In lieu fee mitigation plan

Download 7.62 Mb.

Page	11/21
Date	31.03.2018
Size	7.62 Mb.
	#43992

1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 21

Credit Release Schedule

Maintenance plan

Maintenance: Defined here as activities and site modifications carried out for the purpose of maintaining acceptable conditions on the project site, as established by permit conditions, project goals, and/or other requirements. Takes the form of routine maintenance (e.g., watering, weeding) and adaptive management (major site adjustments). Some pre-project site prep may also be considered a form of maintenance.

Maintenance activities can play an important role in successfully establishing vegetation at the project site and in preventing and addressing unforeseen human or natural impacts and damage. The general goal of the maintenance plan is to ensure the mitigation project performance standards are met and the site is free from trash and excessive human disturbances.

Duration: The Maintenance Plan will be in effect for the first ten years after construction, and the long-term management plan will be in effect thereafter.

Pre-project measures: Several measures will be used during the pre-project period in order to reduce the need for maintenance over time. These measures include, but are not limited to:

protection of existing trees;
pre-project assessment and treatment of invasive weeds (especially garlic mustard - see Sheet 6 of Appendix 1);
careful handling of any weed-contaminated spoils;
BMPs to avoid/minimize/mitigate soil compaction or other types of degradation by heavy equipment;
selection of robust plant stock;
professional plant installation techniques.

Post-construction and planting tasks: The majority of maintenance will take place after construction.

Maintenance activities will focus on chemical, mechanical, and manual weed control.

Chemical: In most cases, suitable herbicides (e.g., glyphosate, triclopyr or imazapyr) will be used to treat invasive weeds. All applications will be performed by licensed staff and in accordance with the manufacturer’s label. Methods may include broadcast spraying, spot-treatment, injection of herbicide shells, and others as needed.
Mechanical: In large occurrences of invasive weeds, mowers, weed trimmers, and brush hogs may be used for safety and efficiency. Careful use of these tools will be necessary to prevent damage to native plants.
Manual: Hand tools may be used to deal with localized occurrences of invasive weeds. Complete removal will be done if possible, but otherwise a ring of at least three feet in diameter will be created around plantings.

Irrigation will be used as needed, but not by default. King County has been evaluating the effectiveness of irrigating native trees and shrubs at multiple sites for more than five years. Controlled, randomized, and suitably replicated experiments generally suggest that irrigation is rarely needed to achieve a high rate of survival in a year with average precipitation, at least in river floodplain settings. Effects of irrigation on cover have not been as well-tested. In any case, irrigation may be used if plants appear stressed or cover targets are unmet. If vegetation performance targets are not being met by Year 3, maintenance activities will be coordinated with the IRT. Mulching and matting are to be avoided in riverine settings, because these materials could either be washed into the stream or buried under sediment during floods.

If animal damage is extensive, tubing and collars or a repellant may be used to protect areas with affected plants.

Table 9 Maintenance Tasks

Tasks	Description	Effort	Timing	Frequency
Removal of remaining incidental TESC measures	Temporary water isolation systems and stabilized construction entrances, silt fences	Minimal – most should be removed by contractor.	Immediately after construction	Once after construction
Site Security	Bollards may be used to close the road in the future	Ensure no motorized access	Summer	At least annually
Maintenance Access	Maintain access trails	As needed	Summer	At least annually
Public Access	Assess recreational use and encampments	Note informal trails, remove encampments, and address damage caused by public use	Summer	At least annually
Trash Removal	Remove trash	As needed	On maintenance visits	At least twice annually
Signage	Maintain, repair and replace	As needed	n/a	n/a
Weed Assessment & Treatment	Control all invasive weeds identified in performance standards	Control chemically, mechanically, or manually	Summer	At least annually or as needed to meet performance standards
Plant establishment care	Plant numbers, water source, water withdrawal permits required	Irrigate vegetation as needed	June-Sept	Up to eight times annually.
Plant Replacement	Replace dead plants and/or add new plants if performance standards unmet	Adjustments to quantity and size will be made to ensure crown cover performance standards are obtainable	Winter or spring planting after problem detected	Year 3, 5, 7, 10 or as needed to meet performance standards
Fencing	Assess whether fences are needed to prevent access	Install, maintain, & remove	Summer	At least annually, if needed
Animal damage management	Assess and respond to excessive animal damage	Install suitable countermeasures like beaver deceivers or collars, apply repellent; and/or replant. Action may require permits.	Summer	At least annually, if needed
Maintenance Logs	Keep maintenance records and logs	Document activities; timing, cost, results	Winter	At least annually; submitted in same timing as monitoring report

Credit Release Schedule

The following table shows the proposed credit release timeframe.

Table 10 Credit Release Schedule

Safety Inspection Plan

Safety inspections are an important part of monitoring plans for projects in the Cedar River. A 10-year (2015-2025) strategy is proposed to detect and respond to changes in river conditions at the EBR Mitigation Project – specifically, changes that affect public safety and infrastructure. The preferred approach is to allow the reach to adjust over time with minimal interference. However, if conditions of concern are observed, adaptive management responses (on-the-ground actions) may be warranted. Responses will be scaled to the level of hazard. Solutions will be responsive to and consistent with project goals, the Flood Hazard Management Plan, the WRIA 8 Chinook Salmon Conservation Plan, and King County’s Water and Land Resources Division (KC WLRD) policies for natural wood in rivers

Table 11 List of inspections by time, timing, and factors of interest

Type	Timing	Factors of interest
Annual Safety Inspections	April-June	Wood placements, large wood accumulation, bank stability
Post-flood Safety Inspections	Within two weeks of the end of each Phase 3+ flood event (>4,200 cfs at Landsburg)	(Same as above)
Complaint-based Inspections	Irregular as needed to respond to reports from public or agency staff	Vandalism, trash, safety concerns
Emergency Inspections	During Phase 3+ floods	Structural damage to levees and revetments

Inspections need to address a range of inspection criteria (Table 11). Key factors of interest are: 1) placed and 2) natural wood; and 3) bank stability. Secondary concerns include vandalism, trash and site security. If conditions of concern are observed, the appropriate staff must be notified.

In the process of evaluating each criterion, inspectors will need to complete each of the following tasks:

Visit stations established on the Site Inspection Map and complete associated Visual Inspection Form
Take photos at photo points and perceived hazards
Complete Hazard Log Evaluation Form, if necessary

Inspections will address all criteria to detect conditions of concern. If these conditions exist, additional inspections and/or assessments will be required, but it does not necessarily mean adaptive management actions will be recommended. Conditions are defined as objectively as possible so that different observers will usually reach the same conclusions (condition is present or absent), regardless of their training or experience.

Table 12 Inspection questions, conditions of concern, and notification requirements for the key factors of interest in annual safety and post-flood inspections.

Factor of interest	Inspection Criteria	Conditions of Concern
Recreational user safety¹³	Is wood accumulating in the reach and is any of it posing a safety concern?	Severe hazard exists to inexperienced users
	Are placed logs protruding over the river as the result of bank erosion?¹⁴	Log extends significantly into river (e.g., 5 feet) above water surface during low to moderate flow.
	Is natural wood trapped against placed wood?	Racked wood protrudes beyond the margins of the structure (e.g., 10 feet) in contact with strong currents.
	Are exit points and portage routes accessible outside the site?	Exit and portage are not accessible
	Are there any steep eroding banks in areas frequented by river users and pedestrians?	Eroding banks appear to pose severe fall hazards to pedestrians who may access the site despite signs identifying the site as a mitigation site.
	Could floaters enter the off-channel habitat?	Floaters likely to enter channels unintentionally
Placed wood	Is scour structure intact?	Structure is not intact

If conditions of concern are observed, notifications will be made according to the Responsibility Assignment matrix, and the problems will be resolved in a way that considers project goals, cost-effectiveness, and relevant King County policies and ordinances. The project team anticipated that adaptive management responses could be necessary in the first 10 years after the project was completed. The responses taken will depend on the nature of the need, and will be developed and implemented in cooperation with stakeholders, regulatory agencies, and the IRT.

In general, the plan is to address public safety concerns in a progressive manner as shown below. Put simply, the guiding principles are to 1) to mitigate risks with the least ‘invasive’, yet effective solutions, and 2) to choose actions that are also cost-effective. Accordingly, the scale of response to a problem will increase with the risk of public interactions with the hazards. For example, removal or repositioning of large wood is considered to be a measure of last-resort.

Preferred approach for addressing public safety concerns, using large wood as an example.

The time needed to evaluate and implement adaptive management measures will vary depending on the complexity and immediacy of the problem or hazard¹⁵. Immediate action may be needed to address a failing bridge pier, for example, but is not likely needed to remove a potential hazard tree that falls into the river in December. Addressing concerns posed by wood hazards may prove the most challenging and may require weeks to months to implement. Unless the risk to life and property is imminent, instream wood can only be modified in the summer and with prior approval from local and state regulatory agencies. Wood hazards are to be managed according to the natural and placed wood King County policies in effect at that time¹⁶. Modifying wood in rivers requires a Hydraulic Project Approval from Washington Dept. of Fish and Wildlife and a Shorelines Exemption letter from King County DPER. Because this is part of a mitigation project, modification of wood in the reach would further require consultation with IRT members. The final decision about how to address concerns posed by wood hazards will consider the cost-effectiveness of alternative strategies.

Where signage is a sufficient response, it will be deployed in highly-visible locations, maintained, and removed once the hazard is abated. Public outreach will target river users most likely to encounter the hazard. Improvements at access and egress points should be coupled with warning and notification signs. River closure will be avoided, or limited in scope and duration.

Directory: dnrp
dnrp -> Monthly Progress Report

Download 7.62 Mb.

Share with your friends:

1 ... 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 ... 21

In lieu fee mitigation plan

Maintenance plan

Credit Release Schedule

Safety Inspection Plan