Specifications

Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans
EAA Storage Reservoirs Revised Draft PIR and EIS February 2006
5-67
additional, contiguous land may require condemnation which would make the
acquisition economically unfeasible and extend the implementation timeframe to
an unacceptable degree. In the complicated land exchanges that took place in
connection with the Talisman land purchase, some privately-held lands were
given to the SFWMD to build reservoirs in exchange for lands assumed to be
outside the reservoirs footprint, with the promise that the SFWMD would not
return later to acquire those exchanged lands as well. The unacceptability of
breaking this agreement to all parties is self-evident. From a Federal policy
perspective, there is also a reluctance to acquire additional private real estate
when the project objectives can be achieved on real estate already owned by the
state. USACE policy seeks to minimize real estate costs as a percentage of total
project costs.
In terms of additional criteria employed to identify the NER plan, both
Alternatives 3 and 4 deliver significant (as defined through institutional,
technical, and public recognition) outputs to the Greater Everglades ecosystem –
increased habitat in the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries, Lake
Okeechobee, and in the Ridge and Slough and Tree Island habitats of the
Everglades itself. However, Alternative 4 reasonably maximizes those outputs,
providing 4,406 more habitat units on an average annual basis. Considering
completeness, both Alternatives 3 and 4 are equally complete plans – other
features are not required for the EAA storage reservoirs to function as designed.
Similarly, the efficiency of both plans is demonstrated through the results of
CE/ICA, although Alternative 3 is slightly more efficient in terms of cost per unit
of output on an average annual basis ($565) versus Alternative 4’s $627. In the
area of effectiveness, modeling results indicate that the greater water depth of
Alternative 4 reduces evapotranspiration, which actually increases the available
hydrologic flow to the ENP. Unfortunately, water volumes are not reflected in
the ecological habitat unit calculations (the ENP is outside the spatial extent for
which habitat units were calculated). Nonetheless, Alternative 4 appears to be
more effective in terms of water conservation and water quantity.
Finally, in terms of the risk and uncertainty criterion, by definition there is
greater risk and uncertainty in having to purchase additional lands for project
construction (as with Alternatives 2 and 3), with potential delays in land
acquisition and known delays in the project construction schedule, than there is
with Alternative 4 where all the necessary real estate already in state
ownership.
Thus, taking all the ER 1105-2-100 criterion into account, Alternative 4 was
identified as the NER plan. It is the most acceptable and effective alternative,
as well as being complete and efficient. It proves the greatest amount of
significant outputs, and also poses less risk and uncertainty than Alternative 3.