Share to Facebook Share to Twitter Bookmark and Share
File #: FCD21-03    Version: 1
Type: FCD Motion Status: Passed
File created: In control: King County Flood Control District
On agenda: Final action: 10/12/2021
Enactment date: Enactment #: FCD21-03
Title: A MOTION relating to the Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan; updating the planning process for a proposal that will result in the Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan; confirming the goals and purposes of the proposal; and redefining alternative means of accomplishing the goals and purposes of the proposal; and requesting the District responsible official to continue State Environmental Policy Act review of the proposal.
Attachments: 1. FCD21-03_Final, 2. A. Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) Alternatives, 3. FCD21-03 Staff Report New Alts LGRCFHMP

Drafter

Clerk 10/05/2021

title

A MOTION relating to the Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan; updating the planning process for a proposal that will result in the Lower Green River Corridor Flood Hazard Management Plan; confirming the goals and purposes of the proposal; and redefining alternative means of accomplishing the goals and purposes of the proposal; and requesting the District responsible official to continue State Environmental Policy Act review of the proposal.

body

                     WHEREAS, the King County Flood Control District ("the District") through Resolution FCD2016-05 directed the District executive director to prepare a work plan and budget for a Lower Green River Corridor Plan ("the LGRCP") and to issue a request for proposal for a consultant to prepare a State Environmental Policy Act ("SEPA") programmatic environmental impact statement ("PEIS") for the LGRCP, and

                     WHEREAS, Motion FCD18-01 initiated a PEIS for the LGRCP, described the goals and purposes of the proposal, described alternatives, and requested the SEPA responsible official begin SEPA review of the proposal, and

                     WHEREAS, the LGRCP is now referred to as the Lower Green River Flood Hazard Management Plan ("the LGRCFHMP"), and

                     WHEREAS, the Lower Green River study area includes flood risk reduction facilities in multiple jurisdictional ownerships and is surrounded by mixed land uses, including agricultural, commercial, industrial, open space, recreational and residential, and

                     WHEREAS, the Lower Green River study area is the largest warehouse and distribution hub in the entire Northwest, second largest warehouse district on the west coast, and third largest in the nation, supplying the region with groceries, food service products, gasoline, medical supplies and other critical provisions and includes many of the region's major employers, and

                     WHEREAS, flood risk modeling conducted by the District in 2014 finds that levee overtopping or breaching resulting in floodplain inundation of one to 10 feet or more put at risk, people, structures, infrastructure and economic activity including approximately 22,000 people living in the floodplain and approximately 9,000 residential, commercial and public facilities, based on 2014 data, and

                     WHEREAS, expected annual damages and economic impacts due to flooding were estimated in 2014 to be $47.1 million over a 50-year period and the present value of those impacts were estimated to be $1.1 billion, and

                     WHEREAS, the LGRCFHMP is a follow-up plan to the System-Wide Improvement Framework ("the SWIF") submitted by the District to the United States Army Corps of Engineers ("the USACE") in March 2019 and accepted by the USACE in September 2019, and

                     WHEREAS, the SWIF maintains eligibility for flood damage repairs under the federal PL 84-99 Program, but does not include projects to extend flood protection and does not use an integrated floodplain management approach, and

                     WHEREAS, Resolution FCD2016-05 determined the broader objectives supported by stakeholders who participated as SWIF advisors can best be achieved through a long-range planning process that includes a SEPA PEIS analyzing cumulative impacts and reasonable alternatives for accomplishing the multiple objectives of flood protection; equity and social justice; environmental justice; habitat protection and salmon recovery; resilient communities and ecosystems; productive and viable agriculture; sustainable development; jobs and sustainable livelihoods; open space conservation; sustainable and clean water; and recreation and other opportunities to connect people with nature, and other issues to be defined through a PEIS scoping process, and

                     WHEREAS, Resolution FCD2014-09.1 adopted provisional levels of protection for 43.7 shoreline miles of the Lower Green River as described in the map exhibit dated, June 12, 2014, attached to Resolution FCD2014-09.1, and

                     WHEREAS, Motion FCD20-07.1 declared the District's commitment to integrated floodplain management and multi-benefit projects, and

                     WHEREAS, the District desires to continue the planning process for a proposal resulting in the LGRCFHMP, by adopting the goals and purposes of the proposal, and

                     WHEREAS, the District through Resolution FCD2016-04 adopted SEPA procedures designating the District executive director as the District's SEPA responsible official ("the SEPA Official"), and

                     WHEREAS, the SEPA Official issued a legal notice of the Determination of Significance on November 28, 2018, commencing the scoping period inviting tribes, agencies and members of the public to comment on the scope of the PEIS, and

                     WHEREAS, the SEPA Official extended the scoping period until May 1, 2019, to allow 154 days for tribes, agencies and members of the public to comment on the scope of the PEIS, and

                     WHEREAS, the three alternatives carried through the initial scoping process were developed before adoption of Motion FCD20-07.1, and

                     WHEREAS, pursuant to Motion FCD20-07.1 to the extent practicable and within the authority of the District, the LGRCFHMP will provide flood risk reduction while balancing the following multi-benefits: equity and social justice; environmental justice; habitat protection and salmon recovery; resilient communities and ecosystems; productive and viable agriculture; sustainable development; jobs and sustainable livelihoods; open space conservation; sustainable and clean water, and recreation and other opportunities to connect people with nature;

                     NOW THEREFORE BE IT MOVED BY THE BOARD OF SUPERVISORS OF THE KING COUNTY FLOOD CONTROL ZONE DISTRICT:

                     SECTION 1.  The goals and purposes of a proposal that will result in the LGRCFHMP ("the Proposal") continue to provide an integrated and reasonable long-term approach to reduce flood-risk within the Lower Green River Corridor while balancing multiple objectives within the study area, including but not limited to economic vitality and environmental protection.  This integrated approach is intended to protect people, property and jobs, while reducing conflicts between flood facilities, equity and social justice, agricultural land use, economic development, habitat restoration, housing, recreation, salmon recovery, water quality and other issues that will be considered and analyzed through a SEPA PEIS scoping process.

                     SECTION 2.  The SEPA Offical is requested re-initiate scoping for the PEIS as soon as possible to engage in a robust public process regarding the new alternatives described in Attachment A to this motion.

                     SECTION 3.  The alternatives to the Proposal described in Attachment A to this motion each describe an approach to implementing integrated floodplain management as part of District actions taken pursuant to the purposes and powers described in chapter 86.15 RCW.

                     The alternatives use several types of facilities or actions to provide protection from or accommodation of flooding up to the provisional level of protection of 18,800 cfs., plus three feet of freeboard.  These facilities and actions are used in different combinations to create each alternative:

                     A.  Flood facility project "type a" are levees or floodwalls with riverward side slopes of less than 2.5:1. Project footprints would be designed to minimize property acquisitions while still meeting engineering standards for certification.  This facility type is intended in the most constrained locations where a facility "type b or c" (described below) would impact existing agricultural land, buildings, parking or traveled roadways. The approximate footprint of this facility type is no greater than 100 feet from the ordinary high-water mark to the extent of maintenance access;

                     B.  Flood facility project "type b" are levees or floodwalls with riverward side slopes of 2.5:1 or more that can be planted with vegetation and/or a bench, including large woody debris, scour protection and enhanced vegetation.  This facility type would likely require more land acquisition or easements than facility "type a" described above. This facility type is intended in locations where a wider footprint can be accommodated.  The approximate footprint of this facility type is 100 to 150 feet from the ordinary high-water mark to the extent of maintenance access;

                     C.  Flood facility project “type c” are levee or floodwall setbacks providing at least 150 feet from the ordinary high-water mark and a maximum of riverward side slopes of 3 to 1.  These setbacks often require property acquisitions and possible relocations in the immediate vicinity but provide flood protection to people and property in the greater Lower Green River valley.  These setbacks provide space for the District to incorporate habitat benches, side channels, vegetation providing shade, other riparian and aquatic enhancements, and access to the river for fishing and shoreline enjoyment, into the facility design.  These setbacks often provide opportunity for the District, in collaboration with the local jurisdiction and other agencies, to provide open space and passive recreation riverward of the facility, trails on the top of the facilities, and help provide some relief from urban heat islands; and

                     D.  Flood facility project “type d" are physical nonstructural measures such as home elevations, basement removal with utility addition, flood proofing, berms, ring levees, farm pads and drainage improvements.  The USACE defines these measures as physical nonstructural measures applied to a structure or its contents that prevent or provide resistance to damage from flooding.  Physical nonstructural measures differ from structural measures in that they focus on reducing the consequences of flooding instead of focusing on reducing the probability of flooding.

                     SECTION 4.  The alternatives to the Proposal described in Attachment A to this motion each apply the District actions described in SECTION 3 of this Motion based on planning level estimates of where District action is needed to protect people and property from flood risk.

                     SECTION 5.  Possible alternatives to be discussed and analyzed in a PEIS for the Proposal are described in Attachment A to this motion.  The District acknowledges that

these alternatives may be modified, changed or replaced during the PEIS scoping process or preparation of the PEIS.