Quality Partnership Initiative Workgroup Scan of U. S ...

American Association of Port Authorities

Quality Partnership Initiative Workgroup

“Scan of U. S. Seaports – Best Practices for

Project Streamlining”

February 23, 2011

2

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

This work was sponsored by the Maryland Port Administration and by the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA); the report was prepared by EcoLogix Group, Inc. In a series of interviews, participants contributed to the ideas and concepts contained in the report; however, the authors alone are responsible for any errors or omissions. The authors gratefully acknowledge the participation of representatives of various districts of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and of the Ports of Baltimore, Long Beach, New York and New Jersey, Oakland, and Portland, who participated in the interviews and/or provided information.

DISCLAIMER

The opinions and conclusions expressed or implied in the report are those of the research consulting group. They are not necessarily those of AAPA, the Maryland Port Administration, or the individuals participating in this study.

This report has not been edited by AAPA.

3

Table of Contents

Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................... 4

Introduction and Methodology ........................................................................................................ 11

Methodology .................................................................................................................................. 12

The Port Projects .............................................................................................................................. 13

The Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening Project ...................................... 13

The Port of Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project .............................................. 19

Port of Portland Columbia River Channel Improvement Project ........................................... 25

The Port of Long Beach Main Channel Deepening and Other Long Beach Projects ........ 31

The Port of Baltimore Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility .......................... 36

Scan Team Observations – Best Practices .................................................................................. 42

Practitioner Suggestions ................................................................................................................. 45

Recommendations for Further Action ........................................................................................... 47

Appendix 1 ......................................................................................................................................... 48

Partnership Agreements .............................................................................................................. 48

Appendix 2 ......................................................................................................................................... 54

Participating Interviewees ........................................................................................................... 54

Appendix 3 ......................................................................................................................................... 57

Amplifying Questions Used in Interview Process .................................................................... 57

4

Executive Summary

”Continuously improve our policies and practices for developing, operating

and maintaining the nation’s port and harbor infrastructure; and, Maintain

open communication and seamless collaboration, and promote transparency

and accountability in executing the provisions of individual project

agreements.”

—Memorandum of Understanding between the United States Department of the Army and the American Association of Port Authorities, 2004; and Partnership Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the American Association of Port Authorities, 2004.

Introduction and Background

The quote above is the basis for the Quality Partnership Initiative among Ports, the

Department of the Army, and the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps). To further this

partnership, and as a result of an August 2010 Listening Session with

Assistant Secretary of the Army Jo-Ellen Darcy, the Maryland Port Administration, in

cooperation with the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), commissioned a

scan to collect examples of how teamwork between Ports and the Corps has led to

streamlining projects in both the Civil Works and the Department of the Army permit

processes. This effort was completed in preparation for the Quality Partnership Initiative

meeting of February 22 and 23, 2011, in Baltimore, Maryland. For purposes of these

findings, the term streamlining includes improving efficiency, eliminating unnecessary

steps, using simpler steps, or taking innovative approaches to bring projects to fruition.

The goals of this scan were to identify significant factors in streamlining projects and to

identify specific characteristics, strategies, and innovative applications that other seaports

and Corps districts could benefit from if more universally applied as best practices. As this

was a scan, or a “quick look,” the sample was limited to those seaports where AAPA staff

and QPI members believed good results could be found and, thus, was intentionally biased

to identify successful practices.

5

Seaports and Districts Scanned

The scan was sponsored by the Maryland Port Administration and the American

Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) Quality Partnership Initiative Work Group. Scan

participants included staff from Port authorities and officials of the Corps working with the

Ports of New York and New Jersey, Oakland, Portland (Columbia River), Long Beach, and

Baltimore. Brief descriptions of projects identified for inclusion in the scan follow.

Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Channel Deepening Project

This $1.6 billion Corps–Port Authority of New York and New Jersey project is

deepening the Federal shipping channels in the harbor to 50 feet.

Port of Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project

This $432 million Corps–Port of Oakland project provided deep draft navigation

improvements to 50 feet, as well as widening and deepening the harbor entrance,

outer and inner harbor channels, and two turning basins.

Columbia River Channel Improvement Project

This $195.4 million project was a collaborative effort between the Corps and

six lower Columbia River Ports (Portland, Vancouver, Kalama, St. Helens, Longview,

and Woodland) that deepened the 103-mile-long, 600-foot-wide navigation channel

from 40 feet to 43 feet.

Port of Long Beach Main Channel Deepening and Other Long Beach Projects

This $40 million Corps–Port of Long Beach effort combined a Federal navigation channel deepening with three other Port projects authorized by Department of the Army permits. In addition to the main channel deepening to 50 feet, the overall project includes the following:

o maintenance dredging of the Long Beach City Catalina Channel;

o removal of contaminated dredged material from a former Navy shipyard site

closed under the Base Realignment and Closure (BRAC) program;

o emptying of the Western Anchorage Disposal site; and

6

o creation of a 1,200-acre terminal facility by filling Slip G with the dredged

material.

Port of Baltimore Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility (DMCF)

This $299 million Port of Baltimore DMCF project was authorized by a Department

of the Army permit. The project was funded by the Maryland Port Administration

and developed through a stakeholder involvement process. It resulted in the

construction of a 141-acre fill area, including 130 acres of tidal open water; a DMCF

providing placement capacity for 30 years of harbor maintenance dredged material;

deepening of the Seagirt and Dundalk Marine Terminal access channels, thereby

enabling development of a 50-foot berth at Seagirt Marine Terminal; construction

of the coffer dam foundation for Fairfield Marine Terminal (end use after DMCF

build-out); construction of a community environmental education center; and

creation of an urban wilderness conservation area.

Specific questions relating to project process and perspectives on streamlining or

successful best practices were sent to each interviewee in advance of the interviews. Scan

team members conducted the interviews by telephone with each individual. Information

was combined to describe each Port’s experience relating to the process and relationships

that led to project delivery.

7

Results from the Scan:

Certain similarities important to successful conclusion of each project

emerged from the interviews. All participants reported a high level of cooperation

between the Corps and the Port to achieve project goals. Project success was most often

attributed to an attitude of “Goal Driven” rather than “Process Driven.” While parties had

adhered to required process and laws, they reported innovative strategies for overcoming

obstacles, preventing delays through early planning and communication, and overlapping

or combining actions to achieve time savings. The observations below should be viewed as

an executive-level summary of scan results. The detailed results for each project are

provided later in the report.

1. Each project had a high level of commitment from leadership in the

Port and the Corps. Through various mechanisms, frequent briefings or updates

were held for executive management so that, if problems occurred, resolutions

could quickly be found. In addition, executive leadership played a significant role in

outreach and education to support the project goals.

2. Project staff clearly understood the details of National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) and other environmental review processes. With

insight into the details of the NEPA process and other environmental review

requirements, creative project leaders could combine actions or conduct

concurrent reviews to effectively manage resources and, in many cases, save time.

This type of innovation had to be clearly explained and understood by management

and environmental agencies so it would be accepted up the chain of review.

3. Specific, tiered, project-review strategies were set in place. Depending

on the level of review needed, technical groups, management teams or even

executive-level teams were established early on for the project. Each team

understood its specific role and responsibilities. Teams met on a frequent basis to

accomplish their goals and to keep the project on schedule.

4. Communication plans were prepared early in the process and were

based on principles of inclusiveness, transparency, and accuracy.

Project communication plans were often managed by Port staff and leadership but

included appropriate participation by Corps staff and leadership. Plans often

included participation by stakeholders (project advocacy groups who could reach

out to elected officials as well as to interest groups and the public). Keeping

8

stakeholders involved throughout the entire project resulted in the building of new

relationships and trust.

5. Early involvement of all project partners always paid off. Project leaders

often spoke of the value of including construction and operations staff, legal staff,

and/or environmental agency staff in early design meetings to avoid future

problems. This strategy also saved time as the project progressed.

6. Never underestimate the value of communication—especially with

those outside the Corps and Port. This message was frequently conveyed in

the context of reaching out to environmental agency staff to “prime” issues before

actions, to meet with communities and learn concerns before a project was

released, to meet with higher headquarters to understand the process before

reviews began, or to meet with project users and beneficiaries to explain the

project process and value before urgent situations arose. The result was

understanding and ownership of the project by these parties.

7. Science-based decisions are defensible. Teams were frequently challenged

with addressing specific environmental concerns, both real and perceived. Successful

resolution was experienced when teams moved proactively—and early—to establish

special review panels or include consultants, academics, or individuals held in high

regard by the environmental or residential community. Often, involvement by

others resulted in new solutions, created new project advocates, and increased the

level of credibility regarding the environmental aspects of these projects. The key

was preparing for addressing tough environmental challenges early so that the

project was not delayed.

8. Flexibility and responsiveness are keys to successful project

development and execution. As challenges arose, project teams needed to

make decisions to combine work, shift responsibilities from Corps to Port staff,

collect new information, or respond to unexpected circumstances. Team managers

having strong leadership skills and willing to explore innovative approaches with

support from the executive were able to find solutions.

9. Coordination and consistent support from elected officials at all levels

is essential. For projects of this magnitude, authorization and access to funding is

always a challenge. Difficulties in obtaining and retaining streams of Federal and

local funds can play havoc with project delivery. If funding delays were anticipated

or experienced, successful teams planned schedules that could keep work moving

9

on Port-funded project activities while teams waited to receive Federal funds. The

early education of elected officials to explain the consequences of funding changes

or delays is essential.

10

Recommendations for Further Action

Based on what was said by the participating Ports and Corps districts, the following actions

are recommended:

1. Communications

a. Develop an action plan to inculcate the shared principles between the

Corps and the U.S. Seaport industry through AAPA and to promote

partnering at all levels of the Corps, of AAPA, and within the line

departments of AAPA member Ports.

b. Identify and reward outstanding project teams that contribute to improving

the partnership culture and widely publicize the awardees and the reason

for the awards within the Corps and AAPA.

2. Civil Works and Regulatory Processes

a. Short-Term Actions

1. Select three to five specific areas within organizational control to

improve processes that Seaports and the Corps mutually agree

would be of greatest benefit in streamlining projects.

2. Implement those changes within the next year.

b. Long-Term Actions

1. Select three to five areas that require legislative or Federal-level

(above the Corps) policy change that Ports and the Corps mutually

agree would be of greatest benefit in streamlining projects.

2. Develop a plan to pursue the inclusion of those changes in the next

Water Resources Development Act or to achieve the necessary

Federal-level policy changes.

3. Work to achieve those changes within the next 2 to 3 years.

11

Introduction and Methodology

The Quality Partnership Initiative (QPI) Workgroup was formally established in 2004 following the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding by Mr. Michael A. Leone, Chairman of the Board for the American Association of Port Authorities, and Mr. John Paul Woodley, Jr., Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works), and also a 2004 Partnership Agreement between the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) and the American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA), signed by Chairman Michael A. Leone and the Corps’ Director of Civil Works, Major General Don T. Riley. At that time, the organizations recognized that each needed to be more cognizant of the other’s needs and missions as they adapted to provisions of Federal laws and regulations. The Water Resources Development Act produced significant changes in 1986 by introducing cost-sharing formulas for dredging projects, resulting in greater financial and decisionmaking roles for local stakeholders. In 1990, the Corps’ mission was expanded to include environmental protection, and in 1996, new authority was created for the Corps to establish environmental restoration projects. The Corps was authorized to accept funds from non-Federal public entities to provide priority review of their permit applications in WRDA 2000. These and other mandates were highly significant changes in the roles and the objectives of the Corps and the Ports within a relatively short period of time. The purpose of the QPI Workgroup was to provide a cooperative venue for Ports and the Corps to work out issues and problems as well as to learn new strategies through workshops and forums. Clearly, the signers of the 2004 MOU and the Partnership Agreement were committing their organizations to an open exchange of information and creating a high culture of trust into the future. (These documents can be found in Appendix 1.)

WRDA 2007 and other regulatory actions have further impacted the working relationships and business of Ports and the Corps. The QPI Working Group has met on several occasions to share experiences and to discuss policy, legislation, and best practices. The group has consulted outside experts and has extended opportunities to share case studies. By working cooperatively, such problems as over-depth dredging and procurement options have been solved; concerns regarding the response of dredgers to the recent Gulf oil spill have also been addressed. However, even as the Working Group made progress to exchange ideas, the overall ability of both Ports and the Corps to bring complex projects to completion has become more difficult, more cumbersome, and often frustrating. The level of concern has mounted on both sides. Port projects must be moved forward to completion and in compliance with all laws and regulations. The Corps’ mission to ensure safe navigation in the nation’s waterways has become more complex, with new policies and procedures established by various laws. And above all, the quest for funding for all projects continues to be an increasingly uncertain and often a difficult course. Members of the QPI Working Group and others have found themselves in frustrating discussions of issues that often achieved no resolution, rather than achieving the principles embodied in the MOU.

12

As resources have become scarce, the ability to keep open the nations’ deepwater transportation system has never been more challenged. Ports’ ability to respond in a timely way to customer needs is critical to success in the competition for business while the Corps finds its own resources reduced and is searching for opportunities to improve efficiency and enhance partnerships. To meet the mutual goals of safe, navigable marine transportation systems, Ports and the Corps must find—and apply—strategies of cooperation and efficiency.

With these pressing issues in mind, the leadership of the QPI Working Group sought to find examples of how teamwork between Ports and the Corps has led to streamlining projects in both the Civil Works and the Department of the Army permit processes. Streamlining includes improving efficiency, eliminating unnecessary steps, using simpler steps, or taking innovative approaches to bring projects to fruition. Project goals were to identify significant factors in streamlining projects and to identify specific characteristics, strategies, and innovative applications from which others could benefit if more universally applied, i.e., best practices. The scan reported herein is a limited sample biased towards successful projects.

Methodology With the help of AAPA staff, the study team identified five Ports with major projects that had been achieved through high levels of cooperation and support between Port staff and Corps staff: the Port of New York and New Jersey, the Port of Portland, the Port of Oakland, the Port of Long Beach, and the Port of Baltimore. At each location, key staff in both the Port and the Corps directly involved in each project were contacted and asked to participate in interviews that would contribute to a study for the AAPA QPI Workgroup (see Appendix 2). Upon acceptance, individuals were sent a series of amplifying questions to guide the interview process (see Appendix 3). Project facts were established first and then amplifying questions were discussed. Following the interviews, the study team evaluated results to identify factors of success including communication and collaborative processes, best practices in project development and management, innovative procurement methods, leadership, and financing. Finally, project outcomes and lessons learned were examined. The following sections describe each Port’s project and experience. While the projects vary in size and time, often-similar areas of success emerge. The final chapter of this report offers observations by the study team and suggestions for future work.

13

The Port Projects

The following section provides a brief description of each Port project included in the study scan. Information was gathered through interviews and is not intended to be comprehensive; it was collected in a targeted method through the team’s amplifying questionnaire. Many issues and details from each project are not included in the following overview, which is a report only of qualitative information derived from the interview process.

The Port of New York and New Jersey Harbor Deepening

Project The New York/New Jersey Harbor Channel Deepening Project was needed to allow the safe and economically efficient passage of the newest container ships serving the Port of New York and New Jersey. The 50-foot deepening reconnaissance study began in 1996; the deepening was authorized in WRDA 2000. Between 2000 and 2004, it was determined that over $100 million could be saved by consolidating this project with two other ongoing deepening projects. The resulting $1.6 billion project by the Corps, along with cost-share sponsors including the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the states of New York and New Jersey, combined efforts to deepen the Federal shipping channels in the harbor to 50 feet and 53 feet in the Ambrose Channel (from deep water in the ocean to the Verrazano Narrows Bridge). The final project scope included deepening and widening the Ambrose Channel (53 feet), the Anchorage Channel, the Kill Van Kull Channel, a portion of the Newark Bay Channel, the Port Jersey Channel, the Arthur Kill Channel, and the Bay Ridge Channel. The project goal was to complete all by 2007. Final work to the Newark Bay Channel is now expected to complete by 2012. The partnership efforts and team approach to project development and construction have led to major success in funding, overcoming adversity, and project development. In addition, it minimized construction impacts on business operations.

Project Driver

The Port was committed to providing 50-foot channel access for its tenants as soon as possible. The Corps was committed to providing safe access to the larger container ships serving the Port of New York and New Jersey.

http://www.panynj.gov/

14

Major Project Challenges

Obtaining funding for this immense project was a significant challenge. Although a reconnaissance study had been completed in 1996, tremendous pressure was placed on the Project Team when major customers expected 50-foot operations to begin in 2007. Conducting the necessary work while addressing environmental concerns, which included impacts on air quality and on habitat from construction (which involved blasting), constituted a significant challenge. The complex project required awarding and managing multiple contracts. Finally, one of the most daunting challenges was ensuring effective communications among the Port, the Corps, two states, a major city, and numerous communities, elected officials, interest groups, environmental agencies, customers, and Port users.

Successful Strategies

Project Development/Management

This project was one of the first in the nation to use the expedited reconnaissance report procedures. Because of the availability of prior studies, the reconnaissance study was only 11 pages long. The project quickly moved to the feasibility study, which was completed in 27 months. Congress was able to provide funding for this study in 1 year’s appropriations bill instead of 2 years’. The Port was able to provide money for the first year from an Advanced Funding Agreement that was in place along with the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement.

The project issue resolution process was set up in a joint hierarchy. An Executive Review Group comprised senior officials from the Port, Corps District Office, and state agencies. This group was kept informed of the project’s progress and met regularly as a group to resolve issues. Reporting to them was a Senior Partners Group responsible for making key decisions. The Senior Partners Group was co-chaired by the New York District of the Corps and the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey. All technical groups reported to them. Issues that could not be resolved on a technical level were taken to the Senior Partners Group for decision. Throughout the feasibility study, the technical groups worked very hard, meeting every 2 weeks, to stay on task. All products were the result of a team. Through this process, the Project Team knew they would receive timely decisions on issues.

For this project, faster than normal reviews were provided from the Corps’ higher headquarters.

15

The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey conducted permitting and negotiations for the Kill Van Kull Channel deepening, shaving 1.5 years off the normal process.

Political /Legislative Support Strategies

The project enjoyed strong support from Vice President Gore, who attended the signing ceremony for the Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). The project also had the strong support of the governors of New York and New Jersey, the mayor of New York City, and the congressional delegations from both states.

WRDA 2000 was signed right after the feasibility report was finished, and the WRDA and the appropriations were synchronized. Through the support of the congressional delegation, the project received sufficient appropriations, even at levels above the President’s budget.

The project benefited from successful lobbying. Each year, the project support letter with stakeholder endorsements was provided to the congressional delegation members. Typically there would be 50 -75 letters of support.

Outreach/Collaboration

Official groups, including a public advisory group, a business advisory group, an environmental working group, and a harbor operations group, were established to develop strategies, discuss options, solve problems, and generally communicate on project status.

The structure of the Senior Partners Group and the Technical Group kept top leaders continuously informed so that decisions could be made quickly. Routine meetings with Port Director and District Engineer were held, and continue today.

Pilots and terminal operators provided critical input in the sequencing of construction projects.

Procurement

The Project Team reduced the number of contracts by half, by consolidating larger dredging areas and by proceeding straight to the 50-foot deepening project instead of deepening first to 41 feet and then to 45 feet. The project used the Limited Reevaluation Report to consolidate earlier projects with the 50-foot deepening.

The larger work areas in individual contracts enabled work to continue around environmental windows.

16

The team was able to use Port Authority of New York & New Jersey procurement for emissions reductions strategies to achieve the emissions offsets needed to meet project conformity requirements.

Funding

In addition to successful funding commitments from Washington, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey had sufficient funding to keep the project on schedule.

With an Advanced Funding Agreement in place, the Port provided $9 million in startup funds for the $18 million feasibility study. With that commitment, Congress provided $9 million Federal funds for the second year of study. This limited Federal appropriations necessary to only 1 fiscal year.

The Port Authority of New York & New Jersey provided $120 million for the deepening of Kill Van Kull Channel 5, saving 1.5 years. This investment became an in-kind services requirement in the PCA.

For the Jamaica Bay Beneficial Use project, state and city environmental agencies provided their money up front to complete work needed to meet NPS criteria.

The project was designated as a project of “national significance” in the President’s budget.

Partner Relationships

All partners were included at the same time as issues were addressed. The team approach was employed consistently.

The Corps’ New York District recognized that the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey’s Engineering Department was as good as the Corps’. Working together was not difficult because there was mutual respect.

Partnering during construction between pilots, the U.S. Coast Guard, operators, and Corps contractors helped in sequencing construction, likely preventing construction delays.

Partnering with the air quality community (agencies and interest groups) resulted in projects that offset emissions 100 percent.

The Technical Group relied on the Senior Partners Group to handle issues they could not resolve.

17

The Project Team did what they said they would do: met commitments to both business and environmental communities.

Port relationships with the congressional delegation worked extremely well with both the WRDA and the appropriations processes.

Project Outcomes

The project goals have been met. Although the project is set to be completed in 2012 rather the original deadline of 2007, customer needs are being addressed, as are safety concerns.

The partnership quality between the Corps and its customer, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, is as high as it’s ever been.

When the PCA was signed, private-sector Port operators spent over $100 million in improvements.

Air quality emissions reductions from project offsets (repowered ferries, diesel engine retrofits around Port facilities, rail improvements, etc.) will benefit the larger community even after construction is completed.

Project management structure and partnerships formed through this project enabled problems to the solved more quickly.

The project’s projected cost was $1.6 billion. The final project cost is now expected to be closer to $1.05 billion. Savings were realized by combining contracts as well as by sequencing construction so that work never stopped.

By dredging directly to 50 feet rather than sequentially dredging to interim depths, the team estimated that 7 to 8 years of impacts on environment and operations were avoided.

By combining contracts to create larger work areas, work never stopped because of environmental windows.

By keeping stakeholders engaged throughout the process, opposition was reduced and time was saved.

Although this process required a lot of meetings, it succeeded in helping minimize internal bureaucracy. The Senior Management Team was empowered to make project decisions.

18

Committees and collaboration helped facilitate relationships with the regulatory agencies by keeping them up to date and involved so they had information as it was needed.

Changes resulting from the Project

Monthly meetings with the construction contractors, the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey, the Corps, and other agencies have continued.

The partnering process has been continued into the construction phase.

Senior partners have continued their regular contacts with one another.

Lessons Learned

Coordination pays off but it must be a continuous process.

If relationships are established and maintained with other agencies, benefits and time savings can occur.

It is key to deliver the project on time and with good quality, maintaining a strong communication base with the customer.

Although the Port Authority of New York & New Jersey and the Corps have different roles, these roles are complementary.

19

The Port of Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement

Project

The $432 million Port of Oakland Harbor Navigation Improvement Project was authorized in WRDA 1999. The project included deep draft navigation improvements to 50 feet, as well as widening and deepening the Harbor entrance, outer and inner Harbor channels and two turning basins. The project costs were shared: the Corps paid $244 million and the Port of Oakland paid $188 million. Project planning began in 1997; dredging began in 2001 and was completed in September 2009. As the fifth busiest container Port in the United States, Oakland needed the 50-foot deepening to accommodate larger vessels. The project involved nearly 12.8 million cubic yards of material, nearly 100 percent of which has been used for wetlands restoration, habitat enhancement, and upland construction projects in and around San Francisco Bay. The successful partnership between Federal and non-Federal sponsors helped keep the project moving forward even as Federal funding lagged; this partnership ensured that customer needs were met and safety was improved.

Project Driver The 50-foot channel-deepening project was needed to accommodate customer needs for the latest generation of container vessels. The design vessel for the project was a container ship that transports over 6500 20-foot equivalent units (TEUs) of containers. It has a design draft of 46 feet and is 1,129 feet long and 140 feet wide.

Major Project Challenges The project was seriously challenged by time, scheduling, and funding. Lags in project development were caused by lack of funds to move forward. Although now complete, the project faces additional funding challenges to maintain the new channel depths.



Early coordination with resources agencies (the EPA, the Air Quality Control Board, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service [USFWS], and the state fish and game agency) was accomplished by establishing a Technical Committee. This strategy resulted in a compromise plan for dredged material placement to create subtidal wetlands and through beneficial use rather than open-water options.

20

The Port of Oakland conducted the feasibility study under Section 203 of WRDA 1986. The Port funded the Corps District participation in the feasibility study. The Port later got credit for this work. The completed environmental impact statement and feasibility study were accomplished in 18 months for $14 million.

Hierarchical sets of work groups were established for decisionmaking. Working Group, Management, and Executive meetings were scheduled. The goal was to have the Port, the Corps and regulatory agencies involved at each level and solve problems as they occurred, at the appropriate level.

The Port took the lead in the LERRD process. This saved a lot of time, as the Corps process is not always flexible to the needs of affected businesses.

A good communication plan was established early in the process.

A strong project manager with an environmental background took the lead during the feasibility phase. Although the Corps did not designate its own specific “Project Team,” the deepening was a priority Corps project.

The Project Team actively reached out to environmental agencies in advance of decisions and meetings. Port environmental staff had high credibility in the environmental community, as did contractors.


The Port sought and obtained strong support from members of the congressional delegation. Both Senators actively supported the project as did Congresswoman Lee, who served on the House Appropriations Committee. Mayor (now Governor) Brown strongly supported the project.

The project was supported by both business and environmental groups, because it provided the necessary deepening as well as wetland restoration and beneficial use areas. Consequently, both groups were able to lobby for project funding.

The Port cultivated the support of elected officials in other parts of the state whose constituents benefited from the project. For example, they provided tours to elected officials whose farm communities would benefit from export activity from Oakland. In Congress, they also lobbied members from other states whose businesses would benefit from the deepening project in Oakland.

The Port reached out to staff at the Office of Management and Budget to educate them on the project’s value and benefits.

21


A Technical Advisory Committee was established early in the process to review proposed dredged material placement sites, which resulted in a selection of sites that the group had proposed and a decision for which they took ownership. The project provided 100 percent reuse of dredged material.

The plan was communicated to the public early in the process. The Port developed a public message, which it tagged “Outside the Box” to enable the public to understand the need for the project. This message asked listeners to think about “What does the content of a container box mean to your family?”

The business community was actively involved in supporting the project through lobbying and public speaking. The Bay Planning Commission, whose representative was a strong advocate and lobbyist, helped create consensus among private users, including labor.

The Corps and the Port always put their best people on the project. They consistently pre-coordinated all meetings. Their numbers always matched, and they had high credibility.

The project was combined with the Port’s Vision 2000 activities, including charettes in communities, to solicit public participation. The team was able to clearly articulate the importance of the project to users, particularly in the agricultural sector.

The Project Team talked with contractors up front in pre-solicitation discussions.

Procurement

A contract acquisition strategy was used up front, even though this process was not yet required.

Through the continuing contracts clause, the team could accommodate lags in appropriations. Later, a base contract with options was used. In one case, a sole source had to be used because of the property owners’ needs. A justification and approval was required, and approval was obtained from Corps headquarters in a timely manner.

Contracts were broken out by function: demolition and marine construction, building-out of the Middle Harbor enhancement area, mitigation, and deepening (the final contract).

22

Funding

The project cost a total of $432 million, with $244 million funded by the Corps of Engineers and $188 million funded by the Port of Oakland.

The Port funded the feasibility study for $14 million.

The project was slowed down for 1 year, due to lack of Federal appropriations. However, during that time, work continued on other parts of the project (funded by the Port).


The Technical Advisory Committee was active throughout project development. Their input helped shape decisions and created a commitment to see the project through.

The Port sought and obtained excellent support from a broad range of Federal, state, and local elected officials. The Port made a strong effort to reach constituents that would benefit from the project, even those not local to the Oakland area. Through its efforts, the Port made very good friends in the agricultural community.

The Communications Plan helped establish the importance of the project with the public, as well as clarify the environmental benefits.

The Port, the Corps, and regulatory agencies were involved at the lowest level. There was a constant flow of information among these parties

The Corps decided to include Counsel on the team very early, helping to avoid problems before they happened.

Non-government organizations (NGOs), business, and labor were brought in very early to seek outside support. This project brought together business and labor, described as a rare event in the Port.

Communication with the contractors was very good. Early consultation through the contract acquisition strategy paid off.

23

Project Outcomes

A successful project was delivered. The public is pleased to see the new vessels calling on the Port. The downside is that the Port is now having trouble obtaining sufficient maintenance funds for the project.

The project went from concept to construction in 4 years, saving 1.5 years in the feasibility phase. Dredging began in 2001 and finished in 2009—a 1-year slowdown, because of the appropriations delay. The Team felt that, process-wise, they could have completed the project in 4.5 years had sufficient funding been available.

Combining contracts resulted in clear cost savings.

A successful relationship was developed with NGOs and businesses.

The project actually resulted in mending fences between some communities, overcoming past problems in their relationships.

The Port and the Corps both agree that they are still able to reap the benefits of new relationships that were established through this project.

Between the Port and the Corps, relations improved through the project process. There is far less confrontation than in the past.


None noted.

Lessons Learned

A lot of coordination is needed with stakeholders, beginning very early in the process.

Combining ecosystem restoration and dredging is not always compatible; it requires a lot of negotiation. (Note: This was the first major environmental restoration project completed on the West Coast).

Team continuity throughout the project is key to success. It hurts the process when the major players change before the project is completed.

The up-front development of good contract strategy is also key. Pre-bid solicitations are needed. Formal partnering should be used with dispute resolution. In retrospect, the team would like to have explored more contract options.

24

Good recordkeeping is critical for project closeout, especially if less formal agreements are involved or players change.

Partners need access to contract information; what is available from the Corps (CEFMS) is not always very helpful.

25

Port of Portland Columbia River Channel Improvement

Project The $195.4 million Columbia River Channel Improvement Project was a collaborative effort between the Corps and six lower Columbia River Ports (Portland, Vancouver, Kalama, St. Helens, Longview, and Woodland) to improve navigation by deepening the 103-mile-long, 600-foot-wide navigation channel from 40 feet to 43 feet to accommodate the current fleet of international bulk cargo and container ships. As a major gateway to the Pacific Rim, the Port of Portland is ranked third in the world for grain exports. Additionally, the 22-year effort among the Ports, the Corps, and the States of Oregon and Washington resulted in their agreement to make improvements to the condition of the Columbia River estuary through the completion of other environmental restoration projects. The project reconnaissance study began in 1988, and project dredging was completed in September 2010. At that time, over $500 million in new and recent private sector projects were cited as being attributable to the deepening, including new and expanded grain facilities, terminal leases, rail and terminal infrastructure improvements, and related private investments. The strong partnership and team effort between the Corps District and Port staff and leadership was credited with overcoming significant adversity to meet customer needs as well as to obtain project funding.

Project Driver

The river channel deepening was necessary to accommodate bulk carriers. The Port of Portland is the second largest port in the world for grain exports. It is the gateway to the Pacific Rim, not only for Oregon, but also for other grain-producing states. The Port also provides 40,000 jobs to the local economy.


Significant public concern arose about the environmental impacts of the project; specifically, whether dredged materials might be contaminated and what effects the work would have on the Dungeness crab and salmon populations. On the funding side, the non-Federal share would have to be split between two states. The project involved seven Port authorities. One mile of the project would require drilling and blasting. A significant initial challenge was obtaining agreement on the scope of work for the feasibility study in a way to which the Corps would agree and that the sponsor could afford. Ultimately a study limiting alternatives to the 43- foot depth was agreed to rather than a 45-foot depth.

26



The Corps established a dedicated Project Team for the duration of the project. The team took ownership of the work and had the right leadership. Throughout the project, the project leader was willing to raise policy issues with higher headquarters as needed.

An Executive Management Team, representing the Port and the Corps, was established to solve issues. Similarly, a Senior Management Team met often to resolve technical issues. The Senior Management Team has stayed together throughout the project process and continues to meet today.

The Corps’ Operations Division, not its Engineering Division, completed the plans and specifications. This ultimately saved time by obtaining the Operations input from that division’s maintenance dredging experience.

The team established an Executive Committee for Biological Opinion. This group included the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, the Corps, USFWS, and the Port. Before the Corps implemented external peer review nationally, the Corps District went to the National Academy of Sciences to review the science on this project. In addition, resource agencies were brought in early and often throughout the process.

To address the issue of contamination, a special Adaptive Management Technical Team was established. This group met for 5 years, monitored throughout construction. Data collected was shared and posted on the Web for public information. This issue was comprehensively addressed from the staff level to the regional director level at the environmental agencies.

The Port’s Project Manager participated on the Corps’ Project Team. The Port was very knowledgeable of the Corps process.

Although the PCA contained every possible deviation, headquarters was very responsive on all its reviews. The project used two cost-sharing formulas because of the beneficial use option, leaving two parties responsible for the two projects at the end.


The Project had strong support from the congressional delegation in both states as well as from those representing agricultural interests who used the Port; specifically, Congressman Baird and Senators Murray, Wyden, and Hatfield.

27

The project had early support from an individual who eventually became Oregon House Speaker. The governors of both Oregon and Washington supported the project, which was always treated as a whole, not divided between the two states or owned by one or the other.

The Port Director was very adept in understanding and working the Federal legislative and executive processes. He was very active in advocating for the project locally and regionally as well as in Washington, DC.

A Bipartisan Leadership Council for the project was established early on to build support. Members were credible public and business leaders who could speak for the project to state and Federal elected officials as well as to the public.

The project was identified by President Bush as both an economic and environmental model. The President visited the Port and actively supported the project.

The Port lobbied strongly in Washington, DC. Congressional delegation members also helped by providing advice to the team.


The Port Director helped form an interstate Columbia River Improvement Project agreement to include a coalition of the Port authorities along the river to support the project. This organization, known as the Lower Columbia River Port Solutions Group, helped lobby for projects to benefit the lower river area.

The Corps’ Division Engineer was every effective in facilitating the communication process with other agencies. He was willing to help in outreach.

The Project Team set up an Adaptive Management Group created to scientifically evaluate concerns by regulatory agencies. Work by that group was very open and transparent.

All coalitions supporting the project presented the same key messages. The project message needed to be consistent with those of all elected officials in both states and in Washington, DC. The Project Team stressed the importance of openness and transparency with information. The team used the Web and television to help convey its message and to provide public access to data.

Mediation training was very useful for both the Corps project manager and the Port project manager. Techniques learned helped open communications among all

28

groups. A professional mediator was used when needed. Joint problem-solving methods were used when needed; for example, to reach final agreement about the blasting plan for the last mile of the project, parties agreed to sponsor a $3 million fish monitoring study.

Procurement

By looking at the project as whole rather than in parts, the team was able to combine new work dredging with maintenance dredging projects, which had the benefit of offering contractors greater volumes in contracts.

The team used multi-year contracts.

In the last mile of work, where blasting was needed, the contract was saved until the very end to allow time for additional studies and to resolve concerns.

Funding

The total project cost was $150 million. Normal cost-share formulas were used. The final part of the project was completed with $39 million in American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) funds.

The non-Federal share was split between the two states. Oregon’s portion came from the state-lottery-funded Portland Navigation Improvement Fund. The state of Washington contributed appropriations from its biennial budget or from bond proceeds.

Funding from Washington, DC, was obtained through lobbying efforts. The Corps would submit the President’s budget request and the Port would lobby for whatever was needed. After the President visited the project, he amended his own budget to add $10 million more in 1 fiscal year.


The Pacific Northwest Waterways Association advocated strongly for the project. With over 100 paid members, including Port authorities, business, agriculture operations, utilities, grain grower associations, and others, this group was a powerful advocate. In addition, the Channel Coalition, a non-profit organization of local governments, labor, and businesses offered tours to businesses, elected officials, users, wheat growers, labor, and others to build support.

29

The Corps understood that the Port was experienced in dredging; the Port owned

dredges for river work. Both worked well together to devise a workable placement

plan. There was a mutual respect for operations expertise in both agencies.

The Project Team established Expert Teams to review certain issues. These experts

held public meetings and made results of their work available to the public through

the Web. With the help of these teams, credibility for the project’s science was

established.

Project advocate coalitions worked very well all through the project. These groups

were especially helpful in lobbying for funding and approaching elected officials,

including those in other states where constituents would benefit from the facility.

Through the coalitions’ efforts, the deepening project obtained a letter of support

in 2005 that was signed by the Governors of Oregon, Washington, Idaho, and

Montana.

The Project Team worked extremely well together throughout the entire project.

The Port Project Director even had a cubicle in the Corps’ dedicated team offices.

Messaging with elected officials and the public was conducted very carefully and in

a coordinated way. The result was that delegation and staff worked well with each

other as well as with the Project Team.

The Technical Committee relied on the Senior Partners to handle the issues they

could not resolve.

Project Outcomes

The project has been successfully completed. When the project began, the Port of Portland was, in effect, used only for exports. However, since the project opened, there has been an increase in imports.

The Senior Management Team not only solved issues but also established trust and credibility among agencies and credibility for the project. The scientific panels brought together handpicked individuals with excellent scientific backgrounds and logic to reach solutions. These panels sought out the highest use with the least environmental impacts.

Data collected from the fish monitoring project and the monitoring of California sea lions during the blasting activities will benefit other waterway projects elsewhere.

30

The project created long-term relationships with other agency personnel and outside groups.

As a result of this effort, both the Port and Corps have developed credibility with various communities and organizations, largely due to their actions during the process regarding science, communication, and transparency.


The relationship between the Port and the Corps has been solidified. The Corps sees the Port as a customer and also a partner.

Instead of using the normal Corps process (having Engineering Division prepare plans and specs), the Corps is continuing to have Operations prepare them because of the division’s expertise in dredging.

Lessons Learned

When working with environmental agencies, it is beneficial to work at the staff level for a reasonable period of time, but if decisions are not made or issues cannot be resolved, it is necessary to obtain an official agency position and decision, in writing, on letterhead. When working with other agencies, it is important to work at all levels of the organization.

If team relationships are established and maintained with other agencies, benefits and times savings can occur. The Port and the Corps are at their strongest and most productive when there is agreement between them. Remaining unified and not second guessing each other is important.

31

The Port of Long Beach Main Channel Deepening and Other

Long Beach Projects

The $40 million Port of Long Beach Main Channel Deepening and Other Long Beach Projects are expected to be completed in September 2011. In addition to the main channel deepening to 50 feet, the project includes maintenance dredging of the Long Beach City Catalina Channel, removal of contaminated dredged material from a Navy shipyard site and emptying of the Western Anchorage Disposal site, and creation of a 1,200-acre terminal facility, filling Slip G with the dredged material. The project will improve navigation, safety, and efficiency, particularly for oil tankers. Project partners included the Corps, the Port of Long Beach, and the City of Long Beach. The City of Long Beach provided $1 million of project funding, the Corps provided $5 million (including Construction general funds and ARRA funding), and the Port of Long Beach provided $34 million. Initial channel project work began in 1998 but had to be slowed because of a lack of funds. By combining projects in 2008, the sponsors were able to secure the funding needed to complete all projects in 2011. By partnering together, the Corps, the Port, and the city were able to realize cost savings, address environmental and community concerns, and meet the needs of the customers.

Project Driver

The channel deepening was necessary to accommodate larger vessels; in particular, large oil tankers needed deeper draft to carry full loads rather than partially offloading in offshore operations. In addition, other projects, including maintenance dredging for the city to benefit the Catalina Island Ferry channel, a required emptying of a disposal site, dredging material from a Navy Shipyard BRAC facility, and filling a berth to expand a terminal facility, were combined with the deepening project.


Coordination of all projects posed a significant challenge. Deepening the Main Channel and Turning Basins constituted the Federal portion of the project and involved dredging about 650,000 cubic yards of material. This $9.6-million portion, cost-shared 50-50 by the Federal government and the Port, completed improvements to the Authorized Federal Navigation Channel. The part identified as the West Basin Installation Remediation Site 7 Cleanup required dredging about 660,000 cubic yards of material, demolishing and disposing of a dilapidated timber and concrete pier, and lifting and placing on land four sunken barges for disposal under a future construction contract. The cost for this portion was $11.5 million. Deepening Catalina Landing cost $782,000 to dredge about 37,000 cubic yards of material that had migrated into the ferry landing adjacent to the Los Angeles River Estuary. Emptying the Western Anchorage Temporary Sediment Storage Site cost about $2.3 million and necessitated the removal of about 150,000 cubic yards of clean material.

32

The Port used that material to fill in a portion of the Pier G slip. The Port then expanded pier facilities at the north section of Pier G by removing bottom material, constructing a rock closure dike, installing sheet pile cutoff walls, constructing storm drainage, and making other site improvements; it also performed water quality monitoring during placement of dredged material in the slip. The cost for this portion of the project was $15.7 million. In addition to coordination, locating an acceptable dredged material placement site was difficult. All project air quality impacts had to be mitigated (a Natural Resources Defense Counsel lawsuit was filed but was resolved by the management plan). And finally, despite the low level of Corps funding, the combined project had to be managed by the Corps because the Corps could not delegate its fund management to another agency.


Project Development/Management:

All project specifications were combined by the Corps. This saved time and likely costs by drawing larger companies to bid.

Combining projects saved the Corps at least a year over the time that would have been required to handle the projects individually. This action enabled the Corps to use ARRA funds to conduct the work.

The Project Team did not modify the PCA but did negotiate a Memorandum of Agreement (MOA) to combine the projects and accept funding from the Port. Review of the MOA by higher headquarters took 4 months.

The project required review by City Council and was denied due to air quality issues. The Project Team established a Work Group including contractors to develop mitigation plan. With offsets, the project was accepted.

For construction, contractors worked with terminal operators to plan work, ensuring there were no surprises.

The Project Team met every 2 weeks during design phase. Environmental and survey staff were present at the meetings as well as city staff, Port designers, Corps designers, and the Corps construction manager.


The project had strong support from elected officials as well as from Port users.

33


Bi-weekly project meetings during the design phase included representatives of all agencies.

The project did not really require any special outreach, as neighborhoods were not directly impacted.

The project entailed considerable coordination with Port tenants during construction.

Procurement

Although only $5 million of Corps funds were used for the project, the Corps was required to manage the project.

All four projects were provided their own sections in the base bid. Options on the base contract were related to the remediation site, as it was the least known.

Because of air quality issues, all work had to be done with electric dredging or other newer, less polluting, equipment.

Although the Port was accustomed to conducting its own quality control during construction, under Corps rules, the contractor conducts quality control. The Port felt that it was required to relinquish a great deal of control over the contractor and how the contract was conducted because it had to follow the Corps’ approach to quality control.

Funding

The total project cost was approximately $40 million. As noted, the Corps provided approximately $5 million ($2.5 in AARA funds and $2.3 in Construction General Funds) to the project but was required to be the project lead. The Port contributed approximately $34 million and the city, $1 million.

The deepening portion of the project slowed from 1998 to 2009 because of a Federal funding gap. When the decision was made to combine the projects, in 2008-2009, funds became available.


The good relationship that already existed between the Corps and the Port has continued, because of the parties’ willingness to be flexible.

34

Port users were willing to cooperate.

Environmental agencies were involved in the project, which led to the development of better relationships.

The Project Team used the Executive Partnering process. Executive partners met quarterly to keep the Corps, contractors, and Port management up to speed. Many issues were resolved at this level.

The team felt they always received timely reviews from higher headquarters.

Project Outcomes

The project will be completed in September 2011.

Combining all four projects to one contractor helped minimize impacts on terminal operators. The work is being coordinated well.

Use of one contractor allowed precise control in placing the fill material; this has been important because certain material had to go to the lowest elevations.

By saving time on the project, the Corps was able to perform the deepening portion during the period that ARRA funds were available. If this had not happened, the availability of funds to complete would have been indeterminate.

The combined bid allowed the city work to be completed at approximately 50 percent of what it would have cost had it been completed independently. The overall bid was approximately $4.7 million less than expected.


None cited.

Lessons Learned

The construction management team should be involved in plans and specifications early; they can help identify issues that might cause problems later. The team also needs to include construction scheduling expertise.

Laying out roles and responsibilities early is key. The team used Executive Partnering between contractor and project sponsors, but never needed to raise

35

issues to that level; they consistently were able to work things out at the lowest levels.

The Project Team presented the Executives a project schedule 6 months before contract advertisement. With the joint executive endorsement, it has been easier to keep the project on track.

It is helpful to set up an escrow account for a local partner to contribute large sums to the Corps’ project account, enabling funds to accrue interest, which can also be applied to the project.

A “responsibility matrix” should be developed to design the merger and also to track the project throughout the process.

Legal staff should prepare a contract clause requiring the contractor to obtain right-of-entry permits from the Port and the City to work in designated areas. A penalty clause should be included to address the possibility that the contractor will cause delays for tenants.

Keeping good records for project closeout is key, especially in the event that less formal agreements are involved and players change during the process.

36

The Port of Baltimore Masonville Dredged Material

Containment Facility

The Port of Baltimore’s $299 million Masonville Dredged Material Containment Facility (DMCF) was created to provide containment for a significant portion of the 1.5 million-cubic-yard annual requirement for harbor dredged material. This project was funded by the Maryland Port Administration and was developed through a stakeholder involvement process; it has resulted in the construction of a 140-acre fill area, including 130 acres of tidal open water that will provide placement capacity for harbor maintenance dredged material for about 30 years, deepening of the Seagirt and Dundalk Marine Terminal access channels, thereby enabling development of a 50-foot berth at Seagirt Marine Terminal, construction of the coffer dam foundation for Fairfield Marine Terminal (end use after DMCF build-out), construction of a community environmental education center, and creation of an urban wilderness conservation area. The project required a Department of Army permit as well as state water quality certification and a wetlands license. The project was developed and completed from concept to operation in 6 years in partnership with the Port; the Corps; Federal, state and local agencies; interest groups; and the communities. The unique team approach to project development and construction succeeded in meeting the critical deadline of being operational before the closure of another major dredged material containment site.

Project Driver

By Maryland state law, harbor dredged material must be placed in a contained facility. The Port’s major containment facility was scheduled to close on December 31, 2009. A new containment site needed to be operational on that schedule.


The project had to be identified, constructed, and operational within 6 years. A site was not identified by the State of Maryland’s Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) Harbor Team until October 2003. A Department of Army permit was required, as was a Maryland Department of Environment Water Quality Certificate.

37



The Maryland Dredged Material Management Program (DMMP) process was used, taking harbor options through committees of scientists, citizens, and agency representatives to the Management Committee review, with final recommendations to the Executive Committee. An important aspect of this process was that the Port lived up to its promise not to change the Harbor Team’s recommendations, which were finally presented to the Executive Committee for review.

The Harbor Team process is unique in that it first involved citizens, communities, community activists, local jurisdictions, and other vested harbor and environmental interests in defining and scoping dredging issues needing resolution and in identifying options for study and consideration in resolving those issues. The Harbor Team also reviewed and commented on facility design, advised on project construction, and continues to advise as the project has entered its operational phase.

The major decision points for the Harbor Team were to determine whether or not there was a dredged material placement problem, to agree on options to consider for solving the problem, and finally to recommend alternatives to pursue for dredged material placement. Once the alternatives to pursue were approved through the overall DMMP process, the Harbor Team continued to be involved in the investigations, design, construction, and operation of the site.

The District Commander has the delegated authority to sign the Record of Decision (ROD) as opposed to a feasibility process. It took a little over 2 years to obtain the ROD rather than the usual 4-5 years.

NEPA and its requirements were applied as an umbrella rather than a linear “check the box” process. The project used a model similar to U.S. Department of Transportation streamlining to ensure that all substantive environmental laws were concurrent with NEPA. Normally this stage would have taken 5 to 5.5 years. Instead it took a little over 2 years, including the provision of a supplement to the environmental impact statement (EIS).

The Port worked with the Corps’ Regulatory and Planning staffs. All reviews were done concurrently; for example, the water quality certificate was requested with the issuance of the public notice. Endangered species biological assessment was included in the FEIS, as was the air quality conformity analysis.

38

The Corps project manager ensured that all meetings met NEPA qualifications (notices, meeting requirements) to avoid duplication.

On the Corps side, Navigations Branch, Planning Division, and the Office of Counsel all participated on the project delivery team. Advance work of the Port’s DMMP process enabled Regulatory Branch to hit the ground running on the permit evaluation and the EIS.


The Port helped cultivate strong early support of the state senator and delegates in the area.

The Baltimore City Planning Staff and elected city officials supported the project.

The Port reached out very early to community associations to assess their concerns and needs.


Using the DMMP process, the Harbor Team looked at DMMP as a whole, but once a site was identified, focus went to specific communities to determine their needs and concerns.

The Citizens Advisory Committee had input into the process early even though they had no authority.

The Joint Monthly Evaluation Group meetings were held to provide access to information and updates to regulating agencies. Port design contractors participated in meetings to answer questions. Corps staff brought the Maryland water quality agency senior staff into the joint evaluation process. The DMMP Bay Enhancement Working Group also met monthly to solve issues. This resulted in an almost design-build process.

A joint review process was set up with all agency staff. They met often, sometimes having daily phone calls after construction began.

Mitigation plan experts with established credibility and expertise met with communities to help them identify agreeable alternatives as well as to present concepts to environmental agencies.

Corps staff was instrumental in reaching out within the Corps as well as to regulatory agencies to advise and keep project updates flowing.

39

Procurement

The Maryland Port Administration funded the project.

The state combined dredging of two marine terminal access channels with site preparation into one contract, saving the state millions of dollars.

Funding The project was completed with $241.5 million in state funds.


A partnership approach was maintained by informing people about the project in advance of the issuance of the Corps public notice and NEPA documents.

Projects developed credibility because the team followed up on commitments it had made.

Communication was very transparent. A strong communication plan was established early.

Community leaders were very involved through the process and developed a great deal of trust with Port staff.

Relationships with environmental agencies were very good. Team members and consultants were chosen based on the respect they had already earned with other agencies. These team members and consultants remained involved throughout the project.

Environmental agency staff was always contacted in advance of meetings or in advance of document reviews to go over issues and expectations. A “matrix approach” to decisionmaking was used to show where decisions/actions would lead.

Corps staff worked hard to keep higher headquarters briefed on the project and the process being used.

The Corps and the Port were very committed to meeting the project deadline.

40

Project Outcomes

The Corps and the Port kept their promises.

Good relationships with the community exist today and in turn support other Port project needs.

Everyone involved understood their roles. The project was completed faster since all were focused on the project, not only on the process.

A quality project was completed on time.

Significant savings were realized. These savings represented not only money saved by arriving at construction sooner, but also income that was realized by bringing additional business to the Port sooner. More money spent up front resulted in more savings later.

The Port established a high level of trust and credibility with the communities and with environmental organizations and agencies.

Combining contracts brought about significant cost savings.


The project resulted in the development of a new model permit application process as well as a model for early public involvement as projects are beginning.

Improved relationships between the state’s environmental agency and communities are continuing.

More interaction between property management and harbor development groups on the Port staff has developed, enabling a greater understanding of land records.

Lessons Learned

Technology is key in maximizing communication and public involvement.

Listening for changing views within communities and understanding the changing roles of community groups are both important.

41

Communities are interested not only in amenities, but also in jobs.

It is necessary to review all land records well in advance of project work to understand restrictions, conditions, and any other necessary considerations.

42

Scan Team Observations – Best Practices

Whether through partnerships, leadership skills, communication, procurement techniques,

project development, design or construction techniques, every one of the five Port–Corps

teams participating in the scan had established practices geared toward accomplishing the

project goals. In every case, success required partnership between the Port and the Corps

and commitment to the project. While this scan was qualitative in nature and biased

towards finding successful practices, it is a sampling of how experienced practitioners on

successful projects have used creativity to develop workable solutions to extremely

complex problems, some of which saved time and/or money or prevented delays. The

following list of best practices reflects observations from the Scan Team regarding the

information gathered and experiences of those interviewed.

Relationships and Communication

Raising and resolving issues (policy issues, regulatory agency issues, resource

agency issues, etc.) early reduce uncertainty and prevent later delays.

Understanding one another’s processes up front prevents later delays.

Finding ways to overcome barriers to study or project progress rather than

accepting fate promotes team work instead of “us vs. them” mentality (“can do” vs.

“gotcha”).

Being transparent with each other and the public pays dividends in time and/or

money.

Keeping commitments to each other and stakeholders creates trust.

Respecting one another’s expertise creates a sense of teamwork and can advance

projects more quickly and/or less expensively.

Establishing a strong communication plan early is key to success.

43

Innovative Processing

The Port took over Lands, Easement, Rights of Way, and Relocations Process, saving

time compared to the Corps process and lessening impacts on businesses.

Bringing in legal counsel early in the process served to avoid later problems.

The Port combined outreach on dredging projects with ongoing design charette

process, receiving significant, helpful public input.

Ensuring that all substantive environmental reviews are conducted concurrent with

NEPA on Department of the Army–permitted projects was important.

Taking advantage of the ability to conduct pre-solicitation discussions with dredging

contractors helped.

Developing a contract acquisition strategy up front and as a team was important.

Combining dredging areas in fewer contracts enabled more flexibility to work

around environmental windows.

Combining Federal and non-Federal dredging into a larger contract gained

economies of scale whenever possible.

Expanding construction contract partnering beyond Corps and the non-Federal

sponsor (for example, pilots, users) was helpful.

Project Management

Establishing a dedicated team or a priority Project Team to see project through was

important.

Including operations and construction management in project design meetings was

key.

44

Contacting environmental agency staff prior to meetings or submission of

documents to discuss expectations and outcomes of various decisions before being

presented with a document allowed for a smoother process.

Developing project schedule early and taking it through Joint Executive Review for

approval 6 months before contract let helped the team keep on schedule.

Involving operations in the development of dredging contract specifications was

important.

Using a “responsibility matrix” through project development and implementation,

being sure to include project areas under the responsibility of the Port or others,

avoided problems.

Using a joint hierarchy for decisionmaking and the issue resolution process, with the

Joint Executive Committee at the top through joint technical committees at the

bottom, was helpful.

Empowering the Management Committee to make decisions was key.

Keeping good records and documentation for project closeout, especially if less

formal agreements are involved or if players have changed, avoided potential

problems.

Involving terminal operators, with contractors’ scheduling construction to minimize

impacts on shipping and to ensure there were no surprises, was beneficial.

.

45

Practitioner Suggestions This section lists suggestions to improve delivery of projects that were discovered during the interview process. As part of the amplifying questions, practitioners were given an opportunity to “blue sky” wish as to how processes or situations could improve to bring projects on line better or faster. These ideas range from things that could be considered very project specific to those requiring legislation or funding. Both Port and Corps practitioners contributed to the list. It represents the “wish list” from the sample of five Port-Corps combinations included in this study.

Encourage Corps Regulatory group to have more communications with applicants even before an official piece of paper goes to the Corps.

Provide Corps staff more training on NEPA documentation to understand procedural aspects better and how environmental clearances can be processed concurrently, not sequentially.

Corps should draft a construction management services manual at least 3 months in advance of construction contract award so partners can see how they will have to work together. Describe in detail roles, services, consultant scopes of work and if personnel will be full or part time. Need personnel with construction management experience.

Try to purchase property for dredged material placement sites; agreeing to easements is not worth the effort required to negotiate.

Corps needs to take a more balanced approach to the process. Peer reviews are needed for some, but not all, projects.

Let the Corps legal review occur on one—not three—levels.

More feasibility studies are needed nationwide.

The Corps is being asked to go faster on one hand, but processes have been added that slow them down (such as EC 1165-2-209, which added another 1.5 years to the process).

O&M should be funded as a program, not as individual projects. As a program, there would be more flexibility.

More consideration should be given to funding advance maintenance dredging.

Wish there were more dredging resources/contractors available on the West Coast.

46

Need to consolidate the review process and streamline the feasibility process.

Concern with more “review creep” happening at Divisions when their reviews

should be policy oriented. Especially true with Economics.

Would like to see how the Section 203 process is being used around the country and incorporate lessons learned into the Corps process.

Control plan formulation; too many alternatives have to be analyzed. Suggest using SWOT analysis to reduce alternatives to reasonable numbers.

Project managers should be given supervisory authority over technical and planning staff on PDT.

Pick one sea-level curve to use for evaluation of alternatives. The Corps is using three, and that is too many.

Look for more opportunities to conduct pilot projects.

Need more Corps leadership with resource agencies; current situation is driving project into areas that are not sustainable.

Create a multi-year contract process not subject to annual appropriation; bring back continuing contract clause.

Need more than 18 months to do a feasibility study.

Speed up review and approvals at higher headquarters; by the time the review is complete, data is out of date and must be reanalyzed.

47

Recommendations for Further Action

Based on what was said by the participating Ports and Corps districts, the following actions

are recommended:

1. Communications

a. Develop an action plan to inculcate the shared principles between the

U.S Army Corps of Engineers and the U.S. Seaport industry through the

American Association of Port Authorities (AAPA) and to promote partnering

at all levels of the Corps, AAPA, and within the line departments of AAPA

member Ports.

b. Identify and reward outstanding project teams that contribute to improving

the partnership culture and widely publicize the awardees and the reasons

for the awards within the two organizations.

2. Civil Works and Regulatory Processes

a. Short-Term Actions

1. Select three to five specific areas within organizational control to

improve processes that Seaports and the Corps mutually agree would be

of greatest benefit in streamlining projects.

2. Implement those changes within the next year.

b. Long-Term Actions

1. Select three to five areas that require legislative or Federal-level

(above the Corps) policy change that Ports and the Corps mutually agree

would be of greatest benefit in streamlining projects.

2. Develop a plan to pursue the inclusion of those changes in the next

Water Resources Development Act or to achieve the necessary

Federal-level policy changes.

3. Work to achieve those changes within the next 2 to 3 years.

48

Appendix 1

Partnership Agreements

Memorandum of Understanding Between the

United States Army and the American Association

of Port Authorities

Partnership Agreement Between the U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers and the American Association

of Port Authorities

54

Appendix 2

Participating Interviewees

55

Scan of Ports – Interviewees Port of New York and New Jersey

Matt Masters Manager of Waterways Planning and Development Port of New York and New Jersey

Tom Shea, Project Manager NY District Corps of Engineers

Port of Oakland Dave Doak, Project Manager, San Francisco District Corps of Engineers Currently with the Engineering Division of the San Francisco Corps District

Len Cardoza, Senior Technical Advisor, Weston Solutions (Formerly Port of Oakland Project Manager at the time of the feasibility study through beginning of construction)

Imee Osantowski, Principal Engineer, Maritime Planning, Design and Engineering, Port of Oakland

Port of Portland Laura Hicks, Portland District Corps of Engineers, was Project Manager for project through construction, now Chief, Programs and Project Management Branch Sebastian Degens, General Manager, Planning and Development, Port of Portland

Dianne Perry, C. Dianne Perry Consulting LLC, formerly Port of Portland Project

Manager

Port of Long Beach Emily Ueda, Port of Long Beach Project Manager in construction phase Chris Applequist, Port of Long Beach, Project Manager from point of merging design of the four projects to early construction phase

Jim Fields, Project Manager, Navigation Branch, Programs and Project Management Division, Los Angeles District Corps of Engineers

56

Port of Baltimore

Steve Storms, Chief of Design and Construction, Harbor Development Department, Maryland Port Administration

Vance Hobbs, Deputy Director, Office of Regional Environmental and Government Affairs - Northern (SAIE-ESOH), Assistant Secretary of the Army for Installations, Energy and Environment. Formerly Chief, Maryland Section–Northern, Regulatory Branch, Baltimore District Corps at the time of the project.

57

Appendix 3

Amplifying Questions Used in Interview Process

58

STREAMLINING FEDERAL PROJECT PROCESSES

QUESTIONS FOR PORT AND CORPS CONTACTS

QUALITY PARTNERSHIP INITIATIVE SUBCOMMITTEE

COMMITTEE ON HARBORS NAVIGATION AND ENVIRONMENT

AMERICAN ASSOCIATION OF PORT AUTHORITIES (AAPA)

AMPLIFYING QUESTIONS

A. GENERAL INFORMATION

Project Name:

Port Authority and Point of Contact Name, Email and Phone Number:

Corps District Point of Contact, Email and Phone Number:

Other Relevant Stakeholder(s) Point of Contact, Email and Phone Number:

Brief Description of Project:

1. Describe the scope of this project as originally planned including its purpose and

importance.

2. Type of Project (e.g., new channel, deeper & wider channel, dredged material placement

site, etc.):

3. Phase of Project Streamlined (Feasibility Study, Post Authorization Change, Dredged

Material Management Plan, Construction, Department of the Army permit, etc.):

4. Federal Funding Type Normally Used (General Investigations, Construction General,

Operations and Maintenance, port authority, etc.). Other Federal funds that were used to

streamline effort.

5. Other Funding normally used (Port Authority, State or local, Private). Other Funds used to

streamline effort.

6. Cost Sharing Percentages Normally used as well as cost share change (if applicable):

7. Describe how project development, budgeting, decision-making, public outreach and

coordination with your local Corps officials is normally conducted for projects of this type.

8. Describe the key leadership or other “drivers” in a normal project of this scope.

59

B. SPECIFIC INFORMATION

Process

1. Describe the normal process for a project of this type – phases the project would go

through and the time required for each phase.

2. How did project development and implementation change for this project? Overall how

much more quickly was the project brought on board? Why?

3. Were procurement processes impacted? In what way?

4. How did review processes (e.g., District, Regional Business Center, Corps Headquarters,

ASA(CW), etc.) change for this project? Were they concurrent? Sequential? Were they

changed in some other way? Please describe.

5. How did collaborative processes with stakeholders (businesses, communities, elected

officials (any level), interest groups, etc.) affect the project schedule?

Communication

1. Describe how Communication processes changed during this project experience. Be

specific regarding:

a. Among Port agency staff

b. Between Port agency staff and leadership

c. Among Corps staff

d. Between Corps staff and leadership

e. Between Port and Corps staff

f. Between Port and Corps leaders

g. With stakeholders and Port as well as with Corps.

h. Others (such as other state, local or Federal agencies, the public in general).

2. Overall, did communication changes play an important role in success? In what way?

3. Who or what was most effective in making these changes?

Leadership

1. Did a political (elected official) leader(s) emerge in the process that had an impact on

streamlining the project? If so, who and at what level of governance (authority, city,

county, state, Federal…)

2. What was this leader’s specific impact on streamlining the process?

3. Did another leader(s) emerge in the process that had an impact on streamlining the

project? If so, who and from what organization (e.g., port authority; community; business;

local, state or Federal agency; interest group; etc.)

4. What was this leader’s specific impact on streamlining the process?

5. What characteristics were most important to this leadership success?

60

Funding

1. How did funding influence streamlining of this project (e.g., regular and full annual

appropriations, congressional adds (earmarks), port authority funding or taking on work

that was normally done by the Corps, private sector financing, etc.)?

2. How did streamlining influence funding? For example, did other resources become

available due to timing changes? Or due to new partnerships formed or invested?

Events

1. Did events drive streamlining of your project? Examples of events could include natural

disasters, deepening and widening of the Panama Canal, trade partner changes, timing, etc.

2. Please describe the event(s) and how it affected the project timing or success.

C. OUTCOMES

1. What are the three most important things that made this project come on line more quickly

than “normal” Civil Works or Department of the Army permit processes?

2. What was accomplished by this approach or process? Were the initial goals of the project

achieved?

3. Best estimate of how much more quickly the project was completed than “normal”

processes (i.e., number of months or years saved).

4. What were the outcomes of project streamlining (positive and negative) – were there

benefits? costs? time savings? changes in partnership quality? Please be specific.

5. Is the project considered a success and by whom? If so, why? If not, why not?

6. Has this experience created a synergistic effect on other projects? Among stakeholders and

agency personnel?

D. LESSONS LEARNED

1. What lessons were learned from this streamlined project that could be applied to other

projects?

2. Were there unintended outcomes resulting from this project? Were they addressed and

how?

3. From this experience, what changes are needed in Civil Works project or Department of the

Army permit processes to repeat this experience on other projects or in other ports?

4. Based on this experience, what changes are you implementing in other project processes?

5. If you had to do this project again, what would you do differently?

Quality Partnership Initiative Workgroup Scan of U. S ...

Documents

Transcript of Quality Partnership Initiative Workgroup Scan of U. S ...