October 18, 2013
Final Independent External Peer Review Report
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, General
Re-evaluation Report and Integrated Environmental
Assessment, Westside Creeks Ecosystem
Restoration, San Antonio, Texas
Prepared by
Battelle Memorial Institute
Prepared for
Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ecosystem Restoration Planning Center of Expertise
Rock Island District, Mississippi Valley Division
Contract No. W912HQ-10-D-0002
Task Order: 0046
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
Final Independent External Peer Review Report
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, General Re-evaluation
Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment, Westside Creeks
Ecosystem Restoration, San Antonio, Texas
by
Battelle
505 King Avenue
Columbus, OH 43201
for
Department of the Army
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Ecosystem Restoration Planning Center of Expertise
Rock Island District,
Mississippi Valley Division
October 18, 2013
Contract No. W912HQ-10-D-0002
Task Order: 0046
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
This page is intentionally left blank.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 i
Final Independent External Peer Review Report
for the
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, General Re-evaluation Report
and Integrated Environmental Assessment, Westside Creeks
Ecosystem Restoration, San Antonio, Texas
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY
Project Background and Purpose
The riverine habitat of the San Antonio River system within the boundaries of the San Antonio
Channel Improvement Project (SACIP) in Bexar County has been severely degraded by
development along and channelization of the riparian corridor. The SACIP has successfully
performed the single purpose of flood risk management (FRM); however, construction and
continued operations and maintenance (O&M) have had severe ecological consequences for the
riverine system along the 35-mile SACIP area that were not considered at the time of design and
construction. In 2000, the single-purpose project authorization for SACIP was modified to allow
ecosystem restoration and recreation to be added as project purposes. The modification provides
an opportunity to consider (1) the ecological losses to the riverine habitat, and (2) the impacts
those losses may have to the nation’s natural resources, including loss of stop-over habitat for
migratory and nesting birds utilizing the Central Flyway. Restoration opportunities for the
SACIP along 9 miles of the San Antonio River have already been studied and are in the final
stages of implementation. The remaining components of the SACIP under consideration for
ecosystem restoration and recreation are the four tributaries along the western side of the San
Antonio River mainstem: Alazán Creek, Apache Creek, Martinez Creek, and San Pedro Creek,
which are referred to collectively as the Westside Creeks (WSC).
The purpose of the SACIP General Re-evaluation Report and Environmental Assessment,
Westside Creeks, Ecosystem Restoration, San Antonio, Texas, is to identify measures for
restoring the riparian ecosystem within the WSC and recreation opportunities that are compatible
with the ecosystem restoration objectives. The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and
Environmental Assessment (EA) document describes the characteristics of the existing and
future without-project conditions; water-related resource problems and opportunities; planning
objectives and constraints; formulation, evaluation, and comparison of alternatives; and the
recommended plan. The SACIP GRR and EA document was initiated at the request of the San
Antonio River Authority (SARA) to evaluate the addition of ecosystem restoration and
recreation purposes to the WSC.
Changes in the hydraulic regime of the WSC over the last half-century are largely due to shifts in
urbanization, the construction of the SACIP, and required O&M practices. Historic cross
sections depict a more natural stream consisting of a baseflow channel, a wider channel, and a
large floodplain. Straightening and channelization of the WSC yielded grass-lined trapezoidal
channels, concrete banks, and an underground bypass tunnel (San Pedro). While the SACIP
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 ii
conveys flood flows more quickly out of the urban area, the channelization and required
maintenance have resulted in consequences for the riverine ecosystem along the 35 miles of the
SACIP that were not previously considered. Channelization has led to an increased bed slope and
loss of sinuosity. The result is a system where the sediment transport is out of balance; few to
none of the aquatic structures necessary to support and sustain the life cycle of aquatic organisms
native to the system remain; and the required shading and allochthonous inputs
from the riparian
corridor have been removed, severely altering the function of the historic riverine habitat.
Migratory birds using the Central Flyway have been identified as a resource of national
significance within the WSC study area. The study area lies in a critical portion of that flyway,
providing stop-over habitat, feeding and breeding grounds during crucial times of the migrations.
Measures identified for the ecosystem restoration of the WSC to a more natural condition include
the construction of riparian meadow in all areas of the creek, a pilot channel for the length of the
creek (with the exception of Apache, where only the lower 0.8 mile of pilot channel would be
restored), riparian woody vegetation at densities of 30 and 70 trees per acre (depending on
hydraulic constraints), slackwater areas for the length of the restored pilot channel, and wetlands.
Independent External Peer Review Process
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) is conducting an Independent External Peer
Review (IEPR) of the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, General Re-evaluation Report
and Integrated Environmental Assessment, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration, San
Antonio, Texas (hereinafter Westside Creeks [WSC]). As a 501(c)(3) non-profit science and
technology organization, Battelle is independent, is free from conflicts of interest (COIs), and
meets the requirements for an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) per guidance described in
USACE (2012). Battelle has experience in establishing and administering peer review panels for
USACE and was engaged to coordinate the IEPR of the WSC GRR/EA. Independent, objective
peer review is regarded as a critical element in ensuring the reliability of scientific analyses. The
IEPR was external to the agency and conducted following USACE and Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) guidance described in USACE (2012) and OMB (2004). This final report
describes the IEPR process, describes the panel members and their selection, and summarizes the
Final Panel Comments of the IEPR Panel (the Panel).
Based on the technical content of the WSC review documents and the overall scope of the
project, Battelle identified candidates for the Panel in the following key technical areas: avian
biology, hydraulic engineering, Civil Works planning, and general ecology. Four panel members
were selected for the IEPR. USACE was given the list of candidate panel members, but Battelle
made the final selection of the Panel.
The Panel received an electronic version of the 726-page WSC GRR and EA documents, along
with a charge that solicited comments on specific sections of the documents to be reviewed.
USACE prepared the charge questions following guidance provided in USACE (2012) and OMB
(2004), which were included in the draft and final Work Plans.
The USACE Project Delivery Team (PDT) briefed the Panel and Battelle during a kick-off
meeting held via teleconference prior to the start of the review to provide the Panel an
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 iii
opportunity to ask questions of USACE and clarify uncertainties. Other than Battelle-facilitated
teleconferences, there was no direct communication between the Panel and USACE during the
peer review process.
The IEPR panel members reviewed the WSC documents and individually produced review
comments in response to the charge questions. The panel members then met via teleconference
with Battelle to review key technical comments, discuss charge questions for which there were
conflicting responses, and reach agreement on the Final Panel Comments to be provided to
USACE. Each Final Panel Comment was documented using a four-part format consisting of:
(1) a comment statement; (2) the basis for the comment; (3) the significance of the comment
(high, medium, or low); and (4) recommendations on how to resolve the comment. Overall,
15 Final Panel Comments were identified and documented. Of these, 1 was identified as having
high significance, 10 had medium significance, and 4 had low significance with regard to how
the issues identified may impact the project.
Results of the Independent External Peer Review
The panel members agreed among one another on their “assessment of the adequacy and
acceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses
used” (USACE, 2012; p. D-4) in the WSC review documents. Table ES-1 lists the Final Panel
Comment statements by level of significance. The full text of the Final Panel Comments is
presented in Appendix A of this report. The following summarizes the Panel’s findings.
The Panel agreed that the WSC review documents are comprehensive, detailed, and well written
and that the WSC restoration study represents a high-quality effort to restore the riverine
ecosystem within the WSC that is clearly the result of a long and detailed study. While the Panel
deemed the report comprehensive with robust documentation in many areas, it identified areas
where additional documentation and clarification is warranted.
Avian Biology – The GRR/EA includes general references to the common fish, aquatic
vegetation, riparian vegetation, bird, and wildlife species that are present at the restoration site
and within the reference reaches, and the study appropriately uses an avian index of biotic
integrity (IBI) to compare restoration alternatives. However, a detailed characterization of faunal
assemblages other than birds and fish is not provided, limiting the ability to assess the full
impacts on the riparian ecosystem and the full benefits from restoration. This issue can be
addressed by including a detailed characterization of faunal assemblages that occur in the project
area and a description of the likely changes to these assemblages that will result from the
restoration project. In addition, no information is provided on existing invertebrate food base
resources for informing the linkage to and quality of habitat to complement the avian IBI. This
can be addressed by conducting rapid assessment inventories of the invertebrate communities
within the WSC riparian corridor and at the reference reaches to assess the relationship between
lower trophic levels and the avian IBI, and to monitor the progress of the WSC restoration
project.
Hydraulic Engineering – Under the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP), the average
creek/floodplain cross-section would have comparatively minor geometric changes; however, the
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 iv
Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic model indicates
there will be substantial reductions in water surface elevations that consequently result in
reduced valley storage within the WSC project area. Potential risks and impacts from decreased
valley storage and increased flow velocities are not described and discussed, and could result in
substantial costs increases that could potentially change the alternative selection. This primary
concern can be addressed by (1) providing a summary of the hydraulic modeling that includes
comparisons of water surface elevations, channel flow velocities, valley storage, and peak flood
flows under with-and without-project conditions, and (2) explaining how the TSP mitigates any
potential risk and impacts associated with increases or decreases to those parameters.
Civil Works Planning – The Panel found that the WSC review documents adhered closely to
USACE Civil Works planning policy and adequately assess the range of alternatives considered
for the WSC restoration study. The panel members agreed that the process for selecting
alternatives for the recommended restoration plan was thorough and well presented. The use of
the avian IBI was found to be appropriate and allowed alternatives to be evaluated in an
objective manner; however, the Panel also agreed that additional information on historical seeps
and tributaries and on community connectivity and support should be provided to further support
the alternatives selection process and to explain how the recommended restoration plan will meet
the project objectives.
General Ecology – The effects of climate change have not been fully described, which limits the
ability to assess and understand potential climate change impacts on the overall project. This can
be addressed by including a discussion of the range of potential climate change effects for flood
and drought conditions. In addition, the GRR/EA does not contain sufficient detail to explain
how monitoring and adaptive management will occur. More detail, such as metrics and
thresholds for triggering adjustment actions on the adaptive management plan, will increase the
understanding of how the plan will be implemented to ensure the success of the ecosystem
restoration. Finally, details are not provided on the conditions to which the vegetative
community within the WSC project area will be restored and the species that would benefit from
restoration. To alleviate this concern, either a full description of the vegetation assessment for the
reference reach(es) or a comprehensive list of candidate riparian restoration species of trees,
shrubs, and herbaceous plants used at San Antonio River restoration sites should be included in
the GRR/EA.
Table ES-1. Overview of 15 Final Panel Comments Identified by the Westside Creeks
IEPR Panel
No. Final Panel Comment
Significance – High
1
Potential risks and impacts from decreased valley storage and increased flow
velocities are not described and discussed and could result in substantial cost
increases that may not be uniform across the alternatives.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 v
Table ES-1. Overview of 15 Final Panel Comments Identified by the Westside Creeks
IEPR Panel (continued)
No. Final Panel Comment
Significance – Medium
2
The effects of climate change on future river flow, flood, and drought conditions are
not discussed in sufficient detail to understand the potential future impacts to the
Westside Creeks (WSC) restoration area.
3
Details are not provided on the conditions to which the vegetative community within
the Westside Creeks (WSC) project area will be restored and the species that would
benefit from restoration.
4
It is not clear what biological resources other than birds, fish, and vegetation are
present at the Westside Creeks (WSC) restoration site and reference reaches or how
the other biological resources will be affected by the project.
5
Baseline data on existing invertebrate food base resources to complement the avian
index of biotic integrity (IBI) has not been provided.
6
There is not sufficient detail to explain how monitoring and adaptive management will
evaluate and ensure the success of the ecosystem restoration.
7
There is no discussion to explain why additional restoration opportunities within and
beyond the project right of way (ROW) are not under consideration.
8
The degree to which the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project (SACIP) has
divided communities and the degree to which community connections can be restored
is not clearly described and quantified.
9
The degree to which the community supports the proposed Westside Creeks (WSC)
Restoration Project has not been quantified.
10
Risks and impacts from the potential build-up of creek banks from sediment deposition
are not discussed.
11
Planning models and procedures only partially consider and account for potential
impacts from external factors such as urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and habitat
patch size.
Significance – Low
12
Top soil removal could help reduce the non-native seed bank but may not eliminate it,
as suggested.
13
The avian index of biotic integrity (IBI) may not be as effective for evaluating future
project benefits to wetland birds as it is for other avian species.
14
The reason for using the national average for parkland acres per capita to quantify
shortages of recreational resources in the Westside Creeks (WSC) project area is not
well explained.
15
Graphics have not been provided to depict the conceptual cross-section, plan view, or
cross-section plots, including engineered/bioengineered structures or features, for
each of the alternatives considered.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 vi
Table of Contents
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. i
1. INTRODUCTION ...................................................................................................... 1
2. PURPOSE OF THE IEPR ......................................................................................... 2
3. METHODS ................................................................................................................ 2
3.1 Planning and Schedule .................................................................................................................. 3
3.2 Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel Members .................................................................... 5
3.3 Conduct of the IEPR ...................................................................................................................... 8
3.4 Review of Individual Comments..................................................................................................... 9
3.5 IEPR Panel Teleconference ........................................................................................................... 9
3.6 Preparation of Final Panel Comments ......................................................................................... 10
4. PANEL DESCRIPTION .......................................................................................... 11
5. SUMMARY OF FINAL PANEL COMMENTS .......................................................... 18
6. REFERENCES ....................................................................................................... 22
Appendix A.Final Panel Comments on the Westside Creeks IEPR
Appendix B.Final Charge to the Independent External Peer Review Panel on the Westside Creeks
IEPR
List of Tables
Table ES-1.
Overview of 15 Final Panel Comments Identified by the Westside Creeks
IEPR Panel ........................................................................................................................ iv
Table 1.
Westside Creeks IEPR Schedule ..................................................................................... 3
Table 2.
Westside Creeks IEPR Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise ................ 12
Table 3.
Overview of 15 Final Panel Comments Identified by the Westside Creeks
IEPR Panel ....................................................................................................................... 20
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 vii
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ATR Agency Technical Review
CE/ICA Cost Effectiveness / Incremental Cost Analysis
CEQ Council on Environmental Quality
COI Conflict of Interest
DrChecks Design Review and Checking System
EC Engineer Circular
EA Environmental Assessment
EIS Environmental Impact Statement
ESA Endangered Species Act
FEMA Federal Emergency Management Agency
FRM Flood Risk Management
GRR General Re-evaluation Report
HEC-DSS Hydrologic Engineering Center-Data Storage System
HEC-HMS Hydrologic Engineering Center-Hydrologic Modeling System
HEC-RAS Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System
HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedure
HSI Habitat Suitability Index
IBI Index of Biotic Integrity
IEPR Independent External Peer Review
IWR Institute for Water Resources
NEPA National Environmental Policy Act
NRPA National Recreation and Parks Association
O&M Operations and Maintenance
OEO Outside Eligible Organization
OMB Office of Management and Budget
PDT Project Delivery Team
PIR Project Implementation Report
ROW Right of Way
SACIP San Antonio Channel Improvement Project
SAME Society for American Military Engineers
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 viii
SARA San Antonio River Authority
TSP Tentatively Selected Plan
USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers
WRDA Water Resources Development Act
WSC Westside Creeks
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 1
1. INTRODUCTION
The riverine habitat of the San Antonio River system within the boundaries of the San Antonio
Channel Improvement Project (SACIP) in Bexar County has been severely degraded by
development along and channelization of the riparian corridor. The SACIP has successfully
performed the single purpose of flood risk management (FRM); however, construction and
continued operations and maintenance (O&M) have had severe ecological consequences for the
riverine system along the 35-mile SACIP area that were not considered at the time of design and
construction. In 2000, the single-purpose project authorization for SACIP was modified to allow
ecosystem restoration and recreation to be added as project purposes. The modification provides
an opportunity to consider (1) the ecological losses to the riverine habitat, and (2) the impacts
those losses may have to the nation’s natural resources, including loss of stop-over habitat for
migratory and nesting birds utilizing the Central Flyway. Restoration opportunities for the
SACIP along 9 miles of the San Antonio River have already been studied and are in the final
stages of implementation. The remaining components of the SACIP under consideration for
ecosystem restoration and recreation are the four tributaries along the western side of the San
Antonio River mainstem: Alazán Creek, Apache Creek, Martinez Creek, and San Pedro Creek,
which are referred to collectively as the Westside Creeks (WSC).
The purpose of the SACIP General Re-evaluation Report and Environmental Assessment,
Westside Creeks, Ecosystem Restoration, San Antonio, Texas, is to identify measures for
restoring the riparian ecosystem within the WSC and recreation opportunities that are compatible
with the ecosystem restoration objectives. The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and
Environmental Assessment (EA) document describes the characteristics of the existing and
future without-project conditions; water-related resource problems and opportunities; planning
objectives and constraints; formulation, evaluation, and comparison of alternatives; and the
recommended plan. The SACIP GRR and EA document was initiated at the request of the San
Antonio River Authority (SARA) to evaluate the addition of ecosystem restoration and
recreation purposes to the WSC.
Changes in the hydraulic regime of the WSC over the last half-century are largely due to shifts in
urbanization, the construction of the SACIP, and required O&M practices. Historic cross
sections depict a more natural stream consisting of a baseflow channel, a wider channel, and a
large floodplain. Straightening and channelization of the WSC yielded grass-lined trapezoidal
channels, concrete banks, and an underground bypass tunnel (San Pedro). While the SACIP
conveys flood flows more quickly out of the urban area, the channelization and required
maintenance have resulted in consequences for the riverine ecosystem along the 35 miles of the
SACIP that were not considered previously. Channelization has led to an increased bed slope and
loss of sinuosity. The result is a system where the sediment transport is out of balance; few to
none of the aquatic structures necessary to support and sustain the life cycle of aquatic organisms
native to the system remain; and the required shading and allochthonous inputs
from the riparian
corridor have been removed, severely altering the function of the historic riverine habitat.
Migratory birds using the Central Flyway have been identified as a resource of national
significance within the WSC study area. The study area lies in a critical portion of that flyway,
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 2
providing stop-over habitat, feeding and breeding grounds during crucial times of the migrations.
Measures identified for the ecosystem restoration of the WSC to a more natural condition include
the construction of riparian meadow in all areas of the creek, a pilot channel for the length of the
creek (with the exception of Apache, where only the lower 0.8 mile of pilot channel would be
restored), riparian woody vegetation at densities of 30 and 70 trees per acre (depending on
hydraulic constraints), slackwater areas for the length of the restored pilot channel, and wetlands.
The objective of the work described here was to conduct an Independent External Peer Review
(IEPR) of the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project General Re-Evaluation Report and
Environmental Assessment Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration, San Antonio, Texas
documents (hereinafter Westside Creeks [WSC]) in accordance with procedures described in the
Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) Engineer Circular (EC) Civil
Works Review (EC 1165-2-214) (USACE, 2012) and Office of Management and Budget (OMB)
bulletin Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review (OMB, 2004). Independent,
objective peer review is regarded as a critical element in ensuring the reliability of scientific
analyses.
This final report details the IEPR process, describes the IEPR panel members and their selection,
and summarizes the Final Panel Comments of the IEPR Panel on the existing environmental,
economic, and engineering analyses contained in the WSC. The full text of the Final Panel
Comments is presented in Appendix A.
2. PURPOSE OF THE IEPR
To ensure that USACE documents are supported by the best scientific and technical information,
USACE has implemented a peer review process that uses IEPR to complement the Agency
Technical Review (ATR), as described in USACE (2012).
In general, the purpose of peer review is to strengthen the quality and credibility of the USACE
decision documents in support of its Civil Works program. IEPR provides an independent
assessment of the economic, engineering, and environmental analysis of the project study. In
particular, the IEPR addresses the technical soundness of the project study’s assumptions,
methods, analyses, and calculations and identifies the need for additional data or analyses to
make a good decision regarding implementation of alternatives and recommendations.
In this case, the IEPR of the WSC was conducted and managed using contract support from
Battelle, which is an Outside Eligible Organization (OEO) (as defined by EC No. 1165-2-214).
Battelle, a 501(c)(3) organization under the U.S. Internal Revenue Code, has experience
conducting IEPRs for USACE.
3. METHODS
This section describes the method followed in selecting the members for the IEPR Panel (the
Panel) and in planning and conducting the IEPR. The IEPR was conducted following procedures
described by USACE (2012) and in accordance with OMB (2004) guidance. Supplemental
guidance on evaluation for conflicts of interest (COIs) was obtained from the Policy on
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 3
Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts of Interest for Committees Used in the
Development of Reports (The National Academies, 2003).
3.1 Planning and Schedule
At the beginning of the Period of Performance, Battelle held a kick-off meeting with USACE to
review the preliminary/suggested schedule, discuss the IEPR process, and address any questions
regarding the scope (e.g., clarify expertise areas needed for panel members). Any revisions to
the schedule were submitted as part of the final Work Plan. In addition, 43 charge questions were
provided by USACE and included in the draft and final Work Plans. The final charge also
included general guidance for the Panel on the conduct of the peer review (provided in
Appendix B of this final report).
Table 1 presents the schedule followed in executing the IEPR. Due dates for milestones and
deliverables are based on the award/effective date of August 1, 2013. The review documents
were provided by USACE on August 16, 2013. Note that the work items listed in Task 6 occur
after the submission of this report. Battelle will enter the 15 Final Panel Comments developed
by the Panel into USACE’s Design Review and Checking System (DrChecks), a Web-based
software system for documenting and sharing comments on reports and design documents, so
that USACE can review and respond to them. USACE will provide responses (Evaluator
Responses) to the Final Panel Comments, and the Panel will respond (BackCheck Responses) to
the Evaluator Responses. All USACE and Panel responses will be documented by Battelle.
Battelle will provide USACE and the Panel a pdf printout of all DrChecks entries, through
comment closure, as a final deliverable and record of the IEPR results.
Table 1. Westside Creeks IEPR Schedule
Task Action Due Date
1
Award/Effective Date 8/1/2013
Review documents available 8/16/2013
Battelle submits draft Work Plan
a
8/23/2013
USACE provides comments on draft Work Plan 8/30/2013
Battelle submits final Work Plan
a
9/4/2013
2
Battelle requests input from USACE on the COI questionnaire 8/6/2013
USACE provides comments on COI questionnaire 8/8/2013
Battelle submits list of selected panel members
a
8/14/2013
USACE confirms the panel members have no COI 8/16/2013
Battelle completes subcontracts for panel members 8/23/2013
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 4
Table 2. Westside Creeks IEPR Schedule (continued)
Task Action Due Date
3
Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with USACE 8/8/2013
Battelle sends review documents to panel members 8/26/2013
Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with panel members 8/27/2013
Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with USACE and panel members 8/27/2013
Battelle convenes mid-review teleconference for panel members to ask
clarifying questions of USACE
9/12/2013
4
Panel members complete their individual reviews 9/18/2013
Battelle provides panel members with talking points for Panel Review
Teleconference
9/19/2013
Battelle convenes Panel Review Teleconference 9/24/2013
Battelle provides Final Panel Comment templates and instructions to panel
members
9/20/2013
Panel members provide draft Final Panel Comments to Battelle 9/30/2013
Battelle provides feedback to panel members on draft Final Panel
Comments; panel members revise Final Panel Comments
9/30-10/9/2013
Battelle finalizes Final Panel Comments 10/9/2013
5
Battelle provides Final IEPR Report to panel members for review 10/13/2013
Panel members provide comments on Final IEPR Report 10/15/2013
Battelle submits Final IEPR Report to USACE
a
10/18/2013
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 5
Table 3. Westside Creeks IEPR Schedule (continued)
Task Action Due Date
6
b
Battelle inputs Final Panel Comments to DrChecks and provides Final Panel
Comment response template to USACE
10/24/2013
Battelle convenes teleconference with USACE to review the Post-Final Panel
Comment Response Process
10/24/2013
Battelle convenes teleconference with Panel to review the Post-Final Panel
Comment Response Process (if necessary)
10/24/2013
USACE provides draft Project Delivery Team (PDT) Evaluator Responses to
Battelle
10/29/2013
Battelle provides the panel members the draft PDT Evaluator Responses 10/30/2013
Panel members provide Battelle with draft BackCheck Responses 11/4/2013
Battelle convenes teleconference with panel members to discuss draft
BackCheck Responses
11/5/2013
Battelle convenes Comment-Response Teleconference with panel members
and USACE
11/6/2013
USACE inputs final PDT Evaluator Responses to DrChecks 11/14/2013
Battelle provides final PDT Evaluator Responses to panel members 11/18/2013
Panel members provide Battelle with final BackCheck Responses 11/21/2013
Battelle inputs the panel members' final BackCheck Responses to DrChecks 11/25/2013
Battelle submits pdf printout of DrChecks project file
a
11/26/2013
Senior Leader Meeting
c
TBD
Contract End/Delivery Date 12/10/2013
a Deliverable.
b Task 6 occurs after the submission of this report.
c Participation of the IEPR Panel in the Senior Leader Meeting will require a contract cost modification
3.2 Identification and Selection of IEPR Panel Members
The candidates for the Panel were evaluated based on their technical expertise in the following
key areas: avian biology, hydraulic engineering, Civil Works planning, and ecology. These
areas correspond to the technical content of the WSC IEPR and overall scope of the WSC.
To identify candidate panel members, Battelle reviewed the credentials of the experts in
Battelle’s Peer Reviewer Database, sought recommendations from colleagues, contacted former
panel members, and conducted targeted Internet searches. Battelle evaluated these candidate
panel members in terms of their technical expertise and potential COIs. Of these candidates,
Battelle chose the most qualified individuals, confirmed their interest and availability, and
ultimately selected four experts for the final Panel.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 6
The four selected reviewers constituted the final Panel. The remaining candidates were not
proposed for a variety of reasons, including lack of availability, disclosed COIs, or lack of the
precise technical expertise required.
The candidates were screened for the following potential exclusion criteria or COIs.
1
These COI
questions were intended to serve as a means of disclosure and to better characterize a candidate’s
employment history and background. Providing a positive response to a COI screening question
did not automatically preclude a candidate from serving on the Panel. For example, participation
in previous USACE technical peer review committees and other technical review panel
experience was included as a COI screening question. A positive response to this question could
be considered a benefit.
Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm
2
in the San Antonio Channel
Improvement Project, GRR and Integrated EA, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration
San Antonio, Texas and technical appendices and related projects.
Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm
2
in ecosystem restoration
projects, notably for urban streams in Texas.
Previous and/or current involvement by you or your firm
2
in the conceptual or actual
design, construction, or O&M of any projects related to the San Antonio Channel
Improvement Project, GRR and Integrated EA, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration
San Antonio, Texas related projects.
Current employment by USACE.
Previous and/or current involvement with paid or unpaid expert testimony related to the
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, GRR and Integrated EA, Westside Creeks
Ecosystem Restoration San Antonio, Texas.
Previous and/or current employment or affiliation with the non-Federal sponsor: San
Antonio River Authority (SARA), or any of the following cooperating Federal, State,
County, local and regional agencies, environmental organizations, and interested groups:
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (USFWS) and Environmental Protection Agency (EPA)
or other river authorities in the State of Texas (for pay or pro bono).
Past, current or future interests or involvements (financial or otherwise) by you, your
spouse or children related to the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, GRR and
Integrated EA, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration San Antonio, Texas.
Current personal involvement with other USACE projects, including whether
involvement was to author any manuals or guidance documents for USACE. If yes,
1
Battelle evaluated whether scientists in universities and consulting firms that are receiving USACE-funding have sufficient
independence from USACE to be appropriate peer reviewers. See OMB (2004, p. 18), “….when a scientist is awarded a
government research grant through an investigator-initiated, peer-reviewed competition, there generally should be no question as
to that scientist's ability to offer independent scientific advice to the agency on other projects. This contrasts, for example, to a
situation in which a scientist has a consulting or contractual arrangement with the agency or office sponsoring a peer review.
Likewise, when the agency and a researcher work together (e.g., through a cooperative agreement) to design or implement a
study, there is less independence from the agency. Furthermore, if a scientist has repeatedly served as a reviewer for the same
agency, some may question whether that scientist is sufficiently independent from the agency to be employed as a peer reviewer
on agency-sponsored projects.”
2
Includes any joint ventures in which a panel member's firm is involved and if the firm serves as a prime or as a subcontractor to
a prime.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 7
provide titles of documents or description of project, dates, and location (USACE district,
division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role. Please highlight and discuss in
greater detail any projects that are specifically with the Ft. Worth District.
Previous or current involvement with the development or testing of models (e.g., HEC-
RAS) that will be used for or in support of the San Antonio Channel Improvement
Project, GRR and Integrated EA, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration San Antonio,
Texas project.
Current firm
2
involvement with other USACE projects, specifically those
projects/contracts that are with the Ft. Worth District. If yes, provide title/description,
dates, and location (USACE district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and
position/role. Please also clearly delineate the percentage of work you personally are
currently conducting for the Ft. Worth District. Please explain.
Any previous employment by the USACE as a direct employee, notably if employment
was with the Ft. Worth District. If yes, provide title/description, dates employed, and
place of employment (district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role.
Any previous employment by the USACE as a contractor (either as an individual or
through your firm
2
) within the last 10 years, notably if those projects/contracts are with
the Ft. Worth District. If yes, provide title/description, dates employed, and place of
employment (district, division, Headquarters, ERDC, etc.), and position/role.
Previous experience conducting technical peer reviews. If yes, please highlight and
discuss any technical reviews concerning ecosystem restoration and include the
client/agency and duration of review (approximate dates).
Pending, current or future financial interests in the San Antonio Channel Improvement
Project, GRR and Integrated EA, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration San Antonio,
Texas related contracts/awards from USACE.
A significant portion (i.e., greater than 50%) of personal or firm
2
revenues within the last
3 years came from USACE contracts.
A significant portion (i.e., greater than 50%) of personal or firm
2
revenues within the last
3 years from contracts with the non-federal sponsor (San Antonio River Authority
(SARA)).
Any publicly documented statement (including, for example, advocating for or
discouraging against) related to the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, GRR and
Integrated EA, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration San Antonio, Texas.
Participation in relevant prior Federal studies relevant to this project and/or the San
Antonio Channel Improvement Project, GRR and Integrated EA, Westside Creeks
Ecosystem Restoration San Antonio, Texas.
Previous and/or current participation in prior non-Federal studies relevant to this project
and/or the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, GRR and Integrated EA, Westside
Creeks Ecosystem Restoration San Antonio, Texas.
Is there any past, present or future activity, relationship or interest (financial or
otherwise) that could make it appear that you would be unable to provide unbiased
services on this project? If so, please describe:
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 8
In selecting the final members of the Panel, Battelle chose experts who best fit the expertise
areas and had no COIs. The four final reviewers were either affiliated with consulting
companies or were independent consultants. Battelle established subcontracts with the panel
members when they indicated their willingness to participate and confirmed the absence of COIs
through a signed COI form. USACE was given the list of candidate panel members, but Battelle
made the final selection of the Panel. Section 4 of this report provides names and biographical
information on the panel members.
3.3 Conduct of the IEPR
Prior to beginning their review and within two days of their subcontracts being finalized, all
members of the Panel attended a kick-off meeting via teleconference planned and facilitated by
Battelle in order to review the IEPR process, the schedule, communication procedures, and other
pertinent information for the Panel. Battelle planned and facilitated a second kick-off meeting via
teleconference during which USACE presented project details to the Panel. Before the meetings,
the IEPR Panel received an electronic version of the final charge as well as the WSC review
documents and reference materials listed below. The documents and files in bold font were
provided for review; the other documents were provided for reference or supplemental
information only.
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project, General Reevaluation Report and
Environmental Assessment (124)
Appendix A – Geomorphology (10)
Appendix B – Hydrology & Hydraulics (21)
Appendix C – Natural Resources (139)
Appendix D – CE –ICA (28)
Appendix E – Civil Engineering (27)
Appendix F – Geotechnical Assessment (152)
Appendix G – HTRW (5)
Appendix H – Cultural (4)
Appendix I – Socioeconomics (11)
Appendix J – Recreation (34)
Appendix K – Other Social Effects (32)
Appendix L – Real Estate (23)
Appendix M – Cost Analysis & Detailed Cost Estimate (18)
Appendix N – Public Communication (15)
Compiled Memorandum for Record (70)
Risk Register (13)
USACE guidance Civil Works Review, (EC 1165-2-214) dated 15 December 2012
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 9
Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
released December 16, 2004.
In addition, throughout the review period, USACE provided documents at the request of panel
members. These documents were provided to Battelle and then disseminated to the Panel as
additional information only and were not part of the official review. A list of these additional
documents requested by the Panel is provided below.
Upper San Antonio River Watershed Master Plan Draft Final Report, San Antonio River
Authority, April 2013 revision
Westside Creeks Avian IBI Model Documentation
HEC-RAS Hydraulic models
WSC Bankfull Discharges
About two-thirds of the way through the review of the WSC review documents, a teleconference
was held with USACE, the Panel, and Battelle so that USACE could answer any questions the
Panel had concerning either the review documents or the project. Prior to this teleconference,
Battelle submitted six panel member questions to USACE. USACE was able to provide
responses to five of the six questions during the teleconference. One of the panel member
questions that required additional coordination within USACE was addressed by USACE
through an email response by close of business on the day of the teleconference.
3.4 Review of Individual Comments
The Panel was instructed to address the charge questions/discussion points within a charge
question response table provided by Battelle. At the end of the review period, the Panel
produced individual comments in response to the charge questions/discussion points. Battelle
reviewed the comments to identify overall recurring themes, areas of potential conflict, and other
overall impressions. As a result of the review, Battelle summarized the individual comments
into a preliminary list of 18 overall comments and discussion points. Each panel member’s
individual comments were shared with the full Panel in a merged individual comments table.
3.5 IEPR Panel Teleconference
Battelle facilitated a 4-hour teleconference with the Panel so that the panel members could
exchange technical information. The main goal of the teleconference was to identify which
issues should be carried forward as Final Panel Comments in the Final IEPR Report and decide
which panel member would serve as the lead author for the development of each Final Panel
Comment. This information exchange ensured that the Final IEPR Report would accurately
represent the Panel’s assessment of the project, including any conflicting opinions. The Panel
engaged in a thorough discussion of the overall positive and negative comments, added any
missing issues of high-level importance to the findings, and merged any related individual
comments. In addition, Battelle confirmed each Final Panel Comment’s level of significance to
the Panel. No dissenting opinions or disagreement over issues were identified.
At the end of these discussions, the Panel identified 16 comments and discussion points that
should be brought forward as Final Panel Comments.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 10
3.6 Preparation of Final Panel Comments
Following the teleconference, Battelle prepared a summary memorandum for the Panel
documenting each Final Panel Comment (organized by level of significance). The memorandum
provided the following detailed guidance on the approach and format to be used to develop the
Final Panel Comments for the WSC IEPR:
Lead Responsibility: For each Final Panel Comment, one Panel member was identified
as the lead author responsible for coordinating the development of the Final Panel
Comment and submitting it to Battelle. Battelle modified lead assignments at the
direction of the Panel. To assist each lead in the development of the Final Panel
Comments, Battelle distributed the merged individual comments table, a summary
detailing each draft final comment statement, an example Final Panel Comment
following the four-part structure described below, and templates for the preparation of
each Final Panel Comment.
Directive to the Lead: Each lead was encouraged to communicate directly with the other
panel member as needed and to contribute to a particular Final Panel Comment. If a
significant comment was identified that was not covered by one of the original Final
Panel Comments, the appropriate lead was instructed to draft a new Final Panel
Comment.
Format for Final Panel Comments: Each Final Panel Comment was presented as part of a
four-part structure:
1. Comment Statement (succinct summary statement of concern)
2. Basis for Comment (details regarding the concern)
3. Significance (high, medium, low; see description below)
4. Recommendation(s) for Resolution (see description below).
Criteria for Significance: The following were used as criteria for assigning a significance
level to each Final Panel Comment:
1. High: Describes a fundamental problem with the project that affects the current
recommendation or justification of the project and which will affect the success of the
project in the future, if moved forward without being addressed. Comments rated as
high indicate that the Panel determined that the current methods, models, and/or
analyses contain a “showstopper” issue.
2. Medium: Affects the completeness of the report in describing the project, but will not
affect the recommendation or justification of the project. Comments rated as medium
indicate that the Panel does not have sufficient information to analyze or assess the
methods, models, or analyses.
3. Low: Affects the understanding or accuracy of the project as described in the report,
but will not affect the recommendation or justification of the project. Comments rat-
ed as low indicate that the Panel identified information (tables, figures, equations,
discussions) that was mislabeled or incorrect or data or report sections that were not
clearly described or presented.
Guidance for Developing Recommendations: The recommendation section was to
include specific actions that USACE should consider to resolve the Final Panel Comment
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 11
(e.g., suggestions on how and where to incorporate data into the analysis, how and where
to address insufficiencies, areas where additional documentation is needed).
Battelle reviewed and edited the Final Panel Comments for clarity, consistency with the
comment statement, and adherence to guidance on the Panel’s overall charge, which included
ensuring that there were no comments regarding either the appropriateness of the selected
alternative or USACE policy. It was determined that two of the original Final Panel Comments
discussed a similar issue, and the two comments were merged into one. At the end of this
process, 15 Final Panel Comments were prepared and assembled. There was no direct
communication between the Panel and USACE during the preparation of the Final Panel
Comments. The Final Panel Comments are presented in Appendix A of this report.
4. PANEL DESCRIPTION
Candidates for the Panel were identified using Battelle’s Peer Reviewer Database, targeted
Internet searches using key words (e.g., technical area, geographic region), searches of websites
of universities or other compiled expert sites, and referrals. Battelle prepared a draft list of
primary and backup candidate panel members (who were screened for availability, technical
background, and COIs), and provided it to USACE for feedback. Battelle made the final
selection of panel members.
An overview of the credentials of the final four members of the Panel and their qualifications in
relation to the technical evaluation criteria is presented in Table 2. More detailed biographical
information regarding each panel member and his area of technical expertise is presented in the
text that follows the table.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 12
Table 2. Westside Creeks IEPR Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise
Technical Criterion
Davis
O’Brien
Fobes
Southerland
AvianBiology
Minimum10yearsofdemonstratedexperiencewithprojectsinthe
southernportionoftheU.S.centralmigratoryflyway
X
Knowledgeofurbanstreamrestorationandaviancommunitylifecycle
needsastheyrelatetomigrationandbreeding.
3
X
FamiliarwithallNationalEnvironmentalPolicyAct(NEPA)Environmental
ImpactStatement(EIS)requirements
X
FamiliarwiththeEndangeredSpeciesAct(ESA) X
Participationinrelatedprofessionalsocieties X
MinimumofaM.S. orhigherinanappropriatefieldofstudy X
HydraulicEngineering
Licensedprofessionalengineerwithaminimum10yearsofexperiencein
hydrologyand/orhydraulicengineeringwithanemphasisonengineering
projectsincomplexsystems
X
Demonstratedengineeringexperiencewithanemphasisonecosystem
restorationandnaturalchanneldesign
X
Demonstratedexperiencedwithcomputersimulationofriversystems
X
MinimumofaM.S. orequivalentexperiencerelatedtohydrologyand/or
hydraulicengineering
X
3
Following the August 12, 2013, kickoff teleconference, USACE confirmed that with reference to the qualification
requirements for the avian biologist in the Performance Work Statement (Section 4, Task 2), the requirement to have
urban stream restoration experience is the least important of the required qualifications.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 13
Table 2. Westside Creeks IEPR Panel: Technical Criteria and Areas of Expertise (continued)
Technical Criterion
Davis
O’Brien
Fobes
Southerland
Davis
O’Brien
Fobes
Southe
r
land
CivilWorksPlanning
Minimum10yearsofexperienceinCivilWorksplanning
X
DemonstratedexperiencewithUSACEandriverengineeringprojects
X
DemonstratedexperiencewithlargeUSACEecosystemrestoration
projects
X
Demonstratedexperiencewith:1)ecosystemmodels,2)cost
effectiveness/incrementalcostanalysis(CE/ICA),and3)Institutefor
WaterResources(IWR)PlanningSuite
X
VeryfamiliarwithUSACEcivilworksplanningpolicies,methodologies,
standards,andprocedures.
X
M.S.degreeinrelevantfield
X
GeneralEcology
Minimum10yearsofexperiencedirectlyrelatedtowaterresource
environmentalevaluation
X
X
Extensivedemonstratedexperienceworkingwithriverineecosystems
X
X
FamiliarwithUSACEcalculationandapplicationofenvironmental
impactsandbenefits
X
X
ExperienceintheU.S.centralmigratoryflywayispreferredbutnot
required
FamiliarwithallNEPArequirements
X
X
M.S.degreeorhigherinarelatedfield
X
Craig Davis, Ph.D.
Role: Avian biology expert
Affiliation: Independent Consultant
Dr. Davis is a professor and Curator of Birds Collection at the Oklahoma State University
Department of Natural Resource Ecology and Management. Prior to his position at Oklahoma
State, he was the avian ecologist for The Platte River Whooping Crane Trust. He earned a Ph.D.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 14
in wildlife sciences from Texas Tech University and has more than 25 years of experience as an
avian biologist conducting research focused on avian ecology and on wetland and range land
habitat assessment. He teaches graduate and undergraduate courses in ornithology, wetland
wildlife ecology, wildlife management techniques, and wetland ecology and management.
Dr. Davis also teaches a class on Habitat Evaluation Procedures (HEPs) and habitat evaluation
techniques that reviews different HEP approaches as well as the development and application of
Habitat Suitability Index (HSI) Models. Dr. Davis has served as a reviewer for the Whooping
Crane HSI Model developed by U.S. Geological Survey Fort Collins Research Center.
Dr. Davis’ research has included studying shorebird ecology in the Playa Lakes Region of Texas,
and the long-term population of migrating waterfowl in the Southern Great Plains with a focus
on coastal refuges in Texas. He recently completed a study of the endangered golden-cheeked
warbler near Austin, Texas. Dr. Davis is experienced in urban wetland restoration projects that
involve assessment of wetland function using birds and plants as indicators. These projects
required knowledge of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) Environmental Impact
Statement (EIS) requirements and familiarity with the Endangered Species Act (ESA) to evaluate
riverine wetlands and river channel restoration along the Platte River with reclamation of open-
channel habitat for endangered whooping cranes, least terns, and piping plovers, as well as
reviewing EIS documents related to relicensing of dams on the Platte River. Dr. Davis has also
conducted wet meadow restoration work, an ongoing monitoring project of Oklahoma wetlands
for the Wetlands Reserve Program, and numerous avian research projects during both the
breeding and migration periods.
Dr. Davis is currently a member of the Cooper Ornithological Society, American Ornithologists'
Union, Society of Wetland Scientists, The Wildlife Society, and Wilson Ornithological Society.
He is past president of the Oklahoma Chapter of The Wildlife Society and is an associate editor
for Rangeland Ecology and Management. He also was an associate editor for Wetlands, a
consulting editor for Wildlife Monographs, and book editor for the Journal of Wildlife
Management. He served on the Technical Committee of the Platte River Cooperative Agreement
and was involved with developing monitoring protocols and providing recommendations for
habitat management for endangered and threatened birds that use the Platte River. Of Dr. Davis’
40 publications, more than 20 focused on waterbirds and wetland ecology in a wide variety of
peer-reviewed journals. Dr. Davis recently co-edited a three-volume book detailing a variety of
new Wetland Research techniques that will be published later this year. Since 2003, Dr. Davis
has served on the Playa Lakes Joint Venture Shorebird Planning Working Group.
Jim O’Brien, P.E.
Role: Hydraulic engineering
Affiliation: O’Brien Engineering, Inc.
Mr. O’Brien is Principal-in-Charge of O’Brien Engineering, Inc. He is a licensed Professional
Engineer in Texas, Oklahoma, and Utah with 35 years of focused hydrology and hydraulic
engineering experience. His experience includes complex hydraulic, hydrologic, and
hydrodynamic modeling, analysis, and design. He is involved with projects from inception
through completion, including providing quality assurance/quality control and review of
modeling and reports. His project experience includes hydraulic, hydrologic, and hydrodynamic
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 15
analyses on hundreds of tributaries, creeks, and rivers; flood control simulation on the upper
1,800 square miles of the West Fork of the Trinity River; flood evaluation on a 80,000-hectare
sub-basin of the Nile River, north of Khartoum, Sudan; and dam rehabilitations, evaluations, and
hydraulic/hydrologic modeling for breach analyses and inundation mapping on a number of
dams. He has prepared numerous flood studies and designed drainage systems. His experience
includes design for culverts, detention facilities, bridges, storm sewer systems, dams, energy
dissipaters, and channel drop structures.
Mr. O’Brien has been involved in a number of large, complex Civil Works projects with high
public and interagency interests, including a number of municipal landfills (e.g., City of
Arlington, Denton County, City of Farmers Branch); high-profile development projects; high-
hazard dam safety inspections and rehabilitations for state government, municipalities, federal
government (USACE Vicksburg District) and private entities; the 2,400-acre Valley Ranch, a
master-planned development in Irving, Texas; and many master flood and drainage studies.
Mr. O'Brien has also been involved with several ecosystem restoration and natural channel
design projects. His expert knowledge of surface water characteristics, understanding of
wetlands and other ecosystems, and extensive and detailed professional involvement with
hundreds of channel design, channel modeling, and channel modification projects demonstrate
Mr. O'Brien’s expertise with all facets of hydraulic modeling, analysis, design and mapping. His
experience includes the rehabilitation of three dams maintained by the Adjutant General's
Department for the Texas Army National Guard (Camp Maxey Dam Rehabilitations). Two of
the dams were completely rehabilitated to improve their safety, while maintaining the
environment created by the presence of the dams and their reservoirs. Work included conducting
hydrologic and hydraulic analyses and completing erosion protection on the upstream face of one
of the dams. At one dam, the lack of a defined spillway had produced an expansive mature
wetland condition. To minimize costs and preserve the wetland and its habitat, Mr. O'Brien and
his team incorporated this wetland area into the final design as a natural spillway, which
preserved the wetland hydrology while protecting against erosion. For the City of Arlington,
Texas, landfill project, hydraulic and hydrologic modeling and engineering analyses and
floodplain evaluation services were provided to pursue an amendment with Texas Commission
on Environmental Quality. The project was located in the floodplain of the West Fork of the
Trinity River, and the expansion required large valley storage mitigation. Working with the team
wetland ecologist, Mr. O'Brien and his team provided key analysis and design data to construct
multipurpose basins that address the project storage needs while establishing large wetlands and
buffer areas. Another project involved analysis and design to restore a wetland and buffer area
function that had been compromised with the construction of a golf course at the confluence of
Timber Creek with the Elm Fork of the Trinity River.
Mr. O'Brien has prepared thousands of miles of river system hydraulic modeling using a variety
of programs, notably Hydrologic Engineering Center (HEC) programs (HEC-1, HEC-2, HEC-5,
HEC-River Analysis System [RAS], HEC-Hydrologic Modeling System [HMS], HEC-Data
Storage System [DSS]), as well as other USACE programs (LRD1 and NUDULLAS). He has
reviewed models for accuracy of thousands of miles of river system hydraulics. One such recent
project was a drainage master plan for the City of Grand Prairie, Texas, the 15th largest city in
Texas, located between Dallas and Fort Worth; approximately 37% of its area is within the
floodplain. The study included developing a 3-mile hydraulic model of Arbor Creek, which has
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 16
multiple bridge and culvert crossings, two drop structures, gabion-lined channel reaches, and
various urban floodplain characteristics. Another recent project involved floodplain mapping of
nearly 1,200 river miles in Bosque County, Texas, for the Federal Emergency Management
Agency (FEMA) Map Modernization program; in addition to GIS software, HEC-RAS was used
in the analysis. For flood studies, floodplain reclamations, drainage studies, drainage
remediation, dam safety, watershed delineations, and a number of other related projects, Mr.
O’Brien has both used and reviewed USACE models on hundreds of projects, including HEC-1
(New Mart Lake Dam, Honey Creek Flood Study and Floodplain Reclamation, and City of
Garland Drainage Remediation); HEC-HMS (City of Corinth Storm Water Master Plan
Reevaluation and Update, Richland College Dam Rehabilitation, and City of Grand Prairie Arbor
Creek Master Drainage and Flood Study); and HEC-2 (May Lane Storm Drainage
Improvements, City of Corinth Storm Water Master Plan Reevaluation and Update, and Town of
Highland Park Exall and Wycliffe Avenue Dam Safety Analyses).
Mr. O'Brien has prepared hydraulic models using HEC-RAS on hundreds of projects for steady
and unsteady flow. Additionally, he regularly reviews hydraulic HEC-RAS models and has
reviewed hundreds of models during his career for projects such as the USACE Fort Worth
District Bastrop County Cedar Creek Watershed Flood Study, Texas Army National Guard
Camp Maxey Dam Rehabilitations, City of Grand Prairie Arbor Creek Drainage and Utility
Repairs, Oklahoma Parks Department Clayton Lake and Carlton Lake Dams, and FEMA Multi-
Hazard Flood Map Modernization. He has served as a guest lecturer on four separate occasions
at the University of Texas at Arlington, responsible for lesson development, presentation content,
and the presentations themselves on “Introduction to HEC-RAS” and “Modeling of Bridges and
Culverts.” During the past 10 years, Mr. O’Brien has prepared and presented numerous
hydraulic and hydrologic in-office training modules including “Hydraulics – The Correct
Modeling of Ineffective Flow,” “Hydrology – Determination of Modeling Parameters,” and
“Hydraulics – Modeling Bridges and Culverts Using HEC-RAS.”
Mr. O’Brien is an active member of the Society for American Military Engineers (SAME). He
has been heavily involved in the Dallas Post since 2002, consecutively serving in a variety of
capacities from Small Business Liaison to Membership Director to Programs Director and
ultimately President in 2012.
Tim Fobes
Role: Civil Works planning expert
Affiliation: HDR Engineering, Inc.
Mr. Fobes is an environmental scientist and project manager with HDR Engineering, Inc. He
earned a M.S. in Biology from the Missouri State University in 1995, and has a total of 19 years
of experience, including more than 13 years of experience focused on USACE Civil Works
planning, with emphasis on wetland, stream and riverine ecosystem restoration. This experience
also includes more than 15 years of NEPA documentation and Clean Water Act Section 404/401
permitting, wetland delineations, wetland and stream mitigation planning and design, endangered
species habitat assessments, and agency coordination. He has provided direct services to
USACE during this period on a variety of river engineering projects that included bioengineering
and aquatic habitat developments. For the USACE Benedictine Project Implementation Report
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 17
(PIR), he managed development of NEPA documents, resource problems, alternatives analysis,
existing conditions, impacts analysis, biological assessments, cultural resource assessments,
construction and O&M of the site, baseline habitat conditions analysis, and environmental
permitting. Proposed restoration and mitigation activities included shallow water habitat and
side channels.
Mr. Fobes’ experience with large ecosystem restoration projects for USACE includes Brush
Creek, Lake Contrary, Grand Marais, and Sand Hill Rivers 1135 Independent Technical Reviews
and several Missouri River Recovery Program projects. As project manager and lead author on
the Missouri River Recovery Program, Mr. Fobes developed 10 PIRs/EAs and one EIS, all of
which addressed site-specific and/or system-wide fish and wildlife habitat mitigation/ecosystem
restoration on the Missouri River, as well and endangered species recovery of the pallid
sturgeon. He has conducted HEP modeling; is very familiar with cost effectiveness / incremental
cost analysis (CE/ICA) and Institute for Water Resources (IWR) analysis interpretation; has
applied the USACE Civil Works engineer regulations and engineer manuals on FRM and
ecosystem restoration studies; and has quantified impacts and benefits on ecosystem restoration
projects. He has used the USACE Planning Guidance Notebook (USACE, 2000) on task orders
for the USACE Kansas City, Omaha, Tulsa, St. Louis, Detroit, and New York Districts.
Mr. Fobes has also managed and participated in several USACE Planning Assistance to States
and 905(b) Reconnaisance Studies watershed studies. For the Flood Control & Ecosystem
Restoration Reconnaissance Study Section 905(B) Report (Wears Creek Basin, Jefferson City,
Missouri), he assisted the Kansas City District with a reconnaissance study section 905(b) report
for the Brush Creek basin in Kansas City, Missouri, and Johnson County, Kansas, to evaluate the
potential federal interest in solutions to recurring flood damages, environmental degradation, and
related land and water resources needs and opportunities in the basin.
Mr. Fobes has performed nest searches in the central flyway under the Migratory Bird Treaty
Act, has an understanding of avian natural history, and has performed bird air strike hazard
analysis and monitoring around water resource developments near airports. He was Project
Manager and lead writer on several related EISs, EAs, and categorical exclusions.
Mr. Fobes is a member of SAME. He has presented several sessions at the National Conference
on Ecosystem Restoration, a large national conference focusing on the science, engineering,
planning and policy of ecosystem restoration. He also participates in HDR’s Aquatic Ecosystem
Restoration Practice Group.
Mark Southerland, Ph.D., CSE, PMP
Role: General ecology expertise
Affiliation: Versar, Inc.
Dr. Southerland is a principal ecologist and Director of Ecological Sciences and Applications
with Versar, Inc. He earned a Ph.D. in Biology (Ecology) from the University of North
Carolina-Chapel Hill in 1985, and has 32 years of research and management experience focused
on the characterization of natural systems, both terrestrial and aquatic, and their response to
environmental stress and perturbations. His specific areas of expertise include biodiversity
conservation, environmental impact assessment, ecosystem and habitat restoration, freshwater
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 18
and terrestrial monitoring programs, watershed analysis and natural resources planning,
ecological policy development, and water quality standards and criteria.
Dr. Southerland is extremely familiar with NEPA requirements. He has produced approximately
200 EAs and EISs over the past 20 years and has extensive experience in determining
appropriate impact assessment methods for projects with high public visibility. He authored the
EA and EIS for mitigating noise impacts by the U.S. Air Force and the EIS for restoration of
oysters in the Chesapeake Bay. He has also developed biological criteria for the Hudson River
Estuary to support water resources management by the New York State Department of
Environmental Conservation. He also has 10 years of experience with research and theories
relating to adaptive management of wetlands mitigation. He has established himself as a
national expert on NEPA analysis, representing the Council on Environmental Quality (CEQ)
across the country. He is frequently cited as the primary author of CEQ guidance documents on
considering biodiversity and cumulative effects under NEPA and taught the impact prediction of
ecosystems section for the CEQ-Duke University NEPA course for 10 years.
Dr. Southerland is a Certified Senior Ecologist and Project Management Professional and has
10 years of experience performing wetland delineations, developing wetland mitigation plans,
and restoring wetlands/floodplains within the floodplains of large river systems. Since 1993,
Dr. Southerland has been involved with USACE reconnaissance and feasibility studies for
environmental restoration of the Susquehanna River, Delaware River, Anacostia River, and
Barnegat Bay watersheds. These projects demonstrate his extensive experience working with
riverine ecosystems. In addition, he has served as chief consultant to the Maryland Biological
Stream Survey since 1993 and chair of the Maryland Water Monitoring Council since 2011. He
performed ICA for Barnegat Bay, New Jersey, and Wissahickon Creek, Pennsylvania, using
USACE calculation and application of environmental impacts and benefits. He has managed
stream assessments and stressor identification for U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Region 7 in Missouri, Kansas, Iowa, and Nebraska.
Dr. Southerland has participated in 19 professional organizations, including Environmental
Impact Assessment Review, National Science Foundation-Population Biology and Physiological
Ecology, SAME, and Society for Ecological Restoration. He is also an adjunct professor at
Frostburg State University, member of the Howard County Environmental Sustainability Board,
and member of Maryland Academy of Sciences’ Scientific and Educational Advisory Council.
5. SUMMARY OF FINAL PANEL COMMENTS
The panel members agreed among one another on their “assessment of the adequacy and
acceptability of the economic, engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses
used” (USACE, 2012; p. D-4) in the WSC review documents. Table 3 lists the Final Panel
Comment statements by level of significance. The full text of the Final Panel Comments is
presented in Appendix A of this report. The following summarizes the Panel’s findings.
The Panel agreed that the WSC review documents are comprehensive, detailed, and well written
and that the WSC restoration study represents a high-quality effort to restore the riverine
ecosystem within the WSC that is clearly the result of a long and detailed study. While the Panel
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 19
deemed the report comprehensive with robust documentation in many areas, it identified areas
where additional documentation and clarification is warranted.
Avian Biology – The GRR/EA includes general references to the common fish, aquatic
vegetation, riparian vegetation, bird, and wildlife species that are present at the restoration site
and within the reference reaches, and the study appropriately uses an avian index of biotic
integrity (IBI) to compare restoration alternatives. However, a detailed characterization of faunal
assemblages other than birds and fish is not provided, limiting the ability to assess the full
impacts on the riparian ecosystem and the full benefits from restoration. This issue can be
addressed by including a detailed characterization of faunal assemblages that occur in the project
area and a description of the likely changes to these assemblages that will result from the
restoration project. In addition, no information is provided on existing invertebrate food base
resources for informing the linkage to and quality of habitat to complement the avian IBI. This
can be addressed by conducting rapid assessment inventories of the invertebrate communities
within the WSC riparian corridor and at the reference reaches to assess the relationship between
lower trophic levels and the avian IBI, and to monitor the progress of the WSC restoration
project.
Hydraulic Engineering – Under the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP), the average
creek/floodplain cross-section would have comparatively minor geometric changes; however, the
Hydrologic Engineering Center-River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic model indicates
there will be substantial reductions in water surface elevations that consequently result in
reduced valley storage within the WSC project area. Potential risks and impacts from decreased
valley storage and increased flow velocities are not described and discussed, and could result in
substantial costs increases that could potentially change the alternative selection. This primary
concern can be addressed by (1) providing a summary of the hydraulic modeling that includes
comparisons of water surface elevations, channel flow velocities, valley storage, and peak flood
flows under with-and without-project conditions, and (2) explaining how the TSP mitigates any
potential risk and impacts associated with increases or decreases to those parameters.
Civil Works Planning – The Panel found that the WSC review documents adhered closely to
USACE Civil Works planning policy and adequately assess the range of alternatives considered
for the WSC restoration study. The panel members agreed that the process for selecting
alternatives for the recommended restoration plan was thorough and well presented. The use of
the avian IBI was found to be appropriate and allowed alternatives to be evaluated in an
objective manner; however, the Panel also agreed that additional information on historical seeps
and tributaries and on community connectivity and support should be provided to further support
the alternatives selection process and to explain how the recommended restoration plan will meet
the project objectives.
General Ecology – The effects of climate change have not been fully described, which limits the
ability to assess and understand potential climate change impacts on the overall project. This can
be addressed by including a discussion of the range of potential climate change effects for flood
and drought conditions. In addition, the GRR/EA does not contain sufficient detail to explain
how monitoring and adaptive management will occur. More detail, such as metrics and
thresholds for triggering adjustment actions on the adaptive management plan, will increase the
understanding of how the plan will be implemented to ensure the success of the ecosystem
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 20
restoration. Finally, details are not provided on the conditions to which the vegetative
community within the WSC project area will be restored and the species that would benefit from
restoration. To alleviate this concern, either a full description of the vegetation assessment for the
reference reach(es) or a comprehensive list of candidate riparian restoration species of trees,
shrubs, and herbaceous plants used at San Antonio River restoration sites should be included in
the GRR/EA.
Table 3. Overview of 15 Final Panel Comments Identified by the Westside Creeks
IEPR Panel
No. Final Panel Comment
Significance – High
1
Potential risks and impacts from decreased valley storage and increased flow
velocities are not described and discussed and could result in substantial cost
increases that may not be uniform across the alternatives.
Significance – Medium
2
The effects of climate change on future river flow, flood, and drought conditions are
not discussed in sufficient detail to understand the potential future impacts to the
Westside Creeks (WSC) restoration area.
3
Details are not provided on the conditions to which the vegetative community within
the Westside Creeks (WSC) project area will be restored and the species that would
benefit from restoration.
4
It is not clear what biological resources other than birds, fish, and vegetation are
present at the Westside Creeks (WSC) restoration site and reference reaches or how
the other biological resources will be affected by the project.
5
Baseline data on existing invertebrate food base resources to complement the avian
index of biotic integrity (IBI) has not been provided.
6
There is not sufficient detail to explain how monitoring and adaptive management will
evaluate and ensure the success of the ecosystem restoration.
7
There is no discussion to explain why additional restoration opportunities within and
beyond the project right of way (ROW) are not under consideration.
8
The degree to which the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project (SACIP) has
divided communities and the degree to which community connections can be restored
is not clearly described and quantified.
9
The degree to which the community supports the proposed Westside Creeks (WSC)
Restoration Project has not been quantified.
10
Risks and impacts from the potential build-up of creek banks from sediment deposition
are not discussed.
11
Planning models and procedures only partially consider and account for potential
impacts from external factors such as urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and habitat
patch size.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 21
Table 3. Overview of 15 Final Panel Comments Identified by the Westside Creeks
IEPR Panel (continued)
No. Final Panel Comment
Significance – Low
12
Top soil removal could help reduce the non-native seed bank but may not eliminate it,
as suggested.
13
The avian index of biotic integrity (IBI) may not be as effective for evaluating future
project benefits to wetland birds as it is for other avian species.
14
The reason for using the national average for parkland acres per capita to quantify
shortages of recreational resources in the Westside Creeks (WSC) project area is not
well explained.
15
Graphics have not been provided to depict the conceptual cross-section, plan view, or
cross-section plots, including engineered/bioengineered structures or features, for
each of the alternatives considered.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 22
6. REFERENCES
Albanese, G., Davis, C.A., and Compton, B.W. (2012). Spatiotemporal scaling of North Ameri-
can continental interior wetlands: implications for shorebird conservation. Landscape Ecol.
27:1465-1479.
Farmer, A.H., and Parent, A.H. (1997). Effects of the broad scale on shorebird movements at
spring migration stopovers. Condor 99:698-707.
NRPA (2013). Guidance for Parks and Recreation in Underserved Areas: A Public Health
Perspective. National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA). Available at
(http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Papers/Parks
-Rec-Underserved-Areas.pdf)
OMB (2004). Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review. Executive Office of the
President, Office of Management and Budget, Washington, D.C. Memorandum M-05-03.
December 16.
The National Academies (2003). Policy on Committee Composition and Balance and Conflicts
of Interest for Committees Used in the Development of Reports. The National Academies
(National Academy of Science, National Academy of Engineering, Institute of Medicine,
National Research Council). May 12.
USACE (2000). Planning Guidance Notebook. Department of the Army, U.S. Army Corps of
Engineers, Washington, D.C. Engineer Regulation (ER) No. 1105-2-100. April 22.
USACE (2012). Water Resources Policies and Authorities: Civil Works Review. Department of
the Army, US Army Corps of Engineers, Washington, D.C. Engineer Circular (EC) No. 1165-2-
214. December 15
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-1
APPENDIX A
Final Panel Comments
on the
Westside Creeks IEPR
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-2
This page is intentionally left blank.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-3
Final Panel Comment 1
Potential risks and impacts from decreased valley storage and increased flow
velocities are neither analyzed nor discussed and could result in substantial cost
increases that may not be uniform across the alternatives.
Basis for Comment
As part of the plan formulation process, the alternatives analysis includes an evaluation
of the net impact of the project on creek and floodplain hydraulics. Under the Tentatively
Selected Plan (TSP), the average creek/floodplain cross-section would have
comparatively minor geometric changes; however, the Hydrologic Engineering Center-
River Analysis System (HEC-RAS) hydraulic model, which was provided in response to
a request made during the mid-review call, indicates there will be substantial reductions
in water surface elevations that consequently result in reduced valley storage within the
Westside Creeks (WSC) project area. For instance, cross-section 11189 of San Pedro
Lower 2 has a decrease in water surface elevation of about 1 foot, and the cumulative
reduction in valley storage at this location is 5.5%. There are many other locations
where water surface elevations will also decrease by varying degrees. However,
downstream impacts from these changes are not accounted for because the HEC-RAS
steady-state model does not have that capability, and no other estimation of
downstream impacts is provided in the General Re-Evaluation Report (GRR) and
Environmental Assessment (EA).
The model indicates reductions in valley storage for the WSC on the order of 5%. While
a 5% reduction in valley storage may seem relatively minor, it is possible that the
reduction would result in increases in peak flows at downstream locations that may
already be subject to inundation (or are nearly so, and would become inundated during
the 1% annual chance exceedance flood as a result of the increases in peak flows). The
HEC-RAS model also indicates that there will be substantial increases in channel flow
velocity within the WSC project area (even for the higher-frequency floods) that are well
into an erosive range for most soils and natural channels (e.g. the HEC-RAS model,
provided after the mid-review teleconference, shows that channel flow velocity for San
Pedro Lower 1, cross section 8500, would increase from 10.80 to 11.48 feet per
second). The channel flow velocity increases may be tolerable if the channel is cut in
competent rock or if the TSP includes a lining capable of mitigating erosion, but this
issue is not addressed. In addition to erosion within the project area, increased flow
velocities could result in greater erosion or sediment deposition downstream,
consequently affecting base flood elevations at downstream locations in the future.
However, there could also be an immediate impact on bank stability adjacent to areas
that experience increased flow velocity, putting the properties along the WSC and
downstream at greater risk.
Since there is no hydrologic analysis accounting for the change in valley storage, there
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-4
is a risk that the TSP could result in unaccounted for increases in elevation downstream
that could increase the flood risk for more property that will be in the floodplain.
Furthermore, the increased flow velocities could result in increased channel scour, bank
collapses, sedimentation, and maintenance costs. If the WSC restoration alternatives
are designed to reduce erosion and/or loss of valley storage both within and outside of
the restoration area, there could be substantial cost increases that may or may not be
uniform across the alternatives.
Significance – High
When potential downstream impacts are considered, or when designing against erosion
and/or loss of valley storage, the resulting substantial cost increases could potentially
affect the alternative selected for the TSP.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Provide a summary of the hydraulic modeling that includes comparisons of water
surface elevations and channel flow velocities under with- and without-project
conditions.
2. Provide a summary of the hydrologic modeling that includes a comparison of
valley storage (or volume) and peak flood flows under with- and without-project
conditions.
3. Analyze and document
a. The potential risk and impacts that increased channel flow velocity could
have downstream and how the TSP mitigates those impacts.
b. The potential risk and impacts that decreased valley storage will have
downstream and how the TSP mitigates those impacts.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-5
Final Panel Comment 2
The effects of climate change on future river flow, flood, and drought conditions
are not discussed in sufficient detail to understand the potential future impacts to
the Westside Creeks (WSC) restoration area.
Basis for Comment
The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) does not
consider the effects of climate change in detail. While climate change may occur in
unpredictable ways, it is likely to have a significant effect on environmental conditions in
the project area. A range of climate change effects should be considered and discussed
with respect to both flood and drought conditions (i.e., what would be the effect of
periodic higher or lower flows on the value of the habitat restored and the benefits to the
aquatic and terrestrial resources).
Significance – Medium
The effects of climate change have not been fully described, which limits the ability to
assess and understand their impacts on the overall project.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Include a more detailed discussion of the range of potential climate change
effects for both flood and drought conditions.
2. Assess the likely impacts of higher and lower flows on the stream habitat to be
restored and any reductions in benefits to aquatic and terrestrial resources.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-6
Final Panel Comment 3
Details are not provided on the conditions to which the vegetative community
within the Westside Creeks (WSC) project area will be restored and the species
that would benefit from restoration.
Basis for Comment
Revegetation of the WSC riparian corridor with native plants (and corresponding plant
community structure) is an integral component of the restoration alternatives analyzed. It
is also important to migratory birds (food sources, nesting, etc.), which were identified as
a resource of national significance for the study. Reference reaches were identified
along Medio Creek, the Medina River, and the San Antonio River that could represent
target community conditions; however, detailed information on riparian vegetation from
studies conducted at one or more reference sites is not provided. The General Re-
evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) does provide a general
overview of the historic vegetation of the San Antonio area that includes about five
riparian tree species and indicates that those tree species, as well as two herbaceous
riparian grass species, will be included in the restoration on page 85 in the Description of
the Recommended Plan. However, having a complete plant species list from reference
reaches, to which the restoration is being benchmarked, or a complete list of historical
riparian plants would provide more information on the expected project outcome. This
information provides assurance that the project is designed to sufficiently address the
ecological objectives, as the nearby reference reaches are known to support bird
diversity and abundance. From a National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) perspective,
providing detailed information on the plant species that will be restored will also fully
explain that the alternatives considered and the Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) do not
intend to create nor maintain a mowed park-like setting in the future.
Significance – Medium
It is not possible to fully understand the restoration plan and expected outcome of the
project unless details on the vegetation species and target community are provided.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Provide a full description of the vegetation assessment for the reference
reach(es) (preferred) or a sufficient list of candidate riparian restoration species of
trees, shrubs, and herbaceous plants used at San Antonio River restoration sites.
2. Provide information on the anticipated percent tree and herbaceous coverage and
dominant species that are anticipated at year 1 following construction, year 25,
and at maturity (75 years).
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-7
Final Panel Comment 4
It is not clear what biological resources other than birds, fish, and vegetation are
present at the Westside Creeks (WSC) restoration site and reference reaches or
how the other biological resources will be affected by the project.
Basis for Comment
The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) includes
general references to the common fish, aquatic vegetation, riparian vegetation, bird, and
wildlife species that are present at the restoration site and within the reference reaches.
However, a detailed characterization of faunal assemblages other than birds and fish is
not provided, limiting the ability to assess the full impacts on the riparian ecosystem and
the full benefits from restoration. The use of a custom avian index of biotic integrity to
assess benefits and impacts of the project to migratory bird assemblages is appropriate;
however, the assumption that lower trophic levels (e.g., terrestrial and aquatic
invertebrates, amphibians, reptiles) of the riparian ecosystem being restored will
similarly benefit is not well supported.
Significance – Medium
Due to the limited information on biological resources, it is not clear how the restoration
is expected to benefit ecological assemblages other than birds, fish, and riparian
vegetation, or how successful recovery of other assemblages will be accomplished.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Include a detailed characterization of faunal assemblages other than birds and
fish (i.e., invertebrates, amphibian, reptiles, and mammals) that occur in the
project area and reference reaches.
2. Describe the likely changes to these faunal assemblages that will result from the
restoration project.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-8
Final Panel Comment 5
Baseline data on existing invertebrate food base resources to complement the
avian index of biotic integrity (IBI) has not been provided.
Basis for Comment
One of the main objectives of Westside Creeks (WSC) restoration is to provide stopover
habitat for migratory birds. The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental
Assessment (EA) emphasizes that these habitats are critical to migratory birds because
they allow the birds to replenish depleted nutrient and energy reserves by foraging on
insects, seeds, and fruits. Because of the importance of these habitats to migratory
birds, an avian IBI was developed and then applied as a metric in order to compare no
action against alternative restoration project scenarios. One rationale for using the avian
community as an ecological metric for comparison of restoration options is that migratory
birds represent the highest trophic levels in the riparian ecosystem; therefore, they
provide linkage to lower trophic levels within the ecosystem and, ultimately, represent
overall ecosystem health. The Panel agrees with this logic, but it also believes that
without conducting a cursory assessment of lower-trophic organisms (e.g.,
invertebrates), sole reliance on the avian IBI to assess habitat quality may be
misleading. Without any baseline information on the existing lower-trophic-level
invertebrate community composition and abundances within the WSC riparian corridor
and at selected reference reaches, it will be difficult to (1) effectively determine habitat
quality for migratory birds, and (2) conclude that the high value metrics of the avian IBI
equates to excellent habitat quality (including abundant and diverse invertebrate food
resources).
Significance – Medium
Inclusion of baseline data on invertebrate community structure will better inform the
linkage between the avian IBI metrics and habitat quality, which includes food resources
for migratory birds.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Conduct rapid assessment inventories of the invertebrate communities within the
WSC riparian corridor and at the reference reaches to assess the relationship
between lower trophic levels and the avian IBI.
2. Include rapid assessment inventory of the invertebrate community as a tool for
monitoring the progress of the WSC restoration project.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-9
Final Panel Comment 6
There is not sufficient detail to explain how monitoring and adaptive management
will evaluate and ensure the success of the ecosystem restoration.
Basis for Comment
The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) states
that the project will take an adaptive management approach to ensure successful
restoration of the riparian corridor. This approach is necessary for adjusting to inevitable
changes in conditions, and the Panel concurs with this approach. In particular, the
success of the riparian plantings will depend on weather and other local conditions.
However, the GRR/EA does not contain sufficient detail to explain how monitoring and
adaptive management will occur. In particular, specific metrics for evaluating restoration
success or thresholds that would trigger adaptive management are not provided. These
metrics or thresholds are needed to evaluate the likely success of the project.
Significance – Medium
More detail on the adaptive management plan will increase the understanding of how it
will be implemented to ensure the success of the ecosystem restoration.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Expand on the existing adaptive management plan by including metrics and
thresholds for triggering adjustment actions.
2. Explain the specific adjustment actions that will be implemented when each
threshold is reached.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-10
Final Panel Comment 7
There is no discussion to explain why additional restoration opportunities within
and beyond the project right of way (ROW) are not under consideration.
Basis for Comment
The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA)
proposes specific channel and riparian restoration that will undoubtedly provide
significant benefits to ecological resources, including migratory birds which are a
resource of national significance. In fact, the GRR/EA makes a strong case that this
restoration project is especially important and should be as ambitious as possible.
However, there is no clear explanation for why the project is not expanded within and
outside the current ROW, leveraging relationships with local entities where the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) does not have jurisdiction. In particular, restoring the
historical seeps and small tributaries to the main channel would greatly benefit the
restoration, but the GRR/EA does not explain why expanded restoration is not under
consideration or, at a minimum, why such expansion is not possible.
Significance – Medium
Unless the reasons for not expanding restoration are explained, it is unclear whether the
maximum benefit is being achieved or what additional restoration opportunities are
available for local partners.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Describe potential options to expand restoration efforts within and beyond the
project ROW, or identify the limitations that prevent this expansion.
2. Describe the location of historical seeps and small tributaries to the main channel,
currently within and outside the ROW that were considered in this analysis.
3. Evaluate the relationships with local partners that could be used to expand the
benefits of the project through additional restoration activities.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-11
Final Panel Comment 8
The degree to which the San Antonio Channel Improvement Project (SACIP) has
divided communities and the degree to which community connections can be
restored is not clearly described and quantified.
Basis for Comment
Community connectivity through recreation is an objective of the Westside Creeks
(WSC) project (page 29 of the General Re-evaluation Report [GRR] and Environmental
Assessment [EA]), but there is no measurable element assigned to that objective. There
are several locations in the GRR/EA and supporting appendices where the current
conditions of the channelized WSC is reported to cause physical and psychological
disconnection of people, communities, and community resources (e.g., parks). For
example, Appendix K, page K2, states that the current condition of the channelized
creeks has caused the community to be
“…physically and psychologically disconnected from other communities
and community amenities as well as from the creeks. The outcome of
multiple impediments that prevent individuals or groups from participating
fully in the social and environmental life of the society in which they live is
key to the communities’ perspective of their social exclusion. This concept
characterizes a form of social disadvantage or obstruction from
environmental resources.”
However, no analysis has been conducted to quantify how the SACIP has resulted in the
disconnection of communities, and there is no basis, such as social science peer-
reviewed literature citations, to substantiate this statement.
The current condition of the channel does not appear to be the root cause for “physical”
disconnection of people, communities, and community resources from each other.
Rather, it appears that low-water crossings, bridges, and trails that existed prior to the
SACIP were removed, and their removal is the root cause of physical disconnection.
This conclusion is based on the observation that there are many dead-end streets along
the creeks that potentially were once connected. The GRR/EA (including Appendix K)
does not discuss (1) the number of crossings and trails that were removed during the
SACIP, (2) the ways that the local communities used these crossings and trails, or
(3) the number of crossings and trails that currently exist compared to what existed prior
to the SACIP.
Appendix K, page K2, of the GRR/EA indicates that during public workshops
spearheaded by the San Antonio River Authority,
“…the communities reflected on the unique and rich history of Westside
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-12
Creeks prior to the channelization when the creeks were known for
swimming, fishing, a source for community gathering, enjoyment, and
relaxation.”
However, there is no quantitative evaluation or discussion of how people from the local
communities currently feel about the various disconnection issues. The local sponsors
intend to nearly maximize the federal cost-share benefit for community connectivity
through recreation. As such, there is a significant amount of potential federal investment
(about 9% of total project value) in recreational features. That potential investment is not
well validated because the GRR/EA (including Appendix K) has not quantified (1) the
percentage of the population that agrees that social benefits will derive from the WSC
project, or (2) what WSC project features would benefit them most.
Significance – Medium
Without quantitative analysis of actual (versus perceived) community disconnection, it is
difficult to assess the cause of any disconnection and the degree to which it has
occurred.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Quantify the goal of community connectivity through recreation opportunities (for
example, by indicating the number of pedestrian bridges that will be constructed
per mile of stream).
2. Quantify the number of lost low-water, bridge, or trail connections that existed pri-
or to the SACIP channelization to document the loss of more proximate and more
numerous physical connections.
3. Reference (1) peer-reviewed social science research that can corroborate the
degree to which psychological disconnection and social exclusion/disadvantage
or obstruction from environmental resources has occurred, and/or (2) quantitative
community survey data to gauge these social issues.
4. Quantify the comments received regarding community disconnection provided at
various public meetings.
5. Explain how people, communities, and community resources will reconnect with
the addition of eight pedestrian trail bridges across the WSC channels at various
locations.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-13
Final Panel Comment 9
The degree to which the community supports the proposed Westside Creeks
(WSC) Restoration Project has not been quantified.
Basis for Comment
Community support and “buy in” to the WSC Restoration Project is critical for the project
to be successful. During the planning stages of the WSC Restoration Project, two
scoping meetings with the affected community were held to ascertain their concerns
about the project. It would be helpful if the community’s concerns, as well as the level of
support, for WSC restoration were further clarified and included in the General Re-
evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA). Members of the
community may generally support the project, but they may not be aware of, and
consequently not concerned about, unforeseen aspects of the project as construction
begins and later after the project has been completed. For example, members of a
community may not realize that the habitat along the creek will be maintained in a more
natural state rather than a manicured, park-like state. This may not be in accordance
with local residents’ aesthetic preferences. An understanding of the local community’s
values and perceptions may provide the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and
the San Antonio River Authority (SARA) a different perspective and understanding of the
issues that may affect project success.
Significance – Medium
Without understanding the community’s concerns about current and future impacts from
the WSC project, the analysis of alternatives is incomplete and USACE and the SARA
may be less prepared to circumvent potential issues in the future and assure long-term
success of the project.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Clarify and summarize, to the extent possible, the local community’s attitudes
toward and perceptions of WSC restoration. Specifically, explain in more detail
the community’s concerns and level of support.
2. If such information is not available, consider conducting a more formalized survey
of the community.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-14
Final Panel Comment 10
Risks and impacts from the potential build-up of creek banks from sediment
deposition are not discussed.
Basis for Comment
One of the risks that is not addressed in the General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and
Environmental Assessment (EA) is the potential long-term, gradual build-up of
sediments on restored (native vegetated) channel banks. This build-up could reduce the
future hydraulic capacity of the Westside Creeks (WSC) to the extent that it could
potentially lead to increased localized flooding and result in flood damage impacts to
structures (residential and business). Information has not been provided on sediment
deposition rates that could be used to determine the timeframe in which sediment
accumulation is significant enough to potentially reduce the hydraulic capacity. The
Panel does not believe that extensive sediment transport does or will occur in the WSC
channels due to extensive impervious cover (a process that could result in a limited
watershed sediment source, an anticipated “fixed in place” future channel that does not
erode or meander, and slight increases in flood velocities); nevertheless the banks of the
flood control channel are still the effective floodplain for sediment deposition. Although
the pilot channels being proposed are to carry the bank full channel-forming events that
normally transport most of a stream’s sediment load, other flood control channel projects
have experienced long-term gradual sediment deposition and build-up that have altered
the hydraulic cross-sectional area within the “bank full” zone. One of the panel members
has observed that stream confluence and inner channel bend areas on the Blue River
Channel Modification Project, a U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE)-constructed
flood control channel in Kansas City, are susceptible to build-up.
Despite the positive aspects of channel banks acting as a filter, the localized flooding
risks at WSC may increase if the hydraulic cross-sectional area changes significantly (in
some areas, enough to cause a rise condition) because the design capacity of the San
Antonio Channel Improvement Project (SACIP) has been reduced. To mitigate changes
in hydraulic cross-sections, it may be necessary to periodically excavate sediment build-
up from select channel banks, which in turn could impact and damage established native
vegetation communities temporarily or permanently. The other risk and potential impact
of accumulated sediment build-up on channel banks is that established species may get
smothered by sediment and that, gradually, early successional native and non-native
plants will be transported in by water, air, or animals and replace those established
native plant communities.
Finally, sediment build-up that must be maintained by the local sponsor is not discussed
on GRR/EA pages 96-97 under “Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement,
Rehabilitation (OMRR&R).”
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-15
Significance – Medium
Unless the potential for long-term sediment deposition and build-up is understood and
managed, flood risks could increase, resulting in more localized flooding impacts of
residential and business structures, as well as restored riparian vegetation, because
design capacity has been reduced.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Discuss the risks and impacts from sediment deposition and build-up over time to
structures in the floodplain and the restored riparian ecosystem, including what is
known about sediment deposition rates, how flood risks may increase over the
long term, and the timeframe within which increased risks may be observed.
2. Describe the local sponsor operations and maintenance (O&M) requirements that
would be used to address these risks, such as minor excavation to remove
accumulations and reseeding/replanting.
3. Build an engineered level of safety into the design, by slightly enlarging the
channel cross-section to increase the hydraulic capacity, to account for sediment
deposition on channel banks overall, which may reduce or eliminate local sponsor
maintenance of accumulated sediments and eliminate any potential risks and/or
impacts from sediment build-up on channel banks.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-16
Final Panel Comment 11
Planning models and procedures only partially consider and account for potential
impacts from external factors such as urbanization, habitat fragmentation, and
habitat patch size.
Basis for Comment
Several factors besides the quality and quantity of restored habitat could limit the
success of the ecosystem restoration. A heavily urbanized area such as that for the
Westside Creeks (WSC) project may affect bird use of the restoration area. The avian
index of biotic integrity attempts to consider the impact of the surrounding area (e.g.,
percent development within a certain distance from the habitat), but this still may not
completely address the impact of the surrounding urbanized environment, particularly on
migratory bird use. Many migratory bird species are influenced by (1) habitat patch size
(i.e., they may not use areas that are below a certain size threshold), (2) amount of
habitat fragmentation, and/or (3) the amount of disturbance to the surrounding
landscape. These types of issues may prevent certain avian species, and possibly other
taxa, from using a site. Based on the bird survey data that were collected from the
reference reach, it appears that a diverse avian community can be attracted to these
riparian habitats, demonstrating that the WSC restoration project may provide important
stopover habitat for Neotropical migrants. However, other limiting factors besides the
quality and quantity of the restored habitat may also impact avian use of the habitat. For
the most part, these external factors cannot be mediated, but they do need to be
identified and discussed because they could affect the success of the restoration project.
Significance – Medium
The potential influence of external factors on habitat use of the WSC project area by
Neotropical migrants and other species must be understood in order to fully realize the
risks and uncertainty associated with meeting project goals.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Discuss the potential impacts from external factors such as habitat fragmentation,
habitat patch size, and landscape disturbance, and describe how these factors
could affect the success of the project.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-17
Final Panel Comment 12
Top soil removal could help reduce the non-native seed bank but may not
eliminate it, as suggested.
Basis for Comment
There are multiple statements throughout the General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and
Environmental Assessment (EA) that reports removing the top six inches of topsoil will
“remove” or “eliminate” the weed seed bank as first cited on pages 60 and 67. Over
time, non-native seed will migrate down through cracks in the soil. During construction of
the Westside Creeks (WSC) project, non-native seed will invariably be transported on
newly exposed soil by wind, water, or animals. Therefore, although removal of the top
six inches of soil may significantly reduce the non-native seed bank (as this is where the
greatest density of seed occurs), it is unlikely that non-native species will be eliminated.
In addition, invasive plant species are a pervasive problem that should be acknowledged
as an on-going restoration problem that will have to be dealt with during construction,
vegetation establishment, and operations.
Significance – Low
The statement that removal of the top six inches of soil will “eliminate” non-native
species may be misleading and give the impression that the effort to manage invasive
species may be minimal.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Replace the word “eliminate”, when referring to the non-native seed bank, with
“reduce” or another more representative word.
2. Acknowledge that invasive species are an ongoing restoration problem that will
have to be dealt with, and indicate how performance standards referenced in
Appendix C will be met.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-18
Literature Cited:
Albanese, G., Davis, C. A., and Compton, B. W. (2012). Spatiotemporal scaling of North
American continental interior wetlands: implications for shorebird conservation. Land-
scape Ecol. 27:1465-1479.
Farmer, A.H., and Parent, A.H. (1997). Effects of the broad scale on shorebird
movements at spring migration stopovers. Condor 99:698-707.
Final Panel Comment 13
The avian index of biotic integrity (IBI) may not be as effective for evaluating
future project benefits to wetland birds as it is for other avian species.
Basis for Comment
The General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA)
discusses the importance of the Westside Creeks (WSC) project in providing habitat for
birds that depend on wetlands (i.e., waterfowl, shorebirds, and wading birds). Although
avian surveys of the reference site did report that some of these species occur at the
reference site, wetland-dependent birds did not exhibit a strong correlation with IBI
metrics and therefore were not used in the final IBI assessment. That does not mean
that the avian IBI is flawed, and the Panel does not see this as a major concern because
it is unlikely that shorebirds will use the restored riparian habitats in great numbers.
However, this limitation should be recognized when assessing the alternative plans and
assessing habitat quality of the WSC project. One of the main drivers for shorebird use
of aquatic habitat is the amount of wetland habitat surrounding a site. Specifically,
shorebirds are more likely to use a site if it occurs in a complex of wetlands (Farmer and
Parent, 1997; Albanese et al., 2012). The riparian habitat that will be created through the
WSC project will be of importance to Neotropical migrant songbirds, but it may not be as
important for wetland-dependent birds.
Significance – Low
Because the GRR/EA emphasizes the importance of the WSC project in providing
habitat for wetland birds, the weak correlation of reference site wetland birds with IBI
metrics could be misconstrued as the inability of the IBI to predict change in habitat
quantity and quality.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Explain why the IBI did not work well for wetland-dependent birds (particularly
shorebirds).
2. Clarify and, if appropriate, downplay the importance of the WSC project in
providing habitat for wetland-dependent birds, particularly shorebirds.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-19
Literature Cited:
NRPA (2013). Guidance for Parks and Recreation in Underserved Areas: A Public
Health Perspective. National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA). Available at
(http://www.nrpa.org/uploadedFiles/nrpa.org/Publications_and_Research/Research/Pap
ers/Parks-Rec-Underserved-Areas.pdf)
Final Panel Comment 14
The reason for using the national average for parkland acres per capita to quantify
shortages of recreational resources in the Westside Creeks (WSC) project area is
not well explained.
Basis for Comment
Providing recreational opportunities is an important objective of the WSC project.
Typically, nationally recommended guidelines are used to assess current and planned
recreational resources and opportunities. However, for the WSC project, the national
parkland acreage average of 16 acres per capita is compared to that in the West
Subarea (the location of the WSC project) 2005 data, resulting in apparent recreational
acreage shortage of 2,787 in the WSC study area. Although this may be a suitable
comparison, it doesn’t reflect national per capita recreational planning guidance, which
would provide a more objective technical comparison of existing and proposed
recreation acreage in the WSC area. National Recreation and Parks Association (NRPA)
guidance (NRPA, 2013) indicates 6 to 19 acres per capita as a national guideline based
on the studies conducted across the United States. Reductions or increases in the
recreational acreage shortage reported for the WSC area in the GRR could result by
using the NRPA national guideline.
Significance – Low
The approach to assessing shortages of recreational resources may not seem objective
if use of the national average as a benchmark instead of the NRPA national acreage per
capita range guidelines is not explained.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Briefly explain how the national average for parkland acres per capita was
determined and why it was used for the assessment.
2. Evaluate parkland acres per capita shortages in the WSC project area using
NRPA guidance and report for comparison.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 A-20
Final Panel Comment 15
Graphics have not been provided to depict the conceptual cross-section, plan
view, or cross-section plots, including engineered/bioengineered structures or
features, for each of the alternatives considered.
Basis for Comment
The conceptual design for each alternative considered for the Westside Creeks (WSC)
restoration project include many types of engineered/bioengineered structures such as
vegetation, pilot channels, pools, riffles, and slackwater that can be utilized for natural
stream design. These details bear significantly on the effectiveness of the project for
ecological restoration, erosion and flood impacts. The descriptions in the General Re-
Evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA) do not adequately
convey the type and extent of proposed geometry changes or the key areas for specific
plantings. Furthermore, no graphics were provided for the proposed structures or
features (e.g., pools, riffles, and slackwater). Inclusion of these graphics and more
detailed descriptions of the stream restoration designs would more clearly demonstrate
what the full range of all the project design features would look like. The limited graphics
provided suggest that rock vanes as the main feature. Lastly, typical and specific cross-
section plots from hydraulic models can be used to show proposed changes in channel
geometry and loss parameters.
Significance – Low
Graphics and a more detailed description of all project aquatic design features would
improve documentation of the project design. Cross-section plots will significantly
enhance the understanding of the project.
Recommendations for Resolution
1. Include graphics and more detailed descriptions for the all the cited
engineered/bioengineered structures/features mentioned plus any additional
structures/features.
2. Provide typical cross-sections of the channel, floodplain and proposed vegetation
to convey general concepts and objectives presented in the GRR/EA and
illustrate geometric constraints such as crossings or houses.
3. Provide plotted comparisons of specific hydraulic model cross-sections to
demonstrate proposed geometry and justify selected model loss parameters.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-1
APPENDIX B
Final Charge to the Independent External Peer Review Panel
as Submitted to USACE on September 4, 2013
on the
Westside Creeks IEPR
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-2
This page is intentionally left blank.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-3
Charge Questions and Guidance to the Panel Members
for the
Independent External Peer Review of the
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project
General Re-Evaluation Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment
Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration
San Antonio, Texas
BACKGROUND
The riverine habitat of the San Antonio River system within the boundaries of the San Antonio Channel
Improvement Project (SACIP) in Bexar County has been severely degraded. The SACIP has successfully
performed the single purpose of Flood Risk Management (FRM); however, construction and continued
operations and maintenance have had severe ecological consequences for the riverine system along the 35
mile SACIP that were not considered at the time of design and construction. In 2000, the single purpose
project authorization for SACIP was modified to allow ecosystem restoration and recreation to be added
as project purposes, thereby providing an opportunity to consider the ecological losses to the riverine
habitat and the impacts those losses may have to the Nation’s natural resources including loss of stop-over
habitat for migratory and nesting birds utilizing the Central Flyway. Restoration opportunities for the
SACIP along nine miles of the San Antonio River have already been studied and are in the final stages of
implementation. The remaining components of the SACIP under consideration for ecosystem restoration
and recreation are the four tributaries along the western side of the San Antonio River mainstem. These
four tributaries are Alazán Creek, Apache Creek, Martinez Creek, and San Pedro Creek, and are referred
to collectively as the Westside Creeks (WSC).
The purpose of the SACIP General Re-evaluation Report (GRR) and Environmental Assessment (EA),
Westside Creeks (WSC), Ecosystem Restoration, San Antonio, Texas, is to identify ecosystem restoration
measures to restore the riverine ecosystem within the WSC that is severely degraded due to the
construction and continuing maintenance of the authorized and constructed SACIP and identify recreation
opportunities that are compatible with the ecosystem restoration objectives. The GRR and integrated EA
describe the characteristics of the existing and future without project conditions, water related resource
problems and opportunities, planning objectives and constraints, formulation, evaluation, and comparison
of alternatives, and identifies a recommended plan. The SACIP was authorized under the Flood Control
Act of 1954, Section 203, as part of a comprehensive plan for Flood Risk Management (FRM) in the
Guadalupe and San Antonio River Basins. The authorization was modified in the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 1976, Section 103, and WRDA 2000, Section 335. The modifications
added ecosystem restoration and recreation as authorized purposes. The SACIP, GRR and EA was
initiated at the request of the San Antonio River Authority (SARA) to evaluate the addition of ecosystem
restoration and recreation purposes to the WSC. The Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement for the study
was executed on February 25, 2012. The WSC study area encompasses those portions of Martinez Creek,
Alazán Creek, Apache Creek, and San Pedro Creek within the originally constructed SACIP footprint.
These creeks, collectively known as the WSC, are located west of the San Antonio River on the west side
of San Antonio.
Changes in the hydraulic regime of the WSC over the last half-century are largely due to shifts in
urbanization, the construction of the SACIP, and required operation and maintenance practices. Historic
cross sections depict a more natural stream, consisting of a baseflow channel, a wider channel and a large
floodplain. Straightening and channelization of the WSC yielded grass-lined trapezoidal channels,
concrete banks, and an underground bypass tunnel (San Pedro). While the SACIP conveys flood flows
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-4
more quickly out of the urban area, the channelization and required maintenance have resulted in
unconsidered consequences for the riverine ecosystem along the 35 miles of the SACIP. Channelization
has led to an increased bed slope and loss of sinuosity. The result is a system where the sediment
transport is out of balance, few to none of the aquatic structures necessary to support and sustain the life
cycle of aquatic organisms native to the system remain, and the required shading and allochthonous inputs
from the riparian corridor have been removed, severely altering the function of the historic riverine
habitat.
The Resource of National Significance for the study has been identified as migratory birds using the
Central Flyway. The study area lies in a critical portion of that flyway, providing stop over habitat,
feeding and breeding grounds during crucial times of the migrations. Measures identified for the
ecosystem restoration of the WSC to a more natural condition include riparian meadow (RM) in all areas
of the creek, pilot channel (PC) for the length of the creek (with the exception of Apache where only the
lower 0.8 miles of pilot channel would be restored), riparian woody vegetation (RWV) at densities of 30-
and 70-trees per acre depending on hydraulic constraints, slackwater (SW) areas for the length of the
restored pilot channel, and wetlands (WL).
OBJECTIVES
The objective of this work is to conduct an independent external peer review (IEPR) of the San
Antonio Channel Improvement Project, General Re-Evaluation Report and Integrated
Environmental Assessment, Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration, San Antonio, Texas
(hereinafter: Westside Creeks IEPR) in accordance with the Department of the Army, USACE,
Water Resources Policies and Authorities’ Civil Works Review (EC 1165-2-214, dated December
15, 2012), and the Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for
Peer Review (December 16, 2004).
Peer review is one of the important procedures used to ensure that the quality of published
information meets the standards of the scientific and technical community. Peer review typically
evaluates the clarity of hypotheses, validity of the research design, quality of data collection
procedures, robustness of the methods employed, appropriateness of the methods for the
hypotheses being tested, extent to which the conclusions follow from the analysis, and strengths
and limitations of the overall product.
The purpose of the IEPR is to assess the “adequacy and acceptability of the economic,
engineering, and environmental methods, models, and analyses used” (EC 1165-2-214; p. D-
4) for the Westside Creeks documents. The IEPR will be limited to technical review and will not
involve policy review. The IEPR will be conducted by subject matter experts (i.e., IEPR panel
members) with extensive experience in avian biology, hydraulic engineering, Civil Works
planning, and general ecology issues relevant to the project. They will also have experience
applying their subject matter expertise to ecosystem restoration.
The Panel will be “charged” with responding to specific technical questions as well as providing
a broad technical evaluation of the overall project. Per EC 1165-2-214, Appendix D, review
panels should identify, explain, and comment upon assumptions that underlie all the analyses, as
well as evaluate the soundness of models, surveys, investigations, and methods. Review panels
should be able to evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-5
analysis are reasonable. Reviews should focus on assumptions, data, methods, and models. The
panel members may offer their opinions as to whether there are sufficient analyses upon which to
base a recommendation.
DOCUMENTS PROVIDED
The following is a list of documents, supporting information, and reference materials that will be
provided for the review.
Documents for Review
The following documents are to be reviewed by designated discipline:
Documents for Reference
USACE guidance Civil Works Review, (EC 1165-2-214, December 15, 2012)
Title
Approx.No.
ofPages
RequiredDisciplines
SanAntonioChannelImprovementProject,General
Re‐evaluationReportandEnvironmentalAssessment
124 AllDisciplines
AppendixA–Geomorphology 10 HydraulicEngineer
AppendixB–Hydrology&Hydraulics 21 HydraulicEngineer
AppendixC–NaturalResources 139
AvianBiologist,CivilWorks
Planner,GeneralEcologist
AppendixD–CE–ICA 28
HydraulicEngineer&Civil
WorksPlanner
AppendixE–CivilEngineering 27
HydraulicEngineer&Civil
WorksPlanner
AppendixF–GeotechnicalAssessment 152 HydraulicEngineer
AppendixG‐HTRW 5 AllDisciplines
AppendixH‐Cultural 4 AllDisciplines
AppendixI‐So cioeconomics 11 CivilWorksPlanner
AppendixJ‐Recreation 34
AvianBiologist,CivilWorks
Planner,GeneralEcologist
AppendixK–OtherSocialEffects 32 CivilWorksPlanner
AppendixL–RealEstate 23 CivilWorksPlanner
AppendixM–CostAnalysis &DetailedCostEstimate 18 AllDisciplines
AppendixN–Public Comm unication 15 AllDisciplines
CompiledMemorandumforRecord 70 AllDisciplines
RiskRegister 13 AllDisciplines
TotalPageCount 726
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-6
Office of Management and Budget’s Final Information Quality Bulletin for Peer Review
(December 16, 2004).
SCHEDULE
This draft schedule is based on the August 16, 2013 receipt of the final review documents. The
schedule will be revised upon receipt of final review documents.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-7
Task Action Due Date
Conduct Peer
Review
Battelle sends review documents to panel members 8/26/2013
Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with panel members 8/27/2013
Battelle convenes kick-off meeting with USACE and panel members 8/29/2013
Battelle convenes mid-review teleconference for panel members to ask
clarifying questions of USACE
9/12/2013
Panel members complete their individual reviews 9/18/2013
Prepare Final
Panel
Comments and
Final IEPR
Report
Battelle provides panel members with talking points for Panel Review
Teleconference
9/23/2013
Battelle convenes Panel Review Teleconference 9/24/2013
Battelle provides Final Panel Comment templates and instructions to
panel members
9/25/2013
Panel members provide draft Final Panel Comments to Battelle 10/2/2013
Battelle provides feedback to panel members on draft Final Panel
Comments; panel members revise Final Panel Comments
10/15-
10/24/2013
Battelle finalizes Final Panel Comments 10/11/2013
Battelle provides Final IEPR Report to panel members for review 10/16/2013
Panel members provide comments on Final IEPR Report 10/18/2013
*Battelle submits Final IEPR Report to USACE 10/22/2013
Comment/
Response
Process
Battelle inputs Final Panel Comments to DrChecks and provides Final
Panel Comment response template to USACE
10/24/2013
Battelle convenes teleconference with Panel to review the Post-Final
Panel Comment Response Process (if necessary)
10/24/2013
USACE provides draft PDT Evaluator Responses to Battelle 10/29/2013
Battelle provides the panel members the draft PDT Evaluator
Responses
10/30/2013
Panel members provide Battelle with draft BackCheck Responses 11/4/2013
Battelle convenes teleconference with panel members to discuss draft
BackCheck Responses
11/5/2013
Battelle convenes Comment-Response Teleconference with panel
members and USACE
11/6/2013
USACE inputs final PDT Evaluator Responses to DrChecks 11/14/2013
Battelle provides PDT Evaluator Responses to panel members 11/18/2013
Panel members provide Battelle with final BackCheck Responses 11/21/2013
Battelle inputs the panel members' final BackCheck Responses to
DrChecks
11/25/2013
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-8
Task Action Due Date
*Battelle submits pdf printout of DrChecks project file 11/26/2013
CHARGE FOR PEER REVIEW
Members of this IEPR Panel are asked to determine whether the technical approach and
scientific rationale presented in the Westside Creeks documents are credible and whether the
conclusions are valid. The Panel is asked to determine whether the technical work is adequate,
competently performed, properly documented, satisfies established quality requirements, and
yields scientifically credible conclusions. The Panel is being asked to provide feedback on the
economic, engineering, environmental resources, and plan formulation. The panel members are
not being asked whether they would have conducted the work in a similar manner.
Specific questions for the Panel (by report section or Appendix) are included in the general
charge guidance, which is provided below.
General Charge Guidance
Please answer the scientific and technical questions listed below and conduct a broad overview
of the Westside Creek documents. Please focus your review on the review materials assigned to
your discipline/area of expertise and technical knowledge. Even though there are some sections
with no questions associated with them, that does not mean that you cannot comment on them.
Please feel free to make any relevant and appropriate comment on any of the sections and
appendices you were asked to review. In addition, please note the following guidance. Note that
the Panel will be asked to provide an overall statement related to 2 and 3 below per USACE
guidance (EC 1165-2-214; Appendix D).
1. Your response to the charge questions should not be limited to a “yes” or “no.” Please
provide complete answers to fully explain your response.
2. Assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic and environmental assumptions
and projections, project evaluation data, and any biological opinions of the project study.
3. Assess the adequacy and acceptability of the economic analyses, environmental analyses,
engineering analyses, formulation of alternative plans, methods for integrating risk and
uncertainty, and models used in evaluating economic or environmental impacts of the
proposed project.
4. If appropriate, offer opinions as to whether there are sufficient analyses upon which to
base a recommendation.
5. Identify, explain, and comment upon assumptions that underlie all the analyses, as well as
evaluate the soundness of models, surveys, investigations, and methods.
6. Evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis are
reasonable
7. Please focus the review on assumptions, data, methods, and models.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-9
Please do not make recommendations on whether a particular alternative should be
implemented, or whether you would have conducted the work in a similar manner. Also please
do not comment on or make recommendations on policy issues and decision making.
Comments should be provided based on your professional judgment, not the legality of the
document.
1. If desired, panel members can contact one another. However, panel members should not
contact anyone who is or was involved in the project, prepared the subject documents, or
was part of the USACE Agency Technical Review (ATR).
2. Please contact the Battelle Project Manager (Amanda Maxemchuk,
[email protected]) or Deputy Program Manager (Rachel Sell,
[email protected]) for requests or additional information.
3. In case of media contact, notify the Battelle Program Manager, Karen Johnson-Young
) immediately.
4. Your name will appear as one of the panel members in the peer review. Your comments
will be included in the Final IEPR Report, but will remain anonymous.
Please submit your comments in electronic form to Amanda Maxemchuk,
, no later than September 18, 2013, 10 pm ET.
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-10
Independent External Peer Review of the
San Antonio Channel Improvement Project
General Re-Evaluation Report and Integrated Environmental Assessment
Westside Creeks Ecosystem Restoration
San Antonio, Texas
Charge Questions and Relevant Sections as Supplied by USACE
General
1. Were all models used in the analyses used in an appropriate manner?
2. Are the models used sufficiently discriminatory to support the conclusions drawn from
them (i.e. identify meaningful differences between alternatives)?
3. Were risk and uncertainty sufficiently considered?
4. In your opinion, are there sufficient analyses upon which to base the recommendation?
Problem, Needs, Constraints, and Opportunities
5. Are the problems, needs, constraints, and opportunities adequately and correctly defined?
6. Do the identified problems, needs, constraints, and opportunities reflect a ecosystem
approach, addressing a geographic area large enough to ensure that plans address the
cause and effect relationships among affected resources and activities that are pertinent to
achieving the study objectives; i.e., evaluate the resources and related demands as a
system.
7. Existing and Future Without Project Resources.
8. Has the character and scope of the study area been adequately described and is the
identified study area appropriate in terms of undertaking a systems investigation?
9. Do you agree with the general analyses of the existing social, financial, and natural
resources within the study area?
10. For your particular area of expertise, provide an in-depth review of whether the analyses
of the existing social, financial, and natural resources within the project area are
sufficient to support the estimation of impacts of the array of alternatives.
11. Given your area of expertise, does this section appropriately address the existing
conditions of all resources pertinent to the study?
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-11
12. Were there surveys conducted to evaluate the existing social, financial, and natural
resources adequate? If not, what types of surveys should have been conducted?
13. Were socioeconomic conditions adequately addressed? Were specific socioeconomic
issues not addressed?
14. Was the hydrology discussion sufficient to characterize current baseline conditions and to
allow for evaluation of how forecasted conditions (with and without proposed actions)
are likely to affect hydrologic conditions. Please comment on the completeness of the
discussion on the relationship between subsurface hydrology and the hydrodynamics of
the project area.
15. Was the discussion of natural resources sufficient to characterize current baseline
conditions and to allow for evaluation of forecasted conditions (with and without
proposed actions)?
16. Were the assumptions used as the basis for developing the most probable future without
project conditions reasonable? Were adequate scenarios effectively considered (applied
during analyses where relevant and/or reasonably investigated)? Were the potential
effects of climate change addressed?
17. Are the future conditions expected to exist in the absence of a Federal project logical and
adequately described and documented?
18. Please comment on the conclusion of the most probable future without project condition.
Do you envision other potential probable outcomes?
Plan Formulation / Evaluation
19. Was a reasonably complete array of possible measures considered in the development of
alternatives?
20. Does each alternative meet the formulation criteria of being effective, efficient, complete
and acceptable?
21. Were the assumptions made for use in developing the future with project conditions for
each alternative reasonable? Were adequate scenarios considered? Were the assumptions
reasonably consistent across the range of alternatives and/or adequately justified where
different?
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-12
22. Are the changes between the without and with project conditions adequately described
for each alternative?
23. Are the uncertainties inherent in our evaluation of benefits, costs, and impacts, and any
risk associated with those uncertainties, adequately addressed and described for each
alternative?
24. Are future Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation efforts
adequately described and are the estimated cost of those efforts reasonable for each
alternative?
25. Please comment on the screening of the proposed alternatives. Are the screening criteria
appropriate? In your professional opinion are the results of the screening acceptable?
Were any measures or alternatives screened out too early?
Recommended Plan
26. Comment on whether you agree or disagree with how the selected alternative was
formulated and selected. Comment on the plan formulation. Does it meet the study
objectives and avoid violating the study constraints?
27. Are there any unmitigated environmental impacts not identified and if so could they
impact plan selection?
28. Please comment on the likelihood of the recommended plan to achieve the expected
outputs.
29. Please comment on the completeness of the recommended plan, i.e. will any additional
efforts, measures, or projects be needed to realize the expected benefits?
30. Please comment on the appropriateness of location, sizing and design of plan features.
Ecosystem Restoration
31. Are the expected changes in the quality and abundance of desired ecological resources
clearly and precisely specified in justifying the ecosystem restoration investment?
32. Is the significance of the sought ecological resources clearly determined by
institutionalized national goals?
33. Is the scarcity of the sought ecological resources characterized in terms of national
significance?
Westside Creeks IEPR Final IEPR Report
October 18, 2013 B-13
34. Is the distinctiveness of the sought ecological resources quality indicated (are there
closely related resources that substitute in most respects)?
35. Are forecast changes in sought ecological resource quality quantified so as to indicate
achievement of national goals?
36. Is it clear that restoration of the desired ecological resource quality is a function of
improvements in habitat quality or quantity?
37. Do planning models and procedures clearly link habitat improvement to the needs of
the targeted ecological resources?
38. Do planning models and procedures adequately consider and provide for limiting
factors beyond quality and quantity of habitat?
39. Is it clear that the restored ecological resource quality will be sustainable over the long
run?
40. Are the risks facing successful restoration of sustainable ecological resource quality
clearly shown to be managed and any residual risks identified in terms of:
a. Sufficient geophysical support (hydrology and geomorphology)?
b. Sufficient environmental chemistry?
c. Sufficient biological support (e.g., food, habitat and systems-stabilizing species)?
d. Changes in climate and in the influential ecoregion (e.g. major land use changes)?
41. Are the required long-term commitments (both Federal and non-Federal) to sustaining the
restored ecological resource quality adequately described and adequately demonstrated?
Summary Questions
42. Please identify the most critical concerns (up to 5) you have with the project and/or
review documents. These concerns can be (but do not need to be) new ideas or issues that
have not been raised previously.
43. Please provide positive feedback on the project and/or review documents.
