45
1 FLPS Spillway and Fish Ladder Information Meeting Saturday May 6 – 2016 11AM Community Lodge Fishhawk Lake Reserve and Community
1
FLPS Spillway and Fish Ladder Information Meeting
Saturday May 6 – 2016 11AM
Community Lodge
Fishhawk Lake Reserve and Community
Introduction
2
The purpose of this meeting is to provide you with progress and next steps for the engineering work and funding efforts. With several approaching decision points we need your feedback, concerns and perspectives. Goals, FLPS, Terms, and Agenda
Fishhawk Lake Program Goals • Increase Spillway Capacity.
o Reduce the potential that the dam structure could be compromised by overtopping o Reduce risk of flooding to homes at the lake
• Improve fish passage into and through the lake. o Meet current upstream and downstream passage requirements
• Reduce the impact of sediment filling the lake. o Reduce the costs of dredging and transport o Ensure long term stability of the lake environment o Return lake closer to original depths
• Improve the lake water quality o Improve environment for fish o Reduce invasive plants and algae
3
Just to refresh:
est. 2014
4
Who we are: We are a special committee, reporting to the Fishhawk Lake Board, that was formed at the end of 2012 to research and develop a Fishhawk Lake environmental and infrastructure program. We have become known as the FLPS Team (Fishhawk Lake Project Solutions (FLPS))
Fishhawk Lake Project Solutions:
A few names/terms you may see or hear: • Project: a specific objective/endeavor undertaken to create a unique
product, facility, service, or result. • Program: A group of related projects and activities that are managed in
a coordinated way to obtain benefits and control not available from managing them individually.
• ODFW: Oregon Fish and Wildlife (state regulatory agency) • Water Resources (Dept.): the state agency that regulates dams,
including anything to do with water in Oregon • McMillen-Jacobs: the engineering firm we are working with • OWEB: Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board – a state agency that
provides grants to help Oregonians take care of local streams, rivers, wetlands and natural areas
• UNWC: Upper Nehalem Watershed Council – our teaming partner for public funding grants such as OWEB
• Drop-Drain spillway: the existing concrete structure in the lake that maintains the lake level and provides flood control
• Underdrain: 30” culvert that helps to pass water out of the lake • Stakeholders: Any entity or individual that is directly or indirectly
affected by a project or program 5
Agenda • FLPS program progress, efforts and next steps
• Spillway alternatives • Engineering and construction cost comparisons
• Fishhawk Lake Funding Scenario
• Membership Feedback & Q&A
6
FLPS Program - 2015-2018
7
2015 2016 2017 2018
Design/Build New Fish Ladder
Assess/Develop Sediment Reduction and/or Removal Plan
Lake Monitoring Program
Design/Build Emer. Spillway
Assess Feasibility of Sediment Reduction Upstream of Lake
Develop Outfall Basin and Downstream Water Cooling
Forecasted start of construction –
contingent upon funding
8
FLPS Program Progress Fall 2016/Winter 2017:
• Prepared and submitted, in conjunction with the UNWC an
OWEB (Oregon Watershed Enhancement Board) TA (Technical Assistance) grant application. (Max. $45k) • Completed Ph. 1 engineering for the Spillway & fish ladder
• Explored financial alternatives for membership funding that
addresses engineering and construction alternatives.
• Continued to develop a funding strategy for ecological grants and gifts
• Launched a Fishhawk lake community outreach program
9
FLPS Program Efforts
OWEB TA Grant
ODFW Cost Sharing Program
Spillway Alternatives
Community Outreach
Financing: Grants, Monetary Gifts & Fishhawk funding
Fall 2016 Spring/Summer 2017 Not receiving the Grant impacted
the Program Plan
Lake Monitoring Program
10
OWEB Technical Assistance (TA) Grant
• Submitted grant application fall 2016 • Notified in January that we were not awarded a grant
• Based on our follow-up we learned:
• the perceived size of the combined fish ladder and modified spillway was too large and uncertain for the reviewers
• some review agencies had the perception that project benefits were too privately oriented rather than public and environmental
• receipt of funds would have allowed us to complete the Phase 2 engineering work
• with Fishhawk membership funding and the help of a construction grant, it would have kept us on track to begin construction efforts in 2018
• Did not pursue the April OWEB grant cycle
FLPS Program Efforts
11
As a result of the OWEB results and feedback, • FLPS:
• evaluated choices and consequences and program choices to
keep momentum going forward
• conducted multiple inquiries and discussions with permitting agencies and the Fishhawk Lake Board,
• decided to de-couple the combined project approach (fish ladder & spillway) and instead focus on the spillway engineering and construction, followed by the fish ladder as a secondary effort with Oregon Fish and Wildlife.
FLPS Changed the Approach to the
Program Plan
FLPS Program Efforts
Normal Conditions View From on Top of The Dam
12
13
• FLPS made the decision to de-couple the project based on:
• this past fall and winter season which demonstrated very well the need for an effective long-term solution to high water events
• the risk exposure to flooding and potential damage/destruction to the dam is too high in exchange for hope that a devastating event will not occur.
• consultation with the regulating agencies expressing our concerns and obtaining their understanding and buy-in commitment
FLPS Changed the Approach to the
Program Plan
FLPS Program Efforts
Many Recall the 2007 Flood View From the Bridge Over Fishhawk Stream
14
2007 Flood View Looking Across Fishhawk Stream
15
2007 Flood View Looking NE at the Reinhart House On Lakeview
16
2007 Flood View From the Fire Station Parking Lot Towards Spillway
17
2007 Flood View Looking top of the Drop Drain Spillway
18
19
What this means for Fishhawk Lake Breaks the modified spillway
and fish ladder into two projects:
• Some cost savings lost by not building the structures as a single project
• Delays the construction of the fish ladder by one/two or more years
• Adds some scope to engineering work
• Smaller scope reduces the initial out-of-pocket cost to Fishhawk Lake
• May allow for construction of the emergency spillway in 2017
• Potential $$ savings by adding construction competition
• Mitigates the potential loss of the dam due to uncontrolled weather events and flood control
Disadvantages: Advantages:
FLPS Program Efforts
20
Evaluated design and construction alternatives:
• Gated spillway to allow full depth lake flushing of sediment • Separate gated spillway built to accommodate the full 1/2 PMF
capacity • Gated modification within the existing drop-drain spillway,
must include an Emergency spillway (roadway dip) for added capacity
• Emergency (road-dip) spillway to avoid over-topping of the dam
• (recall the Oroville dam in February)
• Non-gated, added capacity new spillway
Spillway Alternatives
FLPS Program Efforts
Gated Spillway in Existing Structure Creates a controlled pass through drain & spillway
system
21
Plan View Elevation View
Drop-drain structure with vertical slide gate system and wing walls.
Spillway Alternatives
Gated Spillway in Existing Structure Risk Mitigation
22
Plan View Elevation View
Drop-drain structure with vertical slide gate system and wing walls.
Spillway Alternatives Added
concrete placed inside
existing structure
Lake Sediment Flushing • One option that might be possible either with the existing
control structure at the dam or a modified structure is flushing sediment from the lake. Flushing sediment in the lake would entail waiting for flows in Fishhawk Creek upstream of the lake to reach a certain threshold and then releasing water at the dam near the lake bottom. The rapid drawdown of the lake combined with high flows in the creek could cause the accumulated sediment to be scoured out by the fast moving water. An analysis would need to be performed to determine how effective such an action would be in removing sediment. Also, the action could have negative consequences to downstream landowners, so the analysis would need to assess how those landowners would be affected. Also, the action would need to be coordinated with state and federal agencies.
23
Lake draw-down during high water events will pass incoming sediment. It will also create lake bottom erosion similar to the existing underdrain but in a much larger volume
Lake Sediment Flushing • One option that might be possible either with the existing
control structure at the dam or a modified structure is flushing sediment from the lake. Flushing sediment in the lake would entail waiting for flows in Fishhawk Creek upstream of the lake to reach a certain threshold and then releasing water at the dam near the lake bottom. The rapid drawdown of the lake combined with high flows in the creek could cause the accumulated sediment to be scoured out by the fast moving water. An analysis would need to be performed to determine how effective such an action would be in removing sediment. Also, the action could have negative consequences to downstream landowners, so the analysis would need to assess how those landowners would be affected. Also, the action would need to be coordinated with state and federal agencies.
24
Maximum lake draw-down during high water events only, will create a lake bottom erosion process forming gullies and plate erosion that scour the lake bottom and flush sediment down stream
25 25
Spillway Alternatives
Emergency Spillway (Roadway Dip)
26
Spillway Alternatives
Channel road-dip factors • Located on north end of the
dam, approx. 200ft along the road to a depth of 3ft and would extend into the fire station parking area
• Paved road replaced • May need added fencing
Emergency Spillway (Roadway Dip) No control and engages only when lake water level reaches a
defined height. Flood water would pass through an inlet and flow through the dip and downstream in existing stream channel
200 ft.
200 ft.
3-4 ft. deep
27 27
Spillway Alternatives
Emergency Spillway (Roadway Dip)
Downstream outfall is concrete grouted armor rock to dissipate energy and erosion in the outfall area and
downstream)
28
Spillway Alternatives
Non-gated Added Capacity Spillway No control and functions in parallel with the existing drop-drain spillway. Provides no flushing or sediment removal action
29
Spillway Alternatives
Separate New Gated Spillway
30
Spillway Alternatives Alternative: Function Benefit Cost
factors Risk factors
Gated spillway in existing structure** **requires emergency spillway
Controlled gate operates at high water events
Adds capacity flushes lake sediment
Added concrete No major excavation
Old concrete and unknowns require mitigation efforts (potentially new structure inside old)
Emergency spillway only Minimally controlled flood risk trigger at flood stage
Saves the dam during flooding
Over-excav. to build it, re-paving roadway,
Minimal, imposes on the parking lot area, may need fencing
Separate new gated spillway
Controlled slide gate, replaces primary function of existing drain
Eliminates the need to an emergency dip
Major excav. concrete placement and rip-rap (rock
Significant excav. in parking lot, 30 ft depth trench, required fencing, unknown sub-surface condition (slide mat’l), invasive to dam structure.
Non-gated added spillway
Non-controlled
Minimal and no sediment removal
Eliminates emergency spillway, adds conc.
New concr. structure, unknown excav. in Prkg lot
31
Spillway Cost Comparisons
Cost
Alternative: Engineering cost
Constr. Cost
Cost/risk Contingency factors
Constr. timeframe
Gated spillway in existing structure **requires emerg. spillway
$65,000 - $80,000
$440,000 - $500,000
Added concrete to mitigate risk. minimal permitting requirements
Summer 2018
Emergency spillway only $35,000 - $45,000
$186,00 - $273,000
Over-excav. req’d to build, minimal permitting, cost of rock rip-rap
Fall 2017 (if funding approved)
Separate new gated spillway
$84,00 - $105,000
$750,000-$850,000
Major unknown excavation Added safety requirements, cost of rock rip-rap
Summer 2018
Non-gated added spillway
45,000 - $60,000
$350,000 - $480,000
Eliminates emergency spillway, adds conc.
Summer 2018
32
ODFW Cost Sharing Program
Hosted the ODFW’s Fish Screening and Passage Coordinator in a joint effort to submit a cost-share application for the ODFW 2017 biennial budget for fish ladder design. This would allow the fish ladder design to continue partially funded by ODFW. Fish ladder design cost in the range of $70,000 to $95,000 and rather significant permitting. Design in early 2018 and then additional grant applications, with construction 2019 or later depending on grants and financing
FLPS Program Efforts
33
Community Outreach
Message: Keep stakeholders well informed and aware of the Fishhawk Lake community efforts to improve stream habitat and maintain flood control. Efforts: FLPS team conducted a community outreach last fall with property owners (stakeholders) upstream from the lake and downstream to the junction of Fishhawk Rd and Hwy 202. Expanding this effort to the county commissioners for Clatsop and Columbia Counties, City of Vernonia and Clatskanie and other stakeholders.
FLPS Program Efforts
34
Community Outreach
Message: Fifty (50) years in Nahalem Watershed The importance of the Fishhawk Lake community to the extended community up and down Fishhawk Creek, along 202 and 47 and the towns of Birkenfeld, Mist, Clatskanie and Vernonia. We support these communities when we shop, buy gas, eat and socialize in these communities. We sometimes may be viewed as ‘those lake people’ although within these areas they appreciate out presence and monetary contribution to their businesses. We have the need to make Fishhawk a positive influence.
FLPS Program Efforts
35
Financing: Grants, Monetary Gifts & Fishhawk funding
FLPS Program Efforts
• Beginning discussions with the surrounding timber owners for the potential of receiving either monetary grants or in-kind support for the spillway • Meeting with Regional Conservation Partnership Program representatives for
special cost sharing opportunity (Oregon Dept. of Agriculture) • Researching the potential for securing a FEMA grant through a new ‘Hazard Mitigation Grant Program’ that is specific to preventative measures for high hazard dams. (The program exists but is not currently funded to actually provide funding) • Will submit an OWEB grant application in spring 2018 for the spillway
• Planning and evaluating the potential for a funding drive to coincide with the
50th anniversary of Fishhawk Lake including the invite of surrounding communities. Collecting a 50 yr historical record for display at the event.
36
Community Outreach
FLPS Program Efforts
Lake depth Min. 4ft to 30ft. Max. 104
acres in size.
8:03pm, Friday October 27, 1967 the body of
water reached Elev. 805 and will be known as
Fishhawk lake
Revolutionary fish attraction system. …the
only fish ladder of its kind in Oregon
37
Community Outreach
FLPS Program Efforts
What has changed is the functionality and efficiency of the lake
conditions!!
The infrastructure is 50 years old, is still in
very good condition and hasn’t changed
much!!
Coupled with the effects of regulations
and unstable weather!!
38
Efforts: The FLPS team is preparing for this summer’s monitoring effort and will be expanding some of the water samples and measurements that will be taken. These efforts provide a tremendous insight for baseline characteristics and knowledge about the lake Please be aware that there may be some floating devices and boat activities on the lake beginning in June.
FLPS Program Efforts Lake Monitoring Program
39
Currently: • All FLPS program activities are continuing • Engineering work, however is on hold
Spillway Next Steps: • Based on todays’ feedback, FLPS will
prepare a detailed cost estimate and self-funding recommendation to the Board
• FLPS and the Board will structure this plan utilizing a loan from the Fishhawk Reserves to be repaid by a membership assessment
FLPS Program Next Steps
Fishhawk Lake Funding Scenario
40
Capital Improvement Projects require a vote of the membership Emergency Spillway: Engineering $35,000 - $45,000 Construction $186,00 - $273,000 Gated Spillway in Existing Structure Engineering $65,000 - $80,000 Construction $440,000 - $500,000 Total funds needed: (incl. contingency) $898,000 (worst case)
Assuming 250 lots, varying amounts and assessment terms, any number of scenarios can be developed. Gap years are not a preferred practice but could be considered if construction costs become intimidating. An assessment of $1000/lot for year 1, would yield $250,000 An assessment of $500/lot for year 2 & 3, would yield $250,000
41
Funding by FLRC via the Reserves • Engineering can resume very quickly
• No outside cost for loan fees
• Funds are used incrementally as engineering and
construction progresses
• An assessment that is structured by the concerns and feedback of the membership
• Although it is not recommended, if gated spillway becomes too costly, construction could be delayed
Fishhawk Lake Project Funding
42
Funding by FLRC via the Reserves • With the gated spillway in place there is the likely
probably to reallocate dredging funds to pay down the Reserves loan
• Assessments as part of dues are not necessarily tax deductible but monetary donations to the Fishhawk Lake Ecological Foundation are
• Excess funds can be reallocated to the fish ladder and
other dam/spillway related infrastructure • (fencing, security, landscaping, etc.)
Fishhawk Lake Project Funding
43
Membership Feedback & Q&A
Concerns?? Expectations??
Priorities??
Questions??
44
And, in conclusion!!
45
From the Fishhawk Lake Project Solutions Team – Thank you for attending!!
