Specifications

Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans
EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
5-57
5.4.5.4 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. The ranks were determined by the ecological subteam
(USACE, USFWS, EPA, FWC and SFWMD) in consideration of how each
alternative is affected.
Alternatives 4, 5, and 6 have similar in reservoir impacts, because, generally, a
deeper reservoir is better for fish habitat, while the “without project” condition
alternative ranked the lowest. Embankment Impacts are relatively the same for
each of the alternatives that include earthen embankments while the
Alternative 1 and 5 provide no embankment habitat. Alternative 2 ranked best
for Seepage Buffer Impacts because the larger footprint provides more seepage
buffer. Conversely, the Alternative 1 (without project) condition provides no
seepage buffer habitat and ranked lowest among the alternatives.
For Threatened & Endangered Species, Alternatives 3, 4, and 6 produce similar
benefits while Alternative 5 (concrete embankment) would not offer viable
habitat for the list species considered.
For aesthetics, the concrete is not a “natural” feature relative to earthen
embankments. Trees, however, are expected to grow in the seepage buffer but it
may take 10 years before the trees grow large enough to hide the embankment.
The higher the levee or larger the footprint, the lower the score, as man-made
features are not aesthetically pleasing for an environmental restoration project.
Alternatives 3 and 4 rank the best while Alternatives 1 and 5 ranked worst.
Smaller footprint reservoir alternatives and Alternative 1 (without project) are
desirable for not disturbing cultural resources. The Alternative 1 condition is the
best because no lands are disturbed, while the Alternative 2 is the worst because
of the large footprint.
The main criteria for Air Quality ranking is the pumping capacity required for
each alternative depth. The larger pumps will produce more “pollution”, leading
to lower air quality. Alternative 2 requires a total of 8,000cfs of pumping,
Alternative 3 requires 7,500cfs of pumping, Alternatives 4 and 5 require 6,900cfs
of pumping and Alternative 6 requires 7,600cfs of pumping. Therefore,
Alternative 1 ranked the highest, while the Alternative 2 ranks the lowest.