Project Management Plan
Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem Restoration
Study
September 25, 2001
|
| AFB |
|
Alternative Formulation Briefing
(see ER1105-2-100) |
| ASA
(CW) |
|
Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Work |
| BCO |
|
Biddability / Constructability
/ Operability |
| CAP |
|
Continuing Authority Program |
| CEFMS |
|
Corps of Engineers Financial
Management System |
| CR |
|
Cultural Resources |
| EIS |
|
Environmental Impact Statement |
| ESA |
|
Endangered Species Act |
| FCSA |
|
Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement |
| GI |
|
General Investigation Program
- A Federal funding appropriation for planning
and design |
| HQUSACE |
|
Headquarters United States
Army Corps of Engineers |
| ITR |
|
Independent Technical Review |
| MCACES |
|
Micro-Computer Aided Cost
Engineering System |
| NEPA |
|
National Environmental Policy
Act 1969 |
| NMFS |
|
National Marine Fisheries
Service |
| NWD |
|
Northwest Division USACE |
|
| NST |
|
Nearshore Science Team |
| OMRR&R |
|
Operation, Maintenance, Repair,
Replacement & Rehabilitation |
| PDT |
|
Project Delivery Team |
| PED |
|
Pre-Construction Engineering
and Design |
| PL |
|
Public Law |
| PMP |
|
Project Management Plan |
| QC |
|
Quality Control |
| SEPA |
|
State Environmental Policy
Act |
| SHPO |
|
State Historic Preservation
Office |
| TRC |
|
Technical Review Conference |
| USACOE |
|
United States Army Corps of
Engineers |
| USFWS |
|
United States Fish and Wildlife
Service |
| VE |
|
Value Engineering |
| WBS |
|
Work Breakdown Schedule |
| WDFW |
|
WA State Department of Fish
and Wildlife |
| WRDA |
|
Water Resources Development
Act |
|
1.0 Scope
Introduction
This Project Management Plan (PMP) is by reference hereby
incorporated into the Feasibility cost sharing agreement entitled
"Agreement between the Department of the Army and Washington
State Department of Fish and Wildlife (Washington State) for
the Puget Sound Nearshoree Ecosystem Restoration Study". This
PMP defines the Scope of Work, and documents the process for
conducting the Feasibility phase study and is a means for
those involved in the study (i.e., Seattle District Army Corps
of Engineers, Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife
(WDFW), Northwestern Division (NWD), and Corps of Engineers
Headquarters (HQUSACE)) to formally agree to the conduct of
the study before it is initiated. The PMP does not attempt
to repeat project related details provided in the final reconnaissance
Report for this study, the reconnaissance studies, or related
investigations conducted prior to initiating the Feasibility
phase of project development.
The Feasibility Report will be a complete
decision document in sufficient detail to form the basis for
the sponsor, Corps of Engineers, and ultimately the U.S. Congress,
to consider approving authorization and construction of the
recommended plan. The Feasibility Report will provide a complete
presentation of the study analyses and results, including
those developed in the reconnaissance Report. The Feasibility
Report will also document compliance of the design with all
applicable guidance, statutes, Executive Orders, and policies,
and provide a sound basis for decision makers to judge the
recommended plan.
The PMP has been developed to plan, define,
and control the development and delivery of the products to
be completed during the Feasibility phase. With clearly defined
work tasks, the PMP will provide management with a basis for
cost and schedule control of the Feasibility study as well
as minimize communication and review comments and/or problems.
The PMP will be updated and/or revised as needed throughout
the planning process using traditional methods. Scoping for
Stage II of the study will be performed during Stage I of
the process after further knowledge of the nearshore environment
is determined. Similarly, scoping for Stage III will take
place during Stage II. The PMP addresses the following:
- Study tasks and responsibility for their accomplishment.
- The estimated cost of individual study tasks and Total
study cost, including the negotiated cost of work items
to be accomplished by sponsor as in-kind services.
- Corps of Engineers and other professional criteria to
assess the adequacy of the completed work effort, including
references to regulations and other guidance that will be
followed in performing and evaluating tasks.
- The schedule of performance and milestones (i.e., key
decision points, in-progress reviews, issue resolution conference,
etc.).
- The specific coordination mechanism between parties to
this agreement.
- Procedures for reviewing and accepting the work of the
parties to this agreement.
The PMP is a working document, and expected
to be revised and modified as needed throughout the study
process. All changes in the PMP will be coordinated with the
Project Delivery Team, the local sponsor, Steering Committee,
and the Executive Committee. Any schedule or cost changes
require written agreement and approval from both the local
sponsor and the NWD.
The work shall generally be performed
in accordance with established criteria and guidance including
the following:
- ER 1105-2-100, "Planning Guidance Notebook," U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, April 22, 2000.
- ER 1110-2-1150, "Engineering and Design for Civil Works
Projects," U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, August 31, 1999.
- ER 5-1-11 (FR), "Program and Project Management," U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, February 27, 1998.
- "Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines
for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies,"
U.S. Water Resources Council, March 10, 1983.
- ER 200-2-2, "Procedures for Implementing NEPA," U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers, March 4, 1988.
- ER 405-1-12, "Real Estate Handbook," U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers.
- ER 1165-2-501, "Civil Works Ecosystem Restoration Policy,"
Corps of Engineers, 30 September 1999.
- ER 1165-2-502, "Ecosystem Restoration – Supporting
Policy Information," Corps of Engineers, 30 September 1999.
Reference:
ER 1110-2-1407, Hydraulic Design for Costal Shore Protection
Projects.
1.
2 Study Purpose
The purpose of the Feasibility study is to evaluate significant
ecosystem degradation in the Puget Sound Basin; to formulate,
evaluate, and screen potential solutions to these problems;
and to recommend a series of actions and projects that have
a federal interest and are supported by a local entity willing
to provide the necessary items of local cooperation. The recommended
plan must significantly contribute to the identified restoration
objectives of restoring nearshore habitat of Puget Sound for
the benefit of the biological resources and the integrity
of the ecosystem, including the functions and natural processes
of the basin; additionally the plan must be both technically
viable and economically sound. This PMP defines the scope
of and documents the process, schedule and cost for performing
the Feasibility study necessary to meet the purpose.
1.3
Reconnaissance Phase Study
The Puget Sound Nearshore 905(b) Reconnaissance Report, dated
18 December 2000, and approved by Corps headquarters on 22January
2001 finds that there is a federal interest in pursuing a
Feasibility phase study to plan for the restoration of the
Puget Sound Basin. Puget Sound is bounded on the east by the
Cascade Range and on the west by the Olympic Mountains. Its
northern part reaches the artificial boundary between the
United States and Canada, and it ends at the base of the low
hills of the Coast Range near Olympia (Figure 1). Innumerable
bays, inlets, promontories, mud flats, and gravelly or sandy
beaches form the intricate contours of the shore. In addition,
a myriad of islands of all sizes are found throughout the
basin. The variety and extent of the shoreline Totals 2,000
miles (3,220 kilometers). The Total surface area of water
contained by the Sound is 768square nautical miles. Some call
Puget Sound a "miniature ocean"; others portray it as one
of the largest systems of estuaries in the world. Biologically,
it is one of the most productive bodies of water in the world.
Whatever you choose to call it, Puget Sound is the most distinctive
feature of the landscape in western Washington.
During the reconnaissance study, it was
found that major human modifications along the Puget Sound
shoreline have resulted in a significant loss in estuarine
and nearshore habitats. Changes in the physical structure
of the shorelines have resulted in losses that limit terrestrial
food sources and nutrient inputs for marine life; lowering
of the beach profile, coarsening of beach sediment, filling
of intertidal areas; and alterations of surface and groundwater
flows. The direct link between physical conditions and habitat,
and habitat and biological resources have resulted in significant
impacts to critical fish and wildlife resources, including
habitat that supports all species of salmonids. Stream alterations,
lands use, and construction of infrastructure within the intertidal
areas have also degraded aquatic and riparian ecosystems within
the basin. In addition, three salmonid species has been listed
as threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) (chum,
chinook, and bull trout). The Feasibility phase study will
develop an overall plan for the restoration of the ecosystem
within the nearshore environment of the Puget Sound Basin.
The problems identified in the 905(b)
Report include:
1. Direct loss of nearshore habitat and
processes as a result of human modifications such as construction
of bulkheads and docks, filling of intertidal areas, and removal
of shoreline vegetation;
2. Indirect loss of nearshore functions
and processes (i.e., sediment sources, drift patterns, marine
vegetation, fresh water inputs);
3. Remnant habitat patches have now become
critical support features for fish and wildlife populations,
including three threatened species of salmonids; and
4. Thirteen species or groups of organisms
whose regional populations have declined substantially in
recent years include six species of fish, three seabirds,
marine invertebrates, Olympia oysters and harbor porpoises.
Habitat for spawning, rearing, and sustaining other life cycle
processes has been identified as a major limiting factor in
population declines of these species. Salmonids are thought
to be indicator species. The fact that salmonids are in decline
indicates other marine species are likely to follow unless
intervention reverses the current trends.
For hard copies of Figure 1, please contact
the Army Coprs of Engineers at Bernard.L.Hargrave.Jr@usace.army.mil
Figure
1. Puget Sound and Adjacent Waters.
The types of restoration actions listed in the 905(b) Report
include:
- Restoration of historic shoreline processes
- Beach nourishment
- Removal of armoring or structure setbacks
- Alternative ‘processes friendly’ erosion
protection measures
- Sustainable measures
The reconnaissance Report will be used
as a base from which to continue the required planning studies.
The purpose of this reconnaissance study was to identify ecosystem
restoration opportunities in the nearshore environment of
the Puget Sound Basin, develop conceptual measures to address
the identified problems and opportunities, and work with local
governments to determine which measures and/or projects warranted
further study. This effort is intended to be complementary
with the numerous salmon recovery efforts taking place within
Washington State [i.e., Shared Salmon Strategy; Salmon Recovery
Funding Board (SRFB)]. While the reconnaissance phase considered
only central Puget Sound, the Feasibility Study will include
all of Puget Sound, including Hood Canal and the Straits of
Juan de Fuca, Haro, Rosario, and Georgia. This is being done
to ensure the functions and processes of Puget Sound are considered
in a holistic and comprehensive fashion, which will augment
the project and lend credibility to the overall effort.
The study of the Puget Sound Basin was
initiated as a Corps of Engineers – Civil, Title I general
investigation study under Public Law 106-60, dated September
29, 1999. This authority states: "The following appropriations
shall be expended under the direction of the Secretary of
Army and the supervision of the Chief of Engineers for authorized
civil functions of the Department of Army pertaining to rivers
and harbors, flood control, beach erosion, and related purposes."
Information from the reconnaissance Report
will be expanded and updated as required to reflect current
problems and opportunities and the desires of the public to
establish final planning objectives and criteria to be used
to identify and formulate plans for all viable alternatives.
1.4 Study
Sponsorship and Cooperative Agencies
Washington State Department of Fish and Wildlife (WDFW) is
the non-federal study sponsor. The following agencies may
also be partners in the project and contribute financially
to the Feasibility study:
- Puget Sound Member Tribes of Northwest Indian Fish Commission
- Governor’s Salmon Recovery Office
- Washington State Legislature
- Washington State Department of Ecology (WDOE)
- Washington State Department of Natural Resources (WDNR)
- Washington State Department of Transportation (WSDOT)
- WA State Noxious Weed Control Board
- WA Parks and Recreation Commission
- Puget Sound Water Quality Authority
- WA State Historic Preservation Office
- Conservation Commission
- WA Sea Grant Program
- Puget Sound Regional Council
- All affected cities along Puget Sound, including, but
not limited to:
Point Roberts, Maple Beach, Blaine,
Birch Bay, Bellingham, Marietta, Lummi Island, Doe Bay,
Eastsound, Olga, Orcas, Deer harbor, Roche Harbor, Friday
Harbor, Lopez, Anacortes, Guemes, Edison, LaConnor, Stanwood,
Utsalady, Camano, Coupeville, Keystone, Port Townsend,
Greenbank, Irondale, Gardiner, Discovery Bay, Sequim,
Dungeness, Agnew, Port Angeles, Joyce, Clallam Bay, Sekiu,
Neah Bay, Irondale, Port Hadlock, Chimacum, Port Ludlow,
Port Gamble, Edmonds, Kingston, Poulsbo, Suquamish, Keyport,
Bangor, Seabeck, Quilcene, Brinnon, Eldon, Lilliwaup,
Hoodsport, Potlatch, Union, Tahuya, Belfair, Allyn, Grapeview,
Vaughn, Key Center, Holly, Seabeck, Silverdale, Bainbridge
Island, Bremerton, Port Orchard, Southworth, Vashon, Freeland,
Langley, Clinton, Everett, Mukilteo, Lynnwood, Edmonds,
Seattle, Tukwila, Seatac, Des Moines, Burien, Federal
Way, Tacoma, Puyallup, Lakewood, Steilacoom, Nisqually,
Olympia, Tumwater, Kamilche, Shelton, Home, Lakebay, Longbranch,
- All affected counties along Puget Sound, including, but
not limited to:
San Juan, Island, Whatcom, Skagit,
Snohomish, King, Pierce, Thurston, Mason, Kitsap, Jefferson,
Clallam
- Port Authorities
Other Stakeholders may include:
- Universities, community colleges, continuing education
centers, high schools, middle schools, elementary schools
- Non-Governmental Organizations such as: Audubon Society,
Nature Conservancy, Northwest Straits Commission, People
for Puget Sound, Hood Canal Coordinating Council, Burlington
Northern & Sante Fe Railway
- Pacific Coast Shellfish Growers
- The Oyster Growers Association
- National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
- U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS)
- U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
- U.S. Geological Survey (USGS)
- Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA)
- Natural Resource Conservation Service (NRCS)
- US National Park Service (USNPS)
- US Forest Service (USFS)
- Advisory Council on Historic Preservation
- Bureau of Indian Affairs
- US Coast Guard
- BC Environment, Lands & Parks
- Canadian Consulate General
- Environment Canada
2.0 Feasibility Phase Study Requirements
2.1
Basic Requirements
The Feasibility study will consist of the development of alternative
plans to address ecosystem restoration and the selection of
a recommended plan. Due to the complex nature of the ecosystem
process affected and the significant geographic boundaries
of the project, a significant proportion of the early stages
of the Feasibility study will be devoted to compiling information
on past and ongoing studies, identifying and filling data
gaps, developing a conceptual model of the Puget Sound ecosystem,
and creating a methodology for selecting projects.
Other basic requirements of the Feasibility
study include:1) developing plans and designs; 2) preparing
construction as well as operation and maintenance cost estimates
for each viable alternative, 3) computing average annual benefits
and costs; 4)evaluating technical and economic Feasibility
of the plan; 5) assessing environmental impacts, including
impacts on biological resources, cultural resources, and recreation;
6) addressing the views of the public through workshops and
public meetings; 7)formulating plan mitigation measures; and
8) preparing the draft and final Feasibility Report and environmental
impact statement (EIS) with required documentation to present
the investigations and evaluations which support the recommended
plan.
The end products will be a Feasibility
Report and a combined National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)
and State Environmental Policy Act (SEPA) EIS. These documents
will describe the identified problems and opportunities, plans
formulated, engineering and economic Feasibility and public
acceptability of each alternative, the social and environmental
constraints and impacts for each alternative, and the plan
recommended for implementation.
2.2
Specific Requirements
The specific requirement of the Feasibility phase is to identify
a plan that is:
- Technically feasible from an engineering standpoint (i.e.,
sound engineering design).
- Economically justified. Ecosystem restoration benefits
(monetary and non-monetary) exceed their project related
costs over the 50-year economic life of the project, and
contribute significantly to restoring key functions, processes
and habitat.
- Environmentally and socially acceptable (able to meet
permitting and regulatory requirements).
- Supported by the project sponsor.
The PMP defines and limits the work to
that necessary to meet the above requirements for a complete
Feasibility Report. There will be close coordination between
the Corps of Engineers and the project sponsor throughout
the study.
2.3 Feasibility
Study Staging: Programmatic and Project Specific
The Feasibility study will be conducted in three stages: programmatic
(Stages I and II) and site-specific (Stage III), as summarized
below. Stage one, programmatic stage, will involve the formulation,
identification and screening of existing data, including identification
of data gaps, and the development of project selection criteria
and a conceptual model of Puget Sound. These products will
be used to select potential restoration alternatives, which
will be carried into Stage III. Stage II will focus on refining
the conceptual model and project selection criteria using
the new information identified as critical (i.e., data gaps)
during Stage I. This new information will be used to augment
and refine the list of potential restoration project alternatives.
Stage III, the project specific stage, will involve detailed
study of the selected project alternatives using the products
developed during Stages I and II, and further refinement as
needed of the additional information, leading to a Feasibility
Report and EIS containing a recommendation for Federal involvement
in project implementation. This approach is designed to increase
the likelihood of public acceptance of a plan, which recommends
development of ecosystem restoration project alternatives
throughout the nearshore habitat of the Puget Sound Basin.
For the purposes of this PMP, an estimate
of 30 ecosystem project alternatives was used to develop the
scope and cost of investigations and design necessary. This
estimate of 30 project alternatives is not intended to limit
this effort, only to aid in identifying a management plan
and cost estimate, and is subject to change if study conclusions
warrant. The strategy calls for a staged environmental review,
with a programmatic EIS, followed by project specific EIS
supplements developed and refined as the project alternatives
are implemented over a 10 to 15 year period.
2.3.1
Stage I – Project Formulation (Programmatic)
The project selection stage will result in a ‘short
list’ of project alternatives to be carried forward
to Stage III (nominally 30). The following is a summation
of the technical elements of Stage I followed by a summation
of Stage II:
Stage I will be comprised of two major
technical efforts designed to lay the foundation for subsequent
stages. The first effort will focus on adopting a technical
framework needed to guide program research needs. The second
effort will focus on immediate research needs, from which
future data collections will be based including monitoring
and assessment of existing restoration projects to document
lessons learned, improve planning efficiency and gather relevant
information will be included in Stage II activities.
Technical Framework
This task represents the organizational component to Stage
I. It will involve review of existing and ongoing efforts
to characterize Puget Sound’s nearshore environment
and adoption by the interim Nearshore Science Team of agreed
upon next steps as identified by those efforts. The technical
framework will organize and guide technical program work directly
related to program goals and objectives.
Assemble and convene
a Nearshore Science Team (NST)
The NST will consist of regional experts and members of relevant
scientific disciplines for the purpose of providing broad
scientific guidance to The Nearshore Study. Representatives
from the USACOE and Sponsor or their designees will be considered
program facilitators to the NST responsible for completing
all administrative tasks including meeting coordination, meeting
notes, set-up and execution of scientific workshops. The NST
will identify additional expertise in the community for project-specific
purposes and maintain communications with the larger group
on the overall direction of The Nearshore Study and likely
next steps that would require their expertise. Team make-up
will include -- a mix of disciplines; a group of seven (7)
technical members will be considered the "core" members (for
maximum team effectiveness; and each core member must represent
a body of knowledge (within a discipline or organization)
that can be used to network or carry communications to a broader
scientific audience.
Adopt a Set of Guiding
Ecological Principles
The NST will adopt and modify as appropriate a set of guiding
ecological principals which set the geographical and ecological
sideboards for the program tasks and scope as agreed upon
from the outcomes of existing nearshore characterization and
assessment Reports. An objective set of Guiding Ecological
Principles will be required to both frame and evaluate restoration
activities. They will be designed to guide all phases of habitat
restoration, including the context, planning, design, implementation
and monitoring and assessment. These Principles will be restricted
to ecological concepts, with the primary purpose of identifying
attributes of restoration planning and projects that are most
likely to achieve maximum contribution to marine resource
recovery of a natural ecosystem within the constrains of the
developed Puget Sound Basin.
Written Framework
The NST will produce a written framework including detailed
objectives; description of guiding ecological principles,
initial data gaps and research needs, and list of potential
partner projects describing specific tasks and schedule for
deliverables.
Coordination of Technical
Aspects of Project
The function of the NST will be to identify and continue tracking
related, ongoing Puget Sound nearshore studies and programs,
and develop mechanisms and agreements to coordinate and collaborate
on nearshore work that forwards the goals and objectives of
The Nearshore Study (partnered projects). The ultimate goal
of this task will be to assure that The Nearshore Study adds
to and supports, rather than duplicates or competes with ongoing
studies and projects. Work items for the NST include identification
of studies and programs that are closely related to The Nearshore
Study, and development and implementation of mechanisms to
track, coordinate with and collaborate on nearshore work to
facilitate efficient use of institutional and human resources.
Primary duties include recommendations to the steering committee.
5r NST core membership and non-federal lead responsibilities
will carry a time requirement, for which some members may
require compensation. Dispersement guidelines for compensation
will be a Steering Committee responsibility.
Technical Components
for Stage I
These efforts are designed to scope and implement efforts
related to nearshore characterization and assessment that
will be built upon in later stages. Where possible, deliverables
have been scheduled to disseminate results as Stage I progresses.
This portion of the program will:
Adopt Conceptual Model
of Nearshore Habitat
Existing scientific models will be adapted to develop a conceptual
model of the Puget Sound Nearshore. The model will describe
natural functions and processes within the nearshore environment
that support salmon and other key species, and describe how
these processes interact with human uses. While the conceptual
model will focus on the nearshore, it will recognize connections
to upland, watershed and offshore systems for potential inclusion
in cross system comparisons.
Compilation and Access
of Existing Information
High value data sets on nearshore habitats & the resources
they support, will be compiled, synthesized and integrated
to make available for use by the partners. Projects to be
considered include—compilation of Shore Zone, drift
cell, forage fish, oblique photos etc into a comprehensive
and accessible data analysis tool. Data integration tasks
will bring together currently available information on marine
shoreline characteristics to facilitate the use of these data
in restoration shoreline management planning. As part of this
project, a web portal will be developed that supports the
short and long term information access needs of The Nearshore
Study and its partners. Data discovery, complete data set
retrieval, feedback from data users, the dissemination and
support of selected "canned" data products, selected ad hoc
data query, and GIS mapping functions will be included.
Limiting Factors Analysis
for Salmon and Other Key Species
This task shall identify factors limiting salmon and other
key species in the nearshore by utilizing the analysis of
current and historic conditions, the conceptual model, and
knowledge of salmon life history and ecology. The analysis
will be conducted at multiple spatial scales targeting the
key processes and habitat characteristics that are most limiting
to salmon in the nearshore of Puget Sound.
Conditions Analysis
and Assessment
Characterization of the current and historic conditions of
key nearshore habitats and processes through analyses of information
available to local, federal, state, tribal, and other groups
that that are seeking to identify sites for restoration. Developed
from the compilation of existing data, the limiting factors
analysis and reconstructed historic current conditions.
Selection Criteria
for Habitat Restoration
Evaluate alternative approaches and select criteria for establishing
priorities for restoration and conservation projects, based
on providing high quality functioning habitats that will contribute
to salmon recovery and support other key species. This task
will utilize Guiding Ecological Principles to generate specific
recommendations for the distribution of restoration actions
of various types across the Puget Sound Basin. This task will
contain an integration of results from the conceptual model,
compilation of existing information, limiting factors analysis,
conditions analysis and initial identification of data gaps
and information needs. Effort will be tailored to the development
of restoration approaches, selection criteria and recommendations.
Action Project List
Develop a list of areas and actions on an annual basis that
are appropriate for habitat restoration and/or an enhanced
level of protection derived by applying selection criteria
to existing habitat data, and generating a list of the highest
priority areas and actions. Task to serve in guiding project
for selecting areas and sites for high priority restoration
projects.
Identify Data Gaps
and Research Needs for Stage II
Revise and update data gaps and research needs developed under
the Technical Framework as necessary to complete Stage II.
Provides entities working on restoration of nearshore areas
a list of the most important weaknesses in the existing data
and what new data should be collected if funding becomes available.
This will help focus any future data collection efforts.
Adaptive Management
These efforts are designed to scope and implement efforts
related to nearshore investigations and data collection activities
which would build upon the more programmatic aspects of the
technical components listed above. In addition, these efforts
would capitalize on research and technical studies, which
are consistent with the goals and objectives of The Nearshore
Study. Potential studies might include:
- Assessing the effectiveness of previously completed restoration
projects to verify benefits.
- Development of reference sites to serve as templates
of properly functioning conditions.
- Incorporation of existing studies (outside The Nearshore
Study) that could provide additional information to the
Stage I study components if additional resources were provided.
The basis of actions to be taken under
this study will be the improvement of conditions in the basin
that would be expected to prevail without a project in place
("without project" condition). Emphasis will be placed on
the priority nearshore areas identified as critical for marine
resource recovery in the conceptual model and using the selection
criteria. The without project definition will use information
contained in existing documents and using the new information
and models listed above. A list of possible restoration project
alternatives in the Puget Sound Basin will be developed which
will address the priority needs of the basin. A selection
methodology will be employed to reduce the list of all possible
‘best’ project features in the basin to evaluate
and recommend for Federal involvement.
The process of identifying the ‘best’
project alternatives for consideration will involve a collaborative
effort between the USACOE, WDFW, other potential sponsors,
affected Tribes and Federal and resource agencies.
- Initially, a ‘long list’ list of potential
ecosystem restoration project alternatives, identified from
a literature review, the conceptual model, selection criteria,
and any other information sources, will be developed. These
‘early action’ protection and restoration projects
will be further screened to determine which, if any, have
enough information or ample momentum to be funded and constructed
prior to the completion of the Feasibility study. Those
potential projects that remain will be further screened
and scrutinized using the criteria and models developed
during the planning process to identify which projects would
best achieve the project goals and objectives.
For the purpose of this PMP, it is assumed
that this ‘long list’ of identified potential
project alternatives will include about 100 potential alternatives
throughout the Puget Sound Basin, including Hood Canal and
the Straits. This estimate of 100 potential project alternatives
is not intended to limit the consideration of projects, but
to aid in identifying the resources needed to prepare and
evaluate the list.
Second, an ‘ecosystem restoration
measurement’ unit will be selected for each project
alternative type that best represents that project type’s
contribution to the protection and restoration of the nearshore
environment. For example, shoreline restoration alternatives
might be measured by feet of shoreline enhanced or restored.
Similarly, functional reconnection might be measured by the
number of acres of wetlands, spawning areas, or aquatic habitat
created or restored by another project alternative. The selection
of ‘ecosystem restoration measurement’ units will
reflect the needs assessment based on the ‘without project
condition’ and information developed during the planning
process. However, evaluation in all phases will include quantity
and quality aspects of each alternative. A ‘potential
project alternative fact sheet’ will be developed for
each of the potential project alternatives including a sketch
of the project plan, description of the location, number of
‘ecosystem restoration measurement’ units produced,
and the estimated construction cost of the project alternative.
An incremental cost effectiveness analysis will be performed
on each of the potential project alternative listed under
a project type using the ‘ecosystem restoration measurement’
unit selected for that project alternative type. The results
of the incremental cost effectiveness analysis will be used
to rank each project alternative listed under each of the
project types (i.e., estuarine, fish habitat, wetland, etc.).
The ranking, least costly to most costly, will be displayed
under each project alternative type.
Third, the model(s) developed during the
planning process will be used to further evaluate, screen,
and rank the list of project alternatives. It is assumed,
although not known, that specific selection factors will be
used to develop a decision matrix for each of the project
alternative types. The following are ‘selection factors’
that may be used to evaluate each project alternative:
- Provides most cost effective environmental restoration
- Provides critical fish and wildlife habitat
- Improves nearshore functions and/or processes
- Preserves historic or cultural resources
- Is acceptable to local sponsor, tribes, resource agencies
& public
- Meets the corps’ criteria for Federal participation
- Meets the local sponsor’s funding objectives
2.3.2 Stage
II – Refinement of Model, Selection Criteria, Plan Formulation
The processes, data, and criteria developed during Stage I
will be inserted and manipulated to further calibrate and
refine the models, selection criteria and scope of the overall
project. It is anticipated that new information collected
and synthesized during Stage I might alter the study parameters
or direction. Additional data collection may be needed to
further understand the processes and functions of Puget Sound
during this Stage. Additional modeling exercises may be required
to better depict the diverse conditions of the nearshore habitat.
Surveys of marine species may be required and/or new methodologies
developed to assist in the development of a Sound-wide approach
to restoration, enhancement or preservation of key nearshore
habitat areas. Some key elements have been identified and
include the following:
Technical Elements
for Stage II
Upon approval, Stage II will be designed to build upon direction
given under Stage I by initiating a full-scale planning and
environmental studies program. The purpose of Stage II is
to begin acquiring program specific data to serve as planning
guidance and decision-making tools later in the planning process.
It is anticipated that specific areas of investigation will
be tailored to outcomes under Stage I however; several specific
areas of study have been identified as needing attention.
The first effort shall be a continuance of data management
functions initiated in Stage I. Secondly, efforts should be
made based on workshops and other discussions held during
Stage I to provide direction for studies designed to gain
project relevant information for salmonid and other nearshore
species use of nearshore resource with a focus on high priority
areas. The second effort will synthesize lessons learned and
application research of existing restoration projects. Efforts
started under Stage II will be tailored where possible to
end prior to initiation of Stage III but many of the biological
investigations will continue into Stage III.
Operate Nearshore Science
Team
Continued costs to fund the NST from Stage I. Assumes continued
compensation for some employees with additional costs for
meetings and publications.
Compilation and Access to New and Existing
Information
Continued compilation, synthesis and integration of high priority
information on nearshore habitats and the resources they support
especially information on vegetation or other critical habitat
distribution and associated species assemblages. Includes
technical dissemination of information in the form of workshops,
conferences, publications and mass media. This effort would
serve as an extension and summary of information management
products.
Data Gaps and Field Studies
Under direction of the NST, shall continue to scope and execute
major research needs that were identified in Stage I to evaluate
current and historic conditions, evaluate recovery potential,
and guide future restoration decisions.
Adaptive Management
These efforts will continue efforts from Stage I. The intent
is to develop, scope and implement efforts related to nearshore
investigations and data collection activities, which would
build upon the more programmatic aspects within the technical
components, listed in Stage I. In addition, these efforts
will continue to capitalize on research and technical studies,
which are consistent with the goals and objectives of The
Nearshore Study.
The decision on which projects to implement
will be undertaken using a collaborative approach involving
the Steering Committee members, Science Team members, WDFW,
the Corps, other potential sponsors, affected Tribes, resource
agencies and other interested groups.
The Project Delivery Team (Table 2) and
Steering Committee will use these decision matrices to select
the ‘short list’ (nominally, the top 30 project
alternatives) for detail study in Stage III of this Feasibility
Study. Once developed, this project alternative selection
activity will be documented in a Plan Formulation Letter Report,
considered in a in-progress review, provided in final form
to the Executive Committee for information and become the
Plan Formulation Section of the Feasibility Report/EIS. The
Feasibility Report and Programmatic EIS will be written and
modified throughout the planning process.
2.3.3
Stage III - Project Specific (Detailed) Study
Upon approval, Stage III will be designed as a continuance
of studies with further refinement based on data gathered
under Stage II. Stage III will continue information management
functions initiated and carried through in earlier stages.
Stage III will consolidate results of field studies to develop
tools to be used by the project during design and alternative
selection. Stage III will also serve to synthesis planning
and biological investigations such that feedback in the form
of public dissemination can be given to various stakeholders.
Operate Nearshore Science
Team
Continued costs to fund the NST from Stage II. Assumes continued
compensation for some employees with additional costs for
meetings and publications.
Compilation and Access
to New and Existing Information
Continued compilation, synthesis and integration of high priority
information on nearshore habitats and the resources they support
especially information on vegetation or other critical habitat
distribution and associated species assemblages. Includes
technical dissemination of information in the form of workshops,
conferences, publications and mass media. This effort would
serve as an extension and summary of information management
products.
Data Gaps and Field
Studies
Under direction of the NST, shall continue to scope and execute
major research needs that were identified in Stages I and
II to evaluate current and historic conditions, evaluate recovery
potential, and guide future restoration decisions.
Adaptive Management
These efforts will continue efforts from Stage II. The intent
is to develop, scope and implement efforts related to nearshore
investigations and data collection activities which would
build upon the more programmatic aspects within the technical
components listed in Stage II. In addition, these efforts
will continue to capitalize on research and technical studies,
which are consistent with the goals and objectives of The
Nearshore Study.
In addition, the short list selected in
the first portion of the study will be developed to a concept
level of detail (35% design) including identification of restoration
outputs and benefits, cost estimates in micro computer aided
cost engineering system (MCACES) and NEPA/SEPA documentation
appropriate to support a recommendation for federal project
authority in a Feasibility Report. The preparation of the
Feasibility Report will consist of writing the main body and
appendices, as well as a NEPA/SEPA EIS or supplement. The
documentation will be on going and take place throughout the
Feasibility phase. During the Feasibility phase, a technical
review conference (TRC) and alternative formulation briefing
(AFB) will be conducted with senior personnel from HQUSACE,
NWD, Seattle District, and sponsor. The draft Feasibility
Report will then be released for public review and a series
of public meeting will be held. The draft Report will be revised
and a final Feasibility Report/EIS will be submitted to the
Division Engineer at NWD for further processing.
2.3.4 Washington
Level Review and Support
After the Division Engineer issues a Public Notice on the
Feasibility Report, the Report will then begin the Washington
level review process. This process consists of filing the
final EIS in the Federal Register following State and Federal
agency review, submittal of the Chief of Engineer’s
Report to the Assistance Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
[ASA(CW)], and submittal of the ASA(CW) letter to the Office
of Management and Budget (OMB) for review for consistency
with the policies and programs of the President.
2.3.5 Early Action Projects
Projects formulated to address ecosystem restoration objectives
may be eligible for consideration in the Corps’ Continuing
Authorities Program (CAP) at a significant savings in project
implementation time. Two Continuing Authorities: 1) Section
1135 of Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986, Project
Modifications for Improvement of the Environment, and 2) Section
206 of WRDA of 1996, Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration, provide
for ecosystem restoration to restore degraded ecosystem structure,
function, and dynamic processes to a less degraded, more natural
condition.
Section 1135 is used to restore a degraded
ecosystem that resulted from Corps’ project impacts
and Section 206 can be used to restore degraded aquatic ecosystem
in the public interest. Each of these authorities has a Federal
project limit of $5,000,000 and requires a non-Federal sponsor
to share 25% of the Section 1135 project costs or 35% of the
Section 206 project costs.
The development of these projects requires
the preparation of a Preliminary Restoration Plan (PRP), at
full Federal expense, and a Feasibility Study Report, Plans
& Specs and Construction cost shared with a non-Federal
sponsor. These authorities require just under two years from
inception to the start of construction, a significant savings
over the comparable 4 to 8 years required when specific project
Congressional authorization is required. Projects that are
selected for further consideration in the project selection
process of Stage I, II and III of this Feasibility study will
be reviewed to determine if they can be implemented in the
CAP. If accepted into the CAP, these projects will be deleted
from the short list and monitored throughout the General Investigation
(GI) project to determine success.
Finally, the Puget Sound and Adjacent
Waters Restoration Initiative, is a new Corps of Engineers
authority to implement critical restoration projects that
will produce immediate and substantial ecosystem restoration,
preservation, and protection benefits. This program authorizes
a Total of $40 million in Federal funding for projects with
no more than $5 million going to any one project. Projects
will be identified through a prioritization process that will
involve many of the Federal, state, local, and tribal interests
throughout Puget Sound. The program authorization is Section
544 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000, Public
Law 106-541.
All projects implemented under this authority
will be cost-shared 65% Federal - 35% Non-Federal. The Non-Federal
share can come in the form of cash, in-kind services, and
credit for real estate. Sponsors must also provide all land,
easements, and right of ways and be responsible for any operation
and maintenance activities.
2.4 Breakdown Structure
The relationship between the Feasibility study phase and related
phases of project development is illustrated in Figure 2.
Level 1 is the project itself, with successive levels representing
discrete phases or aspects of project/study development. Level
5 represents the tasks and subtasks necessary to produce the
Feasibility Report, associated appendices, and EIS. The work
breakdown structure (WBS) identifies the work to be performed
and when the work will be performed. It provides a logical
sequence of activities and identifies products or deliverables
through the various stages of the Feasibility phase. The study
tasks are organized in Table 1 (Feasibility Cost Estimate
Summary) according to their associated WBS.
Figure
2. Levels and Phases of Project Development
Washington,
Level 1 (Project):
- Puget Sound Nearshore Ecosystem
Restoration Study
Level
2 (Major phases of project development):
- Reconnaissance phase
- Feasibility phase
- Pre-construction engineering
and design (PED) phase
- Construction phase
- Operation and maintenance phase
Level
3 (project of the Feasibility phase):
Level
4 (Features of the Feasibility phase):
- Feasibility Report
- Engineering Appendix
- Economics Appendix
- Real Estate Appendix
- NEPA/SEPA Environmental Impact
Statement
Level
5 (Specific tasks and subtasks to achieve Level 4 features):
| Table 1. Feasibility Cost Estimate |
| Sub-Account
- Study Work Item
and Total Costs |
Stage
I
( see table 1A ) |
Stage
II |
Stage
III |
| FY
2002 |
FY
2003 |
FY
2004 |
FY
2005 |
FY
2006 |
FY2007 |
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| J000 – Feasibility
Report |
| Government Effort |
$- |
$15,000 |
$125,000 |
$100,000 |
$50,000 |
$12,500 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$- |
$15,000 |
$50,000 |
$- |
$25,000 |
$12,500 |
| $405,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JAE00 – Engineering
and Design |
| Government Effort |
$- |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$100,000 |
$177,000 |
$50,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$- |
$- |
$50,000 |
$25,000 |
$123,000 |
$50,000 |
| $675,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JB000 - Socio-Economics
Studies |
| Government Effort |
$- |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$12,500 |
$5,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$- |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$- |
$12,500 |
$5,000 |
| $160,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JC000 – Real Estate
Studies |
| Government Effort |
$12,500 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$50,000 |
$5,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$- |
$15,000 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$5,000 |
| $237,500 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JD000 – Environmental
Studies |
| Government Effort |
$661,000 |
$600,000 |
$747,850 |
$756,250 |
$100,000 |
$20,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$680,000 |
$800,000 |
$866,650 |
$858,250 |
$100,000 |
$30,000 |
| $6,220,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JH000 – Cost Estimating |
| Government Effort |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$50,000 |
$20,000 |
$30,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
| $100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JJ000 – Plan Formulation |
| Government Effort |
$- |
$45,000 |
$50,000 |
$150,000 |
$50,000 |
$25,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$- |
$45,000 |
$40,000 |
$50,000 |
$50,000 |
$25,000 |
| $530,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| JN000 – All Others |
| Government Effort |
$- |
$- |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
$25,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
$- |
| $100,000 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Z000 – Program
and Project Management |
| Government Effort |
$162,000 |
$205,550 |
$200,000 |
$300,000 |
$100,000 |
$45,000 |
| Sponsor In-kind Services |
$334,000 |
$291,050 |
$200,000 |
$300,000 |
$200,000 |
$45,000 |
| $2,382,600 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
| SubTotal |
$1,849,500 |
$2,156,600 |
$2,504,500 |
$2,789,500 |
$1,120,000 |
$390,000 |
| Contingency (approx. 15% applied
FY06 & FY07) |
|
|
|
|
$168,000 |
$58,500 |
| Total Estimate (In 2001 dollars) |
$1,849,500 |
$2,156,600 |
$2,504,500 |
$2,789,500 |
$1,288,000 |
$448,500 |
| Cost Inflation (assumed approx.
3% per yr.) |
$55,485 |
$129,396 |
$225,405 |
$334,740 |
$193,200 |
$80,730 |
| Fully Funded Yearly Estimate |
$1,904,985 |
$2,285,996 |
$2,729,905 |
$3,124,240 |
$1,481,200 |
$529,230 |
| Government Cost Share |
$860,565 |
$1,023,483 |
$1,360,157 |
$1,715,000 |
$773,001 |
$295,148 |
| Total Government
Cost |
$6,027,353 |
|
|
|
|
|
Sponsor's Contribution |
| Cash |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
$0 |
| In-kind services |
$1,044,420 |
$1,262,513 |
$1,369,749 |
$1,409,240 |
$708,199 |
$234,083 |
| Total Sponsor
Cost |
$6,028,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
| |
|
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Project Cost |
$12,055,556 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Government Cost |
$6,027,353 |
|
|
|
|
|
| Total Sponsor Cost |
$6,028,203 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
