HomeMy WebLinkAboutTrans 2008-02-26 COMPLETE AGENDA PACKET Distribution: Jon Harrison M. Miotke
City of Tukwila P. Linder N. Olivas J. Pace
D. Robertson S. Anderson C. Parrish
s Transportation Committee D. Quinn P. Brodin File Copy
Mayor Haggerton B. Giberson ae =a_
NS J. Duffle F. Iriarte 3 6ctra C opies
Pam Linder Chair p
V. Griffin C. Knighton
Dennis Robertson R. Berry G. Labanara e-mail to B.Saxton
1908 K. Matej J. Morrow C. O'Flaherty, K.
De'Sean Quinn D. Speck R. Tischmak Narog and S. Norris
J. Cantu B. Arthur and S. Kirby
C. O'Flaherty K. Fuhrer
S. Norris S. Kerslake
AGENDA
TUESDAY FEBRUARY 26 2008
Time. 5.-00 PM Place; Conference Room #1
Item Action to be Taken Page=
I. Current Agenda Review I.
II. Presentation(s) II.
III. Business Agenda III.
A. Federal 205 Levee Repair Projects Easement A. Forward to Regular Meeting Pg. 1
Acquisition 3/3/08 and COW 3/24/08
IV. Old Business IV.
Future Agendas:
Next Scheduled Meeting: Tuesday, March 11, 2008 (maybe canceled due to
lack of quorum)
The City of Tukwila strives to accommodate individuals with disabilities
Please contact the Public Works Department at 206- 433 -0179 for assistance.
INFORMATIONAL MEMORANDUM
To: Mayor Haggerton
From: Director Public Works
Date: February 21, 2008
Subject: Federal 205 Levee Repair Projects Easement Acquisition
Issue:
Need to obtain property in order for the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to make necessary
repairs to Tukwila's federally certified levee.
Discussion:
In 1991, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers built the levee on the western bank of the
Duwamish River. The levee runs from approximately I -405 southward to S. 196 Street
where it turns westward and ties into the hillside. This levee protects Tukwila's Urban
Center.
One of the conditions associated with the federal project was the requirement for the City
and the Corps to enter into a Local Cooperation Agreement that obligated the City to
make available without cost to the United States all lands, easements and rights -of -way
necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the entire levee. The terms
and conditions of this January 1991 agreement still apply today.
During the November 2006 flood, the Tukwila levee soils became saturated during the
very high flows of the Duwamish River. These high flows caused levee damage in nine
different locations. Tukwila requested the Corps to inspect and review these sites. Based
upon the inspection, two separate areas (Site 3 and Site 5 See attached Photos 1 and 2),
approximately 1,600 linear feet in total, were determined to have severe damage due to
toe scour.
The Corps analyzed multiple repair alternatives for the two damaged areas. These
alternatives included (See Exhibit A):
The No- Action Alternative Do nothing. Rejected because the levee is intended
to provide flood protection for infrastructure and life.
Repair to Pre -Flood Condition Alternative Replace lost levee material; install a
blanket of riprap on the levee face from the toe to the 100 -year flood elevation.
Returns levee to pre -flood condition but does not alleviate the over steepened
bank conditions that lead to the current severe damage. Does not lessen the
chance of future scour problems nor reduce the frequency of the
maintenance /repair and associated high costs.
P:Uim`,205 Levee Repair Proj Condemnation.doc
1
Retaininz Wall Alternative Excavate the levee below the foundation and install
a wall on the landward side of the levee footprint; install some of the lost toe
rock. Determined not to be the most cost effective option when compared to the
other alternatives because of the difficulty to maintain.
Remove and Repair with Geo- textile Wrap Wall Alternative Excavate and
remove the levee below the foundation and create a soil wrap wall armoring the
riverward face. Rejected because the repair would not withstand the expected
velocities during a 100 -year event.
Lavback Levee Alternative Remove the existing levee and lay back the top so
that it is further landward than the existing levee crest. Construct a new toe and
bench on the riverside to reduce the effects of scour. Determined to provide the
proper level of benefits for the least amount of cost for Site 5 and was selected as
the repair option. For Site 3 a combination of the "Layback Option" and "Repair
to Pre -Flood Condition Option" was chosen because of the existing structure
being close to the river..
Non Structural Alternative Relocate all existing commercial and industrial
structures within the damaged area protected by the levee. Rejected because it is
cost prohibitive.
Both of the selected repair options require the City to obtain additional property in order
to install the needed toe rock, lessen the over steepened banks, and provide vegetation to
help cool the river. See Exhibit B for the geometry of the new bank.
King County has agreed to provide the real estate services needed to obtain the property.
As with previous projects that have involved acquiring additional property, the City will
do everything within its power to work cooperatively with the property owners.
However, should the City and King County not be successful in these efforts,
condemnation of the property would be required.
Attempts will be made to have the property owners donate the additional land needed
City already has an easement for part of the land needed for the repair project. If the
property owners are unwilling to donate, then the King County Flood Control District has
offered to purchase the property.
The Corps of Engineers has established a very aggressive schedule for accomplishing the
repairs, See Exhibit C. The Corps has clearly stated that if the repairs are not
accomplished during this construction season, July through September 2008, they will
withdraw their funding of the proposed repair work and the City would then be
responsible for making the repairs at City expense, estimated to be at least $1.4 million.
Furthermore, the Corps states that if the repairs are not completed before the next flood
season, then they will recommend the levee be decertified.
Recommendation:
Committee forward to the Committee of the Whole and Regular Council with an
endorsement to grant condemnation authority.
P:Uim\205 Levee Repair Proj Condemnation.doc
2
Exhibits/Photos:
1. Tukwila 205 Site 3
2. Tukwila 205 Site 5
A. Corps Project Information Report Rehabilitation of Flood Control
Works, Tukwila 205, GRE -3 -07
B. Tukwila 205 Site 5 (Straight Away Section)
C. Seattle District, Corps of Engineers Letter, dated Feb 5, 2008.
P:Uim \205 Levee Repair Proj Condemnation.doc
3
3623046666
Legend
Parceee (1006)
•M•
Lim ts
Disclaimer.
The location of features and
boundaries are approximate and
are intended for reference only.
Tukwila 205
Site 3
Photo Date: April 2005
Legend
Parcels (10!06)
■.y
%NIP �mis
Disclaimer.
The location of features and
boundaries are approximate and
are intended for reference only.
Tukwila 205
Site 5
Photo Date: April 2005
J
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
T UKI I L A 205
GRE -0 7
PART 1. PROJECT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
PROJECT NAME: Tukwila 205
PROJECT FUNDING CLASS: 310
PROJECT CWIS NUMBER: 091634
NON FEDERAL SPONSOR: City of Tukwila
LOCATION AND DESCRIPTION: The Tukwila Section 205 Levee is located on the left
bank of the Green River from approximately river mile (RM) 12.6 to RM 17.0, in the
City of Tukwila, in King County, Washington. The levees protect a flood plain that
extends over 1000 acres of an industrialized area with light manufacturing, warehouses,
and major high end shopping malls to major discount warehouses like Home Depot.
While the Corps recently re- certified the levees, the County considers them to be over
steepened and has prior plans for levee setback and construction of a levee toe buttress at
a cost of 1.9 million dollars at one of the damage locations.
DESCRIPTION OF DAMAGE: During the November 2006 flood, the Tukwila levee
soils became saturated during the peak high flow. The Non federal sponsor, City of
Tukwila, requested that the District review 9 potential damage sites, (sites 1 -9).
Approximately 1600 linear feet of damage was seen on the levee on the riverward slope
(800 linear feet at site 3 and 800 linear feet at site 5). The damage at these two sites is
due to toe scour. The other 7 sites were inspected and it has been determined that no
action is required at this time (1, 2, 4, 6 -9).
PROPOSED REPAIR: The recommended alternative for Site 3 consists of armoring the
riverward slopes over the damaged lengths of' approximately 800 lineal feet. The levee
will be graded to allow a 2H: 1V slope, a 3 foot blanket of class IV riprap placed for
armor rock, then hydro seeded. The proposed repair will return the damaged portions of
the levee, restoring the levee to match the pre -flood Level of Protection (LOP).
The recommended alternative for Site 5 consists of laying back the existing levee system
to an over all 2 1/2H 1V slope. This will be achieved by setting back the current levee
and constructing a 2H: 1V levee Bench 2H: 1V levee system. A toe structure will be
constructed to prevent future scour and a 3 foot blanket of class IV riprap will be placed
for armor rock, then hydro- seeded. These features are necessary to return the project to its
pre -flood LOP.
ijtk,Wrt
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE -3 -07
SUMMARIZED FINANCIAL AND ECONOMIC DATA:
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
I Construction subtotal
S &A (6
Contingency (10
Total Construction Cost
Total Engineering and Design (6 (Fed Cost)
Total Project Costs, 100% Federal
B/C ratio
Total
POINT OF CONTACT: Doug Weber, CENWS- OD -EM, (206) 764 -3406
1,172,400
70,300 I
1 17,200
1,359,900
81,600 I
1,441,500
12 I
2
PART 2. PROJECT REPORT
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORXS
ORE-3-07
1. Proiect Identification
a. Project Name: Federally Authorized Tukwila 205 Levee
b. Project Funding Class: 310
c. Project CWIS Number: 091634
2. Proiect Authority
a. Classification: Federal
b. Authority: CAP, Section 205
c. Estimated original cost of project: Unknown
d. Construction completion date of the original project: 1992
e. PL 84 -99 rehabilitations have most recently been completed in: 1996
3. Sponsor
a. Sponsor Identification: City of Tukwila
POC for City of Tukwila: Ryan Larson, Senior Engineer
6300 Southcenter Boulevard
Tukwila, WA 98188
(206) 431 -2456
POC for King County: Andy Levesque, (206) 296 -8379
b. Application for Assistance:
(1) Date of Issuance of District's public Notice: 29 Nov ember 2006
(2) Date of NFS's written request: 28 December 2006
Additional information:
REPORT PURPOSE: This report provides pertinent information regarding the
project, the repair plan, estimated quantities, costs and benefit ratios to restore the
existing levees to pre -flood condition. Due to the dynamic process of rivers, damages
induced by rivers on levees and other structures continuously changes, therefore
information including project description, actions etc. contained within this document
are subject to change with out notice prior to and during construction.
4. Proiect Location.
a. City: Tukwila
County: King
State: Washington
Basin: Green River
River: Green River
River Mile: 12.6 to 17
River Bank: Site 3 and 5 left bank
PROJECT LNFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE -3 -0',
b. Narrative; The Tukwila Section 205 Levee is located on the left bank of the Green
River from approximately river mile (RM) 12.6 to RM 17.0, in the City of Tukwila, in
the Green River Basin in King County, Washington. Tne flood plain protection extends
over 1000 acres of an industrialized area with light manufacturing, warehouses, and
major high end shopping malls to major discount warehouses like Home Depot.
5. Proiect Design. The Tukwila levee system is an urban Flood Control Works (FCW).
The system consists of an earthen material levee with armor rock on the riverward side.
Slumping has been observed at some locations since 1990. Part of the levee system is
described in the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan:
Levee slope is extremely over steepened at approximately 1.4H: 1V to 1.8H: 1V,
and therefore lacks adequate structural stability to provide minimum factors of
safety for several modes of failure. No toe buttress structure has ever been
constructed in this sub reach. The riverward slopes are largely dominated by
invasive blackberries and reed canary grass.
The Tukwila Levee system was recently re- certified in the Federal Levee Program. Prior
to the November 2006 flood, the levee offered greater than 100 -year level of protection
(LOP).
6. Disaster Incident: In early November 2006 a large rainfall event fell over Western
Washington, including 8.7" inches of rain over a 24 hour period at Howard Hanson Dam.
The Green River is regulated by Howard Hanson Dam so that the discharge from the dam
combined with the downstream flow doesn't exceed 12,000 cubic feet per second (cfs) at
the USGS Auburn gage #12113000.
The combination of excessive rainfall and high freezing level produced daily
average discharges above 10,000 cfs in the Green River at the Auburn gage for
approximately three days with a peak discharge of about 12,000 cfs for a few
hours.
Based on the regulated discharge at the Auburn gage, daily discharges above
10,000 cfs for one or more days have been observed in 9 of the 44 years since
regulation began with Howard Hanson Dam, which has an estimated return
interval of approximately 5 years.
Peak instantaneous Inflows to the Howard Hanson Dam of 23,500 cfs were
observed during this event, which has an estimated return interval of
approximately 15 years.
Mean Daily discharges at the Auburn gage of between 10,000 cfs and 12,000 cfs
have been observed in 10 out of 44 years, which has estimated return interval of
approximately 5 years.
This yields an estimated return interval for the November 2006 event on the Green River
levees of between 5 and 15 years.
4
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRL- -07
7. Proiect Dan -ages: The Non- federal sponsor requested that the District review 9 sites
,a flow November 2006 resulted arna
for potential ita ..5. Peak ?c.e ttoYV 2� +v eiit^'Zr %il{'f�. r�S:1ti2C In d�ri-� ^'S to two
separate levee sections of the Federally Authorized Lower Green River Flood Control
Project. During the site visit on November 18, 2006 flows were —2500 CIS, stage 56.37
ft. The levee soils became saturated during the peak high flow. Prior to the flood the
levee offered greater than 100 -year level of protection. In the current damaged state, the
levee offers 10 -year level of protection (based on failure at flows of 11,500 cfs, stage of
62.3 ft).
Damage Locations:
1. Upstream of S. 180 Bridge, Site 3 There is observed 800 feet of toe scour on the
bench and levee erosion. The levee slope is nearly vertical and there is toe scour.
2. Across from CAT Dealer Site 5 The Corps observed on the outside bend of the levee
approximately 800 feet of toe scour that may have been caused by the high flows.
8. Proiect Performance Data
a. Inspection Results.
(1) Date of Last Inspection: Fall 2007
(2) Type of Last Inspection: For site 1 immediately following a high water
period. For sites 2, 3, and 4 Periodic Inspection of Federal Flood Control Work.
(3) Project Condition Co_ de of Last Inspection: Acceptable
(4) Status: Eligible
b. Sponsor's Annual O &M Costs: Not known
c. The levee is well maintained by City of Tukwila.
9. Proiect AIternatives Considered
Multiple alternatives were considered including, the No- Action alternative, the Setback
Levee Alternative, the Repair to Pre -Flood Condition Alternative and the Non Structural
Alternative for all four sites.
a. No Action Alternative
The No Action Alternative was rejected. The levee is intended to provide flood protection
for infrastructure and Iife. The levee will not perform as designed in its current condition.
The results of a levee failure would include damages to businesses and infrastructure in
the intended protected area. The area is quite urbanized and there are many people within
the immediate area behind the levee, a levee failure in this reach could result in loss of
life.
b. Repair to Pre Flood Condition Alternative
The Repair to Pre -Flood Condition would replace the lost levee material. A blanket of
riprap would be placed on the levee face from the toe to the 100 -year elevation. The levee
side- slopes are steep. There is very little room for an adequate toe. The riprap on the
5
PROJECT INFORM ATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE -3 -0
levee face above ordinary high water (OWED will be covered with a soil layer and
willows would be planted at the OHW line.
c. Retaining Wall Alternative
This repair would involve excavating the levee below the foundation, installing a wall on
the landward side of the levee footprint, installing a PCC retaining wall which would
allow adding a toe, and gentler slope which would help reduce the effects of scour along
this reach. Willows would be planted at the OHW elevation. This solution would return
the levee to pre -flood level of protection. This solution was determined not to be the most
cost effective when compared to other alternatives with similar protection and as such
was not selected.
d. Remove and Repair with Geo- textile Wrap wall Alternative
Excavate and remove the levee below the foundation and create a soil wrap wall
armoring the riverward face. The steep slopes would be accommodated with this
alternative. This solution was determined inadequate to withstand the expected velocities
during a 100 -year event without additional backslope footprint and was not evaluated
further.
e. Layback Levee Alternative
This alternative would include removing the existing levee and laying back the top so that
it is further landward than the existing levee crest. A new toe and bench on the river side
will be created to reduce the effects of scour. This alternative provides the proper level of
benefits for the least amount of cost for Site 5 and as such has been selected. This is the
sponsor preferred alternative. Note that the new toe of the levee is in the same place as
the pre -flood condition so therefore the levee itself is not being setback from the river.
This is appropriately described as changing the slope of the levee as opposed to a levee
setback. A setback levee is defined by moving the entire levee landward, including the
toe. In either case, additional real estate rights of way need to be acquired.
f Non Structural Alternative
This alternative would relocate all existing commercial, industrial and residential
structures, utilities and other infrastructure within the damage area protected by this levee
system. This was not a viable alternative for our sponsor. The costs associated with this
alternative were deemed too high for the level of benefit associated with this alternative.
10. Recommended Alternatives
At site 3 (upstream of S. 180 bridge): The recommended alternative is also the least
cost alternative. It is the repair to Pre -Flood Condition Alternative. This would replace
the riprap on the levee face and return the levee to the pre -flood level of protection. The
levee overburden will be excavated from the bench; the bench will be graded back to 7.5
feet from 15 feet to allow for a 2H: IV slope. A 3' blanket of Class IV riprap placed on
the levee slope from the toe to the approximately 20 feet up the elevation. A lift of
topsoil will cover the riprap from the OHW elevation to the crown and hydro- seeded. A
6
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
willow lift will p a:ited above the 01-1W elevation. The repair of the daima` .s will be a
total of 830 lineal Ieet.
At site 5 (upstream of the flood The recommended alternative is the setback levee
alternative. This is the least cost technically acceptable alternative. At this location, the
"repair to pre -flood condition" is not acceptable since the scour would occur again. The
setback levee alternative would involve setting back the existing levee system to an over
all 2 1!2H 1V slope. This will be achieved by setting back the current levee and
constructing a 2H: 1 levee Bench 2H: 1V levee system A toe structure will be
constructed to prevent future scour and a 3 foot blanket of class IV riprap will be placed
for armor rock, then hydro- seeded..
Willows would be planted at the OHW elevation. The repair of the damages will be a
total of 800 lineal feet to allow tie in at the upstream and downstream ends. This solution
would the levee to pre -flood level of protection and reduce the effects of scour. A
ramp would be constructed to allow equipment access, and would be removed at the end
of construction.
Should the appropriate real estate rights of way not be acquired in time to allow
construction of the preferred alternative this summer, the "repair to pre flood condition
alternative" will be constructed within the existing footprint and with available real
estate.
11. Real Estate
The Tukwila 205 Levee Rehabilitation effort consists of repairing portions of the levee
located in Section 35, Township 23 North, Range 4 East, Willamette Meridian, King
County, Washington. The rehabilitation effort involves restoring Site 3 to pre -flood
conditions and Site 5 consists of a levee set back. See Section 10 Recommended
Alternative for a more detailed description of the proposed repair. The placing of a single
line of willows at the ordinary high water line will not require additional land acquisition,
however, the levee set back will.
The City of Tukwila is the Non Federal Sponsor (NFS), and will need to provide written
acknowledgement of its continued obligations under the January 31, 1999 Local
Cooperation Agreement (LCA), to provide the usual a -b -c's before any work is
accomplished. The NFS is also responsible for acquiring all lands, easements, and rights
of way, and disposal areas and performing any necessary relocations associated with
setback of the levee at Site 5. The NFS must demonstrate to the satisfaction of the Corps
of Engineers (COE) Real Estate Division that is has sufficient interests and area in the
lands identified as necessary for construction, operation and maintenance of the entire
rehabilitation effort, including ingress and egress to the levee before the COE advertises
for construction.
7
PROSE CT INFORMATION ATION REPOR T
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROI. WORKS
GRE-3-07
The NFS will b required to o CG Estate fully executed
.1 lif'. r+. u.i v�l Chi provide the I.VL Real LJia Division with a lU�. S"..i°... t.....-
lands certification and authorization for entry docu: en t, attorney's certificate and title
reports not more than 90 days old at the time it certifies all the ry lands available.
t:. ne„es�a� lar: a,
For the lands needed for the proposed levee rehabilitation effort the NFS will need to
acquire and certify at a minimum the below perpetual levee flood protection easement,
permanent road easement for ingress and egress, and temporary work area easement.
Flood Protection Levee Easement A perpetual and assignable right and
easement in the land described in Exhibit by this reference made a
part hereof, to construct, maintain, repair, operate, patrol and replace a
flood protection levee, including all appurtenances thereto; reserving,
however, to the owners, their heirs and assigns, all such rights and
privileges in the land as may be used without interfering with or abridging
the rights and easement hereby acquired.
Perpetual Road Easement A perpetual and assignable easement and
right -of -way in, on, over and across the land described in Exhibit for
the location, construction, operation, maintenance, alteration and
replacement of (a) road(s) and appurtenances thereto; together with the
right to trim, cut, fell and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush,
obstructions and other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the limits
of the right -of -way; (reserving, however, to the grantors, their heirs and
assigns, the right to cross over or under the right -of -way as access to their
adjoining land [Include the following language if it applies: "at the
locations indicated in (Exhibit subject, however, to existing
easements for public roads and highways, public utilities, railroads and
pipelines.
Temporary Work Area Easement A temporary and assignable easement
and right -of -way in, on, over, and across the land described in Exhibit
for a period not to exceed one year beginning with date possession of the
land is granted to the Grantee for use by the United States, its
representatives, agents, and contractors as a work area, including the right
to borrow and/or deposit fill, and waste material thereon, move, store, and
remove equipment and supplies, and erect and remove temporary
structures on the land and to perform any other work necessary and
incident to the construction of the Lower Green River, Section 205 Flood
Control Project (AKA Tukwila 205), Job No. GRE- 03 -07, together with
the right to trim, cut, fell, and remove therefrom all trees, underbrush,
obstructions, and any other vegetation, structures, or obstacles within the
limits of the right -of -way; reserving, however, to the landowners, their
heirs and assigns, all such rights and privileges as may be used without
interfering with or abridging the rights and easement hereby acquired;
subject to existing easements for public roads.
8
12. Economic Evaluation.
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
R.EHABILITaTION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GR.E -07
The NFS ma�� also need to provide a suable disposal by acquiring a temporary
disposal area (using the above ten orar work area easemem); however, if the NFS is
unable to provide a suitable disposal area, then the material will be taken to a commercial
site for disposal.
The final location of work area easements to support the construction of the rehabilitation
effort, including access routes for ease of construction, and the need for a temporary
disposal site will be determined in the next phase E &D. Additionally, if the COE, Real
Estate Division determines the NFS does not have adequate real property interests for the
lands needed for the proposed rehabilitation effort, including additional damage not
visible at the time of inspection because of the presence of vegetation, then acquisition of
property interests may be necessary. The need for the NFS to acquire or cure its existing
property interests could result in further delay of repairing the damaged levee as proposed
in the project schedule see section 15 of this report. Also as part of the land
certification process for the levee rehabilitation effort and the entire Lower Green River
Section 205 Flood Control Project (AKA Tukwila Section 205 Project), the NFS will
need to provide title reports, not more than 90 days old at the time of land certification
demonstrating its interest in lands.
Any questions regarding types or level of property interests needed for the
proposed project should be coordinated with COE, Real Estate Division.
Benefits attributable to the proposed levee repair are calculated on the difference in
probabilities associated with the Level of Protection' (LOP) provided by the levee in the
repaired condition compared to the damaged or post event condition. With repair, the
levee will be restored to a 100 -year plus level of protection. In accordance with EP500 -1-
1, the economic life applicable to non Federal urban levees shall be 50- years, or the
degree of protection afforded by the project, whichever is less. Therefore, the following
economic analysis is based on FY07 discount rate of 4.875 percent with an economic life
of 50 years. Prior to the event, this levee provided protection from floods with a greater
100 year recurrence interval. The recent high water event caused damages to the levee
that degraded the LOP to an event estimated at a 10 -year recurrence interval. The
properties protected by this levee are in the north end of the Kent Valley in the city of
Tukwila on the left bank of the Green River.
Note concerning the use of the phrase Level of Protection. The US Army Corps of Engineers emphasizes
that we do not protect against anything, we reduce potential risks; and, damages and descriptions of this
risk reduction are given in terms of performance. For example 100 -year Level of protection in terms of risk
reduction performance means that there is a 90% probability of containing inside the banks of the river a
flow or stage that is expected to have a frequency or annual probability of 1%. However, the data
requirements and analysis required to define the level of performance is typically out of scope for this level
of study, so "Level of Protection" in this document shall imply nothing more than a high probability of
containing a flow or stage of the frequency indicated by the specified "Level of Protection
9
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE-3-07
The flood plain protected extends over IO acres of an industrialized area with light
manufacturing, warehouses, and major high end shopping mails to major discount
.e There hundreds r ei land
W3TehOUs�LS like Home DeLOt. i'i�re are probably hur;,:teus of parcels Of lai.t. with
hundreds of buildings in this part of the flood plain. An evaluation of the first eight
parcels in the immediate vicinity of the damaged sites which covered a little over 26
acres of the 1000 plus similar acres showed 9 structures with a total depreciated
replacement value of $16 Million. If the levee is not repaired the expected annual
damages (EAD) to just these 9 structures and their contents are approximately
$1,292,000. With repair the EAD is about $356,000. Therefore the approximate EAD of
at least $936,000 in damages are considered as preventable with rehabilitation and taken
as benefits.
BENEFITS
Annual Damage Prevented (EAD) Greater Than
COSTS
First Cost:
Annual Cost:
Interest and Amortization (50 years 4.875
Operation Maintenance
Total Annual Costs
Benefit -to -Cost Ratio Greater Than
The following checks were performed:
1. Value property protected Greater Than
2. Value of Cropland: Not Applicable
3. Net Farm Income: Not Applicable
June, 2007 Prices
936,000
1,441,500
77,000
2,000
79,000
12 to 1
16,000,000
Distribution of Project Benefits: There are probably 200 to 400, property owners in the
protected area with similar properties. Of the 9 properties selected for analysis at least
one, the Home Depot warehouse store had more than 25% of the value of properties
analyzed, however if a full inventory were done it is unlikely that any individual
beneficiary receives greater than 25 percent of the total project benefits.
13. Environmental
The Green river contains spawning populations of fall Chinook, Coho, Pink, and fall
chum salmon, and winter and summer steelhead. Small numbers of sockeye salmon are
also found. Bull trout use the lower river for feeding and rearing. The project area
contains Iimited rearing habitat for these species. No spawning occurs in the project area.
10
The fonwing species are listed under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) and may be
found in the project area:
Issues:
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
KS
GRL -3-07
Puget Sound Chinook Threatened
Oncorhynchus tshawytscha
Coastal/Puget Sound Bull Trout Threatened
Salvelinus confluentus
Marbled Murrelet Threatened
Brachyramphus marmoratus
Northern Spotted Owl Threatened
Strix occidentalis Caurina
Puget Sound Steelhead Threatened
Oncorhynchus mykiss
The project area is critical habitat for Chinook salmon and bull trout. No critical habitat
has yet been designated for steelhead.
All in -water work will be conducted will be targeted for construction during the in -water
work window (July 1 September 15), which was approved for this project by the
Washington Depaitinent of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) and the National Marine
Fisheries Service (the published work window for the Green River is August 1 -31).
Assuming the preferred alternative is built within the approved work window, it is
expected that the project is not likely to adversely affect listed species.
a. Water Quality. Short-term, discountable adverse impacts may result from the repairs
to the levee. A temporary increase in turbidity due to fill placement is expected.
Turbidity will be monitored during construction. If turbidity exceeds water quality
standards, construction will recommence when turbidity returns to acceptable levels.
b. Fish and Wildlife. When completed the repair is not intended to lessen habitat
conditions as compared with conditions pre- existing the flood event. Short-term,
discountable adverse impacts may result from construction activities during repairs to the
levee. If present, fish and wildlife may be temporarily displaced from this area by short-
term increases in noise and turbidity. Proposed should increase the vegetative
cover along the levee in the long -term.
In water construction will likely occur during the approved WDFW work window. Re-
sloping along 800ft of the levee will result in widening of the Green River channel
resulting in slight increases in fish habitat. Limited vegetation other than non native
Himalayan blackberry currently exists at the project site. Willow plantings will aid in
shading the river and developing a vegetative riparian corridor.
1 1
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL t/ OR {S
GRE-3-07
c. Wetlands. A wetlands biologist will deter. -,i if a reconnaissance of the proposed
access alicz er an area. n;. footprint n 11 r ren
1!i 11, Jt• gif a:e and LV. =!i Ct.oll av!... ::a 1Y 111 be necessary. Ct:li a:: l
jurisdictional wetlands have been identified.
d. Cultural Resources. A search of the Department of Archaeology and Historic
Preservation (DAHP) electronic Historic Sites Inventory Database did not produce
evidence for the presence of an historic property listed on the National Register of
Historic Places (NIP) or the Washington State Historic Sites Register at or near the two
damaged levee locations. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) will include the area to be
repaired, new access points and all other area where new ground disturbing activities will
take place. Prior to levee repairs a Corps or contract archaeologist will survey the two
damaged areas at low water and determine if there is a potential for the proposed levee
rehabilitations to cause effects to historic properties. Ground disturbing activities on the
landward side of the existing levee, such as those associated with the setback of a levee,
would have a higher potential of encountering archaeological deposits or materials. If
during the survey it is determined that the proposed repairs have a potential to cause
effects to historic properties, then archaeological testing may be necessary as part of the
survey work. Construction monitoring may also be necessary during certain phases of
construction. A National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 compliance report will
be prepared that includes the two levee repair sites. The report will include the findings
of the investigations for each repair site, including possible subsurface testing,
recommendations for archaeological monitoring during construction (if found to be
necessary) and a determination of effects to historic properties. If archaeological
monitoring is recommended at one or both of the repair locations, the will include
a monitoring plan and protocols to be followed during construction. The protocols will
include an inadvertent discovery clause that will apply when an archaeological monitor is
not present. The Corps' determinations of effects to historic properties and monitoring
plan, if one is required, must be reviewed and concurred with by the DAHP, and
reviewed by the Muckleshoot Tribe prior to construction.
e. Recreation. This section of levee is part of the Green River Trail in King County.
This trail is heavily used by walkers, joggers, cyclists, and other recreational enthusiasts.
Construction to repair this part of the levee will temporarily close this section of the trail
and cause recreational activities to be routed around the area.
f Coordination. The proposed work is formally coordinated throughout the planning,
design, and construction phases with the following agencies and Tribe:
(1) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
(2) NOAA Fisheries
(3) Muckleshoot Indian Tribe
(4) Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(5) Washington Department of Ecology
12
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD LOO CONTROL WORKS
C RE-3 -O7
Preservation
(b) State "stc*i;;
7) King Count..
(8) City of Tukwila
Their recommendations will be considered and implemented as appropriate. The
design will be coordinated with and reviewed by the above listed agencies. In
accordance with ER 200 -2 -2, Procedures for Implementing NEPA, paragraph 8,
Emergency Actions, the environmental effects of the proposed levee rehabilitation
will be considered during the planning process. An environmental assessment
(EA) is being prepared to evaluate probable impacts of the project on the existing
environment. Factors addressed by the evaluation include public safety, water
quality, wetlands, threatened and endangered species, noise, economics, fish, and
wildlife. The EA will be coordinated with applicable Federal and State resource
agencies. The NEPA process will be concluded as pursuant to requirements in
ER 200 -2 -2. In addition, the requirements for compliance with the ESA will also
be completed. The Non federal sponsor will be required to obtain all applicable
local and state permits. Pursuant to 33 U.S. Code Section 1344(f)(1)(B),
emergency reconstruction of recently damaged parts of levees does not require a
Clean Water Act Section 404 evaluation, provided that the work is conducted for
maintenance purposes. Analogizing to 33 Code of Federal Regulations section
323.4(a)(2), rehabilitation may not include any modification that changes the
character, scope, or size of the original fill design. Concerning scope and size, the
proposed repair will not require a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation as long as the
footprint of the levee repair that falls within waters of the United States is no
larger than the pre- damage footprint. All work on this project either will be
conducted outside the limits of Section 404, or will result in restoration of the pre-
existing levee profile, will remain within the existing footprint, and will be
conducted with the same character and materials. Since the application of Section
404 is not triggered, a Section 401 water quality certification from the Department
of Ecology is not required. A Coastal Consistency Determination will be
completed prior to construction. Analogizing to the Regional Conditions
accompanying Nationwide Permit 3, which addresses repair and maintenance of
levee structures within Washington, where a Section 401 Certification is not
required due to application of 33 U.S. Code section 1344(f)(1)(B), the Coastal
Consistency determination need not be submitted to the State for concurrence.
g. Environmental enhancement features. Project construction will include the following
environmental enhancement features: Approximately 800 linear feet of the levee is
proposed to be re- sloped resulting in a slightly wider river channel. Willow stakes will
be planted along the repair sections.
13
14. Inter'a2enc`% Levee TascC Force
HQ T CE te% ati In t v Levee k Force for the flood
.�I;SA., has not recs:, apt :v io« c a�. ..c L Task Force
event associated with the November 2006 floods in Western Washington. However,
i with coordination +v t. FENiA. is ongoina.
Lower Green River Flood Control Project, Site 5 -800 feet of toe scour and levee erosion
Unit of
Quantity Measure Unit Cost Amount
15. Project Management
a. Funding Authority
(1) Program and Appropriation: FCCE, 96x3125
(2) Project Funding Class: 310
(3) Project CWIS Number: 091634
PROJECT LeTOR_M TION REPORT
REHABILITATION O(rF GRE-3-07
CONTROL WORKS
�J E -3 -0
b. Project Funds Project Cost Estimate at April 2007 Price Level
The cost estimate is presented by the details of each damage site first, followed by a
project summary table that adds S &A, Contingency, and E &D.
Item
I Material Site 5
Class IV Riprap
Spall Rock (2 -4
Gravel Filter Material
I Granular Fill
I Topsoil
Asphalt (repair
damage from
trucks /equip on path
parking lot)
Saw cut and dispose
of Asphalt Path and
Parking Lot
Create access ramp
(4' high x 60' long x
12' wide) from pkg.
lot
Cut out asphalt/levee
create ramp to
bench then replace
Disposal of access
ramp
Disposal of
7,300 I TONS
2,000 I TONS
1,000 1 CY
1,000 I CY
400 CY
36 $262,800
20 $40,000
20 $20,000
20 C $20,000
26 $10,400
3,600 SY 22 $79,200
350 TONS 100 $35,000
50 CY 20 $1,000
600 CY 5 $3,000
50 CY 2 $100
I 4,000 I CY l 10 I $40,000 I
14
unsa:isfactory
material
Clearing and
grabbing
1 Willows
1 Hydroseeding
Total Materials
Rubber Tire Loader
644, 5 cy bucket with
teeth
Mobilization/Demobi
lization
200 Excavator with
hydraulic Thumb and
muck bucket
Mobilization/Demobi
lization
1
10 ton roller (for
compacting levee
when replacing)
Mobilization/Demobi
lization
1
Truck and trailer for
material disposal
Subtotal
Total Equipment
and Materials
Item
Material Site 3
1 Class IV Riprap 1
1 Spa 11 Rock (2"-4")
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GP -1-07
500
500
2,000
HRS
Equipment Site 5 (REG)
80
1
1
160
1
1 1
80
1
1
80
1
1
1
Lower Green River Flood Control Project,
Quantity
1
7,200 1
2,500 1
TONS
EA
cy
$/HR
135
LS
1
150
LS
LS
$100 40 $115 $12,600
$125
100 S50,000
51 32,5001
10 320,000 1
3588,000 1
HRS (OT)
40
1
1
1
$/HR Total
40 150 $16,800
Site 3 800 feet of toe scour and levee erosion
Unit of
Measure Unit Cost Amount
TONS 1 36 $259,200 1
TONS 1 20 1 $50,000 1
$2,500
1 1
80 165 337,200
15
$2,500
$2,500
1 1
$140 $15,600
1
$89,700
$677,700
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
ORE -3 -07
I 2 20 i 35.003
Gravel Filter Material I 5, L�" 3
Topsoil I 75 I CY I S 26 I S .952
Asphalt (repair
damage from
trucks /equip on path
parking lot) 3,600 SQ 22 $79,200
Saw cut and dispose
of Asphalt Path and
Parking Lot 350 TONS S 100 $35,000
Create access ramp
(4' high x 60' long x
12' wide) from pkg.
lot 55 CY 20 $1,107
Cut out asphalt/levee
create ramp to
bench then replace 600 CY 5 $3,000
Disposal of access
ramp 55 CY 1 $55
Disposal of
unsatisfactory
material 1,000 CY 1 $1,000
Clearing and
grubbing 100 TONS 100 $10,000
1 Willows 100 EA 5 I $500 I
I
Total Materials I $446,100 I I
I
HRS
Equipment Site 3 (REG) S/HR HRS (OT) S/HR Total
I I
Rubber Tire Loader
644, 5 cy bucket with
teeth 40 135 20 150 $8,400
Mobilization/Demobi
lization 1 LS $2,500
I I I
200 Excavator with
hydraulic Thumb and
muck bucket 80 150 40 165 $18,600
Mobilization/Demobi
lization 1 LS $2,500
I I I I I I I
10 ton roller (for
compacting levee 40 $100 20 $115 $6,300
16
when re` lac_nc t 1
Mobiiizatic a`De nob:
lization LS
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
rEHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
ORE-3-07
Truck and trailer for
material disposal 40 S125 20
Subtotal
Total Equipment
and Materials $494,700
TOTAL CONSTRUCTION COST
Construction subtotal
S &A (6
Contingency (10
Total Construction Cost
I Total Engineering and Design (6 (Fed Cost)
Total Project Costs, 100% Federal
B/C ratio
c. Project Repair Schedule
Total
1,172,400
70,300
1 17,200
1,359,900
81,600
1,441,500
12 I
The Work Window (work allowed in the water) is 1 August 31 August. Work
performed outside this window will only consist of work that is not in the water.
RESPONSIBLE MILESTONE
PARTY MILESTONE TAKS DATE
COE I FIR Approval I January 29, 2008
COE I E &D complete I February 15, 2008
COE LOA and LER Cert Documents to Non federal
Sponsor, and Designs for Review NLT February 15, 2008
COE I Obtain E &D funds I Obtained
COE I E &D review finalized and complete I March 6, 2008
City of Tukwila Sign LOA by Non federal Sponsor I March 7, 2008
COE Environmental Documentation March 18, 2008
City of Tukwila Non federal Sponsor certifies lands I April 4, 2008
City of Tukwila Non federal Sponsor provides cash contribution I April 18, 2008
COE RE Division Certifies Lands Available I May 2, 2008
COE Solicit contractors I May 5, 2008
COE Award contract I June 20, 2008
COE Initiate construction I July 1, 2008
COE J Complete construction September 15, 2008
$140 $7,800
$48,600
17
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE-3-07
d. Project Authentication
Prepared by: Laura Orr, (206) 764-3575
5
Emergency Management approval by: Paul Komoroske, (206) 764 -3406
District -level approval by: Diane Parks (206) 764 -3431
e. Technical Points of Contact
Emergency Management: Doug Weber, (206) 764 -3406
Economics: Don Bisbee, (206) 764 -3713
Environmental: Rustin Director, (206) 764 -3636
Cultural resources: Ron Kent, (206) 764 -3576
Engineering and design: Cathie Desjardin, (206) 764 -3542
Program Management: Doug Weber, (206) 764 -3406
Real Estate: Cindy Luciano, (206) 764 -3748
Hydraulics and Hydrology: Lynne Melder, (206) 764 -6471
18
x A: t iso' ry��ue it for Rehabilitation station Assistance,
Appendix Project v� 1' S 1' 1B
King Cotatty
Water and land Aaources DiVi3k11
prsutr.unt ;t Matunl acscur rd ?wits
play 57rf C:rtar
201 South:mjceun Shit 5with SM
S9111 WA 28104.3955
106•191•.1I4 206.196.0192 Fax
December 28, 70U6
Doug 'Weber
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
PO Box 03755
4735 Fast Marline] Way South
Seattle, WA 98124 -2255
RE; (:ovcmhsr.ltl4b Flood D ense Rcmrest for PLA43.9..Akeillanw
Dear Nfr. Weber:
PROTECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
G7'
I fuss weal to fake this opportunity to thank you and your utllragues, at the (I 4. Corps of
Rngineers- Searrle District fl) Vi ce for yaw. assistance support as a resod! of the No'e:nhes
2606 flood event. The close communication on tam operations and flood damage inspections
was integral to the success of the coordinated regional response throughout pinta County. 7
took fonuard to ow continued work together on these efforts.
The pu-pose of this let#er is to notify you of flood re:sted danisgcs to eeverai leVecs on the
Omen, Maiusteni Snoqua n:ie, South Fork Saogttalmie, Middle Fork Stwqualroie, Raging, Toll.
and Cedar Rivers that occurred as arsestlt of the November 2006 tlood event, and to officially
request the assistance orthe C.S. Army Corps of Erg veer Statue Dihirict Of lice in
constructing levee repairs at these locations. Requests for 051i glance on the White, South Fork
Skykomish the Samna: gab Rivers are not bell pursued at this time.
The at achcd table contains brief summaries of the datneF -d loved locations, approximate
lengths of damages, preliminary cost estimates, and notes on their eligibility for assistance
under the PL 84.99 program. These summaries of observed damages ate based 042 observations
mark by King County aiaff and, in sonic instances, were observed jointly with U.S. AT:ny
Corps of Engineers etatif ellnwing the Jluucl event'
li is anticipated that joint low•warcr inspections of the levee damages identified in this )dirt
will be needed in the near future to more accurately assess, quantify and prioritize damages and
associated repair needs along with more detailed cost estimates based on the preferred brat)
alternative. Please mote that our requests for assistance may acso he augmented as additional
damages are idenlifiod as we continue to thoroughly inspect loves systems throng!' the county.
19
Doug Voir:
%re:e1 ter 24. 2ttt
'a3o 2
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION O FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE-3-07
I would also like to include with this request for assistance an itnmcrdietc rc nxpx;ion of the
portion of the He~rsmhoe Rcnd T,evee just upstrtam of Central Marc to determine whether en
emergency re it is warm itc4. Boat King Corm and C.S. Army Cobs of Engineers staff
recently observed three new sinkholes on the back slope of this levee, one of which is in the
s.me Icsacion as evidence of font slope move:tent. ]f emerge. cy repass bra warranted 1
would like to request that we take immediate ilction to address the damages atthis Io anion.
King County would like to remain a ctivcpatticipants le the.devetopment of levee repair design
afremarives during preynstion of the project intonation report for these sties. In addition, we
would like to explore options that would allow the County and the District to play an active
role in the design and CanWuctinn of lhr a projects consistent with the sucoeSduI gpprosrch
currently underway at the Briscoe Levee repair site.
Thank you for your consideration in this matte. If you have any questior.s or real additional
information re ard'u:g this request, or would like to schedule a meeting nr joint inspection of
time sitee, please contact me in 06- 296.8611.
eifuhs Miaseget
River and Fhxtdpisin Management l ink
cc: Andy Levesque, Senior Engineer, Kin County lover and Fiondptoin Management Unit
Tor Bean, Senior Engineer, Kung County River and Floodptain Management Unit
John Koon, CRFCZI) Program Coordinator. King County River and Floodplain
Management tints
Nancy Facgettbtug, PtogrannrProject Marager, King County River and Fluedptain
Management Unit
Priscilla Kaufmann, Pmdzurin Project ti4urtager, King County River and Phrc* plain
Mars Bement Unit
Deborah Saheibncr, Engineer, Kiag Cn:mty River and Flocdptnin Management Unit
Attachment
20
4F
SIOIYM
.110 MipOuest`Inc.
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
CRE-0
Appendix B: Proct location and d data, maps, and related information
u (Sree
-a pg.Fy
,t
i
Quilcene
fon e
1,41Maisp
elair
2ds i o
Proj
Yn
,4
panaway
lk Plain
ene v% 3
erett
taranits. rails :14
o
oho rnsh
11 55 11 1.11 3
Index
2.
01
0
4i rlands
o tfuva II
irk and
Carnat ion
Eta rin
Grotto
t
•;;;„‘t
e.v 1 4 1 ,Fall City
(�O `z5-1-srLATah North Bend
-41,,,___
3 Cedar' 18.
-:c Kent
ral WS 1
e '.Maple Valley 1
Black Diamond 3--
Auburn
Pacific
Inurnclaw
Greenwater
a
n Carbonado
Orting
iiVlapData Cp 2C07 r.!epOueL tnc:Or AN
21
.C.,.:'
.t..1
1 m43
4 0410,111E5H:1 EXIST1 V11
ASPHAL PATH
ON, PROPOSED 4 ....0
STAGING ;.1,.;
1\'%'■ AREA
ACCESS THROUGH ii '1
PROPOSED
tr:
.0 i
PARKING LOT'
CREATE ACCESS i0 .0,
RAMP TO LEVEE i
PROPOSED
WORK AREA
PATH
A
FROPOSEO
STAGING AREA
PROPOSED
ACCESS THROUGH
PARKING LOT
CREATE ACCESS
RAMP TO LEVEE
TIE INTO
EXISTING
ASPHALT PATH
PROPOSED
WORK AREA
NOTES: tin TO 54.1,C
1. EXCAVATE OVERBURDEN CREATING A 2H:IV OR GENTLER SLOPE.
DISPOSE OF EXCESS MATERIAL.
2. CREATE A SMALL 10' BENCH WITH 2H:1V SLOPE.
3. CREATE A SMALL 5'0' TOE AND ARMOR LEVEE FACE UP TO BENCH
ELEVATION. COVER WITH 1 TOPSOIL HYDROSEED DISTURBED SOIL.
4. PLANT 1 LIFT OF WILLOWS ON C" CENTER JUST ABOVE OHW ELEVATION.
5. REMOVE AND REPLACE CHAIN LINK FENCE AS NECESSARY.
G. REVEGETATE DISTURBED BACKSLOPE WITH COMPARABLE LANDSCAPING.
7. SITE INFRASTRUCTURE MUST BE RETURNED TO PRE
CONDITION !IE. ASPHALT PATH. ACCESS RAMPS. FENCE. ETC)
N. PARKING LOT PARKING SPACES WILL BE USED AS ACCESS ROAD.
/MTN ac rAac MOTION CIAO/ACQA 104114416 All
AMON rut 1m1mes.1•14mMamm TlatIniasurc 0.bovAa.
LEVEE REPAIR IS
APPROXIMATELY 800 FEET
RtVISIONS
0Y1100(1 110Xt I OtseMKNIT
CREATE ACCESS
RAMP TO LEVEE
AtO Om V
•vgitj42„.
PROPOSED
STAGING
PROPOSED
WORK AREA
PROPOSED
ACCESS
PROPOSED
ASPHALT
PATH
NOT TO SCALE
011ITZSE
rr. '41401 i
rumaLA
0 N to !ILA .446 UCI.Itt
n011.1411
—TIE INTO EXISTING
ASPHALT PATH
U. S. ARMY ENGINEER DI SIR I CT SE iit
CORPS UP E.NG
SEATTLE WASH I
LOWER GRECN RIVER
FLOOD CONTkOL PPOKCT
TUKWILA LEval SITE
SIZE I /MUTATION NO. ILY IC. IA:6C
B
0540:DEW ARC MI cam. 1.10e1
PRE -fLOOr
AMOR
PRE -FLOW
SLOPE
FUND =UR
.1P: t'�,.,i� I LOFT
PRE -FLOC
ARM5R
VA
TENIAL UN SLOPE
PLACE •ILLOV LIFT-,
ABOVE COW
OFT
TFT
214
POST
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE -3 -07
x 1114 PLACE CLASS 1St
SLOPE AM TOE
42FT
DESIGN FILE: I \miuc\civ\Grcen Rivcr \SITE 3 TuY•4rila.dgn
PRE AND POST FLOOD CONDITION
EXISTINS
ASPHALT
PATH
CxWIN0 rcn.i! PROPOSED
LEYE6,p� 1rj4' 1 UFT LEVEE
14FT
I OFT
PROM:IC°
21 °T
ASPHALT
PATH
1FT CNAIN
r y LINK FENCE
EAESTIN9
BUILDER
1 5.441
SET
III' MIN. INF.
2' ^4' CUASPY SILLS
IN' TNk. GRAVEL. OFT
OACKFILL FOR GRAINS
6' PEPFORATED PIPE
110CNCNT
REPAIR CONDITION FOP
LEVEE CLOSE FEET BUILDING
REPAIR CONDITION
DEPOSITIONAL MATERIAL REMOVED
DATE AND TIME PLATTE: )/23/20
10FT
Yi
U
C
y V.
N A
.71 It
O
"rJ
N
i)
).0•32(7i ASS
23
RR CROSSING BMX
LIGHT P
CCINTROL SOX tOpER
vtiLiE BUl(
SURVEY MARKER--
FIRE HYDRANT
WoOLLAR
i
CELL
1 ce
v.w.
RIGHT OP`IXA.Y Ge! '"'r
PROPOS
CORK AREA
t ago EXIT R AMP
ATI °N T 5
ACT INFO °D N O WORKS
ILI °F 'FLOOD ILYTAT °N GRE -3 -07
NATURA GA LE S
0
TEI S9 ITH
SDUTNCEN
tNDU5IRI
rN
SP SPRIN KLE
YSTEM
6 fULL N PUaER
UNCf,R ELA. ENTRANCE.
J,
tote.
00 ifiG 1I
EXIT RAMP
REVNIONP
t l, t•!t }fE1li ?iii
:h;7h 1 1.
PROPOSE
cORK
EXISTIN"
C CES,S
A'
10(.010 UTILITIES s It1455TEAVIUNE.
11 CATGP Ets5114S
t 1111cERSRtl lic Pu.LE.
1,1%;11T PuaER Poi. 3 V PP tRU�51N4
Al SYP111kLEF, Svs1E11
s�f To 0.41, t LIII
PA LE.''�E4:. k „1
p,t
v. 1
Y \t
.lu ya..rrt
Nor w ?c+u �PEET Datia ayr L m”`
O kY14X
IS APPROXIMATELY ATE
LEVEE REPAIR pCATEG ARE APPRLtXIM
ENTRAN
lN�itl
rr
CITEM
74
a
40—
:0—
20—
10—
0
-117 -10
40
20—
10—
0
-IL>
—00
311
.out!
—ea
I I
74ti 1 IT 9at1. a.'0 VALLS
PLACE 1 i MIL LOIN a•1u1•
-40
+.D
711
I
I I
-10 -30 -2D
C)2T2N.0 :F7:
TRANSITION :IEW SECTION A —A
SITE 5 PROPOSED REPAIR
I. mar 014 all.
I I I I I
-00 -70 40 .70 -10 70 -20
C3STIN:0 1771
'IJ
1 #T
0
FULL VIEW SECTION S —B
SITE .5 PROPOSED REPAIR
au FPf1PnsFR RFPLiR (2:I ftPTUIN
t= .N4cti1.*%rM11 Illnr*'n ITC T Tyo
10
I I
I i I
10 20 L:
20
7
40
I I RA I I
i EIT
SN XSIT
A1 1171
I I
—70
IC
Appendix Z: PIR Review Checklist
Appendix Z: PIR Review CI ek ist
FIR Review Checklist for FeW Rehabilitation Projects
YES NO N/A
1. 5 The project is active in the RIP. [ER, 5 -2.a.]
2. The project was damaged by flood(s) or coastal storm(s). [ER, 5-2.1
3. 7C The Public Sponsor has requested Rehabilitation Assistance in
writing. [EP, 5.10.b.1
4. x The Public Sponsor has agreed to sign the Cooperation Agreement,
which will occur before USACE begins rehabilitation work.
[ER, 5-10.1
5. x The estimated construction cost of the rehabilitation is greater than
515,000, and is not considered sponsor maintenance. [ER, 5 -2.q.]
6. X The repair option selected is the option that is the least cost to the
Federal government, or, the sponsor's preferred alternative is
selected with all increases in cost paid by the public sponsor. PiR
includes justification for non- select of the least cost alternative.
[ER, 5 -2.h. and 5- 11.e.(3)]
7.
9.
10.
11.
The public sponsor is aware of the opportunity to seek a
nonstructural alternative project, and has decided to proceed with a
structural rehabilitation. [ER, 5-161
The cost estimate in the PIR itemized the work to identify the Public
Sponsor's cost share. [ER, 5-11]
The rehabilitation project has a favorable benefit cost ratio of greater
than 1.0:1. [ER, 5 -2.r.j
The proposed work will not modify the FCW to increase the degree
of protection or capacity, or to provide protection to a larger area.
[ER, 5 -2.n.]
X Betterments are paid 100 percent by the Public Sponsor. [5-2.o.)
12. X The CA contains a provision for 80% Federal and 20% local cost
share for non Federal projects. [ER, 5- 11.a.]
13. X Cost for any betterments are identified separately in the cost
estimate. [ER, 5 -2.o.]
PageZ
14.
22. 7<
15.
REVI MIN
GI
FFICIAL'S SIGNATURE
(0..1."...
AME
TITLE
TELEPHONE NUMBER
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
GRE 7
RR Review Checklist for FCIt Reha }iiitat cn Projects (Cc hued)
;.;A
X Repair of deliberate Levee cuts is the responsibility cf the public
sponsor, except as provided for in ER 500 -1 -1, paragraphs 5-2.j.
and 4-3.h. [ER, 5-2.j. and 4-3.h.j
All deficient and deferred maintenance will be paid for or
accomplished by the Public Sponsor, without receiving credit toward
any sponsor's cost share. [ER, 5 -2.g.j
16. X Any relocation of levees is adequately justified. [ER, 5.2.h.]
17. USACE assistance does not correct design or construction
deficiencies. [ER, 5- 12.a.]
18. An assessment of environmental requirements was completed.
[ER, 5-13., and EP, Figure 5.3, paragraph 12.]
19_ "4 The project complies with NEPA, and required documentation was
completed and placed in Appendix G of the FIR. [ER, 2 -3.k.;
ER, 5-13.; and EP, Figure 5-3, paragraph 12.] R1JPA process I s
oN• qat
20_ The Endangired Species Act was appropriately considered.
[ER, 5- 13.g., and EP, Figure 5-3., paragraph 12.] 5Sf1 oNsulii. ;ok,
is dr+cfetrt
21_ X EO 119118 requirements were considered in the process of
evaluating the proposed project for rehabilitation. [ER, 5- 13.f., and
EP, Figure 5-3, paragraph 12.]
The completed PIR has been reviewed and the PIR Checklist has
been reviewed and signed by the Emergency Management Office.
[EP, 5- 11.a.(3 )(a }j
23. The completed PIR meets all policy, procedural, content, and
formatting requirements of ER 500 -1 -1 and EP 500 -1 -1. [ER, 2 -3.b.]
Page Z -2
PROJECT INFORMATION REPORT
REHABILITATION OF FLOOD CONTROL WORKS
ORE, -L7
ATTACHMENTS
27
Exhibit B
Design Sketch
REPLY TO
ATTENTICN OF
Operations Division
Emergency Management Branch
Dear Mr. Morrow:
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 3755
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124 -2255
FEB 0 5 2 a8
Jim Morrow, P.E., Director
Public Works Emergency Management
City of Tukwila
6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Suite 100
Tukwila, Washington 98188 -2544
RE: Public Law 84 -99 Levee Restoration Job No. GRE of the Lower Green River Section
205 Flood Control Project (AKA Tukwila Section 205 Project)
This letter is regarding federal assistance under PL 84 -99 to repair damage to levees
included in the Tukwila 205 Lower Levee Restoration Job No. GRE -3 -07. Enclosure 1 is a draft
copy of the Project Information Report (PIR) describing the proposed levee repairs. We will
provide the City with a final copy of the PIR after receipt of approval from our Division office in
Portland, Oregon.
As previously discussed with the representatives for the City of Tukwila (hereinafter
referred to as the City,) the PL 84 -99 Program provides federal funds for 100 percent of the
actual repair costs to a federal assisted levee such as this 205 Flood Control Project.
Notwithstanding this assistance, the terms and conditions of the January 31, 1991 Local
Cooperation Agreement (LCA), Enclosure 2, between the United States Government and City of
Tukwila will still apply to the proposed levee repairs. What this means is the City must continue
to comply with the three basic provisions in the Agreement that are generally referred to as the
A- B -C's:
A. The City must make available without cost to the United States all lands,
easements and rights -of -way, necessary for the construction, operation and
maintenance of the entire levee. See LCA Articles II. d. Obligations of the
Parties; and Article III. Lands, Facilities, and Public Law 91 -646 Relocation
Assistance.
WA C.
B. The City must operate, maintain, repair, replace and rehabilitate all of
the levee features and prevent any encroachment on the completed work. See
LCA Article VIII Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and
Rehabilitation.
C. The City must hold and save the United States free from any claims for
damages arising out of the construction, operation and maintenance of the Project,
except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or its
contractors. See LCA Article IX. Release of Claims.
Before the Corps can proceed with any repair work the City must acknowledge its continued
obligation of providing the A -B -C's presented and more fully described in the LCA of
January 31, 1991 by having the Mayor sign in the space provided at the end of this letter.
Additionally, the City must acquire and make available by April 4, 2008 or sooner all the
lands, easements and rights -of -way necessary for the proposed repair work. Enclosure 3 is a
combination Certification of Lands, Attorney's Certificate and Risk Analysis document (in
duplicate). By signing the Iand certification documents, the City certifies that it owns or controls
sufficient interest in lands for the entire levee reach for construction, operation, and maintenance
of the flood control system. This document also grants the U.S. Government permission to enter
at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner upon those lands for the purpose of inspection,
and completing, the proposed levee repairs.
Also, the City must provide, along with the completed certification documents, the types of
supporting documents listed below for the proposed levee repairs; and verify that the City
continues to hold sufficient interest in the lands for construction, operation and maintenance of
the entire levee by providing a title report. The title report for the entire Section 205 levee reach
is for verification that the City continues to hold an adequate interest in the lands. The title
reports must not be older than 90 days at the time of land certification by the City.
Evidence of defensible title for the proposed levee repairs must include the following legible
documentation.
Copies of recorded title exceptions.
Copies of recorded deeds of conveyance from the owners of record for each parcel of
land, including ingress and egress routes to the project site; and temporary work areas
needed to support construction.
Subordination agreements used to clear title on the lands being acquired.
Copies of condemnation judgments or orders, if applicable.
To expedite our review of the City's supporting title evidence and Third Party Risk Analysis
form, please cross reference the title evidence to a right -of -way drawing, plate map or similar
depiction. Additionally, on the attached map labeled Exhibit "A", delineate or highlight the
boundaries of City's real estate interests and cross- reference all the supporting title evidence for
3
the proposed construction project, including the ingress and egress routes; and any staging areas
necessary to support construction.
By signing the land certification document, the City certifies that it owns or controls
sufficient real property interests in the damaged sections of the levee reach lands to construct
repairs, and agrees to operate and maintain the entire levee project. Further, by signing this
document, the City grants the U.S. Government permission to enter at reasonable times and in a
reasonable manner upon those lands for the purpose of accomplishing the rehabilitation effort.
After the City completes all of its lands acquisition activities, please have the Mayor, sign
and date the Certification Lands documents, Enclosure 3. Please have the City Attorney sign
and date the Attorney's Certificate portion of Enclosure 3 and complete the Outstanding Third
Party Risk Analysis form. After returning the signed Certification of Lands /Attorney's
Certificate/Third Party Risk Analysis documents with supporting title evidence documentation,
this office will do a final review for sufficiency of real estate area and real property interests. If
the City's documentation is determined acceptable; then the certificate package will be submitted
to the Chief of Real Estate Division for review and approval before advertising for construction.
An aggressive project schedule is necessary to accomplish construction in a timely manner
this summer. If the City does not certify all the necessary lands in accordance with the schedule
below, the Corps will not proceed with levee repair and any federal funds allotted for this project
will be withdrawn. However, the City will continue to be responsible for the levee repair, at its
cost, under the operation and maintenance provisions of the LCA. Furthermore, if repairs are
not made before the next flood season, there is significant risk of flood damage, and the Corps
will rate the levee unacceptable and make the levee inactive in the Corps levee program. This
action could likely lead to FEMA decertification of the levee. For these reasons, it is extremely
urgent that the City acquire the necessary real property interests so the proposed repairs can take
place this summer.
Project Schedule
City signs and returns this Letter of Acknowledgment (LOA)
City certifies all Iand available
COE RE Division approves LER Certificate
Advertise for construction
Commence construction
Complete Construction
March 21, 2008, or sooner
April 4, 2008
May 2, 2008
May 5, 2008
July 1, 2008
September 15, 2008
Please have the Mayor sign this Ietter in the space below and return one original signature of
this letter to Ms. Cindy Luciano by March 21, 2008, or sooner and keep one original signature
letter for the City's records.
4
If you have any questions regarding the enclosed documents, the non- federal requirements,
or real estate process please call Ms. Luciano (206) 764-3748. For questions regarding design
and construction of the project, please contact Laura Orr at (206) 764 -3575 or Doug Weber at
(206) 764 -3406.
Enclosures
CITY OF TUKWILA, WASHINGTON
By
Jim Haggerton, Mayor
Sincerely,
ke,P
Chief, Emergency Management Branch
Operations Division
The City of Tukwila, Washington, acting by and through the Mayor hereby acknowledges
the City's continued obligations as stated in the Local Cooperation Agreement of January 31,
1991.
Date
CF:
Shelley Kerslake, Attorney for City of Tukwila, 6300 Southcenter Boulevard, Tukwila, WA
98188
Steve Bleifuhs, Section Manager, King County Department of Natural Resources and Parks, 201
South Jackson Street, Suite 600, Seattle, WA 98104