# *[MODEL STRUCTURE]{.underline}*

# *[FEASIBILITY PHASE PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN]{.underline}* 

#### USE OF THIS MODEL

1\. BACKGROUND:

This model for a Project Management Plan (PMP) for the feasibility phase
(formally referred to as a Project Study Plan (PSP) was developed in
response to needs originally expressed at the South Pacific Division\'s
annual planning conferences. This need became more critical with the
implementation of the expedited reconnaissance phase process which
requires a much more efficient preparation of the project management
plan, and even more critical with the implementation of the Program and
Project Management Business Process.

2\. OBJECTIVES

This model strives to provide supplementary assistance for the
development of PMPs. It provides a model structure for the preparation
of the Section 905(b) Analysis, which is both the basis and an integral
part of the PMP, and it also provides a model of how to meet the PMP
requirements for management of the study. Through the structure it
defines the process that is necessary to develop the PMP. It also
provides a structure for the implementation of the proposed South
Pacific Division's Regional Project Management Business Process, dated
February 2000.

3\. CONTENT AND USE

The model structure provides an outline for the PMP and includes table
formats and standard text that can be adapted to any study. The text is
also annotated in selected places to describe additional study specific
information that would be required. This model may be used as a
reference and basis for preparing individual PMPs. Although the
structure that is presented in this model may not exactly fit a PMP that
is under preparation, it does demonstrate the content that is required
to properly develop a PMP. The complexity, size and duration of any
particular feasibility study will dictate the size and complexity of its
PMP. Thus, the intent of this model is to provide a foundation that can
be adapted for a particular study.

4\. FILE TYPES

The Model PMP is a Microsoft Word document with embedded Microsoft Excel
spreadsheets. Enclosure C to the PMP, which contains the detailed scopes
of work for individual tasks, is a Microsoft Excel document with
embedded text descriptions in Microsoft Word.

## ***[AUTHORIZED NAME OF STUDY]{.underline}***

### **COUNTY, STATE**

FEASIBILITY PHASE

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

*[Name]{.underline}* District

*[Name]{.underline}* Division

## 

## 

## Date:

**CONCURRENCE PAGE**

As members of the *[Name]{.underline}* District Project Review Board, we
the undersigned, concur in the project management plan dated
*[date]{.underline}* for the *[study name]{.underline}* . We understand
that the project management plan is a living management document that
will be updated throughout the course of the study.

[Name]{.underline} [Title]{.underline} [Signature]{.underline}
[Date]{.underline}

***[NAME OF STUDY]{.underline}***

FEASIBILITY PHASE

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

##### TABLE OF CONTENTS

Chapter 1- Purpose and Scope 1-1

Chapter 2 - Section 905(b)(WRDA) Analysis 2-1

Chapter 3 - Work Breakdown Structure 3-1

Chapter 4 - Scopes of Work 4-1

Chapter 5 - Responsibility Assignment 5-1

Chapter 6 -- Feasibility Study Schedule 6-1

Chapter 7 - Feasibility Cost Estimate 7-1

Chapter 8 - Quality Control Plan 8-1

Chapter 9 - Identification of Procedures and Criteria 9-1

Chapter 10 - Coordination Mechanisms 10-1

##### ENCLOSURES

Enclosure A - Project Area Map A-1

Enclosure B - CESPD Milestone System -- Feasibility Phase B-1

Enclosure C - Detailed Scopes of Work C-1

Enclosure D - PMP Quality Certification D-1

Enclosure E - List of Acronyms E-1

***[NAME OF STUDY]{.underline}***

FEASIBILTY PHASE

PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

# CHAPTER I -- PURPOSE AND SCOPE

1\. DEFINITION OF A PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN:

a\. The project management plan for the feasibility phase, herein after
referred to as the PMP, is an attachment to the Feasibility Cost Sharing
Agreement (FCSA), which defines the planning approach, activities to be
accomplished, schedule, and associated costs that the Federal Government
and the local sponsor(s) will be supporting financially. The PMP,
therefore defines a contract between the Corps and the local Sponsor(s),
and reflects a \"buy in\" on the part of the financial backers, as well
as those who will be performing, and reviewing, the activities involved
in the feasibility study. The PMP describes the initial tasks of the
feasibility phase, continues through the preparation of the final
feasibility report, the project management plan for project
implementation and design agreement, and concludes with support during
the Washington-level review of the final feasibility report.

b\. The PMP is a basis for change. Because planning is an iterative
process without a predetermined outcome, more or less costs and time may
be required to accomplish reformulation and evaluations of the
alternatives. Changes in scope will occur as the technical picture
unfolds. With clear descriptions of the scopes and assumptions outlined
in the PMP, deviations are easier to identify. The impact in either time
or money is easily assessed and decisions can be made on how to proceed.
The PMP provides a basis for change.

c\. The PMP is a basis for the review and evaluation of the feasibility
report. Since the PMP represents a contract among study participants, it
will be used as the basis to determine if the draft feasibility report
has been developed in accordance with established procedures and
previous agreements. The PMP reflects mutual agreements of the district,
division, sponsor and HQUSACE into the scope, critical assumptions,
methodologies, and level of detail for the studies that are to be
conducted during the feasibility study. Review of the draft report will
be to insure that the study has been developed consistent with these
agreements. The objective is to provide early assurance that the project
is developed in a way that can be supported by higher headquarters.

d\. The PMP is a study management tool. It includes scopes of work that
are used for funds allocation by the project manager. It forms the basis
for identifying commitments to the non-Federal sponsor and serves as a
basis for performance measurement.

2\. SUMMARY OF PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN CONTENTS:

This PMP is comprised of the following chapters:

-   Chapter 1 - Purpose and Scope. This chapter includes the definition
    of the PMP and a summary of the PMP requirements.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 2 - Section 905(b) Analysis. This chapter includes the
    approved Section 905(b) Analysis that includes an overview of the
    reconnaissance study findings, the plan formulation rationale and
    proposed streamlining initiatives. This chapter also documents any
    deviations from the approved Section 905(b) Analysis that have
    occurred during the negotiations of the FCSA.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 3 - Work Breakdown Structure. A product based Work Breakdown
    Structure (WBS) defines the project, sub-projects, parent tasks and
    tasks that will be accomplished through the study.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 4 - Scopes of Work. A detailed scope of the tasks and
    activities that describe the work to be accomplished, in narrative
    form, that answers the questions: \"what, how, and how much\". This
    chapter provides a reference to the detailed scopes of work that are
    included as Enclosure C to the PMP.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 5 - Responsibility Assignment. An Organizational Breakdown
    Structure (OBS) will define \"who\" will perform work on the study.
    This allows the identification of the functional organization that
    will perform each of the tasks in a Responsibility Assignment Matrix
    (RAM).

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 6 -- Feasibility Study Schedule. The schedule will define
    \"when\" key decision points, CESPD milestone conferences and
    mandatory HQUSACE milestones will be accomplished.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 7 - Feasibility Cost Estimate. This is the baseline estimate
    for the feasibility phase of the study.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 8 - Quality Management Plan: This chapter supplements the
    district's Quality Management Plan. It highlights any deviations to
    the district's plan and lists the members of the study team and the
    independent review team.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 9 - Identification of Procedures and Criteria: This chapter
    identifies references to the regulations and other guidance that
    covers the planning process and reporting procedures.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Chapter 10 - Coordination Mechanisms: This chapter describes the
    study's public involvement program.

# CHAPTER II

# 

# *[NAME OF STUDY]{.underline}*

# SECTION 905(b) (WRDA 86) ANALYSIS

(INSERT COPY OF APPROVED 905(B) ANALYSIS HERE)

15\. CHANGES TO THE APPROVED SECTION 905(b) ANALYSIS.

a\. The Section 905(b) Analysis was approved by Corps Headquarters on
*[indicate date]{.underline}*. *[This approval was conditioned on the
following revisions:]{.underline}*

*[1)]{.underline}* *[Indicate any revisions made as result of the
coordination with HQUSACE.]{.underline}*

*[2) .... ...]{.underline}*

b\. The following revisions to the cost, schedule or scope have been
made from the approved Section 905(b) Analysis as a result of final
negotiations of the PMP and FCSA:

*[1) Indicate any revisions made as a result of coordination with the
non-Federal sponsor.]{.underline}*

*[2) ... ...]{.underline}*

# CHAPTER III -- WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

1\. LEVELS OF THE WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

The work breakdown structure is divided into the following four levels.

a\. Level 1: The Project

b\. Level 2: The Subprojects are established by the phase that is
appropriated by Congress -- in this case the feasibility phase of the
study. This level includes the major products generated in the
feasibility phase: the Feasibility Report, the Project Management Plan
and the PED Agreement, which are identified in the first character of
the work breakdown structure code.

b\. Level 3: The Parent Tasks are generally identified as separate
products that go into the final feasibility phase documentation.
Examples of these subprojects include such items as the real estate
report, the H&H report, etc. These parent tasks are normally identified
with the responsibility of a particular functional organization. This
level is generally identified in the second and third characters of the
work breakdown structure code.

c\. Level 4: The Tasks are major separable elements of the subprojects
that are keyed to separately identifiable products that are developed
for the major feasibility study milestones. These tasks are elements of
work resulting in a deliverable product which have a beginning and an
end, may be accomplished within one functional organization, can be
described at a work order of detail and are the lowest level that will
be specifically tracked with respect to cost and schedule. As an
example, the cost estimates for the draft feasibility report would be an
example of a task. Tasks can be described as the summation of activities
that would be accomplished by a particular functional organizational
between two of the milestone events. The milestones are defined in
Enclosure B. The following durations between milestones are generally
used for the establishment of tasks.

1\) -- Between Milestone F1 and F3

2\) -- Between Milestone F3 and F4

3\) -- Between Milestone F4 and F4A

4\) -- Between Milestone F4A and F5

5\) -- Between Milestone F5 and F8

6\) -- Between Milestone F8 and F9

d\. Level 5: The Activities are separate elements of work that are
managed by the functional managers to whom the tasks are assigned and
which may not necessary result in a deliverable work product to another
organization. These activities are not tracked separately in terms of
cost and schedule but are described in the scopes of work to the extent
required to provide a clear understanding of the work required.

*Note: A task has not been defined very well in the guidance and the
expectations of reviewers have not been consistent. Because of this lack
of definition, it is often defined differently. At the extremes, a task
could be defined as the preparation of a feasibility study, in which
case there would be very few tasks described in a PMP. At the other
extreme, it could also be defined as the measurement of a single first
floor elevation as input to the flood damage portion of an economic
analysis, which would mean that the PMP would require the description of
many thousands of tasks*

2\. LISTING OF TASKS - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

![](media/image1.wmf) In accordance with the levels above, the following
work breakdown structure indicates subprojects and parent tasks in bold
type, followed by the subordinate tasks.

![](media/image2.wmf)2. LISTING OF TASKS - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
(Continued)

![](media/image3.wmf)2. LISTING OF TASKS - WORK BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE
(Continued)

#### CHAPTER IV -- SCOPES OF WORK

1\. DETAILED SCOPES OF WORK

For each task that is included in the work breakdown structure, a scope
of work is developed that describes the work that is to be performed.
For each task, the scope describes the work, including specific
activities, to be accomplished in narrative form. The scopes of work
have been developed by the study team, which includes representatives of
the non-Federal sponsor. The scopes also reflect the policy exceptions
and streamlining initiatives that have been approved in the Section
905(b) Analysis. The detailed scopes of work for the feasibility study
are organized by parent task in Enclosure C.

2\. DURANTIONS OF TASKS

The durations for the tasks are entered into the project's network
analysis system (NAS) to develop the schedule that is included in
Chapter VI -- Schedule. The durations are based on negotiations between
the Project Manager and the chiefs of the responsible organizations, as
identified in Chapter V, Responsibility Assignment.

3\. COSTS OF TASKS

Lastly, the scopes of work for the tasks are grouped by the parent tasks
that they support. The total estimates for the parent tasks are then
combined in the Feasibility Cost Estimate, Chapter VII. The cost
estimates for the tasks are also based on negotiations between the
Project Manager and the chiefs of the responsible organizations.

CHAPTER V -- RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENT

1\. ORGANIZATIONAL BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE

![](media/image4.wmf) The scopes of work represent agreements between
the Project Manager and first line supervisors of functional
organizations. The functions of these organizations in support of the
project are defined by the work that is assigned. All organizations
responsible for tasks, including the local sponsor and other agencies,
are included with their organization codes in the following
Organizational Breakdown Structure (OBS).

####  

2\. RESPONSIBILITY ASSIGNMENT MATRIX

The scopes for each task are grouped by the parent task that they
support and the primary responsible organization for each parent task is
identified by the organization codes in the following Responsibility
Assignment Matrix (RAM).

![](media/image5.wmf)

#### CHAPTER VI -- FEASIBILITY STUDY SCHEDULE

1\. SCHEDULE DEVELOPMENT

All schedules are developed using a Network Analysis System (NAS). The
network is based upon the tasks that are listed in Chapter III, Work
Breakdown Structure and the durations that are included in the detailed
scopes of work in Chapter IV, Scope of Studies. Major milestones that
are defined in Enclosure B, CESPD Milestone System, are also included in
the schedules.

2\. FUNDING CONSTRAINTS

Funding for the first Fiscal Year of the feasibility study is normally
limited because of the uncertainty in the initiation of the feasibility
phase. This constraint has been reflected in the development of the
study schedule. Following the first year, an optimum schedule based upon
unconstrained funding has been assumed for subsequent Fiscal Years.

3\. LOCAL SPONSOR COMMITMENTS

Milestones become commitments when the project manager meets with the
local sponsor(s) at the beginning of each Fiscal Year and identifies two
to five tasks that are important for the district to complete during the
Fiscal Year. These commitments would be flagged in the PROMIS database
and monitored and reported on accordingly.

4\. UNCERTAINTIES IN THE SCHEDULE

Because of the limited evaluations in the reconnaissance phase, the
schedule must make appropriate allowances for uncertainty. *[Describe
allowances such as additional time for resolving comments on the draft
report.]{.underline}*

5\. MILESTONE SCHEDULE

![](media/image6.wmf) The schedule for the milestones in the CESPD
Milestone System is as follows:

CHAPTER VII -- FEASIBILITY COST ESTIMATE

1\. BASIS FOR THE COST ESTIMATE

a\. The feasibility cost estimate is based upon a summation of the costs
that were identified for the individual tasks in detailed scopes of work
that are included in Enclosure C, Detailed Scopes of Work. Study cost
estimates include allowances for inflation so that the non-Federal
sponsor is fully aware of its financial commitment.

b\. Appropriate contingencies and contingency management are included to
adequately deal with the uncertainty in the elements of the study.
Experience has shown that approximately 20 percent of the study costs
should be reserved for activities after the release of the draft report.
Contingencies in the amount required to raise the costs of activities
after the draft report this amount have been added to the cost estimate.

2\. COSTS FOR FEDERAL AND NON-FEDERAL ACTIVITIES

The non-Federal sponsor must contribute 50 percent of the cost of the
study during the period of the study. Not more than one-half of the
non-Federal share may be made by the provision of services, materials,
supplies or other in-kind services necessary to prepare the feasibility
report. The feasibility cost estimate below includes credit for work
that is to be accomplished by the non-Federal sponsor.

![](media/image7.wmf)

#### CHAPTER VIII -- QUALITY CONTROL PLAN 

#### 

1\. QUALTIY CONTROL PLAN OBJECTIVE

The quality control objective is to achieve feasibility phase documents
and services that meet or exceed customer requirements, and are
consistent with Corps policies and regulations.

2\. GUIDELINES FOLLOWED FOR TECHNICAL REVIEW

The guidelines for independent technical review are set forth in the
South Pacific Division Quality Management Plan, CESPD R 1110-1-8, and in
the corresponding District Quality Management Plan, \_\_\_\_\_\_\_.

3\. ROSTER OF THE PROJECT STUDY TEAM

![](media/image8.wmf)

4\. ROSTER OF THE TECHNICAL REVIEW TEAM

![](media/image9.wmf)

5\. DOCUMENTS TO BE REVIEWED AND SCHEDULE FOR REVIEW ACTIVITES

a\. All of the products of the tasks listed in the detailed scopes of
work in Chapter IV, Scope of Studies, will be subject to independent
technical review. Seamless Single Discipline Review will be accomplished
prior to the release of materials to other members of the study team or
integrated into the overall study. Section chiefs shall be responsible
for accuracy of the computations through design checks and other
internal procedures, prior to the independent technical review.

b\. Independent product review will occur prior to major decision points
in the planning process at the CESPD milestones so that the technical
results can be relied upon in setting the course for further study.
These products would include documentation for the CESPD mandatory
milestone conferences (F3 & F4), HQUSACE issue resolution conferences
(AFB &FRC) and the draft and final reports. These products shall be
essentially complete before review is undertaken. Since this quality
control will have occurred prior to each milestone conference, the
conference is free to address critical outstanding issues and set
direction for the next step of the study, since a firm technical basis
for making decisions will have already been established. In general, the
independent technical review will be initiated at least two week prior
to a CESPD mandatory milestone conference and at least two weeks prior
to the submission of documentation for a HQUSACE issue resolution
conference.

c\. For products that are developed under contract, the contractor will
be responsible for quality control through an independent technical
review. Quality assurance of the contractor's quality control will be
the responsibility of the district.

6\. DEVIATIONS FROM THE APPROVED QUALITY MANGEMENT PLAN

The South Pacific Division has approved the following deviations to the
approved quality management plan:

-   *[List deviations]{.underline}*

-   

-   

7\. COST ESTIMATE FOR QUALITY MANAGEMENT

The costs for conducting independent technical review are included in
the individual scopes of work that are included in Chapter IV, Scope of
Studies. Quality management activities of Branch and Division Chiefs are
included in Supervision and Administration. The total cost for quality
management is approximately *[\$]{.underline}* , which is approximately
\_\_% of the study cost estimate. Of this amount,
*[\$\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}* is included in parent task JLD00 and
*[\$\_\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline}* is included in other parent tasks.

#### 

#### 8. PMP QUALITY CERTICATION

The Chief, Planning Division has certified that 1) the independent
technical review process for this PMP has been completed, 2) all issues
have been addressed, 3) the streamlining initiatives proposed in this
PMP will result in a technically adequate product, and 4) appropriate
quality control plan requirements have been adequately incorporated into
this PMP. The signed certification is included as Enclosure D.

#### 

9\. FEASIBILITY PHASE CERTIFICATION

The documentation of the independent technical review shall be included
with the submission of the reports to CESPD. Documentation of the
independent technical review shall be accompanied by a certification,
indicating that the independent technical review process has been
completed and that all technical issues have been resolved. The
certification requirement applies to all documentation that will be
forwarded to either CESPD or HQUSACE for review or approval. The Chief,
Planning Division will certify the pre-conference documentation for the
HQUSACE issue resolution conferences and the draft feasibility report.
The District Commander will certify the final feasibility report, which
includes the signed recommendation of the District Commander. This
certification will follow the example that is included as Appendix H of
the CESPD Quality Management Plan and will be signed by the Chief,
Planning Division and the District Commander.

#### CHAPTER IX IDENTIFICATON OF PROCEDURES AND CRITERIA

1\. EVOLUTION OF THE PMP

The PMP describes all activities from the initial tasks of the
feasibility phase through the preparation of the final feasibility
report, the project management plan for project implementation and
design agreement, and conclude with the district\'s support during the
Washington-level review. As the PMP is based primarily on existing
information, it will be subject to scope changes as the technical
picture unfolds. While this PMP includes tasks through the completion of
the feasibility study, the level of detail in the scopes of work are
greater for those tasks that occur prior to the first milestone
conference. This plan will be reviewed at the first milestone conference
and additional detail will be added to the scopes of work for the
subsequent tasks. During the feasibility phase of the study, the current
PMP, including the documentation of agreements on changes to the conduct
of the study, will be addressed at each of the CESPD milestone
conferences and at the formal issue resolution conferences with HQUSACE,
including the AFB and FRC.

2\. THE PLANNING PROCESS

The Water Resource Council\'s Principles and Guidelines (P&G) is the
basic planning guidance, which establishes a six-step planning process.
This process is a conceptual planning sequence for developing solutions
to water resource problems and opportunities. The Planning Manual and
Planning Primer, both published by IWR provide excellent coverage of the
planning process. The South Pacific Division also provides training in
the six- step process.

3\. POLICY

The policies that govern the development of projects are contained in
the DIGEST OF WATER REOURCES POLICIES AND AUTHORITIES, EP 1165-2-1.

4\. CORPS REGULATIONS

All of the Corps' current regulations are included on the HQUSACE
homepage. The most important of these regulations is ER 1105-2-100,
PLANNING GUIDANCE NOTEBOOK. Policy compliance review is addressed in EC
1165-2-203, TECHNICAL AND POLICY COMPLIANCE REVIEW. And, quality control
is covered in the CESPD Quality Management Plan, CESPD R 1110-1-8. The
review of the products will be accomplished with the review checklist
that is provided in EC 1165-2-203 as Appendix B, POLICY COMPLIANCE
REIVEW CONSIDERATIONS.

6\. PROCESSING REQUIREMENTS

#  In addition to ER 1105-2-100, the South Pacific Division has provided additional guidance on the processing requirements for each of the milestone submittals. This guidance is contained in CESPD-ET-P memorandum, dated 30 March 2000, subject: Processing of Planning Reports in the South Pacific Division.

CHAPTER X -- COORDINATION MECHANISMS

#### 

1\. CESPD MILESTONES

Two of the milestones in the CESPD milestone system have been
established specifically for the purpose of providing a public forum to
receive public input. The first of these is the initial public workshop.
This workshop is an opportunity to present the study to the public,
obtain input and public opinions, and fulfill the NEPA scoping meeting
requirements. The second milestone in the system is the final public
meeting. This meeting is after the release of the draft report for
public review and is an opportunity to present the findings of the draft
report to the public and receive public comment.

2\. STUDY SPECIFIC PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ACTIVITIES

*[Provide a description of the study's public involvement
program.]{.underline}*

#### ENCLOSURE B

**CESPD Milestone System**

# FEASIBILITY PHASE

# 

# 

# **MIL**[^1] **MILESTONE NAME DESCRIPTION**

100 Initiate Feasibility Phase SPD Milestone F1[^2] - This is the date
the district receives Federal feasibility phase study funds.

101 Feas Study Pub Wkshp (F2) SPD Milestone F2 -- This is a Public
Meeting/Workshop to inform the public and obtain input, public opinions
and fulfill scoping requirements for NEPA purposes.

102 Feas Study Conf #1 (F3) SPD Milestone F3 -- The Feasibility Scoping
Meeting is with HQUSACE to address potential changes in the PMP. It will
establish without project conditions and screen preliminary plans.

103 Feas Study Conf #2 (F4) SPD Milestone F4 -- The Alternative Review
Conference will evaluate the final plans, reach a consensus that the
evaluations are adequate to select a plan and prepare AFB issues.

124 Date of AFB SPD Milestone F4A - Alternative Formulation Briefing
(AFB) is for policy compliance review of the proposed plan with HQUSACE
to identify actions required to prepare and release the draft report.

145 Public Review of Draft Report SPD Milestone F5 - Initiation of field
level coordination of the draft report with concurrent submittal to
HQUSACE through SPD for policy compliance review.

162 Final Public Meeting SPD Milestone F6 - Date of the final public
meeting.

130 Feasibility Review Conference SPD Milestone F7 - Policy compliance
review of the draft report with HQUSACE to identify actions that are
required to complete the final report.

165 Feasibility Report w\\NEPA SPD Milestone F8 - Date of submittal of
final report package to CESPD-ET-P, including technical and legal
certifications, compliance memorandum and other required documentation.

**170 MSC Commander's Public Notice** SPD Milestone F9 - Date of issue
of the Division Commander's Public Notice. Congressional notification
would occur two days prior. The report and supporting

**MIL**[^3] **MILESTONE NAME DESCRIPTION**

documentation would be forwarded to HQUSACE. This milestone is used as
the completion of the feasibility report in the **CMR**.

> 310 Filing of Final EIS/EA Date that the notice appears in the Federal
> Register. Letters for filing would be furnished by HQUSACE.

330 Chief's Report to ASA (CW) Date of the signed report of the Chief of
Engineers.

320 ROD Signed or FONSI Signed Date that the ROD is signed by the
ASA(CW) when forwarded for authorization.

350 President Signs Authorization Date President signs authorizing
legislation.

ENCLOSURE D

#### **QUALITY CONTROL CERITIFICATION**

COMPLETION OF QUALITY CONTROL ACTIVITIES

The District has completed the Project management plan for the *[Name of
Study]{.underline}*. All quality control activities defined in the
generic quality control plan for reconnaissance phase products have been
completed. Compliance with clearly established policy principles and
procedures, utilizing justified and valid assumptions, has been
verified, including whether the PMP meets the non-Federal sponsors needs
and is consistent with law and existing Corps policy. All issues and
concerns resulting from the independent technical review of the PMP have
been resolved.

CERTIFICATION

Certification is hereby given that 1) the independent technical review
process for this PMP has been completed, 2) all issues have been
addressed, 3) the streamlining initiatives proposed in this PMP will
result in a technically adequate product, and 4) appropriate quality
control plan requirements have been adequately incorporated into this
PMP. In summary, the study may proceed into the feasibility phase in
accordance with this PMP.

\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_
\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_\_

Date Chief, Planning Division

ENCLOSURE E

#### **LIST OF ACRONYMS**

AFB Alternative Formulation Briefing

ASA (CW) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works

CESPD South Pacific Division (also SPD)

DE Division Engineer (Division Commander)

EA Environmental Assessment

EC Engineering Circular

EIS Environmental Impact Statement

EP Engineering Pamphlet

ER Engineering Regulation

FCSA Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement

FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact

FRC Feasibility Review Conference

H&H Hydrology and Hydraulics

HQUSACE Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

HTRW Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste

MSC Major Subordinate Command

NAS Network Analysis System

NED National Economic Development

NEPA National Environmental Policy Act

OBS Organizational Breakdown Structure

P&G Water Resources Council's Principles and Guidelines

PED Preconstruction Engineering and Design

PMP Project Management Plan

PPMD Programs and Project Management Division

PROMIS Project Management Information System

PSP Project study plan (now referred to as a PMP)

RAM Responsibility Assignment Matrix

ROD Record of Decision

S&A Supervision and Administration

SPD South Pacific Division (CESPD)

USF&WL U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

WBS Work Breakdown Structure

WRDA Water Resources Development Act

[^1]: ^^ MIL -- Milestone number used in the PROMIS database.

    ^2^ F1 through F9 are the historical designations for the SPD
    Milestones.

[^2]: ^^

[^3]: ^^ MIL -- Milestone number used in the PROMIS database.