Loading...
HomeMy WebLinkAboutTIC 2019-01-23 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKETCity of Tukwila Transportation and Infrastructure Committee ❖ Zak Idan, Chair ❖ Kate Kruller ❖ Thomas McLeod AGENDA Distribution: Z.Idan K. Kruller T. McLeod K. Hougardy D. Robertson Mayor Ekberg D. Cline R. Bianchi L. Humphrey H. Hash H. Ponnekanti G. Labanara B. Still R. Turpin A. Youn Clerk File Copy 2 Extra Place pkt pdf on Z:\Trans & Infra Agendas e-mail cover to: A. Le, C. O'Flaherty, A. Youn, D. Almberg, B. Saxton, S. Norris, L. Humphrey, Z.Idan WEDNESDAY, JANUARY 23, 2019 — 5:30 PM HAZELNUT CONFERENCE Room (EAST ENTRANCE OF CITY HALL) Item Recommended Action Page 1. PRESENTATIONS 2. BUSINESS AGENDA a) Major Maintenance of Three Bridges a) Forward to 2/4/19 Regular Pg. 1 Contract Completion and Acceptance Consent Agenda b) Boeing Access Road BNRR Bridge Rehabilitation b) Forward to 2/4/19 Regular Pg. 9 BNSF Flagging Expenses Consent Agenda c) Surface Water Fund — Green the Green c) Forward to 2/4/19 Regular Pg. 29 Grant Acceptance — The Rose Foundation Consent Agenda d) Surface Water Fund - Tukwila 205 Levee Certification d) Information Only Pg. 37 Phase II — Draft Report e) Surface Water Fund - Lower Green River Corridor Plan e) Committee Approval Pg. 79 Flood Hazard Management Plan 3. SCATBd/RTC f) • Eastside Transportation Partnership 12/14/18 Meeting f) Information Only Pg. 91 Summary • SCATBd 12/18/18 Meeting Summary • SCATBd 1/15/19 Meeting Agenda 4. MISCELLANEOUS g) Project Updates: g) Discussion Only • 42nd Ave S Project • 53rd Ave S Project • Pedestrian Bridge Update • Neighborhood Traffic Calming Program • TIB Crosswalks at S 140th St 5. ANNOUNCEMENTS Future Agendas: Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, February 5, 2019 t> The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities Please contact the Public Works Department at 206-433-0179 for assistance. City of Tu it Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director Allan Ekberg, Mayor INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Directory„tt BY: Steve Carstens, Senior Program Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: January 18, 2019 SUBJECT: Major Maintenance of Three Bridges (Grady Way, Beacon Avenue, Frank Zepp) Project No. 91510406, 91510407, and 91510408, Contract No. 17-118 Contract Completion and Acceptance ISSUE Accept construction contract as complete and authorize release of the payment and performance bonds. BACKGROUND The Notice to Proceed for Contract Number 17-118 with Razz Construction, Inc. was issued on July 11, 2017. This construction project consisted of work on three separate bridges, Beacon Ave Bridge, Frank Zepp Bridge, and Grady Way Bridge. All three projects had seismic retrofits and major rehabilitation work. DISCUSSION The construction project was physically completed on June 8, 2018. There were no contract disputes or claims on the project. The project was completed on time and under budget. Since the physical completion date, staff has been waiting for all administrative obligations and payment verification items to come through before accepting the work as complete. FINANCIAL IMPACT The original construction budget (including contingency) for the Major Maintenance of Three Bridges project was $3,092,301.00. The final cost for the repair on the three bridges, including all change orders, was $2,642,339.81. The project funding was secured through the Federal Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (BRAC) grant at 100% for construction. The final project expenditures are as follows: Expenses Grant Original Construction Contract Amount $2,688,958.00 Change Order Costs (8.5%) + Under -runs (46,618.19) Total Contract Amount $2,642,339,81 $2,642,339.81 RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to formally accept the Major Maintenance of Three Bridges Project with Razz Construction, Inc. in the amount of $2,642,339.81 and authorize the release of the performance bond subject to standard claim and lien release procedures, and to consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the February 4, 2019 Regular Council Meeting. ATTACHMENTS • Notice of Completion, Contract #17-118 • Final Contractor Voucher Certificate • Vicinity Maps W:IPW EngIPROJECTSIA- RW 8 RS Projects\Major Maintenance on 3 Bridges (91510406)ICloseoutlproject closeout info memo.docx 1 Date: 12/18/18 ❑ Original VRevised # NOTICE OF COMPLETION OF PUBLIC WORKS CONTRACT Contractor's UBI Number: 602504498 Name & Mailing Address of Public Agency City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Boulevard Tukwila, WA 98188 UBI Number:179000208 1 Department Use Only Assigned to: Date Assigned: Notice is hereby given relative to the completion of contract or project described below Project Name Major Maintenance of Three Bridges (91510406-08) Contract Number 17-118 Job Order Contracting ❑ Yes ffifNo Description of Work Done/Include Jobsite Address(es) Three Bridge Locations: Beacon Avenue S. SW Grady Way S 180th Street Tukwila, WA. Preform maintenance on all 3 bridges at each location to include deck repair, seismic work, and site work. Federally funded transportation project? LYJ Yes ❑ No (if yes, provide Contract Bond Statement below) Contractor's Name Razz Construction, Inc E-mail Address yvettem@razzconstruction.ccd Affidavit ID* 820074 Contractor Address 4055 HAMMER DR BELLINGHAM, WA, 98226 Te 360-752-0011 ephone # If Retainage is not withheld, please select one of the following and List Surety's Name & Bond Number. ❑ Retainage Bond [� Contract/Payment bond (valid for federally funded transportation projects) Name: Merchants Bonding Company (Mutual) Bond Number: 54213507 Date Contract Awarded 6/19/2017 Date Work Commenced 9/27/2018 Date Work Completed 6/8/2018 Date Work Accepted 12/20/18 Were Subcontracters used on this project? If so, please complete Addendum A. ['Yes ❑ No Affidavit ID* - No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed. Contract Amount Additions (+ ) Reductions (- ) Sub -Total Sales Tax Rate 0 (If various rates apply, please send a breakdown) Sales Tax Amount 2,688,958.00 $ 228,663.16 $ 275,281.35 $ 2,642,339.81 $ 0 - TOTAL $ 2.642.339.81 �— v� cwt c _ () h-� NOTE: These two totals must be equal Liquidated Damages $ 0.00 Amount Disbursed $ 2,642,339.81 Amount Retained $ 0.00 TOTAL $ 2,642,339.81 Comments: Note: The Disbursing Officer must submit this completed notice immediately after acceptance of the work done under this contract. NO PAYMENT SHALL BE MADE FROM RETAINED FUNDS until receipt of all release certificates. Submitting Form: Please submit the completed form by email to all three agencies below. Contact Name: Diane Jaber Email Address: Diane.jaber@tukwilawa.gov Department of Revenue Public Works Section (360) 704-5650 PWC@dor.wa.gov Washington State Department of Labor & Industries Contract Release (855) 545-8163, option # 4 ContractRelease@LN I. WA. GOV Title: Fiscal Specialist Phone Number: 206.433.1871 Employment Security Department Registration, inquiry, Standards & Coordination Unit (360) 902-9450 publicworks@esd.wa.gov REV 31 0020e (10/26/15) F215-038-000 10-2014 2 Addendum A: Please List all Subcontractors and Sub -tiers Below This addendum can be submitted in other formats. Provide known affidavits at this time. No L&I release will be granted until all affidavits are listed. Subcontractor's Name: UBI Number: (Required) Affidavit ID* ALLIANCE STEEL ERECTORS INC 602533619 799420 Altus Traffic Management LLC 602632446 802939 AMAYA ELECTRIC 600089108 802792 APPLY -A -LINE LLC 600553941 776672 Beyler Consulting, LLC 603150057 810470 FORD CRANE INC 601050656 793495 HARLOW CONSTRUCTION CO INC 601762618 787464 JOBSITE STUD WELDING INC 602326327 761044 MYERS & SONS CONSTRUCTION LP 603042475 781480 PACER STEEL INC 602463812 787580 PENHALL COMPANY 601258537 810658 PUGET PAVING & CONST INC 600403309 787711 Ralph's Concrete Pumping 578085430 787664 REBAR INTERNATIONAL INC 600481702 776160 SALINAS SAWING & SEALING INC 601717158 787895 SEA-TAC SWEEPING SERVICE 601735583 789285 Structural Radar Imaging, Inc. 602327560 807238 TWISTED METAL LLC 602847101 819150 For tax assistance or to request this document in an alternate format, please call 1-800-647-7706. Teletype (TTY) users may use the Washington Relay Service by calling 711. REV 31 0020e Addendum (10/26/15) F215-038-000 10-2014 3 Final Contract Voucher Certificate Contractor Razz Construction, Inc. Street Address 4055 Hammer Drive City Bellingham State WA Zip 98226 Date 9/17/18 City Project Numbers 91510407; 91510406, 91510408 Fedora -Aid Project Number Btf0S-1320(004), BI1M-1288(005), BHOS•1274(009) Contract Title Major Maintenance on 3 Bridges — Construction Date Work Physically Completed 9/14/18 Final Amount $1,792,819,62 $ 219,450,00 $ 629,952.96 — Frank Zepp — Grady Way — Beacon Avenue Contractors Certification I, the undersigned, having firs) been duly sworn, certify that I am authorized to sign for the claimant; that In connection with the work performed and to the bast of my knowledge no loan, gratuity or gift In any form whatsoever has been extended to any employee of the City of Tukwila nor have I rented or purchased any equipment or materials from any employee of the City of Tukwila; I further certify That the attached final estivate is a true and correct statement showing all the monies due me from the City of Tukwila for work performed and material furnished under this contract; that I have carefully examined said final estimate and understand the same and that I hereby release the City of Tukwila from any and all claims of whatl may have, arising out of the performance of said contract, which are not set forth In said satin Subscribed an Xw Contractor Authorized Signature Required Printed Signature Name 169, ice` t d „4;., day of 6 7 20 1 X )1kIJc. s (`t\t-t Oft Au) Notary Public in and for the State of r 4 Residing at r Owner Certification ertify the alto cl ed finpl estimate to be based upon actual moasurcyments, ar d to t e true and correct. Approved Date -:Si e,,Ix-`etorea n t=a��= it .r, Vicinity Map Project Site Grady Way Bridge Tukwila, WA Wemiod 01 Vicinity Map Project Site Frank Zepp Bridge Tukwila, WA The Museum c Mill Flight Ce Vicinity Map Beacon Ave S Bridge Project Site eaconAeSB Tukw�W 8 City of Tukwila Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director 451- BY: Steve Carstens, Senior Program Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: January 18, 2016 SUBJECT: Boeing Access Rd over BNRR Bridge Rehabilitation Project Project No. 99410408, Contract No. 16-151 BNSF Flagging Expenses ISSUE Approve Burlington Northern Santa Fe's (BNSF) flagging and inspection cost increases. Allan Ekberg, Mayor BACKGROUND In October 2013, the City contracted with Jacobs Engineering, Inc. to provide the design for the rehabilitation of the Boeing Access Rd over BNRR Bridge. The BNSF Overpass Agreement allows the City and its contractor to work in the BNSF right-of-way and pays for required railroad flagging and inspection services performed by BNSF. ANALYSIS The original BNSF's Overpass Agreement was for $149,428.00 and Amendment No. 1 approved an additional $300,000 for a total of $449,428.00. As the project is close to completion, additional costs from BNSF are estimated to be $150,000.00 to finish the project. Attached are the Overpass Agreement, including exhibits for flagging services and inspection services. FISCAL IMPACT The Overpass Agreement is within the approved construction management budget and the 25% construction contingency. Contract Budget Grant Jacobs Main CM Contracts $1,785,249.83 $2,291,000.00 BNSF Flagging and Inspection Original 149,428.00 BNSF Amendment No. 1 300,000.00 New BNSF Amendment No. 2 150,000.00 PCL Change Orders to date No. 1 - 20 579,481.00 Construction 25% Contingency 1,584,668.00 Total $2,964,158.83 $3,875,668.00 $3,100,534.00 The Federal Bridge Replacement Advisory Committee (BRAG) grant is funded at 80% with a 20% city match, RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to approve the increased flagging and railroad costs with BNSF for the Boeing Access Rd over BNRR Rehabilitation Project in the amount of $150,000.00 and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the February 4, 2019 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS • 2019 CIP page 11 • BNSF C/M Agreement W:IPW Eng1PROJECTSIA- RW & RS Projects\Boeing Access Rd Bridge Rehab (99410408)102 Funding and FinancelContracts\BNSFllnfo Memo bnsf flagging 20190118 gl.docx 9 PROJECT: DESCRIPTION: JUSTIFICATION: STATUS: MAINT. IMPACT: COMMENT: CITY OF TUKWILA CAPITAL PROJECT SUMMARY 2019 to 2024 Boeing Access Rd over BNRR Bridge Rehabilitation Project No. 99410408 Rehabilitate the existing bridge with a 340' long concrete or steel bridge structure. It will be 6 lanes and have a sidewalk on one side. The existing bridge is structurally and seismically deficient. Several pedestals are leaning, have concrete spalls, exposed rusty anchor bolts and reinforcements and some cracks. The existing railings do not meet current bridge standards. Type, size, and location draft report (specifically required for bridges) was completed in 2005. Federal grant applications were submitted in 2008 and 2010 and the bridge rehabilitation was successful for funding in 2012 for federal bridge funds. A Public Works Trust Fund (PWTF) loan was rescinded in 2013. Maintenance will be reduced. Bridge will be rehabilitated in phases to allow continued traffic use. Federal bridge grant of $9,745,600 requires a 20% local match. A bond issue for the City match was issued in 2015 with the Interurban Ave S. FINANCIAL (in $000's) Through Estimated 2017 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 BEYOND TOTAL EXPENSES Design 1,419 1,419 Land(R/W) 0 Const. Mgmt. 301 1,833 157 2,291 Construction 6,724 1,050 7,774 TOTAL EXPENSES 1,720 8,557 1,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,484 FUND SOURCES Awarded Grant 1,232 6,971 840 9,043 Proposed Grant 0 Fund Balance -Bond 2,441 2,441 Mitigation 0 City Oper. Revenue (1,953) 1,586 367 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 TOTAL SOURCES 1,720 8,557 1,207 0 0 0 0 0 0 11,484 2019 - 2024 Capital Improvement Program 11 10 OVERPASS AGREEMENT 16-151 Council Approval 11/21/16 BNSF Foie No.. BF100'.907 Boeing Access Rd U.S. D.O.T. No. 085597G LS '151 MP 07.020X Seattle Subdivision This Agreement ("Agreement"), is executed to be effective as oft.-. Of (a ("Effective Date"), by and between BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY, a Delawre corporation ("BNSF"), and the City of Tukwila, a political subdivision of the State of Washington ("Agency"). RECITALS: WHEREAS, BNSF owns and operates a line of railroad in and through the City of Tukwila, State of Washington; and WHEREAS, Agency desires to widen and improve the existing structure known as the Boeing Access Rd Bridge, D.O.T. No, 085597G. NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual covenants and agreements of the parties contained herein, the receipt and sufficiency of which are hereby acknowledged, the parties agree as follows: ARTICLE I) SCOPE OF WORK 1. The term "Project" as used herein includes any and all work related to the construction of the proposed improvements to the Boeing Access Rd Bridge (hereinafter referred to as the "Structure"), more particularly described on the Exhibit A, which is attached hereto and incorporated herein, including, but not limited to, any and all changes to telephone, telegraph, signal and electrical lines and appurtenances, temporary and permanent track work, fencing, grading, alterations to or new construction of drainage facilities, preliminary and construction engineering and contract preparation. Additionally, temporary controls during construction must comply with Section 8A-08, "Temporary Traffic Control Zones" of the Manual of Uniform Traffic Control Devices ("MUTCD"), U.S. Department of Transportation. 5) 11 ARTICLE II) BNSF OBLIGATIONS In consideration of the covenants of Agency set forth herein and the faithful performance thereof, BNSF agrees as follows: 1. Upon Agency's payment to BNSF of an administrative fee in the sum of zero and No/100 Dollars ($0.00), together with the Temporary Construction License Fee in the sum of $0 and No/100 Dollars ($0.00), BNSF hereby grants to Agency, its successors and assigns, upon and subject to the terms and conditions set forth in this Agreement, a temporary non-exclusive license (hereinafter called, "Temporary Construction License") to construct the Structure across or upon the portion of BNSF's right-of-way described further on Exhibit A-1, excepting and reserving BNSF's rights, and the rights of any others who have obtained, or may obtain, permission or authority from BNSF, to do the following: (a) Operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate any and all existing railroad track or tracks, wires, pipelines and other facilities of like character upon, over or under the surface of said right-of-way; (b) Construct, operate, maintain, renew and/or relocate upon said right-of- way, without limitation, such facilities as the BNSF may from time to time deem appropriate, provided such facilities do not materially interfere with the Agency's use of the Structure; (c) Otherwise use or operate the right-of-way as BNSF may from time to time deem appropriate, provided such use or operations does not materially interfere with the Agency's use of the Structure; and (d) Require the Agency or its contractor to execute a Temporary Construction Crossing Agreement, for any temporary crossing requested to aid in the construction of this Project. The term of the Temporary Construction License begins on the Effective Date and ends on the earlier of (i) substantial completion of the Structure, or (ii) eighteen months following the Effective Date. The Temporary Construction License and related rights given by BNSF to Agency in this provision are without warranty of title of any kind, express or implied, and no covenant of warranty of title will be implied from the use of any word or words herein contained. The Temporary Construction License is for construction of the Structure onlv and shall not be used by Agency for any other purpose. Agency acknowledges and agrees that Agency shall not have the right, under the Temporary Construction License, to use the Structure for any other purpose than construction. In the event Agency is evicted by anyone owning, or claiming title to or any interest in said right-of-way, BNSF will not be liable to Agency for any damages, losses or any expenses of any nature whatsoever. The granting of similar rights to others, subsequent to the date of this Agreement, will not impair or interfere with the rights granted to Agency herein. 2 12 Upon Agency's payment to BNSF of the additional sum of $ zero and No/100 Dollars ($0.00), such payment to be made within thirty (30) days of issuing the Notice to Proceed pursuant to Article III, Section 16 of this Agreement, and provided further that Agency is in compliance with the term and conditions of this Agreement, BNSF will grant to Agency, its successors and assigns, an easement (hereinafter called, the "'Easement") to enter upon and use that portion of BNSF's right-of-way as is necessary to use and maintain the Structure, substantially in the form of Exhibit B attached to this Agreement. If Agency fails to pay BNSF within the thirty day time period set forth in the preceding sentence, BNSF may stop construction of the Project until full payment is received by BNSF. 2. BNSF will furnish all labor, materials, tools, and equipment for railroad work required for the construction of the Project, such railroad work and the estimated cost thereof being as shown on Exhibit D attached hereto and made a part hereof. In the event construction on the Project has not commenced within six (6) months following the Effective Date, BNSF may, in its sole and absolute discretion, revise the cost estimates set forth in said Exhibit D. In such event, the revised cost estimates will become a part of this Agreement as though originally set forth herein. Any item of work incidental to the items listed on Exhibit D not specifically mentioned therein may be included as a part of this Agreement upon written approval of Agency, which approval will not be unreasonably withheld. Construction of the Project must include the following railroad work by BNSF: (a) Procurement of materials, equipment and supplies necessary for the railroad work; (b) Preliminary engineering, design, and contract preparation; (c) Furnishing of flagging services during construction of the Project as required and set forth in further detail on Exhibit C; (d) Furnishing engineering and inspection as required in connection with the construction of the Project; (e) Providing a contract project coordinator, at Agency's expense, to serve as a project manager for the Project 3. BNSF will do all railroad work set forth in Article II, Section 2 above on an actual cost basis, when BNSF, in its sole discretion, determines it is required by its labor agreements to perform such work with its own employees working under applicable collective bargaining agreements. 13 4. Agency agrees to reimburse BNSF for work of an emergency nature caused by Agency or Agency's contractor in connection with the Project which BNSF deems is reasonably necessary for the immediate restoration of railroad operations, or for the protection of persons or BNSF property. Such work may be performed by BNSF without prior approval of Agency and Agency agrees to fully reimburse BNSF for all such emergency work. 5. BNSF may charge Agency for insurance expenses, including self-insurance expenses, when such expenses cover the cost of Employer's Liability (including, without limitation, liability under the Federal Employer's Liability Act) in connection with the construction of the Project. Such charges will be considered part of the actual cost of the Project, regardless of the nature or amount of ultimate liability for injury, loss or death to BNSF's employees, if any. 6. During the construction of the Project, BNSF will send Agency progressive invoices detailing the costs of the railroad work performed by BNSF under this Agreement. Agency must reimburse BNSF for completed force -account work within thirty (30) days of the date of the invoice for such work. Upon completion of the Project, BNSF will send Agency a detailed invoice of final costs, segregated as to labor and materials for each item in the recapitulation shown on Exhibit D. Pursuant to this section and Article IV, Section 7 herein, Agency must pay the final invoice within ninety (90) days of the date of the final invoice. BNSF will assess a finance charge of .033% per day (12% per annum) on any unpaid sums or other charges due under this Agreement which are past its credit terms. The finance charge continues to accrue daily until the date payment is received by BNSF, not the date payment is made or the date postmarked on the payment. Finance charges will be assessed on delinquent sums and other charges as of the end of the month and will be reduced by amounts in dispute and any unposted payments received by the month's end. Finance charges will be noted on invoices sent to Agency under this section. ARTICLE III) AGENCY OBLIGATIONS In consideration of the covenants of BNSF set forth herein and the faithful performance thereof, Agency agrees as follows: 1. Agency must furnish to BNSF plans and specifications for the Project. One digital copy of said plans (reduced size 11" x 17"), together with calculations, and specifications in English Units, must be submitted to BNSF for approval prior to commencement of any construction. BNSF will give Agency final written approval of the plans and specifications substantially in the form of Exhibit E, attached to this Agreement and made a part hereof. Upon BNSF's final written approval of the plans and specifications, said plans and specifications will become part of this Agreement and are hereby incorporated herein. Any approval of the plans and specifications by BNSF shall in no way obligate BNSF in any manner with respect to the finished product design and/or construction. Any approval by BNSF shall mean only that the plans and 4 14 specifications meet the subjective standards of BNSF, and such approval by BNSF shall not be deemed to mean that the plans and specifications or construction is structurally sound and appropriate or that such plans and specifications meet applicable regulations, laws, statutes or local ordinances and/or building codes. 2. Agency must make any required application and obtain all required permits and approvals for the construction of the Project, 3. Agency must provide for and maintain minimum vertical and horizontal clearances, as required in Exhibit C and as approved by BNSF as part of the plans and specifications for the Project. 4. Agency must acquire all rights of way necessary for the construction of the Project. 5. Agency must make any and all arrangements, in compliance with BNSF's Utility Accommodation Manual (htt://www.bnsf.com/communities/fa s/ /utilit . cif), for the installation or relocation of wire lines, pipe lines and other facilities owned by private persons, companies, corporations, political subdivisions or public utilities other than BNSF which may be necessary for the construction of the Project.. 6. Agency must construct the Project as shown on the attached Exhibit A and do all work ("Agency's Work") provided for in the plans and specifications for the Project„ except railroad work that will be performed by BNSF hereunder. Agency must furnish all labor, materials, tools and equipment for the performance of Agency's Work. The principal elements of Agency's Work are as follows: (a) Construction of the Structure; (b) All necessary grading and paving, including backfill of excavations and restoration of disturbed vegetation on BNSF's right-of-way; (c) Provide suitable drainage, both temporary and permanent; (d) Intentionally left blank; (e) Intentionally left blank; (f) Intentionally left blank (g) Provide appropriate pedestrian control during construction; (h) Intentionally left blank (i) Installation and maintenance of an 8-ft. high fence and/or concrete combination (throw fence) on the outside barrier of the Structure; 5 15 Job site cleanup including removal of all construction materials, concrete debris, surplus soil, refuse, contaminated soils, asphalt debris, litter and other waste materials to the satisfaction of BNSF. 7. Agency must apply and maintain said D.O.T. Crossing number 085597G in a conspicuous location on the Structure. 8. Agency's Work must be performed by Agency or Agency's contractor in a manner that will not endanger or interfere with the safe and timely operations of BNSF and its facilities. 9. For any future inspection or maintenance, either routine or otherwise, performed by subcontractors on behalf of the Agency, Agency shall require the subcontractors to comply with the provisions of the attached Exhibit C and execute the agreement attached hereto as Exhibit C-1. Prior to performing any future maintenance with its own personnel, Agency shall: comply with all of BNSF's applicable safety rules and regulations; require any Agency employee performing maintenance to complete the safety training program at the BNSF's Internet Website "htt/i nsfcontractor.corn/"; notify BNSF when, pursuant to the requirements of Exhibit C, a flagger is required to be present; procure, and have approved by BNSF's Risk Management Department, Railroad Protective Liability insurance. 10. Agency must require its contractor(s) to notify BNSF's Roadmaster at least thirty (30) calendar days prior to requesting a BNSF flagman in accordance with the requirements of Exhibit C attached hereto. Additionally, Agency must require its contractor(s) to notify BNSF's Manager of Public Projects thirty (30) calendar days prior to commencing work on BNSF property or near BNSF tracks. 11. Agency or its contractor(s) must submit a digital of any plans (including calculations in English Units) for proposed shoring, falsework or cribbing to be used over, under, or adjacent to BNSF's tracks to BNSF's Manager of Public Projects for approval. The shoring, falsework or cribbing used by Agency's contractor shall comply with the BNSF Bridge Requirements set forth on Exhibit F and all applicable requirements promulgated by state and federal agencies, departments, commissions and other legislative bodies. If necessary, Agency must submit a digital copy of a professionally engineered demolition plan, as set forth in Exhibit G, with applicable calculations to BNSF's Manager of Public Projects,. 12. Agency must include the following provisions in any contract with its provider(s) performing work on said Project: (a) The Provider is placed on notice that fiber optic, communication and other cable lines and systems (collectively, the "Lines") owned by various telecommunications companies may be buried on BNSF's property or right-of-way. The locations of these Lines have been 6 16 included on the plans based on information from the telecommunications companies. The Provider will be responsible for contacting BNSF and the telecommunications companies and notifying them of any work that may damage these Lines or facilities and/or interfere with their service. The Provider must also mark all Lines shown on the plans or marked in the field in order to verify their locations. The Provider must also use all reasonable methods when working in the BNSF right-of-way or on BNSF property to determine if any other Lines (fiber optic, cable, communication or otherwise) may exist. (b) The Provider will be responsible for the rearrangement of any facilities or Lines determined to interfere with the construction. The Provider must cooperate fully with any telecommunications company (ies) in performing such rearrangements. (c) Failure to mark or identify these Lines will be sufficient cause for BNSF to stop construction at no cost to the Agency or BNSF until these items are completed. (d) In addition to the liability terms contained elsewhere in this Agreement, the Provider hereby indemnifies, defends and holds harmless BNSF for, from and against all cost, liability, and expense whatsoever (including, without limitation, attorney's fees and court costs and expenses) arising out of or in any way contributed to by any act or omission of Provider, its subcontractors, agents and/or employees that cause or in any way or degree contribute to (1) any damage to or destruction of any Lines by Provider, and/or its subcontractors, agents and/or employees, on BNSF's property or within BNSF's right-of-way, (2) any injury to or death of any person employed by or on behalf of any telecommunications company, and/or its contractor, agents and/or employees, on BNSF's property or within BNSF's right-of-way, and/or (3) any claim or cause of action for alleged loss of profits or revenue by, or loss of service by a customer or user of such telecommunication company(ies). THE LIABILITY ASSUMED BY PROVIDER WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE FACT, IF IT IS A FACT, THAT THE DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION, INJURY, DEATH, CAUSE OF ACTION OR CLAIM WAS OCCASIONED BY OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF BNSF, ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH CLAIMS ARE PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT OR SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF BNSF. It is mutually negotiated between the parties that the indemnification obligation shall include all claims brought by Agency's employees against BNSF, its agents, servants, employees or otherwise, and Agency expressly waives its immunity under the industrial insurance act 17 (RCW Title 51) and assumes potential liability for all actions brought by its employees. 13. Agency must require compliance with the obligations set forth in this agreement, including Exhibit C and Exhibit C-1, and incorporate in each prime contract for construction of the Project, or the specifications therefor (i) the provisions set forth in Article III and IV; and (ii) the provisions set forth in Exhibit C, Exhibit C-I, and Exhibit F attached hereto and by reference made a part hereof. 14. Except as otherwise provided below in this Section 13, all construction work performed hereunder by Agency for the Project will be pursuant to a contract or contracts to be let by Agency, and all such contracts must include the following: (a) All work performed under such contract or contracts within the limits of BNSF's right-of-way must be performed in a good and workmanlike manner in accordance with plans and specifications approved by BNSF; (b) Changes or modifications during construction that affect safety or BNSF operations must be subject to BNSF's approval; (c) No work will be commenced within BNSF's right-of-way until each of the prime contractors employed in connection with said work must have (i) executed and delivered to BNSF an agreement in the form of Exhibit C-I, and (ii) delivered to and secured BNSF's approval of the required insurance; and (d) To facilitate scheduling for the Project, Agency shall have its contractor give BNSF's representative four (4) weeks advance notice of the proposed times and dates for work windows. BNSF and Agency's contractor will establish mutually agreeable work windows for the Project. BNSF has the right at any time to revise or change the work windows, due to train operations or service obligations. BNSF will not be responsible for any additional costs and expenses resulting from a change in work windows. Additional costs and expenses resulting from a change in work windows shall be accounted for in the contractor's expenses for the Project. (e) The plans and specifications for the Project must be in compliance with the Bridge Requirements set forth on Exhibit F, attached to this Agreement and incorporated herein. 15. Agency must advise the appropriate BNSF Manager of Public Projects, in writing, of the completion date of the Project within thirty (30) days after such completion date. Additionally, Agency must notify BNSF's Manager of Public Projects, in writing, of the 18 date on which Agency and/or its Contractor will meet with BNSF for the purpose of making final inspection of the Project. 16. TO THE FULLEST EXTENT PERMITTED BY LAW, AGENCY HEREBY RELEASES, INDEMNIFIES, DEFENDS AND HOLDS HARMLESS BNSF, ITS AFFILIATED COMPANIES, PARTNERS, SUCCESSORS, ASSIGNS, LEGAL REPRESENTATIVES, OFFICERS, DIRECTORS, SHAREHOLDERS, EMPLOYEES AND AGENTS FOR, FROM AND AGAINST ANY AND ALL CLAIMS, LIABILITIES, FINES, PENALTIES, COSTS, DAMAGES, LOSSES, LIENS, CAUSES OF ACTION, SUITS, DEMANDS, JUDGMENTS AND EXPENSES (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, COURT COSTS AND ATTORNEYS' FEES) OF ANY NATURE, KIND OR DESCRIPTION OF ANY PERSON (INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, THE EMPLOYEES OF THE PARTIES HERETO) OR ENTITY DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY ARISING OUT OF, RESULTING FROM OR RELATED TO (IN WHOLE OR IN PART) (I) THE USE, OCCUPANCY OR PRESENCE OF AGENCY, ITS CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES OR AGENTS IN, ON, OR ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, (II) THE PERFORMANCE, OR FAILURE TO PERFORM BY THE AGENCY, ITS CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS, ITS WORK OR ANY OBLIGATION UNDER THIS AGREEMENT, (III) THE SOLE OR CONTRIBUTING ACTS OR OMISSIONS OF AGENCY, ITS CONTRACTORS, SUBCONTRACTORS, EMPLOYEES, OR AGENTS IN, ON, OR ABOUT THE CONSTRUCTION SITE, (IV) AGENCY'S BREACH OF THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE OR EASEMENT GRANTED TO AGENCY PURSUANT TO ARTICLE II OF THIS AGREEMENT, (V) ANY RIGHTS OR INTERESTS GRANTED TO AGENCY PURSUANT TO THE TEMPORARY CONSTRUCTION LICENSE OR EASEMENT DISCUSSED IN ARTICLE II OF THIS AGREEMENT, (VI) AGENCY'S OCCUPATION AND USE OF BNSF'S PROPERTY OR RIGHT-OF-WAY, INCLUDING, WITHOUT LIMITATION, SUBSEQUENT MAINTENANCE OF THE STRUCTURE BY AGENCY, OR (VII) AN ACT OR OMISSION OF AGENCY OR ITS OFFICERS, AGENTS, INVITEES, EMPLOYEES OR CONTRACTORS OR ANYONE DIRECTLY OR INDIRECTLY EMPLOYED BY ANY OF THEM, OR ANYONE THEY CONTROL OR EXERCISE CONTROL OVER. THE LIABILITY ASSUMED BY AGENCY WILL NOT BE AFFECTED BY THE FACT, IF IT IS A FACT, THAT THE DAMAGE, DESTRUCTION, INJURY OR DEATH WAS OCCASIONED BY OR CONTRIBUTED TO BY THE NEGLIGENCE OF BNSF, ITS AGENTS, SERVANTS, EMPLOYEES OR OTHERWISE, EXCEPT TO THE EXTENT THAT SUCH CLAIMS ARE PROXIMATELY CAUSED BY THE INTENTIONAL MISCONDUCT OR SOLE NEGLIGENCE OF BNSF. It is mutually negotiated between the parties that the indemnification obligation shall include all claims brought by Agency's employees against BNSF, its agents, servants, employees or otherwise, and Agency expressly waives its immunity under the industrial insurance act (RCW Title 51) and assumes potential liability for all actions brought by its employees. 17. Agency must give BNSF's Manager of Public Projects written notice to proceed ("Notice to Proceed") with the railroad work after receipt of necessary funds for the 9 19 Project. BNSF will not begin the railroad work (including, without limitation, procurement of supplies, equipment or materials) until written notice to proceed is received from Agency. ARTICLE IV) JOINT OBLIGATIONS IN CONSIDERATION of the premises, the parties hereto mutually agree to the following: 1. All work contemplated in this Agreement must be performed in a good and workmanlike manner and each portion must be promptly commenced by the party obligated hereunder to perform the same and thereafter diligently prosecuted to conclusion in its logical order and sequence. Furthermore, any changes or modifications during construction which affect BNSF will be subject to BNSF's written approval prior to the commencement of any such changes or modifications from the NW Division Manager Engineering Services. 2. The work hereunder must be done in accordance with the Bridge Requirements set forth on Exhibit F and the detailed plans and specifications approved by BNSF. 3. Agency must require its contractor(s) to reasonably adhere to the Project's construction schedule for all Project work. The parties hereto mutually agree that BNSF's failure to complete the railroad work in accordance with the construction schedule due to inclement weather or unforeseen railroad emergencies will not constitute a breach of this Agreement by BNSF and will not subject BNSF to any liability. Regardless of the requirements of the construction schedule, BNSF reserves the right to reallocate the labor forces assigned to complete the railroad work in the event of an emergency to provide for the immediate restoration of railroad operations of either (BNSF or its related railroads) or to protect persons or property on or near any BNSF owned property. BNSF will not be liable for any additional costs or expenses resulting from any such reallocation of its labor forces. The parties mutually agree that any reallocation of labor forces by BNSF pursuant to this provision and any direct or indirect consequences or costs resulting from any such reallocation will not constitute a breach of this Agreement by BNSF. 4. BNSF will have the right to stop construction work on the Project if any of the following events take place: (i) Agency (or any of its contractors) performs the Project work in a manner contrary to the plans and specifications approved by BNSF; (ii) Agency (or any of its contractors), in BNSF's opinion, prosecutes the Project work in a manner that is hazardous to BNSF property, facilities or the safe and expeditious movement of railroad traffic; (iii) the insurance described in the attached Exhibit C®1 is canceled during the course of the Project; or (iv) Agency fails to pay BNSF for the Temporary Construction License or the Easement pursuant to Article II, Section 1 of this Agreement. The work stoppage will continue until all necessary actions are taken by Agency or its contractor to rectify the situation to the satisfaction of BNSF's Division 10 20 Engineer or until proof of additional insurance has been delivered to and accepted by BIln the event of a breach of (i) this Agreement, (ii) the Temporary Construction License, or (iii) the Easement, BNSF may immediately terminate the Temporary Construction License or the Easement. Any such work stoppage un•er this provision will not give rise to any liability on the ivart of NSF. BNSF's right to stop the work is in ad'ition to any other rights t NSF may have including, but not limited to, actions or suits for damages or lost profits. In the event that NSF desires to stop construction work on the Project, BNSF agrees to immediately notify the following individual in writing: Robin ...I°..ischm�ll City Engineer City sl Tuk�nrilla 631+0 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 .,1..'ukiila, i' ,i/, 981 8 5. Agency must supervise and inspect the operations of all Agency contractors to ensure compliance with the plans and specifications approved by BNSF, the terms of this Agreement and all safety requirements of BNSF. If BNSF determines that proper supervision and inspection are not being performed by Agency personnel at any time during construction of the Project, BNSF has the right to stop construction (within or adjacent to its operating right-of-way). Construction of the Project will not proceed until Agency corrects the situation to BNSF's reasonable satisfaction. If BNSF feels the situation is not being corrected in an expeditious manner, BNSF will immediately notify Roblin Tischrnak City Engineer City of Tukila 6300 Southcenter Blv•, Suite 100 Tukiila„ A 98188 for appropriate corrective action. 6. Agency agrees to provide, to the BNSF anager Evidence Preservation, such Project documentation and records as are agreed to be een the parties including: any project applications; any letters of approval and/or authorization forms (eg. PR-1240 or the equivalent); any and all payment Voucher forms requesting FH A reimbursement (eg. PR-20 or the equivalent) or any other such project authorization or funding records as BNSF may request from time to time. Such records will be provided by the Agency to BNSF on a mutually agreeable schedule or within o (2) months after such records are generated or received by the Agency. Section 130 Documentation shall be provided to BNSF in the one of the following manners: 21 Manager Evii.ence Preservation 2,00 Lou enk Drove, AO*F-3 Fort Worth, Texas 76131 Or eVectronicaVVy to: Manager Evidence Preservation Section 13OAbnsf.com 7. Pursuant to this section and Article II, Section 6 herein, Agency must reimburse BNSF in full for the actual costs of all work performed by BNSF under this Agreement (including taxes, such as applicable sales and use taxes, business and occupation taxes, and similar taxes), less BNSF's Share as set forth in Article IV, Section 6 herein. BNSF's Share must be paid upon completion of the Project. In any action brought under this Agreement, the prevailing Party shall be entitled to recover its actual costs and attorneys fees pursuant to California Civil Code Section 1717, as well as other litigation costs, including expert witness fees. The prevailing Party shall also be entitled to recover all actual attorneys fees and litigation costs incurred in connection with the enforcement of a judgment arising from such action or proceeding. 8. All expenses detailed in statements sent to Agency pursuant to Article II, Section 6 herein will comply with the terms and provisions of the Title 23 U.S. Code, Title 23 Code of Federal Regulations, and the Federal -Aid Policy Guide, U.S. Department of Transportation, as amended from time to time, which manual is hereby incorporated into and made a part of this Agreement by reference. The parties mutually agree that BNSF's preliminary engineering, design, and contract preparation costs described in Article II, Section 2 herein are part of the costs of the Project even though such work may have preceded the date of this Agreement. 9. The parties mutually agree that neither construction activities for the Project, nor future maintenance of the Structure once completed, will be permitted during the fourth quarter of each calendar year. Emergency work will be permitted only upon prior notification to BNSF's Network Operations Center (telephone number: 800 832-5452). The parties hereto mutually understand and agree that trains cannot be subjected to delay during this time period. 10. Subject to the restrictions imposed by Article IV, Section 9 above, the construction of the Project will not commence until Agency gives BNSF's Manager of Public Projects thirty (30) days prior written notice of such commencement. The commencement notice will reference D.O.T. Crossing No. 085597G and must state the time that construction activities will begin. 12 22 11. In addition to the terms and conditions set forth elsewhere in this Agreement, including, but not limited to, the terms and conditions stated in Exhibit F, BNSF and Agency agree to the following terms upon completion of construction of the Project: (a) Agency will own and maintain, at its sole cost and expense, the Structure, the highway approaches, and appurtenances thereto, lighting, drainage and any access roadways to BNSF gates installed pursuant to this Agreement. BNSF may, at its option, perform maintenance on the Structure in order to avoid conflicts with train operations. BNSF will notify Agency prior to performing any such maintenance on the Structure. In the event such maintenance involves emergency repairs, BNSF will notify Agency at its earliest opportunity. Agency must fully reimburse BNSF for the costs of maintenance performed by BNSF pursuant to this subsection (b). (b) Agency must, at Agency's sole cost and expense, keep the Structure painted and free from graffiti. (c) Agency must provide BNSF with any and all necessary permits and maintain roadway traffic controls, at no cost to BNSF, whenever requested by BNSF to allow BNSF to inspect the Structure or to make emergency repairs thereto. (d) It is expressly understood by Agency and BNSF that any right to install utilities will be governed by a separate permit or license agreement between the parties hereto, (e) Agency must keep the Structure and surrounding areas clean and free from birds, pigeons, scavengers, vermin, creatures and other animals. (f) If Agency (including its contractors and agents) or BNSF, on behalf of Agency, performs (i) alterations or modifications to the Structure, or (ii) any maintenance or other work on the Structure with heavy tools, equipment or machinery at ground surface level horizontally within 25'-0" of the centerline of the nearest track, or (iii) any maintenance or other work outside the limits of the deck of the Structure vertically above the top of the rail, then Agency or its contractors and/or agents must procure and maintain the following insurance coverage, which may be changed from time to time: Railroad Protective Liability insurance naming only BNSF as the Insured with coverage of at least $5,000,000 per occurrence and $10,000,000 in the aggregate. The policy shall be issued on a standard ISO form CG 00 35 12 04 and include the following: 13 23 • Endorsed to include the Pollution Exclusion Amendment • Endorsed to include the Limited Seepage and Pollution Endorsement. • Endorsed to remove any exclusion for punitive damages. • Endorsed to include Evacuation Expense Coverage Endorsement. • No other endorsements restricting coverage may be added. • The original policy must be provided to BNSF prior to performing any work or services under this Agreement • Definition of "Physical Damage to Property" shall be endorsed to read: "means direct and accidental loss of or damage to all property owned by any named insured and all property in any named insured' care, custody, and control arising out of the acts or omissions of the contractor named on the Declarations. As used in this paragraph, "BNSF" means "Burlington Northern Santa Fe, LLC", "BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY" and the subsidiaries, successors, assigns and affiliates of each. In lieu of providing a Railroad Protective Liability Policy, Agency may participate in BNSF's Blanket Railroad Protective Liability Insurance Policy if available to Agency or its contractors. The limits of coverage are the same as above. 12. Agency hereby grants to BNSF, at no cost or expense to BNSF, a permanent right of access from Agency property to BNSF tracks for maintenance purposes. 13. Agency must provide one set of digital as -built plans (prepared in English Units) to BNSF, as well as one set of computer diskettes containing as built CAD drawings of the Structure and identifying the software used for the CAD drawings. The "as built plans" must comply with the Bridge Requirements set forth on Exhibit F and depict all information in BNSF engineering stationing and mile post pluses. The "as built plans" must also include plan and profile, structural bridge drawings and specifications, and drainage plans. All improvements and facilities must be shown. 14. Subject to the restrictions imposed by Article IV, Section 9 above and in accordance with the requirements of Article III, Section 9 above, Agency must notify and obtain prior authorization from BNSF's Manager of Public Projects before entering BNSF's right-of-way for INSPECTION OR MAINTENANCE purposes, and the BNSF Manager of Public Projects will determine if flagging is required. If the construction work hereunder is contracted, Agency must require its prime contractor(s) to comply with the obligations set forth in Exhibit C and Exhibit C-1, as the same may be revised from time to time. Agency will be responsible for its contractor(s) compliance with such obligations. 15. In the event that BNSF shall deem it necessary or desirable in the future, in the performance of its duty as a common carrier, to raise or lower the grade or change the 14 24 alignment of its tracks or to lay additional track or tracks or to build other facilities in connection with the operation of its railroad, BNSF shall, at its expense, have full right to make such changes or additions, provided such changes or additions do not change or alter the Structure herein proposed to be constructed and provided further, however, that should it become necessary or desirable in the future to change, alter, widen or reconstruct the Structure to accommodate railroad projects, the cost of such work, including any cost incidental to alteration of railroad or highway facilities made necessary by the alteration of the Structure shall be the sole responsibility of Agency. 16. Agency may, at Agency's sole expense, alter or reconstruct the highway components of the Structure if necessary or desirable, due to traffic conditions or pedestrian or other recreational traffic, provided, however, that any such alteration or reconstruction must receive BNSF's prior written approval as evidenced by either a supplement to this Agreement, or execution of a new agreement that provides for the termination of this Agreement. Furthermore, any alteration or reconstruction of the highway components of the Structure will be covered by a Commission Order. 17. Any books, papers, records and accounts of the parties hereto relating to the work hereunder or the costs or expenses for labor and material connected with the construction will at all reasonable times be open to inspection and audit by the agents and authorized representatives of the parties hereto, as well as the State of Washington and the Federal Highway Administration, for a period of three (3) years from the date of final BNSF invoice under this Agreement. 18. The covenants and provisions of this Agreement are binding upon and inure to the benefit of the successors and assigns of the parties hereto. Notwithstanding the preceding sentence, neither party hereto may assign any of its rights or obligations hereunder without the prior written consent of the other party. 19. In the event construction of the Project does not commence within eighteen months of the Effective Date, this Agreement will become null and void. 20. Neither termination nor expiration of this Agreement will release either party from any liability or obligation under this Agreement, whether of indemnity or otherwise, resulting from any acts, omissions or events happening prior to the date of termination or expiration. 21. To the maximum extent possible, each provision of this Agreement will be interpreted in such a manner as to be effective and valid under applicable law. If any provision of this Agreement is prohibited by, or held to be invalid under, applicable law, such provision will be ineffective solely to the extent of such prohibition or invalidity and the remainder of the provision will be enforceable. 22. This Agreement (including exhibits and other documents, manuals, etc. incorporated herein) is the full and complete agreement between BNSF and Agency 15 25 with respect to the subject matter herein and supersedes any and all other prior agreements between the parties hereto. 23. Any notice provided for herein or concerning this Agreement must be in writing and will be deemed sufficiently given when sent by certified mail, return receipt requested, to the parties at the following a dresses:: BNSF: AGENCY: BNSF's Manager of Public Projects Richard W Wagner 2454 Occidental Avenue South Ste 2D Seattle, WA 98134 206.625.6152 Richard.Wagner(BNSF.com Robin Tischirnak. City Engineer City of Tulkila 6300 Southcenter Blvd, Suite 100 Tukwila, A 98188 (2 6) 431 .2455 16 26 IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Agreement to be executed and attested by its duly qualified and authorized officials as of the day and year first above written. WITNESS: WITNESS: 17 BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY By. Printed Name: Richard Wagner Title: Manager Public Projects NW Division — ID, WA & BC AGE CY CITY OF TU By. u Printed Name: Allan Ekber• Title: aor Cit of Tukwil 27 28 City of Tu wila Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director /.ol BY: Mike Perfetti, Habitat Project Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: January 18, 2018 SUBJECT: Surface Water Fund - Green the Green Project No. 91641202 Grant Acceptance — The Rose Foundation ISSUE Authorize the Mayor to sign a grant agreement with the Rose Foundation. Allan Ekberg, Mayor BACKGROUND The City's Green the Green Project is a public -private partnership that will restore sections of the Green/Duwamish River to provide habitat for ESA -listed Puget Sound Chinook salmon and for the enjoyment of the community. DISCUSSION Staff applied for a no -match $25,000 grant to fund additional work at the JSH site (14900 Interurban Ave S). The funding will be used to extend the project area to the south, restoring an additional 450 lineal feet of shoreline with native vegetation, bringing the total restoration length to approximately 1,000 lineal feet. FISCAL IMPACT Staff received approval from the Transportation and Infrastructure Committee on April 23, 2018 to apply for future grant opportunities to fund the Green the Green project. The Rose Foundation grant was recently awarded for the requested amount of $25,000 and no City match is required. RECOMMENDATION Council is being asked to accept the grant agreement for $25,000.00 with the Rose Foundation and consider this item on the Consent Agenda at the February 4, 2019 Regular Meeting. ATTACHMENTS • Map of project area • Grant Agreement W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS \A- DR Projects\Green the Green\Grants\2018 Rose Foundation Grant\Rose Foundation Grant Acceptance\Info Memo Grant Accept 01232019.docx 29 11111111111111„1„„, 110;1111111,111111„: 1[1111 1111j 11 01C1011111111110011 91 '0 11,,i,1,1,1:1411I1,, 0:111111,11\ 1\[ y41 1 ',111J11 1,111101011111111111111,11 11111 1111( H1101 1111 '11,1111111111,11111, r""r4" 011101111111 1111111111 111111111,11,1111111111111 11111111 Legend Major Freeways JSH Properties 111,1111 11,111111111101;11thifTftf! ihhlh0,41hhhlhhhihhhhhey.hl hh„,h,hhhh 11,4' 1.1 91, ;0110 1,11 411111 "'11 11 11,0[111,01 hho 111,6 1,11111111E111.0p,i' 11;11 , ,1 1,111,h hhohoghgdohhhh 411 'h1,6,1, 111111 1111111, 1\1110,1y10:I"olnill 1 r11111111111111111,1"1011111 1 1,1111111111111111,4 0111111111111111111111111111111111\11 1 #1111 100 1 111 1111111111111111111 111111 1111 .1111140041V 1111, 0,1 „ 1111taudia,d „,00,Y"11PlIe ")1111, 1"1"1"1""1"'""11IIIIIII "111[1 1111111111111111160 01" 11 140 1, II I0 I[" 4[11 0, „11"1110t1 I4?y' 1106104," 1110or 1110111 11111111111111111111111111111111IUU11111 911 ih 111Jimpy,00101 lid 1,600800 0 Tukwila Green the Green Project Overview Map JSH Properties 1 600 3 200 4 800 6 400 8 000 9,600 11,200 1:49,341 12,800 Feet DISCLAIMER WhIle every precautIon was taken In preparng thIs map the pubhsher dIsclalms any warranty of fitness or accuracy of the data The map Is apprommate In nature based an complatIon of data from multIple sources and should not be rehed upon or referenced In legal documents Inducing property deeds ttle reports and contract documents nor substItuted for appropnate survey and. engneerng analysIs The user of the map acknowledges Its hmItatIons assumes all responsIbIlIty for Its use and agrees to hold the publIsher harmless for any damages that may result from the use of thIs map ThIs map Is subject to change wIthout notIce KCD Planner Kristen 5e14hardt Copyright©2017 King Conservatio6District September 26, 2017 r), t P ath 114 0h "/, dl“ mar , Adirry ti art, d ro, fr“ 11/1<vvl ( th, MAP0 w114 Sftupsbujpobsfb SptfGpvoebujpo Hsbou-\[poft5'6 Legend JSH Property Boundary Zone 1 - Tidal/Wet Zone; Edge of River Zone 2 - Steep Slope; Use Stakes Zone 3 - Ivy Hedge Zone 4 - Dry, Sunny, Blackberry Zone 5 - Established Tree Canopy; Add Conifers Zone 6 - Planted 2016 Pictometry International Corp. 2015 DISCLAIMER: While every precaution was taken in preparing this map, the publisher disclaims any warranty of fitness or accuracy of the data. The map is approximate in nature, based on compilation of data from Tukwila Green the Green multiple sources, and should not be relied upon or referenced in legal documents, including property deeds, title reports, and contract documents, nor substituted for appropriate survey and\\or engineering Planting Zones Map analysis. The user of the map acknowledges its limitations, assumes all ± responsibility for its use, and agrees to hold the publisher harmless for any damages that may result from the use of this map. This map is 1:1,500 subject to change without notice. JSH Properties KCD Planner: Kristen Reichardt 2001000200 Copyright ©2017 King Conservation District 31 Feet October 19, 2017 Document Path: M:\\Shared Resources\\Administration\\Contracted Services - KCD\\Tukwila Green the Green\\MAPS\\JSH Properties Planning Maps\\JSHPlantingZonesMap.mxd JSH Properties 110 Figure 2: 1511 Properties site, left bank, looking north/downriver; Starfire Sports Complex across the river 32 201 4TH STREET, SUITE 102, OAKLAND, CA 94607 ROSEPROSEFDN.ORG 12/05/2018 vi;,/ R .)SL r 120 GAT I0 Na (or CC 2 k\UNIT! ES and the ENVIR01'JIv1ENT ' E d OFFICE: 510.658.0702 FAX: 510.658,0732 Grant Contract Puget Sound Stewardship & Mitigation Fall 2018 jack Pace, Director, Dept. of Community Development City of Tukwila 6200 Southcenter Blvd Tukwila, WA 98188 Dear jack, { I'm happy to inform you that the Rose Foundation's Board of Directors has approved a grant of $25,000.00 to City of Tukwila for Green the Green. This grant is awarded through the Puget Sound Stewardship and Mitigation Fund, which was created by a record legal settlement between the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and Burlington Northern Santa Fe (BNSF) Railway, and has since been supplemented by several other pollution mitigation payments including SSA Terminals, Whitley Evergreen, Rainier Petroleum Corporation and Louis Dreyfus Company. More recently we received mitigation funds from Cargill, and another record settlement payment from BNSF, which involved Soundkeeper numerous other waterkeepers and the Sierra Club. The Fund's goal is to mitigate past pollution runoff by supporting community -based efforts to protect or improve the water quality of Puget Sound. In order to recognize Puget Soundkeeper Alliance's role in generating these funds for the community, this letter will specify language that you need to use in public communications related to the grant. Please see the Additional Conditions & Restrictions section for signage guidelines. This letter will serve as the grant contract. To acknowledge receipt of this grant and to accept its terms, please read, sign and return this grant contract at your earliest convenience. Contracts can be returned by mail, fax or email. Please keep a copy of the grant contract for your permanent records. Once we have received a signed copy of this grant contract, a grant payment will be sent by US Postal Service to the address above. We reserve the right to cancel this grant if a signed copy of the grant contract is not received by the Rose Foundation within 60 days of the date of this letter. 1 33 Grant Requirements The undersigned certifies that as a tax-exempt government or public agency, it is not subject to state or federal income taxes, shall comply with state and local regulations imposed on Code Cities organized under RCW 34A and agrees: • Funds will only be expended in accordance to the provisions stated in the 09/14/2018 application. • To repay any portion of the amount granted which is not used for the furtherance of the project(s) referenced above. If the Foundation determines that grantee is not capable of satisfactorily completing the work of th.e grant, the Foundation may, at its discretion, demand repayment of grant funds, withhold payment of future grant funds and/or declare the grant terminated. • To notify the Foundation immediately of any change in its tax or legal status, including but not limited to federal or state tax exemption; or any change to the executive staff, or to staff responsible for achieving the grant purposes; • Not to expend any of these funds for any purpose other than religious, charitable, scientific or educational within the meaning of Internal Revenue Code Section 170(c)(2)(B). • Not to expend any of these funds on lobbying activities whatsoever, nor for electioneering activities such as endorsing, campaigning, or otherwise supporting elected officials or candidates for public office. • 'To make its books available to the Foundation upon reasonable advance notice during the grant period and for one year following the termination of the grant. • If in the sole judgment of the Foundation any contingencies required under this grant are not fulfilled within the grant period, the grant shall expire, and the Foundation can demand full or partial repayment of grant funds. Additional Conditions & Restrictions: 1. Any signage or publicly distributed materials related to a project must display the following acknowledgement: Support for (Project Name) was provided by the Puget Sound Stewardship and Mitigation Fund, a grantmaking fund created by the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance and administered by the Rose Foundation for Communities and the Environment. 2. You are encouraged to notify the Puget Soundkeeper Alliance at psa@pugetsoundkeeper.org two weeks before any significant volunteer opportunities so they can coordinate with you and possibly provide volunteers to help with the event. 3. Because this grant comes in 2 installments of $12,500, the next payment will be made after receiving satisfactory interim report of the project. 2 34 Reporting Reciuirements You are required to report on the activities that you conducted with this grant. Your report due dates are as follows: Interim: 01/31/2020 Final: 1/31/2021 Please note that if you wish to reapply for a grant from this Fund, then the final report for this grant will be due before considering your organization for new funding (groups can reapply to a fund once every 12 months). To submit reports, please log onto our online application system at www.rosefdmorg/onlineapplication. Fiscally Sponsored Proiects If your organization is fiscally sponsored by a 501c3 organization, both the project and the fiscal sponsor must sign and return the contract. We will send the contract to both the fiscal sponsor and the project. Once we have received the contract from both the project and the fiscal sponsor, the grant check will be mailed to the fiscal sponsor. Public Acknowledgement of Grant If it is appropriate, we would appreciate being listed as a source of financial assistance. Please use our full name, "Rose Foundation For Communities and the Environment." You may also use our logo, which can be downloaded at www.rosefdn.org/logo. Please also see Additional Conditions & Restrictions above for signage guidelines. Tim Little will be your program director for this grant. For all future communications, the best way to reach him is by email at tlittle@rosefdn.org, or you can also contact me by phone at (510) 658-0702. Sincerely, Tim Little Executive Director 3 35 To Execute this Grant Contract If you agree to these terms and conditions as outlined in this grant contact, please sign and return this letter. To expedite the grant payment, you may sign, scan and return the grant contract via email to grants@rosefdn.org or fax to (510) 658-0732. Or you may mail the signed contract to the Rose Foundation, 201 4th Street, Suite 102, Oakland, CA 94607. Please make a copy for your records. SIGNATURE DATE PRINT NAME ORGANIZATION Check here if serving as the fiscal sponsor for the project 4 36 Allan Ekberg, Mayor MW Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director /! BY: Ryan Larson, Senior Program Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: January 18, 2019 SUBJECT: Surface Water Fund — Tukwila 205 Levee Certification Project No. 91341203, Contract No. 14-164 Phase II - Draft Report ISSUE Provide an update on the Tukwila 205 Levee Certification effort and the Phase 2 draft report. BACKGROUND The Tukwila 205 Levee is located on the left bank of the Green River between S 196th St and 1-405 and provides flood protection to the Tukwila Urban Center. The Corps of Engineers (Corps) notified the City that due to a change in their policy, they would no longer provide levee certification for this or any federal levee. Levee certification expired in August 2013. The City hired NHC to perform the first phase of the levee certification effort that included an engineering analysis in accordance with FEMA requirements. This analysis looked at the entire levee system to determine which segments did not meet FEMA requirements. The results of the Phase 1 study revealed that the levee does not meet minimum free board requirements in 14 segments and that embankment, foundation, and stability issues are present. Phase 11 of this certification effort is near completion and looked at each of the deficient areas identified in Phase 1, collected additional site information, developed alternatives for correcting the deficiencies, and developed costs estimates. DISCUSSION The Phase 2 report identified ten separate segments totaling 17,900 feet of levee or approximately 75% of the total length that do not meet federal requirements for levee safety. These segments have been identified as needing large scale improvements to primarily address steep slopes and foundation issues. To address steep slopes, levee setbacks that require additional levee easements or the use of floodwalls are required. NHC has provided conceptual designs for levee repairs. All proposed designs are only to bring the levee to a 100-year level of protection to allow the levee to be certified. It is recommended that all future levee projects be constructed to the 500-year level of protection given the nature of the area being protected. FISCAL IMPACT Final cost estimates are still being developed, but the total cost to correct all deficiencies are anticipated to exceed $100M. Staff is working with the Flood District to add these projects to the Flood District's Capital Improvement list so that they can be prioritized with the other needed projects throughout King County. RECOMMENDATION Informational item only. ATTACHMENTS • Tukwila Levee Accreditation, Phase 2 Levee Segment Assessment 37 W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Tukwila 205\205 Certification (91341203)\Phase 2\Info Memo Status Update.docx TUKWILA LEVEE ACCREDITATION PHASE 2 — LEVEE SEGMENT ASSESSMENT AND PROPOSED SEQUENCING FOR LARGE SCALE IMPROVEMENTS INTERIM REPORT Prepared for: City of Tukwila Public Works Tukwila, WA Prepared by: Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. Tukwila, WA October 17, 2018 NHC Ref. No. 2000098 38 DISCLAIMER This document has been prepared by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. in accordance with generally accepted engineering practices and is intended for the exclusive use and benefit of City of Tukwila and their authorized representatives for specific application to the Tukwila 205-Green River Levee Accreditation in Tukwila, WA, USA. The contents of this document are not to be relied upon or used, in whole or in part, by or for the benefit of others without specific written authorization from Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. No other warranty, expressed or implied, is made. Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. and its officers, directors, employees, and agents assume no responsibility for the reliance upon this document or any of its contents by any parties other than City of Tukwila. 39 C TI Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc., and their subconsultants Wood (formerly Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc.) and KPG, are providing professional engineering services to evaluate and certify the Tukwila 205 Levee in accordance with Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) requirements. The 4.5-mile long levee is located on the left bank of the Green River between Interstate- 405 and South 196th Street. This report documents Phase 2, the— Alternatives Analysis for Large Scale Improvements of the project. The purpose of the prior Phase 1 was to evaluate the levee condition relative to Code of Federal Regulations Title 44, Chapter I, Subchapter B, Part 65, Section 10 criteria on a project reach scale, determine if the levee could be certified in the existing condition and, when not, identify the deficiencies in meeting the criteria. Tabulated below are the findings for each criteria evaluated. Criteria Freeboard Phase 1 Evaluation Less than only on the 2000 order feet Results total of levee are below minimum elevation, but typically of inches. Closures No flood closures in the system to certify. Embankment Protection Existing rock and vegetated banks are sufficient to certify that there will be no appreciable anticipated erosion of the levee banks during the 100-year flood. Embankment and Foundation Stability Steep slopes significantly limit levee certification and the addition of predicted scour increases failure risk. Settling No significant levee settlement issues that will negatively impact freeboard. Interior Drainage Little significant interior flooding landward of the levee for the simulated 100- year condition. The Phase 1 general reach analysis found that steep levee side slopes result in significant lengths of levee failing to meet the required factor of safety for several geotechnical criteria. Including estimated river channel scour further decreases the factors of safety. A review of historic records shows the levee was purposely constructed at these steep slopes; however, those designs do not now pass the required design criteria. FEMA requires that levees be certified in their entirety — no segmentation of a contiguous levee system is allowed - so the levee cannot be accredited in its current condition. The Phase 2 approach has taken a more detailed look at site specific information, including additional geotechnical work, to investigate if more accurate data and refined methods may result in segments of levee meeting certification criteria. Work has included dividing the levee reach into segments that can and can't be accredited. Detailed work during Phase 2 of the project has shown that roughly 20% of the levee can be certified in its existing condition. For those segments of the levee that could not be certified in the current state, Phase 2 has considered large scale improvement options for certifying Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 — Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 1 40 levee segments, developed conceptual level plans and initial cost estimates, and proposed a prioritization for constructing large scale improvements. Once Phase 2 is finalized, the construction repair for each deficient segment of the levee will then move into final design, permitting, and construction in Phase 3. Phase 4 will provide the documentation necessary to certify the Tukwila 205 Levee. Tabulated below are a description of the levee segments, which of these segments are anticipated to be certified in their existing condition, and for the remaining levee segments, proposed sequencing for large scale improvements to obtain levee accreditation. Levee Segment Stationing Beginning 0 (feet) Ending 600 Description of Land Approximately Paralleling 66th Avenue S. approach and tie in to high topographic Features road, Segment 1-405, ground. Length Anticipated Certifiable Levee Segment (feet) fi of e Construction Improvements Certification Proposed Sequencing N/A for Total Length (feet) 0 600 1600 68th Avenue S./Christensen Road. Low 700 1600 2100 Wide left (south side of river) overbank downstream of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge. 1, 0 0 N/A 0 2100 3200 Riverview Plaza Business Park. 0 Medium. " 1100 3200 3500 Bicentennial Park. % N/A 0 3500 5300 Business parks and related parking from upstream of Strander Boulevard to just beyond railroad bridge crossing. N/A 0 5300 6500 Business parks and related parking along Christensen Road capital project in the Green River SWIF. 0 High 1200 6500 7700 Tukwila Pump Station. / N/A 0 7700 10150 Sperry Drive and parking lots near Costco and Home Depot. 0 Medium 2450 10150 10250 S 180th Street crossing. % N/A 0 10250 12200 From S 180t" bridge crossing upstream including Lily Point and the Ratolo Levee Green River SWIF project area. 0 High 1950 12200 13200 Outside of bend along S 180t". 0 Medium. " 1000 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 — Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 2 41 Levee Segment Stationing (feet) Description of Land Features Beginning Ending Approximately Paralleling Segment 13200 14300 15900 18500 22750 14300 15900 18500 22750 23800 Business parks and associated parking upstream of S 180t". Area of 2008 Corps levee repair. Business parks and associated parking upstream of 2008 Corps levee repair. Corps' Gaco-Mitchell Levee being designed. Segale property. Cross -levee. Length of Anticipated Certifiable Levee Segment (feet) 0 0 0 0 Construction Improvements for Certification Proposed Total Length Sequencing (feet) N/A Medium. High mnnn„ 0 1600 2600 uiiiiiiiiiiiiiu 'li�Plllllllll �I�'�'�' Low 1050 Total Length: 5900 17900 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 — Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 3 42 TL •FC• T T 1 INTRODUCTION 6 2 BACKGROUND 6 3 PURPOSE 8 4 SITE SPECIFIC ENGINEERING ANALYSES 8 4.1 Levee Accreditation 11 5 ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS — LARGE SCALE PROJECTS 19 5.1 Construction Fixes 19 6 PROPOSED PRIORITIZATION 34 7 PHASE 3 PREVIEW 35 8 REFERENCES 35 APPENDIX A Concept Designs Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 — Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 4 43 LI T •FT C :L Table 1. Tukwila 205 Levee Segments. 10 Table 2. Code of Federal Regulations levee certification criteria and Phase 1 assessment 11 Table 3. Summary by cross-section of additional Phase 2 geotechnical slope stability assessments. 18 Table 4. Planning level cost estimate for final design and construction of levee certification improvements 20 Table 5. Summary by cross-section of Phase 1 geotechnical slope stability assessments 21 Table 6. Proposed improvement prioritization based on risk and opportunity 34 LIT•FFI Figure 1. Project Location 7 Figure 2. Levee Condition 9 Figure 3. Tukwila Levee segment where stationing 0 to 600 can be certified as is. 12 Figure 4. Tukwila Levee segment 600 through 1600 where existing portion 600 through 900 can be certified 13 Figure 5. Tukwila Levee segment where stationing 1600 through 2100 can be certified. 14 Figure 6. Tukwila Levee segment where stationing 3200 through 3500 can be certified. 14 Figure 7. Tukwila Levee segment where existing section 3500 to 5300 can be certified. 15 Figure 8. Tukwila Levee segment where existing section 6500 to 7700 can be certified. 16 Figure 9. Tukwila Levee segment where existing section 13200 to 14300 can be certified. 17 Figure 10. Tukwila Levee segment 600 through 1600 where existing portion 900 through 1600 can't be certified 22 Figure 11. Tukwila Levee segment 2100 through 3200 that can't be certified in its existing condition23 Figure 12. Tukwila Levee segment 5300 through 6500 that can't be certified in its existing condition24 Figure 13. Tukwila Levee segment 7700 through 10150 that can't be certified in its existing condition25 Figure 14. Tukwila Levee segment 10250 through 12200 that can't be certified in its existing condition. 26 Figure 15. Tukwila Levee segment 12200 through 13200 that can't be certified in its existing condition. 27 Figure 16. Tukwila Levee segment 14300 through 15900 that can't be certified in its existing condition. 28 Figure 17. Tukwila Levee segment 15900 through 18500 that can't be certified in its existing condition. 29 Figure 18. Tukwila Levee segment 18500 through 22750 (downstream portion) that can't be certified in its existing condition. 31 Figure 19. Tukwila Levee segment 18500 through 22750 (upstream portion) that can't be certified in its existing condition 32 Figure 20. Tukwila Levee segment 22750 through 23800 that can't be certified in its existing condition. 33 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 — Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 5 44 1 I T' • ' CTI The City of Tukwila (City) Department of Public Works has selected an engineering consultant team led by Northwest Hydraulic Consultants Inc. (NHC) to evaluate the Tukwila 205 Levee in accordance with the Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) levee accreditation requirements described in Code of Federal Regulations Title 44, Chapter!, Subchapter B, Part 65, Section 10 (44 CFR Section 65.10). NHC is the prime consultant for this project and is responsible for analyzing hydraulic aspects of the project including freeboard, embankment protection, scour potential, and interior drainage, as well as project management. The team subconsultants are Wood Group (Wood) responsible for geotechnical analyses of the levee, and KPG, responsible for general civil including surveying services. Wood staff on the first phase of this project were then working under the company name of Amec Foster Wheeler Environment & Infrastructure, Inc. (Amec). 2 C The Green River flows from the Cascade Mountains generally westward until the city of Auburn, and then northward to Elliott Bay in Seattle, WA, passing through the cities of Kent, Tukwila, and then Seattle. The Tukwila 205 Levee is located on the left bank (looking downstream) of the Green River within the City of Tukwila, WA. The 4.5-mile long levee extends from 1-405 upstream past bridge crossings at Strander Boulevard and South 180th Street to a cut-off segment that extends to the west valley wall just downstream of the South 200th Street bridge. Figure 1 shows an overview of the overall Green River system downstream of Howard Hanson Dam, operated by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), and the Tukwila 205 Levee project area. Portions of the Tukwila Levee were first constructed to limit Green River flooding of agricultural farmlands (a general chronology of levee construction and repairs can be found in Amec, 2015). After construction of the Howard Hanson Dam in the 1960s, the USACE controlled releases above the 2-year level (50% annual exceedance probability, approximately 9,200 cfs) by detaining flood waters within the Howard Hanson reservoir and releasing them over a period of days to weeks (NHC, 2007). The United States Geological Survey (USGS) stream gage at Auburn is used by the USACE for its regulation targeting. The dam initiated a development boom in the Green River valley, with extensive levee and revetment improvements constructed during the 1960s. Tukwila 205 Levee was initially certified by USACE as providing protection up to the 100-year event. The USACE has since generally discontinued their levee certification services, so levees must be re -certified by others to remain recognized by FEMA as providing flood protection. The City was notified by FEMA of the need for re -certification on July 10, 2012. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2— Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 6 45 Legend AAuburn Flow Gage Howard Hanson Dam Tukwila 205 Levee Green River City Boundaries Pacific° Newcastl City of Tukwila s n northwest hydraulwc cosultan SCALE - 1:150,000 N 0 1 2 3 Miles Coordinate System: NAD 1983 STATEPLANE WASHINGTON NORTH FIPS 4601 FEET Job: 2000098 I Date: 08-Aug-2015 TUKWILA LEVEE ACCREDITATION SITE OVERVIEW Figure 1. Project Location 0) 3 The ultimate purpose of the project is to certify the Tukwila 205 Levee to FEMA standards. As work was started on the project, it became clear that much of the levee system could not be certified under current design standards. Due to the costs and complexity of reconstructing thousands of feet of levee in an urban area, the project was broken into phases. Phase 1, "Engineering Analyses and Improvement Identification" (NHC, 2015), work included data collection, performing engineering analyses required under 44 CFR 65.10, and identifying levee deficiencies that must be addressed for accreditation. That work documented the hydrologic, hydraulic, and geotechnical engineering conducted to evaluate whether the existing levee satisfies FEMA's accreditation requirements, and where and what deficiencies were found. One of the most significant findings from that work was that steep bank slopes throughout the reach prevent the ability to certify the levee as -is. As such, Phase 2 work, "Alternatives Analysis for Large Scale Improvements", documented in this report, had two main tasks. The first was to perform more detailed, site specific assessments at locations where the existing levee might be certified. This included discretizing the project reach based on common characteristics. This initial Phase 2 task looks at a finer scale with more site specific analyses, versus the generalized reach wide Phase 1 approach. The second task of Phase 2 evaluates alternative options, develops conceptual level construction plans, and proposes a prioritization for those segments of the Tukwila Levee that must be modified to meet certification standards. Phase 3 will take concepts through final design for the Phase 2 construction improvements, including providing permitting and construction support. Phase 4, once all deficiencies have been addressed, would then provide the documentation necessary to certify the Tukwila Levee, including developing an Operations and Maintenance Manual, of which the basis will be the existing USACE approved manual, but also will adopt other recent policies and procedures, if appropriate, such as those from King County's ongoing System -Wide Improvement Framework (SWIF) assessment for the Green River. Once Phase 2 is completed, the specific tasks to be completed in Phases 3 through 4 can be refined and a cost estimate prepared to complete the work. 4 IT '' CIFIC I LY The project reach was discretized based on common physical characteristics and relative complexity of levee reconstruction alternatives needed to achieve certification (Figure 2) and then detailed analysis conducted to determine if existing levee conditions for each segment could be certified to provide flood protection. Table 1 provides a brief description of the individual segments. To try and provide more detailed site information and maximize the levee lengths that could be certified, Wood collected additional soil characteristics through cone penetration test (CPT) probes (Wood, 2018) and additional bathymetric data were surveyed for the entire study reach. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 — Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 8 47 River Ride Levee Condition % Levee Stationing - 100On Improvement Needed Levee Stationing - 100ft Certifiable sa0 1 yc�rc1 �2K . Ar. a s -EFcaae s v� . :• . 4 F,PS400 50E D Date s0-Oo1.2018 TUKWILA LEVEE ACCREDITATION Figure 2. Levee Condition CO Table 1. Tukwila 205 Levee Segments. Beginning Station (feet) 0 Ending Station (feet) 600 Description of Land Features Approximately Paralleling Segment High topographic section north of 1-405, 1-405, and 66th Avenue S. approach road. 600 1600 68th Avenue S./Christensen Road. 1600 2100 Section of undeveloped wide left (south side of river) overbank downstream of the pedestrian/bicycle bridge. 2100 3200 Riverview Plaza Business Park including a 200' long parking lot section. 3200 3500 Bicentennial Park. 3500 3600 Strander Boulevard 3600 5300 Business parks and related parking from upstream of Strander Boulevard to just beyond railroad bridge crossing. 5300 6500 Business parks and related parking along outside river bend. Referred to as Christensen Road capital project in the Green River SWIF. 6500 7700 Tukwila Pump Station. 7700 10150 Sperry Drive including Costco and Home Depot parking lots. 10150 10250 S 180th Street crossing. 10250 12200 From S 180th bridge crossing upstream. Includes Lily Point and the Ratolo Levee CIP project area discussed in the Green River SWIF. 12200 13200 Outside of bend along S 180th. 13200 14300 Business parks and associated parking upstream of S 180th and through the area of the 2008 Corps levee repair. 14300 15900 Business parks and associated parking upstream of the 2008 Corps levee repair 15900 18500 Corps Gaco-Mitchell Levee Design Site including outside bend. Referred to as the Segale-Green and Gaco-Western project area in the Green River SWIF. 18500 22750 Segale property. 22750 23800 Cross -levee. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 10 49 4.1 Levee Accreditation There are several components to accredit a levee following the Code of Federal Regulations Title 44, Chapter!, Subchapter B, Part 65, Section 10 criteria. Phase 1 of this project evaluated the levee on a reach scale and of these criteria (Table 2), embankment and foundation stability were found to be the most limiting factor, with much of the levee failing to meet these criteria. Table 2. Code of Federal Regulations levee certification criteria and Phase 1 assessment. Criteria Freeboard Phase 1 Evaluation Less than only on the 2000 order feet Results total of levee are below minimum elevation, but typically of inches. Closures No flood closures in the system to certify. Embankment Protection Existing rock and vegetated banks are sufficient to certify that there will be no appreciable anticipated erosion of the levee banks during the 100-year flood. Embankment and Foundation Stability Steep slopes significantly limit levee certification and the addition of predicted scour increases failure risk. Settling No significant levee settlement issues that will negatively impact freeboard. Interior Drainage Little significant interior flooding landward of the levee for the simulated 100- year condition. Work as part of Phase 2 took a more detailed look at site specific information to determine if more accurate data collected and refined methods could result in segments of levee meeting certification criteria. Based on this work, of the 4.5 miles of levee, it's anticipated that approximately 20% of the levee can be certified in its existing condition. This includes segments that have stable slopes when accounting for potential scour, segments that fail levee stability criteria, but that when under the most likely failed scenario have at least 11 feet of remaining levee width at or above the Base Flood Elevation (BFE), as well as the three bridge crossings where as -built drawings and other documentation is assumed to be sufficient to support certification. ■ Levee stationing 0 to 600. This segment includes the 66th Avenue S approach road to the bridge crossing 1-405, 1-405, and ground to the north of 1-405 (Figure 3). For this segment, should the levee fail, there is sufficient width of ground landward, that is at or above the BFE (27'), to provide flood protection. ■ Levee stationing 600 to 900. 68th Avenue S./Christensen Road (Figure 4). Approximately 300 feet of this segment could be certified. Simulated geotechnical failures would leave 11' or more of existing ground (at 30') at or above the BFE (27'). ■ Levee stationing 1600 to 2100. The levee is approximately 100 feet or more away from the channel edge behind a forested floodplain bench (Figure 4), and further than any potential point of slope failure. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 11 50 • Levee stationing 3200 to 3500. Bicentennial Park (Figure 6). Slope failure may reach landward of the levee; however, the ground elevation (28') is still greater than the BFE (27.7'). • Levee stationing 3500 to 5300. Strander Boulevard and upstream section through the business parks and related parking have stable slopes (Figure 7). • Levee stationing 6500 to 7700. Portions of the levee along the Tukwila Pump Station and a portion of the business park downstream of the pump station (Figure 8) have stable slopes. • Levee stationing 10150 to 10250. It's assumed sufficient documentation exists to certify this approximate 100' long existing S 180th Street bridge crossing section. • Levee stationing 13200 to 14300. Business parks and associated parking (Figure 9) along the Corps 2008 levee repair have stable bank slopes. Results of the geotechnical slope stability analysis for additional cross -sections evaluated in Phase 2 are presented in Table 3. In order to be certified on the embankment and foundation criteria, the representative cross-section for the levee segment must have a computed factor of safety greater than a USACE minimum value for all cases (e.g. evaluations at river miles 13.055, 13.11 and 13.219 define stable slopes for levee segment 3600 to 5300, evaluations at river miles 13.624 and 13.892 define stable slopes for levee segment 6500 to 7700, and the evaluation at river mile 14.934 defines stable slopes for levee segment 13200 to 14300). don Legend River Mile X Levee Stationing Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet Figure 3. Tukwila Levee segment where stationing 0 to 600 can be certified as is. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 12 51 n c 411111111 ,111110#0, 1107 , r(j41 e4/ Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet Figure 4. Tukwila Levee segment 600 through 1600 where existing portion 600 through 900 can be certified. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 13 52 n c 1600 Figure 5. Tukwila Levee segment where stationing 1600 through 2100 can be certified. Ir Levee Condition ----Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet 11111,404„ Figure 6. Tukwila Levee segment where stationing 3200 through 3500 can be certified. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 14 53 n c 13 , md,d11,11d111111" dddd"Idddidd'Id'Id,ddd pu,,,01.11110,111111111111oo Legend River Mile X Levee Stationing Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 111110111=111111111111100 Feet 100111100 Ho Figure 7. Tukwila Levee segment where existing section 3500 to 5300 can be certified. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 15 54 n c 'Kffkfiffnrrgk,P' PPP ''647 t)rrf 04) r:44,11P,/;, 11111' 11,111(1,11111 11, /10 111:r""r /Yr, , 4101,/,' 77V47 47, A7465, ,77,7o4,7WA Legend River Mile X Levee Stationing Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable Iv 50 100 Feet 200 11,11,111111 1„:111111:1 :,1QJ 0 11111111r: :11 ,,!,!„ '1'1111 11,111!11111,i111111111,1,,,,,,,1111111,,1„1,, ' 1',111111111111111111111111111111""Illiiiiiiiii Figure 8. Tukwila Levee segment where existing section 6500 to 7700 can be certified. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 16 55 n c 11611d,),1111111, 0.11,1,1,111!)„1.;,:11!;,..!,..1.1(111111111111r111„..1.1,1 „1„111.1.114,. Legend 011,, ,11111, River Mile X Levee Stationing Levee Condition --Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet 1.11'11111111"; e 4 T """,1111,,,011:1,1,1gh Figure 9. Tukwila Levee segment where existing section 13200 to 14300 can be certified. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 17 56 Table 3. Summary by cross-section of additional Phase 2 geotechnical slope stability assessments. Location Evaluated (River Mile) Case I - End of Construction (Existing Conditions) Case II - Rapid Drawdown Case III - Steady State Seepage Case IV - Earthquake Post EQ kh=0 liquefied Case IV - Earthquake kh = 0.10g non -liquefied Case IV - Earthquake kh @ k yield Case IV Earthquake - Approximate deformation 12.412 J / _ ,4 1.27 j/ 0.14 < 1 inch 13.055 J1frT1 f� ///////%,l ///, 1 J7///// + . J7///// ,,f� ����ff 0.57 //////// 1J J7///////�/,) , 0.19 < 1 inch 13.11 fa14.Jfff/, j ff I� .Tref, 4: 0.84 11Jff4 fff/4 0.18 <1inch 13.219 /(. /!' t, f®(, 4 0.5 �fo 4 0.11 -1 inch 13.6243 /. �im 1f1. 11J J7 � ff 1rre ����� 0.73 11J 1F IT7 0.2 < 1 inch 13.8235 ®; l /' % 0.72 i 4 0.24 < 1 inch 13.892 1.08 0.53 0.9 14.2042 J ,/I.1 J / %% 4 1.21 0.38 Jj �; ® % 0.11 -1 inch 14.534 J1f1f 0.98 1.39 0.5 /// J1l%��� 0.2 < 1 inch 14.934 JJ I % ._ �1J r1J ; r m Itire/ fd 0.56 ire, m 0.24 < 1 inch 15.1 J1ffff 0.93 1.29 0.38 fe ' I 0.11 -1 inch 15.2993 /r. % A 17fT'1r maw", iffy _ re WA 0.15 < 1 inch USACE minimum Factor of Safety: 1.3 1 1.4 1.2 1 Legend f 0.93 Meets USACE Levee Design Manual minimum factor of safety (FS) Does not meet USACE minimum FS in current configuration. Meets USACE minimum FS but does not meet King County minimum FS (=1.4) Does not meet minimum USACE minimum FS, but predicted deformation is minor, therefore acceptable. kh = lateral earthquake design load (0.10g was considered the 100-year earthquake) kyield = lateral earthquake load that produces a non -liquefied FS = 1.0 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 18 57 5 `.LT k.TI k.LY I C k.L J CT Potential alternative construction fixes that will lead to the levee being certified were identified for each levee segment that could not currently be certified. For each levee section characterized, alternatives were evaluated and were discussed with the City during an in -person meeting on September 6, 2018. 5.1 Construction Fixes Alternative construction fixes were considered for the segments that were deemed non -certifiable in their existing condition. One or more of three alternatives were considered; re -grading and flattening the levee, raising and widening the levee, and installing a floodwall. Concept designs for three alternatives are provided in Appendix A. Cost estimates to design and construct the alternatives are provided in Table 4. These are initial, planning level estimates that were determined in conjunction with KPG and are based on implementing typical sections over a 1,000-foot stream reach to develop a construction cost per linear foot. This approach assumes consistent grading quantities throughout the reach; however, this could vary significantly along any reach and should be refined as design details evolve for specific levee segments. Costs assume right of way is purchased for the levee setback and widening alternatives, but not for floodwalls. Design, permitting, and construction management were estimated at 40% of the construction cost in anticipation of a fairly extensive permit process. Table 5 shows the results of the various geotechnical slope stability assessments from the initial Phase 1 reach assessment. These evaluations were made at various river cross -sections along the Tukwila 205 Levee, and a representative location was chosen when assessing each levee segment. Yellow shading in this table indicates where USACE factors of safety are not met (and therefore the levee segment is not certifiable). For consistency with the Green River SWIF (King County, 2016), conceptual future levee fixes were assumed to provide a 500-year level of protection (i.e. 500-year water surface elevation plus three feet). This is a peak Green River flow of 18,800 cfs based on a 2012 Corps report that downgraded the level of protection provided by the upstream Howard Hanson Dam to a 140-year event. This is a much higher level than historically the lower Green River Valley has been developed for, as it has generally been assumed that the upstream Howard Hanson Dam provided protection for a 500-year event. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 19 58 Table 4. Planning level cost estimate for final design and construction of levee certification improvements. Retaining Wall/Floodwall $4,100,000 0 0 0 0 0 0 rno 0 0 o 0 o 0 rn 0 0 0 0 0 0 to 0 0 < z 13 z s QJ . VI tp d J oo o N M t/} Q z 0 o oo M t/} 0 0 oo N t/} 0 0 N <0 t/} Q z $5,100,000 0 0 0 O i/} 0 0 o t/} 000'oo1's$ aanai ua}1el j/apea9-ati z 0 N �Ni <0 ' O O 00 t N,-I t/} 0 O o O� tn- Z 0 O N 00 �' O O O N t/} Z Description 68th Avenue S./Christensen Road. Riverview Plaza Business Park. Business parks and related parking along Christensen Road capitol project in the Green River SWIF. Sperry Drive and parking lots near Costco and Home Depot. From S 180th bridge crossing upstream including Lily Point and the Ratolo Levee Green River SWIF project area. Outside of bend along S 180th. Business parks and associated parking upstream of 2008 Corps levee repair. Segale property. Cross -levee. .47;U C © a ',, 3 : N ...1 o7 J O O O ,--I O rN-I O N O cr) ,-i 00 O 00 ,-1 O .r O iN-I d WCto d to bA �' i3 w 0 O t0 0 0 N m 0 O V1 to 10150 12200 0 N M —1 15900 22750 24000 d a.4, J 0 ns N c c to.' oo 0 t0 0 0 N 0 0 V1 0 0 N 10250 12200 14300 18500 22750 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 20 59 Table 5. Summary by cross-section of Phase 1 geotechnical slope stability assessments. Location Evaluated (River Mile) Case I - End of Construction (Existing Conditions) Case II - Rapid Drawdown Case III - Steady State Seepage Case IV - Earthquake kh = 0.10g non -liquefied Case IV Earthquake - Approximate deformation 12.61 ff{{"' j 0.79 1.27 0.82 10-16 inches 12.98 �JoOoo�OOooj 0.91 1.23 0.73 3-4 feet 13.11 /% �� �1J11111 At , 1.34 f��1 j f„/ < 1-2 inches 13.53 1.1 0.72 1.12 0.87 8-12 inches 14.02 1.03 0.82 0.91 0.81 5-6 feet 14.72 fW 0.69 1.05 0.94 2-4 inches 14.82 1.08 0.89 1.19 0.86 1,5-2 feet 15.49 f ) iI° �� �fr(//44 , �� �fr1' r fl frrr/ 1,A < 1-2 inches 15.86 1.13 0.74 0.88 J 1-3 inches 16.07 �Jff l 0.81 1.14 T 6#< 1-2 inches 16.47 1.06 0.73 0.92 0.82 3-4 feet USACE minimum Factor of Safety 1.3 1 1.4 1 The following text describes the alternatives considered for each segment as well as approximate costs to develop final design and build the project. Segment stationing 600 through 1600 parallels 68th Avenue South/Christensen Road (Figure 10). Here steep slopes exacerbated by anticipated river channel scour could lead to a levee bank failure (as evaluated at cross-section 12.61 in Table 5) that includes portions of the roadway and the Green River trail. As discussed in prior Section 4.1, the segment of this levee from stationing 600 to 900 can be certified as is, as there is sufficient existing ground remaining after the predicted failure, that is at or above the BFE, to prohibit floodwaters from reaching landward infrastructure. Similarly, from station 900 to 1600, a slope failure would not flood landward of the levee (the ground elevation at the point of extent of failure is very close to, but above, the 27' BFE); however, a portion of Christensen Road, as well as nearby parking and potentially the closest buildings, would be lost. Slope stability in this reach is relatively less of a concern at this segment compared to other portions of the levee, based on the computed factor of safety from the geotechnical analysis of this segment (Table 5). Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 21 60 ita ail i ICI 1 i"YdiiIIlllli�I;ipV� � ' ai�Sid'll10161i �� � �; i�'VIgNVpi IIIIQIIIIIYIIII"r�^Ilil1lllb,p,llll��uul��� 411111111 voppit# Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet Figure 10. Tukwila Levee segment 600 through 1600 where existing portion 900 through 1600 can't be certified. A construction fix here to protect the roadway, trail, and buildings up to the 500-year level of protection includes either a levee setback, raising the levee, or a floodwall. Table 4 provides a planning level cost estimate for these alternatives. For all concepts, the construction fix was assumed to occur for the entire length of the segment, so that the same level of protection would be continuously provided from stationing 600 through 1600. For the levee setback and raising options, a retaining wall would likely be placed on the landward side of the levee, where existing buildings would limit ability to construct a 2:1 backslope. This alternative would require relocation of any utilities and raising of Christensen Road to provide access to the Holiday Inn constructed in 2018. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 22 61 Segment 2100 through 3200 parallels the Riverview Plaza business park, which is built up to the levee edge (Figure 11). Estimated scour depths here and the short distance between river edge and the business park, preclude any realistic fix other than sheet pile walls. Table 4 provides a cost estimate for a construction fix at this segment. There is a short reach from approximately 2400 to 2700 that has an open parking lot, where the levee potentially could be set back or a design other than a sheet wall could be considered as part of the final design. Slope stability in this reach is relatively moderate compared to other segments, based on the computed factor of safety from the geotechnical analysis of this segment (as evaluated at river mile 12.98 in Table 5). Legend River Mile X Levee Stationing LeveeCondition --Improvement � � � � ��Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet 1119111111,1400 m ^; .11111ll ii uoa' i„ gy17 1111 12, Figure 11. Tukwila Levee segment 2100 through 3200 that can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 23 62 Segment 5300 through 6500 (Figure 12) is in the outside of a river bend and includes the Green River SWIF Christensen Road capital project. Similar to other levee segments, unstable channel slopes under anticipated potential channel scour create conditions that can't be certified (as evaluated at river mile 13.53 in Table 5). Failure risk here, where scour is greater in the outside of a channel bend, is some of the greatest in the system. Levee setback, levee raising, and floodwall alternatives were considered for this site (cost estimates provided in Table 4). The levee setback and raising would take land currently used for business parking. 11I ! uuiuis�iig!IiiVhiivllllll'IiWi'; tlVl V rii�jYii U i i u „I Legend River Mile % Levee Stationing Levee Condition Improvement Needed - Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet ITMONYANI111, Pi w wo "'?fil'N zjSIN ,), ;(,,; f l bli , 1pll 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 Figure 12. Tukwila Levee segment 5300 through 6500 that can't be certified in its ex'sting condition. Segment 7700 through 10150 parallels Sperry Drive and parking for large box stores (Figure 13). Slope stability in this reach is relatively moderate compared to other segments, based on the computed factor of safety from the geotechnical analysis of this segment (as evaluated at river mile 14.02 in Table 5). Cost estimates to design and construct both a levee setback and a floodwall for the entire segment are Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 24 63 provided in Table 4. Note that the levee setback and levee raising concepts would modify land currently used for business parking, though parking lots through this segment are relatively wide. A simple site specific concept through just the non -certifiable section of the Tukwila Pump Station Pond, stationing 7700 through 8200, was also considered. The cost of bringing in additional levee material to provide protection to the 500-year water surface plus three feet, for this short 500-foot section, is estimated to be approximately $2.3 million. u'Icu'�r�' gyp, III IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII,,,,,,ii V"Vi'„IIIII olomq " jv IIIIIiiIIIIIIIIIVIIIId111111lllll6 dll!il IY,I,;II 11111 I Illilll'"r I!I uql Legend River Mile X Levee Stationing Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 (@) Feet INN b INN i611k 9I VPI ^VB� wI vV�'kINA, 11111111111,1 IIhh RdIIIYllllll",,1iIIIIIIIiIIIIIIIYIVIII,III II@IIIIYIIIYIIIIIY!II°"I"III°"II; Ij'lily°IIIIIIYIIIY'IYI�III9YIIIYIVY4' 11,11111,11,111111111,11,1,01111111 II W 11,11 111IY '1 I rl, u'Ir 'r „ " „ „ Ivl , I '1I! „„ "�r'IVurvI, IIIII1��N III YIII I urlllllllllup l umuprvn� �a� ��h„ol�al���;�a,.�' p, I ""' �drtlll'Y�IVI�����1"' ,uulrm�W ',!Ilil,lI�IYIVViIIIIVI�II���IIN118J1JIf IIVVIVI�I �11�?lIIIl�����������liiiiiiiiiiiiipyoll����l �����������auuiiuupuuauuul �����������IilP�unNiVllol�lull'IVwlrP'iII����V�;�iY;l'Ihllvllhjlili ,i II NI I� .'�„�� L LEYH: ",, IIII111,1 iwullll111it1:ul,i llptlli'Imvllioaidl�6hYIIIIIIII II�IVhIVIV ulllllllll �. uu� WESTIUA U�IYI III'gllqurllrglYlYllulul ...III IIIUYIYII YIl sill VlVll"Ipupl ^ p,�„ „,pl,�„��i��� °i�llm�o NJi� oIIVYIVV IIIIIIIYIYI IIIIIIIIIY, III L JIIII6 � � u l'uiiiliur;, l,�eo�,r t f, .I ,I� I iiBV (IIIII' ��ui'I��'I ''�' ����ill d�.. III II „q„IIIIIIII pull Ilolauuiiil�, 'uomiol"�"Il 1tl,vim: �'ii"o,ul,Y+v�xnmuum, 11.1a, lilt 1'„i!II;i11(fljlh 1Ilgl11il1,111" Figure 13. Tukwila Levee segment 7700 through 10150 that can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 25 64 Segment 10250 through 12200 (Figure 14) has a history of slope instability and was repaired most recently in2008(Amec, 2015). Slope stability inthis reach iorelatively moderate tohigh, depending on location within the segment, compared to other segments (as evaluated at river mile 14.534 in Table 3 and atriver mile 1472inTable S). Both alevee setback, levee raising, and f|oodvva||were evaluated ao potential construction fixes at this segment (Table 4 provides the estimated costs). - '' =��."."" _ ��� � _ -.~~�~''— ~- -�10200 Figure 14. Tukwila Levee segment 1O26Othrough 122OOthat can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17,2O18Interim Report 26 65 For segment 12200 through 13200, the proximity of S 180th Street severely limits construction options given how close the roadway is to the existing levee (Figure 15). In addition, the levee being in the outside of the river bend has relatively more scour compared to straight river sections, leading to less stable slopes (as evaluated at river mile 14.82 in Table 5). Only sheet pile floodwalls were considered for this site. Table 4 provides a cost estimate to design and construct this project. 111111111111 01101100001011 MC'Idlliilii++',il i1flyu' o,11111! ,o11wmIp' Figure 15. Tukwila Levee segment 12200 through 13200 that can't be certified in its existing condition. Segment 14300 through 15900 (Figure 16) is the site of an existing repair, like the downstream levee segment; however, unlike the downstream section, steep slopes and soil conditions for this segment indicate that this section can't be certified in its existing condition (e.g. as evaluated at river mile 15.1 in Table 3. This is one section that may warrant additional soil testing (e.g. CPT) to further classify soils and thus potentially be able to certify the levee segment. A levee setback, levee raising, and a floodwall were considered for this site (cost estimate provided in Table 4). USACE is managing the design and construction of the Gaco-Mitchell Levee repair from station 15900 to 18500 (approximate river mile 15.4 to 15.9) (Figure 17). This has some of the greatest failure risk within the entire levee reach (as evaluated at river mile 15.86 in Table 5). The new levee along the Green River left bank will provide 500-year level of protection plus 3 feet of freeboard per the SWIF. There is a detailed analysis and design being completed for that project, so therefore no additional conceptual level designs and planning level cost estimates were conducted for this Phase 2 work. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 27 66 n 11110,111111111111111VV1i " 1111111 1 ,l„1111,111,1 1111 "","-Hr 11111111111111111111111i Hi III, ,,,,,1111111111111i1111111 11 ' , " 11111;121,1111„111111111,1,11„11:: 11111111 Legend River Mile X Levee Stationing Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable 0 50 100 200 Feet 1 I 1 1111111111.1.111CORPRWRI111111,11.11111N10,11.01111111..8.11MIIMA.11 , Figure Figure 16. Tukwila Levee segment 14300 through 15900 that can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 28 67 n c 11.11111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 411111 ,1,11101 111111111111111;;;,',,,,p, v 1,111111'11,1, 6, H11,'„ ,I''11111111,1111,111,11i11,1,11111,1,111,11,1111,111,, '1„,,,,11,1,1111111111111,1„ ", 1111 ' q11111,1,'„ ,111„ „HIM 4,7 1111'111 ,1111; .111 16 1111111111110 1,1,1,111,11,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1,1111111,11111111111111111111111111" 1,1!„„1„1111111111111111111,IIIIIIIIIIIII11111111111111 1",11111111111111111111MIIIIHIL „ffl N11111111111111111111111,111111,1111 „n1HIIIIIIIIIIII11,1111, 1,1,11 50 100 200 Feet Legend I ' River Mile 15.5 X Levee Stationing Levee Condition Improvement Needed Certifiable Figure 17. Tukwila Levee segment 15900 through 18500 that can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 29 68 The geotechnical analyses (evaluated at river mile 16.07 and 16.47 in Table 5) indicate that a potential slope failure could occur along the Segale property from station 18500 to 22750 (Figure 18 and Figure 19). However, with the grade landward of any slope stability failure at or above BFE, the section could be certified as is no infrastructure is threatened by a slope failure. This is the only segment of the Tukwila 205 Levee reach, and one of the few remaining in the Lower Green River, where there is currently no development, though site grading has occurred in preparation for construction. As future development plans are uncertain, alternatives were developed for this segment including developing setback levees, raising the levees and constructing sheet pile walls for 500-year protection. Cost estimates for these fixes are provided in Table 4. For the fill option, a site specific cost estimate was made based on actual ground elevations (from 2014) versus computing by linear foot. In addition, a cost was estimated for filling the entire undeveloped area paralleling levee segment 18500 to 22000 (a majority of which is shown in Figure 18) to a uniform elevation at the 500-year level of protection. This is estimated to be approximately $23 million assuming a fill quality suitable for construction (e.g. free from contamination, compacted and prepared for foundation, etc.) and does not include the cost for purchasing land. Assuming a purchase price of $10 per square foot for undeveloped property, and approximately 1.7 million square feet of area, land costs are estimated to be another $17 million. In this segment, work could be completed in phases, with the first phase acquiring land (before development occurs) and then constructing levee improvements (e.g. levee setback) later. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 30 69 n c 11'1111111111'111'1'1'1111 1110101"111"",1"1111111 1'111111 11111111111,11,0'1„,"1111',,1 11111 '11011111111111111111111111111111iiiiiii1111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111114111111111111 11111111111 111111111oollloolioiIIIIIIIIIIIIo11111111111111111iih000000000000000loollo 111,1,1,1111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111,1,11,1;,'1,'1,1,1,11111111 11111111111111111111,1oh:111,',,,,„„' ,,1,1111 0 1111111 iiiiiii111111111111111111111(1111111hifir'''..„„„ ''1111111'111111 1, i 1 1110111 Iv 1 PI Doi 11111111111111111111111 111111 1111111111111111111111 1111111111111111 111111 i11011 00o01101000001(11100oolli0000ll0000000ill111 1 1111111111 11 11111111111 1111111111111II 11111 1 11111110 loo 1 iiiiioliiiiilil 11 1111111111111111111 oviiiiii111111111111111111111111111111 11111111111111111111111 ,,, 1111111111111,,,,,, 1111111111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111 11 lllmllllll1IllIllIlllilllmll 1 1111111111111 111 111111111111111111 1111111111111 11111111110 11111111111111111111 111111111 l000loollo111111 lo 111111111'111111 il0000011111111111000000000000000000000,„„„„„ 1111111111111J111 i'111111111111111, 1:1111111oom0000000000O111111111111111111 111111111111111111111111111111111111, H,1 '1111111111,111MMM,11111111,11))111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111111 1111111111111111111 III oo1,11111111111111 11111 1 1 111111, 11,1, Hlli 1111111 11 :1,1,1111111111 1111111111111111111111111111111111111 11111 Figure 18. Tukwila Levee segment 18500 through 22750 (downstream portion) that can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 31 70 OIMI�. Ilion MIA Figure 19. Tukwila Levee segment 18500 through 22750 (upstream portion) that can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17,2O18Interim Report 32 71 Levee segment 22750 through 23800 is a cross -levee section that spans from the Green River to high ground onthe east side ofthe valley (Figure 20). The BFEhere ioapproximately 3S.6feet and the levee low point is approximately 38.1; therefore, the levee elevation needs to be raised a few inches to be certified. The 500-year elevation plus 3 feet of freeboard is 38.7 feet; therefore, the recommended fix would betobring this levee uptothe S00'yearlevel ofprotection. Table 4provides acost estimate for a construction fix atthis segment. l � -- � om�m , Legend �� River Mile � X Levee Stationing Levee Condition improvement Needed J ~~....... Certifiable u oo 100 200, / Feet �^ - " ~ � Figune2O. Tukwila Levee segment 2276Othrough 238OOthat can't be certified in its existing condition. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17,2O18Interim Report B 72 6 PROPOSED PRIORITIZATION Of those levee segments that could not be certified, the proposed construction sequencing based on risk and apparent opportunity is tabulated in Table 6. Table 6. Proposed improvement prioritization based on risk and opportunity. Levee Segment Stationing Beginning 600 (feet) Ending 1600 Basis for Sequencing 68th Avenue S./Christensen Road. Has a lower risk of slope failure and 300 feet of this could be certified in its current condition. Construction for Proposed Sequencing Low Improvements Certification Total Length (feet) 1000 2100 3200 Riverview Plaza Business Park. Has a moderate risk of slope failure. Medium 1100 5300 6500 Business parks and related parking along Christensen Road capital project in the Green River SWIF. Has some of the highest deviation from slope stability factors of safety. High 1200 7700 10150 Sperry Drive and parking lots near large box stores. Has a moderate risk of slope failure. Medium 2450 10250 12200 From S 180th bridge crossing upstream including the Ratolo Levee Green River SWIF project area. One of highest scour areas and potential opportunity to work with landowner. High 1950 12200 13200 Outside of bend along S 180t". Has a moderate to high risk of slope failure. Medium 1000 14300 15900 Business parks and associated parking upstream of 2008 Corps levee repair. Has a moderate risk of slope failure. Medium 1600 15900 18500 Corps' Gaco-Mitchell Levee being designed. One of the greatest levee failure risks in the levee reach based on comparison with computed factors of safety. High 2600 18500 22750 Se aleThis is one of the last g property. i undeveloped overbank areas in the lower Green River. At a minimum land acquisition should occur as soon as possible. yllP('";;U,,,,,,,,,,,,, Very i����jjp1 umuuumuuuum 22750 23800 Cross -levee likely will be in contact with floods during the highest of events. Low 1250 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 34 73 7 1 Phase 1 conducted a reach wide assessment of the levees using generalized information and identified deficiencies for levee certification. In Phase 2, the project reach was discretized based on common characteristics and the deficiencies in each of these segments addressed in one of two ways. First, each segment was evaluated to determine if a more site specific analysis, versus the generalized reach wide Phase 1 approach, could potentially show that the current condition is certifiable. For each of the segments identified as such, a site specific analysis was conducted including collecting additional data and conducting additional or refining existing analyses to determine if that portion of the levee could be certified as is. For those segments of the levee that couldn't be certified in their current condition, costs were estimated for one or more construction alternatives that would lead to the levee being certified. Phase 3 will provide civil design and construction support of the preferred design determined in Phase 2 for large-scale, complex physical deficiencies. Meetings will be held as needed. The scope of work for Phase 3 will be refined at the completion of Phase 2, and a cost estimate prepared. Once all deficiencies have been identified and corrected, the Tukwila Levee Certification report will be prepared for submittal. The Phase 4 scope of work will be refined at the completion of Phase 3, and a cost estimate prepared. F C Amec Foster Wheeler, 2015. Preliminary Embankment and Foundation Stability Analysis, Tukwila 205 Levee Certification. Report dated October 1, 2015. King County, 2016. King County System Wide Improvement Framework, Green River, King County, Washington, Interim Report. February 2016. NHC, 2007. Hydrology for Green River Floodplain Analysis and Levee Risk Assessment. Prepared for King County Water and Land Resources Division, Department of Natural Resources and Parks, Seattle, WA, April 2007. NHC, 2015. Tukwila Levee Accreditation — Phase 1— Engineering Analyses and Improvement Identification. Prepared for City of Tukwila Public Works Department, Tukwila, WA, October 6, 2015. Wood, 2018. Preliminary Embankment and Foundation Stability Analysis Update, Tukwila 205 Levee Certification. Unpublished Draft, 2018. Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 17, 2018 Interim Report 35 74 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 15, 2018 Interim Report 75 s« xe ae m_ yRma a+EREP" a OPTIONg S mEIF RamLEVEE 'ALT. A Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for amScale Improveem October 15, 201enter im Repx 50 40 30 4 g 20 — I 0+00 WIDENED :AND RASED r rwiANKMLN T 1+60 1+70 1111111111111111111_ = CITY OF TUKWILA Wthrotald tteMAISMS 127$7 gutsvoqy *1.,ne tkila, woshie gt.1 8818E-3308 phone: (20) 241 5DC.3 fox: (20) 438-2420 Jct 20008 DI-11:MAO C,,ke, TH8 cKET'HEI--, OF LEVEE PEPAIR OPTIONE RALSEDANIDENED LEVEE IALT e Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 15, 2018 Interim Report SKET µFS OF LP EPAIR OPTION- RETAINiNG WAs FL s= VALL TH8 Tukwila Levee Accreditation Phase 2 - Levee Segment Assessment and Proposed Sequencing for Large Scale Improvements October 15, 2018 Interim Report City of Tukwil Public Works Department - Henry Hash, Director INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM TO: Transportation and Infrastructure Committee FROM: Henry Hash, Public Works Director d1'/d BY: Ryan Larson, Senior Program Manager CC: Mayor Ekberg DATE: January 18, 2019 SUBJECT: Surface Water Fund Lower Green River Corridor Plan — Flood Hazard Management Plan Allan Ekberg, Mayor ISSUE The King County Flood Control District (Flood District) is beginning work on the Lower Green River Corridor Plan and is accepting comments on the scope of the plan and proposed alternatives, BACKGROUND The King County Flood Control District is preparing a Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan (Plan) for approximately 21 river miles of the lower Green River that flow through unincorporated King County and the cities of Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila. The goal of the Plan is to provide a long-term approach to reduce flood risk and improve fish habitat while supporting the economic prosperity of the region. The Flood District is also preparing a Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS), which will analyze alternatives for flood protection that could be included in the plan. The PEIS will evaluate the potential impacts of the projects identified in each proposed alternative. DISCUSSION The Flood District is accepting comments on the Plan and PEIS through January 28, 2019. Staff has reviewed the information provided by the Flood District and is preparing response comments for the Flood District to consider in this effort. Our broad approach to this effort will be to: • Request that all projects throughout the Flood District be prioritized first for life and safety concerns and that environmental benefits should be included in all construction projects to minimize the impact of levees to the natural environment. • Request that the Flood District evaluate and quantify their ability to recover Puget Sound Chinook salmon. (See attached draft letter by Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council) • Request that all future levee projects except for Fort Dent, be constructed to provide a 500-year level of flood protection. • Request that the Fort Dent levee be brought to a 100-year level of flood protection. • Request that the study area be lengthened to include impacts throughout the City and not end at the Black River. • Provide a prioritized list of known Green River flood protection projects throughout the City. This will primarily be made up of known deficiencies along the Tukwila 205 levee with an emphasis on completing these projects first. FISCAL IMPACT None at this time. RECOMMENDATION Staff is seeking Committee approval to finalize and submit the public comment letter. ATTACHMENTS Draft Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council Letter Lower Green River Corridor — Flood Hazard Management Plan Information. 79 W:\PW Eng\PROJECTS\A- DR Projects\Tukwila 205\Corridor Plan\Info Memo Corridor Plan.docx January XX, 2019 King County Flood Control District ATTN: Michelle Clark, SEPA Responsible Official 516 Third Avenue Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 RE: Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan Draft Programmatic Impact Statement Dear Ms. Clark: Since the 1999 listing of Puget Sound Chinook as a Threatened Species, significant local, state, and federal resources have been invested to avert extinction of Puget Sound Chinook. A fundamental need to recover Chinook throughout Puget Sound is increasing and improving rearing habitat of river systems. The Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan identifies the Lower Green River as a significant bottleneck to recovering Puget Sound Chinook salmon due to substantial reduction of rearing habitat and dramatic decrease in the survival of Chinook salmon. It is absolutely critical to increase the rearing habitat of the Lower Green River to recover the Green River Chinook salmon population --and recovery of Chinook salmon Puget Sound -wide. Continued decline in the Green River Chinook salmon population is of regional and statewide concern as its recovery is essential to de -listing Puget Sound Chinook as Threatened and, moreover, avoid losing the Southern Resident killer whale population. The three alternatives identified in the November 26, 2018 Draft Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (DPEIS) scoping notice will not advance Puget Sound Chinook salmon recovery. The Puget Sound Salmon Recovery Council (SRC) requests that the King County Flood Control District evaluate and quantify their ability to recover Puget Sound Chinook salmon by their ability to recover the Green River Chinook population. The SEPA environmental evaluation and analysis must identify an alternative for flood management of the Lower Green River that is consistent with the Puget Sound Chinook Salmon Recovery Plan. The Puget Sound region cannot afford losing opportunities to reverse declines of salmon and orca. The SRC strongly believes that a narrow approach to long-term flood risk reduction throughout Puget Sound, without appropriately integrating the needs of Chinook salmon recovery, is a significant step backward. To ensure the value of the millions of dollars that have been invested in Puget Sound to recover Chinook salmon, a multiple -benefit approach to floodplain management is imperative for the Lower Green River. 80 � 9 m �� COUNTY ��U|��K n FLOOD� '�Y�|�U� v��)»�/�� �X».OL W NNO! � � � m� a P�ojeNct lJrsq;nptF1n The Lower Green River is susceptible to flooding and flood damage that affects people and residential, commercial, industrial, and agricultural properties along its banks. The potential impacts and damages Ofmajor UoodingOD people, structures, iDfDastmCiU[8' businesses, and jobs throughout the Lower Green River Valley are substantial. Tbaddress these issues, the King County Flood Control District iSpreparing 8Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard M8n8gg08Dt Plan (P/an)for approximately 21 river miles ofthe Lower Green River that flow through the cities OfAuburn, Kent, Renton, Tukwila, and unincorporated King County. The goal ofthe Plan iStOprovide 8long-term approach tOreduce flood risk and improve fish habitat while supporting the economic prosperity Ofthe region. See the Study Area map UOpage 2. Prtgr lw,�atic Enoin»iill �iental Un,p,,A0t St,#Aevld-� The District is also preparingaProgrammatic Environmental Impact Statement (zFIS),which will analyze alternatives for flood protection that could be included inthe Plan. The PE|8describes potential environmental impacts and measures t0reduce or eliminate them. Because each alternative includes a variety offlood protection projects 1hatmakoup a ''pnognarn" of actions, a PBS is being prepared. The PBSwill evaluate the potential impacts ofthe projects identified iDeach alternative. ��� are the Altevi? The "No Action Alternative" is requiredto objectively evaluate and compare the other two would include completing existing projects adopted |0the 2O18-23Capital Improvement Program (Resolution FCO2018-00.2\. ���The "&YnoenaboGe4yo��h/cExtent oy/ncmaaaedLevel ��"ofPam8octionA/ternatixe"vxou|dindudo8rni|eo ofnew levees and improvements to17miles of existing levees. �"Gre"Greater°Th� "��� 2x�a�tvW�/8von�yaedLe�lmf =°"Protection, Integrated 'Habitat and Recreation, Agricultural Protection Facilities, and Habitat Restoration Project Partnerships Alternative" iathe same auAlternative 2 with the addition Uf1Omiles ofnew levees and 2 nni|eG of non-structural improvements. Incentives to provide habitat restoration could also be provided. Each nfthe alternatives includes continued maintenance Ofexisting flood facilities. Alternatives 2and 3would also include some drainage improvements k}agricultural lands and flood -proofing ofagricultural structures. More detailed descriptions Ofthe alternatives can b8found online at: vvwmm|ovvnrgneeDSep8.Org. Process The PEIGwill take about two years tocomplete. Comment periods during scoping and during review of the Draft PBSwill provide opportunities for the public to provide input. ,11 ~~'~~ m � Nil � 81 71711 !rfolnwpi, mr"71,11, moysTompirell 411,11,1,111,111.0 $'1E11,71S,S,Stt. ""it. 188E2 1.E.t 2C1SEit St ).DES Itsli.:)1,?t,4..E s S 31.2t2 St s 3.26J1 St FEDER.istl. WAY 8 9.0 10 ft. FR.Er.q.'rtS)rsi. 'SE 202th St lit 01,9 001,100411 '4 0 0000100.004 trOfik O.* 1..1.4411.111.1/111111 IY!..§1114011„„ The scoping comment period is from November 28, 2018, to January 29, 2019. Provide your comments in -person: Sc e Wednesday, January 9, 2019 5:00-5:45 p.m. Open House 5:45-7:30 p.m. Presentation and Public Testimony 7:30-8:00 p.m. Open House Green River College Kent Campus 417 Ramsay Way, Room 283 Kent, WA 98032 t II tempi a A Spanish interpreter will be available at the meeting. Habra un interprete de espafiol disponible en la reunion. f you would like to request an interpreter for another language, please call 206-775-8778. Please send your written comments to: EMAIL: lowergreensepa@kingcounty.gov MAIL: King County Flood Control District Attn: Michelle Clark, SEPA Responsible Official 516 Third Avenue, Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 Learn more about the PEIS, and the alternatives being studied at www.lowergreensepa.org or by calling 206-263-0602. This document has been provided in English and Spanish. Este documento se facilitO en ingles y en espafioL Ifyou require a translation in a different language, please call 206-775-8778. titt"22, 034 Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Study Area KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL D 1S T R. 1 C T The use of the information in this map is salient to the terms and coons found at inew.thgccaanty.govitemicasteisa4 apsierms-crAuse.aspx. Your access and use is conetoned on your ameptance of these tams and comedians. Data: ION County GCS Rh: 1809_,..icht_gteen_cin_m_mapial Study Area • 30 River Mile Green River 1-7 City Area September 2018 2 Miles 82 KING COLF\TY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 11," iV ,n I1I In' ,Y 1,0 41114,40, 4om14iim'ii, PoV Pndl Fr N"''! , hN!�;i1m, lllli, 9V' er No Action Tukwila Exhibit 1 Lower Green River Corridor Plan Alternative Framework Draft 10/8/2018 Alternative 1: No Action Maintain Existing Levees and Revetments, Construct 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP). Projects with Increased LOP* include Lower Russell, Breda and Gaco-Mitchell. Proposed Flood Facilities with Increased LOP* of 18,800 cfs plus 3' freeboard Flood Facility Type: Type A: Most constrained, riverward embankment side slope of 2.5 to 1 or less; footprint of 100 feet or less Type B: Somewhat flatter stable riverward embankment side slope of 2.5 to 1 or more; footprint of 100 to 150 feet Type C: Levee setback; footprint of 150 feet or more I Type D: Physical non-structural Existing Conditions and Facilities: rMw° 2018-2023 Capital Improvement Program (CIP) Construction PL 84-99 Levee Systems (approx. 17 miles) Other Levees and Revetments (approx. 11 miles) Existing Private Levee Shoreline with No Facilities (approx. 14 miles) Green River Mainstem (42 shoreline miles) River Miles (RM) 1771,) Cities Note: The PL 84-99 levees have an existing LOP* of 12,000 cfs plus variable freeboard. N A 0 0.5 1 2 Miles * Level of Protection (LOP) is defined as the amount of flow expressed as cubic feet per second (cfs) plus freeboard that the flood facility is designed to contain. Assignment of facility type along the shoreline is based on a planning level assessment. Facility type designation is not intended to represent levee alignments nor does it account for feasibility design considerations such as transitions between project types, ties into high ground and discrete locations where adjustments would be made to avoid utilities and infrastructure. Wf M0,',„ I' ;! (Three alternatives are being studied) 83 KING 00 COU\TY CON 1'ROL DISTRICT 0, Iwli11101,00 Y'11„ '.'WI'L''W: II 11111 i iT 1111Iliil 1111111111 011 111111 1,10oii►r,10"N er Moderate Geographic Extent of Increased Level of Protection ^IRenton d 0 Exhibit 2 Lower Green River Corridor Plan Alternative Framework Draft 10/8/2018 Alternative 2 Moderate Geographic Extent of Increased LOP* Proposed Flood Facilities with Increased LOP* of 18,800 cfs plus 3' freeboard Flood Facility Type: Type A: Most constrained, riverward embankment side slope of 2.5 to 1 or less; footprint of 100 feet or less Type B: Somewhat flatter stable riverward embankment side slope of 2.5 to 1 or more; footprint of 100 to 150 feet 4,, Type C: Levee setback; footprint of 150 feet or more 6atiliortiol Type D: Physical non-structural Existing Conditions and Facilities: Other Levees and Revetments (approx. 11 miles) Existing Private Levee Green River Mainstem (42 shoreline miles) River Miles (RM) Cities Note: The PL 84-99 levees have an existing LOP* of 12,000 cfs plus variable freeboard. N A 0 0.5 1 2 Miles * Level of Protection (LOP) is defined as the amount of flow expressed as cubic feet per second (cfs) plus freeboard that the flood facility is designed to contain. Assignment of facility type along the shoreline is based on a planning level assessment. Facility type designation is not intended to represent levee alignments nor does it account for feasibility design considerations such as transitions between project types, ties into high ground and discrete locations where adjustments would be made to avoid utilities and infrastructure. (Three alternatives are being studied) 84 KI\G COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT TTii7TiTTh rTi7 o 1,11 f 11,1, „1,1,11 nO1,141 „11111111111, n' 1,111,11 „ 11 ,11111,' 4,14 '1 11/ 11, 11I/4111 /11 1141' 10, 11,,Ilu '1'1'1 1/ ,10'1111 '111,1111„ 4 4114 ,y, 111, /11''1111 111 „ 1,111 1, O1 1, 4,1 4 1111111 / Greater Geographic Extent with Increased Level of Protection, Integrated Habitat and Recreation, Agricultural Protection Facilities, and Habitat Restoration Project Partnerships 4 „1.1 o 'g , 0. 444."? / „.' .., ' , ,. /7,, . , . ,,4.4I ) `,. ' 4'1141 !fi'1JW,I''''1',1,„,,,, j "; ri)j,:::•r'zi:::: cr f; jr , :o / ,,, ' r ,,.`1 j, 4'4 ,, „ „„,„r„, 0, ,, /,. zo 41'0414 I 1 '' 441.,// ' .' i ,14'1'''.' 1 Tukwila ),6#00,0, ,, 04,00 1 ,00 f, ,(," '1 ,;,' ;'/' (', , ,(/ 0;4til:;i:lii ,',',6j1,,,),),-,, 0 „„ , : „Jfl ".„'"' ''4'' ' :4 1'1":47"""*""*""*""*"). ,, J4114 ,' ' Y44,14' ,I$ „, fy44„44a 11, `1 ' '4'" , fir", '', ' 4, ^^ - J 4 414" ' r" ( , 1 Ai44 '4,3 ,.., r "P P' 3 2111117 , 444',4 ,44 / 4 %4!4111/41 -r f , ^ r - ,,, "12) " r 71 0 0; ',0 '0 ',- r; / , f ', ' 1 „ 144 1„, e , „,41r; 4 Kent , f '''' i r ', , 44 '... 4,4,4 / /./ , r ,, ',/,' '. ',V f'''/ ' 1'IP ''IY ',.."'I , ' 5, ,„, . , ,., , ,,7„. (' : )1, l',- ' ,' J.,, , , ,,,, 1 11 ' 23 e' t5 '47 :11 I f wog, 2 4fror.;, 27, 1 Kent, 14 'or King County I 11", 1 - A 11,11 , z „ $„,A Ho, AA' )4 43 o o Auburn r „,44/4A4 Ao. 414441 0d, 'ontrol'Distn Exhibit 3 Lower Green River Corridor Plan Alternative Framework Draft 10/8/2018 Alternative 3 Greater Geographic Extent with Increased LOTP*. Integrated Habitat and Recreation. Agricultural Protection Facilities and Habitat Restoration Project Partnerships. Includes Alternative #2 plus additional areas on both the right and left bank. Proposed Flood Facilities with Increased LOP* of 18,800 cfs plus 3' freeboard Flood Facility Type: " Type A: Most constrained, riverward embankment side slope of 2.5 to 1 or less; footprint of 100 feet or less 7-, Type B: Somewhat flatter stable riverward embankment side slope of 2.5 to 1 or more; footprint of 100 to 150 feet Type C: Levee setback; footprint of 150 feet or more irottairo I Type D: Physical non-structural Existing Conditions and Facilities: Other Levees and Revetments (approx. 11 miles) Existing Private Levee Green River Mainstem (42 shoreline miles) River Miles (RM) 1:17L-li Cities Note: The PL 84-99 levees have an existing LOP* of 12,000 cfs plus variable freeboard. N 0 0.5 1 2 Miles * Level of Protection (LOP) is defined as the amount of flow expressed as cubic feet per second (cfs) plus freeboard that the flood facility is designed to contain. Assignment of facility type along the shoreline is based on a planning level assessment. Facility type designation is not intended to represent levee alignments nor does it account for feasibility design considerations such as transitions between project types, ties into high ground and discrete locations where adjustments would be made to avoid utilities and infrastructure. r 4 *44 1, I 1///1141,10111111101 ro1111141110111[111i,,' 1111111i111110 11 1111 1111111 t I111111r1111;11,111' 1I111111111111 111111111k„, 1111111111111111111111111111111111110 111111111111114,11 1111111,1111 11u1111111111111u1 11111111111111111111111101111111111111111 104 '111111111111111111'111'1'11111111,1111,11111,,11,11111R 111108 1t4t111101 0,111 1IP11,ir 1001,11?„11111,1110,1111111110111110111111,10.11,11111111„1„1„1„1„111,110,1:11:111 111111, 1 1111 it:1111111111111111i N' (Three alternatives are being studied) 85 KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT 516 Third Avenue • Room 1200 • Seattle. AAA 9310,1 206.296.1020 • inlio(.i?kingeountdtocx4 outrolio g vile,: ki n ge ou n ryti node on tro 1. org Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement Scoping Comment Form Submit a comment on the PETS by filling out this form and leaving it in the comment box at today's meeting or by mailing it to the following address by January 29, 2019: King County Flood Control District Attn: Michelle Clark, SEPA Responsible Official 516 Third Avenue Room 1200 Seattle, WA 98104 You can also email comments to LowerGreenSEPA@kingcounty.gov or submit them online at www.lowergreensepa.org. Name: Email Address: Address: Comment: (please feel free to use the back of this form if you need more space) 86 8/30/2018 Flood Facility Project Type A • Riverward side slope < 2.5:1 • Footprint 100' or Tess 15' TY?`:CAL OHW °D OHW= ordinary high water Exposed Flood Wall Typical Floodwall Not to Scale Illustrative Only 8/30/2018 Flood Facility Project Type B • Riverward side slope >2.5:1 • Footprint 100'450' V OHW OHW= ordinary high water co co OH Green River —Exposed Flood Wall fted-4,, VARIES, TYPICALLY 100 - 120' Typical Floodwall VARIES, TYPICALLY 120' - 150' Typ cal Levee > Not to Scale Illustrative Only 4/23/2018 Flood Facility Project Type C • Riverward side slope 3:1 • Footprint 150' or more VAE V OHW Green -River PIantng Ben '‘ACCFSS SETBACK LEVEE 507+ OHW= ordinary high water co Typical Levee Not to Scale Illustrative Only 4/23/2018 Flood Facility Project Type D • Physical Non -Structural Example of farm pad and drainage i OHW= ordinary high water 0 (other potential measures include wet flood proofing, berms or ring levees) Not to Scale Illustrative Only EASTSIDE TRANSPORTATION PARTNERSHIP (ETP) Friday, December 14, 2018 — Meeting Summary Public Comment: None 11. The ETP Nominating Committee recommends Mayor Debbie Bertlin (Mercer Island) as Chair and Councilmember James McNeal (Bothell) as Vice Chair for the ETP in 2019. III. Approval of November meeting summary: The November meeting summary was approved. IV. John Stokes introduces new King County Department of Local Services Director, John Taylor. John Taylor, Director of the new Dept. of Local Services described his experience in working in the rural areas of unincorporated King County with the King County Flood Control District, as assistant director of King County's Water and Land Resources Division. He has worked with both the agriculture and forestry communities and explained the rationale for new Department of Local Services to better serve unincorporated communities that receive direct service provision from King County. The new department will contain the roads and permitting divisions — the two agencies that provide direct service to unincorporated areas. The department is securing agreements with other agencies that provide services in the unincorporated areas — surface water, parks, animal services, on -site septic and gas plumbing to start and more as time goes on. We will be working on a continuous feedback loop with input from the public to improve the agreements and develop measures to track performance. The Council approved funding for a new economic development position and an outreach lead. Questions: Where do you anticipate the most interaction with the ETP and what will those issue be centered around? There is a structural flaw in taxation and how roads funding operates in this county. The way we approach managing stormwater here and in the state is ludicrous. Water has no boundaries but we've carved up SWMwith each city managing with their own fees and systems. The single biggest impediment to salmon is how we manage stormwater. The same thing with roads funding and transportation. What do you anticipate from this group? I plan to visit often. I don't know what long term solution is. When you talked about road network and when I think about the 250k people in unincorporated King County, they are most likely working in one of our cities and congestion is making their ability to get to our cities difficult. When you look at emergency response, please get a better sense of that. Never met a firefighter that lives in Seattle. In fact, many come from out of state. Like what you said about reorganization because many cities have same struggles. What services will be removed? All services will remain the same. Appreciate your comments about performance metrics. Effort will rise or fall on how successful we are with performance measures. With the general public, our King County departments and the Executive. You talked about PAA's and rural areas, and how does that relate? In King County there are 58 tiny little pockets relics where cities didn't want to incorporate. The biggest are White Center, Skyway and Federal Way. These areas have been getting lesser levels of service. The Service Partnership Agreements will have to approach other elected officials like the sheriff and fire districts. We hope to create a value proposition so the agreements add value to these agencies and elected officials. 91 Period of maximum constraint is coming with the SR99 closure. Councilmember Kathy Lambert is particularly effective on articulating transportation and other unincorporated issues. People are acknowledging the web between rural and urban. There is talk of levies next year for parks, human services, and homelessness. When you look at your portfolio how do you start anticipating any change and movement given that we are already in a period of max constraint in terms of funding? I am from the East Coast and doing levies is a harder if there. These are trade off choices made by elected officials. With all of these levies, what are King County's priorities? This executive has focused on delivering the best run government. The new Department of Local Services is another step toward delivering best run government services to unincorporated residents. Woodinville has some concerns when talking about economic development in the rural area. What are the plans and constraints? Economic development efforts are first focused on the urban unincorporated area. King County has a great agriculture crew of eight people who focus in the rural area. King County is 17th for agricultural production in the state. V. Legislative Agenda: Motion to approve the 2019 Legislative Priorities. Legislative agenda approved. VI. 2019 Work Planning • Technological advances / Smart cities technology update— Censors in roads, ITS concepts for tech advances. Take some time for future orientation. Rideshares and autonomous vehicles and core infrastructure, INRIX work, parking space active reader signs. The update should help us know what we don't know and include both policy and other questions. • Governor's climate change policy and policy for cities and the county. • Scooters, safety elements, bikes and pedestrians. • Legislative updates during session. Bill's going to come. Nice to know if things are stalled. • Fewer topics, more time for conversation vs. presentations. One vs. two topics per meeting. Shape agenda more actively. • Eastside Rail Corridor: Is moving fast and is something people are interested in. • Road Usage Charge once that report gets published. • Vision 2050 update. VII. Good of the Order: • PSRC: Fascinating update about V 2050. Finding metrics for index of displacement. • Fred Jarrett retiring, he has been vocal about high speed ferry. This is a good forum to hear about water borne transportation. • Discussion to schedule a special meeting with Congressman Smith to be held in addition to or in place of regularly scheduled ETP meeting? ETP members voted (using thumbs up and down) to retain the regular meeting in January and to add a second meeting with Congressman Smith. The meeting with Congressman Smith could take place at the Mercer Island Community Center or at the Clise Mansion, Marymoor Park, Redmond. Meeting adjourned: 8:45 a.m. 92 South County Area Transportation Board December Meeting Summary - 12/18/18 1. Introductions & Approval of December meeting agenda: Meeting minutes approved. 2. Reports & Communications: • SCATBd should include completion of SR18 from Raging River to Issaquah Hobart road on its legislative agenda. • RTC not meeting in December. January meeting will look at 2019-20 budget in transit. 1) Directs Exec to develop regional funding strategy outreach process in 2019 to be discussed at Sound Cities Assoc., PIC and RTC in January. 2) Directs Metro to develop mobility framework, street space and prioritization of future mobility options. • CM Kwon was re -appointed to transportation committee for Nat'l League of Cities. 3. Conversation with Congressman Adam Smith: Funding for regional transportation — infrastructure bill. Good that the WA Leg passed Connecting WA. Federal piece lagging. Funding for transportation is not keeping up with needs. Not just roads and bridges, other infrastructure. Comes down to where to find the money. No perfect answer. Gas tax has dwindling return, more electric vehicles. We need a new revenue source to fund transportation. Our region has done a good job at telling me what projects are needed. Can't wait to see 406/167 interchange, other federally contributed projects. President has said this is a priority but hasn't put forth a plan. Second issue is the airport. We were able to get funding for Highline School Dist. in the FAA bill. Passed a formalized process into the conversation about what happens at airports in the FAA bill. Better than 30 years ago when the Port (of Seattle) wouldn't talk with us. Also funding for the fine particulate study. Big issue is massive growth in the region. One of them is at the airport — more flights. Most major metro areas have more than one airport. Discussion we started in the 90's when building the 3rd runway. No room for a 4th runway. Flights recently to Paine Field, shifting cargo flights to eastern WA. Significant challenge for region to contain growth. Where? No one wants it, where to go? Has to be on the table to discuss. Planes are getting quieter but there are 2-3-4 x more planes taking off, continuous impact on communities. Questions: POS doesn't' have the capacity to pursue different airports. What can you do? On state level get a regional airport commission. POS is not supposed to be in charge of regional air transportation. POS has no authority outside of KC. Looking at regional solution need a regional player. In the 90s set up a regional commission, outside of POS to set up regional airport. Step One is to set up a state airport transportation commission to meet all of the airport needs. Thank you for coming toady. What about Paine Field, will it help? Significant communities opposed there but there is a runway with capacity. Who is doing to decide how to slice up the flights? Any regional solution would have to include Paine Field. What are your thoughts on high speed rail? 90% of flights out of SeaTac are local flights. What are prospects for high speed rail? Missed the window where it would be easier. Just like light rail back in the 1970's with billion federal dollars, voters turned it down. Other technology is the first electric airline in partnership with Boeing. Makes it cheaper and quieter, makes Moses Lake and other airports more attractive for carriers with electric planes. New regional airport. POS can't lead the charge. What can you do at the federal level? Can help with regional leaders — can't pass legislation. Help with FAA. Rick Larson from PSRC will be chair of transportation committee at FAA. 93 Regional airport commission — have you been talking with any state legislators about this? What can we do to propel this into reality? / started out here in this district. Continue conversations with Karen Kaiser and Sen. Orwell. Also in the 37th and 11th and the Transportation Committees in the legislature. Airspace is the largest constraint and unwillingness of any community to take this on. Portions of KC that wanted the airport won over those that didn't want it. Possession is 9/10th of the law and SeaTac had an airport that was already there. Best decision would have been to build another airport. 4. Legislative Agenda: Legislative agenda committee met, draft before you. Concentrate on the boxes. Discussion over what to include — state highways, how to prioritize. Suggestions included listing hwy's of significance, projects. Use other side and list highways. Use RTSI map and list of projects? Outline SCATBd area over it. 5. 2019 Work Planning: • PSRC Inventory and assessment on baselining studies for airport • Pierce Transit on Bus Rapid Transit • Paine Field — update on new service and constraints — Snohomish County • Update on Road Usage Charge — WA Transportation Commission • 5G technology for automomous vehicles, other "IT on steroids", smart cities advances and policy 6. Public Comment: • Larry Craig— retired pilot from Alaska Airlines. Tight working relationship with Burien. We are going to destroy Puget Sound unless we do something about SeaTac airport. Logistics problem for Alaska in creating more travel at Paine Field. One solution only — to move Lewis McCord to Moses Lake. • J.0 Harris. — concentrating on the supply side. Problems will be solved by another airport. Change the laws governing SeaTac Airport. Putting proposal together at the Burien Airport Committee. Start lobbying at the state level for Title 53 changed governing the POS. • Debbie Wagner — Burien putting this on its legislative agenda to site second airport. Illustrated maps with impacts of noise levels, health disparities, flight patterns with flights lower than 3,000 ft. • Bernadine Lund: Airports are growing worldwide because demand is there and costs of flights are getting cheaper and cheaper. State is ignoring cot limit and requirement. No conversation about toxins coming out of planes. Compare with tobacco,everyone smoking then laws. Some communities are talking about regulating air miles. In Sweden they shame people because they fly too much. • Dana Holloway: Federal Way have never been an activist but it also effects property values but also health. Soil and vegetation samples that show toxics. Appaled that City of Des Moines is building a school under the flight path. Enocourage you to use your legislative powers to support second airport. Coffee Service Update: Today we have coffee from local coffee shop. Staff will be bringing forth language changes for operating procedures to allow use of dues for coffee service. 2019 Elections for Chair and V Chair: Susan Honda agreed to contact post January 7 but before the February meeting. Next meeting January 15. Adjourned 10:50 a.m. 94 SOUTH COUNTY AREA TRANSPORTATION BOARD (SCATBd) MEETING AGENDA Tuesday January 15, 2019 9:00 — 10:30 a.m. SeaTac City Hall 4800 South 188th Street SeaTac 1. Open Meeting (Breakfast treats provided by the City of Auburn) • Introductions • Approve December SCATBd Meeting Summary Action 9:00 a.m. 2. Reports and Communications • Chair or Vice Chair • Participant Updates (from RTC and Other Regional Committees) Report and Discussion 9:05 a.m. 3. Metro Paid Parking Permit Program Tristan Cook, King County Metro, Transportation Planning Discussion 9:10 a.m. 4. WSDOT's SR 518 Study Update Thomas Noyes, WSDOT Regional Planning Discussion and Possible Action 9:35 a.m. 5. 2019 SCATBd Legislative Agenda Action 10:00 a.m. 6. 2019 SCATBd Leadership Action 10:20 a.m. 7. • Public Comment • Next SCATBd Meeting: Tuesday, February19, 2019 ➢ Breakfast treats will be provided by the City of Black Diamond Discussion 10:25 a.m. Link to the: 2019 SCATBd Meeting Materials 95