Justification

CPRA, the applicant, along with the Corps and the federal cooperating agencies have been working diligently to advance preparation of the Environmental Impact Statement for the Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion.  The Mid-Breton Sediment Diversion is a large and complex project.  The proposed project would discharge up to 75,000 cfs of sediment, freshwater, and nutrients within the Breton Sound Basin.  The total cost is estimated at more than $1 billion and faces many environmental and engineering challenges due to their potential projected impacts to the fisheries and current salinity regimes.   Complex modeling using Delft 3D software is being used to assess these potential impacts.  More time has been needed than originally estimated for CPRA to conduct Delft 3D modeling and provide necessary water quality and water level technical reports to the Corps and Cooperating Agencies to inform the area of analysis, impact analyses, and cumulative impacts.  Furthermore, implementation of marine mammal surveys was delayed by CPRA until Sept 2021 and constrained in scope to a “pilot study” to allow the applicant to test alternative surveying methods.  NOAA will determine the sufficiency of the pilot study to meet the original request once survey data becomes available for review.

 The delays associated with the receipt of model output implementation of marine mammal survey, have extended the amount of time the Corps needs to complete the DEIS, including Chapters 3 (Affected Environment) and 4 (Environmental Consequences).   The Corps, CPRA, and Cooperating Agencies estimate it will take about 9 additional months to complete the DEIS, which in turn will require approximately 9.5 month extensions to the FEIS and ROD target dates.   The information being developed for the DEIS is also needed for the 10/404 permit, 408 permission, FWCA, ESA, and EFH; as such, the target dates associated with those actions have been extended accordingly.

Additional Information Requested

(1) list the agencies with which you coordinated this decision and

These changes were coordinated with the Project Sponsor and all cooperating agencies ( EPA, DOI, FWS, NOAA, NMFS, NRCS, USDA,  and USGS).

(2a) confirm whether or not the project sponsor was consulted in creating the new target completion date. The Executive Director will not process an extension request without this information. Answers to these additional questions may also help process this extension request more quickly:

Yes

(2b) Is the project sponsor concerned with the date change?

 Yes.  However, the reason for the delays are associated with the challenges faced by the Project Sponsor in providing the information needed for the EIS.  Therefore, the revised schedule dates were developed in coordination with the Project Sponsor.

(2c) Does the date change affect any other aspects of the permitting timetable? If so, did you coordinate with the affected agencies?

The date changes affect all of the milestone dates on the permitting timetable.  These changes were coordinated with the Project Sponsor and all cooperating agencies ( EPA, DOI, FWS, NOAA, NMFS, NRCS, USDA,  and USGS).

(2d) Have any issues related to this date change been documented in the project’s CPP or discussed at the project-specific CERPO meeting?

The date changes have been discussed at the project-specific CERPO meeting.

(2e) Is there opportunity for the permitting timetable to be adjusted to make up for the time lost as a result of this delay?

No.  The delays in receiving the information needed for the EIS is significant enough to not be resolved by alternative adjustments geared towards making up for the time lost as a result of this delay.

(2f) Has your agency CERPO and/or the lead agency CERPO for the project been made aware of the delay and the possible effect it may have on the project?

Yes, our agency CERPO, which is the lead agency CERPO, has been made aware of the delays and their effects on the project schedule.  She has reviewed the revised schedule and concurs with the changes.02