REVIEW PLAN (KALAELOA) BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ISLAND OF OʻAHU, HAWAIʻI

Transcription

1

2 (KALAELOA) BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ISLAND OF OʻAHU, HAWAIʻI Feasibility Report Section 301 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 27 October 1965 Public Law (PL) U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District MSC Approval Date: 20 November 2012 Last Revision Date: 15 November 2012

3 This page is intentionally left blank.

4 (KALAELOA) BARBERS POINT HARBOR MODIFICATION PROJECT ISLAND OF OʻAHU, HAWAIʻI Feasibility Report Section 301 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 27 October 1965 Public Law (PL) TABLE OF CONTENTS 1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS REVIEW MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (RMO) COORDINATION STUDY INFORMATION DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC) AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR) INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (IEPR) POLICY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW COST ENGINEERING MANDATORY CENTER OF EXPERTISE (MCX) REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION MODEL CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS PUBLIC PARTICIPATION APPROVAL AND UPDATES POINTS OF CONTACT ATTACHMENT 1: TEAM ROSTERS ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL REVIEW FOR DECSION DOCUMENTS ATTACHMENT 3: REVISIONS ATTACHMENT 4: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS... 24

5 This page is intentionally left blank.

6 1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS a. Purpose. This Review Plan defines the scope and level of peer review for the (Kalaeloa) Barbers Point Harbor (KBPH) Modification Project, Island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi. A feasibility study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) are being developed for this single purpose navigation project. The Review Plan was originally developed and approved on November The Review Plan is being updated to be consistent with current U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) regulations and policies and to reflect the current status and schedule of the project. This review plan was developed using the National Planning Center of Expertise (PCX) review plan template dated 15 June b. References (1) Engineer Circular (EC) , Civil Works Review Policy, 31 January (2) EC , Assuring Quality of Planning Models, 31 March (3) Engineer Regulation (ER) , Quality Management, 30 September (4) ER , Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix H, Policy Compliance Review and Approval of Decision Documents, Amendment #1, 20 November (5) KBPH Modification Project Management Plan (PMP), December (6) USACE Pacific Ocean Division (POD) Quality Management Plan, December (7) USACE Honolulu District (POH) Civil Works Review Policy (ISO CEPOH- C_12203), 1 November (8) CECW-CP Memorandum, Peer Review Process, dated March 30, c. Requirements. This Review Plan was developed in accordance with EC , which establishes an accountable, comprehensive, life-cycle review strategy for Civil Works products by providing a seamless process for review of all Civil Works projects from initial planning through design; construction; and operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation (OMRR&R). The EC outlines four general levels of review: District Quality Control/Quality Assurance (DQC), Agency Technical Review (ATR), Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and Policy and Legal Compliance Review. In addition to these levels of review, decision documents are subject to cost engineering review, certification (per EC ), and planning model certification/approval (per EC ) and the Value Management Plan requirements in the Project Management Business Process Reference 8023G and the ER , Change 1. 1

7 2. REVIEW MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (RMO) COORDINATION The RMO is responsible for managing the overall peer review effort described in this Review Plan. The RMO for decision documents is typically either a PCX or the Risk Management Center (RMC), depending on the primary purpose of the decision document. The RMO for the peer review effort described in this Review Plan is the Deep Draft Navigation (DDN)-PCX. The DDN-PCX will coordinate with the Cost Engineering Mandatory Center of Expertise (MCX) to ensure the appropriate expertise is included on the review teams to assess the adequacy of cost estimates, construction schedules and contingencies. 3. STUDY INFORMATION a. Authority. The study is authorized under Section 301 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 27 October 1965, Public Law (PL) b. Decision Document. Formerly known as Barbers Point Deep Draft Harbor, the name of the Harbor was changed to Kalaeloa Barbers Point Harbor (KBPH) on 1 January The KBPH and Honolulu Harbor are the only two deep draft commercial harbors on the island of Oʻahu. A feasibility report and EIS are being developed for the KBPH project consistent with ER The Chief of Engineers is the approval authority for the feasibility report/eis. If approved by the Chief of Engineers, Congressional authorization is required for the project to proceed to construction. c. Project Sponsor: The non-federal sponsor for this project is the State of Hawaiʻi, Department of Transportation (DOT). d. Study Location: The Harbor is located on the ʻEwa plains along the southwestern coast of the island of Oʻahu, approximately 20 road miles west of Honolulu (See Figure 1). Situated adjacent to the 1,367-acre James Campbell Industrial Park, the Harbor was originally designed to serve as a relief harbor for the Honolulu Harbor and to service the needs of businesses at Campbell Industrial Park. e. Study/Project Description. The KBPH Modification Study is currently in the feasibility phase. On 8 September 1992, DOT requested POH to initiate a study to determine if a Federal interest exists in modifying the Harbor entrance channel and turning basin. Construction of the existing KBPH was completed in The project cost of $59 million was cost shared by the State of Hawaiʻi and USACE. The general existing navigation features include an offshore entrance channel 3,300-feet long, 450-feet wide, and 42-feet deep; a 38-foot deep inshore channel, 980-feet long, and 450-feet wide flaring to 650 feet over the last 200 feet; a 92-acre inshore basin, 38-feet deep; and, 4,600 feet of wave absorber structures. The Harbor also incorporates a 21-foot deep barge basin, which was constructed in 1961 by the Estate of James Campbell. 2

8 Figure 1: Kalaeloa Barbers Point Harbor Location Map Problem: The Honolulu Harbor and KBPH are the busiest ports in the State as measured by throughput tonnage. They serve Oʻahu, home to 73 percent of the State s population, and function as transshipment ports for neighbor island goods. The KBPH serves the 1,367-acre Campbell Industrial Park (the largest concentration of industrial activity in the State), the 800-3

9 acre Kapolei Business Park, Kenai Industrial Park, the urban center of Kapolei, and the 1,000- acre Kō Olina Resort. Since the completion of the KBPH in 1985, the ʻEwa area has experienced rapid growth and development. The State of Hawai i and City and County of Honolulu plan call for continued economic growth in this area. Port planning studies over the past 15 years have called for continued development of the KBPH for cargo handling, using the KBPH as a complementary and backup facility to the Honolulu Harbor. It would complement the Honolulu Harbor by specializing in bulk cargoes, while the Honolulu Harbor specializes in container and passenger traffic. The KBPH would serve as a back-up facility to the Honolulu Harbor if needed (e.g., closure of the entrance channel to the Honolulu Harbor). Redundancy in port facilities on Oʻahu is warranted because of the importance of marine cargo transportation to the State, and the transshipment function provided by Oʻahu commercial harbors. The proposed deepening of the entrance channel and harbor basin, and construction of the jetty north of the entrance channel, are needed to enhance harbor operations and economic efficiency, and improve navigational safety. The need for each element of the project is addressed separately below. Alternatives: The project alternatives formulated to date include: Alternative 1: Construct a 375-foot long jetty adjacent to the entrance channel and deepening the harbor basin and channel to 40 feet and 42 feet respectively. The total project cost is estimated at $21,171,600. Alternative 2: Construct a 375-foot long jetty adjacent to the entrance channel and deepening the harbor basin and channel to 42 feet and 44 feet respectively. The total project cost is estimated at $31,976,200. Alternative 3: Construct a 375-foot long jetty adjacent to the entrance channel and deepening the harbor basin and channel to 43 feet and 45 feet respectively. The total project cost is estimated at $39,424,200. Alternative 4 (Locally Preferred Plan): Construct a 375-foot long jetty adjacent to the entrance channel and deepening the harbor basin and channel to 45 feet and 47 feet respectively. The total project cost is estimated at $53,879,700. f. Factors Affecting the Scope and Level of Review. The primary issue for the study is likely significant environmental adverse impacts from harbor construction, including adverse impacts to marine habitat and coral reefs. POH has determined that the study will require an EIS to comply with National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. Other factors affecting the level of review include the following: The estimated cost of construction range from $32 million to $54 million. 4

10 Because of the potential unavoidable impacts to coral reefs and the risk and uncertainty with effectively mitigating for coral reef impacts, Federal and state agencies have noted that the project is likely to have a significant adverse impact on environmental, cultural or other resources under the jurisdiction of the agency after implementation of proposed mitigation plans. The project is anticipated to have substantial adverse impacts on fish and wildlife species and their habitat prior to the implementation of mitigation measures. While there is ample experience within USACE and industry for the harbor construction to treat the activity as being routine, there is not ample experience within USACE or the industry to treat the implementation of potential mitigation measures as being routine. The project has significant interagency interest by U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), and the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA). While the project is not expected to incorporate challenging technical solutions for the harbor construction, the potential mitigation options incorporate challenging technical solutions. While the project design for the Harbor construction is not likely to be based on novel methods, the information in the decision document for potential mitigation options is likely to be based on novel methods, involve the use of innovative materials or techniques, present complex challenges for interpretation, contain precedent-setting methods or models, or present conclusions that are likely to change prevailing practice. There has been no request nor expected to have a request by the Governor of Hawaiʻi for peer review by independent experts. No significant public dispute has been voiced over any aspect of the proposed project, including the size, nature, or effects of neither the project nor the economic or environmental cost or benefit of the project. The study is not likely to contain influential scientific information or be a highly influential scientific assessment. There has been no request by a head of a Federal or state agency for peer review by independent experts. The project is not controversial. The project is anticipated to have negligible adverse impacts on scarce or unique tribal, cultural or historic resources. 5

11 The project is anticipated to have no more than a negligible adverse impact, before implementation of mitigation measures, on a species listed as endangered or threatened under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 or the critical habitat of such species designated under ESA. However, there are 82 Pacific coral reef species proposed for listing under ESA. Depending on the final listing decision, the proposed project may have an adverse impact to potentially listed species. The project study does not involve the rehabilitation or replacement of existing hydropower turbines, lock structures, or flood control gates within the same footprint and for the same purpose as an existing water resources project. g. In-Kind Contributions. Products and analyses provided by non-federal sponsors as work-in-kind services are subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR. The non-federal sponsor is not proposing any work-in-kind services that would be subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR. 4. DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC) All decision documents (including supporting data, analyses, environmental compliance documents, etc.) shall undergo DQC. DQC is an internal review process of basic science and engineering work products focused on fulfilling the project quality requirements defined in the PMP. POH shall manage the DQC process. Documentation of DQC activities is required and should be in accordance with the Quality Manuals of POH and POD, the Major Subordinate Command (MSC). a. Documentation of DQC. Consistent with the POH Quality Manual, DQC will be documented using the POH DQC review table. When all comments have been addressed and back checked, the DQC lead will sign a DQC certification in compliance with the POH Quality Manual. The DQC comments and responses will be provided for the ATR team at each review. b. Products to Undergo DQC. The following products will be subject to DQC: Draft and final integrated feasibility report/eis. All technical reports and appendices developed in support of the integrated feasibility report/eis. The draft and final Record of Decision (ROD). c. Required DQC Expertise. The following expertise is needed for DQC. An individual reviewer may meet the requirements for multiple disciplines. 6

12 Table 1: DQC Required Expertise DQC Team Members/Disciplines DQC Lead Planning Economics Environmental Resources Marine Ecology Output Model Coastal Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Civil/Structural Engineering Cost Engineering Real Estate Expertise Required The DQC lead should be a senior professional with experience in preparing Civil Works decision documents and conducting DQC. The Planning reviewer should be a senior water resources planner with experience in the development of feasibility studies and navigation projects. The Economics reviewer should have experience with civil works navigation projects. The Environmental reviewer should have environmental regulatory expertise in NEPA, Clean Water Act (CWA) Section 404(b) (1) analysis and Section 401 Water Quality Certification, Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act (FWCA), and ESA. The environmental expert should be familiar with environmental compliance requirements for dredging and disposal of harbors. The environmental expert should also be familiar with tropical marine ecology, particularly coral reef ecosystems, and the potential impacts to these ecosystems from navigation projects. The Marine Ecology Output Model reviewer should have experience and familiarity with tropical coral reef and marine habitats and familiarity with the Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA). The Coastal Engineering reviewer will be an expert in the field of coastal engineering with experience with navigation projects. The Geotechnical Engineering reviewer should have experience in geotechnical evaluation of navigation structures including jetties and breakwaters. The reviewer will also have experience in slope stability and excavatability of coastal sediments and coral limestone rock materials. The Civil/Structural Engineering reviewer should have experience in navigation structures, including jetties and breakwaters. The review will also have experience in assessing the impact of harbor deepening on the structural integrity of any adjacent pier and dock facilities. Reviewer must be experienced in design requirements for navigation projects. Reviewer must be experienced in civil work real estate laws, policies and guidance and experience working with sponsor real estate issues. 7

13 5. AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR) ATR is mandatory for all decision documents (including supporting data, analyses, environmental compliance documents, etc.). The objective of ATR is to ensure consistency with established criteria, guidance, procedures, and policy. The ATR will assess whether the analyses presented are technically correct and comply with published USACE guidance, and that the document explains the analyses and results in a reasonably clear manner for the public and decision makers. This ATR will be managed within USACE by the DDN-PCX, as the designated RMO, and will be conducted by a qualified team from outside POH that is not involved in the day-to-day production of the project/product. The ATR team will be selected by the DDN-PCX and will be comprised of senior USACE personnel and may be supplemented by outside experts as appropriate. The ATR team lead will be from outside POD and no candidates will be nomined by POH or POD. a. Products to Undergo ATR. The following products will be subject to ATR: Draft and final feasibility report/eis. All technical reports and appendices developed in support of the feasibility study/eis. The draft and final ROD. b. Required ATR Team Expertise. The following ATR expertise is required for this project. Where possible ATR team members will address multiple disciplines and emphasis. The DDN-PCX will identify the final make-up of the ATR team and identify the ATR team leader in consultation with the Project Manager (PM), vertical team and other appropriate centers of expertise. Once identified, the ATR team members for this study and a brief description of their credentials will be added in Attachment 1. Table 2: ATR Required Expertise ATR Team Members/Disciplines ATR Lead Planning Economics Expertise Required The ATR lead should be a senior professional with extensive experience in preparing Civil Works decision documents and conducting an ATR. The lead should also have the necessary skills and experience to lead a virtual team through the ATR process. The ATR lead may also serve as a reviewer for a specific discipline (such as planning, economics, environmental resources, etc). The Planning reviewer should be a senior water resources planner with experience in the development of feasibility studies and navigation projects. The Economics reviewer should have experience with civil works navigation projects. 8

14 ATR Team Members/Disciplines Environmental Resources Marine Ecology Output Model Coastal Engineering Geotechnical Engineering Civil/Structural Engineering Cost Engineering Real Estate Expertise Required The Environmental reviewer should have environmental regulatory expertise in NEPA, CWA Section 404(b) (1) analysis and Section 401 Water Quality Certification, FWCA, and ESA. The environmental expert should be familiar with environmental compliance requirements for dredging and disposal of harbors. The environmental expert should also be familiar with tropical marine ecology, particularly coral reef ecosystems, and the potential impacts to these ecosystems from navigation projects. The Marine Ecology Output Model reviewer should have experience and familiarity with tropical coral reef and marine habitats and familiarity with the HEA. The Coastal Engineering reviewer will be an expert in the field of coastal engineering with experience with navigation projects. The Geotechnical Engineering reviewer should have experience in geotechnical evaluation of navigation structures including jetties and breakwaters. The reviewer will also have experience in slope stability and excavatability of coastal sediments and coral limestone rock materials. The Civil/Structural Engineering reviewer should have experience in navigation structures, including jetties and breakwaters. The reviewer will also have experience in assessing the impact of harbor deepening on the structural integrity of any adjacent pier and dock facilities. Reviewer must be experienced in design requirements for navigation projects. Reviewer must be experienced in civil work real estate laws, policies and guidance and experience working with sponsor real estate issues. c. Documentation of ATR. DrChecks sm review software will be used to document all ATR comments, responses and associated resolutions accomplished throughout the review process. Comments should be limited to those that are required to ensure adequacy of the product. The four key parts of a quality review comment will normally include: The review concern identify the product s information deficiency or incorrect application of policy, guidance, or procedures; The basis for the concern cite the appropriate law, policy, guidance, or procedure that has not been properly followed; 9

15 The significance of the concern indicate the importance of the concern with regard to its potential impact on the plan selection, recommended plan components, efficiency (cost), effectiveness (function/outputs), implementation responsibilities, safety, Federal interest, or public acceptability; and The probable specific action needed to resolve the concern identify the action(s) that the reporting officers must take to resolve the concern. In some situations where information is incomplete or unclear, comments may seek clarification in order to then assess whether further specific concerns may exist. The ATR documentation in DrChecks sm will include the text of each ATR concern, the Project Delivery Team (PDT) response, a brief summary of the pertinent points in any discussion, including any vertical team coordination (the vertical team includes POH, DDN-PCX, POD, and HQUSACE), and the agreed upon resolution. If an ATR concern cannot be satisfactorily resolved between the ATR team and the PDT, it will be elevated to the vertical team for further resolution in accordance with the policy issue resolution process described in either ER or ER , Appendix H, as appropriate. Unresolved concerns can be closed in DrChecks sm with a notation that the concern has been elevated to the vertical team for resolution. At the conclusion of each ATR effort, the ATR team will prepare a Review Report summarizing the review. Review Reports will be considered an integral part of the ATR documentation and shall: Identify the document(s) reviewed and the purpose of the review; Disclose the names of the reviewers, their organizational affiliations, and include a short paragraph on both the credentials and relevant experiences of each reviewer; Include the charge to the reviewers; Describe the nature of their review and their findings and conclusions; Identify and summarize each unresolved issue (if any); and Include a verbatim copy of each reviewer's comments (either with or without specific attributions), or represent the views of the group as a whole, including any disparate and dissenting views. ATR may be certified when all ATR concerns are either resolved or referred to the vertical team for resolution and the ATR documentation is complete. The ATR Lead will prepare a Statement of Technical Review (STR) certifying that the issues raised by the ATR team have been resolved (or elevated to the vertical team). A STR should be completed, based on work reviewed to date, for the draft report and final report. A sample STR is included in Attachment 2. 10

16 6. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (IEPR) IEPR may be required for decision documents under certain circumstances. IEPR is the most independent level of review, and is applied in cases that meet certain criteria where the risk and magnitude of the proposed project are such that a critical examination by a qualified team outside of USACE is warranted. A risk-informed decision, as described in EC , is made to assess whether an IEPR is appropriate. IEPR panels will consist of independent, recognized experts from outside of the USACE in the appropriate disciplines. The IEPR panel will represent a balance of areas of expertise suitable for the review being conducted. There are two types of IEPR: Type I IEPR. Type I IEPR reviews are managed by an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) external to USACE. Type I IEPR panels assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project evaluation data, economic analysis, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in the evaluation of environmental impacts of proposed projects, and biological opinions of the project study. Type I IEPR will cover the entire decision document or action and will address all underlying engineering, economics, and environmental work, not just one aspect of the study. For decision documents where a Type II IEPR (Safety Assurance Review (SAR)) is anticipated during project implementation, safety assurance shall also be addressed during the Type I IEPR per EC Type II IEPR. Type II IEPR, or SAR, is managed by the RMC and is conducted on design and construction activities for hurricane, storm, and flood risk management projects or other projects where existing and potential hazards pose a significant threat to human life. Type II IEPR panels will conduct reviews of the design and construction activities prior to initiation of physical construction and, until construction activities are completed, periodically thereafter on a regular schedule. The reviews shall consider the adequacy, appropriateness, and acceptability of the design and construction activities in assuring public health safety and welfare. a. Decision on IEPR. Based on the estimated construction costs, the assumed need for an EIS and the other factors described in Section 3.f., POH has determined that a Type I IEPR is required. b. Products to Undergo Type I IEPR. Draft Feasibility report/eis. c. Required Type I IEPR Panel Expertise. The following IEPR expertise is required for this project. Where possible IEPR panel members will address multiple disciplines and emphasis. The DDN-PCX will identify the final make-up of expertise required for the IEPR team in consultation with the PM, vertical team and other appropriate centers of expertise. Once identified, the IEPR team members for this study and a brief description of their credentials will be added in Attachment 1. 11

17 Table 3: IEPR Required Expertise IEPR Panel Members/Disciplines Economics Environmental Engineering Expertise Required The economics panel member should have experience with in civil works navigation projects. The environmental panel member(s) should have environmental regulatory expertise in NEPA, CWA Section 404(b) (1) analysis and Section 401 Water Quality Certification, FWCA, and ESA. The environmental expert should be familiar with environmental compliance requirements for dredging and disposal of harbors. The environmental expert should also be familiar with tropical marine ecology, particularly coral reef ecosystems, and the potential impacts to these ecosystems from navigation projects. The environmental panel member should also have experience and familiarity with tropical coral reef and marine habitats and familiarity with the HEA. The engineering panel member(s) should have experience in coastal, geotechnical, civil and structural engineering as it relates to navigation projects, including dredging and construction of jetties and breakwaters. d. Documentation of Type I IEPR. The IEPR panel will be selected and managed by an OEO per EC , Appendix D. Panel comments will be compiled by the OEO and should address the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering and environmental methods, models, and analyses used. IEPR comments should generally include the same four key parts as described for ATR comments in Section 5.c. above. The OEO will prepare a final Review Report that will accompany the publication of the final decision document and shall: Disclose the names of the reviewers, their organizational affiliations, and include a short paragraph on both the credentials and relevant experiences of each reviewer; Include the charge to the reviewers; Describe the nature of their review and their findings and conclusions; and Include a verbatim copy of each reviewer's comments (either with or without specific attributions), or represent the views of the group as a whole, including any disparate and dissenting views. The final Review Report will be submitted by the OEO no later than 60 days following the close of the public comment period for the draft decision document. USACE shall consider all recommendations contained in the Review Report and prepare a written response for all recommendations adopted or not adopted. The final decision document will summarize the 12

18 Review Report and USACE response. The Review Report and USACE response will be made available to the public, including through electronic means on the internet. 7. POLICY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW All decision documents will be reviewed throughout the study process for their compliance with law and policy. Guidance for policy and legal compliance reviews is addressed in Appendix H, ER These reviews culminate in determinations that the recommendations in the reports and the supporting analyses and coordination comply with law and policy, and warrant approval or further recommendation to higher authority by the POD Commander. DQC and ATR augment and complement the policy review processes by addressing compliance with pertinent published Army policies, particularly policies on analytical methods and the presentation of findings in decision documents. 8. COST ENGINEERING MANDATORY CENTER OF EXPERTISE (MCX) REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION All decision documents shall be coordinated with the Cost Engineering MCX, located in the Walla Walla District. The MCX will assist in determining the expertise needed on the ATR team and Type I IEPR team (if required) and in the development of the review charge(s). The MCX will also provide the Cost Engineering Certification. The DDN-PCX is responsible for coordination with the Cost Engineering MCX. 9. MODEL CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL a. Planning Models. EC mandates the use of certified or approved models for all planning activities to ensure the models are technically and theoretically sound, compliant with USACE policy, computationally accurate, and based on reasonable assumptions. Planning models, for the purposes of the EC, are defined as any models and analytical tools that planners use to define water resources management problems and opportunities, to formulate potential alternatives to address the problems and take advantage of the opportunities, to evaluate potential effects of alternatives and to support decision making. The use of a certified/approved planning model does not constitute technical review of the planning product. The selection and application of the model and the input and output data is still the responsibility of the users and is subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR (if required). In accordance with EC Paragraph 5.c, models that are single-use or study-specific require approval that the model is a technically and theoretically sound and functional tool that can be applied during the planning process by knowledgeable and trained staff for purposes consistent with the model s purpose and limitations. For this project, the PM will coordinate with the DDN-PCX and Ecosystem Restoration (ECO)-PCX in determining the appropriate level of review for model approval. At this time, an additional ATR reviewer has been added to specifically approve models for site specific use. 13

19 The following planning models are anticipated to be used in the development of the decision document: Table 4: Planning Models and Certification/Approval Status Model Name and Version Institute of Water Resources (IWR) Planning Suite HarborSym Simulation Model for Coastal Harbors KBPH Site Specific Spreadsheet Brief Description of the Model and How It Will Be Applied in the Study This model assists with formulating plans, costeffectiveness, and incremental cost analysis (CE/ICA), which are required for ecosystem restoration projects. An annualizer module has been included to allow for easy calculations of equivalent annual average values, total net values, and annualizing non-monetary benefits and calculating costs. The IWR Planning Suite will be used to conduct the CE/ICA necessary to identify the appropriate compensatory mitigation for the project in conjunction with the KBPH site specific mitigation model. The IWR Plan Annualizer in the IWR Planning Suite will be used in conjunction with the KBPH Site specific spreadsheet economic model to compute average annual values of cost and revenue streams, discount future values to present values, compute interest during construction and perform other basic arithmetic functions. HarborSym is a planning-level simulation model designed to assist in economic analyses of coastal harbors. With user provided input data, such as the port layout, vessel calls, and transit rules, the model calculates vessel interactions within the harbor. Unproductive wait times result when vessels are forced to delay sailing due to transit restrictions within the channel; HarborSym captures these delays. Using the model, analysts can calculate the cost of these delays and any changes in overall transportation costs resulting from proposed modifications to the channel s physical dimensions or sailing restrictions. Developed as a data driven model, HarborSym allows users to analyze changes without modifying complex computer code. This approach also enables analysts to apply the model to many different ports by altering the network representation of the harbor. An ecosystem output model is required to assess the mitigation requirements for this study. In the absence of Certification / Approval Status Certified Certified Approval to be 14

20 Model Name and Version Mitigation Model Brief Description of the Model and How It Will Be Applied in the Study any regionalized ecosystem output model that quantifies habitat benefits for coral reef habitats in Hawai i, a customized spreadsheet model will be developed specifically for use on the KBPH Project. This is considered to be an appropriate approach, as a spreadsheet model can be tailored to focus on metrics that are directly applicable to the project mitigation objective. In particular, habitat quality parameters contained within the model can serve as a key dataset for quantification of habitat impacts and benefits in the spreadsheet model. In addition, elements of the HEA approach will be used. NOAA and USFWS regularly use this method for coral reef mitigation assessment in the Pacific. The HEA has not been approved by the ECO-PCX but has been accepted on a site specific basis for navigation projects in the USACE Jacksonville District. In accordance with USACE regulations and policies, the HEA discount rate will not be used. Certification / Approval Status coordinated with the ECO-PCX b. Engineering Models. EC does not cover engineering models used in planning. The responsible use of well-known and proven USACE developed and commercial engineering software will continue and the professional practice of documenting the application of the software and modeling results will be followed. As part of the USACE Scientific and Engineering Technology initiative, many engineering models have been identified as preferred or acceptable for use on USACE studies and these models should be used whenever appropriate. The selection and application of the model and the input and output data are still the responsibility of the users and is subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR (if required). The following engineering models are anticipated to be used in the development of the decision document: Table 5: Engineering Models and Approval Status Model Name and Version ADCIRC (Advanced Circulation) Hydrodynamic Model v.49 Brief Description of the Model and How It Will Be Applied in the Study The ADCIRC is a long-wave hydrodynamic model that simulates the circulation and water levels associated with both tides and atmospheric conditions. A twodimensional, depth-averaged version of ADCIRC will be applied in this study to develop currents for input into ship simulations. Approval Status HH&C CoP Preferred Model 15

21 Model Name and Version STWAVE (Steadystate Spectral Wave) Transformation Model BOUSS-2D (Boussinesq-2D) WIS Microcomputer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES) 2 nd Generartion (MII) Brief Description of the Model and How It Will Be Applied in the Study The STWAVE is a spectral wave transformation model which is capable of representing depth-induced wave refraction and shoaling, current-induced refraction and shoaling, depth- and steepness-induced wave breaking, diffraction, wind-wave growth, wave-wave interaction and whitecapping. This model will be used to transform deep water wave conditions from Wave Information Study (WIS) to the nearshore vicinity of the harbor and as input to the BOUSS-2D model. The BOUSS-2D is a comprehensive numerical model for simulating the propagation and transformation of waves in coastal regions and harbors based on a time-domain solution of Boussinesq-type equations. The model can simulate most of the phenomena of interest in harbor basins including shoaling/ refraction over variable topography, reflection/diffraction near structures, energy dissipation due to wave breaking and bottom friction, cross-spectral energy transfer due to nonlinear wave-wave interactions, breaking-induced longshore and rip currents, wave-current interaction and wave interaction with porous structures. This model will be used to evaluate harbor surge and oscillations, reflection and results of proposed structural measures within the harbor. The WIS is a wave hindcast model that generates consistent, hourly, long-term (20+ years) wave climatologies along all US coastlines. A wave hindcast predicts past wave conditions using a computer model and observed wind fields. This data will be used to develop wave climate for the project area and determine offshore conditions appropriate for input to the wave transformation models. The MCACES MII construction cost estimating software, developed by Building Systems Design, Inc., is a tool used by cost engineers to develop and prepare all USACE Civil Works cost estimates. Using the features in this system, cost estimates are prepared uniformly allowing cost engineering throughout USACE to function as one virtual cost engineering team. Approval Status HH&C CoP Preferred Model Allowed for Use HH&C CoP Preferred Model Cost Engineering MCX Required Model 16

22 10. REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS a. ATR Schedule and Cost. The ATRs for this study will be accomplished in accordance with the cost and schedule in the PMP. As of the approval date of this Review Plan, the ATRs of the various documents are scheduled as follows: Draft Feasibility Report/EIS: March Final Feasibility Report/EIS: March Estimated Total ATR Costs: $80,000. This assumes $40,000 for the ATR of the draft report and $40,000 for the ATR of the final report. b. Type I IEPR Schedule and Cost. The IEPR for this study will be accomplished in accordance with the cost and schedule in the PMP. As of the approval date of this Review Plan, the IEPR is scheduled as follows: Draft Feasibility Report/EIS: October Estimated Contract Cost: $150,000. Pursuant to Section 2034 of the Water Resource Development Act of 2007, this amount is 100% federally funded. Estimated cost POH and DDN-PCX Coordination of the IEPR: $60,000. This estimate was developed using the Type I IEPR Standard Operating Procedure table provided by the PCXs. This amount is cost-shared between USACE and the non-federal Sponsor. c. Model Certification/Approval Schedule and Cost. The KBPH Site Specific ecosystem output model will be used on a one-time basis. Consistent with EC , the model will require approval for use. The approval review of the single use site specific model will be coordinated with the DDN-PCX and ECO-PCX to determine if approval during ATR is acceptable. In the event that the ECO-PCX requires a separate or regional approval, schedule and costs will be adjusted accordingly. 11. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION A Public Involvement Plan will be developed for the feasibility study to guide the public participation process. Small group meetings will be conducted to collect specific information relevant to study goals and objectives and provide information to key stakeholders and interest groups relevant to study goals and objectives. A public meeting will be held during the public review process to seek input on the draft report. 17

23 12. APPROVAL AND UPDATES The POD Commander is responsible for approving this Review Plan. The POD Commander s approval reflects vertical team input (involving POH, POD, DDN-PCX, and HQUSACE members) as to the appropriate scope and level of review for the decision document. Like the PMP, of which this document is a component, the Review Plan is a living document and may change as the study progresses. POH is responsible for keeping the Review Plan up to date. Minor changes to the review plan since the last POD Commander approval are documented in Attachment 3. Significant changes to the Review Plan (such as changes to the scope and/or level of review) will be re-approved by the POD Commander, following the process used for initially approving the plan. The latest version of the Review Plan, along with the POD Commander s approval memorandum, will be posted on the POH webpage. The latest Review Plan will also be provided to the DDN-PCX and POD. 13. POINTS OF CONTACT Public questions and/or comments on this review plan can be directed to the following points of contact: Honolulu District Mr. Milton Yoshimoto, Project Manager Civil and Public Works Branch Programs and Project Management Division U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Honolulu District Building 230, Room 307 Ft. Shafter, HI Telephone: (808) Pacific Ocean Division Mr. Russell Iwamura U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division Building 525 Ft. Shafter, HI Telephone: (808) Review Management Organization Mr. Johnny Grandison Deep Draft Navigation Planning Center of Expertise U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Mobile District 109 St. Joseph Street Mobile, AL Telephone: (251)

24 ATTACHMENT 1: TEAM ROSTERS Table 6: Project Delivery Team DISCIPLINE NAME OFFICE Project Manager/Planner Mr. Milton Yoshimoto PP-C Project Sponsor (non-federal) Mr. Arnold Liu DOT Coastal Engineer Mr. Tom Smith EC-T Economist Mr. Bob Finch EC-T Environmental Mr. Kevin Nishimura PP-E Cultural Resources Mr. Kanalei Shun PP-E Cost Engineer Ms. Lana Murashige EC-S Value Engineer Mr. Elton Choy EC-S Real Estate Mr. Mike Sakai PP-R Program Analyst Mr. Geoff Lee PP-PC Geotechnical Engineer Mr. Russell Leong EC-Q Structural Engineer To Be Determined (TBD) EC-D GIS Specialist Ms. Sarah Falzarano EC-G Public Affairs Mr. Joe Bonfiglio PA Contracting Mr. Ed Chambers CT Small Business Ms. Cathy Yoza DB Office of Counsel Ms. Lindsey Kasperowicz OC Table 7: Review Team DISCIPLINE NAME DESCRIPTION OF CREDENTIALS DQC Team Lead TBD TBD MSC Mr. Russell Iwamura POD RMO Mr. Johnny Grandison DDN-PCX ATR Team Lead TBD TBD Planning TBD TBD Economics TBD TBD Environmental Resources TBD TBD Marine Ecology Output Model TBD TBD Coastal Engineering TBD TBD Geotechnical Engineering TBD TBD Civil/Structural Engineering TBD TBD Cost Engineering TBD TBD Real Estate TBD TBD 19

25 Table 8: IEPR Team DISCIPLINE NAME DESCRIPTION OF CREDENTIALS Economics TBD TBD Environmental TBD TBD Engineering TBD TBD 20

26 ATTACHMENT 2: SAMPLE STATEMENT OF TECHNICAL REVIEW FOR DECSION DOCUMENTS COMPLETION OF AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW The ATR has been completed for the <type of product> for KBPH Modification Project, Island of Oʻahu, Hawaiʻi. The ATR was conducted as defined in the project s Review Plan to comply with the requirements of EC During the ATR, 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, alternatives evaluated, the appropriateness of data used and level obtained, and reasonableness of the results, including whether the product meets the customer s needs consistent with law and existing USACE policy. The ATR also assessed the DQC documentation and made the determination that the DQC activities employed appear to be appropriate and effective. All comments resulting from the ATR have been resolved and the comments have been closed in DrChecks sm. SIGNATURE Name ATR Team Leader Office Symbol/Company SIGNATURE Name Project Manager Office Symbol SIGNATURE Name Architect Engineer Project Manager 1 Company, location SIGNATURE Name Review Management Office Representative Office Symbol Date Date Date Date 21

27 CERTIFICATION OF AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW Significant concerns and the explanation of the resolution are as follows: Describe the major technical concerns and their resolution. As noted above, all concerns resulting from the ATR of the project have been fully resolved. SIGNATURE Name Chief, Engineering Division Office Symbol SIGNATURE Name Chief, Planning Division Office Symbol Date Date 1 Only needed if some portion of the ATR was contracted. 22

28 ATTACHMENT 3: REVISIONS Table 9: Review Plan Revisions Revision Date Description of Change Page / Paragraph Number 23

29 ATTACHMENT 4: ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS Table 10: Standard Acronyms and Abbreviations Term Definition Term Definition ATR Agency Technical Review MSC Major Subordinate Command CWA Clean Water Act NEPA National Environmental Policy Act DDN Deep Draft Navigation OMRR&R Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation DQC District Quality Outside Eligible OEO Control/Quality Assurance Organization EC Engineer Circular PCX Planning Center of Expertise ECO Ecosystem Restoration PDT Project Delivery Team EIS Environmental Impact Statement PMP Project Management Plan ER Engineer Regulation PL Public Law ESA Endangered Species Act POD U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pacific Ocean Division FWCA U.S. Army Corps of Fish and Wildlife POH Engineers, Honolulu Coordination Act District HEA Habitat Equivalency RMC Risk Management Center HQUSACE IEPR Analysis Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Independent External Peer Review RMO SAR IWR Institute of Water Resources USACE MCX Mandatory Center of Expertise Review Management Organization Safety Assurance Review U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 24