CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA STORAGE RESERVOIRS REVISED DRAFT INTEGRATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S.
This Report Contains 2 Volumes You Are Here Volume 1 – Main Report • Abstract • Foreword • Executive Summary • Table of Contents • Section 1 – Introduction • Section 2 – Existing Conditions / Affected Environment • Section 3 – Future Without Project Conditions • Section 4 – Identification of Problems and Opportunities • Section 5 – Formulation of Alternative Plans • Section 6 – The Selected Alternative Plan • Section 7 – Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan • Section 8 – Plan Implementation • Section
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA STORAGE RESERVOIRS REVISED DRAFT INTEGRATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT U.S.
This page intentionally left blank
Abstract EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA STORAGE RESERVORS INTEGRATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT Responsible Agencies: The lead agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. The South Florida Water Management District is the non-Federal cost-sharing partner for the study.
Abstract This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoir Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Foreword FOREWORD A note to the reader of this Revised Draft PIR/SEIS Prior to completion of this Revised Draft Project Implementation Report (PIR) and Supplemental Environmental Impact Statement (SEIS), the State of Florida determined that it was urgent to accelerate funding, design, and construction of critical restoration projects to capture immediate environmental, social, and economic benefits in the South Florida region.
Foreword This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Executive Summary CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA STORAGE RESERVOIRS REVISED DRAFT INTEGRATED PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT EXECUTIVE SUMMARY The U.S.
Executive Summary environmental, agricultural, municipal, and Tribal water supplies. To address these needs, the purpose of this project is to provide storage for releases from Lake Okeechobee to reduce the harmful effects of flood control releases on the St.
Executive Summary WHAT IS EXPECTED TO HAPPEN WITHOUT THE SELECTED PLAN? Regional adverse ecological conditions in the project area, which would continue without the selected plan, include large swings between unacceptable high and low water levels in Lake Okeechobee. High water levels in Lake Okeechobee frequently result in ecologically damaging flood control releases of fresh water to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries.
Executive Summary blooms, which will continue to adversely affect submerged aquatic vegetation and the habitat, diversity, and abundance of in-lake fish populations. During dry times, withdrawals of Lake Okeechobee water for irrigation and municipal and Tribal water supplies would continue to create harmful low water levels in the lake and reduce the availability of water to maintain optimum flows and levels in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries.
Executive Summary An approximately 32,000 acre earthen embankment reservoir with a maximum normal pool storage depth of 12-feet; An approximately 32,000 acre roller compacted concrete embankment reservoir with a maximum normal pool storage depth of 12-feet; and An approximately 26,500 acre earthen embankment reservoir with a maximum normal pool storage depth of 14-feet.
Executive Summary FIGURE 2: EAA RESERVOIR LAYOUT Reservoir Design The total storage surface area of the reservoir is approximately 31,000 acres with a maximum normal pool depth of 12 feet deep, and provides 360,000 acrefeet of storage volume. Earthen embankments surrounding the reservoir will have a minimum height of 23 feet above ground. The internal embankment separating the two cells is 21 feet above ground.
Executive Summary feet elevation from existing) excavated wetland interspersed with tree islands sloped to 4 feet above existing grade. Tree islands will be approximately 50 feet wide, providing approximately 95 acres of tree island habitat. Approximately 278 acres of wetland habitat will be created in the buffer. The elevated tree islands will be planted with appropriate native tree species.
Executive Summary Gated Culverts The selected plan includes numerous gated culverts to facilitate the management of water within the reservoir cells and to release water out of the reservoir. S-601 is a 2,000 cfs outlet for Cell 1 into the North New River Canal and is located near the southeastern corner of Cell 1 just north of the G-370 pump station. S-602 and S-603 are 3,000 cfs culvert structures located on the southern Cell 1 levee and discharge into the STA 3/4 supply canal.
Executive Summary along the east, north, west, and STA 3/4 sides of the reservoir; a 50-foot deep cutoff wall will be installed along the Holey Land Wildlife Management Area to the south of the reservoir. Box Culvert and Bridges The S-609 box culvert structure will be constructed underneath U.S. Highway 27. This structure will serve as a hydraulic connection between the EAA reservoir and the North New River Canal.
Executive Summary PROJECT COST ESTIMATE The estimated cost for the EAA Storage Reservoir selected plan is $912,895,089. At this time, the cost estimate does not include any real estate, engineering, design or construction costs for the proposed STA, which will be included as a planning level cost estimate in the Final PIR.
Executive Summary BENEFITS OF THE SELECTED PLAN Alternative 4, the selected plan (preferred plan for purposes of NEPA), meets all of the project-specific objectives established for the EAA Storage Reservoirs project. The selected plan will improve habitat function and quality and native plant and animal abundance and diversity in the greater Everglades ecosystem.
Executive Summary requirements to maintain noise generation, local water contamination and air emissions within required limits. Permanent habitat losses due to land conversion to deep water and structures within the footprint would be offset by the gain in habitat quality in Lake Okeechobee, the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries and the Everglades.
Executive Summary "ACCELER8" The State of Florida determined that it was urgent to accelerate funding, design, and construction of critical restoration projects to capture immediate environmental, social, and economic benefits in the South Florida region. To that end, the State of Florida’s “Acceler8” program was established, including the Everglades Agricultural Area Reservoir A-1 project.
Executive Summary COST SHARING AND IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE Responsibilities for implementing the selected plan will be shared by USACE, on behalf of the Federal government, and the non-Federal sponsor, SFWMD. USACE and SFWMD will cost share equally in the design of the projects resulting from this plan. SFWMD has acquired the necessary lands, easements, rights-of-way, relocation, and disposal areas (LERRD) and will operate and maintain the completed project.
Executive Summary cumulatively for the entire CERP Program. Table 3 shows cost apportionment of the selected plan. The LERRD cost apportionment includes $64,958,000 in credit to the Federal portion of the project. These were federal funds provided by the Department of Interior (DOI) for the purchase of lands in Compartment A of the Talisman Land Exchange pursuant to Section 390, of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127, 110 Stat. 1022).
Executive Summary This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS i February 2006
Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS ii February 2006
Table of Contents TABLE OF CONTENTS SECTION 1 1.0 INTRODUCTION .......................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 REPORT AUTHORITY............................................................................................ 1-1 1.1.1 Project Authorization ........................................................................................... 1-2 1.2 PURPOSE AND SCOPE...........................................................................
Table of Contents 2.9.1.2 Wetlands ........................................................................................................ 2-9 2.9.1.3 Exotic Plants ................................................................................................ 2-10 2.9.2 Northern Estuaries ............................................................................................. 2-10 2.9.3 Everglades Agricultural Area ............................................................................ 2-11 2.
Table of Contents 2.14.4 2.14.5 2.14.6 2.14.7 2.15 2.15.1 2.15.2 2.16 2.16.1 2.16.2 2.16.3 2.17 2.17.1 2.17.2 2.17.3 2.18 2.19 2.20 2.21 Lake Okeechobee and the EAA......................................................................... 2-41 Caloosahatchee River Basin .............................................................................. 2-42 St. Lucie River Basin ......................................................................................... 2-42 Water Conservation Areas ..............
Table of Contents 3.1.15 3.1.16 3.1.17 3.1.18 3.1.19 Recreational Resources...................................................................................... 3-14 Aesthetics........................................................................................................... 3-14 Cultural Resources ............................................................................................. 3-14 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste ........................................................
Table of Contents 5.3 ALTERNATIVE PLANS ........................................................................................ 5-12 5.3.1 Evaluation Tools ................................................................................................ 5-12 5.3.2 Alternative Plans Descriptions........................................................................... 5-12 5.3.2.1 Reservoir Embankment Construction .......................................................... 5-17 5.3.2.2 Cut-off Wall ........
Table of Contents 5.4.4 5.4.4.1 5.4.4.2 5.4.4.3 Risk and Uncertainty.......................................................................................... 5-49 Hydrologic Modeling................................................................................... 5-49 Engineering .................................................................................................. 5-50 Evaluation of System-wide Ecological Effects of Hydrologic Performance Measures...........................................
Table of Contents 6.1.3.4 S-605 Gated Culvert Structure....................................................................... 6-6 6.1.3.5 S-606 Gated Culvert Structure....................................................................... 6-7 6.1.3.6 S-607 Gated Culvert Structure....................................................................... 6-7 6.1.3.7 S-608 Gated Culvert Structure....................................................................... 6-7 6.1.3.8 S-609 Gated Culvert Structure....
Table of Contents 6.5.1.1 Existing Federal Project............................................................................... 6-31 6.5.1.2 Compartment A............................................................................................ 6-31 6.5.1.3 Bolles and Cross Canal Rights of Way........................................................ 6-32 6.5.1.4 Stormwater Treatment Area and STA 3/4 Supply Canal............................. 6-32 6.5.2 Uniform Relocation Assistance Act, PL 91-646........
Table of Contents 7.9.13 7.9.14 7.10 7.11 7.12 7.12.1 7.12.2 7.12.3 7.12.4 7.12.5 7.13 7.14 7.15 7.16 7.17 7.18 7.19 7.20 7.20.1 7.20.2 7.20.3 7.20.4 7.21 7.21.1 7.21.2 7.21.3 7.21.4 7.21.5 7.21.6 7.21.7 7.21.8 7.22 7.23 Johnson’s Seagrass............................................................................................. 7-14 State-listed Species ............................................................................................ 7-15 ESSENTIAL FISH HABITAT ..............................
Table of Contents 8.4.1 Level of Service for Flood Protection.................................................................. 8-5 8.4.2 Effects on Legal Sources of Water ...................................................................... 8-6 8.4.3 Identification of Water to be Made Available for the Natural System ................ 8-7 8.4.4 Identification of Water for Other Water-Related Needs...................................... 8-8 8.5 PROJECT WATER QUALITY MONITORING PLAN .........................
Table of Contents SECTION 10 10.0 RECOMMENDATIONS.............................................................................................. 10-1 SECTION 11 11.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................... 11-1 11.1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS ........................................................................................ 11-1 11.2 ACRONYMS...........................................................................................................
Table of Contents LIST OF TABLES Table 1-1: Ongoing projects likely to affect the EAA Storage Reservoirs Project ............. 1-13 Table 2-1: Results of wetland extent field survey of Compartment A by interagency ecological team............................................................................................... 2-13 Table 2-2: List of Protected Species in the Affected Area .................................................. 2-24 Table 2-3: EAA socioeconomic characteristics.......................
Table of Contents Table 6-1: Reservoir Design Elevations ................................................................................ 6-3 Table 6-2: Cell 1 Reservoir Storage Calculations.................................................................. 6-3 Table 6-3: Cell 2 Reservoir Storage Calculations.................................................................. 6-3 Table 6-4: Wetlands Buffer and littoral zone ......................................................................
Table of Contents This page intentionally left blank.
Section 1 Introduction SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 1 Introduction This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 1 1.0 Introduction INTRODUCTION The Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project Comprehensive Review Study, known as the “Restudy”, was authorized by Section 309(l) of the Water Resources Development Act of 1992 (P.L.102-580). This study was also authorized by two resolutions of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives, dated September 24, 1992.
Section 1 Introduction authorized per Section 601(b)(2)(C)(ii) of WRDA 2000. However, the project has undergone design refinements due to external issues such as land availability and dam safety requirements. The PIR will address cost-effectiveness, engineering feasibility, and potential environmental impacts of the project. Formulation and evaluation of the alternative plans will be part of the PIR.
Section 1 Introduction environment, improving protection of the aquifer, and improving the integrity, capability, and conservation of urban water supplies affected by the project or its operation.” This study is also authorized by two resolutions of the Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure, United States House of Representatives, dated September 24, 1992.
Section 1 Introduction including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives served by the Central and Southern Florida Project. ii.
Section 1 Introduction The Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoir, Phase 1 consisting of a 240,000 acre-foot reservoir was one of the initial 10 projects authorized for implementation in Section 601(b)(2)(C) of WRDA 2000. 2. SPECIFIC AUTHORIZATIONS C. INITIAL PROJECTS.
Section 1 Introduction (I) be consistent with the Plan and the programmatic regulations promulgated under paragraph (3); (II) describe how each of the requirements stated in paragraph (3)(B) is satisfied; (III) comply with the National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 (42 U.S.C. 4321 et seq.
Section 1 • • • Introduction Storing of water during the wet season and releasing it to the Everglades during the dry season, thereby contributing to improvements that benefit water quality and hydro-patterns in the Everglades; Improving flow equalization, by capturing peak storm events in the reservoir for slow release to the Stormwater Treatment Areas (STAs), thereby improving STA treatment performance, habitat and functional quality, and native plant and animal species abundance and diversity; and, P
Section 1 Introduction highest peaks off discharges to the eastern and western estuaries; and reducing the range of lake levels by several inches. Improvements to conveyance capacity in the Miami and North New River Canals between Lake Okeechobee and the storage reservoir would be required to convey additional Lake Okeechobee releases.
Section 1 Introduction protection, drainage, and water control were considered to be physically interrelated, and that the St. Johns, Kissimmee, Lake Okeechobee, Caloosahatchee, and Everglades drainage areas all formed a single economic unit. Accordingly, it recommended a comprehensive program in the interest of “flood control, drainage and related purposes.” Congress approved the plan as part of the Flood Control Act of June 30, 1948, and the report was published in House Document No.
Section 1 1.3.5 Introduction Public Law 91-282 Section 2 of Public Law 91-282 enacted June 19, 1970, authorized appropriations for USACE to accelerate developing means to meet the water requirements of the Everglades National Park (ENP). It also specified the minimal amount of water that was to be delivered to the Park each year. 1.3.
Section 1 Introduction Details on projects, studies, and program documents can be found on the Internet at www.evergladesplan.org/pm/landing_pp.cfm.
Section 1 Introduction FIGURE 1-1: MAJOR CERP FEATURES EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 1-12 February 2006
Section 1 Introduction TABLE 1-1: ONGOING PROJECTS LIKELY TO AFFECT THE EAA STORAGE RESERVOIRS PROJECT Finish Date Project Name Description SFWMD Long-Term Plan (B&M 2003) 2006 STA-1E 2006 STA-1W 2006 STA-2 2006 STA-3/4 2006 STA-5 2006 STA-6 Convert downstream cells to SAV. Additional compartmentalization, improved flow control, convert additional cells to SAV, identify and implement BMPs. Additional compartmentalization, convert additional cells to SAV, identify and implement BMPs.
Section 1 Introduction 1.4 PROJECT AREA 1.4.1 Primary Study Area/Everglades Agricultural Area The EAA is located south of Lake Okeechobee in western Palm Beach County and encompasses approximately 620,797 acres of highly productive agricultural land comprised of rich organic peat or muck soils (Figure 1-2). A small portion of the Study Area includes mucklands located in western Martin County.
Section 1 Introduction FIGURE 1-2: LOCATION OF THE EAA EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 1-15 February 2006
Section 1 Introduction Planning performed during the Restudy did not optimize the design and performance of individual features, including the EAA storage reservoirs. The Restudy recommended the construction of three 20,000-acre above-ground reservoirs with a total storage capacity of 360,000 acre-feet and up to 150% conveyance capacity increases for the Miami and North New River Canals.
Section 1 1.4.3 Introduction Other Areas Affected Other areas that will be affected by the EAA Storage Reservoir project include: littoral and marsh areas of Lake Okeechobee; the downstream estuaries of St. Lucie Canal (C-44) and the Caloosahatchee River (C-43); the northern WCAs, including WCA-3A north of I-75, WCA-2A; and the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (WCA-1).
Section 1 Introduction once wet prairies into aquatic sloughs, and conversion of sawgrass marshes into cattails and wet prairie communities. 1.5 PROJECT PARTNERS For the purposes of NEPA and preparation of this report, SFWMD is the nonFederal sponsor and, as part of the CERP partnership, has several roles as defined in the following Florida Statutes: • • • Florida Statute 373.
Section 1 1.6 Introduction DECISION TO BE MADE The integrated PIR/EIS provides the documentation and coordination necessary to seek Federal authorization for the selected plan. The PIR describes the economic, environmental, and social benefits and costs of the final array of alternatives and selected alternative plan.
Section 1 Introduction This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 1-20 February 2006
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment SECTION 2 EXISTING CONDITIONS/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 2 2.0 2.1 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment EXISTING CONDITIONS/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT HISTORY AND PROCESS FOR DETERMINING EXISTING CONDITIONS The development of agriculture within the EAA was substantially completed in 1962. Associated with that development was gathering extensive information on soils, crops, water resources, and water management. The proposed EAA reservoirs have been previously considered and studied as part of the C&SF Project and CERP.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Wetland Solutions, Inc. authored a water quality assessment report in September 2004 that provided a preliminary assessment of likely water quality impacts of the proposed EAA reservoir, both alone and in combination with STAs. In addition, this report summarized relevant, existing water quality data (USACE, 2004).
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Wildlife Management Areas (WMA), as well as the STAs, are also contained within the EAA. The reservoir location in the Restudy is within the southern portion of the EAA, north of the Holey Land WMA and SFWMD’s STA 3/4.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment upon wind speed and direction. Lake depths within about a mile of the dike range from 1 to 11 feet below the mean water level in natural areas, and are approximately 38 feet below mean water level in the crest canal.
Section 2 2.3.3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Soils The EAA is primarily underlain by peat and muck although much of the peat has been altered to muck by oxidation processes. The soils are predominantly organic and contain some fine sands. The EAA is part of what was once the largest region of organic soil in the world with a thickness up to 17 feet. The organic soil is composed of brown to black peat and muck and currently has a maximum thickness of approximately eight feet.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment less organic which slows the rate of subsidence. The differential rate of subsidence in the past years has altered the slope of the land, which hinders restoration of the natural flow system. The flat topography, cohesiveness of the peat, and the levee systems allow for little water erosion of the soils in the EAA. In addition, current agricultural practices promote accumulation of chemicals in the soil. 2.3.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment southeastern Alabama, southern Georgia, and southwestern South Carolina. This aquifer is composed of a thick sequence of limestone layers and is divided into Upper Floridan and Lower Floridan, by a less permeable middle confining unit of carbonates. In the EAA, the water of the Floridan aquifer is rather salty, particularly in the Lower Floridan (Sprinkle, 1989). 2.
Section 2 2.6.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Evapotranspiration Evapotranspiration plays an important role in the climate of the South Florida ecosystem and removes between 70% and 90% of the rainfall in undisturbed South Florida wetlands (Duever, et. al., 1994). Evaporation from open water surfaces peaks annually in the late spring when temperatures and wind speeds are high and relative humidity is low.
Section 2 2.9.1 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Lake Okeechobee The vegetation and cover types within the Lake Okeechobee region have been greatly altered during the last century. Historically, the natural vegetation was a mix of freshwater marshes, hardwood swamps, cypress swamps, pond apple forests, and pine flatwoods. The freshwater marshes were the predominant cover type throughout, especially along the southern portion of the lake where it flowed into the Everglades.
Section 2 2.9.1.3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Exotic Plants The most recent vegetation mapping of the western Lake Okeechobee littoral zone and marsh, conducted by SFWMD, clearly depicts the dynamic state of vegetative succession within the littoral zone and the spread of less desirable and invasive exotic species into new areas.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment and Charlotte Harbor have each lost about 30% of their seagrass beds. Since 1987, more than 59,000 acres of seagrasses have been affected by several factors including degraded water quality, dredging from boat propellers, freshwater management, severe temperature variability, and others, resulting in a massive die-off (Haddad and Sargent, 1994).
Existing Conditions/Affected Environment 2-12 February 2006 FIGURE 2-2: 1999-2000 FWC LAND COVER WITHIN THE EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS Section 2
Section 2 2.9.3.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Wetlands All of Compartment A of the Talisman Land Exchange property is considered to be atypical jurisdictional wetlands based on hydric soils and hydrology. Wetland vegetation is anticipated to return to the site should agricultural practices cease. Approximately 206 acres on site were characterized by an interagency team as functional wetlands, comprising approximately 0.65 % of the total area.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment and brushland, and exotic plant communities. The disturbed habitat types cover 69.5% of the total area with the vast majority of disturbed cover being sugarcane. Within Compartment A, 79% of the area is classified as disturbed with sugarcane also being the dominant cover. 2.9.3.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Forested wetlands in the WCAs include both strands and hydric hammocks. A strand is a broad, shallow channel with peat over a mineral substrate that is seasonally inundated by flowing water. Fire is occasional or rare in this wetland community and dominant vegetation is cypress and/or willow. The following vegetation species are associated with this community: pond cypress, bald cypress, willow, buttonbush, wax myrtle, sawgrass, and royal fern.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Over-drainage of the northwestern portion of WCA-3A has allowed the invasion of a number of terrestrial species such as saltbush, dog fennel, and broomsedge. Melaleuca has become well-established in the southeastern corner of WCA-3A North, and is spreading to the north and west. Vegetation located in the central and southern portion of WCA-3A probably represents some of the best examples of original, undisturbed Everglades habitat left in South Florida.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Additionally, Furse and Fox (1994) revealed that numerous sportfish occur in the littoral zone. The largemouth bass is one of the most popular gamefish in the State of Florida, and is a major predator of small fish, amphibians, birds, and reptiles. Additionally, the black crappie, bluegill, and redear sunfish are sportfish found in high numbers in the littoral zone.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment included frogs such as the southern leopard frog, the green tree frog, and the squirrel tree frog. Several reports from local residents have confirmed sightings of non-native species of lizards, such as the green iguana, the spiny-tailed iguana, and the brown basilisk. Established populations of such species could be extremely harmful to native reptile and amphibian populations. Lake Okeechobee also provides major resources for mammals.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment pompano, silver jenny, great barracuda, gobies, sleepers, puffers, filefish, and, many others. In addition to finfish, the estuaries and Indian River Lagoon support a variety of shellfish. Blue crabs, stone crabs, hard clams, and oysters are important estuarine commercial species. The blue crab accounted for approximately 80% of shellfish landings in the Indian River Lagoon between 1958 and 1988 (IRL CCMP, 1996).
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment and the FWC Wading Bird Rookery data. For additional information on fish and wildlife resources in EAA, see the FWCA Report in Annex A, including wildlife observations documented for Compartment A as part of field surveys of wetlands. General wildlife use of the area can be derived from information about the present vegetation communities. The following sub-sections briefly discuss typical wildlife use based on FWC land cover data of habitat types. 2.10.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment such as the rough green snake, eastern indigo, water moccasin, and southern toad are often found in these areas. 2.10.3.3 Uplands Upland communities consist of relatively open, herbaceous habitat such as dry prairie to forested communities of varying vegetation composition such as hardwood hammocks, pinelands, and a mixture of hardwoods and pine. Dry prairies provide habitat for raccoon as well as the wide-ranging Florida panther.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment terrestrial environments. Drier habitats support such species as the Florida brown snake, southern ringneck snake, southern black racer, scarlet snake, and two rattlesnake species. The eastern indigo snake, a Federally listed threatened species, and the Florida pine snake, a state species of special concern, may also exist in drier areas of the Study Area.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment The Everglades fish community is composed of a variety of forage fish important in the diet of many wading birds, sport fish, native species, and exotics introduced partly through aquacultural practices and the aquarium trade. Forage species include the Florida flagfish, bluefin killifish, least killifish, shiners, mosquito fish, and sailfin molly. Generally, Everglades sportfish are harvested from the borrow canals that surround the marsh.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment under the Endangered Species Act. Table 2-2 contains a compilation of listed species potentially occurring within the EAA or other affected areas. This subsection will state the federally-listed species that occur in each of the geographic regions affected by this project; following that will be a description of the listed species.
Section 2 2.11.1 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Lake Okeechobee Even with habitat fragmentation and degraded ecological communities, Lake Okeechobee provides habitat for a diversity of wildlife including federally and state listed plants and wildlife. Species covered in this sub-section include only those species occurring within or using the lake’s open water habitat, SAV, or fringing littoral marshes, rather than the entire watershed.
Section 2 2.11.4 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Water Conservation Areas Federally protected species occurring both in the EAA and WCAs include many of the protected species in the South Florida region including the American alligator, bald eagle, wood stork, Audubon’s crested caracara, Everglades snail kite, Florida panther, and possibly the Eastern indigo snake. The WCAs also have designated critical habitat for the Everglades snail kite in WCA-2 and WCA-3A. 2.11.5 Species Descriptions 2.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Manatees are also found in other inland fresh waters that may be affected by the EAA Project, such as Lake Okeechobee, SLE, and CE. This slow-moving aquatic mammal is an opportunistic herbivore feeding on a variety of submergent, emergent, or floating aquatic vegetation including bank grasses and overhanging plants. A study is currently underway to document the use of canals by the manatee (Ferrell, D. [personal communication] USFWS, 2004).
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment the ESA, the Bald and Golden Eagle Protection Act (16 U.S.C. § 668 et seq.), and Migratory Bird Treaty Act (16 U.S.C. § 703 et seq.). Bald eagles are the largest raptor in the eastern United States and are known to breed throughout Florida. Nest sites are usually located near large rivers, lakes, or estuaries where they feed primarily on fish and water-dependent birds.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment freshwater marshes and edges of lakes in South and Central Florida including Palm Beach and Hendry Counties. Nearly continuous flooding is required to sustain apple snail populations. Snail kites require small trees or shrubs near foraging areas as nest sites.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment wetlands or agricultural areas. They typically range over large areas with adult males traveling as much as 158 HA to 224 HA in the summer. 2.11.5.8 American Alligator The American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) is a common inhabitant of freshwater and estuarine lakes, ponds, sloughs, swamps, and canals throughout South Florida.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment average number of nests, ranges between 509-740 females (NMFS & USFWS, 1995; USFWS, 1999). The threatened green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) nests regularly in South Florida where the nesting and hatching season lasts from May to November. Important feeding areas for the green sea turtle include Indian River Lagoon, Florida Keys, Florida Bay, Homosassa River, Crystal River, and Cedar Key.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment about 10 years. Like many elasmobranches (e.g., sharks), smalltooth sawfish are ovoviviparous, meaning the mother holds the eggs inside of her until the young are ready to be born; although there are no studies on actual litter size, its similarity in size and habitat to the largetooth sawfish suggests litter size may be in the range of 1-13 individuals. Sawfish species inhabit shallow coastal waters of tropical seas and estuaries throughout the world.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment with the number of eggs carried being a function of the size of the individual (Gilmore and Gilbert 1992). Newly released larvae must have brackish oligohaline-mesohaline conditions (18 ppt salinity) to survive, and are adapted for downstream transport to estuarine and marine environments during the wet season (Frias-Torres, 2002).
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Within its range, Johnson’s seagrass critical habitat designations have been designated for 10 areas: a portion of the Indian River Lagoon, north of the Sebastian Inlet Channel; a portion of the Indian River Lagoon, south of the Sebastian Inlet Channel; a portion of the Indian River Lagoon near the Fort Pierce Inlet; a portion of the Indian River Lagoon, north of the St.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment photosynthesis by rapidly attenuating shorter wavelengths of Photosynthetically Active Radiation. Continuing and increasing degradation of water quality due to increased land use and water management threatens the welfare of seagrass communities.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Federal agencies that fund, permit, or carry out activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with the National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential effects of their actions on EFH.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment the wet season, the beginning of winter, lake levels are higher to store water for the upcoming spring dry season.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment long-term plan for achieving this compliance was published by SFWMD in October 2003 (Burns & McDonnell, 2003). 2.14 WATER QUALITY 2.14.1 Overview Water quality information focuses upon the EAA as the area of expected primary impacts. However, the water quality of the larger area is dependent on Lake Okeechobee water quality to the extent that these waters are released to the various receiving waters.
Section 2 2.14.2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Monitoring Programs SFWMD maintains a water quality monitoring network for surface waters within and at the boundaries of the EAA. These surface water samples have been analyzed for multiple constituents. The samples have been acquired at various frequencies from a variety of sampling stations over the years. These water quality data are compiled in SFWMD’s database DBHYDRO and available through Internet search (http://www.sfwmd.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment current, provides a measure of the dissolved solids such as sodium chloride, calcium carbonate, and sulfate, which have an electrical charge when they dissolve. There are levels of salt that will adversely affect aquatic plants and animals. This level is different for each species. Measuring pH determines how acidic or basic the water is. Aquatic plants and animals are generally only able to tolerate a narrow range of pH values.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment assessment and determined that toxaphene, at possible action levels, is widely distributed in the shallow soil layer within the Woerner Farm #3 area. In the event that the FDEP affirms that potentially harmful levels of toxaphene are in the soil, it will likely mandate additional remediation (by the responsible party) for site closure and for issuance of a water quality certification (WQC) for operations.
Section 2 2.14.5 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Caloosahatchee River Basin Water quality conditions are degraded in the upper and lower areas of the Caloosahatchee River basin due to agricultural and urban runoff, respectively. The channelized section of the river also shows degraded water quality conditions, due to agricultural inputs, as compared to tributaries lying in less developed areas of the basin.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment EAA: the Cities of Pahokee, Belle Glade, and South Bay. These centers have a significant impact on the demographics of certain tracts and the EAA as a whole. The total estimated population in the EAA in 2000 was 42,265 persons.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment From a socioeconomic perspective this area is generally “very depressed,” but has significant community cohesion. It is an aging area that is likely to continue to see a loss of working age, educated population - typical of patterns seen in many rural areas throughout the United States. There is a high concentration of minority individuals, both African-Americans and Hispanics, with their numbers far exceeding non-minorities.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment TABLE 2-3: EAA SOCIOECONOMIC CHARACTERISTICS 1990 Population Area Florida EAA Hendry County Tract 200 2000 Population Percent Change 1990 2000 Persons per Square Mile in 2000 Median Household Income in 2000 12,937,926 44,700 15,982,378 42,265 23.5% -5.4% 296 44 $ 38,819 $ 21,557 8,535 7,506 -12.1% 102 $ 31,760 $ 13,047 Palm Beach Co. Tracts 7903 675 5,729 748.7% 5 $ 58,770 8001 3,459 3,727 7.7% 104 $ 23,081 8002 6,377 5,360 -15.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment 2.16 LAND USE 2.16.1 Land Use in the EAA The EAA is situated to the south of Lake Okeechobee within portions of Palm Beach and Hendry Counties. Bordering the EAA to the south and east are WCA-1 (otherwise known as the Arthur R. Marshall Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge), WCA-2, and WCA-3. The EAA encompasses an area of 620,797 acres.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Sugarcane production began with the construction of the Clewiston Sugar Mill in 1929. Prior to the Cuban revolution of 1959, 50,000 acres of the EAA were devoted to sugar cultivation.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment There are six sugar mills and one refinery (South Bay) currently operating in the EAA, with an additional mill and refinery in Clewiston also serving the area. The combined capacity of these mills is over 17 million tons. Three major entities - U.S. Sugar Corporation, Florida Crystals Corporation, and Sugarcane Growers Cooperative (SCGC) - provide the majority of the sugarcane production in the EAA. 2.16.
Section 2 2.17.1 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Holey Land Wildlife Management Area Holey Land WMA contains approximately 35,000 acres and is operated by FWC. Holey Land WMA is bordered by Compartment A to the north and to the east. Primary recreational activities associated with the WMA are hunting, fishing, camping, hiking, and bicycling along L-5 and Miami Canal levees. Future activities or development may focus on improved access, wildlife viewing, and other non-consumptive activities.
Section 2 2.17.3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Stormwater Treatment Areas Within the EAA, there are a total of five STAs. All five of these STAs are in flow through operations. One of these STAs, STA-3/4, is located adjacent to the proposed EAA storage reservoir. A sixth STA, STA-1E, although not physically located in the EAA, upon completion, will receive EAA runoff via the STA-1 Inflow and Distribution Works project located between STA-1W and STA-1E.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment determine the optimal configuration and operation of the additional treatment areas on Compartments B and C. Because the results of the Regional Feasibility Study are not expected to be available until late 2005 assumptions about the final configuration and operation of the Compartments B and C STAs could not be included in the modeling for the EAA Storage Reservoirs PIR.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment agricultural vegetation. marginal value. The visual aesthetics are rather monotonous and of Along the St. Lucie Canal, much of the interior region is ditched for farming or range practices that have altered the natural vegetation and aesthetic resources of those areas. Many of the rural areas possess good scenic quality on a small scale.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) determined that it contains no areas considered high probability Consultations with SHPO for Compartment A is complete, and it was determined there are no cultural concerns within either areas. A professional evaluation of Bolles/Cross Canal and 8PB50 was conducted and it was recommended that neither the canal nor 8PB50 site was historically significant.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment source areas and, where present, impacted media abated. In 2003, the SFWMD reported there were 17 areas remaining that required closure, including three tracts that had not been evaluated. According to the SFWMD, the closure of the 17 areas and/or evaluations will be completed by 2007. Evaluation of samples collected from the cultivated areas have identified localized areas of agrochemical (toxaphene) impacts at Tract No.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment Canals sediments in the primary canals--Miami, North New River, Cross, and Bolles--have been sampled and analyzed in conjunction with the SFWMD DBHYDRO database. Data indicates that sediments contain persistent pesticides--DDT and its degradation products most prevalent. The sum of DDT and DDT products in recent samples reaches one- to five-tenths of a milligram per kilogram of sediment [0.1 mg/kg (ppb)–0.5 mg/kg (ppb)] are shown in Table 2-5.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment urbanized area and south of Lake Okeechobee is off the major state and federal roads and consists of local, unpaved farm roads. FPL has several major transmission lines that are located in the northern, eastern and southern portions of the EAA, but none that are located immediately adjacent to or traverse the proposed EAA Reservoir.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment has been finalized and it has been determined if any of them need to remain on an interim basis for construction purposes. In the area between the proposed EAA Reservoir and Lake Okeechobee where there are proposed canal conveyance improvements to the North New River Canal, there are a number of bridges with telephone and communications lines and, in some cases, water and sewer lines suspended from them.
Section 2 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment FIGURE 2-4: EXISTING BRIDGES, ROADS AND STRUCTURES WITHIN THE EAA STORAGE RESERVOIR REGION EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 2-58 February 2006
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions SECTION 3 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions 3.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS 3.1 FORECAST OF FUTURE CONDITIONS This section describes the most likely condition of the physical, biological, and human environments in the EAA and other affected areas in the year 2050 if the EAA Storage Reservoirs project is not constructed.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions projected that by 2050, about half the EAA would have soils less than 8-inches in depth. Most of these shallow soils would be south of the Bolles Canal. Without new production practices, sugarcane production would be difficult and costly. The area of these comparatively thin soils should be suitable for pasture, but not for vegetables. With reduced soil depth to store moisture, water control becomes crucial for any production of crops.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions and maintain the secondary water control structures and pump stations (Fernald and Patton, 1984). Water levels in the lake should continue to be managed through 2050 according to a regulation schedule that is jointly developed by the SFWMD and USACE. The schedule would likely be modified as other CERP projects are completed.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions addition, the continued storage of nutrient-rich waters would maintain reduced water clarity that in turn adversely affects SAV areas. 3.1.6.2 Northern Estuaries Between now and 2050, continued regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River watersheds would further exacerbate stormwater impacts to the estuaries by releases of freshwater impulses.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions crops, so the ability to predict the land use and cover in the EAA over the next 50 to 60 years is imprecise. Geographic differences exist in the depth of soils within the EAA. Thicker soils are more prevalent in the north near Lake Okeechobee and thinner soils more common to the south. This suggests that changes within the EAA over the next 60 years would occur in the southern portions of the EAA and move northward.
Section 3 3.1.6.4 Future Without Project Conditions Water Conservation Areas Without reservoir storage capacity, water released to the WCAs could continue to be difficult to manage. The WCAs need water to sustain ecological needs during the dry season and protection from large freshwater releases related to flood control during the wet season. Continuation of the altered hydroperiods within the WCAs could have adverse effects on marsh communities and tree islands. 3.1.7 Fish and Wildlife 3.1.7.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions fauna tolerant of the disturbed conditions in agricultural production areas. Some displacement of wildlife could result from expansion of urban or extractive land cover types within the EAA; however, these changes are not likely to affect Compartment A. Regional trends in water quality within the EAA should affect fish, aquatic or wetland wildlife populations directly or indirectly by affecting prey or forage used by wetland dependent species.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions “without project” conditions, water quality should continue to improve. This could improve fish populations by increasing water clarity and allowing increased coverage of important fish habitat. 3.1.8 Federally-listed Threatened and Endangered Species Without the Project, use of the EAA and Compartment A by most endangered, threatened, or state-listed wildlife should not change during the planning period through 2050.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions In the estuarine areas of the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee watersheds, continued pulse releases of freshwater from Lake Okeechobee would further degrade the water quality of the estuaries and continue the high fluctuations in salinity. This would have a continued adverse affect on Johnson’s sea grass, and it is possible that the spatial extent of this seagrass would continue to decline.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions Future water management without the Project should be subject to minimal changes through 2050. 3.1.11 Water Quality Many other projects scheduled for completion within the planning period have the specific purpose of lowering total phosphorus (TP) concentrations entering the EPA and will also affect a variety of other water quality parameters. Some of the projects will not show effects in the near future.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions Assuming the successful implementation of all of these projects there would be a continuing decline of TP concentrations within the surface waters of the EAA. Several other water quality parameters could be expected to change in response to anticipated activities and land use changes in the EAA over the planning period.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions concentrations have also decreased in the EAA canals over the past decade. This trend should continue under the “without project” condition. Concentrations of some key pesticides that are frequently found in the EAA canals have declined precipitously over the past three decades. For example, average canal water concentrations for atrazine have declined from 1.2 to 0.6 μg/L since the 1980s. The average simazine concentration has declined from 2.2 to 0.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions population growth. The 2000 U.S. Census reported 20 persons living along the eastern border of Compartment A. The purchase agreement between the United States Department of Interior (DOI), SFWMD and the landowners allowed farming to continue on most of the land until March 31, 2005. After March 2005, land could be leased for agricultural purposes until needed by USACE for restoration purposes.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions For the purposes of this forecast, it is assumed that areas of the EAA lost to farming would be converted to relatively natural wetland areas. Other land use changes should be relatively minor in the EAA. No significant urban or commercial development should occur except for the urban service areas of Belle Glade, Pahokee, and South Bay during the project planning period. Along the west coast of Lee County and the east coasts of Martin and St.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions expand in future development plans. The future without condition for transportation and association structures for future roadway development would follow the Department of Transportation's plans. Details of future expansions will be provided in the Final PIR.
Section 3 Future Without Project Conditions This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 3-16 February 2006
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities SECTION 4 IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 4 4.0 4.1 Identification of Problems and Opportunities IDENTIFICATION OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES STATEMENT OF PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES Water resources projects are planned and implemented to solve problems, meet challenges, and seize opportunities. A problem can be thought of as an undesirable condition, while an opportunity offers a chance for progress or improvement. The identification of problems and opportunities focuses the planning effort and aids in the development of objectives.
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities (please refer to the Appendices for additional detail). Four distinct initiatives were undertaken to garner public input: • • • • Establishment of a website (www.evergladesplan.org) to provide information and communication paths. Submission of scoping letter to identified Project stakeholders providing a description of the EAA Storage Reservoir project and identifying points of contact for more information or registering concerns.
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities eutrophic state of the lake, although it should be noted that the EAA is not the largest source of nutrients entering Lake Okeechobee. There are other larger sources of nutrients to the lake, notably the Kissimmee River basin and the Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Basin. Lake Okeechobee is designated as a Class I water body according to the Florida Administrative Code (FAC). This means that it is used as a potable water supply source.
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities distribution of flow to the STA’s. Nutrient removal by biological and physical means could occur within the storage reservoirs through uptake by plants and microorganisms, as well as by physically slowing water and causing sediments laden with nutrients and agricultural chemicals to settle out of the water column.
Section 4 4.1.3.2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities Lake Okeechobee Ecosystem damage in the Lake Okeechobee littoral zone includes the loss of beneficial plant life as well as continued growth and colonization by melaleuca, torpedo grass, and other exotic plants. Prolonged high water levels stress native vegetation. This stressed native community provides an opportunity for exotic species to invade areas previously occupied by native species.
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities 4.1.4 Fish and Wildlife 4.1.4.1 Everglades and WCAs Human-induced changes in and around the Study Area have resulted in a substantial reduction in habitat quality for fish and wildlife. In the WCAs, the population of alligators has increased, but nesting success is affected by water levels. Colonial wading birds’ feeding and breeding success is also affected by ponded, deep water areas, and altered timing of seasonal drying.
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities Okeechobee littoral shelves and subaquatic vegetation, and the northern estuaries from damaging high water levels and untimely discharges. When Lake Okeechobee exceeds its regulation schedule, water that currently impacts the lake’s littoral zone or disrupts the ecological communities in the northern estuaries, could be moved southward into new storage areas and then, water quality permitting, to the WCAs. 4.1.
Section 4 • • Identification of Problems and Opportunities Reduce regulatory releases of water from Lake Okeechobee to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, Increase flood protection within the EAA. Flood protection benefits provided by this project will be considered incidental to the additional water management improvements within the EAA. The constraints are: • • • • • 4.2.
Section 4 • • • • • • • Identification of Problems and Opportunities SEEP/W - A two dimensional finite elements computer program. This program is generally used to evaluate relatively smaller areas than the Modflow program. This program has been used to evaluate total seepage from the reservoirs, seepage quantities to the seepage collection canal, exit gradients, and effects of the buffer on the seepage flow.
Section 4 Identification of Problems and Opportunities This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 4-10 February 2006
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans SECTION 5 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 5 5.0 5.1 Formulation of Alternative Plans FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS PRIOR FORMULATION FROM THE COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY In 1999, USACE completed a comprehensive review study of the C&SF project (a.k.a. “Restudy”).
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans into two phases to expedite implementation. The first phase included the construction of two equally sized compartments of 20,000 acre at 6-feet maximum depths. This first phase was conditionally authorized by Congress in Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (Public Law (PL 106-541). Based on this phased approach, a PMP was prepared to address the EAA Storage Reservoirs Project - Phase 1.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Prior planning efforts have concluded that additional water storage areas must be located near Lake Okeechobee as this will ensure a robust hydraulic connection to the lake and the flexibility needed to better manage high water levels in the lake. Proposed locations and management measures for achieving additional water storage in the vicinity of Lake Okeechobee include: 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans 4. Meet agricultural demands within the EAA. This is the current condition. Water is provided to meet the needs of agriculture. 5. Increase flood protection within the EAA. Water could be backpumped (this is allowed under current law without having to treat the water) from the EAA to storage within the lake to reduce flood damage.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans adversely affect natural system areas receiving such discharges. Increasing lake levels would also create additional operation, maintenance, and rehabilitation and repair requirements to ensure that the Herbert Hoover Dike surrounding Lake Okeechobee could safely contain the volume of additional water. 5.2.1.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans This location would require that the runoff from the EAA be pumped north through Lake Okeechobee and again pumped into storage reservoirs. This would require extensive pumping facilities to physically transfer the water, as well as treatment of the water before allowing it to enter the lake and again prior to discharging back to the lake to meet current state water quality standards.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans water southward to the WCAs to meet regulation schedules when the WCAs already have too much water. 3. Reduce regulatory releases of water from Lake Okeechobee to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries. Storage in both the C-44 and C-43 basins to the east and west of the lake can hold water back and not send it to the lake or the estuaries.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans (Compartment D). The former includes a series of 200 aquifer storage and recovery wells adjacent to Lake Okeechobee with a capacity of 5 million gallons per day each (1 billion gallons per day in total) and associated pre and post water quality treatment facilities to treat the water to drinking water standards prior to injection into the Upper Floridan Aquifer and after recovery from the aquifer.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans and west estuaries in such large volumes that their natural salinity regimes are harmed. 4. Meet agricultural demands within the EAA. More water could be moved from north of the lake to the lake and then southward to the EAA to meet the needs of agriculture. Storing additional water in ASR systems rather than in reservoirs raises a high level of technological and regulatory uncertainty.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans reservoirs) and because a marsh habitat would have to be kept hydrated, the evapotranspiration loss would be much higher than for reservoirs, thereby significantly reducing the storage value of these areas. A long, rectangular configuration would have a 75% longer levee than a traditional storage reservoir, thus increasing environmental impacts, project cost, and the area devoted to seepage management features.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans has the advantage of potential enhancement of STA operation by intercepting peak flows during wet periods and retaining water during dry periods while metering water output to the STAs. Depending upon placement and the size of the reservoirs, this option may remove property from the tax roles in Palm Beach County, with its associated negative impacts on the socioeconomic components of the environment in this county.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans within the EAA, south of Lake Okeechobee. Five parcels were identified as possible locations shown in Figure 1-3. Two adjacent parcels totaling 31,494 acres were identified as Compartment A. Two other adjacent parcels totaling 9,302 acres became Compartment B. The last parcel of 8,884 acres was identified as Compartment C. 5.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans TABLE 5-2: SUMMARY OF RESERVOIR ALTERNATIVES. Alternative Designation Alt 2 Depth (ft) 6 Area (Ac) 62,000 Storage (acre-feet) 360,000 Alt 3 10 38,000 360,000 Earthen Alt 4 12 32,000 360,000 Earthen Alt 5 12 32,000 360,000 RCC Alt 6 14 26,500 360,000 Earthen Embankment Type Earthen Embankment heights were set approximately 6.7 feet and 7.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-1: ALTERNATIVE 2 DESIGN LAYOUT. TABLE 5-3: ALTERNATIVE 2 DESIGN SUMMARY.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-2: ALTERNATIVE 3 DESIGN LAYOUT TABLE 5-4: ALTERNATIVE 3 DESIGN SUMMARY.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-3: ALTERNATIVES 4 AND 5 DESIGN LAYOUT TABLE 5-5: ALTERNATIVES 4 AND 5 DESIGN SUMMARY.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-4: ALTERNATIVE 6 DESIGN LAYOUT TABLE 5-6: ALTERNATIVE 6 DESIGN SUMMARY. Design Parameter 5.3.2.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans excavation of the seepage collection canal. The seepage canal construction would produce between 5% and 10% of the embankment material. The borrow pits would produce the required balance of embankment material. Embankments will be constructed with a crest width of 12 feet. Earthen embankments would have 1 (vertical) on 3 (horizontal) slopes on both sides.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-6: TYPICAL RCC LEVEE SECTION Currently, the total construction cost estimates are within approximately 7% for both the earthen and RCC embankments. Design assumptions and requirements have been refined based upon the results of a project recently constructed and operated by the SFWMD.
Section 5 5.3.2.3 Formulation of Alternative Plans Wave Breaking Bench A wave breaking bench is planned to be constructed along the inside face of the exterior embankment (not the embankment which separates cell 1 and 2) for either type of embankment construction. This wave-breaking bench will be constructed to an elevation of 3 feet below the Maximum Surcharge Water Level. The bench will be 25 feet wide on the top, with 1V on 3H side slope.
Section 5 5.3.5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Ogee Spillways The gated outlet spillways were sized to meet water supply demand in the EAA. Water supply demand in the EAA was estimated to be approximately 2,000 cfs. This value was determined by analyzing historical flow data for the S-351, S-352 structures (outlet structures from Lake Okeechobee into Miami, North New River, and Hillsboro Canals) and the S-6, S-7, and S-8 pump stations.
Section 5 5.3.7 Formulation of Alternative Plans Emergency Overflow Spillway All alternatives were designed to contain the routed Probable Maximum Flood (PMF) without the use of an emergency overflow spillway. Since this is an overground reservoir the PMF is same as capture of the Probable Maximum Precipitation (PMP) event on the reservoir. Use of an emergency overflow spillway will be investigated and included in the design phase. 5.3.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans this alternative would be lands between the Miami Canal and North New River Canal, west and north of Compartment A. Of the remaining 30,500 acres required, the SFWMD owns approximately 900 acres and the State of Florida owns approximately 1,520 acres. The remaining lands comprising approximately 28,080 acres would have to be acquired from private interests.
Section 5 5.3.11 Formulation of Alternative Plans Additional On-Site Management Measures The following environmental management measures have been developed to provide an increase in spatial extent of natural areas adjacent to or within the EAA storage reservoirs or to ensure that the project will not adversely affect downstream natural areas. Since the final alternative will be selected based upon system-wide benefits, these measures were developed (description, cost, benefits, etc.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans access during routine maintenance, and the remaining 150 feet will be minimally contoured to create a mosaic of wetland and upland habitat types such as emergent marsh and tree islands. Although wider vegetated wildlife buffers and corridors are usually more desirable and offer increased opportunities for escape cover and nesting sites than narrower buffers, there is no exact width above which wildlife thrives and below which they are nonexistent (Henry, et., al.
Section 5 5.3.11.3 Formulation of Alternative Plans Littoral Shelves Littoral shelves are shallow-water areas around the shorelines of the seepage canals where sunlight usually penetrates to the bottom. Aquatic vegetation, such as emergent and submergent plants, can grow in these areas.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans are equal for all alternative plans, these costs will only be included the costs of the selected alternative plan (Section 6). TABLE 5-9: ALTERNATIVE PLAN COST ESTIMATES.
Section 5 5.3.12.1 Formulation of Alternative Plans Calculation of Average Annual Cost Data for initial construction/implementation, land acquisition, monitoring, and periodically recurring costs for OMRR&R (operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation), have been developed through engineering design and cost estimation, and real estate appraisal efforts. Details of that data development are explained and discussed elsewhere in this report.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans costs (because of varying land area requirements, i.e., alternative “footprints”, and time required for land acquisition), varying material and operational costs, and varying interest during construction (IDC) costs. Construction, real estate, IDC, total investment, present worth, and average annual equivalent costs for the EAA alternatives are presented in Table 5-10. TABLE 5-10: CALCULATION OF COSTS USED IN COST-EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS ($1000).
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans station dimensions, and dewatering plan. The data served as the basis for modifying a standard cost estimate for a pump plant of the same type. The particular standard pump plant cost estimate was derived from the government estimate of cost and the contract cost for a pump plan under construction or recently completed. 5.3.12.4 RCC Cost Estimates Construction cost estimates for RCC were produced by incorporating data provided by designers.
Section 5 • • • Formulation of Alternative Plans Normal variations are expected as the subsurface investigations are made. Haul distances for trucking operations: Haul distances were analyzed to identify reasonable areas with the required carrying capacity. Normal variances are expected in routing. The structure construction quantities: The structure quantities were calculated from standard designs. Normal variations are expected in sitespecific designs.
Formulation of Alternative Plans Good No change No change No change Good Good Low noise (34-55 decibels) Pockets of remnant wetlands; fair quality, moderate exotics Mostly agricultural land; canals provide aquatic habitat Groundwater Air Quality Noise Natural wetlands Fish and Wildlife Habitat ~37,000 ac of aquatic habitat; seepage buffer provides wetland/upland mosaic; earthen levee provides upland habitat ~60,000 ac of aquatic habitat; seepage buffer provides wetland/upland mosaic; earthen
15 species; 1 critical habitat None Cultural Resources Irreversible and Irretrievable Commitments of Resources None No change Some improvement in water quality to Everglades from ECP STAs Cultural resources survey of additional land may be necessary 5-33 Cultural resources survey of additional land may be necessary Not applicable for reservoir site; cultural resources survey of Miami and NNR canals pending 32,000 acres converted to reservoir; fish and wildlife habitat permanently altered to mostly
Section 5 5.4.1.1 Formulation of Alternative Plans Fish and Wildlife All wildlife sightings listed in Table 2-7 document wildlife observations for Compartment A. They were based on direct observations by an interagency field team evaluating wetlands in the EAA. As such, the compiled list is skewed toward wetland dependent species even though this type habitat is relatively scarce.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Construction and operation of the alternatives could cause social and economic impacts, however, the alternatives will not have significant direct or indirect effects on population within the EAA or the South Florida region as measured by displaced population from Compartment A and induced population growth. The conversion to reservoirs will eliminate the production value of sugarcane and other crops.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans each region. In addition to system-wide performance measures, an evaluation methodology was developed to capture localized alternative effects. 5.4.2.1 Quantification of Ecological Benefits Methodology A method was developed and used to evaluate project alternatives and quantify ecological benefits associated with the alternative plans. The method produced quantitative output that allowed the study team to compare ecosystem benefits across all alternatives.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Ecological Models developed for each region by the RECOVER team as well as information contained within the performance measure documentation sheets. Each one the performance measures addressed one of the specific project objectives. For example, one of the performance measures entitled, “Lake Okeechobee Extreme High Stage” addressed the stated project objective of “Habitat Improvement of Lake Okeechobee.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans for all the performance measures used. The uncertainty regarding the ability of SFWMM to show differences among alternatives may be found in the Risk and Uncertainty section. After examining the model output, the Ecological Sub-team decided upon a final subset of nine performance measures that best encompasses and reflects project objectives to quantify ecological output.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans intended that the reservoir will be operated in a manner consistent with restoring and/or sustaining hydrologic conditions in natural areas necessary to protect fish and wildlife. 5.4.2.1.4.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans It is anticipated/planned that projects such as the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project will have reduced and/or eliminated many existing operational and structural constraints by the time the EAA Reservoir Project becomes operational.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans TABLE 5-15: FRAMEWORK FOR ECOSYSTEM CONDITION BENCHMARKS Score Condition 0.9-1.0 Fully restored 0.8-0.9 Mostly restored 0.6-0.8 Functional and sustainable 0.4-0.6 Minimally sustainable 0.2-0.4 Declining 0.01-0.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans where QILO -E3 and QILO-E10 refer to Lake Okeechobee stages quality index values. As another step, the mean ecological benefits index (MEBI) may be calculated by adding up the ecological index values for the lake, estuaries, and Greater Everglades and dividing by four: MEBI = (EBILO + EBISLE + EBICE + EBIGE)/4 This equation assumes that all four ecological regions are equally important, and thus equally weighted.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-7: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS FOR LAKE OKEECHOBEE. The affected area for the lake is the littoral zone, which consists of approximately 96,000 acres. 5.4.2.2.2 St. Lucie Estuary The performance measure for the salinity envelope for the St. Lucie Estuary has four targets dealing with flows into the estuary.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-8: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS FOR ST. LUCIE ESTUARY. 5.4.2.2.3 Caloosahatchee Estuary This analysis showed that during high flow rates, when the reservoirs are used to provide storage of Lake Okeechobee water, the Project provides benefits to the Caloosahatchee Estuary. The quality index scores for the future without project and 360,000 acre-foot volume reservoirs are 0.32 and 0.81, respectively.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans C-43 Reservoir, to capture basin runoff without the added burden of Lake Okeechobee water. FIGURE 5-9: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS FOR CALOOSAHATCHEE ESTUARY. 5.4.2.2.4 Greater Everglades The model output shows an overall slight benefit to the ridge and slough habitat within WCAs 2 and 3 between the future without project and the 360,000 acrefoot reservoir, with quality index scores of 0.75 and 0.88, respectively.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-10: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS FOR RIDGE AND SLOUGH HABITATS. FIGURE 5-11: ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS FOR TREE ISLAND HABITAT.
Section 5 5.4.2.3 Formulation of Alternative Plans Quantification of System-Wide Benefits The combined average annual habitat units (CAAHUs) from each ecological region, described above, were combined using the following equation: CAAHUs = HULO + HUSLE + HUCE + HURS + HUTI/5.776 where : HULO is the Habitat Units for the Lake Okeechobee region HUSLE is the Habitat Units for the St.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans used by particular species, such as osprey. Table 5-17 shows the scores for the WRAP variables and final score out of a 0 to 1 score range for the seepage buffer habitat. For the littoral shelf, the team used only those WRAP variables that were applicable to the habitat. The scores for Littoral Shelf Habitat are shown in Table 5-18. TABLE 5-17: WRAP SCORES FOR SEEPAGE BUFFER HABITAT.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans The team feels the Habitat Units, which encompass the habitat provided for a diversity of wetland species, gained by these environmental features outweigh the additional cost for creating those features. 5.4.4 Risk and Uncertainty Risk and uncertainty associated with the project were considered, including the adaptive assessment strategy. 5.4.4.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans The risks due to this project are: 1. Risk to downstream settlement due to dam breach. 2. Higher than expected downstream damages during release of major floods due to infrastructure encroachment of flood plains. To minimize these risks, a sub-regional model was used to determine seepage rates and probability of spillover and the reservoirs operations manual will include management measures such as: 1. Developing a reservoir regulation schedule. 2.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans performance measures fully characterize all of the attributes of ecosystem functions, since the analytical tool for system-wide effects is a hydrologic simulation model. This assumption results in some uncertainty with respect to the evaluation of system-wide ecological responses because not all ecological attributes can be simply reduced to hydrologic terms.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans on water stages at certain times of the year, and beneficial responses are anticipated to begin immediately with the operations of the reservoirs. Actual restoration of colonization numbers in Lake Okeechobee and WCA-3 may take several nesting seasons. 5.4.4.5 Sequencing and Adaptive Assessment The CERP consists of 68 major components and six pilot projects.
Section 5 5.4.5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Evaluation of Alternative Plans Each alternative plan has been evaluated by analyzing the effects of the plans against various sets of evaluation categories and criteria. The results of the evaluations listed in Table 5-20 were arrayed and compared to identify significant differences among the plans.
Avg Ann HUs Avg Ann Ac-Ft NER Account Environmental Output Water Deliveries to ENP 1 1 6 6 Rank Rank Rank 1 2 1 1 1 6 6 1 1 1 1 6 6 Rank Rank 0 0 0 0 Value 1 (w/o proj) 87,280 900,00 0 $1,100 $65.0 Value 6 1 1 3 2 4.5 6 3 4 1 1 2 2 2 2.5 1 2 Rank 2 91,814 918,00 0 $860 $55.6 Value EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 5-54 3 2 2 2 3 4.5 5 5 5.5 2 2 3 4 3 5 5 5 96,244 920,00 0 $912 $64.
Rank Rank # farms Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank Rank OSE Account Public Health and Safety Subsidence Real Estate Considerations Total Acres (for info only) Loss of Farms RE Cost Variability RE Funding Stream RE Availability Construction Risk & Uncertainty Experienced Contractor Avail Level of Difficulty Cement Price & Availability Fuel Costs Site & Geology Risk Seepage Control Cost Variability O&M Mowing/ Erosion Cont.
Section 5 5.4.5.1 Formulation of Alternative Plans Evaluation Accounts Effects of the alternatives in the four evaluation accounts listed in the P&G which include – National Economic Development (NED)/ National Ecosystem Restoration (NER), Regional Economic Development (RED), Environmental Quality (EQ), and Other Social Effects (OSE). 5.4.5.2 NED Account The NED Account is represented by Average Annual Cost, Total Project Cost and Recreation Benefits.
Section 5 5.4.5.4 Formulation of Alternative Plans EQ Account For the EQ account, alternatives were ranked for Fish & Wildlife Impacts, Threatened & Endangered Species, Aesthetics, Cultural Resources, Air Quality and Water Quality. For the Fish & Wildlife Impacts, alternatives are ranked for: in reservoir impacts; embankment impacts; seepage buffer area impacts and existing wetland impacts.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Water Quality is generally determined by depth. Deeper reservoirs provide less chance for of reservoir dry-down and possible remobilization of nutrients and other constituents that have settled into reservoir sediments. Therefore Alternative 6, because it is deepest, ranks the highest while the “without project” condition ranks the lowest. Additional information can be found in Appendix E, Environmental Appendix. 5.4.5.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans implementation, including land acquisition, project construction, and operations and maintenance (O&M) activities, and (2) operation of the modified C&SF system. As in the case of the NED effects, the OSE account is concerned with the net effects of the alternative plans (i.e., the differences between the withand without-project future conditions). 5.4.5.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Florida Cement and CSR Rinker. Recent concerns with cement availability have proven Florida is in a unique market with demand exceeding all historic records. Florida was named a leading national “hot market” with the other two prevalent developing geographic areas, Texas and California. In 2001, estimating future projects, recently or currently bidding, developed concrete unit pricing of $65/CY.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Seepage control is not required along the common Phase 1, Cell1 and STA embankment section. Some measure of seepage control will be developed for Holey Land for both systems. The Earthen Embankment cutoff has an advantage with less quantities and depths.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans groups (“1” means no acceptance, “6” means greatest acceptance among stakeholders). Effectiveness is based on achievement of planning objectives and generation of habitat units (“1” represented the alternative with the least number of planning objectives while a “6 “represented the alternative the achieved the greatest number of planning objectives).
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans TABLE 5-21: ECOLOGICAL OUTPUTS (AVERAGE ANNUAL HABITAT UNITS) USED FOR CE/ICA.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans FIGURE 5-12: EAA ALTERNATIVE PLANS – CE/ICA RUN ON COMBINED AVERAGE ANNUAL HABITAT UNITS FOR ALL ALTERNATIVES. FIGURE 5-13: EAA COST EFFECTIVE PLANS – CE/ICA RUN ON ALL ALTERNATIVES.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans Next, an incremental cost analysis was performed on these cost-effective plans. Table 5-23 shows these results. The first Best Buy plan, the 10-foot alternative, exhibits an incremental cost of $565 per habitat unit, delivering a total of 95,362 average annual habitat units. The second Best Buy plan, the 12-foot earthen alternative, delivers an additional 4,414 average annual habitat units at an incremental cost of $1,973 per habitat unit.
Section 5 5.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans additional, contiguous land may require condemnation which would make the acquisition economically unfeasible and extend the implementation timeframe to an unacceptable degree.
Section 5 5.6 Formulation of Alternative Plans PERFORMANCE OF THE NEXT ADDED INCREMENT (NAI) The programmatic regulations require evaluation of the tentatively selected plan as the “next-added increment.” The next-added increment analysis evaluates the effects, or outputs, of the tentatively selected plan as the next project to be added to the group of already approved CERP projects.
Section 5 5.6.2 Formulation of Alternative Plans St. Lucie Estuary NAI Performance Lake Okeechobee Regulatory releases (LORR) were the only RECOVER performance measure that demonstrated a significant change with project implementation for the St. Lucie Estuary (Table 5-26). On a next-added incremental basis, the project will contribute 259 AAHUs to the St. Lucie Estuary be reducing regulatory releases. TABLE 5-26: HABITAT UNITS FOR ST.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans However, during high flow rates (>2800 cfs), when the reservoir is used to provide storage of Lake Okeechobee water, the selected alternative performs slightly better than the 2050B3 (69 events compared to 83 events, respectively). However, none of these alternatives are significantly different from the others. 5.6.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans the CERP can not function as source of additional water to the WCAs or ENP without extensive modification and likely substantially increased cost (compared to original designs and cost estimates).
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 5-72 February 2006
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan SECTION 6 THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE PLAN EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 6 6.0 The Selected Alternative Plan THE SELECTED ALTERNATIVE PLAN The Selected Plan, Alternative 4, features a reservoir impoundment with a maximum normal pool storage depth of 12 feet at approximately 31,000 acres of above ground surface area storage. The reservoir is divided into two cells, Cell 1 and Cell 2, approximately 17,000 and 14,000 acres in size, respectively.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan including the reservoir, stormwater treatment area (STA), structures, and canals and is located north of the Holey Land WMA and STA 3/4, west of the North New River Canal, and east of the Miami Canal. The Study Area offers the distinct advantage of close proximity to both the North New River and Miami Canals and an existing canal conveyance network. A site location map of the project area is shown below in Figure 6-1.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan The reservoirs will augment and enhance other regional CERP projects as well as the SFWMD Long-term Plan, SFWMD Everglades Regulatory Program, and SFWMD Adaptive Management Strategy. The Project is an integral part of the CERP. Ecological restoration of the Everglades will require a significant increase in the quantity of water made available or retained for the natural system.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan FIGURE 6-2: DESIGN LAYOUT Note: The Design Layout does not show the location of the Proposed STA. 6.1.1 Features The Project has the following features: 1. Pump Stations o S-610 o S-611 o Modified G-372 o Modified G-370 2. Structures o S-601 through S-609 Gated Culverts 3.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan o Improved Miami Canal o Improved Supply Canal o Improved Bolles and Cross Canals 4.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan 6.1.3 Gated Culverts 6.1.3.1 S-601 Gated Culvert Structure The structure is the outlet for Cell 1 into the North New River Canal and is located near the southeastern corner of Cell 1 just north of the G-370 pump station. S-601 is a two barreled, gated box culvert structure. The design flow is 2,000 cfs with a design head of 3.5 feet. The culvert barrels are typical box culverts with dimensions of 10 feet in height, 10 feet in width and 200 feet in length.
Section 6 6.1.3.5 The Selected Alternative Plan S-606 Gated Culvert Structure The structure is an inlet structure from North New River Canal into STA 3/4. Pump Station G-370 will pump from North New River Canal into a ring levee. When the stage in the ring levee is sufficient for making discharges, the gates from S-606 will be opened to release flows into the STA 3/4 supply canal. S-606 is a two barreled, gated box culvert structure. The design flow is 2,000 cfs with a design head of 2 feet.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan 6.1.4 Existing Structures 6.1.4.1 G-370 Pump Station G-370 is an existing pump station that is currently being used as the STA 3/4 inflow. Stormwater runoff and Lake Okeechobee releases in the North New River Canal pass underneath the bridge on US 27 through this pump station and into the STA ¾ distribution system. For the EAA Storage Reservoir Project, this pump station will be used as the reservoir Cell 1 inflow as well as inflow to STA 3/4.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan 6.1.5 Canals 6.1.5.1 Perimeter Canal The functions of perimeter canals, C-601 and C-602, are for seepage collection and conveyance of reservoir outlet flows. The canals are also required as a borrow source for construction of levees. The new perimeter canals will capture seepage to the western, northern, and eastern boundaries. Seepage along the reservoirs southern boundary will be captured by the existing STA 3/4 supply canal. 6.1.5.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan River Canal channel improvement is constrained by U.S. 27 on the west bank. All of this work is planned to be performed within the existing SFWMD right of way of the North New River Canal 6.1.6.3 Bolles and Cross Canals Improvements to the Bolles and Cross Canals will allow water from Lake Okeechobee and the northern portion of the EAA to be more effectively routed to the south. The design capacity determined for these canals is 1,500 cfs.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan Cut-off walls will be installed as part of the levee or embankment construction. For earthen embankments, the estimated depth of the cut-off wall is 35 feet along the east, north, west, and STA3/4 sides of the reservoir. A 50-foot deep cut-off wall will be installed along the Holey Land area. 6.1.8 Bridges The S-609 box culvert structure will be constructed underneath U.S. Highway 27.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan 6.1.10 Other Features 6.1.10.1 Wetlands Buffer A 200-foot buffer area runs along the east, north, and western boundaries of the reservoir. This seepage buffer will extend 200 feet from the base of the embankment. It will provide both seepage control and wildlife habitat within the project footprint, encompassing a total of 560 acres. The design of the buffer is to mimic an upland-wetland mosaic and allow for maintenance of the reservoir embankment (Table 6-4).
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan TABLE 6-4: WETLANDS BUFFER AND LITTORAL ZONE Feature Wetland Upland Littoral Shelf 50' Corridor to Eventually Return to Wetland Ave. Width (ft) 60 50 30 50 Length (lf) 110,000 82,500 110,000 110,000 Area (Acres) 152 95 76 126 Totals 278 95 76 Notes: 1. Wetland and Upland average width is calculated by assuming an average depth of 1 foot. Which results in an average Wetland strip width of 60 linear feet and 50 linear feet Upland. 2.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan FIGURE 6-5: EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA CONCEPTUAL RECREATION PLAN TABLE 6-5: SUMMARY OF RECREATION COSTS AND BENEFITS Annual Costs Total Recreation Costs $342,300 Interest during PED and Construction $38,500 Total Investment Cost $380,800 Average Annual Cost $27,800 Interest $23,100 OMRR&R $4,700 Annual Benefits Unit Day Value Daily Use Annual Use (100 users x 365 days) Average Annual Benefit Benefit to Cost Net Annual Benefits EAA Storage Reservoirs R
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan 6.2 COST ESTIMATE 6.2.1 Initial Costs The total estimated initial cost for the selected alternative plan is $912,895,089. This does not include any real estate, engineering, design or construction costs for the proposed stormwater treatment area, which will be included at a Planning level cost estimate in the Final PIR.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan until the first of the month following the estimated construction completion date. Interest during construction is shown within Table 6-7.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan TABLE 6-8: OMRR&R COST ESTIMATES Item Spillway (2000 cfs) Spillway (3000 cfs) New Pump Station (2,000 cfs) New Pump Station (3,000cfs) Embankment Maintenance Road Maintenance Invasive Plant Control - Reservoir Invasive Plant Control - Buffer Area Supervision & Monitoring Recreation Maintenance Quantity 5 2 1 1 Estimated Annual Cost $ 245,000 $ 112,000 $ 300,000 $ 400,000 $ 108,871 $ 34,881 $ 555,717 $ 47,575 $ 605,238 $ 4,700 TOTAL 6.2.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan 6.4 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS 6.4.1 Embankments and Canals 6.4.1.1 Reservoir Embankments The embankments for the EAA Reservoir will be constructed in their entirety from materials found on the Project site. Earthen embankments will be constructed as “zoned” type embankments, see typical sections in Appendix A on Plates G-2 through G-4. This is defined as an embankment with zones of differing gradations.
Section 6 6.4.1.1.2 The Selected Alternative Plan RipRap Slope Protection The interior face of the earthen reservoir embankment will be protected with a 24-inch thick layer of riprap revetment for erosion protection against wave action and water level fluctuation. The material for this riprap will come from blasting the caprock layer immediately below the superficial peat-silt layer overlaying the EAA area.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan will be built on the reservoir side of the canal by scrapping of the peat layer with no additional blasting. The littoral shelf will be built at a 1V:5H slope for the first 15 feet and 1V:2H slope to the canal base. Where the caprock intersects the littoral shelf it will be sloped to the extent practicable. The seepage collection canal will be located along the exterior of the east, north and west sides of the reservoir. 6.4.1.3.
Section 6 6.4.2.1.4 The Selected Alternative Plan Steel Sheet Pile EM 1110-2-2504, Design of Sheet Pile Walls is used to design wing walls and cofferdams. Yield strength of 50-ksi has been assumed for sheet pile design. 6.4.2.1.5 Structural Steel The Manual of Steel Construction, Allowable Stress Design, 9th Edition, is used to design swales and struts for cofferdams. Yield strength of 50-ksi is assumed for structural steel. 6.4.2.2 Culverts 6.4.2.2.
Section 6 6.4.2.3.2 The Selected Alternative Plan Construction Materials The superstructures for all pumping stations are constructed with reinforced concrete. For large pumping stations, the substructure is constructed with mass concrete. Substructures for medium and small pumping stations are constructed with reinforced concrete. 6.4.2.4 Bridges The S-609 box culvert structure will be constructed underneath U.S. Highway 27.
Section 6 6.4.3.2 The Selected Alternative Plan Mechanical Design Pump Station General Information and Size Criteria The new pumping stations of the Project shall be categorized as medium-sized. For the purpose of this study, a pump station is considered medium-sized if it has least one pump with a capacity greater than 75 cfs, and no pumps with a capacity greater than 450 cfs.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan Medium-sized pumping stations will be configured similar to that shown on Plates M-1 through M-6. Plates M-1 through M-3 show the plan and sections for four-bay pumping station S-611. Plates M-4 through M-6 show the other medium-sized pumping station, S-610, which is a nine-bay station. The pumps at both medium-sized pumping stations are expected to run at less than 500 rpm with an efficiency of about 80%.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan providing power for the lights, controls for the pumps, ventilation fans, trash rake, etc. The emergency generator will not be sized to handle the load for the electric motor pump drives. 10. Controls systems for the engine/motor pump drives. These systems shall be as described in the Electrical Design section below. 11. During the detailed design, the designer shall coordinate with local and state authorities to ensure that the various permits (air, fuel, etc.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan During design development, the discharge arrangement will be selected based on a life cycle cost analysis of the operational and construction costs. 6.4.3.2.4 Large-Sized Pumping Stations G-370 and G-372 are already existing large-sized pumping stations located adjacent to the Project. SFWMD constructed G-370 and G-372 within the last five years to provide restoration water for STA-3/4.
Section 6 6.4.3.2.6 The Selected Alternative Plan Pumping Station Modification Recommendations Pump station, pump, and engine design modifications for G-370 and G-372 include the following systems: a) Pump Station • Backflow gates for each large pump • Dewatering bulkheads or stoplogs b) Pump changes • New impellers • Pump speed increase c) Diesel engine • Speed increase • Turbo-charging • Auxiliaries (heat exchangers, silencers, etc.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan Engines now operate at 720 RPM, but speed can be increased as high as 900 RPM. Although horsepower increases with RPM, the maximum normally aspirated design output is 200 hp per cylinder, or 1600 hp at G-370 and 1800 hp at G-372. Unless horsepower requirements can be reduced by changing the pump discharge design, the only way to have enough horsepower is to turbo-charge the engines at both pumping stations.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan be isolated and the discharge area dewatered for access for maintenance and repairs. Backflow gates will be installed at the discharge tube of each large pump. The gates will be twin vertical-lift roller gates in a bulkhead configuration with relief flaps located at the siphon discharge terminus as shown on Plate M-7.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan 6.4.3.3 Electrical Design 6.4.3.3.1 Pump Stations Electrical service will need to be furnished to the new pump stations. Commercial power is the primary source of power with diesel generators providing backup power as applicable.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan center. The access for the RTU to the control center is via microwave gateway. The automation components of all pump stations and structures that will eventually be operated and maintained by SFWMD and must conform to SFWMD standards in order to (1) achieve cost efficiency in design, construction, operation and maintenance, and, (2) meet safety, reliability, and performance requirements during routine and emergency operations.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan Bill Section 390 of the Federal Agriculture Improvement and Reform Act of 1996 (Public Law 104-127, 110 Stat. 1022) will be credited to the federal share of the project cost pursuant to Section 601 (e)(3) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000. The state funds contributed by SFWMD for the acquisition of the Talisman property, subject to the paragraph above, and the state funds for the acquisition of the Woerner Property will be credited to the state. 6.5.1.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan requires a detailed plan and forecast to assure the long-term viability and operability of the project, as constructed. 6.7 PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS The selected alternative plan and preferred plan for purposes of NEPA, would meet all of the project-specific objectives established for the EAA Storage Reservoir. It is expected to provide an aggregated 96,244 average annual habitat units, in comparison to the no-action alternative.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan For the Caloosahatchee Estuary, the NAI alternative plans are slightly better than the future without project. During the dry season, the NAI alternative plans show increased number of months with flows less than 300 cfs with no substantial differences between the alternatives. This increase would negatively affect the salinity conditions within the estuary. For the St. Lucie Estuary, the NAI alternative plans are slightly better than the future without project.
Section 6 The Selected Alternative Plan beyond their design capacity. RECOVER also recently received two DRAFT water quality reports and will provide further comments as needed. This information was only recently provided to RECOVER (7-26-05 and 7-28-05). RECOVER reviewed the Draft Water Quality Reports (Wetland Solutions, Inc. 2004 and Water and Air Research, Inc. 2005) and most RECOVER comments were consistent with the reports.
Section 6 • • • • • • • • The Selected Alternative Plan Salinities in the riverine portions of the Caloosahatchee River will increase to allow oyster reef growth; Expansion of 18 acres of oyster beds in the Caloosahatchee Estuary to 100 acres in the next 10 to 15 years; Increase the spatial extent and improve the function of submerged aquatic vegetation the Caloosahatchee River and Estuary; Salinities in the St.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan SECTION 7 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SELECTED PLAN EAA Storage Reservoir Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoir Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 7 7.0 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS OF THE SELECTED PLAN This section documents the environmental impacts and benefits of the selected plan (the preferred alternative). It presents detailed analysis on the environmental effects including unavoidable adverse effects, irreversible and irretrievable commitments of resources, cumulative effects, and environmental commitments.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan sediment and plant material settle post-construction and produce peat/mucky soils over time. Soils within the buffer area and STA are anticipated to remain hydric and retain muck properties or revert to muck properties postconstruction. The soils on the project site are classified as Unique Farmland by the NRCS.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan 7.3 FLOOD PROTECTION LEVEL OF SERVICE 7.3.1 Flood Protection Level of Service The original drainage design for the EAA was nominally based on a rainfall event with a return frequency of 10 years. The capacity of the primary pump stations serving the Miami, North New River, Hillsborough and West Palm Beach Canals is 20,645 cfs.
Section 7 7.5 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan AIR QUALITY The operation of heavy equipment used for construction of the reservoir and supporting facilities and the operation of pumps and other equipment associated with the proposed action may have some impact upon the local air quality, primarily in the form of elevated particulates, nitrogen oxides, and volatile organic compounds.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan However, the proposed project’s footprint currently is dominated by the disturbed agricultural land and associated features (roads, staging areas). According to an interagency wetland assessment of the site, including the area proposed for the STA placement, 206 acres of functional wetland habitat would be removed by the project construction (USFWS, 2003).
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan and a reduction in adverse high water stage discharges to the estuaries. In addition to benefiting the estuaries, removal of the most extreme high and low water stages should allow some recovery of the currently stressed Lake littoral zone. 7.8 FISH AND WILDLIFE 7.8.1 Aquatic Fauna Small areas of existing open water habitat would be lost under the construction footprint.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan herbaceous and shrub wetlands include marsh rabbit, red-winged blackbird, roseate spoonbill, anhinga, great egret, green-backed heron, belted kingfisher, little blue heron, tri-colored heron, and common moorhen, among others. These species are expected to occur in the seepage buffer, littoral zone, and STA constructed outside the reservoir.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan dominated by aquatic habitat. Use of the embankments by vehicles may make resident and transient wildlife somewhat more vulnerable to road kill since upland habitat will be scarce in the vicinity of the reservoir. 7.8.4 Fauna of Disturbed Areas Approximately 33,500 acres of disturbed agricultural habitat would be replaced by the construction of the preferred alternative.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan indication of use by protected species since many listed species can use Disturbed (agricultural) or Urban and Extractive habitats. 7.9.1 Florida Panther The Florida panther may be adversely affected by the proposed placement or construction of the reservoir and STA. While the proposed project site is located outside the primary and secondary zone for the panther, it may utilize cover types that occur in the project footprint.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan concurrent with this project include the Everglades Construction Project, in particular, the proposed expansion of STAs 2 and 5. These projects, like the Selected Plan, will have various pump stations and other structures that may pose a risk to the manatee.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan the shallow habitat that may be created during the dry (breeding) season in the main portion of the reservoir, since wood storks require shrinking wetlands to concentrate food resources for their specialized feeding. Listed wading birds (including wood storks) and other wetland dependent fauna will also benefit from the deep-water refugia created within the reservoirs.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Raptor Protection on Power lines: The State of the Art in 1996" shall be consulted for recommended measures to protect bald eagles from electrocution. The USACE determines that this project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the bald eagle. 7.9.5 Audubon’s Crested Caracara Audubon’s crested caracara is a widely foraging species using agricultural lands.
Section 7 7.9.7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Eastern Indigo Snake Eastern indigo snakes were not documented in Compartment A, although available habitat is present but marginal. They are a wide-ranging species capable of utilizing a variety of habitats; therefore, they could occur within the affected area. Construction of the 31,000-acre reservoir on primarily agricultural land will result in the removal of potential habitat for the indigo snake.
Section 7 7.9.10 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Smalltooth Sawfish As stated above, this and other CERP projects are expected to improve estuarine conditions. A more stable salinity regime should result in increased submerged aquatic vegetation coverage and increased populations of small fish and benthic organisms, which are a food source for the sawfish. As such, the USACE determines this project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” the sawfish. 7.9.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan effect on Johnson’s seagrass. The USACE determines this project “may affect, but is not likely to adversely affect” Johnson’s seagrass. 7.9.14 State-listed Species Eleven state-listed bird species are documented from the EAA and five are known to occur within Compartment A. These are the little blue heron, roseate spoonbill, tricolored heron, white ibis and burrowing owl.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan frequency and severity of flushing events, algal blooms, turbid water and fish kills. The proposed project is also expected to slightly improve the water quality in Lake Okeechobee thus reducing pollutant loads to the estuaries. Reducing of salinity and nutrient fluctuations caused by large pulsed fresh water flows would allow seagrass and mangrove habitat conditions in the downstream estuaries to improve.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan proposed storage reservoir with the improved conveyance between Lake Okeechobee and the reservoir. The principal change in water management will be an increase in the number of structures (embankments, pumps, weirs, and canals) associated with the storage reservoir and its operation. A complex operation schedule will be designed and implemented to maximize the benefits of the storage reservoir.
Section 7 7.12.2 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Caloosahatchee River and Estuary The Preferred Alternative will reduce the number of regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee to the Caloosahatchee Estuary. High volume releases of water discharged from Lake Okeechobee to the Gulf of Mexico through the Caloosahatchee River are very damaging to the estuary.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Releases of water from the proposed reservoir to the EPA to the south will benefit the ridge and slough habitat and particularly the tree islands in this area as compared to the future-without-project condition. The positive impacts to these habitats will be subtle. However, it will affect large areas - at least 257,586 acres of ridge and slough habitat and 11,788 acres of tree islands. 7.12.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan until March 31, 2005. After March 2005, land could be leased for agricultural purposes until needed by the USACE for restoration purposes. The Preferred Alternative will not have a significant effect on future population growth in other areas resulting from conversion of the site from agricultural use to a reservoir.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Increased water storage capacity should reduce agricultural flood damage thereby indirectly affecting agricultural employment. Computation of flood damages (in dollars) based on seasonality of crops within the sub-basin containing Compartment A has not yet been completed. The additional water storage should enhance economic values and social well-being in urban areas near Lake Okeechobee by reducing the number of structures affected by flooding.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan avoided. In addition, land that has historically been used for agriculture, but now has limited agricultural value, will be used for the EAA Storage Reservoir project. This will minimize the potential direct loss of jobs. The EAA Storage Reservoir project can support the remaining agriculture in the EAA. In fact, it could improve agriculture by augmenting water supply and flood control for the EAA.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan uses in the area generally, which are almost exclusively in agricultural or conservation uses. 7.16 RECREATIONAL RESOURCES The Preferred Alternative was analyzed for potential effects to: 1. Existing recreational facilities; and, 2. Potential for future recreational usage. Currently, there is no state or county recreational facility on Compartment A that would be affected by the EAA Storage Reservoir project.
Section 7 7.18 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan CULTURAL RESOURCES Construction and operation of the Reservoir would have no effects on cultural resources. A review of the Florida Master Site Files, and a site visit determined the project site contained no recorded historical properties. The property has been heavily impacted by long-term agricultural practices and both road and canal construction, resulting in a highly disturbed landscape.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan The Project complies with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL89-665), as amended in 2000, its implementing regulations (36 Code of Federal Regulations [C.F.R.] Part 800) and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL93-291), as amended. 7.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan 2. Railroad Bridges - Three railroad bridges would be affected by the increased conveyance requirements for the NNR and Miami Canals. One railroad bridge crosses the NNR and two cross the Miami Canal. The bridge across the NNR is owned by Florida East Coast Railway (F.E.C. RY.). Of the two bridges across the Miami Canal, one is owned by U.S. Sugar Corp; the second is owned by Seaboard System Railroad.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan reservoir area is also anticipated. The need for additional required utility relocation may be found once pre-construction project survey information is available. 7.20.3 Effects to Roadways: New Structure on U.S.-27 - A new structure (S-609) will need to be constructed on U.S.-27 in order to provide access from the EAA Reservoir Cell 1 to the NNR Canal. This will be a new bridge or gated culvert structure.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan 2. Miami Canal - Structures are itemized from north towards south along the canal. The following structures exist along the banks of the Miami Canal or cross over it: FDOT Bridges 4 Railroad Bridges 3 Privately Owned Bridges 2 Privately Owned Pump Stations and Intake Structures 4 Other Structures 11 Two, double span bridges over Miami Canal in the vicinity of Hoover Dike. These two bridges will not be affected by the project.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan 3. Cross Canal - Structures are itemized from west towards east along the canal. The following structures exist along the banks of the Cross Canal or cross over it: Privately Owned Bridges 5 Privately Owned Pump Stations and Intake Structures 3 Mainly owned by agricultural companies in the area. Four are bridges and one consists of culverts under Duba Road across the canal.
Section 7 7.21.2 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Land Use (Agriculture) About 33,500 acres of agricultural lands will be permanently removed from production due to the construction of the proposed large above-ground storage reservoir, STA, and associated features. 7.21.3 Wetlands Approximately 206 acres of functional wetlands and approximately 33,294 acres of atypical (agricultural) wetlands would be permanently altered within the project footprint. 7.21.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan miles of canals. Such construction and structural modifications are proposed on such a scale that these features represent an irreversible and irretrievable commitment of resources. Resources to be committed if the project is approved include state and federal funding to purchase lands and labor, energy and project materials to build, operate, and maintain the Project.
Section 7 • • • Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan Modifications to 11,000 acres of existing limestone quarries in the Lake Belt region of northern Miami-Dade County for water storage for urban areas and the natural environment; Construction of new wastewater reuse facilities and modifications to an existing waste water reuse facility to supply up to 220 million gallons per day of treated, clean water to the natural system; and Pilot projects to address uncertainties associated with some of the p
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan different hydrologic basins, and as distinct units rather than multiple features within a single watershed, they will not likely result in a significantly detrimental cumulative effect. As part of the CERP, the proposed EAA reservoirs will benefit South Florida ecosystems. Specifically, the proposed EAA reservoirs will benefit the St.
Section 7 Environmental Effects of the Selected Plan have been used to provide both functions. Creation of the reservoirs will provide the needed storage function, allowing the STAs primary use as water treatment facilities. Increased residence times of water within the STAs will ensure better treatment of waters released to the WCAs and have beneficial water quality effects on all downstream ecosystems.
Section 8 Plan Implementation SECTION 8 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 8 Plan Implementation This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 8 8.0 Plan Implementation PLAN IMPLEMENTATION The conditionally authorized Phase 1 EAA Project has been reevaluated. It has been determined that to optimize the design, it is no longer necessary to phase this Project. The three reasons for initially phasing this Project were because it was believed that: 1. Only a portion of that lands needed for the entire project had been acquired by the DOI and SFWMD, 2.
Section 8 Plan Implementation performed by SFWMD will be subject to project authorization and adherence to USACE design standards and regulations. 8.1.1 Project Implementation Schedule The EAA Storage Reservoir Final PIR/EIS is currently scheduled for April 2006. Upon approval and authorization, construction of the federal project can begin as early as 2008 depending on the availability of the federal appropriation, and is expected to be completed in 2011.
Section 8 Plan Implementation of magnitude costs for the proposed STA include an estimated real estate cost of $8,176,000 and cost estimates for construction ranging from $57,800,000 to in excess of $150,000,000, based on comparative costs of similar construction. A reconnaissance level cost estimate will be prepared for the Final PIR/EIS.
Section 8 Plan Implementation planning, design, and construction of recreation features are cost-shared equally by the Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor; however, operation and maintenance of the recreation features is a non-Federal responsibility. 8.2.1 Cost Apportionment Table 8-1 includes an apportionment of construction of the Selected Plan.
Section 8 Plan Implementation CERP activities) require revisions to the Project Operating Manual, those revisions will be completed in accordance with the process outlined in the CERP Programmatic Regulations and applicable USACE regulations, consistent with applicable NEPA requirements. 8.
Section 8 Plan Implementation increase in groundwater elevations beneath STA 3/4 is not expected to adversely affect water quality treatment functions of that project and can be further managed by project surface water operations considering these groundwater deliveries.
Section 8 Plan Implementation Until a new source of water of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the water lost as a result of project implementation. The analysis of effects on existing legal sources was conducted by evaluating water supply performance measures, including stage and volume probability curves for basins and/or indicator regions and water budget data produced by the South Florida Water Management Model.
Section 8 Plan Implementation the estuaries via the C-43 (Caloosahatchee) and C-44 (St. Lucie) Canals. For these three benefit regions (Lake Okeechobee, St.
Section 8 Plan Implementation Condition PIR Baseline). The selected plan's effects were evaluated by comparing water supply performance measures and water budget data for those basins affected by the project. The results of the evaluation indicate that selected plan will increase the quantity of water available in the C&SF Project to meet water supply and resource protection needs.
Section 8 Plan Implementation during the pre-construction engineering and design (PED) phase. The monitoring schemes for the project are detailed in Annex F and summarized in Table 8-2.
Section 8 8.6 Plan Implementation ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, its non-Federal sponsor the South Florida Water Management District, and contractors commit to avoiding, minimizing, or mitigating for adverse effects during construction activities by taking the following actions: 1. Employ best management practices with regard to erosion and turbidity control.
Section 8 Plan Implementation Both the FFWCC and the USFWS have been consulted for recommendations on avoidance of impacts to federally listed and state listed species. Both the FFWCC and USFWS will be consulted in the event that colonial or solitary wading bird nests are observed within the construction footprint. In addition, Florida burrowing owls are known to inhabit ruderal areas, such as canal banks and road berms, in the vicinity of the project.
Section 8 Plan Implementation levels and other persistent contaminants in prey fish (mosquitofish, sunfish, and largemouth bass) within the reservoir, and downstream area. In the event that ecological risks from contaminants to listed species become evident through sampling regimes and monitoring, the USACE will consult with the USFWS to determine if reinitiating consultation in accordance with section 7 of the ESA is necessary. 10. The initial flooding of the reservoir would occur at a rate of 0.
Section 8 Plan Implementation Everglades Protection Area downstream including Water Conservation Areas 2 and 3 and Everglades National Park. The goals for this Project are a synthesis of federal, state and local objectives from the Restudy (Central & Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study, 1999) and regional objectives outlined by the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable Florida. The success of this plan is dependent upon its many contributors.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance SECTION 9 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 9 9.0 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance SUMMARY OF COORDINATION AND ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE 9.1 SCOPING AND DRAFT EIS A Notice of Intent to prepare a Draft Environmental Impact Statement for the EAA Storage Reservoir was published in the Federal Register Volume 67, No. 36 on February 22, 2002.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance historic flows and flow-ways. Many of the public comments expressed concern over potential impact on jobs in the EAA. The Notice of Availability (NOA) of the Draft EIS appeared in the Federal Register Volume 70, No. 198 on October 14, 2005. In addition, the NOA was mailed to interested and affected parties by letter dated September 26, 2005. Comments and responses to those comments have been incorporated into the Revised Draft EIS in Annex H.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance Myers; the Andytown – Corbett and Andytown – Martin 500 kV transmission lines that run immediately west of and parallel to the L-6 and L-7 levees and WCA Nos.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance utility facilities that cross or run parallel to the Cross and Bolles canals will depend on the final project design and the location of the additional right-of-way to be acquired to implement the improvements. This includes one FPL 138kV transmission line that crosses the Bolles Canal approximately 2 miles west of US 27.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance As a result of the SFWMD’s experience during the construction of STA ¾, including the associated bridge construction on US 27, in working with those utilities located on the west side of US 27, it is not anticipated that substantial relocations of utilities will be required to construct this project. 9.3 CIRCULATION OF REVISED DRAFT PIR / EIS The Revised Draft EIS is anticipated to be released in February 2006.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance Act will also be required for the construction (non-point source runoff) of project features. This program has been delegated by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency for implementation to FDEP. NPDES permits for construction of project features under the Acceler8 program prior to Federal approval and authorization of the Selected Plan for the federal EAA Storage Reservoir will be the responsibility of SFWMD.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance Certification (WQC) will be met by an NPDES permit. compliance with this Act. 9.6.3 The project is in Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 The State Clearinghouse provided comments on September 13, 2002, in response to a scoping letter and indicated probable consistency. A federal consistency determination in accordance with 15 CFR 930 Subpart C is included in the Revised Draft PIR/EIS in Annex C.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance The project is in compliance with the National Environmental Policy Act. 9.6.5 Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 This project has been coordinated with USFWS and FFWCC. Planning Aid Letters (PALs) have been received from the USFWS on a regular basis since 2002.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance event migratory bird nest sites are discovered. Also, with the construction of the reservoir, habitat buffer, and littoral shelves, as well as its location adjacent to natural areas, it is anticipated that migratory birds, especially wading birds, would benefit by additional foraging areas provided by the project. The project is in compliance with these Acts. 9.6.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance construction and operation would protect any marine mammals in the area; therefore, we do not anticipate that the project will result in take as defined by Marine Mammal Protection Act. Manatee protection is managed by the USFWS.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance and the existing conditions, no cultural resources survey was necessary, subject to the following condition: A professional archaeologist is on-call and performs periodic monitoring throughout the construction phase of the project In a subsequent verbal conversation, the SHPO requested a site visit be made of the Miami, North New River, and Bolles/Cross Canals to assess potential impacts to cultural resources from increasing the canal conveyan
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance 32 of the 34 tracts. The Phase I ESAs identified 193 areas of concern ranging from maintenance areas, to mix and load and staging areas chemical storage buildings, to petroleum storage tanks, pump station, and refueling areas to former airstrips. Three of the tracts within the project area, the Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area, the Holey Land Wildlife Management Area and the Talisman South Ranch #100-1002 have not been formally evaluated.
Section 9 9.6.13 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 This project has been coordinated with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) in accordance with the Act. The determination that unique farmland would be taken out of production by implementation of this project has been made by the NRCS in a letter dated May 6, 2005. Coordination with the NRCS is in progress. 9.6.14 E.O.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination and Environmental Compliance assessment is included in Section 7 of the report. The project is in compliance with the Executive Order. 9.6.17 E.O. 13112, Invasive Species The project site has a 31,500-acre footprint. Much of the vegetation is sugarcane, which will be removed within the immediate footprint as a consequence of construction of the impoundment. Construction equipment will use standard measures to avoid the spread of invasive species.
Section 10 Recommendations SECTION 10 RECOMMENDATIONS EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 10 Recommendations This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 10 10.0 Recommendations RECOMMENDATIONS I am recommending a plan that is designed to capture, store and redistribute fresh water previously lost to tide and to regulate the quality, quantity, timing and distribution of water flows, that is an integral part of the CERP. The CERP will play an important role in reversing the environmental impacts that have occurred for the past fifty years as a result of the existing C&SF Flood Control System.
Section 10 Recommendations cost of $456,447,545 and an estimated non-Federal first cost of $456,447,545. The estimated total annual cost of operation, maintenance, repair, rehabilitation and replacement is $2,413,982 with an estimated Federal annual cost of $1,206,991 and an estimated non-Federal cost of $1,206,991.
Section 10 Recommendations g) Unless otherwise provided for in the statutory authorization for this project, comply with Section 221 of Public Law 91-611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 103 of the WRDA of 1986, Public Law 99-662, as amended which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence the construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, until the Non-Federal Sponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for
Section 10 Recommendations 91-646, as amended by the title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (Public Law 100-17), and Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR part 24, in acquiring lands, easements, and rights-of-way, and performing relocations for construction, operation and maintenance of the project, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in connection with said act.
Section 10 Recommendations for services that may include designing, building, operating or financing these components. Expedited implementation may involve the Non-Federal Sponsor initiating construction activities prior to executing a Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA). Expedited implementation of the EAA Storage Reservoir Project is in the best interest of the Federal Government because it will provide early restoration benefits, potential cost savings and reduced cash flow demands.
Section 10 Recommendations This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 10-6 February 2006
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms SECTION 11 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 11 11.0 11.1 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS GLOSSARY OF TERMS A Acre-foot— The quantity of water required to cover 1 acre to a depth of 1 foot. Equal to 43,560 cubic feet (1,233.5 cubic meters). Affected environment— Existing biological, physical, social, and economic conditions of an area subject to change, both directly and indirectly, as a result of a proposed human action.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms result in the destruction or adverse modification of critical habitat. This document may include: Critical habitat— A description of the specific areas with physical or biological features essential to the conservation of a listed species and which may require special management considerations or protection. These areas have been legally designated via Federal Register notices. Jeopardy opinion— The U.S.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms E Ecosystem— A functional group of animal and plant species that operate in a unique setting that is mostly self-contained. Endangered species— Any species or subspecies of bird, mammal, fish, amphibian, reptile, or plant which is in serious danger of becoming extinct throughout all, or a significant portion of its range. Federally endangered species are officially designated by the U.S.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Instream flow requirements— Amount of water flowing through a stream course needed to sustain instream values. Minimum flow— Lowest flow in a specified period of time. Peak flow— Maximum instantaneous flow in a specified period of time. G H Habitat— Area where a plant or animal lives. Heterogeneity— Unlike, dissimilar, not uniform Hydrologic response— An observed decrease or increase of water in a particular area.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms K L Limnology— Scientific study of the physical, chemical and characteristics of freshwater including lakes, streams, and ponds. biological Littoral zone— The shore of land surrounding a water body that is characterized by periodic inundation or partial saturation by water level. Typically defined by species of vegetation found. M Marl— Soil comprised of clays, carbonates and shell remains. Marsh— An area of low-lying wetland.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms O Oxygen demand— The biological or chemical demand of dissolved oxygen in water. Required by biological processes for respiration. P Peat— Soil rich in humus or organic (exerts of oxygen demand) and is highly porous. Phosphorus— Element or nutrient required for energy production in living organisms. Distributed into the environment mostly as phosphates by agricultural runoff (fertilizer) and life cycles.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms stage to acceptable levels. Second, to make available water for water supply demand (e.g., ecological, agricultural, or urban). Reservoir— Artificially impounded body of water. S Scoping— The process of defining the scope of a study, primarily with respect to the issues, geographic area, and alternatives to be considered. The term is typically used in association with environmental documents prepared under the National Environmental Policy Act.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms maintained by water supplies significantly in excess of those otherwise available through local precipitation. Wet Season— Hydrologically, for south Florida the months associated with a higher than average incident of rainfall, May through October. Wildlife habitat— An area that provides a water supply and vegetative habitat for wildlife.
Section 11 11.
Section 11 CWA CY CZM CZMA Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Clean Water Act (of 1977) Cubic yard Coastal Zone Management Coastal Zone Management Act D DA DAR dB DCE DCT DE DEIS DEP DO DoD DOD DOE DOI DOJ DOQQ DOT DPR DPS Department of the Army Defense Acquisition Regulations Decibels Design Construction Evaluation Design Coordination Team District Engineer Draft Environmental Impact Statement Department of Environmental Protection [Florida – FDEP] Dissolved Oxygen [D.O.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms F °F FAC FAQs FDEP FC FCSA FDEP FEIS FEMA FERC FFWCC FIFR FIFRA FLUCCS FMSF FNAI FONSI FPFWCD FPL fps F.S.
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms I I-75 IAP ICA IM IRL ITR ITRT IWR Interstate 75 Lake Okeechobee Interim Project Plan Incremental Cost Analysis Information Management Indian River Lagoon Independent Technical Review Independent Technical Review Team Institute for Water Resources J K L L LEC LERRDS LNWR LOWQM Levee Lower East Coast of Florida Lands, Easements, Right-of-ways, Relocation, and Disposal Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Model M MAD MAP MCACES MFL
Section 11 NER NGVD NHPA NMFS NOAA NPDES NRCS NRHP NSID NSM NWI Glossary of Terms and Acronyms National Ecosystem Restoration National Geodetic Vertical Datum National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 National Marine Fisheries Service National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System Natural Resources Conservation Service National Register of Historic Places North Springs Improvement District Natural Systems Model National Wetlands Inventory O OASA (CW) OMM
Section 11 QAQC QC QM Glossary of Terms and Acronyms Quality Assurance and Quality Control Quality Control Quality Management R RCC RCRA RED RECOVER RED Restudy RET RIMS ROD ROW Roller Compacted Concrete Resource Conservation Recovery Act Regional Economic Development Restoration Coordination and Verification Regional Economic Development Effects C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study Regional Evaluation Team [sub-team of RECOVER] Regional Input-Output Modeling System Record of Decision Right of Way
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms V VE Value Engineering W WCA WCDSS WMA WPA WQ WRAC WRAP WRDA WS WSE Water Conservation Area Water Control Decision Support System Wildlife Management Area Water Preserve Areas Water Quality Water Resources Advisory Commission Wetland Rapid Assessment Procedure Water Resources Development Act Water Supply Water Supply and Environment alternative X Y Z 2 22AZE Lake regulation schedule alternative EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 11-15 February
Section 11 Glossary of Terms and Acronyms This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS 11-16 February 2006
Section 12 List of Report Preparers SECTION 12 LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 12 List of Report Preparers This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 12 12.0 List of Report Preparers PREPARERS OF THE PIR Preparer Ahmed, Shabbir Alger, Yvette Agency Discipline/Expertise U.S.
Section 12 List of Report Preparers Morgan, John SFWMD Morrison, Matthew Mosura-Bliss, Lynn Needle, Jeff SFWMD WAR SFWMD Nelson, Donald USACE Nguyen, Steve Nieman, Donald Pinion, Timothy Pugh, David Raulerson, Stephanie Reed, Russell Reisinger, Dan Smith, Pauline Sutterfield, Steve Switanik, Milton Sylvester, Phil Trauger, Brent Toups, Joseph USACE USACE FWS USACE USACE USACE University of Florida USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE USACE Tucker, Rob USACE Waldeck, Shawn SFWMD Weiss, Rebecca USACE
Section 13 References SECTION 13 REFERENCES EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 13 References This page intentionally left blank EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 13 13.0 References REFERENCES Atkeson, T. and P. Parks. 2002. Mercury monitoring, research and environmental assessment. In: SFWMD, 2002 Everglades Consolidated Report, South Florida Water Management District; West Palm Beach, Florida, Chapter 2B. Bull, L.A., D.D. Fox, D.W. Brown, L.J. Davis, S.J. Miller, and J.G. Wullschleger. 1995. Fish distribution in limnetic areas of Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Archiv fur hydrobiologie, Advances in Limnology 45: 333-342. Burns & McDonnell. 2003.
Section 13 References Duarte, C.M. 1991. Seagrass Depth Limits. Aquatic Botany. 40: 363-377. Duever, M.J., Carlson, J.E., Meeder, J.F., Duever, L.C., Gunderson, L.H., Riopelle, L.A., Alexander, T.R., Myers, R.L., and Spangler, D.P. 1986. The Big Cypress National Preserve. Research Report No. 8. National Audubon Society. New York, New York. Duever, M.J., J.F. Meeder, L.C. Meeder and J.M. McCollom. 1994. The climate of south Florida and its role in shaping the Everglades ecosystem. Pp.
Section 13 References Furse, J.B., and Fox, D.D. 1994. Economic Fishery Valuation of Five Vegetation Communities in Lake Okeechobee, Florida. Annual Conference Southeast Associations of Fish and Wildlife Agencies. 48:575-591. Gentry, R. C. 1974. Hurricanes in south Florida. Pp. 73-81 in Environments of south Florida: present and past (P. J. Gleason, ed.). Mem. Miami Geol. Soc. 2, Miami, Florida. Gilmore, R.G. 1977. Fishes of the Indian River Lagoon and Adjacent Waters, Florida.
Section 13 References Washington, DC: U.S. Department of the Interior, National Park Service: 165170. IRL CCMP, 1996. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program. Indian River Lagoon Comprehensive Conservation and Management Plan. Sponsored by the St. Johns River Water Management District and South Florida Water Management District in cooperation with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. IRLNEP, Melbourne, FL, 1996. Kenworthy, J. and Haunert, D. 1990.
Section 13 References Mathews, Janet Snyder, Ph.D., Director, and State Historic Preservation Officer. May 13, 2004. Letter to James Duck, Chief, Planning Division, Environmental Branch, Jacksonville Corps of Engineers. McDonald, M. G., and Harbaugh, A. W., 1988. A modular three-dimensional finite-difference ground water flow model: Techniques of Water-Resources Investigation Report, v. 06-A1. McDowell, L.L., J.C. Stephens, and E.M. Stewart. 1969. Radiocarbon chronology of the Florida Everglades peat.
Section 13 References Palm Beach County Planning Zoning and Building Department. 2001. Palm Beach County Comprehensive Plan Map Series Map LU 1.1 Managed Growth Tier System. West Palm Beach, Florida Palm Beach County Planning Zoning and Building Department. 2004. Palm Beach County Developable* Lands. Board of County Commissioners. 2004. Palm Beach County Evaluation and Appraisal Report – Second Draft. West Palm Beach, Florida. Palm Beach County Planning Zoning and Building Department - GIS.
Section 13 References Schmitz, D.C., and Hoffstetter, R.H. 1994. Environmental, Economic and Human Impact. Pages 18-21 in F.B. Laroche, (ed.) Melaleuca Management Plan for Florida, Second Edition. Exotic Pest Plant Council. Schomer, N.S. and Drew, R.D. 1982. An Ecological Characterization of the Lower Everglades, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys. FWS/ OBS-82/58.1. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services. Washington, D.C. Shih, S.F., B. Glaz, and R.E. Barnes. 1997.
Section 13 References Sprinkle, C.L. 1989, Geochemistry of the Florida Aquifer system in Florida and in parts of Georgia, South Carolina, and Alabama: U.S. Geological Survey Professional Paper 1403-I, 105 p., 9pls. Stevenson, J., Staver, L.W., and Staver, K.W. 1993. Water Quality Associated with Survival of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation along an Estuarine Gradient. Estuaries. 16: 346-361. Stocker, R. K., and D. R. Sanders, Sr. 1980. Melaleuca control studies in southern Florida. Proc.
Section 13 References U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District (USACE and SFWMD). June 2003. Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Project Central and Southern Florida Project; Screening of Conceptual Alternatives, Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs, Phase 1. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Jacksonville District. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District (USACE and SFWMD). August 2003.
Section 13 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. June 2004. Restoration Plan, Central and Southern Florida Formulation and Evaluation, A.1. Final Water Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs, Engineers, Jacksonville District. References Comprehensive Everglades Project, A. Alternative Plan Quality Assessment Report, Phase 1. U.S. Army Corps of U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and South Florida Water Management District (USACE and SFWMD). July 2004.
Section 13 References U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Multi-Species Recovery Plan for the Threatened and Endangered Species of South Florida, Volume I. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2002. http://ecos.fws.gov/species_profile/servlet/gov.doi.species_profile.servlets.Species_ HCP U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. November 2003. Everglades Agricultural Area Storage Reservoirs Project, Phase I - Environmental Existing Conditions. South Florida Ecological Services Field Office, Vero Beach, Florida. U.S.
Section 13 References Wetland Solutions, Inc. June 2004. Draft Final EAA Storage Reservoirs EIS, H) Existing Condition, H7) Water Quality. Written for and Reviewed by Jacksonville District U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. Woodward- Clyde Consultants. 1994. Indian River Lagoon National Estuary Program, Melbourne, FL. Woodward- Clyde Consultants. Florida.
Section 14 Index SECTION 14 INDEX EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
Section 14 Index This page intentionally left blank.
Section 14 14.0 Index INDEX Adaptive Assessment ................................. ..................................... 5-47, 5-50, 6-18 Additional Storage ................................ 5-3 Aesthetic .......................... 2-41, 2-53, 2-54 Aesthetics.........2-53, 2-54, 5-55, 7-23, 9-8 Agricultural Area ....................................... 2-31, 2-38, 5-18, 5-24, 5-36, 7-7, 7-15, 7-23 Air Quality ...........2-8, 5-55, 5-59, 7-4, 9-6 Alternative Final Array ...........................
Section 14 Index Cost Apportionment.............................. 8-4 Cost Effectiveness................ 5-69, 9-1, 9-7 Cost Estimates............................................ 5-8, 5-18, 5-25, 5-26, 5-27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-48 Cost Share ......................................8-1, 8-3 Cost Sharing......................... 1-17, 8-1, 8-3 Cost-Effective ............................................ 5-1, 5-2, 5-10, 5-11, 5-12, 5-60, 5-61, 563, 5-65 Cultural Resources .....................................
Section 14 Index Implementation ................................... 5-22 Implementation Schedule...................... 8-2 Implementing ......................... 8-1, 8-3, 8-9 Income..................... 2-46, 6-32, 7-21, 9-13 Incremental ................................................ ......... 5-26, 5-49, 5-60, 5-63, 5-64, 5-65 Incremental Cost Analyses ........5-26, 5-60 Levees ..........................................6-9, 6-10 Listed Species ............................................ ............
Section 14 O Okeechobee Gourd.............................. 2-34 OMRR&R ..................................6-17, 6-33 Opossum Pipefish ............................... 2-33 Opportunities........5-1, 5-2, 5-23, 5-24, 6-1 Overview.......................... 2-46, 2-54, 2-55 P Performance Measures............................... 2-2, 4-8, 5-1, 5-4, 5-33, 5-34, 5-35, 536, 5-38, 5-39, 5-40, 5-41, 5-49, 5-50, 5-67, 6-34 Planning Aid Letters ............................. 9-8 Poverty ..................................
Section 14 Spillways................. 5-12, 5-20, 5-25, 5-28 STA ............................................................ 1-8, 1-13, 1-14, 1-17, 1-21, 2-2, 2-39, 240, 2-42, 2-43, 2-48, 2-51, 2-52, 2-53, 2-55, 2-58, 3-1, 3-3, 3-5, 3-10, 3-11, 44, 4-7, 5-10, 5-12, 5-18, 5-20, 5-36, 537, 5-38, 5-59, 5-69, 6-2, 6-4, 6-6, 6-7, 6-8, 6-9, 6-11, 6-15, 6-27, 6-33, 6-34, 635, 7-1, 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, 7-5, 7-6, 7-7, 7-9, 7-11, 7-18, 7-30, 8-5 Storage Reservoirs .........................
Section 14 Surface2-6, 2-40, 2-41, 2-42, 3-4, 3-6, 3-7, 3-9, 3-11, 4-2, 4-3, 5-7, 7-16, 7-31 Use Agricultural ........................................... 4-3 Water Conservation Areas ......................... .....................2-8, 2-14, 2-21, 2-27, 2-44 Water Management.................................... 1-19, 2-1, 2-2, 2-5, 2-22, 2-36, 2-38, 240, 2-50 Water Management............................. 1-19 Water Quality Monitoring Plan ............ 8-9 Water Supply ......
