Peer Review Plan

Truckee Meadows Flood Control Project, Nevada

General Reevaluation Report

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

Peer Review Plan

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

&n= bsp;

August = 2007

=

In 1996, the local communities requested that flooding problems in Truckee Mea= dows be reevaluated, and the decision was also made to expand the study area bey= ond Truckee Meadows and consider ecosystem restoration as a project purpose. Since the addition of a project pu= rpose is not within the approval authority of the District Commander, a post-authorization General Reevaluation Report must be prepared.=

The GRR analyzes the = flood and ecosystem problems, and develops alternatives to reduce flood risks, restore environmental resources, and increase recreational opportunities in= the study area. The alternatives = include the no action plan and various combinations of structural and non-structural measures. The engineering, economic, and environmental feasibility of the alternatives is evaluated, a= nd the optimal alternative is identified.&nbs= p; If the optimal alternative is found to be feasible and comparable to= the plan authorized by WRDA 1988, the alternative will be recommended and carri= ed forward for continued PED and construction. If the recommended plan is not consistent with the authorized plan, the plans will need to be compared, and the plan will likely need to be reauthorized by Congress.=

&nb= sp;

This multi-purpose project consisting of both authorized flood damage reduction and ecosystem restoration. The subject study meets many of the criteria which trigger an External Peer Review (EPR) as set forth in EC 1105-2-408, paragraph 9, section a. Thresholds set forth in the guidance that are applicable to this eff= ort are novelty of the work, controversial, and potentially precedent setting.<= o:p>

=

Because the PAC Report= is focused on the flood damage reduction objective as the primary project purp= ose, the USACE Planning Center of Expertise for Flood Damage Reduction (PCX FDR)= – South Pacific Division (SPD) - has the responsibility for accomplishment and quality of the EPR as set forth in EC 1105-2-408. The PCX FDR has directed the Sacra= mento District, under management of the PCX FDR, to coordinate accomplishment of = EPR for the subject study. The PC= X FDR also directed the Sacramento District to coordinate with the USACE Planning= Center of Expertise for Ecosystem Restoration – Mississippi Valley Division = (PCX ER)

&n= bsp;        The project documents will be subject to standard internal technical review by = an ITR team approved by the center of expertise. Among the documents expected to be subject to ITR include the General Reevaluation Report, Basis of Design and supporting appendices, and the Environmental Impact Statement. Disciplines to be included on the = ITR team include Planning, Engineering, Hydrology, Environmental, Hydraulics, H= TRW, Geotechnical, Cost Estimating and Landscape Architecture.=

&n= bsp;        The ITR team lead will be appointed from San Francisco District with ITR team members drawn from San Francis= co and Los Angeles Districts. Co= st estimates will be reviewed by the NWW Cost Estimating Center of Expertise.<= span style=3D'mso-spacerun:yes'> The ITR team lead will have the responsibility for identifying and coordinating with the other ITR team members. All ITR comments wil= l be entered into DrChecks. Subseq= uent responses and back check shall also be completed in DrChecks.

=

The PDT provided the hydrological model and underlying assumptions for the sub-basin on the North Truckee Drain and the ecosystem design reports for E= PR. Disciplines for review are = hy= drology and ecosystem restoration design. These are the disciplines considered critical to developing sound designs and cost estimates and are important to the decision making process= .

Individual subject matter experts who wo= rk external to the Corps were identified to conduct this EPR. The two EPR members were identifie= d by each respective Sacramento District technical function. Neither the public nor any outside= group was asked to nominate EPR members; however the local sponsors were requeste= d to provide potential EPR members. PDT members representing hydrology, hydraulics and landscape engineering conduc= ted interviews with potential EPR contractors.= These interviews were used to determine: 1) did the candidate firm have sufficient in-house expertise and experience in “high desert environments” to perform peer review; 2) had the contractor performed= any work on the study area either under contract with the Corps, the local sponsors, or stakeholders in the region; 3) did the contractor expect to have = future contracts with the Corps, sponsors or stakeholders in the near future; 4) c= ould the contractor complete the peer review within the time allocated by the Co= rps; and, 5) allow the contractor to present to the PDT members any special qualifications that would ensure a successful EPR would be conducted. The following table shows the contractors that were selected to perform the EPR.

Name/Affiliation

Discipline

David Ford Consulting Engineers, Inc.

Hydrologic Engineering

Northwest Hydraulics

Ecosystem Restoration Design

EPR is accomplished via individual scopes of service and product submittals. Individual scopes of service are attached to this plan.

In addition to the EPR, all products are undergoing seamless and formal Independent Technical Review. The draft reports will undergo coordinated EPR and formal ITR. The draft reports will be availabl= e for public and agency review following the EPR and formal ITR period. EPR comments and evaluation and dr= aft treatment of comments will be provided to the ITR team for their information and use.

For reference, the following table shows the Project Delivery Team (PDT) members are identified as well as the members of the PCX FDR.

PDT Members

Name/District

Title/Discipline

Office

SPK=

Project Manager

CESPK-PM

Technical Lead Engineering

CESPK-ED-DR

Technical Lead Ecosystem

CESPK-PD-W

Lead Planner

CESPK-PD-W

Environmental Planner

CESPK-PD-P

Hydraulic Engineer

CESPK-ED-DH

Hydrologist

CESPK-ED-DW

Real Estate Specialist

CESPK-RE-CP

Real Estate Appraiser

CESPK-RE-A

Archeologist

CESPK-PD-R

Cost Engineer

CESPK-ED-SC

SPD=

Director, PCX FDR

CESPD-PDS

Technical P.O.C., PCX FDR

CESPD-PDS-P

Public Review Process

=

        &= nbsp; All documents subject to peer review will be incorporated into the GRR and EIS. Both documents will be reviewed under the standard NEPA process for public review. Both draft and final versions will= be circulated for general public and agency review. It is not anticipated that any pub= lic comments will be available to peer reviewers prior to completion of their review based on the timing of the review.

=

Model Certification

=

        &= nbsp; The District will coordinate with the appropriate center of expertise to identi= fy the need for any models used to be certified.

=

Schedule

=

        &= nbsp; Internal technical reviews of project documents are scheduled approximately 60 days prior to the AFB milestone; release of the draft document for public review= per NEPA; and release of the final documents.

=

        &= nbsp; External peer reviews were scheduled prior to the AFB and have been completed.<= /o:p>

Name/Affiliation	Discipline
David Ford Consulting Engineers, Inc.	Hydrologic Engineering
Northwest Hydraulics	Ecosystem Restoration Design

PDT Members
Name/District	Title/Discipline	Office
SPK=
	Project Manager	CESPK-PM
	Technical Lead Engineering	CESPK-ED-DR
	Technical Lead Ecosystem	CESPK-PD-W
	Lead Planner	CESPK-PD-W
	Environmental Planner	CESPK-PD-P
	Hydraulic Engineer	CESPK-ED-DH
	Hydrologist	CESPK-ED-DW
	Real Estate Specialist	CESPK-RE-CP
	Real Estate Appraiser	CESPK-RE-A
	Archeologist	CESPK-PD-R
	Cost Engineer	CESPK-ED-SC
SPD=
	Director, PCX FDR	CESPD-PDS
	Technical P.O.C., PCX FDR	CESPD-PDS-P