Sub-Product JJ - Plan Formulation
The project team will follow the six-step planning process and guidelines for conducting
ecosystem restoration studies specified in Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100. Steps in the
plan formulation process will include:
1. The specific problems and opportunities that will be addressed in the study will be
identified, and the causes of the problems will be discussed and documented. Planning
goals will be set, objectives will be established, and constraints will be identified. Factors
that will influence the success of the effort will be identified. The quantitative/qualitative
measures that will be used to measure the outputs of multi-objective plans will be
developed and identified.
2. Existing and future “without-project” conditions will be identified, analyzed, and
forecast. The existing condition of resources, problems, and opportunities critical to plan
formulation, impact assessment, and evaluation will be characterized and documented.
3. The project team will formulate alternative project plans that will address the planning
objectives. Following initial system evaluations, concept level designs will be prepared
for projects at the four priority waterways. If the projects at the four priority waterways
appear feasible, detailed design and cost estimates will be prepared. As the system
evaluation is further completed in the watershed, additional projects will be identified, as
necessary, based on the study analysis for design, cost estimation, and other criteria.
Scales of alternatives will be developed, as appropriate, for each priority project and for
the developmental project-framework elsewhere in the watershed. Non-structural plans
for watershed management considered to be essential to the success of waterway
improvement efforts (e.g., erosion and sedimentation reduction measures, stormwater
management, non-point source pollution control, human uses, etc.) will be identified and
formulated.
4. Alternative project plans will be evaluated for effectiveness, efficiency, completeness
and acceptability. The impacts of alternative plans will be evaluated using the system of
accounts framework specified in Principles and Guidelines and ER 1105-2-100 (National
Economic Development, NED, and National Ecosystem Restoration, NER).
5. Alternative plans will be compared. A cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis
in combination with other identified criteria will be conducted to prioritize and rank plan
alternatives. The public involvement program will be used to obtain public input to the
alternative formulation-evaluation-comparison process.
6. A plan will be selected for recommendation and a justification for plan selection will
be prepared. The public involvement process will be used to gain input throughout the
plan formulation-selection-recommendation process.
Organizing Study Concepts and Planning Objectives into Plan Formulation
Six sets of planning objectives are described in section 5.3 of the 905b Reconnaissance
Report, each composed of several major activities and concepts. Paraphrased very
briefly, with lettering and keywords highlighted for reference throughout this JJ plan,
these are:
A)
B)
C)
D)
E)
F)
identifying potential measures;
building analytical decision-making tools (including criteria for projects);
synthesizing data and developing predictive models;
studies to support identification and formulation of projects;
integrating the study with other major studies/efforts; and
establishing an institutional and implementation framework
For plan formulation purposes it is possible to approach these many major objectives in a
sequenced way, understanding that the normal iterative planning cycles will occur
between the series/sets of these study activities. This plan formulation inserts these six
broad study-sets into the conventional six-step planning approach outlined above.
Numerous study/investigation concepts are laid out in the reconnaissance report in
section 5.7, including the preliminary concepts developed for the four priority waterway
projects. These ideas will be employed as necessary to achieve one or more of the
planning objectives.
Overview of Plan Formulation
Technical information and technical tools are the base for resolving the area’s waterway
problems, opportunities, and objectives. Work under planning objective C (data) will be
used to characterize the metro area’s baseline condition; this effort comprises the
majority of work to develop the without- project condition.
Developing the social, economic, and institutional possibilities for projects and other
solutions will need to be informed by this technical information and allows the
development of screening and decision tools. Hence, products developed under studies in
objective B (tools/criteria) address understanding and accounting for these
circumstances, and developing the screens by which alternative solutions would be
tested. These activities comprise much of the preliminary plan formulation process.
Studies to accomplish objectives A (measures), D (project identification), and F
(framework) examine the mix of specific measures, sites, and institutions, and create
types of projects which may meet the multi-objective solutions to identified problems.
These components will be combined/recombined, and analyzed to produce a project
framework for the metro area. This process is also central to formulating in detail the
priority waterway projects, and to catalyzing a comprehensive implementation program.
These efforts mirror the conventional feasibility-phase formulation and reformulation
processes for creating single-project alternatives, including the application of detailed
screenings and analytical evaluations. This will occur for the four priority project
waterways.
Here though, the watershed study result will more likely be a “portfolio” of project
concepts (perhaps comparable to a capital improvement program) and a “toolbox” of
decision-making tools, defined relationships, and planning procedures for refining and
implementing those future projects.
There are specific major activities within each of these broad study objectives which
cross-cut the study’s planning process. Many activities have to be performed
sequentially in order to progress fully to the next set of work (example: synthesize data
baseline to inform/develop models). Some of the study’s major activities will be
conducted concurrently (example: development of physical/environmental baseline,
inventory of existing institutions and programs). And finally, many will be revisited as
the study becomes better informed on various natural resource and social/institutional
fronts (examples: refinement of criteria as commercial/economic or agricultural linkages
to waterways are examined in detail; physical characteristics of the river are better
understood; etc).
Assistance to the Study Team
As described in detail in JI – Public Involvement, a central mechanism of the study will
be the reliance on stakeholders and outside interdisciplinary technical experts to assist in
crafting many of the products of these major activities. These participants will help
design and conduct elements of the plan formulation/evaluation/selection effort – they
will help refine the formulation process, and help assure discreet planning results and
technical products are packaged into coherent reports and other deliverables.
Three formal committees will be convened to do this. The first is a technical committee
focused on the development and review of the baseline information about the metro area
and its waterways. They will help in framing and tailoring the environmental response
models (unsteady-state hydrodynamic, ecological response, etc) to be used in subsequent
project evaluations. A stakeholder team will help steer the total effort, and will assist in
generating the criteria and guidelines necessary for appropriate decision-making about
plan/project alternatives. This committee will help develop information about social
conditions, constraints, socio-economic and institutional opportunities, and other peoplerelated elements of the metro picture. They will serve as a sounding board for the study’s
area-wide constituencies. Finally, an executive team, in addition to its conventional
duties to supervise the administration of the study and its management processes, will
review final formulation/selections of watershed concepts and specific projects.
The Sub-Product JI Public Involvement describes how their input and craftsmanship will
be obtained (meetings, workshops, etc).
This Sub-product JJ Plan Formulation contains information about what tasks they will
participate in, and where these fit within the plan formulation sequence. This Sub-
Product is comprised of seven major tasks (which are in turn composed of numerous task
and sub-tasks).
Major Task JJA: Project Management Coordination
Project management and plan formulation activities include frequent coordination with
technical elements, response to congressional or other study related inquiries, and
maintaining open dialogue with the non-federal sponsors, the Corps’ higher organization,
other agencies and various watershed interests. A project manager will be assigned from
the Portland District’s Planning Branch to lead the plan formulation effort. The nonfederal sponsors also will assign project coordinators to work with the Corps project
manager and coordinate non-federal in-kind services. The Corps project manager and the
non-federal project coordinators will lead the project team, the supporting committees,
and other stakeholders and coordinate the plan formulation process.
This joint management of the plan formulation effort will include such activities as:
organizing and preparing meetings; developing and providing upward reports to the
Corps and the non-federal sponsors; preparation of study management documents;
coordination with local partners, interested parties, and other agencies; and integration of
all technical investigations. A focal activity of the management effort will be to
progressively orient the numerous work sessions, and systematically compile the
products being furnished by the study team and the assisting stakeholders and technical
experts during the formulation effort.
The following tasks will be completed by the project manager and the non-federal
sponsor’s project coordinators. NOTE: The costs of participation in all JJ Plan
Formulation activities by the rest of the project team are included in their technical study
estimates under those appropriate sub-products.
Task JJAA: Study Coordination
Considerable effort will be placed on coordinating team efforts; meeting with the
sponsors and potential partner agencies and watershed organizations; and ensuring
upward reporting within the Corps organization. Efforts under this task include
coordinating, arranging, and facilitating regular team meetings and briefing Corps staff
and the non-federal sponsors on study progress. This task will require _______ days at a
cost of _________.
Task JJAB: District Coordination Meeting
A meeting will be held with all study team members, including the non-Federal sponsor,
shortly after the initiation of the feasibility phase of the study. The purpose of the
meeting will be to plan and coordinate activities of the various Corps staff covering
technical disciplines, who are responsible for performing portions of the feasibility
investigations. The agenda will include addressing internal coordination mechanisms
(scheduling/progress, costs, review, etc), the development of coordination externally
(especially with the non-federal sponsors and the three working committees), and
development of public involvement processes including requirements of the team, the
sponsor, and the committees. The Portland District will perform this task and it will take
____ days and cost ________.
Major Task JJB: Plan Formulation Support Technology
Based on the large study area and scope of the study, extensive use will be made of
Geographic Information Systems (GIS) technology to summarize, analyze, and
synthesize project information. Coordination and information sharing will be facilitated
through maximizing the use of internet and electronic communications.
Task JJBA: Study Formulation Website
The study will facilitate coordination and information sharing by establishing and
maintaining a project intra/internet site. This will facilitate ease of information sharing
between team members, the sponsor, and interested individuals and assist in timely
completion of tasks being conducted concurrently at numerous sites. The web site will be
developed to include such information as study schedule, draft products reports, site
photographs, maps, etc. The ________ will perform this task and it will require _______
days and cost _______.
Task JJBB: GIS - Data Gathering
The study will gather information regarding the various layers/coverages available
relating to the ecology, geography, land uses, economy etc. of the metro area watershed.
A summary of available coverages will be put together for members of the study to
review and evaluate during formulation efforts. This task will be performed by ________
and require ________days and cost _________ .
Task JJBC: GIS - Analysis and Synthesis
Using available coverages/layers, analyses will be preformed to assist in the identification
of potential project sites, evaluate project features, and screening of alternatives. These
efforts will involve efforts associated with each of the four project focus areas and the
general metro watershed. This task will be performed by _________ and require
________days and cost __________.
Task JJBD: GIS - Map and Summary Information
Maps and other GIS products will be developed to assist in presentations and in
communicating project information to the public and in the reports. This task will be
performed by ________ and require __________days and cost __________.
Major Task JJC: Plan Formulation
Plan formulation involves the development and evaluation of alternative solutions to the
problems identified during the reconnaissance study and refined during the feasibility
study. “Without-project” future conditions will be assessed for each site/area selected and
compared to the “with-project” future conditions for each alternative. Technical plan
formulation activities will include: project site selection, development of alternative
plans, and supervision of the alternative evaluation and selection process.
The project manager will closely monitor the progress of technical investigations and
ensure that the study complies with the provisions of ER 1105-2-100 Guidance for
Conducting Civil Works Planning Studies; and ER 1165-2-501 Water Resource Policies
and Authorities, Civil Works Ecosystem Restoration Policy.
Task JJCA: Identify Problems and Opportunities
Additional efforts will be taken to more precisely define the specific problems facing the
metro area watershed and which were identified in the reconnaissance phase. This will
be done for the four priority waterways, and precisely identify the causal factors and the
opportunities available to address these issues. This task will be performed by ________
and require __________ days and cost _________.
Task JJCB: Baseline Information - Establish Without-Project Conditions
Without-project conditions will be developed and refined in the early stages of the
feasibility study based on needs assessments for the metro area’s waterway
goals/objectives, and environmental, hydrologic, institutional and socioeconomic inputs.
This task will be performed by the Portland District’s Planning Branch (or its contractor)
and the non-federal sponsors. This task includes two cost items. The first relates to
developing an overall without project condition for the entire metro study area/watershed,
the second involves separately addressing the without-project condition for each specific
project site being evaluated in detail.
For purposes of this study, “without-project” includes developing the baseline
information about the physical and natural environment of the study area, and to
developing the inventories of any other existing conditions as called for in the planning
objectives and reconnaissance study concepts. This includes all nine of the major
activities in planning objective C (data). Several other activities will be pursued in
developing this baseline, including the development of the GIS Interface under study, as
it is an immediately useful repository for the information developed in these assessments.
Similarly, there are socio-economic and institutional inventories called for under
planning objective F (framework), including the existing institutional framework for
developing waterway projects, and the review of existing agency programs supporting or
constraining various waterway improvements. These will be completed as part of the
baseline characterization.
The nine major activities in planning objective A (data) primarily focus on understanding
the physical character of the area waterways and functional changes that have occurred to
it due to past modifications. This baseline formulation will also characterize land use
influences causing such changes, make estimations of the impacts from those
hydrological changes, characterize the existing biological conditions, and develop data
for the hydrodynamic and biological models. Some major activities require making some
early study estimations about desired biological conditions and the effect of various
management actions under these circumstances. These are not necessarily preliminary
formulations or targets, but instead intend to lay out technical sideboards or study
parameters about the physical environment and biological communities in the waterways.
The technical committee and the engineering, environmental, socio-economic, and real
estate members of the study team will lead the development of this baseline information.
The committee would advise and assist in scheduling, designing, executing the numerous
hydrological-hydraulic, geomorphologic, GIS, and environmental studies in a logical
sequence. They will advise on how to develop products such that these are able to be
compiled into one coherent baseline package. It is expected that work performed by
previous technical efforts would form the starting foundation for building this database.
This existing work serves two useful purposes: first, as sources of raw data; and second,
in enabling the study to yield a detailed and useful baseline characterization. Under
different scenarios (i.e. reasonable civic trajectories such as the “planned trend” models
being examined by the PNERC consortium) the without-project condition could be
expressed differently and form varied starting points for formulating screens and
alternatives in the watershed study and any portfolio of conceived long term projects.
This group of study outputs will be achieved through the administration of specific
contracted services and through direct investigative work by the study team and the
technical committee. The description of the baseline conditions will be contained in the
feasibility report and developed as part of sub-products in the Engineering, SocioEconomics, and Environmental Reports/Appendices. The specific technical scopes of
work and costs necessary to accomplish all major activities contributing to this baseline
are described in the WBS under those specific disciplines. The coordination of baseline
studies, compilation of results into a whole package, and assimilation of additional input
by the basin constituents will be a substantial objective to be accomplished in the series
of work meetings and workshops undertaken by the technical committee. The results of
this baseline effort will be the key feature presented and reviewed at the “ Technical
Summit” public conference (see JI – Public Involvement).
Efforts to coordinate the participation of the technical committee and other public
involvement in these studies will be performed by the non-federal sponsors, and will take
_____ days and cost _______. The effort to manage and administer the individual
studies, and package and document the resulting baseline condition (without-project
conditions) will be performed by the Portland District take ____ days and cost _______.
Task JJCC: Preliminary Formulation and Screening of Alternatives
This stage of preliminary formulation and alternative screening will consist of the major
activities necessary to develop the tools, screens and guidance necessary for metro area
stakeholders and the Corps to systematically conceive, develop and implement sitespecific waterway projects – whether at the four priority waterways or elsewhere in the
watershed. These preliminary formulation activities touch virtually all of the broad
study activities described above. Within each of these planning objectives, one or more
major activities develops a type of information such as desired conditions, criteria,
principles, guidelines, uses/utilities, preliminary assessments, planning units, ranges of
alternatives, among other fundamental information. This information will be used later
in the study in developing 1) the alternative formulations of plans/projects at the four
priority waterways, 2) the formulations of comprehensive watershed frameworks for
developing additional/future projects, and/or 3) as qualitative or technical screens of
evaluating those alternative projects. Therefore, this preliminary formulation process,
because it is oriented to developing many of the building blocks required to eventually
design and develop projects, will encompass a wide array of this study’s activities.
The study manager, the non-federal sponsors and stakeholder committee will lead the
study team in the completion of these activities. The contextual information, screens, and
other decision tools provide the objective basis against which subsequent evaluations of
alternatives will be made. As such, this effort produces the overarching guidelines and
principles that govern the subsequent design and development of projects and nonstructural solutions.
Some work in this group of study outputs would be accomplished through the
administration of specific contracted services, primarily in development of the
physical/flow and biological response models. The description of preliminary
formulation activities and its results will be contained in the feasibility report. These
will also be addressed in part within sub-product reports in the Engineering, SocioEconomics, Real Estate, Environmental and Cost Estimation Reports/Appendices of the
feasibility report. The specific scopes of study and costs necessary to accomplish major
activities contributing to preliminary formulation is described in the WBS under those
specific disciplines. The study manager will be responsible for coordination of
preliminary formulation tasks, and for coordinating the packaging of the preliminary
formulation outputs into the appropriate deliverable sub-product reports listed above.
Sub-Task JJCCA: Model Development
This JJCC task includes all modeling activities under study C (data) except for GIS
establishment. These unsteady-state flow and biological response models will be
fundamental decision-making tools, required to evaluate the benefits, costs and impacts
of altering the existing floodplain under various strategic scenarios and design
alternatives. This study activity designs and builds the models, but does not run them
(this would occur during development of project alternatives). In addition to requiring
the physical and biological data produced under the JJBC baseline, development of the
capabilities and utilities of the models will require incorporating a wide variety of
contextual information that will be developed as part of the JJCC preliminary
formulations. For these reasons this study output is completed during this stage of the
study (though construction of the models might be started during the baseline study as
physical-environmental information is synthesized). This study activity includes the
work associated with assuring the models can assess a variety of parameters i.e. water
quality, flood risk, channel change, ecological priorities. Further, the models must serve
a variety of end-uses during the development of projects, including strategic waterway
and land-use planning, appraising restoration sites/prescriptions, development of
maintenance-monitoring-evaluation requirements, and accounting for flood protection
and emergency preparedness. Fulfilling the needs of these various disciplines will
require the study team to preliminarily develop and analyze the performance of the
models under many of the types of criteria, assumptions and other parameters being
developed in other study activities during the JJCC preliminary formulation stage.
Sub-Task JJCCB: Developing Evaluation Screens
Work in planning objective B (tools/criteria) will develop the standards and tests against
which the individual/combinations of measures and strategies would be evaluated and
prioritized. A significant preliminary formulation task will be to use the eight study area
planning units (and the four priority waterways) to customize these screens as necessary,
in order that these could be precisely applied to formulated alternatives. This break-out
will need to be responsive to a number of other factors in order to assure social and
ecological viability of ultimate study solutions (i.e. hydrological units, geographical
communities, economy, habitats etc). The criteria will be constructed to address an array
of performance measures: implementability, significance, cost effectiveness and
efficiency. Each of these types of performance measures will be developed to account
for a variety of perspectives: economics, flood risk, biological outcomes, specific
social/institutional considerations (i.e. agriculture, gravel mining, downtowns), the
geographical units, among others. As other fundamental information is developed, the
basin “planning units” and criteria will continue to be refined, and in the end should yield
a set of many potentially useful screens for each waterway being examined. As these are
applied in establishing alternatives and watershed framework/concepts, the study team
will continuously evaluate and reformulate these tools as necessary.
Sub-Task JJCCC: Establishing Multi-objective Metrics
A benefit-cost analysis is not prepared for Corps projects addressing only ecological
restoration. Instead, Corps guidance requires that a cost effectiveness and incremental
cost analysis be performed for such projects, in accordance with the requirements of ER
1105-2-100. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the most cost-effective
restoration plan in terms of cost per unit of ecological output. The incremental cost
analysis will display the incremental ecological gains and incremental costs for moving to
successively higher levels of restoration. This information is provided as a factor to
consider in selecting the optimal plan.
This method is applicable to projects envisioned at the metro waterways, where
ecological objectives may be a component of a formulated alternative addressing multiple
issues. Hence, the final formulation activities for this study focus on determining effects,
effectiveness, outputs and costs associated with various combinations of solutions within
different areas and component features of the waterways in question. Some outputs may
have benefits which are able to be expressed in monetary terms – flood protection,
economic development, recreation, drinking water supply, drainage improvement, etc.
Others will require the incremental analysis described above – ecological attributes, water
quality improvements, aesthetics, education and the like.
These analyses are applicable to a range of physical, biological, economic, social, risk
and other parameters. Plan alternatives (both project-specific and the watershed
framework) will be evaluated against a widest array of qualitative and quantitative factors
– whether monetary or associated with environmental and quality of life characteristics,
and as appropriate to the issues and solutions being considered. The alternatives will be
in effect combinations of measures going into any given project/solution; evaluative work
in this final formulation process will develop a roster of the trade-offs and compatibilities
of these varied metrics. This exercise will be the crux of developing an objective picture
of the benefit-to-cost and feasibility of any (sets of) multiple-objective project(s), and is
meant to assure solutions optimally address the complex of water resource challenges on
a watershed basis.
As part of preliminary formulation, specific metrics that will be employed in conducting
these incremental analyses and cost-to-benefit analyses will be developed. The study
team, the non-federal sponsors, and the technical and stakeholder committees will
establish these measures – primarily for the non-monetary (qualitative) goals/objectives
for projects (i.e. ecological restoration, some human uses, water quality, etc). The corps
study team will review with the other study team participants the quantitative metrics
used by the Corps in evaluating benefits-to-costs which are quantifiable in monetary
terms (i.e. flood damage reduction, etc).
Sub-Task JJCCD: Identifying Implementation Frameworks
The preliminary formulation task includes several of the activities necessary to develop
the outputs of planning objective F (framework). These include the analytical
counterparts to the social and institutional inventories that are developed as part of the
baseline study JJCB. This includes such major activities as assessing the constraints and
opportunities posed by the current metro area-wide institutional framework, and
identifying project measures which form a best “fit” within the existing allowances of the
area’s socio-economic and political institutions. Similarly, an analysis of potential
implementation-friendly laws and policies will be preliminarily developed, and form
useful screens for study alternatives (testing measures “in the absence or presence of a
needed change”). These findings may result in preliminarily formulated alternatives (i.e.
a change to a policy or procedure being an implementable measure, in and of itself).
Some activities within planning objective C (data) overlap this preliminary formulation
effort. These activities include early identification of possible solutions at particular
reaches, and characterizing desired biological conditions. The study team will
coordinate the transition of these baseline efforts into the preliminary formulation phase
of the framework study, and assure that these technically derived sideboards provide
useable starting points for building the preliminary framework alternatives (or provide
useful screens).
Activities within planning objective D (projects) comprise the heart of the process by
which strategic-framework and the four priority waterway project alternatives will be
formulated-evaluated-reformulated (see JJCE below). Some of these major activities
will be conducted during the preliminary formulation stage. These include identifying
and conceptually describing the range of appropriate techniques at specific waterway
reaches. Other activities to be conducted during the preliminary formulation phase
include determining vulnerable activities to flood or other impacts from the conceptual
measures, and identifying land ownership patterns that would be affected by impacts.
These preliminary activities will develop information necessary to adequately understand
the individual components which have to be combined/matched in some fashion to create
given projects – locations, measures, participants, activities, etc. This study activity is
intended to complete the information base and the screening portfolio, capturing
information not developed during other baseline condition and preliminary formulation
activities. During JJCE Final Formulation, this information will be used to complete
formulation and evaluation of the watershed-wide strategy alternatives, and the four
priority project alternatives.
Sub-Task JJCCE: Assistance and Meetings
This preliminary formulation work will be central to the interests of the stakeholder
committee, and effectively develops the social and cultural context for proposing
projects/plans. The technical committee will directly assist the study team and the
stakeholders on preliminary formulation activities requiring their expertise, including
such tasks as integrating user requirements into the physical and biological models,
applying it to the study area planning units, identifying measures, etc. To accomplish the
interdisciplinary work inherent in this, a subset of technical and stakeholder committee
members and study team disciplines may be tasked together into informal ad-hoc
committees as necessary. A majority of the study team’s and committees’ work in JJCC
will occur through the series of meetings, work sessions, public workshops, public
comments, and informal dialogues which culminate in the respective “Stakeholders” and
“Framework” Summits (public conferences)(see JI Public Involvement). In working
through these major activities the study team’s engineering, socio-economic, real estate,
and environmental disciplines will interact with the basin stakeholders through these
communication avenues.
A major requirement of the stakeholder committee will be to use these series of
interactions to advise and assist the study manager in the systematic design, scheduling,
executing, and compiling of the individual scopes of study involved in these major
activities. This will assure that these activities produce study outputs which individually
and collectively form useable building blocks for formulating alternative solutions
(examples: widely responsive models, complete criteria, comprehensive sets of
conceptual measures, etc). The study findings made under the preliminary formulation
process will be used to screen and finalize which alternatives will be subjected to further
detailed evaluation, reformulation, and selection processes (see JJCE – Final Plan
Formulation).
This entire JJCC task, including all activities in JJCCA through JJCCE above, will be
performed by the Portland District and the non-federal sponsors, and will take ______
days and cost __________.
Task JJCD: Alternative Formulation Briefing (AFB) and Report
A checkpoint meeting will be scheduled midway through the formulation effort, to insure
that the Corps, the non-Federal sponsor, and the three assisting committees focus their
resources on alternative formulations that are in the federal interest. The conference
purpose is to review study findings to date. The conference will address the best way to
capitalize on the information developed in the baseline study and preliminary
formulations, discuss gaps requiring further information prior to completing formulations
of alternative watershed-wide strategies and specific project/plan alternatives. If
necessary, the meeting could address how to fine tune the final plan formulation
processes (JJCE). While the overall federal interest is a central consideration, conferees
will assure attention is given to formulation of alternative solutions in a wide range (i.e.
not only those that would be Corps implementations, but also ones which could be
implemented by the non-federal sponsors and other local partners). Given the complex
nature of formulating alternative framework strategies for waterway improvements,
versus one single project, the conference will take the form of an Alternative Formulation
Briefing (AFB).
This will be an early opportunity to seek higher agency guidance and develop
intermediate concurrence with the proposed plan formulation process. The AFB will be
held in accordance with PGL 98-05 and ER-1105-2-100. The AFB will be attended by
the District, the non-Federal sponsor, stakeholder committee representatives, technical
committee representatives, the Northwest Division, and HQUSACE. The meeting will
be a key decision point in ensuring that watershed/framework solutions, and the four
priority waterway projects, are formulated consistent with federal and non-federal
policies and budgetary criteria, and that selected alternatives would likely be
recommended and approved for implementation by respective responsible/lead parties.
Sub-Task JJCDA: AFB Project Documentation
Background material in the form of the Alternative Formulation Report will be sent to
Northwest Division at least two weeks prior to the AFB. The report will describe the
baseline condition, and the screens and other information developed through the
preliminary formulation process. The array of possible solutions and other preliminary
formulation results presented at the AFB will be at a level of detail sufficient to gauge
whether screens are adequately developed, and whether the “building blocks” of possible
project strategies are adequately investigated and described in order for detailed
formulation of a basin-wide framework to proceed. The Portland District will produce
these briefing reports and associated meeting packets, and it will take ____ days and cost
______.
Sub-Task JJCDB: AFB Meeting, Logistics, and Minutes
The non-federal sponsors will conduct all preparations necessary for the actual AFB,
including logistics for touring localities, coordinating travel, arranging conference space
and scheduling, pre-meetings with stakeholders and the non-federal sponsors’ leadership,
and recording minutes of the conference and its associated tours/meetings. This task will
take _____ days and cost _______.
Sub-Task JJCDC: Policy Compliance Review and Guidance Memorandum
Policy compliance review documents and an AFB Guidance memorandum will be
prepared by HQUSACE documenting direction provided to the District for completion of
the feasibility study. This memorandum will provide guidance for an additional AFB or
a Project Selection Briefing (PSB) to be conducted at the time when preferred and/or
recommended plan alternatives and specific projects are identified. This task will be
conducted by HQUSACE and will be funded through GE appropriations.
Task JJCE: Final Formulation of Alternatives
The project manager will lead the project team in a process to finalize the identification
and screening of alternative sites and projects under the four priority project areas areas.
This process will complete a watershed-wide framework of additional waterway
projects/solutions in the study area. Most of the major activities under planning
objectives A (measures), B (tools/criteria), D (projects) and F (framework) involve
the final detailed examinations and evaluative screenings of sites, participants,
institutions, measures, and resources, which is necessary to create and select plan
alternatives.
Using the information created earlier in the preliminary formulations, this final
formulation activity will test various forms and combinations of waterway structural and
non-structural solutions at the four priority waterways, and in what manner this may then
be programmatically implemented. These iterations will define the design specifics of
such projects and resolve issues of “where-who-how” these would occur. In the case of
the watershed framework study these determinations will assemble a portfolio of decision
making tools, working relationships, and project development procedures which would
become a supportive framework for completing individual projects over the long term.
The other end product of the watershed-wide formulation process would be a strategic
layout of project concepts where these implementation tools could be applied.
This work will mirror the familiar iterative planning process by which Corps singleproject water resource development plans are developed as testable alternatives,
evaluated for impacts, compared with each other, and modified/improved.
Sub-Task JJCEA: Develop Watershed-wide Project Framework
While the final evaluation and recommendation of all specific future project needs in the
watershed will not be made as part of the feasibility study, as part of this task a
framework will be developed to identify a specific approach and criteria to use in
evaluating and prioritizing specific projects/sites. The framework will include an
identification of areas of critical need, relationship to overall system needs, cost
effectiveness and incremental cost analysis, significance, sustainability, and potential
mechanisms for addressing the array of identified waterway issues. In addition, an
approach will be developed regarding the assessment/monitoring of current project
efforts (at the four priority waterways) to provide information for use in making adaptive
management decisions regarding future projects.
A recommendation for further efforts to address the need and implement solutions will be
developed. This is anticipated to take the form of an ongoing program/continuing
authority allowing for adaptive management using watershed and ecosystem approaches
to implementing projects to meet system needs.
The elements of this framework, and its overall composition, will have feasibility-level of
particular types of technical information developed, given that some technical disciplines
employed in the study are best gathered and employed at a watershed level (socioeconomics, hydrology, etc). Further, there will be a certain customization of the
measures, screenings and decision tools that will be created for different localities and
circumstances around the metro watershed. Given the scale of the study area, the
complexity of the interrelated issues, and the number of affected waterways, projectspecific alternatives identified in the wider watershed will not go through the detailed
iterations of formulation and evaluation to be able to arrive at completed plans for those
individual projects (i.e. preliminary engineering and design-ready). However, these
project concepts will be well-positioned to be completed as detailed plans and
implementations in continuing/ongoing work, under Corps or other auspices.
The study team and the non-federal sponsors will examine the numerous
recommendations contained in previous local planning efforts related to area waterways –
these were reviewed in the reconnaissance phase of the study, and form prompts for
preliminarily situating, scoping, and formulating the individual components of a
framework around the watershed. Similarly, the reconnaissance study phase revealed an
array of overarching planning needs related to watershed management, land-use planning,
and multi-jurisdictional issues which address systemic issues and affect comprehensive
management of the waterways in the metro area.
Sub-Task JJCEB: Specific Projects at Priority Waterways
The project team will identify potential alternative sites, develop concept level designs
and venture level cost estimates, and conduct qualitative and quantitative assessment of
various outputs addressing the multiple goals/objectives at these waterways. Information
obtained from the public will also be used to develop the list of potential project sites and
specific project/plan alternatives.
Members of the technical and stakeholder committees will advise and assist in initial
design and continuing refinement of the creative formulations – designing and laying out
physical configurations/arrangements of structural solutions, conceiving non-structural
solutions, and conceiving implementation tactics. The study partnership must
successfully analyze the complex of measures/areas/procedures/etc, and progressively fit
together the myriad social and ecological pieces into plan alternatives. This processdesign will be coordinated with the engineering, socio-economic, real estate,
environmental, and cost estimation disciplines of the study team who are responsible for
conducting or administering specific technical/analytical tasks during the various steps of
the study. Plan alternatives will be processed through the conventional planning
sequence described above.
The study team and the non-federal sponsors will examine the numerous
recommendations contained in previous local planning efforts related to area waterways –
these were reviewed in the reconnaissance phase of the study, and form the basis for
preliminarily situating, scoping, and formulating the individual projects and objectives at
the four priority waterways. Similarly, the reconnaissance study phase revealed an array
of specific planning needs related to waterway improvements, fish and wildlife habitats,
water quality, and public uses which address the localized issues related to the four
priority project areas.
Sub-Task JJCEC: Develop Multiple-Objective and Cost Metrics
A benefit-cost analysis is not prepared for Corps projects addressing only ecological
restoration. Instead, Corps guidance requires that a cost effectiveness and incremental
cost analysis be performed for such projects, in accordance with the requirements of ER
1105-2-100. The purpose of this analysis is to determine the most cost-effective
restoration plan in terms of cost per unit of ecological output. The incremental cost
analysis will display the incremental ecological gains and incremental costs for moving to
successively higher levels of restoration. This information will be provided as a factor to
consider in selecting the optimal plan.
This method is applicable to projects envisioned at the metro waterways, where
ecological objectives may be a component of a formulated alternative addressing multiple
issues. Hence, the final formulation activities for this study focus on determining effects,
effectiveness, outputs and costs associated with various combinations of solutions within
different areas and component features of the waterways in question. Some outputs may
have benefits which are able to be expressed in monetary terms – flood protection,
economic development, recreation, drinking water supply, drainage improvement, etc.
Others will require the incremental analysis described above – ecological attributes, water
quality improvements, aesthetics, education and the like.
These analyses are applicable to a range of physical, biological, economic, social, risk
and other parameters. Plan alternatives (both project-specific and the watershed
framework) will be evaluated against a widest array of qualitative and quantitative factors
– whether monetary or associated with environmental and quality of life characteristics,
and as appropriate to the issues and solutions being considered. The alternatives will be
in effect combinations of measures going into any given project/solution; evaluative work
in this final formulation process will develop a roster of the trade-offs and compatibilities
of these varied metrics. This exercise will be the crux of developing an objective picture
of the benefit-to-cost and feasibility of any (sets of) multiple-objective project(s).
This exercise is meant to assure solutions optimally address the complex of water
resource challenges on a watershed basis. Whether particular plan/project alternatives
can be individually authorized and implemented under Corps authorities, or under other
local auspices, will be evaluated and understood through the formulation work addressing
implementation and institutional factors.
Sub-Task JJCED: Life-Cycle Evaluation Criteria
The formulation process will devise practical means to align the various types of
assessment, performance, and monitoring criteria which are applied in different stages to
waterway projects. This work will assure that the resulting sequence of “yardsticks” are
seamless and account for all necessary natural resource, technical, social, and economic
measures which are pertinent to multi-objective projects. The formulation process will
identify leveraging participants as a fundamental component for the watershed
framework – this may be in many tangible forms: fiscal, technical, services, etc. This
will assure that solutions address long term investment needs - maintenance, monitoring
and evaluation - are matched to the integrated evaluations to be made through the life
cycle of projects (planning-implementation-operation).
Sub-Task JJCEE: Assistance in Final Formulation
The integrated nature of the analyses dictates that both technical experts and stakeholder
interests participate in this final formulation process. This is accentuated in that
ultimately the study result would be widely applied in the metro area (versus affecting
just the project sites associated with the initially developed priority waterways at Amazon
Creek , Cedar Creek and the Willamette River). It will be important to maintain the
continuity of these interests’ participation throughout the formulation process.
Sub-Task JJCEF: Final Formulation Process - Meetings
The Corps study team, the non-federal sponsors and the committees will utilize a series
of working sessions, design charettes, public workshops, and other mechanisms to help
the study manager in systematically scheduling, executing, and integrating those scopes
of study into the formulation process. This coordination will assure that the input of
technical information and analysis is infused into the formulation-evaluationreformulation process in a timely and progressive manner, and serves the feedback loops
that characterize the planning sequence. These meetings and work tasks will culminate in
the “Framework Summit” public conference, which will present and review the study’s
plan formulations – its principles and guidelines for waterway projects, the specific
projects created at the four priority waterways, and the overarching watershed
framework.
The entire JJCE Final Formulation task will be performed by the Portland District’s
Planning Branch (or its contractor) and the non-federal sponsors. The task will require
________ days and cost _________ .
Major Task JJD: Plan Formulation Report
The study manager will summarize the results of the technical studies leading to
recommendation and/or selection of the restoration framework in the Plan Formulation
Report. This report will document the alternatives formulation, the evaluation and
selection process that was used to identify any recommended framework alternative, and
the tentatively selected projects. The costs, benefits, and impacts of the alternatives
presented in the report will be developed at the level of detail which enabled construction
of the projects at the four priority waterways, a preferred/recommended framework
alternative for the watershed. But given the nature of the framework phase of the study
this latter component is not likely to be at a conventional feasibility level of detail (i.e.
on-the-ground project which is preliminary engineering and design-ready).
Similarly, the report will lay out prospective activities and responsibilities for operation
and maintenance, real estate acquisition, environmental and cultural resource mitigation,
monitoring and other factors. Again, this will be at the respective levels these were
understood and accounted for in analyzing and producing the two sets of fully formulated
alternatives (priority projects versus the watershed framework). The prospective
magnitude of these activities will be described according to those scenarios. This
characterization will be such that metro area participants can reasonably understand the
nature of local commitments and future responsibilities incorporated into either the
immediate projects, or to future work to implement the framework.
The management and preparation of the Plan Formulation Report will be performed by
the Portland District and will take _____ days and cost _______.
Major Task JJE: Project Selection Briefing (PSB)
At the time when plan formulation is complete and the District and the non-federal
sponsors are prepared to finalize preferred/recommended alternatives for a framework
strategy, and select priority project alternatives, a conference will be conducted to review
the plan formulation and those fully developed alternatives. The agenda and
development of this conference will follow any guidance rendered by HQUSACE after
the Alternatives Formulation Briefing JJCD. The conference will be organized by the
District and led by the study’s interagency executive committee. It will be attended by
the District, the non-federal sponsors, representatives of the stakeholder and technical
committees, and other interested parties as appropriate.
The agenda will particularly review the study result related to an implementation
framework and which would identify Corps implementations (ostensibly the priority
waterway projects), and recommends non-federal actions. A review of the public
involvement tracks (culminating in the three summit conferences), will be made in order
to discuss and confirm the effect of the public participation on the study outcomes. The
logistical, preparation, and documentation requirements and responsibilities for
conducting this conference are similar in nature to those tasked under the AFB. The
Portland District will conduct this task, and it will take _____ days and cost _______.
Major Task JJF: NWD Approval of Formulation Material
Following the Alternative Formulation Briefing, the Corps Headquarters will provide a
guidance memorandum to the Northwestern Division (NWD) office within 15 working
days after the briefing. The Portland District then is responsible to ensure that any
concerns identified are addressed prior to release of the Draft Feasibility Report. The
NWD will approve the plan formulation material presented at the AFB as a basis for the
District to prepare the Draft Feasibility Report. This task will be performed by HQ
CECWP and NWD and is funded out of separate Civil Works appropriations.
Major Task JJG: Quality Assurance/Quality Control
In accordance with ER 1110-1-12, E&D Quality Management, the project manager will
prepare a Quality Control Plan (QCP) for executing a quality engineering product. The
plan includes discussion on the conduct of Independent Technical Review (ITR),
customer requirements and expectations, technical criteria, technical and policy design
quality verification procedures, schedule, and compliance checklists for quality control
reviewers.
This ITR task involves review of the study products including the report or interim
products. This review is comprehensive and focuses on both the approach and technical
adequacy of the completed work.
This task will be performed by the Portland District and the non-federal sponsors, and
will require _________ days and cost _________ .
The total cost to complete all activities in Sub-Product JJ –Plan Formulation is
______________.