HomeMy WebLinkAbout4647RESOLUTION NO.4 6 4 7
A RESOLUTION OF THE . CITY OF AUBURN,
WASHINGTON, APPROVING AND AUTHORIZING
EXECUTION OF AN INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
WITH PIERCE COUNTY, REGARDING FUNDING
THE LOCAL. OBLIGATION � FOR :THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' GENERAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the United States Congress authorized a Corps of Engineers
General Investigation New Start (GI) for the Puyallup/White watershed; area dated 21
June 2000;
WHEREAS, Corps of Engineers (Corps) staff completed a Puyallup River 905(b)
Reconnaissance Report, dated 18 March 2009, which found there is a federal interest in
pursuing a feasibility phase study to plan for flood damage reduction and'fish and
wildlife habitat restoration of the Puyallup River Basin;
WHEREAS, a Feasibility Report is the next step in the Corps GI process and it
requires a 50/50 cost share between the federal agency,and the local sponsors;
WHEREAS, the feasibility report will be a complete decision document in
sufficient detail to form the basis for the Local sponsor, Corps of Engineers, and
ultimately the U.S. Congress, to consider approving authorization and; construction of
the recommended plan;
WHEREAS, the Corps would prefer to have one local agency act as the contact
for all local participation and accounting;
WHEREAS, Pierce County has agreed to perform the role of "Local Sponsor"
with support from the other participating agencies which will provide review of GI
1-1004-2A
Resolution No. 4647
September 23, 2010
Page 1 of 3
materials and actively participate in the process through the Pierce County Rivers
Executive Task Force, in addition to providing financial support;
WHEREAS, the City of Auburn has determined that the potential for significant
flooding associated with the Lower Puyallup River is a threat to the City's regional
economic interest;
WHEREAS, the Corps has indicated the Feasibility study will take approximately
six (6) years to complete and cost approximately $6 million dollars of which the local
sponsors are responsible for $3 million dollars; and
WHEREAS, Pierce County and the City of Auburn staff have drafted the attached
interlocal agreement to distribute the local financial obligation between the local
sponsors; and
WHEREAS, the parties are authorized to enter into such agreements by virtue of
RCW Chapter 39.34;
NOW, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The interlocal agreement is hereby approved and accepted by the
City of Auburn and the Mayor is authorized to execute the interlocal agreement in
substantially the same form as the attached agreement, entitled INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT
BETWEEN PIERCE COUNTY AND CITY OF AUBURN REGARDING FUNDING THE LOCAL OBLIGATION
FOR THE CORPS OF ENGINEERS' GENERAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT.
Section 2. That a copy of the resolution and signed interlocal agreement
authorizing approval shall be provided to Pierce County.
L1004 -2A
Resolution No. 4647
September 23, 2010
Page 2 of 3
Section 3. That the Mayor is authorized to implement such administrative
procedures as may be necessary to carry out the directives of this legislation.
Section 4. That this Resolution shall, take effect and be in full force upon
passage and signatures hereon.
Dated and signed this �� day of dc:5�
PETER B. LEWIS
MAYOR
ATTEST:
Dant lle E. Daskam, City Clerk
L � _ �S�jJ►=�
1-1004-2A
Resolution No. 4647
September 23, 2010
Page 3 of 3
, 2010.
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PIERCE COUNTY ANI) CITY -OF AUBURN
REGARDING FUNDING THE .LOCAL OBLIGATION FOR THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS` GENERAL INVESTIGATION -PROJECT
.THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day by and between PIERCE COUNTY, a
political subdivision of the State of Washington (herein referred to=as ",COUNTY") and the City
of Auburn a municipal corporation of.the State -of Washington (herein referred to as City of
Auburn).
WHEREAS, the United States Congress authorized a Corps of Engineers General
Investigation New Start (GI) for'the Puyallup/White watershed area dated 21 June 2000; and
WHEREAS, Corps of Engineers (Corps) staff completed a Puy allupRiver 905(b)
Reconnaissance Report, dated 18 March 2009; which found there is a federal interest in pursuing
a feasibility phase study to plan for f[ od damage reduction -and fish and wildlife habitat
restoration of the Puyallup River Basin; and
WHEREAS, a Feasibility Report is the next step in the Corps GI process and it requires a
50/50 cost share between the federal agency and the local sponsors; and
WHEREAS, the feasibility report will be a complete decision document in sufficient
detail to form the basis for the Local sponsor; Corps of Engineers, and ultimately the U.S.
Congress, to consider approving authorization and, construction of the recommended plan; and
WHEREAS, the Corps would prefer to have one local agency, act as the contact for all
local participation and accounting; and
WHEREAS, Pierce County has agreed to perform the role of "Local Sponsor" with
support from the other participating agencies which will provide review of GI materials and
actively participate in theprocess through the -Pierce County Rivers Executive Task Force, in
addition to providing financial support; and
WHEREAS, the Corps has indicated the Feasibility study will take approximately six (6)
years to complete and cost -approximately $6 -.million dollars of which the local sponsors, are
responsible for $3 million dollars; and
WHEREAS, the participating agencies have agreed to the distribution of the required
local share that is shown in Attachment A; and
WHEREAS, the parties are authorized to enter into such agreements by virtue of RCW
Chapter 39.34;
L 1004-2B
Interlocal Agreement Between
Pierce County and the City of Auburn
Puyallup/White River Watershed General Investigation Project
Page I
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the terms and conditions contained herein, it is
mutually agreed by and between the COUNTY and City of Auburn as follows:
SECTION 1. PURPOSE. Purpose of this agreement is to provide for the funding for the
local match of the Corps of Engineers' Puyallup/White. River Watershed General Investigation
and to memorialize the agreement between the parties relating to this'process.
SECTION 2. COUNTY OBLIGATIONS. The COUNTY shall be responsible for
coordinating the local parties" in the GI process and for transmitting the Local financial match to
the Corps. ,The COUNTY shall also be responsible for invoicing the -City of Auburn. The
COUNTY shall invoice annually on a schedule agreed to between the City of Auburn and the
-COUNTY but no more fre4uentlyrthan-twice a calendar year,
SECTION 3. City of Auburn OBLIGATIONS. The City of Auburn shall be
responsible for actively participating in the GI process. When invoiced, the City of Auburn shall
also be responsible to remit the agreed to payment (ATTACHMENT A) to:
Pierce County Public Works and Utilities
Surface Water Management
2702 `South 42nd, Suite 201
Tacoma, WA 98409-7322
SECTION 4. TERM OF THE AGREEMENT. This Agreement shall have a term
commencing on the date of execution of this Agreement and terminating on December 31, 2015.
SECTION 5. INDEMNIFICATION AND DEFENSE. The COUNTY shall defend,
indemnify, and save harmless the City of Auburn;. its officers, employees, and agents from any
and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of damages, resulting from the acts or omissions of
the COUNTY, its officers, employees, or agents associated with this- Agreement. In executing
this Agreement, the COUNTY does not assume liability or responsibility for or in any way
release the City of Auburn from any liability or responsibility which arises'in,whole. or in part
from the existence. or effect of City :of_Auburn ordinances, rules; regulations; resolutions;
customs, policies, or practices. If any cause, claim; suit, action or.administrative proceeding is
r
commenced in which the enforceability and/ovalidity, of any such City of Auburn ordinance,
rule, regulation, resolution, custom, policy or practice is at issue, the City of Auburn shall defend
the same at its sole expense, and if judgment is entered or"damages are awarded against the City
of Auburn, the COUNTY, or -both, the City of Auburn shall satisfy the same;Ii \ luding all
chargeable costs and attorney's service charges.
The City of Auburn shall defend, indemnify and save harmless the COUNTY, its
officers, employees and agents fromfany and all costs, claims, judgments, or awards of damages,
L 1004-2B
Interlocal Agreement Between
Pierce County and the City of Auburn
Puyallup/White River Watershed General Investigation Project
Page 2
resulting from the acts or omissions of the City of Auburn, its officers, employees or agents
associated with this Agreement. In executing this Agreement, the, City of Auburn. does not
assume liability or responsibility -for or in any wayrelease the COUNTY.from any liability or
responsibility which arises in whole or in part frorn the existence or effect of COUNTY
ordinances, rules, regulations, resolutions, customs, policies, or practices. If anycause, claim,
suit; action, or administrative proceeding is commenced in whichthe.enforceability and/or
validity of any such COUNTY. ordinance, rule, regulation, resolution, custom, policy, or practice
is at issue, the COUNTY shall defend the same.at its sole expense, and if judgment is entered or
damages are awarded against the COUNTY, the. City of Auburn, or both; the COUNTY shall
satisfy the same, including all chargeable costs'and attorney's service charges.
SECTION 6. NON-DISCRIMINATION. The COUNTY and the City of Auburn
certify°that'they'are Equal -Opportunity Employers.
SECTION 7. ASSIGNMENT. Neither the COUNTY nor the. City of Auburn shall
have the right to transfer or assign, in whole or in part, any or Iall of its obligations and rights
hereunder without the prior written consent of the other Party.
SECTION 8. NOTICE. Any formal notice or communication to be given by the
COUNTY to the City of Auburn under this Agreement shall be deemed properly given, if
delivered to:
Mr. Kevin Snyder
Director,; Planning and Development Department
City of Auburn
25 W Main St.
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
Any formal notice or communication to be given by the City of Auburn to the COUNTY
under this Agreement shall`.be deemed properly given, if delivered, or if mailed postage prepaid
and addressed to:
Pierce County. Public Works; and Utilities
Surface Water Management
2702 South 42nd, Suite 201
Tacoma, WA 98409-7322
Attention: Harold Smelt, Surface Water Management Manager
The name and address to which notices and communications shall be directed may \be
changed at any time, and from time to time, by either the City of Auburn or the COUNTY giving
notice thereof to the other as herein rprovided.
L1004 -2B
Interlocal Agreement Between
Pierce County and the City of Auburn
Puyallup/White River Watershed General Investigation Project
Page 3
i _.
SECTION 9. COUNTY AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The COUNTY is,
and shall at all times be deemed to be, an independent contractor. Nothing herein contained shall
be construed as creating the relationship of employer and employee, or principal and agent,
between City of Auburn and COUNTY or any of the COUNTY's agents or employees. The
COUNTY shall retain all authority for rendition of services, standards of performance, control of
personnel, and other matters incident to the performance of services by COUNTY pursuant to
this Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement shall make any employee of the City of Auburn a COUNTY
employee or any employee of the COUNTY a City of Auburn employee for any purpose,
including, but not limited to, for withholding of taxes, payment of benefits, worker's
compensation pursuant to Title 51 RCW, or any other rights or privileges accorded COUNTY or
City of Auburn employees by virtue of their employment.
SECTION 10. WAIVER. No waiver by either party of any term or condition of this
Agreement shall be deemed or construed to constitute a waiver of any other term or condition or
of any subsequent breach, whether of the same or a different provision of this Agreement.
SECTION 11. ENTIRE AGREEMENT. This Agreement contains all of the
Agreements of the Parties with respect to any matter covered or mentioned in this Agreement
and no prior agreements shall be effective for any purpose.
SECTION 12. AMENDMENT. Provisions within this Agreement may be amended
with the mutual consent of the parties hereto. No additions to, or alteration of, the terms of this
Agreement shall be valid unless made in writing, formally approved, and executed by duly
authorized agents of both parties.
SECTION 13. NO REAL PROPERTY ACQUISITION OR JOINT FINANCING.
This Interlocal Agreement does not provide for the acquisition, holding or disposal of real
property. Nor does this Agreement contemplate the financing of any joint or cooperative
undertaking. There shall be no budget maintained for any joint or cooperative undertaking
pursuant to this Interlocal Agreement. Nor does the City's agreement to the distribution of the
required local share (Attachment A) for this Corps Feasibility Study establish any precedent for
funding implementation activities associated with this Study.
SECTION 14. FILING. Copies of this Interlocal Agreement, together with the
resolution of the Pierce County Council and the City of Auburn Council Members approving and
ratifying this Agreement, shall be filed with the City of Auburn Clerk, the Pierce County
Auditor, and the Secretary of State of Washington after execution of the Agreement by both
parties.
L 1004-2B
Imerlocal Agreement Between
Picrce County and the City of Auburn
Puyallup/White River Watershed General Investigation Project
Page 4
SECTION 15. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement
are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions shall remain in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF, ;the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
this day of , 2010.
CITY OF AUBURN PIERCE COUNTY
V4 ! v
Approved as .to Form Date
L1004 -2B
Interlocal Agreement Between
Pierce County and the City of Auburn
Puyallup/White River Watershed General Investigation Project
Page 5
DEP. PROSECUTING A Y Date
(as to form only)
"IM114
B 1)A T AND ANAN Date
Attachment A
Payment
The City of Auburn shall provide a contribution of Four Thousand One Hundred Sixty-seven
Dollars ($4,167) per year for six (6) years toward the fifty (50) percent local match required by
the Corps for the Feasibility Study. The City of Auburn contribution under the Agreement shall
be a maximum of Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00).
EXHIBIT A
y(off'
1 Sponsored by: Councilmembers Calvin Goings, Shawn Bunney, Roger Bush, File No. 7 37
2 Timothy M. Farrell, Barbara Gelman, Terry Lee, and Dick Murl
3 Requested by: Pierce County Council
4
5
8
7 RESOLUTION NO. R2008 -74S
e
s
10 A Resolution of the Pierce County Council Urging Local, State, and Federal
11 Officials to Support the Funding of Improvements to the
12 Lower Puyallup River Levee Needed for Certification of the
13 Levee by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
14
15 Whereas, the Puyallup River levee system provides flood protection to
16 thousands of residents, homes, and businesses in unincorporated Pierce County, the
17 1 cities of Fife, Sumner, Puyallup and Tacoma, and the Port of Tacoma, and also protects
1e essential public infrastructure such as Interstate 5; and
19
20 Whereas, the Army Corps of Engineers has determined that portions of the levee
21 do not currently meet modern levee design requirements, most notably freeboard.
22 requirements, and consequently have indicated that the levee may not provide
23 adequate protection against the 100 -year flood, resulting in the levee being decertified;
24 and
25
26 Whereas, failure of the levee during a flood event could result in loss of life,
27 millions of dollars in private property -damage and business losses, damage to public
2e infrastructure, and significant impacts to commerce and the regional economy; and
29
3o Whereas, the recent levee failure along the Chehalis River in Lewis County
31 illustrates the tragic cost to a community from levee failures, including six lives lost,
32 1,700 homes damaged, 1,800 head of livestock killed, at least $1 billion in property and
33 infrastructure damage, displacement of hundreds of residents and businesses, and the
34 closure of Interstate 5 for four days; and
35
36 Whereas, the Puyallup River levee decertification also resulted in significant
37 socioeconomic impacts in many areas of Pierce County due to the imposition of more
3e restrictive limitations on the use of property and potential loss of property value; and
39
40 Whereas, property owners in areas no longer considered to be protected from
41 the 100 -year flood as a result of levee decertification also face higher flood insurance
42 premiums; and
43
44 Whereas, the cost of improving the Puyallup River levee systems to modern
45 certification standards has been estimated to be in excess of $100 million; and
46
L1004 -2C Resolution No. R2008.74s Pierce County Council
Page 1 of 3 93oTawmoorna..rA 984( 1Q
2
4
5
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
.26
27
28
29
30'
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
Whereas, the federal government has not adequately funded levee maintenance
and improvements in the past and continues to reduce the budget of the Army Corps of
Engineers; and
Whereas, the State of Washington has recently initiated an effort through the
adoption of its Capital Budget, which appropriates $250,000 for a levee recertification
study for the State of Washington; and
Whereas, the Pierce County Council appropriated $950,000 for the Lower
Puyallup River Alternatives Study in 2008; and
Whereas, the significant cost of this project, its multijurisdictional nature, and
significant risk to the public and the economy require cooperation and participation at all
levels of government including, but not limited to, the federal, state, tribal, and the local
governments; and
Whereas, the citizens and businesses of Pierce County, its cities and towns, and
the State of Washington cannot afford another tragedy like the one that occurred in
Lewis County and must work together to ensure that appropriate funding is allocated at
the federal, state, and local levels to ensure that the failure of the Puyallup River levee
system is avoided in the future; and
Whereas, the decision making process for Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding has
also been delayed and is currently one year or more behind schedule for the November
2006 and December 2006 storm events; and
Whereas, approximately $4 million in funding is pending through this program to
support acquisitions of flood damaged properties; and
Whereas, property owners currently waiting for funding through this program are
experiencing unacceptable delays and are experiencing financial hardships; Now
Therefore,
BE IT RESOLVED by the Council of Pierce County:
Section 1. The Pierce County Council hereby expresses its intent to pursue
future funding for improvements to the Puyallup River levee system at the federal, state,
and local levels in order to avoid future losses associated with a failure of the levee.
Section 2. The Pierce County Council urges its state and federal elected officials
to support significant state and federal funding of the improvements necessary to
ensure recertification of the Puyallup River levee system, given the potential impact of
the levee on life, property, commerce, and the economy.
Resolution No. R2008 -74s Pierce County Council
Pa e 2 of 3 MTowmaAva5.RmIw6
9 Tamma, WA 96402
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
0
•
•
Section 3. The Pierce County Council urges local elected officials to support
efforts to recertify the Puyallup River levee system given the potential impacts of a
failure of the levee on the residents and businesses within the cities of Fife, Puyallup,
Sumner and Tacoma, and the Port of Tacoma.
Section 4. The Pierce County Council urges the citizens of Pierce County to
contact their respective state and federal elected officials regarding funding for
improvements to the Puyallup River levee system.
Section 5. The State of Washington and FEMA are requested to complete the
decision making process for the 1671 and 1682 events and to expedite future requests
for aid under the Hazard Mitigation Grant Funding program.
Section 6. The Clerk of the Pierce County Council is hereby directed to forward a
copy of this resolution to all state and federal elected officials representing Pierce
County.
ADOPTED this J 15f" day of 0" C, , 2008.
ATTEST: PIERCE COUNTY COUNCIL
Pierce County, hington
Denise D. Johns'OA Terry Le
Clerk of the Council Council Obair
Resolution No. R2008 -74s
Page 3 of 3
Pierce County Council
930 Teoome Ave S. Rm 1648
TKoma. WA 98402
EXHIBIT 13
PUYALLUP RIVER
SECTION 905(b) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
March 18, 2009
1. STUDY AUTHORITY
A. AUTHORITY. This Section 905(b) (WRDA) Analysis was prepared as an initial
response to Section 209 of the Flood Control Act (FCA) of 1962 (PL 87-874) and Study
Resolution, Docket 2645, Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, dated 21 June 2000. The study resolution states: "That the Secretary of
the Army is requested to review the report of the Chief of Engineers on the Upper
Puyallup River, Washington, slated 1936, as referenced in the Flood Control Act of 1936
(P.L. 74-738), the Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters Sttrdj; authorized by Section 209 of
the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1962 (P.L. 87-879) and other pertbrent reports io
determine whether modifications to the reconnnendations contained therein are
advisable, with references toward providing improvements in fire interest of water
resource and watershed issues affecting Lake Tapps and the White River Watershed
downstream of Mud Mountain Dam, Washington ".
B. FUNDING. Funds in the amount of $43,000 were appropriated in Fiscal Year 2008 to
conduct the reconnaissance phase of the study. Additional funding was provided in Fiscal
Year 2009 to cover the total cost of the reconnaissance phase. The total cost of (lie
reconnaissance phase is budgeted for $100,000. The entire cost of the reconnaissance
phase is federally funded.
2. STUDY PURPOSE
The purpose of the reconnaissance phase study is to investigate flood issues on the lower
8 mile reach of the Puyallup River, located in Pierce County, Washington, and to
determine if there is a Federal (Corps) interest in continuing to a feasibility level
evaluation for flood risk management. The reconnaissance study was initiated on 16 June
2008. The reconnaissance study has resulted in the finding that there is a Federal interest
in continuing the study into the feasibility phase. The purpose of this Section 905(b)
Analysis is to document the basis for this finding and establish the scope of the feasibility
phase. The Section 905(b) Analysis is used as the chapter of the Project Management
Plan that presents the reconnaissance overview and formulation rationale.
3. LOCATION OF PROJECT/CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT
A. STUDY AREA. A majority of the Puyallup River watershed and its major tributaries
(the Carbon and the White Rivers) are located in Pierce County, Washington, with the
exception of a small portion north of the main stem White River located in King County.
L1004 -2D
The Puyallup River drains the southwest slope of Mt. Rainier. The White River, the
Puyallup River's major tributary, rises on the east slope of Mt. Rainier and flows in a
general northwest direction 57 miles to enter the Puyallup River from the north at river
mile (RM) 10.5. Mud Mountain Darn (MMD), a Federally authorized flood storage
project, is located at RM 29.6 on the White River. The Carbon River enters the Puyallup
River at RM 17.9 and is the second major tributary to the Puyallup River. The Puyallup
River flows in a northwesterly direction for approximately 50 miles before discharging
into Commencement Bay in the City of Tacoma. The basin enconi passes numerous small
towns and cities, including Tacoma, the state's third largest city. For this study, the focus
area includes the 500 -year Lower Puyallup River floodplain mapped by Federal
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) in 2007, an 8 mile reach of the Puyallup River
extending upstream from the river mouth at Commencement Bay to approximately the
Meridian Street Bridge in the City of Puyallup. (Corps of Engineers, 2002)
B. SPONSOR. The non -Federal sponsor for the feasibility phase of the study is Pierce
County.
C. CONGRESSIONAL DISTRICT. The study area lies within the jurisdiction of the
following Congressional Districts:
1) Congressional District 6
2) Congressional District 8
3) Congressional District 9
xxci nJ 1
ri�Lylt t -tit �tlll \f. ��\j r h -+€. 'a T�CAO 1110 a-"��S.ry �•�c.z
lti�ri t'It ttSl 3 P
,itS,ttlxt
ti7i , a
03
3j i!1Oi.
... ' (Project Atea I ` ' -h
state of Washington
F 2r
Legend
:3_
rvr•v j h 1 r t( rii„ t • P` ufSlr'UYaII P J
r.:n. )kyr 7 s j a� � g � � a�9a�y, � �� ,g �.�•
:-c'r
2
Figure 1. Map of study area (Provided by Tetra Tech, 2008).
4. PRIOR REPORTS AND -EXISTING PROJECTS
A. THE FOLLOWING PROJECTS WERE REVIEWED AS PART OF THIS STUDY:
Federally Authorized Projects
There are three existing authorized projects in the Puyallup watershed, each with a project
purpose of flood risk management. MMD is located at RM 29.6 oil the White River, 6 miles
upstream and southeast of Enumclaw aild 38 miles southeast of Tacoma in western Washington.
The second authorized project in the watershed includes approximately 2.2 miles of conveyance
improvements near the mouth along the Puyallup Waterway. Finally, bank protection along the
tipper Puyallup near the town of Oiling and other critical points was also included in a 1936
authorization. The entire lower 8 mile stretch of the Puyallup River, including both Federal and
non -Federal levees, will be under evaluation for this study.
Mud Mountain Dam. Mud Mountain Dam is located on the White River, a tributary to the
Puyallup River. Mud Mountain Dam Flood Control Project was authorized in 1936. The
authorized project purpose of MMD is to prevent flood damages in the lower Puyallup River
valley below the mouth of the White River. MMD is unique as a single -purpose flood storage
dam. Most federal dams in the region are multipurpose projects, requiring permanent
impoundment of a reservoir. MMD usually does not impound water except during flood storage
and maintenance operations. Most of the time it passes the White River at riverbed level. Per the
Water Control Manual, except in cases of extreme emergency (i.e., save the dam), MMD is
regulated to a maximum release of 17,600 cfs during flood events. Additionally, when feasible,
the releases from MMD are limited to a maximum of 12,000 cfs to help reduce flood damages
along downstream reaches of the White River. As part of the authorized project the Corps
constructed a trap and haul facility at an existing diversion.dam located 6 miles downstream of
MMD. The trap and haul facility is used to mitigate the loss of upstream fish passage related to
the construction of MMD. Seattle District is currently investigating a project to replace the
diversion dam and modify the trap and haul facility. Additional information related to the
diversion facility is presented below.
Channel Conveyance Project. The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 provided for the
construction and maintenance of a channel conveyance project. The project provides for a
channel with a capacity of 50,000 cfs between the East 11"' Street bridge and the lower 2.2 miles
at Commencement Bay, by straightening the channel, building levees, and making all necessary
bridge changes. The East 10' Street bridge at the lower end of the project is 0.75 mile above the
mouth of the Puyallup River. The project was completed in 1.950. On-going maintenance
activities include brushing, fence repair, grading roadways and levee tops, noxious weed control,
erosion repair, and flood damage repair.
Bank Protection. The project, adopted in June 1936, provided for bank protection at critical
points along upper Puyallup River, above and below the town of Oiling, in Pierce County, for a
distance of 10 miles. The project was completed in 1936 as a Work Projects Administration
(WPA) project under the direction of the Corps of Engineers, and transferred to Pierce County
for maintenance.
OTHER SIGNIFICANT PROJECTS
A geographic focal point in the basin is the artificially -enlarged Lake Tapps. Puget Sound
Energy, Inc. (PSE) modified Lake Tapps at the.turn of the 20th century from four small natural
lakes to one large lake which was used as a hydropower reservoir and subsequently as a
recreational area. The PSE project includes a diversion darn along the White River, an 8 mile
flow line with a capacity of 2000 efs, the Lake Tapps reservoir, forebay & penstocks,
powerhouse, levees and fish screens at the tailrace downstream of which water is diverted back
into the White River. Lake Tapps reservoir offers -significant recreational opportunities to
homeowners around the lake and to visitors. The diversion dam is located 6 miles downstream
from MMD. In 2003, after several years of negotiation PSE rejected a FERC license and no
longer operates the project for hydropower. The Corps entered into an interim operating
agreement with PSE in December of 2003 under which PSE maintains the diversion dam to
ensure water is available to operate the Corps owned and operated trap and haul facility located
at the PSE diversion dam. The Cascade Water Alliance, an organization of municipalities and
water districts, is in the process of acquiring the PSE facilities for a potential regional water
supply project.
B. THE FOLLOWING REPORTS WERE REVIEWED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT.
i. Lower Puyallup River Flood Protection Investigation —Without -Project
Analysis.
Tetra Tech in association with Northwest Hydraulic Consultants, ESA Edolfson, and Shannon
Wilson for Pierce County, June 2008.
ii. Puyallup River Ecosystem Restoration and Flood Damage Reduction Section
905(b) Analysis.
Seattle District Corps of Engineers, signed December 2002.
iii. Draft Mud Mountain Dam Upstream Fish Passage Decision Document and
Environmental Assessment.
Seattle District Corps of Engineers, dated December 2007.
iv. Commencement Bay cumulative impact study, Vol. 1, assessment of impacts.
Seattle District Corps of Engineers, dated 1993.
5. PLAN FORMULATION
The Corps of Engineers uses a six step planning process to methodically address water resource
issues. During a study, six planning steps set forth in the Water Resource Council's Principles
and Guidelines are used to focus the planning effort and, eventually, to select and recommend a
plan for authorization. The six planning steps are: 1) specify problems and opportunities, 2)
inventory and forecast conditions, 3) formulate alternative plans, 4) evaluate effects of
alternative plans, 5) compare alternative plans, and 6) select a recommended plan. The planning
4
process is iterative and has different emphasis on the various steps depending on the study phase.
In the early iterations, those conducted during the reconnaissance phase, the step of specifying
problems and opportunities is emphasized. That is not to say, however, that the other steps are
ignored since the initial screening of preliminary plans that results from the other steps is very
important to the scoping of the follow-on feasibility phase studies. The sub -paragraphs that
follow present the results of the initial iterations of the planning steps that were conducted during
the reconnaissance phase. This information will be refined in future iterations of the planning
steps that will be accomplished during the feasibility phase.
A. IDENTIFIED PROBLEiIS.
The reconnaissance study has identified significant flood risks in the lower basin. Major
flooding occurs during the winter season from November through February. Flooding may be
localized within sub -basins or widespread throughout the basin. The most recent basin -wide
flooding events occurred during 1990, 1995, 1996, 2006, 2008, and 2009. The 1996 flood
yielded a peak discharge of 46,700 cfs (Puyallup at Puyallup Gauge — USGS # 12101500),
approximately a 27 year recurrence interval (regulated frequency curve). Recent flooding has
adversely impacted multiple communities in the basin including Sumner, Fife, Puyallup and
Tacoma. Although MMD prevents substantial damages in the basin, the Map Modernization
initiative prompted FEMA to update their 1987 mapping in the lower basin. In 2007 FEMA
completed revisions to the mapping. The new analyses estimated a significant increase in the
100 -year flood elevations compared to the previous analysis conducted in 1987. This increase is
primarily due to increased sediment deposition, which has raised the elevation of the river
bottom. The increased 100 -year flood elevations result in a reduction of freeboard that in places
is less than the 3 feet of freeboard necessary for the existing levees to meet design certification
for FEMA's National Flood Insurance Program. FEMA's 2007 floodplain mapping was
developed as though there were no levees in place because the levees do not meet design criteria.
This resulted in a much more expansive floodplain than originally mapped in 1987.
The most recent flooding problems were experienced in January 2009 throughout the entire
Western Washington region. After the peak of the flood event, the Corps began releasing water
from MMD on January 8 to initially slow the rate of storage in the reservoir and subsequently to
begin releasing stored water from the reservoir. The peak amount released from MMD was
11,700 cfs on January 9th. This amount was the same as the release in the flood event of 2006,
which caused no significant damage. However, in 2009, this release rate from MMD contributed
to significant flooding in the town of Pacific. When the Caps became aware of the flooding at
Pacific, the release of water was decreased from MMD. However, significant flooding and
damage had already occurred throughout Pacific. When flows peaked along the Puyallup River
at 41,500 cfs oil January 7th, the Corps was not releasing any water from MMD. The observed
peak at Puyallup was estimated at a 14 year recurrence interval (regulated frequency curve).
Without operation of MMD, it is estimated that the peak flow in the Puyallup River at Puyallup
would have been about 70,000 cfs, likely overwhelming the lower Puyallup Valley with
floodwater. It is unknown what caused the difference in impacts from the release of water from
MMD during the 2006 and 2009 floods, although debris accumulations and streambed
sedimentation appear to be the likely cause for the higher impacts in 2009..
.B. PROJECT AREA CONDITIONS: EXISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT -PROJECT CONDITION
Watershed. The Puyallup and White Rivers originate as glacial melt from the slopes of Mt.
Rainier. The Puyallup flows 125 miles before emptying into Commencement Bay in Puget
Sound. The White flows 68 miles before entering the Puyallup near Tacoma. Major tributaries
and creeks in the Puyallup River basin include the Carbon, Greenwater, Clearwater, Boise, South
Prairie Creek, and Mowich Rivers.
i. Existing Condition
The White River is a tributary to the Puyallup River and currently enters the Puyallup at RM
10.5. However, prior to 1906, the flow of the White River split into distributaries near Auburn,
with some flowing north toward the Green River and some in a southerly direction toward the
Stuck River which then drained into the Puyallup. In 1906 flooding and human activities
resulted in the entire flow of the White River being channeled to the Stuck River. This diversion
resulted in the lower 25 miles of the Puyallup River and the lower 8 mites of the White River
receiving extensive flood risk management in the way of levees, dikes, channelization, and
stream straightening. The lower river has extensive levees and channelization. Land use within
the lower Puyallup River basin bears little resemblance to its historic condition. In the lower
portions of the basin, extensive alterations to land forms, river courses, stream channels, and
estuaries have occurred as a result of urban, industrial, and agricultural development. (Corps of
Engineers, 2002)
Riparian vegetation is missing or degraded, and includes a number of non-native species such as
Scotch broom and Himalayan blackberry. Ln general, natural resource values have been heavily
degraded over time. Other significant alterations in the basin include the construction of MMD
by the Corps of Engineers for the purpose of flood risk management and the construction of a
diversion dam by PSE for hydropower generation. These projects are both along the White
River. The Electron power project operated by PSE is located on the Puyallup River upstream of
Orting but does not have the ability to significantly affect flow. In contrast, higher elevations
found within the basin and primarily in the Mt. Rainier National Park closely resemble historic
conditions and are considered mostly unaltered.
The Puyallup River enters Commencement Bay in the City of Tacoma. The estuary historically
covered an area approximately 5,800 acres in size. From 1877 to 1988, over 98 percent of the
estuary was modified, leaving only 187 acres of mudflat, 90 acres of subtidal and intertidal
vegetated shallows, and only 57 acres of the original tidal marsh. The Hylebos and Wapato
Creeks and the Puyallup River all contribute flows to Commencement Bay.. In 1917,
approximately 24 acres of mudflat was dredged in Hylebos Creek to provide for commercial
navigation and resulted in a wider and deeper creekbed to form the Hylebos Waterway.
Additional alterations to the Commencement Bay contributed to the now degraded and filled
delta region. These activities initiated major changes to the salt/brackish marsh habitat and along
with additional development have altered tine ecological functions of tine area. (Corps of
Engineers, 1993)
Major flooding occurs during the fall and winter seasons, typically from November through
February, mainly as a result of the heavy rainfall and rain -on -snow events. Flooding can be
widespread throughout the basin or localized in sub -basins depending upon the extent and
uniformity of the precipitation causing the runoff. Precipitation and timing of the main stem and
tributary flows are the major factor in determining the magnitude of flooding on the rivers in the
Puyallup River basin. Major flood events, peak discharge (recorded and estimated natural), and
the estimated recurrence interval of natural (unregulated) discharge as measured in the lower
Puyallup River at Puyallup are listed in Table l below.
Table 1
Major Flood Events Recorded on the Puyallu i River
Without storage at MMD, the discharge in the Puyallup River would have reached approximately
76,000 cfs in February of 1996, which would equate to approximately a 60 -year event
(unregulated frequency curve). Based on a 1988 USGS Report, the channel capacity of the
Puyallup River from its mouth to the City of Puyallup is equivalent to a 100 -year regulated
discharge (approximately 50,000 cfs) throughout most of the reach. In the reach from the City of
Puyallup to the City of Orting, the channel capacity is equivalent to a discharge with a recurrence
interval of less than 100 years. The Carbon River's channel capacity is also equivalent to a
discharge with a recurrence interval of less than 100 years. Based oil the 1988 USGS report, the
White River had a channel capacity equivalent to a discharge with a recurrence interval of 50 to
70 year events, especially in the reach located in Pierce County. (Corps of Engineers, 2002)
In response to flooding that occurred throughout the 1990s, Pierce and King Counties have
identified flooding issues and have aggressively pursued measures to reduce the impacts of
flooding. In general, the extent of inundation and the associated flood damages in the study area
can be related to insufficient conveyance capacity due to sediment buildup, at -risk structures in
the 100 -year floodplain, insufficient protection of structures in the floodplain, obstructions to
flow including vegetation, and uncontrolled runoff from unregulated portions of the basin. The'
FEMA floodplain map produced in 1987 for the lower Puyallup River did not require the
standard 3 feet of freeboard for levee certification. While the requirement for 3 feet of freeboard
7
Regulated
Natural
Estimate
Estimate
Recurrence
Recurrence
Recorded
Estimated
Interval
Interval
Year
Peak
Natural Peak(Yrs)
yrs
57,000 cfs (pre
Dec. 1933
57,000 cfs
MMD)
N/A
20
Jan. 1965
41,500 cfs
53,000 cfs
14
18
Dec. 1977
40,600 cfs
58,000 cfs
12
25
Nov. 1986
43,800 cfs
47,500 cfs
18
12
Jan. 1990
44,800 cfs
65,000 cfs
22
40
Nov. 1990
41,900 cfs
61,000 cfs
14
33
Feb. 1996
46,700 cfs
76,000 cfs
27
60
Nov.
2006
39,700 cfs
69 100 cfs
11
46
41,500
Jan. 2009
cfs
70,000 cfs
14
48
Without storage at MMD, the discharge in the Puyallup River would have reached approximately
76,000 cfs in February of 1996, which would equate to approximately a 60 -year event
(unregulated frequency curve). Based on a 1988 USGS Report, the channel capacity of the
Puyallup River from its mouth to the City of Puyallup is equivalent to a 100 -year regulated
discharge (approximately 50,000 cfs) throughout most of the reach. In the reach from the City of
Puyallup to the City of Orting, the channel capacity is equivalent to a discharge with a recurrence
interval of less than 100 years. The Carbon River's channel capacity is also equivalent to a
discharge with a recurrence interval of less than 100 years. Based oil the 1988 USGS report, the
White River had a channel capacity equivalent to a discharge with a recurrence interval of 50 to
70 year events, especially in the reach located in Pierce County. (Corps of Engineers, 2002)
In response to flooding that occurred throughout the 1990s, Pierce and King Counties have
identified flooding issues and have aggressively pursued measures to reduce the impacts of
flooding. In general, the extent of inundation and the associated flood damages in the study area
can be related to insufficient conveyance capacity due to sediment buildup, at -risk structures in
the 100 -year floodplain, insufficient protection of structures in the floodplain, obstructions to
flow including vegetation, and uncontrolled runoff from unregulated portions of the basin. The'
FEMA floodplain map produced in 1987 for the lower Puyallup River did not require the
standard 3 feet of freeboard for levee certification. While the requirement for 3 feet of freeboard
7
was introduced in 1986, draft maps were already in production and FEMA chose not to reinitiate
the mapping process. If current mapping standards would have been applied to the 1987 maps,
this area along the lower Puyallup River would not have been designated as outside the 100 year
floodplain. Since the flooding in 1995 and 1996, both King and Pierce Counties have
aggressively pursued acquisition of lands within the 100 -year floodplain and have relocated
existing structures that have been subjected to repeat flooding.
Study Area. The following outlines physical features and characteristics of the lower 8 miles of
the Puyallup River, the focus area of the investigation.
The left bank of the study area is primarily made up of unincorporated Pierce County lands and
infi-astructure, residential and commercial development, and some agricultural production. The
upper portion of the left bank in the study area includes a small portion of the City of Puyallup
and the lower portion of the left bank includes part of the Port of Tacoma. The right bank
includes portions of the City of Fife and the Port of Tacoma and includes Interstate 5, SR -99 and
railway lines.
Levees. Tile river has levees along the entire left bank of the study area, with SR-
167/River Road running along the top of the levee. The river has levees along the
entire right bank of the study area, with North Levee Road running along the top of
levee.
Soils. The lower Puyallup River levees are primarily constructed on fine-grained silt
and clay, with deposits of clean sand to silty sand and gravelly sand. On a large scale,
these soils are generally uniform throughout the study area. The levees themselves
are composed of a mixture of the existing native deposits with tine embankments and
nearby foundation soils containing cobbles, boulders, and wood pilings. There is no
visible evidence of instability or erosion, with the exception of two areas: the right
bank levee located 0.75 miles downstream of the bridge at 66°i Ave East; and tine left
bank 1 mile downstream of SR -161. There are also numerous tension cracks on tlue
margin of the silt bench above the river banks. For the visible portions of cast -in-
place concrete panels along the river -side slopes of the levees, cracking is the most
common observed damage. (Tetra Tech, 2008)
Hydraulics. The entire north and south levees are each considered to be a single
reach for purpose of determining the probable failure point (PFP) and the probable
non -failure point (PNP). The PFP is the stage associated with a high probability of
failure (85%). The PNP is the stage associated with low probability of failure (15%).
The PFP for the north bank is approximately 1 ft from the top of the levee and the
PNP is approximately 3fl from the top of the levee. A PFP and PNP has not been
determined for the south bank levee because the primary damaging flow events
originate from overland flooding fron smaller local streams. From previous analyses,
the levee system appears to meet Cops requirements for rapid drawdown and soil
parameter ranges. The exit seepage gradients for the land side of the levees in the
study area do not meet Corps requirements. In regards to overtopping, a previous
analysis was dole using HEC -RAS and conducted simulations at the 2007, 2017, and
2057 river bed levels under 2 year, 10 year, 25 year, 50 year, 100 year, and 500 year
flood events. This modeling identified 12 locations that may experience overtopping.
A majority of these overtopping locations were generally located from RM 3 to 4 on
the Right Bank. (Tetra Tech, 2008)
Other Physical Barriers. Other physical barriers consist of flowage barriers and
constrictors. MMD is the largest barrier in the Puyallup River Watershed. Along with
PSE's diversion dam, it has altered historic flows and sediment transport in the lower
reaches. Other barriers and flow constrictors include railroad and highway bridges,
small agricultural diversions, dams, and road and highway embankments near or next
to streams. While some of these structures are not necessarily a firil blockage, they
serve as an impediment to natural flows and can exacerbate flooding problems,
upsetting the equilibrium of natural flows, river hydrology, and sediment transport.
Floodplain Connectivity. Floodplain connectivity refers to conditions affecting
overall flows of a watercourse through a floodplain. Floodplains with open
connectivity are connected directly to the river at many points allowing wetlands and
other off -channel areas to store floodwater and later discharge this storage back to the
river during lower flows. This condition tends to help reduce peak flow rates
compared to conditions with little to no connectivity. Floodplain connectivity in the
Puyallup watershed has been altered from natural conditions. Examples of alterations
include bank hardening due to riprap or dikes, channel realignments, the existence of
high density roads, railroads, and levees. The conversion of active channels to
inaccessible ponds has occurred in several areas because of agricultural ditching and
urban development. Residential, commercial, and industrial development has also
filled in floodplains. Impervious surfaces (roads, sidewalks, driveways, roofs) result
in more quick and direct flow of•runoff via storm drains to creeks in comparison with
groundwater percolation. This causes shorter, higher hydrograph-peaksduring rain
events, and lower stream flows during intervening dry periods.
Sed i ment/Stream bed Conditions. The causes of altered sediment regime and
streambed conditions in the Puyallup River watershed are based on several factors
found within the basin. Sediment transport has been estimated to range from 440,000
to 1,400,000 toms annually, with the majority of these sediments characterized as fine
sediments being transported out of the upper reaches and deposited into lower
gradient reaches and Commencement Bay. The operation of MMD and the PSE
diversion dam, both on the White River, are contributors to the altered sediment
regime. Although MMD was designed to allow the downstream passage of sediment
in the river naturally without active sediment management, there is short-term
accumulation of sediment in the reservoir during infrequent and short duration
periods (short-term phenomena) when water is stared for flood management.
Sediment accumulated upstream of MMD during flood storage operations is naturally
transported downstream by the river once the project returns to a run-of-river
operation. Operation of the PSE diversion dam has altered natural sediment transport
in the basin. Along the 2-mile flowline between the diversion and Lake Tapps there
are several sediment basins where suspended material and bedload are removed from
9
the system. It has been estimated that the average annual sediment transport rate
upstream of MMD is 500,000 tons per year. (Tetra Tech, 2008)
Other factors influencing streambed and sediment conditions include a lack of large
woody debris (LWD) to maintain coarse sediment, increased bank and surface
erosion, channelization of the river, and landslides, all of which contribute to
increased sediment. Debris torrents and dam -break floods have scoured channels and
contributed to a decrease in LWD. Much of the non -natural surface erosion
(including landslides) comes from dirt and gravel roads and forestry/agricultural
lands.
Riparian Conditions. Degraded riparian conditions currently exist in the
Puyallup/White River watershed as a result of riparian harvest, fres, agriculture,
construction, operation of in -water structures, and land development. Areas with no
vegetation, little vegetation, or vegetation that is composed primarily of non-native or
invasive species, or young deciduous trees, characterize the degraded riparian
conditions. Areas with little or no vegetation do not provide adequate shade and
result in increased water temperatures which limit fish survival and reproduction.
Degraded riparian areas also do not provide for fixture large woody material
recruitment nor do they adequately provide cover to the streams and/or provide a
buffer for stormwater runoff or other human -related activities. Deposition of organic
material and insects is reduced in areas with reduced riparian vegetation. Remnant
riparian forests in the basin. are unable to provide adequate large woody material
recruitment (especially since most of these forests are also young), which leads to
channel profile degradation including decreased pool habitat and increased scour.
Water Quality. Some of the primary water quality problems in the Puyallup/White
River watershed are high water temperatures, turbidity, and altered pH. Cleared or
degraded riparian forests no longer provide shade along stream banks. Calving and
eroding banks have made low -flow channels wider and shallower allowing
temperatures to increase. High turbidity results from the naturally high sediment
regime in the White River, due to its headwaters in the glaciers of Mt. Rainier and its
erosion into the geologically young Osceola rmudflow through 18 miles of the White
River canyon. It is estimated that 440,000 to 1,400,000 tons of sediment are
transported downstream annually. There are a number of point source and non -point
source pollution contributors that affect the water quality of the Puyallup River. The
lower Puyallup River is a 3030 listed under Washington State's Water Quality
Assessment In response to this listing Water Quality Improvement Projects have
been prepared Total Maximum Daily Loads for biochemical oxygen demand,
ammonia and residual chlorine have been established for the Puyallup River.
Finally, pH levels are an issue at selected sites within the basin with a few in
particular being related to the discharges of the sewage treatment plants operated by
the Cities of Buckley and Enumclaw which have an indirect cause in more basic pH
levels.
Fish and Wildlife. In general, the majority of fish and wildlife populations found
[Ut
within the area are in a depressed state in relation to their historic condition.
Anadromous salmonid species found in the area include spring and fall Chinook,
coho, pink, and chums salmon, winter steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout. Runs of
all of these species have declined significantly from historic levels. There are eight
Federally listed threatened or endangered species in the general area, including one
bird (marbled murrelet), three fish (bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook salmon), one
reptile (leatherback sea turtle), and three mammals (killer whales, Steller sea lions,
and humpback whales). There is a possibility of Steller sea lions entering the river to
prey on fish, though they are generally marine animals. However, the sea turtle and
whales would be found only in Puget Sound, and the sea turtle is not likely to be
present at all. Degraded habitat associated with each of these species is the primary
factor behind their threatened status or low population numbers.
Economic considerations. Under without -project condition, the Puyallup River basin has
experienced continued flood damages, negatively impacting the local economy and
threatening the lives of the citizens nearby. The General Investigation offers an
opportunity for the Corps, state, and locals to evaluate flood risk management strategies
to decrease the severity of flood damage.
In the Lower Puyallup River Flood Protection Investigation Without -Project Analysis
report, the expected damages by flood event under existing conditions were evaluated
separately for the right and left bank. These damages include: inundation damages to
the structure and content of residential and commercial structures, and auto;
agriculture losses; as well as costs of clean-up, temporary relocation assistance, and
public assistance (Tetra Tech, 2008). A summary of specific event damages as well as
Expected Annual Damages (EAD) in FY2008 dollars is illustrated below in Table 2.
The EAD calculation measures the area under the damage -probability curve. It is a
single number representing the probability weighted potential damage costs of all
possible storms on an annual basis in constant FY2008 prices and existing 2007
conditions.
Table 2
Expected Damages by Flood Event (Existing Condition)
Expected Flood Damages by Event
(October 2007 $1,000's)
Event
Annual
Event
Probability
Left
Bank
Right
Bank
Total
10 -Year
10.0%
$ 1,637
$ 63,594
$ 65,231
25 -Year
4.0%
$ 3,136
$ 75,843
$ 78,979
100 -Year
1.0%
$ 8,5 70
$ 84,367
$ 92,937
500 -Year
0.2%
$ 13,354
$ 100 369
$113,723
EAD
NA
$ 1,075
$ 5,572
$ 6,647
Data provided by Tetra Tech (2008)
ii. Future Without -Project Condition.
For the future without -project condition, the period of analysis is assumed to be 50
years from 2008. It is assumed that any new development would occur outside the
newly mapped floodplain or that structures would be flood proofed. For purposes of
the reconnaissance investigation it was assumed that sediment deposition would be
the predominant variable affecting flooding. Sediment deposition rates are addressed
in a model presented by Tetra Tech (2008). It is estimated that over a 50 year period,
the Lower Puyallup's bed elevation could rise as much as 5.2 feet in certain locations
due to aggredation of sediment. This model predicts that a 100 -year flood event
would have a flood stage 2 feet higher in 2057 than in 2007, and a 500 -year flood
would be as much as 2.2 feet higher.
It is anticipated that without flood risk management intervention the Puyallup River
basin, in particular the lower 8 mile reach, would experience significant flooding and
would not be able to qualify for the National Flood Insurance Program.
The river bed elevation of the Lower Puyallup River is expected to increase in future
years from continued sediment aggredation, which will in turn cause increased
flooding and greater EAD. Future EAD for 2017 and 2057 and the existing EAD are
presented in Table 3 below in constant FY2068 dollars. Over the 50 year period of
analysis, the average value EAD is approximately $7,755,000. This value is referred
to as the Expected Annual Damages (EAD).
Table 3
Comnal7son of Existing and Future EAD
C. PLANNING CRITERIA: OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS
The water and related land resource problems and opportunities identified in this study are stated
as specific planning objectives to provide focus for the formulation of alternatives. These
planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities and represent desired positive
changes in the without -project condition. Tile planning objectives for the reconnaissance phase
are specified below:
i. National/Federal Objectives:
12
Comparison of Existing and Future EAD
$1,000's, last
qtr 2008 prices
Left Bank
Ri
ht Banlc
Total
Existing
2007
$ 1,096
$
5,679
$
6,775
Future
2017
$ 1,281
$
6,628
$
7,909
Future
2057
$ 1,356
$
7,241
—F$-7,755
$
8,597
EAD
$ 1251
$
6,505
C. PLANNING CRITERIA: OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRAINTS
The water and related land resource problems and opportunities identified in this study are stated
as specific planning objectives to provide focus for the formulation of alternatives. These
planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities and represent desired positive
changes in the without -project condition. Tile planning objectives for the reconnaissance phase
are specified below:
i. National/Federal Objectives:
12
1) The national or Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to
contribute to National Economic Development (NED) consistent with protecting the.
nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statures, applicable
executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Contributions to NED are
increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in
monetary units. Within the context of flooding issues in the basin, NED benefits
would be measured by a reduction in damages and impacts related to flooding.
2) A second national objective is for Ecosystem Restoration. This objective is to
contribute to the nation's ecosystems through ecosystem restoration, with
contributions measured by changes in the amounts and values of habitat. Ecosystem
restoration components are not addressed in the scope of this 905(b). During scoping
for the feasibility phase ecosystem restoration will be included when such
components provide incidental flood risk management.
3) Addressing public safety must also be integrated into all plans. Plans and
alternatives will be devised in a manner which incorporates the highest degree of
safety to the public.
Specific to the 905(b) evaluation, the objective is to identify at least one viable
alternative that reduces flood risks, increases public safety and is likely to have a
positive benefit to cost ratio. Ecosystem restoration components will be incorporated
where appropriate or when sucli measures would enhance flood risk management
actions and are cost-effective. Ecosystem restoration components could be
incorporated into the project through setback levees and river bank enhancement.
ii. Local Objectives:
A number of public concerns have been identified during the course of the
reconnaissance study. Through coordination with the Puyallup River Executive Task
Force, a committee composed of members from affected cities, Pierce County, tribal
representatives and additional stakeholders, public concerns have been collected and
expressed. The local objectives include:
1) Identification of at least once viable alternative that will lessen the number of
properties subject to local flood management ordinances and increase public safety.
2) Obtain FEMA re -certification of the levee system through the National Flood
Insurance Program.
iii. Planning Constraints:
Unlike planning objectives that represent desired positive changes, planning constraints
represent restrictions that should not be violated. The planning constraints identified in
this study are as follows:
l) A project must comply, to the extent possible, with the objective of Executive Order
(EO) 11988, Flood Management. It is the intent of EO 11988 — and Corps policy — to:
a. Reduce the hazards and risk associated with floods;
b. Minimize the impact of floods oil human safety, health and welfare; and
13
c, Restore and preserve natural floodplain values.
d. Avoid inducing floodplain development unless it is the only practicable
alternative
2) A project must comply with all other Federal, State, and local regulations, including
environmental regulations.
3) The project design features must be compatible with existing agricultural and open
space uses in rural areas to the maximum extent practicable.
4) The recommended project must support Corps Environmental Operating Principles.
5) The study process must recognize the special status of tribal nations and Rilly
incorporate them into the planning process.
6) To the extent possible, the Corps will coordinate with all necessary agencies to attempt
to ensure FEMA can meet all necessary requirements for the National Oceanic
Atmospheric Administration's Fisheries Service's Biological Opinion regarding FEMA's
Flood Insurance Program.
6. Alternative Plans
The following describes potential measures to address identified planning objectives. A
management measure is a feature or activity at a site, which addresses one or more of the
planning objectives. A wide variety of measures were considered, some of which were found to
be potentially infeasible due to technical, economic, or environmental constraints. Each measure
was assessed and a determination was made regarding whether it should be retained in the
formulation of alternative plans for the 905(b) evaluation. Full evaluation of all management
measures will be conducted during the feasibility phase. Once individual measures were
identified and evaluated they were combined to develop feasible alternatives. The descriptions
and results of the evaluations of measures considered in this study are presented below:
i. Management Measures
1) Non -Structural Measures. These actions are defined as floodplain management as
opposed to modifications of flow and/or river channel modifications. Non-structural
measures include flood proofing or relocating structures and infrastructure,
implementing warning systems, performing buyouts, and land use regulations that
implement new flood and channel migration hazard mapping. Over the past 10 to 15
years, King and Pierce Counties have aggressively pursued buy-outs of flood -prone
residences and land acquisitions to preserve and increase flood storage. Along
portions of the north bank, an arbitrary 200ft corridor has been designated as open
space through county efforts to eliminate undue risk in the floodway.
2) Levees/Revetments/Floodwalls - This category includes a diverse array of options
from constructing new levees, to increasing the level of protection of existing levees,
14
to setting back existing levees. King and Pierce Counties have policies on
encouraging setting back existing levees and removing levees that are no longer
functional as flood management facilities: Existing levees fi-om Commencement Bay
to approximately 1.5 miles upriver are adequate and likely meet Corps criteria,
although this area would be included in any feasibility modeling. This location would
not be the primary focus for improving or building new levees. Improving or
constructing new levees as well as setback are currently assumed to be most feasible
along the north bank of the Puyallup River upstream of the Federal levees near
Commencement Bay.
Revetments. Numerous tension cracks are currently present along portions of the
existing levee. Repair and replacement of these revetments is a viable option to
accompany existing levee improvements.
New levees and improvements. New and improved levees would be constructed
primarily within the existing levee footprint on the riverward side and extending
outside the footprint on the landward side. This provides an affordable and adequate
means of lessening flood risk. The entire extent of the levee system or only portions
could serve as the subject for improvement or replacement. This measure is most
suitable to the north side of the Puyallup River. The southern bank is lined by SR -167
and poses fewer opportunities for levees.
Setback Levees. This measure would provide adequate protection and lessen the
current constriction of the river by allowing meandering patterns to reform. This type
of action not only opens tip restricted channels but also restores natural floodplain
functions and processes. Setback levees could be applied to either the whole river or
portions where probable failure or overtopping is expected. Setback levees would be
most viable along the northern bank due to acquisition of real estate and the existing
presence of the County's 20OR open space corridor. These levees will serve as a
component to ecosystem restoration. LWD placement will also be incorporated with
setback levees to further enhance natural habitat.
Floodwall. This measure proposes the option of constructing a concrete floodwall
along the southern bank of the Puyallup River adjacent to SR -167. This floodwall
could have potential right of way impacts and aesthetics may be a concern. The
floodwall could be considered on either the whole length of the south bank or on
portions where risk is greatest.
3) Channel Capacity Improvements. This flood risk management measure would be
operative in situations where levee removals or setbacks are not currently feasible. In
constricted channel reaches, capacity improvements may include managing
vegetation along levees eligible under the Corps' Public Law 84-99 program,
removing debris, and/or conducting channel dredging.
4) Sediment Transport. The amount of sediment and bedload carried by the Puyallup
River and tributaries is one of the highest of any watershed in Puget Sound because of
15
the natural condition of the glacial headwaters and the Osceola mudflow. The
sediment transport regime for the White River, which has been altered by MMD and
the PSE flow diversion, may be considered during the feasibility evaluation.
Modifications to release and transport sediment by these structures could be a
possible solution. Sediment transport that has been affected by forest practices,
including roads and mass wasting, may also be assessed. Potential solutions to
address this problem for tributary streams include the construction of sediment
control structures, control basins, or sediment traps. These types of solutions have
extremely high capital and maintenance costs; however, a more -comprehensive
sediment management strategy may be appropriate to consider.
5) Bypass System. A bypass system near the mouth of Commencement Bay would
alleviate flooding during both frequent and infrequent events and increase the overall
system capacity. The construction of a bypass system near Commencement Bay was
not considered in the Reconnaissance portion of the study. A full analysis of the
potential for a bypass system will be evaluated during the feasibility phase.
6) Flood Storage Dam Modifications. The Corps of Engineers operates MMD for
flood storage on the lower Puyallup. Construction of new dams in the basin on the
Puyallup or Carbon Rivers and the option of increasing the holding capacity at MMD
in order to decrease the magnitude of flooding are management measures that will be
considered during the feasibility phase. Per the Water Control Manual, except in
cases of extreme emergency (i.e., save the dam), MMD is regulated to limit outflows
to a maximum of 17,600 cfs. Additionally, when feasible, releases from MMD are
limited to a maximum of 12,000 cfs to help reduce flood damages.along downstream
reaches of the White River. Lowering the discharge either permanently or
temporarily may not translate into substantial improvements to flood risk
management along the lower 8 mile reach of the Puyallup River and may in fact
increase the risk of flooding in large, less frequent events.. While this option was not
evaluated at the Reconnaissance level, it will be given frill analysis during the
feasibility phase.
H. Alternative Plans
Preliminary plans are comprised of one or more management measures that were
considered in the initial screening. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the
preliminary plains that were considered in this study are presented below:
1) No Action. The Corps is required to consider the option of "No Action" as one of
the alternatives in order to comply with the requirements of the National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The no action alternative is the baseline against
which all other alternatives are compared against. It is also usually synonymous to the
Without -Project Condition.
2) Alternatives Not Further Considered in Reconnaissance. Additional flood storage
dams and a bypass system at Commencement Bay were not considered during the
16
Reconnaissance phase. An additional flood storage dam was not considered during
the reconnaissance phase because it fails to meet the sponsor's need of timely
implementation. A bypass system was not given fiirther consideration during
reconnaissance due to the high level of development in the area and the associated
real estate costs. Both of the alternatives will be analyzed during the feasibility phase.
These management measures may be screened out early in the evaluation process due
to high monetary cost, length of implementation, environmental concerns, and
potentially insubstantial improvements.
3) Alternatives to be Carried Forward to Feasibility. All potential management
measures and alternatives will be given further consideration during the feasibility
level of the study, with particular attention paid to non-structural measures, levees,
setback levees, sediment transport, and channel capacity improvements. At least a
;preliminary screening (based on hydraulics and potential benefits) of modifications to
MMD and a bypass to Commencement Bay would also be considered at the
feasibility level. Levees on the north bank will be evaluated in the form of setbacks
and/or existing levee improvements. Any setback levees would involve the removal
of the previously existing levee and a new footprint that would potentially be
contained within the 200f1 open space corridor designated by the county. Levee
improvements on the North bank would be considered only for areas where a risk of
failure of the existing levee is identified. Along the South bank, a floodwall would
likely be a more viable option as opposed to a levee, due to the constraints of the
adjacent highway. Sediment control is also another aspect that will be given further
consideration. This issue will be addressed through evaluation of possible sediment
control structures, control basins, sediment traps, as well as the possibility of
dredging. Sedimentation issues will also need to be evaluated to determine the long
term effectiveness of other management measures, such as levee improvements and
floodwall construction. Channel capacity improvements would also be considered
further at the feasibility stage.
7. Evaluation of Alternatives
A preliminary screening completed by the Puyallup River Task force indicates that
alternatives that emphasize sediment control and levee enhancement with appropriately
placed setback levees have the greatest potential for implementation. The potential
magnitude and types of benefits from the proposed actions would help to meet the project's
objective to reduce the floodplain in the lower 8 mile reach of the Puyallup River. Likewise,
environmental impacts are expected to result from various sediment control activity and
levee enhancement. These activities will require environmental mitigation action to restore
and maintain suitable conditions. The reconnaissance level cost of the alternatives would
meet the Corp's requirement that it is monetarily feasible for both the Corps and non -Federal
sponsor. Based on this information, alternatives to address the planning objectives appear
viable.
For the 905(b) evaluation the Corps PDT selected a plan to show Federal interest
comprised of levees on the right bank and a floodwall along the left bank. This
17
alternative has a high level of specificity in order to gage project costs and benefits,
would greatly reduce damages and leas a high likelihood for implementation and
performance to reduce flood damages. A viable alternative exists where benefits exceed
costs. The likely benefits, costs and environmental considerations were further evaluated to
determine a federal interest in pursuing a cost -shared feasibility study. Given the high level
of detail of the existing condition report recently completed by the County the level of
analysis is substantially more than required in a 905(b) evaluation. The following presents
assumptions and considerations
A. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIONS FOR THE RECONNAISSANCE LEVEL SELECTED
ALTERNATIVE.
Technical analyses were conducted in support of the preliminary selected alternative for
the 905(b) evaluation. These technical analyses provide justification for a potentially
viable solution and thus a federal interest to proceed to feasibility. The technical analyses
are conducted for an assumed project life of 50 years beginning in 2008. Summaries for
multiple technical aspects of the preliminary plans are provided below.
1) HYDROLOGY AND HYDRAULICS. A draft `without -project' report (Lower Puyallup
River Flood Investigation, 2008) has been prepared by Pierce County detailing
flooding issues along the lower Puyallup River. This study investigated the
hydrology, hydraulics, and levee conditions along the lower river both currently and
with the anticipated level of channel sedimentation in 2057.
For the hydrology & hydraulics needs relative to the scope of this 905(b) document,
information from the Pierce County report was used to estimate how much the left
and right bank levees and floodwall would need to be increased to provide three -feet
of freeboard for the estimated 2057, 0.01 chance for exceeding the water surface
profile: It should be noted that current Corps policy calls for levee elevations to be
determined based on a risk and uncertainty approach. However, given the limited
scope of this 905(b) effort, a freeboard approach was taken. An evaluation using risk
and uncertainty will be conducted during feasibility. As the required levee elevation
increases were not uniform along the reach, weighted average levee elevation
increases were computed for both the left and right banks. The weighting is based on
the linear length requiring increased height. Water surface profile calculations were
based on an `infinite levee' or `glass wall' scenario where all the water is assumed to
be contained in the main channel. This allows for determination of with -project levee
elevations.
The weighted average increases in elevation for the Puyallup levees and floodwall are
2.1 feet for the left side and 1.9 feet for the right side (these are rounded up slightly
from the actual calculated values). The total linear distance requiring elevation _
increases is approximately 30,000 -feet for both sides. The steps in the calculation are
as follows:
1. The 100 -year water surface elevations were compiled from Northwest
18
Hydraulic Company's (NHQ model run using the 2057 bed elevation and the
'infinite' levee channel configuration. This condition is needed to contain flow to
the desired footprint of a flood risk management study to determine required
elevations.
2. The water surface profile discussed above was compared with the actual left
and right top of existing levee elevations at each cross section. Locations where
there are less than 3ft of freeboard were noted. The additional height required to
obtain 3ft of freeboard at deficient locations was computed. If a location already
had 3ft of freeboard then the additional height value was entered as zero for the
purposes of averaging.
3. The distances between cross sections were computed over the reach where
levee elevations are deficient. A left and right bank total distance was computed.
At sub -reaches where the freeboard was greater than 3ft the distance of the sub -
reach was subtracted out of the total distance to obtain a measure of the distance
requiring levee elevation increases. The fi•action of the total distance for each
cross section to cross section distance was computed.
4. The average of the additional elevations required to get to 3ft of freeboard were
averaged between cross sections.
5. The average required height increase between individual cross sections were
weighted by multiplying the average by the fraction of the total distance requiring
height increases (fi•om No. 3).
6. The left and right individual cross section to cross section averages with
weightings were summed to obtain a single left and right weighted average levee
height increase.
This analysis only looked at levee and floodwall elevation increases. Some other
considerations include:
Union Pacific Railroad Bridge. One assumption made for the 2057 water surface
profile is that some hydraulic impacts of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge were not
considered for the reconnaissance analysis. Apparently the 2057 water surface
impinges on the low chord of the bridge, resulting in higher water surface elevations,
which would need to be addressed through bridge modification, dredging, or changes
to the levee design. Because the issue does not appear to be a problem until the end of
the project life, it was not addressed at this level of study.
Existing Levee Condition. For the reconnaissance analysis, levee improvements were
limited to raising low points on the levees. In feasibility, other potential failure issues,
such as seepage and upgrades to levee toe and revetment, will be evaluated. There is
potential that existing levees will need to be entirely replaced in order to be federally
certified.
19
Interior Drainage. Interior drainage of water landward of the levees would need to be
addressed.
2) CIVIL ENGINEERING. The `without -project' report (Lower Puyallup River
Flood Investigation, 2008) prepared by Pierce County was used to assist in
developing the Civil engineering assumptions and estimates and to develop the
quantities used to assist in estimating project costs for the 905(b) evaluation. These
assumptions and estimates were used to develop typical cross-sections to be used for
developing project costs for the selected alternative. All of the Civil engineering
assumptions and this analysis would be re-evaluated during the feasibility phase of
the project.
General
The total study reach length is 8 miles starting at the river mouth and extending 8
miles upstream. Based on Hydrology and Hydraulics (H&H) information, H&H
estimated that approximately 30,000 feet of the levee oil both the right bank and left
bank of the lower 8 mile study area will need to be raised in elevation. Based on
H&H information, no levee height increases are needed downstream from
approximately river mile 1.82. Weighted averages as described above in the
Hydrology and Hydraulics section were used for determining levee height increases
and estimated quantity calculation purposes. Tile existing levee material is assumed
to be suitable for reuse. The existing riverward bank protection and levee toe are
assumed to be intact, in good condition, and are assumed to not need any additional
work. The levee raise and floodwall sections described below do not provide for a
setback or any other mitigation or restoration features. Interior drainage requirements
are not included at this stage. Geotechnical considerations/constraints due to seepage,
slope stability analysis, probable failure points, etc... will need to be addressed
further later in the study.
Right Bank
For the right bank analysis, two reaches were used to define the area for purposes of
determining a typical levee raise section for each reach. Reach 1 is defined as the
downstream levee section on the right bank starting at approximately River Mile
(RM) 3.33 and extending downstream. The top width of the levee throughout Reach
I is approximately 30 feet wide. The existing levee slopes are approximately 2
horizontal to 1 vertical. The average land -side vertical height of the existing levee is
approximately 7 feet from the levee toe to the top of the levee. The top of the right
bank levee surface within Reach 1 is approximately 0.83 miles of two lane asphalt
road and approximately 0.68 miles of two lane gravel road. The estimated distances
for levee surface materials were based on aerial photos.
Reach 2 is defined as the upstream levee section on the right bank starting at
approximately RM 3.33 and extending upstream to the project study limits on the
right bank. The top width of the levee throughout Reach 2 is approximately 24 feet
wide. The existing levee slopes are approximately 2 horizontal to 1 vertical. The
all
average land -side vertical height of the existing levee is approximately 7 feet from the
levee toe to the top of the levee. The top of the right bank levee surface within Reach
2 is approximately 4.17 miles of two lane asphalt road. The estimated distance of the
two lane asphalt road levee top surfacing was based on aerial photos.
Left Bank
For the left bank analysis, it was assumed that Highway 167, which currently
functions as the levee for most of the reach, would not be raised. There is not enough
space along most of the left bank length for an earthen levee between the river and the
highway, so the left bank flood protection is assumed to be a flood wall. The average
height of the floodwall is assumed to be approximately 12 feet high. The estimated
height required for the floodwall along left bank is based on sections provided in the
`without -project' report. The length of the wall is assumed to be approximately 5.5
miles. Reinforcement will be required within the concrete wall.
3.) REAL ESTATE. The non-federal sponsor for the feasibility phase of this project
is Pierce County. The lower 8 miles of the Puyallup River area is a mix of public
and private ownerships. Public owners include Pierce County, City of Tacoma, and
City of Fife. The land use in this area and the approximate cost of land is summarized
in Table 4 below.
Table 4
Real Estate Land and Annroximate Costs
Land
Approximate Cost
Industrial Land
$7/sf to $15/sf
Residential Land
$5/sf to $10/sf
Agricultural/Resource
Land
$0.20/sf to $3/sf
Commercial Land
$10/sf to $25/sf
This information is intended to provide support for construction and subsequent
operation and maintenance for the currently proposed flood risk management study.
The non-federal sponsor will need to acquire and demonstrate to the, satisfaction of
the Corps that it holds or controls sufficient real estate property interests and area in
the lands needed. At a minimum, perpetual flood protection easements, temporary
work areas, and disposal sites are needed for the proposed project; however, for the
proposed preliminary alternative, if the floodwall is placed within the right-of-way of
the state highway, it is not likely that the State of Washington, Department of
Transportation (WSDOT) is willing or able to grant to the non-federal sponsor the
standard flood protection levee easement. During the feasibility phase, the Corps will
need to further investigate what the WSDOT is willing and able to grant, including
time and process to complete the acquisition. For purposes of the 905(b) evaluation a
cost per sf of $15 was used in conjunction with the foot print of 690,000 sf for both
the left and right bank to arrive at an order of magnitude real estate cost of
$20,700,000. Real estate costs were based on the footprint of the selected alternative
and do not include costs for land needed for mitigation, interior drainage projects, or
21
the requirement to potentially modify the railroad bridge. No disposal sites for
dredging (if needed) are included.
4) PROJECT COST ESTIMATE. The estimated cost of the construction is figured at
$52,437,599. Real estate cost are estimated at $20,700,000. The total implementation cost for the
project is $73,137,599 This Current Working Estimate is for the proposed preliminary plan with
a concrete retaining (T) wall on the left bank and raised levees on the right bank. The estimate
duration used for this estimate is 2.5 years. A summary of construction costs is summarized in
Table 5.
Table 5
Stunmarized Implementation Cost Costs
Item or Worlc Fot•
Total Cost
Mobilization, Demobilization and Preparatory Work
461,401
Right Bank Stabilization
10,037,562
Left Bank upgrade
24,640,717
Constrliction Contract Cost
35,139,680
Escalation
Contingenucy(301/o)
Supervision and Overhead
EDC
0
4,249,622.
3,008,425
3,091,884
Owner Costs
17,297 919
Real Estate
$20,700,000
Total Implementation Cost
52 437,599
For the level of analysis required 905(b) report, a full cost estimate is not provided.
Several items have been excluded from the cost estimate due to high variability. No
mitigation costs have been included for this phase of the study. A cost estimate for
mitigation efforts will be provided once specific information is known regarding the
study area and alternatives. Additionally, no estimate for compensation due to
induced flooding is estimated. All costs, including mitigation, will be determined
during the feasibility phase of the study once a full assessment is performed.
5) BENEFITS AND COSTS.
Project benefits are measured as contributions to National Economic Development.
Within the context of flooding issues in the basin, NED benefits are measured by
reduction in damages and impacts related to without project condition flooding with
project condition flooding. This reduction in damages are referred to as project
benefits. The benefit figure is typically presented in annual figures and reflects
conditions over the 50 year project life. The annualized benefit figure is then
compared to annualized project costs to determine whether benefits outweigh costs.
22
Table 6 shows the estimated benefits provided by the preliminary selected plan.
These damages are broken down by bank and also provide an expected total of
$6,980 for damages reduced.
Table 6
Damages Reduced
Assume Benefits — Damages Reduced by 90%
$1,000's last qtr 2008 rices
Construction Cost
Left Banlc Right
Bank
Total
Without Project AAD $1,251
$6,505
$,7,755
With Project AAD $125
$650
$776
Damages Reduced $1,26
$5,854
$6,980
Table 7 shows the cost estimates, including Construction, Interest during
Construction (IDC), Real Estate, and Operation and Maintenance (O&M) to increase
the levee and floodwall height. The O&M estimate is based on the current budget of
$140,000 for approximately 10,560 feet or about $13.26 per foot annually. The new
levee is approximately 30,000 feet so the O&M estimate is estimated to be
approximately $400,000 annually. IDC is the opportunity cost of the funds tied tip
during the construction period before the benefits of the project can start to accrue.
The opportunity cost is by convention considered to be approximated by the federal
interest rate over half of the construction period of two years. The interest for one
year of $27.1 million of construction costs is approximately $1.2 million at the
current federal interest rate of 4.625%.
Table 7
Average Annual Cost
Average Annual Costs to Increase Levee and Floodwall Height
$1 000's last qrtr 2008 rices
Construction Cost
$52,400
Interest During Construction DC
$1,200
Real Estate Acquisition
$20,700
Total Construction
$74,300
Interest and Amortization 50 years 4.625%
$3,836
O&M
$400
Total Average Annual Costs
$4,000
We saw previously in Table 6 that the present value of Average Annual Benefits (AAD
reduced) are approximately $69 million and from Table 7 above that the Average Annual
Costs are estimated at $4 million. The resulting Benefit/Cost ratio is 1.7. This analysis
shows that it is highly probable that a project can be designed and constructed that
produces benefits significantly greater than the costs; a favorable benefit to cost ratio
greater than one and thus a favorable preliminary alternative proposed in this
reconnaissance analysis.
23
6) ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES.
The ecology of the study area is a combination of riparian habitat, wetlands, and
marsh at the mouth of Commencement Bay. There is also an array of various aquatic
species to account for in the study area and the potential impacts that may be incurred
from a flood risk management project.
Listed Threatened and Endangered Species. There are several listed species in the
general project area as shown in Table 7.
Table 7
Thn—afAtlPd and F.ndanuered Snecies in the Pi-aiect Area
Species
Listing Status
Critical.Habitat
Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout
Threatened
Designated
Salvelinus con}Juentus
Marbled murrelet
Threatened
Designated—not in project
Brachymmphus marmoratus
area
Puget Sound Chinook salmon
Threatened
Designated
Onorhynchus tshativytscha
Puget Sound steelhead
Threatened
---
Oncorh ynchus m ykiss
Southern resident killer whale
Endangered
Designated
Orch ms oma
Steller sea lion
Threatened
Designated—not in project
Eumeto ias 'ubalus
area
Humpback whale
Endangered
----
Me a tern novaean liae
Leatherback sea turtle
Endangered
Designated—not in project
Derntochel ys coriacea
area
Killer whales, Steller sea lions, humpback whales, and leatherback sea hurtles are not
expected to be in the Puyallup River. Therefore, the project would likely not affect
these species. Critical habitat has been designated for Chinook and bull trout within
the project area.
Fish. Further degradation of habitat to anadromous salmonid species due to in -water
work and possible vegetation removal in the project area would occur with the
selected alternative. Conservation measures would, most likely include limiting
construction activities to approved work windows, planting of willows along levees
and LWD placement to enhance natural habitat. Use of setback levees along the
north side of the river would allow riparian habitat to remain in relatively good
condition.
Birds. Construction activities would have minimal, if any, effect on marbled
murrelets; their utilization of the area is low.
24
Although the bald eagle was delisted on June 28, 2007, they continue to be protected
by the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act.
These acts require some measures to continue to prevent bald eagle "take" resulting
from human activities. Additional guidance regarding these requirements is available
at the time of this writing from http://Nvww.Avs.gov/niidwest/eagle.
Water Quality. In order to minimize effects to water quality. Best Management
Practices will be implemented. Best Management Practices would include equipment
maintenance, a spill prevention plan, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan
(SWPPP). Placement of any rock would be done individually (that is, no end -
dumping of rock from trucks into the water). Mitigation would, most likely, include
water quality monitoring during construction and implementation of Best
Management Practices.
Riparian Habitat. The riparian habitat located within the project area would be further
degraded by the project due to vegetation removal. However, with the planting of
willows and other native species along the levees, the negative effect on the riparian
zone would be minimal, if not enhanced. Vegetated setback levee areas on the north
side of the river would provide relatively good riparian conditions.
Wetlands. There are several areas designated as wetlands in the study area that vary
in level of classification. Some of these wetlands have already been degraded due to
previous development. There is a potential that levee work and construction of a
floodwall could result in unavoidable impacts. Mitigation actions will be required in
order to offset the effects of construction.
S. Federal Interest.
The anticipated with -project condition for the Puyallup River basin includes reduced flood
dannages and a lowered risk to public health and safety. Leveraging Corps resources with the
local jurisdictions' efforts will substantially aid in protection of critical infrastructure and
existing urban development. By addressing the state of the current levee system and combining
new flood risk management methods, it is likely that the Corps and the local jurisdictions can
efficiently address problematic flooding issues and help to recertify the levee system and protect
existing infrastructure. Implementation of flood risk management measures to the lower 8 mile
reach of the Puyallup River is likely to decrease the current risk of flooding as well as the
recertification issues surrounding the current levee system.
The federal interest in a feasibility study is demonstrated by showing that there is at least one
feasible alternative that is likely to result in an approved project. The array of potential plans is
beyond the scope of this study to evaluate; determining the best plan to recommend is the
purpose of the feasibility study. This study evaluated the simplest of the potential plans, raising
the levee height and floodwall, to determine if there is a federal interest in pursuing a feasibility
study.
QJ
Since flood risk management is an output with high budget priority and because flood risk
management is the primary output of the alternatives to be evaluated in the feasibility phase,
there is a strong Federal interest in conducting the feasibility study. There is also a Federal
interest in other related outputs of the alternatives including ecosystem restoration that could be
developed within existing policy. Based on the preliminary screening of alternatives, there
appears to be at least one potential project alternatives that would be consistent with Army
policies, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts. These additional factors contribute to the
strong rationale for Corps involvement.
The focus of the 905(b) evaluation was on the lower 8 miles of the river. However given the
January 2009 flooding and impacts throughout the basin it is recommended that the scope of the
feasibility studies address the entire watershed.
9. PRELIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
As the local sponsor, Pierce County will be required to provide 50 percent of the cost of the
feasibility phase. The local sponsor is also aware of the cost sharing requirements for potential
project implementation. A letter of intent from the local sponsor stating a willingness to pursue
the feasibility study and to share in its cost, and an understanding of the cost sharing that is
required for project construction is included in Appendix A.
10. ASSUMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS
a. Feasibility Phase Assumptions: The following critical assumptions will provide a basis
for the feasibility study:
1) The life of the proposed flood risk management project is considered 50 years for
the basis of economic, environmental, and benefits analysis.
2) The area being evaluated for flood risk management consists of the lower 8 mile
reach of the Puyallup River. Both the north and south banks will be analyzed and
addressed for the purpose of this project.
3) The feasibility phase will focus the analysis of alternatives on providing a flood
risk management solution that is economically, culturally, and socially acceptable and
can be engineered with minimal residual risk to public safety.
b. Policy Exceptions and Streamlining Initiatives: The study will be conducted in
accordance with the Principles and Guidelines and the Corps of Engineers regulations.
Exceptions to established guidance have been identified that will streamline the
feasibility study process that will not adversely impact the quality of the feasibility study.
Approval of the Section 905(b) Analysis by the MSC results in the approval of the
following policy exceptions and streamlining initiatives:
1) A report compiled by Tetra Tech Infrastructure Group entitled Pierce County
Lower Puyallup River Flood Protection investigation, Without -Project Analysis,
26
served as a primary resource for the 905(b) analysis. This report was not technically
reviewed by the Corps prior to the 905(b) publication date.
2) The initial technical analysis conducted for the selected alternative was simplified
due to the natural constraints of the Reconnaissance Phase. A more detailed analysis
of alternative plans will be conducted if moved forward to the Feasibility Phase:
11. FEASIBILITY PHASE MILESTONES
Milestone
Description
Duration's
months
Cumulative (months)
Milestone F1
Initial Study
0
0
Milestone F2
Public Workshop/Scoping
2
2
Milestone F3
Feasibility Scoping Meeting
11
13
Milestone F4
Alternative Review Conference
9
22
Milestone F4A
Alternative Formulation Briefing
5
27
Milestone F5
Draft Feasibility Report
3
30
Milestone F6
Final Public Meeting
1
31
Milestone F7
Feasibility Review Conference
1
32
Milestone F8
Final Report to SPD
3
35
Milestone F9
DE's Public Notice
1
36
-
Chief's Report
4
40
-
Project Authorization
4
44
*Duration subject to annual federaUnon-federal funding limits.
12. FEASIBILITY PHASE COST ESTIMATE
MAJOR WORK ITEMS
TOTAL STUDY COST
Surveys and Mapping (except Real Estate
$600,000
and Hydraulics Studies/Report
$500,000
-Hydrology
Geotechnical Studies/Report
$300,000
En ineed ng and Design Analysis Report
$300,000
Economic & Socioeconomic Studies
$200,000
Real Estate Report
$200,000
Environmental Studies/Report
$200,000
Environmental Compliance
$200,000
HTRW Investigations/Report
$150000
Cultural Resources Studies
$250,000
Cost Estimating
$50,000
Public Involvement
$100,000
Plan Formulation and Evaluation
$200,000
Final Report Documentation
$100,000
Technical Review
$50,000
Washington Level Report Approval Review
$50,000
27
Support)
Project Management and Budget Documents
$150,000
Supervision and Administration
$200,000
Contingencies
$200,000
Project Management Plan
$50,000
PED Cost Sharing Agreement
$50,000
TOTAL
4,100,000
Cost estimates will be refined throughout the feasibility study to reflect any changes in study
scope. Changes will require concurrence by the non-federal sponsor and the Corps.
13. VIEWS OF OTHER RESOURCE AGENCIES AND ENTITIES
Because of the fiinding and time constraints of the reconnaissance phase, only limited and
informal coordination has been conducted with other resource agencies and entities. Views that
have been expressed are as follows:
a. WSDOT has a strong vested interest in the development of this project due to the
impact on various transportation infrastructures including SR 167. There is also a
potential impact on bridges in the area that will need to be addressed and coordinated
with Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).
b.Washington Department of Natural Resources (WDNR) involvement may be necessary
in the development of alternatives if dredging is given further consideration as a viable
alternative.
c. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) coordination (or formal consultation if needed) will occur during the
feasibility phase to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act and USFW
Coordination Act.
d. Coordination with the Puyallup Tribes will be necessary due to land ownership and
environmental issues. The Tribe owns the portion of the river up to the ordinary high
water mark on both banks of the river in the study area.
e. Other coordination is needed with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), Washington Department of Ecology (WDE), and Native American tribes.
Environmental compliance will be pursued through all appropriate channels during
feasibility phase. Permits will be sought to be in hand before bid solicitation for
construction.
f. Burlington Northern Railroad owns and operates a railroad bridge that crosses the
Puyallup river within the study area. The potential need to raise or alter the bridge will be
addressed during the feasibility phase of the study.
14. POTENTIAL ISSUES AFFECTING INITIATION OF THE
28
FEASIBLITY PHASE
a. Continuation of this study into the cost -shared feasibility phase is contingent upon an
executed Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA). Failure to achieve an executed
FCSA within 18 months of the approval date of the Section 905(b) Analysis will result in
termination of the study. Issues that could impact the initiation of the feasibility phase
include availability of resources/funding and non -Federal sponsor approval.
b. The schedule for signing the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement is August 2009.
Based on the schedule of milestones in Paragraph 9, completion of the feasibility report
would be in August 2013, with a potential Congressional Authorization in a WRDA
2014.
13. RECOMMENDATIONS
I recommend, subject to the availability of finds, that the Puyallup River study proceed into the
feasibility phase.
Date
Anthony O. Wright
Colonel
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
Appendix A
Sponsor Letter of Intent
29
0
Pierce County
Public Works and Utilities
9850 64th Street West
University Place, Washington 98467-1078
(253) 798-4050 Fax (253) 798-4637
March 26, 2012
U104513
Christopher Andersen
City of Auburn_
25 West Main
Auburn, WA 98001
Re: Interlocal Agreement 10-78448
Amendment Number 1
Dear Mr. Andersen:
A 1,11
RXy Q LPU'+
Brian J. Ziegler, P.E.
Director
Brian.Ziegler@co.pierce.wa.us
MAR 2 8 2012
CITY OF AUBURN
PLANNING & DEVELOPMENT
Attached for your records is the fully executed Amendment No. 1 for Interlocal Agreement No.
10-78448.
If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (253) 798-3760 or at
melissa.jordan@co.pierce.wa.us.
Sincerely,
Melissa Jordan
Contracts Coordinator
Attachment
Cors/U 104513-mj j
cc: File
Printed on recycled paper
0
FIRST AMENDMENT TO
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT NO. 10-78448
BETWEEN PIERCE COUNTY
AND
CITY OF AUBURN
REGARDING FUNDING THE LOCAL OBLIGATION FOR THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' GENERAL INVESTIGAITON PROJECT
THIS FIRST AMENDMENT to Agreement 10-78448 is entered into between
PIERCE COUNTY, a municipal corporation and political subdivision of the State of
Washington(herein referred to as "COUNTY"), and CITY OF AUBURN, a municipal
corporation of the State of Washington (herein referred to as City of Auburn).
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have previously entered into Agreement No. 10-
78448 fully executed on December 2, 2010, to provide for the funding for the local match
of the Corps of Engineers' Puyallup/White River Watershed General Investigation and to
memorialize the agreement between the parties related to this process; and
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits to be derived by each
of the parties;
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
Attachment A shall be replaced with the revised Attachment Al attached hereto.
2. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT
SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this addendum to be
duly executed, such parties acting by their representatives being there unto duly
authorized.
Interlocal Agreement #11-78448
Page 1
0 •
The parties have executed this Agreement this 3rd day of February, 2012.
CITY OF AUBURN
Signature Date
Pt act y
Title
Interlocal Agreement #11-78448
Page 2
PIERCE COUNTY
DEPUTY PROSECUTING OTORNEY Date
(as to form only)
(w4a4AULAN%- ,�-�. \ MR2-1
UDGET AND F NANCE Date
Approved:
0
ATTACHMENT "Al"
Payment
0
The City of Auburn shall contribute approximately 0.83% of the fifty (50) percent local
match required by Corp's of the Feasibility Study, up to a maximum of Four Thousand,
One Hundred, Sixty -Seven dollars ($4167.00) per year, based upon actual direct costs
incurred. The City of Auburn's contribution shall not exceed Twenty -Five Thousand
Dollars ($25,000.00) total over the life of this agreement.
Interlocal Agreement #10-78448
Page 3
:l
y
0 LIP
` of
U11 -
SECOND AMENDMENT TO
INTERLOCAL AGREEMENT NO. CC -78448
REGARDING FUNDING THE LOCAL OBLIGATION FOR THE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' GENERAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT
THIS SECOND AMENDMENT to Agreement No. CC -78448 is made and entered into
by and between Pierce County, a political subdivision of the State of Washington, herein
referred to as the "COUNTY" and the City of Auburn, herein referred to as the "CITY".
WHEREAS, the parties hereto have previously entered into Agreement No. CC -78448
dated December 2, 2010 (the "Agreement") for Funding the Local Obligation for the Corps of
Engineers' General Investigation Project; and
WHEREAS, the parties executed the first amendment to the Agreement on February 3,
2012 to revise Attachment A for "Payment"
WHEREAS, the parties desire to execute the second amendment to the Agreement to
extend the termination date to December 31, 2017.
NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and advantages to be
derived by each of the parties,
IT IS HEREBY AGREED as follows:
1. The Agreement No. CC -78448 shall be amended to extend the termination date from
December 31, 2015 to December 31, 2017.
2. ALL OTHER TERMS AND CONDITIONS OF THE ORIGINAL AGREEMENT,
AND ALL SUPPLEMENTS, MODIFICATIONS AND AMENDMENTS THERETO
SHALL REMAIN IN FULL FORCE AND EFFECT.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have caused this Addendum to be duly
executed, such parties acting by their representatives being there unto duly authorized.
Page 1 of 2
NAL
PIERCE COUNTY CONTRACT SIGNATURE PAGE
CONTRACT NAME: Inter -local Agreement No. CC -78448 — Amendment # 2
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties have executed this Agreement this 2-14Tday of
'�'U Yb -e, 1 2�0 I fo•
CITY
ignature Date
Mailing Address:
25 West Main St.
Auburn, WA 98001-4998
PIERCE COUNTY
Approved as to legal form only:
Deputy Prosecuting A rney Date
Recommended:
Contact: Kevin Snyder 'A
, � f \�YJ f,D
B get Jand Finance Date
Approved:
'Bejfartment D' e r f Date
(less than $25 0 )
1A_
County Executive Date
($250, 000 or more)
Page 2 of 2