King Countyaqua.kingcounty.gov/Council/agendas/Flood_Board/20171009-FCD... · programmatic environmental impact statement on the Lower Green River Corridor ... WRIA 8, spoke. Karen

King County Flood Control District

King County

Meeting Agenda

1200 King County Courthouse

516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

Boardmembers: Reagan Dunn, Chair; Dave Upthegrove, Vice Chair; Claudia Balducci, Rod Dembowski, Larry Gossett, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Kathy Lambert, Joe McDermott, Pete von Reichbauer

Room 1001 1:30 PM Monday, October 9, 2017

Call to Order1.

Roll Call2.

Approval of Minutes of August 21, 20173.

Discussion and Possible Action

4. Substitute FCD Resolution No. FCD2017-06.2

A RESOLUTION authorizing the chair to enter into a contract for professional services to prepare aprogrammatic environmental impact statement on the Lower Green River Corridor Plan.

Other Business5.

Adjournment6.

Printed on 10/4/2017 Page 1 King County

King County Flood Control District October 9, 2017 1

pgs 3-6

pgs 7-39

[Blank Page]


1200 King County Courthouse

516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

King County

Meeting Minutes King County Flood Control District

Boardmembers: Reagan Dunn, Chair; Dave Upthegrove, Vice Chair; Claudia Balducci, Rod Dembowski,

Larry Gossett, Jeanne Kohl-Welles, Kathy Lambert, Joe McDermott, Pete von Reichbauer

1:30 PM Room 1001 Monday, August 21, 2017

SPECIAL MEETING -draft minutes-

Call to Order 1. The meeting was called to order at 2:10 p.m.

Roll Call 2. Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Upthegrove and Mr. von Reichbauer

Present: 7 -

Ms. Balducci and Mr. Dunn Excused: 2 -

Approval of Minutes of May 22, 2017 3. Boardmember Gossett moved to approve the minutes of May 22, 2107 meeting as presented. Seeing no objection, the Chair so ordered.

Discussion and Possible Action

4. FCD Resolution No. FCD2017-02

A RESOLUTION relating to the operations and finances of the King County Flood Control Zone District; adopting a revised 2017 budget, district oversight budget, capital budget, six-year capital improvement program for 2017-2022; and amending Resolution FCD2016-20.3.

On 8/21/2017, a public hearing was held and closed.

Michelle Clark, Executive Director, summarized her staff report. Boardmember Gossett moved striking amendment S1. The motion carried. Janne Kaje, Snoqualmie Watershed Coordinator, Water and Land Resources Division, answered questions.

A motion was made by Boardmember Gossett that this FCD Resolution be Passed as Amended. The motion carried by the following vote:

Yes: Mr. Dembowski, Mr. Gossett, Ms. Kohl-Welles, Ms. Lambert, Mr. McDermott, Mr. Upthegrove and Mr. von Reichbauer

7 -

Excused: Ms. Balducci and Mr. Dunn 2 -

Page 1 King County


August 21, 2017 King County Flood Control District Meeting Minutes


A RESOLUTION relating to the organization of the King County Flood Control Zone District; approving a fourth contract amendment for government relations services; and authorizing the chair to execute the amendment.

Michelle Clark, Executive Director, summarized her staff report.

A motion was made by Boardmember Gossett that this FCD Resolution be Passed. The motion carried by the following vote:


7 -



A RESOLUTION relating to the operations and finances of the King County Flood Control Zone District; authorizing the expenditure of District funds for projects and activities in Water Resource Inventory Areas 7 (Snoqualmie Watershed portion) 8, 9 and 10 (King County portion).

Beth le Doux, WRIA 7, spoke. Jason Wilkinson, WRIA 8, spoke. Karen Bergeron, WRIA 9, spoke. Stephanie Shelton, WRIA 10, spoke. Ms. le Doux, answered questions of the Board.



7 -


Page 2 King County


August 21, 2017 King County Flood Control District Meeting Minutes


A RESOLUTION relating to the operations and finances of the King County Flood Control Zone District; authorizing the expenditure of District funds for projects and activities in accordance with the Flood Reduction Grants.

Michelle Clark, Executive Director, summarized her staff report.



7 -


Adjournment 8. The meeting was adjourned at 2:55 p.m.

Approved this _____________ day of _________________

Clerk's Signature

Page 3 King County


[Blank Page]


KING COUNTY

Signature Report

October 2, 2017

1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104

FCD Resolution

Proposed No. FCD2017-06.2 Sponsors

1

A RESOLUTION authorizing the chair to enter into a 1

contract for professional services to prepare a 2

programmatic environmental impact statement on the 3

Lower Green River Corridor Plan. 4

WHEREAS, Resolution 2016-05.2 expressed the District's desire to move 5

forward with a Lower Green River Corridor Plan and State Environmental Policy Act 6

programmatic environmental impact statement, and 7

WHEREAS, the District advertised In December 2016 to solicit proposals from 8

qualified consulting firms to prepare a programmatic environmental impact statement on 9

the Lower Green River Corridor Plan, and 10

WHEREAS, the Executive Committee interviewed responding firms on February 11

27, 2017, and the Executive Director in consultation with the Executive Committee 12

selected Environmental Science Associates as the firm with whom to negotiate a scope of 13

work and budget, and 14

WHEREAS, the Executive Committee has reviewed and recommended the scope 15

of work and budget to be performed by Environmental Science Associates; 16

NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE BOARD OF 17

SUPERVISORS OF THE KING COUNTY FLOOD DISTRICT: 18

SECTION 1. The Chair of the King County Flood Control Zone District is 19


FCD Resolution

2

authorized to enter into an agreement with Environmental Science Associates ("ESA") 20

for professional environmental impact statement preparation services to the District. The 21

contract is contained in Attachment A to this resolution. 22

SECTION 2. For purposes of this contract the Board of Supervisors authorizes a 23

base contract budget of $594,719 and authorizes the following delegation of authority to 24

approve task orders with ESA not to exceed a total of $197,085: 25

A. Task orders of less than $10,000 may be approved by the Executive Director 26

who shall inform the Executive Committee of any approved task orders at the first 27

Executive Committee following the approval; 28

B. Task orders of $10,000 to $40,000 may be approved by the Chair, who shall 29

inform the Executive Committee of any approved task orders at the first Executive 30

Committee following the approval; 31

C. Task orders of more than $40,000 but less than $100,000 may be approved by 32

the Executive Committee; 33

D. Task orders of more than $100,000 must be approved by the Board of 34

Supervisors; and35


FCD Resolution

3

E. Task orders or contract amendments that result in the contract between the 36

District and ESA exceeding $791,804 must be approved by the Board of Supervisors. 37

38

KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT KING COUNTY, WASHINGTON

________________________________________

Reagan Dunn, Chair ATTEST:

________________________________________

Melani Pedroza, Clerk of the Board

Attachments: A. Contract for Consultant Services King County Flood Control District


Attachment A

Page 1 of 6

CONTRACT FOR CONSULTANT SERVICES KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT

This Contract is entered into by and between the King County Flood Control

District, a municipal corporation ("District") and Environmental Science Associates, whose principal office is located at 5309 Shilshole Avenue NW, Suite 200, Seattle, WA 98107 ("Consultant").

WHEREAS, the District desires to have certain services performed for its citizens; and WHEREAS, the District has selected the Consultant to perform such services pursuant to certain terms and conditions; NOW, THEREFORE, in consideration of the mutual benefits and conditions set forth below, the parties agree as follows: 1. Services to be Performed by Consultant.

A. The Consultant shall perform the services described in Exhibit "A" of this Contract, in accordance with the rates set forth in Exhibits "B" and "C" of this Contract. In performing the services, the Consultant shall comply with all federal, state and local laws and regulations applicable to the services. The Consultant shall perform the services diligently and completely and in accordance with professional standards of conduct and performance.

B. In its proposal to perform services for the District, the Consultant represented to the District that certain employees will supervise, administer, or perform the services. The Consultant’s representations, and the names, positions, responsibilities and services of those employees, are set forth on Exhibit "C" of this Contract. The Consultant must perform the services through such employees as represented by the Consultant, unless agreed to otherwise by the District. If the Consultant fails to do so, the District may terminate this Contract immediately in accordance with paragraphs 10.A and 10.B of this Contract.

2. Compensation and Method of Payment. The Consultant shall request payment for work performed using the billing invoice form at Exhibit "D." The District shall pay Consultant according to the rates set forth in Exhibits "B" and "C."

X A sum not to exceed $ 791,804. X Other (describe): Services in excess of $594,719 will be approved up to an amount not to exceed $791,804 only if the Board of Supervisors, the Executive Committee, or Executive Director approve task orders therefore, as provided for in the resolution approving the Contract


Page 2 of 6

The Consultant shall complete and return to the District Exhibit "E," Tax Identification Number, prior to or along with the first billing invoice. The District shall pay the Consultant for services rendered within ten (10) days after Board voucher approval. 3. Duration of Contract. This Contract shall be in full force and effect for a period commencing on October 1, 2017 and ending December 31, 2019, unless sooner terminated or extended under the provisions of this Contract. Time is of the essence of this Contract in each and all of its provisions in which performance is required. 4. Ownership and Use of Documents. Any records, files, documents, drawings, specifications, data or information, regardless of form or format, and all other materials produced by the Consultant in connection with the services provided to the District, shall be the property of the District whether the project for which they were created is executed or not. District’s use of such materials for any purpose other than the project described in Exhibit "A" is at District’s own risk and without liability to Consultant. 5. Independent Contractor. The Consultant and the District agree that the Consultant is an independent contractor with respect to the services provided pursuant to this Contract. The Consultant will be solely responsible for its acts and for the acts of its agents, employees, sub-consultants or representatives during the performance of this Contract. Nothing in this Contract shall be considered to create the relationship of employer and employee between the parties. 6. Indemnification. The Consultant shall defend, indemnify, and hold harmless the District, its officers, officials, employees, and agents from any and all damages, claims, demands, suits, actions, costs, fines, penalties and liability of any kind, including attorneys’ fees (collectively referred to as "Damages"), arising in whole or in part from any negligent acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant, its officers, officials, employees, sub-consultants, and agents in the performance of this Contract. However, if any Damages are caused by or result from the concurrent negligence of ESA, its officers, officials, employees, sub-consultants and agents, and the District, its officers, officials, employees, or agents, ESA’s liability shall be only to the extent of ESA’s negligence. The foregoing indemnity is specifically and expressly intended to constitute ESA’s waiver of immunity under Industrial Insurance, Title 51 RCW, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. This waiver has been mutually negotiated. The provisions of this Section shall survive the expiration or termination of this Contract 7. Insurance. The Consultant shall procure and maintain for the duration of this Contract, insurance against claims for injuries to persons or damage to property which may arise from or in connection with the performance of the work hereunder by the Consultant, its agents, representatives or employees.

A. Minimum Scope of Insurance

Consultant shall obtain insurance of the types described below:


Page 3 of 6

Automobile Liability insurance covering all owned, non- owned, hired, and leased vehicles. Coverage shall be written on Insurance Services Office (ISO) form CA 00 01 or a substitute form providing equivalent liability coverage. If necessary, the policy shall be endorsed to provide contractual liability coverage. Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written on ISO occurrence form CG 00 01 and shall cover liability arising from premises, operations, independent contractors, and personal injury and advertising injury. The District shall be named as an insured under the Consultant’s Commercial General Liability insurance policy with respect to the work performed for the District. Workers' Compensation coverage as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the State of Washington. Professional Liability insurance appropriate to the Consultant's profession. B. Minimum Amounts of Insurance.

Consultant shall maintain the following insurance limits: Automobile Liability insurance with a minimum combined single limit for bodily injury and property damage of $1,000,000 per accident.

Commercial General Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 each occurrence, $2,000,000 general aggregate.

Professional Liability insurance shall be written with limits no less than $1,000,000 per claim and $1,000,000 policy aggregate limit.

C. Other Insurance Provisions.

The insurance policies are to contain, or be endorsed to contain, the following provisions for Automobile Liability, Professional Liability, and Commercial General Liability insurance: 1. The Consultant's insurance coverage shall be primary insurance as respects the District. Any insurance, self-insurance or insurance pool coverage maintained by the District shall be in excess of the Consultant's insurance and shall not contribute with it. 2. The Consultant's insurance shall be endorsed to state that coverage shall not be canceled by either party except after thirty (30) days prior written notice by certified mail, return receipt requested, has been given to the District. D. Verification of Coverage.

Consultant shall furnish the District with original certificates and a copy of the


Page 4 of 6

amendatory endorsements, including but not necessarily limited to the additional insured endorsement, evidencing the insurance requirements of the Consultant before commencement of the work.

8. Record Keeping and Reporting.

A. The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, including personnel, property, financial, and programmatic records, which sufficiently and properly reflect all direct and indirect costs of any nature expended and services performed pursuant to this Contract. The Consultant shall also maintain such other records as may be deemed necessary by the District to ensure proper accounting of all funds contributed by the District to the performance of this Contract.

B. The foregoing records shall be maintained for a period of seven (7) years after termination of this Contract, unless permission to destroy them is granted by the Office of the Archivist in accordance with Chapter 40.14 RCW and by the District.

9. Audits and Inspections. The records and documents with respect to all matters covered by this Contract shall be subject at all times to inspection, review or audit by the District during the performance of this Contract. 10. Termination. The District reserves the right to terminate or suspend this Contract at any time, with or without cause, upon ten (l0) business days prior written notice. In the event of termination or suspension, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies, worksheets, models, reports or other materials prepared by the Consultant pursuant to this Contract shall promptly be submitted to the District. In the event this Contract is terminated or suspended, the Consultant shall be entitled to payment for all services performed and reimbursable expenses incurred to the date of termination. This Contract may be canceled immediately if the Consultant's insurance coverage is canceled for any reason, or if the Consultant is unable to perform the services called for by this Contract. The Consultant reserves the right to terminate or suspend this Contract with not less than ten (10) business days written notice, or in the event that outstanding invoices are not paid within sixty (60) days. This provision shall not prevent the District from seeking any legal remedies it may otherwise have for the violation or nonperformance of any provisions of this Contract. 11. Discrimination Prohibited. The Consultant shall not discriminate against any employee, applicant for employment, or any person seeking the services of the Consultant under this Contract, on the basis of race, color, religion, creed, sex, sexual orientation, age, national origin, marital status, or presence of any sensory, mental or physical disability.


Page 5 of 6

12. Assignment and Subcontract. The Consultant shall not assign or subcontract any portion of the services contemplated by this Contract without the prior written consent of the District. 13. Conflict of Interest. The Consultant represents to the District that it has no conflict of interest in performing any of the services set forth in Exhibit "A." In the event that the Consultant is asked to perform services for a project with which it may have a conflict, Consultant will immediately disclose such conflict to the District. 14. Confidentiality. All information regarding the District obtained by the Consultant in performance of this Contract shall be considered confidential. Breach of confidentiality by the Consultant shall be grounds for immediate termination. Exceptions to this confidentiality provision include: (1) information which, at the time of disclosure, is in the public domain by having been printed and published and available to the public libraries or other public places where such data is usually collected, and (2) information required to be disclosed by court order or by an agency with appropriate jurisdiction. 15. Non-appropriation of Funds. If sufficient funds are not appropriated or allocated for payment under this Contract for any future fiscal period, the District will so notify the Consultant and shall not be obligated to make payments for services or amounts incurred after the end of the current fiscal period. This Contract will terminate upon the completion of all remaining services for which funds are allocated. No penalty or expense shall accrue to the District in the event that the terms of the provision are effectuated. 16. Entire Contract. This Contract contains the entire Contract between the parties, and no other Contracts, oral or otherwise, regarding the subject matter of this Contract shall be deemed to exist or bind either of the parties. Either party may request changes to the Contract. Changes which are mutually agreed upon shall be incorporated by written amendments to this Contract. 17. Notices. Notices to the District shall be sent to the following address: Melani Pedroza, Acting Clerk of the Board Room 1200 King County Courthouse 516 Third Avenue Seattle, WA 98104 206-477-1020 [email protected] Notices to the Consultant shall be sent to the following address: Molly Adolfson, Senior Vice President 5309 Shilshole Ave. NW. Suite 200 Seattle, WA 98107 206-789-9658


mailto:[email protected]

Page 6 of 6

[email protected] Applicable Law; Venue, Attorneys’ Fees. This Contract shall be governed by and construed in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington. In the event any suit, arbitration or other proceeding is instituted to enforce any term of this Contract, the parties specifically understand and agree that venue shall be exclusively in King County, Washington. The prevailing party in any such action shall be entitled to its attorneys' fees and costs of suit, which shall be fixed by the judge bearing the case and such fee shall be included in the judgment. Severability. Any provision or part of this Contract held to be void or unenforceable under any law or regulation shall be deemed stricken and all remaining provisions shall continue to be valid and binding upon the District and the Consultant, who agree that the Contract shall be reformed to replace such stricken provision or part with a valid and enforceable provision that comes as close as reasonably possible to expressing the intent of the stricken provision. KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL DISTRICT ________________________________ Reagan Dunn, Chair

CONSULTANT _______________________________

Date:____________________________ Date: Exhibit A: Scope of Work Exhibit B: Budget Exhibit C: Personnel and Rates Exhibit D: Billing Invoice Form Exhibit E: Tax Identification Number


mailto:[email protected]

Exhibit A Contract between King County Flood Control District and ESA for Lower Green River Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS

Scope of Work Page 1

Scope of Work (September 15, 2017)

Task 1: Project Management

Activities. Project management activities will include coordination between the Consultant team (Consultant) and the District, attending regularly scheduled check-in calls and meetings, and monthly invoicing and status reporting. The Consultant’s Project Manager will maintain the schedule and budget, and coordinate with the EIS team, including subconsultants. (Note: for the purpose of this task, “project management” refers to the management of the overall EIS process, which is referred to by the Consultant as the “project.”)

The Consultant will hold a 4-hour kickoff meeting with the District to discuss the District’s vision and objectives for the Lower Green River Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS (referred to in this scope as Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS or Programmatic EIS), obtain information pertaining to the project background and history, confirm communication protocols, outline the overall schedule, and discuss other issues as determined pertinent by the District. Up to eight Consultant staff will attend the meeting, including key subconsultants. The kickoff meeting also will include preliminary discussions of the goals and methods of the Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan (SPIP), which will be developed under Task 2.

Assumptions.

• Duration of the EIS process is anticipated to be 12 to 16 months to develop the Public Draft Programmatic EIS, and up to 8 additional months to complete the Final Programmatic EIS (24 months total). Substantial increases in the project duration could warrant modification to the Consultant’s scope and budget.

• Regular project management check-in meetings are assumed to occur on average twice per month (total of 48 meetings) and to average 2 hours per meeting. The Consultant Project Manager and Assistant Project Manager will participate in the meetings. It is assumed that the majority of the check-in meetings will occur by phone (44 meetings) and that four meetings (specific to project management) over the course of the project will occur in person. The in-person meetings will be attended by up to two additional key staff as needed. These in-person meetings are in addition to other in-person meetings on specific topics included in other tasks.

• Invoices will be submitted monthly. • Action items identified during project meetings will be documented in activity logs, maintained

by ESA. • ESA will maintain a log of key agreements reached during the meetings.




District Responsibilities.

• The District Project Manager will be the primary point of contact, and will coordinate primarily with the Consultant Project Manager.

• The District will procure the location of Consultant/District team meetings, and develop and invite the list of attendees from the District and King County.

• The District Project Manager will review all meeting agendas, meeting notes, activity logs, and decision logs prepared by ESA and provide comments in a timely manner agreed upon by ESA and the District.

Consultant Deliverables.

• Monthly invoices and progress reports with a description of work performed. • Project schedule. • Kickoff meeting agenda. • Activity logs summarizing project management meetings. • Logs summarizing agreements reached by the District and the Consultant. • Brief meeting summary of kickoff meeting, with conclusions, action items, and decisions made

during the meeting.

Task 2: Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan

Activities. The Consultant will develop a draft and final Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan (SPIP) that provides key messages about the project; identifies key stakeholders; and describes outreach and engagement methods, roles and responsibilities for conducting them, and a schedule for implementing them. The Consultant team will meet with the District staff in a 1-hour meeting to confirm the overall approach to the SPIP, including identification of participants, timing of outreach, and logistics of the outreach and engagement process. Consultant may also be asked to participate in a meeting with the Chair, Vice Chair, and/or Executive Committee about the SPIP. The Consultant will develop a draft outline of the SPIP and provide the draft to the District prior to the meeting. Following the meeting, the Consultant will revise the outline for review and approval by the District, and will summarize the meeting results in a brief memorandum. This outline will serve as the basis for the SPIP, which will include a list of stakeholders and how they will be contacted (for example, individual meetings, web-based outreach, and other approaches).

The SPIP will include three components:

(1) Stakeholder outreach component to identified groups and individuals with interest and involvement in the Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS, and

(2) A broad public outreach component to reach and engage groups and individuals with limited previous involvement or awareness in the process who may be affected by the Corridor Plan.




(3) The SPIP will include a strategy to reach people who live and work in the study area who are economically disadvantaged, have language barriers, and who may be from cultures who have not traditionally been part of a flood facility planning process. The SPIP will include recommendations for engaging with these populations that are typically underrepresented in planning efforts.

The SPIP will detail the number of meetings, schedule, and methods for updating the public on developments with the Programmatic EIS. The Consultant will prepare a draft SPIP, for review and comment by the District, and will prepare a final SPIP after incorporation of the District’s comments.

Assumptions.

• One outline and one draft version of the SPIP will be submitted to the District for comment prior to finalizing the SPIP.

• Up to four Consultant team members will attend up to 3-hours (total) of meetings on the SPIP with the District.


• The District will review the draft outline of the SPIP and approve it prior to development of the draft SPIP.

• The District will provide one set of consolidated comments on the draft SPIP. • The District will work with the Consultant to develop the initial stakeholder list for the SPIP.


• Outline, draft, and final SPIP. • Meeting summary from the SPIP development meeting. • Draft and final SPIP.

Task 3: Coordination to Refine Programmatic EIS Alternatives

Activities. The District developed preliminary alternatives for the Programmatic EIS and the Consultant reviewed them for SEPA adequacy under a separate contract. For this task, the Consultant will coordinate with the District to develop alternative descriptions with the level of detail needed for SEPA analysis. This will include working with the District to identify additional details for the alternative descriptions, preparing the description of how the alternatives were developed, and identifying and describing any alternatives that were considered, but eliminated from detailed study.

The Consultant will prepare a draft memorandum with the detailed alternative descriptions, alternative development process, and alternatives considered but eliminated from detailed study. The Consultant will revise the memorandum based on District review and provide a final memorandum. The final memorandum will include alternative descriptions suitable for public scoping and will provide the bulk of the information needed for Chapter 2 of the Programmatic EIS.




Assumptions.

• Up to two Consultant staff will participate in one 2-hour meeting with the District to discuss the alternative development process and alternatives considered, but eliminated from detailed study.

• The alternative descriptions will be developed to the level of detail needed for programmatic SEPA analysis.


• The District will provide technical data, maps, and other information needed to develop the alternative descriptions and information on the process for developing the alternatives and alternatives considered, but eliminated from further study.

• The District will review the draft alternatives memorandum and provide consolidated comments.


• Draft and final alternatives memoranda. • The descriptions in the final memorandum will be incorporated into Chapter 2 of the

Programmatic EIS.

Task 4: Implementation of Stakeholder and Public Involvement

Activities. Under this task, the Consultant will implement the SPIP developed in Task 2.

Subtask 4a: Develop Mailing and Distribution List – The Consultant will develop the mailing and distribution list for the EIS process, working with the District. The District will identify the appropriate entities to contact, and the Consultant will acquire the information and compile it into a list of entities to be included on the Programmatic EIS distribution list. The list will include email addresses and physical mailing addresses as available. The Consultant will prepare an internal draft of the mailing and distribution list, including agencies required as part of the SEPA process. The District will review and comment, and the Consultant will prepare a final list to be used for EIS scoping, Draft Programmatic EIS notification, and project updates.

Subtask 4b: Contact Database – The Consultant will develop and maintain an on-line relational database of public contacts (public meetings, events, interviews, etc.), comments, and issues. The database will be designed to track substantive interactions and will include fields for the date and type of the interaction. The Consultant will update the database as needed. The Consultant will work with the District to identify any existing contact information available to the District.

Subtask 4c: Fact Sheet –The Consultant will prepare a Fact Sheet that provides information about the Programmatic EIS, why it is being prepared and how it will be used, the schedule, and ways to be




involved. The Fact Sheet will be distributed at public meetings, briefings, stakeholder interviews, etc. and will be posted to the project website. The Fact Sheet will include a list of frequently asked questions, and will be updated no more than three times during the Programmatic EIS process: during scoping, following scoping, and prior to or at the time of release of the Draft EIS.

Subtask 4d: Advisory Committee Briefings – The Consultant will brief the Advisory Committee on the Programmatic EIS process, including soliciting input on scoping, reporting results from scoping and outreach meetings, briefing on evaluation results during preparation of the Programmatic EIS, and reporting results from public comments received on the Draft Programmatic EIS.

Subtask 4e: Stakeholder and Tribal Engagement – Affected and Interested Community

The Consultant will plan and conduct outreach to stakeholders within the affected and interested community throughout the EIS scoping process, and development of the Programmatic EIS as described in the SPIP (Task 2), including the following efforts:

• Regular check-in meetings with Muckleshoot Indian Tribe representative(s) and other key stakeholders, identified through development of the SPIP, to provide information and receive input on the Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS.

• Meet with stakeholders to provide information about the Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS (including city councils or other groups, as determined during development of the SPIP).

• Distribute regular email updates to the mailing and distribution list (up to 10 updates).

• Summarize stakeholder input for briefings to the District Project Manager. The briefings would be provided in emails following the meetings and some in-person briefing meetings.

Subtask 4f: Public Hearing Approach

The Consultant will coordinate with the District on an approach for the public hearing for the Draft Programmatic EIS. The approach will be used to develop a full scope of work for the public hearing.

Assumptions.

• The Consultant is responsible for printing public outreach materials, including notices and advertising.

• All public outreach materials will be provided to the District in advance of the meetings for one round of review.

• The Consultant will provide materials in a format suitable for posting to the project web site. • The Consultant will attend up to four meetings to brief the Advisory Committee. Each meeting is

assumed to be 2 hours in length, attended by two Consultant staff. • The Consultant will conduct up to 18 meetings for stakeholder and tribal engagement. Each

meeting is assumed to be 2 hours in length, attended by two Consultant staff.




• The Consultant will attend up to four briefing meetings on stakeholder input with the District Project Manager. Each meeting is assumed to be 2 hours in length, attended by two Consultant staff.

• All materials prepared under this task, including databases, will become the property of the District at the end of the project.


• The District will review and provide consolidated comments on all public outreach materials. • The Board will determine the scope for the Advisory Committee meetings.


• Mailing and distribution list for the Programmatic EIS. • Public contact database. • Fact Sheet.

Task 5: Programmatic EIS Scoping

Activities. SEPA scoping is intended to obtain input regarding the scope of the analysis, the range of alternatives, potential impacts, and mitigation to be addressed in the Programmatic EIS. To assist the District with scoping, the Consultant will prepare the scoping notice, prepare for and attend the scoping meeting, develop an on-line scoping meeting open house, and summarize the scoping comments.

Subtask 5a: Scoping Notice – The Consultant will develop a draft scoping notice, following identification of the alternatives to be included in the Draft Programmatic EIS (Task 3). The scoping notice will be 1–2 pages in length. The District will review the draft scoping notice and provide consolidated comments to the Consultant. The Consultant will finalize the scoping notice and prepare it for distribution to the public and to the Ecology SEPA website. Distribution will be handled by the Consultant.

To ensure that interested and affected parties are informed and understand the opportunities to participate in scoping, the Consultant will:

• Coordinate with and conduct outreach to cities, tribes, organizations, groups, and the general public. The Consultant will provide the scoping notice to these organizations, for publication through their existing mechanisms (websites, email lists, social media, newsletters, etc.).

• Provide the scoping notice through press releases and paid advertising (in local papers). • Post the scoping notice on the project website. • Send the scoping notices to the Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS email list.

Subtask 5b: Scoping Meetings – The Consultant will attend one in-person public scoping meeting. The Consultant will prepare meeting materials including information sheets, comment forms, and poster-size graphics. The Consultant will develop the scoping meeting agenda and lead the scoping meeting.




The scoping meeting will include an open house portion and will provide multiple ways for the public to comment (comment forms, public testimony, private testimony).

In addition to the in-person scoping meeting, there will be one on-line “virtual” open house. The Consultant will work with the District to use the District website for the on-line meeting and will post meeting materials to the website and provide opportunities to comment electronically.

Subtask 5c: Scoping Comment Sorting and Summary – The Consultant will develop and use a comment sorting tool to sort and summarize the scoping comments. The Consultant will develop a Scoping Summary Report that identifies and summarizes the issues raised by the public and other stakeholders. The Scoping Summary Report will be available on the website and will be summarized in the Draft Programmatic EIS.

Subtask 5d. Refinement of Alternatives following Scoping – Following completion of the scoping process, the Consultant team will evaluate the scoping comments to determine if the Programmatic EIS alternatives need to be refined. The Consultant will prepare a draft memorandum for District review and meet with the District to determine if the alternatives to be evaluated in the Programmatic EIS need to be refined. Following the meeting, the Consultant will finalize the memorandum identifying any needed revisions to the alternatives and discuss their recommendation with the District Executive Director who is the responsible official under SEPA. The revised alternatives as finalized by the District Executive Director will be included in the Draft Programmatic EIS.

Assumptions.

• The Consultant will be responsible for legal notification of the scoping meeting (e.g., District’s legal newspaper of record, Ecology).

• The Consultant will be responsible for scoping meeting logistics and reservations, including room rental.

• Up to five Consultant staff will attend the 4-hour scoping meeting. • Public scoping comments will be recorded by a court reporter. The Consultant will secure a

court reporter. • The on-line scoping open house will be available throughout the scoping period. • Scoping comments will be attached to the Scoping Summary Report and will be publicly

available. • Base maps and conceptual graphics of the alternatives, including the No Action Alternative, will

be provided by the District for use in scoping meeting graphics. • Up to five Consultant staff will attend the 4-hour meeting to refine the alternatives following the

scoping meeting.


• The District will provide available technical information, including graphics and illustrations, for use in meeting graphics, provided that the Consultant requests the materials at least 3 weeks in advance of final print deadlines.




• The District will provide consolidated comments on the draft Scoping Summary Report.


• Draft and final Scoping Notice, including both a web-based and printed version. • Draft and final Scoping Summary Report. Final report will be posted to the District’s website. • Draft and final memorandum on refinement of alternatives.

Task 6: Draft Programmatic EIS

Activities. The Consultant will develop a Draft Programmatic EIS consistent with WAC 197-11. The Draft Programmatic EIS will be developed to be released in an electronic/digital format, as well as in a print version.

The Consultant will develop an outline for the document and a template to be used for the EIS sections. The Consultant will rely heavily on previously prepared evaluations in the corridor. The Draft Programmatic EIS will evaluate up to three action alternatives and the No Action Alternative (developed in Task 3). Consistent with SEPA requirements, existing conditions, potential impacts, and mitigation measures will be described generally, at a qualitative level appropriate for a Programmatic EIS and may not include detailed, quantitative, or site-specific information (WAC 197-11-442). The Programmatic EIS will frame or “bracket” the potential range of impacts so that the broad implications and tradeoffs associated with implementing the Corridor Plan can be understood. Accordingly, the impact evaluation will be based on currently available information and published reports and will not include extensive site-specific investigations.

The Programmatic EIS will describe and compare short-term and long-term impacts, and indirect and direct impacts for each alternative. Cumulative impacts will be evaluated in a separate chapter. Graphics, tables, and figures will be developed and used as much as possible.

The Consultant will prepare a preliminary review draft and a revised review draft of the Draft Programmatic EIS, to be reviewed by the District. The District will consolidate all comments and provide them to the Consultant in a single document. The Consultant team will respond to District comments on the internal drafts, and prepare a Public Draft Programmatic EIS. If needed, the Consultant team will participate in up to two 4-hour meetings with the District to discuss comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS.

The Draft Programmatic EIS will include the following chapters:

• Executive Summary • Chapter 1, Introduction and Background, Purpose and Need, and Objectives • Chapter 2, Alternatives • Chapter 3, Affected Environment • Chapter 4, Impacts and Mitigation Measures • Chapter 5, Cumulative Impacts




• Chapter 6, Consultation and Coordination • Chapter 7, References

Subtask 6a: Data Gap Analysis – The Consultant will review the existing information relevant to the Corridor Plan including work conducted as part of the Interim SWIF, the Total Maximum Daily Load (TMDL) prepared for the Green River, project-specific evaluations for the Lower Russell Road Levee Setback Project, WRIA 9 planning and technical documents, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Green River reports, City of Kent Certification reports, Tukwila Levee Accreditation report, and other readily available information and data. This work will occur prior to and concurrent with the scoping process. The Consultant will work with the District to collect the information from King County and other entities. The information will be reviewed to determine whether it is adequate for evaluation of the impacts of the Programmatic EIS alternatives or whether additional data collection, analysis, or modeling is required. The Consultant will prepare a memorandum summarizing the available information and identifying any gaps in the data. The memorandum will identify whether additional scope and budget would be required to acquire the needed information.

Subtask 6b: Preparation of the Draft Programmatic EIS – The Consultant will coordinate with the District to prepare the Draft Programmatic EIS.

The Programmatic EIS will focus on impacts to the Corridor Plan project area, generally defined as the Lower Green River Corridor extending from River Mile 11 to River Mile 32 and its floodplain. The consultant will work with the District to confirm the river mile boundaries, including the primary and secondary impact areas. The provisional level of protection is 500-years, 18,800 cubic feet per second (cfs). The project area will be confirmed with the District during scoping.

Impacts to upland areas outside the floodplain will be described in general terms.

Description of the affected environment (Chapter 3) is largely independent on the range of potential alternatives and scoping and will begin concurrent with the scoping process. The description of the affected environment will be at a level of detail appropriate for a Programmatic EIS. The description will focus on those aspects relevant to potential impacts and will be based on existing information except as explicitly noted below.

Field investigations will be limited to a 1-day reconnaissance to generally confirm documented conditions in the project area. No vegetation surveys, wetland delineations, cultural resources surveys, or geotechnical surveys will be conducted. Impacts to those elements will be described based on existing information and databases such as the National Wetlands Inventory, Washington Department of Fish and Wildlife’s Priority Habitat and Species database, critical areas mapping of the local jurisdictions, and the Department of Archaeology and Historic Preservation (DAHP) mapping.

The Draft Programmatic EIS will evaluate the range of potential impacts (both positive and negative) of the types of projects that could be included in the Corridor Plan. The technical experts will identify the range of potential impacts prior to analysis to ensure that the Programmatic EIS adequately evaluates the impacts of the type of projects that could be included in the Corridor Plan. The analysis will include




a discussion of the contribution of the Corridor Plan to cumulative impacts within the corridor. The EIS will include potential mitigation measures, including compensatory mitigation for unavoidable impacts, to each resource.

Elements of the environment that will be evaluated in the Draft Programmatic EIS are listed below, along with the general approach to evaluating impacts to those elements. The order of the elements of the environmental in the Programmatic EIS will generally follow SEPA guidelines (WAC 197-11-444), but may be reorganized to allow impacts to be clearly identified. Additional elements may be analyzed based on input from scoping or outreach efforts.

Executive Summary, Introduction and Background, Alternatives – The Executive Summary will summarize the alternatives considered, major impacts and mitigation, and outreach efforts. The Introduction and Background will provide a history of development of the Corridor Plan, the Purpose and Need for the Corridor Plan, and relevant background information at a summary level.

NATURAL ENVIRONMENT – Elements to be analyzed include climate change, water resources (water quality, surface water, groundwater), geology and geomorphology soils, wetlands & vegetation, aquatic resources, and terrestrial and riparian resources.

Climate Change. The study area’s climate will be described using climate data from the National Climatic Data Center and local stations. Impact analysis will include information from the ongoing work being conducted by the University of Washington’s Climate Impacts Group for the District and King County. This will include river-specific projections of the expected changes in flooding due to climate changes. The effects of climate change will also be described for individual resources such as water resources, as appropriate.

Water Resources. This section will evaluate potential impacts to surface water resources (including the Green River watershed and tributaries, hydrology, and hydraulics, flooding), groundwater and water quality. This section will include a generalized description of the study area’s hydrology and hydraulics, the location and level of protection of existing levees and other facilities, in-channel hydraulics (i.e., velocities), boundaries of the floodplain, and existing levee operation and maintenance requirements. Existing information will be obtained from existing County, Corps, FEMA, and city documents and the hydraulic modeling conducted for the Interim SWIF. Possible future flow changes resulting from climate change will be incorporated into the discussion.

Available data on groundwater resources from wells and County, Ecology, or USGS studies will be reviewed to determine if Programmatic EIS alternatives would impact groundwater. Potential effects on groundwater will be assessed from the potential changes in floodplain connectivity, river elevations, and changes to drainage.

Water quality conditions will be summarized based on County and state monitoring gage data, particularly related to water temperatures and the TMDLs for the river. Water quality will not be modeled, but changes in shading and floodplain connectivity will be described using existing modeling included in the Green River TMDL, Green-Duwamish Water Quality Assessment, and stormwater




studies. GIS analysis will be used to evaluate potential changes in shading and floodplain connectivity, and the scale of changes in temperature analyzed in the TMDL study will be used to identify the potential effects on water quality.

Geology and Geomorphology. The existing geology of the study area will be briefly and generally described, primarily in the context of any geologic hazards, the geotechnical stability of existing features (i.e., levees), and potential scour and depositional zones as evaluated for the Interim SWIF. The geomorphology of the study area (including the channel migration zone) will be described based on previous assessments included in the Interim SWIF and other County documents. The analysis of effects will include an evaluation of potential changes to geotechnical stability, geomorphology, and channel migration resulting from the alternatives.

Wetlands. The Consultant will not perform wetland delineations, but will use existing data and maps to identify wetland areas within the Lower Green River floodplain. These existing resources include critical area inventories and shoreline plans prepared for the cities of Auburn, Kent, and Tukwila. Potential impacts to wetlands will be assessed qualitatively by comparing information about existing conditions with the proposed alternatives.

Aquatic Resources. Aquatic species and habitats, including federal and state-listed species and species of concern, will be described based on existing literature such as the Interim SWIF and WRIA 9 planning documents and recent habitat assessments. Habitat types will be identified and described based on GIS analysis and the Interim SWIF documents. The potential effects of the alternatives to fish and the aquatic ecosystem will be assessed based on changes to habitat types, quantities, and distribution from GIS mapping and literature on fish use and behavior.

Terrestrial and Riparian Resources. The existing terrestrial and riparian habitat and species will be described using available maps and documents, the Interim SWIF, GIS data, and a 1-day reconnaissance. Wildlife habitats and species that may be present, including federal and state-listed plant and terrestrial wildlife species and species of concern, will be described from existing literature and data sources. Habitat types will be identified and described based on GIS analysis and the Interim SWIF documents. The potential effects of the alternatives on riparian and upland vegetation and wildlife habitat types, quantities, and distribution will be assessed based on GIS mapping and literature on species use and behavior.

BUILT ENVIRONMENT – Elements of the built environment to be analyzed include agriculture, land and shoreline use, transportation, recreation and public access, public safety, cultural and historic resources, tribal treaty resources, and socioeconomics, equity and social resources, and utilities and public services.

Agriculture. The Consultant will identify impacts to agriculture by analyzing how the Programmatic EIS alternatives will affect existing agricultural uses, parcels zoned for agriculture, and parcels in the Farmland Preservation Program. The team will identify other potential impacts to agriculture from the Programmatic EIS alternatives, including changes in flood risk and drainage.




Land and Shoreline Use. The Consultant will programmatically evaluate the potential of the alternatives to impact land and shoreline uses based on consistency or inconsistency with adopted land use plans, including comprehensive plans, zoning, shoreline master programs, and critical areas ordinances. Impacts to land uses, including residential, commercial, and industrial uses, will be assessed by comparing the Programmatic EIS alternatives to existing conditions identified through existing databases and GIS data. The potential for property acquisition will also be assessed. Economic impacts on land uses will be evaluated as part of the socioeconomics section.

Transportation. The Consultant will qualitatively assess impacts to the transportation system by analyzing how the Programmatic EIS alternatives could affect major roads, bridges, and rail lines. The Consultant will use existing information to identify current flood impacts to roadways as part of the affected environment discussion in the Programmatic EIS. Using available maps and reports, the Consultant will identify transportation infrastructure that could be directly affected by the Programmatic EIS alternatives, that could have reduced flood risk, and that could be affected by construction activities.

Recreation & Public Access. Impacts to recreation and public access will be analyzed by comparing the potential for the alternatives to affect access to and use of existing recreation facilities in the project area, including parks, trails, and golf courses. Impacts to in-water recreation uses, such as boating and floating, will also be analyzed, incorporating King County’s information on water users.

Public Health and Safety. Impacts to public health and safety, including changes in flood risk, will be assessed qualitatively by comparing the effects of proposed alternatives with existing conditions. The evaluation of public safety will focus on how the alternatives would affect flooding, response time for emergency services, public safety for trail and park users, and exposure of the public to hazardous materials. Impacts to emergency response times will be evaluated qualitatively by determining if any actions would disrupt emergency service facilities or increase travel time on key transportation corridors.

Cultural and Historic Resources. The Consultant will qualitatively assess the potential impacts to cultural resources that could result from setbacks, revetments, and other flood risk reduction measures along the Lower Green River. The evaluation will be based on existing information and reports, and will include coordination with the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe.

Tribal Treaty Resources. Tribal treaty resources in the study area will be identified based on input from the Muckleshoot Indian Tribe and other available data. Effects on tribal treaty resources, including hatchery production and fishing (including fishing sites and access), will be evaluated based on potential effects to fish and wildlife populations or productivity and survival based on literature such as WRIA 9 documents and the Puget Sound Chinook Recovery Plan. Potential changes to access for fishing or other activities will also be evaluated.

Socioeconomics. The Consultant will qualitatively assess the impacts of the Programmatic EIS alternatives on economic activities and economic development in the Lower Green River corridor. The focus of the analysis will be on potential economic impacts to businesses, employment, agriculture, and




future economic development in the project area. The economic impacts of property acquisition will also be assessed. The Consultant will incorporate existing quantitative modeling information supplemented with locally available datasets to assess impacts.

The analysis will include an assessment of non-market goods and services for fisheries and recreation, which will provide an estimate of the economic value of these resources. Values for salmonids will be based on NOAA-developed survey-based models, and recreation use and value will be based on Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan survey data in combination with Oregon State University/U.S. Forest Service Recreation Use Values Database.

Equity and Social Justice. The Consultant will evaluate impacts of the proposed alternatives on low-income, minority, and non-English speaking populations in the project area. Existing information on demographics in the area will include information available to the District as well as data provided by U.S. Census data, the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency Environmental Justice Screening and Mapping Tool, and State of Washington Office of Financial Management data. The potential for the Programmatic EIS alternatives to disproportionately affect these populations will be assessed by comparing this data with areas of impacts identified in other sections of the EIS.

Utilities and Public Services. The Consultant will identify existing utility infrastructure (including water and sewer lines and telecommunications infrastructure) in the project area and will assess the potential for the Programmatic EIS alternatives to affect this infrastructure. The Consultant will evaluate how changes to flood facilities and other elements of the Programmatic EIS alternatives would affect availability of water, wastewater, electricity, or other utilities. The Consultant will also identify public and community services in the project area (including schools, fire and police services, King County and other government buildings, and churches) and evaluate whether the Programmatic EIS alternatives would affect the ability of people to access these services.

Cumulative Impacts. Cumulative impacts include the results of past, current, and reasonably foreseeable future actions. The cumulative impact analysis will present a discussion of how the alternatives differ in their short- and long-term impacts to the Lower Green River Corridor. The benefits and implications of planned projects in the region will be described in this section. The analysis will include a general summary of how past actions have affected the Lower Green River Corridor. Recently completed and near-term proposed projects will be included in the analysis. The Consultant will meet with the District to determine the appropriate list of projects to be included in this analysis. The cumulative impacts analysis will be presented as a stand-alone chapter in the Draft Programmatic EIS and will evaluate the overall cumulative impacts of the alternatives, rather than identify cumulative impacts separately for each resource.




Subtask 6c: Distribution of the Draft Programmatic EIS – The Consultant will prepare the Draft Programmatic EIS for public distribution. The Consultant will post the Draft Programmatic EIS to the Programmatic EIS website and will prepare 50 hard copies and up to 100 CDs for public distribution.

The Consultant will prepare a draft Notice of Availability for the Draft Programmatic EIS for District review. The Consultant will revise the Notice of Availability and prepare it for distribution to the public and to the Ecology SEPA website. Distribution will be handled by the Consultant.

Assumptions.

• This scope of work assumes that the Programmatic EIS analysis will be based largely on existing, available information. If substantial data gaps are identified in Task 6a that prevent adequate evaluation of the impacts, additional scope and budget may be required. The Consultant will coordinate with the District to determine the extent of additional budget needed.

• If public scoping identifies additional elements of the environment that need to be evaluated in the Programmatic EIS or requires additional quantitative evaluations or modeling, additional scope and budget may be required. The Consultant will coordinate with the District to determine the extent of additional budget needed.

• Field investigations will be limited to a 1-day reconnaissance to generally confirm documented conditions. Up to eight Consultant staff will attend the reconnaissance site visit, which may occur on different days for different technical specialists.

• The District will review two internal review versions of the Draft Programmatic EIS. Any other reviewers will provide comments on the Public Draft Programmatic EIS as part of the SEPA public comment process.

• Up to two 4-hour meetings will be held to discuss the District’s comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS. Up to five Consultant staff will attend each of these meetings.

• The Consultant will be responsible for publication and distribution of notices and the EIS document.

• The Consultant will mail hard copies of the Draft Programmatic EIS and CDs, including distribution to Ecology, two copies of the EIS to the cities within the corridor, and up to four public libraries.


• The District will provide available background data, maps, graphics, previous evaluations, and project-related information.

• The District will be responsible for providing access to the project area for reconnaissance visit if required.

• The District will review the internal review drafts of the Draft Programmatic EIS and provide a consolidated set of comments.

• The District will resolve internal conflicting comments within the consolidated set of comments on the Draft Programmatic EIS.





• Data gap analysis memorandum. • Two internal review versions of the Draft Programmatic EIS (electronic versions). • Responses to District/County comments on the internal review drafts provided in a consolidated

tracked changes version, and a comment/response matrix. • Public Draft Programmatic EIS (electronic, web-based version, up to 100 CDs, and 50 hard

copies). • Draft and Final Notice of Availability of Draft Programmatic EIS.

Task 7: Comment Response Strategy

Activities. The Consultant will sort the comments received on the Draft Programmatic EIS, using a tracking system developed by the Consultant. The Consultant will summarize the major issues in the comments and will coordinate with the District to develop a strategy for responding to comments. The Consultant will prepare a memorandum with a draft strategy for discussion with the District. Following agreement on the overall approach, the Consultant will finalize the comment response strategy.

Assumptions.

• Up to five Consultant staff will meet with the District in one 3-hour meeting to confirm the strategy for comment responses. One additional 3-hour meeting will be held if needed.


• The District will review the draft comment response strategy and provide a consolidated set of comments.


• Draft and final comment response strategy.

Task 8: Technical Assistance with Corridor Plan Development

The work under this task will be authorized by task orders following the gap analysis described under task 6a and upon request of the District Executive Director.

If requested, the Consultant’s technical experts will assist the District with development of the Corridor Plan. The Consultant will coordinate with the District to support development of different project types to be included in alternatives of the Corridor Plan. This may include review of projects included in the Interim SWIF and capital projects proposed by the District to identify major gaps in technical information needed to develop the projects to a level adequate for SEPA review. The recommendations will be presented to the District in up to three technical memoranda. The Consultants will meet with the District to discuss development of the Corridor Plan.




Assumptions.

• The Consultant will not perform any work under this task unless requested by the District. • Up to four Consultant staff will participate in up to three 2-hour meetings as part of the Corridor

Plan development (Task 3b). • Technical assistance for the Corridor Plan, including meeting attendance, will be limited to 160

hours.


• Provide written notice to proceed on specific assistance needed under this task.


• If appropriate, the Consultant will prepare up to three technical memoranda to support Corridor Plan development.

Task 9: Public Hearing on Draft EIS

Scope and budget to be determined following completion of public involvement plan. Scope and budget will be authorized by task order.

Task 10: Final EIS

Scope and budget to be determined following completion of draft EIS and public comment period. Scope and budget will be authorized by task order.


H:C:\Users\pedrozme\AppData\Roaming\L5\Temp\4d53243b-d60b-4828-b088-455756814965.xlsx-ESA Labor & Expense

Exhibit B

Consultant BudgetLower Green River Corridor Plan EIS

4-Oct-17Carlstad

ConsultingStepherson &

Associates Inc.EcoNW NHC Aspect Other

Adolfson Easton Root Leech Martin Logan/Lockwood Vanderburg Minihan Carr ESA Staff ESA Staff Page Costanza Martz Montgomery Goldsmith Carlstad Hoffman Buckley Collins Haselton CarltonSenior % of Effort Total Total

PM Asst. PM EIS lead GIS Lead EIS Built. Env Lead

Sr. Scientist/Archaeologi

stSr. Scientist EIS Sr.

Planner Senior EditorEIS Planner/Scientist/

GraphicsAdmin Regulatory

SpecialistTechnical Resource

EIS Nat. Env Lead

Technical Resource Sr. Scientist

Facilitation Lead Outreach Lead

Economist Technical Resource

Technical Resource

AdvisorPer Task Hours Labor Price

Hourly Billing Rate $225 $140 $175 $185 $170 $180 $200 $140 $175 $130 $115 $214 $244 $214 $244 $177 $165 $145 $185 $191 $218 $195Task 1 Project Management 130 120 32 32 16 16 16 16 11.7% 378 67,138$ Task 2 Stakeholder and Public Involvement Plan 20 20 40 60 3.9% 140 22,600$ Task 3 Coordination to Refine Programmatic EIS Alternatives 16 8 16 8 1.6% 48 9,232$ Task 4 Implementation of Stakeholder and Public Involvement 0.0% - -$

4a Develop Mailing and Distribution List 2 4 60 1.7% 66 9,810$ 4b Contact Database 32 32 1.8% 64 10,560$ 4c Fact Sheet 4 8 8 8 4 32 1.8% 64 10,120$ 4d Advisory Committee Briefings 20 6 6 1.2% 32 7,068$ 4e Stakeholder and Tribal Engagement 16 24 16 8 8 8 80 60 6.5% 220 37,036$ 4f Public Hearing Approach 1 2 2 0.1% 5 855$

Task 5 Programmatic EIS Scoping 0.0% - -$ 5a Scoping Notice 4 8 8 2 2 2 32 1.6% 58 8,970$ 5b Scoping Meetings 8 8 8 24 8 8 16 8 2.8% 88 15,984$ 5c Scoping Comment Sorting and Summary 8 16 16 8 32 6 4 2.5% 90 14,510$ 5d Refinement of Alternatives Following Scoping 16 16 16 4 4 4 8 2.2% 68 12,460$

Task 6 Draft EIS 0.0% - -$ 6a Data Gap Analysis 12 80 80 16 16 8 32 24 4 20 8 9.1% 300 51,972$ 6b Preparation of the Draft Programmatic EIS 96 144 300 28 140 118 20 96 60 160 40 32 8 88 16 76 8 80 32 8 8 46.9% 1,558 268,344$ 6c Distribution of Draft Programmatic EIS 4 16 16 32 8 1.9% 76 10,780$

Task 7 Comment Response Strategy 16 12 24 8 2 2 4 4 2 8 4 2.7% 86 15,280$ Total Hours 373 482 542 92 140 134 20 136 78 176 112 90 16 166 22 100 182 312 84 60 16 8 100.0% 3,341 572,719$ Subtotals - Labor Costs 83,925$ 67,480$ 94,850$ 17,020$ 23,800$ 24,120$ 4,000$ 19,040$ 13,650$ 22,880$ 12,880$ 19,260$ 3,904$ 35,524$ 5,368$ 17,700$ 30,030$ 45,240$ 15,540$ 11,460$ 3,488$ 1,560$ 100.0% 572,719$ Percent of Effort - Labor Hours Only 11.2% 14.4% 16.2% 2.8% 4.2% 4.0% 0.6% 4.1% 2.3% 5.3% 3.4% 2.7% 0.5% 5.0% 0.7% 3.0% 5.4% 9.3% 2.5% 1.8% 0.5% 0.2% 100.0% 572,719$ Percent of Effort - Total Project Cost 14.1% 11.3% 15.9% 2.9% 4.0% 4.1% 0.7% 3.2% 2.3% 3.8% 2.2% 3.2% 0.7% 6.0% 0.9% 3.0% 5.0% 7.6% 2.6% 1.9% 0.6% 0.3% 0.0% 100.0% 100.0%

ESA Labor C Reimbursable Expenses 383,645$

ESA Non-Labor ExpensesIMPLAN Modeling 2,000$ Translation Services 5,000$ Other Direct Expenses 15,000$

Subtotal ESA Non-Labor Expenses 22,000$

Subconsultant: Anchor QEA 81,756$

Subconsultant: Carlstad Consulting 30,030$

Subconsultant: Stepherson & Associates, Inc. 45,240$

Subconsultant: EcoNW 15,540$

Subconsultant: NHC 11,460$

Subconsultant: Aspect 3,488$

Other Subconsultant (Senior Advisor) 1,560$

Subconsultant Total Costs 189,074$

TOTAL PROJECT PRICE 594,719$

OPTIONAL TASKAdolfson Easton Root Leech Martin Logan/Lockwood Vanderburg Minihan Carr ESA Staff ESA Staff Page Castanza Martz Montgomery Goldsmith Carlstad Hoffman Buckley Collins Haselton Carlton

Facilitation Alt.Devt Senior % of Effort Total Total





GraphicsAdmin

Program Compliance

LeadTechnical Resource

EIS Nat. Env Lead




Technical Resource


Hourly Billing Rate $225 $140 $175 $185 $170 $180 $200 $140 $175 $130 $115 $214 $244 $214 $244 $177 $165 $145 $185 $191 $218 $195Task 8

(optional) Technical Assistance with Corridor Plan Development 8 8 16 12 8 4 16 8 4 40 20 16 100.0% 160 31,304$

TOTAL OPTIONAL TASK PRICE 31,304$

FUTURE TASK ORDERS (preliminary estimates subject to change)

Adolfson Easton Root Leech Martin Logan/Lockwood Vanderburg Minihan Carr ESA Staff ESA Staff Page Castanza Martz Montgomery Goldsmith Carlstad Hoffman Buckley Collins Haselton CarltonFacilitation

Alt.Devt Senior % of Effort Total Total





GraphicsAdmin

Program Compliance

LeadTechnical Resource

EIS Nat. Env Lead




Technical Resource


Hourly Billing Rate $225 $140 $175 $185 $170 $180 $200 $140 $175 $130 $115 $214 $244 $214 $244 $177 $165 $145 $185 $191 $218 $195Task 9 Draft EIS Public Hearing 11 38 38 20 40 8 8 32 32 6.3% 227 35,897$

Task 10 Final EIS10a Comment Response 20 40 60 40 12 4 40 12 40 8 12 4 24 4 12 4 16 8 4 10.8% 364 61,980$ 10b FEIS preparation 40 40 60 16 12 4 32 40 40 24 12 36 8 8 16 4 4 11.9% 396 67,904$

Total Hours 71 118 158 36 40 24 8 72 52 120 40 32 4 60 4 20 36 40 32 12 8 - 100.0% 987 165,781$ Subtotals - Labor Costs 15,975$ 16,520$ 27,650$ 6,660$ 6,800$ 4,320$ 1,600$ 10,080$ 9,100$ 15,600$ 4,600$ 6,848$ 976$ 12,840$ 976$ 3,540$ 5,940$ 5,800$ 5,920$ 2,292$ 1,744$ -$ 100.0% 165,781$

TOTAL FUTURE TASK ORDER PRICE 165,781$

TOTAL PROJECT, OPTIONAL TASK, AND FUTURE TASK ORDER PRICE 791,804$

Task Number / Description

Anchor QEAESA




Exhibit C Contract Between King County Flood District and ESA for Lower Green River Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS

Lower Green River Corridor Plan Programmatic EIS Personnel and Rates

Personnel Role Rate ESA Molly Adolfson Project Manager $225 Spencer Easton Assistant Project Manager $140 Ann Root EIS Lead $175 Mike Leech GIS Lead $185 Karmen Martin EIS Built Environment Lead $170 Ilon Logan Senior Scientist $180 Chris Lockwood Senior Archaeologist $180 Teresa Vanderburg Senior Scientist $200 Anne Minihan EIS Senior Planner $140 Peter Carr Senior Editor $175 Other ESA Staff EIS Planner $130 Other ESA Staff EIS Scientist $130 Other ESA Staff Graphics $130 Other ESA Staff Administrative $115 Anchor QEA Heather Page Regulatory Specialist $214 Ann Costanza Technical Resource $244 Merri Martz EIS Natural Environment Lead $214 Bob Montgomery Technical Resource $244 Jennifer Goldsmith Senior Scientist $177 Carlstad Consulting Cynthia Carlstad Facilitation Lead $165 Stepherson & Associates Inc. Chris Hoffman Outreach Lead $145 EcoNW Mark Buckley Economist $185 NHC Vaughn Collins Technical Resource $191 Aspect Henry Haselton Technical Resource $218 Other Dave Carlton Senior Advisor $195


Staff Report

Background

In December 2016, the King County Flood District (District) solicited proposals from firms to

prepare a programmatic EIS for a Lower Green River Corridor Plan (LGRCP), including scoping,

analysis, EIS web site, and public outreach. The selected firm would prepare an EIS under

SEPA for adverse impacts likely to result from the Lower Green River Corridor Plan and from

early-action projects implemented under that plan. The EIS was to be both a programmatic

and a project-specific document.

Additionally, the District desired to secure programmatic permits for work resulting from

the Lower Green River Corridor Plan and sought firms with expertise in developing

performance standards and success in obtaining approval from resource agencies of

programmatic permits.

The selected firm would report to the District’s project manager and be required to work

collaboratively with the District’s service provider, King County Water and Land Resources

Division, River’s Section. The selected firm needed to demonstrate experience working with

diverse stakeholders including, elected officials, tribes, resource agencies, and business

interests. The selected firm also needed to demonstrate the highest degree of objectivity and

integrity in balancing multiple objectives. The estimated fee for the contract was not to exceed

$1 million. The initial period of performance of any contract resulting from this solicitation was

expected to be two years.

September 18, 2017 Contract for Professional Services with Environmental Science Associates (ESA)

Materials 1. Resolution 2. Contract 3. Scope of Work 4. Budget 5. Personnel and Rates


2

Selection Process

Two firms submitted proposals in response to the request for Proposal. The Executive

Committee interviewed both firms on February 27, 2017 following an initial interview and

evaluation by Executive Committee staff. The Executive Director subsequently selected

Environmental Science Associates (ESA) as the firm with whom to negotiate a contract, scope of

work, and budget.

Scope of Work and Budget

ESA’s proposal included a project price of $999,742. Following negotiations, the recommended

scope of work and budget are not to exceed $791,804. To control costs and ensure scope

clarity, we are further recommending a base budget of $594,719 with a task order process to

authorize certain tasks described in the contract and below, the total value not to exceed

$197,085.

Negotiation Process

The Executive Committee retained Lund Consulting, Inc. in April 2017 to serve as project

manager for the Lower Green River Corridor Plan and EIS. Lund began negotiations with ESA in

May 2017 and worked with the Executive Director, Executive Committee staff, Water and Land

Resources staff, legal counsel, and ESA to clarify expectations, roles and responsibilities, and

policy direction in order to ensure that the EIS contract meets the District’s needs.

Public involvement including engagement with the general public and stakeholders is a high

priority for a successful plan and EIS process. Therefore, in the negotiation process we

prioritized the development of a public involvement plan as the first task under this contract.

This public involvement plan will ensure that there is an intentional and comprehensive

approach to identifying and communicating with the diverse populations and stakeholders in

the study area.

Tasks Removed from the Advertised Scope of Work

ESA and WLRD staff recommended that the Lower Russell Road project not be subject to a

project level EIS as initially contemplated in the RFP because a project level EIS would delay

project construction. Lower Russell Road is a high priority project under the Interim SWIF


3

accepted by the United States Army Corps of Engineers and it is a project with presumed

positive environmental benefits. The proposed contract does not include a project level EIS for

Lower Russell Road.

The Board of Supervisors will be setting forth the purpose and need for the Lower Green River

Corridor Plan and EIS. They will also be setting forth preliminary alternatives for the Plan and

EIS, therefore, we recommend removing consulting fees to facilitate drafting a statement of

purpose and need and alternatives.

We recommend removing tasks to build a project web site due to cost and because the District

has the ability to post EIS information to the District’s web site.

We also recommend removing a task to develop a project brand due to cost.

Tasks to be authorized by Task Orders

We are recommending that the following tasks be added to ESA’s scope and budget using a task

order process. The Board, Executive Committee, Chair, or Executive Director would approve

task orders depending on the threshold amount. (For example: Board approval for amounts

over $100,000; Executive Committee approval for amounts between $40,000-$100,000;

Chairman approval for amounts between $10,000-$40,000, and Executive Director approval for

amounts under $10,000.)

• Task order to authorize public hearing scope and budget after completion of public

involvement plan

• Task order to authorize Final EIS preparation after the number of public comments is

known so that the budget to prepare responses is accurate

• Task order(s) to authorize technical support relative to the Lower Green River Plan once

technical needs are identified following a gap analysis

• Tasks to develop performance standards and programmatic permit strategy after more

information is known about permit issues and after the District considers whether or

not this task should be for the Green River only or for other basins.


4

ADVERTISED CONSULTANT SCOPE OF WORK FROM RFP

1. Scoping EIS

a. Prepare scoping notices, publish notices, write public involvement materials, arrange logistics

for scoping meeting(s), and facilitate scoping meeting(s) for the District.

b. Assembly, summary, and evaluation of scoping comments and preparation of a Draft

Scoping Report for submittal to the District.

c. Prepare a Final Scoping Report at the direction of the District.

2. EIS Development

a. Prepare a preliminary Draft Environmental Impact Statement (DEIS), final DEIS, and Final

Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS). Include Lower Russell Road levee setback project.

b. Define the Proposed Action to be evaluated in the EIS and between three and five

alternatives.

c. The consultant will facilitate the discussion and conduct an alternatives analysis consistent

with SEPA and any other applicable laws.

d. The final decision for the alternatives will be made by the District.

e. The scope of the EIS will be finalized upon completion of scoping.

f. Prepare reader friendly Draft and Final River Corridor Plan EIS including:

• Goals and objectives • Performance standards • Adaptive management procedures • Programmatic agreements


5

• Responses to comments received

3. Impact Analysis

a. Impact analysis will include direct, indirect, and cumulative effects with associated technical

analysis including but not limited to evaluation of capital projects.

b. As appropriate and in consultation with the District, the Consultant will incorporate studies

and regulatory findings previously prepared by King County for the SWIF and capital projects in

the study area.

4. Performance standards and programmatic permits

a. Recommend and analyze performance standards to serve as guidelines for the development

of capital projects in consultation with the District and resource agencies.

b. Recommend an approach for obtaining programmatic approval of permits for capital

projects that meet the performance standards.

5. Record Keeping

a. Under the direction of the District, the Consultant will develop a protocol for maintaining an

EIS administrative record consistent with the scope of the resulting contract Consultant, and will

maintain an ongoing administrative record during the EIS development.

6. Technical Support

a. Establish and host a joint public website to provide information, post comments during the

scoping and draft EIS public comment periods, and identify milestones. The website will also be

expected to provide the capability for an online scoping meeting.

b. Arrange facilities and logistics and document a minimum of two (2) public scoping


6

meetings (one may be on-line meeting) and arrange facilities for, facilitate, and document a

minimum of two (2) public hearings on the DEIS.

c. Prepare the Scoping Report, EIS outline, technical documents reference list, EIS strategy

summary, preliminary DEIS, DEIS, response to comments, and FEIS.

d. Consultant will be responsible for all copying, document preparation, and document

mailing. Assume production and distribution of one hundred (100) paper copies and two-

hundred (200) electronic copies each of the Scoping Report, DEIS, and FEIS.

e. Provide technical support for up to four public meetings, throughout the EIS approval

process.

f. Provide and implement a Public Participation Plan to facilitate the public review of status,

meetings, studies, and other pertinent information throughout the EIS process.
