HomeMy WebLinkAboutContractAGREEMENT FOR LOWER CEDAR RIVER FLOOD RISK
REDUCTION FEASIBILITY PROJECT
THIS AGREEMENT, dated for reference purposes only as March 23, 2021, is by and between the
City of Renton (the “City”), a Washington municipal corporation, and Northwest Hydraulic
Consultants (“Consultant”), Washington corporation. The City and the Consultant are referred to
collectively in this Agreement as the “Parties.” Once fully executed by the Parties, this Agreement
is effective as of the last date signed by both parties.
1. Scope of Work: Consultant agrees to provide surveying, hydrologic and hydraulic
modeling, and reporting as specified in Exhibit A, which is attached and incorporated
herein and may hereinafter be referred to as the “Work.”
2.Changes in Scope of Work: The City, without invalidating this Agreement, may order
changes to the Work consisting of additions, deletions or modifications. Any such changes
to the Work shall be ordered by the City in writing and the Compensation shall be
equitably adjusted consistent with the rates set forth in Exhibit B or as otherwise mutually
agreed by the Parties.
3.Time of Performance: Consultant shall commence performance of the Agreement
pursuant to the schedule(s) set forth in Exhibit C. All Work shall be performed by no later
than December 31, 2022.
4.Compensation:
A. Amount. Total compensation to Consultant for Work provided pursuant to this
Agreement shall not exceed $458,761, plus any applicable state and local sales taxes.
Compensation shall be paid based upon Work actually performed according to the
rate(s) or amounts specified in Exhibit B. The Consultant agrees that any hourly or flat
rate charged by it for its Work shall remain locked at the negotiated rate(s) unless
otherwise agreed to in writing or provided in Exhibit B. Except as specifically provided
herein, the Consultant shall be solely responsible for payment of any taxes imposed
as a result of the performance and payment of this Agreement.
B. Method of Payment. On a monthly or no less than quarterly basis during any quarter
in which Work is performed, the Consultant shall submit a voucher or invoice in a form
specified by the City, including a description of what Work has been performed, the
name of the personnel performing such Work, and any hourly labor charge rate for
CAG-21-125
PAGE 2 OF 10
such personnel. The Consultant shall also submit a final bill upon completion of all
Work. Payment shall be made by the City for Work performed within thirty (30)
calendar days after receipt and approval by the appropriate City representative of the
voucher or invoice. If the Consultant’s performance does not meet the requirements
of this Agreement, the Consultant will correct or modify its performance to comply
with the Agreement. The City may withhold payment for work that does not meet the
requirements of this Agreement.
C. Effect of Payment. Payment for any part of the Work shall not constitute a waiver by
the City of any remedies it may have against the Consultant for failure of the
Consultant to perform the Work or for any breach of this Agreement by the
Consultant.
D. Non-Appropriation of Funds. If sufficient funds are not appropriated or allocated for
payment under this Agreement for any future fiscal period, the City shall not be
obligated to make payments for Work or amounts incurred after the end of the
current fiscal period, and this Agreement will terminate upon the completion of all
remaining Work for which funds are allocated. No penalty or expense shall accrue to
the City in the event this provision applies.
5.Termination:
A. The City reserves the right to terminate this Agreement at any time, with or without
cause by giving ten (10) calendar days’ notice to the Consultant in writing. In the event
of such termination or suspension, all finished or unfinished documents, data, studies,
worksheets, models and reports, or other material prepared by the Consultant
pursuant to this Agreement shall be submitted to the City, if any are required as part
of the Work.
B. In the event this Agreement is terminated by the City, the Consultant shall be entitled
to payment for all hours worked to the effective date of termination, less all payments
previously made. If the Agreement is terminated by the City after partial performance
of Work for which the agreed compensation is a fixed fee, the City shall pay the
Consultant an equitable share of the fixed fee. This provision shall not prevent the
City from seeking any legal remedies it may have for the violation or nonperformance
of any of the provisions of this Agreement and such charges due to the City shall be
deducted from the final payment due the Consultant. No payment shall be made by
the City for any expenses incurred or work done following the effective date of
termination unless authorized in advance in writing by the City.
6. Warranties And Right To Use Work Product: Consultant represents and warrants that
Consultant will perform all Work identified in this Agreement in a professional and
workmanlike manner and in accordance with all reasonable and professional standards
PAGE 3 OF 10
and laws. Compliance with professional standards includes, as applicable, performing the
Work in compliance with applicable City standards or guidelines (e.g. design criteria and
Standard Plans for Road, Bridge and Municipal Construction). Professional engineers shall
certify engineering plans, specifications, plats, and reports, as applicable, pursuant to
RCW 18.43.070. Consultant further represents and warrants that all final work product
created for and delivered to the City pursuant to this Agreement shall be the original work
of the Consultant and free from any intellectual property encumbrance which would
restrict the City from using the work product. Consultant grants to the City a non-
exclusive, perpetual right and license to use, reproduce, distribute, adapt, modify, and
display all final work product produced pursuant to this Agreement. The City’s or other’s
adaptation, modification or use of the final work products other than for the purposes of
this Agreement shall be without liability to the Consultant. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
7. Record Maintenance: The Consultant shall maintain accounts and records, which
properly reflect all direct and indirect costs expended and Work provided in the
performance of this Agreement and retain such records for as long as may be required by
applicable Washington State records retention laws, but in any event no less than six
years after the termination of this Agreement. The Consultant agrees to provide access
to and copies of any records related to this Agreement as required by the City to audit
expenditures and charges and/or to comply with the Washington State Public Records Act
(Chapter 42.56 RCW). The provisions of this section shall survive the expiration or
termination of this Agreement.
8.Public Records Compliance: To the full extent the City determines necessary to comply
with the Washington State Public Records Act, Consultant shall make a due diligent search
of all records in its possession or control relating to this Agreement and the Work,
including, but not limited to, e-mail, correspondence, notes, saved telephone messages,
recordings, photos, or drawings and provide them to the City for production. In the event
Consultant believes said records need to be protected from disclosure, it may, at
Consultant’s own expense, seek judicial protection. Consultant shall indemnify, defend,
and hold harmless the City for all costs, including attorneys’ fees, attendant to any claim
or litigation related to a Public Records Act request for which Consultant has responsive
records and for which Consultant has withheld records or information contained therein,
or not provided them to the City in a timely manner. Consultant shall produce for
distribution any and all records responsive to the Public Records Act request in a timely
manner, unless those records are protected by court order. The provisions of this section
shall survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
9.Independent Contractor Relationship:
A. The Consultant is retained by the City only for the purposes and to the extent set forth
in this Agreement. The nature of the relationship between the Consultant and the City
PAGE 4 OF 10
during the period of the Work shall be that of an independent contractor, not
employee. The Consultant, not the City, shall have the power to control and direct the
details, manner or means of Work. Specifically, but not by means of limitation, the
Consultant shall have no obligation to work any particular hours or particular
schedule, unless otherwise indicated in the Scope of Work or where scheduling of
attendance or performance is mutually arranged due to the nature of the Work.
Consultant shall retain the right to designate the means of performing the Work
covered by this agreement, and the Consultant shall be entitled to employ other
workers at such compensation and such other conditions as it may deem proper,
provided, however, that any contract so made by the Consultant is to be paid by it
alone, and that employing such workers, it is acting individually and not as an agent
for the City.
B. The City shall not be responsible for withholding or otherwise deducting federal
income tax or Social Security or contributing to the State Industrial Insurance
Program, or otherwise assuming the duties of an employer with respect to Consultant
or any employee of the Consultant.
C. If the Consultant is a sole proprietorship or if this Agreement is with an individual, the
Consultant agrees to notify the City and complete any required form if the Consultant
retired under a State of Washington retirement system and agrees to indemnify any
losses the City may sustain through the Consultant’s failure to do so.
10. Hold Harmless: The Consultant agrees to release, indemnify, defend, and hold harmless
the City, elected officials, employees, officers, representatives, and volunteers from any
and all claims, demands, actions, suits, causes of action, arbitrations, mediations,
proceedings, judgments, awards, injuries, damages, liabilities, taxes, losses, fines, fees,
penalties, expenses, attorney’s or attorneys’ fees, costs, and/or litigation expenses to or
by any and all persons or entities, arising from, resulting from, or related to the negligent
acts, errors or omissions of the Consultant in its performance of this Agreement or a
breach of this Agreement by Consultant, except for that portion of the claims caused by
the City’s sole negligence.
Should a court of competent jurisdiction determine that this agreement is subject to RCW
4.24.115, (Validity of agreement to indemnify against liability for negligence relative to
construction, alteration, improvement, etc., of structure or improvement attached to real
estate…) then, in the event of liability for damages arising out of bodily injury to persons
or damages to property caused by or resulting from the concurrent negligence of the
Consultant and the City, its officers, officials, employees and volunteers, Consultant’s
liability shall be only to the extent of Consultant’s negligence.
PAGE 5 OF 10
It is further specifically and expressly understood that the indemnification provided in
this Agreement constitute Consultant’s waiver of immunity under the Industrial
Insurance Act, RCW Title 51, solely for the purposes of this indemnification. The Parties
have mutually negotiated and agreed to this waiver. The provisions of this section shall
survive the expiration or termination of this Agreement.
11. Gifts and Conflicts: The City’s Code of Ethics and Washington State law prohibit City
employees from soliciting, accepting, or receiving any gift, gratuity or favor from any
person, firm or corporation involved in a contract or transaction. To ensure compliance
with the City’s Code of Ethics and state law, the Consultant shall not give a gift of any kind
to City employees or officials. Consultant also confirms that Consultant does not have a
business interest or a close family relationship with any City officer or employee who was,
is, or will be involved in selecting the Consultant, negotiating or administering this
Agreement, or evaluating the Consultant’s performance of the Work.
12.City of Renton Business License: The Consultant shall obtain a City of Renton Business
License prior to performing any Work and maintain the business license in good standing
throughout the term of this agreement with the City.
Information regarding acquiring a city business license can be found at:
http://www.rentonwa.gov/cms/One.aspx?portalId=7922741&pageId=9824882
Information regarding State business licensing requirements can be found at:
http://dor.wa.gov/doing-business/register-my-business
13. Insurance: Consultant shall secure and maintain:
A. Commercial general liability insurance in the minimum amounts of $1,000,000 for
each occurrence/$2,000,000 aggregate for the Term of this Agreement.
B. In the event that Work delivered pursuant to this Agreement either directly or
indirectly involve or require Professional Services, Professional Liability, Errors and
Omissions coverage shall be provided with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per
occurrence. "Professional Services", for the purpose of this section, shall mean any
Work provided by a licensed professional or Work that requires a professional
standard of care.
C. Workers’ compensation coverage, as required by the Industrial Insurance laws of the
State of Washington, shall also be secured.
D. Commercial Automobile Liability for owned, leased, hired or non-owned, leased, hired
or non-owned, with minimum limits of $1,000,000 per occurrence combined single
PAGE 6 OF 10
limit, if there will be any use of Consultant’s vehicles on the City’s Premises by or on
behalf of the City, beyond normal commutes.
E. Consultant shall name the City as an Additional Insured on its commercial general
liability policy on a non-contributory primary basis. The City’s insurance policies shall
not be a source for payment of any Consultant liability, nor shall the maintenance of
any insurance required by this Agreement be construed to limit the liability of
Consultant to the coverage provided by such insurance or otherwise limit the City’s
recourse to any remedy available at law or in equity.
F. Subject to the City’s review and acceptance, a certificate of insurance showing the
proper endorsements, shall be delivered to the City before performing the Work.
G. Consultant shall provide the City with written notice of any policy cancellation, within
two (2) business days of their receipt of such notice.
14. Delays: Consultant is not responsible for delays caused by factors beyond the
Consultant’s reasonable control. When such delays beyond the Consultant’s reasonable
control occur, the City agrees the Consultant is not responsible for damages, nor shall the
Consultant be deemed to be in default of the Agreement.
15.Successors and Assigns: Neither the City nor the Consultant shall assign, transfer or
encumber any rights, duties or interests accruing from this Agreement without the
written consent of the other.
16.Notices: Any notice required under this Agreement will be in writing, addressed to the
appropriate party at the address which appears below (as modified in writing from time
to time by such party), and given personally, by registered or certified mail, return receipt
requested, by facsimile or by nationally recognized overnight courier service. Time period
for notices shall be deemed to have commenced upon the date of receipt, EXCEPT
facsimile delivery will be deemed to have commenced on the first business day following
transmission. Email and telephone may be used for purposes of administering the
Agreement, but should not be used to give any formal notice required by the Agreement.
CITY OF RENTON
Amanda Pierce
1055 South Grady Way
Renton, WA 98057
Phone: (425) 430-7205
apierce@rentonwa.gov
Fax: (425) 430-7241
CONSULTANT
Vaughn Collins
12787 Gateway Drive South
Tukwila, WA 98168
Phone: (206) 241-6000
vcollins@nhcweb.com
Fax: (425) 439-2420
PAGE 7 OF 10
17. Discrimination Prohibited: Except to the extent permitted by a bona fide occupational
qualification, the Consultant agrees as follows:
A. Consultant, and Consultant’s agents, employees, representatives, and volunteers
with regard to the Work performed or to be performed under this Agreement, shall
not discriminate on the basis of race, color, sex, religion, nationality, creed, marital
status, sexual orientation or preference, age (except minimum age and retirement
provisions), honorably discharged veteran or military status, or the presence of any
sensory, mental or physical handicap, unless based upon a bona fide occupational
qualification in relationship to hiring and employment, in employment or application
for employment, the administration of the delivery of Work or any other benefits
under this Agreement, or procurement of materials or supplies.
B. The Consultant will take affirmative action to insure that applicants are employed and
that employees are treated during employment without regard to their race, creed,
color, national origin, sex, age, sexual orientation, physical, sensory or mental
handicaps, or marital status. Such action shall include, but not be limited to the
following employment, upgrading, demotion or transfer, recruitment or recruitment
advertising, layoff or termination, rates of pay or other forms of compensation and
selection for training.
C. If the Consultant fails to comply with any of this Agreement’s non-discrimination
provisions, the City shall have the right, at its option, to cancel the Agreement in
whole or in part.
D. The Consultant is responsible to be aware of and in compliance with all federal, state
and local laws and regulations that may affect the satisfactory completion of the
project, which includes but is not limited to fair labor laws, worker's compensation,
and Title VI of the Federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, and will comply with City of Renton
Council Resolution Number 4085.
18. Miscellaneous: The parties hereby acknowledge:
A. The City is not responsible to train or provide training for Consultant.
B. Consultant will not be reimbursed for job related expenses except to the extent
specifically agreed within the attached exhibits.
C. Consultant shall furnish all tools and/or materials necessary to perform the Work
except to the extent specifically agreed within the attached exhibits.
D. In the event special training, licensing, or certification is required for Consultant to
provide Work he/she will acquire or maintain such at his/her own expense and, if
PAGE 8 OF 10
Consultant employs, sub-contracts, or otherwise assigns the responsibility to perform
the Work, said employee/sub-contractor/assignee will acquire and or maintain such
training, licensing, or certification.
E. This is a non-exclusive agreement and Consultant is free to provide his/her Work to
other entities, so long as there is no interruption or interference with the provision of
Work called for in this Agreement.
F. Consultant is responsible for his/her own insurance, including, but not limited to
health insurance.
G. Consultant is responsible for his/her own Worker’s Compensation coverage as well as
that for any persons employed by the Consultant.
19. Other Provisions:
A. Approval Authority. Each individual executing this Agreement on behalf of the City
and Consultant represents and warrants that such individuals are duly authorized to
execute and deliver this Agreement on behalf of the City or Consultant.
B.General Administration and Management. The City’s project manager is Amanda
Pierce. In providing Work, Consultant shall coordinate with the City’s contract
manager or his/her designee.
C. Amendment and Modification. This Agreement may be amended only by an
instrument in writing, duly executed by both Parties.
D. Conflicts. In the event of any inconsistencies between Consultant proposals and this
Agreement, the terms of this Agreement shall prevail. Any exhibits/attachments to
this Agreement are incorporated by reference only to the extent of the purpose for
which they are referenced within this Agreement. To the extent a Consultant
prepared exhibit conflicts with the terms in the body of this Agreement or contains
terms that are extraneous to the purpose for which it is referenced, the terms in the
body of this Agreement shall prevail and the extraneous terms shall not be
incorporated herein.
E. Governing Law. This Agreement shall be made in and shall be governed by and
interpreted in accordance with the laws of the State of Washington and the City of
Renton. Consultant and all of the Consultant’s employees shall perform the Work in
accordance with all applicable federal, state, county and city laws, codes and
ordinances.
F. Joint Drafting Effort. This Agreement shall be considered for all purposes as prepared
by the joint efforts of the Parties and shall not be construed against one party or the
PAGE 9 OF 10
other as a result of the preparation, substitution, submission or other event of
negotiation, drafting or execution.
G. Jurisdiction and Venue. Any lawsuit or legal action brought by any party to enforce or
interpret this Agreement or any of its terms or covenants shall be brought in the King
County Superior Court for the State of Washington at the Maleng Regional Justice
Center in Kent, King County, Washington, or its replacement or successor. Consultant
hereby expressly consents to the personal and exclusive jurisdiction and venue of
such court even if Consultant is a foreign corporation not registered with the State of
Washington.
H. Severability. A court of competent jurisdiction’s determination that any provision or
part of this Agreement is illegal or unenforceable shall not cancel or invalidate the
remainder of this Agreement, which shall remain in full force and effect.
I. Sole and Entire Agreement. This Agreement contains the entire agreement of the
Parties and any representations or understandings, whether oral or written, not
incorporated are excluded.
J. Time is of the Essence. Time is of the essence of this Agreement and each and all of
its provisions in which performance is a factor. Adherence to completion dates set
forth in the description of the Work is essential to the Consultant’s performance of
this Agreement.
K. Third-Party Beneficiaries. Nothing in this Agreement is intended to, nor shall be
construed to give any rights or benefits in the Agreement to anyone other than the
Parties, and all duties and responsibilities undertaken pursuant to this Agreement will
be for the sole and exclusive benefit of the Parties and no one else.
L. Binding Effect. The Parties each bind themselves, their partners, successors, assigns,
and legal representatives to the other party to this Agreement, and to the partners,
successors, assigns, and legal representatives of such other party with respect to all
covenants of the Agreement.
M. Waivers. All waivers shall be in writing and signed by the waiving party. Either party’s
failure to enforce any provision of this Agreement shall not be a waiver and shall not
prevent either the City or Consultant from enforcing that provision or any other
provision of this Agreement in the future. Waiver of breach of any provision of this
Agreement shall not be deemed to be a waiver of any prior or subsequent breach
unless it is expressly waived in writing.
PAGE 10 OF 10
N. Counterparts. The Parties may execute this Agreement in any number of
counterparts, each of which shall constitute an original, and all of which will together
constitute this one Agreement.
IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the Parties have voluntarily entered into this Agreement as of the date
last signed by the Parties below.
CITY OF RENTON
By:_____________________________
CONSULTANT
By:____________________________
Armondo Pavone
Mayor
Vaughn Collins
Principal
_____________________________
Date
_____________________________
Date
Attest
_____________________________
Jason A. Seth
City Clerk
Approved as to Legal Form
By: __________________________
Shane Moloney
Renton City Attorney
Contract Template Updated 9/9/2020
5/12/2021
Approved by Cheryl Beyer via 3/18/2021 email
EXHIBIT “A”
(SCOPE OF WORK)
LOWER CEDAR RIVER FLOOD RISK REDUCTION FEASIBILITY STUDY
The City of Renton Surface Water Utility (City) has retained Northwest Hydraulic Consultants (NHC) and
sub-consultant team members Tetra Tech, GeoEngineers, and Moffat & Nichol to provide professional
engineering services to the Public Works Department for the Lower Cedar River Flood Risk Reduction
Feasibility Study (the Project). The Project is funded by a King County Flood Control Zone District grant
and was identified as a priority project for flood risk reduction within the King County Cedar River
Capital Investment Strategy Report. The Project will involve investigation of various short- and long-term
measures that would reduce the risk of flooding from River Mile 2.7 (at the Riviera Apartments) to Lake
Washington and evaluating the engineering feasibility of increasing level of protection beyond the 100-
year return period based on cost-benefit ratio, practicality, total costs, socioeconomic impacts, and site
constraints. Ultimately, the Project is intended to provide a guiding document for the City of Renton
and the King County Flood Control Zone District’s future flood risk mitigation projects within the project
study area.
NHC will serve as Prime consultant for the Project and be responsible for general project management and
communication with the City, as well as lead the hydrologic, hydraulic, and geomorphic technical disciplines.
As sub-consultants, Tetra Tech will be responsible for interior drainage, economic analyses, and civil
engineering; GeoEngineers will be responsible for geotechnical and environmental technical disciplines; and
Moffat & Nichol will assist with dredge related measures.
For each subtask described below, the firm listed in the title will hold primary responsibility for
executing the subtask and producing deliverables.
1 Project Management
1.1 – General Project Management (NHC, Tetra Tech, GeoEngineers, Moffat & Nichol)
Consultant will provide project management and coordination services. This task includes contract
setup, invoicing, progress reporting, subconsultant management and City and team communications
and coordination for the duration services identified in the tasks below.
Assumptions:
Subconsultants will submit monthly invoices to NHC.
The period of performance is 18 months (April 2021 through September 2022)
For budgeting purposes, general project management will require up to 2 hours per month for
NHC over the duration of the project.
Client Responsibilities:
Review and approve invoices and other project management documents
Deliverables:
Monthly Progress Reports and Invoices
Updated and/or Revised Project Schedule (as necessary)
1.2 – Project Coordination and Meetings (NHC)
The City and Consultant team will participate in the meetings and conference calls described below. This
task includes bi-weekly phone calls with the City and Consultant Project Manager. Lead Hydraulics, Lead
Geotech, Lead Civil-Structural and Lead Permit team members and other consultant staff will attend, as
needed.
Kickoff/Goal and Objectives Development Meeting – Two (2) hour meetings between City staff
and Consultant team
Bi-Weekly Progress Meetings – 36 one- hour meetings between City and NHC (subconsultants
will attended as needed)
Project Milestone Meetings – Three (3) two - hour meetings between City staff and Consultant
team at key project milestones.
Stakeholder Outreach Meeting(s) – Three (3) two-hour presentation(s) to outside groups at
City’s discretion.
Assumptions:
x NHC will coordinate and facilitate all meetings and conference calls for the duration of the
project.
x All meetings will be held remotely using web conferencing software until State COVID-19
guidance allows in-person meetings and both City and NHC agree to such.
Client Responsibilities:
Participation in meetings and internal coordination with City Departments
Coordination with other government or tribal agencies
Deliverables:
Meeting presentations, agenda, and notes.
1.3 – Stakeholder Coordination (NHC)
NHC will work with the City to develop a Stakeholder Involvement and Outreach strategy. The strategy
will be documented in a brief memorandum and will list all internal and external stakeholders, desired
level of participation of each, and at what point in the study process they should be involved. As the
study progresses, NHC and the City will coordinate on executing the strategy.
Assumptions:
n/a
Client Responsibilities:
x Guidance and input into strategy development
x Engaging stakeholders at appropriate times in the study
x Coordinating all internal (City) stakeholders for meeting times and collating/resolving internal
comments on draft study deliverables.
Deliverables:
Stakeholder Involvement and Outreach Strategy document
2 Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment
This task will synthesize existing information and where necessary, develop new data, in order to
provide a baseline conditions to compare alternatives against. The without-project condition assumes
continued dredging under the current program, completion of work now under design for levee
certification efforts, and any other major capital projects planned by the City for implementation in the
near term that may impact flood risk.
2.1 – River Hydrology and Hydraulics (NHC)
2.1.1 River Hydrology
NHC will update flood frequency curves for the Cedar River at Renton USGS gage, and conduct a
literature review for estimates of future peak flows on the Cedar River under climate change scenarios,
including potential future changes to operation of SPU’s Masonry Dam. This will be used to generate a
climate change flood frequency curve. Flood hydrographs from the 2- through 1000-year event will be
generated using a balanced hydrograph approach. A flow duration analysis will also be conducted using
USGS gage data to evaluate sediment loading to the lower river (Task 2.2. 2).
2.1.2 River Hydraulic Model
NHC will develop a 1D in-channel/2D overbank HEC-RAS model of approximately the lower 2.1 miles of
the Cedar River. The model will include the channel, the delta in Lake Washington, all existing levees and
floodwalls, and portions of the City at risk of flooding under a large flood with levee breach scenario.
The model will be calibrated using available high-water mark and gage data.
The model will be run for a suite of flood conditions (42 runs) necessary to characterize without project
conditions. Each scenario will consist of a combination of:
One of two channel geometries – a ‘dredge’ case reflecting a fully dredged channel with
maximum flood protection, and an ‘aggraded’ case reflecting a channel filled to the current
allowable limit.
One of a suite of 7 floods from the 2-year through 1,000-year event; this allows us to capture
low-probability high-consequence events, evaluate higher levels of protection than the 100-year
flood, and estimate the effects of projected climate change flows.
One of three geotechnical failure levee breach assumptions – ‘no-breach’, ‘left-bank breach’,
and ‘right-bank breach’. Breach locations, water surface trigger elevations, widths and erosion
rates will be developed utilizing hydraulic model outputs and existing geotechnical data. The
left and right bank breach cases may include from 1 to 3 breaches and may include floodwall
and/or levee failures. In all cases any levee on either bank overtopping by more than one foot
will also have a breach triggered.
The model will be run in steady state with up to three low flow conditions determined to be of
ecological significance. These flows will be run with the ‘dredge’ and ‘aggraded’ channel geometries for
a total of six simulations.
Bridge hydraulic performance will be evaluated in terms of flood capacity and impacts to upstream flood
levels. Structures exhibiting poor performance will be identified and possible replacement will be
considered in Task 3.
Assumptions:
NHC will use primarily existing Cedar River models, survey, and best available LiDAR topography (King
County 2016, Non-vegetated Vertical Accuracy (NVA) is 0.204 feet 1) to develop the new model. New
bathymetric data from the Lake Washington delta area will be incorporated.
Client Responsibilities:
Review of model results
Deliverables:
Preliminary hydraulic model
Preliminary flood mapping for all runs (42 cases) in PDF format and native GIS files
Draft without-project hydrology and hydraulics technical memorandum
2.2 – Dredging, Sediment, and Geomorphology (NHC)
2.2.1 Field Work (NHC)
NHC will conduct a limited field data collection for this project. The two main components consist of:
x A reach assessment of the lower 2.5 miles of river to observe and document bank conditions,
collect up to eight surface bed material samples and up to four subsurface bulk samples of
underlying substrate. Bank stability observations are intended to augment previous
observations and analysis following high flows that occurred in early 2020. Similarly, bed
material samples will augment existing data and provide updated information on current
sediment loading and longitudinal variation useful for sediment budget and transport
calculations.
x Conduct a full bathymetric survey of the Lake Washington delta area. Data will be included in
the refined HEC-RAS hydraulic model to evaluate the effect of delta geometry on upstream
hydraulics and assess possible future dredging measures to reduce flood impacts.
1 Quantum Spatial. 2017. PSLC King County 2016-2017 LiDAR. Final Technical Data Report Prepared from Puget
Sound Regional Council/Puget Sound LiDAR Consortium. June 23.
2.2.2 Geomorphic Synthesis (NHC)
NHC will compile and review existing sediment and geomorphic data, primarily from the annual Cedar
River sediment surveys, 2016 dredge project, and scour monitoring studies. Review of USGS studies and
recent King County projects will also be conducted to assess likely impacts on future sediment load.
Prior sediment rating curves will be reevaluated using updated information. Data gaps will be identified.
NHC will generate probabilistic estimates of future sediment delivery volumes and estimates of changes
to sediment delivery under future climate change peak flow increases. NHC will evaluate channel
adjustment patterns following the 2016 dredge project and compare to observations from the 1998
dredge project to determine how alternative sediment management measures could be implemented.
Findings will be used to develop tools for evaluating sediment management measures. It is anticipated a
quantitative model, HEC-RAS or spreadsheet-based, will be used to evaluate sediment transport and
deposition within the reach.
2.2.3 Dredging Review (Moffat & Nichol)
Review prior dredging action timing and frequency, methods, work window limitations and future
development plans located adjacent to the project area to assess constructability and cost implications
for a longer-term maintenance dredging program under the existing project conditions.
Assumptions:
x The reach assessment will be conducted over a two-day period, likely by raft, and involve a two
NHC staff.
x The bathymetric survey will be conducted over a single day, by boat with two NHC staff, using a
combination of RTK-GPS and sounding equipment.
Client Responsibilities:
x Review of deliverables
x Assistance with river access and notification of adjacent landowners (i.e. Boeing) if required
Deliverables:
x Bathymetric data in CAD and GIS format
x Draft Geomorphic Analysis technical memorandum
2.3 – Levee System (GeoEngineers/Tetra Tech)
Develop stage/probability of failure curves (levee fragility curves) for up to four critical or typical
locations. We anticipate developing curves for one typical floodwall section and three
embankment levee sections that consider geotechnical failure mechanisms such as slope
stability and seepage. Structural failure of floodwalls is not expected to have a significant
contribution to the overall risk of failure. Failure at flood gates will be addressed as a probability
of a mechanical failure or operational failure.
Assumptions:
n/a
Client Responsibilities:
None
Deliverables:
x Levee fragility curves
2.4 – Interior Drainage (Tetra Tech)
The interior drainage analysis (IDA) is necessary to identify flooding sources and the potential for
ponding on the landward side of the levee system. This requirement is codified in CFR 65.10.b.6, which
requires that the IDA be based on the joint probability of interior and exterior flooding. The interior
drainage analysis developed in 2017 to support the pervious levee certification project will be expanded
to include the area upstream of Williams Avenue S bridge. This analysis will then be used to evaluate
the interior drainage system for the 200- and 500-year events.
The Consultant will delineate the areas tributary to storm drain outfalls upstream of Williams Avenue S
using available LiDAR data. The Consultant will also identify the major components of the pipe network
upstream of each new outfall added to the analysis. This will be determined from the City’s GIS
database.
The continuous simulation HSPF model developed for the previous analysis will be updated to include
additional outfall tributary area using the hydrologic parameters and long-term climate data sets used to
estimate the long-term runoff conditions for the 2017 analysis. The long-term runoff time-series from
HSPF will be exported to data files for input to the interior drainage hydraulic model.
An EPA-SWMM model of the drainage system will be developed for the expanded drainage study areas.
Quasi 2-D analysis will be performed with this model to determine representative drainage pathway to
the ponding locations. A long duration, large volume runoff hydrograph will be routed through the
model assuming a high tailwater condition at the outfalls to force an overflow. The results of this
analysis will clearly show the overflow paths between the discrete storm drain systems.
Representative drainage pathways will be input to the conventional EPA-SWMM model as 1-D conduits.
Joint probability of interior and exterior flooding will be computed using the period of record method by
routing the long-term runoff time-series through the EPA-SWMM hydraulic model. Flood inundation will
be evaluated using stage-frequency analysis at discrete ponded areas in the model domain. Flood-
frequency will be extrapolated to include the 200- and 500-year return period.
Assumptions:
x Land cover will be represented using the regional runoff parameters exported from the WWHM
model. No calibration will be performed.
x Model network will include storm drains, catch basins, and outfalls for the primary conduit
network. Lateral connections will be included in the model as needed.
x Minimum diameter pipe analyzed will be 12 inches, however not all 12-inch diameter pipes will
be included in the model.
x The 2-D model will be developed using PCSWMM and LiDAR. The 2-D model will be run for a
single event with the purpose of identifying overflow pathways between storm drain networks
during a flood condition.
x Topography used to develop the stage-storage rating for the storage nodes will be obtained
from Lidar.
Client Responsibilities:
x Missing invert data conduits and nodes in the modeled network will be provided by the City.
Deliverables:
x HSPF model of the interior drainage study areas.
x Long-term hydraulic model.
x 2-D model showing overflow between storm drain networks.
x Ponding elevations mapped at 10 locations.
x Appendices documenting the results of the hydrologic, hydraulic, and coincident flooding
analyses.
2.5 – Environment (GeoEngineers)
Existing environmental baseline conditions will be assessed throughout the project limits to provide a
baseline upon which the impacts of design alternatives will be evaluated. The assessment will be based
on data collected in preparation for, during, and immediately following implementation of the 2016
maintenance dredging action, as well as data collected since that time as part of the Cedar River 205
Levee Improvements project and during on-going post-construction monitoring required by the dredge
permits. We will also complete a site visit to assess environmental baseline conditions within the project
limits but further upstream than the dredge reach and limits of existing levees. This data will be
synthesized and presented in a technical memorandum and associated graphics.
Assumptions:
x One site visit will be completed to verify and/or update baseline conditions documented during
the dredge project, levee improvements project, and/or post-dredge monitoring work, as well
as to gather new data for the portion of the project area upstream of the limits of dredging and
the existing levee system.
Client Responsibilities:
None
Deliverables:
x Baseline Environmental Conditions Assessment Technical Memorandum
2.6 – Economics, Equity, and Social Justice (Tetra Tech)
The purpose of this task is to characterize flood risk by evaluating potential damages and impacts of
flooding to affected properties along the river and surrounding floodplain. The evaluation shall estimate
expected annual damages (EAD) to account for a range of different magnitude flood events, levee
performance and channel bed conditions, and impacts based on depth and extent of inundation. The
estimate of damages for specific flood events shall be based on an inventory of the floodplain structures
at risk. The evaluation will include consideration of the extent to which riverine flooding and interior
drainage flooding (where applicable) contribute to overall flood risk in terms of economic consequences.
This will be accomplished by scenario analysis that considers the likelihood and severity and riverine
flooding versus interior drainage flooding for a given flood magnitude. In addition to EAD, the analysis
shall qualitatively consider other demographic and socio-economic indicators of population vulnerability
in order to describe equity and social justice (ESJ) considerations as they related to modeled flood risk
by overlaying existing ESJ indices with the results of the flood damage modeling in GIS.
The evaluation shall be based on hydraulic model output in geospatially-gridded format. The economic
model will consider levee failure probabilities based on the geotechnical and stability assessment of
levee systems as developed in prior tasks in the SOW. The flood risk analysis shall focus the quantitative
analysis of flood damages on residential and non-residential structures in the floodplain via application
of existing depth-to-percent-damage functions for structural damages and content losses. The potential
magnitude of other impacts categories will be discussed qualitatively based on the information provided
by the quantitative structure damage analysis.
To conduct the economic evaluation of flood risk, the Consultant shall complete the following:
1. Inventory the floodplain for property at risk. Compile demographic information and develop
estimates of population at risk, vulnerable populations, and identification of other ESJ
considerations to supplement the quantitative economic evaluation of flood risk. Collect and
verify damage function data for specified risk categories. Default damage functions and
inventory data obtained from the FEMA Hazus database shall be checked for suitability and used
in the analysis if appropriate. Data sources shall be limited to the existing databases, publicly
available and published industry and agency reports, previous USACE studies, data available
from Renton or King County, and Hazus data. Extent of inventory should allow for maximum
extent of inundation based upon input from geotechnical and hydraulic elements of the project.
2. Conduct economic evaluation of flood risk for property affected by inundation at each flood
stage and levee breach location. Use an economic model such as HEC-FDA or equivalent.
3. Develop a technical memorandum that summarizes the methodology and results of the
economic evaluation of flood risk. The technical memorandum shall summarize the economic
evaluation methodology, results, and presents the total expected annual damage. It will also
summarize consideration of population vulnerability and ESJ in the analysis.
4. Future Conditions economic model using revised peaks flow and distribution of flooding
uncertainty parameters using the University of Washington Climate Impacts Group Variable
Infiltration Capacity modeling outputs for the 2050’s (i.e. years 2040-2069). The analysis will
consider the effects of climate change on economic impacts through modification of the
frequency-damage function developed for the future without project condition in a manner that
reflects the estimated change in annual exceedance probability associated with each of the
hydraulic model depth grid outputs developed in previous tasks. This adjustment will facilitate
estimation of EAD under future climate change scenarios without requiring additional hydraulic
model runs. There will be no inventory modifications or revision of geotechnical fragility curves
or flood hazard mapping for the evaluation of climate change. Post-processing will allow
estimation of a single EAD that includes the effects of climate change.
Assumptions:
x There will be a maximum of four mapped levee breaches
x There will be a maximum of two channel bed elevation scenarios (e.g. dredge condition and
maximum bed profile)
x When primary data to support damage, estimation is unavailable (e.g. no historical flood
fighting costs), existing published information will be referenced and adjusted as necessary
Client Responsibilities:
x Historical data for estimation of labor, equipment, and materials costs and quantities for
floodlighting or other emergency response activities will be provided.
x Existing GIS and Assessor’s database extracts will be provided for the study area.
Deliverables:
1. Inventory Memo: Simple memorandum noting the status of inventory development and
bulleting the major datasets that have been incorporated
2. Draft and Final Technical Memorandum of the flood hazard analysis and economic evaluation of
flood risk
3 Alternatives Formulation and Evaluation
3.1 Project Objectives and Initial Measures2 Development Workshop (NHC)
NHC will facilitate a half-day workshop with internal and select external stakeholders to 1) present initial
without-project findings, 2) determine project objectives, and 3) develop an initial list of project
measures to be evaluated. NHC will develop a list of proposed project objectives and measures to be
evaluated prior to the workshop in concert with the City project manager in order to make the
workshop more efficient. The following initial measures will be included:
x Modify dredging extents, frequency, and volumes
x Raise levees/floodwalls and existing ground in place
x Selective minor levee setbacks or floodwalls
x Bridge modifications/replacements
x Interior drainage improvements
2 This scope follows USACE nomenclature for measures and alternatives: a measure is a defined stand-alone
project element or action that at least partially meets project objectives; an alternative is a combination of
measures that together are anticipated to fully meet project objectives.
Project objectives will be developed using SMART criteria and addressing the full range of technical,
environmental, and social constraints and opportunities. Initial project measures will be solicited from
all stakeholders. Following the workshop, NHC will refine and develop metrics for evaluating each
objective and develop a draft project goals and objectives document. This will be sent out for review to
all workshop attendees. After review, a two-hour follow-up meeting will be required to finalize the
objectives.
Following the half-day workshop, the remainder of the day will be used to host a field trip to key sites in
the project reach for any attendees who wish to do so.
Assumptions:
x Meeting will be hosted remotely
Client Responsibilities:
x Identify and invite selected stakeholders to the workshop
x Participate in development of project objectives and measures
Deliverables:
x Workshop summary document, including list of all initial alternatives.
x Draft and Final Project Goals and Objectives document.
3.2 – Screening Analysis and Alternatives Development (NHC)
NHC, with assistance from the City project manager, will screen the list of initial measures against
project objectives using existing information and qualitative evaluations. The purpose of the screening
is to develop a set of alternatives for detailed evaluation in the next project task. Screening will:
eliminate clearly infeasible measures, combine duplicate or very similar measures, and group the
remaining measures into a set of four alternatives for detailed evaluation. It is anticipated the
alternatives will use thematic or geographic grouping, for example: a dredging alternative, a levee
system raise-in-place alternative, or a left bank levee system alternative.
The screening methodology and results will be documented in a draft memorandum and distributed to
the City and stakeholder group. A 2-hour meeting with stakeholders will be then be held to discuss and
obtain concurrence on the results of the screening and refine the proposed alternatives.
Assumptions:
n/a
Client Responsibilities:
x Assist in initial screening
x Participate in alternatives development meeting
Deliverables:
Draft and Final Measures Screening and Proposed Alternatives Memorandum.
3.3 – Alternatives Technical Analysis
Under this task each of the proposed alternatives will be subjected to a full technical review as
described below. Performance metrics for each project objective will be developed; this will also be
done with the completed Without-Project condition to allow comparison across all alternatives and
against the Without-Project condition.
3.3.1 River Hydraulics (NHC)
The HEC-RAS model, described in Task 2.1.2, will be modified to include hydraulically relevant features
of four alternatives. The same flood flows and lows flows as described in Task 2.1.2 will be used for
simulation. This results in up to 168 flood simulations and 12 low flow simulations.
3.3.2 Dredging, Sediment, and Geomorphology (NHC)
Findings and tools developed as part of Task 2.2.2 will be used to evaluate up to four alternatives in
terms of effects on reach stability, performance relative to flood level reduction, permittability, and
longevity considering existing and future sediment loading. Sediment management measures may
include upstream sediment trapping, alternative dredge design, and/or modifications to the delta;
however, non-sediment management options will also be considered.
3.3.3 Interior Drainage (Tetra Tech)
The interior drainage analysis described in Task 2.4 will be updated to incorporate the features of the
alternatives with the potentially to affect the interior storm drain system. Joint probability of interior
and exterior flooding will be computed for four alternatives.
3.3.4 Civil Design, Constructability and Cost Estimating (Tetra Tech/Moffat & Nichol)
Concepts for four alternatives identified under Task 3.1 will be developed to the level needed to
describe performance in meeting project objectives. Each concept will be documented in a plan view
sketch detailing critical features of the alternative. Planning level cost will be estimated.
Construction methods and constructability aspects for each alternative will be evaluated. The
assessment will focus on methods and equipment for sediment dredging and flood protection structure
installation considering equipment river access points, dredge material beneficial reuse/disposal
options, airport airspace restrictions, preservation of park and public access adjacent to the work area,
traffic considerations, and protection of adjacent commercial work operations (Boeing), residential
housing and private businesses during construction.
3.3.5 Economics, Equity and Social Justice (Tetra Tech)
Up to four action alternatives will be evaluated by modifying one or more of the following: levee/wall
heights, levee fragility, channel aggradation scenarios, or removal of structures from the inventory.
Modeling will result in an estimate of benefits (damages reduced) for each alternative as an expected
annual value. These benefits will be compared to costs for each alternative in order to calculate benefit-
cost ratios for each alternative. Socio-economic impacts will use the HEC-FDA economics analysis and
demographic data to determine disadvantaged populations and the impacts, positive or negative, each
measure may create. For each alternative, maximum feasible protection level will be evaluated based
upon benefits and costs. Optimization of the designs will be accomplished by variation in levee height or
by provision of additional depth grid sets. It is assumed that optimization for levee height may be
iterated to find the height at which benefits equal cost. The Civil Design element of the team will identify
additional cost per increment of protection (per foot of height, per mile of length, etc.) and the point at
which benefits equal costs will be estimated based on the HEC-FDA model.
3.3.6 Environment (GeoEngineers)
The effects of alternative actions and/or design components on environmental resources and the impact
of permit requirements on these alternatives will be evaluated. As part of this process, we will
recommend habitat enhancements and/or mitigation that can be integrated into alternative designs and
note limitations on the feasibility of implementing adequate mitigation for various alternatives. We will
also document permit considerations in a permit matrix that can be used to inform the selection of an
appropriate alternative design.
Assumptions:
x Four alternatives will be developed.
x There will be a maximum of four mapped levees breached
x There will be a maximum of two channel bed elevation scenarios (e.g. dredge condition and
maximum bed profile)
Client Responsibilities:
Review and input as alternatives are analyzed, especially in regard to construction inputs and impacts
Deliverables:
Each technical discipline listed above will produce a technical memorandum describing the alternatives
analysis. Report format will be based on the without-project condition reports, without description of
methods used previously described. Mapping, tables, and other outputs will match those used in the
without project reports.
3.4 Alternatives Comparison (NHC)
Metrics from each technical review will be extracted to allow comparison between alternatives for all
the project alternatives. The economic analysis will allow direct comparison of flood damage reduction
benefits and costs for each alternative. Other anticipated metrics will evaluate ecological impacts
(positive or negative), social justice and equity, and other objectives developed for the project. NHC will
develop an alternatives comparison matrix summarizing the results of the technical analysis. NHC will
facilitate a three-hour Alternatives Review Meeting where the City and stakeholders will be provided
with the results of the analysis and a discussion of the merits of each alternative held.
3.4.1 Final Alternative Development and Comparison
It is anticipated that the analysis may reveal that combining measures from two or more alternatives
into a new alternative may be better than any of the initial alternatives evaluated. The desired outcome
of the Alternatives Review Meeting is consensus on ranking of the alternatives evaluated, and definition
of one additional alternative to be evaluated.
This final alternative will be subject to the same technical evaluations and metrics as the prior
alternatives as described in Task 3.3. NHC will incorporate the final alternative into the previously
developed alternatives comparison matrix and a 2-hour Preferred Alternative Selection meeting will be
held to formally select the alternative to be adopted.
4 Recommended Plan
4.1 Reporting (NHC)
Consultant will develop the preferred alternative into a Capital Improvement Strategy document.
The main body of the document will include summaries of the without project findings from the
technical analysis, including existing and future flood risk and ecological state of the river. The plan
development process will be described, including development of project goals, objectives, measures
and alternatives, and the stakeholder involvement process. The alternatives evaluated will be described
and compared and the reasoning for selection of the preferred alternative given. Additional information
developed for the preferred alternative will include:
x defining project uncertainties and risks,
x project element recommended sequencing and dependencies,
x concept level design drawings and cost estimates.
x Anticipated permitting issues and mitigation requirements
Without-project and alternatives evaluation reports for all technical disciplines will be included as
appendices to the main document.
Assumptions
n/a
Client Responsibilities:
Review of document
Deliverables:
Draft and Final Flood Risk Reduction Feasibility Study
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (3)12 2,578$ 12 2,578$ 0 $ 0 $ 0 $1.3 Stakeholder Coordination 20 4,297$ 20 4,297$
Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment
2.1 River Hydraulics
2.1.1 Hydrology
Update Frequency Analysis 10 1,241$ 10 1,241$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Climate Change Review 18 2,918$ 18 2,918$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Hydrograph Development 30 3,858$ 30 3,858$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Flow Duration Analysis 6 802$ 6 802$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.1.2 Hydrualic Modeling
2D Model Domain Addition and Testing 100 12,376$ 100 12,376$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Dredged Condition Simulations (21)34 4,584$ 34 4,584$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Allowable Bed Condition Simulations (21)42 5,462$ 42 5,462$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Low Flow Hydraulics (1D)7 1,050$ 7 1,050$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Coordination with Tetra Tech (FDA)54 7,871$ 54 7,871$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
H&H Technical Memo (Appendix)66 9,531$ 66 9,531$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
2.2.1 Fieldwork
Reach Assessment (2 days)36 5,243$ 36 5,243$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Delta Survey (1 day + processing)24 2,635$ 24 2,635$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.2.2 Geomorphic Synthesis
Data Collection and Review 72 11,257$ 72 11,257$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Sediment Rating Curve 60 9,228$ 60 9,228$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.2.3 Dredging Review 12 3,156$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 12 $
2.3 Levee System 88 16,112$ 0 -$ 16 3,352$ 72 12,760$ 0 $
2.4 Interior Drainage
2.4.1 Update Hydrology Model 45 6,027$ 0 -$ 45 6,027$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.4.2 Update Hydraulic Model 95 12,105$ 0 -$ 95 12,105$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.4.3 Perform joint-probability analysis 46 6,258$ 0 -$ 46 6,258$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.4.4 Prepare summary technical memorandum 72 10,752$ 0 -$ 72 10,752$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.5 Environment 44 7,456$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 44 7,456$ 0 $
2.6 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
2.6.1 Request, review, existing information 20 2,908$ 0 -$ 20 2,908$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.2 Meetings and Coordination 8 1,832$ 0 -$ 8 1,832$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.3 Identify damage categories, build spatial inventory 8 1,272$ 0 -$ 8 1,272$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.4 Incorporate Assessor's data, other valuation data, fill data gaps 16 2,544$ 0 -$ 16 2,544$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.5 Estimate structure, content, inventory base values 12 1,908$ 0 -$ 12 1,908$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.6 Assign SOTs (Dmg Fns)8 1,272$ 0 -$ 8 1,272$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.7 Link records to H&H grids 20 2,636$ 0 -$ 20 2,636$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.8 Populate FDA model suite (incl. H&H/uncert params)30 4,994$ 0 -$ 30 4,994$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.9 Run FDA model, catalog outputs 24 3,816$ 0 -$ 24 3,816$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.10 FDA post-processing for system-wide risk tabulation 30 5,610$ 0 -$ 30 5,610$ 0 -$ 0 $
2.6.11 Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)30 4,890$ 0 -$ 30 4,890$ 0 -$ 0 $
Alternatives Evaluation
3.1 Workshop 52 11,669$ 16 3,437$ 20 4,476$ 12 2,628$ 4 $
3.2 Screening Analysis 54 11,835$ 16 3,437$ 18 4,126$ 20 4,272$ 0 $
3.3 Alternatives Technical Analysis 2 564$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 2 $
3.3.1 River Hydraulics 224 30,124$ 224 30,124$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
3.3.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology 180 27,270$ 172 25,242$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 8 $
3.3.3 Interior Drainage 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Technical Analysis 22 3,018$ 0 -$ 22 3,018$ 0 -$ 0 $
Documentation 35 4,437$ 0 -$ 35 4,437$ 0 -$ 0 $
3.3.4 Civil Design and Cost Estimating 283 49,098$ 0 -$ 244 40,644$ 9 1,722$ 30 $
3.3.5 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
A) Meetings and Coordination 14 3,066$ 0 -$ 14 3,066$ 0 -$ 0 $
B) Alternatives Modeling 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
i. Model update: Incorporate updated grids, levee heights, h&28 3,804$ 0 -$ 28 3,804$ 0 -$ 0 $
ii. Model runs, final alternatives 16 2,544$ 0 -$ 16 2,544$ 0 -$ 0 $
ii. Model runs, iteration for optimization 16 2,544$ 0 -$ 16 2,544$ 0 -$ 0 $
iv. Post-processing final results and BCA presentation 14 2,506$ 0 -$ 14 2,506$ 0 -$ 0 $
C) Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)20 3,740$ 0 -$ 20 3,740$ 0 -$ 0 $
3.3.6 Environment 52 9,444$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 52 9,444$ 0 $
3.4 Alternatives Comparison 116 20,404$ 78 13,038$ 30 5,518$ 8 1,848$ 0 $
Recommended Plan
4.1 Reporting 188 32,548$ 144 22,604$ 0 -$ 32 7,016$ 12 $
0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 -$ 0 $
Total Hours/Total Labor Fee 2780 $458,116 1366 210,016$ 1029 167,779$ 303 60,185$ 82 $
Total Labor Fee
Direct Charges
Mileage 145$ 28$ 117$
Survey Equipment, Boats, GPS, Ipad 500$ 500$
Total Direct Charges (incl by firm)
645$ 528$117$-$$
Project Milestone Meetings (3, 2hr ea) 6 6
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (3) 6 6
1.3 Stakeholder Coordination 10 10
Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment
2.1 River Hydraulics
2.1.1 Hydrology
Update Frequency Analysis 2 8
Climate Change Review 1 1 16
Hydrograph Development 2 4 24
Flow Duration Analysis 2 4
2.1.2 Hydrualic Modeling
2D Model Domain Addition and Testing 4 12 80 4
Dredged Condition Simulations (21) 2 8 24
Allowable Bed Condition Simulations (21) 2 8 32
Low Flow Hydraulics (1D) 1 2 4
Coordination with Tetra Tech (FDA) 6 16 24 8
H&H Technical Memo (Appendix) 8 16 32 8 2
2.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
2.2.1 Fieldwork
Reach Assessment (2 days) 18 18
Delta Survey (1 day + processing)24
2.2.2 Geomorphic Synthesis
Data Collection and Review 8 16 24 24
Sediment Rating Curve 4 24 8 24
2.2.3 Dredging Review
2.3 Levee System
2.4 Interior Drainage
2.4.1 Update Hydrology Model
2.4.2 Update Hydraulic Model
2.4.3 Perform joint-probability analysis
2.4.4 Prepare summary technical memorandum
2.5 Environment
2.6 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
2.6.1 Request, review, existing information
2.6.2 Meetings and Coordination
2.6.3 Identify damage categories, build spatial inventory
2.6.4 Incorporate Assessor's data, other valuation data, fill data gaps
2.6.5 Estimate structure, content, inventory base values
2.6.6 Assign SOTs (Dmg Fns)
2.6.7 Link records to H&H grids
2.6.8 Populate FDA model suite (incl. H&H/uncert params)
2.6.9 Run FDA model, catalog outputs
2.6.10 FDA post-processing for system-wide risk tabulation
2.6.11 Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
Alternatives Evaluation
3.1 Workshop 8 8
3.2 Screening Analysis 8 8
3.3 Alternatives Technical Analysis
3.3.1 River Hydraulics 20 40 140 24
3.3.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology 12 40 40 80
3.3.3 Interior Drainage
Technical Analysis
Documentation
3.3.4 Civil Design and Cost Estimating
3.3.5 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
A) Meetings and Coordination
B) Alternatives Modeling
i. Model update: Incorporate updated grids, levee heights, h&h params
ii. Model runs, final alternatives
ii. Model runs, iteration for optimization
iv. Post-processing final results and BCA presentation
C) Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
3.3.6 Environment
3.4 Alternatives Comparison 18 20 12 28
Recommended Plan
4.1 Reporting 20 40 24 40 16 4
Total Hours/Total Labor Fee 208 357 124 610 60 6 1
Total Labor Fee $51,624 $64,792 $19,282 $66,978 $6,321 $857 $163
Project Management
1.1 General Project Management 24
1.2 Project Coordination and Meetings
Kickoff Meeting (2hr)22
Bi-Weekly ProgressMeetings (1hr) 16
Project Milestone Meetings (3, 2hr ea) 2 2
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (3)
1.3 Stakeholder Coordination
Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment
2.1 River Hydraulics
2.1.1 Hydrology
Update Frequency Analysis
Climate Change Review
Hydrograph Development
Flow Duration Analysis
2.1.2 Hydrualic Modeling
2D Model Domain Addition and Testing
Dredged Condition Simulations (21)
Allowable Bed Condition Simulations (21)
Low Flow Hydraulics (1D)
Coordination with Tetra Tech (FDA)
H&H Technical Memo (Appendix)
2.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
2.2.1 Fieldwork
Reach Assessment (2 days)
Delta Survey (1 day + processing)
2.2.2 Geomorphic Synthesis
Data Collection and Review
Sediment Rating Curve
2.2.3 Dredging Review
2.3 Levee System 88
2.4 Interior Drainage
2.4.1 Update Hydrology Model 5 4
2.4.2 Update Hydraulic Model 5 10
2.4.3 Perform joint-probability analysis 2 12
2.4.4 Prepare summary technical memorandum 8 24
2.5 Environment
2.6 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
2.6.1 Request, review, existing information
2.6.2 Meetings and Coordination
2.6.3 Identify damage categories, build spatial inventory
2.6.4 Incorporate Assessor's data, other valuation data, fill data gaps
2.6.5 Estimate structure, content, inventory base values
2.6.6 Assign SOTs (Dmg Fns)
2.6.7 Link records to H&H grids
2.6.8 Populate FDA model suite (incl. H&H/uncert params)
2.6.9 Run FDA model, catalog outputs
2.6.10 FDA post-processing for system-wide risk tabulation
2.6.11 Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
Alternatives Evaluation
3.1 Workshop 4 4 8
3.2 Screening Analysis 4 4 4
3.3 Alternatives Technical Analysis
3.3.1 River Hydraulics
3.3.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
3.3.3 Interior Drainage
Technical Analysis 24
Documentation 23
3.3.4 Civil Design and Cost Estimating 22 28 40 12
3.3.5 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
A) Meetings and Coordination
B) Alternatives Modeling
i. Model update: Incorporate updated grids, levee heights, h&h params
ii. Model runs, final alternatives
ii. Model runs, iteration for optimization
iv. Post-processing final results and BCA presentation
C) Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
3.3.6 Environment
3 4 Alternatives Comparison 4 4 4
Project Management
1.1 General Project Management
1.2 Project Coordination and Meetings
Kickoff Meeting (2hr)
Bi-Weekly ProgressMeetings (1hr)
Project Milestone Meetings (3, 2hr ea)
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (3)
1.3 Stakeholder Coordination
Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment
2.1 River Hydraulics
2.1.1 Hydrology
Update Frequency Analysis
Climate Change Review
Hydrograph Development
Flow Duration Analysis
2.1.2 Hydrualic Modeling
2D Model Domain Addition and Testing
Dredged Condition Simulations (21)
Allowable Bed Condition Simulations (21)
Low Flow Hydraulics (1D)
Coordination with Tetra Tech (FDA)
H&H Technical Memo (Appendix)
2.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
2.2.1 Fieldwork
Reach Assessment (2 days)
Delta Survey (1 day + processing)
2.2.2 Geomorphic Synthesis
Data Collection and Review
Sediment Rating Curve
2.2.3 Dredging Review
2.3 Levee System
2.4 Interior Drainage
2.4.1 Update Hydrology Model
2.4.2 Update Hydraulic Model
2.4.3 Perform joint-probability analysis
2.4.4 Prepare summary technical memorandum
2.5 Environment
2.6 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
2.6.1 Request, review, existing information
2.6.2 Meetings and Coordination
2.6.3 Identify damage categories, build spatial inventory
2.6.4 Incorporate Assessor's data, other valuation data, fill data gaps
2.6.5 Estimate structure, content, inventory base values
2.6.6 Assign SOTs (Dmg Fns)
2.6.7 Link records to H&H grids
2.6.8 Populate FDA model suite (incl. H&H/uncert params)
2.6.9 Run FDA model, catalog outputs
2.6.10 FDA post-processing for system-wide risk tabulation
2.6.11 Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
Alternatives Evaluation
3.1 Workshop
3.2 Screening Analysis
3.3 Alternatives Technical Analysis
3.3.1 River Hydraulics
3.3.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
3.3.3 Interior Drainage
Technical Analysis
Documentation
3.3.4 Civil Design and Cost Estimating
3.3.5 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
A) Meetings and Coordination
B) Alternatives Modeling
i. Model update: Incorporate updated grids, levee heights, h&
ii. Model runs, final alternatives
ii. Model runs, iteration for optimization
iv. Post-processing final results and BCA presentation
C) Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
3.3.6 Environment
3 4 Alternatives Comparison
12
2
26
2
36
80
32
40
4412
44
08
016
12
08
884
4224
24
624
224
4
42
16
30
20 90
68
12 16
16
16
212
416
10
Project Management
1.1 General Project Management 2
1.2 Project Coordination and Meetings
Kickoff Meeting (2hr) 2 2
Bi-Weekly ProgressMeetings (1hr) 9
Project Milestone Meetings (3, 2hr ea) 6 6
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (3)
1.3 Stakeholder Coordination
Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment
2.1 River Hydraulics
2.1.1 Hydrology
Update Frequency Analysis
Climate Change Review
Hydrograph Development
Flow Duration Analysis
2.1.2 Hydrualic Modeling
2D Model Domain Addition and Testing
Dredged Condition Simulations (21)
Allowable Bed Condition Simulations (21)
Low Flow Hydraulics (1D)
Coordination with Tetra Tech (FDA)
H&H Technical Memo (Appendix)
2.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
2.2.1 Fieldwork
Reach Assessment (2 days)
Delta Survey (1 day + processing)
2.2.2 Geomorphic Synthesis
Data Collection and Review
Sediment Rating Curve
2.2.3 Dredging Review
2.3 Levee System 16 48 4 4
2.4 Interior Drainage
2.4.1 Update Hydrology Model
2.4.2 Update Hydraulic Model
2.4.3 Perform joint-probability analysis
2.4.4 Prepare summary technical memorandum
2.5 Environment 6
2.6 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
2.6.1 Request, review, existing information
2.6.2 Meetings and Coordination
2.6.3 Identify damage categories, build spatial inventory
2.6.4 Incorporate Assessor's data, other valuation data, fill data gaps
2.6.5 Estimate structure, content, inventory base values
2.6.6 Assign SOTs (Dmg Fns)
2.6.7 Link records to H&H grids
2.6.8 Populate FDA model suite (incl. H&H/uncert params)
2.6.9 Run FDA model, catalog outputs
2.6.10 FDA post-processing for system-wide risk tabulation
2.6.11 Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
Alternatives Evaluation
3.1 Workshop 44 4
3.2 Screening Analysis 4 8 8
3.3 Alternatives Technical Analysis
3.3.1 River Hydraulics
3.3.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
3.3.3 Interior Drainage
Technical Analysis
Documentation
3.3.4 Civil Design and Cost Estimating 3 6
3.3.5 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
A) Meetings and Coordination
B) Alternatives Modeling
i. Model update: Incorporate updated grids, levee heights, h&h params
ii. Model runs, final alternatives
ii. Model runs, iteration for optimization
iv. Post-processing final results and BCA presentation
C) Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
3.3.6 Environment 10
3 4 Alternatives Comparison
Project Management
1.1 General Project Management
1.2 Project Coordination and Meetings
Kickoff Meeting (2hr)
Bi-Weekly ProgressMeetings (1hr)
Project Milestone Meetings (3, 2hr ea)
Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (3)
1.3 Stakeholder Coordination
Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment
2.1 River Hydraulics
2.1.1 Hydrology
Update Frequency Analysis
Climate Change Review
Hydrograph Development
Flow Duration Analysis
2.1.2 Hydrualic Modeling
2D Model Domain Addition and Testing
Dredged Condition Simulations (21)
Allowable Bed Condition Simulations (21)
Low Flow Hydraulics (1D)
Coordination with Tetra Tech (FDA)
H&H Technical Memo (Appendix)
2.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
2.2.1 Fieldwork
Reach Assessment (2 days)
Delta Survey (1 day + processing)
2.2.2 Geomorphic Synthesis
Data Collection and Review
Sediment Rating Curve
2.2.3 Dredging Review
2.3 Levee System
2.4 Interior Drainage
2.4.1 Update Hydrology Model
2.4.2 Update Hydraulic Model
2.4.3 Perform joint-probability analysis
2.4.4 Prepare summary technical memorandum
2.5 Environment
2.6 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
2.6.1 Request, review, existing information
2.6.2 Meetings and Coordination
2.6.3 Identify damage categories, build spatial inventory
2.6.4 Incorporate Assessor's data, other valuation data, fill data gaps
2.6.5 Estimate structure, content, inventory base values
2.6.6 Assign SOTs (Dmg Fns)
2.6.7 Link records to H&H grids
2.6.8 Populate FDA model suite (incl. H&H/uncert params)
2.6.9 Run FDA model, catalog outputs
2.6.10 FDA post-processing for system-wide risk tabulation
2.6.11 Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
Alternatives Evaluation
3.1 Workshop
3.2 Screening Analysis
3.3 Alternatives Technical Analysis
3.3.1 River Hydraulics
3.3.2 Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology
3.3.3 Interior Drainage
Technical Analysis
Documentation
3.3.4 Civil Design and Cost Estimating
3.3.5 Economics, Equity, and Social Justice
A) Meetings and Coordination
B) Alternatives Modeling
i. Model update: Incorporate updated grids, levee heights, h&
ii. Model runs, final alternatives
ii. Model runs, iteration for optimization
iv. Post-processing final results and BCA presentation
C) Technical Documentation (draft, review, final)
3.3.6 Environment
3 4 Alternatives Comparison
4
2
4
4
84
24 2
4
2
44
61212
24 2
Lower Cedar River Flood Risk Reduction Feasibility StudyTaskTask1Task2 1 Project Management1.1 General Project Management1.2 Project Coordination and MeetingsKickoff Meeting (2hr)¼Bi-Weekly ProgressMeetings (1hr)Project Milestone Meetings (3, 2hr ea)¼¼¼Stakeholder Outreach Meetings (3)¼¼¼1.3Stakeholder Coordination2 Existing & Future Without-Project Assessment2.1River Hydraulics2.2Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology2.3Levee System2.4Interior Drainage2.5Environment2.6Economics, Equity, and Social Justice3 Alternatives Evaluation3.1Workshop3.2Screening Analysis3.3Alternatives Technical Analysis3.3.1River Hydraulics3.3.2Dredging, Sediment, & Geomorphology3.3.3Interior Drainage3.3.4Civil Design and Cost Estimating3.3.5Economics, Equity, and Social Justice3.3.6Environment3.4Alternatives Comparison4 Recommended Plan4.1ReportingJuly August September20212022November December January February March AprilApril May June July August September OctoberMay JuneEXHIBIT "C"(Project Schedule)