LOG NUMBERS

BGT. /fr CEO /

I 1 LI I L'A LI1U[ I W..IJ J U1A'IAIU J] L' I

TO: COUNCIL CHAIRPERSON: Dave Somers John Lovick SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Lenda Crawford Arif Ghouse EXECUTIVE RECOMMENDATION: Airport Approve No Recommendation Bill Lewallen Further Processing Land Development Requested By Bill Lewallen

December ll,2014 1. 388-5116

Executive Office Signature CEO Staff Review ,j / ,'21 Received at Council Office

L)OCL r I'PE: BUDGET ACTION: GRANT APPLICATION

Emergency Appropriation ORDINANCE Supplemental Appropriation Amendment to Ord. #

Budget Transfer PLAN CONTRACT: XX OTHER - Memorandum of Agreement

New Amendment

DOCUMENT / U;ENI)A rIrLE: WRDA Memorandum of Agreement

PRO\ HORJT\: t XX SCC 3.04140(1)

NORMAL EXPEDITE XX UR([NT DEADLINE DATE 1/14115

RPOS For approval of an Interlocal Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite environmental permit review.

EXPEND: FUND. AGY, ORG. ACTY. OBJ, AU 2014 2015 TOTAL (3 years) 410-5216804101 -Professional Services $100,000 $100,000

I TOTAL $100,000 $100,000

REVENUE: FUND, AGY, ORG, REV, SOURCE CURRENT YR 2ND YR 1ST 3 YRS 410-321680100420-Dept of Commerce grant $100,000 $100,000

TOTAL $100,000 $100,000

Department of Commerce Grant of $100,000 received in 2014 for anticipated expenditure in 2015. The Airport has sufficient budgeted funds in the 2015 enterprise fund.

v Hi ina1yst Administrator Recommend Approval

CONTRACT IN )IRMATION. ORIGINAL CONTRACT # AMOUNT

AMENDMENT CONTRACT # AMOUNT

CONTRACT PERIOD: ORIGINAL Start

End

AMENDMENT Start

End

Al RISK MNAGEMENT

Yes No tfA• COMMENTS

PROSECUTING ATTY - As TO FORM: Yes No

Al. RI

R(. [MEN . . . : . . ..

............... G:\ECAF\AiRi)A MOAECAF G:\ECAFRA+rpithWRDA Mk Motion,

SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohomish County, Washington

10 11 .• •

WHEREAS, Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act ("WRDA") of 2000, as amended by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, are now codified under 33 U.S.0 2352 and provide that the Corps may accept and expend funds contributed by a local government to expedite the evaluation of permits of that entity related to public projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army; and

WHEREAS, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Corps") issued a Public Notice dated July 22, 2014 announcing its intent to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal entities; and

WHEREAS, the Corps issued an informational Public Notice on December 5, 2014 announcing the Corps' decision to enter into a WRDA contractual agreement with Snohomish County; and

WHEREAS, the County anticipates that the primary departments that will be using a WRDA Memorandum of Agreement ("WRDA MOA") will be Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and the Airport; and

WHEREAS, initial $100,000 funding of the County's WRDA MOA will be provided by a cash grant of that amount from Washington State Department of Commerce that has already been received by the Airport for the specific use of being applied to funding of a Snohomish County WRDA MOA; and

WHEREAS, future replenishment of the County's WRDA MOA account balance as needed will be funded by Public Works, Parks and Recreation, and the Airport in proportion to their historical use of the WRDA MOA; and

WHEREAS, the WRDA MOA will apply to all environmental permit applications submitted by any department within Snohomish County and will serve to expedite review of such permits; and

WHEREAS, the County and Corps have agreed on a Management Plan to guide implementation and administration of the WRDA MOA during term of the agreement;

NOW, THEREFORE, ON MOTION, the Snohomish County Council hereby authorizes the County Executive to execute a Water Resources Development Act Memorandum of Agreement with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers to expedite review of County environmental permit applications to Corps.

PASSED this day of January, 2015.

SNOHOMISH COUNTY COUNCIL Snohomish County, Washington

r W.iu.r.dtS1i111.

Asst. Clerk of the Council

y ^ 343Mi

A

THIS AGREEMENT is entered into this day of , 2015 by and between the DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY (hereinafter the "Army"), represented by the U.S. Army Corp of Engineers (Corps), Seattle District Engineer and SNOHOMISH COUNTY (hereinafter the "County"), represented by the Snohomish County Executive.

WITNESSETH, THAT:

Whereas, Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, as

amended [WRDA 214 requirements, as amended by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, are now codified under 33 U.S.0 2352], provides that The Secretary of the Army (Secretary), after public notice, may accept and expend funds contributed by a non-Federal public entity to expedite the evaluation of a permit of that entity related to a project or activity for a public purpose under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.

Whereas, the Seattle District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ("Seattle District") issued an initial

public notice dated 22 July 2014 regarding its intent to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities; and

Whereas the Seattle District Commander has determined that expenditure of funds received from the County will be in compliance with the Act; and

Whereas, WRDA Section 214, as amended, has allowed local governments to move forward with

vital infrastructure and ecosystem restoration projects in a timely manner; and

Whereas, the Seattle District Engineer has determined that expenditure of funds received from the County will be in compliance with WRDA Section 214, as amended, and a special public notice dated December 5, 2014, regarding the District Engineer's decision has been issued; and

Whereas, Snohomish County is a political subdivision of the State of Washington and a non-Federal public entity.

Now, Therefore, it is Agreed:

ARTICLE I — PURPOSE AND AUTHORITY

Pursuant to WRDA Section 214, as amended, this Agreement is entered into by and between the Army and the County (collectively referred to as "the parties") for the purpose of establishing a framework governing the respective responsibilities of the parties for the acceptance and

Page 1 of 5

expenditure of funds contributed by the County to expedite the evaluation of permits under the

jurisdiction of the Army.

ARTICLE II — SCOPE

A. Within 60 days of execution of this Agreement, the County will provide to Seattle

District, Regulatory Branch, an amount to be agreed upon by the County and Seattle

District Regulatory Branch to expedite the evaluation of various County permits under

the jurisdiction of the Seattle District Regulatory Branch. Additional funds will be

provided to the Seattle District Regulatory Branch by the County as needed when funds

balances reach a pre-determined and mutually agreed-upon level. All fund transfers

under this Agreement will be directly between the County and Seattle District.

B. It is understood by the parties that use of the funds accepted hereunder will not impact

impartial Corps decision-making with respect to permit decisions, either substantively

or procedurally. The Corps regulatory program is funded as an appropriated line item

by Congress in the annual Federal budget. Additional funds received from the County,

a non-Federal public entity, will be used to expedite the evaluation of permits.

C. The Seattle District Regulatory Branch will establish a separate account to track receipt

and expenditure of funds associated with its review of County permits. Seattle District

regulatory employees will charge their time against the account when working to

expedite the review of any County permit request.

D. Funds contributed by the County will mostly be expended on salaries and overhead for

Corps Regulatory Branch Project Managers performing expedited processing activities

for County permits. Such activities include, but are not limited to, the following:

application intake review, correction of drawings, jurisdictional determinations, site

visits, preparation of public notices, drafting of correspondence, conducting the public

interest review, meetings with the County, and preparation of draft permit decision

documents. Funds will also be expended for the administration and tracking of the

contributed funds and work performed. Funds will not be expended for supervisor

review of the work of Project Managers by their supervisors and other persons or

elements in the Seattle District or Northwestern Division chain of command. Funds will

not be expended for enforcement activities.

E. Funds may be expended by other Corps elements supporting Regulatory Branch permit

actions, including but not limited to Environmental and Cultural Resources Branch,

Engineering Division and Dredged Material Management Office. Funds may also be

expended to hire contractors to perform select duties, including but not limited to site

visits, preparation of technical documents, including draft environmental evaluation

documents, reviewing drafts of technical or draft environmental evaluation documents,

preparing regional general permits for use by the County and others, or copying or

other clerical support tasks .

Page 2 of 5

F. All activities described in this article shall be performed in accordance with a

Management Plan approved by the parties and attached hereto as Exhibit 1. The

Management Plan may be modified as needed by mutual consent of the Seattle District Regulatory and County Principal Representatives identified in Article IV, below.

ARTICLE III — IMPARTIAL DECISIONS

It is understood and agreed by the parties that in order to ensure that the funds contributed by the

County will not impact impartial decision-making with respect to County permit applications, the

following procedures, mandated by Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, will apply to all

matters using funds provided by the County as a participating non-Federal public entity:

A. All final Regulatory Branch permit decisions for matters where County funds are used must

be reviewed at least one level above the decision-maker. If the decision-maker is the District Engineer, the permit will be reviewed by the Division Commander.

B. All final permit decisions for matters where County funds are used will be posted to the web.

C. The Seattle District will not eliminate any procedures or decisions that would be otherwise

required for the type of project and permit application under consideration.

D. The Seattle District shall comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

E. Funds will only be expended to expedite the review and approval of the permit application

or authorization request. Funds will not be expended for review of the decisionmaker's

decision. If contracts are used to develop decision documents, such documents shall be

drafts only and subject to review and adoption by the Seattle District before the decision is made.

ARTICLE IV —COMMUNICATIONS

To provide for consistent and effective communication between the Seattle District and County,

each party shall appoint a Principal Representative to serve as the central point of contact on matters relating to this Agreement.

The Principal Representative of the County is

Steve Thomsen, Director of Snohomish County Public Works, or his successor

Snohomish County Public Works Department

3000 Rockefeller, M/S 607

Everett, Washington 98201-4046

Page 3 of 5

The Principal Representative of the Seattle District is:

Michelle Walker, Chief, Regulatory Branch, or her successor

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District

P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755

Any notice required by this Agreement shall be written and sent to the Principal Representative by

first class mail or recognized overnight courier. Notices shall be deemed delivered (i) on the third

day after mailing when sent first class mail and the post mark affixed by the United State Postal

Service shall be conclusive evidence of the date of mailing; or (ii) on the second business day after

deposit with a recognized overnight courier.

ARTICLE V — APPLICABLE LAWS

This Agreement and all documents and actions pursuant to it shall be governed by the applicable

statutes, regulations, directives and procedures of the United States, State of Washington and the

Snohomish County.

ARTICLE VI — DISPUTE RESOLUTION

In the event of a dispute between the parties regarding this Agreement (excluding any specific

permit application/decision), the County and Seattle District shall use their best efforts to resolve

the dispute through informal consultation and communication and other forms of non-binding

alternative dispute resolution mutually acceptable to the parties.

ARTICLE VII — AMENDMENT, MODIFICATION

This Agreement may be amended or modified only by written, mutual agreement of the parties,

executed by the Seattle District Engineer and the Snohomish County Executive.

ARTICLE VIII —TERMINATION

Either party may terminate this Agreement by providing written notice to the other party's

Principal Representative at the listed address above. Such termination shall be effective on the

sixtieth (60) calendar day following such notice. In the event of termination, the County shall be

responsible for all costs by the Seattle District under this Agreement to the effective date of

termination.

This agreement shall remain in force until the Agreement is terminated pursuant to this article, or

the authority provided to the Corps to accept funds in accordance with 33 U.S.C. 2352 is terminated, or until the funds contributed by the County have been expended and not replenished

following receipt of a 60-day notice from the Seattle District to the County, whichever occurs first.

Page 4 of 5

Within sixty (60) calendar days of the termination effective date, the Seattle District shall perform

an accounting to determine the actual costs of the permit expediting work. Within thirty (30) days

of the completion of this accounting, the Seattle District shall return to the County any funds

advanced in excess of the actual costs. Funds may be provided to the County by check or electronic

fund transfer.

ARTICLE IX - EFFECTIVE DATE

This Agreement shall be effective when signed by both the Snohomish County and the Seattle

District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.

IN WITNESS WHEREOF, the parties hereto have executed this Agreement.

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SNOHOMISH COUNTY

BY: BY:

John G. Buck

District Engineer

Seattle District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

DATE:

John Lovick Snohomish County Executive

Page 5 of 5

Arif R. Ghouse Airport Director

John Lovick County Executive

N i_` ..E . C TY AtRPOR

3220 - 100th St SW Ste A Everett. WA 98204

(425) 388-5125 FAX (425) 355-9883

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY December 11, 2014

Action Requested of Executive's Office Execution of a Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Memorandum of Agreement

between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and Snohomish County that will provide a staffing process whereby all County environmental permits processed through the Corps will be expedited. Action Requested By: Bill Lewallen, Dep. Airport irector, in behalf of Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Airport. Summary:

1. Corps issued a Public Notice on 7/22/14 inviting comment on Corps intention to enter into a WRDA contract with Snohomish County.

2. Executive approved execution and forwarding of a Letter of Intent on 8/4/14 to the Corps of Engineers expressing County's intent to enter into a WRDA MOA Contract with the Corps.

3. County issued a Memorandum of Understanding on 11/3/14 as endorsed by Directors of Parks and Recreation, Public Works, and Airport, for initial $100,000 funding of WRDA Contract to come from a state grant Airport has received for that specific purpose, and long term replenishment of the Contract as needed in the future to be funded by these three departments in proportion to their historical volume of permit applications submitted to the Corps.

4. Corps issued Public Notice on 12/5/14 announcing Corps decision to enter into WRDA Contract with County.

5. While the WRDA MOA Contract will apply to all County permit applications to the Corps, the three identified County departments have historically submitted the vast number of, if not all, County applications to Corps.

6. Proposed WRDA MOA Contract will fund extra Corps staffing to expedite all environmental permit applications submitted by Snohomish County to the Corps. Corps requires that all County Corps permit applications be expedited through this Contract to insure a volume of transactions that justifies continuation of the Contract.

7. The Corps and the three negotiating County departments agreed on a draft Management Plan to define procedures, terms and contacts for administration of MOA.

8. 2014 Annual WRDA Report lists # of permitting days saved via existing WRDA contracts. TWO (2) PRIMARY STEPS REMAINING IN WRDA CONTRACT APPROVAL PROCESS:

1. County approval and signature of MOA in this ECAF packet to establish WRDA Contract with Corps. County executed WRDA MOA will be forwarded to Corps for final signature.

2. Corps executes WRDA MOA. Such signature intended to occur no later than 1/31/15.

Recommended Action: Parks and Recreation, Public Works and Airport recommend review and forwarding of the WRDA MOA Contract by Operations 1/13/15 for expedited Legislative Session final consideration and action on 1/14/15.

CENWS-OD-RG

SUBJECT: FY 2014 Reporting for Funding Agreements with Non-Federal Public Entities

1. Active Funding Agreements: City of Seattle, Pierce County, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma, Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT).

2. Public Notices: The Regulatory Program's 2008 guidance on implementation of funding agreements under Section 214 of WRDA 2000 requires districts to issue a public notice to announce when a district is considering accepting funds from a non-federal public entity and a second public notice when the district makes the decision to accept funds from a non-federal public entity. The following public notices regarding any funding agreements were issued this FY: Initial public notices for Snohomish County and City of Tacoma WRDA agreements. Seattle District anticipates executing agreements with these two entities in early FY 2015.

3. Public Notice Comments: The public notice for Snohomish County was published on 22 July 2014 with a comment period until 21 August 2014. The public notice for City of Tacoma was published on 22 July 2014 with a comment period until 21 August 2014.

a, Comments Received: The Suquamish Tribe commented by emails, both dated 1 August 2014, that the Tribe had no comments. No other comments on the proposed WRDA agreements were received.

Response Provided: None.

4. Funding: Section 214 of WRDA 2000 and Section 60020) of SAFETEA-LU allow the Secretary of the Army to accept and expend funds contributed by non-federal public entities to expedite the permit evaluation process. The Regulatory Program's 2008 guidance on funding agreements gives examples of acceptable activities for funds to be expended on including technical writing, site visits, training, travel, field office set up costs, copying, coordination activities, additional personnel, and others. Funding may come directly from the non-federal public entity's budget or may be from a grant or other source. The following outlines the source of accepted funds, and the means of expenditures.

First Agreement: City of Seattle

i. Carryover from previous FY: $55,397,41 ii, Total finds accepted: $90,000.00 iii. Total funds expended: $88,239.59 iv, Reason for shortfall or carryover: Carryover is the result of fewer applications

being submitted by the non-federal public entity than what was originally anticipated, as well as ensuring no lapse in the transition from one fiscal year

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

to the next. Per our agreement with the City of Seattle, in order to avoid a lapse of funds, supplemental funding is provided by the City before the account balance reaches $30,000.

v. Source of funding and type of expenditures: All the funds came from the City of Seattle. The $88,239.59 was expended on labor and benefits for project managers and technical specialists reviewing the City's project, as well as Corps staff supporting the administrative duties associated with WRDA 214 program management.

b. Second Agreement: Pierce County

i. Carryover from previous FY: $35,214.33 ii. Total funds accepted: $40,000.00 iii. Total funds expended: $40,845.10 iv. Reason for shortfall or carryover: Carryover is the result of fewer applications

being submitted by the non-federal public entity than what was originally anticipated, as well as ensuring no lapse in the transition from one fiscal year to the next. Per our agreement with Pierce County, in order to avoid a lapse of funds, supplemental funding is provided by the County before the account balance reaches $20,000.

v. Source of funding and type of expenditures: All the funds came from Pierce County. The $40,845.10 was expended on labor and benefits for project managers and technical specialists reviewing the County's project, as well as Corps staff supporting the administrative duties associated with WRDA 214 program management.

C. Third Agreement: Port of Tacoma

i. Carryover from previous FY: $24,618.85 ii. Total funds accepted: $10,000.00 iii. Total funds expended: $28,917.06 iv. Reason for shortfall or carryover: Carryover is the result of fewer applications

being submitted by the non-federal public entity than what was originally anticipated, as well as ensuring no lapse in the transition from one fiscal year to the next. Per our agreement with Port of Tacoma, in order to avoid a lapse of funds, supplemental funding is provided by the Port before the account balance reaches $10,000.

v. Source of funding and type of expenditures: All the funds came from the Port of Tacoma. The $28,917.06 was expended on labor and benefits for project managers and technical specialists reviewing the Port's project, as well as Corps staff supporting the administrative duties associated with WRDA 214 program management.

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

d. Forth Agreement: Port of Seattle

i. Carryover from previous FY: $29,319.41 ii. Total funds accepted: $0.00 iii. Total funds expended: $15,727.78 iv. Reason for shortfall or carryover: Carryover is the result of fewer applications

being submitted by the non-federal public entity than what was originally anticipated, as well as ensuring no lapse in the transition from one fiscal year to the next. Per our agreement with Port of Seattle, in order to avoid a lapse of funds, supplemental funding is provided by the Port before the account balance reaches $10,000.

v. Source of funding and type of expenditures: All the funds came from the Port of Seattle. The $15,727.78 was expended on labor and benefits for project managers and technical specialists reviewing the Port's project, as well as Corps staff supporting the administrative duties associated with WRDA 214 program management.

e. Fifth Agreement: WSDOT - No funds are accepted through this agreement. For FY 2014, we have two, full-time WSDOT liaison project managers and one part-time WSDOT liaison archaeologist working at the Seattle District under Interagency Personnel Agreements (IPAs). The WSDOT archaeologist began in June 2014. These positions are staffed by Washington State employees provided by WSDOT and the Washington State Department of Ecology (Ecology). Staffing costs totaled $239,926 for FY 2014, The WSDOT liaison staff salaries are paid by the state with a mix of state, Federal Highway Administration, and Sound Transit (Central Puget Sound Regional Transit Authority)/Federal Transit Authority funds. The program is executed under the SAFETEA-LU authority, Under the direction of Corps managers, this staff worked on WSDOT, FHWA, Sound Transit, and City of Fife projects. In the agreement with WSDOT, the Corps pays for travel and training expenses. In FY 2014, the Seattle District spent a total of $250.00 on travel costs for WSDOT liaisons and incurred no training costs.

5. Assessment: The goal of funding through an agreement with a non-federal public entity is to expedite the permit evaluation process. This can be accomplished through qualitative means such as dedicating staff for improved communication, ability of the non-federal public entity to prioritize projects with Corps staff, and more thorough submittals of information. The permit process must be expedited quantitatively; by demonstrating that permit processing times have generally improved since inception of an agreement with emphasis on permit processing times for the non-federal public entity.

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

The following describes how funds have been used to expedite the permit evaluation process.

a. First through Forth Agreements: WRDA Section 214 agreements (with City of Seattle, Pierce County, Port of Seattle, and Port of Tacoma)

i. Qualitative description: Seattle District has two FTE dedicated to the four non-federal entities. Seattle District's and the non-federal entities' expectations and working relationships are detailed in a Memorandum of Agreement and a Management Plan with each non-federal entity. Communication is improved by having Corps project managers dedicated to each entity, clear points of contact for each non-federal entity, and regularly scheduled coordination meetings. Seattle District WRDA 214 project managers met quarterly in FY 2014 with each of the four WRDA entities (City of Seattle, Pierce County, Port of Tacoma, and Port of Seattle) to discuss the status of active permit applications, project priorities, upcoming projects, issues needing resolution, and regulatory program changes and updates. The Corps project manager works closely with the non-federal entity to provide feedback in the early planning stages of projects so that projects can be modified to streamline the permit process and reduce aquatic resource impacts. Permit review efficiencies are also achieved by dedicated Corps WRDA project managers being familiar with the types of infrastructure projects typically undertaken by the non-federal public entities, being able to anticipate and plan ahead for processing permit applications for upcoming projects, and being able to better prioritize and execute workload for the non-federal entities based on contract advertisement or construction start dates.

Notable projects in FY 2014 include the finalization of the Elliott Bay Seawall permit for the City of Seattle, ongoing coordination on the Port of Seattle Pier 91 project and Seattle Waterfront project, and completion of an after-the- fact permit for a Pierce County flood response action. Corps WRDA project managers also provide formal and informal trainings for the non-federal entities on regulatory program topics. In FY 2014, training on providing complete applications and project drawings was provided.

Having staff dedicated to processing WRDA 214 projects reduces the workload of the non-WRDA 214-funded project managers, which generally benefits processing times for all applicants. Under WRDA 214 agreements, Seattle District has been receiving funds from non-federal entities since 2001, resulting in an increasing benefit in streamlining the permit processing through the early years of the agreement.

9

CENWSODRG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

ii. Quantitative description: Permit processing time is the primary quantitative measure Seattle District uses to evaluate WRDA 214 performance. Data in Table I below shows processing time for WRDA 214 vs. non-WRDA/WSDOT permit actions. Overall, processing time for WRDA actions in FY 2014 was shorter than for non-WRDAJWSDQT actions in the same time period except Individual Permits (IP). The higher processing time for WRDA IPs was mainly a result of a low number of IP projects and the completion of several long standing, complex permit actions that involved extensive Endangered Species Act (ESA), National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA), and tribal coordination, including the City of Seattle's Elliott Bay Seawall project and Pierce County's Neadham Road project.

Table 1. Average Processing time for WRDA vs. non-WRDA/WSDOT permit applications, by permit type

Action Type* # of WRDA

Actions

WRDA Avg. Processing Time

# of Non WRDA/WSPOT

Actions

Non-WRDA/WSDOT Avg. Processing Time

NPR 19 18 91 34

NWP 40 62 808 117

Permit Mod 4 28 55 57

IP 4 547 31 362 *NPR = No Permit Renuired: NWP = Nationwide Permit: Permit Mod = Permit Modification: 11? = Standard Individual Permit/Letter of Permission.

Data in Table 2 below shows the percentage of WRDA/WSDOT actions meeting the Corps Regulatory Program national performance metrics of 50% of Individual Permit (Standard Individual Permit and Letters of Permission) decisions reached within 120 days and 80% of General Permit (Nationwide Permit and Regional General Permits) decisions within 60 days. In FY 2014, the percentage of Nationwide Permit actions meeting the established national performance metrics was 55% for WRDA permit actions compared to 43% for non-WRDA/WSDOT permit actions while the percentage of WRDA Individual Permit actions meeting the established national performance metrics was 67% compared to 41 % for non-WRDA/WSDOT permit actions. For WRDA actions, the national performance metrics were not achieved in FY 2014 for NWP or IP processing times, but the General Permit and Individual Permit decision performance were both higher for WRDA than for nomWRDA/WSDOT.

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

Table 2. Percentage of permit actions meeting the national performance metrics for WRDA projects vs. non-WRDAIWSDOT projects, by permit type.

Funding Type Perm it Type* Total # of Actions

H of Actions Meeting Metrics

% of Actions gti'ics

Non-WRDA/WSDOT NWP 865 375 43%

Non-WRDA/WSDOT IP 96 37 4.1%

WRDA NWP 1 40 22 1 55%

WRDA IP 1 3 2 1 67% *NWP = Nationwide Permit; IP = Standard Individual Permit/Letter of Permission.

Note that while the WRDA and SAFETE,A-LU authorities allow Seattle District to expedite permit processing for the non-federal entities, overall Seattle District processing times often exceed the national performance metrics due to numerous and lengthy ESA, NHPA, and tribal trust consultations. In FY 2014, an additional barrier to the WRDA team's achieving national performance metrics for the WRDA actions was a staffing shortage due to extended family leave within the WRDA team and the volume of non-WRDA workload managed by WRDA and non-WRDA project managers.

In addition, the average time taken for the WRDA non-federal entities to achieve a complete application for General Pennits was 20 days less than for non-WRDA actions and was 75 days less for Individual Permits. WRDA entity general permit applications were complete on average in 10 days, compared to non-WRDA/WSDOT completeness at 30 days. For individual permits, the applications were complete on average in 100 days compared to non-WRDAIWSDOT completeness at 175 days. This reflects the effort by Seattle District WRDA project managers to coordinate and discuss project early, as well as provide extra training on the regulatory program and our application process, resulting in higher quality permit applications.

Overall, Seattle District Regulatory Branch permit processing times and performance relative to national goals do not appear to be influenced by the WRDA workload, given the small number of WRDA projects relative to the total number of actions processed by Seattle District's Regulatory Branch,

b. Fifth Agreement: WSDOT:

i. Qualitative description: WSDOT liaison project managers continued to be assigned to specific regional offices to expedite review of their projects. Set points of contact are established at each regional office, which improves

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

communication and develops working relationships and understanding of each agency's processes. WSDOT liaison project managers meet weekly with WSDOT Headquarters (HQs) staff to discuss the status of current applications and upcoming projects. WSDOT HQs staff disseminate the information collected at the weekly meetings statewide, One WSDOT liaison project manager meets semi-annually with one WSDOT region to discuss permit compliance. Both WSDOT liaison project managers meet monthly with WSDOT HQs staff to discuss permit compliance, mitigation site status, maintenance activities, and policy issues. The WSDOT liaison archaeologist is able to conduct NHPA Section 106 reviews to help streamline the permit process. WSDOT liaisons are readily available for pre-application meetings, which helps streamline the permit process for all projects. The WSDOT liaisons met as needed throughout the year for projects where the Corps is a cooperating or participating agency under SAFETEA-LU and provided environmental reviews at each stage of the process. The time invested during the planning stages of the SAFETEA-LU projects helps streamline the permit process for these large projects.

Notable projects in FY 2014 include the State Route (SR) 530 Oso Slide Emergency, 1-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Phase II, and SR 106 Beach Nourishment, The Oso Slide occurred on 22 March 2014 and covered nearly one mile of SR 530 with approximately 90,000 cubic yards of debris. For several weeks starting immediately after the landslide, the assigned WSDOT liaison participated in daily to bi-weekly teleconferences with 12 federal, state, and local agencies to provide emergency authorizations and receive updates. A Notice to Proceed was issued on 7 July 2014 for the highway reconstruction permanent fix. An after-the-fact NWP is expected to be issued in FY 2015, The Corps is currently reviewing the IP application for the 1-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Phase 2 project, which is one phase in a corridor that involved an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), The WSDOT liaison project manager meets monthly with an interagency team comprised of 13 federal, state, and local agencies to discuss environmental issues, mitigation, and possible conflicting agency requirements. The SR 106 Beach Nourishment project is a pilot project that allows landslide debris to be deposited in marine waters adjacent to the highway. The WSDOT liaison project manager helped WSDOT devise monitoring protocols and documentation requirements, and worked with adjacent property owners who were concerned about possible impacts to their shellfish beds.

In addition to extensive coordination with WSDOT and working on the noteworthy projects listed above, WSDOT liaisons focused their efforts in the following three categories:

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

a, Training: One WSDOT liaison provided training on the Section 404/Section 401 process to the WSDOT monitoring group.

b. Guidance: One WSDOT liaison served as the primary author for development of a joint Corps-Ecology wetland mitigation site close-out guide. The same WSDOT liaison worked with WSDOT to streamline their permit applications for fish passage replacement projects as a result of the Permanent Injunction Regarding Cu/veil Correction dated March 29, 2013. Input was provided on the application form, drawings, and understanding when mitigation may or may not be needed.

c. Mitigation: WSDOT liaisons provided early input to WSDOT, Sound Transit, and City of Fife on mitigation site selection, conducted numerous site visits to evaluate prospective mitigation sites, and provided feedback on initial mitigation proposals. Because several existing wetland mitigation sites needed substantial reconstruction, technical assistance was provided to WSDOT on adaptive management strategies for getting non-compliant projects back into compliance and achieving successful wetland mitigation site for multiple sites statewide. WSDOT liaisons closed out 4 wetland mitigation sites early in FY 2014.

I laving dedicated staff devoted to processing WSDOT permit applications and modifications and available to represent the Corps as a participating/cooperating agency for EISs reduces the workload of other Seattle District Regulatory project managers and benefits processing times for all applicants, The Seattle District has been hosting staff under the SAFETEA-LU authority, or its predecessor authorities, since FY 2000, resulting in efficient processing times for transportation projects. Conducting specialized training and providing guidance gives WSDOT staff a better understanding of the Corps regulatory process, which helps during emergencies and leads to a more efficient permit process. Early coordination for mitigation results in fewer revisions needed during the permit process and more reliable permitting tirnefrarnes.

ii. Quantitative description: Permit processing time is the primary quantitative measure Seattle District uses to evaluate WSDOT liaison program performance. Data in Table 3 below show processing time for WSDOT vs. non-WSDOT/WRDA permit actions. Processing time for WSDOT actions in FY 2014 was shorter than for non-WSDOT/WRDA actions in the same time period.

CENWSODRG SUBJECT: FY20 14 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

Table 3. Average Processing time for WSDOT vs. non-WSDOT/WRDA permit applications, by permit action

Non WSDOT Avg. # of Non- WRDAIWSDOT

# of WSDOT Processing Time WRDA/WSDOT Avg. Processing Action Type* Actions (Days) Actions Time (Days)

NPR 1 1 91 34

NWP 15 18 808 117

Permit Mod 2 26 55 57

IP 5 217 31 362

NPR = No Permit Required; NWP = Nationwide Permit; Permit Mod = Permit Modification; IP = Standard Individual Permit/Letter of Permission.

Data in Table 4 below show the percentage of WSDOT actions meeting the Corps Regulatory Program national performance metrics of 50% of Individual Permit (Standard Individual Permits and Letters of Permission) decisions reached within 120 days and 80% of General Permit (Nationwide Permits and Regional General Permits) decisions within 60 days. For FY 2014, the percentage of NWP actions meeting the established national performance metrics was 100% for WSDOT permit actions compared to 43% for non-WRDA/WSDOT permit actions. The percentage of IP actions meeting the established national performance metrics was 20% for WSDOT permit actions compared to 41 % for non-WRDA/WSDOT permit actions. The national performance metric was exceeded for NWPs, but not for IPs. Generally, where IP processing time was long, the delays were beyond the control of the WSDOT liaison project managers. One IP was transferred, after the 120-day goal had been exceeded, from a non-WSDOT liaison project manager to a WSDOT liaison project manager after FHWA provided funding through WSDOT. The project involved extensive wetland/stream crossings, resulting in delays finalizing jurisdiction and compensatory mitigation, For the SR 106 Beach Nourishment project, numerous water quality issues and establishment of monitoring protocols resulted in the Section 401 Water Quality Certification not being issued for one year. One project had a lengthy local shoreline permit process, delaying the Coastal Zone Management Act consistency determination issuance by over one year. Another project was subject to a formal ESA consultation with FHWA as the lead federal agency.

Table 4. Percentage of permit actions meeting the national performance metrics for WSDOT projects vs. nonWRJ)A/WSl)OT projects, by permit type.

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

Total # of # of Actions % of Actions ic1inT' Permit 3j* Actions Meeting jMetrics Meeting Metrics

Non-WRDA/WSDOT NWP 865 375 43%

Non-WRDA/WSDOT IP 96 13 41%

WSDOT NWP 15 15 100%

WSDOT IP 5 1 20% *NWTP = Nationwide Permit; IP = Standard Individual Perinit/Letter of Permission.

d. Year-to-Year Comparison. Processing time for all actions (except NWPs), both WRDAIWSDOT and non-WRDA/WSDOT generally increased from FY 2013 to FY 2014. In general this is due to an increase in tribal consultations, and numerous ESA consultations. A comparison of FY 2013 and FY 2014 performance is shown in Figure 1 below.

10

400

350

300

—i1s-

(Day ls^ 150

(III

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

[IJtiFY 2014 Performance Awirage Daysii*iii ff1 1i'ii

50 'Th4

0

2 L8 33 I 38 18

59:l

/228i26

NPR NWP Permit Mod IP WRDA FY 2013 WRDA FY 2014 fi WSDOT FY 2013 WSDOT FY 2014 n Non-WRDA/WSDOT FY 2013 Non-WRDA/WSDOT FY 2014

Figure 1. FY 2013 vs. FY 2014 performance - Average Days Processing Time

6. Performance Metrics: Establishing performance measures with the non -federal public entity for review of permit applications using contributed funds is a way to illustrate how effective the funding agreement is in expediting permit evaluations. The following performance metrics have been established for evaluation of permit applications for the non -federal public entity.

a. First through Fourth Agreements: WRDA Section 214 agreements (with City of Seattle, Pierce County, Port of Seattle, Port of Tacoma). Seattle District measures performance under WRDA 214 agreements primarily by evaluating whether we streamline permit processing to provide non -federal public entities with permit decisions in as timely a manner as possible. Seattle District tracks WRDA 214 performance and funding on a quarterly basis. We provide each of our WRDA entities with quarterly reports of finalized and

Ii

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

pending actions with processing time as well as funds received, expended, and remaining and how funds were used. We continue to fulfill communication and programs expectations described in the Management Plans with each non-federal entity. We measure our success by comparing WRDA 214 entity processing times to non-WRDA/WSDOT processing times. We have established the following quantitative performance measures:

* Average processing time for WRDA 214 permit actions is less than the processing times for non-WRDA/WSDOT projects without having a negative impact on non-WRDA/WSDOT projects. With the exception of IP processing time, as explained above, Seattle District met this performance measure for WRDA actions in FY 2014. WRDA 214 permit actions should meet or exceed established national performance metrics for NWP and IP processing times. For the reasons discussed above, Seattle District did not meet this performance measure in FY 2014.

b. Fifth Agreement (WSDOT): Seattle District measures performance under the SAFETEA-LU agreement by evaluating how the permit process is expedited. Semi-annual reports document processing times for Standard Individual Permits and General Permits and whether the permit applications were complete or not. Explanations of why the applications are incomplete are included. WSDOT uses the feedback to improve their permit application submittals, and help expedite permit processing times in the future. We measure our success by comparing WSDOT permit processing times to non-WSDOT and non-WRDA permit processing times. We have established the following performance measures:

• Average processing time for WSDOT permit actions is less than the processing times for non-WRDAIWSDOT projects without having a negative impact on non-WRDAIWSDOT projects. Seattle District met this performance measure for WSDOT actions in FY 2014.

• WSDOT permit actions should meet or exceed established national performance metrics for NWP and IP processing times. Seattle District net this performance measure for WSDOT actions in FY 2014 for NWPs, but not IPs for reasons explained above.

Based on the FY 2014 analysis of permit processing time, feedback from discussions with entity project and program managers, and as reflected in attached letters of satisfaction from non-federal public entities, Seattle District's WRDA 214 and SAFETEA-LU program is beneficial in providing efficient and streamlined permit

12

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

processing for the non-federal public entities with which we have agreements under these authorities.

7. Impartial Decision Making: While funds may be accepted to expedite the permit evaluation process, the funds must not impact impartial decision making. The main components of impartial decision making under the Regulatory Program's 2008 guidance on funding agreements include a one-level higher review and signature on all decisions (JD, NPR, GP, NW, LOP, SP, compliance actions) made under a funding agreement and the posting of all of these decisions on the district website. The higher level reviewer must be a position that is not fully or partially funded under the funding agreement. The 2008 guidance also indicates that funding may not be used for enforcement activities. The following outlines what measures have been taken to maintain impartial decision making on permit applications received from a non-federal public entity:

Seattle District requires that WRDA 214/WSDOT' decisions (JD, NPR, NWP, LOP, PERMITMOD, and SP) be signed one level above the normal signature level. We have developed a signatory authority Standard Operating Procedure that all funded project managers, technical specialists, and supervisors must follow when reviewing and signing permit decisions. In addition, all final actions are posted on the Seattle District's website:

CivilWorks/Regulatory/PermitDecisionsApp jsx, This site is updated monthly. My signature below verifies that all decisions made under a funding agreement are clearly posted on the District website.

8. Training: The Regulatory Program's 2008 guidance on funding agreements requires that all funded staff complete annual training on the requirements of the guidance.

Seattle District's annual training was conducted on 27 August and 17 September 2014. Each funded employee reviewed the 2008 Guidance and was briefed by the Seattle District Regulatory Branch WRDA 214 Program Manager on the requirements of the guidance and their responsibilities My signature below verifies that all funded staff have completed the necessary training for FY 2014.

CENWS-OD-RG SUBJECT: FY2014 Annual Reporting for Funding Agreements

9. Level of Satisfaction: Letters from the following non-federal public entities have been enclosed, rating the execution of their respective funding agreements: City of Seattle, Pierce County, Port of Tacoma, Port of Seattle, and WSDOT.

APPROVED BY:

= 4, -, / ///,/ V111a Michelle Walker

Date Chief, Regulatory Branch

'Ti'

City of Seattle Seattle Public Utilities

September 30, 2014

Michelle Walker Chief, Regulatory Branch Seattle District, Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755

Subj: City of Seattle WRDA Section 214 Annual Report

Dear Ms, Walker:

This letter is to summarize federal fiscal year 201344 accomplishments under our Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) Section 214 Program Agreement.

Since the WRDA program began, the City of Seattle has enjoyed a strong relationship with the Corps of Engineers. The WRDA program structure promotes clearer communication between the Corps and the City, and the assignment of a Corps representative to City projects contributes to our ability to construct projects, maintain facilities, and meet legally-mandated deadlines on time.

Corps staf outdid themselves in working with the Seat |e Department of Transportation to secure permits for the Elliot Bay Seawall Project. The Seawall is a major City capital project, designed to protect critical transportation and utility infrastructure as well as commercial and residential property along the central waterfront.

Corps staf worked closely with the City state and federal regulatory agencies, tribes, and other stakeholders to fast-track the Corps permit decision, which included assisting with the Biological Opinion and a National Historic Preservation Act Section 106 agreement. Of notable importance, the WRDA program allowed Corps staff to continue working on the Seawall project during the federal government shutdown, so as to help keep the project on track. The Corps has also been very responsive during construction, such as working with us to address changes in project methods, and by extending the in-water work window.

Ray Hoffman, Director' Tel (zoW68«'58Sz Seattle Public Utilities Fax (206) 684-4631 7nV 5th Avenue, Suite 4908 zoo(2no)333-r241 P0 Box 34O18 Seattle, WA 98124-4018

Sincerely,

7/ /•

..i1

cc: Olivia Romano, Seattle District Corps of Engineers WRDA 214 Program Manager

Pierce County Public Works and Utilities 2702 South 42nd Street, Suite 201 Tacoma, Washington 98409-7322 (253) 798-7250 Fax (253) 798-2740

September 25, 2014 WP 60672

Brian J. Ziegler, P.E. Director

Brian. Ziegler @ co. pierce. wa,us

30 2014

Alisa Ralph, Program Manager U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District 4735 E. Marginal Way S. Seattle, WA 98134-2329

Re: WRDA 214 Agreements Pierce County Letter of Satisfaction

Dear Ms. Ralph:

This letter is provided in response to the WRDA (Water Resource Development Act) 214 request that funding members submit a written letter of satisfaction for inclusion in the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers' (Corps) annual report.

Pierce County has been pleased with the outcome of the WRDA 214 process in 2014, specifically,

• Continued participation and better coordination with Olivia Romano has been beneficial to project planning;

• More flexibility with respect to conditions placed on the permits has assisted with construction costs and timing; and

• Quick turnaround on questions and applications made it possible for us to maintain our project construction schedule and retain grant funding on at least one project.

Please thank everyone at the Corps who has made this a successful year. If you have any questions or comments, please contact me at (253) 798-4206 or by e-mail at

Sincerely,

Trish Byers Senior Planner Pierce County Public Works, Surface Water Management

cc: Annette Pearson, Environmental Permitting Supervisor, Surface Water Management File

N:\UTL\VOL1\Documents\Watcr Programs\Frojects\EnvirornentaI Permitting\WRDA\WRJ)A\2014

`''.. -. Parbnc:rsl Per Pen mo

Port of ^^^ po. Box |mr

b^f^^^ | ^mm^ wmnwm ^ on 21 www.portoftacoma.com

September 18, 2014

OUviaRomano Program Manager Seattle District US Army Corps of Engineers 4735E. Marginal Way South Seattle, VVA08134-232Q

Re: WRDA 214 Letter of Satisfaction

/ ----- ^ ---1

^^P y^ YD^ __ ^~ -_..

The Port of Tacoma Is writing you as a result of the WRDA 214 guidance that requests lettersof satisfaction from WRDA 214 funding members. The Port understands that this letter may be included as part of the Army Corps of Engineers (ACOE) annual report.

The Port of Tacoma believes that the WRDA 214 authorization continues to be a successful program. Specifically, the Port appreciates the opportunity to wor directly with ACOE staff dedicated to port projects. The WRDA 214 authorization allows for expedited project/permitting review, consistent project management, improved communications and overall better cooperation and information sharing between our agencies. The Port of Tacoma wishes to express its satisfaction with the program and its implementation.

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the WRDA 214 authorization. I look forward to the continued success of the program.

Regards,

Senior Manager, Environmental Programs

CC: Michelle Walker, Regulatory Branch Chief Jason Jordan, Director of Environmental Programs

F

of I!'3 I wwwarsr orq

September 26, 2014

Ms. Olivia Romano WRDA 214 Program Manager USACE Seattle District 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, WA 98134

Dear Ms. Romano;

The Port of Seattle has been asked to comment on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District performance to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army for non-federal agencies as allowed under Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). The Port of Seattle has been a participant in this program for many years and believes that the program benefits our planning, design, and permitting for large and small capital development projects and on-going maintenance projects. The personnel assigned to the WRDA team are all genuinely interested in environmental protection but understand the need to make timely and informed decisions, Our competitiveness is improved because we can set review priorities and access agency resources to achieve timely permit decision-making.

The type, number, and scale of our capital infrastructure program has been somewhat diminished in recent years, but capital expenditures are increasing for the next few years as we embark on a period of berth upgrades to accommodate larger vessels being deployed in commercial container fleets. We are reliant on the Corps personnel to provide guidance and support to permit the projects in an expedient fashion. Looking back over the previous year, the personnel assigned to work on our projects are extremely helpful in providing the necessary guidance to achieve timely decisions. Although we haven't quite reached the final approvals, we expect to finish two particularly difficult permits for dredging — Terminal 91 East Berth and East Waterway Maintenance dredge programmatic permit - before the end of the year with assistance of the Corps capable staff.

I would particularly like to single out efforts from our project liaison, Olivia Romano who has always provided us quality and timely service. Also, we are sorry to see the Program Manager Alisa Ralph leave the Corps as she has always managed and executed a quality WRDA 214 program at the Seattle District.

I am required to submit to our elected Commission by the end of 2015 a reauthorization request to continue our relationship with the Corps for another five years. Based on our mutual past performance I will gladly and fully support this action and look forward to continuing our relationship with the Army Corps of Engineers especially since the Section 214 program is now institutionalized under the new WRDA legislation.

September 16, 2014

Ms. Alisa Ralph WRDA 214 Progra Manager USACE Seattl District 4735 East Marginal Way South Seattle, W/\y8|34

Dear Ms. Ralph:

The Washington S Department of DOT), Environmental Services Office has been asked to comment on the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District, Regulatory Branch (Corps), perforniance to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army for non-federal agencies as followed under Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA). WSDOT has found that participation in the program benefits our planning, design, and permitting for large and small capital development projects and ongoing maintenance activities.

We believe our participatio in the program keeps large infrastructure programs on track and on budget. The regulatory and technical expertise of the WSDOT-Liaison project managers at the Corps ensures all projects are evaluated fully by appropriate personnel in the Corps and coordinated with externalagencies, Indian Tdbes, and the public when needed. The project managers' knowledge of WSDOT project activities and processes is invaluable, precluding the need for WSDOT applicants to re-educate new project managers on the same information with each permit application. This consistency and experience provides a streamlined permitting process and increased efficiencies that is highlighted in the ongoing coordination and support of such state priorities as the State Route 520 Bridge Replacement, the Interstate-90 Snoqualmie Pass East Improvements, and the critical response and recovery efforts following the State Route 530 Landslide ut0oo. Finally, the personnel assigned as WSDOT-Liaisons at the Corps are all genuinely Committed to environmental protection as well as timely and informed decision-making. We are convinced that we would not get the kind of in-depth evaluation and expertise needed to make permit decisions in a timely manner from personnel lacking WSDOT project experience,

We look forward to our continuing relationship with the Corps through the WRDA program. We support continued funding for the program, which we believe keeps large infrastructure programs on track and on budget. The benefits to both the public and the environment are being enhanced because of this program.

Sincerely,

Megn) White, PE., Director Environmental Services Office

^|o/nJ

MW :cjk

DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY SEATTLE DISTRICT, CORPS OF ENGINEERS

P.O. BOX 3755 SEATTLE, WASHINGTON 98124-3755

Regulatory Branch

Mr. Steve Thomsen Director of Snohomish County Public Works Snohomish County Public Works Department 3000 Rockefeller, M/S 607 Everett, Washington 98201 -4046

Dear Mr. Thomsen:

Enclosed for signature by the Snohomish County Executive are two copies of a proposed Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Seattle District and. Snohomish County under Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA, codified under 33 U.S.C. 2352). Also enclosed is a final draft management plan which will be finalized and provided to you after the Agreement is signed.

Please have the Snohomish County Executive sign both copies of the enclosed Agreement and return both copies to this office. Once the Seattle District Engineer signs the Agreement, we will return an executed copy to you. The WRDA relationship between the Seattle District and Snohomish County will commence after the Agreement is signed and upon an advance of funds from Snohomish County.

We appreciate Snohomish County's interest in establishing this Agreement and look forward to working with your team to implement it. If you have any questions please contact Ms. Jacalen Printz at jacalen.m.printz@usace.army.mil or at (206) 764-6901.

Sincerely,

Michelle Walker Chief, Regulatory Branch

Enclosures

Ii1 Ii - I

US Army Corps of Engineers Seattle District

swR1 U kuJ ktumkir

Regulatory Branch Post Office Box 3755 Seattle, Washington 98124-3755 Telephone (206) 764-3495 ATTN: Ms. Alisa Ralph

Public Notice Date: December 5, 2014 Expiration Date: January 4, 2015

C ';1 : ̂ # Al i • ^ . ., _

The purpose of this Special Public Notice is to inform the general public that the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps), Seattle District has decided to accept and expend funds contributed by Snohomish County, Washington, a non-Federal public entity. The funds would be used to expedite processing of Snohomish County's Department of the Army permit applications.

On November 21, 2014, the Seattle District Commander determined that acceptance and expenditure of such funds would be in accordance with Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 2000, as amended [WRDA 214 requirements, as amended by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, are now codified under 33 U.S.0 2352].

On July 22, 2014, the Seattle District circulated the initial Special Public Notice announcing our preliminary intent to accept and expend such funds, and stated that we had initiated funding discussions with Snohomish County. The July 2014 Special Public Notice also discussed the kind of activities for which funds would be expended and the safeguarding procedures which would be used to ensure that the funds will not impact impartial decisionmaking. Those procedures include:

a. All final permit decisions for cases where these funds are used must be reviewed at least by one level above the normal decisionmaker, unless the decisionmaker is the District Commander. For example, if the decisionmaker is the Chief, Regulatory Branch, then the reviewer would be the Chief, Operations Division.

b. All final permit decisions for cases where these funds are used will be made available on the web.

c. The Seattle District will not eliminate any procedures or decisions that would otherwise be required for that type of project and permit application under consideration.

d. The Seattle District must comply with all applicable laws and regulations.

e. Funds will only be expended to expedite the final decision on the permit application. Funds will not be expended for the review of the decisionmaker's decision. If contracts are used to develop decision documents, such decision documents must be drafts only, for review and adoption, as appropriate, by Corps Regulatory program employees, before the decision is made.

The July 22, 2014, initial Special Public Notice indicated that, in addition to accepting funds to expedite Regulatory Program processing of permits, funds could also be accepted from these entities to expedite processing of Section 408 authorizations for modifications to Corps projects. Should such a request arise in the future, the Seattle District Planning Branch would execute a separate Memorandum of Agreement with the entity, and, separately from the Regulatory Branch, receive and track funds contributed by the entity for expedited Section 408 review, and make that final permit decision available to the public in a common format, including on the Internet.

Copies of the July 2014 Special Public Notice, this Special Public Notice, and the memorandum documenting the Seattle District's decision to accept and expend funds under the WRDA authority are available from the Seattle District Regulatory Branch at the letterhead address or on the Seattle District website at:ham' ;̂•: -•.,, ^:,,, .nws.usace.army.mil/iriissionsr'CivilWorks,Re ^ulatorv.aspx , click on "Water Resources Development Act Sec. 214."

2

DRAFT - Management Plan Water Resources Development Act Section 214 (as amended) Relationship

Seattle District Corps of Engineers Regulatory Branch and Snohomish County .2015

Scope Description The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA), Section 214, as amended [WRDA 214 requirements, as amended by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, are now codified under 33 U.S.0 2352], authorized the Secretary (of the Army) to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities to expedite the evaluation of permits under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army.

Under the WRDA Section 214 authority, the Seattle District Corps of Engineers (Corps) has entered into a funding agreement with Snohomish County. This Management Plan provides details on how the WRDA relationship will be managed by both the Corps Seattle District Regulatory Branch and Snohomish County.

Location All permit applications expedited under the WRDA Section 214 agreement will be for proposed work within the State of Washington.

Authorization In addition to the authorization in WRDA Section 214, as amended, the work shall generally be performed in accordance with established criteria and guidance including the following:

• Special Public Notices dated July 22, 2014 and December 5, 2014, outlining the proposed WRDA relationships

• Memorandum dated November 21, 2014, documenting the District's decision to accept and expend funds from non-Federal public entities under WRDA Section 214

• Agreement dated , 2015 between the Corps and Snohomish County • All applicable federal laws and regulations

Team Identification & Responsibilities

Name Title Organization Phone Number Erin Legge Project Manager, Corps (POC) (206) 764-6695

Regulatory Branch Jacalen Printz Acting Section Chief, Corps (206) 764-6901

Regulatory Branch Muffy Walker Chief, Regulatory Corps (206) 764-6915

Branch Douglas McCormick Engineering Manager County (POC) (425) 388-6655

Public Works Hal Gausman Deputy Director County-Parks (360) 805-672 9 Bill Lewallen Deputy Director Land County-Airport (425) 388-5116

Development

Page 1 of 6

Corps/Snohomish County WRDA Section 214 Project Management Plan

The Corps and Snohomish County have each designated one primary point of contact/manager. These co-managers will lead the team in the day-to-day work required to fulfill the WRDA agreement. As the staff that will be directly involved in all teams, ensuring coordination and communication between all parties will be a key task. The co-Managers will:

# Ensure that communications between all parties are open, frequent and effective.

Ensure that interdisciplinary coordination occurs so that potential conflicts or problems are identified and resolved both within and between organizations.

Executive Team Name Position Organization John G. Buck, Colonel District Commander, Seattle Corps of Engineers Steve Thomsen Director Snohomish County

Public Works

Roles and Expectations

The Corps' Expectations of Snohomish County under the WRDA Agreement:

• Honesty • Responsiveness and availability (answer the phone, reply to e-mail, etc.) • Respect and professionalism • Snohomish County personnel will have an understanding of the guidelines of the WRDA

program as outlined in the July 22 and December 5, 2014 Special Public Notices and the 2015 Memorandum of Agreement between Snohomish County and the

Department of the Army. • There will be a clear, single point of contact at Snohomish County for each permit

application. • Ensure that all permit conditions are met and that a staff mechanism exists to ensure

institutional compliance, including: • Deed restrictions recorded by due date • As-built drawings submitted by due date • Monitoring reports contain required information, are clear and concise, and are

submitted by due date • Proposed permit modifications are coordinated and approval obtained from the

Corps before construction of the modified project occurs. • Clear, concise and relevant packaging of information for submittal • Start communication at the lowest level and work up the chain only if it is determined to be

necessary. If supervisory input is required, the Snohomish County Project Manager (PM) will notify the Corps PM whenever possible.

• The Snohomish County/Corps PM will document important informal permit communications via confirming email or other method as appropriate. The Snohomish County and Corps PM will determine the need for a confirming e-mail and who is responsible for writing the e-mail prior to the closure of the conversation. If this process unsuccessfully addresses the communication issue, it will be revisited at a later date.

Page 2 of 6

Corps/Snohomish County WRDA Section 214 Project Management Plan

Corps Personnel commit to:

• Honesty • Responsiveness and availability • Respect and professionalism • Completing their portion of the application processing in an expeditious manner and

alerting other reviewers of WRDA priority projects. • Maintaining a clear, single point of contact at the Corps for each application. • Not cutting corners or giving Snohomish County any preferential treatment other than

expediting their application review. • Working with Snohomish County to help improve the County's understanding of the what

constitutes a complete application or other information requirements, and providing clear, concise and relevant responses to questions and information submitted by the County.

• Starting communication at the lowest level and working up the chain of command only if it is determined to be necessary. If supervisory input is required, the Corps PM will notify the Snohomish County PM whenever possible.

• Communicating about the Corps' regulatory program permit process, including program changes or new initiatives, to Snohomish County and committing to learning about Snohomish County's processes.

• In cooperation with the Snohomish County PM, proactively facilitating issue resolution internally and with other agencies to the extent possible.

• Providing the Snohomish County PM with a "best guess" for the date of the Corps decision for high priority projects at Snohomish County/Corps recurring meetings, based on the current priority level placed on the project. The Corps PM's "best guess" is not a guarantee for either permit issuance or timeline and should not be viewed as one.

• Documenting important informal permit communications via confirming email or other method as appropriate. The Snohomish County and Corps PM will determine the need for a confirming e-mail and who is responsible for writing the e-mail prior to the close of the conversation. If communication issues arise which this process does not successfully resolve, communication procedures will be revisited at a later date.

• Provide Snohomish County with reports of performance and funding status on a quarterly basis.

Work Breakdown Structure The funding provided by Snohomish County will be used for the following tasks:

• Salaries and overhead of Regulatory Project Managers performing expedited processing activities for participating public entities. Such activities would include, but not be limited to, the following: application intake review, drawings correction, jurisdictional determinations, site visits, public notice preparation, preparation of correspondence, conduct of the public interest review, preparation of draft permit decision documents, and meetings with the applicant. Funds will also be used for compliance follow-through on a subset of issued permit issued to the Snohomish County.

• Administration tasks associated with WRDA 214, as amended, program management, tracking and reporting on funding and work completed under WRDA Section 214, as amended, and audits.

• If needed, to hire contractors to perform select duties such as site visits, technical writing, copying, technical contracting for review of specific items such as biological assessments for endangered species, writing drafts of reference biological assessments to be used by

Page 3 of 6

Corps/Snohomish County WRDA Section 214 Project Management Plan

funding entities and the general public alike, preparing regional general permits, Essential Fish Habitat determinations, and other technical documents, including draft environmental documents.

• For other Corps offices that provide technical assistance in support of expedited evaluation. Examples of possible technical support that would be funded include the Dredged Material Management Office review or archaeological review.

• Training by Corps staff for Snohomish County staff on regulatory program topics to facilitate better understanding of regulatory program requirements and more efficient permit processing.

• If the need is identified, funds may be used for development of programmatic tools that benefit Snohomish County as well as other permit applicants, such as regional general permits, programmatic mitigation, programmatic Endangered Species Act biological assessments.

Funds would not be expended for the following tasks: • Review of project managers' work by supervisors or any other final decision makers. • Enforcement activities

Funding Funds will be provided by Snohomish County for expediting permit application review. Snohomish County may contribute funds to the Corps either electronically or by check at any time. Following an initial provision of funds, in order to avoid a lapse in the availability of funds, supplemental funding should be submitted by Snohomish County before the account balance reaches $25,000. Funding can be submitted by check made out to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and addressed. to:

FAO, USAED, Seattle Seattle, AT '114: CENWS-RM-FA Seattle, WA 98124-3755

Current instructions for electronic funds transfers will be provided by the Corps as needed.

The Corps will provide Snohomish County with an accounting of how funds have been expended and the balance remaining on a quarterly basis.

Quality Control To ensure that the funds will not impact impartial decisionmaking, the following procedures, mandated by the WRDA 214 legislation and Corps Headquarters would apply to all cases using additional funds provided by the participating non-Federal public entities:

a. All final permit decisions for cases where these funds are used must be reviewed at least by one level above the decisionmaker, unless the decisionmaker is the District Commander. For example, if the decisionmaker is the Chief, Regulatory Branch, then the reviewer would be the Chief, Operations Division.

b. All final permit decisions for cases where these funds are used will be made available on the Seattle District Regulatory web page.

Page 4 of 6

Corps/Snohomish County WRDA Section 214 Project Management Plan

The Seattle District will not eliminate any procedures or decisions that would otherwise be required for the type of project and permit application under consideration.

d. The Seattle District must comply with all applicable laws and regulations and use the same procedures for review and decisionmaking for Snohomish County permit actions as would be required for other permit applicants.

For permit decisions, funds will only be expended to expedite the final decision on the permit application. Funds will not be expended for the review of the decision maker's decision. If contracts are used to develop decision documents, such decision documents must be drafts only and be reviewed and adopted by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers regulatory program employees, before the decision is made.

Acquisition Strategy In general, work to expedite permit application review will be conducted by Corps personnel. However, as described above, contractors may be hired to complete some technical and draft review and documentation. In that instance, the Corps will be responsible for selecting and hiring contract personnel.

Change Management This document provides guidelines for how the Corps and Snohomish County will coordinate under the WRDA Section 214 agreement. However, many of those guidelines are subject to revision at the request of either party or in response to changing needs and/or capability. Any proposed changes to the WRDA relationship will be introduced and discussed at the regularly scheduled program/project coordination meetings, or as needed, prior to revision of the management plan.

Communication Plan Team meetings will be held every other month, unless otherwise agreed to, to discuss project status, upcoming applications, funding status, programmatic efforts, and any other topics requested by either the Corps or Snohomish County. Although project updates will occur informally at these WRDA coordination meetings, formal pre-application meetings will be scheduled for large and/or controversial upcoming projects. In order for those pre-application meetings to be as effective as possible, Snohomish County should provide the Corps with project information at least two weeks prior to the distribution of the pre-application meeting invitation in order for the Corps to provide input on agency participation. Communication regarding individual projects/applications will be conducted informally via phone or e-mail whenever possible. In cases where formal communication is required for projects that are high priority, such correspondence will be transmitted electronically with a hard copy follow-up. Communication will be courteous, informal, and frequent.

Either party can terminate the funding agreement under WRDA 214, as amended, at any time, by providing written notice to the other party's Principal Representative. Such termination would be effective 60 days from the termination notice. Otherwise, the agreement will remain in force until the authority provided under WRDA 214, as amended, is terminated or until funds run out and are

Corps/Snohomish County WRDA Section 214 Project Management Plan

not replenished following receipt of a 60-day notice of termination from the Seattle District to the County. Within 60 days of the termination date of the agreement, the Seattle District will perform an accounting to determine the costs of work incurred under the agreement, and within 30 days of that accounting will return to Snohomish County any funds advanced in excess of actual costs incurred.

Approvals This management plan will be reviewed, revised and approved by the Corps and Snohomish County members. Any subsequent changes to this management plan will also be reviewed and approved by both parties. Corps approval of management plan revisions will be by the Regulatory Program Branch Chief. Snohomish County approval of management plan revisions will be by the Snohomish County Public Works Director.

Page 6 of 6

Coury (425) 388-3460

FAX (425) 385-3434

M/S #407 3000 Rockefeller Avenue

Everett, WA 98201-4046

LETTER OF INTENT

August 8 2014

Alisa Ralph, Chief 3ec Progr tion U.S. Army , ors' rgineers N''Region

4735 East Margiri1 Way South Seat-,'Lie, WA 98134-2329

Re: 1RAFT Snohom!sh Counts \ater Resources, Reform and Development Act c 2014 (WThA) Men.: m of Agreement and Management Plan

Dear M. talph;

Thank you and your associates at the Corps for iccdng with representatives from Snohomish County over the pst couple of mo.ift to negotiate and draft the attached Snohomish Cou ty WRDA MOA and Management Plan that are designed to expedite processing of environmental rJe;r on future County applications submitted to he Corps. These documents ViI :1Liv Snohomish County funding of Lorps staff time to be dedicated to timely processing of enviroY[taI permit applications from Snohomish County as provided for in Federal guic ns, and such documents are anticipated to go into effect on October 1, 2014,

1;h County A4- port intends to fund the: initial WRRDA MOA fee of One H fed €'_'L ;and [)o[ (C01 0t:E t.i]l E:cut. )fl Cf Irl C)A ,.

jectedtoo HdcOMji. ;-L. - _tw-:

.........................................................................................

.;t: . appnow, of jd

signature of MO- pendhg IN approval . :: y both parties and :tion by the Qrpv consistent . . ou nJ: j internj ial and

sig:ure process.

The express !Au cf UYs COE:eSpO1CP :.e s to ment th Yant of Cuunrtyt'o e)'Ccui H M( execution by

the Orps and County (. app, and to Ta nd the in! fee and

Sincerey,

- \

Lenda Crawford Snohomish County Executive Director

Cc: Steve Tho[. Director, Snohomish County Public Works Torn Teiger'L, Orecior, Snohomish County Parks and Recreation Dave Waggoner, Director, Snohomish County Airport

flr. :.

WHEREAS, Section 214 of the Water Resources Development Act ("WRDA") of 2000, as amended by the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, are now codified under 33 U.S.0 2352 provide that the Corps may accept and expend funds contributed by a local government to expedite the evaluation of permits of that entity related to public projects under the jurisdiction of the Department of the Army; and

WHEREAS, the Corps issued a public notice dated July 22, 2014 of its intent to accept and expend funds contributed by non-Federal public entities; and

WHEREAS, the Corps issued an informational public notice announcing the Corps' decision to enter into a WRDA contractual agreement with Snohomish County; and

WHEREAS, the Corps has determined that expenditure of funds received from the County will be in compliance with the WRDA Section 214; and

WHEREAS, the County and the Corps intend to enter into an agreement ("WRDA Contract") for the purpose of establishing responsibilities for the acceptance and expenditure of funds contributed by the County under WRDA to expedite the evaluation of permits for public projects under the jurisdiction of the Corps; and

S4 WA%

NOW, THEREFORE, by this MEMORANDUM OF UNDERSTANDING ("MOU"), Public Works, Airport and Parks mutually acknowledge that their departments individually and collectively will participate in funding, managing, accessing and using the expedited services of restoration I projects IS. •-conditions:

1

1. County WRDA Team. Public Works, Parks and Airport will work collaboratively to develop and implement participation in funding and using the expedited services of the Corps consistent with the WRDA Contract and Management Plan. The Principal Representative for the County WRDA team will be Steve Thomsen, Snohomish County Public Works Director, or his successor. The County's Principal Representative will be a central point of contact with the Corps' Principal Representative to provide consistent and effective communication regarding the WRDA Contract and Management Plan. County WRDA team mem-becs will be comprised of representatives from each of the Public Works, Airport and Parks departments as designated by Directors of those departments. Initial WRDA team members as designated by Directors are Douglas McCormick, Engineering Manager Public Works, Bill Lewallen, Deputy Director Land Development - Airport, and Hal Gausman, Deputy Director Parks. Team meetings will be held as necessary to discuss project status, upcoming applications, funding status, programmatic efforts, and any other topics requested by team members.

2. Initial Funding. Within 60 days of execution of the WRDA Contract, Airport, acting as Grant Administrator, will provide initial funding to the Corps in the amount of One Hundred Thousand Dollars ($100,000.00) from a Snohomish County grant Contract Number AF14-68610-002 from the State of Washington. Funding will be submitted by check from the Airport made out to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and addressed to:

FAO, USAED, Seattle Seattle, ATTN: CENWS-RM-FA Seattle, WA 98124-3755

If Airport desires to send the funds electronically, the Corps will provide current instructions for electronic funds transfers as needed.

Public Works $15,000.00 Parks $10,000.00

Airport $MSMIXSI]

The replenishment amounts listed above are order of magnitude estimates for initial budget purposes until actual use of WRDA Contract occurs and is documented. Final replenishment payment amounts by departments shall be adjusted as necessary to balance the respective contribution of each consistent with the Corps services used by each department during period of contract use after establishment of the fund, or most recent prior fund replenishment.

Payment will be submitted by check made out to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers or electronic transfer. If County desires to send the funds electronically, the Corps will provide current instructions for electronic funds transfers. All fund transfers under this MOU will be directly between the County and Corps.

4. Term. The term of this MOU will be co-terminus with the WRDA Contract and Management Plan. The effective date of this MOU will be date that this MOU is executed by the Snohomish County Executive or the full execution of the WRDA Contract and Management Plan by County and Corps, whichever occurs later.

5. Accounting. The Corps will provide County with an accounting of how funds have been expended and the balance remaining on a quarterly basis. The County team will use such Corps accounting to determine the proportional fund replenishment from each department consistent with use of the Corps services by each department as described in Section 3 above.

6. Dispute Resolution. Public Works, Parks and Airport shall submit any matter or dispute regarding this MOU to the Snohomish County Executive for resolution. The County Executive shall determine any actions or remedies necessary to resolve any matter or dispute between Public Works, Parks and Airport. Any decision by the County Executive in this matter shall be final.

7. Termination. This MOU will terminate (1) upon 60-day written notice by either party to other party's Principal Representative; (2) when federal authority provided under WRDA Section 214 is terminated; (3) when funds run out and are not replenished following receipt of a 60-day written notice from the Corps or (4) the term expires under Section 4 of this MOU.

i. Notice. Any notices may be addressed in person or mailed to the following respective addresses:

To Airport: P1 Airport Director

Is AA gi"

II1tII

To Parks: Parks Director

Quom

J Mail !'' County Mail Stop 303 County Mail Stop 607 • u.]lLIJI[SJIIfllyA'

S C1Modification. the County Executive.

ii. YSU •1 I - I SflfliIIThLIW(IIIUdL'Z Parks and Airport agr

the County Council h

Dated: (I / SNOHOMISH COUNTY:

Snohomish County x LENDA CRA

Executive Dir

Recommended by Recommended by Snohomish County Airport Snohomish County Parks and Recreation

Arifse- Tom Teigen Airport Director Parks Director

Recommended by

Upproved as to forn;

Steve Thomsen rosecupg Atou:v

Public Works Director

El