June 24, 2013 Final Independent External Peer Review Report Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor Prepared by Battelle Memorial Institute Prepared for Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Deep Draft Navigation Planning Center of Expertise Mobile District Contract No. W911NF -11-D-0001 Task Control Number: 13-025 Delivery Order: 0189
This work was performed under the auspices of the U.S. Army Research Office Scientific Services Program administered by Battelle Memorial Institute, Contract No. W911NF-11-D-0001 Final Independent External Peer Review Report on the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor by Lynn McLeod Battelle 505 King Avenue Columbus, OH 43201 (781) 952-5381, mcleod@battelle.org for Department of the Army U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Deep Draft Navigation Planning Center of Expertise Baltimore District CENAB-PL-P, 10 South Howard Street Baltimore, MD 21201 Mark Chalecki (410) 962-4998, mark.s.chalecki@usace.army.mil June 24, 2013 The views, opinions, and/or findings contained in this report are those of the author(s) and should not be construed as an official Department of the Army position, policy, or decision, unless so designated by other documentation. DISTRIBUTION STATEMENT May not be released by other than sponsoring organization without approval of US Army Research Office, P.O. Box 12211, Research Triangle Park, NC 27709 DESTRUCTION NOTICE For unclassified, limited documents, destroy by any method that will prevent disclosure of contents or reconstruction of the document.
This page is intentionally left blank.
Final Independent External Peer Review Report on the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor Project Background and Purpose EXECUTIVE SUMMARY Lake Worth Inlet connects the Palm Beach Harbor to the Atlantic Ocean. The port is located in Riviera Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida 80 miles north of Miami and 135 miles (217 km) south of Port Canaveral. The Port of Palm Beach is the fourth busiest container port in Florida and the eighteenth busiest in the continental United States. The port is positioned well for growth due to its access to intermodal capabilities, as well as its acreage available for warehousing. The port has evolved into an export port (one of only 11 in the United States) and is a major nodal point for the shipment of bulk sugar, molasses, cement, utility fuels, water, produce, and breakbulk items. In addition, the Bahamas Celebration cruise ship is based at the port. Located in the heart of south Florida s tourism enclave, the port also serves significant recreational boat traffic. The Port of Palm Beach, along with its tenants, is an economic engine for the county, state, and nation contributing $260 million in business revenue and $12 million in state and Federal taxes. Over $7 billion of commodities move through the port each year, and approximately 2,400 people are employed directly and indirectly because of the port. Lake Worth Inlet, serving as the entrance channel to the port, is inadequate in width and depth based on modern vessel sizes, negatively impacting future port potential and creating economic inefficiencies with the current fleet of vessels. These deficiencies cause the local harbor pilots and the U.S. Coast Guard to place restrictions on vessel transit to ensure safety, resulting in economic inefficiencies translating into costs to the national economy. Implementation of the Lake Worth project would address the width and depth deficiencies currently affecting the use of this port. Independent External Peer Review Process The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is conducting an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) of the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor (hereinafter Lake Worth Inlet). As a 501(c)(3) non-profit science and technology organization, Battelle is independent, is free from conflicts of interest (COIs), and meets the requirements for an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) per guidance described in USACE (2012). Battelle has experience in establishing and administering peer review panels for USACE and was engaged to coordinate the IEPR of the Lake Worth Inlet IFR/EIS. Independent, objective peer review is regarded as a critical element in ensuring the reliability of scientific analyses. The IEPR was external to the agency and conducted following USACE and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance described in USACE (2012) and OMB (2004). This final report describes the IEPR process, describes the panel members and their selection, and summarizes the Final Panel Comments of the IEPR Panel (the Panel). June 24, 2013 i
Based on the technical content of the Lake Worth Inlet review documents and the overall scope of the project, Battelle identified candidates for the Panel in the following key technical areas: Civil Works planning, engineering, economics, and environment. Four panel members were selected for the IEPR. USACE was given the list of candidate panel members, but Battelle made the final selection of the Panel. The Panel received an electronic version of the 1355-page document, along with a charge that solicited comments on specific sections of the documents to be reviewed and supporting documents with background information. Battelle prepared the charge questions following guidance provided in USACE (2012) and OMB (2004), which were included in the draft and final Work Plans. USACE was given the opportunity to review and comment on the charge questions, and subsequently approved the final charge questions. The USACE Project Delivery Team briefed the Panel and Battelle during a kick-off meeting held via teleconference prior to the start of the review to provide the Panel an opportunity to ask questions of USACE and clarify uncertainties. Other than this teleconference, there was no direct communication between the Panel and USACE during the peer review process. The Panel produced more than 96 individual comments in response to the 38 charge questions. IEPR panel members reviewed the Lake Worth Inlet documents individually. The panel members then met via teleconference with Battelle to review key technical comments, discuss charge questions for which there were conflicting responses, and reach agreement on the Final Panel Comments to be provided to USACE. Each Final Panel Comment was documented using a four-part format consisting of: (1) a comment statement; (2) the basis for the comment; (3) the significance of the comment (high, medium, or low); and (4) recommendations on how to resolve the comment. Overall, seven Final Panel Comments were identified and documented. Of these, two were identified as having high significance, one had medium significance, and four had low significance. Results of the Independent External Peer Review The panel members agreed among themselves on their assessment of the adequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used (USACE, 2012; p. D-4) in the Lake Worth Inlet review documents. The following summarizes the Panel s findings. Based on the Panel s review, the report is well-written, organized, and provides an excellent presentation and support of information through the use of photographs, maps, diagrams, tables, and appendices. The Executive Summary is very clear and focused and effectively summarizes the planning and decision-making process for the project. While the report assessed the economic, engineering, and environmental issues of the Lake Worth Inlet project, the Panel identified several elements of the report that should be clarified or revised. June 24, 2013 ii
Plan Formulation The Panel found that the Plan Formulation process is easy to follow and the assumptions, methodologies, and results provide a well-reasoned basis for selecting the Tentatively Selected Plan. The report describes the dredged material placement alternatives, but lacks adequate detail to assess the degree of risk associated with accommodating the sediment volumes generated by project construction and annual maintenance of the settling basins and channels. This important risk should be acknowledged and resolved through a comprehensive plan for disposal of all dredged material. Engineering The report provides adequate levels of detail for most aspects of the project, but does not describe clearly the role of the Sand Transfer Plant in sediment management. Shoaling estimates cited in the text are inconsistent, and the text does not state clearly whether shoaling is expected to decrease, increase, or remain the same. These two issues can be addressed by providing a clear statement of anticipated with-project shoaling rates and sediment volumes, and a description of the extent to which the Sand Transfer Plant would help manage these volumes for the life of the project. Economics The Panel s most significant finding relates to the commodity forecast and vessel costing documentation. While the 2017-2067 commodity growth forecasts appear reasonable, the assumed growth between now and 2017 is not adequately supported by the report documentation and raises questions about the reliability of the benefits estimates. Illustrations and tables are used effectively to present the economic documentation within the report. Documentation on vessel operations and costing, however, is insufficient to validate the vessel cost savings estimates. This information may be available, but has not been provided to the Panel, and thus the Panel is concerned that the project s national economic development (NED) benefits may not support the benefit-cost ratio (BCR). Environmental Environmental documentation is thorough and comprehensive throughout the document, and provides an adequate environmental justification for the Tentatively Selected Plan. The Panel is concerned that the lack of data for sediment quality results in uncertainty about placement measures, including beneficial uses. The Panel believes this can be addressed by presenting an assessment of the worst-case scenario for sediment disposal options, wherein the material to be dredged is unsuitable for disposal in the ODMDS, or the USEPA declines to allow disposal of more than 500,000 CY of dredged material in the ODMDS. Cumulative impacts are presented well, but should address noise and air quality. Table ES-1 lists the Final Panel Comments statements by level of significance. The full text of the Final Panel Comments is presented in Appendix A of this report. June 24, 2013 iii
Table ES-1. No. Overview of Seven Final Panel Comments Identified by the Panel Final Panel Comment Significance High 1 2 The assumed 2017 base year commodity flow estimates used to justify the commodity projections are not supported by the historical and current commodity data as presented in the document. The cost, schedule, and overall project implementation will be impacted if EPA s restriction on the volume of material that can be disposed at the Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site is not increased. Significance Medium The vessel cost savings for benefiting commodities cannot be verified from the documentation 3 provided. The long-term storage capacities of each dredged material management alternative have not 4 been presented in sufficient detail to determine if, collectively, they are adequate for this project. 5 6 7 Significance Low The exact role of the Sand Transfer Plant in the overall sediment management plan is unclear. Inconsistencies in the description of estimated shoaling rates makes it difficult to determine whether shoaling rates are expected to decrease, maintain, or increase. The cumulative impacts section does not discuss changes in air quality or noise associated with operations at the port. June 24, 2013 iv
Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY... i 1. INTRODUCTION... 1 2. PURPOSE OF THE IEPR... 1 3. METHODS... 2 3.1 Planning and Schedule... 2 3.2 Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel Members... 4 3.3 Conduct of the IEPR... 7 3.4 Review of Individual Comments... 8 3.5 IEPR Panel Teleconference... 9 3.6 Preparation of Final Panel Comments... 9 4. PANEL DESCRIPTION... 10 5. SUMMARY OF FINAL PANEL COMMENTS... 15 6. REFERENCES... 17 Appendix A. Appendix B. Final Panel Comments on the Lake Worth Inlet FR/EIS... A-1 Final Charge to the Independent External Peer Review Panel on the Lake Worth Inlet FR/EIS... B-1 List of Tables Table ES-1. Table 1. Table 2. Table 3. Overview of Seven Final Panel Comments Identified by the Lake Worth Inlet IEPR Panel... iv Schedule... 3 Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise... 11 Overview of Seven Final Panel Comments Identified by the Lake Worth Inlet IEPR Panel... 17 June 24, 2013 v
LIST OF ACRONYMS ATR BCR CAGR COI DrChecks DWT EA FPL IEPR IFR/EIS NED NEPA ODMDS OEO OMB P&G PDT STP TSP USACE WRDA Agency Technical Review Benefit-Cost Ratio Compound Annual Growth Rate Conflict of Interest Design Review and Checking System Dead weight tonnage Environmental Assessment Florida Power and Light Independent External Peer Review Integrated Feasibility Report/Environmental Impact Statement National Economic Development National Environmental Policy Act Ocean Dredged Material Disposal Site Outside Eligible Organization Office of Management and Budget Principles and Guidelines Project Delivery Team Sand Transfer Plant Tentatively Selected Plan U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Water Resources Development Act June 24, 2013 vi
1. INTRODUCTION Lake Worth Inlet connects the Palm Beach Harbor to the Atlantic Ocean. The port is located in Riviera Beach, Palm Beach County, Florida 80 miles north of Miami and 135 miles (217 km) south of Port Canaveral. The Port of Palm Beach is the fourth busiest container port in Florida and the eighteenth busiest in the continental United States. The port is positioned well for growth due to its access to intermodal capabilities, as well as its acreage available for warehousing. The port has evolved into an export port (one of only 11 in the United States) and is a major nodal point for the shipment of bulk sugar, molasses, cement, utility fuels, water, produce, and breakbulk items. In addition, the Bahamas Celebration cruise ship is based at the port. Located in the heart of south Florida s tourism enclave, the port also serves significant recreational boat traffic. The Port of Palm Beach, along with its tenants, is an economic engine for the county, state, and nation contributing $260 million in business revenue and $12 million in state and Federal taxes. Over $7 billion of commodities move through the port each year, and approximately 2,400 people are employed directly and indirectly because of the port. Lake Worth Inlet, serving as the entrance channel to the port, is inadequate in width and depth based on modern vessel sizes, negatively impacting future port potential and creating economic inefficiencies with the current fleet of vessels. These deficiencies cause the local harbor pilots and the U.S. Coast Guard to place restrictions on vessel transit to ensure safety, resulting in economic inefficiencies translating into costs to the national economy. Implementation of the Lake Worth project would address the width and depth deficiencies currently affecting the use of this port. The objective of the work described here was to conduct an Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) of the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement (IFR/EIS) Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor (hereinafter Lake Worth Inlet) in accordance with procedures described in the Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Circular (EC) Civil Works Review (EC 1165-2-214) (USACE, 2012) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) bulletin Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB, 2004). Independent, objective peer review is regarded as a critical element in ensuring the reliability of scientific analyses. This final report details the IEPR process, describes the IEPR panel members and their selection, and summarizes the Final Panel Comments of the IEPR Panel on the existing environmental, economic, and engineering analyses contained in the Lake Worth Inlet FR/EIS. The full text of the Final Panel Comments is presented in Appendix A. 2. PURPOSE OF THE IEPR To ensure that USACE documents are supported by the best scientific and technical information, USACE has implemented a peer review process that uses IEPR to complement the Agency Technical Review (ATR), as described in USACE (2012). June 24, 2013 1
In general, the purpose of peer review is to strengthen the quality and credibility of the USACE decision documents in support of its Civil Works program. The IEPR provides an independent assessment of the economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the project study. In particular, the IEPR addresses the technical soundness of the project study s assumptions, methods, analyses, and calculations and identifies the need for additional data or analyses to make a good decision regarding implementation of alternatives and recommendations. In this case, the IEPR of the Lake Worth Inlet was conducted and managed using contract support from Battelle, which is an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) (as defined by EC 1165-2-214) under Section 501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code with experience conducting IEPRs for USACE. 3. METHODS This section describes the method followed in selecting the members for the IEPR Panel (the Panel) and in planning and conducting the IEPR. The IEPR was conducted following procedures described by USACE (2012) and in accordance with OMB (2004) guidance. Supplemental guidance on evaluation for conflicts of interest (COIs) was obtained from the Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports (The National Academies, 2003). 3.1 Planning and Schedule After receiving the notice to proceed (NTP), Battelle held a kick-off meeting with USACE to review the preliminary/suggested schedule, discuss the IEPR process, and address any questions regarding the scope (e.g., clarify expertise areas needed for panel members). Any revisions to the schedule were submitted as part of the final Work Plan. Battelle developed 38 charge questions. USACE was given the opportunity to provide comments and revisions, and subsequently approved the final charge questions, which were included in the draft and final Work Plans. The final charge included general guidance for the Panel on the conduct of the peer review (provided in Appendix B of this final report). Table 1 presents the schedule followed in executing the IEPR. Due dates for milestones and deliverables are based on the NTP date of May 9, 2013. The review documents were provided by USACE on May 9, 2013. Note that the work items listed in Task 7 occur after the submission of this report. Battelle will enter the seven Final Panel Comments developed by the Panel into USACE s Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks), a Web-based software system for documenting and sharing comments on reports and design documents, so that USACE can review and respond to them. USACE will provide responses (Evaluator Responses) to the Final Panel Comments, and the Panel will respond (BackCheck Responses) to the Evaluator Responses. All USACE and Panel responses will be documented by Battelle. Battelle will provide USACE and the Panel a pdf printout of all DrChecks entries, through comment closure, as a final deliverable and record of the IEPR results. June 24, 2013 2
Table 1. Schedule Task Action Due Date Notice to Proceed 5/9/2013 Review documents available 5/9/2013 1 Battelle submits draft Work Plan a 5/15/2013 2 3 4 5 6 USACE provides comments on draft Work Plan 5/21/2013 Battelle submits final Work Plan a Battelle requests input from USACE on the conflict of interest (COI) questionnaire 5/22/2013 5/10/2013 USACE provides comments on COI questionnaire 5/10/2013 Battelle submits list of selected panel members a 5/13/2013 USACE confirms the panel members have no COI 5/14/2013 Battelle completes subcontracts for panel members 5/20/2013 Battelle submits draft Charge in Work Plan 5/15/2013 Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with USACE 5/16/2013 Battelle sends review documents to panel members 5/21/2013 Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with panel members 5/22/2013 Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with USACE and panel members 5/22/2013 Battelle convenes mid-review teleconference for panel members to ask clarifying questions of USACE 5/29/2013 Panel members complete their individual reviews 5/31/2013 Battelle provides panel members with talking points for Panel Review Teleconference 6/4/2013 Battelle convenes Panel Review Teleconference 6/5/2013 Panel members provide draft Final Panel Comments to Battelle 6/12/2013 Battelle provides feedback to panel members on draft Final Panel Comments; panel members revise Final Panel Comments 6/12-6/18/2013 Battelle finalizes Final Panel Comments 6/18/2013 Battelle provides to panel members for review 6/19/2013 Panel members provide comments on 6/20/2013 Battelle submits to USACE a 6/24/2013 June 24, 2013 3
Table 1. Schedule (continued) Task Action Due Date 7 b CWRB Battelle inputs Final Panel Comments to DrChecks and provides Final Panel Comment response template to USACE Battelle convenes teleconference with USACE to review the Post-Final Panel Comment Response Process Battelle convenes teleconference with Panel to review the Post-Final Panel Comment Response Process 6/25/2013 6/26/2013 6/26/2013 USACE provides draft PDT Evaluator Responses to Battelle 6/27/2013 Battelle provides the panel members the draft PDT Evaluator Responses 6/28/2013 Panel members provide Battelle with draft BackCheck Responses 7/2/2013 Battelle convenes teleconference with panel members to discuss draft BackCheck Responses Battelle convenes Comment-Response Teleconference with panel members and USACE 7/2/2013 7/8/2013 USACE inputs final PDT Evaluator Responses to DrChecks 7/9/2013 Battelle provides PDT Evaluator Responses to panel members 7/10/2013 Panel members provide Battelle with final BackCheck Responses 7/11/2013 Battelle inputs the panel members' final BackCheck Responses to DrChecks 7/12/2013 Battelle submits pdf printout of DrChecks project file a 7/12/2013 Civil Works Review Board 10/25/2013 Contract End 10/8/2013 c a Deliverable. b Task 7 occurs after the submission of this report. c Battelle will request a no cost extension of the period of performance to allow for participation in the CWRB and an additional 45 days to close out the project. 3.2 Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel Members The candidates for the Panel were evaluated based on their technical expertise in the following key areas: Civil Works planning, engineering, economics, and environment. These areas correspond to the technical content of the and overall scope of the Lake Worth Inlet project. To identify candidate panel members, Battelle reviewed the credentials of the experts in Battelle s Peer Reviewer Database, sought recommendations from colleagues, contacted former panel members, and conducted targeted Internet searches. Battelle evaluated these candidate panel members in terms of their technical expertise and potential COIs. Of these candidates, Battelle chose the most qualified candidates and confirmed their interest and availability, and ultimately selected four experts for the final Panel. June 24, 2013 4
The four selected reviewers constituted the final Panel. The remaining candidates identified were not proposed for a variety of reasons, including lack of availability, disclosed COIs, or lack of the precise technical expertise required. The candidates were screened for the following potential exclusion criteria or COIs. 1 These COI questions were intended to serve as a means of disclosure and to better characterize a candidate s employment history and background. Providing a positive response to a COI screening question did not automatically preclude a candidate from serving on the Panel. For example, participation in previous USACE technical peer review committees and other technical review panel experience was included as a COI screening question. A positive response to this question could be considered a benefit. Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm 2 in the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor. Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm 2 in deep draft navigation projects in the South Florida and Palm Beach Harbor region. Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm 2 in the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor related projects. Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm 2 in the conceptual or actual design, construction, or O&M of any projects in the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor related projects. Current employment by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE). Previous and/or current involvement with paid or unpaid expert testimony related to Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor. Previous and/or current employment or affiliation with the non-federal sponsors or any of the following cooperating Federal, State, County, local and regional agencies, environmental organizations, and interested groups: Port of Palm Beach, FL; Town of Palm Beach, FL; or Palm Beach County, FL (for pay or pro bono). Past, current, or future interests or involvements (financial or otherwise) by you, your spouse, or children related to South Florida and Palm Beach Harbor region. 1 Battelle evaluated whether scientists in universities and consulting firms that are receiving USACE-funding have sufficient independence from USACE to be appropriate peer reviewers. See OMB (2004, p. 18),.when a scientist is awarded a government research grant through an investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed competition, there generally should be no question as to that scientist's ability to offer independent scientific advice to the agency on other projects. This contrasts, for example, to a situation in which a scientist has a consulting or contractual arrangement with the agency or office sponsoring a peer review. Likewise, when the agency and a researcher work together (e.g., through a cooperative agreement) to design or implement a study, there is less independence from the agency. Furthermore, if a scientist has repeatedly served as a reviewer for the same agency, some may question whether that scientist is sufficiently independent from the agency to be employed as a peer reviewer on agency-sponsored projects. 2 Includes any joint ventures in which a panel member's firm is involved and if the firm serves as a prime or as a subcontractor to a prime. June 24, 2013 5
Current personal involvement with other USACE projects, including whether involvement was to author any manuals or guidance documents for USACE. If yes, provide titles of documents or description of project, dates, and location (USACE district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role. Please highlight and discuss in greater detail any projects that are specifically with the Jacksonville District. Previous or current involvement with the development or testing of models that will be used for or in support of the Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor project. Current firm 2 involvement with other USACE projects, specifically those projects/contracts that are with the Jacksonville District. If yes, provide title/description, dates, and location (USACE district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role. Please also clearly delineate the percentage of work you personally are currently conducting for the Jacksonville District. Please explain. Any previous employment by the USACE as a direct employee, notably if employment was with the Jacksonville District. If yes, provide title/description, dates employed, and place of employment (district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role. Any previous employment by the USACE as a contractor (either as an individual or through your firm 2 ) within the last 10 years, notably if those projects/contracts are with the Jacksonville District. If yes, provide title/description, dates employed, and place of employment (district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role. Previous experience conducting technical peer reviews. If yes, please highlight and discuss any technical reviews concerning deep draft navigation, and include the client/agency and duration of review (approximate dates). Pending, current or future financial interests in Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor related contracts/awards from USACE. A significant portion (i.e., greater than 50%) of personal or firm 2 revenues within the last 3 years came from USACE contracts. A significant portion (i.e., greater than 50%) of personal or firm 2 revenues within the last 3 years from contracts with the non-federal sponsor: o Port of Palm Beach, FL o Town of Palm Beach, FL o Palm Beach County, FL Any publicly documented statement (including, for example, advocating for or discouraging against) related to Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor. Participation in relevant prior Federal studies relevant to this project and/or Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor. o Feasibility Report and Environmental Assessment, Palm Beach Harbor, Florida. 1984. June 24, 2013 6
o Environmental Impact Statement, Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm Effects Study Region III, Palm Beach, Broward, and Dade Counties, Florida. October 1996. o Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Maintenance Dredging, Palm Beach Harbor, Palm Beach County, Florida. October 1998. o Environmental Assessment, Section 107 Small Navigation Project, Palm Beach Harbor, Lake Worth Access Channel Expansion, Palm Beach County, Florida. 2001. o Environmental Assessment, Sand Transfer Plant Rehabilitation and Extended Outfall, Palm Beach Harbor Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, Florida. May 2004. o Revised Environmental Assessment, Sand Transfer Plant Rehabilitation and Addition of Second Discharge Point and Permanent Booster Pump, Palm Beach Harbor, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, Florida. August 2006. o Environmental Assessment, Palm Beach Harbor Operations and Maintenance Activities, Palm Beach Harbor, Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, Florida. January 2012. Previous and/or current participation in prior non-federal studies relevant to this project and/or Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor. Is there any past, present or future activity, relationship, or interest (financial or otherwise) that could make it appear that you would be unable to provide unbiased services on this project? If so, please describe: In selecting the final members of the Panel, Battelle chose experts who best fit the expertise areas and had no COIs. One of the four final reviewers is affiliated with an academic institution and the other three are affiliated with consulting companies. Battelle established subcontracts with the panel members when they indicated their willingness to participate and confirmed the absence of COIs through a signed COI form. USACE was given the list of candidate panel members, but Battelle made the final selection of the Panel. Section 4 of this report provides names and biographical information on the panel members. 3.3 Conduct of the IEPR Prior to beginning their review and within one day of their subcontracts being finalized, all members of the Panel attended a kick-off meeting via teleconference planned and facilitated by Battelle in order to review the IEPR process, the schedule, communication procedures, and other pertinent information for the Panel. Battelle planned and facilitated a second kick-off meeting via teleconference during which USACE presented project details to the Panel. Before the meetings, the IEPR Panel received an electronic version of the final charge as well as the Lake Worth Inlet review documents and reference materials listed below. The documents and files in bold font were provided for review; the other documents were provided for reference or supplemental information only. Draft Integrated Feasibility Report and Environmental Impact Statement Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor, Palm Beach County, Florida (182 pages) June 24, 2013 7
Appendix A, Engineering (472 pages) Appendix B, Engineering (Cost Engineering and Risk Analysis; 146 pages) Appendix C, Socio-economics (74 pages) Appendix D, Section 404 and Mitigation (167 pages) Appendix E, Summary of Public Comments (281 pages) Appendix F, Real estate plan (16 pages) Appendix G, Preliminary Assessment Update (17 pages) Risk Register Environmental Assessment and Finding of No Significant Impact, Maintenance Dredging, Palm Beach Harbor, Palm Beach County, Florida, October 1998 Environmental Assessment, Palm Beach Harbor Operations and Maintenance Activities, Palm Beach Harbor-Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, Florida, January 2012 Revised Environmental Assessment, Sand Transfer Plant Rehabilitation and Extended Outfall, Palm Beach Harbor Point and Permanent Booster Pump, Palm Beach Harbor- Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach County, Florida, August 2006 USACE guidance Civil Works Review, (EC 1165-2-214) dated 15 December 2012 Office of Management and Budget s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review released December 16, 2004. In addition, throughout the review period, USACE provided documents at the request of panel members. The following documents were provided to Battelle and then sent to the Panel as additional information only and were not part of the official review: U.S. Fish and Wildlife Consultation Letter Lake Worth Feasibility Study Economic Model Documentation (Draft October 2012). About halfway through the review of the Lake Worth Inlet review documents, a teleconference was held with USACE, the Panel, and Battelle so that USACE could answer any questions the Panel had concerning either the review documents or the project. Prior to this teleconference, Battelle submitted 11 panel member questions to USACE. USACE was able to provide responses to some of the questions during the teleconference; the remaining panel member questions that required additional coordination within USACE were addressed by USACE by June 12, 2013. 3.4 Review of Individual Comments The Panel was instructed to address the charge questions/discussion points within a charge question response table provided by Battelle. At the end of the review period, the Panel produced 96 individual comments in response to the charge questions/discussion points. Battelle reviewed the comments to identify overall recurring themes, areas of potential conflict, and other general impressions. As a result of the review, Battelle summarized the 96 comments into a preliminary June 24, 2013 8
list of 10 overall comments and discussion points. Each panel member s individual comments were shared with the full Panel in a merged individual comments table. 3.5 IEPR Panel Teleconference Battelle facilitated a 3-hour teleconference with the Panel so that the panel members could exchange technical information. The main goal of the teleconference was to identify which issues should be carried forward as Final Panel Comments in the and decide which panel member would serve as the lead author for the development of each Final Panel Comment. This information exchange ensured that the would accurately represent the Panel s assessment of the project, including any conflicting opinions. The Panel engaged in a thorough discussion of the overall positive and negative comments, added any missing issues of high-level importance to the findings, and merged any related individual comments. In addition, Battelle confirmed each Final Panel Comment s level of significance to the Panel. The Panel also discussed responses to a charge question where there appeared to be disagreement among panel members. The conflicting comments were resolved based on the professional judgment of the Panel, and all sets of comments were determined not to be conflicting. Each comment was determined to be consistent with other Final Panel Comments already developed. At the end of these discussions, the Panel identified seven comments and discussion points that should be brought forward as Final Panel Comments. 3.6 Preparation of Final Panel Comments Following the teleconference, Battelle prepared a summary memorandum for the Panel documenting each Final Panel Comment (organized by level of significance). The memorandum provided the following detailed guidance on the approach and format to be used to develop the Final Panel Comments for the Lake Worth Inlet Draft IFR/EIS: Lead Responsibility: For each Final Panel Comment, one Panel member was identified as the lead author responsible for coordinating the development of the Final Panel Comment and submitting it to Battelle. Battelle modified lead assignments at the direction of the Panel. To assist each lead in the development of the Final Panel Comments, Battelle distributed the merged individual comments table, a summary detailing each draft final comment statement, an example Final Panel Comment following the four-part structure described below, and templates for the preparation of each Final Panel Comment. Directive to the Lead: Each lead was encouraged to communicate directly with the other panel member as needed and to contribute to a particular Final Panel Comment. If a significant comment was identified that was not covered by one of the original Final Panel Comments, the appropriate lead was instructed to draft a new Final Panel Comment. Format for Final Panel Comments: Each Final Panel Comment was presented as part of a four-part structure: 1. Comment Statement (succinct summary statement of concern) 2. Basis for Comment (details regarding the concern) 3. Significance (high, medium, low; see description below) June 24, 2013 9
4. Recommendation(s) for Resolution (see description below). Criteria for Significance: The following were used as criteria for assigning a significance level to each Final Panel Comment: 1. High: Describes a fundamental problem with the project that could affect the recommendation, success, or justification of the project. Comments rated as high indicate that the Panel analyzed or assessed the methods, models, and/or analyses and determined that there is a showstopper issue. 2. Medium: Affects the completeness of the report in describing the project, but will not affect the recommendation or justification of the project. Comments rated as medium indicate that the Panel does not have sufficient information to analyze or assess the methods, models, or analyses. 3. Low: Affects the understanding or accuracy of the project as described in the report, but will not affect the recommendation or justification of the project. Comments rated as low indicate that the Panel identified information (tables, figures, equations, discussions) that was mislabeled or incorrect or data or report sections that were not clearly described or presented. Guidance for Developing Recommendations: The recommendation section was to include specific actions that USACE should consider to resolve the Final Panel Comment (e.g., suggestions on how and where to incorporate data into the analysis, how and where to address insufficiencies, areas where additional documentation is needed). Battelle reviewed and edited the Final Panel Comments for clarity, consistency with the comment statement, and adherence to guidance on the Panel s overall charge, which included ensuring that there were no comments regarding either the appropriateness of the selected alternative or USACE policy. At the end of this process, seven Final Panel Comments were prepared and assembled. There was no direct communication between the Panel and USACE during the preparation of the Final Panel Comments. The Final Panel Comments are presented in Appendix A of this report. 4. PANEL DESCRIPTION Candidates for the Panel were identified using Battelle s Peer Reviewer Database, targeted Internet searches using key words (e.g., technical area, geographic region), searches of websites of universities or other compiled expert sites, and referrals. Battelle prepared a draft list of primary and backup candidate panel members (who were screened for availability, technical background, and COIs), and provided it to USACE for feedback. Battelle made the final selection of panel members. An overview of the credentials of the final four members of the Panel and their qualifications in relation to the technical evaluation criteria is presented in Table 2. More detailed biographical information regarding each panel member and his or her area of technical expertise is presented in the text that follows the table. June 24, 2013 10
Table 2. Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise Technical Criterion Hayes Smith Vittor Ulrich Engineering Minimum 10 years of experience in civil or hydraulic engineering X Registered Professional Engineer X Demonstrated experience in deep draft navigation channels X Demonstrated experience in dredged material disposal X Demonstrated experience in erosion X Demonstrated experience in coastal currents X Demonstrated experience in channel modification X Active participant in related professional societies is encouraged X M.S. degree or higher in civil, hydraulic or related engineering field X Economics Minimum 10 years of experience in deep draft navigation economic analysis X Project experience in evaluating and comparing alternative plans for USACE X Project experience in evaluating and conducting National Economic Development (NED) analysis of deep draft navigation or inland navigation transportation related projects X Experience working directly for, or with, USACE in applying Principles and Guidelines (P&G) to Civil Works project evaluations X Active participant in related professional societies is encouraged X Minimum M.A./M.S./MBA degree X Environmental Minimum 10 years of experience in environmental, estuarine, and coastal and estuarine processes X Understanding of ecological responses to navigation channel improvements X Understanding of environmental impacts associated with dredging X Experience in the preparation of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) compliance documents X Active participant in related professional societies is encouraged M.S. degree or higher in appropriate field of study X June 24, 2013 11
Table 2. Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise (continued) Technical Criterion Hayes Smith Vittor Ulrich Plan Formulation Minimum 10 years of experience in deep draft navigation analysis X Project experience in evaluating and comparing alternative plans for USACE X Project experience in evaluating and conducting National Economic Development (NED) analysis of deep draft navigation or inland navigation transportation related projects X Experience working directly for, or with, USACE in applying Principles and Guidelines (P&G) to Civil Works project evaluations X Active participant in related professional societies is encouraged X Minimum M.A./M.S. degree X Donald Hayes, Ph.D., P.E., BCEE Role: This panel member was chosen primarily for his civil engineering experience and expertise. Affiliation: University of Las Vegas, Nevada Dr. Hayes is the Department Chair and a professor in the Department of Civil & Environmental Engineering and Construction at the University of Nevada, Las Vegas. He is also Director of the Nevada Universities Transportation Center, and Director (1 of 10) of the Mineta National Transit Research Center. He earned his B.S and M.S. in civil engineering from Mississippi State University and his Ph.D. in civil engineering from Colorado State University. Dr. Hayes is a Board Certified Environmental Engineer, and a registered Professional Engineer in Louisiana, Mississippi, and Nevada. He has more than 30 years of experience in both academia and consulting, including 10 years of experience working with USACE at the Waterways Experimental Station. Dr. Hayes has experience in deep draft navigation channel design and has performed work for many large U.S. ports, including Houston SC, Port of New York and New Jersey, Norfolk, Oakland, San Francisco, and Charleston. The focus of these projects has been primarily related to dredging and sediment management in these navigation channels. In addition, he has extensive experience in dredged material management and beneficial uses of dredge sediments, and has authored guidance documents and technical papers on these subjects. He is familiar with environmental dredging, open water and confined placement techniques for dredge material management, including contaminated sediments. He was an original developer of the ADDAMS system distributed by the USACE Engineer Research and Development Center and is intimately familiar with the current available software June 24, 2013 12
for managing dredged sediments. Dr. Hayes extensively used SedFlume and model results for estimating erosion due to prop wash and vessel movement including authoring papers and reports on the subject. Dr. Hayes has taught courses on coastal hydraulics using his knowledge of coastal hydraulics and wave processes and familiarity with coastal currents, tides, extreme events, and channel modifications for traffic safety and increased vessel size through work on various ports and harbors. He is a member of several engineering committees and societies, including the American Society of Civil Engineers and the Western Dredging Association (Board of Directors), and was a member of the PIANC/ASCE Dredging 2012 planning committee. Daniel Smith Role: This panel member was chosen primarily for his economics experience and expertise. Affiliation: The Tioga Group, Inc. Mr. Smith is a Principal and Founder of the Tioga Group, Inc., a consulting firm specializing in freight transportation and logistics, whose clients include ports, railroads, shippers, leasing companies, industry organizations, and government agencies. He holds a B.A. in mathematics and a M.A. in public policy from the University of California at Berkeley. Mr. Smith did further postgraduate work in transportation economics and policy. He is a former Adjunct Professor at Golden Gate University in San Francisco, where he taught introductory courses in transportation. Mr. Smith has over 30 years of consulting experience in freight transportation strategy, policy, and planning, with particular emphasis on truck, rail, and marine intermodal transportation. He has performed deep-draft port studies for the Ports of Los Angeles, Long Beach, Oakland, Richmond, Stockton, Redwood City, New York and New Jersey, Seattle, and Vancouver. Mr. Smith has also led analyses of container port capacity, the maritime transportation system outlook, and the U.S. inland waterways system outlook for the USACE Institute for Water Resources. Mr. Smith has evaluated and compared alternative plans for USACE during his work on USACE projects for the Port of Freeport, Chesapeake Bay, and Sabine-Neches Waterway. He has experience evaluating and conducting National Economic Development (NED) analyses of deep draft navigation and inland navigation transportation projects including USACE project in Delaware Bay, Port Iberia, and the Sabine-Neches Waterway. He has served on multiple IEPR panels between 2002 and 2011, most recently as the economics reviewer for the Freeport Harbor Channel Deepening Project. Mr. Smith has experience working with USACE in applying Principles and Guidelines (P&G) to Civil Works projects through his participation on previous reviews, notably Port Sacramento, Port of Freeport, and Columbia River. Mr. Smith has written numerous publications and frequently speaks at industry and public sector conferences. Recent examples include Container Port Capacity and Utilization Metrics, Diagnosing the Marine Transportation System, USACE, June 2012, Estimating U.S. Container Port Capacity And Utilization, TRB 92nd Annual Meeting, Ports and Channels Committee January, 2013 and Port Drayage, Productivity, and Capacity: Results of Three New Studies, TransPacific Maritime Conference, March 2010. Mr. Smith participates in relevant professional societies and is currently active in Transportation Research Board projects, panels, and June 24, 2013 13
proceedings, and has testified before the House Judiciary Committee on the economic conditions in the world shipping industry. Barry Vittor, Ph.D. Role: This panel member was chosen primarily for his environmental experience and expertise. Affiliation: Barry A. Vittor & Associates, Inc. Dr. Vittor is President and Senior Scientist at Vittor & Associates, and has nearly 42 years of experience in studying benthic community ecology, seagrasses, and water quality in estuaries and coastal waters throughout the Southeastern United States. He earned his Ph.D. from the University of Oregon. As a Director of the Alabama Coastal Foundation and a member of the Mobile Bay National Estuary Program Management Committee, he has been very active in coastal resource management. Dr. Vittor has studied the ecological responses of benthic communities and demersal fauna to navigation channel construction and maintenance projects. He has also conducted numerous studies to determine the ecological and environmental impacts of dredging projects on water quality, fisheries, and benthic communities in estuarine and marine environments. He has conducted numerous National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) impact assessments for USACE, U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, and other public sector and private clients. Specifically he has prepared several environmental impact statements (EISs) concerning dredging and dredged material disposal for USACE. His NEPA experience also includes preparing EISs and environmental assessments (EAs) for post-hurricane reconstruction projects, beach renourishment, and commercial developments. Dr. Vittor has maintained and updated USACE protocols for NEPA compliance including guidance for EA and EIS preparation. In particular, he has addressed NEPA criteria for alternatives analysis, cumulative impacts, and coordination with other agencies. Dr. Vittor has experience with the Endangered Species Act, has been involved in numerous cases of formal consultation with the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service, and presently carries a Federal permit for handling certain species in the Southeast. He has evaluated coastal and offshore impacts on essential fish habitat for many types of studies including beach renourishment and sand borrow projects. He also has experience with the Marine Mammal Protection Act, including documentation and compliance. In addition, he has assessed potential impacts on marine mammals from ship traffic (collisions) and noise, for oil and gas developments in the Gulf of Mexico. Dr. Vittor has also assessed navigation improvements and construction impacts in several port areas. Cheryl Ulrich, P.E. Role: This panel member was chosen primarily for her plan formulation experience and expertise. Affiliation: Weston Solutions, Inc. Ms. Ulrich is a planner and engineer with Weston Solutions, Inc. in Atlantic Beach, Florida. She earned her M.S. in civil engineering (with an emphasis on coastal engineering and hydraulics) from the University of California at Berkeley and is a registered professional engineer in Florida. June 24, 2013 14