HomeMy WebLinkAboutCC AG PKT 2002-06-24 #P1'<
AGENDA REPORT
DATE:
June 24, 2002
TO:
Honorable Mayor and City Council
THRU:
John B. Bahorski, City Manager
FROM:
Douglas A. Dancs, P.E. Director of Public Works/City Engineer
SUBJECT:
SAN GABRIEL TO NEWPORT BAY (SURFSIDE
COLONY) FEASIBILITY STUDY COST SHARING
AGREEMENT (FCSA)
SUMMARY OF REOUEST:
The proposed action will authorize the Director of Public Works to execute five copies of
the cost sharing agreement with the Department of the Army for the San Gabriel to
Newport Bay ( Surfside Colony) Feasibility Study Cost Sharing Agreement.
BACKGROUND:
The urbanization of the coastal plain including the construction of flood control facilities,
breakwaters for shipping harbors, harbor jetties in Long Beach (Alamitos Bay) and at the
U. S. Naval Weapons Station (Anaheim Bay) has pemranently altered natural beach sand
management. In an effort to mitigate the effects of the Anaheim Bay harbor entrance
jetties, the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) initiated a sand replenishment
project every four to six years to mitigate the loss of natural sand flow. Although the
replenishment project seems to be meeting the overall goal of nourishing the coastal
beaches from Surfside — Sunset to Newport Beach, isolated erosion immediately adjacent
to the southeasterly Anaheim Bay entrance jetty poses a hazard for the neighboring
public and private infrastructure.
The isolated erosion adjacent to the southeasterly jetty is attributed to the reflection and
concentration of wave energy at this location. Waves approaching from the south and
west are reflected off the jetty and redirected to the adjacent beach. These reflected waves
amplify the existing waves coming directly into the beach. The result is increased
longshore sediment transport away from this location causing erosion. The erosion rate is
roughly double the normal rate depending on seasonal variations.
In January 2001, Council approved an application for funding a portion of the proposed I
Feasibility Study with the Department of Boating and Waterways. This study would be a b
joint planning effort between the City of Seal Beach and the U.S. Amy Corps of
Engineers (USACE). The proposed study will be based upon the 905 (b) Reconnaissance (1}✓�
.Agenda Item
Report by Los Angeles District USAGE. The USACE report will investigate the viability
of non - structural and structural solutions. Potential alternatives investigated may include
beach replenishment, enhanced revetment, and offshore submerged breakwater /artificial
surf reef.
The City's current philosophy favors non - structural solutions such as periodic beach sand
replenishment and some limited structural solutions providing that they increase the
beaches ability to retain replenished sand without any adverse effects to water circulation
and the surf zone environment.
USACE feasibility studies are funded with a 50% local sponsor share requirement. The
total cost of the project has been estimated by USACE at $2,541,000. The project has an
expected completion of first quarter of 2006.
The California Department of Boating and Waterways (DBAW) awarded the City of Seal
Beach grant funds through the Public Restoration Program. In June 2001, Council
approved the funding agreement with Department of Boating and Waterways, which
provided $113,950. There is an additional $225,000 proposed in the yet unsigned state
budget. Discussions with USACE will allow the City to use in -kind services for the
remaining local match.
Discussions with the USACE indicate that cost sharing beyond the I' and 2nd year should
be reviewed upon the completion of the F4 milestone. USACE and City staff will be
investigating funding alternatives including additional State funding, Coastal
Conservancy funding, and erosion mitigation funding from the U.S. Navy for continuing
the feasibility study beyond the 2nd year and funding of the chosen project alternative.
Upon completion of this study, it is hoped that an ongoing Federal authorization or U.S.
Navy funding program will be established to replenish this beach at regular intervals
independent of the existing Surfside - Sunset to Newport Beach Nourishment Program.
FISCAL IMPACT:
No impact at this time. By October 2003, the end of the federal fiscal year, if funding is
not available, the agreement would have to be terminated for lack of funding.
Additionally, if the $225,000 is not allocated within the State Budget, the agreement
would also have to be terminated prematurely.
It is recommended that City Council authorize the Director of Public Works to execute
the San Gabriel to Newport Bay ( Surfside Colony) Feasibility Study.
Doug Dancs, P.E., Director of Public Works/City Engineer
City Manager
Copy of San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony) Feasibility Study
Cost Sharing Agreement
USACE May 2002 Project Management Plan
Agenda Item
San Gabriel to Newport Bay
(Surfside Colony), California
Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
May 2002
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Los Angeles District
911 Wilshire Boulevard
Los Angeles, California 90017 -3401
SAN GABRIEL TO NEWPORT BAY (SURFSIDE COLONY)
FEASIBILITY STUDY
PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN
TABLE OF CONTENTS
CHAPTER I -THE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN ................................. ............................1
-1
CHAPTER 2 - SAN GABRIEL TO NEWPORT BAY (SURFSIDE COLONY) SHORELINE
FEASIBILITY STUDY, SECTION 905(B) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS ................ ............................2
-1
CHAPTER 3 - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE .................................... ............................3
-1
CHAPTER 4 - SCOPES OF WORK ............................................................. ............................4
-1
CHAPTER 5 - RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENT ........................................ ............................5
-1
CHAPTER 6 - STUDY SCHEDULE ............................................................. ............................6
-1
CHAPTER 7 - SPECIAL STUDY COST ESTIMATE .................................... ............................7
-1
CHAPTER 8 - QUALITY CONTROL PLAN ................................................ .............................
&1
CHAPTER 9 - IDENTIFICATION OF PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA ........ ............................9
-1
CHAPTER 10 - PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION ............... ...........................10
-1
CHAPTER 11 - STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION ................................... ...........................11
-1
List of Enclosures
Enclosure A. Project Area Map .......
.................. A -1
Enclosure B. CESPD Milestone System - Study Phase ........................... ............................B -1
Enclosure C. Detailed Scopes of Work ..................................................... ............................0 -1
.. .Enclosure D. PMF Quality Certification ... i .............. :.:........ .. ..... .... i,:. P!............... :".:'*z:"'^.: .... : ....... D -F
Enclosure E. List of Acronyms
San Gabriel to Newport Bay surfidde Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter I - The Project Management Plan
This Project Management Plan (PMP) is an attachment to the Feasibility Cost
Sharing Agreement (FCSA) forthe San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California
Feasibility Study. This document defines the planning approach, activities to be
accomplished, schedule, and associated costs that the Federal Government and the Non -
Federal Sponsors will be supporting financially. The PMP defines a contract between the
Corps of Engineers and the Non - Federal Sponsor —the City of Seal Beach, 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 shoreline special study.
Basis for Change
Because planning is an iterative process without a predetermined outcome, more or
less funding and time may be required to accomplish the formulation and reformulation and
evaluation of the alternative plans. 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. The PMP provides a basis
for change.
Review and Evaluation
The PMP is a basis for the review and evaluation of the study report. Since the PMP
represents a contract among study participants, it will be used as the basis to determine if
the draft study report has been developed in accordance withestablished procedures and
previous agreements. The PMP reflects mutual agreements between the Los Angeles
District (CESPL), the South Pacific Division (CESPD), the Non-Federal Sponsor —the City of
Seal Beach, and Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (HC USACE) regarding the
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study. The PMP
establishes the scope, critical assumptions, methodologies, and level of detail forthe studies
that are to be conducted during the feasibility phase study. Review of the draft report will be
to insure that the study has been developed consistent with these agreements. The
objective is to provide early assurance that the project is developed in a way that can be
supported by higher headquarters.
Management Tool
The PMP is a study management tool that includes scopes of work to be 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.
1 -1
Summary of PMP Requirements
This PMP is comprised of the following chapters:
Chapter 1. The Project Management Plan. This chapter includes a description of the
PMP and a summary of PMP requirements.
Chapter 2. Section 905(b) Analysis. Chapter 2 is the approved Section 905(b)
Analysis that includes an overview of the reconnaissance study findings, the plan
formulation rationale and proposed streamlining initiatives. This chapter also documents any
deviations from the approved Section 905(b) Analysis that have occurred during the
negotiations of the FCSA.
Chapter 3. Work Breakdown Structure. A product -based Work Breakdown Structure
(WBS) defines the project, subprojects, and parent tasks and other tasks that will be
accomplished throughout the study. The major milestone tasks and definitions are included
as Enclosure B to the PMP.
Chapter 4. Scopes of Work. Detailed scope of the tasks and activities that describes
in narrative form the work to be accomplished, and answers the questions — What? How?
How Much? This chapter provides a reference to the detailed scopes of work, which are
included as Enclosure C to the PMP.
Chapter 5. Responsibility Assignment. The Organizational Breakdown Structure
(OBS) defines who will perform work on the study. This allows the identification of the
functional organization that will perform each of the tasks in a Responsibility Assignment
Matrix (RAM).
Chapter 6. Study Schedule. The schedule defines when key decision points, CESPD
milestone conferences and mandatory HQUSACE milestones will be accomplished.
Chapter 7. Study Cost Estimate. This is the baseline cost estimate for the feasibility
phase study.
Chapter 8. Quality Management Plan. Chapter 8 supplements the 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.
Uhapter 9. wentifcation at Frucedures and Criteria. This chapter references the
regulations and other guidance that cover the planning process and reporting procedures.
Chapter 10. Public Involvement and Coordination. Public involvement and
coordination activities for the San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surtside Colony), California
Feasibility Study are described in this Chapter.
1 -2
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 2 - San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony)
Shoreline Feasibility Study, Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis
Study Authority
This Section 905(b) (WRDA 86) Analysis was prepared as an initial response to the
Energy and Water Development Appropriations Act for 2000, Public Law 106 -60, 29
September 1999, which reads as follows:
The Committee recommendation includes funds for the Corps of Engineers to
conduct a reconnaissance study investigating shoreline protection alternatives for San
Gabriel to Newport Bay, California.
Previous authorizations for this area include the River and Harbor and Flood Control
Act of 1962, Public Law 87 -874, 87" Congress, 2nd Session, approved 23 October 1962, in
accordance with Section 110.
Study Purpose
The purpose of the reconnaissance phase study is to determine if there is a Federal
interest in participating in a cost shared feasibility phase study to investigate providing shore
protection to the shoreline at Surfside in the City of Seal Beach, Orange County, California.
In response to the study authority, the reconnaissance study was initiated on 26 April 2000.
The reconnaissance study has resulted in the finding that there is a Federal interest in
continuing the study into the feasibility phase. The purpose of this Section 905(b) (WRDA
86) Analysis is to document the basis for this finding and establish the scope of the
feasibility phase. As the document that establishes the scope of the feasibility study, the
Section 905(b) (WRDA) Analysis is used as the chapter of the Project Management Plan
which presents the reconnaissance overview and formulation rationale.
Location of Study, Non - Federal Sponsor and Congressional District
The study area is located on the Pacific Ocean coastline of Orange County and
covers 13 miles from San Gabriel River to Newport Bay (specifically the principle shore
community in the City of Seal Beach). Toward the northern limit, Anaheim Bay Harbor is
composed of two entrance protective jetties in an arrowhead configuration. The southern
limit is at the Newport Bay. The terminus to the Newport Submarine Canyon lies in close
proximity to Newport Pier. The entire stretch of shoreline is considered a single littoral unit.
The specific area of concern for local storm erosion is the Surfside Colony area as shown in
Figure 1.
The non - Federal Sponsor for the feasibility phase study is the City of Seal Beach
The study area is in the 47th Congressional District.
2 -1
Prior Reports and Existing Projects
Prior Reports
The following reports have been reviewed as part of this study:
1) Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Study of orange County, California,
Appendix V, Phase ll, House Document No. 602, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, October
1962. This report determined that the northern coastline of Orange County, between
Anaheim Bay and the Newport Pier, warranted protective shore measures to prevent further
damage caused by beach erosion. Loss of land, installations, and property damage
prompted this study. Erosion was particularly severe along Surfside /Sunset Beach, Bolsa
Chica, Huntington Beach State Park, and the beaches fronting the Cities of Huntington
Beach and Newport Beach.
2) Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Research and Data Collection
Program of Coast of Southern California-Cape San Martin to Mexican Boundary, Three -
Year Report — 1964 -1966, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1967. This report
presented the results of a three -year research and data collection program for the entire
coastline of California south of San Luis Obispo County to identify areas of active or
potential erosion. The data collections specifically for Orange County included aerial and
ground photographs, hydrogrephic surveys, numerous sand samples, and two pressure
wave gages near Dana Point. Storm damage was evident along the shoreline of Newport
Beach between 30" and 60" Streets and areas of Capistrano Beach.
3) Beach Erosion Control Report on Cooperative Research and Data Collection
Program of Coast of Southern California -Cape San Martin to Mexican Boundary, Three -
Year Report- 1967 -1969, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, December 1970. This second
three -year report presented the results of a research and data collection program for the
California coastline south of San Luis Obispo County for identifying areas of active or
potential erosion. Beach inspections, aerial and ground photographs, hydrographic surveys,
sand samples, two wave gages, stream delta surveys, Newport Submarine Canyon,
offshore sand sources, shoreline conditions, evaluation of wave refraction models and
beach profiles were investigated for Orange County.
4) Suu`them California Coastal Water Research Projeci- Annual Reports,'Southenr
California Coastal Water Research Project Authority, 1974 - present. This collection of
technical papers released the results of various water quality related studies throughout
southern California. This annual report investigated sources of effluents, fates of benthic
populations, effects on habitat, numerical integration and assessment, and development of
proper monitoring methods to enhance the ecology of the community.
5) Orange County NPDES Stormwater Permit Program- Proposed Water Quality
Monitoring Programs for the Orange County Stormwater System and Receiving Waters,
Orange County Flood Control District, December 1990. This reportwas prepared to propose
a monitoring program for storm water runoff in Orange County. The monitoring program for
storm channels consisted of field screening, dry weather, Flow - composite sampling, and
episodic sampling. The receiving water monitoring program included stations in Huntington
Harbor, Surfside /Sunset, Anaheim, Bolsa Bays, Upper and Lower Newport Bays, and Dana
Point Harbor. In addition, semi - annual sampling of bed sediment to determine the chronic
effects of storm water runoff was proposed.
2 -2
6) Existing State of Orange County Coast, Coast of California Storm and Tidal
Waves Study, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, April 1993. This report provided
comprehensive coastal data for the portion of the Orange County coast spanning from the
San Gabriel River to the Dana Point headlands. The data collection and analysis addressed
numerous coastal issues including a review of historical shoreline and coastal cliff changes,
sediment transport characteristics, sediment budget identification, the geomorphologic
makeup, and the impacts of the hydrodynamic forces that prevail throughout the region. The
findings of this study indicated that for northern Orange County, near Sunset and Bolsa
Chita beaches, the shoreline has remained stable, then at a progressive and increasing rate
south of the West Newport groin field and through the Balboa Peninsula, erosion trends
have dominated. The study identified an erosion hot spot seaward of the Huntington Cliffs
where the dry beach width at high tide was minimal. South of Newport Beach, in the Laguna
Beach Mini Littoral Cells, the shoreline had been stable over the past 50 plus years;
however, beach widths are considered to be narrow for recreational purposes. Various
changes in the upland uses of drainage basins were identified as possible causes of
erosion.
7) Shoreline and Volume Changes Along the Orange County Coast, Coast of
California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
1994. This report identified the shoreline position and sediment volume changes within the
Orange County littoral zone, extending from the San Gabriel River mouth to the Dana Point
Harbor. The littoral coastal region was divided into three distinct littoral cells: the Seal Beach
Subcell, the Huntington Beach Subcell, and the Laguna Beach Mini Subcells. Several
coastal areas exhibiting net erosion were identified and possible causes for this erosion in
each respective community were investigated.
8) Seacliff Erosion and Its Sediment Contributions -Dana Point to the San Gabriel
River, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps
of Engineers, 1995. This study identified seacliffs as erosion features indicative of the
landward retreat of the littoral zone. The seacliff erosion rate depends upon the width of dry
beach width at the cliff base and the magnitude of the wave activity. Estimated mean
seacliff retreat rates based on geomorphic models were presented; however, time -
dependent potential structural damage could not be predicted due to the episodic nature of
retreat.
9) Field Activities Report- Bathymetric Profile Survey, Coast of California dtorm anti "
Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, Coastal Frontiers Corporation, January 1996. This
report presented the results of the bathymetric profile survey conducted in May 1995 along
26 transacts between Anaheim Bay and Newport Beach Harborwilh cross -lines through the
study area at approximate depths of 20, 30, and 40 feet, Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW).
Each transact was surveyed from the backshore to a minimum depth of 60 feet MLLW. A
brief analysis and description of the bathymetric changes between this survey and a survey
conducted in 1992 were also included.
2 -3
10) Coastal Sediment Budget Analysis Summary, Orange County, California, U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers, January 1996. This report summarized the existing state of
knowledge related to the sediment budget of the Orange County region and discussed the
various components which comprise the sediment budget. Detailed analysis of these
components include: Fluvial sediment production, historical bathymetric changes, littoral
losses to Newport Submarine Canyon, aerial photo analysis of historical shoreline changes
of the Laguna Beach Mini littoral cells, littoral sediment loss at east jetty of Anaheim Bay,
and littoral sediment by- passing at Dana Point.
11) Nearshore Hydrodynamic Factors and Wave Study of the Orange County Coast,
Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, January 1996. This study, recognizing the lack of sufficient existing wave
hindcast and measurement data, developed a practical, detailed database to be used for
coastal planning and design applications for Orange County. The analysis within this report
included: a review of the local, regional, and hemispheric meteorological weather systems
responsible for the Orange County wave climate, and bathymetric transformation of deep
water waves to nearshore waters. A synthetic numerically simulated model to compute
significant wave height, predominant wave period, and approach direction near the shoreline
to provide a synoptic atlas of nearshore wave climate was developed for 13 segments.
Analysis of historical extreme episodic wave events was also conducted.
12) Energy Flux and Longshore Transport in Orange County, Coast of Califomia
Storm and Tidal Waves Study, Orange County, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, February
1996. Utilizing a computed synoptic atlas of nearshore wave climate, this report presented
preliminary GENESIS model calculations for the magnitude of the alongshore sediment
transport rate. The results advanced the understanding of the temporal and spatial variation
of the alongshore sediment transport in Orange County allowing Federal, state, and local
agencies the ability to implement more effective coastal planning and design specifications
for beach maintenance and sand management.
13) Sediment Budget Analysis., Dana Point to Newport Bay, CaliPornia, Coastal
Frontiers Corporation, June 1997. This report presented the analysis of the hindcast
sediment budgets for the 13 -mile long, high relief coast consisting of 23 pocket beaches
between Dana Point and Newport Harbor to establish a means to predict future nearshore
coastal behavior. The beaches were found to be stable over time; however, causes for
concern with regards to the Artificial "human interaai6h-of altering the Southern Orange
County sediment budget were outlined.
14) Beach Width and Profile Volumes, Coast of California Storm and Tidal Waves
Study, Orange County Coast, Coastal Frontiers Corporation, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,
December 1999. This report documented the changes in dry beach width and sediment
volume occurring within the Huntington Beach Littoral Cell from 1963 -1997 with a particular
emphasis on the data collected from 1992 -1997, A steady increase in the mean shoreline
for the Huntington Littoral Cell was found to be on average 4 feet per year, with the
exception of the Huntington Cliffs. The accretion was determined to be a result of both
volume increases associated with periodic nourishment efforts and episodic subaerial flood
flows.
2-4
15) Marine Monitoring- Annual Reports, Orange County Sanitation District (OCSD),
California, 1972 - present. This report detailed the ocean monitoring study conducted to
evaluate potential environmental and public health effects from the discharge of treated
wastewater. The areas of concern with regards to wastewater effluent includes water quality,
sediment quality, biological communities, tissue contaminates in marine organisms, and fish
health. The OCSD publishes this report annually to update the analysis of the ongoing
monitoring program.
16) Study to Reduce Shoreline Erosion at Surtside - Sunset Beach Using an
Alternative Structure (Draft), Orange County Beach Erosion Control Project, San Gabriel
River to Newport Bay, Orange County, California, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, March
1999. The study evaluated the feasibility of altering the wave reflection patters at Surfside
Beach, and thereby, reducing the future requirements for periodic beach nourishment. The
study concluded that a 1,200 it submerged breakwater attached to Anaheim Bay jetty and
oriented approximately parallel to the structure would reduce the volume requirements for
periodic beach nourishment or equivalently extend the present renourishment cycle from 5
to 7 years results in a cost savings.
Existing Projects
Surfside- Sunset Project - The study is investigating potential modification of the
following project(s):
The existing authorized Surtside- Sunset project consists of beach nourishment and
groin construction/beach fill along the project area from San Gabriel River to Newport Bay.
Stages 1 through 10 of the project have been completed. Stages 1 (Jun64), 4A (May71), 7
(Jun79), 8 (Apr84), 9 (Nov90), and 10 (JuI97) comprised beach replenishment (15.6 million
cubic yards) at Surtside- Sunset Beach, adjacent and down coast from Anaheim Bay East
Breakwater. Stages 2 (Nov68), 3 (Nov69), 48 and 5 (Mar73), and 10 (Ju197) comprised the
construction of eight groins and placement of beach fill (2.1 million cubic yards) at West
Newport Beach. Stage 10 for West Newport Beach was included only beach fill. Stage 6, a
detached breakwater at the mouth of the Santa Ana River, has not been constructed and is
on hold pending demonstration of need.
The study is investigating measures to decelerate the erosion rate and provide storm
damage rertuctian at S: vea Colon;, °e el Beach, r'el'fomia. Alternative measures to
storm damage problem may result in a beneficial modification of the Surtside- Sunset
Project.
Plan Formulation
During a feasibility study, six planning steps that are set forth in the Water Resource
Council's Principles and Guidelines are repeated to focus the planning effort and eventually
to select and recommend a plan for authorization. The six planning steps are: 1) specify
problems and opportunities; 2) inventory and forecast conditions; 3) formulate alternative
plans; 4) evaluate effects of alternative plans; 5) compare alternative plans, and 6) select a
recommended plan. The iterations of the planning steps typically differ in the emphasis that
is placed on each of the steps.
2 -5
In the early iterations, those conducted during the reconnaissance phase, the step of
specifying problems and opportunities is emphasized. That is not to say, however, that the
other steps are ignored, since the initial screening of preliminary plans that results from the
other steps is very important to the scoping of feasibility phase studies. The subparagraphs
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 during the feasibility phase.
National Objectives.
The national or Federal objective of water and related land resources planning is to
contribute to national economic development consistent with protecting the nation's
environment, pursuant to national environmental statutes, applicable executive orders, and
other Federal planning requirements. Contributions to National Economic Development
(NED) are increases in net value of the national output of goods and services, expressed in
monetary units. Contributions to NED are the direct benefits that accrue in the planning area
and the rest of the nation.
Public Concerns
A number of public concerns have been identified during the course of the expedited
reconnaissance study. Initial concerns were expressed in the study authorization. Additional
input was received through coordination with the City of Seal Beach and Orange County in
conjunction with some coordination from other agencies. The public concerns that are
related to the establishment of planning objectives and planning constraints are:
1) Beach erosion hinders adequate public recreation in localized areas along
the Orange County coastline.
2) Nearshore ecological deteriorations have resulted in repeated beach
closures.
3) Coastal flooding and storm damages from storm - induced waves have and
may occur in the future at Surfside Colony.
4) Federal jetties at Anaheim Bay (Naval Weapon Station (NAVWEPSTA) at
CeaY,Beach) i,avc caused an accelerated erosion rate the Surfside Coionyi
5) Erosion of East Beach (City of Seal Beach) negatively impacts public
recreation, and may result in stone damages to adjacent structures.
Problems and Opportunities
The evaluation of public concerns often reflects a range of needs, which are
perceived by the public and described in the context of problems and opportunities that can
be addressed through water and related land management plans. For each problem and
opportunity, the existing conditions and the expected future conditions are described, as
follows:
1) Beach erosion (Storm Damages). Due to the natural littoral processes of the
region, the Surfside Colony area has been identified as an erosion hotspot.
As the erosion trend continues to proceed unimpeded, the loss of protective
dry beach and stone damage to public and private properties within these
2 -6
areas is expected to increase
2) Beach erosion (Recreation). Recreation along several public beaches in
Orange County have been adversely impacted by beach erosion. Adequate
recreation on beaches requires a minimum dry beach width on the
foreshore.
3) Nearshore ecological deteriorations. The areas of prime concern include
West Beach located at the mouth of the San Gabriel River in Seal Beach;
within the coastal segment from 0 to 2,740 meters (9,000 feet) north of the
mouth of the Santa Ana River ending at the Edison Plant in Huntington
Beach, in Newport Beach. The beach closures plaguing Orange County over
the past few years have adversely impacted the nearshore environment, as
well as, the economy of the entire coastal community.
4) Shoreline and beach erosion areas. The areas of concern include Surfside
Colony, East Beach in Seal Beach, Newport Groin Fields, and Huntington
Beach Blufftop.
Planning Objectives
The national objectives of National Economic Development and National Ecosystem
Restoration are general statements and not specific enough for direct use in plan
formulation. The water and related land resource problems and opportunities identified in
this study are stated as specific planning objectives to provide focus for the formulation of
alternatives. These planning objectives reflect the problems and opportunities and represent
desired positive changes in the without - project conditions. The planning objectives are
specified as follows:
1) To reduce storm- related damages to public and private properties.
2) To protect and maintain traffic corridors.
3) To enhance and maintain beach recreation, and associated economic
tourism benefits, by restoring and improving the beaches.
Planning Constraints
Unlike planning objectives that represent desired positive changes, planning
constraints represent restrictions that should not be violated. The planning constraints
identified in this study are as follows:
1) Alternatives must comply with the County's and applicable City's Local
Coastal Programs (CZM).
2) All plan alternatives should comply with various regulatory agencies such as
the California Coastal Commission, California Regional Water Quality
Control Board, California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service, National Marine Fisheries Service, as well as the
regulations and planning guidelines of the Corps of Engineers.
3) All alternative plans shall not adversely affect the operational functionality of
Naval Weapon Station (NAVWEPSTA), Seal Beach.
2 -7
Measures to Address Planning Objectives
A management measure is a feature or activity at a site, which address one or more
of the planning objectives. A wide variety of measures were considered, some of which were
found to be infeasible due to technical, economic or environmental constraints. Each
measure was assessed, and a determination made regarding whether @ should be retained
in the formulation of alternative plans. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the
measures considered in this study are presented below; and are confined to the Surfside
Colony component of this study. The other potential components within the study area have
been eliminated from future investigation under this study, as explained in Section 6
(Federal Interest) of this document.
1) No Action: If no action is proposed, the beach at Surfside Colony will
continue to diminish and storm damages will increase in severity. Public
safety and liability problems will not be resolved, and recreational activity on
the beaches will be degraded resulting in a loss of associated economic
benefits. The existing authorized Surfside- Sunset beach renourishment
project will continue on the scheduled maintenance schedule given available
funding.
2) Nonstructural. Consideration shall be given to potential buyout of the
residential properties that are in danger because of storm damage.
Designating a proper setback distance from the edge, the City of Seal Beach
can convert the properties into public scenic overlooks.
3) Dynamic Structural. Beach fill during off-cycle periods of the Surfside- Sunset
Beach renourishment project.
4) Static Structural. Alternatives including beachfill, revetments, sheetpile walls,
and offshore submerged breakwaters are being considered.
a) Beachfill. Beach nourishment involves placement of compatible
sand from an offshore borrow area or upland source to effectively
widen the beach above and beyond current Surfside- Sunset
renourishment project. The beach fill material acts as a buffer
dissipating storm waves and runup over the wider profile.
b) Beachfill with Structures. Retention stn.!ctum%.rnay besequired to
stabilize the beachfill or extend the time between renourishment
cycles, as well as preserve a minimum dry beach width. Due to
the conservation of sand sources, the reduction in the erosion rate
could reduce the continual cost for the Surfside- Sunset
renourishment project.
C) Revetments. Revetments are flexible structures made of placed
quarry stone designed to prevent shoreline retreat and to protect
landslide improvements from damages due to wave action.
d) Sheetoile Walls. Sheetpile walls are steel or precast concrete...
panels vertically placed in the ground to form a continuous seawall
for protecting backbeach improvements.
e) Modification. Modification of the Anaheim jetties may cause
improvements from damages from wave refraction due to the
jetties action.
Offshore Submerged Breakwater. These alternative structures
include offshore reefs or submerged breakwaters, that protect the
shoreline against direct wave attack and reduce the transmitted
wave energy to less damaging levels along the beach at Surfside
Colony.
5) Separable Features. No separable feature is identified.
6) Secondary Features
Offshore Dredging. Offshore dredging will probably be required for
the beachfill alternative. Since available offshore borrow sites exist, sand
would be delivered to the beachfill sites using hopper dredges with pump
out or large cutter suction dredges. For the hopper dredge with pump out,
temporary nearshore pipeline and monobuoys would be positioned at
about the 9 -meter (30 -foot) depth contour to permit the dredge to pump
each load directly ashore. A hydraulic dredge with multiple booster pumps
would pump material onshore through submerged and floating pipelines.
However, this method becomes less preferred as distance offshore and
depths increase, and the wave climate becomes more energetic.
Preliminary Plans
Preliminary plans are comprised of one or more management measures that
survived the initial screening. The descriptions and results of the evaluations of the
preliminary plans that were considered in this study are presented below:
Preliminary Plans Eliminated from Further Consideration
Due to potential environmental impacts and concerns related to nearshore
recreational activities, sheetpile walls were not considered feasible.
Preliminary Plans for Further Consideration
A wide beach berm resulting from beachfill can effectively provide a buffer against
stuim wave attack, ana improve ieurealional uppurwiiities signifluantly. Beachfill would
address all of the problems and concerns. Revetments and offshore submerged
breakwaters will effectively address storm damage concerns; however, they do not address
beach recreation concerns. Among the viable structural alternatives, revetments are the
most economic measure. These preliminary alternatives will be considered and evaluated
in the feasibility analysis.
Alternative Implementation Authorities
Alternatives or measures that cannot be implemented by the Corps of Engineers
may qualify for implementation by other Federal agencies, or by State, County or local
governmental agencies, or private interests.
2 -9
Conclusions from the Preliminary Screening
The preliminary screening indicates that alternatives including beachfill, revetments,
and offshore submerged breakwaters have the greatest potential for implementation.
Establishment of a Plan Formulation Rationale
The conclusions from the preliminary screening form the basis for the next iteration
of the planning steps that will be conducted in the feasibility phase. The likely array of
alternatives that will be considered in the next iteration includes beachfill with and without
retention structures, revetments, and breakwaters.
Future screening and reformulation will be based on the following factors:
1) Technical feasibility and effectiveness in meeting the planning objectives.
Projects must be functional and complete, recognizing state-of- the-art design
and construction methods.
2) Environmental impacts. Environmental acceptability must be ascertained,
and adverse impacts should be avoided if possible, or minimized if
avoidance is not possible.
3) Economic justification in accordance with current guidelines and policies.
Benefits must, at a minimum, equal the costs of a project. Ideally, benefits
will clearly outweigh costs. The alternative with the greatest net benefits is
selected as the National Economic Development Plan, and is generally
selected as the Recommended Plan, unless there is an overriding reason to
select another alternative.
4) Acceptability from the general public and the Non - Federal Sponsors
Federal Interest
Study Areas Eliminated from Further Consideration
1) East Beach. Eliminated because of the Shoreline Protection and Beach
- Erosior.Gor,[ c1Gorps atad, y6 December 1994) concurred with the original- - authorization to have East Beach locally maintained.
2) Huntington Beach Blufftop. Bluff top erosion impacting recreational facilities,
servicing infrastructure, and possibly Pacific Coast Highway will be looked at
under a separate feasibility study.
3) Newport Groin Fields. Current and planned nourishment activities will result
in sufficient sand volumes to nourish the groin fields.
4) Orange County Nearshore Ecology. Planned to be investigated under the
Orange County Shoreline Feasibility Study.
2 -10
Study Area for Further Consideration
Since coastal stone damage prevention is an output with a high budget priority, and
preventing storm damages is the primary output of the alternatives to be evaluated in the
feasibility phase, there is a strong Federal interest in conducting the feasibility study. Long-
term erosion can reasonably be expected to undermine and increase the flood potential of
existing public and private structures along the Surfside Colony shoreline. A preliminary
economic flooding analysis for the area from Surfside Colony south to Anderson estimated
the annualized damages for 50 -year period ranging from $217,000 to $461,000. As the
width of the sandy beach decreases over time, winter storm damages will have a greater
impact on the public transportation corridor and residential communities. Based on this
information and the preliminary screening of alternatives, there appears to be potential
project alternatives that would be consistent with Corps of Engineers policies, costs,
benefits, and environmental impacts.
Since Surfside Colony experiences an accelerated erosion rates as compared to the
rest of the San Gabriel to Newport Bay reach, the Surfside- Sunset Beach renourishment
project frequency is dependent upon the Sur side Colony erosion rate. If the erosion rate at
Surfside Colony can be decelerated then benefits may be acquired through the reduction in
the frequency and costs of routine beach nourishment under the Sur sideSunset project.
Preliminary Financial Analysis
As the Non - Federal Sponsor, the City of Seal Beach will be required to provide 50%
of the cost of the feasibility phase study. The Non - Federal Sponsors are also aware of the
cost sharing requirements for the potential project implementation. A letter of intent from the
non - Federal Sponsors stating willingness to pursue the feasibility phase study and share in
its cost, and an understanding of the cost sharing that is required for project construction is
included as Enclosure B.
Assumptions and Exceptions
Feasibility Phase Assumptions
__i fie ldilowing clticaiassumptions will provide a basis for the feasibility-study; tfter
beaches at Surfside Colony will continue to erode and more damages would continue to
occur, public safety and tourism will also be negatively impacted and the exsting authorized
project at Surfside- Sunset will continue.
Policy Exceptions and Streamlining Initiatives
The study will be conducted in accordance with the Principles and Guidelines and
Corps of Engineers regulations. No applicable policy exceptions andstreamlining initiatives
will result from the approval of the Section 905(b) Analysis by HQUSACE.
Other Approvals Required
Include items that require HQUSACE approval, such as studies and new benefit
categories are not applicable.
2 -11
Feasibility Phase Milestones
Milestone
Desaipticn
Duration (nn)
Curulatiee (nn
Mlestone Ft
Initiate Study
0
0
MlestonsF2
RblicWxksla Sooping
2
2
Mlestone F3
Feasibility Soc ong K/beting
11
13
MlesbmF4
Alternative RevdevConference
9
22
Mlestone F44
Af[emahe Fcrmlation Briefing
5
27
Mlestone F5
Daft Feasibility Report
3
30
Mlestone F6
Rnad Public Meeting
1
31
Mlestone F7
Feasibility ReviewConference
1
32
Mlestone F8
Anal Report toSPD
3
35
Mlestone F9
CE's R6Iic Notice
1
36
-
Chiefs Repot
4
40
-
Nect A ftwzbcn
4
44
2 -12
Feasibility Phase Cost Estimate
Views of Other Resource Agencies
Because of the funding and time constraints of the reconnaissance phase, only
limited and informal coordination has been conducted with other resource agencies, and no
significant information has been received at this time. However, it is anticipated that views
from the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Marine Fisheries Service, with regards to the beachfill alternative, would be to
prevent environmental Impacts due to cross -shore sediment transport and impacts from
operational activities to construct the recommended project.
2 -13
••11
- - - - -
111
•:11
_ a
1111
`..
Molly ul
•.11
- ar - -
.11111
•111
- - ':u+
111
'.nil
MINE r1m. M. - - -
"1111
-
1 111
"111
nil
- - • i -
111
111
: "III
111
_ _ _ •rr -
•1111'
111
•: 111
111
- • ■rr _
a 111
•11
- s .r•Y _
a 111
_ ,,Mmnmm
••11
_ a - : ■ur _
1111
•:11
rc
:11
••11
-
.11111
1111
•rr :r • _ _
"1111
•1111
�. -- .
1111
mv
111
Views of Other Resource Agencies
Because of the funding and time constraints of the reconnaissance phase, only
limited and informal coordination has been conducted with other resource agencies, and no
significant information has been received at this time. However, it is anticipated that views
from the California Department of Fish and Game, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, and
National Marine Fisheries Service, with regards to the beachfill alternative, would be to
prevent environmental Impacts due to cross -shore sediment transport and impacts from
operational activities to construct the recommended project.
2 -13
Potential Issues Affecting Initiation of Feasibility Phase
Continuation of this study into the cost-shared feasibility phase is contingent upon an
executed Feasibility Cost - Sharing Agreement (FCSA). Failure to achieve an executed FCSA
within 18 months of the approval of the Section 905(b) Analysis will result in termination of
the study. There are no apparent issues at this time that impact on the implementation of the
feasibility phase.
The schedule for signing the Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement is December2001.
Based on the schedule of milestones in Paragraph 9, completion of the feasibility report
would be in December 2004, with a potential Congressional Authorization in WRDA 2004.
Typically, there is strong local opposition to the concept of "hardening° the California
Coastline. Structural alternatives proposed in the feasibility study will be heavily scruthized
by all interests.
For security purposes, NAVWEPSTA, Seal Beach desires to reduce recreational
boat traffic traveling through the existing entrance and main channels of Anaheim Bay. As a
result, NAVWEPSTA, Seal Beach could propose an altered entrance or second entrance
channel to service the recreational harbor at Huntington Beach. If the Navy's proposal is
carded forward, the dynamics of the feasibility study may be dramatically affected.
Environmental Evaluation
A project to provide shore protection to the shoreline at Surfside in the City of Seal
Beach, Orange County, California. The preliminary screening indicates that alternatives
including beachfill, revetments, and offshore - submerged breakwaters have the greatest
potential for implementation. Substantial issues and affected environmental resources
include the following:
1) Geology: Beachfill, either by itself or in conjunction with revetments and /or
offshore- submerged breakwaters is expected to widen the existing beach
using sand imported from an underwater borrowsite. The expanded beach
would not be used to support structures and so is not expected to result in
significant adverse impacts resulting from liquefaction or other earthquake -
related impacts. Revetments and /or offshore - submerged breakwaters,
either alone or with beactifill, are not expected to be significantly impacted by - --
earthquake- related affects.
2) Air Quality: Emissions from construction equipment associated with the
construction of structural control measures are expected to be insignificant.
These measures, limited to revetments and offshore - submerged
breakwaters are not expected to exceed either daily or quarterly significant
emissions levels set by the South Coast Air Quality Management District.
Likewise emissions associated with the beachfill alternative (dredging,
dredge placement, and spreading of the beachfill materials) are also
expected to be insignificant.
3) Water: Minor, construction- related turbidity may occur during placement of
sand, or construction of revetments and offshore - submerged breakwaters.
The large percentage of sand, relative to silt, would quickly settle, preventing
a widespread turbidity plume. There is low potential of encountering
2 -14
contaminated sediments, as the beachfill would only use clean sand.
4) Biological Resources: Burial undersand placed as beachfill would allowfew
organisms on the existing beach to survive. Additionally, placement of sand
on the beach may be accompanied by impacts to nearshore waters. The
area of direct disturbance would probably be relatively small, but turbidity
could extend for several hundred feet. The decrease in light penetration and
increase in suspended sediments would eliminate or reduce the number of
fish, benthic organisms, and algae immediately adjacent to the placement
area. However, the benefit of providing a wider, nourished beach (increasing
available foraging and nesting areas) would be expected to outweigh such
impacts. Impacts to threatened /endangered (California least tem, California
brown pelican) or sensitive species (grunion) are not expected to be
significant nor jeopardize their continued existence.
5) Noise: Noise impacts from construction equipment associated with the
construction of structural control measures are expected to be insignificant.
Construction would be short-tens and would be conducted in accordance
with local noise regulations reducing potential impacts to insignificance.
6) Transportation: Traffic impacts from construction equipment associated with
the construction of structural control measures are expected to be
insignificant. Construction would be short-term and would not significantly
impact local traffic patterns.
7) Aesthetics: Visual impacts from construction equipment associated with
placement of sand and /or the construction of revetments and /to offshore-
submerged breakwaters are expected to be minor, short-term, adverse
impacts. These impacts are expected to be offset by the beneficial impacts
resulting from the aesthetic impacts of a wider beach.
8) Public Health and Safety: The proposed project is expected to result in
beneficial impacts to public health and safety. Proposed shoreline protection
will reduce ongoing erosion of beaches. Continued erosion would result in
the loss of protective dry beach with an ensuing increase in stone damage to
public and private properties.
9) Recreation: bnui i -term beach closures during construction are considered -
to be an insignificant impact. This is because construction will likely take
place during the winter months, when beach use is at its lowest point and
seasonal wildlife considerations (i.e. California least tem foraging and
California grunion reproductive activities) will not be in effect. Shoreline
protection, over the long term, will result in wider beaches, yielding increased
recreational opportunities on the protected beaches.
10) Cultural Resources: A records and literature search will be conducted for
any construction sites identified in conjunction with the proposed project. No
impacts are anticipated.
11) Compliance with Environmental Laws, Permit Requirements: In addition to
compliance with NEPA (through preparation of an EA or EIS), permits or
authorization will be required from the following agencies during the
Feasibility Study: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Endangered Species Act,
2 -15
Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act), Environmental Protection Agency (Clean
Water Act, Clean Air Act), California Coastal Commission (Coastal Zone
Management Act), California Regional Water Quality Control Board (Clean
Water Act), State Historic Preservation Office (National Historic Preservation
Act), California Department of Fish and Game (Fish and Wildlife
Coordination Act), South Coast Air Quality Management District (Clean Air
Act), and the City of Seal Beach (compliance with local ordinances).
12) Environmental Restoration Opportunities: No environmental restoration
opportunities have been identified at this time. Further coordination with
resource agencies will occur during the feasibility stage.
Project Area Map
A map of the study area is shown in Figures 1 and 2 in Enclosure A.
2 -16
Recommendations.
I recommend that the San Gabriel to Newport Bay Reconnaissance Study proceed
into the feasibility phase. The emphasis of the study is the storm damage reduction and
decrease in the erosion rate in the Surfside Colony area through structural or nonstructural
means. It is anticipated that incidental benefits can be achieved through the reduction of
beach nourishment for the Surfside- Sunset project and in the long term provide cost savings
benefits to that project.
/ /s//
Date: 010320 John P. Carroll
Colonel, Corps of Engineers
District Engineer
2 -17
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 3 - Work Breakdown Structure
Levels of the Work Breakdown Structure
The work breakdown structure is divided into the following five levels.
Level 1. The Project
Level 2. The Subprojects are established by the phase that is appropriated by
Congress — in this case the feasibility -type phase of the special study. This level includes
the major products generated in the feasibility-type phase: the Study Report, the Project
Management Plan and the PIED Agreement, which are identified in the first character of the
work breakdown structure code.
Level 3. The Parent Tasks are generally identified as separate products that go into
the final feasibility-type special study documentation. Examples of these subprojects include
such items as the real estate report, the coastal report, etc. Theseparent tasks are normally
identified with the responsibility of a particular functional organization. This level is generally
identified in the second and third characters of the work breakdown structure code.
Level 4. The Tasks are major separable elements of the subprojects that are keyed
to separately identifiable products that are developed for the major special study milestones.
These tasks are elements of work resulting in a deliverable product which have a beginning
and an end, may be accomplished within one functional organization, can be described at a
work order of detail and are the lowest level that will be specifically tracked with respect to
cost and schedule. As an example, the cost estimates for the draft special study report
would be an example of a task. Tasks can be described as the summation of activities that
would be accomplished by a particular functional organizational between two of the
milestone events. The milestone tasks and definitions are included in Enclosure B. The
following durations between milestones are generally used for the establishment of tasks.
1) Between Milestone Ft and F3
2) Between Milestone F3 and F4
3) Between Milestone F4 and F4A
4) Between Milesioiio F4A and FS
5) Between Milestone F5 and F8
6) Between Milestone F8 and F9
Level 5. The Activities are separate elements of work that are managed by the
functional managers to whom the tasks are assigned and which may not necessary result in
a deliverable work product to another organization. These activities are not tracked
separately in terms of cost and schedule but are described in the scopes of work to the
extent required to provide a clear understanding of the work required.
3 -1
Listing Of Tasks -Work Breakdown Structure
In accordance with the levels above, the following work breakdown structure
indicates subprojects and parent tasks in bold type, followed by the subordinate tasks.
WI M
DascdPUM
JWW
Feasibility Report(Feas)
J0000
Mlestores
InMale Study
Shdy Public Mrkshop (F2)
Study Sloping MeaOrg (M)
Marsgenrent Flan ReviuwCadaerce (F4)
Mmagenent Plan Fo mWsOm Briefirg - AFB
Daft Shah/ Report
Final Public Medng
Shdy 11mmConfererce
Study PAWWNEPA
MSC Conmar deer Public "m
Filing of Final EISIEA
Chiers RaW toASA(CM
ROD Soied aFONSI Sqnsd
Presiders Signs AiNn bon
JADW
Englnearng Appendix
JAA00
Fors- Surveys and Mapping except Real Fatale
Surveys & Mapping- Hstoricel Survey Data Red, ore
JAB00
Feas - Coastal SWastRepurt
Coastal - Dare Cdledon aM Reviev
Coastal - LongshoreiCross�ahm Sediment Process
Coastal -wave and Current Climatology
Coastal - Wave'Curent Baselim Numerical Model Sludes
Coastal - AIIenlaaves D&veb R6 VAnalysls
- Shaelim Change NuntMal Model Studies
Coastal - stmCUe Slam DmageAnalysis
Coastal - ERDC Physical Model Studes
Coastal - Reommerded Plan Detailed Analysis
Coastal -AFB Documentation
Coastal - Daft Repot
Coastal - Find Repro
JACW
Feas- eeobdurical sbx0es/Report -
Geoterh- Geology Investigdiors
GedeM -Sala Design and Materials
Geatem -AFB Documentatim
Geatetlt- Daft Report
Ceoly f -Real Repro
3 -2
JAEIO
Fern - Engineering and Design Analysis Report
Ergr& Design - Without Project Conditions &Preliminary Rars
Engr & Design - WM Project Conditions for Final Fans
Ergr& Design -AFB dpgrtnentation
Engr & Design - Draft Report
Ergr & Design - Final Repot
JBOoo
Fees -s dosoowrdc 3h m.
Sorioemn- E dstirg Baseline Condition
Sactoeoon -Coastal Storm Dame Model
Sodoemn- Inundation, Erosion and Wave Attach Aretyses
Sodoeom- Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Socici- With Project Cmdtios
Socioecon - Draft Repot
S000ewn- AFSdocumentetlon
Sodoecon- Frei Report
JCOOO
Fees - Real Estate AnalysislReport
Real Estate - Baseline Cordabrs
Real Estate - AFB dowmerdation
Real Estate - Draft Report
Real Estate - Final Repot
JD000
Fees - Environmental Studissflteport (Except USF &WL)
Errvirm- Without Project Conditions & Preiminary Fans
Errviron- With Project Conditions for Final Fans
Errow - AFB dowmenation
ErrACn- Draft R.eporUEIS
ErrAw -Final ReporVEIS
JEOOO
Fm- Fish and Mcnife Coordiniation Act Report
USFWS- Planning Aid Letter
USFWS- Gaff Coordination A Report
USFWS- Final Coodinatdn Act Repot
JFOOO
Fees - FRRWSaeleslReport
HTRW -Not applicable
JGOOO
Fees - Wtural Resources SludiesMaphrt
Cultural- NOW Pr ojeo Conditions & Preliminary Fare
Cultural- WM Project Coditios for Final Fans
Cultu al - AFB dooaner ti non
Cultural- Draft Report
Cultural -Fuel Report
JHWO
Fees -Cast Estimates
Cost Estimates -WMW Project Conditions & Preliminary Fans
Cost Estimates - WM Project Caddiasfor Final Rays
Coat Estimates - AFB downen Cation
Cost Estimates - Draft Report
3 -3
WA M
Description
JIODO
Fas- Public lMOWenent Docunens
Initial Public MeadreyNEPA Scopirg
Public Workshops in S ipportof Ran Selection
Public Involvemerrt Support to AFB
Final Public Meeting
Public Immlvernen t Support to FRC
JJDOD
Fees - Ran Fomtulation and [-valuation
Ran Fomilation and Evaluations of the Special Study Tasks
Ran Formalaboh and Evaluations - AFB d=,nenaation
Ran Forrulatim and Evaluations - Draft Report
Ran Fomulatioh and Evaluations - Rrel Repot
Ran Fomulaton and Evaluations - Support to Division ConrrefKWs Nctce
J1.000
Fas- Final Report Documentation
Reproduction and Distribution of F3 Dommeraation
Reproduction and Distribution of F4 Doahmentatien
Reproduction and Distribution of AFB Doamemation
Reproduction and DslAbution of Draft Repot
Reproduction and Distribution of Rrel Report
JLDOD
Fas- Technical Review Documerds
Irdepeoknrt Technical R.eNen- F3 D=rnantabon
Independent Technical Review- F4 D=wentabcn
Indeperdaa TeCncal Review- AFB Dmmentetion
Independent Tedri lRenew - Draft Report
Independet Tecirricel Review - Final Report
JMDDO
Fas- Washington Level Report Approval(Radew Support)
JPOOO
Fas- Management Docurrents
JPADO
Project Management and Budget Doconenls
Programs and Prgect Managernerd to Support F3 Milestone
Programs and Prolsci Manger eM to Support F4 Milestone
Programs and Project Mahagerrsnt -AFB Loa vsUiion
Programs and Project Mange naM- Draft Report
Program and Project Management- Final Report
Program and Project ManagerraA-DEs Notice
JPBOO
Supervision and Adninistratia
SBA- Planning Division
SBA- E gireenng Divsion
SBA - Reel Barbs Divsicn `
SBA-PPMD
SBA- Contacting DMsion
JPCOO
Contingencies
LWW
Project Manger ent Plan (PMP)
Phut - Draft PW
PMP -Frei PMP
OMOD
RED Cost Sharing Agreenrsnt
3-4
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfsitle Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 4 - Scopes of Work
Detailed Scopes of Work
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 City of Seal Beach. The scopes also reflect the policy exceptions and streamlining
initiatives that have been approved in the Section 905(b) Analysis. The detailed scopes of
work for the special study are organized by parent task in Enclosure C.
Durations of Tasks
The durations for the tasks are entered into the project's network analysis system
(NAS) to develop the schedule that is included in Chapter 6—Study Schedule. The durations
are based on negotiations between the Project Manager and the chiefs of the responsible
organizations, as identified in Chapter 5 — Responsibility Assignment.
Costs of Tasks
Lastly, the scopes of work for the tasks are grouped by the parent tasks that they
support. The total estimates for the parent tasks are then combined in the Study Cost
Estimate — Chapter 7. The cost estimates for the tasks are also based on negotiations
between the Project Manager and the chiefs of the responsible organizations.
4 -1
San Gabriel to Newport Say (Surlside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 5 - Responsibility Assignment
Organizational Breakdown Structure
The scopes of work represent agreements between the Project Manager and first
line supervisors of functional organizations. The functions of these organizations in support
of the project are defined by the work that is assigned. All organizations responsible for
tasks, including the City of Seal Beach and other agencies, are included with their
organization codes in the following Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS).
Los Angeles District
Ong Code
Planning/Coastal Studies Group
CESPL -PD -WS
Planning/Economics & Social Analysis Group
CESPL -PD -E
Planning/Ecosystem Planning Section
CESPL -PD -RN
Engineering/Coastal Engineering Section
CESPL -ED -DC
Engineering/Geology & Investigations Section
CESPL -ED-GG
Engineering/Soils Design & Materials Section
CESPL -ED-GD
Engineering /Survey & Mapping Section
CESPL -ED -GS
Engineering /Cost Engineering Unit
CESPL -ED -DS
Engineering/Structural Engineering Unit
CESPL -ED -DS
Real Estate/Acquisitions Section
CESPL -RE -A
Non - Federal Sponsor Ong Code
Citv of Seal Beach
Other Agencies/Other Corps Ong Code
US Fish and Wildlife Service USF &WL
5 -1
Responsibility Assignment Matrix
The scopes for each task are grouped by the parent task that they support and the
primary responsible organization for each parent task is identified by the organization codes
in the following Responsibility Assignment Matrix (RAM).
WBsg I
Description
District Oro
Non -Fed
Other
JAAOg I
Fees - Surve s and Mapping except Real Estate
ED -GS
JAB00
Fees - Coastal Studies/Re rt
ED -uu
JAC00
Fees - Geotechnical Studies/Re rt
ED-GG
JAE00
Fees- En ineedn and Des n Analysis Report
ED -DC
JB000
Fees - Socioeconomic Studies
PD -E
ICES
JC000
Fees - Real Estate analysis Report
RE -A
JD000
Fear- Environmental Studies/Report (Except
USF &WL
PD -RN
JE000
Fees - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Ad Report
USF &WL
JF000
Fees - HTRW Studles/Re rt
PD-RN
JG000
Fees - Cultural Resources Studieswe n
Fees - Cost Estimates
CESPL -PD -RN
JH000
CESPL -ED-DS
J1000
Fees - Public Involvement Documents
CESPL -PD -WS
JJ000
Fees- Plan Formulation and Evaluation
CESPL•PD-WS
JLOOO
Fees - Final Report Documentation
CESPL -PD-WS
JLD00
Fees - Technical Review Documents
CESPL -PD-WS
JM000
Fees - Washington Level Report Approval (Review
Support)
CESPL -PD -WS
JPA00
project Management and Bucket Documents
Supervision and Administration
CESPL -PM-C
JPB00
All
JBC00
Contingencies
Not Assigned
L0000
Pro'ect Mana ement Plan PMP
CESPL -PD-WS
00000
PEDCost Shadn A reement
CESPL -PD -WS
5 -2
San Gabriel to Newport Bay jSurtside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 6 - Study Schedule
Schedule Development
All schedules are developed using a Network Analysis System (NAS). The network
is based upon the tasks that are listed in Chapter 3— Work Breakdown Structure and the
durations that are included in the detailed scopes of work in Enclosure C— Detailed
Scopes of Work. Major milestones that are defined in Enclosure B— CESPD Milestone
System are also included in the schedules.
Funding Constraints
Funding for the first Fiscal Year of the special study is normally limited because of
the uncertainty in the initiation of the feasibility -type special study. This constraint has been
reflected in the development of the study schedule. Following the first year, an optimum
schedule based upon unconstrained funding has been assumed for subsequent Fiscal
Years.
Non - Federal Sponsor Commitments
Milestones become commitments when the project manager meets with the Non -
Federal Sponsor, the City of Seal Beach, at the beginning of each Fiscal Year and identifies
two to five tasks that are important for the Los Angeles District to complete during the Fiscal
Year. These commitments will be flagged in the PROMIS database and monitored and
reported on accordingly.
6 -1
Milestone Schedule
The schedule for the San Gabriel to Newport Bay Study milestones in the
CESPD Milestone System is as follows:
Milestone
Description
Starting Data
Completion Date
Milestone F1
Initiate Study
01- May -02
01 -May-02
Milestone F2
Public Wakshop/Scoping
01Se{r02
02Sep-02
Milestone F3
Study Scoping Meeting
01Jun -W
01Jun -03
Milestone F4
Alternative Review Conference
01-Jun-04
01Jun -04
Milestone F4A
Altemative Formulation Briefing
O1Sep -04
01Sep-04
Milestone F5
Draft Study Report
01 -Dec-04
01-Dec-04
Milestone F6
Final Public Meeting
01-Jan-05
01- Jan-05
Milestone F7
Feasibility Review Conference
01-Jan-05
01-Jan-05
Milestone F8
Final Report to SPD
01 -Apr-05
of-
Milestone F9
DE's Public Notice
01Jun -OS
01Jurr05
-
Chiefs Report
01-Wt 05
01- Oct-05
_
Project Authorization
01 -Feb-06
01 -Feb -W
6 -2
San Gabriel to Newport Bay jSurfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 7 - Special Study Cost Estimate
Basis For The Cost Estimate
The feasibility cost estimate is based upon a summation of the costs that were
identified for the individual tasks in detailed scopes of work that are included in Enclosure C
—Detailed Scopes of Work. Study cost estimates include allowances for inflation so that the
City of Seal Beach is fully aware of its financial commitment.
Appropriate contingencies and contingency management are included to adequately
deal with the uncertainty in the elements of the study. Experience has shown that
approximately 20 percent of the study costs should be reserved for activities following the
release of the draft report. Contingencies in the amounts required to cover the costs of these
activities have been added to the cost estimate.
Costs for Federal and Non - Federal Activities
The City of Seal Beach must contribute 50 percent of the cost of the study during the
period of the study. The entire Non - Federal share may be made through the provision of
services, materials, supplies or other in -kind services necessary to complete the study and
prepare the feasibility report. The following study cost estimate includes credit for work that
is to be accomplished by the City of Seal Beach.
7 -1
Summary of Costs
7 -2
MIZ,
Mile
7 -2
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 8 - Quality Control Plan
Quality Control Plan Objective
The quality control objective is to achieve special study phase documents and
services that meet or exceed customer requirements, and are consistent with Corps of
Engineers policies and regulations.
Guidelines Followed For Technical Review
The guidelines for independent technical review are set forth in the South Pacific
Division Quality Management Plan, and in the corresponding Los Angeles District Quality
Management Plan.
Study Team
Organization/Function
Namerntle I
Address
T
Planning Division
Coastal Studies Grou
Susie Ming
Coastal Planner
P.O. Box 532711
Los eles CA 90053 -2325
Engineering Division
Coastal En ineerin Sect.
Chuck Mesa
Coastal En meer
P.O. Box 532711
Los An ales CA 90053 -2325
Planning D'Msion
Eco stem Plannin Sect
Larry Smith
Environmental Mara er
P.O. Box 532711
Los An ales CA 90053 -2325
Planning Div, Economics 8
Social Anal sis Grou
Michael Green
Economist
P.O. Box 532711
Los An eles CA 90053 -2325
Programs 8 Project Mgmt
Div, Pro ect Mornt Branch
Cecilia Morgan
Pro ram Mana or
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles CA 90053.2325
/452-4023
Planning Division
Real Estate Division
John Sunshine
Rea S ecialist
P.O. Box 532711
Loa Annales, CA 90053 -2325
213/452 -3132
Engineedng Division
Geotechnical /Soils/
Geology
Chris Sands
Geologist
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles CA 90053 -2325
2131452 -3605
Engineering Division
Cost Engineering
Nate Govan
Cost Engineer
P.O. Box 532711
Los An eles CA 90053 -2325
2131452 -3739
Technical Review Team
Or anizatlon /Funcllon
IN rn it la
Ex dance
Engineering Division
Coastal Engineering Sect.
Adhur T. Shak
Coastal En Ineer
8 -1
Documents to be Reviewed and Schedule For Review Activities
All of the products of the tasks listed in the detailed scopes of work in Enclosure C
— Detailed Scopes of Work, will be subject to independent technical review. Seamless Single
Discipline Review will be accomplished prior to the release of materials to otler members of
the study team or integrated into the overall study. Section chiefs shall be responsible for
accuracy of the computations through design checks and other internal procedures, prior to
the independent technical review.
Independent product review will occur prior to major decision points in the planning
process at the CESPD milestones so that the technical results can be relied upon in setting
the course for further study. These products would include documentation for the CESPD
mandatory milestone conferences (F3 & F4), HQUSACE issue resolution conferences (AFB
&FRC) and the draft and final reports. These products shall be essentially complete before
review is undertaken. Since this quality control will have occurred prior to each milestone
conference, the conference is free to address critical outstanding issues and set direction for
the next step of the study, since a firm technical basis for making decisions will have already
been established. In general, the independent technical review willbe initiated at least two
weeks prior to a CESPD mandatory milestone conference and at least two weeks prior to
the submission of documentation for a HQUSACE issue resolution conference.
For products that are developed undercontract, the contractorwillbe responsible for
quality control through an independent technical review. Quality assurance of the
contractor's quality control will be the responsibility of the Los Angeles District.
Deviations from the Approved Quality Management Plan
The following deviations from the approved quality management plan have been
approved by the South Pacific Division:
"Yfst of deviations will be provided by the Los Angeles DistrictTM
Cost Estimate for Quality Management
The costs for conducting the independent technical review are included in the
individual scopes of work that are included in Enclosure C— Detailed Scopes of Work.
Quality management activities of Branch and Division Chiefs are included in Supervision
and Administration. The total cost for quality management is approximately $127,000, which
is approximately 5 percent of the study cost estimate. Of this amount, $83,OO(ls included in
parent task JLD00 and $44,000 is included in other parent tasks.
PMP Quality Certification
The Chief, Planning Division has certified 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. The signed certification is included as Enclosure D.
M,
Study Certification
The documentation of the independent technical review shall be included with the
submission of the reports to CESPD. Documentation of the independent technical review
shall be accompanied by a certification, indicating that the independent technical review
process has been completed and that all technical issues have been resolved. The
certification requirement applies to all documentation that will be forwarded to either CESPD
or HQUSACE for review or approval. The Chief, Planning Division will certify the pre-
conference documentation for the HQUSACE Issue Resolution Conferences and the Draft
Study Report. The Final Study Report, to include the District Commander's signed
recommendation, will be certified by the District Commander. This certification will follow the
example that is included as Appendix H of the CESPD Quality Management Plan and will be
signed by the Chief, Planning Division and the District Commander.
E116?
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 9 - Identification of Procedures and Criteria
Evolution Of The PMP
The Project Management Plan describes all activities from the initial tasks of the
special study through the preparation of the final special study report, the Project
Management Plan and PED cost - sharing agreement, and the Los Angeles District's support
during the Washington -level review. As the PMP is based primarily on existing information, it
will be subject to scope changes as the technical picture unfolds. Because of the limited
evaluations during the reconnaissance phase study, the PMP will include significantly more
uncertainty and must make appropriate allowances. As an example, this PMP assumes the
requirement for an Environmental Impact Statement, because of the limited environmental
evaluations conducted in the reconnaissance phase.
Use of the PMP
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 HQUSACE, including the Alternative
Formulation Briefing and Feasibility Review Conference.
The Planning Process
The Water Resource Council's Principles and Guidelines 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, provide excellent coverage of the planning process. The
South Pacific Division also provides training in the six -step process.
Policy
The policies that govern the development of projects are contained in theDigest of
Water Resources Policies and Authorities, EP 1165.2 -1.
Corps of Engineer Regulations
Corps of Engineers regulations are available on the HQUSACE Internet Web Site.
The most important of these regulations is ER 1105 -2 -100, Planning Guidance. Policy
compliance review is addressed in EC 1165 -2 -203; Technical and Policy Compliance
Review, and, quality control is covered in the CESPD Quality Management Plan, CESPD R
1110 -1 -8. The review of the special study products will be accomplished with the review
checklist provided in EC 1165 -2 -203 as Appendix B, Policy Compliance Review
Considerations.
9 -1
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, Processing of Planning Reports in the
South Pack Division, dated June 5, 2000.
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Chapter 10 -Public Involvement and Coordination
Major Milestones
Two of the milestones in the CESPD milestone system have been established
specifically for the purpose of providing public forums for public review and to receive public
Comment and 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
NEPA scoping requirements. The second milestone in the system is the final public meeting.
Scheduled following the release of the draft report for public review, provides the opportunity
to present the findings of the special study and the draft report to the public and receive
public comment.
Public Involvement- Coordination Program
Many public laws, executive orders, Federal agency regulations and the Water
Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines require that public involvement and
coordination be applied to water resources planning activities. The Corps of Engineers
(COE) is required to coordinate with State agencies and the Governor or his designated
agency, interested and affected agencies at all levels, and public and private groups and
individuals. This commitment is to the broadest possible array of publics -- to include any
person, group or agency that is not the COE. The importance of public involvement and
coordination in COE planning efforts makes it practical to consider that the public includes
any individual interested in the study, in effect, anyone not on the study team.
Purposes and Objectives
The purpose of public involvement and coordination is to ensure that Corps of
Engineers planning is responsive to the needs and concerns of the public, and to involve all
interested parties in the planning decision - making process. Its objectives are 1) to provide
information about COE activities and proposed actions to the public; 2) make public desires,
needs and concerns available to the decision - makers; 3) provide for adequate interaction
with the public before decisions are made, and 4) to adequately account for the views of the'
public in making decisions. However, these purposes and objectives must be achieved
within a framework where the Corps of Engineers cannot relinquish its legislated
responsibilities for decision - making.
Public involvement and coordination actions must not only be utilized to inform the
public; they must also actively seek public responses in regard to needs, values, ideas for
solutions, and, very significantly, reactions to proposed solutions. Public involvement and
coordination must be a two -way communications process, and it must provide people from
diverse backgrounds and interests with multiple opportunities to ask questions and offer
suggestions.
10 -1
Effective public involvement and coordination are also effective in reducing the
probability of, and reduce unnecessary, conflict, and where possible, achieve consensus.
Consensus sometimes occurs spontaneously, and in many instances conflict does not
appear to be resolvable. Conflict management techniques should be incorporated into public
involvement and coordination activities.
Public Involvement Planning
Public Involvement planning will be incorporated as a major and significant part of
the overall planning process - it will develop and be implemented as the special study
progresses. Public involvement and coordination must be a dynamic process, capable of
taking into account changes in the plan formulation process and public attitudes and
reactions, and making adjustments to handle these unforeseen occurrences. Every member
of the planning team should be prepared to provide input to the public involvement and
coordination program, as well as to represent the planning effort in the achievement of
public involvement goals.
Representatives of the Non - Federal Sponsor -the City of Seal Beach -are perhaps
the most important players in this element of the planning process. They know the study
area and the attitudes and issues surrounding the problems and their solution. They also are
familiar with the individuals and organizations that are familiar with the study area and the
forces surrounding community attitudes and reactions, which are significant to the planning
effort.
Another resource that should not be overlooked for participation in public
involvement/coordination planning and implementation is the Los Angeles District's Public
Affairs Office. They can provide invaluable insight and assistance in the public information
effort, which is the important front -end information -out element of any successful public
involvement/coordination plan. The Chief of Public Affairs and staff members possess
knowledge of the public communications media, which serves t1h3 study area, and influences
the attitudes and reactions of the affected individuals and organizations with an interest in
the study and its outcome. A successful public information effort can vastly influence the
attainment of public involvement/coordination program objectives.
Public Involvement- Coordination Elements
All available means of reaching the many publics affected by and interested in the
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony) Feasibility Study should be developed and
utilized if the Study Team is to be successful in accomplishing the study purposes and
objectives. The following listing of available resources and methods should be developed
and used as appropriate during the progress of the study:
Public Communications Media
Newspapers, radio and television stations, magazines and newsletters and other
media distributed by interested and affected study publics should be used whenever
possible to distribute information and serve as a conduit for input and comment. News
releases issued whenever appropriate can serve well in informing all affected publics of
study activities and progress.
10 -2
Meetings
There are a variety of meetings that must be effectively utilized in the successful
achievement of public involvement/coordination objectives. The most important and visible
meetings are the formal public meetings, which are scheduled by directive atthe initiation of
the special study, and near the end of the study as part of the public review of the draft
special study report and the study findings. Public comment and input are vital to finalizing
the special study report and completing the study. These meetings include public meetings,
open meetings with interest groups, workshops, and any opportunities to distribute
information of the study and progress to generate public input.
Publications
Reports, brochures, newsletters and information bulletins can be prepared and
distributed at appropriate points throughout the study process. These publications could be
distributed after the definition of problems and opportunities, when preliminary alternatives
have been formulated, or when the effects or impacts of alternatives have been identified.
Matlina Lists
Mailing lists are listed last on this preliminary itemization of public involvement -
coordination elements to emphasize their importance to the program. They should be
among the first public involvement actions, because they are key to the successful
accomplishment of program objectives, and will be utilized throughout the conduct of the
study.
10 -3
San Gabriel to Newport Bay )Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
CHAPTER 11 -STATEMENT OF CERTIFICATION
This is to certify that the undersigned have reviewed, and concur in the scope,
structure, and cost estimate for the subject study in the amount of $2,541,000, to
be completed in 44 months.
Los Angeles District
41�0
V-RUTH VILLALOBOS
4 Chief, Planning Division
Management
c
BE E. IN, P.E.
Clef, gineering Division
BRIAN M. MOORE, P.E.
Deputy District Engineer, Project
GEORGE . BEAMS, P.E.
bb Chief, Construction Operations Division
STEPHEN E. TEMMEL 0 D. MCKER ER
�Bistrict Counsel Chief, Contracting Division
TERRY KAPLA
Chief, Real Estate Division
11yl¢ mr-a P )'hRf g'g'
RAYMOND P. MELLARD
Chief, Resource Management Office
11 -1
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Enclosure A. Project Area Map
A -1
Figure 1
Vicinity Nlap
A -1
Figure 2
Surfside Colony Aerial
A -2
Photographs
The Surfside Colony Beach experience wave overtopping and flooding from 8
through 11 January 2001 due to the combination of high tides ( +7,1 feet) and large
storm swell with wave heights ranging from 8 to 12 feet. Photographs were taken at
high tide (approximate 9:45 a.m.) on 11 January 2001.
Ph
A -3
Photos 3: Surfside Colony Beach and Scarp, looking South
Photo 4: Overtopping of Beach toward residences of Surfside Colony
A -4
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surtside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Enclosure B. CESPD Milestone System
Study Phase
Milestone Number' And
Milestone Description
Name
100 Initiate Feasibility Phase
CESPD Milestone F7 2 —The date the District receives Federal feasibility,
study funds.
101 Study Public Workshop (F2)
CESPD Milestone F2 —This is a Public MeetingNJorkshop to inform the
public and obtain input, public opinion and fulfill scooping requirements
or NEPA urposes.
102 Study Seeping Meeting (F3)
CESPD Milestone F3 —The Study Sceping Meeting with HQUSACE is
to address potential changes in the PMP. It will establish without - project
conditions and screen preliminary plans.
103 Review Conference (F4)
CESPD Milestone F4 —The Plan Review Conference will evaluate the
final plans, reach a consensus that the evaluations are adequate to
select a Ian and prepare AFB issues.
124 Plan Formulation Briefing
CESPD Milestone F4A —The Plan Formulation Briefing (AFB) is for
policy compliance of the proposed plan with HOUSACE to identify actions
required to prepare and release the draft report.
145 Public Review of Draft Report
CESPD Milestone FS — Initiation of field level coordination of the draft
report with concurrent submittal to HQUSACE through SPD for policy
compliance review.
162 Final Public Meeting
CESPD Milestone
FB — Date of the final public meeting.
130 Special Study Review Conference
CESPD Milestone F7 — Policy compliance review of the draft report with
HQUSACE to identify actions that are required to complete the final
report.
165 Special Study Report w /NEPA
CESPD Milestone F8 — Date of submittal of final report package to
CESPD -ET -P, including technical and legal certifications, compliance
memorandum and other required documentation.
170 MSC Commanders Public Notice
CESPD Milestone F9 — Date of issue of the Division Commanders
Public Notice. Congressional notification would occur two days prior. The
report and supporting documentation would be forwarded to HOUSACEi
This milestone is used as the completion of the special study report in the
CMR.
310 Filing of Final EIS/EA
Date that notice appears in the Federal Register. Letters for fling would
be furnished by HQUSACE.
330 Chiefs Report to ASA (CW)
Date of the signed
report of the Chief of Engineers.
320 ROD Signed of FONSI Signed
Date that ROD is signed by the ASA (CW) when forwarded for
authorization.
350 President Signs Authorization
Dale President signs authorizing legislation.
I MIL — Milestone number used in the PROMIS database.
2 F1 through F9 are the historical designations for the SPD Milestones.
B -1
February 7, 2001
Colonel John P. Carroll
District Engineer, Los Angeles District
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
P.O. Box 532711
Los Angeles, CA 90053 -2325
Subject: Seal Beach — Feasibility Study
Dear Colonel Carroll:
The City of Seal Beach supports the ongoing efforts of the U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers Reconnaissance Study on shore protection and beach nourishment
improvements for Seal Beach. At this time, the City is willing to support the
recommended feasibility study that will further develop and evaluate the beach erosion
problem.
The City of Seal Beach has reviewed draft 905 (b) Report and Feasibility Cost Sharing
Agreement (FCSA) and is interested in entering into a cost sharing agreement with the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers subject to final review and approval of the City Council.
The City understands that a FCSA will have to be signed prior to initiating the feasibility
study. The City also understands that typically a feasibility study must be cost - shared 50
percent federal and 50 percent non - federal, and of the 50 percent non - federal share, 50
percent can be in -kind services.
The City of Seal Beach looks forward to working with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
and with the Los Angeles District in completing the feasibility study and hopefully
constructing the subsequent project.
If you have any questions, you can contact me at 562 431 -2527.
Dona �Mcl
Donald McIntyre
:ntarim City Manager
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfs! do Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Enclosure C: Detailed Scopes of Work
Table of Contents
WBS#
Description
JAA00
Fees - Surveys and Mapping except Real Estate
—Page
C -8
JAB00
Feas - Coastal Studies/Report
C -9
JAC00
Fees - Geotechnical
Studies/Report
C -13
JAE00
Fees - Engineering and Design Analysis/Report
C -15
JB000
Fees - Socioeconomic Studies
CA 7
JC000
Fees - Real
Estate Analysis/Report
C -21
JD000
Fees - Environmental Studies/Report
(Except USF &WL
C -23
JE000
I Fees - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
C -24
JF000
Fees - HTRW Studies/Report
C -24
JG000
Fees - Cultural
Resources Studies/Report
C -25
JH000
Fees - Cost
Estimates
C -25
JI000
Feas - Public
Involvement Documents
G-26
JJ000
Fees - Plan Formulation and
Evaluation
C -29
JL000
Fees - Final Report Documentation
C -31
JLD00
Fees - Technical
Review Documents
C -33
JM000
Fees - Washington Level Report Approval Review Support)
C -35
JPA00
Project
management and Budget
Documents
C -36
JPB00
Supervision and Administration
C -38
JPC00
Contingencies
C-40
L0000
Project Management Plan PMP
C-41
00000
PIED Cost Sharing Agreement
C-42
Summary of
Costs
C-43
C -1
WBS#
Description
��liRTi�T.Tfkt•
J0000
Feasibility
Report
(Fees)
J0000
Milestones
General Description of Parent Task: This is a listing of the milestones designed to
provide a schedule of expected deliverables throughout the entirety of the feasibility
phase of this study. The milestones are scoped to allow adequate time to properly
review all project tasks from an engineering, environmental, and economic standpoint.
The detailed listing of milestones and milestone schedule of completions is presented in
Chapter 2.
Previous Approved
IE'I.T.•Ti-
��liRTi�T.Tfkt•
--
LC&117a M'F
I.flitjFl:'di-
� -'�[�.
-
AGPl7^Ir�9C�R'I-
If. SF1�.1 Gi�i-
CK.TiSiF.Ti-
j(�jjjjjjj_i+3'�.�f
-�r,
Task: I Initiate Study
Description of Task: This is the date that the district receives Federal feasibility phase
study funds; thereby, allowing the initiation of this feasibility type study.
Cost Summary
'd F1 Ti•-
N;iT -fi
-
LC&117a M'F
iWGTM
lIf .1F11.1Gi�i-
[K.TiSrF.T:i
-�
-�r,
Duration: 0 days
Task: I Study Public Workshop (F2)
Description of Task: This milestone has been implemented to conduct a Public
MeetingNVorkshop to inform the public of the impending study and management plan. In
addition, this forum allows planning managers to obtain public opinion input.
Cost Summary
I1�
MM.'i - ..
-
LC&117a M'F
I.ITJF1:7i-4
�na:tomrri—
L���1���:7
Duration: 30 days
C -2
Task: Study Scoping Meeting (F3)
Description of Task: This is the first Study Scoping Meeting with Headquarter, U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers (HQUSACE) to address potential changes in the Project
Management Plan. In addition, this meeting establishes the existing baseline conditions
and the preliminary discussions on screening preliminary plans.
Cost Summary
1F1:57'�-
MT=TlK M.'
Yf.S AC^M-
I.r•1i7E1: Ti-
-
[�iiT? /_.rT �Tw'7
-I.
GIPJY -�IIZ �I-
I[.iF.11
Le
�
-
Duration: 120 days
Task: I Management Plan Review Conference 174)
Description of Task: This conference is the second South Pack Division mandatory
milestone conference. The purpose of the conference is to screen the final management
plans in order to reach a cumulative opinion that the evaluations are adequate to select
a plan and identify potential issues for the Management Plan Formulation Briefing (AFB).
Cost Summary
Ikl Ti-
NiiT3i .�i7i:C�-
Yf.5in17:FiF.1ti•-
h`1. T. 7F1M
-
N;i.T-SiIi.-rTTSPi-
h`�T.9-
161511SLi
Le
�
-
Duration: 960 days
C -3
Task: I Management Plan Formulation Briefing —AFB
Description of Task: The Management Plan Formulation Briefing (AFB) will be
scheduled. The goal of the AFB process is to obtain Headquarters approval to prepare
the draft report and release it for public review concurrent with forwarding the draft to
Headquarters. The AFB will be held in accordance with the instructions in Appendix O of
ER 1105 -2 -100. The AFB includes participation by Headquarters and will be chaired by
the South Pacific Division's Chief, Planning Division, or the Division's planning program
manager on behalf of the Chief, Planning Division. The planning program manager will
facilitate informal coordination with Headquarters and the district to finalize the final
memorandum for the AFB and will be signed at Headquarters approximately 10 days
after the conference. Upon receipt of the signed memorandum from Headquarters, the
planning program manager will endorse the memorandum to the district.
Cost Summary
Duration: 180 days
Task: I Draft Study Report
Description of Task: This is the initiation of field level coordination of the draft study
report with a concurrent submittal to the HOUSACE through the South Pacific Division
(SPD) for policy compliance and review.
Cost Summary
Duration: 180 days
C-4
.�-.�.-
Ihr•Ti9F -1 Ti-
N;1T7_.RSiTn7�
-I.
.T`iJY -.�R IITI-
�GSF1U7�3,Yi
-C..
niFTdi
-�
-�J
Duration: 180 days
Task: I Draft Study Report
Description of Task: This is the initiation of field level coordination of the draft study
report with a concurrent submittal to the HOUSACE through the South Pacific Division
(SPD) for policy compliance and review.
Cost Summary
Duration: 180 days
C-4
Task: I Final Public Meeting
Description of Task: This is the date of the final public meeting to review changes to the
original streamlining initiatives and alterations to the project management plan. This task
is not required to be included in milestone submissions.
Cost Summary
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Study Review Conference
Description of Task: The purpose of the Study Review Conference (FRC) is to resolve
outstanding policy issues that were raised in the Headquarters review of the draft study
report and to identify actions that are required to complete the final report. The FRC
includes participation by Headquarters and will be chaired by the South Pacific Division
Chief, Planning Division, or the planning program manager on behalf of the Chief,
Planning Division.
Cost Summary
IFl Tom-
.�-
I.rPiJF.1:eT'a-[.ii�_,.fT'iT67-IIG7PJ7S11�'.R'I-
���-
IR•Titj7SIG7:lITl-
Ina,l.�ma—
I.rrr;ra��p���
-�
-�
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Study Review Conference
Description of Task: The purpose of the Study Review Conference (FRC) is to resolve
outstanding policy issues that were raised in the Headquarters review of the draft study
report and to identify actions that are required to complete the final report. The FRC
includes participation by Headquarters and will be chaired by the South Pacific Division
Chief, Planning Division, or the planning program manager on behalf of the Chief,
Planning Division.
Cost Summary
IFl Tom-
I�TJFI.T..T�-
���-
IR•Titj7SIG7:lITl-
In�1.���ra�'Lr'�-
[KT.SrhT+i
-�
-�
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Final Report to SPD
Description of Task: This is the date of submittal of the final report package to the South
Pacific Division (CESPD- ET -P). The final report package will include all technical and
legal certifications, compliance memorandums, and other required documentations.
Cost Summary
Duration: 120 days
C -5
I.s17f1 Ti-
[� ➢iT3r_.R�.Td7-
IJGTi1j7
If•7i:11.1�iTi-
[KT.SrhT+i
-�
-�
Duration: 120 days
C -5
Task: MSC Commanders Public Notice
Description of Task: This is the date of issue of the Division Commander's Public Notice
preceded by Congressional notification, which would occur two days prior. Report and
supporting documentation will be forwarded to HQUSACE where it will be utilized as the
completed form of the study report in the Command Management Review (CMR).
Cost Summary
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Filing of Final EIS /EA
Description of Task: This is the date the notice appears in the Federal Register. Letters
for filing will be furnished by the Headquarters Policy Review Branch (CECW -AR). NOT
APPLICABLE FOR THIS STUDY AT THIS TIME.
Cost Summary
•�I4�i'�—
Irs�Irr��-
NTJF.1 Ta-
NiiiT- Ti_.rT �TA7-
I�G7PJ7SIR �I-
I[IF.11.1�ii7i-
ULTiSirT«i
-�.-
7r
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Filing of Final EIS /EA
Description of Task: This is the date the notice appears in the Federal Register. Letters
for filing will be furnished by the Headquarters Policy Review Branch (CECW -AR). NOT
APPLICABLE FOR THIS STUDY AT THIS TIME.
Cost Summary
Duration: 0 days
Task: I Chiefs Report to ASA (CW)
Description of Task:'Coord(oation of the signed Chiefs report to the Assistant Secretary
of Army Civil Works, based on the initial draft and the final report submitted by the
district, will be through the South Pacific Division's planning program manager. When
the final Chiefs report is received, the planning program manager will provide copies to
the district, and the assigned planning program manager will inform other members of
the electronic copies of the Chiefs report.
Cost Summary
IF15Ti-
•�I4�i'�—
Irs�Irr��-
�hR7 iJF1.'. Ti�[
�; fi! dilG .rTTiL�il�N1.Ti'.7*IIiE:tiTl�
I[IF.11.1�ii7i-
ULTiSirT«i
-�.-
7r
Duration: 0 days
Task: I Chiefs Report to ASA (CW)
Description of Task:'Coord(oation of the signed Chiefs report to the Assistant Secretary
of Army Civil Works, based on the initial draft and the final report submitted by the
district, will be through the South Pacific Division's planning program manager. When
the final Chiefs report is received, the planning program manager will provide copies to
the district, and the assigned planning program manager will inform other members of
the electronic copies of the Chiefs report.
Cost Summary
IF15Ti-
•���-
�hR7 iJF1.'. Ti�[
�; fi! dilG .rTTiL�il�N1.Ti'.7*IIiE:tiTl�
Duration: 60 days
C -6
Task: I ROD Signed or FONSI Signed
Description of Task: This is the date the Record of Division (ROD) is signed by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Work (ASA (CW)) and forwarded for
authorization.
Cost Summary
tFlxri—
c.;��rairrz�—
Yn�1Y7:r�1r•-
Nrstjft �a—
-.'I
[.raas..crsni—
-lil6Titl7ilRHITI-
NrrrjrY��rri-
YC.SFIU��7i
-..�
Duration: 10 days
Task: I President Signs Authorization
Description of Task: This is the date the president signs the feasibility report authorizing
legislation.
Cost Summary
IF1 T�-
PiIP, --7'i ...rT•F�-
YGiF117 :!�F.1t•-
NLTiCF.1.'.Aa
-.'I
-lil6Titl7ilRHITI-
YG1>:lY.1G;
Duration: 60 days
C -7
WBS#
1 Description
�.yy�..
J0000
I Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JA000
I Engineering Appendix
General Description of Parent Task: This parent task includes all engineering related
division disciplines work required to achieve the successful completion of the feasibility
type study report. The effort included under this task involves surveys and mapping
except real estate, coastal studies /report, geotechnical studies /report, and the
engineering design and analysis report.
Previous Approved
I�zrlllllllllllllliiii�—
I Description
�.yy�..
—
Irm��rrsslii�—
Report (Fees)
I.rr.+�c»—[•naazmaari—nrrer_..�rrrsri-
I Engineering Appendix
JAA00
I Fees — Surveys and Mapping except Real Estate
I�ITl7 :IIPI:ffTl-
1 f•7k11.1�IiTdi—
C•?dil i��—
�—
�—
E3[II:ilI1:lI11
WBS#
I Description
[� ;ii^t .I✓li.'7—
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JA000
I Engineering Appendix
JAA00
I Fees — Surveys and Mapping except Real Estate
General Description of Parent Task: This parent task will be performed to determine,
map, and catalog the detailed beach morphology of the Surfside Colony, Seal Beach,
shoreline. The Surveys and Mapping parent task work will be accomplished through data
reductions of historical survey information.
IF.1?ii—
[� ;ii^t .I✓li.'7—
If.SF.117 :r3E1�-
I�TlF.1:LT�—
[• ;ii:s�_. - Rril7—
I�ITl7 :IIPI:ffTl-
�mr,unalra—
�.��—
�—
�31.xl:ml
Duration: 30 days - _ - -`- --
C -8
WBS#
Description
;lam
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JA000
I Engineering Appendix
JAB00
I Fees — Coastal Studies/Report
I.[.T.97 :YR:IITI-
General Description of Parent Task: This parent task will be performed in order to
develop all coastal engineering analysis and parameters and execute all technical tasks
associated. The results of this task will provide the basis for the scope of the Alternative
Formulation Briefing (AFB) documentation. A final report will be prepared presenting the
results of the coastal studies analysis including concerns voiced during the AFB
documentation phase.
Previous Approved
IF.1 ri
—[•
;lam
I.cr�Fts->•—
m��a_.crn�—
I.[.T.97 :YR:IITI-
Yn�tu�;��ri—
[.frrrri_
—�
—�
r�niram
Task: I Coastal — Data Collection and Review
Description of Task: This task will include the collection and analysis of all previous data
research and reported findings pertaining to the study area. The existing data will be
reviewed and will eventually determine the scope of field investigations necessary to
successfully perform the remaining tasks of the Coastal Studies /Report parent task.
Cost Summary
Duration: 10 days
Task: I Coastal - Lon shore /Cross -shore Sediment Processes
Description of Task: This task will compile all available data and information which fully
describes longshore and cross -shore sediment transport processes and rates.
Cost Summary
I�TJF1:. 1'i-
•�"�[�-
IR.TiJ7:Yri!J'11TI-
1G7F1U��ifli-
C•i.TiiiTi-
Duration: 10 days
Task: I Coastal - Lon shore /Cross -shore Sediment Processes
Description of Task: This task will compile all available data and information which fully
describes longshore and cross -shore sediment transport processes and rates.
Cost Summary
Duration: 15 days
C -9
hbTiLF.1 Ta•-
C•D.Ta-7_.'T �f «'7-
I�r•1.'�7- :In1.:flTl-
Yf•SS1�.)�17i-
C•I:TSrF-
Duration: 15 days
C -9
Task: I Coastal — Wave and Current Climatology
Description of Task: This task will compile all available data and information which
quantifies the far Feld and nearshore wave and current climates.
Cost Summary
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Coastal — Wave /Current Baseline Numerical Model Studies
Description of Task: This task will quantify the baseline hydraulic wave and current
conditions using an appropriate wave /current numerical model.
Cost Summary
IF1:5T'i—
NiiT*[
Yf.TF11Y_;rTF.1�—
I�GTi'JF.1: da-
�[�-
ATl7TIfi�J IISI-
YfiF11.7Giiifi-
-�..�.
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Coastal — Wave /Current Baseline Numerical Model Studies
Description of Task: This task will quantify the baseline hydraulic wave and current
conditions using an appropriate wave /current numerical model.
Cost Summary
IF1:5T'i—
NiiT*[
Yf.TF11Y_;rTF.1�—
I�GTi`JF -1
�TA7-
I�ITliT117:�1'iT.'I-
Ym�1lnalri—
-�..�.
Duration: 80 days
Task: I Coastal — Alternatives Development/Analysis
Description of Task: This task will develop project structural and non - structural
alternatives for the alternatives analysis which satisfy the planning guidelines.
Cost Summary
11' 1? 7i—C
I;i.T�iKiT.x�—
Yf.TF11Y_;rTF.1�—
I�f•T7F.1'.T�-4i-�[�-hl.Titl7iilitltLT.I-
Yf.Sk11.1�i.Yxi
-�..�.
Duration: 30 days
C -10
Task: I Coastal — Shoreline Change Numerical Model Studies
Description of Task: This task will calculate long -term shoreline change using an
appropriate shoreline change numerical model.
Cost Summary
IFt Ti
—C
X71 •T- ,*i�1'Ti:�—
I6SF117:1'F.'I�-
AGTiljlil:. �
—N;i�_
• - r7TiT91—
AI7.97i117 �I-
—.
IfiF.11 �I�3iY i—
—
[w'di17:Ti—
��—
�iU:rl(44n
Duration: 110 days
Task: I Coastal — Structure Storm Damage Analysis
Description of Task: This task will quantify structure damages due to inundation and
direct wave impact.
Cost Summary
IF.1'.Ti•—
Nii.;Si .✓T.:.7—
IG1F117S!•F1�-
I. TJF.1:T•Ti—Nii^7_
•�Ti!n!—
Ar•Ti97 :Ir•�. �I—
—.
If• SF11� ]GiiiR.i—
—
C✓.•Ll�r'Tni-
- MMMLQI
If,
Duration: 40 days
Task: I Coastal — ERDC Physical Model Studies
Description of Task: This task work will utilize an ERDC 3- dimensional hydraulic physical
model to quantify wave characteristics, sediment distribution patterns, and verify project
performance.
Cost Summary
Duration: 340 days
C -11
IR• Ti1jF. 1T' i—
N;i•T- a7_.- C77iinl—
hbTillY:IR IITI
—.
If• SF11� ]GiiiR.i—
�.r��—
�—
�:YRI.YrUIn
Duration: 340 days
C -11
Task: I Coastal — Recommended Plan Detailed Analysis
Description of Task: This task will develop detailed analysis, plans, and drawings and
verify project performance relative to pertinent technical criteria.
Cost Summary
Ii1.T.7�
—•
- ..
—
IfiF.117:CSF1�-
I�GTiflF1STi_�i[�—
—�
��C�—
�i.f.T9TIR8fiLl-
III.Ti!!7 :IR IITI-
If tF. 11�1R3�i—
�—
�� ]—
IllilililililililiF�'ZrAUill
Duration: 20 days
Task: I Coastal —AFB Documentation
Description of Task: The results of the Coastal Studies/Report parent task will be
discussed formally with the federal and the County of Los Angeles to evaluate the
findings of the task and to provide a working dialog to streamline the results presented in
the draft report.
Cost Summary
IF1..:.a•—
�'i - ..
-
IG7F.117:1w*F.1�-
AITlF1.'.T�—
—�
��C�—
�i.f.T9TIR8fiLl-
IdITlY�:IIPJ Ir.T.I-
1GTF.lU1�riTSi—
P!TSrkTni—
—�—
•�—
�:yblrU;e
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Coastal — Draft Report
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coorumation will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of each coastal` -
studies task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
IF. 17.. 7' i—
NiiTl 'i(.ylid�—
If•SF117-:rdF.t�-
hf•L`JF.1 Ti
—�
"1 - •.-
�i.f.T9TIR8fiLl-
IGSF11�16i�Ti—
N'�Tilir^Txi
—�—
'•''r rf�
Duration: 120 days
C -12
Task: I Coastal — Final Report
Description of Task: Upon the completion of the review of the draft report, final
adjustments will be made to the document allowing for the preparation of the final report.
Cost Summary
Labor
i
10thercorps
M@
,10000
Total Federal
Report (Fees)
Non -Labor
I
10ther Agency
I
Non -Fed In -lend
Total Distrito
I
I Contract
I
ITotal
1
$45,000
Duration: 30 days
General Description of Parent Task: The work conducted in this parent task will include
the review of all existing available geotechnical data. These geotechnical findings will
provide the basis for the scope of the Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB)
documentation. A final report will be prepared presenting the results of the geotechnical
studies analysis including concerns voiced during the AFB documentation phase.
Previous Approved
Labor
D _C"
Ion
M@
,10000
Feasibili
Report (Fees)
Non -Labor
JA000
I Engineering ndix
JAC00
I Fees — Geotechnical Studies/Report
General Description of Parent Task: The work conducted in this parent task will include
the review of all existing available geotechnical data. These geotechnical findings will
provide the basis for the scope of the Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB)
documentation. A final report will be prepared presenting the results of the geotechnical
studies analysis including concerns voiced during the AFB documentation phase.
Previous Approved
Labor
I
Other Co s
Total Federal
Non -Labor
I
Otl�er en
I
Non -Fed In -Kind
Total District
I
Contract
L
Total
1 $55,000
$174,000
Task: Geotech — Geology Investigations
Description of Task: Assist in exploration of the beach for groins, submerged
breakwaters or other structural alternatives. Prepare the geologic portion of the F -3 and
the F-4 Geotechnical Appendix, which will cover regional and site geology, earthquakes,
faults, and subsidence.
Cost Summary
Labor
I
10therCorps
Tofal Federal
Non -Labor
I
10ther Agency
I
Non -Fed In -Kind
Total L )istric[
I
lContract
L
ITotal
1 $55,000
Duration: 90 days
C -13
Task: I Geotech — Soils Design and Materials
Description of Task: Field investigation to determine foundation conditions for, analyses
for, and design of various structural beach stabilization alternatives. Prepare feasibility
interim and final reports. Provide independent review and coordinate Geotech effort.
Cost Summary
Labor
i
Other
I
Total Federal
Non -Labor
I
l0therAgency
I
Non -Fed In -Kind
Total District
I
lContract
I
I
ITotal
$85,000
Duration: 100 days
Task: I Geotech —AFB Documentation
Description of Task: The results of the Geotechnical Studies /Report parent task will be
discussed formally with the federal and the City of Seal Beach to evaluate the findings of
the task and to provide a working dialog to streamline the results presented in the draft
report.
Cost Summary
Labor
i
Other Corps
I
Total Federal
Nan -Labor
I
Other Agency
I
Non -Fed In -Kind
Total District
I
Contract
I
ITotal
I $15,000
$9,000
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Geotech — Draft Report
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
::oo; Iination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of each geotophnical
studies task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
Labor
i
lotherCorps
Total Federal
Non -Labor
I
10ther Agency
I
lNon-Fed in -143
Total District
I
lContract
I
ITotal
I $15,000
Duration: 45 days
C -14
Task: I Geotech — Final Report
Cost Summary
Labor
Descri
Other
Total Fedeml
I Feasibility Report
Non -labor
other a
I Engineenng Appenaix
Non -Fed ndI
l
Total District
Design Anal is Re ort
Contract
I
ITotal
1
$10,000
Duration: 20 days
WBS#
Descri
lion
J0000
I Feasibility Report
Fees
JA000
I Engineenng Appenaix
Non -Labor
JAE00
I Fees — Engineering and
Design Anal is Re ort
engineering evaluations of the plan alternative formulation for the plan. This will consist
of the review of existing baseline conditions including coastal hydrodynamics, littoral
processes, stone- related coastal flooding, and shoreline changes outlined during the
coastal studies parent task. The work will include coordination with the City of Seal
Beach regarding design, management, and monitoring considerations and will be
attended to in the AFB documentation. A final report will be prepared presenting the
results of the engineering and design analysis phase including concerns voiced during
the AFB documentation.
Previous A
roved
Other
Labor
Oarer Coma
ITotal Federal
I
Non -Labor
Other en
I
Non -Fed in-mridll
Total District
iTotal
Contr..ct- ...
:.. -._
Total....__... _
.�. $2$2
.000
Task: I Encir & Design — Without Project Conditions
Cost Summary '
Labor
1
Other
Total Federal
Non -Labor
10therAgenEy
I
lNon-Fed In -Kind
Total District
I
lContract
I
iTotal
I
$50,000
Duration: 50 days
G-15
Task: I Engr & Design —With Project Conditions
Description of Task: Engineering and design for the without project conditions for the
study area
Cost Summary
IF.15Ti-
NiiiTSl�TTi Li♦
-
IYSF117:rSF.1�-
I\ML Si
Poi[ M
-
h1.Tie7'I0 0M.
1f.SU PR4=Yi
k.Ti�
�-
tit�.}�AAPLI
OEM""SMU
Duration: 50
Task: I Engr & Desi n —AFB Documentation
Description of Task: The results of the Engineering and Design Analysis Report parent
task will be discussed formally with the federal and the City of Seal Beach to evaluate
the findings of the task and to provide a working dialog to streamline the results
presented in the draft report.
Cost Summary
Duration: 20 days
Task: I Engr & Design — Draft Report
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coordination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of each engineering
and design task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
IEITi-
NiiiTSl�TTi Li♦
-�'-�-
-.-
IIIT'JF1
-AGTiEY:Iri911T1-
�IlilI:IIS.I-
k6S1 U7FiiiGSi-
UTTi1i�.Tn i-
�-
tit�.}�AAPLI
Duration: 20 days
Task: I Engr & Design — Draft Report
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coordination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of each engineering
and design task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
IEITi-
NiiiTSl�TTi Li♦
-�'-�-
-.-
IIIT'JF1
�IlilI:IIS.I-
Duration: 40 days
C -16
Task: Engr & Design — Final Report
Description of Task: Upon the completion of the review of the draft report, final
adjustments will be made to the document allowing for the preparation of the final report.
Cost Summary
ra_-
Description
1•;a.rsirrx�—
J0000
Ira,Irrs��-
Report (Fees)
Iarrel=t Ta—
Feas — Economic Studies
[.ars_.rrsna—
I.rrerIr��rrl-
1 R1k1 Ul�iYi-
L�i���-
�`r�IPrIy
Duration: 30 days
WBS#
Description
NPiTii.TT.�7—
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JB000
Feas — Economic Studies
General Description of Parent Task: The economic studies parent task will include the
determination of the without project existing baseline conditions associated with
maintenance costs resulting from storm induced damages to public and private facilities
and roadways. A final report will be prepared presenting the results of the economic
studies analysis including concerns voiced during the AFB documentation phase.
Previous A roved
IF1 Ta_—
NPiTii.TT.�7—
-
- .-�-■-
I.GTiJ1:17T�
-.'i
C�;i�e.RSnI-
I�nT.�7 :IIi:1ITl-
IfiF1U7FiiirA
Task: I Economic — Existing Baseline Conditions
Description of Task: This work M-1 -include determining the expenses, under the existing '
baseline conditions, incurred to the Local Coastal Municipalities, the City of Seal Beach,
and private residences within the project area.
Cost Summary
L%�-.
- .' '
-
1[.SF117. Ma
I. Tl11.'.Ta-
C�;i�e.RSnI-
I�nT.�7 :IIi:1ITl-
IC.SF11
Duration: 55 days
C -17
Task: I Economic — Coastal Storm Damage Model
Description of Task: This work will include refinement of coastal storm damage modal.
Cost Summary
Lcl`��
• - •' •
o :- a era - -.-
Non- or
I. f.Tlf- 1:ETi-
1 Non-rea n- in
NliT _T7_R7ST�1—
I.6TiaY- .�R :1fT.�-
o
�n�u�arra—
—.�.
C�i��—
lir��rinnn
Duration: 20 days
Task: Economic— Inundation, Erosion and Wave Attack Analyses
Description of Task: This work will include inundation analysis, erosion analysis and
wave attack analysis within the project area.
Cost Summary
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Economic — Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Description of Task: This work will include determining the risk and uncertainty for each
of the without project condition damage categories.
Cost Summary
u.
er Corps
o :- a era - -.-
Non- or
I. r.T.�F- ITT—
1 Non-rea n- in
NliT _T7_R7ST�1—
I.6TiaY- .�R :1fT.�-
o
mc�ut�maa
—.�.
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Economic — Risk and Uncertainty Analysis
Description of Task: This work will include determining the risk and uncertainty for each
of the without project condition damage categories.
Cost Summary
u.
er Corps
o :- a era - -.-
Non- or
juinerAgency
1 Non-rea n- in
Lwtw
luon cl
o
Duration: 30 days
C -18
Task: I Economic — With Project Analysis
Description of Task: This work will include evaluating alternative impacts on inundation,
erosion, wave attack, and risk and uncertainty analysis.
Cost Summary
a or
i
10ther orps
I
I rotal era
on- or
er Agency
on- a n- m
001 UVW
lContram
o a
Duration: 40 days
Task: Economic — Draft Report
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coordination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of the economic
parent task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
��-
HiI.T- 1'iK77'C�
-1
mF11 YTrsF1 �-
I: r.TiE F1•T.Ti-
NDT37af.TdThrl-
I.I.Tit! 7SIriE :/ITl-
If.SFll�l�ii!�i-
��-
jj�F��YLAUL]
Duration: 30 days
C -19
Task: Economic —AFB Documentation
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coordination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of the economic
parent task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Economic — Final Report
Description of Task: Upon the completion of the review of the draft report, final
adjustments will be made to the document allowing for the preparation of the final report.
Cost Summary
a or
I
10ther Corps
1
1 Otal Federal
I.RTiEF1TTa-
C.liTaA�7
-1.
r•T�7- _T.'IR :(r.T.l-
�ma,u�maa—
��—
�—
Il�ar�lwnl
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Economic — Final Report
Description of Task: Upon the completion of the review of the draft report, final
adjustments will be made to the document allowing for the preparation of the final report.
Cost Summary
a or
I
10ther Corps
1
1 Otal Federal
on- a r
er Agency
Non-Fed n- in
o is is
on rac
11001
1
Duration: 15 days
C -20
WBS#
Description
JUtherUorps
J0000
Feasibility
Report
(Fees)
JC000
Fe as - Real Estate Analysis/Report
General Description of Parent Task: Establish real estate baseline and without project
conditions.
Previous Approved
Task: Real Estate - Baseline Conditions
Description of Task: This work will include determining the land requirements and
estates, a description of the LERRD's (fee and /or easement) required for the
construction, operation and maintenance of the project including those required for
relocations, borrow material, and dredged and excavated material disposal. Coordinate
request and work with the non - Federal sponsor to obtain rights -of -entry for survey,
HTRW, cultural resources, and geotechnical exploration work. Coordinate with
Engineering to determine footprint and acreage required for project. Prepare real estate
preliminary and final take line drawings. Prepare a preliminary market study and a
detailed estimate of all real estate cots (Inc. gross appraisal) associated with acquisition
of the Project's real property requirements. Documents will also be used in crediting
sponsor for Lands, Easements and Right -of -ways for cost shared projects.
Cost Summary
a or
JUtherUorps
I
Total Federal
on- a or
Other Aqenuy
GLa7s�r.'e:/151-
n
on rac
oral
N MA12W,
Task: Real Estate - Baseline Conditions
Description of Task: This work will include determining the land requirements and
estates, a description of the LERRD's (fee and /or easement) required for the
construction, operation and maintenance of the project including those required for
relocations, borrow material, and dredged and excavated material disposal. Coordinate
request and work with the non - Federal sponsor to obtain rights -of -entry for survey,
HTRW, cultural resources, and geotechnical exploration work. Coordinate with
Engineering to determine footprint and acreage required for project. Prepare real estate
preliminary and final take line drawings. Prepare a preliminary market study and a
detailed estimate of all real estate cots (Inc. gross appraisal) associated with acquisition
of the Project's real property requirements. Documents will also be used in crediting
sponsor for Lands, Easements and Right -of -ways for cost shared projects.
Cost Summary
a or
JUtherUorps
I
Total Federal
on- a or
Other Aqenuy
Non-red in-Kind
001 U,.,.
on rac
oral
Duration: 25 days
C -21
Task: I Real Estate - AFB Documentation
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coordination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of the real estate
parent task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
Duration: 2 days
Task: I Real Estate- Draft Report
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coordination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of the real estate
parent task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
WW - •' M
-
.�- .i®---
I: GTi�FI• T• T�-[
�I7� _t'.T��.T�a-
1.6L17- S.�R:Iriil-
�nt�.t�rrai
-.�.
-�-
Duration: 2 days
Task: I Real Estate- Draft Report
Description of Task: The data and resultant analysis obtained in conjunction with AFB
coordination will be presented in a draft report outlining the findings of the real estate
parent task. The report will then be submitted for further review.
Cost Summary
Duration: 12 days
Task: Real Estate- Final Report j
Description of Task: Upon the completion of the review of the draft report, final
adjustments will be made to the document allowing for the preparation of the final report.
Cost Summary
WW - •' M
-
�n�r7srs�7�-
r. rracl:rra-
Clil�i��l,
rrers�re:rcrl-
�nt�.t�rrai
-.�.
-�-
Duration: 12 days
Task: Real Estate- Final Report j
Description of Task: Upon the completion of the review of the draft report, final
adjustments will be made to the document allowing for the preparation of the final report.
Cost Summary
Duration: 4 days
C -22
WW - •' M
�UULMVEr���
I. f. TEFITd�-
NIi.T- a7af•TaTA1-
1.R.E7S' �
If.SF1U7F9iifdi
-��
-�-
Duration: 4 days
C -22
WBS#
I Description
J0000
1 Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JD000
I Fees - Environmental Studies /Report (Except USFSWQ
- •.-
General Description of Parent Task: Environmental studies will include a database
search, agency coordination, and limited field reconnaissance to: 1) document existing
conditions, 2) analyze potential adverse and beneficial impacts, and 3) identify potential
environmental restoration opportunities. Environmental and social resources potentially
affected by the proposed project include: aesthetics; recreation; biological resources
(including endangered species such as California least tern and brown pelican); water
quality; sediment quality; air quality; noise; and cultural resources (see 905(b) report).
Speck tasks will include preparation of an Environmental Assessment (EA) to satisfy
the requirements of NEPA and other Federal environmental laws.
The EA document will evaluate the environmental effects of the alternative plans
(including the no action plan). The draft environmental document will be circulated to
appropriate State and Federal agencies and interested organizations and individuals.
Comments received on the drafts will be addressed, and revisions will be made in
accordance with Federal law. Based on the reconnaissance study, the primary area of
concern is the potential of this project to impact endangered species. Turbidity issues
could adversely affect foraging and nesting success. Grunion, although not listed as a
state or federal threatened or endangered species, is a species of concern to the State
of California. Grunion could be adversely affected in the discharge area due to
increased turbidity or burial of eggs during the spawning season. Mitigation features for
fish and wildlife and other affected resources will be formulated. Mitigation may include
the project could be designed to only discharge outside of the tern's nesting season.
Requirements of the Endangered Species Act and the California Endangered Species
Act will be completed. A biological assessment and formal consultation with the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service ( USFWS), National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), and
California Department of Fish and Game (CDFG) will be initiated if it is determined that
State- and Federally - listed species will be affected by the aftematives.
A Section 404 (b) (1) evaluation of water quality impacts will be accomplished by the
Corps and coordinated with State and Federal water quality agencies to ensure that
adequate consi�eration has been given to water quality and to acquire water quality —
certification or exemption. A Coastal Consistency Determination will be prepared to
evaluate project consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act and the California
Coastal Act. This document will be submitted to the California Coastal Commission for
their approval, during public review of the Draft EA. The Corps will also prepare a scope
of work and contract with the USFWS to prepare a Coordination Act Report. The Corps
will supervise the contract.
Previous Approved
Duration: 120 days
C -23
-
IY.SSIIT'(3F -1�-
1 \[.7.71:1 Ti
-�7
- •.-
-
I.GRS'Iri�eriLl-
I[SEl1�7Fi�Tdi
-�y.�-
Duration: 120 days
C -23
WBS#
I Description
- •..
J0000
I Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JE000
I Feas — Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
General Description of Parent Task: Errorl Bookmark not defined.This task includes
studies by the USFWS in support of the environmental studies required by the Fish and
Wildlife Coordination Act. The principal USFWS product is a Coordination Act Report
(CAR). The report will present USFWS, in coordination with NMFS and CDFG opinions
on impacts of alternatives on fish and wildlife resources and recommend types and
amounts of mitigation for habitat losses and opportunities for environmental restoration.
The Corps will coordinate with USFWS and supervise the interagency contract as part of
its environmental impact studies task.
Previous Approved
IFl.T.Ti
-.'
- •..
-
IGSE1�7.f3F.1�-
JF000
I.RZFl
owl UISMCI
on c awl
-
�nr��.r�rrraa-
Duration: 40 days
WBS#
Description
J0000
Feasibility Report
(Feas)
JF000
I Feas — Hazardous, Toxic, Radioactive Waste Studies /Report
General Description of Parent Task: Not Applicable At This Time.
Previous Approved
Labor
Other Corps , - o e era _,.
,
Non-Labor
lutherAgency on- a n- n
owl UISMCI
on c awl
Duration: 0 days
C -24
General Description of Parent Task: Cultural resource surveys of the area of potential
effects (APE) have been conducted for previous maintenance dredging and construction
projects. However, a records and literature search, and a brief field survey, may need to
be conducted in order for Section 106 compliance to be initiated. In the unlikely event
that any potential historic properties are located during the surveys, National Register
eligibility consultation will be prepared detailing the results of the cultural resources
investigations and any potential impacts from each project alternative and submitted to
the State Historic Preservation Officer. If any National Register eligible properties are
found within the APE a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) may need to be prepared.
The MOA will specify mitigation measures to be undertaken. The cultural resources
report will be included in the EIS/EIR.
Previous A roved
Duration: 5 days
FGeneral Description of Parent Task: The cost estimate will include preliminary and draft ates for alternative plan analysis, and,an MCACES cost estimate for the NED
tively selected plan. .
Previous roved
Labor
lutner uor s
Total Federal
Non- Labor
nrno� nnenry
°' 'M
Non -Fedin -Kind
0
Total $38,200
Duration: 35 days
C -25
WBS#
Description
Other Corps
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JI000
Fees — Public Involvement Documents
General Description of Parent Task: The Public Involvement Documents task will include
developing a mailing list of all public and private interests, including Federal and State
clearinghouses, who will be kept informed of study progress and results. A public
workshop; in addition to, a final public meeting on the draft report will be conducted.
Work required for public involvement activities will include arranging and hosting the
public workshop and outreach sessions and preparing follow -up documentation.
Previous Approved
Duration: 90 days
Task: I Initial Public Meeting /NEPA Scoping
Description of Task: This is the first public meeting designed to inform the public of the
study specifics. Any initial public concerns regarding the study will be documented and
addressed in a timely fashion.
Cost Summary
r
Other Corps
I
ITotal era
on- a or
I
I viner Agency
I Non-red in-Kind
IGSF1URiilCdi
-��-
�
-�-
o
.•r r•r
Duration: 90 days
Task: I Initial Public Meeting /NEPA Scoping
Description of Task: This is the first public meeting designed to inform the public of the
study specifics. Any initial public concerns regarding the study will be documented and
addressed in a timely fashion.
Cost Summary
r
Other Corps
I
ITotal era
on- a or
I
I viner Agency
I Non-red in-Kind
otai District
Contract
o
Duration;. 20 days
C -26
Task: I Public Workshops in Support of Plan Selection
Description of Task: The purpose of the public workshop is to solicit input concerning
study scope, local interests and desires, and the streamlining of concerns to be
addressed in the report. Additionally, it is expected that a separate meeting will be held
with interested Federal, State, and local agencies, including an open workshop for other
interested parties.
Cost Summary
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Public Involvement Support to AFB
Description of Task: Decisions and clarifications discussed during the Alternative __-
Formulations Briefing will be made public allowing for concerned party input and to
ensure public involvement support.
Cost Summary
IFlTTi-
Uli.Ya'[i
d.r.TEF1:bTi-�1-'�[�-I.G1i1j7S'�li?l:�fiT•I-
-
IPRTiLYS'�GL71TI-
�na,u�rrcaa�L'����—
�xnuvtn
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Public Involvement Support to AFB
Description of Task: Decisions and clarifications discussed during the Alternative __-
Formulations Briefing will be made public allowing for concerned party input and to
ensure public involvement support.
Cost Summary
IFlTTi-
Uli.Ya'[i
d.r.TEF1:bTi-�1-'�[�-I.G1i1j7S'�li?l:�fiT•I-
Duration: 8 days
C -27
Task: I Final Public Meeting
opportunity to comment on the study findings included in the draft report. The District will
present results of the study, conclusions, and recommendations to the public at a formal
public meeting. The meeting will include opportunities for all attendees to present
questions, concerns, and opinions regarding the study results, and allow interests the
ability to interchange information with the District and local sponsor representatives
regarding potential concerns associated with the proposed recommendations. A
transcript of the meeting will be prepared and a summary will be developed to be
Cost Summary
Ifl: da_-
tr�.rTrx� -1��
I: R7'iG Fl• T. T�-
ICF1iaE1.T.Ti
��[�-
I.I•Ti!!7- S.Irill:�ISI-
-
If.SF11�1�i7fiii-
[K.TiI,'r- Tai -�-
-�-
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Public Involvement Support to FRC
Description of Task: Decisions and clarifications discussed during the Feasibility Review
Conference will be made public allowing for concerned party input and to ensure public
involvement support.
Cost Summary
Duration: 20 days
C -28
ICF1iaE1.T.Ti
-�7
- -,-
-
I \GLa7- S.I��ISI-
IGSFIUIF47rai
-�-
Duration: 20 days
C -28
WBS#
Description
• - rr' '
J0000
Feasibility
Report
(Fees)
JJ000
Fees — Plan Formulation and Evaluation
General Description of Parent Task: The Plan Formulation and Evaluation parent task
includes refining information on the conditions of the present and future resources,
further defining related problems and needs, establishing planning objectives, and
developing, reviewing, and refining a plan.
Previous Approved
Task: I Plan Formulation and Evaluation of Plan
Description of Task: The plan formulation and evaluation of the project will be conducted
to determine the suitability of the plan alternatives from an engineering, environmental,
economic, and public best interest standpoint. These evaluations will be analyzed and
streamlined to determine a recommended plan alternative. The same evaluation process
will be carried out for a proposed plan.
Cost Summary
Ifl 'T�-
• - rr' '
-
1R7a�7S'rTF.I�-
I�r.TillFl:TTi-[�7ITii:.[77ibPl-I.r.7�7S'IriL:�l'iT.'I-
-�iF�
-I.
R7'ie ST � fill:lrT.' I
-
If.7F1��1Giiifii
-`i�.
t�tntm
Task: I Plan Formulation and Evaluation of Plan
Description of Task: The plan formulation and evaluation of the project will be conducted
to determine the suitability of the plan alternatives from an engineering, environmental,
economic, and public best interest standpoint. These evaluations will be analyzed and
streamlined to determine a recommended plan alternative. The same evaluation process
will be carried out for a proposed plan.
Cost Summary
Ifl 'T�-
• - rr' '
I.
-�iF�
-I.
R7'ie ST � fill:lrT.' I
-
.����-
t�tntm
Duration: 80 days
Task: I Plan Formulation and Evaluation —AFB Documentation
Description of Task: The results of the Plan Formulation and Evaluation parent task will
be discussed formally with the federal and the City of Seal Beach to evaluate the
findings and to determine the feasibility of each alternative for the proposed plan.
Cost Summary
Duration: 10 days
C -29
I. r.TiE 61 �a
-�iF�
-I.
R7'ie ST � fill:lrT.' I
-
•��-
t�tntm
Duration: 10 days
C -29
Task: I Plan Formulation and Evaluation — Draft Report
Description of Task: This task will entail the first submission of the Plan Formulation and
Evaluation Report. The draft report will be circulated to allow the State and Federal
agencies and interested organizations and individuals the ability to provide additional
comments.
Cost Summary
IFI•T•Ti-
'i�1'�'.�
-���-
snsursrs��-
I.r•TiEF1
I.67i�YS�R:/ITI-
mc�u>srraa�L'"�-
i�l����'aruuut
�-
��iIrLLLI
Duration: 22 days
Task: I Plan Formulation and Evaluation — Final Report
Description of Task: Comments received on the draft Plan Formulation and Evaluation
Report will be addressed, and revisions will be made in accordance with Federal and
State law, allowing for the preparation of the final report.
Cost Summary
Lfl��
• ' '• '
-
snsursrs��-
I. r.TaF.1.T.Ti--
I.67i�YS�R:/ITI-
If.SF1U1GiM-.
�-
��iIrLLLI
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Plan Formulation and Evaluation — Support to Division Commander's Notice
and revisions made in response will be described and incn!porated as
late into the Division Commander's Notice.
Cost Summary
IF1Td�—
nvr�.rrxt•�I���...
�nc�U>�maa—
Duration: 10 days
C -30
WBS#
Description
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JL00o
Fees — Final Report Documentation
include all work necessary to produce and distribute the final feasibility type study report
and supporting documents. This includes addressing all required actions as contained in
the Feasibility Review Conference (FRC) Project Guidance Memorandum (PGM), and
comments received from public review of the draft report. Tasks also include all work
items necessary to support the review process of the final report by the South Pacific
Division, Headquarters, and USACE through forwarding of the final report by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA -CW) to the Office of Management
and the Budget (OMB) and eventually to Congress. These tasks include providing
copies of the report for State and Agency Review, answering comments, attending
review meetings, and revising the report as necessary.
Previous Approved
Cost Summary
Task: I Reproduction and Distribution of F3 Documentation
Description of Task: This task will entail the reproduction and distribution of the F3
milestone report. The F3 documentation will provide a description of oceanographic and
coastal processes conditions within the study area, and any potential problems and
needs.
Cost SLImmafY . - ... .
Total Feder-�M
�f.SF1U1FiiRAi-
[.r7i1TrT.1' �
-��i-
'.: rr�
Task: I Reproduction and Distribution of F3 Documentation
Description of Task: This task will entail the reproduction and distribution of the F3
milestone report. The F3 documentation will provide a description of oceanographic and
coastal processes conditions within the study area, and any potential problems and
needs.
Cost SLImmafY . - ... .
Duration: 20 days
C -31
Total Feder-�M
Duration: 20 days
C -31
Task: I Reproduction and Distribution of F4 Documentation
Description of Task: This task will entail the reproduction and distribution of the F4
milestone report. The F4 documentation will present the full alternative management
plan formulations and the tentatively selected sand management plan. The F4 report will
provide the basis for the Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB).
Cost Summary
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Reproduction and Distribution of AFB Documentation
Description of Task: This task will entail the reproduction and distribution of the
Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB) milestone report. The AFB Project Guidance
Memorandum (PGM) will determine the actions needed to allow the completion of the
draft report for public review.
Cost Summary
11-abor
Other Corps
1
1 o a a era
1. G77e Fl• T• Ti-
UIiT- TraRaT�l-
1
I.1•TiE7T�l1> :/ITI-
m�tar�rri
—��
oniract
—�—
o a
r r r
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Reproduction and Distribution of AFB Documentation
Description of Task: This task will entail the reproduction and distribution of the
Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB) milestone report. The AFB Project Guidance
Memorandum (PGM) will determine the actions needed to allow the completion of the
draft report for public review.
Cost Summary
11-abor
Other Corps
1
1 o a a era
on- a or
umer Agency
1
Non- ea n- in
omi uisin
oniract
o a
�'RUaQrlrl
Duration: 8 days
Task: I Reproduction and Distribution of Draft Report
Repnrt..The draft SFr ^rt documentation will address the required . actions identified in the
AFB PGM in finalizing the draft report. The draft report will be reproduced and sent to
the South Pacific Division, HQUSACE, and the Office of the Assistant Secretary of the
Army for Civil Works representing the basis for a Feasibility Review Conference (FRC)
to address any final issues or questions regarding the completion of the study
recommendations for the final report. A FRG PGM will be completed by HQUSACE to
identify the required actions needed to complete the final study report.
Cost Summary
Duration: 32 days
C -32
t.I�aa:.r.Trxi•
-�-
1: r• TEF .1T.Ta-
��[�-
I:r•7i77s�m191TI-
'i�n & 1�. 1Fiii [ai-
[K.T1TT�i-
��-
�'RUaQrlrl
Duration: 32 days
C -32
Task: I Reproduction and Distribution of Final Report
Report. This includes addressing all required actions as contained in the FRC PGM, and
comments received from public review of the draft report. Tasks also include all work
items necessary to support the review process of the final report by the South Pacific
Division, Headquarters, and USACE through forwarding of the final report by the
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works (ASA -CW) to the Office of Management
and the Budget (OMB) and eventually to Congress. These tasks include providing
copies of the report for State and Agency Review, answering comments, attending
review meetings, and revising the report as necessary.
Cost Summary
Duration: 15 days
WBS#
Description
J0000
Feasibility Report (Fees)
'.-
Fees — Final Report Documentation
JLD00
Fees — Technical Review Documents
tnTrssrn, i
-r,
rrers�re :rrrl-
Ir•1F1U1Fiii!:ii-
®.4i
�- ��-
�-
�iF14Qe
Duration: 15 days
WBS#
Description
J0000
Feasibility Report (Fees)
JL000
Fees — Final Report Documentation
JLD00
Fees — Technical Review Documents
General Description of Parent Task: This task involves the review documents prepared
by the members of the Technical Review Team as required by various study milestones.
Previous Approved
Task: I Independent Technical Review— F3 Documentation
Description of Task: This task work documents the findings of the Review Team
prepared after review of the F3 report for the Study Scoping Meeting.
Cost Summary
IRn•T•T�-
• - '' '
-
1mc��r- �rr���
�IPr.7.eRl.T.T�-
tnTrssrn, i
-r,
rrers�re :rrrl-
'i'UM1 05rai
®.4i
.
E00LUUIAW.
Task: I Independent Technical Review— F3 Documentation
Description of Task: This task work documents the findings of the Review Team
prepared after review of the F3 report for the Study Scoping Meeting.
Cost Summary
IRn•T•T�-
• - '' '
-
1mc��r- �rr���
r.Ta7s'�fiE :/tTl-
'i'UM1 05rai
-ag
ENE iLXmN
Duration: 15 days
C -33
Task: I Independent Technical Review — F4 Documentation
Description of Task: This task work documents the findings of the Review Team
prepared after review of the F4 report for the Sand Management Plan Review
Conference.
Cost Summary
Labor
10ther Corps
I
Total e era
114un-LaDor
lumerAgency
-I\
Non-re n-mrial
o � is
oniraci
I
I I o a
r r r r
Duration: 15 days
Task: I Independent Technical Review —AFB Documentation
Description of Task: This task work documents the findings of the Review Team
prepared after review of Plan Formulation Reports for the Altemative Formulation
Briefing.
Cost Summary
IFl.T.T�-
• - .' '
�I�i���
I.GTLZjFl.T.Ti-
�`[�
-I\
I.T.1j7S�rie:Tfl-
IfiF.lUlGiiS3i-
.[ Tom. �
-�-
r r r r
Duration: 8 days
Task: I Independent Technical Review —Draft Report
Description of Task: This task work documents the findings of the Review Team
prepared as a result of the formal review of the Draft Study Report.
Cost Summary
Duration: 32 days
C -34
IfiF.lUlGiiS3i-
.[ Tom. �
-�-
r r r r
Duration: 32 days
C -34
Task: 1 Independent Technical Review — Final Report
Description of Task: This task work documents the findings of the Review Team
prepared after formal review of the Final Study Report.
Cost Summary
IF1TTi-
Description
• - •' '
�IQ��
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
I.r•TiEIFlTTa
-�
IfiFl6Riiir�i
-.��.
Duration: 15 days
PR
Description
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JM000
Fees — Washington Level Report Approval (Review Support)
General Description of Parent Task: The Washington Level Report Approval task
involves the preparation and distribution of the draft study report and support to the
Washington Level Review effort.
Previous Approved
C -35
WBS#
Description
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JP000
Management Documents
JPA00
I Project
Management and Budget Documents
parent task is required by the Program Development Office for preparation of budget
requirements and monitoring funds. The project manager is responsible for managing
the overall study cost and schedule through the use of the PRB system; preparation of
present and future budget year submissions; coordination with the non - Federal sponsor,
and the preparation of the Project Management Plan presenting the Federal and non -
Federal requirements, costs, and schedule required for implementation of the
recommended plan. The Corps project manager with assistance by the non - Federal
project manager will monitor expenditures, keep the PMP current, prepare project
management reports, the Schedule And Cost Charge Request (SACCR) as needed, and
report study status and issues to the District Engineer. The project management
structure will continue into the pre-construction and construction engineering and design
Previous Approved
Task: I Programs and Project Management to Support F3 Milestone
Description of Task: This work includes the tasks involved in Program and Project
Mena ement Division (PPMD ) support to the Feasibility Study Scoping Meeting.
Cost Summary
Labor
OtherCorps
Total Federal
on- a or
er v >nni
on- n- n
1001 u1sma
on rac
I�m�u�rraa�
o a
Task: I Programs and Project Management to Support F3 Milestone
Description of Task: This work includes the tasks involved in Program and Project
Mena ement Division (PPMD ) support to the Feasibility Study Scoping Meeting.
Cost Summary
Labor
OtherCorps
Total Federal
on- a or
er v >nni
on- n- n
1001 u1sma
on rac
o a
Duration: 25 days
C -36
Task: I Programs and Project Management to Support F4 Milestone
Description of Task: This work includes the tasks involved in PPMD support to the
Alternative Review Conference.
Cost Summary
11-abor
i
Other Corps
1
ITotal Federal
on- a or
I
lumerAgency
I
Non-rec n- in
totai uisma
-��
on
-�-
ota
r r r r
Duration: 25 days
Task: I Programs and Project Management —AFB Documentation
Description of Task: This work includes the tasks involved in PPMD support to the
Altemative Formulation Briefing.
Cost Summary
IF1T7i-
i
C�11- fi�r'cz��
1
.�- -��---
I. RZ E17di
-
� ► @�
-I.
GTa Y-S. � 113 : /IT I-
IGiFIP]Fiiirdi
-��
onre
-�-
oa
r r r r
Duration: 30 days
Task: I Programs and Project Management — Draft Report
Description of Task: This work includes the tasks involved in PPMD support to the
preparation and review of the draft feasibility study report.
Cost Summary
11or
i
Other Corps
1
Total Federal -
on- r
I
lutherAgency
on- a In-mind
otal District
onre
oa
Duration: 43 days
C -37
Task: I Programs and Project Management — Final Report
Description of Task: This work includes the tasks involved in PPMD support to the
preparation and distribution of the final feasibility study report.
Cost Summary
Labor
i
Other Corps
iTotal Federal
I Feasibility Report (Fees)
Non -Labor
I
10ther Agency
Supervision and Administration
Non -Fed In -Kind
Total District
1
1 Contract
1
iTotal
I $13,000
Duration: 13 days
Task: I Programs and Project Management — DE's Notice
Description of Task: This work includes the tasks involved in PPMD support of the
review, preparation , and distribution of the District Engineers s DE's Notice.
Cost Summary
Labor
i
10ther Corps 1
Total Federal
I Feasibility Report (Fees)
Non -Labor
I
10therAgency
Supervision and Administration
Non -Fed In -Kind
Total District
I
lContract
1
Total
$4,000
Duration: 4 days
WBS#
I Description
Other Corps
J0000
I Feasibility Report (Fees)
JP000
Fees — Management Documents
JPB00
Supervision and Administration
General Description of Parent Task: The activities involved in the District-wide
supervision and administration of tasks involvi.y the conduct oftho study and report -
preparation
Previous Approved
Labor
Other Corps
Total Federal
Non -Labor
Other Agency
Non -Fed In -Kind
Total District
I
lContract
Total
$177,800
C -38
Task: I SBA — Planning Division
Description of Task: The activities involved in the supervision and administration of
Planning Division tasks involving personnel in the conduct of the study and report
preparation.
Cost Summary
I ci zra_
'I,
�
L'ii �•�
�
rm � r 7-s. ram �
-
l. TiflFlT •Ti-
-�
��[�-
-
I.I•TilSS�fiL3fSi-
m�n�rri�N�i�l��
��
-�"-
Duration: 110 days
Task: SBA — Engineering Division
Description of Task: The activities involved in the supervision and administration
Engineering Division tasks involving personnel in the conduct of the planning review and
report preparation.
Cost Summary
:��-
Nii.TAiKTxi•-
-��.-
.�-.��- --
I:r.TLF1.T.7�
-�
�lilai- .r7a57e'7-
-
I.r.TiE7S�I�:11T1-
If.SF1U1Ca77Ai-
��
-�"-
Duration: 80 days
Task: I SBA — Real Estate Division
Description of Task: The activities involved in the supervision and administration Real
Estate Division tasks involving personnel in the conduct of the planning review and
Cost Summary
Ifl•T•Ti-
t�li.T- .TiNTFi•
-��.-
I.GLEF1: di-[
�lilai- .r7a57e'7-
I:r.TEY- 5��:11TI-
kf•1E1P1FiiTi-
Duration: 5 days
C -39
Task: I S&A —PPMD
Description of Task: The activities involved in the supervision and administration PPMD
tasks involving personnel in the conduct of the planning review and report preparation.
Cost Summary
Duration: 10 days
Task: I S&A — Contractin Division
Description of Task: The activities involved in the supervision and administration
Contracting Division tasks involving personnel in the conduct of the planning review and
report preparation.
Cost Summary
Labor
Description
Other Corps
J0000
1-Fotal Federal
Report (Fees)
Non-Labor
I Fees — Management Documents
lumerAgency
I Contingencies
on- a n- n
�If.7F1 � air rxi-
��-
��-
IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIEibntn
Duration: 10 days
Task: I S&A — Contractin Division
Description of Task: The activities involved in the supervision and administration
Contracting Division tasks involving personnel in the conduct of the planning review and
report preparation.
Cost Summary
Labor
Description
Other Corps
J0000
1-Fotal Federal
Report (Fees)
Non-Labor
I Fees — Management Documents
lumerAgency
I Contingencies
on- a n- n
col District
on ra
11001
1
Duration: 5 days
WBS#
Description
J0000
Feasibility
Report (Fees)
JP000
I Fees — Management Documents
JPC00
I Contingencies
.. Genergl nescription, cf,Parent Task: This task work includes the setting,aside
and resources for completion of study activities.
Previous Approved
C-40
I.I•TieF1:TTi
-ul
h[dR U1 F9iirAi-
CKLSi'F- Tdi-
�-
��'IrLtrUU]
C-40
WBS#
Descri lion
Lo00o
Project
Management Plan
General Description of Parent Task: The PMP is an attachment to the Feasibility Cost
Sharing Agreement defining the planning process, detailed activities to be accomplished,
sets the schedule, and details the costs to the Federal Government to the Non - Federal
Sponsor.
Previous Approved
Icrrr�
-•
- �"
—�ma
Total Federal
I,ITialFl: d'a-
I
cliTaiaRSTn1
-I,
GTi�Y- f•�G7:�ISt-
o is
on rac
o
Task: PMP— Draft PMP
Description of Task: A product associated with the feasibility study is the Project
Management Plan (PMP). The PMP describes the project activities during Pre -
Construction Engineering and Design; in addition to, construction phases, and is a basis
for the project cost sharing agreement. A draft PMP will be attached to the draft
feasibility study report.
Cost Summary
Labor
Otner Uorps
—�ma
Total Federal
Non-LdOOF
I
Pher Agency
i
inion-rea n- n
o is
on rac
o
Duration: 25 days
Task: I PMP —Final PMP
Description of Task: This task work includes the completion of a_signed and_excGuted ... -,.
final PMP to accompan the Final Feasibility Study Report.
Cost Summary
Lfl•.���
Nn�.rrx�
—�ma
•rz ram �-
'Id R1iE F1 TTi-
N77TiicG[aT1-
1.I.TiO A-
I�nnn�ra�L'�i—
IGEl��L'
Duration: 15 days
C-41
General Description of Parent Task: This task work includes the Cost Sharing
Agreement for the implementation and operation of the proposed project between the
Federal Government and the County of Los Angeles.
Previous Approved
a or
Other Corps
I
I i o ere
Non-Labor
umer Agency
on- a n- in
1001 UISTrICT
on vac
o
C-42
Summary of Costs
C-43
m�•.:
-N
•iii
• aI
- — -- • ■-�• -
.$f ell
III
_
C-43
J
O
O
O
O
S
S
S
S
O
S
S
O
S
O
o
O
O
O
O
W
m
W
!t
W
(�1
O
OO
b„
OO
O
W
O
O
b
N
b^
b
O
N
W
N
Y
Yj
h
N
W
O..
N
N
NN:
S
N
S
S
O
O
O
S
N
N
N
O Y R
-j LL
O
W
N
Ol
Y
N
N
p
f0
10
N
b
W
p
N
H
F
b
1
N
I�
W
O
m
S
O
f
2 N Y
LL
N
N
O
O
O
la
Y
G
Y
OO
N
O
N
OI
1�
Ih
O
p
p
p
p
p
a
p
0
W
N
N
Ny�
N
N
NI
Yf
I�
Ol
N
h
9 L
O
YOI
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
C
Z IL V
O
N
!�
OI
Vl
G
OO
VI
O
O
O
N
1�
W
N
n
N
E y
.
S
p
O
p�
O
p
O
S
S
O
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
o
i a Y
IL
I�
000006
OO
OO
OOG
0000000
9
�
N
S
S
S
p
S
S
p
Sa
S
pp O
S
p
SN
S
S
pp
O
p
In
p
a
N
9 t
O
N
N
O
S
S
S
S
8$
10(1
N
S
Z a U
LL
O
tV
NNO
C�
NOO
Y
�J$b'IOOO
O
C� 9
N
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
N
O
O
O
O
O
G
O
G
O
C
O
O
O
G
N
lV
O
G
O
O
N
Z d Y
LL
S
S
p
O
S
S
S
LL
O
1�
N
YI
O
Y
S
N
G
N
OO
N'
Y'
O
ZLL (1
O
OO
�
r
OO
OO
pO
OO
OO
N
OO
Cg
YI
OO
Y
O
O
�'
n
c y
o
SgigS
�i,Sg�g
ggno
o
°N
C
by
O
N�-
OO
b
OO
C
1�
OO
OO
N
OO
(V
OI
OO
r
O
O
.
2
LL
O
S
pp
O
pp
N
pp
0
p
IA
p
O
p
O
p
N
p
Nry
p
O
S
S
r
S
S
h
9
LL
OO
OO
OO
Ih
OO
1�
OO
V
�
N
N
V
N
H
O
O
9 LU
S
S
S
S(S
S
8iN
N
pOO
p�
pY
SN
O
S.
a
Z C LL
O
O
G
OO
O
O
G
O
O
n
N
OO O
.
O
N
C 9
O
O
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
S
O
N
r'
I y a
OOOpT
N
N
O
N
O
W
N
Y
LL
O
O
VOI
S
S
S
S
S
p
N
8 O
S
S
O p
N
p
N
O
I±
9
LL
�
OO
O
N
R
N
N
N
S
N
YI
N
N
O
J
'"
T
�v
Er
E
co
m
a
w
'c
_
E
o
m
E
�'-
o
LL
c
E
E
W
E
'S
E
w
z
c?�
N
9
w`
aina
°ci
watt
a
U'
w`
wrc
w`ci
a
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Enclosure D - Quality Control Certification
Completion of Quality Control Activities
The District has completed the Project management plan for the San Gabriel to
Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study. All quality control activities
defined in the generic quality control plan for reconnaissance 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
needs of the City of Seal Beach and is consistent with the law and existing Corps of
Engineer's 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 special study phase in accordance with this PMP.
Date
Chief, Planning Division
D -1
San Gabriel to Newport Bay (Surfside Colony), California Feasibility Study
Project Management Plan
Enclosure E. List of Acronyms
AFB
Alternative Formulation Briefing
ASA (CW)
Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
CESPD
South Pacific Division (also SPD)
DE
Division Engineer (Division Commander)
EA
Environmental Assessment
EC
Engineering Circular
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
EP
Engineering Pamphlet
ER
Engineering Regulation
FCSA
Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement
FONSI
Finding of No Significant Impact
FRC
Feasibility Review Conference
H &H
Hydrology and Hydraulics
HQUSACE
Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
HTRW
Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste
MSC
Major Subordinate Command
NAS
Network Analysis System
NED
National Economic Development
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
OBS
Organizational Breakdown Structure
P &G
Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines
PED
Preconstruction Engineering and Design
PMP
Project Management Plan
PPMD
Programs and Project Management Division
PROMIS
Project Management Information System
PMP
P;,;act Manager,.zY Plan
RAM
Responsibility Assignment Matrix
ROD
Record of Decision
S &A
Supervision and Administration
SPD
South Pacific Division ( CESPD)
USF &WL
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
WBS
Work Breakdown Structure
WRDA
Water Resources Development Act
. .............. _ .. .......... . ..............
.....__
7.
T
R
S
s;
3
inni I
�S _ ...................... ------------ - - - - -- - ---- - -----------------------
.._ LJ�
S
S g
I.
t:
E ii
S
g
F
a
S
.. ------------- -- -------------------------- -_ .............. _
x t
8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 = 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8 8
��aaaa F- .-F::aea�aaxa;aa =�= saaaaaza_aa
..........................
.........
_---
..........
__.........
.—.---
s
6
a
r
jS
Q....
_....
....----------
----------
------------
-
--------------
—
.............
......._.
......
3
S
°5...
_ ...
...
........................
............
..
-
------
-----
-
_.....
.__............
5
4
.3 g
'a
S
e
's
8 8 8 8
$ 9 9
8 8
$
8
8 8
S$
8
i
8
�.
8 8
B
8
d
8
fl
8 8
fl$
p 8
8$
2
8$
8 8
�.
8
R
8
9
8
S
8
9
8
9
8 8 8
9 9
8
8
8
8$$
B&
gig
Ag
"=
3
pS
Fd
91
2
S
i
Q
Q i
S
S
Q
i
8
F
Q
2'
3
1
2
6
8
8 8$
0
E$
8
6
2
2
R»
C
8
�`.
9
k
s
a
a
a
a
--------- -----------
....
g
z
g---------
---
.............
..— ---------------------------------------
A
A
9
E
.........
..________
- - - - -.
I
Rkn
ba
g
....................................................
............ .............
......
3€
-
..............................
--------
- - -
- -- --
- -
s
s s
........
--
- ---- --- — - ------ --------
-------
asaaaaaaeaeaaaaasa . saaaaaa
S= a a R R R R R a a R R s g
S S
J$
l
a
g
J 3
1 1 S 1 S 1 1mm
i
S
S$
�
g
3
A
�I
l l
A
�5
-
'k
e
9
a
I a
2
a
a
is
e
Is
Is
Is
Is
:'s
a
s
Is Is
R
8
Is
a Is
a
CEFC-AO 01 June 1999
SOP No. UFC -09
STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURE
ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER BY NON - FEDERAL, SPONSORS
I. PURPOSE. This Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) provides procedures for supported
Activities Non - Federal Sponsors to use Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) and the Automated
Clearing House (ACH) network in lieu of mailing it check for cash contributions.
2. APPLICABILITY. This provisions orthis SOP apply to the USACE Finance Center (UFC)
amt activities supported by the UFC. The EFT procedures for transfer of Nnn- Federal
sponsor cash contributions apply only to CiviURevolving Fund ninnies.
3. REFERENCE. SOP No, UFC -03, Collection Procedures,. dated 14 April 1999
4. RFT PROCEDURES.
a, When a Non - Federal sponsor wishes to use EFT procedures for transfer of cash
contributions in lieu of mailing a chock, the supported activity F &A Office or project manager
must either provide the attached EFT procedures to the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) or
Feasibility Cost Slaving Agreement (FCSA) sponsor or ensure that the instructions are
incorporated in the PCA/FCSA to ensure accurate and timely credit for funds "Gumferred.
b. The Non- FLderal sponsor must wilily the supported activity F &A Officer or project
manager in advance (wrinen/tclephone/e -mail) of pending cash transfer. The sponsor's
notification should include the date of the transfer, amount, type of transfer (CCD+ or
CTX format), and any other known data that will be used to identify the transfer. The
sponsor's financial institution will transfer the funds via the ACid network using the Cash
Concentration or Disbursement Plus (CCD +) or Corporate Trade Exchange (CTX) formats of
transactions. The required data elements for these types of transactions are provided in the
enclosure.
c. Upon notification from the Non - Federal sponsor or the project manager of the pending
OFT, the supported activity F &A officer must enter a Collection Receiving Office Voucher
(ROV) and Advance Account (if not already established) in CEFMS. There should only be One
EFT transaction per ROV and no other transactions should be attached to an ROV established for
EFT purposes.
d. The F &A Officer or the project manager must also provide the following information to the
Nan - Federal Sponsor for the CCD+ or CTX format cash transfer (see enclosures):
DEPARTMENT OF THE ARMY
_ •
U . S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
FINANCE CENTER
57201mavnPw�
MILLINGTON TENNESSEE 2a0545005
CEFC-AO 01 June 1999
SOP No. UFC -09
STANDING OPERATING PROCEDURE
ELECTRONIC FUNDS TRANSFER BY NON - FEDERAL, SPONSORS
I. PURPOSE. This Standing Operating Procedure (SOP) provides procedures for supported
Activities Non - Federal Sponsors to use Electronic Funds Transfer (EFT) and the Automated
Clearing House (ACH) network in lieu of mailing it check for cash contributions.
2. APPLICABILITY. This provisions orthis SOP apply to the USACE Finance Center (UFC)
amt activities supported by the UFC. The EFT procedures for transfer of Nnn- Federal
sponsor cash contributions apply only to CiviURevolving Fund ninnies.
3. REFERENCE. SOP No, UFC -03, Collection Procedures,. dated 14 April 1999
4. RFT PROCEDURES.
a, When a Non - Federal sponsor wishes to use EFT procedures for transfer of cash
contributions in lieu of mailing a chock, the supported activity F &A Office or project manager
must either provide the attached EFT procedures to the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) or
Feasibility Cost Slaving Agreement (FCSA) sponsor or ensure that the instructions are
incorporated in the PCA/FCSA to ensure accurate and timely credit for funds "Gumferred.
b. The Non- FLderal sponsor must wilily the supported activity F &A Officer or project
manager in advance (wrinen/tclephone/e -mail) of pending cash transfer. The sponsor's
notification should include the date of the transfer, amount, type of transfer (CCD+ or
CTX format), and any other known data that will be used to identify the transfer. The
sponsor's financial institution will transfer the funds via the ACid network using the Cash
Concentration or Disbursement Plus (CCD +) or Corporate Trade Exchange (CTX) formats of
transactions. The required data elements for these types of transactions are provided in the
enclosure.
c. Upon notification from the Non - Federal sponsor or the project manager of the pending
OFT, the supported activity F &A officer must enter a Collection Receiving Office Voucher
(ROV) and Advance Account (if not already established) in CEFMS. There should only be One
EFT transaction per ROV and no other transactions should be attached to an ROV established for
EFT purposes.
d. The F &A Officer or the project manager must also provide the following information to the
Nan - Federal Sponsor for the CCD+ or CTX format cash transfer (see enclosures):
(1) The DistrietlDlvlsiowtaboratory two digit EROC
(2) The CEFMS ROV number
(1) The Advance Account Number
(4) The enclosed format instructions for sending CCD +or CTX
5. CaShLiaks Aeeucv Access System. Ca$hlink is an on -line U.S. Treasury system that allows
the UPC to access and confirm our deposit information the next working day after the deposit,
EFT or wire transfer.
a. 'llte UFC monitors the ca$hlink system daily. Upon verification of the EFT transfer in
Ca$hlink, the UFC will certify die ROV and confirm the deposit in CEFMS. Funds will be
immediately available for registration of funds in CEFMS.
b. The UFC will not require any additional documentation from the supprated activity or the
sponsor, provided nil required documentation in 4d above is provided. If an EFT transaction Is
c. Before rejecting an EFT, the UFC will research and try to determine the proper supported
activity and CEFNIS account to update. For those rejected by the IJFC, the financial institution
(bank) that initiated the EFT will notify the sponsor (sender) of the rejected transaction.
FOR TIIE DIRECTOR:
Eric[ Beth Krous
Deputy Dimclnr for Administration
USACE Finance Center
' Data remains same Im every tranoeciion
EROC Code of Corps District
"' Data suppiled by Corps District to Sponsor- If data Is not present Transaction will be rejected
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS FINANCE CENTER
REMITTANCE EXPRESS
SPONSOR IMPLEMENTATION DATA SHEET
ACH CCD. FORMAT
DATA ELEMENT NAME CONTENTS
SIZE
POSITION
' Record Type Code
'6'
1
C1 -01
' Transaction Code
22'
2
G2 -03
' Retalving ABA
'05103670'
6
04.11
' Check Did
'8'
1
12.12
' Account Number
220025
17
13 -29
Payment Amount
Amount of Payment(SSSSScc)
10
30.39
Identification Number
Oplional
15
40 -54
' Receiver Name
USACE finance Canter
22
55 -75
Discre0onary Data
Eros Code of CE District
2
77.78
Addenda Indicator
'1' laddenda presenl)
1
79.79
Trace Number
Assigned by Remilfer's Bank
15
8e -94
ADDENDA RECORD FORMAT
DATA ELEMENT NAME CONTENTS
SIZE
POSITION
' Rem(d Type Code
'7'
1
01 -01
' Addenda Type Code
'05'
2
0243
Payment Related Data
ROV#IAOV #IEROC Code of CE Dlgdcl
80
0483
Sequence Number
Addenda number starting at 0001
4
84 -87
Addenda Two Number
Same as last seven numbers of
7
B8.94
detail trace number
' Data remains same Im every tranoeciion
EROC Code of Corps District
"' Data suppiled by Corps District to Sponsor- If data Is not present Transaction will be rejected