Value Engineering Study. Cottonwood Forest Program, VE Study

Transcription

1 Value Engineering Study Cottonwood Forest Program, VE Study Study Date: April 20-21, 2009 US Army Corps of Engineers Omaha District

2 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... 2 General... 2 The Project... 2 Estimate of Construction Cost... 2 Significant Aspects of This VE Study... 2 Summary of Recommendations... 2 Acknowledgements... 3 Value Engineering Study Team Members... 4 Certification... 4 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION... 5 Job Plan... 5 Value Engineering... 6 Boundary of the Study... 7 Ideas and Recommendations... 7 SECTION 2 Project Description... 8 SECTION 3 VE RECOMMENDATIONS VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # Appendices A Study Participants C Functional Model B Creative Ideas List D FAST Diagram 1

3 EXECUTIVE SUMMARY General This report documents the results of a value engineering (VE) study on the project: Cottonwood Conservation and Reforestation. The VE study was conducted in the Omaha District offices April 20-21, The VE team was Omaha District Personnel, the Missouri River Recovery Implementation Project Manager, the Omaha District Value Engineer, and a contract Certified Value Specialist (CVS) Team Leader. The project was studied as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP), in anticipation of the draft report for the Cottonwood Management Plan (CMP). The VE team was given the task of studying the documents of the MRRP, applying VE methodology, and developing recommendations and comments to provide added overall value to the success of this ongoing project. The Project The project is the protection, conservation, establishment, and maintenance of cottonwood forests along the Missouri River to assist/support nesting and roosting habitat for bald eagles. Estimate of Construction Cost There have not been any costs estimated to date for implementation of any of the possible proposed alternatives. Significant Aspects of This VE Study There are several aspects of this study that need to be noted: This study was compressed into a two day schedule. Therefore, some of the VE processes were significantly shortened. This approach is considered more than adequate given the nature and status of the project being studied. There is a high likelihood that many of the cottonwood conservation and reforestation efforts will be small projects that would not be subject to VE studies. Therefore, performing the study at this stage of the project was considered the optimum approach. A draft Cottonwood Management Plan (CMP) has been prepared but has not been distributed for review. The majority of the results of this study will have a direct impact on that report, and accepted recommendations will probably have to be incorporated into that draft/final report. Summary of Recommendations The Summary of Recommendations List represents a summary of the ideas that have been developed into recommendations. Costs for recommendations have not been included in this report because no costs have been calculated to date for implementation of any of the proposed strategies. 2

4 SUMMARY OF RECOMMENDATIONS REC DESCRIPTION Number 1 Maintain cottonwood scope on projects (no scope creep). 2 PM inform District VEO of projects over $2 million for VE evaluation. 3 Establish a volunteer cottonwood planting program. 4 Manage mitigation land for cottonwoods; USACE owned land to cottonwood forests, plant cottonwoods on mitigation purchased lands. 5 Establish a willing sellers list for all segments. 6 Coordinate with SWH projects to plant cottonwoods. 7 Establish cottonwood education programs. 8 Remove non-native trees from existing cottonwood forests. 9 Coordinate MRRP cottonwood projects with other funded programs (Split Bid Forms). 10 Identify success of the Cottonwood Forest Program. 11 Identify compatible programs for opportunities. 12 Investigate methodologies in other parts of the country. 13 Modify land surface more suitable for cottonwood habitat. 14 Irrigate marginally dry areas. 15 Seek partnership with NRCS and farm bill programs. 16 Evaluate cost per acre of various methodologies at various locations implementation strategies, engineering opportunities, and planting methodologies. 17 Estimate costs of evaluating management solutions (implementation strategies, protection and conservation options, and management policies). 18 Acquire land to establish cottonwood forests. Acknowledgements The VE team assembled for this study performed exceptionally. They were very knowledgeable of the project requirements and willing to participate in this shortened VE process. As a result, the VE study has produced useful recommendations that can improve the overall strategies. The contractor, Mr. Kenneth True, thanks the Omaha District staff for this opportunity to provide value engineering services and looks forward to working with the District in the future. 3

5 Value Engineering Study Team Members NAME Richard A. Stricker Teresa A. Reinig Kristine T. Nemec Bradley E. Thompson Gwyn M. Jarrett Christopher J. Svendsen Terry J. Matuska Ken L. True POSITION VEO Program Mngr. Biologist Chf Env/Econ/CR Little Bend PM Sed/Chnl Stb Geotech/Civil Egr Contract Fac. Certification This is to verify that the Value Engineering Study was conducted in accordance with standard Value Engineering principles and practices. Kenneth True, PE, CVS Value Engineering Study Team Leader 4

6 SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION This report documents the results of a value engineering study on the project: Cottonwood Conservation and Reforestation. The VE study was conducted in the Omaha District offices April 20-21, The VE team was Omaha District Personnel, the Project Manager, the Omaha District Value Engineer, and a contract CVS Team Leader. The project was studied as part of the Missouri River Recovery Program, in anticipation of the draft report for the Cottonwood Management Plan. The VE team was given the task of studying the documents of the Missouri River Recovery Program, applying VE methodology, and developing recommendations and comments to provide added overall value to the success of this ongoing project. The names and telephone numbers of all participants in the study are listed in Appendix A. Job Plan This VE study was performed conforming to the prescribed value engineering job plan as outlined by the Society of American Value Engineers. That plan requires six specific steps to execute a complete VE study. The functional analysis was very brief and recorded with the Function Model and FAST diagram attached in the Appendices C and D respectively. This report does not include any detailed explanations of the value engineering/value analysis processes used during the workshop in development of the results presented herein. A summary of the basic processes used in the study is included to give the reader an idea of the standard VE methodology, consisting of six phases: Information Phase: The team studies the project documents available to date and gains the necessary knowledge of the project scope and required functions. There was not a site visit. The project development team (PDT) then presents a detailed description, discipline by discipline, of the project. Function Analysis Phase: The purposes of this phase are to clearly identify the function(s) of the project and to formulate a concept from which new directions can be taken. The Function Model and FAST diagram developed for this project are included in Appendices C and D. Speculation Phase: The CVS led the team brainstorming sessions to generate ideas that could potentially be beneficial to the project execution. All team members contributed ideas. Critical analysis of the ideas was discouraged until the Analysis Phase. The result of this phase is the Creative Ideas List which is included in Appendix B. This list is just a speculation list and should be used only as such. Ideas on this list are put forth with no restrictions or analysis with the concept that one idea may build upon another. Analysis and sorting of the list follows and caution should be exercised in using the list beyond the context of the VE study. 5

7 Analysis Phase: Evaluation, testing, and critical analysis of all ideas generated during speculation were performed to determine potential for savings or improvement to the project. Ideas that did not survive critical analysis were eliminated. Those feasible ideas that survived the analysis phase were then developed into proposals. Those surviving ideas were assigned to members of the team for further development and validation of the merit of the proposal. Development Phase: VE study team members developed the surviving ideas into written recommendations. The recommendations, the results of this study, are presented in a substantially different format than the typical VE study. Development generally takes the form of a written document clearly expressing the proposed idea, with a "Before" and "After" depiction. The proposed draft CMP has not yet been distributed for review; therefore, there are no accepted or proposed strategies at this time. It is anticipated that any accepted recommendations from this study will have a positive impact on the draft CMP. Presentation Phase: There was not a presentation phase for this study. The draft VE study will be distributed for review, and comments from that review will be incorporated into the final document. Value Engineering The following is a note to those persons unfamiliar with value engineering. Because there is a value engineering study, and because recommendations for changes to the design have been made, one should not assume there is a problem with the existing design. The value engineering team is called primarily to look for ways to add value to the project by suggesting alternatives the team believes will lead to value improvement. It must be understood that a VE team works from a different perspective than does the design team. The value engineering team represents a second opinion with the benefit of hindsight and with the ability to challenge the owner s instructions to the designer. In addition, VE studies are done on designs in progress. Some recommendations will cover items that are still in a state of change, thus causing the recommendations, in certain cases, to be irrelevant. In other instances, the design team will already be intending to do the things the recommendations are suggesting. The VE recommendations simply represent an attempt at a different way of looking at the problem to be solved and are presented as additional ideas for consideration by both the owner and the designer. The final decision as to the acceptance of these recommendations and suggestions rests ultimately with the owner and the designer. 6

8 Boundary of the Study VE study boundaries are discussed and established by mutual agreement between the project stakeholders and the VE team. The boundary for this study included the understanding that the primary document that may be most affected by the results of this VE study is the CMP which has not yet be released for review. Therefore, the recommendations cannot state a before condition. Ideas and Recommendations Part of the value methodology is to generate as many ideas as is practical, to then evaluate each idea, and select as candidates for further development only those ideas that offer added value to the project. If an idea thus selected turns out to work in the manner expected, then that idea is put forth as a formal value engineering recommendation. Recommendations represent only those ideas that are proven to the team s satisfaction. Full documentation of all VE recommendations developed in this study can be found in Section 3 of this report. A full list of all VE ideas generated in this study can be found in Appendix B. 7

9 SECTION 2 Project Description The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS), in partnership with Tribal nations, states and other agencies, are working together to develop and implement recovery actions. The Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) will provide an overall, comprehensive plan through a collaborative setting that coordinates Missouri River programs under one holistic plan. The plan will identify management actions to restore sustainable ecosystem functions, mitigate losses, and restore and prevent future declines of terrestrial and aquatic habitat and species while seeking to balance social, economic, and cultural values. There are many ongoing efforts within the MRRP to create habitat in the Missouri River basin, including the Cottonwood Forest Program. Cottonwood trees are essential to the preservation of the bald eagle along the Missouri River. Bald eagles use the tall majestic trees to roost and to build their nests, which can weigh up to a ton. A CMP is being prepared to meet the requirements of the Cottonwood Forest Program. The CMP will be a living document that preserves, creates, and/or restores plains cottonwood (Populus deltoides) habitat along the Missouri River and meets the requirements of the USFWS 2000 Biological Opinion (BiOp) as well as the 2003 amendment to the BiOp (USFWS 2000a; USFWS 2003). The USACE normally estimates project life at 50 years, but for this project it is estimated at 100 years because the cottonwoods typically live to 100+ years. This will be accomplished by identifying a comprehensive set of goals, objectives, opportunities, and strategies for consistent application of ecological principles to the Missouri River, including consideration of adaptive management processes. Ultimately, the plan will establish criteria and priorities for restoration and provide a vision for the Missouri River Recovery Program. Historically, the Missouri River was a naturally functioning water body with a highly dynamic ecosystem. The river consisted of a meandering channel and a floodplain characterized by a diverse array of forests, wetlands, backwater channels, oxbow lakes, and prairie habitat. Plains cottonwood (or cottonwood) was the dominant vegetation in the wide floodplain forests of the pre-regulated river, providing important riparian habitat to a variety of wildlife species, including the bald eagle. Bald eagles have historically been, and are currently, dependent on the adjacent cottonwood forests along the Missouri River for nesting, roosting, and wintering habitat. As a technique to aid in river navigation, the USACE channelized the Missouri River below Sioux City, Iowa during the 20 th Century. In the upper reach of the river, the USACE constructed six main stem dams for flood control and other purposes, and they also constructed bank stabilization structures along the riverbanks to add navigation, flood control and other related purposes. In addition to the river changes completed by the USACE, much of this diverse and extensive floodplain forest in the lower Missouri River was cleared before significant regulation of the river occurred. A large portion of the woodlands in the floodplain was removed to provide fuel for steamboats during the 8

10 nineteenth century, and more recently, for agriculture. As a result of the changes to hydrology and subsequently to the floodplain, the lower Missouri River riparian vegetation has drastically declined compared to historical estimates. These anthropogenic changes have had a cumulative effect on the natural hydrology of the river, including altering and regulating the flow, narrowing the width of the river, and separating the river from its natural floodplain. The extent and causes of changes to the Missouri River floodplain vegetation vary greatly among different reaches of the river. Specifically, ecologists are concerned about the loss in wildlife habitat value due to the reduction of riparian forests, particularly the loss of plains cottonwood along the banks of the Missouri River. The USACE works to balance many, sometimes competing uses of the river system: flood control, navigation, irrigation, hydroelectric power generation, municipal and industrial water supply, water quality, recreation, and fish and wildlife habitat, including endangered species, through their Master Manual. The USACE provides the primary operational management of the Missouri River and is therefore responsible under the Endangered Species Act (ESA) of 1973 to take actions to conserve listed species in areas within its authorities. As a result of the Operations of the Missouri River Main Stem System (MS), related Operations of the Kansas River Tributary Reservoirs (KR), and the Operations and Maintenance of the Missouri River Bank Stabilization and Navigation Project (BSNP), the USACE requested on April 3, 2000 that the USFWS formally consult under the ESA. For each of the three projects, the USACE prepared a biological assessment (BA), which ultimately determined that their current river operations may affect listed species, including the endangered pallid sturgeon, the endangered least tern, and the threatened piping plover. In response to the BAs, the USFWS reviewed project plans and completed a BiOp in 2000 (USFWS 2000a) and an amendment to the BiOP in 2003 for the three projects (USFWS 2003). The BiOp advised the USACE that the operation of the MS, KR, and BSNP projects, under past and present operating criteria and annual plans, have severely altered, and continue to alter, the natural hydrology, the river, wetland, and terrestrial floodplain habitats, and the fish and wildlife resources of these ecosystems. After reviewing current conditions of each listed species, the environmental baseline for the action area, the effects of the USACE s proposed actions for the projects, and the cumulative effects, the USFWS provided a BiOp that the USACE actions, as proposed, are likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the least tern, piping plover, and pallid sturgeon but are not likely to jeopardize the continued existence of the bald eagle (USFWS 2000a). However, the USFWS determined that the MS, KR, and BSNP projects would result in the incidental take of bald eagles in the form of harm, such as through long-term habitat loss that may impair essential behavior patterns of bald eagles. Bald eagles that use the Missouri River depend on adjacent cottonwood forests for nesting, roosting, and wintering habitat. Past and ongoing USACE operations have restricted overbank flooding, which have caused the reduction of existing stands and new cottonwood establishment due to reduced channel migration and point bar formation. The 9

11 degradation of cottonwood forests will likely continue in the future and result in additional takes of bald eagles. Therefore, the USFWS recommended reasonable and prudent measures (RPMs) to minimize the take of bald eagles, including the formation of a CMP. An abbreviated description of the RPMs is as follows: 1. Map and evaluate the current health of the cottonwood forests that provide or may provide wintering, non-breeding, and breeding habitat for bald eagles on the Missouri River. The baseline level of mortality and tree vigor of cottonwood forests shall be measured and used for comparison against future levels of mortality. 2. For cottonwood and other riverine forest areas that are not experiencing regeneration, a management plan shall be developed that will allow for natural regeneration, periodic seed germination, and seedling establishment at a sufficient rate such that regeneration is maintaining pace with or exceeding mortality. 3. Fund and implement actions in accordance with developed management plans on USACE project lands, and where appropriate, in partnership with adjacent landowners to ensure that no more than 10 percent of the cottonwood forest habitat that is suitable for bald eagles identified in RPM1 above is lost as eagle habitat during the project life. This project description is not intended to be inclusive or exclusive of all of the factors related to the MRRP or the CMP. It is included to provide the reader of this report an overview of the project so that the recommendations can be understood and put in context. 10

12 SECTION 3 VE RECOMMENDATIONS Organization of Recommendations This section contains the complete documentation of all recommendations resulting from this study. Each recommendation has been marked with a unique identification number. The parent idea, or ideas from which the proposal began, can be determined from the Creative Idea List located in Appendix B of this report. For tracking purposes, the original idea numbers that make up a recommendation are shown within the recommendation. Each recommendation is documented separately. The recommendations do not include any specific cost estimates, as there are presently no cost estimates associated with any of the proposed strategies. 11

13 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 1 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 2: Maintain cottonwood scope on projects (no scope creep). RECOMMENDATION: Projects defined as part of the Cottonwood Forest Program should have as the primary purpose Cottonwood Reforestation goals. The cottonwood nesting and roosting habitat for the threatened bald eagle has declined due to development adjacent to the Missouri River. The Bald eagle currently is not in jeopardy, but the 2000 and 2003 Biological Opinion (BiOp) recommends taking steps to manage the cottonwood forests into the future. A habitat model is currently being created by USACE that will establish a benchmark of the current cottonwood habitat available to the bald eagles. Once the benchmark is established, the Biological Opinion recommends that no more than 10% of the cottonwood forest habitat is lost during the project life. Project life should be defined in the management plan. Efforts must be made to separate funding to support other programs constructed in conjunction with the Cottonwood Reforestation projects. It is easy to overlap programs or increase scope (scope creep) when attempting to support the Cottonwood Forest Program. An example of this situation is the Lower Brule Little Bend project currently at 80% design. Only a small portion of this project should be funded under the Missouri River Recovery Program/Cottonwood Forest Program. The remaining portion of the Little Bend project should be funded by the appropriate program or modify the scope to minimally support the project as a Cottonwood Reforestation effort. 12

14 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 2 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 3: PM make District VEO aware of projects greater than $2 million for VE evaluation. RECOMMENDATION: This current March 2009 program VE study covers the Cottonwood Reforestation portion of the Missouri River Recovery Program (MMRP). Engineering Regulation ER , Appendix D directs that VE studies shall be conducted on Civil Works projects with CWE costs between $2 to $10 million and no later than 35% design completion. Projects exceeding $10 million shall have two VE studies conducted. The first of the two VE studies is to be conducted during planning stages (Plan Formulation) and the second no later than 35% design completion. It will be the responsibility of Project Management to inform the District Value Engineering Officer of any individual projects that fall within the above mentioned parameters. Projects within these cost parameters will be dealt with on a case by case basis. Emphasis will be placed on the project s compatibility with the current March 2009 program VE Study. 13

15 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 3 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 4: Establish a volunteer cottonwood planting program. RECOMMENDATION: The Corps could solicit volunteers to provide land, materials, or manual labor for the preservation and restoration of cottonwood forests on the Missouri River. Likely best implemented in conjunction with some sort of awareness program, this would be a costeffective way to achieve cottonwood restoration and preservation goals. Coordination with existing tree conservation groups would increase the effectiveness of a program of this nature. 14

16 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 4 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Ideas 8, 10, and 22: Manage mitigation land for cottonwoods; convert USACE owned land to cottonwood forests, and plant cottonwoods on mitigation purchased lands. RECOMMENDATION: Review currently owned or recently acquired Corps lands within segments identified for potential cottonwood reforestation and/or preservation. On appropriate sites incorporate cottonwoods into the land management plan. 15

17 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 5 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 9: Establish a willing sellers list for all segments. RECOMMENDATION: The USACE s current policy for land acquisition to support creation of habitat projects within the MRRP, including cottonwood reforestation, is to acquire land through a willing sellers program. The willing sellers program exists for the 59 mile reach of the Missouri National Recreation River (MNRR) and for the channelized reach from Sioux City, Iowa to St. Louis, Missouri. The proposal is to expand this list for all 15 segments identified in the BiOp. The listing (database) would be an opportunity to capture information in one location, provide a historical record of contact with basin landowners, and document opportunities should real estate acquisition authority become available throughout the Missouri River basin. There are concerns with the sensitive nature of the listing and the perception by landowners throughout the basin of targeting of land acquisition. The generation of the willing sellers list for segments without real estate acquisition authority may create lost work effort. 16

18 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 6 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 11: Coordinate with Shallow Water Habitat (SWH) projects to plant cottonwoods. RECOMMENDATION: With focus on recovery of the endangered pallid sturgeon, the Missouri River Recovery Program (MRRP) effort s Shallow Water Habitat program is the most aggressively funded in order to meet acreage goals stated in the BiOp. The construction of SWH provides the conditions necessary for the growth of cottonwoods. For every mile of shoreline created through SWH projects, there is potential of approximately an acre or more of cottonwood plantings. The coordination of these two programs would result in reduced engineering and construction costs, as well as maximize the use of USACE mitigated lands. 17

19 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 7 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 12: Establish cottonwood education programs. RECOMMENDATION: Cottonwood education programs would help increase public awareness of the Corps cottonwood program and the ecological, recreational, and cultural value of cottonwood trees. Members of the cottonwood Project Delivery Team (PDT) could attend public outreach events, such as the Missouri River Futures landowner conservation workshop in Yankton, South Dakota, Missouri River Outdoor Expo at Ponca State Park in Nebraska, and Bald Eagle Awareness Days in Pierre, South Dakota. Brochures explaining the Corps Cottonwood Restoration Program and the value of cottonwoods would be made available to the public at these events, and team members would be available to answer questions from the public. PDT members could also deliver presentations to high school and university environmental clubs, civic groups, and classes. In coordination with the Corps public affairs office, cottonwood PDT members could write articles about the Corps cottonwood program to be published in regional general interest publications. Publications that may be appropriate include South Dakota Conservationist, Nebraskaland, Nebraska Life, Missouri Life, North Dakota Horizons, Montana Outdoors, Iowa Outdoors, and Kansas Magazine, among others. 18

20 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 8 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 13: Remove non-native trees from existing cottonwood forests. RECOMMENDATION: Cottonwoods are an early successional species, quickly colonizing newly exposed floodplain areas. With the changes to the system related to channel maintenance and dam operation, fewer floodplain areas are being created for cottonwood colonization. In contrast many cottonwoods are currently in aging stands of trees. Overtime these stands of trees become increasingly dominated by other trees, and in particular native and nonnative invasive trees (e.g. red cedar, Russian olive, salt cedar). One option to maintain cottonwood forests on existing sites would be to clear the invasive species, and then either plant cottonwoods or allow them to seed naturally if appropriate site conditions exist. In addition contact other agencies to discourage the planting or distribution of nonnative invasive trees. 19

21 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 9 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 14: Coordinate MRRP cottonwood projects with other funded programs (Split Bid Forms). RECOMMENDATION: There may be opportunities for projects with multiple functions/features with different funding sources to be leveraged into one project. The project purposes would complement each other without detracting from their individual primary functions. An evaluation of opportunities during project development phase could identify such projects. For example, if there is a cultural resource site proposed for protection or a bank stabilization project proposed and a cottonwood reforestation project proposed, the projects may be aligned together for mutual benefits. An example of this situation is the Lower Brule Little Bend project currently at 80% design. Only a small portion of this project should be funded under the Missouri River Recovery Program/Cottonwood Forest Program. The remaining portion of the Little Bend project should be funded by the appropriate program or modify the scope to minimally support the project as a Cottonwood Reforestation effort. 20

22 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 10 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 18: Identify success of the Cottonwood Forest Program. RECOMMENDATION: Cottonwood restoration and preservation efforts accomplished under this program should be monitored post-implementation in order to assess the success of restoration and preservation efforts. Monitoring variables could assess hydrologic and biological changes at the restoration and/or preservation sites over time. Possible data that could be collected include depth to groundwater, tree growth, and bald eagle presence. These data could be used to evaluate the success of restoration and preservation strategies at individual sites, which would increase the success of subsequent restoration and preservation efforts conducted under the program. An adaptive management approach would be used to allow managers to learn from experience. The program as a whole will be successful if it meets RPM3 in the 2000 Biological Opinion - no more than 10 percent of the cottonwood forest habitat that is suitable for bald eagle roosting and nesting along the six priority segments of the Missouri River would be lost over the 100 year period of analysis. The mapping and evaluation effort for RPM 1 will establish baseline conditions for the current health and extent of cottonwood forests along the Missouri River. The cottonwood forests could be assessed periodically throughout the period of analysis and compared against baseline conditions to determine the extent of suitable habitat that is being lost across the six priority segments. Restoration and preservation efforts could then be adjusted as necessary to ensure no more than 10 percent of the suitable bald eagle habitat is lost. 21

23 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 11 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 20: Identify compatible programs for opportunities. RECOMMENDATION: In order to leverage resources, MRRP Cottonwood PDT could further explore opportunities to utilize compatible programs to further stretch resources and work accomplished. Specific ideas for further evaluation include: Non-Profit Tree Planting Groups Contact groups (e.g. Trees Forever, etc.) to gain their support and resources. Energy Companies Many have tree planting programs and may willingly provide seedlings and resources if available land was identified for planting. State Resource Agencies, County Conservation, Natural Resources Districts, etc. Work with ongoing active groups to encourage them to promote and assist in planting cottonwoods on private land or on areas they currently manage along the Missouri River. Climate Change and Carbon Trading/Banking, etc. Continue to monitor trends and opportunities that may result from national policy discussion on the topic of climate change and carbon trading/banking. There may soon be incentives for large scale tree plantings, and the opportunity exists to be ready to suggest large scale cottonwood reforestation along the Missouri River. 22

24 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 12 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 21: Investigate methodologies in other parts of the country. RECOMMENDATION: In order to expand the range of viable options and management experience, the MRRP Cottonwood PDT could contact other foresters to identify additional ideas regarding propagation and maintenance of cottonwood forests within similar systems across the country. Other potential contacts could be made with other agencies managing forests for Bald Eagle habitat (USFWS, States, and other Corps Offices) to gather their ideas regarding maintenance of adequate nesting and roosting trees. 23

25 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 13 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 13: Modify land surface more suitable for cottonwood habitat. RECOMMENDATION: This idea is related to the lowering (by excavation) of the existing terrain so the final surface is close to the natural water table and thus reducing or eliminating the need for extended irrigation of seedlings. This would also expose the area to frequent flooding which is desirable for cottonwood habitat. The main factor for acceptable use of this idea is the terrain. The terrain must be of a low elevation to keep total excavation costs down. It is very conceivable that the cost of excavation and wasting of the excavation material would outweigh the cost of extended or long term irrigation. (See Creative Idea #26) It is also conceivable that other habitat would be destroyed during creation of habitat using this method. The terrain along the program reaches is variable. The areas immediately downstream of the main stem dams and upstream of the reservoir pools may be suitable, but the target acreages to create forestation may be insufficient. The reservoir areas upstream of the dams mainly have a perimeter of high banks and steep rolling terrain. Any suitable terrain in the dam reaches may pose access problems for construction equipment and add to increased costs. The reaches downstream of Gavins Point Dam and some reaches in the upper part of the main stem reservoirs are conducive to this land modifying strategy, due to the wide floodplains both on the interior and exterior of the levees and the existing oxbow or original stabilization areas. 24

26 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 14 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 26: Irrigate marginally dry areas. RECOMMENDATION: Changes in hydrology and geomorphology of the Missouri River since the closure of the main stem dams have dramatically reduced the connectivity of the River to its floodplain, particularly in reaches below the main stem dams. The result is that many areas that historically supported cottonwood growth are no longer likely to provide regeneration opportunities under current conditions. Therefore, in many areas targeted for cottonwood restoration, it may be necessary to provide irrigation during the early phases of cottonwood growth in order to ensure a successful project. Cottonwoods are most successful when their root systems have penetrated groundwater levels. It will likely be necessary to provide 3-5 years of supplemental irrigation in order to allow plantings to reach this level. 25

27 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 15 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 29: Seek partnership with NRCS and farm bill programs. RECOMMENDATION: There may be opportunities for agencies with some parallel purposes to combine efforts to accomplish goals and objectives. The combination of effort would complement each agency without detracting from their primary functions. An evaluation of opportunities between agencies during project development phase could identify mutual benefits. In particular, Farm Bill programs provide opportunities to bring additional land under conservation management (Cottonwood/riparian forest) through incentive based programs, while maintaining private ownership. 26

28 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 16 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 31: Evaluate cost per acre of various methodologies at various locations implementation strategies, engineering opportunities, and planting methodologies. RECOMMENDATION: The Cottonwood Management Plan may propose engineering opportunities and planting methodologies to restore and propagate cottonwood forests. The specifics of these proposals may include items such as channel restoration, creation of fluvial processes suitable for cottonwood establishment, changing bank or bench elevations along the river to support establishment of cottonwood growth, planting cottonwood seeds and/or rooted seedlings, providing planting beds (disk land for cottonwood habitat), and protection of new stands by controlling invasive vegetation and rodents. All of these solutions have the potential of improving the cottonwood forests. The relative costs for each of these solutions should be calculated. The costs would vary depending on the many field factors and where they may be applied. The relative costs for any one situation at one location could be compared. Several typical locations could be developed and the relative costs for each solution then computed. This would allow decision makers to evaluate the relative costs for any given field conditions to determine the most cost effective reforestation for that location. Without relative costs analysis, the cost per acre to accomplish the end objective may vary to the extent that the program cannot be executed within any reasonable funding requirements nor can the total cost of executing the program be considered. 27

29 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 17 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 32: Estimate costs of evaluating management solutions (implementation strategies, protection and conservation options, and management policies). RECOMMENDATION: The Cottonwood Management Plan may propose protection and conservation strategies and management policies to restore and propagate cottonwood forests. The specifies of these proposals may include such items as establishment of land conservations measures, acquisition of land near the river, implementation of practices to control animal grazing within existing stands, education programs, and use of Federal and State Mitigation projects to require and/or encourage cottonwood plantings. All of these potential solutions would benefit cottonwood reforestation and protection of existing trees. Some would be substantially easier to implement and support than others. Some may require changes to existing regulations or laws to allow funding to be used. All of these strategies would require Corps of Engineers management/time and therefore cost to implement. The degree of difficulty and the associated costs should be estimated for all of these solutions to determine the economics of implementation. The cost for any one or combination could be then compared to the possible benefit from the strategy so that the most effective could be pursued. 28

30 VALUE ENGINEERING RECOMMENDATION # 18 PROJECT: Cottonwood Forest Program STUDY DATE: April 20-21, 2009 DESCRIPTIVE TITLE OF RECOMMENDATION: Creative Idea 33: Acquire land to establish cottonwood forests. RECOMMENDATION: The USACE currently has established a real estate acquisition program to support the development of mitigation land including shallow water habitat for the lower Missouri River (Sioux City, Iowa to the mouth of the river near St. Louis, Missouri). If the land acquired within this segment is identified as a potential cottonwood forest site, the Site Mitigation Plan with cottonwood forest regeneration as a primary feature may be developed. For potential cottonwood forest projects within the 59 mile reach of the MNRR, real estate acquisition authority exists and may be utilized to acquire land for the development of projects. The fee-title acquisition for ecosystem restoration would be necessary for land acquisitions within the remaining segments that do not meet the criteria established for utilization of Operations & Maintenance authority. 29

31 APPENDIX A STUDY PARTICIPANTS 30

32 VE TEAM for Cottonwood Reforestation (April 20 & 21): NAME Richard A. Stricker Teresa A. Reinig Kristine T. Nemec Bradley E. Thompson Gwyn M. Jarrett Christopher J. Svendsen Terry J. Matuska Ken L. True POSITION VEO Program Mngr. Biologist Chf Env/Econ/CR Little Bend PM Sed/Chnl Stb Geotech/Civil Egr Contract Fac. 31

33 APPENDIX B CREATIVE IDEAS LIST 32

34 ACTION LEGEND: D= Develop Comment E = Eliminate (Dropped from further consideration) A= Idea has been or is being incorporated into existing studies List of CREATIVE IDEAS ID # Name of Idea / description Value Potential 1 Eliminate dams E 2 Maintain cottonwood scope on projects (No scope creep) D 3 PM Make District VEO aware of projects greater than $2 D million for VE evaluation 4 Develop a volunteer cottonwood planting program D 5 Contract with conservation districts for planting E 6 Establish a government nursery E 7 Use hybrid cottonwood trees (Commercial Seedless) E 8 Manage mitigation land for cottonwoods D Combine W/10 & 22 9 Establish willing sellers list for all segments D 10 Convert USACE owned land to cottonwood forests D Combine W/8 11 Coordinate with SWH projects to plant cottonwoods D 12 Establish cottonwood education programs D 13 Remove non-native trees from cottonwood forests D 14 Coordinate MRRP cottonwood projects with other funded D programs (Split bid forms) 15 Provide artificial cottonwood trees E 16 Plant other native tree species to serve as eagle habitat E 17 Finalize the management plan as described in RPM 2 A 18 Identify success of the Cottonwood Forest Program D 19 Show success relationship to eagles and cottonwood trees A 20 Identify compatible programs for opportunities D 21 Investigate methodologies in other parts of the country D (Lessons Learned) 22 Plant cottonwoods on mitigation purchased lands D Combine W/8 23 Get authority to plant cottonwoods along the Missouri River E tributaries 24 Expand real estate acquisition authority E 33

35 ACTION LEGEND: D= Develop Comment E = Eliminate (Dropped from further consideration) A= Idea has been or is being incorporated into existing studies List of CREATIVE IDEAS ID # Name of Idea / description Value Potential 25 Modify land surface more suitable for cottonwood habitat D 26 Irrigate marginally dry areas D 27 Provide a cottonwood seedling campaign E 28 Establish cottonwood planting credits E 29 Seek partnership with NRCS and farm bill programs D 30 Plan for drought contingency E 31 Evaluate of cost/acre of various methodologies at various D locations implementation strategies, engineering opportunities, and planting methodologies) 32 Cost of evaluating the political management solutions D (implementation strategies, protection and conservation options, and management policies) 33 Acquire land to establish cottonwood forest D 34 Finalize mapping of the cottonwood forest as described in RPM 1 A 34

36 APPENDIX C FUNCTIONAL MODEL 35

37 Function Model Item Restore Habitat Provide Nesting Habitat Provide Roosting Habitat Create Habitat Protect Bald Eagle Protect Cottonwoods Maintain Habitat Establish Habitat Reduce Habitat Loss Provides Woody Debris Provides Shade Provides Nutrients Maintain Nutrients Maintain Woody Debris Maintain Cottonwoods Maintain Roosting Habitat Maintain Nesting Habitat Reduces Carbon Provides Cultural Value Maintain Cultural Value Function Protect Bald Eagles by Protection and Maintenance of Cottonwoods 36

38 APPENDIX D FAST DIAGRAM 37

39 FAST DIAGRAM HOW WHY Provide Reduces Shade Carbon Provide & Maintain Nutrients Provide & Maintain Woody Debris Provide & Maintain Cultural Value Restore Habitat Protect Bald Eagle Create Habitat Maintain Habitat Provide Nesting Habitat Provide Roosting Habitat Maintain Nesting Habitat Maintain Roosting Habitat Protect & Maintain Cottonwoods Reduce Habitat Loss 38