2 of 26

STUDY AREA

The largest and most densely populated of the 9 NACCS Focus Areas
Area covers 2,150+ square miles and 900+ miles of affected shoreline
25 counties in New York & New Jersey
Affected population of roughly 16 million people, including New York City and the six most populated cities in New Jersey

COASTAL STORM RISKS & DAMAGES

Significant Life/Safety Risk and over 275,000 Structures in Potential Impact Area
Incorporates Dozens of Other Ongoing and Planned CSRM Projects in Study Area
Present Value Damages for 100-Year Storm Range from $100+B for Intermediate Sea Level Rise to over $350B for High Sea Level Rise Projection

STUDY SCOPE

Study Cost: $19.4M, cost-shared 50/50 with NYSDEC and NJDEP thru July 2022, and 100% federal thereafter.
Study Schedule: Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works Approved (7 Apr 21) Second Request for Study Extension to 2024 Completion
Funding: Federal funding ($1.45M) resumed in October 2021 following lapses in fiscal years 2020 and 2021. Study also received $6,724,000 of Disaster Relief Suppl. Appros. Act funds.
Study Scope: WRDA 2020 includes study specific language

STUDY SCHEDULE

Draft Feasibility Report and integrated Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement Released for extended public day review with meetings planned throughout area. Comment closing date was March 31, 2023.
Agency Decision Milestone being rescheduled to November/December 2023.
See WWW.NAN.USACE.ARMY.MIL/NYNJHATS for Draft Report and all appendices.
Final Chief of Engineers Report Currently Approved to be Completed NLT 15 June 2024.

OVERVIEW

Bryce

SCRIPT for recording: This slide shows the HAT study area on the left, which covers all of New York City, New York Harbor, Newark Bay, numerous tidal straits and all tributary river flowing into New York Harbor to the head of tide, which on the Hudson River, extends north to the Troy lock and dam near Albany. The HAT study is one of nine focus area studies that was identified in the North Atlantic Coastal Comprehensive Study report issued in January 2015, as it was an area that had not previously been evaluated comprehensively for coastal storm risk by the Corps. It covers the most highly urbanized and densely populated area of the country including all of New York City and the most populated cities in northern New Jersey. For economic evaluation purposes, there are over 275,000 structures included in the evaluation as being potentially at risk from future coastal storms. Also, and most importantly as we unfortunately know from Hurricane Sandy, the risk to life safety from coastal storms impacting this area is significant.

The HAT study, which formally started on July 15, 2016, was cost-shared 50/50 until July of 2022 with the two states, who split the non-federal share evenly, but from that point forward, the study is being performed at 100% federal expense funded by the Disaster Recovery Supplemental Appropriations Act passed in the wake of post tropical depression Ida from 2021. The study received an initial exemption in 2018 for an increased study cost and schedule and then a second exemption in April 2021 for further extension to the study schedule as the study had been effectively paused in 2020 and 2021 due to lack of federal funding. The study is currently approved to be completed in June of 2024.

In late September 2022, the Draft Feasibility Report and integrated Tier 1 Environmental Impact Statement was released on the study beginning the public review period. The Draft Report and all of its multiple appendices can be viewed on our website, shown here in yellow highlight. While the study has had extensive public outreach previously in 2017 scoping meetings as well as the Interim Report in 2019, the Draft Report is the first document by the Corps where we identify the plan that we think, tentatively, might best address remaining coastal storm risk for this complex and vital study area, both now and into the future. We invite the public to review this report and let us know any comments that you might have on the Draft Report and if you agree with the Corps’ tentatively selected plan or if you think some other plan might be better, and WHY.

3 of 26

ALTERNATIVE 3B – THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN

63.0% Study Area at

Direct Risk Benefited

Feature Type	Approx. Miles
Storm Surge Barriers	2.2
Shoreline Based Measures	50.6
Induced Flooding-Mitigation Features	11.8
HFFRRF (not shown)	18.7

Alternative
First Cost ($B):	$ 52.7
Total Present Value Cost ($B):	$ 76.2
Estimated Construction Duration (years):	14

4 of 26

TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN FEATURES IN DETAIL

Note High Frequency Flood Risk Reduction Features behind Storm Surge Barriers

Black lines – Primary structural features approximately 15-25 ft. NAVD88

Purple lines – Structural induced flooding mitigation features also approx. 15-25 ft. NAVD 88

Red lines – High Frequency Flood Risk Reduction Features approximately 10 ft. NAVD88

5 of 26

TYPES OF NEPA ANALYSIS

Categorical Exclusion
Environmental Assessment (EA)
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)
Tiered Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)

�Level of Analysis & Numberof Reviews

Least

Most

TIER 1 – Consists of a broad-scale review of the Alternatives.

TIER 2 – Consists of subsequent more detailed reviews as the designs are further refined (during the preconstruction engineering and design phase).

6 of 26

ENVIRONMENTAL �JUSTICE

Defining Disadvantaged Communities (DAC):

23.59% or more of the population

below the federal poverty level

51.1% or more of the population

identify as minority

Environmental Burdens:

EPA’s EJ Screen

Additional Vulnerability

Factors Considered:

Elderly/Very young
Disabled
Single parent

households

English Proficiency

EJ and the TSP/Alternative 3B
63% of census tracts in the Reduced Risk Areas meet the criteria for DAC
63 census tracts in the construction footprint meet the criteria for DAC
Virtually every feature of the Tentatively Selected Plan touches a DAC

Cheryl

A notable comment we received during the scoping and interim report review periods was a request for a more comprehensive Environmental Justice and Other Social Effects analysis. In coordination with our Engineering, Research and Development Center, the State of New York, New Jersey, and the City of New York’s Mayors Office of Climate and Environmental Justice, we prepared a preliminary analysis on Other Social Effects and Environmental Justice (Appendix A12).

In the OSE analysis, vulnerability factors considered included but not limited to: Low Income/Poverty Level, the Elderly and Very Young, Disabled Persons, Female Head of Households, etc. The framework utilized to assess the effects of the Alternatives included physical and mental health and safety, economic vitality, social connectiveness, identity, social vulnerability, participation, and recreation and leisure. From the OSE analysis the vulnerability factors relative to EJ communities were consolidated and compared to Environmental Burdens provided in the USEPAs EJ Screen tool and analyzed by census tracts.

The results of the assessment found that for the Tentatively Selected Plan, 63% of the census tracks within the Study Area meet the criteria for DAC and almost every segment of the TSP touches a DAC. While some low impacts are expected to these communities from the construction and O&M we anticipate those impacts can be mitigated for, and that overall the TSP would largely have beneficial effects as the more vulnerable portion of the population would have reduced risk for flood damage and flood related point-source contamination. We’re looking to refine this analysis with meaningful feedback from stakeholders in the Study Area.

A topic that typically goes along with this discussion, and that is a priority for us and our partners, is public outreach. We hosted 9 public meetings during the scoping period and 8 public meetings during the interim report review period, and those meeting locations were selected near public transportation that could be more easily accessible for Env Justice communities, but there is always room for improvement, we’re currently working through public outreach logistics now, identifying meeting locations for the Draft Report, working with our partners and stakeholders, creating pamphlets in multiple languages, translation services for public meetings, and preparing a presentation recording to host on our website with subtitles.

7 of 26

PUBLIC COMMENTS

2,767 comments received

Elected officials
Local government
Non-governmental organizations
Academic institutions
Private entities
Individuals

Breakdown by Theme

Flooding: 810 comments (31%)
Overall Study Questions/Concerns: 781 comments (30%)
Environmental Impacts: 713 comments (27%)
Environmental Justice: 570 comments (22%)
Engineering: 413 comments (16%)
General Meeting/Information Concerns: 254 comments (10%)
Sedimentation Rate Change/Water Quality: 152 comments (6%)
Cost/Construction/Operation: 108 comments (4%)
Storm Surge/Sea Level Rise: 98 comments (4%)
Navigation Impacts: 33 comments (1%)
Benefits: 31 comments (1%)

Note: Some comments included more than one theme, so total percentage adds up to >100%

8 of 26

PUBLIC COMMENTS: MAIN THEMES

Need for further agency and public engagement on plan going forward, especially in disadvantaged communities
Need for greater incorporation of natural and nature-based features (more “green”) and nonstructural measures when possible
Need for more refined, more detailed environmental impact analyses, especially of water quality and ecological impacts from storm surge barriers
Need for greater integration of proposed structural measures into existing neighborhood waterfronts to reduce impacts on aesthetics, viewsheds and recreation
Concern for remaining areas with existing coastal storm risk unaddressed by current plan features
Request for evaluating more combined flood risks & interior drainage issues as may be caused by rainfall fluvial/pluvial impacts coincident with coastal storms
Concern regarding long time needed for design and construction (6 and 14 years, respectively). Need to accelerate implementation of less complex features as quickly as possible for highly flood prone areas
Concern that advancing the plan to construction may be delayed or stopped altogether due to HTRW issues, lack of non-federal sponsor support, Congressional authorization, funding, etc.
Concerns on the future prioritization and sequencing of construction of the plan features
Concern regarding funding and assurance that the plans features will be properly operated and adequately maintained into the future

Carissa

So I briefly summarized the scope of the comments received, now I’d like to transition to our next steps but before I do that I’ll pause for any comments or questions.

Clearly one of the key issues the team is grappling with and that is a concern not just for the team but also clearly for the stakeholders is how to move forward with a Tier 1 EIS and risk-based approach to Environmental Compliance. Most of the key uncertainties you see listed here are related to the barriers and the limited data we currently have on the effects of the barriers to aquatic ecosystems over time. Many aspects of the design, especially gate operations, are going to be heavily dependent on additional modeling of storm events and SLR scenarios. In the Tier 1 EIS we released acknowledged the need for additional modeling and data gathering in future tiered EIS’s before any portion of the project moves forward and the need, prior to the Final draft report for development of a plan or list of future investigations that would be carried out at the appropriate time, when the design details are better known, all subject to review by the public and resource agencies as part of a future tiered NEPA document. It also acknowledged the risk inherent in the Tiering approach that future design development may be shaped by environmental impacts discovered as a result of future investigations.

Our NEPA strategy continues to be to complete a Tier 1 EIS with the assumption that an exception for environmental compliance will be needed in feasibility and that additional tiered EISs will enable us to address issues and concerns when the time is right. While we plan for future impact analysis for those highly conceptual measures the team is looking to identify Short term measures, separable, permittable measures that we can achieve full compliance on during feasibility. We think these measures will be certain Shoreline based measures and residual risk features.

9 of 26

OVERVIEW OF RECENT BRIEFS

May 26, 2023: Mr. Bush Brief

June 6, 2023: Megastudy Brief

June 9, 2023 IPR: Focus on general update and technical issues for VT alignment

June 16, 2023 IPR: Focus on NEPA approach

June 23, 2023 IPR: Focus on steps to ADM

June 30, 2023: Mr. Belk Brief

July 22, 2023 IPR: Vertical Team Discussion of Courses of Action and NEPA Compliance

July 26, 2023: MG Graham, Mr. Bush, COL Lloyd Site Visit

August 21, 2023: Principles Meeting

October 31, 2023 IPR: Vertical Team Discussion of Courses of Action and NEPA Compliance

10 of 26

STUDY PLAN/SCOPE AT FIRST REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES (OCTOBER 2018)

Six-year study duration
$19.4M total study cost
Six main study segments

11 of 26

STUDY PLAN/SCOPE AT SECOND REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL RESOURCES (APRIL 2021)

Approx. 8 year study duration
Same $19.4M total study cost

Assumed July 2021 study resumption via Congressional reprogramming

12 of 26

CURRENT APPROVED STUDY PLAN/SCOPE �(COURSE OF ACTION #1)

Same approx. 8-year study duration

Same $19.4M total study cost

Used GI & DRSAA funds via FCSA amendment in June 2022 (no Congressional reprogramming)

Very limited time remaining

13 of 26

FUTURE PATH OF STUDY TO COMPLETION

Refine and Optimize Plan with Existing Approved Funding and Schedule and Proceed to Final Report?

(Course of Action #1 – No further additional resource requests)

Substantially Less Funding and Time for Optimization as planned in Second Request for Additional Resources
Little, if any, further federal agency coordination and public engagement
Considerately more risk & uncertainty in Chief’s Report (interim summary report with no recommendations)

3^rd Request for Additional Resources

Expand Study Scope and Schedule to more fully address comments received

Courses of Action 2, 3, 4a, 4b, and 5 described on next slides
All will require additional time
Courses of Action 3-5 will require additional funding
Recovering and possibly expanding prior study scope will reduce risks and uncertainties with increasing identification of actionable plan components
Currently assuming no new substantial WRDA 2020 Section 113(b) or WRDA 2022 Section 8106 analyses

DRSAA Funding: $6.724M identified in work plan to complete at 100% federal expense $19.4M currently approved study cost ($12.676M balance was previously 50/50 cost shared)
$3.45M DRSAA funding provided to date to issue Draft Report, do expanded public outreach and get to ADM
$3.274M DRSAA funding remaining at HQUSACE from prior work plan amount

14 of 26

COURSES OF ACTION

Course of Action #1 – Complete the study under the currently approved schedule and budget

Course of Action #2 – Increased schedule, results in conceptual plan (framework) with no actionable items

Schedule increase: 14 months
Budget increase: $0
Actionable items recommended?: None
Reports: None
Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Conceptual Plan (Framework) that would not include any actionable items

Course of Action #3 – Increased schedule and budget, results in Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan with no actionable items

Schedule increase: 2.5 years
Budget increase: $7M
Actionable items recommended?: None
Reports: Technical reports, and final programmatic integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS (no revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS)
Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan that would not include any actionable items

Course of Action #4a – Increased schedule and budget, results in Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan with limited small-scale actionable items

Schedule increase: 3.5 years
Budget increase: $10M
Actionable items recommended?: Limited small-scale actionable items
Reports: Revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS, final programmatic integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS
Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan, that would include limited small-scale actionable items for construction authorization

Course of Action #4b – Increased schedule and budget, results in Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan with limited small-scale and large-scale actionable items

Schedule increase: 4 years
Budget increase: $19.5M
Actionable items recommended?: Limited small-scale and large-scale actionable items
Reports: Revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS, final programmatic integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS
Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan, that would include limited small-scale and large-scale actionable items for construction authorization

Course of Action #5 – Increased schedule and budget, results in Recommended Plan with all actionable items

Schedule increase: 7+ years
Budget increase: $40-50M

Actionable items recommended?: All actionable items

Reports: Revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS, final integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS
Response to study authority: Final. Chief’s Report would describe Recommended Plan, that would include all plan features as actionable items for construction authorization

15 of 26

COURSE OF ACTION #1 – COMPLETE THE STUDY UNDER THE CURRENTLY APPROVED SCHEDULE AND BUDGET

DESCRIPTION: Given unexpected impacts to the study schedule, complete study with remaining allocated DRSAA funding with Chief’s Report NLT 15 June 2024, with remaining DRSAA funding and one month for optimization following ADM.

OUTCOME: Study would result in a conceptual plan (framework) with no recommendations for construction authorization (actionable items). No further reports would be published.

PROS:

No further funding or requests needed

CONS:

No recommendation for construction authorization (actionable items)
Public and resource agencies would not receive detailed or any responses to their comments made to the draft report
Conceptual plan may have qualified non-federal partners support, but no other agency endorsement and nothing fully environmentally compliant (no NEPA, ESA, EFH, CAA, NHPA, etc.)
Many unanswered questions

OVERALL STUDY FUNDING: $19.4M – unchanged ($3.274 million remaining)

OVERALL STUDY SCHEDULE: 95 months – unchanged

DELIVERABLES:

Final Report – February 2024
Summary Report to Congress? - June 2024

16 of 26

COURSE OF ACTION #2 – CONCEPTUAL PLAN (FRAMEWORK) WITH NO ACTIONABLE ITEMS (INCREASED SCHEDULE ONLY)

DESCRIPTION: Recovers schedule to complete the study by adding time for past unplanned impacts to study execution (e.g., federal funding cessation in FY 20-21, extended public outreach with Draft Report, etc.).

OUTCOME: Study would result in a conceptual plan (framework) with no recommendations for construction authorization (actionable items). No plan components would have full environmental compliance. No further reports would be published.

PROS:

Final conceptual plan would be complete identifying all feasible plan components in study area
Public and resource agencies would receive responses to their comments made to the draft report, to the extent possible

CONS:

No recommendations for construction authorization (actionable items)
Without further plan refinements, non-federal partners may not support advancement
No plan components fully environmentally complete
No resource agency endorsement

OVERALL STUDY FUNDING: $19.4M – unchanged ($3.274 million remaining)

OVERALL STUDY SCHEDULE: 95 + 14 months = 9 years, 1 month

DELIVERABLES:

Final Report – February 2025
Summary Report to Congress – August 2025

17 of 26

COURSE OF ACTION #3 - COMPREHENSIVE (PROGRAMMATIC) PLAN WITH NO ACTIONABLE ITEMS

DESCRIPTION: Extends schedule and funding beyond that in second request for additional resources to perform technical studies largely to address other resource agencies comments, particularly related to storm surge barrier effects.

OUTCOME: Study would result in a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan with no recommendations for construction authorization (actionable items). No plan components would have full environmental compliance. A final integrated programmatic feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS would be published.

PROS:

Comprehensive (programmatic) plan would be complete identifying all feasible plan components in study area, with analysis of hydraulic connectivity (e.g., separability)
Public and resource agencies would receive responses to their comments made to the draft report
Tier 1 EIS complete (Tier 2 environmental compliance required in PED prior to construction)
Non-federal partners may support advancement

CONS:

No recommendations for construction authorization (actionable items)
No formal public review (no revised integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS)
Public and resource agencies may not support advancement
Potentially a Director’s Report product only

OVERALL STUDY FUNDING: $19.4M + ~$7M = ~$26.4M

OVERALL STUDY SCHEDULE: 95 months + ~30 months = ~10 years, 5 months

DELIVERABLES:

Final Report – June 2026
Chief's Report (interim response) – January 2027

18 of 26

COURSE OF ACTION #4A – COMPREHENSIVE (PROGRAMMATIC) PLAN WITH LIMITED SMALL-SCALE ACTIONABLE ITEMS

DESCRIPTION: Further extends schedule and funding beyond COA #3 to carry out technical studies and advance designs and environmental compliance on limited number of small-scale actionable items.

OUTCOME: Study would result in a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan with limited recommendations for construction authorization (small-scale actionable items). Full environmental Tier 1 compliance would be complete. A revised draft and final integrated programmatic feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS would be published. The draft report would undergo public review.

PROS:

Non-federal sponsors may support advancement
Public and resource agencies may support advancement
Hydraulic modeling data would be sufficient for federal decision making from an Impact Analysis perspective (could affect application of Tier 2 NEPA analysis)
Public release of revised draft report would allow for limited additional engagement with stakeholders; public and Resource Agencies, etc.
Chief's Report (interim response to study authority) with recommendation for some actionable items.

CONS:

Chief’s Report would recommend construction authorization only for some small-scale actionable items and would not recommend construction authorization for any large-scale actionable items
Lack of engineering investigations may present unacceptable cost risk

OVERALL STUDY FUNDING: $19.4M + ~$10M = ~$29.4M

OVERALL STUDY SCHEDULE: 95 + ~42 months = ~11.5 years

DELIVERABLES:

Revised Draft Report – December 2025
Agency, Stakeholder and Public Review Closing – March 2026
Chief's Report (interim response) - TBD
Final Report – June 2027
Chief's Report (final response) – January 2028

19 of 26

COURSE OF ACTION #4B – COMPREHENSIVE (PROGRAMMATIC) PLAN WITH LIMITED SMALL-SCALE AND LARGE-SCALE ACTIONABLE ITEMS

DESCRIPTION: Further extends schedule and funding beyond COA #4a to carry out technical studies and advance designs and environmental compliance on limited number of small-scale and large-scale actionable items.

OUTCOME: Study would result in a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan with limited recommendations for construction authorization (small-scale and large-scale actionable items). Full environmental Tier 1 compliance would be complete. A revised draft and final integrated programmatic feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS would be published. The draft report would undergo public review.

PROS:

Non-federal sponsors may support advancement
Public and resource agencies may support advancement
Hydraulic modeling data would be sufficient for federal decision-making from an Impact Analysis perspective (could affect application of Tier 2 NEPA analysis)
Public release of revised draft report would allow for limited additional engagement with stakeholders; public and Resource Agencies, etc.
Chief's Report (interim response to study authority) with recommendation for some actionable items.

CONS:

Chief’s Report would recommend construction authorization only for some small-scale and large-scale actionable items (but more than COA #4a)
Lack of engineering investigations may present unacceptable cost risk

OVERALL STUDY FUNDING: $19.4M + ~$19.5M = ~$38.9M

OVERALL STUDY SCHEDULE: 95 months + ~48 months = ~12 years

DELIVERABLES:

Revised Draft Report – December 2025
Agency, Stakeholder and Public Review Closing – March 2026
Chief's Report (interim response) - TBD
Final Report – December 2027
Chief's Report (final response) – June 2028

20 of 26

COURSE OF ACTION #5 – COMPREHENSIVE (PROGRAMMATIC) PLAN WITH ALL ACTIONABLE ITEMS

DESCRIPTION: Substantial increase in study schedule and funding to make designs, costs and environmental analyses on all plan components fully environmentally compliant (i.e., traditional feasibility study with least risk).

OUTCOME: Study would result in a Recommended Plan with recommendations for construction authorization (all small-scale and large-scale actionable items). Full environmental Tier 1 compliance would be complete. A revised draft and final integrated programmatic feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS would be published. The draft report would undergo public review.

PROS:

All plan components environmentally complete and recommended for construction authorization in Chief’s Report
Non-federal sponsors may support advancement
Public and resource agencies may support advancement
Hydraulic modeling data would be sufficient for federal decision-making from an Impact Analysis perspective (could affect application of Tier 2 NEPA analysis)
Public release of revised draft report would allow for limited additional engagement with stakeholders; public and Resource Agencies, etc.
Chief's Report (interim response to study authority) with recommendation for some actionable items.

CONS:

May require separate additional funding/budgeting mechanism due to insufficient available DRSAA funding
Delays implementation of possibly earlier actionable plan components to evaluate more complex plan components (nothing is advanced until everything is ready to be advanced)

OVERALL STUDY FUNDING: $19.4M + ~$40-50M = ~$60-70M

OVERALL STUDY SCHEDULE: 95 + ~84 months = ~15 years

DELIVERABLES:

Revised Draft Report – December 2026
Agency, Stakeholder and Public Review Closing – March 2027
Chief's Report (interim response) - TBD
Final Report – December 2030
Chief's Report (final response) – June 2031

21 of 26

SUMMARY

Course of Action #1 - Complete Study under Currently Approved Budget and Schedule	Course of Action #2 Restore Study Schedule to that Planned at Second Request for Additional Resources	Course of Action #3 Additional Scope and Schedule with Technical Studies	Course of Action #4a Refine & Expand Study Scope with Revised Draft Report	Course of Action #4b – Refine & Expand Study Scope with Revised Draft Report 🠉Recommended🠉	Course of Action #5 – Substantial Increase in Scope & Schedule
+$0 / 0 months	+$0 / +14 months	+$7M / +2.5 years	+$10M / +3.5 years	+$19.5M / +4 years	+$40M+ / +7+ years
No recommended actions anticipated. Do not include any new text. TOTAL (Costs / Duration)	Schedule increase: 14 months Budget increase: $0 Actionable items recommended?: None Reports: None Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Conceptual Plan (Framework) that would not include any actionable items	Schedule increase: 2.5 years Budget increase: $7M Actionable items recommended?: None Reports: Technical reports, and final programmatic integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS (no revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS) Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan that would not include any actionable items	Actionable items recommended?: Limited small-scale actionable items Reports: Revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS, final programmatic integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan, that would include limited small-scale actionable items for construction authorization. These may include: High Frequency Flood Risk Reduction Features NNBFs (NBSs) Nonstructural measures	Actionable items recommended?: Limited small-scale and large-scale actionable items Reports: Revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS, final programmatic integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS Response to study authority: Partial/Interim. Chief’s Report would describe a Comprehensive (Programmatic) Plan, that would include limited small-scale and large-scale actionable items for construction authorization. These may include: Multiple large-scale plan components High Frequency Flood Risk Reduction Features, NNBFs and nonstructural New Additional TSP Components	Actionable items recommended?: All actionable items Reports: Revised draft integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS, final integrated feasibility report and Tier 1 EIS Response to study authority: Final. Chief’s Report would describe Recommended Plan, that would include all plan features as actionable items for construction authorization. These may include: All Shoreline-based measures All Storm Surge Barriers with tie-ins All High Frequency Risk Reduction Features including NNBFs and nonstructural All New Additional TSP Components

$19.4M / 7.9 years	$19.4M / 9 years	$26.4M / 10.4 years	$29.4M / 11.4 years	$38.9M / 11.9 years	$59.4M+ / 14.9+ years

22 of 26

THE PROCESS

Draft Feasibility Report / Tier 1 EIS (September 2022)

Revised Draft Feasibility Report / Tier 1 EIS

-Same Comprehensive Plan (Alternative 3B)

-More Analysis(Modeling)

-TSP Refinements

-Enhanced public and agency engagement

Final Feasibility Report / Tier 1 EIS

-Tier 1 NEPA Complete

-Comprehensive Plan after HATS study complete

Chief’s Report

-Interim response to study authority

-includes construction recommendations for small-scale actionable items (TBD)

-Assume all separable “stand alone” features*

Engineering and Design Report, with multiple Tier 2 NEPA documents

Chief’s Report

-Recommending comprehensive plan

-Enabling continuation of the feasibility study into Tier 2 Analyses

-Authorization

-New phase of project (budgeted)

NOTE: "Stand alone" features must be shown to have independent utility (not dependent on other features of the comprehensive plan) and be economically justified (See also, slide 26).

23 of 26

RISKS FOR EACH COURSE OF ACTION

RISK FACTORS	Course of Action #1 - Complete Study under Currently Approved Budget and Schedule.	Course of Action #2 – Restore Study Scope to that Planned at Second Request for Additional Resources	Course of Action #3 – Additional Scope and Schedule with Technical Studies (No 2nd Draft)	Course of Action #4a – Refine & Expand Study Scope	Course of Action #4b – Refine & Expand Study Scope 🠉Recommended🠉	Course of Action #5 – Substantial Increase in Scope & Schedule
Stakeholder Support and Public Outreach	Insufficient	Insufficient	Partly Sufficient (No 2nd Draft)	Partly Responsive to stakeholder and public feedback	Responsive to stakeholder and public feedback	Responsive to stakeholder and public feedback
Environmental Compliance	Insufficient^A	Insufficient^A	Sufficient^B	Sufficient^C	Sufficient^C	Sufficient^D
Cost Risk: Class 3 Cost Estimate	Non-compliant	Non-compliant	Non-compliant	Compliance for Limited Actionable Items^E	Compliance for All Actionable Items^E	Full Compliance
Actionable Items	No Actionable Items	No Actionable Items	No Actionable Items	Limited Small-Scale Items	Limited Small-Scale and Large-Scale Items	All Items
Implementation	Doubtful	Doubtful	Possible	Phased	Phased	Delayed

^A NEPA incomplete

^BNEPA (Tier 1) complete for Recommended Plan only. Requires additional NEPA (Tier 2) to be completed in future phases of Study for the Recommended Plan.

^CNEPA (Tier 1) complete for Recommended Plan and either small-scale (COA 4a) or large-scale (COA 4b) actionable components. Requires additional NEPA (Tier 2).

^DNEPA complete during Feasibility Phase (not utilizing a Tiered NEPA approach).

^EClass 3 Cost Estimate requires coordination with Vertical Team. No site-specific geotechnical, hydrographic/topographic, or utility investigations are included in budget.

24 of 26

SCHEDULE (AS CURRENTLY APPROVED)

Action/Milestone	Date
Execute Feasibility Cost-Sharing Agreement (study start)	✅ 15 July 2016
ASA(CW) Approval of First Request for Additional Resources	✅ 31 October 2018
Release Interim Report	✅ 19 February 2019
Public Meetings for Interim Report	✅ March - October 2019
Delay due to lack of Federal funding	✅ February 2020 – September 2021
Senior Official Approval (Acting on behalf of ASA(CW)) of Second Request for Additional Resources	✅ 7 April 2021
Federal funding resumption	✅ October 2021
FCSA Amendment Execution	✅ 28 June 2022
Tentatively Selected Plan Milestone	✅ 26 July 2022
Release Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Tier 1 EIS	✅ Late September 2022 (175+ day review period)
Public Meetings for Draft Report	✅ October 2022 – March 2023
Public Comment Closing Date	✅ March 31, 2023
Agency Decision Milestone	TBD in December 2023/January 2024
Submit Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Tier 1 EIS	January 2024*
Chief of Engineer’s Report Approval (study end)	NLT 15 June 2024*

* Currently scheduled/approved dates – likely to be rescheduled if/as anticipated third request for additional resources is approved.

25 of 26

QUESTIONS?

26 of 26

SLIDE 22 NOTE CONT'D: NEPA CONSIDERATION

What are connected actions and how do they relate to segmentation?

Connected actions are closely related and therefore should be discussed in the same impact statement. Actions are connected if they:

(i) Automatically trigger other actions which may require environmental impact statements.

(ii) Cannot or will not proceed unless other actions are taken previously or simultaneously.

(iii) Are interdependent parts of a larger action and depend on the larger action for their justification.

State why the proposed project(s) can stand on its own without the implementation of other CSRM improvements (e.g., the project(s) provides CSRM to the affected shorelines by adding these structures which satisfies the project's need, and this would be true even if no other CSRM measures were built nearby).

Explain why the proposed project is not an irretrievable commitment of federal funds - this may be as simple as stating that, because the project stands alone, it cannot and does not irretrievably commit federal funds.

State why the proposed project would not restrict the consideration of alternatives for other CSRM measures, i.e., if the project has independent utility no future alternatives would be dictated or restricted.