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