Attachment-C.pdf

Performance Work Statement (PWS) For

Portland District Master Plan Revisions and Integrated Environmental Assessment

U.S Army Corps of Engineers, Portland District

Programs and Project Management Branch

TASK ORDER

1. GENERAL STATEMENT

The US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) – Portland District (CENWP) requires professional services to update and prepare two, master plans, each integrated with an accompanying environmental assessment (EA) for two regional watershed areas in the Portland District. These regionally based Master Plans will update individual project Master Plans that are outdated. These two regional Master Plan updates integrated with EA’s will incorporate and address the required master plan elements as defined in the most recent US Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineering Pamphlet (EP) 1130-2-550 Chapter 3. These regional Master Plan updates will address outdated land classifications, sustainable natural resource management, encroachments, aquatic and terrestrial invasive species management, and federal and state listed threatened and endangered species. Revised Master Plans will improve natural resource management planning strategies for the next 20 years and ensure federal regulations and national goals are adhered to in a comprehensive and consolidated manner.

The Contractor (KTR) shall understand USACE regulations for Master Plans and environmental assessments, and ensure professional employees assigned to this work have a working understanding and knowledge of USACE regulations and Guidance Memoranda regarding the preparation of Master Plans and environmental assessments to include:

Engineering Regulation (ER) 1130-2-550

ER/EP 1130-2-540

The Civil Works Review Policy 1165-2-214 The National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) NEPA, 42 U.S.C. § 4321 et seq., The Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ) regulation for implementing the Procedural

Provisions of NEPA, 40 CFR Parts 1500-1508.

USACE implementing NEPA regulations, 33 CFR 230 CEQ Guidance on Effective Use of Programmatic NEPA (December 18, 2014)

These two regional watershed master plans will replace individual project Master Plans dating back to the mid-1970s. A regional watershed master plan will improve USACE land management across project boundaries in the region.

The Contractor (KTR) shall prepare Master Plans/EAs (MP/EAs) that address the following two regional watershed areas:

Mid-Columbia River – A regional Mid-Columbia River watershed basin Master Plan and Integrated EA is needed for the following 4 CENWP projects: Bonneville, The Dalles, John Day and Willow Creek Projects.

These projects on the Columbia River are call the Mid-Columbia River Projects. These projects begin at Bonneville Lock and Dam at river mile (RM) 142, and extend to the upper end of Lake Umatilla at approximately RM 290. Along this reach The Dalles Dam is located at RM 192, and the John Day Dam is located at RM 216. Willow Creek Dam is located at river mile 52.4 on Willow Creek which empties into the Columbia River at River Mile 250.

Rogue River Basin – A regional Rogue River watershed basin Master Plan and Integrated EA is needed for the following 3 CENWP projects: Lost Creek Lake, Applegate Dam and Elk Creek Project. The Elk Creek Master Plan has been recently updated in 2012. The KTR shall integrate the regional Master Plan with information and references from the Elk Creek 2012 Master Plan to provide a cohesive Rogue River Basin Watershed Master Plan/EA document. The Elk Creek 2012 Master Plan shall also be attached as an appendix to the document.

1.1 DESCRIPTION OF SERVICES/INTRODUCTION

Scope of the work involves the KTR reviewing, gathering, and documenting information required for Master plan updates and National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) requirements. KTR shall also participate in and facilitate meetings, with USACE, stakeholders and the public.

The KTR shall provide personnel, equipment, supplies, facilities, transportation, supervision, and other items necessary to perform the work in accordance with standards herein except for those items specified as government furnished property, supplies and/or services.

The Government shall not exercise any supervision or control over the contract service providers performing the services herein. Such contract service providers shall be accountable solely to the KTRs who, in turn is responsible to the Government. Subcontracted service providers shall be accountable to the KTR who, in turn is responsible to the Government.

1.2 PROJECT OVERVIEW AND BACKGROUND

Master plans (MP) are required for USACE Civil Works projects on fee-owned land, which are administered by USACE for management of natural and manmade resources. The MP shall cover all resources, including but not limited to water, fish & wildlife, vegetation, cultural, aesthetic, interpretive, recreational and mineral. The MP shall also consider the land (fee, easement or other interest) acquired for project operations and out-granted lands.

The MP is the strategic land use management document that guides the comprehensive management and development of all recreational, natural and cultural resources throughout the life of the water resource development project. The process encompasses interrelated tasks involving the analysis of environmental, recreational, and socioeconomic trends within a generalized conceptual framework. This framework includes regional and ecosystem needs; project resource capabilities and suitability; expressed public interests that are compatible with project authorized purposes; and, environmental sustainability elements.

The MP revisions shall ensure that economy, quality, and need shall be given equal attention in the management of project resources and facilities and accomplished at the appropriate scale. Master Plans and their associated NEPA documents shall be prepared in accordance with and include the requirements of:

ER/EP 1130-2-550

ER/EP 1130-2-540

ER 200-2-2, EC 1165-2-214

40 Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 1500 – 1508, and 33 CFR 230.

MP goals include the following:

(a) Identify the best management practices to respond to regional needs, resource capabilities and suitability, and expressed public interests consistent with authorized project purposes;

(b) Protect and manage project natural and cultural resources through sustainable environmental stewardship programs;

(c) Identify outdoor recreation opportunities that support project purposes and public demands created by the project itself while sustaining project natural resources;

(d) Recognize the particular qualities, characteristics, and potentials of the project;

(e) Provide consistency and compatibility with national objectives and other state and regional goals and programs.

1.3 PERIOD OF PERFORMANCE

The task order will have an overall period of performance of 450 days. Optional tasks are included, and if the Government exercises any of the options it will not extend the overall period of performance.

2. GOVERNMENT WILL FURNISH

No Government Furnished Equipment (GFE) is available for this work. Hard copy or electronic copies of the most current documents identified below will be furnished by CENWP for this task order.

(a) Elk Creek Master Plan – 2012

Historic Properties Management Plan (HPMP) 2011 Habitat Assessment 2011

(b) Level 1 Natural Resource Inventory - Bonneville Dam - Hard Copy 1997 (CENWP Furnished) updating required by KTR as described in paragraph 5.4 of this PWS.

(c) The Dalles - Rough natural resource data - KTR required to consolidate and update data into a Level 1 Natural Resource Inventory document as described in paragraph 5.4 of this PWS.

(d) Level 2 Natural Resource Inventory – John Day - Data available on 1 Oct 2017 – (CENWP Furnished).

(e) Level 2 Natural Resource Inventory – Willow Creek - Data available on 1 Oct 2017 – (CENWP Furnished).

(f) Documents identified in Table 1 below:

TABLE 1

3. PERFORMANCE STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS (Also see summary in Section 4)

This “Standard” covers the requirements for completing two regional master plan and integrated EA for two watersheds within CENWP area. The purpose of the Standard established in this PWS is to ensure that activities occur in accordance with the Standard, and that the Government receives services as contracted.

The KTR shall perform the tasks described below and provide the deliverables described within this PWS.

These tasks are summarized in the Performance Requirements Summary Table found in Section 6, and the deliverables are outline in the Deliverables Schedule found in Attachment I. During the performance of

MASTER PLAN Cultural Resource Management Plan (CRMP)

HPMP

Bonneville Dam 31-Mar-1997 Hard Copy1988 2006 The Dalles 1-Aug-1975 None Exist 2005 John Day 1-Jul-1976 1985 2002 Willow Creek 1-Jul-1976 None Exist None Exist Applegate 28-Jul-1978 Draft 1980 None Exist Lost Creek June 1974 None Exist None Exist this requirements the KTR shall comply with all local, state and federal regulations during the performance of these services.

This contract may be awarded with a base performance schedule of Tasks 1-5 and the option of exercising Tasks 6-8 at a later date. Optional Tasks 6-8 may be exercised within the 450 calendar days after award and will not extend the overall period of performance. Utilization of the optional services will be authorized under contract modification.

3.1 TASK 1: ADMINISTRATIVE

3.1.1 Workflow Management

The KTR shall provide product management and coordination for work tasks during production of this PWS. The KTR shall assign a Project Manager (PM) to act as a primary point of contact (POC). The PM shall be responsible for the coordination of work developed under this PWS. Within three calendar days of receipt of award for this PWS, the KTR shall advise the CENWP Contracting Officer’s Representative (COR) in writing of the individual so designated.

The KTR shall be responsible for the professional and technical competence of the personnel it assigns to perform the obligations under this PWS. Changes to personnel assigned to this PWS shall not occur without prior notification to the Government and approval of the Contracting Officer (KO). Replacement of personnel shall be carried out as quickly as possible, and in a manner that shall not adversely affect the performance obligations under this PWS.

3.1.2 Work Plan and Project Schedule

KTR shall submit a finalized work plan and project schedule that includes, but is not limited to, the following:

(a) Matrix of all KTR and sub-KTR personnel on this project, their roles and responsibilities, including all review personnel;

(b) Indicate the Small Business Sub-KTRs under this PWS;

(c) Project objectives and a plan on how to meet those objectives;

(d) Information on project organization; and

(e) Project schedule based on completion date requirements. The schedule shall include all work items, milestones, durations, predecessors, source materials and study requirements, data delivery dates, completion dates, deliverables, review processes (including all Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks) comment and response periods), and all coordination activities.

3.1.3 Quality Control Plan

The Quality Control Plan (QCP) is a management plan for producing a quality product or service that is on schedule and within budget. The KTR shall submit QCP(s) addressing each mandatory and optional task for approval prior to beginning any work. QCPs shall outline quality control (QC) and quality assurance (QA) procedures that shall ensure the stated accuracy specifications are met. The KTR shall prepare and submit a QCP within 11 calendar days from award. For survey services, it is appropriate to combine the Work Plan and QCP in a single document. The QCP shall be in accordance with USACE ER 1110-1-12, “Quality Management.” USACE ER 1110-1-12 can be viewed at the following website:

http://www.publications.usace.army.mil/USACEPublications/EngineerRegulations.aspx.

3.2 TASK 2: MEETING, SITE VISITS, COORDINATION AND DOCUMENT DATA

REQUIREMENTS

3.2.1 Meetings

KTR shall produce, finalize and distribute; agendas, meeting minutes, exhibits, hand-outs, and action items for all meetings, and site visits. Prior to meeting with the project staff for the kick off meeting and site tours, the KTR shall review all current MPs for the projects within that basin. The KTR shall conduct these reviews with the understanding that each of these MPs shall be replaced with the overall watershed basin

MP.

(a) Kick-off Meeting in Conjunction with Site Tours. There shall be two separate meetings and site tours of the project areas. All KTR key disciplines shall participate.

(1) One kick-off meeting and site tour shall include all USACE Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) members including those from the Columbia River Basin projects. It is anticipated that these tours shall take five days for the Columbia River Watershed project areas.

(2) One kick-off meeting and site tour shall include all USACE PDT members including those from the Rogue River Basin projects. It is anticipated that these tours shall take two to three days for the Rogue River Watershed project area.

(b) Monthly Project Development Team (PDT) Coordination Meeting. Monthly coordination meetings between the KTR and CENWP are to be scheduled to discuss issues & solutions, answer questions, review technical documents, and coordinate additional information. CENWP or the KTR may schedule additional meetings. These meetings shall be held at Portland District offices and/or by teleconference.

(c) Review Conference Meetings. There shall be three review conference meetings, one after every milestone submittal to address comments. Each meeting shall be for one day in the CENWP office.

The KTR shall be represented by all disciplines on the design team.

(d) Additional Site Visits. KTR shall conduct additional site visits to familiarize themselves with the project further to meet the requirements in this PWS.

3.2.2 General Project Documentation

(a) Project SharePoint Site. KTR shall design and maintain a project SharePoint site to facilitate transfer and editing of project-related documents with CENWP. Prior to development of project SharePoint site, verify that CENWP is able to access the site.

(b) Meeting Minutes. The KTR shall record minutes of all meetings. The KTR shall email draft-meeting minutes to the Government’s Technical point of contact (POC) no later than three working days following any meeting. CENWP will provide the KTR with comments to the draft minutes via email within 3 days. If corrections are required, the KTR shall prepare and submit final meeting minutes within three business days after receiving comments from CENWP.

(c) Conversation Records. The KTR shall provide written documentation of all conversations regarding this contract and submit them via email within two working days to each party involved, including the Government’s Technical POC, regardless of who initiates the call.

(d) Trip Reports. The KTR shall provide written trip reports for all site and field trips. The reports shall be submitted to the Government’s Technical POC no later than three working days following any meeting. CENWP will provide the KTR with comments to the trip report via email. If correction are required, the KTR shall prepare and submit final trip reports.

(e) Coordination. CENWP will lead any coordination with project stakeholders. Throughout the PWS the KTR shall document all coordination they participated in with the project stakeholders.

3.2.3 Deliverable Format

(a) Draft Master Plans and Integrated Environmental Assessment (EA): 60% Percent Complete and DQC Review. The draft reports shall be typewritten on 8 ½- by 11-inch white paper with all maps, exhibits, etc., folded to that size. Copies shall be in a loose leaf format either with water mark or in a header/footer. Five hard copies of the draft report shall be submitted to the CENWP Technical Representative. In addition, an electronic version of the report in Adobe Portable Document format (*.pdf) and Microsoft Word shall be provided on DVD. Five DVDs shall be provided. Documents shall be posted on DrChecks.

(b) Draft Master Plans and Integrated EA: 90 Percent Complete. This review shall have incorporated 60% and DQC review comments. This submittal shall conform to the same format requirements as the 60 Percent submittal.

(c) Final Master Plans and Integrated EA: 100 Percent Complete. This review shall have incorporated

90% review comments. This submittal shall conform to the same format requirements as the 60 Percent submittal.

(d) Upon conclusion of this work, the KTR shall provide CENWP any supporting documentation (e.g., records of meetings, interviews, data, working papers, etc.) used to update this Master Plan and Integrated EA.

3.3 TASK 3: PUBLIC OUTREACH AND TRIBAL COORDINATION

There shall be two separate public outreach demographic processes: one for the Columbia River Basin and one for the Rogue River Basin. The following KTR actions apply to both.

KTR shall support initiation of the programmatic NEPA review that includes the development of a planning framework to set the stage preparation of a MP/EA for each watershed. KTR shall ensure that the public outreach and coordination process is implemented with the objective of gaining meaningful input and conveying clear project information to interested parties. This task includes the KTR”s involvement in the creation and review of a Public Participation Plan for consistency with the overall project objectives, CENWP and NEPA requirements. CENWP will approve the KTR’s public involvement plan before any outreach takes place.

All project messaging will be developed or approved by CENWP. The initial outreach plan must include educational components that describe the master planning process and purpose and how these documents would be used for managing CENWP project areas.

KTR shall update CENWP on the progress/development of public outreach efforts at the monthly coordination meetings and as needed to coordinate effort.

3.3.1 Public Scoping Process

(a) CENWP will lead portions of the public scoping process including developing the purpose and need, draft alternatives, and most aspects of public participation plan. CENWP, with input from the KTR shall develop the contents of the public notice for each watershed basin that will announce public meetings.

(b) KTR shall comment via tracked changes on the purpose and need statement, and public participation plan.

(c) KTR shall be responsible for developing a mailing list for distributing the public notice to interested parties, as outlined in the project communication plan and the public involvement plan. A method of e-mail sign up for push alert web site updates is suggested for use for this project as a means of facilitating flow of information to interested parties.

3.3.2 Project Public Outreach Website Development/SharePoint Site

KTR shall assist the CENWP in the development of content for a project website for both watershed master plans to inform the public of the development of the MP/EAs. This website shall include NEPA specific information. This Public Projects website, which will be hosted on government servers and maintained by CENWP personnel with input from the KTR, shall provide upcoming public meeting dates and locations, project documents and the project schedule or timeline.

The KTR shall also develop a separate stand-alone website that shall be used to take comments on the MP/EAs. This stand-alone website shall be linked to the official project website and shall be designed in a similar manner as the project website so that reviewers can readily provide comments on the proposed MP/EAs. After confirming the website goals and requirements with the CENWP, KTR shall provide a draft stand-alone website design for approval by CENWP public affairs staff. KTR shall maintain and host the stand-alone website through the end of this PWS.

3.3.3 Comment Tracking and Response Matrix

KTR shall develop and maintain a comment tracking and response matrix in Excel format or using a comment tracking software application to sort and track comments and responses to all reviews of the draft MP/EAs including public comments.

Once public outreach effort is complete, KTR shall input written comments into the comment matrix (in addition to the electronically submitted comments) and provide them to the CENWP so that the CENWP can develop the project scoping report for public outreach. During development of the Project scoping report, the CENWP will identify any NEPA and engineering-specific comments and KTR shall then assist with addressing the comment for the Scoping Report.

(a) KTR shall develop a draft and final comment tracking and response matrix.

(b) KTR shall document oral and written comments received at the public meetings.

(c) The KTR’s website is assumed to be the primary source where public comment shall be received; however, KTR shall manually incorporate written or oral comments as received from the public meeting.

3.3.4 Public Scoping Meeting Support/Logistics/Advertising

For the Columbia River and the Rogue River Watershed basins, the KTR shall provide logistics and support for up to six public scoping meetings with CENWP participation; four for the Columbia River and two for the Rogue River Basin for the development of the MP/EAs. KTR shall coordinate and get approval from CENWP for the following items:

(a) Securing suitable meeting locations.

(b) Providing a qualified public meeting facilitator. The KTR shall facilitate the public meetings. The KTR shall coordinate meeting guidelines with CENWP in advance of the meetings.

(c) The following work shall include CENWP coordination with up to five (5) rounds of edits and final approved products. CENWP public affairs staff will approve the final products to use.

(1) Draft notices for publishing. Once finalized CENWP will do the submissions to media.

(2) Develop project-specific design standards using the USACE required branding elements and produce public comment cards, meeting agendas, provide staff to take public comments from persons who are unable to do so on their own, and conduct other related activities.

(3) The KTR shall create and provide additional material (e.g. graphic, print, broadcast, etc.) and/or update existing materials which may include, but are not limited to:

Project factsheets Brochures Flyers or other product for public dissemination Newspaper ads Graphics, Maps Backgrounder Letters Video(s) Displays Frequently asked questions

(4) These products will be used to support public outreach leading up to and including the public meetings.

3.3.5 Tribal Coordination.

Along with the public outreach process the KTR shall coordinate with CENWP to establish a tribal coordination process that meets the intent and conditions for tribal input and that coincides with the public outreach milestones.

3.4 TASK 4: REVISE AND UPDATE LEVEL ONE RESOURCE INVENTORIES.

Engineering Regulation (ER) 1130-2-540, Section 2-2.c(1) mandates that natural resources inventories be conducted at Corps of Engineers operational projects in order to provide the data needs necessary to make the best management decisions for project lands. Level One Natural Resource Inventories are therefore needed for these two watershed MP/EAs.

3.4.1 Level One Natural Resource Inventories.

Level One inventories are general in nature and shall be conducted to provide baseline information. This data shall be used to support the resource objectives and land use classification within the MP. Level One inventories shall be conducted in sufficient detail to determine general plant an animal composition, acreage of dominant vegetation types, soil types, land use capabilities and the presence of special status species and their critical habitat occurring on project lands and waters. “Special status species” include any flora or fauna species which is listed, or proposed for listing, as threatened or endangered by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife (USFWS) or National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS), under the provisions of the Endangered Species Act; any species covered by the Migratory Bird Treaty; any species designated by the FWS as a “candidate” or “listing” species or “sensitive” species; and any species which is listed and protected by State statue in a category implying potential endangerment or extinction. The Level One inventory shall in most cases be accomplished using available existing information that is readily available from a variety of sources. See Table 2 for a listing of available information, and what the KTR is required to produce for inclusion into the MP/EAs.

TABLE 2

RESOURCE INVENTORY LEVEL 1 RESOURCE INVENTORY LEVEL 2

Mid-Columbia River Watershed Basin Bonneville Dam Hard Copy1997 (CENWP Furnished) updating required by KTR Various 1988 to present

The Dalles Rough data (CENWP Furnished) KTR required to consolidate and update data into a

Level 1 document

Optional Task 6

John Day Not required KTR to use Resource Inventory Level 2

Data available on 1 Oct 2017 – (CENWP Furnished)

Willow Creek Not required KTR to use Resource Inventory Level 2

Data available on 1 Oct 2017 – (CENWP Furnished)

Rogue River Watershed Basin Applegate KTR to produce Optional Task 7 Lost Creek KTR to produce Optional Task 8 Elk Creek CENWP Furnished

3.5 TASK 5: DOCUMENT PREPARATION OF MASTER PLAN/INTEGRATED

ENVIRONMENTAL ASSESSMENT (MP/EA).

3.5.1 Information Review and Gathering.

KTR shall gather and review existing documents for pertinent data to be used in the development of these MP/EAs. This includes but is not limited to the following; previous MPs, Operation Maintenance Plans (OMPs), project Design Memorandums (DM), other agencies documentation of the areas, observations, existing conditions and other available technical data. The process for development of these two MP/EAs involves a series of interrelated and overlapping tasks involving the examination and analysis of past, present, and future environmental, recreational, and socioeconomic conditions and trends. Primary components are; regional and ecosystem needs, project resource capabilities and needs that suitably expresses public interests and that are compatible with the projects authorized purposes and environmental sustainability elements. Only current and relevant material from existing MPs can be reused in the revised MP. The MP/EAs revisions shall need to consider new issues affecting the projects, management concerns that need to be addressed, and any other pertinent information. This may include current or future issues, new regulations and environmental resources and impacts, such as recreation and climate change.

3.5.2 Geographical Information Services (GIS) and Computer Aided Design (CAD) Drafting Capability.

The KTR shall review and analyze existing GIS data to evaluate/develop/supplement project maps and drawings to be used in project documents and public meetings. The KTR shall review existing maps for relevance to the revised MP/EAs and shall develop new maps reusing only information that is still currently relevant from existing maps. Some items that shall be included in these maps and drawings are: project boundaries; land use classifications; vegetation; habitat; wetlands and other water resources; existing and potential future recreational uses; roads; trails; location of prominent or sensitive features; special status species; and historic and cultural resources. The KTR shall develop new and additional data layers as needed to fully document the project resources and potential land use needs and objectives. KTR shall submit digital mapping in AutoCAD Civil3D compatible files (*.raw.*XYZ, *.txt, *.csv and as required by specific performance task order).

3.5.3 Photographic Documentation.

The KTR shall review existing historical photos, identify where new photos are needed for inclusion in the document revisions and provide additional photographs of significant features of the study area using current technology such as digital photos and photo simulation. The number and quality of the photographs shall be sufficient to document significant changes, features and issues. Such photographs will be included in the Master Plan to add to the reader’s understanding of the goals and objectives of the Master Plan document.

3.5.4 Master Plan and Integrated Programmatic EA Document.

KTR shall develop two regional watersheds MP/EAs to replace individual master plans previously developed for each individual CENWP projects within these watersheds. Table 3 list the individual CENWP projects that shall be included in the identified overall watershed MP.

The KTR shall prepare the MP/EAs so that they are compliant with NEPA and effectively use programmatic NEPA per CEO guidance. The KTR shall synchronize the information in both of the Master Plans so that it is appropriately integrated into each programmatic EA. The KTR shall be responsible for organizing data and producing cohesive MP/EAs. KTR shall ensure consistency throughout the document, including maps, plates, layouts, photos, and symbols. The MP/EAs shall have current graphics, photos, maps and tables included throughout the document to convey topics being discussed.

The layout of these two separate Master Plans and Integrated Programmatic NEPA process with EA documents shall be consistent with that of other USACE districts Master Plan revisions across the country following the headquarters memorandum identifying the need for consistency. Therefore, chapters are identified with associated content. Exact titles of chapters can be renamed to better reflect exact content.

KTR shall perform reviews of the MP/EAs and all other documents using the DrChecks software and process. Reviews of the MP/EA documents shall be submitted by the KTR for CENWP reviews as follows for both watersheds identified in Table 3:

60 % and District Quality Control (DQC) Review 90% Review 100% Review Final Submittal

TABLE 3

Mid-Columbia River Basin Master Plan & Integrated EA Rogue Valley Basin Master Plan & Integrated EA Bonneville Lock and Dam Lost Creek Dam The Dalles Lock and Dam Applegate Dam John Day Lock and Dam Elk Creek – Programmatic NEPA process needs to include the Elk Creek project into the overall Rogue River Watershed Basin Master Plan

Willow Creek Dam

3.5.4.1 Chapter 1 – Introduction.

KTR shall describe general project information such as: project authorization, project purpose, MP/EAs revision of purpose and scope, watershed description, and other pertinent project data. The MP shall reference the legal authorities and responsibilities which guide the project’s role within the region, watershed and ecosystem.

3.5.4.2 Chapter 2 – Project Settings and Factors Influencing Management and Development.

The KTR shall perform a resource and recreation use analysis to include the inventory and identification of broad categories of natural resources to serve as the basis for subsequent land classifications decisions and further development of resource capabilities. Per ER 1130-2-550, Section 3-5c, and EP 1130-2-540 Chapter 2, the KTR shall develop a resource analysis that reviews natural resource data to determine the suitability of projects lands and waters for significant natural resource related management activities. At a minimum, the KTR shall assess the following items:

(a) Description of reservoirs and navigation pools

(b) Hydrology- surface water and groundwater

(c) Sedimentation and shoreline erosion

(d) Water quality

(e) Project access

(f) Climate – climate change

(g) Topographic, geology, and soils

(h) Resource Analysis (Level 1 Inventory Data)

Fish and Wildlife Resources Vegetative Resources Threatened and Endangered Species Invasive Species Ecological Setting Wetlands

(i) Borrow Areas and Utilities

(j) Mineral and Timber Resources

(k) Paleontology

(l) Cultural Resources

(m) Interpretation/Visual Qualities

(m) Demographics

(o) Economics: Socio-Economic Data Analysis. Prepare a regional socio-economic impact analysis associated with current and future visitation to project site areas. The regional impact analysis will include primary and secondary impacts. Impacts shall be evaluated using the region of influence; the analysis shall focus on the constructed project order-of-magnitude benefit.

(p) Recreation Facilities, Activities, and Needs

Zones of Influence Visitation Profile Recreation Analysis Recreational Carrying Capacity State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plans (SCORP)

(q) Related Recreational, Historical, and Cultural Areas

(r) Real Estate

Acquisition Policy Tribal Rights to First Refusal on surplus properties

(s) Pertinent Public laws

(t) Management Plans

3.5.4.3 Chapter 3, Management Goals and Resource Objectives.

KTR shall work with CENWP to develop and identify overall management goals for the watersheds. The resource objectives are clearly written statements that identify current and future attainable management and development activities that support the stated management goals for that watershed, Environmental Operating Principles and applicable national performance measures. The KTR shall develop the resource objectives with full consideration of authorized project purposes, applicable Federal laws and directives, resource capabilities, regional needs, plans and goals of regional and local stakeholders. The objectives must maximize project benefits, meet public needs, and foster environmental sustainability.

The KTR shall use Geographic Information System (GIS) and other methods to illustrate resource analyses in sufficient detail to serve as the basis for land use classifications decisions and further development of resource objectives consistent with resource capabilities. Some examples of presumed resource objective categories include environmental stewardship, sustainability, recreation, and resource connectivity. The KTR shall provide a summary of resource suitability for potential uses shall be prepared for all resource objective categories.

3.5.4.4 Chapter 4, Land Allocation, Land Classification, and Easement Lands.

The KTR shall provide a contemporary and comprehensive description of the two Watersheds, including land allocations and classifications. Per EP 1130-2-550 land allocations identify the authorized purposes for which CENWP lands were acquired. There are four categories of allocation:

Operations Recreation Fish and Wildlife Mitigation

Allocated project lands shall be further classified to provide for development and resource management consistent with authorized project purposes and provisions of NEPA and other federal laws. This classification process refines the land allocations to fully utilize project lands and must consider public desires, legislative authority, regional & project specific resource requirements, and suitability. The KTR shall create project maps delineating land according to classification categories. The KTR shall identify land classifications in the MP/EAs and shall map each land classification category and precise location of significant resources. Lands shall be allocated into one of the following categories:

Project Operations High Density Recreation Mitigation Environmentally Sensitive Areas Low Density Recreation Wildlife Management Vegetative Management Future and/or Inactive Recreation Areas Water Surface Project Easement Land – All lands for which the CENWP holds an easement interest, but not fee title. Planned use/management is in strict accordance with the terms/conditions of the easement estate acquired for the project. Easements are for specific purposes and do not convey the same rights or ownership to the CENWP as other lands.

Operations Easement – CENWP retains rights necessary for project operations (i.e. access)

Flowage Easement – CENWP retains right to inundate for project operations.

Conservation Easement – CENWP retains rights for aesthetic, recreation, and environmental benefits.

3.5.4.5 Chapter 5, Resource Plan.

The intent of a resource plan is to provide strategic planning for use and management of operating project resources to fulfill the resource objectives identified in 5.5.4.3 Chapter 3, Management Goals and Resource Objectives. The resource plan uses the long-term project goals, management unit objectives, and land use classifications listed in previous chapters of the MP and provides the who, when, and how to accomplish those objectives as a watershed and as individual management units. The KTR shall work closely with CENWP project staff for the development of these resource plans. The KTR shall prepare the resource plans so that they identify strategies to assure management objectives, resource stewardship and special considerations are included. This resource plan will be used by CENWP project staff to develop the project Operational Management Plan.

3.5.4.6 Chapter 6, Special Topics, Issues, and/or Considerations.

The KTR shall identify and document items unique to the watershed and not covered in other parts of the MP that shall be considered in the development of the Resource Plan. These are not limited to the following:

Columbia River Treaty Fishing Access Sites/shared use Columbia River Treaty Fishing Rights/Platform fishing Potential for future Tribal Housing within the Lower Columbia watershed area.

Traditional Cultural Properties designation Alignment with goals of the Columbia River Treaty 2024 with Canada Climate Change Interpretive services and outreach programs Volunteer and partnership programs Invasive species.

3.5.4.7 Chapter 7, Agency and Public Coordination.

The KTR shall provide notes summarizing the involvement and coordination with the public, tribes, Federal, state, local agencies and communities during this MP process. The KTR shall provide the following in these notes: narrative of dates and times of meetings; types of meetings; participation; social media methods; news releases; and other forms of communication with project stakeholders. The KTR shall include an appendix that incorporates a summary of comments and CENWP responses to those comments.

3.5.4.8 Chapter 8, Summary of Recommendations.

KTR shall summarize the MP process and identify the significant recommendations CENWP would make as a result.

3.5.4.9 Chapter 9, Bibliography.

Listing of references used in the production of this MP/EA documents.

3.5.4.10 Environmental Assessment (EA) – Programmatic NEPA Process.

The KTR shall, in accordance with the NEPA and implementing regulations and in close coordination with the CENWP Technical Representative and PDT members, prepare a programmatic EA in draft form concurrently with the MP process. “Programmatic” NEPA review describes any broad or high-level NEPA review. The CEQ developed guidance in December 2014 that the KTR shall use in preparing the EAs.

Programmatic NEPA review assess the environmental impacts of proposed policies, plans, programs, or projects for which subsequent actions will be implemented either based on the Programmatic Environmental Assessment (PEA) or Programmatic Environment Impact (PEIS) Assessment.

The CENWP shall review the KTR’s draft EAs concurrent with the MPs, and shall provide comments for the KTR’s preparation of the final programmatic EAs. Once finalized the CENWP can prepare a finding of no significant impacts (FONSI), or the CENWP will determine that an environmental impact statement is required. The KTR shall coordinate background data and effects determination with the relevant federal agencies and public as necessary for meeting the requirements of NEPA in this contract, and proposed management of the Projects’ resources. The KTR shall utilize existing land use allocations, land use plans, and engineering plan maps and graphics to the extent feasible to fully illustrate existing and future proposed conditions. The KTR shall include the following in the EAs that shall be integrated with the MPs:

(a) Existing Information. The KTR shall compile existing information acquired through documents prepared by CENWP, other Federal agencies, state and local agencies, public and private organizations, the internet, and the general public. The KTR shall use information they discover as appropriate. The KTR shall reference all data and support it with a citation to a verifiable source.

(b) Baseline Conditions/Affected Environment. The KTR shall describe the baseline or existing conditions of resources identified below

(c) Legal Compliance. The KTR shall provide a summary discussion of legal and regulatory compliance, permit requirements and coordination and consultation on the identified preferred alternatives. The CENWP anticipates two actions for analysis in the EAs; the No-Action and the Preferred Alternative. The KTR shall focus the compliance discussion for all pertinent Federal, state and local laws, regulations, and Federal executive orders, including but not limited to the following:

National Environmental Policy Act of 1969, as amended (NEPA) Engineering Regulation (ER) 200-2-2, Implementing NEPA, 1988 Columbia Gorge Scenic Area Act (for mid-Columbia Regional MP/EA only) Council of Environmental Quality (CEQ) Regulations on NEPA at 40 CFR 1500 –

Clean Air Act of 1970, 42 U.S.C. §7401 et seq.

Clean Water Act Endangered Species Act of 1973, 16 U.S.C. §1531 et seq.

Federal Advisory Committee Act Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, 16 U.S.C. §661 et seq.

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1994, 7 U.S.C. §4201 et seq.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act of 1918, 16 U.S.C. §703 et seq.

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 16 U.S.C. §470 et seq.

Archaeological Resources Protection Act of 1979, 16 U.S.C. §§ 470aa – 470mm Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act of 1940, 16 U.S.C. §668 et seq.

Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act –

Superfund of 1980, 42 U.S.C. §9601 et seq.

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act of 1976, 16 U.S.C.

§1801 et seq.

Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1361 et seq.

Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act of 1972, 16 U.S.C. §1431 et seq.

Native American Graves Protection and Repatriation Act of 1990, 25 U.S.C. §3001 et seq.

Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 33 U.S.C. §§401-418 Safe Drinking Water Act of 1996, 42 U.S.C. §300(f) et seq.

Wild and Scenic Rivers Act of 1968, 16 U.S.C. §§1271-1287 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1072, 6 U.S.C. §1451 et seq.

Executive Order 11988 – Floodplain Management, 24 May 1977 Executive Order 11990 – Protection of Wetlands, 24 May 1977 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice, 11 February 1994 Executive Order 11514, Protection and Enhancement of Environmental Quality Executive Order 11593, Protection and Enhancement of the Cultural Environment, May 1971 Executive Order 13175, Consultation and Coordination with Indian Tribal

Governments, 6 November 2000 Executive Order 13186, Migratory Birds, 10 January 2001 Executive Order 13541, Federal Leadership in Environmental , Energy, and

Economic Performance, 5 October 2009 Other regulations and executive orders identified in ER 1105-2-100, Appendix G, Table 8

(d) Environmental Effects. In the EAs prepared for each watershed basin, the KTR shall analyze the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives based on the maximum potential acreage of the Preferred Alternative footprint. The KTR shall assess both negative and positive impacts. The KTR shall address resources assessed with little or no effect in a cursory manner to convey to the public that it has been considered. The KTR shall identify to CENWP important issues that may cause potential adverse and/or beneficial impacts to resources identified below (at a minimum) that should be addressed when projects are proposed in the future. At a minimum, the KTR shall assess the impacts of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives for what could be expected to occur within twenty-five years into the future for the following list of resources. Most of the data collection for these resources are included in the content of the MP and shall be integrated with the EA

(1) Historic Development/Context of Resources. The KTR shall prepare a brief history of the study area from early settlement, agriculture use, important events that led to the construction of the dams, land use, including the addition of recreation and water conservation when appropriate to provide an overall context of the study area and the evolution to its current conditions.

(2) Physical Land Resources. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives physical land resources in the area.

(3) Water Resources. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to water resources in the area.

(4) Air Quality. All sources associated with the baseline and No Action Alternative shall be analyzed in accordance with the Clean Air Act General Conformity rule, NEPA guidance, and at the appropriate level of detail for this effort. The KTR shall use current relevant state and Federal United States Environmental Protection Agency (USEPA) regulations, NEPA significance criteria, and General Conformity thresholds for integration into the air quality section. Summary text and spreadsheets shall be provided as needed for inclusion as an appendix to the main body of the EA. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to air quality in the area.

(5) Climate Change. Based on the result of the air quality analysis, the KTR shall identify potential impacts of greenhouse (GHG) emissions (including CO2, CH4, and N2O emissions) and shall qualitatively identify potential impacts of these emissions to global warming and the effects of climate change to the Project area for each Alternative. It is assumed that only the three GHG emissions will be emitted; the other three Kyoto protocol GHGs (HFCs, CFCs, and SF6) are not predicted to be emitted by any operation, construction, or maintenance activities. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives in regards to climate change in the area.

(6) Noise. The KTR shall identify permits or requirements potentially required with future development to comply with Federal, state or local noise ordinances and state the applicable noise standards for potential future development. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to noise in the area.

(7) Biological Resources. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to biological resources in the area.

(8) Cultural Resources. The KTR shall analyze the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to properties on or eligible to the National Register of Historic Places (NRHP). The KTR shall develop recommendations consistent with preserving cultural resource properties within the study area. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to cultural resources in the area.

(9) Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste (HTRW). The KTR shall review and summarize existing information related to hazardous, toxic, & radioactive waste, and material conditions or releases. The KTR shall identify known ground water contamination, illegal dumping sites and other sites within the study area. The KTR shall analyze the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives of HTRW impacts in the area.

(10) Socioeconomics/Environmental Justice. The existing socioeconomic-environmental justice conditions and the No Action Alternative analysis shall be described in terms of population, demographics, housing, economic trends (including income), and environmental justice in the user group in the area surrounding the study area.

(11)Traffic and Transportation. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives to traffic conditions in and around the study area.

(12) Utilities and Energy. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives on utilities and energy management in the project area.

(13) Aesthetics. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives on aesthetic resources in the MP/EA.

(14) Recreation. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives on recreational use and resources in the project area.

(15) Safety and Public Health. The KTR shall identify law enforcement, fire protection, and hospitals serving the study area. This section shall discuss how these service providers respond to incidents within the study area. The KTR shall analyze and document the effects of the No Action and Preferred Alternatives on public health and safety.

3.6 OPTIONAL - TASK 6: HISTORICAL PROPERTIES MANAGEMENT PLAN (HPMP) FOR

LOST CREEK

Historic properties that have been identified within the project boundaries requires an HPMP, which can be subject to revision, updating, review and approval to set forth a well-designed and cogent National Historic Preservation Act (NHPA) compliance program for the next 10 years. The research design needs to be revised due to regional and local findings in the past 15 years, and advances in archaeological methodology. Previous site inventories and recommendations shall be updated to reflect National Register evaluation work at the project and any Archaeological Resources Protection Act (ARPA) incidents or potential impact activities, and any newly reported site and isolates information. Identified properties shall be field checked in order to review the information on the site form and validate each site location using Global Positioning System technology.

The KTR shall produce a baseline HPMP for the Lost Creek Dam project area using existing data sources, research designs and orientations, and management approaches insofar as these are sound and practical.

The KTR shall review and document archaeological site records and reports on file at the State Historic Preservation Office (SHPO).