We aren’t going to do a whole lot of commentary on this, as we’re going to let you read it for yourself, but The Hayride has obtained a transcribed copy of the memorandum prepared by attorneys working for former governor John Bel Edwards which, when it surfaced as part of an Associated Press story a week or so ago, raised a significant controversy over Edwards’ stewardship of that project.

This is the sort of document not a lot of people get to see. Before it leaked out it was held under attorney-client privilege, which gives us something of a queasy feeling because when you read the thing you’ll realize these people are talking about breaking the law and criminal consequences to doing so.

What ultimately happened was a decision not to release a study based on computer modeling of the $3.2 billion Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion project, which would involve punching a hole in the Mississippi River levee and allowing a significant amount of river water and the sediment it carries to divert into first a canal and then into Barataria Bay. In principle this isn’t a bad plan; most everyone agrees that making places where the Mississippi can spill into the marshes of southeastern Louisiana and deposit sediment is a workable solution to the problem of coastal restoration in the river’s delta.

Except this is a giant, very expensive project, and the study in question cast some real doubts about whether this project is the best way to spend $3.2 billion worth of coastal restoration money the state has available courtesy of the BP/Deepwater Horizon settlement. Particularly at issue is the finding that because the river flow through the Mid-Barataria diversion would be somewhat sluggish (faster water drops less sediment, slower water leads to lots of silt on the waterbottom), it would cost some $50-100 million a year in dredging costs to keep the diversion canal open.

The thinking among the attorneys who wrote the memo is that this study wouldn’t kill the project – but it would definitely slow it down. And that was a real problem not because they were worried about the coast getting eaten by the ocean but because at the time the memo was written, Edwards was only going to be governor for another year or so and any delays in that project would mean somebody else would be in charge of letting contracts for it.

Which is why ultimately this study wasn’t disclosed. And why ultimately the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers suspended the project – not so much because the study is so fatal to the project but because they aren’t convinced the folks in Louisiana aren’t a bunch of crooks and liars.

It’s a real disaster, and an expensive one to boot – this thing was originally supposed to cost $1.5 billion, and a half-billion has already been spent. Whether it ever gets completed at this point is a crapshoot.

We thought we’d go ahead and release the full memo for a couple of reasons.

One, there are now reports that Edwards is in discussions with Chuck Schumer about running for the Senate in 2026, which should surprise absolutely nobody. And if he does run, we want this memo in the public record as a damned good example of how underhanded, crooked, fundamentally dishonest and utterly dysfunctional John Bel Edwards is.

But second, and while we have a few items we could grouse about where Jeff Landry is concerned, on the question of the Mid-Barataria project he deserves some credit. It turns out that Landry was right to oppose this thing given the boondoggle Edwards turned it into – and the fact that Landry’s people found this memo, which normally wouldn’t happen, as things like this are needles in haystacks given the voluminous amounts of paperwork a state government will generate, and this thing sure wasn’t advertised outside of a very small coterie of Edwards minions, deserves a lot of credit.

The AP broke the story on this already, but the public nevertheless should have access to the memo in full. It’s reprinted below.

 

 

TO: Chip Kline and Bren Haase

FROM: Harry Vorhoff, David Peterson, Molly Lawrence, Megan Terrell and Bill Plauché

DATE: August 26, 2022

RE: Mid Barataria Sediment Diversion, FTN Numerical Modeling, Legal Analysis and Recommendation

 

I. Introduction

An issue has arisen related to modeling work undertaken by the Mid-Barataria Sediment Diversion (MBSD) Design Team to inform the final project design and the question of whether and when below, we recommend that CPRA informally discuss the FTN modeling results in conversations with this modeling work should be disclosed to USACE and the LA TIG. For the reasons outlined in more detail Mark Wingate and Chris Doley prior to release of the final Environmental Impact Statement (FEIS) and Restoration Plan. We further recommend more formally releasing these modeling data after publication of the FEIS and Restoration Plan but potentially before USACE’s and the LA TIG’s records of decision (RODs), unless USACE and the LA TIG suggest a different timing. In a best-case scenario, this could delay the RODs until January.’ In a worst-case scenario, it may delay the ROD for several months.

This memorandum provides a summary of the background, the resulting issues, and a detailed recommendation for proceeding. Additional details regarding the technical issues summarized herein This memorandum provides a summary of the background, the resulting issues, and a detailed can be found in the FTN Numeric Modeling memorandum completed by the MBSD legal team. Additional details regarding the legal issues summarized in this memorandum can be found in the MBSD Litigation Risk memorandum also prepared by the CPRA MBSD legal team.

II. Background

Throughout the MBSD Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) process, the CPRA environmental team, USACE, and the LA TIG have relied on the Delft3D basin-wide model (Delft BW) developed by The Water Institute of the Gulf (TWI) to project the likely potential impacts of the MBSD on land building and water quality parameters in the Barataria basin, including salinity. A Modeling Working Group (MWG), made up of representatives from USACE (including the Engineering Research and Development Center (ERDC)), GEC (the third party contractor responsible for pre paring the MBSD EIS), and the LA TIG, reviewed and affirmed the inputs, parameters, and outputs for the Delft BW model over a year’s long process that culminated in the development of a modeling memo that confirms all “concurred that the Delft3D Basin-wide production runs and outputs were adequate and sunt to inform the MBSD EIS

1 There is a slight chance that such disclosure does not delay the RODs at all, and the December 23 (or sooner) ROD dates are held. However, we think that it is more likely that USACE and the LA TIG would need a little extra time to decide what to do with these data, and would provide a breathing window to delay the RODs until January. This is particularly true given the need for CEMVN to coordinate with the Division.

impacts analysis of the alternatives.”‘ See MBSD EIS Summary of Delft3D Model Run Approach, Status as of 4/30/2020.

Concurrently, as part of the engineering and design (E&D) process, the CPRA Design Team worked with FTN to develop additional, more specific modeling to assist in designing particular components of the diversion, including the intake, the channel, and the outfall. This effort resulted in a FTN models”). Most of the FTN models are tightly focused on the diversion complex, from the intake to series of models that FTN also used to project certain basin side impacts (collectively referred to as “the outfall area, rather than the larger Project Area (as defined in the EIS).

III. The Issue

Some of the results of the Delft BW model and the FTN models are inconsistent with each other. Examples include:

• Land building. The Delft BW model projected a net increase of 13, 400 acres of land over the Future Without Project scenario at year 50. The FTN models project land building at year 50 in the 4,700- 8,000 acre range, depending on the operational scenario. In general, the FTN models predict that land will be built faster, and that the land will then be lost faster than in the Delft BW model.
• The Delft BW model generally projected lower salinities (more freshwater inf low than the FTN models
• Dredging/flushing. The FTN models predict a need for dredging or flushing of the diversion channel to address the effects of sediment deposition in the channel during low base flow periods, and significant dredging ( upwards of several hundred million cubic yards in the later years of diversion operations ) in the outfall area to maintain land building capacity.? The Delft BW model does not include dredging or lushing as a modeled parameter or output, although the MBSD EIS includes some discussion of the effects of maintenance dredging in the diversion complex and the immediate outfall area.
• Base Flow. One of the reasons for the above differences is that the Delft BW model assumes a constant baseflow of 5,000 cfs any time the Mississippi River flow is below 450,000 cfs. The FTN model, by contrast, use a variable base flow of 0-5,000 cfs that is based on the projected head differential between the River and the basin.

These differing results raise legal, timing, and reputational concerns, which are discussed below. It should be noted at the outset that there is some chance that the results of the FTN models will not be brought forward in a legal challenge to the diversion, In which case the legal vulnerabilities are diminished but primarily reputational concerns may remain. The results of the FTN models have not been provided to either the USACE or the LA TIG at this point and consequently will not be included in

2 According to FTN’s analysis and modeling, the dredging aims to deepen the existing deltaic channels that form the delta; therefore, most of the deposited material that forms the emerging land is not lost due to dredging. Its modeling also does not consider the beneficial use of the dredged material or land gained from such use. As a result, FN states that its land building estimates can be considered slightly conservative.

the Administrative Record for the permit or funding decisions unless CPRA leadership decides to disclose them as a means of managing the risks outlined in this memo. They would likely, however, be produced in response to a Public Records Request asking for documents related to the diversion or potentially in response to discovery requests in any litigation.

A Legal Concerns

A project opponent could argue that the USACE and LA TIG should have revisited their analysis based on the new information in the FTN models. We have taken an in-depth legal review of this issue (which is reflected in our litigation risk analysts memorandum, and there s not a clear answer as to how litigation on this issue would be resolved. However, if a court concluded that the FTN modeling was necessary for the ElS analysis, the court would likely remand the ElS back to the USACE and could stay the project pending the revised analysis. Alternatively, if a court determined that the FTN modeling was not necessary to meet the “hard look” standard of review in ElS appeals, the court would permit the project to proceed without further review of the FTN modeling.

In summary, we would argue that the two models were prepared for two different purposes, that the USACE and LA TIG’s decision to rely on the Delft BW model was valid and supportable, and that consideration of the FTN models was not necessary for the USACE or the LA TIG to take a “hard look” at the environmental consequences of the MBSD. Key differences in purpose and scope between the models include:

• Most of the FTN modeling focuses on “sensitivities” type analyses -ie., looking at a worst-case or maximum effects scenarios for a particular issue so that CPRA can plan/be prepared for that circumstance. This is true for the flushing analysis, which used the 1980 Mississippi River hydrograph to represent one of the longest base flow periods, and the analysis of channel flushing effects on Barataria Bay salinity, which used the 1968 hydrograph to show a long non- operational period during base flow months. “Worst case” is not the measure under NEPA; instead, NEPA looks at reasonably foreseeable impacts, which is reflected by Delft3D BW results.
• The FTN modeling related to land building and dredging estimates are closer to the Delft BW model runs but still have significant differences in model set up, parameters, and operational scenarios. Most notably, the set up of the FTN models did not take Sea Level Rise (SLR) in the Mississippi River into account. As a result, the modeling admittedly underestimates the flows that would be transported from the river to the basin by the diversion. The report explains that had Mississippi River SLR been considered, the projected land building would have been higher, the volume of dredging needed to maintain diversion capacity would have been lower, and impacts to salinity would likely have been greater than shown in the FTN modeling to date. Other modeling parameters used in the FTN OM model range from the same as the Delft BW model to somewhat different (e.g., different morphological acceleration factors, sediment consolidation) to very different (e.g., different calibration and validation, variable rating curve)
• Many of the FTN modeling results relate to operational scenarios that are not currently proposed by CPRA, either as part of CPRA’s permit application, or as part of the proposed Project being reviewed in the ElS (e.g, flushing when the river ls running below 450kcfs, closing the diversion entirely when the river is below 30kcfs, operating with no base flow). if/when CPRA proposes these as scenarios, these modeling results could be relevant. Until then, they are useful for CPRA’s planning purposes, but not CEMVN’s evaluation.

Opponents, on the other hand, will argue that the reviewing court should not determine whether the FTN models should have been used; that is a decision for USACE and the LA TIG. They will assert that because there is nothing in the Administrative Record for either agency’s decision addressing the use of the FTN models, the court should remand the matter back to USACE and the LA TIG to conduct that review and determine whether the FTN models should be used. We would anticipate any court decision on the diversion permits will take 12-18 months from filing to resolution. Thus, if there is a successful challenge to the diversion based on the results of the FTN models, we would anticipate that judicial decision would not come until 2024 at the earliest (although there is always some chance that diversion opponents could request more immediate relief in the form of a preliminary injunction).

While litigation outcomes are always difficult to predict, we believe that a remand is a likely outcome of litigation on this issue. Courts are reluctant to weigh in on technical issues that are outside of the legal realm, and a remand to the USACE is an easy “out” for a judge wrestling with what will be a difficult case, with passionate perspectives on both sides of the litigation.

Another risk is that if these analyses are discovered by USACE after the permit decision, USACE could decide to suspend, modify, or revoke the permit. s The proffered special conditions of the permit authorize USACE to reevaluate its decision to issue the permit at any time circumstances warrant and to modify or revoke the permit as necessary. Circumstances that may require a reevaluation include:

1. Failure to comply with the terms and conditions of the permit;
2. Providing information in support of the application for permission that proves to have been inaccurate or incomplete; or
3. Discovery of significant new information that surfaces which USACE did not consider in reaching the original decision that the activity would not impair the usefulness of the water resources development project and would not be injurious to the public interest

3 It could be argued that three of the four land building and dredging estimates runs are somewhat analogous to the Delft BW runs because they do not rely on a “worst-case” hydrograph but instead use a 50-year hydrograph like the Delft BW model. However, there are other differences in the model setup and parameters that were not used for the Delft runs, so none of the runs are fully analogous to the scenarios used for the Delft BW runs. The fourth run is a worst-case scenario of no base flow at all, which does not correlate to any operational scenario proposed by CPRA.

4 There were a couple of minor design changes that happened between 60 and 90% design, but neither affect the impacts analyzed during environmental review, and all information related to these changes, Including supporting modeling, were provided to USACE as part of the 90% design 408 submittal.

5 18 U,5.C, 5 1001 also makes It a criminal offense to knowingly or willfully falsify, conceal, or cover up by any trick, scheme, or device a material fact in any manner within the Jurisdiction of the executive, legislative, or judicial branch of the United States, This statute could apply to representations made In the context of a permit application to or request for permission from a federal agency It ls extremely unlikely that the issue here would trigger the applicable standards under this statute , but the severe consequences and criminalization of the action warranted mention.

Any suspension, modification, or revocation of the permit or stay issued by the court would result in construction delays and costs associated therewith.

The most effective way to address these legal risks would be to bring the FTN modeling results to the USACE and LA TIG now, with an explanation as to why CPRA does not believe those results they could document that in the record, which would considerably increase the chances of withstanding a legal challenge on this issue.

However, if the FTN modeling results are brought to USACE and the LA TIG now, there is a significant chance that the federal agencies would require more time to evaluate those results to determine whether they should be included in the analysis before either USACE or the LA TIG issue their decisions. We are hopeful that, for the reasons discussed above regarding the critical differences in assumptions/purpose of the FTN models, USACE and the LA TIG will ultimately decide that it is unnecessary to incorporate those models into the environmental review or Restoration Plan analyses.

However, the USACE and LA TIG analysis of that issue will likely create at least a delay in the regulatory process, including a pause in the current ROD completion schedules and potentially a delay in issuance of the FEIS and/or Final Restoration Plan.

B. Timing concerns with using the FTN models

As noted above, if the USACE and the LA TIG decide that the FTN models should be used as part of the environmental review and Restoration Plan impact analysis, inclusion of those models into the analysis is likely to take significant time.

The FTN models were not subject to “formal” independent third-party review and verification in manner similar to the Delft BW model. (Although the FTN models were reviewed by several other modeling experts, including other CPRA consultants (AECOM, Moffatt & Nichols), as well as the Safety Assurance Team (third-party contractor selected by CPRA and approved by USACE to conduct an independent external peer review for 408 purposes), they were also reviewed and revised in relation to the results of the physical model and bear a Professional engineering stamp.) If USACE and the LA TIG were to rely on the FTN models to analyze potential impacts, they would likely require review by independent modeling experts (e.g.; ERDC, GEC’s Consultant team). a process that would take months to years to complete. (The MWG spent approximately 2 years reviewing and verifying the Delft BW model and results before accepting that model for use in the ElS.)

Any third-party reviewers would also likely want to understand and investigate the differences in model parameters before relying on the FTN OM results for the EIS. Based on the time that it took CEMVN, GEC, and the TIG to get comfortable relying on the Delft BW model, it is reasonable to expect this process to take 6-18 months.

In addition, to our knowledge, FTN has never used its OM model to project the impact of the several alternatives evaluated Iin the EIS, Even if CEMVN, GEC, and the TIG were to accept the FTN models as is (unlikely), it’s reasonable to assume the process of modeling the alternatives evaluated in the EIS rather than just CPRA’s proposed project) would take 4 to 8 months based on the the modeling process in FTN’s 90% modeling memorandum.

Finally, once the FTN model results are reviewed, USACE and the LA TIG would have to decide whether and how to integrate them into their analyses (e.g., review the FEIS and Final Restoration Plan, issue supplemental documents, include the analysis in their RODs). Based on the experience to date on the coordinated drafting required for the FEIS and Final Restoration Plan, this decision and creating the corresponding documents would take at least 6 months and, more likely, a year.

Thus, if a decision is made to use the FTN models in the environmental review and Restoration Plan analysis, it will likely take 1 to 3 years to revise those analyses to incorporate the model results.

C. Reputational Concerns

Diversion opponents could use the FTN models to support an argument that they have made in the public comments on the diversion: that CPRA has decided to move forward with the diversions regardless of whether the best science supports that decision. Opponents would argue that the results of the FTN models demonstrate that the diversion benefits will dissipate faster than discussed in the FEIS and the Final Restoration Plan, yet CPRA did not bring that new information forward and re-analyze (and allow the federal agencies to re-analyze) whether it makes sense to continue to pursue the diversion. They would argue that evaluating the project based on these new results is particularly appropriate in light of the increased diversion costs.

In addition, CPRA has invested a great deal of time and effort into building a strong, trusting relationship with both USACE and the LA TIG agencies, not to mention the relationships developed with friendly NGO’s and other proponents of the diversions. As a result of that relationship, the federal agencies are not only willing to accept CPRA’s technical assessment on a variety of circumstances, they are also more willing to work with CPRA to pursue additional investments in restoring Louisiana’s coast, comfortable that those investments are money well spent. CPRA’s failure to affirmatively bring forward the FTN modeling results, leaving the federal agencies to learn of those results only when they are brought forward by members of the public/diversion opponents, could impact those strong relationships.

Of course, CPRA has a strong counter-narrative grounded in the discussion above about the differences between the two analyses, as well as the significant effort (in addition to the modeling) that on science for decision-making has impacts for the agency. Controlling the narrative is also more difficult if CPRA is on the defensive and responding to a public records request and arguments raised by diversion opponents.

IV. Decision Alternatives

With the above considerations in mind, there are a number of potential options for moving forward with regard to the FTN models.

A. Formally disclose to USACE and LA TIG prior to FEIS

The option that would most reduce the litigation risk associated with the FTN models would be to formally disclose those modeling results to USACE and the LA TIG in advance of the September 23 release date for the FEIS and Final Restoration Plan, This disclosure could take the form of a submittal of updated design materials or submittal of a memorandum attaching and explaining the FTN modeling results. Currently, the close out period for USACE comments on the 90% design materials is scheduled to be completed by September 27. This window could be used to submit the FTN modeling results. Such a release would allow USACE and the LA TIG to review those results and, in a best-case scenario, formally agree with CPRA’s assessment, articulated above, that those results need not be incorporated into the environmental analysis in the FEIS and Final Restoration Plan. Such a finding, documented in the Administrative Record for the USACE and LA TIG decisions, would receive deference from a reviewing court and would substantially increase the likelihood of CPRA/USACE/LA TIG prevailing in a legal challenge to the adequacy of the FEIS. This option would also address concerns about reputational impacts by formally advising all parties of the modeling issue before the FEIS or RODs are announced to the public.

Unfortunately, this option also presents the most risk to schedule. Based on our experience with the USACE District personnel, we would anticipate that this disclosure of this information formally would result in an immediate “pause” in the ongoing effort to release the FEIS to allow the USACE time to review the FTN modeling results with its experts. Alternately, they could proceed with issuing the FEIS, but then delay the ROD until they had completed their evaluation. As noted above, this review could take months, delaying completion of the environmental review, the Records of Decision, and, ultimately, project construction. If USACE and/or the LA TIG ultimately decides that the FTN modeling results should be incorporated into the environmental review or Restoration Plan analysis, it could delay the project a year or more. However, as recommended above and discussed in Section D below, if a decision to formally disclosure as soon as possible is preceded by an informal discussion with USACE and the LA TIG, we anticipate that USACE and the LA TIG may request that the formal disclosure be submitted after FEIS publication and before the ROD.

B. Formally disclose to USACE and LA TIG after FEIS but before ROD

Alternatively, CPRA could formally disclose the FTN modeling after the release of the FEIS but before USACE or the LA TIG issue their Records of Decision granting permits for and agreeing to fund the diversion. The advantage of this approach is that it would not jeopardize the release of the FEIS and the Final Restoration Plan, but it would provide USACE and the LA TIG an opportunity to review the FTN modeling information in advance of their permitting and funding decisions.

This approach would reduce the litigation risk associated with challenges to the permitting and funding decisions, as those decisions would be undertaken in consideration of the FTN modeling information. The reduction of litigation risk is contingent on USACE preparing written documentation of their decision regarding what to do with the FTN modeling. Such documentation would take the form of a memorandum for the record documenting their decision in writing. If informal discussions prior to a formal submittal result in USACE and the LA TIG suggesting that this does not affect their decision or that they do not want to complicate the record or timing by considering this material before the ROD, then the litigation risk may still be present,

From a timing perspective, this approach would allow the FEIS to go forward, but would likely result in delays in the ROD issuance to enable USACE and the LA TIG to consider the impact of the FTN modeling on their analyses. If the federal agencies ultimately agree with CPRA that the FTN models are not relevant to their environmental analyses, that delay could be weeks to months. If the federal agencies disagree and believe that the FTN modeling should be considered in their impact analyses, the delay could be a year or more and would likely result in the need for a supplemental EIS.

From a reputational perspective, the federal agencies and the public will likely be frustrated that CPRA did not disclose the FTN modeling information prior to issuance of the FEIS, pointing to CPRA’s pre-ROD disclosure as evidence that CPRA understood that the information was potentially relevant to these decisions. There is also a significant chance that opponents of the project make a public records pre-ROD disclosure as evidence that CPRA understood that the information was potentially relevant to request after release of the FEIS to CPRA for all documents related to the project, and it may appear to the public that CPRA only disclosed the FTN modeling to the USACE and the LA TIG once they were “compelled” to release it via a public records request.

C. Formally disclose to USACE and LA TIG after FEIS and ROD

As a third alternative, CPRA could release the ETN modeling information after the release of the FEIS and RODs. This information could potentially be presented as part of a request to modify the permit application to request authorization to flush the diversion channel during some low flow periods in lieu of or to supplement dredging the outfall channel. However, realistically, CPRA would not likely make a determination to change the operational regime and request a permit modification until after operations begin. Further, a request for a permit modification shortly after the ROD may raise suspicion about whether CPRA intentionally delayed releasing the information.

Setting aside the appropriate vehicle for releasing the information, if the USACE determines this information constitutes significant new circumstances or information relevant to the environmental concerns, then it would trigger a supplemental EIS. For the reasons outlined above, the special permit conditions also authorize USACE to suspend or revoke the permit/ authorizations if they determine that the information provided by CPRA was inaccurate or incomplete or otherwise affected their public interest review.

This approach would not eliminate the chance of opponents raising the FTN modeling in litigation, as it would not provide the federal agencies an opportunity to review the FTN modeling information before they make permitting and funding decisions. However, if USACE and the TIG received this information post-ROD and completed their review oncurrent with the litigation, USACE and the LA TIG could provide the additional analysis to the court and effectively moot the argument. Short of providing the results of their analysis to the court during the litigation, they could use the analysis to more quickly respond to any court order remanding the environmental review or Restoration Plan to the agencies. From a timing perspective, this approach would help ensure the current FEIS and ROD dates would hold. It could also help reduce the timeframe required to respond to a negative court ruling in the litigation; the USACE could already be considering the FTN modeling information as part of its review of the new information and potentially a permit modification request.

From a reputational perspective, the USACE, the LA TIG and the public will likely argue that CPRA should have disclosed this information earlier, and that the only reason it did not do so was because the information showed unfavorable land building results. CPRA would be able to counter that this information was based on different operational scenarios not currently part of CPRA’s operations plan and was therefore not relevant to the current environmental review. If and when CPRA determined the current operations plan need to be revised , it would submit an application to modify the permit, and additional modeling would likely need to be reviewed and/or performed to support the environmental review of the permit modification request, That Is unlikely to eliminate the reputational effects.

D. Informally raise with USACE and LA TIG leadership prior to formal disclosure

Under any of the above options, CPRA could additionally reach out, likely in separate conversations between Bren and Mark Wingate and Chris Doley, to informally discuss the FTN modeling. results as part of disclosing the possibility that CPRA may decide later to request a revision to the operational regime approved with the permit. This informal reach out would not change the Administrative Record supporting the FEIS and the USACE and LA TIG decisions. As such, this effort alone would not reduce the litigation risk associated with the FTN modeling.

This informal outreach could help with timing. It might give us an opportunity to assess, at an initial, high level, the federal agencies’ response to the FTN modeling results. That information could inform our analysis of the best time and vehicle for formally presenting the information to USACE and the LA TIG.

This informal outreach could prove very helpful from a reputational perspective e, particularly if it is undertaken quickly. It would emphasize the importance of CPRA’s federal partners on these issues  and reduce the risk that CPRA’s federal partners feel that CPRA withheld information from them because CPRA believed it was unfavorable.

V. Recommendation

Based on this analysis, our recommendation is that CPRA first informally discuss the FTN modeling results in conversations with Mark Wingate and Chris Doley, potentially introducing the concept as an initial disclosure of the possibility that CPRA may, at a future date, need to request a revision to the operational regime approved with the permit. We could explain that, after spending some time with FTN and the design team to understand this modeling more fully, CPRA decided it should discuss these different modeling / operational regimes with USACE and the LA TIG. We recommend having this discussion prior to release of the FEIS as this is the timing that most effectively reduces all the risks noted above (legal, timing, and reputational). CPRA can then use the outcomes of these discussions to determine how and when to best present that material more formally to USACE and LA TIG, We also recommend that the more formal release of these data happen before the ROD, unless different timing is suggested by USACE or the LA TIG.