Community Technical Group Meeting 7. Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2016

Transcription

1 Community Technical Group Meeting 7 Wednesday, Feb. 24, 2016

2 Meeting Overview Finalize edits to the proposed vegetation management strategy Learn about and discuss relevant River Capital Improvements and how they relate to the SWIF Plan

3 CTG Ground Rules Treat one another with civility Respect each other s perspectives Listen and participate actively Honor each other s time by being succinct and to the point Express yourself in terms of your needs and interests and the outcomes you wish to achieve Silence electronic devices during meetings

4 LEVEE GENERAL INVESTIGATION

5 Puy allu p Rive

6 Study Background Flood Risk Management Study Study Goal: Identify Flood Risk Management Plan that Reasonable Maximizes National Economic Development Benefits and Reduces Life Safety Risk GI Study Agreement Executed September 2010 Study Drivers: Flood Events and Sedimentation Study Transitioned to SMART Planning December 2012

7 Study Funding Stakeholders US Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District Pierce County Puyallup Tribe of Indians WSDOT Port of Tacoma City of Tacoma City of Auburn City of Fife City of Puyallup City of Fife City of Sumner City of Orting City of Pacific

8 Study Area

9 Project Area

10 Completed Tasks Initial Planning Steps: Problems, Opportunities, Constraints Existing Conditions Defined Hydrology and Hydraulic Modeling Existing Conditions Identified Measures and Alternatives Risk Evaluation: Levee Fragility, Inundation Mapping, Economic Analysis Screening and Evaluation for Array of Alternative No Action Levee Modifications Levee Modifications & Sediment Management

11 Near Term Next Steps Finalize Draft Feasibility Report and EIS Tentative Selected Plan Milestone (Early March 2016) Concurrent Reviews Public Comment (Anticipated End of March/Early April) Public Meeting (Anticipated Mid April) Agency Technical Review Independent External Peer Review HQ s Legal and Policy

12 Overall Study Process

13 Anticipated Overall Schedule To Complete Milestone Anticipated Schedule TSP Milestone Early March 2016 Agency Decision Milestone June/July 2016 Civil Works Review Board Milestone July 2017 Chief s Report Milestone September 2017

14 Randy Brake Surface Water Management Questions?

15 COUNTYLINE SETBACK PROJECT

16 Countyline and Pacific Right Bank Levee Setback Projects Pierce County SWIF Stakeholders Meeting February 24, 2016

17 PROJECT AREAS King County FCD Levee Setback Projects

18 January 2009 Flood Pacific Park White River Estates (Pacific) 8 th Street /Stewart Road

19 White River at Countyline Sediment Deposition and loss of Channel Conveyance (Average rates between A St. and 8 th St.) 7,500 cfs in years remaining 16,000 cfs in (7 years) 1.7 feet (2.9 in/yr) (6 years) 1.4 feet (2.8 in/yr) (16 years) 2.3 feet (1.7 in/yr) 5.4 feet in 29 years Conveyance capacity Rate of channel filling

20 Countyline and Pacific Right Bank Project Goals Prevent the increase of flood hazards Restore the natural processes (salmonid rearing habitats) Cost Effectiveness Biorevetment Buffer Setback Levee

21 Countyline Third Ave. SE Project Elements Union Pacific RR Pacific Sumner King Co. Pierce Co. BNSF RR A St. SE 6,000 LF setback levee Stewart Rd. (8 th St. E)

22 Countyline Third Ave. SE Project Elements Union Pacific RR Pacific Sumner King Co. Pierce Co. BNSF RR A St. SE 6,000 LF setback levee 5,000 LF biorevetment Engineered Log Jams Stewart Rd. (8 th St. E)

23 Countyline Project Third Ave. SE Elements Union Pacific RR Pacific Sumner King Co. Pierce Co. BNSF RR A St. SE 6,000 LF setback levee 5,000 LF biorevetment Engineered Log Jams 4,500 LF levee removal Stewart Rd. (8 th St. E)

24 Countyline Project Third Ave. SE Elements Union Pacific RR Pacific Stewart Rd. (8 th St. E) Sumner King Co. Pierce Co. BNSF RR A St. SE 6,000 LF setback levee 5,000 LF biorevetment Engineered Log Jams 4,500 LF levee removal 850 LF resurfacing remaining levee Reestablish 18 acres of riparian buffer Reconnects 121 acres of floodplain

25 Countyline Project Funding Funding Dollars in millions King County Flood Control District $ 12.2 Natural Resources Damage Assessment (NRDA) Parties Salmon Recovery Funding Board Grant $ $ Pierce County $ Estimated project cost at completion = $18.3 M

26 Countyline Project Coordination NRDA Parties and Trustees (Thea Foss Waterway) Nearly 60 Parties as signatories to settlement Negotiated agreement with NRDA Trustees (NOAA, USFWS, US Dept. of Int., Puyallup & Muckleshoot Tribes, WDOE) KC FCD, King County and NRDA Funding Agreement Executed June 2015 Specific environmental requirements Legal limits on future use of Project properties BNSF Coordination (Land acquisition, construction coordination)

27 Countyline Project Milestones February 100 % Plans and Specifications March/April Advertise / Award construction contract May Start construction 2016 and 2017 construction duration December 2017 Substantial Earthwork Complete Revegetation winter 2017 Post project monitoring (10 yr )

28 Pacific Right Bank Levee Setback Project Area

29 Right Bank Pacific Major Milestones 2015 /2016 Feasibility Studies Site Investigations Public involvement Opportunity acquisitions 2017 Development of alternatives Selection of preferred alternative Preliminary Engineering Design and permitting Continue acquisitions 2018 / 2019 Multi Year construction Estimated total project cost at completion $25 $30 M

30 Jeanne Stypula, Supervising Engineer King County River and Floodplain Management (206)

31 SETBACK FEASIBILITY PROGRAM

32 Floodplain Reconnection Prioritization Mary Ann Reinhart, P.G. Senior Geomorphologist Natural Systems Design Tim Abbe, P.E.G., P.H.G. Principal Geomorphologist Natural Systems Design Tom Nelson Habitat Biologist Pierce County Public Works

33 2008 LEVEE SETBACK FEASIBILIT Y STUDY Focused on a multicriteria evaluation of 32 sites Criteria drawn from 6 major factors: 1) floodplain reconnection 2) geomorphic processes 3) flood storage 4) habitat 5) project costs 6) land availability Each factor was factor was comprised of 2 or more objective criteria. 33

34 2014 CRITERIA DRAMATICALLY REDUCED CRITERIA: Reconnection / Flood Storage Floodplain inundation at 2 yr. event* FP storage - 25, 50 & 100 events* Geomorphic Process & Features Channel Migration Potential* Connection with FP Features* Potential Fish Use Site Clustering

35 Site Name / Objective Site # River System 2014 Overall Rank 2008 Overall Rank 116th Reconnection 10 Puyallup 1 13 Upper Puyallup Confluence 13 Puyallup th Ave downstream 19 Puyallup 3 3 Horse Haven 15 Puyallup 4 17 Countyline site 32 White 5 4 Canyon Falls Creek 11 Puyallup 6 20 McCutcheon Rd & 128th 12 Puyallup 7 26 Right Bank Carbon 22 Carbon 8 27 Bridge Street 24 Carbon 9 16 Pacific Park 31 White West Setback 25 Carbon 11 9 Alward Road 26 Carbon 12 6 South Fork 14 Puyallup th Street 16 Puyallup 14 4 White & Puyallup Confluence 03 Puyallup Union Pacific Setback 01 Puyallup 16 7 Calistoga 18 Puyallup 17 2 High School 23 Carbon Freeman Oxbow Wetland 02 Puyallup th Ave upstream 20 Puyallup Sportsman Reconnection 08 Puyallup Gratzer Ave NE HCOT 17 Puyallup 22 8 Fennel Creek 09 Puyallup Sumner Setback 05 Puyallup Golf Course Oxbow Setback 04 Puyallup Carbon Confluence 21 Carbon Riverside Park 07 Puyallup th St E Setback (B) 29 White 28 9 Riverside Dr 06 Puyallup Pacific Pointbar 30 White th St E Pointbar 28 White Interurban-White Site 27 White 32 31

36 2008/2014 PRIORITY SITES COMPARED Same 32 sites Same site dimensions 6/25/

37 2014 CRITERIA BIG DIFFERENCES The 2014 study did away with the 2008 normalization. Size now matters. Bigger project = higher priority. The 2014 approach eliminated the Project Costs and Land Availability score. Other difference makers: availability of new 2010 Lidar, site reviews by multi disciplinary technical group, geomorphic river bed changes from the 2009 flood, addition of a cluster score.

38 Example Scenario: High vs. Low floodplain reconnection Site 7 Riverside Park High floodplain Excavation required revetment Site 12 McCutcheon & 128th Site 13 Upper Puyallup Confluence Low floodplain levee No excavation

39 2014 FLOODPLAIN RECONNECTION 116th South Fork

40 #1 PROJECT IN 2008 PRIORITIZATION: SOUTH FORK PUYALLUP SITE Required channel excavation of 75,000 CY Total Project Cost = $ 3,931, /2/2016

41 UPPER PUYALLUP CONFLUENCE SITE 13 AND MCCUTHCHEON RD & 128 TH SITE # RANK 2 AND setback levee line Site 13 Site 12 3/2/2016 Lidar 41

42 CLUSTERED SITES river miles, 301 acres New side channel Q2 inundation: potential (mi) Site Acres no excav. w/ excav > ~0.6 > ~0.2 > ~0.8 > ~0.7 >1.0 Total > yr. flood inundation (hactured) Historic channel migration zone (blue) Electron mudflow (550 yrs. ago) (pink) Crossings such as 128 th Ave limit channel migration, floodplain formation and flood storage

43 2014 FLOODPLAIN RECONNECTION Cluster sites 116th South Fork

44 LESSONS LEARNED 9 of 32 sites compromised by development Real estate costs only increase with time - purchase sooner rather than later Prioritize based on how well available sites achieve restoration goals Bridges & pipelines that constrain a river will be longterm barriers to achieving goals Crossing improvements should be included in prioritization

45 LESSONS LEARNED with respect to reconnection projects, fish habitat and flood protection go hand in hand. Updates are good, help to refocus and keep people involved. Need to increase study scope. Neadham, Orville Road, Clear Creek Projects are unranked.

46 QUESTIONS? Floodplain connection and processes Fish habitat Flood storage We re all connected

47 FLOOD HAZARD MANAGEMENT PLAN LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS

48 Upcoming Meetings Community Technical Group Meeting #8 Wednesday, March 16, :00 4:00 p.m. Community Technical Group Meeting #9 Wednesday, March 23, :00 4:00 p.m.

49 Public Comment

50 Thank you!