HomeMy WebLinkAboutITEM VIII-B-5
* *
A%C_ ITY OF *
° AGEIVDA BILL APPROVAL FORM
WASHINGTON ,
Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4647 Date: September 27, 2010
Departmenfc Planning and Attachments: Resolution No. 4647, Budget lmpact: None -
Development Inferlocal Agreemenf Puyallup/White Annual cosf is proposed to be
River Watershed General funded #rom existing Planning
Investigation Project;`Exhibit A - and'Development
Pierce County Resolution No. R2008- Department line item in the
74s; Exhibit B- Puyallup River adopted 2010 budget and
Reconnaissance Report dated March the proposed 2011-2012
18,2009, prepared by the Army Corps budgets.
of Engineers
Administrative Recommendation: Ci Council ado t Resolution No. 4647.
Background Summary:.
On June 10, 2008, the Pierce County Council passed Resolution R2008-74s (see Exhibit A), requesting
local governments in the Lower Puyallup River Watershed to participate in developing and funding work
to bring the flood control system back into FEMA complianee. To assist wifh fnding and funding a
regionat solution, Pierce County convened the Lower Puyallup River Executive Task Force (ETF) in July
2008. Since its inception, the ETF has expanded its focus to include the entire Puyallup River Watershed,
including the White River Watershed downstream of Mud Mountain Dam.
Invited members of the fask force include:
Puyallup Tribe of Indians
• City of Auburn
• City of Buckley
• City of Fife
• City of Orting
• City of Pacific
• City of Puyallup
• City of Sumner
- Cityof Tacoma
• Pierce County
L1004-2 A1.17
Reviewed by Council 8 Committees: Reviewed by Departments & Divlsions:
❑ Arts Commission COUNCIL COMMITTEES: ❑ Building ❑ M&O
❑ Airport ❑ Finance ❑ Cemetery ❑ Mayor
❑ Hearing Examiner ❑ Municipal Serv. ❑ Finance p Parks
p Human Services Z Planning & CD ❑ Fire g Planning
❑ Park Board 0 Public Works 0 Legal ❑ Police
❑ Planning Comm. ❑ Other ❑ Public. Works ❑ Human Resources
- ❑ Information Services
Action: .
Committee Approval: ❑Yes ❑No
Gouncil Approv,al: ❑Yes ❑No GalLfor Public Hearing
Referred to Until
Tabled Until
Councilmember. Norman Staff: Sn" der _
Meetin Dafe: October 4, 2010 , Item Number: VIII:B.5
AUBURN *MORE THAN YOU IMAGINED
Agenda Subject: Resolution No. 4647 Date: September 27, 2010
• Port of Tacoma • Town of South Prairie
• Town of Wilkeson •
• King County
• U.S. Army Gorps of.Engineers
• Washington State Department of Transportation
- Pierce County Chamber of Commerce -
_ Invited technical advisors to the task force include:
Burlingfon Northern Santa Fe Railroad
. Tacoma Rail
• Washington State Department of Ecology
• Washington State Department of Natural Resources
In 2008 and 2009, using federal funding and authorization under the Water Resources Development Act
(WRDA), the Army Corps of Engineers conducted a reconnaissance study ofthe Lower Puyallup River
Basin (see Exhibit B). The purpose. of the study was to determine whether there is a federal interest in
continuing to a General Invesfigation (feasibility level) evaluation for flood cisk management. The
reconnaissance study concluded that without flood risk management intervention, the Puyallup RiVer is,
expeeted fo experience significant flooding resulting in negative impacts to the local economy; and in the
future may not be a61e to qualify for the National Flood Insurance Program. The study concluded that
there is a federal interest in continuing: into the feasibility phase, and also recommended thaf based on
the widespread impacts of the January 2009 flooding throughout the basin, that a future feasibilify study
should address the entire watershed, inclusive of the White River Watershed.
The Corps has estimated that a feasibility study will cost approximately $6 million and will take
approximately six years to complete. Corps participation in a feasibility level study requires a 50 percent
Iocal sponsor cost match, or a total of approximately $3 million over the six year period. As the
designated Local Sponsor for the study, Pierce County is currently coordinating with local jurisdictions to
execute cost share agreements for the local sponsor match.
In January of this year, Pierce County requested that the City of Auburn assist with the funding for the
General Investigation using a funding formula that had been previously developed by member
jurisdictions of the ETF. The funding formula is based on three inputs: assessed real property value in the
Puyallup/White River floodplain, population, and general fund budget. The requested confributiqn for
Aubum based on this approach was $10,775 per year, or a total of $64,652 over the six year period. In
reviewing the application of the proposed funding formula, staff determined that it does not appearto be
an appropriate fit for the City of Aubum as the City does not have any appreciable real property
improvements or population in the Pierce County floodplain. While the City's regional economic interests
would be impacted by significant flooding of the Lower Puyallup River, the Pierce County portion of the
City does not share the same level ofiocalized flooding risks associated with the Puyallup/White Rivers
as otfier cities participating on the EFT.
In further conversations with Pierce County staff; the County has acknowledged that the funding formula
is not a good ft for Auburn, and have instead "suggested that flie City provide a fixed amount contribufion
paid in annual-installments over the course of the six year study period. Under the proposed Interlocal
Agreement, Aubum would provide funding for the feasibility sfudy in the amount of $4,167 per year for the
six year study period, or a total of $25,000. Funding is proposed to be from the Economic Development
line item in the Planning and Development,Department budget.
Page 2 of 2 '
RESOLUTION 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 OBUGATION FOR THE CORPS OF
. ENGINEERS' GENERAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT
WHEREAS, the United States Congress authorized a Corps of Engineers
General Invesfigation 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 #o 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 #ederal agency.and the local sponsors;
VVHEREAS, the feasibility report will be a complete decision document in ,
sufficient deta'il to form the basis for the Local sponsor, Corps of Engineers, and
ultimatelythe 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
L 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 threaf to the City's regional
economic interest;
V1lHEREAS, the Corps has indicated'the Feasibility study will take approximately
six (6) years to complete and cosf approximately $6 million dollars of which the local
sponsors are responsible for $3 m.illion dollars; and .
;
WHEREAS, Pierce County and the City of Aubum staff have drafted the attached
interlocal agreement to distribute the local financial obligation befinreen the local
. sponsors; and
V1lHEREAS, the parties are authorized to enter into such agreements by virtue of ,
RCW Chapter 39.34;
NOV11, THEREFORE, THE CITY COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF AUBURN
HEREBY RESOLVES as follows:
Section 1. The interfocal agreement is hereby approved and accepted by the
City of Aubum and the Mayor is authorized to execute the interlocal agreement in
substantially #he same form as the attached agreement,. 2ntltl@d 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 directiyes 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 , 2010.
CITY OF AUBURN -
PETER B. LEWIS .
MAYOR
ATTEST`.
Danielle E. Daskam, City Clerk
ANE3_ FO M:
ity Aftor
L1004-2A
• Resolution No. 4647
-
September 23, 2010
Page 3 of 3
IN'TERLOCAL AGREEMENT BETWEEN
PIERCE COUNTY AND CITY OF AUBURN
REGARDING FUNDING THE LOCAL OBLIGATION FOR 'I'HE CORPS OF
ENGINEERS' GENERAL INVESTIGATION PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day by and between PIERCE COZ7NTY, a
political subdivision ofthe State of Washington (herein referred to as "COiJ3VTY") and the City
of Auburn a municipal corporation of the State of Washington (herein referred to as City of.
Auburn).
WHEREA3, 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 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; and ,
WHEREAS, a Feasibility Report is the next step in the Corps GI process and it requires a
50150 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 ofEngineers, 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 a11
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 providereview of GI materials and
actively participate in the process 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 aze
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
' Imerlocal Agrament Between - Pierce County and the Ciryof Aubtuo .
Puyallup/White Rivtt 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 COiJNTY sha11 be responsible for
, coordinating tlie local parties in the GI process and for transmitting the Loca1 financial match to
the Corps. The COLTNTY shall also be responsible for invoicing the City of Auburn. The
COUNTY shall invoice annually on a schedule agreed to between the City ofAuburn and the
COLTNTY, but no more frequently than twice a calendar year.
SECTION 3. City of Auburn OBI.IGATIONS. The City of Auburn shall be
responsible for actively participating in the GI process. When invoiced, the City of Auburn sliall
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 sha11 have a term
commencing on the date of execution of this Agreement and terminating on December 31, 2015.
SECTION 5. INIDENYNIF'ICATION AND DEFENSE. The COLINTY shall defend,
indemnify, and save hazmless 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 COLTNTY, 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
commenced in which the enforceability and/or validity 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 aze awarded against the City
of Auburn, the COLTNTY, or both, the City of Auburn sha11 satisfy the same, including all
chargeable costs and attorney's service charges.
The City of Auburn sha1T defend, indemnify and save harmless the COIJNTY, its
officers, employees and agents from any and all costs, claims, judgments, or awaazds of damages,
L 1004-2B
Interlocal Agramrnt Between .
Pierce County and the City of Auburn
Puyallup/White River Watershed General Inveatigation Projat .
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 orresponsibility for or in any way release the COUNTY from any liability or
responsibility which arises in whole or in part from the existence or effect of COLJNTY
ordinances, rules, regulations, resolutions, customs; policies, or practices. If any cause, claiin,
suit, action, or administrative proceeding is commenced in which the enforceability and/or
validity of any such COIJNTY 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 COLTNTY, 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 COLJNTY nor the City of Aubum shall .
have the right to transfer or assign, in whole or in part, any or a11 of its obligations and rights
hereunder without the prior written consent ofthe other Party.
SECTION 8. NOTICE. Any formal notice or communication to be given by the
COLJNTY 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 COiJNTY
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 COiJNTY giving
notice thereof to the other as herein provided.
L 1004-2B
Interlocal Agrament Between . .
Pierce County end the City ofAubum . Puyallup/White Riva Watashed General Investigation Project
Pege 3
SECTION 9. COUNTY AS INDEPENDENT CONTRACTOR. The COLINTY 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 COLTNTY or any of the COiJNTY's agents or employees. The
COUNTY shall retain all authority for rendition of services, standards of performance, control of
persorinel, and other rriatters incident to the performance of services by COLJNTY pursuant to
this Agreement.
Nothing in this Agreement shall make any employee of the City of Auburn a COiJNTY
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 COLTNTY or
Ciry of Auburn employees by virtue of their employment.
SECTION 10. WAIYER. 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. EN'TIRE AGREEMEN'P. This Agreement contains a11 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. AMENDMEN'I'. 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 esta.blish 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.
L1004-2B
In[erlocal Agreemem Betwam
Pierce Counry and the Ciry of Auburn
Puysllup/White River Weterslied Generel Imestigation Project
Page 4
SECTION 15. SEVERABILITY. If any of the provisions contained in this Agreement `
- are held illegal, invalid or unenforceable, the remaining provisions sha11 remain in full force and
effect.
IN WITNESS WHERE OF, the parties have caused this Agreement to be executed on
this . day of , 2010.
CITYOFAUBURN PIERCE COUNTY
~ DEPARTMENT DIRECTOR Date
Mayor Date.
DEP. PROSECUTING ATTY Date
. (as to forni only)
~ c! /v
Approved as to Form Date
BUDGET AND FINANCE Date
;
COLTNTY EXECUTIVE Date
;
- (if over $50,000)
,
;
L 1004 2B
Interlocal Agreemrnt Bmvem -Pierce Counryand the City of Aubum Puyallup/White River Watershed General lnvestigation Projea - Page 5
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 maacimumof Twenty-five Thousand Dollars ($25,000.00). .
J
- • EXHIBIT
1 Spoasored by: Councilmembers Ca{vin Goings, Shawn Bunney, Roper 8ush, FUe No-,,~37
2 Timothy M. Farretk Barbara Gelman, Terry Lae, and Dick Muri
3 Requesfed by: Pierce County Council -
4 -
5
8 • .
7 RESOLUT10N N0. R2008-74s
e
s io A Resolution of the Pierce County Councll Urging Local, State, and Federat
111 Officials to Support the Funding oftmprovements to the
12 l.ower Puyatlup River tevee Nseded for Certiflcatlon of the '
13 . l.evee by the United States Army Corps of Engineers.
. • '
14
15 Whereas, the Puyallup River IeVee system provides flood protection ta ~
i6 thousands of resfdents, homes, and businesses in unincorporated Plerce County, the
11 cities of Fife, Sumner, Puyaliup and Tacoma, and the Port of Tacoma, and also protects
le sssentiat public infrastructure sucti as lnterstafe 5; and
19
20 Whereas, the Army Carps of Enginaers has determined fhat portions of the levee
21 do not currently meet modem levee deslgn requirements, most notaby freeboard.
22 requirements, and consequenfly have indicated that the levee may not provide ;
23 adequate protection against the 100 year flood, resulting in the levee being decertified;
za and
25 i
26 Whereas, faiiure of the levee during a fitood event could resutt in ioss of tife, ;
27 millions of dollars in prlvate property-damage and business iosses, damage to public ~
28 infrastructure, and significanf impacts to commerce and the regional economy; and ;
29 ~
30 Whereas, the recent levee faiiure along the Chehatis River in Lewis County ;
si illustr"ates the tragic cost to a community fram levee failures, incfuding six iives fost,
32 1,700 homes damaged,_1,800 head of livestack killed, at least $1 billian in property and ~
33 infrastructure damage, displacement of hundreds of residents and businesses, and the
34 closure of lnterstafe 5 for four days; and
35 ~
36 Whereas, the Puyailup River levee decertification also resuited in significant
37 socioeconomic impacts in many areas of Pierce Caunty due to the imposition af more
38 restrictive limitations on the use of propet#y 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 af levee .decertification also face higher flood insurance
az premiums; and
43
44 Whereas, the cost of improving the Puyallup River levee systerns to modern :
45 certification standards has loeen estimated to be in excess of $900 million; and
46
Resolutfon No. R2848-74s pierce County Coend~ ~
L 10 0 4- 2 C page 1 of 3 eJ°Ti0 wa"~,
1 Whereas, the federal government has not adequately funded Isvee maintenance
2 and improvements in the past and continues ta reduce the budget of the Army Corps of
3 Engineers; and '
4 ~ ' .
s Whereas, #he State of Washington has revently initiated an effort through the i
8 adaption of its Capital Budget, which appropriates $250,000 for a7evee recertification ~
7 study far the State of Washington; and .
8 .
9 Whereas, the Pierce County Council appropriated $950,000 for the Lower
lo Puyallup River Altematives Study in 2008; and i,
11
12. Whereas, the signifcant cost of this pro}ect, its inuttijurisdic#ional nature, and j
13 5ignifcant risk to fhe public and the economy require cooperation and participation at. ail
14 levels of goVernment including, but.not limtted to, the federal, state, tribai, and the Iocal
15 govemments; and
16 ~
17 Whereas, the citizens and businesses of Pierce County, its cities and towns, and ~
18 the State of Washington cannot affard anaEher tragedy like the one that occurred in ;
10 Lewis County and must work together to ensure that appropriate funding is allocated at i
20 the federal, state, and locai levels to ensure that the failure of the Puyallup River levee
21 system is avoided in the future; and
22
23 Whereas; the decision making process for Hazard Mitigafion Grant Funding has
I
24 also been delayed and is currently one year or more behind schedute for the November.
25 2006 and December 2008 storm events; and j
2s ,
27 Whereas, approximately $4 miDion in.funding is pending through this program to
28 suppbrt acquisitions of flood damaged properties; and
29
3o Whereas, property owners currently waiting #or funding through this progrem are
31 experiencing unacceptable delays and are experiencing financial hardships; Now
32 Therefore,
33 34 BE IT RESOLVEO by the Councll of Pieroe County:
35
36 Section 1. The Pierce Coun#y Council hereby exptesses its intent to pursue
37 future funding for improvements to the Puyallup River levee system at the federal, state, ~
. 3s and local levels in order to avoid future losses associated with a failure of the fevee.
39 ~
ao Section 2. The Pierce County Council urges its state and federal elected officials
- 41 to support signiflcant state and federal funding of the improvements necessary to
42 ensure recertification of the Puyallup River levee system, gNen the potential impact of
43 the levee on fife, properiy, commerce, and the economy.
44
Resolution No. R2008•74s Piercs Gounry Councl ~
Page 2 af 3 woteooTne.,,,a wn sa~oi
i
. ~ ~
1 Sjgtion 3. The Pierce County Council urges loca[ elected offiGals to suFport
z efforts to receitify the Puyallup River levee system given the potenttal impacts of a
• 3 iallure of the levee on the residents and businesses within the cities of Fiie, Puya(lup,
a Sumner and Tacoma, and the Port of Tacoma.
6 . '
6 Section 4. The Pierce County Council urges the citizens of Pierce County, to
7 contaCt their respec#ive state and federal elected officials regarding funding for
8 improvements to the Puyailup River levee system.
9 .
10 Section S. The State of Washington and FEMA are requested to complete the .
i i decision making process for the 1671 and 1682 events and to expedite future requests
12 for aid undEr the Hazard MitigaUon Grant Funding program. 13 i
14 e tion Q. The Clerk of the Pierce County Counc'rl is hereby directed to forward a
15 copy of this resolufion to a!I state and #ederal elected officials represenfing Plerce
1s County.
17 I
;
18 Al30PTED this Jh~ day of 12008.
19
20 ATTEST: PIERCE COUNTY CQUNCIL.
~
21 Pierce County, fiington
zz ~
23 j
Za 1 ~ • ~
25 Denise D. Johns Terry Le '
26 Clerk of the Council Council
~
- ~
~ I
Resoluliorr No. R2008-74s Ptarce Counry Councu
Page 3 vf 3 90402
EXH(BIT 13
~
~
PUYALLUP RIVE, R `
i
SECTION 905(b) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District
March 18, 2009 i,
I
;
1. STUDY AUTHORYTY '
A. AUTHORITY. This Section 905(b) (WRDA) Analysis was prepared as an initial ,
. response to Section 209 of the Flood Cocitrol Act (FCA) of 1962 (PL 87-874) and Study ~
Resolution, Docket 2645, Comraittee on Transportation aud Infrastructure, U.S. House of
Representatives, dated 21 June 2000. Tfie sEudy resolution states: "Tftat !he Secf•etary of ;
the Arnry is »eq;rested lo revietir the jrport af the Chief of Errgineers on the Upper ~
1'uynllir River, Wnshingfon, dnted 1936, crs refer•enced inlhe I7oad Con1folAct of 1936 i
(1'.L:. 74-738), the Puget Sotirid crfrdAdjacent Wcrters Sttrdy, cr:rthorizedby Section 209 of ~
1he Riveis pyrd Harbors Ac1 of 1962 (P.L. 87-874) and other perlrnent reports to ~
, cJelernrine iMether nroclifcations to the recomnrendations contnined thereirl are ;
. advisnble, with refer•e»ces towaid pr•oviditig inrprovenreiats irr tlre iitterest of tis,ater ~
. resoitrce cmd watersl:ecl issues affecting Lake Tapps m7d the Wjrite Rivef• Wafershed i
' clouTnstrernn of Mrrd.Motrntain Dam, Washmgroir ~
. ;
B. FUNDING. Furids in the amount of $43,000 were appropriated in Fiscal Year 2008 to '
conduct the recannaissance phase of the study. Additional funding Nvas provided in Fiscal
Year 2009 to cover the total cost of the reconnaissance phase. The total cost of the j
reconnaissancs phase is budgeted for $100,000. The entire cost of the reconnaissance ~
phase is federally funded. i
2. STUDY PURPOSE ~
;
. The purpose of the reconnaissance phase study is to investigate flood issues on the lower
8 mile reach ofthe Ruyallup River, located in Pierce County, Washington, and to
determine ifthere 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 feld'mg that there is a Federal interest ;
in continuing the study into the feasibility phase. The purpose ofthis Section 905(b) i
Analysis, is to documentthe basis for this finding and estabtish the scopc of the feasibility i
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 PuyalEup River tivatershed and its major tributaries '
(tfie 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.
1
L1004-2D
The Puyallup River drains the southwest slope of ME. Rainier. The White River, the
Puyallup River's major tributary, rises on the east slope of Mt. Rainier and floNvs in a
general northwest direction 57 mites to enter the Puyallup River from the north at river ,
mile (RM) 10.5. Mud Mountain Dam (MMD), a Federaily authorized flood storage
project, is lacated 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 Puya[lup River. The Puyallup
River flows in a north-svesterty direction for approximately 50 cniles before discharging ,
into Commencement Bay in the City of Tacoma. The basin encompasses numerous small ~
toNvns and cities, including Tacoma, the state's third IArgest city. For this study, the focus ;
area includes the 500-year Lotiver PuyalIup River floodplain mapped hy Federal
Emergency Management Act (FEMA) in 2007, an 8 mile reach of the Puyallup River
e.ctending upstream from the river mouth at Cammencement Bay to approximately the ,
Meridian Street Bridge in the Ciry 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
folloNving Congressional Districts:
1) Congressional District 6
2) Congressional District 8 ;
3) Congressional District 9 ~
i
. ...~.+r.;>. :'A.. i
~•I
li.U
~
b1 f( t o 11 i
i iAl~
i
~ii7 k~! t:~,T ~t fa tk~~~tf?~'~'
i
F; State of Ww)rington F~
• . . • 3,s
, Legend
' p a.an..
ab 7S'? . r r~• Rs,Y1`- s'i.
y~ 'EdHM'°r f~3 {[Ta_i'°=-trh~ A EF
rv~w ~ i ;:.i P U~/ C 1 I U p~ h
r' C•Y l" o +_O S-. _ .t .
2
Figure 1. Map of study area (Provided by Tetra Tech, 2008).
4. PRIOR REPORTS AND EXISTING PROJECTS
A. TH E FOLLOWIIVG PROJECTS NERE REVIEIVED AS PART OF TNIS STUDY:
Federally Authorized Projects ~
There are three existing authorized projects in the PuyalIup watershed, each with a project
pttrpose of flood risk management. MMD is located at RM 29.6 on the White River, 6 miles
upstream and southeast of Enumclawand 38 miles southeast of Tacoina in Nvestern Washington. ;
The second authorized project in the tivatershed includes approximaEely 2.2 miles of conveyance '
improvements near the.mouth along the Ptryallup Watenvay. Finally, bank protection along the i upper Puyallup near the toNvn of Orting.and other critical points was also included in a 1936 ;
authorization. The entire loiver 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
Puyaltup River. Mud Mountain Dam Flobd Control Project was authorized in 1936. The
aiitiiorized project purpose of MMD is #o prevent flood damages in the loNver Puyallup River . ;
valley, below the mouth of the White River: MMD Is unique as a single-purpose flood storage !
dam. Most federaI dams in the region are multipurpose projects, requiring permanent ~
impoundment of a reservoir. MMD usually does not impound 8vater except during flood storage
and iriaintenance operations. Most of the time it passes the White'River at riverbed level. Perthe '
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, rvhen feasible,
tlie release"s froin iVIMD are limited to `a maximum of 12,000 cfs to help reduce flood damages I~
along downstream reaches ofthe White RiVer. Aspart ofthe atithorized projectthe Corps ~
, constructed a trap and haul facility at an existing diversion•dam located 6 miles downstream of !
`MMD. The trap and haut facility is used to mitigate the loss of upstream fish passage related to ~
the consfniction of MMD. Seattle District is currently investigating a project to replace the .
diversion dain and modify the trap and haul facility. Additional information related to the
'diversion facility is presented belo-sv. '
~
ChRnnel Conveyance Project. The Flood Control Act of June 28, 1938 provided for the
' construction and maintenance of a channel conveyance pro~ject. The project provides for a channel ~vith a capacity of SO,OOO cfs betzveen the East 11 ~ Street bridge and the lo-tver 2.2 miles i
1t Commencement Bay; by straigfitening the channel, building levees, and making all necessary ,
bridge changes. The East -11`h Street bridge at the lo«+er end of the project is 0.75 mile abave the
mouth of the Puyallup River. The project was completed in 1,950. On-going maintenance
activities inciude brushing, fence repair, grading roadNvays and ]evee 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 Puyal lup River; above and beloiv the toivn of Orting, in Pierce County, for a
distance of 10 iiiiles. The project Nvas completed in 1936 as a Wark Projects Administration
(WPA) project under the direction ofthe;Corps ofEngineers, and fransferred to Pierce County
for maintenance.
3
;
, - i
~
OTHER SICNIFIGANT PROJEGTS ~
' A. geographic focal point in the basin is the artificially enlargetl Lake Tapps. Puget Sound
Energy, Inc. (PSE) modified Lake Tapps at the.turn of the 20th century fram four small natural
lakes to one large lake Nvhich was used as a tiydropotver reservoir and slibsequently as a
recreation.al area._ The PSE project includes a diversion dam along the White River, an 8 mile
floAv line witli a capacity of 2000 "cfs, the Lake Tapps reseryoir, forebay & penstocks,
powerliouse, levees and fish screens at the tailrace downstream of Nvhich ivater is diverted 6ack ~
. into the WhiteRiver. Lake Tapps reservoir offers•significanf recreational opportunities to i
liameowners around the lake and to visitors. The diversion dam is located 6 miles doNvnstreain i
from MMD. In 2003, after several years of negatiation PSE rejected a FERC license and no i
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 da►n to
ensure tivater is availa6te 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 -tvater ,
. . supply project. ~
~
~
~
B.. THE FOLLONINC REPORTS IVERE REVIENVED AS PART OF THIS PROJECT. ~
1
i. Lower Puyallup River Flood Protection Investigation - Without-Project
Analysis.
Tetra Tech in association with Northivest Hydraulic Consultants, ESA Edolfson, and Shannon
Wiison for Pierce County, June 2008.
- ii; PuyAl[un River Ecosystem Restoration and FIood Damage Reduction Section ~
945(U) Analysis. ~
Seattle District Corps of Engineers, signed Decernber 2002. I
iii. Draft Mud Mountaiu Dam Upstream Fis6 Passage Deciaion Document and ~
Environmenta] Assessment. •
Seattle District Corps of Engineers, dated December 2007.
iv. Commencement Bay cumulative imgact study, Vol: 1, assessment of impacts. -
Seattle District Corps of Engineers, dated 1993.
5. PLAN FORMULA.TION
The Corps of Engineers uses a six step planning pracess to methodically address tiv.ater resource ~
issue§. During a study, six planning steps set forth in the Water Resource Couricil's Principles
and.Guidelines are used to focus the planning effort and, eyentually, to select and recommend a
plan for atithorization. The six planning steps ait: 1) specify problems and opportiinities, 2}
inventory and forecast conditions, 3) forinulate alternative p1Rns, 4) evaluate effects of
alternative plans, 5) compare a[ternative plans, and 6) select a"recommended plan. The planning
4
process is iterative and has dif'ferent emphasis on the various steps depending on the study phase.
_ in the earty iterations, those conducted during the reconnaissance phase, the step of specifying
problems and apportunities is emphasized. `fhat is not to say, hoNvever, that the other steps are
ignored since the initial screening of prelimi _nary ptans tf~at results from the other steps is very
important to the scoping ofthe follow-on feasibiiity phase studies. The sub-paragraphs that
foIlow present the resutts of the initial iterations ofthe planning steps that were conducted during
the reconnaissance phase. This infonnation wiIl be refined in future iterations of the planning
steps that will be accomplished duruig the feasibility phase.
A. IDENTIFIED PROBLEA4S. '
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 suU-basins or widespread throughout the basin: The most recent basin-Nvide
flooding events occarred daring 1990, 1995; 1996, 2006, 2008, and 2009. The 1996 flood,
yielded a peak discharge of 46,700 cfs (Puyallup at Piryallup Gauge - USGS # I2101500),
approximately a 27 year recurrence interval (regulated frequency, curve). Recent flooding has %
adversely impacted multiple,communities in the basin including Sumner, Fife, Puyallup and !
Taconia: Although MMD prevents substantial damages in the basin, the Map Modernization ;
initiative prarnpted 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
6ottoiii: The increased 100-year flood elevations resuit in a reduction of freeboard that in places
is less than the 3 feet of freeboard necessary for the existing levees to meet design certifcation
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 ainuch more exgansive 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 fload event, the Corps 6egan releasing Nvater
from MMD on January 8 to initially slow the rate of storage in the reservoir and subsequently to
begin releasing stored Nvater fibm the reservoir. The peak amount released from MMD was
11,700 cfs on January 9th: This amount -tvas the same as the release in the flood event of 2006,
which caused no significant damage. HoNvever, in 2009, this release rate from MMD contributed I
to signifcant flooding in the town of Pacific. When the Corps became aware of the flooding at ~
Pacific, the release of Nvater was decreased from MMD. HoNvever, significant flooding and i
damage had already occurred fhroughout Pacific. When flows peaked along the Puyallup River
at 41,500 cfs on 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 oparation of MMD, it is estimated that the peak florwIn the Puyailup River at Puyallup
' would have been about 70,000 cfs, likely overwhelming the lower Ptiyaltup Valley with
- floodwater. It is unknoNvn whAt catisedthe difference in impacts from the release ofwater 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.. '
5
B. PROJEGT AREA CONDITIONS: E.XISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITION
Watershed. The Puyal[up and White Rivers origina#e as glacial melt from the slopes of Mt. '
Rainier. Tlie Puyallup flows 125 iniles before einptying iuto Commencement Bay in Puget
Sound. The White flotivs 68 miles before entering the Puyailup near Tacoma. Major tributaries
and creeks in the Puyallup River basin inchlide the Carbon, Greenivater, Clearwater, Boise, South,
Prairie.Creek, and MoNvich Rivers. ~
i. Existing Condition
The Wliite River is a tributary to the Puyallup River and currently enters the Puyallup at RM
10.5. However, prior to 1906, the flotv ofthe White River split into distributaries nearAuburn, ;
with some flowing north toward the Green River and some in a southerly direction toward the ~
Stuck River which then drained info the Puyaliup. In 1906 flaoding and human aotivities
resulted in the entire flow of the White ILiver being channeled to the Stuck River. This diversion
restilted in the loNver 25 miles of the Raya..llup River and the loiver 8 miles of the White River
receiving exteiisive flood risk management in the ivay of levees, dikes, channelization, and
streain straightening. The lower river has extensive levees and channelization. Land use within i
the lower Puyallup River basin bears little resembIance to its historic condition., In the lowe"r ;
~
portions of the basin, extensive alterations to land forms, river courses, stream channels, and i
estuaries have occurred as a result of urban, industcial, and agricultural development. (Carps of ;
Engineers, 2002)
Riparian vegetation is missing or degraded, and includes a number of non-native species such as
Scotch broom And Himalayan blackbeiry. in general, natural resource values have been heavily '
degraded over time. Other signif cant alterations in the basin include the consiruction af 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 prvjects 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,
fotind within the basin and primarily in the Mt. Rainier National Park closely resemble historic
conditions and are considered mosdy unaltered.
- The Puyallup River enters Commencement Bay in the City of Tacoma. The estuary historicaUy
covered an area approximatety 5,800 acres in size. From 1877 to 1988, oVer 98 percent of the ~
esttiary was modifed, 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 flo►vs to Commenoement Bay.. In 1917, f
approximately 24 acres of mudfiat was dredged ip Hylebos Creek to peovide for commercial f
navigation and resttlted in awider and deeper creekbed to form the Hylebos Waterway. '
Additional a(terations to the Commencement Bay contributed to the now degraded and filled
delta region. Tfiese activities initiated major changes to the salt/brackish inarsh habitat and along
with additional development have ahered the ecolagical functions of the area. (Corps of
Engineers, 1993) ;
Major flooding occurs during the fall and ivinter seasons, typically froinNovember through ,
February, mainly as a result of the heavy rainfafl and rain,an-snow events. Flooding can be
6
. i
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 f[ows 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 loiver i
Auyallup River at Piryallup are Iisted' in Table l betoNv. i
f
Table 1 +
Ma'or Flood Events Recorded on the Pu a[lu . River
, Regalated Natural
Estimate Et stimate
- ;
Recurrence Recurrence i
Recorded Estfmated Intcrval Interval
;
Year Peak Naturai Pcak rs rs ;
57,000 cfs (pre
Dec. 1933 57,000 _ cfs MMD N/A 20
Jan. 1965 41540 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 41900 cfs 61000 cfs 14 33
~
Feb. 1996 46 700 cfs _ 76 000 cfs 27 60
Nov. I
2006 39,700 cfs 69 100 cfs 11 46 ;
41,500 -
" Jan. 2009 cfs 70,000 cfs 14 48
'i
Without storage at MMD, the discharge in the Puyallup River would have reached approximately ~
76,000 cfs in Febniary of 1996, which would equate to approximately a 60-year event ;
(unregulated freauency curve). Based on a 1988 USGS Report; the channel capaciry of the
Puyaltup River from its mauth to t_he City of Puyallup is equivalent.to a 104-year regulated ~
discharge (approximately 54,000 cfs) throughout mast ofthe reach. In the reach from the City of ;
Puyalliip 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 ofless than 100 years. Based on the 1988 USGS report, the
White River had a channel capacity equivalent to a discharge with.a recurrence interval af 50 to
70 year events, especially in the reach located in Pierce County. (Corps of Engineers, 2002)
ln response to flooding that occurred throughout the 1990s, Pierce and King Coi►nties 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 buifdup, at-risk struchires in
the 100-year floodplain, insufficient protection of struchires in the floodplain, obstructions to
flow including vegetation, and uncontrolled ninoff from unreguiated portions of the basin, The
FEMA floodplain map prodiiced in 1987 for the IowerPuyallup River did not require the
standard 3 feet of freeboard for levee certification. While the xequirement for 3:feet af freeboard
7
i
ivas iiitroduced in 1986, draft maps were already in production and FEMA chose not to reinitiate
the mapping process. If current mapping standards Nvould have been applied to the 1987 maps,
ttiis area aiong the Iower Puyaliup River Nvould not have been designated as outside the 100 year
floodplain. Since the flooding in 1995 and 1996, both King and Pierce Counties have
' aggressivety pursued acquisition of lands within the 100-year floodplain and have relocated ;
existing structures that have been subjected to repeat flooding. I
;
. Sfucly At•ea. The following outlines pliysical features and characteristics of the loiver 8 miles of
the Puyallup River, the focus area of the investigation.
Tiie left bank of the study area is primarily made up of unincorporated Pierce County lands and
infrastructure, residential and commercial development, and some agricultural production. The i
upper portion of the left bank inthe study area includes a small portion of the City of Puyallup '
and the loNver portion ofthe left bank includes part ofthe Port;ofTacoina. The right bank j
includes portions of the City of Fife and the Port of Tacoma and'includes Interstate 5, SR-99 and i
raihvay lines.
~
Levees. The river has levees along the entire left bank of the study area, %vith SR- ~
167/River Road running along the top ofthe levee: The river has levees along the
entire right bank ofthe study area, tvith North Levee Road running along the top of .
levee.
Soils. The IoNverPuyatlup 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 aiv generally uniform throughout the study area. The levees themselves
are composed of a mixture of the existing native deposits with the embankments and
nearby foundatian soils containiag cobbles, boulders, and Nvood pilings. There is no
visible evidence of instability or erosion, tvith the eaception of hvo areas: the right
bank levee located 0.75 miles dotvnstremn ofthe bridge at 66`h Ave East; and the left
bank 1 mile downstream of SR-161. There are also numerous tension cracks on the
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 failuiv point (PNP). The PFP is the stage associated with a high probability of ;
failure (85%). The PNP is the stage associated with loiv probabiiity of failure (15%). ~
The PFP for the north banlt is approximately l ft from the top of the levee and the ;
' PNP is approximately 3fl from the top of the tevee. A PFP a.nd PNP has not been ;
determined for the south bank levee because the primary damaging flow events
originate fibm overland fiood'mg from smaller lacal streams. From previous analyses, ;
the levee system appears to meet Corps requiremenEs for rapid draNvdown and soil ~
parameter ranges. The exit seepage gradients for the land side of the levees in the
study area do not meet Corps reyuireenents. In regards to overtopping, a previous
analysis ivas done using HBGRAS and conducted simulations at the 2007, 2017, and
8
2057 river bed levels under 2 year, 10 year, 25 year, 50 year, 100 year, and 500 year
ftood events. This modeling identified 12 iocations that may experience overtopping.
A majority of these avertopping locations were generally located from RM 3 to 4 on
-
the Right Bank. (Tetra Tech, 2008)
Other Phvsical Barriers. Other physical barriers cansist of flotivage barriers and '
canstrictors. 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 Ioiver '
reaches. Other barriers and flow constrictors include raiiraad and highivay bridges,
small agricultural diversions, dams, and road and highway embankments near or next
to streams. While some ofthese strucEures are nat necessarily a full blockage, they
serve as an impediinent to natural flows and can exacerbate flooding prob(ems,
upsetting tlie equilibrium of natural flows, river hydrology, and sediment transpart. ' I
I
FloodpIain Connectivitv: Floodplain connectivity refers to conditions affecting ~
oyerall floNvs of a tivatercourse through a floodplain. Floodplains ivith open
connectivity are connected directly to the river at many points allo-sving wetlands and '
other off=channel areas to store fioodNvater and later discharge this storage:back to the
river during (ower flows. This condition tends to help reduce peak floiv rates
compared to conditions witlt little to no connectivity.Floodplain connectivity in the
Puyatlup Nvatershed hns been altered from natural conditions. Examples ofafterations
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 indastrial deveIopment has also i
filled in floodplains. Itnpervious surfaces (roads, sidewalks, driveways, roofs) result i
in more quick and direct flow of•runoff via storm drains to creeks in comparison with
groundwater percolation. Tfiis causes shorter, higher hydrograph. peaks during rain
events, and lower stream floNvs during intervening dry periods.
i
SedimendStreambed Conditions. The causes of altered sediment regime and !
streambed conditions in the Puya[lup River watershed are based on several factors ~
found within the basin. Secfiment transport has been estimated to range from 440,000
to 1,400,000 tons anmial ly, with the majority of these sediments characterized as fine
sediments being transported out ofthe upper reaches and deposited into loiyer
gradient i•eaches and Commencement Bay. The operatian of MMD and the PSE ,
diversion dam, both on the White River, are contributors to the altered sediment '
regime. Althaugh MMD was designed to aIlow the downstream passage of sediinent ,
in the river naturally withaut active sediment.management, there is short-term ,
accumulation of sediment in the reservoir during infrequent and short duration :
periods (short-term phenomena) -tvhen Nvater is stored for flood management. ,
Sediment accumulated apstream of MMD during flood storage operations is naturaliy
transported do-tvnstream by the river once the project returns to a run-of-riyer .
operation. Operation of the PSE diversion dam has altered natural sedienent transport
in the basin. Along the 2-mile floivline betNveen the diversion and Lake Tapps there
are several sedimeiit basins ivhere suspended material and bedload are removed from
9
the system. 1t has been estimated that the average annual sedirnent transport rate
,
upstream of MMD is 500,000 tons per year. (Tetra Tech, 2008)
Uther factors influencing streambed and sediment conditions include a[ack of large
woody debris (LWD) to maintain coarse sediment, increased bank and surface !
erosion, channelization of the river, and Iandslides, alt of which cantribute to
increased sediment. Debris torrents and dam-break floods have scoured channels and
contributed to a decrease in LWD. Much of the rion-nahirai surface erosion
(including landslides) comes fram dirt and gravel roads and forestry/agricultural
lands.
Ri~rian Conditions. Degraded riparian conditions currently exist in the
Puyal lap/White River watershed as a result of riparian harvest, fires, agricutture,
construction, operation of in-water structures, and land devetopment. Areas ivith no ;
vegetation, little vegetation, or vegetation that is composed primarily of non-native or '
invasive species, or young deciduous trees, chaeacteeize the degraded riparian
conditions. Areas with little or no vegetation do not provide adequate shade and ~
result in increased tivater temperatures Nvhich limit fish survival and reproduction.
Degraded riparian areas aiso do not provide for future large woody material ;
recruitment nor do they adequateiy provide cover to the streams anrUar provide a ;
buffer for stormNvater runoff or otHer human-related aclivities. Deposition of organic
material and insects is reduced in areas with reduced riparian vegetation. Remnant I
riparian forests in the basin. are unable to provide adequate Iarge woody material
recruitment (especially since most of these forests are also young), w6ich leads to
channel profile degradation including decreased pool habitat mid increased scour.
Water 0uality. Same of the primary water quality problems in the Puyallup/White
River watershed are high -vvater temperatures, turbidity, and altered pH. Cleared or
degraded riparian forests no longer provide shade along stream banks. Calving and
eroding banks have made loiv-flow channels wider and shailoNver al[o-sving temperatures to increase. High tiubidity results from the naturally high sediment
regime in the 1Nhite River, due to its headxvaters in the glaciers of Mt. Rainier and its
erosion into the geologically young Osceola mudflow through 18 miles afthe White
River canyon. It is estimated that 440,000 to 1,400,000 tons of sediment are
h•ansported doNvnstream annually. There are a number.of,point source and non point !
- ,
source poltirtian contributors that affect the water quality ofthe Puvailup River. The ~
lower Fuyallup River is a 303(d) listed under Washington State's Water Ouality
Assessment. In response to this listing. Water Ouality Improvement Projects have !
been ,~rep-ared. Total Maximum Daily Loads for bioohemical oxygen demand,
ammonia, and residual chlorine have been established for the Puyallup River.
Finally, pH levels are an issae at selected sites within the basin tvith a few in
particular being related to the discharges of the sewage treatment plants operated by
the Cities af 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 . 10
within the area are in a depressed state in relafion to theie historic condition.
Anadromous salmonid species found in the area include spring and fall Chinook,
coho, pink; and chum salman, winter steelhead, and coastal cutthroat trout. Runs of
. ali of these species have declined ssgnificantly from historic tevels. There are eight
`-Federally listed threatened or endangered species in thegeneral area, including one
bird (marbled murrelet), three fish (bull trout, steelhead, and Chinook saimon), one
repfile (leatherback sea turtle), a_ nd three mammals (kiiler whales, Steller sea lions, i
and humpback tvhales). There is a possibility of Steller sea lions entering the river to
prey on fish, though they are general(y marine animals. However, the sea turtle and
whales Nvould be found o.nly in Puget Sound, and the sea turtle is not Iikely to be
present at all. Degraded habitat associated with each of these species is the primary
factor behind their tlireatened status or low papulation numbers.
;
;
Economic considerations. Under without-project condition, the Puyallup River basin has
experienced continued flood damages, negatively impacting the locat economy and .
threatening the liyes of,the citizens nearby. The General Tnvestigation offers an
opportunity for the Corps; state, and locals to evaluate flood risk management strategies ~
to deci•ease the severity of flood damage. '
Tn the Lower Puyallup River Flood Protection Investigation Without-Rroject Analysis I
report, the expected damages by flood event under existing conditions Nvere evaluated ~
separately for the ri.ght and left bank. These damages include: inundation damages to ;
the stnicture 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 specifc even# damages as well as
Expected Annuaf Dacnages (EAD) in FY200$ doIlars is illustrafed below in Table 2.
' The EAD calctalation measures the area under the damage-probability curve. It is a ;
single number representing the probability iveighted potential damage costs of all . i
I
possible storms on an annual basis in constant FY2008 prices and existing 2007,
conditions.
~
Table 2 . i
Ex ecteci Dama es b Flood Event Existin Condition
Expected Flood Damages by Evcait
(October2007 $1,000's)
Annual ~
El vent Lcft Right .
Etvcnt Probabili Bank Banlc Total i
1,637 63,504 $ 65 23 I ~
10-YeAr 10.00/0
- 25-Year 4.0% $ 3,136 $ 75,843 $ 78,979
_ 8,570 $ 84,367 $ 92,937
100-Year 1.00/9
500-Yeat' 02% $ 13;354 $100 369 $113 723
EAD NA $ 1075 $ 5,572 $ 6,647
Data provided by Tefra Tech (2008)
_ 11
~
i
- H. Fuhirc Without-Project Condition. ,
For the future without-project condition, the period of analysis is assu.med to be 50
years from 2008. It is assumed that any neNv development woultl occur outside the '
neNvly mapped floodptain or that sfructares Nvoutd be flood proofed. For purposes of
the reconnaissance investigation it was assumed that sediment deposition Would be
the predominant variahle affecting flooding. Sediment deposition rates are addtessed ;
in a model presented by Tetra Tech (2008). It is estimated that over a SO year period, ~
the T;ower 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 i
would not be able to qualify for the Netional Flood Insurance Program. I
i
The river bed elevation of the Lower Puyal lup River is expected to increase in future
years froin continued sediment aggredaNon, which wil( in twrn cause increased ;
f3ooding and greater EAD. Future fiAD for 2017 and 2037 and the exisdng EAD are ~
presented in TTble 3 belo`v in constant FY2008 dol{ars. 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 .
Com arison of E xistin and Future EAD ,
I
Comparison of Existing and Future EAD ;
$1 000's Iast tr 2008 rices ;
Leff Bank Ri ht Bank Total I
,
E, xisting
2007 $ 1096 $ 5,679 $ 6,775
Future 2017 $ 1,281 $ 6,628 $ 7,909
Future - 2057 1,356 $ 75244. $ 82597
EAD $ 1,251 S 6,505 7,755
C. PLANNING CRITERIA: OPPORTUNITIES & CONSTRA.INTS _ I
The Nvater and re[ated.land resource,prob(ems 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. Ttie planning objectives for the reconnaissance phase '
are specified beloNv:
i. NationaUFederalObjectives: . 12
1) The national or Federai objective of water and related land resources planning is to
contribute to Nationat Econamic Development (NBD) consistent with protecting the
-nation's environment, pursuant to nationat environmental statures, applicable
executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Contributions toNED are
increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in '
;
monetary units. Within the context of floading issues in the basin, NED benefits Nvould be measured by a reduction. in damagesAnd 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 restoratian, 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 Nvhen such '
components provide incidental flood risk management. 3) Addressing pub[ic safety must also be integrated into all ptans. Plans and '
alternatives will be devised in a manner which incorporates the highest degree of
safety to the public. .
, Specificto the 905(b) evaluation, the objective is to identify at least one viable.
alternative that reduces tlood risks, increases public safety and is likelyta have a
positive beneft to cost ratio. Ecosystem restoration components will be incorporated
where appropriats or when such measures would enhance flood risk management ;
actions and are cost-effective. Ecosystem restoration components could be i
incorporated into the project through setback levees and river bank enhancement. _ I
;
;
ii. LocalObjectives: A nuniber of public concerns have been identified during the course of the ~
;
reconnaissance study. Through coordination with the Puyailup River Executive Task ~
Force, a committee composed of inembers from affected cities, Pieree County, tribal
representatives and additional stakeholders, public concerns have been collected and ;
expressed. The [ocal objectives include: '
1) Identification of at least once viable alternative that will lessen the number of j
properties subject to lacal flood management ordinances and increase public safety.
2) Obtain FEMA re-certification of the levee system th.rough the National Flood
Insurance Program. . ,
iii. Piauning Constraintsc
Vnlike planning objectives that represent desired positive changes, planning constraints '
represent restr'ictions that should not be violated. 'The planning constraints identified in '
this study are as folloNvs: 1) A project must comply, to tlie 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 4he hazards and risk associated Nvith floads;
b. Minimize the impact of floods oa human safety, health and ivelfare; and
• 13
c. Restore and preserve natural flaodplain values. ;
d. Avoid inducing floodplain development unless it is the only practicabie
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 eaisting agricultural and open
space uses in rural areas to the maximum extent practicable:
i
- ~
4) The recommended praject must support Corps Environmental Operating Priuciples. j
I
,5) The study process must recagnize the special status of tribal nations and fully i
incorporate them into the planning process.
6) To the extent possible, the Corps wil( coordinate with all necessary agencies to attempt
to ensure FEMA can meet all necessary reguirements for the NatianaLOceanic ,
AUnospheric Adminis#ration's Fisheries Service's Biological Opiriion regarding FEMA's
Flood Insurance Program. ,
6. A9ternative Plans i
i
The following describes potential measures to address identifed planning objectives. A .
management measure is a feature or activity at a, site, which addresses one or more of the ~
planning objectives. Awide variety of ineasures were considered, some of Nvhich were found to ~
be potentinlly infeasible due to technica(, economic, or environmental constraints. Bach measure
was assessed and a determination was made regarding -tvhether 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 individi;al measures were
identified and evaluated they tivere combined to develop feasible alternatives. The descriptions ;
and results of the evaluations of ineasures considered in this study are presented below: '
i. Management Measures i
1) Non-Structural Measures. These actions are defined as floodplain management as i
opposed to modifications of. flotiv andlor river channel modifications. Non-structurat ,
measures include flood proofing or relocating structures and infrastructure,
implementing warning systems, performing buyouts, and Iand use regu[atians that '
implement new flood and channel migration hazacd 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 effarEs to eliminate undue risk in the floodNvay:
2) Levees/Revetments/FloodNvalls - This category includes a diverse array of opdons
from constructing new levees, to increasing the level of protection of existing levees,
14
` i
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 from Commencement Bay
to approximately 1.3 mi[es upriver are adequate and likely meet Corps criteria,
although this area Nvould be included in any feasibility modeling. This location would '
not be the primary foous for improving or building neiv levees. Improving or
constructing new levees as well as setback are currently assomcd to be most feasible
along the north bank of the PuyRllup River upstream of the Federal levees near
Commencement Bay. :
Revetments. Numerous tension cracks are currentty present along portions of the ~
existing levee. Repair and replacemenf of these revetments is a viable option to
accompany existing levee improvements. •
New levees and improvements. NeNv and improyed levees Nvould be constructed
primarily within the existing levee footprint on the rivenvard side and extending
outside the footprint on the landtvard side. This provides an affordable and adequafe
meAns of (essening flood risk. The entire extent of the levee system or only portions
cou(d serve as the subject for improvement or replacement. This measure is most ;
suitahIe to the north side of the Puyallup River. The southern bank is lined by SR-167 i
and poses feNver opportunities for levees.
~
Setback Levees. This measure Nvould provide adequate protection and lessen the ~
current constriction of the river by atlowing meandering patterns to refarm. This type I
of action not only apens ttp restricted channels but aIso restores natural floodplain
functions and processes. Setback levees could be applied to either the whole river or
portions where probable fai(ure 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 Couety's 200ft open space corridor. These levees will serve as a
component to ecosystecn restoration. LWD placement will also be incorporated with
setback Ievees to furtt►er enliance'natural habitat.
Floodwall. This measure proposes the oprion of constructing a concrete floodNvall .
along the southern bank of the Puyallup River adjacent to SR-167. This floodwall ;
could have potential right of ~yay impacts and aesthetics may be a concern. The '
floodwall could be considered on either the ryhole length of the south bank or on ;
portions ivltere risk is greatest. i
I
3) Channel Capacity Improvements. This flood risk management measure svould be ~
operative in sihiations Nvhere levee removals or setbacks are not cuerently feasible. In
constricted channel reaches, capacity improveinents may include managing ,
vegetation along levees eligi6lc under the Corps' Pub(ic LaNv 84-99 program,
removing debris, and/orconducting channel dredging.
4) Sediinent Transport. The ainount of sediment alid bedload carried by the Puyallup ;
River and tributaries is one of the highest of any watershed in Puget Sound because of '
15
the natura[ condition of the glacia) headwaters and the Osceoia mudflow. The
seditnent transporE regime for the White River, ivhich has been altered by MMD and
the PSE flo-%v diversion, may be.considere d 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 tliis problem for tributary streams incIude the constniction of sediment
control structures, controI basins, or sedvnent 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 Systein. A bypass system near the mouth of Commencement Bay would '
alleviate flooding during both frequent and infrequent events and increase the overall system capaciry. The construction of a bypass system near Commeacement Bay ivas
not considered in theReconnaissance portion of#he sfudy. A fuli analysis of the ~
potential for a bypass system will be evaluated during the feasibility phase. . ~
6} Flood Storage Dain Modifications. The Corps of Engineers operates MMD for ;
flood storage on the lower Puya[tup. Construction of new dams in the basin on the
Puyallup or Carbon Rivers and the option of increasiiig the holding capacity at MMD ,
in order to decrease the inagnitude of flooding are management measures that will be
considered during the feasibiliry phase. Per the Water Control Manual, except in
cases of extreme emergency (i.e., save the dam), MMD is regulated to Iimit outflolvs
to a maximum of 17,600 cfs. Additionally, when feasible, releases frotn ivIMD are . ;
limited to a maximum of 12,000 cfs to help reduce fload damages.along downstream , i
reaches of the White River. Lowering the discharge either permanently or ;
temporarily may not translate into substantial improvements to flood risk (
management along the [oNver 8 mile reACh of the Puyal lup River and may in fact
increase the risk of flooding in large, [ess frequent events. . While this option ivas not
evaluated at the Reconnaissance leve[, it will be given fiill analysis during the
feasibility phase.
ii. Alternative Plans
~
Preliminary plans are comprised of one or more rnanagement measures that were
considered in the initial screening. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the preliminary plans that tivere considered in this study are presented below:
_ 1) No Action. The Corps is reyuired to considerthe option of"No Action" as one of
the alternatives in orderto comply tvith the requirements ofthe National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). The no actibn alternative is the baseline against.
-vvhich all other alternatives are compared against..It is also usually synonymous to the
Without-Project Gondition. '
2) Alternatives Not Further Considered in Reconnaissance. Additional flood storage
dams and a bypass system at Coinmencement Bay ivei-e not considered dvring the
16
i
i
Reconnaissance phase, An additional flood storxge dam ivas not considered during
the reconnaissance phase beoause it fails to meet the sponsor's need of timely
implemenfation. A bypass'system Nvas 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 roanagement measures may be screened out early in the evaluation process due
to high monetary cost, length of implementation, environmental concerns, and ,
potentially insubstantia) improvements. ;
4
3) Alternatives to be,Carried Forward to Feasibility. A[I potential management ;
measures and alternatives will be given further consideration during the feasibility - !
level of the study; Nvith particular attention paid to non-struc#ural 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 Commenceinent Bay tivould atso be considered at the
feasibility levet. Levees on the north bank Nvill be evaluated in the form of setbacks '
and/or existing levee improveruents. Any setback levees would involve the removal ~
of the previously existing levee and a new footprint that would potentialty be ~
contained within the 200ft open space corridor designated by the county. Levee ;
improvements on the North bank would be considered only for areas where a risk of j
. failure of tlie eaisting levee is identified. Along #he Soath bank, a floodwall ivould i
,
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 givea further
consideration. This issae will be addressed through evaluation of possible sediment
control structures, control basins, sediment traps,.as Nve[l as the possi6ility of
dredging. Sedimentation issues will also need to be evaluated to determine the long ,
term effectiveness of other managetnent 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 compieted by the Puyallup River Task force indicates that '
~
alternatives that eniphasize sediment controi and levee enhancenient with appropriately !
placed setback levees have the greatest potential for implementadon. The potential inagnitude and types of benefts from the proposed actions would help to meet the projecYs
objective to reduce the floodplain 'sn the lower 8 mile reach of the Puyallup River. Likewise, '
environmental impacts are expected to result from various sedimenf control activity and
leyee enhancement. These activities will reyuire environmental mitigation action to restore '
and maintain suitable conditions. The reconnaissance level cost of the alternatives tivould '
meet the Corp's requirement that it is monetarily feasible for both the Corps and non-Federal
sponsor. Based on this informatiori, alternatives to address the planning objectiVes appear
viable.
I+'or thc 905(b) evaluation the Corps PDT selected aplan to show Federa[ interest
comprised of levees on the right bank and a floodivall along the left bank. This ;
17
i
i
i
~
i
i
alternative has a high level of specificity in order to gage project costs and benefits, .
would greafly reduce damages and lias a high li[celihood for fmplemenfation and
performance to reduce flood damages. A viable alternatlve exists where beuefits exceed
costs. The likely benefits, costs and environmental considerations Nvere further evaluated'to
, determine a federal interest in pursuing a cost-shared feasibility, study. Given the high level
, of detai l of the existing condition report recently completed by the County the Ieve1 of ;
anatysis is substantially_irioee than reqiiired in a 905(b) evaluation. 1fie following presenfs !
assumptions and considerations _ i
. ~
A. TECHNICAL CONSIDERATIOiVS FOR THE RECONNAISSAnCE LEVEL SE.LECTED
ALT'ERNATNE.
Technical analyses were conducted in support ofthe preliminary selected alternative for
the 905(b) evaluatian. These technical analyses provide justification for a potentially ;
viable solution and thus a federal interest to proceed to feasibility. The techniaal analyses
are conducted for an assamed project life of 50 years beginning in 2008. Summaries for !
~
niultiple technical aspects of the preliminary plans are provided below. j
I
1) HYDROLOGY AiYD HYDRAULICS. A draft `without-project' rsport (Lower Puyalfup (
River Flood investigation, 2008) has been prepared by Pierce County detailing,
flooding issues along the lower Puyallup River..This study investigated the
hydralogy, hydratilics, an_d levee conditions along the lower river both currently and I.
tivith the anticipated level of channel sedimentation ia 2057. ~
For the hydrology & Hydraulics needs relative to the scope of this 905(b) document,
. information from the Pierce County report Avas used'to estimate how much the left
and right bank levees and floodwall Nvould 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 poticy caUs for levee elevations to be j
determined based on a risk and imcertainty approach. Nowever, giventhe Iimited
scope of this 905(b) effort, a freeboard approach was taken. An evaluation using risk ~
and uncertainty wiIl be conducted during feasibility. As the required levee elevatian
~
increases were not uniform along the reach, -vveighted average levee elevation
increases were coinputed for both the left and right banks. The weighting is based on i
the linear length requiring increased height. Water surface profile calculations were
based on an `infinite levee' or `glass wall' scenario where alt the Nvater is assumed ta
be contained in the main channef. This allows for determination of with-project levee '
elevations. ~
The weighted average increases in elevation for the Puyallup levees and floodNvall are
2.1 feet for the left side and 1.9 feet for the right side (these are munded up slightly
~ fi•om the actual calculated values). The total linear distance reyuiring elevation
increases is approximately 30,000-feet for both sides. The steps in the calculation are
as follows: 1. The 100-year Nvater surface e(evations were campiled from Noithwest
18
~
.
Hydraulic Company's (NHC) model run using the 2057 bed elevation and the
~ 'infnite' levee channel configuiation. This condition is needed to contain floNv to ;
.
• the desired footprint of a flood risk management study to determine required ~
elevations.
2. The Nvater surfRCe profile discussed above was compared with the actual Ieft
and right top of existing [evee elevations at each cross section. Locations wHere
there are less than 3ft of freeboard were noted. Ttie additional height required to
obtain 3ft of freeboard at deficient locations ivas coinputed. If a Iocation already
had 3ft of freeboard then the additional height value Nvas entered as zero for the '
purposes of averaging. . ;
3. The distances behveen cross sections were computed over the reach where '
levee elevations are defcient. A left and right bank tofal distance Nvas computed. ;
At sub-reaches where the freeboard was greater than 3ft the distance of the sub=: :
reach Nvas.subtrzcted out of the total distance to obtain a measure of the distance
reyuiring levee elevation increases. The fi-action of the totai 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 Nvere
averaged betiveen cross sections. - ,
~
` 5. The average required height increase betxveen individual cross sections ivere ~
weighted by multiplying the average by the fraction ofthe total distance requiring ~
height increases (from No. 3). ~
6. The left and right individual cross section to cross section averages witl~ ~
weightings,were summed to obtain a single left and right weighted average levee
height increase.
This analysis only looked at levee and floodNvall elevation increases. Some other \
cansiderations include:
Union Pacific Railroad BridZg. One assumption made for the 2057 water surface 'prof le is that some hydraulic impacts of the Union Pacific Railroad bridge were not
considered for the reconnaissance analysis. Apparently tlie 2057 water.surface ,
impinges on the lo-vv ch. ord of the bridge, resulting in higher Nvater surface etevations,
which wouId 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 cnd of
the project life, it was not addressed at this level of study.
Existing~Levee Condition. For the reconnaissance arialysis, levee iraprovements Nvere
limited to raising low points on the levees. In feasibility, other potentia) 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 eittirely replaced in orderfo be federally
certified.
19
` I
;
Interior Drainage. Interior drainage of Nvater landNvard of the levees Nvould need to be
addressed.
, 2) CIVIL ENGINEERING. The `without-projecN report (Lotiver Puyallup River,
Plood Investigation, 2008) prepared by Pierce County was used to assist in ;
devetoping the Civil engineering assumptions and estimates and to develop the j
quantities used to assist in estimafing 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. A[I of the Civil engineering
assumptioiis and this analysis would be re-evaluated during the feasibility phase of
the project. '
General
The totaI 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 ofthe levee on both the right bank and left j
bank ofthe lo-sver 8 mile study area will need to be raised in elevation. Based on ~
H&H informatioi~, no levee height increases are needed downstream from ~
approximately river mile 1.82. Weighted averages as described above in the ~
Hydrology and Hydraulics section Nvere used for determining levee height increases
and estimated qiiantity calculation purposes. The existing leyee material is assumed ~
to be suitable for reuse. The existing rivenvard bank protection and levee toe are E
assumed to be intact, in goad condition, and are assumed to not need any additional ~
work. The levee raise and floodivall sections described beloiv do not provide for a setback or any other mitigation or restoration features. Interior drainage reguireinents
are not included at this stage. Geotechnical considerationslconstraints due to seepage, ;
slope stability analysis, probable failure points, etc... will need to be addressed
furttier later in the study. , i
i
Ri ht~Bank I
For the right bank analysis, two reaches Nvere used to deftne the area for purposes of determining a typical levee raise section for each reach. Reach l is defined as the !
doNvnstream levee section on the right hank starting at approximately River Mile ~
(RM) 3.33 and extending downstream. T'he top width of the levee throughout Reach ;
I is approximately 30 feet Nvide. The eaisting levee.slopes are appibaimatety 2 J
horizontal to l vertical. The average land-side vertical height of tfie existing levee is i
approximateiy ? feet from the levee toe to the top of the levee. The top of the right ~
bank levee surface within Reach l is approximately 0:83 miles offivo lane asphalt ~
road and approximately 0.68 miles of rivo lane gravei road. The estimateci distances ;
for levee surface materials were based on aerial photos:
Reach 2 is defined as the upstream levee sectiai on the right bank starting at
approximately RM 3.33 and extending upstream to tlie project shidy limits on the
right Uank. The top width of the levee throughaut Reach 2 is approaimately 24 feet
wide. The existing levee slopes are approximately 2 horizontal ta 1 vertical. The
20
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 approaimatety 4:17 miles of rivo lane asphalt road. The estunated distance of fhe "
hvo lane asphalt road levee top surfacing Nvas based on aerial photos. '
Left ank
For the left bank analysis, it was assumed that Highivay 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 behveen the river and the
highway, so the left bank flood proteciion is assumed to be a flood wall. Tlie average
height of the floodwall is assumed to be approximatety 12 feet high. The:estimated i
height required for the floodtyafl 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 wi[1 be required within the concrete walL 3.) REAL ESTATE. The non-fedecal sponsor for the feasibility phase of this project
is Pierce County. The loNver 8 miles of the Puyallup River area is a mix of public
anc) private ownerships. Rublic owners include Pierce County, City of Tacoma, and ;
City ofFife. The land use in this area and the approximate cost of land is summarized
in Table 4 below. '
~
Table 4 ~
Rcal Estate Land and A roximate Costs
Land A roximate Cost
Industrial I,and $7/sf to $131sf
Residential Land $5/sf to $10/sf Agricultural7Resource $0.20/sf to $3/sf
Land
Commercial Land $10/sfto $25/sf i
,
This information is intended to provide support for canstruction and subsequent ~
operation and maintenance for fhe currenfly proposed flood risk management stddy. _
Tlie non-federal sponsor will need to acquire and demonstrate to the. satisfaction of
the Corps tliat it holds or controls sufricient real estate property interests and area in
the lands needed. At a minimum, perpetual flood protection easements, ternporary
work areas, and disposal sites are needed for the proposed, project; hoNvever, for the
proposed preliminary alternative, if the floodNvall is placed within the right-of-way of
the sfate highway, it is not likelythat the State of Washington, Department of
Transportation (WSDO'I) is willing or able to grant.to the non-federal spoiisor the
standard flood protection levee easement. During the feasibiIity phase, the Corps will
need to fiFrther investigate what the WSDOT is willing and able to grant, including
time and process to coinplete the acquisition, For purposes of the 905(b).evaluation a
cost per sf of $15 Nvas used in conjunction ~vith the foot print of 690,000 sf for both
. the left and right bank to arrive af 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 reyuirement 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 estiinated at $20,700,000. The total implementation cost forthe
project is $73,137;599 This Current Working Estimate is for the proposed preliminary plan h
a concrete retaining ('I) wall ori.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 Summarized Im IementationCost_Casts
Item or Work For - Totstl Cost
11%fobilization Demobilization and Pre arator Work 461,401
Ri ht Bank Stabiiization 10,037,562
Lefl Bank u rade 24,640,717 ~
Construc#ion Contrnct Cost 35,139,680
- Escalation 0
Contingency(30%) 4,249,622.
Supervision and Overhead 3,008,425
EDC 3,091,884
Owner Gost's 17,297,919
Real Estate $28 700 000 ;
i
Tata1 Im lementation Cost 51,437,599
For the level of ana(ysis required 905(b) report, a full cost estimate is not provided. '
Severa[ items have been excluded from the cost estimate due to high variability. No ~
mitigation costs have been inctuded for this phase of the study. A cost estimate for ~
mitigation efforts ivill be provided once specific information is known regarding the i
study area and alternatives. Additionally, no estimate for compensation due to j
induced flooding is estimafed. AII costs, including mitigation, will be detennined
during the feasibiliiy phase of the study oizce a ful[ assessment is performed.
5) BENEFITS ANID COSTS. i
Project benefits are measured ;as contributions to Nationa[ Economic Development. i
Within the context of floading issues in the basin, NED benefits are measured by .
redaction in damages and impacts related to without project condition flooding w'ith
project condition flooding. This reduction in damages are referred to as project
benefits. The beneft fgure is typically presented in annual figttres and i-eflects
conditions over the 50 year project life. The anraialized bcnefit figure is then
compared to annaalized project costs to determine ivhether benefits oiitweigh costs.
22 '
,
Table 6 shoiVs 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
Dama es Reduced '
Assume Benefts - Damages Reduced by 90%
$1 000's last tr 2008 rices -
Left Bank Ri ht Bank Total
Without Pro'ect AAD $1 251 $6,505 $ 7 755
Wifh Pro ect AAD $125 $650 $776
Dama es Reduced $126 $5 854 $6980 i
Table 7 shows the cost estimates, including Construction, Interest during
Construction (IDC), Rea[ Esfate, and Operation and Maint.e.nance (O&1VI) to increa.se_
the levee and floodwall height. The O&M estimate is, based on the current budget of
$140,000 for approximate(y 10,560 feet or about $13.26 per foot annually. The new ;
levee is approximately 30,004 feet so the O&M estiiiate is estimated to be !
approximately $400,000 annually. IDC is the opporiunity cost of the funds tied up j
during the constntction period before the benefits of the project can start to accrue. i
The opportunity cost is by conventian considered to be approximated by the federal i
interest:rate over half of the constniction period of rivo years. Ths interest for one
year of $27.1 million of construction costs is approximately $1.2 inillion at the
current federal interest rate of 4.625%. ~I
Table 7 ~
Avera e Annual Cost_ 1
Average Annual Costs to Increase Levee and Floodwatl Height i
- $1 000' last rtr 2008 rices
Constraction Cost $52 400
Inferest Durin Construction (IDC) $1200: ~
Real Estate Ac uisitian $20 700. ~
i
Total Consfruction $74,300
Interest and Amortization 50 ears 4.625% $3 836
O&M $400
Total Avera e AnauaTCosts $4,0001
We saw previously in Tab[e 6 thatthe present value of Average Annual Benefits (AAD '
reduced) are approaimately $6.9 million and from Table 7 above that the Average Annual '
Costs are estimated at $4 million. The resulting Beneft/Cost ratio is 1:7. This analysis
shows that it is highly probable that a project can be designed and constructe.ci that '
produces benefits significantly greater than the costs; a fayorable benefit to cost ratio
greater than ane and thus a favorable pre[iminary alternative proposed in this
reconnaissance analysis.
23
G) ENVIItONNiCNTAL RESOURCES.
;
, The ecology of the study area is a combinatiorr 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 atea and the potential impacts that may be incurred ,
from a flood risk management project.
Listed Threatened and Endan e~ red Species. There are severat listed species inthe
general project area as shown in Table 7. !
;
Table 7
Threatened and Endan ered S ecies in the Pro'ectArea
Species Listing Status Critical.Habitat '
Coastal/Puget Sound bull trout Threatened Designated
Salvelintts cof7fluenttrs i
Marbled murrelet Threatened Designated-not in project i
13rachprantphtts nrarmoralus area '
Puget Sound Chinook salmon Threatened Designated
Orrco)hynchus 1shmVy1sc)tn
Puget Sound steelhead Threatened j
Oncorh nclnts nr kiss . • i
Southern resident killer Nvhale Endangered Designated ~
Orcinus orca
Stel]er sea.lion Threatened Designated-not in project
Eumeto ins 'trbaltrs area Humpback whale Endangered
Me a tera irovneail liae i
Leatherback sea turtle Endangered Designated-not in project ~
Dernioclrel ~s corincea . area ~
Ki11er whales, Steller sea lions, humpback whales, and leatherback sea turtles,are not
expected to be in the Puya}lup River. Therefore, the project -vvould likelynot affect
the§e species. Critical habitat has been designated for Chinook and bu[I trovt within
the project area. i
Fish. Further degradation of habitat #o anadromous salmonid species due. to in-tivater.
Nvork and possible vegetation removal in the project area wouid occdr Nvith the selected alternative. Conservation measures would, most likcly include limiting
construction activities to approved Nvork windaws, planting of willows along levees
and L.WD placement ta enhance natural habitat. Use of setback levees along the ;
north side of the river would alloNv riparian hahitat to remain in relatively good
condition, .
Birds. Consiruction activities tiVould have minimal, if any, effect on marbled
murrelets; their utilization of the area is low.
24
Althaugh the bald eagle was delisted on June 28, 2007, they continue to be protected ;
by the MigratoryBird Treaty Act and the Bald and Golden Eagle Protecrion Act.
These acts require some measures to continue to prevenf bald eagle "take" resuIting
fi•om human activities. Additional guidance regarding these requirements is available
_ af the time of this Nvriting from http://Nvtivw.fivs.govlmidivest/eagle. .
Water Quality:ln order to minimiae effects to %vater qualitv, Best Mana eg ment j
Practices will be imQlernented. Best Management P-ractices would include equipment
maintenance, a spilt prevention plan, and a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP). Placement of any rock Nvould be done individually (that is, no end- dumping of rock from truclcs into the water). Mitigation would, most likely, inc[ude ;
water quality manitoring during constrUCtion and.implementation of Best j
Management Practices.
Riparian Habitat. The riparian habitat located within the project area would be further
degraded by the project due to vegetation removal. HaNvever, tivitl2 the planting of
willows and other native species a(ong the levees; the negative effect on the riparian j
zone Nvould be minimal, if not enhanced. Vegetated setback levee areas on the north i
side of the river Nvould provide relatively good riparian conditions. ~
Wetlands. There aie several areas designated as rve#lands in the study area that vary
in leyel of classification. Some ofthese rvetlands have atready been degraded due to
previous development. There is a potential that levee NVork and construction of a ;
floodwall could result in unavoidable impacts. Mitigation actions will be required in ;
i.
order to offset the effects of construction.
~
8. Fedee•alInterest. ;
;
The anticipated with-project condition for the Payallup Riyer basin includes reduced flood '
damages and a lowered risk to public health and safety. Leveraging Corps.resources with the ~
local jurisdictians' efforts will substantially aid in protection of critical infrastructure and I
existing urban development. By addressing the state ofthe current levee system and comhining inew flood risk management methods, it is likely that the Corps and the local jurisdictions can ;efficiently address. prohtematic flooding issues and help to recertify the levee system and protect ;
existing infrastruchire. Implementation of flood risk management measures to the lawer 8 mile
reacli of the PLEyal lup River is likely to decrease the current risk of flooding as well as the
recertification issues surrounding tlze current levee system. i
The federa( intecest 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 tfie bestplan to recommend is the
• purpose of the feasibility study. This study evaluated the simplest of the potential plans, caising,
the levee height and floodwaII, to determine if there is a federal interest in pursuing a feasibility
study.
25
Since flood risk management is an output with high budget priority and because flood risk
management is the primaryoutput ofthe alfernatives to be evaluated in the feasibility phase,
there is a strong Federal intetest in conducting tfie feasibility study. There is also aFederal
interest in other related outputs of the alternatives; including ecosystem restoration that coald be
developed within existing policy. Based on the preliminary screening of alternatives, there
appears to be at Ieast one potential project alternatives that would be consistent with Army policies, costs, benefits, and environmental impacts. These additional factors contribute ta 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 tivatershed.
I
9. PRE, LIMINARY FINANCIAL ANALYSI5
, As the local sponsor, Pierce Counry will be required to provide 50 percent ofthe cost ofthe
feasibility phase. The local sponsor is also aware ofthe cost sharing requirements for potentia! ;
project imple~nentation. A letter of intent from the local sponsor stating a wiilingness to pursue !
the feasibility study and to share in its cost, and an understanding of the cost sharing that is i
required for project construction is included in Appendix A. '
10. ASSVMPTIONS AND EXCEPTIONS ;
i
a. Feasi6ility Phase Assumptions: The following critical assumptioris will provide a basis
for the feasibility study: ~
1) The Iife of the proposed flood risk manageinent project is considered 50 years for ;
the basis of economic, environmental, and benefits analys'ts.
2) The area being evaluated for fiood risk management consists of the lotver 8 mile
reach of the Puyallup River. Both the north and south ban[cs ivi[l be ana[yzed and ~
addressed for the purpose of this project. !
3} The feasibitity phase will focus the analysis of atternatives on providing a flood
risk management solution that is economically, culfurally, and socially acceptable and
can be engineered tivith minimal residual risk to public safety, i
~
b. Policy Eaceptions.and Streamlining Initiatives: The 5fudy, wiU be conducted in
accordance with the Principles and Guidelines and the Corps of Engineers regulations. !
EYCeptions to establislied guidance have been identified that +vill stream(ine the j
feasibility study process that will not adversely impact the quality of the feasibility study. ~
Approval of the Section905(b) Analysis by the MSG results inthe approval of the
following policy excepfions and streamlining initiaEives:
1) A report compiled by Tetra Tech Infrastrticture Group entitled Pierce County
i
Lower Puyallup River Flood Protection Investigation, Without-Project Analysis,
26
served as a primary resource for the 905(6) analysis. This report was not technically
revicwed by the Corps prior to the 905(6) pubIication 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 fonvard to the Feasibility Phase,
,
11. FEASIBILITY PHASE MILESTONES
Milestone Description Duration* Cumulative (months) '
months
Milestone F1 Initial Stud 0 0.
Milestone F2 Public Worksho /Sco in 2 2
Milestone F3 Feasibili Sco in Meefin 11 15
Milestone F4 Alternative Review Conference 9 22 '
~
Milestone F4A Alternative Formulation Briefn 5 27
Milestone FS: Draft Feasibili Re ort 3 30 ~
Milestone F6 Final Public Meetin ' t 31
Mi(estoue F7 Feasibilit RevieNv Conference I 32 Milestone F8 Fina! Re ort to SPD 3 35_ Milestone F9 DE's Public Notice 1 36 '
- Chief s Re ort 4 44 i
- Pro'ect Authorization 4 _ 44 j
*Ditration subject to_annual federaVnon-federal funding limits. I.
12. FEASIBILITY PHASE COST ESTIMATE
MAJOR WORK ITEMS TUTAL STUDY GUST.
Surve s and Ma in exce f Real Estate $680 000
H drolo and H drautics Studies/Re ort $500 000 j
Geotechnical Studies/Re ort $300 400 ' i
En ineerin and Desi nAnal sis Re rt $300 OQ4
Economic & Socioecanomic: Studies $200 000
ReaI Estate Re ort $200 000
Environmental Studies/Re ort $200 000
Environmental Com Ilance $200 000
HTRW Investi ations/Re ort $150,000
Cultural Resources Studies $250 000
. ~
Cosf Estimatin $50,000
- -
Public Involvement $100 000 '
Plan Formulation and Evaluation $200 000
Finai Re ort Documentation $100 400
Technical Review $50 000
Washin ton Level Re ori A raval Review $50,000
27
Su ort
Pro'ect Mana ement and Bud et Documents $150,000
Su ervision and Administration $200 000
Contin encies. $200 000
Pro'ect Mana ement Plan $50 000 -
PED Cost Sharin A eement . $50 000 '
TOTAL 4100 000
Cost estimates will be refined throughout the feasibility study to reflec# any changes in study
scope: Changes will require concurrence by the non-federal sponsor and the Carps. ;
13. VIEVVS OF OTHER RESOURCE AGENCIES AND Ei NTITIES Because of the fiinding Rnd time constraints of the reconnaissance phase, only limited and ~
informal coardination has been condi[cted with other resource agencies and entities. Viervs that
have been expressed are as fotlows:
a. WSDOT has a strong vested interest in the development af this project due to the
impact on various transportation infrastructures including SR 167. There is also a potential impact on bridges in the areathat will need to be addressed and coordinated '
witli Washington State Department ofTransportation (WSDOT). ~
i
;
b,Washington.Department ofNatural Resources (WDNR) involvement may be necessary '
in the development of alternatives it'dredging is given fiirther consideration as.a viable ,
,
alternative. '
C. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and National Marine Fisheries j
Service (NMFS) coordination (or formal consaltation if needed) will occur during the !
feasibility phase to ensure compliance with the Endangered Species Act and USFW i
Coordination Act. d. CooTdination with the Puyaltup Tribcs will be necessary:due to land osvnership and
environm'ental 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 coardination is needed. with Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife ,
(WDFW), Washington Department of Ecology (WDE), andNative American #ribes. '
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. Burlingtan Northern Railroad owns and operates a raiiroad bridgethat crosses the
Puyallup river within tiie sfudy area. The poteiitial 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 feasibitity phase is contingent upon an
executed Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (F.CSA)._ Failure to achieve an execufed FCSA withim 18 inonths of the approval date of the SecNon 905(b) Analysis will result in '
termination of the study. Issues that could impact the initiatian of the feasibility phase .
include availabiliry of resources/funding and non-Federal sponsor approval.
b. The schedule for signing the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement is August 2009. i
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
;
I recommend, subject to the avaitability of fiEnds, that the Puyallup River study proceed into the
feasibility phase.. '
. ' . i
i
Date Anthoiry O. Wright
. Colonel
Corps of Engineers
District Engineer - i
~
~
,
Appendix A .
Sponsor Letter of Intent
-
I
i
i
~
I
,
29