Shoreline Study PMP - South Bay Shoreline Study PMP 8.18.05.pdf · 1-5 south san francisco bay shoreline study feasibility phase project management plan chapter i pmp purpose and

1-1

8/18/2005

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY

Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

San Francisco District South Pacific Division

Date: August 2005

1-2

CONCURRENCE PAGE 1 of 2 As members of the San Francisco District Project Review Board, we the undersigned, concur in the project management plan, dated August 2005, for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. We understand that the project management plan is a living management document that will be updated throughout the course of the study. Name Title Signature Date James Howells, Jr. Chief, Plan Formulation Section ____________ _____

Roderick Chisholm II. Chief, Env. Science Section ____________ _____

Fari Tabatabai Chief, Env. Planning Section ____________ _____

Kevin Knight Chief, Economics Section ____________ _____

S.T. Su Chief, Water Resources Section ____________ _____

Arnold Lee Chief, Civil Design Section ____________ _____

Phillip Pang Chief, Specs. & Cost Estim. Section ___________ _____

Kenneth Harrington Chief, Geotechnical Section ____________ _____

Dan Specht Chief, GIS Section ____________ _____

1-3

CONCURRENCE PAGE 2 of 2

As members of the San Francisco District Project Review Board, we the undersigned, concur in the Project Management Plan dated August 2005, for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. We understand that the Project Management plan is a living management document that will be updated throughout the course of the study. Name Title Signature Date Yvonne LeTellier Project Manager

Susan Miller Real Estate Program Manager Arijs Rakstins Deputy DE for PM Tom Kendall Ch, Plng Branch Herb Cheong Ch, Engr Branch Jake Jacobson Ch, Engr & Tech. Services Div Susanne Suskind Ch, Constr Serv Branch Merry Goodenough District Counsel Philip Feir LTC, District Engr

Non-Federal Sponsor The undersigned concur with the Project Management Plan dated August 2005, for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. We understand that this is a “living” management document that will be updated as needed through the process stated within. Name Agency Signature Date

1-4

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY

FEASIBILITY PHASE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1- PMP Purpose and Scope Chapter 2 - Identification of Procedures and Criteria Chapter 3 – Scope of Study Chapter 4 – Study Implementation Strategy Chapter 5 - Scopes of Work Chapter 6 - Quality Control Plan Chapter 7 - Risk and Change Management Plans Chapter 8 - Public Communication Plan

ENCLOSURES

Enclosure A - Letter of Intent Enclosure B - Work Breakdown Structure and Study Cost Estimate Enclosure C - Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division (CESPD) Milestone System Enclosure D - Study Area Figure 1 – Shoreline Study Project Area Figure 2 – Shoreline Study Interim Feasibility Study Boundaries Enclosure E - Project Schedule Enclosure F - Change Request Form Enclosure G - PMP Quality Certification Enclosure H - List of Acronyms

1-5

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO BAY SHORELINE STUDY

FEASIBILITY PHASE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

CHAPTER I PMP PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1. DEFINITION OF A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN:

a. The project management plan for the Feasibility Phase, herein after referred to as the PMP, defines the planning approach, activities to be accomplished, schedule, and associated costs that the Federal Government and the local sponsor will be supporting financially. The PMP therefore defines an understanding between the Corps and the local Sponsor, and reflects a "buy in" on the part of the financial backers, as well as those who will be performing, and reviewing, the activities involved in the Feasibility study. The PMP describes the initial tasks of the Feasibility phase and continues through the preparation of the final Feasibility Report.

b. The PMP is a basis for change. Because planning is an iterative process without a predetermined outcome, more or less costs and time may be required to accomplish reformulation and evaluations of the alternatives. Changes in scope will occur as the technical picture unfolds. With clear descriptions of the scopes and assumptions outlined in the PMP, deviations are easier to identify. The impact in either time or money is easily assessed and decisions can be made on how to proceed. c. The primary purpose of the PMP is to serve as a management tool. It includes scopes of work that are used for funds allocation by the project manager. It forms the basis for identifying commitments to the non-Federal sponsor and serves as a basis for performance measurement. 2. SUMMARY OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS:

This PMP is comprised of the following chapters:

• Chapter 1 – PMP Purpose and Scope. This chapter includes the definition of the PMP and a summary of the PMP requirements.

• Chapter 2 - Identification of Procedures and Criteria: This chapter identifies

references to the regulations and other guidance that covers the planning process and reporting procedures.

• Chapter 3 – Scope of Study. This chapter presents the approved Section 905(b)

Analysis and an addendum that describes the Feasibility Study approach.

1-6

• Chapter 4 – Study Implementation Strategy. The implementation strategy identifies the roles and organizational responsibilities of the study participants. A product-based Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) defines the tasks that will be accomplished through the study, task durations, and cost estimate. The Study Schedule is also included in this chapter.

• Chapter 5 - Scopes of Work. A detailed scope of the tasks and activities describes

the work to be accomplished, in narrative form that answers the questions: "what, how, and how much?"

• Chapter 6 - Quality Control Plan: This chapter supplements the San Francisco

District (District) Quality Management Plan (QMP). It highlights any deviations to the District’s QMP and lists the members of the study team and the independent review team.

• Chapter 7 – Risk and Change Management Plans: This chapter discusses the

procedure by which project risks will be assessed and how changes to the project will be implemented.

• Chapter 8 – Public Communication Plan: This chapter outlines the procedure with

which the Project Delivery Team will create a Public Communication Plan.

2-1

CHAPTER II IDENTIFICATON OF PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA

1. EVOLUTION OF THE PMP

The PMP describes, in as much detail as is practicable, all study activities through

preparation of the Final Feasibility Report. As the PMP is based primarily on existing information, it will be subject to scope changes as the technical picture unfolds. While this PMP includes tasks through the completion of the Feasibility study, the level of detail in the scopes of work are greater for those tasks that occur prior to the first milestone conference. This plan will be reviewed at the first milestone conference and additional detail will be added to the scopes of work for the subsequent tasks. During the Feasibility phase of the study, the current PMP, including the documentation of agreements on changes to the conduct of the study, will be addressed at each of the CESPD milestone conferences (e.g., Alternative Formulation Briefing [AFB] and Feasibility Review Conference [FRC]) and at the formal issue resolution conferences with Division, including the Alternative Review Conference. 2. THE PLANNING PROCESS

The Water Resource Council's Principles and Guidelines (P&G) is the basic planning

guidance, which establishes a six-step planning process. This process is a conceptual planning sequence for developing solutions to water resource problems and opportunities. The Planning Manual and Planning Primer, both published by IWR, provide excellent coverage of the planning process. The South Pacific Division also provides training in the six- step process. 3. POLICY The policies that govern the development of projects are contained in the DIGEST OF WATER RESOURCES POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES, EP 1165-2-1. 4. CORPS REGULATIONS All of the Corps’s current regulations are included on the HQUSACE homepage. The most important of these regulations is ER 1105-2-100, PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK. Policy compliance review is addressed in EC 1165-2-203, TECHNICAL AND POLICY COMPLIANCE REVIEW. Quality control is covered in the CESPD Quality Management Plan, CESPD R 1110-1-8. The review of the Feasibility products will be accomplished with the review checklist that is provided in EC 1165-2-203 as Appendix B, POLICY COMPLIANCE REVIEW CONSIDERATIONS. 5. PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

2-2

In addition to ER 1105-2-100, the South Pacific Division has provided additional guidance on the processing requirements for each of the milestone submittals. This guidance is contained in CESPD-ET-P memorandum, dated 25 September 2003, subject: Implementation Procedures for Processing of Planning Reports.

3-1

CHAPTER III

SCOPE OF STUDY INTRODUCTION This PMP covers the scope of work for the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study. The study area generally includes the Palo Alto/Mountain View area (south of San Francisquito Creek); the Alviso Ponds owned by USFWS (and the areas behind it), including Pond A4 (owned by SCVWD and Pond A18 (owned by the City of San Jose); and Moffett Field. The study area includes all of the Shoreline Study geographic area in Santa Clara County, as well as a small area in Alameda County that is part of the Coyote Creek/Mud Slough drainage from Santa Clara County. The study will focus on ecosystem restoration and flood protection for all of the Alviso Ponds in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties as well as flood protection for the immediately adjacent area in Palo Alto/Mountain View. The drainages in this study area all flow through Santa Clara County and include: Coyote Creek/Mud Slough, Artesian Slough, Guadalupe River/Alviso Slough, Gualalupe Slough/Moffett Channel/Sunnyvale East and West Channels, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek/Mountain View Slough, Charleston Slough/Barron Creek/Adobe Creek, and Matadero Creek/Mayfield Slough. These drainages are part of four distinct watersheds, and the base of which the Alviso Ponds are located: Coyote Watershed, Guadalupe Watershed, West Valley Watershed, and Lower Peninsula Watershed. Flood protection for San Francisquito Creek is being studied under a separate authorization. The San Francisquito Creek serves as the northern edge of this Interim Feasibility Study area, dividing the Santa Clara County and Alviso Ponds from the San Mateo and Ravenswood Ponds.

3-2

1. Study Authority a. This Section 905(b) (WRDA) Analysis was prepared as an initial response to the Resolution adopted by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the U.S. House of Representatives on July 24, 2002 for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline, California (Docket 2697), which reads as follows: “Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That the Secretary of the Army is requested to review the Final Letter Report for the San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, California, dated July 1992, and all related interims and other pertinent reports to determine whether modifications to the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time in the interest of tidal and fluvial flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection and related purposes along the South San Francisco Bay shoreline for the counties of San Mateo, Santa Clara and Alameda, California.” b. Funds in the amount of $100,000 were appropriated in Fiscal Year 2004 to conduct the reconnaissance phase of the study. 2. Study Purpose The purpose of the reconnaissance phase study is to determine if there is a Federal (Corps) interest in participating in a cost shared feasibility phase study to determine if there is a Federal interest in providing flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration improvements to the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline. In response to the study authority, the reconnaissance study was initiated in March 2004. The reconnaissance study has resulted in the finding that there is a Federal interest in continuing the study into the feasibility phase. The purpose of this Section 905(b) Analysis is to document the basis for this finding, establish the scope of the feasibility phase, and identify a non-Federal sponsor. As the document that establishes the scope of the feasibility study, the Section 905(b) Analysis is used as the chapter of the Project management plan that presents the reconnaissance overview and formulation rationale. 3. Location of Study, Non-Federal Sponsor and Congressional Districts a. The study area is located along the South San Francisco Bay in northern California (Figure 1. Shoreline Study Project Area) and includes three groups of former salt production ponds, shoreline and floodplain areas from the San Mateo Bridge in the East to the Ravenswood Ponds in the West, and other parcels that represent additional opportunities for ecosystem restoration. The lands extending from the San Mateo Bridge in the East to just north of the Ravenswood Ponds in the West will also be investigated during the Feasibility Phase for potential flood damage reduction benefits.

1) Salt Pond Complexes: The State of California and the Federal government acquired approximately 15,000 acres of salt-production ponds from Cargill Salt

3-3

Company in Spring 2003. The State of California and local foundations contributed $92 million of the $100 million purchase price while the remaining $8 million was contributed by the USFWS. The salt ponds included in the study fall into three distinct complexes or groups:

a) The Eden Landing (Baumberg) Ponds to the northeast; b) The Alviso Ponds to the south; and c) The Ravenswood (West Bay) Ponds to the west.

The Eden Landing Ponds are currently owned by the California Department of

Fish and Game (CDFG), while the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) owns the Alviso and Ravenswood Ponds. The Alviso and Ravenswood Ponds are part of the Don Edwards San Francisco National Wildlife Refuge. Ownership of the ponds and associated habitats was transferred to DFG and FWS upon acquisition in 2003, but Cargill was obligated to continue pond management until salinity was decreased to a level that met RWQCB standards for discharge. Upon meeting this standard for each pond, pond management was transferred to DFG or FWS. Many of the ponds have been transferred as of September 2004, but Cargill is still reducing salinities in many ponds. After transfer of all ponds, Cargill will not have any continuing obligations. Some areas within the Eden Landing and Alviso Pond complexes were not purchased as part of the acquisition and are under the ownership of Cargill or other entities.

2) The Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel (Alameda County), areas in San

Mateo County just north of the Ravenswood Ponds, between the Ravenswood Ponds and Alviso Ponds, and several creeks within the Alviso Pond complex (Santa Clara County) are also included in the study. Changes to the salt ponds would affect flood protection to residences and businesses in these areas. These areas represent a constraint on the restoration design as well as an opportunity to improve flood protection. The Alameda Creek channel also presents a major opportunity for the restoration of an estuarine creek channel.

3) The following parcels (not part of the Cargill acquisition) present additional

opportunities for ecosystem restoration: a) J-2 Pond (owned by Alameda County Flood Control and Water

Conservation District); b) Pond 3EC (owned by Cargill); c) Moseley property (north of the Dumbarton Bridge, owned by the

City of San Jose); d) Pond A4 (Alviso Complex; owned by the Santa Clara Valley Water

District); and e) Moffett Field Stormwater retention pond (owned by NASA-Ames).

b. The proposed non-Federal sponsor for the feasibility phase of the study is the California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC). Two other agencies, the Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) and the Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD), have also expressed interest in non-Federal sponsorship during future phases of the project.

3-4

c. The study area lies within the jurisdiction of the following Congressional Districts: 1) 13th: Representative Pete Stark (D) 2) 14th: Representative Anna Eshoo (D) 3) 15th: Representative Mike Honda (D) 4. PRIOR REPORTS AND EXISTING PROJECTS a. The following reports are being reviewed as a part of this study: 1) Corps reports

a) San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study Office Report. Volume 1: Southern Alameda and Santa Clara Counties. Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. October 1988. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of, and Federal interest in, providing protection against tidal and tidal-related fluvial flooding for developed areas within the tidal floodplain of San Francisco Bay and in southern Alameda County and Santa Clara County.

b) San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study Office Report. Volume 2: San Mateo and Northern Alameda Counties. Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. September 1989. The purpose of this study was to determine the feasibility of, and Federal interest in, providing protection against tidal and tidal-related fluvial flooding for developed areas within the tidal floodplain of San Francisco Bay and in San Mateo and northern Alameda County.

c) San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study Final Letter Report. Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District. July 1992.

d) After the Flood Waters Receded: Assessing the Economic Impacts of San Francisquito Creek's February 1998 Flooding. Corps of Engineers, San Francisco District and Santa Clara Valley Water District. March 1999.

2) South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (SBSP Project) reports: The SBSP Project is a non-Corps project, led by the CSCC, USFWS, and CDFG (members of the Executive Leadership Group), whose emphasis is the restoration of the salt ponds acquired from Cargill Salt Company. The SCVWD, ACFCWCD, and Corps are adjunct members of the SBSP Project Management Team and participate heavily in this project. The Corps’s San Francisco District is receiving funds from the CSCC, through a Memorandum of Agreement, to participate in the SBSP Project and review work products, the most relevant of which are included below. Additional SBSP Project documents will be become available and be reviewed after the submittal of this 905(b) analysis:

a) South Bay Salt Ponds Initial Stewardship Plan and EIR/EIS. Life Science Environmental Consultation and Restoration Services. June 2003. This document identifies how the South Bay Salt Pond land will be managed over an interim period while a long-term plan is developed for restoration of the project ponds.

b) Stakeholder and Organizational Assessment Findings and Recommendations, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration. Center for Collaborative Policy. October 2003.

3-5

c) Science Strategy, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration. Center for Collaborative Policy. April 2004

d) Alternatives Development Framework, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration. Philip Williams and Associates, H.T. Harvey & Associates, EDAW, and Brown & Caldwell. 2004. This document described the SBSP Project objectives, alternatives evaluation criteria, and the general approach for determining project alternative plans.

e) Initial Opportunities and Constraints Summary Report, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration. Philip Williams and Associates et al. July 2004.

f) Data Summary Memorandum, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration. Philip Williams and Associates et al. 2004.

g) Urban Levee Flood Management Requirements (Draft). Moffet & Nichols. March 2004. This report provided cost estimates for salt pond levee work within the Alviso and Ravenswood pond complexes. Brown & Caldwell and PWA used this information to produce a cost estimate for flood control levees in the project area (see below).

3) Additional reports

a) Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals Report. San Francisco Bay Area Wetlands Ecosystem Goals Project. 1999. This report presents recommendations for the kinds, amounts, and distribution of wetlands and related habitats that are needed to sustain diverse and healthy communities of fish and wildlife resources in the SF Bay Area.

b) Feasibility Analysis, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration. Siegel, S.W., Bachand, P.A.M. 2002. This Feasibility Analysis provided the starting point for evaluating all topics relevant to the purchase and restoration of the ponds.

c) Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel – Flood Mitigation/Wetland Restoration Feasibility Study, Phase II Final Report. URS Corporation. 2004. This report identified and evaluated three initial concepts for levee reconfiguration in the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel.

b. This study is investigating potential modifications of the following Corps project(s) (see Figure 1): 1) Alameda Creek, California. Completed in 1975, the project provides flood protection for the metropolitan areas of Union City, Fremont and Newark and prevents inundation of nearby agricultural areas, railroads and highways. The Alameda Creek Channel Improvement portion of the project consisted of straightening, widening, partially relocating, and placing riprap across sections of Alameda Creek from the vicinity of the city of Niles to the South San Francisco Bay, a distance of about 12 miles. The project also included construction of a marsh restoration area and interior drainage ponding areas. The improved channel conducts the drainage from a 700 +/- square mile watershed. 2) Coyote and Berryessa Creeks, California. This project constructed channel improvements to contain flood flows up to the 100-year event, reducing future flood damages to public and private property. The Coyote Creek Element of the Coyote and Berryessa Creeks Project extends approximately 7 miles along Coyote Creek from the confluence of Coyote

3-6

Creek and the Coyote Slough at the southern tip of San Francisco Bay to the Montague Expressway in the cities of San Jose and Milpitas. Reach 1 of the project included construction of an engineered levee on Bay mud across part of Pond A18. The severed portion of the pond adjacent to Coyote Creek was then breached and opened to tidal action. This levee may provide a model for flood protection levees in the South Bay and may also link to a future levee system that may result from the Shoreline Study. 3) Guadalupe River Project, Downtown San Jose, California. The purposes of this project are: a) to provide flood protection to downtown San Jose’s technology and commercial industries and established residential neighborhoods; b) to protect and improve water quality of the river; c) to preserve and enhance the river’s habitat, fish, and wildlife; d) and to provide recreational and open space benefits. This project is related to the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Project indirectly, through the Lower Guadalupe River Flood Control Project (LGRP). The LGRP, constructed by the SCVWD, is not a Corps project, but its completion was a critical component in the hydrologic function of the Corps project. The Shoreline Project design must consider the tie-ins with SCVWD’s levee (located just upstream from the Alviso County Marina and Pond A8) in order to provided integrated fluvial and tidal flood protection. The Corps project extends through downtown San Jose from Interstate 880 to Interstate 280, while the LGRP extends from the Alviso Marina to Highway 880. 4) San Francisquito Creek. The non-Federal sponsor (San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority) is actively pursuing both a Continuing Authorities Program Study (Section 205, Flood Damage Reduction) and a General Investigations (GI) study. The San Francisquito Creek watershed encompasses an area of approximately 40 square miles, extending from the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the San Francisco Bay in California. Flooding on the creek affects the city of Menlo Park in San Mateo County, and Palo Alto and East Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. This Continuing Authorities project specifically focuses on Reach 1, which extends from West Bayshore Frontage Road to the San Francisco Bay, bordering Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. Improvements in this reach would not induce flooding upstream, and would improve the capacity of the reach with the lowest channel capacity. As a result of record rainfall in February 1998, San Francisquito Creek overtopped its banks, affecting approximately 1,700 residential and commercial structures and causing more than $28 million in property damages (Corps of Engineers and SCVWD. March 1999.). 5) Bair Island. Bair Island, located to the north of the Ravenswood complex, is a potential Corps tidal marsh restoration project located adjacent to Redwood City Harbor that is currently not prepared or permitted to accept dredged material. A Project Cooperation Agreement is currently not in place. The site has been used for disposal of dredged materials in the past, but has been discontinued due to over-filling and potential adverse environmental impacts on wetlands. The majority of the island is now protected and part of the Don Edwards San Francisco Bay National Wildlife Refuge. The USFWS is considering, as a possibility in future years, use of up to 1,000,000 cubic yard of dredged material to recreate wetlands in the west end of the Island. Bair Island, the South Bay Salt Pond Project, and other restoration projects occurring in San Francisco Bay that plan to use dredged material will need to be taken

3-7

into account when determining the amount of dredged material available to the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. 6) Redwood City Harbor. Located adjacent to Bair Island, this Corps navigation project is currently in the O&M phase and undergoes periodic maintenance dredging. Currently, the dredged sediments are being shipped to a site near Alcatraz Island, but could possibly supply dredged material to the Bair Island restoration (see above), or to the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. 7) Bayshore Restoration Project. The Corps coordinated with the CSCC to examine the possibility of a Section 206 (Aquatic Ecosystem Restoration) Continuing Authorities Program to remove invasive Spartina alterniflora (smooth cordgrass) from within the San Francisco Bay Estuary. Although it was determined that there would be Federal interest in such an effort, the CSCC decided not to pursue this project with the Corps further due to issues with the requirement to provide all LERRD (Lands, Easements, Rights-of-way, Relocations, and Disposal areas). 5. Plan Formulation During a study, six planning steps that are set forth in the Water Resource Council’s Principles and Guidelines are repeated to focus the planning effort and eventually to select and recommend a plan for authorization. The six planning steps are: 1) specify problems and opportunities, 2) inventory and forecast conditions, 3) formulate alternative plans, 4) evaluate effects of alternative plans, 5) compare alternative plans, and 6) select recommended plan. The iterations of the planning steps typically differ in the emphasis that is placed on each of the steps. In the early iterations, those conducted during the reconnaissance phase, the step of specifying problems and opportunities is emphasized. That is not to say, however, that the other steps are ignored since the initial screening of preliminary plans that results from the other steps is very important to the scoping of the follow-on feasibility phase studies. The sub-paragraphs that follow present the results of the initial iterations of the planning steps that were conducted during the reconnaissance phase. This information will be refined in future iterations of the planning steps that will be accomplished during the feasibility phase. a. National Objectives 1) The national or Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the nation’s environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Contributions to National Economic Development (NED) are increases in the net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in monetary units. Contributions to NED are the direct net benefits that accrue in the planning area and the rest of the nation. 2) The Corps has added a second national objective for Ecosystem Restoration in response to legislation and administration policy. This objective is to contribute to the nation’s ecosystems through ecosystem restoration, with contributions measured by changes in the amounts and values of habitat. b. Public Concerns: A number of public concerns have been identified during the course of the reconnaissance study. Initial concerns were expressed in the study authorization.

3-8

Additional input was received through coordination with the potential non-Federal sponsor, the California State Coastal Conservancy, and some initial coordination with other agencies. The public concerns that are related to the establishment of planning objectives and planning constraints as indicated in the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Stakeholder and Organizational Assessment Findings and Recommendations (Center for Collaborative Policy, 2003) include: 1) Balance of habitat restoration needs and public access; 2) Maintenance and improvement of flood protection levels; 3) Maintenance of a landscape-level perspective of the restoration;

4) Balance of tidal marsh, non-tidal marsh and managed ponds (what is the best ratio?); 5) Urban run-off, sediment and water quality concerns, especially mercury; wastewater-treatment-plant discharges;

6) Cost-effective implementation of restoration plan; 7) Operational performance measures and indicators for objectives; 8) Identification of a project temporal scale; 9) Connectivity of habitats; 10) Coordination of Spartina alterniflora control among agencies;

11) Observation and support of the project becoming “a national research program, a regional recreation program, and/or a major educational program;” 12) Financial and staffing feasibility of completing planning and implementation; 13) Sufficient management of salt ponds’ dikes and levees by CDFG and USFWS; 14) Corps role in funding the flood management project implementation; and 15) Continued public participation for project input.

The project goal of the non-Federal sponsor is to achieve ecosystem restoration through conversion of salt production ponds to a mix of tidal marsh, managed ponds and landscape features that function as one South Bay ecosystem to:

• Provide habitat as similar as possible in form and function to that which historically existed in abundance around the South Bay for the particular benefit of native special status species; and

• Provide habitat for species that have utilized the salt production ponds and adjacent habitats in recent decades.

In addition, the project should integrate provisions for flood management and public access and recreation consistent with achieving these ecosystem restoration goals. c. Problems and Opportunities: The evaluation of public concerns often reflects a range of needs, which are perceived by the public. This section describes these needs in the context of problems and opportunities that can be addressed through water and related land resource management. For each problem and opportunity, the existing conditions and the expected future conditions are described, as follows: Problems:

3-9

1) Loss of wetlands and development in wetlands in the San Francisco Bay Area: The San Francisco Bay Estuary is the largest estuary on the west coast of North America and provides a unique habitat for a great diversity of estuarine species. Diking or filling has destroyed approximately 90 percent of the original tidal wetlands of San Francisco Bay (Baylands Ecosystem Habitat Goals, San Francisco Bay Area Wetland Ecosystem Goals Project, March 1999). The loss of tidal wetlands has greatly reduced the amount of habitat available to many species of fish and wildlife. Several animal and plant species native to California, including the salt marsh harvest mouse and the California clapper rail, have been listed as endangered on State and Federal lists due to the severe reduction of wetland habitats (Science Strategy, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, April 2004). 2) Loss of flood plain and potential for flood damage in the project area: Potential flood damages within the study area are primarily due to development within the natural tidal and fluvial flood plains and past land subsidence due to overdraft pumping of groundwater. Extensive areas along the South San Francisco Bay shoreline are lower in elevation than the regular tides in the Bay and are potentially subject to tidal flooding. Much of the developed areas in the tidal flood plain are protected by substandard levees, including levees built to create salt ponds. These levees are subject to overtopping during high tides and potential failure. The levees also constrain stream channels conveying runoff from upstream areas into the Bay. The capacity of these constrained channels is further reduced during high tides, potentially increasing the risk of fluvial flooding and causing drainage problems. Past land subsidence is major factor contributing to potential tidal and fluvial flooding, particularly in the Alviso Complex, the portion of the study with the greatest potential flood problems. Flood damages to the Silicon Valley region would have significant impacts to the economy of the Bay Area, the State of California, and the United States. The previous South San Francisco Bay Shoreline study showed that tidal flooding has not been a significant source of flood damages in the past and did not identify an economically justified flood damage reduction project for the area, but several new factors could result in the development of economically feasible flood damage reduction measures. These factors include: (1) the use of risk analysis to better quantify the potential for flooding and the magnitude of flood damages, (2) the potential increase in flood damages due to intensification of land uses in the study area, particularly the increase in high tech businesses that can sustain flood damage even with shallow flooding depths, and (3) the formulation of plans to achieve multiple purposes that may produce economic efficiencies due to shared costs among purposes. 3) Increased potential for flood damage due to transfer of salt ponds and associated change in management regime: Prior Corps’ studies concluded that the existing salt ponds and levees provide significant (but incomplete) protection against coastal flooding, even though the levees were not engineered structures. This was based on an analysis of flood potential and historic flooding, and predicated on the need and ability to maintain levees for salt production. Since the salt production is not being pursued, levee maintenance may not be economically viable and the risk of flooding and flood related damages to nearby communities might increase. In addition, breaching bayside levees to restore tidal action to the salt complex may affect the level of flood protection in adjacent areas. 4) Proliferation of Non-native plant and animal species: The proliferation of non-native species in the San Francisco Bay has negatively impacted native species, caused shifts in food webs, and created other ecosystem-level changes (Science Strategy, South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, 2004). Smooth cordgrass (Spartina alterniflora) is one of the

3-10

most problematic invasive plant species in the project area; its presence within vegetated wetlands can shift mudflat distributions, change creek geomorphology, and affect habitat conditions. Other non-native species in the project area include: perennial pepperweed (Lepidium latifolium), glasswort (Salsola soda), the Chinese Mitten Crab (Eriocheir sinensis), and non-native predators such as the red fox, cats, and dogs. 5) Reduced salinity in the South Bay: Increased discharges from water pollution control plants and urban runoff have shifted the natural salinity gradient in South San Francisco Bay. The reduction in tidal prism in the far south bay due to sedimentation also contributes to the shift. If Bay salinity continues to change, there could be large-scale impacts on the ecosystem. Opportunities:

1) To provide public access and recreational opportunities compatible with wildlife and habitat goals; 2) To increase habitat acreage for special-status species and native South San Francisco Bay species; 3) To enhance existing salt pond habitat to benefit special status wildlife and migratory birds;

4) To establish connections between tidal marsh and adjacent habitats; 5) To address predators and invasive species on a regional level; 6) To improve flood control in project area; 7) To restore historic geomorphic features such as channels and sloughs;

8) To improve the health and water quality of the San Francisco Bay (by increasing wetland acreage and by increasing overall primary productivity in the South Bay ecosystem by restoring tidal marshes);

9) To improve sediment quality; and 10) To reshape the landscape away from the present emphasis on salt production and consistent with the multiple objectives of ecosystem restoration and flood control (coastal and fluvial).

d. Planning Objectives: The national objectives of National Economic Development and National Ecosystem Restoration are general statements and not specific enough for direct use in plan formulation. The water and related land resource problems and opportunities identified in this study are stated as specific planning objectives to provide focus for the formulation of alternatives. These planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities and represent desired positive changes in the without project conditions. The planning objectives are specified as follows:

1) Restore ecosystem functions in the project area, including habitats of sufficient size, function, and appropriate structure for: special-status species, migratory birds, and other native species;

2) Reduce the potential for flood damages in the project area; and 3) Provide recreational opportunities within the project area, consistent with the goals of the ecosystem restoration effort.

3-11

e. Planning Constraints: Unlike planning objectives that represent desired positive changes, planning constraints represent restrictions that should not be violated. The planning constraints identified in this study are as follows:

1) Maintain or improve existing levels of water and sediment quality in the project area; 2) Maintain or improve current levels of vector management in the project area; 3) Do not increase predation on special-status species in the project area; 4) Do not increase the spread of non-native species in the project area; 5) Protect existing infrastructure function within the project area (e.g., power lines and railroads); 6) Ecosystem restoration should not result in induced flooding of developed areas or significant infrastructure; 7) Do not eliminate habitat in the project area for salt-pond-dependent species; and 8) Replace or minimize the loss of existing outboard marshes and mudflats in the project area.

f. Planning/Design Considerations: The following issues are expected to contribute to

the planning process, but are not considered to be limiting factors or constraints:

1) Effects of non-native nuisance species; 2) Effects of long-term sea level rise on restoration process and flooding; 3) Estuary-wide shortage of sediment and resulting ongoing long-term loss of mudflats and inability to restore tidal marshes; 4) Impact of up to eight feet of pond subsidence on tidal habitat evolution; and 5) Long-term impacts on resident flora and fauna due to changes in landscape.

g. Potential Measures to Address Identified Planning Objectives. A management measure is a feature or activity at a site, which address one or more of the planning objectives. A wide variety of measures will be considered during the Feasibility Phase, some of which might be found to be infeasible due to technical, economic, or environmental constraints. The following measures will be assessed and a determination will be made regarding whether they should be retained in the formulation of alternative plans: 1) Measures to improve managed pond habitat

a) Salt Pond Levee reinforcements: Ponds that will be retained as shallow and deep-water pond habitat might require levee reinforcements to offset the risk of breaches, the likelihood of which will be determined from levee surveys performed during the Feasibility phase.

b) Replacement and installation of water control structures: Ponds to be retained as managed ponds might be equipped with new and/or upgraded water control structures to allow effective management of water level and salinity. The restoration effort would use the existing water conveyance infrastructure to the greatest degree possible. However, if existing water conveyance structures were deteriorated, refurbishing or replacement would be required. In addition, it might be necessary to install new intakes, outfalls, and other water conveyance structures (such as pumps, siphons, weirs, and fish screens).

3-12

c) Construct internal pond levees: Internal levees may be constructed to manage pond water levels more effectively, or to subdivide tidal and managed pond habitat to create continuous tidal corridors.

d) Internal islands: Creation of internal islands in the ponds could provide nesting and roosting habitat for migratory birds. Island would also provide some protection from introduced mammalian predators.

e) Grading of Pond Bottoms: Grading within the ponds could be used to create nesting islands and other habitat features.

f) Water Management Plan: Along with installation of water control structures and physical improvements, the ponds will need a management plan that details the ideal water levels and salinities over the course of a year. Different species of migratory birds have preferences for different water levels and salinities and use the salt ponds at different times of the year. 2) Measures to establish tidal marsh habitat and associated tidal habitats

a) Non-Structural i. Plant native vegetation species

ii. Land-use management plan iii. Remove non-native plant species such as Spartina

alterniflora through physical (covering, physical removal, or prescribed burns), chemical, or mechanical (mowing) techniques.

iv. Remove or break up gypsum deposits where necessary. b) Structural

i. Levee breaches: Ponds could be breached to reestablish tidal action within the ponds and allow tidal marsh formation.

ii. Ditch blocks: Ditch blocks could be used to block flow through artificial (human made) channels to route flow through natural channels with higher habitat value.

iii. Levee lowering: A portion of the levees could be lowered to create new tidal marsh, improve habitat continuity between the existing fringing marshes and the marshes that are expected to form within the ponds.

iv. Import and placement of sediment/dredged material: Rather than rely on natural sedimentation, the project could import large quantities of dredged sediment to accelerate habitat evolution and/or the creation of seasonal wetland, transition zones at the upper edge of tidal marshes, and upland habitat. Sediment would most likely be imported from sources within the San Francisco Bay and from associated fluvial systems.

v. Starter channels: Starter channels may be excavated where channel development is expected to be slow or limited in extent.

vi. Berms: Berms could facilitate rapid development of a diversity of marsh habitat by providing ground elevations conducive to vegetation establishment, by dissipating

3-13

wave energy, by creating more sheltered conditions conducive to sedimentation and vegetation colonization, and by acting as sacrificial sources of sediment to the rest of the pond.

vii. Excavation and grading of coastal uplands: This measure would increase the acreage of tidal wetlands and could be used to create different types of habitat such as saltmarsh, intertidal flats, tidal creeks, and permanent pools for marine communities. Grading and filling could also be used to create a gradual upland transition and refugia.

viii. Cover of contaminated sediment: Some of the Alviso Ponds are in the Guadalupe River delta that received mercury-laden sediments from the Almaden mercury mine in the past. This measure would cover these sediments during or prior to ecosystem restoration.

ix. Aeration: There is presently a severe dissolved oxygen problem in one of the Alviso ponds that limits ecosystem restoration of the pond. This measure would increase dissolved oxygen in the pond.

3) Measures to improve flood protection a) Non-Structural

i. Relocate homes/businesses in flood-prone areas ii. Create flood management plan

b) Structural i. Channel/hydrodynamic modification/sediment dredging:

This measure would increase channel capacity, resulting in decreased water levels and lowered risk of overtopping.

ii. Flood-control levees, setback levees: Expansion of tributary channels and associated floodplain via removal and/or reconstruction of levees farther from the channel will provide a slight increase in flood storage and major increase in conveyance of fluvial floodwaters. The associated increase in tidal prism will scour the channel, resulting in expansion of the channel cross-section and decreased water levels in the tributary channel.

iii. Construct/improve inboard salt pond levees: This measure would create/improve levees generally parallel to the shoreline between the creek channels. If improved inboard levees are tied-in to the existing channel levees, any of the other salt pond levees can be modified or removed without affecting developed areas, providing maximum flexibility in the future restoration and management of the salt ponds

iv. Construct managed ponds and tidal ponds as detention basins or floodplain: This measure would add features to the ponds to allow them to be used for floodplain storage and conveyance.

3-14

v. Breaching along tidal creeks: This measure would increase channel scour and conveyance

4) Recreation measures a) Information signage and kiosks; b) Multipurpose trails and access points; c) Safety features such as lighting and signage; d) Appropriate surfacing and drainage improvements to accommodate

new access and recreation facilities; e) ADA-compliant access features; f) Non-motorized launched sites (for kayaks, etc); and g) Viewing platforms

h. Preliminary Plans. Preliminary plans are comprised of one or more management measures. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the preliminary plans that were considered in this study are presented below:

1) No Action. The Corps is required to consider the option of “No Action” as one of the alternatives in order to comply with the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). No Action assumes that no project would be implemented by the Federal Government or by local interests to achieve the planning objectives. No Action, which is synonymous with the Without Project Condition, forms the basis from which all other alternative plans are measured.

2) Preliminary Plans Eliminated from Further Consideration a) All Managed Ponds: This plan differs from the without-project

condition in that measures to improve managed pond habitat would be involved (see above). Retaining all ponds as managed ponds would not increase habitat for endangered species and would not improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. This outcome would conflict with Federal and State plans for endangered species recovery.

b) All Tidal Habitats: This plan would breach pond levees to establish tidal exchange between the ponds and the San Francisco Bay. Opening all ponds to tidal action would support certain endangered species, assuming that the entire area eventually became tidal marsh. However, this approach would result in negative impacts by eliminating existing high-tide refugia and feeding habitat for shorebirds, and substantial feeding and resting habitat for waterfowl. In addition, the level of available sediment in the San Francisco Bay would limit the rate of accretion and thus the area of pond that would accrete to tidal marsh within the planning analysis period if all of the ponds were opened.

3) Preliminary Plans for further Consideration: The following general concepts (and others) for addressing the two main objectives of this project will be investigated during the formulation of alternative plans during the Feasibility Phase. Multi-purpose plans will be formulated to address both ecosystem

3-15

restoration and flood-damage reduction. Single-purpose ecosystem-restoration plans will also be considered, in the event that no sponsor is identified to share costs for additional flood protection, and in order to meet the requirements of EC 1105-2-404 (Planning Civil Work Projects Under the Environmental Operating Principles) and EC 1105-2-219 (Cost Allocation for Multipurpose Projects Including Ecosystem Restoration) for multipurpose plans. Multiple flood-damage-reduction concepts might be included in a single plan. Additional measures (listed above) may apply to each of the general concepts:

a) Ecosystem Restoration: i. Mix of Managed Ponds and Tidal Habitats, All Ponds (there

may be multiple plans representing a range of habitat outcomes for each pond)

ii. Mix of Managed Ponds and Tidal Habitats, Subset(s) of Ponds

b) Flood-Damage Reduction: i. Nonstructural approach to reduce flood damages

ii. Flood control levees iii. Increase channel-flow conveyance iv. Use ponds for flood storage

i. Conclusions from the Preliminary Screening. The preliminary screening indicates

that alternatives that would create a mix of managed ponds and tidal habitats, rather than emphasize one habitat type, would have the greatest potential for implementation. Due to the strong interest of potential non-Federal sponsors such as the SCVWD and ACFCWCD in cost sharing flood-damage-reduction components of this project, it is likely that the recommended plan will be a multi-purpose plan. 1) The types of benefits anticipated from the proposed actions would relate to: a) Ecosystem restoration i. Improved habitat quality;

ii. Increased populations and improved viability of special-status species;

iii. Increased populations of other native species; iv. Increased habitat acreage; and; v. Improved water quality

b) Flood damage reduction; c) Recreation; and d) Incidental benefits-- Improved sediment management in estuarine

portions of rivers and creeks (resulting in reduced O&M costs for related projects).

2) Anticipated negative environmental effects (and potential mitigation measures) include:

a) Temporary water quality impacts (water quality monitoring and adaptive management); b) Temporary disturbance of animal and vegetative communities, (pre-construction surveys and relocations); and

3-16

c) Short-term reduction in aquatic habitat suitability (cofferdams to minimize in-water construction).

3) Anticipated project costs. A cost estimate for ecosystem restoration features in Eden

Landing, the Alviso Complex, and the Ravenswood Complex was created for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (Feasibility Analysis, South Bay Salt Ponds, 2001). This cost estimate does not include costs for flood protection beyond that linked with restoration. Alternatives that include all of the ponds within the three salt pond complexes are anticipated to range between $314 million to $1.1 billion (2001 price levels). This estimate includes costs over a 99-year timeframe: planning and design, operations and maintenance during planning, construction, monitoring, the import of dredged materials, and operations and maintenance. This cost estimate also includes salinity reduction of the ponds, which is not within the scope of this restoration project—the salinity will be reduced before the management of the ponds is transferred to the CDFG and USFWS because the former landowner (Cargill) has continuing obligations to the current landowners to do so. The costs do not include construction for flood control beyond what is linked to restoration measures, or the value of lands, easements, right of way, relocation, or disposal sites (LERRD). It is possible that the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study will involve a subset of the ponds and thus features included in the SBSP Project. Two cost estimates concerning flood management within the project area are also available: a) an estimate for the reconfiguration of levees associated with the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel (Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel – Flood Mitigation/Wetland Restoration Feasibility Study, Phase II Final Report, 2004) and b) an estimate for a flood control levee surrounding the study area (Pers comm., Brown & Caldwell and PWA, based on information from the Moffet & Nichol Report, Urban Levee Flood Management Requirements (Draft) March 2004). Alternatives for the realignment of the Alameda Creek Flood Control Channel levee are estimated to range in cost from $17.5 million to $22 million. Each alternative includes breaching the existing levees in eight locations, excavation of a spillway, and construction of two levees. The alternatives differ with respect to the size and location of the eight breaches. The cost for a flood control levee throughout the entire Shoreline project area is estimated to range from $135 million to $475 million, based on low and high values of unit levee improvement cost and levee length (50 miles or 75 miles). Levee unit costs were a function of levee elevation and slope. The high end of levee length included the inboard perimeter of ponds throughout the entire study area (from immediately south of the San Mateo Bridge to immediately north of the Ravenswood crystallizer ponds), while the low-end estimate assumed that some areas need no levee (high ground) and that some areas have sufficient existing levees intact. All estimates assume one perimeter levee and assume that all materials used in levee construction will be obtained from adjacent ponds. The import of construction materials would incur substantial additional cost.

3-17

A more detailed analysis of costs for ecosystem restoration and flood management will be produced during the Feasibility Phase. Based on this information, alternatives to address the planning objectives appear viable. j. Establishment of a Plan Formulation Rationale. The conclusions from the preliminary screening form the basis for the next iteration of the planning steps that will be conducted in the feasibility phase. The likely array of alternatives that will be considered in the next iteration will consider different habitat fates for ponds within the pond complexes, will consider both natural sedimentation and the import of dredged sediment, will represent a range of strategies for addressing flood control issues; and will reflect incremental levels of investment. Future screening and reformulation will be based on the following factors: associated evaluation criteria of effectiveness, efficiency, completeness, and acceptability; and the overall ratio of managed pond area to tidal marsh area in the study area. 6. Federal Interest There is a strong Federal interest in conducting the feasibility study because the primary outputs of the alternatives to be evaluated in the feasibility phase (flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration) are outputs with a high budget priority. There is also a Federal interest in other related outputs of the alternatives, including recreation, that could be developed within existing policy. Based on the preliminary screening of alternatives, there appear to be potential project alternatives that would be consistent with Army policies and would have adequate benefits and acceptable costs and environmental impacts. The San Francisco Estuary is the largest estuary on the west coast of the contiguous United States. It has ecological resources of national significance, and has been designated as a site of hemispheric importance to shorebirds. 7. Preliminary Financial Analysis As the non-Federal sponsor, California State Coastal Conservancy would be required to provide 50 percent of the cost of the feasibility phase. The CSCC is also aware of the cost sharing requirements for potential project implementation. A letter of intent from the CSCC stating a willingness to pursue the feasibility study and to share in its cost, and an understanding of the cost sharing that is required for project construction is included as Enclosure A (Letter of Intent). 8. Assumptions and Exceptions a. Feasibility Phase Assumptions: The following critical assumptions will provide a basis for the feasibility study:

1) Without Project Condition Assumptions— Without-project condition for the salt ponds will be generally defined as the project conditions under the

3-18

South Bay Salt Pond Project’s Initial Stewardship Plan (ISP), developed by the CDFG and USFWS (in conjunction with other stakeholders). This plan involves minimal maintenance of the ponds and associated levees. During the Feasibility Study, the without-project condition might be adjusted to reflect deviations from the ISP. Without-project conditions for study areas not covered by the plan will incorporate information from current flood capacity and floodplain maps.

2) NEPA and CEQA documentation will be prepared as part of the Feasibility Phase.

3) A benefit-to-cost (B/C) analysis will be performed as part of the evaluation of flood damage reduction features. An incremental cost analysis (ICA) will be performed to evaluate ecosystem restoration features. These two analyses would be used, as appropriate, to identify a primary purpose plan, and to optimize any separable elements. A risk-based analysis will be used to capture low-probability, highly damaging floods (not captured in the original Shoreline Study). However, the primary evaluation method will be a trade-off analysis addressing both NED and NER costs and benefits, rather than separate B/C and ICA analyses.

4) The proposed feasibility study will use as much existing information as possible to gain a clear understanding of flooding and ecosystem restoration issues within this basin and the potential solutions already studied to determine the best means of proceeding. The study assumes that FEMA flood plain maps will be updated within the next few years; information from FEMA studies will be used, although FEMA maps will not be used in lieu of a risk-based analysis of without-project flood damages.

5) The Feasibility Report will be based upon existing information, revised or updated information provided by the non-Federal sponsor, and new studies. The Corps, non-Federal sponsor, or contract resources will perform new studies. The decision as to which entity will conduct the studies will be based upon who is the most logical and practical party to complete the task. The method of accomplishment for each task will be identified in the PMP

b. Policy Exceptions and Streamlining Initiatives: The study will be conducted in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines and the Corps of Engineers regulations. No exceptions to established guidance are identified at this time. c. Quality Objectives: Feasibility phase studies will be accomplished to meet the following quality objectives:

1) Adequate evaluations will be conducted to meet the requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act and other environmental legislation.

2) Project costs for the selected plan will be developed to a level of certainty where the ultimate project cost will be within 20% of the feasibility phase estimate.

3) Feasibility phase studies will conform to the requirements of ER 1105-2-100.

3-19

9. Feasibility Phase Milestones Refer to Chapter 4, Section 2.d (Milestone Schedule). 10. Feasibility Phase Cost Estimate Refer to Table 1 (Enclosure B). 11. Views of Other Resource Agencies Because of the funding and time constraints of the reconnaissance phase, only limited and informal coordination has been conducted with other resource agencies. Views that have been expressed are as follows:

a. California State Coastal Conservancy, USFWS and CDFG (property owners): Collectively, these agencies see the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project as the single greatest opportunity to improve the physical, chemical and biological health of the San Francisco Bay. The Conservancy, USFWS, and CDFG are managing the long-term restoration planning process collaboratively as members of the Project Management Team. USFWS and CDFG are the landowners/managers and are responsible for planning and conducting the interim stewardship of the salt ponds (maintenance of levees and management of water) while the long-term restoration planning is taking place. The Conservancy is working closely with the USFWS and CDFG in meeting the following goals:

Restore and enhance a mix of wetland habitats, Provide for flood management, and Provide wildlife-oriented public access and recreation opportunities.

b. California State Coastal Conservancy (CSCC): The Conservancy, established in 1976, is

a state agency that uses entrepreneurial techniques to purchase, protect, restore, and enhance coastal resources, and to provide access to the shore. The CSCC works in partnership with local governments, other public agencies, nonprofit organizations, and private landowners. The Conservancy is interested in cost sharing features that are associated with ecosystem restoration within the three complexes of former salt-production ponds and flood-protection measures necessitated by the restoration. However, the Conservancy would be willing to accept money from other agencies to cover costs associated with additional flood-damage-reduction aspects of the project. The CSCC is also a member of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Management Team.

c. Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD): The Santa Clara Valley Water District is a non-Federal sponsor and is the primary water resources agency for Santa Clara County, California. It acts not only as the county's water wholesaler, but also as its flood protection agency and is the steward for its streams and creeks, underground aquifers and district-built reservoirs. As the county's water wholesaler, the SCVWD makes sure there is enough clean, safe water for homes and businesses. As the agency responsible for local flood protection, the SCVWD works diligently to protect Santa Clara Valley residents and businesses from the devastating effects of flooding. The SCVWD stream stewardship responsibilities include creek restoration and wildlife habitat projects, pollution prevention efforts and a commitment to natural flood protection.

3-20

The SCVWD views this project as an opportunity to improve flood management in

Northern Santa Clara County. They are involved in a number of flood-management projects within the study area (see related Corps projects, above). In addition, they own and are interested in restoring Pond A4 in the Alviso Pond Complex. The SCVWD is also a member of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Management Team.

d. Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD): The Alameda County Flood Control District was established in 1949. Its first concern was to reduce regional flooding and focused its first 25 years on installing a regional flood control system. The District has continued to maintain and repair its infrastructure while responding to flood control needs created by new development throughout the area. Over the last 20 years, the district has turned even greater attention to environmental concerns. This includes returning local creeks to more natural settings, adding parks and learning centers, working to prevent storm water pollution and educating the public about individual and collective roles we can all take to create a healthier environment.

The ACFCWCD sees this project as an opportunity to improve flood management in the

vicinity of Laguna Creek. The ACFCWCD is proposing a project to evaluate how the acquired salt ponds adjacent to Laguna Creek (ponds A22 and A23) can be incorporated into that flood management system to improve flood management, reduce operations and maintenance costs, improve public recreational opportunities and restore habitat. They hope to have their project, or components of it, incorporated into the Shoreline Study. The ACFCWCD is also a member of the SBSP Restoration Project Management Team.

e. As members of the Regulatory and Trustee Agency Group, the following agencies have signed a Memorandum of Understanding to facilitate interagency coordination and ensure the integration of all regulatory requirements:

1) NOAA Fisheries: NOAA Fisheries generally supports this project as furthering their interest in improving San Francisco Bay fisheries.

2) San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board: The RWQCB is the primary water quality regulatory agency for San Francisco Bay. It is a State of California agency. The SFBRWQCB generally supports this project as furthering their mission to protect and improve water quality in San Francisco Bay. They have developed a set of waste discharge requirements for the Initial Stewardship Plan that provides for protection of the Bay while allowing the stage to be set for long-term restoration.

3) San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission: BCDC is a State agency with coastal zone management responsibilities for San Francisco Bay. BCDC generally supports this project as furthering their mission to protect and improve San Francisco Bay and providing public access to its shoreline.

4) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Regulatory Branch): The Corps has issued a permit (#27701S, dated May 10, 2004) for Interim Maintenance/Restoration.

5) U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Regulatory Branch): The USFWS generally supports this project as furthering their interest in recovering endangered species in San Francisco Bay.

3-21

6) U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA): The EPA generally supports this project as part of its desire to increase wetland acreage throughout the U.S. In addition, the EPA was a key participant in and funding source of the Habitat Goals Project (referenced above).

f. Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA): Given the likelihood of the FEMA study of the same area and similar technical issues, coordination between the FEMA and Corps flood studies is anticipated. FEMA has responsibility for developing Flood Insurance Rate Maps (FIRMs). There are FIRMs for the project area; however, FEMA is commencing work on updating the FIRMs throughout the Bay Area as part of its nationwide map modernization effort. The CSCC is engaged in discussions with FEMA about becoming a Cooperating Technical Partner for the FIRM studies in the South San Francisco Bay. (Note: Although information from FEMA will be used, FEMA maps will not be used in lieu of a risk-based analysis of without-project flood damages.) 12. Potential Issues Affecting Initiation of Feasibility Phase Continuation of this study into the cost-shared feasibility phase is contingent upon an executed FCSA. Failure to achieve an executed FCSA within 18 months of the approval date of the Section 905(b) Analysis will result in termination of the study. Issues that could impact the initiation of the feasibility phase include special language the CSCC is requesting for the next WRDA, which would allow the CSCC to produce and submit a Feasibility Report to the Corps for HQUSACE approval and Congressional authorization. 13. Description of Feasibility Phase Approach Based on study cost estimates, the Corps and non-Federal sponsors (NFS) have determined that the Feasibility Phase should be conducted through several Interim Feasibility Studies, which will address flood-damage reduction, ecosystem restoration, and other related project purposes in the geographic areas that are described below. This approach reflects anticipated Federal and non-Federal funding availability. Each Interim Feasibility Study will have its own FCSA(s) and PMP, including a detailed scope of work, schedule, and study cost estimate. Each Interim Feasibility Study will document a complete Six-Step Planning Process for its designated study area and be subject to the required HQUSACE and SPD milestones. If funding and non-Federal interest allow, two or more of these Interim Feasibility Studies may be conducted concurrently. The EIS accompanying each Interim Feasibility Study will tier off of the Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project (SBSP Restoration Project). The Corps and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) will be Joint Lead Agencies on the SBSP Restoration Project EIS, which will cover the entire Shoreline Study project area at a programmatic level of detail. Description of Interim Feasibility Studies:

3-22

A general description of the geographic scope (refer to Figures 1 and 2) and a preliminary cost estimate is provided below for each of the Interim Feasibility Studies. A detailed scope of work, schedule, and study cost estimate will be presented in each Interim Feasibility Study’s PMP, which will be developed under the study authority for this project. The geographic sectioning of the broader Shoreline Study project area takes into account: potential project partners and project-purpose-related opportunities and challenges presented by each area. The anticipated Interim Feasibility Studies will investigate (Figure 2; counterclockwise from the west): Ravenswood Ponds and San Mateo County: Potential Non-Federal Sponsors: CSCC, City of Menlo Park, City of East Palo Alto, Redwood City Description of Study Area and Rationale: This study would include an area generally defined by the Redwood City, Menlo Park, and East Palo Alto Sub-Areas and the Ravenswood Ponds. The Ravenswood Ponds are owned by the USFWS. The southern border is San Francisquito Creek. This study area is separable from the remainder of the project in terms of hydrology and political jurisdictions. This study area includes all of the Shoreline Study area in San Mateo County, and is focused on ecosystem restoration and tidal flood protection for the Ravenswood Ponds, as well as flood protection for Flood Slough and Ravenswood Slough drainages. Flood protection for San Francisquito Creek is being studied under a separate authorization. Close coordination between the Shoreline Study and the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Study will occur through communication between the Corps project managers. The San Francisquito Creek serves as the southern edge of this Interim Feasibility Study area, dividing the Santa Clara County and Alviso Ponds from the San Mateo and Ravenswood Ponds. Preliminary Study Cost Estimate: $3-6 million. Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County: Potential Non-Federal Sponsors: CSCC, Santa Clara Valley Water District (SCVWD) Description of Study Area and Rationale: This study would generally include the Palo Alto/Mountain View Sub-Area (south of San Francisquito Creek), the Alviso Ponds owned by the USFWS (and the areas behind it), including Pond A4 (owned by SCVWD) and Pond A18 (owned by the City of San Jose), and Moffett Field. This study area is separable from the remainder of the project in terms of hydrology and political jurisdictions. This study area includes all of the geographic area in Santa Clara County, as well as a small area in Alameda County that is part of the Coyote Creek/Mud Slough drainage from Santa Clara County. The study will focus on ecosystem restoration and flood protection for all of the Alviso Ponds in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties as well as flood protection for the immediately adjacent area in Palo Alto/Mountain View. The drainages in this study area all flow through Santa Clara County and include: Coyote Creek/Mud Slough, Artesian Slough, Guadalupe River/Alviso Slough, Guadalupe Slough/Moffett Channel/Sunnyvale East and West Channels, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek/Mountain View Slough, Charleston Slough/Barron

3-23

Creek/Adobe Creek, and Matadero Creek/Mayfield Slough. These drainages are part of four distinct watersheds, at the base of which the Alviso Ponds are located: Coyote Watershed, Guadalupe Watershed, West Valley Watershed, and Lower Peninsula Watershed. Flood protection for San Francisquito Creek is being studied under a separate authorization. Close coordination between the Shoreline Study and the San Francisquito Creek Flood Control Study will occur through communication between the Corps project managers. The San Francisquito Creek serves as the northern edge of this Interim Feasibility Study area, dividing the Santa Clara County and Alviso Ponds from the San Mateo and Ravenswood Ponds. Preliminary Study Cost Estimate: $10-13 million. Alameda County Cargill Ponds: Potential Non-Federal Sponsors: CSCC, Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District (ACFCWCD) Description of Study Area and Rationale: This study area is comprised of the Alameda-County-owned salt ponds that lay to the north of the Alviso Ponds and to the south of the Alameda Creek Flood Control Project. Cargill Salt Company has retained salt-production rights to these ponds. The study area is separable from the remainder of the project because it all lies in Alameda County, is made up completely of ponds that are still being used by Cargill for salt production, and is separate in terms of hydrology. The study will focus on flood protection for lands behind the salt ponds in Alameda still being used by Cargill for salt production. The drainages in this study area all flow through Alameda County and include: Mowry Slough, Plummer Creek, and Newark Slough. Preliminary Study Cost Estimate: $3-6 million. Eden Landing: Potential Non-Federal Sponsors: CSCC, ACFCWCD Description of Study Area and Rationale: This study would cover the Eden Landing Ponds (owned by the California State Department of Fish and Game (CDFG)) and the Alameda Creek Flood Control Project (owned by the ACFCWCD). The study will focus on ecosystem restoration and associated flood protection of the Eden Landing salt ponds, as well as flood protection for the Alameda Flood Control Channel drainage area. Preliminary Study Cost Estimate: $3-6 million. Initiation Sequence of Interim Feasibility Studies: It is anticipated that the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study will be the first study initiated because of relatively high risk of flood damages in this area, due to its subsidence. The sequence for initiating the remaining Interim Feasibility Studies will be determined at a later date, contingent on availability of funds and the interest of potential non-Federal sponsors. 14. Relationship Between the Shoreline Study and SBSP Restoration Project Efforts: The Shoreline Study Interim Feasibility Studies will incorporate the work conducted under the SBSP Restoration Project, an effort coordinated by the CSCC. Shoreline Study and SBSP

3-24

Restoration Project documents relating to the two efforts might refer to the SBSP Restoration Project work as “Level 1” and to Shoreline Study work as “Level 2”. In addition, areas studied under the SBSP Restoration Project are generally designated as “Area A” while areas outside of Area A that are studied under the Shoreline Study are designated as “Area B”. The Shoreline Study will cover both Area A and Area B.

4-1

CHAPTER IV STUDY IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGY

Information in the following sections pertains to the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara Interim Feasibility Study of the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. Schedule, scopes of work, and costs estimates for additional interim feasibility studies will be presented in separate PMPs. 1. ORGANIZATIONAL BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE, TEAM ROSTER AND ROLES a. Organizational Breakdown Structure All organizations responsible for tasks, including the local sponsor and other agencies, are identified in the Work Breakdown Structure (WBS), using the organization codes listed in the following Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS). The tasks in the WBS are grouped by organization. A description of the agencies and their relationship to the project is included in Chapter 3 (see Views of Other Agencies).

Corps (San Francisco District) Organization Code Project Management CESPN-PM-CB Engineering Branch CESPN-ET-E Geo-Sciences Section CESPN-ET-EG Civil Design Section CESPN-ET-ED Water Resources Section CESPN-ET-EW Specifications & Cost Estimating CESPN-ET-ES Planning Branch CESPN-ET-P Plan Formulation Section CESPN-ET-PF Economics Section CESPN-ET-PS Environmental Science Section CESPN-ET-PZ Environmental Planning Section CESPN-ET-PP Real Estate Division CESPK-RE ETS Admin. CESPN-ET

Non-Federal Sponsor Organization Code California State Coastal Conservancy

CSCC

Santa Clara Valley Water District SCVWD

Other Agency/Other Corps Organization Code Corps (Sacramento District) CESPK US Fish & Wildlife Service FWS California State Department of Fish and Game

CDFG

Alameda County Flood Control and Water Control District

ACFCWCD

4-2

b. Team Roster

Corps Other AgenciesAmy Hutzel (CSCC)Beth Dyer (SCVWD)Ralph Johnson (ACFCWCD)

Judy SheenEric Thaut

Environmental Planning Bill DeJagerEnvironmental Sciences:

HTRW Tess SalireSediments Neil Hedgecock

Cultural Resources Richard StradfordEconomics Kevin KnightCivil Design David DemkoCost Estimating Jeff IdeGeo-Sciences Marc GoodhueWater Resources TBDGIS Dan SpechtReal Estate Susan MillerOffice of Counsel Merry Goodenough

Plan Formulation

TEAM MEMBER/POINT OF CONTACTFUNCTION

Project Management Yvonne LeTellier

c. Roles and Responsibilities The responsibilities for each task are divided into two categories, the lead role and the support role, and vary on a task-by-task basis. The lead role is accountable for conducting the task work as described in the PMP SOW, and for developing and revising the designated work products for the task. The lead role assumes responsibility for the completion of the task, while the support role provides continual “over-the-shoulder” support and peer review from an internal team source. In some cases, the support role will involve producing materials necessary for completion of a task, in addition to reviewing the deliverable. Coordination between the lead and support roles will be frequent to encourage a seamless peer review process. For all tasks, particularly for non-Federal-sponsor-led tasks, the Corps Project Delivery Team (PDT) members are responsible for ensuring that Corps policy is met, and will not simply advise on tasks led by the non-Federal sponsor. Corps team members need to buy off on all products before they can be accepted for submission to SPD or HQUSACE. Responsibilities for each task and role will be clearly assigned prior to initiation of the project and are included in the Scopes of Work (Chapter 5).

4-3

2. FEASIBILITY STUDY SCHEDULE a. SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT All schedules are developed using a Network Analysis System (NAS). The network is based on the tasks and durations that are listed in the Work Breakdown Structure and the detailed scopes of work in Chapter V, Scopes of Work. Major milestones that are defined in Enclosure C, CESPD Milestone System, are also included in the schedules. b. LOCAL SPONSOR COMMITMENTS Milestones become commitments when the project manager (PM) meets with the non-Federal sponsor(s) at the beginning of each Fiscal Year and identifies two to five tasks that are important for the District to complete during the Fiscal Year. These commitments would be flagged in the P2-system database and monitored and reported on accordingly. The P2 system is an integrated suite of industry-leading commercial off-the-shelf (COTS) software that includes: PMBP Portal, Oracle Tutor, Oracle Projects, OPB Interface, Project Manager TM and Primavera Primavision. c. UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SCHEDULE The schedule (Enclosure E) is a draft and is subject to change. The schedule is unconstrained, and task durations assume full staffing. As the project progresses and the schedule becomes more certain, tasks may be added or deleted from the schedule. The dates of individual tasks will be subject to internal negotiation at the beginning of each fiscal year. d. MILESTONE SCHEDULE The schedule for the milestones in the CESPD Milestone System is as follows:

Milestone Description Baseline Schedule Current Schedule

Milestone F1 Initiate Study Oct 05 Oct 05

Milestone F2 Public Workshop/Scoping Dec 05 Dec 05

Milestone F3 Feasibility Scoping Meeting Jan 07 Jan 07

Milestone F4 Alternative Review Conference Jan 08 Jan 08

Milestone F4A Alternative Formulation Briefing Jun 08 Jun 08

Milestone F5 Draft Feasibility Report Dec 08 Dec 08

Milestone F6 Final Public Meeting Jan 09 Jan 09

Milestone F7 Feasibility Review Conference Feb 09 Feb 09

Milestone F8 Final Report to SPD Jul 09 Jul 09

Milestone F9 Division Engineer's Submittal Aug 09 Aug 09

4-4

3. FEASIBILITY COST ESTIMATE a. BASIS FOR THE COST ESTIMATE 1). The Feasibility cost estimate is based upon a summation of the costs that were identified for the individual tasks in detailed scopes of work. Study cost estimates include allowances for inflation so that the non-Federal sponsor is fully aware of its financial commitment. 2). Appropriate contingencies and contingency management are included to adequately deal with the uncertainty in the elements of the study. Due to the high level of effort involved in scoping out this study, a 10 percent contingency was deemed appropriate. Contingencies in the amount required to raise the costs of activities this amount have been added to the cost estimate. b. COSTS FOR FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL ACTIVITIES The Feasibility study cost will be funded 50-50 by the Federal and non-Federal sponsor and the cost share will be initiated once the Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA) is signed. The Feasibility cost estimate is included in the WBS. 4. LISTING OF TASKS - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE The work breakdown structure lists the study activities, grouped by the responsible organization based on the OBS (Table 1, Enclosure B). 5. LISTING OF WORK PRODUCTS The following two tables list products of the SBSP Restoration project that will directly contribute to Shoreline Study tasks, and products of Shoreline Study tasks. Products from the SBSP Restoration Project will be subject to review by the Shoreline Study team, and Shoreline Study products will be subject to peer review, and in some cases, Inter-district Independent Technical Review as described in the Quality Control Plan (Chapter 6). Table 2. Related Work Products from the SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study Deliverables

Work Product Related Task

Expected Availability Date

SBSP Restoration Project Erler & Kalinowski Phase I Assessment for Cargill Salt 9 Quality Control Plan 16, All1 Apr-04 Data Summary Memorandum All3 Jun-04 Analysis Strategy and Model Selection Memorandum 2 Jun-04 Alternatives Development Framework 14 Jul-04 Mercury Technical Memorandum 8 Aug-04 Initial Opportunities and Constraints Summary Report All3 Aug-04 Initial Study and NOI/NOP 12 Oct-04

1 “All” refers to all technical tasks.

4-5

Work Product Related Task

Expected Availability Date

Science Syntheses All3 Mar-05 Existing Conditions Reports: Biology and Habitats, Hydrodynamics and Sediment Dynamics, Flood Management and Infrastructure, Water and Sediment Quality, Public Access and Recreation

All3 Mar-05

Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum 10 May-05 Landscape Scale Analysis Memorandum2 2, 7 Jul-05

Environmental Setting Report (for programmatic EIR/EIS) All3 Jul-05 Final Project Alternatives Report (includes Phase 1) 14 Sep-05 Preliminary Impact Analysis Summary Memorandum 12 Sep-05 Modeling Report #1 (Set-up and calibration methods) 2 Oct-05 Modeling Report #2 (Initial and preliminary model runs) 2 Jan-06 Model Report 3 – Modeling runs for Final Alternatives (Impact Analysis) 2

Jun-06 (and possibly a second deliverable for the Final EIR/EIS in Dec-06)

DEIS/R 12 Jun-06 Biological Assessment 7 Jun-06 Program Level Plan and Phase 1 Conceptual Design 4 Sep-06 FEIS/R 12 Nov-06 ROD (Final prepared by FWS and Corps) 12 Apr-07 Permit Applications (BCDC, RWQCB, Corps, Local) 12 Jun-07 Plans and Specifications for Phase 1 – through 100% level of design 4 Mar-08 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 7, 8, 11,

14 TBD

Operations and Maintenance Plan 14 TBD

2May be submitted as two separate reports: Landscape Scale Geomorphic Assessment and Landscape Scale Bird Use Assessment

4-6

Work Product Related Task

Expected Availability Date

Shoreline Study See Schedule Levee failure existing without project 3 Hydrographic Data Collection Plan 2 Preliminary Without Project Levee Assessment Report 3 Without Project Water, Sediment, and Air Quality Report 8, 12 Without Project Economics Report 5 HTRW Phase I Assessment Report 9 H&H Study Report 2 Detailed Without Project Levee Assessment Report 3 Environmental Setting Report (II) All3 F3 Package 14, All3 Digital Terrain Model (DTM) 1 Flood Management Alternatives 2 Preliminary Civil Design 4 Array of Alternatives Document 14 Value Engineering Report 16 With Project Levee Assessment Report 3 Final Project Alternatives Report 14 With Project HEP Analysis Report 7 With Project Economics Document 5 F4 Package 14, All3 HTRW Phase II Assessment Report 9 Preliminary Impact Analysis Summary Memorandum 12 Preliminary MCACES Cost Estimate 11 More Detailed Design 4 F4A AFB Package 14, All3 Real Estate Plan 6 EIS/R (II) 12 Real Estate Gross Appraisal 6 Detailed MCACES Cost Estimate 11 Feasibility Report 14, All3

Hydraulics and Hydrology Appendix 2 Geotechnical Appendix 3 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report 7 USFWS Planning Aid Report 7 Cultural Resources Inventory and Evaluation Report 10 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Plan 7, 8, 11,

14

U.S. Department of Agriculture and Farmland Conversion Impact Rating

10

Engineering Appendix 4 Economics Appendix 5 Real Estate Plan 6 MCACES 11

Chief’s Report 14 Record of Decision (ROD) 12

5-1

CHAPTER V SCOPES OF WORK

1. DETAILED SCOPES OF WORK The scopes of work for the tasks are grouped by the responsible organization. For each task that is included in the work breakdown structure, a scope of work is developed that describes the work that is to be performed. For each task, the scope describes the work, including specific activities, to be accomplished in narrative form. The scopes of work have been developed by the study team, which includes representatives of the non-Federal sponsor. The scopes also reflect any policy exceptions and streamlining initiatives that have been approved in the Section 905(b) Analysis (presented in Chapter III). 2. DURATIONS OF TASKS The durations for the tasks are entered into the project’s network analysis system (NAS) to develop the project schedule (Enclosure E). The durations are updated based on yearly negotiations between the Project Manager and the chiefs of the responsible organizations, as identified in Chapter IV. 3. COSTS OF TASKS The cost estimate for each task is listed in Table 1 (Enclosure B). The cost estimates for the tasks are based on negotiations between the Project Manager, the non-Federal sponsor, and the chiefs of the responsible organizations. 4. DETAILED SCOPES OF WORK BY SECTION AND STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

The detailed scopes of work by section begin on the following page. These scopes pertain to the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility

Study of the Shoreline Study. The study area generally includes the Palo Alto/Mountain View area (south of San Francisquito Creek); the Alviso Ponds owned by USFWS (and the areas behind it), including Pond A4 (owned by SCVWD and Pond A18 (owned by the City of San Jose); and Moffett Field. The study area includes all of the Shoreline Study geographic area in Santa Clara County, as well as a small area in Alameda County that is part of the Coyote Creek/Mud Slough drainage from Santa Clara County. The study will focus on ecosystem restoration and flood protection for all of the Alviso Ponds in Santa Clara and Alameda Counties as well as flood protection for the immediately adjacent area in Palo Alto/Mountain View. The drainages in this study area all flow through Santa Clara County and include: Coyote Creek/Mud Slough, Artesian Slough, Guadalupe River/Alviso Slough, Gualalupe Slough/Moffett Channel/Sunnyvale East and West Channels, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek/Mountain View Slough, Charleston Slough/Barron Creek/Adobe Creek, and Matadero Creek/Mayfield Slough. These drainages are part of four distinct watersheds, and the base of which the Alviso Ponds are located: Coyote Watershed, Guadalupe Watershed, West Valley Watershed, and Lower Peninsula Watershed. Flood protection for San Francisquito Creek is

5-2

being studied under a separate authorization. The San Francisquito Creek serves as the northern edge of this Interim Feasibility Study area, dividing the Santa Clara County and Alviso Ponds from the San Mateo and Ravenswood Ponds.

For additional information on the Interim Feasibility Study approach, refer to Chapter III (Scope of Study).

5-3

SCOPES OF WORK

For complete cost estimate information, refer to Table 1 (Enclosure B).

1. FEAS – SURVEYS, MAPPING and GIS (EXCEPT REAL ESTATE) General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Civil Design Section

• Support role: Corps GIS Section, NFS, United States Geological Survey (USGS), San Francisco Estuary Institute (SFEI)

• This task will incorporate existing documents and, as needed, perform additional

survey/mapping work to show existing conditions and with-project conditions for the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study area.

• All mapping and surveying products generated by the PDT will be submitted to the

Corps GIS manager/coordinator in the following format: SDSFIE-compliant GIS data (i.e., a .shp or .dwg file or a table that includes the coordinates of each data point) delivered with FGDC-compliant metadata. The GIS manager/coordinator will establish the coordinate system to produce maps.

1.1 Surveys and mapping for without-project conditions (F3) Description of task: Work included in this task includes the acquisition of existing LiDAR and Hydrographic/Marine Geophysical Surveys data, aerial photography, and existing and new field survey data to produce a digital terrain model (DTM) and associated topographic mapping. The DTM and topographic mapping products of the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study area will be used in generating and analyzing preliminary alternatives. A search of existing monuments for referencing the work will be made, and a semi-permanent survey control network will be established for use with all future mapping and survey efforts. Building on the South Bay Salt Pond (SBSP) Restoration Project, a search will be made to attempt to locate any existing infrastructure within the Shoreline Study project area for areas outside of the SBSP Restoration Project area. Such infrastructure may include:

• Electrical transmission towers, • Natural gas, water, fuel, or other pipelines, • Flow control gates, culverts, • Roads, • Bridges, • Existing Cargill facilities, • Railroad rights-of-way.

5-4

The search for this infrastructure will consist of contacting potential utility owners, reviewing existing data, and making field observations, expanding on the infrastructure search conducted for the SBSP Restoration Project to include Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study project areas not already covered. A search of county records will be made to attempt to identify any easements present within the project area that may affect the design of the project. This task will also include supplemental levee surveys (in addition to those described in Task 3.1) as needed to adequately map the current condition of those levees that are determined to have substantially degraded since the Corps 1984 levee survey. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project merged LiDAR and Hydrographic/Marine Geophysical Survey. Assumptions:

• The terrain model and associated mapping will be comprised of one-foot contours, half-foot supplemental contours in flat areas, spot elevations at strategic points, and planimetric features. Contours and spot elevations will meet National Map Accuracy standards. This task will supplement the digital terrain model (DTM) developed as part of the SBSP Restoration Project to include any portions of the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study project areas not included in the SBSP Restoration Project DTM. Construction of the DTM will consist of processing the elevation data from all sources (i.e., LiDAR, Hydrographic/Marine Geophysical Surveys, and field survey) into a seamless elevation model.

• Land-based and shallow-water bathymetric surveying will be performed along transects

to be used for wave runup and overtopping analysis. Transects will be constructed using available LiDAR and bathymetry data to the extent appropriate. Therefore, the survey will be limited to sections of transects not adequately covered by available data, such as salt ponds within the Shoreline Study project area that are not part of the SBSP Restoration Project area and levee crests obscured by vegetation.

• The LiDAR and Hydrographic/Marine Geophysical Survey will not provide all data

necessary to construct the digital terrain model. This is based on the design and scope of work for the LiDAR and Hydrographic/Marine Geophysical Surveys and review of LiDAR and Hydrographic/Marine Geophysical Surveys data collected to date. Field surveying will be required for fifty percent of Ponds A23, A6, and A8.

• The USGS or SFEI will provide a merged set of LiDAR and hydrography data by July

2005. This task will process the merged data set and construct the DTM to be used in the Shoreline Study. The task will add field collected survey data to supplement the DTM where necessary.

• The coverage of the LiDAR data set will be sufficient to create flood plain mapping

products from the H&H analysis in Tasks 2.1 and 2.2.

5-5

• Contour lines created from LiDAR data will be bounded by the accuracy constraints of

the data. Any contour data with elevation intervals that are close to LiDAR data error should be used with caution. The vertical accuracy of the LiDAR ranges from +/- 1 cm for hard surfaces (roads and buildings), +/- 15-25 cm on soft/vegetated surfaces (flat to rolling terrain) and +/- 25-40 cm on soft/vegetated surfaces (hilly terrain). The horizontal accuracy of the LiDAR ranges from +/- 20-60 cm on all surfaces except for the hilly terrain.

• Field survey acreage is estimated at approximately 400 acres.

1.1.1 Management of GIS database Description of task: Approximately 10 hours per month on average to develop and coordinate the GIS database to support the without project and with project planning and design efforts. This includes responding to data requests from the planning and design team and ensuring that GIS layers included in the GIS are compliant with the Federal Geographic Data Committee standards. This does not include producing maps and/or map layouts and templates, developing data layers for the GIS database, or analyzing data to produce statistics or data summaries necessary to support the planning and design effort for the without project and with project conditions. 1.2 Surveys and mapping for with-project conditions (F4) Description of task: The DTM will be used to generate topographic mapping products in AutoCAD format at a scale of 1” = 100’ for use in the preliminary design and 1”= 40’ for the 35% Design. Items needed to complete task: DTM developed in Task 1.1. Assumptions: None identified. 1.3 Surveys and mapping AFB documentation (F4A) Description of task: Provide input as needed to support the Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB) (F4A). Input might take the form of documentation of data collection methods and standards and/or producing maps and other figures for the F4A package, conference materials and/or presentation. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• Data collection methods and standards will be available by the F3 milestone to allow for an ITR review.

• No further revisions of work products from Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 will be needed.

5-6

1.4 Surveys and mapping for Draft Report (F5) Description of task: A description of data collection methods and standards will be provided for inclusion in the Draft Feasibility Report Engineering Appendix. Survey results and maps, as needed, will also be provided. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• If these materials were provided for the F4A package as an Engineering Appendix, then the task will involve updating the materials previously submitted, as needed. Survey results and maps will be provided as hard copies or electronically, as appropriate.

• No further revisions of work products from Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 will be needed.

1.5 Surveys and mapping for Final Report (F8) Description of task: Data collection methods and standards, and if necessary, survey results and map, will be revised based on public and agency comments on the Draft Feasibility Report for inclusion in the Final Feasibility Report Engineering Appendix. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• No further revisions of work products from Tasks 1.1 and 1.2 will be needed. 2. FEAS – HYDRAULICS and HYDROLOGY STUDIES/REPORT General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: NFS

• Support role: Corps Water Resources section, NFS

• The Corps Water Resources section will conduct peer review of the studies of without project conditions provided by the contractor working for the sponsor, to ensure that the project is in compliance with sound technical practice of the disciplines involved. The review will consider the data and methods used for determining the existing fluvial, tidal, and joint risk flood hazard assessments, all the components that feed into such assessments (i.e. sea level rise, wave run-up, and levee failure/stability), an assessment of flood damages, and sediment budget studies which would affect the geomorphic evolution of any tidal marsh restoration project alternatives. In addition, the Water Resources section will attend meetings

5-7

with the sponsor, contractor, and the project study team in order to facilitate the eventual ITR process.

• The Corps Water Resources Section requires documentation and discussion with

the contractor's QC team, and discussions with the sponsor and the contractor regarding the study goals to complete the peer review and QA review process (to be performed by the ITR team). The Water Resources section will provide documentation detailing peer overview and appropriate actions to resolve concerns as its product to the peer review process. Such documentation will be provided to the ITR Team for its use during the QA process (if the contractor is performing its own QC process).

5-8

• The following table provides a comparison of the H&H studies to be conducted

under the SBSP Restoration Project and the Shoreline Study (which will build off of the SBSP Restoration Project analyses):

Where does SBSP end and Shoreline Study begin? Topic SBSP Shoreline Study (Alviso Ponds and Santa

Clara County Interim Feasibility Study) Coastal flooding - Bay Model calibration

- Model “typical” conditions, not flood events

- Look-up tables for wind wave generation and runup as general indication

- Use model to simulate storm surges and wind-wave setup

- Calculation of wave runup and overtopping on transects

- Calculation of flood limits and depths for range of “events”

Fluvial flooding - UNET or HEC-RAS model of Guadalupe River

- HEC-RAS modeling of 6 creeks/rivers

Combined flood events

- Not addressed - Addressed implicitly in separate coastal and flooding calculations

- Joint flood areas mapped for given “event” exceedance level

Flood events considered

- 100-year, based on existing studies with the exception of Guadalupe River

- risk-based approach - Multiple flood events: 2, 5, 10, 25, 50,

100, 200, 500 Flood mapping - None - mapping of flood events to support

assessment of flood damages and benefit of flood damage reduction

Detail of Analyses - Programmatic Level - Project Level Location of Study - Area A (Ravenswood, Eden Landing

and Alviso Pond Complexes) - Alviso Pond Complex + Santa Clara

County area north to San Francisquito Creek

Site Assessment - Initial assessment of Area A including meetings with flood control districts and city agencies, discussions of ongoing/previous flood management projects and on-site visits.

- Detailed assessment of the Alviso Pond Complex. Preliminary and detailed flood management assessments of Santa Clara County area north to San Francisquito Creek.

2.0 Coastal Engineering Support / Corps Hydrodynamic Model Approval Process Description of task: Coastal Engineering Support / Corps Hydrodynamic Model Approval Process will be provided by engineer(s) from Corps Los Angeles District and the Corps Engineering Research and Development Command (ERDC) Coastal Hydraulics Laboratory. The Model approval process will begin early in the study and be conducted in accordance with ER-1110-2-1403. Assumption: As described in the Quality Control Plan (Chapter 6), the Corps National Planning Centers of Expertise (PCX) will manage the model approval process. 2.1 Hydraulics and hydrology evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3)

5-9

Description of Task: In Task 2.1, a detailed site description of the project area will be documented, coastal and fluvial flooding analyses will be performed for both existing and future conditions, and an H&H report for the F3 package will be written that summarizes each task. This feasibility study will be closely coordinated with the SBSP Restoration Project work. Data analyses and restoration alternatives from the SBSP Restoration Project will be incorporated into the Shoreline Study. In particular, a tidal hydrodynamic model of the South Bay, to be developed in the SBSP Restoration Project, will be extended to model high water levels and waves. The H&H study will be accomplished using the principles of Risk and Uncertainty in compliance with the Corps policy as defined in Engineer Manuals 1105-2-101 (1996) and 1110-2-1619 (1996). The inherent variability and measurement inaccuracy of key hydrologic and hydraulic parameters will be addressed by assigning probability distributions. Anticipated key parameters are Bay water level, flow rate and stage of tributary streams, relative sea level rise, wind wave height and period (based on wind data distribution), levee erosion and failure geometries, wave runup elevations and overtopping rates. The approach will be detailed during the study. The H&H task will provide and extent and depth of flooding for a range of return periods. These flooding estimates will be used in the economic analysis. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified. 2.1.1 Existing flood hazards detailed assessment 2.1.1a Review previous Corps Shoreline Studies Description of Task: Analysis of methods and results of past Corps Shoreline Studies for the San Francisco Bay will be reviewed and documented in a format suitable for inclusion in the H&H report as part of the F3 package. Flood levels and hazard zones described by the Shoreline Studies by the Corps in 1988 and 1989 will be documented and compared with new flood plains developed in this study. Items needed to complete task: All previous Corps Shoreline Study reports (including supporting documentation). Assumptions:

• Corps will be able to locate and provide all necessary documents. 2.1.1b Data acquisition and review Description of Task: Conduct field reconnaissance in the Study Area to determine existing floodplain and coastline conditions. The reconnaissance effort will include a review of information collected by the SBSP Restoration Project. Data gaps will be identified and compared with ongoing data collection efforts. A hydrographic data collection plan will be recommended to fill data gaps as part of Task 1.1. A summary of data used to describe the without-project conditions will be documented for the H&H Report as part of the F3 package.

5-10

This task also includes coordination with local flood management districts to collect maps of existing flood boundaries, obtain information regarding management practices, and review existing flood control projects. Relevant information that is provided by cities, counties, and Cargill or otherwise readily available (i.e., hydraulic structure locations, flood records, existing land use, hydraulic models, etc) will be gathered and included in the data summary section of the H&H report. The information will contribute toward establishment of existing flood management conditions. Items needed to complete task: Project area map including topographic contours and prominent planimetric features (developed in Task 1.1). Agreement from flood management districts to assist in Shoreline Study. Assumptions:

• Maps and data from the SBSP Restoration Project will be used as much as possible to complete this subtask. Meetings will occur as appropriate based on the purpose and county representatives will participate in meetings at their discretion. Flood control districts will provide both fluvial and flood channel bathymetry and cross sections.

• The Santa Clara Valley Water District (Santa Clara County) will be the primary

point of contact for this information. 2.1.1c Coastal flooding assessment Description of Task: The locations of shoreline flood reaches and transects to conduct a detailed coastal flooding analysis will be defined with the DTM created in Task 1.1. Future conditions will be estimated using the SBSP Restoration Project. Hydrodynamic modeling will enable a detailed analysis of the effects from tidal, wind, wave, and storm surge conditions in the South Bay. The Shoreline Study will build upon hydrodynamic modeling efforts from the SBSP Restoration Project. The calibrated hydrodynamic model from the SBSP Restoration Project will first be verified for storm surge events. Additional calibration may be required. The model will then be used to calculate water levels and waves for a selected series of events. Wave runup elevations will be calculated for the selected events. Model output will also allow for an extreme value analysis on both water levels and wind waves in the project area. Wave runup elevations for recurrence intervals of 5-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, 200-, and 500- years will be calculated. Along each transect, levee erosion rates will be estimated and various levee failure mechanisms will be identified. Different geometries of levees that reflect calculated erosion rates and failure mechanisms will be determined for each flood transect. The maximum runup elevations for different recurrence intervals will be projected onto the different levee geometries at each transect to predict corresponding overtopping rates and volumes. The DTM developed in Task 1.1 will then be used to develop area-elevation curves for each flood reach. Together with the area-elevation curves, overtopping volumes will be used to

5-11

predict the landward extent and depth of coastal flooding. In addition to determining the landward extent and depth of flooding, flood plains likely to have high velocity flows for particular events will be identified. Items needed to complete task: DTM from Task 1.1. Calibrated tidal hydrodynamic model of the South San Francisco Bay from the SBSP Restoration Project. Wind data from some or all of the several meteorological stations maintained by the National Climate Data Center (NCDC) with long-term historical records throughout the Bay, including Moffett Field, Fremont, Redwood City, Newark, Hayward Air Terminal and Oakland, San Jose, and San Francisco International Airports. Geotechnical levee assessment from Tasks 3.1.1 and 3.1.2. Tide data from National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration – National Ocean Service (NOAA-NOS) gauges in the Bay. Assumptions:

• The SBSP Restoration Project tidal hydrodynamic model will be used in this task. One transect per flood reach will be used to calculate the coastal flood potential. Use of the SBSP HD model is integral to the efficiency of this task. If the SBSP timelines are delayed, the consultant team will work with the Corps to manage the timelines and accelerate availability of the model.

• Definition of flood reaches will be coordinated with the Plan Formulation and

Economics team members. 2.1.1d Fluvial flooding assessment Description of Task: Develop criteria to estimate the inland extent of the fluvial analysis on six systems (Coyote Creek, Alviso Slough, Guadalupe Slough, Stevens Creek, Permanente Creek, and the Palo Alto Flood Basin). The inland extent may differ between streams. Existing information on tidal influence, flood water levels and flood risk in each of the fluvial systems will be used to determine the upstream extent of each stream system to be included in the project study. Coordinate development of hydraulic boundary conditions with the flood control agencies. Update existing hydraulic models for fluvial systems in the project area. Simulate flood events corresponding to the 2-, 5-, 10-, 25-, 50, 100-, 200- and 500-year events Determine locations of levee overtopping, flooding contributions from internal drainage, and develop extent of floodplain for fluvial systems under existing conditions. Items needed to complete task: Existing information (including channel cross-section, adjacent and upstream landuse and hydraulic-structure data) available from Task 2.1.1b. Assumptions:

5-12

• The task budget includes time for review and update of hydraulic data and the models to apply to current conditions in the project area. Existing models and prior studies are assumed to be readily available from flood control agencies. The models developed by the flood control agencies are required to complete this task.

• It is assumed that the Corps HEC-RAS models will be used for modeling existing

hydraulics, flood hazards and for identifying potential solutions.

• Channel data (primarily cross-sections and hydraulic structures data) are available on the fluvial systems.

• It is assumed that most or all of these systems have existing hydraulic models

already developed and available. Where model updating is required, information on land use, land cover and other required watershed information is available from the flood agencies (Task 2.1.1b).

• All of the prior studies used to determine the existing floodplain boundaries are

readily available from FEMA or appropriate flood control agencies. Suitable topographic mapping is available (either from the prior studies or developed as part of this project) to identify the current floodplains.

2.1.1e Flood mapping Description of Task: Document coastal and fluvial flood event definition. Address definition of the regulatory flood event, equal to the 0.01 chance of occurrence in a year (100-year event). Select approximately 4 flood events (for example, the 25-, 50-, 100- and 200-year events) and determine total flood elevations as a result of existing coastal processes. The 500-year event will be used to define a maximum extent of flooding for the economic inventory. Flood elevation information from the fluvial and coastal analyses will be used to define flood hazard areas and delineate existing flood plains. For all flood reaches within the Shoreline Study, flood plain maps will be created in GIS to show estimated flood limits and depths. These maps will be used to represent baseline conditions in support of the alternatives evaluation (Task 2.2.2). Items needed to complete task: Predicted coastal flood water elevations from Task 2.1.1. Assumptions:

• This task assumes that the information required for coastal and fluvial flood hazards has been provided.

• A method for developing flood data using a risk-based methodology must be jointly

developed and agreed upon by both the Corps and NFS. The Corps engineering manuals 1105-2-101 (Risk-Based Analysis for Evaluation of Hydrology/Hydraulics, Geotechnical Stability, and Economics in Flood Damage Reduction Studies) and 1110-2-1619 (Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies) will be referred to for the risk-based analysis. However, if these

5-13

documents are not adequate for a risk-based approach for a floodplain that is influenced by both fluvial and coastal processes, the methodology will need to be adapted by the project team.

• Mapping is intended to be adequate for alternatives analysis, but not for

development of insurance risk rate maps, such as produced by FEMA. 2.1.1f Groundwater hydrology Description of Task: A review of existing groundwater data that includes both groundwater levels and groundwater quality will be conducted to determine any flood hazard issues. Possible impacts to groundwater from the proposed projects will also be assessed. Items needed to complete task: Existing depth to water data for wells within the project area from water agencies, landfill operators, and other public agencies’ or private companies’ monitoring wells. Assumptions:

• No groundwater modeling, sampling, or analysis will occur. (Only compilation of existing data is assumed.)

2.1.2 Without-project future flood hazard potential assessment This task involves the analysis of future flood hazard conditions for the planning analysis period (i.e., 50 years). The analysis of existing without-project conditions will be extended for future conditions. Future conditions will be calculated at the end of the planning analysis period (i.e., 50 years). Existing without-project analysis results will be extended to address deeper water depths and degraded levees expected to evolve over time. 2.1.2a Sea level rise projection evaluation (without-project) Description of Task: Evaluate the effects of long-term relative sea level rise on both the restoration process and flood management. Items needed to complete task: Sea level rise and land subsidence assessment from the SBSP Restoration Project. Assumptions:

• Three scenarios will be used to adequately address risk and uncertainty analysis and will be comprised of an expected relative sea level rise scenario, one relatively rapid scenario, and one relatively slower scenario. The expected sea level rise scenario will be based on the estimated Bay response from a selected global rate-of-rise curve, superimposed with the estimated pattern of regional subsidence. The other two scenarios will be based on selected higher and lower rates. Coordination with Corps

5-14

regarding regulations of risk and uncertainty analysis is assumed to ensure that the proper scenarios are analyzed.

2.1.2b Future levee conditions (without-project) Description of Task: Document future levee maintenance plans and predict future levee conditions in the project area. Since many of the existing levees may be in poor condition, a lack of levee maintenance may increase the risk of flooding. Items needed to complete task: Levee maintenance and subsidence data for project area from the SBSP Restoration Project and future levee assessment from Task 3.1.2a. Assumptions:

• Availability of existing levee maintenance plans and subsidence analysis from the SBSP Restoration Project effort.

2.1.2c Potential sedimentation and geomorphic evolution (without-project) Description of Task: As a result of projected changes, described by the SBSP Restoration Project, update the SBSP Restoration Project bathymetry and pond elevation maps to be used in Task 2.1.2e. Items needed to complete task: Sediment budget for South Bay and results from USGS studies, SBSP Restoration Project bathymetry and pond elevation maps. Assumptions:

• Availability of sedimentation and geomorphic analyses from the SBSP Restoration Project effort. This task includes evaluation and analysis but does not include a significant modeling effort.

2.1.2d Future flood plains determination (without-project) Description of Task: Update of coastal and fluvial models to represent future (50-year) without-project conditions. Simulations will be developed for the event frequencies developed in Task 2.1.1e. The methodology used for coastal and fluvial model development and analysis are as previously described within Tasks 2.1.1 c, d and e. Projected flood water elevations will be used to define coastal and fluvial flood plains for the project area and to identify locations of potential flood risk (as determined by indicators such as levee overtopping). Items needed to complete task: Data and analysis results from Tasks 2.1.2a through 2.1.2d. Existing coastal and fluvial without-project flood analyses from Tasks 2.1.1c and 2.1.1d. Assumptions: None identified. 2.1.3 H&H input to initial measures formulation and screening for F3 conference

5-15

Description of Task: Input on initial formulation and screening of measures will provided to Plan Formulation (Task 14.1.4a) and will be documented in the H&H report prior to the F3 conference. Items needed to complete task: Prior flood management proposals and knowledge from the flood control agencies will be integrated with the information from the hydraulic and hydrologic studies developed in this project to formulate a series of flood control measures and alternatives. Assumptions:

• Existing data from prior flood management studies are readily available from the flood control agencies.

2.1.4 H&H Without-Project Conditions Report 2.1.4a Draft H&H Without-Project Conditions Report Description of Task: Prepare a draft memorandum summarizing H&H without-project existing conditions and future flood hazard analyses. Revisions to the draft report will be made after comments are received. Items needed to complete task: Description of likely management of salt ponds over project life, to be used by study team to develop the future without-project conditions. Assumptions:

• Two draft versions will be developed, an Administrative Draft and a Public Draft. Up to 20 bound hard copies and 20 digital copies on disk will be provided for each draft. One reproducible hard copy and digital copy will also be provided for each draft.

• Report will be reviewed by the PDT (Corps and NFS) and others to be determined.

• Further revisions to this report might be required per comments by HQUSACE.

HQUSACE comments will occur as a result of the F3 conference; the Corps San Francisco District review will occur prior to the F3 conference.

2.1.4b Final H&H Without-Project Conditions Report Description of Task: Prepare a final summary report that documents all H&H activities accomplished for the without-project conditions and preliminary plans (F3). The summary report will describe the existing without-project conditions and future flooding hazards. This information will be included in the F3 package (Task 14.1.5). Items needed to complete task: One set of final comments on Draft.

5-16

Assumptions:

• Up to 20 bound hard copies and 20 digital copies on disk will be provided, along with one reproducible hard copy and digital copy.

2.1.5 Reviews and QC/QA (H&H certification) 2.1.5a H&H QC/QA of without-project and future conditions Description of Task: Perform QC/QA on the without-project analysis for both existing and future conditions. The QC/QA process will be consistent with the Quality Control Plan (QCP) in Chapter 6 of the PMP. The QC process will be documented in the F3 package. This QC documentation will be reviewed (quality assured) during the ITR of the F3 package (Task 16.1). Items needed to complete task: QCP (Chapter 6, PMP) and/or Quality Control Plan from non-Federal sponsor consultant (if QC is done in house by contractor). Assumptions: None identified. 2.1.5b H&H certification Description of Task: Certification of the H&H future without-project conditions will be performed by the Corps H&H Chief. The Project Delivery Team (Corps and non-Federal sponsor) will perform the necessary steps to achieve buy-off from the H&H Chief during the review. Items needed to complete task: QCP Plan from Chapter 6 in the PMP. Assumptions:

• QCP will be consistent with the SBSP Restoration Project QCP. Corps staff and/or others will identify and manage the review process in a timely manner.

2.2 Hydraulics and hydrology evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans

(F4) 2.2.1 H&H input to post-F3 conference plan formulation refinements Description of Task: As a result of the F3 conference, the preliminary measures developed in Task 2.1.3 will be modified according to conference feedback. This task will be coordinated with Plan Formulation (Task 14.2.1). Develop measures, both structural and non-structural, to improve flood protection. Non-structural measures include the relocation of homes and businesses in the flood plain areas and the creation of alternative flood management plans. Structural measures include channel modification, dredging, flood-control levees and setback levees, construction or improvement of inboard salt pond levees, construction of managed ponds and tidal ponds as detention basins, and breaching along tidal creeks.

5-17

Items needed to complete task: Initial measures developed in Task 2.1.3 and feedback from F3 conference. Assumptions:

• Existing data from prior flood management studies are readily available from the flood control agencies.

2.2.2 Alternatives evaluation (preliminary and final) Description of Task: Preliminary plans and future with-project conditions will be evaluated in terms of anticipated benefits from the proposed actions. Measures will address ecosystem restoration and flood-damage reduction. Ecosystem restoration and flood damage-reduction alternatives will consist of a combination of measures from managed pond habitats, tidal habitats, and flood protection plans. Alternatives will be evaluated at year 0 and again at year 50. Approximately 40 alternatives will be included in the preliminary array of alternatives, and approximately 10 alternatives will be included in the final array of alternatives. A maximum of two design plans will be analyzed: the National Economic Development/National Ecosystem Restoration (NED/NER) plan and the Locally Preferred Plan (LPP). Assumptions:

• Cost estimates within this task assume that an LPP is recommended (thereby requiring analysis of both an LPP and an NED/NER plan to establish the level of Federal participation in the recommended plan).

2.2.2a Ecosystem restoration analysis of alternatives (with-project conditions) Description of Task: This task involves projecting changes in landscape morphology for each of the final alternatives. The analysis completed for the SBSP Restoration Project will be used, with minor modifications necessary for alternative flood protection schemes. Modifications will be accomplished using the same hydrodynamic model developed in the SBSP Restoration Project. Hydraulic geometry will be calculated for each of the fluvial channels to reflect the changes in morphology as a result of the alternatives. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project hydrodynamic model and assessment of South Bay evolution with conceptual restoration and flood management. Assumptions:

• Alternatives will not require a major revision to the SBSP Restoration Project assessment of future with-project ecosystem evolution. This task will address the final ten alternatives.

2.2.2b Flood management analysis of alternatives (with-project conditions)

5-18

Description of Task: Wave runup and levee overtopping analysis will be documented for up to ten final alternatives and a maximum of two recommended alternatives. The level of analysis will increase as the remaining alternatives are refined. The methodology developed for without-project conditions will be applied, but will be modified based on revised transects consistent with restoration and flood management elements. For preliminary and final alternatives, total flood elevations will be determined for selected flood events and documented with GIS maps. These maps will be created for selected flood events and will show the landward extent of flooding and associated depths. Areas with high velocities of floodwaters for the various alternatives will be identified. Levee erosion rates for alternatives will also be considered. Hydrologic and hydraulic models will be modified to include plans and details from alternatives. Improvement in flood hazard reduction will be quantified for (up to) 4 recurrence intervals based on the change in predicted water surface elevations. Items needed to complete task: Alternatives (Task 14.2.1). Without-project coastal flooding analysis (Task 2.1.1c). Fluvial hydraulic and hydrologic models (Task 2.1.1d). Assumptions:

• The shoreline flood transects analyzed for alternatives will be at the same location as transects used for the without-project analysis. Existing models from the flood control agencies are adequate (with minor modifications) and can be altered to reflect proposed alternatives. This task assumes that the information required above for both coastal and fluvial flood hazards has been provided (Tasks 2.1.1c and 2.1.1d). A method for developing flood data using a risk-based methodology acceptable to the Corps must be jointly developed and agreed upon by members of the PDT.

• Cost estimates within this task assume that both a Federally-selected plan and an LPP

are selected and analyzed as recommended alternatives. 2.2.2c H&H documentation of preferred alternatives and conceptual plans Description of Task: Document preferred alternatives and conceptual plans that achieve flood reduction and ecosystem restoration. These alternatives will be described at the “preliminary or conceptual plan” level of detail and will be provided to Plan Formulation for incorporation into the F4 package (Task 14.3.7). Items needed to complete task: Input from Socioeconomics (Task 5.2) regarding preferred alternatives. Assumptions: None identified. 2.2.3 Environmental impact analysis of alternatives (with-project conditions) 2.2.3a Environmental effects of alternatives

5-19

Description of Task: Document significant environmental effect of the preferred alternatives and identify ways that impacts to existing flood control and other infrastructure can be reduced. Provide support to develop potential impacts of the proposed alternatives on local groundwater conditions. The results of this analysis will be further reviewed in regards to NEPA compliance in Task 12.2. Coordinate with project civil engineers for infrastructure effects and mitigation. Similarly, coordinate with project biologists regarding effects on habitat caused by alternative flood management measures and potential means of avoidance of adverse effects and/or mitigation measures. Follow policy as guided by CEQA and NEPA documentation. Items needed to complete task: Completion of Task 2.2.2b and coordination with other team members to identify effects of alternative flood management measures. Assumptions:

• Effects of restoration elements will be addressed in the SBSP Restoration Project and additional impacts will be identified as part of the Shoreline Study.

• Groundwater quality assessment will be performed under Task 8.2.1a. No groundwater

modeling, sampling, or analysis will be conducted. 2.2.3b Environmental impact input to alternatives refinement Description of Task: Alternatives will be refined based on initial impacts identified in Task 2.2.3a. Coordinate refinement of alternatives with PF in Task 14.3.5 to help determine a final list of alternatives for evaluation. Items needed to complete task: Input from other disciplines on adverse effects and mitigation measures. Assumptions:

• Refinements will consist of modifications of elements or a re-combination of methods. 2.2.4 Design support Description of task: Civil, coastal and restoration design support will be provided to help develop the multi-purpose plan recommended through the Corps feasibility process and a locally preferred plan (if different from the Corps recommended plan) through the more detailed design level (Tasks 14.3.5 and 4.2.3). The scope of work and budget for this task will be re-evaluated after the preferred alternative(s) are identified. The SBSP Restoration Project conceptual design will be enhanced to the extent needed to satisfy Corps feasibility study standards and restoration design support for a maximum of two recommended alternatives determined in Task 4.2.3.

5-20

Items needed to complete task: Recommended plan(s) (maximum of two: combined NED/NER plan and LPP) developed in Task 14.3.5 and more detailed design developed in Task 4.2.3. Assumptions:

• The scope of work will be detailed and the budget adjusted after the alternatives are developed.

• Cost estimates within this task assume that both a Federally-selected plan and an LPP

are selected and analyzed as recommended alternatives. 2.2.5 QC/QA of H&H with-project analyses (F4 submittal) Description of Task: Conduct a QC process for H&H with-project conditions consistent with the requirements described in Chapter 6 of the PMP. The QC process will be documented in the F4 package. This QC documentation will be reviewed (quality assured) during the ITR of the F4 package (Task 16.3). Items needed to complete task: QCP (Chapter 6, PMP) and/or Quality Control Plan from non-Federal sponsor consultant (if QC is done in house by contractor). Assumptions:

• QCP will be consistent with the SBSP Restoration Project QCP. Corps staff and or others will identify and manage the review process in a timely manner.

2.3 H&H analysis AFB documentation (F4A) Description of Task: Documentation of H&H analysis results, as appropriate for input to AFB documentation (F4A), to be prepared under Task 15. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: 2.4 Draft Report, H&H Appendix (F5) Description of Task: An H&H Appendix will be prepared to accompany the Draft Feasibility Report. The H&H Appendix will be an organized compilation of all documentation produced throughout the study and includes, but is not limited to, models, assumptions, data, and calculations. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• One administrative draft and one public draft will be produced.

5-21

2.5 Final Report, H&H Appendix (F8) Description of Task: The H&H Appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (14.7). Items needed to complete task: Draft H&H Appendix, Draft Report review comments. Assumptions:

• As a result of comments, one final report will be produced. Up to 20 bound hard copies and 20 digital copies on disk will be provided, along with one reproducible hard copy and digital copy.

2.6 H&H coordination meetings Description of Task: Preparation and attendance at internal and external meetings with the Corps and project team. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• Assuming one meeting per month for the length of the project. 2.7 Federal Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) Coordination. Description of task: The Corps and Non Federal Sponsors will coordinate on a routine basis with FEMA staff involved in the ongoing flood plain mapping of San Francisco Bay to confirm that assumptions and criteria used in the tidal flood analysis of both studies is compatible. Meetings will be held on a quarterly meetings and focus on milestone events, unless otherwise needed. 3. FEAS – GEO-SCIENCES STUDIES/REPORT General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: NFS

• Support role: Corps

• For the F3 milestone, the Corps of Engineers Geo-Sciences Section will perform peer review on all work products from the preliminary and detailed geotechnical assessments, including geological framework and existing levee condition investigations and new geological field studies. Responsibilities include

5-22

coordination with the NFS on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required.

• For the F4 through F9 milestones, the Corps of Engineers Geo-Sciences Section

will perform peer review on all work products and input to H&H, alternatives, impact evaluation and civil design. This task includes review of AFB package, and the Draft and Final Geo-sciences Appendix. Responsibilities include coordination with the contractor on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required. Summary of peer review will be documented in an addendum to the Geo-sciences Appendix.

3.1 Geo-sciences evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 3.1.1 Preliminary levee assessment Description of task: Information and data concerning the geologic framework and subsurface conditions in the project area, and the historic condition and maintenance requirements of the project levees will be compiled and reviewed. Using the available information/data, a baseline levee model will be developed and changes in conditions of the project levees and maintenance requirements over the past 20 years will be summarized. Where data gaps exist, evaluations will be extrapolated to cover all levees. Subsurface conditions in the project area will also be characterized and summarized. These efforts will consist of reviewing available information, interpreting aerial photographs, and performing a field reconnaissance. Applicable data and findings will be integrated into a geo-sciences database and the project GIS to support engineering evaluations on levee stability, erosion, and settlement. Items needed to complete task: Results of work performed for the SBSP Restoration Project, including general assessment of levee construction methods, levee materials, and subsurface conditions. The 1988 Corps Shoreline Study Report describes a levee and shoreline condition survey that was performed between March and May 1984. The information collected for each levee segment included the following: the width and condition of the levee crest; the lengths, angles, and condition of the embankment slopes; the type and condition of slope protection; the embankment soil type; and other pertinent information including evidence of slumping, cracking, erosion, or seepage. The findings of Corps survey are needed to establish initial “baseline” levee conditions. Significant information/data (consisting of borehole logs, cone penetration test probes, well logs, laboratory test results, and maintenance reports/requirements) likely exist from the following sources:

- Santa Clara Valley Water District - City of Milpitas - Alameda County Water District - City of San Jose - U.S. Geologic Survey - Caltrans - California Geologic Survey - BFI/other waste disposal companies - Corps of Engineers - PG&E - Cargill - San Francisco Public Utilities

Commission - City of Sunnyvale - City of Alviso

5-23

Information from the above sources will be collected, reviewed, interpreted, and summarized for inclusion in the F3 Package (refer to Task 3.1.2b). Assumptions:

• This task will analyze enough levees to characterize the flood problem and assess flood risk; therefore the analysis may include more than just those levees that will be improved by a project.

• The subsurface and levee conditions will be characterized to the extent possible by the

available data. Maps produced will include estimated Bay Mud thickness, contours of subsidence, levee configuration/type, and levee maintenance history. It has been assumed that as many as 1000 exploration points (i.e., boring, well and cone penetration test logs) will be available for the project area. Provided the findings of the 1984 Corps survey are made available and a new reconnaissance survey is performed, modifications/changes to the levees that have occurred over the past 20 years can be documented.

• It is assumed that compilation and assessment of all the historic reports for the baseline

levee conditions will take about 140 hours. There is an additional 70 hours for digitizing/data entry.

• It is assumed that the field reconnaissance will take 60 hours for 2 staff.

• There is a $20,000 allowance and appropriate hours for possible detailed field and

laboratory testing programs.

• After the field reconnaissance, it is assumed that an effort of 140 hours will be needed to complete the engineering evaluations.

• Existing levees will not be evaluated for their stability under design earthquake ground

motions. 3.1.2 Detailed levee assessment Based on the data availability and quality in Task 3.1.1, a detailed levee assessment comprised of field testing may also be required. Findings will be summarized on a series of appropriate GIS maps, which will be provided for inclusion in the F3 package and the Engineering Appendix of the Feasibility Report. 3.1.2a Future without-project levee assessment Description of task: Based on the findings of Task 3.1.1, predictions will be made on the condition of the levees 20 to 50 years from present. Predictions will include the following: the width and condition of the levee crest; the lengths, angles, and condition of the levee slopes; the amount of crest settlement; the condition of slope protection; and possible indications of

5-24

distress (e.g., slumping, cracking, erosion, or seepage). Probable failure/non-failure points and relatively stable levees will be identified. These results will be summarized for inclusion in the F3 package (refer to Task 3.1.2b). Items needed to complete task: Described in Task 3.1.1. Assumptions: The available data are sufficient to develop empirical relationships and/or trends for settlement, erosion, and development of distress. 3.1.2b Documentation of geotechnical levee assessment (geo-sciences input to F3 package) Description of task: A report will be prepared that summarizes findings and the results of engineering evaluations. In addition to the text, the report will contain maps and other supporting data including reference sources and evaluation methodology. The final report also will include tables and graphs that present the geo-sciences information pertinent to the study. Applicable GIS layers and documentation will be submitted. GIS layers will be available in digital format. This report will be incorporated into the F3 package (Task 14.1.5). Items needed to complete task: Results of Task 3.1.1. Assumptions: Twenty copies of the report will be submitted in draft form for review by the PDT. Following review, comments will be incorporated, and twenty copies of the final report will be submitted. 3.1.3 QC/QA of geo-sciences F3 submittal Description of Task: Conduct a QC process for Geo-sciences input to the without-project conditions (F3 package, Task 14.1.5a). Follow requirements of project Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QC process will be documented in the F3 package. This QC documentation will be reviewed (QA’ed) during the ITR of the F3 package (Task 14.1.5a). Items needed to complete task: QCP (Chapter 6, PMP) and/or Quality Control Plan from AE contractor (if QC is done by AE contractor). Assumptions:

• QCP will be consistent with the SBSP Restoration Project QCP.

• The review will be managed and performed within the duration specified within the cost estimate.

• Meetings will be held monthly, requiring about 20 man-hours per month.

3.2 Geo-sciences evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 3.2.1 Measures formulation and screening, geo-sciences input

5-25

Description of task: In coordination with Plan Formulation (refer to Task 14.1.4) and other PDT members, this task will build on the findings of Task 3.1 and will consist of developing concepts for feasible measures/approaches that may be implemented for the construction of new or modified levees and key project features to limit long-term maintenance requirements. The measures may include new/modified levee embankment designs, levee protection alternatives, and requirements for construction sequencing/staging. Items needed to complete task: Project design and requirements based on hydrology and hydraulics studies/reports (Task 2.1). Assumptions: None identified. 3.2.2 Geo-sciences input to H&H with-project alternatives evaluation (preliminary and final alternatives) Description of task: Provide assistance and guidance to the project team regarding the geotechnical aspects of the evaluations performed in Task 2.2.2. Subsurface conditions underlying new levee alignments or existing levees that require modifications will be evaluated. Levee stability, settlement, erosion, and the potential for underseepage will be estimated for typical levee improvements/modifications. Evaluations of levee stability and settlement will be performed using typical sections and anticipated loading conditions including earthquake shaking and potential for liquefaction. Limited field exploration and laboratory testing programs will be performed when additional subsurface information is needed to develop key levee designs (or key project features). Field exploration work will consist of borings and cone penetration test probes. Additional engineering analyses will be performed to refine the designs of key levees/features. The character and composition of levee fill and potential borrow sources also will be identified. Items needed to complete task: Project design and requirements based on hydrology and hydraulics studies/reports (Task 2.2.2). Assumptions:

• Approximately 40 alternatives will be included in the preliminary array of alternatives, and approximately 10 alternatives will be included in the final array of alternatives. Two final design alternatives plans will be identified: the NED/NER plan and the locally preferred plan (LPP).

• It is assumed that 230 man hours (1 per preliminary design alternative (40), 8 per

final design alternative (10) and 55 per final design alternatives (2)) will be required for the engineering analyses/evaluations.

• There is a $20,000 allowance for the limited field and laboratory testing programs.

3.2.3 Geo-sciences input on alternative impact analysis (with-project conditions)

5-26

Description of task: The potential impact(s) that key alternative levee/features may have on adjacent features/facilities will be analyzed. Impacts related to the geotechnical conditions underlying the alternative will be evaluated. Such impacts include potential damaging settlement, increased groundwater levels and seepage, accelerated erosion, and slope/ground instability (including soil liquefaction). Items needed to complete task: Project requirements based on hydrology and hydraulics studies/reports and impact analysis (Task 2.2.3). Type, location, and nature of adjacent features/facilities that could be impacted by the alternatives will be identified. Assumptions: None identified. 3.2.4 Geo-sciences input to civil design Description of task: Provide support and guidance to the design team regarding the geotechnical aspects of project alternatives. Review designs (Task 4.2.3) and provide comments on the plans that are developed. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• A maximum total of two recommended design alternatives (an NED/NER plan and an LPP) will be assessed.

3.2.5 QC/QA of Geo-sciences with-project conditions (F4) submittal Description of Task: Conduct a QC process for Geo-sciences with-project conditions, following requirements of project Quality Control Plan (QCP). The QC process will consist of an independent review, either by the AE contractor or by the Corps of the with-project conditions and will be documented in the F4 package. This QC documentation will be reviewed (QA’ed) during the ITR of the F4 package (Task 16.3). Items needed to complete task: QCP (Chapter 6, PMP) and/or Quality Control Plan from consultant (if QC is done by contractor). Assumptions:

• QC will be conducted either by the AE contractor or by the Corps. 3.3 Geo-sciences analysis AFB documentation (F4A) Description of Task: The results of the Geo-sciences Analyses (Tasks 3.1 and 3.2) will be summarized and provided for inclusion in the F4 package (refer to Task 14.3.7). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified.

5-27

3.4 Draft Report, Geo-sciences Appendix (F5) Description of Task: A Draft Geo-sciences Appendix will be prepared for the Draft Feasibility Report. The Geo-sciences Appendix will be an organized compilation of all documentation produced throughout the study and includes, but is not limited to analyses, assumptions, data, and calculations. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified 3.5 Final Report, Geo-sciences Appendix (F8) Description of Task: The Geo-sciences Appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (14.7). Items needed to complete task: Draft Geo-sciences Appendix (Task 3.4), comments from HQUSACE, public, and agencies. Assumptions: None identified. 4. FEAS – ENGINEERING and DESIGN ANALYSIS/REPORT General Assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Civil Design Section

• Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor 4.1 Engineering and design input to without-project conditions & preliminary plans

(F3) Description of task: Civil Design task leaders will coordinate with and provide input to other PDT members producing without-project conditions information that is necessary for Task 4 (i.e., work products and information from Tasks 1.1, 2.1, and 3.1). The purpose of this coordination is to ensure that the required products are adequate. Items needed to complete task: Preliminary flood damage reduction alternatives and restoration alternatives from the SBSP Restoration Project. Assumptions:

• Cost estimate covers coordination and meetings.

5-28

4.2 Engineering and design for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 4.2.1 Measures formulation/array of alternatives Description of task: Input will be provided to Plan Formulation (Task 14.1.4a) for potential ecosystem restoration, flood damage reduction, and other measures that may be used in the project. The measures to be defined and screened during the plan formulation process may include:

• Replacement and installation of water control structures • Construction of internal pond islands • Pond bottom grading • Levee construction • Levee breaches • Levee reinforcements • Levee lowering • Construction or improvement of inboard levees • Import and placement of sediment/dredged material • Excavation of starter channels • Construction of berms • Excavation and grading of upland areas • Construction of covers for contaminated sediments • Design and construction of an aeration system • Sediment dredging for channel/hydrodynamic modification • Construction of managed ponds and tidal ponds • Tidal creeks breaching

Recreation measures may include:

• Information signs and kiosks • Construction of trails and trail access points • Lighting and signing • Surface and drainage improvements • Launch sites • Viewing platforms

With Plan Formulation, Civil Design will formulate a preliminary array of alternatives by combining subsets of these measures. A matrix will be created that describes, by alternative, the measures included and the preliminary quantity estimates of these measures. These alternatives will then be refined to eliminate those that are not feasible and to identify those that should be carried forward to preliminary design (Task 4.2.2). Items needed to complete task: Flood Management Alternatives (Task 2.1.3), Geotech Levee Assessment (Tasks 3.1.1 and 3.1.2), and Preliminary Alternatives (Task 14.1.4) Assumptions:

• A maximum of 40 conceptual alternatives will be developed.

5-29

4.2.2 Preliminary design (10%) Description of task: This task will be performed in coordination with Plan Formulation (Task 14.2.1). The purpose of this task is to refine and evaluate the alternatives identified in Task 4.2.1 and to provide input to Plan Formulation to determine which are worthy of further investigation. Measures identified in Task 4.2.1 will be further refined, and those likely to be common to any final alternative will be identified for early design. Constructability criteria will be defined and used to help evaluate the alternatives. Alternatives from Task 4.2.1 will be screened for feasibility and for compliance with project habitat, recreation, and hydrology and hydraulics objectives. Items needed to complete task: Preliminary alternatives (Task 4.2.1) Assumptions:

• A maximum total of eight to ten final design alternatives will be assessed. Preliminary site plans (1” = 100’ scale) and quantities for cost estimation will be prepared for each of these alternatives. A construction specification outline will also be prepared as part of this task.

• A maximum of 120 D-size (22”x34”) drawings with 10% overlap will be produced.

• Plans will include:

– Index sheets with typical construction features (i.e., typical levee cross sections, water control structures, and breaches) and keynotes;

– Standard abbreviations; – Design details; and – Structures at a larger scale.

4.2.3 More detailed design Description of task: In coordination with Plan Formulation, the plans for the final array of alternatives (Tasks 4.2.2 and 14.2.1) will be evaluated further. A maximum of two (2) alternatives (i.e., multi-purpose plan recommended through the Corps Feasibility process and a locally preferred plan (if different from the Corps-recommended plan)) will be carried forward to a more detailed level ofdesign. The objective of the more detailed design is to provide sufficient quantities detail to Task 11 (Cost Estimating) to determine project construction costs within +/-20% of actual costs. Because the Corps does not use a single construction contingencies (i.e., contingencies may differ by project feature), the level of design detail for different areas may vary based on the relative cost of project features to achieve an overall cost accuracy of +/-20%. More expensive project features will be designed at a 40% (or greater) level of detail at a scale of 1”=40’, while less expensive features will be designed at a 10-15% level of detail with a scale of 1”=100’. Constructability criteria will be further refined and applied to the preliminary site plans. Detailed design will be performed on a maximum of two (2) alternatives and their associated

5-30

measures. The more detailed design will include grading plans, details, and key technical specifications. In addition, quantities for cost estimation will be updated for the recommended plans. Items needed to complete task: Preliminary Design and Final Alternatives (Tasks 4.2.2 and 14.2.1). Assumptions:

• Cost estimates within this task assume that both a Federally-selected plan and an LPP are selected and analyzed as recommended alternatives.

• A total of about 25% of the Interim #1 project area will be designed at a 1”=40’

scale.

• A maximum of 160 D-size (22”x34”) drawings with 10% overlap will be produced.

• Plans will include: – Index sheets with typical construction features (i.e., typical levee cross

sections, water control structures, and breaches) and keynotes; – Standard abbreviations; – Design details; and – Structures at a larger scale.

4.3 Engineering and design AFB documentation (F4) 4.3.1 Refine design based on input from F3 conference Description of task: Preliminary civil design plans, details, typical drawings, and specifications (Tasks 4.2.2 and 4.2.3) will be revised as necessary for inclusion in the F4 and F4A packages (Tasks 14.3.7 and 14.4.5). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• Comments are minimal and routine and will not require significant revisions to the more detailed design drawings.

4.4 Draft Report, Engineering Appendix (F5) Description of task: Civil design plans, details, typical drawings, and specifications will be prepared (or revised from AFB materials based on results of AFB conference [F4A]) and included in the Draft Engineering Appendix. Items needed to complete task: Civil Design F4A-package materials (Task 4.3) Assumptions: None identified. 4.5 Final Report, Engineering Appendix (F8)

5-31

Description of task: The Engineering Appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, public agency, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (Task 14.7). Items needed to complete task: Draft Engineering Appendix (Task 4.4) Assumptions:

• A maximum of 200 half-sized drawings (11”x17”) will be included in the Final Report, Engineering Appendix.

5. FEAS - SOCIOECONOMIC STUDIES/REPORT The purpose of the economic studies is to determine if the project warrants Federal investment and the extent of Federal participation. Economic studies will be performed in accordance with ER1105-2-100, 22 April 2000; and through the procedures established in the Economic and Environmental Principles for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, February 3, 1983; and National Economic Development Procedures Manual – Urban Flood Damage IWR-91-R-2, dated November 1991 and Recreation IWR-90-R4. General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Economics Section

• Support role: NFS 5.1 Socioeconomic evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) Assumptions:

• The NFS will provide input, coordination, and review to ensure that H&H without-project results (Task 2.1) are accurately supplied to Task 5.1.

5.1.1 Recreation market and demand definition Description of task: The recreation market areas and sub-areas as well as the historic and future conditions will be fully described. Factors related to the potential recreation users, as individuals include: population of the surrounding tributary area; their geographic distribution, socioeconomic characteristics (age, sex, occupation, family size), income and distribution of income, average leisure, and education. Factors relating to the recreational area itself include innate attractiveness of the area, availability of alternate recreation sites, demand and the capacity to additional recreation and transportation. There are three techniques that are considered by the Principles & Guidelines to be acceptable for predicting the recreational use:

5-32

• Estimating models, of which there are two types: regional and site-specific; • The similar project method; and • The capacity method

The major requirements of NED benefit evaluation for recreational components of alternative plans may be summarized as follows. For each alternative plan, the planning study must estimate NED benefits by: a) Estimating the value of projected recreational use that would occur with the plan and

also that would be diminished by the plan; b) Taking into explicit account the competition from other recreational opportunities

within the area of influence of the proposed plan; c) Estimating future recreational use and value, on the basis of socio-economic variables,

over the planning analysis period (typically 50 years) under both the with and without project conditions;

d) Calculating benefits as the difference between the “with-project plan” and “without-

project plan” value of recreational opportunities within the market area of the project. Items needed to complete task: Significant information/data likely exist from the following sources:

- Association of Bay Area Governments - Santa Clara Valley Water District - Santa Clara County - Alameda County Water District - Alameda County - US Army Corps of Engineers - City of San Jose - City of Sunnyvale - Caltrans - City of Milpitas - City of Alviso

Information from the above sources must be collected, reviewed, interpreted and summarized. Assumptions:

• In determining the existing and/or future recreational usage, it is assumed that most of the data will be readily available and that if any surveys are needed, then the questions will be pre-approved by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB). In accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (Public Law 104-13), OMB has given approval for use of generic questionnaires. Any set of questions asked by the Corps of Engineers of ten or more respondents outside the Federal Government must originate from OMB-approved questionnaires. If the questions are not OMB-approved, then the surveys will be submitted to OMB for approval, which can delay the process.

5-33

5.1.2 Economics background Description of task: For this task, the boundaries of the study area will be established. Additionally, an interpretation of the lands (historical, existing, and future) will occur, which will serve not only as a baseline to form the basis of our flood damage assessment but also as ecosystem and recreation components. Data will include population, demographics, income and other socio-economic information as well as information on the major industries in the area. Items needed to complete task: Readily available data from the key sources, as aforementioned (under Task 5.1.1). Assumptions:

• This information can be gathered concurrently with the recreational background information (Task 5.1.1).

5.1.3 Property inventory/valuation Description of task: Often considered the most labor-intensive task, the “with” and “without” project flood damages are the key components in the benefit-cost analysis for the Federal investment. This is accomplished by first delineating the areas affected by flooding and studying historical flood events using the most recent hydrologic and hydraulic information. To hold the data to manageable dimensions, a select set of properties will be inventoried using standard sampling methods. Land values will be obtained via searching databases and examining tax records and recent housing sales in the area. Replacement values will be determined based on Marshall-Swift Valuation Service and square foot methodology for each structure. Types of structures, replacement values, activities, acreage, age, and condition of the structures will be recorded and ultimately merged with the updated hydrologic and hydraulic data to determine the expected damages. Items needed to complete task: Need floodplains (Task 2.1.1e) to conduct inventory; tax assessor data must be available and current. Assumptions: None identified. 5.1.3a Real Estate mapping – first floor elevations All properties in the floodplain will be inspected on site. In doing so, the type and location of each structure, the first floor elevation, the garage elevation and the number of automobiles will be established. If there are too many properties in the floodplain, it would be too labor-intensive to inspect each individual structure. In this case, samples of properties would be taken and then grouped based on common characteristics and locations. First flood elevations will be measured using a level and a rod and/or via GPS. Information obtained from the inspection will be aggregated with hydrologic and hydraulic data to form the flood damage

5-34

database. A market value study will be conducted to determine the "replacement value less depreciation" of the structures within the floodplain. With-project conditions will be calculated using much of the data gleaned during the inventory. Assumptions: None identified. 5.1.3b Without-project flood damages – the FDA Risk-Based Program Once the database is complete, a flood damage analysis (HEC-FDA) program will be run through a risk-based analysis framework in accordance with EM1110-2-1619--Risk-Based Analysis for Flood Damage Reduction Studies. The program utilizes the previously developed economic modeling for determining flood damages and incorporates the risk-related variables for economics, hydraulics, and hydrology. The HEC-FDA program, developed by the Corps Hydrologic Engineering Center (the NextGen-Flood Damage Analysis Program), simulates thousands of flood events and stores the associated distribution of damages. This will be performed for the without-project condition, but will be repeated during the with-project condition. If necessary, a sensitivity analysis will be performed using different inputs (e.g., projected development, subsidence, and erosion). The analysis will consider variations in water surface elevations, land elevations, and property values due to risk and uncertainty. Assumptions: None identified. 5.1.3c Other NED benefit categories Other economic NED benefit categories such as the savings in flood insurance administrative costs, traffic delays, and the savings in emergency costs will be determined independent of the property damages. This involves consulting local officials and guidance as well as performing literature searches and database analyses. If necessary, a more formalized survey will be undertaken using pre-approved questions by Office of Management and Budget. Assumptions: None identified. 5.2 Socioeconomic evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) Description of task: With the database created in Task 5.1, the FDA program will be re-run with residual hydrologic and hydraulic data in order to determine the reduction in flood damages, which comprise the project benefits used in project justification. Items needed to complete task: Residual floodplains and/or hydrologic and hydraulic information (Task 2.1.1e); task can only be performed after the F3 milestone. Assumptions:

• The NFS will provide input, coordination, and review to ensure that H&H with-project results (Task 2.2) are accurately supplied to Task 5.2.

5-35

5.2.1 Economic analysis of recreation components Description of task: This task will be coordinated with Plan Formulation (refer to Task 14.3.6). Once the alternatives are formulated, the recreation analysis will be finalized. With information on the recreational usage (Task 5.1.1), a monetary benefit value will be placed on projected future recreation resulting from proposed recreation components of the alternatives. To do this, the unit day value (UDV) method will be used as described in EGM 04-03, Unit Day Values for Recreation for Recreational Fiscal Year 2004. This widely used method involves assigning valuation scores for several categories. The scores are determined through informal discussions with local agency officials, citizens, as well as knowledge of the local area(s). If necessary, OMB-approved questionnaires may be implemented to assess usage, purpose, and level of enjoyment. Existing Corps policy restricts the level of recreation benefits to 50 percent of the total benefits. Items needed to complete task: Final array of alternatives (Task 14.2.1). Assumptions: None identified. 5.2.2 Economic input to cost effectiveness (CE)/incremental cost analysis (ICA) Description of task: This task will be performed in coordination with Plan Formulation (refer to Task 14.3). For ecosystem projects, there are no agreed-upon measures of monetary benefits, so it is not possible to conduct a traditional benefit-cost analysis for the evaluation of project alternatives. However, cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis (ICA) are valuable planning tools that will allow us to examine the environmental outputs, rule out economically irrational alternatives and compare the relative cost effectiveness of remaining plans. Guidance for plan selection in ecosystem restoration projects is contained in the Corps planning guidance, at ER 1105-2-100, Chapter 2.3, Section f. (2) (22 April 2000). For ecosystem restoration projects, a plan that reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costs, consistent with the Federal objective, shall be selected. The selected plan must be shown to be cost-effective and justified to achieve the desired level of output. This plan shall be identified as the NER Plan. To provide the information needed to formulate the NER plan, the project benefits (non-monetary) and costs (monetary) must be incrementally evaluated to determine the cost-effectiveness of different increments of ecosystem restoration. Procedures are contained in Evaluation of Environmental Investments Procedures Manual: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses, Institute for Water Resources (IWR), U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, 1997. The Economics Section will coordinate with respective resource agencies and environmental planning to develop a metric used to evaluate the success of ecosystem measures. This analysis will then be undertaken in cooperation with the Environmental Section (and resource agencies), with review and guidance from the Plan Formulation Section and the non-Federal sponsors. Project benefits will be habitat units as determined in the HEP; project costs will be determined by the Specifications and Cost Engineering Section. Costs and benefits of

5-36

increments will be determined by comparison of the various combined alternatives. The analysis may focus on habitat units derived from habitats of particular concern as determined by the study’s restoration goals. The incremental cost analysis will assist decision-makers and ensure that a rational, supportable, focused, and traceable approach is used when considering and selecting ecosystem restoration alternatives. Items needed to complete task: Working cost estimates and designs for proposed alternatives must be completed (Tasks 11.2.4 and 4.2.3); environmental “metrics” must be developed (Task 12.2.4). Assumptions: None identified. 5.2.3 Economic input to NED/NER trade-off analysis Description of task: This task will be performed in coordination with Plan Formulation (refer to Task 14.3). EC-1105-2-404, which is a relatively new regulation (May 2003) that was drafted to better encapsulate the Corps Environmental Operating Principles, urges planners to fully examine trade-offs of multiple purpose projects when evaluating alternatives. Several methods are suggested, one of which is to normalize the benefits into a common metric and assign scores and weights when evaluating how each alternative (or this case combination) contributes the project’s objective. The weights will be set either by policy or by the project delivery team. Items needed to complete task: Trade-off analysis is most effective when working cost estimates and outputs (Task 11.2.4), both monetary and non-monetary, are reasonably completed. Assumptions:

• Since this analysis has little precedent, additional time has been allocated to ensure it is within Corps policy. Additional time may be needed to explain the methods and assumptions.

5.2.4 Economics input to cost allocation Description of task: This task will be performed in coordination with Plan Formulation (refer to Task 14.3.4). With multiple project purposes, it is necessary to allocate costs and benefits among each project purpose. Used by water resource agencies as far back as 1951, this system, known as the “Separable Costs Remaining Benefits” method, is still regarded as the most equitable way of determining whether each of the project purposes is in the Federal interest. It also helps to determine the portions of cost sharing, which vary depending on the authority (Task 14.4.3).

5-37

Items needed to complete task: Cost estimates and designs for proposed alternatives must be completed (Tasks 11.2.4 and 4.2.3); environmental “metrics” must be developed and agreed upon (Task 12.2.4). This is usually performed towards the end of the Feasibility Study. Assumptions: None identified. 5.3 Socioeconomics analyses AFB documentation (F4A) Description of Task: Documentation of results of the socioeconomics analyses listed above, as appropriate for input to AFB documentation (F4A) (refer to Task 15). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• The non-Federal sponsor will provide input, coordination, and review to ensure that H&H results (Task 2.3) are accurately supplied to Task 5.3.

5.4 Draft Report, economics input (F5) 5.4.1 Financial assessment of the non-Federal sponsor Description of Task: It will be verified that ample funds are available to satisfy the non-Federal sponsors’ financial obligation for the project. Specifically, this involves evaluating the prior performance of the sponsors on similar projects, the certainty of revenue sources and the method of payments. In addition, the overall financial position of the non-Federal sponsor and/or the credit worthiness of sponsor debt obligations as reported by an independent credit rating service such as Moody’s or Standard & Poor’s will be determined. The results of this assessment will be provided in a format appropriate for inclusion in the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. In addition to evaluating the financial history, the Corps, with input from the non-Federal sponsor, will:

1) Prepare the schedule of estimated Federal and non-Federal expenditures including OMRR & R.

2) Review the non-Federal sponsor’s financing plan and statement of financial capability.

3) Assist in the preparation of the Commander’s Assessment contained in the Project

Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Items needed to complete task: Economic data from non-Federal Sponsor(s), estimated project cost, estimated construction/funding schedule Assumptions: None identified.

5-38

5.4.2 Draft Economics Appendix Description of Task: An Economics Appendix will be created to accompany the Draft Feasibility Report. The Economics Appendix will be an organized compilation of all documentation produced throughout the study and includes, but is not limited to, assumptions, data, calculations, and the recreation analysis. Items needed to complete task: Results of socioeconomics analyses listed above (under Task 5.2). Assumptions: None identified. 5.5 Final Report, economics input (F8) Description of Task: The Economics Appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (14.7). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified. 5.6 Economics Annual Reevaluations Description of task: In accordance with SPD regulation CESPD-CM-P (May 2000) the Corps is required to re-evaluate the economics annually to ensure the accuracy and currency of the economic analyses. 6. FEAS - REAL ESTATE ANALYSIS/REPORT General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Real Estate Section

• Support role: NFS 6.1 Real estate evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 6.1.1 Real estate mapping Description of task: Real Estate parcel maps will be overlaid on preliminary project design alternatives. This will provide ownership information, acreage calculations, property lines and preliminary maps. Assumptions:

5-39

• It is estimated that 25 hours for Corps Real Estate staff may be needed for the mapping of a maximum of two final design alternatives. The estimated cost would be $2,000.

6.1.2 Review for land ownership and credits issue resolution Description of task: Real Estate District staff (San Francisco District), Real Estate Division Staff (Sacramento District), and Office of Council in San Francisco and Sacramento Districts will research and review policy along with Planning Division guidance to determine the Federal land ownership rules as they pertain to crediting in a Federal project. This will also involve research into the actual legislation that provided for the State’s purchase of the project land. There will also need to be coordination with other agencies such as USFWS. Items needed to complete task: Legislative language for State’s purchase. The majority of this effort will be coordinating among legal, real estate, and planning to resolve these issues and arrive at a unified understanding of Corps policy the use of Federal lands and crediting issues. Assumptions:

• There is anticipated to be approximately 20 hours for legal (both Corps Districts) and 20 hours of coordination with Corps Real Estate and Planning representatives, along with 10 hours of coordination with USFWS for a total of approximately $10,000.

6.1.3 Initial real estate cost estimate pond groupings gross appraisal Description of task: This will involve a meeting with Appraisal staff from the Sacramento District Real Estate Division and San Francisco District Planning and Design staff. This meeting will familiarize the appraisal staff with the project alternatives and provide them with an understanding of the various pond groupings in order to advise on how these groupings will be appraised and what they can provide for the purposes of this project exercise. Items needed to complete task: Availability of all essential staff at the meeting and preliminary real estate maps for the proposed design alternatives and groupings. Assumptions:

• There will be approximately 150 hours for Corps Real Estate appraisal staff time at approximately $11,000, and Realty Specialist and planning and design time of approximately 10 hours each for approximately $4,000.

6.1.4 Resolution of differences in multiple cost appraisals Description of task: This will involve a meeting with the Realty Specialist, appraisal staff and the project planner, PM, and NFS to analyze and discuss appraisal practices, procedures, and determination of highest and best use. There will also be a discussion of contracting out for appraisal services in lieu of using Corps appraisal staff for the feasibility report appraisal.

5-40

Items needed to complete task: The appraiser’s completed appraisal. Assumptions:

• There is anticipated to be about 4 hours of time each for approximately five Corps Real Estate staff for approximately $3,000.

6.2 Real estate evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 6.2.1 Lands, easements, rights of way, relocations and disposal areas (LERRD’s) description – mapping of alternatives Description of task: Real estate map preparation for alternatives to be presented at the F4 conference. This includes ownership, property lines, and acreage information and calculations. Items needed to complete task: Preliminary designs from Civil Design (Task 4.2.2) in electronic format (AutoCAD). Assumptions: None identified. 6.2.2 Real Estate cost estimate (preliminary market study and gross appraisal/land value cost estimates) preparation Description of task: Appraiser will prepare land value cost estimates for the alternatives to be presented at the F4 conference. These valuations will aid in the analysis of the plan selection. Items needed to complete task: Real Estate maps, property ownership, and acreage calculation information. Assumptions: None identified. 6.2.3 Real Estate Plan preparation (draft for F4 package) Description of task: Realty Specialist will gather all property information and valuations and identify potential issues to prepare a draft Real Estate Plan for the F4 Package. Items needed to complete task: Mapping, ownership, and acreage information. Appraisal valuations and discussion of potential issues related to real estate matters and their effect on the feasibility of the project. This would include Federal land ownership within project boundaries and crediting issues. Assumptions: None identified. 6.3 Real Estate Plan AFB documentation (F4A)

5-41

Description of task: Real Estate Plan will be revised based on F4 conference feedback and provided for inclusion in the F4A package. Items needed to complete task: Real Estate Plan for F4 package (Task 6.2). Assumptions: None identified. 6.4 Draft Report, Real Estate (F5) 6.4.1 Mapping for rights-of-entry for hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste (HTRW), archaeological, and geotechnical testing Description of task: Real Estate mapping of areas requiring testing. Items needed to complete tasks: Plans from Geo-sciences (Task 3.1.2) and Environmental (Tasks 9.2.1 and 10.1.5) showing testing locations. These need to be provided in electronic format (AutoCAD) for mapping of ownerships involved. Assumptions: None identified. 6.4.2 Acquire rights-of-entry for testing Description of task: Prepare and negotiate rights-of-entry for all properties required for testing. Items needed to complete task: Real Estate maps showing testing locations (Task 6.4.1). There is also a possibility of needing legal assistance in the negotiations of the Rights-of-Entry. Assumptions:

• Since most of the property is Federally owned, there should not be many problems in acquiring the Rights-of-Entry. This estimate is contingent upon other agency or privately owned land where there may difficulties in negotiating for the rights of entry. Therefore, there is an estimated 30 hours for Corps Real Estate staff required for approximately $3,000. This includes Realty Specialist and Legal Council time and effort.

6.4.3 Real estate mapping of “selected” plan Description of task: Prepare real estate maps, calculate acreages, and determine ownerships. Items needed to complete task: Design from Civil Design showing all utilities and project features. This needs to be provided in electronic format (AutoCAD). Assumptions: None identified. 6.4.4 Preparation of gross appraisal

5-42

Description of task: Real Estate Division Appraisal staff will contract for a gross appraisal. This will involve contracting time and effort and hiring of contract appraiser. Appraiser will gather sufficient market data and other appraisal approaches to value to determine the highest and best use of the property regardless of ownership. Items needed to complete task: Real Estate maps and ownership and acreage information. Assumptions:

• If the gross appraisal is to be contracted, it could be at a cost of approximately $30,000. There will also be a Corps Real Estate review appraiser cost of about $5,000. This is difficult to assess prior to going out for bids.

6.4.5 Taking analysis Description of task: Attorney will prepare a taking analysis of properties to determine if the project is indeed causing a taking. This is an analysis that researches the project features, their locations, and the impact they have on the land. Items needed to complete task: Project feature information from Realty Specialist, mapping, and Hydrology Section. Assumptions: None identified. 6.4.6 Preliminary compensable interest reports Description of task: Attorney will prepare reports for each utility/facility “relocation”, as defined in the PCA, to determine if such work is compensable, i.e., the sponsor would receive credit for such work under LERRDs category. Items needed to complete task: The identification of all utilities/facilities impacted, design information regarding how they are affected by the project design, information as to who owns the utilities/facilities, and whether or not they have an interest in the land to such located there. Assumptions:

• This estimate depends on how many utilities/facilities will be impacted.

6.4.7 MCACES (real estate) Description of Task: Real Estate Division staff will prepare a Real Estate MCACES for input into the total project MCACES (Task 11.2.3). Items needed to complete task: The land valuation of all property for the project and the NFS and the Govt. estimate of administrative costs. Assumptions: None identified.

5-43

6.4.8 Preparation of Real Estate Plan for Draft Feasibility Report Description of task: Realty Specialist will participate in project team meetings and coordinate with legal and real estate staff to coordinate all above tasks and real estate issues working with Division and HQ staff as necessary) to prepare a comprehensive Real Estate Plan to be an appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: Mapping and ownership and acreage information, gross appraisal, taking analysis, compensable interest reports, and MCACES. Assumptions:

• The cost estimate is contingent upon the complexities of issues that may need to be resolved.

6.5 Final Report, Real Estate (F8) 6.5.1 Chief of Real Estate Division’s endorsement Description of task: The Chief of Real Estate Division will review and endorse the Real Estate Plan. Items needed to complete task: Draft Feasibility Report Real Estate Plan (Task 6.4.8). Assumptions: None identified. 6.5.2 Preparation of Real Estate Plan for Final Feasibility Report Description of task: The Real Estate Plan to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (Task 14.7). Items needed to complete task: Draft Report Real Estate Plan (Task 6.4.8). Assumptions: None identified. 7. FEAS - ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES/REPORT: HABITAT General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: NFS

• Support role: Corps Environmental Planning and Environmental Sciences Sections, United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), NFS

• Military Interdepartmental Purchase Requests to USFWS: $120K

5-44

7.1 Environmental (habitat) evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 7.1.1 Habitat assessments - existing conditions Description of task: An existing conditions report will be prepared documenting the current conditions within the study area. Building upon information collected for the SBSP Restoration Project, available information on ecology (e.g., existing and historic habitats, wildlife use, invasive species, vector control), physiography (i.e., geomorphology and sedimentology), hydrography (i.e., tides, currents, waves and sediment transport), and water quality (i.e., sources of pollution and ambient levels of pollution), as these issues relate to existing habitat conditions, will be compiled for the baylands area outside of the SBSP Restoration Project area but within the Aliviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study area at the same level of detail as for the SBSP Restoration Project. Within these areas, habitats will be mapped, including regulated habitats and areas that support potential habitat for (or known occurrences of) special-status species. An existing conditions report will be prepared, as an appendix to the Feasibility Report, documenting the current conditions within the portions of the project area that have not already been investigated for the SBSP Restoration Project at the level of detail required for the Shoreline Study’s description of without-project conditions. Items needed to complete task: Identification of Shoreline Study project area (by PDT, including non-Federal sponsor). Assumptions:

• This task will build upon available information from the SBSP Restoration Project. • The report will consist of information not already available in SBSP Restoration Project

reports. 7.1.2 HEP and other tools Description of task: For planning and impact assessment purposes for the Shoreline Study Project, Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) and other tools will ultimately need to be developed to estimate, and allow the comparison of, changes in habitat functions and values under the without-project conditions and under the program alternatives. Because the HEP analysis is not required for the description of without-project conditions, this task does not include the full scope of work necessary to estimate these without-project changes. However, because of the importance of this analysis and the extensive coordination required perform this analysis, it is necessary to begin establishing the approach to using HEP and other tools to determine without-project habitat functions and values. The HEP team, including representatives from the SBSP Restoration Project Consultant Team, Corps, USFWS, and California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) staff, will be established to oversee the HEP analysis. The HEP team will establish the strategy for the HEP analysis by reaching consensus on the indicator species, guilds, and habitats, and the pertinent Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models, that will be used in the HEP analysis, and by

5-45

establishing how the HEP analysis will be performed (i.e., which agency or representative performs which tasks). This task will allow the HEP analysis to proceed expeditiously as outlined by future tasks. In addition, this task includes discussion among HEP team members (and possibly others) of what other tools might be used to evaluate changes in habitat functions and values under the without-project conditions and program alternatives.) Items needed: None identified. Assumptions:

• Cost estimate includes a USFWS (MIPR) for $20K 7.1.3 Environmental appendix preparation (Environmental Setting Report) Description of task: An Environmental Setting Report for the Shoreline Study project will be prepared. This report will describe the local and regional setting of the Shoreline Study project in terms of the location, extent, and character of the resources and land uses on and adjacent to the project site. This report will be included as an appendix to the Feasibility Study. Its results will be summarized in the F3 package (refer to Tasks 14.1.5 and 15.1), AFB package (F4A) (Tasks14.4 and 15.4), and the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports (Tasks 14.5, 14.7, 15.4, and 15.5) Items needed to complete task: Existing conditions reports from the SBSP Restoration Project and from Task 7.1.1. Assumptions:

• This environmental setting report will be based on the SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report and the existing conditions information obtained from Task 7.1.1, and the cost estimate assumes that little additional work beyond summarizing the existing conditions and revising drafts of the report based on others’ comments will be involved in its preparation.

7.2 Environmental (habitat) evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 7.2.1 Landscape-level modeling Description of task: Landscape-level modeling is necessary to predict changes in habitats over time, under both the without-project condition and project alternatives, to provide the basis for the changes in habitat units to be determined by the HEP analysis. Building upon modeling of habitat evolution performed for the SBSP Restoration Project, the geomorphic changes expected to occur under the without-project condition and each of the project alternatives will be predicted. Then, building upon limited landscape-level bird modeling performed for the SBSP Restoration Project, indicator species and guilds will be selected, and the habitat evolution model results will be used as the basis for landscape-level modeling of changes in bird populations and communities expected to occur in the South Bay under the without-project condition and each of the project alternatives. A report for and documentation of the

5-46

landscape-level modeling of geomorphic and bird use changes will be completed. This report will be included as an appendix to the Feasibility Study and its results will be used to inform the alternative evaluation process (Task 14.3). A summary of the results will be included in the F4 and F4A packages (Tasks 14.3.7 and 14.4.5). Items needed to complete task: The habitat evolution model and landscape-level bird models previously developed for the SBSP Restoration Project will be used for modeling. Assumptions:

• The habitat evolution model and landscape-level bird models will already have been developed for the SBSP Restoration Project. However, the modeling for the SBSP Restoration Project has been scaled back considerably from what was originally proposed, and thus will not include the refinements necessary to make the bird models good predictors of changes in bird populations. It is anticipated that extensive coordination will be needed with PRBO Conservation Science (which performs the bird modeling), numerous additional model runs and sensitivity analysis to address some of the major uncertainties regarding the bird modeling, and model verification. It has been assumed that some geomorphic modeling will need to be performed as well, in addition to the habitat evolution modeling that will be performed for the SBSP Restoration Project.

• Geospatial data that includes properties linked to a location (e.g., a sample site linked to

mercury concentration) should be delivered as SDSFIE-compliant GIS data (i.e., a .shp or .dwg file or a table that includes the coordinates of each data point) and should be delivered with FGDC-compliant metadata.

7.2.2 HEP and other tools Description of task: The HEP team will develop Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) models for indicator species and guilds and will perform the HEP analysis to quantify the changes in habitat units for selected indicators expected to occur over time under the without-project condition, and prepare a report documenting the development of the HSI models and the HEP analysis results. A procedure by which functions and values that are not captured by the HEP analysis can be compared over time will be developed and implemented to document changes in these factors over time under the without-project condition. A report documenting this comprehensive comparison of functions and values will be prepared to complement the HEP analysis results. These reports will be included as appendices to the Feasibility Study and their results will be used to inform the alternative evaluation process (Tasks 14.3). Items needed to complete task: Procedures by which functions and values that are not captured by the HEP analysis can be compared among alternatives. Assumptions:

5-47

• The NFS will lead HSI model development, the HEP analysis, and the HEP analysis report, although extensive coordination with, and participation by, agency staff will be necessary.

• HEP values will be provided, at minimum, for the final array of alternatives. 7.2.3 Input to Adaptive Management Plan Description of task: Input will be provided to the Adaptive Management Plan that will be developed under Task 14.2.2. The Adaptive Management Plan will allow monitoring of the effects of initial work (e.g., initial phases) to inform the design and/or management of future phases, and/or to allow for management of project areas to continuously benefit from monitoring of the effects of project implementation. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• This task will involve extensive coordination with and participation by Corps staff, particularly for cost determination. The Adaptive Management Plan and costs included in the Final Feasibility Report will cover only elements associated with features of the Recommended Plan (and LPP, if one is identified).

7.2.4 Endangered species consultation Description of task: Consultation with the USFWS and National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding project impacts to federally listed endangered and threatened species and designated critical habitat will be conducted in compliance with Section 7 of the federal Endangered Species Act and the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act. This task includes conferencing and consultation with these agencies regarding impacts to endangered species, preparation of a Biological Assessment and assistance in preparation of the Biological Opinion, and coordination among agency staff and the consultant/project team regarding these issues. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• The Corps Environmental Planning Section will coordinate with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) under the Endangered Species Act and the Magnusen-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act.

• Endangered species consultation may be more expeditious if the net effects of the

project on listed species are beneficial. Conversely, consultation may be more difficult and protracted if the net effects of the project on one or more listed species are detrimental. In either case, fairly intensive consultation is anticipated regarding project effects on listed species.

5-48

7.2.5 Support and input for incremental cost analysis Description of task: This task involves taking HEP numbers out of the USFWS report and conveying them to Econ Branch (Task 5) in an appropriate form. Answering economists’ questions and providing technical assistance to Task 5 is also included. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• This is a Corps-led task. 7.3 Environmental (habitat) studies AFB documentation (F4A) Description of task: Documentation of results from Tasks 7.1 and 7.2, as appropriate, for input to AFB documentation (F4A) (Task 14.4 and Task 15.3). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• The budget for this task assumes a minimal contribution to AFB documentation (F4A). 7.4 USFWS – Coordination Act Report (CAR) 7.4.1 Draft Report (USFWS Coordination Act Report) (F5) Description of task: A Draft US Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (USFWS CAR) will be prepared to document the fish and wildlife resources of the project area and the predicted effects of the project on these resources. This report will draw on information from the SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report, the Environmental Setting Report (Task 7.1.3) and HEP analysis (Tasks 7.1.2 and 7.2.2) to outline the potential effects of the project under the various alternatives. The report will be an appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report, Environmental Appendix (Environmental Setting Report; Task 7.1.3), HEP analysis (Tasks 7.1.2 and 7.2.2). Assumptions:

• The NFS role for this task includes providing support for the CAR and will consist of producing a report that summarizes the SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report and HEP analysis. It is assumed that no additional analysis will be required for its preparation. The budget would be higher if additional analysis or extensive meetings with the USFWS or other agencies are necessary.

5-49

• The Planning Aid Report will be produced by USFWS prior to the Coordination Act

Report.

• The Corps Environmental Planning Section will scope and negotiate production of a Planning Aid Report and Draft and Final Coordination Act Reports (CARs) by the USFWS. The section will coordinate with the USFWS during production of these reports and will participate in the HEP evaluation for the CARs, including formulation and selection of HEP models to more accurately measure project impacts and benefits on a landscape level.

7.4.2 Final report (USFWS Coordination Act Report) (F8) Description of task: Based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments made on the draft, the Final USFWS Coordination Act Report will be prepared. Items needed to complete task: Draft USFWS CAR, comments on Draft USFWS CAR, and Biological Opinion. Assumptions:

• The NFS role for this task includes support for the CAR. This budget assumes that a single revision of the draft report based on one set of comments will be required.

8. FEAS – ENVIRONMENTAL STUDIES/REPORT: NON-HABITAT/CAR General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: NFS

• Support role: Corps Environmental Planning and Environmental Sciences Sections, NFS

• For the F3 milestone, the Corps of Engineers Environmental Sciences Section will

perform peer review on all work products from their water and sediment quality analysis (presumed to be a review of existing data) and input to the package. Responsibilities include coordination with the NFS on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required.

• For the F4 through F9 milestones, the Corps of Engineers Environmental Sciences

Section will perform peer review on all work products from their water and sediment quality analysis and input into adaptive management plan. This task includes review of AFB package, and the Draft and Final Environmental Appendix. Responsibilities include coordination with the NFS on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required. Summary of peer review will be documented in an addendum to the Environmental Appendix.

5-50

8.1 Environmental (non-habitat/CAR) evaluations for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 8.1.1 Water and sediment quality (under without-project conditions) Description of Task: The evaluation of without-project conditions for water (surface and groundwater [Task 2.1.1f]) and sediment quality will build on the SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report (South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Water and Sediment Quality Existing Conditions Report, 2005) and will focus on constituents including mercury, methylmercury, polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, selenium, pesticides (DDT, dieldrin, diazinon), nutrients, and algae. The SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report will be expanded to include Shoreline Study project areas not already included in the report. Water and sediment quality will be evaluated within the project boundaries as well as for some surrounding areas. Concentrations of contaminants will be analyzed for spatial, temporal, and seasonal trends to accurately depict without-project conditions. This report will be included as an appendix to the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7). The results of this evaluation will be included in the F3 package and updated as needed for the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7). Data gaps will be identified and coordination will occur with the San Francisco Bay Regional Water Quality Control Board (RWQCB), USGS and other entities to identify data needs and develop a plan to acquire any additional data needed to meet regulatory or impact assessment requirements. Items needed to complete task: Water and Sediment Quality data and information from the SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report. Data collected under Task 9- HTRW Studies/Report. Additional water and sediment quality data, if any, from other entities, including:

• Santa Clara Valley Water District • Alameda County Water District • City of San Jose • U.S Geological Survey

Assumptions:

• Any new water and sediment quality data will be provided in a time frame that will allow for analysis and interpretation.

• Geospatial water and sediment quality data linked to a location will be delivered in a

format consistent with the Task 1.1 standards. 8.1.2 Water and sediment quality input to Environmental Appendix (Environmental

Setting Report)

5-51

Description of Task: The data and environmental setting information from Task 8.1.1 will be assembled for inclusion in the Environmental Setting Report (ESR; Task 7.1.3). The ESR will include regional, local, and regulatory setting information for each resource area that will be addressed in the EIS/R. Items needed to complete task: Data and information from the SBSP Restoration Project Existing Conditions Report and Task 8.1.1. Assumptions:

• Geospatial water and sediment quality data linked to a location will be delivered in a format consistent with the Task 1.1 standards.

8.2 Environmental (non-habitat/CAR) evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 8.2.1 Water and sediment quality (under with-project conditions) 8.2.1a Water quality (under with-project conditions) Description of Task: Water (surface and groundwater) quality will be evaluated within the project boundaries as well as for some surrounding areas, including upstream water sources, neighboring sloughs, and the San Francisco Bay. Estimates of the range of water and sediment conditions that could be expected as a result of the implementation of the project alternatives will be developed. Existing fate and transport models will be researched and the rationale documented for selecting the appropriate models for the Shoreline Study. Selected models will be utilized to determine the spatial, temporal, seasonal, and long-term variation or trends in constituent concentrations, as needed. A Water Quality report will be prepared to support the impact assessment for the EIS and will be included as an appendix to the Draft and Final Feasibility Report (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7). A summary of the findings will be included in the F4 package (Task 14.3.7) and within text of the Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: Preliminary Design (Task 4.2.2), results of hydrology and hydraulics modeling (Task 2.2). Assumptions:

• Geospatial water and sediment quality data linked to a location will be delivered in a format consistent with the Task 1.1 standards.

• Analysis will be conducted on the preliminary array of alternatives up to 40, the final

alternatives up to 10, and the recommended alternatives up to 2. 8.2.1b Sediment quality (under with-project conditions)

5-52

Description of Task: Evaluation of sediment quality effects will focus on constituents including polychlorinated biphenyls (PCBs), dioxin, selenium, pesticides (DDT, dieldrin, diazinon), nutrients, and algae. Sediment quality will be evaluated within the project boundaries as well as for some surrounding areas, including upstream water sources, neighboring sloughs, and the San Francisco Bay. Estimates of the range of sediment conditions that could be expected as a result of the implementation of the project alternatives will be developed as well as the spatial, temporal, seasonal and long-term variation or trends in constituent concentrations. A Sediment Quality report will be prepared to support the impact assessment for the EIS and will be provided as an appendix to the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7). A summary of the findings will be included in the F4 package (Task 14.3.7), the F4A package (Task 14.4.5), and within the text of the Feasibility Report. If sediment quality data for potential dredge re-use sediments are not available, sediment quality sampling and analysis will be conducted to meet requirements of the Corps Long-Term Management Strategy for the Placement of Dredged Material in the San Francisco Bay Region. Items needed to complete task: Early identification of potential sediment/dredge material source areas to ensure that adequate dredge/sediment quality is available or to allow for time to collect and analyze necessary dredge/sediment quality data. Preliminary Design (Task 4.2.2). Assumptions:

• Geospatial water and sediment quality data linked to a location will be delivered in a format consistent with the Task 1.1 standards.

• Limited sediment quality analyses have been conducted on source area dredge material

or sediments. 8.2.2 Mercury management input to alternatives formulation Description of Task: This task involves providing input to Plan Formulation (Task 14.1.4a) for development of measures and preliminary plans for mercury management issues. The methyl mercury (MeHg) production in sediments and the subsequent accumulation of MeHg in the base of the food web within the project area will be a factor in alternatives formulation. Mercury management strategies developed as part of the SBSP Restoration Project will be updated with data collected as part of the SBSP Restoration Project Initial Stewardship Plan (ISP) self-monitoring data collection and ongoing and proposed research. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Mercury Technical Memorandum and other study results, as available. Assumptions:

5-53

• Geospatial water and sediment quality data linked to a location will be delivered in a format consistent with the Task 1.1 standards.

8.2.2.1 Mercury surveys and analysis Background: The potential exists to inadvertently increase the risk of mercury (Hg) accumulation in the South San Francisco Bay (South Bay) food web through hydrological modification of salt ponds. The concern is that restoration actions will favor production of toxic methylmercury (MeHg) and its uptake into local food webs. Mercury concerns exist throughout South Bay, as compared to other portions of the Bay. Historic mercury mining operations in the New Almaden mining district of the Guadalupe River watershed contribute to higher mercury concentrations in the South Bay, along with other sources of mercury throughout the Bay, such as fluvially transported sediment that originates in the gold mining areas of the Sierra Nevada foothills and atmospheric deposition. The project must understand how restoration actions might influence mercury toxicity in wildlife. This risk can be assessed most directly by sampling mercury in “biosentinel” wildlife species that are representative of the Baylands. Coupling such a sampling effort with studies of methylmercury production and uptake is essential to increase the understanding of how to reduce the risk of bioaccumulation, and thus develop an effective restoration plan. Description of task: This task will develop an inventory and understanding of mercury present in the system, as well as the localized factors affecting mercury species and methylation, in order to inform the planning process. Sampling will be conducted in order to establish existing conditions and predict future with- and without-project conditions regarding mercury. The sampling effort will be focused on Pond A8 of the Alviso Pond Complex and adjacent Alviso Slough, which are located at the mouth of the Guadalupe River system, and pose a special challenge to the planning effort due to the assumed high concentrations of mercury present. Information gathered on this area will be applied to the entire project area, as mercury is present in varying concentrations throughout the Alviso Pond Complex. This task will address the project constraint of not exacerbating the bioaccumulation of mercury in humans or wildlife in the project area by investigating the following (among other) questions:

a) How much legacy Hg is contained in the sediments that might be mobilized by breaching Pond A8?

b) How readily would the mobilized Hg be converted to MeHg if it were remobilized? c) How effectively would any remobilized Hg be incorporated into local food webs?

And, d) What are the existing conditions in the Pond 8 with respect to mercury fate, and

would the relative amount of mercury currently being converted and incorporated into local food webs be greater than that which would occur under the breached condition? Assumptions:

• This task would be coordinated with other mercury studies in the region (e.g. multiple CALFED sponsored Hg studies in San Francisco Bay).

5-54

• This task would be conducted in two phases over two years. The approach is scalable,

however, and could be used to monitor any management action at any spatial scale from one local habitat patch to the South Baylands as a whole.

o Phase 1 would:

Develop sentinel species indicators of Hg toxicity; Map the legacy Hg in Alviso Slough that might be mobilized by

breaching Pond A8; Establish the existing conditions in Pond A8 and Alviso Slough for

seasonal production of methyl mercury in the water column and uptake in the phytoplankton and zooplankton; and

Survey the mercury problem for the Alviso Pond Complex (with a focus on Pond A8).

o Phase 2 would:

Expand the survey to other parts of the project study area; Further develop understanding of the Hg problem in selected areas (to be

determined); Transfer the knowledge gained through these analyses into habitat

designs and management options that minimize the problem. 8.2.3 Environmental Studies Input to Adaptive Management Plan Description of Task: This task will provide input to Plan Formulation for the development of the Adaptive Management Plan (Task 14.2.2). The National Science Panel, Science Team, and the Project Delivery Team will develop hypotheses to be tested, project uncertainties, and project success criteria to support adaptive management decision-making. Entities responsible for monitoring will be identified and the timing of monitoring will be developed. Specific monitoring activities will be described and scheduled. Costs of implementing the prescribed monitoring will be estimated. Items needed to complete task: Input from National Science Panel, Science Team, and the Project Delivery Team. Assumptions: None identified. 8.3 Environmental studies (non-EIS/R) evaluation AFB documentation (F4A) Description of Task: Documentation of environmental studies results (Tasks 8.1 and 8.2), as appropriate for input to AFB documentation (F4A) (Task 15.3). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified.

5-55

8.4 Draft Report, Environmental Appendix (F5) Description of Task: An Environmental Appendix will be prepared for inclusion in the Draft Feasibility Report. The Environmental Appendix will be an organized compilation of all documentation produced throughout the study and includes, but is not limited to, models, assumptions, data, and calculations. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified. 8.5 Final Report, Environmental Appendix (F8) Description of Task: The Environmental Appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (Task 14.7). Items needed to complete task: Draft Environmental Appendix, HQUSACE policy review comments. Assumptions: None identified. 9. FEAS – HAZARDOUS, TOXIC, AND RADIOACTIVE WASTE (HTRW) STUDIES/REPORT General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences Section

• Support role:, NFS

• For the F3 milestone, the Corps of Engineers Environmental Sciences Section will perform peer review on all work products from the Phase I assessment and input to the F3 package. Responsibilities include coordination with the NFS on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required.

• For the F4 through F9 milestones, the Corps of Engineers Environmental Sciences

Section will perform peer review on all Contractor work products from their Phase II assessment. This task includes review of AFB package, and the Draft and Final Geo-sciences Appendix. Responsibilities include coordination with the contractor on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required. Summary of peer review will be documented in an addendum to the Environmental Appendix.

9.1 HTRW Evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 9.1.1 Phase I assessment

5-56

Description of task: This task builds on previous work performed for the original land purchase and for the SBSP Restoration Project to complete an environmental site assessment (ESA) for the entire project area. The purpose of the ESA is to identify, to the extent feasible, environmental conditions in connection with activities conducted within 1 mile of the project area. Observations may be made of site conditions and a review will be made of reasonably ascertainable standard records sources. The results of this assessment will be provided as a summary for inclusion in the F3, F4, and F4A packages (Tasks 14.1.5, 14.3.7, and 14.4.5) and the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7). Items needed to complete task: Access to the Shoreline Study Area. The Phase I assessment prepared by Erler & Kalinowski for Cargill Salt as part of the initial land acquisition, Phase I assessment for the SBSP Restoration Project, and any other environmental assessment reports prepared for the project area. Any other historical records pertaining to past operations in the Shoreline Study Area. Contact information for any former property owners. Assumptions:

• The Phase I assessment performed as part of the property ownership transfer from Cargill to USFWS, as detailed in the Phase Out Agreement, contains sufficient Phase I assessment information for the Alviso complex.

• Phase I assessments to be performed only for areas outside of the SBSP Restoration

Project area but within the Shoreline Study project area.

• One Phase I site assessment per every 1,000 acres, on average, for a total of 2 assessments.

9.2 HTRW evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 9.2.1 Phase II assessment General Assumptions:

• It is assumed (based on previous studies and other existing information) that one location will be identified (i.e., shop areas, waste fill areas, illegal dump sites, etc.) requiring further investigation. Five soil and groundwater samples will be collected for the identified site. Additionally, 2 sediment samples will be collected from the identified site. These samples will be analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds, poly-chlorinated bi-phenyls, and 17 Title 22 metals.

• Non-point source contaminants or regional problems such as (possible examples

include organochlorine pesticides, metals, dioxins, furans, butyltins, PCBs, fire retardants) will also be investigated. The task will determine if these chemicals are present by collecting one surface sediment/soil sample per 1,000 acres.

5-57

• For the in-situ treatment option, a senior engineer and an engineer will develop a conceptual design for the identified Phase II site. For the excavation and off-site disposal option, a senior engineer will review the conceptual design for excavation and disposal prepared by an engineer. An engineer will prepare the conceptual design for the excavation and disposal option.

9.2.1a Spatial delineation of contamination Description of task: Based on the findings of Task 9.1.1 Work Plan for Phase II site assessment will be prepared. The Work Plan will identify locations requiring further assessment, field sampling methods, a Health & Safety Plan, and a Quality Assurance Plan (if needed). Items needed to complete task: Access to the Shoreline Study Area. Any historical records pertaining to past operations in the Shoreline Study Area. Assumptions:

• It is assumed that five locations will be identified (i.e., shop areas, waste fill areas, illegal dump sites, etc.) requiring further investigation. Five soil and groundwater samples will be collected for each site. Additionally, two sediment samples will be collected from five sites. These samples will be analyzed for semi-volatile organic compounds, volatile organic compounds, poly-chlorinated bi-phenyls, and 17 Title 22 metals.

• Non-point source contaminants or regional problems (possible examples include

organochlorine pesticides, metals, dioxins, furans, butyltins, PCBs, fire retardants) will also be investigated. This task will determine if these chemicals are present by collecting one surface sediment/soil sample per 1,000 acres.

• This budget for this task includes report preparation time (this report will incorporate

information from Task 9.1.1).

• Geospatial water and sediment quality data linked to a location will be delivered in a format consistent with the Task 1.1 standards.

9.2.1b Mitigation/remediation measures Description of task: Conceptual designs will be prepared for each area in the Shoreline Study Area that requires remediation. Two remedial measures will be investigated: In-situ treatment, and excavation/off-site disposal. Items needed to complete task: Results of Tasks 9.1.1 and 9.2.1a. Assumptions:

• For the in-situ treatment option, the task will develop conceptual designs for three sites.

5-58

• For the excavation and off-site disposal option, a senior engineer will review conceptual designs for excavation and disposal prepared by an engineer. An engineer will prepare the conceptual designs for the excavation and disposal option.

9.2.2 Phase II assessment of impacts Description of task: An assessment of biotic groundwater and sediment quality targets will be performed. Federal, State, and Local regulatory limits will be researched and consolidated. A database of applicable limits will be developed and validated. The limits in the database would be compared against the historical and new contamination data acquired in Tasks 9.1.1 and Task 9.2.1 to determine which sites or areas will require remediation and to support preparation of the F3, F4, and F4A packages as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. Items needed to complete task: Results from Tasks 9.1.1 and 9.2.1. Assumptions: None identified. 9.3 HTRW AFB documentation (F4A) Description of Task: Documentation of HTRW results (Tasks 9.1 and 9.2), as appropriate for the F4 conference and for input to AFB documentation (F4A) (Task 15.3). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified. 9.4 HTRW input to Draft Report, Environmental Appendix (F5) Description of Task: HTRW input will be provided to the Draft Environmental Appendix to be developed in Task 8.4 for inclusion in the Draft Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified. 9.5 HTRW input to Final Report, Environmental Appendix (F8) Description of Task: The HTRW input to the Environmental Appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (14.7). Items needed to complete task: Draft Environmental Appendix, HQUSACE policy review comments. Assumptions: None identified.

5-59

10. FEAS – CULTURAL RESOURCES STUDIES/REPORT General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences Section

• Support role: NFS

• For the F3 milestone, the Corps Environmental Sciences Section will perform contract management (if applicable) and peer review on all work products, including cultural resources studies and input to the F3 package. Responsibilities include coordination with the contractor on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required.

• For the F4-F9 milestones, the Corps Environmental Sciences Section will perform

contract management (if applicable) and peer review on all work products, including cultural resources investigations. This task includes review of AFB package, and the Draft and Final Environmental Appendix. Responsibilities include coordination with the NFS on a timely basis and attendance at PDT meetings as required. Summary of peer review will be documented in an addendum to the Environmental Appendix.

• Geospatial data linked to a location will be delivered in a format consistent with the

Task 1.1 standards. 10.1 Cultural resources evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 10.1.1 Review of the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report Description of task: The PDT will review the Environmental Setting Report and the Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum that were prepared for the SBSP Restoration Project and provide comments to ensure compatibility of the SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study planning processes. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report and the SBSP Restoration Project Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum. Assumptions: Environmental Setting Report and Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum for the SBSP Restoration Project will be completed by June 2005. 10.1.2 Cultural Resources input to NEPA scoping meeting Description of task: In accordance with Section 106 public involvement requirements, input on cultural resources will be provided for presentation at the scoping meeting(s) (Task 12.1.2). Input will be based on review of the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report and the SBSP Restoration Project Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum (Task

5-60

10.1.1) and will identify general types of cultural resources impacts that may result from the project. The scoping meeting(s) will give the public an opportunity to express their concerns for, and interests in, cultural resources within the project area. Items needed to complete task: See Task 10.1.1. Assumptions: This task will be performed by the Corps. 10.1.3 Section 106 consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) Description of task: Following Notice to Proceed, consultation with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) will be initiated in accordance with Section 106 requirements (36 CFR 800). A letter will be submitted to SHPO to identify the Area of Potential Effects, establish an inventory approach and identify consulting parties. SHPO will have an opportunity to review and comment on the proposed approach for completing the Section 106 process. Consultation with SHPO will be ongoing throughout project planning. This consultation is intended to solicit input on potential concerns with or interests in the planned undertaking, in accordance with guidance provided by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the implementation of Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800). SHPO consultation is also intended to seek consensus on how effects on historic properties will be handled. Section 106 consultation will involve Indian tribes and other consulting parties, as described in Task 10.1.4. Items needed to complete task: APE delineation and other information for consultation letter (see Assumptions, below). Assumptions:

• The Corps will be the lead on this task (SHPO consultation) and define the APE.

• The NFS will provide project descriptions for inclusion in the Section 106 letter. 10.1.4 Consultation with tribes and other consulting parties Description of task: Following Notice to Proceed, contact letters will be submitted to the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC), SHPO, and individuals or organizations (e.g., Native Americans and local historical societies) that may have knowledge of or interest in cultural resources associated with the project site. These contacts are intended to solicit input on potential concerns with or interests in the planned undertaking, in accordance with guidance provided by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation for the implementation of Section 106 (36 CFR Part 800). Section 106 consultation with concerned Native American groups, as well as other Stakeholders, is a key element of the cultural resources task. Early identification of concerned

5-61

individuals and input from them may influence the number, type or qualities of cultural resources evaluated for eligibility to the NRHP or CRHR. In this context, it is recommended that a trained ethnographer, preferably one with experience in the Bay Area, be involved to assist the Corps and the archaeologists in the consultation process. An ethnographer may be able to solicit different types of information from the consulting parties and establish a list of areas of potential concern and a pattern for dealing with those areas. In that regard, it may be desirable to develop a Programmatic Agreement (PA) that establishes the process whereby prehistoric sites are identified, evaluated and eventually mitigated. PA would commit the Corps and NFS to inventory and evaluate cultural resources, and, if justified, develop treatment measures to offset adverse effects. The PA should also establish one or more points of contact should the need arise. Items needed to complete task: APE map and project descriptions. Assumptions:

• This scope of work does not include budget for an ethnographer. • The bulk of consultation will be conducted by the Lead Agencies.

10.1.5 Cultural resources surveys/research and summary report for F3 package Assumptions (for subtasks below):

• The NFS will perform the survey and fieldwork.

• The Lead Agencies (Corps and USFWS) and SHPO will review and comment on the survey sampling methodology, as noted in Task 10.1.5b.

• A maximum of 2,000 acres will be surveyed, with one field director and a

five-person crew. Each person will cover 35 acres per day.

• Up to ten new sites will be identified. Inventory efforts will take a maximum of ten days. Site revisits will take an additional six days for the field director and one crewmember. Up to ten sites will be revisited.

• Site testing is not included in this scope of work.

• The Native American monitor hourly rate is estimated to be $35.

• It is anticipated that there will be few known historic resources within the

project areas, and that these will be connected primarily with the commercial salt operation or the levee system protecting the region.

• Preliminary research may be conducted at the California State Library

(Government Publications section) and the Sacramento Public Library (California Room). This task will examine historical General Land Office plats maintained by the Cadastral Survey Division of the Bureau of Land

5-62

Management and will review published and unpublished information on the prehistoric, historic, and ethnographic developments of the project area. Historic maps, such as GLO plats, may indicate areas of higher ground that would be more likely to include prehistoric settlements.

• The 2,000 acres will sample the range of man-made and natural environments

available and will be selected in consultation with SHPO. 10.1.5a Cultural studies background research Description of task: Background research will supply the basis for analysis of cultural resource finds within the Shoreline Study project area. An information request covering the project area will also be sent to the Northwest Information Center (NWIC). This will generate a review of the files maintained by this repository, including maps depicting previously surveyed areas, site records, archaeological survey and excavation reports, National Register listings, and data on California State Historical Landmarks, Points of Historical Interest, and local historical inventories within this area. On a broader basis, general background material will be collected in order to analyze the project area within its cultural landscape. This regional type of analysis allows the researcher to place finds within their appropriate setting and therefore offers a basis for temporal and cultural comparison that forms the background against which the significance of the various resources may be assessed. This assessment then leads to recommendations of eligibility (or ineligibility) to the NRHP and CRHR. 10.1.5b Cultural studies fieldwork Description of task: Fieldwork may operate in a number of different ways. Given the very large project area, it may not be practical to survey all project elements. Therefore, it is important to establish a sampling method likely to return the most information without committing to a 100% survey of the project area. The proposed sampling method is described below. This method will be subject to review and comment from SHPO and other consulting parties (see Tasks 10.1.3 and 10.1.4 above). Data were compiled by Jones & Stokes on some of the properties within the SBSP Restoration Project area as part of the San Francisco Airport reconfiguration project and were reported in Cultural Resources Inventory Report for the Habitat Mitigation Planning Sites, San Francisco International Airport Proposed Runway Reconfiguration Program (2001). An initial review of this data indicates that approximately 38 percent of the SBSP Restoration Project (the 15,000-acre site that consists of the Ravenswood, Alviso, and Eden Landing pond complexes) was inventoried for cultural resources. To remain consistent, it is suggested that approximately 40 percent of the Alviso and Santa Clara County Feasibility Study project area not already surveyed (i.e., the areas outside of the Alviso Pond Complex) be inventoried for cultural resources. Areas with high, moderate, and low probability of containing cultural resources will be included in the sampling in order to obtain information throughout the project area. Any

5-63

newly identified sites will be documented according to current practice standards and recorded on California Department of Parks and Recreation (DPR) forms. Previously identified sites that appear to be potentially eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP) or the California Register of Historic Resources (CRHR) and that have not been documented in the last five years will be revisited in order to determine whether any changes to these sites might affect their potential Register eligibility. Once the archaeological sample inventory is complete, a list of potentially NRHP/CRHR eligible sites will be compiled as part of the inventory report (see Task 10.2.1). These are the sites that would then be recommended for archaeological testing to determine Register eligibility. 10.1.5c Historic architecture analysis Description of task: Historic resources, such as salt ponds, buildings and other structures within the project area will be recorded according to established field methods. Historic resources, such as salt ponds, buildings and other structures within the project area will be recorded according to established field methods; this information will be placed within the historical background context. Eligibility assessments will be provided for individual buildings or for districts, as appropriate. Any historic resources that are found to be eligible for listing on the NRHP/CRHR will be recorded in accordance with Historic American Building Survey (HABS) standards. Copies of HABS record forms will be submitted to the appropriate repositories, including the NWIC and the Library of Congress. 10.1.5d Cultural resources summary for F3 package Description of task: The results of surveys and fieldwork conducted under Task 10.1.5 will be summarized in a brief report for the F3 package. Items needed to complete task: Completion of field surveys and background research 10.1.6 Cultural resources fieldwork verification site visit Description of task: A site visit will be conducted to verify fieldwork findings and make recommendations regarding National Register of Historic Properties (NRHP) and California Register of Historical Resources (CRHR) eligibility. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: The Corps will perform this task. 10.2 Cultural resources evaluation for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 10.2.1 Draft historic properties survey report and other cultural resources documentation

5-64

Description of task: Cultural resources work conducted under Task 10.1.5 will be documented for the Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report, which contains the environmental setting information for the EIS/R. Other reports, including the Historic Properties Survey Report, Archaeological Inventory Report, and Architectural Inventory Report, will be prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (36 CFR 800). After completion of field work, the summary report will be drafted and submitted to the Lead Agencies and SHPO with recommendations for site testing. While the summary report is being reviewed, the draft archaeological inventory report, draft architectural inventory report, and HPSR will be prepared. The Environmental Setting Report will summarize the geomorphic, natural, and prehistoric setting of the project area. It will incorporate the setting information prepared for the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report and the SBSP Restoration Project Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum. The Archaeological Inventory Report will detail the results of inventories of Shoreline Study project area properties and any examination made of Traditional Cultural Properties (TCPs). Traditional cultural significance refers to those beliefs, customs, and practices of a living community of people that have been passed down through the generations, usually orally or through practice. The Archaeological Inventory Report will include preliminary recommendations of NRHP/CRHR eligibility formulated in the context of background research and visible resources. Recommendations for additional work, primarily the testing of archaeological sites, will be included, as will a tentative format for the testing program. The report will be forwarded to the appropriate agencies for concurrence with the identification of potentially eligible resources. Architectural resources will be described in a separate Architectural Inventory Report. Background context for analysis of the resources will rely heavily on information developed in the SBSP Restoration Project Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum. As with the archaeological inventory, recommendations will be made as to NRHP/CRHR eligibility. The report will be forwarded to the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) and other appropriate agencies for concurrence with the identification of potentially eligible resources. Resources that are deemed eligible will be documented to a higher standard. The scope of the "higher standard" will be developed in consultation with SHPO, the Lead Agencies (Corps and USFWS), and other consulting parties. Mitigation measures will be developed to avoid or mitigate potential adverse effects on cultural resources. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Cultural Resource Assessment Strategy Memorandum, completion of Task 10.1.5 Assumptions:

5-65

• This task will involve preparation of detailed documentation for Section 106 compliance for the Shoreline Study project. This work will build off of the program-level work prepared for the SBSP project, which will not address the Shoreline Study project in detail.

• A Historic Properties Survey Report will be drafted as a summary document tying

together the results presented in the other reports. It is expected that this will be a brief document, produced to tie the other reports together.

10.2.2 Cultural Resources Treatment Plan and Memorandum Description of task: At least one treatment plan will be required and a Memorandum of Agreement prepared over the course of this study. 10.3 Cultural resources AFB documentation (F4A) Description of task: AFB documentation (F4A) will be prepared based on the results of Tasks 10.1.3, 10.1.4, 10.1.5, and 10.2.1 above. Items needed to complete task: Information from the tasks listed above. Assumptions:

• AFB documentation (F4A) for cultural resources will consist of a brief summary of documents prepared under Task 10.1.5 and 10.2.1 and consultation conducted under Tasks 10.1.3 and 10.1.4 above.

10.4 Draft Report, Cultural Resources (F5) Description of task: Using information from the reports prepared under Task 10.2.1, and from consultation conducted under Tasks 10.1.3 and 10.1.4, a cultural resources impact analysis will be prepared for the Draft Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: Documents prepared under Task 10.2.1, information from consultation under Tasks 10.1.3 and 10.1.4. Assumptions: None identified. 10.5 Final Public Meeting, Cultural Resources involvement (F6) Description of task: An archaeologist will attend the final public meeting and define historic properties issues. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified.

5-66

10.6 Final Report, Cultural Resources (F8) Description of task: The cultural resources analysis prepared for the Draft Report (Task 10.4, F5) will be revised to address comments from HQUSACE, public, and agencies. Items needed to complete task: Draft Report (F5) and comments. Assumptions:

• Responses to comments on the cultural resources section of the Draft Report will require limited effort.

10.7 Cultural Resources Support for Division Engineer’s Submittal of Final Decision Document (F9, AKA Division Engineer’s Submittal) Description of task: Historic properties language will be provided for the Division Engineer’s Submittal. The budget for Corps participation in this task is included under the cost estimate for Corps participation (see General Assumptions under Task 10). Detailed cost information is presented in Table 1 (Enclosure B). Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified. 11. FEAS - COST ESTIMATES General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Specifications and Estimating Section

• Support role: NFS 11.1 Cost Estimates for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 11.1.1 Unit costs development Description of Task: Unit costs will be developed, including, but not limited to, measures described in Tasks 4.2.1 and 14.1.4. Preliminary unit-cost estimates will be prepared in accordance with Engineering Regulations ER 1110-2-1302, Appendix (31 March 1994) and Engineering Instructions EI 01D010 (1 September 1997). These estimates will be prepared in the Civil Works Breakdown Structure (CWBS) format to the sub-feature. The cost estimates will include comments on the method of construction, assumptions and design data.

5-67

The preliminary cost estimates will be prepared using the Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES - MII) with the CWBS established to the sub-feature level, with measures defined in Task 4.2.1. Items needed to complete task: Measures as defined in Tasks 4.2.1 and 14.1.4. Assumptions: None identified. 11.1.2 Preliminary cost estimate development Description of Task: Preliminary cost estimates will be developed based on the conceptual array of alternatives. Due to the level of detail that is anticipated for this project, the MCACES effort will be considerable, and will be an iterative process throughout the development of the project Civil Design and Plan Formulation will develop all engineering design alternatives for the project in conjunction with water resources staff, geo-technical engineers and local sponsors (Tasks 4.2.2 and 14.2.1). Civil Design will then determine non-structural and structural measure quantities that would be needed for achieving those alternatives. The cost estimates will be prepared using the Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES - MII) with the CWBS established to the sub-feature level, after sufficient engineering and design have been performed to refine the project. These estimates will be presented as the “base-line cost estimate”, and escalated to the proposed mid-point of construction. The Engineering Appendix of the Feasibility Project Report will contain the MCACES estimate summary and will include the following: 1) The total project cost summary per ER 5-7-1; 2). Much of the RE information will be provided by the Real Estate Division (LERRDS), and 3) Summary sheets for owner, indirect and direct costs reported to the sub-feature level. Items needed to complete task: Information will be required from all disciplines involved up to this phase of the project, to be provided by all sections involved: quantity take-off calculations (Task 4.2.2), project parameters and design(s) (Tasks 14.2.2 and 14.1.4), environmental mandates and constraints and subsequent inclusion into the construction of any project feature (obtained through coordination with Plan Formulation), real estate and relocation costs (Task 6.2.1), historical data regarding any cost estimates, estimated length of construction/duration, lands, damages, Planning, Engineering & Design (PED), Engineering and Design (E&D) and Supervisory and Administration (SA) during construction, and quality control, and contingencies (obtained through coordination through Plan Formulation and Project Management). Sufficient engineering and design must be performed for each designated alternative. Best available construction features (descriptions), any mandatory mitigation activities, consultation with PDT/PF/PM and section chiefs will be required. Adaptive Management Plan elements including necessary monitoring equipment (Task 14.2.2). Assumptions:

• Cost estimates will be developed for up to ten alternatives. The Corps will be the lead in developing the preliminary cost estimate and will coordinate with the NFS to obtain information pertaining to Civil Design (Task 4.2.2).

5-68

11.1.3 Preliminary cost estimate review – response to comments Description of Task: Cost Estimates will respond to comments from the project delivery team and/or HQUSACE, based on the F3 conference. Items needed to complete task: Complete cost estimate from Task 11.1.2. Assumptions:

• Task cost estimate reflects time for comments of the generalized nature. If the comments are substantial, then the comments/responses/revisions are anticipated to extend beyond the estimated one-week duration for this task.

11.2 Cost estimates for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 11.2.1 Cost estimating input to Adaptive Management Plan Description of Task: A cost estimate for adaptive management will be developed. The adaptive management costs will be compared to current USACE guidance, which states that the Corps will not share monitoring costs in excess of 1% of the first cost of the ecosystem features and adaptive management costs in excess of 3% of total project costs excluding monitoring costs. If costs exceed the USACE guidance limitations, justification may be provided to surpass the recommended Corps cost-sharing threshold. Items needed to complete task: To be provided by all entities involved (Corps, B&C, agencies, etc.: quantity take-off calculations, project parameters and design(s), environmental mandates and constraints. Adaptive Management Plan (Task 14.2.2). Assumptions:

• Cost estimate for the adaptive management plan will be completed for a maximum of two preferred plans: Multi-Purpose Plan (NED/NER) and the Locally Preferred Plan.

11.2.2 Cost estimating coordination on real estate cost estimate Description of Task: This task will be coordinated with the Real Estate section (Tasks 6.2.2 and 6.4.7). The Real Estate section will prepare a detailed estimate of all real estate costs associated with acquisition of the project’s real estate property requirements (see ER 405-1, Draft Chapter 12, Section III-Planning, Section VI-Appraisals, paragraph 12-28b and Real Estate Policy Guidance Letter Number 3, Guidance for Preparation of the Gross Appraisal). Using the project footprint, representative land use costs will be developed for the Combined NED/NER plan evaluation and comparison (Task 14.3.3). Items needed to complete task: Project footprint/preliminary design to include access areas & construction staging areas, provided in GIS format. Coordination of RE and Cost Estimates.

5-69

Assumptions:

• Coordination between RE and Cost Estimates for RE value inclusion into the MCACES.

11.2.3 Cost estimate for final array of plans Description of Task: A cost estimate will be developed for the final array of alternatives. The cost estimate will include updates to the project design and construction, narrative on the method of construction, assumptions and design data. The cost estimates in Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES - MII) will be further refined to the sub-feature level, after sufficient engineering and design have been performed. These estimates will be presented as the “base-line cost estimate”, and escalated to the proposed mid-point of construction. Items needed to complete task: Information on the engineering and design for the final array of plans to be provided by all sections involved: quantity take-off calculations, project parameters and design(s), environmental mandates and constraints, real estate and relocation costs. Refined information on construction features (descriptions), lands and damages, utility relocations, any mandatory mitigations, engineering and design, construction management, and contingencies. Assumptions:

• Cost estimates will be developed for up to 10 alternatives. 11.2.4 Total current working estimate (CWE) for preferred plans Description of Task: The cost estimate will be further developed and refined for up to two plans (i.e., multi-purpose plan (NED/NER Plan) and locally preferred plan, selected through Task 14.3.5), including Planning, Engineering and Design (PED), Construction Management and Contingencies. The cost estimates in Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System MCACES - MII, and will further refine the tasks outlined in Task 11.2.3. The cost estimates (MCACES - MII) will be further refined at the sub-feature level, with additional details, and sufficient engineering and design have been provided. These estimates will be presented as the “base-line cost estimate”, and escalated to the proposed mid-point of construction. The Engineering Appendix of the Feasibility Project Report will contain the MCACES estimate summary and will include the following: 1) The total project cost summary per ER 5-7-1; 2) Project costs are based upon the estimated amount of material, length of the project, lands, damages, cost utility relocations, Planning, Engineering & Design (PED), Engineering and Design (E&D) and Supervisory and Administration (SA) during construction, and quality control. Much of the RE information will be provided by the Real Estate Division (LERRDS), and 3) Summary sheets for owner, indirect and direct costs reported to the sub-feature level. Additional information to be determined and provided by PDT/Sponsor/Environmental Agencies to finalize plan selection. Selection of estimates may be based on Division/HQ comments.

5-70

Items needed to complete task: Updates to the engineering and design for the NED/NER Plan and LPP (if applicable) to be provided by all sections involved: quantity take-off calculations, project parameters and design(s), environmental mandates and constraints, real estate and relocation costs. Refined information on construction features (descriptions), lands and damages, utility relocations, any mandatory mitigations, engineering and design, construction management, and contingencies. Assumptions:

• Budget for this task assumes that cost estimates will be developed for two plans. Changes to the recommended alternative may happen up through the Final Report, and in theory even beyond that (though not as likely at that point). It is possible that additional revisions to the MCACES may be required, and late in the process.

11.2.5 Cost estimating coordination on economic analyses Description of Task: Coordination between Economics, Plan Formulation, and Cost Estimating for the CE/ICA (Task 14.3.2) and combined purpose plan evaluation and comparison (Task 14.3.3). In particular, cost estimating input will contribute towards the determination of the benefit/cost ratio (B/C) and interest during construction. Items needed to complete task: General construction schedule to be developed by B&C, Corps and non-Federal sponsor. Assumptions: None identified. 11.3 Cost Estimating/MCACES AFB documentation (F4A) Description of Task: Documentation of results, as appropriate for input to AFB (F4A) package (Task 14.4.5). AFB documentation will include the total current working MCACES estimate (CWE) for the Locally Preferred Plan and for the Combined Plan (NED/NER) (Task 11.2.4), including planning, engineering and design (PED), engineering & during construction (E&D) and construction management (S&A), and contingencies for the preferred plans (in spreadsheet and for MCACES). Items needed to complete task: Total current working MCACES estimate (Task 11.2.4). Assumptions: None identified. 11.4 Draft Report, MCACES (F5) Description of Task: The MCACES estimate for the Locally Preferred Plan and for the Combined Plan (NED/NER) will be supplied as an appendix to the Draft Report. Coordination with Plan Formulation will be necessary to include a basis of cost description of methods and summary in the body of the Draft Report or appendix.

5-71

Items needed to complete task: Coordination with Plan Formulation. MCACES input from Tasks 11.2.3 and 11.2.4. Assumptions: None identified. 11.5 Final Report, MCACES (F8) Description of Task: The MCACES input to the Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) will be revised as necessary based on HQUSACE, reviewing public agencies, and public comments and provided for inclusion with the Final Feasibility Report (Task 14.7). Items needed to complete task: MCACES Appendix and cost estimate summary. Assumptions: None identified. 11.6 MCACES certification Description of Task: The final MCACES will be certified in accordance with SPD Quality Management Plan, Appendix C - Quality Management of Planning Products, 20 September 2004. Items needed to complete task: MCACES Certification by Section Chief, ITR reviewer, and Chief of Engineering. Assumptions: None identified. 12. FEAS – NEPA COMPLIANCE NEPA compliance for the Shoreline Study will be accomplished through a joint NEPA-CEQA process. The Shoreline Study EIS/R will be a project-level document that tiers off the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R, a programmatic-level document. For both the SBSP Restoration Project and the Shoreline Study, the Corps and the USFWS will be joint-lead agencies under NEPA, and the CDFG will be the agency under CEQA. The SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R will evaluate the SBSP Restoration Project program-level alternatives for the study area (which includes the entire study area for the Shoreline Study) as well as a Phase 1 project which will be funded and implemented by non-Federal sponsors (state and/or local agencies). The SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R will evaluate the SBSP Restoration Project program alternatives at a program level of detail, and the Phase 1 project will be evaluated at the project level. The state and local agencies will use the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R to determine whether to approve and implement the Phase 1 project. The SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R will also evaluate the program alternatives which will lead to project-level alternatives for future phases and additional project-level environmental review. As part of the Feasibility Study, the Corps will develop project alternatives that will be evaluated in the Shoreline Study EIS/R. The Shoreline Study EIS/R will evaluate the project

5-72

alternatives at a project level of detail and will tier off of the program-level SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R. Additional environmental review documents will be prepared to address future projects as they are proposed. Both the SBSP Restoration Project and the Shoreline Study include preparation of an Environmental Setting Report (Tasks 12.1.1 and 12.1.3, respectively). An Environmental Setting Report contains the affected environment or environmental setting sections of the EIS/R. This allows the lead agencies to review and approve the environmental setting sections before the impact analysis is prepared. General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Planning Section

• Support role: NFS

• The Corps Environmental Planning Section (Section) will be responsible for coordinating and monitoring the production of the Environmental Impact Report/Statement (EIR/S), conducted either in house by the Corps, or under contract. The Corps Environmental Planning Section will oversee all work to ensure that it meets all Corps and NEPA requirements and is technically sound. The Section will be the Corps lead for preparation and filing of the Notice of Intent (NOI) to start the NEPA process, for distribution and filing of the draft and final EIR/S, and for preparation of the Record of Decision (ROD). The Environmental Planning Section is also the main Corps point of contact for coordination of the CEQA with the Sponsor’s planning department.

. • The Corps Environmental Planning Section will coordinate with the California

Department of Fish and Game (CDFG), the California Coastal Commission (CCC), the San Francisco Regional Water Quality Control Board, and other pertinent state and local agencies to regarding project impacts and restoration opportunities. The Corps Environmental Planning Section representative will also attend team and sponsor meetings, visit the project site, and provide any support to team members as needed

12.1 NEPA Compliance for without-project conditions and preliminary plans (F3) 12.1.1 Review of SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report Description: The PDT will review the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report and provide comments to ensure compatibility of the SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study planning processes. Items needed to complete this task: SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report Assumptions None identified.

5-73

12.1.2 NEPA scoping (F2) Description: Up to two scoping meetings will be held to receive comments on the scope of the environmental impact analysis for the Shoreline Study EIS/R. This task also involves preparing the notice of intent and consolidating the scoping comments. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R scoping documents and public comments. Assumptions:

• Up to two scoping meetings will be held for the Shoreline Study EIS/R.

• NFS will manage the meetings, prepare the NOI, and consolidate scoping comments.

• Corps staff will coordinate review of Shoreline Study NOI and public/agency

comments. 12.1.3 Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report Description: An Environmental Setting Report will be prepared for the Shoreline Study that will include project-level setting information for the Shoreline Study project area. The Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report will be presented in the Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report and Corps comments on the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report (Task 12.1.1). Assumptions:

• The Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report will build off of the program-level setting information prepared for the SBSP Restoration Project (which is not detailed, particularly for areas outside of the SBSP Restoration Project area but within the Shoreline Study project area).

• This task will prepare environmental setting for the following environmental topics:

land use, recreation and public access, aesthetics, environmental justice, public services, transportation and traffic, air quality, and noise. Tasks for providing information in all other disciplines are described elsewhere in this Project Management Plan. It is assumed that their budgets are included in other tasks.

• Setting sections prepared by other tasks will be submitted in the format used for the

SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report. The budget for this task does not include funds for editing setting sections prepared by other firms for style or format consistency.

5-74

• A Draft Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report will be produced and

distributed to the PDT for review.

• Work under this task involves responding to comments on the Draft Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report and revising the document. The revised Environmental Setting Report will not be submitted as a stand-alone deliverable but instead will be incorporated into the Shoreline Study Administrative Draft EIS/R.

• Environmental setting for the Shoreline Study EIS/R will build on the program-

level setting presented in the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R.

• Corps comments on the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report (Task 12.1.1) will provide direction for tiering the Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report off the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report.

12.2 NEPA compliance for with-project conditions for final plans (F4) 12.2.1 Identification of SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R alternative themes for Shoreline Study alternative formulation Description: The Project Delivery Team will review the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R final programmatic alternatives and select the ecosystem restoration elements or themes to be included in the Shoreline Study preliminary alternatives that will undergo further analysis. Cost estimate: The budget for this task is included under the cost estimate for Corps participation (see General Assumptions under Task 12). Detailed cost information is presented in Table 1 (Enclosure B). Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R alternatives. Assumptions:

• This review will identify some, but not all, of the ecosystem restoration elements to be included in the Shoreline Study alternatives. Additional measures and/or alternatives will be identified through the plan formulation process (Task 14.1.4a), including flood-damage-reduction measures. This task will contribute to the plan formulation process, including providing input regarding ways to avoid and/or reduce impacts as well as increase ecosystem benefits. This task will also provide input regarding compliance with environmental laws and regulations.

12.2.2 Review of preliminary impact assessment of SBSP Restoration Project alternatives Description: The PDT will review the preliminary impact assessment for the SBSP Restoration Project and provide comments to ensure compatibility of the SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study planning processes.. This document will be available following selection of the SBSP Restoration Project alternatives and preparation of the SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report. The preliminary impact assessment will be presented in

5-75

a report that will be available for review and consideration prior to approval of the final SBSP Restoration Project alternatives that will be evaluated in the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R. Cost estimate: The budget for Corps participation in this task is included under the cost estimate (see General Assumptions under Task 12). Detailed cost information is presented in Table 1 (Enclosure B). Items needed to complete task: Final SBSP Restoration Project alternatives, SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report. Assumptions: None identified. 12.2.3 Alternative refinement for the Shoreline Study EIS/R Description: Using input from the alternative themes developed under Task 12.2.1 and the preliminary impact assessment prepared under Task 12.2.4, the Shoreline Study alternatives will be refined and developed with sufficient detail to support project-level analysis in the Shoreline Study EIS/R. As part of this task, the Shoreline Study alternatives developed by Plan Formulation will be incorporated into the Shoreline Study EIS/R. This task will also provide input on alternatives development and environmental considerations to the Plan Formulation Team. Items needed to complete task: Alternative themes developed in Task 12.2.1, preliminary impact assessment prepared under Task 12.2.4. Assumptions:

• The Shoreline Study EIS/R alternatives will be consistent with the program alternatives developed for the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R.

12.2.4 Preliminary impact assessment of Shoreline Study alternatives Description: Following selection of the Shoreline Study alternatives and preparation of the Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report, a preliminary impact assessment will be performed to inform the Shoreline Study alternatives development process. The preliminary impact assessment will be presented in a report that will be submitted for review and consideration prior to approval of the final Shoreline Study alternatives that will be evaluated in the Shoreline Study EIS/R. The purpose of the preliminary impact assessment is to identify adverse impacts associated with the Shoreline Study alternatives during the alternatives development process. Identifying adverse impacts at this stage will allow the alternatives to be refined before the EIS/R impact analysis begins (see Task 12.2.3). These refinements may reduce or avoid potential adverse impacts, or may reduce the need for some mitigation measures.

5-76

The preliminary impact assessment will be incorporated into the Shoreline Study EIS/R impact analysis, as applicable. However, some portion of the preliminary impact assessment may no longer be relevant, depending on the extent of the alternative refinements. Items needed to complete task: Final Shoreline Study alternatives (Task 14.2.1). Assumptions:

• The preliminary impact assessment will generally characterize potential impacts that could result from the project alternatives. More detailed impact assessment will be prepared for the Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R.

12.3 Draft EIS/R (F5) 12.3.1 Review of SBSP Restoration Project Draft EIS/R Description: The PDT will review the SBSP Restoration Project Draft EIS/R and provide comments to ensure compatibility of the SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study planning processes. Cost Estimate: The budget for Corps participation in this task is included under the cost estimate (see General Assumptions under Task 12). Detailed cost information is presented in Table 1 (Enclosure B). Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Draft EIS/R Assumptions: None identified. 12.3.2 Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R Description: Following selection of the final project alternatives, the Shoreline Study Administrative Draft EIS/R will be prepared which will include a project-level impact assessment. Following review by the PDT, comments will be addressed to prepare the Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R for public release. The Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R will be published and distributed for public review. Following a minimum 45-day comment period, up to two public hearings will be held to receive comments on the Draft EIS/R. Items needed to complete task: Selection of the final Shoreline Study alternatives, Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report (Task 12.1.3) Assumptions:

• This task includes preparation of environmental setting and impact analyses for the following environmental topics: land use, recreation and public access, aesthetics, environmental justice, public services, transportation and traffic, air quality, and noise. Setting and impact analysis in all other disciplines will be prepared under other tasks as

5-77

described elsewhere in this Project Management Plan. It is assumed that their budgets are included in other tasks.

• The environmental setting and impact analysis for the Shoreline Study EIS/R will build

on the SBSP Restoration Project Programmatic EIS/R.

• The Project Delivery Team will prepare two Shoreline Study Administrative Draft EIS/Rs and thus will respond to two rounds of comments from the Corps and PMT prior to publishing the public Draft EIS/R.

• Copies of the Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R will be distributed on CD. A limited

number of hard copies will be produced. 12.4 Final EIS/R (F8) 12.4.1 Review of SBSP Restoration Project Final EIS/R Description: The PDT will review the SBSP Restoration Project Final EIS/R and provide comments to ensure compatibility of the SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study planning processes. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Final EIS/R Assumptions: None identified. 12.4.2 Shoreline Study Final EIS/R Description: A Final EIS/R will be produced that responds to public and agency comments on the Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R (Task 12.3.2). Items needed to complete task: Public and agency comments on the Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R Assumptions:

• The Project Delivery Team will respond to public comments on the Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R and prepare the first Administrative Final EIS/R for Corps and PMT review. The Project Delivery Team will respond to their comments and prepare the second Administrative Final EIS/R. Following review by Corps and PMT, the Project Delivery Team will revise the document and submit it for review. The public Shoreline Study Final EIS/R will be published and distributed following resolution of Corps and PMT comments. The Project Delivery Team will review and respond to public comments on the Final EIS/R.

• Copies of the Shoreline Study Final EIS/R will be distributed on CD. A limited

number of hard copies will be produced. 12.5 Corps input to Records of Decision (RODs)

5-78

12.5.1 SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R RODs Description: Two Records of Decision (RODs) will be prepared for the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R, one for the Corps and one for USFWS. Items needed to complete task: SBSP Restoration Project Final EIS/R (Task 12.4.1) Assumptions:

• Corps staff will coordinate with USFWS during preparation of the RODs and will coordinate with Corps headquarters office.

• The USFWS ROD will identify a phase one project, while the Corps ROD will indicate

that the Shoreline Study ROD will tier off this document. 12.5.2 Shoreline Study EIS/R RODs Description: Two Records of Decision (RODs) will be prepared for the Shoreline Study EIS/R, one for the Corps and one for USFWS. The Corps budget for this task is included under the cost estimate for Corps participation (see General Assumptions under Task 12). Detailed cost information is presented in Table 1 (Enclosure B). Items needed to complete task: Shoreline Study Final EIS/R (Task 12.4.2) Assumptions:

• Corps staff will coordinate with USFWS Corps headquarters office.

• ROD negotiations will be conducted by the Corps, USFWS and/or non-federal project sponsors.

• NFS will provide limited support to the Corps during preparation of the draft and final

RODs.

• The two RODS will be similar in content. 12.6 Regulatory coordination and permitting 12.6.1 Participation in Permitting for the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R Description: The PDT will review documents related to and participate in Corps permit negotiations and process the SBSP Restoration Project Phase 1 permit to ensure compatibility of the SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study planning processes. Items needed to complete task: None identified.

5-79

Assumptions: None identified. 12.6.2 Permitting for Shoreline Study EIS/R Description: Regulatory coordination and permitting will be performed for the Shoreline Study EIS/R, which includes a project-level assessment of the Shoreline Study Area. This will include permitting for Phase 2 (including BCDC and RWQCB permits, and any permits required by local jurisdictions). Items needed to complete task: Final project alternatives. Assumptions:

• Existing models (e.g., those used for the ISP) can be used to support rationale for discharge requirements.

• Data collected as part of the SBSP Restoration Project Initial Stewardship Plan self-

monitoring requirements and other monitoring and research are sufficient to support modeling efforts and permit negotiations.

• Data collected are analyzed and made available in a time frame that will not impede

permit negotiations.

• Regulatory requirements at the Federal or State level will remain constant.

• NFS will manage the coordination and permitting effort. 12.7 Recreation and public access for the Shoreline Study EIS/R Description: This task provides input to plan formulation’s incorporation of recreation and public access features into project alternatives (Task 14.3.6) as well as preparation of the recreation and public access impact analysis. Recreation and public access work for the Shoreline Study EIS/R will include coordinating public access features and facilities between jurisdictions and enhancing linkages for a comprehensive access plan. Items needed to complete task: Assumptions: None identified. 12.8 NEPA meetings and administrative 12.8.1 NEPA consultant participation in coordination meetings for the Shoreline Study Description: Monthly coordination meetings will be held with the members of the Project Delivery Team. Items needed to complete task: None identified.

5-80

Assumptions:

• This task includes budget for consultant staff to attend monthly coordination meetings with the Corps and PMT. This budget assumes 4 hours per meeting (including meeting preparation and attendance) and 1 to 2 consultant staff per meeting over the course of the project.

13. FEAS – PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT Description of task: The Public Involvement task will consist of the following: Presentations regarding the Shoreline Study will be made to the public at the existing Stakeholder Forum and Work Groups established as part of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. These public meetings are currently facilitated by the Center for Collaborative Policy (a project of California State University, Sacramento). The Stakeholder Forum is made up of approximately 30 representatives from local businesses, environmental groups, recreation groups, community groups, and public works agencies with an interest in the South San Francisco Bay. The meetings are open to the public and the public is welcome to join Work Groups, which are formed on an as-needed basis to discuss particular topics. Presentations will be made to the Stakeholder Forum at major milestones, in order to receive public input on alternative development and analysis. If needed, a Work Group focused on the Shoreline Study will be formed. Major milestones that will be of interest to the public are assumed to be: • Development of without-project conditions and preliminary plans (F3): 2-3 meetings. • The Plan Formulation process (F4), including:

o Development of final alternatives (including restoration, flood management, and recreation components, and the adaptive management plan): 3-4 meetings

o Evaluation and comparison of alternatives (HEP analysis, cost estimating, and incremental cost analysis): 1-2 meetings

o Plan selection: 1-2 meetings • Outcomes of the Alternative Formulation Briefing (F4A) and preview of the Draft

Feasibility Report and Draft EIR/EIS: 1-2 meetings • Outcomes of Feasibility Review Conference (F6) and preview of the Final Feasibility

Report and Final EIR/EIS: 1 meeting The task includes preparation of materials for the Stakeholder Forum and/or Work Group meetings, including Power Point presentation, maps, graphics, and handouts. It is assumed that for each Stakeholder Forum or Work Group meeting, there will be 2 facilitators. Presentations will be made by Corps and non-federal sponsor staff or representatives, with adequate time for public input. This task does not include public meetings associated with CEQA/NEPA, which are described in Task 12. The CEQA/NEPA public meetings will include discussion of the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports, resulting in an even greater number of opportunities for public input. It is assumed that the following meetings will occur as part of the NEPA/CEQA scoping process: • NEPA/CEQA Scoping Meetings: 2 meetings

5-81

• Draft Feasibility Report and Draft EIR/EIS (F5): 2 meetings • Final Feasibility Report (F8): 0-1 meetings In addition to presentations at the Stakeholder Forum and Work Group meetings, there will be additional public outreach efforts, including: • Presentations to organizations, agencies, and groups that have a stake or interest in the

South San Francisco Bay. • Bimonthly email newsletters to a mailing list of approximately 2,000 people. • Public outreach materials, such as brochures, maps, and graphics. • Articles in local newsletters and publications. • Inclusion of meeting information and public documents on the project web site,

www.southbayrestoration.org. • Outreach to the media regarding the Shoreline Study, such as press releases at project

milestones. A communication plan will be prepared to outline the public outreach process for the Shoreline Study. Assumptions:

• Lead Responsibility: Non-federal sponsor

• Support Role: Corps Project Management and Plan Formulation Note: Task 13 is already a component of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project. The State Coastal Conservancy will be undertaking these public outreach efforts as part of the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, but will use these existing outreach efforts, such as the Stakeholder Forum, web site, email newsletter, media outreach, etc., as a forum for informing and involving the public in the Shoreline Study. The Conservancy intends to count the portion of the outreach task focused on the Shoreline Study towards the non-federal cost share. The budget for this task shows up in both the Shoreline Study budget and the South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project, unlike the other tasks, which are not “double-counted”. 14. FEAS – PLAN FORMULATION and EVALUATION General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation Section

• Support role: NFS

• In the scopes below, “Plan Formulation (PF)” refers to the team comprised of Corps (San Francisco District) Plan Form staff and NFS.

• The Corps will have lead responsibility for plan formulation, with significant support

from the NFS.

5-82

• The Corps and NFS will share the following responsibilities:

– Crafting plan-formulation rationale, evaluating plans, and developing the recommended plan;

– Writing sections of planning documents (i.e., F3, F4, and F4A packages, and Draft and Final Feasibility Reports); sections to be determined as study progresses, with much of the writing to be contributed by the non-Federal sponsor.

• Additional Corps responsibilities include the following:

– Leading the team through the planning steps; – Outlining, reviewing, commenting on, and submitting Plan Formulation

documents; – Meeting participation (coordination meetings with NFS, internal Corps

meetings, key technical meetings, plan formulation meetings); – Review of and comments on key SBSP Restoration Project documents; – Coordinating Corps internal plan formulation meetings; – Coordination of and addressing peer review (PDT) comments and comments

from Corps ITR and HQ Policy Review; – Lead role on coordination with the Corps “Vertical Team” (including members

from the South Pacific Region and HQUSACE) to meet Corps requirements from milestones/milestone conferences, including white papers (as required by HQ) and support to the Division Commander’s notice.

• Additional NFS responsibilities include the following:

– Coordination of technical work and detailed planning required for crafting plan-formulation rationale, evaluating plans, and developing the recommended plan;

– Review and input to leverage work conducted for the SBSP; – Document coordination and production, including formatting, duplication of

planning documents and assisting the Corps with development of figures; – Coordinating plan formulation meetings that include both the Corps and NFS.

• Plan Formulation will follow the Corps Six-Step Planning Process, which consists of the following steps:

1) Identify Problems and Opportunities 2) Inventory and Forecast Conditions 3) Formulate Alternative Plans 4) Evaluate Alternative Plans 5) Compare Alternative Plans 6) Select a Plan

These steps form an iterative process and do not need to be performed in this order.

• Where logical and compliant with Corps policy, the plan formulation process will make use of information available from the SBSP Restoration Project.

5-83

14.1 Plan formulation and evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 14.1.1 Existing conditions 14.1.1a Problems and opportunities Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team (Corps and NFS) and stakeholders, Plan Formulation (PF) will identify and document the Problems and Opportunities that exist for ecosystem restoration, flood-damage reduction, recreation, and other related purposes in the study area. A description of the Problem and Opportunities will be included in the F3 (Task 14.1.5a), F4 (Task 14.3.7), and F4A (Task 14.4.5) packages as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7, respectively), and will be updated as needed. Items needed to complete task: Stakeholder and Organizational Assessment Findings and Recommendations (Center for Collaborative Policy, for the SBSP Restoration Project, October 2003) Initial Opportunities and Constraints Summary Report (PWA et al., for the SBSP Restoration Project, July 2004) Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task The “Problems and Objectives” previously identified for the SBSP Restoration Project will be modified and/or augmented as necessary to be consistent with study authorization and Corps policies and guidance. The Shoreline Study may identify additional problems and opportunities and some problems from the SBSP Restoration Project may not be included. The original SBSP Restoration Project “Problems and Objectives” will be documented in an appendix to the Feasibility Report to provide transparency for the SBSP Restoration Project-Shoreline Study integration process. 14.1.1b Objectives and constraints Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team, PF will define and document the project’s Planning Objectives and Constraints, using the Problems and Opportunities identified in Task 14.1.1a. The Objectives and Constraints will be included in the F3 (Task 14.1.5a), F4 (Task 14.3.7), and F4A (Task 14.4.5) packages as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports(Tasks 14.5 and 14.7, respectively), and will be updated as needed. Items needed to complete task: Problems and Opportunities (Task 14.1.1.a), SBSP Initial Opportunities and Constraints Report (PWA et al., for the SBSP Restoration Project, July 2004), SBSP Restoration Project objectives (South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Alternatives Development Framework Final Report, 2004). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Objectives and Constraints previously identified for the SBSP Restoration Project will be modified and/or augmented as necessary to be consistent with Corps policies and guidance. The Shoreline Study may identify additional Objectives and Constraints and some objectives

5-84

from the SBSP Restoration Project may not be included. The original SBSP Restoration Project Problems and Objectives will be documented in an appendix to the Feasibility Report to provide transparency for the SBSP Restoration Project-Shoreline Study integration process. 14.1.1c Inventory existing conditions Description of task: PF will synthesize and compile information from the Project Delivery Team [includes not only the technical sections but also the non-Federal sponsor per definition in Task 14.1.1a] to describe existing conditions in the project area, for inclusion in planning documentation, including the F3 package (Task 14.1.5), F4 package (Task 14.3.7), F4A package (Task 14.4.5), Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5), and Final Feasibility Report (Task 14.7). PF will work closely with the Project Delivery Team to determine what resources/topics should be described to support the plan formulation and evaluation. Topics will include, but are not limited to: climate, geology and soils, drainage area, hydrology, salinity regime, vegetation, fisheries, wildlife, rare, threatened, and endangered species, land use, cultural resources, contaminants, and recreation. Items needed to complete task: Items listed in Task 1.1 (Existing channel and levees maps/surveys, bathymetric surveys, USGS LiDAR surveys, flood maps, SFEI GIS maps, preliminary surveys and mapping), existing flood hazards detailed assessment (Task 2.1.1), preliminary and detailed assessment of levees (Tasks 3.1.1 and 3.1.2), socio-economics studies (Task 5.1) on recreation market and demand, existing land use and demographics, habitat assessment of existing conditions (Task 7.1.1), water and sediment quality assessment (Task 8.1.1), air quality assessment (Task 12.1.3), Environmental Settings Reports for EIS(I) and EIS(II). The Existing Conditions description will be included in the F3 (Task 14.1.5), F4 (Task 14.3.7), and F4A/AFB (Task 14.4.5) packages as well as the Draft (Task 14.5) and Final (Task 14.7) Feasibility Reports. The description will be updated as needed. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task The Shoreline Study will make use of information from outside sources such as USGS, SFEI and assumes that these sources will have the ability to complete these studies within a timeframe compatible with the Study schedule. 14.1.2 Forecast future without-project conditions Description of task: PF will synthesize information from the Project Delivery Team, project partners (e.g., USFWS, CDFG, ACFCWCD, SCVWD), and other stakeholders to forecast the Future Without-Project Condition in the project area. The description of the Future Without-Project Condition will depict the most likely outcome for the project area in the absence of a Federal project. Multiple without-project scenarios may be described (see Assumptions), from which the most likely will be selected and/or refined during the F3 conference. With the input of other technical sections (e.g., H&H, Geo-sciences), PF will conduct a sensitivity analysis to assess the effects of various scenarios. The without-project condition will be updated based on the results of the F3 conference (Task 14.2.1 Post F3-Conference refinements).

5-85

Items needed to complete task: Preliminary and Detailed Without-Project Levee Assessment Reports (Task 3.1.1 and 3.1.2), Without-Project Water and Sediment Quality Report (Task 8.1.1), Without-project air quality (Task 12.1.3), Without-Project Economics Report (Task 5.1.1), HTRW Phase I Assessment Report (Task 9.1.1), H&H Study Report (Task 2.1.4). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Three potential scenarios have been identified for the Without-Project Conditions: 1) Scenario 1 = Initial Stewardship Plan with very limited maintenance for emergency repairs to fix unplanned levee breaches; 2) Scenario 2 = Initial Stewardship Plan with minimal maintenance to maintain key levees; 3) Scenario 3 = Initial Stewardship Plan continues indefinitely. Conditions will be forecasted over a 50-year analysis period beginning in the year project benefits will begin to accrue, as predicted by the study team. 14.1.3 Preparation for (pre-F3) issue resolution conference(s) (IRC) Description of task: PF will compile pre-IRC materials for distribution to attendees. Pre-conference material will provide background for policy issues that need resolution with the help of the Corps vertical team (SPD and HQUSACE) prior to the F3 conference. PF will also provide administrative support to provide conference materials (such as handouts and slides) to the conference chair. Potential topics for the IRCs include, but are not limited to: Real Estate (land ownership and land value for crediting), Technical Review and Model Certification, Without-Project Conditions, and Incremental Cost Analysis. Resolution of the Real Estate Policy issues (land ownership and crediting) will be coordinated with the Real Estate Section (Task 6.1.2) Items needed to complete task: Identification of issues to be resolved at IRCs. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task. Up to three IRCs are anticipated prior to the F3 conference. 14.1.4 Measures and preliminary plans 14.1.4a Measures identification and screening Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team and from Tasks 2.1.3, 3.2.1, and 4.2.1, PF will identify potential measures to address the Planning Objectives. PF will provide a description of each measure and rationale for retaining it or screening it out for future consideration. The screening criteria will be identified and applied with input from the Project Delivery Team. The measure description and screening process will be documented in the F3 (Task 15.1), F4 (Task 15.2), and F4A/AFB (Task 15.3) packages as well as the Draft (Task 15.4) and Final (Task 15.5) Feasibility Reports. This description will be updated as needed. Items needed to complete task: Planning Objectives and Constraints [Task 14.1.1b].

5-86

Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task The Shoreline Study will consider and document in the Feasibility Report features included in the SBSP Restoration Project in order to maintain continuity and transparency between the plan formulation processes of the two studies. Detailed input on measures from other technical sections will not be available until after the F3 conference. 14.1.4b Initial plan formulation/rationale development Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team, PF will develop an initial array of alternative plans that combines measures identified and screened in Task 14.1.4a. PF will formulate single-purpose (Ecosystem Restoration or Flood Damage Reduction) and multi-purpose (Ecosystem Restoration and Flood-Damage Reduction) alternatives. Alternatives in this preliminary array will be evaluated using considerations including, but not limited to: technical feasibility, economic feasibility, environmental impact, real estate acquisition (whether or not the required lands and/or easements can be acquired), induced flooding (whether or not an alternative induces flooding), and views of the public. The alternative evaluation process will include the preliminary development of with-project conditions under each plan. The with-project conditions will generally be described in qualitative terms, with quantitative evaluations provided where information is readily available. The initial alternatives will be screened and plans to be carried forward for further analysis will be identified for presentation during the F3 conference. The planning process will eventually lead to the identification of an NED/NER plan (Task 14.3.3). The NED plan reasonably maximizes net economic (monetary) benefits, while the NER plan reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costs. The NED/NER plan is a multipurpose plan that synthesizes these two concepts. The formulation and screening process described above will be documented in the F3 package (Task 14.1.5a) and the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7). Alternatives may be modified based on the results of the F3 conference (Task 14.2.1) and additional alternatives not included in this initial array may be developed in future stages of the Feasibility Phase (e.g., after the F3, F4, F4A conferences, or after the release of the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports). The SBSP Restoration Project Alternatives Development Framework will be used to provide consistency between the SBSP Restoration Project and the Shoreline Study alternatives; however, the Shoreline Study will not follow the same process for alternatives development as the SBSP Restoration Project. Items needed to complete task: List of measures (Task 14.1.4a, including input from Tasks 2.1.3, 3.2.1, and 4.2.1) and screening rationale (developed by the team for this task), without-project levee assessment report (Task 3.1.2), without-project HEP analysis report (Task 7.1.3), without-project economics document (Task 5.1 and subtasks), South Bay Salt Pond Restoration Project Alternatives Development Framework (2004).

5-87

Assumptions:

• The Corps will be the lead for this task.

• The primary project purpose will be ecosystem restoration; therefore a single-purpose ecosystem restoration plan(s) will be developed and retained in the final array of alternatives.

• Single-purpose flood-damage-reduction alternatives may be identified if they are helpful in the plan formulation process, but are not expected to be retained in the final array or recommended plan(s). However, within alternatives, flood protection may be addressed in areas where ecosystem restoration features are not included.

• The preliminary alternatives presented at the F3 conference will be described conceptually and, therefore, will not require significant development by other technical areas until after the F3 conference.

14.1.5 Preparation for F3 conference 14.1.5a Preparation of F3 package Description of task: PF will compile and synthesize materials from Tasks 14.1.1, 14.1.2, 14.1.3, and 14.1.4 and subtasks into a pre-conference package, for distribution to conference attendees. The following information will be included in the F3 package:

• Study background (location, problems, key assumptions, base conditions (existing and future without-project conditions);

• Preliminary discussion on alternative plans (including description and preliminary evaluation of expected costs, expected benefits, and environmental considerations;

• Policy issues or questions; • Status of NEPA documentation; • Technical review documentation; • Status of engineering appendix; • Status of real estate plan; • Latest version of PMP (including study/project schedule with milestones and

completion dates); • Status of study sponsor support; and • H&H certification.

Items needed to complete task: Information from Tasks 14.1.1, 14.1.2, 14.1.3, and 14.1.4 and subtasks. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for compiling and synthesizing the required information. The non-Federal sponsor will be the lead for assembling and reproducing the package (Task 15.1). 14.1.5b Coordination and support for F3 conference

5-88

Description of task: PF will coordinate the F3 conference and provide logistical support for the conference chair (typically the Division or District Chief of Planning, or the District Support Team Planning representative). This task might involve coordinating attendee attendance, arranging meeting room and/or conference call logistics, preparing copies of agendas and other conference materials, preparing presentation slides. Items needed to complete task: None identified Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task. 14.1.5c Coordination of F3-conference follow-up requirements Description of task: PF will coordinate the fulfillment of any additional requirements (not already included in the scope of the Feasibility Study/Report) issued by HQUSACE after the F3 conference. This response might take the form of producing “white papers”, preparing for HQ-initiated IRC’s, and/or responding to comments on the updated Planning Guidance Memorandum. Items needed to complete task: Updated Planning Guidance Memorandum (issued by HQUSACE after F3 conference) Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task. 14.2 Plan formulation and evaluation for preliminary plans (post-F3) 14.2.1 Post F3-conference refinements of without-project conditions and plan formulation Description of task: Based on the results of the F3 conference, the Without-Project Condition will be updated and documented in the Feasibility Report. The array of alternative plans to be carried forward for additional evaluation will also be updated. Items needed to complete task: Updated Policy Guidance Memorandum (issued by HQUSACE after F3 conference). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Depending on the results of the F3 conference, HQUSACE may require one or more topical “white papers” updating progress on the development of the without-project conditions, to be discussed at a future IRC. 14.2.2 Adaptive Management Plan development Description of task: With input from PDT and Tasks 7.2.3, 8.2.3, and 11.2.1, PF will develop an Adaptive Management Plan by amending the SBSP Restoration Project Adaptive Management Plan written by the Science Team to include only features that are associated with features in the Recommended Plan and that are compliant with Corps policy. PF will

5-89

coordinate with Cost Estimating to develop costs for this plan (Task 11.2.1). A maximum of two recommended alternatives (NED/NER and LPP) will be selected and analyzed. If both an NED/NER plan and an LPP are identified, separate Adaptive Management Plans would be created for each plan. Items needed to complete task: Adaptive management input from Tasks 7.2.3, 8.2.3, and 11.2.1. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task 14.3 Plan formulation, evaluation, & comparison for final plans (F4) 14.3.1 Preparation for issue resolution conference (IRC) for final alternatives Description of task: Based on the outcome of the F3 conference, PF will compile pre-IRC materials for distribution to attendees for any IRCs deemed necessary before the F4 and/or F4A conferences. Pre-conference material will provide background for policy issues identified during or following the F3 conference that need resolution with the Corps Vertical Team (South Pacific Division or SPD, and Headquarters or HQUSACE). PF will also provide administrative support to provide conference materials (such as handouts and slides) to the conference chair. Items needed to complete task: Identification of issues to be resolved (based on project team input). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task. Either HQUSACE (per Assumptions in Task 14.2.1) or the Project Delivery Team may request an IRC. The Project Delivery Team expects to request one IRC to discuss the development of the final alternatives. 14.3.2 Single purpose plan evaluation and comparison (cost effectiveness [CE] and incremental cost analysis [ICA]) Description of task: PF will work with the Project Delivery Team to refine the evaluation of with-project conditions for the array of single purpose ecosystem restoration alternatives. The with-project conditions will include quantitative assessments of the costs and most likely outcome under each alternative. With input from the Project Delivery Team, especially Environmental Sciences, PF and Economics will use the with-project condition information to perform a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis and Incremental Cost Analysis on a screened array of Ecosystem Restoration Alternative Plans. These evaluations will be used to select the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Alternative and will be documented in the F4 and F4A packages, as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. Items needed to complete task: Screened array of single-purpose alternatives (Task 14.1.4b), Ecosystem Restoration Benefits (e.g., HEP) for alternatives in the final array (Task 7.2.2), and MCACES cost estimates for each alternative (Task 11.2.3).

5-90

Assumptions:

• The Corps will be the lead for this task • The single-purpose alternatives to be evaluated will be ecosystem restoration plans.

14.3.3 Combined purpose plan evaluation and comparison (CE, ICA, and trade-off analysis) Description of task: PF will work with the Project Delivery Team to refine the evaluation of with-project conditions for the array of multi-purpose alternatives (ecosystem restoration and flood-damage reduction). The with-project conditions will include quantitative assessments of the costs and most likely outcome under each alternative. With input from the Project Delivery Team, PF will use the with-project condition information to perform a Cost-Effectiveness Analysis, Incremental Cost Analysis, Cost/Benefit Analysis, and Trade-off Analysis on a screened array of multi-purpose alternative plans. This process will identify the combined NED/NER Alternative and will be documented in the F4 and F4A packages, as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. Items needed to complete task: Array of multi-purpose alternative plans (Task 14.1.4b), preliminary MCACES cost estimate (Task 11.2.3), 35% Design (Task 4.2.3). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Additional iterations of this task may be required after the F4 and F4A conferences (per Tasks 14.4.1 and 14.4.2). 14.3.4 Cost allocation (Note: Feeds into Task 14.3.3) Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team, PF will perform a cost allocation analysis to determine how costs and benefits are distributed among project purposes for the Combined NED/NER plan and, if necessary, a Locally Preferred Plan (LPP). This process will be documented in the F4 and F4A packages and the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. Items needed to complete task: Array of multi-purpose alternative plans, preliminary MCACES cost estimate, 35% Design. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Cost allocation is not performed for each alternative; the multi-purpose alternatives are ranked through tradeoff and other analyses (Task 14.3.3) and costs are allocated for the top ranked plan; if all project purposes are justified for that plan based on the allocated costs, it is the NED/NER plan; if not, the costs are allocated for the next lower ranked plan; this continues until a justified NED/NER plan is identified. If there is an LPP, the team will also perform a cost allocation for that plan. Additional iterations of this task may be required after the F4 and F4A conferences (per Tasks 14.4.1 and 14.4.2).

5-91

14.3.5 Plan selection Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team and Stakeholders, and using information from the Trade-off Analysis, PF will select a plan for recommendation. The recommended plan will either be the NED/NER Plan (identified through Task 14.3.3; default recommended plan, per Corps policy) or another justifiable and policy-compliant plan that will be designated as the “Locally Preferred Plan” (LPP). The recommended plan will be presented and discussed during the F4 and F4A conferences. Items needed to complete task: Results of CE/ICA, Trade-off Analysis. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Additional iterations of this task may be required after the F4 and F4A conferences (per Tasks 14.4.1 and 14.4.2). 14.3.6 Formulation of recreation components Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team and Stakeholders, PF will formulate, evaluate, and compare plans for adding recreation features to the recommended plan. The recreational analysis will be presented and discussed during the F4 and F4A conferences. Items needed to complete task: Recommended Plan (Task 14.3.5), economic analysis of recreation components (Task 5.2.1), Environmental input and impact analysis (Task 12.7). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Additional iterations of this task may be required after the F4 and F4A conferences (per Tasks 14.4.1 and 14.4.2). 14.3.7 Preparation of F4 package Description of task: PF will assemble and prepare materials for the Alternative Review Conference (F4). Items to be discussed include those listed for the F3 conference (Task 14.1.5) in addition to: the NED/NER plan, the tentatively recommended plan, the identification of environmental mitigation requirements, status of the MCACES cost estimate, guidance memorandum from the most recent Issue Resolution Conference (IRC) and/or In-Progress Review conference (IPR), and compliance guidance memorandum from the most recent IRC/IPR. Items needed to complete task: F3 package (Task 14.1.5) and items listed in the task description. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for for compiling and synthesizing the required information. The non-Federal sponsor will be the lead for assembling and reproducing the package (Task 15.2)

5-92

14.4 Plan formulation and evaluation alternatives formulation briefing (F4A) 14.4.1 Plan selection rationale and post-F4 refinements Description of task: Based on the results of the F4 conference, PF will work with the Project Delivery Team to make required changes to the plan formulation, the array of Alternative Plans, and/or to the NED/NER Plan in preparation for the AFB (F4A). PF will describe the rationale for selecting the recommended plan. The rationale will incorporate the results of analyses such as the CE/ICA and Trade-Off Analysis and discuss associated criteria such as completeness, effectiveness, efficiency, and acceptability. The rationale will be presented during the F4A conference and documented in the F4A package and the Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: Policy Guidance Memorandum (issued by CESPD after F4 conference). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Much of the plan selection rationale will have to be developed prior to the F4 conference. 14.4.2 Refinement of recommended plans based on F4A conference Description of task: Based on the results of the F4A conference, PF will work with the Project Delivery Team to make required changes to the plan formulation, the array of Alternative Plans, and/or to the Recommended Plan. The plan formulation refinement may include formulating new alternatives, as required by HQUSACE. Refinement of the Recommended Plan may include activities such as, but not limited to, providing additional information on the costs, benefits, impacts, or design of the Alternative. The results of this refinement will be documented in post-conference “white papers”, if required by HQUSACE, and/or the Feasibility Report (Tasks 14.5 and 14.7). Items needed to complete task: Updated Policy Guidance Memorandum (issued by HQUSACE after F4A Conference). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task Ongoing dialogue with Corps Vertical Team (SPD and HQUSACE) is expected to limit refinements needed from F4A conference. 14.4.3 Cost apportionment Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team (including the non-Federal sponsor) and using the results of the Cost Allocation Analysis (Task 14.3.4), PF will calculate the distribution of costs between Federal and non-Federal interests. This information will be documented in the F4A package and the Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: Cost Allocation Analysis (Task 14.3.4)

5-93

Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task 14.4.4 Responsibilities of Federal and non-Federal sponsors Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team, PF will describe the Federal and Non-Federal responsibilities associated with the Recommended Plan. These responsibilities will be documented in the F4A package and the Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: Recommended Plan (Task 14.3.5). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task 14.4.5 Preparation of AFB package (F4A) Description of task: PF will update materials presented in the F4 package (Task 14.3.7) to create the F4A package. The F4A package will include the updated plan formulation and plan selection rationale (per Task 14.4.1) Items needed to complete task: F4 package (Task 14.3.7), Post-F3 HQUSACE PGM. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task. The non-Federal sponsor will be the lead for assembling and reproducing the package (Task 15.3). 14.5 Draft Feasibility Report (F5) 14.5.1 Preparation of Draft Feasibility Report Description of task: PF will write and compile materials for the Draft Feasibility Report, which will include the following information: study authority, study purpose and scope, discussion of prior studies, reports, and existing water projects, a description of plan formulation, description of the selected plan, a description of plan implementation, a summary of public coordination, views, and comments, and recommendations (including disclaimer). The Draft Feasibility Report will recommend the preferred alternative based on the analysis in the EIS/R and Technical Appendices (e.g., Engineering Appendix, Real Estate Appendix, and Economics Appendix). Items needed to complete task: To complete these tasks, all technical appendices and associated analyses (Economic Appendix (Task 5.4.2), Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (Task 7.4), EIS/R (Task 12.3.2), BA, Cultural Resources Report (Task 10.4), Geo-sciences Appendix (Task 3.4.1), H&H Appendix (Task 2.4.1), Engineering Appendix (Task 4.4.1), Maps/Surveys (Task 1.4), Drawings for NED and LPP (Task 4.4.1), Real Estate Plan (Task 6.4.8), and Adaptive Management Plan (Task 14.2.2)) must be completed prior to making final recommendations regarding a preferred alternative. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task. 14.6 Preparation for the feasibility review conference (FRC; F7)

5-94

Description of task: PF will compile pre-F7 Conference materials for distribution to attendees. Pre-conference material will provide background and proposed actions to address HQUSACE policy issues that need resolution prior to completing the Final Feasibility Report. PF will also provide administrative support to provide conference materials (such as handouts and slides) to the conference chair. Items needed to complete task: Policy review comments on the Draft Feasibility Report from HQUSACE. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task. 14.7 Final Feasibility Report (F8) 14.7.1 Preparation of Final Feasibility Report Description of task: After the HQUSACE policy review and public review period for the Draft Feasibility Report and the F7 Conference, PF will revise and finalize the Feasibility Report based on feedback from Corps entities, the non-Federal sponsor, and the public. PF will assemble the report, EIS/R, and the revised technical appendices into a Final Feasibility Report. Items needed to complete task: Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) and review comments; Public Involvement documentation (Task 13), revised Technical Appendices and associated analyses (Final Economic Appendix (Task 5.5), Final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (Task 7.4.2), Final EIS/R (Task 12.4.2), BA, Final Cultural Resources Report, Geo-sciences Appendix (Task 3.5.1), Final H&H Appendix (Task 2.5.1), Final Engineering Appendix (Task 4.5.1), Final Maps/Surveys (Task 1.5), Final Drawings for Recommended Plan and LPP (Task 4.5.1), Final Real Estate Plan (Task 6.5.2), and Adaptive Management Plan (14.2.2). Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task 14.8 Support to Division Engineer’s Submittal (F9) Description of task: Following the completion of the Final Feasibility Report, PF will provide any necessary support leading up to the issue of the Division Engineer’s Submittal, which announces the release of the Final Feasibility Report and Final EIS/R. Supporting activities may include, but are not limited to: briefing the District Commander on the results of the Feasibility Study, producing and delivering a briefing to the Division Commander, responding to comments/inquiries from HQUSACE, and producing and providing supporting documentation and copies of the report to SPD, HQUSACE, other reviewing agencies, libraries, and other recipients as requested. Items needed to complete task: Final Feasibility Report and Final EIS/R. Assumptions: The Corps will be the lead for this task.

5-95

15. FEAS – PLANNING DOCUMENTATION Tasks under this header refer to the assembly and reproduction of planning documentation to meet Corps milestones. General assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation Section

• Support role: NFS 15.1 Documentation for F3 package Description of task: Printing and assembly of the F3 package (Task 14.1.5). Items needed to complete task: F3 package (Task 14.1.5) Assumptions:

• Conference documentation will be provided as hard copies and/or electronically, as requested or required by conference attendees.

• Conference attendees may include: members of the Project Delivery Team (including Corps technical team members and the NFS and potential project partners, Corps District management (from the Planning, Engineering, and Programs branches), members of the South Pacific Division District Support Team, and representatives from the HQUSACE Regional Integration Team (RIT).

15.2 Documentation for F4 package Description of task: Printing and assembly of F4 package (Task 14.3.7) Items needed to complete task: F4 package (Task 14.3.7) Assumptions:

• Conference documentation will be provided as hard copies and/or electronically, as requested or required by conference attendees. Conference attendees may include: members of the Project Delivery Team (including Corps technical team members, the NFS and potential project partners), Corps District management (from the Planning, Engineering, and Programs branches), and members of the South Pacific Division District Support Team.

15.3 Documentation for AFB (F4A) package Description of task: Printing and assembly of F4A package (Task 14.4.5), which is an update of the F4 package (14.3.7). Items needed to complete task: F4A package (Task 14.3.7), Post-F3 HQUSACE PGM

5-96

Assumptions: Conference documentation will be provided as hard copies and/or electronically, as requested or required by conference attendees. Conference attendees may include: members of the Project Delivery Team (including Corps technical team members, the NFS and potential project partners), Corps District management (from the Planning, Engineering, and Programs branches), members of the South Pacific Division District Support Team, and representatives from the HQUSACE Regional Integration Team (RIT). 15.4 Draft Feasibility Report printing and assembly (F5) Description of task: Printing and assembly of Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) Items needed to complete task: F4A package, Post-F4A HQUSACE PGM Assumptions: The Draft Feasibility Report will be issued with the Draft EIS/R and will be provided as hard copies and/or electronically, as requested or required by recipients. Recipients may include: members of the Project Delivery Team (including Corps technical team members, the NFS and potential project partners), Corps District management (from the Planning, Engineering, and Programs branches), members of the South Pacific Division District Support Team, representatives from the HQUSACE Regional Integration Team (RIT), local libraries, and individuals from the mailing list. 15.5 Final Feasibility Report printing and assembly (F8) Description of task: Printing and assembly of Final Feasibility Report (Task 14.7) Items needed to complete task: Draft Feasibility Report, HQUSACE PGM (containing Draft Report review comments), Public Review comments Assumptions: The Final Feasibility Report will be issued with the Final EIS/R and will be provided as hard copies and/or electronically, as requested or required by recipients. Recipients may include: members of the Project Delivery Team (including Corps technical team members, the NFS and potential project partners), Corps District management (from the Planning, Engineering, and Programs branches), members of the South Pacific Division District Support Team, representatives from the HQUSACE Regional Integration Team (RIT), local libraries, and individuals from the mailing list. 16. FEAS –INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW (ITR), EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (EPR), AND MODEL CERTIFICATION The tasks in this section involve External Peer Review of key technical products and multidiscipline review of major milestone packages and products, as required by the Corps. Single-discipline review tasks by PDT members are listed separately within the scopes of work under the pertinent technical section. General assumptions:

5-97

• Lead responsibility: Corps Planning Centers of Expertise (PCX)

16.0 Technical Review Strategy Session (TRSS) Description of task: A meeting will be held involving members of the PDT and PCX to develop/revise the Quality Control Plan and External Peer Review Plan (including identification of team members and products to be reviewed). Review schedule will also be developed. The TRSS may also include discussion of the Model Certification requirements (as described in Task 16.8). 16.1 F3 Package independent technical review (ITR) and documentation Description of task: Conduct ITR of the documents prepared for the F3 Milestone Conference, consistent with the Quality Control Plan (PMP Chapter 6) and the requirements described below. Items needed to complete task: F3 Milestone Conference Documentation (F3 package; Task 14.1.5), QCP Plan (PMP Chapter 6) Assumptions: None identified. 16.2 Value engineering study and report Description of task: In accordance with EC 1110-1-114, Value Management (VM)/Value Engineering (VE), dated 28 February 2003, and CESPD-CM-P Memo, subject: Value Engineering Studies During Planning, dated 30 September 2003, a VE study will be performed during the feasibility phase. VE is an organized effort directed at analyzing the functions of systems, equipment, facilities, services, and supplies for the purpose of achieving the essential functions at the lowest life-cycle cost consistent with required performance, reliability, quality, and safety. By necessity, VE studies conducted during feasibility are different than VE studies conducted during design and construction. Rather than analyzing a single alternative, the aim of VE studies during the feasibility phase is to ensure the widest range of engineeringly feasible and cost efficient measures and alternatives are considered. Results of the VE effort will be presented in the feasibility report, integrated into the discussion of the formulation of alternatives. As the intent of the VE effort is to utilize VE concepts to ensure that the fullest range of measures and alternatives are considered prior to the authorization of a plan, a determination of VE savings will not be made. Items needed to complete task: F3 Package, updated QCP Plan. Assumptions: The VE study will occur sometime between the F3 and F4 milestones. The ITR Team members will serve as the core of the VE team, supplemented as necessary by additional expertise. The VE team will conduct the VE study over three to four consecutive days. At the conclusion of the study, a VE Report will be prepared summarizing the VE study findings/proposals.

5-98

16.3 F4 package ITR and documentation Description of task: Conduct ITR of the documents prepared for the F4 Milestone Conference, consistent with the requirements described in the QCP (PMP Chapter 6) and Task 16.1. Items needed to complete task: F4 Milestone Conference Documentation, updated QCP Plan Assumptions: Ongoing seamless review will help to limit significant comments. 16.4 AFB (F4A) package ITR and documentation Description of task: Conduct ITR of the documents prepared for the AFB Milestone Conference (F4A), consistent with the requirements described in the QCP (PMP Chapter 6) and Task 16.1. Items needed to complete task: AFB Milestone Conference Documentation (F4A), updated QCP Plan Assumptions: Ongoing seamless review will help to limit significant comments. 16.5 Draft Report ITR (F5) Description of task: Conduct ITR of the Draft Report, consistent with the requirements described in the QCP (PMP Chapter 6) and Task 16.1. Items needed to complete task: Draft Report, updated QCP Plan Assumptions: Ongoing seamless review will help to limit significant comments. 16.6 Final Report ITR (F8) Description of task: Conduct ITR of the Final Report, consistent with the requirements described in the QCP (PMP Chapter 6) and Task 16.1. Items needed to complete task: Final Report, updated QCP Plan Assumptions: Ongoing seamless review will help to limit significant comments. 16.7 External Peer Review (EPR) Description of task: Key technical documents will be reviewed by a panel of non-Corps experts, as required by EC 1105-2-408 (Peer Review of Decision Documents). This review will be managed by the Corps PCX and be applied towards “scientific information”, “influential scientific information”, “scientific assessment”, and “highly influential scientific assessment”, to include factual imputs, data, the use of models, analyses, assumptions, and other scientific and engineering matters that inform decision making..

5-99

16.8 Model Certification (other than H&H) Description of task: The PCX will manage the certification of planning models, as required by EC 1105-2-407 (Planning Models Improvement Program: Model Certification). Assumption: The cost estimate for certification of H&H models is included under Task 2.0. 17. FEAS – WASHINGTON LEVEL REPORT APPROVAL (REVIEW SUPPORT) Description of task: This task covers San Francisco District and NFS support of the Washington-level review process from the signing of the Feasibility Report (F8 Milestone) through the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works)’s request to the Office of Management and Budget for the views of the Administration. This task may include answering comments, attending Washington-level meetings, and report revisions as a result of review by higher authority. Items needed to complete task: Signed Feasibility Report 18. FEAS - MANAGEMENT 18.1 Project management and budget The project will be managed according to the Corps Project Management Business Process (PMBP). Within the South Pacific Division, each individual District follows this standardized basic management strategy, which was created to increase execution capacity and flexibility, to create opportunities for cost reductions, and to improve communications between the District, the Division office, and our customers. It consists of a Project Team approach with upward review by the Corps Project Review Boards (PRB) and over view by the Project's Executive Committee. The following is a description of the roles and responsibilities of each element of the Project Team. This study will be managed by a single Project Manager and supported by team members from many technical disciplines, their immediate supervisors, and the project sponsor. Basic roles and responsibilities for the project manager are as follows:

a. Primary point of contact with the project sponsors. b. Manage overall project execution, including funds, data, commitments, schedule,

cost, and quality. c. Develop and manage all work using a Project Management Plan (PMP), Scope of

Services, the Programs and Project Management Information System (P2), Network Analyses System (NAS), and the Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS).

d. Ensure Quality Control (QC) plans are developed and incorporated into the Project Management Plan.

e. Provide project schedule, cost status, and issues to the PRB, with corrective action plans for potential slippage or cost over-runs.

f. Lead the project team.

5-100

g. Be responsible/accountable for assigned product(s) through coordination of team efforts.

The project manager will also coordinate the Feasibility Study effort with the Feasibility Study effort for the San Francisquito Creek Project, a project located at the northern border of the study area for the Shoreline Study’s Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study. Asssumption: The Conservancy will dedicate .5 FTE to manage the Shoreline Study. The roles and responsibilities of the Conservancy Project Manager are to:

• Serve as the primary Conservancy point of contact with Corps Project Management and Plan Formulation staff.

• Manage all CSCC contractors working on the Shoreline Study. • Manage overall project execution, including funds, data, commitments, schedule,

costs, and quality, in coordination with the Corps. • Provide project schedule, budget, and issues to the Conservancy Program Manager,

Executive Officer, and Board, with recommended actions. • Responsibility/accountability for products assigned to the Conservancy.

18.1.1 Programs and project management to F3 milestone Description of task: Continued project management will be performed, as described above, through the F3 milestone. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions: None identified. 18.1.2 Programs and project management to F4 milestone Description of task: Continued project management will be performed, as described above, through the F4 milestone. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions: None identified. 18.1.3 Programs and project management AFB documentation (F4A) Description of task: Continued project management will be performed, as described above, through the F4A milestone. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions: None identified.

5-101

18.1.4 Programs and project management to Draft Report (F5) Description of task: Continued project management will be performed, as described above, through the F5 milestone. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions: None identified. 18.1.5 Programs and project management to Final Report (F8) Description of task: Continued project management will be performed, as described above, through the F8 milestone. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions: None identified. 18.1.6 Programs and project management to DE’s Notice (F9) Description of task: Continued project management will be performed, as described above, through the F9 milestone. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions: None identified. 18.2 Supervision and administration Assumptions:

• The Conservancy’s San Francisco Bay Program Manager and Executive Officer will participate in Executive Committee meetings and other relevant meetings regarding the Shoreline Study and make decisions regarding the Shoreline Study budget, schedule, and issues. Administrative staff at the Conservancy will assist with management of contracts, invoices, agreements, and clerical support for the Shoreline Study.

• Corps Supervision and Administration tasks are described in the subtasks below.

18.2.1 Planning Branch supervision and administration Description of task: Supervision and administration support provided by the Planning Branch Chief and his support staffs. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

5-102

• Cost estimate based on 7% Planning Branch section labor charges

18.2.2 Engineering Branch supervision and administration Description of task: Supervision and administration support provided by the Engineering Branch Chief and his support staffs. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• Cost estimate based on 5% Engineering Branch section labor charges 18.2.3 Engineering and Technical Services Division supervision and administration Description of task: Supervision and administration support to be provided by the Planning and Engineering Branch Chiefs, Engineering and Technical Services Division Chief, and their support staffs. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions:

• Cost estimate based on 3% Engineering & Planning Branch section labor charges 18.2.4 PPMD supervision and administration Description of task: Supervision and administration support provided by the PPMD Branch and Division Chiefs and their support staffs. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions:

• Cost estimate based on 3% PPMD labor costs 18.3 Office of Counsel Description of task: The Office of Counsel will provide support to the project throughout the course of the study. Items needed to complete task: Ongoing. Assumptions: Conservancy legal counsel will provide legal support to the Conservancy Project Manager throughout the course of the Shoreline Study.

5-103

18.3.1 Office of Counsel support to F3 milestone (without-project conditions and preliminary Plans) 18.3.2 Office of Counsel support to F4 milestone (with-project conditions) 18.3.3 Office of Counsel support to F4A milestone (AFB) 18.3.4 Office of Counsel support to F5 milestone (Draft Report) 18.3.5 Office of Counsel support to F8 milestone (Final Report) 19. CONTINGENCIES (10%) Description of task: A 10% contingency is applied to the cost estimate for unforeseen project costs. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions: None identified. 20. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) UPDATES Description of task: The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study Project Management Plan (PMP) will be updated as the study progresses to document the revised direction of the project. Projected revisions may include, but are not limited to, the following: Schedule Change - Minor changes to a project's schedule occur frequently, and many can be absorbed by adjusting either the sequence or duration of tasks. Threshold = critical milestone slip of more that 15% (e.g., 2 month slip within a FY). Scope Change - If the change is determined to impact one or more of the project's technical elements, all of which are represented as members of the Project Delivery Team (PDT), these members will be consulted by the Project Manager to evaluate how that change can be best incorporated with the least impact. Threshold = depends on the resultant cost impact. Cost Change - The most significant project change is a change in the project's cost. Most projects are now cost-shared between the Government and a non-Federal sponsor and any change in their contribution can have a significant impact on the sponsor's ability to provide that contribution. The Project Manager must constantly monitor schedule and scope changes and assess how these changes impact on the project's cost. If these changes indicate that a change in the project's cost is necessary, the sponsor must immediately be consulted and agree to the change in project cost before that change can be implemented. Threshold = cost increase of more than 10% in a given FY.

5-104

The PMP will be revised as needed to incorporate changes in the work planned for the project as a result of changes in the schedule, scope and/or cost. Items needed to complete task: None identified. Assumptions:

• Where applicable, changes to the PMP will be managed according to the guidelines described in the Change Management Plan (PMP Chapter 7).

• Lead responsibility: Corps

• Support role: NFS, Corps

21. PMP for PED Description of task: Complete the PMP for PED. Items needed to complete task: Recommended plan identified (Task 14.3.5). Assumptions:

• Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management

• Support role: Corps, NFS 22. PED COST SHARING AGREEMENT Description of task: Preparation and negotiation of the PED Cost Sharing Agreement. Items needed to complete task: Signed Feasibility Report (F9 Milestone) and PED PMP. Assumptions:

• Standard PED cost sharing agreement assumed for purpose of cost estimate.

• Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management and Non-Federal Sponsor (California Coastal Conservancy [CCC])

6-1

CHAPTER VI

QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 1. QUALITY CONTROL OBJECTIVE

The quality control objective is to achieve Feasibility Phase products and analyses that meet or exceed customer requirements, are technically sound, and are consistent with Corps policies and regulations. 2. GUIDELINES FOR INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW

The guidelines for independent technical review (ITR) are set forth in the South Pacific Division Quality Management Plan, CESPD R 1110-1-8, 30 December 2002, and Appendix C of CESPD R 1110-1-8, Quality Management of Planning Products, revised 20 September 2004. 3. PRODUCTS TO BE REVIEWED

a. All of the products identified in the detailed scopes of work in Chapter 5 shall be subject to ITR. The ITR shall consist of Single Discipline Seamless Review (Peer Review) and Multi-discipline Product Review. See CESPD R 1110-1-8 for a full description of the requirements for these reviews.

b. Single Discipline Seamless Review (Peer Review) shall be accomplished prior to the

release of study sub-products to other members of the Product Delivery Team (PDT) or integration into the overall study. PDT members shall consult with their ITR Team counterparts at appropriate points throughout the project delivery effort to discuss major assumptions and functional decisions, analytical approaches, and major calculations to preclude significant comments from occurring during Multi-discipline Product review. The PDT members should initiate these counterpart discussions. This type of review does not require a formal comment-response-back-check process, as is required during Multi-Discipline Product Review. However, the conclusions/agreements reached will be documented, with copies retained by each participant and distributed to the ITR Team leader and the Project Delivery Team leader. The documentation will become part of the project technical review file. Products subject to Seamless Review include (but are not limited to):

Digital Terrain Model (DTM) and Topographic Mapping Products Flood Mapping Preliminary Designs Geotech Levee Assessments Economic Analyses HEP Analysis Results Environmental Settings Report HTRW Assessments Historic Properties Survey Report

6-2

Preliminary Cost Estimates Additional Work Products Listed in Table 2 (Related Work Products from the

SBSP Restoration Project and Shoreline Study Deliverables)

c. Multi-Discipline Product Review shall be accomplished prior to the mandatory South Pacific Division milestone conferences (F3 and F4), HQUSACE issue resolution conferences (AFB (F4A), FRC (F7), and any other IRCs held during the feasibility phase), and release of the draft and final documents. These products shall be essentially complete before review is undertaken and the branch and section chiefs shall be responsible for accuracy of the computations through design checks, supervisory review and other internal procedures, prior to ITR. The requirements for each milestone are listed in Enclosure C. Products subject to multi-discipline review include (but are not limited to):

F3 Milestone Documentation o Main F3 Report o Without Project Condition Hydrology and Hydraulics Report o Without Project Condition Geotechnical Report o Without Project Condition Economics Report

F4 Milestone Documentation

o Main F4 Report o Preliminary Draft EIS/EIR o Preliminary Draft Engineering Appendix o Preliminary Draft Economics Appendix o Preliminary Draft Real Estate Plan

AFB (F4A) Milestone Documentation

o Main AFB Report o Preliminary Draft EIS/EIR o Preliminary Draft Engineering Appendix o Preliminary Draft Economics Appendix o Preliminary Draft Real Estate Plan

Draft Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement/Environmental

Impact Report (EIS/EIR) o Draft Feasibility Report o Draft EIS/EIR o Draft Engineering Appendix o Draft Economics Appendix o Draft Real Estate Plan o Draft MCACES

FRC (F7) Milestone Documentation

o Required documentation depends on the policy review comments to be resolved

Final Feasibility Report and EIS/EIR

6-3

o Final Feasibility Report o Final EIS/EIR o Final Engineering Appendix o Final Economics Appendix o Final Real Estate Plan o Final MCACES

d. For products that are developed under contract, the contractor shall be responsible

for quality control through ITR. ITR of Consultant deliverables does not need to be performed by the Corps ITR team. Each contract scope of work shall include specific provisions requiring independent review of contractor work products including submittal of a quality control plan and full documentation of issue identification and resolution, along with certifications as set forth in Appendix C of the CESPD R 1110-1-8. Quality assurance of the contractor’s quality control process shall be the responsibility of the ITR team. 4. QUALITY OBJECTIVES

The quality objectives for the ITR are described in CESPD R-1110-1-8. The objectives include confirming that feasibility phase products and analyses:

Meet customer (Federal and non-Federal sponsor) requirements; Comply with applicable laws, regulations, policies, and sound technical

practices of the disciplines involved; Are of adequate scope and level of detail; Are consistent, logical, accurate, and comprehensive; Are based on convincing and consistent assumptions, especially those related to

the probable/most likely with and without project future conditions; Adequately describe the problems and opportunities, planning objectives and

constraints, existing condition, future without-project condition, and future with-project conditions to support recommendations;

Tell a coherent planning story; and Address outstanding action items from milestone conferences, issue resolution

conferences, and other reviews. 5. DOCUMENTATION AND CERTIFICATION a. The conclusions and agreements reached during the ITR process shall be documented per the requirements set forth in CESPD R 1110-1-8. Documentation shall be prepared for all ITR efforts (seamless reviews, multi-discipline product reviews, and contractor reviews). The documentation shall become part of the project technical review file. b. ITR documentation for all pre-conference materials for the IRCs (AFB, FRC, etc.) and the draft and final feasibility reports shall be accompanied by a certification indicating that the ITR process has been completed and that all issues have been resolved. Both the District Commander and the Chief of Planning Branch shall sign the certification for the final feasibility report, following the example included in Appendix I of CESPD R 1110-1-8. The

6-4

planning function chief shall certify other submittals and the certification may be included within the transmittal letter for the product and review documentation.

c. All contractor products shall be accompanied by a certification indicating that an ITR process has been completed and that all issues have been resolved. The certification format shall follow the example included in Appendix I of CESPD R 1110-1-8.

d. The chief of the Water Resources shall certify the without-project hydrology prior to

the F3 milestone. This certification shall be included in the review documentation. e. The cover memorandum to the MCACES cost estimate that is submitted with a final

feasibility report shall include a certification statement by the Chief of Engineering Branch that the estimate has been prepared in accordance with current guidance, that the estimate has undergone an independent technical review and that all issues that may have been identified in the independent technical review have been resolved. 6. DEVIATIONS FROM THE APPROVED QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN Source: Appendix A-5: Interim products (Milestone and Draft Products) are to be certified by the responsible section chief. Deviation: The Planning Chief will certify the Draft Feasibility Report upon recommendation of the ITRT. Source: Page 12, Section 6.7.2: “A single QCP shall be developed which encompasses the Planning, Engineering, Real Estate, Construction, Operations and Programs and Project management aspects of a particular project or service.” Deviation: The South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study QCP will cover the activities for the Feasibility phase of the project. Quality Control of products from subsequent phases (PED and Construction) will be described in the updated QCP.

7. INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM ROSTER The ITR team will be established early in the Feasibility Phase and be led by district other than San Francisco. The South Pacific Division (CESPD), as the National Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) for flood-damage reduction, will manage the ITR process. The Mississippi Valley Division (CEMVD), the PCX for Ecosystem Restoration, will also be involved. The anticipated disciplines to be included on the ITR team are shown below:

Discipline Name Organization Relevant Experience (yrs & description)

Water Resource Planning

Scott Miner CESPK-PD Planner, Regional Technical Specialist

Environmental Planning/Compliance

Biology/Ecology

6-5

Cultural Resources Sediment Quality Water Quality HTRW Economics Hydrology Hydraulic Engineering

Coastal Engineering Geotechnical Engineering

Civil Engineering Cost Engineering GIS 8. SCHEDULE a. Seamless Review shall occur as needed during the Feasibility Phase.

b. In general, Multi-discipline Product review shall be initiated at least eleven weeks prior to a CESPD mandatory milestone conference (at least seven weeks prior to the F4 conference) and at least two weeks prior to the submission of documentation for a HQUSACE issue resolution conference (such documentation is submitted to HQUSACE at least 30 days prior to the conference date). For the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports, ITR will be initiated at least 7 weeks prior to the mailing date. ITR comments shall be due within two weeks of initiating the ITR efforts. Responses to comments shall generally be due within two weeks of final comment submittal. Final back check, documentation, and, if applicable, certification of the ITR shall be due within one week of the resolution of all comments. The feasibility milestone schedule is included in Enclosure C. 9. EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW External Peer Review (EPR), to be conducted by a panel of technical experts outside of the Corps, will be performed on key technical products. EPR will be managed by the PCX. The EPR plan, to include the documents to be reviewed and the identity of the EPR panel, will be created early during the Feasibility Phase. 10. COST ESTIMATE

The costs for conducting ITR and EPR are included in the detailed scopes of work that are included in Chapter 5 and in the cost estimate summary (Table 1 (Enclosure B)). The total cost for ITR and EPR is approximately $365,000, which is approximately 2.3% of the study cost estimate. Quality management activities of Section Chiefs are included in the cost estimate for each task. Quality management activities of Branch and Division Chiefs are included in the Supervision and Administration cost estimate.

6-6

ATTACHMENT A

SOUTH SAN FRANCISCO SHORELINE STUDY FEASIBILITY REPORT

COMPLETION OF INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW The San Francisco District has completed the Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Report and the accompanying Independent Technical Review for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study. Notice is hereby given that an independent technical review has been conducted that is appropriate to the level of risk and complexity inherent in the project, as defined in the Quality Control Plan. During the independent technical review, compliance with established policy, principles and procedures, utilizing justified and valid assumptions, was verified. This included review of assumptions, methods, procedures and material used in analyses; evaluation of all the alternatives; appropriateness of the data level obtained and used; and the reasonableness of the results, including whether the product meets the customer’s needs consistent with law and existing Corps policy. The Independent Review Team performed the independent review. ____________________________ _____________ Technical Review Team Leader Date

6-7

ATTACHMENT B

CERTIFICATION OF INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW Significant concerns and the explanation of the resolution are provided in the attached documents. As noted in the attached documents, all concerns resulting from independent technical review of the project have been considered. The report and associated documents required by the National Environmental Policy Act have been fully reviewed. _____________________________ ____________________ Thomas R. Kendall Date Chief, Planning Branch _____________________________ ____________________ Herbert H. Cheong Date Chief, Engineering Branch

6-8

ATTACHMENT C

MODEL DISTRICT ENGINEER’S QUALITY CONTROL CERTIFICATION

(Products Developed by In-house Forces) COMPLETION OF QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES The District has completed the (state level of study or product development) of (Project Name and Location). Certification is hereby given that all quality control activities defined in the Quality Control Plan appropriate to the level of risk and complexity inherent in the product have been complete. Documentation of the quality control process is enclosed. GENERAL FINDINGS Compliance with clearly established policy principles and procedures, utilizing clearly justified and valid assumptions, has been verified. This includes assumptions; methods, procedures and materials used in analyses; alternatives evaluated; the appropriateness of data used and level of data used and level of data obtained; and the reasonableness of the results, including whether the product meets the customer’s needs consistent with law and existing Corps policy. The undersigned recommends certification of the quality control process for this product. ________________________ ______________ (Date) Chief, Planning Branch QUALITY CONTROL CERTIFICATION As noted above, all issues and concerns resulting from technical review of the product have been resolved. This project may proceed to the (indicate next phase of product development). ________________________ _______________(Date) District Engineer

6-9

ATTACHMENT D CERTIFICATION OF LEGAL REVIEW The report for South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, including all associated documents required by the National Environmental Policy Act, has been fully reviewed by the Office of Counsel, San Francisco District and is approved as legally sufficient. _______________________ Date __________ Merry Goodenough District Counsel

7-1

CHAPTER VII RISK & CHANGE MANAGEMENT PLANS

1. Risk Management Plan Risk Management is a systematic process of identifying, analyzing, and responding to risk for the planning analysis period (typically 50 years). A risk analysis is performed for four categories of project risk: scope, quality, schedule, and cost, and the level of detail of the risk analysis and Risk Management Plan is based on the complexity of the project. In the case of the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study, it will be the responsibility of the Project Delivery Team (PDT) to keep track of identified risks, identify new ones, determine if agreed upon responses to risks have been executed, and evaluate the effectiveness of risk response to reduce identified risks. This will be accomplished at quarterly District Support Team (DST) meetings where they will consider potential risks that could be associated with accomplishing the project’s activities, schedule, and fiscal resources, and evaluate and analyze each risk identified and determine the appropriate rating and severity (should the risk event occur) for each risk. 2. Change Management Plan This plan will be refined during the Feasibility Phase to include more information on revision triggers as determined by the PDT. The purpose of a Change Management Plan is to define and manage the project’s baseline performance measurement thresholds for scope, schedule, cost, quality, and risk and to determine if actual project performance has exceeded these thresholds. These baseline performance measurement thresholds are:

Baseline Performance Measurement Thresholds Scope Defined in Project Management Plan and by the WBS

Schedule Defined by schedule start and finish dates in project’s critical path Cost Defined by resource plan that reflects total project cost

Quality Defined by quality objectives Risk Defined by Customer requirements, resource availability, and schedule

Change requests can be presented in the form of verbal or informal requests, however, proposed changes should be formally recorded in order to facilitate the understanding of the intent of the proposed change. The Change Request Form (Enclosure F) provides a means of documenting the impact of the proposed changes and provides the rationale for approving changes that exceed the project’s baseline performance measurement thresholds. Change Request Forms will be coordinated with the members of the PDT as well as with the sponsor.

8-1

CHAPTER VIII PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PLAN

This plan will be refined by the PDT during the Feasibility Phase. 1. CESPD MILESTONES Two of the milestones in the CESPD milestone system have been established specifically for the purpose of providing a public forum to receive public input. The first of these is the initial public workshop. This workshop is an opportunity to present the study to the public, obtain input and public opinions, and fulfill the NEPA scoping meeting requirements. The second milestone in the system is the final public meeting. This meeting is after the release of the draft report for public review and is an opportunity to present the findings of the draft report to the public and receive public comment. 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES The Project Delivery Team (PDT) will use the following steps to develop a public communications plan, which will determine when additional public meetings should be held and what information should be disseminated: 1) Define issues that may have an impact on the project: What are the issues in the project environment that may impact it? The issues may involve economics; quality of life; institutional forces; political forces on the Tribal, Federal, state, and local level; environmental, heath, and safety issues; or cultural, technical, legal, or other issues. The PDT will brainstorm how these issues may affect the project. 2) Identify key stakeholders: The PDT will identify the groups that will be affected by or will affect the project, and determine what effects they will have. In identifying stakeholders, the PDT will consider geography, economics, quality of life, and political sensitivity. This information will be documented for PDT access. 3) Research stakeholders’ interests: To better understand expectations, problems, concerns, and issues associated with the project, the PDT will speak with local sponsors, lawmakers, regulators, communities, interest groups, and other members of the Corps. If necessary, the PDT will also review existing documents and conduct survey or focus groups. 4) Develop key messages: Key messages to the public concerning the project may address the following questions: What is the project doing about a problem or issue? What is the Corps’s position, and why? What is the status, progress, or limitation? What are the challenges, accomplishments, and partnerships unique to this project? 5) Outline steps to inform and initiate action: The PDT will select spokespersons, determine what meetings should occur and what communications tools and media should be used to disseminate information to the public. Public meetings will occur in conjunction with major milestones and events in the project. The PDT will coordinate with the Public Affairs office, and, where feasible, with third-party champions of the project. Key messages will be selected for each step. 6) Develop a media strategy: An active and/or passive strategy will be developed. An active strategy is a planned effort to initiate media interest and a passive strategy will enable the PDT to respond rapidly to media calls. The following procedures will be established:

8-2

Whom to call in an emergency, whom to refer reporters to for official comments, where media interviews should take place, how to report media calls, and whom to coordinate with. 7) Evaluate and update: The communication strategy will be evaluated based on the following criteria: 1) Did the communication strategy: a) allow the PDT to determine the playing field, b) allow the PDT to frame the issues, and c) help the PDT collaborate with its constituents? 2) Were the messages sent by the PDT used? 3) Was the majority of dialogue fact-based or emotional? 4) What was the overall impact? Based on the evaluation, the PDT will determine what will happen next.

G-1

ENCLOSURE A Letter of Intent

ENCLOSURE B Work Breakdown Structure and Study Cost Estimate

Table 1A: Feasibility Phase Work Breakdown Structure, Budget, and Responsibility for Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study (Detailed)

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTAL

Initiate Feasibility Phase (F1)Feas Study Pub Wkshp (F2)Feas Scoping Meeting (F3)Alternative Review Conf (F4)Date of AFB (F4A)Public Review of Draft Report (F5)Final Public Meeting (F6)Feasibility Review Conference (F7)Feasibility Report w\NEPA (F8)MSC Commander's Submittal (F9)Filing of Final EIS/EAChief's Report to ASA (CW)ROD SignedPresident Signs Authorization for WRDA

1 $69,910 $114,000 $183,910 $24,960 $0 $0 $24,960 $208,870

1.1Surveys, Mapping, and GIS (except Real Estate) (F3) $69,910 $85,000 $154,910 $9,600

1.1.1 Management of GIS Database $26,2601.1.2 Ground Survey1.1.3 Identify Infrastructure Elevations1.1.4 Process Data for DTM1.1.5 Manage GIS

1.2Surveys and Mapping for With-Project Conditions (F4) $15,000 $15,000 $2,880

1.3 Surveys and Mapping AFB Documentation (F4A) $5,000 $5,000 $9601.4 Surveys and Mapping for Draft Report (F5) $5,000 $5,000 $9,6001.5 Surveys and Mapping for Final Report (F8) $4,000 $4,000 $1,920

2 $433,385 $200,000 $633,385 $206,100 $0 $2,099,000 $2,305,100 $2,938,4852.0 ERDC or LA Coastal Support $0 $200,000 $200,000

2.1Hydraulics and Hydrology Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $220,893 $220,893 $98,220 $1,420,000 $1,518,220

2.1.1 Existing flood hazards detailed assessment $194,663 $889,000

2.1.2Without-project future flood hazard potential assessment $0 $431,000

2.1.3H&H input to initial measures formulation and screening for F3 conference $2,830 $6,000

2.1.4 H&H Without-Project Conditions Report $7,800 $94,0002.1.5 Reviews and QA/QC (H&H certification) $15,600

Task # Description

y pp g p Lead responsibility: Corps Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD), USGS, SFEI

Feasibility Report Milestones

Engineering Appendix

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

Feas - Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Water Resources, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD, ACFC&WCD)

08/15/05 4-5

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

2.2Hydraulics and Hydrology Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $157,531 $157,531 $54,480 $541,000 $595,480

2.2.1H&H input to post-F3 conference plan formulation refinements $4,531 $55,000

2.2.2 Alternatives evaluation (preliminary and final) $67,749 $387,000

2.2.3Environmental impact analysis of alternatives (with-project conditions) $35,114 $35,000

2.2.4 Design Support $42,937 $48,000

2.2.5QA/QC of H&H with-project analyses (F4 submittal) $7,200 $16,000

2.3 H&H analysis AFB documentation (F4A) $14,400 $14,400 $3,360 $22,000 $25,3602.4 Draft Report, H&H Appendix (F5) $10,400 $10,400 $8,400 $57,000 $65,4002.5 Final Report, H&H Appendix (F8) $5,200 $5,200 $2,800 $29,000 $31,8002.6 H&H Coordination Meetings $0 $25,400 $30,000 $55,4002.7 FEMA Coordination $24,960 $24,960 $13,940 $13,940

3 $82,390 $82,390 $76,560 $0 $319,000 $395,560 $477,950

3.1Geotechnical Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $33,755 $33,755 $32,040 $130,000

3.1.1 Preliminary levee assessment $33,755 $84,0003.1.2 Detailed levee assessment $41,0003.1.3 QA/QC of geotech F3 submittal $5,000

3.2Geotechnical Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $31,635 $31,635 $31,000 $127,000

3.2.1Measures formulation and screening, geotech input $2,750 $18,000

3.2.2Geotech input to H&H with-project alternatives evaluation (preliminary and final alternatives) $9,750 $88,000

3.2.3Geotech input on alternative impact analysis (with-project conditions) $1,130 $8,000

3.2.4 Geotech input to civil design $8,000

3.2.5QA/QC of geotech with-project conditions (F4) submittal $5,000

3.3 Geotechnical Analysis AFB Documentation (F4A) $6,000 $6,000 $3,120 $4,0003.4 Draft Report, Geotechnical Appendix (F5) $5,500 $5,500 $7,800 $41,0003.5 Final Report, Geotechnical Appendix (F8) $5,500 $5,500 $2,600 $17,000

Feas - Geotechnical Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

08/15/05 4-6

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

4 $706,000 $0 $706,000 $96,800 $0 $0 $96,800 $802,800

4.1Engineering and Design Input to Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $15,000 $15,000 $4,760

4.2Engineering and Design for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $515,000 $515,000 $57,100

4.2.1 Measures formulation/array of alternatives $50,0004.2.2 Preliminary design $105,0004.2.3 More detailed design $360,000

4.3 Engineering and Design AFB Documentation (F4A) $26,000 $26,000 $5,320

4.3.1Refine design based on input from F3 conference $26,000

4.4 Draft Report, Engineering Appendix (F5) $100,000 $100,000 $21,2204.5 Final Report, Engineering Appendix (F8) $50,000 $50,000 $8,400

5 $109,680 $0 $109,680 $19,500 $0 $0 $19,500 $129,180

5.1Socioeconomic Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $52,350 $52,350

5.1.1 Recreation market and demand definition $6,2005.1.2 Economics background $1,9505.1.3 Property inventory/valuation $39,0005.1.4 F3 Documentation/Appendix $5,200

5.2Socioeconomic Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans* (F4) $35,230 $35,230

5.2.1 Economic analysis of recreation components $4,550

5.2.2Economic input to cost effectiveness (CE)/incremental cost analysis (ICA) $13,000

5.2.3 Economic input to NED/NER trade-off analysis $10,4005.2.4 Economics input to cost allocation $2,0805.2.5 F4 Documentation/Appendix $5,200

5.3 Socioeconomic analyses AFB documentation (F4A) $2,600 $2,6005.4 Draft Report, Economics Input (F5) $10,400 $10,4005.5 Final Report, Economics Input (F8) $2,600 $2,6005.6 Economics Annual Re-evaluation $6,500 $6,500

Feas - Engineering and Design Analysis/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Civil Design Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor

Feas - Socioeconomic Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor

08/15/05 4-7

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

6 $125,450 $0 $125,450 $17,920 $0 $0 $17,920 $143,370

6.1Real Estate Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $41,600 $41,600

6.1.1 Real estate mapping $3,250

6.1.2Review for land ownership and credits issue resolution $20,150

6.1.3Initial real estate cost estimate pond groupings gross appraisal $15,080

6.1.4Resolution of differences in multiple cost appraisals $3,120

6.2Real Estate Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $20,150 $20,150

6.2.1

Lands, easements, right-of-ways, relocations and disposal areas (LERRD’s) description - mapping of alternatives $3,900

6.2.2

Real estate cost estimate (preliminary market study and gross appraisal/land value cost estimates) preparation $12,350

6.2.3Real Estate Plan preparation (draft for F4 package) $3,900

6.3 Real Estate Plan AFB Documentation (F4A) $2,600 $2,6006.4 Draft Report, Real Estate (F5) $55,900 $55,900

6.4.1Mapping for rights-of-entry for HTRW, archaelogical, and geotechnical testing $2,600

6.4.2 Acquire rights-of-entry for testing $3,9006.4.3 Real estate mapping of "selected" plan $2,6006.4.4 Preparation of gross appraisal $35,1006.4.5 Taking analysis $1,3006.4.6 Preliminary compensable interest reports $3,9006.4.7 MCACES (real estate) $1,300

6.4.8Preparation of Real Estate Plan for Draft Feasibility Report $5,200

6.5 Final Report, Real Estate (F8) $5,200 $5,2006.5.1 Chief of Real Estate Division’s endorsement

6.5.2Preparation of Real Estate Plan for Final Feasibility Report $5,200

Feas - Real Estate Analysis/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Real Estate Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor

08/15/05 4-8

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

7 $308,370 $120,000 $428,370 $51,780 $0 $504,000 $555,780 $984,150

7.1Environmental (Habitat) Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $64,730 $20,000 $84,730 $90,000 $90,000

7.1.1 Habitat assessments - existing conditions $5,850 $50,0007.1.2 HEP and other tools $30,420 $20,000 $30,000

7.1.3Environmental appendix preparation (Environmental Setting Report) $28,460 $10,000

7.2Environmental (Habitat) Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $110,370 $100,000 $210,370 $395,000 $395,000

7.2.1 Landscape-level modeling $8,840 $200,0007.2.2 HEP and other tools $60,320 $125,0007.2.3 Input to Adaptive Management Plan $18,460 $70,0007.2.4 Endangered Species Consultation $18,980 $100,000 $0

7.2.5 Support and input for incremental cost analysis $3,770 $0

7.3Environmental (Habitat) Studies AFB Documentation (F4A) $5,850 $0 $5,850 $2,000 $2,000

7.4 USFWS - Coordination Act Report (CAR) $127,420 $0 $127,420 $17,000 $17,000

7.4.1Draft Report (USFWS Coordination Act Report) (F5) $91,880 $91,880 $12,000

7.4.2Final Report (USFWS Coordination Act Report) (F8) $35,540 $35,540 $5,000

8 $77,480 $0 $77,480 $396,800 $0 $672,000 $1,068,800 $1,146,280

8.1Environmental (Non-Habitat/CAR) Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $18,200 $18,200 $33,400 $55,000 $88,400

8.1.1Water and sediment quality (under without-project conditions) $13,000 $16,700 $30,000

8.1.2Environmental Appendix (Environmental Setting Report) $5,200 $16,700 $25,000

8.2Environmental (Non-Habitat/CAR) Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $54,600 $54,600 $363,400 $605,000 $968,400

8.2.1Water and sediment quality (under with-project conditions) $19,240 $16,700 $85,000

8.2.2Mercury management input to alternatives formulation $11,700 $330,000 $450,000

8.2.2a Pond A8 Applied Study $0 $08.2.2b Mercury monitoring $0 $0

8.2.2.1 Mercury Surveys and Analysis

8.2.3Environmental studies input to Adaptive Management Plan $23,660 $16,700 $70,000

8.3Environmental Studies (non-EIS/R) Evaluation AFB Documentation (F4A) $520 $520 $0 $2,000 $2,000

8.4 Draft Report, Environmental Appendix (F5) $2,080 $2,080 $0 $5,000 $5,000

8.5 Final Report, Environmental Appendix (F8) $2,080 $2,080 $0 $5,000 $5,000

Feas - Environmental Studies/Report: Habitat/Coordination Act Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Environmental, USFWS, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

pHabitat/CAR Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Environmental Sciences, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

08/15/05 4-9

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

9 $29,120 $74,000 $103,120 $25,780 $0 $0 $25,780 $128,900

9.1HTRW Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $7,800 $15,000 $22,800

9.1.1 Phase I Assessment $7,800 $15,000

9.2HTRW Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $16,900 $48,000 $64,900

9.2.1 Phase II Assessment $9,100 $33,0009.2.2 Phase II Assessment of impacts $7,800 $15,000

9.3 HTRW AFB Documentation (F4A) $260 $1,000 $1,260

9.4HTRW Input to Draft Report, Environmental Appendix (F5) $2,080 $5,000 $7,080

9.5HTRW Input to Final Report, Environmental Appendix (F8) $2,080 $5,000 $7,080

10 $40,820 $141,000 $181,820 $8,750 $0 $0 $8,750 $190,570

10.1Cultural Resources Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $30,420 $76,000 $106,420

10.1.1Corps Review of SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report $1,040

10.1.2 Input to Scoping Meeting $1,040

10.1.3Section 106 Consultation with State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) $13,520 $3,000

10.1.4Consultation with Tribes & Other Consulting Parties $5,200 $7,000

10.1.5Cultural resources surveys/research and summary report for F3 package $4,160 $66,000

10.1.6 Cultural resources fieldwork verification site visit $5,460

10.2Cultural Resources Evaluation for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $5,200 $43,000 $48,200

10.2.1Draft Historic Properties Survey Report and Other Cultural Resources Documentation* $1,300 $43,000

10.2.2 Treatment Plan and Memorandum $3,90010.3 Cultural Resources AFB Documentation (F4A) $1,040 $2,000 $3,04010.4 Draft Report, Cultural Resources (F5) $1,040 $9,000 $10,040

10.5Final Public Meeting, Cultural Resources Involvement (F6) $1,040 $7,000 $8,040

10.6 Final Report, Cultural Resources (F8) $1,040 $4,000 $5,040

10.7Cultural Resources Support for Division Engineer's Public Notice (F9) $1,040 $1,040

Feas - HTRW Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor

Feas - Cultural Resources Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences

08/15/05 4-10

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

11 $393,120 $12,000 $405,120 $25,760 $0 $0 $25,760 $430,880

11.1Cost Estimates for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $218,400 $1,500 $219,900

11.1.1 Unit costs development $93,600 $1,50011.1.2 Preliminary cost estimate development $119,600

11.1.3Preliminary cost estimate review - response to comments $5,200

11.2Cost Estimates for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans* (F4) $132,080 $6,000 $138,080

11.2.1Cost estimating input to Adaptive Management Plan $10,400

11.2.2Cost estimating coordination on real estate cost estimate $5,200

11.2.3 Cost estimate for final array of plans $67,600

11.2.4Total current working estimate (CWE) for preferred plans $46,800

11.2.5Cost estimating coordination on economic analyses $2,080

11.3Cost Estimating/MCACES AFB Documentation (F4A) $26,000 $1,500 $27,500

11.4 Draft Report, MCACES (F5) $10,400 $1,500 $11,90011.5 Final Report, MCACES (F8) $5,200 $1,500 $6,70011.6 MCACES Certification $1,040 $1,040

Lead responsibility: Corps Cost Estimating Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

08/15/05 4-11

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

12 $201,630 $829,040 $1,030,670 $70,500 $0 $107,120 $177,620 $1,208,290

12.1NEPA Compliance for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $34,060 $153,100 $187,160

12.1.1Corps Review of SBSP Restoration Project Environmental Setting Report

12.1.2 NEPA Scoping

12.1.3 Shoreline Study Environmental Setting Report*

12.2NEPA Compliance for With-Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) $0 $100,100 $100,100

12.2.1

Identification of SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R Alternative Themes for Shoreline Study Alternative Formulation

12.2.2Preliminary impact assessment of SBSP Restoration Project alternatives

12.2.3Alternatives refinement for the Shoreline Study EIS/R*

12.2.4Preliminary impact assessment of Shoreline Study alternatives

12.3 Draft EIS/R (F5) $34,060 $276,100 $310,160

12.3.1Corps Review of SBSP Restoration Project Draft EIS/R*

12.3.2 Shoreline Study Draft EIS/R12.4 Final EIS/R (F8) $45,240 $172,800 $218,040

12.4.1Corps Review of SBSP Restoration Project Final EIS/R*

12.4.2 Shoreline Study Final EIS/R*

12.5 Corps input to Records of Decision (RODs) $8,320 $5,000 $13,320

12.5.1 SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R RODs12.5.2 Shoreline Study EIS/R RODs

12.6 Regulatory Coordination and Permitting $79,950 $0 $79,95012.6.1 Permitting for the SBSP Restoration Project EIS/R12.6.2 Permitting for the Shoreline Study EIS/R

12.7Recreation and Public Access for the Shoreline Study EIS/R $0 $81,900 $81,900

12.8 NEPA Meetings and Administrative $0 $40,040 $40,040

13 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $22,600 $0 $379,330 $401,930 $451,930

13.1Public Involvement for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3) $10,000 $10,000

13.2 Public Involvement AFB documentation (F4A) $30,000 $30,00013.3 Final Public Meeting (F6) $10,000 $10,000

Feas - Public Involvement Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Environmental Planning, Project Management, Plan Formulation, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas NEPA Compliance Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Planning, Project Management, Plan Formulation Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

08/15/05 4-12

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

14 $1,133,600 $0 $1,133,600 $276,400 $0 $512,500 $788,900 $1,922,500

14.1Plan Formulation and Evaluation for Without-Project Conditions & Preliminary Plans (F3)

14.1.1 Existing conditions14.1.2 Forecast future without-project conditions

14.1.3Preparation for (pre-F3) Issue Resolution Conference(s) (IRC)

14.1.4 Measures and Preliminary Plans14.1.5 Preparation for F3 conference

14.2Plan Formulation and Evaluation for Preliminary Plans (post-F3)

14.2.1Post F3-conference refinements of without-project conditions and plan formulation

14.2.2 Adaptive Management Plan development

14.3Plan Formulation, Evaluation, & Comparison for Final Plans (F4)

14.3.1Preparation for Issue Resolution Conference (IRC) for final alternatives

14.3.2

Single purpose plan evaluation and comparison (cost effectiveness (CE) and incremental cost analysis (ICA))

14.3.3Combined purpose plan evaluation and comparison (CE, ICA, and trade-off analysis)

14.3.4 Cost allocation14.3.5 Plan selection14.3.6 Formulation of recreation components14.3.7 Preparation of F4 package

14.4Plan Formulation and Evaluation Alternatives Formulation Briefing (F4A)

14.4.1Plan selection rationale and post-F4 refinements

14.4.2Refinement of recommended plans based on F4A conference

14.4.3 Cost apportionment

14.4.4Responsibilities of Federal and non-Federal sponsors

14.4.5 Preparation of AFB package (F4A)14.5 Draft Feasibility Report (F5)

14.6Preparation for feasibility review conference (FRC; F7)

14.7 Final Feasibility Report (F8)14.8 Support to Division Commander's Submittal (F9)

15 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,00015.1 Documentation for F3 Package $015.2 Documentation for F4 Package $015.3 Documentation for AFB (F4A) Package $0

15.4 Draft Feasibility Report Printing and Assembly (F5) $50,000 $50,000

15.5 Final Feasibility Report Printing and Assembly (F8) $50,000 $50,000

Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Planning Documentation Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation

08/15/05 4-13

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

16 $400,000 $0 $400,000 $2,080 $2,080 $0 $4,160 $404,16016.0 Techical Review Strategy Session $15,000 $15,000 $2,080 $2,080 $4,160

16.1F3 Package Independent Technical Review (ITR) and Documentation $40,000 $40,000

16.2 Value Engineering Study and Report (F4) $50,000 $50,00016.3 F4 Package ITR and Documentation $60,000 $60,00016.4 AFB (F4A) Package ITR and Documentation $30,000 $30,00016.5 Draft Report ITR (F5) $30,000 $30,00016.6 Final Report ITR (F8) $15,000 $15,00016.7 External Peer Review $165,000 $165,00016.8 Model Certification Except H&H $40,000 $40,000

17Feas - Washington Level Report Approval (Review Support) $100,000 $0 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $20,000 $120,000

18 $1,208,777 $0 $1,208,777 $878,000 $369,355 $0 $1,247,355 $2,456,13218.1 Project Management and Budget $864,709 $864,709 $169,225

18.1.1Programs and Project Management to F3 Milestone $318,594 $318,594

18.1.2Programs and Project Management to F4 Milestone $196,371 $196,371

18.1.3Programs and Project Management AFB Documentation (F4A) $75,566 $75,566

18.1.4Programs and Project Management to Draft Report (F5) $77,806 $77,806

18.1.5Programs and Project Management to Final Report (F8) $196,371 $196,371

18.1.6Programs and Project Management to DE's Submittal (F9) $0 $0

18.2 Supervision and Administration $292,469 $292,469 $142,408

18.2.1Planning Branch Supervision and Administration $133,049

18.2.2Engineering Branch Supervision and Administration $80,745

18.2.3Engineering and Technical Services Division Supervision and Administration $52,734

18.2.4 PPMD Supervision and Administration $25,94118.3 Office of Counsel $51,600 $51,600 $57,722

18.3.1

Office of Counsel Support to F3 Milestone (Without-Project Conditions and Preliminary Plans) $24,000 $24,000

18.3.2Office of Counsel Support to F4 Milestone (With-Project Conditions) $0 $0

18.3.3Office of Counsel Support to F4A Milestone (AFB) $3,600 $3,600

18.3.4Office of Counsel Support to F5 Milestone (Draft Report) $12,000 $12,000

18.3.5Office of Counsel Support to F8 Milestone (Final Report) $12,000 $12,000

Feas - Independent Technical Review (ITR) Lead responsibility: Corps ITR Team Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (Science Team), Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

g Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor

08/15/05 4-14

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

19 $149,619 $0 $149,619 $59,454 $19,072 $44,592 $123,117 $272,73620 $257,735 $149,004 $406,739 $102,121 $0 $370,112 $472,233 $878,972

21 $79,000 $0 $79,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $89,000

22 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $120,000

23 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $25,000$6,176,086 $1,639,044 $7,815,130 $2,406,865 $400,507 $5,007,654 $7,815,025 $15,630,155

Assumptions:

* Corps hourly billing rate: $130

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE:

Project Mangement Plan (PMP) Updates Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management Support/review role: Corps Plan Formulation PMP for PED Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation and Project ManagementPED Cost Sharing Agreement Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management and Non-Federal Sponsor (CSCC,

* Contingencies are 10% for technical tasks and 5% for non-technical tasks.

5% Contingency for Management/Non-Technical Tasks (13 through 18)% g y (through 12)

0* For applicable NEPA/CEQA tasks, budget for NFS (Consultant) support/review role is 10% of budget for Corps lead role.

08/15/05 4-15

Table 1B: Feasibility Phase Work Breakdown Structure, Budget, and Responsibility for Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study (Summary 1)

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTAL

1 $69,910 $114,000 $183,910 $24,960 $0 $0 $24,960 $208,870

2 $433,385 $200,000 $633,385 $206,100 $0 $2,099,000 $2,305,100 $2,938,485

3 $82,390 $0 $82,390 $76,570 $0 $319,000 $395,560 $477,950

4 $706,000 $0 $706,000 $96,800 $0 $0 $96,800 $802,800

5 $109,680 $0 $109,680 $19,500 $0 $0 $19,500 $129,180

6 $125,450 $0 $125,450 $17,920 $0 $0 $17,920 $143,370

7 $308,370 $120,000 $428,370 $51,780 $0 $504,000 $555,780 $984,150

8 $77,480 $0 $77,480 $396,800 $0 $672,000 $1,068,800 $1,146,280

9 $29,120 $74,000 $103,120 $25,780 $0 $0 $25,780 $128,900

10 $40,820 $141,000 $181,820 $8,750 $0 $0 $8,750 $190,570

11 $393,120 $12,000 $405,120 $25,760 $0 $0 $25,760 $430,880

12 $201,630 $829,040 $1,030,670 $70,500 $0 $107,120 $177,620 $1,208,290

13 $50,000 $0 $50,000 $22,600 $0 $379,330 $401,930 $451,930

14 $1,133,600 $0 $1,133,600 $276,400 $0 $512,500 $788,900 $1,922,500

15 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $0 $0 $0 $0 $100,000

16 $395,000 $0 $400,000 $2,080 $2,080 $0 $4,160 $404,160

17 Feas - Washington Level Report Approval (Review Support) $100,000 $0 $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $0 $20,000 $120,000

18 $1,208,777 $0 $1,208,777 $878,000 $369,355 $0 $1,247,355 $2,456,132

Task # Description

Feas - Surveys and Mapping except Real Estate Lead responsibility: Corps Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD), USGS, SFEI

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

Feas - Engineering and Design Analysis/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Civil Design Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Water Resources, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD, ACFC&WCD)

Feas - Socioeconomic Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - Real Estate Analysis/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Real Estate Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Geotechnical Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD) Support/review role: Corps Geosciences

Feas - HTRW Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Cultural Resources Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Plan Formulation and Evaluation Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - Planning Documentation Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation

Feas - Independent Technical Review (ITR) Lead responsibility: Corps ITR Team Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (Science Team), Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Public Involvement Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Environmental Planning, Project Management, Plan Formulation, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Environmental Studies/Report: Habitat/Coordination Act Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Environmental, USFWS, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - Environmental Studies/Report: Non-Habitat/CAR Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Environmental Sciences, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Management Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (CSCC, SCVWD)

Feas - Cost Estimates Lead responsibility: Corps Cost Estimating Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - NEPA Compliancea

Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Planning, Project Management, Plan Formulation Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

08/15/05 4-5

Corps Staff (SF District)

Consultants, FWS, Other

Districts TOTAL CORPS SCVWD Staff CSCC Staff ConsultantsTOTAL NON

FEDERAL TOTALTask # Description

Estimated Cost: Corps Estimated Cost: Non-Federal Sponsors

19 $149,619 $0 $149,619 $59,454 $18,968 $44,592 $123,117 $272,73620 $257,735 $149,004 $406,739 $102,121 $0 $370,112 $472,233 $878,972

21 $79,000 $0 $79,000 $10,000 $0 $0 $10,000 $89,000

22 $100,000 $0 $100,000 $20,000 $0 $0 $20,000 $120,000

23 $20,000 $0 $20,000 $5,000 $0 $0 $5,000 $25,000$6,176,086 $1,639,044 $7,815,130 $2,406,875 $400,507 $5,007,654 $7,815,025 $15,630,155

Assumptions:

* Corps hourly billing rate: $130

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE:

Project Mangement Plan (PMP) Updates Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management Support/review role: Corps Plan Formulation /Non-Federal SponsorPMP for PED Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation and Project Management Support/review role: Non-Federal SponsorPED Cost Sharing Agreement Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management and Non-Federal Sponsor (CSCC, SCVWD)

* Contingencies are 10% for technical tasks and 5% for non-technical tasks.

5% Contingency for Management/Non-Technical Tasks (13 through 18)10% Contingency for Technical Tasks (1 through 12)

* Plan formulation costs are two Corps planners at 120%, and the one Consultant Team planner at 50% through F3 and 100% from F4 to F9.* For applicable NEPA/CEQA tasks, budget for NFS (Consultant) support/review role is 10% of budget for Corps lead role.

08/15/05 4-6

Table 1C: Feasibility Phase Work Breakdown Structure, Budget, and Responsibility for Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study (Summary 2)

TOTAL CORPS TOTAL

1 $183,910 $24,960 $208,870

2 $633,385 $206,100 $2,099,000 $2,938,485

3 $82,390 $76,570 $319,000 $477,960

4 $706,000 $96,800 $802,800

5 $109,680 $19,500 $129,180

6 $125,450 $17,920 $143,370

7 $428,370 $51,780 $504,000 $984,150

8 $77,480 $396,800 $672,000 $1,146,280

9 $103,120 $25,780 $128,900

10 $181,820 $8,750 $190,570

11 $405,120 $25,760 $430,880

12 $1,030,670 $70,500 $107,120 $1,208,290

13 $50,000 $22,600 $379,330 $451,930

14 $1,133,600 $276,400 $512,500 $1,922,500

15 $100,000 $0 $100,000

16 $400,000 $2,080 $2,080 $404,160

17 Feas - Washington Level Report Approval (Review Support) $100,000 $10,000 $10,000 $120,000

18 $1,208,777 $878,000 $369,355 $2,456,13219 $149,619 $59,454 $63,560 $272,73620 $406,739 $102,121 $370,112 $878,972

21 $79,000 $10,000 $89,000

22 $100,000 $20,000 $120,000

23 $20,000 $5,000 $25,000$7,815,130 $2,406,865 $5,408,160 $15,630,155

* - Shaded row indicates lead responsibility among non-Federal sponsors

5% Contingency for Management/Non-Technical Tasks (13 through 18)10% Contingency for Technical Tasks (1 through 12)

Feas - Environmental Studies/Report: Habitat/Coordination Act Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor - CSCC Support/review role: Corps Environmental, USFWS, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - Environmental Studies/Report: Non-Habitat/CAR Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor - CSCC Support/review role: Corps Environmental Sciences, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Management Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (CSCC, SCVWD)

Feas - Cost Estimates Lead responsibility: Corps Cost Estimating Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - NEPA Compliancea

Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Planning, Project Management, Plan Formulation Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - HTRW Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - Cultural Resources Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Environmental Sciences Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

TOTAL COST ESTIMATE:

Project Mangement Plan (PMP) Updates Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management Support/review role: Corps Plan Formulation /Non-Federal SponsorPMP for PED Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation and Project Management Support/review role: Non-Federal SponsorPED Cost Sharing Agreement Lead responsibility: Corps Project Management and Non-Federal Sponsor (CSCC, SCVWD) Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor

Feas - Plan Formulation and Evaluation Lead responsibility: Corps Plan Formulation CSCC Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - Planning Documentation Lead responsibility: Corps Plan FormulationFeas - Independent Technical Review (ITR) Lead responsibility: Corps ITR Team Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (Science Team), Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Surveys and Mapping except Real Estate Lead responsibility: Corps Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD), USGS, SFEI

Feas - Public Involvement Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor -CSCC Support/review role: Corps Environmental Planning, Project Management, Plan Formulation, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Engineering and Design Analysis/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Civil Design Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Hydrology and Hydraulics Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Non-Federal Sponsor Support/review role: Corps Water Resources, Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD, ACFC&WCD)

Feas - Socioeconomic Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)Feas - Real Estate Analysis/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Real Estate Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Feas - Geotechnical Studies/Report Lead responsibility: Corps Geotechnical Support/review role: Non-Federal Sponsor (SCVWD)

Task # Description

TOTAL NON FEDERAL SCVWD

CSCC*

08/15/05 4-5

ENCLOSURE C

CESPD MILESTONE SYSTEM FEASIBILITY PHASE MILESTONES FOR FEASIBILITY PHASE PROJECTS

MILESTONE NAME DESCRIPTION Initiate Feasibility Phase SPD Milestone F12 - This is the date the district receives Federal feasibility phase study funds. Feas Study Pub Wkshp (F2) SPD Milestone F2 – This is a Public

Meeting/Workshop to inform the public and obtain input, public opinions and fulfill scoping requirements for NEPA purposes.

Feas Study Conf #1 (F3) SPD Milestone F3 – The Feasibility Scoping

Meetin with HQUSACE to address potential changes in the PMP. It will establish without project conditions and screen preliminary plans.

Feas Study Conf #2 (F4) SPD Milestone F4 – The Alternative Review

Conference will evaluate the final plans, reach a consensus that the evaluations are adequate to select a plan and prepare AFB issues.

Date of AFB SPD Milestone F4A - Alternative Formulation

Briefing (AFB) is for policy compliance review of the proposed plan with HQUSACE to identify actions required to prepare and release the draft report.

Public Review of Draft Report SPD Milestone F5 - Initiation of field level

coordination of the draft report with concurrent submittal to HQUSACE through SPD for policy compliance review.

Final Public Meeting SPD Milestone F6 - Date of the final public

meeting. Feasibility Review Conference SPD Milestone F7 - Policy compliance review of

the draft report with HQUSACE to identify actions that are required to complete the final report.

Feasibility Report w\NEPA SPD Milestone F8 - Date of submittal of final report

package to CESPD-ET-P, including technical and legal certifications, compliance memorandum and other required documentation.

Division Engineer’s Submittal SPD Milestone F9 - Date of issue of the Division

Engineer’s Submittal of the Final Decision Document. Congressional notification would occur two days prior. The report and supporting documentation would be forwarded to HQUSACE. This milestone is used as the completion of the feasibility report in the CMR.

Filing of Final EIS/EA Date that the notice appears in the Federal Register.

Letters for filing would be furnished by HQUSACE.

Chief’s Report to ASA (CW) Date of the signed report of the Chief of Engineers. ROD Signed or FONSI Signed Date that the ROD is signed by the ASA(CW) when

forwarded for authorization. President Signs Authorization Date President signs authorizing legislation.

ENCLOSURE D

Study Area

S an Mateo B ridge

F R E MONT

MILP IT AS

MOUNT AINV IE W

P ALOALT O

S ANC AR LOS

F OS T E RC IT Y

UNIONC IT Y

Dumbarto

n Brid

ge

S AN MATE O

CO

UNTY

S ANTA CLAR A C

OUNTY

101

280

8284

92

237

880

ALAME DA COUNTY

S ANTA CLAR A C

OUNTY

680

262

880

84

238

92

Ravenswood

Redwood CitySub-Area

Menlo ParkSub-Area

Palo Alto /Mountain ViewSub-Area

(West Bay)

MoselyTract

Alviso

EdenLanding(Baumberg)

Planning Area A(Existing SBSP)

Planning Area B(Outside SBSP, withinShoreline Study

General Impact Assessment Area

Potential Study Boundary(Generally based on 100-year tide line)

Bair Island (Potential Restoration Project)

San FrancisquitoCreek Flood ControlProject (Under Study)

J2

Alameda Creek Flood Control Project

Redwood City Harbor Project

SunnyvaleWPCP

Moffett Field

Coyote and Berryessa CreekFlood ControlProject

A4

E3CRelated Project Areas

Figure 1. Shoreline Study Project AreaLEGEND

East Palo AltoSub-Area

A18

Guadalupe RiverProject

Alameda County Sub-Area

S an Mateo B ridge

F R E MONT

MILP IT AS

MOUNT AINV IE W

P ALOALT O

S ANC AR LOS

F OS T E RC IT Y

UNIONC IT Y

Dumbarton B

ridge

S AN MATE O C

OUNTY

S ANTA CLAR A C

OUNTY

101

280

8284

92

237

880

ALAME DA C OUNTY

S ANTA C LAR A C OUNTY

680

262

880

84

238

92

Alameda CountyCargill Ponds

Eden Landing

Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County

Figure 2. Shoreline Study Interim Feasibility Study Boundaries

Ravenswood Ponds and San Mateo County

ENCLOSURE E

PROJECT SCHEDULE This placeholder schedule shows linkages between work products and disciplines, and

will be replaced with an NAS-generated schedule.

ENCLOSURE F

CHANGE REQUEST FORM

Change Request Form Project: Request No.: ______ Date of Request: _____________ Change Description: Justification: Description of Impact:

Coordination DST Review/Approval: Approved date: ________ Disapproved date: __________ Sponsor Review/Approval: Approved date: ________ Disapproved date: ___________

Resolution of Change Approved date: _____________ Disapproved date: _____________

ENCLOSURE G

QUALITY CONTROL CERTIFICATION

COMPLETION OF QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES The District has completed the Project Management Plan for the South San Francisco Shoreline, Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study. All quality control activities defined in the generic quality control plan for Feasibility-Phase products have been completed. Compliance with clearly established policy principles and procedures, utilizing justified and valid assumptions, has been verified, including whether the PMP meets the non-Federal sponsors needs and is consistent with law and existing Corps policy. All issues and concerns resulting from the independent technical review of the PMP have been resolved. CERTIFICATION Certification is hereby given that 1) the independent technical review process for this PMP has been completed, 2) all issues have been addressed, 3) the streamlining initiatives proposed in this PMP will result in a technically adequate product, and 4) appropriate quality control plan requirements have been adequately incorporated into this PMP. In summary, the study may proceed into the Feasibility Phase in accordance with this PMP. ______________ ____________________________ Date Chief, Planning Branch

F-1

ENCLOSURE H

LIST OF ACRONYMS ACFCWCD Alameda County Flood Control and Water Conservation District AFB Alternative Formulation Briefing AM Adaptive Management BA Biological Assessment BCDC San Francisco Bay Conservation and Development Commission CAR Coordination Act Report CDFG California State Department of Fish and Game CE Cost Effectiveness CEFMS Corps of Engineers Financial Management System CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CESPD South Pacific Division (also SPD) CFR Code of Federal Regulations COE Corps of Engineers (also Corps, USACE) CRHR California Register of Historic Resources CSCC California State Coastal Conservancy CT Contract Administration Section CWE Current Working Estimate DE Division Engineer (Division Commander) DPR Department of Parks and Recreation DTM Digital Terrain Model EA Environmental Assessment

F-2

EC Engineering Circular ED Civil Design Section EIS Environmental Impact Statement EIR Environmental Impact Report EM Engineering Manual or Environmental Manager EP Engineering Pamphlet EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPR External Peer Review ER Engineering Regulation ESR Environmental Setting Report ET Engineering and Technical Services Division EW Water Resources Section FDA Food and Drug Administration FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FRC Feasibility Review Conference FTE Full-Time Equivalent FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service GIS Geographic Information System GPS Global Positioning System H&H Hydrology and Hydraulics HABS Historic American Building Survey HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedure

F-3

HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste ICA Incremental Cost Analysis IDIQ Indefinite Delivery Indefinite Quantity IGE Independent Government Estimate IPR In Progress Review IRC Issue Resolution Conference ISP Initial Stewardship Plan ITR Independent Technical Review IWR Institute for Water Resources LERRDS Lands, Easements, Relocations, Rights of Way, and Disposal Sites LPP Locally Preferred Plan MCACES Microcomputer Assisted Cost Estimating System MSC Major Subordinate Command NAHC Native American Historic Commission NAS Network Analysis System NCDC National Climate Data Center NED National Economic Development NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NER National Environmental Restoration NFS Non-Federal Sponsor NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration

F-4

NOI Notice of Intent NOS National Ocean Service NWIC Northwest Information Center O&M Operation and Maintenance OBS Organizational Breakdown Structure OMB Office of Management & Budget P&G Water Resources Council’s Principles and Guidelines PAR Planning Aid Report PCA Project Cooperation Agreement PCB Polychlorinated Biphenyl PCX Planning Center of Expertise PDT Project Delivery Team PED Pre-construction Engineering and Design PF Plan Formulation Section PM Project Manager; Project Management Section PMBP Project Management Business Process PMP Project Management Plan PMT Project Management Team PP Environmental Section PPMD Programs and Project Management Division PRBO Point Reyes Bird Observatory PROMIS Project Management Information System PSP Project study plan (now referred to as a PMP)

F-5

QA Quality Assurance QC Quality Control QCP Quality Control Plan QMP Quality Management Plan RAM Responsibility Assignment Matrix RE Real Estate RIT Regional Integration Team ROD Record of Decision RWQCB Regional Water Quality Control Board S&A Supervision and Administration SBSP South Bay Salt Ponds SBSP Restoration Project South Bay Salt Ponds Restoration Project SCVWD Santa Clara Valley Water District SHPO State Historic Preservation Office SOW Scope of Work SPD South Pacific Division (CESPD) TCP Traditional Cultural Property UDV Unit Day Value USACE US Army Corps of Engineers USGS US Geological Survey VE Value Engineering WBS Work Breakdown Structure WRDA Water Resources Development Act

F-6