Lake Worth Inlet, Palm Beach Harbor, Feasibility Study

Lake Worth Inlet IEPRFinal IEPR ReportBased on the technical content of the Lake Worth Inlet review documents and the overall scopeof the project, Battelle identified candidates for the Panel in the following key technical areas:Civil Works planning, engineering, economics, and environment. Four panel members wereselected for the IEPR. USACE was given the list of candidate panel members, but Battelle madethe final selection of the Panel.The Panel received an electronic version of the 1355-page Lake Worth Inlet IEPR document,along with a charge that solicited comments on specific sections of the documents to be reviewedand supporting documents with background information. Battelle prepared the charge questionsfollowing guidance provided in USACE (2012) and OMB (2004), which were included in thedraft and final Work Plans. USACE was given the opportunity to review and comment on thecharge questions, and subsequently approved the final charge questions.The USACE Project Delivery Team briefed the Panel and Battelle during a kick-off meeting heldvia teleconference prior to the start of the review to provide the Panel an opportunity to askquestions of USACE and clarify uncertainties. Other than this teleconference, there was no directcommunication between the Panel and USACE during the peer review process. The Panelproduced more than 96 individual comments in response to the 38 charge questions.IEPR panel members reviewed the Lake Worth Inlet documents individually. The panelmembers then met via teleconference with Battelle to review key technical comments, discusscharge questions for which there were conflicting responses, and reach agreement on the FinalPanel Comments to be provided to USACE. Each Final Panel Comment was documented using afour-part format consisting of: (1) a comment statement; (2) the basis for the comment; (3) thesignificance of the comment (high, medium, or low); and (4) recommendations on how toresolve the comment. Overall, seven Final Panel Comments were identified and documented. Ofthese, two were identified as having high significance, one had medium significance, and fourhad low significance.Results of the Independent External Peer ReviewThe panel members agreed among themselves on their “assessment of the adequacy andacceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analysesused” (USACE, 2012; p. D-4) in the Lake Worth Inlet review documents. The followingsummarizes the Panel’s findings.Based on the Panel’s review, the report is well-written, organized, and provides an excellentpresentation and support of information through the use of photographs, maps, diagrams, tables,and appendices. The Executive Summary is very clear and focused and effectively summarizesthe planning and decision-making process for the project. While the report assessed theeconomic, engineering, and environmental issues of the Lake Worth Inlet project, the Panelidentified several elements of the report that should be clarified or revised.June 24, 2013ii