HomeMy WebLinkAboutSWP2703049_3Scope of Work
Cedar River Gravel Study Phases 1 and 2
Field Characterization of Cedar River Gravel
I. Background. The Washington Department of Fisheries (now WA Dept of Fish &
Wildlife) conducted a survey of sockeye spawning gravel area and distribution in the late
1960s which has served as the basis for the escapement goal of 300,000 sockeye to the
Cedar River. This survey was a visual survey, with minimal bed sampling, based on the
surveyors expertise in identifying suitable sockeye spawning habitat. It cannot be
replicated.
Since the 1960's several observations have been made of spawning gravel on the Cedar
River. These observations have lead researchers to suggest that current spawning gravels
may be less prevalent or less suitable than the historical condition. Conversely, little
research has been conducted to quantify whether current gravels present in the river
represent an adequate volume or composition to support long-term salmonid spawning.
The Lake Washington GI project, a multi -agency project led by the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers and King County, has the opportunity and need to initiate a study for the
purpose of understanding whether current gravel conditions in the Cedar River are
capable of adequately sustaining long-term salmonid spawning. The approach considered
for this multi phased study has been developed to provide sequential decision points
between phases to help answer whether the next study objective needs to be pursued.
II. Purpose. Physical modeling of gravel characteristics is critical to decisions making
on the need and extent of future gravel and upland restoration projects along the Cedar
River.
The purpose of phase 1 of the Cedar River Gravel Study is to take field measurements,
gather initial baseline data on gravel characteristics, and compile existing data to evaluate
whether and where a gravel problem presently exists. Sufficient field data would be
collected during Phase 1 to allow for modeling during phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2 would consist of augmenting King County's new HEC-RAS flood model of the
Cedar River, and using it to calculate scour potential and the discharge needed to initiate
motion of gravel at various locations along the river. Phase 2 could also quantitatively
evaluate gravel supply and the role of the Landsburg diversion. This phase would
determine whether lack of gravel in certain reaches is caused by channel morphology
(e.g., reduction in side channels, confinement by levees, changes in channel cross -
sections) or lack of gravel supply.
Phase 3 would be performed during project design. In this phase, a HEC-6 model would
be developed to route sediment downstream and calculate quantities of scour and fill at
each cross-section. This effort would probably be necessary only if gravel augmentation
is considered as an alternative, although it could also be used to evaluate projects that
significantly alter the channel cross-section.
III. Objective of Phase 1. The objective of phase 1 is to execute a field study
approach as described under this scope of work that will identify the current
conditions (location, size composition) of spawning gravel within the Cedar
River. Existing data (input availability, fine sediment, spawning surveys) will
from other sources also be utilized. Based on the results, a recommendation
would be made on any identified gravel problems relating to fish on the Cedar
River. Work will be conducted once between the low flow months of July and
September, 2000.
IV. Phase 1 scope: Cedar River Gravel Field Work.
Task 1. Initial Coordination and Study Plan Development. Contractor shall conduct brief
coordination activities with existing Cedar River research efforts to obtain existing
information and identify possible cooperative data gathering opportunities. Contractor
shall obtain existing cross-section data and flood study maps. Contractor shall use
existing flood study maps and air photos to lay out a sampling plan and determine
locations where additional cross -sections are needed.
Task 2. Cross Sections. Contractor shall query and obtain all relevant cross sectional data
from existing sources such as King County and City of Seattle as well as any cross
sections on file at the Corps of Engineers. A maximum of 10 cross sections may be
added in the field as part of this contract to support HEC-RAS modeling in Phase 2. Five
of the additional transects may be above Landsberg Dam, for the purpose of modeling
gravel supply and transport rates into the study reach. Cross-section surveys above
Landsburg Dam will include the floodplain as well as the channel.
Task 3. Aerial Photos. Contractor shall obtain and organize a current series of aerial
photos for use during planning exercises and as reference for geomorphological analysis.
Aerial photos may be obtained on file through Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or other suitable source.
Task 4. Physical Gravel Sampling- Surface. Contractor shall conduct surficial gravel
counts along the length of the Cedar River from approximately RM 22 (1 mile upstream
of Landsburg Dam) to the mouth (RM 0) at cross sections with appropriate morphology,
primarily focusing on sites with spawnable gravels. Surficial gravel counts to determine
size distribution should follow methodologies outlined in Wolman, 1954 and Kondolf,
1997. The following characteristics should be recorded at each point count site: bankfull
width and estimated bankfull depth, habitat type, sketch showing approximate area of
potentially spawnable gravel and its location relative to the cross-section, local water -
surface gradient.
Task 5. Physical Gravel Sampling- Subsurface. Subsurface gravel sampling shall be
undertaken for data collection in support of potential HEC-6 modeling in Phase 3.
Subsurface samples shall be taken at appropriate locations based on field expertise using
a shovel for above -water samples and a bucket sample for underwater samples. Sample
size shall be large enough to adequately characterize grain size distribution in these
coarse sediments. A maximum of four samples shall be cataloged and analyzed using a
sieve analysis to determine size distribution. These samples are intended to supplement
existing subsurface samples taken in 1992 by King County, and data from the King
County samples should also be included in the report. At least one sample should be
taken upstream from Landsburg Dam to evaluate sediment size entering the study area.
Task 6. Fine Sediments.
a) Contractor shall review existing data for information on fine sediments in the Cedar
River. Based on existing studies, contractor shall document sources of long term or other
significant sources of fine sediment and tabulate results of any previous sediment work
where % fines may have been described. Results should be compared to known literature
on % fines and their impact to salmonid redds and egg survival. Based on a cursory look
at some of the available data, it is anticipated that this task will show that fine sediment is
not adversely impacting gravel quality except near Lake Washington, where fines
naturally settle out due to the flat gradient.
b) If Task 6a suggests that fine sediments could be limiting spawning success upstream
from the City of Renton, McNeil sampling shall be conducted at no more than 3 sites
with potential spawning gravels.
Task 7. Spawning Counts. Contractor shall work with WDFW and other agencies to
obtain and compile annual salmonid spawning surveys for comparison to existing gravel
distribution and characteristics based on the above field work.
Task 8. Analysis. Contractor shall compile data and analyze trends in gravel abundance
or size based on location, average river gradient, channel confinement, and other
morphologic characteristics. If data from the spring 2000 habitat survey are sufficient, an
estimate of total gravel area in each river reach shall be made. Otherwise, cross-section
and floodplain characteristics shall be used to extrapolate and characterize relative gravel
retention along different sections of the river. Gravel distribution and size characteristics
shall be compared with WDFW spawning survey data. The role of sediment supply will
be evaluated on a qualitative basis based on existing information and field observations of
local sediment sources.
V. Phase 1 Contract Schedule and Deliverables.
The product of Phase 1 will be a written report documenting the scheduling and results of
relevant field activities. Cross-section survey and sediment sample data for use in future
HEC RAS and HEC-6 modeling will be provided in spreadsheets on disk as well as hard
copy. Draft deliverables will be due 60 days after final surveys are conducted. The U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers will have 10 days to comment on draft deliverables and return
them to the contractor. The final deliverable shall be due 14 days after receipt of
comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The final deliverable will consist of
three (3) bound and one (1) unbound (4 total) copies of subject report. Deliverables will
be due at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on specified
date.
VI. Phase 2 Scope: HEC-RAS model and sediment transport capability at cross -
sections
This phase could be started in early 2001, by which time the complete HEC-RAS model
for RM 0 to 21 should be available from King County.
Task 1. HEC-RAS modeling. Add cross -sections to existing HEC-RAS model and
develop new model for one mile of river upstream of Landsberg Dam. The new cross -
sections surveyed in Phase 1 would be used for this purpose. Run model at a variety of
flows including bankfull discharge and provide summary tables with flow parameters
relevant to sediment modeling such as average depth, velocity, shear stress.
Task 2. Gravel movement calculations. For cross -sections for which data were collected
in phase 1, calculate bedload transport rate and the size of sediment mobile at bankfull
discharge and other selected discharges.
Task 3. Evaluate sediment supply. Develop quantitative estimates of bedload sediment
supply from upstream, tributary channels, landslides, eroding bluffs, and eroding banks.
Evaluate changes in supply over the last century. Use sediment budget approach, based
on suspended sediment yields, watershed area, and (if feasible) bar accretion rates.
Sediment -transport modeling of the sediment influx from upstream of Landsberg will not
be performed until Phase 3.
Task 4. Analysis. Evaluate downstream changes in sediment mobility due to cross-
section morphology and gradient changes. Correlate gravel size and abundance with
transport and supply, and determine the relative importance of these factors in limiting
gravel abundance. Determine the cross-section and floodplain morphologies that are
most conducive to providing abundant spawning gravel.
VII. Phase 2 Report and Deliverables
The product of Phase 2 will be a written report documenting the development and results
of HEC-RAS modeling efforts. A HEC-RAS model will rely primarily on existing data
and data gathered under Phase 1 activities. The report should document a) flows and
hydraulics at cross -sections, b) provide an estimate of available materieal (yield), c)
describe transport capacities (reach by reach), estimate a sediment budget and e) provide
conclusions and recommendations. Draft deliverables will be due 60 days after modeling
results are completed. Contractor will develop and run the HEC-RAS model within 45
days from the completion of phase 1. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have 10
days to comment on draft deliverables and return them to the contractor. The final
deliverable shall be due 14 days after receipt of comments from the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers. The final deliverable will consist of three (3) bound and one (1) unbound (4
total) copies of subject report. Deliverables will be due at the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on the date specified in the Contracting
documents.
1 - The HEC-RAS modeling only tells the hydraulics portion of the puzzle. It will
tell, for a. Using these velocities, transport characteristics can be developed. However,
some estimate of movable material needs to be done (this estimate could come from the
Task 1 search) before an assessment came be made on a reach by reach basis. So, my
suggestion would be to add language regarding sediment yield (source, gradation,
volume) and then apply transport functions to each reach. Then statements could be
made about ability of one reach to pass material to the next.
2 - All of the above is to say,
Cedar River Gravel Study
Rough Budget Estimate
Item SSpecialist
Phase 1
1. Coordination with agencies,
collect existing data, develop study geomorphologist
plan
biologist
Units Unit Type Rate per Unit
48 hours
4 hours
2. Survey additional cross -sections
rough estimate based on KC survey costs.
a) layout and coordination
geomorphologist
20 hours
b) control point survey tie in
survey crew
c) survey channel XS
survey crew
10 cross-section
d) survey floodplain XS
survey crew
5 cross-section
3. Aerial photos
geomorphologist
3 hours
assume photos provided at no
charge by U.S. Army Corps
4. Surface Gravel Sampling
geomorphologist
48 hours
biologist
field assistant
5. Subsurface Gravel Sampling
geomorphologist
for HEC-6 model (4 samples)
field assistants
this could be delayed until summer
2001
6. Fine Sediments
Item 6b probably won't
be needed
a) Data and literature review
geomorphologist
b) Subsurface McNeil samples
geomorphologist
if warranted (3 sites)
field assistants
7. Compile Spawning Count
biologist
Surveys
Ideally would be done earlier through an existing contract.
8. Analysis
geomorphologist
9. Report Writing and Production
geomorphologist
Supplies and Expenses
reproduction
mileage
film, field supplies
Total Phase I before markup
5% Markup on Subcontractors
Phase I Total
Phase 1 without shaded items
8
68
40
40
hours
hours
hours
hours
4
hours
26
hours
60
hours
40
hours
Cost
$75
$3,600
$90
$360
$75
$1,500
$3,000
$450
$4,500
$500
$2,500
$75 $225
$75
$90
$60
$75
$60
$3,600
$720
$4, 080
$3,000
$2,400
$75
$300
$75
$1,950
$60
$3,600
$75
$3,000
40 hours $75
32 hours $75
lump sum
10 RT (70 miles) $23
lump sum
$3,000
$2,400
$200
$228
100
$44,263
2 213
$46,476
$18,721
5% Markup on Subcontractors 936
Phase I Total $19,657
Phase 2
1. HEC-RAS model
Engineer
80
hours
$90
$7,200
2. Gravel motion calculations
Geomorphologist
40
hours
$75
$3,000
3. Evaluate sediment supply
Geomorphologist
40
hours
$75
$3,000
4. Analysis
Geomorphologist
40
hours
$75
$3,000
5. Report Writing and Production
Geomorphologist
32
hours
$75
$2,400
Total Phase I before markup
$18,600
5% Markup on Subcontractors
$930
Phase 2 Total
$19,530
Phase 3
Potential use of HEC-6 model to
route bedload sediment through
river, quantify scour and fill,
evaluate project alternatives
Gary Schimek - FW: cedar gravel study Page 1
From: "Lester, Deborah" <Deborah.Lester@METROKC.GOV>
To: 'Justin Anderson - SPU' <Justin.Anderson@ci.seattle.wa.us>, 'Keith Kurko - SPU'
<Keith.Kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, 'Ron Straka - Renton' <rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Lombard, John"
<John.Lombard@METROKC.GOV>, "Brewer, Scott" <Scott.Brewer@METROKC.GOV>, "Bikle, Anne"
<Anne. Bikle@METROKC.GOV>
Date: Tue, May 23, 2000 9:47 AM
Subject: FW: cedar gravel study
Cedar River Gravel Study Folks,
Attached is a draft of the Scope -of -Work and cost estimate for the Cedar
River Gravel Study. I just received the scope from the COE this morning and
have not had a chance to look it over, but wanted to get it out for your
review ASAP. Can you please take a look at it and give me your comments by
the end of the week (May 26)? If there are significant concerns about the
scope we may want to meet to make sure we all agree on he final scope. It
would be great if you can get back to me with comments as soon as possible
so we can determine if a meeting is necessary. I know the COE is anxious
to get the contract going for this project, but I want to make sure we all
agree with the scope and budget. Thanks for your help with this!
Deb Lester
Aquatic Biologist
Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Team
King County Department of Natural Resources
Water and Land Resources Division
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-8325 (206) 296-0192 (FAX)
deborah.lester@metrokc.gov
-----Original Message -----
From: Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS [mailto:Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Tuesday, May 23, 2000 8:10 AM
To: Smith, Linda S NWS; 'Lester, Deborah'
Cc: 'Lombard, John'
Subject: RE: cedar gravel study
Linda,
Here's the draft SOW and cost breakdown of the Gravel Study.
The costs shown in shaded areas are those items that could be done by
someone other than Sue. We could provide Jones&Stokes those line items or
give them to our excellent in-house survey folks.
I'd like to have Sue perform the modeling so she's aware of each step from
data collection to analysis.
We should start circulating the draft SOW for review and get it polished
real soon. I'd like to begin working with Sue and Jones&:stokes to get the
contracting moving so we can ensure data collection this summer.
Gary Schimek - FW: cedar gravel study
Page 2
Thanks for your patience.
Lei
-----Original Message -----
From: Smith, Linda S NWS
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 2:18 PM
To: 'Lester, Deborah', Smith, Linda S NWS
Cc: Lombard, John; Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS
Subject: RE: cedar gravel study
Jeff, you are sending Deb scope, right? I will talk to survey about if they
want to do.
-----Original Message -----
From: Lester, Deborah [mailto: Deborah. Lester@METROK3.GOV]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 01:24
To -.'Smith, Linda S NWS'
Cc: Lombard, John; 'Jeff Dillon - COE'
Subject: RE: cedar gravel study
Hi Linda,
Great, I will pass the revised scope around as soon as I get it from Jeff
and see if folks agree on it. If everyone is comfortable with the scope I
don't think we need to have another meeting. I will talk to John about the
money, as it will be coming from the Lake WA Forum KCD funds. If I recall
correctly, Jeff had estimated that the field work componen': would cost
between $20- 50K. Is that what the $46K covers?
I-.
-----Original Message -----
From: Smith, Linda S NWS [mailto:Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 1:08 PM
To: 'Lester, Deborah'
Subject: RE: cedar gravel study
Jeff has something better he is sending you, should help. Has all study
elements itemized and costed out. So we need dates next, I gues..
-----Original Message -----
From: Lester, Deborah [ma iIto: Deborah. Lester@METRO KC. GOV]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 11:01
To: 'Smith, Linda S NWS'
Subject: RE: cedar gravel study
Gary Schimek - FW: cedar gravel study
---
Page 3
Before I can get $$$ 1 need a scope and budget ..... I am on a break from a
long meeting. Will call or E-mail more later
-----Original Message -----
From: Smith, Linda S NWS [mailto:Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army.mil]
Sent: Monday, May 22, 2000 10:42 AM
To: 'lester, deborah'
Cc: Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS
Subject: cedar gravel study
Deb, long time no see! If you need to meet one last time on Cedar gravel
study, now is the time to set this up. I believe we are now under the gun
to get awarded in time to do some of the field work, though Jeff can
probably clarify. What is really scary is that I will need to process your
money before we can award contract, and as I have found in the past, that
can take a good deal of time. Would help if we did electronically, and not
the last week of the month (they close books). Jeff has estimated work to
cost up to $46,000 for all of Phase 1 items (phase 2 is modelling). Would
you be able to come up with 1/2 of this quickly?
When do you want to meet (if we need to, your call). Sould be this week or
next, available 5/30, 5/31 of that week. or this week, Wed or Thrusday AM
(after 9) I'll round up my guys, if you'll do yours.
Give me some times.
CC: 'Jeff Dillon - COE' <Jeffrey.F.Dillon @NWS02.usace. army. mil>, 'Linda Smith - COE'
<Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
Gary Schimek Cedar Gravel Scope of Work Page 1
From: "Lester, Deborah" <Deborah.Lester@METROKC. GOV>
To: 'Jeff Dillon - COE' <Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
Date: Wed, May 24, 2000 2:38 PM
Subject: Cedar Gravel Scope of Work
Jeff,
Here are my comments and questions (see attached file) o,i the Gravel Study
Scope of Work. So far I have not gotten any comments from the other folks.
I will let you know when I do. Please give a call if you have questions
about my comments. Thanks!!!
<<Cedar Gravel Scope of Work_.doc>>
Deb Lester
Aquatic Biologist
Cedar-Sammamish Watershed Team
King County Department of Natural Resources
Water and Land Resources Division
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, Washington 98104
(206) 296-8325 (206) 296-0192 (FAX)
deborah.lester@metrokc.gov
CC: "Lombard, John" <John.Lombard@METROKC.GOV>, "Brewer, Scott"
<Scott.Brewer@METROKC.GOV>, "Bikle, Anne" <Anne.Bikle@METROKC.GOV>, 'Justin Anderson -
SPU' <Justin.Anderson@ci.seattle.wa.us>, 'Keith Kurko - SPU <Keith.Kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, 'Ron
Straka - Renton' <rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, 'Linda Smith - COE'
<Linda.S.Smith @NWS02.usace.army.mil>
Scope of Work
Cedar River Gravel Study Phases 1 and 2
Field Characterization of Cedar River Gravel
I. Background. The Washington Department of Fisheries (now WA Dept of Fish &
Wildlife) conducted a survey of available sockeye spawning gravel areas (i.e., habitat)
and distribution in the late 1960s. These data •��',. 'ems -serve d-as the basis for the
current sockeye escapement goal of 300,000 fish for sorkey4at the Cedar River. This
survey was primarily a visual survey, with minimal bed sampling, and was based on the
survey surveyor's expertise in identification of ying-suitable sockeye spawning habitat.
It is not possible to replicate the study. cannot be replicated.
Since the 1960's several observations f available spawning gravel on
the Cedar River have been made. These observations have lead researchers and fisheries
managers to suggest that current spawning gravels may be less abundant prevalent and/or
less suitable than the historical condition. Conversely, little research has been conducted
to quantify whether or not current gravels present in the river represent an adequate
volume or composition to support long-term salmonid spawning. The Lake Washington
GI project, a multi -agency project led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and King
County, has the opportunity and need, to initiate a study to evaluate for pu=Pose-ef
understanding -whether current Cedar River gravel conditions in the Cedar- River are
capable of adequately sustaining long-term salmonid spawning conditions. It is
proposed that this project be conducted using a phased approach. The approach
considered for this multi --phased study has been developed to provide sequential decision
points between phases to help answer whether or not the next study objective needs to be
pursued. The following provides an overview of the objectives and specific tasks
necessary to complete the project.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the study described here is to evaluate the current condition
of spawning gravel in the Cedar River and if necessary, use a modeling approach to
identify the cause of any problems identified. These data will then be used to identify
restoration needs for the river. Physical modeling of gravel characteristics is critical to
decisions making on the need and extent of future gravel and upland restoration projects
along the Cedar River. The project will be conducted in three phases, which are
described below.
The purpose of Pphase 1 of the Cedar River Gravel Study is to take field measurements;
to gather initial baseline data on gravel characteristics, and in addition, compile existing
data to evaluate whether and where a "gravel problem" presently exists. Sufficient field
data would be collected during Phase 1 to allow for modeling during Pphases 2 and 3.
If Phase 1 identifies that a "gravel problem" does exist we would proceed with Phase 2 of
the project. Phase 2 would consist of augmenting King County's new HEC-RAS flood
model for of -the Cedar River, and using it to calculate scour potential and the discharge
that would needed to initiate movement tiomof gravel at select various locations along the
river (i.e., between the Landsburg Dam and ???). Phase 2 would coulralso
include a quantitatively evaluation of e-the current gravel supply and the role of the
Landsburg diversion on this supply. This phase would determine whether lack of gravel
in certain reaches is caused primarily by channel morphology (e.g., reduction in side
channels, confinement by levees, changes in channel cross -sections) or due to a limited
lack of gravel supply.
(What's the trigger to initiate Phase 3?) Phase 3 would be performed during project
design. ??????Wouldn't we do this BEFORE project design???? In this phase, a HEC-6
(can you include a very brief description about what the HEC-6 model will tell us?)
model would be developed to simulate movement rout of e-sediment downstream and
calculate quantities of scour and fill at each of the previously evaluated cross -sections.
This effort would probably be necessary only if gravel augmentation is considered as an
alternative, although it could also be used to evaluate potential restoration projects that
would significantly alter the channel cross-section.
The following provides an overview of the specific tasks associated with each of the
Phases of the project.
IILL Phase 1 - Objective and :Scope. The objective of Pphase 1 is to
execute a field study approach as described under this scope of work to that will
identify the —current availability n^^d�tio: cT(e.g., location, size, composition) of
spawning gravel within the Cedar River (i.e., between Landsburg Dam and ????).
Existing data (e.g., gravel source input -availability, fine sediment, spawning surveys)
will -from other sources (e.g., Seattle Public Utilities, King County etc.) will also be
utilized. Based on the results of this phase of the project, a recommendation(s)
willould be made on how best to deal with any identified gravel problems relating to
fish on the Cedar River. Fieldwork for this phase of the project Work --will be
conducted once -between the low flow months of July and September -,September
2000. The following provides an overview of the specific tasks associated with this
phase of the project.
Task 1. Initial Coordination and Study Plan Development. Prior to conducting field
work, the cContractor will shall conduct brief coordinate i^^ -activities-staff involved with
existing Cedar River research efforts to obtain existing information and identify possible
cooperative data gathering opportunities. Contractor shall obtain existing cross-section
data and flood study maps. Contractor shall use existing flood study maps and air photos
to design layout a sampling plan and identify de-tennine. locations where additional cross-
section data s-are needed. Prior to conducting fieldwork the Contractor will prepare a
brief study plan to be reviewed by study sponsors.
Task 2. Cross Sections. Contractor shall query and obtain all relevant cross sectional
data from existing sources such as King County and City of Seattle as well as any cross
sections on file at the Corps of Engineers. A maximum of 10 additional cross sections
may be added in the field as part of this contract to support HEC-RAS modeling in Phase
2. Five of the additional transects may be above Landsberg Dam (do we need to specify
"how far above"???, for the purpose of modeling gravel supply and transport rates into
the study reach. Cross-section surveys above Landsburg Dam will include the floodplain
as well as the main channel. Data to be collected includes ...............
Task 3. Aerial Photos. Contractor shall obtain and organize a current (can we be more
specific than current here?) series of aerial photos for use during planning exercises and
as reference for goomer-phologivAgeomorphologic analysis. Aerial photos may be
obtained en -file -through the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other
suitable source.
Task 4. Physical Gravel Sampling- Surface. Contractor shall conduct surficial gravel
counts at transects??? located along the length of the Cedar River from approximately
RM 22 (1 mile upstream of Landsburg Dam) to the mouth (RM 0) in areas at cross
sections -with appropriate morphology (what's appropriate? Can we define?) , primarily
focusing on sites •irn�that contain spawnable gravels. Surficial gravel counts to
determine size distribution will should follow methodologies outlined in Wolman, 1954
and Kondolf, 1997. The following characteristics should be recorded at each point count
site: bankfull width and estimated bankfull depth, habitat type, sketch showing
approximate area of potentially spawnable gravel and its location relative to the cross-
section, local water -surface gradient. Can we include a sample data sheet here??, how
many of these samples will be collected)
Task 5. Physical Gravel Sampling- Subsurface. Subsurface gravel sampling shall be
conducted in support of potential HEC-6 modeling in
Phase 3. Subsurface samples shall be taken at appropriate locations (what's
appropriateM) based on field expertise using a shovel for above -water samples and a
bucket sample for underwater samples. Sample size shall be large enough to adequately
(what's adequate??) characterize grain size distribution in these coarse sediments. A
maximum of four samples shall be cataloged (? What's the difference between cataloged
and analyze??) and analyzed using a sieve analysis to determine size distribution. These
samples are intended to supplement existing subsurface data collected samples tan --in
1992 by King County , and data from the, King r,,., my samples , Which should also be
included in the report. At least one sample should be taken upstream from Landsburg
Dam to evaluate sediment size entering the study area. (How many of these samples are
we going to collect??? Me should define a range in the scope)
Task 6. Fine Sediments.
a) The Contractor shall review existing data n fine sediments in the
Cedar River. Based on existing studies, contractor shall document significant sources of
lend of other- significant sources efof fine sediment and tabulate results of any
previous sediment work where % fines may have been described. These data Results
should be compared to known literature data on how % fines may Anti heir impact to
salmonid redds and egg survival. Based on a cursory look at some of the available data,
it is anticipated that -this these data task -will suggest show that fine sediment is not
adversely impacting gravel quality, except possibly near Lake Washington, where fines
naturally settle out due to the flat gradient.
b) If the results of Task 6a-suggest&4hat-fine sediments could be limiting spawning
success upstream from the City of Renton, McNeil sampling shall be conducted at no
more than 3 sites with potential spawning gravels. (Can you please briefly describe what
this sampling will tell us and what will be done with the data??)
Task 7. Spawning Counts. The Contractor shall work with WDFW and other agencies
to obtain and compile annual salmonid spawning surveys data for comparison to existing
gravel distribution and characteristics based on the above field work.
Task 8. Analysis. The Contractor shall compile all data collected and analyze trends in
gravel abundance or size distribution based on location, average river gradient, channel
confinement, and other morphologic characteristics. If data (what kind of data are you
referring to?) from the spring 2000 habitat survey are sufficient, an estimate of total
gravel area in each river reach shall be made. Otherwise, cross-section and floodplain
characteristics shall be used to extrapolate and characterize relative gravel retention along
different sections of the river. Gravel distribution and size characteristics shall be
compared with WDFW spawning survey data. The role of sediment supply will be
evaluated on a qualitative basis based on existing information and field observations of
local sediment sources.
V. Phase 1 - Contract Schedule and Deliverables.
The product of Phase 1 will be a written report documenting the methods scheduling and
results of relevant field activities. Cross-section survey and sediment sample data for use
in future HEC RAS and HEC-6 modeling will be provided in spreadsheets on disk as well
as hard copy (do we want to specify a software type that this should be done in?). Draft
deliverables will be due 60 days after final field surveys are conducted. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (what about the project sponsors???) will have 10 days (can we
increase this to 2 weeks?) to comment on draft deliverables and return them to the
contractor. The final deliverable shall be due 14 days after receipt of comments from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and project sponsors. The final deliverable will consist of
three (3) bound and one (1) unbound (4 total) copies of subject report. Deliverables will
be due at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on specified
date.
VI. Phase 2 Scope: HEC-RAS model and sediment transport capability at cross -
sections
If necessary, tThis phase of the project could be started in early 2001, by which time the
complete HEC-RAS model for RM 0 to 21 of the Cedar River should be available from
King County. (Can you add a brief description of what this will do for us???? And what
we are looking for)
Task 1. HEC-RAS modeling. Add cross -sections data ??? to existing HEC-RAS model
and develop new model for one mile of river upstream of Landsberg Dam. The new
cross-section data s surveyed collected in Phase 1 would be used for this purpose. Run
medelRun model at a variety of flows, including bankfull discharge, and provide
summary tables that present with —flow parameter datas that is relevant to sediment
modeling such as average depth, velocity, shear stress.
Task 2. Gravel movement calculations. For cross -sections for which data were collected
in Pphase 1, calculate bedload transport rate, and the size of sediment particles that would
be mobile at bankfull discharge and other selected discharges (would these flows be the
same as those evaluated in Task I above??).
Task 3. Evaluate sediment supply. Develop quantitative estimates of bedload sediment
supply from upstream (upstream of what??), tributary channels, landslides, eroding
bluffs, and eroding banks. Evaluate changes in supply over the last century (??? Based
on what???). Use sediment budget approach, based on suspended sediment
yields,(where will these data come from??) watershed area, and (if feasible) bar accretion
rates. Sediment -transport modeling of the sediment influx from upstream of Landsberg
will not be performed until Phase 3.
Task 4. Analysis. Evaluate downstream changes in sediment mobility due to cross-
section morphology and gradient changes. Correlate gravel size and abundance with
transport and supply, and determine the relative importance of these factors in limiting
gravel abundance. Determine the cross-section and floodplain morphologies that are
most conducive to providing abundant spawning gravel.
VII. Phase 2 Report and Deliverables
The product of Phase 2 will be a written report documenting the development and results
of HEC-RAS modeling efforts. A HEC-RAS model will rely primarily on existing data
and data gathered under Phase 1 activities. The report should document a) flows and
hydraulics at cross -sections, b) provide an estimate of available matericalmaterial (yield),
c) describe transport capacities (reach by reach), estimate a sediment budget and e)
provide conclusions and recommendations. Draft deliverables will be due 60 days after
modeling results are completed. Contractor will develop and run the HEC-RAS model
within 45 days from the completion of Pphase 1. (Project sponsors will want to get
together and review the result of Phase I before we move to the Model ... ... please make
sure we incorporate that into the timeline) The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
sponsors will have 414- 14 days to comment on draft deliverables and return them to the
contractor. The final deliverable shall be due 14 days after receipt of comments from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The final deliverable will consist of three (3) bound and
one (1) unbound (4 total) copies of subject report. Deliverables will be due at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on the date specified in the
Contracting documents.
What about Phase 3? Should describe briefly
1 - The HEC-RAS modeling only tells the hydraulics portion of the puzzle. It will
tell, for a. Using these velocities, transport characteristics can be developed. However,
some estimate of movable material needs to be done (this estimate could come from the
Task 1 search) before an assessment came be made on a reach by reach basis. So, my
suggestion would be to add language regarding sediment yield (source, gradation,
volume) and then apply transport functions to each reach. Then statements could be
made about ability of one reach to pass material to the next.
2 - All of the above is to say,
Gary Schimek- LW GI, Cedar Gravel Study deferred
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: "'bikle, anne"' <anne.bikle@metrokc.gov>, "'anderson, justin
<justin.anderson@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'straka, ron"' <rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'schimek, gary"'
<gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'bachen, bruce"'<bruce.bachen@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'brewer, scott
<scott. brewer@ metrokc. gov>, "'ging, george"' <george_ging@mail.fws.gov>, "'houck, doug
<doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'kurko, keith"' <keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "Tester, deborah"'
<deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'lombard, john"' <john.lombard@metrokc.gov>
Date: Mon, Jul 17, 2000 6:34 PM
Subject: LW GI, Cedar Gravel Study deferred
I am sorry to have to tell you all that we will not be able to conduct the
phase 1 gravel study this year. We do have some field work being conducted
as part of our Cedar habitat contract, but we cannot conduct the cross
sectional surveys and gather data for modeling this summer/fall as we had
hoped. We did manage to get a scope of work which was generally accepted,
so we will be in an excellent position to contract this work next year.
This will also put off modeling for one year, as I gathered phase 1 work is
limited to low water time of year.
We unfortunately were not able to work out the funding requirements in time
to award. This was partly due to the time required to get an accepted scope
of work from all, as well as complications we had in trying to get more
Federal funds (we would have had to go to Committee). We never got to a
point where we were looking for the nonfederal funds, I don't know if this
would have been an issue or not. But we now have a good estimate of what
Phase 1 will cost, so if interlocal agreements are necessary to fund, we
have time to get these approved.
Thank you all for your time and effort
Linda Smith, COE 764-6721
Gary Schimek - FW Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith @NWS02.usace.army.mil>
To: "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Fri, Sep 29, 2000 1:44 PM
Subject: FW:
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Smith, Linda S NWS
> Sent: Friday, September 29, 2000 01:30
> To: 'bikle, anne'; 'brewer, scott'; 'luccheti, gino'
> Subject:
> As part of our attempt to stream line the design/plan formulation process
> and insure we are taking full advantage of available information - and
> meeting sponsor needs, I am asking for an informal list from you of "pet'
> restoration projects in Lake Washington. I suppose we can build to some
> extent on Cedar Master Plan, projects submitted to WIRA. But I would like
> to have an idea of projects you are already pretty sold on, to keep in
> mind as we match results of technical studies with potential projects.
> Bear in mind, construction would be about 2005, so may not want to list
> projects that you think you can otherwise fund in next 2 years, or that
> you have firm construction funds for. Also, don't list projects that are
> pure acquisition and preservation, which lets out a lot of the WIRA group.
> This is informal, just for the study teams use as a "heads up". don't
> sweat if you miss some, I don't need a fully staffed survey of your
> agency. Just off the top of your head (and maybe your top one or two
> biologists) what would you like to see built? Please give brief
> description, and enough of a location I have a clue where it is would
> help. eg. create spawning channel for sockeye at RM whatever on Cedar.
> If any turn out to be good matches, we';II discuss more anyway.
> I assume you would start with the Cedar Master Plan, but i admit freely I
> have lost track of which ones you have already built, and you may have
> some you want added based on new info.
> Thanks!
Gary Schimek - MFR of LW GI scoping meetings in Sept
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: "'arnold, gail"' <gail.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'bachen, Bruce"'
<bruce.bachen@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'bikle, anne"' <anne.bikle@metrokc.gov>, "'brewer, scoff"'
<scott.brewer@metrokc.gov>, "'chinn, alan"' <alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'faegenburg, nancy
<nancy.faegenburg@metrokc.gov>, "'fresh, kurt"' <freshklf@dfw.wa.gov>, "'ging, george"'
<george_ging@mail.fws.gov>, "'houck, doug"' <doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'kurko, keith"'
<keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'lackey, brent"' <brent.lackey@metrokc.gov>, "Tester, deborah"'
<deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'reinelt, lorin"' <lorin.reinelt@metrokc.gov>, "'simenstad, si"'
<csimenstad@lternet.edu>, "'seiler, dave"' <seiled es@dfw.wa.gov>, "'tabor, roger
<roger_tabor@MAIL.FWS.GOV>, "'warner, eric"' <chumski@eskimo.com>, "'white, jean
<jean.white@metrokc.gov>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Mon, Oct 23, 2000 10:42 AM
Subject: MFR of LW GI sc oping meetings in Sept
This isn't great, but it's the best documentation I can do with time
provided. We are working on setting up follow up meetings as we speak (or
read).
<<2001 Iwscoping.doc>>
CC: "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Goetz, Frederick
A NWS" <Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
10/12/00
MFR: Lake Washington General Investigation Study, Scoping Meetings for
FY 2001 (September 2000).
Three meetings were held in Seattle District in September (25, 27, 28) with the study local sponsors and
interested agencies to refine the FY 2001 technical studies for the Lake Washington GI. A brief summary
of each meeting follows, along with agenda and handouts. In all meetings we summarized work completed
in FY 2000, and followed up with suggested studies for 2001. In most cases we agreed we needed to meet
with a more technical team to fmalize scopes of work. The study scopes need to be resolved by December,
so meetings need to be held in Oct/early November. The purpose of these meetings was to generally define
areas of interest and to discuss the budget. The COE explained that we are operating on carryover funds
from 2000 until we can get substantial nonfederal money this FY. We will not be able to use FY 2001
funds unless we can match with nonfederal. Linda Smith explained we should have enough carryover
funds to do a fall scoping process, but will need funds by December. (or earlier) No new technical studies
or modeling can be done by the Corps with the limited funds we now have available. It is critical that
scopes of work for contracts are agreed to by the end of November/early December, so the Corps can have
time to prepare contract documents and go through the contracting process. The earliest we could have
contracts funded would be Jan/Feb 2001. The majority of the fishery/habitat studies would need to be
awarded between Marchand June 2001. The study schedule was also discussed. At the request of King
County and Seattle, we are adding one year of technical studies. We had originally scheduled FY 2001 for
project selection and design. This will require an amendment to the Federal Cost Sharing Agreement, and
the request by the Corps for federal approval for study delay. We are working under the assumption that
we have $790,000 in the federal budget for FY 2001, for a total study amount of $1,580,000. We are
declaring a capability of $$2,198,000 if local sponsor can match and this year's study effort warrants.
Would need to request these additional funds by Jan/Feb 2001. We have calculated the Corps needs
$330,400 to provide coordination/study management funds, cover overhead and shared costs. This leaves
$1,249,600 for all technical studies for 2001 (or roughly $624,800 per FCSA).
Sammamish River/Lake Meeting.
1. The following met to discuss studies for the Sammamish River and tributaries, and Lake Sammamish:
Linda Smith, Layna Goodman, Young Suh, Jeff Dillon COE Planning, David Van Rijn, COE HH; Deb
Lester, Nancy Fagenburg, Brent Lackey, King County.
2. Lester noted she can provide funds for the local cost share for the Sammamish Juvenile studies and the
temperature studies by November.
3. FY 2000 Studies: Juvenile habitat use, FUR studies, temperature studies. (Previous years - mainstem
habitat study, study of North, Little Bear, and Swamp Creek).
4.FY 2001King County studies: King County will do as inkind groundwater studies for the Sammamish
River. Fagenburg would like to meet with Goodman on study details. The county has been having
difficulty getting the work scoped. The county will conduct wetland studies for the Sammamish this fall.
They are still uncertain if they will be able to get right of entry to do Bear Creek habitat studies. Lester will
let us know in November whether they would like us to undertake this effort.
5. FY 2001 Corps Studies: The Corps will complete habitat studies for small tributaries of Sammamish
River. Before we complete the scope of work, we will ask county to review to insure we are doing the
correct tributaries, for the proper length, etc. The Corps will complete our temperature studies for the
Sammamish River with a training course for the county. We will complete the Juvenile Habitat use study
with a few observations this spring - we missed the early juvenile migration because the contract was
awarded late.
6. Restoration Plan: We discussed doing a restoration plan for the Sammamish River. I noted if Corps
does it, it will need to be done under a contract, with matching funds from the County. We do not have
staff capability at this time. The county will consider further what they want as a product.
7. Section 1135 studies. Fagenburg asked whether we could take on the Sammamish transition zone as an
1135. Our major problem is that this authority is underfunded for the next 2 years, and it is almost
impossible to get new starts. The county would need to cof ind creation of reports and reviews which may
not be value added (they have almost completed their design and technical work). We could however
under Planning Assistance to States assist in specific technical studies, such as archeological studies.
Fagenburg will let us know if this is desired.
8. Lake Sammamish Studies. King County will conduct shoreline habitat studies this summer.
9. Schedule extension. The county asked whether we could add 2 years of technical studies rather than one.
I said I would look into this, but it was doubtful. (Follow up: The addition of 2 years of technical work at
this time would jeopardize the completion of the project, as it would push us past the date of the next likely
WRDA bill for construction. I anticipate that we may lose an additional year in the design/altemative
selection phase anyway, so to add further years to technical work would significantly affect the completion
date for the study. There did not appear to be any interest on the part of Seattle or the City of Issaquah to
add another year to feasibility at this time.)
10. Action Items:
*County will provide Corps nonfederal matching funds for FY 2000 work by November.
*County will notify Corps if we need to include Bear Creek habitat work under our contract in November.
*Fagenburg and Goodman will meet on groundwater study scope.
*Corps will verify small trib habitat study scope with county.
*Potential field trip with County, agencies to identify known restoration projects.
Locks/Estuary/Ship Canal
1. The following met to discuss the FY 2001 studies for the estuary, locks, and Ship Canal: Linda Smith,
Layna Goodman, Young Suh, Fred Goetz, Jeff Dillon, COE Planning; Marian Valentine, COE HH;
Keith Kurko, Gail Arnold, and Bruce Bachen, Seattle Public Utilities; Gary Schimek, Renton; Fred
Seavey, USFWS; Deb Lester and John Lombard, King County.
2. FY 2000 Work: Adult chinook hydroacustic studies, cold water refuge studies (under KC FCSA),
juvenile pit tag studies (tribs, LWSC, and hatchery, hydroacustics at the spillway and saltwater drain.
Related - Simenstad/MIT estuary studies.
3. FY 2001 Work (Potential): Estuary - Juvenile pit tagging, otolith analysis, (fish use of estuary, tie in with
locks operations), prey/resource sampling above locks, inner bay, mid bay, outer bay; habitat mapping,
linkage of prey with habitat, substrate, zooplankton; water column characteristics - longitudinal and
transverse profiles, with differing flows, tides. Water Conservation - change salinity standard (modeling,
environmental impacts), change in water storage/lake elevations (determine needs, model water
availability, economic analysis, environmental analysis, design and evaluation of structural methods); Fish
Passage - fish ladder, refuge studies; Locks - velocity measurements, pit tag of juveniles, habitat use studies
for Ship Canal, Habitat Availability.
4. Estuary: There is some interest in doing much of the estuary work under the Nearshore GI study. We
may want to track juvenile use of shorelines, salinity/temperature studies of water column downstream of
the flumes. We need to tie sampling to various discharges from the flumes and spillways.
5. Fish Ladder. Discussed need for fish ladder improvements. We agreed we needed a meeting just on fish
passage to refine what studies are needed, and what potential projects are of mutual interest to the Corps
and sponsors. We had previously discussed such modifications as closing off the side opening to the
ladder, a multilevel intake,adding lights, improving the weirs, adding a telescoping weir at the downstream
end, and adding strobes to keep adults out of the saltwater drain.
6. Water Conservation : We are evaluating structural and operational ways of getting more water for the
flumes, for dry years, and later in the migration season. We are scheduled to do modeling studies for
lowering the lake to up to 19.5 feet in late fall and for increasing the salinity of Lake Union. We will
schedule a meeting when Alan Chin from SPU can attend to discuss further. We discussed having Seattle
approach the WIRA to get support for at least a waiver on salinity standards so we can test impacts this
year. Seattle will consider. We have evaluated a wide range of structural means to conserving water.
Several have survived an initial screening, and need to have preliminary costs and water savings prepared.
(Saltwater drain replacement, water reuse, dredging the saltwater drain sump. Reduced lockages does not
significantly save water. Most water at the locks is used for the saltwater drain. We may need to do other
tests in association with salinity - benthic studies, contaminant studies, etc. These need to be determined
and scoped in November). We will evaluate the mouths of tribs in Lake Washington and consider wetland
impacts for a lower lake elevation. We also need to consider impacts to 2 authorized Corps projects, the
Kenmore Navigation Channel, and the Sammamish Flood control project.
7. Action Items:
*Meet on Water Conservation with Seattle and interested agencies.
*Meet on fish passage studies (King County, Seattle, MIT, agencies)
*Conference call/meet with Seattle, agencies on estuary studies.
Lake Washington/Cedar River Studies
1. The following met to develop FY 2001 studies for Lake Washington and the Cedar River: Linda Smith,
Layna Goodman, Young Suh, Jeff Dillon, Fred Goetz, COE Planning; Mike Deering, COE HH; Roger
Tabor, USFWS; Deb Lester, King County.
2. FY 2000 : Cedar River- Habitat Studies, Gravel Studies (Houck), juvenile tracking studies.
Lake Washington -Docks and Pier Survey, Predator studies, Juvenile Shoreline Use, Limited Shoreline
habitat studies.
3. FY 2001 Studies: Cedar Gravel Studies, continuation of juvenile tracking studies, Lake Washington
shoreline evaluation/juveniles (undefined).(Note: At the October WIRA technical committee meeting, there
was a strong interest in establishing demo projects for Lake Union, Lake Washington, and Ship Canal for
juvenile use, such as shallow sandy shoreline.
4. Lake Washington Tributaries.
Some potential projects at mouths of creeks to increase fish passage ability, potential to remove fish
blockages. No technical studies indicated, projects based on professional knowledge.
5. Action Items:
*Meeting with Houck, Tabor, Seattle, etc. on Lake Washington, Union, Ship Canal studies - focusing on
juvenile salmon use of shorelines.
*Cedar - Field survey of potential restoration sites based on Master Plan, current data.
*Discuss tribs with Bellevue, Seattle, etc. for potential projects of SIGNIFICANT value.
City of Issaquah Projects: Corps is meeting separately with City of Issaquah on their two restoration
projects which are in the final design phase (Erickson and Tibbets Creek).
WDFW Hatchery Intake Project: Project on hold until state can evaluate modified intake at the hatchery for
an additional flood season. May reopen studies this spring.
Linda Smith, PM
Gary Schimek - Cedar River Field Trip Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" < Linda. S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mi >
To: ."arnold, gall"' <gall.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'bachen, bruce"'
<bruce.bachen@ci.seattle.wa.us>,-bikle, anne"' <anne.bikle@metrokc.gov>, "'brewer, Scott
<Scott. brewer@ metrokc. gov>, "'chinn, alan"' <alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'ging, george
<george_ging@mail.fws.gov>, "'houck, doug"' <doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'kurko, keith"'
<keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>,-schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'warner, eric
<chumski@eskimo.com>, "'Straka, ron"' <rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'white, jean
<jean.white@metrokc.gov>, "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army.mil>, "Goetz,
Frederick A NWS" <Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Suh, Young NWS"
<Young.Suh@nws02.usace.army. mil>
Date: Mon, Oct 30, 2000 11:28 AM
Subject: Cedar River Field Trip
Jeff Dillon and I have a need to see the Cear River to get us more oriented
towards specific projects. We have the idea that if a bunch of us that know
the basin really well toured in a van, looking at some of the worst sites
needing help, or the best projects, that we could focus our work
considerably. I assume we would start with the list of project Gino
developed and that were discussed in the Master Plan, with updates?? We
have further brainstormed that we are overwhelmed time wise by all this
(we're all carrying other projects - some cases MANY) anc need a consultant
to help us out. I have discussed with some of you the idea of hiring a
consultant (that we all like and can get to) to list out limiting factors
for the Cedar River, and then start identifying projects and dropping these
into the appropriate limiting factor slots. They could even weight them. I
would also like to include some level of benefit analysis for our economics.
We have Tetratec doing this for us on the Chehalis for a humongeous project
and it is working well. Gives structure! Of course, contractor would be
consulting WIRA tech committee, forum and others we stipulate (resident
experts, basin stewards, etc) for input.
Understand the Corps screens projects somewhat differertly than the WIRA.
We cannot acquire for preservation, must focus on restoration, and hydraulic
factors at that. Real estate is a big issue for us also, and time frames.
Also we are on a VERY fast track, need to pull this together no later than
this fall (funds depending).
SO - if we do a field trip we can see some sites, limiting factors, and
discuss if this is the way we want to go.
Young Suh, the assistant PM on this project will set up the actual dates for
the field trip, so include him in your responses.
November is jam packed for me until some other meetings get lined up. For
now, please RSVP if a field trip appeals to you, and who you would want to
attend. We'll try for November, but may have to be early Dec, which means
we have daylight from about 9-3. Do we need to do in 2 separate days? This
should be the working level people who KNOW the basin hands on.
Thanks
arySchime - Cear fiver Field Trip Paget
CC: "Tester, deborah"' <deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'luccheti, gino"'
<gino.lucchetti@metrokc.gov>
GarySchimek -Corps GI process from a local sponsor angle Page 1
206
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: ."arnold, gail"' <gail.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'chinn, alan"'
<alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'kurko, keith"' <keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>
Date: Mon, Nov 20, 2000 12:32 PM
Subject: Corps GI process from a local sponsor angle
Gail suggested I resend my summary (slightly updated) of our stages for the
General Investigations Study as a reminder of how our studies proceed, and
what is normally done in feasiblity. This is a pretty crude outline, but
should help, or at least refine questions. <<LWSC216sponsor1.doc>>
CC: "'brewer, scott"' <scott.brewer@metrokc.gov>, "'ging, george
<george_ging@mail.fws.gov>, "'houck, doug"' <doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "Tester, deborah
<deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'ritland, kerry"'
<kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "'white, jean"' <jean.white@metrokc.gov>
.i-
rtLjpfod
11/20/00
LAKE WASHINGTON SHIP CANAL SECTION 216 STUDY
AUTHORITY: The Lake Washington 216 study is a General
Investigation Study, with funding provided specifically by
Congress. The authority is Section 216, Public Law 91-611,
Dec. 1970. "The Secretary of the Army, acting through the
Chief of Engineers, is authorized to review the operation of
projects the construction of which has been completed and
which were constructed by the Corps of Engineers in the
interest of navigation, flood control, water supply, and
related purposes, when found advisable due the significantly
changed physical or economic conditions, and to report
thereon to Congress with recommendations on the advisability
of modifying the structures or their operation, and for
improving the quality of the environment in the overall
public interest.'' Specific funding for the LWSC 216
occurred with H.R. Conference Report 101-889, 101st
Congress, 2nd session, October 16, 1990; providing $250,000
for water supply at the Lake Washington Ship Canal.
PLANNING PROCESS FOR GENERAL INVESTIGATION RESTORATION
STUDY.
RECONNAISSANCE AND SCOPE OF WORK. (DONE) The first phase of
the study is the preparation of a 905(b) recon report and a
scope of work. The report was completed and approved in
July 1998. The majority of the effort in recon is to
develop the scope of work for feasibility and to get
signature of the Federal Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA). We
must complete the scope of work by the end of December to
allow for a scheduled review conference with our HQ in
January 1999. The local sponsor and HQ must review the
scope of work and concur. We will undoubtedly have
significant comments to respond to from HQ after our Jan
meeting. The local sponsor is encouraged to attend this
meeting.
End of recon phase: Recon is completed when the Corps and
the local sponsor sign the FCSA (anticipate June 99). The
FCSA (sample enclosed) sets up the frame work for the Govt
and local sponsor (LS) to provide funds for the study, and
to modify the study scope. It indicates concurrence in the
scope of work by both parties. It consists of a scope of
work, a schedule, and an introduction. The FCSA CAN be
changed once signed, and frequently is. However, changes
should be kept to a minimum. We will review our work effort
each year, and decide with the LS if the study
scope/schedule needs revision . The FCSA can be terminated
at any time, but the LS does not get a refund of expended
funds. The FCSA provides for an Executive Committee to
modify the document, resolve issues, etc. For the LWSC
study, we will have 2 FCSAs - one for Seattle, one for King
County.
Seattle will need to sign a MOA with King County if the
county decides to provide funds to the city. The Corps only
interest in wording of the MOA is that it stipulates how
much money will be provided, and when, so we are assured
that Seattle can provide us with adequate funds at the start
of each FY. If the county is doing any in -kind work under
Seattle's FCSA (and they will) this needs to be stipulated
as part of the MOA - what the work is, value, and schedule.
This can all be obtained from our master scope of work. The
MOA will need to be completed before Seattle can sign the
FCSA if Seattle is looking for funding from King County. I
have provided Lombard with sample MOAs, not sure if he has
prepared anything further. (See King County, Snoqualmie
Interlocal Agreement).
Funding: The LS pays 50% of the feasibility study costs,
minus any in -kind work. The Govt has a separate accounting
system for the study, and can account to the sponsor how
funds are expended. The LS should also have an accounting
system to allow for declaring in -kind work. Funds
unexpended at the end of a study are split and returned to
the LS. Funds are normally provided at the start of the
study and then the start of each FY (1 Oct). Funds are
provided for that year alone. The LS must submit accounting
for in -kind work every year.
FEASIBILITY: (CURRENT PHASE) Feasibility started in June
99. This will be a 3-5 year feasibility study. In
feasibility we do technical studies, (eg. Fish studies,
water quality, etc). Then a two phase design. We design
and cost all alternatives that seem reasonable to 100
design. Review costs, benefits, etc., discuss with sponsor
and technical reviewers (including agencies) and choose 1 or
2 alternatives for final design (350). Selection of
projects are based on costs (including OM), benefits, local
preference, and environmental impacts. An EIS will probably
be prepared for the overall feasibility study, and a
feasibility report. The FR and EIS get full public review.
The funds for feasibility are set in the FCSA in
reconnaissance. However, some modifications of funding and
schedules can occur each FY, subject to availability of
local and federal funds. Funds are provided on a Federal
level each Oct. Significant changes in schedule, funding,
or work require resignature of the FCSA.
Local Sponsor Responsibilities in Feasibility: The LS must
have a project manager available to meet with the study
team, provide public involvement if necessary, etc. A Real
Estate contact is necessary to coordinate with our RE staff
for restoration site designs. The LS PM will account for
their in -kind work, and funnel money in timely manner from
Seattle and supporting sponsors to the Corps on a FY basis.
At the end of feasibility, the local sponsor must:
• Prepare Legal Memorandum that states they can be a
sponsor (if Seattle has already done this for another
project, may not be needed);
• Prepare a Financial Plan which shows how they will pay
for construction, P&S, and OM.
• Have their lawyer review the Project Cooperation
Agreement (PCA) and provide a letter stating they have
read, will be able to sign, and understand their
financial requirements.
Approval for Plans and Specifications requires a
Chief of Engineers Report.
Plans and Specifications: P&S begins after HQ has approved
the feasibility report. Understand, HQ review can often
take 3-9 months. In P&S we develop 65% and 90% design. The
LS is involved at each checkpoint in concurring on design,
costs, etc. P&S can take 1 -2 years.
LOCAL SPONSOR REQUIREMENTS IN P&S: The local sponsor must
obtain all permits, all lands, easements, and rights of way
(including relocations) required for the project. The land
must be appraised (appraiser needs Corps approval). Corps
then certifies we have all land needed for the project.
When we have at least 650-o design costs, we can ask for
approval to construct. The Corps and LS sign the PCA
(Project Cooperation Agreement). The PCA will state local
costs, overall construction costs, OM requirements, etc.
FUNDING: The LS does not pay at the start of P&S. We
provide LS with cost estimate for this phase, but it is paid
for along with construction costs prior to awarding
contracts for construction. No construction contracts can
be awarded until: we have permits, certified lands, signed
PCA, local sponsor check for implementation costs. LS pays
35% of implementation costs, less value for land and
relocations and any in -kind the LS may perform during
construction.
CONSTRUCTION: Corps manages the construction contracts.
The LS can bring concerns over construction to the Corps PM.
Any relocations of utilities, roads, or homes is a local
responsibility. Local sponsor must find a disposal site if
needed for excavated material, and must deal with
contaminated sediments. In order to go to construction the
project must be incorporated in a WRDA. These usually but
not always occur every 2 years
O&M&RR. Operation, maintenance, rehab, and repair is 100%
local costs. At the locks, we would probably have our staff
do OM, paid for by LS. Financial package will have to show
how you will pay for OM for life of project. Monitoring
will occur for at least 5 years after construction. It is
cost shared 35o non -fed, 65o federal.
Gary Schimek - Revised Costs, FY 2001, Lake Washington GI Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To:-arnold, gail"' <gail.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'brewer, scott"'
<scott.brewer@metrokc.gov>, "'chinn, clan"' <alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'houck, doug
<doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'kurko, keith"' <keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "Tester, deborah"'
<deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'lombard, john"' <john.lornbard@metrokc.gov>,-ritland, kerry
<kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "'white, jean"' <jean.white@rnetrokc.gov>, "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS"
<Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Goetz, Frederick A NWS"
<Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "VanRijn, David P NWS"
<David. P.VanRijn@nws02. usace.army. mil>
Date: Wed, Nov 22, 2000 11:18 AM
Subject: Revised Costs, FY 2001, Lake Washington GI
I have revised the cost sheets for LW GI based on this weeks' meetings. I
have removed costs for a limiting factors contract, except for the Sammamish
River. I we decide we need this after reviewing WRIA stuff in January (and
I suspect we will need a contract for some amount of work, but may be
small), we will add it in later with separate funds. I have also moved
habitat studies for Lake Washington as inkind to Ship Canal studies, removed
water refuge studies, and beefed up velocity studies (under Lake
Washington). I have not increased costs for estuary, if they exceed costs
listed, we'll need to negotiate later.
I will send formal request for funds to Martin Baker and sorneone in County
(never got a name) - Maybe Pam Bisonette? next week, but this is what it
will show.
I cannot stress enough I need this money ASAP. If not for Xmas vacations,
we'd have to close down the study now, but I can eke through December.
Thanks <<LWSC Costs Lindanolf.xls>>
CC:-schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'warner, eric"'
<chumski@eskimo.com>, "Bauccio, Patricia M NWS" <Patricia.M.Bauccio@NWS02.usace.army. mil>,
"Sexauer, Bruce R NWS" <Bruce.R.Sexauer@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
DATE: 13NOV2000
_ I
PROJECT: LAKE WASHINGTON G.I. RESTORATION
SUB -PROJECT AND
FCSA: WATER CONSERVATION - SEATTLE FCSA
ACTUAL
FORECAST
BUDGET
EXPEND.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
ERS - Wetlands
10,000
10,000
ERS - Saltwater Drain
26,000
0
11,000
5000
5000
5000
ERS - Asses Exis SS
5,000
5,000
REAL ESTATE
7,000
2,000
5000
STRUCTURES
52,500
2,500
20,000
30000
HH SALINITY INTRU.
53,000
48,000
5000
HH LAKE ELEVATION
29,200
29,200
HH Coordination
5,000
5,000
ECON.
49,000
10,000
30,000
9000
COST ESTIMATING
4,000
4000
STUDY MGMT.- IN -KIND -NON-
50,000
0
20,000
10,000
10,000 10000
STUDY MGMT/ERS.-Corps
61,000
14,000
22,000
10,000
10,000 5000
ALLOC.SHARED COST
93,000
7,000
26,000
20,000
30,000,
10000
SUB -TOTAL
444,700
33,500
0
228,200
93,000
60,000
30,000
CONTINGENCIES
41,120
22,820
9,300
6,000
3,000
TOTAL COST
485,820
33,500
251,020
102,300
66,000
33,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH
187,910
16,000
103,510
40,150
22,000
5,500
IN -KIND -NON -FED.
55,000
-
-
22,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
16,500
TOTAL NON-FEDERAL
242,910
16,000
-
125,510
51,150
33,000
FEDERAL
242,910
16,750
125,510
51,150
33,000
16,500
ACTUAL
EXP.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
FISH PASSAGE - SEATTLE
Environmental Coordina
29,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
*adult fish passage
*Corps 1
227,000
9,000
190,000
8,000
10,000
5.000
5,000
* in -Kind Non -Fed.
55,200
30,200
20,000
5,000
*design imp.fish ladder
17,000
17,000
SW Drain hydroacutic
134,000
134,000
H&H
0
* Fish Ladder
4,300
4,300
* Coordinate ent.gate & g
14,900
14.900
* Underwater lighting
1,100
1,100
0
_
CIVIL -SOILS
4,000
4,000
ECON
11,000
11,000
STRUCTURES
15,700
15,700
MECH/ELECT
2,000
2000
COST ESTIMATING
3,400
3400
STUDY MGMT.
0
* Corps
1
61,500
6,000
10,500
15,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
* In -Kind (Non -Fed)
87,000
4,500
7,500
15,000
40,000
10,000
10,000
SHARED COST
85,775
2,500
6,275
12,000
15,000
30,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL
752,875
52.200
372,275 60,000
158.400
60,000
50,000
CONTINGENCIES
70,068
37,228 6,000' 15,840
6.000
5,000
TOTAL COST
822,943
52,200
409,5031
66,000 174,240
66,000
55,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH
250,621
-
174,501
11,000 43,120
22,000
16,500
*IN -KIND Non -Federal
162,950
34,700
30,250
22,000
44,000
11,000
11,000
TOTAL NON -FED 1
403,571
34,700
204,751
33,000
87,120
33,000
27,500
Adjustment(see below)
-8,600
ADJUSTED NON -FED BALANCE
196,151
FEDERAL CASH
I 1 411,471
26,100
204,751
33,000
87,120
33,000
27,500
Adjust. For Act vs Sched.
Non -FEDERAL Sched.
26,100
Non -FEDERAL ACTUA.
34,700
CREDIT/DEBIT
-8,600
ACTUAL
EXPEND.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
SHIP CANAL - SEATTLE
5,000
ERS Coordination
20,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
* Juvenile Studies
463,000
1,000
197,000
265,000
Non -Fed In -Kind
50,000
50,000
* Preditor Studies
0
Non -Fed. In -Kind
47,000
33.500
13,500
* Juvenile Shilshole
0
Non-Fed.ln-Kind
70,000
70,000
* Habitat Survey SC/LU/i.
20,000
20,000
* Rest. Site Surveys
23,000
23,000
* Cultural Resources
1,500
1,500
H&H
12,000
4,000
8,000
CIVIUSOILS
20,000
20,000
ECONOMICS
11,000
11,000
SURVEYING
50,000
50000
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
1.500
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
33,850
33,850
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,000
3,000
STUDY MGMT.
0
* Corps
67,000
7,000
5,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
10000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
63,250
4,500
8,750
20,000 10,000
10,000
10000
SHARED COSTS
79,000
9,000
10,000 20,000
20,000
20000
SUB -TOTAL COSTS
1,035,100
46,000
287,250
415,000
196,850
45,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
94,410
28,725
41,500
19,685
4,500
4,500
TOTAL COST
1,129,510
46,000
315,975
456,500
216,535
49,500
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ?
322,980
4,000
78,513
129,250
93,968
13,750
13,750
NON -FED. IN -KIND
241,775
38,000
79,475
99,000
14,300
11,000
11,000
TOTAL NON -FED
564,755
42,000
157,988
228,250
108,268
24,750
24,750
Adjustment see below
-19,000
TOTAL ADJ. NON -FED.
138,988
FEDERAL CASH
564,755
23,000
157,988
228,250
108,268
24.750
24,750
Adj For Actual VS Sch.
Total Sched.
23,000
Total Actual
42,000
Debit/Credit
-19,000
GRAND TOTAL SEATTLE
FCSA:
Actual
TOTAL
2,438,273
131,700
725,478
773,520
493,075
181,500
137,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH
769,411
20,000
253,014
243,760
177,238
57,750
35,750
NON -FED. IN -KIND
449,725
72,700
109,725
143,000
69,300
33,000
33,000
TOTAL NON -FED.
1,219,136
92,700
362,739
386,760
246,538
90,750
68,750
TOTAL ADJ. NON -FED
-
-
335,139
FEDERAL CASH
1,219,136
65,850
362,739
386,760
246,538
90,750
68,750
ADJ. FOR ACTUAL
VS SCH.
SCH. NON -FED
65,100
ACT.NON-FED
92,700
CREDIT/DEBIT
-27,600
ACTUAL
EXPEND.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
LAKE WASHINGTON
RESTORATION
SITES - KING
COUNTY
ERS coordination
20.000
5.000
5,000
5,000
5,000
Fix Monitoring Equipment
50,000
50,000
* Survey Tribs 1
11,800
11,800
* In-K Habitat Study
10,000
10,000
* Cultural Res. 1
500
500
* Cold Water Refuge
40,000
20,000
20,000
*Survey Rest. Sites
12,500
12,500
* Velocity Studies
30,000
10,000
20,000
H&H
17,200
17,200
*Oxygenated refuge
30,500
7,500
23,000
GEOTEC H/SOILS
16,000
16,000
ECON
7,500
7,500
COST EST.
3,000
3,000
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
26,550
26,550
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,000
3,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps 1
60.500
500
20,000
15,000
15,000
10000
* In -Kind (King Co.)
62,000
2,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
10000
SHARED COSTS
73,000
3,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
20000
SUB -TOTAL COSTS
454,050
27,500
80,300
125,000
141.250
55,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
44,655
0
8,0301
12,500
14,125
5,500
4,500
TOTAL COST
498,705
27,500
88,330
137.500
155,375
60,500
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH
166,853
13,750
59,000
43,450
61,188
13,750
13,750
IN -KIND
82,600
0
12,200
25,300
16,500
16,500
11,000
TOTAL NON -FED
249,363
13,750
71,200
68,750
77,688
30,250
24,750
FEDERAL CASH
249.353
13,750
44,165
68,750
77,688
30,250
24.750
ACTUAL
EXPEND.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
CEDAR RIVER GRAVEL MOVEMENT - KING COUNTY
ERS Coordination
22,500
2,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
* Site Survey & Design
15,000
15,000
* Cultural Resources
500
500
* Gravel Movement Phas
50,000
50,000
H&H
243,000
3,000
3,000
237,000
GEOTECH/SOILS
4,000
4,000
ECONOMICS
5,000
5,000
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
1,500
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
12,800
12,800
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
2,000
2,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps
50,000
6,000
14,000 10,000
10,000
10,000
* Non -Federal In -Kind
49,000
5,000
14,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
SHARED COSTS
67,000
3,000
8,000
16,000
20,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL
522,300
5,500
17,000
91,000
318,800
45,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
52,230
550
1,700
9,100
31,880
4,500
4,500
TOTAL COST
574,530
6,050
18,700
100,100
350,680
49,500
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH
231,165
3,025
24,000
32,450
164,340
13,750
13,750
NON -FED IN -KIND
56,100
0
5,500
17,600
11,000
11,000
11,000
FEDERAL CASH
287,265
3,025
9,350
50,050
175,340
24,750
24,750
ACTUAL
EXPEND.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
CEDAR RIVER RESTORATION - KING COUNTY
ERS Coordination
22,500
2,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
* Habitat Survey
37,000
37,000
" Site Survey and Desigr
9,500
5,000
4500
• Cultural Resources
500
500
H&H
0
* Levee Setback
22,200
22200
* Diversion Ditch
19,000
19,000
C IVI USOI LS
8,000
8,000
ECONOMICS
7,800
7,800
SURVEY
23,100
23100
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
1,500
REAL ESTATE
0
• Corps
12,800
12,800
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
2,000
2,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
• Corps 1
31,000
1,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
• Non -Fed. In -Kind
34,000
4,000
10,000 10,000
10,000
SHARED COSTS
52,000
2,000
10,000 20,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
260,400
2,500
44,000
40,000
146,400
45,000
5,000
CONTINGENCY
28,290
250
4,400
4,000
14,540
4,500
500
TOTAL COST
288,690
2,750
48,400
44,000
161,0401
49,500
5,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH 104,745
1,375
19,800
8,800
69,520
13,750
2,750
NON -FED. IN -KIND
39,600
0
4,400 13,200
11,0001
11,000
0
FEDERAL CASH
144,345
1,375
24,200 22,000
80,520
1 24,750
2,750
ACTUAL
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Exp.To
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
SAMMAMISH RIVER RESTORATION - KING COUNTY
ERS Coordination
31,000
11,000
10,000
10,000
* Restoration Plan Cont40,000
40,000
* Corps
10,000
5,000
5,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
5,000
5,000
* Site Evaluation & Desi
0
* Corps
17,000
5,000
12,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
17,000
5,000
12,000
Radio Tagging and Equip
0
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
30,000
30,000
* Study of Juv. Use of Sa
43,500
43,500
* Comp. of Water Qual.
5,000
5,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
24,500
24,500
* Wetland Assessment
0
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
42,000
42,000
* Sammamish Rvr Trib. H
0
* Corps i
38,500
38,500
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
96,500
22,500
74,000
(100% GIS 25% remai
0
* Cultural Resources
3,000
3,000
H&H
8,000
8,000
*Temp. Model
101,000
51,000
50,000
* Trib. Site With Culvert
22,860
22,860
* Other Sammamish Res
29,790
29,790
* Sammamish Rvr. Grd. IN
2.000
2,000
*Contract - FLIR
12,000
12,000
* In -Kind (King Counte
39,600
600
38,000
1,000
GEOTECH/SOILS
12,000
12.000
ECONOMICS
20,000
20.000
SURVEYING
40,000
40,000
COST ESTIMATING
3,600
3,600
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
16,800
0
16,800
10,000
* In -Kind (King County)
10,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps/ERS 1
84,000
3,000
6,000
20,000
30,000
15,000
10,000
* In -Kind (King County)
96,000
6,000
19,000
19,000
30,000
12,000
10,000
SHARED COST
65,000
5,000
5,000
15,000
20,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
894,650
62,1001
144,500
333,000
257,050
53,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
83,255
0
14,450
33,300
25,705
5,300
4,500
TOTAL COST
977,905
62,100
158,950
366,300
282,755
58.300
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH
240,778
-
45,500
82,500
84,178
14,850
13.750
NON -FED. IN -KIND
396,660
59,100
148,500
100,650
57,200
14,300
11,000
TOTAL NON -FED.
637,438
59,100
194,000
183,150
141,378
29,150
24,750
Adjustment(see below)
-28,050
TOTAL ADJ. NON -FED
165,950
FEDERAL CASH
488,953
31,050
79,475
183,150 141,378
29,150
24,750
ADJUST. FOR ACT. VS SCH.
TOTAL NON -FED SCH. 1
31,050
TOTAL NON -FED ACTUAL
59,100
CREDIT/DEBIT
(28,050)
ACTUAL
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
LAKE SAMMAMISH
BEACH SPAWNING - KING
COUNTY
ERS Coordination
17,000
2,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
* Survey of Beach Spa
0
10,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
0
10,000
* Restoration Site Survey
0
*Non -Fed. In -Kind
12,500
0
12,500
* Cultural Resources
500
500
H&H
3,000
3,000
C I VI USOI LS
4,500
4,500
ECONOMICS
5,500
5,500
COST ESTIMATING
3,300
3,300
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
37,900
37,900
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,500
3,500
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps 1
29.500
0
5,000
9,500
5,000
10,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
25,000
0
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
SHARED COST
38,000
0
5,000
8,000
10,000
15,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
190,200
0
0
27,000
98,200
25,000
40,000
CONTINGENCY
15,020
0
0
2,700
9,820
2,500
4,000
TOTAL COST
205,220
0
0
29,700
108,020
27,500
44,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH
46,510
-
(5,500)
34,760
8,250
11,000
NON -FED. IN -KIND
56,100
0
0
20,350
19,250
5,500
11,000
FEDERAL CASH
102,610
-
14,850
54,010
13,750
22,000
ACTUAL
EXPEND.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
BALANCE
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
ISSAQUAH CREEK, ERICKSON SITE - KING COUNTY
ERS
" Site Surveys & Design
10,000
8,000
0
5,000
5,000
5,000
" Cultural Resources
500
500
Soo
H&H
14,490
6,000
2,000
GEOTECH/SOILS
3.300
6,000
3.000
ECONOMICS
2,500
4,000
SURVEY
12,800
500
8,000
COST ESTIMATING
7501
500
2,000
REAL ESTATE
" Corps
3,000
1,000
5,000
* Non -Fed In -Kind
3,000
2,000
3,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
• Corps 1
9,000
1,000
5,000
5,000
3,000
5,000
5,000
* Non -Fed In -Kind
2,500
700
700
3,000
1,000
3,000
5,000
SHARED COST 1
9,750
1,000
5,000
5,500
5,0001
5,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
71,590
17,200
23,700
37,500
9,500
18,000
20,000
CONTINGENCY
8,870
0
2.3701
3,750
950
1,800
2,000
TOTAL COST
80.460
17,200
26,0701
41,250
10,450
19,800
22,000
NON-MERAL MSH 1/
25,560
20,000
10,0651
14,025
4,125
6,600
5,500
NON -FED. IN -KIND
14,670
700
2,970
6,600
1,100
3,300
5,500
TOTAL NON-FEDERAL
40,230
20,700
13,035
20,625
5,225
9,900
11,000
Adjustment(see below)
-12,100
TOTAL ADJ. NON -FED.
20,700
FEDERAL CASEE;_
40,230
8,600
13,035
20,625
5,225
9,900
11,000
1/ Actual Non -Federal Cash received in CY99 was $20,000. CY2000 should receive
a credit of $20, 000 minus the actual required non-federal cash for CY99.
Adjust. For Act. Vs Sch.
Non -Fed Sched.
8,600
Non -Fed Actual
20,700
Credit/Debit
(12,100)
SUB -PROJECT
-4-s-ife—sulvey & Design---�—�
Gary Schimek - Lake Washington Tribs, projects for GI Study?
Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army.mil>
To: -paulsen, kit"' <kpaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>, "'lackey, brent
<brent.lackey@metrokc.gov>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 5:11 PM
Subject: Lake Washington Tribs, projects for GI Study?
I am collecting prospective projects for the Lake Washington GI. So far,
except for Kelsey Creek (right Kit?) I have not had a sponsor come forward
with requests for the tribs to Lake Washington. For the heck of it, I
thought I would ask if you are aware of any outrageously great projects for
Kelsey, May, Juanita, or Coal Creek. I belive Mapes (sp?) was also
mentioned at a meeting the other day. We know that Coal and Juanita at the
mouth are essentially unavailable for fish movement when we are at 20 feet,
which is our winter pool elevation. They are probably not great during the
late summer/early fall as well, so this is a thought. But I didn't know if
projects were already planned for these. Let me know your ideas on these
(or any other sites) so I can at least get on our list.
The type of projects we are looking for are for restoration, not
preservation, primarily for fish benefit (though we do wetlands, etc as well
if justified). They should be substantial projects, not just removing a
culvert or adding a little LWD> We are too expensive for anything that
small (unless maybe there were a whole series in a row or something).
Al.so, don't include projects that you are pretty sure you have other
funding for, we are a bit of a gamble, and we can't construct until 2006, so
don't give us ones that can't wait.
Any suggestions? Thanks.
Once I have a feeling of what is out there, Jeff Dillon and I will probably
need to see the sites, so will schedule a field trip with appropriate
people.
CC: "'kurko, keith"' <keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'houck, doug"'
<doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'warner, eric"' <chumski@eskimo.com>, "Mendenhall, Jeffery O NWS"
<Jeffery.O.Mendenhall@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS"
<Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Goetz, Frederick A NWS"
<Frederick.A.Goetz @NWS02.usace.army. mil>
Gary Schimek - Cedar Trib projects for LW GI study Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: "'bikle, anne"' <anne.bikle@metrokc.gov>, "'brewer, scott
<scott.brewer@metrokc.gov>,-schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Mon, Nov 27, 2000 5:20 PM
Subject: Cedar Trib projects for LW GI study
We are doing some early plan formulation for projects for the Lake
Washington GI study. We have focused a fair amount of attention on the
mainstem of the Cedar, I suppose because sponsors are mostly concerned about
chinook. However, I recall from the Basin Plan for Cedar that tribs are a
big issue. I'm concerned we are overlooking potential projects. Can you
provide us with a list of yummy restoration projects for tribs? Maybe we
could discuss during our fieldtrip on 13th? Or you can email me a list of
projects. I'm thinking Taylor Creek, Rock Creek, etc. Remember, these have
to be restoration projects, not preservation. They should be pretty major
in scale (we're too expensive in my opinion to do very simplistic
planting/culvert work), they should not already have funds (go for it if you
already have it, we are a little iffy), and shouldn't be needed before 2006.
Thanks
CC: "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.DiIIon @NWS02.usace.army. miI>, "Mendenhall,
Jeffery O NWS" <Jeffery.O.Mendenhall@NWS02.usace. army. mil>, "Goetz, Frederick A NWS"
<Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil >
-
Gary Schimek - RE: Lake Washington Tribs, projects for GI Study? Page 1
From: "Paulsen, Kit" <KPaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>
To: "'Smith, Linda S NWS"' <Linda.S.Smith @NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "'lackey, brent"'
<brent.lackey@metrokc.gov>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Tue, Nov 28, 2000 4:15 PM
Subject: RE: Lake Washington Tribs, projects for GI Study?
Linda,
We were most interested in working on Coal Creek, particularly working with
King County to set up a full basin approach to stabilizing the sediments.
We have projects already in the pipeline, but ACOE could really expand our
potential. Bellevue has over $1 million dollars in CIP funds for the
sediments in the delta, and near channel work upstream through the city
limits. In addition, the County and Bellevue have set aside funds for
modeling the hydrology to see whether an upstream detention facility would
work to stabilize flows, thus stabilizing the sediments. With the amount of
headwater and riparian protection, good gravel availability, etc. it seems
like we could significantly improve salmonid production, if we could
stabilize the sediments.
We have a number of projects in Kelsey, like re-establishing the original
West Tributary channel through Kelsey Creek Park. The W. Trib. project has
some potential for collaboration and we have money in our CIP that could
match with ACOE funds. However, with the exception of the W.Trib project,
the others are smaller and don't probably warrant ACOE efforts. We've got
the Kelsey Creek fish ladder at Mercer Slough underway, right now, or I'd
suggest that project.
Kit
-----Original Message -----
From: Smith, Linda S NWS [mailto: Linda. S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mill
Sent: Monday, November 27, 2000 5:09 PM
To: 'paulsen, kit'; 'lackey, brent'; 'schimek, gary'
Cc: 'kurko, keith'; 'houck, doug'; 'warner, eric'; Mendenhall, Jeffery O
NWS; Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS; Goetz, Frederick A NWS
Subject: Lake Washington Tribs, projects for GI Study?
I am collecting prospective projects for the Lake Washington GI. So far,
except for Kelsey Creek (right Kit?) I have not had a sponsor come forward
with requests for the tribs to Lake Washington. For the heck of it, I
thought I would ask if you are aware of any outrageously great projects for
Kelsey, May, Juanita, or Coal Creek. I belive Mapes (sp?) was also
mentioned at a meeting the other day. We know that Coal and Juanita at the
mouth are essentially unavailable for fish movement when we are at 20 feet,
which is our winter pool elevation. They are probably not great during the
late summer/early fall as well, so this is a thought. But I didn't know if
projects were already planned for these. Let me know your ideas on these
(or any other sites) so I can at least get on our list.
The type of projects we are looking for are for restoration, not
preservation, primarily for fish benefit (though we do wetlands, etc as well
if justified). They should be substantial projects, not just removing a
culvert or adding a little LWD> We are too expensive for anything that
- - - - -_
Gary Schimek - RE: Cake Washington
Tribs, projects for GI Study? Page 2
small (unless maybe there were a whole series in a row or something).
Al.so, don't include projects that you are pretty sure you have other
funding for, we are a bit of a gamble, and we can't construct until 2006, so
don't give us ones that can't wait.
Any suggestions? Thanks.
Once I have a feeling of what is out there, Jeff Dillon and I will probably
need to see the sites, so will schedule a field trip with appropriate
people.
CC: "'kurko, keith"' <keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "houck, doug
<doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'warner, eric"' <chumski@eskimo.com>, "Mendenhall, Jeffery O NWS"
<Jeffery.O.Mendenhall@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS"
<Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Goetz, Frederick A NWS"
<Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Dewald, Dan" <DDewald@ci.bellevue.wa.us>
Ga ryichimek - FY 2001 funds, KC FCSAPage 1
,7 h
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army.mil>
To: "'houck, doug"' <doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "Tester, deborah
<deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'white, jean"' <jean.white@metro kc.gov>
Date: Mon, Dec 4, 2000 3:41 PM
Subject: FY 2001 funds, KC FCSA
attached is the letter requesting FY 2001 funds for Lake Washington GI. I
know we haven't worked out all the quirks for inkind and scoping, but study
is broke, and we need at least interim funding to complete scoping and get
this year's contracts awarded. I will fax signed copy to jean, also put in
the mail. I have contacted issaquah separately. <<LWSC Costs Linda actuals
9900.xls>> <<Itrheadinvoicekc.doc>>
CC: "'brewer, scott"' <scott.brewer@metrokc.gov>, "kurko, keith
<keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'lombard, john"' <john.lombard @metrokc.gov>, "'stoops, kevin"'
<kevin.stoops@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS"
<Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army. miI>, "Goetz, Frederick A NWS"
<Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Bauccio, Patricia M NWS"
<Patricia.M.Bauccio@NWS02.usace. army. mil>, "Sexauer, Bruce R NWS"
<Bruce.R.Sexauer@NWS02.usace. army. mil>, "Schmitz -Robinson, Catherine J NWS"
<Catherine.J.Schmitz-Robinson@NWS02.usace. army. mil>, "Goodman, Layna A NWS"
<Layna.A. Goodman@nws02. usace.army. mil>
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS
P.O. BOX 3755
SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-2255
REPLY TO
ATTENTION OF
CENWS-PM-PL
Ms. Jean White
King County
Department of Natural Resources
Water and Land Resources Division
201 South Jackson Street
Seattle, WA 98104
Dear Ms. White
November 27, 2000
t:
As the nonfederal sponsor for a portion of the
Lake Washington General Investigation Study,
the King County agreed to provide funds on an
annual basis to the Corps to conduct technical
studies in the Lake Washington Basin,
specifically for Lake Washington, the Cedar
River, the Sammamish River, and Lake Sammamish.
I have updated this year's funding requirements
for this study (enclosure 1). The County to
provide $25,240 to the Corps for this year's
technical studies. These funds need to be
provided to the Corps by early January 2001, or
the feasibility study will need to be put on
hold, and the likelihood of awarding contracts
will be jeopardized.
Work in 2001 will include: monitoring studies
for salmon in Lake Washington; gravel movement
studies for the Cedar River; habitat, water
quality, studies for the Sammamish River; a
restoration plan for the Sammamish River; and
habitat studies for Lake Sammamish. In
addition, the City of Issaquah will be
providing $19,525 to King County as the study
0
umbrella sponsor, which needs to be passed on
by the county to the Corps for studies of a
restoration site on Issaquah Creek.
These studies have been closely coordinated
with King County staff.
In addition to providing funds, it is
anticipated that King County will conduct
$293,150 of inkind work this year. The federal
government will provide a matching $366,300.
Funds may be provided by check or through the
electronic fund transfer process. If you use
the fund transfer system, please notify me by
phone or email several days before the transfer
so I can set up procedures with our Financing
Department. I will need to know the
anticipated date of the transfer, the type of
transfer (Cash Concentration or Corporate Trade
Exchange), and the amount. Our Financing
Department will then prepare a code for your
use in the transfer. Please provide the name
and phone number of the financing officer who
will be handling the transfer. If you are
sending a check please make out to "FAO, USAED,
Seattle" and address the transmittal letter and
envelope to Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, Attn: Ch, F&A. P.O. Box 3755,
Seattle, WA 98124. Please either notify me by
email or send me a copy of the transmittal
letter when the check is mailed so I may track
through our system.
2
If you have any questions concerning the
funding or the transfer procedures, please feel
free to contact me at 206-764-6721.
Cc:
Bauccio PM
Smith PL
Wilson FA
Dillon ERS
ED-PL File
Kurko, SPU
White, KC
Houck KC
Lester KC
Sincerely,
Linda Smith, PM
3
DATE: 28NOV2000
PROJECT: LAKE WASHINGTON G.I. RESTORATION
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA: WATER CONSERVATION - SEATTLE FCSA
ACTUAL
FORECAST
BUDGET
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
1999
FY
FY
FY
FY
2003
FY
2004
TO
DATE
COST ITEM
COST
2000
2001
2002
ERS - Wetlands
10,000
10,000
ERS - Saltwater Drain
26,000
0
11,000
5000
5000
5000
ERS - Asses Exis SS
5,000
5,000
REAL ESTATE
7,000
2,000
5000
STRUCTURES
52,500
2,500
20,000
30000
HH SALINITY INTRU.
53,000
48,000
5000
HH LAKE ELEVATION
29,200
29,200
HH Coordination
5,000
5,000
ECON.
49,000
10,000
30.000
9000
COST ESTIMATING
4,000
4000
STUDY MGMT.- IN -KIND -NON -FED
50,000
0
20,000
10,000
10,000
10000
STUDY MGMT/ERS.-Corps
61,000
14,000
22,000
10,000
10,000
5000
ALLOC.SHARED COST
93,000
7,000
26,000
20,000
30,000
10000
SUB -TOTAL
444,700
33,500
0
228,200
93,000
60,000
30,000
CONTINGENCIES
41,120
-
22,820
9,300
6,000
3,000
TOTAL COST
485,820
33,500
-
251,020
102,300
66,000
33,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
187,910
16,750
-
103,510
40,150
22,000
5,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
16,000
IN -KIND -NON -FED.
TOTAL NON-FEDERAL
55,000
242,910
-
-
22,000
11,000
11,000
11,000
16,500
16,750
-
125,510
51,150
33,000
FEDERAL
242,910 16,750
-
125,510
1 51,150
33,000
16,500
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH (750)
COST ITEM
ACTUAL
EXP.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
Environmental Coordination
*adult fish passage
FISH PASSAGE
- SEATTLE
5,000
29,000
4,000
5,000
10,000
5,000
* Corps
227,000
9,000
190,000
8,000
10,000
5,000
5,000
* In -Kind Non -Fed.
55,200
30,200
20,000
5,000
*design imp.fish ladder
17,000
17,000
SW Drain hydroacutic
134,000
134,000
H&H
o
* Fish Ladder
4,300
4,300
* Coordinate ent.gate & gate controllers
14,900
14,900
* Underwater lighting
1,100
1,100
0
CIVIL -SOILS
4,000
4,000
ECON
11,000
11,000
STRUCTURES
15,700
15,700
MECH/ELECT
2,000
2000
COST ESTIMATING
3,400
3400
STUDY MGMT.
0
* Corps
61,500
6,000
10,500
15,000
10,000
10,0001
10,000
* In -Kind (Non -Fed)
87,000
4,500
7,500
15,000
40,000
10,000
10,000
SHARED COST
85,775
2,500
6,275
12,000
15,000
30,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL
752,875
52,200
372,275
60,000
158,400
60,000
50,000
CONTINGENCIES
70,068
37,228
6,000
15,840
6,000
5,000
TOTAL COST
822,943
52,200
409,503
66,000
174,240
66,0001
55,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
242,021
(8,600)
174,501
11,000
43,120
22,000
16,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
-
174,501
*IN -KIND Non -Federal
152,950
34,700
30,250
22,000
44,000
11,000
11,000
FEDERAL CASH
411,471
26,1001
204,751
33,000
87,120
33,000
27,500
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
8,600
1 (0)
ACTUAL
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
SHIP CANAL - SEATTLE
5,000
5.000
ERS Coordination
20,000
5,000
5,000
• Juvenile Studies
463,000
1,000
197,000
265,000
Non -Fed In -Kind
50,000
50,000
* Preditor Studies
0
Non -Fed. In -Kind
47,000
33,500
13,500
" Juvenile Shilshole
150,000
150,000
Non-Fed.ln-Kind
0
* Habitat Survey SC/LU/LW
20,000
20,000
* Rest. Site Surveys
23,000
23,000
• Cultural Resources
1,500
1,500
H&H
12,000
4,000
8,000
CIVIL/SOILS
20,000
20,000
ECONOMICS
11,000
11,000
SURVEYING
50,000
50000
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
1,500
REAL ESTATE
0
" Corps
33,850
33,850
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,000
3,000
STUDY MGMT.
0
" Corps
67,000
7,000
5,000
25,000
10,000
10,000
10000
" Non -Fed. In -Kind
63,250
4,500
8,750
20,000
10,000
10,000
10000
SHARED COSTS
79,000
9,000
10,0001
20,000
20,000
20000
SUB -TOTAL COSTS
1,115,100
46,000
287,250
495,000
196,850
45,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
102,410
28,725
49,500
19,685
4,500
4,500
TOTAL COST
1,217,510
46,000
315,975
544,500
216,535
49,500
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
435,230
(15,000)
78,513
250,250
93,968
13,750
13,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
11,800
50,500
NON -FED. IN -KIND
176,775
38,000
79,475
22,000
14,300
11,000
11,000
TOTAL NON -FED
611,005
23,000
167,988
272,250
108,268
24,750
24,750
FEDERAL CASH
608,755
23,000
157,988
272,250
108,268
24,750
24,750
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
26,800
(28,013)
GRAND TOTAL SEATTL_E FCSA:
Actual
Actual
TOTAL COST
2,526,273
131,700
725,478
861,520
493,076
181,600
137,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
881,661
(6,850)
253,014
364,760
177,238
57,760
35,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
27,800
225,001
NON -FED. IN -KIND
383,726
72,700
109,725
66,000
69,300
33,000
33,000
TOTAL NON -FED.
1,265,386
65,850
362,739
430,760
246,538
90,750
68,750
FEDERAL CASH
1,263,136
65,850
362,739
430,760
246,538
90,750
68,750
SCHED. NON_ -FED CASH
(6,850)
253,014
ACTUAL NON -FED. CASH
27,800
225,001
CREDIT/(DEBIT)
34,650
(28,013)
TO .2000)
2001 FUNDS NEEDED 358,123
ACTUAL
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
LAKE WASHINGTON
RESTORATION SITES - KING COUNTY
ERS coordination
Fix Monitoring Equipment
5,000
20,000
5,000
50,000
5,000
5,000
50,000
• Survey Tribs
11,800
11,800
* In-K Habitat Study
10,000
10,000
" Cultural Res.
500
500
" Cold Water Refuge
40,000
20,000
20,000
`Survey Rest. Sites
12,500
12,500
Velocity Studies
30,000
10,000
20,000
H&H
17,200
17,200
"Oxygenated refuge
30,500
7,500
23,000
G EOTEC H/SOILS
16,000
16,000
ECON
7,500
7,500
COST EST.
3,000
3,000
REAL ESTATE
0
• Corps
26,550
26,550
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,000
3,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
" Corps
60,500
500
20,000
15,000
15,000
10000
* In -Kind (King Co.)
62,000
2,000
20,000
15,000
15,000
10000
SHARED COSTS
73,000
3,000
10,000
20,000
20,000
20000
SUB -TOTAL COSTS
474,050
27,500
80,300
125,000
141,250
55,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
44,655
0
8,030
12,500
14,125
5,500
4,500
TOTAL COST
518,705
27,500
88,330
137,500
155,375
60,500
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
177,853
13,750
31,965
46,750
57,888
13,750
13,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
13,750
32,000
IN -KIND
81,600
0
12,200
22,000
68,750
19,800
16,5001
11,000
24,750
TOTAL NON -FED
259,353
13,750
44,165
77,688
30,250
FEDERAL CASH
259,353
13,750
44,165
68,750
77,688
30,250
24,750
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
0
35
ACTUAL
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
CEDAR RIVER GRAVEL MOVEMENT - KING COUNTY
5,000
ERS Coordination
22,500
2,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
" Site Survey & Design
15,000
15,000
* Cultural Resources
500
500
• Gravel Movement Phase 1
50,000
50,000
H&H
243,000
3,000
3,000
237,000
G EOTECH/SOILS
4,000
4,000
ECONOMICS
5,000
5,000
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
1,500
REAL ESTATE
0
• Corps
12,800
12,800
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
2,000
2,0001
STUDY MANAGEMENT
o
• Corps
50,000
6,000
14,000
10,0001
10,000
10,000
* Non -Federal In -Kind
49,000
5,000
14,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
SHARED COSTS
67,000
3,000
8,000
16,000
20,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL
522,300
5,500
17,000
91,000
318,800
45,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
52,230
550
1,700
9,100
31,880
4,500
4,500
TOTAL COST
574,530
6,050
18,700
100,100'
350,680
49,500
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
231,165
3,025
3,850
34,650 162,140
13,750
13,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
-
27,500
NON -FED IN -KIND
56,100
0
51500
15,400
13,200
11,000
11,000
FEDERAL CASH
287,265
3,025
9,350
50,050
175,340 24,750
24,750
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
(3,025)
23,650
ACTUAL
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
CEDAR RIVER RESTORATION - KING COUNTY
5,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
ERS Coordination
22,500
2,500
* Habitat Survey
37,000
37,000
* Site Survey and Design_
9,500
5,000
4500
Cultural Resources
500
500
H&H
0
* Levee Setback
22,200
22200
* Diversion Ditch
19,000
19,000
CIVIL/SOILS
8,000
8,000
ECONOMICS
7,800
7,800
SURVEY
23,100
23100
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
1,500'
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
12,800
12,800
2,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
2,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps
31,000
1,000
10,000
10,000
10,000
* Non -Fed. In-Kind
34,000
4,000 10,000
10,000
10,000
SHARED COSTS
52,000
2,000�
10,000
20,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
282,900
2,500
44,000
40,000
146,400
45,000
5,000
CONTINGENCY
28,290
250
4,400
4,000
14,640
4,500
500
TOTAL COST
311,190
2,750
48,400
44,000
161,040
49,500
5,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
115,995
1,375
19,800
11,000
67,320
13,750
2,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
-
19,800
NON -FED. IN -KIND
39,600
0
4,400
11,000
13,200
11,000
0
FEDERAL CASH
155,595
1,375
24,200
22,000
80,520
24,750
2,750
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
(1,375)
0
ACTUAL
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
Exp.-To
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
SAMMAMISH RIVER RESTORATION - KING COUNTY
ERS Coordination
31,000
11,000
10,000
10,000
* Restoration Plan Contract
40,000
40,000
* Corps
10,000
5,000
5,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
5,000
5,000
* Site Evaluation & Design
0
* Corps
17,000
5,000
12,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
1
17,000
5,000
12,000
Radio Tagging and Equip.(Adult)
0
* Non -Fed. In -Kind 1
30,000
30,000
* Study of Juv. Use of Samm. River
43,500
43,500
* Comp. of Water Qual. Data & Samp.
5,000
5,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
24,600
24,500
* Wetland Assessment
0
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
42,000
42,000
* Sammamish Rvr Trib. Habitat Survey
0
* Corps
38,500
38,500
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
96,600
22,500
74,000
(100% GIS 25% remaining)
0
* Cultural Resources
3,000
3,000
H & H
8,000
8,000
*Temp. Model
101,000
51,0001
50,000
* Trib. Site With Culvert
22,860
22,860
* Other Sammamish Restoration Sites
29,790
29,790
* Sammamish Rvr. Grd. Water Studies (Corp
2,000
2,000
*Contract - FUR
12,000
12,000
* In -Kind (King County)
39,600
Soo
38,000
1,000
GEOTECH/SOILS
12,000
12,000
ECONOMICS
20,000
20,000
SURVEYING
40,000
40,000
COST ESTIMATING
3,600
3,600
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
16,800
0
16,800
* In -Kind (King County)
10,000
10,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps/ERS
84,000
3,000
6,000
20,000
30,000
15,000
10,000
* In -Kind (King County)
96,000
6,000
19,0001
19,000
30,000
12,000
10,000
SHARED COST
65,000
5,0001
5,000
15,000
20,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
965,650
62,100
155,5001
383,000
267,050
53,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
90,3551
0
15,5501
38,300
26,705
5,3001
4,500
TOTAL COST 1
1,056,005
62,100
171,050
421,300
293,755
58,300
j 49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
131,343
(33,960)
64,625
(17,600)
89,678
14,850
13,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
-
63,000
NON -FED. IN -KIND
396,660
65,0101
20,900
228,250
57,200
14,300
11,000
TOTAL NON -FED.
528,003
31,0501
85,525
210,660
146,878
29,150
24,750,
FEDERAL CASH
528,003 31,050
85,525
210,650
I 146,878
29,150
24,750
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
33,960
(1,6Z
-
I
1-
-
I
nary Schimek - Lake Washington GI, Design Phase, January Meeting Page
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: "'houck, doug"' <doug.houck@metrokc.gov>,-kurko, keith"'
<keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "Tester, deborah"' <deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'white, jean
<jean.white@metrokc.gov>, "Goetz, Frederick A NWS" <Frederick.A.Goetz @NWS02.usace.army. miI>,
"Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army.mil>, "VanRijn, David P NWS"
<David.P.VanRijn@nws02.usace.army. mil>
Date: Wed, Dec 13, 2000 1:26 PM
Subject: Lake Washington GI, Design Phase, January Meeting
We are on the brink of entering a new phase in the GI study, that of actual
site/project evaluation and design. This year we are wrapping up technical
studies, next year we need to shift focus to evaluating alternatives,
developing construction costs, project specific benefits, survey work, etc.
This is a big step, and I have a hunch it involves in many cases a different
set of players. It is my understanding that "Metro" will not be funding
much in the way of actual construction. King County has always looked to
the cities and forums? to take on the burden of actual site construction. I
am less clear how far the County and Seattle will fund project evaluation
and design. But if we need to be warming local municipalities up to the
eventual idea of funding projects, we need to start talking to them.
Also, I am getting some preliminary ideas on projects based on field tours
and other input from those of "sound professional judgement". I'd like to
go over this list, and discuss with you some other ideas to start getting a
sense of where we might go, and who might pay, and who needs to get
involved. (this meeting is primarily however a strategy meeting, not a
technical meeting - that can come a little later, with the Lake Washington
biologists as critical players)
Request a meeting in January of at a minimum, representatives of King County
and Seattle, but also those that you feel could provide useful input on
potential projects and more importantly how to bring in potential funding
sources. This may mean a presentation to the Technical committee for WRIA,
or whatever. This meeting is a strategy meeting to get headed in the right
direction, not to establish what projects would be built (we still need some
technical results). HOWEVER, I am looking for input on what technical
studies might still need to be done to get TO some likely projects. If we
can't resolve at this meeting, I'll follow up with a more technial meeting -
but we need to get some rough ideas.
Please respond to availability, also respond on whether you want a
particular person invited who isn't already. And i'll take ideas on how to
structure the meeting (at least to some extent)
AM (after 9:30) PM
Tues 1/16
Wed 1/17
Fri 1/19
Mon 1 /22
Tues 1 /23
Wed 1 /24
Fri 1 /26
teary Schimek - Lake Washington GI, Design Phase January Meeting
Page 2
Thanks.
CC: "'arnold, gail"' <gail.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'bachen, bruce
<bruce.bachen@ci.seattle.wa.us>,-bikle, anne"' <anne.bikle@metrokc.gov>, "'brewer, scott
<scott.brewer@metro kc.gcv>,-chinn, alan"' <alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'faegenburg, nancy"'
<nancy.faegenburg@metrokc.gov>, "'heller, ray"' <ray.heller@metrokc.gov>, "'lackey, brent"'
<brent.lackey@metrokc.gov>, "'lombard, john"' <john.lombard@metrokc.gov>, "'reinelt, lorin"'
<lorin.reinelt@metrokc.gov>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'stoops, kevin"'
<kevin.stoops@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Goodman, Layna A
NWS"<Layna.A.Goodman@nws02.usace.army. mil>
Gary Sihimek RE: Lake Washington GI, Design Phase, January Meeting
Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith @NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "'houck, doug"'
<doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'kurko, keith"' <keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "Tester, deborah"'
<deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'white, jean"' <jean.white@metrokc.gov>, "Goetz, Frederick A NWS"
<Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS"
<Jeffrey.F.Dillon @NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "VanRijn, David P NWS"
<David. P.VanRijn @nws02. usace.army. mil>
Date: Thu, Dec 14, 2000 12:55 PM
Subject: RE: Lake Washington Gl, Design Phase, January Meeting
please forward the remainder of your responses to Layna Goodman,
layna.a.goodman@nwso2.usace.army.mil. She is setting up, and will notify
you of the final time and place. thanks
> -----Original Message-----
• From: Smith, Linda S NWS
> Sent: Wednesday, December 13, 2000 01:23
> To: 'houck, doug'; 'kurko, keith'; 'lester, deborah'; 'white, jean';
> Goetz, Frederick A NWS; Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS; VanRijn, David P NWS
> Cc: 'arnold, gail'; 'bachen, bruce'; 'bikle, anne'; 'brewer, scott';
> 'chinn, alan'; 'faegenburg, nancy'; 'heller, ray'; 'lackey, brent';
> 'lombard, john'; 'reinelt, lorin'; 'schimek, gary'; 'stoops, kevin';
> 'schimek, gary'; Goodman, Layna A NWS
> Subject: Lake Washington GI, Design Phase, January Meeting
> We are on the brink of entering a new phase in the GI study, that of
> actual site/project evaluation and design. This year we are wrapping up
> technical studies, next year we need to shift focus to evaluating
> alternatives, developing construction costs, project specific benefits,
> survey work, etc. This is a big step, and I have a hunch it involves in
> many cases a different set of players. It is my understanding that
> "Metro" will not be funding much in the way of actual construction. King
> County has always looked to the cities and forums? to take on the burden
> of actual site construction. I am less clear how far the County and
> Seattle will fund project evaluation and design. But if we need to be
> warming local municipalities up to the eventual idea of funding projects,
> we need to start talking to them.
> Also, I am getting some preliminary ideas on projects based on field tours
> and other input from those of "sound professional judgement". I'd like to
> go over this list, and discuss with you some other ideas to start getting
> a sense of where we might go, and who might pay, and who needs to get
> involved. (this meeting is primarily however a strategy meeting, not a
> technical meeting - that can come a little later, with the Lake Washington
> biologists as critical players)
> Request a meeting in January of at a minimum, representatives of King
> County and Seattle, but also those that you feel could provide useful
> input on potential projects and more importantly how to bring in potential
> funding sources. This may mean a presentation to the Technical committee
> for WRIA, or whatever. This meeting is a strategy meeting to get headed
> in the right direction, not to establish what projects would be built (we
> still need some technical results). HOWEVER, I am looking for input on
> what technical studies might still need to be done to get TO some likely
GaryS himek � RE Lake Washington GI Design Phase, January Meeting Page 2
> projects. If we can't resolve at this meeting, I'll follow up with a more
> technial meeting - but we need to get some rough ideas.
> Please respond to availability, also respond on whether you want a
> particular person invited who isn't already. And i'II take ideas on how
> to structure the meeting (at least to some extent)
> AM (after 9:30) PM
> Tues 1/16
> Wed 1/17
> Fri 1/19
> Mon 1/22
> Tues 1/23
> Wed 1 /24
> Fri 1/26
> Thanks.
CC: "'arnold, gail"' <gail.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'bachen, bruce"'
<bruce.bachen@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'bikle, anne"' <anne.bikle@metrokc.gov>, "'brewer, scoff
<scott.brewer@metrokc.gov>, "'chinn, alan"' <alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'faegenburg, nancy
<nancy.faegenburg@metrokc.gov>, "'heller, ray"' <ray.heller@metrokc.gov>, "'lackey, brent
< brent. lackey @metrokc. gov>, "'lombard, john"' <john.lombard@metrokc.gov>, "'reinelt, lorin
<lorin.reinelt@metrokc.gov>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'stoops, kevin
<kevin.stoops@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "Goodman, Layna A
NWS"<Layna.A.Goodman @nws02.usace.army. miI>
Gary Schimek - Lake Washington GI study, Renton potential projects? Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" < Linda. S.Smith @NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: -schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>
Date: Wed, Dec 27, 2000 8:35 AM
Subject: Lake Washington GI study, Renton potential projects?
Gary, does Renton have any specific restoratoin projects they would like us
to consider for inclusion in the lake washington GI? (beyond the gravel
analysis). This could be for the Cedar River (shoreline improvements, etc)
or along the lake washington shoreline -- eg. May Creek, Coulan Park. We
would screen to see how well they would fit into our authorities and
limiting factors analysis.
Generally, our projects need to have strong hydraulic links, be fairly major
in scale (we are too expensive for simple culvert fixes and reveg projects),
and it helps a lot if the property is already owned by Renton (but not
totally a killing factor). I don't want you left out, if you have ideas.
Assume projects would be constructed in 2006. You would have to enter an
interlocal agreement with King County to fund project design (50/50 cost
share), and construction is 35% local share.
Let me know, thanks.
CC: "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.Dillcn@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
Gary Sutiimek - Various sponsorship issues, Lake Washington GI Page 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: "'arnold, gail"' <gail.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'houck, doug"'
<doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'kurko, keith"' <keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "chinn, clan"'
<alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'lester, deborah"' <deborah.lester@metro kc.gov>, "'lombard, john
<john.lombard@metrokc.gov>
Date: 1 /23/01 2:26 PM
Subject: Various sponsorship issues, Lake Washington GI
WEW! things are changing so fast on this study, it is almost impossible to
keep up. Here is a summation of some items we need to attend to, can
discuss on 31 st if need to:
1) 1 need a letter from Seattle confirming which studies they want to fund
this year within the next 2 weeks. If we are not going to do water
conservation, fish passage, I need to know so I can either return or
reallocate funds.
2) 1 cannot submit inkind to our financing people for Seattle fcsa until
Seattle and king County agree, and until I can do this, Fred does not have
funds released to contract juvenile passage studies, which he needs to have
in hand by mid Feb. I know you are working on this, but it is CRITICAL!
3) 1 need letters from Seattle and King County generally describing what
inkind they are doing THIS year, so financing will release this year's funds
(previous emails stated how much, for what). Need these also in next 2
weeks.
4) Do some real soul searching about Lake Sammamish studies. I am also
pursuing State on whether or not they are going to continue Hatchery
studies. If not, I need letters from State and King County requesting
termination of Sammamish and hatchery respectively (I am coordinating with
State on this. Also - negotiating with Issaquah on Tibbets studies, will
know in one month whether these are continuing). I am frankly wondering if
we are crazy showing a Phase 2 for Cedar Gravel studies at $237,000 for next
FY. Is it likely King County or Renton would have the 50% match?
5) HQ is evaluating whether or not they will allow ongoing feasibility
studies with signed cost sharing agreements to go up to the full 50% cost
share with inkind services. This would only be for NEW work, not
retroactive, would require resigned FCSA, and would need Corps concurrence
that is critical for study, but it may affect your cost sharing. More later
on that.
6) 1 met with our GI coordinator today, and he was more optimistic than
previously that we could get more federal funds if needed. So IF you have
matching funds, and IF we can all agree more work would be warranted
specifically for construction of an eventual project, we MAY be able to
raise federal cost share. (this may be pertinent to the Sammamish Action
Plan, though some of this is clearly not in the federal interest and would
need 100% nonfederal funding).
**7) Our Division wants a meeting on the status of the Lake Washington GI
study, probably in early February, before they will bless any of the
cost/schedule changes we have discussed. They will want representatives
present from Seattle, King County, and Issaquah. We will do a field trip of
sorts, then meet at the Locks to discuss where this study is going. And we
had better know! This means, they will want to know how firm we are about
construction. I'll get back to you about when the meeting might be held, in
the meantime think who might go.
Gary SoNmek - Various sponsorship issues, Lake Washington GI Page 21
CRITICAL BOTTOM LINE. I need inkind for this year and last resolved so we
can get funds in time for juvenile, estuary, and sammamish contracts. I
believe we have enough in hand for the Cedar Gravel Study.
CC: "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Goetz, Frederick
A NWS" <Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Bauccio, Patricia M NWS"
<Patricia.M.Bauccio@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'ritland,
kerry"' <kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us>
Gary Schimek - RE: Various sponsorship issues, Lake Washington GI Page 1 1
From: "Smith, Linda S NWS" < Linda. S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>
To: "Smith, Linda S NWS" < Linda. S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. miI>, "'arnold, gail"'
<gail.arnold@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'houck, doug"' <doug.houck@metrokc.gov>, "'kurko, keith"'
<keith.kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "'chinn, clan"' <alan.chinn@ci.seattle.wa.us>, "Tester, deborah"'
<deborah.lester@metrokc.gov>, "'lombard, john"' <john.lombard@metrokc.gov>, "'deboldt, linda"'
<linda.deboldt@ci.seattle.wa.us>
Date: 1 /24/01 11:53AM
Subject: RE: Various sponsorship issues, Lake Washington GI
One more item that may be of interest to you - I am concerned that we don't
throw away this opportunity of matched funding because we are too fiscally
nervous (although as you know I am as bad as any about being tight and
conservative with the funds). On the Green/Duwamish study, we are planning
a ten year construction period. Here's how it could work for us. Say we
have a total of 50 projects we can justify building in the Lake Washington
basin, based on benefits, costs, and enviromental impacts. We do 35% design
on these, funded by Seattle and King County, perhaps with local assistance.
Following feasibility, in P&S, we would fund the final design of say the
best 5 of these (or the 5 which have available funding by year 2006). We
then after 1 1/2 to 2 years start building them. While we are building
these, we start simultaneously doing final design on the next 5
projects,,,,,,, and this process continues until all are done - say 10 years
later. This proposal passed Corps review for the Green, so unless something
changes with the new administration, should work for us. Does this help
people relax about having ALL funding by 2006 and broaden opportunities? It
would also buy time if needed for the change in salinity standards for water
conservation if we wish to pursue. On the Green King County serves as the
umbrella sponsor during P&S, in our case both KC and Seattle could do so.
But when it comes to signing Project cooperation Agreements for actual
construction (which is the point where a local sponsor agrees to provide
funds for construction and maintenance), probably each project will have a
separate PCA just for it, with a city, county, or whatever based on
location.
> -----Original Message
> From: Smith, Linda S NWS
> Sent. Tuesday, January 23, 2001 02:23
> To: 'arnold, gail'; 'houck, doug'; 'kurko, keith'; 'chinn, alan';
> Tester, deborah'; 'lombard, john'
> Cc: Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS; Goetz, Frederick A NWS; Bauccio, Patricia M
> NWS; 'schimek, gary'; 'ritland, kerry'
> Subject: Various sponsorship issues, Lake Washington GI
> WEW! things are changing so fast on this study, it is almost impossible to
> keep up. Here is a summation of some items we need to attend to, can
> discuss on 31st if need to:
> 1) 1 need a letter from Seattle confirming which studies they want to fund
> this year within the next 2 weeks. If we are not going to do water
> conservation, fish passage, I need to know so I can either return or
> reallocate funds.
> 2) 1 cannot submit inkind to our financing people for Seattle fcsa until
> Seattle and king County agree, and until I can do this, Fred does not have
> funds released to contract juvenile passage studies, which he needs to
> have in hand by mid Feb. I know you are working on this, but it is
Gary Schimek - RE: Various sponsorship issues, Lake Washington GI Page 2
> CRITICAL!
> 3) 1 need letters from Seattle and King County generally describing what
> inkind they are doing THIS year, so financing will release this year's
> funds (previous emails stated how much, for what). Need these also in
> next 2 weeks.
> 4) Do some real soul searching about Lake Sammamish studies. I am also
> pursuing State on whether or not they are going to continue Hatchery
> studies. If not, I need letters from State and King County requesting
> termination of Sammamish and hatchery respectively (I am coordinating with
> State on this. Also - negotiating with Issaquah on Tibbets studies, will
> know in one month whether these are continuing). I am frankly wondering if
> we are crazy showing a Phase 2 for Cedar Gravel studies at $237,000 for
> next FY. Is it likely King County or Renton would have the 50% match?
> 5) HQ is evaluating whether or not they will allow ongoing feasibility
> studies with signed cost sharing agreements to go up to the full 50% cost
> share with inkind services. This would only be for NEW work, not
> retroactive, would require resigned FCSA, and would need Corps concurrence
> that is critical for study, but it may affect your cost sharing. More
> later on that.
> 6) 1 met with our GI coordinator today, and he was more optimistic than
> previously that we could get more federal funds if needed. So IF you have
> matching funds, and IF we can all agree more work would be warranted
> specifically for construction of an eventual project, we MAY be able to
> raise federal cost share. (this may be pertinent to the Sammamish Action
> Plan, though some of this is clearly not in the federal interest and would
> need 100% nonfederal funding).
> "*7) Our Division wants a meeting on the status of the Lake Washington GI
> study, probably in early February, before they will bless any of the
> cost/schedule changes we have discussed. They will want representatives
> present from Seattle, King County, and Issaquah. We will do a field trip
> of sorts, then meet at the Locks to discuss where this study is going.
> And we had better know! This means, they will want to know how firm we are
> about construction. I'll get back to you about when the meeting might be
> held, in the meantime think who might go.
> CRITICAL BOTTOM LINE. I need inkind for this year and last resolved so we
> can get funds in time for juvenile, estuary, and sammamish contracts. I
> believe we have enough in hand for the Cedar Gravel Study.
CC: "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.DiIlon@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Goetz, Frederick
A NWS" <Frederick.A.Goetz@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Bauccio, Patricia M NWS"
<Patricia.M.Bauccio@NWS02.usace. army. mil>, "'schimek, gary"' <gschimek@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'ritland,
kerry"' <kerryr@ci.issaquah.wa.us>, "'white, jean"' <jean.white@metrokc.gov>, "'paulsen, kit"'
<kpaulsen@ci.bellevue.wa.us>
ACTUAL
FY _ FY
2000 2001,
EXPEND.
FY TO BALANCE
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2002
2003
2004
DATE
REMAINING
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
CEDAR RIVER GRAVEL MOVEMENT - KING COUNTY
22,500 2,500 5,0001 5,000
ERS Coordination
5,000
5,000
* Site Survey & Design
15,000
15,000
* Cultural Resources
500
500
" Gravel Movement Phase 1
50,000
50,000
H&H
243,000
3,000
3,000
_
237,000
GEOTECH/SOILS
4,000
4 ,
4,000
ECONOMICS
5,000
`;;
5,000
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
--T 1,500
REAL ESTATE
o
* Corps
12,800
_ _
12,800
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
2,000
2,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
" Corps
50,000
�....... _. �.. _...........
6,000
14,000,,
10,000
10,000
10,000
* Non -Federal In -Kind
49,000
5,000 14,000 10,000
10,000
10,000
SHARED COSTS
67,000
3,000 8,000 16,000
20,000
20,0001
i
SUB -TOTAL
522,300
5,500
17,0001 91,000
318,800
45,000
45,000
CONTINGENCY
52,230
550
1,700
9,100
31,880
4,500
4,500
TOTAL COST
574,530
6,050
18,700
100,100
350,680
49,500
49,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
231,165
3,025
3,850
34,650
162,140
13,750
13,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
-
27,600
NON -FED IN -KIND
_
56,100
01
6,500
15,400 13,200
11,000
11,000
FEDERAL CASH
287,265
3,025
1 9,350
50,050 175,340
24,750
24,750
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
1 (3,025)
23,650
ACTUAL
FY FY
_EXPEND.
FY TO BALANCE
2004 DATE REMAINING
TOTAL
FY
FY
2002
FY
2003
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000 2001
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
CEDAR RIVER RESTORATION - KING COUNTY
5,000
ERS Coordination
22,500
2,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
* Habitat Survey
37,000
37,000
* Site Survey and Design
9,500
_ 5,000 4500
500
22200
19,000
8,000
7,8001
23100
1,500
12,800
2,000
* Cultural Resources
500
H&H
0
* Levee Setback
22,21
* Diversion Ditch
19,000
CIVI USOI LS
8,000
ECONOMICS
7,800
SURVEY
23,100
COST ESTIMATING
1,500
REAL ESTATE
o
* Corps
12.800
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
2,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
o
* Corps
31,000
1,000 10,000 10,000
10.000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
34,000
4,000 10,0001, 10,000
10,000
SHARED COSTS
52,000
2,000 10,0001,, 20,000
20,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
282,900
2,500
44,000 40,000
146,400
45,000
5,000
CONTINGENCY
28,290
250
4,400 4,000j
14,640
4,500
500
TOTAL COST
311,190
2,750
48,400', 44,000
161,040
49,500
5,500
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
115,995
1,375
19,800 11,000
67,320
13,750
2,750
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
-
19,800
NON -FED. IN -KIND
39,600
01
4,400 11,000' 13,200
11,000
0
FEDERAL CASH
155,595
1,3751
24,200 22,000 80,520
24,750
2,750
CREDIT/DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
(1,375)
0
is
1Dkn Ltm6owk
Scope of Work
Cedar River Gravel Study Phases 1 and 2
Field Characterization of Cedar River Gravel
j o,10s ; 5-M4J
I. Background. The Washington Department of Fisheries (now WA Dept of Fish &
Wildlife) conducted a survey of available sockeye spawning gravel areas (i.e., habitat)
and distribution in the late 1960s. These data •_�hi-, ems -serve d-as the basis for the
current sockeye escapement goal of 300,000 fish for seclye te-the Cedar River. This
survey was primarily a visual survey, with minimal bed sampling, and was based on the
surveyerssurveyor's expertise in identification of ying-suitable sockeye spawning habitat.
It is not possible to replicate the study. Gamw 4.
Since the 1960's several observations f available spawning gravel on
the Cedar River have been made. These observations have lead researchers and fisheries
managers to suggest that current spawning gravels may be less abundant prevalent and/or
less suitable than the historical condition. Conversely, little research has been conducted
to quantify whether or not current gravels present in the river represent an adequate
volume or composition to support long-term salmonid spawning. The Lake Washington
GI project, a multi -agency project led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and King
County, has the opportunity and need, to initiate a study to evaluate for the purpose e€
understandi whether current Cedar River gravel conditions in the Cedar River -are
capable of adequately sustaining long-term salmonid spawning conditions. It is
proposed that this project be conducted using a phased approach. The approach
considered for this multi --phased study has been developed to provide sequential decision
points between phases to help answer whether or not the next study objective needs to be
pursued. The following provides an overview of the objectives and specific tasks
necessary to complete the project.
II. Purpose. The purpose of the study described here is to evaluate the current condition
of spawning gravel in the Cedar River and if necessary, use a modeling approach to
identify the cause of any problems identified. These data will then be used to identify
restoration needs for the river. Physical modeling of gravel characteristics is critical to
decisions making on the need and extent of future gravel and upland restoration projects
along the Cedar River. The project will be conducted in three phases, which are
described below.
The purpose of Pphase 1 of the Cedar River Gravel Study is to take field measurements;
to gather initial baseline data on gravel characteristics, and in addition, compile existing
data to evaluate whether and where a "gravel problem" presently exists. Sufficient field
data would be collected during Phase 1 to allow for modeling during Phhases 2 and 3.
If Phase 1 identifies that a "gravel problem" does exist we would proceed with Phase 2 of
the project. Phase 2 would consist of augmenting King County's new HEC-RAS flood
It
model for of -the Cedar River, and using it to calculate scour potential and the discharge
that would initiate movement tier of gravel at select pious locations along the
river (i.e., between the Landsburg Dam and M). Phase 2 would Gould -also
include a quantitatively evaluation of a the current gravel supply and the role of the
Landsburg diversion on this supply. This phase would determine whether lack of gravel
in certain reaches is caused primarily by channel morphology (e.g., reduction in side
channels, confinement by levees, changes in channel cross -sections) or due to a limited
lack 4-gravel supply.
(What's the trigger to initiate Phase 3?) Phase 3 would be performed during project
design. ??????Wouldn't we do this BEFORE project design???? In this phase, a HEC-6
(can you include a very brie' description about what the HEC-6 model will tell us?)
model would be developed to simulate movement rout of e-sediment downstream and
calculate quantities of scour and fill at each of the previously evaluated cross -sections.
This effort would probably be necessary only if gravel augmentation is considered as an
alternative, although it could also be used to evaluate potential restoration projects that
would significantly alter the channel cross-section.
The following provides an overview of the specific tasks associated with each of the
Phases of the project.
I11A. Objec-tive-e€-Phase 1 - Objective and =Scope. The objective of PPphase 1 is to
execute a field study approach as described under this scope of work to that wlll
identify the -current availability renditions (e.g., location, size, composition) of
spawning gravel within the Cedar River (i.e., between Landsburg Dam and ????).
Existing data (e.g., gravel source it -availability, fine sediment, spawning surveys)
willfrom other sources (e.g., Seattle Public Utilities, King County etc.) will also be
utilized. Based on the results of this phase of the project, a recommendationo
willould be made on how best to deal with any identified gravel problems relating to
fish on the Cedar River. Fieldwork for this phase of the project Work -will be
conducted once -between the low flow months of July and SeptembeSeptember
2000. The following provides an overview of the specific tasks associated with this
phase of the project.
IV,III. Phase 1 scopes Cedar! Move-r- Gr-ave-1 Vield Won l
Task 1. Initial Coordination and Study Plan Development. Prior to conducting field
work, the cContractor will oordinate ' staff involved with
existing Cedar River research efforts to obtain existing information and identify possible
cooperative data gathering opportunities. Contractor shall obtain existing cross-section
data and flood study maps. Contractor shall use existing flood study maps and air photos
to design lay -out a sampling plan and identify deterniine-locations where additional cross-
section data s-are needed. Prior to conducting fieldwork the Contractor will prepare a
brief study plan to be reviewed by study sponsors.
Task 2. Cross Sections. Contractor shall query and obtain all relevant cross sectional
data from existing sources such as King County and City of Seattle as well as any cross
sections on file at the Corps of Engineers. A maximum of 10 additional cross sections
may be added in the field as part of this contract to support HEC-RAS modeling in Phase
2. Five of the additional transects may be above Landsberg Dam (do we need to specify
"how -far above "M, for the purpose of modeling gravel supply and transport rates into
the study reach. Cross-section surveys above Landsburg Dam will include the floodplain
as well as the main channel. Data to be collected includes ...............
Task 3. Aerial Photos. Contractor shall obtain and organize a current (can we be more
specific than current here?) series of aerial photos for use during planning exercises and
as reference for geomorphologic analysis. Aerial photos may be
obtained through the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or other
suitable source.
Task 4. Physical Gravel Sampling- Surface. Contractor shall conduct surficial gravel
counts at transects??? located along the length of the Cedar River from approximately
RM 22 (1 mile upstream of Landsburg Dam) to the mouth (RM 0) in areas at cross
sections -with appropriate morphology (what's appropriate? Can we define?) , primarily
focusing on sites wig —that contain spawnable gravels. Surficial gravel counts to
determine size distribution will should -follow methodologies outlined in Wolman, 1954
and Kondolf, 1997. The following characteristics should be recorded at each point count
site: bankfull width and estimated bankfull depth, habitat type, sketch showing
approximate area of potentially spawnable gravel and its location relative to the cross-
section, local water -surface gradient. Can we include a sample data sheet here??, how
many of these samples will be collected)
Task 5. Physical Gravel Sampling- Subsurface. Subsurface gravel sampling shall be
conducted in support of potential HEC-6 modeling in
Phase 3. Subsurface samples shall be taken at appropriate locations what's
appropriate???) based on field expertise using a shovel for above -water samples and a
bucket sample for underwater samples. Sample size shall be large enough to adequately
(what's adequate??) characterize grain size distribution in these coarse sediments. A
maximum of four samples shall be cataloged (? What's the difference between cataloged
and analyze??) and analyzed using a sieve analysis to determine size distribution. These
samples are intended to supplement existing subsurface data collected samples-tak in
1992 by King County_, ,which should also be
included in the report. At least one sample should be taken upstream from Landsburg
Dam to evaluate sediment size entering the study area. (How many of these samples are
we going to collect??? ?We should define a range in the scope)
Task 6. Fine Sediments.
a) The Contractor shall review existing data n fine sediments in the
Cedar River. Based on existing studies, contractor shall document significant sources of
long torn- or Tither significant so rGes efof fine sediment and tabulate results of any
Q9,,�t°�oss
hb5
5�
CA -
previous sediment work where % fines may have been described. These data Reanits
should be compared to known literature data on how % fines m_y animpact to
salmonid redds and egg survival._ Based on a cursory look at some of the available data,
it is anticipated that -this these data task -will suggest chew hat fine sediment is not
adversely impacting gravel quality,. except possibly near Lake Washington, where fines
naturally settle out due to the flat gradient.
b) If the results of Task 6a -suggests--that-fine sediments could be limiting spawning
success upstream from the City of Renton, McNeil sampling shall be conducted at no
more than 3 sites with potential spawning gravels. (Can you please briefly describe what
this sampling will tell us and what will be done with the data??)
Task 7. Spawning Counts. The Contractor shall work with WDFW and other agencies
to obtain and compile annual salmonid spawning surveys data for comparison to existing
gravel distribution and characteristics based on the above field work.
Task 8. Analysis. The Contractor shall compile all data collected and analyze trends in
gravel abundance or size distribution based on location, average river gradient, channel
confinement, and other morphologic characteristics. If data (what kind of data are you
referring to?) from the spring 2000 habitat survey are sufficient, an estimate of total
gravel area in each river reach shall be made. Otherwise, cross-section and floodplain
characteristics shall be used to extrapolate and characterize relative gravel retention along
different sections of the river. Gravel distribution and size characteristics shall be
compared with WDFW spawning survey data. The role of sediment supply will be
evaluated on a qualitative basis based on existing information and field observations of
local sediment sources.
V. Phase 1 - Contract Schedule and Deliverables.
The product of Phase 1 will be a written report documenting the methods srhoduling and
results of relevant field activities. Cross-section survey and sediment sample data for use
in future HEC RAS and HEC-6 modeling will be provided in spreadsheets on disk as well
as hard copy (do we want to specify a software type that this should be done in?). Draft
deliverables will be due 60 days after final field surveys are conducted. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (what about the project sponsors???) will have 10 days can we
increase this to 2 weeks?) to comment on draft deliverables and return them to the
contractor. The final deliverable shall be due 14 days after receipt of comments from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and project sponsors. The final deliverable will consist of
three (3) bound and one (1) unbound (4 total) copies of subject report. Deliverables will
be due at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on specified
date.
VI. Phase 2 Scope: HEC-RAS model and sediment transport capability at cross -
sections
If necessary, tThis phase of the project could be started in early 2001, by which time the
complete HEC-RAS model for RM 0 to 21 of the Cedar River should be available from
King County. (Can you add a brief description of what this will do for us???? And what
we are looking for)
Task 1. HEC-RAS modeling. Add cross -sections data ??? to existing HEC-RAS model
and develop new model for one mile of river upstream of Landsberg Dam. The new
cross-section data ssurveyed Collected in Phase 1 would be used for this purpose. Run
modelRun model at a variety of flows,_ including bankfull discharge, and provide
summary tables that present with —flow parameter datas that is relevant to sediment
modeling such as average depth, velocity, shear stress.
Task 2. Gravel movement calculations. For cross -sections for which data were collected
in Pphase 1, calculate bedload transport rate,_ and the size of sediment particles that would
be mobile at bankfull discharge and other selected discharges (would these _flows be the
same as those evaluated in Task I above??).
Task 3. Evaluate sediment supply. Develop quantitative estimates of bedload sediment
supply from upstream _(upstream of what??), tributary channels, landslides, eroding
bluffs, and eroding banks. Evaluate changes in supply over the last century C??? Based
on what???). Use sediment budget approach, based on suspended sediment
yields,(where will these data come from??) watershed area, and (if feasible) bar accretion
rates. Sediment -transport modeling of the sediment influx from upstream of Landsberg
will not be performed until Phase 3.
Task 4. Analysis. Evaluate downstream changes in sediment mobility due to cross-
section morphology and gradient changes. Correlate gravel size and abundance with
transport and supply, and determine the relative importance of these factors in limiting
gravel abundance. Determine the cross-section and floodplain morphologies that are
most conducive to providing abundant spawning gravel.
VII. Phase 2 Report and Deliverables
The product of Phase 2 will be a written report documenting the development and results
of HEC-RAS modeling efforts. A HEC-RAS model will rely primarily on existing data
and data gathered under Phase 1 activities. The report should document a) flows and
hydraulics at cross -sections, b) provide an estimate of available materiealmaterial (yield),
c) describe transport capacities (reach by reach), estimate a sediment budget and e)
provide conclusions and recommendations. Draft deliverables will be due 60 days after
modeling results are completed. Contractor will develop and run the HEC-RAS model
within 45 days from the completion of Pphase 1. (Project sponsors will want to get
together and review the result of Phase I before we move to the Model ... ... please make
sure we incorporate that into the timeline) _The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and
sponsors will have 44- 14 days to comment on draft deliverables and return them to the
contractor. The final deliverable shall be due 14 days after receipt of comments from the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The final deliverable will consist of three (3) bound and
one (1) unbound (4 total) copies of subject report. Deliverables will be due at the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on the date specified in the
Contracting documents.
What about Phase 3? Should describe briefly
1 - The HEC-RAS modeling only tells the hydraulics portion of the puzzle. It will
tell, for a. Using these velocities, transport characteristics can be developed. However,
some estimate of movable material needs to be done (this estimate could come from the
Task 1 search) before an assessment came be made on a reach by reach basis. So, my
suggestion would be to add language regarding sediment yield (source, gradation,
volume) and then apply transport functions to each reach. Then statements could be
made about ability of one reach to pass material to the next.
2 - All of the above is to say,
FY 2001 Studies (First cut based on existing scope of work,
current status of studies, etc). We have underestimated funds
required for ERS, Planning coordination for scope of work,
contracting, developing and monitoring budget, paying for
assistants and program budget analysts, etc. So I have shown
new costs for these for next year.
FY 2000 - Non Federal funds still required
In order to complete revisions of the scope of work for FY2001
and to coordinate with sponsors and agencies, Corps planning
staff will need additional $100,000 non federal by October to
fund the work to January.
SEATTLE FCSA
Water Conservation:
Evaluate saltwater drain, salinity intrusion, water
conservation (structural and nonstructural). Involves
significant hydraulic modeling, any testing, sampling?
Cost - $235,000. (nonfed - $117,500)
Fish Passage:
Evaluate fish ladder, design improvements (are we ready for
this yet?) $$93,000
• Want another year of adult passage studies?
• Need more studies of cold water refuge?
Ship Canal:
Juvenile studies - $255,000
Shilshole juvenile studies - $70,000 IK
Design studies for actual restoration sites (are we ready for
these yet? What about estuary studies, for fish, WQ?)
Design studies were estimated at $178,000
Study Management (includes PM 2 days a week, 1 assistant (3
days a week each), ERS coordinator 2 days a week = $172,800,
increase of $97,000 over SM and shared costs.
Gary Schimek- Questions to discuss before Meeting Page 1
From: Gary Schimek
To: Shaw, Tim
Date: 9/21/00 3:21 PM
Subject: Questions to discuss before Meeting
Thanks for coordinating the meeting for next Thursday at 8:30. Ed Zapel and Lea Adams from NHC will
be attending.
To hopefully keep the meeting as brief as possible, I have prepared my list of outstanding questions
regarding the Cedar River H&H modeling process. I reviewed the Final Design Report to try and answer
these questions myself, but have had limited success. Maybe I missed some information that is there in
black and white. We shall see. Please forward these question to Wayne and Ron before the meeting and
see what they think. (I have shared these questions with Mike Deering already). Thanks.
la. The final design report indicates that the HEC-FDA program was used to create the 90 percent
reliability water surface profiles. What were the steps involved in this process to create these profiles?
1 b. What "best estimate" or "mean value" stage -discharge relationship and frequency curve (per the
referenced IWR report) were used in the HEC-FDA model?
1c. How was uncertainty applied to the "best -estimate" or "mean -value" stage -discharge curve?
2a. The final design report also indicates that levee elevations were found to have greater than 90%
percent chance of containing the 100 yr flood, based on a Monte Carlo simulation via the HEC-FDA
model. What were the steps involved in making this determination?
2b. Which HEC-RAS model was used to generate the aforementioned levee elevations?
2c. What assumptions (such as thalweg condition, debris blockage, design flow, etc.) are inherent to this
particular HEC-RAS model which was used to generate the levee elevations?
3. The 100-yrd design flow for the project is 12,000 cfs. Is this the mean value for the 100-yr discharge,
or the upper 90-percent confidence limit value?
If any of these questions do not make sense, please let me know immediately. Thanks.
Gary Schimek, P.E.
City of Renton - Surface Water Utility
Project Manager
Phone: (425) 430-7205
Fax: (425) 430-7241
CC: Adams, Lea; Johnson, Jeff; Zapel, Ed
01/11/99
6. CEDAR RIVER GRAVEL MOVEMENT.
Gravel Movement/Recruitment in Cedar River. The goal of this study is primarily to
reconduct the salmon spawning habitat survey conducted by WDFW in the late 1960s
to document if spawning gravel supply and distribution has changed. If the gravel
supply is significantly different from the previous survey, then a determination of need
and level of gravel nourishment would be conducted. Tasks include an analysis of
sediment sources, movement by river reaches, etc.. Cross -sections and supplemental
scour chains would be used to assess storm by storm movement. Gravel sampling and
habitat mapping would resurvey previously selected salmon spawning areas. Analysis
and reporting includes geomorphologist. (will be conducted in 2000)
Scour -Chains & Monitoring 25 $450/day $11,250
Gravel Sampling and Habitat Mapping 30 $450/day $13,500
Analysis and Reporting Geomorphologist 15 $600/day $ 6,000
Biologist 10 $500/day $ 5,000
TOTAL $35,750
Restoration Site Surveys and Designs — Includes baseline habitat survey at each site (3
potential sites), plus biologist labor for design work, benefit calculation, etc.
Environmental Coordinator
Biologist Labor
TOTAL
7. SAMMAMISH RIVER.
24 $500/day $12,000
6 $500/day $ 3,000
$15,000
Sammamish River Restoration Plan. Review results of temperature study and shade
modeling and King County restoration plans. Review habitat surveys (main river and
tributaries). Determine thermal refuge sites and critical areas. Develop designs for
refuge creation/restoration sites (assume 5 sites in Redmond -Woodinville reach).
Evaluate groundwater monitoring data.
Environmental Coordinator/Biologist 30 $500/day $15,000
Analysis & Results 25 $500/day $12,500
TOTAL $27,500
(50% will be in -kind $13,750)
Radiotrackinq of Adult Salmon Through Sammamish River. Continue
radiotagging adult chinook and sockeye salmon at the Locks and tracking
through the Sammamish River to determine preferred holding areas, timing of
migration in relation to temperature, DO, etc. This will be a one-year study
conducted in 1999 as in -kind.
Radiotagging and Equipment $29,000
HH SECTION DRAFT SCOPE LWSC 216 STUDY 12/09/98
the setback condition. Assumes that the setback levee will not provide storage volumes
which would significantly reduce flood depths upstream or downstream of the project.
Setback levee to be assumed at the same elevation as the existing levee. Hydraulic
evaluations limited to estimation of change in water surface profile due to levee setback
and evaluation of effect of placed instream habitat features on that surface; these to be
performed with existing and available steady state hydraulic model of reach. Overbank
velocities to be evaluated in support of setback levee erosion protection design.
Hydrologic investigations to include discharge -frequency analyses. No channel stability or
sediment transport investigations to be performed.
H&H Coordination
7
$600/day
4,200
Hydraulic Modeling
7
$600/day
4,200
Hydrologic Engineering
6
$600/day
3,600
Hydraulic Design
5
$600/day
3,000
Technical Review
3
$720/day
2,160
Reporting
6
$600/day
3,600
Contract Administration
1,450
SUBTOTAL
$22,210
Cedar River Gravel Nourishment: A project to nourish a stream supposedly
starved of spawning sized gravel. This requires coordination with COE, city of Seattle,
and King County and investigation of pertinent records regarding the management of the
river and facilities. For replenishment, assume 2 sites with one-time placement of 10,000
yd3 of gravel. Determination of location and amount of gravel inputs to be determined.
Overall effort requires definition of riverine sediment transport characteristics in entire
reach from Landsburg to Lake Washington by HEC-6 analysis. Requires approximately
50 bed samples for gradation analysis (civil soils to execute or contract for samples,
coordinate locations with HH) for input into HEC-6 model. Requires bed -load and
suspended load measurements within the reach of interest throughout duration of flood
event (note that responsiveness is key here to acquiring requisite data). Existing condition
and with/gravel condition transport and water surface profiles to be evaluated. Evaluate
potential impacts to Section 205 project in the vicinity of Renton and the Boeing complex
on Lake Washington. Assumes existing hydrology from recent Cedar 205 study adequate
for purposes of this element. NOTE: If gravel is to be placed in smaller parcels (say 1000
yd3) annually over a period of 10 years, the cost of analysis could be reduced
considerably.
H&H Coordination/Field Work
6
$530/day
3,180
Research
10
$530/day
5,300
Hydraulic Modeling (HEC-6)
60
$530/day
31,800
Hydrologic Engineering
10
$530/day
5,300
Technical Review
10
$720/day
7,200
Reporting and closure
15
$530/day
7,950
SUBTOTAL
$60,730
page 8 of 9 pages
Lake Washington GI Study
AGENDA
September 28, 2000
Lake Washington and Cedar River
Introduction — discuss Corps budget requirements
Lake Washington
Lunch
Cedar River
Break
Summary
9:30 — 9:45
9:45 — 11:45
11:45 —12:15
12:15 — 2:15
2:15 — 2:30
2:30 — 3:30
Lake Washington GI Study
AGENDA
September 27, 2000
Lake Washington Ship Canal/ Locks/ Estuary
Introduction — discuss Corps budget requirements
Locks Studies
Lunch
Ship Canal
Break
Estuary Studies
9:30 — 9:45
9:45 — 11:45
11:45 — 12:15
12:15 — 2:15
2:15 — 2:30
2:30 — 4:30
HYDROLOGIC ENGINEERING MANAGEMENT PLAN
FOR
LAKE WASHINGTON BASIN RESTORATION
THE CEDAR RIVER GRAVEL NOURISHMENT STUDY
SEATTLE , WASHINGTON
1. INTRODUCTION
a. General. - This Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan (HEMP) is developed for the
Lake Washington Basin Restoration (Water Conservation) Project, Seattle, Washington. The
Lake Washington Basin Restoration Study is evaluating two water related issues in the greater
Lake Washington Basin, which includes Lake Sammamish, Lake Washington, and the Cedar
River. These issues are: improved salmonid migration and survival at the Hiram A. Chittenden
Locks through water conservation and the modification of facilities, and the creation of specific
habitat improvements throughout the basin for fish and wildlife. The potential listing of Puget
Sound Chinook as an endangered species has strengthened the need for specific habitat.
This HEMP specifically addresses the gravel nourishment study for the Cedar River and the
various technical studies required to assess existing and with project geomorphic and sediment
transport conditions in the 21 mile reach below Landsburg. The objective of this HEMP is to
describe the hydrologic, hydraulic assumptions, techniques, and methodologies required to
evaluate the sediment transport characteristics of the project reach. This HEMP is prepared in
accordance with ER 1110-2-1460, "Hydrologic Engineering Management" and EP 1110-2-9,
"Hydrologic Engineering Studies Design."
b. Authorization. - The Feasibility Study and Report preparation is authorized under Section
216 of Public Law 91-611, Review of Completed Projects, River, Harbor and Flood Control Act
of 1970. Study sponsors include the City of Seattle Public Utilities, the City of Issaquah, King
County, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife, the Lake Sammamish Forum, and I
the Lake Washington Forum. \
c. HEMP Organization. - This HEMP is comprised of five sections as briefly described below.
Section 2 describes the study phasing and the sequencing of the design/analysis procedure.
Section 3 details the computer software requirements for performing the various studies and
Section 4 presents the effort/cost estimates for those studies.
d. Study Assumptions. - The H&H study phasing for this study is described below and will be
performed given the following assumptions.
1. The H&H disciplines will be working in conjunction with the ERS disci 'nes in
performing overlapping tasks. The mapping and data sampling of channel invert composition for
sediment transport purposes, will dovetail with ERS identification of spawning gravel locations.
Identification of reaches for sediment transport budgeting and ERS definition will be coordinated
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
and consistently defined. For planning purposes, the study scope will assume twenty (20)
reaches.
2. Survey data, including below water topography, will be provided by King County and
will available in digital format.
3. All hydrologic data is current and available for use in the various hydraulics and
sediment transport applications.
2. STUDY PHASING
a. General — This effort is intended to assist the identification of existing and potential future
fish spawning habitat through the execution of river and applied engineering geomorphology,
and sediment engineering studies of the Cedar River downstream of Landsburg, Washington.
The basic objective of the requested work will be to determine:
1. The existing geomorphic and channel stability conditions of the study reach. This
effort includes the development of a sediment transport model which reflects current topographic
and sediment loading conditions. This effort also includes the development of the existing
kh�ti sediment sources, loads and composition and how they impact the system stability.
ti;{` ' 2. The correlation of channel and sediment mechanics findings and the ERS findings
ki J;b regarding fisheries habitat and spawning facilities, and,
�CS 4
3. The development and/or assessment of features, which may improve the fisheries
condition, or features that may impact the existing system channel and sediment transport conditions.
The proposed study efforts are to be completed in seven (7) phases identified as Data Collection
and Field Reconnaissance; Geomorphic Analysis of Existing Conditions; Sediment Engineering
and Channel Stability Analyses of Existing Conditions; Sediment Engineering and Channel
Stability Analyses of Project Conditions; Draft Final Report, Final Report and Technical Review.
b. Phase 1 - Data Collection and Field Reconnaissance.
1. The team member shall familiarize themselves with the study area through discussions
with the appropriate Seattle District personnel and visits to the project site.
2. From the appropriate Federal, State and local agencies, the team member shall collect
and assemble the pertinent data necessary to conduct the field reconnaissance and the
geomorphic, sediment transport and channel stability analyses of the study area. This data
includes all hydraulic, hydrologic, channel geometry, sediment, and geologic and structural data
available.
3. Some channel bed and bank material gradation data for the study area may be made
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
available for use in the geomorphic, sediment engineering and channel stability analysis. More
extensive sediment samplings may be necessary to supplement available data, documenting their
✓°® ocation, and for contracting with a qualified soils testing laboratory for performing gradation
analyses of the samples. The estimated maximum number and type of samples to be taken in the
study scope (20 reaches) are as follows:
� Ar-
a5
�r;v►� Channel Bottom (Surface) 2 per reach - 40
bL C° j Channel Bottom (Subsurface) 1 per reach - 20
Sdmprioj ' Channel Banks 1 per reach - 20
Hand Auger Boreholes { - 1 1 per reach - 20 (10' min. depth)
The gradation of the surface material 4nples on the channel bottom may be determined in the field
by use of the Wolman count or similar method (if practical). The gradation of the subsurface
material samples on the channel bottom, the channel bank samples and the hand auger boreholes
shall be determined by laboratory methods. The gradation of the subsurface samples shall be
determined by a sieve analysis down to the #200 sieve size. The gradation of the bank material
samples shall be determined by a sieve analysis down to the #200 sieve size and by a hydrometer
analysis if fine materials less than 0.062 min in size are present to determine the percentage of clay
and silt size materials present in the sample. Laboratory testing for performing the sediment sample
gradation analyses that follows standard ASTM testing procedures. All sediment sampling shall
adhere to the criteria set forth in EM 1110-2-4000, "Sedimentation Investigations of Rivers and
Reservoirs."
4. A geomorphologist and hydraulic engineer of the product team shall conduct a detailed
geomorphic field reconnaissance of the study reach and, a general geomorphic field reconnaissance
of the streamcourses and contributory watershed upstream and downstream of the study reach.
c. Phase 2 - Geomorphic Analysis of Existing Conditions.
1. The team member shall perform a feasibility level geomorphic analysis of the study area,
which shall be used in support of the sediment yield, sediment transport and channel stability
analysis of existing and project conditions through the project reach. Using the available data, the
geomorphic shall include the following items:
(a) Evaluate Channel Morphology. This includes using available data for the study
area, comparison of channel surveys (cross section and profile) and evaluation of bank and bed
materials to evaluate past and present channel behavior. Compare morphologic characteristics of
leveed versus non -leveed sections of the study area. Determine if there are any trends, which relate
specifically to the existing flood control project through the study area.
(b) Evaluate Basin and Channel Geology. Define the geologic characteristics of the
area and how it has affected the past and present behavior of the study reach and its tributaries, and
how it might affect the future streamcourse behavior within the study area (particularly with regards
to bed and bank erosion and channel meandering
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
(c) Integrate Basin and Rives' Hydrology with Channel Morphology and Behavior.
Identify past events, which have played a dominant role in channel formation, particularly flows and
flow durations anticipated.
(d) Evaluate Sedimentology of Basin and Channel. Based on available data, field
observation and samples, evaluate the material types, size distributions and erodibility of channel
and bank materials in the study reach. Identify the various bank failure mechanisms (hydraulic,
geotechnical, etc.) found along the study reach. Identify existing and potential problem areas (such
as bank erosion, aggradation, degradation, channel cutoff, multi -branching channels, etc.) as well
as sources and sinks of materials and existing bank protection sites.
(e) Evaluate Effects of Vegetation from a Geomorphic Standpoint on Channel
Behavior. Determine the role of vegetation, if any, on channel behavior, including in -channel and
bank natives as well � source area vegetative cover.
� ,
2. From 2. above, the team member shall develop river reach and/or watershed subarea
boundaries based on generally similar geomorphic characteristics. Work items shall be addressed
according to the developed river reaches and/or watershed subareas and the original assumption may
be adjusted accordingly.
3. Based on the field reconnaissance, available data and geomorphic analyses, the team
member shall identify specific geomorphic characteristics of the stream channel and watershed
upstream of and within the project reach which would affect the sediment yield into the project reach
and the channel stability within the study reach. Particular concerns to be addressed are threshold
channel slopes and planform.
d. Phase 3 - Sediment Engineering and Channel Stability Analyses (Existing Conditions):
1. The team member shall conduct analyses incorporating the results of the geomorphic
analyses to determine: the sediment yield of the watershed upstream of the project reach as well as
that of the tributaries to the project reach; the disposition of these sediments under average annual
as well as single event flood conditions; and, the stability (both laterally and vertically) of the
streamcourses within the study reach. A minimum of two design level events, in addition to average
annual conditions will be evaluated. These analyses shall include the following items. I
2. Available Sediment Yield Methods: Research and determine what analytical and/or
empirical methods for estimating watershed sediment yield would be appropriate for the project area.
These methods should be referenced in the project report. Available reference documents include
EM1110-2-4000, "Sedimentation Investigations of Rivers and Reservoirs", and ASCE Manual 54,
"Sedimentation Engineering". As part of the development of the sediment yield estimate, a sediment
discharge versus water discharge rating curve at the upstream limit of the study reach on both the
Yuba and Feather Rivers and for any major tributaries to the study reach shall be developed.
7
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
3. Sediment Yield Estimate: Based on input from the geomorphic analyses and utilizing the
appropriate methods for estimating basin and tributary sediment yields, determine the sediment yield
that is actually delivered to the upstream end of the study reach and from each tributary to the
mainstems of the project reach. At a minimum, four differentjpethods for estimating sediment yield
that are appropriate for the basin characteristics and data available shall be utilized and the results
compared (see paragraph 6.d.4, below). An estimate shall be made of the following for both the
mainstems and tributaries:
(a) Average Annual Sediment Yield
(b) Specific Event Sediment Yield (minimum two frequencies)
4. Confidence Level of Sediment Yield Estimate: Evaluate and discuss the confidence level
of the sediment yield estimates with respect to the available data used to develop these estimates,
data from adjacent, similar watersheds, etc. including sensitivity of the yield estimates to various
input parameters of methods used to develop these estimates.
5. Sediment Transport Routings - Development of the sediment budgets will require
developing estimates of channel and bank erosion, channel and overbank deposition, flow diversions
etc., and will require performing routings of sediment through the project reach. Such estimates and
routings shall be fully described in the report text and sample computations given in the report
appendices. A computer program which is capable of simulating the movement of sediment through
the reach and changes to bed elevation and bed material gradation with the passage of a flow
hydrograph through the model depiction of the study reach, (such as the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers' HEC6, "Scour and Deposition in Rivers and Reservoirs") shall be used for the sediment
transport routings.
6. Sediment Budget for Existing Conditions - Develop sediment budgets for Average Annual
and Specific Event Conditions for each pre -defined reach. Fully identify in the sediment budgets:
(a) All inflowing sediment sources (upstream end, tributaries, channel and bank
erosion, etc.)
(b) All outflowing sediments (downstream end, channel and overbank deposition,
flow diversions, etc.)
(c) Compute an "imbalance" value (if any)
7. Channel Stability Analyses - In concert with information developed from the geomorphic
and sediment engineering analyses, determine the channel stability characteristics of the study reach
under existing conditions, and identify areas in the study reach where channel stability problems
under project conditions may be anticipated. These analyses shall follow Corps guidance found in
EC 1110-8-1, "Stability of Flood Control Channels" and/or other industry standard practices.
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
e. Phase IV - Sediment Engineering and Channel Stability Analyses (Project Conditions)
1. The team member shall conduct analyses incorporating the results of the Phases I through
III analyses to determine for project conditions: the disposition of sediments inflowing to the study
reach under average annual as well as single event flood conditions; the stability (both laterally and
vertically) of the streamcourses within the study reach; the extent of potential project impacts on
channel stability and sedimentation both upstream and downstream of the study reach; and, a
conceptual description of potential measures to ameliorate project impacts (if any). A minimum of
two design level events, in addition to average annual conditions will be evaluated. These analyses
shall include the following items.
2. Sediment Transport Routings: The same sediment transport model developed for pre -
project conditions shall be modified and used to simulate project conditions.
3. Sediment Budget for Project Conditions: Develop sediment budgets for Average Annual
and SpecificEvent Conditions for each pre -defined reach. Fully identify in the sediment budgets:
(a) All inflowing sediment sources (upstream end, tributaries, channel and bank
erosion, etc.)
(b) All outflowing sediments (downstream end, channel and overbank deposition,
flow diversions, etc.)
(c) Compute an "imbalance" value (if any)
4. Channel Stability Analyses - In concert with information developed from the geomorphic
and sediment engineering analyses, determine the channel stability characteristics of the study reach
under project conditions, and identify areas in the study reach and upstream and downstream of the
study reach, where channel stability problems under project conditions will occur. Also, provide a
conceptual description of potential measures which could be used to ameliorate such impacts (if
any).
f. Phase V - Draft Report - The team member shall prepare the a Draft Report which shall
include maps, drawings, illustrations, etc. as stated in the criteria for data presentation. The
submittal shall constitute 98 percent of the total study effort. The technical hydrologic, hydraulic,
and sedimentation report will be prepared as prescribed in EC 1110-2-281, "Requirements of
River Hydraulic Studies," dated 30 May 1994, and conforming to ER 1110-2-1150, "Engineering
and Design for Civil Works Projects," Appendices A and D, dated 31 March 1994. The report
will present a description of the data used, methods employed, assumptions made, and results
obtained and will be constructed as an Appendix to an overall study report. This report will be
written for technical review.
1. Analytical Methods - Methods of analysis, supporting reasons for adopting selected
methods, and associated relationships to features selection will be discussed. Model
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
development, calibration, verification, and application will be presented in detail. Computer
programs used in the study will be documented.
2. Results and Interpretations - The report will not only present hydrologic and
hydrodynamic details of the modeling effort but also a full engineering interpretation of those
results. This interpretation will include descriptions of performance and function of the system
for the full range of possible scenarios.
g. Phase VI - Final Report. The team member shall prepare the Final Report which shall include
maps, drawings, illustrations, etc. as stated in the criteria for data presentation. The submittal shall
constitute 100 percent of the total study effort. An annotated set of review comments shall be
submitted to comply with ITR requirements.
f. Phase VII - Technical Review - The technical review process for this study will be in
accordance with ER 1110-1-12 "Engineering and Design Quality Management". As a component
to the Quality Control Plan, technical review will be performed on two levels. First, a detailed
interdisciplinary review will be conducted to ensure that the findings of all studies are properly
coalesced. This macro review will be performed as required throughout the study to check for
discrepancies, disconnects, and interference between technical team members or
technical/management interfaces. Second, independent review(s) of the specific H&H studies
will be performed as required to ensure technical soundness of methodologies, techniques,
assumptions, and results.
S. CRITERIA AND STANDARDS FOR DATA PRESENTATION:
a. Report Format and Contents. The team member shall prepare the Final Report in accordance
with the instructions herein. The format of the Final shall be coordinated with the Project Manager
and shall include the report text and the following:
1. Maps - Maps shall be of good quality, consistent format and are to include a North arrow,
scale, title block and legend. Fold -in or page -size maps shall show the creek (study) reach in
relationship to nearby towns, rivers, and other major such features. Maps shall be legible when
reproduced half-size. Full size reproducible maps, reduced size maps suitable for enclosure into the
report and originals for all maps shall be included. Maps shall be submitted identifying the
developed reaches. For each reach, areas of existing and proposed bank protection shall be
identified. Maps showing bed and bank material sample locations, active erosion -deposition sites,
unusual geologic features, channel cutoffs, etc. shall be provided.
2. Photographs and Illustrations: Good quality color photographs showing general views of
geologic strata, data collection sites, erosion -deposition sites, etc. and other appropriate subjects shall
be included in the main text. All photographs shall be annotated to describe location and/or
significant features. Scale, if appropriate, shall appear in the photographs. All line illustrations shall
be carefully drawn with a scale, title block, north arrow and other pertinent features.
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
3. Principal Investigators: A list of the principal investigators responsible for data collection,
analyses and report formulation shall be provided in the report. The list shall include the name, title,
and area of expertise of each principal investigator.
4. Bibliography/References: A complete list of all references cited in the report text and/or
utilized in the geomorphic analyses shall be included in the report.
5. Sample Computations: Sample computations of state of the art quantitative analytical
techniques utilized and/or developed herein shall be fully described and included in the report.
6. Glossary: A glossary of geologic, geomorphic and sediment engineering terms shall be
included at the rear of the report.
7. Drawings: All quantities and dimensions shall be in conventional U.S. customary
units. Drawings should include (but not exclusive of other pertinent drawings): Plan and profile
of the study reach, water surface profile for the design event(s), typical cross sections of project
reach, drawings of any conceptual hydraulic structures to ameliorate potential project impacts
with design dimensions, drawings of any modifications to existing structures, etc. Drafting of all
plan views, cross sections, details, legends, dimensions, notes, etc. shall be of sufficient size to
permit one-half scale reduction. Use of cut -ins, stick-ons and transparent tapes, etc. shall be
minimized on final drawings.
3. SOFTWARE REQUIREMENTS
mod
U�
dEC-'IIREMENTS
a. HEC-6 - The el is designed to simulate the surface response of a river basin to
precipitation by representing the basin as an interconnected system of hydrologic and hydraulic
components. Each component models an aspect of the precipitation -runoff process within a
portion of the basin, commonly referred to as a subbasin. A component may represent a surface
runoff entity, a stream channel, or a reservoir. Representation of a component requires a set of
parameters which specify the particular characteristics of the component and mathematical
relations which describe the physical processes. The result of the modeling process is the
computation of streamflow hydrographs at desired locations in the river basin.
4. COST ESTIMATE
a. General. An outline scope of work and associated cost estimate are presented below. The
estimate represents the effort and detail as previously described. The cost estimate is resource
dependent and is based on an approximate average hourly cost of $95.
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan January 1, 1997
PHASE
2
3
' 4
E
7
�3
TIME AND COST ESTIMATE
ACTIVITY
EFFORT
COST
Hours
S
Data Collection and Field Reconnaissance
460
43,700
a. Review Existing Materials
40
b. Data Collection
80
c. Sediment Sampling and Testing
100
d. Field Recon
240
Geomorphic Analysis of Existing Conditions
280
26,600
a. Channel Geomorphology
200
b. Develop River Reaches
40
c. Geomorph. to Sediment Yield
40
Sediment Engineering — Existing Conditions
900
85,500
a. Sediment Yield
200
b. Sediment Routings
400
c. Sediment Budget
100
d. Channel Stability
200
Sediment Engineering — Project Conditions
380
36,100
a. Sediment Yield
80
b. Sediment Routings
100
c. Sediment Budget
100
d. Channel Stability
100
Draft Report
120
11,400
a. Composition
80
b. CADD
40
Final Report
20
1,900
a. Composition
15
c. CADD
5
Technical Review
80
7,600
a. Interdiscipinary review
20
b. H&H review
60
Contingencies 10%
21,300
TOTALS
3,240
234,000
Hydrologic Engineering Management Plan
January I, 1997
to,
10
K�n
C on se.
@ L of -A
wd� r
SpwRs be%
S: rf 104 ( CL
1:6 r tlp%
KC w �-
6,// 1"& va/-OS
Scope of Work
FY 2000 Cedar River Spring Rearing Habitat Survey
DACW67-98-D-1007
Task Order 429
I. Introduction. This document provides a scope of work for a habitat survey which supports a
concurrent study of juvenile salmon use of off -channel habitats in the Cedar River being
conducted by the U.S. Fish & Wildlife Service. The initial off -channel habitat study began in
1999 and will continue in 2000. The study under this scope of work is composed of two
components. The first study component will measure the diel habitat use and preference, identify
important mainstem and off -channel rearing areas, and determine the temporal changes in habitat
use of juvenile chinook in the Cedar River. The second component will determine the amount of
mainstem and off -channel habitat available to juvenile Chinook salmon residing in the Cedar
River
In 1999, it was qualitatively determined that off -channel habitat is limited in the Cedar River,
because there are very few existing side -channels, sloughs or other off -channel habitats available.
However, it is possible that sufficient mainstem shoreline habitat is available to provide rearing
habitat for juvenile salmon in the Cedar River. The study described here will provide a semi -
quantitative evaluation of both maisntem and off -channel habitat available for Chinook salmon,
and other fish that reside in the Cedar River.
The study area is comprised of the Cedar River, from Landsburg Dam (RM 21.8) downstream to
Lake Washington (RM 0.0). The objectives of this study are to: 1) semi -quantitatively
document area and quality of existing physical mainstem shoreline habitat in the study area; 2)
semi -quantitatively document area and quality of existing off -channel habitat in the study area;
and 3) compare the available area and quality of both types of habitat at several typical
springtime flows.
II. Physical Habitat Survey
The study area will be either walked or floated and the shoreline/riparian conditions will be
documented on each bank of the river. Detailed information will be collected as described below
for the following four habitats types: 1) eddies; 2) point bars; 3) pools; and 4) riprap banks. The
habitat types must be a minimum of twenty feet (20 ft) in length or width to be considered for
inclusion as "habitat" in the data. Other types of shoreline habitat (e.g., natural bank) will be
estimated for length and width of nearshore area using a range finder or similar method. When
possible, a GPS point will be taken at the upstream and downstream end of each reach and at the
upstream end of each habitat type. Photographs will be taken of representative habitat types.
Nearshore area will be defined as the area between the bank and the current break of the surface
water.
61
USFWS (1999) protocols will serve as the reference document for methodologies for this survey.
In addition to the above requirements, the following data will be provided in support of the study
objectives:
A. GPS
GPS points shall be recorded at the upstream and downstream end of reach and at
the upstream end of representative habitat types.
B. Bank and Substrate Material (above and below water line)
Armored (approximate size of rock);
Natural material (WDOE 1996); and
Other (such as LWD, concrete, etc.).
C. Bank Slope (above and below water line)
Bank slope shall be described in run:rise terminology (e.g., 2:1 slope);
Bank stability shall be qualitatively described (stable, eroding, slumping, etc.).
D. Riparian Vegetation
Identify dominant species within 50 ft of channel, and if overhanging, state
distance over the channel in feet.
E. Large Woody Debris
Indicate location and estimate surface area and orientation of each structure
observed (> 10 cm diameter);
Describe primary composition as deciduous or coniferous;
Describe complexity of habitat using Peters et al. (1998) scale;
Describe whether the debris was natural or purposely placed.
F. Pools/Back Eddies
Measure length, width and maximum depth.
This physical habitat survey will be conducted at flows between 500-800 cfs and within the
months of April or May.
III. Off -Channel Habitat Survey
The off -channel habitat may be surveyed concurrently or later, but must occur at flows within
10% of those experienced during the mainstem survey. All side -channels mapped in USFWS
1999 will be measured, plus a minimum of four (4) minor side channels (if wetted) mapped by
King County. The following data will be documented and mapped for the off -channel habitat
survey:
A. Location
Record the GPS coordinates of each side channel inlet and outlet.
B. Surface Water Elevation
Measure inlet and outlet water surface elevations relative to the mainstem water
surface elevation.
C. Wetted Length
Measure existing wetted length.
D. Sinuosity Estimate
E. Wetted Width
Measure existing wetted width.
F. Depth
Maximum, minimum and average depth
G. Large Woody Debris
Indicate location and estimate surface area of each structure observed (> 10 cm
diam.);
Describe primary composition as deciduous or coniferous;
Describe complexity of habitat using Peters et al. (1996) scale.
H. Substrate
Identify primary and secondary substrate composition (WDOE 1996)
I. Bank Slope (above and below water line)
Bank slope shall be described in run:rise terminology (i.e. 2:1 slope);
J. Riparian Vegetation
Identify dominant species within 50 ft of channel, and if overhanging, state
distance over the channel in feet;
K. Pools and Riffles.
Pools and riffles within surveyed off -channel habitats will be identified and
mapped.
IV. Select Reach Survey- Variable Flow Conditions
A minimum of six representative reaches will be selected during the physical habitat survey to be
used for additional sampling under various flow conditions. Each reach will be greater than 100
meters in length, with two or more habitat types (pools, point bars, eddies or off -channel
habitats) represented in each reach. The reaches will be monitored under three specific flows
regimes. Target regimes will be 250, 400 and 1,000 cfs. A maximum deviation of 10% from
target flows will be allowed in consideration of changing field conditions. Selected reaches
shall be distributed throughout the study area to the extent practical, based on physical and
geographical factors (e.g., valley type, gradient, bank composition, etc). The following data will
be collected at each target flow:
A. Mainstem sites
Depth as described for physical habitat survey;
Changes in wetted perimeter as observed on the each bank will be measured under
each target flow.
B. Off -channel sites
Wetted length
Wetted, maximum, and minimum width;
Minimum, maximum, and average depths
The government will provide a list of pools surveyed by the USFWS in 1998 for comparison
purposes, a copy of the USFWS report describing protocols for estimating habitat characteristics
and data from 1999 habitat survey by USFWS. Contractor can obtain side -channel locations (as
mapped by King County topographical maps), access to aerial photographs (Gino Lucchetti at
King County), and a portable GPS unit from King County.
All GPS coordinates may not be collected as specified where limited satellite coverage is
encountered.
V. Contract Schedule and Deliverables.
The contractor will allocate one field day prior to the start of the habitat survey to conduct a field
reconnaissance site visit with Roger Peters and Roger Tabor from USFWS. The objective of this
reconnaissance visit will be to observe fish use and conduct training in the USFWS habitat
characteristic protocols. At least two field personnel should be available for this field visit. The
initial survey of the river must be conducted in April or May, 2000 at flows from 500-800 cfs.
The additional surveys at the three additional flow conditions will occur anytime from April
through August, should the target flows occur.
The product of this survey will be a map (on King County topographical maps) of habitat types,
lengths, locations; and a report with a data summary of all detailed measurements in the four
specific habitat types and off channel habitats; and conclusions. Draft deliverables will be due
30 d after final surveys are conducted. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers will have 10 d to
comment on draft deliverables and return them to the contractor. The final deliverable shall be
due 7 d after receipt of comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The final deliverable
will consist of three (3) bound and one (1) unbound (4 total) copies of subject report.
Deliverables will be due at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on
specified date.
VI References
Peters, R.J., B.R. Missildine, and D.L. Low. 1996. Seasonal fish densities near riverbanks
stabilized with various stabilization methods: first year report of the flood technical
assistance project. Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. December 1998. Lacey,
Washington. 34 p.
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS). 1999. Cedar River chinook study: field protocol.
Prepared by U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. Lacey, Washington. 9 p.
Washington Department of Ecology (WDOE). 1996. Instream flow study guidelines. Prepared
by Washington Department of Ecology. 11 December 1996. Olympia, Washington. 78
P.
FY 2001 Studies (First cut based on existing scope of work,
current status of studies, etc). We have underestimated funds
required for ERS, Planning coordination for scope of work,
contracting, developing and monitoring budget, paying for
assistants and program budget analysts, etc. So I have shown
new costs for these for next year.
KING COUNTY FCSA
Lake Washington:
Design of restoration sites - are we ready? $181,000
Cedar Gravel Movement:
Gravel study, phase 1 - $50,000?
Gravel modeling - $200,000?
Site design for gravel improvements - are we ready? $72,000
Cedar Restoration:
Site designs for actual restoration - are we ready? $129,000
Sammamish River Restoration:
Water Quality studies - IK $24,500
Wetland studies - IK $21,000
Habitat studies (mainstem tribs) $36,000
Habitat studies (Big Bear) $74,000 IK
Temperature model - $50,000
Restoration Plan - are we ready? $13,750 IK and Corps each
Restoration site design - are we ready? $163,000
Lake Sammamish:
Restoration site work - we're NOT ready, what do we need to do
here, if anything? $83,000
Issaquah studies - schedule and expenditures ok.
Study Management - ERS and SM coordination, contracting
efforts, scopes of work, meetings, funding program budget
analysts, two assistants. (includes PM 2 days a week, 1
assistant (3 days a week each), ERS coordinator 2 days a week
_ $172,800, increase of $106,800 over SM and shared costs.
R
CEDAR RIVER GRAVEL STUDY
Coordination Meeting- 3/31/00
1. INTRODUCTIONS
2. MEETING OBJECTIVES
Discuss Objectives of Field Work for Summer 2000
Develop Initial Study Plan
3. THREE -STEP STUDY PLAN
Field investigation of spawning gravel availability.
Modeling effort to determine source of gravel problems.
Develop possible remedies to limiting factors for gravel and fish spawning.
4. OBJECTIVES
Discussion of necessary field work and time requirements to determine existing
condition and characterization of spawning gravels.
Discussion of modeling needs for inclusion in field efforts.
Deliverables
Funding Amounts
5. GENERAL DISCUSSION
6. CLOSING/ NEXT STEPS
Scope of Work
Sampling Plan- Characterization of Cedar River Spawning Gravel
1) Back -ram. The Washington Department of Fisheries (now WA Dept of Fish &
Wildlife) conducted a survey of sockeye spawning gravel area and distribution in the late
1960s which has served as the basis for the escapement goal of 300,000 sockeye to the
Cedar River. This survey was a visual survey, with minimal bed sampling, based on the
surveyors expertise in identifying suitable sockeye spawning habitat. It cannot be
replicated.
Since the 1960's several observations have been made of spawning gravel on the Cedar
River. These observations have lead researchers to suggest that current spawning gravels
may be less prevalent or less suitable than the historical condition. Conversely, little
research has been conducted to quantify whether current gravels present in the river
represent an adequate volume or composition to support long-term salmonid spawning.
The Lake Washington GI project, a multi -agency project led by the U.S. Army Corps of
En;ineers and King County, has the opportunity and need to initiate a study for the
purpose of understanding whether current gravel conditions in the Cedar River are
capable of adequately sustaining long-term salmonid spawning.
This study had originally proposed to combine a physical gravel survey with channel and
bed sampling to provide an accurate characterization of available spawning habitat.
Given new physical sampling techniques, geomorphologic technologies and biological
understanding, a preliminary effort to develop a sampling plan that would answer specific
study objectives should be undertaken prior to initiating the study. The three
objectives/phases for which we need to develop a sampling plan are described below.
Objective/Phase 1. Using available research and professional judgment, what field study
approach would be best suited to identify the current scour, fine sediment contribution,
location, size composition, volume, input availability and areal coverage of spawning
gravel Cedar River? Based on the results, is their a problem with gravel on the Cedar
River as it relates to fish?
ObjectivelPhase 2. Should the results of phase 1 determine that a component the Cedar
River spawning gravel is missing, inadequate or limiting long-term salmon production,
an effort will be made to determine why the problem exists. This would be a modeling
effort using an appropriate model.
ObjectivelPhase 3. Phase 3 will build upon results of phase 2 and identify possible
remedies to any identified gravel related problems to long-term salmon spawning and
production. Information will be used to develop possible restoration projects.
Statement of Work.
It is hoped that by providing a thorough scoping effort towards the approach of all three
(3) objectives, that the results will provide a smooth transition by providing clear decision
criteria between each objective. In the development of a sampling plan to address the
objectives above, the following tasks will be used as specific guidance.
Task 1. Using existing literature and professional judgment, identify data that should be
collected and develop a specific field sampling protocol that would adequately address
Objective/Phase I ? For example, would transect data on average wetted width; average
bank full width; average depth of water for survey; velocity at average depth location
(6/10 of depth) and substrate composition be suitable parameters for measurement?
Task 2. Using existing literature and professional judgment, identify which modeling
techniques would be best used to further define and characterize the origin and nature of
inadequate components identified during field work related to Objective/Phase 1?
Specifically, which modeling approach would provide the best description of gravel
sources, transport regimes, scour, effects of constrained channel, or lack of woody debris
in the Cedar River from Landsburg Dam (21 miles) downstream to Lake Washington
(R`I 0.0).
Task 3. Using existing literature and professional judgment, determine whether the
modeling/physical survey efforts recommended above would provide information which
«ould allow the development of possible restoration projects. During restoration project
design, both positive and negative impacts to the river associated with possible levee
removal, increased gravel movement over dams, additional LWD or gravel, flood control
impacts, erosionideposition impacts, localized flooding and recreational concerns must be
considered.
1/L
Cedar Spawning Gravel Survey Scope of Work
This scope of work describes a survey of spawning gravel area and distribution in the Cedar
River downstream of Landsburg Dam (-21 miles of river). The Washington Department of
Fisheries (now WA Dept of Fish & Wildlife) conducted a survey of sockeye spawning gravel
area and distribution in the late 1960s which has served as the basis for the escapement goal of
300,000 sockeye to the Cedar River. This survey was a visual survey, with minimal bed
sampling, based on the surveyors expertise in identifying suitable sockeye spawning habitat. It
cannot be replicated. However, this stuff will combine a visual survey with bed sampling to
provide an accurate representative of total spawning habitat available. All species of salmon
which spawn in the Cedar (chinook, sockeye, coho and steelhead) will be accounted for in the
survey.
Methodology. Existing USGS topographic maps and aerial photographs will be reviewed to
identify study reaches (based on gradient, depth or other reasonable parameter). After
determining study reaches, the entire mainstem below Landsburg Dam will be either walked or
floated during low -moderate flows (July/August) prior to spawning season. For the purposes of
this study suitable spawning gravel size for each species is as follows:
Species Preferred Substrate Size Preferred Depth Range
Chinook Salmon
Sockeye Salmon
Coho Salmon
Steelhead
5 � The following data will be collected for each study reach.
Average wetted width
Average bank full width
Map, measure length and width of all potentially suitable spawning gravel patches below
OHW
Measure average depth of water for survey flow and bank full flow
Measure velocity at average depth location (6/10 of depth)
Describe substrate composition of each patch
Take a minimum of two bed samples for sieve analysis in each reach, enough samples
must be taken to adequately characterize potential spawning gravel composition in each reach
(all samples will be taken and analyzed generally according to the Salmonid Spawning Gravel
Composition Module in the Timber -Fish -Wildlife Ambient Monitoring Program Manual (1997
edition)).
Reporting. The product to result from the gravel survey will be a report which includes:
the results of the sieve analysis of gravel samples,
a map showing the location of all gravel samples,
a map (1"=200' or less) showing all gravel patches measured,
analysis of suitable spawning area by species per reach and describe the characteristics
to be expected during spawning flows (depth, velocity, etc.).
analysis of expected number of each species which could utilize their suitable habitat in
a spawning season (use 1 m2 per redd for sockeye, 16m2 per chinook redd, m2 per coho redd,
and m2 per steelhead redd) and comparison to escapement goals
discussion of each reach and its area of spawning habitat available with discussion on
why gravel is present or lacking in the reach
comparison of mapped gravel patches to aerial photos from King County to determine
how accurately gravel can be mapped using aerial photography
Se d i n'le- > T n yolk
iev/ 5ca 4ie l c
a keA - mdn� 00f)�Dn3
3
Jeff Dylan
ko�j
NJ�I�/ SUF Perk��S
I 1-F)eF VVE
Cedar Gravel Scope of Work
This study will investigate whether spawning gravel distribution and areal coverage has
changed significantly from the 1960s and define the gravel sources and transport regime
in the Cedar River downstream of Landsburg Dam (21 miles). There are two distinct
parts of this study: 1) to replicate the spawning gravel survey conducted by WDFW in
the 1960s and determine if gravel may be a limiting factor to salmon production; and 2)
develop a sediment transport model for the river below Landsburg Dam (HEC-6). If the
study determines that there has been a significant loss of spawning gravel which is
limiting salmon production and this trend is continuing due to lack of sources or
excessive transport, then means of restoring spawning gravel in the system will be
investigated. Such means could include placement of gravel in selected reaches,
removal of armoring that is preventing significant sources of gravel from reaching the
river, slowing gravel transport in selected reaches by placing large woody debris (LWD)
or other features to trap gravel.
Work will include surveying a number of cross -sections in order to develop the model,
collecting bed samples for gradation analysis, collecting bed -load and suspended load
measurements in several reaches during a flood event, field work to survey spawning
gravel distribution. Model development will include input of bed sample analyses, bed -
load and suspended load measurements, hydrology developed for flood control project,
evaluation of sediment transport model developed for flood control project, etc. Analysis
and reporting will be done jointly by a hydraulic engineer, biologist and geomorphologist.
(This scope of work does not include study management, real estate or shared costs,
additional $81,400.)
Survey Crew 10 days @$2400/day
$
24,000
Bed Sampling 6 days @$530/day
$
3,200
Hydraulic Field Work 10 days @$530/day
$
5,300
Hydraulic Modeling 60 days @$530/day
$
32,000
Hydraulic Engineer 10 days @$530/day
$
5,300
Technical Review 10 days @ $720/day
$
7,200
Spawning Gravel Field Work 45 days @$500/day
$
22,500
Restoration Site Design*
$
15,000
Analysis & Reporting 50 days @ $530/day
$
26,500
TOTAL
$141,000
* Assumes Civil Engineer, Economist, Cost Estimating, Biologist, Hydraulic Engineer for 35% design of 2-3
sites.
Cedar Gravel Scope of Work
This study will investigate whether spawning gravel distribution and areal coverage has
changed significantly from the 1960s and define the gravel sources and transport regime
in the Cedar River downstream of Landsburg Dam (21 miles). There are two distinct
parts of this study: 1) to replicate the spawning gravel survey conducted by WDFW in
the 1960s and determine if gravel may be a limiting factor to salmon production; and 2)
develop a sediment transport model for the river below Landsburg Dam (HEC-6). If the
study determines that there has been a significant loss of spawning gravel which is
limiting salmon production and this trend is continuing due to lack of sources or
excessive transport, then means of restoring spawning gravel in the system will be
investigated. Such means could include placement of gravel in selected reaches,
removal of armoring that is preventing significant sources of gravel from reaching the
river, slowing gravel transport in selected reaches by placing large woody debris (LWD)
or other features to trap gravel.
Work will include surveying a number of cross -sections in order to develop the model,
collecting bed samples for gradation analysis, collecting bed -load and suspended load
measurements in several reaches during a flood event, field work to survey spawning
gravel distribution. Model development will include input of bed sample analyses, bed -
load and suspended load measurements, hydrology developed for flood control project,
evaluation of sediment transport model developed for flood control project, etc. Analysis
and reporting will be done jointly by a hydraulic engineer, biologist and geomorphologist.
(This scope of work does not include study management, real estate or shared costs,
additional $81,400.)
a Survey Crew 10 days @$2400/day
$
24,000
], Bed Sampling 6 days @$530/day
$
3,200
Hydraulic Field Work 10 days @$530/day
$
5,300
Hydraulic Modeling 60 days @$530/day
$
32,000
Hydraulic Engineer 10 days @$530/day
$
5,300
Technical Review 10 days @ $720/day
$
7,200
Spawning Gravel Field Work 45 days @$500/day
$
22,500
Restoration Site Design*
$
15,000
Analysis & Reporting 50 days @ $530/day
$
26,500
TOTAL
$141,000
Assumes Civil Engineer, Economist, Cost Estimating, Biologist,
Hydraulic Engineer for 35% design of 2-3
sites.
Gary Schimek RE: Cedar River Gravel Study meeting
Page 1
From: "Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS" <Jeffrey.F.Dillon@NWS02.usace.army.mil>
To: "'Clayton, Geoff" <gclayton@rh2.com>, "'Bikle', anne"' <anne.bikle@METROKC.GOV>,
"'Brewer, Scott"' <Scott. Brewer@M ETROKC. GOV>, "'Kurko, keith"' <Keith.Kurko@ci.seattle.wa.us>,
"'Lester, Deb"' <deborah.lester@METROKC.gov>, "'Lombard, john"' <john.lombard@METROKC.GOV>,
"'Perkins, Sue"' <sueperkins@aol.com>, "'Straka, Ron"' <rstraka@ci.renton.wa.us>, "'Anderson, Justin
<Justin.Anderson@ci.seattle.wa.us>
Date: 3/15/00 10:09AM
Subject: RE: Cedar River Gravel Study meeting
Here's a follow-up message to all.
We'll be meeting between 1 and 4 pm in the Ft Lewis Room here at the Corps'
office on March 31 st.
Thanks and please forward this to those I may have missed.
a
> -----Original Message -----
> From: Dillon, Jeffrey F NWS
> Sent: Monday, March 13, 2000 1:57 PM
> To: 'bikle', anne'; 'Brewer, Scott'; 'kurko, keith'; 'Lester, Deb';
> 'lombard, john'; 'Perkins, Sue'; 'Straka, Ron'
> Cc: Smith, Linda S NWS; Deering, Michael K NWS
> Subject: Cedar River Gravel Study meeting
> Hello all,
> I realize that I'll never find a day in the next 2 weeks that every
> person important to this study will be able to attend, but I think I might
> have found something that will work for most of us.
> Please find time to attend a meeting here at the Corps offices between
> 14pm on Friday March 31st to develop an approach for answering the
> following questions.
> Objective/Phase 1. Using available research and professional judgment,
> what field study approach would be best suited to identify the current
> scour, fine sediment contribution, location, size composition, volume,
> input availability and areal coverage of spawning gravel Cedar River?
> Based on the results, is their a problem with gravel on the Cedar River as
> it relates to fish?
> Objective/Phase 2. Should the results of phase 1 determine that a
> component the Cedar River spawning gravel is missing, inadequate or
> limiting long-term salmon production; an effort will be made to determine
> why the problem exists. This would be a modeling effort using an
> appropriate model.
>
> Objective/Phase 3. Phase 3 will build upon results of phase 2 and
> identify possible remedies to any identified gravel related problems to
Gary Schimek - RE: Cedar River Gravel Study meeting
Page 2
> long-term salmon spawning and production. Information will be used to
> develop possible restoration projects.
> The objective of the meeting is to generate some brief discussion on the 3
> objectives and then focus on developing a field approach to answer
> objective 1 and be useful for any potential modeling that may follow.
> I'll let everyone know which room we're in shortly.
> Thanks for all your patience and please pass this along to those I have
> forgotten,
> jD
CC: "Smith, Linda S NWS" <Linda.S.Smith@NWS02.usace.army. mil>, "Deering, Michael K
NWS" <Michael.K.Deering@nws02.usace.army.mil>, "'Goetz, Fred"' <fgoetz@home.com>, "'Houck,
Doug"' <doug.houck@metrokc.gov>
ACTUAL
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
LAKE SAMMAMISH
BEACH SPAWNING - KING COUNTY
ERS Coordination
17,000
2,000
5,000
5,000
5,000
* Survey of Beach Spawning
Locations
0
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
10,000
0
10,000
* Restoration Site Surveys
0
*Non -Fed. in -Kind
12,500
0
12,500
500
3,000
* Cultural Resources
500
H&H
3,000
CIVIUSOILS
4,500
4,500
ECONOMICS
5,500
5,500
COST ESTIMATING
3,300
3,300
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
37,900
37,900
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,500
0
0
5,000
5,000
3,500
9,500
5,000
5,000
5,000
10,000
10,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
Corps
29,500
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
25,000
SHARED COST
38,000
0
5,000
8,000
10,000
15,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
190,200
0
0
27,000
98,200
25,000
40,000
CONTINGENCY
19,020
0
0
2,700
9,820
2,500
4,000
TOTAL COST
209,220' 0
0
29,700
108,020
27,500
44,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED 48,510
(1,650)
30,910
8,250 11,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
NON -FED. IN -KIND
56,100
0
0
16,500
23,100
6,500
11,000
FEDERAL CASH
104,610
-
14,850
54,010
13,750
22,000
CREDIT/(DEBIT) NON -FED. CASH
0
0
GRAND TOTAL KING COUNTY FCSA:
TOTAL COST
1
2,669,650
98,400
326,480
732,6001
1,068,870
245,300
198,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
708,575
(12,100)
120,240
73,150
407,935
64,350
55,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
13,750
142,300
*NON -FED. IN -KIND
626,2501
61,300
43,000
293,160
126,500
58,300
44,000
TOTAL NON-FEDERAL
1,334,825
49,200
163,240
366,300
534,435
122,650
99,000
FEDERAL CASH
1,334,825
49,200
163,240
366,300
534,436
122,650
99,000
SCHED. NON -FED. CASH
(12,100)
120,240
ACTUAL NON -FED. CASH
13,750
142,300
CREDIT/(DEBIT)
25,850
22,060
200�FUNDS EDED
25,240
I
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
ISSAQUAH CREEK, ERICKSON SITE - KING COUNTY
ERS
* Site Surveys & Design
10,000
8,000
0
5,000
5,000
5,000
* Cultural Resources
500
500
500
H&H
14,490
6,000
2,000
GEOTECH/SOILS
3,300
6,000
3,000
ECONOMICS
2,500
4,000
SURVEY
12,800
500
8,000
COST ESTIMATING
750
500
2,000
REAL ESTATE
* Corps
3,000
1,000
15,000
* Non -Fed In -Kind
3,000
2,000
3,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
* Corps
9,000
1,000
5,0o7o
5,000
3,000
5,000
5,000
* Non -Fed In -Kind
2,500
700
700
3,000
1,000
3,000
5,000
SHARED COST
9,750
1,000
5,000
5,500
5,000
5,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
1 71,5901
17,200
23,700
47,500
9,500
18,0001
20,000
CONTINGENCY
9,8701
0
2,370
4,750
950
1,8001
2,000
TOTAL COST
81,460
17,200
26,0701
52,250
10,450
19,800
22,0001
NON-FEDERAL CASH
2O,490
20,000
10,065
19,525
4,125
6,600
5,500
NON -FED. IN -KIND
20,240
770
2,970
6,600
1,100
3,300
5,500
TOTAL NON-FEDERAL
40,730
20,770
13,035
26,125
5,225
9,900
11,000
FEDERAL CASH
40,730
8,600
13,035
26,125
5,225
9,900
11,000
ACTUAL
EXPEND.
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
ISSAQUAH CREEK REST.
TIBBETS SITE - KING
COUNTY/ISSAQUAH
ILA
ERS
* Site Survey & Design
0
0
H & H
2,000
2,000
GEOTECH/SOILS
7,000
7,000
ECONOMICS
o
COST ESTIMATING
o
REAL ESTATE
o
* Corps
0
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
0
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps
7,000
7,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
950
950
SHARED COST
1,000
1,000,
SUB -TOTAL COST
17,950
0
17,950
CONTINGENCY
1,795
0
1,795
TOTAL COST
19,745
0
19,745
NON-FEDERAL CASH
8,828
8,828
IN -KIND (KING COUNTY/ISSAQUAH)
1,045
0
1,045
FEDERAL CASH
9,873
9,873
ACTUAL
EXPEND
TOTAL
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
FY
TO
COST ITEM
COST
1999
2000
2001
1 2002
1 2003
2004
DATE
SUB -PROJECT AND FCSA:
ISSAQUAH
CREEK HATCHERY - KING COUNTY
ERS
10,500I
10,500
H&H
61,900
61,900
GEOTECH/SOILS
29,000
29,000
ECONOMICS
18,000
18,000
STRUCTURES
20,300
20,300
SURVEYING
0
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
10,000
10,000
COST ESTIMATING
3,600
3,600
REAL ESTATE
0
* Corps
17,000
17,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,000
3,000
STUDY MANAGEMENT
0
* Corps
22,000
2,000
0
10,000
5,000
5,000
* Non -Fed. In -Kind
3,500
1,500
0
1,500
250
250
SHARED COST
34,000
0
2,000
20,000
12,000
SUB -TOTAL COST
232,800
3,500
0
186,800
25,250
17,250
0
CONTINGENCY
22,930
0
18,680
2,525
1,725
0
TOTAL COST
255,730
3,500
0
205,480
27,775
18,975
0
NON-FEDERAL CASH
111,365
250
88,240
13,638
9,238
NON -FED. IN -KIND
16,600
1,500
0
0
14,500
102,740
250
13,888
250
0
TOTAL NON -FED.
127,865
1,750
9,488
0
FEDERAL CASH
127,865
1,750
102,740
13,888
9,488
-
GRAND TOTAL ERICKSON/TIBBETS
KING
COUNTY FCSA:
TOTAL COST
356,935
119,100 372,295
990,330
1,107,095
284,075
220,000
NON-FEDERAL CASH ANTICIPATED
140,683
20,250 18,893
107,765
17,763
15,838
5,600
NON-FEDERAL CASH RECEIVED
*NON -FED. IN -KIND
37,785
61,300
4,015
22,908
-21,350
21,100 1,350I
128,86519,113
3,550
5,600
TOTAL NON-FEDERAL
178,468
_
81,550
19,388
11,000
ADJUSTMENT NON-FED.
ADJUST. NON -FED BALANCE
1,558
FEDERAL CASH
178,468
10,350
22,908
128,865
19,113
19,388 11,000
SCHED. NON -FED.
60,200
ACTUAL NON -FED. 81,550
CREDIT/DEBIT 21,350
BALANCE
REMAINING
BALANCE
REMAINING
BALANCE
REMAINING
BALANCE
REMAINING
0 F V, r w �r, I Pra
BALANCE
REMAINING
BALANCE
REMAINING
BALANCE
REMAINING
BALANCE
REMAINING
Gregg Zimmerman - METRO generators Page 1
From:
Neil Watts
To:
Zimmerman, Gregg
Date:
1 /24/01 9:41 AM
Subject:
METRO generators
All work at the METRO treatment plant requires conditional use permit approval from Renton. The only
discussion of the use of emergency generators at the plant were with the 1994 revisions to the conditional
use permit. The 1994 request/approval were focused primarily on other elements of the plant, such as
the demolision of the Turf Motel and associated grading work. There is only a very short discusion of
generators. However, the request and conditional use permit approval was for one (1) generator, not
three as installed. Also, the proposal was for emergency use. The current use as an alternate to the use
of electricity was not disclosed or approved.
Any SEPA review would have been conducted by METRO. Our records are limited for these types of
outside agency SEPA reviews. I could not find any record of our receiving any information on such a
SEPA review for these generators.
METRO does not have the required conditional use approval for more than one emergency generator at
the treatment plant. Additionally, the use of the generators as an alternate power source in lieu of using
available electricity does not constitute emergency use as would be reasonably expected based on the
orignal conditional use proposal for the one emergency generator.
CC: Christensen, David; Henning, Jennifer
4roi KCD
38
> V/
a�
3 �, MD �,O t15 �g ` c
Scope of Work
Cedar River Gravel Study Phases 1 and 2 ,
Field Characterization of Cedar River Gravel
I. Background. The Washington Department of Fisheries (now WA Dept of Fish &
Wildlife) conducted a survey of available sockeye spawning gravel habitat and
distribution in the late 1960s. These data serve as the basis for the current sockeye
escapement goal of 300,000 fish to the Cedar River. This survey was a primarily a visual
survey, with minimal bed sampling and was based on surveyor's expertise in
identification of suitable sockeye spawning habitat. It is not possible to replicate the
study.
Since the 1960's several observations of available spawning gravel on the Cedar River kcyL�Sb
have been made. These observations have lead researchers and fisheries managers to d
suggest that current spawning gravels may be less abundant and/or less suitable than the
historical condition. Conversely, little research has been conducted to quantify whether
current gravels present in the river represent an adequate volume or composition to
support long-term salmonid spawning. The Lake Washington GI project, a multi -agency
project led by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and King County, has the opportunity
and need, to initiate a study to evaluate whether current Cedar River gravel conditions are
capable of adequately sustaining long-term salmonid spawning conditions. It is proposed
that this project be conducted using a phased approach. The approach considered for this
multi phased study has been developed to provide sequential decision points between
phases to help answer whether the next study objective needs to be pursued. The
following provides an overview of the objectives and specific tasks necessary to complete
the project.
Q
II. Purpose. The purpose of the study escribed here is to evaluate the current condition
of spawning gravel in the Cedar River and if necessary, use a modeling approach to
identify the cause of any problems. These data will then be used to identify restoration
needs for the river. A field inventory, measurements and sampling and analytical
modeling of gravel characteristics is critical to decisions making on the need and extent
of future gravel and upland restoration projects along the Cedar River. The project will
be conducted in three (3) phases, which are described below.
The purpose of Phase 1 of the Cedar River Gravel Study is to take field measurements to
gather initial baseline data on gravel characteristics, and compile existing data. Together
with Phase 2, this phase will serve to evaluate whether and where a "gravel problem"
presently exists along the Cedar River on a reach basis. Sufficient field data would be
collected during Phase I to allow for modeling during Phases 2 and 3.
Phase 2 consists of adding data from Phase 1 and adding cross sections to the King
County HEC-RAS flood model for the Cedar River, and using it to calculate scour
�r �
potential and discharges necessary to initiate movement of gravel through an incipient
motion particle size analysis at select locations along the river. Phase 2 would also
include a quantitative evaluation of the current gravel supply and the impact of the
Landsburg diversion on size and quantity of sediments transported along the river. This
phase would determine whether lack of gravel in certain reaches is caused by naturally
occurring factors or changes created by man to channel morphology. Examples may be
reduction in side channel numbers and size, channel cross -sectional confinement or
disconnection from the flood plain by levees, changes in channel cross -sections or slope,
or a limited gravel supply.
In Phase 3, an HEC-6 model would be developed to simulate sediment movement
downstream and calculate quantities of scour and fill at each measured cross-section.
Phase 3 would be conducted only if Phase 2 results indicate low gravel availability or an
imbalance in gravel supply. Phase 3 would be necessary only if gravel augmentation is
considered as an alternative, although it could also be used to evaluate potential
restoration projects that significantly alter the channel cross-section.
Phase 1- Objective and Scope. The objective of phase 1 is to execute a field study
approach as described under this scope of work to identify current availability (location,
size composition) of spawning gravel within the Cedar River (ie: between Landsburg
Dam and Lake Washington). Existing data (ie: gravel source availability, fine sediment,
spawning surveys) from other sources (ie: Seattle Public Utilities, King County, etc.) will
also be utilized. Based on the results of this project phase, recommendations will be
made on how to best deal with any identified gravel problems relating to fish on the
Cedar River. Fieldwork for this phase of the project will be conducted between the low
flow months of July and September 2000. The following provides an overview of the
specific tasks associated with this phase of the project.
III. Phase 1 Tasks.
Task 1. Initial Coordination and Study Plan Development. Prior to conducting field
work, the Contractor will coordinate with staff involved with existing Cedar River
research efforts to obtain existing information and identify possible cooperative data
gathering opportunities. Contractor shall obtain existing cross-section data and flood
study maps. Contractor shall use existing flood study maps and air photos to design a
�o
sampling plan and identify locations where additional cross-section data are needed.
Prior to conducting fieldwork, the Contractor will prepare a brief study plan to be
reviewed by study sponsors. Quick review is essential to allow field work to be
completed before most of the spawning begins in mid -September.
Task 2. Cross Sections. Contractor shall query and obtain all relevant cross sectional
data from existing sources such as King County and City of Seattle as well as any cross /
sections on file at the Corps of Engineers. It is anticipated that a maximum of 10
additional cross sections may be added in the field as part of this contract to support
HEC-RAS modeling in Phase 2. Five of the additional cross sections may be located
above Landsburg Dam for modeling gravel supply and transport rates into the study
reach. The upstream cross -sections will be within approximately 1 mile of the Dam.
Cross-section surveys above Landsburg Dam will include the floodplain as well as the
main channel. All new survey points will be contain horizontal 494?_� may not be
necessary — probably just approximate location of cross-section ends and channel location
with a GPS unit will suffice and vertical control and be taken to include top of bank
bottom of bank, waters edge and vertical accuracy to within 0.5 ft.
Task 3. Aerial Photos. Contractor shall obtain and organize a current series of aerial
photos for use during planning exercises and as reference for geomorphologic analysis.
Aerial photos may be obtained through the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers or other suitable source.
Task 4. Physical Gravel Sampling- Surface. Contractor shall conduct surficial gravel
counts along the length of the Cedar River from approximately RM 22 (1 mile upstream
of Landsburg Dam) to the mouth (RM 0.0) at cross sections with appropriate morphology
(e.g., riffles and pool tailouts), primarily focusing on sites that contain spawnable
gravels . Surficial gravel counts to determine size distribution should follow
methodologies outlined in Wolman, 1954 and Kondolf, 1997. The following
characteristics should be recorded at each point count site: bankfull width and estimated
bankfull depth, habitat type, sketch showing approximate area of potentially spawnable
gravel and its location relative to the cross-section and local water -surface gradient.
A specific sampling approach will be developed during Task 1. It is anticipated that most
point counts will be located at or near cross -sections, in order to compare gravel size and
abundance with hydraulic and geomorphic characteristics. Sample sites will encompass
a range of channel confinement, gradient, and sediment supply situations. For budgeting
purposes, an average of one to two sample sites per river mile will be assumed, or about
30 sites total.
Task 5. Physical Gravel Sampling- Subsurface. Subsurface gravel sampling shall be
conducted to determine bedload size distribution, in support of potential HEC-6 modeling
in Phase 3. Subsurface samples shall be taken at appropriate locations to supplement
existing subsurface data taken in 1992 by King County, which should be included in the
report. At least one sample will be taken upstream from Landsburg Dam to evaluate
sediment size entering the study area.2. The samples will be taken utilizing field
expertise and involve a shovel for above -water samples and a bucket sample if
underwater samples are needed. Sample size shall be large enough to adequately
characterize grain size distribution in these coarse sediments (approximately 15 gallons
based on King County's 1992 sampling program). It is anticipated that a maximum of
four samples shall be collected and wet -sieved in the field to determine size distribution.
Because these samples do not include the surface armor layer and are not taken from
spawning areas, they are not directly comparable with McNeil samples made for the
purpose of measuring fine sediment.
�J
Task 6. Fine Sediments.
'k
6a) The Contractor shall review existing data on fine sediments in the Cedar River. \ ��
Based on existing studies, Contractor shall document significant sources of fine sediment
and tabulate results of any previous sediment work where percent fines may have been
described. These data should be compared to known literature data on how percent fines
in the gravels may impact salmonid redds, egg survival and fry emergence (e.g. Kondolf,
Assessing Salmonid Spawning Gravel Quality, American Fisheries Society, January
2000). Based on a cursory look at some of the available data, it is anticipated that these
data will suggest that fine sediment is not adversely impacting gravel quality except
possibly near Lake Washington, where fines naturally settle out due to the flat gradient.
6b) If the results of task 6a suggest fine sediments could be limiting spawning success
upstream from the City of Renton, McNeil sampling shall be conducted at no more than 3
sites with potential spawning gravels. Several McNeil samples from each site will be
collected and analyzed using TFW protocols under Phase 2 to determine percent fine
sediment in the gravels.
5� Task 7. Spawning Counts. The Contractor shall work with WDFW and other agencies
to obtain and compile all available existing annual salmonid spawning survey data for
comparison to existing gravel distribution and characteristics based on the above field
work. Data shall be analyzed to determine historical trends in spawning between
different reaches of the river.
Task 8. Analysis. The Contractor shall compile all data collected except otherwise
noted and analyze trends in gravel abundance or size distribution based on location,
average river gradient, channel confinement, and other morphologic characteristics.
Cross-section and floodplain characteristics shall be used to extrapolate and characterize
relative gravel retention along different sections of the river. If gravel data taken by R2
Resources Inc. during the spring 2000 habitat survey proves sufficient, an estimate of
total gravel area in each river reach shall be made. Gravel distribution and size
characteristics shall be compared with WDFW spawning survey data. The role of
sediment supply will be evaluated on a qualitative basis based on existing information
and field observations of local sediment sources. Data submittals should be in MS Excel
97 format.
IV. Phase 1 Contract Schedule and Deliverables. The product of Phase 1 will be a
written rzeprort documenting the methods and results of relevant field activities. Cross-
section survey and sediment sample data for use in future HEC RAS and HEC-6
modeling will be provided in spreadsheets on disk as well as hard copy. Draft
deliverables will be due 75 days after final surveys are conducted and cross-section
survey data has been received by Contractor, whichever date is later. The U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers and Sponsors will have 14 days to comment on draft deliverables and
return them to the Contractor. The final deliverable shall be due 14 days after receipt of
comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The final deliverable will consist of
three (3) bound and one (1) unbound (4 total) copies of subject report. Deliverables will
0
' be due at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District by 1600 hrs on specified
date.
V. Phase 2 Scope: HEGRAS model and sediment transport capability at cross -
sections. Phase 2 will be initiated in early 2001, by which time the complete HEC-RAS
�► �,�,� �S�t model for Cedar River RM 0 to 21 should be available from King County. Phase 2 will
be initiated after approval by U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Sponsors based on �pV,
acceptance of Phase 1 results.
la
�b �o Task 1. HEC-RAS modeling. Add new cross-section data to existing HEC-RAS model
5 and extend the model to include an additional one mile of river upstream of Landsburg
Dam. The new cross-section data collected during Phase 1 would be used for this "J k
purpose. Run model at a yariety of flows, including bankfull discharge, and provide
n aa�0summary tables that present flow parameter data that is relevant to sediment modeling
QL such as average depth, velocity, shear stress, energy slope, hydraulic radius and effective ��'"
width.
Task 2. Gravel movement calculations. For cross -sections for which data were collected
during Phase 1, calculate bedload transport rate and the size of sediment particles that
would be mobile at bankfull discharge and other selected discharges.
Task 3. Evaluate sediment supply. Develop quantitative estimates of bedload sediment
\� supply from upstream, tributary channels, landslides, eroding bluffs, and eroding banks.
y Evaluate changes in supply over the last century. Use sediment budget approach, based
on suspended sediment yields, watershed area, and (if feasible) bar accretion rates.
Sediment -transport modeling of the sediment influx from upstream of Landsburg will not
be performed until Phase 3.
Task 4. Analysis. Evaluate downstream changes in sediment mobility due to cross-
section morphology and gradient changes for the bank full discharge. Correlate gravel
size and abundance with transport and supply, and determine the relative importance of
these factors in limiting gravel abundance. Determine the cross-section and floodplain
morphologies that are most conducive to providing abundant spawning gravel.
VI. Phase 2 Report and Deliverables. The product of Phase 2 will be a written report
documenting the development and results of HEC-RAS modeling efforts. A HEC-RAS
model will rely primarily on existing data and data gathered under Phase 1 activities. The
report should document a) flows and hydraulics at cross -sections, b) provide an estimate
of available sediment source material (yield) describe transport capacities (reach by
reach), estimate a sediment budget and e) provide conclusions and recommendations.
Draft deliverables will be due 60 days after HEC-RAS modeling results are completed.
Contractor will develop and run the HEC-RAS model within 45 days from the initiation
of Phase 2. The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and sponsors will have 14 days to
comment on draft deliverables and return them to the Contractor. The final deliverable
shall be due 14 days after receipt of comments from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
The final deliverable will consist of three (3) bound and one (1) unbound (4 total) copies
of subject report. Deliverables will be due at the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle
District by 1600 hrs on the date specified in the Contracting documents.
Information needed for Cedar River Gravel Study
Note: All items to be acquired under Task 1, if available. USACE items should be
included in SOW under Section 6.0. Items in italics aren't required until Phase 2.
Item
Date
Source Agency
Historic aerial photographs (stereo pairs)
1936, 1
USACE; (or King County)
downstream from Landsberg
set each
1960s,
1970s,
1980s;
1991 ish
Historic aerial photographs (stereo pairs)
Seattle?
upstream from Landsberg
Landslide inventory for Cedar Falls to
Seattle?
Landsberg, if one exists
Recent aerial photographs, including at least
USACE , (Landsberg Seattle?)
a few miles upstream from Landsberg
KC flood study files: photos showing XS
King County Rivers Program
layout, XS survey notes re vertical control
and monumented XS locations, 3 sets flood
study work maps (1 "=200) plus copy of ARC -
VIEW files
Renton flood study maps, XS, etc. plus copy
Renton or King County?
of ARC -VIEW files
Provide HEC-RAS model to Tony Righellis if
he doesn't have it already.
KC revetment/levees maps
King County Rivers Program
R2 monitoring data relevant to this study
USACE
CES scour and instream-flow study
Seattle?
Interfluve study re Landsberg sediment
Seattle — received already
passage
Spawning study
1960s
USACE (Fred G?)
Stoeber study
1970s
USACE (Fred G?)
Roger Peters USFWS scour chain study
2000?
USFWS
Pebble counts, cross -sections, gravel
Renton
placement info below Landsberg
McNeil sample data: Renton
USACE (Fred G?)
McNeil sample data: upriver? CES?
When?
CES????; USACE?
Dredging history in Renton (volumes,
USACE, Renton?
locations, dates)
Sediment gradation data (Jim Hunter? or
?
???
Heinz?) Where, what, when?
Chinook and steelhead spawning redds
?
Seattle
reports
Sockeye counts
KC (Carrasco) and/or WDFW
(Ames/Foley)?
Redd data Renton Reach
1994-?
USACE
Cedar River redd counts in ARCView
King County's Bill Mauros
(colleague of Ken Carrasco)
CITY OF RENTON
REVENUE/CHECK DOCUMENTATION
D:k'FE.
NIAI' 6, 2003
ACCOUNT CODE(S):
SOURCE: (WHo FRom)
KING COUNTY -
WASTEWATER
TREATMENT DIVISION
AMOUNT(S):
$26,937.00
Revenue Account No. - 421.000600.000.3830.0000.00.065095
TRANSACTION DESCRIPTION:
Reimbursement from King County Wastewater Treatment Division for the replacement of
extruded curb along North Riverside Drive in the Cedar River Trail Park that was damaged by
the King County Bryn Mawr Sewer System Improvement/Boeing Outfall Interceptor project, but
replaced by the Surface Water Utility as part of the Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control
Project. The King County Bryn Mawr Sewer System Improvement/Boeing Outfall Interceptor
project construction was completed prior to the start of the Renton/Army Corps of Engineers
Cedar River Section 205 Flood Control Project. King County agreed to not replace the curb that
they damaged, since the Cedar River 205 project construction would damage the same curb that
they would have just replaced. King County agreed to reimburse the Surface Water Utility for the
cost to replace the curb instead. King County was required as part of their project permit to
replace and restore areas that they damage and disturb in the Cedar River Trail Park along North
Riverside Drive.
PRINTED NAME:
Ron Straka
SIGNATURE:
DEPT:
PBPW/Utility Systems
PHONE:
425-430-7248
H:\File Sys\SWP - Surface Water Prcjects\SWP-27 - Surface Water Projects (CIP)\27-2817 Cedar River Section 205 Project\02.0 -
Agreements\2.04 - King County\Curb Replacement Reimbursement.doc
King County
State of Washington
Depatuncnl of hotancc
821 Second Avenue
Seattle, WA 98104-1 598
Warrant No. 898973
t
nr__vtnv_nZ
VENDOR NAME CITY OF RENTON
VENDOR NO. R00616
INVOICE NUMBER
INVOICE DATE
DESCRIPTION
DISCOUNT
NET AMOUNT
#R15-0066
27-JUL-00
CALL 684-1370
0.00
26,937.00
RECEIVED
MAY - 5 2003
CITY OF RENTON
UTILITY SYSTEMS
PLEASE DETACH AND RETAIN THIS STATEMENT AS YOUR RECORD OF PAYMENT /717A1,
0.00
26, 937 .00
{� King County PayableThru. Key Bank 71163, 815 2nd Ave.; Seattle Wa 98104 -_ No. 898973 i2�,
® State of Washington
D,paruncatof Finance
821 Secotxi.Avenue
Statue. WA 99104 I598
WARRANT DATE
WARRANT #
WARRANT AMOUNT
05-MAY-03
898973
$ * * * * * * * * 26,937.00
PAY Twenty -Six Thousand Nine Hundred Thirty -Seven Dollars And 00 Cents
TO THE
ORDER OF
3
0
0
0
LL
CITY OF RENTON 'Not valid at r one year from date of issue."
1055 S GRADY WAY
RENTON, WA 98055
KING COUNTY EXE IVE
11'a9897pe 1: i 25000571,1: 017 9574 0 111
~INVOICE REQUEST CITY OF RENTON FINANCE DEPARTMENT
Date:
From Department:
Authorizatipp (Name & Signature):
10/11/99
PBPW
Ron Strak
Customer No.:
Account Name:
Dept. Contact:�J
King County
Gary Schimek (x 7205)
Check One
invoice Number:
Original Invoice
®
Credit Memo
1 ❑
Debit Memo
❑
Invoice Title & Reference No.:
Extruded Cement Curbing
Description: Invoice for the replacement of 3,650 LF of extruded cement curbing between 6th
Avenue North and the north end of Cedar River Park. The curbing was damaged during King
County's Bryn Mawr System Improvements/Boeing Outfall Interceptor Project, and is being
replaced by Ceccanti, Inc. under the US Army Corps of Engineers (COE) 205 Flood Control contract.
The contract cost of $26,937 (twenty-six thousand, nine hundred and thirty-seven dollars) is
payable to: The City of Renton.
n � sibu�io�rn�"A z o`�n%s•"
_
Work Order/
Dollar Amount
Account Number
Function
21.000600.000.3830.0000.00.06
65185/5200
$26,937.0
INVOICE TOTAL:
$26,937.0
Comments:
King County agreed to reimburse the City of Renton for replacing extruded cement curbing
damged during the Bryn Mawr System Improvements/Boeing Outfall Interceptor Project per a
letter dated August 28, 1998. Please submit invoice to the following address:
Billing Address:
King County Wastewater Treatment Division
Department of Natural Resources
c/o Rick Andrews
821 Second Avenue M.S. 130
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
H:\DIVISI0N.S\UTILITIE.S\DoCS\ 1999\CURRENT\99-696.doc
King County
Wastewater Treatment Division
Department ofNatural Resources
821 Second Avenue M.S. 130
Seattle, WA 98104-1598
August 28, 1998
Kayren Kittrick
City of Renton
Municipal Building — Yd Floor
200 Mill Avenue South
Renton, WA 98055
!•r.. E i.`1 423117
V,,� 10-08
` s
C. ITv
Bryn Mawr System Improvements/Boeing Outfall Interceptor
City of Renton Permits C980026 and C980027
Dear Ms. Kittrick:
Thank you for your letter of August 12, 1998, regarding restoration. The following is our
response to the bolded items in your letter (copy attached).
Curb Replacement — We are committed to replace all damaged curb to the City's
satisfaction. Restoration of extruded curb needs to be done following placement of the
overlay during the upcoming Corps of Engineers (COE) Cedar River 205 Flood Control
contract. Apparently, there is some confusion whether or not the extruded curb
restoration is covered within the COE contract documents. If the extruded curb is not
covered in the COE contract, we recommend adding it by change order. We can
reimburse COE for extruded curb that was damaged during the County's work.
Easement Maintenance Agreement — We are happy to provide this. I will check the
status of the agreement with our right-of-way staff.
Park Restoration — We have retained Linda Osborn to coordinate resolution of these
items. Linda has been meeting with Parks, COE and County Construction Management
staff to work out the details, and has been documenting the discussions by memorandum
(copy attached). We are committed to resolving -all issues to the City's satisfaction.
CLEAN WATER — A SOUND INVESTMENT
Kayren Kittrick
August 28, 1998
Page 2
If you have any questions, comments or concerns, please feel free to contact me at 206-
684-1306.
Very truly yours,
Richard M. Andrews, P.E.
Project Manager
RMA:lm
Attachments
cc: Leslie Betlach — Renton
Ross Hathaway - Renton
Laurae Gray - Pharos
Rod Boyd — ST7
Keven Sandquist — SP
Linda Osborn — Osborn Pacific
Jeff Lykken - KCM
FileCard General
Page 1 of 1
City of Renton P.B.P.W. File System
General Alias/Keyword New
Record Listing Physical Images Streets Search
Fie Code: SWP272817
Title: CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 PROJECT
Contents: CONSTRUCTION MYLAR CIP
Narrative: Dredging of the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River.
Planning, design and construction of levees & floodwalls
along the Lower Cedar River. CIP Project #65185. CNSLT:
United States Army Corp of Engineers (USACE). PMGR:
Gary Schimek. Historical documents located in off -site
storage with City Clerk; see file list at shelves 29 thru 32,
5th floor.
Return to ##
Ren
onnet
NOTE: This is the Live data.
http://reritonnet/web_sites/intranet/FileSys5/non£../General.CFM?FILECODE=S WP27281 12/ 18/2001
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX 4
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
Gar/9 FILES
27-2817
1.01
N/A
MASTER FILE LIST
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
1.02
N/A
CITY CLERK FILE LIST -OFF SITE FILES
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
1.03
N/A
GENERAL
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
1.04
N/A
MEETING AGENDAS AND PROJECT SCHEDULES
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
1.05
N/A
CITY VIEW
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
1.06
N/A
INVOICES
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
1.07
N/A
PRESENTATION MATERIAL
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
1.08
N/A
PROJECT BACKGROUND
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
1.09
N/A
PUBLIC INFORMATION qe2,,L
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
1.10
N/A
1996
ADMIN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
2.01
N/A
BOEING
AGREEMENTS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
2.02
N/A
CLERK FILES
AGREEMENTS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
2.03
N/A
FEASIBILITY COST SHARE AGREEMENT
AGREEMENTS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
2.04
N/A
KING COUNTY
AGREEMENTS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
2.05
N/A
MODIFICATIONS #1 AND #2
AGREEMENTS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
2.06
N/A
PROJECT COOPERATION AGREEMENT
AGREEMENTS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
2.07
N/A
SEDIMENT CONTAMINANT SAMPLING
AGREEMENTS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.01
N/A
ACTIVITY
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.02
N/A
CHANGE ORDER TRACKING LIST
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.03
N/A
CHANGE ORDERS FL001 THROUGH FL005
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.04
N/A
CHANGE ORDERS FL006 THROUGH FL010
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.05
N/A
CHANGE ORDERS FLO11 THROUGH FLO15
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.06
N/A
CHANGE ORDERS FLO16 THROUGH FL020
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.07
N/A
CHANGE ORDERS FL021 THROUGH FL025
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.08
N/A
CHANGE ORDERS FL026 THROUGH FL030
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
3.09
N/A
CHANGE ORDERS FL030 THROUGH FL035
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.10
N/A
CITY INSPECTION REPORTS
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.11
N/A
CONTRACT AMENDMENTS
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.12
N/A
A/
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS - DREDGE SPECIFICATIONS �i��
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.13
N/A
CONTRACTS
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.14
N/A
COORDINATION
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.15
N/A
OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
U: Gschimek: Projects: Cedar River 205:Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
SW FILES
27-2817
3.16
N/A
PAVING CONTRACT
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2617
3.17
N/A
PRE -CONSTRUCTION CONFERENCE
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.18
N/A
REQUEST FOR INFORMATION
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.19
N/A
SOUTH BOEING BRIDGE
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
320
N/A
SPECIFICATIONS Jfft$
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.21
N/A
SPECIFICATIONS - REJECTED
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
3.22
N/A
SUBMITTALS
CONST. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.01
N/A
BOEING
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
4.02
N/A
BOEING
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.03
N/A
CITY
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
4.04
N/A
CITY OF SEATTLE
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.05
N/A
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.06
N/A
CITY TO USACE
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
4.07
N/A
CONGRESSIONAL REPRESENTATIVES
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.08
N/A
CONSULTANTS
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.09
N/A
CONTRACTOR
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
4.10
N/A
FUNDING ISSUES
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.11
N/A
GENERAL
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
4.12
N/A
INTERNAL
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.13
N/A
KING COUNTY
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.14
N/A
MUCKLESHOOT INDIAN TRIBE
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.15
N/A
PARKS
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.16
N/A
STATE
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
4.17
N/A
US FISH AND WILDLIFE
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.18
N/A
USACE TO CITY
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.19
N/A
UTILITIES
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
4.20
N/A
WASH. DEPT. FISH AND WILDLIFE
CORRESP. FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
5.01
N/A
MITIGATION ESCROW ACCOUNT
FINANCIAL FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
5.02
N/A
IN -KIND EXPENDITURE ESTIMATES
FINANCIAL FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
6.01
N/A
BOEING
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
6.02
N/A
EASEMENTS
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
6.03
N/A
GENERAL
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
U:Gschimek:Projects: Cedar River 205: Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
SW FILES
27-2817
6.04
N/A
LEASES
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
6.05
N/A
LLERD
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
6.06
N/A
MASTER FILE
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
6.07
N/A
OWNERSHIP
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
6.08
N/A
RENTON HOUSING AUTHORITY
REAL ESTATE FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.01
N/A
AQUIFER PROTECTION
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.02
N/A
FAA
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.03
N/A
FINAL PERMITS WDFW
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.04
N/A
JARPA
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.05
N/A
NOISE VARIANCE
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.06
N/A
NPDES & WQC
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.07
N/A
SHORELINE & GRADING
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.08
N/A
DNR
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
7.09
N/A
MISC.
PERMITS
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.01
N/A
90 % DESIGN
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.02
N/A
BARGE OPTIONS
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.03
N/A
BOEING INTERCEPTOR
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.04
N/A
CITY HALL FLOOD WALL
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.05
N/A
CURRENT WORK SHEETS
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.06
N/A
EAST PERIMETER ROAD
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.07
N/A
EIS
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.08
N/A
FINAL DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.09
N/A
FINAL DETAILED PROJECT REPORT - APPENDICES
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.10
N/A
GRAVEL FROM DREDGING
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.11
N/A
KING COUNTY-BRYN MAWR SEWER PROJECT
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8,12
N/A
KING COUNTY -REPORT OF INDEPENDENT ACTION
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.13
N/A
LAB COSTS
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
8.14
N/A
LANDSBURG GRAVEL SUPPLEMENTATION
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.15
N/A
MITIGATION -MODIFICATIONS
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8,16
N/A
MITIGATION -DELTA PLANTING
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.17
N/A
MITIGATION -LIGHTING
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.18
N/A
MITIGATION-MAPLEWOOD G.C. LEVEE
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
U:Gschimek:Projects: Cedar River 205:Spreadsheets :Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
SW FILES
27-2817
8.19
N/A
MITIGATION -PLANTING ALONG RIVER
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.20
N/A
MITIGATION -SPAWNING CHANNEL
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
Gary's FILES
27-2817
8.21
N/A
OVER DREDGE IMPACTS AND MITIGATION
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.22
NIA
PROJECT STATUS 1996
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.23
NIA
SEDIMENTATION CHARACTERIZATION
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.24
N/A
SOUTH BOEING BRIDGE
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.25
N/A
STORMWATER
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.26
N/A
SUBMITTALS - TRAFFIC CONTROL PLAN
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.27
N/A
UPPER ELLIOT LEVY
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.28
N/A
UTILITY MAPS
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
8.29
N/A
UTILITY RELOCATIONS
PLANNING & DESIGN FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
9.01
NIA
CEDAR RIVER TRAVERSE
REPORTS & STUDIES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
9.02
N/A
CEDAR RIVER CROSS SECTION SURVEY
REPORTS & STUDIES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
10.01
N/A
MONITORING: SCOPES OF WORK AND CONTRACTS
MONITORING FILES
1999-2000
SW FILES
27-2817
10.02
N/A
MONITORING: RESULTS
MONITORING FILES
1999-2000
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
US ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS REGULATORY PROGRAM
BOOK
1985
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
STREET IMPROVE. WELLS AVE S
MAP
1972
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
STATUS REPORTS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
SPECS -DRAFT & ORIGINAL
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
SOUTH BRIDGE LIFT PROJECT OVER THE CEDAR RIVER
MAP
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-23 2526
SOUTH BRIDGE LIFT PROJECT
BOOK
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
SEDIMENT TRAPS TRUST FUND LOAD PROGRAM APPS
FILE FOLDER
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
SEDIMENT SAMPLING PROPOSAL
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
SEDIMENT SAMPLING & ANALYSIS REPORT
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
SEDIMENT SAMPLING & ANALYSIS PLAN
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
SED. SAMPLING NOTES/CORRESP
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
SEATTLE HCP/LOW FLOW PROPOSAL
FILE FOLDER -BOOK
1991-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
SCOPE/COST EST. REVISIONS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-23 2526
S BOEING BRIDGE O&M MANUALS
MANUALS
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
REVISED CEDAR RIVER DELTA PROJECT
BOOK
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
REVIEW COPY -CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
RESPONSES TO CORPS LETTERS
BOOK
1993
U:Gschimek:Projects: Cedar River 205:Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
RESPONSE TO 12/24/92 ACOE LETTER
LETTER
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
REPORTS/ANALYSIS CEDAR RIVER DELTA
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
REPORTS/ANALYSIS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STORM DRAINAGE BLACK RIVER CHANNEL
BOOK
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-13-20 2523
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT STORM DRAINAGE BLACK RIVER CHANNEL
BOOK
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT RUNWAY EXTENSION PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -LETTER
1990
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
RENTON MUNICIPAL AIRPORT MASTER DRAINAGE PLAN NOTES/CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
I N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
REGIONAL SW COLLECTION/ TREATMENT/BYPASS
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1994-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-19 2522
PROPOSED LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN AND NONPOINT POLLUTION ACTION PLAN
BOOKS(B)
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
PROJECT SCHEDULES/ CHRONOLOGIES
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-13-24 2527
PHOTOS AT COULON PARK
LETTER W/PICTURES
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
PHOTOS
PHOTOS
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
PERMITS FOR WORK IN NAVIGABLE WATERS
BOOK
1968
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
PERMITS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
PERMIT PROCEDURES
BOOK
1972
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-13-24 2527
PARKS PEDESTRIAN BRIDE -CEDAR RIVER TRAIL
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-05 2431
PARK/LAKE WA BLVD IMPROVE.
FILE FOLDER -REPORT
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
ORIGINAL 11/3/92 SUBMITTAL TO ACOE
NA
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
NOTES-CITY/DNR CONTRACT NEG.
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
NOTES/CORRESP WITH DNR
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
NOTES FROM REVISION OF SPECS FOR ELLIOT BAY DISPOSAL
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-05 2431
NE 9TH ST/MONROE AVE NE
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-05 2431
NE 5TH PL CIP DRAINAGE DESIGN
FILE FOLDER
1991/1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
NE 44TH ST EXIT PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -MAPS, PICTURES
1986/1994
CLERK FILES
{
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
NE 44TH PROJECT PLANS
FILE FOLDER -MAPS, DRAWINGS
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
NE 44TH INTERSECTION CONSULTANT INVOICES AND PROGRESS REPORTS
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
NE 44 ST EXIT DRAINAGE IMPROVE PROJECT NOTES/CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1994-1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-05 2431
NE 10TH & MONROE
FILE FOLDER -BOOKS
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-05 2431
NE 107TH & MONROE/ENTRANCO CONTRACT
FILE FOLDER
1997-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-05 2431
MONROE AVE & NE 2ND
FILE FOLDER
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
MOA WITH FISHERIES
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
MITIGATION PLAN
FILE FOLDER
1993
U:Gschimek:Projects: Cedar River 205:Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
MIT NEGOTIATIONS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
METRO/CITY CEDAR CASCADE/ WATER MAIN PROJECT
FILE FOLDER
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSFH6-LF 1747
METRO DISPOSAL -CAPPING
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-03 2429
MCBP-RECOMMENDATIONS DEVELOPMENT
FILE FOLDER
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-03 2429
MCBP DRAFT CFC REVIEW
FILE FOLDER
1995-1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-03 2429
MCBP CR REVIEW
FILE FOLDER
1994-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-03 2429
MCBP CAC MEETING
FILE FOLDER
1994
U:Gschimek.Projects .Cedar River 205:Spreadsheets .Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
MAPLEWOOD SITE
FILE FOLDER -MAPS, PICTURES
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
MAPLEWOOD DRAINAGE PROBLEMS
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
LOWER CEDAR RIVER WATER QUALITY
FILE FOLDER
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
LOWER CEDAR RIVER SEDIMENT TRANSPORT
FILE FOLDERS (5)
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
LOWER CEDAR RIVER SEDIMENT MGM'T FISH STUDIES
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-8-23 2526
LOWER CEDAR RIVER FLOODWAY
BINDER
1990
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-23 2526
LOWER CEDAR RIVER FLOODWAY
BINDER
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
LOWER CEDAR RIVER FISH STUDIES
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-19 2522
LOWER CEDAR RIVER FINAL ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT
BOOKS(3)
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
LOWER CEDAR RIVER EVALUATION OF FLOOD RELIEF ALTERNATIVES
BOOK
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-22 2525
LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN PLAN SUMMARY
BOOKS (23)
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-23 2526
LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN
BOOK
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-8-23 2526
LOWER CEDAR RIVER BASIN
BOOK
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
LOWER CEDAR RIVER
FILE FOLDER(2) - BOOKS(4)
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
LOWER CEDAR BASIN PLANT
FILE FOLDER
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
LONGFIN SMELT SPAWNING IN LAKE WASHINGTON
BOOK
1970
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
LEG. APPROPRIATION PROPOSAL
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
LAKE WASHINGTON POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROJECT
BOOK
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-LF 1742
LAKE WASHINGTON POLLUTION ABATEMENT PROGRAM
PROJECT FILES
1992-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
LAKE WASHINGTON HISTORIC INFORMATION
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
LA CONNER, WASHINGTON BANK EROSION CONTROL
BOOK
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
KING COUNTY FLOOD HAZARD REDUCTION PLAN
FILE FOLDER
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
KING COUNTY COMPREHENSIVE PLAN FOR FLOOD CONTROL
BOOK
1964
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
INVOICES TO BOEING
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
INVOICE TO DNR
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
INFO PROVIDED TO ACOE FOR 205 STUDY
FILE FOLDER- MAPS
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-76 2529
1-405 DOT DRAINAGE SYSTEM DESIGN
NA
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
HISTORICAL DELTA DREDGING INFORMATION
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
HISTORIC INFORMATION
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
HISTORIC DREDGING/FLOODING INFORMATION
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
HABITAT CONSERVATION PLAN FOR THE CEDAR RIVER WATERSHED
BOOK -PROPOSED AGREEMENT
1996
CLERK FILES
1�
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
GYPSY/NE 44TH PHASE 2 SCOPE/CONTRACT
FILE FOLDER
1996
U: Gschimek: Projects: Cedar River 205: Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
GYPSY SUBBASIN CONSULTANT INVOICES
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
GOLF COURSE -EAST LEVY NOTES/ CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1991/1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
GOLF COURSE EAST LEVY PLANS/OWNERSHIP
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
199111987
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
GOLDER QUALIFICATIONS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
GOLDER 1/5/92 DRAFT SCOPE
NA
1992
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-B-20 2523
GAIL REED -AIRPORT FLOOD MONITORING
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
FLOOD HAZARD MONITORING
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
199111993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
FLOOD EVENT
FILE FOLDER
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
FLOOD EVENT
FILE FOLDER
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
FLOOD DAMAGE
FILE FOLDERS (19)
1976
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-8-21 2524
FLOOD DAMAGE
FILE FOLDERS (3)
1976
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-23 2526
ENVIRON. IMPACT STATEMENT
BOOK
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RF 1744
ELLIOT LEVEE
PROJECT FILES
1992-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
DREDGING CONSTRUCTION CONTRACT
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
DREDGE PERMIT DECISION
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
DRAFT SPECS AND PLANS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
DRAFT POLLUTION ABATEMENT REPORT RENTON/LAKE WASH.
BOOK
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-8-22 2525
DRAFT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT CEDAR RIVER
BOOKS (2)
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
DRAFT BOEING SPECS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-23 2526
DRAFT BASIN
BOOK
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
DRAFT 2/92 SUBMITTAL
NA
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
DOT 1-405 EXIT IMPROVE C NE 44TH
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
DNR SED. DISPOSAL CORRESP.
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
DNR PERMIT NEG. INFO.
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
DISASTER
FILE FOLDERS (3)
1972
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
DEPT. OF NATURAL RESOURCES GENERAL CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-22 2525
CURRENT & FUTURE CONDITIONS SUMMARY REPORT
BOOKS (5)
1993
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-B-25 2528
CURRENT & FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT MAY CREEK
BOOK
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-22 2525
CURRENT & FUTURE CONDITIONS REPORT
BOOKS (6)
1993
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-15 2441
CRDP-POST CONSTN SURVEY REVIEW & QA/QC
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
COST ESTIMATES
FILE FOLDER
1990/1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CORPS CONTINUING ASSIST. BUDGET ISSUES
FILE FOLDER
1995
U: Gschimek: Projects: Cedar River 205: Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-23 2526
CoR COMPREHENSIVE PLAN
BINDER
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
CONTRACT DOCUMENTS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
NIA
CSI-H6-LF 1747
CONSULT. INVOICES
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
CONSTRUCTION COST ESTIMATES
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
CONSTRUCTION COMPLAINTS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-11 2437
COMPREHENSIVE PLAN INFO. MAPLEWOOD CREEK
FILE FOLDER
1988-1989
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
COMMENTS ON 11/3 MIT. PLAN
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
I N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
CITY/BOEING INTERLOCAL & ADDENDUM #1
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CITY OF RENTON CEDAR RIVER DELTA PROJECT
BOOK
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CITY OF RENTON CEDAR RIVER DELTA PROJECT
BOOK
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CITY OF RENTON CEDAR RIVER DELTA PROJECT
BOOK
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-8-20 2523
CHANNEL DREDGING
FILE FOLDERS(13)
1911-1983
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
CH2M HILL SED TESTING REPORT
NA
1989
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER -UTILITY AS BUILD
FILE FOLDER -MAP
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER-MISC CHANNEL WORK
FILE FOLDER
1972/1974
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
CEDAR RIVER -DREDGING/ FLOODING INFORMATION
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER/MISCJSEATTLE H.C.P.
FILE FOLDER -BOOKS
1997-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER/MASONRY DAM STUDY
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-B-23 2526
CEDAR RIVER SUMMARY REPORT
BOOK
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 FINAL DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
FILE FOLDER -BOOK
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER SECTION 205 DRAFT DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
FILE FOLDER -BOOK
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -BOOKS (2)
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER PARKS DEPT. PERMITTING
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER NON POINT ACTION PLAN
FILE FOLDER
1990/1992/ 1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER MISC.
FILE FOLDER
1997-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER MISC.
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER H. POINT ACTION PLAN NOTES/CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1992-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER H. POINT ACTION PLAN FIELD INVEST.
FILE FOLDER -BOOKS, MAPS
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER H. PAP INVOICES TO KING COUNTY
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
I N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER FLOW MONITORING
FILE FOLDER
1997-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION STUDY
FILE FOLDER -STUDY, PACKET
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER FLOOD DAMAGE
FILE FOLDER
1973
U:Gschimek:Projects: Cedar River 205: Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL STUDY NOTES/CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1988-1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL STUDY NOTES/CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1989-1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER FLOOD CONTROL
FILE FOLDER (9)
1975
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER FISH STUDIES
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING PAY ESTIMATES
FILE FOLDER
1986
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING GENERAL CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1988
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING GENERAL CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1986
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING DOE GRANT/K.C. AGREEMENT
FILE FOLDER
1986
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING CONTRACT DOCUMENT
FILE FOLDER
1986
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING CONSTRUCTION CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1986
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING CEDAR RIVER PARK BANK REPAIR
BOOK
1987
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER DREDGING
SPECS
1986
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
CEDAR RIVER DREDGE
FILE FOLDER-MIKE'S NOTES
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-19 2522
CEDAR RIVER DRAFT BASIN AND NONPOINT POLLUTION ACTION PLAN
BOOKS(7)
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER DETAILED PROJECT REPORT
FILE FOLDER -BOOK
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER DELTA -LOG REMOVAL
FILE FOLDER -BOOK
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER DELTA -BIRD SURVEYS
FILE FOLDER
1995-1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CEDAR RIVER DELTA -BIRD HAZARD INFORMATION
FILE FOLDER
1992-1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CEDAR RIVER DELTA PROJECT
BOOK
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER DELTA LOG REMOVAL
FILE FOLDERS (2)
1997-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CEDAR RIVER DELTA FISH POST CONSTRUCTION MIT. MONIT.
FILE FOLDER
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER DELTA DREDGE
FILE FOLDER
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
CEDAR RIVER DELTA DREDGE
PROJECT FILES
1992-1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
CEDAR RIVER DELTA DREDGE
PROJECT FILES
1992-1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
CEDAR RIVER DELTA DREDGE
PROJECT FILES
1992-1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER DELTA
FILE FOLDER
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER DELTA
FILE FOLDER
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER DELTA
FILE FOLDER
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER DELTA
FILE FOLDERS (2)
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-8-20 2523
CEDAR RIVER DELTA
PICTURE
1991
CLERK FILES
I N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CEDAR RIVER DELTA
MAP W/OVERHEAD
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER COUNCIL MEETING
I FILE FOLDER
1998
U: Gschimek: Projects: Cedar River 205:Spreadsheets :Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
CEDAR RIVER COMMERCIAL WATERWAY NO. 2
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-18 2521
CEDAR RIVER COG REMOVAL
FILE FOLDER
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER CHANNEL DREDGING
FILE FOLDER -NOTES
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
CEDAR RIVER CHANNEL & DELTA HISTORY
FILE FOLDER -GRAPHS, MAPS
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER BRIDGES-WILLIAMS AVE.
FILE FOLDER -MEMO
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-LF 1742
CEDAR RIVER BASIN PLAN
PROJECT FILES
1992-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-CF 1746
CEDAR RIVER BASIN PLAN
PROJECT FILES
1992-1998
CLERK FILES
I N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CEDAR RIVER AGREEMENTS AND PERMITS
FILE FOLDER-MISC.
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER 205-SCHEDULE
FILE FOLDER
1996-1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205-GRANT APPLICATION
FILE FOLDER (2) - PACKETS (2)
1997-1999
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER 205-FISH STUDIES
FILE FOLDER
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER 205-CORPS REVIEW POLICY
FILE FOLDER
1993
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER 205-CAP PROGRAM GUIDANCE
FILE FOLDER
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER 205-BRIDGE CROSSINGS
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER 205-BOEING'S HYDRAULIC STUDY
FILE FOLDER -STUDY
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205/DESIGN-FLOODWALLS S.B. BRIDGE PARKING AREA
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205/DESIGN/ WATER CROSSING
FILE FOLDER
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205/DESIGN/ DREDGING
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205/CONST./ AIRPORT DRAINAGE IMPROVE
FILE FOLDER
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205/ CORRESPONDENCE
FILE FOLDER
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205 STUDY
FILE FOLDER
1994-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205 STUDY
FILE FOLDER
1990/1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205 SEDIMENT COLLECTION
FILE FOLDER -BOOK
1994-1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT/CORRESPONDENCE
FILE FOLDER
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT/CORRESPONDENCE
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT/ FINANCING
FILE FOLDERS (3)
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT/ FINANCE PROJECT FUND/ FINANCIAL ANALYSIS
FILE FOLDER
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT/ DESIGN LEVEES & FLOODWALLS
DRAWINGS
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT/ DESIGN BOEING INTERCEPTOR
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT/ DESIGN AIRPORT DRAINAGE
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1997-1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT SEDIMENT COLLECT. CONTRACT
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT REAL ESTATE NOTES/CORRESP,
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1994-1996
U: Gschimek: Projects: Cedar River 205: Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT NOTES/CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER - MAPS
1994-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT MEETING NOTES
FILE FOLDERS (2)
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT LOCAL COOPERATION AGREEMENT
FILE FOLDER
1990/1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT HYDRAULIC ANALYSIS
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT CORRESPONDENCE
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -REVIEW
1995/1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -RESPONSES
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -BOOKS
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -PACKETS
1997
CLERK FILES
I N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -PACKETS
1997
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
GRAPHS
1991-1992;1996
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-24 2450
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -PICTURES
1997
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
FILE FOLDER -DEVELOPMENTS
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 FISHERIES INVESTIGATIONS
FILE FOLDER
1994-1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 DAMAGES ESTIMATES
FILE FOLDER
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 CERTIFICATION OF LANDS
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-25 2451
CEDAR RIVER 205 BRIDGE LOADS/DESIGN
FILE FOLDER -MAPS
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205
HYDROGRAPHS & WATER
1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205
CORPS
1994-1996
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205
REQUESTS FROM CORPS
1994
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205
FILE FOLDER
1996
CLERK FILES
NIA
CH6-A-12 2438
CEDAR RIVER 205
FILE FOLDER
1995-1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-22 2448
CEDAR RIVER 205
FILE FOLDERS (2) - UTILITY MAPS
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
CEDAR RIVER 205
FILE FOLDER
1956/1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-15 2441
CEDAR RIVER
FILE FOLDER -BOOK
1989/1991/1996
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
CEDAR RIVER
LETTER
1986
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
CEDAR FALLS
FILE FOLDER
995
U : Gschimek: Projects: Cedar River 205: Spreadsheets: Master File List
MASTER FILE LIST
CEDAR RIVER 205 PROJECT
LOCATION
PROJECT
No.
FOLDER
No.
BOX
No.
FOLDER TITLE
DESCRIPTION
INCLUSIVE DATES
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-21 2524
CE 13 & 14 (DREDGING)
FILE FOLDER
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-24 2450
BRYN MAWR SYSTEM IMPROVEMENTS
GRAPHS
1998
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
BOEING/CITY ILA
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
BOEING HARBOR PLAN
FILE FOLDER
1994
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
BOEING FLOOD RISK ANALYSIS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
BOEING CONSTRUCTION PLANS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-A-25 2451
BOEING 4-42 GW INVESTIGATION
FILE FOLDER -BOOKS, MAPS
1994
CLERK FILES
I N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
BOAT RAMP REPAIRS CEDAR RIVER PARK
FILE FOLDER
1995
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-LF 1747
BIRD HAZARD
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
BIOSWALE LETTER
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-24 2527
BATHYMETRIC SURVEY NOTES/CORRESP.
FILE FOLDER
1991
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
ATTACHMENT TO 3/25/92 EXP. ENV, CHECKLIST
NA
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-B-20 2523
APPS FOR DEPT. OF THE ARMY PERMITS FOR ACTIVITIES IN WATERWAYS
BOOK
1974
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
ALTERNATIVES ANALYSIS
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CH6-8-23 2526
AIRPORT DESIGN
BINDER
1989
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
ACOE PERMIT DECISION DOC. REVIEW
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H6-RF 1748
ACOE ELLIOT BAY APP.
NA
NA
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
3/25/92 EXPANDED ENVIRON. & ANALYSIS PLAN
NA
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
2/26/92 ENV. CHECKLIST
NA
1992
CLERK FILES
N/A
CSI-H5-RR 1743
11/3/92 SUBMITTAL TO ACOE
NA
1992
U:Gschimek:Projects: Cedar River 205:Spreadsheets: Master File List