Interim Operating Agreement - Excel by dxl11155


Interim Operating Agreement document sample

More Info
									                                                               List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                  Comment                                  Draft Response
 Number Agency

 EPA-1   U.S.              The draft EIS contains only a very brief mention of water       The water quality analysis was expanded in the SDEIS. After
         Environmental     quality consequences (p. 53 accruing from this decision).       many months of operations, data are available on the long-
         Protection Agency From our perspective Alt. 6 appears superior to Alt 5 in this   term weighted average for total phosphorous concentrations of
                           regard. Will (the proposed action) have the capability to meet  water from the S-332B seepage reservoir. These data indicate
                           water quality values stipulated by court order?                 that the long-term weighted average TP concentrations do not
                                                                                           exceed 10 ppb. This issue was also discussed in the C-111
                                                                                           GRR and EA. The recommended plan presented in the FEIS
                                                                                           will meet the water quality requirements in the settlement
 EPA-2                      Under certain conditions the enhanced pumping capacity at S- Structural modifications and additional storage capacity were
                            322B will cause more seepage water to be pulled from           included in the recommended plan. No overflows would occur
                            developed or agricultural lands near L-31N. When this occurs, at S-332B once fully constructed.
                            the quality of water delivered through S-332B may worsen to
                            unacceptable levels. This concern could be addressed by a
                            change in structural design, an operational modification, or a
                            combination of both. Is the retention area adequately sized to
                            meet all of the long-term water quality requirements of the
                            ENP? If not, what procticably can be done to meet these
 EPA-3                      Appendix G of the Final Environmental Impact Statement with The Final GRR and SEIS have been incorporated by
                            Addendum A (DSEIS) and Draft General Reevaluation Report reference. This FSEIS led to signing of the Record of Decision
                            (DGRR) for Modified Water Deliveries (MWD) to Everglades       (ROD) on December 6, 2000. The fundamental water quality
                            National Park, 8.5 Square Mile Area (SMA), Miami-Dade          function of the entire MWD/C-111 system will be discussed, as
                            County, Florida by reference. This fundamental water quality   stated in that document, in the CSOP now under study. The
                            matter needs to be addressed in the final document.            current document is an Interim operating plan until the physical
                                                                                           features of MWD are complete and ready to operate.

 EPA-4                      Phosphorus monitoring was performed by the COE as part of           Noted. Due to the amount of data compiled during the
                            the CSSS preservation effort. The monitoring data are posted        monitoring efforts, only results useful in selecting the final plan
                            on the COE's Sparrow website. We note that only a small             are presented in the SDEIS and FEIS.
                            percentage of the data points have a phosphorus
                            concentration of 10 parts per billion or less, e.g., there are
                            elevated levels in S-331, S-332D, and L-31W. These data are
                            germane and should also be summarized, elevaluated, and
                            included in the final documents.
 EPA-5                      The selected alternative should be the structural design which      Noted.
                            maximizes the delivery of cleaner water (initial and
                            subsequently treated) to ENP and by extension minimizes the
                            influence of seepage water from urban/agricultural areas.

 EPA-6                      The final document should explicitly state that a long-term         Noted. Water quality monitoring programs are already inplace.
                            water quality monitoring program will be implemented in
                            connection with this proposal.

 DOI-1   U.S. Department    Naming conventions for the various alternatives are difficult to    Concur. The document was revised and alternatives were
         of the Interior    follow and are not used consistently throughout the document.       simplified for greater clarity. However, operation of the system
                            Deciphering the document and the reasons for the various            is complex, and to oversimplify it would not allow it to be
                            portions of the alternatives would likely be impossible for         evaluated for technical performance.
                            members of the general public.
 DOI-2                      The readability of the document could be significantly improved     Concur. The final document was revised to incorporate some
                            by integrating the figures in Appendix H into the text,             illustrations into the text and make nomenclature consistent.
                            particularly in Section 4, the discussion of impacts. We found it
                            difficult to verify a great many statements and conclusions
                            made in Section 4. When references to Appendix H were
                            made the figures cited were often vague or inconclusive.

 DOI-3                      Recommend significant increase in the scope of the water            The water quality section has been expanded. Note that under
                            quality section. Department is concerned that under                 Alternative 6, the recommended plan, surface overflow of the
                            Alternative 5 large, regular surface water discharges into          detention area into Park lands would be very rare. The new
                            currently occupied sparrow habitat would cause significant          recommended plan would eliminate overflows at S-332B once
                            adverse effects on sparrows, their habitat and other ENP            constructed.
 DOI-4                      Surface water discharges are likely to directly affect sparrows     Do nor agree. Hoever, under Alternative 6 these overflows
                            and their habitat by increasing hydroperiods in portions of the     would occur very rarely, if ever. Overflows at S-332B would be
                            habitat to such an extent that existing vegetation would be         eliminated with the recommended plan.
                            converted to a composition unsuitable for sparrow use.

 DOI-5                       We strongly recommend that the Corps adopt an expanded S- We concur, The new recommended plan addresses this
                            332B retention area, as described in Alternative 6, as a feature concern.
                            of its preferred and final alternative.

 DOI-6                      We recommend you modify the operational proposal in                 Tables and the description of operations have been revised.
                            Appendix J to conform to the operational rules described in         The operational proposal in the Pre-storm\Storm\Storm
                            Tables 2 and 3 of the main section.                                 Recovery Operations are included.

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                        1                                                                                  4/18/2011
                                                             List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                Comment                                 Draft Response
 Number Agency

 DOI-7                    Operations for pre-storm and storm conditions amount to a          Pre-storm and storm conditions operations have been included
                          new flood control initiative that is not appropriately addressed   in the SDEIS and FEIS in accordance with the needs of the
                          as part of an operational plan designed to protect the sparrow.    Corps and SFWMD. Our water managers believe that, if
                          The Corps' Jacksonville District hydrologic staff agreed that      operations are to change, there must be a provision for storm
                          this proposal would be addressed in a separate NEPA                operations to protect life and property.
 DOI-8                    Section 1.3 of the IOP contains a rather broad statement of        Noted. The description of the project purpose was modified in
                          purpose. No primacy of potentially conflicting purposes is         the SDEIS and FEIS.
                          established. We recommend that the document clearly and
                          completely present all project purposes, establish which
                          purposes must be fully met and which may be partially
                          attained, and analyze the impacts relating to these purposes

 DOI-9                    The Executive Summary contains an "Unresolved Issues"           Concur. Resolution of issues will be discussed in final IOP
                          section, yet there is nowhere in the body of the EIS where      EIS.
                          these concerns are discussed further. Include an elaboration
                          of the viewpoints on each of these issues, and then included
                          the justification for the choices that were made. The text
                          indicates that...issues are unresolved. This discrepancy should
                          be corrected in the final document.

 DOI-10                   P. 9-21, Alternatives. This section of the document intends to Concur. Map is included in Final EIS.
                          describe the alternatives. The actions involve the operationing
                          regimen for over 20 different water management facilities and
                          no detailed map is presented which outlines where these
                          facilities exist or how they are interrelated. CEQ regulations
                          require a detailed description of each alternative to that
                          reviewer may evaluate their comparative merits..This section
                          should be revised

 DOI-11                   The Corps has not specified the "without" project condition        Do not concur. Descriptions for the alternatives were included
                          alternative. As the No Action Alternative is a direct descendent   DEIS, SDEIS, and FEIS. The documents show how authorities
                          of the Experimental Water Delivieries Program operations,          for managing water in the South Dade Conveyance system
                          whose NEPA documentation used 1983 base as the no-action           have changed. The 1983 operations are no longer the "no
                          alternative, the 1983 base needs to be included.                   action" alternative.

 DOI-12                   In Section 2.3 the EIS states that alternatives that reduced the   In legal terms, Test 7 Phase I conditions were the "existing
                          level of flood protection below test 7 Phase I were adverse.       conditions" prior to operational modifications made by the
                          This implies that Test 7 Phase I is a minimum flood control        Corps and SFWMD in response to FWS 1999 BO on the
                          level. We would ask the Corps to include in the analysis all of    CSSS. Since that time, ISOP 2000 and ISOP 2001 were
                          the "recent modeling that indicates that private property would    implemented after NEPA coordination.
                          be adversely impacted, and reference the NEPA documents
                          where this level of flood protection was defined as the
                          authorized condition.
 DOI-13                   In Section 2.5 it is implied that the preferred plan could be      Additional analysis and alternatives are included in the SDEIS
                          modified provided system benefits would accrue without             and FEIS.
                          adverse impacts." Examples include the pre-storm drawdown.
                          Please provide specific analyses to demonstrate…no adverse
                          effects to…nearby wetlands.
 DOI-14                   There is only one sentence on the total phosphorus limits of       The section has been revised to explain the Settlement
                          inflow waters to ENP required by the 1992 Settlement               Agreement in more detail. The settlement agreement enters
                          Agreement as a result of United States v.South Florida Water       into effect in 2006. The IOP is an "Interim Operating Plan"
                          Management District, and that statement is inaccurate and          which will be superceded by the CSOP as soon as functional
                          incomplete. The 1992 agreement has different limits for each       parts of MWD are operational.
                          drainage basin. Compliance with limits is expected to provide
                          long term average flow weighted.mean inflow of 8ppb for
                          Shark River Slough and 6 ppb for Taylor Slough and the
                          Coastal Basins.
 DOI-15                   The Corps set up a water quality monitoring network for Total      The analysis has been revised and expanded. We do not
                          P and other WQ variables in northern C-111 basin. They had         agree with the FDEP evaluation of our Total P data, and
                          a contract laboratory collect and analyze discrete samples.        subsequent cross-laboratory checks have tended to indicate
                          Unfortunately some of that data has a large positive bias or       that all three laboratories have been obtaining similar results
                          lack of precision below 16 ug/l that makes these data              on known samples.
                          unreliable. If these data were used in the alternative analysis
                          then those analyses are not valid.
 DOI-16                   Some of the alternatives have a seepage reservoir or retention     The document referred to passive treatment such as settling
                          basin. The EIS states that these will or may provide water         and precipitation. This section has been rewritten to clarify.
                          quality treatment. These structures are not being designed for
                          that purpose and there is no reliable evidence that they will
                          perform such a function. This unconfirmed information requires
                          more complete evaluation.

 DOI-17                   In Section 4.3, we..ask the Corps be more careful and support Noted. The Corps strives to provide the appropriate
                          conclusions with appropriate evidence.                        information to support conclusions in all cases and has
                                                                                        attempted to do so during this process.

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                      2                                                                             4/18/2011
                                                                List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                   Comment                                Draft Response
 Number Agency

 DOI-18                      The nomenclature in Figs H101 to H104 is not related to the       Due to the vast number of model runs performed during the
                             naming convention in Section 2                                    project development, specific alternatives may have been
                                                                                               designated by more than one name. We will clarify these
                                                                                               designations to the best of our ability in subsequent
 DOI-19                      Section 4.10 is…pivotal. The analyses on Pp58-60 does not         Noted. Conclusions will reference important data located
                             reference the data or graphs used to arrive at the stated         elsewhere in the document.
                             conclusions. In Appendix H there are 4 possible graphs to
                             support conclusions (related to which alternatives meet or
                             exceed criterion of >60 days of water levels at or below 6.0 feet
                             NGVD at NP205..."
 DOI-20                      Test 7 Phase II is listed as a performance measure on P 59        Clarified in text and referenced to App. H
                             and included in the sparrow analysis, but there is no
                             explanation of which modeling run represents Test 7 Phase II.

 DOI-21                      95BaseMod is included in some App. H graphs but not others. Concur. A more detailed comparison was included in the
                             The text should explain the purpose of 95 BaseMod           SDEIS.
 DOI-22                      Performance measure graphics for sparrow subpopulation      Noted.
                             areas presente din Appendix H are not consistent.We
                             recommend use of March 1 to July 15 window for all areas.

 DOI-23                      Prestorm/Storm and Storm Recovery operations: It appears          Disagree. C&SF structures are all authorized for multiple
                             that operation of S-332B and S-332D pump stations is not          purposes of the project.
                             currently authorized for storm operations. Recommend
                             addressing through a separate NEPA process.

 DOI-24                      The pre-storm operational criteria for S-332B and other           Concur.
                             structures detailed in Appendix J are very different than, and
                             likely inconsistent with, those currently proposed for ISOP
                             2001 and IOP. Care must be taken to ensure that any future
                             development of pre-storm draw down operations is fully
                             consisten with RPA requirements.

 MIC-1    Miccosukee Tribe The Corps' has absolutely no evidence the Draft EIS to support      This issue is addressed in the Draft Coordination Act Report.
          of Indians of    its statement on page III that "WCA-3A is not likely to suffer      DOI biologists state in the report that hydroperiod stages and
          Florida          adverse effects due to implementation of the preferred action,"     duration changes such as those proposed in the concensus
                           nor the statement in section 4.19 that there would be no            alternative have not in the past caused tree mortality, and are
                           significant impact to cultural resources from implementation of     not expected to adversely affect tree islands, whether inside
                           any of the alternatives." There has been plenty of damage to        the ENP or in WCA 3A. However, based on comments
                           the tree islands and other vegetation in WCA-3A that are vital      received from the FWC, the Corps clarified its assessment in
                           to the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians culture, religion and way of     the SDEIS. Some adverse effects would occur in WCA 3A,
                           life.                                                               but the impacts would be similar to the No Action alternative.

 MIC-2                       The Corps continues to refuse to conduct the legally required     Do not agree. The BO requirements dictate the what must be
                             analyses that would show the harm exists even while               accomplished by the project. Scheduled closing of the S-12
                             acknowledging under the mistitled Section 4.21: Unavoidable       structures was a key solution in all of the alternatives the
                             Adverse Impacts that "The detention of excess water in the        interageny team developed.
                             WCAs could also occur with all six alternatives..." The Corps
                             attempts to have us believe that the same level of detention of
                             excess water "would likely occur in the future without full
                             implementation of the MWD project," while failing to
                             acknowledge that it refuses to analyze alternatives to
                             ISOP/IOP, including operating under the approved water
                             control plan for the conservation areas that would not lose the
                             S-12 and other structures that cause the higher water levels.

 MIC-3                       Section 2A of the Draft EA on ISOP listed actions that the        The Corps disagrees. In order to be carried forward for further
                             Corps considered, but rejected, to deal with the sparrow issue    analysis under NEPA, alternatives must be "practicable," and
                             other than he ISOP. It is a violation of NEPA and the APA to      they must also be effective; that is, they must lead to the
                             reject reasonable alternatives without the review required by     desired result. The DEIS, SDEIS, and FEIS analyze the
                             law and these alternatives and others should be analyzed in       identified series of alternatives which could be successfully
                             the Draft EIS on IOP. The temporary levee alternative was         implemented. A requirement for all alternatives was that they
                             discarded in the ISOP EA, reportedly because some                 meet the hydrologic equivalent of the Reasonable and Prudent
                             environmental groups did not like it. Similarly, the plan for a   Alternatives.
                             dam around the nesting area, which Dr. Post concurs would be
                             a reasonable alternative, was similarly rejected without public

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                         3                                                                            4/18/2011
                                                              List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                Comment                                  Draft Response
 Number Agency

 MIC-4                    It appears that the No Action alternative is not a "No Action       The current operations (ISOP) 2001 are documented in the
                          Alternative", and that the "no action alternative" should be the    DEIS and SDEIS, upon which you comment here, and this is
                          rules and regulations governing the CS&F system before the          considered the "no action" alternative. Previous operations
                          Corps terminated them without conducting the reviews                (Test 7 Phase I of the Experimental program) were terminated
                          required by law.                                                    when FWS issued a BO predicting "jeopardy" for the CSSS,
                                                                                              should those operations continue. However, the Engineering
                                                                                              Appendix to the DEIS and SDEIS shows the results of both
                                                                                              operations. The FEIS text compares the effects of the
                                                                                              considered alternatives to both Test 7 Phase I and to ISOP.
                                                                                              This alternative is identical to Alt. 1 in the DEIS. This
                                                                                              alternative is current operations; it has been allowed to
                                                                                              continue through a legal emergency Order (exemption) to the
                                                                                              State Water Quality permit process. Therefore the action is
                                                                                              legal both at Federal and State levels.

 MIC-5                    It is not stated anywhere in the Draft EIS what the cost of the     ISOP, and future IOP, operations, are funded through
                          ISOP/IOP is and whether this money has been taken from the          Operations and Management funds of the Corps and Water
                          Modified Water Deliveries Project construction budget. This         Management District. No Mod Waters funds have been used
                          information must be provided under the full disclosure              to study or develop either ISOP or the currently preferred IOP
                          requirement of NEPA.                                                plan. Alt 7R does include advanced construction of some
                                                                                              elements of the C-111 Project, but this construction has
                                                                                              already been authorized by Congress and is fully funded. The
                                                                                              cost of operating the system includes many fixed costs that will
                                                                                              not change under either ISOP or IOP, and a few items that will,
                                                                                              such as the cost of electrical energy to operate electric pumps,
                                                                                              and the cost of diesel fuel to run diesel pumps. However,
                                                                                              these pumps would have been needed under the fully built C-
                                                                                              111 or Mod Waters plan, in any case. The ESA is a "cost-
                                                                                              blind" law in the sense that complying with RPAs given in a
                                                                                              "jeopardy" opinion is not intended to be subject to cost

 MIC-6                    The Corps failed to follow the consultation and coordination        The Corps has been in constant consultation with FWS since
                          requirements required by Section 7 of the Endangered Species        the inception of design and environmental evaluation of the
                          Act the requires an agency whose actions are likely to have         ISOP and IOP. FWS has been a part of the collaborative group
                          adverse impacts on the environment and endangered species           that, under mediation by the IECR, developed, modified and
                          to enter into consulation with FWS. The Corps had a djuty           recommended Alt 7R. Moreover, once the plan had been
                          under Seciton 7 of the ESA to formally consult with FWS on          developed the Corps re-initiated consultation with FWS, and
                          the impacts that ISOP, and the proposed IOP, will have on the       FWS provided an amendment to the 1999 BO, specifically
                          Wood Storks, Snail Kite and Snail Kite Critical Habitat,            concurring in the recommendation of Alt 7R as acceptable
                          especially since FWS has repeatly raised concerns about the         under the terms of the ESA.
                          adverse impacts that high water would have on these areas.

 MIC-7                    The Draft EIS for IOP fails to analyze the cumulative impact on     The Corps did not and does not declare emergencies. In
                          the environment and the water management system resulting           1999, the Corps received a revised Biological Opinion finding
                          from the Corps declaration of yearly "emergencies" that             that some populations of the Cape Sable seaside sparrow
                          caused them to deviate from the regulation schedule. NEPA           faced "jeopardy" unless certain "reasonable and prudent
                          requires that the cumulative impacts of these past actions,         alternatives" were enacted immediately regarding the
                          along with the impact of the proposed IOP action, must be fully     operations of the C&SF system in the vicinity of these
                          analyzed in the Draft EIS. Section 4.20 of the Draft EIS, which     populations. This led to suspension of Test 7, Phase I of the
                          consists of approximately half a page, is woefully inadequate.      Experimental Program of Water Deliveries to ENP, and
                          It states without any proof that "The cumulative effects of these   required development of new "interim" structural and
                          actions have been mostly positive..However, some adverse            operational plans for the system. Later that year, Hurricane
                          effects have ocurred." The Draft EIS does not identify the          Irene passed through south Florida, leading to a Federal
                          adverse effects that have ocurred, nor does it analyze the          emergency declaration in response to severe flooding. In
                          cumulative impacts of these adverse effects in relation to the      October 2000, an unusually intense but localized rainfall event
                          proposes plan, as is required by NEPA.                              led to severe flooding in lands of the South Dade Conveyance
                                                                                              System. The early part of the year 2000 was marked by the
                                                                                              worst drought in 100 years. The Corps can only respond to
                                                                                              emergencies. The Corps has been working, along with
                                                                                              agencies of the DOI, to arrive at a consensus plan for
                                                                                              operation of the system while protecting the CSSS.

 MIC-8                    The Draft EIS on the IOP is also totally silent on the public       Again, the scope of the current document is not permanent
                          health and safety aspects concerning flood control that were        changes to the system. This is an EIS for an "interim" plan
                          addressed in the Final EA on the 1998 so-called emergency.          until MWD is fully built and operational, and until the larger
                          The Corps Draft EIS must address the issue of whether its           changes to the system authorized in CERP are designed and
                          preceding emergencies have set the stage for the current            built.
                          emergency and disuss whether the resulting reduction in
                          storage in the WCAs exacerbated the impacts that hurricanes
                          and storms have had, and will continue to have, on the
                          environement and urban and agricultural interests.

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                       4                                                                             4/18/2011
                                                                 List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                   Comment                                 Draft Response
 Number Agency

 MIC-9                        The statement on in Section 4.5, page 53, that "None of the         Do not agree. The data included in the SDEIS supports the
                              alternatives are expected to cause water quality problems in        Corps position. The ISOP plan can not address P
                              the WCAs or Shark River Slough" is not supported by any             concentrations in waters flowing into WCA 3A.
                              evidence in the record. The January 2001 Everglades
                              Consolidated Report shows that inflow phosphorus
                              concentrations were high in WCA-3A during water year 2000.
                              It is incumbent on the Corps to prove that its ISOP actions did
                              not, and that IOP will not, increase the phosphorous pollution
                              on Tribal lands, which are subject to stringent Tribal water
                              quality standarads. Additionally, while the Draft EIS admits that
                              there sould be potential impact to water quality in the vicinity of
                              S-332B, it again states without proof that "It is not believed at
                              this time that a violation of the settlement agreement levels
                              would occur due to overflow." The Corps has water quality
                              data on this structure but has not provided the data and a
                              water quality analysis in the Draft EIS, as is required under

 MIC-10                       The proposed adoption of the IOP/ISOP and deviation from the      Your concerns are noted. However, the Corps is unaware of
                              regulation schedule increases water levels in WCA-3A and the      any information about losses of life, liberty, or property due to
                              South Dade Conveyance system and deprives the Tribe,              the ISOP/IOP operations. Likewise, we do not believe either
                              agricultural and urban interests who will be adversely affected   agricultural or urban interests have been adversely affected by
                              of life, liberty or property without due process of law.          ISOP operations. Adverse effects in 1999 and 2000 were due
                                                                                                to extraordinarily heavy and concentarted rainfall events, well
                                                                                                above the levels at which the system could prevent flooding.
                                                                                                At these rainfall intensities, the system can only remove flood
                                                                                                waters, after the fact.

 MIC-11                       The Corps fails to adequately analyze the impact that its         The alternatives have been revised and a new recommended
                              proposed action Alternative 5, including Phase 1 and Phase 2,     plan is proposed. The Corps does not anticipate adverse
                              will have serious and adverse impacts on the 8.5 Square Mile      effects on the 8.5 SMA. The ISOP and proposed IOP would
                              Area, a minority community that is predominantly Hispanic. It     not disproportionatly affect the Moccosukee Tribe nor any
                              also fails to consider or analyze the impacts on the Miccosukee   minority or low income group.
                              Tribe of Indians culture and way of life. Finally, it does not
                              adequately analyze alternative courses of action that would
                              have a less disproportionate impact on these communities, as
                              is required under Executive Order 12898.

HR/HP-1   Florida             No comment.
          Department of
          State Division of

 DCA-1    Department of     Based on the information contained in the draft environmental Noted.
          Community Affairs impact statement and the enclosed comments provided by our
                            reviewing agencies, the state has determined that, at this
                            stage, the project is consistent with the Florida Coastal
                            Management Program (FCMP).

 DEP-1    Department of       A system wide evaluation of hdropattern effects of the            The hydrologic model used in evaluating the proposed
          Environmental       preferred alternative to Lake Okeechocbee, Caloosahatchee         alternatives showed insignificant effects of operational
          Protection          and St. Lucie Estuaries, Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound, as         alternatives on Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie and
                              well as the Water Conservation Area 3, Everglaees National        Caloosahatchee estuaries. Effects on sparrow habitats in
                              Park, and Florida Bay should be conducted.                        ENP, the WCA's, Florida Bay and Barnes sound are discussed
                                                                                                in FEIS chapter 4 "Environmental Effects." The effect of each
                                                                                                alternative is discussed in detail, and alternatives are

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                         5                                                                               4/18/2011
                                                                List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                   Comment                                   Draft Response
 Number Agency

 DEP-2                      Water quality effects to natural areas and compliance with the        Please refer to the "Water Quality" section in the FEIS. Corps
                            state water quality standards and the settlement agreement            calculations are displayed and discussed in that section. It is
                            are significant concerns. Specifically, Section 4.5 (page 53)         the Corps postion that, regardless of whose data are plugged
                            states that "it is not believed that [Alternative 5, the preferred    into the appropriate formula for calculating total P under the
                            atlernative] would result in a violation of the settlement            terms of the Settlement Agreement, there have been no
                            agreement levels." Calculations and data in support of this           violations. The need for storm and pre-storm operations in
                            statement should be provided. Please note that if this                terms of assuring human safety and security, in a geographic
                            statement is based on the limited data from the USACOE                region so susceptible to extreme storm events, seems to the
                            contractor, PPB laboratories, the Department has raised               Corps to require no further explanation. Storm events are by
                            significant concerns over the quality of the data ( see attached      nature of short duration and have been shown by our
                            memo to the Everglades Technical Oversight Committee).                calculations not to have adversely affected the required long
                            Appendix J, Detailed Operations For Proposed Action, states           term weighted rolling average TP values in discharges into the
                            that, "During storm events and pre-storm preparation, water           Park. We believe this is reasonable assurance. Furthermore,
                            levels may be lowered further and longer than provided for            the recommended plan, Alt 7R, will lead to further reductions in
                            during the Experimental Program." (Page J4) Such                      discharges through the S-332B structure.
                            operational actions can have an effect upon water qualitythat
                            has not been documented. The Department needs reasonable
                            assurance that such operations will not violate state water
                            quality standards and cannot permit this activity until
                            acceptable assurances are provided.
 DEP-3                      In a January 22, 2001 letter to Superintendent Finnerty of            Noted. The recommended plan, Alt 7R, provides the second
                            Everglades National Park and Florida Sate Supervisor Steve            retention area referenced in this comment, accounts for
                            Forsythe, U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Appendix K,                 additional storage capacity at S-332C and D, and would
                            Additional Supporting Material), Colonel May states, "In our          eliminate overflows at S-332B.
                            professional judgement, 332B with the new Detention area we
                            propose can meet with reasonable and Prudent action" the
                            Service has states the sparrow requires with little or no
                            overflow into the Park." The propsed elimination of the second
                            retention area associated with S-332B in the perferred
                            Alternative 5 means that direct discharge to ENP will occur
                            when the first rentention area is overtopped. This could
                            jeopardize the permittability of this alternative. If the preferred
                            alternative cannot be permitted, harmful discharges to
                            Manatee Bay and Barnes Sound could result, as flows will be
                            directed through the Canal C-111. Since Alternative 6 is
                            identical to Alternative 5 except for the inclusion of the new
                            detention basin, we suggest that the construction of the
                            sencond retention area and Alternative 6 be reconsidered.

 DEP-4                      We have similar cocncerns for the continued discharge from S-         Noted. The recommended plan accounts for additional
                            332D. There is evidence of vegetative community changes               seepage reservoir at S-332D.
                            downstream of the S-332D Pump Station discharge in ENP.
                            Water quality at the S-332D Pump Station could be very
                            similar to the quality at S-332. The adjacent Frog Pond parcel
                            was purchased to provide for environmental restoration,
                            storage and water quality treatment. Therefore, we
                            suggestthat a retention area be designed to accommodate
                            flows from S-332D.
 DEP-5                      Flood protection for agricultrual and urban interests continues       Noted. Pre-storm events and storm operations are by nature
                            to be an issue with this project. Since flood control effects will    short-term, and are not expected to lead to adverse effects on
                            be considered during this permitting process canal elevations         Park lands.
                            should be evaluated and well documented for all affected
                            areas to determine impacts to flood control levels of service.
                            Also, since "during storm events and pre-storm preparations,
                            water levels may be lowered further and longer than provided
                            for during the Experimental Programs", the impact of these
                            operations on natural areas to the west of the canal system
                            should also be evaluated and documented.

 DEP-6                      Every effort should be made to integrate construction and    Noted. The Corps concurs.
                            operational features of the IOP with the Comprehensive
                            Everglades Restoration Project. Compatible and incompatible
                            elements should be evaluated to reduce cost and duplication.

   7a    Florida Fish and   We find the main body of the draft EIS to be very general and         Noted. The Corps provided additional information in the
         Wildlife           lacking in some key areas of information.                             SDEIS. The Environmental Effects section of the FEIS has
         Conservation                                                                             been further expanded to allow comparison of all alternatives,
         Commission                                                                               as well as a discussion of how they differ from previous
                                                                                                  operations under the Experimental Program.
 FWC-1                      Water quality concerns have been identified in terms of the           The water quality section was augmented for the SDEIS and
                            suitability of water to be discharged into ENP, and that these        the FEIS. No contaminants were identified.
                            water quality concerns are not limited to phosphorus, by may
                            include contaminants related to pesticides and other
                            agricultural agents. These issues are not mentioned in the
                            draft EIS, nor are the results of the test run for the S-332B

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                          6                                                                             4/18/2011
                                                               List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                  Comment                                Draft Response
 Number Agency

 FWC-2                      The location of the additional detention area should be             A map showing the location of the additional detention area
                            identified. It if falls within the boundary of ENP, then additional was included in the SDEIS. Additional reservoirs discussed in
                            time may need to be factored in for a land exhange in order to the FEIS will be located on SFWMD lands and, in one
                            comply with the federal mandate to avoid losing park acreage. instance, a reservoir will be expanded when a land-swap with
                            If that exchange is propsed to occur in Southern Glades             ENP can proceed. However, operations do not depend on this
                            Wildlife and Environmental Area, which we managed, then it          land-swap.
                            would be of concern to us.
 FWC-3                      Although A.R.M. Loxahatchee Wildlife Refuge and various             Noted. The Corps has provided additional information in the
                            designations for ENP are mentioned, the draft EIS makes not SDEIS and FEIS.
                            mention of the fact that WCAs 2 and 3 are managed by us for
                            a conbination of ecological and recreational considerations as
                            the Everglades Wildlife Management Area. In addition, the
                            Miccosukee Tribe of Indians has a reservation in western WCA-
                            3A, rights to traditional activities in much of the rest of WCA-
                            3A, and a Special Use Permit Area just downstream of the S-
                            12 structures.
 FWC-4                      We note that the summary and introduction imply that there          The interagency meetings received input from agencies
                            was full interagency coordination in developing and reviewing including the FWC. The Corps attempted to include all
                            the 81 alternatives as they were produced. As described             stakeholders in the NEPA planning process and will continue
                            above in our Preliminary Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act         to do so.
                            report, this was not the case.
 FWC-5                      The description of the detailed operation for the Preferred         Noted. The IOP goals were determined by the requirements of
                            Alternative provides information on the planned operation of        the FWS BO. Additional conditions such as drought would be
                            Lake Okeechobee, each of the WCAs and the South Dade                addressed during CSOP. We note that, during the year 2001
                            conveyance System. Contingencies are also provided for              spring drought, a deviation from the water management
                            operating the South Dade Conveyance System once a storm regulation for WCA-1 and 2A was sought by SFWMD, and
                            event is predicted: during the storm; and after the storm,          concurred with by the Corps, under separate NEPA
                            leading to resumption of normal operations. We are                  documentation. It is understood that, under any extreme and
                            concerned, however, that there are no similar guidelines            uncommon meteorological event, deviations from a given
                            provided for the possible deviations mentioned for nearly all       operating plan may become necessary. However, drought
                            parts of the system as being "needed in the case of a regional conditions, which normally occur in the spring and early
                            drought."                                                           summer, are not likely to adversely affect CSSS nesting
                                                                                                habitat. Unusual high water events during this season are the
                                                                                                threat, not low water conditions. Therefore, drought operations
                                                                                                were not considered relevant to this IOP. During the severe
                                                                                                spring 2001 drought, sparrow nesting conditions, as specified
                                                                                                in the BO, were not adversely affected.

 FWC-6                      The description does not discriminate between actions to be       The differences in actions under Phase I and Phase II of the
                            taken under Phase 1 and Phase 2 of the Preferred Alternative;     various alternatives were described in the Tables in Section
                            and , unless one is intimately familiar with the current          2.0 of the DEIS. The Corps notes that none of the alternatives
                            operations (ISOP9d) of each of the areas and structures           containing phase 2 operations were carried forward for the
                            described, it is unclear as to which operations would remain      final alternative refinement process.
                            the same and which would change. This appendix would
                            provide much more useful information if it also indicated how
                            and whre changes would occur from the current operations,
                            from Phase 1 of the Preferred Alternativem, and from Phase 2
                            of the same alternative.

   7b    Florida Fish and

 DOT-1   Florida            The Department if concerned with any potential degradation of Noted. Impacts to the roadbeds or travel corridors are not
         Department of      the US 41 roadbed as associated with the Corps efforts in       anticipated.
         Transportation     complying with the Reasonable and Prudent Alternatives for
                            the Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Biological Opinion. The
                            Department requests that the Corps provide a more concise
                            evaluation of potential degradation of the roadbed as well as a
                            plan to maintain the intregrity of the travel corridor and make
                            any roadway repairs of damage associated with the
                            implementation of the Interim Operational Plan.

 FDA-1   Floirda            It is unclear if the document is meant to be a review and         Noted. Additional analysis is provided in the FEIS. Operations
         Department of      analysis of IOP phase 1 and IOP phase 2, or just IOP phase 1.     of the system subsequent to construction of the MWD
         Agriculture and    If IOP phase 2 is meant to be included, there is information      elements, including the S-357 pump station, 8.5 SMA levees
         Consumer           missing from the proposed operations. There is no mention of      and seepage canal, and Tamiami Trail Bridge, is under study
         Services           operations for the new proposed S-357 pumping structure, nor      as part of the CSOP process. Operation of all of these
                            of how the additional seepage water entering the C-111 project    components will be modeled prior to development of this
                            from the 8.5 Square Mile Area would be handled. If it therefore   Combined Structural and Operational plan. That is why
                            unclear if the C-111 project could adequately handle the          further discussion of Phase II (Post-MWD) operations of these
                            additional water, for both water quality and flood control        alternatives is not warranted in this FEIS.
                            purposes, without the remainder of the C-111 project
                            constructed and operational.

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                        7                                                                           4/18/2011
                                                                 List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                    Comment                                  Draft Response
 Number Agency

 FDA-2                        "The Corps has not defined the flood control level that is to me    The Corps is in constant contact with water managers from the
                              be maintained." There is no defined "target" for flood conrol in    SFWMD, ENP, and FWS as well as representatives from other
                              this document, only relative comparisons between alternatives.      stakeholders potentially affected by this project. In addition to
                              Modications to the selected alternative, specifically pre-storm,    modelling, field observations would be used to adjust
                              draw down and other "tweaking" (p.21) that would offset high        operations when conditions dictate after appropriate
                              water tables in the southern Dade areas adjacent to the ENP         consultation. The SDEIS and FEIS included details on pre-
                              might be necessary to maintain adequate flood control. It is        storm, storm, and post-storm operations, including interagency
                              unclear in this document if the Corps will authorize this type of   coordination and consultation.

 FDA-3                        Because recent past problems have been caused because of            Noted. The IOP goals were determined by the requirements of
                              too much water in the regional system, the analysis in this         the FWS BO. Additional conditions such as drought would be
                              document is focussed on special operations to alleviate             addressed during CSOP. However it should be noted that
                              flooding of the sparrows' nesting areas. There has not been         subsequent to circulation of the DEIS for this plan and during
                              an analysis of how the Corps may be "required" to operate           development of final alternatives, a drought deviation to the
                              during droughts. There is a strong potential that water supply      regulation schedule for WCA-1 and WCA-2A became
                              to urban and agricultural areas would be impacted if special        necessary. It was documented separately under NEPA, and
                              operations were implemented to "drought-proof" the sparrow          the WCAs were operated in "deviation" status until the end of
                              citical habitat area.                                               the 2001 drought, without causing any conflicts with the CSSS
                                                                                                  protective measures considered in this FEIS. You are correct
                                                                                                  that the BO, while it requires adequate hydration of eastern
                                                                                                  CSSS habitats during the rainy season, is primarily focused on
                                                                                                  flood reduction of CSSS nesting habitat during the spring
                                                                                                  sparrow nesting season. Therefore, in general, conflict of this
                                                                                                  recommended IOP with drought operations is not considered

DERM-1   South Florida     The stages under the '95 Base Modified sets the groundwater         Noted. Additional modeling and assessment was included in
         Regional Planning elevation at 8 feet at the L-29 and is proposing to rise the        the SDEIS. This concern will be further modeled under the
         Council           groundwater elevation to 9 feet in this preferred alternative.      CSOP effort now underway. The Corps also notes that other,
                           The County requests that you model or compare this three to         independent studies are underway to address the causes of
                           four-foot change from historical stages in L-31N to determine       flooding east of L-31N, including the C-4 study. Additional
                           flooding impacts to the east of the L-31N Canal. The concern        pilot studies are underway under the Comprehensive
                           is that during the two major storms of 1999 and 2000 that           Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) to address control of
                           catastrophically impacted the eastern areas of the County, the      seepage from the L-31N canal. Operations of the S-356
                           elevations in the L-31N rose to the suggested 8 foot level,         pump station may be modified, under separate NEPA
                           which resulted in massive flooding to the east of the L-31N         documentation, if subsequent modeling and additional field
                           Canal, throughout the county.                                       operations provide evidence that additional seepage control is
DERM-2                        It is the County's position that the 2x2 Model is not sensitive  Noted. It is limited in its ability to provide details on such a
                              enough to accurately gauge groundwater flow, migration, and small scale area. However, there is currently not a model that
                              stage. We would recommend a model be run that would have can evaluate regional impacts better than the SFWMM. We
                              a finer resolution and that it be applied to our localized area, appreciate your offer of assistance in data gathering.
                              such as MODNET presently being used by the South Florida
                              Water Management District, as an example. Furthermore, the
                              County would be able to assist in data gathering , if requested,
                              for the imput of any projects ongoing that would substantially
                              affect the modeling results, i.e. drainage improvement projects
                              and county secondary canal dredging.

DERM-3                        The County would also recommend continuing the above               See previous comment.
                              model to the east, with an easterly boundary at the coast. This
                              will ensure accurate representation of potential impacts to
                              entire drainage basins.
DERM-4                        The IOP being implemented would need to be designed with           Concur. Alternative 7R was developed to address these
                              flexible deviations for responding to flood events or major        concerns.
                              storms. This would allow the South Florida Water
                              Management District to activate in a timely manner to
                              forecasted rain events and prevent severe flood impacts to
                              County residents and businesses. We recommend language
                              to be incorporated into the Plan that allows for this flexibility.

 BLF-1   Biodiversity Legal   …The Corps must include a detailed analysis…of how                  These concepts have been discussed fully in other USACE
         Foundation/Florida   structural and operational water management activities have         documents, including the 1992 "Modified Water Deliveries"
         Biodiversity         modified the pre-drainage hydrology of the                          GDM/EIS, and more recently, the C&SF Restudy.
         Project              Everglades…Without such a baseline accurate comparisons
                              would not be possible…"

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                          8                                                                            4/18/2011
                                                              List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                Comment                                   Draft Response
 Number Agency

 BLF-2                    "...One would expect a detailed discussion of the existing           The 1999 Restudy provides a comprehensive overview of
                          hydrology of the Everglades…the massive L-29 levee has cut           changes and fragmentation of SRS and the effect of levees,
                          the Slough in half…historically SRS extended further north. In       canals and structures on water flow. This recommended IOP
                          addition…the public is not told that the L-29 levee…the S-12         plan and EIS is an "Interim" plan to provide for protection of
                          structures and other levees, canals, and structures, has             CSSS nesting and other habitat, until the MWD project
                          drastically modified the flows in to Shark River Slough,             elements are complete. The purpose of the IOP plan is to
                          essentially reversed the west to east distribution of historical     improve conditions for the sparrow, avoid jeopardy and harm to
                          flows. No mention is made of abnormally high water levels at         other endangered species, and maintain at least status quo for
                          the wrong time of year... in western SRS and only briefest           other human and environmental resources. The CSOP
                 given to the...adverse effects associated with           planning process, now underway, will provide a long-term
                          lowered water levels on the eastern portions of ENP."                integration of operations of all of the structures, including the
                                                                                               full C-111 project and the full MWD project. The CERP,
                                                                                               referenced in comment response "DERM-1", will also provide
                                                                                               additional decompartmentalization benefits.

 BLF-3                    "Of additional concern is the failure of the Corps to                There was no violation of the ESA in 2000, as determined by
                          acknowledge the violation of the Endangered Species Act that         the Secretary of Interior.
                          occurred last year…"
 BLF-4                    The DIOP states that alternative model runs were compared to         The comparison was provided in more detail in the SDEIS.
                          the 1995 Base conditions. The Corps does not provide a               The No Action Alternative is ISOP 2001 since it is the most
                          justification why it did not use 1983 operations as the "no-         current authorized operation for the system.
                          action" alternative, as it did in the 1995 EA for Test 7 Phase I.

 BLF-5                    Discussion of "flooding" in the DIOP does not adequately         Flood control is one of the authorized purposes of the C&SF
                          support the Corps' claims..The Corps' operations of the C&SF     project and must be considered. While the BLF provided
                          Project have dropped-not increased-water levels in this          comments expressing doubts that flooding was and is a
                          area…it is still premature for the Corps to say that there will be
                                                                                           serious concern, we received extensive comments on the
                          "flood impacts," because the Corps fails to provide any          SDEIS concerning the potential of unmodified Alt 7 to
                          historica data or other data that would allow one to draw a validaggravate flooding east of L-31N. We concur that
                          reference as to whether an area was "flooded." If the Corps is   comprehensive modeling information is needed. This
                          going to continue to constrain management actions as a result    modeling effort, now underway in a collaborative framework,
                          of flooding comprehensive modeling information should be         will lead to a Comprehensive Structural and Operational Plan
                          included in the IOP that discussed pre-drainage conditions and   (CSOP) for MWD and C-111. However, the purpose of the
                          compares the alternative to the pre-drainage condition.          IOP plan and EIS is to develop, compare and recommend a
                                                                                           plan to avoid jeopardy for the CSSS, as determined by the
                                                                                           FWS 1999 BO and its 2002 amendment. There was not time
                                                                                           for inclusion of such comprehensive modeling in this Plan and
 BLF-6                    Storm associated flooding. We are concerned that agricultural See previous comment.The FEIS provides a discussion of just
                          interests make claims about flooding that occur on private       why it is difficult to determine the exact recurrence frequency of
                          lands as the result of hurricanes…Such results are being         conditions that lead to flooding in the area of L-31N and C-111.
                          blamed on management actions to "protect" the sparrow, and Although it is possible to predict return frequencies for
                          the Corps is not responding adequately to correct the            particular rainfall events, it is not possible to similarly predict
                          inaccurate allegations. A fundamental point is not being         antecedent groundwater or canal levels. Alt 7R is designed to
                          adequately discussed: the C&SF project is not designed to        provide enough flexibility to allow experienced water managers
                          prevent all flooding...we understand that the project was        to adjust the system in response to field conditions. The
                          designed with the...goal of being able to handle a 1 in 10 -year CSOP modeling now underway will exame the level of flood
                          storm....                                                        protection currently provided, subject to the above limitations.

  BLf-7                   The storm operations proposal (Appendix J 7-13) is not in      Noted. However, other project purposes of the C&SF project
                          keeping with the purpose of the IOP: to protect the Cape Sable must be met as long as they do not cause jeopardy to the
                          Seaside Sparrow.                                               CSSS. Storm operations are by nature of short duration and
                                                                                         would not be expected to adversely affect or compromise the
                                                                                         benefits to the CSSS.
 BLF-8                    Explain the term "hydrological equivalence" as used in the     This term is discussed in the amended BO and in the FEIS
                          DIOP.                                                          text. An action is hydrologically equivalent to an RPA action if
                                                                                         it achieves the same or nearly the same result (within the
                                                                                         limitations of modeling) in the target area, although by a
                                                                                         different route or means. One of the RPA targets was
                                                                                         rehydration of the eastern CSSS populations (eastern marl
                                                                                         prairies) by completing the MWD project, which would route
                                                                                         water directly south across Tamiami Trail into NESRS. This
                                                                                         action cannot occur until all MWD elements are built, including
                                                                                         the Tamiami Trail bridge and the flood mitigation levees, canal
                                                                                         and pump station for the 8.5 SMA. Proposed actions to bring
                                                                                         water to the eastern marl prairie areas by routing it down the L-
                                                                                         31N canal into seepage reservoirs adjacent to the eastern
                                                                                         boundary of ENP are described as "hydrologicallly equivalent."

 BLF-9                    The discussion of L-31N and L-31W canal levels and pumps        Noted. More detail is included in the SDEIS and FEIS.
                          should be expanded…a table showing changes in canal
                          levels/pump criteria from pre-1983 operations to the present
                          should be included. It appears that there are differences
                          between modeled and observed levels during Test 7, Phase I
                          operations. while the Corps proposal may raise stages during
                          the dry season, they are not raised sufficiently during the wet

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                       9                                                                            4/18/2011
                                                                  List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                    Comment                                   Draft Response
 Number Agency

 BLF-10                      Proposed actions may impact the eastern sparrow populations.          It is limited in its ability to provide details on such a small scale
                             There are concerns..pertaining to the accuracy of the SFWMM           area. However, there is currently not a model that can
                             model: there are valid concerns that the 2x2 cell resolution          evaluate regional impacts better than the SFWMM.
                             cannot accurately show the 332B retention area and local
                             gradients, and the effects of the local operation...
                             MODBRANCH modeling suggests that pumping at 332B
                             cannot possibly meet the targets for Population E; to get close,
                             Population F has to be made so to cause problems
                             with it.
 BLF-11                      The retention area…will overflow. There is not an adequate            Noted. Revised Alt 7R provides additional reservoir area, and
                             discussion of the impacts of such flows on the sparrow or on          will eliminate overflow into the Park at S-332B when fully built.
                             water quality.                                                        It is the Corps position that overflows at S-332B did not
                                                                                                   adversely affect water quality in the Park. This position is
                                                                                                   supported by water quality monitoring data collected by both
                                                                                                   the Corps and SFMWD. More detail on water quality is
                                                                                                   included in the SDEIS.
 BLF-12                      The IOP does not contain an adequate discussion of water              The water quality section has been expanded. Under
                             quality issues. The detention area can-and will-overflow. WE          recommended Alt 7R overflow will not commonly occur.
                             are concerned that the release of water from the L-31N canal
                             into th Park will result in water quality violations…

 BLF-13                      In correspondence, the Corps has stated that they may not             The S-12 structures would operate under Pre-
                             follow the IOP operational rules if the structural integrity of the   storm\Storm\Storm Recovery Operations if required by
                             S-12 structures or "public safety" are endangered. What does          conditions which could endanger public safety.
                             this mean?
 BLF-14                      Failure to include fire and vegetation management                     FWS has concurred with the Corps that the recommended
                             actions…the DIOP does not address actions to address the              alternative satisfies the BO requirements.
                             1999 BO's RPA requirements regarding vegetation
                             management and fire management.
 BLF-15                      The DIOP proposes a two-step process for implementation.              The Corps may not fully implement Mod Waters until the 8.5
                             Only in Phase II will the constraints on the operation of the S-      SMA features are ready to operate. (1989 Everglades
                             333 be lifted. This shows that the Corps can take steps to            Expansion and Protection Act).
                             increase water into NESRS, however the Corps is not taking
                             these steps.
 BLF-16                      It appears that the Corps is pre-screening FWS/NPS                    This is not so. A great deal of information and opinion is
                             documents regarding the sparrow.                                      shared on an informal basis between agencies. Alt 7R was
                                                                                                   developed in a collaborative way among USACE, SFWMD,
                                                                                                   ENP and FWS. During detailed development of the
                                                                                                   recommended alternative, near-daily telephone coordination
                                                                                                   occurred among biologists and technical experts. The
                                                                                                   requirements of the ESA are not based on public coordination,
                                                                                                   but on the "best available technical and scientific information."
                                                                                                   This information was freely shared among agencies.

 BLF-17                      The BLF and FBP submitted a petition for revision of sparrow          The FEIS and Amended Final BO address this issue.
                             critical habitat. A positive 90 day finding on this petition was
                             published in the Federal Register (July 10, 2000). The Corps
                             should include a discussion of how the proposed action would
                             affect the revised critical habitat.
 BLF-18                      The attachments and main text use different conventions for           The DEIS text was revised for the SDEIS and has been further
                             describing alternatives; also, hydrological modeling is missing       revised for the FEIS. The final recommended alternative is not
                             for Alternative 6. Many statements about the sparrow in the           based on modeling.
                             DIOP are not substantiated by the modeling graphics provided.

NRDC-1    Natural Resources We support the following substantive criticisms discussed in           Disagree. The No Action alternative is ISOP 2001. Base
          Defense Council the comments of the Biodiversity Legal Foundationand Florida             conditions (1995 Base) have been compared in the SDEIS and
                            Biodeversity Project, dated April 9, 2001. (1) The failure to          FEIS to each action alternative.
                            analyze appropriate and reasonable "base" and "no action"
                            alternatives (BLF-FBP Comments at 3)
NRDC-2                      (2) inadequate discussion and analysis of alleged flooding             Additional analysis of flooding impacts were included in the
                            impacts (BLF-FBP Comments at 3-4)                                      SDEIS and FEIS.
NRDC-3                      (3) the inappropriate inclusion in the DEIS of "storm                  Noted. The Corps disagrees that inclusion of storm operations
                            operations" (BLF-FBP Comments at 5)                                    is inappropriate. The details of these operations were
                                                                                                   considered important by the agencies involved in developing
                                                                                                   the final recommended alternative; thus they are included.
                                                                                                   More detail is included in the SDEIS and FEIS.

NRDC-4                       (4) inadequate discussion and analyses concerning the                 Noted. More detail is included in the SDEIS and FEIS. The
                             "hydrologic equivalence" of various alternatives (BLF-FBP             term is also explained in the amended BO.
                             Comments at 6)
NRDC-5                       (5) failure to adequately analyze hrdrological impactsin the          Disagree. The SFWMM model is currently the best avaailable
                             Sparrow's eastern habitat, including as a result of reliance          model to assess regional impacts.
                             upon the 2x2 model (BLF-FBP Comments at 6-7)
NRDC-6                       (6) inadequate discussion of water quality impacts (BLF-FBP           Noted. More detail is included in the SDEIS and it was carried
                             Comments at 7)                                                        forward into the FEIS. There have been no violations of the
                                                                                                   terms of the settlement agreement.

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                           10                                                                                   4/18/2011
                                                               List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                                  Comment                                  Draft Response
 Number Agency

 MFL-1   MacVicar,        Our biggest concerns are allowing a 9.0 foot state in the L-29 Noted. The SDIES and FEIS provide additional information.
         Federico & Lamb, canal under any circumstance and using S-334 to divert water
         INC,             from WCA-3A into the South Dade Conveyance System
                          (SDCS.) Under Phase 1 the L-29 canal level is allowed to go
                          to 9.0 as long as G-3273 is below 6.8 which is unlikely to occur
                          considering the hydrology, or when S-334 is passing all the
                          flow from S-333, subject only to downstream "capacity
                          constraints", which are never defined. If the capacity
                          constraints are defined to prevent the canal levels experienced
                          in 1999 there would be less concern. If not, this formula to
                          increase the duration and severity of flooding south of Tamiami
                          Trail and east of L-31N. The final EIS should provide a better
                          definition of the capacity constraints to eliminate potential
                          disputes during future wet periods. It would help is the G-211
                          structure was included in the Tables describing the operations,
                          under each scenario since this structure must pass the flow
                          through S-334 and the additional seepage into L-31N. The
                          headwater stage at G-211 has been identified as an important
                          determinant of the groundwater conditions to the east of that
                          section of L-31N.
 MFL-2                    It also appears that the proposed Phase 2 operations will          Noted. Additional alternatives were presented in the SDEIS to
                          certainly cause widespread additional flooding. To imply that      address these concerns.
                          you can hold L-29 at 9.0 feet regardless of the stage at G-3273
                          ignores the well-documented ground water connection
                          between Northest Shark River Slough and L-31N. High stages
                          in L-29 translate into high weepage volumes into L-31N that
                          either raise the water table in the west Kendall area or have to
                          be diverted to south Dade, or both. There is nothing in the IOP
                          plan that can accommodate that much extra water in the
                          SDCS. Building the 8.5 Square Mile Area levee and pump will
                          not help. In fact they will make matters worse under Phase 2.
                          With the S-357 pump transferring water to the C-111 Buffer
                          there will be no capacity left for the high seepage quanities that
                          must be shunted down L-31N. Neither the C-111 nor the
                          Modified Water Delivery Project was designed for this.

  PH-1   Pepper Hamilton    Radio One, however is concerned that the EIS failed to              The location of Radio One is within the boundaries of the ENP.
         LLP                adequately consider the impacts of the project, particularly of     Therefore, it should contact the NPS in Naples, FL to
                            the Phase II operations, on property in the study area,             determine whether this property would be acquired.
                            particulary properites within the Northeast Shark River Slough
                            ("NESRS"). Based upon a review of the anticipated increase
                            water levels in the area of the Radio One property, as
                            determined by Corps IOP project modeling (which modeling
                            appears to have failed to fully and adequately address all
                            hydrologic parameters and effects in the area), it appears that
                            the IOP project likely may result in: 1. A loss of access to
                            Radio One's property via its existing access road, at least on a
                            seasonal basis. 2. Flooding of the pads upon which its towers
                            and structures are situated at least on a seasonal basis. 3.
                            Difficulty in servicing its towers and structures during shuch
                            resulting high water conditions, and possible total loss of such
                            service during those time periods. 4. Disruption, distortion or
                            elimination of a public service to diverse segments of the
                            Miami area community, which service is not otherwise
                            available to such communities.
  PH-2                      The increase water levels likely may result in erosion damage       The hydrologic effects in this area are shown in the DEIS
                            to the road beds and tower pads, which could threaten the           Appendix H for Northeast Shark River Slough, Indicator
                            tower's structural integrity, and result in increased maintenance   Region 11, pages H29, 31, 101, and 103. The stage-duration
                            and upkeep costs, and cause an environmental sedimentation          hydrographs show no effect with Alt 5, Phase I operations, and
                            impact upon the local ecosystem if the pads and road beds are       increases of 6 inches or less during the wet seasons of wet
                            eroded.                                                             years (under Phase II). Alt 5 is no longer the recommeded
                                                                                                plan. Note that no Phase II operations are now planned under
                                                                                                the IOP. Therefore the plan is unlikely to cause significant
                                                                                                effects to the Radio One property.

  PH-3                      Radio One likely may incur significant costs to mitigate the     Noted. The SFWMM model does not provide the detail to
                            impacts, such as re-building or raising the grade of the access determine such site specific information.
                            road and the tower pads, amending its FCC license or loss of
                            value of such license, and possibly needed to reconfigure the
                            signal from its tower or, in the worst case, relocate its towers
                            altogether (assuming a suitable alternative location is even
                            available). Radio One believes that the draft EIS is flawed, and
                            that these socio-economic, economic and environmental
                            impacts and costs must be considered in the final EIS for the
                            IOP project.

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                       11                                                                         4/18/2011
                                                           List of Comments on Draft EIS
Comment Organization/                              Comment                             Draft Response
 Number Agency

  PH-4                    If such adverse impacts are not planned for and mitigated with Noted. However, the Corps does not anticipate such impacts
                          the IOP for the project, Radio One's property interest likely may with the recommended plan.
                          be significantly reduced, or completely taken in the worst case,
                          as a result of the government's actions, In such case, Radio
                          One will look to the government for appropiate compensation.

OTTED-1 Otted             no comment

   1693b917-45e7-4499-b758-a9dcdc6488a5.xls                                  12                                                                       4/18/2011

To top