Reno Bottoms Habitat Rehabilitation Review Plan

RENO BOTTOMS HABITAT REHABILITATION

AND ENHANCEMENT PROJECT

REVIEW PLAN

P2 #472235

23 June 2020

Document History

VERSION DATE REVISION

DESCRIPTION DATE

APPROVED APPROVED

BY

Original 28April2020 Draft Review Plan 30Apr2020 Review Plan Committee

Revised 09Jun2020 Review Plan 23Jun2020 MVD

Reno Bottoms HREP Review Plan

MVD DECISION DOCUMENT REVIEW PLAN June 2020

Project Name: Reno Bottoms Habitat Rehabilitation and Enhancement Project (HREP), Upper Mississippi River Restoration (UMRR), spanning parts of Houston County, MN and Allamakee County, IA

P2 Project Number: 472235

Decision Document Type: Integrated Feasibility Report

Project Type: Ecosystem Restoration

District: St. Paul District

Major Subordinate Command (MSC): Mississippi Valley Division

Review Management Organization (RMO): Mississippi Valley Division

Key Review Plan Dates

Date of RMO Endorsement of Review Plan: (Pending) Date of MSC Approval of Review Plan: (Pending) Date of IEPR Exclusion Approval: (N/A) Has the Review Plan changed since RMO Endorsement? (N/A) Date of Last Review Plan Revision: (N/A) Date of Review Plan Web Posting: (Pending) Date of Congressional Notifications: (N/A)

Milestone Schedule

Scheduled Actual Complete

Tentatively Selected Plan: (05/28/2021) TBD (No) Release Draft Report to Public: (09/23/2021) TBD (No) Final Report Transmittal: (01/14/2022) TBD (No)

2


Project Fact Sheet June 2020

Project Name: Upper Mississippi River Restoration Program (UMRR) Reno Bottoms HREP - Pool 9, Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife Refuge

Location: The project spans Houston Co, Minnesota and Allamakee Co, Iowa. The area is bounded on the west by the Canadian Pacific railroad, on the east by the main Mississippi River navigation channel, on the north by the Lock and Dam 8 dike, and on the south by the Upper Iowa River. The closest communities to the project area are New Albin, Iowa and Reno, Minnesota.

Authority: Public Law 99-662 of the 1986 WRDA, as amended, authorizes the US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) to study, design, and construct habitat rehabilitation and enhancement projects (HREP) on the Upper Mississippi River system without specific Congressional authorization.

Sponsor: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service is the project sponsor. Following construction of the habitat islands, the USFWS will take over the responsibility of operations and maintenance.

Type of Study: Feasibility study with integrated Environmental Assessment. The Reno Bottoms HREP decision and implementation document will be prepared in accordance with Engineer Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100, Appendix F, Amendment #2. The approval level of the decision document (if policy compliant) is MVD. An EA will be prepared along with the decision document. A Plans and Specifications implementation document for the project will also be prepared and will undergo ATR review.

SMART Planning Status: N/A

Project Area: The project area is within Pool 9 of the Upper Mississippi River on the west side of the navigation channel. The 14,000 acre Reno Bottoms area is located within the Upper Mississippi River National Wildlife and Fish Refuge (Refuge) between river miles 671-682 and is depicted on the figure below.

Problem Statement: The diversity of overstory tree species has declined from historic levels and is likely to continue to degrade without active management. Forest Health has also been negatively impacted due to the effects of forest pests and diseases as well as alterations to hydrology.

Federal Interest: The project has the potential to improve conditions on over 14,000 acres of floodplain habitat by providing forest establishment and increasing forest species, size, age, and structural diversity, with secondary benefits to marsh and aquatic areas. Reducing forest fragmentation and providing larger contiguous forest patch size, will benefit forest-dependent species and improve Refuge priority resources of concern. This project is 100% federally funded at an estimated cost of $6,300,000.

Risk Identification: The project does not involve any significant risks, imminent life or safety issues requiring extensive or independent review. Risk and uncertainty with bank stabilization, re-building and constructing underwater rock structures are minimal and do not warrant extensive review.

3


The risk associated with the feasibility study phase of the project is minimal however development of the alternatives and developing the alternatives into the Tentatively Selected Plan is challenging in this reach of the Upper Mississippi River.

Risks in the construction phase of this project shall be addressed after the Tentatively Selected Plan is identified and the feasibility study approved. A new review plan will be developed for the implementation phase of the project to include plans and specifications and construction efforts. Once the Tentatively Selected Plan has been identified, the Chief of Engineering and Construction will make a risk informed decision as to whether or not a SAR will be required. That decision will be documented in the implementation phase review plan. As with any habitat island, one imminent risk is erosion of granular material which is primarily caused due to overtopping prior to the establishment of turf.

4


1. FACTORS AFFECTING THE LEVELS AND SCOPE OF REVIEWS

Mandatory IEPR Triggers.

Is the estimated total project cost, including mitigation, greater than $200 million? No Has the Governor of an affected state requested a peer review by independent experts? No Will an Environmental Impact Statement be prepared as part of the study? No Will the project likely involve significant public dispute as to the project’s size, nature, or

effects? No Is the project/study likely to involve significant public dispute as to the economic or

environmental cost or benefit of the project? No

Scope of Review.

Will the study likely be challenging? No

Provide a preliminary assessment of where the project risks are likely to occur and assess the magnitude of those risks. Real estate, not to induce flooding. Both are being mitigated by extensive review of data.

Is the project likely to be justified by life safety or is the study or project likely to involve significant life safety issues? No

Is the information in the decision document or anticipated project design likely to be based on novel methods, involve innovative materials or techniques, present complex challenges for interpretation, contain precedent-setting methods or models, or present conclusions that are likely to change prevailing practices? No

Does the project design require redundancy, resiliency, and/or robustness, unique construction sequencing, or a reduced or overlapping design/construction schedule? No

Is the project expected to have more than negligible adverse impacts on scarce or unique tribal, cultural, or historic resources? No

Is the project expected to have substantial adverse impacts on fish and wildlife species and their habitat prior to the implementation of mitigation measures? No

Is the project expected to have, before mitigation measures, more than a negligible adverse impact on an endangered or threatened species or their designated critical habitat? No

2. REVIEW EXECUTION PLAN

This section describes each level of review to be conducted. Based upon the factors discussed in Section 1, this study will undergo the following types of reviews:

District Quality Control. All decision documents (including data, analyses, environmental compliance documents, etc.) undergo DQC. The decision documents include the Feasibility Main

5


Report and Appendices. This internal review process covers basic science and engineering work products. It fulfills the project quality requirements of the Project Management Plan.

Agency Technical Review. ATR is performed by a qualified team from outside the home district that is not involved in the day-to-day production of the project/product. These teams will be comprised of certified USACE personnel. The ATR team lead will be from outside the home MSC.

Cost Engineering Review. All decision documents shall be coordinated with the Cost Engineering Mandatory of Expertise (MCX). The MCX will provide the Cost Engineering certification. The RMO is responsible for coordinating with the MCX for the reviews. These reviews typically occur as part of ATR.

Policy and Legal Review. All decision documents will be reviewed for compliance with law and policy. ER 1105-2-100, Appendix H, and Director’s Policy Memorandum 2019-01, both provide guidance on policy and legal compliance reviews. These reviews culminate in determinations that report recommendations and the supporting analyses and coordination comply with law and policy.

Table 1 provides the schedules and costs for reviews. The specific expertise required for the teams are identified in later subsections covering each review. These subsections also identify requirements, special reporting provisions, and sources of more information.

Table 1: Schedule and Costs of Review

Product(s) to undergo Review Review Level Start Date End Date Cost Complete

Planning Model Review Model Review

(see EC 1105-2-412)

TBD TBD TBD No

Draft Feasibility Report / EA or EIS District Quality Control 7/29/2021 8/26/2021 $20,000 No

Draft Feasibility Report / EA or EIS Agency Technical Review 9/23/2021 10/21/2021 $25,000 No

Draft Feasibility Report / EA or EIS Policy and Legal Review 9/23/2021 10/21/2021 $0 No

Final Feasibility Report / EA or EIS Policy and Legal Review 1/14/2022 2/25/2022 $0 No

6


a. DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL

The home district shall manage DQC and will appoint a DQC Lead to manage the local review (see EC 1165-2-217, section 8.a.1). Table 2 identifies the required expertise for the DQC team.

Table 2: Required DQC Expertise DQC Team Disciplines

Expertise Required

DQC Lead The DQC lead should be a professional with experience in the design and performance of an ecosystem restoration project, preferably with previous DQC lead experience. The DQC lead will also serve as a reviewer for a specific discipline.

Planning The planning reviewer should be a water resources planner with experience in ecosystem restoration project development and review and IWR Plan, CE/ICA.

Environmental Resources

The environmental resources reviewer should have ten years of experience in the preparation of NEPA documents, familiarity with the National Historic Preservation Act, and an understanding of the pertinent planning and policy requirements related to NEPA and NHPA.

Hydraulic Engineering / Hydrology

The H&H reviewer should be an engineer with ten years of experience, preferably in ecosystem restoration project development, review, and familiar with 2-dimensional modeling. The H&H reviewer should also be a certified climate change reviewer.

Geotechnical Engineering

The geotechnical engineering reviewer should be an engineer with experience in ecosystem restoration project development and review.

Cost Engineering The cost engineering reviewer shall be Cost DX staff or Cost DX pre-certified professional with experience preparing cost estimates for projects.

Civil Engineering The civil engineering reviewer should be an engineer with ten years of experience in ecosystem restoration project development and review.

Real Estate The real estate reviewer should be a real estate professional with experience in the development of feasibility planning documents.

Construction The construction/operations reviewer should be an expert in coordinating construction operations.

Office of Counsel The Office of Counsel reviewer will be determined by District Counsel.

Documentation of DQC. Quality Control should be performed continuously. A specific certification of DQC completion is required at the draft and final report stages. Documentation of DQC should follow the District Quality Manual and the MSC Quality Management Plan. An example DQC Certification statement is provided in EC 1165-2-217, on page 19 (see Figure 4).

Documentation of completed DQC should be provided to the MSC, RMO and ATR Team leader prior to initiating an ATR. The ATR team will examine DQC records and comment in the ATR report on the adequacy of the DQC effort. Missing or inadequate DQC documentation can result in delays to the start of other reviews (see EC 1165-2-217, section 9).

b. AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW

7


The ATR will assess whether the analyses are technically correct and comply with guidance, and that documents explain the analyses and results in a clear manner. The RMO manages ATR. The review is conducted by an ATR Team whose members are certified to perform reviews. Lists of certified reviewers are maintained by the various technical Communities of Practice (see EC 1165-2-217, section 9(h)(1)). Table 3 identifies the disciplines and required expertise for this ATR Team.

Table 3: Required ATR Team Expertise ATR Team Disciplines

Expertise Required

ATR Lead (from outside of the home MSC)

A professional with experience in ecosystem restoration and extensive experience preparing Civil Works decision documents and conducting ATR. The lead should have the skills to manage a virtual team through an ATR. The lead will also serve as a reviewer for a specific discipline (such as planning).

Planning A water resources planner with experience in wetland complex restoration projects and with the IWR-Plan and CE/ICA.

Environmental Resources

An Environmental Specialist with ten years of experience in wetland complex ecosystem restoration projects, NEPA compliance, ecological modeling, familiarity with the National Historic Preservation Act, and a Certified Reviewer with IWR-Plan Experience.

Hydraulic Engineering / Hydrology

A Hydrologist and Hydraulic Engineer with ten years of experience in large river ecosystem and wetland complex ecosystem restoration.

Geotechnical Engineering

A Geotechnical Engineer with experience in backwater dredging and berm/island construction.

Cost Engineering Nominated by Cost MCX.

Civil Engineering The civil engineering reviewer should be an engineer with ten years of experience in ecosystem restoration project development and review.

Real Estate A senior Realty Specialist with experience in Federal lands and MOUs. Climate Preparedness and Resilience CoP Reviewer

A member of the Climate Preparedness and Resiliency Community of Practice will participate in the ATR review.

Documentation of ATR. DrChecks will be used to document all ATR comments, responses and resolutions. Comments should be limited to those needed to ensure product adequacy. If a concern cannot be resolved by the ATR team and PDT, it will be elevated to the vertical team to resolve using the EC 1165-2-217 issue resolution process. Concerns can be closed in DrChecks by noting the concern has been elevated. The ATR Lead will prepare a Statement of Technical Review (see EC 1165-2-217, Section 9), for the draft and final reports, certifying that review issues have been resolved or elevated. ATR may be certified when all concerns are resolved or referred to the vertical team and the ATR documentation is complete.

c. INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

A programmatic exclusion for the UMRR Program was approved February 22, 2012.

d. MODEL CERTIFICATION OR APPROVAL

8


EC 1105-2-412 mandates the use of certified or approved models for all planning activities to ensure the models are technically and theoretically sound, compliant with USACE policy, computationally accurate, and based on reasonable assumptions. Planning models are any models and analytical tools used to define water resources management problems and opportunities, to formulate potential alternatives to address the problems and take advantage of the opportunities, to evaluate potential effects of alternatives and to support decision making. The use of a certified/approved planning model does not constitute technical review of a planning product. The selection and application of the model and the input and output data is the responsibility of the users and is subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR.

Table 5: Planning Models. The following models may be used to develop the decision document:

Model Name and Version

Brief Model Description and How It Will Be Used in the Study

Certification / Approval

IWR-Planning Suite II

IWR Planning Suite II was developed by Institute of Water Resources as accounting software to compare habitat benefits among alternatives.

Certified for National Use

Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEP) – Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models

HEP is a species-habitat approach to assessing the quality of habitat for selected evaluation species serving as proxies for the considered habitat type. The Habitat quality is documented with a HSI score on a scale of 0-1. This value is derived from an evaluation of key habitat components necessary for the reproduction, growth, and survival of the species support by the habitat.

HSI models being considered include Bluegill, Veery, Black Capped Chickadee, and Grey Squirrel, although other HSI models may be considered, as appropriate, as plan formulation progresses.

All listed HSI models are approved for regional use within described geographic regions.

Forest Succession Model

There is potential to use a USGS-developed model. If we use this model, we will pursue model approval.

TBD

EC 1105-2-412 does not cover engineering models used in planning. The responsible use of well-known and proven USACE developed and commercial engineering software will continue. The professional practice of documenting the application of the software and modeling results will be followed. The USACE Scientific and Engineering Technology Initiative has identified many engineering models as preferred or acceptable for use in studies. These models should be used when appropriate. The selection and application of the model and the input and output data is still the responsibility of the users and is subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR.

Table 6: Engineering Models. These models may be used to develop the decision document:

Model Name and Version

Brief Model Description and How It Will Be Used in the Study

Approval Status

HEC-RAS Version 5.0.7

The HEC-RAS program provides the capability to perform one-dimensional steady and unsteady flow river hydraulics

CoP Preferred

9


calculations. The program will be used for tasks such as assessing floodplain impacts.

ADH 2-dimensional hydraulic model

ADH is a state-of-the-art Adaptive Hydraulics Modeling system developed by the Coastal and Hydraulics Laboratory, ERDC, USACE (www.chl.erdc.usace.army.mil). ADH is used to simulate 2-dimensional (longitudinal and lateral) variation in water surface elevation, flow velocity, and flow direction in project areas. Both steady and unsteady flow conditions may be simulated depending on needs.

CoP Preferred

HEC-SSP Version 2.1.1

The HEC-SSP will be used to perform statistical analyses of hydrologic data to produce duration curves along the Mississippi River.

CoP Preferred

Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System (MCACES) MII Version 3.0

MCACES is a cost estimation model used to estimate costs for the HREP. Certified

e. POLICY AND LEGAL REVIEW

Policy and legal compliance reviews for draft and final planning decision documents are delegated to the MSC (see Director’s Policy Memorandum 2018-05, paragraph 9).

(i) Policy Review.

The policy review team is identified through the collaboration of the MSC Chief of Planning and Policy and the HQUSACE Chief of the Office of Water Project Review. The team is identified in Attachment 1 of this Review Plan. The makeup of the Policy Review team will be drawn from Headquarters (HQUSACE), the MSC, the Planning Centers of Expertise, and other review resources as needed.

o The Policy Review Team will be invited to participate in key meetings during the development of decision documents as well as SMART Planning Milestone meetings. These engagements may include In-Progress Reviews, Issue Resolution Conferences or other vertical team meetings plus the milestone events.

o The input from the Policy Review team should be documented in a Memorandum for the Record (MFR) produced for each engagement with the team. The MFR should be distributed to all meeting participants.

o In addition, teams may choose to capture some of the policy review input in a risk register if appropriate. These items should be highlighted at future meetings until the issues are resolved. Any key decisions on how to address risk or other considerations should be documented in an MFR.

(ii) Legal Review.

10


Representatives from the Office of Counsel will be assigned to participate in reviews. Members may participate from the District, MSC and HQUSACE. The MSC Chief of Planning and Policy will coordinate membership and participation with the office chiefs. The Policy and Legal Compliance Reviews will be conducted in accordance with the UMRR PRP, Section III.D. Policy and Legal Compliance/Certification will occur prior to the ATR, MDM, and Public concurrent review periods.

o In some cases legal review input may be captured in the MFR for the particular meeting or milestone. In other cases, a separate legal memorandum may be used to document the input from the Office of Counsel.

o Each participating Office of Counsel will determine how to document legal review input.

11

Reno Bottoms Habitat Rehabilitation Review Plan

Documents

Transcript of Reno Bottoms Habitat Rehabilitation Review Plan