DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE REVIEW PLAN … · the Risk Management Center (RMC) during the initial PED phase led to the recommendation to reevaluate if a Type II IEPR/SAR was

Great Lakes Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) Program Section 506, Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as amended

DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION PHASE REVIEW PLAN Cattaraugus Creek Watershed Ecosystem Restoration at Springville Dam Springville, NY

Buffalo District

Last Revision Date:1 February 2019 P2# 322955

1 Springville Dam Ecosystem Restoration

Design Phase Review Plan

DESIGN PHASE REVIEW PLAN USING THE NATIONAL PROGRAMMATIC REVIEW PLAN MODEL

Great Lakes Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) Program Section 506, Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as amended

TABLE OF CONTENTS PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS ............................................................................................................ 2

REVIEW MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (RMO) COORDINATION .............................................. 6

STUDY INFORMATION ............................................................................................................................ 6

DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC) .................................................................................................. 9

AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR) ................................................................................................ 10

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW (IEPR) ........................................................................... 11

REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS ...................................................................................................... 12

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ....................................................................................................................... 12

REVIEW PLAN APPROVAL AND UPDATES ....................................................................................... 13

REVIEW PLAN POINTS OF CONTACT ................................................................................................. 13

ATTACHMENT 1: TEAM ROSTERS ..................................................................................................... 14

ATTACHMENT 2: REVIEW PLAN REVISIONS .................................................................................. 15

ATTACHMENT 3: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS .................................................................................. 16

ATTACHMENT 4: RISK REGISTER ....................................................................................................... 17

ATTACHMENT 5: ENGINEERING & DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL PLAN ................................... 18

ATTACHMENT 6: TYPE II IEPR RISK EVALUATION ........................................................................ 20

ATTACHMENT 7: CURRENT DESIGN DOCUMENTATION .............................................................. 23



PURPOSE AND REQUIREMENTS A. Purpose. This Review Plan defines the scope and level of peer review for the Design and

Implementation Phase of the Cattaraugus Creek Watershed Ecosystem Restoration project at Springville Dam, Springville, NY, also referred to as the Springville Dam Fish Passage Project, NY. The project is authorized by the Great Lakes Fisheries and Ecosystem Restoration (GLFER) Program, Section 506 of Water Resources Development Act of 2000, as amended by Section 5011 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2007. Section 506 of the WRDA of 2000 provides authority for restoration of the Great Lakes fishery and ecosystem. Section 506 called for the Secretary to develop a plan to support the management of Great Lakes fisheries not later than one year after the date of enactment of the legislation. That plan, coined the “Support Plan”, provides the guidance for the planning, design, construction, and evaluation of projects to restore, the fishery, ecosystem, and beneficial uses of the Great Lakes in cooperation with other Federal, State, and local agencies and the Great Lakes Fisheries Commission. Costs for the planning, design, construction, and evaluation of restoration projects are cost‐shared 65 percent Federal and 35 percent non‐Federal. Non‐Federal interests may contribute up to 100 percent of their share for projects in the form of services, materials, supplies, or other in‐kind contributions. Non‐Federal interests will receive credit for lands, easements, rights–of –way, relocations, and dredged material disposal areas needed for project construction and must be responsible of the operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation, and replacement of projects. Non‐Federal interests may include private and non‐profit entities.

The planning process of the GLFER program was closely modeled after planning and implementation program described for section 206 of the WRDA 1996 in the Continuing Authorities Program. Generally projects for study are selected by an integrated panel of Federal and non‐Federal Great Lakes ecosystem restoration experts. The project activities completed to date are highlighted on the project timeline table. The project is currently in the Preconstruction, Engineering, and Design (PED) phase.



C. References. 1. Engineer Circular (EC) 1165‐2‐217, Review Policy for Civil Works, 20 February 2018 2. EC 1105‐2‐412, Assuring Quality of Planning Models, 31 March 2010 3. Engineer Regulation (ER) 1110‐1‐12, Quality Management, 30 Sep 2006 4. ER 1105‐2‐100, Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix F, Continuing Authorities Program,

Amendment #2, 31 Jan 2007 5. ER 1105‐2‐100, Planning Guidance Notebook, Appendix H, Policy Compliance Review and

Approval of Decision Documents, Amendment #1, 20 Nov 2007 D. Requirements. This RP was developed in accordance with EC 1165‐2‐217, which establishes an

accountable, comprehensive, life‐cycle review strategy for Civil Works products by providing a seamless process for review of all Civil Works projects from initial planning through design, construction, and operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (OMRR&R). The EC outlines four general levels of review: District Quality Control/Quality Assurance (DQC), Agency Technical Review (ATR), Independent External Peer Review (IEPR), and Policy and Legal Compliance Review. In addition to these levels of review, decision documents are subject to cost engineering review and certification (per EC 1165‐2‐217) and planning model certification/approval (per EC 1105‐2‐412).

1. District Quality Control/Quality Assurance (DQC). All decision documents (including supporting

data, analyses, environmental compliance documents, etc.) shall undergo DQC. DQC is an internal review process of basic science and engineering work products focused on fulfilling the project quality requirements defined in the Project Management Plan (PMP). The home district shall manage DQC. Documentation of DQC activities is required and should be in accordance with the Quality Manual of the district and the home Major Subordinate Command (MSC). District quality control and Policy and Legal Compliance were completed during the Feasibility phase for the project’s Decision Document. District Quality Control will also be completed for the Planning, Engineering and Design (PED) phase documentation.

2. Agency Technical Review (ATR). ATR is mandatory for all decision documents (including supporting data, analyses, environmental compliance documents, etc.). The objective of ATR is to ensure consistency with established criteria, guidance, procedures, and policy. The ATR will assess whether the analyses presented are technically correct and comply with published US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) guidance, and that the document explains the analyses and results in a reasonably clear manner for the public and decision makers. ATR is managed within USACE by a designated Review Management Organization (RMO) and is conducted by a qualified team from outside the home district that is not involved in the day‐to‐day production of the project/product. ATR teams will be comprised of senior USACE personnel and may be supplemented by outside experts as appropriate. Agency Technical Review, including Cost DX certification, were completed during the Feasibility phase for the project’s Decision Document. Agency Technical Review will also be completed for the PED phase documentation.



3. Independent External Peer Review (IEPR). IEPR may be required for decision documents under

certain circumstances. IEPR is the most independent level of review, and is applied in cases that meet certain criteria where the risk and magnitude of the proposed project are such that a critical examination by a qualified team outside of USACE is warranted. A risk‐informed decision, as described in EC 1165‐2‐217, is made as to whether IEPR is appropriate. IEPR panels will consist of independent, recognized experts from outside of the USACE in the appropriate disciplines, representing a balance of areas of expertise suitable for the review being conducted. There are two types of IEPR: Type I is generally for decision documents and Type II is generally for implementation products.

(a) Type I IEPR. Type I IEPR reviews are managed outside the USACE and are conducted on

project studies. Type I IEPR panels assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental assumptions and projections, project evaluation data, economic analysis, environmental analyses, engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, models used in the evaluation of environmental impacts of proposed projects, and biological opinions of the project study. Type I IEPR will cover the entire decision document or action and will address all underlying engineering, economics, and environmental work, not just one aspect of the study. For decision documents where a Type II IEPR (Safety Assurance Review) is anticipated during project implementation, safety assurance shall also be addressed during the Type I IEPR per EC 1165‐2‐217. A Type I IEPR of the DPR/EA has been completed for this project.

(b) Type II IEPR. Type II IEPR, or Safety Assurance Review (SAR), are managed outside the

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

The initial Decision Document Review Plan for this project assumed a Type II IEPR SAR, would be necessary as part of the Design and Implementation Phase. Discussions with the Risk Management Center (RMC) during the initial PED phase led to the recommendation to reevaluate if a Type II IEPR/SAR was warranted for this project The District revaluated the threats to human life and determined that this project does NOT present a significant threat to human life, and therefore a Type II IEPR/SAR is not warranted (Refer to Attachment 6).

4. Policy and Legal Compliance Review. All decision documents will be reviewed throughout the

study process for compliance with law and policy. Guidance for policy and legal compliance reviews is addressed in Appendix H, ER 1105‐2‐100. These reviews culminate in determinations that the recommendations in the reports and the supporting analyses and coordination comply



with law and policy, and warrant approval or further recommendation to higher authority by the home MSC Commander. DQC and ATR augment and complement the policy review processes by addressing compliance with pertinent published Army policies, particularly policies on analytical methods and the presentation of findings in decision documents.

5. Cost Engineering MCX Review and Certification. All decision documents shall be coordinated with the Cost Engineering Directory of Expertise (DX), located in the Walla Walla District. For the decision documents prepared under this RP, Regional cost personnel that are pre‐certified by the DX will conduct the cost estimate ATR. The DX will provide the Cost Engineering MCX certification.

6. Model Certification/Approval. 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, for the purposes of the EC, are defined as any models and analytical tools that planners use 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 the planning product. 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. 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 and the professional practice of documenting the application of the software and modeling results will be followed. The use of engineering models is also subject to DQC, ATR, and IEPR. All models used in the preparation of the decision documents were certified or approved models. These included IWR‐Plan and HEC‐RAS 4.1.0. Only approved/certified models will be used in PED phase.

REVIEW MANAGEMENT ORGANIZATION (RMO) COORDINATION The RMO is responsible for managing the overall peer review effort described in this RP. The home district will coordinate this review plan with the MSC. The MSC will act as the RMO for the design and implementation phase of the project. The home district will post the approved RP on its public website. A copy of the approved RP (and any updates) will be provided to the National Ecosystem Planning Center of Expertise (ECO‐PCX) for awareness of requirements and review schedules.

STUDY INFORMATION A. Decision Document. The Springville Dam Fish Passage Project Springville, NY, DPR/EA was prepared

under the Section 506 Great Lakes Fishery and Ecosystem Restoration Authority. This decision document was approved by the MSC in August of 2015.

B. Study/Project Description. Springville Dam, also known as Scoby Dam, is located on the

Cattaraugus Creek, approximately midway from the watershed source and the confluence with Lake Erie (Figure 1). The purpose of this project is to provide fish passage at the dam for increased prime spawning habitat for the fisheries which exist in Cattaraugus Creek. Fish passage at the Springville



Dam will make available more than 70 miles of spawning habitat for fish and benthic species as well as restore sediment transport processes. Implementing this project will also contribute to the goals outlined in the Great Lakes basin‐wide management plan developed by the Great Lakes Fishery Commission and its partners.

Figure 1. Project location

The current height of the dam is 29.3 feet. The height will be lowered by 16.8 feet to a final height of 12.5 feet. The existing dam is 182 feet long and the final shortened length of the dam will be 126 feet. The new dam will be constructed of steel reinforced concrete. The majority of the construction will be between April and November. Total construction contract duration is estimated at 6 months with in‐water work estimated at 3 months or less. Since construction is aimed at occurring during the summer months, which are low flow periods, there is also a lower probability of a storm in the summer months. Additionally, it is not anticipated that any ice flows will occur during the April to November time frame. Other construction risks may also consist of improperly designed/constructed cofferdam components. Improper dewatering methods and sequence. An experienced and safety minded contractor will submit their construction safety plan for USACE review and comment. Current design plans are provided in Attachment 7



The total project cost estimate at this time is . There will be two non‐Federal sponsors for this project. The New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) will provide non‐Federal financing. Erie County owns the dam site property. The Erie County and NYSDEC signed a PPA with USACE in July 2017.

C. Factors Affecting the Scope and Level of Review.

1. Smart Planning. This RP is being used to determine the appropriate scope and level of review for this PED phase and construction activities. Using SMART planning, the measures involved in this project are not expected to generate significant technical, institutional, or social challenges. However, this project is complex. Considerations that must be part of project evaluation are:

Cattaraugus Creek flows through the Seneca Nation of Indians (SNI) Cattaraugus Territory. Cattaraugus Creek is vital to the well‐being of rafting companies that use the creek between the dam site and the start of the Seneca Territory.

Springville Dam currently acts as a barrier to sea lamprey invasive species spawning habitat.

The dam structure is considered a Class C, High Hazard, due to various features not meeting state dam safety requirements. However, an Engineering Assessment Report compiled by Bergmann Associates determined the dam to be well maintained and failure was not imminent.

There are multiple stakeholders: New York State Department of Environmental Conservation (NYSDEC) are the non‐Federal sponsor for this project. The NYSDEC is supportive of a seasonal lamprey barrier that employs trap and sort during the lamprey spawning period as defined by the USFW. When lamprey migration is completed the NYSDEC would prefer that the fish passage barrier be removed, allowing passage of other species. ERIE COUNTY: The current owner of the dam and a non‐Federal sponsor. United States Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS): The USFWS requires that a barrier to lamprey migrations be maintained at the Springville Dam location. SENECA NATION OF INDIANS (SNI): The SNI Territory is located downstream of the dam. The Buffalo District has coordinated with the Seneca Nations of Indians throughout this project. STATE HISTORIC PRESERVATION OFFICE (SHPO): The power plant at the Springville Dam ran for over 70 years, stopping electric power production in 1997. The site was listed in the National Register of Historic Places in 1996. Erie County took over the site and since 2001 operates it as a 27 acre park with picnic tables and fishing access. NATIONAL PARK SERVICE: The Cattaraugus Creek is listed on the National Park Service’s Nationwide River Inventory as a candidate for being listed as a wild and scenic river. As such the project is required to take care to avoid or mitigate adverse effects on the creek without first consulting the National Park Service.



2. Project Risks: The risks associated with this project are appended at the end of this document and were updated from the Project Management Plan (Attachment 4).

3. Life Safety: The NYSDEC Dam Safety Section (NYSDEC DSS) recently reviewed the dam's hazard classification which used USACE HEC‐HMS hydrologic modeling, HEC‐RAS River Analysis System modeling, and topographic mapping. This analysis showed only one downstream residence was sufficiently impacted to require a high hazard classification, as a result of the dam's failure during the design storm. If the project's preferred alternative is accepted, the dam will most likely be assigned a Low Hazard Classification after construction of the project. The life safety risk will be removed. Because of the high hazard classification it was assumed a Type I IEPR was required and was therefore completed for the decision document. Further discussions with the Risk Management Center at the commencement of design phase suggested that the high hazard classification alone does not warrant at Type II IEPR/SAR, and that actual risks to life safety should be consider. The project delivery team determined that a significant risk to life safety did not exist for this project and a subsequent Type II IEPR was not necessary.

4. Governor Request for Peer Review: The Governor has not requested peer review by independent experts.

5. Public Dispute: A NEPA scoping public meeting was held on March 5, 2013. The USACE hosted this meeting as a result of public interest. The majority of attendees were in favor of this project. The project/study is not anticipated to be controversial nor result in significant public dispute as to the size, nature, or effects of the project or to the economic or environmental costs or benefits of the project.

6. Decision Document Information: The information in the decision document will take advantage of prevailing practices and methodologies. It is not expected to be based on novel methods or involve the use of innovative techniques, or present complex challenges for interpretation. No prototype or unique practices are anticipated during implementation.

7. Construction Sequencing/Redundancy: It is also not anticipated that the project will require unique construction sequencing or redundancy. No additional safety risk is expected beyond that normally encountered in dam construction activity.

D. In‐Kind Contributions. Products and analyses provided by non‐Federal sponsors as in‐kind services

are subject to DQC and ATR, similar to any products developed by USACE. In‐kind services to be provided as credit toward cost share are currently being negotiated with the non‐Federal sponsors. In‐kind services may include fish sampling, coordination and outreach, and general administration.

DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL (DQC) Work will be done in accordance with the LRD Quality Management System contained in the web‐based Qualtrax software program (http://pmbpmanual.lrl.usace.army.mil/qualtrax/quality/asp/default.asp). Work will also conform to the LRD Quality Policy Statement:

Plan for Success by:



- Clarifying expectations and managing all work under a management plan. - Working as a partner with the Non‐Federal sponsor. - Seeking stakeholder feedback throughout the life of the project.

Empower the PDT to be responsible for the safe and successful completion of the project. Keep our commitments and measure project success against the defined expectations documented in the management plan.

Use best practices and continuously seek improvement.

Team Leaders and Branch Chiefs assign team members to projects and are ultimately responsible for work performed by members of their team and for DQC reviews. Review of this work, whether through informal discussions or formal reviews, shall serve as a quality assurance check to ensure the work is technically complete and accurate before a product leaves a section team. These individuals, will be responsible for QC checks and overall product QA (unless otherwise indicated below

Chief, Design Branch QA

Chief, Civil/Structural Design Team QC, QA

Chief, Cost & Project Engineering Team QC, QA

Chief, Coastal/Geotech Team QC, QA

Team Leader, H&H Engineering QC, QA

Chief, Environmental Analysis QC, QA

In addition to design elements, the DQC review of design documentation will evaluate if the recommendations from the IEPR I (see below) have been sufficiently addressed. Additional detail on the DQC process and procedure can be found in Engineering & Design Quality Control Plan for In‐House Development of Design Documentation Report and Plans and Specifications for the Springville Dam, NY (Attachment 5).

AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW (ATR)

A. Products to Undergo ATR. Design Documentation Report (DDR) and Plans and Specifications (P&S) for the design and construction of an improved sea lamprey barrier and fish passage channel at the existing Springville Dam, on Cattaraugus Creek, Springville NY. Additional detail on the ATR process and procedure can be found in Engineering & Design Quality Control Plan for In‐House Development of Design Documentation Report and Plans and Specifications for the Springville Dam, NY (Attachment 5).

B. Required ATR Team Expertise. During the Feasibility Phase of this project, an ATR was led by Mark

Eberle (NAP), and included the following focus areas: Environmental, Hydrology and Hydraulics, Plan Formulation, Cost Engineering, and Real Estate. The primary technical risks associated with the Design Phase of this project pertain to designing and constructing an improved sea lamprey barrier and fish passage channel at the existing Springville Dam. Subsequently, specific focus areas identified to be appropriate for ATR during the Design Phase were Hydraulics and Hydrology, Structural Engineering, and Geology. Based on a focused reevaluation of project risks by the PDT, design and construction activities and project operation were determined to NOT pose a significant threat to human life and public safety. Considering this reevaluation of project



4 H&H Incorporate results of H&H analysis in the final design stability and seepage analysis in accordance with NYSDEC and USACE dam safety

requirements

4 Civil

Engineering/Dam Safety

Discuss anticipated construction sequencing, methods, and significant construction‐related considerations in PED documentation.

5 Civil

Engineering/Dam Safety

Quantifying risk reduction of the proposed project and residual risk as part of the PED.

B. Decision on TYPE II IEPR Type I IEPR ‐ The project team has determined that a Type II IEPR is not

necessary for this project because a significant threat to human life does not exist.

1. IEPR Background – A Type I and Type II (SAR) IEPR were originally assumed to be necessary for this project because it involved a dam that was classified as having a “high hazard” ranking by New York State Department of Dam Safety. The PDT conducted a Type I IEPR during the project’s Feasibility Phase. At the beginning of the design phase, the PDT engaged the Risk Management Center (RMC) to discuss commencement of the IEPR II. The PDT received feedback from the RMC that the state hazard classification of the dam itself should not determine the need for a Type II IEPR investigation, and the PDT was encouraged to evaluate the actual risks to life safety posed by project construction and operation in determining if a Type II IEPR would be necessary. The PDT conducted a focused reevaluation of project risks to determine if design and construction activities and project operation pose a significant threat to human life (public safety). The team concluded that design, construction and operation activities associated with this project do NOT pose a significant threat to human life, and therefore a Type II IEPR (SAR) is not necessary, per 1165‐2‐217. Details on this determination are included in Attachment 6.

2. Explanation for Recommendation to Not Conduct a Type II IEPR (SAR) ‐ Attachment 6 includes a risk based determination of the need to NOT conduct a Type II IEPR as recommended by the Buffalo District Dam Safety Officer, and the Buffalo District Chief, Technical Services Division.

C. Products to Undergo Type II IEPR. None D. Required Type II IEPR Panel Expertise. N/A

REVIEW SCHEDULES AND COSTS A. DQC and ATR Schedule. Additional detail on the DQC and ATR process and procedure can be found

in Engineering & Design Quality Control Plan for In‐House Development of Design Documentation Report and Plans and Specifications for the Springville Dam, NY (Attachment 5).

B. Type II IEPR Schedule and Cost. N/A

PUBLIC PARTICIPATION State and Federal resource agencies reviews were completed as part of the decision document approval.



ATTACHMENT 2: REVIEW PLAN REVISIONS

Revision Date Description of Change Page / Paragraph

Number

9/13/2018 Added detail about PED Review process and decision to not conduct Type II IEPR

Pg 10‐14



ATTACHMENT 3: TERMS AND DEFINITIONS

Term Definition Term Definition

ASA(CW) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

ATR Agency Technical Review O&M Operation and maintenance

CSDR Coastal Storm Damage ReductionOMRR&R

Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation

DPR Detailed Project Report O&M Operation and maintenance

DQC District Quality Control/Quality Assurance PCX Planning Center of Expertise

DX Directory of Expertise PDT Project Delivery Team

EA Environmental Assessment PMP Project Management Plan

EC Engineer Circular QMP Quality Management Plan

EO Executive Order QA Quality Assurance

FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency QC Quality Control

FRM Flood Risk Management RED Regional Economic Development

FSM Feasibility Scoping Meeting RMC Risk Management Center

HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers RMO Review Management Organization

IEPR Independent External Peer Review RP Review Plan

ITR Independent Technical Review RTS Regional Technical Specialist

HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers SAR Safety Assurance Review

IEPR Independent External Peer Review USACE U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

ITR Independent Technical Review WRDA Water Resources Development Act

MSC Major Subordinate Command



ATTACHMENT 5: ENGINEERING & DESIGN QUALITY CONTROL PLAN

Attachment 1

FINAL BIDDABILITY, CONSTRUCTABILITY, OPERABILITY, ENVIRONMENTAL, AND SUSTAINABILITY (BCOES) REVIEW CERTIFICATION

1. PROJECT NAME: 2. PROJECT DESCRIPTION: 3. OUTSTANDING ISSUES: None Listed Below (include a DrChecks comment summary report)

4. VE Certification: Applicable to procurement actions with a current working estimate (CWE) over $2,000,000. The CWE for this project is $xx,xxx,xxx. I, [Project Manager], certify that the Value Engineering process as required by ER 11-1-321 (Change 1 or latest version), Army Programs Value Engineering has been completed for this procurement action. I certify compliance with Public Law 99-662 (33 USC 2288) and OMB Circular A-131. A VE study was [completed/waived] on [date] by the appropriate authority. All rejected VE proposals indicating potential savings over $1,000,000 have been resolved with approval of the MSC Commander (none identified). Project Manager Value Engineering Officer 5. All applicable BCOES issues and comments have been addressed and when applicable were incorporated in the plans and specifications for this project. BCOES Point of Contact Project Manager Chief, Environmental Analysis Team Chief, Environmental Branch Chief, Great Lakes Real Estate Chief, Operations Branch Chief, Design Branch Chief, Construction Branch District Counsel Chief, Technical Services Division

Attachment 2



ATTACHMENT 6: TYPE II IEPR RISK EVALUATION

Springville Dam Ecosystem Restoration




ATTACHMENT 7: CURRENT DESIGN DOCUMENTATION



