REVIEW PLAN USING THE NWD MODEL REVIEW PLAN for Continuing Authorities Program Section 103, 205 and projects directed by guidance to use CAP procedures

CLEAR CREEK - RALSTON CREEK ARVADA, COLORADO Section 205 Project

Omaha District

MSC Approval Date: 14 July 2015 Last Revision Date: 5 May 2015

REVIEW PLAN USING THE NWD MODEL REVIEW PLAN CLEAR CREEK - RALSTON CREEK ARVADA, COLORADO Section 205 Project

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Subject Page 1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS ...... 3 2. PROJECT INFORMATION ...... 3 3. DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC)...... 7 4. AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR) ...... 8 5. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (IEPR) ...... 11 6. POLICY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW ...... 14 7. COST ENGINEERING DIRECTORY OF EXPERTISE (DX) REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION ...... 14 8. MODEL CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL ...... 15 9. REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS ...... 16 10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...... 17 11. REVIEW PLAN COORDINATION, APPROVAL, AND UPDATES ...... 17 12. REVIEW PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT ...... 18 ATTACHMENT 1: TEAM ROSTERS ...... 19 ATTACHMENT 2: REVIEW PLAN REVISIONS ...... 19

ii

1. PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS a. Purpose. This Review Plan defines the scope and level of peer review for the Clear Creek – Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado Section 205 project. b. Authority. Section 205 of the Flood Control Act of 1948, as amended, authorizes USACE to study, design and construct flood risk management projects. It is a Continuing Authorities Program (CAP) which focuses on water resource related projects of relatively smaller scope, cost and complexity. Traditional USACE civil works projects are of wider scope and complexity and are specifically authorized by Congress. The Continuing Authorities Program is a delegated authority to plan, design, and construct certain types of water resource and environmental restoration projects without specific Congressional authorization.

Additional Information on this program can be found in Engineering Regulation 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix F Amendment #2. c. Applicability. This review plan is based on the NWD Model Review Plan for Section 103, 205 and authorities directed by guidance to follow CAP procedures, which is applicable to projects that do not require an EIS. d. References (1) Continuing Authority Program Planning Process Improvements, Director of Civil Works’ Policy Memorandum #1, 19 Jan 2011 (2) Engineering Circular (EC) 1165-2-214, Civil Works Review, 15 Dec 2012 (3) EC 1105-2-412, Model Certification, 31 May 2005 (4) Engineering Regulation (ER) 1110-1-12, Quality Management, 30 Sep 2006 (5) ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix F, Continuing Authorities Program, Amendment #2, 31 Jan 2007 (6) ER 1105-2-100, Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix H, Policy Compliance Review and Approval of Decision Documents, Amendment #1, 20 Nov 2007 (7) Omaha District Draft SOP for District Quality Control of Planning Products, 6 Dec 2011 (8) QMS 08501 NWO, Engineering Division Quality Control Process for In-House Projects/Products, 20 Sep 2012 (9) ER 1165-2-26 Compliance with EO 11988

2. PROJECT INFORMATION a. Decision Document. The Clear Creek – Ralston Creek, Arvada, Colorado Feasibility Report decision document will be prepared in accordance with ER 1105-2-100, Appendix F Amendment #2. The approval level of the decision document (if policy compliant) is the home MSC. An Environmental Assessment (EA) will be prepared along with the decision document.

3

b. Study/Project Description. (1) Project Background The project area is located in the floodplain of Ralston Creek from Leyden Creek to Van Bibber Creek, an urbanized watershed within Arvada, Colorado. Ralston Creek is a left bank tributary to Clear Creek, which in turn is a left bank tributary to the South Platte River near Denver, Colorado.

There are more than 300 properties, mostly residential that are located in the 100-year floodplain with many of them located in the floodway. The average home value in that reach of Ralston Creek is $250,000, with the majority of the homes having basements. The channel of Ralston Creek is extremely constricted with undersized bridges frequently crossing the stream. This limits the conveyance of the channel, which itself is not capable of passing larger storm events without overflowing. (2) Study Area The feasibility study will focus on the reach of Ralston Creek from Beach Street on the upstream end to Ralston Creek’s confluence with Van Bibber Creek on the downstream end. The project location, Ralston Creek in Arvada and Arvada’s location in Colorado are shown in Figures 1 - 3.

Figure 1. Location of the city of Arvada, CO

4

Figure 2. Location of Ralston Creek in Arvada, CO

5

Figure 3. Reach of Ralston Creek with Flood Problems in Arvada, CO

(3) Types of Measures / Alternatives Through the Section 205 feasibility study potential measures and alternatives to reduce flood risks along Ralston Creek will be formulated and evaluated in detail. Potential measures that appear to be applicable to this basin include channel and bridge widening and non-structural flood proofing. Detention storage may be evaluated in order to mitigate downstream stages and discharges, if conveyance improvements in the study reach result in higher flood peaks. Although the primary objective is to reduce flood risks there may also be an opportunity to restore some habitats, along the stream, improve water quality and/or provide some complimentary recreational features within the general function of the flood risk management measures. (4) Range of Cost Not applicable at this time. The range of costs for the various alternatives will be developed as part of the study.

6

(5) Non-Federal Sponsors The non-federal sponsor for this project will be the City of Arvada, Colorado.

(6) Policy Wavier Requests Presently, there are no policy waiver requests being pursued for this project. c. In-Kind Contributions. Products and analyses provided by non-Federal sponsors as in-kind services are subject to District Quality Control (DQC) and ATR, similar to any products developed by USACE. The final scope of potential in-kind sponsor contributions is still under development along with the FCSA, however it is anticipated that the City of Arvada will provide both administrative and technical support. Additional support may come from the Denver Urban Drainage and Flood Control District (UFCD), but that has not been determined at this time.

3. DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC)

All decision documents (including supporting data, analyses, environmental compliance documents, etc.) shall undergo District Quality Control (DQC) as part of standard quality management for the District. The purpose of DQC is to ensure the technical accuracy and quality of scientific and engineering work products and decision documents. The home district shall manage DQC following the Quality Manual and associated Quality Management System (QMS) or Standard Operating Procedures (SOP) of the District and the Division. a. Products to Undergo DQC. All work products, and components of the decision document including those performed by the sponsor as work in-kind, will undergo DQC review at a minimum for the draft report and final report milestones. All work products, and components of the design plans and specifications and the Design Documentation Report (DDR) developed during the Design and Construction Phase, including any products performed by the sponsor and/or A-E contractors, will undergo DQC at significant interim milestones, typically 30-, 50-, 90-, and 100-percent. The PM and PDT will establish the appropriate interim milestones for the Design and Construction Phase and this Review Plan will be updated to reflect the specific review milestones. b. Required DQC Expertise. (1) Interdisciplinary Check The Interdisciplinary Check will be performed by the PDT and serves to attest to the quality of work performed and ensure consistency in the presentation of data, analyses, and results throughout the report. The principle PDT members responsible for the Interdisciplinary Check are: Plan Formulation, Biologist, Economist, Geotechnical Engineer, Structural Engineer, Hydraulic Engineer, Hydrologist, Floodplain Engineer, Geomorphology, Real Estate Specialist and a Cost Engineer.

(2) Quality Check The Quality Check is peer review performed by senior level subject matter experts (SMEs) and/or supervisors for each of the technical PDT member disciplines, and serves as a quality assurance and District-level policy review of the report prior to initiating external reviews.

7

c. Documentation of DQC. All substantive DQC comments will be recorded using Dr. Checks. Dr. Checks will be used to document all comments, responses, and for reviewers to back check and document any associated resolutions accomplished throughout the review process. Comments should be limited to those that are required to ensure adequacy of the product. Documented substantive comments shall employ the four part comment process outlined in EC 1165-2-214 which consists of: (1) Review concern – identify information deficiency or incorrect application of policy, guidance, or procedures; (2) Basis for concern – cite applicable law, policy, guidance, or procedure; (3) Significance of the concern – indicate relative importance of the issue with regard to its potential impact on plan selection, plan components, efficiency, effectiveness, implementation responsibilities, safety, Federal interest, or public acceptability; and (4) Suggested approach to address – identify the action(s) that must be taken to resolve/address the concern.

4. AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR)

One ATR is a mandatory minimum for all decision documents (including supporting data, analyses, environmental compliance documents, etc.). However, additional ATRs may be performed if deemed warranted. ATR is managed within USACE by the designated Review Management Organization (RMO and is conducted by a qualified team from outside the home district that is not involved in the day-to- day production of the project/product. ATR teams will be comprised of senior USACE personnel. The ATR team lead may be from within the home MSC for Continuing Authority Program (CAP) Studies, such as Section 205 and other relatively minor efforts. a. Products to Undergo ATR. All work products, and components of the decision document including those performed by the sponsor as work in-kind, will undergo ATR at a minimum for the draft feasibility report. All work products, and components of the design plans and specifications and the Design Documentation Report (DDR) developed during the Design and Construction Phase, including any products performed by the sponsor and/or A-E contractors, will undergo ATR at a minimum at the 95-percent complete milestone. b. Required ATR Team Expertise. It is anticipated that the ATR Team will consist of 8 persons with the expertise noted in Table 1. Individuals that may provide those services are noted based on previous ATRs of Feasibility Studies. In accordance with NWD guidance on review procedures for CAP projects, it is expected that the ATR team will be identified from other Districts within Northwestern Division. c. Charge Document. The district will prepare the charge document which clearly identifies the review requirements. This document must be completed prior to requesting an ATR team. d. Documentation of ATR. DrChecks review software will be used to document all ATR comments, responses and associated resolutions accomplished throughout the review process. Comments should be limited to those that are required to ensure adequacy of the product. . Documented

8

substantive comments shall employ the four part comment process outlined in EC 1165-2-214 which consists of: (1) Review concern – identify information deficiency or incorrect application of policy, guidance, or procedures; (2) Basis for concern – cite applicable law, policy, guidance, or procedure; (3) Significance of the concern – indicate relative importance of the issue with regard to its potential impact on plan selection, plan components, efficiency, effectiveness, implementation responsibilities, safety, Federal interest, or public acceptability; and (4) Suggested approach to address – identify the action(s) that must be taken to resolve/address the concern.

If an ATR concern cannot be satisfactorily resolved between the ATR team and the PDT, it will be elevated to the vertical team for further resolution in accordance with the policy issue resolution process described in either ER 1110-2-12 or ER 1105-2-100, Appendix H, as appropriate. Unresolved concerns can be closed in DrChecks with a notation that the concern has been elevated to the vertical team for resolution.

Table 1. ATR Team Composition and Required Expertise

9

ATR Team Expertise Required Members/Disciplines ATR Lead The ATR lead should be a senior professional preferably with experience in preparing Section 205 decision documents and conducting ATR. The lead should also have the necessary skills and experience to lead a virtual team through the ATR process. Typically, the ATR lead will also serve as a reviewer for a specific discipline (such as planning, economics, environmental resources, etc). The ATR Lead MAY be from within the Northwestern Division, and should be familiar John Grothaus, NWK-PM-PF with issues common to urban watersheds and flood risks in Planning The Planning reviewer should be a senior water resources planner with experience in the formulation of CAP Flood Risk Management Projects. The ATR Lead may also perform Suggested: TBD the review of plan formulation. Economics The Economics Reviewer should be familiar with the application of FDA and developing B/C ratios for Section 205 Suggested: TBD projects. Environmental Resources The Environmental Resources Reviewer should be familiar with the biology of meandering sandy rivers in the central flyway, the NEPA process and threatened and endangered Suggested: TBD NWK-PM-PR species in this part of the world. Hydrologic Engineering The hydrologic engineering reviewer should be proficient in the fields of hydraulics and hydrology as well as flood plain engineering applications. The hydrologic engineer should have a thorough understanding of HEC-RAS, including its application to non-standard situations involving interaction with the HEC-HMS model, and junctions. The hydraulic engineer should also have a working knowledge of hydrologic engineering tools and issues including the HEC- HMS model and flood frequency analysis methods, as well as interior / exterior drainage and floodplain issues including Suggested: TBD the use of nonstructural solutions. Geotechnical Engineering The geotechnical engineering reviewer should be proficient in the design and layout of retaining walls. The reviewer should be proficient in geotechnical investigation, slope stability and seepage analysis. NOTE: If the Geotech does not have civil site design experience, a senior level Civil Engineer should be included on the ATR team. The geotechnical engineering reviewer should also have a working knowledge Suggested: TBD of related software, including INROADS and GIS. Cost Engineering Cost DX Staff or Cost DX Pre-Certified Professional with Suggested: TBD experience preparing cost estimates for levee projects. Real Estate Real estate specialist should have experience in the preparation and evaluation of general LERRDs costs and gross Suggested: TBD appraisals. 10

5. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (IEPR)

IEPR may be required for decision documents under certain circumstances. IEPR is the most independent level of review, and is applied in cases that meet certain criteria where the risk and magnitude of the proposed project are such that a critical examination by a qualified team outside of USACE is warranted. A risk-informed decision, as described in EC 1165-2-214, is made as to whether IEPR is appropriate. IEPR panels will consist of independent, recognized experts from outside of the USACE in the appropriate disciplines, representing a balance of areas of expertise suitable for the review being conducted. There are two types of IEPR:

 Type I IEPR. Type I IEPR reviews are managed outside the USACE and are conducted on project studies. Type I IEPR panels assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project evaluation data, economic analysis, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in the evaluation of environmental impacts of proposed projects, and biological opinions of the project study. Type I IEPR will cover the entire decision document or action and will address all underlying engineering, economics, and environmental work, not just one aspect of the study. For decision documents where a Type II IEPR (Safety Assurance Review) is anticipated during project implementation, safety assurance shall also be addressed during the Type I IEPR per EC 1165-2-214.

For Section 103 and 205 decision documents prepared under the NWD Model Review Plan, Type I IEPR may or may not be required.

 Type II IEPR. Type II IEPR, or Safety Assurance Review (SAR), are managed outside the USACE and are conducted on design and construction activities for hurricane, storm, and flood risk management projects or other projects where existing and potential hazards pose a significant threat to human life. Type II IEPR panels will conduct reviews of the design and construction activities prior to initiation of physical construction and, until construction activities are completed, periodically thereafter on a regular schedule. The reviews shall consider the adequacy, appropriateness, and acceptability of the design and construction activities in assuring public health safety and welfare.

For Section 103 and 205 decision documents prepared under the model National Programmatic Review Plan, Type II IEPR may or may not be anticipated to be required in the Design and Construction Phase. The decision on whether Type II IEPR is required will be verified and documented in the review plan prepared for the Design and Construction phase of the project. a. Decision on IEPR. It is the policy of USACE that Section 205 project decision documents should undergo Type I IEPR unless ALL of the following criteria are met:

 Federal action is not justified by life safety or failure of the project would not pose a significant threat to human life;  Life safety consequences and risk of non-performance of a project are not greater than under existing conditions;

11

 There is no request by the Governor of an affected state for a peer review by independent experts;  The project does not require an EIS;  The project/study is not likely to involve significant public dispute as to the size, nature, or effects of the project;  The project/study is not likely to involve significant public dispute as to the economic or environmental cost or benefit of the project;  The information in the decision document or anticipated project design is not likely to be based on novel methods, involve the use of innovative materials or techniques, present complex challenges for interpretation, contain precedent-setting methods or models, or present conclusions that are likely to change prevailing practices;  The project design is not anticipated to require redundancy, resiliency, and/or robustness, unique construction sequencing, or a reduced or overlapping design construction schedule; and  There are no other circumstances where the Chief of Engineers or Director of Civil Works determines Type I IEPR is warranted.

Further, if Type I IEPR will not be performed:

 Risks of non-performance and residual flooding must be fully disclosed in the decision document and in a public forum prior to final approval of the decision document;  The non-Federal sponsor must develop a Floodplain Management Plan, including a risk management plan and flood response plan (and evacuation plan if appropriate for the conditions), during the feasibility phase; and  The non-Federal sponsor must explicitly acknowledge the risks and responsibilities in writing in a letter or other document (such as the Floodplain Management Plan) submitted to the Corps of Engineers along with the final decision document.

The decision on whether the above criteria are met (and a Type I IEPR exclusion is appropriate) is the responsibility of the MSC Commander. Additional factors the MSC Commander might consider in deciding if an exclusion is appropriate include, but are not limited to: Hydrograph / period of flooding, warning time, depth of flooding, velocity of flooding, nature of area protected, and population protected.

This feasibility study includes several life safety considerations including:  Federal action is for flood risk management and will include consideration of life safety issues.  Non-performance or failure of the project may pose a significant threat to human life depending upon which alternatives are considered and recommended.  Life safety risks and consequences non-performance of the project may or may not be greater than under existing conditions depending upon which alternatives are considered and recommended.

For these reasons, at the outset of the Clear Creek – Ralston Creek Arvada, CO Feasibility Study a Type I IEPR is recommended to be performed during conduct of the study, which will include a Safety Assurance Review, per Paragraph 2.c. (3) of Appendix D of EC 1165-2-214. A separate Safety Assurance Review (Type II IEPR) will not be required during the Design and Construction Phase unless significant changes in the recommended plan are identified during the final design process. As the study progresses the District reserves the right to update this Review Plan and re-visit the

12

potential need for Type I IEPR based on the results of the study and alternative plans evaluated and recommended for implementation. b. Products to Undergo Type I IEPR. The Type I IEPR will review the Draft Feasibility Report and Appendixes. c. Required Type I IEPR Panel Expertise. The Type I IEPR panel will require 5 members with the expertise shown in Table 2. It is anticipated that one of the technical members anticipated would also serve as the Type I IEPR panel lead.

Table 2. IEPR Panel Composition and Required Expertise IEPR Panel Members / Disciplines Expertise Required The Planning reviewer should be a senior water resources Planning planner with experience in the formulation of CAP Flood Risk Management Projects. The Economics Reviewer should be familiar with the application Economics of risk and uncertainty withn FDA and developing B/C ratios for Section 205 projects. The hydraulic engineering reviewer should be proficient in the field of hydraulics and knowledgeable in hydrologic and flood plain engineering applications. The Hydraulic Engineer shoud have a good understanding of HEC-RAS, including its application to non-standard situations involving interaction Hydraulics with the HEC-HMS model. The hydraulic engineer should also have a working knowledge of hydrologic engineering tools and issues including the HEC-HMS model and flood frequency analysis methods, as well as interior / exterior drainage and floodplain issues including the use of nonstructural solutions.

The geotechnical engineering reviewer should be proficient in the design and layout of retaining walls. The reviewer should be proficient in geotechnical investigation, slope stability and seepage analysis. NOTE: If the Geotech does not have civil site Geotechnical Engineering design experience, a senior level Civil Engineer should be included on the ATR team. The geotechnical engineering reviewer should also have a working knowledge of related software, including INROADS and GIS. The Environmental Resources Reviewer should be familiar with the biology of meandering sandy rivers in the central flyway, Environomental Resources the NEPA process and threatened and endangered species in this part of the world.

d. Documentation of Type I IEPR. The IEPR panel will be selected and managed by an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) per EC 1165- 2-214, Appendix D. Panel comments will be compiled by the OEO and should address the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering and environmental methods, models, and analyses used. IEPR comments should generally include the same four key parts as described for ATR comments in Section 4.d above consisting of:

13

(2) Review concern – identify information deficiency or incorrect application of policy, guidance, or procedures; (3) Basis for concern – cite applicable law, policy, guidance, or procedure; (4) Significance of the concern – indicate relative importance of the issue with regard to its potential impact on plan selection, plan components, efficiency, effectiveness, implementation responsibilities, safety, Federal interest, or public acceptability; and (5) Suggested approach to address – identify the action(s) that must be taken to resolve/address the concern.

The OEO will prepare a final Review Report that will accompany the publication of the final decision document and shall:

. Disclose the names of the reviewers, their organizational affiliations, and include a short paragraph on both the credentials and relevant experiences of each reviewer; . Include the charge to the reviewers; . Describe the nature of their review and their findings and conclusions; and . Include a verbatim copy of each reviewer's comments (either with or without specific attributions), or represent the views of the group as a whole, including any disparate and dissenting views.

The final Review Report will be submitted by the OEO no later than 60 days following the close of the public comment period for the draft decision document. USACE shall consider all recommendations contained in the Review Report and prepare a written response for all recommendations adopted or not adopted. The final decision document will summarize the Review Report and USACE response. The Review Report and USACE response will be made available to the public, including through electronic means on the internet.

6. POLICY AND LEGAL COMPLIANCE REVIEW

All decision documents will be reviewed throughout the study process for their compliance with law and policy. Guidance for policy and legal compliance reviews is addressed in Appendix H, ER 1105-2-100. These reviews culminate in determinations that the recommendations in the reports and the supporting analyses and coordination comply with law and policy, and warrant approval or further recommendation to higher authority by the home MSC Commander. DQC and ATR augment and complement the policy review processes by addressing compliance with pertinent published Army policies, particularly policies on analytical methods, policies regarding Federal Flood Risk Management Standards (EO11988) and the presentation of findings in decision documents.

7. COST ENGINEERING DIRECTORY OF EXPERTISE (DX) REVIEW AND CERTIFICATION

For CAP projects, ATR of the costs may be conducted by pre-certified district cost personnel within the region or by the Walla Walla Cost DX. The pre-certified list of cost personnel has been established and is maintained by the Cost DX. The cost ATR member will coordinate with the Cost DX for execution of cost ATR and cost certification. The Cost DX will be responsible for final cost certification and may be delegated at the discretion of the Cost DX.

14

8. MODEL CERTIFICATION AND APPROVAL

Approval of planning models under EC 1105-2-412 is not required for CAP projects. MSC commanders remain responsible for assuring the quality of the analyses used in these projects. ATR will be used to ensure that models and analyses are compliant with Corps policy, theoretically sound, computationally accurate, transparent, described to address any limitations of the model or its use, and documented in study reports. a. EC 1105-2-412. This EC does not cover engineering models used in planning. The responsible use of well-known and proven USACE developed and commercial engineering software will continue and the professional practice of documenting the application of the software and modeling results will be followed. As part of the USACE Scientific and Engineering Technology (SET) Initiative, many engineering models have been identified as preferred or acceptable for use on Corps studies and these models should be used whenever appropriate. The selection and application of the model and the input and output data is still the responsibility of the users and is subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR (if required). b. Planning and Engineering Models. Table 3 lists the models that are anticipated to be used in the development of the decision document and the status of their approval/certifications.

15

Table 3. Model Certification Status Model Name and Brief Description of the Model and How It Will Be Applied in Approval Version the Study Status HEC-FDA 1.2.5 (Flood The Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Flood Damage Reduction Certified Damage Analysis) Analysis (HEC-FDA) program provides the capability for integrated hydrologic engineering and economic analysis for formulating and evaluating flood risk management plans using risk-based analysis methods. The program will be used to evaluate and compare the future without- and with-project plans in Arvada Co and aid in the selection of a recommended plan to manage flood risk. HEC-RAS 4.1.0 or The Hydrologic Engineering Center’s River Analysis System HH&C CoP HEC-RAS 5.0 (HEC-RAS) program provides the capability to perform one- Preferred (River Analysis dimensional steady and unsteady flow river hydraulics Model System) calculations. The program was used for steady flow analysis to evaluate existing conditions and future with-project conditions along Ralston Creek. HEC-HMS v 4.0 The Hydrologic Engineering Center’s Hydrologic Modeling HH&C CoP System (HEC-HMS) program provides the capability to perform Preferred rainfall-runoff and transform computations, simple channel Model routing computations, and reservoir storage computations. The program was used for ponding area storage analysis of diverted or channel break-out flows to evaluate the future without- and with-project conditions along the Ralston Creek. HEC-SSP (Version 2.0) The Hydrologic Engineering Centers new Statistical Software Package and it can be used to perform frequency, duration, coincident frequency, and curve combination analyses on flow data and other hydrologic data. This incorporates features of HEC-FFA and STATS.

9. REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS a. ATR Schedule and Cost. 1) Draft Feasibility Report  Schedule: March 2017  Budget Estimate: $60,000 2) Draft DDR and 95% Plans and Specifications  Schedule: TBD  Budget Estimate: TBD b. Type I IEPR Schedule and Cost. 1) Draft Feasibility Report  Schedule: June 2017  Budget Estimate: $100,000

16

10. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION

State and Federal resource agencies may be invited to participate in the study covered by this review plan as partner agencies or as technical members of the PDT, as appropriate. Agencies with regulatory review responsibilities will be contacted for coordination as required by applicable laws and procedures. The ATR team will be provided copies of public and agency comments. a. Planned Future Public Involvement ● Public Scoping Meetings (April 2016) – The purpose of this meeting will be to kickoff the study and gather input from the public, and agencies regarding problems and opportunities, resources and issues of concern, constraints, and potential alternative solutions.

● Additional Public Involvement Meetings – There will be public meetings on the Draft Report and potentially could be other public meetings as the study unfolds. The specific dates of those meetings are yet to be determined. b. Document Availability Feasibility Study documents will be posted on the Omaha District Website

11. REVIEW PLAN COORDINATION, APPROVAL, AND UPDATES a. District Coordination. This Review Plan outlines quality assurance procedures for conducting the feasibility study and design of the project in accordance with current USACE, NWD, RMO, and District policies and guidance. Preparation of the Review Plan has been coordinated across all technical elements within the District. The recommended review procedures were developed in a risk-informed manner, and the factors considered are documented in Section 5. The Omaha District Chief of Engineering, Chief of Planning, and Planning Quality Manager have reviewed this Review Plan and concur with its recommendations.

Review Management Organization (RMO) Coordination. The RMO is responsible for managing the overall peer review effort described in this review plan. The RMO for Section 205 is the home MSC, which is Northwestern Division. The MSC will coordinate and approve the review plan and manage the Agency Technical Review (ATR). The MSC will coordinate the IEPR effort with the Flood Risk Management Planning Center of Expertise (FRM-PCX), which will administer the Type I IEPR. The home District will post the approved review plan on its public website and provide the NWD District Support Planner with the link. A copy of the approved review plan (and any updates) will be provided to the FRM-PCX) to keep the PCX apprised of requirements and review schedules.

The RMO will coordinate with the Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise (DX) to ensure the appropriate expertise is included on the review teams to assess the adequacy of cost estimates, construction schedules and contingencies.

Review Plan Approval and Updates. The NWD MSC Commander has responsibility for approving this review plan and ensuring that use of the NWD Model Review Plan is appropriate for the specific project covered by the plan. The review plan is a living document and may change as the study progresses. The home district is responsible

17

for keeping the review plan up to date. Significant changes to the review plan (such as changes to the scope and/or level of review) should be re-approved by the NWD Commander following the process used for initially approving the plan. Significant changes may result in the NWD Commander determining that use of the NWD Model Review Plan is no longer appropriate. In these cases, a project specific review plan will be prepared and approved in accordance with EC 1165-2-214.

12. REVIEW PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT

Public questions and/or comments on this review plan can be directed to the following points of contact:

a. Omaha District Mark E. Nelson Lead Plan Formulator / Project Manager 402-995-2703

J. Greg Johnson Chief, Plan Formulation and Project Management Section Planning Branch 402-995-2701

b. Northwestern Division Jeremy Weber District Support Team Planner 503-808-3858

18

ATTACHMENT 1: TEAM ROSTERS

CLEAR CREEK – RALSTON CREEK ARVADA, CO SECTION 205 FEASIBILITY STUDY PROJECT DEVELOPMENT TEAM ROSTER CLEAR CREEK - RALSTON CREEK AT ARVADA, CO SECTION 205 STUDY COPRS OF ENGINEERS PDT MEMBERS

Name Organization Title Phone E-Mail

Mark Nelson CENWO-PM-AA Project Manager 402-995-2703 [email protected] Program Analyst Structural Engineer Geotechnical Engineer HTRW Phase I Floodplain Engineer Hydraulic Engineer Hydrologic Engineer Channel Stability Engineer Real Estate Biologist Cultural Resources Economist Cost Engineer

LOCAL SPONSOR PDT MEMBERS City of Arvada Special Projects Engineer

CLEAR CREEK – RALSTON CREEK ARVADA, CO SECTION 205 FEASIBILITY STUDY ATR TEAM ROSTER

-tbd-

ATTACHMENT 2: REVIEW PLAN REVISIONS

Page / Paragraph Revision Date Description of Change Number

19