Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2018-03-12-minutes-public-works-study-sessionKITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Public Works Study Session Regular Meeting Monday March 12, 2018 - 1:30 PM Commissioners' Auditorium 205 West 5th Room 109 - Ellensburg I. Call to Order 2. Request to Approve a Resolution Authorizing Load Restrictions on Certain County Bridges and Prescribing a Misdemeanor for Violation Thereof. 3. Request to Approve a Resolution Authorizing Placement of an Informational Klosk at the end of Cove Road on County Right of Way for the Manastash Ridge Trail. 4. Request to Authorize Chair Signature on the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Requested Letter of Commitment for Land Acquisition. 5. Snow Blower Acquisition Discussion. 6. New FEMA Flood Maps for Kittitas County Discussion. 7. Other business 8. Adjourn Created on 319/201.6 8:27:58 AM KITTITAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION MINUTES COMMISSIONERS' AUDITORIUM, 205 WEST 5TH ROOM 109 - ELLENSBURG Regular Meeting MONDAY 1:30 PM March 12, 2018 Board members present: Chairman Laura Osiadacz; Vice -Chairman Obie O'Brien; Commissioner Paul Jewell Others: Mark Cook, Lucas Huck, Candie Leader, Public Works; Dan Carlson, Stephanie Mifflin, Lindsey Ozbolt, Mike Flory, Community Development Services; Neil Caulkins, Prosecutor's Office, Kayla Bonar, Daily Record; Three (3) members of the public REQUEST TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LOAD RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN COUNTY BRIDGES AND PRESCRIBING A MISDEMEANOR FOR VIOLATION THEREOF At 2:46 pm Chairman Laura Osiadacz opened the Public Works Study Session. Mark Cook requested to add one item to the agenda - Runway 7/25 - Form 7480. Commissioner Jewell requested to discuss items four (4) and seven (7) due to his commitment to another meeting at 3:00pm. Lucas Huck presented a Resolution for consideration regarding placing load restrictions on certain county bridges. He stated that the Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed new calculations for determining the weight a bridge can safely carry and to allow heavier trucks on roadways. He added that staff coordinated with KPFF (on call Structural Engineering Consultants) to identify bridges in county inventory that may require load ratings. Staff has identified fifteen (15) bridges that require new vehicle weight restrictions and two (2) additional bridges that require shoulder restrictions. Discussion was held. Commissioner Osiadacz called for a motion to approve Resolution 2018-047 Authorizing Load Restrictions on Certain County Bridges and Prescribing a Misdemeanor for Violation Thereof. Commissioner O'Brien moved to approve Resolution 2018-047. Commissioner Jewell seconded said motion. Motion carried 3-0 with no discussion - 2018 -03-12 MINUTES REQUEST TO AUTHORIZE CHAIR SIGNATURE ON THE YAKIMA BASIN INTEGRATED PLAN REQUESTED LETTER OF COMMITMENT FOR LAND ACQUISITION Mark Cook stated that he is presenting a letter of commitment for property acquisition near Hansen Pits. Staff has spent approximately six (6) weeks working with the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (YBIP) Habitat Subcommittee (HS) lead staff working on the terms of the letter. There is twenty (20) acres immediately south of Hansen Pits that is currently leased to Twin City Foods supporting land application of waste water effluent. Mark Cook continued that the letter eliminates hard performance requirements on the part of the County allowing actions by others in the absence of County funding. Staff and YBIP HS are in agreement on restricting portions of the acquired lands for habitat restoration consistent with reserving lands for future use by Twin City Foods should the need arise. Discussion was held. Commissioner Jewell moved for a motion authorizing signature on the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Requested Letter of Commitment for Land Acquisition. Commissioner O'Brien seconded the motion.. Motion carried 3-0 RUNWAY 7/25 FORM 7480 Mark Cook gave background on the closure of Runway 7/25 and after multiple months of discussion the Federal Aviation Administration (FAA) Form 7480 is ready to be filed. Mark Cook continued that staff has met with Central Washington University (CWU) and the FAA with several concerns from CWU being addressed. Mark Cook added that the current NOTAM for Runway 7/25 is set to expire March 31, 2018 and the FAA is anticipating the Form 7480 to be submitted. Mark Cook stated that he would like to file the Form 7480 on Thursday after the Airport Advisory Committee meeting to give them prior notice of the filing. Discussion was held with Commissioner Jewell adding that he has been working with staff and CWU on all issues regarding Bowers Field with three (3) meetings being held last week. Commissioner Jewell moved for a motion authorizing staff to prepare the Form 7480 and file said form after the Airport Advisory Committee meeting to be held on Wednesday. Commissioner O'Brien seconded the motion. Motion carried 3-0- 2018-03-12 MINUTES REQUEST TO APPROVE A RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING PLACEMENT OF AN INFORMATIONAL KIOSK AT THE END OF COVE ROAD ON COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE MANASTASH RIDGE TRAIL Lucas Huck reported that he has been working with the Manastash Ride Trails Planning Coalition on a request to place an informational kiosk at the end of Cove Road. Lucas Huck continued that staff reviewed the requested location and has concluded that it does not impede snow removal and routine maintenance operations, hinder existing utilities and meets clear zone safety requirements. Lucas Huck added that Kittitas County Code 12.50 prohibits commercial signs within County Right of way and is seeking Board of County Commissioner approval to allow for the installation of said kiosk as it is not believed to be of commercial use and supports recreational opportunities. Discussion was held. Commissioner Osiadacz called for a motion to approve Resolution 2018-048 Authorizing the Placement of an Informational Kiosk at the end of Cove Road on County Right of Way for the Manastash Ridge Trail. Commissioner O'Brien moved for a motion with Commissioner Osiadacz seconding the motion. Motion carries 2-0. SNOW BLOWER ACQUISTION DISCUSSION Mark Cook reported that recently the Maintenance Manager for Public Works had been informed of the possible surplus of a snow blower currently owned by the City of Yakima. Mark Cook continued that staff inspected the unit and appears to be in good shape with minimal use and is similar to current equipment used by Public Works' crews. Mark Cook added that staff would like to proceed with negotiating a purchase price and while the blower is not budgeted in the current budget cycle, there is enough in the fund to cover the cost. Discussion was held. Commissioner O'Brien made a motion to authorize the purchase, Commissioner Osiadacz seconded the motion. Motion carries 2-0. Staff was also directed to see if a budget amendment is necessary with the Auditor's office. NEW FEMA FLOOD MAPS FOR KITTITAS COUNTY DISCUSSION Mark Cook gave background on the topic stating that the FEMA flood study for Kittitas County began in 2010 with draft maps being rejected by County staff in 2012. In 2015, Public Works reconnected with FEMA and offered to proceed with a limited remapping effort. At the time the briefing was prepared the new maps were to be released on March 9, 2018. However, the date has been pushed back to March 26, 2018. Mark Cook continued 2018-03-12 MINUTES that staff would like to start coordinating public outreach efforts and requests that the Board of County Commissioners attend if available. Mark Cook added that staff will prepare the outreach campaign and present to the BOCC for review and approval. Discussion was held with direction given, Meeting adjourned at 3:24 pm KITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON 1' Candie Leader Laura Osiadacz, Chairman 2018-03-12 MINUTES BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF KITTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LOAD RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN COUNTY BRIDGES AND PRESCRIBING A MISDEMEANOR FOR VIOLATION THEREOF WHEREAS: Load ratings and engineering investigations have been made on 48 Kittitas County Bridges by KPFF Consulting Engineers; and WHEREAS: Such investigations has revealed that 17 bridges, designated herein, have stresses above what is normally considered safe for certain heavy loads or combination of loads which might be expected to use the bridges if left open to unrestricted use by the traveling public; and WHEREAS: In the interest of safety to the traveling public shoulder closures will be established for two bridges and load restriction shall be enacted on 15 bridges in accordance with RCW 36.75.270; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, restrict the use of the following Kittitas County Bridges as hereinafter stated: Bridge No. 07 101 — Liberty Road over Swauk Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 23 tons 25 tons 26 tons 27 tons Bridge No. 60043 — Ross Road over Turbine Canal North Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 29 ton- 36 ton 28 tons 28 tons 31 tons Bridge No. 60091 — Ross Road over Turbine Canal South AASHTO Motor Truck Motor Truck and Motor Truck and Semi -- Trailer Trailer 18 ton 29 ton- 36 ton Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 17 tons 18 tons 19 tons 21 tons Bridge No. 79132 — Badger Pocket Road over Parke Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 32 tons 34 tons Emergency Vehicles EV2 EV3 31 tons Bridge No. 80181 — Cooke Canyon Road over Hiline Canal AASHTO Motor Truck Motor Truck and Motor Truck and Semi — Trailer Trailer 8 ton 12 ton 15 ton Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle b axle 7 axle 7 tons 8 tons 8 tons r 8 tons Bridge No. 88082 — Clarke Road over Dry Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 26 tons 26 tons 27 tons 1 29 tons Bridge No. 88212 — Faust Road over Towne Ditch Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 22 tons 23 tons 24 tons 26 tons Bridge No. 89022 — Fairview Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 1 5 axle 1 6 axle 1 7 axle 28 tons 29 tons 28 tons 1 29 tons 1 30 tons Bridge No. 89113 — Schnebly Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 28 tons 6 axle 7 axle 29 tons 30 tons Bridge No. 98262 — Robbins Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 7 axle 28 tons 29 tons 30 tons Bridge No. 98265 — Smithson Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 24 ton 28 tons 29 tons 30 tons Bridge No. 99325 — Thomas Road over Naneum Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 25 ton 27 tons 28 tons 1 30 tons Bridge No. 16203 — NF Teanaway Road over NF Teanaway River Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 24 ton 28 tons 29 tons 1 29 tons Bridge No. 88283 — Old HWY 10 over Currier Creek Emergency Vehicles EV2 EV3 36 tons Bridge No. 88322 — Weaver Road over Westside Ditch Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 1 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 24 ton 25 tons 26 tons 29 tons Bridge No. 79141 — Tjossem Road over Towne Ditch Traffic shall be restricted from use of the right shoulder along the eastbound lane of the bridge. Bridge No. 87131 — South Thorpe HWY over Westside Ditch Traffic shall be restricted from use of both shoulders of the bridge. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, declare the established restrictions on the herein designated Kittitas County Bridges remain in force and effect until the designated bridges have been reconstructed or are deemed capable of sustaining legal loads whichever shall occur first. The County Engineer is hereby directed and authorized to post and maintain signs in accordance with this Resolution and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The restrictions authorized by this resolution shall take effect upon the placement of signs; any violation of the provisions of this resolution shall constitute a misdemeanor pursuant to RCW 36.75.270. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to have published the aforementioned restrictions in the official Kittitas County newspaper as by law required. DATED on this 12th day of March, 2018, at Ellensburg, Washington. Attest: Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik `\`\\`\` `�,,, ,10,9pu�ty Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz `�Y COA444ZSS% SES -Uhl . Z BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KIjITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON a,�ura�si cz, an E Q:�n Vice -Chairman Paul Jewell, Commissioner S pDES... KITTRAS CouN . February 27, 2018 Kittitas County, Washington BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS District One District Two District Three Paul Jewell Laura Osiadacz Obie O'Brien Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Habitat Subcommittee c/o Mr. Sean Gross NOAA Fisheries — Columbia Bassin Branch 304 S. Water St., #201 Ellensburg, WA 98926 RE: Kittitas County Commitment Regarding YBIP Funding for Proposed Land Acquisition Bear Mr. Gross: As requested by the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (YBIP) Habitat Subcommittee at its September 21, 2017 meeting, the County is following up with you, as a member of that subcommittee, regarding the County's request for funding for the acquisition of a 160 - acre parcel, Kittitas County Parcel 508933 (Stewart). At that meeting, the Subcommittee proposed allocating $1,200,000 of Ecology YBIP funding towards the County's acquisition of this parcel, subject to the Subcommittee's approval of the County's plans for managing and restoring this parcel and the adjacent County -owned properties to the north. This letter details the commitment and intentions of the County if awarded this grant. The proposed acquisition is part of the implementation of the County's 2015 Yakima River Jeffries Levee to Yakima Can on Habitat Enhancement and Flood Risk Management Plan (Plan). The County seeks this acquisition funding to facilitate implementation of specific actions identified in the Plan for Parcel 508933 (the Stewart parcel, the property proposed for acquisition), and County -owned parcels 17895 (County Sprayfield) and 728733 (Hansen Pits). If the YBIP Program awards the County a $1,200,000 grant for use towards the acquisition of Parcel 508933, and the County succeeds in acquiring this parcel, the County agrees to the items listed below. (For reference, please see the attachment for an approximate location of the management areas noted in this letter. However, the specific boundary between Areas 3 and 4 will be determined as noted in #5a and #5b of this letter.) Kittitas County Courthouse - 205 West 5h Avenue, STE 108 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7508 -FAX(509)962-7679 www.co.kittilas.wa.us Parcel 508933, Stewart Parcel 1. Long-term Management of Property a. Western portion (Area 1 in the attachment - the area from the western boundary of the parcel eastward to 100 feet east of "Spring Creek," a spring/wetland complex that bisects the parcel from north to south): The County would use this area primarily for fish and wildlife habitat, including restoration of native forest and natural river processes including flooding and erosion. The County would allow for recreational uses, such as fishing and hiking, if consistent with the primary use. However, the County would not use this area for permanent infrastructure such as roads, buildings, paved trails, parking areas, or a boating access ramp. b. Eastern portion (Area 2 in the attachment - approximately 40 -acres): The County would use this area consistent with flood storage during seasonal flooding, uses that may include but are not limited to a sprayf eid or other agricultural purposes, a trail, a parking area for public access, and/or habitat. c. Deed Restrictions for parcel 508933: The County accepts that Ecology will require a deed restriction that memorializes the above in perpetuity as well as preserves the opportunity for both the near-term and long-term restoration actions noted below. 2. Near -Term Restoration Actions on Property: This pertains to those portions of Flood Hazard Management Project PB3 and Habitat Restoration Actions #15, #16, and #18 of the Plan that occur on this parcel. This includes removal of a private berm near the Yakima River, restoration of Spring Creek and its riparian buffer (100 feet on each side of Spring Creek), and other actions as noted in the Plan. a. Within one year of acquisition of this parcel, the County intends that it, or one of its partners, will initiate planning, design, and other preliminary activities to implement restoration actions on the parcel. b. Subject to available funding and timeliness of required permit approvals, the County intends to complete these restoration projects within three years of acquisition. c. if a partner is leading a Plan restoration action, such as taking responsibility for an action's design, construction, and/or funding, the County intends to support its partner's efforts to the best of the County's ability, subject to the partner's compliance with all applicable rules and regulations and the availability of County resources. 3. Long -Term Restoration of Property: Several side channels of the Yakima River currently occupy parts of Area 1. The County recognizes that significant side channels and/or the main channel of the Yakima River may occupy Area 1 in some future time and support fish and wildlife habitat, including restoration of native forest and natural river processes including flooding and erosion. Establishment of these channels may occur as components of planned actions, Kittitas County Courthouse • 205 West 5h Avenue, ,STE 108 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7508 -FAX(509)962-7679 www.co,kitfitm.wa.us such as the flood hazard management projects and habitat restoration projects referenced in other parts of this letter, or through natural flooding and erosion processes. In any case, the County will not take or allow any action that would preclude the possibility that significant side channels and/or the main channel of the Yakima River may come to occupy Area 1 at a future date, unless such action is necessary as part of a restoration action consistent with the primary use of the property. Parcel 728733, Hansen Pits 4. This pertains to the project to reconnect Hansen Pits to the Yakima River. The project's goals are to: 1) allow more natural river flooding and erosion processes at the Hanson Pits and other locations in the reach, 2) allow native trout and salmon access to the Hansen Pits, 3) reduce non-native fish populations in Hansen Pits, and 4) to do so while protecting private property and critical transportation facilities. Two conceptual alternatives for this project were identified in the Plan as Flood Hazard Management Projects HP 14 and HP 16. These alternatives ranked highly and are consistent with purchase and implementation of restoration on the Stewart Parcel (described in #2 and #3, above.) These alternatives will be considered in the planning process, though other alternatives or combinations of alternatives that meet project goals may be implemented. a. Within three years of acquisition of the Stewart parcel and subject to available funding, the County intends to initiate technical studies, stakeholder engagement, and other planning for this project. b. Within six years of acquisition of the Stewart parcel and subject to available funding and timeliness of required permit approvals, the County intends to complete the implementation of this project. c. The project will be compatible with establishment of a community park, if desired by the County. Parcel 17895, County Spra. field 5. Long-term, the County intends to restore portions of this parcel to support reconnection to Hansen Pits and the establishment of a native riparian forest (see Area 3 and 4 in the attachment for a concept drawing of these areas — the actual boundary between these two areas will be determined per the process defined below) a. Restoration and Long -Term Management of Area 3: The County intends to conduct a flood avulsion flow path risk assessment in 2020 (provided sufficient funding exists at the time). The assessment will identify the probable significant flow paths of the river once it avulses into Hansen Pits. The assessment will also consider probable significant flow paths under a scenario in which the existing levees around and between the pits are removed from the model to represent the unobstructed natural Kittitas County Courthouse 205 West 5t°Avenue, STE 108 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7508 -FAX (509) 962-7679 www oo.kittitas.wa.us condition in which water can spread freely across the floodplain. The County agrees to setback 300 feet from the centerline of the easternmost identified probable significant flood path, allowing sufficient space for river reconnection and buffering. The Yakima Integrated Plan Habitat Subcommittee agrees to review the County's flood risk work and will affirm the probable significant flow paths if they concur. Upon concurrence, the County agrees to make the area set aside for the channel and buffer area available for habitat enhancement work immediately following concurrence on flow path alignment. Area 3 would then be defined as that portion of the County Sprayfield property extending from the western boundary of the property eastward to the setback located 300 feet eastward of the centerline of the easternmost identified probable significant flow path. The County would use Area 3 for the same uses proposed for Area 1 (see #1a), as well as accommodating flow through the identified significant flow paths. b. Management of Area 4 (Defined as the remainder of the County Sprayfield not included in Area 3): The County intends to manage Area 4 similar to Area 2 (see #1b). We believe this letter provides the desired commitment from the County allowing the YBIP Habitat Subcommittee sufficient confidence to move forward with incremental land acquisition filnding. Please let me know if you desire any other actions in this matter. Sincerely, Laura Osiadacz Chair, Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners Attachment - Management Areas Map cc: Mark R. Cook Flood Control Zone District Administrator Kittitas County Courthouse • 205 West 5h Avenue, STE 108 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7508 -FAX(509)962-7679 www.co.kittitas.wa.us BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF KITTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2018 -. QLf 5 RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF AN INFORMATIONAL KIOSK AT THE END OF COVE ROAD ON COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE MANASTASH RIDGE TRAILS WHEREAS: The Manastash Ride Trails Planning Coalition seeks to install an informational kiosk within County Right of Way at the end of Cove Road; and WHEREAS: The proposed location and design of the kiosk does not impede County maintenance operations and is located and constructed in a manner that preserves the safety of the traveling public; and WHEREAS: In the interest of proving informational opportunities to recreationalists utilizing the Manastash Ridge Trails system; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, authorize the placement of an informational kiosk at the end of Cove Road on County Right of Way as shown in Attachment A. DATED on this 12th day of March, 2018, at Ellensburg, Washington. Attest: ❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik ,,,,,G1,rDeppty Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz -0 GOMMI �s.. 4 i SEA l BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON Lia-Osiadacz, Chairkan .-, /��, VI r7 t Obie O'Brien, Vice -Chairman ABSENT Paul Jewell, Commissioner JED X w Attachment A LL-) -- Placement Pending: Need approval from Kittitas Co. Laid out �-----=,and painted 2116118. Existing User Kiosk proposal: Move existing user kiosk from up near the irrigation canal down to this location. This location provides protection for the flush telephone ped at this location. 5'x8' placement proposal Kiosk is freestanding, will sit on 12"x12" flush patio bricks (does not require anchoring and is moveable with 4 men), (Actual 4'7"x 7'8" after modifications to be made smaller to better fit this location) 0 Dimensions accurate. Drawing NOT TO SCALE 11 phone Ped Flush Utility Box New state kisok proposal. Posts would be 4'x4' or -eakaway" since in the county ght of way. Structure would eve pasts anchored in ground -2' deep on four corners. County asked us not to extend beyond the existing fence kick -out (kiosk placement not to exceed the proximity of the existing fence south of the proposed kiosk) I I Cove/Manastas h Intersection 0.2mi to the north I d Orrion Rd Private Dr KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: March 12, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution Authorizing Load Restrictions on Certain County Bridges and Prescribing a Misdemeanor for Violation Thereof 13ACKGROUND: The Federal Highway Administration (FHWA) developed new calculations for determining the weight that a bridge can safely carry following a bridge collapse and, importantly, a recent decision by FHWA to allow heavier trucks on roadways. All state and local governments are evaluating publicly owned vehicle bridges using these new criterion and determining whether additional vehicle weight restrictions must be placed on bridges. Key components of new method: • Added requirement to rate bridge's ability to carry four additional types of "special haul vehicles." These are newly authorized vehicles on roadways that can have heavier loads. • Added requirement to evaluate and rate certain connections on bridges with structural steel members. Public Works coordinated Efforts with KPFF (on call Structural Engineering Consultants) to identify bridges within our inventory that require load ratings in order to comply with the new FHWA mandate. This resulted in 48 bridges that were required to be load rated by December 31, 2017 and 52 bridges to be completed by December 31, 2022. Of the bridges evaluated so far, engineers have determined new vehicle weight restrictions are necessary for 15 bridges. Two additional bridges avoided the posting requirement but will require the shoulders to be restricted with barrier to ensure no loading occurs on the outside of the bridge. As the rest of the bridge inventory is inspected and evaluated, any additional bridges that need restricting will be brought to the Board of County Commissioners for resolution prior to restriction implementation. The County Engineer and Traffic Supervisor have worked together to plan the signing deployment for compliance with FHWA and are utilizing sign specifications in accordance with the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices. 60 signs will be required to be deployed in total for compliance with the bridge posting and advance warning locations. To date, the efforts to perform the required load ratings for 2017 has an associated cost of $99,000 approving resolution 2017-101. The anticipated cost for the sign purchase and deployment efforts is anticipated to have an initial cost of $15,000 with an minimum annual maintenance cost expected at this time but it is yet to be determined. Following adoption by resolution the deployment is anticipated to take two employees approximately two weeks to complete INTERACTION: Public Works )tRECOMNlENDATION: Approve Resolution Authorizing Load Restrictions on Certain County Bridges and Prescribing a Misdemeanor for Violation Thereof XANDLING: Return one (1) copy to Public Works ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Load Restriction Summary Table, Map of impacted bridges, Sign Examples LEAD STAFF: Lucas Huck, County Engineer BOARD OF COUNTY CO,MNUSSIONERS COUNTY OF KTTTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING LOAD RESTRICTIONS ON CERTAIN COUNTY BRIDGES AND PRESCRIBING A MISDEMEANOR FOR VIOLATION THEREOF WHEREAS: Load ratings and engineering investigations have been made on 48 Kittitas County Bridges by KPFF Consulting Engineers; and WHEREAS: Such investigations has revealed that 17 bridges, designated herein, have stresses above what is normally considered safe for certain heavy loads or combination of loads which might be expected to use the bridges if left open to unrestricted use by the traveling public; and WHEREAS: In the interest of safety to the traveling public shoulder closures will be established for two bridges and load restriction shall be enacted on 15 bridges in accordance with RCW 36.75.270; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, restrict the use of the following Kittitas County Bridges as hereinafter stated: Bridge No. 07101— Liberty Road over Swauk Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 23 tons 25 tons 26 tons 27 tons Brid a No. 60043 — Ross Road over Turbine Canal North Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle1 6 axle 7 axle 2$ tons 1 28 tons 31 tons Bridge No. 60091— Ross Road over Turbine Canal South AASHTO Motor Truck Motor Truck and Motor Truck and Semi — Trailer Trailer 18 ton 29 ton 36 ton Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 1 7 axle 17 tons 1$ tons.1 19 tons 1 21 tons Brid a No. 79132 — Badger Pocket Road over Parke Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle P5 axle 6 axle 1 7 axle 32 tons 1 34 tons Emergency Vehicles EV2 EV3 31 tons Bridge No. 80181 — Cooke Can on Road over Hiline Canal AASHTO Single Unit Vehicle Trucks Motor Truck Motor Truck and Semi — Trailer Motor Truck and Trailer 8 ton 4 axle 12 ton 5 axle 15 ton 6 axle 7 axle 7 tons 8 tons 8 tons 8 tons Bri a No. 88082 — Clarke Road over D!y Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle axle 7 axle 24 tons 26 tons h 7 tons 29 tons Bridge No, 88212 — Faust Road over Towne Ditch Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 22 tons 23 tons b axle 7 axle 24 tons 26 tons Brill a No. 89022 — Fairview Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 28 tons 29 tons 30 tons Bridge No. 89113 — Schnebly Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 28 tons 29 tons 30 tons Brill a No. 98262 — Robbins Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 28 to 29 tons 30 tors Bridge No. 98265 — Smithson Road over Hiline Canal Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 28 tons 29 tons 1 30 tons Bridge No. 99325 — Thomas Road over Naneum Creek Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle—I 7 axle 25 ton 27 tons 28 tons 1 30 tons Bridge No. 16203 — NF Teanaway Road over NF Tean—a ay River Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 24 ton 28 tons 29 tons 1 29 tons Brill a No. 8 82 83 — Old HWY 10 over Currier Creek Emergency Vehicles EV2 EV3 36 tons L Bridge No. 88322 — Weaver Road over Westside Ditch Single Unit Vehicle Trucks 4 axle 5 axle 6 axle 7 axle 24 ton 25 tons 1 26 toms 1 29 tons Bridge No. 79141— T'ossem Road over Towne Ditch Trak shall be restricted from use of the right shoulder along the eastbound lane of the bridge. Bridge No. 87131 — South Tho e HWY over Westside Ditch Traffic shall be restricted from use of both shoulders of the bridge. NOW, THEREFORE BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, declare the established restrictions on the herein designated Kittitas County Bridges remain in force and effect until the designated bridges have been reconstructed or are deemed capable of sustaining legal loads whichever shall occur first. The County Engineer is hereby directed and authorized to post and maintain signs in accordance with this Resolution and the Manual on Uniform Traffic Control Devices. The restrictions authorized by this resolution shall take effect upon the placement of signs; any violation of the provisions of this resolution shall constitute a misdemeanor pursuant to RCW 36.75.270. The Clerk of the Board is hereby directed to have published the aforementioned restrictions in the official Kittitas County newspaper as by law required. DATED on this 12th day of March, 2018, at Ellensburg, Washington. BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON Laura Osiadacz, Chairman Attest: ❑ Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik Obie O'Brien, Vice -Chairman Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz _ Paul Jewell, Commissioner If A W I M M 10 140 CY 1 -41 IM I ill 14A A 65 1 is I F+ I O I 10 I Gp V I in I VI A 1 W I Fd IP s b fit V OI 41 #1 w IH W N ►+ Vt N N M VJ tY N N N N t+ F+ N N R. N # N N Y t-•+ F+ N N i.a p M v w �rm inO Nwxm 0Oj 514 m �ofaw�m3 CH n ry m m 3. a g g g i6 m CL a$ m +b i3�aam g $ g 0 a 2 = g v = x Z, �i 3 mm �n m �i R rC'pf 'm m. co N N N IA MA YI V! N Vl C N Yl Vi ��yy YCCpIII, NC� S ^-I y� e{ n NS r i1 CL Ion m N ti c C N s �O 01 n"1 09 N V V W V? L' !v n� Ids arte+ 3 V Oa ONo 0 ON6 w W m trt w w n� �6 low r m 11 �3 N r, 'p11 C .�•.96n 4 CII 1--` N IV F+ N N M N i,y i� p,, M N M M 1+ N 1d F't N !•+ �t N F+ }+ H 1•+ M !•+ � N F+ N I+ M �p W Yf C Vl 1p ' V ' W V �i {may �1 fY �y i0 O W �,y y,� �1 En W p tlt Fu p1 UI W �7 G at Sn ut w W w u' t+ w+ 4 V O O + S' O {D } i'} + V t R V M O N O tV monpq iga a i cg's a �j o Oq m 3 9 3 S N §§§§§ § §§a §k 0 z c ml> § �22�§ c CL. 2 ®P■SL§ CLfo �� B �wr — $ S � If 2 IA CL C cr ra _E§ ■� � ■ w � ■ � �� _■ m ■ 94 ■ 00 ■§ �� g . L g § &W E ■ to I C e W v m r"I X m cn I X 0 1 O z C0 O w 1 z MO e r At r ter. LLwJ 46 M i �r1� ..iris r� �� .,��• In C in B f COOP) i r rr, ffi Ii f I wa� a� 1 f mm Rif+ t In C in B The second posting sign is to be used when both routine a mmercial traffic and SHVs are required to be posted for load. The following variations of the weight limit sign are designated as Sign Number OR12-5f from the ODOT Sign Policy and Guidelines, Chapter 3, page 3-111. s•-o� g MIT�M WEIGHT LIMIT s• Olin 15 15 T = a •e 4-5 AILIS 141 `4"B 6 AXLES 16T T AXLES i 4 T 4m 24T 321 _ 4�a 4� JI-ir --BA 5"B = 9w8 =j0 =3s J" 0.5” _ -- 9 4v _4, g MIT�M WEIGHT LIMIT s• Zi T 4 1 35T 4 AXLES IST `4"B t `� 6-5'ULES 27T _� U' 7 AXLES 21T `Ir•'s 40T —4::8 4� 4#T � �„B —4� --BA 5"B = 9w8 =j0 =3s J" 0.5” _ -- 9 4v _4, g MIT�M Zi T SIT I XT O f OT --BA 5"B = 9w8 =j0 =3s J" 0.5” _ -- 9 4v _4, KI'l'TTTAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: March 12, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: Approve Resolution Authorizing the Placement of an Informational Kiosk at the end of Cove Road on County Right of Way for the Manastash Ridge Trails BACKGROUND: The Manastash Ride Trails Planning Coalition has held discussions for improvements and management strategies for the Manastash Ridge recreation area accessed off of the end of Cove Road since the summer of 2017. One main topic of discussion has been the lack of opportunity to notice information to recreationalists near the area that is typically used as parking to access the trail system. Public Works has worked with the Planning Coalition to craft a solution that does not impede our ability to maintain snow removal and routine maintenance operations, hinder existing utilities, and that meets clear zone safety requirements to protect the traveling public. The current proposal that has been brought to the County Engineer for review appears to satisfy the needs of both Public Works and the Planning Coalition. The Kiosk as shown in the attachments is located such that it is outside of the design clear zone of errant vehicles, utilizes crash worthy posts, accommodates maintenance operations and fits the needs of the Planning Coalition and Recreationalists alike. The Planning Coalition has took on the task of communicating with the existing utility company located in this vicinity and worked an agreement to convert the above ground phone pedestal to a flush mounted vault. Kittitas County Code 12.50 prohibits commercial signs within County Right of Way. Public Works seeks BOCC approval to allow for the installation of the Kiosk as it is not believed to be of commercial use and supports recreational opportunities. INTERACTION: Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Approve Resolution Authorizing the PIacement of an Informational Kiosk at the end of Cove Road on County Right of Way for the Manastash Ridge Trails HANDLING: Return one (1) copy to Public Works ATTACHMENTS: Resolution, Kiosk Exhibit LEAD STAFF: Lucas Huck, County Engineer BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF KITTPTAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - RESOLUTION AUTHORIZING THE PLACEMENT OF AN INFORMATIONAL KIOSK AT THE END OF COVE ROAD ON COUNTY RIGHT OF WAY FOR THE MANASTASH RIDGE TRAILS WHEREAS: The Manastash Ride Trails Planning Coalition seeks to install an informational kiosk within County Right of Way at the end of Cove Road, and WHEREAS: The proposed location and design of the kiosk does not impede County maintenance operations and is located and constructed in a manner that preserves the safety of the traveling public; and WHEREAS: In the interest of proving informational opportunities to recreationalists utilizing the Manastash Ridge Trails system; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, authorize the placement of aux informational kiosk at the end of Cove Road on County Right of Way as shown in Attachment A. DATED on this 12th day of March, 2018, at Ellensburg, Washington. Attest: Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik ❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz BOARD OF COUN'T'Y COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WARRINGTON Laura Osiadacz, Chairman Obie O'Brien, Vice -Chairman Paul Jewell, Commissioner �3 Attachment A D o d Placement Pending, Need approval from KIWas Co Lard ow --}and painted 2116118. I : r1T Fidsing User Kiosk proposal: dove existing user kiosk from up nearthe Irrigation canal clown to this location. This location provides protection for the flush telephone pad at this location. 5W placement proposal Kiosk is freestanding, will sit on 17MZ' flush patio bricks (does not require anchoring and Is moveable with 4 men). (Actual 47"x 7'8" after modHlcallons to be made srrmler to better flt this location) i I Z—m;, F' ,Telephone Ped Flush Utility Box 916" Dimensions accurate. Drawing NOT TO SCALE �i , C m c V Now stats Wook proposal. Posts would be 4"x4" or "breakaway" since In the county right of way. Structure would have posts anchored in ground M2' deep on four comers. County asked us not to extend beyond the existing fence kick -out (kiosk placement not to exceed the proximity of the existing fence south of the proposed kiosk) �r CovelManastash Ilrtersection 0.2mi to the north Q� I 0 � I 7 V 0 O rn W f 1 Drrion Rd Private Or KITTITAS COUNTY" DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: March 12, 2018 TOPIC: YBIP Funding towards Protected Acquisitions near Hansen Pits ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Chairs Signature on the Requested Letter of Commitment LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook REC OA&IENDATION: Authorize the Chair's signature on the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (YBIP) Habitat Subcommittee (HS) requested letter of commitment acquiring land near Hansen Pits. BRIEHNG SUIVIMAR.Y: • YBIP HS is offering $1,200,000 towards acquiring land south of Hansen Pits • HS is requesting a letter of commitment from the Board of County Commissioners (BOCC) Staff recently concluded discussions with HS lead representative as facilitated by Trust for Public Land The terms described in the requested commitment letter are acceptable to staff BACKGROUND: Recently, the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (YBIP) Habitat Subcommittee released its proposed funding plan based on the adopted 2017-2019 state capital budget. The HS is requesting a letter of commitment from the BOCC. Staff has working with the lead HS member on the project finalizing the wording of the requested letter. The acquisition effort has been going for the past several years and is nearing completion. Trust for Public Land is leading the acquisition effort with the understanding that the County will provide the balance of acquisition funding izz the next couple of years. DISCUSSION: The central issue delaying final language of the requested letter centers around the County's ongoing use of twenty (20) acres of land immediately south of Hansen Pits. The land is currently leased to Twin City Foods supporting land application of waste water effluent. The original HS request was for 12 acres of the 20 dedicated to restoring the Yakima River once the inevitable avulsion into the pits takes place. The BOCC may recall that the inability of the County to maintain the levee at Hansen Pits has allowed the river to encroach towards the ponds. The likelihood of avulsion into the pits is high. Page 1 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION ST"F REPORT Rather than dedicating an arbitrary amount of land supporting natural river function, staff is advocating a different approach. Staff proposes conducting an avulsion flood flow analysis defining probable river flow path(s). Once the path(s) are identified, we suggest placing a. 300 foot buffer from the centerline of the flow path supporting re-establishment of vegetative growth complementing the river's path. The letter also eliminates hard performance requirements on the part of the County allowing actions by others in the absence of County funding. We are in agreement with YBIP HS on restricting portions of the acquired lands for habitat restoration consistent with our desire reserving lands for future use by Twin City Foods should the need arise. FISCAL RVIPACTS: $1,200,000 is being invested towards acquisition by YBIP HS_ Trust for Public Land is suggesting that they are in position to complete the acquisition allowing the County sufficient time to generate remaining funds needed to place ownership with the County, ATTACHMENT'S: Exhibit 1: Draft letter to YBIP HS Exhibit 2: YBIP 2017-2019 Funded Projects Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: DRAFT LETTER TO YBIP HS Page 3 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT February 27, 2018 Kittitas County, Washington BOARD of COUNTY COMMISSIONERS District One District Two District Three Paul Jewell Laura Osiadacz Obie O'Brien Yakima Basin Integrated Plan Habitat Subcommittee c/o Mr. Sean Gross NOAA Fisheries — Columbia Basin Branch 304 S. Waxer St., #201 Ellensburg, WA 98926 RE: Kittitas County Commitment Regarding YBIP Funding for Proposed Land Acquisition Dear Mr. Gross: As requested by the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (YBIP) Habitat Subcommittee at its September 21, 2017 meeting, the County is following up with you, as a member of that subcommittee, regarding the County's request for funding for the acquisition of a 160 - acre parcel, Kittitas County Parcel 508933 (Stewart). At that meeting, the Subcommittee proposed allocating $1,200,000 of Ecology YBIP funding towards the County's acquisition of this parcel, subject to the Subcommittee's approval of the County's plans for managing and restoring this parcel and the adjacent County -owned properties to the north. This letter details the commitment and intentions of the County if awarded this grant. The proposed acquisition is part of the implementation of the County's 2015 Yakima River Jeffries Levee to Yakima Canvon Habitat Enhancement and Flood Risk Managm.ent Plan (Plan). The County seeks this acquisition funding to facilitate implementation of specific actions identified in the Plan for Parcel 508933 (the Stewart parcel, the property proposed for acquisition), and County -owned parcels 17895 (County Sprayfield) and 728733 (Hansen Pits). If the YBIP Program awards the County a $1,200,ODU grant for use towards the acquisition of Parcel 508933, and the County succeeds in acquiring this parcel, the County agrees to the items listed below. (For reference, please see the attachment for an approximate location of the management areas noted in this letter. However, the specific boundary between Areas 3 and 4 will be determined as noted in #5a and #5b of this letter.) Kittitas County Courthouse • 205 West 5i'Avenve; STE 108 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7508 -FAX(509)962-76-19 www.co.kittitas.wa.us Parcel 508933, Stewart Parcel Long-term Management of Property a. Western portion (Area 1 in the attachment - the area from the western boundary of the parcel eastward to 100 feet east of "Spring Creels," a spring/wetland complex that bisects the parcel from north to south): The County would use this area primarily for fish and wildlife habitat, including restoration of native forest and natural river processes including flooding and erosion. The County would allow for recreational uses, such as fishing and hiking, if consistent with the primary use. However, the County would not use this area for permanent infrastructure such as roads, buildings, paved trails, parking areas, or a boating access ramp. b. Eastern portion (Area 2 in the attachment - approximately 40 -acres): The County would use this area consistent with flood storage during seasonal flooding, uses that may include but are not limited to a sprayfield or other agricultural purposes, a trail, a parking area for public access, and/or habitat. c. Deed Restrictions for parcel 508933: The County accepts that Ecology will require a deed restriction that memorializes the above in perpetuity as well as preserves the opportunity for both the near-term and long-term restoration actions noted below. 2. Near -Term Restoration Actions on Property: This pertains to those portions of Flood Hazard Management Project PB3 and Habitat Restoration Actions #15, # 16, and #18 of the Plan that occur on this parcel. This includes removal of a private berm near the Yakima River, restoration of Spring Creek and its riparian buffer (100 feet on each side of Spring Creek), and other actions as noted in the Plan. a. Within one year of acquisition of this parcel, the County intends that it, or one of its partners, will initiate planning, design, and other preliminary activities to implement restoration actions on the parcel. b. Subject to available funding and timeliness of required permit approvals, the County intends to complete these restoration projects within three years of acquisition. c. If a partner is leading a Plan restoration action, such as taking responsibility for an action's design, construction, and/or funding, the County intends to support its partner's efforts to the best of the County's ability, subject to the partner's compliance with all applicable rules and regulations and the availability of County resources. 3. Long -Term Restoration of Property: Several side channels of the Yakima River currently occupy parts of Area 1. The County recognizes that significant side channels and/or the main channel of the Yakima River may occupy Area 1 in some future time and support fish and wildlife habitat, including restoration of native forest and natural river processes including flooding and erosion. Establishment of these channels may occur as components of planned actions, Kittites County Courthouse ° 205 West PAvenoe, $TE 109 • Ellensburg, WA 99926 (509) 962-7508 -FAX(509)962-7679 www.cc.kft0tns.wLw us such as the flood hazard management projects and habitat restoration projects referenced in other parts of this letter, or through natural flooding and erosion processes. 7n any case, the County will not take or allow any action that would preclude the possibility that significant side channels and/or the main channel of the Yakima River may come to occupy Area 1 at a future date, unless such action is necessary as partof a restoration action consistent with the primary use of the Property. Parcel 728733, Hansen Pits 4. This pertains to the project to reconnect Hansen.Pits to the Yakima River. The project's goals are to: 1) allow more natural river flooding and erosion processes at the Hanson Pits and other locations in the reach, 2) allow native trout and salmon access to the Hansen Pits, 3) reduce non-native fish populations in Hansen Pits, and 4) to do so while protecting private property and critical transportation facilities- Two conceptual alternatives for this project were identified in the Plan as FIood Hazard Management Projects HP14 and HP16. These alternatives ranked highly and are consistent with purchase and implementation of restoration on the Stewart Parcel (described in #2 and #3, above.) These alternatives will be considered in the planning process, though other alternatives or combinations of alternatives that meet project goals may be implemented. a. Within three years of acquisition of the Stewart parcel and subject to available funding, the County intends to initiate technical studies, stakeholder engagement, and other planning for this project. b. Within six years of acquisition of the Stewart parcel and subject to available funding and timeliness of required permit approvals, the County intends to complete the implementation of this project. c. The project will be compatible with establishment of a community park, if desired by the County. Parcel 17995. CpigM S a eld 5. Long-term, the County intends to restore portions of this parcel to support reconnection to Hansen Pits and the establishment of a native riparian forest (see Area 3 and 4 in the attachment for a concept drawing of these areas — the actual boundary between these two areas will be determined per the process defined below) a. Restoration and Long -Tenon Management of Area 3; The County intends to conduct a flood avulsion flow path risk assessment in 2020 (provided sufficient funding exists at the time). The assessment will identify the probable significant flow paths of the river once it avulses into Hansen Pits. The assessment will also consider probable significant flow paths under a scenario in which the existing levees around and between the pits are removed from the model to represent the unobstructed natural Kittitu County Courthouse • 2D5 west P Avenue. ST£ 108 • Ellensburg, WA 989-6 (509) 962-7508 -FAX(509)%2-7679 www.ao.kittitas.ws.us condition in which water can spread freely across the floodplain. The County agrees to setback 300 feet from the centerline of the easternmost identified probable significant flood path, allowing sufficient space for river reconnection and buffering. The Yakima Integrated Plan Habitat Subcommittee agrees to review the County's flood risk work and will affirm the probable significant flow paths if they concur. Upon concurrence, the County agrees to make the area set aside for the channel and buffer area available for habitat enhancement work immediately following concurrence on flow path alignment. Area 3 would then be defined as that portion of the County Sprayfield property extending from the western boundary of the property eastward to the setback located 300 feet eastward of the centerline of the easternmost identified probable significant flow path. The County would use Area 3 for the same uses proposed for Area 1 (see #la), as well as accommodating flow through the identified significant flow paths. b. Management of Area 4 (Defined as the remainder of the County Sprayfield not included in. Area 3): The County intends to manage Area 4 similar to Area 2 (see #lb). We believe this letter provides the desired commitment from the County allowing the YBIP Habitat Subcommittee sufficient confidence to move forward with incremental land acquisition funding. Please let me know if you desire any other actions in this matter. Sincerely, Laura Osiadacz Chair, Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners Attachment - Management Areas Map cc: Mark R. Cook Flood Control Zone District Administrator Kittitas County Courthouse 205 West 56iAvenue, STE 108 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 961-7508 TAX (509) 962-7679 WwW.00.kittit"ma.us E)UHBIT 2: YBIP FUNDED PROJECTS 2017-2019 Page 4 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS HOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Updated Allocations for Habitat Projects - YBIP (Based on Adopted 2017-2019 State Capital Budget) Habitat Subcommittee Meeting 2/27/2018 Note: Due to delay of capital budget approval to Jan. 2018, and limited field season, some projects will extend beyond end of biennium. Updated Request updated Projects Allocations 912112417 2!2712018 L.oww Yakima Rhrer Projects Bateman Island $145,800 $145,600 Smolt Receivers $22,300 Thermal Refuge 8 Aquifer Recherge $208,000 $208,000 Wapato Ranch (WR) & Tributaries WR - Riparian project $275,000 $275,000 WR -Acquisition & Restaration (Leff Bank) $225,000 $225,000 WR Tributaries (Sterval on Flats, Toppenish, A htenum) $800,000 $800,000 Union GapfNaches • Floodplains & Tributaries Naches River & Cowldhe Creak Floodplalns Restonatlon $300,000 $500,000 Ramblers Park Phase A $0 $0 USFS - Lithe Neches & Crow Watershed Aquatic Restoration — -- Liths Neches Design & Pen Mng $150,000 $0 Lidle Na *m Construction (now planned for 2020) $350,000 $0 Design & permit: Salmon Falls to FR 1902 Bridge levee, LWD, re-veg. $160,400 Fawn Creek Culvert $125,400 Multi-vratershed Vood Fiesta" $215,500 Itittlas County Floodplains & Tributaries Protection Acquisitions (Thorp Reach) $1,200,000 $1.2013,000 Teeneway Inabeam Restoration $500,000 $500,000 Tillman Creek $201,760 $0 TeanmW Valley Farre NI $45,000 Land Subcommittee- TCF Habitat PrsaW*n Infrastructure $400,000 96 Administrative casts of $SARI habitat appropriation (Ecology) $182,000 LOWWOW AcqulaltlonWContingeney $422,144 $438,9DD Funds Appropriated for 2017.2019 $.11040,000 $5,400,000 Note: Due to delay of capital budget approval to Jan. 2018, and limited field season, some projects will extend beyond end of biennium. m tU G Uj A OF fry Go- -4y ry t. t 4L -CIr V ='ti AL. i KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: March 12, 2018 ACTION REQUESTED: Direct staff to begin negotiations of cost for purchase of loader mounted snow blower from the City of Yakima BACKGROUND: The City of Yakima purchased a Larue D55 Snow Blower in 2014 for $138,586.00. This snow blower is very similar to the blower's utilized by Public Works for snow removal operations in Upper County and on occasion in Lower County. It was recently brought to the attention of our Road Maintenance Manager that the City of Yakima had interest in selling the Blower due to lack of use. The Road Maintenance Manager has recently inspected the blower and is in belief that the blower has not been used due to no scratching of paint on the impellers or other associated equipment parts once the shrink-wrap covering had been removed from the equipment. Currently Public Works owns two snow blowers that are actively used during the winter months. One 2012 unit and one 2006 unit, the 2006 unit is currently in need of repair with a damaged clutch in need of replacement. Both are past warranty and are starting to exhibit increased maintenance demand. Both blowers handle approximately 1,300 tons of snow removal per hour under normal use, the Yakima blower would handle about 1,250 tons per hour which is in the same class of our current equipment. It is anticipated that the 2006 unit will need to be replaced in the next equipment purchase cycle and is estimated to sell for approximately $30,000 to $60,000. New blowers are estimated to cost $160,000 to $200,000 and typically come with a two year warranty. The warranty has expired on the blower from the City of Yakima but with no use to date it is expected to be in good working condition. Public Works would like to proceed with attempting to negotiate a purchase price for the blower from the City. The initial estimated purchase price is expected to be between $70,000 and $90,000. If authorized to proceed and a purchase price is negotiated that is deemed reasonable by Public Works a proposal for purchase would then be brought forth to the BOCC for approval to purchase out of cycle. Current reserves within the ER&R fund account support this purchase, impacts associated to the fund once a purchase price is Down will also be presented to the BOCC. INTERACTION: Public Works RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff to begin negotiations of cost for purchase of loader mounted snow blower from the City of Yakima ATTACHMENTS: Euipment purchase sheet LEAD STAFF: Lucas Huck, County Engineer :;._iES PARTS SERVICE 0-17 Z-0 Larue D55 Snow Blower Quote from NJ PA Contract # 080114 -JAL Per your request we are pleased to quote the following Equipment manufactured to current standards to Include the folloowing: One (1) Larue D55 Engine Snow Blower Consisting of: 2 stage blower Cummins 275 HP QS136.7 Instrument panel gauges 90 amp Alternator 90 gallon fuel tank Mechanical We drive line system Engine drive hydraulics I heavy duty 36" augers 40" Impeller 270 degree chute rotation Steel scraper blades Carbide shoes 2750 Tons per hour rated Fits 2.5 yard loader Clearance width 114" Clearance height 5S" Overall clearance height 157" Total Weight 9200 bs No hitch included in quote snow blower side 187 Telescopic Truck loading chute Single steering vane 112' Width Impeller oasting 140 degree rotation (worm gear) Cowl muffler (residential type) Full width skid kit Wireless In Cab Controls PDI, Installation and Onsite Training $133,086.-00 Freight from Factory to City of Yakima $5,500-00 Total Purchase Price 3438,586.00 KITTTTAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: March 12, 2018 TOPIC: New FEMA Flood Hazard Maps for Kittitas County ACTION REQUESTED: No action required — informational briefing only LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook REC0h9dBhM TION: Coordinate Board member calendars supporting the Flood Control Zone District's public outreach campaign. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • FEMA flood study for Kittitas County began in 2010 • Draft maps were rejected by county staff in 2012 • In 2015, PW reconnected with FEMA and offered to proceed with limited remapping deployment • Staff selected key streams and Yakima river reaches for consideration: 62 miles of new Zone A, 26 miles of new Zone AE, re -delineation of 55 miles, floodplain refinement of 56 miles and 335 miles of digitized mapping Over the past couple of years, FEMA and staff have worked finalizing the remapping effort and are now ready to proceed with the outreach and adoption process BACKGROUND: In 2010, FEMA began a remapping effort of flood hazards in Kittitas County. Draft maps were produced in 2012 and were not accepted by the County. Numerous concerns from the new maps stalled any substantive discussion towards adoption. In 2015, staff began discussions with FEMA regarding a limited map adoption process and solicited FEMA for support with the agency's Cooperative Technical partner (CTP) program. FEMA has supporting partial funding of the County's Whiskey Creek and Mercer Creek flow models and we have moved forward towards implementing a subset of the 2012 revised flood hazard maps. This cooperative effort has delivered FEMA's acceptance of the County's Currier Creek two-dimensional flow model for regulatory remapping. Page 1 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT DISCUSSION: Working with Watershed Science and Engineering (WSE), PW identified numerous creeks and the Yakima River (Easton downstream to Cle Mum) for remapping consideration. PW wrote a task order with WSE (EXHIBIT 1) defining the technical review specifics associated with our reconsideration of map adoption. Our review effort (E)GHBIT 2) was provided to FEMA and the mapping team made appropriate adjustments on their end. As part of the required remapping effort, the County is required to have FEMA issue digitized flood hazard maps for all areas of hazard in the County not being addressed in our current effort (EXHIBIT 3). The result of this map adopting process is: New better maps for portions of the County with the existing maps in digital form. Errors in the 1984 digitized maps will remain. Our ability developing relatively inexpensive highly accurate flow models for pennies on the dollar (compared to FEMA costs) positions us for future efforts in problem areas in the County. Our success with modeling Currier Creek, Whiskey Creek and Mercer Creek affrms the value of our remapping in the absence of FEMA contractors. Reviewing the revised maps, there is one area of concern: Thorp. PW recently discussed the revised mapping impact on properties located behind the railroad grade. The current hazard map (1984) does not show any hazard behind the grade. A policy implementation in the past two years now requires FEMA to model the grade as no benefit to flood attenuation. The result is mapped hazard behind the railroad grade. In nearly every other new map, floodway extend reduces. Staff is anxious to get the new maps out for public review. As part of the adoption process, FEMA is required to notice congress of the remapping effort (EXHIBIT 4). That notice is attached for BOCC background and overall program understanding. PW will prepare an outreach campaign and present it to the BOCC on our March 260' study session. The maps are scheduled for delivery on March 9, 2018. FISCAL IMPACTS: The outreach effort is expected to cost less than $10,000 and is budgeted within the 2018 Flood Control Zone District operating budget. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: WSE Task Order Exhibit 2: WSE Review Memo Exhibit 3: FEMA Request Letter Exhibit 4: FEMA Notice to Congress Page 2 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHHBIT 1: WSE TASK ORDER REVIEWING A SUBSET OF 2012 FEMA HAZARD MAPS Page 3 of b PUBLIC WORKS 130ARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Formal Task Assignment Document Task Number 8 The general provisions and clauses of Agreement KITT-2015-2017 shall be in full force and effect for this Task Assignment Location of project: Klttitas County Project Trtle: Review Pro os d PbMA DFIRM Flood Mapping Maximum Amount Payable per Task Assignment: $14,755 (Detailed budget breakdown attached) Contractor: WATERSHED Science & Engineering 110 Prefontaine Place South, Suite 508 Seattle, WA 98104 (2061) 521-3000 Completion Date: 12/31/2016 Description of Work: S._ cope See attached Scope of Work Schedule See attached Scope of Work Agency Project Manager Signature: Oral Authorization Date: Consultant Signature: Agency Approving Authority:% Date: See Letter Dated• Date: 2 1 - . ` Date: - 'h:1 -R! -- February 5, 2016 Scope of Work Review Proposed FEMA DFIRM Flood Mapping IKittitas County Watershed Science and Engineering (WSE) Is assisting K'rttitas County Department of Public Works with the review of new flood hazard boundary maps prepared by FEMKs study contractor STARR. The maps are to be included in a new County -Wide Digital Flood insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) STARR is currently preparing. WSE will review the proposed draft floodplain boundary maps to confirm that they present a reasonable representation of the flood hazard area. Specific tasks to be completed by WSE will include: Task 1. Data Collection WSE will obtain the data and information required to complete the review including but not limited to: u Draft DFIRM flood hazard area map files prepared by STARR A Topographic data used to develop the flood hazard data, including LIDAR and ground based channel surveys HEC -RAS made) Input and output files Hydrologic data and analyses used to determine magnitude of annual instantaneous peak flow flood frequency discharges for each stream Road and canal structure data used to code crossings in the HEC -RAS models o High water mark and corresponding discharge data used to calibrate HEC -RAS models created for the Yakima River c Historical flood data such as photographs and documented anecdotal information Task 2. tone A -- Approximate Study Areas Mapped By STARR WSE will review draft flood hazard maps for streams where HEC -RAS models have been created to estimate flood hazard Inundation limits (Zone A flood hazard areas}, The review will consist of comparing proposed flood hazard delineations to topographic data, historical flood photographs, and anecdotal information. If areas are identified where the de)lneatkms do not appear reasonably accurate and if there are homes or structures in those areas, WSE will create a map and short written summary which Identifies and describes the apparent problem. The streams to be examined include: Crystal Creek (partial reach) Dry Creek (partial reach) Little Creek (partial reach) r Manastash Creek (partial reach) e Cluliomeme Creek t Robinson Creek (partial reach) e Roza Creek Skookumchck Creek o Squaw Creek Taneum Creek (partial reach) Tekison Creek a Limtanum Creek February 5, 2016 Unnamed Tributary 5 (partial reach) o Unnamed Tributary $ (partial reach) Whiskey Dick Creek o Yakima River (partial reach) Task 3. ZONE AE -- Detailed Study Yakima River Cie Elim to Easton WSF will review the detailed study completed by STARR forthe Yakima River between Cie Elum and Easton, including review of the hydraulic model Inputs, to determine if proposed Base Flood Vevations (SFEs) and flood hazard boundary limits appear reasonable, If the BFEs and/or flood hazard delineations do not appear accurate, WSE will create a map and short written summary which identifies and describes apparent problems. Task 4. Flood Hazard Map Lower Manastash Creek WSE will review proposed flood hazard delineations for the lower six miles of Manastash Creek. if the flood hazard delineations do not appear accurate, WSE will create a map and short written summary which Identifies and describes the apparent problem. Task S. Technical Memorandum WSE will prepare a brieftechnical memorandum that compiles the figures and descriptions prepared in Tasks 2 to 4. Task 6. On -Lino Meeting with FEMA & STARR WSE will host an on-line meeting with the County, FEMA, DOE and STARR team representatives to discuss the results of the review. Together the team will decide the best approach to refining the delineations (if needed), Task 7, project Administration WSE will conduct general project administration activities including keeping the County's project manager Informed of all significant project related news, preparation of monthly invoices, and contract management. cost See attached spreadsheet. Schedule WSE will complete the Review by April 15, 2016, assuming all necessary files can be obtained From FEMA by February19. The Task Order completion date will extend to December 31, 2017 to allow ample time to coordinate with and respond to FEMA. 110 Preftnulne Place Smut, suits 110 Seeft, WA 99104 Tel. JUS) 62141900 Estimate of Professional Services Prepared for YJWfts County Prajeeir FEMA DFIRM Mapping RwIew Date, FDbmafy 5, 20i6 Prepared By: jeff Johnson 9Wdy.Aii8$ loop! ftgTA YAWW River Cie FI­UM6 tmirton —Z 5. Technical Mwn;lmldum 2 dors end Dired tabor Cad M LABOR CMT Direct EXIM"se Derail I Zia I NO IOA Mo I _on I $1007 1 2158.54 1 9121.38 1 04.551 MOO 1 $102-751 55.238 113= 30 S5,301) so 0 Si76f UrIft Raga C4611 Trawl Io Pr*cl 9b 0 $0.60 $0.00 Rspm&Om and Cma, unimthn $100.00 TOW $100.00 L Costsummetry Total Labor 14AM Tata) Dkedl. Bipermmm ADD Tool 74,786 EXHIMIT 2: WSE REVIEW MEMORANDUM Page 4 of C PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT WATERSHED SCIENCE & ENGINEERING 110 Pref+onlaine Place South, Sulle 5013 Seattle, WA 98104 206-521-3000 Memorandum Tkx Ted Perkins, FEMA Region X Kevin Donnelly, STARR Marts Cook, P.E., Kitlft County Department of Public Works Fran: Shaina Sabatine P.E., Bob Elliot P.E., Jeff Johnson P.E. Date: 7/21/2018 Ra Review of Proposed FEMA DFIRM Flood Mapping in KdUlas County Introduction Watershed Science & Engineering (WSE) was retained by Kittitas County Department of Public Works to review new floodplain delineations proposed by FEMA and their study contractor STARR. The delineations are to be Included in a new County -Wide Digital Flood Insurance Rate Map (DFIRM) that FEMA and STARR are preparing. WSE reviewed modeled Zone A 100 -year floodplain delineations for 13 of 14 streams and six reaches of the Yakima River (see list below). STARR was unable to provide the floodplain delineation for Big Creek, therefore, WSE could not review it. Big Creek = Crystal Creek • Little Creek • Manastash Creek = Quliomene Creek • Roza Creek • Skookumchuck Creek • Squaw Creek Taneum Creek Tekison Creek fl Umtanum Creek Unnamed Tributary 5 Unnamed Tributary 8 Whiskey Dick Creek Six reaches of Yakima River WSE also reviewed a detailed Zone AE 100 -year floodplain delineation for the Yakima River between the Cities of Easton and Cie Elum. I Review Findings — Modeled Zone A Streams WSE reviewed each HEC -RAS model and proposed delineation focusing on areas where there is either existing development or future development likely. WSE did not examine areas where the floodplains are confined by natural topographic relief and therefore remain narrow and have little potential for future development. General findings common to many of the modeled Zone A delineations are described below. Eight sites have specific issues worthy of a more detailed description. These are presented in Figures 1 to B. General Comments Hydrology — StreamStats appears to have been used to determine the magnitude of the 100 -year flood for each stream. While Streem5tats may be a useful and simple tool to estimate flows for ungauged sates, it is often inaccurate within Kittitas County. WSE has found that annual instantaneous peak discharges obtained from StreamStats for streams In this area are frequently under -predicted. This is based on our personal history of conducting hydraulic investigations within the County. In one recent case it under- predicted the 100 -year event by approximately 300 percent. The problem occurs because the regression equations used in StreemStats are based upon a relatively small annual instantaneous peak flow dataset obtained from a wide range of gage sites -- from large rivers Including the Yakima and Teanaway to very small streams. An example of the problem described above occurs within subreach 4 of the Yakima River. The proposed modeled Zone A delineation for this reach is based upon a StreamStats 100 -year discharge estimate of 20,700 cls. WSE recently completed a detailed hydrologic investigation for a reach of the Yakima River immediately upstream from subreach 4 and the resulting 100 -year discharge was 35,300 cfs, a value approximately 70% larger than the StreamStats estimate (WSE, 2015). Based upon our study, 20,700 ds is approximately a 10 -year event, not a 100 -year flood (WSE, 2015). In a separate issue, there is a specific problem with the 100 -year discharge estimate for Quilomene Creek obtained from StreamStats. The drainage basin area used to estimate the flow from the program includes the watershed of Brushy Creek, an area which does not contribute flow to Quiiomene Creek. 2. Cross Section Orientation — Cross sections must be oriented perpendicular to the direction of flow in a 1 D model. In many models, the ends of some cross sections are bent so sharply up -valley that these portions of the cross sections are not perpendicular to flow. In these cases the cross sections erroneously tie into high ground creating a fictitious narrow flow corridor and floodplain. Examples of this problem are specifically ldentlfled in Figures 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, and 7. 3. Main Channel Location — The main channel is incorrectly located along a number of reaches and therefore, the floodplain delineations are incorrect. Obvious mistakes Include reaches of Big Creek, Crystal Creek, and Taneum Creek (Figures 1, 2, and 6). It can be difficult to locate the main channel of a small stream using topography or aerial photography. When uncertainty exists, the location of the main channel should be field verified. 2 4. Crossings — Bridge and culvert crossings were not included in the models, apparently to minimize cost. Bridges and culverts, particularly those undersized, can have a significant impact on flood inundation extents especially along the upstream side of a road. In many instances, it appears that the floodplain delineations do not reflect the potential backwater impacts caused by the crossings. WSB recommends that STARR review and refine the floodplain delineations at all crossing locations to better represent potential inundation limb. 5. Definition of Bank Points and Manning's n Values — Manning's n values are incorrectly applied to many cross sections. Bank points are used to define breaks in Manning's n values. Unfortunately, bank points are repeatedly defined incorrectly in the approximate study area models (e.g. too low on the banks, on the bed of the channel, or In some cases completely missing the low flow channel). When bank stations are defined incorrectly, large unreasonable Manning's n values are inadvertently applied to the main channel. This can lead to overly conservative water surface elevations and inundation limits. An example of incorrectly defined Manning's n values is shown in Figure S. If STARR is delineating bank points in GIS, an underlying surface terrain layer should be used to visually determine where the tops of bank are located. If relying instead on aerial photography, the banks should be determined based upon inspection of the cut moss sections. Cross sections In all models should be reviewed to check bank station placement and therefore, Manning's n value assignments. In some cases, field verifications may be necessary. B. Definition of Ineffective Areas -- Ineffective flow limits are often incorrectly defined which allows conveyance through areas that do not convey flow (e.g. backwater areas, areas disconnected from the main channel by natural high ground, etc.) All cross sections, particularly those near road crossings, should be reviewed to determine if ineffective flow limits are needed. T. Downstream Boundary Conditions — Water surface elevations at the downstream and of each model are often incorrect. In each model, either a specified fixed water surface elevation has been applied or the computer is allowed to estimate the water surface elevation using normal depth calculations at the most downstream cross section_ For those models with a foxed water surface elevatlon, the ;same value is frequently applied to all profiles simulated (2 -year through 500 -year events). An example of this is in the Little Creek model and is shown on Figure 3. For models that use normal depth, the slope of the energy grade (often estimated as the slope of the channel profile or valley) must be entered. In many cases, the slope applied is incorrect, which likely has led to either over or underestimation of water surface elevations and inundation limits near the downstream and of the model. An example of this is in the Crystal Creek Cedar Gultch model and is shown on Figure 2. 8. Cross Section Spacing — Gross sections should be spaced close enough so that river and floodplain features are adequately defined. It is conventional for cross sections to be fairly evenly spaced with fighter cross sections In areas that need additional definition (for example crossing locations). An example of inadequate cross section spacing 3 occurs in the Unnamed Tributary 8 model (Figure 8). There is a large gap in the cross sections and therefore a large gap in the floodplain delineation. 9. Disconnected Floodplain Areas — Pools of water disconnected from the main channel show up in many of the modeled Zone A floodplain delineations. Automated mapping procedures for HEC -RAS often produce such disconnected areas, but these are typically either removed in final mapping or physically connected to the main channel delineation. WSE assumes these problems will be corrected in the final mapping. Zone AE Detailed Study of the Yakima River from Easton to Cie Elum In general, the Zone AE model for the Yakima River from Easton to Cie Elum appears reasonably wall developed; however, Issues have been identified which are described below and presented in Figure 9. Hydrology — STARR has reduced the magnitude of the 100 -year flow significantly which is the primary reason BFEs in the new study are lower and floodplain inundation limits are reduced when compared to the effective study. For example, the new model uses a flow of 24,095 cfs at a location just downstream of the confluence with the Teanaway River (cross section 85147), while the effective model uses 29,100 cfs at the same location (FEMA, 1981). Similarly, just upstream from the confluence the new model uses 19,828 cls while the effective model uses 25,200 cfs. Documentation as to how the new discharge was computed was not provided. WSE would like to review the hydrology calculations developed for this study. 2. Cross Section Orientation and Data — Several cross sections appear to be skewed significantly to the direction of flow or contain data errors. Several examples are highlighted in Figure 9. 3. Definition of Ineffective Areas -- Ineffective flow areas are defined liberally throughout the Yakima River made[, and most appear logical. However, WSE noticed a number of instances where continuity of flow along a floodplain is interrupted by questionable Ineffective flow designations. WSE recommends that STARR conduct a simple review of all ineffective areas to double check for continuity of down valley flow. In several reaches the 500 -year flood is conveyed through the floodplain at one cross section, but not the next. It appears Ineffective elevations were set to accommodate the 100 -year event, but not the 500 -year. Ineffective elevations need to be adjusted or ineffective areas added or deleted such that flow remains either consistently effective or Ineffective along a reach during the 500 -year flood; unless features are present that physically do block flow. 4. Downstream Boundary Condition - Normal depth procedures are used to estimate the downstream boundary condition for each profile; however, the slope applied appears to be too flat when compared to the slope of the river, valley, and energy grade line. 4 Summary The modeled Zone A approach has promise if applied carefully and if adequate time is provided to complete each task. Unfortunately, numerous mistakes have been identified and need to be addressed. The most significant are: 1. StreamStats must be applied with caution within Kktitas County because it frequently underestimates discharges. Where it does, the proposed floodplain inundation boundaries are likely too narrow. 2. Cross sections are frequently aligned incorrectly with the most common problem being that the ends of the cross sections are turned up -valley creating a fictitious confined floodplain. Where this occurs, the proposed flood inundation boundaries are likely much too narrow. 3. Omitting bridge and culvert crossings simplifies the modeling effort but care must be taken to estimate inundation limits in the vicinity of these crossings, something that has yet to be done in the delineations provided. 4. Bank stations are frequently incorrectly positioned which leads to significant errors in definition of the Manning's n values and therefore water surface elevation computations. The Yakima River Zone AE model appears well constructed. The following significant issues were identified: 1. A significant reduction in the 100 -year discharge is proposed over the value used in the effective study. This reduction may be valid, but WSE would like to review the hydrology calculations for the proposed flows. 2. A number of cross sections are misaligned or contain date errors. 3. Ineffective flow areas need to be reviewed for continuity of down valley flow. Referent FEMA, 1981. "Flood Insurance Study: City of Cie Elum, City of South Cie Elum, City of Ellensburg, Town of Kittitas, and Kittitas County, Washington". WSE, 2015. "draft Corridor Plan: Yakima River Jeffries Levee to Yakima Canyon Habitat Enhancement and Flood Risk Management Plan" 5 Big Creek HEC -RAS Model Review The mein channel nllgmnwd was 1psplyd Incermdy thnrfON the 100-ywr flosdplaln was hmorrerdiy mapped. Sha black Ike Is the gipproxlmats oarscl mein channel taxrlrOn and the blue line in the main ehannef tanlerllne used In do 1-1111CAPS model. Also, nose sadicna are beak m sharpy upebum that qNy may creafe artlRaial high around boundarNm on the banks end pntroat wabrfrorn sPFWAng oaf. Crouings (marked whth orange stsrt giro rmodeled Because of this, the floodplain delinratlons upstream m and downstrum ore=@ oawngs are n1laMruanlad (true for sit foeations where crossings are not mods". Rsriswaf Zee A RM Approximeft Study Areas Mapped By STARR Blp Croak rerwcw*,wa 19E . e I= 200 r�inuw ,� MM7�i5a W Crystal Creak and Crystal Creak Cedar Gultch NEC -RAS Models Review The main channel dignmerd was kadw b=rrenfly therefore the 10D jmw 1lao* do was Incorrectly mapped. Trim blank Irhe Is the approdmab carnet main dunnal conbrgns and the light blur shading In the aflaative FEMA FIRM 100 -rear toodplain delineapan. The floodpldn at the tlawaabeem end of Crystal Creak at Cedar Gulch (outlined In bkok) la ewareatlmeted due to the adremaly @hollowslopa used for the nonsol depth downehmm boundary condition In the HEC4LW metlaL Aho, croaehhga (marlmd with orenga stare) are not msdaled. Because of this, the floodpkdn dsllnedbris upstream and downstream of ft" aresalnps are misrepresented (hum for all locations whore crossings are not modeled). The floodpteht Is undenesthnated. Cross sewtlenS are hart so aherply upabeam that they creche arocill high ground boundaries on the right hank end prevmd water item apnadlrg out Into IAN arca. Tfhaflaodpla n Is underoWmabd. Boat erose sections here amob arliftldy largo o finehm flow areas In the model, dnwing down the simulated water murfav slonnion. Bent Crams swoons ilea svelte mtiflalel hqh ground hounds an the right honk that prawrnt wow from spreading ami Into the Brea. Review of Zane A Approulan s Study Areae Mapped By BTARR Crystei Creek S�3 �M �y •M1M w�,�aahmp "41st 41M: Little Crook NEC -RAS Model Review Thera Is a berm on the MR bank of the downstream end of LEtia Creek that Is rat adaquMnly madded with the cry sections In the NEC -RAS model. This area would be better repreaanbed with shoFlar and more frequsrd cruse ascdons alltRted as shown by the red lines to dstsrmine INwhme qts berm Is ovalopped. If the berm Is ovsrteppsd, the ores north and wast of the berth (outlined by the preen one) should be modeled with a atorape area or ZD ansa to determine the exlent of inundation. Ahw, the downebeam boundary condition In the HEC-RAB model is defined as a constant warm aurfaes ekr+mgon for all Sows modeled (2 -year through Myearl. This la unfiksly to be the ease. If this watts In be high, water surface elevations will be oYer- asllmeted, and Rads value Is loo low, water surfaoa elevations will be undersetlrruled. Crossings (msrkad with orange stare are not modeled. Because of this, the MmdpWM delineations upstream and downstream of these crnuings are misrepmsenbd (true for an locatlanswhara crossings ars not modOI64 The fkwdplain k undersstimsted. Crass sections are bent so sharply upstream that they cim arOcial high ground boundaries on the rlgM bank and prevent water $pre spreading out Into this arae. 9 is recommended that arose a cftne be allpned as shown by the red lines. Review al Zona A App u dmateSI&W Areas Mapped By BTARR IJltle Creak afro cam, VA L��- a Imp ZRO Lia ru r+.vuar MUMMER Manastash Croak HECAU Model Rwvltwv Legend Cd txoarw Ndmp*w r RTARRHEC4VA ilodel thou seemn 1100-purFbadplain 00 Noy 2At1 Wand Fxla!>m ' r4r delNluGd lFum raXol j ,: a, t ' -'�, . + • ` l�vr i ,.,, - Mmnata@h Crook fb►rw through an s f �• alluvial fee. Aerial photpprepM of tin r , my 2014 Rood went Cuppsox nuftly + • . • ;.`r'_r. thasame mapnllade @lreulsted In fu _ v HECAM model) and 2D modeling of �rl i' '!` this rivaraupp m water @pro@dw waren ter,•, the fen rathwrthan atwylnq CfsaelnwMed. ; i } r ! F• k .: = Groan sectionsfirsts era bent Upstream + comdhuq 4rge4f to the srd@- Croselrspe (mulurd wAh onrrpw wfari} ropwaaI in of the RmWpiwin in this are net modeled. Bweause dfrls, the # �■ p w . medal, fawdplain delineWosn up*mrn and dorrn.Uwm oflhaaa arosofts we rnk spr.eenhd (trrm for all lomiion@ where aroesimp are net modeled). R~ of Zem A Apprvudmab ft* Ana@ Mapped By STARR Manawimeh Creek Parer ONW&VA r ire! �,we ia�r! � rrtrr r0lM wnrrwelreo Squaw Crook HEC4tAS Uo&l Review 4 e, rL:16nd yCMm 6loetlrd STARR HEOPM Modal Clow Mon ® ��� r Crow section alignment at the downatsam and of the model causes a mleraprosentalion In the floedplein delineation sepecially In the eree oulltned In block, Becouse of lMo way the areas eaatlons were drawn, the doisestr son boundary of the model Is being Imposed upstream near the road. Cross an M- -n should be sllgnad psrpedeuklrtoflow as estimated bytha red Ines. Also, the crowing {merhad with an aranye dor) Is not modeled. Because or this, Ow HwWpleln delineation upstream and downetnen of the arosedng le mierepraeented "for oil locations where crossings are not modeled). Rarfew of Pons A APPnmdrnsb titr* Areas Mopped By Squaw Creek Wns G -ft WA e tao oma KE— t �wr.o w�,ow WATeRelia Unnamed Tributary 3 HEC -RAS Modal Ruvkw Legend r C -N ft Not Modeled ' STYIRRHEGdLgs Madel Gane section r3 �"Vrp Moppedby STARR ' s Unnarrrel'Trit�s,l�r The tloadpleln Is undereelbnot.d. Claes aaatloaa aro baht no sharply upstmoon thin they arealo artlftclal high around boundutoa on the right bank and pnment woW from spreading out Irto aft ams WY7 Review of Zone A Appmxlmote Study AresMapped By STARUnnamed Tributary 3 ,RtlY.anuy, wA a i lCm=NVs Qnarked MAth arange stars) Thom is a pop In On aoodptaln sm not modeled. lil a s of this, the daWreetim here. fioadplaln dodneadans tupetrsant and 0 7" 1" dm+rtntrsam of these emsWings are This Is oleo another wmmph of whore mismpmearded (ores forall looatla►e cross sections are bent so sharply whore Sammi lqa ere not modaledJ. upatnrm that Ihry oaole artlRelel high ground boundimbe on the reght bank and peowawelar them spreadnrrg out inlo the ane. yas�asHEo Llmemed THbutary 8 HEC -RAS Model Review Legend .Y Croeele8 Nor Moderd aTAM HEC4M , Model Cram asellon to7-pear Ploodpleln Mapped by8TARR a ZOO&}p l �x _ �- ice'-lk���. . Irncorrert Crossings ¢narked with orange alera) aro not modeled. Session Otiilsr the nmdpkdn dallrteations upalraam and dowrmtraarn of timae amosings aro misneprssontod (true for all kmMlone where 6russinips one not modeled). There IN s Sap in the goodplsln dellnondm In this area due to ■ large qap In cram seationa, definition of InaRecdw flow areas In the HFC -RAS nmdpi, end lank of cmasfngs In the mode6 8 IN unclear whether wnbr would overtop the road of Ola location or simply fill the low area and pond behind "rand. I iz18'1 drflniuon ai ank palyds In the model causes Monning's n values to 'k .x" , be mapped incorrectly onto eros asaftne. affecting the oamputoom of the -tip_ vrater surface elevation. This occurs froti-rdty throughout the nnodel. An example ofthe pndgern Is shown In the plot of RS 162 above. Bank points we marked with red deft and defined Manning`t n „Huss appear along to — a ----_ K ., ; 1 top of the plot. Review of Zone A Apprtltdnlate Study AreastiMapp d By TARR Unnamed Tributary a ice.. x:a.gr, vw� 0 ed i� �FMI f�lY� aa. A& wwrctaxeo Yakima River'from Easton to Cir Elum HEC -IM Modal Review Cruse. asddars should be urboated perpendicular io flow. Above aro hro kocatipnm wham poen section or pardons of cross smAloas arm not perpa - Icuisr toflow. This Increases dee cross- wdfanal arm In firs modal whloh afficls the computation of the water surface ahvatfoa. Example. of Incorrectly defiered Ineffective awe. The slope defined me the dowrrd m boundary Is too shidim therefore. the water surhm shmadon calmda sed at the downalmaar end of the model mey be orerweetTmated. 'bee ecemnpanylna retort forcomplab deseripkbns of Issues ! concerns found during mvWw. kwkw of ions AE Arra Napped BY STARK Yakima Fdw rtel.e CDM*. et oFE t ;r�� arra w.+*sas3lso EXHIBIT 3: REQUEST LETTER FOR HAZARD MAP DIGITIZATION Page 5 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT �xylpYb�sA4.`.n+.Jt�u b rcrrrrrr►acor July 14, 2017 Ted Perkins, P.E. Regional Engineer Federal Regional Center 130 - 228th Street, Southwest Bothell, WA 98021-8627 DE)FART NT OF PUBLIC WOKS Mark K Cook, PE Director RE: Kittitas County Washington Digitizing Current Effective Maps Dear Mr. Perkins: I am writins this letter to confirm Kittitas County's understanding and agreernent on how we would like to move forward with FEMA's proposed 2017 limited flood study. This current flood study effort was started back in February 2010 and there was interest in seeing the flood hazard information updated. Wien the draft maps came out in late 2012, we had numerous concerns with the accuracy of these maps as they related to the observed flooding that has been seen in the County. As part of this, we provided several pages of comments detailing our concerns. In your explanation of these results, we understand better how there are some limitations in your ability to produce detailed results for many miles of what are defined as approximate level of effort strearns based on the limited population associated with some of these streams. There are areas of the 2010 study that we feel sufficient analysis was done and it will improve on the current effective information so there are some areas we would like to move forward with. We understand to do that, because our county is just in a paper format now, the rest of the county will need to have digital data as well. This will mean digitizing the current effective study in. the areas where we can't currently agree on the flood mapping approach. The agreement on where we would life to move forward is attached as FXMBIT 1 to this letter. All remaining County areas would be digitized based on the content of the current paper format. We are committed to work with you on gradually updating these areas of disagreement through the CTP program and through some of our oven funds but this will be outside of this initial effort to get the countywide study into a digital format and it will be limited to funding availability. There will also likely be some adjustments to some of the agreed on areas through information that we will submit as appeals and comments when the preliminary maps are released. 411 N. Rutty 8t. Suite #1 TEL (509) 9M-75" EUwsburg, WA 98925 FAX (609) 962-7663 Dept. of Public Woks Page 2 We have name to this agreement together with your Risk Analysis Branch stair (Ted Perkins and Kelly Stone) and with the Washington State Risk -MAP coordinator, Jerry Franklin. Thank you for your ongoing efforts to assist in alleviation of flood damage in K.ittitas County. Sincerely, Mark R. Cools Director 411 N. Ruby St. Suite #1 TEL (508) 962-7523 Ellensburg, WA 98926 FAX (609) 9627663 EXHIBIT 4: FEMA NOTICE TO CONGRESS Page 6 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT NOTICE TO CONGRESS: MONTHLY UPDATE ON FLOOD MAPPING Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 and Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014 December 2017 4111iw FEMA J TABLE OF CONTENTS LIntroduction.rrr__mrMYwMwma.s..._.ru.w._rm,.._nu..NF...MM..NY.,rqN..YMuwM.wur..u.r.uMMw..rr._.r.rr._xlxN._ JL 2. —._rm___.....R,....rm._r.rr..r..._....._.__.r.x._r..r2 3. Risk MAP Program wr.._r......_M_._.r..rr.m_r..... 3 tNotification _....r__m.r..r..._....._...._m__.rmrr_..,r....m....._xm_u__mur..r.r.r.�..�. ,_.....m,..r.r......dx 3 4.1. Estimated Issuance of Preliminary Maps............................................................................ 4 4.2. Estimated Issuance of Revised Preliminary Maps................................................................ 6 4.3. Actions Taken by the administrator...................I.............................................................. 7 S. Additional Informationrrr,wwrw.w.xwr.r_xrmrmar.r...rrrx.rrr+...r.w...n�._mmmx.x..Mx.r._rr..rrxr2L Appendix A: Flood Maps.._._.......M.xrN......rM12 AppendixB: Acronyms ,rr..—w__mx_.xm,._mxxx_m..rr.__.r....rr.r.._..._.rMrm..mr.,r_.....__.rr..rx........__ 17 Appendix C,. Resources .aR1.MmrrYvu..... q...p.ar.rr...mrr.rr_rxmMRIrM1Y.w..�_.mru._.u_r___.w..m_I.Mri9 Notice to Congress: Monthly update on Flood Mapping De ce m be r 2017 MoLd-M.- 1. INTRODUCTION The Biggert-Waters Flood Insurance Reform Act of 2012 (Biggert-Waters), asamended bythe Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, directs the Department of Homeland Security (DHS), Federal Emergency ManagementAgency(FEMA), to notify Members of Congress when constituents In their Dlstrictswill be affected by a flood mapping update. Public Law 112-141, div. F, title 11, §100216, July 6, 2012,126 Stat. 927; Pub. L. 113-B9, §§27,30, Ma r. 21,2014, 128 Stat. 1033, 1034,42 U.S.C. §4101b (d) (1)(G)(i) and (H) (2014). Under Biggert-Waters: The Administrator shall not less than 30 days before issuance of any preliminary map, notify the Senators for each State affected and each Member of the House of Representativesfor each congressional district affected by the preliminary map in writing of the estimated schedule for: o Community meetings regarding the preliminary map o Publication of notices regardingthe preliminary map in local newspapers o The commencement of the appeals process regarding the map See Biggert-Waters, asamended, at42 U.S.0 §4101b (d)(1)(G)(1).1 Biggert-Waters also states: The Administrator shall upon the issuance of any proposed map and any notice of an opportunity to make an appeal relatingtothe proposed map, notifythe Senators for eachState affected and each Member of the House of Representativesfor each congressional district affected by the proposed map of anyactiontaken by the Administrator with respect tothe proposed map or an appeal relatingtothe proposed map. See Biggert-Waters, asamended, at42 U.S.C, §4101b (d)(1)(H). In accordance with these requirements, this document serves as notification to Congress and provides details on studies withan estimated Issuance of preliminary or reed preliminary flood maps in the current month and the next two months, and studies for which preliminary or revised preliminary flood maps and/or Lettersof Final Determination (LFD) were issued last morrth.2 LFDs are the actions taken by FEMA to finalize the flood hazard data shown on a preliminary Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM). This document also provides details on statutoryadministrative appeal periods3 (appeal periods) thatwere initiated and ma ps that went effective last month. L FEMA i s working to develop the additional administrative process required to implement 42 U.S.C. §4101b (d)(1)(G)(11) and will updatethis Notice as appropriate. 2 For definitions of fl ood map, VD, and other terms, please refer to Appendix B. For more data i Is, see "Information on `Appeal Start Action," i n Section 4.3. f 7EI" Notice to Congress: Monthly Update an Flood Mapping ue ee m be r 2097 2. BACKGROUND Hooding has been, and continues to be, a serious risk in the United States—so serious that most insurance companies have specifically excluded flood damage from homeowners insurance. To address the need, the U.S. Congress established the National Hood Insurance Program (NFIP) as a Federal program in 1968. The NFIP enabled propertyowners in participating communities to purchase flood insurance if the community adopted floodplain me nagement ordinances and minimum standards for new construction. However, the owners of existing homes and businesses did not have to rebuild to the higher standards, and many received subsidized ratesthat did not reflect theirtrue risk. Biggert-Wat ers we s paswd by Congress and signed into law by the President in 2012. The law required changes to all of the major components of the progra m, including flood insurance, grants, and the management offloodplains, aswell astheestablishment of nationafflood mapping program. Manyof the changes are designed to ma ke the NFIP more financlally stable and to ensure that flood insurance rates more accurately reflect the real risk of flooding. Biggert-Waters was amended by Congress under the Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, which was signed by the President in 2014. FEMA identifies flood hazards, assesses flood risks, and partners with States and communities to provide accurate flood hazard and risk data to encourage communities to take mitigation actions. Flood hazard mapping Is an Important part of the NFIP, as it is the basis of the NR P regulations and flood insurance requirements, FEMA maintains and updates data through FIRMsand risk assessments. FIRMsare based on statistical information, such as data for river flow, storm tides, hydrologic/hydraulic analyses, and rainfall and topographic surveys. FEMA uses the best available technical data toldentify a community's flood hazards. Maps identifying flood hazardsprovide citizens with flood risk information and enable communities to make informed development decisions. With this information, communities areable to adopt and enforce minimum floodplain management regulationsthat reduce the loss of I'de and property. These proactive efforts minimize the financial impact of flooding on individuals and businesses and mitigate the effects of flooding on new and improved structures. FEMA, through its Risk Mapping, Assessment, and Planning (Risk MAP) program, releases new flood maps and data as appropriate, giving communities across America accessto helpful, authoritative data thatthey can use to make decisions about flood risk. FEMA is required to review community flood ma ps every five years and assess whether to revise or update them based on current conditions. To learn more about flood maps and how the Risk MAP program creates and maintains them, please refer to Appendix A. Notkm to Congress. Monthly Update on Road Mapping 2 U4crrnb(tr 2017 3. RISK MAP PROGRAM Flood risks change over time, based on new building and development, weather pattern changes, and other factors. The Risk MAP progra m assists communities nationwide to assess flood risks and encourages mitigation planning and actions to avoid or minimize damage in the face of future d'usasters. Through more precise flood maps, risk assessment tools, and outreach support, Risk MAP strengthens local communities' abdityto make informed decisions about reducing risk. The Risk MAP program includes collaboration with Federal, State, and local stakeholders in communities across the nation to identify, assess, communicate, and mitigate risks. The programalmstoaddress gaps in flood hazard data, provide an enhanced digital platform for the Information that is produced, and align risk analysis programsto enhance decision-making. Risk MAP works in conjunction with other FEMA Initiatives and supports the NFIP In its efforts to encourage communities to become risk aware and resilient. To learn more about the Risk MAP program, go to http,//www.fema.gov/risk-mapping- assessment-planning. 4. NOTIFICATION Through the implementation of Biggert-Waters a ndthe Homeowner Flood Insurance Affordability Act of 2014, FEMA is required to notify Congress of proposed changesto the NFIP flood maps. This document provides that notification, including information on the issuance of proposed map changes (represented as preliminary and revised preliminary flood maps), the initiation of appeal periods, and the issuance of LFDs and effective maps. The Information below has been segmented into tables listing studies with an estimated issuance of preliminary and revised preliminary maps for the current month and the next two months. An additional table lists the studies for which the Administrator took an action last month. This table includes the actions by categories (e.g., preliminary maps, appeal starts, revised preliminary maps, or the issuance of an LFD and effective maps). All of thetables Identify the FEMA Regions, State, andcounty impactedby the actions. The tables also provide details on the study reference number, status, and estimated or actual dates. FEMA N0110e to Congress; Monthly Update on Rood Mapping Risk MAP Vision '"The vlslon for Nsk MAF Is to deliver qualltydatathat lncreasa public awareness ondleadstoaction thotreduces risk to IIJE and property." 3 rmq 4.1, ESTIMATED ISSUANCE OF PRELIMINARY MAPS Preliminary FIRMS and Flood Insurance Study (FIS) reports include proposed flood hazard information for areas inthe counties listed. This information may include the addition or modification of Special Flood Hazard Areas -the areas subject to inundation bythe base (1 -percent -annual -chance) flood, Base Flood Elevations or depths, flood zone designations, or regulatoryfloodways (hood hazards), The table below identifies the studies for which FEMA plans to issue a preliminary FIRM and FIS report in December 2017, January 2018, or February 2018. The actual release dates are being determined in coordination with the State and/or local governments. The quarter shown in the "Estimated Schedule of Community Meeting" column indicates the estimated quarter of the year In which a community meeting for that study might take place after the preliminary FIRM and FIS report are issued, Some studies may require multiple meetings to coaxer all communities, and the dates could vary. The quartersare based on the calendar year (Qua rter 1= January—March, Quarter 2 = April --June, Quarter = July—September and Quarter = October—December). In addition, the "Estimated Schedule of Publishing Notices in local Newspapers and Starting Appeal Period" column indicates the first quarter In which an appeal period may begin for a community within the study area (marked by the second publication of a notice in the local newspaper). Some studies will require notices to be published in multiple local newspapers so that all communities are notified; each community could, therefore, have different publication dates. Est Fe>ti r,totl E*rura*sod 8cteaeurr 1pr El4imatlard Sairredgisai PLP131410111?Nal lei ilppian Stale Couniy Wine GRsa Number Preldettirfary in Lor,** tusuaneb cammundy Howapalptraan. 1tAara#�r►p s BEaMrtino Avpoai AL 2 NJ Burlington County 17-02-0795.5 D warrber 2017 Quarter 1, 2019 Quarter 1, 2018 WY Niagara County 17-02-02945 December 2017 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 PA Adorns County 14-03-19398 February 2018 Quartar 2, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 I PA Oaiumbia county 15-03-02275 February 2o18 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 H4 Luzerne County 15-03-0227$ February 2018 Quarter 2, 20'18 Quarter 3, 2018 �7 FL Gadsden County 12-04-04668 February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 4 FL Leon County 12-0404888 February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarbr 3; 2018 r PL Liberty County 12-04-04685 February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 R Wakule County 12-04-04865 February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 4 KY Jefferson County 10.0478408 Decei rber 2017 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 MS Claiborne County 13-04-44868 January 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3. 2018 M5 Hinds County 13-04-84895 January 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 JhiS Medoon runty 13-04-64865 January 2096 Quarter 2, 2019 Quarter 3, 2018 4 M5 Raman County 14-04-010BS 1=ebruary 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 & M5 scot County 1404-01088 February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 3. 2018 r FETAA 1lbtice to Congress: Monthly Update on Road Mapping LoGarnasr69'ir 4 a MS Swith County 14-04-DI0SS February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quartsr.3, 2018 f NN Norman County 16-05-53248 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 s OK Canadian County 12-M-10305 February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 4, 2018 B TX Aransas County 1:-06-081 is February 2018 Quarter 2, 2016 Quarter 4, 2018 e TX Burnet County i s-08.10SSS February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 4, 2018 TX Harris County 17-08-ii238 January 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 3, 2018 4 TX HE County 14-06-15435 February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 4, 2018 1M TX ktLennon County 14-08-15485 February 2DI8 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 4, 2018 8 TX San Patrido County 15 -06 -OBI IS February 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 4, 2018 a TX Williamson County 15-O iDes5 February 7018 Quarter 2, 2018 Quarter 4 2018 KS Rice County 12-07-03335 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 T mo Gundy County 17-07-01465 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 MD Knox County 17-07-01795 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 �. 7 MD Livingston County 17-07-01498 January 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 7 MD Mercer County 17-07-01535 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 7 MD Nodew ay County 17-07-01585 February 2.018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 1 MD Putnam County 17-07-01835 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 1 MD Randolph County 17-07-01835 January 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2. 2018 7 MD IBplsy County 17-07-0103S January 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 7 MD Scotland County 17-07 01935 February 2018 Quarter 1. 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 7 MD Shelby County 1747-01268 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2D1S i MD Vernon County 17-07-01708 January 2018 Quarter 1, 2016 Quartet' 2., 2016 7 MO Wttht County 17-07-01985 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 S MT Gallatin County 15-08-01085 February 2018 Quarter 1. 2018 Quarter Z. 2018 8 MT GoldenCoup Vallay 17-08.08035 February 2015 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 ' S Mr Petroleum County 17-08-08035 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 I �+ Mr R3osetxid County 17-08-08= February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 It AZ Mancopa County 1709-04118 January 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 tb ID Bannock County 16-10-05835 January 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 1R OR Douglas county 14-10-05745 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 .10 OR Lane Comfy 12-10-04008 February 2018 Quarter 1, 2018 Quarter 2, 2018 7 [I WA iGltrims County 16-10-08265 January 2018 Quarter 1. 2018 Mortar 2. 2018 *Phase we EhOiaS mtmber wa Rfelenw f caff&xMg FEMA iftaioaar FJr EnW AffVrT fCW 0ddffim 1 Lgfa maaoa abwrt a SWdy. Notice to Cangress:MonthlyUpdat , an Flood Mapping 5 4.2. ESTIMATED ISSUANCE OF REVISED PRELIMINARY MAPS The table below identifies the studies under which FEMA plans to issue revised preliminary maps in December3017, January- 2018, or February 2018. The actual releasedates are being determined in coordination with the State and/or local governments. The information in the table below does not show the estimated datesfor community meetings, publications in the local newspapers, or a ppeal periods, as these processes are often not necessary for re vised preliminary mapping products. t NE Currberiand County 12-01-10595 Oecerri er 2017 1 NE York County 12 01 1051 S Decanter 2017 QA DeKalo County 17-04-46388 December 2017 4 — sG Charketon County 07-04-47718 December 2017 6 N Jasper County 17-05-36005 January 2018 6 V M Lenawee County 12-06-02618 December 2017 NN Garver County 07-05-25145 January 2018 8 NN Fbuston County 11-05-15615 Decenter 2017 : 6 M11 NiarshaA County 15-WOB83S February 2018 6 MN Fbk County 17-05-13895 February 2418 8 OH 1Marran County 14-05-60845 January 2018 LA Calcaslau Parish 12-08.08998 December 2017 IA Fbk County 12-07-09565 Dacenter 2017 NE Hardison County 16-07-0767S Decanter 2017 7 NE York County 1&07-0787S Daoarrber 2017 8 Ur Lkah County 15408-07303 January 2018 AZ Whoop County 15-06-03665 January 2018 a AZ Yavapai County 15408-16925 January 2018 L 9 CA Nlendoono Ccurdy 16-09-2629& February 2018 OWg CIA Ventura County 17-09-01805 February 2018 40 AK SAID Borough 14-104)BM January 2018 10 6] Ada County 11-10-03998 February 2018 10 OR Ctaakamiar, County 12-10-09035 Febnun 2018 10 OR Curry County 12-10-04078 December 2017 10 1MA Jeffers on County 1410-05868 January 2018 16 U1dF1 Nkson County 11-10-04275 February 2018 * Pk= nse VZ Case Wfi"berW c rr*WMe r Cootacft FEMA A9910 of Eamal AUbbs farodd anal infnrrrr mn about 05h* MOM FENJA Nodes to Congress: Monthly Update on Flood Mapping 6 4.3. ACTIONS TAKEN BY THE ADMINISTRATOR The table below identifies the studies under which FEMA issued a preliminary RRM and FIS report, Initiated a 990 -day appeal period, issued a revised preliminary FIRM and FIS report, or issued LFDs in November 2017. It also Identifies studies that had FIRM panels and R5 reports become effective during the month of November 2017. 2 _ NJ # NY 3 MD PA to FSA PA AL _ CoA # 4 NC NC 4 4 NC NC 4 NC 4 NC 4 A NC NO a NO 4 NC: � 6 VVI AR T Iq 7 NE 7 t a NE Co a M 9 CA 10 AK ID ID #¢ VA +0 VA Bergen County Niagara County Allegany County Nair County Delaw are County iiuntingdon County Mobile County Long County Alamance County Casw all runty. Durham County Guilford County Lee County Moore County Orange County Pbrson County Randolph County Welas County She6y County Marathon County Lords County Fkvnboldt County Colfax County Dodge County 13 Faso County Racer County San Diego County Valdez -Cordova Census Area Valley County Thurston Comity Whatcom County 16-02-04435 16-02-00075 09-03-00155 10.03-07125 14.03-20245 16-03-07135 15-04-87525 12-04-09195 11-04-66105 14-04-9008S 14-04-90885 14.04-90985 1404-901W 14-04-9098s 11-0485105 14-04-90965 14-0490985 1404-90985 16-05-67275 18-05-14645 1408-11165 15-07--09035 17-07-13685 17-07-13IMS 07-08-0392$ 17-09-02175 12-09-13278 11-10-04145 11-10-010SS 12-10-03945 13-10-03435 c Notice to Congres sWenthly Update on Rood Mapping Appeal Start Maps Effective Revised ftlirnnery LFD Issued Maps Effective LFD Issued Preliminary Maps Efecbve Maps Effective Maps Effective Apps EffGVN9 Maps Effective Maps Effective Maps Effeotive Maps Effective A4aps Effective Maps Effective Maps Effective Appeal $tart ft1hinary Appeal Siert Maps Effective Relmnary Phe h*mry Revised Prehrrmnary Revbed ftliminery Appeal Start Appeal Start Pr9elm-Ary, LFD Issued Appeal Start k& 11110=17 111312017 1111512017 11=017 111312017 111212017 1111WD17 11/17/2017 11/1712017 11117/2017 11117/2017 11/17/2017 11/1712017 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 11/17/2017 11/1712017 11117J2017 1 112812 01 7 11/28/2017 11/0/2017 11f,112017 11/27/2017 11/17/2017 1 1r=" 7 IIII 2017 11/3120/7 112912017 11/171,2017 11/1512017 11128/2017 7 "Tease use the rote number w a Mfemm x r nsnbrabW FEMA Real b "mai A (fain fi vaddMbnai bifmmagm about a sa* l n otenl itrwi cr, `PrAlimiti..rV:: Actbc =. For the studies identified as "preliminary' in the "Action Taken" column, FEMA provided all affected communities with preliminary copies of the revised FiRM panels and FIS report. FEMA has posted digitaicoples of the preliminary FIRMand FIS report materialson the FEMA Map Service Center (MSC) website (http://www.fema.gov/prelrminaryfloodhazarddato)for public access. In the coming weeks, FEMA will publish a notice of the proposed updates in the Federal Register. FEMA also recommends that community officials call further attentiontothe proposed flood hazard determinations and the appeal process by issuing a press release or other public notice. The preliminary copies of the FIRM and FIS report will be the basis for a coordination meeting with community officials and residents. The meeting will give community members a chance to review the mapping products and comment or ask questions about the map changes. FEMA will contact each affected community to schedule the coordination meeting. In addition to making the digital copies of the FIRM and FIS report available on the MSC website, FEMA has encouraged community officials to circulatetheir copies as widely as possible among elected officials, staff, residents, and other local stakeholders, so that they will have the opportunity to corrector add to the nontechnical information presented on the preliminary products, including the configuration and labeling of physical features such as roads, bridges, and streams. Requests to revise nontechnical information maybe provided to FEMA during this community review period, at the community coordination meeting, or during the statutory 9C -day appeal period that will follow. Approved changes will be shown on the final FIRM and in the final PIS report. After the review and appeal periods have ended and all comments and appeals have been addressed, FEMA will initiate the final preparation of the F1 RM and FIS report. The new FIRM and FIS report will become effective approximately sic months later. Before that date, each community will be reminded of the requirements to adopt new floodplain ordinances or modify existing ordinances, as necessary, to reflect any changes in the FIRM or FIS report. FEMA will provide communities with final copies of the FIRM panels and FCS report before they become effective, a nd final FIRM and FIS reports will officially be archived on the MSC website at https://msc., fema gov Informatinr± kin "Ai+peal Scarf' _ x71 The preliminary FIRM panels and AS report include proposed flood hazard information for certain locations in the counties listed above. This proposed information may include the addition or modification of Specie I Flood Hazard Areas—the areas subject to Inundation by the base flood, Base Flood Elevations or depths, flood zone designations, or regulatoryfloodways. The National Flood Insurance Act provides limited rights to appea I proposed flood elevation and flood hazard zone determinations at42 IJ.S.G §4104, and authorizesonly any owner or lessee of real property within the community who believes his property rights to be adversely affected by the proposed determination to appeal, or the community an such Individual's behalf. The only basis for appeal is the possession of information showing that: EWANotice toCangreas:Monthly Updain an Road Mapping :{ 8 I=•� (1) the elevations being proposed by the Administrator with respect to an Identified area having special flood haz a rds a re scientifica Illy or technically incorrect, or (2) thedesignation of an identified special flood hazard area is scientifically ortechnically incorrect. The data must be .submitted during the 90 -day appeal period for proposed maps in order to satisfy the statutory requirements for an appeal designation or appellant status of the appropriate entity. For the studies identified as "Appeal Start" in the "Action Taken" column, FEMA published a notice of the proposed updates in the Federal Register, a long with public notifications of the appeal process in local newspapers. FEMA recommends that community officials call further attentionto the proposed food hazard determinations and the appeal process by issuing a press release or other public notice. These proposed flood hazard updates, once flnelized, will become the basis for the floodplain management measures that communities must adopt for participation in the NFIP. However, before any new or modified flood hazard information is finalized and becomes effective, FEMA provides community officiais and residents an opportunity to appea I the proposed flood hazard information presented on the preliminary FIRM pa nels and FIS report. The appeaI procedure Is outlined below. The 90 -day appeal period bega n on the date of the second notification published In the loca I newspapers. It is important to note that only appeals supported by scientific or technical data will be considered. The appeal data must be submitted to FEMA during the 90-dayappeal period, which cannot be extended. FEMAwill also consider comments and inquiries regarding Information other than the proposed flood haze rd determinations (e.g., incorrect street names, typographical errors, or omissions) and will incorporate a ny appropriate changes before the revised FIRM and FIS report become effective. FEMA asks that communities review and consolidate any appeal data they receive and issue a written opinion stating whether the evidence provided Is sufficient to justify an official appeal. Whether or not a community decides to appeal, it must send copies of individual appeaisand anysupporting data to FEMA for consideration. FEMA will resolve all appeals in consultation with local officlels, through an administrative hearing or by submitting the conflicting data to an independent scientific body or appropriate Federal agencyfor guidance. After other alternatives have been explored, communities may also request a review by a Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP). SRPs are independent panels of experts In hydrology, hydraulics, and other pertinent sciences, which are established to review conflicting scientific and technicai data and provide recommendations for resolution. An SRP is an option after FEMA and community officials have been engaged in a collaborative consultation process for at least 60 days without a mutually acceptable resolution of anappeal. FEMA will provide the reports and other information used in making the final determination, for public inspection. If substantive changes to the preliminary FIRM and FIS report are required aftertheappeal period, FEMA will send each affected community a revised preliminary copy of the FIRM and FIS report to FWA Notice to Cana ran*: Monthly Updato on Flood Mapping 9 or, t4" -t-1 UE! f-. review. After any appeals and comments regardingthose products are resolved, FEMA will send each community an LFD, which finalizes the flood hazard information presented on the FIRM and FIS report and establishes an effective date for the mapping products. lnforrnat;, un'Revised PYelrrnJ0ar}"' Mr.t«•�+7 For the studies identified as "Revised PrellminarVN in the "Action Taken" column, FEMA has provided all affected communities with revised preliminary copies of the FIRM panels and FIS report and is preparing to initiate a statutory 90 -day appea I period, if required. The revised preliminary FIRM and FIS report Include proposed flood hazardinformation for areasin the counties listed. This information may include the addition or modification of Special Flood Hazard Areas -the a reqs subject to inundation by the base flood, Base Flood Elevations or depths, flood zone designations, or regulatory floodways. FEMA has posted digitalcopies of the revised preliminary FIRM and FIS report materialson the FEMA MSC website (http:J/www.femo.gov/preliminaryfioodhazorddata)for public access. After all comments have been addressed, FEMA will Initiate thefinal preparation of the FIRM and FIS report, which will become effective approximately six months later. Before that date, each community will be reminded of the requirements to adopt new floodplain ordinances or modify existing ordinances, as necessary, to reflecta ny changes in the FIRM or FIS report. FEMA will provide communities withfinal copies of the FIRM panels and FIS report before they become effective, and final FIRM and FIS reports will officially be archived on the MSC website at https://msc fema.go, information on "LFQ Issued," Action - For the studies identified as "LFD Issued" in the "Action Taken" column, FEMAhas alreadyprovided the communities affected by the updated flood mapping with preliminary copies afthe revised FIS report and FIRM. Proposed flood hazardchanges were published in local newspapers and in the Federal Register. Astatutory 90 -day appeal period was held, and FEMA resolved any appeals or comments received during that period. Accordingly, the flood hazard designations are now considered final. In compliance with the Code of Federal Regulations (44 GFR 67.11), FEMA has sent a notice of the final flood hazard information to the Chief Executive Officer of all affected comm unit les, all individua I appellants, a nd the State Coordinating Agency, and published this information in the Federal Register. FEMA will provide each affected community with final copies of the updated FIS report and FIRM panels before they become effective in approximately six months. Final RRMand FIS reports will officially be archived on the MSC website at.Wps://msc fema. j Infnrmst1r1n an � Mai s.r; ":r�'.'� ii r7:°1"!`•'s'S. For the studies identified as "Maps Effective" in the "Action Taken" column, the updated FIRM and FIS report issued by FEMA have become effective. Effective FIRMsare used by communities to administer floodplain management reguiationsandm igateflood damage. Loca I citizensuse them to determine the flood zone for their property or structure. Lending institutions use them todetermine whether flood insure nce is required. Once the FIRM becomes effective, insurance rates may be affected for FEMA Notice to Congress --Monthly Update on Flood Mapping 10 property owners within the communities. S. ADDITIONAL INFORMATION Flood mapping information and resources that your staff and constituents may find helpful are available on the FEMA website at www.fema-gov/national flood4nsuranceprogram-flood-hazard mapping. In addition, the FEMA Map Information Exchange (FM DQ is available to answer questions by telephone, toll free, at 1.677-336-2527 or by email at FEMAMapSpecialist@riskmapcds.cam Alist ofaddkional resources Is provided in Appendix C. If you have any questions or concerns regarding the information in this document, please have a member of your staff contactthe appropriate FEMA Regional External Affairs Specialist listed below. FEMA tt�s-wvwwv%memalAffairs Specialist Contact List Jenna Pnkhpm 617-858-7547 Dennis-Plnkhomffema dhs.gov, Davit Sullivan 202-480-1053 Kevin.Suilivan@fema.dhs.gov Corey DdW aro 202-384-8588 CoreyDeMuro@femadhs.gov Dann Lucas 770-220-5282 Danoun.Lucas@fema.dim gav Dan Bhulrran 342-408-4427 Dan.Shulman@fema.dhs gov Juan Ayala 940-898-5105 Juan.Ayala@femixdhs.gov Mchael Cappannan 816-283-7080 Michael. CoppunnarWfema.dhs gov Stacie Gaff 303-235-4908 Stacle.Greff@fema.dhs gov Frank Mansell 510-677-7088 frank Mansell@fema As gov Ryan Ike 425-4874787 Ryan.lke@fiema.dhs.gov FEMA Notice to Congress: Monthly Update on Flood Mapping 11 W Cc-rfi be r 2411 APPENDIX A: FLOOD MAPS Hood hazard mapping is an important part of the NFIP, as It Is the basis for NFIP regulations and flood insurance requirements. The information graphics in thisappendix detalithe process fbrflood map creation and updates. rl tW 15 A lIIIAIP? A Flood Map informs your community of varying des of iGcal flood risk. It helps set Minimum floodplain srandant and determines the cost or flood insurance The lower your degree of (sk, the lower vouf flood Insurance Premium. though in areas of high flood risk, it might mandate flood insurance coverage HOW IS A FLOOD MAP MADE? . a= Identify Anea to Map or Re -Map HIIl WOULDA Cllr N=110 4FAUP7 PppuisUal� fwrnh Br¢ter Chnn�Ns & Ike naru5 S&kylp �anrh' SAW doftjW Am A W8kN od * *40 Wd lorifaaaaaaafr i tea "W aaM m6ftOftegad.*W1*l 4161setee FV aswwdovdin!at d2b,me ad 1" 01114do of racy. aa4 jW #" mrsom*Ie"M + s Ir*slri%=W uWar+dWWWhahaida1L OJDII)L- Ai R.Foeft am naursotwo +aMh "►12J USUM fflWi FE&U Notice to Congress; Monthly Update on Rood Mapping L—ws..— cv.a �� 0 Conduct DbomM ......... :11 ...... ........... V. 671 F Owl T'r Ififra,43lictutz 41--dramic", Lane oisL#, fxi—in' IT"AiN . ........... .... . ............ A ROW V.W 0 "*am w 1 plaw mmam rms U" (owl Camm=mftw MIDI wmmW*mwUmwmm • 4)WA"UW kwW= ft VIM C"dSPDCW fbod HawAA"m CM) DdM MgmbW eta and IN mW I*pLwm kWxftC**#O* j* 50,01OWUM Good PORd-da* and bW1tkgAWW#A ft the ammaly ff-jdhft-Hf% w ft wi. .-. 0 MqIM and 4W^Ar ng 4milimmilih w 41'. a ROW Mcip is nmed, a *W or meolft man on oftkw Ow d did 0* 6walficabon and smamwmcsw —1 I ft data and research am fm Room dw Rood fors TftdMap 0*4 to Anal alp ftW 080 to t4mated W Few 9w. ."K =to and IOCBa laadars dater r a 46MM And MAN and W P Plan as won as remm stir WW moms nm as VIM or Nwmkgw and Dbcmwy w0~14mambon Won to ho km swmomrs aview to 490M feduce @0 and Wbma 711am""RePortPowd" risk. ftWMWMS *11h a VOWWW"Am and Vbtkl under rd of OZWMI flood OlOng 40NOW data, And allffn Rood mawbon acts les H; FEMA Notice to Congres s: M onthly Updats on Flood Mapping December2017 13 Hold the Flood Risk ReWw and RwAlenm WOW #A v 9 qP NN I x,lf, Po v t-� V I, J,, io ON 0, ARI jjw,Aawlv tai um h0c, r ti 154 mill: 110. - FEMA Nat" to Congress: Monthly Update on Rood Mapping 14 Fadk to Public Appeal and Comment #mad Rood Maps am efsled ftm sand soeaoe no MOM hormMMM brass wCMEO OWTMKMN d two ft of ftw-pw*Ma Mft4msWdts apao pomatlpnopefcrte+ I I L IZEfVU //N�otice to Congress:MonthlyUpdate on Rood Mapping 15 .01[+C Ya [[[mug iV /f k�«mar (Tllhiy1 A13V loddw i=ikw ikik delaslupa s Lir, dr .' .� �+ - nppais ills ow Z tr v Remsim umft) ieQLmvd W1ft 6 MWOs of 1a[w PMW QZWI*MOF [dsenenwgsr prwta hettiff* 0 Iffq " mmilieellcy O# WaterAW • . I• •� ....� iiil e:. �r : � [E' FIs .,. �. ra if i' 1 _Mill".FEJAA Notice. to Congress - Monthly Update on Flood Mapping 16 =—r m APPENDIX B: ACRONYMS Table 1: Acronyms and Definitions List B*gen- I Biggert-Waters In July 2012, the US Congress passed the Biggert-Waters Flood b tun, Flood Insurance Insurance ReformAct of 2012, which calls on the Federal Reform Act of Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and other agenciesto 2012 make a number of the nges to the way the National Flood I nsurance Program (NF[P) is run. For more Information, please visit httpds//www jema gov/meft4ibrary/resources- documents/collectrons/341 Flood Insurance A Flood Insurance Rate Map (FIRM) is an official product on which Rate Map FEMA has delineated both the special flood hazard areasand the risk zones applicable tothe community. For more information, please visit http//www_fema.govjflood insurance -rate -map -firm Flood Insurance A Flood insurance Survey (FIS) is a compilation and presentation of Study flood risk data for specific watercourses, lakes, and coastalflood hazard areas within a community For more information, please visit hitp,hwww.fema.gov,'Yloodpla►n-managemeno?ood- insurance study frwniir FEMA Map The FEMA Map Information eXchange(FMI)Q was created in March information 2010 to provide a one-stop shop for a variety of information, Exchange products, services, and tools that support the NFlP. For more Information, please visit http j/www fToadmaps fema.govjfhnnjYmx main.html NFir National Flood The NIFIP identifies areasof flood nskthroughanalym and Insurance mapping, encourages floodplain management practices through Program community participation, and offers flood insurance to homeowners, renters, and business owners in participating communities. For more information, please visit https//www.fema gov/notionallkmd insurance -program LFU Letter ofFine I FEMA sends a Letter of Final Determination (LFD) to the Chief Determination Executive Officer of a community as notification thata new or updated FIRM will become effective in six months. For more information, please visit http:/Jwww.fiema.gov/national flood - insurance -program floodhazard-mappingjletter-frnal- determination r - FEMA Wdoe to Congress: MonthlyUpdete on Rood Mapping 17 December 2017 ffdW : F,h4A Notice to Congress: Monthly Update on Flood Mapping uacemoer zu1r 1$ 3 MSC Map Service FEMXs MapService Center (MSC) is the official government Center distribution centerfbr digital and paper flood hazard mapping products created by FEMA in support of the IFI P. For more wdormation, please visit https //msc fema.gov RLIk MAP Risk Mapping, The vision for the Risk Mapping` Assessment, and Planning (Risk Assessment, and MAP) program is to deliver quality data that increases public Planning awarenessand leads to action thatreduces risk to life and property. Risk MAP builds an flood hazard data and maps produced during the Flood Map Modernization program. For more information, please visit http://www.fema.gov/risk mapping-asseament- planning 'SRP Scientific The Scientific Resolution Panel (SRP) process reinforces FEMA's Resolution Panel commitment to work with communities to ensure that the flood IiL hazard data depicted on FIRMsis built collaborativek usingthe best science available. For more information, please visit http.//rvww. femdr. gov/medfa-library-data/1470778879722- e5a7384967fe3O1cef8bfob130b764a3lSRi Overva?w_fne4_ hnlcpcf ffdW : F,h4A Notice to Congress: Monthly Update on Flood Mapping uacemoer zu1r 1$ 3 APPENDIX C: RESOURCES The fallowing additional resources provide a better understanding of key elements of this report. ...,W41PIRW nttpsy/www fema.gov/media-11braryfresources- documents/collectronsf341 - — — — .-A Phame E-mail $Gdok iwtedig Mime E-mail https•1fwww f ma gov/natkmaPflaadansuranceprogram 1-898-379-9531 (toll free) flaodsmart@fema_dhs gov Twitte rat @NAPtralning http //www fiema.gov/ruk-mapping-assessment planning FEMA Map Information Exchange (FMIQ 1-877-336-2627 (toll free) FEA4AMapSpecia1ist@riskmapcds com FENU Notice to Congress: Monthly Update on Food Mapping 19 December 2017