-1586 and 09-1587), the Steelheaders hosed a public information meeting, advertised in the local newspaper. Only two people attended who were not somehow connected to the projects. During construction, a front page newspaper article featured the projects. There were no calls to our office or letters to the editor on the project.

At each construction site in 2011, we placed 4’x3’ informational signs. This was the most effective outreach for the projects. Conversations with passers-by were supportive of the work. So far, we have not heard any negative feedback on the passage work.

J. Contingency Planning: .

For any issues that may arise during design review, there is sufficient time to resolve the issues prior to bids or construction.

There is some uncertainty associated with the condition of the native material under the concrete to be removed. In the 2011 project at 9th Avenue, the native material was found to be favorable (well compacted, no seepage) to the project. However, an unknown pipe was located (did not appear on site survey locating utilities). The city identified it as an abandoned pipe, and provided instructions on how to deal with it. Had this not been an abandoned pipe, there could have been additional costs to accommodate the pipe.

The proposal for constructing a 1,000 foot reach is largely contingent on NOAA funds. That application is pending at the time this application was due. If NOAA funding is not awarded, the project scope will have to be reduced.

K. List and describe the major tasks and time schedule you will use to complete the project.

Spring 2014 – final designs and specs nearly completed in project 12-1634

Spring 2014 – begin fabrication of concrete roughness panels

Fall 2014 – submit permit application to Corps of Engineers

Early 2015 – advertise bids

July 15 – Sept 30, 2015 - construction



5. Design and Implementation Questions for Restoration Projects

A. Will the project design be (or has it been) developed by a licensed professional engineer?

Pat Powers (Waterfall Engineering) and Jay Kidder (Chinook Engineering) are the project engineers.

B. Describe your experience managing this type of project.

Mill Creek Flume Transitions (09-1587) and Mill Creek Sills Passage (09-1586) were completed in 2011. These projects followed the same development, design and construction process proposed for this project. Mill Creek Passage – Reach Type 6 is scheduled for construction in 2013.

C. Describe who will provide construction management for the project.

A combination of Pat Powers, Jay Kidder, and Brian Burns, project manager for Tri-State Steelheaders, will provide construction management, or a professional construction manager will be employed.

D. The design process for restoration projects is expected to follow that described in RCO Manual 18, Salmon Recovery Grants, Appendix D 1-4. If your process or your design deliverables differ from those expectations, please describe your process and design deliverables and how they differ.

Designs tested in a physical model study, and refined by lessons learned from construction of the 2011 projects, will be incorporated into the final design for this project. Final designs and specifications will be reviewed by Walla Walla County Public Works and US Army Corps of Engineers Walla Walla District Office (structural and flood capacity analysis) with their approval a necessary condition for landowner permission to construct the project. A construction contract will be awarded through a competitive bid process. Construction is expected to occur in 2014. As-built drawings will be prepared.

E. Describe how you anticipate documenting as-built conditions.

Pat Powers and Jay Kidder will provide as-builts, which will be required by Walla Walla County Public Works.

F. Describe the steps you will take to minimize the introduction and spread of invasive species during construction and restoration.

Any gravel added to the project reach will be buried under concrete. The concrete panels and poured in place concrete should not have invasive species issues. Any invasive



species on project equipment will likely be dried out (dead), and the work zone will be dewatered, preventing the accidental introduction of invasives.

Supplemental Questions

Fish Passage Project Supplemental Questions

Answer the following supplemental questions:

NOTE: For fish passage design and evaluation guidance, applicants should refer to the Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Fish Passage Barrier and Surface Water Diversion Screening Assessment and Prioritization Manual at wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00061, and the Design of Road Culverts for Fish Passage manual at wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/cm/. For prioritization questions or technical assistance, contact Susan Cierebiej at Department of Fish and Wildlife at (360) 902-2561 or [email protected]. For engineering design questions or technical assistance, contact Don Ponder at (360) 902-2547 or [email protected].

A. Problem Statement Information to include in Item 1 of main questions above: Concisely describe the passage problem (outfall, velocity, slope, etc.). Describe the current barrier (age, material, shape, and condition). Is the structure a complete or partial barrier?

B. If a culvert or arch is proposed, does it employ a stream simulation, no slope, hydraulic, or other design? A culvert or arch is not proposed.

C. Has the project received a Priority Index (PI) number? No

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

Upstream of the flood control channel are over 40 stream miles of Mill Creek and its tributaries. Conditions are good to excellent, including the protected municipal watershed, described as pristine.

E. Identify if there are additional fish passage barriers downstream or upstream of this project.

Though the two miles of the concrete channel is considered a flow dependent barrier, projects are being conducted that are improving conditions. This project addresses 1,000 feet near the downstream of the concrete channel, and is continuous with lowermost 200 feet of channel treated in 2011.

In 2013, a 350 foot long section is scheduled for similar passage improvements near the mid point of the concrete channel, providing a “rest stop” for those fish reaching

http://wdfw.wa.gov/publications/pub.php?id=00061

http://wdfw.wa.gov/hab/engineer/cm/





that section. The upper end of the concrete channel was also treated in 2011 to improve passage.

The flood control channel above and below the concrete channel is a levee confined, open bottomed channel, controlled by regularly spaced energy dissipating stabilizers. These stabilizers pose a low flow passage problem only. As a result, the Mill Creek Work Group has placed a higher priority on improving passage in the concrete channel, and will re-focus on the levee confiined sections at a later time.

F. Attach a completed Barrier Evaluation Form and Correction Analysis Form in PRISM. These forms may be downloaded from www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/app_materials.shtml#salmon.

The barrier is not a culvert, dam, or other stream crossing, and therefore none of the BEF forms apply.

http://www.rco.wa.gov/doc_pages/app_materials.shtml%23salmon

Mill Creek Fish Passage – 9th Ave Extension Construction

Area Map

Upper Mill Creek

Start of flood control channel

End of flood control channel

Concrete Flume

Kooskooskie Dam

removed, 2005


Area Map

Proposed project reach

9th Ave Flume Transition (2011)

Reach Type 6 (2013)


Looking upstream from 9th Ave bridge


Proposed Condition

Existing (left), and proposed (right)

Project Pre-Application

Documents

Transcript of Project Pre-Application