Charleston Peninsula IEPR_Charge Questions.docx

PERFORMANCE WORK STATEMENT

CHARLESTON PENINSULA COASTAL FLOOD RISK MANGEMENT STUDY,

CHARLESTON, SOUTH CAROLINA

CHARLESTON DISTRICT

INDEPENDENT EXTERNAL PEER REVIEW

CHARGE TO REVIEWERS

The following Charge to Reviewers outlines the objective of the Independent External Peer Review (IEPR) for the subject study and the specific advice sought from the IEPR panel.

The objective of the IEPR is to obtain an independent evaluation of whether the interpretations of analysis and conclusions based on analysis are reasonable for the subject study. The IEPR panel is requested to offer a broad evaluation of the overall study decision document in addition to addressing the specific technical and scientific questions included in the charge. The panel has the flexibility to bring important issues to the attention of decision makers, including positive feedback or issues outside those specific areas outlined in the charge.

The panel review is to focus on scientific and technical matters, leaving policy determinations for USACE and the Army. The panel should not make recommendations on whether a particular alternative should be implemented or present findings that become “directives” in that they call for modifications or additional studies or suggest new conclusions and recommendations. In such circumstances the panel may have assumed the role of advisors as well as reviewers, thus introducing bias and potential conflict in their ability to provide objective review.

Panel review comments are to be structured to fully communicate the panel’s intent by including the comment, why it is important, any potential consequences of failure to address, and suggestions on how to address the comment. The IEPR Performance Work Statement provides additional details on how comments should be structured.

Broad Evaluation Charge Questions Is the need for and intent of the decision document clearly stated?

Does the decision document adequately address the stated need and intent relative to scientific and technical information?

Given the need for and intent of the decision document, assess the adequacy and acceptability of the following:

Project evaluation data used in the study analyses, Economic, environmental, social, and engineering assumptions that underlie the study analyses , Economic, environmental, social, and engineering methodologies, analyses, and projections, Models used in the evaluation of existing and future without-project conditions and of economic or environmental impacts of alternatives, Methods for integrating risk and uncertainty, Formulation of alternative plans and the range of alternative plans considered, Quality and quantity of the surveys, investigations, and engineering sufficient for conceptual design of alternative plans, and Overall assessment of significant environmental impacts, social justice, and any biological analyses.

Further, Evaluate whether the interpretations of analysis and the conclusions based on analysis are reasonable, and Assess the considered and tentatively selected alternatives from the perspective of systems, including systemic aspects being considered from a temporal perspective, including the potential effects of climate change.

For the tentatively selected plan, assess whether:

The models used to assess life safety hazards are appropriate, The assumptions made for the life safety hazards are appropriate, The quality and quantity of the surveys, investigations, and engineering are sufficient for a concept design considering the life safety hazards and to support the models and assumptions made for determining the hazards, and The analysis adequately address the uncertainty and residual risk given the consequences associated with the potential for loss of life for this type of project.