Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAbout2020-11-09-minutes-public-works-study-sessionKITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Public Works Study Session Regular Meeting Monday November 9, 2020 -1:30 PM Webex 1. Call to Order 2. Big Boulder Final Construction Report 3. Recreational Vehicle Abatement 4. Baker Road Construction Traffic 5. Klocke Levee Maintenance Obligations S. Grant County PUD Land Use Cooperative Agreement 7. Other business 8. Adjourn Created an 11 /4/2020 3:58:43 PM KITTITAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION MINUTES Webex Regular Meeting MONDAY 1:30 PM NOVEMBER 9, 2020 Board members present: Chairman Brett Wachsmith, Vice -Chairman Laura Osiadacz, Commissioner Cory Wright Others: Mark Cook, Candie Leader, Arden Thomas, Public Works; Dan Carlson, Jessica Miller, Community Development Services; Neil Caulkins, Prosecuting Attorney's Office; and One (1) Member of the Public At 1:30 pm Chairman Brett Wachsmith opened the Public Works Study Session. BIG BOULDER FINAL CONSTRUCTION REPORT Mark Cook gave background on the project and explained the challenges with the first design and the additional work with the Consultant to redesign the project after three contractors declined to the bid the project as initially designed. Mark Cook continued that even with the redesign costs the project was completed still under the original Engineer's estimate. Mark Cook thanked the Board of County Commissioners for their support with the project. RECREATIONAL VEHICLE ABATEMENT Mark Cook gave background on a recreational vehicle being parked on county property at Reecer Creek Road and Dry Creek Road. Mark Cook continued that he contacted the inhabitants along with Code Enforcement and gave notice to vacate the property and they stated they would leave. Mark Cook added that he was noticed that the vehicle was still on county property and he inquired with legal to see what the next steps were to get the vehicle removed. Mark Cook stated that on November 3rd staff arrived with a tow truck and law enforcement to remove the vehicle and the owners made the decision to tow the vehicle themselves. Mark Cook commented that through this process it was discovered that a neighboring property owner has ownership of the access to the property owned by the county and has expressed interest in obtaining ownership since she owns the access to it. Discussion was held. Staff was directed to research the process to transfer ownership to the neighboring property owner, 2020-11-09 MINUTES BAKER ROAD CONSTRUCTION TRAFFIC Mark Cook gave background on the ongoing issues with Baker Road and construction traffic using the road as a shortcut to access Suncadia. Mark Cook continued that previously staff has placed barriers across the roadway and the Board of County Commissioners gave direction to remove the barriers and schedule a meeting with Suncadia, Forest Service and Commissioner Osiadacz to discuss options. Mark Cook stated that at the meeting Suncadia stated they were going to keep the other access that could be used locked and the road is still being utilized as a by-pass. Mark Cook added that recently staff deployed barriers again that will allow for smaller vehicles to get through and has had emails and calls supporting the action and no complaints as of today's date. Discussion was held. KLOCKE LEVEE MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS Mark Cook gave background on the Klocke Levee and the coordination that has been done to date on getting repairs done to one section of the levee. Mark Cook stated that the County had secured a long-term maintenance agreement from the property owner that provides access to the levee, however, the property owner sold the parcel and the new owner doesn't agree with the new proposed agreement for the county to continue having access to the levee. Mark Cook continued that the other access is through Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) and previous attempts by staff to secure a long-term perpetual easement have failed. Mark Cook added that without access to the levee repairs cannot be made and the recommendation to move forward is to remove the levee from the PL 84-99 Program with the US Army Corps of Engineers. Mark Cook presented a previous legal opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office from 1983. Discussion was held. Staff was directed to draft a letter to the US Army Corps of Engineers noticing our decision removing the Klocke Levee from the PL 84-99 Program. GRANT COUNTY PUD LAND USE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT Mark Cook gave background on the current agreement from 2016 with Grant County PUD and the original request to seek legal opinion on a termination clause within the agreement. Mark Cook stated that the current agreement does not have a termination clause only a date of termination for the agreement listed as August 22, 2021. Mark Cook continued that recent actions taken against a local resident by Grant County PUD for the removal of private improvements in the Vantage area have brought up a larger communication to be had on how to collectively partner with Grant County PUD on recreation use in Vantage. Mark Cook added that recently he attended a meeting along with Commissioner Cory Wright with a representative from Grant County PUD and was given an application and due date for the local resident to complete for the private improvements. Commissioner Cory Wright commented that it is disheartening that Grant County PUD is requiring the improvements made with private funds to be removed when residents 2020-11-09 MINUTES and travelers enjoy them for recreational use. Commissioner Cory Wright stated that the county needs to take some control back in these areas and has received response on having a meeting with a higher level of decisionmakers at Grant County PUD. Discussion was held. Staff was directed to schedule an executive session with legal for further discussions. Meeting adjourned at 2:21 pm. 2020-11-09 MINUTES KITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON Brett Wachsmith, Chairman KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COAINHSSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: November 9, 2020 TOPIC: Big Boulder Final Construction Report ACTION REQUESTED: None required — informational briefing LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMMENDATION: None required — informational briefing only. BRIEFING SUUIMARY: • Original 40 foot poured in place concrete abutments engineer's estimate was $749,227. • Final construction costs including the temporary 40 -foot bridge for maintaining access for one year, along with the final 60 -foot bridge, total $741,466.58. • Public Works now has a 40 -foot temporary metal girder steel bridge in our inventory for emergency flood fight or for support of capital construction projects. BACKGROUND: During the summer of 2018 Public Works became aware of a failing wood bridge structure on Fish Lake Road and Big Boulder Creek from a United States Forest Service bridge inspection report. Public Works immediately load restricted the bridge and engaged KPFF towards design of a replacement bridge. The resulting design engineer's cost estimate was for $749,227. Constructability concerns (remote location) resulted in no contractor submitting bids for constructing the project as designed. Public Works, working with KPFF engineers, designed a temporary deployment of the 40 -foot metal girder bridge procured for the original design allowing winter traffic (2019-2020). A project re -design resulted in a longer bridge (60 -foot) on a precast concrete foundation. The engineer's cost estimate for the redesigned structure was $342,150. DISCUSSION: All construction costs, including regrading of the road supporting bridge delivery and project inspection and administration costs total $741,466.58. This represents 99% of the engineer's original project cost estimate. Importantly, in addition to replacing the failed wood bridge, Public Works now has an additional 40 -foot metal girder bridge in its Equipment Rental and Replacement program. Page 1 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT While the construction side of the project was successful, the engineering design side of the project was less successful. The original design called for deep poured in place concrete foundations. The remoteness of the site and long supply haul distance created anxiety on the part of Public Works. Our anxiety was underscored during a mandatory pre-bid site conference required by Public Works. Three responding bidders all declined to submit construction bids on the original design. All three bidders were solicited for their interest in a re -designed project using a 60 -foot bridge on precast foundations — all three expressed interest in that project. Several lessons learned: engage more aggressively on constructability issues with consultant designers early in project development and recognize no one knows this County better than Public Works. It also reinforces for staff the value to stop a project going in a bad direction and regroup — even if project design costs are lost. In the case of Big Boulder Bridge Replacement, the outcome was favorable largely because staff was thoughtful post design and was willing to take risk redesigning the project on a fast track with a cooperative consultant. A project photo is provided as EXHIBIT 1. FISCAL UMPACTS: Total project engineering and construction costs for the project approximate $1 million. Public Works estimates the loss of engineering design costs at approximately $100,000. Construction savings and the 40 -foot temporary bridge in inventory offset the design cost lost in the project. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Bridge photo Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: BRIDGE PHOTO Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT I 4C am_ all 3 KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COAMUSSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: November 9, 2020 TOPIC: Recreational Vehicle Abatement ACTION REQUESTED: None — informational briefing only LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMMENDATION: None — informational briefing only. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • Unpermitted recreational vehicle usage on Public Works land duly noticed with Code Enforcement for abatement. • Prosecuting Attorney review supports towing of the unpermitted and unauthorized vehicle. • Towing is complete and the vehicle is being disposed of by Public Works staff. • Public Works desires vacating the parcel to the adjacent landowner. BACKGROUND: In late summer 2020, a recreational vehicle (motor home) showed up on a Public Works parcel of land at the intersection of Reecer Creek Road and Dry Creek Road. The occupant was immediately contacted by Public Works and noticed of trespass. The occupant originally committed to vacating and then claimed the failed RV transmission precluded exiting the site. Formai notice was served by Public Works with assistance from Code Enforcement on August 26, 2020. Following Prosecuting Attorney review, Public Works was advised that we could remove the vehicle from our property. DISCUSSION: It appears that the old Reecer Creek Road right of way was vacated to Beryl Kelly in the past. Our parcel is without improved access. Proximity to Whiskey Creek likely precludes access to Reecer Creek Road and insufficient separation distance on Dry Creek from the intersection precludes access to Dry Creek Road. Ms. Kelly is expressing interest in obtaining the land and then blocking the driveway (ecology blocks) ensuring no further instance of unauthorized use. Unauthorized camping on public land in Kittitas County is on the rise. Tow companies are charging more and more for RV disposal. PW disposed of an RV early in 2020 for approximately $1,200. Recently, we were quoted $2,500. Responding to the increasing Page I of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMNIISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT price for RV disposal and believing this phenomenon is Iikely not going away soon, PW elected to tow the RV to a PW pit site where it is being dismantled. The ultimate destination is a certified state disposal site. FISCAL IMPACTS: The towing of the RV is expected to cost in the range of $1,000. Staff time and disposal fees are anticipated at being $1,500. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit]: Abatement Letter Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: ABATEMENT LETTER Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT 6ars ... ro -=� KITTITAS COUNTY COMMUNITY DEVELOPMENT SERVICES ,. 411 N. Ruby St., Suite 2, Eileneburg, WA 98926 CDS@CG.Kr(I II AS.WA.US Office (509) 962-7506 — "Building Partnerships — Building Communities", Fax (509) 962-7682 xrlrrrns cornvrY .: NOTICE OF ORDER TO CORRECT VIOLATION August 26. 2020 Michael Foradory Reecer Creek Rd. and W. Dry Creek Rd. Ellensburg, WA 98926 Map #: 18-18-27030-0029, Parcel 11251 Location: Reecer Creek Rd. and W. Dry Creek Rd. To Whom It May Concern, It has been brought to the attention of this department that the above listed tax parcel is in violation of Kittitas County Code. Code Enforcement has observed a recreational vehicle being utilized as a residence and/or unpermitted camping at this location. All recreational vehicles and other vehicles must be removed from the parcel. The purpose of this letter is to obtain your voluntary compliance within fifteen business days of your receipt of this notification. Failure to respond to this notice of correction and its corrective measures within the fifteen business days will result in the issuance of an infraction and a monetary penalty of $500.00 will be assessed per day for each and every violation. In addition, please be advised that multi - day violations are chargeable as crimes under KCC 18.01.050 Crimes designated. VIOLATION: 1. KCC 14.04.045 (8) Recreational Vehicles and Park Model Trailers: An RV may not be used as a residence, except if it is a primary residence and is located in a manufacturertmobile home community as defined in RCW 59.20.030 that was in existence before June 8, 2008. 2. KCC 17.15.080 Allowed Uses in Urban Lands: Campgrounds are not a permitted use in the Urban Residential Zone. REQUIRED ACTION: 1. Remove all recreational vehicles from the parcel. 2. Remove all vehicles from the parcel. 3. Remove all debris, garbage, or refuse from the parcel_ Your cooperation in this matter is appreciated. If you have additional questions or concerns you may contact code enforcement at toni.berkshire co.kittitas wa,us or (509) 962-7001. Regards, Toni ikshire Code Enforcement Officer COMMUNITY PLANNING' BUILDING INSPECTION - PLAN REVIEW - ADMINISTRATION - PERMIT SERVICES • CODE ENFORCEMENT • FIRE INVESTIGATION KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS - BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: November 11, 2020 TOPIC: Baker Road Construction Traffic ACTION REQUESTED: Affirm Placement of Road Barriers LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMMENDATION: Affirm the Director's recent decision placing barriers at Baker Road thwarting heavy construction traffic. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • Suncadia construction traffic is using Baker Road as primary access. { Evergreen Valley residents are aggravated over the traffic. • Suncadia maintains a locked access at Highway 903. Suncadia has consistently stated concern over access to the resort via Baker Road as being problematic for the resort. • A majority of the Board directed a meeting between Commissioner District 2, Public Works, Suncadia and residents. • Public Works recently set barriers in the road thwarting heavy construction traffic while allowing passenger vehicles to pass to Winston Creek Road. BACKGROUND: For the past several years, Suncadia construction traffic has used Baker Road supporting significant Suncadia construction. This access avoids having to traverse the development from the main entrance on Bullfrog Road. Numerous attempts to get the locked gate open at Highway 903 have failed, Increasing frustration on the part of Evergreen Valley residents may likely end up with a law enforcement response at some point if left unmanaged. Last year, Public Works (PW) placed jersey barriers in the roadway thwarting construction access. This action was taken without Board coordination and was removed a short time later after direction from a majority of the Board in the absence of the District 2 Commissioner. Following Board direction this past summer, PW and Commissioner Osiadacz met with Page 1 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNT Y COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Suncadia representatives and the United States Forest Service District Ranger discussing Baker Road and Winston Creek Road. Suncadia reiterated its position of not opposing the closure of Baker Road and the District Ranger reiterated her desire for maintaining public access to the Cle Elum River. PW has spent several months attempting to find a sign bridge manufacturer allowing deployment of a sign bridge with an elevation set precluding dump truck height while allowing passenger vehicles. Those efforts finally stalled in late September 2020. DISCUSSION: A recent Board discussion regarding a Suncadia final plat application brought renewed urgency to the issue from area residents. Responding to resident requests, Public Works recently coordinated with a local landowner placing barriers in the roadway allowing passenger vehicle traffic while discouraging large construction traffic. The barriers allow access of a local developer to a gravel pit. The section of road connecting Baker to Swiftwater Drive is owned by the local developer. PW has secured permission from the developer to place the barricades. Closing Baker Road to construction traffic is expected to result in complaints from the construction industry. Access will shift to the main entrance of the resort on Bullfrog Road. This action is expected to re-engage discussions between the construction industry and Suncadia management on allowing construction access to Highway 903 at Swiftwater Drive. The action provides relief to area residents and respects the request of the Forest Service maintaining public access to the Cle Elum River, FISCAL IMPACTS: The cost of barrier placement is expected to be approximately $1,000. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit I : Map Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1; MAP Page 3 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF RET'OR'T � cc 0 w co � � � � 52 / KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: November 9, 2020 TOPIC: Abandon Maintenance Obligations on Klocke Levee ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff Withdraw the Klocke Levee from the United States Army Corps of Engineers PL 54-99 Program LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff petition the United States Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) removing the Klocke Levee from the Corps PL 84-99 program. BRIEFING SUNIlVIARY: • Ongoing attempts securing a perpetual access easement to Klocke Levee have failed with the key property owner involved. • Inability securing a perpetual access easement with Burlington Northern Sante Fe (BNSF) railroad have failed. • A programmed repair by USACE in 2017 did not proceed owing to the lack of permanent access easement. • A legal opinion from the Prosecuting Attorney's Office from 1983 affirms that the County is not obligated to ongoing levee maintenance (EXHIBIT 1) BACKGROUND: The Klocke Levee was constructed by the USACE responding to a Yakima River flooding event in 1969. In March 1969, the Board of County Commissioners assumed maintenance obligations from the federal government (EXHIBIT 2). The levee is enrolled in the USACE's PL 84-99 levee maintenance program offsetting maintenance costs to the County. Annual inspections the past several years have noted ongoing levee deterioration (EXHIBIT 3 — 2017 INSPECTION). A 2017 USACE effort to repair the levee failed owing to lack of permanent easement from BNSF. Subsequent efforts by Public Works (PW) staff affirms the lack of perpetual access easement from the key property owner involved. During the past two years, numerous attempts to resolve access issues with the property owner have failed. DISCUSSION: It is highly unlikely that BNSF will grant perpetual easement to Kittitas County over the BNSF mainline at Klocke Levee. It appears that Kittitas County lost access rights over a key property in the most recent property transfer. The error appears to have been created Page 1 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT by the title company used in the property transfer. Rather than forcing a legal judgement against the title company, PW has pursued a voluntary perpetual easement from the property owner involved. The property owner and PW are unable to reach acceptable access conditions and I have given direction to abandon any further attempts at reconciliation. While BNSF is unlikely to grant perpetual access easement to Kittitas County, they are equally unlikely to allow the riverbank to fail imperiling their mainline. Owing to the inability securing perpetual access easements from BNSF and key property owners, it is disingenuous to continue having the USACE invest annual resources inspecting the levee. The population served by the levee, as identified by USACE staff is 17 at an estimated value of $4,072,640 in assets ("Klocke Non -Federal Levee Yakima River, Washington, August 2014) — attached as EXHIBIT 4. FISCAL IMPACTS: $40,000 is budgeted for Klocke Levee repair in the Flood Control Zone District 2021 budget. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: 1983 Prosecuting Attorney's Office Legal Opinion Regarding Ongoing Maintenance Obligations Exhibit 2: 1969 Resolution accepting maintenance from USACE Exhibit 3: 2017 USACE Levee Inspection Report Exhibit 4: 2014 USACE Klocke Levee Overview Report Page 2 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONIIvIISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: 1983 PROSECUTING ATTORNEY'S OFFICE LEGAL OPINION REGARDING ONGOING MAINTENANCE OBLIGATIONS Page 3 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONMUSSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Kittitas County Prosecuting Attorney .QOM 213, .KITTITAS COUNTY COURTHOUSE ELLENSBURG, WASHINGTON 98926 TELEPHONE 509 925-5369 October 28, 1983 JOSEPH PANATTONI Prosecuting Attorney Deputy Prosecuting Attorneys David H. Gorrie Thomas A. Haven N@N#FN CCT 2U 8 1983 Elizabeth McCune, Chairman 13t,_2 Board of County Commissioners ,-VARD0FKrrrffAS 3n Kittitas County Courthouse p�MM! ff�j68S Ellensburg, WA 98926 Re: Corps of Engineers' Dike Near City Wells Dear Mrs. McCune: You have asked me whether or not Kittitas County is liable for maintenance of a dike built at the above location by the Corps of Engineers. I have reviewed the document you have shown me entitled Resolution to Assume Obligations of Local Cooperation, signed March 18, 1969, and I have reviewed the pertinent Federal and State statutes. I can find nothing which places any direct obligation upon the county to repair such a dike. It should be noted, however, that in the Resolution referred to the County does agree to hold the United States free from any claims for damages arising out of the construction of the dike. It is interesting to note that in Title 33 of the United States Code, Section 701(c), which is cited in the Resolution, provides: "no money appropriated under the authority of... this title shall be expended on the construction of any project until States, political subdivisions thereof, or other responsible local agencies have given assur- ances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that they will (a) provide without cost to the United States all...easements...;(b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (c) maintain and operate all the works after completion in accordance with regulations prescribed by the Secretary of the Army...." Elizabeth McCune, Chairman Board of County Commissioners -- 2 - October 28, 1983 In other words, the Federal Statute seems to provide that the Army is not to spend money until they have received these assurances from a local agency. If the only document we have is the Resolution above referred to, it is then clear that such an assurance has not been obtained from Kittitas County. Perhaps it has been obtained from the State or because of some other technicality the Corps of Engineers felt that such an assurance was not required. It is therefore clear that the County is not obligated to repair the dike. It should be noted, however, the County does appear to have authority to repair dikes in accordance with RCW 36.32.280. I trust this will be of assistance to you. Very tK ly spurs, JOSTPP PANATTONI Prosekuting Attorney JP/sb cc: Roy Lumaco Rich Hoctor Michelle Dufault Ch. 15 FLOOD CONTROL 33 H 7O1c 701 c. Rights-of-way, easements, etc,; acquisition by local authorities; maintenance and operation; protec- tion of United States from liability for damages; requisites to ran -off and water -flow retardation and soil erosion prevention assistance After June 22, 1936, no money appropriated under authority of section 741f of this title shall be expended on the construction of any project until States, political subdivisions thereof, or other re- sponsible loc-aragencies h n assurances sa isfactory to the Secretary of the Army that its. Will (a) provide without cost to the kited States all Iands, easements, and rights -of -wap necessary for the construction of the project, except as otherwise provided herein; (b) hold and save the United States free from damages due to the construction works; (c) maintain and operate all thp.:works after completion in accordaritce with regurations prescribed by the Secre t of the Army: Provided, That the construction of any dam au- thorized by section 5 of the Act of June 22, 1936, c. 688, 49 Stat. 1572, may be undertaken without delay when the dam site has been acquired and the assurances prescribed herein have been furnished, without awaiting the acquisition of the easements and rights-of-way required for the reservoir area: And provided further, That when- ever expenditures for lands, easements, and rights-of-way by States, political subdivisions thereof, or responsible local agencies for any individual project or useful part thereof shall have exceeded the present estimated construction cost therefor, the Iocal agency con- cerned may be reimbursed one-half of its excess expenditures over said estimated construction cost: And provided further, That when benefits of any project or useful part thereof accrue to lands and property outside of the State in which said project or part thereof is located, the Secretary of the Army with the consent of the State wherein the same are located may acquire the necessary lands, ease- ments, and rights-of-way for said project or part thereof after he has received from the States, political subdivisions thereof, or re- sponsible local agencies benefited the present estimated cost of said lands, easements, and rights-of-way, Iess one-half the amount by h which the estimated cost of these lands, easements, and rights-of- way exceeds the estimated construction cost corresponding thereto: And provided further, That the Secretary, of the Army shall deter- mine the proportion of the present estimated cost of said lands, ease- ments, and rights-of-way what each State, political subdivision there - Of, or responsible local agency should contribute in consideration for the benefits to be received by such agencies: And provided fur- ther, That whenever not less than 75 per centum of the benefits as estimated by the Secretary of the Army of any project or useful Part thereof accrue to Iands and property outside of the State in Which said project or part thereof is located, provision (c) of this 403 99 ILI 36.32.280 Regulation of watercourses. The state in the -exercise of its sovereign and police power authorizes any county alone or acting jointly with any other county to regulate and control the flow of waters, both naviga- ble and nonnavigable, within such county or counties, for the purpose of preventing floods which may threaten -or cause damage, public or private. [1963 c 4 § 36.32.280. Prior: 1921 c 30 § 1; RRS § 4057-1.] ENHIBIT 2: 1969 RESOLUTION ACCEPTING MAINTENANCE FROM USACE Page 4 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT COUNTY OF Kittitas STATF OF Washington IN THE MATTER OF FLOOD CONTROL ON ) RESOLUTION TO ASSUME OBLIGATIONS Yakima & Teanaway Rivers IN Kittitas COUNTY ) OF LOCAL COOPERATION Jabs TR -69-1, Yr -69-1,2, and 3. ` WHEREAS, The United States has made available funds for a Yakima River project for flood control on & Teanaway in Kittitas County, Washington&xmxxmacugsmxxxiK=xxm=xxwxx&xmaxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxmmxu xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx,xxxlKuxxn axxxxilc-cxxxxaxsxaxxxxpxxxxmxx"z4 WHE_IAS, In accordance with the provisions of the Flood Control Act, approved 22 June 1936, as amended (33 USC Section 701c), and pertinent administrative determinations, such funds cannot be used until a responsible local agency has given, assurances satisfactory to the Secretary of the Army that it will: a. Furnish without cost to the United States all lands, easements, disposal areas, rights-of-way, rights -of -entry, and perform all necessary alterations to utilities; b. Hold the United States free from any claims for damages arising out of the construction. C- ...... ----- --------------- .- O kiC6 G;= C�u�i��L 6 ti • NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVE -D by the Board of County Commissioners. of Kittitas County, Washington that said Board of County Commi.ssionersoes hereby assume and agree to perform the above-named obligations; and there is hereby granted to the United States of America, its agents and its contractors, the right to enter on and use -any lands owned by or under the control of said County for the purpose of constructing the project. DATED this day of March 19, at a regular (special) meeting and is a part of the minutes of this meeting. ATTEST: 0 BY BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY WASHINGTON rman - JOE McMANAMY BY HOWARD -P. SORENSEN BY ar ROY A. LUMACO 2 EXHIBIT 3: 2017 USACE LEVEE INSPECTION REPORT Page 5 of 6 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONIIvIISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT g d r. C a m m � Q nEd v CIO eD rh CD R a LEVEE INSPECTION REPORT Routine Inspection KLOCKE LEVEE 6 December 2017 YAKIMA RIVER BASIN Yakima River, Left Bank, River Mile 160.3 to 161.0 Ellensburg, Kittitas County, Washington CURRENT RATING: MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE PREVIOUS RATING: MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE - 3 June 2016 INSPECTION PERSONNEL: • Frank Crossley, P.E.- USACE, Seattle District, Soils Section • Seth Klein, P.E. - USACE, Seattle District, Soils Section BACKGROUND: Routine inspections are conducted to verify that the current levee condition meets minimum criteria for eligibility as well as convey engineering concerns regarding condition and related performance issues. These inspections are intended to reduce overall flood risk when utilized to prioritize regular maintenance activities. This report describes observations made during the latest inspection and summarizes recommendations for corrective action in order of priority. The Klocke Levee was inspected on 6 December 2017 by USACE personnel. The levee sponsor was invited to attend, but was unable to participate. This levee is one segment of a six segment system comprised of both levees and non -project segments. From downstream to upstream, the system includes: Klocke, City Well, and City Well - SR10 Non -Project Segment (NPS). The levee is approximately 3,800 feet long and protects residential property. The upstream end ties into the City Well levee at the bridge abutment for the railroad. The downstream end tapers in height to less than 3 feet and appears to transition down to the natural bank downstream of station 8+00. The levee alignment continues with riprap armoring on the river bank downstream to the concrete intake structure of the Cascade irrigation headwork. Page 1 of b FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CENWS-END-G Klocke Levee Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers Routine Inspection At the time of the inspection the levee toe appeared to be leaded by a few feet and United States Geologic Survey (USGS) Station No. 12484500 indicates an average river height of 31 feet and discharge of 1400 cubic feet per second. In addition to the main body, the report also includes: Appendix A: Levee Maps; Appendix B: Inspection Point Summary with Photos; Appendix C: Public Sponsor Pre -Inspection Form; Appendix D: Inspection Rating Checklist; and Appendix E: Rehabilitation Program Eligibility Determination Worksheet. OBSERVATIONS General The levee is in generally good condition overall, but has several areas where improvements could be made. There is currently a repair project identified in PIR YAK -16-04 from approximately station 36+50 to 38-00. Specific items are listed below, along with possible impacts to levee performance. Unwanted Vegetation Growth The presence of trees and brush along the slopes of the levees occurred in multiple locations extending from Station 6+50 to 37+00, within the vegetation free zone as defined in ETL 1110-2- 583 (IDs 0002, 0003, 0008, 0010, 0015). The presence of brush and vegetation can hinder the ability to thoroughly inspect features of flood risk reduction features. In addition the presence of roots within the levee prism may lead to seepage and piping due to degradation of the roots. Encroachments Within the prism of the levee, a few encroachments were noted: • Gate across the crown of the levee at Station 8+50, sponsor has key (ID 0015) • Fencing at the landward toe at Station 11+50, (ID 0013) • Power poles in landward slope and crown (ID 0006) The location of structures and the storage of materials and features can adversely affect the overall performance or access to a levee during a flood event. Depending on the size and mass of an encroachment, surcharge loads can create stability issues along the levee embankment. Erosion / Bank Caving Previous inspections identified erosion and bank caving extending from Station 36+50 to 38+00. At the time of the site visit on 6 December 2017, unwanted vegetation prevented inspection if this region (ID 0001). Degradation of the levee prism and riverward slope can lead to additional scour and slope stability issues if not addressed. Page 2 of 6 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CENWS-END-G Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers Klocke Levee Routine Inspection Depressions / Rutting There were locations that were noted low or damaged by the presence of depressions or rutting. Extending from Station 2+00 to 7+00, traffic had caused rutting along the crown (ID 0018). At Station 20.00 an access ramp to the crown has a low region in contrast to up and downstream (ID 0009). Ruts and depressions can pond water, which can lead to increased levee saturation and potential failure during a flood, as well as reduced traffic ability for vehicle access during inspections and flood fighting. Depressions can also be an indication that internal erosion/piping is occurring in the levee embankment the effective height and thickness of the levee, reducing the level of protection provided by the levee. Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection Downstream from a bend in Yakima River, an eddy current at Station 29+50 has caused displacement of riprap at the toe of the riverward slope (ID 0004). Missing armoring and riprap reduces the protection of the levee prism and may lead to additional erosion and scour over time. CONCLUSIONS: Based on observations made during the inspection, the Klocke Levee is given an overall rating of MINIMALLY ACCEPTABLE utilizing the Corps standards described in Appendix D. The levee received Acceptable or Minimally Acceptable ratings for all items on the eligibility checklist from the "Interim Policy for Eligibility Determinations for the Rehabilitation Program" issued on 21 March 2014 (see Appendix E). Based upon these ratings, the levee is considered ELIGIBLE for rehabilitation assistance under the PL 84-99 program. RECOMMENDATIONS: In order to improve the effectiveness of this levee system, the inspection team recommends the following actions, in order of importance: 1. Continue working with USACE to implement levee repair project identified in PIR YAK - 16 -04 from approximately station 36+50 to 38+00. If damage increases or failure appears imminent, contact USACE immediately for assistance. Repair may also be performed using only sponsor resources, if available. 2. Replace or repair riprap during, annual operations and maintenance, that has become displaced from the toe of the riverward slope at Station 29+50. 3. Trees located in the levee embankment should be removed, including stumps and roots. Brush should be mowed and thinned to allow for inspection, access, and operation. Trees can affect seepage, stability, and erosion performance of the levee. In order to receive an Acceptable item rating for the Unwanted Vegetation category, trees and brush should be maintained according to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers standards listed in ETL II10- Page 3 of 6 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CENWS-END-G Klocke Levee Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers Routine Inspection 2-583, Guidelines for Landscape Planting and Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams, and Appurtenant Structures. This document describes the vegetation free zone as the entire embankment or structure and 15 feet from both the landward and riverward toes. 4. Evaluate and refine the existing general emergency response plan to take into account levee -specific items for flood fighting and evacuation of the inundation area should breach or overtopping occur. Page 4 of 6 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CENWS-END-G Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers INSPECTION PHOTOGRAPHS: Klocke Levee Routine Inspection 1~ igure 1: Oriewated up!; ream — rutting and wide crown (Station 1-001 Figure 2: Orientated downstream — typical conditions (Station 32100) Page 5 of 6 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CENWS-END-G Seattle District, US Army Corps of Engineers SUMMARY TABLE: Levee Segment Name Levee System Name NLD Segment ID NLD System ID Location Sponsor Sponsor Contact Info Estimated Level of Protection Approximate Length Height Top Width Crown Surface Riverward Slope Landward Slope Vegetation Armored Benefits Current Rating_ Last Rating DIRECTIONS: Klocke Levee Routine Inspection Klocke Klocke — City Well 5504000138 5505000063 Yakima River, Ellensburg, Kittitas County, Washington Kittitas County Mark Cook, 509-962-7523 1150 annual chance exceedance (50 -year) [LST, 2014] 3,800 feet 3-6 feet 18 feet `:. Gravel 211: IV 2.5H:1 V _ Grass/Brush/Trees on levee slopes Yes Flood risk reduction for residential Minimally Acceptable Minimally Acceptable [3 June 2016] To reach the levee from the Seattle District Office, take I-90 east. Take the Blewett Pass exit (Hwy 97 North) and continue for approximately 3 miles. Take the Hwy 10 East exit. Continue on Hwy 10 past Mile Post 102 and take a right onto MacManamy Road. Go over the railroad tracks and keep to the right following the paved road. Take a left past the first house and continue back through the gates to the downstream end of the levee. Page 6 of 6 FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CEN WS -END -G Seattle District, Corps of Engineers Routine Inspection LEVEE INSPECTION REPORT Appendix A: Levee Maps FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 6 �anhr Ceep�v� . rer�arr.a: i ono roiencies may exist in ae S � � FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Levee Inspection Map Klocke Location: Yakima River, Ellensburg, Year/cycle: 2017 a Inspection type: Routine Inspected by: Frank Crossley, Seth Klein Inspection date(s): 6 December 2017 Observation ID prefuc: USACE_CENWS_KLOC_2017_a Map created: 17 January 2018 Levee Features from NLD Centerline Centerline NPS 0 690 1,300 Fee '10 KiWias WAshltd�toh"= •' ' s- � � Ellen: OffTc'17AS Levee Inspection Map Klocke Location: Yakima River, Ellensburg, f , Kitites County, WA F Yea r/cycle: 2017 a t ++ Inspection type: Routine +. • Inspected by: Frank Crossley, Seth Klein * 1 i Inspection date(s): 6 December 2017 Observation ID preibr: * 'f USACE_CENWS_KLOC 2017 a Observation Points Acceptable Minimally Acceptable •* ■ J Unacceptable 0 NotApplicable :J Observation Lines Acceptable 4 Minimally Acceptable Unacceptable R - -- r• Not Applicable n oars f Levee Features from NLD r. � Stations nua� Centerline vac + I' " y , 0 480 960 Fe i wl} 10 .Washington S ya i may exist In aOONon to _c_ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY CENW S -END -G Seattle District, Corps of Engineers LEVEE INSPECTION REPORT Routine Inspection Appendix B: Inspection Point Summary with Photos FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY District: CENWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine lusj ecfr 11)k I USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0001 _- ....�__._._. -_ ...._w___ I Monitor f, t -0i4,: 1 Levee SIope Only (R/S) Monitor and repair, as necessary Erosion/ Bank Cavng_ ,n j _38+00" - - i -126.64495,47".0'5843,-120.64987,47-05802 USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0002 Status: Unresolved_ _ Feature: Levee Slope Only (R/S) rlaic*r.: Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance with the USACE national standards listed in ETL 1110-2-583. Rated Item: Unwanted Vegetation Growth Station 1: 37+00 Coordinates: 1-120.649919,47—.0--5--8-1-8-6-. USACE CENWS KLOC_2017-a 0002_l jpg r; Erosion '4'n?lj"a: Erosion of riverward toe. Launchable portion is Feature: gone. 2017: Due to vegetation was not Rated Item: inspectable. 35+00 -120.649898 47.057633 Minimally Acceptable _ X11 USACE CENWS KLOC 2016 a 0002 t =t:o7 t 36+50 • 12/6/2017 11:13:07 AM Unwanted Ve&etation Growth_— Thick brush and trees on riverward slope along -- - several hundred feet_ k314".g: Unacceptable USACE CENWS KLOC ._2014_a_0001 NA------- '`Fzi, 12/6/201711:14:11 AM__ USACE_CENWS_KLOC-2017-a-0002-2 jpg Inspect ID: USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0003 Unresolved Levee Slope Only S Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance with the USACE national standards listed in ETL 1110-2-583. Unwanted Ve&etation Growth __ I ' + t i Unwanted Vegetation Growth Large trees on riverward_ slope_ 1: � J n.s: Unacceptable {;rE ;-: s tI'M: USACE CENWS KLOC 2012 a 0001 Status: Feature: Action: Rated Item: Station 1: 35+00 -120.649898 47.057633 NA ibal, :'],etricc'.: 12/6/2017 11:15:31 Coordinates: 0 Basic Report US Army Corps of Engineers® Segment /System Inspection Report Page 1 of 9 District: CENWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine Inspect ID: Status: USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0004 _ i Unresolved Feature: Riprap/Revetment 1 r ! Repair during annual operations and maintenance. _ T? tc c 1 c r,11: E Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection Sfa::;ni ] 29+50 -120.650075,47.056158 _ USACE_CENWS KLOC 2017_a 0004_1 jpg Item: •_--�---j �Other�S�ifY in Remarks � __� �__—�_ _ Remarks: Some riprap missing from toe. Slope blanket is thinner than upstream sections. Rock size is approximately 2-3 feet_ Rating: Minimally Acceptable I � ]D' ! USACE CENWS KLOC 2016 a 0005 12/6/2017 11:19:47 AM USACE CEIv'W5 KLOC_2017 a 0004_2.jpg USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0005 _ Monitor_... _-- -_—._ _. c OtherSpecify in Remarks) F —__ .._. _ _ ------.-.__-.-- Levee Slope Only (R/S) 1. Riprap generally in good condition from here to upstream end. No riprap downstream. Levee moves away from river. t NA Accepil#lq is Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection t i � , USACE CENWS KLOC 2014 a 0003 �z ll 29+00 NA -120.650047, 47.056055 r 12/6/2017 11:20:37 AM a] Basic Report ers US Army Corps of Engine® Segment /System Inspection Report Page 2 of 9 District: CENWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine Inspect -ID:- USACE CENWS KLOC 2017�a 0006 hC-1 R: -_ R oinr�%: Status: 1 -Typical Conditions - Item: i Encroachment _ _—_-- Remarks: Power poles in landward slope and crown. Rating: _ Minimally Acceptable Feature: Levee Slo a Only (!�S) _Action: Monitor duripghi h�.__water events. A ;:.ilius: Rated Item: Encroachments -- la�cJ I[cltf: Original ID: USACE CENWS KLOC 2014 a_0004 Station 1: 24+00 SNA Station 2: ; NA �— Coordinates: -120.64952, 47.05461 _ Date Created: 112/6/2017 11:24:15 AM USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0006-1 jpg % - - R l e I i' Inspect ID: USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a_0007 T4 ieal_Conditions _ — _ Riprap/Revetment hC-1 R: -_ R oinr�%: - Other (Spe _5_ in i Riprap continues along setback portion. Infilled Status: Feature: i with leaves. A ;:.ilius: NAR410i -- ---------- - - - - -.... Riprap_Revetments &Bank Protection : Acceptable ---------- - - --- — USACE CENWS KLOC 2016 a 0007 -- la�cJ I[cltf: 23+005ia+;.;:a SNA �i,li'xe : -120.649245, 47_054429 Da r._C r-exzcl:_ 12/6/2017 11:25:01 AM _[ _-.---_.. USACE CENWS KLOC-2017 a 0007 1 jpg _ - - - - --- - % l ' `a' Basic Report US Army Corps of Engineers® Segment 1 System Inspection Report Page 3 of 9 District: CENWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine Inspect ID: USACE CENWS I LOC 2017 a 0008 Status: -r Unresolved Feature: i Levee Slope Only (LJS) Action: ; Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance 3 with the USACE national standards listed in EM 1110 is +c r f f ('I'll Unwanted Vegetation Growth StFis.on 1. 21+00 C C3C'F!]ir�s;yr;k: T--120.648783,47.054152 USACE 120.648783,47.054152 USACE CENWS-KLOC 2017-a 0008-1.jpg ka; 0 -: 1 USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0009 I Unresolved Levee Slope and Crown 4 W Place and compact fill to restore top elevation. W De ressions/ Rutting - T -120.648429x_47.054015-- USACE-CENWS-KLOC 2017-a 0009-1 jpg tr:,,i: _ Unwanted Vegetation Growth _ _ _ _ _ Many large trees both slopes for significant —_-_--- length of alig_nmet. ---- - — F:. Unacceptable Ali USACE CENWS KLOC 2012 a 0002 NA ' Dmc' r ftu 12161201711 26:28 AM _�.. -----. _..... _.. Other_(Speci in Remarks)— ' Depression from ramp up and over levee -- - -- - i� - ----- Minimally Acceptable i I i1 USACE CENWS KLOC 2016 a 0009 NA 12/6/2017 11:27:10 AM aBasic Report US Arany Corps of EngineersSegment 1 System Inspection Report Page 4 of 9 District: CEWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine it �i;40 wx l a lI: i USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0010 I "+�-• a s: a Unresolved r i 1; Unwanted Vegetation Growth ;Levee Slo a Onl S f i� r�, w =. About 10 trees on landward slope near gate. --- _. _ _ P y__(L/ } . _ . _ _ .... - 1r,•`ic;r: Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance 11,E -'L , Unacceptable with the USACE national standards listed in i ETL 1110-2-583. ! _ Rated Item: _Unwanted Vegetation Growth _ Ori final ID: Station 1: 16+50 — _ �— Station 2: Coordinates: -120.646956, 47.053755 - �— Date Created: USACE CENWS KLOC-2017—a-0010_1.jpg F � f 1 �! I USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0011 T ical Conditions e�Riprap/Revetment NA _ .1.: Riprap Revetments & Bank Protection 15+50 - i At -120.646553 47.053803 USACE—CENWS—KLOC-2017—a-00 111 jpg CENWS KLOC 2016 a 0010 _NA__ 1216/201711.29:48AM___—__— _ . Other (Specify in Remarks) Levee is adjacent to the river downstream from here. Riprap picks up again going downstream. Vegetation maintained by County from here downstream. Acceptable USACE CENWS KLOC 2014_a 0006 :7 NA — _. 12/6/2017 11:31:11 AM USACE—CENWS—YJ-OC-2017—a-001 1-2.jpg r a" Basic Report US Army Corps of Engineers® Segment /System Inspection Report Page 5 of 9 District: CENWS Project: Klocke Year. 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0014 -------- - --Unresolved- - ---- Levee Slope and Crown Avi4oi;: Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance with the USACE national standards listed in ETL 1110-2-583. Unwanted z;�);4h 8+00 -120,64538,47.053677-120,6 517 4705363 USACE—CENWS--26-F. a-0014_1 . jpg Unwanted )LegqE�tiqr _I_Growth Trees in riverward slope. Levee transitions to a steep and narrow geometry downstream of a repair. Overgrown trees tooted in narrower levee sections present a greater risk to levee pgfqrmance -an " d should be prioritized.Unacceptable —pripiqui 1}_USACE CENWS KLOC 2012 a 0003 S ia I 1 2) 10+00 Cr:,mtr,-1; ;-121612017 11:34:55 AM M Segment / System Inspection Report Basic Report US Army Corps of Engineers® Segment 6 of 9 ! USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0013 'St MV�: T p Conditions .1,0; 1 cl: Encroachment Levee Slope Onl S I lurk- Fence at the landward toe. NA IF;i'Cr-xrAcceptable lv ry Encroachments ff): USACE CENWS KLOC 2012 a 0006 NA -120.645145, 47.053647 J 4t.cfl: 1216/2017 11:33:57 AM USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0014 -------- - --Unresolved- - ---- Levee Slope and Crown Avi4oi;: Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance with the USACE national standards listed in ETL 1110-2-583. Unwanted z;�);4h 8+00 -120,64538,47.053677-120,6 517 4705363 USACE—CENWS--26-F. a-0014_1 . jpg Unwanted )LegqE�tiqr _I_Growth Trees in riverward slope. Levee transitions to a steep and narrow geometry downstream of a repair. Overgrown trees tooted in narrower levee sections present a greater risk to levee pgfqrmance -an " d should be prioritized.Unacceptable —pripiqui 1}_USACE CENWS KLOC 2012 a 0003 S ia I 1 2) 10+00 Cr:,mtr,-1; ;-121612017 11:34:55 AM M Segment / System Inspection Report Basic Report US Army Corps of Engineers® Segment 6 of 9 District: CENWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine USACE—CENWS—KLOC-2017—a-0015—I.jpg inspect ED: USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0016 Status: Typical Conditions Itcov. Other S eci in Remarks Feature: Levee Slope and Crown R,--11 1„41 li Riprap continues downstream, but height of levee is less than 3 feet and appears to transition down the to natural bank. 004,`Jial ID: USACE CENWS KLOC 2016 a 0016 S1JM,!,v;r1 2. NA Dote Crr-w-nf 12/6/2017 11:37:33 AM NA -1�iprap.Revetinents&-B-ankPT.O.tC-Ction.- .4 8+00 — ------ ----- --420-.64385-9,47,053-1-6-3 USACE —CENWS —KLOC-2017—a-0016_1.jpg [a Segment I System Inspection Report Basic Report US Army Corps of Eu&ccrsg Page 7 of 9 _J USACE CENWSYLOC 2017 a 0015 Stec J,-, Typical Conditions han": Encroachment Al Gate v-CTJv,1--1-,<!-, Gate across levee crown Sponsor has key. A Ac�ceptable... ..Zhlecl "..c.m: Encroachments C )D USACE CENWS KLOC 2012 a 0005 8+50 Slat:o NTA -120.64407, 47.053275 - . 12/6/2017 11 35:59 AM USACE—CENWS—KLOC-2017—a-0015—I.jpg inspect ED: USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0016 Status: Typical Conditions Itcov. Other S eci in Remarks Feature: Levee Slope and Crown R,--11 1„41 li Riprap continues downstream, but height of levee is less than 3 feet and appears to transition down the to natural bank. 004,`Jial ID: USACE CENWS KLOC 2016 a 0016 S1JM,!,v;r1 2. NA Dote Crr-w-nf 12/6/2017 11:37:33 AM NA -1�iprap.Revetinents&-B-ankPT.O.tC-Ction.- .4 8+00 — ------ ----- --420-.64385-9,47,053-1-6-3 USACE —CENWS —KLOC-2017—a-0016_1.jpg [a Segment I System Inspection Report Basic Report US Army Corps of Eu&ccrsg Page 7 of 9 District: CENWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine InspectLE[)- USACE CENWS ICLOC 2017 a 0017 Status: Unresolved 1_2ther 1k n Remarks) Levee Crown Only. P Crown is not well established. - Place and compact fill to establish crown to 1 P. Minimally Acceptable design height. Rated Item: JDepressions/ Rutting I -USACECENWS KLOC 2017 a 0017 Station 1: 2+00 Station 2: NA Coordinates: P-1-20-.6-42244. 47.051897 Date Created: 12/6/2017 11:44:39 AM i Ort, USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0018 Unresolved rtell'I'. Depression �76dfdn;., Levee Crown Only Crown 91"t due to vehicle traffic. k(;t i on., -Place and compact fill to re-establish crown. Minimally Acceptable ().ki--mIL�--_U.S_ACE CENWS_KLOC 2017 a 0018 2+00 2- 7+00 12/6/2017 11:49:14 AM 120,64353, 47.05294 USACE -CENWS-KLOC-2017-a-0018-ljpg 0 Segment / System Inspection Report Basic Report US Army Corps of Engineers Page 8 of 9 District: CENTWS Project: Klocke Year: 2017 Cycle: a Inspection Type: Routine Inspect ID: _'USACE CE -NWS KLOC 2017 a 0019 Status: Monitor Other��Scif y i Remarks) M: Revefted Area 1, Riverward slope.at 1H:1V Pc P.. ra 1VIa�qqq onitor for stability and _R_!� Acceptable Revetments &Bank Protection Ml- USACE CENWS KLOC 2017 a 0019 5+00 11 - +00 64315,_17-95266,-,120.64481,47.05354_ e,,. 12/6/2017 11:52,33 Am USACE—CENWS—KLOC —2017—a-0019—l.jpg M Basic Report Segment / System Inspection Report US Amy Corps ofEnginem(g Page 9 of 9 CENWS-EVD-G Seattle District, Corps of Engineers LEVEE INSPECTION REPORT Routine Inspection Appendix C: Public Sponsor Pre -Inspection Form FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY 7y Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System t t11t, Public Sponsor Pre-Inspection Form US Army Corps of Engineers® The following information is to be provided by the levee district sponsor prior to an inspection. This information will be used to help evaluate the organizational capability of the levee rjkh ict to mansae the levee segment / cvctsm maintenance nrn¢rsm. 1. Levee segment/ system and district: (same of the segment/ system and levee district) Klocke for CENWS 2. Reporting period: (montWday/year to montldday/year) 6/3/2017 to 12/612017 3. Summary of maintenance required by last inspection report: Ve"ition maintenance 4, Summary of maintenance performed this reporting period: Vegetation maintenance, collaborate with USACE on levee repair project YAK -4-16 S. Summary of maintenance planned next reporting period: Vegetation maintenance 6. Summary of changer to segremt / system since Inst inspection: None 7. Problems/ issues requiring the assistance of the US Army Corps of Engineers: Continue to work with USACE on leve repair project YAK4-16 Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System Pre-Inspecdon Form Inspection Report Page 1 of 2 US Army Corps 10ocke (1C1 Q of Engineers® Public Sponsor Pre -Inspection Report The following information is to be provided by the levee district sponsor prior to an inspection H. Levee district oreeni ation! (elated or annninted levee district nMcinh and ixw emnin—ml Name Position Address Phone Number Email Address Mark Cook Public Works Director 411 N Ruby S Suite 1 Elensburg, WA 98926 509 %2-7523 madceiw co.kitiitas.wa.us Jim Vau De Venter Mainte=ce Macager 411 N Ruby St, Suite 1 Ellensburg,WA 98926 (509)856-7747 Ji=.VanDcVcntcrRco.1dtdtes.wjLus f l Flood Damage Reduction Segment 1 System Pre -Inspection Form Inspection Report Page 2 of 2 US Army Corps Macke (KLOQ of Engineers® CENWS-END-G Seattle District, Corps of Engineers Routine Inspection LEVEE INSPECTION REPORT Appendix D: Inspection Rating Checklist FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY General Items for All Flood Damage Reduction Segments I Systems For use during all inspections of all Flood Damage Reduction Segments / Systeme Rated Item Ratmg Rating GSndehnes Loertion/Remxrks/Reeommendations 1. Operations and A A Levee Owners Manual, 0&M Manuals, and/or manufacturers operating instructions are The March 2006 USACE Levee Owner's Manual for Non - Maintenance present_ Federal Flood Control Works is available to the Sponsor Manuals online. httpJAvww.awa.usace.army.miVPorWsl27/docstemergency/ LeveeOwn—Manual(final).pdf M Sponsor manuals are lost or missing or out of date; however, sponsor will obtain manuals prior to next scheduled inspection. U Sponsor has not obtained lost or missing manuals identified during previous inspection. 2. Emergency Supplies and A A The sponsor maintaias a stockpile of sandbags, shovels, and other flood fight supplies which will adequately supply all needs for the initial days of a flood fight Sponsor determines The Sponsor has a stockpile of sandbags and other supplies for floodfighting. Equipment required quantity of supplies after consuhing with inspector. (A or M only) M The sponsor does not maintain an adequate supply of flood fighting materials as part of their preparedness activities. 3. Flood Preparedness and A A Sponsor has a written system -specific flood response plan and a solid understanding ofhow to operate, maintain, and staff the FDR system during a flood Sponsor maintains a list of The Sponsor has an all-haards emergency response plan and has experience with flood events. In addition, the Training emergency contact information for appropriate personnel and other emergency response Sponsor participates in the annual USACE Flood Exercise. (A or M only) agencies. M The sponsor maintains a good working knowledge of flood response activities, but documentation of system -specific emergency procedures and emergency contact personnel is insufficient or out of date. Key: A — Acceptable. M — Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. NIA = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System Genend Items for All Flood Damage Reduction Inspection Report Segments / Systems Klocke (KLOQ Page 1 of 1 US Army Corps of Engineers® Levee Embankments For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systema Rated Item Bating Rating Gatdeliaes Loc+tmn/RemarkdSecommendatlons 1. Unwanted U A The levee has litEe or no unwanted vegetai�on (trees, bush, or undesirable weeds), except for KLOC 2017 a_0002: Station _1 37+00: Thick brash and Vegetation vagetation that is properly contained and/or situated on overbuilt sections, such that the trees on riverwerd slope along several hundred feet.: Growth' mandatory 3 -foot root -free zone is preserved around the levee profile. The levee has been Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance with the recently mowed. The vegetation -free zine extends :5 feet from both the kandside and USAGE national atandards listed in ETL :110-2-583. (U) riverside toes of the levee to the centerline of the tree. If the levee access easement doesn't KLOC 2017a 0003: Station—1 35+00: Large trees on extend to the described limits, then the vegetation -free zone rust be maintained to the riverward slope.: Remove and maintain vegetation in casement limits. Reference ENI 1110.2-301 or Corps policy forraganal vegetation variance. accordance with the USACE national standards listed in ETL 1 k 10.2-581 (U) M Minimal vegetation growth (brush, wards, or trees 2 inches in diameter of smaller) is present within the zones dexo. -abed above. This vegetation rest be removed but does not currently KLOC 2017 a ODOB; Station21+00; Marry large trees threaten tis operation or integrity of the levee. _I both slopes for significant length of elignmen .: Remove and U Significant vegetation growth (brush, weeds, or any trees greater than 2 inches in diameter) is maintain vegetation in accordance with the USACE national present within the zones described above and must to be removed to reestablish or ascertain standards Listed in ETL 1110.2-583. (U) levee integrity. KLOC-2017—a-0010: Station—1 16+50: About 10 [roes on landward slope near gate.: Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance with the USACE national standards listed in ETL 1110-2.583. (U) KLOC 2017 a 0014: Station_] 8+00: Station_2 10+00: Trees in riverward slope. Levee transitions to a sleep and narrow geometry downstream of a repair. Overgrown trees rooted in narrower levee sections present a greater risk to levee performance and should be prioritized.: Remove and maintain vegetation in accordance with the USACE national standards listed in ETL 1110.2-583. (U); Within the prism of the:eves, trees and vegetation should be maintained in accordance with the national standards provided in the Engineer Technical Letter (ETL)1110-2-583: Guidelines for Landscape planting and Vegetation Management at Levees, Floodwalls, Embankment Dams and Appurtenant tenant Struc tures. 2. Sod Cover A A There is good coverage of sod over the levee. Sod cover was in acceptable condition where used. M Approximately 256/a of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant portion or over significant portions of the levee embankment. This may be the result of over -grazing or feeding on the levee, unauthorized vehicular traffic, chemical or insect problems, or burning during inappropriate seasons. U Over 50•/a of the sod cover is missing or damaged over a significant portion or portions of the levee embankment. N/A Surface protection is provided by other means. 3. Encroachments M A No trash, debris, unauthorized farming ac`vity, structures, excavations, or other obstructionsKLOC_2017_a_0006: Station 1 24+00: Power poles in present within the easement area. Encroachments have been previously reviewed by the landward slope and crown.: Monitor during !-*h water Corps, and it was determined that they do not diminish proper functioning of the levee. levents. (M) Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. NIA = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction Flood Damage Redaction Segment/ System Levee Embankments Inspection Report Page 1 of 5 US Army Corps Klocke (KLOC) of Engineers® Levee Embankments For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments 1 systems Bated Item Rating Rating Guidelmer LoeattanlResearkwRecommendattem M Trask debris, unauthorized farming activity, structures, excavations, or other obstructions KLOC 2017 a 0013: Statical_] 31+50: Fence a: the present, or inappmpniate activities noted that should be corrected but will not inhibit mdward toe.: NA (A) operations and maintenance or emergency operations. Encroachments have not been KLOC_2017 a_0015: Station_] 8+50: Gate across levee reviewed by the Corps. crown. Snorsec has key.: NA (A); Any structures, buildings utifitishould be shrd ed to determinenot fficluded in theintial ode and analysis of the levee. U Unauthorized encroachments or inappropriate activities noted am liltely to inhibit ope alio s and maintenance, emergency operations, or negatively impact the integrity o. the levee.terry 4, Closure S-tuctw-es (Slop Lag, Earthen Closures, NA A Cosurc structaire in good repair. Placing equipment, stoplogs, and other materials are readily available at all tithes. Components are clearly merited and installation instructions/ procedures readily available. Trial erections have beer accomplished in accordance with the ]There are no closure structures incorporated in this levee segment. Gates, or Sandbag O&M Manual. Closures) (A or U only) U Any of the following issues is cause for this rating: Closet structure in poor condition. Pays missing or connded. Placing equipment may not be available within the anticipated warning time. The storage vaults cannot be opened during the time of inspection. Components of closure are not clearly marked and installation instructions/ procedures are not reads_y available. Trial erections have not been accomplished in accordance with the O&M Menuxl. NIA There are no closure structures. along this component of the FDR segment 1 system. 5. Slope Stability A A No slides, sloughs, tension cracking slope depressions, or bulges are present. No slope stability issues were noted at the time of the inspection. Although vegetation was rated unacceptable, the ur-wanted vegetation growth did not significantly interfere ithe rating of this ittem. M Minor slope stability problems that do not pose an immediate threat to the levee embanlmtent. U Major slope stability problems (ex. deep seated sliding) identified that must be repaired to reestablish the integrity of the levee embankment, 6. Erosion! Bank M A No erosion or bank caving is observed on the landward or riverward aides of the levee that KLOC 2017_a 0001: Station—] 38+00: Station—2 36+50: Caving might endanger its stability. Location of ongoing rehab with Seattle District Scheduled repair) u far 'nor necessary 2018.: Monitor and repair, as necessa M There are areas when minor erosion is occurring or has occurred on or near the levee embankment, hart levee integrity is not thtealaned U Erosion or caving is occurring or has occurred that threatens the stability and integrity of the levee. The erosion or caving has progressed into the levee section or into the extended footprint of the levee foundation and has compromised the levee foundation stabSlity. 7. Settlement' A A No observed depressions in crown. Records exist and indicate no unexplained historical No settlement was noted at the time of the inspection. changes. M Minor irregularities that do not threaten integrity of levee. Records are incomplete or inclusive. U Obvious variations in elevation over significant reaches. No records exist or records indicate that design elevation is compromised. Key; A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. 1v/A = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System Levee Embankments Inspection Report Page 2 of 5 US Army Corps Klocke (KLOC) of Engineers® Levee Embankments For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments 1 systems Rated7lem Rating RatingGradelmes Loattion/RematksMecommeodabom S. Depresslio nsl M A There are scattered, shallow nits, pot holes, or other depressions on the levee that are KLOC_20'_7_a_O009: Station_] 20+00: Depression from Rutting unrelated to levee settlement. The levee crown, embankments, and access road crowns are ramp up and over levee.: Pace and compact fill to restore well established and drain properly without any ponded water. top elevation. (M) KLGC 2017 a_0017: Station _1 2+00: Crown; not well estahiisbad.: Place and compact fill to establish crown to desk height M KLOC_2017 a_001 B: Station_I 2+C0: Sta'.ion_2 7�0: M U Theta are some infrequent minor depressions less than 6 inches deep in the levee crown, embankment, or access roods £tat will pond water. There are depressicris greater than 6 inches deep that will pond water. Crown rutting due to vehicle ttatiic.: Place and compact Pili to re-establish crown. (M) 9. Qaevng A A Minor longitudinal. transverse, or desiccation cracks with no vertical movemerl along the No cracking was noted at the time of the inspection. crack. No cracks extend comimtooly through the levee crest. Although vegetation was rated unacceptable, the unwanted M Longitudinal and/or transverse cracks up to 6 inches in depth with no vertical movemerd along the crack. No cracks extend continuously tbrough the levee crest. Longitudinal cracks are no vegetation growth did not significantly interfere the rating of Glx i•era. longer that the height of the levee. U Cracks exceed 6 inches in depth. Longitudinal cracks are longer then the height of the levee andlor exhibit vertical movement along the crack. Transverse cracks extend through the entire levee width. 10. Arimal Control A A Continuous animal burrmv control program in piece that includes the elimination of active No animal burrows were noted at the time of the inspection. borrowing and the filling in of existing burrows. M The existing animal burrow control program needs to be improved Several burrows are present which may lead to seepage or slope stability problems, and they require immediate attention. U Animal burrow control program is not effective or is nonexistent. Significant maintenance is required to fill existing burrows, and the levee will not provide reliable flood protection until this maintenance is complete. IL C•. vets' Discharge Pipesn NA A There are no breaks, holes, cracks in the discharge pipes/ culverts that would result in significant water leakage. The pipe shape is sail! essentially cir �. AL joints appear to be No culverts or discharge pipes are incorporated into this levee segment, (This item closed and the sail tight. Corrugated metal pipes, if present, are in good condition with 100% includes both of the original coating still in place (either asphalt or galvanizing) or have been relined with epnerete std iappropriate material, which is still in good condition. Condition of pipes has been verified cotntgated metal pipes.) using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the pest five yeas, and the report for every pipe is available for review by the inspector. Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. NIA = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction Flood Damage Reduction Segment / System Levee Embankments Inspection Report Page 3 of 5 US Are: y Corps Klocke (KLOC) o. ErZke Levee Embankments For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segmenta I systems Ratedrttia Ratting Rating Guidelines Locrtmo/Remarka iscommendakons M IThere area smell number of corrosion pinholes or cracks that could leak water and need to be irepaired, but the entire lengL`t of pipe is still structurally sound and is not in danger of co:1apsing. Pipe s^epe may be oveized in some locat_ons but does not appear to be approaching a curvature reversal. A limited number ofjoints may have opened and soil loss may be beginning. Ary open Joints should be repaired prior to the next inspection. Corrugated metal pipes, if present, may be showing corrosion and pinholes but there are no areas with total section loss. Condition of pipes has been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection medtods within the past five years, and the report fav every pipe is available fo'review by the inspector. U ;Culvert has deterioration andlor has significant leakage; it is in danger of col:apsing or as already begun to collapse. Corrugated metal pipes have suffered 100% section loss in the invert. HOWEVER: Ever. if pipes appear to be in good condition, as judged by an externa: visual inspection, an Unacceptable Rating will be assigned if the condition of pipes has not been verified using television camera video taping or visual inspection methods within the past five years, and reports for all pipes are not available for review by the inspector, N/A There are no discharge pipes/ culverts, 12. Riprap A A INo riprap displacement orstone degradation that could pose an immediate throat to the KLOC2017_a_o004: Station _1 29+50: Some riprap Revetments & iiraegrity of channel bank. Riprap intact with no woody vegetation present, missing from toe. Slope blanket is thinner than upstream Bank Proteciion sections. Rock size is approximately 2-3 feet.: Repair during M Minor riprW displacement or stone degradation that could pose an immediate threat to the of the channel bank. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an smntaltons and maintenance.integrity KLOC 20170_a_0005: Station Riprep generally in appropriate herbicide. _129+00: good canditien from here to upstream end No riprap U Significant riprop disp!acemeny exposure of bedding, or stone degradation observed. Scour downstream. Levee moves away from river.: NA (A) activity is undercutting banks, eroding embankments, or impairing channel flows by causing KLOC 2017_a_0007: Station_I 23+40; Riprap continues turbulence or shoaling. Rock protection is hidden by dense brush, trees, or grasses. along setback portion Willed with leaves.: NA (A) KLOC 2017 1_0011: Station_] 15+50: Levee is adjacent to the river downstream from here. Riprap picks up again going N/A There is no rat this feature of the segment 1 or ri is discussed in Pref P'me6 , iz'aP another section. downstream. Vegetation maintained by County frmn here downstream,: NA (A) KLOC-20i7-0-001 6: Station_] 8+00: Riprap continues downstream, but height of levee is less than 3 feet and appears to transition down the to natural bank.: NA (A) KLOC-2017—a-001 9: Station—I 5+00: Station -2 11+00: Riverward slope at 1H:1 V: Monitor fa stability and riprep displacement (A) 13. Revetments other NA A ExistingNo revetment protection is properly maintained undo aged and deafly visible reventtents other than riprap are incorporated into this than Riprap segment. M Mina revetment displacement or deterioration that does not pose an immediate threat to the integrity of the levee. Unwanted vegetation must be cleared or sprayed with an appropriate herbicide. Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacceptable. NIA = Not Applicable. FDR = Flood Damage Reduction Flood Ramage Reduction Segment / System Levee Embankments La Inspection Report Page 4 of 5 US Army Corps Klocke (KLOC) of Eagineerse Levee Embankments For use during Initial and Continuing Eligibility Inspections of levee segments / systems Rated Was Rating RatingQIdelmea Locatroo/R=arkr/Retommendattons U revetment displacement, deterioration, or exposrce of bedding observed. Scour �Significant activity is undercutting badrs, eroding embafd—encs, or impairing c^,a mel *'.ows by causing i turbulence or shoaling. Revetment protection is hidden by dense brush and trees. N1A I ere no such revetments protecting this feature of the segment / systen: 14. Underseepage NA A IToe drainage systems and pressure r lief wells necessary for n•.aiamining FDR seamen—,/ No tnderseepage relief wells or toe drains are incotponted Relief Wells/ Toe I"am stability during high waterP,mcti®ed properly during the last flood aveY and re limo this levee segment. Drainage Systema sediment is observed in hucizantai system (if applicable). Nothing is observed winch would i indicate that the drainage systems went function properly during the next Coad, and maintenance records indicate regular cleaning. Wells have been pumped tested within the past 5 years avid documentation is provided, M Toe drainage systems or press= relief wen's are damaged and may become clogged if they are not repaired. Maintenance records are incomplete or indicate =egdar c:esi g and pJ=p testing. U Toe drainage systems or pressure relief wells necessary for maintaining FDR segment 1 system stability during flood events have failm into disrepair or have become clogged. No maintenance retards. No documentation of :he required pump testing. N/A There are no re ief wells/ toe drainage systems along this component of the FDR segment 1 system. 15. Seepage A A ,No evidence orhistoryof unrepaired seepage, saturated areas, orboils. No seepage was noted during inspection. M IEvidmee or history of minor unrepaired seepage or small saturated areas at or beyond the i lardside toe but not on the landward slope of levee. No evidence of soil fratsport. U Evidence or history of active seepage, extensive saturated areas, or boils. If there is significant growth on the levee that inhibits the inspection of animal bestows or other items, the inspection should be ended until this item is corrected. Detailed survey elevations are normally required during Periodic Inspections, and whenever there are obvious visual settlements. s The decision on whether or not USACE inspectors should enter a pipe to perform a detailed inspection must be made at the USACE District level. This decision should be made in conjunction with the District Safety Office, as pipes may be considered confined spaces. This decision should consider the age of the pipe, the diameter ofthe pipe, the apparent condition of the pipe, and the length of the pipe. if a pipe is entered for the purposes of inspection, the inspector should record observations with a video camera in order that the condition of the entire pipe, including all joints, can later be assessed. Additionally, the video record provides a baseline to which future inspections can be compatred. Key: A = Acceptable. M = Minimally Acceptable; Maintenance is required. U = Unacccptabic. K/A = Not Applicable, FDR = Flood Damage Reduction i ; Flood Damage Reduction Segment I System Levee Embankments Inspection Report Page 5 of 5 Us Army Corps Kloeke (JKLOQ of Engineers® CENWS-END-G Seattle District, Corps of Engineers LEVEE INSPECTION REPORT Routine Inspection Appendix E: Rehabilitation Program Eligibility Determination Worksheet FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Levee Name: Klocke Subset of Inspection Items for Rehabilitation Program Eligibility Determination In order to be eligible, ail of the following items must be rated A, Irl/, NIA or Yes. Note: Item numbers listed below refer to their placement in the Inspection Checklist. Rehabilitation Program Eligibility Determination Yes QPublic sponsor provided maintenance information per the Public Sponsor Pre - No ❑ Inspection Form. Yes ❑x No ❑ Non-federal levee system meets Initial Eligibility criteria. NIA ❑ If either of the above items is marked "No" the levees stem is not eligible. Rating_ Rated Item Levee Embankments A ❑x M ❑ 3. Encroachments L! ❑ �Q 4. Closure Structures (Stop Log, Earthen Closures, Gates, or Sandbag NIA ® Closures) A M ❑ 5. Slope Stability U ❑ A ❑ M © 6. Erosion/ Bank Caving U ❑ A ❑x M ❑ 10. Animal Control U ❑ A ❑ M ❑ 11. Culverts/Discharge Pipes (This item includes both concrete and corrugated U ❑ metal pipes.) N/A x❑ A ❑ M U ❑ ❑ 14. Underseepage Relief Wells/Toe Drainage Systems N/A p Floodwalls A ❑ M ❑ 2. Encroachments U ❑ A ❑ U ❑ 3. Closure Structures (Stop Log Closures and Gates) N/A ❑ A ❑� M ❑ 5. Tilting, Sliding, or Settlement of Concrete Structures U ❑ FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY Levee Name. Klocke A ❑ M ❑ 6. Foundation of Concrete Structures U ❑ �A ❑ M ❑❑ U 8. Underseepage Relief Welis/Toe Drainage Systems NIA ❑ Interior Draina e System A ❑ U Q 9. Culverts/Discharge Pipes N/A ❑ A ❑ M ❑ U ❑ 10. Sluice/Slide Gates N/A ❑ A ❑ U❑❑ 11. Flap Gates/Flap Valves/Pinch Valves NIA ❑ Pump Stations A ❑ M ❑ 17. Intake and Discharge Pipelines U ❑ A ❑ U El 18. Sluice/Slide Gates N/A ❑ A ❑ M ❑ U ❑ 19. Flap Gates/Flap Valves/Pinch Valves N/A ❑ Rehabilitation Program Status Active 0 System meets all interim eligibility criteria, including having received a rating of A, M, N/A or Yes for all subset items and is therefore eligible for rehabilitation assistance. Inactive ❑ System does not meet interim eligibility requirements. Comments: Based on these ratings, the levee will remain Active in the Rehabilitation Program. FOR OFFICIAL USE ONLY DdOdHU AdV,LS NOISSdS NUOM SUaMOISSIYIMOD Ad NfIOD JO CWOH MOM OPIEnd 9 ja 9 astd JLXOdaU AAHIANHAO ERATI HXDO'I-A E[OVSIl i7iOZ :t, ZISMa 03 0 0 m 0cla. �1 r [7 CD cc CD Cl 4�, 0 O E., Z CI) CD N r+ 3 v w N CD CD N U) a CD :• {n 2) 0 v O CD CD PqLI A) a CD CD T� CD A w 3 C� CD MMI w Cn 50 cm 0 0 n CD T� Z 0 rn� C M CL CD r CD C CD CD Je N CD CD N U) a CD :• {n 2) 0 v O CD CD PqLI A) a CD CD T� CD A w 3 C� CD MMI w Cn 50 cm 0 0 n CD T� Z 0 rn� C M CL CD r CD C CD CD z 7s O 77 CD N CD CD 0 m f ■ 0 m O O CD O_ �• 0 0 0. Oo -4v Z C (OO r O CD O co CD M. CC co CD n '�:'coa C CD CD COO (D cn U) 0 o rnm I � C • Q .- CR � m 0 E* 0- Q —' m N QN�o ,--� ,•-F CD' 7C cn CD _. � cn _ o�<� 0 rn_.> cn n CD 00 o + w CD ' C � N=r-f- M 7 O 0 cr �� rn C r-. FD. D N O cn � N cn Ln 0 rn 0 0 CD 5' oc-1mr- � Cn CD CD 0 t�I)CD CD 0) CD �a) N C CL �3 CD o gin' CD�_• -0 5"a) X• 0 cr �cr v a, CD cc =o 'O�CCQ� � cr CD�p< 3 C) CD --% C:) ::r ,..~ CD CD C7 v o CD 0 O a • CD o <CD cn' w�• � o {D :3C CF) CD CD CD Q 0 o o = �0 0 0 z I< o CD g CD CD �. CCD O m �' cn *A CD mo = 0 CD CD o �Er �0m a C) CD D � 3 OCD MCC cn cnrn o° w0 0 CD cc CCD CA CD �l D C CD 3 CD n O h m 0- o � 3 CI), 0' CD O 0 m% =3 0 cn 0 m 0 cnm m r CD CD CD 4L.. - 6 L -q d Wo ox it ei. > ru p 8 go cn C: 3 3 0 CL C cn CD Irt O� m w Y I CD CL c c CD ch CD O Imo` CD 0 w. O CL cn 0 rf song z m m m 0 po m c . . . .� Q la 0 CD P CD o o v �m=� �0 c ElO�o CD D -vo :3 �- m � �� �0 'r-0on N ;L -nm cn C CD Dca. 5.301 CD y U D (D M �?a w0Q0 Q 11 C m• -gym . N K * CL o o _ m su rn � c � ECp u� �I—D o -0 J 0 n ° Now CD :3m K P° (C) t-� ffii D ff 3 0 11 5+ -� 71^111 0 Cy 4 e,n �' � -4N C) `C CJ1 M ;p CCD W CA [n O W IV :3-,1 0 1 CD \ C v o oco v° W JM o � 0) z `D = f 7 :E U)o CD M CL 03, CL CL C o rn D o � m� =.� r ID N o t \ mZ Cfl U � N \ 1 Cil G /N�� V/ � 1 o O •3 .p ^Z 00 M 8 go cn C: 3 3 0 CL C cn CD Irt O� m w Y I CD CL c c CD ch CD O Imo` CD 0 w. O CL cn 0 rf z Cn 0 CD CDD CD CD as 0 Cn M. CD o o -0CD 3 s � o =r < < 0 =r + CD N CD CD � CD CCD'- CCD CO- 2I i3 CD CD CO— O � CD �� (_nom C� C CD C � 0) CL C� CD CD CD �:3IV � � O CD CD =r CIn w cn 3 �C CO + CD CO �' CD N COD Co W p � (n N Cn o CD � Com. CD CD O 0 -0 N O a sv O W-0 -- 0 > rQ w -�. �� Q 0 Cn M CD CSD CD CD. Cn CD 70 Q C. X Cn -1 O� Q CD r CD '� O CO 00 � O CD �U CD CD r- 21 CD m� CD COD C s ch -n " 0- CD M CD r -r Q CD �_}. CD WC� W * CD O CD CA CL CT cn cn a) 0 w Q x 0 Q� C QN) W W C31 �� C 5CD0CD . o CD c5 CD 0 cQ.Cc ,� s� o' 3 O 0 cn =3• i cr �• 3 CD o'� cn �- W-0 aD C(n CD - � cn cn s CD CD v o70 CD �• = " cn CD3 CDD mO COD O D - CD X -h Q s O ,-� CD o - s Q O CD O CD 2 inrmpw' 0 t t l C fk ■ � � , � © | ' ® � _ | � � � � ��§ � z `� . . -, � ■ \ | % � | oil pj @§� �$ @ �■ � ' §� $�■ �m ■m � §� ■■ ■ $ _ ` � §__ � 7 AND � � | � A§ $ ■ __ , 9 § - all I & Rom_ � _ �� . • Ph Li � � m �- $ / ! ■a vim && f , Popov ° � fk ■ � � , � © | ' ® � _ | � � � � ��§ � z `� . . -, � ■ \ | % � | oil Z C/) 0 0 7' > CD ;rs r- I 1k CD I < co CD CD (n =r 0) cn cr CD CD OD 0 CD CD CL 0 CD CCD W., X ILI 0 f z m ho z Ali -T- t. JF IX a..,. 17 m ho z Ali -T- JF IX a..,. 17 ;�v m ho z Ali -T- z U)CD �o 0 00 C.)�C �0 -hcr CD a� CD CD CL CD �3 m 3v � -o 3 CD 9 m 0 0 U3 0 O m W v 4:b. CD 0 v _3 0 Un (n Ll -n �: 3 w c O C � (Q CL `C. N � Q 0 O Cn A\ V/ w CD O co r cn (n � O C/) O CC N I C C� CCD ti 1-, cu r3 r� ' �* n �, 0- L-) LA a - C w w o u CD Q) � cn CL 0 aj '' ro O w n , cc o m0- CL M, CL � L w 3 = j Qj R s. 4L £Yy 1S; :{J y m e I cu �4 G) CD 0 0 cQ (n n -n �: 3 O c O C � (Q CL `C. N � Q 0 O A\ V/ CD O cn (n � O C/) O CC N C C� CCD CD O Q C �o CD Q) � cn CL 0 CL� O 0. G) CD 0 0 cQ z U? 0 CD CCD CDC CD 0 O c F v z I O z C CD N CD 0 0� 0 n 0 _0 p SCDCO@ x, o cn o-0 wo�CCC:) �-�~ q D o %C O qp-a O�oI's Cn 0� 3 CD ch �CD CD _p3 F<. �•CDCDm tnv "I a 710w cn 0 cn �o c: CD �o CC CD O CD ::i, w� � = CD O ' =� O Q n w �:3 �cn 3� X• v CD C2 c - M CD CD w CC. Q 0 0 CCD CD CD v CD fl}' cn cn C CD cn O 3 CD w CD cn 00 0 NC/) CD 0 O 00 o r CD C CD CD N m 3 cr � C.' r 0z3 v 0z CD � z U) w n CD r C CD CD O W C v z 0 I 0 z 0 U v CA n 3 CD O 3 CD N O 1 N C CD E N CD O 7 CD (D' E z C/) Q 77 CD r C CD (D N O U r CL CDO CD 0 i o O CD �(n Q=3� o O CL CD �� O h CD (D N N 0 O k� z CD CD CD w 0 —h m 3cr 3 CD Ma Sia o > > ara acr > r 0 o Q CD CD (p � rw aLQ c o w UQ n O o UQ i?� C — Mn CD cv,D O 'C CDc..� oon om �c CD �d o S ►*� o �, cv o �: CD Q pLJJ CD 5 �' o � a o o CD ;J8 aro o ria � Q CDc o o CD �Q�RL n �� (D (D ►y `ter O CD EL Oq f0 �A �CD bQ Er CD 55Q/cyD CDCDCD m 3cr 3 CD Ma Sia 0 -p C v z Q ch 0 = YI n 0 P� CL 0 N cn CD cn cn 3 CD CD CD 0 CD o � a z z � z z a � O U d CD tip CSD a CDD `� r�r n rY R � a ►� CDCD :.. , P w r,� CDcD CD ~ ��. r.. R v, cD cD w o rD cD `D i p �' a cC' CDD O w w b} ba C,' N (n4 vA�i O► O O O � �.+ G C. 0w O [CD Uq f D Gy 9 pq ,°.�. Sr � —. Q' AD �. cp C D �t0�.. n P - °O p p r ti _ O C O [D N y C -Q CDCD ai UQD CD CD G ¢ 4Q C CD O CD R Cor� CSD F—L m w N OG'Li .. E p CD ° R i 0, m OQ O C C 2.1 CD �-, �• i k3.+�a P� CLQ O � opo 0 � ��'�p a fo' m aq IID CD 0 CD O IJ3 CD CD '* CD O N 0 CCD vs n 0 P� CL 0 N cn CD cn cn 3 CD .. w I At L *--�i fit, IBM Q ' Ol L C C U ti O h m 3 crv 3 CD 'L. -A r -h N (n CD cnN 3 N r+ ■ N O � a m y CD €*+. rA O co D a0a :' ,,g-8 � cD n O CD CD CD n lcl 00 N O' O 'r 0CD O C , 2+,l CD C E•' �r F� O O 43 +! CD rn o A -0 c cCo "" r`' �" b CD F�- coo C� o y CDCL {gyp ° CD° a. CD'00 y (p. vOi OtZ CD CD aq �p a CD W [D N A vNi p yO C,' O C��j° K3 ►'3 Q.. p� C Gy CD v� v� m [D �t C py N )C crCD CD h ��• CD �* ` Mh C (D m 3 crv 3 CD 'L. -A r -h N (n CD cnN 3 N r+ 73 w r�f 4 U U) co C� C: 0 E cn cn 0 cn co Q a --f M U r .r o ol O J" -,d 'b O O rO iU+ wtb�aa oOaQ' z z z � z a tin y O v tw A U � M ilk , _ 4 4t ib 'lop ... 1{ i�• . � f P ' ilk �'i 4 'lop 1{ i�• . � P ' �'i cu w N cn cn 0N N Od 0 .cn 0 w ►� I 00 ed go to tw o � �+ � :� o '" � • � � , c o ° ° � a°Ei .--{ � c� ani N" Q" "d v 0 �y i #ti CA C] Gi 0 dp Qj cd . r -I i-1 N °`� c ° So o.� o a� ° °' 'd "� 48 too ti s� �>,' -g 0 cd 'gyp Q, or i � z r� x a 0 b � o z � as aid a � o � 0 0 ►� I o U) a z v m E E cn Cn � O 0)v CU c M . +� cu L- 0 o N Co o cn 2- E cn CO U) w cn � -1-a U) a a a cn Eo , E E Q Se .Ie C: cu c C:0 Ea E E CD wcn w w 0 z (4)Lpdaci uogepunuf 0 w EL v � r coIzIr 4- 0 vlN J mmmNroWr L �V-4Lnwrqwm ri rl r� f%i roti Q (4)Lpdaci uogepunuf 0 w EL v � r coIzIr 4- 0 vlN J Cc _ Z - o O ca N _' -0 c� Q?� Z N U) (3)� CU 00 4-0 Co U) M 4:: O LO O O \ U O 0 y 0 � 0 � Z Z co CD V C 0ttz �C M CO O 00 o s., U rc c 4� p O❑ U 00 ui QL E � o o 0 0 c N co `� � � U) to M WCD c ca N N O cu C: N O +r � Q N a N L O LCL CU O � U �-+ c 02 O O y o n U o � L O� U) � O U tI� O co = O ( V W .Q •; � L- 0) ca E c cu w O c a CU O V I~2 c�Mc��WE� L)0 CD .. 0) •� 11 cu a) LLJ O N •� Q LO N N ca •y p L p N N W5 L -� N }' CU N mE �� v�0 p 40-- E in O o > O O O Y W V L C) Z *11 w o U) cD z S J D m M 0 (Y) N N U 0 Y Z a) n' a) O O 0 4-0 0 4- •� ���� 00 • a? o •YI O cu 3 7 cu > N" ^ C O �U)c�C_, U)�t ._ v � CD �_ co o c CU > � L ,� CL -C c .>% i O Q O .� `�-- - V :3 :3Z L cu co 0 C) � Ca O E � CDa) O ZU�CU O 0 3 O O 10 0 O 0 0 ��•�'00 OO 0) O 0 N 4-- 0 o O - U �o L 0- cu a) �0 CIO �~- Q) L _ 0 � 0 0 U) a� ecu •— -a_00 ca a3 CD o-�'jL-L#;ao 0 E > -> crLCD O O U CU -0 5 00 0 0 U �►-ca��o-oai Q 0 U cuO U O (� U) E N O 0 O) O 0 L O0 cn� � -CU a -- 403•U) a).c))o co -E v0,•�� '� 4- O 0= C 4 O _ V 4) O c o cu 4-1 -x O~ c O `3 O O a3 C VCU QO US c 0 0N OL U 0 2 � co t6 a) n' a) } 4- •� CD 00 � a? o •YI i (1)� ^ � O o 0 U)�t ._ v c C L � a) �_ CL -C c .>% i O Q LI---- Q O U O co 0 E � CDa) O cu O O 10 0 0 0 O 0 _,co 0 O - U yam a) �0 �Q?,m�La3 ca tt a� •— a3 ca a3 o-�'jL-L#;ao O -> CU 0 c6 0 a3 w 0 c �►-ca��o-oai O CCD O O 0 Q O 0 L .E a -- 403•U) 0 co -E _ -� '� 4- O 0= C 4 O 0-0 V 4) O c O O~ O `3 U) O CD 0N OL U 0 p 0-� > 0 — 0 Q 0 > 0 :3_0 C 0 (6 Q -C U cu C O cncn W C. O LO 0 {a Z G 0 QD J +-0 N o0 CL EQ ,� .. Z 0 O N •c Q U) O O O O 0 cu > O •C 0)O cu o 000 ._ a•a0oL O C)- N r M 4- C) L) -t •O L .. ; � a. - N cD N Q� Q m' O 4-0 M v cn cameo 4-- � c C: M Ca J J V O O 5 cy} cr OO 0 M m p- �' /1 J J CO 4-N Co C: C0 � N J Q CQ M 2s E s -� s C/) 1 Cl) o 0 Z W W Z m �1 ■ ■ ■ ■ . ■ ■ Z 0 4-0 C/) 0 L.pp 0 ■� cu 0 s cu o 0 a� ■� ,v o ® 0 o _. U) 0 z v m i U N M N � QC TMI V W � LO r CC a o M U) X a) M 0 !� r M J � LO % N U Eo c7 co Cf) CD L r M (L� � � C a CD � cc o � ca a) cn w CD c (D (D (1) E r Cc a > CD M cu m a. W t- cc W W V 0 z 0 U cu a) a� U x w U co CL m w 0 L. 0 Ilk ..e .C/) ry 0 � rm rn Ln N. � U5 U� w ri � � xapul Boueuu0paw IEUOEP u 0 C cu G Z L oci Ln Ln Qu .� LM co 4- O Ln L 0 00 wLE um N Ln aj C" m CLc L , U _O Y (l) Z m 0 1 i ■ i 0 W� E :3 r E S - u D � Q W W W W PUS 8:)Ue .wqPBd [eUCIPPUCO CL cu cu LA Ln m it Lq I 02 u u c c E Ln � cu LU CL Gk D m +J Ln - 0 U) 0 Z m (IO 0 N 0 Y (n Z 3 W N n w w w twit M n m ,1 o rt N m v m w r-� y W � -4 H H H 4 � � u� ua to + w� w tit tit wuanbasucD paqi1enuuV u a a J C 0 1, i 4 a w Ln a c a u LU D 4 J lu I- 73 aj a) W U 0 Cn z CD c ma0- 0 -tO 0 O O U) U) O J ui x U c m E i W CL go, ult UJ il�i U' U1 rl H r-1 x8N awx4A4 .0 0 Ul H 9 H ,6 a M 0 M (D CD J Q O U) Z C .CL CLO N 0 N Cl) O J 4- �J ui x 73 c Ir � N � �t N w w u'1 iu w v V-4 X 83MUUvPBd m st W Is C) uJ r4 P4 fo w 0 H U) 0 Z D J m M 4- 0 N M W N J _O y 7, cn x 0 mo cn c 0 V CU 0 CL 4, O CL 4,,C ai CL 0 -4 w w U� w � � � � X8PUI 8:)UEUIJO:P8d to r-. r—I � � Ln cu M m E CL fL I 4 E W cr LL EIm LL W --LU m LLI Q eu -4 w w U� w � � � � X8PUI 8:)UEUIJO:P8d to r-. r—I � � Ln cu M m E CL fL I CL O N U) C ca a) 07 L cu cu C U cu E CDQ 0 C0 C cu 3 O O (u cuU a) m CL U a) as E a) U U 0- cn a) a ca 0 CD L U c O coLp O L a U U OD cm aD ISO 5E (u Q .E M O O O cn cu O .C: 3 E V 0 aL S Z > E � a) 2 cc co O U a) a � L- N U o -�cu O 0 CD cu c 'D cu >a) 3 O O L cA E cm O � U . L ��� . ai CD EU c cu � Q) N CD a) © EC� � O N •cu L Q 0) O Q O O U N V C:: 0 O a) O cu o 'n a)cu L- .c O > N L D) N 0 4- > 0o a) � a� °,? C: � cuEcn O �— a) E LO u) CL a^) O - q �§ W CL O N U) C ca a) 07 L cu cu C U cu E CDQ 0 C0 C cu 3 O O (u cuU a) m CL U a) as E a) U U 0- cn a) a ca 0 CD L U c O coLp O L a U U OD cm aD ISO 5E (u Q .E M O O O cn cu O .C: 3 E V 0 aL S Z KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COAMSSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: November 9, 2020 TOPIC: Grant County PUD Land Use Cooperative Agreement ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff LEAD STAFF: Mark R. Cook RECOMN ENDATION: Direct staff on next steps. BRIEFING SITMMARY: • Resolution 2016-105 obligates the County to a land use agreement with Grant County PUD for the Vantage Boat Ramp facility. • The agreement is silent regarding termination. • A recent evaluation of the agreement by the Prosecuting Attorney's Office affirms that the agreement does not provide for termination. • The agreement is set to expire on August 22, 2021 • Current issue involves private improvements within Grant's project area (private dock and fountain). • Ongoing issue with our restroom facility at the boat ramp. BACKGROUND: The Board of County Commissioners entered into a land use agreement with Grant County PUD pursuant to Resolution 2016-105 (EXHIBIT 1). The agreement contemplates j oint access and enj oyment of facilities located within Grant's proj ect area (an area designated by the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission). The Board may recall previous staff briefing on vandalism and associated issues of concern with our restroorn facility proximate to Grant's boat ramp and dock facility. Recent actions by Grant demanding abatement of private boat docks and a fountain proximate to Grant's boat ramp are being evaluated by the District Commissioner. As a part of this review effort, Public Works (PW) staff requested legal review of the land use agreement evaluating the potential for agreement termination. DISCUSSION: The lack of a termination clause in the land use agreement provides no clear path forward towards termination. The Interlocal Agreement Act (Revised Code of Washington Chapter 39.34) does not provide a provision in the absence of an agreement termination clause. The lack of our ability terminating the agreement is consistent with previous Page I of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Grant County PUD actions surrounding the restroom facility. PW staff strongly recommends no further agreements with Grant be executed by the Board in the absence of Prosecuting Attorney review. The agreement will expire on August 22, 2021 and PW staff recommends allowing the agreement to expire. Once expired, PW suggests exploring the possibility of "gifting" the restroom to Grant. It appears unlikely that Grant will alter its current course towards required abatement of private boat docks and the fountain at Vantage without involvement from Kittitas County. In the absence of a special use district, the County will likely need to consider impacts from direct intervention on the part of the private landowner in opposition to Grant's abatement process. FISCAL POPACTS: PW budgeted $7,500 for restroom maintenance activities in the 2020 adopted budget. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Resolution 2016-105 Page 2 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY CONMSSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: RESOLUTION 2015-105 Page 3 of 3 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COXMSSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF IaTTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO: 2016-0 RESOLUTION TO APPROVE AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN IUTTITAS COUNTY AND GRANT COUNTY PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO.2 FOR SHARED OPERATION AND MAINTENANCE RESPONSIBLITIES FOR THE I(ITTITAS COUNTY BOAT LAUNCH FACILITY AT VANTAGE, WASHINGTON WHEREAS, Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 is the owner of record of certain real property located in Kittitas County; and WHEREAS, Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 has recreation facility development and operations requirements under the operating license for the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project; and WHEREAS, Kittitas County desires to share operations and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities for the Kittitas County Boat Launch .Facility, Vantage, Washington for public recreational benefits and sustainable and economic needs and Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 desires to enter into said agreement; and WHEREAS, Said agreement for services is authorized by the provisions of Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act; and NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners hereby approves the attached Interlocal Agreement between Kittitas County and Grant County Public Utility District No. 2 for shared operation and maintenance responsibilities for the Kittitas County Boat Launch Facility at Vantage, Washington. ADOPTED this 8th day of August, 2016_ BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON ABSENT Obie Chairman A Fl��tsilrir!!! ` 4N ir" '5Y CO rI U''rr Jerk atla'�ard- Julie Kjorsvik aul Jewell, Vice -Chairman ..Iejlgibthe Board- Mandy Buchholz ) Laura OsiadacCommissioner LAND USE COOPERATIVE AGREEMENT This Land Use Cooperative Agreement (Agreement) is entered into this ,p, day ofA�, 2016, by and between PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT NO.2 OF GRANT COUNTY, WA,.a municipal corporation incorporated under the laws of the State of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the "Grant PUD" and KITTITAS COUNTY, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, "County! The parties intend that this Agreement shall remain in effect for a period of five (5) years from this date described above. This Agreement shall be binding upon all successors in interest to the parties during said term. WITNESSETH: WHEREAS, Grant PUD is the owner of record of certain real property located in Kittitas County, State of Washington, as more particularly described below: The Northwest quarter of the Northwest quarter of Section 20, Township 17 North, Range 23, E.W.M., Kittitas County at Vantage, Washington. WHEREAS, Grant PUD has recreation facility development and operations requirements under the operating license for the Priest Rapids Hydroelectric Project. WHEREAS, County desires to share operations and maintenance (O&M) responsibilities for the Kittitas Boat Launch facility in Kittitas County for public recreational benefits and sustainable social and economic needs. Grant PUD desires to enter into an agreement with County regarding site management, operations and maintenance of the premises. WHEREAS, this Agreement for services is authorized by the provisions of Chapter 39.34 RCW, the Interlocal Cooperation Act. NOW THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual promises and covenants contained herein, the Parties agree as follows: NOW THEREFORE, it is mutually agreed that Grant PUD does hereby accept responsibility for planning, design, and construction of recreation facilities and various site management responsibilities and County does hereby accept 0&M site management responsibilities to allow the public to use said facilities until termination of this Agreement. FOR AND IN CONSIDERATION of the mutual benefits to be derived, Grant PUD and County mutually covenant and agree as follows: 1. Grant PUD and County agree to co -manage this site for public water access and day use recreation opportunities. 2. Grant PUD and County agree this site will be managed by Grant PUD's policies and procedures required to meet requirements of the f=ederal Energy Regulatory Commission (FERC] license. Grant PUD policies and rules will be posted at the site to provide public outreach and educational information. 3. Grant PGD and County agree the boat launch, day use areas and parking lot are open year round. Restrooms may be closed Dec. 1— Feb. 28 annually. 4. Grant PUD will be responsible for all repairs and maintenance of picnic tables, boat launch, boarding dock, parking lot, pilings and trail. 5. Grant PUD shall be responsible for maintaining cleanup for the boat launch, restrooms, day use areas, and parking area year round. 6. Grant PUD shall provide and maintain all signagelkiosk information. 7. County will be responsible for repairs and maintenance of the restroom building and associated plumbing and electrical year round. 8. County will provide water, electricity and toilet paper for the restroom building. 9. Detailed tasks and responsibilities regarding operation and maintenance activities and law enforcement will be coordinated on an annual basis or as needed based upon the approved Management Plan (Appendix A). Each party to this Agreement agrees to be responsible for being appropriately self-insured or providing adequate liability insurance related to the responsibilities and activities of itself, its agents, contractors and employees at the premises. To the extent allowed by law, each party to this Agreement, with respect to damages or injuries arising out of the acts or omissions of itself, its agents, contractors, and employees at the premises, agrees to indemnify and hold harmless the other party. The parties to this Agreement agree to assist each other in preserving and presenting a defense of limited liability under RCW 4.24.210 by allowing public to use said property for outdoor recreation. No provision of this Agreement transfers any real property rights from Grant PUD to County or County to Grant PUD. IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have mutually agreed upon the terms and conditions of this instrument and have caused it to be executed as below subscribed. PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT No. 2 OF GRANT COUNTY Narrie Date Title Kiittita Name D& Title Appendix A Vantage Boat Launch Management Plan 5112116 1.0 location The Vantage Boat Launch facility is located on the Columbia River at Vantage on Grant Public Utility District No. 2 (Grant PUD) Wanapum Reservoir. The project site is located between the Riverstone Resort Marina and the Interstate -90 causeway, Northeast') of Section 29, Township 17 North, Range 23 E. Latitude and Longitude: 46,9556 (46 56'28.44')N; -119.9485 (119 59' 3.78")W 2.0 Operations The Vantage Boat Launch is designed to provide water access for medium sized watercraft and limited hiking access along the Wanapum reservoir. Recreation amenities were renovated in 2015, For the purpose of this plan, the Kittitas County Sheriffs Building is not included. This building is wholly owned and operated by Kittitas County to include all maintenance and operations. See Figure 1 Site Map 2.1 Amenities An overview of site amenities is described below: o Boat Launch — two lane 2 paved ADA vehicle parking spaces (1 with trailer) 47 paved vehicle wltrailer parking spaces 1 paved Sheriff's vehicle witraller parking space 9 paved single vehicle parking spaces ADA Restroom { 9 picnic tables • Kiosks and interpretive signage 2.2 Operating Season/Hours Vantage Boat Launch operating times and periods may vary according to conditions. Such times and periods will be posted at the main kiosk, entrance gate and on the Grant PUD web site. Vantage Boat Launch will generally be open year around, from dawn to dusk (% hour prior to sun-rlse to % hour after sun- set). Overnight camping is not permitted. See Section 2.3 Facilities Use, Scheduling, and Use Permits 2.3 Facilities Use, Scheduling, and Use Permits Vantage Boat Launch facilities are available to Individual persons, families, and small groups for activities consistent with the facility design, Grant PUD park rules and regulations. Grant PUD will be the contact for all site operations. Activities may include commercial sponsored events, community activities, etc, Grant PUD may develop an appropriate written agreement with the requesting party. This agreement will act as the mechanism for scheduling and reserving areas for non -routine use, as well as providing the approval for appropriate activities. 2.4 Gates There is a gate Installed on the main access mad to Vantage Boat Launch to allow the site to be temporarily closed for unforeseen maintenance. Prior approval for any closure will be coordinated between Grant PUD and Kittitas County, 2.5 Rules Park patrons are ultimately responsible to ensure that their conduct follows applicable laws and rules. This includes: + Grant PUD Park Rules and Policies Rules Governing Public Use of Project Lands and Waters • Washington State Laws K'Oas County Code Park rules are posted at various conspicuous locations where they are applicable. Public use areas and restricted areas are posted and delineated. 2.6 Emergency Action Plan In the event that there is an imminent threat to human safety, Grant PUD or contract staff has the authority to close all or portions of the facility as appropriate. Contact should be made with supervisors, agency contacts and emergency services If needed. See table below. Contact List Agency Name Title Contact Info Grant PUD Vanessa Seidel Site Maintenance 50917934557 Manager Cell 5091429.1604 yseldaidgMu ga Grant PUD Ruben Puente Facilities Contact 5091750500 ex 2120 Cell 5091289-0247 Contracted Brady Phelps Grant PUD Security 5091754-0500 ex 2120 Security Cell 5091237-9025 Kittitas County Jim Vandeventer or Kitdtas County Public 5091962-7524 Public Works Ryan Bergs Works Jim.,vandleventert@oD.kiiias.wa.us Lb ambergeRco.kitdtas.wa.us nt itas County Dispatch Non -emergency 5091962-7525 Sheriff 911 Kittitas Valley Fire Vantage — Dist 4 Office 509/856-7140 & Rescue Dispatch — Dist. 2, Office 5091933-7231 Kittitas Valley Fire & 911 Rescue 3.0 Maintenance Grant PUD and Kittilas County will share maintenance responsibilities throughout the year. If a maintenance activity Is not clearly defined in the following sections, coordination between Grant PUD and Klttitas County should occur. Grant PUD Is ultimately responsible for ensuring that all internal protocol and external permits are In-place for maintenance activities at Vantage Boat launch; therefore clear communication is vital to the future success of this property. Maintenance tasks and frequencies are designed to meet the Grant PUD goal that all recreation facilities and equipment will: • Look good Be in good repair Be appropriate Function All sites will meet basic standards for health and cleanliness; Healthy environment for users and employees • Minimal odor e Minimal litter Maintenance extends the usability of all built elements in a recreation site. Maintenance of facilities is critical to a visitor's experience. The cleanliness of restroom facilities is the highest priority to most park visitors and sets a first impression of the entire park. It is Important that the visual cleanliness of the restroom conveys to the visitors a facility that presents no health risks, no safety concerns, and a feeling of security and nothing that detracts from the site. Site cleanliness, including litter removal and grounds maintenance, frequently rank second in determining visitor satisfaction, based on user comments at public recreation sites. 3.1 Maintenance Categories Maintenance will be categorized in the following designations: routine, seasonal, scheduled/capltai and unscheduled. Grant PUD will be the lead on maintenance but duties will be shared with Kittitas County. Maintenance will be shared as shown in the following tables: 3.2 Grant PUD Responsibilities Maintenance Task Developed recreation Maintain an FERC required recreation amenities. area maintenance Maintain grounds, park equipment and boat launch. Maintain developed parking area and boulder barriers, deanllness, parking stripes, and directional arrows. Maintain trees, ornamental plantings and mitigation plantings. Manage noxious weds and spray records. PUD 3.3 K!Wtas County Responsibilities Maintenance Task Kittkas County Responsibilities Maintenance All building maintenance and repairs R%pqnsWitiles Supply toilet paper for the restrooms Enforcement Snow removal on entrance road and within parkinglot 3.4 Shared Responsibilities Maintenance Task Grant PUD Kittitas County R%pqnsWitiles Rea nsibilities Enforcement Coordinate W th Ofts County Coordinate with Grant PUD coordination with outside a encles Site inspections Coordinate with Kfts County Coordinate with Grant PUD Complete Grant PUD Inspection farm anrtuall Restroom ReW to Kittiitas Coun Garbage Coordinate with 191titas County Coordinate with Grant PUD Operations and maintenance schedules wdl be coordinated between Grant PUD and Klttitas County annually during the first quarter of each calendar year, 3.5 Routine Maintenance 3.5.1 Constructed Recreation Facilities At recreation sites in general, this is typically cleaning of built features such as restroom, campsites, swim beaches, boat launches, and docks. While routine maintenance of facilities is accomplished by people with the least amount of technical staff training, it Is the most critical to a visitor's experience. Routine facility maintenance can Impact the usability of facilities; for example loose gravel and debris can hinder the ability of a boat launch, route of travel, or roadway to function as Intended. If fasteners and railings are not routinely inspected and tightened or loose gravel is not removed from paved trail surfaces where wheeled activities such as in-line skating or roller skating takes place, this is a safety issue. 3.3.2 Grounds This ranges from litter removal, to turf mowing and routine maintenance of water systems. The cleanliness of grounds and the quality of turf care frequently rank #2 in determiners of visitor satisfaction based on user comments at public recreation sites. With Vantage Boat Launch meeting the Grant PUD classification criteria of an urban site, the user expectations are consistent with the higher level of development Flush restrooms, paved parking, concrete sidewalks and multiple garbage cans, all give visitors the impression that this site Is maintained frequently. Seasonal Facilities — examples include: Snow removal/plowing of roadways Trail surface maintenance for compacted gravel trails Grounds Pruning Fertilize/seed Noxious Woods/Pest Control 3.6 Non -Routine Maintenance of Constructed Recreation Facilities Facilities — unscheduled but vital tasks include, but are not limited to; graffiti removal, utility distribution system repairs, pavement maintenance, etc. Grounds — can Include replacement of vegetative plantings necessary to meet environmental permit requirements or operational objectives such as shade at universally accessible facilities. 4.0 Worts Assignment Work Assignment Feedback/Monitoring Activities — will assist Grant PUD in preparing accurate staffing and budget" plans. A Recreation Specialist will coordinate with Grant PUD Facilities Department and contract staff as needed to verify work durations for specific projects. This information will be reviewed on an annual basis to adjust estimated work durations for specific tasks. A combination of the Maximo system (Facilities Department work order system) and site maintenance spreadsheets will be utilized to schedule, track, and report work at Grant PUD recreation sites. As a goal, any variances In work durations will be coordinated to improve work planning efficiencies, 4.1 Standard Operating Procedures Vantage Boat Launch has no complex, interlinked multi -function systems that would warrant the development of Standard Operating Procedures (SOP). SOPs are developed for systems associated with the operation of complex, multiple interlinked functions that must all occur for an outcome that fulfills the expectation for that specific aspect of an operation. SOPs are also written instructions to achieve uniformity of the performance of functions associated with quality requirements of a system. 5.0 Maintenance Monitoring 5.1 Unplanned Maintenance All personnel involved in the operation or maintenance of Vantage Boat Launch will have a means to provide feedback to Grant PUD Recreation Specialists on observed or reported maintenance needs outside their direct responsibility. This will assure a means of timely awareness of maintenance needs and appropriate responses being directed at the issue. 5.2 Inspections In addition to reporting and tracking of Unplanned Maintenance, Recreation Specialists will conduct site inspections at Vantage Boat Launch twice a year to evaluate the success of current task schedule frequencies and to identify any non -routine maintenance that needs to be addressed. 5.3 Maintenance Tracking Activity tracking will assist Grant PUD in preparing accurate staffing and budget plans. A Recreation Specialist will coordinate with Grant PUD facilities department and contract staff as needed to verify work durations for specific projects. This information will be reviewed on an annual basis to adjust estimated work durations for specific tasks. A combination of the Maximo system (maintenance management system) and site maintenance spreadsheets will be utilized to schedule, track, and report work at Grant IUD recreation sites. As a goal, any variances in work durations will be coordinated to Improve work planning efficiencies. 6.0 Vegetation Management 6.1 Trees An annual inspection of all trees by staff with training in tree disease and structural failure Indicators, will occur in the fall. If indicators are found that warrant more than increased observation, a trained arborist should be called to determine if a corrective prescription is needed, Any corrective action can be implemented prlor to the next use season. All staff performing routine maintenance at the site should be aware and observant of indicators of tree hazards. 6.2 Weed Control Noxious weeds will be managed for the site under the Districts Vegetation Management Program, consistent with the integrated past management plan for Vantage Boat Launch. The Grant PUD Facilities staff or a contractor will control the weeds as needed, based upon site vegetation assessments. Weed Control Methods and Schedule Weeds will be controlled by herbicide spraying, hand -pulling, or by mechanical methods (weed -whacking or mowing). These methods and their frequency are described in the table below. Vegetation Management Method Timing and Location(s) Staff Required Herbicide Spraying Initial application of pre -emergent herbicide should Facilltles staff must occur along the trail, trail shoulders, gravel walkways, apply herbicides picnic areas, etc. in late winter or early spring when that require temperatures are forecast to be consistently above application by a freezing and rain is likely within 2446 hours after licensed herbicide application. applicator. Fohow-up spat applications of herbicide should be applied to breakthrough weeds along the trail, trail LRC or Lands shoulders, gravel walkways, picnic areas, etc. in June Specialists can use through early September. Staff should use a dyed un -regulated herbicide when spraying near public areas. herbicides (OTC Selective herbicides may be used in landscaped areas Round -up) (parking lot islands, bloswales, etc.) If necessary. Application should occur between May and September as needed. Hand Pulling Hand pulling is the preferred method for landscaped LRC, Contractor, areas, but if the weed population is large, selective Lands Specialist herbicides may be used. Hand pulling should occur as soon as weeds are spotted. Hand pulling can occur all year, but mostly during growing season (June through September). Mechanical Mechanical methods should be used where weed f=acilities or populations cover a large area. Timing and frequency Contractor depends on the weed species. Project 9wndwy Vantage Scat Launch Figure 1 Site Map