Science Reports For The Port Everglades Harbor, Florida .
Science Reports for the Port Everglades Harbor,Florida, Feasibility Study and EnvironmentalImpact Statement (EIS)Prepared byBattelle Memorial InstitutePrepared forDepartment of the ArmyU.S. Army Corps of EngineersEcosystem Restoration Planning Center of ExpertiseRock Island DistrictContract No. W912HQ-10-D-0002Task Order: 0015August 17, 2011
Final Independent External Peer Review ReportScience Reports for the Port Everglades Harbor, Florida,Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)byBattelle505 King AvenueColumbus, OH 43201forDepartment of the ArmyU.S. Army Corps of EngineersEcosystem Restoration Planning Center of ExpertiseRock Island DivisionAugust 17, 2011Contract No. W912HQ-10-D-0002Task Order: 0015
This page is intentionally left blank.
FINALINDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW REPORTfor theScience Reports for the Port Everglades Harbor, Florida,Feasibility Study and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS)EXECUTIVE SUMMARYProject Background and PurposeThe Port Everglades Harbor Federal Navigation Channel is located in southeast Floridaapproximately 23 miles north of Miami, Florida, on the Atlantic coast. The primary issue in thePort Everglades Harbor area and the present scope of the feasibility study is widening anddeepening the major channels and basins within the Port, including the potential expansion of theDania Cutoff Canal and the Southport Channel turning basin. This Independent External PeerReview (IEPR) is a review of the science reports that have been used to develop the FeasibilityStudy and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.Independent External Peer Review ProcessUSACE is conducting an IEPR of the Science Reports for the Port Everglades Harbor, Florida,Feasibility Study and EIS (hereinafter Port Everglades Science Reports). Battelle, as a 501(c)(3)non-profit science and technology organization with experience in establishing and administeringpeer review panels for USACE, was engaged to coordinate the IEPR of the Port EvergladesScience Reports. Independent, objective peer review is regarded as a critical element in ensuringthe reliability of scientific analyses. The IEPR was external to the agency and conductedfollowing USACE and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) guidance described in USACE(2010), USACE (2007), and OMB (2004). This final report describes the IEPR process,describes the panel members and their selection, and summarizes the Final Panel Comments ofthe IEPR Panel (the Panel).Three panel members were selected for the IEPR from more than 20 identified candidates.Based on the technical content of the Port Everglades Science Reports and the overall scope ofthe project, the final panel members were selected for their technical expertise in the followingkey areas: environmental engineering or biology (seagrass); environmental engineering orbiology (coral reef/hardbottom); and environmental engineering or biology (analyticalmodeling/Habitat Equivalency Analysis (HEA)). USACE was given the list of candidate panelmembers, but Battelle made the final selection of the Panel.The Panel received electronic versions of the Port Everglades Science Reports documents,totaling more than 400 pages, along with a charge that solicited comments on specific sections ofthe documents to be reviewed. The charge was prepared by USACE according to guidanceprovided in USACE (2010) and OMB (2004). Charge questions were provided by USACE andincluded in the draft and final Work Plans.Port Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR ReportiBattelleAugust 17, 2011
The USACE Project Delivery Team briefed the Panel and Battelle during a kick-off meeting heldvia teleconference prior to the start of the review. In addition to this teleconference, ateleconference with USACE, the Panel, and Battelle was held halfway through the review periodto provide the Panel an opportunity to ask questions of USACE and clarify uncertainties. ThePanel produced more than 65 individual comments in response to the 15 charge questions.IEPR panel members reviewed the Port Everglades Science Reports 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 theFinal Panel Comments to be provided to USACE. Each Final Panel Comment was documentedusing 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 toresolve the comment. Overall, eight Final Panel Comments were identified and documented. Ofthese, six had medium significance and two had low significance.Results of the Independent External Peer ReviewUSACE guidance (2010) states the final report will contain the Panel's “assessment of theadequacy and acceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models,and analyses used.” However, for the IEPR of the Port Everglades Science Reports, the Panelfocused on the environmental and modeling aspects of the review documents; no economic orengineering assessment was conducted. The Panel agreed on its assessment of the adequacy andacceptability of the environmental and modeling methods, models, and analyses used in the PortEverglades Science Report documents. Table ES-1 lists the Final Panel Comments by level ofsignificance. The full text of the Final Panel Comments is presented in Appendix A of thisreport. The following statements summarize the Panel’s findings.Environmental: Overall, the Port Everglades Science Reports are adequate for assessing projectimpacts on some environmental resources in the Port Everglades Action Area (AA) and thePanel found that the recently updated seagrass and hardbottom data are generally sufficient.However, the reviewed documents do not address all the requirements of the Endangered SpeciesAct (ESA), National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), and Water Resources Development Act(WRDA). Specifically, a complete analysis of the indirect and cumulative impacts is notprovided and neither are avoidance, minimization, and mitigation measures for unavoidableimpacts to identified resources and ESA-listed species such as the federally threatened Johnson’sseagrass (Halophila johnsonii). Moreover, since the Environmental Baseline Study is more than10 years old, it contains outdated information and is not well integrated with the more updatedreports. Finally, ocean current modeling in the vicinity of the Outer Entrance Channel (OEC) andgraphics showing potential dredged sediment plumes are not presented.Modeling: The use of the HEA model analysis to determine the required mitigation for thehardbottom resources and reef impacts is adequate, but the HEA analysis for hardbottomcommunities is incomplete and there is no similar functional analysis for seagrass and mangrovehabitat impacts. The benthic community baseline for the hardbottom resources should be clearlycorrelated to the service levels specified in the HEA model analysis of the reef recovery at thePort Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR ReportiiBattelleAugust 17, 2011
post-impact and mitigation sites. The Panel has also identified issues with the modelingassumptions, mitigation options, and monitoring strategy. In particular, the Panel is concernedabout the unsupported assumptions used in the model analysis, the efficacy of mitigationboulders, and the lack of monitoring. The artificial reef boulders appear to be a key feature ofthe reef mitigation, but no monitoring program is presented to judge how they are meeting themitigation requirements.Table ES-1. Overview of Eight Final Panel Comments Identified by the Port EvergladesScience Reports IEPR PanelSignificance – Medium1The direct, indirect, and cumulative impacts of the proposed project alternatives on theterrestrial and marine habitats and ESA-listed species are partially based on outdated orincomplete information.2The EBS and Science Reports do not include a clear discussion of the projectalternatives relative to avoidance, minimization, and mitigation pursuant to NEPA andWater Resources Defense Act (WRDA) 2007 guidance.3Some of the assumptions made for the HEA model analysis, especially regardingrecovery service levels, have not been clearly presented or justified.4The statement in the Hardbottom Report that sedimentation would have “insignificant”impacts on threatened corals is not supported.5The Mitigation Requirements Analysis for Hardbottom Resources report (HardbottomReport) does not fully evaluate the mitigation options and does not set a clear habitatbaseline for reef mitigation recovery.6The methods of mapping terrestrial communities such as mangroves are not well definedin the EBS and there is insufficient quantitative information on mangrove communitycharacteristics.Significance – Low7Information on quality assurance/quality control (QA/QC) procedures and mappingmethodology is too limited to assess the accuracy and reliability of the submergedaquatic vegetation (SAV) data collection and mapping efforts.8The project’s collection of science reports is not organized, which hampers an efficientevaluation of the findings.Port Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR ReportiiiBattelleAugust 17, 2011
This page is intentionally left blank.Port Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR ReportivBattelleAugust 17, 2011
TABLE OF CONTENTSEXECUTIVE SUMMARY . i1.INTRODUCTION. 12.PURPOSE OF THE IEPR . 13.METHODS. 23.1 Planning and Schedule . 23.2 Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel Members. 23.3 Preparation of the Charge and Conduct of the IEPR . 63.4 Review of Individual Comments . 73.5 IEPR Panel Teleconference . 73.6 Preparation of Final Panel Comments . 84.PANEL DESCRIPTION . 95.SUMMARY OF FINAL PANEL COMMENTS . 136.REFERENCES . 15Appendix A. Final Panel Comments on the Port Everglades Science ReportsAppendix B. Final Charge to the Independent External Peer Review Panel on thePort Everglades Science ReportsLIST OF TABLESTable ES-1.Table 1.Table 2.Table 3.Overview of Eight Final Panel Comments Identified by the PortEverglades Science Reports IEPR Panel . iiiPort Everglades Science Reports IEPR Schedule .3Port Everglades Science Reports IEPR Panel: Technical Criteria andAreas of Expertise.10Overview of Eight Final Panel Comments Identified by the PortEverglades Science Reports IEPR Panel .14Port Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR ReportvBattelleAugust 17, 2011
LIST OF AVSFWMDUSACEUSEPAWRDAAction AreaAcousitc Doppler Current ProfilerAgency Technical ReviewConflict of InterestDesign Review and Checking SystemEnvironmental Baseline StudyEnvironmental Impact StatementEssential Fish HabitatEndangered Species AcFlorida Department of Environmental ProtectiontFlorida Land Use and Cover Classification SystemFish and Wildlife Coordination ActGeneral NOAA Oil Monitoring Environment programHabitat Equivalency AnalysisIndependent External Peer ReviewNational Environmental Policy ActNational Marine Fisheries ServiceNational Oceanic and Atmospheric AdministrationsNotice to ProceedOperations and MaintenanceOuter Entrance ChannelOffice of Management and Budgetperiod of performancequality assurance/quality controlsubmerged aquatic vegetationSouth Florida Water Management DistrictUnited States Army Corps of EngineersUnited States Environmental Protection AgencyWater Resources Development ActPort Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR ReportviBattelleAugust 17, 2011
1.INTRODUCTIONThe Port Everglades Harbor Federal Navigation Channel is located in southeast Floridaapproximately 23 miles north of Miami, Florida on the Atlantic coast. The primary issue in thePort Everglades Harbor area and the present scope of the feasibility study is widening anddeepening the major channels and basins within the Port, including the potential expansion of theDania Cutoff Canal and the Southport Channel turning basin. This Independent External PeerReview (IEPR) is a review of the science reports that have been used to develop the FeasibilityStudy and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the project.The objective of the work described here was to conduct an IEPR of the Science Reports for thePort Everglades Harbor, Florida, Feasibility Study and EIS (hereinafter Port Everglades ScienceReports) in accordance with procedures described in the Department of the Army, U.S. ArmyCorps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Circular Civil Works Review Policy (EC No. 1165-2 209) (USACE, 2010), USACE CECW-CP memorandum Peer Review Process (USACE, 2007),and Office of Management and Budget (OMB) bulletin Final Information Quality Bulletin forPeer Review (OMB, 2004). Battelle, as a 501(c)(3) non-profit science and technologyorganization with experience in establishing and administering peer review panels, was engagedto coordinate the IEPR of the Port Everglades Science Reports. Independent, objective peerreview 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 environmental, economic,and engineering analyses contained in the Port Everglades Science Reports. The full text of theFinal Panel Comments is presented in Appendix A.2.PURPOSE OF THE IEPRTo 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 AgencyTechnical Review (ATR), as described in USACE (2010) and USACE (2007).In general, the purpose of peer review is to strengthen the quality and credibility of USACEdecision documents in support of its Civil Works program. IEPR provides an independentassessment of the economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the project study. Inparticular, 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 tomake a good decision regarding implementation of alternatives and recommendations.In this case, the IEPR of the Port Everglades Science Reports was conducted and managed usingcontract support from Battelle, which is an Outside Eligible Organization under Section501(c)(3) of the U.S. Internal Revenue Code with experience conducting IEPRs for USACE.Port Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR Report1BattelleAugust 17, 2011
3.METHODSThis section describes the method followed in selecting the members for the IEPR Panel (thePanel) and in planning and conducting the IEPR. The IEPR was conducted following proceduresdescribed by USACE (2010) and in accordance with USACE (2007) and OMB (2004) guidance.Supplemental guidance on evaluation for conflicts of interest (COIs) was obtained from thePolicy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used inthe Development of Reports (The National Academies, 2003).3.1Planning and ScheduleAt the beginning of the period of performance (POP), Battelle held a kick-off meeting withUSACE to review the preliminary/suggested schedule, discuss the IEPR process, and addressany questions regarding the scope (e.g., clarify expertise areas needed for panel members). Anyrevisions to the schedule were submitted as part of the final Work Plan.Table 1 presents the schedule followed in executing the IEPR. Due dates for milestones anddeliverables are based on the POP start date of June 10, 2011. Note that the work items listed inTask 7 occur after the submission of this report. Battelle will enter the eight Final PanelComments developed by the Panel into USACE’s Design Review and Checking System(DrChecks), a Web-based software system for documenting and sharing comments on reportsand design documents, so that USACE can review and respond to them. USACE will provideresponses (Evaluator Responses) to the Final Panel Comments, and the Panel will respond(BackCheck Responses) to the Evaluator Responses. All USACE and Panel responses will bedocumented by Battelle.3.2Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel MembersThe candidates for the Panel were evaluated based on their technical expertise in the followingkey areas: environmental engineering or biology (seagrass); environmental engineering orbiology (coral reef/hardbottom); and environmental engineering or biology (analyticalmodeling/Habitat Equivalency Analysis or HEA). These areas correspond to the technicalcontent of the Port Everglades Science Reports and overall scope of the Port Everglades project.To identify candidate panel members, Battelle reviewed the credentials of the experts inBattelle’s Peer Reviewer Database, sought recommendations from colleagues, contacted formerpanel members, and conducted targeted Internet searches. Battelle initially identified more than20 candidates for the Panel, evaluated their technical expertise, and inquired about potentialCOIs. Of these, Battelle chose six of the most qualified candidates and confirmed their interestand availability. Of the six candidates, three were proposed for the final Panel and three asbackup reviewers. Information about the candidate panel members, including brief biographicalinformation, highest level of education attained, and years of experience, was provided toUSACE for feedback. Battelle made the final selection of panel members according to theselection criteria described in the Work Plan.Port Everglades IEPRFinal IEPR Report2BattelleAugust 17, 2011
Table 1. Port Everglades Science Reports IEPR ScheduleTASK1ACTIONPOP Start DateReview documents availableDUE DATEJune 10, 2011June 10, 2011Battelle submits draft Work PlanaJune 17, 2011USACE provides comments on draft Work PlanBattelle convenes teleconference (if necessary)June 28, 2011June 28, 2011Battelle submits final Work PlanaBattelle requests input from USACE on the conflict of interest(COI) questionnaireUSACE provides comments on COI questionnaire2344A567babBattelle submits list of no more that 3 selected panel membersJuly 1, 2011June 14, 2011June 15, 2011aJune 24, 2011USACE confirms panel members have no COIBattelle completes subcontracts for panel membersUSACE provides Charge to be included in Work PlanUSACE/Battelle hold kick-off meetingBattelle sends review documents to IEPR PanelUSACE/Battelle/Panel hold kick-off meetingJune 28, 2011July 13, 2011June 17, 2011June 17, 2011July 14, 2011July 15, 2011Battelle convenes mid-review teleconfere
The Port Everglades Harbor Federal Navigation Channel is located in southeast Florida approximately 23 miles north of Miami, Florida, on the Atlantic coast. The primary issue in the Port Everglades Harbor area and the present scope of the feasibility study is widening and
May 02, 2018 · D. Program Evaluation ͟The organization has provided a description of the framework for how each program will be evaluated. The framework should include all the elements below: ͟The evaluation methods are cost-effective for the organization ͟Quantitative and qualitative data is being collected (at Basics tier, data collection must have begun)
Silat is a combative art of self-defense and survival rooted from Matay archipelago. It was traced at thé early of Langkasuka Kingdom (2nd century CE) till thé reign of Melaka (Malaysia) Sultanate era (13th century). Silat has now evolved to become part of social culture and tradition with thé appearance of a fine physical and spiritual .
On an exceptional basis, Member States may request UNESCO to provide thé candidates with access to thé platform so they can complète thé form by themselves. Thèse requests must be addressed to esd rize unesco. or by 15 A ril 2021 UNESCO will provide thé nomineewith accessto thé platform via their émail address.
̶The leading indicator of employee engagement is based on the quality of the relationship between employee and supervisor Empower your managers! ̶Help them understand the impact on the organization ̶Share important changes, plan options, tasks, and deadlines ̶Provide key messages and talking points ̶Prepare them to answer employee questions
Dr. Sunita Bharatwal** Dr. Pawan Garga*** Abstract Customer satisfaction is derived from thè functionalities and values, a product or Service can provide. The current study aims to segregate thè dimensions of ordine Service quality and gather insights on its impact on web shopping. The trends of purchases have
Bruksanvisning för bilstereo . Bruksanvisning for bilstereo . Instrukcja obsługi samochodowego odtwarzacza stereo . Operating Instructions for Car Stereo . 610-104 . SV . Bruksanvisning i original
Chính Văn.- Còn đức Thế tôn thì tuệ giác cực kỳ trong sạch 8: hiện hành bất nhị 9, đạt đến vô tướng 10, đứng vào chỗ đứng của các đức Thế tôn 11, thể hiện tính bình đẳng của các Ngài, đến chỗ không còn chướng ngại 12, giáo pháp không thể khuynh đảo, tâm thức không bị cản trở, cái được
Doosan Heavy Ind. DP World Cochin JNPT Port of Dubai Port of El Callao Port of Everglades Evergreen Fantuzzi-Reggiane Port of Felixstowe Fels crane FMC Technologies Port of Gioia Tauro Port of Gothenburg Port of Guanghzou Port of Hamburg Port of Heidland Port of Helsinki Port of Ho Ci Minh
