Thursday, August 10, 2017, 9:30 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Mercer Island Community Center 8236 SE 24th St, Mercer Island, WA 98040

Transcription

1 MEETING TIME AND LOCATION Thursday, August 10, 2017, 9:30 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Mercer Island Community Center 8236 SE 24th St, Mercer Island, WA PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Discuss 2018 Draft Operating Budget & Identify Issues for Recommendations Discuss Capital Budget & Identify Issues for Recommendations Discuss and reach agreement on letter to Board of Supervisors on 2018 Budget MEETING PACKET CONTENTS Agenda pages 1-2 Meeting Summary July 26, 2017 pages 3-7 Draft Operating Budget page 8-9 Prioritization Criteria page Draft Capital Budget Updated pages Tolt Capital Investment Strategies, list, map, schedule pages South Fork Snoqualmie Capital Investment Strategies, list, map, schedule pages LINKS TO INFORMATION REQUESTED BY ADVISORY COMMITTEE MEMBERS Home Elevation Report 02CAE4EBAE6D Flood risk reduction strategies for each of the County s major river systems, and Appendix C is a risk assessment that includes more detail about repetitive loss information. Presentations and strategy summaries used to support the flood plan update: The District s annual and semi-annual reports are available here, most recent one is thru 2016 and 1Q 2017: Snoqualmie Hydrology Study

2 King County Flood Control District Advisory Committee Meeting Agenda The King County Flood Control District Advisory Committee is created to provide expert policy advice to the Board of Supervisors of the King County Flood Control Zone District on regional flood protection issues. The committee shall review and recommend an annual work program and budget for the district, including capital improvement program projects and funding levels, subject to approval or approval and modification by the Board of Supervisors. Ordinance 15728, April 16, 2007 MEETING TIME AND LOCATION Thursday, August 10, 2017, 9:30 a.m. 12:00 p.m. Mercer Island Community Center 8236 SE 24th St, Mercer Island, WA PURPOSE OF THE MEETING Follow-up on Advisory Committee member questions on Operating Budget Review preliminary draft letter to Board of Supervisors on budget topics identified at July 26, 2017 Advisory Committee meeting and reach consensus on revisions to draft Identify additional points to be included in letter to Board and next steps Time Topic Objective Lead Materials 9:30 Call to Order & Introductions Ken Hearing, Advisory Committee Chair 9:35 Public Comment Provide opportunity for public comment Ken Hearing 9:40 Approval of Meeting Summary 9:45 Follow-up Information Provide Advisory Committee members with background information requested at July 26 meeting Ken Hearing Meeting Summary, July 26, 2017 Kjristine Lund, Facilitator 9:55 Budget Themes Present overview of major themes in 2018 Budget Michelle Clark, Executive Director 10:10 Operating Budget Present updated operating budget information Brian Murray, Rivers Section, Water and Land Resources (WLR) 10:45 Flood District Present corrected capital budget and Brian Murray Capital Budget prioritization criteria 11:15 Draft Letter to Review preliminary draft letter, Kjristine Lund, Board of revise, discuss, and reach consensus Facilitator Supervisors on Budget 11:45 Next Steps Reach agreement on next steps to Kjristine Lund finalize letter Ken Hearing Noon Adjourn Ken Hearing Home Elevation Report Flood vulnerability reports Capital investment strategies Opportunity Fund totals by jurisdiction Jurisdiction contribution to Flood District levy revenue Overhead calculation FTE count Draft 2018 Operating Budget showing comparison and category cost detail Draft Capital Budget Preliminary Draft Letter

3 COMMITTEE MEMBERS Seats Jurisdiction Name Title Permanent Seat, Advisory Committee, City of North Bend Kenneth Hearing Mayor Chair Rotating Seat Sound Cities Association City of Pacific Leanne Guier Mayor (SCA), Advisory Committee, Vice-Chair Permanent Seat City of Auburn Nancy Backus Mayor Permanent Seat City of Bellevue John Stokes Mayor Permanent Seat City of Carnation Jim Berger Mayor Permanent Seat City of Kent Suzette Cooke Mayor Permanent Seat King County Dow Constantine Executive Permanent Seat City of Renton Denis Law Mayor Permanent Seat City of Seattle Ed Murray Mayor Permanent Seat City of Snoqualmie Matt Larson Mayor Permanent Seat City of Tukwila Allan Ekberg Mayor Rotating Seat for unincorporated area Rural Area Angela Donaldson (appointment in process) Rotating Seat nominated by SCA City of Redmond Byron Shutz Councilmember Rotating Seat nominated by SCA Town of Skykomish Henry Sladek Councilmember Rotating Seat nominated by SCA Black Diamond Erika Morgan Councilmember Alternate SCA Bothell James McNeal Councilmember Alternate SCA Sammamish Tom Odell Councilmember Alternate SCA Covington Marlla Mhoon Councilmember Alternate SCA SeaTac Kathryn Campbell Councilmember Alternate City of Auburn Bill Peloza Councilmember Alternate Alternate City of Bellevue City of Carnation Alternate City of Kent Dana Ralph Councilmember Alternate King County Fred Jarrett Deputy Executive Alternate Alternate City of North Bend City of Renton Alternate City of Seattle Lisa Herbold Councilmember Alternate City of Snoqualmie Alternate City of Tukwila Dennis Robertson Councilmember COMMITTEE GROUND RULES Come to committee meetings prepared and honor timeframes Respect each other s perspectives Listen and participate actively Silence electronic devices during meetings 2017 MEETING SCHEDULE June 8 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. - Orientation July 13 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. July 26 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. August 10 9:30 a.m. - 12:00 p.m. August 22 1:00 p.m. - 3:30 p.m. (if needed) i

4 DRAFT King County Flood Control District Advisory Committee meeting summary July 26, 2017 Call to order: The meeting was called to order at 9:36 am. Present: Mayor Ken Hearing, North Bend, chair; Mayor Jim Berger, Carnation; Councilmember Kathryn Campbell, SeaTac; Mayor Suzette Cooke, Kent; Angela Donaldson, Rural Area; Mayor Allan Eckberg, Tukwila; Mayor Leanne Guier, Pacific; Councilmember Lisa Herbold, Seattle; Deputy Executive Fred Jarrett, King County; Mayor Denis Law, Renton; Councilmember James McNeal, Bothell; Councilmember Marlla Mhoon, Covington; Councilmember Erika Morgan, Black Diamond; Councilmember Tom Odell, Sammamish; Councilmember Bill Peloza, Auburn; Councilmember Byron Shutz, Redmond; Mayor John Stokes, Bellevue. Staff: Michelle Clark, Executive Director; Brian Murray, Supervisor, Countywide Policy and Planning Unit, River and Floodplain Management Section; Loren Reinelt, Managing Engineer, River and Floodplain Management Section; Kjristine Lund, Facilitator, and Anne Noris, Clerk Public Comment. There was no public comment given. Approval of meeting summary: The chair indicated the following changes to the July 17 summary: Councilmember Sladek is from Skykomish; South Fork should reference South Fork Snoqualmie Councilmember Stokes moved approval of the minutes as corrected. The motion passed unanimously. Update on Flood Control District Executive Committee: Ms. Clark reported on the two Executive Committee meetings that happened since the last meeting of the Advisory Committee. At the first, the Committee recommended the changes as proposed:76$m capital carryover; $150,000 for a dam evacuation route study and $97,000 for annual maintenance, as outlined at the last meeting. At the second, the Committee recommended to the Board the WRIA grants and the Flood Risk reduction grants and recommended extension of the lobbying contract for W2Advocates, who worked on suppression of the property tax and worked in D.C. on behalf of the District. There will be a full Board meeting on August 21. Follow-up on corrections and updates: Ms. Clark reported that there have been changes to the financial plan to highlight the budgetary fund balance. She also reported that she investigated the Advisory Committee s request to show projected expenditures beyond the 6-year CIP and found that the County s project reporting system does not currently provide an option to report that information. She said she will continue to explore ways to address the Committee s concern about the need for projects outside of the 6-year CIP window. There is an update to the capital plan for the South Fork Snoqualmie based on the Executive Committee s review of capital investment strategies. In the Cedar River plan, the Executive Committee has prioritized flood reduction projects over stand-alone habitat restoration projects. Habitat restoration may be and often is part of a flood risk reduction project. Councilmember Peloza asked about projects are prioritized; Ms. Clark indicated that they are prioritized to protect people and property. Councilmember Stokes asked whether there are any habitat restoration projects that are prioritized. Ms. Clark indicated that there are no Flood District projects that are only habitat restoration projects in the list, although many flood reduction projects that have a habitat portion.

5 Mr. Murray pointed the Committee to the operating budget detail on page 10 of the packet and highlighted changes in the 2018 proposed budget, some of which were discussed at the last meeting. The maintenance program maintains infrastructure, including the Green River Pump Station and property acquired in the last few years. There is a one-year schedule for maintenance. Mayor Cooke asked about mowing as maintenance and whether there is any discussion of a level of service agreement. Mr. Murray indicated that he will talk with WLRD's maintenance staff and get back to the Committee. The chair asked whether the KC Sheriff does full-cost recovery for its efforts. Mr. Murray indicated that the Sheriff s Office charges for time spent on Flood District support such as evaluating river hazards, assisting with levee inspections, and enforcing river closures for safety related to large wood hazards. Councilmember Campbell asked about large wood and whether there is any large wood that could be moved to places that need it for mitigation. Mr. Murray indicated that the wood that is removed is not able to be moved. Ms. Clark indicated that the District is focused on flood reduction and it is not always possible to reuse the wood. Mr. Reinelt indicated that sometimes the wood that is falling in the Cedar is not ideal for replacement, as it is more prone to decay. Councilmember Odell asked whether the $3.68M is up or down from prior budgets. Mr. Murray indicated that it is up somewhat for gas at the Black River Pump Station. Ms. Lund provided the amount of the difference by directing the Advisory Committee to their notebooks and the 2017 budget information provided at the June 8, 2017 Advisory Committee meeting. Councilmember Peloza asked about a logjam on the Green River and whether there has been any discussion of removing it. Mr. Reinelt responded that the logjam near Auburn has been there for a long time and because it is fairly stable, there has been no discussion about removing it. Councilmember Shutz asked about previous iterations of the operating budget that were helpful in providing context and asked that it be provided again in that format. Mr. Murray pointed to the moneys for flood hazard mapping, including the Snoqualmie hydraulic studies and White River sedimentation study. There are also moneys relating to a proviso response relating to the cost share program for home elevations as there is a possible financial burden. Ms. Donaldson and Mr. Shutz requested a copy of the Home Elevation study. The operating budget also includes funding for the 2018 Flood Hazard Plan Update. Mr. Murray reported on updates and corrections to the 6-year CIP project reallocations, which includes more description on various projects. Councilmember Mhoon asked whether the descriptions are for new projects. Mr. Murray indicated that these are new descriptions, not new projects. Mr. Murray and Ms. Clark indicated that South Fork Snoqualmie projects can be found on lines (including the I-90 project). Lines and that lines 99 (Horseshoe Bend), 100 (McCoy realignment) and 101 (Nursing Home setback), relating to the Green River interim SWIF project, have changed. Ms. Clark indicated that a new version will be distributed to the members of the Committee. Mr. Reinelt indicated lines 116 and 117 relate to the Tukwila 205 levee. Mayor Cooke asked about the PSE substation and whether the capital budget project on Horseshoe Bend is adequately protecting the substation. Ms. Clark and Mr. Renelt noted the evaluation of the project design is on-going. 2 of 5

6 Mr. Murray indicated that the last line of the financial plan has been reformatted to indicate ending fund balance, which will indicate that the District's CIP is over-allocated. The Chair asked about maintenance of acquired property. Mr. Murray indicated it is in the maintenance budget. Ms. Donaldson asked about whether there is any advance planning with community groups on the ongoing maintenance costs of acquired properties. Those efforts have occurred, Ms. Lund citing efforts with Snoqualmie and Kent. Ms. Clark suggested that there could be a recommendation on community partnerships to the District in the Committee's report. Mayor Cooke suggested that as the projects are completed, District responsibility for maintenance of the projects will become an increasing percentage of the budget. Mr. Murray reported that the Flood Warning section of the operating budget includes moneys for increased flood warning for South Fork Skykomish and the Snoqualmie. Mr. Murray reported on the Overhead calculation section, is determined by the ILA between the District and King County. Basin staff and strike team are in this category, although staff is then loaned to capital projects, which reimburses the operating budget for the time. Councilmember Peloza asked for the percentage that is King County overhead. Ms. Clark responded that that amount will not be determined until September. Mr. Murray reported on the Program Management section, which includes financial staff for the operating budget, the capital budget, grant programs and contracts. Councilmember Stokes asked about the $5.5M for administrative costs. He commented that it is difficult to give advice on these amounts. Councilmember Herbold asked for additional information on costs and FTEs in order to have better context for evaluating the proposed operating budget. Councilmember Morgan indicated that completing projects will not completely reduce flooding. Ms. Clark indicated that ongoing maintenance will continue after the projects are completed. Ms. Donaldson also commented on the responsibility of the District to properties that have been elevated or otherwise mitigated. Ms. Donaldson asked about the basis for deciding which homes should be elevated and on what data those decisions are made with respect to FEMA flood maps. She asked for copies of vulnerability studies conducted by the County. Councilmember Shutz asked whether the Committee and District are focusing on the right questions for achieving flood risk reduction. Ms. Lund reminded the Committee that the operating budget contains moneys for studies and the County uses technical studies to develop their recommendations for investments. Ms. Lund summarized the list of information requests and preliminary issues identified by Advisory Committee members: maintenance level of service; responsibility for ongoing maintenance after-project completion; FTE chart; home elevation report; additional information about home elevation program including vulnerability study, prior elevations, cost of elevations, eligibility criteria, nexus with federal funding or approvals, geographic area where home elevations are being funded (Mayor Stokes suggests that this issue deserves more study and report); future briefing about FEMA flood maps; the speed of implementing capital projects, and information about technical studies such as hydrology. 3 of 5

7 Mr. Murray noted that the Climate Change study funding recommended by the Advisory Committee in 2017 was reduced by the District in their approved 2017 Budget. Ms. Clark noted that money for the study of climate change was cut from budget because there is money for that study in another part of the King County budget. Mr. Murray said the cut was absorbed by not studying the effects of climate change on the Cedar and White Rivers. Flood Control District capital budget: Ms. Lund asked the Advisory Committee if the following characterization of their discussion to date is accurate related to the capital budget: Need to make adjustments to the Green River capital project list Need to provide more information on out-year projects not within the 6-year CIP Need to assess if flood emergency repairs are displacing other capital projects from the CIP Need to provide a context and themes for the 2018Budget Mr. Murray suggested that the themes of the capital budget are to review the capital investment strategies for the Tolt, Cedar and South Fork Snoqualmie, to respond to 2015 and 2016 flood damage; Ms. Clark indicated that the Board's response to the capital investment strategies is to repair the worst first and prioritize projects that provide the biggest bang for the buck. The chair asked about whether the District is concerned about road maintenance and evacuation routes. Ms. Clark responded that the District is concerned about these issues, including roads that are closed due to flooding and that evacuation routes for large dams in the county are being studied in the dam report. She indicated that the dam report will focus on evacuation routes and shelter in place plans, not the efficacy of the dams themselves. Opportunity Fund: Ms. Lund reported on the spreadsheet on the uses of the opportunity fund by cities and asked if the District can assist the cities in spending those moneys. Mr. Murray explained the spreadsheet does not include pending payments for example, Seattle's pending payment. Expenditures are reported on accrual based accounting to show expenditures as they occur. Ms. Clark explained that the opportunity fund is approximately 10% of the revenue collected in the city, with a $10,000 floor. Ms. Herbold asked that the spreadsheet contain the amounts of each city s contribution, as a number and a percentage. Mayor Cooke suggested that there could be a memorandum of understanding to encourage joint projects between jurisdictions. Councilmember Odell suggested there could be a public works trust fund-type way to provide funding to jurisdictions. The new local head of the Army Corp of Engineers has begun his tenure and will be invited to an upcoming Advisory Committee meeting. Key Topics for Budget recommendation letter: There was a discussion on the District providing a response to the Advisory Committee on the District s action on the Advisory Committee's recommendation, including the Advisory Committee s role with the Flood Hazard Management Plan, and prioritization criteria. Councilmember Odell asked who was drafting the plan and asked whether the Committee would have a role in its development. Ms. Lund indicated that the moneys for the plan are in the 2018 proposed budget and the scope and process have not yet been developed. 4 of 5

8 There was a discussion of the basin technical committees, whether they meet regularly throughout the year and whether they meet together or as separate basins. There was also a discussion of whether Committee members can attend the technical committees and whether the meetings can occur online. Deputy Executive Jarrett indicated that King County was developing the technology to have online meetings. Ms. Lund indicated that she will prepare a preliminary draft of a letter from the Advisory Committee to the Board based on Advisory Committee discussion to date for discussion at the next Advisory Committee meeting set for August 10, and the final letter will be approved on August 22. The meeting was adjourned at 11:52 am. 5 of 5

9 August 10, 2017 Draft Flood District Operating Budget Summary Overall, labor and benefits increase by $210,000 or 4% from 2017 to This increase is allocated across the work program categories below based on the staff allocation model. Work Category 2017 Revised 2018 Proposed Difference Annual Maintenance 2,686,481 3,386, ,285 Flood Hazard Studies, Maps, Technical Services 1,454,619 1,181,741 (272,878) Flood Hazards Plan, Grants, Outreach 318,123 Flood Preparation, Flood Warning Center 863, ,427 1,447,463 1,305, , , ,430 Program Summary Maintenance activities to properly operate and maintain the District s investments, including levees, revetments, properties, and pump stations, as well as large wood hazard investigations in support of the King County Sheriff. Facility inspections and assessments may lead to proposed repairs in the capital program. Inspections and assessments also help to increase the potential for federal funding assistance for future flood damages. This includes implementation of routine flood facility inspection and maintenance for approximately 500 levees and revetments along 119 miles of river so that minor maintenance needs do not become larger scale repair problems. The program also includes property inspections and maintenance for the approximately 800 acres of publicly owned floodplain property (managed as 200 separate sites), a responsibility that grows each year as property is acquired to reduce flood risks and/or support capital project construction. Maintenance actions to identify and resolve problems that might pose a risk to the community such as attractive nuisances (a hazardous object or condition that poses a risk), illegal dumping, noxious weeds, and public health risks. The largest expenditures in this category are (1) operation and maintenance of the Green River Pump Stations (2) maintenance crew time and (3) inspections of levees, revetments, and property on a 2-year cycle. This category also includes staff time from the King County Sheriff's Office to conduct large wood investigations in unincorporated King County, along with staff time for annual levee inspections by boat on the Lower Snoqualmie River. Increased costs for Sheriff's Marine Rescue Dive Unit to support large wood investigations, increase maintenance crew support, and increased labor and equipment charges for King County Roads Services Division maintenance crews, and increased staff hours for site management planning and facility inspections. While maintenance staff hours were included in this category in 2017, river basin staff hours for levee inspections were included in Program Implementation. Levee inspections hours for all staff are included in the Maintenance category for Generate technical information used to characterize, quantify, and delineate flood risks, as well as to develop and implement strategies and actions to reduce those risks. Flood hazard technical information types include hydrologic and hydraulic studies, floodplain and channel migration zone maps, geologic studies, geographic information system (GIS) land use data, dam operations studies, risk assessments and flood hazard management corridor working maps. These technical assessments are used to inform the capital project feasibility, prioritization, and design process funded by the capital program. The base budget includes $300,000 for LiDAR and post-flood channel evaluations that will not occur unless there are high flow events. The base budget assumes completion of channel migration hazard mapping for the Raging and White Rivers, following technical analysis initiated in The base budget also includes a placeholder of $75,000 ($25,000 each for the Green, Cedar, and Snoqualmie) for hydrologic and hydraulic analyses, as well as a $50,000 placeholder for a third phase of the Snoqualmie Hydrologic and Hydraulic analysis in response to community questions and concerns. One time only costs for studies result in savings. This category also includes USGS sediment study for the White River. The purpose of this proposed study is to quantify current and potential future sediment supply and deposition in the White River to better inform capital flood-risk reduction projects along the Lower White River in King County. Floodplain management planning, public outreach and awareness, coordination of repetitive loss area mitigation, and grant preparation. Repetitive loss mitigation is generally achieved by buying or elevating at-risk homes. While buyouts and elevations are funded via the capital program, the planning, prioritization, and the grant submittals to FEMA or other agencies are funded via the operating program. Most operating costs for grant development are reimbursable if the FEMA grant is awarded. Grants are only submitted with prior authorization (at least 30 days before submittal) from the Flood Control District. Public outreach for specific capital projects is funded through the capital program; basin-wide outreach regarding on-going and planned capital projects is considered an operating expense. This category includes funding for the 2013 Flood Hazard Management Plan Update process, the Community Rating System (CRS) program, and strategic planning of flood risk reduction products, targets, and milestones for the River and Floodplain Management Section. The 2018 budget includes consultant funding of $100,000 for the Flood Hazard Management Plan Update, and assumes that the $125,000 budgeted in 2017 will be carried over to The 2018 budget assumes staff time for King County's Community Assistance Visit or "CAV", which is an audit of King County's compliance with the National Flood Insurance Program conducted by FEMA and the Washington State Department of Ecology. This category also includes funding in response to 3/31/17 proviso report on financial barriers to participation in the home elevation program to fund an external review of the program to identify additional barriers and recommend solutions budget reflects more accurate staff allocation model; includes budget for planning and outreach staff that was previously included under the Program Implementation category. Implement a comprehensive approach to preparing and educating the community for flood events, coordinating emergency response and regional flood warning center operations during flood events, and ensuring consistency across basins for post-flood recovery actions. Post-flood damage assessments may result in capital projects to repair damaged facilities. Flood and post-flood activities are tracked with a unique project number so that expenditures may be submitted for any federal assistance that becomes available following a federal disaster declaration. Base budget includes annual flood preparedness campaign, sandbag supplies for distribution centers in each basin, the King County Flood Alert system, and $165,000 cost-share with U.S. Geological Survey for operations and maintenance of real-time river gauges around King County. Includes additional funding for evaluation of a new gauge site on the lower Snoqualmie River, as well as installation and operation of the gauge. This category is adjusted to more accurately reflect staff from basin teams participating in flood warning and flood patrol functions.

10 Work Category 2017 Revised 2018 Proposed Difference Program Summary Overhead / Central Costs 3,327,496 3,218,261 (109,235) This category includes use-based and FTE-based overhead costs from the Water and Land Resources Division of the Department of Natural Resources and Parks and King County. Examples include use-based charges for the Prosecuting Attorney s Office, risk management, and the financial management system, as well as FTE-based charges for building rent and utilities. When staff loan out from the operating fund to the capital fund, the capital fund reimburses the operating fund for FTE-related overhead charges. Per the Inter-Local Agreement between the District and King County, "administrative overhead costs shall be determined in accordance with the Overhead Cost Allocation Policy adopted as part of the County s Comprehensive Financial Management Policies, as currently in effect and as amended, and with the overhead costs in the adopted County budget." Program Implementation 1,165,633 (106,434) (1,272,067) Program Management, Supervision, Finance, Budget 951,992 1,283, ,551 Implement flood hazard management programs and coordinate capital improvement projects for the District. This work category includes river basin team as well as the countywide capital strike team, responsible for identifying, implementing, and tracking flood risk reduction program and project actions within a given basin. This work category includes coordination with other flood risk reduction partners through the Basin Technical Committees, the Flood-Fish-Farm work group, and similar multi-stakeholder efforts to manage risk and coordinate efforts in each river basin. This category also includes coordination meetings at the Section, team, and individual supervisory level, as well as trainings for River and Floodplain Management Section staff. Time spent on capital projects is reimbursed from the capital project fund. Since this reimbursement includes overhead charges that are budgeted separately in the Overhead/Central Cost work category, the Program Implementation work category has a negative budget budget reflects more accurate staff allocation model; proposed budget is reduced due to revisions to shift budget and expenditures to other work program categories so that this category is focused on internal/external coordination tasks by basin teams and countywide strike team, administrative and training time for these staff, and loan-out to the capital program. Provide supervisory, financial management, contract administration, capital program oversight, and administrative services for the River and Floodplain Management Section to implement the District's work program. Financial management tasks include forecasting, budget development, accounting, and financial and performance audits from the State of Washington, Flood Control District, King County Council, state and federal grantors, as well as quarterly internal audits by King County Procurement. This category also include contract development and administration for work order contracts, individual work orders are budgeted and accounted for under other work categories or under a specific capital project. Increase is due to refinements to staff allocation modeling for contract specialists who develop and administer contracts that support the District's work program. In 2017 these hours were budgeted under Program Implementation; for 2018 they are shown in the program management category. Grand Total 10,767,377 11,180, ,861

11 APPENDIX K. ELIGIBILITY AND EVALUATION CRITERIA FOR CAPITAL PROJECTS This appendix contains the King County Flood Control District Project Prioritization Criteria and Capital Project Evaluation: Implementation Factors used to score capital improvement projects. Through the current capital project prioritization process projects are reviewed and scored against flood risk reduction factors (consequence, severity, and urgency) to prioritize projects across the county. Implementation factors, such as readiness, partnerships, leveraging of external funding opportunities, and legal responsibility are evaluated to determine how to sequence high-priority projects over the 6-year CIP timeframe. Appendix K Page 1

12 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update November 2013 King County Flood Control District Project Prioritization Criteria The following prioritization scheme is intended to help prioritize KCFCD projects based on the imperative to complete each project from a flood risk/vulnerability perspective only. The basis for these criteria is the 2006 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan policies related to flood risk hierarchy (G-2) and project prioritization (PROJ-1). Sequencing of these priorities over time is guided by the application of implementation factors described and evaluated separately. (NOTE: Current land use and seriousness of impact were given relatively greater weight due to the fundamental objective of reducing risk to health, safety, and welfare.) 1) What is the current land use? (Consequences) This criterion is intended to give different weights to different types of land uses. If more than one type of land use is at risk, select the applicable land use with the highest score. Use the score range provided to give more or less weight base on site specific conditions. For example a sole access road would be given a higher score than one for which a reasonable alternative route exists. Description Score Critical Facilities (See list on page 2) Residential 9-10 Commercial (Some commercial structures are critical facilities - see list) 7-8 Agricultural (FPP land should be given higher score than non FPP lands) 5-6 Developed Recreational (Those with regional importance should receive higher scores.) 3-4 Undeveloped land in floodplain or Moderate CMZ 1-2 Undeveloped land in floodway or Severe CMZ 0 Projects providing regional economic benefits receive a bonus of 5 points. A project is considered to provide regional economic benefits if it provides flood protection for a Statewide Strategic Freight Corridor category T1 or T2, high concentrations of employment as identified by the Puget Sound Regional Council (PSRC), or a Manufacturing and Industrial Center identified by the PSRC. 2) How serious is the potential impact? (Consequences and Severity) This criterion is intended to evaluate the nature and severity of the impacts irrespective of the scale at which the impact will occur. The scoring range can be used to differentiate between similar types of impact that have different likelihoods of occurring. Description Score Human injury or death could result from deep fast flows or sudden changes in 9-12 flood conditions (e.g. levee or road failure) Total loss of developed land use (e.g. developed land is converted to river channel) 7-8 Severe flood or erosion damage that will heavily impact those affected 5-6 Moderate flood or erosion damage which will not likely have a long term impact on 3-4 those affected Flooding that interrupts human activity or will result in some clean up needs but which will results in little or no damage that will need to be repaired 1-2 Appendix K Page 2

13 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update November ) How extensive will the impact be? (Consequences and Severity) This criterion describes the scale of the problem. Is the problem manifest over a large area or in a manner that will affect a large number of people, or is it largely localized? In instances where the physical impact is over a small area, but a larger number of people will be affected, apply score based on the impact rather than just the physical area. Scoring range can be used to differentiate between different degrees of extensiveness within the listed categories. Description Score Regional (Impacts will be felt well outside the area in which the flooding or erosion occurred) 7-8 Severe (City centers, larger neighborhood) 5-6 Moderate (Several structures, roads et impacted) 3-4 Localized (Affects a few homes or business) 1-2 4) How soon will the impact occur? (Urgency) This criterion is used to describe how soon the flood risk needs to be addressed to avoid its occurrence or reoccurrence. Description Score Some or all of the damages described will likely occur or recur during the next major high 5-6 flow event Damages may occur during the next high water event, or the potential for them to occur is 3-4 rapidly increasing Damages will eventually occur, but the risk of them occurring is not increasing rapidly 1-2 Critical Facilities Defined The following list is intended to help understand what constitutes a "Critical Facility". This list has been compiled from the KC Critical Areas Ordinance and the International Building Code. 1. Facilities in which > 300 people congregate 2. Daycares, elementary schools and secondary schools with > 250 people 3. College and adult education facilities with > 50 people 4. Hospitals and Healthcare facilities with > 50 resident patients 5. Jails and detention facilities 6. Facilities with > 5000 occupants 7. Power, Wastewater and potable water treatment facilities 8. Fire, rescue and police facilities 9. Designated emergency shelters 10. Power generation and public utility faculties 11. Aviation facilities 12. Critical national defense facilities 13. Nursing and personal care facilities 14. Senior citizen assisted housing 15. Public roadways and bridges 16. Sites that produce, use or store hazardous substances or hazardous waste (not including sites that temporarily store household products intended of sale on the site) Appendix K Page 3

14 2013 King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update November 2013 Ordinance (CAO), lines Critical facility: a facility necessary to protect the public health, safety and welfare including, but not limited to, a facility defined under the occupancy categories of "essential facilities," "hazardous facilities" and "special occupancy structures" in the structural forces chapter or succeeding chapter in the K.C.C. Title 16. Critical facilities also include nursing and personal care facilities, schools, senior citizen assisted housing, public roadway bridges and sites that produce, use or store hazardous substances or hazardous waste, not including the temporary storage of consumer products containing hazardous substances or hazardous waste intended for household use or for retail sale on the site. Section 1602 International Building Code Essential Facilities. Buildings and other structures that are intended to remain operational in the event of extreme environmental loading from flood, wind, snow or earthquakes. Appendix K Page 4

15 Appendix K Page King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update November 2013 King County Flood Control Zone District Capital Project Evaluation: Implementation Opportunity Factors Pts Readiness 10 Project is ready for construction or acquisition. For construction projects, landowner negotiations are in progress for any acquisitions that may be necessary, and/or design is complete and permits are in hand. For floodplain buyouts, appraisals are complete and landowner negotiations in progress. 8 For construction projects, landowner negotiations are in progress for any acquisitions that may be necessary, and permit agencies support design concept. For floodplain buyouts, landowner is interested and appraisals are in progress. 5 Landowner interested; no appraisal. For construction projects, design constraints exist but can likely be addressed through coordination with other agencies. 0 Landowner not interested and/or significant design constraints (ie roads or other infrastructure) necessitate rescoping of the project Pts Project leverages District funds with external resources or funding 8 3:1 > X 6 2:1< X < 3:1 4 1:1 < X < 2:1 2 0 < X < 1:1 1 Grant proposal in development to leverage District funds Pts 2 pts each up to 8 pts Project supports multiple floodplain objectives Identified in local flood hazard management plan Identified in federal ESA Recovery Plan for Puget Sound Chinook Identified on SRFB 3-year CIP list Identified in Basin Plan Identified in adopted stormwater or habitat CIP list Identified in open space and recreation plan Identified in non-point source action plan Protects productive agricultural soils within an Agricultural Production District Pts Cost Effectiveness 5 High project provides a permanent solution, such as a buyout that removes flood hazard risks 3 Medium project reduces rather than removes flood risks; facility is designed to minimize O&M (for example, design uses biostabilization approaches such as those described in King County s Guidelines for Bank Stabilization rather than rock) 1 Low Project design will result in annual maintenance and land management Pts Proponent has floodplain management regulations in place 3 Exceeds NFIP 1 Meets NFIP minimum requirements

16 Appendix K Page King County Flood Hazard Management Plan Update November 2013 Pts Proponent participates in FEMA s Community Rating System 3 FEMA Community Rating System rating less than 5 1 FEMA Community Rating System rating greater than 5 0 Proponent is not a participant in Community Rating System Pts Active CIP 1 Proponent maintains and funds an active CIP program for flooding and/or stormwater drainage Pts Active O&M 1 Proponent maintains and funds an active CIP program for flooding and/or stormwater drainage

17 July 19th Preliminary Draft - King County Flood Control District Changes since hard copy distributed 7/13/ Flood Damage Repairs Six-Year CIP Project Allocations Grant/External Funding Attachment H Cost Share 8/1/ Mid-Year Revision No. Title Basin Flood Risk % Implement % Type of project 2016 Inception to Date Expenditure 2017 Revised Inception to Date Budget 2017 Available Budget 2018 Requested 2019 Projected 2020 Projected King County Road Services Division Projects 2021 Projected 2022 Projected 2023 Projected 6-Year CIP Total Project Life Total Comments Damage to revetment. Very large rock removed from revetment, vertical banks and exposed subgrade in several locations totaling approximately 350 feet of damage. If not repaired, Miller River Road could be severely damaged. 1 WLFL0 MILLER R RD RVTMNT 2016 REPAIR SF Skykomish Repair N/A WLR $1,409 $760,799 $759,390 ($334,425) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($334,425) $426,374 2 WLFL0 SKYKOMISH HOME BUYOUTS SF Skykomish Acqu/Elev $380 $380 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $380 Acquisition of at-risk single family homes in the Town of Skykomish. This project will elevate or buyout individual structures in the South Fork Skykomish Basin to eliminate the risk of flooding 3 WLFL0 SF SKYKMSH REP LOSS MIT SF Skykomish 74% 46% Acqu/Elev $295,404 $690,838 $395,434 $54,566 $0 $0 $0 $0 $119,405 $173,971 $864,809 or erosion damage during future flood events. This project would improve infrastructure at the mouth of Maloney Creek and on the SF Skykomish River to reduce the 4 WLFL0 SKY W RVR DR FLOOD STUDY SF Skykomish 63% 36% WLR $2,475 $81,237 $78,762 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $81,237 frequency of flooding of homes and property within the Town of Skykomish. Approximately 50-foot-long section of missing armor rock immediately downstream of the bridge. Further flooding may 5 WLFL0 SKYKOMISH LB DOWN 2016 REPAIR SF Skykomish Repair N/A WLR $61,767 $150,000 $88,233 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 compromise or severly damage facility. Three pockets of missing armor rock: 15, 10 and 75 feet wide and eroded topsoil from upper sections of levee. Further 6 WLFL0 SKYKOMISH LB UP 2016 REPAIR SF Skykomish Repair N/A WLR $7,658 $309,433 $301,775 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $309,433 flooding may compromise or severely damage facility. This project will continue to acquire and remove homes along a stretch of the Skykomish River that are endangered by 7 WLFL0 TIMBER LN EROSN BUYOUTS SF Skykomish 76% 46% Acqu/Elev $1,571,273 $2,586,513 $1,015,240 $223,361 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $223,361 $2,809,874 erosive forces as well as inundation in some places. Old privately built facility in Timberlane Village on County property. Riverside rockery walls continue to oversteepen, 8 WLFL0 TIMBERLANE 2016 REPAIR SF Skykomish Repair N/A WLR $11,040 $52,500 $41,460 ($36,460) $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $20,000 $0 $43,540 $96,040 settle and fall into the river. FCD-requested project to reduce neighborhood isolation from flooding. Develop a set of alternatives for improvements to 428th Avenue SE, SE 92nd Street, and Reinig Road to reduce the frequency of community isolation caused by 9 WLFL1 428TH AVE SE BR FEASIBILITY Upper Snoq FCD FCD WLR $168,614 $300,000 $131,386 ($31,386) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($31,386) $268,614 floodwaters overtopping these roadways. Ensure eleven South Fork Snoqualmie River levees meet the standards of the US Army Corps of Engineers PL WLFL1 USACE PL SF SNO Upper Snoq WLR $0 $0 $0 $150,223 $183,154 $352,868 $363,454 $0 $0 $1,049,698 $1,049,698 program in order to receive future assistance from the Corps in the event of flood damage to the levees.. Six levee deficiencies have been identified in this leveed segment. The project will design and reconstruct the impaired 11 WLFL1 SF SNO LEVEE REMEDIATION Upper Snoq WLR $0 $0 $0 $295,673 $374,439 $727,790 $749,623 $0 $0 $2,147,526 $2,147,526 segment of levee in place. Address flooding from Ribary Creek at Bendigo Blvd in North Bend as the Snoqualmie levees prevent drainage to the 12 WLFL1 RIBARY CREEK Upper Snoq WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $636,492 $815,106 $2,338,618 $2,408,777 $0 $6,198,993 $6,198,993 river during high flows. Conduct a feasibility study to determine ways of preventing the overtopping of the Reif Rd Levee. Potential solutions 13 WLFL1 REIF RD LEVEE IMPROVEMENTS Upper Snoq WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $265,438 $318,421 $385,937 $457,218 $1,427,015 $1,427,015 include: repair and/or raise levee in place / setback levee / gravel removal / home elevations. This project will determine a preferred action to reduce long term risks from channel migration in the Circle River Ranch Neighborhood on the South Fork Snoqualmie River. Being conducted concurrent with South Fork Snoqualmie Corridor 14 WLFL1 CIRCLE RVR RANCH RISK RED Upper Snoq N/A N/A WLR $64,225 $150,000 $85,775 $278,505 $513,426 $1,608,159 $1,738,003 $0 $0 $4,138,093 $4,288,093 Plan. Large scour hole in bank at upstream end of Mason Thorson Extension rock-faced levee. Significant settlement and displacement of face rock at upstream end of facility. Scour hole in bank threatens to end-run facility and damage adjacent private property. Damage to levee face-rock compromises levee integrity and may lead to progressive failure, 15 WLFL1 MASON THRSN EXT 2016 REPAIR Upper Snoq Repair N/A WLR $0 $240,000 $240,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $240,000 especially at upstream end. 16 WLFL1 MF SNO CORRIDOR IMP Upper Snoq 76% 51% WLR $954 $1,100,000 $1,099,046 $0 $2,243,361 $1,591,350 $1,311,272 $0 $0 $5,145,983 $6,245,983 Placeholder for corridor plan implementation project(s) 17 WLFL1 MF SNO CORRIDOR PLAN Upper Snoq 76% 33% WLR $1,310,605 $1,824,912 $514,307 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,824,912 Middle Fork Snoqualmie Corridor Planning, scheduled for completion in The North Fork Bridge was originally built in 1951 and is extreamely vulnerable to scour as the channel thalweg migrates. In order to keep the bridge safe and reliable during a flood, it is important to protect the piers and abutments from scour 18 WLFL1 NORTH FORK BRIDGE 2016 REPAIR Upper Snoq Repair N/A WLR $111 $385,000 $384,889 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $385,000 failure. Length feet. Face rock has appeared to have settled 1-2 feet exposing core material above near upper part of levee face. Larger face rock missing in pockets upstream end of this damage site. Continued damage could compromise 19 WLFL1 REIF RD 2016 REPAIR Upper Snoq Repair N/A WLR $0 $253,000 $253,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $253,000 facility which provides flood protection for several residences landward of the facility. Project identified by Board to alleviate potential flooding of I-90 in North Bend. Currently evaluating project alternatives, 20 WLFL1 SF SNO CORR EARLY ACTION Upper Snoq 95% 49% WLR $1,373,089 $5,562,744 $4,189,655 ($4,039,655) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($4,039,655) $1,523,089 including levee setback and gravel removal. 21 WLFL1 SF SNO CORRIDOR IMP Upper Snoq 95% 49% WLR $0 $130,771 $130,771 ($57,971) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($57,971) $72,800 Placeholder for corridor plan implementation project(s) 22 WLFL1 SF SNO CORRIDOR PLAN Upper Snoq 79% 49% WLR $2,472,914 $2,682,914 $210,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,682,914 SF Snoqualmie Corridor planning process and development of capital investment strategy. Total breach of levee - erosion and lateral channel migration is ongoing. No immediately adjacent private property or 23 WLFL1 SHAKE MILL LB 2016 REPAIR Upper Snoq Repair N/A WLR $0 $800,000 $800,000 ($647,676) $709,356 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,680 $861,680 infrastructure. Continued erosion could threaten 428th Ave embankment or bridge. Between 428th St Bridge and Tate Creek, several locations on levee where toe-rock dislodged and corresponding minor bank erosion along feet of river bank. Actual gaps range between 6-10 feet. Missing toe rock compromises levee integrity, increasing its vulnerability to further scour and potential failure. Failure of this facility could result in damage to a 24 WLFL1 SHAKE MILL RB 2016 REPAIR Upper Snoq Repair N/A WLR $0 $197,500 $197,500 $620,575 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $620,575 $818,075 heavily used county road (428th Ave SE). Placeholder funding to partner with WSDOT to expand bridge SR202 opening over South Fork Snoqualmie and Ribary Creek to improve conveyance and reduce upstream flood impacts. Supported by North Bend. Requires state or federal funding. Relative contribution of this project is being evaluated in the SF Snoqualmie Corridor Plan. 25 WLFL1 SR202 SF BRIDGE LENGTHEN Upper Snoq 76% 26% WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 Flood damage repairs from January 2015 flood event. Locations include Mason-Thorson Ells and Mason-Thorson Extension (Middle Fork Snoqualmie); North Park (North Fork Snoqualmie); and Record Office, Meadowbrook, and 26 WLFL1 UPPER SNOQ 2015 FLOOD REPAIR Upper Snoq Repair N/A WLR $5,673 $1,465,673 $1,460,000 $15,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $15,450 $1,481,123 Railroad (Snoqualmie mainstem). This project will continue to acquire or elevate flood-prone structures in the Upper Snoqualmie basin to reduce the risk of flood, erosion, and channel migration damage. Partnership with Cities of Snoqualmie and North Bend. As of May remain to be elevated or acquired. This amount assumes home elevations per year. 27 WLFL1 UPR SNO RES FLD MITIGTN Upper Snoq 89% 54% Acqu/Elev $9,163,547 $11,971,284 $2,807,737 $1,454,158 $2,412,151 $2,484,516 $2,559,051 $2,635,823 $0 $11,545,699 $23,516,983 Repair approximately 200 feet of revetment. Dutchman Road in this location provides the sole access to residences and business on the west side of the Snoqualmie Valley downstream of Duvall. Continued erosion of the revetment could result in erosion of the road (West Snoqualmie Valley Road NE) which would severely limit access to the downstream 28 WLFL2 DUTCHMAN RD REPAIR Lower Snoq Repair N/A WLR $0 $209,914 $209,914 $338,679 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $338,679 $548,593 property owners during or following a flood event. The foundation of the main-span pier is exposed and is vulnerable to destabilization during a flood. Add scour mitigation 29 WLFL2 DUVALL BRIDGE 1136A Lower Snoq FCD FCD Agreement $0 $30,000 $30,000 $120,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $120,000 $150,000 measures to protect footing. Bridge crosses the Snoqualmie River at Duvall and is the city's primary route. This project provides technical and cost-sharing assistance to residential and agricultural landowners in the Lower Snoqualmie floodplain to help them better withstand the impacts of flooding. Specific project actions include farm pads, 30 WLFL2 FARM FLOOD TSK FORCE IMP Lower Snoq 58% 79% WLR $668,348 $763,759 $95,411 $111,858 $115,214 $118,670 $122,230 $125,897 $0 $593,869 $1,357,628 elevations of homes, and elevation or flood proofing of agricultural structures. 31 WLFL2 L SNO REP LOSS MITGTION Lower Snoq 74% 21% Acqu/Elev $1,269,231 $1,712,699 $443,468 ($17,028) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($17,028) $1,695,671 Funding as possible local match for FEMA grants to elevate or acquire at-risk structures. Cost-shared contribution to multiple levee setbacks and high priority flood risk reduction acquisitions in the Fall City reach of the Lower Snoqualmie. Projects reduce flood and erosion risk to revetments, roads, and landowners. FCD expenditure 32 WLFL2 L SNO/ALDAIR CORRDOR PLN Lower Snoq 84% 97% WLR $5,644,814 $7,252,761 $1,607,947 $113,053 $742,630 $655,636 $0 $0 $0 $1,511,319 $8,764,080 leverages habitat restoration funding from other sources. This project provides technical and cost-sharing assistance to residential and agricultural landowners in the Lower Snoqualmie floodplain to help them better withstand the impacts of flooding. Specific project actions include farm pads, 33 WLFL2 LWR SNO RESDL FLD MITGTN Lower Snoq FCD FCD Acqu/Elev $1,927,117 $3,306,276 $1,379,159 ($27,959) $737,924 $0 $0 $0 $0 $709,965 $4,016,241 elevations of homes, and elevation or flood proofing of agricultural structures. Rebuild revetment to protect road access to high value agricultural operations and lands. Construction of road anticipated 34 WLFL2 SE 19TH WAY REVETMENT Lower Snoq FCD FCD WLR $292,549 $1,706,294 $1,413,745 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,706, ; bank repair anticipated in WLFL2 SE DAVID POWELL RD FCD-requested project to reduce neighborhood isolation from flooding. Prevent slope failure of sole access roadway that 35 DOWNSTREAM Lower Snoq FCD FCD WLR $149,535 $1,036,456 $886,921 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,036,456 would isolate 150 homes. The river is scouring the road away and David Powell Road is collapsing into the river. This project will repair an existing 36 WLFL2 SE DAVID POWELL RD UPSTREAM Lower Snoq FCD FCD Agreement $0 $250,000 $250,000 $700,000 $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,950,000 $2,200,000 failing revetment and extend MSE wall to prevent undercutting of the riverbank and roadway. FCD-requested project to reduce neighborhood isolation from flooding. Prevent slope failure of sole access roadway that 37 WLFL2 SE FISH HATCHERY RD Lower Snoq FCD FCD WLR $124,843 $527,905 $403,062 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $527,905 would isolate homes. Large capital project to repair 1000 linear feet of the Sinnema Quaale Upper revetment. Protects SR 203, two regional fiber optic lines, and Snoqualmie Valley Trail. Construction to be completed in 2017; project anticipated to be closed out 38 WLFL2 SINNEMA QUAALE 2011 REPR Lower Snoq 100% N/A WLR $11,974,543 $12,508,516 $533,973 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $12,508,516 in Page 1 of 4

18 Inception Revised Implement Type of to Date Inception to 2017 Available Year CIP Project Life No. Title Basin Flood Risk % % project Expenditure Date Budget Budget Requested Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Total Comments Regional flooding in the Snoqualmie Valley cuts off access to eastern cities. Determine which major roadway(s) that cross the Snoqualmie Valley would be the most cost effective to improve in the valley with chronic flood issues impacting 39 WLFL2 SNOQUALMIE VALLEY FEASIBILITY Lower Snoq FCD FCD Agreement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $500,000 $500,000 over 25,000 daily drivers. This project will repair approximately 800 linear feet of the Winkelman (formerly RM 13.5) revetment. Erosion along the right bank of the Snoqualmie River channel threatens to undermine the Seattle Public Utilities water supply line at this 40 WLFL2 TOLT PIPELINE PROTECTION Lower Snoq 84% 49% WLR $1,515,788 $3,271,375 $1,755,587 $6,162,541 $42,436 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,204,977 $9,476,352 location south of Duvall. Construction anticipated These two bridges are subject to having the roadway approach fill wash out during a flood. Excavate approaches and WLFL2 WOODINVILLE DUVALL BR rebuild approaches to prevent loosing approaches during flooding. A similar repair was done on Woodinville-Duvall B/1136E Lower Snoq FCD FCD Agreement $0 $100,000 $100,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 $400,000 Bridge No. 1136D. Face rock displaced along approximately 50 feet of levee face. Some core material appears to have been lost, resulting in an oversteepened bank relative to upstream and downstream undamaged levee sections. Top of damaged face approximately 6 feet from edge of gravel trail. Continued erosion will cut off popular riverside trail. Potential impact to 42 WLFL3 FREW LEVEE 2016 REPAIR Tolt Repair N/A WLR $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 highway if facility breaches during a major flood. Approximately 20 feet of face and toe rock dislodged from Girl Scout Camp levee revetment below side channel confluence with mainstem. Missing face and toe rock compromises levee integrity, increasing its vulnerability to further 43 WLFL3 GIRL SCOUT LEVEE 2016 REPAIR Tolt Repair N/A WLR $0 $60,000 $60,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $60,000 scour and potential failure. Feasibility study to determine the nature and extent of levee improvements necessary to remove four homes in unincorporated King County from the regulatory Channel Migration Zone as mapped in the March 2017 Draft Tolt River 44 WLFL3 HOLBERG FEASIBILITY Tolt WLR $0 $200,000 $200,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $200,000 Channel Migration study Capital Investment Strategy: Design, based on level of service analysis, the highest priority levee setback for flood risk 45 WLFL3 LOWER FREW LEVEE SETBACK Tolt WLR $0 $175,000 $175,000 $1,236,000 $1,823,962 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,059,962 $3,234,962 reduction. FCD 6-year includes funds needed for grant match for future grant applications. 46 WLFL3 LOWER TOLT RIVER ACQUISITION Tolt 0% Acqu/Elev $529,475 $744,475 $215,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $744,475 Acquisition between the Swiftwater development and the river for the future setback of the Upper Frew Levee Capital Investment Strategy: Acquire 2 at-risk homes from willing sellers; acquire remaining 14 homes as funds become 47 WLFL3 RIO VISTA PROPERTY ACQ Tolt Acqu/Elev $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500,000 available. This project will buyout remaining properties and remove all homes and privately-constructed rubble levee at upstream end of the community access road, ultimately completing project initiated 20 years ago by others. When completed, will result in removing approximatlely 20 homes from high hazard areas within and just upstream and downstream of San 48 WLFL3 SAN SOUCI NBRHOOD BUYOUT Tolt 82% 79% Acqu/Elev $4,127,691 $5,553,353 $1,425,662 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,553,353 Souci neighborhood. Capital Investment Strategy: Construct Tolt Road NE road elevation in one location. Remove illegal revetment and roads 49 WLFL3 SAN SOUCI REACH IMPRVMNTS Tolt WLR $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $250,000 $700,000 $700,000 $750,000 $0 $2,500,000 $2,500,000 in San Souci neighborhood. Capital Investment Strategy: Conduct sediment management feasibility study and develop a plan. Update and include 50 WLFL3 SEDIMENT MGMT FEAS Tolt WLR $0 $0 $0 $209,605 $205,284 $0 $0 $0 $0 $414,889 $414,889 upper watershed sediment production estimates Capital Investment Strategy: Initiate study (with potential future design and construct) to add bridge span(s), raise the 51 WLFL3 SR 203 BR IMPRVMNTS FEAS Tolt WLR $0 $0 $0 $205,743 $181,306 $0 $0 $0 $0 $387,049 $387,049 highway and relocate King County Parks parking area. Flood damage repairs from January 2015 flood event. Locations include Frew, Upper Frew, Remlinger, and Girl Scout 52 WLFL3 TOLT 2015 FLOOD REPAIRS Tolt Repair N/A WLR $46,790 $900,000 $853,210 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 Camp. 53 WLFL3 TOLT CORRIDOR IMPLMNTN Tolt WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Placeholder for corridor plan implementation project(s). The corridor plan for the lower 6 miles of the Tolt River will develop a prioritized implementation strategy for near-term and 54 WLFL3 TOLT CORRIDOR PLAN Tolt 87% 82% WLR $958,717 $1,153,657 $194,940 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,153,657 long-term floodplain management actions. Scheduled for adoption in Capital Investment Strategy: Conduct a detailed hydraulic analysis to optimize the elevation of new levees to maximize 55 WLFL3 TOLT R LEVEE L.O.S. ANALYSIS Tolt WLR $0 $150,000 $150,000 $133,250 $420,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $553,250 $703,250 flood risk reduction benefits Acquisition funding for high risk properties in levee setback project area. Project priorities will be determined by the Board 56 WLFL3 TOLT R MILE 1.1 SETBACK Tolt 84% 79% Acqu/Elev $4,097,106 $5,484,360 $1,387,254 ($578,254) $530,450 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($47,804) $5,436,556 through adoption of the Tolt Corridor Plan. 57 WLFL3 TOLT R NATURAL AREA ACQ Tolt 66% 64% Acqu/Elev $1,140,067 $2,470,067 $1,330,000 $515,000 $530,450 $109,273 $0 $0 $0 $1,154,723 $3,624,790 Capital investment strategy: acquire at-risk homes from willing sellers. FCD-requested project to reduce neighborhood isolation from flooding. Evaluate feasibility of elevating sections of Tolt 58 WLFL3 TOLT R RD ELEVATION FEASIBILITY Tolt FCD FCD WLR $0 $250,000 $250,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $250,000 River Road. Capital Investment Strategy: Initiate design for elevation of one road location to reduce or eliminate isolation. Implement 59 WLFL3 TOLT R RD NE IMPROVEMENTS Tolt WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $50,000 $100,000 $210,000 $800,000 $1,160,000 $1,160,000 additional road elevations as funds become available. Capital Investment Strategy: Initiate the levee setback design in order to apply for grant funding. Levee setback to increase sediment storage and floodwater conveyance; protect adjacent development; reduce damage to trail bridge. 60 WLFL3 UPPER FREW LEVEE SETBACK Tolt 0% WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $150,000 $0 $350,000 $350,000 WLFL4 ALPINE MANOR NEIGHBORHOOD Acquisition of single-family homes and future acquisition of mobile home park at risk of channel migration along the 61 BUYOUTS Raging 76% 79% Acqu/Elev $1,715,652 $2,280,652 $565,000 $405,755 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $405,755 $2,686,407 Raging River in the Alpine Manor neighborhood. This bridge has a history of scour damage. One of the arch foundations is exposed. Repair scour mitigation measures to 62 WLFL4 RAGING R BRIDGE 1008E Raging FCD FCD Agreement $0 $80,000 $80,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $80,000 protect the footing. It serves only one house but is a designated King County Landmark. 63 Snoqualmie-South Fork Skykomish Subtotal $52,693,404 $84,023,017 $31,329,613 $8,473,181 $13,922,035 $9,598,805 $10,670,673 $6,936,434 $1,476,623 $51,077,752 $135,100, To address chronic flooding on this sole access roadway with approximately 200 properties, look at upstream and downstream retention/detention options; study road-raining options; prepare Concept Development Report, analyze and 66 WLFL5 NE 8TH ST AT LAKE ALLEN OUTLET Sammamish FCD FCD Agreement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 $1,400,000 $1,000,000 $1,800,000 $4,600,000 $4,600,000 select best options. Repair and stabilize two short sections of the right riverbank near I-405 to protect the regional Sammamish River trail. Work is being coordinated with Parks. Full permitting will be required as work will be below OHW, plus an updated easement will be required from WSDOT and FHWA due to I-405 proximity. Construction is targeted for summer WLFL5 SAMMAMISH R BANK REPAIRS Sammamish Repair N/A WLR $106,050 $419,895 $313,845 $721,929 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $721,929 $1,141,824 and will likely require detouring trail users to adjacent roads. Willowmoor Floodplain Restoration Project seeks to reduce the frequency and duration of high lake levels in Lake Sammamish while maintaining downstream Sammamish River flood control performance and enhancing habitat. The project will reconfigure the Sammamish transition zone to ensure ongoing flow conveyance, downstream flood control, potential extreme lake level reduction, habitat conditions improvement, and reduction of maintenance impacts and costs. In June 2016 the Executive Committee approved a motion ( ) authorizing 30% design of the split-channel alternative including various design elements such as variable depth pools, cold water supplementation, and other 68 WLFL5 WILLOWMOOR FLDPLAIN REST Sammamish 58% 8% WLR $1,405,468 $2,717,923 $1,312,455 ($181,655) $1,684,709 $2,011,665 $0 $0 $0 $3,514,719 $6,232,642 elements itemized in the motion. Increase conveyance capacity at the five box culvert crossings. Disconnect local storm drainage outfall from Coal Creek and redirect them to Lake Washington. Implemented by City of Bellevue. Expenditure forecast to be updated based on 69 WLFL6 LOWER COAL CRK PH I Lk Wash Tribs 71% 49% Agreement $1,504,751 $3,958,751 $2,454,000 $5,595,000 $4,159,000 $145,000 $120,000 $100,000 $66,000 $10,185,000 $14,143,751 current project schedule. This project will acquire strategic real estate upon which several large Flood Control District capital projects are dependent, namely the levee setback projects at the Herzman, Jan Rd, Rhode, Getchman, and Rutledge-Johnson Lower Jones Rd levee segments. Acquisition funding related to these projects is now included in the individual capital projects. 70 WLFL7 CDR PRE-CONST STRTGC ACQ Cedar 84% 69% Acqu/Elev $2,532,848 $4,330,532 $1,797,684 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $4,330,532 This six-year flood risk reduction capital investment strategy will cover the Cedar River valley from Landsburg Road SE WLFL7 CEDAR LEVEE SETBACK FEAS (River Mile 22) to Lake Washington. Completion of this plan is expected in September (Cedar Corridor Plan) Cedar 84% 69% WLR $1,624,424 $1,987,587 $363,163 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,987, WLFL7 CEDAR R REP LOSS MITGATN Cedar 74% 8% Acqu/Elev $3,182,250 $3,788,422 $606,172 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,788,422 Acquire frequently-flooded homes. Placeholder funding until District adopts acquisition policy. Capital Investment Strategy: Repair eroded section of left bank with bioengineered revetment to stabilize toe of bank and 73 WLFL7 CEDAR RIVER TRAIL SITE A BANK Cedar 0% WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $200,000 $490,000 $0 $890,000 $890,000 to prevent large scale bank failure. The project will ensure the minimum required 100-year flood conveyance capacity along the lower 1.25 miles of the Cedar River. Project is a required maintenance action for the Army Corps of Engineers 205 Flood Control Project. Project 74 WLFL7 CEDAR RVR GRAVEL REMOVAL Cedar 89% 59% Agreement $8,480,221 $11,102,885 $2,622,664 $0 $962,613 $104,880 $445,679 $111,267 $114,605 $1,739,044 $12,841,929 costs were updated in March WLFL7 CITY OF RENTON LEVEE Placeholder for Renton levee certification projects. 75 CERTIFICATION Cedar 0% Agreement $0 $0 $0 $750,000 $3,000,000 $1,250,000 $0 $0 $0 $5,000,000 $5,000,000 Purpose of the project is to setback levees on both sides of the river below the Elliott/154th ST Bridge. Based on the Cedar Capital Investment Strategy this project is no longer scheduled for the near-term 6-year timeframe. 76 WLFL7 ELLIOTT BR LEVEE SETBACK Cedar 79% 56% WLR $2,168,073 $2,175,408 $7,335 ($7,335) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($7,335) $2,168,073 Washington State Floodplains by Design grant from the Department of Ecology. The project will buyout residents in high risk areas, increase the capacity for flood storage, and provide corresponding environmental improvements. The project 77 WLFL7 FBD CORRIDOR IMPLEMENTATION Cedar 84% 69% Acqu/Elev $932,547 $5,705,500 $4,772,953 $806,284 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $806,284 $6,511,784 has cost-share funding from the City of Seattle WLFL7 HERZMAN LEVEE SETBACK AND Capital Investment Strategy: Setback levee; excavate side-channel to reduce pressure on revetment; reconstruct, 78 TRAIL Cedar WLR $0 $0 $0 $944,872 $226,184 $3,979,360 $78,786 $81,149 $83,584 $5,393,935 $5,393,935 reinforce and/or extend revetment; acquire up to 5 properties. Page 2 of 4

19 Inception Revised Implement Type of to Date Inception to 2017 Available Year CIP Project Life No. Title Basin Flood Risk % % project Expenditure Date Budget Budget Requested Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Total Comments Capital Investment Strategy: Suite of solutions to be determined as part of feasibility study. Includes raise road, partial 79 WLFL7 JAN ROAD NEIGHBORHOOD Cedar WLR $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $900,000 $900,000 removal of Jan Road levee, contruction of side channel, and mitigation of at-risk properties. 80 WLFL7 TBD Cedar WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 TBD Capital Investment Strategy: Conduct feasibility study of Lower Cedar reach in City of Renton to 1) quantity economic damage potential 2) determine infrastructure modifications to improve flood resiliency and sediment storage potential, and 81 WLFL7 LOWER CEDAR FEASIBILITY STUDY Cedar WLR $0 $0 $0 $200,000 $200,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $500,000 $500, conduct cost-benefit analysis. Capital Investment Strategy: Raise in place or setback Jones Road; excavate and stabilize right bank to increase WLFL7 LOWER JONES ROAD conveyance capacity; reinforce one revetment; remove portion of another revetment; acquire 8 at risk properties 82 NEIGHBORHOOD Cedar WLR $0 $36,000 $36,000 $3,057,792 $1,738,873 $4,569,548 $1,544,801 $40,575 $0 $10,951,589 $10,987,589 Capital Investment Strategy: Conduct site specific landslide risk assessment study; conduct a feasibility study to 83 WLFL7 MAPLEWOOD FEASIBILITY STUDY Cedar WLR $0 $440,000 $440,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $440,000 evaluate opportunities to modify the Erickson Levee. This project represents the Flood District contribution to a larger project that relocates mobile home park tenants and initiates preliminary engineering design for potential levee setback / realignment to reduce flood heights, velocities and 84 WLFL7 RIVERBEND MHP ACQ Cedar 82% 46% WLR $3,496,466 $5,357,042 $1,860,576 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $5,357,042 channel migration risk in this reach. To address a culvert failure affecting approximately 10 properties, prepare Concept Development Report to analyze and select best culvert replacement and road-raising option; and analyze upstream and downstream retention/detention 85 WLFL7 SE 162ND AVE AT 266TH CT Cedar FCD FCD Agreement $0 $150,000 $150,000 $250,000 $400,000 $700,000 $0 $0 $0 $1,350,000 $1,500,000 impacts. Conduct feasibility study in coordination with WSDOT to evaluate flood risk reduction opportunities, such as elevating SR 169, upgrading the local drainage infrastructure, and / or installation of back flow prevention gates. 86 WLFL7 SR 169 FEASIBILITY STUDY Cedar FCD FCD WLR $0 $260,000 $260,000 $61,800 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $61,800 $321, Cedar-Sammamish Subtotal $25,433,098 $42,429,945 $16,996,847 $13,098,687 $12,471,379 $13,360,453 $3,789,266 $1,822,991 $2,064,189 $46,606,965 $89,036, WLFL8 BRISCOE LEVEE SETBACK Green 82% 36% Agreement $21,361,073 $23,330,271 $1,969,198 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $23,330,271 Floodwall construction at four locations completed by the City of Kent. Final expenditures for the remainder of 2017 will Expenditures here include sediment removal, fuel system upgrades, life-cycle efficiency analysis to inform future upgrades, and priority items from recently completed needs assessment (2015). New line items established below to 91 WLFL8 BRPS BLACK R PUMP STATION Green 100% 72% WLR $5,134,042 $5,374,203 $240,161 ($229,161) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($229,161) $5,145,042 account for discrete project elements. This project will design and build the second phase of renovations to the Black River pump station. Major components include replacement of the control building, replacement of the trash rake system, and replacement of the screen spray 92 WLFL8 BRPS CONTROL BLDG RPLCMT Green 100% 72% WLR $0 $50,000 $50,000 $480,368 $1,554,622 $7,577,624 $25,887 $0 $0 $9,638,501 $9,688,501 system. This project will design and build the fourth phase of renovations to the Black River pump station, revising and replacing 93 WLFL8 BRPS FISH PASS IMPRVMNTS Green 72% WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $831,751 $2,241,456 $6,316,655 $9,389,862 $9,389,862 the obsolete fish passage systems. This project will design and build the first phase of renovations to the Black River pump station, replacing the three 94 WLFL8 BRPS HIGH-USE ENGINES Green 100% 72% WLR $0 $252,900 $252,900 $221,179 $1,414,074 $25,133 $0 $0 $0 $1,660,386 $1,913,286 smaller pump engines which run much more frequently than the other, larger pump engines. This project will design and build the third phase of renovations to the Black River pump station, replacing support 95 WLFL8 BRPS SUPPORT SYS UPGRADES Green 72% WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $175,261 $822,168 $779,584 $26,663 $0 $1,803,676 $1,803,676 systems such as engine control panels, cooling systems, oilers and hoists. 96 WLFL8 DESIMONE USACE 2015 Green 100% N/A Agreement $1,634,698 $2,563,620 $928,922 ($923,922) $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 ($923,922) $1,639,698 Cost-share flood damage repair from March 2014 high flows with Corps of Engineers. Construction in WLFL8 DYKSTRA USACE 2015 Green 100% N/A Agreement $638,356 $692,856 $54,500 $6,695 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,695 $699,551 Cost-share flood damage repair from March 2014 high flows with Corps of Engineers. Construction in This project will result in actions to mitigate environmental damage from tree cutting during (as required by 98 WLFL8 GREEN R PL84-99 MITIGATN Green 89% 72% WLR $3,668,478 $4,043,988 $375,510 $1,616,554 $52,000 $25,000 $25,000 $0 $0 $1,718,554 $5,762,542 permitting agencies) to maintain eligibility for US Army Corps of Engineers PL84-99 program. New project to implement interim SWIF adopted by Board of Supervisors.This project will reconstruct the Horseshoe Bend Levee at the Breda reach (RM ) to a more stable configuration in order to reduce flood risk to the surrounding areas. The project will also raise levee crest elevations to contain the 500-year (0.2% annual chance) flood. This segment of the levee has the lowest factor of safety rating of the Horseshoe Bend levee. 99 WLFL8 HSB BREDA SETBACK Green 95% 41% WLR $0 $1,755,000 $1,755,000 $2,522,674 $590,285 $2,427,136 $982,119 $0 $0 $6,522,214 $8,277,214 New project to implement interim SWIF adopted by Board of Supervisors.This PL levee segment contains a Minimally acceptable rating by the USACE due to a slope deficiency at RM 24.3 (oversteepened slopes from 1.3 to 1.7H:1V for 500 feet). The City of Kent constructed a secondary containment levee in this reach, set back from the river s edge, which is currently not part of the federal levee. The only remaining structure between the two levees is a Puget Sound Energy facility. The Horseshoe Bend Levee Certification Report calculated Factor of Safety (FOS) values for rapid drawdown of 1.08 and 1.55 at about RM 24.3 and RM 24.4, respectively. River bed scour in this reach between 1986 and 2011 is 2.7 feet at RM Funding of $400,000 covers the cost of major modification to the federal levee so that the City of Kent's secondary containment levee can be incorporated into the federal levee project. 100 WLFL8 HSB MCCOY REALIGNMENT Green FCD FCD WLR $0 $400,000 $400,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $400,000 New project to implement interim SWIF adopted by Board of Supervisors.The Nursing Home levee is over-steepened and does not meet current engineering standards. The economic consequence of levee failure or overtopping to the lower Green River valley is extensive and could cause tens of millions of dollars in damage. This capital project area contains a Minimally Acceptable deficiency by the US Army Corps of Engineers at RM (over steepened slopes from to 1. 7H:1V for 225 feet). The Horseshoe Bend Levee Certification Report calculated a Factor of Safety (FOS) value for rapid drawdown of at RM (Section F). This is barely above the minimum FOS (1. 0) from the US Army 101 WLFL8 HSB NURSING HOME SETBACK Green FCD FCD WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $2,000,000 $500,000 $2,600,000 $2,600,000 Corps of Engineers manual. Coordination and planning activities to implement recommendations of interim SWIF. Maintenance work associated with 102 WLFL8 INTERIM SWIF IMPLEMENTATION Green FCD WLR $0 $30,000 $30,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $30,000 the interim SWIF is included in the operating budget. 103 WLFL8 LOWER RUSSELL ACQ KENT Green FCD Agreement $0 $1,000,000 $1,000,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,000,000 Acquisitions by the City of Kent for the Lower Russell levee setback project. 104 WLFL8 LWR GRN R CORRIDOR PLAN/EIS Green FCD FCD WLR $0 $1,743,249 $1,743,249 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,743,249 Lower Green River Corridor Planning and Environmental Impact Statement. Remove and replace the existing flood containment system of levee and revetments along the right (east) bank of the Green River between river mile (S 212th St) and river mile (S 231st Way) in the City of Kentr to provide longterm flood protection and improve riparian and aquatic habitat. Increased expenditure authority to match interim SWIF 105 WLFL8 LWR RUSSELL LEVEE SETBACK Green 76% 56% WLR $6,041,888 $12,077,130 $6,035,242 $2,478,808 $13,910,520 $18,357,812 $63,028 $0 $0 $34,810,168 $46,887,298 adopted by Board of Supervisors. Prepare an analysis and study of design and construction alternatives to provide flood protection, scour protection, enable levee certification and secure necessary land rights. Current ILA with Kent for this first phase is $3.65 million, the ILA 106 WLFL8 MILWAUKEE LEVEE #2-KENT Green FCD FCD Agreement $10,768 $8,500,000 $8,489,232 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $8,500,000 assumes that the total project cost is $8.5 million. The river is scouring the road away and David Powell Road is collapsing into the river. This project will repair an existing 107 WLFL8 PATTON BRIDGE 3015 Green FCD FCD Agreement $0 $150,000 $150,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 failing revetment and extend MSE wall to prevent undercutting of the riverbank and roadway. Contribute the cost of a repair ($720,000) to a $7 million levee setback project. By relocating the levee, future repair costs for the Flood Control District are reduced. In response to community concerns, the project also includes funding to elevate the road so that the school bus serving this neighborhood does not have to drive in the oncoming lane to avoid 108 WLFL8 PORTER LEVEE Green 39% 41% WLR $0 $720,000 $720,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $720,000 floodwaters. 109 WLFL8 REDDINGTON REACH SETBACK Green 68% 62% WLR $16,564,851 $16,889,083 $324,232 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $16,889,083 Project expenditures will continue into 2017; closeout anticipated in Project is to improve the levee by providing a minimum of 3 feet of freeboard above the predicted 500-year flood event and improve slope stability. These segments of the Russell Road Upper Levee have over-steepened slopes and 110 WLFL8 RUSSELL RD UPPER KENT Green 92% 72% Agreement $6,020,673 $6,072,173 $51,500 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $6,072,173 therefore lack adequate structural stability to provide adequate safety. WLFL8 S 180TH ST BRIDGE FLOODWALL The project will increase the height of a flood wall to provide approximately 30" of additional flood protection. 111 EXT Green FCD FCD Agreement $0 $65,378 $65,378 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $65,378 This project will conduct a feasibility analysis of channel migration hazards from river mile 21.1 to No design or 112 WLFL8 S 277TH ST REVETMENT Green FCD FCD WLR $90,528 $300,000 $209,472 $1,726,802 $44,558 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,771,360 $2,071,360 construciton funding at this time. 113 WLFL8 SE 380 PL AT SR 164 Green FCD FCD Agreement $0 $0 $0 $90,000 $100,000 $400,000 $100,000 $0 $0 $690,000 $690,000 This project will analyze culvert replacement and road-raising options and implement the preferred option. These two bridges are subject to having the roadway approach fill wash out during a flood. Excavate approaches and rebuild approaches to prevent loosing approaches during flooding. A similar repair was done on Woodinville-Duvall 114 WLFL8 SE AVE SE Green FCD FCD Agreement $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $150,000 $0 $150,000 $150,000 Bridge No. 1136D. Signature Pointe is a revetment/levee on the Green River between river mile and that does not meet the FEMA requirements for accreditation due to inadequate freeboard. This project includes development of a project charter and an alternatives analysis to select an alternative to achieve increased flood protection, embankment and toe protection 115 WLFL8 SIGNATURE POINTE REVETMENT Green FCD FCD WLR $0 $300,000 $300,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $300,000 in a manner that can be certified and accredited. New project to implement interim SWIF adopted by Board of Supervisors. This project will construct a 0.15 mile floodwall and sloped embankment to protect adjacent businesses from flooding. The floodwall alignment (including embankment slope, factors of safety, and necessary real estate) will be finalized during the project design phase. 116 WLFL8 TUK-205 RATOLO FLOODWALL Green FCD FCD WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $1,500,000 $300,000 $1,800,000 $1,800,000 Page 3 of 4

20 Inception Revised Implement Type of to Date Inception to 2017 Available Year CIP Project Life Total No. Title Basin Flood Risk % % project Expenditure Date Budget Budget Requested Projected Projected Projected Projected Projected Total Comments 117 WLFL8 TUK-205 SEGALE FLOODWALL Green FCD FCD WLR $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $601,000 $562,754 $3,188,003 $3,283,643 $7,635,400 New project to implement interim SWIF adopted by Board of Supervisors. The Gaco portion of the Tukwila-205 levee between river mile and is over-steepened and damaged and cannot be adequately repaired using the existing easements. This project would acquire properties landward of the damaged levee to enable a levee setback and repair of the embankment and toe scour at this outside bend, in coordination with the Army Corps of Engineers PL $7,635,400 rehabilitation program. 118 WLFL8 TUK-205 USACE GACO REPAIR Green R N/A WLR $44,246 $9,064,053 $9,019,807 $3,796,580 $15,913 $0 $0 $0 $0 $3,812, feet of scour has exposed rock armor. No sign of armor loss. Interim SWIF capital project is for 0.33 miles of $12,876,546 floodwall and toe/scour protection. Increased vulnerability to further scour and damage to facility. Green River Corridor Planning (under System-Wide Improvement Framework agreement with Army Corps of Engineers) 119 WLFL8 USACE SWIF Green FCD FCD WLR $2,209,817 $2,209,817 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $2,209, Green-Duwamish Subtotal $63,419,418 $97,583,721 $34,164,303 $11,786,577 $17,857,233 $30,235,873 $3,470,123 $9,106,122 $10,400,298 $82,856,226 $180,439, This project will reduce flood risks to residences and businesses in the Cities of Pacific and Algona by addressing backwatering and drainage problems in Government Canal from high river flows. The project will design and permit a stormwater pump station which will significantly reduce flood risks to approximately five hundred homes and businesses. The completed project will also reduce long-term road closures that have occurred in the past due to flooding. 123 WLFL9 BUTTE AVE FLOOD MITIGATION White FCD FCD Agreement $0 $470,000 $470,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $470, WLFL9 COUNTYLINE TO A STREET White 87% 74% WLR $12,662,360 $24,004,419 $11,342,059 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 Reduces flood elevations that impact residential neighborhoods in the City of Pacific (200 homes, with $52 million of $24,004,419 assessed and $13 million content value), improves sediment storage and enhances habitat. 125 WLFL9 RED CREEK ACQUISITIONS White 71% 41% Acqu/Elev $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 Permanently eliminate the risk to public safety along this reach by acquiring and removing residential structure. $100,000 Placeholder funding for appraisal and/or grant match dependent on landowner willingness. 126 WLFL9 RIGHT BANK LEVEE SETBACK White 79% 64% WLR $10,578,055 $12,151,199 $1,573,144 $1,079,358 $1,989,187 $7,887,849 $5,797,495 $69,556 $0 $16,823,445 Construct a new levee setback in the City of Pacific, extending from BNSF railroad bridge embankment to endpoint at $28,974,644 Butte Ave. by White River Estates neighborhood. 127 WLFL9 WHITE - GREENWATER ACQ White 66% 44% Acqu/Elev $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000 $100,000 $100,000 This project would acquire flood prone residence along the White River near the Greenwater River. 128 White Subtotal $23,240,415 $36,625,618 $13,385,203 $1,079,358 $1,989,187 $7,887,849 $5,797,495 $69,556 $200,000 $17,023,445 $53,649, WLFLS SOUTH PARK PUMPSTATION Seattle 79% 64% Agreement $1,786,219 $6,001,331 $4,215,112 ($4,215,112) $0 $4,718,781 $0 $0 $0 $503,669 Cost-share construction of pump station to reduce flooding in industrial area. Allocation of funds by year may be revised based on updated project schedule. Implemented by the City of Seattle. Expenditure forecast to be updated based on $6,505,000 current project schedule. WLFLS S PARK DRAINAGE The South Park Drainage Conveyance Improvements Project will install a formal conveyance system in the streets, to get flows to the pump station. The conveyance improvements will work in conjunction with the Pump Station. 132 IMPROVEMENTS Seattle FCD FCD Agreement $720 $1,000,000 $999,280 $0 $1,550,000 $1,455,000 $0 $0 $0 $3,005,000 $4,005, Seattle Subtotal $1,786,939 $7,001,331 $5,214,392 ($4,215,112) $1,550,000 $6,173,781 $0 $0 $0 $3,508,669 $10,510, WLFLX CORRIDOR PLN DESIGN/CONST Placeholder for corridor plan implementation project(s) 136 PLACEHOLDER Countywide N/A N/A WLR $0 $142,610 $142,610 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,000,000 $27,000,000 $27,142, Countywide Corridor Plan Imp Subtotal $0 $142,610 $142,610 $0 $0 $0 $0 $0 $27,000,000 $27,000,000 $27,142, WLFLG FLOOD REDUCTION GRANTS Countywide FCD FCD Grant $2,585,919 $11,600,690 $9,014,771 $3,083,749 $3,161,191 $3,235,317 $3,309,131 $3,383,823 $3,458,923 $19,632,134 $31,232,824 Competitive grant program for flood reduction projects. Increases as a proportion of total FCD tax revenue. 141 WLFLG WRIA GRANTS Countywide FCD FCD Grant $11,348,474 $23,099,255 $11,750,781 $4,390,296 $4,520,525 $4,654,618 $4,792,688 $4,934,853 $5,081,236 $28,374,215 Cooperative Watershed Management Grant Program; priorities recommended by watershed groups. Increase based on $51,473,470 assumed inflation rate. 142 WLFLM EFFECTIVENESS MONITORING Countywide N/A N/A WLR $1,616,734 $2,218,519 $601,785 $1,076,734 $702,778 $830,323 $813,940 $767,476 $510,698 $4,701,949 $6,920,468 Evaluation of capital projects to determine effectiveness and identify project design improvements. 143 WLFLO SUBREGNL OPPRTNTY FUND Countywide FCD FCD Grant $27,038,460 $43,683,268 $16,644,808 $5,735,774 $5,879,816 $6,017,689 $6,154,984 $6,293,910 $6,433,597 $36,515,770 Allocation to all King County jurisdictions for flooding, water quality, or watershed management projects. Increases as a $80,199,038 proportion of total FCD tax revenue. 144 WLFLX CENTRAL CHARGES Countywide N/A N/A WLR $652,217 $781,493 $129,276 $130,000 $132,600 $135,252 $137,957 $140,716 $143,531 $820,056 $1,601,549 Central charges related to the FCD's capital fund. 145 WLFLX FLOOD EMERGENCY CONTGNCY Countywide N/A N/A WLR $300,001 $800,917 $500,916 $0 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $250,000 $1,250,000 $2,050,917 Contingency for emergency response actions during a flood event. 146 Countywide Subtotal $43,541,805 $82,184,142 $38,642,337 $14,416,553 $14,646,910 $15,123,199 $15,458,700 $15,770,778 $15,877,984 $91,294,124 $173,478, Grand Total $210,115,080 $349,990,384 $139,875,305 $44,639,244 $62,436,744 $82,379,960 $39,186,257 $33,705,882 $57,019,094 $319,367,181 $669,357,565 Page 4 of 4

21 TOLT RIVER CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY July 17, 2017 The Tolt River basin drains 100 square miles, beginning in the Cascade Mountains. The lower six miles of river flow through residential areas and the City of Carnation, with nearly continuous levees along the lower two miles. Upstream of the leveed reach, the river is largely unconstrained with significant channel migration and deep and fast flows. The lower Tolt River is also a high priority for habitat restoration for ESA-listed salmon. Scope: Through the corridor planning process, support decision makers in setting flood risk reduction priorities: Define flood and erosion hazards in three corridor planning areas Focus on critical worst first public safety risks in each corridor Propose conceptual 6-year CIP consistent with budget placeholder Summary of Risk -- Under existing conditions, for a 100-year flood event, the following risks are present: 46 homes and 11 commercial/public buildings at risk of flooding or erosion 59 homes and 5 commercial buildings isolated by road flooding 2 miles of public roadway flooded Proposed Risk Reduction Projects: Below is a draft sequenced action plan for implementing risk reduction projects in the Tolt River Corridor. The projects are proposed based on urgency, severity, consequence, responsibility or authority, and funding or partnership opportunities. The current King County Flood Control District CIP budget includes: $1.0M for Tolt levee repairs $2.3M for Snoqualmie Trail Bridge to SR203 acquisitions $1.7M for San Souci acquisitions, road elevation, and revetment removal $2.6M for Natural Area acquisitions $8.2M for Tolt Corridor Implementation (to be allocated to Near Term Actions) PROJECT PROBLEM APPROACH COST ESTIMATES 1 Efforts Underway A. Tolt River Levee Repairs B. Snoqualmie Trail Bridge to SR203 Bridge Property Acquisitions C. San Souci Reach Improvements and Road Elevation (Phase 1; Phase 2 for construction is J.) D. Tolt Natural Area Property Acquisitions E. Holberg Levee Improvements Feasibility Study Proposed Near Term Actions (Years 0-6) F. Tolt River Levee Level of Service Analysis G. Lower Frew Levee Setback Design (Phase 1; Phase 2 for construction is N.) H. Sediment Management in Leveed Reach Feasibility Study I. SR 203 Bridge Improvements Feasibility Study Erosion damage to Lower Frew, Upper Frew, Remlinger, and Girl Scout levees. Levees overtop or breach, inundating or damaging homes, roads (including SR203) and land proposed for development. Reach threatened by erosion, avulsion, flooding and landslides; Tolt River Rd NE overtops during minor flooding isolating 40 homes. Multiple properties at risk from flooding, erosion, avulsion, and potential levee breach. Portions of the levee are vulnerable to failure by lateral erosion. The lower two miles of the Tolt River is confined between a network of levees that provides inadequate and uneven levels of flood protection. Flooding in the leveed reach can be strongly influenced by the Snoqualmie River and sediment accumulation. Levee overtops between 2- and 5-year flows, flooding and potentially damaging SR203 and properties in City of Carnation. Levee impacts habitat. Sediment accumulation increases levee overtopping and potential failure. Sediment redirects flow into levees causing erosion. SR 203 approach (fill) blocks flood flows. Highway overtops north of SR203 bridge and is subject to erosion and damage. Monitor sites and construct repairs if erosion threatens levee integrity. Acquire two at-risk homes and vacant acreage to reduce risk and allow for future levee setbacks on both river banks. Three projects: 1) acquire three at-risk homes from willing sellers; 2) feasibility and design to remove an illegal revetment and roads in San Souci neighborhood; 3) feasibility and design to elevate Tolt River Road NE at lowest location. Acquire three at-risk homes from willing sellers; acquire two more with partner funds and/or FCD out years. (Budget Note: Requesting to reallocate $800K to 2017 from out years to demolish a recently acquired home and buy 1 home on the market) Conduct a feasibility study to evaluate improvement alternatives to the Holberg facility. (Budget Note: Requesting $200,000 in 2017) Conduct a detailed hydraulic analysis to optimize the elevation of new levees to maximize flood risk reduction benefits. (Budget Note: Requesting $150,000 in 2017 to begin analysis) Design, based on level of service analysis, the highest priority levee setback for flood risk reduction. FCD 6-year includes funds needed for grant match for future grant applications. (Budget Note: Requesting $175,000 in 2017 to support preliminary design) Conduct sediment management feasibility study and develop a plan. Update and include upper watershed sediment production estimates. Initiate study (with potential future design and construct) to add bridge span(s), raise the highway and relocate King County Parks parking area. (Funded Projects 2017 CIP) Total: $1.0M FCD 6YR: $1.0M Total: $2.3M FCD 6YR: $2.3M Total: $2.3M FCD 6YR: $1.7M Partner: $580K 2 Total: $4.4M FCD 6YR: $2.6M Partner: $504K 2 Partner: $1M 3 FCD Yr 7-10: $.3M Total: $ K FCD 6YR: $200K 4 6-year CIP Placeholder: $8.2M FCD 6-year Request: $8.2M Partner Secured: $645K Future Funding Need: $ M Total Project Cost: $ M Total: $ K FCD 6YR: $700K Total: $3.6M FCD 6YR: $3M Partner: $645K 2 Total:$ K FCD 6YR: $400K Total: $ K FCD 6YR: $390K 1 Cost estimates include best available projections regarding right-of-way acquisition, design, construction, 10-year site establishment, 10- year effectiveness monitoring; cost estimates do not include maintenance and monitoring beyond 10 years 2 Secured state, federal and/or county funding source 3 Unsecured funds; grant application submitted 4 Funding from the FCD fund balance Indicates a project with a nexus to WRIA 7 habitat restoration opportunity area and is likely to receive grant funds

22 TOLT RIVER CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY July 17, 2017 J. San Souci Reach Improvements and Road Elevation (Phase 2) K. Rio Vista Property Acquisitions L. Upper Frew Levee Setback Initial Design (Phase 1; Phase 2 for construction is Q.) M. Tolt River Road NE Improvements Reach threatened by erosion, avulsion, flooding and landslides; Tolt River Rd NE overtops during minor flooding isolating 40 homes. Multiple properties at risk from deep and/or fast flows; landslide hazards can exacerbate flooding. Levee overtops between 10- and 25-year flows; levee directs flow and debris into trail bridge causing damage. Three road locations flood between 10- and 100-year flows; at 100-year event 54 upstream homes are isolated by flooded roads. Construct Tolt Road NE road elevation in one location. Remove illegal revetment and roads in San Souci neighborhood. Acquire 2 at-risk homes from willing sellers; acquire remaining 14 homes as funds become available. Initiate the levee setback design in order to apply for grant funding. Levee setback to increase sediment storage and floodwater conveyance; protect adjacent development; reduce damage to trail bridge. Initiate design for elevation of one road location to reduce or eliminate isolation. Implement additional road elevations as funds become available. Total: $3.5 4M FCD 6YR: $2.5M FCD Yr 7-10: $1 1.5M Total: $8 8.5M FCD 6YR: $500K FCD Yr 7-10+: $7.5-8M Total: $ K FCD 6YR: $350K Total: $ M FCD 6YR: $360K FCD Out Years: $ M Proposed Medium Term Actions (Unfunded Projects) (Years 7-10) Total Project Cost: $ M N. Lower Frew Levee Setback Construction (Phase 2) O. Acquisitions in Leveed Reach P. NE Tolt Hill Road Elevation and Levee Setback Feasibility Study Q. Upper Frew Levee Setback Design and Construction (Phase 2) Levee overtops between 2- and 5-year flows, flooding and potentially damaging SR203 and properties in City of Carnation. Levee impacts habitat. Levees provide varying levels of protection and are vulnerable to failure; homes and businesses behind levees are at-risk. The Tolt River Left Bank Levee overtops during minor to moderate Tolt River and Snoqualmie River floods. Inundation of NE Tolt Hill Road limits the access to and from the Snoqualmie Valley and the City of Carnation during flood events. Levee overtops between 10- and 25-year flows; levee directs flow and debris into trail bridge causing damage. R. Levee Setbacks Levees provide varying levels of protection, are vulnerable to failure, and adversely impact habitat. Construct levee setback to increase sediment storage and floodwater conveyance; protect future development; reduce SR203 flooding and damages. Construction dependent on securing grant funds or full FCD funding. Acquire at-risk homes from willing sellers to reduce flood risk or to allow for future setbacks. Conduct a feasibility study of modifying NE Tolt Hill Road and setting back the Tolt River Left Bank levee downstream of SR 203. Design and construct levee setback. Add bridge spans under trail to provide connectivity between Lower and Upper Frew levee setbacks. Design and construct levee setbacks: Tolt River Levee Left Bank, Highway to Trail Bridge, and Girl Scout Camp. Total: $ M Total $ M Total: $700K 1M Total: $ M Total: $ M Proposed Long Term Actions (Unfunded Projects) (Beyond 10 years) Total Project Cost: $ M S. Levee Setbacks or Improvements Levees/revetments provide varying levels of protection, are vulnerable to failure, and adversely impact habitat. Design and construct levee setbacks or improvements at Remlinger (west end), Holberg and Edenholm levees. Total: $ M T. Private Revetment Removal or Improvements Existing privately constructed revetments provide varying levels of protection and adversely impact habitat. Remove or modify revetments to improve protection and/or reduce adverse impacts. Total: $ K 1 Cost estimates include best available projections regarding right-of-way acquisition, design, construction, 10-year site establishment, 10- year effectiveness monitoring; cost estimates do not include maintenance and monitoring beyond 10 years 2 Secured state, federal and/or county funding source 3 Unsecured funds; grant application submitted 4 Funding from the FCD fund balance Indicates a project with a nexus to WRIA 7 habitat restoration opportunity area and is likely to receive grant funds

23 NE NE 80th St 361 st Av e K. Rio Vista Property Acquisitions 5 M. Tolt River Road NE Improvements T. Private Revetment a Removal or Improvements 4.5 SAN SOUCI V U E nd 32 SR 203 Bridge St Effort Underway Near Term Action Medium Term Action Long Term Action a Property Aquisitions F F G N I. SR 203 Bridge Improvements Feasibility Study 0.5 Rd 1.5 R Tolt iver E. Holberg Levee Improvements Feasibility Study 1 NE To lt Hill D. Tolt Natural Area Legend Tolt River Rd NE a Q. Upper Frew Levee Setback Construction (Phase 2) Tolt River Capital Investment Strategy Project Location Map N. Lower Frew Levee Setback Construction (Phase 2) P. NE Tolt Hill Road & a Setback Study Levee Snoqualmie Valley Trail S. Levee Setbacks or Improvements a a L. Upper Frew Levee Setback Design (Phase 1) G. Lower Frew Levee Setback Design (Phase 1) Snoqualmie Valley Trail Bridge J. San Souci Reach Improvements (Phase 2) Figure 4-1 CITY OF CARNATION B. Trail Bridge to SR 203 Property Acquisitions 4 Snoqualm ie R iver 203 r ive V U tr Tol C. San Souci Reach a Improvements (Phase 1) A. Tolt River Levee Repairs River Mile Levee / Revetment Road City of Carnation Boundary Snoqualmie Valley Trail Flooding Influenced by Snoqualmie River Approximate 100-year Tolt Flood Limits af. Tolt River Levee Level of Service H. Sediment Management Feasibility Study O. Acquisitions in Leveed Reach R. Levee Setbacks U ,000 2,000 Feet Aerial: 2013 Prepared for King County by WATERSHED Science & Engineering C:\Users\Colin\Egnyte\Private\colin\Shaina\ Lower Tolt River\Capital Investment Strategy Tolt River\2017 Maps\Project Location Map.mxd (6/28/2017) 22

24 Capital Investment Strategy Prepared for the Tolt River Corridor Planning Process July 17, 2017 Proposed Implementation Schedule Efforts Underway PROJECT NAME A. Tolt River Levee Repairs B. Snoqualmie Trail Bridge to SR 203 Bridge Property Acquisition C. San Souci Reach Improvements and Road Elevation (Phase1) D. Tolt Natural Area Property Acquisitions 1 E. Holberg Levee Improvements Feasibility Study 1 6 Year CIP Medium Term Long Term Potential Project Implementation - Costs TBD F. Tolt River Levee Level of Service Analysis 1 G. Lower Frew Levee Setback Design (Phase 1) 1 H. Sediment Management in Leveed Reach Fesibility Study 2 I. SR 203 Bridge Improvements Feasibility Study 2 Potential Project Implementation - Costs TBD Potential Project Implementation - Costs TBD J. San Souci Reach Improvements and Road Elevetaion (Phase 2) C C C K. Rio Vista Property Acquisitions L. Upper Frew Levee Setback Design (Phase 1) M. Tolt River Road NE Road Improvements C C C MediumTerm Actions N. Lower Frew Levee Setback Construction (Phase 2) C C C O. Acquisitions in Leveed Reach P. NE Tolt Hill Road Elevation and Levee Setback Feasibility Study 2 6 Year CIP Medium Term Q. Upper Frew Levee Setback Construction (Phase 2) C C C Long Term 3 Potential Project Implementation - Costs TBD Long Term Actions R. Levee Setbacks S. Levee Setback or Improvements T. Private Revetment Removal or Improvements 6 Year CIP Medium Term Long Term 3 Note: This table only represents planning and construction phases of work. Each CIP projects will have an obligation for site establisment, maintenance, and up to 10 years of permit required monitoring 1 Mid 2017 Budget Reallocation Request 2 Implementation project concepts and costs are TBD based on outcome of feasibility studies 3 Projects will continue past the timeframe represented

25 SOUTH FORK SNOQUALMIE RIVER CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY July 17, 2017 The South Fork Snoqualmie River basin drains 85 square miles with headwaters in the Cascade Mountains. The river flows through the Upper Snoqualmie Valley and the City of North Bend. Continuous levees flank the South Fork from river mile 2.1 to 5.2. Provisional goals aim to address flood risks to a 500-year level of protection. Scope: The corridor planning process will support decision makers in setting flood risk reduction priorities: Define flood and erosion hazards in three corridor planning areas Focus on critical worst first public safety risks in each corridor Propose conceptual 6-yr CIP consistent with budget placeholder Summary of Risk: Under existing conditions, for a 500-year flood event, the following are subject to inundation by flood water: 553 structures 27 critical facilities 1.2 miles of interstate (I-90) 1.7 miles arterial roadway 12 miles of local roadway 9 homes plus utilities Proposed Risk Reduction Projects: Below is a draft sequenced action plan for implementing risk reduction efforts in the South Fork Snoqualmie Corridor. The project sequence reflects current information on urgency, severity, consequence, responsibility or authority, and funding or partnership opportunities. The current adopted King County Flood Control District CIP budget includes: $11.4M for Upper Snoqualmie Valley Residential Mitigation (USV), a portion of which is annually programmed to cost share home elevations along the South Fork $7.5M for South Fork Corridor Implementation $27.7M for countywide corridor plan implementation, some of which could be allocated to the South Fork Snoqualmie River priorities (specific projects TBD) PROJECT PROBLEM APPROACHES COST ESTIMATES 1 Efforts Underway (Funded Projects CIP) I-90 Flood Risk Reduction Project McConkey levee upstream of I-90 may overtop and combine with Clough Creek and flood I- 90. Project priority changed see Proposed Long Term Action L. Total: $150K A. Residential Flood Mitigation Shamrock Park / Berry Estates At the 500-year flood 32 homes are at risk of inundation. Elevate 12 homes. Total: $1.8M FCD 6YR $1.62M Homeowner Match: $180K Clough Creek At the 500-year flood 38 homes are at risk of inundation. Elevate 6 homes. Total: $900K FCD 6YR: $810K Homeowner Match: $90K Proposed Near Term Actions (Years 0 6) B. Circle River Ranch Risk Reduction Homes and infrastructure are at risk from erosion and flooding as the river migrates into a new side channel closer to development. 6-Year CIP Placeholder: FCD 6-Year Request: Total Project Cost: Potential solutions include: Gravel removal / instream engineered structures / bank stabilization / property acquisitions. $7.5M $13.6M to $16.7M $18.7M to $26.7M Total:$4.3M FCD 6YR: $4.3M C. US Army Corps of Engineers Public Law Eleven South Fork Snoqualmie River levees are eligible for participation in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers levee program but do not meet standards Potential solutions include: Manage vegetation, inspect, and identify all deficiencies / new projects in the corridor to meet standards / create System Wide Improvement Framework. Total: $150K to $1M FCD 6YR: $150K to $M D. Levee Remediation Six levee deficiencies have been identified in this leveed segment. Toe erosion / seepage / sink hole / depression in the levee surface. Design and reconstruct the impaired segment of levee in place. Total: $1.9M FCD 6YR: $1.9M E. Ribary Creek Improvements Ribary Creek levees and culverts overtop SR 202 (Bendigo Boulevard), flooding the retail center nearly annually. Design, permit and construct. Potential solutions may include: culvert replacement / gravel removal / levee setbacks Total: $6.1M to $8.3M 2 FCD 6YR: $6.1M to $8.3M F. Reif Road Levee Improvements (Phase 1) Reif Road Levee overtops at a 20-year or greater flood resulting in widespread inundation. Conduct a feasibility study to determine the project scope. Potential solutions include: repair and/or raise levee in place / setback levee / gravel removal / home elevations. Total: $6.2M to $11.2M FCD 6YR: $1.1M to $1.2M (Phase 1) FCD YR 7-10: $5.1M to $10.2M Phase 2 for Implementation is Proposed Medium Term Action G 1. Cost estimates include best available projections regarding right-of-way acquisition, design, construction, 10-year site establishment, 10-year effectiveness monitoring. Corridor planning cost estimates do not include maintenance and monitoring beyond 10-years. 2. Possible funding partner City of North Bend 3. Possible funding partner - WSDOT, City of North Bend

26 SOUTH FORK SNOQUALMIE RIVER CAPITAL INVESTMENT STRATEGY July 17, 2017 PROJECT PROBLEM APPROACHES COST ESTIMATES 1 Proposed Medium Term Actions (Years 7 10) (Unfunded projects) Total Project Cost: $26.1M - $47.2M G. Reif Road Levee Improvements (Phase2) Reif Road Levee overtops at a 20-year or greater flood resulting in widespread inundation. Phase 1 for Feasibility /Design is Proposed Near Term Action F H. Nintendo Levee Setback The Bendigo Upper Left levee, (Nintendo Levee) overtops at a 20- year or greater flood, inundating undeveloped property, railway lines and roadways. Construct Reif Road Levee Improvements Project. Potential solutions include: repair and/or raise levee in place / setback levee / gravel removal / home elevations. Leverage partnerships to construct a setback levee maximizing local floodwater storage benefits. Total: $5.1M to $10.2M (Phase 2) Total: $14M I. Si View Levee Improvements Provides 100-year level of protection with no freeboard except at the downstream end of the levee which overtops at an approximately 30-year flood. As gravel accumulates, increased overtopping is anticipated in the future. Increase flood level of protection to 500-year by raising levees in place or gravel management. 2 Total $7M -$23M Proposed Long Term Actions (Beyond 10 Years) (Unfunded Projects) Total Project Cost: $34.9M - $57.1M J. Bendigo Bridge Replacement The 150-foot span of Bendigo Bridge creates a hydraulic backwater that contributes to flooding. Increase outreach to Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT), and the City of North Bend to partner with the FCD, to replace Bendigo Bridge with a larger bridge of at least a 400-foot span. Total: $14.8M K. I-90 Flood Risk Reduction Project McConkey levee upstream of I-90 may overtop and combine with Clough Creek and flood I- 90. Setback levee / gravel removal Total: $10M to $23M 3 L. Prairie Acres Right Levee At the 500-year flood the City of North Bend Waste Water Treatment Plant and 32 structures are inundated. Setback levee / levee repair / raise levee in place Total: $1.4M- $2.4M 3 M. Bendigo Upper Right Levee At the 500-year flood 18 structures and local Streets are inundated. Setback levee / levee repair / raise levee in place Total: $3.3M - $3.5M N. Bendigo Lower Right Levee The levee overtops during a 100-year or greater flood, inundating 129 structures and local Streets. Setback levee / levee repair / raise levee in place Total: $2.2M - $6.4M O. Bendigo Lower Left Levee The levee overtops during a 50-year or greater flood, inundating five structures, NW 8th Street and a forested area. Levee removal / setback levee / levee repairs. Total: $3.2M-$7M P. Prairie Acres Left Levee The levee overtops at a 20-year or greater flood, inundating forested and undeveloped agricultural land. Levee removal / setback levee / levee repairs. Total: $500K - $1.5M 1. Cost estimates include best available projections regarding right-of-way acquisition, design, construction, 10-year site establishment, 10-year effectiveness monitoring. Corridor planning cost estimates do not include maintenance and monitoring beyond 10-years. 2. Possible funding partner City of North Bend 3. Possible funding partner - WSDOT, City of North Bend

27 4 D. Levee Remediation B B Ä Area of flooding due to multiple sources and outside of the detailed model area. B. Circle River Ranch Flood Risk Reduction r Ga ne di r rc k ee B D O AL IG B CH 202 BO EN V U N E AV D LV NW NO RT H BE D Ä W Q. Prairie Acres Levee Setback Q. Pr a irie A cr es L e ve e Se tb a ck ND W AY P. Bendigo Lower Left Levee Setback M. Prairie Acres Right Levee Setback M. Pr airie Acre s Righ t L eve e Set bac k D Ä D Ä P. B e n d i g o L o we r L e ft L e ve e S e tb a c k Ä D Ä O. Bendigo Lower Right Levee Setback O. Bendig o Lowe r Righ t Le vee Setb ack LL AR AT AV E N D BA N. Bendigo Upper Right Levee Setback H. Nintendo Levee G. Setback N. Be n d i g o U p p e r Ri g h t L e v e e Se tb a ck Sn CITY OF NORTH BEND E C. R ib a r y C re e k I mp r o v e me n t s r ba i R y Cr ee ie Va l N BE G DI O VD BL SO V U RT U TH 202 NO H BE ND A Ä A Ä SE SE F/G. Reif Road Levee Improvements R FA LL S H BE ND W AY W AY I.S V i ie w L e v e Im p ro v e me n ts ut So 424T H AVE SE A Ä Proposed Long Term Actions River Mile h DA RT I. Si View Levee Improvements F/G. Reif Roa d L evee Im pr ove me nts Proposed Medium Term Actions L. I-90 Flood Risk Reduction Fo L. I- 90 Flo od Risk Re duct ion rk Levee\Revetment oq Sn S E 1 40T r ve H ST C. All Levees: USACE PL South Fork Snoqualmie River Capital Investment Strategy Figure 4-1. Project Location Map ou Cl 0.5 Miles gh C ree k ou 90 k Ri Cl ee ie 500-Year Flood Inundation Area gh Cr lm Area of Flooding due to Multiple Sources ua Incorporated Areas 0.25 CE NO k Proposed Near Term Actions 0 Tr ai l W AY Actions Underway Ü le y 424th Ave SE AA Ä lm A. Residential Flood Mitigation ua D Ä K. Bendigo Boulevard South Bridge Replacement E. Ribary Creek Improvements oq 26 P:\T32987 King County SF Snoq Si View Levee Setback\GIS\MXD\FCD Meetings\Figure 4-1Project Loc ation map CIS.mx d