san francisquito creek flood damage reduction & … · 2019-07-26 · san francisquito creek...

SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK

FLOOD DAMAGE REDUCTION & ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION General Investigations Program

SAN MATEO & SANTA CLARA COUNTIES, CA

PROPOSED

FEASIBILITY PHASE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

San Francisco District South Pacific Division

Date: September 27, 2005

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Purpose of Document This Project Management Plan (PMP) outlines the study approach and methodology for

the San Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study. The PMP presents the scopes of work, schedules, and budgets for the technical support. The PMP reduces uncertainties by providing clearly defined roles and task descriptions and forms the basis for managing and monitoring the project. This PMP is not intended to be inclusive, nor is it intended to anticipate or include all possible changes to the project during execution. It is, however, a dynamic "living" document that requires periodic update.

The PMP fulfills one of the requirements of the Reconnaissance Phase of a Corps General Investigations Study. The objectives of the Reconnaissance Phase are to (1) determine if the problem(s) under investigation warrant Federal participation in a Feasibility Study; (2) define the Federal Interest; (3) complete a 905(b) analysis that documents (1) and (2); (4) prepare a Project Management Plan (PMP); (5) assess the level of interest and support for the non-Federal Sponsor; and (6) negotiate and execute a Federal Cost Share Agreement (FCSA).

This PMP includes the Section 905(b) Analysis as Enclosure A of the document and provides a summary and update of the 905(b)’s findings in Chapter 3.

Study Overview

The San Francisquito Creek watershed encompasses an area of approximately 45

square miles, extending from the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the San Francisco Bay in California. Most of the watershed lies in the Santa Cruz Mountains and Bay Foothills northwest of Palo Alto; the remaining 7.5 square miles lie on the San Francisquito alluvial fan near the San Francisco Bay.

The study area begins at Searsville Dam on Lower Corte Madera Creek and continues

down San Francisquito Creek to San Francisco Bay and includes the alluvial fan area between the railroad trestle in Menlo Park and Matadero Creek. The non-Federal Sponsor has asked that two adjacent areas subject to tidal flooding be scoped. Those reaches are from the railroad trestle to the Menlo Park city limits in San Mateo County (Option 1 Tidal Area), and from Matadero Creek to Adobe Creek in Santa Clara County (Option 2 Tidal Area).

The anticipated planning objectives for this study are to: reduce fluvial flood damages, reduce tidal flooding; reduce the threat to public safety due to flooding; incorporate a watershed perspective; and restore ecosystem quality and function where possible. These objectives may be subject to change as the study evolves.

The investigation documented in the 905(b) Analysis indicated that significant flood damage reduction could be realized in the San Francisquito Creek study area in a cost-effective manner. Although tidal flooding, which would occur more frequently than fluvial flooding, has not yet been analyzed and ecosystem restoration benefits have not yet been quantified, there is strong evidence to suggest that there will be significant net National Economic Development (NED) and National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) benefits in the project area.

ii

The conclusions from the 905(b) Analysis form the basis for the next iteration of the

planning steps that will be conducted during the Feasibility Phase. The alternatives evaluated in 905(b) Analysis will be examined in detail during the Feasibility Study. These alternatives will be refined and additional measures and alternatives, as well as different levels of flood damage reduction, will be investigated to ensure reasonable optimization of net flood damage reduction benefits. Opportunities for tidal flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration benefits will also be fully explored.

iii

CONCURRENCE PAGE 1 of 2 As members of the San Francisco District Project Review Board, we the undersigned, concur in the Project Management Plan (PMP), dated August 2005, for the San Francisquito Creek Feasibility 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 ____________ _____

iv

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 San Francisquito Creek Feasibility 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 Janice Lera-Chan 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 San Francisquito Creek Feasibility Study. We understand that this is a “living” management document that will be updated as needed through the process stated within. Name Title Signature Date

v

SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK


TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1- PMP Purpose and Scope Chapter 2 - Identification of Procedures and Criteria Chapter 3 – Scope of Study Chapter 4 - Work Breakdown Structure, Study Schedule and Cost Estimate 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 – Approved Section 905(b) Analysis Enclosure B – Letter of Intent Enclosure C – Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division (CESPD) Milestone System Enclosure D – Project Schedule Enclosure E - Change Request Form Enclosure F - PMP Quality Certification Enclosure G - List of Acronyms

1

PROPOSED SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK


CHAPTER I PMP PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1. INTRODUCTION, PURPOSE, AND SCOPE

Project Description: The San Francisquito Creek watershed encompasses an area of approximately 45 square miles, extending from the ridge of the Santa Cruz Mountains to the San Francisco Bay in California. San Francisquito Creek has an inadequate carrying capacity due to development, vegetation sedimentation, land subsidence, levee settlement and erosion. Flooding on the creek affects the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County, and Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. San Francisquito Creek starts at the base of Searsville Dam in Sanford University and flows into the San Francisco Bay about 2.5 miles south of the Dumbarton Bridge. 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 $26.6 million in property damages. The study area begins at Searsville Dam on Lower Corte Madera Creek and continues down San Francisquito Creek to San Francisco Bay and includes the alluvial fan area between the railroad trestle in Menlo Park and Matadero Creek. The non-Federal Sponsor has asked that two adjacent areas subject to tidal flooding be scoped. Those reaches are from the railroad trestle to the Menlo Park city limits in San Mateo County (Option 1 Tidal Area), and from Matadero Creek to Adobe Creek in Santa Clara County (Option 2 Tidal Area). Refer to Plate 1 for map of study area. Project Authorization: The initial Section 905(b) Analysis (Enclosure A) was prepared as a response to a resolution passed on May 22, 2002 by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, which is in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1941. The resolution reads as follows: "Resolved by the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure of the United States House of Representatives, That, the Secretary of the Army, in accordance with Section 4 of the Flood Control Act of 1941, is hereby requested to conduct a study of the Guadalupe River and Tributaries, California, to determine whether flood damage reduction, environmental restoration and protection, storm water retention, water conservation and supply, recreation and other allied purposes are advisable in the interest of the San Francisquito Creek Watershed, including San Francisquito Creek, Santa Clara and San Mateo Counties, California. " Funds in the amount of $100,000 were appropriated in Fiscal Year 2004 to conduct the Reconnaissance phase of the study. The purpose of the 905(b) Analysis was to determine the feasibility of carrying out a project for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration along the San Francisquito Creek in the cities of Menlo Park, Palo Alto and East Palo Alto. This

3

reconnaissance study concluded that a flood damage reduction plan could be carried forward for further consideration in the feasibility phase. Purpose and Scope: The purpose of this study is to perform a feasibility-level investigation by identifying and evaluating potential improvement plans to help alleviate flooding problems, as well as address environmental degradation of the watershed. The Federal objective for a flood control project is to increase contributions to national economic development consistent with protecting the nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. The Federal objective for Ecosystem Restoration is to contribute to the nation’s ecosystems through ecosystem restoration, with contributions measured by changes in the amounts and values of habitat. Project Sponsor: The local, non-Federal, sponsor for the San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Study is the San Francsquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (JPA). The JPA consist of the cities of East Palo Alto, Palo Alto and Menlo Park; Santa Clara Valley Water District and the San Mateo County Flood Control District. 2. 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. 3. 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.

4

• 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 incorporates information from the

approved Section 905(b) Analysis, which documents preliminary study findings, the preliminary plan formulation rationale and proposed streamlining initiatives.

• Chapter 4 - Work Breakdown Structure, Study Schedule, and Cost Estimate. 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 that

describe 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’s Quality Management Plan. It highlights any deviations to the District’s plan 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.

5

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 (F3; see Enclosure C for information on Corps of Engineers South Pacific Division (CESPD) milestone system) 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 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 the Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources (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.

6

5. PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS 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 30 March 2000, subject: Processing of Planning Reports in the South Pacific Division.

7

CHAPTER III

SCOPE OF STUDY

Overview: This Chapter incorporates and updates key information found in the Section 905(b) Analysis (Enclosure A). The study area begins at Searsville Dam on Lower Corte Madera Creek and continues down San Francisquito Creek to San Francisco Bay and includes the alluvial fan area between the railroad trestle in Menlo Park and Matadero Creek. The non-Federal Sponsor has asked that two adjacent areas subject to tidal flooding be scoped. Those reaches are from the railroad trestle to the Menlo Park city limits in San Mateo County (Option 1 Tidal Area), and from Matadero Creek to Adobe Creek in Santa Clara County (Option 2 Tidal Area). [Note: References cited in this chapter are listed in Enclosure A.] 1.0 STUDY SCOPE AND PURPOSE The Section 905(b) Analysis (905(b) Analysis; Enclosure A) provides a preliminary assessment of flooding and water resources related problems and opportunities associated with San Francisquito Creek; determined that there is Federal interest for flood control improvements; and identified a non-Federal sponsor willing to share the cost of a detailed Feasibility Study of alternative plans for flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. Although the technical studies in Reconnaissance reports are generally limited to existing information, and therefore have some associated risks, there was enough detail available to determine that future Corps participation is warranted,. The 905(b) Analysis found that there is Federal interest in continuing the study into the Feasibility phase. The 905(b) Analysis documented the basis for that finding and established the scope of the Feasibility phase. Accordingly, it also guided the development of this Project Management Plan (PMP), which presents the Feasibility Study overview and plan formulation rationale. Simply stated, Federal interest is established if a proposed plan produces benefits in one of the Corps's high priority mission areas (in this case, flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration), and the benefits of the plan exceed the costs. 2.0 PRELIMINARY PLAN FORMULATION During a Corps study, the 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 select and recommend a plan for implementation. 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 a recommended plan. The iterations of the planning steps typically differ in the emphasis that is placed on each of the steps. During the Reconnaissance phase, for example, the step of specifying problems and opportunities is emphasized, whereas the Feasibility phase emphasizes the steps of formulating, evaluating and comparing the alternative plans. That is not to say, however, that the other steps are ignored. The initial screening of preliminary plans, which is based on

8

comparing them to the study goals and objectives, 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 accomplished during the Feasibility phase. 2.1 National Objectives The national or Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to contribute to National Economic Development (NED) consistent with protecting the nation's environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and other Federal planning requirements. Contributions to 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. 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. These benefits are measured by the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) account. 2.2 Public Concerns Community concerns related to the San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction/Ecosystem Restoration project include: watershed-wide community support; benefits to the broadest segment of San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority (SFCJPA) communities; improving public safety by maximizing flood protection to the greatest number of properties; addressing the areas of perceived highest risks of loss of life; preserving environmental and water quality values; and regulatory "permitability“. 2.3 Problems and Opportunities 2.3.1 Problems The flood water carrying capacity of San Francisquito Creek is affected by the presence of development, vegetation, sedimentation, land subsidence, levee settlement, erosion and undersized culverts and bridges in the project area. Tidal inundation compounds the flooding problem in Reach 1 (which extends from the upstream face of Highway 101 to the Bay. See Plate 2), particularly during times of heavy rainfall and high tides. Flooding on San Francisquito Creek affects the cities of Menlo Park and East Palo Alto in San Mateo County, and Palo Alto in Santa Clara County. Specific problems in Reach 1 include: a relatively high potential for flooding; low flow capacity; flat streambed profile; tidal influence; sedimentation; and constriction at the Highway 101 culvert. Specific areas of concern include: water levels at Highway 101; damage to Palo Alto businesses located downstream of Highway 101; sediment accumulation downstream of

10

Highway 101; and damage to the Ravenswood Industrial Area and residential areas in East Palo Alto. Erosion has caused the undermining of roads and structures in many places throughout the watershed. The resulting high sediment loads are deposited in the lower reaches of the main-stem San Francisquito Creek, causing rises in water surface elevation at high flows. Unstable trees, fences and other debris falling and entering the stream is a major concern, as these objects can obstruct the flow at bridges and other crossing points. Evidence of large mud slumps that had historically occurred on the Creek can be found throughout the watershed. These slumps can act as temporary dams and divert stream water into developed areas. Other problems specific to Reach 2 (which extends from Highway 101 to Highway 280. See Plate 2) include undersized bridges that cause water to break out at the Middlefield Road and Pope/Chaucer Street intersections. Flooding has been a common occurrence in San Francisquito Creek. The most recent event occurred as a result of record rainfall in February 1998, when the Creek overtopped its banks in several areas, affecting approximately 1,700 residential and commercial structures and causing more than $26.6 million in property damages. After these floods, the SFCJPA was formed to pursue flood control and restoration opportunities in the area. Members of the SFCJPA have produced a number of analyses and recommendations according to their expertise and interests, which have been used in this report. 2.3.2 Opportunities Existing conditions in all reaches of the San Francisquito Creek subject nearby residential and commercial structures to significant flood damages. There is an opportunity to increase the level of flood protection that would yield significant National Economic Development (NED) benefits. Although the improvements to San Francisquito Creek will be investigated in more detail during the Feasibility phase, current data shows that such work will most likely result in net NED benefits. In Reach 1, there is also an opportunity to reduce tidal flooding damages (increasing potential NED benefits), and in certain areas of the Creek, there is also an opportunity to restore the ecosystem and improve fish passage (resulting in NER benefits). 2.4 Objectives & Constraints 2.4.1 Objectives Planning objectives are statements of things the alternative plans should achieve; they state the purpose of the proposed water resources project. Planning objectives are more specific than the Federal objectives (NED, NER) and reflect the problems and opportunities of the study area. They represent desired positive changes in the without-project conditions. The planning objectives for San Francisquito Creek would be attained within the period of analysis for the study, which is a 50-year timeframe. All of the planning objectives focus on activities within the study area.

11

The preliminary planning objectives (subject to change during the course of the Feasibility Study) are to:

Reduce fluvial flood damages, primarily in Reaches 1 & 2

Reduce tidal flood damages in Reach 1

Reduce the threat to public safety due to flooding in all reaches

Restore ecosystem quality and function where possible 2.4.2 Constraints Planning constraints are statements of things the alternative plans should avoid; they represent restrictions that limit the extent of the planning process. Constraints are designed to avoid undesirable changes between without and with-project future conditions. The preliminary planning constraints identified in this study are as follows:

Avoid inconsistency with existing Federal, State and local laws, regulations policies and guidance governing the project

Avoid inconsistency with existing land use plans

Avoid or mitigate negative environmental impacts

2.5 ALTERNATIVE PLANS The SFCJPA, local and scientific communities, and USACE Project Delivery Team (PDT) members have developed a preliminary list of action alternatives to address flooding in San Francisquito Creek (SFCJPA CAP205 Report 2003 and CRMP 1998; see Appendix A for citations). Measures in Reach 1 include: widening the culvert at Highway 101; raising the levees or constructing floodwalls; constructing detention basins in open space areas; widening the channel; and constructing a secondary channel in the adjacent golf course. Measures in the other reaches include upstream storage of floodwaters, diversion of high flows, and channel modifications. Although some of these measures have been researched and discussed by the SFCJPA, none of them have been verified by USACE as to their cost, efficiency, effectiveness or acceptability. All of the measures will be brought forward to the Feasibility phase for further study. It is too early to know which alternative(s) will be selected for the final project, if Federal interest is indeed established during the next study phase. Descriptions of all proposed measures are provided below. 2.5.1 No Action Plan The Corps is required to consider the option of no action as one of the alternative plans in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). With the No Action Plan (which is the "Without-Project Condition"), it is assumed that no long-term actions would be

12

taken to provide flood control improvements along San Francisquito Creek; flood control improvements would consist of emergency fixes to damage areas, consistent with available finding. Under existing conditions, San Francisquito Creek does not have adequate capacity to convey the flood event associated with an expected annual probability of 1% (the 100-year event) of 9,300 cfs at several locations downstream of El Camino Real (USACE 2000). While none of the bridges across the San Francisquito Creek downstream of El Camino Real can convey the 100-year flood event, the most problematic areas affecting Palo Alto are the bridges at Middlefield Road and Chaucer Street. The approximate channel capacity at these locations is 6,000 cfs, which is commensurate with the 15-year event. The bridges at these two locations restrict the flow in the channel, inducing flooding in the overbank (USACE 2000). 2.5.2 Non-Structural WRDA 1996, Section 905, requires that a Feasibility report include a description of a nonstructural alternative to the recommended plan when such plan does not contain signification nonstructural features. A nonstructural measure is any complete or partial measure, which may be implemented in lieu of a traditional structural measure. Examples of common nonstructural measures include: Flood warning and evacuation, relocation, land management designated floodways, and flood proofing measures. 2.5.3 Fluvial Flooding Action Alternatives - Reach 1 As described in the SFC3PA CAP 205 Report (2003), the following alternatives have been proposed for fluvial flooding in Reach 1: Widen Culvert at Highway 101: Widening the culvert at Highway 101 would consist of constructing an additional culvert barrel either to the north or south of the existing barrels (Figure 6, Enclosure B). At the same location, the surface opening between Highway 101 and West Bayshore Road would be closed. Under current conditions, widening the culverts alone would not decrease flooding. Covering the opening would allow pressure flow in the culverts, thus increasing the culvert capacity and stopping the flooding caused by overflow from this opening. Raise Levees or Construct Floodwalls: Under this alternative, some levees downstream of Highway 101 would be raised in some areas, and/or floodwalls would be constructed in other areas. Construct Overflow to Open Space: Overflow would be diverted to two different locations downstream of Highway 101: in. the marshland area just east of the East Palo Alto residential area, and in the southwest portion of the Palo Alto golf course. Widen Channel: Channel widening under this alternative would consist of widening the channel to the limits of the East Palo Alto residential development and constructing new

13

levees. The channel would also be widened on the opposite side, and the new levees would be constructed on what now constitutes Palo Alto golf course land. Construct Secondary Channel in Golf Course: Under this alternative, a secondary (parallel) channel would be constructed in the Palo Alto golf course as a means of increasing flow capacity for the reach. 2.5.4 Tidal Flooding Action Alternatives - Reach 1 As described by USACE engineers on the PDT, protection against tidal flooding could be provided by flap gates that control the amount of tidal water entering San Francisquito Creek and/or floodwalls constructed along the bay side to protect against tidal inundation. The Hydraulics and Hydrology of tidal and fluvial flooding will be investigated further during the Feasibility phase. Providing that the benefits warrant implementation of a project feature protecting against tidal flooding, the study team will determine which alternative solution would provide the best protection. 2.5.5 Ecosystem Restoration Alternatives - Reach 1 Depending on the flood damage reduction alternative selected for Reach 1, a number of restoration activities could be performed in this area. Restoration would primarily be in the form of wetland restoration and could be implemented in the area of the golf course (if it is redesigned to accommodate the project) or in areas further downstream. Because threatened, endangered and special status species occur in the study area, any restoration project would need to provide improved habitat quality for these species. 2.5.6 Fluvial Flooding Action Alternatives - Reaches 2 & 3 Upland Diversion to Offstream Detention Basin: This alternative would consist of constructing offstream facilities for storage of floodwaters during peak events. High flows would be diverted from the natural channel into a detention basin via an intake weir. Water would remain in storage while the Creek flow remained high. As the high flows receded and the water in the Creek channel lowered, the detention basin would drain by gravity back into the natural channel (CRMP 1997). The area of targeted relief considered for this alternative is at Chaucer Bridge, where peak flows could be reduced to 5,500 cfs (SFCJPA 2003). Construction, land acquisition costs, and the number and size of basins needed to be effective may be limiting factors of this alternative (CRMP 1997, SFCJPA 2003). Concrete Channel Modification: This alternative would entail constructing a concrete trapezoidal or rectangular channel from Highway 101 to El Camino Real. Construction of this kind would have significant environmental impacts, requiring mitigation for instream habitat destruction, including the destruction of fishery, special species and riparian habitats between Highway 101 and El Camino Real (CRMP 1998).

14

Bank Stabilization: This alternative consists of reducing erosion and property loss at high priority sites along the Creek using bank stabilization techniques that are consistent with the requirements of regulatory and resource agencies (SFCJPA 2003). Raise Levees or Construct Floodwalls: Under this alternative, levees would be raised if needed and/or existing floodwalls would be removed and replaced. This alternative ties into the ecosystem restoration alternatives described below and the objective to restore as much habitat in the study area as possible. Natural Channel Widening: This alternative would entail widening the Creek at various locations to provide increased flood protection. Acquisition of many Creekside properties would be necessary to implement this alternative. Where residential parcels would be substantially reduced by right-of-way requirements, or where access to parcels would be completely cut off by the acquisition of roadways, full acquisition of parcels would be required. Where only a small part of a parcel would be required for adequate right-of-way, only partial acquisition of that parcel would be required (CRMP 1997, SFCJPA 2003). The real estate acquisition costs would be significant with this alternative due to the high property value of the surrounding area. In addition, it would cause a number of environmental impacts to the riparian corridor that would have to be mitigated, which would be an added project expense. Lastly, channel widening would likely induce flooding downstream unless other improvements were made in those areas (SFCJPA 2003). Diversion Conduit: This alternative would consist of constructing an underground concrete box conduit that would divert high flows from San Francisquito Creek to a point downstream. Modify Searsville Dam: This alternative would consist of modifying the Searsville Reservoir for flood control purposes (SFCJPA 2003). The reservoir basin would be excavated and the sediment dewatered and transported to a disposal site. The Dam would be converted to a flood control facility, likely as a "check dam," through which some amount of water would constantly be allowed to flow, but flows above a prescribed threshold would be retained behind the structure (SFCJPA 2003). Replace Bridges at University, Pope/Chaucer Street and Middlefield Road: This alternative would include modifications at each of the three bridges listed above, treating them as a system (SFCJPA 2003). A 10 feet X 10 feet box culvert has been proposed for the Pope-Chaucer Bridge to carry a maximum of 1,000 cfs additional flow when the Creek would reach the point of overbanking at this location. The size and depth of the culvert could be adjusted to control the flow rate, depending on the results of future, more detailed hydraulic modeling. Implementing this alternative would primarily reduce the flood risk upstream of the Pope-Chaucer Bridge by reducing the backwater effect. Preliminary investigations show that the culvert could be placed on the Menlo Park side of the Creek to minimize tree removals and utilize existing head walls (SFCJPA 2003).

15

2.5.7 Ecosystem Restoration Alternatives - Reaches 2 & 3 [Note: Reach 3 extends from Highway 280 to the face of Searsville Dam. See Plate 2] Bank conditions range from stable and well vegetated to nearly vertical and eroding (Royston et al. 2000). Most of the existing banks within the project area are partially to mostly vegetated with native and non-native species, with the exception of those reaches with existing bank protection. Many sparsely vegetated banks are failing, either partially or completely. Given the urbanized nature of the stream corridor, there are many constraints to bank stabilization and enhancement of riparian habitat (Royston et al. 2000). A number of methods have been proposed for improving the habitat quality of San Francisquito Creek, depending on the need for bank stabilization in any particular area (Royston et al. 2000). For example, some areas could receive a "vegetation only" treatment where structural bank protection is unnecessary. Other alternatives vary with their treatment of the existing bank protection structure (or lack thereof) and the type of improvement that would be possible (Royston et al. 2000). A complete list of stabilization/restoration alternatives developed so far is provided below. These alternatives will be considered further during the Feasibility phase.

1. Vegetation Only - Remove non-native species and revegetate with native species. 2. Repair Protection - Repair existing structural bank protection in local problem

zones. 3. Vegetate Structure -- Leave existing structural bank protection in place and

revegetate using planting collars or cuttings inserted between existing bank protection near the toe of the slope, if possible.

4. Remove Structure - Remove and replace existing structural bank protection.

5. Regrade and Replant - Regrade and use biological techniques to provide bank stabilization (biotechnical engineering).

6. Terrace - Stabilize banks by creating one or more terraces, which will be revegetated to provide habitat.

7. Riprap Toe - Combine a biotechnical approach to bank stabilization with toe placement of large rocks to prevent bank washout and toe scour. The slope would be backfilled and revegetated within and above the riprap.

8. Vegetated Riprap - Use riprap along the bank to stabilize the bank surface, backfilling and revegetating.

9. Vegetated Wall - Stabilize near-vertical banks using planted cribwall, planted gabion baskets or vertical retaining wall. The slope would be backfilled, structural elements constructed, and then soil areas revegetated.

16

2.6 EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS 2.6.1 Conclusions from the Preliminary Screening The preliminary screening indicates that the alternatives proposed for this project could provide significant flood damage reduction in San Francisquito Creek, and at least one of these alternatives - installation of floodwalls along a portion the length of Reach 2 , from Highway 101 to El Camino Real) and replacement of two bridges - could be cost effective. Because tidal flooding in Reach 1, which would occur more frequently than fluvial flooding, has not yet been analyzed, and ecosystem restoration benefits have yet to be included in the analysis for Reaches 1-3, there is strong evidence to suggest that there will be significant net NED and NER benefits in the project area. 2.6.2 Lands, Easements Rights of Way, Relocations, and Disposal Sites (LERRDS) The non-Federal sponsor would be responsible for obtaining all the necessary LERRDS for this project. Since this is a flood control project, the estates to be acquired would be permanent easements. A gross appraisal, which will be based on the preliminary design of the project and will include all temporary construction areas and access areas, will be prepared during the Feasibility phase of the project. This gross appraisal is for planning purposes of evaluating the total project cost and will be based on detailed information and comparable market data. 2.6.3 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. All of the alternatives evaluated in this Reconnaissance phase study will be considered during the Feasibility phase. These alternatives will be refined, and additional measures and alternatives, as well as different levels of flood damage reduction, will be investigated to ensure reasonable optimization of net flood damage reduction benefits. Opportunities for tidal flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration benefits will also be fully explored.

17

CHAPTER IV WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

1. 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.

District Name Organization Code

Project Management CESPN-PM Engineering Branch CESPN-ET-E Geotechnical 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-PC Environmental Science Section CESPN-ET-PZ Environmental Planning Section CESPN-ET-PP Real Estate Division CESPK-RE ETS Admin. CESPN-ET Contracting CESPN-CT Office of Counsel CESPN-OC Construction Services CESPN-ET-C Public Affairs CESPN-PA

Non-Federal Sponsor Organization

Code San Francisquito Joint Powers Authority

JPA

Other Agency/Other Corps Organization

Code US Fish & Wildlife Service FWS California State Department of Fish and Game

CDFG

Federal Emergency Management Agency

FEMA

CA State Regional Water Quality Control Board

RWQCB

18

2. Team Roster

PDT member Agency Function Janice Lera-Chan Corps Project Manager Judy Sheen Corps Planner Christopher Eng Corps Environmental Planning Tess Salire Corps Environmental Science (HTRW) Mark Weichmann Corps Environmental Science (Sediments) Kathleen Ungvarsky Corps Environmental Science (Cultural Resources) Kevin Knight Corps Economics Frank Sun Corps Civil Design Paul Hecht Corps Geo-Sciences Ken Thompson Corps Water Resources Susan Miller Corps Real Estate Maria Or Corps Public Affairs Peter Krembs Corps Geo-Sciences (GIS) Ben Khalegi Corps Cost Engineering

19

3. Listing of tasks – Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) In accordance with the levels above, the following work breakdown structure indicates subprojects and parent tasks in bold type, followed by the subordinate tasks.

WBS Level

WBS /Activity Activity Name

Milestone - Civil

Works

WCC (CEFMS) - Civil Works

1 Civil Works Standard Project Name

2 22000 Feasibility Study

3

22000.22T00 Feasibility Study Program & Project Management

5 1010 Initiate Feasibility Study (F1) CW140 22T0*

5 1020 Conduct Program and Project Management 22T0*

5 1030 Feasibility Study Travel 22T0*

5 1040 Feasibility Study Technical Management 22T0*

5 1050 Feasibility Study Close Out 22T0*

3 22000.22A00 Public Involvement

5 2000 Initial Public Meeting Preparation 22A0*

5 2010 Public Workshop/Scoping Meeting (F2) 22A0*

5 2020 Public Workshop in support plan selection 22A0*

5 2030 Feasibility Public Review Period Start CW250 22A0*

5 2040 Feasibility Public Review Period 22A0*

5 2050 Prepare Final Public Meeting 22A0*

5 2060 Final Public Meeting (F6) 22A0*

3

22000.22S00 Feasibility Report Preparation

5 3000 Study Management 22Q0*

5 3010 Plan Formulation and Evaluation 22R0*

5 3020 Report Preparation-Pre-P2 22S0*

5 3030 Report Preparation-W/o Project Condition &Preliminary Plan (F3) 22S0*

5 3040 Technical Review-W/o Project Condition &Preliminary Plan (F3) 22R0*

5 3050 Feasibility Scoping Meeting (F3) 22S0*

5 3060

Report Preparation- With Project Conditions & Preliminary Recommended Plan (F4) 22S0*

5 3070

Technical Review-With Project Conditions & Preliminary Recommended Plan (F4) 22S0*

5 3080 Alternative Review Conference (F4) 22S0*

5 3090 Report Preparation AFB Report 22S0*

20

5 3100 Technical Review-AFB 22S0*

5 3110 Send AFB Package to SPD DST RIT 22S0*

5 3120 Alternative Formulation Briefing (F4A) CW190 22S0*

5 3130 Feasibility Project Guidance Memo (PGM) CW060 22S0*

5 3140 Report Preparation-Draft Report 22S0*

5 3150 Technical Review-Draft Report 22S0*

5 3160 Draft Feasibility Report (F5) CW150 22S0*

5 3170 Feasibility Review Conference (FRC) (F7) CW050 22S0*

5 3180 Report Preparation-Final Report 22S0*

5 3190 Technical Review-Final Report 22S0*

5 3200 Final Report to SPD (F8) CW160 22S0*

5 3210 SPD DST Review and Preparation of DE's Notice 22S0*

5 3220 MSC Commander's Public Notice (F9) CW260 22S0*

5 3230 Feasibility Report Approval CW170 22S0*

5 3240 Feas State/Agency Review 22S0*

5 3250 Coastal Zone Management (CZM) Compliance Received CW240 22S0*

5 3260 401 State Water Quality Certification CW220 22S0*

5 3270 SPD RIT Review and Preparation of Chief's Report 22S0*

5 3280 Record of Decision(ROD) Signed CW230 22S0*

5 3290 Chief's Report CW270 22S0*

5 3300 ASA (CW) Memo to OMB CW280 22S0*

5 3310 Feasibility Report to Congress via OMB CW180 22S0*

5 3320 Project Authorization 22S0*

3

22000.22E00 Environmental Impact Statement

4 22000.22E00.22E001 Environmental Studies

5 4000 ENV-W/o Project Conditions & Preliminary Plan (F3) 22E0*

5 4010 ENV-With Project Conditions for Final Plan (F4) 22E0*

5 4020 ENV-Draft Environmental Impact Statement (F5) 22E0*

5 4030 ENV-Final Environmental Impact Statement (F*) 22E0*

5 4040 Feasibility EIS Complete CW210 22E0*

4 22000.22E00.22E002 Biology Studies

5 4100 BIO-Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Analysis (F3) 22E0*

5 4110 BIO-With Project Conditions for Final Plan (F4) 22E0*

5 4120 BIO-Draft EIS/EA 22E0*

5 4130 BIO-Final Report 22E0*

4 22000.22E00.22D00 Cultural Resources

5 4200 Cultural-Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Plan (F3) 22D0*

21

5 4210 Cultural- With Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) 22D0*

5 4220 Cultural- Draft EIS/EA 22D0*

5 4230 Cultural-Final Report 22D0*

4 22000.22E00.22F00 F&W Coordination

5 4300 Planning Aid Report(s), HEP participation, other coordination (F3) 22F0*

5 4310 Planning Aid Report(s), HEP participation, other coordination (F4) 22F0*

5 4320 Coordination Act Report 22F0*

3 22000.22P00 Engineering Appendix

4

22000.22P00.22J00 Hydrology & Hydraulics Studies Appendix

5 5000 H&H-Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Plan (F3) 22J0*

5 5010 H&H-With Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) 22J0*

5 5020 H&H-Draft Report (F5) 22J0*

5 5030 H&H- Final Report 22J0*

4

22000.22P00.22K00 Geotechnical Studies Appendix

5 5100 Geotech-Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Plan (F3) 22K0*

5 5110 Geotech-With Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) 22K0*

5 5120 Geotech-Draft Report (F5) 22K0*

5 5130 Geotech- Final Report 22K0*

4

22000.22P00.22L00 HTRW Studies Appendix

5 5200 HTRW-Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Plan (F3) 22L0*

5 5210 HTRW-With Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) 22L0*

5 5220 HTRW-Draft Report (F5) 22L0*

5 5230 HTRW-Final Report 22L0*

4

22000.22P00.22P001 Engineering Analysis and Design Appendix

5 5300 Surveys and Mapping 22N0*

5 5310 E&D-Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Plan (F3) 22P0*

5 5320 E&D-With Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) 22P0*

5 5330 E&D-Draft Report (F5) 22P0*

5 5340 E&D- Final Report 22P0*

4

22000.22P00.22P002 Project Cost Estimate Appendix

5 5400 Cost Engineering-Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Plan (F3) 22P0*

5 5410 Cost Engineering-With Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) 22P0*

5 5420 Cost Engineering-Draft Report(F5) 22P0*

22

5 5430 Cost Engineering- Final Report 22P0*

3 22000.22H00 Real Estate Appendix

5 6000 RE - Without Project Conditions and Preliminary Plan (F3) 22H0*

5 6010 RE - With Project Conditions for Final Plans (F4) 22H0*

5 6020 RE - Draft Report (F5) 22H0*

5 6030 RE - Final Plan 22H0*

3

22000.22G00 Economics/Sociology Appendix

5 7000 Economics/Sociology - W/o Project Conditions & Preliminary Plan (F3) 22G0*

5 7010 Economics/Sociology - With Project Conditions for Final Plans(F4) 22G0*

5 7020 Economics/Sociology - Draft Report 22G0*

5 7030 Economics/Sociology - Final Report 22G0*

3 22000.22P00 Value Engineering Study

5 8000 Conduct Value Engineering Study(if expected project cost exceeds $10M) 22P0*

3

22000.00500 PED Phase Project Management Plan

5 9000 Start PED PMP CW030 500

5 9010 Complete Draft PMP 500

5 9020 Review e-PMP 500

5 9030 PED PMP Approval CW040 500

3 22000.22T00 Design Agreement

5 10000 Start Design Agreement CW070 22T0*

5 10010 Prepare Design Agreement 22T0*

5 10020 Submit Design Agreement (if deviations from the model) 22T0*

5 10030 MSC Approves Design Agreement (if deviations from the model) 22T0*

5 10040 HQ Approves Design Agreement (if deviations from the model) 22T0*

5 10050 Local Sponsor Signs Design Agreement 22T0*

5 10060 Design Agreement Executed CW130 22T0*

23

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 meets with the local 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 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 D) is a draft and is subject to change. The schedule is unconstrained, and task durations assume full staffing availability. 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 negotiation at the beginning of each fiscal year. d. MILESTONE SCHEDULE The following is a list of several critical milestones which have been identified and will be tracked in order to help monitor the successful performance of this project. The milestone dates are only for the Creek Study Baseline. Milestone Schedule Initiate Study (F1) December 1, 2005 Public Workshop/Scoping April 5, 2006 Feasibility Scoping Meeting (F3) October 26, 2007 Alternative Review Conference (F4) December 14, 2009 Alternative Formulation Briefing (F4A) May 3, 2010 Draft Feasibility Report (F5) October 18, 2010 Final Public Meeting (F6) January 17, 2010 Feasibility Review Conference (F7) February 28, 2010 Final Feasibility Report to SPD (F8) May 28, 2010 DE’s Submittal (F9) July 4, 2011 Chief’s Report October 24, 2011 Record of Decision February 13, 2012

24

If Option 1 or Option 2 Tidal Area is included as part of the study, the Record of Decision would tentatively occur 13 months later. If both Options were included, the Record of Decision would tentatively occur 27 months later. 3. FEASIBILITY COST ESTIMATE a. BASIS FOR THE COST ESTIMATE 1) The Feasibility cost estimate, Table 4.1, 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. An inflation rate of 4% per year has been incorporated into the study costs. 2) Contingency of 14% has been added to to cover unforeseen costs. 3) It was assumed that the study will draw heavily on a large body of existing information. As the study progresses, scopes and cost could decrease or increase depending on the actual availability and usefulness of the existing information. b. COSTS FOR FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL ACTIVITIES The Feasibility Study cost is funded 50-50 by the Federal and non-Federal sponsors and the cost share is initiated once the Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (FCSA) is signed. The Feasibility cost estimate below includes credit for work that is to be accomplished by the non-Federal Sponsor. c. IN-KIND SERVICES

Work products provided by the project sponsor as in-kind services must be completed in accordance with the South Pacific Division’s Quality Management Plan (CESPD R 1110-1-8) in order to assure the production of that work product is of a high quality. Specifically, these work products need to undergo a similar peer review and QC/QA review process as required for work products prepared by the Corps (Section 6, Quality Control Plan). Each submittal must have a Corps-approved Quality Control Plan on file, which identifies the Quality Control methodology.

There will be a Corps Team Member assigned from each technical discipline to

review/help develop the scopes of work that the sponsors (and their consultants) prepare so that the work is sufficient for Corps purposes. Scopes of work will be reviewed by a Contracting Officer's Representative for format and consistency, whenever possible. This will also help ensure that in-kind service credit will be granted for the work performed.

Table 4.1Cost Estimate

1.1 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Assessment

1.1.1 Review Existing Project Information 4 2,600.00 1 650.00 1 650.001.1.2 HTRW Study 111 3,000.00 45,000.00 96 1,500.00 15,000.00 96 1,500.00 15,000.001.1.3 Data Evaluation and Recommendations

to Manage HTRW4 2,500.00 2 1,300.00 2 1,300.00

1.1.4 ITR Responses and Coordination 7,500.00Sub-total 119 15,600.00 45,000.00 99 3,450.00 15,000.00 99 3,450.00 15,000.00

1.2 Sediment Studies1.2.1 In-House Responsibilities 36,500.00

1.2.2.1 Research and Review Existing Data 25 30,000.001.2.2.2 Bathymetric Survey 25 22,000.001.2.2.3 Work Plan Development 15 35,000.001.2.2.4 Permit Acquisitions 15 10,000.001.2.2.5 Sediment Sampling and Processing 20 90,000.001.2.2.6 Laboratory Testing 25 90,000.001.2.2.7 Data Compilation and Analysis 10 15,000.001.2.2.8 Report Preparation 60 23,000.001.2.2.9 Project Coordination and Site Visits 10,000.00

1.2.2.10 ITR Responses and Coordination 7,500.00Supervision & Administration (10%) 3,500.00Sub-total 195 47,500.00 325,000.00

1.3 Cultural Studies 1.3.2.1 Gather Information to ID Historic

Properties44 10,000.00

1.3.2.1b Cultural Resource Contract 90 75,000.001.3.2.2b Field Survey 47 8,000.001.3.2.2c Native American Consultation 13 10,000.001.3.2.2d Coordination for GIS 13 5,000.00

1.3.3 Coordination /Meetings 13 4,000.001.3.4

&1.3.7Consultation SHPO and ACHP 13 8,000.00

1.3.8 Technical Report/Documentation 47 25,700.001.3.9 Public Interest/Web Page 25 3,000.00

1.3.10 ITR Responses and Coordination 7,500.00Supervision & Administration (10%) 5,000.00Sub-total 305 86,200.00 75,000.00

2 Environmental Planning Section2.1.1 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis 60 7,000.002.1.2 Environmental Impact

Statement/Report (NEPA/CEQA)520 70,000.00 400,000.00 520 5,250.00 520 5,250.00

2.1.3 Summary for F3 Package 4 3,000.002.1.4 Summary of W/Project Environmental

Conditions10 16,000.00

2.1.5 F4A Summary of W/project Environmental Conditions

4 3,000.00

2.1.6 Fish and Wildlife Studies 260 75,000.00 80,000.00 260 1,500.00 260 1,500.00

In-Kind Services

Duration (days)

COE Contract

In-kind Services

Duration (days)

COE ContractCOE Labor In-kind Services

Option 2Tidal Area

Matadero Creek to Adobe Creek

COE LaborDuration (days)

COE ContractCOE Labor

Section ID Task/Resource Option 1Tidal Area

Railroad Trestle to Menlo Park City Limits

Creek Study Baseline

(Fluvial plus Tidal from Railroad Trestle to Matadero Creek)

25


In-Kind Services

Duration (days)

COE Contract

In-kind Services

Duration (days)


Option 2Tidal Area








2.1.7 Biological Assessment (Section 7 Consultation)

90 10,000.00 65,000.00 90 2,000.00 90 2,000.00

2.1.8 ITR Responses and Coordination 15,000.00Supervision and Administration (10%) 19,900.00

Sub-total 948 218,900.00 545,000.00 870 8,750.00 870 8,750.003 Economics

3.1 Literature Review/ Data Assessment 2 1,600.003.2 Analysis Configuration 2 2,400.003.3 Data Collection/Manipulation 30 29,000.00 5 4,000.00 5 4,000.003.4 @Risk Model Set Up/Derivation Stage-

Damage Curves10 8,000.00 5 4,000.00 5 4,000.00

3.5 HEC-FDA Model Set Up/Computation of Equivalent Annual Damages

10 8,000.00 5 4,000.00 5 4,000.00

3.6 Preliminary NED Analysis 5 4,000.00 3 2,000.00 3 2,000.003.7 Technical Documentation 8 6,000.00 3 2,000.00 3 2,000.003.8 Site Visits 5 4,150.003.9 Team Meetings 3 2,000.00

3.10 Miscellaneous Tasks 11 11,000.003.11 Develop Trade-Off Analysis 20 10,000.00 3 2,000.00 3 2,000.003.12 Ability to Pay 5 4,000.003.13 ITR Responses and Coordination 20,000.003.14 Supervision and Administration (10%) 11,015.00 1,800.00 1,800.00

Sub-total 111 121,165.00 24 19,800.00 24 19,800.004 Specifications & Cost Engineering

Section 4.1 Meeting/Coordinate with PDT 5 5,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.004.2 Develop Cost Estimates - Alternatives 20 20,000.00 5 5,000.00 5 5,000.00

4.3 Conduct Review on Cost Estimates 5 5,000.00 2 2,000.00 2 2,000.004.4 Develop Draft Feas. Level Cost

Estimate10 10,000.00

4.5 Develop Final MCACES and Basis of Cost

10 10,000.00 2 2,000.00 2 2,000.00

4.6 ITR Responses and Coordination 15 7,500.004.7 AE Contract Admin. 15 15,000.00

Sub-total 80 72,500.00 10 10,000.00 10,000.005 Water Resources Section

5.1 Develop Baseline Hydrology 100 50,000.00 40 8,000.00 40 8,000.005.2.1 Develop Baseline Hydraulic Analysis

(Fluvial)100 70,000.00 40 15,000.00 40 15,000.00

5.2.2 Tidal Processes 30 15,000.00 15 5,000.00 15 5,000.005.2.3 Geomorphic and Sediment Yield

Analysis270 150,000.00 70 35,000.00 70 35,000.00

5.3 PDT Development of F3 Conceptual 20 10,000.00 20 2,500.00 20 2,500.005.4 F3 H&H Package 40 15,000.00 20 2,000.00 20 2,000.00

26


In-Kind Services

Duration (days)

COE Contract

In-kind Services

Duration (days)


Option 2Tidal Area








5.5 Preliminary Alternative Design 150 80,000.00 25 10,000.00 25 10,000.005.6 F4 H&H Package 40 15,000.00 30 3,500.00 30 3,500.005.7 NED/NER Hydraulic Design 100 44,000.00 40 12,000.00 40 12,000.005.8 Draft Appendix 60 38,000.00 30 13,000.00 30 13,000.005.9 ITR Responses and Coordination 20,000.00

5.10 Comment Response 30 25,000.00 40 10,000.00 40 10,000.00Supervision and Administration (10%) 0 53,200.00 11,600.00 11,600.00

Sub-total 940 585,200.00 370 127,600.00 370 127,600.006 Geotechnical Design and Analysis

6.1 Data Collection, Coordination and Preliminary Analysis

200 46,200.00 13 3,600.00 17 4,800.00

6.2 Develop Boring Locations 13 6,500.00 2 500.00 2 600.006.3 Develop Scope of Work Geotech RFP 26 13,000.00 2 1,000.00 3 1,200.00

6.4 Negotiate A/E Soil Sampling/Testing 5 5,000.00

6.5 A/E Contract for Soil Sampling and Testing Program

165 370,000.00 15 36,000.00 20 50,000.00

6.6 Review A/E Soil Testing Program 145 13,000.00 10 1,000.00 10 1,500.006.7 Develop Soils Conditions Report 40 20,000.00 5 2,000.00 5 2,500.006.8 Design Coordination 30 5,000.006.9 Summary for F4 Package 5 2,000.00

6.10 Draft Appendix 20 15,000.00 2 1,000.00 2 1,000.006.11 ITR Responses and Coordination 10 20,000.006.12 Final Appendix and Public Comment

Response10 5,000.00

Sub-total 669 150,700.00 370,000.00 49 9,100.00 36,000.00 59 11,600.00 50,000.007 Civil Design Scope of Work

7.1 Verify Existing Survey Data 13 13,000.00 2 1,500.00 2 1,500.007.2 DTM Creation 8 8,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.007.3 Utilities Investigation 15 15,000.00 2 1,500.00 2 1,500.007.4 F3 Design Summary 10 10,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.007.5 Plans and Profiles for Alternatives 20 20,000.00 5 5,000.00 5 5,000.007.6 Quantity Takeoffs for Alternatives 10 10,000.00 2 2,000.00 2 2,000.007.7 F4 Design Summary 5 5,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.007.8 F4A Design Summary 3 3,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.007.9 Plans and Profiles for NED/NER Plan 20 20,000.00 5 5,000.00 5 5,000.00

7.10 Quantity Takeoffs for NED/NER Plan 5 5,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00

7.11 Draft Appendix 8 8,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.007.12 ITR Responses and Coordination 15,000.007.13 Final ET-ED and Public Comment

Response8 5,000.00 1 1,000.00 1 1,000.00

Additional Work 20 20,000.00 5 5,000.00 5 5,000.00Topographic Survey (if needed) 100 450,000.00 40 25,000.00 40 25,000.00Supervision & Administration (10%) 14,500.00 2,700.00 2,700.00Sub-total 245 171,500.00 450,000.00 68 29,700.00 25,000.00 68 29,700.00 25,000.00

27


In-Kind Services

Duration (days)

COE Contract

In-kind Services

Duration (days)


Option 2Tidal Area








8 Plan Formulation 8.1.1 Develop Initial Feasibility Team

Briefing5 2,080.00

8.1.2 Prepare and coordinate P3 Conference 20 10,400.00

8.1.3 Prepare for TRSS 10 5,200.008.2 Develop Communication Plan 10 5,200.00

8.3.1a Identify Problems and Opportunities 20 5,200.008.3.1.b Identify Objectives and Constraints 20 5,200.008.3.1c Inventory Existing Conditions 20 5,200.008.3.1d Forecast Future without project

conditions30 7,800.00

8.3.2 Public Meeting Preparation 20 10,400.008.3.3a Measure identification and screening 20 7,800.00

8.3.3b Initial plan formulation 30 10,400.008.3.4a Preparation of F3 package 20 10,400.008.3.4b Participation in ITR F3 15 7,800.008.3.4c Coordination and support for F3

conference20 7,800.00

8.3.4d Coordination of F3 Conference 10 4,160.008.3.5 Post F3 Conference 10 5,200.008.4.1 Plan Evaluation and Comparison 30 13,000.008.4.2 Plan Selection 10 5,200.008.4.3 Formulation of recreation components 10 5,200.00

8.4.4 Preparation of F4 Package 30 15,600.008.4.5 Participation in ITR F4 80 10,400.008.4.6 Coordination and support for F4

Conference20 7,800.00

8.5.1 Plan selection rationale and post F4 refinements

10 5,200.00

8.5.2 Refinement of recommended plans based on F4A Conference

20 7,800.00

8.5.3 Cost apportionment 10 3,120.008.5.4 Responsibilities of Fed and non Fed

Sponsor10 3,120.00

8.5.5 Preparation of AFB Package 30 15,600.008.5.6 Participation in ITR F4A 60 7,800.008.6.1 Preparation of Draft Feasibility Report 40 26,000.00

8.6.2 Participation Draft Feasibility ITR 15 5,200.008.6.3 Input to Final Public Meeting 20 10,400.00

8.7 Preparation for FRC 10 5,200.008.8.1 Preparation of Final Report 40 20,800.008.8.2 Participation in ITR of Final Feasibility

Report and EIS/R15 10,400.00

28


In-Kind Services

Duration (days)

COE Contract

In-kind Services

Duration (days)


Option 2Tidal Area








8.9 Support to Division Engineer's Submittal

60 20,800.00

8.10 PDT Meeting preparation 25,000.008.11 Other Project Meetings 25,000.00

8.12.1 Documentation for F3 package 3 3,120.008.12.2 Documentation for F4 package 5 5,200.008.12.3 Documentation for AFB package 5 5,200.008.12.4 Draft Feasibility Report 25,000.008.12.5 Final Feasibility Report 25,000.00

Sub-total 813 422,400.009 Construction Services Branch

9.1 Review and Coordination of Draft Alternatives

10,000.00

9.2 Review and Coordination of Draft Feasibility Report

20,000.00

9.3 Review and Coordination of Final Feasibility

20,000.00

Sub-total 50,000.0010 Real Estate Studies

10.1 Real Estate Coordination 15 10,000.0010.2 Establish Right of Entry 8 3,000.00 3 500.00 3 500.0010.3 Obtain Right of Entry 90 5,000.00 30 1,000.00 30 1,000.0010.4 Mapping NED/LRR 15 8,000.00 6 2,000.00 6 2,000.0010.5 Land Value Cost Estimate 20 20,000.00 10 5,000.00 10 5,000.0010.6 Draft Real Estate Plan for F4 13 4,000.00 3 1,000.00 3 1,000.0010.7 F4A Summary 2 3,000.00 1 500.00 1 500.0010.8 Prepare Maps and Determine

Ownerships 15 8,000.00 6 2,000.00 6 2,000.00

10.9 Preliminary Attorney’s Opinion 7 8,000.00 3 1,000.00 3 1,000.0010.10 Gross Appraisal 60 40,000.00 35 20,000.00 35 20,000.0010.11 Develop Real Estate MCACES 3 2,000.00 1 500.00 1 500.0010.12 ITR Responses and Coordination 15,000.0010.13 Prepare Real Estate Appendix 10 8,000.00 2 2,000.00 2 2,000.0010.14 Market Study of Land Values 1/ 20 20,000.00 10 5,000.00 10 5,000.00

Supervision and Administration (10%) 15,400.00 500.00 500.00

Sub-total 278 169,400.00 110 41,000.00 110 41,000.0011 GIS

11.1 Assessment Report 3,200.0011.2 GIS Implementation Plan 6,400.0011.3 Implementing GIS Plan 32,800.00

Supervision & Administration (10%) 4,240.00Sub-total 46,640.00

12 Management12.1 ETS 147,000.0012.2 PPMD 30,000.0012.3 Program Management 30,000.00 500,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.00

29


In-Kind Services

Duration (days)

COE Contract

In-kind Services

Duration (days)


Option 2Tidal Area








12.4 Project Management Support 30,000.0012.6 Project Management 330,000.00

Sub-total 567,000.00 500,000.00 10,000.00 10,000.0013 Office of Counsel 20,000.0014 Contracting Division 10,000.0015 Independent Technical Review

15.1 ITR F3 20,000.0015.2 Value Engineering 50,000.0015.3 ITR F4 40,000.0015.4 ITR F4A 20,000.0015.5 ITR Draft Report 55,000.0015.6 ITR Final Report 27,500.0015.7 External Peer Review 1/ 150,000.0015.8 Model Certification 1/ 20,000.0015.9 Washington Level Review 50,000.00

Sub-total 432,500.0017 Planning Engineering Design (PED) 50,000.00

Ch VIII Communication Plan 283,000.00 14,500.00 14,600.0014% Contingency 492,828.70 253,400.00 70,000.00 35,721.00 11,865.00 1,400.00 36,085.00 13,825.00 1,400.00

Total 4,013,033.70 2,063,400.00 570,000.00 290,871.00 96,615.00 11,400.00 293,835.00 112,575.00 11,400.00

1/ Task(s) may not be needed; therefore total study cost will be reduced.

Total for Creek Study Baseline: $6,646,400 (rounded)

Total for Option 1 Tidal Area: $398,900

Total for Option 2 Tidal Area: $417,800

30

31

CHAPTER V SCOPES OF WORK

Note: The study area begins at Searsville Dam on Lower Corte Madera Creek and continues down San Francisquito Creek to San Francisco Bay and includes the alluvial fan area between the railroad trestle in Menlo Park and Matadero Creek. The non-Federal Sponsor has asked that two adjacent areas subject to tidal flooding be scoped. Those reaches are from the railroad trestle to the Menlo Park city limits in San Mateo County (Option 1, Tidal Area), and from Matadero Creek to Adobe Creek in Santa Clara County (Option 2 Tidal Area) 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 the policy exceptions and streamlining initiatives that have been approved in the Section 905(b) analysis. 2. DURATIONS OF TASKS The durations for the tasks (listed in the WBS, Chapter IV) are entered into the project’s Network Analysis System (NAS) to develop the project schedule (Chapter IV). 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 4.1, Chapter IV. The total estimates are combined in the Feasibility Cost Estimate included in the WBS in Chapter IV. The cost estimates for the tasks are also based on negotiations between the Project Manager and the chiefs of the responsible organizations. It was assumed that the study will draw heavily on a large body of existing information. As the study progresses, scopes and cost could decrease or increase depending on the actual availability and usefulness of the existing information.

32

4. DETAILED SCOPES OF WORK BY SECTION

1. ENVIRONMENTAL SCIENCES SECTION (ET-PZ) 1.1 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Assessment Estimates of duration and costs are provided separately for the following areas of interest (Refer to Table 4.1): Creek Study Baseline - San Francisquito Creek and tidal area from railroad trestle to Matadero Creek Option 1 - Tidal Area- Tidal area from Menlo City limits to railroad trestle Option 2 – Tidal Area -Tidal reach Matadero creek to Adobe Creek The purpose of the HTRW study is to identify sources of contamination that may impact project construction and if we identify any potential sources, the next step is to recommend sampling of the soil/sediments from these locations. The boundary of the HTRW study is the area 50 feet from both sides of the San Francisquito Creek and the two tidal areas, and does not include the Searsville Lake and sites for potential off-site detention facilities and diversion structures. The Searsville Lake though not included in the HTRW study is one of the sites scoped in the sediments study. Additionally, sites for potential off-site detention facilities and diversion structures have yet to be determined but were scoped in the sediments study. 1.1.1 Review Existing Project Information: Description of task: Review existing project reports like the EIS/R to gather specific information about the project. Review existing environmental investigations conducted in and adjacent to the project site to identify potential environmental contamination issues and develop recommendations for a HTRW study. Items needed to complete task: EIS/R, project map and alignment, proposed alternatives, existing environmental investigation reports 1.1.2 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste (HTRW) Study Description of task: Based on the results of Task 1.1 (review of existing information), the Environmental Planning Section (ET-PZ) will prepare a Scope of Work (SOW) for a Phase I Environmental Site Assessment (ESA) to assess the current environmental conditions at the project site. The Phase I ESA will also identify recognizable environmental conditions, which are defined as "the presence or likely presence of any hazardous substances or petroleum products on a property under conditions that indicate an existing release, a past release, or a material threat of a release of any hazardous substances or petroleum products into structures on the property or into the ground, groundwater, or surface water of the property.” (ASTM 1994) Additionally, the Phase I ESA will review existing and past land uses to determine the potential presence of contaminants as well as the potential impact of known HTRW sites from adjacent or nearby lands to the project area. An independent government estimate (IGE) will also be prepared as part of the request for proposal (RFP) for contract solicitation.

33

Assumptions:

• RFP and contract can be prepared in 4 weeks (if all options are in one contract) If each option is in a separate contract, then the duration will be 21 days for each.

• Contracting (CT) (If one RFP and contract for all the options, total CT labor cost is $700.). If separate, then contracting cost will be $700 for each contract.

Items needed to complete task: PR&C, information from Task 1.1 1.1.3 Data Evaluation and Recommendations to Manage HTRW Description of task: If HTRW sites are present in the project area, ET-PZ will evaluate the potential liabilities and the potential impacts to project construction. If HTRW sites are present in adjacent or nearby areas, ET-PZ will evaluate the potential for contaminant migration and encroachment into the project area. In both of these cases, ET-PZ will develop recommendations for sampling. If sampling and testing has been conducted in the areas of concern, ET-PZ will compile this information and recommend measures to protect human health and the environment during project construction. ET-PZ will make recommendations to avoid disturbance to HTRW sites and minimize generation of hazardous wastes during project construction. 1.1.4 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments and coordination for the Draft and Final Feasibility Report milestones. Assumption: In house labor cost estimates includes 10% for Supervision and Administration costs. 1.2 Sediment Studies Introduction A 905(b) Analysis Reconnaissance Study of San Francisquito Creek, completed in March 2005, recommended that study of flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration proceed into a cost-shared Feasibility phase. This Scope of Work addresses one of the major data requirements for this investigation—sediment characterization—to ensure that the project is in compliance with Sections 401 and 404 of the Clean Water Act. In addition, this sediment study will help to identify disposal requirements and/or mitigation costs that might impact the economic viability of certain alternatives. As such, this study serves as an environmental baseline, and it might identify existing contaminant hotspots in areas within the watershed where large quantities of soil or sediment might have to be moved during the construction phase of this project.

34

The Recon study describes a wide array of plans designed to alleviate fluvial and tidal flooding or to restore wetlands along San Francisquito Creek. For example, along Reach 1 (the downstream end of the Creek), the cited plans include bank stabilization and channel widening, as well as the possible construction of various diversion structures, or raising levees. Similar alternatives are described for the Creek further upstream, along Reaches 2 and 3. These include the possible construction of detention basins and/or diversion structures, as well as channel widening and bank stabilization. At the far upstream end of San Francisquito Creek, at Searsville Reservoir, another alternative plan listed in the Recon study is the conversion of the Searsville Dam to a flood control facility (a “check dam”). Essentially all of these alternatives, along the entire length of the Creek, require substantial excavation and placement or removal of soil or sediment. At this point in time, most of the alternative plans cited in the Recon study are highly conjectural and largely lacking in detail. Most specifics, such as the location, size or extent of construction, or where and how sediment disposal will occur, presumably will be determined during the Feasibility phase. As such, certain assumptions are made for this Scope of Work, in order to make a first-order approximation of the costs required to characterize sediment for the potential construction that might be undertaken for this project. Perhaps the most critical of these assumptions, in terms of the cost estimates in this Scope of Work, is the depth to which most sample cores will have to be drilled. The number and location of these sample cores is another variable that is largely unknown and could significantly affect mobilization costs. 1.2.1 In-House Responsibilities Description of task: The Environmental Sciences Section (ET-PZ) will provide a member to the PDT and all associated S&A. This person will write a Scope of Work (SOW), compile an Independent Government Estimate, and conduct contract negotiations with a vendor(s) for the proposed sediment quality investigation. This person will help facilitate the solicitation of this contract by our contracting office, and will also manage the Sediment Study contract. The latter includes at least one field visit during the sampling phase of the investigation, and technical review of the draft and final version deliverables. 1.2.2 Contract Work and Services Required 1.2.2.1 Research and Review existing data Description of task: The Contractor shall thoroughly review and analyze existing sediment studies and related literature on the San Francisquito watershed. Local geologic maps, profiles, photographic documentation, and as-built drawings of Searsville Dam and Felt Lake diversion and dam shall be included in this review. Additionally, a detailed review of disposal options, applicable environmental windows, permits, and dredging technologies suitable for Searsville Reservoir and Felt Lake shall be conducted. 1.2.2.2 Bathymetric Survey Description of task: The Contractor shall mobilize, collect data (using multibeam swath technology), and provide detailed bathymetric maps of sediment elevations and, if possible,

35

sediment thicknesses (and volumes) in Searsville Reservoir. The area to be surveyed, just upstream of the dam, will be detailed by the Corps’ technical project manager soon after contract award. Care shall be taken to identify in the maps submerged hazards or debris fields (trees, boulders, concrete rubble, etc.). 1.2.2.3 Work Plan Development Description of task: A detailed Work Plan (WP) that includes a Sampling and Analysis Plan (SAP), Quality Assurance Project Plan (QAPP), and Health and Safety Plan (HSP) shall be prepared by the Contractor. The SAP will be prepared in accordance with the general guidelines outlined in the USACE SAP preparation manual (EM 200-1-3). The QAPP will be prepared in accordance with the USACE/USEPA Quality Assurance/Quality Control guidance manual for dredged material evaluations (EPA 23-B-95-001). The HSP will include a job hazard analysis, accident prevention plan, a mapped route to the nearest emergency room facility, and any other relevant safety plans as required by the USACE Safety and Health engineering manual (EM 385-1-1). The WP shall include results from the literature review and bathymetric survey (Tasks 1 and 2), as well as all information necessary for regulatory agencies to understand the planned sampling locations, sampling and processing methods, analytical laboratory methods, target detection limits, and planned data reductions. The WP will provide the responsible agencies the opportunity to comment on the planned activities prior to initiation of field sampling and analysis. In addition, the WP will detail all planned subcontract firms providing services under this SOW. This document and associated plates, figures and attachments shall be submitted to the responsible agencies for review. 1.2.2.4 Permit Acquisitions Description of task: The Contractor shall research and obtain all licenses and permits necessary from the responsible Federal, State and local regulatory agencies for any and all activities. All permits will be obtained prior to initiation of field activities. 1.2.2.5 Sediment Sampling & Processing Description of task: Three different groups of samples will be taken for this study. The first group will be from Searsville Reservoir (SVR), the second from alongside the banks of San Francisquito Creek (SFC), and a third from other sites in the watershed where diversion structures and/or detention basins might be constructed (CON), but the locations have yet to be determined. For the purposes of this Scope of Work, it will be assumed that the sample cores from SVR are 20’-30’ long, and are divided stratigraphically into upper and lower sample horizons, and that there are 3 composites from each horizon, for a total of 6 sample composites. Similarly, it will be assumed the SFC sample cores are also 20’-30’ long, and divided into upper and lower sample horizons. It is assumed that there are 5 composites from each horizon, for a total of 10 sample composites to be analyzed. Similar assumptions will also be made for the CON sample cores, but that there will be 7 composites from each horizon, making 14 CON composites. Thus, there will be 30 total composites (SVR + SFC + CON) to chemically analyze.

36

To collect the SVR cores, the Contractor shall mobilize a vessel capable of sampling sediments with vibratory coring equipment. The vibracore shall be equipped with a 4-inch barrel capable of recovering sediment cores of up to 30’ in length. To collect SFC and CON cores, the Contractor shall mobilize a truck-mounted rotary drill rig and use hollow-stem augurs with a sample spoon to recover soil samples. Sediment recovery in both the vibracore and sample spoon shall be no less than 60% of the barrel/augur penetration. The number and precise location of all core stations and composites shall be determined with input from the Corps’ technical manager during preparation of the Work Plan. Sediment/soil cores shall be collected into non-contaminating liners such as Lexan®, or other similar material. All sediment/soil cores shall be described, logged and processed by a registered geologist or geotechnical engineer. Based on this logging, each sample core shall be divided into upper and lower stratigraphic horizons. To create a composite sample, sediment/soil from adjacent cores shall be homogenized in a stainless steel bowl to a consistent color and texture. Representative subsamples of each composite will either be placed into appropriate clean containers for chemical analysis, or archived for future analysis if necessary. All sediment/soil samples will be stored on ice (but not frozen) and in the dark until shipment to the laboratory for analysis. Samples shall be shipped within 24 hours of processing, by using an overnight courier from the nearest drop point, to facilitate required holding times. All sampling/composite locations, and techniques and procedures used in the sampling, logging, and processing of samples, shall be detailed in the SAP portion of the Work Plan. 1.2.2.6 Laboratory Testing Description of task: Chemical analysis shall be done on all of the composite samples. Testing will consist of bulk sediment analysis, physical testing, and modified elutriate testing (MET, Palermo 1985). Bulk sediment tests will be made to determine chemical qualities of the composited soil or sediment. Physical testing will include grain size and total organic carbon (TOC) for the bulk sediment. The MET measures elutriate chemistry from suspended sediments; this is necessary to determine water-borne sediment concentrations of chemicals. Analysis of sediments will include: grain size, TOC, total suspended solids, moisture content and bulk density, metals (Ag, Al, As, Cd, Cr, Cu, Fe, Hg, Mn, Ni, Pb, Se, V, Zn), polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs), pesticides, PCBs, nutrients (N, P, K), total and dissolved sulfides, and ammonia. 1.2.2.7 Data Compilation and Analysis Description of task: The Contractor shall compile and summarize all collected data in tabular and graphical format. Correlation of laboratory test results and logs shall be provided to identify soil characteristics as applicable to project objectives. 1.2.2.8 Report Preparation Description of task: A draft report shall be prepared that describes the site conditions, sample and composite locations, sampling methods used, problems encountered, analytical procedures used, and findings and recommendations pertinent to this project. The draft report shall be

37

provided in electronic form to the Corps’ technical project manager for initial comments. Following revision of the draft report, it shall be forwarded to the commenting Federal, State and local agencies as necessary. Following receipt of all comments on the draft report from the Corps and all of the regulatory agencies, the draft report shall be finalized. Ten (10) hard copies of the final report, and two (2) electronic copies on CD-ROM, shall be delivered to the Corps’ technical project manager. 1.2.2.9 Project Coordination and Site Visits Description of task: A site visit, to review logistics, will be made by the Contractor to San Francisquito Creek and environs prior to initiation of Task 2—Work Plan Development. It is anticipated that a second visit, to provide reconnaissance of site conditions, will be made just prior to mobilization and after the final work plan has been approved. Costs involved in managing this contract by the Contractor, and in coordinating with District personnel are to be included with this task. 1.2.2.10 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments and coordination for the Draft and Final Feasibility Report milestones. Notes It is economically most efficient that the sediment studies be scoped and contracted right after all of the alternative plans have been winnowed down and a final plan selected. The above cost estimates are completely independent of what other studies are done and of what is determined from the data collection (except that study costs may increase if contaminant hotspots are found that require further sampling and analysis). It should be emphasized, however, that efficiencies can be achieved, especially with mobilization/ demobilization, if other studies requiring sampling (e.g. geotech) are done concurrently and under the same contract. The Water Quality Control Board will be reviewing our NEPA/CEQA documents and issuing Waste Discharge Orders for the project. This process can begin now with the local sponsor facilitating. They also could be asked to assist us in determining the water quality profile of the Creek, give us guidance on what type of water quality data is needed, and help us with scoping a water quality sampling contract if needed. 1.3 Cultural Studies Introduction A 905(b) Analysis of San Francisquito Creek, completed in March 2005, recommended that study of flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration proceed into a cost-shared Feasibility phase.

38

This Scope of Work addresses cultural resources to ensure that the project is in compliance with Corps regulations and Sections 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). This study will identify cultural resources within the project Area of Potential Effects (APE) and evaluate their historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). It will also assess the adverse effects of the project on the inventory of historic properties and recommend mitigation treatment in accordance with the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Historic Preservation and Section 106 of the NHPA. The 905B analysis describes a wide array of plans designed to alleviate fluvial and tidal flooding and to restore wetlands along San Francisquito Creek. For example, along Reach 1 (the downstream end of the Creek), the cited plans include bank stabilization and channel widening, as well as the possible construction of various diversion structures, or raising levees. Similar alternatives are described for the Creek further upstream, along Reaches 2 and 3. These include the possible construction of detention basins and/or diversion structures, as well as channel widening and bank stabilization. At the far upstream end of San Francisquito Creek, at Searsville Dam, another alternative plan listed in the Recon study is the conversion of the Searsville Dam to a flood control facility (a “check dam”). Essentially all of these alternatives, along the entire length of the Creek, require substantial excavation and removal and placement of soil or sediment. Excavation activities such as channel widening, diversion structures, and detention basins require extensive excavation that may have an adverse affect on historic properties. At this point in time, most of the alternative plans cited in the Recon study are highly conjectural and largely lacking in detail. Most specifics, such as the Area of Potential Effects (APE), reach designated alternative options, and where and how sediment borrow and disposal will occur, will be determined during the Feasibility phase. As such, certain assumptions are made for this Scope of Work, in order to make an approximation of the costs required to identify and treat historic properties within the APE. Perhaps the most critical of these assumptions, in terms of the cost estimates, is the (identification of historic properties) field survey and geoarchaeological analysis which will require scopes of work and contracts for services. The number and location of historic properties is another variable that is largely unknown and could significantly affect project design, delay construction, and affect excavation costs. Assumptions: The River and its tributaries are flanked by intermittent widespread residential subdivisions, interspersed by commercial centers, light industrial development, and crossed by roads and railroad lines. Historically flooding events date back to 1700’s and they have intensified as the South Bay has changed from agricultural to urban land use. An APE has not been established for the project area. A provisional, expanded, APE has been established in order to contain the costs of the historic properties research and survey area. The Area of Potential Effects (APE) is defined as the San Francisquito Creek (main stem) channel, and tributaries, from the Searsville Lake, to San Francisco Bay and including all parallel land corridors throughout the length of the project area and extending to all properties immediately adjacent to the Creek and including the tidal areas between Marsh Road, Adobe Creek,. The

39

APE falls within Reaches that will be the project construction areas and will include channel excavation and widening, flood wall construction, bypass excavation and construction, maintenance and river set-back locations, and revegetation planting. Some locations within the project area have not been surveyed. These areas are either inaccessible because of dense vegetation, or roadways and structures associated with urban development prevent accessibility. Our examination of the project area has revealed a high density of cultural resources along the mainstem of San Francisquito Creek and its tributaries, and around Searsville Lake. Buried cultural resources exist within the project area. Given the amount of alluvial deposition in the river basin and because the river channel has changed its course over the years, it is highly likely that sites do exist beneath buried sediments of the present day land surface. A geoarchaeological analysis will help predict locations of cultural components within the strata of the project area and provide evidence of “a good faith effort to carry out identification efforts” and locate historic properties within the APE. 1.3.1 Regulatory Authority The project constitutes an undertaking subject to compliance with the National Historic Preservation Act, Section 106. The Advisory Council on Historic Preservation Regulations and Guidelines 36 CFR Part 800.

The National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) of 1966, as amended, requires Federal agencies to take into account the effects of the proposed undertaking on cultural resources listed or eligible for listing on the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). Because historic properties could be affected by the Project, the Corps is complying with Section 106 of the NHPA.

The Section 106 review process (36 CFR 800.4) consists of four major steps:(1) identification and evaluation of historic properties (2) assessment of the effects of the undertaking on historic properties, (3) consultation with Indian tribes, interested groups, and the State Historic Preservation Office to develop an agreement document addressing the treatment of historic properties, and (4) receipt from the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation of comments on the agreement or results of consultation. Once these steps are completed and documented, in accordance with 36 CFR 800.11, the San Francisquito Creek Project would proceed in accordance with the conditions of the agreement document. 1.3.2 TASKS Task 1.3.2.1 Gather Information to Identify Historic Properties. Gather previous surveys, site records, maps, and records from in-house and agencies sources, conduct review and analysis of all materials related to the San Francisquito watershed assess current conditions and establish a provisional Area of Potential Effects (APE) for documentation of historic properties. Assess the level of cultural resources management for the entire project APE. Document all known cultural resources and evaluate or reevaluate their potential historic significance and eligibility for listing in the National Register of Historic Places (36 CFR 63).

40

Conduct a site visit, review logistics and develop a strategy for field survey and testing. Assess each alternative for potential adverse effects to historic properties within the APE. Task 1.3.2.1b. Cultural Resources Contract This investigation may require a contract Scope of Work (SOW) for an Independent Government Estimate (vendor) for compliance tasks associated with section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA). The Corps specialist will help facilitate the solicitation of these contracts by our contracting office, and will also manage the Study contracts. The latter includes periodic monitoring during survey, testing and sampling, and technical review of the draft and final version deliverables. Throughout the San Mateo County and northern Santa Clara County prehistoric archaeological sites are often discovered under accumulations of Holocene age alluvial deposits. To address the high potential for buried resources the use of geoarchaeological analysis would assist the Corps in meeting its federal "responsibility to make a reasonable and good faith effort to identify historic properties that may be affected by an undertaking" (Federal Register 36 CFR 800.4), and significantly reduce the potential for discovery of historic properties within the project APE. Based on information from previous studies in the South Bay Area the potential for buried archaeological sites is high. A geoarchaeological analysis will be conducted using trenching technology, in specified locations throughout the project area. The contractor will conduct study and prepare a detailed technical report to comply with federal regulations and professional guidelines. Task 1.3.2.2. Research and Review Existing Data The Corps archaeologist will conduct review and analysis of all in-house and archival search records. If needed, conduct (an updated) records search at the Northwest Information Center, California’s database of previous studies and previously recorded sites. Establish proposed project Area of Potential Effects (APE) include a radius of one-half mile (one-quarter mile on either side of the mainstem and one-half mile around the Searsville Lake). Identify, and document, all cultural resources, older than 50 years, within the APE. Develop historic context for all property types. Specialized research may be conducted at the City Assessor and Recorders Office, California State University libraries, local historic and culture history museums and research libraries to obtain information on historic and prehistoric period land use. Task 1.3.2.2b:Field Survey Review logistics and research data to determine if previous surveys include all areas of the proposed project’s APE. Utilize data from previous surveys to establish strategy for any additional survey. If previous survey work includes the entire project area and it is less than 10 years old, then a contract for additional survey will not be necessary. Develop strategy for survey in areas previously inaccessible or un-surveyed. Conduct intensive field surveys. If a contract is needed for survey and testing prepare contract scope of work and process through contracting office.

41

Real Estate support may be needed if rights of entry for survey areas are required. Task 1.3.2.2c. Coordination and Consultation with Native Americans and Interest Groups Initiate consultation in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3. Gather information from the Native American Heritage Commission (NAHC) and initiate government to government consultation with Indian tribes and groups who may have cultural ties to the project area or who may be knowledgeable about the potential for Native American sites and or land use in the project area. Request information regarding sacred lands, traditional cultural properties, and traditional use areas. Invite participation of Indian tribes and representatives with interests in the project area and request a tentative evaluation of project impacts on locations of significance and the preservation of such sites. Invite participation of social, cultural, local interest groups or individuals and request tentative evaluation of project impacts on locations of significance and the preservation of such sites. Task 1.3.2.2d. Obtain GIS UTM Coordinates and Mapping Data. Assess Study Reports and Site Records to acquire and input GIS mapping data. Task 1.3.3. Coordinate with Team Members, Attend Team Meetings Participate in team meetings. Coordinate with team members to identify specific on-the-ground locations to avoid historic properties and adverse effects. Coordinate tasks to reduce project costs and share costs resources where possible. Local sponsors may participate in saving project costs by providing project area and GIS maps, environmental and technical reports, photographs, and other specialized study data. Task 1.3.4 Consultation with SHPO Initiate consultation with State Historic Preservation Office to introduce project and to identify the Area of Potential Effects. Task 1.3.5: Assess Adverse Effects to Historic Properties. Historic properties receive consideration under the NHPA and must be assessed in accordance with Section 106 (36 CFR 800.5). Adverse effects are found when the proposed action may alter any of the characteristics of the historic property that make it eligible for listing in the NRHP. Evaluate or reevaluate cultural resources within the APE for eligibility to the National Register of Historic Places guided by the Secretary of the Interior’s Standards and Guidelines for Evaluation (36 CFR 60.3). Properties that meet the criteria are considered Historic Properties, that is, they retain significant information important to our Nation, State, and local histories, and are eligible for listing on the NRHP. Task 1.3.5b. Resolve Adverse Effects. Resolve adverse effects using standard treatments established by ACHP 36 CFR 800.14(d). Include provisions for discoveries or subsequent identification of historic properties affected by the project. Filing the approved MOA concludes the Section 106 process and must occur before the undertaking is approved.

42

1. If adverse effects are found If adverse effects are found continue consultation as stipulated at 36 CFR 800.6. Notify

the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) and determine participation providing documentation as stipulated at 36 CFR 800.11(e). The ACHP will notify their participation within 15 days. If adverse effects cannot be avoided then standard treatments established by the Council may be used (36 CFR 800.14(d)) as a basis for Memorandum of Agreement (MOA). The filing of an approved MOA, and appropriate documentation as specified at (36 CFR 800.11(e)), concludes the Section 106 process. The MOA must be signed by all consulting parties and approved by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) prior to construction activities. Approval of an MOA is estimated to take 30 days but may take up to 90 days.

2. If no adverse affects are found and the SHPO or the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) do not object within 30 days of receipt the agencies responsibilities under Section 106 will be satisfied upon completion of report and documentation as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.11. The information must be made available for public review upon request, excluding information covered by confidentiality provisions. Or, Once these steps are completed as described in the federal regulations the San Francisquito Creek Project would proceed in accordance with the conditions of the agreement. Task 1.3.6. Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribes. Consultation with Native Americans was initiated in 1998 in accordance with 36 CFR 800.3. Section 106 requires that the lead agency continue to gather information from groups and individuals who may be knowledgeable or have cultural ties to the project area. Request their views on the potential for Native American sites and sacred lands, traditional cultural properties, and traditional use areas. Invite participation and request a tentative evaluation of project impacts on locations of significance and the preservation of such sites. Task 1.3.7. Consultation with the SHPO and the ACHP. If no historic properties are within the APE and the SHPO and the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation (ACHP) do not object within 30 days of receipt of an adequately documented finding of no historic properties, the agencies responsibilities under Section 106 will be fulfilled and consultation will be satisfied upon completion of technical documentation as stipulated in 36 CFR 800.11. The information must be made available for public inspection upon request, excluding information covered by privacy law, and summarized in the environmental document for public review. If the SHPO and the Corps agree on how the adverse effects will be resolved an MOA must be executed, with appropriate documentation (36 CFR 800.11(e)), and approved by the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation and the signatory (consulting) agencies prior to construction.

43

Once these steps are completed and documented as described in the federal regulations the Pajaro River Project would proceed in accordance with the conditions of the MOA. Task 1.3.8. Technical Report and Documentation Section 106 requires that all phases of investigation be documented including research and efforts to gather additional information, delineation of APE, evaluation of historic properties, resolution of adverse effects, efforts to avoid, minimize or mitigate adverse effects, consultations with SHPO and other agencies, etc. The federal agency is required to maintain a permanent record of these findings and provide the public with information about the project in appropriate venues (excluding information subject to confidentiality provisions). Task 1.3.9 Public Interest and Public Information Federal projects are carried out in the public interest. Develop a cost effective informative web page document for public information. Provide brief report in appropriate scientific venues. Task 1.3.10: ITR and Coordination Respond to ITR comments for the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports and coordination ADDITIONAL IMPORTANT AND USEFUL INFORMATION The alternatives include three options for tidal flooding containment. The cost for literature and background research will include the three options therefore encompassing the widest possible project area. The cost savings gained from omitting each of the tidal areas from literature search is minimal. After the initial records search and analysis the number and locations of historic properties will help address each of the tidal and fluvial alternatives. However, until the project area is specifically defined there may be additional costs associated with tasks not defined in the initial research and survey area To reduce costs, the local sponsor may provide appropriate USGS topographic project area maps and GIS maps, aerial photographs, historic properties reports, Title and land surveys, and provide the Corps with copies of previous environmental and cultural resources report documents from previous studies and projects. If it is determined that field surveys have been conducted within the APE within the last 10 years, the survey area will be significantly reduced and result in a considerable cost savings to the project.

A finding of no adverse effects does not exclude the Agencies from further responsibilities in the event of an inadvertent discovery. If a discovery is made immediate action must be taken. An inadvertent discovery would require additional tasks and funding (costs would not exceed 1% of the total cost of the cost-shared project). Staging areas, disposal sites, and borrow areas must be considered in the cultural resources survey. Please provide location information as soon as it is known. This task may require

44

additional funding if borrow areas, staging areas, and disposal sites are not included in the initial literature search and survey. Notes: *A Contract for CRM to meet federal compliance estimate $60,000.00tbd *Contract for Geoarcheological Analysis estimate $15,000.00tbd ** Native American Burial Treatment Plan not Included in estimate. The above cost estimates are completely independent of what other studies are done and of what is determined from the data collection (except that study costs may increase if human burials are found or historic properties are discovered during construction. Historic properties discoveries are not to exceed 1% of the total cost of the project not including the initial reconnaissance funded 100% by government. Additional studies, analysis, curation or other treatment may be required if historic properties are discovered and treatment is not provided for in an MOA. 2. ENVIRONMENTAL PLANNING SECTION Environmental Impact Statement (EIS), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Coordination, and Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report 2.1.1 Preliminary Alternatives Analysis

The Environmental Manager (EM) will coordinate with the Project Delivery Team (PDT) on the development of the alternatives and conduct an analysis of potential impacts for each of the alternatives under consideration. The preliminary alternatives analysis will inform the engineering team in writing of potential adverse impacts and highlight potential changes needed to minimize adverse impacts. This preliminary analysis of the alternatives is intended to inform the plan formulation process to possible adverse impacts and to facilitate the development of preliminary alternatives that minimize adverse impacts. In addition the EM will develop a summary report for inclusion into the F4 documentation. 2.1.2 Environmental Impact Statement/Report (NEPA/CEQA) An Environmental Impact Statement/Report (EIS/R) will be prepared. The EIS/R will be a joint document whereby, the Federal Government Corps will be responsible for satisfying Federal (NEPA) requirements, and the non-Federal sponsors (JPA) will be responsible for tasks needed to satisfy State (CEQA) regulations. Comments received on the draft EIS/R will be assessed, and revisions will be made in accordance with Federal and State law. Mitigation features for fish and wildlife and other affected resources will be formulated and a monitoring plan developed to record the success of the mitigation.

45

Other tasks under this section depending on the alternatives, might include additional studies relating to water quality, soil analysis, fish passage, air quality, urban impacts, as well as others not identified at this time. Environmental Planning Section will also review Civil Design plans to ensure the project’s design will minimize environmental impacts. Mitigation measures will be sought and suggested for unavoidable impacts and opportunities to improve the ecosystem will be identified. Tasks completed by the Environmental Sciences Section will also need to be incorporated into the EIS/R (e.g. Cultural Resources Assessment, HTRW Assessment findings etc). The preliminary alternatives and analysis will inform the Engineering team of potential adverse impacts and highlight potential changes to minimize adverse impacts. Additionally, the EM will identify opportunities for ecological improvement. This preliminary analysis of the alternatives is intended to inform the plan formulation process to possibility adverse impacts. Restoration opportunities and facilitate the development of preliminary alternatives. 2.1.3 Summary of Existing Conditions and Need for Environmental Action for F3 Package Using the Draft EIS and any other necessary investigations the PZ will prepare a summary package of the existing conditions and the purpose and need for a project. This summary package will be incorporated into the F3 Package and is intended to document the environmental findings associated with the existing conditions for the purposes of Independent Technical Review (ITR) and Plan Formulation. 2.1.4 Summary of W/Project Environmental Conditions The EM will document the efforts through the with Project condition and prepare a summary of those efforts for ITR and the F4 presentation. The summary will be sufficient to explain the preliminary alternatives analysis and recommendations as well as the development of the Final ICA metric. In addition the PAL and assessment of the PAL with coordination will be commented on and documented. 2.1.5 F4A Summary of W/Project Environmental Conditions The EM will revise the F4 package based on results of the F4 conference for inclusion in the F4A package. 2.1.6 Fish and Wildlife Studies (Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act) This task includes studies by the FWS in support of the environmental studies required by the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act. The principal FWS product is a Coordination Act Report (preceded by the Planning Aid Letter and HEP Studies). The report will refine impacts of alternatives on fish and wildlife habitat and recommend types and amounts of mitigation for

46

habitat losses. The Corps will coordinate with FWS and supervise the interagency contract as part of its environmental impact studies task. The purpose is to determine baseline habitat conditions in the project area. From an ecological perspective, FWS will qualitatively and quantitatively assess the project alternatives impact on fish and wildlife (not just endangered species). Also, what will be produced inclusive is a mitigation plan for unavoidable impacts caused by the project (if any). If there are listed species that are present in the project area biological surveys and impact analyses will be necessary to identify the extent of their habitat. Seasonal surveys of these species might be performed at specific locations within the project limits to identify the potential for impact depending on the project description. 2.1.7 Biological Assessment (Section 7 Consultations) Requirements of the Federal Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species Act will be completed. A Biological Assessment (BA) and formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS). California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will be consulted for State- and Federally-listed species that may be affected by the proposed work.

2.1.8 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments and Coordination for the FR, F$A, Draft Feasibility Report and Final Feasibility Report milestones.

Considerations Alternatives have not yet been developed. When the scope of the project and alternatives are more defined, then this scope of work will be modified accordingly. This scope will assume a project study life of approximately four to four and a half years. This Preliminary Scope does not address additional surveys that might be requested by the resource agencies. Also, exact dates associated with the products and labor are not included, since the start/stop dates are dependent on the Corps and sponsor agreeing and providing a detailed project description of alternatives, as well as having a good handle on existing conditions (without project conditions).

3. ECONOMICS SECTION Develop National Economic Development (NED), National Environmental Restoration (NER), and Ability to Pay Analyses PURPOSE: This document describes briefly the tasks and costs that would be required for the successful completion of the economic analysis to meet the F4 milestone.

47

TASKS: 3.1 Literature Review/Data Assessment Description of task: Review existing reports to determine data collection requirements. 3.2 Analysis Configuration Description of task: Delineate preliminary without-project economic impact areas within the flood plain based on locations of structures/damageable property, hydraulic conditions, jurisdictional boundaries, potential project alternatives, and other criteria. Requirements to Complete Task: Collaborative effort with other team members. 3.3 Data Collection/Manipulation Description of task: Perform a complete structure inventory of the flood plain; use available county assessor data, Marshall & Swift Valuation publications, and recent market data to estimate depreciated replacement values of structures in the flood plain; determine first floor elevation of structures in the flood plain thru field visits, GIS applications, and other techniques as required; prepare data for input into the @Risk model. Requirements to Complete Task: 500-year flood plain map; ground elevations for each parcel in the flood plain; water surface elevations associated with the 10yr, 25yr, 50yr, 100yr, 200yr, and 500yr frequency events for each parcel in the flood plain; flood plain data (ground elevations, water surface elevations) will be linked to economic data (via GIS) using a GIS parcel layer obtained from county(s) of local sponsor. Assumption: Cost estimate includes $24,000 for labor and $5,000 for the procurement of structure data over the amount the Economics section currently subscribes to through First American Real Estate Solutions. 3.4 @Risk Model Set-Up/Derivation of Stage-Damage Curves Description of task: Format/prepare linked H/H/economic data (from Task 3) for entry into the @Risk model; enter data into @Risk; perform statistical analysis and enter data for those economic parameters (structure value, content value, content-to-structure value ratio, foundation height, ground elevation, depth-percent damage) having the greatest impact on damages; run @Risk simulations to derive damages for each frequency event (10yr, 25yr, 50yr, 100yr, 200yr, and 500yr) and for each condition (without and future without), deriving a frequency-damage curve for each condition; link damages to stage (via either a frequency-stage curve, or a frequency-flow curve AND a stage-discharge curve) to develop a stage-damage curve for each condition and for each economic impact area. Requirements to Complete Task: Frequency-discharge and stage-discharge curves for each economic impact area.

48

3.5 HEC-FDA Model Set-Up/Computation of Equivalent Annual Damages Description of task: Enter stage-damage curves developed in Task 4 into HEC-FDA; enter hydrologic (frequency-discharge) and hydraulic (stage-discharge) curves for each reach into HEC-FDA; enter geo-technical data (PNP/PFP, top of levee stages), if applicable, into HEC-FDA; run HEC-FDA and perform any necessary trouble shooting based on validity/reasonableness of the results. Requirements to Complete Task: Frequency-discharge, stage-discharge, geo-technical levee failure data (if applicable) for each economic impact area. 3.6 Preliminary NED Analysis Description of task: Perform preliminary net benefit and benefit-to-cost ratio analyses. Requirements to Complete Task: Preliminary cost estimates. 3.7 Technical Documentation Description of task: Prepare economic report. 3.8 Site Visit(s) Description of task: Verify structure occupancy types/land use and collect foundation height data for all structures in the flood plain. 3.9 Team Meetings Description of task: Attend team meetings. 3.10 Miscellaneous Tasks Description of task: Coordinate with Water Resources and GIS sections to ensure economic data requirements are met; provide periodic economic updates, prepare budget submittals and scopes of services, and evaluate performance metrics for the project; calculate other NED benefits (e.g., savings in flood insurance administrative costs, emergency costs, automobile damages, etc.) 3.11 Develop Cost-Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analyses (CEA/ICA)/Provide Input for Trade-Off Analysis Description of task: Economic studies for ecosystem restoration shall be performed in accordance with, Cost Effectiveness Analysis for Environmental Planning: Nine Easy Steps, Institute for Water Resources, US Army Corps of Engineers 1994, which provides guidance on how the federal government’s Principals & Guidelines can be met.

49

For ecosystem restoration, where a traditional benefit-to-cost analysis is not possible because costs and benefits are expressed in different units (e.g., dollars vs. habitat units), CEA/ICA offers problem-solving approaches that are consistent with the planning paradigm. Cost effectiveness will ensure that the least cost solution is identified for each possible level of environmental output. Subsequent incremental cost analyses will reveal changes in costs for increasing levels of environmental outputs. Once project costs for Corps and sponsor-determined alternatives are developed, a CEA will be conducted to eliminate economically inefficient solutions. An ICA will provide information on the marginal cost to produce each additional unit of environmental output. These analyses will ensure that a rational, supportable, focused, and traceable approach is used for considering and selecting alternative methods to produce environmental outputs. The CEA/ICA will also help identify the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) Plan. Additionally, economic input will be provided to the PDT to assist in evaluating how each alternative or combination of alternatives (within a complete project) contributes to the project’s objective and how trade-offs between each alternative impact the overall feasibility of a project as compared to other projects. Requirements to Complete Task: Project cost estimates; environmental outputs per alternative. 3.12 Ability to Pay Analysis Description of task: The sponsor will prepare a letter assuring the Corps of its ability to finance its portion of the project. The letter will include a financial statement as well as a statement of its financial capability. The Corps will then perform an informal audit of the sponsor’s financial statements for the past several fiscal years to evaluate the sponsor’s ability to finance its portion of the project. The Corps will also examine the non-Federal sources of funding during and after construction. The analysis will also include examining the local government’s income, its current indebtedness, operating expenses, assessed property values, bond ratings, tax collection rates as well as other financial data. The results will be included in the Feasibility Study document as a financial assessment report. 3.13 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments for the F3, F4, F4A, Draft Feasibility Report and Final Feasibility Report milestones. 3.14 Supervision & Administration (S&A) Description of task: Funds for supervisor oversight and administrative efforts provided by economic assistant. 4. SPECIFICATIONS & COST ENGINEERING SECTION Develop Cost Estimates for Alternative Array and Recommended Plan 4.1 Task: Coordination/Meetings with PDT Description of task: Attend meetings and coordinate with PDT members, sponsors, attend site visit, etc.

50

Items needed to complete tasks: Project background information, information updates. 4.2 Task: Develop Cost Estimates - Alternatives Description of task: Specification and Cost Engineering to prepare cost estimates per Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1302 and Engineering Instructions (EI) 01D010 for this estimate. The cost estimates will include a narrative (basis of cost) on the method of construction, assumptions and design data. Estimates will be generated using either R.S. Means for construction or the Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES). The estimates based on current price levels will be the baseline cost estimates. These baseline cost estimates will be escalated to the proposed mid-point of construction and presented as the fully-funded cost estimates. Items needed to complete tasks: 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. Sufficient engineering and design must be performed for each designated alternative. Best available construction features (descriptions), lands and damages, utility relocations, any mandatory mitigations, engineering and design, construction management , and contingencies. Consultation with PDT/PF/PM and Section Chiefs will be required. 4.3 Task: Conduct seamless review on cost estimates Description of task: QC review of estimates Items needed to complete tasks: Cost estimates for the alternatives 4.4 Task: Develop DRAFT Feasibility Level Cost Estimates Description of task: Specification and Cost Engineering section will prepare and further refine the cost estimate per Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-2-1302 and Engineering Instructions (EI) 01D010 for the selected alternative. The cost estimate will include updates to the project design and construction, narrative on the method of construction, assumptions and design data. Estimates will be generated using the Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES). The estimates based on current price levels will be the baseline cost estimates. These baseline estimates will be escalated to the proposed mid-point of construction and presented as the fully-funded cost estimates. Items needed to complete tasks: Updates to the engineering and design for the selected alternative 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.

51

4.5 Task: Develop Final MCACES and Basis of Cost Description of task: Finalize and incorporate all changes/updated information to determine the final cost estimate. Items needed to complete tasks: All updated information and changes to the design. 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. Costs for Planning, Engineering and Design (PED), Engineering and Design during construction (E&D), and Supervisory and Administration (S&A) to be provided by PPMD. 4.6 Task: ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments for the F4, F4A, Draft Feasibility Report and Final Feasibility Report milestones. 4.7 Task: AE Contract Administration on up to 5 Contracts Description of task: Perform contract administration on up to 5 contracts. Tasks include review of the SOW’s and Independent Government Estimate (IGE’s), negotiations if required, coordination with Technical Point of Contact (TPOC’s), processing pay estimates through Corps of Engineers Financial Management System (CEFMS) and inputting Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System (ACASS) ratings. 5.WATER RESOURCES SECTION General: Tidal analysis is required to determine fluvial (stream flow) conditions near tidal areas because tide elevations often have significant effects upon stream conditions for some distance upstream from a mouth or an estuary. Unless certain preventative conditions exist, high tides will cause fluvial and interior drainage flows to back-up. This back-water effect must be considered as part of the fluvial process analysis to estimate water surface elevations upstream. Back-up of interior drainage systems during high tides is a result of inadequate interior drainage facilities. If tidal protection facilities are built or improved to allow higher interior drainage system tail-waters, any existing interior back-up will be likely to increase because of higher back-pressure on the facilities. Fluvial process analysis is required to determine tidal flooding reduction features because tidal protection facilities must provide for passage of fluvial flows to the tidal area (bay). Local rainfall runoff and other interior drainage issues are analyzed as part of a Corps flood control project. If a creek, for example, does not overflow its banks, local rainfall and any other runoff must still be addressed to insure against storm flooding. Tidal flooding (water from the bay) may occur through fluvial flood protection facilities if they do not prevent back-flow at high tide elevations (using well-maintained flap-gates, for example). Therefore fluvial and tidal analysis duration and costs are combined for each project area. To ensure that the ongoing floodplain mapping of San Francisquito Creek and the assumptions and criteria used in the tidal flood analysis are compatible with Federal

52

Emergency Management Agency (FEMA) criteria, the Corps and the Non-Federal Sponsor will coordinate on an as-needed basis with FEMA. FEMA will be invited to decision meetings and milestone conferences. There will also be coordination with the Feasibility Study effort for the South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study’s Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study, a project located at the southern border of the study area for the San Francisquito Creek Study. 5.1 Develop Baseline Hydrology Description of task: Collect and review available data on basin hydrology including information previously developed by the non-Federal sponsor. Evaluate and assess current land uses, climate, soil types, precipitation levels, annual creek flow characteristics, water elevations, projected future development, and overall watershed characteristics as necessary to develop the current and projected future hydrology. This will include, but not be limited to, determining flood history, dates, stream flow rates, precipitation history, and occurrences of levee overtopping. Flow duration curves, headwater and tailwater rating curves for the pertinent project areas will be developed, as well as low flow frequency and duration data. A Without Project Hydrology Certification will complete the development of the Baseline Hydrology. 5.2 Develop Baseline Hydraulic Analysis Description of task: Baseline Hydraulic analysis will be developed for this project to determine the existing hydraulic condition with respect to the project area. Available information will be used to the extent possible to develop the hydraulics of the project area. 5.2.1 Fluvial Processes Hydraulic, channel capacity, flood plain delineation for the 2-, 10-, 25-, 50-, 100-, and 500- year events and Flood Damage Assessment (FDA) risk analyses will estimate the current level of protection provided by existing structures. These estimates will inform the plan formulation process with hydraulic constraints and the requirement not to reduce the current level of protection. The Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) will be used, in addition to other numerical modeling as needed. Ongoing consultation with the Civil Design section will determine the need for additional mapping and survey needs. 5.2.2 Tidal Processes Coastal analysis of tide stages with wave run-up and wind set-up will estimate the current level of protection provided by existing structures. These estimates will inform the plan formulation process with tidal constraints and the requirement not to reduce the current level of protection. A Water Resources Section Coastal Engineer will probably assist with this analysis. Ongoing consultation with the Civil Design section will determine the need for additional mapping and survey needs.

53

5.2.3 Geomorphic and Sediment Yield Analysis Description of task: Identify changes to the creek over time, such as erosion and sediment deposition patterns, creek alignment changes and/or changes in slope or stability, flow variations, channel shapes, sizes, depths, as well as bed material size, and other pertinent factors. As part of the analysis channel stability as well as sediment sources and sinks within the watershed will be evaluated to determine potential sources of sediment at the project site. Detailed literature review and data investigations will then be performed to characterize these sources and to assess the sedimentation potential. HEC-RAS and SAMwin models may be used to calculate sediment transport capacity and sediment yield. 5.3 PDT Development of the F3 Conceptual Alternatives Description of task: In conjunction with the PDT, develop conceptual alternatives designed to address flood-damage reduction and habitat restoration objectives. These alternatives will be presented and discussed at the F3 conference. 5.4 Summarize H&H Studies (F3 H&H Package) Description of task: Summarize H&H studies in written F3 report including available data, site characterization, analyses and assumptions, findings and recommendations as determined in Tasks 5.1.1 through 5.3.3. 5.5 Preliminary Alternative Design Description of task: Develop a preliminary hydraulic design for alternatives based on feedback on conceptual alternatives from F3 conference, sponsor comments, and meetings. The preliminary hydraulic design will estimate high flows, velocities, sediment transport, and location of flood plain boundaries for alternatives if necessary, as well as highlight potential erosion inducement problems. The preliminary hydraulic design will determine the operational hydraulics of proposed fish structures on site-specific criteria at proposed locations and, if applicable, determine suitable grading of the restored streambed for fish passage. Residual floodplain delineations and a FDA risk analysis will be performed to estimate the level of protection provided by the alternatives. Reach-average sediment transport capacities shall be determined. The Water Resources Section will coordinate with Geotech and Civil Design to ensure existing-condition flood-control characteristics and slope stability issues are addressed. 5.6 Summarize With Project H&H Studies (F4 H&H Package) Description of task: Revise F3 Summary package to reflect development of the with-project condition. This summary would detail the development of the preliminary hydraulic design for the selected set of preliminary alternatives. This submission will be the primary H&H product upon which the F4 ITR is performed.

54

5.7 NED/NER Hydraulic Design Description of task: Detailed hydraulic design will be produced for the recommended alternative, selected by economic analyses. The NED/NER Hydraulic Design will form the foundation for the Civil Design effort and will include all necessary Civil Design criteria such as levee heights (if necessary) and positions, alignments, cross sections, sizing and relationship of project features. The NED/NER Hydraulic Design will also require coordination with Geotech and Environmental to address any erosion impacts and/or environmental alignment requirements. 5.8 Write ET-EW Draft Appendix Description of task: Water Resources will provide a compilation of written record and discussion of any pertinent available previous H&H studies, existing H&H conditions, description of alternatives considered and selection of preferred alternative including all supporting data and analyses. This information will be included as an appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report. Develop Project Hydrology and Hydraulics 5.9 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments and coordination for the F3, F4, F4A, Draft Feasibility Report and Final Feasibility Report milestones. 5.10 Final ET-EW Comment Response Description of task: Comments provided on the Draft Feasibility Report by HQUSACE and during the Public comment Period will be addressed to complete the Water Resources Section for inclusion in the Final Feasibility Report. 6. GEOTECHNICAL DESIGN AND ANALYSIS Slope Stability and Foundation Design This project is in an area where extensive work on the creeks has been done. It is therefore assumed for the purpose of this PMP that most of the data necessary for the various alternatives is available. 6.1 Data Collection, Coordination and Preliminary Analysis Description of task: Existing geologic and geotechnical data will be collected, reviewed and evaluated in relation to without project condition and issues affecting preliminary Alternatives design. Perform literature search for: available geologic maps and data; ground water data and well logs; soils information; Seismicity data and seismic hazard studies performed in the areas of the selected sites; and review the found information and establish a geologic model for each creek Search for data on tidal levees.

55

6.2 Develop Boring Locations Description of task: Development of the Boring Locations will be predicated on literature searches and reviews of consistent project information, including existing geologic and soils data. The Geo-Sciences Section will develop Boring Layouts in Auto Cad format for use in future Request for Proposals (RFP’s) and for development and coordination of Real Estate Rights-of-Entry. Boring locations will be determined and may be performed for the most likely alternative to be selected, depending upon the extent and quality of existing information. 6.3 Develop Scope of Work Geotech Request for Proposal (RFP) Description of task: ET-EG will develop the SOW and IGE to perform the soil sampling and testing. 6.4 Negotiate A/E Soil Sampling and Testing Description of task: The scope of services and associated costs for the soil sampling and testing contract will be negotiated and administered by the Corps. 6.5 A/E Contract for Soil Sampling and Testing Program Description of task: The subsurface explorations will be performed under an A/E contract. The A/E will develop a soils report. Testing of the soils samples will be performed by a reputable laboratory, accredited within the last 2 years by the American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials (AASHTO) Materials Reference Laboratory (AMRL). The laboratory’s QC procedures will be required to undergo auditing by the Materials Test Center of the Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC), formerly known as the Waterways Experiment Station (WES). 6.6 Review A/E Soil Testing Program Description of task: The Corps will monitor the subsurface explorations. The monitoring will involve coordination with A/E Contractor, pre-investigation conference, and review of completed field boring logs and sample inventory. After the submittal of the field logs and sample inventory, the Corps will prepare the testing schedule and select the type of tests to be performed for selected samples. 6.7 Develop Soils Conditions Report Description of task: Data generated under an A/E subsurface investigation, as well as the existing data from prior reports, will be reviewed and serve as a baseline condition from which to evaluate the geotechnical impacts of the alternative plans. Geology and soils data will be compiled and evaluated. The results of the subsurface investigation will be analyzed for seismic hazards, consolidation settlement, slope stability, soil bearing capacity, liquefaction potential, gradation, and earth pressures. Condition of the levees including stability and settlement will be analyzed. Guidelines set by the Corps of Engineers as

56

indicated in engineering manuals such as Bearing Capacity of Soils (EM 1110-1-1905), Retaining and Flood Walls (EM 1110-2-2502), Settlement Analysis (EM 1110-1-1904) will be used in the analyses. 6.8 Geotech Design Coordination Description of task: The Geo-Sciences section will assist in the development of the With-Project conditions design leading into the economic analyses. 6.9 Develop Geotech Summary for F4 package Description of task: The Geo-Sciences section will provide a brief summary of significant Geotechnical work that went into the development of the With-Project conditions. This information will be incorporated into the F4 package. 6.10 Draft Geotechnical Engineering Appendix Description of task: The Corps will prepare a draft report of the geotechnical parameters for the project, which will be included as an appendix to the Draft Feasibility Report. The results of the geotechnical analyses will be documented and serve as the basis for the geotechnical design of the recommended alternative. 6.11 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments for the F3, F4, F4A, Draft Feasibility Report and Final Feasibility Report milestones. 6.12 Final Geotech Appendix and Public Comment Response Description of task: The comments provided on the Draft Feasibility Report by HQUSACE, and during the Public Comment Period will be addressed to complete the Geotechnical Appendix for inclusion in the Final Feasibility Report. 7. CIVIL DESIGN SCOPE OF WORK 7.1 Verify Existing Survey Data Description of task: Collect existing survey data in either ASCII or electronic graphic format. This includes all survey data showing existing conditions for the project area. Verify existing information and determine whether additional Surveys need to be conducted. 7.2 DTM Creation Description of task: Civil Design will use the survey data to reproduce or create a Digital Terrain Model (DTM) of the project area existing conditions.

57

7.3 Utilities Investigation Description of task: Locate existing utility lines, structures, cleanouts, inlets, and outlets. Investigate with non-Federal sponsor and, if necessary, appropriate utility agencies, Underground Service Alert (USA), San Mateo County, and/or Santa Clara County. 7.4 F3 Design Summary Description of task: Civil Design will document its process for establishing existing conditions. The design summary, to be included in the F3 Package, records key assumptions, analysis methods, and the basis for engineering decisions during the various Feasibility Phase milestones. It tells the story of the project from the Civil Design perspective and facilitates the production of an accurate and complete ET-ED Appendix. 7.5 Plans and Profiles for Alternatives Description of task: Create plans and profiles for the various engineering design alternatives. Collaborate with the local sponsor and members of the Project Delivery Team (PDT), especially the Geo-Sciences and Hydraulics & Hydrology (H&H) sections, to meet project goals. The alternatives that are anticipated in this work task are the ones that will be carried forward from the formulation and screening phase. The 905b analysis has listed several alternatives and there probably will be more, which after the screening process, will be carried forward for analyses. Examples of alternatives cited in the 905b were: raise levees, construct flood walls, upland diversion, channel modification, bank stabilization, and replace bridges. 7.6 Quantity Takeoffs for Alternatives Description of task: Estimate volumetric, linear and structural element quantities needed to construct the various design alternatives. These quantities will be provided to the Specifications and Estimating Section for use in developing a cost estimate for each alternative. 7.7 F4 Design Summary Description of task: Civil Design will document its process to produce the engineering design alternatives. The design summary will be included in the F4 Package and records key assumptions, analysis methods, and the basis for engineering decisions during the various Feasibility Phase milestones. It tells the story of the project from the Civil Design perspective and facilitates the production of an accurate and complete ET-ED Appendix. 7.8 F4A Design Summary Description of task: The F4 summary will be revised based on the outcome of the F4 conference for inclusion in the F4A Package.

58

7.9 Plans and Profiles for NED/NER Plan Description of task: Civil Design will evaluate all engineering criteria needed for the project in conjunction with the PDT, the non-Federal sponsor, and appropriate regulatory agencies. The PDT will determine the National Economic Development/National Ecosystem Restoration (NED/NER) plan from the various design alternatives.

• Civil Design will then produce detailed conceptual engineering plans and profiles to support the NED/NER plan.

7.10 Quantity Takeoffs for NED/NER Plan Description of task: Estimate volumetric, linear and structural element quantities needed to construct the NED/NER Plan. These quantities will be provided to the Specifications and Cost Estimating Section for use in developing a cost estimate for the NED/NER Plan. 7.11 Draft ET-ED Appendix Description of task: Write the Civil Design portion of the Engineering Appendix for the Draft Feasibility Report. The ET-ED Appendix summarizes key assumptions, analysis methods, and engineering decisions made throughout the Feasibility Phase. It explains the features shown in the engineering plans and profiles and describes the materials and construction methods associated with all significant design features. 7.12 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments and coordination for F4, F4A, Draft Feasibility Report and Final Feasibility Report milestones. 7.13 Final ET-ED and Public Comment Response Description of task: Civil design will respond to and resolve all final comments pertaining to the Civil Design portion of the Draft Engineering Appendix for inclusion in the Final Feasibility Report. Possible Additional Work Preliminary investigation shows new surveys will be necessary for the collection of current, detailed topographical data especially for any restoration options. Extent of this work to be subcontracted to outside A-E firm depends on alternatives chosen and amount of data already available. Civil Design will then need to prepare a SOW, negotiate a Service Order contract, and oversee the performance of subcontracted work. If overall topographical data is not needed and only cross-sectional data can be sufficiently supplemented via in-house ground survey party, then subtractor will then not be needed. Either way, 4 weeks of additional Civil Design work will be necessary.

59

Possible A-E survey subcontractor work : $450,000* (Creek Study Baseline) Possible A-E survey subcontractor work: $500,000* (Creek Study Baseline - Tidal Area Options 1 and 2) *This estimate based on aerial survey contract to procure topographical survey data at 2 ft. contour interval resolution overall and 1 ft. within channels. Survey estimate for Creek Study Baseline includes area northeast of Searsville Dam within the watershed area extending to the bay. Tidal Area Options 1 and 2 increases the area to Marsh Rd and Adobe Rd but only northeast of 101 (around 10% increase in area). 8. PLAN FORMULATION Overview

• Generally, Plan Formulation will be responsible for the following duties: – 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); with sections to be contributed by other technical sections and/or the non-Federal sponsor (NFS), as determined as study progresses.

– 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); – Coordination of and addressing PDT comments and comments from Corps ITR

and HQ Policy Review; – 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.

– Production and assembly of planning documentation.

• 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.

60

8.1 Feasibility Initiation Activities 8.1.1 Develop Initial Feasibility Team Briefing Description of task: The Project Planner will summarize the information from the Section 905(b) analysis and the PMP in a presentation to the PDT (includes members of the Corps and non-Federal sponsor). This will include putting an introduction package together for each member of the PDT containing the PMP and an executive summary of the preliminary goals and objectives. In conjunction with the Project Manager, the PDT will be briefed on the team’s immediate objectives and the next milestone. 8.1.2 PF participation in PDT conference on Planning Principles and Procedures Description of task: PF, with assistance as needed from other members of the PDT (especially PM), will coordinate a one-to-two-day conference to familiarize the PDT (including members of the non-Federal sponsor) with the Corps 6-Step Planning Process and the Corps Civil Works process. 8.1.3 Plan Formulation participation in Technical Review Strategy Session (TRSS) Description of task: PF will assist in preparations for the TRSS (Task 15.0), attend meeting, and perform follow-up responsibilities. 8.2 Plan Formulation input to Communication Plan Description of task: In conjunction with the PDT and the Corps Public Affairs Office, PF will develop a communication strategy for project interaction with the media and public. 8.3 Plan formulation and evaluation for without-project conditions & preliminary plans (F3) 8.3.1 Existing conditions 8.3.1a Identify Problems and Opportunities Description of task: With input from the PDT and other 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, F4, and F4A packages as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports, and will be updated as needed. 8.3.1b Identify 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. The Objectives and Constraints will be included in the F3, F4, and F4A packages as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports, and will be updated as needed.

61

8.3.1c Inventory existing conditions Description of task: PF will synthesize and compile information from the Project Delivery Team to describe existing conditions in the project area, for inclusion in planning documentation, including the F3 package, F4 package, F4A package, Draft Feasibility Report, and Final Feasibility Report. 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. 8.3.1d Forecast future without-project conditions Description of task: PF will synthesize information from the Project Delivery Team, project partners, 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, 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, which will assess the effects of various scenarios on the future without-project conditions. The without-project condition will be updated based on the results of the F3 conference. 8.3.2 Plan Formulation input to Initial Public Meeting Description of task: In conjunction with the PDT (especially non-Federal sponsor, EM, the Public Affairs Office (PAO), and the EIS contractor (if applicable)), PF will prepare presentation materials for the initial public meeting. The initial public meeting will be a combined EIS scoping meeting and plan formulation scoping meeting and will be held before the Preliminary Alternatives are developed. The public meeting will give the public and agencies an opportunity to provide input into the priorities of both the EIS and the Plan Formulation Process. PF will assist in documenting the public comments in the Draft Feasibility Report. 8.3.3 Measures and preliminary plans 8.3.3a Measure identification and screening Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team, 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, F4, and F4A/AFB packages as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. This description will be updated as needed.

62

8.3.3b 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 identified and screened measures. 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. The NED/NER plan reasonably maximizes net economic (monetary) benefits. The formulation and screening process described above will be documented in the F3 package and the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. Alternatives may be modified based on the results of the F3 conference 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). 8.3.4 Preparation for F3 conference 8.3.4a Preparation of F3 package Description of task: PF will compile and synthesize materials 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.

63

8.3.4b Plan Formulation Participation in ITR of F3 documents Description of task: PF will coordinate with the Corps National Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) on ITR of the F3 documents, respond to comments from the ITR review, and participate in the back check process. 8.3.4c Coordination and support for F3 conference 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. 8.3.4d 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. 8.3.5 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. 8.4 Plan formulation, evaluation, & comparison for final plans (F4) 8.4.1 Plan evaluation and comparison Description of task: PF will work with the Project Delivery Team to refine the evaluation of with-project conditions for the array of alternatives. These evaluations will be used to select the National Economic Development/National Ecosystem Restoration (NED/NER) Alternative and will be documented in the F4 and F4A packages, as well as the Draft and Final Feasibility Reports. 8.4.2 Plan selection Description of task: With input from the Project Delivery Team and Stakeholders, and using information from the economic analysis, PF will select a plan for recommendation. The recommended plan will either be the NED/NER 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.

64

8.4.3 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. 8.4.4 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 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. 8.4.5 Plan Formulation Participation in ITR of F4 documents Description of task: PF will coordinate with the Corps National Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) on ITR of the F4 documents, respond to comments from the ITR review, and participate in the back check process. 8.4.6 Coordination and support for F4 conference Description of task: PF will coordinate the F4 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. 8.5 Plan formulation and evaluation alternatives formulation briefing (F4A) 8.5.1 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 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. 8.5.2 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

65

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. 8.5.3 Cost allocation and cost apportionment 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. Then, with input from the Project Delivery Team (including the non-Federal sponsor) and using the results of the Cost Allocation Analysis, PF will calculate the distribution of costs between Federal and non-Federal interests for the Recommended Plan. This information will be documented in the F4A package and the Feasibility Report. 8.5.4 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. 8.5.5 Preparation of AFB package (F4A) Description of task: PF will update materials presented in the F4 package to create the F4A package. The F4A package will include the updated plan formulation and plan selection rationale. 8.5.6 Plan Formulation Participation in ITR of ET-PF F4A documents Description of task: PF will coordinate with the Corps National Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) on ITR of the F4A documents, respond to comments from the ITR review, and participate in the back check process. 8.6 Draft Feasibility Report (F5) 8.6.1 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

66

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). 8.6.2 Plan Formulation Participation in ITR of Draft Feasibility Report Description of task: PF will coordinate with the Corps National Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) on ITR of the Draft Feasibility Report, respond to comments from the ITR review, and participate in the back check process. 8.6.3 Plan Formulation Input to Final Public Meeting Description of task: In conjunction with the PDT (especially non-Federal sponsor, EM, the Public Affairs Office (PAO), and the EIS contractor (if applicable)), PF will prepare presentation materials for the final public meeting. The final public meeting will be held after the release of the Draft Feasibility Report and will present the Recommended Plan. The public meeting will give the public and agencies an opportunity to provide comments on the plan. PF will assist in documenting the public comments in the Final Feasibility Report. 8.7 Preparation for the Feasibility Review Conference (FRC; F7) 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. 8.8 Final Feasibility Report (F8) 8.8.1 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. 8.8.2 Plan Formulation Participation in ITR of the Final Feasibility Report and EIS/R Description of task: PF will coordinate with the Corps National Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) on ITR of the Final Feasibility Report, respond to comments from the ITR review, and participate in the back check process. 8.9 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 of the Final Decision Document, which announces the release of the Final Feasibility Report and Final

67

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. 8.10 PDT Meeting preparation and participation Description of task: The Project Planner will prepare for, attend, and follow up on project delivery team meetings. 8.11 Other Project Meeting preparation and participation Description of task: The Project Planner will prepare for, attend, and follow up on other project team meetings (e.g., coordination meetings with non-Federal sponsor and interested agencies). 8.12 Planning Documentation Tasks under this header refer to the assembly and reproduction of planning documentation to meet Corps milestones. 8.12.1 Documentation for F3 package Description of task: Printing and assembly of the F3 package (Task 14.1.5). 8.12.2 Documentation for F4 package Description of task: Printing and assembly of F4 package (Task 14.3.7) 8.12.3 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). 8.12.4 Draft Feasibility Report printing and assembly (F5) Description of task: Printing and assembly of Draft Feasibility Report (Task 14.5) 8.12.5 Final Feasibility Report printing and assembly (F8) Description of task: Printing and assembly of Final Feasibility Report (Task 14.7) 9. CONSTRUCTION SERVICES BRANCH The Construction Services Branch (CSB) will participate in team meetings as necessary, and will provide input in the development and review of design alternatives with regards to all technical issues for construction matters, and the construction contract administration process

68

as it relates to the anticipated project schedule. This includes direction and coordination of CSB and the project delivery team in the development of the feasibility report. Preliminary design alternatives, and draft and final reports will be provided for CSB construction review and input. Sole purpose of their review is to provide review and input on construction issues with the proposed design alternatives of the project. 9.1 Review and coordination of draft alternatives for construction issues with the PDT. 9.2 Review and coordination of draft feasibility report with the PDT. 9.3 Review and coordination of final feasibility report with the PDT. 10. REAL ESTATE STUDIES (RE) 10.1 Real Estate Program Coordination Description of task: RE & Project Team Coordination Items needed to complete tasks: Notice of Project Team Meetings & Schedule 10.2 Mapping technical tasks information for Right-of-Entries Description of task: Mapping and ownership determination of technical tasks locations Items needed to complete tasks: Right of Entry locations are in autocad/electronic format 10.3 Obtain Right of Entry for Technical Tasks Description of task: Obtain right-of-entry. Items needed to complete tasks: Mapping and ownership data 10.4 Mapping for NED/LRR Selection Description of task: Prepare maps for various alternatives to determine potential properties that may be affected by that alternative. Items needed to complete tasks: Alternatives provided in electronic format. 10.5 Land Value Cost Estimate for NED/LRR Alternatives Description of task: Real Estate cost for the various alternatives for input into Cost Estimating Section’s cost estimate.

69

10.6 Prepare Draft Real Estate Plan for F4 Package Description of task: Prepare Real Estate Plan Items needed to complete tasks: Real Estate cost estimate and mapping. 10.7 F4A RE Summary Description of task: Revise F4 Real Estate Summary Items needed: Comments from F4 Conference 10.8 Prepare Maps and Determine Ownerships for NED and/or LPP or NER Description of task: Prepare Maps and Tract Register of Owners & Parcels Items needed to complete tasks: Project footprint/preliminary design to include access areas & construction staging areas, provided in electronic autocad format 10.9 Preliminary Attorney’s Opinion of Compensability Description of task: RE Attorney prepares Legal Opinion determining if a utility or facility is a “relocation” and if it is compensable for cost sharing purposes under LERRDs. Items needed to complete tasks: Utility/facility information from RE Program Manager/Realty Specialist 10.10 Gross Appraisal Description of task: Prepare gross appraisal of project lands Items needed to complete tasks: Real Estate Mapping, Ownerships, and Estates 10.11 Develop Real Estate MCACES Description of task: Prepare Real Estate MCACES for input into Cost Estimating Section’s total project MCACES Items needed to complete tasks: Federal and Non-Federal Administrative Costs and Gross Appraisal Value 10.12 ITR Responses and Coordination Description of task: Respond to ITR comments and coordination for the F4, F4A, Draft Feasibility Report and the Final Feasibility Report milestones.

70

10.13 Prepare Real Estate Appendix Description of task: The Corps’ Real Estate Division will perform the following tasks: (1) preparation of the Real Estate Plan which is an overall plan describing the minimum real estate requirements for the project requirements (ER 405-1-12, Chapter 12.) and which is an appendix to the Feasibility Report; (2) preparation of 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), (3) determination of the tract ownership and acreage in addition to preparing real estate preliminary and final take line drawings; (4) investigation and attorney’s determination, if owners of project-affected facilities or utilities have a vested interest and compensable interest in the property, with regard to the real estate taking, (5) Real Estate will coordinate requests and work with the sponsor to obtain rights of entry for the survey, cultural resources, and geotechnical exploration work required, and (6) perform an institutional real estate financial capability analysis. Items needed to complete tasks: Mapping (recent aerial/ortho photo of project site )& Ownerships, Gross Appraisal, and RE MCACES, and Discussion of Issues, & Utility/Facility Information, Preliminary Design. 10.14 Market Study of Land Values Description of task. If possible alternatives are known prior to the Without-Project (F3) Milestone, a market study of the land can be done to get an idea of the cost of the property for that particular alternative. Items needed to complete tasks. - Possible alternative alignments. 11. GEOGRAPHIC INFORMATION SYSTEM (GIS) General All GIS products produced by the Corps, the Sponsor or Contractors must conform to the Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) metadata standard, which can be found at http://www.fgdc.gov/metadata/constantan.html, under “CSDGM Version 2-FGDC-STD-001-1998, and the Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment (SDSFIE) standards for entity types, attribute tables, attribute names, and domain tables. The SDSFIE standards are available at http://tsc.wes.army/products/TSSDS-TSFMS/tssds/html/ 11.1 Prepare Needs Assessment Report Description of task: A brief report will identify and interview the project’s GIS stakeholders, inspect existing data, and compare these to the data needs of team members who will be performing further analysis using GIS inputs (e.g., Water Resources, Geotech, etc.).

71

11.2 GIS Implementation Plan Description of task: This is recommended because of the long-term nature of the project. An implementation plan will include procedures for communication amongst data holders and producers, data gathering, workflow, database storage, and QA/QC to assure that the GIS data is sustainable for the life of the project. 11.3 Implement GIS Plan Description of task: This task covers the creation of the GIS database, implementing standards, long-term maintenance and following the GIS Implementation Plan. Deliverables will include a GIS showing, where releasable:

• Overhead imagery • Transportation • HTRW sites • Elevation and bathymetry data • Sediment thickness • Geotechnical samples • Sediment samples • Hydrology • Cultural sites • Submerged hazards • Real estate parcels • Utilities

12. MANAGEMENT 12.1 ET- Engineering and Technical Services Management Description of task: The offices of the Chiefs of the Engineering and Technical Services Division, Planning Branch, and Engineering Branch, will provide review and oversight of the feasibility study phase. In addition to reviewing study correspondence and products, these chiefs will attend milestone meetings, budget testimony preparations, and monthly Interim Progress Review (IPR) meetings. Due to the manner in which funds are managed in the San Francisco District, the Chiefs of these offices are supported by a combination of overhead funds and study costs. Thus, the associated management tasks are listed in a separate task in this document. 12.2 Programs and Project Management (PPMD) Management Description of task: The Program and Project Management Division will update the study schedule and budget, budget documents and Congressional justifications as needed, and

72

perform financial tracking and record keeping as well as coordinate with the sponsor on project activities and issues 12.3 Project Management Supervision Description of task: The supervisor of the Project Management Branch will oversee the work of the Project Manager. 12.4 Program Management Description of task: The Programs Branch is responsible for budget formulation and current year execution of district programs. In the budget formulation area, the branch is responsible for the coordination, preparation and submission of the district's multi-year Civil Works program. The branch assists in the preparation of congressional budget defense and testimony and answers to questions for the record from Subcommittees on Energy and Water Development. Program managers respond to data inquires, questions and fact sheet requests from Congress, higher headquarters, state and local interests. The Branch also oversees the submission, modification and tracking of district obligations and expenditures schedules. It monitors program execution against the plan, makes recommendations to project managers, technical managers and district leaders on more efficient use of funds and manpower. 12.5 Project Manager Support Description of task: The PM support assists the PM with various administrative tasks associated with study and project execution. The work involves updating and maintaining various automated systems, generating a variety of project and related financial reports, monitoring project schedules, assisting with project funds management, and related tasks. 12.6 Project Management Description of task: 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.

73

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. 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 South San Francisco Bay Shoreline Study’s Alviso Ponds and Santa Clara County Interim Feasibility Study, a project located at the southern border of the study area for the San Francisquito Creek Study. 13. OFFICE OF COUNSEL Description of task: The Corps Office of Counsel will attend PDT meetings, as necessary, and provide legal review and certification of the Draft and Final Feasibility Report. The Office of Counsel will also assist the Project Manager in preparing an acceptable draft Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) which will document the legal responsibilities of both the Corps of Engineers and the project sponsor during the construction of the project. This Agreement will follow the Corps’s Model Agreement in accordance with Section 105c of Public Law 99-622, and will document the cost sharing agreements and division of responsibilities between the Corps and the non-Federal sponsors. Office of Counsel will assist the Project Manager in negotiating this PCA with all the parties, and in facilitating the Agreement's review and subsequent approval at HQUSACE and ASA(CW). 14. CONTRACTING DIVISION Description of task: The Corps contracting office will assign a contracting specialist to the PDT who will be responsible for developing a procurement strategy for the contracting needs of the project. This will include obtaining the qualified services of A&E firms to perform necessary field investigations (e.g., surveys and geotechnical investigations), design and environmental support and construction services. Federally mandated considerations will be made to promote small businesses and 8a (disadvantaged, minority owned) firms as well as assisting the PM in determining whether the work can best done under an existing IDIQ (negotiated Task order) services contract or if it should be offered to the industry by open solicitation or sole source. 15. INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW (ITR) The tasks in this section involve multidiscipline review of major milestone packages and products, as required by the Corps. Single-discipline review tasks are listed separately within the scopes of work under the pertinent technical section.

74

15.0 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). 15.1 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. Products that are ITR at this milestone include Hydrology and Hydraulics, Economics, Plan Formulation and maybe Geotech. 15.2 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 engineering 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. 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. 15.3 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). Products that are ITR at this milestone include Hydraulics, Economics, Plan Formulation, Design, Geotech, Real Estate, and Environmental.

75

15.4 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). Products that are ITR at this milestone include Hydraulics, Economics, Plan Formulation, Design, Geotech, Real Estate, and Environmental. 15.5 Draft Report ITR (F5) Description of task: Conduct ITR of the Draft Report, consistent with the requirements described in the QCP (PMP Chapter 6). Products that are ITR at this milestone include Hydraulics, Economics, Plan Formulation, Design, Geotech, Real Estate, EIS/R, Cultural, Sedimentation (Water Quality), and HTRW. 15.6 Final Report ITR (F8) Description of task: Conduct ITR of the Final Report, consistent with the requirements described in the QCP (PMP Chapter 6). Products that are ITR at this milestone include Hydraulics, Economics, Plan Formulation, Design, Geotech, Real Estate, EIS/R, Cultural, Sedimentation (Water Quality), and HTRW. 15.7 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 inputs, data, the use of models, analyses, assumptions, and other scientific and engineering matters that inform decision making. External peer review (EPR) is required in special cases where the risk and magnitude of the proposed project are such that a critical examination by a single or team of qualified subject matter experts outside of the Corps and not involved in the day-to-day production of a technical product is necessary. A cost estimate of $150,000 has been included as a provision in the event that EPR is required. 15.8 Model Certification 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). It is not anticipated at this time that non-Corps models will be used. However, for the purpose of the model certification, it is assumed that there may be two models that need certification. The cost for each is approximately $5,000 to $10,000. In the event that model certification is not required these cost will not be incurred.

76

15.9 Washington-Level Review Description of task: HQUSACE will perform policy review on milestone packages (including the F3, F4A, Draft Feasibility Report, and Final Feasibility Report) and other materials, as needed, and provide policy guidance to the PDT during the approvals process. 16. PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN (PMP) UPDATES Description of task: The San Francisquito Creek 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. 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. 17. PRE-CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (PED) Description of task: The Project Delivery Team (PDT) will assist in preparation of a Pre-construction (PED) plan (to be incorporated in the PMP), which will include the scope, schedule, budget, and performance measurement criteria for project phases beyond the Feasibility Study, and negotiate a PED cost-sharing agreement. The PMP will further be modified to incorporate the recommended plan. The purpose of the PED Plan is to define in a signed cost-sharing agreement the responsibilities of the Federal Government and the non-Federal Sponsor for design. The Project Manager is responsible for coordinating, negotiating, and executing the PED cost-sharing agreement. The District Engineer and the non-Federal Sponsor will execute the agreement.

76

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

77

Preliminary Cost Estimates

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

o Final Feasibility Report o Final EIS/EIR

78

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

79

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 San Francisquito Creek 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

Environmental Planning/Compliance

Biology/Ecology Cultural Resources Sediment Quality

80

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 (end of this PMP). 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 6 and in the cost estimate summary (Table 4.1). The total cost for ITR (Review, Response and Backcheck) is approximately $325,000. 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.

81

ATTACHMENT A

SAN FRANCISQUITO CREEK PROJECT

FEASIBILITY REPORT

COMPLETION OF INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW The San Francisco District has completed the Detailed Project Report and the accompanying Independent Technical Review for the San Francisquito Creek Project. 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

82

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 Division _____________________________ ____________________ Herbert H. Cheong Date Chief, Engineering Division

83

ATTACHMENT C

MODEL DISTRICT ENGINEER’S QUALITY CONTROL CERTIFICATION

(Products Developed by In-house Forces) COMPLETION OF QUALITY CONTOL 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 Division 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

84

ATTACHMENT D CERTIFICATION OF LEGAL REVIEW The report for San Francisquito Creek Project, 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

85

Deviations from CESPD 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 San Francisquito Creek Feasibility 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.

86

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 entire life of the project. 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 San Francisquito Creek Project, 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 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 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 E) 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, including the non-Federal sponsor.

87

CHAPTER VIII PUBLIC COMMUNICATION PLAN

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 Feasibility Report for public review and is an opportunity to present the findings of the Draft Feasibility Report to the public and receive public comment. 2. PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the partnering non-federal sponsor will develop a Communications/Public Outreach Program to raise and promote involvement in the San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Study (Feasibility Study).

The objectives of the program will be to raise awareness and understanding, create opportunities for involvement, and motivate the publics to contribute to the Feasibility Study. To meet these objectives, a variety of informational and involvement techniques will be established to reach the public.

Techniques that may be used to convey study information and processes involve the following media:

• informational video

• web site

• mailing list

• newsletters

• traveling displays

• brochure

• information sheets

• information packets

• news releases

• media broadcasts

• newspaper inserts

88

• media events.

Public involvement techniques include:

• information meetings

• workshops

• community assessment forums

• briefings

• tours

• speaking engagements

• personal communications.

Formal public meetings will be conducted throughout the region to provide opportunities for the public to comment on the Draft San Francisquito Creek Flood Damage Reduction and Ecosystem Restoration Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement.

The audiences that may participate in public outreach efforts include, but are not limited to, stakeholders, elected officials, media, academia, and governmental agencies.

Monitoring the effectiveness of the public outreach program will be accomplished through several methods which may include but are not limited to video feedback forms, community comment cards, and web site analysis.

Outreach Plan Goal and Objectives

The goal of outreach will be to inform and involve people in the region in the engineering, science, and planning process that will lead to recommendations on the future of the San Francisquito Creek and surrounding areas. Everyone benefits when the public is informed and involved. Individuals and groups can ensure that their perspective is heard and factored into the decisions made, and the Corps ensures that it has considered all the factors and recommended a plan that has full public involvement. This outreach program supports the Corps, cooperating agencies, and the public in working openly and collaboratively toward a recommendation that can be effectively implemented. Specifically, the goals that will be outlined in the Public Outreach Plan are to:

1. Raise awareness and understanding by informing people about the Feasibility Study

2. Create opportunities for people to be involved in the science, engineering, and planning process of the Feasibility Study

3. Motivate cooperating agencies, stakeholders, and the public as partners in contributing their perspective and expertise to this endeavor.

89

Strategic Approach

Developing an effective public outreach process for the Feasibility Study will be challenging due to the variety of related projects already underway or being planned, the duration of the study, the technical nature of the alternatives, and the typical structured nature of the planning process. To meet these challenges, the Corps will focus on conveying strategic messages to inform the public of the Feasibility Study’s relevance and immediacy.

The Corps’ goal will be to inform all audiences about the purpose of the Feasibility Study and the proposed alternatives that may become under consideration. If individuals are exposed to a consistent message from a variety of sources, the potential is higher for generating interest in that message. In all public outreach efforts, the Corps has emphasized that a primary goal of the Feasibility Study is to provide to the public, stakeholders, and decision makers the information on proposed alternatives.

Public Outreach Plan

The Public Outreach Plan will be developed through a cooperative effort involving study management, technical and public involvement staff from the Corps; and contractor staff specializing in environmental compliance, communications, social science, and public involvement. The plan is based, in part, on current and recent public outreach efforts conducted for similar types of studies, as well as on the collective knowledge and experience of those responsible for drafting the plan. In addition, the plan reflects insights that will be gained from a variety of Federal agencies, as well as sources representing state agencies, environmental groups, and those who live and work or have other interests in the studied area.

ENCLOSURE A Approved Section 905(b) Analysis

ENCLOSURE B Letter of Intent

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 Meeting

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

PROJECT SCHEDULE

ID Text1 Task Name Duration Start Finish

1 Initiate Feasibility Study (F1) 0 days Dec 1 '05 Dec 1 '05

2 Task 8.1.3 Technical Review Strategy Session (prep & mtg) 20 days Dec 1 '05 Dec 28 '05

3 Task 8.3.2, Ch VIII Feasibility Study Public Workshop (F2) 90 days Dec 1 '05 Apr 5 '06

4 Ch VIII, Task 8.2 Develop Communication Plan 60 days Dec 1 '05 Feb 22 '06

5 Task 8.1.2 P3 Conference (Prep time and conference) 60 days Dec 1 '05 Feb 22 '06

6 Task 7.1 Verify Survey/Topo Data 13 days Dec 1 '05 Dec 19 '05

7 Task 7.2 DTM Creation 20 days Dec 20 '05 Jan 16 '06

8 Survey SOW (if needed) 20 days Dec 20 '05 Jan 16 '06

9 Task 2.1.6 PAR 120 days Oct 2 '06 Mar 16 '07

10 Survey/Topo Mapping (if needed) 100 days Jan 17 '06 Jun 5 '06

11 Task 1.1.1 HTRW Review Existing Data 4 days Oct 2 '06 Oct 5 '06

12 Task 1.1.2 Set up HTRW Contract 21 days Oct 6 '06 Nov 3 '06

13 Task 1.1.2 HTRW Contract 90 days Nov 6 '06 Mar 9 '07

14 Task 1.1.3 HTRW Data Evaluation and Recommendations 4 days Mar 12 '07 Mar 15 '07

15 Task 1.3.2.1 Cultural Data Collection & Review 44 days Dec 1 '05 Jan 31 '06

16 Task 1.3.2.2c Section 106 Consultation 1 day Aug 11 '06 Aug 11 '06

17 Task 1.3.2.2c Consult w/ Native Americans 13 days Aug 14 '06 Aug 30 '06

18 Task 1.3.2.1b Conduct Cultural Resource Survey/Contract 137 days Feb 1 '06 Aug 10 '06

19 Task 1.3.8 Technical Report and package 47 days Aug 31 '06 Nov 3 '06

20 Task 6.1 Geotech Data Review for w/o Project 200 days Oct 2 '06 Jul 6 '07

21 Draft Geotech F3 report 10 days Jul 9 '07 Jul 20 '07

22 Task 5.1 Hydrology 80 days Dec 1 '05 Mar 22 '06

23 Task 5.1 Hydrology Review, Respond, and Backcheck 15 days Mar 23 '06 Apr 12 '06

24 Task 5.1 Hydrology certification 5 days Apr 13 '06 Apr 19 '06

25 Task 5.2.1 Hydraulic Floodplain/Tidal Analysis 130 days Jun 6 '06 Dec 4 '06

26 Task 5.2.3 Geomorphic Analysis 180 days Jun 6 '06 Feb 12 '07

27 Task 5.2.3 Sediment Analysis w/o Project 90 days Feb 13 '07 Jun 18 '07

28 Task 5.4 Draft HH F3 Report 20 days Jun 19 '07 Jul 16 '07

29 Task 3.1 & 3.3 Economics Collect Data 38 days Dec 5 '06 Jan 25 '07

30 Task 3.4 Economics Flood Damage Reduction Analysis 20 days Jan 26 '07 Feb 22 '07

31 Economics Draft F3 package 5 days Feb 23 '07 Mar 1 '07

32 Task 8.3.4a Prepare F3 Document 20 days Jul 23 '07 Aug 17 '07

33 Task 15.1 ITR of F3 package 10 days Aug 20 '07 Aug 31 '07

34 Respond to comments 10 days Sep 3 '07 Sep 14 '07

35 F3 Read Along 30 days Sep 17 '07 Oct 26 '07

36 F3 Conference 0 days Oct 26 '07 Oct 26 '07

37 Task 8.3.3a Prepare Plan and Do Screening 20 days Feb 23 '07 Mar 22 '07

38 Task 8.3.3b Formulate NED/NER Combined Plan 30 days Mar 23 '07 May 3 '07

39 Array of Alternatives 2 days May 4 '07 May 7 '07

40 Task 10.14 Market Study of Land Values 20 days May 8 '07 Jun 4 '07

41 Task 5.5 Hydraulic Fluvial and Tidal Design Alts 75 days May 8 '07 Aug 20 '07

42 Task 5.5 Sediment Transport 25 days Aug 21 '07 Sep 24 '07

43 Task 5.5 Residual Floodplain 25 days Sep 25 '07 Oct 29 '07

44 Task 5.6 Draft F4 HH Report 30 days Oct 30 '07 Dec 10 '07

45 Task 6.2 Location of Borings 13 days May 8 '07 May 24 '07

46 Task 10.1, Task 10. Obtain Right of Entry 98 days May 25 '07 Oct 9 '07

47 Task 6.3 Boring Contract 26 days Oct 10 '07 Nov 14 '07

48 Task 6.4 Negotiate Contract 5 days Nov 15 '07 Nov 21 '07

49 Task 6.5 A/E Sampling/Testing 165 days Nov 22 '07 Jul 9 '08

50 Task 6.6 Review Soil Testing 145 days Jul 10 '08 Jan 28 '09

51 Task 6.7 Soil Conditions Report 40 days Jan 29 '09 Mar 25 '09

52 Task 6.8 Geotech Design 50 days Mar 26 '09 Jun 3 '09

53 Task 6.9 Draft F4 Getoech Report 5 days Jun 4 '09 Jun 10 '09

54 Task 7.5 Plan Design& Profiles for Alts 20 days Jun 4 '09 Jul 1 '09

55 Task 7.6 Quanity Analysis for Alts 10 days Jul 2 '09 Jul 15 '09

56 Task 4.2 Cost Alternatives 20 days Aug 20 '09 Sep 16 '09

57 Task 7.7 Draft F4 Design Report 5 days Jul 2 '09 Jul 8 '09

58 Draft F4 Cost Alternatives 3 days Sep 17 '09 Sep 21 '09

59 Task 1.2.2.1 Review Existing Data (sediment) 25 days Oct 20 '09 Nov 23 '09

60 Task 1.2.2.2 Bathymetric Survey 25 days Oct 20 '09 Nov 23 '09

61 Task 1.2.2.3 Work Plan 25 days Nov 24 '09 Dec 28 '09

62 Task 1.2.2.4 Regulatory Review 15 days Dec 29 '09 Jan 18 '10

63 Task 1.2.2.5 Field Mobilization 10 days Jan 19 '10 Feb 1 '10

64 Task 1.2.2.5 Field Sampling and Processing 25 days Feb 2 '10 Mar 8 '10

65 Task 1.2.26 Lab Analysis 25 days Mar 9 '10 Apr 12 '10

66 Task 1.2.2.8 Draft Report 25 days Apr 13 '10 May 17 '10

67 Comment Period 20 days May 18 '10 Jun 14 '10

68 Task 2.1.2 Draft sediment report 15 days Jun 15 '10 Jul 5 '10

69 Task 2.1.4 EIS 520 days May 8 '07 May 4 '09

12/1

10/26

O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Task Split Progress Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Deadline

Page 1

Project: San Francisquito PMP scheduDate: Sep 18 '05

ID Text1 Task Name Duration Start Finish

70 Task 2.1.4 Draft F4 Environment Report 1 day Oct 23 '07 Oct 23 '07

71 Task 2.1.6 HEP 80 days May 8 '07 Aug 27 '07

72 Task 2.1.6 CAR 40 days Aug 28 '07 Oct 22 '07

73 Task 2.1.6 Develop ICA 10 days Oct 23 '07 Nov 5 '07

74 Task 3.6 Economics NER/NED Benefits 10 days Oct 30 '07 Nov 12 '07

75 Task 3.11 Trade Off Analysis 20 days Nov 13 '07 Dec 10 '07

76 Draft F4 Report Economics 8 days Dec 11 '07 Dec 20 '07

77 Task 10.4 Real Estate Maps for Design Alternatives 15 days Jul 2 '09 Jul 22 '09

78 Task 10.5 Cost Estimate for Lands 20 days Jul 23 '09 Aug 19 '09

79 Task 10.6 Draft F4 Real Estate Report 13 days Aug 20 '09 Sep 7 '09

80 Task 8.4.4 Prepare F4 Report 20 days Sep 22 '09 Oct 19 '09

81 ITR 10 days Oct 20 '09 Nov 2 '09

82 Respond /Backcheck 10 days Nov 3 '09 Nov 16 '09

83 F4 Report and Read Ahead to SPD 20 days Nov 17 '09 Dec 14 '09

84 Alternative Reivew Conference (F4) 0 days Dec 14 '09 Dec 14 '09

85 Task 15.4 ITR AFB Report 10 days Dec 15 '09 Dec 28 '09

86 Comment/Backcheck 10 days Dec 29 '09 Jan 11 '10

87 Send F4A/AFB to SPD 20 days Jan 12 '10 Feb 8 '10

88 F4A/AFB Report Read Ahead to HQ 30 days Feb 9 '10 Mar 22 '10

89 F4A Conference Prep 30 days Mar 23 '10 May 3 '10

90 F4A conference 0 days May 3 '10 May 3 '10

91 Task 15.2 VE Review 40 days Oct 29 '07 Dec 21 '07

92 Respond to VE/Backcheck 30 days Dec 24 '07 Feb 1 '08

93 Task 2.1.4 Draft EIS 1 day Jul 6 '10 Jul 6 '10

94 Task 2.1.7 BA to NMFS/ Section 7 Consult 120 days Oct 20 '09 Apr 5 '10

95 Task 2.1.7 Obtain BO from NMFS/Section 7 20 days Apr 6 '10 May 3 '10

96 Task 5.7 HH NER/NED Plan 100 days Oct 20 '09 Mar 8 '10

97 Task 5.8 Draft Final HH Report 60 days Mar 9 '10 May 31 '10

98 Task 6.10 Draft Geotech Report 20 days Jun 11 '09 Jul 8 '09

99 Task 10.8 Real Estate Prepare Maps and Track Ownership 15 days Apr 13 '10 May 3 '10

100 Task 10.10 Preapare Gross Appraisal 60 days May 4 '10 Jul 26 '10

101 Task 10.9 Leagl Compensability Potential Taking 7 days Jul 27 '10 Aug 4 '10

102 Task 10.11 Real Estate MCACES 3 days Aug 5 '10 Aug 9 '10

103 Task 10.13 Draft Real Estate Final Report 10 days Aug 10 '10 Aug 23 '10

104 Task 7.3 Utility Location 15 days Oct 20 '09 Nov 9 '09

105 Task 7.5, Task 7.10 Plan & Profile for Selected Plan 25 days Mar 9 '10 Apr 12 '10

106 Task 4.5 Prepare Final MCACES 10 days Aug 10 '10 Aug 23 '10

107 Task 3.12 Develop Ablility to Pay 5 days Aug 24 '10 Aug 30 '10

108 Task 7.11 Draft Design Final Report 8 days Apr 13 '10 Apr 22 '10

109 Draft Cost Final Report 5 days Aug 31 '10 Sep 6 '10

110 Task 8.6.1 Report Preparation 30 days Sep 7 '10 Oct 18 '10

111 Draft Report (F5) 0 days Oct 18 '10 Oct 18 '10

112 Task 15.5 ITR 20 days Oct 19 '10 Nov 15 '10

113 Draft Feasibility /EIS to Pubilc and SPD 45 days Nov 16 '10 Jan 17 '11

114 Final Public Meeting (F6) 0 days Jan 17 '11 Jan 17 '11

115 Feasbility Review Conference (FRC) (F7) 30 days Jan 18 '11 Feb 28 '11

116 Final Doc. To SPD (F8) 60 days Mar 1 '11 May 23 '11

117 DE's Transmittal Letter (F9) 30 days May 24 '11 Jul 4 '11

118 Chief's Report 80 days Jul 5 '11 Oct 24 '11

119 Record Decision (ROD) 80 days Oct 25 '11 Feb 13 '12120 ROD 0 days Feb 13 '12 Feb 13 '12

121 Task 17 PMP for PED 60 days Oct 19 '10 Jan 10 '11

122 Task 17 Review PMP 20 days Jan 11 '11 Feb 7 '11

123 Task 17 PED PMP Approval 2 days Feb 8 '11 Feb 9 '11

124 Task 17 PCA 20 days Feb 8 '11 Mar 7 '11

125 Task 17 Submit PCA 20 days Mar 8 '11 Apr 4 '11

126 Task 17 MSC Approves Agreement 0 days Apr 4 '11 Apr 4 '11

127 Task 17 HQ Approves PCA 0 days Apr 4 '11 Apr 4 '11

12/14

5/3

10/18

1/17

4/4

4/4

O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S O N D J F M A M J J A S2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010

Task Split Progress Milestone Summary Project Summary External Tasks External Milestone Deadline

Page 2

Project: San Francisquito PMP scheduDate: Sep 18 '05

ENCLOSURE E

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 F

QUALITY CONTROL CERTIFICATION

COMPLETION OF QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES The District has completed the Project Management Plan for the San Francisquito Creek Project. 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 Division

ENCLOSURE G

LIST OF ACRONYMS A/E Architect/Engineer AASHTO American Association of State Highway Transportation Officials ACASS Architect-Engineer Contract Administration Support System ACHP Advisory Council on Historic Preservation AFB Alternative Formulation Briefing (F4A milestone) AMRL AASHTO Materials Reference Laboratory APE Area of Potential Effect ASA(CW) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works ASTM American Society for Testing of Materials BA Biological Assessment C Corps Construction Services Branch CDFG California State Department of Fish and Game CE Cost Effectiveness CEA Cost Effectiveness Analysis CEFMS Corps of Engineers Financial Management System CEQA California Environmental Quality Act CEMVD Corps of Engineers Mississippi Valley Division CESPD South Pacific Division (also SPD) CFR Code of Federal Regulations CON Constructed CORPS U.S. Army Corps of Engineers COTS Commercial Off the Shelf

CRMP Coordinated Resource Management and Planning CT Contract Administration Section DE Division Engineer (Division Commander), or District Engineer DTM Digital Terrain Model E&D Engineering & Design during Construction EA Environmental Assessment EC Engineering Circular ED Civil Design Section EG Geo-Sciences Section EI Engineering Instruction EIR Environmental Impact Report EIS Environmental Impact Statement EIS/R Environmental Impact Statement/Report EM Engineering Manual or Environmental Manager EP Engineering Pamphlet EPA Environmental Protection Agency EPR External Peer Review ER Engineering Regulation ERDC USACE Engineer Research and Development Center (formerly WES) ES Specifications and Cost Engineering Section ESA Environmental Site Assessment ET Engineering and Technical Services Division EW Water Resources Section

F1 CESPD Milestone - Start of Feasibility Phase/District receipt of Feasibility funds F2 CESPD Milestone - Initial Public Meeting/Workshop F3 CESPD Milestone – Feasibility Scoping meeting (w/HQUSACE) F4 CESPD Milestone – Alternative Review Conference (no HQUSACE) F4A CESPD Milestone – Alternative Formulation Briefing (w/HQUSACE) F5 CESPD Milestone – Public Review of Draft Feasibility Report F6 CESPD Milestone – Final Public Meeting F7 CESPD Milestone – Feasibility Review conference (w/HQUSACE) F8 CESPD Milestone – Submittal of Final Feasibility Report to CESPD F9 CESPD Milestone – Division Engineer’s Submittal of Final Decision Document FCSA Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency FGDC Federal Geographic Data Committee (FGDC) FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FRC Feasibility Review Conference (F7 CESPD milestone) FWS US Fish & Wildlife Service (also USFWS) GIS Geographic Information System H&H Hydrology and Hydraulics HEC-FDA Hydrologic Engineering Section’s Flood Damage Analysis HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Section’s River Analysis System HPTP Historic Properties Treatment Plan HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers HSP Health and Safety Plan

HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste ICA Incremental Cost Analysis IDIQ Indefinite Delivery, Indefinite Quantity (contract) IGE Independent Government Estimate IPR In-Progress Review IRC Issue Resolution Conference ITR Independent Technical Review IWR USACE Institute for Water Resources JPA San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority LPP Locally Preferred Plan LTC Lieutenant Colonel MCACES Microcomputer Assisted Cost Estimating System MIPR Military Interdepartmental Purchase Request MOA Memorandum of Agreement MSC Major Subordinate Command NAHC Native American Heritage Commission NAS Network Analysis System NED National Economic Development NER National Ecosystem Restoration NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NER National Environmental Restoration NFS Non-Federal Sponsor NHPA National Historic Preservation Act NRHP National Register of Historic Places

NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOI Notice of Intent OBS Organizational Breakdown Structure P2 Programs & Project Management Information System P&G Water Resources Council’s Principles and Guidelines PAH Polynuclear aromatic hydrocarbons PAL Planning Aid Letter PAO Public Affairs Office PAR Planning Aid Report PC Economics Section PCA Project Cooperation Agreement PCX (Corps National) Planning Center of Expertise PDT Project Delivery Team (includes non-Federal sponsor) PED Pre-construction Engineering and Design PF Plan Formulation Section PGM Project Guidance Memorandum PM Project Manager; Project Management Section PMBP Project Management Business Process PMP Project Management Plan PNP P-nitrophenyl PFP P-fluorophenyl PP Environmental Planning Section PPMD Programs and Project Management Division

PRB Project Review Board PROMIS Project Management Information System PZ Environmental Sciences Section QAPP Quality Assurance Project Plan QC Quality Control RE Real Estate RFP Request for Proposals ROD Record of Decision RWQCB (CA State) Regional Water Quality Control Board S&A Supervision and Administration SAP Sampling & Analysis Plan SFC San Francisquito Creek SFCJPA San Francisquito Creek Joint Powers Authority SFEI San Francisco Estuary Institute SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SOW Scope of Work SDSFIE Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment SPD South Pacific Division (CESPD) SVR Searsville Reservoir TOC Total Organic Carbon TPOC Technical Point of Contact TRSS Technical Review Strategy Session USA Underground Service Alert USACE US Army Corps of Engineers

USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service VE Value Engineering VM Value Management WBS Work Breakdown Structure WES USACE Waterways Experiment Station (now ERDC) WP Work Plan WRDA Water Resources Development Act