The URL can be used to link to this page

Home My WebLink AboutResolution No. 2014-34Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 2014 -34 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY TO COMPLETE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Army is authorized by Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111- 85 to carry out structural and non - structural projects for storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and construction of replacement facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Lower Kenai River has eroded the Kenai River Bluff through the original town site of Kenai at an estimated rate of three feet per year, causing the loss of public and private infrastructure, buildings, and lands; and, WHEREAS, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, has received multiple Congressional appropriations to undertake planning and studies to determine the feasibility of the construction of an erosion control structure to halt the erosion of the Kenai River Bluff in the area of the original town site of Kenai; and, WHEREAS, Section 105(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99 -662, as amended (33 U.S.0 2215(a)), specifies the cost sharing requirements applicable to this study, which requires a fifty percent (50 %) local share for costs which exceed $100,000; and, WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the study is $654,000, and the estimated non- Federal Sponsor's contribution is $327,000; and, WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has provided appropriations in the total amount of $4,000,000 to the City of Kenai for this project which may be used for the non - Federal Sponsor's contribution; and, WHEREAS, for the project to move forward it is necessary to prepare the final Feasibility Study which will include the following tasks: 1. Project Management 2. Project Formulation 3. Economic Analyses 4. Environmental Coordination and Completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documentation New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED] Resolution No. 2014 -34 Page 2 of 2 5. A Biological Assessment of Beluga Whales in the Kenai River below the Warren Ames Bridge, submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 6. A Biological Assessment of Steller Sea Lions at the mouth of the Kenai River, submitted to the NMFS 7. Real Estate Documentation 8. Engineering 9. Cost Estimating ; and, WHEREAS, Resolution 2011 -67 passed by the Kenai City Council on September 21st, 2011, provided authorization for the City Manager to enter into a similar agreement in the amount of $253,844.50, but project delays resulted in no such agreement being executed. NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that the City Manager is authorized to enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army in the amount of $327,000 to complete a Feasibility Study for the Kenai River Bluff Erosion Project. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 7th day of May, 2014. PAT PORTER, MAYOR A T: S a Modigh, dity Clerk� Approved by Finance: M "Village with a Past, C# with a Future" 210 Fidalgo Avenue, Kenai, Alaska 99611 -7794 Telephone: 907 - 283 -7535 / FAX: 907 - 283 -3014 ,IIR1 1991 MEMOO TO: City Council FROM: Rick Koch ATE: May 1, 2014 SUBJECT: Resolution 2014 -34 The purpose of this correspondence is to recommend Council adoption of the above referenced Resolution. The effect of Resolution 2014 -34 is to replace Resolution 2011 -67 (attached) which was adopted by Council on September 21, 2011. Resolution 2014 -34 authorizes the City Manager to enter into a Cost Sharing Agreement with the Department of the Army to accomplish the Kenai Bluffs Bank Stabilization Section 116 Feasibility Study (hereinafter "Study "). Further, Resolution 2014 -34 authorizes payment in the amount of $327,000 to the Department of the Army as the non - federal share (50 %) of funding to accomplish the Study. Also attached, please find the Project Management Plan for the Study. Thank you for your attention in this matter. If you have any questions, please contact me at your convenience. attachments Suggested by: Administration CITY OF KENAI RESOLUTION NO. 2011 -67 A RESOLUTION OF THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, AUTHORIZING THE CITY MANAGER TO ENTER INTO AN AGREEMENT WITH THE DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY IN THE AMOUNT OF $253,844.50 TO COMPLETE A FEASIBILITY STUDY FOR THE KENAI RIVER BLUFF EROSION PROJECT. WHEREAS, the Secretary of the Army is authorized by Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 2010, Public Law 111- 85 to carry out structural and non - structural projects for storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage in Alaska, including relocation of affected communities and construction of replacement facilities; and, WHEREAS, the Lower Kenai River has eroded the Kenai River Bluff through the original town site of Kenai at an estimated rate of three feet per year, causing the loss of public and private infrastructure, buildings, and lands; and, WHEREAS, the Department of the Army, Corps of Engineers, has received multiple Congressional appropriations to undertake planning and studies to determine the feasibility of the construction of an erosion control structure to halt the erosion of the Kenai River Bluff in the area of the original town site of Kenai; and, WHEREAS, Section 105(a) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1986, Public Law 99 -662, as amended (33 U.S.0 2215(a)), specifies the cost sharing requirements applicable to this study, which requires a fifty percent (50 %) local share for costs which exceed $100,000.00; and, WHEREAS, the total estimated cost of the study is $640,989.00, and the estimated non - Federal Sponsor's contribution is $270,494.50, less an in -kind contribution of $16,500.00; and, WHEREAS, the State of Alaska has provided appropriations in the total amount of $4,000,000.00 to the City of Kenai for this project which may be used for the non - Federal Sponsor's contribution; and, WHEREAS, for the project to move forward it is necessary to prepare the final Feasibility Study which will include the following tasks: 1. Project Management 2. Project Formulation 3. Economic Analyses 4. Environmental Coordination and Completion of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Documentation Resolution No. 2011 -67 Page 2 of 2 5. A Biological Assessment of Beluga Whales in the Kenai River below the Warren Ames Bridge, submitted to the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) 6. A Biological Assessment of Steller Sea Lions at the mouth of the Kenai River, submitted to the NMFS 7. Real Estate Documentation 8. Engineering 9. Cost Estimating NOW, THEREFORE, BE IT RESOLVED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, that the City Manager is authorized to enter into an agreement with the Department of the Army in the amount of $253,844.50 to complete a Feasibility Study for the Kenai River Bluff Erosion Project. PASSED BY THE COUNCIL OF THE CITY OF KENAI, ALASKA, this 21st day of September, 2011. PAT PORTER, MAYOR ATTEST: Corene Hall, Acting City Clerk Approved by Finance: New Text Underlined; [DELETED TEXT BRACKETED[ PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN KENAI BLUFFS BANK STABILIZATION SECTION 116 FEASIBILITY STUDY 1.0 PROJECT TITLE Kenai Bluffs Section 116 P2 Project #102790 2.0 PDT KENAI, ALASKA SIGNATURES David Martinson Rick Koch Civil Works Project Manager Date City of Kenai (Sponsor) Date cry zo /y J on Norris Dee Ginter Ian Formulator Date Hydraulics and Hydrology Date Chris Floyd Karl Harvey Environmental Resources Date Cost Engineering Date John Smith Lorraine Cordova Real Estate Date Economics Date Coleman Chalup Don Tybus Geotechnical Engineer Date Value Engineering Date Phil Santerre TBD Counsel Date ATR Lead Date 1 3.0 REVISIONS TO PMP Revision Level Approval Date Section Description of Revision Initial insert date) First issue of PMP 4.0 PROJECT DESCRIPTION 4.1 Project Purpose The City of Kenai is located on the western coast of the Kenai Peninsula, fronting Cook Inlet. It is approximately 65 air miles and 155 highway miles southwest of Anchorage. The population of Kenai is 7,100 according to the 2010 census. A bluff approximately 100 feet in height fronts the northern bank of the Kenai River where it empties into Cook Inlet. Storm surges and wind - driven waves attack the toe of the bluff during storm events, causing erosion. In addition, groundwater seepage through the bluff and overland flow exacerbates the erosion problem. The Kenai Bluffs Bank Stabilization Section 116 Feasibility Study seeks to determine whether there exists a feasible solution within a federal interest to the bluff erosion problem. 4.2 Study Authority Section 116 of the Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act of 2010 (P.L. 111 -85) as amended for the prevention and reduction of storm damage prevention and reduction, coastal erosion, and ice and glacial damage, as well as the relocation of communities and construction of replacement facilities for relocated communities. 5.0 SCOPE OF WORK Further study under Section 116 was recommended to determine the feasibility of providing measures to address erosion along the Lower Kenai River at Kenai, Alaska. A preliminary alternative has been identified that provides protection to the bluff and Federal interest in the 2 project has been established. A full range of alternatives providing differing levels of protection will be examined during this feasibility phase. 6.0 OBJECTIVES The Kenai Bluffs Bank Stabilization Section 116 Feasibility Study has three primary objectives. They are listed below without respect to priority as all three will need to be addressed to arrive at an effective solution: • To reduce or prevent further erosion at the toe of the bluff. • To reduce or prevent sediment transport through the bluff as a result of groundwater seepage. • To reduce or prevent erosion at the top of the bluff due to overland flow. 7.0 PDT IDENTIFICATION Table 1 lists the disciplines that compose the project delivery team (PDT). The study will be comprised of other teams, such as the Agency Technical Review and Study Management Team. Table 1. Proiect Delivery Team (PDT) Name Position Affiliation David Martinson Project Manager CEPOA-PM-C Jason Norris Plan Formulator CEPOA- PM -C -PF Rick Koch Sponsor City of Kenai Dee Ginter Hydraulic Engineer CEPOA- EN -CW -HH Lorraine Cordova Economist CEPOA- PM -C -EC Chris Floyd NEPA specialist CEPOA-EN-CW-ER Karl Harvey Cost Engineer CEPOA -EN -CE John Smith Realty Specialist CEPOA -RE -PC Coleman Chalup Geotechnical Engineer CEPOA-EN-G-GM Erin Laughlin Archaeologist CEPOA-EN-CW-ER Amanda Shearer Tribal Liaison CEPOA- EN -CW -ER Phil Santerre Attome CEPOA -OC TBD Construction CEPOA-CO-SA-AR TBD Survey CEPOA -EN -ES Don T bus Value Engineering Officer CEPOA -EN -CE 8.0 PROJECT SCHEDULE AND MILESTONES 8.1 Project Schedule The schedule is managed by the critical path method. This logic schedule will be updated at least monthly until all tasks are complete. Major milestones and their scheduled completion date are listed below: Table 2. Schedule Activity Duration Scheduled Start Scheduled Finish Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement Executed 1.d 1- Jun -14 1- Jun -14 Local Funding Received 15.d 1- Jun -14 15- Jun -14 Site Visit / Public Meeting / Meeting Minutes 15.d 15- Jun -14 1- Jul -14 Without Project Conditions Developed 60.d 1- Jul -14 1-Sep-14 Preliminary Alternative Formulation 45.d 1- Jul -14 15-Aug-14 Initial NEPA Work environmental 90.d 1- Jul -14 1- Oct -14 Geotechnical Field Work 7.d 1- Jul -14 8- Jul -14 Real Estate Plan 120.d 15-Aug-14 15- Dec -14 Develop Estimated Erosion Rates 30.d 1- Jul -14 1-Aug-14 Geotechnical Report 60.d 15- Jul -14 15-Sep-1 4 Cost Estimates 120.d 15-Aug-14 15- Nov -14 Determine Prior Erosion Losses 30.d 15-Aug-14 15-Sep-14 Hydraulics & Hydrology Engineering Report 180A 1- Oct -14 1- Mar -15 Benefit to Cost Ratio 90.d 1- Nov -14 1- Feb -15 Checkpoint Meeting With Community 1.d 1- Feb -15 1- Feb -15 Gather Additional Information 30.d 1- Feb -15 1- Mar -15 Write Draft Re ort/Environmentaf Assessment EA 90.d 15- Jan -15 15-Apr-15 District Legal Certification 15 d 15-Apr-1 5 1-May-15 District Quality Review 30.d 1-May-15 1- Jun -15 Value Engineering Study 7.d 1- Jun -15 8 -Junl5 Agency Technical Review BOA 1- Jun -15 1-Aug-15 Pacific Ocean Division Review /AFB Milestone BOA 1-Aug-15 1- Oct -15 Draft Report Review Conference 30.d 1- Oct -15 1- Nov -15 Receive Guidance BOA 1- Nov -15 1- Jan -16 Independent External Peer Review BOA 1- Jan -16 1- Mar -16 Public Review of EA /FONSI 30A 1- Mar -16 1-Apr-16 Finalize Re ort/EA/FONSI 45.d 1-Apr-16 15-May-16 Report Approved 45.d 15-May-16 1- Jul -16 Sign Desi nAgreement 90.d 1- Jul -16 1- Oct -16 8.2 Budget Assigned to Schedule The budget to complete the feasibility study and necessary environmental documents is approximately $490,000 Funding for negotiating the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement, Project Management Plan, Project Scope, Budget and Schedule is being completed with federal funds that have been previously received for this project. Table 3. Budget Estimate Discipline: Person Hours Rate Total: PM Project Manager 180 $ 150.00 $ 27,000 PM Branch 95 $ 100.00 $ 9,500 PF Planner 240 $ 110.00 $ 26,400 Planning Chief 40 $ 140.00 $ 5,600 EC Economist 830 $ 85.74 $ 71,200 Economist Chief 388 $ 141.28 $ 54,800 HH Engineer 640 $ 130.00 $ 83,200 HH Chief 60 $ 140.00 $ 8,400 SG Engineer 280 $ 120.00 $ 33,600 SG Chief 80 $ 140.00 $ 11,200 RE Real Estate Specialist 80 $ 120.00 $ 9,600 CE Cost Estimator 500 $ 150.00 $ 75,000 CE Chief 60 $ 150.00 $ 9,000 ER Biologist 80 $ 120.00 $ 9,600 Archaeologist 80 $ 100.00 $ 8,000 Editor 40 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 ER Chief 20 $ 140.00 $ 2,800 Project Development Team Total: $ 450,000 Value Engineering Study: $ 20,000 Agency Technical Review (ATR): PF Planning Reviewer 40 1 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 NEPA NEPA Reviewer 40 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 EC Economics Reviewer 40 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 HH H &H Reviewer 40 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 SG Geotechnical Reviewer 40 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 RE Real Estate Reviewer 40 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 CE Cost Reviewer 40 $ 120.00 $ 4,800 ATR Total: to unanticipated review . USACE policy costs $ 34,000 issues • Requirements for POD on policy requirements, funding Independent External Peer Review Total: new endangered throughout study $ 150,000 • New listings of species studies • Non - federal sponsor limitations, or other endangered species Feasibility Study Total: will fully fund study • Unresolved real $ 654,000 8.3 Risk Assessment Known and foreseeable unknown risks associated with the feasibility phase of this project are listed in the Risk Register; health and safety risks are discussed separately in Section 10. These risks have been identified and quantified by the PDT, and are presented in decreasing order of impact to the scope, schedule, budget and quality of the feasibility study. Unforeseeable risks will be addressed if and when they occur or can be identified. The project contingency will provide some protection against these risks. Table 4. Risk Reeister Risks Triggers Potential Impact Actions/Mitigation Measures Scone N/A N/A N/A Quality • Loss of data or • Schedule slippage • Regular Team samples • Re- sampling/re- Meetings • Communication analysis costs • Follow Data errors Management Plan Schedule slippage due . Environmental • Schedule slippage • Regular Team issues • Increased study Meetings to unanticipated review . USACE policy costs • Coordinate with issues • Requirements for POD on policy requirements, funding . Lack of funding new endangered throughout study • New listings of species studies • Non - federal sponsor limitations, or other endangered species will fully fund study • Unresolved real up front conditions estate status • Unlikely new T &E • Unknown species will be archaeological sites present in area. • Weather delays of • Work with RE early site work to determine RE 8.3.1 Value Engineering Value Engineering (VE) is a process to facilitate and encourage the understanding, consideration, and integration of the needs of all sponsor, PDT members, and stakeholders. This process follows the guidance and requirements of PMBP REF 8023 G and ER 11 -1 -321 Change 1. This is a Civil Work construction project with an estimated total project cost of greater than $10 million. The project is in the pre- Feasibility Study Phase. Therefore, the following VE requirements apply: • The Project Manager will coordinate scheduled and actual P2 Milestones with the VE Officer (VEO) to include Feasibility Phase Start and Finish, PED Start and Finish, VE Start and Finish • Absence of status site /regional data . Work with ER/SHPO on archaeological sites • Schedule field work during favorable weather windows where possible • Use best professional judgment where data gaps cannot be efficiently filled Cost erowth • Schedule slippage • Updates of • Regular Team • Unplanned starts & economics /cost Meetings stops estimates • Coordinate with • New listings of • Requirements for resource providers endangered species new endangered as much as possible • Unknown species studies • New T &E listings archaeological sites • Relocation of site unlikely in project • Weather delays of area. site work • Works with ER and • Site contamination SHPO on discovered sites • Use best professional judgment where data gaps cannot be efficiently filled • Site is unlikely to be contaminated, work with sponsor if any is discovered 8.3.1 Value Engineering Value Engineering (VE) is a process to facilitate and encourage the understanding, consideration, and integration of the needs of all sponsor, PDT members, and stakeholders. This process follows the guidance and requirements of PMBP REF 8023 G and ER 11 -1 -321 Change 1. This is a Civil Work construction project with an estimated total project cost of greater than $10 million. The project is in the pre- Feasibility Study Phase. Therefore, the following VE requirements apply: • The Project Manager will coordinate scheduled and actual P2 Milestones with the VE Officer (VEO) to include Feasibility Phase Start and Finish, PED Start and Finish, VE Start and Finish • The VEO will be part of the PDT and notified of the progress of the project and invited to participate in project reviews • Asa project with an estimated total project cost of greater than $10 million, a VE study is required during both the Feasibility or PED phases. 8.3.2 Acquisition Strategy The feasibility study will be conducted by in -house and contract labor. Contract activities will be obtained through existing District open end Architect/Engineer contracts, service contracts (survey, geotechnical, etc.), or firm fixed price contracts. Activities performed outside the District include sponsor contracts as "in- kind" services. This project - specific strategy is consistent with the current version of the District's Advance Acquisition Strategy document as described in CEPOA- 7.1 -1. Such activities may include: 1. Coordination Act Report preparation (USFWS) 2. Surveys and geotechnical engineering services 3. Engineering services 4. Economic analyses 5. Modeling (USACE laboratories) 6. Environmental services (NEPA, special studies and investigations) 7. Cost estimating 8. Agency Technical Review (ATR) services 9. Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) services 8.3.3 Real Estate Asset Documentation Plan A Real Estate Plan will be developed for this study as required by policy. 8.3.4 Closeout Strategy (including Administrative Record Plan) Funds reserved for After Action Review. This plan will assist with developing out -year O &M and CG budget requests and will produce new projects. 9.0 PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT PLAN The purpose of a Public Involvement Plan is to communicate with the public in a collaborative, open, and transparent manner. It seeks to: • Build awareness of the project • Gain an understanding of the concerns and desires of the community • Inform and educate • Correct misconceptions and rumors • Generate mutual respect for differences • Generate appreciation for complexity of the problems and support for the proposed solutions • Explain the legal authorities that apply to the project • Meet regulatory requirements such as NEPA during project development by seeking public input • Get public engagement into the assessment process • Move the project forward 9.1 Internal Communications Plan The Project Manager will take the lead role in ensuring effective communications on this project. The communications requirements are documented in the Communications Matrix below. The Communications Matrix will be used as the guide for what information to communicate, who is to do the communicating, when to communicate it, and to whom to communicate. Table 5. Internal Communication Matrix Communication Description Frequency Format Participants/ Deliverable Owner Type David Martinson Project Manager David.A.Martinson@usace.army.mil Distribution Jason Norris Plan Formulator Jason.M.Norris usace.arin .mil Email Dee Ginter H &H Engineer Project 907 - 753 -2805 Lorraine Cordova Status Report summary of Quarterly Email Sponsor, Status Project Coleman Chalu project Coleman.J.Chalu usace.arm .mil 907 - 753 -2686 Team Report Manager status Meeting to Project Team review Updated Project Meeting action Monthly In Person Project Team Action Manager register and Register status Present Phase closeout of Project completion Project Gate Reviews project phases and As Needed In Person Sponsor, report and Project Manager kickoff next Team phase p phase kickoff Review of any technical Technical designs or Technical Project Design Review work As Needed In Person Project Team Design Manager associated Package with the project Project team directory for all communications is: Table 6. Communications Director Name Title E mail Office Phone Rick Koch Sponsor RKoch(@ci.kenai.ak.us 907 - 283 -8200 ext. 8222 David Martinson Project Manager David.A.Martinson@usace.army.mil 907- 753 -2668 Jason Norris Plan Formulator Jason.M.Norris usace.arin .mil 907 - 753 -5577 Dee Ginter H &H Engineer Deirdre.M.Ginter usace.arm .mil 907 - 753 -2805 Lorraine Cordova Lead Economist Lorraine.A.Cordova@usace.army.mil 907 - 753 -2672 Chris Flo d Environmental Christo her.B.Flo d usace.arm .mil 907 - 753 -2700 Coleman Chalu Geotech En ineer Coleman.J.Chalu usace.arm .mil 907 - 753 -2686 John Smith Real Estate John.J.Smith@usace.ariny.mil 907 - 753 -2853 Karl Harvey Cost Estimating Karl.J.Harve usace.arm .mil 907 -753 -5738 9.1.1 Communications Conduct: 9.1.1.1 Meetings The Project Manager will distribute a meeting agenda at least 1 day prior to any scheduled meeting and all participants are expected to review the agenda prior to the meeting. During all project meetings the PM will ensure that the group adheres to the times stated in the agenda and take all notes for distribution to the team upon completion of the meeting. It is imperative that all participants arrive to each meeting on time and all cell phones should be turned off or set to vibrate mode to minimize distractions. Meeting minutes will be distributed no later than 24 hours after each meeting is completed. 9.1.1.2 Email All email pertaining to Project should be professional, free of errors, and provide brief communication. Email should be distributed to the correct project participants in accordance with the communication matrix above based on its content. All attachments should be in one of the organization's standard software suite programs and adhere to established company formats. If the email is to bring an issue forward then it should discuss what the issue is, provide a brief background on the issue, and provide a recommendation to correct the issue. The Project Manager should be included on emails where schedule and /or budget are discussed or where otherwise appropriate. 9.1.1.3 Informal Communications While informal communication is a part of every project and is necessary for successful project completion, any issues, concerns, or updates to schedule and budget that arise from informal discussion between team members must be communicated to the Project Manager so the appropriate action may be taken. 9.2 External Communications Plan The Project Manager will take the lead role in ensuring effective communications on this project. The communications requirements are documented in the Communications Matrix below. The Communications Matrix will be used as the guide for what information to communicate, who is to do the communicating, when to communicate it, and to whom to communicate. 9.2.1 Stakeholder Identification and Engagement There are a number of stakeholder groups that may express an interest in this study including local residents, local business owners, elected officials, the public at large, agencies from the local, Borough, State, and Federal level, marine and riverine fishermen, environmental groups, Alaska Native entities, etc. 10 Table 7. External Communication Matrix Communication Description Frequency Format Participants/ Deliverable Owner Type Distribution Kenai City In Person Project City of Kenai Council As Needed or by Sponsor, Various Planner Meeting Phone PDT Public In Person Project Public As Needed or by Sponsor, Various Planner Meeting Phone PDT Decision Documents, Review As Planner / Public Plans, Documents PDF on Public Documents Public Affairs NEPA are Internet Uploaded Office Documents Completed placed on (PAO) Internet 9.2.2 Media Engagement Process To the extent practicable, all media inquiries to USACE will be directed to the Alaska District PAO. The primary point of contact for media inquiries within the Alaska District PAO is Tom Findtner, Chief of Public Affairs, 907 - 753 -2522, Tom.Findtner @usace.army.mil. Media inquiries to the sponsor will be handled at the sponsor's discretion through their own means. On some matters, the sponsor may wish to coordinate with USACE on their responses. In these cases, the sponsor should coordinate with the PM and Alaska District PAO. At this time, no press releases or newspaper announcements are planned. However, should these become necessary, the PDT will work with PAO and the sponsor to determine how best to fill these needs. 9.2.3 Public Response Process During the study, USACE may field calls from members of the general public about the project. In these cases, the Planner or PM should truthfully answer questions to the extent practicable but should not speculate about outcomes, future events, deadlines, or discuss the internal workings of the Corps as they relate to this study beyond established milestones that apply to any feasibility study. The Planner or PM should feel free to refer these matters to the PAO. 10.0 CHANGE MANAGEMENT STRATEGY 11 The PDT is responsible for determining when amendment to this PMP is required. PDT members are responsible for monitoring their work items and identifying when changes should be recommended and for assessing the impact of the proposed change. Significant changes will require the generation of a change request form in P2 and updating the PMP as noted in CEPOA- 7.1-6, Develop PMP. For the purposes of this project, "significant' category changes will include: • Unanticipated environmental, economic, cultural resource, or social issues; • Congressional funding reductions; • New sites with additional data - gathering requirements; • Sponsor - requested changes or betterments; • Schedule changes delaying project authorization; • Any change that affects study costs and /or delivery schedule. All other changes will be considered "minor ", and will be documented by the PM in the PMP revision log, as also noted in CEPOA- 7.1 -6. 11.0 QUALITY MANAGEMENT PLAN The objective of the Project Quality Management Plan (PQMP) is to ensure the successful completion of the study and delivery of high - quality study reports and supporting documents, within budget and on time. In addition, the PDT will adhere to the Alaska District quality management procedures detailed in the Quality Management Information System (QMIS), particularly the Standard Operating Procedures (SOPs) for studies, design and construction. 11.1 Project Delivery Team The PDT is responsible for the quality, adequacy, and accuracy of the work products as well as the continuing adequacy and suitability of this PMP over the life of the project. PDT members will seek assistance from peers and the section chiefs and will advise the PM and PDT team leader of work priority conflicts as they arise. They will collect and analyze data, evaluate the alternatives, identify the National Economic Development (NED) plan and prepare the Feasibility Report (FR)/Environmental Assessment (EA). The FR/EA will be prepared to document study assumptions, data sources, analytical methods employed, evaluations, and identification of the NED, Locally Preferred Plan (LPP) if applicable, and the recommended plan. Deviations of the recommended plan from the NED plan will be documented and the basis for the selection of the recommended plan will be explained. 11.2 Model Approval The PDT will work with PCX -CSRM on approval for a single -use spreadsheet model that will quantify expected damages due to erosion. Since damages due to wave attack and inundation are not an issue in the study area, models such as HEC -FDA and Beach -fx will not be utilized. 12 11.3 District Quality Control Team The DQC Team is made up of personnel with experience in the major disciplines. The team's purpose is to ensure that all products meet District standards for quality and completeness prior to ATR. DQC will be completed commensurate with CEPOA- CW- 6.1- 2- WI -01. 11.4 Agency Technical Review Team The ATR Team is made up of personnel with experience in the major disciplines. The team's purpose is to provide an independent technical review of all elements of the study to ensure that planning, analysis, and design conform to applicable standards, policy, and guidance of the Corps of Engineers. The ATR Team will be identified in the Review Plan, which will be completed prior execution of the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement consistent with Planning Bulletin (PB) 2014 -02. 11.5 Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) IEPR (Type I) is mandatory if any of the following are true: • The project poses a significant threat to human life • The estimated cost of the project is greater than $45 million • The Governor of an affected State requests independent expert peer review • The project is controversial due to the size, nature, or effects of the project or the economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project In addition to this, IEPR (Type I) may be required for decision documents in cases where the following mandatory triggers are met: • The study includes an Environmental Impact Statement • The study is controversial • The project has an adverse impact on scarce or unique tribal, cultural, or historic resources • The project has a substantial impact on fish and wildlife species and their habitat prior to the implementation of mitigation measures • The project has a substantial impact on listed species prior to the implementation of mitigation measures IEPR (Type 11) 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 1165 -2 -214, is made as to whether IEPR is appropriate. There is a chance that this study will not meet any of the aforementioned conditions necessary for execution of IEPR (Type I). If that is 13 the case, a risk - informed decision on whether to seek an exclusion from IEPR (Type I) will be made in accordance with EC 1165 -2 -214 at that time. IEPR panels will consist of independent, recognized experts from outside of the USACE in the appropriate disciplines, representing a balance of areas of expertise suitable for the review being conducted. Type II IEPR, or Safety Assurance Review (SAR), are managed outside the USACE and are 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. 11.6 Study Management Team The Study Management Team consists of selected PDT members who are responsible for carrying out the day -to -day direction and management of the study. The Study Management team will keep the PDT and others informed of the progress of the study and of significant pending issues and actions. The Study Management team is as follows: Table 8. Studv Manaeement Team Name Position Affiliation David Martinson Project Manager CEPOA-PM-C Jason Norris Plan Formulator CEPOA- PM -C -PL Rick Koch Sponsor City of Kenai 11.7 Executive Committee The Executive Committee is made of senior representatives of the Alaska District Corps of Engineers, and the project sponsor. The committee's purpose is to provide general oversight and to resolve issues that are brought to it by the study management team. In the event there are issues the committee is unable to resolve, those issues will be referred to the Alaska District Engineer together with the committee's recommendations. The District Engineer will consider such recommendations in good faith, but has the discretion to accept, reject, or modify the committee's recommendations. The Study Management team will keep the Executive Committee informed of the progress of the study and of issues requiring resolution. Members of the Executive Committee are as follows: Table 9. Executive Committee Name Position Affiliation Rick Koch City Manager City of Kenai Loran Baxter Chief, Civil Works CEPOA -PM -C 14 The aforementioned teams will be responsible for several processes selected to ensure that the quality requirements of the sponsor are achieved. These include: 11.8 Evaluation of Lessons Learned / After Action Review Information The PDT will evaluate the lessons learned database (see CEPOA- 8.5 -1, "Lessons Learned ") located at: O:\EN\Public \CW\Lessons Learned\ to determine whether or not quality issues or suggested improvements have been developed on similar projects. Relevant information will be considered in the development of the written work products for this phase of the project. 11.9 Periodic Team Meetings Meetings of the PDT will be conducted to coordinate the efforts of its members as noted in CEPOA- 7.1 -4, "Establish PDT" and CEPOA- 7.1 -6, "Develop Project Management Plan (PMP)." The meetings will be used to discuss the study process, issues, budget, and schedules. PM will be responsible for scheduling the meetings. The PM will issue a meeting agenda prior to each meeting and provide minutes of the meetings to the study team. 11.10 Technical Requirements Studies conducted as part of the feasibility study may be subject to the technical requirements contained in the following references and other appropriate applicable guidance. - Planning Guidance Notebook, ER 1105 -2 -100 - Planning Bulletin 2014 -02 - U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Business Process, ER 5 -1 -11 - Digest of Water Resources Policies and Authorities, EP 1165 -2 -1 - Economic and Environmental Principles and Guidelines for Water and Related Land Resources Implementation Studies, U.S. Water Resources Council - Procedures for Implementing NEPA, ER 200 -2 -2 - Engineering and Design for Civil Works Projects, ER 1110 -2 -1150 - Civil Works Cost Engineering, ER 1110 -2 -1302 - Technical and Policy Compliance Review, EC 1165 -2 -203 - Civil Works Review, EC 1165 -2 -214 - Real Estate Handbook, ER 405 -1 -12 - Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste Guidance for CW, ER 1165 -2 -132 - Storm Surge Analysis and Design Water Level Determination, EM 1110 -2 -1412 - Water Levels and Wave Heights for Coastal Engineering Design, EM 1110 -2 -1414 - Coastal Littoral Transport, EM 1110 -2 -1502 - Tidal Hydraulics, EM 1110 -2 -1607 - Ice Engineering, EM 1110 -2 -1612 - Design of Coastal Revetments, Seawalls, and Bulkheads, EM 1110 -2 -1614 - Environmental Engineering for Coastal Shore Protection, EM 1110 -2 -1204 - Federal Participation in Shore Protection, ER 1165 -2 -130 - Civil Works Cost Engineering, ER 1110 -2 -1302 15 11.11 Specific Quality Requirements The PDT will ensure the quality of the work products are in accordance with CEPOA- 7.1 -11, Study Quality Management. 11.12 Sustainability Considerations The PDT will ensure that appropriate elements of the current version of USACE Environmental Operating Principles and Implementation Guidance are considered in the development of the written work products required as a result of this technical study. In particular, special emphasis will be required to ensure minimal impacts on the Kenai River salmon runs and Cook Inlet Beluga Whale populations. 11.13 Review Requirements Project quality control is provided by the PDT and in -house reviews in accordance with CEPOA- 7.3-4, Agency Technical Review /Design Review. Draft and final reports will undergo PDT and section chief reviews before being released for external use. Quality assurance is provided by external review as required by EC 1105 -2 -408 and 410. A risk - informed decision on whether to seek an exclusion from IEPR (Type I) will be made in accordance with EC 1165 -2 -214 at a later time. External review will be discussed in detail in the Review Plan to be developed prior to execution of the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement in accordance with PB 2014 -02. 11.14 Lessons Learned and After Action Review The PDT will document lessons learned throughout the study period and will conduct an AAR after completion of study in accordance with CEPOA- 8.5- 1- WI -02, After Action Review. 11.15 Quality Objectives 11.15.1 Project -Level Quality Objectives: • Develop solutions to the coastal storm risk management and ice /glacial damage problems • Develop cost - effective and environmentally acceptable solutions that meet study criteria and policy • Perform study on -time and within budget 11.15.2 District -Level Quality Objectives: • Timeliness in Project Execution - measured by comparison of actual to baseline • Realistic schedules • Fully staffed PDT • Current PMP • Consistent use of change management system • Risk analysis • Appropriate funding 16 12.0 DATA MANAGEMENT AND STORAGE PLAN All spatial data collected for the Kenai Bluffs Bank Stabilization Section 116 Feasibility Study will be in GIS format. This includes all survey, soil boring, and hydraulic data. In addition, some old data that will be used in current analyses will be converted to GIS format. In 2014 the PDT will ensure that all spatial data is compliant with the Spatial Data Standards for Facilities, Infrastructure and Environment (SDSFIE) requirements as funding allows. All documents that are part of the Bluffs Bank Stabilization Section 116 Feasibility Study and /or For Official Use Only will be stored at O: \_Projects by Location \Kenai \014744 Kenai River Bluff Erosion\ with access permissions restricted only to those who are required access are part of their official duties. The Program Manager is responsible to ensure that access permissions are maintained and that all appropriate data is stored at this location. This Project Management Plan has been reviewed and is approved. APPROVED Randall Bowker Chief Project Management 17 DATE