CECW-PM 10 April 2003
Napa
Salt Marsh Restoration Project, California
14 March 2003
Memorandum for the Record
1.
The Issue Resolution Conference was held via teleconference on 14 March
2003 between HQUSACE, the South Pacific Division (SPD) and San Francisco
District (SPK). Representing (see
Enclosure, Attendance List) local sponsors were: Ms. Amy Hutzel, California State
Coastal Conservancy (CSCC), Mr. Larry Wyckoff, California Department of Fish
and Game (DFG), and Mr. Sean White, Sonoma County Water Agency (SCWA). Ms. Susanne von Rosenberg of Gaia Consulting
attended as a consultant to CSCC. Ms.
Robyn Colosimo, Planning and Policy Division, Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, coordinated HQ’s teleconference participation (see attendance list
for HQUSACE participants).
2.
Dr. Judy Sheen and Ms. Shirin Tolle, respectively, led the discussion on
the two outstanding issues from the Alternative Formulation Briefing--recycled
water pipeline and adaptive management/monitoring (see Sections 2b3b and 2b3d
of the AFB Planning Guidance Memorandum, dated 26 February 2003). The salient points from the discussions are:
a. Recycled Water Pipeline. The discussion centered on how the Federal
Government’s interest in the pipeline project feature should be presented in
the draft report. And two formulation
items, the pipeline size and incremental analysis, were also discussed.
1) Project Feature. It was agreed
that the pipeline is a necessary project feature, however its functioning
duration as a project feature is fairly uncertain. It was agreed that the pipeline will be treated as a cost-shared
project feature in the draft feasibility report and SCWA will be identified as
one of the non-Federal sponsors for the preconstruction engineering design
phase and for the PCA. As a sponsor,
SCWA will own and provide the easements where the pipeline is located. Because the pipeline will be placed
underground on easements for this purpose that are owned by SCWA the pipeline
is considered a fixture and therefore part of the easements owned by SCWA.
2) Pipeline Final Accounting. As discussed, it is difficult to determine
how long the pipeline will be needed to accomplish the project’s restoration
goals. However, once the pipeline has
fully served its project purpose, it may be abandoned in place with no further
responsibility for its O&MRR&R or for its removal. After the pipeline has served its project
purpose but before the pipeline may be used for non-project purposes, SCWA will
pay to the Government an amount equal to the pipeline’s residual value at the
time it is no longer needed for project purposes. While it is difficult now to
determine the associated pipeline value and any ultimate payment due to the
Federal government, it was agreed that it was in the best interest of all
parties to outline the method in the draft feasibility report by which the
residual value of the pipeline may be determined at any future point in
time. The methodology agreed to would
involve a full financial assessment of the pipeline. This assessment would account for the fiscal value of the
pipeline and investments made by the sponsor or the Corps in the maintenance of
the pipeline to affect its value. The
maximum value of the pipeline would be computed based on a straight-line
depreciation method unless another depreciation method is agreed to be more appropriate. Further, it was acknowledged that a NEPA
analysis may be required, prior to the use of the pipeline by the sponsor for
other as of yet undefined purposes, to ensure the proposed uses do not result
in more than minimal unavoidable environmental impacts. SCWA will be responsible for performance of
such analysis at no cost to the Government.
3) Pipeline Sizing. For the draft report, the pipeline will be
sized to reflect the amount of water that is known to be immediately available
that is required for the project. If
necessary, the pipeline sizing can be reevaluated during the PED phase.
4) Pipeline Plan Formulation. The draft report must completely document the plan formulation process as it relates to the pipeline and demonstrate that it is a cost effective feature justified by the acceleration of desalinization. The district explained that both the eastern (Napa and City of American Canyon) and western (Sonoma) portions of the pipeline are necessary for the project to succeed. The sponsor’s and district’s views are that the east and west portions of the pipeline cannot be treated as separable increments, since each section alone would be insufficient to supply the project with enough water--due to high evaporation rates, and variability in the seasonal and year-to-year delivery rates from each of the three waste water treatment plants--to successfully dilute the bittern in Pond 7. It was agreed that the district must present a strong case for not incrementally justifying the pipeline in the draft report. The discussion must directly address the pipeline justification in terms of an Incremental Cost Analysis (ICA), and demonstrate why it cannot be performed on smaller increments of pipeline. If the district’s rationale does not satisfy the HQUSACE policy review, an ICA of the pipeline may be required in the development of the final feasibility report.
b. Adaptive Management and Monitoring.
1) Monitoring. HQUSACE concerns related to the scope and
magnitude of proposed adaptive management and monitoring actions were discussed. In general, HQUSACE viewed the proposed
adaptive monitoring appears as excessive and more in depth than what is
absolutely necessary to determine whether or not the project ecosystem
restoration outputs are being realized.
Further, the district was proposing to include what is typically
considered compliance monitoring in the adaptive monitoring which is not
considered appropriate. HQUSACE
explained that monitoring costs for compliance are generally the responsibility
of the agency that obtains the permit.
HQUSACE agreed to provide policy guidance references outlining the cost
sharing for compliance monitoring. It
was agreed that the monitoring costs should be separated into three categories:
compliance monitoring costs associated with the Biological Opinion, compliance
monitoring costs for NPDES, and monitoring costs for adaptive management. The overlap between monitoring required for
compliance and monitoring required for adaptive management must be clearly
defined. The district may request a
waiver to the general policy and request cost sharing for compliance
monitoring, if a sufficient rationale is provided that demonstrates synergistic
cost savings between the adaptive management monitoring and compliance
monitoring costs.
2) Relationship between Monitoring and
Adaptive Management. The adaptive
management monitoring costs must be directly correlated to the adaptive
management outputs. For example, the
adaptive management monitoring costs for research data gathering are not
considered appropriate project costs.
The district will develop and present in the draft report a matrix or
decision tree that links specific monitoring activities with specific
adaptive-management decisions and/or activities. This decision tree can also be used to show how
compliance-monitoring activities contribute to the adaptive management process
(see above paragraph). The study team
will also revisit and possibly decrease the frequency, lowering the overall
costs, of sampling for adaptive management monitoring. HQUSACE agreed to review approved adaptive
management and monitoring plans for their applicability to the Napa Salt Marsh
project.
3) Fiscal Limits. Corps policy guidance recommends that
typically a 5% of construction costs is appropriate for adaptive management and
monitoring actions. This figure is a
guideline and the rationale and justification for the adaptive management and
monitoring plans must be clearly articulated and included in the draft report. HQUSACE,
OASA(CW), and OMB are all concerned about the costs of adaptive management and
monitoring and will likely review proposals closely.
3. The Draft Feasibility Report is
approved for public release with concurrent review by HQUSACE.
1 Enclosure
Napa
Salt Marsh Restoration Project, California
14 March 2003
Attendance List
Bill Bayert
Robyn Colosimo
Forester
Einarsen
Jan Rasgus
Lee Ware
Amy Hutzel
(California State Coastal Conservancy)
Larry Wyckoff (California
State Department of Fish and Game)
Sean White
(Sonoma County Water Agency)
Susanne von
Rosenberg (Gaia Consulting; consultant to the California State Coastal
Conservancy)
James Conley
Terry Mendoza
Susan Miller
Shirin Tolle
Judy Sheen
James Howells,
Jr.
Thomas Kendall