HomeMy WebLinkAbout2021-01-11-minutes-public-works-study-sessionKITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
Public Works Study Session
Regular Meeting
Monday January 111 2021 -1:30 PM
Webex
1. Call to Order
2. Crystal Creek Flood Study and Map Updates
3. Floodplains by Design Letter of Support
4. Snoqualmie Public Utility District Water Right and Hyak Parking Update
S. Public Works Permit Fee Review
6. Lease of Public Right of Way for Parcel Number 901833
9. Upper County Truck Traffic Restriction
B. Other business
9. Adjourn
Created on 1/7/2021 3:14:38 PM
KITTITAS COUNTY
PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION MINUTES
Webex
Regular Meeting
MONDAY 1:30 PM JANUARY 11, 2021
Board members present: Chairman Brett Wachsmith, Vice -Chairman Laura
Osiadacz
Others: Mark Cook, Arden Thomas, Candie Leader, Josh Fredrickson,
Rebecca Cruse, Public Works; Dan Carlson, Mike Flory, Jessica Miller,
Pat Nicholson, Community Development Services and Five (5) Members of
the Public
At 1:56 pm Chairman Brett Wachsmith opened the Public Works Study
Session.
CRYSTAL CREEK FLOOD STUDY AND MAP UPDATES
Mark Cook introduced Arden Thomas to present the item for discussion.
Arden Thomas gave background on the study for Crystal Creek and the
input received from the City of Roslyn and City of Cle Elum. Arden
Thomas stated that previous modeling was done in the 1970's by the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) and the new study utilized
better topography and site condition information along with advanced
modeling techniques. Arden Thomas continued that the critical
information coming out of the study is that there will be no
expansion of the mapped floodway designation and proposes minor map
revisions within the one hundred (100) year and five hundred (500)
year floodplains. Arden Thomas added that staff will be attending
the City of Cie Elum Council meeting scheduled for today's date for a
presentation. Discussion was held. Staff was directed to move
forward with outreach to affected property owners.
FLOODPLAINS BY DESIGN LETTER OF SUPPORT
Mark Cook gave background on a previous request from Floodplains by
Design and a request for signature on a letter of support to the
Governor for seventy (70) million dollars in funding for 2021-2023.
Mark Cook continued that Public Works has secured funding from this
program for projects and acquisition. Mark Cook added that the
Governor's Office is now sending the request for funding to the
legislature and a similar action is being requested to show support.
Vice -Chairman Laura Osiadacz made a motion to approve the Chair's
signature on the letter of support with Chairman Brett Wachsmith
seconding the motion. Motion passed 2-0.
2021-01-11 MINUTES
SNOQUALMIE PUBLIC UTILITY DISTRICT WATER RIGHT AND HYAK PARKING
UPDATE
Mark Cook reported that Tom Hastings with Snoqualmie Public Utility
District (SPUD) noticed him of the approval by the Department of
Ecology for foreign water rights. Mark Cook gave background on the
project in progress by SPUD for a wastewater treatment plant and the
Board authorizing two hundred and fifty thousand dollars ($250,000)
from the Public Facilities Fund supporting the project. Discussion
was held. Mark Cook stated that there are still issues with parking
at Hyak by recreational users and the facility shared with SPUD is
being blocked. Mark Cook gave background on the work staff has done
with implementing parking fines and with the approval of updating the
LAIRD to include impound yards as an allowable or conditional use.
Staff can work on a proposal to contract with a tow company to remove
417egally parked vehicles using an impound yard proximate to Hyak.
Further discussion was held.
PUBLIC WORKS PERMIT FEE REVIEW
Mark Cook gave background on the last fee update completed in 2017 by
Public works and other county departments utilizing a fee model
implemented with a consultant. Mark Cook continued that staff is now
collecting data to support an increase of fees along with internal
processes of permit routing. Mark Cook added that he will have a
complete briefing for the Board by the end of the first quarter of
2021 and a proposal for implementation by the end of the second
quarter of 2021. Discussion was held.
LEASE OF PUBLIC RIGHT OF WAY FOR PARCEL NUMBER 901833
Mark Cook reported that a lease with a property owner was established
in 1961 for a structure located partially in the Vantage Highway
right of way. Mark Cook continued that the lease is set to expire in
October of this year and the original lessee has since sold the
property with the lease not being assignable. Mark Cook added that
the new property owner is looking to renew the lease. Mark Cook
stated that it is problematic for the county to allow incursions of
private property into county right of way. Mark Cook commented staff
is recommending termination of the lease and working with the
property owner on a solution.
UPPER COUNTY TRUCK TRAFFIC RESTRICTION
Mark Cook gave background on the action taken by resolution in 2018
establishing truck traffic restrictions annually from May 15th to
September 15th on certain upper county roads. Mark Cook continued
that at the last Upper County Traffic Committee meeting members
inquired about making the restriction year-round. Mark Cook added
that with the absence of a Commercial Vehicle Officer employed by the
Sheriff's Office it is hard to enforce a year-round restriction.
Discussion was held. Staff was directed to attend a Special Meeting
2021-01-11 MINUTES
scheduled for Wednesday, January 13th at 3:30pm with the Sheriff for
further discussion. Staff was also directed to notify the Upper
County Traffic Committee of the meeting and solicit for attendance.
OTHER BUSINESS:
There was no other business for discussion.
Meeting adjourned at 2:36 pm.
2021-01-11 MINUTES
KITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Brett Wachsmith, Chairman
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: January 11, 2021
TOPIC: Crystal Creek Flood Study and Map Updates
ACTION REQUESTED: Direction to Staff
LEAD STAFF:
Arden Thomas
RECOMMENDATION:
Direct staff to submit finalized Letter of Map Revision Application and conduct outreach.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• The Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) received funding from
the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a Crystal Creek
Flood Study and to update the official maps used by FEMA and community
officials based on the outcomes of the new study.
• FCZD staff has been coordinating with Cle Elum and Roslyn Communities to
gather information about Crystal Creek flooding concerns and integrate this study
with Roslyn's stormwater planning and capital improvement efforts.
• Compared to the original FEMA investigation conducted in the late 1970s, the
new Crystal Creek study utilized better topographic and site condition
information, including surveys of all stream crossings, and more advanced
modeling techniques.
• While FEMA has been updating the flood maps county -wide, the FEMA -led
effort did not include any new studies for Crystal Creek. Changes to the Crystal
Creek floodplain mapping as part of the FEMA -led effort is due to improved
topography information.
• The hydrologic and hydraulic study for Crystal Creek is complete. Within Cle
Elum, the model results and proposed remapping indicate that there should be no
expansion of the floodway designation and proposes minor revisions in areas
currently mapped as within the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplain.
• After the Letter of Map Revision application materials are finalized, it will need
to be submitted by the three National Flood Insurance Communities (Cities of Clc
Elum and Roslyn and Kittitas County) affected by the study and the proposed
map changes.
Page I of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
The Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) received funding from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a Crystal Creek Flood
Study and to update the official maps used by FEMA and community officials based on
the outcomes of the new study. Crystal Creek was chosen for the flood study based on
local community interest and the desire for the FCZD to begin remapping priority
watershed in Upper Kittitas County.
FEMA -funded flood studies and remapping efforts must conform to P'EMA standards.
Studies can be either detailed or approximate. In approximate areas, the 100 -year
floodplain is identified but the study does not establish base -flood elevations or identify
the floodway. National Flood Insurance Program (NFIP) communities are required to
regulate development within these 100 -year floodplain but have little information about
these areas. Detailed studies not only identify the footprint of the 100 -year floodplain, but
also identify base -flood elevations, 500 -year floodplains, and floodways. Floodways have
very high regulatory standards, including a prohibition on new residential structures. 500 -
year floodplains have no minimum regulatory requirements, though communities can
choose to regulate these areas.
FEMA is in the process of updating the FEMA floodplain maps throughout the County.
This effort did not include any new studies for Crystal Creek, and differences between
the "old" 1981 maps and "New" maps anticipated in 2021 for the Crystal Creek
floodplain are due to more accurate topography data available from the 2011 LiDAR
flight.
DISCUSSION:
The results of the Crystal Creek flood resulted in no large changes in our understanding
of flood risk or extent within the City of Cle Elum. In downtown Cle Elum, the hydraulic
modeling indicates that during the 100 -year flood, Crystal Creek floods overbank north
of 2"d Street and continues east as shallow flooding with less than 1 foot of depth. This
flooding was also identified in the work maps associated with the 1981 FEMA maps.
Since the 1981 FEMA maps identify these areas as Zone B (areas with between a 1% and
0.2% annual change each year), in the LOMR we propose to maintain the same flood
designation. This designation, which is also referred to as the 500 -year floodplain, would
not create a mandatory flood insurance requirement, but the City of Cle Elum could
consider utilizing this flood study for stormwater planning and project implementation.
Since there is risk of shallow flooding, even during the 100 -year flood event, the City of
Cle Elum consider applying higher building standards within this area identified as a 100 -
year floodplain.
The Kittitas County Flood Control District conducts outreach aimed at informing
residents about upcoming map changes. The FCZD proposes sending out notices to any
landowners impacted by mapping changes and coordinating with the City of Cle Elum so
that both FCZD staff and Cle Elum staff are listed as contacts on outreach materials to
landowners within the City of Cle Elum.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
The Crystal Creek flood study and remapping effort was largely supported through
FEMA funding. The Flood Control Zone District has included outreach, including staff
time and required materials) in is 2021 budget.
Page 2 of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Crystal Creek Hydraulic Report
Exhibit 2: Draft Crystal Creek Upper Work Map
Exhibit 3: Draft Crystal Creek Lower Work Map
Exhibit 4: Draft Crystal Creek Cle Elum Work Map
Exhibit 5: Example Flood Control Zone District Outreach Brochure
Exhibit b: City of Cle Elum Memo
Page 3 of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
Exhibit 1: Draft Crystal Creek Hydraulic Report
Page 4 of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
. WATERSHED
T- SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
MEMORANDUM
To: Mark Cook, Kittitas County Public Works
From: Chris Frei, P.E., Marissa Karpack, E.I.T., Watershed Science & Engineering
Date: December 21, 2020
Re: DRAFT - Crystal Creek and Cedar Gulch Creek Hydraulic Analysis
1.0 INTRODUCTION
Watershed Science & Engineering (WSE) was hired by the Kittitas County Department of Public Works to
complete hydraulic modeling and analysis to evaluate flood risk along Crystal Creek and Cedar Gulch Creek
in Kittitas County, WA. Model results were used to prepare flood plain, mapping and supporting technical
documentation necessary to update effective FEMA Flood Insurance,Rate Maps (FIRMS) as part of a Letter
of Map Revision (LOMR). This work was partially funded t.htough a FEMA Cooperating Technical
Partnership (CTP) grant.
2.0 LOCATION
Crystal Creek and Cedar Gulch Creek are located in Kittitas County, WA. This current study covers 4.5 miles
of Crystal Creek from northeast of the city of Rioslyo (Roslyn) 'to the confluence with the Yakima River at
the City of Cle Elum (Cie Elum, see Figure 1), and,,2.5 miles.s f Cedar Gulch Creek from the foothills north
of Roslyn to where the creek enters the city's piped stormwater system near W Nevada Ave.
3.0 EFFECTIVE FEMA MAPPINE.,
Effective mapping for Crystal Creek ai)d Cedar Gulch Creek are based on a 1981 Flood Insurance Study
(FIS). The lower 9900 few of Crystal,Creek within Cle Elum was studied by detailed methods. Flooding
along the channel cor iclor is mappdd as Zone AE and has a coincident floodway (no encroachments).
Overbank flooding within Cle Elum is mapped as Shaded Zone X (shallow 100 -year flooding). All other
reaches of Crystal Creek and daf Gulch were studied by approximate methods and are mapped using
the Zone A designation.
A 1991 LOMB (91-10-22P) removed Zone A flooding within Roslyn by demonstrating that 100 -year
flooding on Cedar Gulch Creek would be contained within Roslyn's piped stormwater system. The current
study does not update mapping within the region covered by the LOMR. Roslyn is in the process of
upgrading their stormwater system and will assess the need for updated flood mapping after those
improvements have been implemented.
For the current study it was assumed that Roslyn's stormwater system has minimal impact to flood routing
through the city. This is because the piped stormwater system outfalls to Crystal Creek at the same
location that any overland flooding would return to Crystal Creek.
Watershed Science & Engineering • 506 2nd Ave, Suite 2700, Seattle, WA 98104. 206-521-3000
Legend
Stream
4ti y
N -W. r#� 'Road
City Boundary
A.
� 1 Mti
F'r 1 Lei}f-f
4 � t
r
CLE ELUM
iv SOUTH CLE ELUM4 '
f
Kittitas County, WAo 2,500 5,000
Crystal Creek Feet
Letter of Map Revision
Scale: 1:eo,000 zo Dec zona
Site Overview Map tdAD1%3StatePlane
Wyoming West FI PS
49D4 Feet SCIENCE & ENGINEERIM
4.0 HYDRAULIC MODELING AND ANALYSIS
WSE developed and applied one-dimensional (113) steady state HEC -RAS (v5.0.7) computer models to
simulate flooding along Cedar Gulch Creek and Crystal Creek upstream from Cie Elum. A separate 1D/213
pseudo steady state HEC -RAS model was used to simulate flooding along the lower portion of Crystal
Creek including Cie Elum. The lower model encompassed the entire reach of Crystal Creek that was
previously studied using detailed methods. Model layout and extents for the three (3) models are shown
in Figure 2.
1D model reaches were developed by:
1. Developing model cross section layout and geometry data within ArcGIS 10.5
2. Cutting initial cross section elevation data from 2011 LiDAR (FEMA, 2011)
3. Incorporating in -channel survey, where available, based on project survey collected by the County
4. Incorporating bridge and culvert data based on County survgV ind observations from WSE's July
22, 2020 site inspection.
5. Refining the model by updating bank stations, ineffecth*/ flow4�s, and Manning's n roughness
values based on site observations. `• ;
6. Applying peak flow (steady state) hydrology d inedthrough regional regression analysis to
simulate peak flood elevations and flooding extero"IL .' .
Development of the Crystal Creek 1D/2D modek0*"Wn Cie Elut `included the following additional steps:
1. Adding lateral structures to represent hio'growi the left (east) bank of Crystal Creek
2. Defining a 2D area within Cle EL*'lWed old .*11 LiDAR elevation data to route shallow overland
flow leaving the main chanp�F
3. Overlaying a computatiorh(meshA*WZ"Yea using a nominal grid size of 50 feet by 50 feet.
4. Refining the mesh "forcilr reaklines to increase model resolution near key flow controls.
5. Applying a detalw0nd' r Ia4 to the 2D area with Manning's `n' roughness values based on
land use in 204 aerial phot*aphy:
6. Applying unstead*e low hyckology with a constant inflow (pseudo steady state) to simulate peak
flood elevations and d*extents.
4.1 MODEL DEVELOPMENT
The UDAR data used in model development was collected in 2011 to support FEMA flood map updates in
Kittitas County (FEMA, 2011). Stream channel survey was collected by the County from October 1St to
November 26th, 2019 to support the current study. Survey was completed at 108 cross sections and 26
water crossing structures including bridges and culverts. WSE additionally traveled to the study reaches
on July 22, 2020 to examine hydraulic conditions, observe crossing structures, and record structure
geometry.
IS4 WATERSHED P a g e 13
$CWNCE & ENGiNEEHiNG
4.1.1 Bridge and Culvert Incorporation
Bridges and culvert crossings were incorporated into the 1D model geometries based on structure survey
data provided by the County and field measurements collected by WSE. The sediment -blocked depths
option was used to represent average channel elevation within the structures.
,C-6WATERSHED Page 14
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Legend
Cross Section, Cedar
1 Gulch Model
" Cross Section, Upper
Crystal Model
Cross Section, Lower
Crystal Model
River Centerline
2D Computational Area
Elevation
High: 3766
r
Low: 1882
5
' A
PF
IL
Kittitas County, WA 0 2,000 4,000
Crystal Creek Feet
{ Letter of Map Revision
d'
HEC -RAS Model GeometryNADe19835000 ,a°e°2�°
tatePlare
sg904Feet�FlPs SWATERSHED
4.1.2 2D Area Computational Mesh and Geometry Development
The 21) area boundary was drawn to follow high ground at the edges of the Crystal Creek floodplain within
Cie Elum. The 21) computation cell mesh was generated using RAS Mapper, and refined by enforcing break
lines along roadways and flow control features to improve hydraulic computation accuracy around
complex terrain. Figure 2 shows the 2D area, cell boundaries, and breaklines. The 21) area domain was
extended to allow mapped results to tie into effective shallow 100 -year flood zones based on flooding
from the Yakima River.
- f
r
- I
Figure 3. Example of computational mesh layout at.rbad.and chirnel centerlines.
4.1.3 Model Calibration
WSE set Manning's 'n%"toughness',values •.biksed on land use classifications determined from satellite
imagery and site observations. A land)use layer was created in GIS, and Manning's n values corresponding
to each classification were applied p cording to the relationships shown in Table 1. The land use layer was
also imported into the 21) area t6define spatially varying Manning's n values.
,2- WATERSHED P 6
`~w SCIENCE & ONGiNEERING
Table 1. Manning's `n' roughness values used in HEC -RAS model.
Land Use
Manning's n roughness values
I
Range'
Value Used
Creek channel
0.025 — 0.080
0.050
Creek overbank
0.040 — 0.100
0,080
Paved road
0.010 — 0.020
0.015
Dirt and gravel area
0.020-0.050
0.030
Water surface (Canals, ponds, etc)
0.010— 0.040
0.025
Grass
0.025 — 0.050
0.040
Trees and dense shrubs
0.035 — 0.200
0.060
Residential
0.050-0.100
0.070
Commercial
0.060-0.100
0.080
' Source: Chow, 1959'
Historical high-water marks and corresponding flows for Cf Creek anO
Cedar Gulch Creek were not
available to calibrate the model. Modeled inundation lim*vVere presented d�g an online meeting with
the County on October 28, 2020 and were determined t64ovldAXreasonable representation of observed
flow patterns and inundated areas.
4.1.4 Flow Data
Peak flows for Crystal Creek and Cedar Qulch C Were determined based on regional regression
equations developed by the USGS (Itin e`tL, 20b0�. These equations follow the format:
`ti 1
Q = aAbl0cp/10d(CAN) -
Where: Q = Peak F } A= Drainage Area (DA) (sq mi)
P = PrOpitation (in)rt) * Y CAN = Canopy Cover (%)
a,b,c,d ari ,efficier4 (provided in Mastin et. al, 2016)
The USGS's StreamStats online incorporates published regression equations with digital elevation and
precipitation mapping to automate estimation of regression -based flow quantiles. WSE used StreamStats
to apply the regression equations and determine flow quantiles at key flow change locations. Parameters
used in the flow analysis are presented in Table 2. Peak flow results are presented in Table 3. The resulting
Crystal Creek 100 -year flow at the downstream model boundary is approximately twice the peak flow
values used in the effective Flood Insurance Study (FEMA 1981).
WATERSHED P 7
�� SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Table 2. Peak flow regression equation parameters for Crystal Creek and Cedar Gulch Creek.
'Based on USGS Stream5tats
'Based on PRISM data
Table 3. Peak flow discharges for Crystal Creek and Cedar Gulch Creek hydraulic aa"sis.
Location
Annual Inst tSm Diss Peak Discharge (cfs)l
W Fork
E. Fork
N Fork
S Fork
50-?q--\100-year
500 -year
Crystal
Parameter
W. drainage, W. Fork Cedar
0.54
23.5
32.6
Tributary
Tributary
Tributary
Gulch Cr.
Cedar
Cedar
Crystal
Crystal
74.8
E, drainage, W. Fork Cedar
Creek at
0.26
Gulch Cr.
11.Q�
„A„
„B„
„C,
35.2
E. Fork Cedar Gulch Cr.
Gulch
Gulch
Creek
Creek
41.7
60.0
Cedar Gulch Cr. below
Mouth
Drainage Area',
Roslyn
2.:,14' '
75.5
109
M12
0.8
0.33
0.26
0.12
0.69
1.08
0.66
6.80
Precipitation',
N. Fork Crystal Cr.
0.26,
V 16.9
26.1
35.1
45.2
76.4
46.8
46
45.7
45
37.8
37.8
33.2
39.6
in,
7.8
9.3
13.2
<
Canopy Covera
45.3% 1
39.3%
29.9%
60.4%
36.9%
36%
35.5%
34.4%
'Based on USGS Stream5tats
'Based on PRISM data
Table 3. Peak flow discharges for Crystal Creek and Cedar Gulch Creek hydraulic aa"sis.
"flows based on Streamstats Regression Analysis
SWATERSHED 8
Drainage
Annual Inst tSm Diss Peak Discharge (cfs)l
Flow Change Location
10 -year
25- A
50-?q--\100-year
500 -year
Area (mi`)
W. drainage, W. Fork Cedar
0.54
23.5
32.6
41.1
Gulch Cr.
;"
49.9
74.8
E, drainage, W. Fork Cedar
0.26
Gulch Cr.
11.Q�
19.'
19.3
23.5
35.2
E. Fork Cedar Gulch Cr.
I 0.33
17.6, `.
�'I ,
33.4
41.7
60.0
Cedar Gulch Cr. below
Roslyn
2.:,14' '
75.5
109
140
173
268
,
N. Fork Crystal Cr.
0.26,
V 16.9
26.1
35.1
45.2
76.4
S. Fork Crystal Cr. "
0.1,; `,
`•�; 4.8
6.4
7.8
9.3
13.2
<
Crystal Cr. below confluen"w, i
of N. and S. Forks 1.02
39.2
56.0
71.7
88.4
136
Crystal Cr. below Cedar
Gulch Cr.
3.15
104
148
189
232
356
Crystal Cr. below Tributary
„A„
4.34
133
194
251
312
491
Crystal Cr. below Tributary
B"
5.71
162
238
309
387
614
Crystal Cr. below Tributary
" C
6.44
173
255
332
416
662
"flows based on Streamstats Regression Analysis
SWATERSHED 8
4.2 HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
The Cedar Gulch HEC -RAS model was configured and run for the 100 -year flows listed in Table 3. The
upper and lower Crystal Creek models were run for the five flow quantiles (10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 500 -year
events) shown in Table 3. Flows were specified at the upstream end of each reach, confluence locations,
and downstream of major tributary inflows.
Normal depth boundary conditions were applied at the downstream end of Cedar Gulch Creek and the
lower Crystal Creek model reach, and at the downstream (east) boundary of the 2D area in Cie Elum.
Friction slopes were determined based on average channel/basin slope at each location. The upper Crystal
Creek steady ID model used a fixed water surface boundary condition that was based on the steady state
water surface elevation output from the lower Crystal Creek model.
Model simulations for Cedar Gulch Creek and Upper Crystal Creek were performed using the subcritical
t
flow regime option. Model simulations for the lower Crystal Creek ],* D model were performed using
the subcritical unsteady flow option with constant inflows (pseudy state). For model stability, flows
in the lower Crystal Creek model were ramped up to the V staff ipflow shown in Table 3 over
approximately 48 hours.
4.2.2 MODEL RESULTS
Model results for the 100 -year event on Cedar QWch Creek, fpr Crystal Creek, and Lower Crystal Creek
are included in Appendix A. Flood profiles forth$Z]-; 50-, 1•, and 500 -year event on Crystal Creek
are provided in Appendix B as 01P through 20P — mj-oed`ac�3rding to FEMA FIS profile guidelines and
specifications. Mapping was completed"date'l replace the effective FEMA floodplain within the
5 '
study area.
4.2.3 FLOODWAY MODELING
The "regulatory floodwa means chAgi*1 of the creek and the adjacent land that must be reserved
in order to discharge* 100 -year fIciaod without increasing the water surface elevation more than a
designation height (typic�N'"1_foot).SE defined a floodway for the entire Crystal Creek study reach. An
effective floodway currently e4"r the lower 9900 feet of Crystal Creek but was defined as "coincident
with the 100 -year boundary" (FtMA, 1981). WSE determined an updated floodway boundary through an
encroachment analysis by the following steps:
Within the lower model:
Applied the effective floodway boundary to the updated model using blocked obstructions. The
boundary had to be adjusted in several areas where the effective floodway boundary was outside
the current 100 -year boundary.
• Ran the model to simulate the 100 -year flood, with floodway enforced.
Compared floodway water surface elevations to BFEs to determine if floodway rise was less than
1 foot at all cross sections.
WATERSHED P a g e 19
SCIENCE 4 ENGINLERING
The majority of the floodway was contained within the 11) portion of the model; however, a short
section of floodway was extended into the 21) model to prevent surcharges greater than 1 -ft near
the downstream model boundary. The floodway boundary in the 2D area was set by raising the
elevation of the terrain surface outside of the floodway by a scaler (10 ft).
For the upper Crystal Creek model, the downstream model boundary condition was set to the floodway
watersurface elevation from the lower model. Floodway boundaries were generally set at the edge of the
100 -year floodplain and resulted in little to no rise. The resulting floodway data tables for Crystal Creek
are included in Appendix C.
No floodway was determined for Cedar Gulch Creek which will retain the approximate Zone A mapping
designation.
5.0 MAPPING
WSE completed floodplain mapping for the 100 -year event on Cedat Gulch Creek and the 100- and 500 -
year events on Crystal Creek based on hydraulic modeling resulo, TXhew mapping will replace current
"effective" FEMA mapping of the creeks shown on Fop panelss•,�530096000113, 53009502348,
5302990005A, 5300950231B, and 53009502328. The eW ve study of Cr al Creek and Cedar Gulch
Creek used "approximate" methods and therefore was ppe ing the "Zone A" designation. Updated
mapping for Cedar Gulch Creek will maintain the Zone A de! ation. Updated Mapping for Crystal Creek
uses the Zone AE designation and includes a flo r—Propos rystal Creek mapping ties into effective
mapping at the Yakima River in Cie Elum. Analy*. wal, iVtetl�d without consideration of backwater
from the Yakima; however, backwate _-QQ-year. ing from the Yakima will control mapped flood
elevations in the lower portions of C.46um. \
5.0.1 Proposed Floodplain Mappr'it
Floodplain mapping for C adar Gulch Creek are shown in the floodplain workmap exhibits
in Appendix D. Exhlbitseorhd 2 coves 'hhe etre study area at the scale of the effective mapping (1:6000).
Exhibit 3 covers Cie Eluns,,Aa finer scale! (1:3000). The automated floodplain mapping feature of HEC -RAS
(RASMapper) was used to rate titer surface elevations and initial flood extents based on HEC -RAS
model output and the DEM. T"stream reaches of both Crystal and Cedar Gulch Creek are steep (6-
20%) and confined within a ravine, the DEM (which was based on LiDAR) did not contain sufficient channel
detail to accurately map in the areas between cross sections. Consequently, this resulted in "dry" creek
sections, where the projected water surface elevation was less than the channel bottom elevation in the
DEM. In these regions, WSE delineated the floodplain based on channel width at the bounding cross
sections.
Base Flood Elevation (BFE) contours were then created to represent the final 100 -year water surface
elevation. BFEs were generated based on the modeled 100 -year water surface elevation and then
trimmed to the edge of the final floodplain polygon.
19_01� WATERSHED 110
SCIENCE & ENGINEERJNG
6.0 SUMMARY
■ WSE developed hydraulic models for Cedar Gulch Creek and for the upper and lower reaches of
Crystal Creek and applied new peak flow hydrology to determine peak flood elevations and areas of
inundation. Model results were used to produce the information necessary to update floodplain
mapping, including the workmaps and flood profiles provided.
REFERENCES
Chow, V. T. (1959). Open -channel hydraulics. New York: McGraw -Hili.
FEMA (1981) Flood Insurance Study, City of Cie Elum, City of South Cie Elum, City of Ellensburg, Town of
Kittitas, and Kittitas County, Washington Unincorporated Areas, Federal Emergency Management Agency,
October 15, 1981
FEMA (2011) Technical Support Data Notebook Terrain Project NarralAm Elevation Data Acquisition. Case
No. 11-10-01105, Prepared by Strategic Alliance for Risk Reductiov.Sciatember 12, 2011.
Mastin, M.C., Konrad, C.P., Veilleux, A.G., and Tecca, A.E.,..16, Magnse, frequency, and trends of
floods at gaged and engaged sites in Washington, ba on data throuZvater year 2014 (ver 1.2,
November 2017): U.S. Geological Survey Scienti !nveA Report 2016-5118, 70 p.,
http://dx.doi.ore/10.3133/sir20165118.
SWATERSHED Page 11
Appendix A — HEC -RAS Model Results
�� WATERSHED Page 112
~�� SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Appendix B — Flood Profiles
ilf� WATERSHED Page 113
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Appendix C — Floodway Data Tables
WATERSHED P a g e 114
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Table 1.C. Lower Crystal Creek Floodway Data Table
Location
Floodway
1% Annual Chance Flood.Water Surface
Elevation (feet NAVD88)
Cross
Section
Distance
Width
(feet)
Sections
Area (sq.
feet)
Mean
Velocity
{feet/sec)
Regulatory
Without
Floodway
With
Floodway
Increase
A
932
30
202
3.6
1918.9
1918.9
1919.1
0.2
B
1141
31
273
4.0
1920.2
1920.2
1920.3
0.1
C
1420
i 37
108
5.6
1922.2
1922.2
1922.4
0.2
D
1712
24 I
101
6.0
1925.5
1925.5
1926.0
0.5
E
1746
33
117
4.3
1926.6
1926.6
1927.2
0.6
G
1874
28 j
94
4.4
1927.2
1927.2
1927.7
0.5
H
1941
38 '
127
3.4
1928.6
1928.6
1929.4
0.8
1
2078
24
103
6.1
1929.4 '
. ' 1929.4
1930.0
0.6
J
2125
42
180
3.4
193
1931.5
1931.5
0.0
K
2224
20
115
5.5
1.6 x;1931.6
1931.8
0.2
L
2292
23
81
5.5
932.1
V* -2. 1
1932.2
0.1
M
2356
21
95 1
5.4
19A9
Agig
1933.0
0.1
N
2659
23
51=8.2
A
1937.4
1937.6
0.2
0
3114
26
706.0
1947.0
1947.0
1947.0
0.0
P
3405
31
61
1,9$.49
1950.9
1950.9
0.0
Q
3883
30
74
',,51.6,-
1 1.9
1961.9
1961.9
0.0
R
4234
35;
:,�
: ,.
1968.8
1968.8
1968.8
0.0
S
4749
32 ! •' 63 ` ,
610-1,1980.6
1980.6
1980.6
0.0
T
5390
16
47 '
-&-j
1996.1
1996.1
1996.2
0.1
U
5724
31
7.6
2004.3
2004.3
2004.3
OA
V
6040
4
W-,,
5.6
2011.7
2011.7
2011.7
OA
W
6492
22 1
40
7.9
2021.1
2021.1
2021.2
0.1
X
6905
25 ;
46
6.9
2029.5
2029.5
2029.5
0.0
Y
7253
. *,
58
5.4
2035.5
2035.5
2035.5
0.0
Z
7667
19"'.
39
7.9
2042.6
2042.6
2042.6
0.0
AA
8197
38
57
5.5
2054.6
2054.6
2054.6
0.0
AB
8445
22
50
6.3
2058.7
2058.7
2058.7
0.0
AC
8746
45
64
4.9
2063.4
2063.4
2063.4
0.0
AD
9110
18
44
7.1
2069.0
2069.0
2069.0
0.0
AE
9480
25
73
4.3
2075.5
2075.5
2075.5
0.0
AF
10054
22
43
7.3
2084.4
2084.4
2084.4
0.0
AG i
10476
30
53
4.4
2093.3
2093.3
2093.3
0.0
AH
10570
26
80
2.9
2097.1
2097.1
2097.1
0.0
Al
10610
28 !
52
4.4 1
2097.1
2097.1
2097.1
0.0
AJ
10977
23
39
5.9
2101.6
2101.6
2101.6
0.0
AK
11491
28
53
4.4
2108.8
2108.8
2108.9
0.1
AWATERSHED P a g e ( 15
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Table 2.C. Upper Crystal Creek Floodway Data Table
Location
Floodway
1% Annual Chance Flood Water Surface
Elevation (feet NAVD88)
Cross
Section
Distance
Width
(feet)
Sections '
Area
(sq
feet)
Mean
Velocity
(feet/sec)
Without
Regulatory .
Floodway
With
FIoodway
Increase
AK
11491
28
51 1
4.5
2108.8
2108.8
2108.8
0.0
AL
11826
12
28
8.4
1 2116.2
2116.2
2116.2
0.0
AM
11874
32
162
1.4
2123.0
2123.0
2123.9
0.9
AN
11932
50
172
1.3
j 2123.1
2123.1
2123.9
0.8
AO
12291
28
I 36
6.4
2127.2
2127.2
2127.3
0.1
AP
12826
44
70
3.3
2135.7
2135.7
2136.2
0.5
AQ
13192
35
76
3.1
2137.7
2137.7
2138.5
0.8
AR
13226
33
72 !
3.2
213
2138.1
2139.0
0.9
AS
13711
15
48
4.9
?I1-8
2141.8
2142.0
0.2
AT
13889
9
38
6.2
,143.1
41A3.1
2143.4
0.3
AU
13911
10
34
6.8
21 4
21 .4
2143,8
0.4
AV
13957
23
69
3.4
�4.3
2144.3
2144.6
0.3
AW
13983
11
45
5.1
44.4
2144.4
2144.6
0.2
AX
14038
17
38
�, ,14- .
7
2144.7
2145.1
0.4
AZ
14377
15
56
4.2.5
2148.5
2148.8
0.3
BA
14642
18
2150.9
2150.9
2151.4
0.5
BB
14726
50
2152.4
2152.4
2152.5
0.1
BC
14896
38
38. `
- 6.,
2154.3
2154.3
2154.3
0.0
BD
14937
19
T.2
2155.5
2155.5
2155.5
0.0
BE
14983
4,3
4.3
2157.2
2157.2
2157.3
0.1
BF
15272 ,, -j
32
` 46 ,.'
5.1
2159.6
2159.6
2159.6
OA
BG
15547 i.
w 24
44
5.2
2163.2
2163.2
2163.2
0.0
BH
15629
IVA
34
2.6
2164.3
2164.3
2164.3
0.0
BI
15793
1 ..
14
6.1
2166.5
2166.5
2166.5
0.0
BJ
15879
23
44
2.0
2169.7
2169.7
2169.7
0.0
BK
15957
20
18
5.0
2170.9
' 2170.9
2170.9
0.0
BL
15991
11
15
5.7
2171.8
2171.8
2171.9
0.1
BM
16071
15
16 I
5.5
2175.4
2175.4
2175.4
0.0
BN
16484
30
28
3.2
2183.3
2183.3
2183.3
0.0
BO
17217
24
19
4.6
2196.3
j 2196.3
2196.3
0.0
BP
17367
19
40
2.2
2207.6
2207.6
2207.6
0.0
BQ
17689
28
19
4.6
2214.5
2214.5
2214.6
0.1
BR
17993
33
28
3.2
2221.8
2221.8
2221.8
0.0
BS
18408
18
17
5.3
2232.2
2232.2
2232.2
0.0
BT
18445
16
19
4.6
2233.3
2233.3
2233.3
0.0
BU
18500
22
94
0.9
2236.8
2236.8
2237.1
0.3
4-6 WATERSHED Page 116
� SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Table 2.C. North Fork Upper Crystal Creek Floodway Data Table (cont.)
Location
Floodway
1% Annual Chance Flood Water Surface
Elevation (feet NAVD88
Cross
Section
Distance
Width
(feet)
Sections i
Area
(sq.
feet)
Mean I
Velocity
{feet/sec)
Regulatory
Without i With
Floodway I Floodway
I
Increase
i
I
BW
19656
15
16
5.6
2287.4
2287.4
2287.4
0.0
BX
20246
9
13
6.6
2330.1
2330.1
2330.1
0.0
BY
20281
25
45
2.0
2336.6
2336.6
2336.6
0.0
BZ
20492
10
13 �,
7.1
2346.7
2346.7
2346.7
0.0
CA
20542
27
21
4.2
2350.8
2350.8
2350.8
0.0
CB
20622
31
25
3.5
2355.1
j%' 2355.1
2355.1
0.0
CC
20795
25
23
3.9
236
2366.6
2366.6
0.0
CD
21052
15
18
5.0
24U.4
"..?410..4
2410.5
0.1
CE
21302
27
19
4.5
j,, --',r4"46.1
6.1 1
2446.1
0.0
CF
21553
14
16
5.6
247A7
241M.7
2470.7
0.0
CG
21585
9
14
6.574.0
2474.0
2474.0
0.0
CH
21612
4
2 I
4.2
75.7
2475.7
2475.7
0.0
Cl
22200
8
3a
7
2606.7
2606.7
0.0
CJ
22703
6
3,.7
-N84.2
2684.2
2684.2
0.0
CK
23209
5
�3,_
* :..
2776.2
2776.2
2776.2
0.0
CL
23710
10
`. '3 i
3
2857.4
2857.4
2857.4
0.0
CM
CN
24216
24718
8
9
3 ..3. . '
2.8
2939.0
3057.3
2939.0
3057,3
2939.0
3057.4
0.0
0.1
CO
25223
':1-2
A I
2.9
3185.0
3185.0
3185.0
0.0
WATERSHED Page 117
SCIENCE & ENGINEERING
Table 3.C. North Fork Upper Crystal Creek Floodway Data Table
Location
Floodway
1% Annual Chance Flood Water Surface
Elevation (feet NAVD88)
sections
Cross
Width Area
Mean
Without With
'
Section
Distance
(feet) (sq.
feet
Velocity
Regulatory �
Floodway Floodway
Increase
(feet/sec)
feet)
A
0
6 9
5.3
2476.9
2476.9 2477.0
0.1
B
526
9 9
5.2
2567.2
2567.2 2567.3
0.1
C
1032
12 10
4.5
2649.5 2649.5 2649.5
0.0
D
1532
27 12
3.7
2755.4 2755.4 2755.4
OA
E
2024
17 10
4.4
2839.0 2839.0 2839.0
0.0
F
2523 I
12 9
4.8
2935.7 2935.7 2935.7
0.0
G
3022
8 8
5.6
3065.3. >3065.3 3065.3
0.0
H
3519
9 9
5.3
3187,A 3187.6 3187.6
0.0
I
4017
16 10 1
4.5
325 4 `.3282,5 3282.5
0.0
�
row SWATERSHED Page 118
Appendix D — Floodplain Workmaps
SWATERSHED P a g e 1 19
Exhibit 2: Draft Crystal Creek Upper Work Map
Page 5 of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
e
-,I
sm
IN
Exhibit 3: Draft Crystal Creek Lower Work Map
Page b of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION* STAFF REPORT
N
Exhibit 4: Draft Crystal Creek Cle Elum Work Map
Page 7 of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
e
0
f
�,
U
8p @
fH d
e{ e
Exhibit 5: Example Flood Control Zone District Outreach Brochure
Page S of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
J
7
r
W
LIMING IN KITTITAS COUNTY'S FLOODPLAINS
FEMA is updating flood maps
throughout Kittitas County based on
new data about flood hazards.
FLOOD MAP BASICS.
The Federal Emergency Management Agency
(FEMA] coordinates disaster response.
The National Flouu insurance Program (NFIP)
provides flood insurance to property owners as
well as education and assistance to lessen flood
damage in flood -prone areas. A FIRM will generally show:
Flood Insurance Rate Maps fFIRM,' are maps . a community's base flood elevations,
created by FEMA and used by the NFIP for flood-
plain management, mitigation, and insurance pur- ' flood zones, and
poses. 0 floodplain boundaries.
Special Flood Hazard Areas (SFHAs show Base Flood Elevations (BFEs) are the low -
where flooding has a one percent chance of hap- est height that floodwaters can be expected ,
pening in any given year to reach during a major flood.
When FEMA determines that it is time to update flood maps in Kittitas County, Flood Control Zone
District staff.3rovide technical review of the FIRMS and inform citizen about the FEMA process
and new maps.
The Flood Control Zone District has also received funding from the Cooperating Technical Partners
Program to better understand flooding in Crystal, Currier, Mercer, Reecer, and Whiskey Creeks.
rjooa Studies in these areas wn, Ciaaoiu uie District to implement more effective flood con-
trol projects. This funding program requires that the flood hazard maps be updated when the
study is finished and also gives the District the tools to update these maps once again when flood
alleviation projects are implemented.
HOW CAN I REDUCE MY INSURAAICF RATE?
• Lower your property`s exposure to flooding by elevating your home,
Encourage participation in the Community Rating Service (CRS), a voluntary program that can
reduce flood insurance premiums when an community exceeds NFIP minimum requirements.
When Kittitas County was accepted into CRS in 2014, it lowered flood insurance premiums by
20%,
• Apply for a Letter of Map Change (LOMC) if you think your building is incorrectly shown as be-
ing in a high risk area. A Letter of Map Amendment (LOMA) can be requested if a property is
shown as being in a high risk flood zone but is actually on naturally high ground,
• Consider a high deductible to lower your premium if financially possible,
• If mapping revisions will show your property in a Special Flood Hazard Area for the first time,
don't wait to explore insurance options. You may be eligible for a lower premium during the
first 12 months after a map change and buying a policy before the new maps go into effect can
save more money.
it},tite In"r 1-rop ri+. Your homeowners insurance does not cover flood damage. Only flood
insurance covers flood damage. To find out which flood zone you live in or for information
on flood insurance, visit: htt www.floodsmart. ov
6 -
II
I
Exhibit 6: City of Cle Elum Memo
Page 9 of 9
PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT
�C hE ...'fp 7} ,
KIr=XWAL i CO
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
MEMORANDUM
TO: Cle Elum City Council and Mayor
CC: Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners
FROM: Mark Cook, Director, Public Works and Arden Thomas, Water
Resource Manager
DATE: January 5, 2021
SUBJECT: Crystal Creek Community Technical Partners Mapping
SUMMARY
• The Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) received funding from the
Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a Crystal Creek Flood
Study and to update the official maps used by FEMA and community officials based on
the outcomes of the new study.
Before initiating the study, the FCZD's hydraulic consultant met with members of the Cle
Elum and Roslyn Communities to gather information about Crystal Creek flooding
X$101KNOORA
Compared to the original FEMA investigation conducted in the late 1970s, the new
Crystal Creek study utilized better topographic and site condition information, including
surveys of all stream crossings, and more advanced modeling techniques.
• While FEMA has been updating the flood maps county -wide, the FEMA -led effort did
not include any new studies for Crystal Creek. Changes to the Crystal Creek floodplain
mapping as part of the FEMA -led effort is due to improved topography information.
• The hydrologic and hydraulic study for Crystal Creek is complete. Within Cle Elum, the
model results and proposed remapping indicate that there should be no expansion of the
floodway designation and proposes minor revisions in areas currently mapped as within
the 100 -year and 500 -year floodplains.
• After the Letter of Map Revision application materials are finalized, it will need to be
submitted by the three National Flood Insurance Communities (Cities of Cle Elum and
Roslyn and Kittitas County) affected by the study and the proposed map changes.
411 N. Ruby St., Suite #1 TEL (509) 962-7523
Ellensburg, WA 98926 FAX (509) 962-7663
Dept. of Public Works
Page 2
BACKGROUND
The Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) received funding from the Federal
Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) to conduct a Crystal Creek Flood Study and to update
the official maps used by FEMA and community officials based on the outcomes of the new
study. Crystal Creek was chosen for the flood study based on local community interest and the
desire for the FCZD to begin remapping priority watershed in Upper Kittitas County.
FEMA -funded flood studies and remapping efforts must conform to FEMA standards. Studies
can be either detailed or approximate. In approximate areas, the 100 -year floodplain is identified
but the study does not establish base -flood elevations or identify the floodway. National Flood
Insurance Program (NFIP) communities are required to regulate development within these 100 -
year floodplain but have little information about these areas. Detailed studies not only identify
the footprint of the 100 -year floodplain, but also identify base -flood elevations, 500 -year
floodplains, and floodways. Floodways have very high regulatory standards, including a
prohibition on new residential structures. 500 -year floodplains have no minimum regulatory
requirements, though communities can choose to regulate these areas.
FEMA is in the process of updating the FEMA floodplain maps throughout the County. This
effort did not include any new studies for Crystal Creek, and differences between the "old" 1981
maps and "New" maps anticipated in 2021 for the Crystal Creek floodplain are due to more
accurate topography data available from the 2011 LiDAR flight.
DISCUSSION:
The results of the Crystal Creek flood study did not result in the expansion of the floodway and
in many places resulted in a reduction of the footprint of the 100 -year floodplain. There is a
section within unincorporated Kittitas County, just downsteam of Roslyn, where more detailed
modeling indicated that an expansion of the 100 -year floodplain is necessary. Newly constructed
and significantly improved buildings within a FEMA -mapped 100 -year floodplain must be built
to heightened building standards that address flood risk.
Previously, an approximate study was used to map Crystal Creek upstream of No. 5 Mines Rd.
The new modeling extended the detailed modeling the entire mapped length of Crystal Creek.
Detailed modeling identifies base flood elevations, which allows for development requirements
to be tailored to flood risk of the site. In the absence of a base flood elevation, a uniform
requirement of building the first floor of a home two feet above highest adjacent grade must be
applied. Flood insurance rates for new homes are also lower when a base flood elevation is
available.
The Kittitas County Flood Control District conducts outreach aimed at informing residents about
upcoming map changes. The FCZD proposes sending out notices to any landowners impacted by
mapping changes and coordinating with the Cities of Cle Elum and Roslyn in outreach efforts..
411 N. Ruby St., Suite #1 TEL (509) 962-7523
Ellensburg, WA 98926 FAX (509) 962-7663
Dept. of Public Works
Page 3
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Draft Crystal Creek Hydraulic Report
Exhibit 2: Draft Crystal Creek Cle Elum Work Map
Exhibit 3: Example Flood Control Zone District Outreach Brochure
411 N. Ruby St., Suite #1 TEL (509) 962-7523
Ellensburg, WA 98926 FAX (509) 962-7663
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: January 11, 2021
TOPIC: Floodplains by Design Letter of Support
ACTION REQUESTED: Authorize the Chair's Signature
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
Authorize the Chair's signature on the Floodplains by Design (FbD) letter supporting the
Governor's legislative request for $70 million.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• Recently the County signed a letter of support for funding (2021-2023) FbD in the
Governor's budget at $70 million
• The Governor's Office has sent a request to the legislature at $70 million
• FbD is requesting a similar action supporting a letter to the legislature
BACKGROUND:
FbD has been successful lobbying the Governor's Office to fund the program at $70
million of the biennium (2021-2023). Efforts now shift to lobbying the legislature.
DISCUSSION:
FbD is requesting that Kittitas County sign on to the letter of support directed at the state
legislature supporting the Governor's budget request for funding FbD at $70 million.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
No impact to Kittitas County.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Letter of support
Page 1 of 2
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
EXHIBIT 1: FbD LETTER OF SUPPORT
Page 2 of 2
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
Support capital funding for Floodplains by Design
Support capital funding for Floodplains by
Design
UPDATE: THE LETTER TO GOVERNOR INSLEE HAS CLOSED AS OF NOVEMBER 12,
2020. IF YOU ADD YOUR SIGNATURE AFTER THIS DATE, IT WILL BE INCLUDED IN THE
LETTER TO CAPITAL BUDGET WRITERS TO BE DELIVERED IN LATE JANUARY 2021
Identical letters will be sent to Governor Inslee (in November) and to capital budget writers (in
January).
Please contact 1rjL#any.gaIIagherQnc.org with any questions.
Thank you!
NOTE: Minor typos in the letter as it appears below have been corrected for the final version to
send to Olympia.
November 3, 2020
Dear Governor Inslee 1 Dear Legislative Leaders,
Thank you for your support of Floodplains by Design, a popular, cost-effective public -private -
tribal -agricultural partnership that delivers critical results for communities, conservation and
Washington's urban and rural economies. We write today to respectfully request that you
include $70 million in your 2021-23 biennial capital budget for Floodplains by Design.
Administered by the Department of Ecology, Floodplains by Design has been supporting tribal
nations, farmers, and flood managers across the State to transform how floodplains are
managed since 2013. Local demand for this type of collaborative multi -benefit investment has
only grown and become more sophisticated in its ability to provide local results and leverage
public investment.
file:lllkitntlprivatelpworks_privlmark.cookl2021%20FbDISupportlo20capital%20funding%20for°1a20Floodplains%20by%20Design.html[115/2021 8:13:38 AM]
Support capital funding for Floodplain by Design
Among the 2021 FbD projects are broadly supported packages that protect farmland; restore
estuaries; remove, improve or set back levees, improve agricultural drainage, reduce flood
hazards, restore salmon and shellfish habitat, and more. These projects are the result of hard
work by local governments, tribes, farmers, watershed groups, the conservation community,
salmon recovery advocates and state and federal agencies to come together to craft creative
and unique suites of actions that deliver reach and watershed scale change. They would create
an estimated 2,689 jobs impacting at least 38 legislative districts throughout the state, many of
which are currently experiencing nearly double-digit unemployment.
Floodplains by Design projects reduce flood risk, restore salmon habitat, deliver vital resources
in support of agriculture, increase access to public lands and outdoor recreation, and create
local jobs. This funding is a tremendous investment opportunity. By prioritizing and rewarding
collaborative, integrated decision-making, the State can reduce conflict in local communities
and better spend limited public dollars. Investment in Floodplains by Design, paired with flood
dollars, salmon and orca recovery investments and agricultural programs can begin to deliver
results at a pace and scale demanded by growth, climate change and failing infrastructure.
Washingtonians depend on healthy, livable, safe floodplains, and local communities need state
support and incentives to better manage river systems in holistic way that builds community,
economic and environmental resilience.
At a time when Washington's iconic orca and the salmon they depend on are in peril,
Floodplains by Design has reconnected more than 7,000 acres of floodplain — critical habitat for
chinook salmon — and restored more than 50 miles of river. Climate change is increasing flows
in our rivers by tens of percentage points and flood managers are working hard to reduce risk
and protect public safety. Since 2013, Floodplains by Design projects have removed 434
homes and other structures from high-risk areas and reduced flood danger in 59 communities.
Farmland in Washington state is disappearing at an alarming rate, increasing floodplain
development pressures and associated flood risk. Floodplains by Design projects have
protected more than 1,300 acres of working lands, including farmland, dairies, aquaculture
sites and ranches, creatively funded projects that keep critical floodplain dairies viable by
investing in new technologies to treat dairy waste while improving water quality, and improved
infrastructure benefiting another 7,800 acres of working lands.
Resilient communities
The program not only helps sustain local economic productivity, the infrastructure works it
funds creates hundreds of local high -paying engineering and construction jobs. This year has
been remarkably challenging for Washingtonians across our state in many ways — with a public
health emergency, continued climate -change exacerbated disasters, social unrest and
economic losses for many. Beyond the health impacts of COV1D-19, community and economic
systems are strained, and workers across the state have lost their livelihoods. Capital
investments get people to work. Capital investments in flood risk reduction simultaneously
protect communities from devastating floods that would be even harder to recover from.
Investments in salmon recovery sows the seeds for a return of harvestable fish for cultural,
recreational and commercial purposes. Investment in our farm communities keeps food local,
keeps our economy diversified and supports hard-hit rural communities.
filc:111kitnt1private(pworks_privlmark.cookl2021%20FbD/Support%20capital%20funding°/o20for%24Floodplains%20by%20Dcsign.html[11512021 8:13:38 AM]
Support capital funding for Floodplains by Design
It has also been a time when more and more families find solace in the outdoors. Floodplains
by Design has created or improved 25 public areas where Washingtonians and visitors can go
to find respite and renewal in nature — creating more opportunities for improving not just
physical resilience, but spiritual resilience as well.
It's clear that now, more than ever, it is time to invest in Washington's people and natural
places.
Floodplains by Design supports cultural, ecosystem and economic well-being — since 2013, it
has created 2,755 new jobs across Washington, supporting 45 watershed -scale projects in 16
counties. Scientists find fish in the newly built restoration sites, farmers see another year they
can farm, and many people are proud to have jobs that contribute to a State they love. By
working toward the goals held by diverse people in a community and by working at a landscape
scale, communities are coming together to shape their own future — one in which they are
more resilient to the impacts of climate change, including abnormally destructive floods,
mudslides and extreme storms.
A record of results
From the Olympic Peninsula to the Palouse, and Bellingham to Vancouver, Floodplains by
Design projects have improved outcomes for flood risk reduction, working lands and fish and
wildlife habitat along 15 major rivers. Flood managers, tribal nations, farmers and community
organizations are developing clear plans for how to solve their community problems. This is
much -deeded work. As communities work together more closely and link funding sources,
staff resources, and previously disconnected plans — a path forward is ever increasingly
emerging. Because communities are seeing actual results that matter, resources better
leveraged, and time spent more efficiently, the program continues to grow as a trusted tool that
can respond to creative solutions brought forward by local collaborations.
More than half the 7,217 acres of floodplains FbD projects have reconnected since the
program began is the result of work that was funded in the 2019-21 biennium, when the
Legislature appropriated $50.4 million for the program — its highest appropriation yet.
Floodplains by Design is poised to rapidly scale up multiple -benefit results in communities
across Washington with increased public investment.
Time to Invest
We ask for your support for $70 million in capital funding for Ecology to incentivize
collaboration on flood risk reduction, salmon recovery and working lands protection and
enhancement through its Floodplains by Design program. With a capital investment of $70
million, Floodplains by Design projects in the 2021-23 biennium would leverage another $91
million in funding from other sources, resulting in $161 million in support for getting
Washingtonians back to work. This investment will also increase our collective climate
resilience, reducing risk, protecting land and water and restoring habitat and — perhaps most
importantly — fueling the hope and hard collaborative work represented in the suite of projects
that are ready to go. Thank you.
Respectfully,
filc:lllkitnt1privatelpworks_privlmark.cookl2021%20FbD/Support%20capital%20funding%20for%20Floodplains%20by%20Dcsign.html[1/512021 8:13:38 AM]
Support capital funding for Floodplains by Design
The Undersigned
* Requ;red
Email address
Untitled Title
Your name and title
Please check any of the below that apply to you.
I am an elected official
I am a business owner
Fi I am a representative of a Tribal nation or other Tribal entity
0 1 work for an environmental organization
17 1 work in agriculture or another natural resources industry
1 represent a local government (city, county, town)
Other:
How would you like your name and affiliation to appear on the letter?
0 I am signing on as an individual
0 1 am signing on behalf of my business, organization, council, Nation or other group
file:lllkitnt1privatelpworks_privlmark.cookl202]%2OFbDISupport'lo2Ocapital%24fundingolo2Oforola2OFloodplains%20by%2ODesign.html[11512021 8:13:38 AM]
Support capital funding for Floodplains by Design
0 Other:
If not indicated above, please include the name of your organization, nation, business or
other group.
A copy of your responses will be emailed to the address you provided.
Never submit passwords through Google Forms.
reCAPTCHA
Priyacv Terms
Page 1 of 1
This content 1s neither created nor endorsed by Google. Report Abuse - Terms of service - Pri�Y Poloc+�
file:lllkitntlprivatelpworks_privlmark.cookl2021%20FbD/Support%20capital%20f ending%20for°1o20Floodplains%20by%20Design.html[1/5/2021 8:13:38 AM]
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: January 11, 2021
TOPIC: Snoqualmie Public Utility District Water Right and Hyak Parking Update
ACTION REQUESTED: None Required.
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
None required, informational briefing only.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• A foreign water right has been granted to Snoqualmie Public Utility District
(SPUD) — see EXHIBIT 1
• Approximately 54 million gallons of water outside of Kittitas County
(Snoqualmie River Watershed) will now flow in County streams (Coal Creek)
• Construction of phase one of the new wastewater treatment plant will be awarded
on January 11, 2021 (the Board authorized a $250,000 Public Facility Fund grant
towards the effort in 2020)
• Public parking continues plaguing our joint ability managing snow removal this
season
• Recruitment of a towing company no longer is dependent on unauthorized land
use, as the Board recently amended land use in the Snoqualmie Pass LAMIRD
allowing impound yards
BACKGROUND:
The Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) awarded $250,000 of Public Facility Fund
(0.09 funding) to SPUD in 2020 supporting the new wastewater treatment plant
construction. Supporting the expanded water supply effort in the LAMRID, the
Department of Ecology recently granted a "foreign" water right to SPUD allowing water
extracted in King County and discharged as treated wastewater effluent in Kittitas
County. In December 2020, the BoCC authorized impound yards within the LAMRID —
clearing the way for Public Works (PW) to solicit towing services in Hyak.
DISCUSSION:
The recently granted water right to SPUD results in approximately 54 million gallons of
Snoqualmie River Watershed water as SPUD treated wastewater being discharged into
Kittitas County receiving water (Coal Creek). This new significant supply is expected to
benefit Bull Trout recovery in Upper Kittitas County.
Page 1 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
It has taken several years preparing for the implementation of aggressive parking
enforcement in Hyak. In 2019, the BoCC authorized parking fines in Hyak and recently
took action on the final regulatory item in the way of fully implementing parking
enforcement by allowing impound yards in the LAMRID. The BoCC will recall that PW
has not aggressively pursued a towing contract in Hyak believing that "stranded" motorist
could be a physical risk if vehicle recovery was not proximate to Hyak. The road is now
clear for pursuit of a towing contract so long as the contract includes an impound facility
proximate to Hyak. PW could pursue issuing a request for proposal requiring an
impound yard proximate to Hyak as a condition of towing contract award.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
None identified at this time.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Electronic mail from SPUD
Page 2 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
EXHIBIT 1: ELECTRONIC MAIL FROM SPUD
Page 3 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
Candie Leader
From: Tom Hastings <THastings@snopass.org>
Sent: Thursday, January 7, 2021 7:27 AM
To: Mark Cook
Subject: SPUD DOE Foreign Water Right approved
Hi Mark,
Please share some good news with County Commissioners.
The DOE has approved our request for the foreign water right in Kittitas County. This will grant the District access to
nearly 80 million gallons in Kittitas County. This is in addition to the 54 million gallons we currently have in King
County. A unique and significant step for the District to meet the growth that is occurring at Snoqualmie Pass. I say
unique since it is a foreign water right. If not granted, the District would have to attempt to purchase water rights from
the lower county and transfer up to the pass. So what we accomplished is a win for the upper and lower county.
On Monday the District will award the contract to construct phase 1 of the new wastewater plant. The District will
construct a membrane bio reactor treatment facility. The cost is $4.6 million (estimates were $3.1). The project is
approved and funded by the USDA. Construction will start as soon as the snow melts. We hope to start phase 2 of the
wastewater plant in 2023.
This summer will work on a well sighting project and find the best locations to drill some wells. We are also working
with the DOE on getting approved for a non -consumptive well. This would be a well strictly used for snow making and
may only be 10% consumptive. Which is great so that we do not use up too much of our potable water rights. Making
snow for a low cost will greatly help the Ski Area to open sooner and generate revenue.
Just wanted to let you and the Commissioners know that we do have some great things happening up here.
Give me a call if you have any questions.
Tom Hastings, MBA
General Manager
Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
PO BOX 131
Snoqualmie Pass, WA 98068
370 Treatment Plant Road (GPS: 930 Hyak Drive East)
425.434.6633 direct
425.864.5160 mobile
Email: thastings@snopass.org
Web Site: www.snopass.org
Facebook: Snoqualmie Pass Utility District
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS -- BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: January 11, 2021
TOPIC: Public Works Permit Fee Review
ACTION REQUESTED: None Required
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook and Liz Remeto
RECOMMENDATION:
Informational briefing only.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• Public Works (PW) fee schedule was adopted in 2017
• Fees were typically set at 25% of calculated costs
• PW permit fees have been averaging approximately $250,000 per year since 2017
• PW staffing changes in 2018 committed $100,000 of sustainable permit revenue
towards offsetting the cost of new positions in the department:
(Environmental/Transportation Planner)
• PW fees have not been re-evaluated since adoption in 2017
• PW is currently evaluating all fees along with our internal permit processes and
will return to brief the Board of our results by February 22, 2021
BACKGROUND:
Kittitas County utilized a consultant developing a fee model for use by all departments of
the Board in 2016. Permit fees were adopted for use in PW in 2017. The Board of
County Commissioners (BoCC) set fees typically at 25% of forecasted total cost. Since
adoption, PW annual permit fees average approximately $250,000 per year. Permit fees
have not been reviewed since adoption in 2017.
DISCUSSION:
As PW prepares outreach efforts in 2021 defining critical funding shortfalls
implementing the deferred maintenance needs of roads and bridges over the next twenty
years, it seems prudent to revisit PW permit fees in advance of the outreach effort. PW
staff have been diligent tracking true costs of most permits while failing to track true
costs of other permits. PW management is currently reviewing all permit processes
responding to poor tracking performance on some permits. The goal is to reduce the
amount of job cost coding that is the likely cause of poor cost tracking. Some permit cost
tracking is good, and these permit fees are being targeted for adjustment (meaning current
funding level is not covering the true cost). Once a thorough review is completed by PW
Page 1 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
management staff, we will return to the BoCC and brief the results of our analysis.
Preliminary analysis indicates numerous permits are not covering the true cost of staff
efforts at current reduced levels (25% of calculated cost).
FISCAL IMPACTS:
Any significant forecast revenue changes resulting from permit revenue adjustment will
be brought to the BoCC for possible budget adjustment the second quarter of 2021.
Permit fees by year in dollars ($):
2020
292,295.50
2019
276,258.00
2018
251,208.00
2017
178,318.00
2016
47,860.00
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Resolution 2017-064
Page 2 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
EXHIBIT 1: RESOLUTION 2017-064
Page 3 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO: 2017- Liz
TO ADOPT THE 2017 PUBLIC WORKS DEPARTMENT FEES FOR THE
KITTITAS COUNTY AIRPORT FUND, KITTITAS COUNTY ROAD FUND AND
KITTITAS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL FUND
WHEREAS: The Department of Public Works has submitted proposed 2017 fee
schedules for the Kittitas County Airport Fund, Kittitas County
Road Fund and the Kittitas County Flood Control Fund; and
WHEREAS: These fees have been reviewed to determine the rate appropriate
for full cost recovery with adjustments on certain fees to provide a
phased in rate of full cost recovery; and
WHEREAS: A public hearing opened on February 7, 2017, at 2:00 p.m. in the
Commissioners' Auditorium was continued to March 21, 2017 at
2:00 p.m. where the public written comment period was extended
to March 31, 2017 at 4:00 p.m.
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED: The Board of County Commissioners, after
due consideration, does hereby adopt the proposed 2017 Public Works Department Fee
Schedules for the Kittitas County Airport Fund, Kittitas County Road Fund and Kittitas
County Flood Control Fund as shown in Exhibit `A', Exhibit `B' and Exhibit `C'_
ADOPTED this 4th day of April, 2017.
Attest:
J Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Paul euveil, Chairman
ice-Claairnian
uchholz
Obie O'Brien, Commissioner
Fee Services for Airport
��
3
7
'A
i
1 �
Ln
�
NJ
I
100
Lp
CK
I
`^
,
F+
�
4
rn
V
N
cro1 � �1
O �
� n
z O
CL m Z
� a
v �
�o
C
3
o 'n
M
m H
m
2
JW
""t
G
it
I
6'
SR
9
2
M
a?
3
�
'
O
Z
(A
m
o
CL
[A-
2
fD
0)
r
W
S
ro
d
C
w
2
P.P.
H
a
o.
.rt
d
VA
o
5,
OQ
(D
Q.
w(Aa
`"
off—►
rrD
ov�
iii
O4
(Dro
a
oma'.
'"
m
IV
rr D
fl
o
00
D
a
w
R
'o
to
I
n
Q
s
m
O
tron
m
X"m
S
a
W
1
n
s-2
Iron
1
n
O
trop0VQ
I
W
S
2
o
g
Q
ro
2
g
n
0
H
c
g
h
d
c
LA
n
R:lu
ri
0
m
m
3
m
,�
n
'a
�►
m
04rK
°°
o'
ro
p
ro I
rn
sn
}A
K
x
c
rt
�'
O
Zr"
m
n'm
dQn
0
E
X5;3
-o
ro pi
ro opi
w
n
Q
ro
y n
Un
sti
m
Q•ia
3
Is
S
r�
oEp
3
3
Om
ro+
I
I
z
x n
o 10 `
-0
-4
O�
� �
s $
a
n
CA
Q
m
04rK
°°
o'
ro
p
ro I
rn
sn
}A
K
x
c
I
�'
Zr"
m
n'm
dQn
0
E
X5;3
-o
ro pi
ro opi
w
n
Q
ro
y n
Un
sti
m
Q•ia
3
Is
S
r�
oEp
3
3
Om
ro+
I
i4
rro
ro
Rm
rn
o
M
v
l
r* 'p
O M
m
fa
'
d
ro
of
cn
v!
ark
�q
ro
r
n
!
WeD
CL
I
e
�
o
C
R
S
S`
;
!
d
y i
S
I
3
Ott p
i
m
r� i
m
rho
mm
m
ro
a
ro
t
rt
IN
i
I
�
�
I
d
f
+
to
O�
O
I
(
I
I
O
O
I
N
AS
E
•�
i
�
rOt
`G
�
r
�G
� �S
�C
rOy
�S
V
T
I
V
S
CL
CL
C
S
a
0.
m
ro
m ;
I,
N F
N
N
N
N
C
O
1p
P
I N
P
Ln
Ln
KI
}
*04
O
G
i 0 I
O
O
tJ1
�l
lJr
S
(!f 1
p
O
Ln
O
O__
G
to
m
1;v i
�
.
T
rt
iv,I
ami
m
w
I
m
S
R
Ir"e �•
s
omi
a
m
�•
ab
.°ice.
z!
z
z
z l
z
z
z
z
z I
z
z
z
z
z
z
p
ME
x
W
70
0
a
v
V
rn
3 C
CL z
O
ro art �
°a
_v
C
z
O
m
m
W
Ia
Fee Services For County Road
p y d c �.G 0 w R MMa; C a
'C
ID
S
S
e
c
F
w R
IL
(D
mCL
rn m
10 �°
a'a ego
o
m.4
Z
CL
�
oA
b
A
_
2
'a
Q
.9u
a„3
m
..
a
C
C
ri
C 0
x,
N
.aFA
~
ami
°'
R
fE
TL''°
-•
�
_2
5•
9'45
,o
1NA
8”
3 S
•a
s
c
v
C:
m
S
m
+
3
fAth
CL
eD
CA
a
3
L
�•
J
1,
N
n
LO ? 4bb
I
N
4' o
.i
w
A
'
°
9
N
4S
W 00
P-
W
V
CT
N~m~
ci
V
a
cc oo ,
DO
p
w , Cb
00
l!,
0
M
G6
U►
W
W,,
_ •p
p�
W 00
W
W
01
QS °, Q�
W ' l0 ! Cp ;
W
p
CL
t!1
0
C1 6 CT
N
OD
M
W
I -A
W
Fj
40
W
V , 00
LM - (A
l: t
Wa
V V9 N
A a N A
H i�
k+ N
LD
Q1 Ch A N +
C3
N
W
-
�
V
`A
w
V
O
00:0
A
V
F-*
In
LM 0o
W
C7
%J
GNB
W ' to J
(�
p A
a �o
tL" : 1--� N ! CD
�� •00
V
w.
e
W
C1
tA0
QAC
4Ni
.-4
�OV6
A
�
4
ie
w , N
, ;
w .
;-�
' ;L(-D��
!*j
H
4U ] w
i t+
o
W
IF
W..V.O
Our+
W
WW
W
0) Vii
M
Lm V
-Cz
k
A
per.?
INw!.N
4DD.IDD,pWp;W
O
p
O
►+
N �� I•+
A,
CI
W
C71
�+
m
O 0
N
V
A V-
!-* ', H
N N= oo
•
'
vF
v+ v► , vs
fn ' i!k
vi.
v* vi. Vw $ triL
yr to
v+ to v> v^ , in
70
{��
m.
f�Di
eb
ISD
fD
e
QQ1�
O
pp��
O;N
O
�.
O
O;O
�jell
, 0
�W V
t-
A
Q
N
N Ca
o
o
0'p
! v, Lm 0
LM
�$
+
+
4.
Mp
V
N N
.I
V'
N
t7t
�Wf
F
l O
,CJI
H' N N i N
N
A!
a
O
I Q W
;sae
Un LA
ae
V1
a ,;
[t7
N
a�
O
ae
.
a. ;
b
ae
O
a• +ae
O'
x
U7 1 i/'1 VI
, �
'�
Vl
O'
d
ih ;
V!
VI.. irk
yr '
ih
v!
vF
w
4A
v► 1
in : vE
in `
ul.
{!t I vs
to `i/!
�i^ 6 iA � v~ � vk
to
w
I
'
tA
2
'
SW
.4,
F+
N
14
W:
oft
W
j.O p
hl
F�
S:%4
I A
6N N
N i, Fes+
t
� a . 4D ? N
N
N
Ch
W
W�
0W0
0'
V
H�
;
N
V
� pV
H -A
N V C1
p
,
IH
V1. -UP -UM to
to •i/► =iA to 'Vk to iR �'io M. to
VA. iA Nvl►
VF to to ?Vk ?to V► Vk
i N
-.
w
A
F+
Fpp>•
N
W
' W
�h!
r+
t1,1 .,r+
i
y
N
N
ppQ�
pp
NF+
M
N
TI
t3
g 0Np
Qpp
ilk
O
O
'R a
vs H
O O 0 0 I.
m
v
S
O
p$
ptf[
O
Q
pC
O
Q
S
o
S
p�p
O
S
p�p
P
g
g g
pp
C S
19
gag S G
G
r11
I
V
rn
3 C
CL z
O
ro art �
°a
_v
C
z
O
m
m
W
Ia
O?
a
v
a g m r
K
CL
n
ID
d
� m T
b n
°c
a 3
c
a
m � �
3 �
m
a �
sQcQ
mm a r
m
O C
04 r'I
m
a m
n tp
we
2 R
1
N
8
K
n G
7 s
3
n
b
S c m
g2
$ a
X
233 c
CL
3 t�
a
a
ro
°n
a.
ei
S
1
ren_
ria
f
3
w Q
F.,e
a
c#+
E w.�
�' a
o
FL
if 17
0
L
el
CCL
0
^
� �
W
... "�
FF
3
f
AA
W
o fM
r+ N
cn to o to
t+ Co cn V
f+
v+
V
stn to
o nsi
Oo N
I +
W
oo
�+
Ch
Kr
WN
of
.i
as
o
Vi ;tl
go
0
H
m
�
o�c
06
iO :W
tN+�rW+
N; trt , M 3 A
A
Q1M W
w
W.
N
F+
: N
N
Q1 p
N ;W
,twg
to
N
N
V
N
A d
N
pp
W
�p W W 4 W ) 00 1 N
l�
A to
A
V
00
`•[
A f+
LA oo
F` w A sr i
as
o
m
: cc
N
C�
co
w
to
.
40,W `.V
V
.
N:V
.
�w
W
N N
�•
(�!1
-4��lit
-in 3 7" 7 7 7
7
i. 3
3' xrr IA ' 391
� �m #m 'm
,'m :m
to
m
m
ro
m
3
*L
QQt�
kc
W
f
w
3
Fa *O 70
w uV+
oQ~ lei 4Nrr o '
cc��
�q
tVi t
�n
cuffs
~`
ec��
ecn� W
i a a
o
vr. 'trr
R ter to
to
in+
ter
ter
tet
to
ter ; +n
`+,µ
t + + W �
W M�.
f+ g
` N j C1
OWN
CL
N
�-h w
O ' Gt
N? 00
;�
N
p
A
M
N
' 01
W
ChY-+
NLn
�A W
OD 01 V
V
01 V
:?
N
W
W:
tvi
OVt
Q
ier fin '
u u ` �n iR t
ter
tR en
u .
�►
v►
ur
�►
to
4A ;40
7
j
i
O
A
A �I
G
?SCD
at
US
N
p�
pO
O
O p
p�
Yc
pW
p
0
p� fpA
rn
v
+ Direct Costs
X
Fee Services for Flood
o o j= is o .T
O
T ,n IR
4
°o..3 ;g
a7
p
ICL
3
ro
ro �o ro
.STI gO iC prt em j�
a C3 I�
jig
Ion'
fb
A
e9 k
eA to
w w w Iw w Qt
Da o ADD 100 Do Itnuz
1
m !CST to
Go
3.
w
S
2.
I
rn 1 CS C1 C1 01 �►
�+ o Do
�' m
CL
E 5
I`
V
Ln
��► �P- A '� A CC)
4m 10 ��j
tr}
Ul Ln LR L" ttp
IN
N N N
Ln
.................
N I� C� �f�D
n
tlI�D
ftp
bo
CCDD
C ;(D ;(1) 'C rb m
g"DD oCL
3
1
'
I
oao S w
VT fU,
CD
3
CL
A
ZR
fo
4 CL
3
p 1
N N 'N Nt�lt IU�i
?p
MM
`N 1
(�O
t
O
1 E
tn w
Fw ��
O ��
IL ttR
=? Q
Em
10 0
0as
Fo
m
N
O
V
o -n
o a
n 0 L/1
o Cl
Z
O C
4- r- Z
g C 4
Q Z
r
M. h u)o
O
� v
N D
rm +
v 0
Z
n O
O
C
v d
T
m
Vf
m
w
n
I
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: January 11, 2021
TOPIC: Lease of Public Right of Way for Parcel Number 901833
ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
Notice the current resident of lease termination and direct removal of the encroachment.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• Since 1981, Public Works (PW) has leased right of way to a county resident allowing
an encroachment of an outbuilding (shed) in county right of way.
• The lease was renewed in 2001 and is set to expire in October 2021.
+ The lease does not contemplate "assignability" and the property recently exchanged
ownership and PW desires terminating the lease on the October 2021 date.
PW recently directed a hay press operation to abate a sign placed in county right of
way along the same roadway (Vantage Highway).
BACKGROUND:
Since 1981, PW has been collecting lease payments for a structure partially located within
county right of way (five feet). The current lease rate is $15 per year. The lease does not
contemplate assignability.
DISCUSSION:
Recently, PW directed the removal of partially completed sign at a hay pressing facility that
was erected inside of county right of way. The practice of allowing incursion of private
improvements into county right of way is problematic. A county resident was recently
allowed to retain a fence in county right of way associated with a fish barrier removal project.
The agreement requires removal upon notice of PW for future road improvement. The
ongoing lease arrangement at 4820 Vantage Highway does provide for a similar removal
upon notice of a pending road improvement project. The current lease is not assignable. PW
prefers removal of the structure prior to lease termination on 10/31/2021.
FISCAL IMPACTS:
More money is spent processing the lease payment annually than is received in payment.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Current lease
Page I of 2
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
EXHIBIT 1: CURRENT LEASE
Page 2 of 2
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
KITTITAS COUNTY AMENDMENT TO LEASE
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WO[
THIS AMENDMENT TO LEASE is made and dated this &ay of
r
2016, by and between Kittitas County, a municipal corporation in the State
of Washington, hereinafter referred to as the LESSOR, and Stephen P. Brazitis, and hereinafter
referred to as the LESSEE.
WITNESSETH:
WHEREAS, LESSOR and LESSEE entered into a Lease on June 23, 1981, a copy of
which is attached hereto and by this reference incorporated herein; and
WHEREAS, said lease expired on June 30, 2001 and at that time a verbal agreement was
made and Lessee has continued to make lease payment at a rate of $15.00 per year.
WHEREAS, it has been agreed between LESSOR and LESSEE that the lease term will be
for 20 years, expiring on October 31, 2021 and at such time the lease can be amended and/or the
building removed from said property.
NOW, THEREFORE, IT IS HEREBY AGREED by and between the parties to a change in
rental rates and contract terms as follows:
1) Lease Rates for 07/01/01 thru 10/31/21 Term for the legal description attached as
Exhibit "A" is as follows:
The Lessee shall pay as rental the sum of $15.00 per annum, to be paid in advance
on July 1st of each year during the term.
All other terms and conditions of the aforementioned lease shall remain the same.
Srazit°--
Lev sc Addimdum
PAGE 1
Kr7ITA' COUNTY
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Lessor and Lessee have signed their names and affixed
their seals the day and year first above written.
S � _ � �(n
;A L _
Cb
• .... ••��.�
Attg*f�iVlTyl wps0,�``
/4!<Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik
El Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
Prosecuting Attorney
WSBA #
LESSOR:
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
Obie O'Brien, Chairman
u ell,is airman
ad ,Com ' sinner
LESSEE:
Stephen P. Brazitis
Er azids
Lasa Addendwn DACE 2
KITTITAS COUNTY
EXHIBIT "A"
Legal Description:
The South five (5) feet of the right of way of Vantage Highway, in the East '/z of the
East % of Lot 4, Section 4, Township 17 North, Range 19 East, W.M., Kittitas County,
Washington.
B razitis
easy Ad6endum PAGE 3
1
2 _kj
3 L E A S E
4
5 THIS LEASE, made and dated this C21f day of
6 1981, by and between KITTITAS COUNTY, hereinafter rred
7 to as the Lessor, and -Stephen P. Braaitle , hereinafter
e referred to as the Lessee.
9 W I T N E S S E T If:
10 The Lessor herewith grants to the Lessee a lease to
11 the following described property:
12 The South Five feet Of the right of way of the
Vantage Road, in the East 1/2 of the East 1/2
13 of Lot 4, Section 4, Township 17 North, Range
14 19 East, wim., Kittitas County, Washington,
15 for a period of twenty (20) years, commencing July 1, 1981,
16 and expiring on June 30, 2001.
17 The Lessee shall pay as rental the sum of $10.00 per
18 annum, to be paid in advance on. July 1st of each year during
the term.
19
20 The Lessee shall be permitted to use the property only
21 '
for the purpose of maintaining the present structure, being
22 a hay shed, which Is located thereon. -The Lessee shall not
23 be permitted in any way to improve the present structure, and in
24 the event the structure is destroyed by fine or otherwise,
25 the Lessee shall not be permitted to reconstruct the structure
26 on the leased premises.
27 The Lessee herein has a grazing permit from the Lessor
28 covering that portion of the Vantage Road which is excess. to
29
30 LEASE
PAGE ONE Copy
JOSEPH PANATTQNI
KITYITAB COUNTY FKOSlCIROK
107TITAS COUNTY COM MOUM . Rppy 219
E44ENSbUAG, WASHINGTON SOW
TM-_. ... W ----
4
5
fi
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
L
P
11
the Road and lying in the East 1/2 of the East 1/2 of Lot
4. The Lessee herein owns property south of said description,
and has mistakenly encroached five feet' upon the County's right
of way on the Vantage Road. It is agreed between -the parties
that the Vantage Road right of way extends 75 feet from
the center line to the South boundary of the right of way.
It is agreed that this lease may be terminated by the
Lessor, upon thirty (30)'days written notice to the Lessee, when
it is determined by the Lessor that the right of way herein above
described is required for road purposes.
At the end of the term, if this lease is not renewed,
the hay shed shall be removed if -8o requested by the Lessor.
It is agreed between the Lessor and the Lessee that if
the -Lessee shall at any time be in default in the payment of
rent herein reserved, or in the performance of any of the
covenants, terms, or conditions of this lease, and the
Lessee shall fail to remedy such default within Thirty (30.)
days after srritten.notice thereof from the Lessor to the Lessee
at this address written below, the Lessor may, at its option,
re-enter the premises and remove the Lessee therefrom.
DATED this day of , 1981.
FASE
AGE TWO
L E S S O R
Kittitas county
Ca rman, ao o Ki
m tt teras
County Commissioners
JOSEPH PA"0SECU VI
(a ��{{ KgTITAB COUNTY PROSECUTpR
"'"'TAS COUNTY COURT MUSS - ROOM t18
ELLENSBURG. WASHINGTON SM
TELEPHONE SBS 9254 n0
a
2
3
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
2]
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30 1
1
M , Board- oK t ttas
County Commissioners
membet, Board of Kittitas
County Commissioners
L E S S E E
1
Address:
(STATE OF WASHINGTON )
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
I, the undersigned, a Notary public in and.f'or the State of
Washington, do hereby certify that on this, day of
S RMAN, ROY LUMACO,.ELIZABETH M1981, before mepCCUNE, al
each one to me$known
to be one of the duly elected, qualified and acting County.
Commissioners of Kittitas County, that executed the within
and foregoing instrument and -acknowledged - the said instrument
to be the free and'voluntary act and deed of said Kittitas
County, Washington', for the uses -and purposes therein mentioned,
and each on oath stated that he was authorized to execute said
instrument by resolution of the Board of County Commissioners
Of Kittitas County, Washington, and that the -seal affixed is
the official seal of Kittitas Countyyy���
WITNESS my hand and official1 h reto ffix-edd.ay
and year first above written. , ,
of
EASE
'AGE THREE
residing in Ellensburg
JOSEPH PANATTON!
KITTITAS COUNTT PNMEMON
K17TITAS COUNTY COUIIT HOUSE . ROOM 278
ELLENSBUIIG. WASHINGTON KIiYE
TELEPHONE 60S'2J'- M
!�'ft'
p �ppEi...Tp Property Report for Parcel#: 901833
0. r Tuesday, December 22, 2020
'IMITAS 'Y'
'Parcel Inforrnationl Fa%M LE Sr bi-It�
Address: 4820 VANTAGE HWY ELLEwNSBURG
Tax Parcel ID: 901833
Y
Map Number: 17-19-04020-0003
Recorded Area: 14.98 a f
Owner Name NICKELS, BRANDON L
Name Cont:
Mailing Address: 4820 VANTAGE HWY
City/State/Zip: ELLENSBURG WA 98926-9081
ll�ti#ii:�ai Areas. Information
Contains > 30% Slope: No
PHS Site Name:
N/A
Roof Hazard:
LOW HAZARD RATING
Roof Class:
CLASS C
Seismic Category:
C
Shore Line:
Rural Conservancy
Wetland Code:
PUBF
DNR Water Type:
Type 2
FIRM Zone:
ZONE C, 100 YEAR
FEMA Flood Map:
5300950556B
Coalmine Shaft:
N/A
Airport Zone:
N/A
BPA Right of Way:
-1
Max Elevation:
1644
ISO:
0.022
PG:
36
DIo,mestic !Dater Infarmation
Over the Counter Water: Yes, Suitability Map
Qualifying Water Banks: Big Creek WR, Bourne, Burchak,
KittitasCnty(Amerivest), KittitasCnty
(Glennon), Reecer Creek, KittitasCnty
(Roth), KittitasCnty(Williams), New
Suncadla(Big Creek), New Suncadia
(SwaukFirstCreeks), New Suncadia
(TeanawayRiver), Roan New Suncadia,
SC Aggregate, Swiftwater Ranch,
Trailside, Western Water Partners,
Yakima Mitigation Services
Sub Basin Watershed: Wilson -Cherry Creeks
i
ml.sow
SP01123
Administrative Information
Zone and Allowed Uses:
Agficulture 20
Land Use Category:
Rural Working, Allowed Use
Commisioner District:
td1� r
Voter Precinct:
Thrall, East Sanders
Hospital District:
HOSPITAL DISTRICT 1
School District:
Ellensburg School District
Irrigation District:
r
i
'
t
Fire District:
Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Fire
Administrative Information
Zone and Allowed Uses:
Agficulture 20
Land Use Category:
Rural Working, Allowed Use
Commisioner District:
Voter Precinct:
Thrall, East Sanders
Hospital District:
HOSPITAL DISTRICT 1
School District:
Ellensburg School District
Irrigation District:
Cascade
Weed District:
Fire District:
Kittitas Valley Fire and Rescue (Fire
District 2)
Cemetery District:
N/A
Court District:
Lower District Court
PUD Comm District:
District 1, District 3
Parks and Rec District:
WEldland Urban Interface: IR 33
Stock Restricted Area: Stock Restricted
COE Gas Service Area: No
KITTITAS COUNTY
DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS
PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT
STUDY SESSION DATE: January 11, 2021
TOPIC: Upper County Truck Traffic Restrictions
ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff
LEAD STAFF:
Mark R. Cook
RECOMMENDATION:
Do not extend the period of truck traffic restrictions defined in Resolution 2018-076 at
this time.
BRIEFING SUMMARY:
• Resolution 2018-076 establishes a restriction on truck traffic (FHWA Group 9
and bigger) annually from May 15th to September 15'h.
• The Upper County Traffic Committee desires extending the prohibition to a
complete year.
• Public Works (PW) does not support the request owing to a lack of a commercial
vehicle officer being able to support the prohibition through sustainable
enforcement activities.
BACKGROUND:
Responding to resident concerns of increasing heavy truck traffic adding to congestion on
certain Upper County roads (Nelson Siding, Westside, Mohar, Upper Peoh Point and
Thorp Prairie); the Board of County Commissioners (BoCC) enacted Resolution 2018-
076 (EXHIBIT 1). Recently, the Upper County Traffic Committee requested PW solicit
the BoCC for support of extending the period of prohibition to year-round.
DISCUSSION:
In the absence of sustained commercial vehicle enforcement along the identified road
network, extending the prohibited period of operation is expected to exacerbate an
already stressed enforcement condition. The action is akin to reducing the posted speed
limit when the science suggests the action as unwarranted. Driver behavior will not
change sufficiently in the absence of enforcement. Once the BoCC directs sufficient
resource allocation supporting a full-time commercial vehicle officer, the request should
be revisited.
Page 1 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
FISCAL IMPACTS:
No current funding allocation in 2021 supporting a commercial vehicle officer enforcing
the current restrictions.
ATTACHMENTS:
Exhibit 1: Resolution 2018-076
Page 2 of 3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
EXHIBIT 1: RESOLUTION 2018-076
Page 3 0f3
Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2021
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
COUNTY OF KITTITAS
STATE OF WASHINGTON
RESOLUTION NO. 2018 - (i IL'
PROHIBITING ALL HEAVY VEHICLES CLASSIFIED BY FEDERAL HIGHWAY
ADMINISTRATION AS CLASS 9 AND ABOVE FROM TRAVELING ON NELSON SIDING
ROAD, WESTSIDE ROAD, MOHAR ROAD, UPPER PEOH POINT ROAD AND THORP
PRAIRIE ROAD ANNUALLY FROM MAY 15" UNTIL SEPTEMBER 15TH,
WHEREAS: The Revised Code of Washington 36.75.270 allows local government, by resolution, to
limit or prohibit classes and types of vehicles and or the weight of vehicles traveling on
local roadways; and
WHEREAS: County residents report significant heavy truck traffic utilizing Nelson Siding Road,
Westside Road, Mohar.Road, Upper Peoh Point Road, and Thorp Prairie Road (Upper
County Roads) attempting to avoid nearby Interstate systems; and
WHEREAS: Local road infrastructure along said roadways is experiencing accelerated deterioration
from the increased use of heavy truck traffic; and
WHEREAS: Said restrictions are required to be published at least once in the paper of record, and
signs shall be posted on said roadways indicating the closure or limitation of traffic; and
WHEREAS: In accordance with the Revised Code of Washington 36.75.270, any person violating said
restrictions imposed by this resolution shall be guilty of a misdemeanor; and
NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest
of the public, does hereby prohibit all heavy vehicles classified under the Federal Highway
Administration (FHWA) vehicle classification definitions as a class group 9 and above, from traveling on
Nelson Siding Road, Westside Road, Mohar Road, U per Peoh Point Road, and Thorp Prairie Road
effective annually from May 1 S`h until September 15 '.
.BE iT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners recognizes the need to
maintain commercial deliveries to area businesses and acknowledges that FHWA truck class 9 and above
may occasionally travel on Upper County Roads delivering goods to local businesses.
DATED this 1st day of May, 2018, at Ellensburg, Washington.
Attest:
i.f tau Board- Julie Kjorsvik
�.i
` strfr •lr;rk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz
,r
BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS
KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON
L
.' Vice -Chairman
�` yam.