One Lake External Agency Reviews
Agency Technical Review (ATR) Summary Report, June 2020
The Army Corps of Engineers Agency Technical Review (June 2020) generated 94 comments with 5 critical flagged and 28 high significance. 5 Critical comments remained "Open" upon publication of the Summary Report. Comments and link to the document below.
8.2 Final Report Significant Closed Comments Requiring Future Resolution
1) 8283969 (Economics): (page 45)
2) 8283970 (Economics): (page 46)
3) 8283984 (Economics) (page 55)
4) 8284197 (Hydraulics): (page 65)
5) 8284198 (Hydraulics): (page 65)
6) *8284825 (Environmental): Critical (page 70)
7) *8285055 (Geotech): Critical "The Weir should be classified as a dam. These features should be designed like dams to meet USACE design criteria (slope stability (EM 1110-2-1902), seepage (EM 1110-2-1901), and frequency of event (PMF)). Levees upstream shall be fully analyzed and designs shall meet criteria of EM 1110-2-1913. These items should be captured and conveyed in the Construction Methods and Geotechnical Analysis Portion of the Feasibility Report so that they are followed through with during PED.
The reviewer coordinated with the Levee Safety Center and MVK Geotechnical Branch to discuss how the design would be effected by the permanent hydraulic loading on the levees due to the new weir being constructed and holding a normal pool to El 258. The
permanent pool upstream of the proposed weir will result in a permanent hydraulic head of up to 8 feet on the levees. The weir and levees upstream (where the landside elevation is lower than El 258) that will hold the permanent head will function as a dam." (page 80)
8) 8285702 (Plan Formulation): (page 90)
9)*8285727 (Plan Formulation): Critical " It is unclear how construction of the weir and impoundment of water reduces the flood risk to the adjacent communities. The existence of the 1,500 acre lake does not create any additional flood storage capacity or conveyance capacity. It could provide recreation benefits however these benefits could also be provided without the impoundment of water by improving access to the river."
"Incremental Analysis of Final Array needs to display justification for the weir. Incremental justification was conducted but follow up should be done for the cost allocation to determine if weir is a LERRD and provides an O&M function, meaning that it is a non-Federal cost." (page 90)
10) 8285740 (Plan Formulation): (page 93)
11)*8293837 (Real Estate): Critical (page 105)
12)*8293843 (Real Estate): Critical (page 106)
8.2 Final Report Significant Closed Comments Requiring Future Resolution
1) 8283969 (Economics): (page 45)
2) 8283970 (Economics): (page 46)
3) 8283984 (Economics) (page 55)
4) 8284197 (Hydraulics): (page 65)
5) 8284198 (Hydraulics): (page 65)
6) *8284825 (Environmental): Critical (page 70)
7) *8285055 (Geotech): Critical "The Weir should be classified as a dam. These features should be designed like dams to meet USACE design criteria (slope stability (EM 1110-2-1902), seepage (EM 1110-2-1901), and frequency of event (PMF)). Levees upstream shall be fully analyzed and designs shall meet criteria of EM 1110-2-1913. These items should be captured and conveyed in the Construction Methods and Geotechnical Analysis Portion of the Feasibility Report so that they are followed through with during PED.
The reviewer coordinated with the Levee Safety Center and MVK Geotechnical Branch to discuss how the design would be effected by the permanent hydraulic loading on the levees due to the new weir being constructed and holding a normal pool to El 258. The
permanent pool upstream of the proposed weir will result in a permanent hydraulic head of up to 8 feet on the levees. The weir and levees upstream (where the landside elevation is lower than El 258) that will hold the permanent head will function as a dam." (page 80)
8) 8285702 (Plan Formulation): (page 90)
9)*8285727 (Plan Formulation): Critical " It is unclear how construction of the weir and impoundment of water reduces the flood risk to the adjacent communities. The existence of the 1,500 acre lake does not create any additional flood storage capacity or conveyance capacity. It could provide recreation benefits however these benefits could also be provided without the impoundment of water by improving access to the river."
"Incremental Analysis of Final Array needs to display justification for the weir. Incremental justification was conducted but follow up should be done for the cost allocation to determine if weir is a LERRD and provides an O&M function, meaning that it is a non-Federal cost." (page 90)
10) 8285740 (Plan Formulation): (page 93)
11)*8293837 (Real Estate): Critical (page 105)
12)*8293843 (Real Estate): Critical (page 106)
Click to view 2020 Agency Technical Review
Final Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) Report, 26 June 2018
After reviewing the One Lake Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Independent External Peer Review team made 23 comments including 5 High Significance, 2 Medium/High, 4 Medium, 5 Medium/Low and 7 Low. Comments and links to the documents are listed below.
*TSP=Tentatively Selected Plan (Alternative C, One Lake)
*NED=National Economic Development (identified as reasonably maximizing the economic or ecosystem restoration benefits, respectively, of the project compared to its costs)
After reviewing the One Lake Draft Environmental Impact Statement, the Independent External Peer Review team made 23 comments including 5 High Significance, 2 Medium/High, 4 Medium, 5 Medium/Low and 7 Low. Comments and links to the documents are listed below.
*TSP=Tentatively Selected Plan (Alternative C, One Lake)
*NED=National Economic Development (identified as reasonably maximizing the economic or ecosystem restoration benefits, respectively, of the project compared to its costs)
|
|
Click to view 2018 IEPR Report
|
Click to view Comment Response
|
Agency Technical Review (ATR) Summary Report, 20 June 2018
The Army Corps of Engineers Agency Technical Review (20 June 2018) generated 153 comments with 19 critical flagged and 24 high significance. 10 Critical or High Significance comments remained "Open" and 7 comments remained "Flagged for Follow-up" upon publication of the Summary Report. Comments and link to the document below.
10 Critical or High Significance "Open" comments:
"Flagged for Follow Up" comments:
10 Critical or High Significance "Open" comments:
- 7066365 (Civil) Critical: "Report needs more presentation and definition on the various flood risk levels ran for the final array of alternatives. It is not readily apparent right now the level of protection for the final array of alternatives." (page 71)
- 7069330 (Cost Engineering) Critical (page 93)
- 7069332 (Cost Engineering) Critical (page 93)
- 7071776 (Environmental) High: Purpose and need for the project (page 105)
- 7071779 (Environmental) Critical: Screening criteria are "substantially flawed". "In my opinion, we are neither compliant with, nor operating within the spirit of the Clean Water Act." (page 107)
- 7071784 (Environmental) High: "there appears to be little consideration for environmental impacts within the selection process. The TSP does appear to the most substantial environmental impacts, including over a thousand acres of wetland fill." "There is no explanation why the most impactful alternative was selected as the TSP." "The report needs to justify why the TSP impacts are warranted..and why these objectives can't be met with other alternatives." (page 109)
- 7071790 (Environmental) Critical: "We cannot select an alternative if another practicable alternative could be selected with fewer impacts to waters of the United States." (page 112)
- 7071792 (Environmental) Critical: Regarding an Adaptive Management Plan. "This plan has specific requirements, almost none of which appears within the Feasibility Study." *"This needs to be completed as part of the draft report moving forward for public and vertical team review." (page 113)
- 7071795 (Environmental) High: Lack of clarity in the mitigation analysis (page 114)
- 7465720 (Cost) Critical: No Cost Certification at Draft
"Flagged for Follow Up" comments:
- 7069585 (Real Estate) Critical: Incorrect calculation of LERRD (Land, Easements, Rights-of-Way, Relocation and Disposal) cost and total project costs (page 96)
- 7069594 (Real Estate) Critical: Real Estate Plan not Compliant with Corps Policy (HTRW sites, bridge upgrades, etc) (page 97)
- 7069699 (Real Estate) Critical: "The standard estates required should be identified by number and interests in lands owned by the NFS (non-federal sponsor) to be utilized for the project that do not match the standard estates need to be identified in the report using the exact language that requires approval." (page 100)
- 7069702 (Real Estate) Critical: "A Non-Federal Sponsor Capability analysis must be included in the final report." (page 100)
- 7069773 (Real Estate) Critical: Multiple Project Purposes (page 102)
- 7069774 (Real Estate) High: Excavated fill disposal requirements. "the Real Estate Plan must include a discussion of the land requirements for mitigation." (page 102)
Click to view Agency Technical Review
Pearl Riverkeeper asks that everyone make his or her own decision regarding the One Lake project using sound science and engineering. We encourage the review and thorough analysis of all available information. We welcome comments and feedback. Please email Pearl Riverkeeper or visit our Facebook for comment space. Our publishing, or re-publishing, of anyone else's research or opinions is not an endorsement on our part of those conclusions.
