Loading...
The URL can be used to link to this page
Your browser does not support the video tag.
Home
My Public Portal
About
project mgt plan-10252018085201.pdf
US Army Corps of Engineers€ South Atlantic Division Savannah District PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN FY 2018 Project Title: SECTION 1037 STUDY TO EXTEND FEDERAL PARTICIPATION IN THE TYBEE ISLAND SHORELINE PROTECTION PROJECT Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report P2#: 113002 Document History: DATE DESCRIPTION & LOCATION DATE APPROVED WITHIN PMP OF REVISION APPROVED BY Original PMP 10/2018 TYBEE ISLAND SHORE PROTECTION PROJECT BEACH RENOURISHMENT EVALUATION REPORT PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN 1. Scope 1 1.1. Study Authorization. 1 1.2. Study Purpose. 2 13. Project Description 2 1.4. Acquisition 4 1.5. Scope Management Plan 4 1.6. Customer Expectations 6 1.7. Project Objective 6 2. Team Identification 6 3. Critical Assumptions and Constraints 7 3.1. Assumptions 7 3.2. Constraints 9 4. Work Breakdown Structure (WBS) 9 5. Schedule 9 6. Funding Sources 13 7. Project Quality Control Plan and Objectives 13 7.1. Project Delivery Team 13 7.2. Review Plan 14 7.3. District Quality Control 14 7.4. Agency Technical Review 14 7.5. Lessons Learned 14 8. Risk Analysis 14 9. Decision Management Plan 16 10. Change Management Plan 17 11. Communications Plan 17 12. Closeout Plan 18 13. Attachment — Detailed Scopes of Work 21 13.1. Planning Technical Lead 21 13.2. Environmental, Economics and Cultural Resources 22 13.3. Scope of Work Real Estate 23 114. Scope of Work Appraise) 24 13.5. Scope of Work Economics 24 13.6. Scope of Work Engineering 24 13.7. Scope of Work Project Manager 25 1. SCOPE 1.1. STUDY AUTHORIZATION. The Federal Tybee Island Beach Erosion Control Project was authorized in June 1971 by Senate and House resolutions pursuant to Section 201 of the Flood Control Act of 1965 (Public Law 89-298), as presented in House Document No. 92-105, for a life of 10 years. Section 201 provided a procedure for authorization of projects with, at that time, an estimated Federal first cost of construction of less than $10 million. The authorizing language reads as follows: "RESOLVED BY THE COMMITTEE ON PUBLIC WORKS OF THE UNITED STATES SENATE, That pursuant to the provisions of Section 201 of Public Law 298, Eighty-ninth Congress, (79 Stat. 1073; 42 U.S.C. 1962d-5) the project providing for beach erosion control on Tybee Island, Georgia, is hereby approved substantially in accordance with the recommendations of the Secretary of the Army and the Chief of Engineers in House Document Numbered 105, Ninety-second Congress, at an estimated cost of $404,000." The authority for Federal participation in periodic nourishment of beach projects was increased from 10 years to 15 years by Section 156 Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 1976, which reads as follows: "The Secretary of the Army, acting through the Chief of Engineers, is authorized to provide periodic beach nourishment in the case of each water resources development project where such nourishment has been authorized for a limited period for such additional periods as he determines necessary but in no event shall such additional period extend beyond the fifteenth year which begins after the date of initiation of construction of such project." Section 934 of WRDA 1986 modified Section 156 of WRDA 1976 by extending the authority for Federal participation in periodic nourishment from 15 years to 50 years and reads as follows: "Section 156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976 (42 U.S. C. 1962d - 5t) is amended by striking out '1lfteenth" and inserting in lieu thereof "fiftieth." Following the passage of WRDA 1986, a "Section 934" report was prepared which concluded that the authorized Federal project for Tybee Island was economically feasible under the current policy and economic guidelines, and the project should be extended for the remaining life of 30 years (from 1994). The study was initiated in 1990, completed in October 1994 and the "Tybee Island Beach Erosion Control Project, Section 934 Reevaluation Report" was approved in June 1995. Accordingly, the project life of the Tybee Island project was established in September 1974, with the initiation of 1 construction of the North Terminal Groin and Federal participation in the project cost sharing. The project will terminate in September 2024. The Tybee Island Shore Protection Project, City of Tybee Island, Chatham County, Georgia, Beach Renourishment Evaluation Study was authorized in Section 1037 of WRRDA 2014 Section 1037 (a) further amends Section 156 of the Water Resources Development Act of 1976, as amended (42 U.S.C. 1962d -5f), as written below, to provide that, at the request of the non -Federal interest, the Secretary shall carry out, for any coastal storm risk management project for which periodic renourishment is authorized for a maximum period of 50 years, a study to determine the feasibility of extending the period of nourishment for a period not to exceed 15 additional years beyond the 50 year maximum period of federal participation in cost shared renourishment. 1.2. STUDY PURPOSE. To document whether extension of the Federal participation in cost shared renourishment of the Tybee Island Shore Protection Project for an additional 15 years is technically feasible, economically justified, and environmentally acceptable, a Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report (BRER) will be prepared. 1.3: PROJECT DESCRIPTION Tybee Island is a 3.5 mile long barrier island, located 18 miles east of Savannah at the mouth of the Savannah River on the Atlantic Ocean. The highly developed island is bordered on the north by the South Channel of the Savannah River, on the east by the Atlantic Ocean, and on the south and west by the Back River and other tidal creeks. Tybee Island has an average width of 0.5 miles and the ground elevation varies from 10 to 18 feet above Mean Lower Low Water (MLLW) and slopes westward to the salt marshes. Figure 1 is a map of the project area. 2 Figure 1. Map of the Tybee Island SPP project area. Front Beach Renourishment Area 0. 5... AMIr BROIIEER n1SYRccr. SAY mss -OF EI6.1EERsSAvAlliam. WOOD'S' This authorized 3.5 mile long project was initially constructed in 1974 with a 50 -year project life and periodic renourishments to occur every 7 years. The beach was most recently renourished in 2008 and 2015. The 2015 renourishment was intended to provide material to maintain the beach and guard from potential erosion through 2024. After hurricanes Matthew in 2016 and Irma in 2017, supplemental nourishment was conducted in 2018 to add material that was lost. Additional material will be placed on 3 the beach in 2019 as a continuation of the supplemental nourishment for hurricane repairs. The beach template was slightly modified to include placement of the additional material by extending the berm up to the North terminal groin of the template. This area has been nourished during previous renourishment cycles, but not during the 2008 renourishment. In addition, the berm will be extended seaward up to 50 feet beyond the previously constructed template to account for erosion during the additional 2 years for a 9 -year cycle. The authorized project consists of nourishment of 13,200 linear feet of beach between two terminal groins (referred to as Oceanfront Beach); construction of a groin field along 1,100 linear feet of shoreline from the southern terminal groin around the South Tip to the mouth of Tybee Creek (also known as Back River) including periodic nourishment (referred to as South Tip Beach); and construction of a groin field and nourishment of 1,800 linear feet of the eastern bank of Tybee Creek to the city fishing pier (referred to as Back River Beach). The offshore Borrow Area 4 was used for the 2008 and 2015 renourishment cycles and also for the 2018 hurricane repairs. Work is being conducted to expand the borrow area for the 2019 hurricane repairs. 1.4. ACQUISITION Actions to deliver the BRER: • Environmental Assessment - accomplished with CESAS personnel. o Biological Assessment of Endangered Species (BATES) o Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) o Coastal Zone Management (CZM) o 404b1 evaluation o 401 — Water Quality Certificate o National Historic Preservation Act Compliance (NHPA) • Level 3 Benefit Economic Evaluation — accomplished with CESAJ personnel • Project 1st floor elevation survey — accomplished thru CESAS personnel or contracting action • Real Estate Appraisal for Level 3 Benefit Economic Evaluation - accomplished with CESAS personnel • Real Estate Report - accomplished with CESAS personnel • Storm Suite Modeling — accomplished thru contracting action • Beach-fx analysis — accomplished with CESAJ personnel 1.5. SCOPE MANAGEMENT PLAN The Scope of Work (SOW) outlines the tasks to complete and develop the Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report. 4 In accordance with USAGE guidance memorandum, Implementation Guidance for Section 1037(a) of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act (WRRDA) of 2014, Hurricane and Storm Damage Reduction, the report will include at least a Level 2 Benefit Economic Update. For purposes of this BRER, a Level 3 Benefit Economic Update will be developed. The report will serve to revalidate and reaffirm the existing project with the inclusion of the following: (1) cost update to appropriate price level; (2) reaffirmation of project design template; (3) validation of project parking and access; (4) confirmation of adequacy of existing borrow sources(s); (5) discussion of sea level rise considerations consistent with ER 1100-2-8162, Incorporating Sea Level Change in Civil Works Programs", (6) Review of status of environmental and other regulatory compliance including interagency coordination as necessary, to confirm environmental compliance without additional data collection, and provide an updated project federal and non-federal costs for renourishments during the 15 -year period and the estimated renourishment cycle. A public notice will be issued on the District findings and recommendation prior to submittal of the final report for approval. Project study costs are estimated as follows: Beach Renourishment Evaluation Total Cost $$' $, $82,000 Planning Technical Lead (PTL) Environmental $34,110 Economics $6,000 Cultural Resources $15,250 saa j�M1 Data Inventory/Collection Hydrodynamic/Sediment Modeling Resorting $400,300 Surve for Economics Usdate $25,000 Cost Estimating $6,500 Specialist $28,500 A. graisal for Economics Update $19,500 Economist $132,814 Pro'ect Manager $40,000 © , Vim:'=" $789,974 As outlined in the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) executed on 20 March 2018, the study will be cost -shared 50% federal / 50% non-federal for the effort. The federal share for this study was previously estimated at $300,000 and the non-federal Share was estimated at $300,000. During study scope and PMP development, it was determined that additional requirements were necessary to complete the economics for the study. As such, these requirements have increased the estimated cost from 5 $600,000 to $789,974. Additional Federal and Non -Federal funds will be required to complete the study. WRRDA 2014, Section 1037 requires that the non -Federal interest develop and submit to the District a plan for reducing the risk to people and property called the Non -Federal Interest's plan for risk reduction. The plan will be included as an appendix to the report. The non -Federal plan should identify actions already taken, or that will be taken, to reduce risks to people and property from coastal storms. Actions may include zoning requirements, evacuation measures, building codes, and non -Federal action implemented between periodic nourishment cycles. The plan should also include the requirements for flood plain management plans as described in Section 202 (c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and Policy Guidance Letter # 52, Flood Plain Management Plans. t6. CUSTOMER EXPECTATIONS The non-federal sponsor for this project is the City of Tybee Island, Georgia. The non- federal sponsor's expectations include sound engineering practice, cost effectiveness, and timeliness. Section 1037 requires that the non -Federal interest develop and submit to the District a plan for reducing the risk to people and property. The plan will be included as an appendix to the BRER. The non -Federal plan should identify actions already taken, or that will be taken, to reduce risks to people and property from coastal storms. Actions may include zoning requirements for flood plain managements plans as described in Section 202 (c) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996 and Policy Guidance Letter #52, Flood Plain Management Plans. 1.7. PROJECT OBJECTIVE The project objective is to extend the life of the current Federal Project for 15 additional years. 2. TEAM IDENTIFICATION Project Delivery Team Josh Nickel Project CESAS-PM-C 912-652- Joshua.nickel@usace.army.mil Manager 5266 April Plan CESAS-PM-P 912-652- April.N.Patterson@usace.army. Patterson Formulator 5754 mil 6 Dorothy Real Estate Steinbeiser ;Specialist CESAS-RE- HA 912-652- 5941 Dorothy. M. Steinbeiser@usace.a' rmy.mil Robin Armetta Biologist CESAS-PM-P 912-652- 6148 Robin.E.Armetta@usace.army. mil Mary ;Biologist Richards CESAS-PM-P 912-652- 5020 Mary.E.Richards@usace.army. mil Julie Morgan Archeologist CESAS-PM-P 706-856- Julie.A.Morgan@usace.army.mil 0378 Lori Hadley Design CESAJ-EN- 904-232- Lori.L.Hadley@usace.army.mil Engineer WC 1386 Idris Dobbs ,Economist CESAJ-PD-D 904-232- Idris.L.Dobbs@usace.army.mil 1053 Marty Harm Economist !CESAJ-PD-D 904-232- Martin.T.Harm@usace.army.mil 3530 Mark Appraiser CESAS-RE- 912-652- John.M.Hamilton@usace.army. Hamilton TA mil Elliott Cost CESAS-EN- 912-652- Elliott.K.Roughen@usace.army. Roughen Engineer ET .5663 mil 3. CRITICAL ASSUMPTIONS AND CONSTRAINTS 3.1. ASSUMPTIONS The following assumptions are made with respect to the project: • Funding will be provided as outlined in the Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (FCSA); and • The approval authority for the study is the Commander, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. • There are not challenging aspects of this study. It consists of extending the period of Federal participation in periodic renourishments. Accordingly, the project does not have any significant technical, institutional, or social challenges. • The study is not highly controversial as it consists of continuing Federal participation in periodic renourishments of the project. It is not anticipated that there will be a significant public dispute as to the size, nature, or effects of the project. " T h e m a j o r r i s k s i n t h e p r o j e c t i n c l u d e t h e p o t e n t i a l f o r a d v e r s e i m p a c t s i f t h e F u t u r e W i t h o u t P r o j e c t ( F W O P ) c o n d i t i o n ( i . e . t h e N o A c t i o n P l a n ) i s s e l e c t e d , a s s e v e r e s t o r m i m p a c t s t o l i f e a n d p r o p e r t y c o u l d o c c u r . " N o l i f e s a f e t y i s s u e s a r e a n t i c i p a t e d f r o m t h e e x t e n s i o n o f F e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p e r i o d i c r e n o u r i s h m e n t s a s t h e p r o j e c t w i l l o n l y c o n t i n u e c o n s t r u c t i o n t o t h e p r e v i o u s l y a u t h o r i z e d a n d c o n s t r u c t e d d e s i g n l i m i t s . " D e c i s i o n d o c u m e n t s d e v e l o p e d u n d e r t h i s a u t h o r i t y a r e e x c l u d e d f r o m i n d e p e n d e n t e x t e r n a l p e e r r e v i e w u n l e s s o n e o f t h e m a n d a t o r y t r i g g e r s c o n t a i n e d i n S e c t i o n 2 0 3 4 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( i ) o f t h e W a t e r R e s o u r c e s D e v e l o p m e n t A c t o f 2 0 0 7 , a s a m e n d e d ( 3 3 U . S . C . 2 3 4 3 ( a ) ( 3 ) ( A ) ( i ) ) , i s i n v o l v e d ( s e e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n G u i d a n c e f o r S e c t i o n 1 0 3 7 ( a ) , r e f e r e n c e d ) . " A r i s k o f r e d u c t i o n i n f l o o d c o n t r o l b e n e f i t s i s n o t a n t i c i p a t e d a s r e f o r m u l a t i o n o f t h e a u t h o r i z e d p r o j e c t d e s i g n i s n o t b e i n g c o n s i d e r e d i n t h e T y b e e I s l a n d S P P B R E R . " T h e r e a r e n o i n i t i a l i m p l e m e n t a t i o n c o s t s a s s o c i a t e d w i t h t h e e x t e n s i o n o f F e d e r a l p a r t i c i p a t i o n i n p e r i o d i c r e n o u r i s h m e n t s a s t h e p r o j e c t w a s i n i t i a l l y c o n s t r u c t e d b e g i n n i n g i n 1 9 7 4 . A l l p e r i o d i c r e n o u r i s h m e n t s w o u l d b e c o s t - s h a r e d a c c o r d i n g t o t h e P r o j e c t C o o p e r a t i o n A g r e e m e n t . " T h e r e i s a m p l e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h i n U S A G E o n C o a s t a l S t o r m R i s k M a n a g e m e n t ( C S R M ) r e p o r t s a n d c o n s t r u c t i o n . T h e p r o j e c t i s a t y p i c a l b e a c h r e n o u r i s h m e n t p r o j e c t i n v o l v i n g t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d s o f d r e d g i n g a n d t r a d i t i o n a l m e t h o d s o f p l a c e m e n t o f d r e d g e d m a t e r i a l . T h i s p r o j e c t w o u l d b e f o r a n a c t i v i t y ( d r e d g i n g a n d p l a c e m e n t ) f o r w h i c h t h e r e i s a m p l e e x p e r i e n c e w i t h i n U S A C E . C E S A S w i l l p a r t n e r w i t h t h e C E S A J f o r B e a c h F X m o d e l w o r k a n d a n a l y s i s a n d t h e l e v e l I I e c o n o m i c a n a l y s i s . T h e s t r u c t u r e o f t h e s t u d y r e p o r t , c o s t e s t i m a t e , r e a l e s t a t e , e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n s i d e r a t i o n s a r e c o n s i s t e n t w i t h p r e v i o u s s t u d i e s d e v e l o p e d f o r t h i s p r o j e c t . " T h e r e a r e n o k n o w n r i s k s t o t h e p r o p o s e d e x t e n s i o n o f t h e r e n o u r i s h m e n t p e r i o d . A l l t e c h n i c a l a r e a s h a v e m e t h o d s t o i d e n t i f y a n d m i t i g a t e i n h e r i t r i s k s . " P r e l i m i n a r y a n a l y s i s i n d i c a t e s t h a t i m p a c t s t o f i s h a n d w i l d l i f e , i n c l u d i n g t h r e a t e n e d a n d e n d a n g e r e d s p e c i e s , a r e e x p e c t e d n o t t o b e s i g n i f i c a n t . T o t h e e x t e n t p r a c t i c a b l e , e n v i r o n m e n t a l c o n c e r n s c a n b e a d d r e s s e d t h r o u g h m i t i g a t i o n m e a s u r e s o f a v o i d a n c e , m i n i m i z a t i o n , o r c o m p e n s a t i o n , a n d t h r o u g h p u b l i c e d u c a t i o n a n d o u t r e a c h e f f o r t s . A n E A w i l l b e c o m p l e t e d t o d o c u m e n t t h e e n v i r o n m e n t a l e f f e c t s o f t h e p r o p o s e d p l a n . " T h e p r o j e c t w i l l n o t b e j u s t i f i e d b y l i f e s a f e t y a n d d o e s n o t i n v o l v e s i g n i f i c a n t t h r e a t t o h u m a n l i f e / s a f e t y a s s u r a n c e . 8 " T h e f i n a l B R E R / E A a n d s u p p o r t i n g d o c u m e n t a t i o n w i l l c o n t a i n s t a n d a r d e n g i n e e r i n g , e c o n o m i c , a n d e n v i r o n m e n t a l a n a l y s e s a n d i n f o r m a t i o n . " I n f o r m a t i o n i n t h e d e c i s i o n d o c u m e n t i s u n l i k e l y t o b e b a s e d o n n o v e l m e t h o d s , i n v o l v e t h e u s e o f i n n o v a t i v e m a t e r i a l s o r t e c h n i q u e s , a n d c o n t a i n p r e c e d e n t - s e t t i n g m e t h o d s o r m o d e l s , o r p r e s e n t c o n c l u s i o n s t h a t a r e l i k e l y t o c h a n g e p r e v a i l i n g p r a c t i c e s . T h e p r o j e c t d o e s n o t c o n t a i n i n f l u e n t i a l s c i e n t i f i c i n f o r m a t i o n a n d w i l l n o t i n c l u d e a n y h i g h l y i n f l u e n t i a l s c i e n t i f i c a s s e s s m e n t s . 3 . 2 . C O N S T R A I N T S T h e k e y c o n s t r a i n t s a r e a s f o l l o w s : " F u n d i n g T h e c u r r e n t F e d e r a l C o s t S h a r e A g r e e m e n t b e t w e e n t h e g o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e C i t y o f T y b e e I s l a n d e x e c u t e d o n 1 8 M a r c h 2 0 1 8 , A r t i c l e I I I . , S e c t i o n A . s t a t e s , " T h e s h a r e d s t u d y c o s t s a r e p r o j e c t e d t o b e $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 , w i t h t h e G o v e r n m e n t ' s s h a r e o f s u c h c o s t s p r o j e c t e d t o b e $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 a n d t h e N o n - F e d e r a l S p o n s o r ' s s h a r e o f s u c h c o s t s p r o j e c t e d t o b e $ 3 0 0 , 0 0 0 . 0 0 . T h e s e a m o u n t s a r e e s t i m a t e s o n l y t h a t a r e s u b j e c t t o a d j u s t m e n t b y t h e G o v e r n m e n t a n d a r e n o t t o b e c o n s t r u e d a s t h e t o t a l f i n a n c i a l r e s p o n s i b i l i t i e s o f t h e G o v e r n m e n t a n d t h e N o n - F e d e r a l S p o n s o r . " C u r r e n t l y , T o t a l S t u d y C o s t s m u s t n o t e x c e e d $ 6 0 0 , 0 0 0 . " S c h e d u l e T h e s t u d y m u s t b e c o m p l e t e , c u l m i n a t i n g w i t h t h e C h i e f s R e p o r t , w i t h i n 3 y e a r s o f t h e s i g n i n g o f t h e F C S A . 4 . W O R K B R E A K D O W N S T R U C T U R E ( W B S ) " T h e W B S c a n b e v i e w e d i n P 2 . " T h e W B S i s a d e l i v e r a b l e - o r i e n t e d l i s t o f t a s k s r e q u i r e d t o a c c o m p l i s h t h e s c o p e o f w o r k . I t i s p r o d u c t - o r i e n t e d t o f a c i l i t a t e t h e d e v e l o p m e n t o f p e r f o r m a n c e m e a s u r e s . T h e W B S s p e c i f i e s t h e t a s k s a n d s u b t a s k s n e c e s s a r y t o f u l f i l l t h e o b j e c t i v e s o f t h e p r o j e c t . 5 . S C H E D U L E P e r t h e I m p l e m e n t a t i o n G u i d a n c e f o r S e c t i o n 1 0 3 7 ( a ) o f t h e W a t e r R e s o u r c e s R e f o r m a n d D e v e l o p m e n t A c t ( W R R D A ) o f 2 0 1 4 , H u r r i c a n e a n d S t o r m D a m a g e R e d u c t i o n , d a t e d 1 6 J u l y 2 0 1 5 , t h e s t u d y r e p o r t w i l l b e p r o v i d e d b y t h e S e c r e t a r y t o " t h e C o m m i t t e e o n E n v i r o n m e n t a n d P u b l i c W o r k s o f t h e S e n a t e a n d t h e C o m m i t t e e o n T r a n s p o r t a t i o n 9 and Infrastructure of the House of Representatives any recommendations of the Secretary related to the review; and (2) include in the subsequent annual report to Congress required under section 7001 of the Water Resources Reform and Development Act of 2014, any recommendations that require specific congressional authorization." The major milestones will include: • Execute Feasibility Cost Share Agreement (FCSA) — occurs after the non-federal sponsor(s) and Government execute an agreement concerning each party's financial responsibility for the feasibility phase. • Alternatives Milestone Meeting • Tentatively Selected Plan Meeting • Agency Decision Meeting • Washington Level Review • Chief of Engineers Report • Congressional Authorization • The following schedule was agreed upon by the Project Delivery Team for approval by the South Atlantic Division at the Alternatives Milestone. The schedule including SMART Planning milestones and will be complete within three years of initiation. Schedule Note: "A" represents actualized Task completion dates TASK — Tybee Island SPP Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report (1037 Study) (caDlendar) START END Executed FCSA (CW130) 0 3/19/2018 A 3/19/2018 A SAD Coordination 0 5/29/2018 A 5/29/2018 A Develop Review Plan 80 5/29/2018 A 8/17/2018 A Draft PMP 70 7/25/2018 A 10/3/2018 A Beach FX and Environmental Study Background and Local Conditions 0 8/6/2018 A 8/6/2018 A Initial PDT Scoping Meeting 0 8/9/2018 A 8/9/2018 A Coastal PCX Review Plan Review 18 8/18/2018 A 9/5/2018 A 10 SAD Review Plan Review and Approval 30 9/5/2018 A 10/15/2018 NEPA Scoping and Analysis 23 9/5/2018 A 9/28/2018 A Develop Beach FX Model Reaches 9 9/5/2018 A 9/14/2018 A Alternatives Meeting Milestone (CW190) 21 9/14/2018 A 9/26/2018 A Develop Beach FX Initial Profiles 6 9/15/2018 A 9/21/2018 A Risk Register 10 9/17/2018 A 9/27/2018 A National Historic Preservation Act Compliance (NHPA) 225 9/18/2018 A 5/1/2019 Develop Beach FX Background Erosion Rates 4 9/22/2018 A 9/26/2018 A Develop Storm Seasons/Berm Recovery/Etc. 5 9/27/2018 A 10/2/2018 A Level 3 Benefit Economic Evaluation (CWPM 12-001) 182 10/1/2018 A 4/1/2019 Develop Plausible Storm Suite 44 10/2/2018 A 11/15/2018 SBEACH Model CalibrationNalidation 22 10/3/2018 A 10/25/2018 PMP Approved (CW040) 21 10/4/2018 A 10/26/2018 Biological Assessment of Endangered Species(BATES) 18 10/12/2018 10/30/2018 Essential Fish Habitat (EFH) 18 10/12/2018 10/30/2018 Begin Environmental Assessment (EA) 18 10/12/2018 10/30/2018 Post Review Plan (CW 035) 2 10/16/2018 10/18/2018 SBEACH SRD Production Runs/Post- Process 8 11/19/2018 11/27/2018 Import SRD into Beach FX 5 11/28/2018 12/3/2018 11 Beach FX Model Calibration 9 12/4/2018 12/13/2018 Beach FX FWOP Simulations 31 12/14/2018 1/14/2019 Develop Beach FX FWP Profiles (Alternatives) 5 1/15/2019 1/20/2019 Develop With -Project Plan Form Erosion Rates 19 1/21/2019 2/9/2019 Beach FX FWP Simulations 49 2/10/2019 3/31/2019 Finalize EA / Coastal Zone Consistency (CZM)/401(b) 31 3/31/2019 5/1/2019 Develop TSP 30 4/1/2019 5/1/2019 Draft Report 29 4/3/2019 5/2/2019 Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone (CW 262) 0 5/2/2019 5/2/2019 DQC 30 5/3/2019 6/2/2019 ATR /Sponsor/SAD Review 30 6/3/2019 7/3/2019 Public and Agency Review (CW 250) 30 6/3/2019 7/3/2019 Review and Incorporate Comments 30 7/3/2019 8/2/2019 SAS Respond to SAD Comments 30 7/3/2019 8/2/2019 Agency Decision Milestone (CW 263) 0 7/3/2019 7/3/2019 Final Report to SAD (CW160) 1 8/5/2019 8/6/2019 SAD Approve and transmit to HQ 22 8/7/2019 8/29/2019 SAS Review HQ Comments 21 8/30/2019 9/20/2019 Final Report to HQ (CW260) 1 9/23/2019 9/24/2019 HQ Approve and transmit to ASA 30 9/25/2019 10/25/2019 Chiefs Report (CW270) 45 10/28/2019 12/12/2019 12 Congressional Review and Approval 5/31/2020 6. FUNDING SOURCES A Federal Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) was executed on 20 March 2018 between the USACE and the City of Tybee Island to complete the Section 1037 Study to Extend Federal Participation in the Tybee Island Shore Protection Project through 2039. In accordance with WRDA 2014 Section 1037, the evaluation is cost shared 50% Federal and 50% non -Federal. The Agreement projected the costs of the study to be $300,000 Federal and $300,000 Non Federal, and for which, the City of Tybee Island provided Self -Certification of Financial Capability on 17 November 2017. Federal study funding is through Construction General Appropriations. 7. PROJECT QUALITY CONTROL PLAN AND OBJECTIVES The primary quality objective is to produce a Beach Renourishment Evaluation Study that conforms with and meets customer and stakeholder expectations. The study will meet all regulatory and statutory requirements. The quality of the report will be managed for technical accuracy, compliance with policy and professional standards, schedule and budget, and customer satisfaction. Control features will include the work of the project delivery team, project management, District Quality Control (DQC), Agency Technical Review (ATR), and vertical team policy review (as part of the approval process). The ATR will have two components of review; part one will encompass the draft decision document and part two will capture the closeout verification of the comments from part one. 7.1. PROJECT DELIVERY TEAM Project Delivery Team members are responsible for developing the technical analyses required to formulate and evaluate alternative plans; assess costs and benefits; identify impacts; and prepare the technical appendices, Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report. It is the team's responsibility to deliver a quality product that satisfies the customer's quality objectives and ensure the customer understands the essential professional standards, laws, and codes which must be incorporated into the project. 13 72. REVIEW PLAN The Review Plan for the study outlines the review process undertaken during the study phase. The reviews will be conducted in accordance with Engineering Circular (EC) 1165-2-217. The Review Plan was reviewed by the Coastal Planning Center of Expertise and submitted to South Atlantic Division for review and approval on 5 October 2018. Once, approved the Review Plan will be posted to the District website and included as an Appendix to the PMP. 7,3. DISTRICT QUALITY CONTROL The overall quality of the feasibility document is the responsibility of the Chief, Planning Branch. Internal reviews will be conducted by Section, Branch, and Division Chiefs. The supervisory team, supplemented with technical experts, is responsible for: (1) quality of work performed by its personnel; and (2) resolution of conflicts between the study and reviewers. The Chiefs will guide, direct and review all technical products to insure that they present logical conclusions, comply with all applicable policies, and ensure that the conclusions are technically sound. 74. AGENCY TECHNICAL REVIEW In accordance with EC 1165-2-217, a review team comprised of technical experts from other USACE Districts will review the feasibility report for technical accuracy and policy compliance. Comments will be documented in DrChecks. 7.5. LESSONS LEARNED Upon completion of the Feasibility Phase Products, the team will compile any lessons learned during the process which will, in turn, be recorded into a "Lessons Learned" file. 8. RISK ANALYSIS The Risk Management Plan is included below. The primary risks associated with this project involve the project constraints identified in Section 3.2 of this PMP: funding and schedule issues. • Funding - The project has received funding in the amount of $300,000 federal and $300,000 non-federal to complete the PMP and Review Plan; Report Synopsis; Decision Management Plan; Risk Register; and hold the Alternative Milestone Meeting (AMM). Throughout the study, the team should keep track of all assumptions and associated risks addressed during the Feasibility phase. A cost estimate for the PED and construction phase will be prepared when the feasibility 14 study is developed. PED and construction is cost shared 60.7% federal and 39.3% non-federal. • Schedule —The schedule is outline in Paragraph 4 of this PMP. RISK MANAGEMENT PLAN - ..._ .t :« {a _ •e}m®GC�r�I%dA(. e y-`wri Y � -..... ;• v ... .k,M1 - .Y!S r,Yi ; .. r.:( .:'.- r'"XaYl++r+9i4 . , '.rrx •n.':+.ta:v+e±;•ie '' . s,wr 5 5 a- .._ .-r.•',�, rtF. .A _ . ; w Insignificant cost increase Likely Negligible Low (Ac) Status P2 Activities monthly 5-10% COSt increase Seldom Marginal Low (M) Status P2 Activities, Consult Customer, reallocate resources 10-20% cost increase Unlikely Critical Low (M) Status P2 Activities, Consult Customer, reallocate resources or request additional federal and non-federal funds >20% cost M�. increase :::: •.F :> Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate (Av) Revise Scope of Work, Consult Customer, Request additional federal and non-federal funds Insignificant schedule slippage Likely Negligible Low (Ac) Adjust Milestone date 5-10% schedule slippage Seldom Marginal Low (M) Adjust Milestone date; Increase progress reporting frequency, Consult Customer 49�t4 10-20% '.r schedule slippage Unlikely Critical Low (M) Adjust Milestone date; Increase progress reporting frequency, Consult Customer >20% schedule slippage Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate (M) Adjust project completion date, Consult Customer Scope change barely noticeable Seldom Negligible Low (M) Update PMP; Keep PDT informed Minor areas of scope are affected Seldom Marginal Low (M) Update PMP; Keep PDT informed 15 N Scope change unacceptable to customer Unlikely Critical Low (Av) Review SOW w/ Customer and Stakeholders Project end item is effectively useless Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate (Av) Review goals & objectives QUALITY ;', Quality degradation barely noticeable Seldom Negligible Low (Av) Agency Technical Review; Follow Quality control plan Quality reduction requires customer approval Unlikely Marginal Low (Av) Agency Technical Review; Follow QCP/QAP Quality reduction unacceptable to customer Unlikely Critical Low (Av) Agency Technical Review; Follow Quality control plan Project end item is effectively useless Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate (Av) Agency Technical Review; Follow Quality control plan n ~ - • Minor injury requiring first aid Likely Negligible Moderate (Av) Follow Health & Safety Plan Minor(Av)Follow injury/accident Likely Marginal Moderate Health & Safety Plan ks n Major accident with permanent partial/temporary total disability >3 months Unlikely Critical Moderate (Av) Follow Health & Safety Plan Major accident causing death or permanent total disability Unlikely Catastrophic Moderate (Av) Follow Health & Safety Plan 9. DECISION MANAGEMENT PLAN The PDT will develop a Risk Register during the formulation of the Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report. This risk register will evaluate the risks associated with each alternate and its potentially adverse impact on the public, environment, economy, study schedule, cost, and other risks that have the potential to arise on the project during the study phase, construction of the project, or in operation of the project. The PDT will assess the type and magnitude of each risk, and the PDT will develop management actions for each alternative. Each management action will become a part of the decision management plan for the project. 16 10. CHANGE MANAGEMENT PLAN The sponsor will be notified of changes to the expected delivery of the final product, the fifteen year authorization extension, and the PM will communicate the development of the BRER alternatives and findings concurrent with the planning milestones. Specific coordination is required between the Savannah District, South Atlantic Division (SAD), and the City of Tybee Island if changes are made to the overall scope, schedule, or cost of the project. These changes must be approved by the District Engineer (DE) or the Deputy District Engineer for Project Management (DDPM) through a revised PMP. The PMP will be revised with each SMART Planning milestone as the Beach Renourishment Evaluation Report is developed. Civil works milestones are monitored in P2. The PM will submit an ENG Form 6080; Scope, Schedule, and Cost Change Request (SSACCR) for a civil works milestone schedule delay of greater than 30 days. The SSACCR is routed to the Commander for approval and is transmitted to the MSC for notification of the delay. Changes that do not affect the overall cost or schedule can be made by the Project Manager in coordination with the Project Delivery Team during routine meetings and are documented in the project Decision Log. 11. COMMUNICATIONS PLAN This Beach Renourishment Evaluation study will require coordination with team members, the sponsor, and other external organizations including other government agencies. Internal Communications Mechanisms Internal coordination mechanisms will be used to ensure that effective internal command, control, and coordination is maintained during the feasibility study. The primary internal coordination mechanisms will be the monthly Project Review Board (PRB) meetings, monthly meetings of the Project Delivery Team (PDT), and Issue Resolution Conferences (IRC) schedules as needed. External Communications Mechanisms Coordination outside the Corps of Engineers and non-federal sponsor will be necessary to ensure the success of the study. External agency counterparts for the environmental work effort include but are not limited to: U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA); U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS); National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS); State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO); the State of Georgia; the Georgia Department of Natural Resources (GADNR) including the Environmental Protection Division, the Coastal Resources Division, and the Wildlife Resources Division; Department of Transportation; Georgia Ports Authority; the State of South Carolina; the 17 South Carolina Department of Natural Resources (SCDNR) and the South Carolina Department of Health and Environmental Control; and the South Carolina Savannah River Maritime Commission. Public meetings/workshops: Public meetings/workshops may be held to gather input, report on study progress, make collaborative decisions or to report study findings. Study Briefings and Fact Sheets. Study briefings and fact sheets will be provided to District management, the Corps vertical team, congressional representatives, state and local officials, and others throughout the study period. Target Audience(s) and Issue(s) of Concern 12. CLOSEOUT PLAN The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for project closeout; however, the required actions will require participation by a number of Project Delivery Team members. The team will follow the District's financial closeout process of the 1037 Study Process. Continued funding to support the project will occur under a new authorization. The Project Manager/Project Delivery Team shall complete the following tasks: 1. Review unliquidated obligations and undelivered orders in CEFMS for completed activities; 2. Clear outstanding obligations and commitments in PR&Cs; 3. Clear outstanding obligations and commitments in work items; 4. Close work items/reallocate funds, if appropriate; and 5. Process cost transfer in accordance with applicable regulations and policies and District SOPs. In addition, the team will prepare lessons learned during the study process. The PM will provide a copy of the final report and accompanying analysis to the sponsor. 18 Internal - PDT Members Project Progress, Budget Status External — General Public Project Intent Customers and Stakeholders Project Progress, Budget Status 12. CLOSEOUT PLAN The Project Manager (PM) is responsible for project closeout; however, the required actions will require participation by a number of Project Delivery Team members. The team will follow the District's financial closeout process of the 1037 Study Process. Continued funding to support the project will occur under a new authorization. The Project Manager/Project Delivery Team shall complete the following tasks: 1. Review unliquidated obligations and undelivered orders in CEFMS for completed activities; 2. Clear outstanding obligations and commitments in PR&Cs; 3. Clear outstanding obligations and commitments in work items; 4. Close work items/reallocate funds, if appropriate; and 5. Process cost transfer in accordance with applicable regulations and policies and District SOPs. In addition, the team will prepare lessons learned during the study process. The PM will provide a copy of the final report and accompanying analysis to the sponsor. 18 APPROVALS By signing this Project Management Plan (PMP), the following sponsor(s), Savannah District (SAS) personnel and Jacksonville District (SAJ) personnel are agreeing to commit their resources described in this PMP to accomplish this project. By signing this PMP, the PM is confirming coordination with the CESAS Staff Leadership of the listed team members to verify they are available and committed to participate, as specified in this plan. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Branch and Division Level Approvals: Digitally signed by FISCHER.STEVEN.A.1279917576 DN: c=US, o=U.S. Government ou=DOD, ou=PKI, ou=USA, cn=FISCHER.STEVEN.A.1279917576 Date: 2018.10.1615:28:52 -04'00' FISCHER.STEVEN.A.1279917576 Steven Fischer Chief, Planning Branch, Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers ' Digitally signed by DAVIS.PENCER.WALTER.1021044349 DAVIS.SPENCER.WALTER.1021044349 DN.. nvNRvmmRt,ou=DaD, a=P1I,ou=USA,ssv Date:2018.10.16 11:16:03 -04'00' Spencer Davis, PMP Chief, Civil Works Programs & Project Management Branch, Planning, Programs, and Project Management Division Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digitally signed by WERTHMANN.RALPH.1.1231145830 WERTHMANN.RALPH.J.1231345830 ON:c 1JS, M.S. Goven„36,35aoD,ou=PKI,ou=USA. Date: 2018.10.17 09:16:23 -0400' Ralph Werthmann Chief, Real Estate Division Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digitally signed by ENGLEJASON.ANTHONY.1265035619 ENGLE.JASON.ANTHONY.1265035619 ENGLFJAONAN„o„r;z�a°° `"`°°_°" Date: 2018.10.1816:50:00-04'00' Jason Engle Chief, Water Resource Engineering Branch, Engineering Division, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Digitally signed by PETERS.TERRY.GLEN.1203697941 PETERS.TERRY.GLEN.1203697941cf"P�2s°T RRYGLENn1m2o36g79E nD °u=PKl,ou=DSA, Date: 2018.10.19 09:14:08 -04'00' Terry Peters District Counsel Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers L Digitally signed by BLECHINGER.ERIK.TOD.1076682158 BLECHINGER.ERIK.TOD.1076682158' °BLGovernment b858 "=P"`oo=05A"KHNER.b21 Date: 2018.10.22 08:4252 -04'00' Erik T. Blechinger Deputy District Engineer for Planning, Programs and Project Management Savannah District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers 19 Sponsor Approval: Jason Buelt Mayor, C n Tybee Island 20 13. ATTACHMENT — DETAILED SCOPES OF WORK 13.1. PLANNING TECHNICAL LEAD Initial Project Work: Collect and review historical information about the authorization, past and current environmental conditions, study guidance, and other relevant USAGE planning and engineering guidance. After this information is collected, the PTL will draft the Review Plan and route it for approval. Alternatives Milestone: Develop the future without project and the future with project alternatives with the Project Delivery Team based on preliminary information including surveys, renourishment history, environmental monitoring, real estate appraisals, outside literature of economic drivers and environmental conditions, and maps of significant features. Identify the project objectives. Use the risk register to determine management measures associated with each alternative. Develop selection criteria for selecting the TSP. Coordinate with the team to inform development of the Beach FX model parameters, environmental conditions, and cultural resources that might be impacted by the project in the future under the new authorization. Facilitate discussion and selection of model parameters for assessing the alternatives. Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone: Evaluate the modeling outputs, the affected real estate, the economic benefits, the environmental benefits and impacts with the implementation of the project, and cultural resource impacts in the project area with the Project delivery team. Select the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) and obtain vertical chain approval of the TSR Agency Decision Milestone: Write the Project Implementation Report showing the feasibility of the project and coordinating with NEPA specialist for the development of an integrated Environmental Assessment of the impact of the project. Achieve formal approval of the TSP and the PIR/EA. Reviews: Perform quality reviews and provide the report for public and agency for comments. Authorization: Route for the appropriate level of approval and continue to revise the report and respond to questions about the analyses. 21 13.2. ENVIRONMENTAL, ECONOMICS AND CULTURAL RESOURCES Environmental Assessment: The planning environmental staff (Biologist and Archaeologist) will put together the Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant for the Section 1037 study. The environmental assessment will include the following components: purpose and need for action, alternatives, environmental section without the project, environmental consequences of the proposed alternatives, relationship of the project to federal and state authorities, and summary of coordination. The planning economist will prepare the econ and socio-economic sections of the environmental assessment. Biological Assessment of Endangered Species (BATES) - The Planning environmental staff (Biologist) will prepare a biological assessment of threatened and endangered species within the project area to provide to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and National Marine Fisheries to obtain a Biological Opinion from each agency for the beach re -nourishment efforts. The biological assessment will provide a description of the proposed project as well as descriptions and summary of the federally listed species and their critical habitat within the project area. The assessment will describe how the proposed project may or may not impact the federally listed species. It should be expected that as part of the conditions of the Biological Opinion for the project, that USFWS will require Savannah District to perform a benthic community study for both the borrow area and the beach area. This cost in the past has run approximately $175,000 and has been performed by South Carolina Department of Natural Resources, Marine Resources Research Institute. EFH The Planning environmental staff (Biologist) will prepare an essential fish habitat assessment of threatened and endangered species within the project area to provide to the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration, National Marine Fisheries Service for the beach re -nourishment efforts. The essential fish habitat assessment will provide a description of the proposed project as well as provide an analysis of the effects of the proposed work will have on essential fish habitat within the project area. CZM The Planning environmental staff (Biologist) will prepare a Georgia Coastal Zone Consistency Determination for the proposed project. The Coastal Zone Consistency Determination will provide a summary of the proposed project and provide information on how the proposed project is fully consistent with the enforceable policies of the State of Georgia's Coastal Zone Management Program. 404(b)(1) The Planning environmental staff (Biologist) will prepare a Section 404(b)(1) evaluation for the proposed project. The Section 404(b)(1) evaluation will provide a summary of the proposed project and provide information on how the proposed action complies with the Section 404(b)(1) Guidelines 22 401 (Water Quality Certificate) The Planning environmental staff (Biologist) will work with the State of Georgia to obtain the water quality certificate for the beach re -nourishment effort. National Historic Preservation Act Compliance The Planning environmental staff (Archaeologist) will prepare a determination of effects package for the proposed project (undertaking). The determination of effects package will provide information about previous archaeological surveys and effects the proposed project may have on historic properties. This document will be coordinated with the appropriate State Historic Preservation Officer and federally recognized tribes. Attend PDT meetings The Planning environmental staff (Biologist and Archaeologist) will attend and contribute to project delivery team meetings as necessary to apprise the team on environmental and cultural resource matters related to the project to keep it moving forward to meet the study schedule. Coordination with the Resource Agencies The planning environmental staff (biologist and archaeologist) will coordinate the various state and federal agencies to apprise them on the project's progress to maintain a good working relationship and ensure that the review/permitting process goes smoothly. 13.3. SCOPE OF WORK REAL ESTATE Report The report includes an evaluation of the real estate requirements describing the proposed project currently under consideration in which a Federal interest might exist. The real estate items of work to be included in this report will include descriptions of the minimum real estate requirements for the proposed project, estates to be acquired for the project, land cost (lands, easements, rights-of-way and relocations and disposal/borrow areas (LERRD's)) with costs estimated using M -CASES system in the cost code accounts format as well as the schedule for real estate activities. The result of this research will be organized into a Real Estate Appendix for the comprehensive Feasibility Report. Real estate work items will require a search of the local public records, i.e. tax office and county clerk's office, to obtain ownership data including owners and types of residential, industrial, or commercial properties, the estimated acreage, potential Public Law 91-646 relocations, the estates to be acquired and any other real estate requirements appropriate for the project. An assessment will be made of what facilities must be relocated, including roads, pipelines, utilities, and bridges, when applicable. The Real Estate Appendix will include 23 a statement as to whether the Government, the local Sponsor, or the owners will be responsible for the relocation and acquisition of the required rights-of-way and the costs for relocation and land to be acquired allocated to each entity. Other investigations of land for the borrow area, pipelines routes, and staging areas will be conducted. Gross Appraisal Savannah District, Real Estate Division is required to prepare a gross appraisal during the Feasibility Study or when agreed, the Local Sponsor may provide the gross appraisal for the cost shared project. The work efforts involved include a discussion of the existing restrictions of the easements, a total estimated value for fee and easement estates, including improvements, minerals, if any, severance damages, special features of the land, timber, minerals, water rights, existing encumbrances, the highest and best use involved, the verified market data utilized to support the valuation, a discussion of the relationships between the market (support and analysis) and the subject area, and appraiser qualifications. This document must be sufficient detail to provide an accurate cost estimate that will be sufficient for authorization. This appraisal is expected to be in compliance with the Uniform Standards of Professional Appraisal Practice as promulgated by the Appraisal Standards Board of the Appraisal Foundation. 13A. SCOPE OF WORK APPRAISEL Support Real Estate and Economics by conducting the Gross Appraisal of 35-40 structures. Supporting documents will be incorporated into the appraisal appendix as necessary. 13.5. SCOPE OF WORK ECONOMICS Conduct a Level 3 Benefit Economic Evaluation by working through the following process: • Characterize existing project conditions • Characterize future without project conditions • Characterize future without project conditions. • Estimate life cycle benefits and costs. • Coordinate and support all required checks, reviews, reporting and support Beach-fx data needs and necessary collaboration. 13.6. SCOPE OF WORK ENGINEERING Conduct a Beach-fx analysis by working through the following process: • Clearly identify and define the problem • Quantify variables needed for modeling within Beach-fx. • Coastal Processes • Storm Suite Development/Coordination • CSHORE model setup, calibration and verification • BEACH-fx model setup 24 " B E A C H - f x W i t h a n d W / o p r o j e c t s h o r e l i n e c h a n g e r a t e s " B E A C H - f x I n t e r m e d i a t e p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s i m u l a t i o n s " B E A C H - f x F i n a l p r o j e c t a l t e r n a t i v e s i m u l a t i o n s " B E A C H - f x P r o j e c t d e s i g n " R e p o r t p r e p a r a t i o n , c o o r d i n a t i o n , r e v i e w , a n d c o m m e n t r e s p o n s e s " S u p p o r t C h i e f s r e p o r t a s r e q u i r e d 1 3 . 7 . S C O P E O F W O R K P R O J E C T M A N A G E R F o r t h e d u r a t i o n o f t h e p r o j e c t , t h e P r o j e c t M a n a g e r ( P M ) w i l l b e t h e s i n g l e p o i n t o f c o n t a c t w i t h t h e f e d e r a l s p o n s o r , t h e C i t y o f T y b e e I s l a n d . T h e P M w i l l c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h e s p o n s o r , P l a n F o r m u l a t o r a n d P r o j e c t D e l i v e r y T e a m ( P D T ) t o m a n a g e t h e p r o j e c t s c h e d u l e a n d u p d a t e t h e P M P a s r e q u i r e d . T h e P M w i l l a l s o b e r e s p o n s i b l e f o r a l l b u d g e t i n g a n d f u n d i n g f o r t h e p r o j e c t a n d m a i n t a i n i n g t h e p r o j e c t s c h e d u l e a n d b u d g e t w i t h i n P 2 . T h e P M w i l l l e a d P D T m e e t i n g s o r c o o r d i n a t e w i t h t h e P l a n F o r m u l a t o r . T h e P M w i l l r e p o r t t o t h e D e p u t y D i s t r i c t E n g i n e e r f o r a l l C i v i l W o r k s P r o j e c t R e v i e w B o a r d m e e t i n g s . 2 5