The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink About2022-10-24-minutes-public-works-study-sessionKITTITAS COUNTY COMMISSIONERS Public Works Study Session Regular Meeting Monday October 24, 2022 -1:30 PM Commissioners' Auditorium 205 West 5th Room 909 - Ellensburg 1. Call to Order 2. Citizen Comments (1 min. time limit) 3. Request to Approve a Letter of Support for Kittitas Conservation Trust 4. Future of Flood Control Zone District Advisory Clommittee 5. Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan S. Other business 7. Concluded Created on 10/20/2022 4:46:13 PM KITTITAS COUNTY PUBLIC WORKS STUDY SESSION MINUTES In -Person Regular Meeting MONDAY 1:30 PM October 24, 2022 Board Members Present: Chairman Laura Osiadacz, Vice -Chairman Cory Wright, and Commissioner Brett Wachsmith. Others: Mark Cook, Arden Thomas, Rebecca Cruse, Joshua Fredrickson, Public Works; Mitch Long, Kittitas Conservation Trust. At 1:30 pm Chairman Laura Osiadacz opened the Public Works Study Session. CITIZEN COMMENTS No Comments REQUEST TO APPROVE A LETTER OF SUPPORT FOR KITTITAS CONSERVATION TRUST Arden Thomas, Water Resource Manager, briefed the Board of County Commissioners on the complexity of restoring Gold Creek for Bull Trout habitat, address annual dewatering, and erosion. Arden Thomas requested the Board of County Commissioners signature on a letter of support of Kittitas Conservation Trusts' efforts to secure grant funding. Mitch Long, Executive Director of Kittitas Conservation Trust, added that the organization has been working for 10 years to design and implement a project for Gold Creek to address the causes of dewatering. Vice -Chairman Cory Wright motioned to approve Board support. Commissioner Brett Wachsmith seconded the motion. Motion approved. FUTURE OF FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE Arden Thomas provided the history of the Flood Control Zone District and creation of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. Arden Thomas stated that the committee has fulfilled the purpose and staff recommends the committee disband. The Board of County Commissioners directed staff to bring forward a Resolution for approval to disband the committee. AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN Joshua Fredrickson, County Engineer, briefed the Board of County Commissioners on the Americans with Disabilities Act Transition Plan_ Josh Fredrickson stated that staff has worked to identify areas in the County right-of-way in need of improvements. Josh Fredrickson continued that Public Works held 2 open houses for public comment on 2022-10-24 Minutes the Transition Plan. Josh Fredrickson requested to set a public hearing to adopt the plan. Discussion was held. Director Mark Cook added that this plan ought to be part of a larger county wide plan, including facilities. Staff was directed to schedule a public hearing. OTHER BUSINESS Mark Cook stated that Public Works was asked to draft an estimate for striping the lots for parking around the Lunchbox Cafe leased building. The Board of County Commissioners directed Public Works to initiate the project. Mark Cook opened a discussion on the UGA and inquired if Public Works should develop and implement their own urban standards. Commissioner Cory Wright requested diSCUSsion at a future date - Meeting concluded at 2:01 pm. KITTITAS COUNTY COMNISSIONERS KITTITAS COUNTY, WASHINGTON (ALIAL (ALU� Rebecca Cruse, Administrative Laura Osiadacz, Chairman Assistant 2022-10-24 Minutes KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: October 24, 2022 TOPIC: Kittitas Conservation Trust Request for Letter of Support ACTION REQUESTED: Direction to Staff LEAD STAFF: Arden Thomas RECOMMENDATION: Provide Requested Letter of Support BRIEFING SUMMARY: • Kittitas Conservation Trust is a local non-profit organization working to preserve and restore rivers in the Upper Yakima River Basin. • Kittitas Conservation Trust has been working to determine the causes of Gold Creek dewatering and design and implement a restoration project to address these causes. • Kittitas Conservation Trust is applying for grant funding from U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and has requested a Letter of Support from Kittitas County. BACKGROUND: Gold Creek is a river that flows into Keechelus Reservoir in the Snoqualmie Pass area. This river seasonally dewaters, which adversely impacts fish and wildlife, including bull trout, which are listed as threatened under the Endangered Species Act. Kittitas Conservation Trust is a local non-profit organization working to preserve and restore rivers in the Upper Yakima River Basin. This organization has identified that stream dewatering is worsened by historic gravel pits in the area and stream degradation associated with past logging practices. Kittitas Conservation Trust is requesting funding to implement the project and has requested a letter of support from Kittitas County. DISCUSSION: There are a number of private landowners in the area with cabins along Gold Creek that are at risk due to Gold Creek channel migration. Kittitas Conservation Trust has been working with these landowners and the proposed restoration will provide some level of protection relative to current conditions. Associated with observed dewatering, the Yakama Nation has communicated to the State Departments of Ecology and Health that stream dewatering and expansion of water systems in the area based on junior rights, threatens the Yakama Nation's Treaty -reserved rights, including their time immemorial Page 1 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT water right for the minimum instream flow necessary to maintain fish and other aquatic life. FISCAL IMPACTS: There are no fiscal impacts. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Draft Letter of Support Exhibit 2: USFWS Request for Proposals — Gold Creek Project Page 2 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: Draft Letter of Support Page 3 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT ones rn � T W_ Kittitas County, Washington BOARD oiFCOUNTY COMMISSIONERS District One District Two --- District Three Cary Wright Laura Cisiadacz Brett Wachsmith October 24, 2022 To: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service From: Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners RE: Letter of Support for Kittitas Conservation Trust's Application to USFWS funding (BIL & Recovery Challenge) for Gold Creek Restoration Project To U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Kittitas County wants to provide our support of Kittitas Conservation Trust's (KCT) application for the Gold Creek Restoration. This project is an important step to the recovery of Gold Creek bull trout. This project represents a great opportunity to address the limiting factors to native fish production including dewatering and habitat degradation. The project will address significant impacts over the last century from development and resource extraction and provide the best opportunity to restore natural flows and functions of this critical bull trout tributary. Over the last 20 years there have been significant Investments In connecting habitats and providing migratory corridors for fish and wildlife in the Snoqualmie area of Washington State. This project will build on those investments and provide great benefits to all species who depend on river corridors and the area. It is essential that these habitats are functioning in a natural state to provide for resiliency and corridors for movement, especially during these uncertain times of unprecedented climate change. For over 10 years, Kittitas Conservation Trust has done extensive data collection, assessment, and design by working with a diversity of partners, Yakama Nation, and local communities to ensure restoration actions identified for Implementation will meet multiple goals and objectives. Kittitas County has engaged in these efforts both because of the fish and wildlife benefits from instream flow restoration, but also because of Kittitas Conservation Trusts work with adjacent landowners to look for opportunities to also address existing flood hazards. It is through these partnerships that we can realize large-scale restoration efforts to benefit the recovery of buil trout and improve over habitat function for both wildlife and people. Kittitss County Cvurth=e • 205 West 5h Avenue, 5TE 108 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7508 •FAX (509) 962-7679 This funding will provide a unique opportunity to allow for the implementation of restoration actions in a timely manner and help to bring back the critical ecosystems that support this buil trout population. Sincerely, Brett Oachsmith, Commissioner K1ttk- Cowity Courthouse • 205 West 56Avenue, STH 106 • Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7508 TAX (509) 962-7679 EXHIBIT 1: USFWS Request for Proposals — Gold Creek Project Page 4 of 4 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Habitat Restoration and Conservation Program Mid -Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service 7501 Icicle Road, Leavenworth, Washington 98826 USFWS Request for Proposals, FY 2023 1. Project Title: Gold Creek Restoration 2. Amount of Funding Requested: $10,000,000 Project Sponsor/Organization: Organization: Kittitas Conservation Trust Con tact Person: Mitch Long Mailing Address: 120 W Pennsylvania Ave, Suite 207, P.O. Box 428, Roslyn, WA 98941-0428 Phone: 509-649-2951 (o), 509-674-8220 (c) Email: mlona@kittitasconservationtrust.ore UEI #: TJY9YFXZA7S6 Tax ID #: 546569291 4. Project Location: a. Longitude and latitude a. River Mile (RM) 1-2 - 47.4017710,-121.381789* b. RM 2-3 - 47.411887", -121.369572° c. Gold Creek Pond - 47.399692°, -121.3775860 d. Heli's Pond -47.409621% -121.3692990 b. County—Kittitas County c. WRIA name and number— Upper Yakima, 39 d. Identify the sub -watershed, stream, and/or habitat where the project will occur. a. Gold Creek RM 1-2, RM 2-3, Gold Creek Pond, Heli's Pond e. Landowner name and contact information a. Forest Service, Forterra f. List the Township, Range, Section, and Quarter Sections - T.22N, R.11E, Q 10, 11, 14, 15 g. Detailed map of the project area and proposed action a. Figure 1—Topographical Map b. Figure 2 —Overview Map S. Abstract -Brief Project Description and Outcomes: Briefly describe the project and quantifiable outcomes (i.e. Remove 4 culverts and open fish passage to 3.7 miles of stream habitat. Propagate 1500 endangered plants from seed and re-establish 1000 of these plants to Site A, etc). The goals of the Gold Creek Restoration Project are to restore natural flow and improve the instream habitat for ESA threatened bull trout (Salvelinus confluentus). The 1-90 gravel supply pits known as Gold Creek Pond and Heli's Pond act as a siphon that exacerbates the seasonal dewatering of Gold Creek. Decades of clear-cut logging and mining have widened the creek, spreading out the water causing the flow to go subsurface, further increasing the frequency, extent, and duration of dewatering. The objectives of this project are: 1) Fill the two gravel pits to eliminate the siphon effect, and 2) Restore the geomorphology of two miles of stream (RM 1-2 and RM 2-3), including the addition of 1,000+ logs and wood structures to improve bull trout holding, spawning, and rearing habitat. Kittitas Conservation Trust is seeking a total of $25M from additional funding sources to address the implementation costs for the restoration of Gold Creek. Implementation will occur in separate phases as funding is acquired within the next three to five years. 6. Project Narrative: Describe the projects goals, objectives, methods, benefits, etc. Is it part of a multi- year project? !f so, explain what year(s) the funding you seek will cover, and how other years of the project will be funded. Problem Statement Gold Creek, located near Snoqualmie Pass in Washington State (Figures 1 through 4), is listed as critical habitat for ESA threatened bull trout, Solvelinus confluentus. As a snow -fed creek, it historically dewaters annually in the late summer. However, nearly a century of anthropogenic landscape alterations to the watershed have drastically increased the frequency, extent, and duration of dewatering. In 2013, Natural Systems Designs (NSD) collected monitoring data from June to October, identifying the frequency, extent, and duration of dewatering (Figure 5). Under the current conditions, over one mile of creek dewaters annually, persisting from mid-July to late September, creating a fish passage barrier for migrating adults and increasing juvenile mortality due to stranding. This is problematic, as bull trout in Gold Creek are on the verge of extirpation. Gold Creek Valley has been the site of numerous gravel pits utilized for the construction and expansion of Interstate -90 in Washington State. To expand 1-90 to its current state, in the 1970s through the 1980s Washington Department of Transportation (WSDOT) needed large quantities of gravel. More than 750,000 cubic yards of gravel were extracted from Gold Creek Pond, forming a 27 -acre pond, which covers about 78% of the valley bottom and the entire eastern floodplain of Gold Creek. Gold Creek Pond has yet to be restored to its original condition. Due to the size and location of Gold Creek Pond, the pond negatively impacts the groundwater dynamics across Gold Creek Valley. Data from the 2013 and 2014 hydrology monitoring periods documented that the pond acts as a siphon pulling water away from Gold Creek, magnifying the seasonal dewatering effects on the creek. Heli's Pond, a smaller 2 -acre gravel pit just north of Gold Creek Pond, was excavated in 1996 as a source of gravel for resurfacing roads, also causes dewater effects to Gold Creek. Gold Creek has been negatively impacted by decades of clear-cut logging and mining, which caused an over -widened channel with little complexity or cover. The over -widened channel causes the flow to go sub -surface, further exacerbating the effects of dewatering. In addition, WSDOT created a levee to separate the creek from the gravel pit to keep water from entering the work site. The levee continues to disconnect the creek from 90% of its floodplain. Furthermore, water in Gold Creek Pond creates a heat -sink during the summer, which can create lethal temperatures for bull trout. Regional climate models show a significant decrease in base stream flows associated with lower spring snowpacks resulting from more winter precipitation falling as rain. The models show the air and water temperatures within the watershed becoming warmer and summers becoming dryer, all of which further exacerbate the dewatering in Gold Creek. The restoration proposed below will help mitigate climate change by capturing seasonal rain events to keep the creek watered longer. 14 Gold Creek Bull Trout Bull trout were listed as Threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) in 1998 and the entire eight miles of Gold Creek was recognized as critical habitat. Since 1984, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) have monitored bull trout in Gold Creek using spawning Tedd surveys. From 1984 to 2020, redds in Gold Creek ranged from 2 to 51 (Figure 6). Low numbers of spawners expose the population to extirpation from a single stochastic event (e.g. landslide, drought) that could eliminate the spawning run entirely. In the last five years (2016-2020), an average of 11 redds were observed, with 2 recorded in 2017. According to WDFW monitoring estimates, Gold Creek bull trout population consists of less than 50 spawners; a self-sustaining population needs at least 500 spawning adults. Although their abundance is low, Gold Creek bull trout numbers are relatively robust compared to other nearby populations. Gold Creek has been identified as a top priority for recovery of bull trout in the Upper Yakima River. Of the other populations in the Upper Yakima River, three are extirpated (Cie Elum, Teanaway, and Waptus) and the other two populations, Box Canyon and the Upper Kachess, have annual redds numbering less than 10. With such low numbers across the Upper Yakima River bull trout populations, limited gene flow between populations is a concern. In order to prevent Gold Creek's bull trout population from being extirpated, major ecological restoration needs to occur. Time is of the essence. Two recovery programs have been implemented to reduce the decline of bull trout in Gold Creek. Yakama Nation (YN), WDFW, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and Mid -Columbia Fisheries have partnered to implement a bull trout rescue -and -rear program. The program collects juveniles in the dewatering reach of Gold Creek during the summer, rears them over the winter at YN's La Salle hatchery, and then re -introduces them the following spring. Since 2019, 358 juveniles have been collected from Gold Creek, with over -winter survival at the hatchery increasing from 73% to 96%. Over the coming years, they expect to see these fish mature and return to Gold Creek to spawn. The second recovery method is USFWS' trap and haul program. A small percentage of bull trout are entrained at the Keechelus Dam and are unable to return to their natal stream to spawn due to a lack of fish passage facilities at the dam. During their migration, USFWS traps bull trout below the dam and transports them above the dam, which has been a successful operation as the transported bull trout have been observed spawning in Gold Creek multiple years in a row. Coupled together, the two recovery programs and the proposed habitat restoration actions provide a unique opportunity to reinvigorate Gold Creek bull trout. The rescue -and -rear program increases the number of potential spawners, the trap and haul program increases the number of spawners, and the habitat actions proposed here would increase the odds of spawning success once they arrive, in addition to providing habitat complexity for juvenile rearing. Restoration Actions Since 2012, Kittitas Conservation Trust (KCT) has been working with Natural Systems Designs to monitor and collect data in Gold Creek Valley for geomorphic, hydrologic, hydraulic, and habitat assessments to understand the current dewatering and habitat conditions in Gold Creek. Based on these assessments, four restorations actions have been developed to effectively restore natural flow and improve the instream habitat of Gold Creek: RM 1-2 instream restoration, RM 2-3 instream restoration, Gold Creek Pond restoration, and Hell's Pond restoration. These four restoration actions can happen concurrently or linearly, depending on the funding available. Fill from the instream work can be used to fill the ponds, limiting the transportation time and off-site materials needed, drastically reducing the total cost of implementation. 3 RM 1-2 instream Restoration For RM 1-2 instream restoration, 60% design is complete. The restoration approach for RM 1-2 is to restore the creek to its historic channel width, improve floodplain and side channel connectivity, limit the duration of annual dewatering of the creek, and increase instream and side channel habitat complexity. This restoration action will restore one mile of instream habitat by constructing 75 engineered logjams and installing 196 toe habitat logs in the stream, and constructing five high-flow side channels totaling 0.86 mi. Restoration actions will also restore 2.9 acres of floodplain at 16 different locations with roughness logs and vegetation plantings. The total estimated implementation cost is $5,178,000 for 2024. RM 2-3 Instream Restoration For RM 2-3 instream restoration, 60% design is nearly complete. The approach for RM 2-3 is the same as RM 1-2, which is to restore the creek to its historic channel width, improve floodplain and side channel connectivity, limit the duration of annual dewatering of the creek, and increase instream and side channel habitat complexity. The 60% designs will be available in November 2022, Design specifics and costs will be updated when available. Current implementation estimate is $7,000,000. RM 2-3 will utilize helicopter placement for wood to decrease the impact of on the ground machinery and to deliver the logs to rugged, hard -to -reach terrain. Gold Creek Pond Restoration For Gold Creek Pond Restoration, 30% design is complete. There are three alternatives being considered through the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) process. 1. Forested Wetland Complex— would fill most of the existing pond and convert the area back to a forested wetland complex, similar to its historic condition. This alternative would significantly reduce, if not eliminate completely, the dewatering effect the pond has on the creek. It would also remove berms and infrastructure and fill the outlet channel. New tributary channels would be established to connect Gold Creek to the forest wetland complex. 2. Multi -Pond Alternative — would elevate the pond to bring the ground water up, requiring an earthen dam at the southern end to contain the water. Smaller ponds would be constructed with varying elevations. This alternative would remove the berms and fill the outlet channel. 3. Gold Creek Integration Alternative —would integrate Gold Creek into the restored pond and create in-line habitat. It would be similar to the multi -pond alternative, but would allow migrating fish to have access to the ponds for holding while the creek is in its dewatered stage. This alternative would remove the berm and fill the outlet channel. All three alternatives are estimated to cost about the same to construct. Approximately 900,000 cubic yards of fill will be required to fully fill the pond. Estimated implementation cost for the Gold Creek Pond Restoration is $11,000,000. Heli's Pond restoration For Hell's Pond Restoration, 30% design is complete. Hydraulic models show that completely filling Heli's Pond will increase surface water flow in Gold Creek, nearly eliminating the dewatering effects on the creek. A 75% pond fill would decrease the siphon effect and decrease costs of implementation. The landowner, Forterra, will have the final approval on the design. A 100% fill would require an estimated 17,600 cubic yards and the implementation cost is estimated at $1,760,000. 4 All publicly available Gold Creek reports, memos, designs, and maps are available online at: httPs://www.kittitasconservationtrust.org/progectsold-creek-restoration-flow-and-habitat 7. Proposed Project Timeline: Design, implementation, completion, etc. Note that funds will not be available for another eight months. Activity Date Apply for USFWS Funds Winter 2022 Funds Awarded I July/August 2023 NEPA Documents Finalized July 2023 NEPA Decision August/Sept 2023 i Permitting and ESA Consultation Summer -Winter 2023 —� Finalize Designs Summer -Winter 2023 Pre-bid Walkthrough June 2024 Contract Out to Bid June 2024 Construction July 2024-2027 for this funding request. ll Construction may be phased as funding is acquired. I 8. Degradation/ Ranking: identify where and how your proposed project fits into the supporting documentation (Endangered/Threatened Species Recovery Pian, Species Action Pian, Road Maintenance and Abandonment Plan, Watershed Restoration Plan, or other similar types of documents). Describe how your proposed praject addresses the causes of watershed degradation rather than the symptoms, or how your project addresses species recovery needs or other species conservation needs. if the documents) prioritizes actions, then identify the ranking for the proposed project. Gold Creek Restoration is a HIGH PRIORITY under the Habitat and Watershed Protection element of the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan (IP). The IP is a part of the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project (YRBWEP), authorized by Congress in 1979 to help mitigate water supply issues in the Yakima Basin. https://vakimabasinintegratedplan.org/ In the updated 2017 Yakima Bull Trout Action Plan, Gold Creek bull trout are designated as a TIER 1, HIGH PRIORITY ACTION POPULATION. The proposed Gold Creek Restoration project supports the following: o Gold Action #2: Instream and Floodplain Habitat Restoration, HIGH PRIORITY • Fund and implement instream work in Gold Creek o Gold Action #3: Restore Groundwater Hydrology, HIGH PRIORITY • Develop specific proposals for filling or modifying Gold Creek Pond https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2017/09/YBTAP-9-2012-FI NAL -small. pdf https://ybfwrb.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/12/2017 BTAP Actions Update.pdf 5 In the 2015 Mid -Columbia Recovery Unit Implementation Plan for Bull Trout by USFWS, the proposed Gold Creek Restoration project supports the following actions: PRIORITY LEVEL 1 o 1.2.6 Connect FMO and Spawning and Rearing habitat o 1.2.9 Reduce impacts to adjacent instream habitat, and remove passage barriers o 2.1.2 Improve and maintain forest roads to improve connectivity Priority Level 2 o 1.1.4 Reduce impacts to riparian and stream banks from residential development and urbanization o 1.1.6 Reduce impacts from recreation to riparian areas and instream habitat o 1.2.2 Implement stream restoration projects in degraded stream reaches o 1.2.8 Reduce impacts from development o 1.2.12 Improve habitat complexity, water quality, and connectivity o 2.3.1 Improve genetic and demographic stochasticity Priority Level 3 o 1.2.3 Reduce cumulative impacts in FMO to populations that are impacted during natural dewatering of spawning and rearing areas o 2.1.4 Improve access and timing of use of spawning areas that are naturally dewatered o 2.1.10 Maintain/improve cool water refuge, water quality, and flows for movement No Priority Listed o 1.1.1 Maintain, restore, and protect riparian areas o 1.1.2 Maintain, restore, and protect riparian zones and stream channels associated with bull trout habitat o 2.1.9 Reduce cumulative impacts to populations with limited habitat https://ecos.fws.gov/docs/recove!y pIan Final Mid Columbia RUIP 092915. df In the 2015 Bull Trout Enhancement Plan by the Bureau of Reclamation (BOR) and Washington State Department of Ecology, the proposed Gold Creek Restoration project supports the following: o 3.1.1 Gold Creek Actions: Narrow channel width and construct a stable low -flow channel utilizing wood and rock, HIGH PRIORITY o 3.1.2 Gold Creek Pond Actions: Reconfigure the pond size and shape and pond outlet to reduce surface and groundwater draw from Gold Creek into the pond, HIGH PRIORITY o 3.1.3 Heli's Pond Actions: Complete filling of pond and outlet channel, HIGH PRIORITY htts: bfwrb.or w -content u loads 2017 09 Feb -2015 -BOR -Bull -Trout -Enhancement -Plan. df Gold Creek Restoration is a part of a watershed restoration approach for Upper Yakima Basin bull trout. Box Canyon Restoration was completed in 2020 and Upper Kachess River Restoration will be implemented in 2023. The Gold Creek bull trout population is the most viable population in the Upper Yakima Basin and has the best chance of survival with the Gold Creek Restoration actions described in this proposal. C Fish Passage Barriers: Are there any complete or partial fish barriers down -stream of the project location? Now far away is the closest one upstream? identify if they are natural or manmade. Must provide a map of all relevant barriers. There are several manmade barriers adjacent to the project site. The downstream most barrier for bull trout in Gold Creek is the Lake Keechelus Dam (Figure 7), constructed in 1917. There is a potential migration barrier downstream at the confluence of Gold Creek with Lake Keechelus. This is due to the operation of the reservoir and sediment depositing during low -flow conditions. Upstream there is a natural waterfall barrier at RM 6.8. 10. Species that will benefit from the project: Include known native and ESA listed species, both aquatic and terrestrial. Bull trout are the target ESA listed species for this project. All other aquatic and terrestrial organisms will benefit from this project as it aims to restore the area to its natural condition. 11. Invasive Species: If know, describe any invasive species present in the project area. Describe what measures will be taken to reduce the possible introduction of invasive species. Please let us know if you plan to use HACCP as an invasive species management tool. See Appendix 2. Brook trout may be present. During fish salvage events, they will be removed from the system if captured. All boots, waders, and equipment will be disinfected prior to use if they were last used in a different basin. All machinery will be cleaned prior to arriving on site for construction. 12. Climate Change: See above problem statement. 13. Partners: List and briefly describe the involvement of partners with this project. USFWS — Previous funding partners, ESA Consultation Lead, and in-kind donation for writing funding proposals, technical assistance, design review, project management, and construction oversight. Yakama Nation Fisheries — Leading the rescue -and -rear program in Gold Creek. Developing a basin -wide reintroduction plan for bull trout. Providing technical assistance and design review. Addressing junior water right holders' over -consumption of water from Gold Creek that is contributing to the dewatering. Yakima Basin Integrated Plan, Recreation Conservation Office, Washington State Salmon Recovery Funding Board- Previous funding partners. US Forest Service — Landowner, NEPA lead. Conservation Northwest, Native Fish Society, Washington Water Trust, WDFW, Trout Unlimited, Mid- Columbia Fisheries, Yakima Tributary Access and Habitat Program, Kittitas County, Kittitas County Conservation District, Kittitas Reclamation District, Private Landowners — All active conservation members in the Upper Yakima Basin who fully support the Gold Creek Restoration project. 7 14. Monitoring: Describe any monitoring plan (implementation, effectiveness) associated with this project. Extensive monitoring of Gold Creek bull trout has occurred since the 19805, including but not limited to spawning Tedd surveys, snorkel surveys, demographic surveys, Passive Integrated Transponders (PIT) tag antennas, and dewatering surveys. These monitoring efforts will continue to occur until the bull trout population has recovered to a self-sustaining population. The USFWS and YN operate PIT -tag antennas in lower Gold Creek near the 1-90 bridge and in upper Gold Creek upstream of the proposed project. These antennas are used to monitor bull trout movements within Gold Creek that come from three projects: 1) the rescue -and -rear program, 2) the trap and haul program, and 3), WDFW young of the year bull trout tagging. These antennas, and an additional one planned for the Gold Creek Pond outlet channel, will be used to evaluate the proposed restoration project, both before and after implementation. 15. Outreach: Describe any outreach or education efforts associated with this project. Include number of 'obs this protect will create. Extensive outreach has been performed for the Gold Creek Restoration Project in the last decade and will continue during- and post- implementation. Videos, websites, social media posts, and public round - tables are examples of the outreach that has been conducted. Kittitas County has a low to moderate Social Vulnerability Index of 0.2831 with 20% of the population below the poverty line. The per capita income is $27,974 which is 43% of the statewide per capita of $64,758. The Gold Creek Project will provide up to 30 jobs for three years with an average of $62,400 per annum which is more than twice the current per capita income. 16. Attach photos and maps of site. See below. 8 17. Budget and Budget Narrative: 2012-2012 Gold Creek Restoration Previously Spent Funds Previous data collection, modeling, assessments, and some designs have been completed for the Gold Creek Restoration Project, totaling $1,741,634. Kittitas Conservation Trust has contributed $71,512 towards this total outside of the grants we have obtained. Project Name Year(s) Project Type Funding Amount Source Project ID Gold Creek Washington Habitat 2012-2015 Assessment & Conceptual $167250 State Salmon 12-1306 Assessment Designs , Recovery Funding Board Gold Creek Washington Instream 2015-2017 Instream Design to 6090 $197,891 State SalmonRecovery 15-1153 Habitat Design Funding Board Gold Creek Valley Design & 2018-2023 Design & Permitting $1,241,981 YBIP / RCO 18-1426 Permitting Gold Creek Habitat 2013 HDAR & Assessment $13,000 USFWS ASAP Assessment Gold Creek Valley Design & 2016 Flow Modeling $10,000 USFWS F16AC00750 Permitting Heli's Pond Design 2015-2020 Heli's Pond Design (30%) $25,000 USFWS F15AC00585 Gold Creek Gold Creek Pond Design Pond Design 2018 Charrette $15,000 USFWS F16AC00750 KCT contributions 2012-2022 All Projects $71,512 KCT Funding NA since 2012 2012-2023 Total Funding Spent $1,741,634 Secured Funding Funding has been dedicated to KCT's Upper Yakima Bull Trout Projects in the upcoming State Budget cycle with the Yakima Basin Integrated Plan. The funding will be split between the Upper Kachess Restoration Project implementation in 2023 and Gold Creek Restoration for additional planning, design, permitting, or implementation. The funding amount is dependent on the budget allocations, but will be between $896,350 and $1,024,600 total. In the table below, a $500,000 placeholder is shown as a funding match. 9 Funding Secured for Permitting and Final Designs Permitting and Final Designs 2023-2025 Permitting and Final Designs $500,000 YBIP MATCH 2023-2025 Funding Acquired $500,000 Implementation Funding For all four restoration actions, implementation estimates total $24,938,000. Engineer estimates for RM 1-2 were developed in 2017, which included inflation prices for 2020. An additional 20% for inflation was added for 2024 implementation prices, totaling $5,178,000. For RM 2-3, similar restoration actions are planned, but a helicopter will be utilized to minimize on -the -ground disturbances and to deliver logs to rugged, hard to access areas. RM 2-3 implementation estimates are $7,000,000. All three options for Gold Creek Pond have similar estimated costs for implementation. Up to 900,000 cubic yards of fill will be needed for the full fill design, which costs approximately $10/cu yd. The total implementation estimate for Gold Creek Pond is $11,000,000. For Hell's Pond, up to 17,600 cu yds of fill will be needed and estimated implementation costs are $1,760,000. Implementation Funding Required RM 1-2 implementation Implementation Estimate $5,178,000 RM 2-3 Implementation Implementation Estimate $7,000,000 Gold Creek Pond Filling Implementation Estimate $11,000,000 Hell's Pond Filling Implementation Estimate $1,760,000 Estimated Implementation Total $24,938,000 The Bureau of Reclamation (BoR) has given a verbal commitment of $500,000 for implementation costs for the Gold Creek Restoration Project via the Yakima River Basin Water Enhancement Project, but the funding has not yet been secured. The Mid -Columbia Fish and Wildlife Office with USFWS has offered $150,000 of in-kind donations through design review, project management, and construction oversight. Matchina Implementation Funds BoR/ Yakima River Basin Implementation Water Enhancement Project $500,000 MATCH Implementation Funds (unsecured) Design Review, Project Management, USFWS In -Kind Contribution $150,000 MATCH Construction Oversight Funding Match $1,150,000 10 USFWS BIL-NFPP Funding Request -.$10M The proposal is requesting $10M from USFWS' BIL-NFPP. This will cover the implementation costs of RM 1-2 ($5,178,000) and Heli's Pond ($1,760,000), and some of the fill for Gold Creek Pond ($2,762,000). It will also cover $300,000 of personnel costs. Budget for $10M NFPP – BIL FUNDS Description Cost Quantity Total Amount KCT Personnel, includes $50/hr 6000 $300,000 fringe benefits Implementation – RM 1-2 $5,178,167 1 $5,178,000 Implementation – Heli's $10/ cu. yd. fill 17,600 cy Pond $1,000,000 Contractor 1 $1,760,000 Costs Implementation – Gold $10/ cu. yd. 276,200 cu. yd. $2,762,000 Creek Pond (^'900,000 cu. yd. total) Total $10,000,000 USFWS Recovery Challenge Funding Request - S1.7M The proposal is requesting $1.7M from USFWS' Recovery Challenge, which will cover part of the costs to fill Gold Creek Pond. No personnel or indirect costs will be charged. Budget for $1.7M Recovery Challenae Description Cost Quantity Total Amount Implementation – Gold —F Creek Pond $10/ cu. yd. 170,000 cu. yd. $1,700,000 Total $1,700,000 11 - 11 t:1rFdLe�. d. c; Q C : r 0---P +q : r F A M F 4 k r Ft + C G c .� IAe i 4britek-Li Ai ; - t.+afrt M tel x to Y06R` S N .�e N N Figure 1. Topographical map with an overview of Gold Creek and Gold Creek Pond (yellow star) a 3.U—' ,bJALTFhc E 7e1-r+m�, llA6,TF.2 JKEP yyV►re. U535. WkSA ESR. Legend 0 F&W Mi7as —Main Channel . Roads -i+ RatFroad —Wdegiess Boundary C�h d Boundary "U Feet a 2,0130 OW EMO Lftaareex use two ew us= omen" Gottl Crtek Project SM /uta Htrtlsbatt at 3nagaalrn10 Pus WMlhtt Cmmty, Waahintton Figure 2. Overview map of Gold Creek and Gold Creek Pond. Produced by Natural Systems Design. 12 Figure 3. Bird's eye view of Gold Creek. Void Creek Pond is located at RM 0.75 to RM 1.15 and is 27 acres and 60 feet at it's deepest point. Heirs Pond is located at RM 1.8, is 2 acres and is 15 feet at its deepest point. Flow goes from bottom right cornerto top left. Figure 4. Photo of Gold Creek during low flow, but not fully dewatered. 13 2603.5 I x I 2603.0 I 2602.5 I � - -- - I I i _.__.----;----_-_ —_- -- _..-- -�- - - -- I 2602.0- � oc 2601.5 a 2601.4_._..T_.___._ -- v 2600.5 -- -- �- - - - - -a-- ------ - f - - - +- - i 2600.0 2599.5 I i i t "' 2599.4 4 2598.5r - w 2598.4- 3 2597.5 sGsij---- j I I I 2596.5 h } �a a H--"_• Figure 5. Water Surface Elevation at two example locations along Gold Creek (SG -8, SG -9) during the 2013 monitoring period by Natural Systems Design. The gaps in the data are the dewatered periods. Produced by Natural Systems Designs. 60 50 d 40 w 30 L 5 20 z 10 Gold Creek Bull Trout Annual Redd Counts 1984-2020 a 1984 1986 1988 1990 1992 1994 1996 1998 2000 2002 2004 2006 2008 2010 2012 2014 2016 2018 2020 Figure 6. Gold Creek bull trout annual redd counts, 1984-2020. Produced by WDFW. 14 Figur 7 Knownfish barriers t Gold Creek bull trout: AehelsDam an the natural waterfall barrier at RM 6.8 Published in the Yakima Bull Trout Action Plan, 212. 15 �- ,. 2 ^% � . . k � 41 - ƒ� twi . .. Crnk Populatico samw Fall- 777=. - Stems Used bv SWI Tkof . 1.5 3 . . Miles Figur 7 Knownfish barriers t Gold Creek bull trout: AehelsDam an the natural waterfall barrier at RM 6.8 Published in the Yakima Bull Trout Action Plan, 212. 15 KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS – BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: October 24, 2022 TOPIC: Future of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee ACTION REQUESTED: Direction to Staff LEAD STAFF: Arden Thomas RECOMMENDATION: Since the purposes of the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee have been met, staff recommends disbanding the Committee. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • In 2012, the Board of County Commissioners Established a County -Wide Flood Control Zone District (FCZD). In 2017 the board formed a Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. • Major accomplishments of the FCZD Advisory Committee including developing a capital facility plan and a project prioritization framework. • Public Works staffmg is not currently adequate to properly support the FCZD Advisory Committee, lead and engage in flood reduction planning efforts, implement projects and reconvene the hazard mitigation steering committee for the required 2024 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. • Chapter 86.15.070 RCW allows for but does not require the Board of County Commissioners to appoint a countywide advisory committee. Committee members serve without pay and at the pleasure of the board. BACKGROUND: On July 12, 2012, the Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners established a County -Wide Flood Control Zone District (FCZD) in accordance with Chapter 86.15 RCW (Resolution 2012-081). The governing body for the FCZD is the Board of County Commissioners and Public Works staff administers the District. On December 5, 2017, the Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners formed a FCZD Advisory Committee to inform the prioritization of the district's capital facility plan and work grogram elements (Resolution 2017-183). In 2019, the FCZD Advisory Committee recommended its first 6 -year capital facility plan and 2020 budget and has annually recommended updated 6 -year capital facility plans and annual budgets for the Board of County Commissioner's consideration. In 2021 the FCZD Advisory Committee Page 1 of S PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Approved a Project Prioritization Framework which has guided the FCZD's work program and capital facility plan. DISCUSSION: The FCZD Advisory Committee has been convened for nearly five years and has had several major accomplishments, such as developing the 6 -year capital facility plan and establishing a project prioritization framework. Public Works staff has been utilizing this framework to prepare capital improvement plan updates for the FCZD Advisory Committee's consideration. With these work products, the purposes of the Advisory Committee have been met. Current staffing levels are not adequate to properly support the Advisory Committee, lead, and engage in flood reduction planning efforts, manage implementation of the capital facility plan and reconvene the hazard mitigation steering committee for the required 2024 Hazard Mitigation Plan Update. Staff time recommends that project specific efforts (such as the west Ellensburg interchange planning efforts) and the Hazard Mitigation Plan update be prioritized. Chapter 86.15.070 RCW allows for but does not require the Board of County Commissioners to appoint a countywide advisory committee. Committee members serve without pay and at the pleasure of the board. FISCAL IMPACTS: While the proposed 2023 budget contains nominal budget to staff the Flood Control Zone District Advisory, this time would be re -allocated to project planning and technical assistance and hazard mitigation steering committee support. ATTACHMENTS: Exhibit 1: Authorizing Resolution Exhibit 2: Committee Bylaws Exhibit 3: Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Project Prioritization Framework Page 2 of 5 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT EXHIBIT 1: Authorizing Resolution Page 3 of 5 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS COUNTY OF KITTITAS STATE OF WASHINGTON RESOLUTION NO. 2017 -� TO FORMULATE THE KI TITAS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE WHEREAS: The Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners directed staff solicit Flood Control Zone District rate payers for participating in an advisory committee supporting ongoing prioritization of Flood Control Zone District annual capital facility planning and work program elements; and WHEREAS: The Department of Public Works held two community meetings in upper and lower Kittitas County soliciting rate payers for involvement during summer/fall of 2017; and WHEREAS: The Department of Public Works solicited rate payers for involvement with a targeting mailing to rate payers late fall of 2017; and WHEREAS: The Kittitas County Board of County Commissioners has determined the advisory committee shall be composed of rate payers in commission districts as follows: two from District 1, three from District 2 and two from District 3; and WHEREAS: A sufficient number of rate payers have applied for consideration of appointment to the Flood Control Zone District advisory committee; NOW, THEREFORE BE IT RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners, in the best interest of the public, does hereby approve formulation of the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee that shall be responsible for assisting the Flood Control Zone District Administrator formulate the annual capital facility plan and advise on annual District work program elements; BE IT FURTHER RESOLVED that the Board of County Commissioners appoints the individuals listed in Exhibit A to the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. DATED on this 5th day of December, 2017, at Ellensburg, Washington. Attest: Clerk of the Board- Julie Kjorsvik ❑ Deputy Clerk of the Board- Mandy Buchholz tq��tt�iiiuq��rry+r t;UMM1�� ti �161� fr BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS ABSENT Obie O'Brien, Commissioner 4GTON EXHIBIT A MEMBERS OF THE KITTITAS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE: 1. Karen Poulsen 2. Scott Nicolai 3. Jerry Martens 4. Patrick G. Deneen 5. Holly English 5. Jeff Dunning 7. Ryan Lyyski EXHIBIT 2: Committee Bylaws Page 4 of 5 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT KITTITAS COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT ADVISORY COMMITTEE BY-LAWS Article 1— Name: Resolution 2017-183 of the Kittitas County Board of Commissioners establishes the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee. Article 2_— Purpose of the Advisory Committee: Support of ongoing prioritization of the Flood Control Zone District annual capital facility planning; work planning elements; and give recommendations to the Board of County Commissioners. Article 3 — Membership and Structure: As established by Resolution 2017-183, the Advisory Committee is composed of seven members as follows: Two (2) Rate Payers from Commissioner District 1 Three (3) Rate Payers from Commissioner District 2 Two (2) Rate Payers from Commissioner District 3 The Advisory Committee shall elect both a chair and vice -chair. A formal vote to fill these positions shall be taken at the first advisory committee meeting of each year. The chair of the Advisory Committee shall set the agenda, approve previous meeting minutes, and guide the conduct of the public meeting. The vice -chair shall perform the duties of the chair in the chair's absence. The meeting shall be guided by Robert's Rules of Order. Four (4) members shall serve two-year terms and three (3) members shall serve a one-year term. Subsequent terms will be for a two year period. Term length will be randomly selected in each Commissioner District. Should a member miss two (2) consecutive unexcused or four (4) total unexcused meetings in one year, such member will be removed from the advisory committee upon a majority recommendation from the committee. Should a member resign from the advisory committee, new applications will be submitted and the Board of County Commissioners shall select a new rate payer from that Commissioner District. Terms of the committee shall begin January 1, 2019. Article 4 — Termination: Removal — If the Kittitas County Flood Control District Advisory Committee members determine by a majority vote that a member should be removed; the Chair of the Committee shall report that recommendation to the Board of County Commissioners for its consideration. Resignation — Resignations by members shall be submitted, in writing, to the Committee Chair or Clerk. They will forward a copy of the resignation to the Board of County Commissioners. Reasons for dismissal — The Board of County Commissioners may remove a member when it is determined it is in the best interest of the Committee or the county to do so. Article 5 — Meetings: The Advisory Committee shall meet once a month on the fourth (4th) Wednesday of each month in the Commissioner's Auditorium at the Kittitas County Courthouse at 5:30pm. Regularly schedule meetings may be canceled with advanced notification. Special meetings of the Advisory Committee may be held at the request of the Board of County Commissioners, or as matters arise that require the Committee's attention. All meetings of the Advisory Committee are open to the public and are subject to the Public Records Act. Public comments will be encouraged and will be accepted verbally or in writing. Anyone who wishes to voice an opinion, information or concerns to the Committee may attend meetings and time will be allotted at the beginning of meetings as appropriate to assure public participation. Items may be placed on a meeting agenda by any Committee member or by county staff. Members shall be provided with a copy of the agenda and supporting materials in advance of the meeting. Staff from Kittitas County Public Works shall be the Clerk of the Committee and will be responsible for taking and documenting the minutes from all meetings of the Advisory Committee. These minutes will then be approved at a future meeting and placed on the Kittitas County website. The majority of the appointed committee members will constitute a quorum for the transaction of all business at meetings. Each Committee member will be entitled to one (1) vote on all issues presented at meetings at which the member is present. Simple majority vote is the primary decision making method. The committee's goal for a primary decision making method is consensus. Majority is defined as a majority of the appointed committee members. Article 6 — Capital Facility Plan: The Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee shall each year recommend an annual and 6 -year Capital Facility Plan to the Board of County Commissioners. This Capital Facility PIan will be developed utilizing project evaluation criteria that are reviewed and adopted each year by the Committee members. Article 7 — Amendment to Bylaws: The Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee shall periodically review the bylaws and may propose amendments to the bylaws. Any recommendations agreed upon by the majority of the members shall be forwarded to the Board of County Commissioners for approval. Article 8 — Indemnification of Committee Members: The Board of Countv Commissioners elects to defend and indemnify its present and former Committee members and officers and their successors, spouses and marital communities to the full extent authorized by law and the Charter. In addition the right of indemnification shall inure to each Committee member or officer and his/herspouses and marital communities upon his/her appointment to the Committee and the event of his/her death shall extend to his/her heirs legal representatives and estate. Each erson who shall act as Committee member or officer of the Authority shall be deemed to do so in reliance upon such indemnification and such rights shall not be exclusive of any other right which he/she mqy have. Article 9 — Adoption: Bylaws are in full force and effect when adopted and approved by the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. Article 10 — Bylaws Review: Bylaws shall be reviewed annually by the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee and the Board of County Commissioners. *The foregoing Bylaws of the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee approved and adopted this 23`d day of June and approved and adopted by the Board of County Commissioners this 28a' day of June 2021. EXHIBIT 3: Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Project Prioritization Framework Page 5 of 5 PUBLIC WORKS BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS WORK SESSION STAFF REPORT Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Project Prioritization Framework Approved April 28, 2021 Projects supported by the Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District ("District") must address the purposes identified in Chapter 86.15 RCW (Flood Control Zone Districts) District -funded capital improvement projects must address at least one of the following purposes: • More effectively manage flood and storm waters. • Protect life and property within the district from flood damage. Capital improvement projects and programs are prioritized for funding based on objective project evaluation criteria. Planning, designing, and constructing projects, including property acquisition for flood management purposes. These activities are also collectively referred to as "Capital Improvement Projects" and include: • Improving flood conveyance' o Drainage improvements o Bridges and siphons • Improving flood storage and managing erosion and velocity hazards o Levee removal and setbacks o Inset floodplain creation and enhancement • Acquiring floodplain properties to remove flood -prone structures, prevent new flood risks, and / or create or maintain flood storage and associated implementation activities. • Improving flood resiliency: o Structure elevation, relocation, or floodproofing o Improve ingress and egress during flood conditions o Flood map improvements The District Advisory Committee project prioritization criteria provide are used so that funding decisions are replicable, defensible, and transparent to rate payers. Proposed programmatic activities, such as repetitive loss buy-out and mitigation projects will be evaluated as a program. Project rankings, available funding, promoting investment equity through the County and timing and sequencing consideration (including balancing planning and implementation activities in the work plan) will be used to develop the 6 -year capital plan and annual budget. ' Conveyance improvements in excess of $20,000 of district funding for an individual project in a year are considered capital improvements. Project rankings will evaluate projects based on: • The geographic scale of flooding impact. • Whether the project addresses a current or potential repetitive loss or impact, considering flooding frequency and durability of investment. • Whether the project addresses a public safety concern associated with flooding. • Whether the project advances watershed management for water supply, water quality, and water resource and habitat protection and management. • Whether the project promotes and compliments the Community Rating System Standing. • Whether this activity builds on past investments or leverages partnerships. The amount of non -district match and funding. District Funding for Private Benefit Conducting site-specific flood risk modeling, engineering, permitting, or project implementation falls outside operations and maintenance activities and is a capital project activity. Capital project activities that benefit private property owners are allowable if there is an associated public benefit. When establishing if a public benefit will be provided, the District advisory committee should first consider local, state, and Federal regulations that must be met. District funding will not be used to meet minimum regulatory requirements for private projects. If District involvement will reduce off-site flood impacts, then there may be a public benefit, and the project is eligible for capital funding and can be evaluated on its technical merits utilizing the project evaluation criteria. If a FCZD capital project will negatively impact private property, priority will be given to funding to mitigate for these impacts. Private property owners are solely responsible for proving there is a negative impact to their property if Kittitas County has determined there would be no significant impact. When district funding is utilized for projects that will also provide a private benefit, the FCZD Advisory Committee will advise if they recommend a financial contribution by the benefiting party be required. Additionally, the Advisory Committee should consider if the public benefit should be protected through a legal agreement. Project Identification occurs through planning efforts and by referral by landowners, agency staff, and flood control zone district advisory committee members. The website will be updated with information about flood project referrals. This information will provide the contact information for referrals, the Flood Control Zone District Advisory Committee's timeline for six-year work plan and annual budget development and adoption, and the information needed by the Advisory Committee to consider funding flood projects. There will not be a formal call for proposals at this time. Project identification will also consider information gaps and planning needs to inform potential planning activities. The annual budget establishes level of effort and available funding for operation and maintenance activities. These are routine and recurring activities and the capital improvement project evaluation criteria is not used for operation and maintenance activities. Kittitas County Flood Control Zone District Project Scoring Criteria Step 1: Project Eligibility Does the proposed project more effectively manage flood and storm waters and / or protect life and property within the district from flood damage? If yes, proceed with full evaluation. Step 2: Project Scoring Criteria 1: Project Impact— Geographic • Low / Small —flooding affects a few properties or impact a limited geographic area (10 points) • Medium —flooding occurs on the neighborhood level (20 points). • High / Large — flooding has a regional impact (30 points). Criteria 2a: Flooding Frequency • Low / Rare — flooding issues occur only during the largest flood events, such as a flood of record or an annual probability that is <1% (10 points). • Medium / Occasional — flood impacts document on more than two occasions and are likely to correspond to a flood with an annual probability of 1-109 (20 points). • High / Frequent — flood impacts documented several times (3 or more times over a ten-year period) and are likely to correspond to a flood with an annual probability of at least 10%) (30 points). Criteria 2b: Durability of Investment { - 20 points if ongoing maintenance will be necessary to maintain project benefits, + 20 points — project will be self -maintaining once implemented. Criteria 3: Does the project address a public safety concern associated with flooding? • Low —Access is impaired during flooding but not considered a high hazard (10 points). • Medium — Access is hazardous during flooding (20 points). • High — Critical facility is impacted, the only access for neighborhood or larger area is threatened by flooding conditions, or there is an associated and documented flood -related mortality that the project will address (30 points). Criteria 4: Does the project advance watershed management for water supply, water quality, habitat protection and management? • Low — Benefits associated with one category (10 points). • Medium — Benefits associated with two categories (20 points). • High — Benefits association with three categories (30 points). Definitions • Water supply benefits: Project includes acquisition of water for water supply purposes, or includes managed or passive aquifer recharge components. • Water guafity benefits: Project provides riparian shading or sediment management and site is listed as having an associated water quality impairment. • Habitat benefits: Project improves fish passage, establishes riparian vegetation, or preserves or improves and ecological processes (for example, sediment transport or floodplain engagement). Criteria 5: Does the project promote or compliment CRS standing? The following activities receive credit (+ 30 points): Q Open space preservation (acquisition and restrictive covenants and easements). Acquisition and relocation (insurable buildings in the regulatory 100 -year floodplain only) • Flood protection o Building retrofitting — i.e., elevation o Channel modifications, including enlarging bridges and culverts o Storm drain improvements o Diversions and other structural projects o Small reservoirs, including retention and detention basins Criteria 6. Does the activity build on past investments or leverage partnerships? • Low— project has 1 associated credit (10 points) • Medium — project has 2 associated credits (20 points) • High — project has 3 associated points (30 points) Credit allocation: + 1 credit: project is identified as a flood reduction project in a hazard mitigation plan or flood study/planning document + + 1 credit: project is identified as arip ority flood reduction project in a hazard mitigation plan or flood study/planning document + 1 credit: project advances County -adopted program or objective (e.g., Voluntary Stewardship Program, Steelhead Recovery Plan, Yakima Basin Integrated Plan). Step 3: Apply match multiplier to obtain final project / program score. Step 4: Utilize project rankings to develop 6 -year capital improvement plan. Projects are listed in order by project score and this ranking is the starting point for the 6 -year capital improvement plan. The number of projects implemented each year is determined by revenue forecasts, project funding needs, and district capacity. Project order can be changed upon a consensus recommendation by the Advisory Committee, considering the following factors: balancing planning and implementation activities, promoting investment equity through the County, and timing and sequencing needs. Any changes that affect the order of project implementation relative to the project ranking order must be documented and the rationale for changing the order clearly identified. KITTITAS COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS PUBLIC WORKS — BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS STUDY SESSION STAFF REPORT STUDY SESSION DATE: October 24, 2022 TOPIC: Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan ACTION REQUESTED: Direct Staff LEAD STAFF: Joshua Fredrickson RECOMMENDATION: Direct staff schedule a public hearing to consider adoption of the 2022 ADA Transition Plan. BRIEFING SUMMARY: • Title 2 of the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) requires agencies with more than 50 employees to prepare an ADA Transition Plan. • Plan guides accessibility improvements throughout the County in regard to public right-of-way. • Transition Plan requires a self-evaluation to help identify gaps in service and include a grievance process. • Public involvement included an open house September 12 and 13, 2022. BACKGROUND: Federal law requires agencies with more than 50 employees to prepare an Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan to address access deficiencies. Washington State Department of Transportation has emphasized the requirement for a plan as well. Public Works has developed a transition plan through an assessment of current right-of- way inventory and accessibility standards and identifying barriers and deficiencies for improvement. DISCUSSION: Public Works has developed an ADA transition plan of County owned facilities within the public right-of-way. Facilities within the right-of-way include crosswalks, sidewalks and sidewalk ramps. Barriers limiting access or use of public facilities such as stairs and doorways are not assessed in this plan. An ADA Transition Plan requires several elements be included for consideration such as identifying physical obstacles, a 5-10 year plan and a grievance process. Public Works conducted an inventory of facilities in the right-of-way in 2014 and subsequent updates and assigned a barrier condition rating (A -F). This rating system can be found in a variety of plans including others' ADA Transition Plans. This system Page 1 of 3 Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2022 intends to keep a consistent method of identifying barriers and prioritizing corrections and improvements. Through this inventory several locations identified for maintenance or repairs have been identified and programed. This includes sidewalk on Bowers Road and sidewalk on Airport Road. Public Works held two open house sessions to receive input on the ADA Transition Plan. One open house was held in upper county on September 12, 2022. The second open house was held in lower county on September 13, 2022. FISCAL IMPACTS: Improvements are included in the Transportation Improvement Plan for Airport Road in the amount of $78,000. Funds are defined as a line item of pedestrian paths and trails and historically have averaged approximately $17,000 per year. ATTACHMENTS: EXHIBIT 1: 2022 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT {ADA} TRANSITION PLAN KITTITAS COUNTY Page 2 of 3 Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2022 EXHIBIT 1: 2022 AMERICANS WITH DISABILITIES ACT (ADA) TRANSITION PLAN KITTITAS COUNTY Page 3 of 3 Public Works "Work Session Staff Report", 2022 2022 Kittitas County Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan Kittitas County Public Works Kittitas County 10/10/2022 Table of Contents Introduction.................................................................................................................................... 1 1.1 Purpose.................................................................................................................................. 1 1.2 Plan Overview........................................................................................................................ 1 1.3 ADA Transition Plan Requirements....................................................................................... 2 2.0 Facility Self -Evaluation........................................................................................................... 2 3.0 Accessibility Improvements - Prioritization Method................................................................ 2 3.1 Barrier Condition Rating....................................................................................................... 3 3.2 Accessibility Demand Rating................................................................................................ 4 3.3 Total Prioritization Scores..................................................................................................... 0 4.0 Public Involvement................................................................................................................... 0 5.0 Accessibility Improvements and Schedule............................................................................... 0 5.1 Budgets and Costs for Barrier Removal/Correction.............................................................. 0 5.2 Proposed Accessibility Improvement Projects and Schedule ............................................... 0 6.0 Implementation........................................................................................................................ 1 7.0 Inventories................................................................................................................................ 1 7.1 Pedestrian Facility Inventory................................................................................................. 1 Sidewalks and Crosswalks........................................................................................................... 1 7.2 County Owned/Operated Public Facilities............................................................................ 2 Maintenance Shops, Storage Facilities, and Parking Lots........................................................... 2 Table 1. BCR for each sidewalk area from most severe to least severe ......................................... 0 Table 2: BCR for each curb ramp from most severe to least severe .............................................. 0 Table 3. Locations of Sidewalks and Crosswalks owned by Kittitas County ................................... 2 Table 4. Existing Public Facilities and Services - Kittitas County Maintenance Shop, Storage, and ParkingLots..................................................................................................................................... 0 Figure 1. Pedestrian Activity Levels and Pedestrian Priority Locations............................................3 LIST OF APPENDICES Appendix A. Maps Appendix B. Inspection Forms Appendix C. Photos 9 Introduction 1.1 Purpose Kittitas County's American Disabilities Act (ADA) Transition Plan has been initiated to fulfill the requirements of American Disabilities Act (ADA of 1990). The purpose of the ADA Transition Plan is to guide accessibility improvements throughout the County in regard to public right-of- way. Through the assessment of current inventory and accessibility standards, we are able to identify barriers and deficiencies and start working towards improving them. The ADA Transition Plan requires a self-evaluation by the County. The self-evaluation process and results may help identify gaps in service. Afterward, an implementation plan for barrier corrections and improvements can be suggested. 1.2 Plan Overview The Transition Plan is focused on creating and maintaining an inventory of County owned facilities, and identifying construction improvements, if necessary, to improve pedestrian accessibility in the County right-of-way. Pedestrian accessibility for this plan includes, but is not limited to, facilities serving pedestrians, anyone in a wheelchair, the blind and anyone using crutches or similar assistance devices. Providing accessibility should be with consistent with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT) ADA Sidewalk Requirements such as sidewalk width (minimum 36 inches or 3 feet), curb ramp and sidewalk surface texture and trip hazards (i.e. firm, stable, slip -resistant, lifted sidewalks), sidewalk slope and presence of properly constructed curb ramps. Additionally, architectural barriers limiting access or use of public serving facilities and buildings such as stairs, curbs, uneven surfaces, doors, furnishings, and fixtures should be assessed. Plan items per Title If Part 34 Subpart D- Program Accessibility 35.150 (d)(3) include; ✓ Identify physical obstacles in the public entity's facilities that limit the accessibility of its programs or activities to individuals with disabilities; ✓ Describe in detail the methods that will be used to make the facilities accessible; ✓ Specify the schedule for taking the steps necessary to achieve compliance with this section and, if the time period of the transition plan is longer than one year, identify steps that will be taken during each year of the transition period; and ✓ Indicate the official responsible for implementation of the plan Responsibilities: ✓ Identification of Kittitas County's critical areas regarding public right-of-way accessing government offices, medical facilities, downtown core areas, school zones, residential areas, et al., rest areas, parks, shared use trails, and access to public buildings. ✓ Inventory (and details) of facilities where structural modifications are needed to make facilities accessible to persons with disabilities. ✓ Identify methods for correcting or improving barriers. ✓ Maintain in file/available for public inspection for three years from date of completion. 1.3 ADA Transition Plan Requirernents ✓ Identify physical obstacles. ✓ Identify potential committee member to represent the disabled community to help identify priorities and recommendations. ✓ Describe the methods to make facilities accessible, if not already. ✓ Specify the schedule for achieving completion. ✓ Identify official responsible for implementation of the plan. ✓ Estimate cost of each modification. ✓ Prepare a 5-10 year plan. ✓ Include the agency's grievance process and the individual that will follow through with the plan. 2.0 Facility Self -Evaluation The facility self-evaluation shall include: ✓ Identification of barriers in programs and activities that prevent persons with disabilities from access including evaluation of policies/practices. ✓ Identification of barriers within public right-of-way: curbs, sidewalks, pedestrian crossings (crosswalks), driveway accesses, and County owned facilities. ✓ Statement of agency commitment of funding, staff resources, and level of service. ✓ Methods for field inspections/surveys by form/checklist, GIS by recording inventories of facilities and infrastructure and their locations and associated attributes. 3.0 Accessibility Improvements - Prioritization Method Accessibility can vary, and any deficiencies and barriers should ultimately be corrected. Limiting factors such as funding and timing are causes for constructing all project improvements not one at a time, but in a phased approach, resulting in the need to prioritize projects. In an attempt to keep a consistent countywide system for assessing accessibility, Kittitas County is following the City of Ellensburg's methods for rating, identifying, and prioritizing ADA barriers. The prioritization method includes scoring proposed projects by factoring a barrier condition rating (BCR). In addition to barrier condition rating, many transition plans use an accessibility demand rating (ADR) to prioritize barriers in need of correction. This ADR process was not completed as part of this plan due to the locations of Kittitas County owned curb ramps— directly outside the City of Ellensburg limits (circled in red), where ADR in the City of Ellensburg —ADA Transition Plan for Public Right -of -Way defines the area as the lowest pedestrian activity, thus the lowest priority for correction. (Figure 1) Figure 1. City of Ellensburg's Pedestrian Activity Levels and Pedestrian Priority Locations. Kittitas County owned sidewalks, curb ramps and driveway accesses are in areas circled in red. (Source: City of Ellensburg—ADA Transition Pian for Public -Right -of -Way) 3.1 Barrier Condition Rating The barrier condition rating (BCR) rates compliant ramps and the severity of the non-compliant ramps as follows: A) Fully Compliant B) Nearly Compliant: Passable but minor difficulty for some. C) Some Compliance: Passable but moderately difficult for some. D) Low Compliance: Passable but difficult for most. E) No Compliance: Varying levels of non-compliance, even if minor F) Significant Barrier: Has a significant barrier that is unpassable by most or all. 3 Conditions used for this analysis include the following measurements: ramp cross slope (%) and ramp running slope (%). Kittitas County sidewalks meet the requirements for accessibility with the exception of spot locations where sidewalks are raised or buckled (Appendix Q. The locations of those barriers are included in the areas where the County has prioritized sidewalk repairs and improvements (Airport Rd., Bowers Rd., and Bowers Business Loop). Methods for conducting measurements for each location included the use of inspection forms (sidewalk and curb ramp [Appendix B]), taking GPS points for GIS mapping, and taking physical measurements for lengths and widths (feet), slope (percent), as well as visual identification of locations where gaps, cracks, and buckling have occurred (Appendix Q. 3.2 Accessibility Demand Rating As previously mentioned, the accessibility demand rating (ADR) is typically used to rate the frequency of use, or relative "importance", of areas where ramps exist. The City of Ellensburg's 2018 Pedestrian Activity Level analysis (Figure 1) assigns a relatively low importance for pedestrian use, and thus accessibility and prioritization, at the City/County boundaries. For that reason, ADR was not assessed for each of the County's locations and a baseline value indicating low usage was assigned as a default for each location. Below is a table of BCR results for area including sidewalks and their curb ramps. 4 y m a7 0 N 0 E E D Q E E u U R al u m N a] % E s u u € ti L LG u L I L T f9 I f6 E L LG a L E L ! L L L L— :3 31 3 3 7 Q. u CLf Q N Q. `! u Q C COL'I Q � Q I � 3 � Ln o v 3I QI U W c al Q tn Ln Q -lL I Y Y Y Y Y aaaaa� 3'333133 i ay a) w m w a ! V! 0 LA •&A I 1A [A ! N 3: 0 0 0 3 c .O O d I EW rl n r; Ol w N lD N rl r! g c L ri,ri a C .q E E E E ESE E E � N O E L L L L � L L " t € L L L L L m L L u I u L u 1 u L 7 7 u u 7 u 3 u 7 U 7 u rt+ O cu E o 3 ca o W ami n 1 m L7 ri a Q L a 3 0ai U m u o --, o f N N O Ln -I Q C rl O rl ri ri I r'1 r fl. Q I to W I'a 1 W � Q L Vf N 'o VI V1 —j I U vi W W€ W W I I � O th C W V I fm m m m IZ N E c0 cc Y y m a7 0 N 0 E E D Q E E u U R al u m N a] % 0 E u u u u u u u u j a L E L L L L L L— :3 31 3 3 7 3 7 j u u u u u QI U Q Q al Q Q Q Q Qr ac aaaaa� CL CML cc 3: 0 0 0 3 c c13 I Q Q Q Q Q Q Q Q a Q E E E E ESE E E E E L L L L L- L L L " L L L L L L L m L L u I u L u 1 u L 7 7 u u 7 u 3 u 7 U 7 u rt+ ` ami n 1 ri In Ln to ~ m fY1 N, N N O Ln -I Q C rl O rl ri ri I r'1 r fl. Q J —j I m 'n ro � y 'O N E Y m fY m fY W W L L L L L L L CL CL 3 3; ¢ m° o m° m° < m° m° a► ' I At E E to io Lo Lo Lo E Lo Lo Eo 7 7 U"� , u L)a- V W W W fic ❑❑uuuulm¢�¢¢� E 0 3.3 Total Prioritization Scores To prioritize projects for correction or improvements, we used the Barrier Condition Rating (BCR) system. This rating system is found in many plans including the City of Ellensburg's ADA Transition Plan for Right -of -Way regarding the accessibility of ADA facilities. For the County, using this BCR system as others do, is intended to keep a consistent method of identifying barriers and prioritizing corrections and improvements though out the cities and county. Prioritization scores are the same as the BCR severity table organization. 4.0 Public Involvement Public involvement is a requirement of Title II of the ADA. Kittitas County Public Works hosted two open houses; one on September 12, 2022, in the upper county and one on September 13, 2022, in the Kittitas County Public Works conference room. The purpose of the open houses is to give the community an opportunity to identify areas of concern and deficiencies, suggest priorities for improvement or correction, and give any plan content feedback. The County encourages the community to continue providing feedback as needed. Additionally, any grievances with public facilities accessibility are encouraged by the public. 5.0 Accessibility Improvements and Schedule Facilities were inventoried and evaluated allowing for specific project areas to be identified. After identification, projects were prioritized and a schedule for improvements, corrections, and implementation was established. 5.1 Budgets and Costs for Barrier Removal/Correction Kittitas County Public Works allocates road funds, which is received from a percentage of (0.8%) the annual motor vehicle funds, to pedestrian paths and trails. The funds are defined as a line item of pedestrian paths and trails and historically have averaged approximately $17,000/year. Funds can be built up for a maximum duration of ten years. Each year Public Works staff considers each project eligible for pedestrian paths and trials funds and prioritizes expenditure. Public Works currently has $30,000 allocated for expenditure on pedestrian paths and trails within the County (Upper and Lower). Repairs on Bowers Road are also programmed by line item. 5.2 Proposed Accessibility Improvement Projects and Schedule The County has relatively few curb ramps and sidewalks which are presumed to support low activity due to locations. All the curb ramps and sidewalks are within the Urban Growth Area and are anticipated to be annexed to the city in the future. With that said, the County does currently have sidewalk improvements to M. Airport Rd. on the adopted Transportation Improvement Plan. The work is anticipated to cost $78,000 and is scheduled to occur in 0 2022/23 as identified as a "necessary maintenance/rehabilitation" in Kittitas County Public Works' 10 -Year Transportation Asset Management Plan (TAMP). Grant funding is also being sought for a pathway in upper county. 6.0 Implementation Once deficiencies have been identified and prioritized (Table 1), the County is prepared to go about creating a plan for implementation. As stated in the previous section, the County is already poised to make improvements to the majority of the sidewalks and curb ramps in the current inventory, thus making an implementation plan relatively simple. Those priorities not identified in the implementation of repairs and improvements are: one curb ramp near the City of Ellensburg's housing development off Dry Creek Rd. which is low priority due to being nearly compliant, and ramps or approaches at the S. Cie Elum Way bridge over the Yakima River. Implementation is planned as follows. Items in bold are currently being addressed: ✓ S. Cie Elum Way Curb Ramps: Not yet scheduled. ✓ Thorp Hwy.: The Thorp School District plans on modifying the sidewalk and curb ramp to fit their users' needs best. ✓ Bowers Rd.: Scheduled for improvements in 2022/23. ✓ Airport Rd.: Scheduled for improvements in 2022/23. ✓ Bowers Business Loop: Scheduled for improvements in 2022/23. ✓ Dry Creek Rd.: Not yet scheduled. 7.0 Inventories 7.1 Pedestrian Facility Inventory Sidewalks and Crosswalks Kittitas County has conducted an updated inventory review of sidewalks, crosswalks, and facilities and parking lots owned or operated by the County. This inventory should be updated as the community grows and develops, and annexations occur. Table 2 lists sidewalks and crosswalks, while Table 3 lists maintenance shops, storage facilities, and parking lots. Inventory maps are also included in Appendix A. 1 Table 3. Locations of Sidewalks and Crosswalks owned by Kittitas County. Community /City Road Name Beginning Milepost End Milepost Type Side of Road Type of Curb Easton 1st St 0.21 crosswalk Thorp Thorp Hwy 6.61 6.71 sidewalk south no curb Thorp Thorp Hwy 6.61 ; crosswalk Thorp Thorp Hwy 6.66 ` crosswalk Thorp Thorp Hwy 6.71 ; crosswalk ' Thorp Thorp Hwy 6.77 crosswalk S. Cle Elum S. Cie Elum Way 0.37 0.44 sidewalk east perpendicular Ellensburg Bowers B. Loop 0.00 0.26 sidewalk south rolled curb Ellensburg Bowers Rd. 1.00 ; 1.94 sidewalk north perpendicular Ellensburg Airport Rd. 1.0 1.25 sidewalk west perpendicular Ellensburg Dry Creek Rd. 1.12 1.31 ' sidewalk south perpendicular 7.2 County Owned/Operated Public Facilities Maintenance Shops, Storage Facilities, and Parking Lots In addition to sidewalks and curb ramps, Kittitas County owns and/or operates public facilities. Table 3 includes an inventory of facilities, which County department is responsible for the facility, type of facility and size. Public Works is responsible for maintenance shops accessed by employees of the County and some parking areas. These inventories can also be found in the Kittitas County Comprehensive Plan. These facilities were not assessed with the same criteria and metrics as the sidewalks and curb ramps due to incompatible comparisons. If the public finds any of these facilities to be inaccessible a grievance can be directed to the ADA Coordinator and Director of Human Resources at Kittitas County: Jeanne Killgore 205 W. 5th Avenue, Suite 107 Ellensburg, WA 98926 (509) 962-7084 hr@co.kittitas.wa.us 2 O J tko C Y CL c m to IT O V) Q. 0 t u U C m C aJ C m C 0 u R :he Y n a L L E V) i i Ln tA 0 L t tA CA Ln Ln CD 0 O CD N N Ln r -I r�i h Nol� Nol� N t4DD 0 ! � � lD N M N j I ri O ! � C3)X (U 41 O x C C L M L -0 O O O C In Ol In Ol Ln N M 1 7 7 y V)wON .O °� C p C Y I w I w u rc m o .a ay O a� CJ O m N— r6 wn4 C C do C to C ra Q a y mmmu CZD tla da E N N aNi L L Y i a aL+ N C C C C C Q 0 "D p 7 Y J Q (L)U1 Q aJ C L C1 0 0 m Y m Y m a�j Y Q t N 4l GJ m t.1 L ra 41 N In 7 "C3 "O I- O. I _0 'D y OC E '� E OC m 4.1 0 C (n CU , m I Ln L ' :3' rn L :3 Q Q � CLQ •� +L+ Ln +L+ Ln 0 m m " `r- O O Ln t W t m L> r -I 0 O u 0 u E E L/)— E -0 I L ++ I U C I 0 cn w to of 4.8 aJ I _U U U_ U U f i W � In In rn Vr rn O O O O O y, Y Y Y Y i YY Q 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 3 V Ln 0 o 0 o 0 Q 2 R cv cv u u 41 -r- u M M n, :3 0 :3 = I mm x 0 0 0 0 0 0 a a d Ln a a a w V U VCL U V a o O I rC L NtLo MLA � a� 0 CD aj fO Qfu a ay a) o rn +� z = w rw w = s I cn C , L L N w ❑ a7 ❑ 0 In @ ❑ ❑ () C ++ Y a) ,c aj V M L OM L cx 4+ � l IO L 7 rC R rp d f6 3 m L 4 Li a o a — a J trio a � +1 > C ` +a+ I I +�+ � *J C d Val 02{ °� � +1 C C 41 7 C C 4, C a + C aj I 7 a � 3 C o m r6 0 a) { aj as C.] o a V o a, o v o o a, a L L Q� ¢ > 4- w ,C2 Q. La-) 1�� I L .L I ai L C a Q '— � ° I I O L ✓' 0 = L E O cr O D' 0 c sZ � a a a 6 m O u u w ,J ui J W J W Ln ❑ ❑ W > Q Ln an Z Z Z n U1 Vf VI ^• I m ^ M +-j � Y cu L L} L ox tA a Ln 0 ro ro ro L CL N j N N N N N M O N I N O o l 00 LW� 15 ' [/) O +1 X k I x Xx X 4x Qj UO c cbo c �1�_" I �- �; L` Y Y E O L L ro Q Y L L L Y L ro L W Q CD aL L •� .2 Q Y L Wa ro ro ro Q Q Q ro Q W ro Q `v6. ro Q = p v a cu Q) GJ N N 0 41 = L V � + U 4 a cu Q LA Vi I V1 N +; N 4!1 Y 4- N ,� O W 0 0 0 0� M ow CL 00 ! i 0 a v E N N d O � NC U L w N p ro N > > I> > n > n ro> C a > bb O. L Q Q" to CL 0 U Q Q 04 � o L �� Q' Q 'o CL i E E m. .O w Ln L- 0 0 +, � V L s s 1 V) `n I L 0 ro v W y c 3 0 U u � U t ❑ L- s I 7 CL CL Lit .0 > O U v1 a a cn I Y a U 4J bo ap L I I � a) I O J L to c a CL (Uc o p - tkocu o U ,v E =O d s to ro a.U C:3 .� i N ❑ `a °' m °�' a w p d + C N O aa' ao r ro ❑ C d0 Zr U I C I U J .a L! ro 'ro O LO I ,C ! +I W O Q. C E � d Q} ` h L U V1 C L N Y w Y u U +%' +) L °J ! a s ro roro ai cn Ln a- N i a va 0 vii0 NeU ° w Appendix A: Sidewalk Inventory Crosswalk Inventory Driveway Entrances Inventory Ramp Cross Slope (%) for BCR Ramp Running Slope (%) for BCR Q :3 7 !• L L L (d i o . c'� U a CL 0 a a E• as E- E1 n a M NNO al �I OI O L 000 N 0 C n co N N m m W O r G r r (� O O N r O to O r (p Q °O Oi J E > y iq m Z C .ter � is—' tfmx 12LLJ E N - EL U Q O tl3Zm0FEm m a m � �La 3 ma; W c7 cm d O� W c W_�V CL -E cs; W c 7 O— O 00 0 u u fA Z U Oo CL W AZA h rc4M F W 1 O D G fn U W Y K N� Q :3 7 !• L L L (d i o . c'� U a CL 0 a a E• as E- E1 n a M NNO al �I OI O L 000 N 0 C n co N N m m W O r G r r (� O O N r O to O r (p Q °O Oi J E > y iq m Z C .ter � is—' tfmx 12LLJ E N - EL U Q O tl3Zm0FEm m a m � �La 3 ma; W c7 cm d O� c W_�V CL -E cs; C c 7 O— O 00 0 u u 0 w L L L Oo CL i+ _3 YN rc4M i✓ � COL +� fA M ill U7 U1 2 2 2 2 2 U U U U U w r- N (D (D (D co O 0. X0000 �zzzzr 9 oa = EL 5% Or c� W Y g W � w F m � D U U w Y w N m 00 COL +� fA M ill U7 U1 2 2 2 2 2 U U U U U w r- N (D (D (D co O 0. X0000 �zzzzr 9 oa = EL 5% Or occ OY rUV c a`i U so Q, — 3 Q. . . / � � Z Legend Ramp Cross Slope Q 0.70 �. Q 0.70-1.0 Q 1,01-2.1 ; Q 2.1-2.5 ! O 2.51-3.5 Cities rt CLE ELUM ELLENSBURG KrrFTrAS ROSLYN SOUTH CLE SLUM j Urban Growth Area UGANAME ® CLE ELUM {'# ® ELLENSBURG ® SOUTH CLE E Y op.I—e 0 0:040,07 0.16 miles + dVAP • 1 .� 1 � * . r Airport Rd. ' � y !` •'�. qhs. { + dVAP Appendix B: Sidewalk Inspection Form Curb Ramp Inspection Form C SES ..'rl17r1E. 10TTITA5 COUNTY Road Name Cross Street: Corner (N W, SW, SE, NE): X.rLx XWA:s 400073-MrY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS Sidewalk Inspection Form Surface Material Type Mark with `K' Asphalt: Concrete: Other: jype of Curb No Curls: Rolling Curb: Vertical Curb: (A) Sidewalk Width? Mile Post: Side of Street (N, S, E, W): (B) Planter Strip? Yes / No A=Width of Sidewalk If yes: B = Planter Width and Length Planter Strip Width: C =Running Slope Does Plantar Strip Extend D = Cross Slope Length of Sidewalk: Yes / No (C) Running Slope: _ _ (D) Cross Slope: Other Conditions: Curb cut needed/unavailable: Inspected/Measured by (print name): Date: 411 N. Ruby, Suite #1 TEL (509) 962-7523 Ellensburg, WA 98926 FAX (509) 962-7663 KI'3=- X 3rAS BOUNTY DEPARTMENT OF PUBLIC WORKS KITTITAS COUNTY Curb Ramp Inspection Form Road Name Cross Street: Corner (NW, SW, SE, NE): Surface Material Type Mark with 'X' Asphalt: Concrete: Other: Type of Curb No Curb: Rolling Curb: Vertical Curb: Mile Post Side of Street (N, S, E, W): One Ramp or Two Ramp (Circle Answer): 1 or 2 A=Left Side(Width) B1=Ramp (Length) C=Right D=Gutter Pan 132=11amp (Width) Side(Width) (if applicable) Curb Ramp Data: Width Cross Slope Running Slope A: BI (Length): � 82: C: D: Inspected/Measured by (print name): _. Date: 2' 411 N. Ruby, Suite #1 TEL (509) 962-7523 Ellensburg, WA 98926 FAX (509) 962-7663 Appendix C: Photos � � tVneeaNvl�F`Xlnr�ra7�7�x, ru�,wrta� _ M �vl+ac Figures 1 and 2. Examples of spot locations of barriers at Airport Rd, cm_ WMrRM Figures 3 and 4. Examples of Wfly mrnplianl (8GR. A� curb ramps at Bowers Business Loop and Bowers Rd. Figures 5 and 6. Examples of nearly compliant (BCR: B) curb ramps at Dry Creek Rd. and Bowers Rd. Nu as T and S. Exampfes of Some Compliance (BCA C) curb ramps at Airpod R d. and Bowers Rd. Figures 9 and 10. Examples of Low Compliance (BCR: D) curb ramps at north and south ends of S. Cie Elum Way.