# Year-End Information Quality Report Format

I.  Cover Sheet: Requests for Correction Received FY 2004

> Department Name: Department of Defense
>
> Period Covered: FY 2004
>
> Web page location of agency information quality correspondence:
> [www.defenselink.mil/pubs/](http://www.defenselink.mil/pubs/)
>
> Agency Name Number of Requests Received Number Designated as
> Influential
>
> Department of the Army 2 0
>
> Corps of Engineers, HQs
>
> **Total 2 Total 0**

II. If you received correction requests or appeals and did not provide a
    final response in FY03, please list those correction requests below
    and provide a detailed summary in section III of this template.

> Agency Name Number of Requests Received in FY03 Number of Appeals
> Received in
>
> which were responded to in FY04 or FY03 which were responded to in
>
> are still incomplete. FY04 or are still incomplete
>
> Department of the Army 1 0
>
> Corps of Engineers, HQs
>
> **Total 1 Total 0**

III\.

**Agency Receiving Correction Request**: Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers, Headquarters

**Requestor**: Madeleine Fortin

21801 SW 152 Street

Miami, Florida 33187

Private Citizen

**Date Received:** 9 Aug 2004, Federal Express

11 Aug 2004, log

**Summary of Request:** Ms. Fortin challenges the information, data,
analyses, and conclusions drawn in the document entitled *"Supplemental
EIS for the Central and Southern Florida Project, Modified Water
Deliveries to Everglades National Park, Florida, 8.5 Square Mile* Area,"
published July 2000 by the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville
District. The report was prepared as part of the Federal effort to
restore a more natural hydrologic regime fin the Everglades National
Park. She is concerned that the report will result in her property not
receiving flood protection and being condemned.

**Description of Requested Correction:** Ms. Fortin claims that the
computer model used by the Corps lacks transparency, that the data
presented in the report is incomplete and asks that the report be
corrected.

**Influential:** \_\_\_\_\_ Yes \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ No \_\_\_\_\_
Undetermined

**First Agency Response:** \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ in progress
**Interim response sent to Ms. Fortin dated November 30, 2004**

**Resolution:** Pending

**Appeal Request:** \_\_[NA \_]{.underline} none
\_\_[NA]{.underline}\_\_ in progress \_\_[NA]{.underline}\_\_ completed

**Summary of Request for Reconsideration:** NA

**Type of Appeal Process Used:** NA

**Appeal Resolution:** NA

**Agency Receiving Correction Request:** Department of the Army

Corps of Engineers, Headquarters

**Requestor:** Martin Becker

600 Peachtree Street

Suite 3740

Atlanta, GA 30308-2214

Represents a Public Interest Group

**Date Received:** 2 March 2004, E-Mail

5 March 2004, log

**Summary of Request:** Mr. Becker challenges the 100-yr flow
calculation for Day Creek in San Bernardino County, California found in
the November 29, 1999 US Army Corps of Engineers, Los Angeles District
report entitled *"Review of Debris Production and Level-of-Protection
Deer Creek Debris Basin."*

**Description of Requested Correction:** Mr. Becker claims that the Los
Angeles District 100-yr flow computation in the *"Review of Debris
Production and Level-of-Protection Deer Creek Debris Basin"* Report used
a skew coefficient that was not computed in accordance with the
*"Guidelines for Determining Flood Flow Frequency, Bulletin 17b,"* even
though the District Report represented that it followed the Guidelines.

**Influential:** \_\_\_\_\_ Yes \_\_\_[X]{.underline} No \_\_\_\_\_
Undetermined

**First Agency Response:** \_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ in progress
\_\_\_\_\_ completed

**Resolution:** Pending

**Appeal Request:** \_\_[NA]{.underline}\_\_ none
\_\_[NA]{.underline}\_\_ in progress \_\_[NA]{.underline}\_\_ completed

**Summary of Request for Reconsideration:** NA

**Type of Appeal Process Used:** NA

**Appeal Resolution:** NA

**Correction Request Received in FY03 and answered in FY04**

***Agency Receiving Correction Request**:* United States Army Corps of
Engineers (USACE),

Headquarters

***Requestor:*** Jeff Ruch, Executive Director

Dan Meyer, General Counsel

Public Employees for Environmental Responsibility (PEER)

Public Interest Group

***Date Received:*** August 20, 2003, by fax

***Summary of Request:*** PEER challenges the information, data,
analyses and conclusions drawn in the document entitled *Monthly Status
Report, July 2003, Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Study,* published August 7, 2003, by the USACE Rock Island
District on the World Wide Web at
[http:www2.mvr.usace.army.mil/umr-iwwsns]{.underline}. PEER requests
that until USACE completes an independent peer review of the
information, data, analyses, and conclusions of the subject document
before it is disseminated, the Department of Defense "[immediately
disavow and withdraw]{.underline}" from distribution the subject
publication.

***Description of Requested Correction:*** "PEER requests that, until
the Army Corps of Engineers complies with the provisions of the DQA and
the OMB Guidelines by completing an independent peer review of the
information, data, analyses, and conclusions of the subject "before it
is disseminated," the Department of Defense [immediately disavow and
withdraw from distribution]{.underline} the published *Monthly Status
Report, July 2003, Upper Mississippi River and Illinois Waterway System
Navigation Study.*

***Influential:*** [\_\_\_X\_\_]{.underline} Yes \_\_\_\_\_ No
\_\_\_\_\_ Undetermined

***First Agency Response:*** [\_\_\_\_\_]{.underline} in progress
\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_\_ completed **responded 8 March 2004**

***Resolution:*** **The Request for Correction was denied. PEER did not
show an adequate reason for the Corps to withdraw the *2003 July Status
Report*, and their requested relief was contrary to a participatory
governmental process. The information contained in the *2003 July Status
Report* was of a quality appropriate for the use intended and was
provided by the Corps in an effort to conduct an open and transparent
study process in keeping with the goals of the Data Quality Act.**

***Appeal Request:*** \_\_\_[X]{.underline}\_\_ none \_\_\_\_\_ in
progress \_\_\_\_\_ completed

***Summary of Request for Reconsideration:*** N/A

***Type of Appeal Process Used:*** N/A

***Appeal Resolution:*** N/A