HomeMy WebLinkAbout2016-12-12-minutes-public-works-study-sessionKITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Public Works Study Session
REGULAR MEETING
Monday, December 12, 2016 - 1:30 PM
Commissioners' Auditorium
205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg
1. Call to Order
2. Teanaway Road Bridge at Dickey Creek Bridge Strike
3. Wilson/Naneum Split Discussion
4. Other business
5. Adjourn
Created on 12/8/2016 9:23:03 AM
�p5CAD55._. TO 1, D ��
ON
KMITAS COUNTY
THOSE PRESENT:
GUESTS PRESENT:
KZTTZTAtS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
Mark Cook, Director
TEANAWAY ROAD BRIDGE
AT DICKEY CREEK BRIDGE
STRIKE:
Board Direction:
WILSON/NANEUM SPLIT
DISCUSSION:
411 N. Ruby, Suite #1
Ellensburg, WA 98926
STUDY SESSION MINUTES
December 12, 2016
Paul Jewell, Obie O'Brien. Laura Osiadacz (BOCC); Mark
Cook, Luke Huck, Candie Leader, Kathy Jurgens, Tammy
Burgess (DPW)
Ryan Lyyski, City of Ellensburg
Mark reported that on December 3, 2016, our Teanaway
Road Bridge at Dickie Creek. The vehicle went through
the rail into the river and has been removed. We since
pulled all our rail and metal from the river as well. Staff
has erected Jersey barrier and restricted the bridge to
single lane. Stop signs have been put up on both ends of
the bridge with advance warning signs. We are speaking
with WSDOT to see if they have the capacity to oversee
the bridge repair. We have contacted our on-call structural
engineer to schedule an inspection of the bridge.
Discussion was held.
No Direction
Mark gave background on the need to understand the
counties obligation as to maintenance of the
Naneum/Wilson split and the control structures. Currently,
there is a small group of irrigators that are setting the flow
control. The stream bed on Wilson has degraded. There
is about a 3 foot hydraulic differential now between the
bottom of Wilson Creek and Naneum. Our concern is that
once the flow control is removed from Naneum most of the
flow will divert into the Nanuem channel. Also, last year
the bridge at Bar 14 Road flooded for about two months
and again that's on the Naneum leg. We are concerned if
we shift all the flow we will see some further closure of the
bridge. We ordered title reports on both properties. One
report was clean the other showed encumbrance and the
easement describes the width of the easement and spells
out the use of the easement. What we have not been able
TEL (509) 962-7523
FAX (509) 962-7663
Dept. of Public Works
Page 2
to find is the County's obligation associated with the
easement. The City of Ellensburg historically has had its
intake for city water at this location. That easement was
vacated and the water pipe is essentially gone from this
location. It appears it leaves our entity to be burdened with
entry and maintenance at these structures. Now, the
question is what involvement the Flood Control Zone
District has in this or if it is considered road maintenance.
The other piece is who acquires the approval to perform
the work and goes after the HPA. Commissioner Jewell
inquired about the need to dredge the channel and
cleaning out the rock and why the topic is coming before
them now; and when is the last time the channel has been
cleaned out. Mark replied that he spoke with the
Maintenance Manager, Jim VanDeVenter, and he stated
that he doesn't remember when we were in there last.
Luke Huck added that the last time it was cleaned out the
water master performed the work. Discussion was held.
Board Direction:
No Direction
OTHER BUSINESS:
Mark presented the new fees proposal for Public Works.
The new proposal is a full cost recovery model. The
process used was not an easy task since the Department
has more than one fund to manage. The first fund
presented is the Airport Fund. The only cost currently for
the fund is the card keys for access. The next sheet
presented was for the Flood Control Zone District costs.
The floodplain management permit currently is $180 and
the true cost is around $4,000 and reflects true costs to
process. Discussion on the spreadsheets was held. The
last sheet discussed was the Road Fund. This includes
access permits, franchises, road standards variance, etc.
About a handful are new fees. And some there is a base
fee and a 100% hourly value plus any hard costs
associated with it. Commissioner Jewell had a few
suggestions. He recommended that we get full cost
recovery on the Shoreline permits. Discussion was held
on full cost recovery for certain permits. Commissioner
Jewell suggested looking at the 75% scenario for the
LOMA(s). He also mentioned the solar panel permitting
and raising the cost by about $5.00. Commissioner
O'Brien agreed with that recommendation. Commissioner
Jewell referred to the last spreadsheet for the Road Fund.
He stated that some fees look fine others like the grading
permit should be at full cost; haul routes to cost recovery
as well; on system county road establishment should be at
the top amount considering the amount of work to be done.
He inquired about the right of way use special use permit.
411 N. Ruby, Ste. #1
TEL (509) 962-7523
Ellensburg, WA 98926
FAX (509) 962-7663
Dept. of Public Works
Page 3
Mark replied that it's for a right of way use impact. Luke
added it's for like a bicycle event. Commissioner Jewell
continued with going through certain fees. He suggested
full cost recovery on lot consolidation. Mark stated that he
wasn't expecting the BOCC to go through the permits one
by one today and we can schedule something for another
time to complete the process. Commissioner Jewell
questioned the plat amendment and short plat
amendment; he suggested going to full cost recovery on
those as well. He stated that the development agreement
should be at full cost recovery also. Mark stated that we
have been seeing a number of civil plans for review that
may or may not be reflective of our standards.
Commissioner Jewell suggested a 50% cost recovery on
this fee. Commissioner O'Brien suggested looking at the
grading permit again for under 500. He'd like to see a
penalty phase for this practice. Luke added that in some
instances a hourly fee could be put into place for this also.
Commissioner Jewell would like to avoid hourly rates
except in some instances like an EIS or a full development
agreement. He suggested a resubmittal fee or something
similar. Further discussion was held.
Jaw )6A nt //7 n M
Mark Cook
Public Works Director
411 N. Ruby, Ste. #1 TEL (509) 962-7523
Ellensburg, WA 98926 FAX (509) 962-7663
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: December 12, 2016
TOPIC: Teanaway Road Bridge at Dickey Creek Bridge Strike
ACTION REQUESTED: Information Only
LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
This is an informational briefing requiring no recommendation from the Board of
County Commissioners.
BACKGROUND:
On December 3, 2016, our Teanaway Road Bridge at Dickey Creek was struck
by a car removing the entire downstream bridge rail. Upper County Road
Foreman Chuck Reed responded deploying temporary warning devices — cones
and barricades. On Monday morning, bridge inspector Bamford and
Construction Manager Folk performed a detail inspection of the bridge.
Following their inspection, concrete Jersey barrier rail is now deployed restricting
the bridge to single lane traffic. The majority of debris from the crash has been
removed from the river.
DISCUSSION:
We have contacted our on-call structural engineer (Monte Smith — Sargent
Engineers) scheduling an inspection. County Road Engineer Huck has also
contacted the WSDOT bridge crew for a review determining their ability assisting
rail reconstruction.
Winter repair is unlikely. We have deployed advanced warning signs and
carsonite posts along the barrier rail — assisting night drivers locate the rail.
Once we understand the cost impact, we may need to amend the annual
construction program.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
At this time, it is our understanding that the individual responsible for the damage
has not been located. Cost recovery seems unlikely.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Damage Photo
Public Works Study Session Briefing
December 12. 2016
EXHIBIT 1: DAMAGE PHOTO
Page 2 of 2
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: December 12, 2016
TOPIC: Wilson/Naneum Split
ACTION REQUESTED: Provide Staff Direction
LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
Support efforts removing accumulated streambed from Wilson Creek
BACKGROUND:
Recently, staff has been approached by City of Ellensburg staff regarding
accumulated streambed gravel in the Wilson leg of the Wilson/Nanuem split flow
control structure. Significant debris has accumulated adjusting streambed profile
by approximately three feet in elevation. It is unclear as to how irrigation
operation has proceeded in the past, but current operations appear to be
insufficient allowing natural scour of the Wilson channel. It is assumed that
current irrigation practices do not adequately consider impacts to both stream
systems.
Staff has received title insurance information for both properties associated with
the flow control structure splitting Wilson and Naneum Creeks. The easterly
property records an easement for access to repair and maintain the dike and
structure and for "emergency purposes".
DISCUSSION:
While we have verified our right of entry and the ability to conduct maintenance
and actions supporting "emergency purposes" — our obligation to perform these
actions remains unclear. Electronic searches of Public Works records do not
inform us of any recorded memorandums of understanding or other agreements
stipulating our obligations. Management of the flow control structure remains
private — supporting downstream property owner water rights.
Dredging of the Wilson Creek streambed is required to avoid significant
increases to Naneum Creek flow. Once flow control (boards) is removed from
the Naneum Creek structure, the aggraded Wilson channel will likely see minimal
flow. Allowing the bulk of combined flows into Naneum Creek is expected to
adversely impact downstream residents. Our bridge at Bar 14 Road was
adversely impacted last year owing to aggraded streambed conditions in
Public Works Study Session Briefing
December 12, 2016
Nanuem Creek. Increased flow into Naneum will likely result in road closure at
our Bar 14 bridge.
Cooperating with the City of Ellensburg is consistent with regional management
of area natural resources. Our preference is to avoid being the Hydraulic Permit
applicant as the impacts are not a direct result of any action in our control. Risks
associated with channel mining at Wilson Creek are unknown at this time.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Fiscal impacts at time are undefined. Cost sharing associated with channel
mining at Wilson minimizes adverse unbudgeted impacts to the Flood Control
Zone District.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Easement Granting Access
Page 2 of 3
Public Works Study Session Briefing
December 12, 2016
EXHIBIT 1: EASEMENT GRANTING ACCESS
Page 3 of 3
E A S E f! E\ l
THIS IN'1EN71JR1.:, made this day of 196
by and between EDITtf T'HCMAS AS IFR S4Pt r: Tt,GRANTOR aril 1;';"}'ITAS
COUNTY, SPATE OF WASHINGTON, GRANTEE, B:TNESSETdi
The grantor for and in consideration of One Goll.ar (g1. -,O), the re-
ceipt of which is hereby acknowledged, does by these presents gra:,t to the
grantee an easement upon the following d=scribed real estate sit'_,,, in
the County of Kittitas, State of Washington, to -wit:
That portion of the N.Et 1;4 of the N -S_ 1/4 of Sccti.cn 12. 7`c.:as',iu 19
N. Rangc 19 F.., W.M., described as follows:
A strip of land thirty (30) feet in width, lying westerly of, ��ijacent.
to and parallel with the ,,surly bank of Nanemn Creek, iy1n, .r.tthe.y,y
of Farrell Road and northerly of a I-rie located twenty
Of the existing concrete diversion structure where Rilson Creek and
Naneum Creek separate. Said easement is for access for dike
structure repair and maintenance and emergency purposes.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF the parties: her, to have set their hands, the
and year first above written. ff////�''jj
_141
1_! 7.1..' !1 U 1)
SPATE OF WASHINGTON )
) as.
County of Y,ittitas )
On this day personally appeared before me Cz>" �'l
to me known to be the individual described in and who executed trill within
and foregoing instruments, and acknowledge that --; signed t;^:._ same
as AIne free and voluntary act and deed, for the uses and }ur}wses
therein mentioned.
GIVEN under my hand and offici. '2.1:.,�1 this n7h day of -
1964.
If
Notary ruhli, in and for the [hc
Vashington, residing at .
r
n
OFFICIAL RECORDS
PAEOM, WILSON- CHERRY
Goals
WATERSHED ASSESSMENT
and Objectives
Nanetini, Wilson, Chei'i't,
Ci -eek Watet-shed
This Watershed Assessment is intended to develop
community support and partnerships between
stakeholders to identify watershed issues related
to: Flooding, Irrigation, Infrastructure, Water Quality,
Fish and Aquatic Habitat.
Study Area Issues/Problems:
o Flooding:
o Wilson and Naneum creeks have
regularly flooded Ellensburg and the
surrounding area since 1894.
o Flooding is an ongoing public hazard
requiring expensive post flood
restoration.
o Flood management has changed in
recent decades, irrigation canals may
no longer deliberately convey flood
flows, stream channel dredging and
wood removal are less desirable flood
management actions due to habitat
impacts.
• Irrigation:
o The Yakima basin has the most
intensive development and use of
water in the state.
o The watershed includes many
unscreened water diversions and
impassable barriers resulting from a
complicated system of intersecting
streams and ditches primarily managed
for irrigation.
o Irrigation infrastructure could be used
to supplement flows in designated
stream channels along with
implementation of water conservation
projects (similar to projects in the
Taneum/Manastash).
o The Yakima River Basin Integrated Plan
is intended to address many water
supply issues on a landscape level. This
project was considered a high priority
habitat project for the Integrated Plan,
and is intended to identify strategic
opportunities to align with the plan and
associated funding.
• Infrastructure:
o Instream barriers that prevent fish
passage and affect habitat may include;
undersized culverts and bridges, roads,
developed lands, and utilities.
o Much of this infrastructure is aging or
has been continually damaged by
floods, long-term plans for replacement
and upgrades need to be identified,
coordinated, funded, and implemented.
o Partnership opportunities for
infrastructure improvements need to
be identified and maximized.
• Water Quality:
o Water quality issues impact water uses,
potentially making it unsafe for drinking
or recreation and threatening the
health of aquatic animals and fish.
o Total maximum daily toads (TMDts)
have been developed. Current activities
include water quality monitoring and
implementation of recommended
actions.
o This study will consider existing water
quality issues, but will not be identifying
stand-alone water quality projects.
• Fish and Aquatic Habitat:
H:\sharepoint_nan_wil_cherry_assess\Final_Goais and Objettive2 (Autosaved).doa
o As habitat and access has been restored
o Landowner Advisory Group - LAG
in the Yakima Basin between 1980 and
o Technical Advisory Group -TAG
2015, salmon and steelhead
o Advisory Committee - AC
populations have increased.
• Data collection
o The Naneum-Wilson watershed has a
o Review and gather existing information
large amount of aquatic habitat, and is
for the Naneum, Wilson and Cherry
one of the key blocked areas within the
Creek watersheds.
basin needed to meet steelhead
o Use the results of the review to identify
recovery goals.
data gaps and information needs.
o Due to the complexity of the Naneum-
o Develop a plan to collect data critical to
Wilson watershed and alteration of the
the successful implementation of future
stream into multiple stream channels, it
projects.
is unclear if there is a feasible route for
• Develop a prioritized list of actions for the
migratory fish to access headwaters.
watershed by screening preliminary
o There is a lack of information and
alternatives.
consensus regarding prioritization of
fish habitat projects further east in the
Community Benefits:
Cherry Creek sub -basin: Coleman,
Cooke, Caribou, and Parke creeks.
Implementation of the plan in subsequent phases helps
to:
Goals:
Develop an integrated and long-term management plan
that builds community support by addressing multiple
needs.
• Fish Recovery
• Flood Hazard Reduction
• Irrigation
• Infrastructure
• Water Quality
Objectives:
Gather information to understand issues/problems and
develop an approach for future projects.
• Develop a process to prioritize habitat
investments and steelhead recovery and
management actions.
• Identify flood hazards and mitigation actions.
• Coordinate irrigation and infrastructure
investments with other watershed
improvements.
• Facilitate communication processes that build
community support among diverse
stakeholders groups.
• Facilitate effective long range planning for
flood, agriculture, and habitat needs in land
use/management decisions.
• Protect private homes, businesses, and
agricultural lands from flooding.
• Minimize public expenditure on repair of
facilities and infrastructure such as utilities,
streets and bridges.
• Improve fish habitat.
• Identify irrigation improvement opportunities.
• Improve safety- minimize the need for rescue
and relief efforts associated with flooding.
• Improve economic security.
H:\sharepoint_nan_wil_cherry_assess\Final_Goals and objective2(Autosaved).docx
n
141M
,:. }� k ✓ shy b > a. •{' \ .x t -. :
s' A
A
/ u
1
s
i
1 I �
�4 L. S. - h� V� '.� 0yy4�`ifiC1Re 1 ' �� f t ;, i .•
S 1 JrC'6•f�N. Cl `»�.Y fS^'l b
faq •1 ��� ii _ai TeJ b, 4� rt 1 :� `l. -ter` _
YO,' al�%xi � ,fl .ice • _
Gj"Y�F� •ta {tjj')/1 J• ^l� �° �i � y,��h �`�,��rt
[
fir. µ 4 � ,��. �'�atl . -.:fit � N ^•. °�Y�<'
'wv
D. xƒ
,|
!
|;
» /
(
/
§}