US Army Corps of EngineersBUILDING STRONG®

Jeffrey F. DillonCivil Works Branch Seattle District

BUILDING STRONG®

Briefing Objectives

• Share Project Background and Authority Information• Review History of Green Duwamish ERP Cost

Management • Review Updated Cost Management Strategy and

Recommendations• Raise awareness of the Green Duwamish ERP among

WRIA 9 professionals.

2

BUILDING STRONG®

BLUF• Green Duwamish ERP = 45 separable elements delivering cost-shared ecosystem

restoration projects to the Green River

• Cost of delivering projects was higher than Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) authorization amount. Potential violation of Section 902 of WRDA 86

• Concerns over executing fully under 902 limit prompt HQ request to assess project costs and determine descoping strategy if necessary

• Descoping strategy developed. Required over 20% loss of benefits and reduction of 12 elements to get sufficiently under 902 limit.

• Recommended executing descoping strategy to improve HQUSACE support

• Updated project list and costs approved by HQUSACE in 2018

3

BUILDING STRONG®4

A favorable Chiefs report dated December 29, 2000 was signed by the Chief of Engineers and submitted to Congress for consideration in WRDA 2000. The Green Duwamish Green River Ecosystem Restoration Project was subsequently authorized under Section 101(b) of WRDA 2000. Specific language follows:

PROJECTS SUBJECT TO FINAL REPORT. “The following projects for water resources development and conservation and other purposes are authorized to be carried out by the Secretary substantially in accordance with the plans, and subject to the conditions, recommended in a final report of the Chief of Engineers if a favorable report of the Chief is completed no later than December 31, 2000:

(26) DUWAMISH/GREEN, WASHINGTON. The project for ecosystem restoration, Duwamish/Green, Washington, at a total cost of $112,860,000, with an estimated Federal cost of $73,360,000 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $39,500,000.

Note: Executive summary from 2000 Final Feasibility Report states “estimated cost for recommended plan is $115,879,400.” Reason the cost was reduced in Chiefs Report remains unclear.

Authority

BUILDING STRONG®5

Cost Management Flow Chart

Prepare Update PB3 / MCACES

TPC Exceeds Cost + Inflation

4. Submit to NWD

a. Updated PB3b. Scope Reduction

Memorandum, if applicable

NO

YES

YES

3. Scope Reduction Analysis / Memo

5. Submit to NWD

a. Updated PB3b. Sect 902 c. Scope Reduction

Memorandumd. Request to Exceed Cost

+ Inflatione. Cost ATR / Certification

2. Prepare Sect 902 Analysis

TPC DOES NOT EXCEED 902 LIMIT TPC EXCEEDS 902 LIMIT

NO

6. Submit to NWD

a. Updated PB3b. Sect 902 c. Scope Reduction

Memorandumd. Request to Exceed Cost

+ Inflatione. Cost ATR / Certificationf. Prepare PACR for next

WRDA Authorization

BUILDING STRONG®6

Elements Constructed within Green Duwamish ERPProjects constructed by the Green Duwamish ERP since authorization in 2000. Costs are pulled from the Corps of Engineers financial systems to determine spent thru costs.

Elements completed by Green Duwamish ERP and Cost

Number Site Number

Project Name TPCE 2000* Actual Cost Status

1 17 Green River Park (Riverview) $767,039 $5,475,000

Completed under GD-ERP

2 8 Upper Springbrook Creek $532,616 $1,471,000

Completed under GD-ERP

3 2 Duwamish Site 1 $2,225,928 $3,202,000

Completed under GD-ERP

4 21 Lake Meridian Outlet $1,259,535 $5,134,000

Completed under GD-ERP

5 37 Big Spring creek $1,629,140 $5,028,000

Completed under GD-ERP

6 20 Meridian Valley Creek $651,178 $1,280,000

Completed under GD-ERP

7 15 Mill Creek Wetland 5K $2,845,501 $6,282,000

Completed under GD-ERP

BUILDING STRONG®7

Elements Completed by Other Fed/Non-Fed Sources and Cost

Number Site Number

Project Name TPCE 2000* Actual Cost Status

1 40 Gale Creek Culvert $706,627 $212,000Done by Others-TPU

2 44 May Creek Culvert $517,315 $75,000Done by Others-TPU

3 23 Riverside Estates $1,068,519 $12,000,000

Done by Others- KC-FCD

4 25 Porter Levee Setback $1,606,812 $8,063,000

Done by Others-KC-FCD

5 42 Sweeny Creek $333,913 $497,219

Done by Other Corps Authority (CAP 206)

6 4 Codiga Farms $1,857,980 $1,707,380

Done by Other Corps Authority (CAP 1135)

7 33 Green River Gravel $12,229,958 $3,000,000

Done by Other Corps Authority (HHD OM)

In addition:City of Auburn completes Fenster Levee, a component of the mainstem Maintenance (site 24)

BUILDING STRONG®8

Remaining Green Duwamish-ERP Elements Arranged by Implementation Tier

ImplementationTier

Site Number

Project Name 2016 Project First Cost($1000’s)

Project Fully Funded Cost($1000’s)

Env. Benefits(Eco Units)*

1 32 Mainstem LWD $ 2,280 $ 2,310 111.771 29 Turley Side Channel $ 1,518 $ 1,572 13.181 28 Hamikami Levee $ 1,221 $ 1,293 16.071 12 Mullen Slough $ 8,598 $ 9,329 78.731 30 Lones Levee $ 5,108 $ 5,680 39.431 11 Prentice Nursery $ 4,943 $ 5,629 16.961 14 Merlino Reach $ 4,918 $ 5,716 48.92

ImplementationTier

Site Number

Project Name 2016 Project First Cost($1000’s)

Project Fully Funded Cost($1000’s)

Env. Benefits(Eco Units)*

2 19 NE Auburn Creek $ 11,010 $ 13,596 64.982 36 Newaukum Creek $ 44,224 $ 56,663 192.002 26 Kaetch Side Channel $ 1,632 $ 2,102 7.192 39 Upper GR side channels $ 2,860 $ 4,081 8.492 31 Burns Creek $ 2,462 $ 3,689 13.00

BUILDING STRONG®9

ImplementationTier

Site Number

Project Name 2016 Project First Cost($1000’s)

Project Fully Funded Cost($1000’s)

Env. Benefits(Eco Units)*

3 10 Garrison Creek $ 5,056 $ 8,593 14.843 1A Volunteer reveg $ 1,920 $ 4,040 107.143 34 Flaming Geyser Landslide $ 9,487 $ 17,730 51.433

35Flaming Geyser Side Channel

$ 6,878 $ 13,561 22.48

3 47 Sunday Creek $ 18,309 $ 47,559 62.723 16 Goedeke North $ 5,962 $ 12,064 36.683 1 Elliot Bay Nearshore $ 566 $ 1,221 3.39

Additional Info:● TPU completes partial scope of LWD placement (site 32) with placements below HHD● TPU completes partial scope of Sunday Creek (site 47) above HHD● King County constructed Porter Levee (site 25)● Early GD-ERP efforts on mainstem maintenance elements (site 24) at Boeing Levee and Upper Russell Road unsuccessful.

BUILDING STRONG®

DESCOPING STRATEGY- ALTERNATIVES

10

5.3.2 Alternatives to Gain Budget SupportThe NWS/King County team explored many alternatives in response to the new TPCE costs. The team identified four (4) final alternatives to take forward in order to respond to the increase in TPCE costs and future potential to reach the Section 902 limit. Those alternatives were:

1. Do nothing- seek de-authorization2. Descope now and execute later 3. Continue to execute and descope later4. Do not descope- seek PACR and reauthorization

PREFERRED ALTERNATIVE: #2- Descope now and execute later

BUILDING STRONG®

DESCOPING STRATEGY- Results

11

The PDT descoped to reduced the TPCE under the 902 limit using the least number of elements needed. Emphasis was placed on minimizing environmental benefit loss. Elements were selected from the entire portfolio and not restricted by tier.

An analysis was run to determine if any scenarios following the above prioritization could achieve a TPCE lower than the 902 limit and also meet the 20% target for benefit reduction (Policy Guidance)

DescopingTier Project Name

Fully Funded Cost($1000’s)

% of total $ Eco Units

% of total EU

2 Olson Creek $2,850 0.38% 5.36 0.37%2 Horsehead Bend $6,674 0.90% 10.55 0.73%2 Schuler Bros Reach $29,614 3.97% 59.90 4.12%2 Ray Creek $11,933 1.60% 17.80 1.22%2 Brunner Slough $11,268 1.51% 13.23 0.91%2 NE Creek Culvert $2,367 0.32% 3.71 0.26%3 Riverton Creek $4,746 0.64% 5.36 0.37%3 Gilliam Creek $13,430 1.80% 4.76 0.33%3 Mainstem Maintenance $307,767 41.29% 120.26 8.27%

4 Lower Springbrook Creek $59,119 7.93% 35.45 2.44%

4 Mill Creek East $34,041 4.57% 52.99 3.65%

4 Black River Marsh $1,007 0.14% 3.99 0.27%

BUILDING STRONG®

DESCOPING STRATEGY- Results (cont)

12

Total reduction of ecological benefit is 22.94% from the values authorized in 2000. Total reduction of TPCE from $745,344K to $260,528K represents a reduction from 100.1% above the 902 to under the 902 by 10.8%. The TPCE is also under the cost plus inflation value.

Order of Element Removal Element Name

Element First Cost

Element % of Total

First Cost

Reduced GDERP

First Cost

Reduced GDERP Fully Funded Cost

GDERP 902 Limit

% overor under 902

Limit % Benefit Loss

Base Case - - $395,832 $745,344 > $372,517 100.1% --

1 Lower SpringbrookCreek $26,069 6.6% $369,763 $686,224 > $367,171 86.9% 2.44%

2 Mill Creek East $16,856 4.3% $352,908 $652,183 > $365,136 78.6% 6.08%3 Black River Marsh $651 0.2% $352,256 $651,177 > $365,201 78.3% 6.36%4 Gilliam Creek $6,971 1.8% $345,285 $637,747 > $364,848 74.8% 6.68%5 Mainstem Maint. $119,197 30% $226,088 $329,980 > $292,066 13.0% 14.96%6 Brunner Slough $7,188 1.8% $218,900 $318,711 > $291,312 9.4% 15.87%7 NE Creek Culvert $1,976 0.5% $216,924 $316,344 > $291,723 8.4% 16.12%8 Riverton Creek $2,814 0.7% $214,110 $311,599 > $291,105 7.0% 16.49%9 Horsehead Bend $4,927 1.2% $209,183 $304,925 > $291,417 4.6% 17.21%10 Ray Creek $8,119 2.1% $201,064 $292,992 > $291,157 0.6% 18.44%11 Olson Creek $2,158 0.5% $198,906 $290,142 < $291,373 -0.4% 18.81%12 Schuler Brothers $21,137 5.3% $177,769 $260,528 < $292,035 -10.8% 22.94%

Recommended PlanFirst Cost Reduction

Reduction % of Total

Reduced GDERP First

Cost

Reduced GDERP Fully Funded Cost

GDERP 902 Limit

% overor under 902

Limit

*All dollar figures are price

level October 2016, $1,000s

Scenario F, Cut 12 Elements $218,063 55.1% $177,769 $260,528 $292,035 -10.8%

BUILDING STRONG®

What else is included in the NWS descoping recommendation?

13

Formalized Coordination with NWD to obtain approval prior to initiating a cost share agreement. Ensures element is appropriate in scope and supportable through budgeting process.

Routine updates of the TPCS (every 2-years) and 902 limit (annually). Ensures accurate tracking of progression towards descoping thresholds (75% of Cost + Inflation)

Periodic update to descoping strategy to reflect changes in project completion (by Corps or others). Ensures accurate adjustment to descoping priorities and impacts.

At NWD request, complete periodic IPR’s to brief overarching project updates and areas needing attention.

BUILDING STRONG®

Next Steps:

14

Incorporate NWD comments and resubmit-Complete

NWD send report to HQUSACE CCB for review- Complete

NWD approves report; regain funding eligibility-Complete

Work with local sponsors to identify next set of elements to initiate- On-Going

Receive funds to initiate new project elements- On-Going