## CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT
COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN
BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1

DRAFT INTEGRATED
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

March 2010

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT DISTRICTThis Report Contains [ 6 ] Volumes

You Are Here

Volume 1

– Main Report

**•** Executive Summary

**•** Section 1

– Introduction

**•** Section 2

– Identification of Problems and Opportunities

**•** Section 3

– Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

**•** Section 4

– Future “Without Project” Condition

**•** Section 5 – Formulation of Alternative Plans

**•** Section 6

– Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

**•** Section 7

– The Recommended Plan

**•** Section 8

– Plan Implementati on

**•** Section 9

– Summary of Coordination, Public Views, and Comments

**•** Section 10 – Recommendations

**•** Section 11

– List of Report Preparers

**•** Section 12

– Index

**•** Section 13

– Glossary of Terms and Acronyms

**•** Section 14

– References

Volume 2

– Annexes

**•** Annex A

– FWCA and Endangered Species Act Compliance

**•** Annex B

– NEPA Information

Volume 3

- Annexes

**•** Annex C

– Analyses Required by WRDA 2000 and State Law

**•** Annex D

– Draft Project Operating Manual

**•** Annex E

– Project Monitoring Plan

**•** Annex F

– Reports Provided by RECOVER to Support the PIR

Volume 4

- Appendices

**•** Appendix A

– Engineering

Volume 5

– Appendices

**•** Appendix B

– Cost Estimates

**•** Appendix C

– Environmental Information

Volume 6

– Appendices

**•** Appendix D

– Real Estate

**•** Appendix E

– Agency/Public Coordination

**•** Appendix F

– Plan Formulation and Evaluation

**•** Appendix G

– Economic and Social Considerations

**•** Appendix H – Recreation

**•** Appendix I

– Pertinent Correspondence

## CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT
BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS
PHASE 1

DRAFT INTEGRATED
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATI ON REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

March 2010This page intentionally left blank.Abstract

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

i CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT
COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN

BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PHASE 1 DRAFT 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 proj ect. Other agencies participating in the development of this Environmen tal Impact Statement include the U.S. Fish a nd Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the National Park Service, th e Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management, and the U.S. Environmenta l Protection Agency. The US Environm ental Protection Agency, US Fish and Wildlife Service, National Park Service, Florida Fish a nd Wildlife Conservation Commission, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, US Geological Survey, Miami-Dade Department of Environmenta l Resources Management, and the National Oceanographic and the Atmospheric Administration / National Marine Fisheries Se rvice were invited to be Cooperating Agencies. Of the agencies invited only the US Environmental Protection Agency has accepted (conditionally) this invitation to become a cooperating agency for this Environmental Impact Statement.

Abstract: This report documents studies for the Biscayne Bay Co astal Wetlands project, in accordance with the requirements of Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Ac t of 2000 (WRDA 2000) and recommends authorization of this project. This project addresses the need to restore th e ecosystem function in southeastern Florida by rehydrating coastal wetlands and reducing point source freshwater discharges into Bi scayne Bay by repl acing lost overland flow and partially compensating for th e reduction in groundwater seepage by re distributing, through a spreader system, available surface water entering the area from regional canal s. The proposed redistributi on of freshwater flow across a broad front is also expected to help restore saltwater wetla nds and nearshore bay habitat.

The purpose of the Biscayne Bay Coastal We tlands project is to contribute to the re storation of Biscayne Bay and adjacent wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecos ystem. The project intends to redistribute freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing can al discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural an d historic overland flow through existing co astal wetlands. This project will also help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal sa linity concentrations for fish and shellfish nursery habitat.

This Draft Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement desc ribes public and agency involvement in project development (including comments received and responses), explains the plan formulation and alternative evaluation and plan selection processes, and documents the Tentatively Selected Plan features, including costs and environmental

benefits.

THE OFFICIAL CLOSING DATE FOR THE

RECEIPT OF COMMENT IS 30 DAYS FROM

THE DATE ON WHICH THE NOTICE OF

AVAILABILITY OF THIS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

APPEARS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. If you require further information on this document,

contact:
Mr. Brad Tarr U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019 Telephone: (904) 232-3582

E-mail: Bradley.A.Tarr@usace.army.mil

NOTE: This report includes an integrated Draft Environmen tal Impact Statement within the Draft Project Implementation Report. An asterisk in the Table of C ontents notes sections required for complianc e with the National Environmental Policy

Act.Abstract

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

ii This page intentionally left blankExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

iii 

### CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT
COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLAD ES RESTORATION PLAN
BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS
PHASE 1

DRAFT INTEGRATED
PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT
AND
ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE), Jacksonville District, in cooperation with its cost-sharing partne r, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), has prepared a Draf t Integrated Project Implementation Report (PIR) and Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, located in Miami-Dade County, Florida. This report describes the application of USACE’s six-step planning process to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, the guidelin es of which are: 1) specify problems and opportunities, 2) inventory and foreca st conditions, 3) formulate alternative plans, 4) evaluate effects of alternative plans, 5) compare alternative plans, and 6) Tentatively Selected Plan. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project will be implemented in two PIRs. The Tentatively Selected Plan for the initial PIR, Alternative O Phase 1, is the first step toward meeting restoration goals in the study area. By rehydrating coastal we tlands and reducing damaging point source freshwater discharge to Biscayne Bay, the Tentatively Selected Plan is integral to the health of the south Florid a ecosystem. The remaining features of Alternative O, which will be studied in a subsequent PIR, will greatly increase freshwater wetland benefits and further achieve restoration goals.

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands proj ect’s primary purpose is to redirect freshwater, currently discharged directly to the Bay through man-made canals, to coastal wetlands adjacent to the Bay in order to restore a more natural water flow pattern to Biscayne Bay. By rehydrating coastal wetlands and reducing harmful point source freshwater discharg e, the Tentatively Se lected Plan will help restore freshwater and saltwate r wetlands, re-establish more natural salinity concentrations, and provide a more productive nearshore nursery
habitat.

This draft report has been prepared in accordance with the requirements of Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) and Programmatic Regulations for the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) (33 Code of Federal Regulations [CFR] Part 385) and will beExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

iv circulated for public and agency review and comment in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public and agency comments will be considered in the preparation of th e Final PIR and EIS, which will be the basis for the Chief of Engineers Report to be submitted to the Assistant Secretary of the Army (Civil Works) for transmittal to Congress.

PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

To help restore Biscayne Bay, the Bisc ayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project was developed as a component of the CERP, which was approved by Congress in the WRDA 2000. The conceptual project for Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands
described in the CERP included a vari ety of management measures (pump stations, spreader swales, stormwater treatment areas, flow ways, levees and culverts, and backfill canals). The projec t aims to restore the overland sheetflow in up to an 11,000-acre area and to improve the ecology of Biscayne Bay, including its freshwater and saltwater wetlands, nearshore bay habitat, marine nursery habitat, and the oyster reef community.

Today nearly all aspects of south Florida’s flora and fauna have been affected by development, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non-native species that have resulted directly or indirect ly from a century of water management.

Significant areas within the project boundary are characterized by a lowproductivity dwarf mangrove forest, known as the “white zone.” Recent studies in this area indicate that the landward boundary of the white zone has moved inland by an average of one and a half kilometers (0.9 mile s) since 1940, and the zone is expanding in areas cut off from fr eshwater sources by canals or roads. The low productivity of the white zone is primarily a result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources, among other factors.

The distribution, life cycles, community structures, and population densities of
the fauna of south Florida are intricatel y linked to regional hydrology. The
current status of fish and wildlife ha s been strongly influenced by the cumulative effects of drainage activities in the early 20 th Century, the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) project, an d the ensuing agricultural and urban development made possible by those activi ties. Reduction in the spatial extent of Everglades wetlands by half has resulted in a proportional reduction in habitat of aquatic organisms, and chan ges in the hydrology of the remaining wetlands east of the protective levees has further reduced their populations. Estuarine fishes and shellfishes have prec ipitously declined in abundance within the project area due to loss of estuarine habitat along the bay’s southwestern shore and abrupt salinity fluctuations due to canal discharges have negatively affected fish populations.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

v A major emphasis of the CERP is to remedy many of the hydrologic aspects of the flood control project that in hindsight have had deleterious effects on the wetland vegetative communities and fish and wildlife resources.

WHAT WILL HAPPEN WITHOUT THE PROJECT?

The study area for the Biscayne Bay Coas tal Wetlands project is composed of a variety of privately-owned, local, stat e, and Federal lands. Privately-owned
natural lands in south Florida have beco me scarce due to development and most currently remaining are likely to be developed in the near future. Fish and wildlife habitat within the study area will be adversely impacted by future residential, commercial and/or industri al development. The ecosystem within this area is extremely unique and fragile. As the disruptive freshwater drainage caused by canals has already created hypersalinity in Biscayne Bay, further development and creation of impervious su rfaces will lead to increased runoff velocity and more frequent and higher freshwater discharges. Increased development within this area will lead to increased habitat fragmentation, decreasing the amount of wildlife corridors that are imperative for larger
animals to traverse these areas.

The spatial extent of the natural areas wi thin the study area has the potential to decrease considerably in the absence of projec t restoration. Much of this area is not currently in public ownership or in public land acquisition plans and will likely be developed for both urban and agricultural uses. Urbanization is accompanied by an increase in stormwater runoff containing a wide range of pollutants including herbicides, pestic ides, fertilizers, aromatic compounds (hydrocarbons, oils, greases, gasoline), heavy metals, and other emerging pollutants of concern (hormones, organic and inorganic compounds). The general trend for urban developments near wetlands is for the residents in the area to request and obtain frequent mo squito control spraying. Agricultural development is also accompanied by the use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. The increased release of pollutants into the natural environment will
result in the decline of macroinvertebrates (e.g., insects, sna ils), which in turn will adversely impact resident and migratory birds, as well as other insectivores.

PLAN FORMULATION, EVALUATION AND SELECTION

The plan formulation process for the proposed Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project stemmed from earlier efforts lik e the Miami-Dade County’s Biscayne Bay Management Plan, the SFWMD’s Biscayne Bay Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan, and the CERP and was guided by USACE’s six-step planning process. A Project Delivery Te am (PDT) formed of local, state and Federal agency personnel used an iterative process to identify the merits of individual components and evaluate alternative plans to determine how well theExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

vi plans met the planning objectives, pe rformance measures and evaluation criteria. Many alternative plans were considered by the study team.

After consolidation and screening of alternative plans, a final array of six plans
was evaluated.

1. No Action – The future withou t-project condition or “no action” alternative. This alternative includes the changes expected in the study area over the period of analysis ending in 2050 assuming that no ecosystem restoration project is built as a result of this study. It includes the continuation of the current degraded ecological state exhibited in the study

area.

2. Alternative YB (Yellow Book) – Coincides with the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project as conceptualized in the CERP. This plan includes a footprint of roughly 16,000 acres of land, nine pump stations, approximately 35 culverts reconnecting wetlands, four stormwater treatment areas (STAs) covering roughly 4,000 acres, approx imately 14 miles of spreader canals, approximately seven miles of conveyan ce canals, backfilling of approximately five miles of Military and North Canals , and plugging 2,000 feet of mosquito
control ditches.

3. Alternative M – Reflects an atte mpt to minimize both the number of features and project extent. This plan relies on relatively small detention areas to capture and store water and focuses the restoration effort on
saltwater wetlands and the nearshor e Bay. Alternative M includes a footprint of roughly 6,561 acres of land , three pump stations, approximately 40 culverts reconnecting wetlands, two stormwater detention areas covering 200 acres, approximately five miles of sp reader canals, and plugging 500 feet of mosquito control ditches.

4. Alternative Q – Reflects the desires to 1) align the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland project with a compatible, nearby, restoration effort also in the planning phase (the CERP C-111 Spreader Canal project) and 2) move water passively as much as possible. This plan includes a footprint of roughly 19,035 acres of land, ten pump stations, approximately 50 culverts reconnecting wetlands, one STA covering roughly 200 acres, approximately nine miles of spreader canals, and plug ging 2000 feet of mosquito control
ditches.

5. Alternative O – Introduced as an intermediate plan between Alternative M and Alternative Q. Alternative O includes a footprint of roughly 11,312 acres of land, 13 pump stations, approximately 20 culverts reconnecting wetlands, approximately seven miles of spreader canals, approximately oneExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

vii mile of conveyance canals, and pluggi ng 8,000 feet of mosquito control
ditches.

6. Alternative O Phase 1 – Reflects a standalone increment of Alternative O that provides a meaningful first step towards restoration in the study area and provides opportunity to reduce uncertainty for subsequent features.
Alternative O Phase 1 includes a foot print of roughly 3,761 acres of land, seven pump stations, approximately 10 culverts reconnecting wetlands, approximately 3 miles of spreader canals, and plugging 2,500 feet of mosquito
control ditches.

As a result of the analysis based on cost and benefits, Alternative O was identified as the initial Tentatively Selected Plan. Further analysis of Alternative O determined the project would be planned and recommended through two PIRs. Alternative O Phase 1 was identified as the Tentatively Selected Plan of the first PIR (this report). This alternative is an important first step towards meeting the project’s planning objectives by providing substantial improvement in the much needed restorat ion of the Biscayne Bay nearshore and
saltwater wetlands.

After the Tentatively Selected Plan was identified, a Next-Added Increment (NAI) analysis was performed. The NA I 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 . This analysis helps illuminate the amount of benefits the tentatively selected plan contributes without regard to future CERP projects. It also helps to ascertain whether sufficient benefits will accrue to justify the cost of the project if no additional CERP projects (other than those already existing or authorized) were implemented. In the case of this analysis, no other CERP projects were assu med to exist. The results of the NAI analysis showed that as a stand-alone project, the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Tentatively Selected Plan near ly doubles the spatial extent of the functional habitat expected to exist in the future without-project condition.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

viii DESCRIPTION OF THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN

The Tentatively Selected Plan refers to the recommended alternative, the plan put forward for implementation in this Draft PIR, which is referred to as the “preferred alternative” und er NEPA guidelines.

The Tentatively Selected Plan encompass es a footprint of approximately 3,761
acres and includes features in three of the project’s four sub-components (hydrologically distinct regions of the study area): Deering Estate, Cutler Wetlands, and L-31 East Flow Way ( FIGURE ES-1 ). There are no features in the fourth region, Model Lands.

Deering Estate: This region includes an approx imately 500-foot extension of the C-100A Spur Canal through the Power’ s Addition Parcel (Power’s Parcel),
construction of a freshwater wetland on the Power’s Parcel and delivery of fresh water to the Cutler Drain and ultimately to coastal wetlands along Biscayne Bay.

Cutler Wetlands: Features in this region includ e a pump station, a conveyance canal, a spreader canal, culverts and mo squito control ditch plugs. The pump station, located on C-1, will deliver water to a 6,900-foot lined conveyance canal
that will run under SW 97 th Avenue, SW 87 th Avenue (L-31E Levee), and across
the L-31E Canal via concrete box culver ts and deliver water to the spreader
canal located in the saltwater wetlands. Th is spreader canal is divided into four
segments.

L-31 East Flow Way: Features in this region will isolate the L-31E Canal from the major discharge canals (C-102, Military Canal and C-103) and allow freshwater flow through the L-31E Leve e to the saltwater wetlands. Gated culverts and inverted siphon structures will isolate L-31E from these canals, allowing L-31E to maintain higher water levels. Two pump stations and a series
of culverts will move fresh water direct ly to the saltwater wetlands east of L-31E. Two more pump stations and a spreader canal will deliver water to the
freshwater wetlands south of C-103.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

ix FIGURE ES-1: ALTERNATIVE O PHAS E 1 (TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN)Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

x BENEFITS OF THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN

The principal benefit of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is to redirect the fresh water currently discharged directly to the Bay through man-made
canals to coastal wetlands in order to restore a more natural water flow pattern to Biscayne Bay. This w ill be an advantage to the ec osystem that will, in turn, help restore freshwater and saltwate r wetlands, re-establish more natural salinity concentrations, and provide more productive nursery habitat. The Tentatively Selected Plan provides the most cost-effective approach to implementing the prescribed changes. Furthermore, it meets the CERP’s requirement of all selected plans: it maximizes net environmental and economic benefits on a system-wide basis - that is, to the south Florida ecosystem as a
whole.

The project will divert an average of 59 percent of the annual coastal structure discharge (from structures S-123, S- 21, S-21A, S-20F) into freshwater and
saltwater wetlands instead of direct di scharges into Biscayne Bay. This diversion will reduce the future nitrate load to Biscayne Bay by 163 thousand tons which is approximately 50 percent of the projected future nitrate load to Biscayne Bay. The diversion will also re duce peak total phosphorus loading to the bay by approximately 50 percent over the future without-project condition.

On the approximately 473.61 acres of fr eshwater wetlands acquired for this project, the Tentatively Selected Plan (Alternative O Phase 1) will provide a total of approximately 470 acres of fr eshwater wetland rehydration benefit while also resulting in approximately 500 acres of invasive exotic vegetation management. Overall functional benefit to freshwater wetland habitat is expected to be 340 acres. This is an increase of approximately 8.5 percent over the estimated 3,977 acres of existing functional freshwater wetland acreage within the project area.

Out of the total available saltwater wetl and acreage of 22,500, this project will increase the acres of saltwater wetlands with salinity below 20 parts per thousand (ppt) from approximately 1,870 acres to approximately 3,450 acres by diverting approximately 40 percent of the available canal discharge directly to
these wetlands. This is an increase of approximately 80 percent over the existing number of saltwater wetland a cres meeting the desired salinity target. The saltwater wetland acreage where the salinity is expected to improve is located within the approximately 3,287.59 a cres of saltwater wetlands identified for acquisition for this project.

This project will also benefit the nearshor e area of Biscayne Bay, defined as the zone within 500 meters of shore, by allowing the water in this zone to meet the desired salinity concentrations of less than 20 ppt. This concentration betterExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xi meets the requirements for estuarine sp ecies which should benefit from this project. Out of a total possible nearshor e acreage of 3,462 acre s, the project will provide an average of 482 acres of additional nearshore habitat meeting the desired target salinity conditions. This is an increase from 886 acres to 1,268
acres of nearshore habitat that meets the desired salinity requirement of less than 20 ppt. This is an increase of approximately 30 percent over the existing nearshore acreage meeting the desired salinity conditions. Improvement in water quality due to diversion of water through the saltwater wetlands is also expected to result in improved nearshore habitat conditions.

A significant source of uncertainty in th e selection of the project comes from the benefits assessment methodology used in the plan formulation process. While there is no standard way in which ecological benefits are to be estimated, the PDT worked diligently to produce a methodol ogy that is logical and scientifically sound. The estimation of project bene fits was done using a combination of professional judgment and hydrologic model output. The benefits methodology underwent two reviews as part of the independent external review (IEPR) process and benefited greatly the incorporation of the reviewer’s suggestions. The application of the amended benefits estimation methodology is considered to be unlikely to result in the selection of a non-optimal alternative or one that results in harm to the ecosystem.

The availability of water for diversion in to the project features as well as the effect of sea level rise on the targeted habitat zones are the most significant sources of uncertainty in success of the pr oject. Climate change impacts such as a projected reduction in rainfall of 10 percent over the next 50 years will adversely impact the project area. The impact of decreased rainfall on project benefits is assumed to be proportional to the expected decrease in rainfall over the project life. The impact of sea level rise on project benefits has been evaluated per the requirements of EC 1165-2-211. Using conservative assumptions, sea level rise impacts are expected to result in a 17 percent decrease in average annual benefits ov er the 50 year life of the project.

The benefits to recreation in the project area result in an average annual net benefit of $118,000.

SAVINGS CLAUSE

The Savings Clause analyses required by the WRDA 2000 and Sections 385.36 and 385.37 of the Programmatic Regulati ons is a means to protect users of existing legal sources of water supply and provide the same level of flood protection that was in place at the time of enactment. Based on the analyses performed, the project results in no elimination or transfer of water from existing legal sources, because canal flows and levels upstream of the coastalExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xii control structures will not be affected by th e project. Analysis of each of the four geographically separate project components for potential significant and adverse impacts to flood protection concluded that the project is designed so that there will not be any significant adverse effects to the pre-CERP level of service for flood protection of adjacent properties.

IDENTIFICATION OF WATER NEEDS

Subsection 601(h)(4) of WRDA 2000, entitl ed “Project-Specific Assurances”, and Section 385.35(b) of the Programmatic Re gulations requires that a project implementation report identify the appropriate quantity, timing and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system; and to identify the
amount of water to be reserved or allo cated for the natural system necessary to implement under state law.

The water made available to, and diverted by, the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project Phase 1 for the combin ed C-100, C-1, C-102 , and C-103 basins ranges from 113,619 acre-feet per year (10 th percentile) to 282,982 acre-feet per year (90 th percentile) based on historical reco rds. The State of Florida will use
its water reservation or allocation author ity to protect the water made available for the natural system by the project as required by Section 601 of WRDA 2000. The state has elected to protect the existi ng water in the natural system that the PIR identifies as necessary to achieve the benefits of the project, using resource protection authority under Florida law. If the difference between the quantity
indicated as Total Water Diverted and Tota l Available Canal Flow is required to protect the natural system, it will be reserved or allocated through a state process pursuant to Section 373.223, Florida Statutes. The SFWMD will protect water for Biscayne Bay based on the be st available science to support the identification of water for the natural system at the time such protection is undertaken. The SFWMD is currently collecting and analyzing the best available science, which will be the basis for defining flows to the natural system in Biscayne Bay.

ADVERSE EFFECTS OF THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN

Potential adverse impacts of the Tentatively Selected Plan, including its effects on wetlands, soils, adjacent property and land use, and fish and wildlife have been considered and addressed during this study. Benefits derived from implementation of the Tentatively Selected Plan will far outweigh any potential adverse impacts associated with constructi on of the Tentatively Selected Plan.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xiii PROJECT COST ESTIMATES AND COST APPORTIONMENT

As of December 2009, the total initial esti mated cost of the project, including all costs for construction, lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations (LERR), recreation facilities, and pre-construction, engineering and design (PED) and construction management costs, is estimated at approximately $174,242,000. Section 601 of WRDA 2000 and USACE policy requires that the non-Federal sponsor must obtain and provide certification of LERRs necessary for project implementation. The Project’s total initia l costs will be shared equally between the Federal government and the non-Federal sponsor in accordance with Section
601 of the WRDA 2000 to maintain a 50/50 cost share as measured cumulatively for the entire CERP program.

The total project investment is estima ted at $190,729,000; whic h is composed of the total initial (first) costs plus in terest during construction (IDC).

TABLE ES-1 provides additional details on initial costs for construction and
non-construction items. TABLE ES-2 describes the total project investment cost and the average annual cost. TABLE ES-3 delineates the cost apportionment ofthe Tentatively Selected Plan between the Federal Government and the nonFederal sponsor. Operations and main tenance (O&M) costs will be cost-shared
50/50 in accordance with the O&M cost-s haring provisions of Section 601 of
WRDA 2000.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xiv TABLE ES-1: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS COSTS (OCTOBER 2009 PRICE LEVELS)

Cost Elements TOTALS*

Construction
Deering Estate Flowway
13 Pumping Plant $6,820,000

Cutler Wetlands

09 Channels and Canals $557,000
13 Pumping Plant $23,666,000

14 Recreation Facilities $924,000

L-31E Wetlands

09 Channels and Canals $836,000
13 Pumping Plant $14,377,000

14 Recreational Facilities $46,000
15 Floodway Control-Diversion Structure $4,567,000

Sub-Total Construction Cost $51,793,000

Non-Construction
01 Lands and Damages $76,662,000

30 Planning, Engineering, and Design $31,667,000

31 Construction Management $14,120,000

Sub-Total Non-Construction Cost $ 122,449,000

TOTAL INITIAL COST $174,242,000

* Initial costs rounded to the nearest $1,000.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xv TABLE ES-2: BISCAYNE BAY COASTA L WETLANDS TOTAL INVESTMENT
COST AND AVERAGE ANNUAL COST (OCTOBER 2009 PRICE LEVELS) Total Initial (First) Cost $174,242,000

Interest During Construction (IDC)

IDC Construction $5,978,000

IDC Real Estate $10,509,000

TOTAL INVESTMENT $190,729,000

Operations and Maintenance (O&M) $1,680,000

Period of Analysis (40 Years) 40 Amortized First Cost (40 Years) $10,180,000

Year For First Benefits 2010

Average Annual Cost $11,860,000Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xvi TABLE ES-3: COST APPORTIONMEN T OF THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED
PLAN (OCTOBER 2009 PRICE LEVELS)

Item Federal Cost Non-Federal

Cost Total
Ecosystem Restoration (ER)

PED 1 $ 28,656,000 $ 2,817,000 $ 31,473,000 Construction Management $ 7,060,000 $ 7,060,000 $ 14,120,000

LER&R $ - $ 76,662,000 $ 76,662,000
Ecosystem Restoration 2 $ 50,823,000 $ - $ 50,823,000

ER Subtotal $ 86,539,000 $ 86,539,000 $ 173,078,000

Recreation (ER)

PED $ 97,000 $ 97,000 $ 194,000

Recreation $ 485,000 $ 485,000 $ 970,000

Subtotal

Recreation Subtotal $ 485,000 $ 485,000 $ 1,164,000

Total Project Cost $ 87,121,000 $ 87,121,000 $ 174,242,000 Total Project Level Monitoring Costs $ 970,606 $ 970,606 $ 1,941,212 Total ESA Monitoring Costs $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

Associated Annual Costs $ 80,884 $ 80,884 $ 161,768

OMRR&R (non-recreation) $ 840,000 $ 840,000 $ 1,680,000

OMRR&R (vegetation management) 3 $ 545,180 $ 545,180 $ 1,090,360

OMRR&R (vegetation management) 3 $ 109,036 $ 109,036 $ 218,072

OMRR&R (recreation) $ 25,000 $ 25,000

1 PED estimates for non-recreation components are deri ved directly from the MCACES. PED of the Federal Government includes development of the PIR.

2 The ecosystem restoration construction cost and PED cost are not detailed as being shared equally due to the non-Federal Sponsor’s land costs. The Federal shares were changed to bring the total project cost to a 50/50

share basis.

3 MRR&R for vegetation management is separated into two rows due to the annual costs being greater during the first 3 years of OMRR&R. After the first 3 years of OMRR&R for vegetation management the costs of continued vegetation management greatly decreases.

Note: Total costs shown are consistent with costs shown through out the report. Due to rounding to the nearest $1,000, numbers may not total correctly.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xvii With an approximate directly impacted total acreage benefit of 2,500 acres associated with Alternative O Phase 1, and a total real estate project cost estimate of $76,662,000; the cost per acre is about $30,665. (Note that directly impacted acreage refers in this case to areas where changes in salinity conditions or hydration will occur. [E stimated as 480 acres of freshwater wetland rehydration, 1,575 acres of salt water wetland salinity acreage, and 470 acres of nearshore salinity improvement. ] Other habitat suitability benefits were estimated for improvements related to vegetation control and improved water quality.)

TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

Detailed design of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project will be accomplished in part by the State of Flor ida’s Expedited Construction program. Detailed design will be coordinated with and reviewed by USACE. All features will be designed in accordance with USACE regulations and standards. Crediting for work performed by the SFWMD will be subject to project authorization and adherence to USACE design standards and regulations. LERRs will be the responsibility of the SFWMD. A Draft Operating Manual is included with this report. An Inte rim Operating Manual modifying the Draft Operating Manual will be completed during the Detailed Design Phase reflecting any design modifications that occur during detailed design. A Final Operating Manual will be prepared following completion of operational testing and monitoring which occurs at the end of the construction phase. USACE and SFWMD will share in the responsibilities for conducting water management operations during operational testin g and monitoring of the project.

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES

Initial public and agency comments rece ived in response to a March 7, 2003 public notice of intent to prepare a Draft Integrated PIR and EIS focused on the amount of water required to achieve rest oration goals in Biscayne Bay. It was recommended that the Biscayne Bay Coas tal Wetlands project should include features that help address these issu es either directly, by capturing and supplying additional water for Biscayne Bay, or indirectly, by designing the project to accommodate additional deliver ies of water that will be made possible through the detailed design of other CERP projects. Other recommendations encouraged the expansion of the project in order to ensure Biscayne Bay receives
the amount of fresh water required for restoration.

A number of subsequent meetings with stakeholders, local governments, and representatives of non-governmental environmental organizations have provided written comments and statements. The primary focus of their concerns have centered on the need to identify additional sources of water for delivery toExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xviii Biscayne Bay, specifically in the dry season to sustain salinities conducive for estuarine biological and vegetative communities. Two components recommended were the ability to later utilize reclaimed wastewater from the South Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant; and the need to include storage features in the upstream communities, wh ich is an important consideration for hydration during the dry season.

Additional concerns raised include the n eed for Alternatives to account for sea level rise and demonstrate the ability to meet project goals given the continued intrusion of salt water along the coast; the project must also define long-term management options; detected levels of contaminants should be evaluated for potential risks; and the design of th e project should incorporate polishing wetland components and should allow for maximum restoration of freshwater and coastal wetlands, including restoration of the coastal gradient.

Since this Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlan ds Draft PIR and EIS will be circulated for public and agency review and comment , and since it involves many of the same stakeholders and issues, it is ex pected that similar, as well as new
comments will be received. All concerns will be documented and included in the Final PIR/EIS for this project.

ENVIRONMENTAL OPERATING PRINCIPLES

The proposed project is consistent with USACE “Environmental Operating Principles” (refer to: http://www.mvn.usace.army.mil/enviro nmental/operatingprinciples.asp), particularly with respect to the south Fl orida ecosystem-wide approach for plan formulation, evaluation and selection, and a holistic consideration of water
resources needs and solutions to water re sources problems in the study area. The Tentatively Selected Plan incorpor ates monitoring, and the CERP has an adaptive assessment and management prog ram in place to ensure that projects, including the Biscayne Bay Coastal We tlands project, are achieving their intended purposes. Project implementation, including plan formulation, involved collaborative interactions with the multiple agencies represented on the PDT. Study area stakeholder groups and members of the general public had multiple opportunities to receive information on the project and to provide comments and recommendations via public meetings, internet postings, teleconferences, and interagency PDT meetings.

INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REVIEW

An Agency Technical Review (ATR) will be performed on both the Draft and Final PIR and EIS by a multi-disciplinary te am consisting of technical staff from USACE outside of the Jacksonville District. Significant comments will beExecutive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xix addressed during each review and documented in the PIR. An Independent External Technical Review was completed on the Draft PIR on December 1, 2009. Significant comments will be addre ssed and documented in the Final PIR.

UNRESOLVED ISSUES

The Tentatively Selected Plan is a si gnificant first step in restoring the nearshore waters of southwestern Biscayne Bay and the adjacent tidal wetlands. However, the Tentatively Selected Plan is not a universal remedy for Biscayne Bay. Additional freshwater wetlands could also potentially be restored. The remaining features of Alternative O, to be evaluated in a subsequent PIR, are an important next step that will contribute to Biscayne Bay’s health and to help achieve the CERP vision for the study area. The timetable for achieving the subsequent PIR is currently a significant unresolved issue.Executive Summary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xx This page intentionally left blankTable of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxi TABLE OF CONTENTS

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT ........................................................................ i

*EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................... iii

T ABLE OF CONTENTS ....................................................................................................... xxi

1.0 INTRODUCTION ....................................................................................................... 1-1 1.1 Purpose and Need for The Project ....................................................................... 1-1 1.2 Report Authority .................................................................................................. 1-1 1.3 Project Area ......................................................................................................... 1-3 1.4 Study Area Description ........................................................................................ 1-5 1.5 Study Sponsor and Participants ........................................................................... 1-6 1.6 Relationship to Other USACE/Non- federal Sponsor Efforts, Studies, Documents and Reports ....................................................................................... 1-7 1.6.1 C-111 Spreader Canal Project ........................................................................... 1-7 1.6.2 Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot ................................................................ 1-7

1.6.3 Stormwater Detention and Treatment Area Project .......................................... 1-7

1.6.4 South Dade Watershed Plan .............................................................................. 1-7 1.7 Programmatic Regulations Guidance Memoranda .............................................. 1-8

1.7.1 Project Level Monito ring Guidance .................................................................. 1-8 1.8 Relevant Documents and Reports ........................................................................ 1-9 1.9 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan Master Implementation Sequencing Plan ................................................................................................. 1-11 1.10 State of Florida Expe dited construction ............................................................. 1-11 1.11 Land Acquisition Activities ............................................................................... 1-11

2.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................................... 2-1 2.1 Ecosystem Problems ............................................................................................ 2-1

2.2 Problem Statements ............................................................................................. 2-3

2.2.1 Opportunities..................................................................................................... 2-3 2.2.2 Opportunity Statements .................................................................................... 2-4 2.3 Objectives and Constraints .................................................................................. 2-4

*3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT ..................................... 3-1 3.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 3-1

3.1.1 Climate .............................................................................................................. 3- 5 3.1.2 Physical Landscape: Geology, and Soils ......................................................... 3-5 3.1.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 3-6

3.1.4 Groundwater ................................................................................................... 3-15 3.1.5 Water Management ......................................................................................... 3-16 3.1.6 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 3-18 3.1.7 Vegetative Communities ................................................................................. 3-27

3.1.8 Fish and Wildlife Resources ........................................................................... 3-33 3.1.9 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 3-44 3.1.10 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste ..................................................... 3-45

3.1.11 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 3-47

3.1.12 Socio-Economic Conditions ........................................................................... 3-47Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxii 3.1.13 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 3-49

3.1.14 Noise ............................................................................................................... 3- 49

3.1.15 Recreational Resources ................................................................................... 3-50

*4.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ...................................................... 4-1 4.1 Study Area ........................................................................................................... 4-1 4.2 Forecasted Ecological Description/Setting .......................................................... 4-2

4.2.1 Climate .............................................................................................................. 4- 2 4.2.2 Physical Landscape: Geology, and Soils ......................................................... 4-3 4.2.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 4-3 4.2.4 Water Management ........................................................................................... 4-5 4.2.5 Water Quality .................................................................................................... 4-8 4.2.6 Vegetative Communities ................................................................................... 4-9

4.2.7 Fish and Wildlife Resources ........................................................................... 4-10 4.2.8 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 4-16 4.2.9 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste ...................................................... 4-16

4.2.10 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 4-17

4.2.11 Socio-Economic Conditions ........................................................................... 4-17

4.2.12 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 4-20

4.2.13 Noise ............................................................................................................... 4- 23

4.2.14 Recreational Resources ................................................................................... 4-23 4.3 Summary of Existing and Future Without Project Conditions .......................... 4-26

*5.0 PLAN FORMULATION ............................................................................................ 5-1

5.1 Formulation of Alternative Plans ......................................................................... 5-1

5.2 Prior Formulation ................................................................................................. 5-2 5.3 Project Evaluation Criteria, Perfor mance Measures, Formulation Methods,

and Models ........................................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.1 Evaluation Criteria and Models ........................................................................ 5-3

5.3.2 Performance Measures ...................................................................................... 5-3

5.3.3 Formulation Method ......................................................................................... 5-6 5.3.4 Management Measures ..................................................................................... 5-9 5.3.5 Initial Array of Alternative Plans .................................................................... 5-11 5.3.6 Initial Screening of Alternative Plans ............................................................. 5-16 5.3.7 Secondary Array of Alternative Plans ............................................................ 5-19 5.3.8 Final Array of Alternative Plans ..................................................................... 5-33

6.0 EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS ...................... 6-1

6.1 Environmental Effects of Fina l Array of Alternatives ......................................... 6-1

6.1.1 Climate .............................................................................................................. 6- 2 6.1.2 Physical Landscape: Geology, Topography and Soils ..................................... 6-3 6.1.3 Hydrology ......................................................................................................... 6-5 6.1.4 Water Management ......................................................................................... 6-14 6.1.5 Flood Risk Management ................................................................................. 6-16 6.1.6 Water Quality .................................................................................................. 6-18 6.1.7 Vegetative Communities ................................................................................. 6-21

6.1.8 Fish and Wildlife Resources ........................................................................... 6-24Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxiii 6.1.9 Air Quality ...................................................................................................... 6-27 6.1.10 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste ...................................................... 6-28

6.1.11 Cultural Resources .......................................................................................... 6-31 6.1.12 Socio-Economic Conditions: Population ....................................................... 6-32 6.1.13 Socio-Economic Conditions: Water Supply Demands .................................. 6-33

6.1.14 Land Use ......................................................................................................... 6-34

6.1.15 Noise ............................................................................................................... 6- 36

6.1.16 Recreational Resources ................................................................................... 6-37

6.1.17 Aesthetics ........................................................................................................ 6-38 6.2 Ability of Each Plan to Meet Objectives, Constraints ....................................... 6-40 6.3 Ecological Benefits Evaluation .......................................................................... 6-42

6.3.1 Freshwater Wetland Benefits .......................................................................... 6-44

6.3.2 Saltwater Wetland Benefits ............................................................................. 6-48

6.3.3 Nearshore Benefits .......................................................................................... 6-51 6.3.4 Overall Ecological Benefit Estimates ............................................................. 6-56 6.3.5 Benefit Assessment Risk and Uncertainty Analysis ....................................... 6-57 6.3.6 Significance of Ecological Benefits ................................................................ 6-67 6.4 Planning Level Cost Estimates .......................................................................... 6-67

6.4.1 Real Estate Costs............................................................................................. 6-68
6.4.2 Construction Costs .......................................................................................... 6-69 6.5 Comparison of Environmental Benefits and Costs of Alternative Plans ........... 6-70

6.5.1 Cost-Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analyses .............................................. 6-70 6.5.2 Average Annual Benefits ................................................................................ 6-71 6.5.3 Average Annual Costs .................................................................................... 6-73 6.5.4 Cost Effective Analysis................................................................................... 6-76 6.5.5 Incremental Cost Analysis .............................................................................. 6-83 6.6 National Ecosystem Restoration Plan ................................................................ 6-88 6.7 Planning Principles and Guide lines Evaluation Criteria .................................... 6-89 6.8 Summary of Outputs for the Four Accounts ...................................................... 6-90

6.8.1 National Economic Development ................................................................... 6-90 6.8.2 Environmental Quality .................................................................................... 6-90 6.8.3 Regional Economic Development .................................................................. 6-91
6.8.4 Other Social Effects ........................................................................................ 6-91 6.9 Tentatively Selected Plan ................................................................................... 6-92

*7.0 THE TENTATIVELY S ELECTED PLAN ................................................................ 7-1 7.1 Description of Pl an Components ......................................................................... 7-1

7.1.1 Deering Estate ................................................................................................... 7-1

7.1.2 Cutler Wetlands ................................................................................................ 7-2 7.1.3 L-31 East Flow Way ......................................................................................... 7-2 7.2 Project Monitoring Plan ..................................................................................... 7-10 7.3 Adaptive Management Plan ............................................................................... 7-11 7.4 Nuisance and Exotic Vegetation Control Plan ................................................... 7-12

7.5 Recreation Features ............................................................................................ 7-13

7.6 Cost estimates .................................................................................................... 7-16

7.6.1 Apportionment of Federal and Non-Federal Costs ......................................... 7-17Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxiv 7.6.2 Description of the Federal and Non-Federal Implementation Responsibilities ............................................................................................... 7-18 7.6.3 Project Implementation Schedule ................................................................... 7-19 7.6.4 Pre-Construction Engineeri ng and Design Activities ..................................... 7-19 7.6.5 Implementation of Project Operations ............................................................ 7-20 7.7 Design and Construction Considerations ........................................................... 7-20

7.7.1 Engineering and Design .................................................................................. 7-20 7.7.2 Construction and Implementation of the Plan ................................................ 7-20 7.7.3 Outstanding Design Issues .............................................................................. 7-21 7.8 Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way an d Relocations Considerations ................. 7-22

7.8.1 Real Estate Requirements ............................................................................... 7-22 7.8.2 Land Acquisition ............................................................................................. 7-30 7.8.3 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste ...................................................... 7-30 7.8.4 Remediation of Agricultural Chemicals ......................................................... 7-32

7.8.5 Relocation Assistance ..................................................................................... 7-33 7.9 Operations and Maintenance Considerations ..................................................... 7-33

7.9.1 Flood Risk Management and Water Supply ................................................... 7-33 7.9.2 Operations and Maintenance Costs ................................................................. 7-34 7.9.3 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Costs ................................................ 7-34 7.10 Plan Accomplishments....................................................................................... 7-35 7.11 Next Added Increment Analysis ........................................................................ 7-36

7.12 Contribution to Achievement of Inte rim Goals and Interim Targets ................. 7-38 7.13 Discussion of Major Risk and Uncertainty ........................................................ 7-41

7.13.1 Cost Risk and Uncertainty .............................................................................. 7-41 7.13.2 Benefit Risk and Uncertainty .......................................................................... 7-41
7.14 Additional Considerations ................................................................................. 7-69

7.14.1 Chief of Engineers Actions for Change .......................................................... 7-69 7.14.2 Environmental Operating Principles ............................................................... 7-70

8.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION ...................................................................................... 8-1 8.1 Division of Implementation Responsibilities ....................................................... 8-1

8.1.1 Schedule ............................................................................................................ 8-1 8.1.2 Pre-Construction Engine ering and Design ........................................................ 8-1 8.1.3 Implementation of Project Operations .............................................................. 8-2 8.2 Cost Sharing ......................................................................................................... 8-2

8.2.1 Construction and Land Costs fo r Restoration Features .................................... 8-3 8.2.2 Monitoring ........................................................................................................ 8-3 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance ............................................................................. 8-4 8.3 Project Assurances ............................................................................................... 8-4

8.3.1 Savings Clause-Effects on Water S upply for Existing Legal Sources and

Level of Service for Flood Protection ............................................................... 8-4

8.3.2 Identification of Water Made Availa ble for the Natural System and Water

for Other Water-Related Needs ........................................................................ 8-5 8.4 Project Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 8-6 8.5 Subsequent Project Im plementation Report ......................................................... 8-7 8.6 Compliance with Environm ental Laws, Statutes and Executive Orders ............. 8-7 8.7 Compliance with Florida Statutes ...................................................................... 8-15Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxv 8.7.1 Permits, Entitlements and Certifications......................................................... 8-15 8.7.2 Compliance with Applicable Wate r Quality Standards and Permitting Requirements .................................................................................................. 8-16 8.7.3 Compliance with Public Outreach Requirements ........................................... 8-17

8.8 Environmental Commitments ............................................................................ 8-18 8.9 Views of Non-Federal Sponsor .......................................................................... 8-19

*9.0 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION ........................................................................... 9-1 9.1 Public and Agency Coordination ......................................................................... 9-1 9.2 Environmental Compliance ................................................................................. 9-1
9.3 Clean Air Act of 1972 .......................................................................................... 9-1
9.4 Clean Water Act of 1972 ..................................................................................... 9-2 9.5 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972 .............................................................. 9-2
9.6 National Environmental Policy Act of 1969 ........................................................ 9-2
9.7 Fish and Wildlife Coordi nation Act of 1958 ....................................................... 9-3 9.8 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Mi gratory Bird Conservation Act ...................... 9-4 9.9 Endangered Species Act of 1973 ......................................................................... 9-4 9.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conserva tion and Management Act ........................ 9-5
9.11 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972 ............................................................. 9-5 9.12 Estuary Protection Act of 1968 ............................................................................ 9-6
9.13 National Historic Pres ervation Act of 1966 ......................................................... 9-6 9.14 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976; Toxic Substances
Control Act of 1976 ............................................................................................. 9-6 9.15 Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981 ............................................................. 9-7 9.16 Executive Order 11988, Flood Plain Management .............................................. 9-8 9.17 Executive Order 11990, Protection of Wetlands ................................................. 9-8 9.18 Executive Order 12898, Environmental Justice ................................................... 9-8 9.19 Executive Order 13089, Coral Reef Protection ................................................... 9-8 9.20 Executive Order 13112, Invasive Species ........................................................... 9-9 9.21 Florida Statutes 373.1501 and 373.026 (Amended) ............................................ 9-9 9.22 List of Agencies, Organizations and Persons to Whom Copies of the Draft
PIR/EIS Will be Sent ......................................................................................... 9-10

10.0 JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT ENGI NEER’S RECOMMENDATIONS ................ 10-1

*11.0 PREPARERS OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT ....................... 11-1

*12.0 INDEX ................................................................................................................... .... 12-1

*13.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS ........................................................ 13-1 13.1 Glossary of Terms .............................................................................................. 13-1 13.2 Glossary of Acronyms ..................................................................................... 13-17

*14.0 REFERENCES .......................................................................................................... 14- 1Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxvi List of Tables Table ES-1 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Costs ............................................................. xiv Table ES-2 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Total Investment Cost and Average

Annual Cost ........................................................................................................xv Table ES-3 Cost Apportionment of Th e Tentatively Selected Plan .................................... xvi Table 3-1 Summary of Florid a International University and DERM Median Values for Water Quality Parameters Assessed .......................................................... 3-21

Table 3-2 South Miami-Dade Canal Water Quality at Selected Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management Sampling

Locations ......................................................................................................... 3-25

Table 3-3 Estimated Nutrient Loads Deliver ed io Biscayne Bay From Five South

Miami-Dade Canals ........................................................................................ 3-26 Table 3-4 Threatened, Endangered and Speci es of Special Concern; Plants and Animals Likely to be Affected by The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project ............................................................................................................. 3-40 Table 3-5 Comparison of Florid a and Miami-Dade County ........................................... 3-48 Table 3-6 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 2000 Census Tract ...................................... 3-48 Table 4-1 Population Estimates, 2000-2050 ................................................................... 4-18 Table 4-2 Study Area Population Rates of Growth 2000-2050 ...................................... 4-18 Table 4-3 Study Area Popul ation Growth 2000-2050..................................................... 4-18

Table 4-4 Estimated 2050 Service Area 3 Conservation Adjusted, Most Likely Population Demand Scenario (mgd) ............................................................... 4-19

Table 4-5 Counties within SCORP Pla nning Regions Potentially Affected by

Alternative Restoration Plans ......................................................................... 4-23 Table 4-6 Regional Outdoor Recreation Facilities .......................................................... 4-24 Table 4-7 Demand and Facility Needs (1997 and 2010) ................................................. 4-25 Table 4-8 Existing Versus Future Without Project Conditions on Project Lands ........... 4-27 Table 5-1 Relationship Between Objectiv es and Performance Measures ......................... 5-5 Table 5-2 Initial Array of Alternatives ............................................................................ 5-17 Table 5-3 Secondary Array of Alternatives .................................................................... 5-20 Table 5-4 Summary of Measur es – Alternative Yb ........................................................ 5-23 Table 5-5 Summary of Measur es – Alternative E ........................................................... 5-25 Table 5-6 Summary of Measur es – Alternative J ............................................................ 5-27 Table 5-7 Summary of Measur es – Alternative M .......................................................... 5-29 Table 5-8 Summary of Measur es – Alternative Q .......................................................... 5-30 Table 5-9 Summary of Measur es – Alternative O .......................................................... 5-32 Table 5-10 Summary of Measur es–Alternative O Phase 1 ............................................... 5-35 Table 6-1 Summary of Each Plan’s Ability to Meet The Project Objectives and Avoid Project Constraints ............................................................................... 6-41 Table 6-2 CBEEM Analysis: Total Habitat Unit Calculations for Each Ecological

Zone ................................................................................................................ 6-43

Table 6-3 Freshwater Wetland Habitat Lift Summary .................................................... 6-46 Table 6-4 Estimated Freshwater Wetland Rehy dration Lift (Submetric A.1) for Each Alternative Calculated Using .......................................................................... 6-47

Table 6-5 Saltwater Wetland Ha bitat Lift Summary ....................................................... 6-50Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxvii Table 6-6 Percent of Target Saltwater Wetland Acres Meeting Salinity Target of Less Than 20 psu During Wet Season fo r Three Representative Years ......... 6-51 Table 6-7 Nearshore Habitat Lift Summary .................................................................... 6-54 Table 6-8 Nearshore Salinity Lift Estim ated for Average Wet and Dry Season Hydrologic Conditions and Dry Season 10% Exceedance Flows .................. 6-55 Table 6-9 Relationship Between Project Be nefits and Water Availability ..................... 6-60 Table 6-10 Salinity Response for Alternative O, Phase 1 ................................................. 6-61

Table 6-11 Initial Cost of Constr uction, Real Estate and O&M ....................................... 6-70 Table 6-12 Typical Ecologi cal Response Time ................................................................ 6-72 Table 6-13 Planning Level Construction and In vestment Cost of Alternative Plans ........ 6-75 Table 6-14 Costs and Output s Used in CE/ICA ................................................................ 6-77

Table 6-15 Results of Cost Effectivene ss Analysis: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Each Output Categor y–Combined Habitat Units .......................... 6-77

Table 6-16 Results of Cost Effectivene ss Analysis: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Each Output Category– ................................................................. 6-79

Table 6-17 Results of Cost Effectiveness An alysis: All Plans and Cost Effective Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Each Output Category–Saltwater

Habitat Units ................................................................................................... 6-80

Table 6-18 Results of Cost Effectiveness An alysis: All Plans and Cost Effective Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Each Output Category–Nearshore

Habitat Units ................................................................................................... 6-82
Table 6-19 Results of Incremental Cost An alysis: Cost Effective and Best Buy Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Co mbined Ecological Zone Habitat

Units ................................................................................................................ 6-83

Table 6-20 Results of Incremental Cost An alysis: Cost Effective and Best Buy Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Freshwater Habitat ................................... 6-84

Table 6-21 Results of Incremental Cost An alysis: Cost Effective and Best Buy Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Sa ltwater Ecological Zone ........................ 6-85

Table 6-22 Results of Incremental Cost An alysis: Cost Effective and Best Buy Plans Arrayed by Increasing Output for Nearshore Habitat ..................................... 6-87

Table 6-23 Results of CE/ICA .......................................................................................... 6-88
Table 6-24 P and G Evaluation Criteria ............................................................................ 6-89 Table 7-1 Summary of Alternativ e O Phase 1 Structures ................................................. 7-4 Table 7-2 Summary of Recreati on Costs and Benefits ................................................... 7-14 Table 7-3 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Investment Costs ......................................... 7-16 Table 7-4 Cost Apportionment of The Tentatively Selected Plan .................................. 7-18 Table 7-5 Project Acreages and Func tional Lift by Benefit Zone .................................. 7-24 Table 7-6 Next Added Increment Habitat Unit Summary .............................................. 7-37 Table 7-7 Expected Project Effects for CERP Interim Goals ......................................... 7-40 Table 8-1 Cost Apportionment of The Tentatively Selected Plan .................................... 8-3 Table 8-2 Environmental Comp liance and Coordination.................................................. 8-7Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxviii List of Figures

Figure ES-1 Alternative O Phase 1 (T entatively Selected Plan) ............................................. ix Figure 1-1 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Location Map ................................................ 1-4 Figure 1-2 Yellow Book (YB) Conceptual Plan ............................................................... 1-10 Figure 3-1 Biscayne Bay Coas tal Wetlands General .......................................................... 3-3 Figure 3-2 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project Area Map .......................................... 3-4 Figure 3-3 Pre-Drainage Lower East Coast of Florida Circa 1900 .................................... 3-8 Figure 3-4 Present Day-Lower Ea st Coast of Florida ........................................................ 3-9 Figure 3-5 Monthly Exceedance Freque ncy Flows for C-100 Basin ............................... 3-10 Figure 3-6 Monthly Exceedance Freque ncy Flows for C-1 Basin ................................... 3-11 Figure 3-7 Monthly Exceedance Freque ncy Flows for C-102 Basin ............................... 3-12 Figure 3-8 Monthly Exceedance Freque ncy Flows for C-103 Basin ............................... 3-13 Figure 3-9 Typical Flow Pattern in South Central Biscayne Bay .................................... 3-14 Figure 3-10 DBHYDRO Sites in The Miami-Dade County Vicinity ................................ 3-17 Figure 3-11 Average Measured Salinity for May 2008 in South Central Biscayne Bay ... 3-23 Figure 3-12 Average Measured Salinity for November 2008 in South Central Biscayne Bay .................................................................................................................. 3-24 Figure 3-13 Vegetation Coverage of The Bi scayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project Area Between Shoal and Turkey Points .................................................................. 3-28 Figure 3-14 Allowable Percentage of Pollutants ................................................................ 3-45 Figure 4-1 Lower East Coast Region Service Area 3 ......................................................... 4-7 Figure 4-2 Distribution of Total Conservation Adjusted Municipal and Industrial Water Use, by Service Area, 2000 and 2050, Most-Likely Population
Scenario........................................................................................................... 4-19 Figure 4-3 Service Area 3, Most-Likel y Population Scenario Municipal and Industrial Conservation-Adjusted Fo recast, by Water Use Sector ................. 4-20 Figure 4-4 Miami-Dade County Ur ban Development Boundary ..................................... 4-22 Figure 5-1 Alternative D13R (Yellow B ook) – South Biscayne Bay and Coastal Wetlands Enhancement Component ................................................................. 5-2 Figure 5-2 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Component Area Map with Ecological

Zones ................................................................................................................. 5-7 Figure 5-3 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetla nds Conceptual Project Area ............................... 5-9 Figure 5-4 Alternative Yellow Book ................................................................................ 5-22 Figure 5-5 Final Array of Alternativ es – Alternative Yellow Book ................................. 5-36 Figure 5-6 Final Array of Altern atives – Alternative M ................................................... 5-37 Figure 5-7 Final Array of Altern atives – Alternative O ................................................... 5-38 Figure 5-8 Final Array of Altern atives – Alternative Q ................................................... 5-39 Figure 5-9 Final Array of Alternativ es – Alternative O, Phase 1 ..................................... 5-40 Figure 6-1 Exceedance Probability of Tota l Available and Diverted Flows for Alternative O, Phase 1. ................................................................................... 6-10 Figure 6-2 Exceedance Probability of Total Available and Diverted Flows in The C100 Basin ........................................................................................................ 6-11 Figure 6-3 Exceedance Probability of Total Av ailable and Diverted Flows in The C-1

Basin ............................................................................................................... 6-12Table of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxix Figure 6-4 Exceedance Probability of Total Available and Diverted Flows in The C102 Basin ........................................................................................................ 6-13 Figure 6-5 Exceedance Probability of Total Available and Diverted Flows in The C102 Basin ........................................................................................................ 6-14 Figure 6-6 Effect of Sea Level Rise on Proj ected Benefit Stream for Alternative O,

Phase I ............................................................................................................. 6-65 Figure 6-7 Nearshore Response Time .............................................................................. 6-73 Figure 6-8 Planning Set “CE/ICA on Total System-Wide Habitat Units” Cost and Output ............................................................................................................. 6-78 Figure 6-9 BBCW Alternative Plans–CE/ICA Run on Freshwater Wetland Habitat ...... 6-79 Figure 6-10 BBCW Alternative Plans – CE/ICA Run on Saltwater Habitat ..................... 6-81 Figure 6-11 BBCW Alternative Plans – CE /ICA Run on Nearshore Habitat .................... 6-82 Figure 6-12 Best Buy Plans for Combined Habitat Units .................................................. 6-84 Figure 6-13 Planning Set for Freshwater Wetlands Incremental Cost and Output ............ 6-85 Figure 6-14 Best Buy Plans for Saltwater Wetland Habitat ............................................... 6-86 Figure 6-15 Best Buy Plans for Nearshore Habitat Units ................................................... 6-87 Figure 6-16 Recommended Plan ........................................................................................ 6-93 Figure 7-1 The Tentatively Selected Plan-Alternative O Phase I ....................................... 7-3 Figure 7-2 Deering Estate Project Features ........................................................................ 7-6 Figure 7-3 Cutler Wetlands Project Features...................................................................... 7-7 Figure 7-4 Northern L-31 East Fl ow Way Project Features ............................................... 7-8 Figure 7-5 Southern L-31 East Fl ow Way Project Features ............................................... 7-9 Figure 7-6 Conceptual Recreation Plan ............................................................................ 7-15 Figure 7-7 Habitat Benefit Zones - Alternative O Phase I ............................................... 7-25 Figure 7-8 Habitat Benefit Zones - Lennar Flowway and Cutler S outh - Alternative O

Phase I ............................................................................................................ 7-26 Figure 7-9 Habitat Benefit Zones – Homest ead North – Alternative O Phase I .............. 7-27 Figure 7-10 Habitat Benefit Zones - Homest ead South - Alternative O Phase I ................ 7-28 Figure 7-11 Habitat Benefit Zones - Shoal Point – ............................................................ 7-29

ANNEXES Annex A FWCA and Endangered Species Act Compliance
Annex B NEPA Information Annex C Analyses Required by WRDA 2000 and State Law Annex D Draft Project Operating Manual Annex E Project Monitoring Plan Annex F Reports Provided by RECOVER to Support the PIR

APPENDICES Appendix A Engineering Appendix B Cost Estimates Appendix C Environmental Information Appendix D Real Estate Appendix E Agency/Public CoordinationTable of Contents

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

xxx Appendix F Plan Formulation and Evaluation Appendix G Economic and Social Considerations Appendix H Recreation Appendix I Pertinent Correspondence

*Elements marked with an asterisk (*) are required for NEPA compliance according to CEQ Regulations.Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 1
INTRODUCTIONSection 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-1 1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 PURPOSE AND NEED FOR THE PROJECT

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is a component of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) which provides for the
restoration , protect ion and preservation of the water resources of central and

south Florida. The purp ose of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is to restore the natural hydrology and ecosystem in an area degraded by drainage systems and land development.

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Draft Project Implementation Report (Draft PIR) integrates plan formulation with documentation of environmental effects. This report is also an Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) to satisfy documentation requirements of the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) of 1969, as amended.

This Draft PIR provides a description of the ecosystem and other related water resource problems and opportunities in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area and expresses desired changes as planning objectives. The alternative plans developed for this project are included in the Draft PIR

documentation. T he economic, social and environmental effects of the alternatives, which include the Tentatively Selected Plan , a plan of no action, and various combinations of individual management measures, are summarized
in the Draft PIR

. This Draft PIR presents details concerning the level of participation of the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (USACE) and the non -F ederal sponsor, the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD ), required for implementation of the selected plan. The report concludes with a
recommendation for authorization.

1.2 REPORT AUTHORITY

The CERP was approved in Section 601 of Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000), Public Law No. 106

- 541, of the 106th Congress:

(b) C OMPREHENSIVE E VERGLADES R ESTORATION P LAN .– (1 ) A PPROVAL .– (A) IN GENERAL.

— Except as modified by this section, the Plan is approved as that are needed to restore, preserve, and protect the South Florida ecosystem while providing for other

water

- related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protecti on. The Plan shall be implemented to ensure the protection of water quality in, the reduction of the loss of fresh water from, and the improvement of the environment of the South Florida ecosystem and to achieve and maintain theSection 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-2 benefits to the natural system and human environment described in the Plan, and required pursuant to this section, for as long as the project is authorized.

The authority for the preparation of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands PIR is contained in Section 601(d) WRDA 2000, which states:

(d) A UTHORIZATION OF F UTURE P ROJECTS – (1) I N G ENERAL .– Except for a project authorized by subsection (b) or (c), any project included in the Plan shall require a specific authorization by Congress. (2) S UBMISSION OF R EPORT

– Before seeking congressional authorization for a project under paragraph (1), the Secretary shall submit to Congress

– (A) a description of the project; and (B) a project implementation report for the project prepared in accordance with subsections (f) and (h).

Section 601(h)(4) of WRDA 2000 further requires that a Project Implementation Report document the following:

(4) PROJECT

- SPECIFIC ASSURANCES

- (A) PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORTS

- (i) IN GENERAL

- The Secretary and the non

- Federal sponsor shall develop project implementation reports in accordance with Section 10.3.1 of the Plan. (ii) COORDINATION

- In dev eloping a project implementation report, the Secretary and the non

- Federal sponsor shall coordinate with appropriate Federal, State, tribal, and local governments. (iii) REQUIREMENTS

- A project implementation report shall

— (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.); (IV) identify the appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural
system; (V) identify the amount of water to be reserved or allocated for the natural system necessary to implement, under State law, subclauses (IV) and (VI);Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-3 (VI) comply with applicable water quality standards and applicable water quality permitting requirements under subsection (b)(2)(A)(ii); (VII) be based on the best available science; and (VIII) include an analysis concerning the cost

- effectiveness and engineering feasibility of the project.

1.3 PROJECT AREA

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area is located in southeast Miami

Dade County, south of Miami and east of Florida City and Homestead, within
the SFWMD ’s Lower East Coast (LEC) water supply planning region ( FIGURE 1-1 ). The study area is bounded by south

- central Biscayne Bay and Biscayne National Pa rk (BNP) to the south and east, and the Atlantic Coastal Ridge, and agricultural and suburban development to the north and west. Florida Power & Light Company ’s (F PL ’s ) Turkey Point nuclear power plant

, Homestead Air Reserve Base and the South Dade Landfill are located in the project area. The project area overlaps several drainage basins, six of which are named for the associated major east

- west canals: Canal 100 (C

- 100), C

- 1, C

- 102,
C- 10 3, North Canal and Florida City Canal. These canals are operated to reduce the potential for flood damages as well as to limit salinity intrusion into the local groundwater system. To limit flood damages, water managers use the canal system to lower the groundwater elevation which increases runoff storage potential in the canal basins. Additional flood protection is provided by the

L- 31E Levee and Canal which runs north

- south along South Central Biscayne Bay. The eastern

- most water control structures are located at the intersection of
the L

- 31E C anal and the major east

- west canals. During the dry season, water managers use the east

- west canal network to import water from the northwest which increases groundwater elevation and limits saltwater intrusion in to the aquifer.Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-4 FIGURE 1-1: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS LOCATION MAPSection 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-5 1.4 STUDY AREA DESC RIPTION

Biscayne Bay is a shallow estuarine lagoon extending nearly the entire length of
Miami

- Dade County, which is located in southeastern Florida. Biscayne Bay is home to over 500 species of fish and many other marine organisms. A large area
of the s outh central portion of Biscayne Bay is contained within Biscayne
National Park . The longest stretch of mangrove forest remaining
on Florida’s eastern
seaboard occurs within Biscayne Bay. There are
also extensive areas of

s eagrasses in Biscayne Bay, which serve as an important food source for the endangered Florida

manatee , and as nursery areas for many ecologically and commercially important estuarine species, such as shrimp , crab s, lobster, and sponges. Biscayne Bay has been designated by Florida Statutes as an Outstanding Florida Water (OFW) and an Aquatic Preserve.

Currently, several canals designed to provide flood risk management and protect water supplies transect the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project study area. The drainage system currently in place has transformed Biscayne Bay from a natural estuary driven by
di ffuse freshwater flows to an artificial system driven by controlled, point

- source, freshwater pulses. Historically, Biscayne Bay
received fresh water from overland flow passing through the coastal ridge and wetlands, and extensive groundwater seepage. Th ese natural freshwater inputs produced a distinctive salinity gradient that supported the diverse habitats characteristic of Biscayne Bay (seagrass and algal meadows, oyster reefs, sponge beds, mangrove forest and marshes).Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-6 The drainage canals disrupted interconnected physical and chemical natural processes such as hydrology, salinity patterns, and nutrient inputs. The existing canals impact freshwater flows to the Biscayne Bay estuary by lowering the region’s water table and reducing water storage in cont ributing basins; decreasing groundwater inflow to Biscayne Bay; and eliminating or altering natural tributaries. Drainage has permitted agricultural and suburban development in areas that were once vital wetlands and increased the flow of pollutants to Bi scayne Bay. Development of watershed lands and the commensurate control of water levels have also altered the timing and duration of freshwater flows to the Biscayne Bay.

As a result of changes in salinity patterns, the once extensive estuary that

linked marine and freshwater zones and provided vital nursery habitat has been diminished. Increasing salinity over time has resulted in the expansion of salt tolerant mangrove wetlands into formerly freshwater zones eliminating freshwater wetlands. Changes to marine habitats include dramatic reductions in the abundance of typically estuarine species. Seagrass communities have likewise been impacted by the hydrologic modification. Diverse seagrass communities provide habitat and food to comme rcially and recreationally important fish and shellfish and protected marine species, act as nutrient and sediment traps, and help stabilize the bottom of Biscayne Bay.

Restoration of a healthy, productive aquatic ecosystem in Biscayne Bay is
essential to maintaining the ecological integrity and associated economic activity in these publicly owned and managed areas.

1.5 STUDY SPONSOR AND PARTICIPANTS

USACE initiated the PIR at the request of the SFWMD , the non -F ederal sponsor for the study. USACE and SFWMD are the lead agencies in the PIR and shared the cost of the study equally. Numerous other agencies, organizations and individuals participated in the study

, including the Miami

- Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management (DERM) , Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP), U.S. Fish and Wildlife Servic e (FWS), National Park Service (NPS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) Fisheries

, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).
Additional information o n public involvement in the study is included in
S ection 9 – Summary of Coordination, Public Views and Comments

.Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-7 1.6 RELATIONSHIP T O OTHER USACE/NON

- FEDERAL SPONSOR EFFORTS, STUDIES, DO CUMENTS AND REPORTS

Listed within this section are brief descriptions of other key projects related to
the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project. Included in the description are the objectives and/or study area.

1.6.1 C-111 Spreader Canal Project

The CERP C- 111 Spreader Canal project includes levees, canals, pumps, water
control structures and a stormwater treatment area (STA ) to be constructed,
modified or removed in the Model Lands and Southern Glades area of Miami

Dade County. The intent o f this project is to re

- establish sheetflow and hydrologic connectivity between natural areas, resulting in improved hydropatterns and a sustainable ecosystem, reduced wet season deliveries in
C- 111, and decreased flood risk in south Miami

- Dade. This project area is adjacent to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands area. This project is in the PIR phase.

1.6.2 Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot

This CERP Wastewater Reuse Technology Pilot project address es water quality issues associated with discharging reclaimed water into the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands Alternative O Phase 1 project. It also determine s the level of superior treatment and the appropriate methodologies for that treatment.

1.6.3 Stormwater Detention and Treatment Area Project

A pi lot project has been constructed in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands by DERM with funding support from the SFWMD , the FDEP and the Homestead
Air Reserve Base. The main purpose of the pilot project is to evaluate a method for modifying the timing and delivery of canal discharges to Biscayne Bay in order to minimize the negative ecological effects caused by large pul se discharges of fresh water.

1.6.4 South Dade Watershed Plan

The purpose of the South Dade Watershed Plan is to formulate an integrated land use and water management strategy for all of the lands that comprise the major drainage basins in southeastern Miami

- Da de County: the C

- 2, C

- 100, C

- 1,
C- 102, C

- 103, North Canal and Florida City basins. The entire footprint of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is located in the South Dade Watershed
Plan area. The South Dade Watershed serves two national parks, as well as urban and agricultural areas. The South Dade Watershed Plan directs the comprehensive growth management of land uses consistent with CERP projectsSection 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-8 in Miami

- Dade County that consider protection of the environment, including
land and water resources.

1.7 PROGRAMMATIC REGULATIONS GUIDANCE MEMORA ND A

The WRDA 2000 required the development of Programmatic Regulations to provide additional guidance for implementation of the CERP

. Section 385.5 of the Programmatic Regulations specifically requires the development of six

program

- wide Guidance Memoranda (GM) that are consistent with the Programmatic Regulations and applicable law . It also requires the
establish ment of additional procedures to achieve the goals and purpo ses of the
Plan. The GM s are fundamental to the integrated framework; provide direction for using the tools for planning, implementation and evaluation; and provide assurances that the goals and purposes of the Plan wo uld be achieved. The GM s address numerous topics including common methods, general procedures and guidance to implement the Plan.

1.7.1 Project Level Monitoring Guidance

The BBCW project area encompasses a large portion o f south

- central Biscayne Bay and extends from Shoal Point south to Barnes Sound. This area has been significantly altered by human activities that have degraded nearshore habitat along the south

- central area of western Biscayne Bay, as well as the functio n and spatial extent of adjacent coastal wetlands.

A Monitoring and Assessment Program (MAP) through RECOVER will be incorporated with this project to detect system

- wide or regional changes, and
will be m easured across large spatial scales. Changes affecting Biscayne Bay,
such as the BBCW project, however, may not be adequately detected using the MAP parameters and sampling site arrays. For restoration purposes, it i s very important to be able to measure and detect ecological and water quality changes resulting from project specific activities. Therefore, in order to detect project

specific changes, additional parameters and sampling sites will be required and
are ad dressed in the Project Monitoring Plan contained in Annex E of this

document.

Monitoring guidance contained in ER 1105 -2- 100, Appendix F, Amendment #1; states that the cost of project

- level monitoring shall not exceed one percent of the total project costs unless a waiver of the one percent limitation is obtained. The proposed monitoring plan, as presented, exceeds the 1% amount by approximately $657,975. Justification for implementing the project -level monitoring plan in its en tirety is based on the need for greater spatial and temporal resolution in its monitoring data in order to detect ecological changes resulting from project operations. A waiver to the 1% project cost limitation isSection 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-9 further justified in order to more accurately quantify and manage restoration

success.

1.8 RELEVANT DOCUMENTS AND REPORTS

Restoration in the project area was investigated in the early 1980s in Miami

Dade County ’ s Biscayne Bay Management Plan (Metropolitan Dade County
Board of County Commissioners 1986)

. The SFWMD ’ s Biscayne Bay Surface

Water Improvement and Management Plan (Alleman et al

., 1995) fu rther considered restoration opportunities. A conceptual restoration plan for the area
was included in the CERP

. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project includes two components of the authorized and approved Y ellow Book (YB) selected alternative, D13R: (1) Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (designated as an Other Project Element) and (2) Biscayne Bay Coastal Canals (component FFF of the CERP). The YB plan for the project includes pump stations, spreader swales,
STA s, flow ways, levees, culverts, and backfilling canals located in southeast
Miami

- Dade County

. The project area, approximately 60,000 acres, is depicted
in the YB subteam conceptual plan ( FIGURE 1-2 ). Overland sheet flow from the Deering Estate at C

- 100C, south to the FPL Turkey Point power pla nt, generally along L

- 31E would be restored. The restoration of component 5 (Barnes Sound) would require re

- establishing sheetflow across the Model Lands south of Turkey Point. Conceptual plans for both elements are included in the

YB

.Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1- 10 FIGURE 1-2 : YELLOW BOOK (YB) CONCEPTUAL PLANSection 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1- 11 1.9 C OMPREHENSIVE E VERGLADES R ESTORATION P LAN M ASTER
IMPLEMENTATION SEQUENCING PLAN

The sequencing plan for the imp lementation of the CERP was included in
Section 10 of the YB. Subsequent to the completion of the YB, the implementation plan was updated in July 2001, and was known as the Master Implementation Schedule (MIS 1.0). The Master Implementation Sequencing Plan 1.0 (MISP 1.0), dated March 2005, built on these previous efforts and incorporated new information, implementation experience to date, and changes in legislation. The new information included the requirements in WRDA 2000 and the subsequent programmatic regulations, as well as the effects of streamlining contained in the State of Florida’s expedited construction effort , an accelerated implementation schedule for several CE RP components. The expedited effort hastens the CERP implementation while maintaining the relationship of the MISP 1.0 and the partnership between SFWMD and USACE

. The MISP 1.0 identified the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project as a Band 1 project (completion in 2010) that would be constructed by the State of Florida
under th eir expedited construction program.

1.10 STATE OF FLORIDA EXPEDITED CONSTRUCTION

The State of Florida developed an expedited construction program for the purpose of expediting design and construction of a number of critical restoration projects consistent with the CERP

, but prior to one or more of the following: Administration approval, Congressional committee resolution, Congressional authorization, or F ederal construction funding. The State anticipates that the expedited construction effort will provide immediate environmental, social and
economic benefits in the south Florida region. All state expedited construction projects must be specifically authorized by Co ngress before becoming a part of
the F ederal CERP. The SFWMD is the state agency responsible for water resources management in south Florida and acts as the non -F ederal sponsor for

F ederal water resources projects, including the CERP. The SFWMD is the lead agency for the State on implementing the expedited construction projects and will need to acquire the Department of the Army permits under Section 404 of
the Clean Water Act prior to construction. As of the generation of this document, the expedited features within the Tentatively Selected Plan have been fully designed by SFWMD, and SFWMD intends to begin phased construction of the expedited features early in 2 01 1.

1.11 LAND ACQUISITION ACTIVITIES

There are approximately 3,761 .2 acres required for the project. The SFWMD

owns 1,243.34 acres within the footprint of the project with an additional approximately 435.42 acres to be acquired from private landowners. These acres would be provided in fee. Florida Power and Light owns approximately 124.75Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1- 12 acres within the footprint of the project and will convey a perpetual flowage easement to the SFWMD for the project. The United States of America, National Park Service owns approximately 937.27 acres which will be provided by Letter Agre e ment or Memorandum of Agreement.

The Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIIF) , State of Florida, owns fee title to approximately 111.06 acres within the project footprint. The State will convey a perpetual easement to the SFWMD or execute a Supplemental Agreement which will contain language sufficient to ensure that TIIF and SFWMD provide the interest held by TIIF to the project for the life of the project

.

Miami

- Dade County Water and Sewer Department owns approximately 403.4

acres and Miami

- Dade Parks and Recreation owns approximately 202.26 acres within the project footprint. Miami

- Dade County regulations prohibit the conveyance of an interest to the SFWMD . Miami

- Dade County DERM owns approximately 303.7 acres within the Alternative O , Phase 1 portion of the project footprint

. These Miami

- Dade County governmental entities will execute Supplement al Agreements which will contain language sufficient to ensure that
Miami

- Dade County and SFWMD provide the interest held by Miami

- Dade County to the project for the life of the project

.

Refer to the Real Estate Appendix

, APPENDIX D , Paragraph D.16 for the Estate Analysis. Refer to APPENDIX D , Paragraph D.17 for the Proposed Estates required for the Project.Section 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 2
IDENTIFICATION OF PR OBLEMS AND OPPORTUNI TIESSection 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-1 2.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTU NITIES

Identifying problems and opportunities is the most important step in the planning process. Problems are defined as existing, negative conditions. Opportunities are defined as desirable, future conditions. From these, objectives are formed and constraints identified that will guide efforts to solve the problems and achieve the opportunities. Objectives are the results that the project alternatives are trying to achi eve; constraints are things that must be avoided (such as negative impacts to protected species) or things that cannot be changed (such as no reduction in flood protection benefits). These items are the basis of the planning process and to which the succe ss of each of the alternatives
will be measured.

2.1 ECOSYSTEM PROBLEMS

Today, freshwater f lows to Biscayne Bay through canals produce periods of abnormally high salinity (>40 practical salinity units [ psu ] at times ) alternating
with low salinit y in nearshore areas due to the pulsed nature of canal flows ( Alleman et al.

, 1995). The survival of many estuarine organisms depends upon

a stable seasonal availability of low salinity environments ( Serafy et al.

, 1997 ; Montegue and Ley, 1993; Brooke et al., 1982; Koh out and Kolipinski, 1967), and
the reduction or loss of these environments has resulted in concomitant reduction or loss of species dependent on such conditions. Spotted seatrout that was once common, for example, is now uncommon. Red drum was once abund ant ( Smith, 1896 ), but this species, which requires stable mesohaline (5– 25 p su ) habitat conditions (Serafy et al.

, 1997), has been lost from Biscayne Bay because of disruption of natural freshwater flow patterns and loss of the appropriate salinity regime (J. Serafy, NOAA, personal communication)

. The unnatural canal flows that are composed of many more peak flows during the wet season and often no flow in the dry season do not support a habitat that is

suitable for the Eastern oyster. Once abundant at the mouths of creeks, oyster reefs no longer exist near the outlets of the canals. High velocity water moving out through canals and into Biscayne Bay can behave as a coherent and discrete
stable water mass of lo w salinity that may not immediately mix with marine water due to the density difference between fresh water and salt water (Chin

- Fatt and Wang, 1987). P ulsed point

- discharge releases cause large and rapid shifts in salinity as water masses move into Bisca yne Bay, and severely impact

, or kill

, attached or rooted benthic organisms and plants

, as well as impacting fish communities (Serafy et al.

, 1997; Irlandi et al.

, 1997; Lorenz et
al.

, 1997; Montegue and Ley, 1993; Brook, 1982). Species diversity and numb ers of fish, mollusks, crustaceans and algae are lower in the vicinity of canals in Biscayne Bay (Thorhaug et al.

, 1976). In addition, modeling of these high flows shows that the zone of influence extends much further into Biscayne Bay than it did historically. Lower salinity water pushed out from the canals can move out into the hardground areas of sponges and soft corals creating unfavorableSection 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-2 conditions for these organisms. Paleoecolog ical studies from nearshore sites in central and southern Biscayne Ba y indicate that salinity levels ha ve become increasingly and consistently more marine over the last 100 years (Wingard et
al.

, 2003) promoting a habitat that favors marine biota rather than estuarine

, which has significantly altered the composition of the Biscayne Bay coastal
wetlands

.

Prior to construction of the canal and levee system in the study area, water flowed overland and through a series of creeks and small rivers into Biscayne Bay . Compelling historical evidence indicates that fresh water flowed into Biscayne Bay year

- round, peaking in the wet season, and diminishing in the dry season. Since the morphology of the creeks were shallow, narrow and sinuous, flow velocity was not larg e and did not ordinarily vary greatly from day to day. The continuous flow resulted in a range of salinity patterns from fresh to salt

. The freshwater/saltwater ecotone is the transitional zone where fresh and
saltwater meets

, and then mix. Today, salin ity control structures, berms and levees have created an abrupt difference between saline and freshwater habitats. The very low and moderate salinity habitats are now almost entirely

non

- existent. The absence of continuous low to moderate salinity habita ts has impacted life stages of many estuarine species such as blue crabs that depend on these zones for portions of their life cycles. Fish biomass is positively affected by freshwater inflow to the coastal ecotone (Lorenz et al. , 1 997 ). Even endangered species such as juvenile crocodiles and manatees are likely affected by the absence of these low to moderate salinity habitats. Historically, freshwater wetland vegetation extended almost to the coastline within the study area (Davi s, 1943 ). Today, salt

- tolerant vegetation such as mangroves now cover
these wetlands inland to the levees.

Rapid drainage afforded by the canals and the reduced water table now maintained in the study area have reduced the functional habitat value of the remaining freshwater wetlands. Hydroperiods, the period of time during which a wetland is covered by water, that were once as long as an entire year have been reduced to days or weeks. And nearly all of the remaining freshwater
wetlands in the area have been invaded by non

- native vegetation as a result of
the drier conditions. These wetlands were important feeding area for wading

birds , including roseate s poonbills, wood s tork s, and w hite i bis, whose s outh Florida breeding populations have declined substantially in the past 60 years ( Ogden, 1994 ). The low functional values of these wetlands have made the m a target for conversion to o ther types of land uses such as agriculture, rock mining
and urbanization . Consequently, over time, any of the original freshwater wetland areas have been converted to other land uses and their ecological values
have been lost.Section 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-3 In addition to supporting natural habitats in the project area, w ater is needed for urban and agricultural uses, but the region’s water supply is limited. The growing demand for inexpensive, high quality water to meet present and future needs throughout the region is already creat ing conflicts among water users. As rainfall declines and sea level rises, salt water is steadily encroaching into the aquifer within the study area. Actions that preserve open land and wetlands may help inhibit further water supply degradation.

2.2 PROBLEM STATEMENTS

1. Estuarine species have declined in diversity and number due to hypersalinity and extreme salinity fluctuations in Biscayne Bay.

2. Freshwater/saltwater ecotones (transitional areas where fresh and saltwater meet and mix) that are important to estuarine species have been nearly eliminated.

3. Freshwater and saltwater wetlands have been altered or eliminated.

4. Freshwater is being discharged directly to Biscayne Bay and is therefore not available for use by coastal wetlands.

5. Los s of wetlands has decreased the amount of natural water storage.

2.2.1 Opportunities

Point

- source canal discharges can be redirected to wetlands, creating overland flow, restoring creeks and re

- establishing more diffuse freshwater flows into Biscayne Bay. Redi stribution of freshwater could reduce the impacts caused by the pulsed discharges and begin to establish the freshwater/saltwater ecotones. This would also reduce the velocity of discharges because the water would be
stored in the wetlands and be released more slowly

- overland flow seepage discharge is slower than direct canal discharge. This water diversion would promote more natural gradual groundwater and overland flow which would help

to reestablish productive nursery habitat for estuarine species al ong the shoreline areas of Biscayne Bay by stabiliz ing salinity concentrations in the
saltwater wetlands and nearshore areas.

Establishing an infrastructure to redistribute fresh water into wetlands, creeks and impoundments could set the stage to accept p roposed wastewater reuse
flows as described in the CERP

. This additional source of fresh water would have its largest benefit in the dry season when watershed runoff is insufficient to prevent hypersaline conditions in the bay

.

Diverting fresh water from the canals into freshwater wetlands can increase the average water levels in the wetlands. Higher water level would inhibit the growth of non

- native , nuisance and woody vegetation, and increase periphyton productivity and fish biomass.Section 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-4 South Florida’s climate, shorelines and national parks attract millions of tourists and residents to the area each year. A stable and healthy area ecology could directly benefit the region’s economy

, primarily through increased tourism and recreational spending. Opportunities for fishing, boating, camping and hiking attract visitors to areas in and around Biscayne Bay

. T ourism is a vit al component of s outh Florida’s economy, employing more th a n 57,000 local residents in businesses catering to the needs of tourists, including:

**•** Hotels and restaurants

**•** Boating and water sports related businesses

**•** Marinas, tackle shops, boat retailers and s uppliers

**•** Fishing guides, charter boats

**•** Outdoor recreation supply businesses

About 65 million person

- days per year are expended by both tourists and residents participating in recreation related to Biscayne Bay (Hazen and Sawyer, 2005), with an annual expe nditure of about $3.8 billion. Economic studies have determined that the net gain in restoring the Biscayne Bay coastal systems is $41 million (Lee and Bwenge, 2007 ) just by controlling invasive vegetative species.

The dedication of lands towards restor ation of freshwater and estuarine wetlands can also help restore the natural coastal glades habitat within the study area. This may also help to maintain or reestablish ecological and hydrological connectivity between Biscayne Bay coastal wetlands, the C

- 111 Basin, the Model Lands, and other adjacent basins.

2.2.2 Opportunity Statements

1. Reduce point source discharges and r edistribute freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay.

2. Improve storage of fresh water to augment dry season flows to Biscayne Bay

. 3. Restore water levels in freshwater wetlands.

4. Preserve and restore the spatial extent of natural coastal glades habitat within the study area.

5. Increase tourism, recreation and economic value.

2.3 OBJECTIVES AND CONSTRAINTS

Planning objecti ves are the purposes of a study. They are what we are trying to achieve and give direction to the management measures and alternatives.
O bjectives were developed by integrating the prob lem statements with the
CERP programmatic goals that include increasing the spatial extent of natural areas, improving habitat function and quality, and improving native plant andSection 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-5 animal abundance. The planning objectives for Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands would be attained within the period of analysis for the study which ends in Year

2050.

1. Reestablish productive nursery habitat along the shoreline.

2. Redistribute freshwater flow to minimize point source discharges to improve freshwater and estuarine habitat.

3. Restore and improve quantity, quality, timing, distribution of freshwater to the bay, including Biscayne National Park

. 4. Preserve and restore spatial extent of natural coastal glades habitat.

5. Reestablish connectivity between Biscayne coastal wetlands, C

- 111 Basin, Model Lands, and adjacent basins.

6. Re store nearshore and saltwater wetland salinity regimes.

Planning constraints restrict plan formulation. Alternative plans are formulated to achieve planning objectives, but they are also formulated to avoid violating the constraints. There are two types of planning constraints

- universal constraints and study

- specific constraints. Universal planning

const raints are the legal and policy constraints that need to be included in every planning study. They are defined by local, State, and Federal laws, regulations, and applicable guidance and policies. Examples of these include:

**•** Complying with all Federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies.

**•** Maintain existing levels of flood protection to agricultural and urban lands (Savings Clause [Section 601 (h)(5)(B) of WRDA 2000]).

**•** Maintain levels of service for existing legal users (Savings Clause [Section 601 (h)(5)(A) of WRDA 2000]).

**•** M inimiz ing impacts to cultural, historical and archaeological resources

.

**•** M inimiz ing adverse socioeconomic impacts on the local and regional
economies.

**•** Avoid ing , minimiz ing , or provid ing compensatory mitigation for any impacts to pre

- existing compensatory mitigation sites within the project
area under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

. Study

- specific planning constraints are restrictions that limit the extent of the planning process within a particular study. They are statements of things unique to a specific planning study that alternative plans should avoid. The study

- specific planning constraints for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project are:

**•** Do not increase salinity intrusion into the freshwater Biscayne aquifer within the study area.

**•** Do not adversely affect the habitats of threatened or endangered species in the study area, such as the American crocodile or the West Indian

manatee

.Section 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-6 **•** Do not use water that violates State water quality standards for discharge into the wetlands being rehydrated / restored in the project.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 3
EXISTING CONDITIONS/ AFFECTED ENVIRONMENTSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-1 3.0 EXISTING CONDITIONS/AFFECTED ENVIRONMENT

3.1 STUDY AREA

Biscayne Bay is a shallow saline tropical bay/coastal lagoon located along the southeastern coast of Florida, formed as rising sea levels filled a limestone depression. It is bordered to the west by the mainland of Florida , which includes the densely populated area of Miami

- Dade County. To the east

, Biscayne Bay is
bordered by a series of barrier islands

. The Biscayne Bay is connected to the Atlantic Ocean by a series of channels and cuts, some natural and some manmade, a nd it contains a number of islands

. In contra st to many other estuaries, Biscayne Bay does not receive a sediment load from major river
systems; most of the sediment in Biscayne Bay is produced by local biota. Most
of the shoreline in the northern portio n of Biscayne Bay is bulkheaded and the majority of the bottom has been dredged. In the South Central portion of Biscayne Bay, dredging and bulkheading are not extensive.

The Bay system can be divided in three major areas. The North Bay area
extends sou th from Broward County to Rickenbacker Causeway. Major tributaries to North Bay include Arch Creek, the Biscayne Canal , Little River
and Miami River . T idal exchange with the Atlantic Ocean occurs at Bakers Haulover Cut, Government Cut and N orris Cut.

C entral Biscayne Bay ranges from Rickenbacker Causeway south to the boundary of Featherbed Bank just north of Sands Key. Tidal exchange occurs through the Safety Valve, a series of shoals and shallow cuts which make up the eastern boundary of this part of the Bay. The Coral Gables Waterway, Snapper
Creek and Cutler Drain are the main tributaries to this section. Development along the coastline is not as pronounced in this section; many of the natural mangrove wetlands are still intact, along with large seagrass beds and small areas of soft coral and sponges.

South Bay extends from the Featherbed Bank to Cutter Bank. T he area is fringed by mangrove wetlands, with dense seagrass beds, large hard ground areas and algal communities. Black Creek, Princeton Canal , Military Canal and Mowry Canal, drain into this part of the Bay, with tidal exchange with the Straits of Florida through the Safety Valve and Caesar ’ s Creek. The southern end of the Bay is connected by restricted openings to Card Sound and Barnes Sound, with limited exchange between the two.

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area lays in southeast Miami

- Dade County ( refer to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project maps in
FIGURE 3-1 and FIGURE 3-2 ). The project area includes the South Dade Wetlands (SDW), southeast of the Miami Rock Ridge. The SDW form a contiguous habitat corridor with Everglades National Park ( ENP )

, BNP

,Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-2 Crocodile Lakes National Wildlife Refuge, the north Key Largo conservation and recreational lands purchases, John Pennekamp State Park and the National Marine Sanctuary. Approximately 80 percent of the land in the SDW has not been directly disturbed by human use. The most frequent source of physical disturbance is agricultural activity; currently, most farming activities within the

man agement area have ceased. In some cases, previously farmed lands have been invaded by exotic species.

The western portion of the Model Lands is made up of the wetlands in the north
C- 111 Basin, located adjacent to the C

- 111 Canal , east of E NP , west of U.S

. Highway 1, north of SW 424 th Street and south of State Road 9336, with the exception of active agricultural land. The eastern portion includes the wetlands
south of SW 344 th Street (Palm Drive), east of U. S. Highway 1, and South to Biscayne Bay, Card Sound and Barnes Sound. The SFWMD and Miami

- Dade County currently own over 12,000 acres of the approximately 32,000 acres included in the joint acq uisition project. The remaining 20,000 acres is made up
of over 1

, 200 individual tracts

, including large parcels of land owned by FPL in
the Model Lands.

The Southern Glades region is bounded by ENP to the south and west, U.S. Highway 1 to the east and the Model Lands to the north except for the far western edge, west of C

- 111E, which extends further north to the boundary of the Frog Pond. The SFWMD owns nearly all of this property totaling over 30,000 acres.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-3 FIGURE 3-1: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS GENERAL

LOCATION MAPSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-4 FIGURE 3-2 : BIS CAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PROJECT AREA MAPSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-5 3.1.1 Climate

The subtropical climate of south Florida, with distinct wet and dry seasons, high rates of evapotranspiration, and climatic extremes of floods, drough ts and hurricanes, represents a major physical driving force that sustains the Everglades while creating water supply and flood control issues in the agricultural and urban segments. South Florida ’ s climate, in combination with low topographic relief, delayed the development of south Florida until the

t wentieth c entury and provided the main motivation for the creation of the Central and Southern Florida ( C&SF ) Project 50 years ago. It continues to dr ive the water management planning of the CERP today.

Seasonal rainfall patterns in south Florida resemble the wet and dry season patterns of the humid tropics more than the winter and summer patterns of

te mperate latitudes; rainfall over the basin can be quite varied both in annual
amount and seasonal distribution. Of the 60 inches of rain that south Florida receives annually on average, 75 percent falls during the wet season months of May through October. Wet season rainfall follows a bimodal pattern with peaks during May

- June and September

- October. The wet season rainfall events are normally of short duration and amounts are quite variable spatially. Tropical storms and hurricanes provide major contrib utions to wet season rainfall with a high level of inter

- annual variability. During the dry season, rainfall is generally associated with mid

- latitude systems and is spatially distributed in a relatively uniform pattern. High evapotranspiration rates in south Florida roughly equal annual precipitation. Recorded annual rainfall in south Florida has varied from 37 to 106 inches, and inter

- annual extremes in rainfall result in frequent years of flood and drought. Multi

- year high and low rainfall periods
of

ten alternate on a time scale approximately on the order of decades.

Additional h ydrologic and climatic information for the Biscayne Bay vicinity can
be obtained from the SFWMD’s corporate environmental database

, DBHYDRO.
The database stores hydrologic al , meteorologic al

, hydrogeologi cal

, and water quality data.

3.1.2 Physical Landscape: Geology, and Soils

3.1.2.1 Geology

The geological conditions of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area is
limited to the units encountered within the unconfined surficial Biscayne Aquifer

. The Biscayne Aquifer is a hydrologic unit of water bearing rocks ranging in age from lower Pleistocene to upper Pliocene. The geometry of the aquifer deposits is a seaward thickening wedge that varies from zero feet at the western boundary of Miami

- Dade County to a maximum of 240 feet thick at the

coast. The aquifer is comprised, from top to bottom, of parts

, or of all of theSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-6 following formations: 1) Lake Flin t Marl; 2) Miami Oolite; 3) Anastasia Formation; 4) Key Largo Limestone; 5) Fort Thompson Formation; and 6) Caloosahatchee Marl (rel atively insignificant erosion remnants and isolated reefs not present in the area of concern). The base of the Biscayne Aquifer is determined as the top of the low permeability sand (marl) of the Tamiami
Formation.

3.1.2.2 Soils

Surficial materials consist of several soil types, including peat, Everglades peat, Lake Flint Marl, and weathered Miami Oolite. Each is fine grained and varies
in thickness from one foot to approximately ten feet thick. The hydraulic conductivity for these materials is low.

The basic soil types found in the coastal areas and creeks of Biscayne Bay are: 1) marl; 2) marly peat ; 3) red mangrove peat ; 4) black mangrove peat ; 5) sandy

mud

, and 6) skeletal sand gravel. The marls are predominately calcium
carbonate and form dense, impermeable sediments with either a freshwater or low salinity gradient. A carbonate mud, rich red mangrove peat (marly peat), rarely more than ten centimeters in thickness is found at the surface in small areas near the center of large basins whic h lacked dense mangrove cover. Red
mangrove peat is found at the surface throughout most of the coastal wetlands. Black mangrove peats are found as thin shoestring deposits along old tidal
creeks and behind the coastal levee. Black mangrove peat differe d from red mangrove peat in color and in the presence of pnuemataphores (black mangrove root system), as well as root material as common soil constituents.

Offshore of the fringing mangroves, along most of the coastline, is a thin marine mud or inundated red mangrove peat, which is exposed during most wet season low tides and most of the dry season. This narrow zone frequently has very little aquatic vegetation cover. The bottom deepened at a rather constant rate from
the shoreline to the depth of approximately 125 centimeters , where the water depth increased at a faster rate. In the zone, a gray to light brown, sandy mud with varying amounts of marine mollusk skeletal material is the dominant surface sediment type. Oyster gravels with a matrix of marine sand and mud form thin, local lenses and one sizeable oyster bar were found.

3.1.3 Hydrology

Thi s section provide s an overall characterization of the current conditions and
those that existed in the Biscayne Bay Coastal We tlands p roject area and adjacent south Florida area prior to the C&SF p roject and development
activities.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-7 The hydrology of the south Miami

- Dade area is greatly influenced by the highly permeable surficial Biscayne Aquifer and the extensive drainage canal system that is essential for water supply and flood protection. There are four major drainage canals within the project area. The C

- 100 canal system drains th e northern portion of the study area in the vicinity of the Deering Estates. The C

1 canal system extends from central Miami

- Dade County east to Black Point
where the S

- 21A structure controls discharge to the bay from this basin. The C

102 canal runs fro m the L

- 31N Basin in Southwestern Miami

- Dade County east to Biscayne Bay at the northern end of the L

- 31E Coastal Wetlands. The C

- 103 canal network which includes Florida City Canal and North Canal connects the southern portion of the study area with Bisc ayne Bay. Flows in these canals are heavily influenced by groundwater levels in the unconfined surficial Biscayne Auquifer which is an extremely transmissive geologic formation. The base of the
surficial Biscayne A quifer system ranges from a depth of abo ut 175 to 210 feet
below land surface in westernmost Miami

- Dade County to greater than 270 feet
in northeastern Miami

- Dade County. This aquifer serves as the primary source of municipal and agricultural water supplies in the area.

Drainage as a result o f extensive canal systems and large

- scale pumping from municipal well fields has greatly altered the pre

- development flow system in
eastern Miami

- Dade County by: 1) eliminating or greatly reducing a seasonal and coastal ground

- water ridge; 2) reducing groundwater flow in the lower portion of the Biscayne A quifer ; 3) reducing or eliminating seasonal westward movement of groundwater; 4) causing accelerated stormwater runoff and short groundwater flow paths; and 5) lowering the wa ter table an d inducing saltwater
intrusion ( FIGURE 3-3 ). U nder pre

- development conditions in western Miami

Dade County , water entered the gray limestone aquifer by lateral movement
from Broward and Collier c ounties and by downward seepage from the Everglades and the Biscayne Aquifer, and moved southward and southeastward
into Miami

- Dade County to coastal discharge areas. Groundwater flow direction in the Biscayne Aquifer inland was primarily to the south and southeast. In
eastern Miami

- Dade County, the seasonal groundwater ridge that formed under predevelopment conditions supported both easterly and westerly groundwater flow away from the ridge axis (Fish and Stewart, 1991).Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-8 Source : http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/posters/challenge/ FIGURE 3-3 : PRE

- DRAINAGE LOWER EAST COAST OF FLORIDA CIRCA 1900

Sources of recharge to the S urficial A quifer S ystem in Miami

- Dade County
include: 1) infiltration of rainfall or irrigation water through surface materials to the water table; 2) infiltration of surface water imported by overland flow
from the north in the Water Conservation Area s ( WCA s) or by canal; 3) infiltration of urban runoff by way of drains, wells, or ponds; and 4) groundwater inflow from southwestern Broward County. Soil types and

season al rainfall variations exert significant control on the rate of recharge. Recharge by rainfall is greatest during the wet season, generally from June to November, and recharge by canal seepage is greatest during the dry season, from December to May. Discharge from the S urficial A quifer S ystem is by: 1) evapotranspiration; 2) groundwater flow to canals, to the sea, and to Monroe County along western Miami

- Dade County; and 3) wells pumped for municipal, industrial, domestic and agricultural supplies. Evapotranspiration and groundwater discharge are greatest during the wet season when water levels, temperature and plant growth rates are high. Most of the water th at circulates
within the S urficial A quifer S ystem is discharged by can als ( FIGURE 3-4 ).Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-9 Source : http://sofia.usgs.gov/publications/posters/challenge/ FIGURE 3-4: PRESENT DAY

- LOWER EAST COAST OF FLORIDA

Four primary canals transect the project area (C

- 100, C

- 1, C

- 102 and C

- 103), and outfall into Biscayne Bay. In addition, three secondary canals convey water
fr om west to east: Military Canal , North Canal and Florida City Canal. Of these three, only Military Canal discharges directly into Biscayne Bay. Canal stages within the primary canals and Military Canal are controlled with movable gates, and operated according to established criteria to maintain minimum and maximum water stages. Operation of the coastal gates controls the quantity and timing of surface water discharged into Biscayne Bay in order
to main tain minimum levels of service for flood control and water supply protection. In addition, a coastal levee system (L

- 31 E ast) was constructed in
the mid

- 1960s to protect low

- lying lands from storm surge and saltwater
intrusion. Innumerable ditches, rock pits, berms and roads also affect the hydrology within the project area.

Overall, surface water makes up the largest input of freshwater to Biscayne Bay within the project area; however, groundwater influence becomes proportionally greatest at the end of the dry season, typically in April and May. Groundwater discharge to Biscayne Bay occurs in two ways: seepage from the aquifer and flow through subsurface leakage channels (Parker et al

., 1955). A zone of seepageSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 10 occurs around the periphery of the bay where the water table elevation is above
sea level. Current average water elevations at the coastal ridge are controlled at less than three to four feet above mean sea level in the project area year round. Present day groundwater discharge rates to Bisca yne Bay are sufficient to produce flowing springs in some areas. In the more active springs, salinity ranges between 9 practical salinity units ( psu ) and 30 psu.

3.1.3.1 Historic Canal Flows Within the Project Area

Using the historic flow records maintained in t he SFWMD’s DBHYDRO database, exceedance probability plots were generated using monthly flow records for the period from January 1986 through December 2006. FIGURE 3-5
shows the exceedance frequency flows by month for the ten percentile, fifty percentile and 90 percentile return periods for the C

- 100 basin as measured by flows through the S

- 123 coastal stru cture. From this plot it is apparent that
there is little flow in this basin under extreme drought conditions . Median flow conditions show that flow occurs in the wet months (June through October) in
the C

- 100 basin. Under high flow conditions (90 th per centile flows) show discharge from the basin in all months though it is limited in the dry months.

C-100 BASIN MONTHLY FLOW EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY (Based on DBHYDRO Data 1986-2006)

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHACRE-FT/MONTH 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

FIGURE 3-5: MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY FLOWS FOR C -100
BASINSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 11 The exceedance frequency of flow thro ugh the S

- 21 structure at the mouth of the
C- 1 canal is shown in FIGURE 3-6 . From this figure it appears that under one in ten year drought (10 th percentile) conditions, there is very little to no flow during most months of the dry season while wet season flows are between 10 and 20 percent of the median flows. Under median flow conditions (50 th percentile), the minimum monthly flow is approximately 1,000 acre

- ft which occurs in the month of March. Under high flow conditions (90 th percentile) the monthly flow varie s from 5,000 acre

- ft in March to more than 30,000 acre

- ft which occurs in the months of June, August, September, and October.

C-1 BASIN MONTHLY FLOW EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY (Based on DBHYDRO Data 1986-2006)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHACRE-FT/MONTH 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

FIGURE 3-6 : MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY FLOWS FOR C

- 1 BASIN

The exceedance frequency of flow through the S

- 21A structure at the mouth of
the C

- 102 canal is shown in FIGURE 3-7 . From this figure it appears that

under one in t en year drought (10 th percentile) conditions, there is very little to no flow during most months of the dry season which is similar to the pattern in
the C

- 1 basin. Wet season flows under the 1 in 10 drought conditions are between 20 and 50 percent of tha t expected under median flow conditions (50 th percentile). Under median flow conditions (50 th percentile), the minimum monthly flow is approximately 1,000 acre

- ft which occurs in the month of April. Under high flow conditions (90 th percentile) the monthly flow varies from 5,000

acre

- ft in March to approximately 30,000 acre

- ft which occurs in the month of
October.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 12 C-102 BASIN MONTHLY FLOW EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY (Based on DBHYDRO Data 1986-2006)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHACRE-FT/MONTH 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

FIGURE 3-7 : MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY FLOWS FOR C -102

BASIN

The exceedance frequency of flow through the S

- 20F structure at the mouth of
the C

- 103 canal is shown in FIGURE 3-8 . From this figure it appears that

under one in ten year drought (10 th percentile) conditions, there is a limited
amount of flow available in four of the six driest months. Wet season flows under the 1 in 10 drought conditions are between 5 and 50 percent of that expected under median flow conditions ( 50 th percentile). Under median flow conditions (50 th percentile), the minimum monthly flow is approximately 2 ,000

acre

- ft which occurs in the month s of April and May . Under high flow conditions (90 th percentile) the monthly flow varies from 5,000 acre

- ft in March to approximately 4 0,000 acre

- ft which occurs in the month of October.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 13 C-103 BASIN MONTHLY FLOW EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY (Based on DBHYDRO Data 1986-2006)

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHACRE-FT/MONTH 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

FIGURE 3-8 : MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY FLOWS FOR C -103

BASIN

3.1.3.2 Hydrodynamics of South Central Biscayne Bay

The six regions of Biscayne Bay are hydrodynamically distinct due to unique physical features such as volume, tidal inlets and bottom bathymetry. Freshwater inflows vary signif icantly between the regions as well. The south central region of Biscayne Bay ( FIGURE 3-9 ) coincides with the project area, which includes a portion of BNP , and the freshwater flows from the adjacent
watershed. Most of the south central portion of Biscayne Bay is separated from the Straits of Florida by barrier islands. The south central region of the bay is a well- mixed, vertically homogeneous area with salinity contours that run in a
north to south direction, roughly parallel to the western shoreline. The tidal range is 1.6 feet over the Featherbed Bank (Swakon and Wang, 1977). Tidal exchange occurs primarily through narrow cuts between the barrier islands to
the south and over a series o f shoals to the north. Wind speed and direction strongly influence the direction of currents, particularly along the western shore, because of the shallow depths. The predominant wind directions are from the east and southeast, consistent with the direct ion of tropical low pressure systems occurring in the wet season. Higher wind speeds from the east and northeast are typically associated with high

- pressure systems occurring in the dry season. Southeasterly winds cause a northward nearshore current and pockets of low salinity form as these currents are entrained behind points of land.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 14 Due to the large area of open water and long fetch distances, the rate of water exchange in south central bay is primarily controlled by tidal fluctuations and
wind driven circulation

. Estimated residence times for this area range from six days to 22 days (Miami

- Dade County Planning Department

, 1986). South central bay has a smaller tidal range than the more northern portions of the bay
and has correspondingly smaller tidal velocities, less circulation and longer
residence times. Partly due to these factors, hyper

- saline conditions commonly occur at the end of the dry season (Lee

, 1975). Freshwater inflows play a role in balancing evaporation a nd oceanic exchange in nearshore areas during these

events.

Vertical stratification has been observed along the western shore after periods of large freshwater inflow from drainage canals. Nearshore salinity can be strongly affected by freshwater discharges for up to four days, and influenced for a period of 16 days (Luo and Serafy, 2002). In open areas of the central bay, salinity is relatively unaffected by freshwater discharges over short periods of time; sustained high levels of freshwater inf low over a period of days are required to significantly affect salinity levels.

FIGURE 3-9 : TYPICAL FLOW PATTERN IN SOUTH CENTRAL BISCAYNE BAY Deering

Black Point

Turkey PointSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 15 3.1.3.3 Sea

- Level Rise

Over the last 100 years, s ea- level rise has resulted in significant impact on coastal canals and communities, with loss of flood protection and increased saltwater intrusion being the primary effects

. Additionally, coastal ecosystems
and estuaries have be en adversely affected and require additional deliveries of fresh water to maintain desirable salinity patterns and healthy ecosystems. A perfect example of this is the expansion of the “white zone” mangrove areas south of the Florida City Canal that have been impacted both by rising sea level and depressed groundwater stages.

Sea- level rise is one of the more certain consequences of climate change, and because it affects the land/ocean interface, it has the potential for environmental impacts on coastal areas. Sea- level rise is discussed in Section 7.1 3 .2.3 of Section 7, The Te ntatively Selected Plan

.

3.1.4 Groundwater

Groundwater in south Florida consists of the Floridan Aquifer and the surficial Biscayne Aquifer

. The Biscayne Aquifer is a principal source of drinking water
for Miami

- Dade County

. The Biscayne Aquifer has been classified as a Sole Source Aquifer under the Federal Safe Drinking Water Act. Within the Biscayne Aquifer, groundwater can be found at or near the ground surface and generally conforms to the undulating topography. The wate r table commonly slopes eastward toward the coast, although in the Everglades it slopes
southward. The constr uction and operation of the East Coast Canals for flood protection and the lowering of the groundwater table on the East Coast ridge significantly affected freshwater deliveries to Biscayne Bay and BNP . The patterns of freshwater discharge into the bay changed from long, slow releases over a broad front to “pulse” releases from canals following rain events.

Because the Biscayne Aquifer is highly permeable and is at, or near, the land surface in many locations, it is readily susceptible to groundwater contamination. Saltwater intrusion into the aquifer remains a continuing problem due to the introduction of drainage canals and increased groundwater withdrawal to satisfy potable water demand. Water management programs have been implemented to control the intrusion rate.

A network of canals and control structures provides for water and salini ty
control in the area. Salinity monitoring sensors near the coastal structures indicated that the installation of salinity control structures were effective in controlling saltwater intrusion decades ago. Well

- fields, which are the source of municipal water supplies, are significantly recharged by water from the water conservation areas ( WCAs ) which are located northwest of the project area

. Water stored in the WCAs is used to maintain groundwater levels in the coastalSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 16 area for public water supply, to irrigate the vast agricultural areas interspersed within the project area, and to maintain a freshwater head along the lower east

coast for salinity control. Minimum stages are maintained in lower east coast
canal s, principally to provide the volume of water needed to protect the Biscayne Aquifer from saltwater intrusion. The head created in the canals raises groundwater levels, recharging the aquifer and the urban well

- fields.

Addition al information on groundwater conditions and contamination in south Florida is presented in Appendix H and K , of the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement dated April 199 9, including specific Superfund (National Priority List [NPL]) and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act ( RCRA ) hazardous waste sites in south Florida.

3.1.5 Water Management

The existing water management features in the project area are managed to provide flood protection and minimize salinity intrusion into the Biscayne Aquifer

. During and after storm events, the coastal structures are opened to

allow excess flood water to be discharged into the bay.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 17 Source: http://www.sfwmd.gov/curre/sitemaps/metadade.htm FIGURE 3-10 : D BHYDRO SITES IN THE MIAMI

- DADE COUNTY VICINITY

3.1.5.1 Water Supply

The primary urban and agricultural water supply source is the Biscayne Aquifer

. This aquifer is a surficial, highly permeable, wedge

- shaped aquifer that is approximate ly 200 feet thick at the coast but reduces to a few feet near its western boundary

, 35

– 40 miles inland. This aquifer provides water for

m unicipal and i ndustrial (M&I) water supply and agricultural irrigation along
the southeast coast.

The existing networ k of canals and control structures provides for water level and salinity control to prevent saltwater intrusion . They also serve as method to promote recharge of the surficial Biscayne Aquifer. Water supply releases can
be made from the WCAs, or transferred from Lake Okeechobee, to the coastalSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 18 areas via the South Dade Conveyance System (SDCS). Water stored in the WCAs can be used to maintain groundwater levels for public water supply, to irrigate the vast agricultural areas interspersed within the project area, and to maintain a freshwater head along the lower east coast for prevention of
saltwater intrusion. The coastal spillways prevent salt water from moving up the canals, and maintain sufficient freshwater head to prevent agricultural and municipal groundwater withdrawals from allowing saltwater intrusion in wells. Optimum and design water levels in the project canals are established on the basis of groundwater levels, intake and/or discharge structure elevations.

3.1.5.2 Flooding

The C&SF canals and structures maintain optimum stages for the purposes of flood control, water supply, groundwater recharge, and prevention of saltwater

intrusion. They are designed to permit rapid removal of floodwaters from their immediately adjacent drainage areas. The degree of flood protection provided by outlet capacity is dependent on whether the protected area is urban or agricultural. Maximum rates of removal vary from 40 percent to 100 percent Standard Project Flood (SPF)

. The cana ls and structures are regulated automatically or manually and in accordance with the optimum water control and design elevations, with the exception of hurricane or tropical storm regulation. Water levels in canals in the study area are typically controlled at the lower end of the authorized range to provide additional storage within the

canal and surficial aquifer in case of storm events. Therefore, project related changes in typical canal stages may not necessarily be considered a change in level of service of flood protection unless the authorized operating rules are changed

.

Areas may become flooded during heavy rainfall events due to antecedent conditions that cause saturation and high runoff from both developed and undeveloped areas. When areas become flooded, excess water is generally removed through the C&SF canals

, through the use of automated controls installed on water control structures that allow canal levels to fall, providing limited extra storage in the lakes and canals. Thus, during a heavy rainfall event, extra storage is available for the secondary canal system to drain into the larger canals.

3.1.6 Water Quality

The drainage canal network has adversely impacted the timing, quality and quantity of freshwater deliveries to the bay. In terms of timing, freshwater releases to the bay occur under two conditions: 1) flood protection discharges in response to rainfall events, and 2) daily canal and groundwater stage
maintenance releases scheduled to coincide with low ti de. The drainage canals affect water quality by collecting runoff from urban and agricultural activitiesSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 19 that are sources of nutrient, heavy metal, and pesticide pollution. The operation of drainage canals in south Miami

- Dade County for flood protection has resulted in a reduction in the groundwater stage and thus a reduction in the base flow of fresh groundwater to the bay. Flood protection discharges to the bay also create rapidly fluctuating salinity concentrations that are physiologically stressful t o native estuarine biota such as soft corals, sponges, oysters and juvenile
estuarine fishes.

The northern portion of Biscayne Bay, which lies outside of the project study area, has experienced greater water quality impairment and ecosystem stress
than the central and southern portions of the Bay. For instance, in northern Biscayne Bay, an increase in dissolved nutrient concentrations is believed to have shifted this system from a benthic productivity dominated system to a water column dominated system (Alleman, 1995). This is likely a result of the high

- density urban development that characterizes the northern bay watershed. The FDEP currently classifies Biscayne Bay as Outstanding Florida Water (OFW). This designati on prohibits the permitting of activities that would cause a degradation of water quality. The two predominant factors controlling the water quality of the central and southern portions of Biscayne Bay are mixing of bay waters with ocean waters and the di scharge of freshwaters through the
seven coastal canals. Because central Biscayne Bay is relatively open to the ocean on the eastern side, the residence time of water in this portion of the bay is short as compared to residence times for the very southern or northern portions of the bay. Due to frequent flushing, the central portion of the bay has better water quality than the northern or very southern portions of the bay. Nearshore areas, particularly in areas directly adjacent to the canal mouths,

expe rience a greater degree of water quality and ecosystem impairment than other areas of central Biscayne Bay. The nearshore area is generally considered to be the area between the shore and roughly one half mile offshore. The 2006

F DEP Impaired Water Rule (IWR) analysis for the s outheast c oast of Florida did not identify any impaired water bodies within the B iscayne B ay C oastal

W etlands project area. This would indicate that water quality standards are met within the project area.

3.1.6.1 Baseline Water Quality in the Nearshore and Mid -Bay Areas

Representative baseline water quality concentrations were calculated for those portions of the bay and waters hed that are within the probable impact zone of the wetland restoration project. Water quality data for central Biscayne Bay and the nearshore were analyzed for the period from 1993 to 2003 using two
datasets: the Florida International University (FIU) d ataset

, which includes stations in Biscayne Bay, and the DERM dataset, which includes stations in Biscayne Bay and at the mouth of contributing canals. The FIU monitoring stations were classified into seven groups having similar water quality (Jones et
al

., 1997). Three of these groups , Alongshore

, Inshore and Main Bay , areSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 20 relevant to the south central Biscayne Bay study area. A similar exercise was conducted for the central and southern Biscayne Bay DERM stations. Likewise, three of the DERM groups were within the region of interest: canal Mouth

, Nearshore and Open Bay

. FIU’s Alongshore and DERM’s Nearshore , as well as
FIU’s Main Bay and DERM’s Open Bay were spatially equivalent. The station groupings represent a gradient of water quality conditio ns starting at the mouths of the canals (bay

- ward of the salinity control structures), to open bay

conditions.

TABLE 3-1 pr ovides a summary of the mean and me dian values of the parameters of interest for both the FIU and DERM datasets. This table inc ludes target concentrations for ammonia, nitrate+nitrite, and total phosphorus (TP) established by the Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative (BBPI) for the entire bay, (Murley and Moure, 2001). The BBPI target concentrations of ammonia and TP are largely being met in nearshore, inshore and main bay areas of central

B iscayne Bay. However, canal mouth, nearshore, and inshore areas of central Biscayne Bay often exceed the BBPI target nitrate+nitrite concentration of 0.020 milligrams per liter (mg/ L ), and some nearshore stations exceed this target more than 50 percent of the time. Stations located in the eastern portion of the bay exceed the 0.010 mg/ L target less than 20 percent of the time.

The generalized spatial analysis presented above does not adequately represent pollutant “hotspots” such as Black Point

, which in cludes the South Dade Landfill
and a closed landfill. In this area, ammonia concentrations in nearshore groundwater may be up to 30 times greater than found in the overlying surface water (Meeder et al

., 1997), which may be related to observed shifts in the benthic community structure in this nearshore area (Meeder and Boyer

, 2001). Although the link between elevated ammonia concentrations and altered benthic community structure in this area could not be conclusively demonstrated, ammonia in combination with other pollutants may create unfavorable conditions for the seagrass Thalassia testudinum (Meeder and Boyer

, 2001).
Nearshore groundwater seepage in the area between Black Point and Mowry
Canal contained higher levels of other nutrients such as phosphorus, total nitrogen, and organic carbon (Mir

- Gonzalez

, 2003), which may also result from landfill leachate (Meeder and Boyer

, 2001).Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 21 TABLE 3-1 : SUMMARY OF FLORIDA I NTERNATIONAL U NIVERSITY AND DERM MEDIAN VALUES FOR WATER QUALITY PARAMETERS ASSESSED

Parameter Units Pooled Mean
Concentrations MEDIAN
CONCENTRATIONS BBPI Target
Conc.

Nearshor
e / Alongsho

re Inshore Main Bay

Ammonia

FIU 1

DERM mg/ L 0.014

0.071 0.016

0.05 0.013

* 0.009

0.06 0.02

0.05 1

1

Cadmium

DERM ug/ L 0.08** 0.1**

Chl

- A FIU (’01

- ’ 02) mg/ L 0.33 0.30 0.20 0.20 Copper

DERM ug/ L 1.044 0.44** Dissolved Oxygen

FIU mg/ L 6.6 7.3 6.7 6.4

Lead

DERM ug/ L 0.610 .17**

Nitrate+Nitrite

FIU mg /L 0.03 0.042 0.014 0.005

Salinity

FIU ppt 32.9 27.5 31.3 35.2 Total Coliform

DERM cfu/100

ml 144 <10 * <10 Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen

FIU mg/ L

0.22 0.36 0.26 0.16

Total Nitrogen FIU (’01 -’ 02) mg/ L 0.27 0.38 0.26 0.18

TOC FIU (’01

- ’02) mg/ L 3.0 3.9 3.9 2.8 Total Phosphorus

FIU mg/ L 0.006 0.006 0.005 0.005 Turbidity

FIU NTU 0.8 0.5 0.5 0.8

Zinc

DERM ug/ L 3.0** 12.2**
* Not evaluated

** Below Detection Limit (BDL)Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 22 3.1.6.2 Salinity Conditions in South Central Biscayne Bay

The salinity regime of the nearshore areas of southwestern Biscayne Bay has been modified significantly due to manmade changes in local hydrology. Today, higher salinities along the shoreline, especially during the dry season, have led to the decline in oyster reefs that once thrived at creek mouths, reduced the suitability of the area for American crocodiles ( Crocodylus acutus ), and have
resulted in a shift of fish and macro invertebrate fauna to that more
characteristic of marine conditions than estuarine conditions. FIGURE 3- 11
and FIGURE 3- 12 show the average salinity conditions for May and November 2008, respectively

. While these two figures only represent a single year, they represent typical conditions for the dry season with no areas with salinity less than 20 psu and wet season conditions with salinity as low as 5 psu in the area
offshore of the C

- 1, C

- 102, and C

- 103 canals.

Restoring the salinity in the nearshore habitat to mesohaline conditions (5 to 20 ppt) throughout the year would provide the optimal salinity regime for the flora and fauna that historically inhabited this area, such as widgeon grass ( Ruppia

maritima ), shoal grass ( Halodule wrightii ), eastern oysters ( Crassostrea virginica ), American crocodiles, red drum ( Sciaenops ocellatus ), and other fish
and invert e brates. In Florida, for example, oyster spat have an optimal salinity range of 20

- 23 ppt, whereas juveniles prefer salinities between 10

- 20 ppt and adults have an optimum range of 10

- 20 ppt (Woodward

- Clyde

, 1998). Target salinity for estuarine fishes is 5

- 15 ppt from June through October, with higher salinities during the remainder of the year. Ideal salinity for juvenile crocodiles
is 0

- 20 ppt in the mangrove wetlands and coastal creeks during the wet sea son and several months into the dry season (approximately June through January;
Mazzotti and Cherkiss

, 2003). The salinity target for this performance measure is set at 20 ppt, which is at the mid to upper end of the preferred range for most of the above species. Without freshwater discharges the salinity would exceed the 20 ppt target. Alternatives that provide the most uniform freshwater discharge in terms of timing and spatial extent are scored the highest for this performance measure.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 23 FIGURE 3-11 : AVERAGE MEASURED SALINITY FOR MAY 2008 IN SOUTH

CENTRAL BISCAYNE BAYSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 24 FIGURE 3-12 : AVERAGE MEASURED SALINITY FOR NOVEMBER 2 008 IN

SOUTH CENTRAL BISCAYNE BAYSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-25 3.1.6.3 Baseline Water Quality Conditions in South Miami -Dade Coastal Canals

Water quality in S outh Miami

- Dade canals is strongly influenced by the predominant la nd

- use which in the north is urban and in the south is agriculture. In TABLE 3-2 , av erage pollutant concentrations were calculated using DERM data from one sampling location (for each canal) located upstream
of the tid al control structure. Black Creek and Goulds Canal have elevated
ammonia and total phosphorus concentrations and low dissolved oxygen levels
relative to the other South Miami

- Dade canals. This is likely due to the proximity of these canals to leachate from the South Miami

- Dade landfills

. Mowry and Princeton canals contain elevated levels of nitrate+nitrite that enter these canals from nearby agricultural areas.

Estimated daily loads of phosphorus and inorganic nitrogen are presented in

TABLE 3-3 to show the relative impact of nutrient loads from each canal on bay water quality. These data indicate that Black Creek and Goulds Canal contribute the vast majority of ammonia to the bay. Phosphorus loading estimates for the five canals are within the same order of magnitude. Mowry and Princeton canals contribute the bulk of nitrate+nitrite load due to the high
percentage of agricultural land use. By comparison, only the Apalachicola River
and the C

- 43 Canal (Caloosahatchee River) contribute larger loads of inorganic nitrogen to a Florida estuary.

TABLE 3-2 : SOU TH MIAMI

- DADE CANAL WATER QUALITY AT SELECTED

MIAMI

- DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES

MANAGEMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS

(U pstream of salinity control structures —1997–2000 data)

Water Quality Parameter Cutler
Drain Black
Creek Goulds
Canal Military
Canal Mowry
Canal Princeton
Canal

CD02 BL02 GL02 MI02 MW04 PR03

FIELD PARAMETERS
Dissolved Oxygen 6.3 mg/L 4.8 mg/L 3 mg/L 5.6 mg/L 5.9 mg/L 5.6 mg/L

TDS 306 mg/L 463 mg/L 390 mg/L
Total Suspended Solids 4 mg/L 4 mg/L 4 mg/L 4 mg/L

Turbidity 0.5 NTU 1.5 NTU 3.6 NTU 0.8 NTU 0.7 NTU 0.6 NTU

NUTRIENTS
Ammonia Nitrogen 0.01 mg/L 0.18 mg/L 3 mg/L 0.035 mg/L 0.01 mg/L 0.02 mg/L
Total Phosphorus 0.004 mg/L 0.011 mg/L 0.016 mg/L 0.009 mg/L 0.004 mg/L 0.003 mg/L

Nitrate + Nitrite 0.09 mg/L 0.11 mg/L 0.1 mg/L 0.44 mg/L 2.3 mg/L 4.2 mg/L

T otal K jehldahl N itrogen 0.3 mg/L 0.2 mg/L 0.2 mg/L 0.2 mg/L

METALS
Copper, dissolved 2 ug/L 2 ug/L 2 ug/L 2 ug/L

Zinc 3 ug/L 5.2 ug/L 3 ug/L 3 ug/LSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 26 TABLE 3-3 : E STIMATED NUTRIENT LOADS DELIVERED TO BISCAYNE BAY

FROM FIVE SOUTH MIAMI

- DADE CANALS

TOTAL PHOSPHORUS (TP) LOAD ESTIMATES Cutler Black Creek Military Mowry Princeton

Drain Canal Canal Canal Canal

S

- 123 S

- 21 S

- 20G S

- 20F S

- 21A

Average Daily Flow during period (M^3/day) 135000 580000 63000 539000 337000

Median TP Concentration, 1997

- 2002 (mg/L) 0.004 0.011 0.004 0.004 0.003

Average Daily TP load, Using Medians ( kilograms per day [ Kg/day ] ) 0.5 4.6 0.6 4.2 2.6 Average Daily TP Load, Using U.S. Geological Survey ( USGS ) Equations (Kg/day) 2.4 3.8 1.2 4.3 6.7

NITROGEN LOADING ESTIMATES Cutler Black Creek Military Mowry Princeton

Drain Canal Canal Canal Canal

S

- 123 S

- 21 S

- 20G S

- 20F S

- 21A

Average Daily T otal N itrogen load, Using USGS Equations (Kg/day) 46 484 122 430 1789

Median Ammonia Concentration, DERM 1997

- 2002 (mg/L) 0.01 0.18 0.035 0.01 0.02

Average Daily Ammonia Load, using Median Conc (Kg/day) 1.4 104.4 2.2 5.4 6.7

Median Nitrate+Nitrite, Concentration 1997

- 2002 (mg/ L) 0.09 0.1 0.44 2.3 4.2

Average Daily N+N Load, using Median Conc (Kg/day) 12.2 58.0 27.8 1240 1415

3.1.6.4 Baseline Sediment Quality in South/Central Biscayne Bay

Central Biscayne Bay sediments are characterized by medium to coarse sands. Flocculent organic sediments, as found in other Florida estuaries such as Indian River Lagoon (IRL)

, do not present a significant cause of water quality degradation or ecosystem stress in central Biscayne Bay. S ediment cores
collected in Barnes Sound a t the southern end of Biscayne Bay revealed a thin
surface mud layer that is indicative of a relatively low degree of ocean exchange ( Ishman

, 1997). The geologic composit ion of sediment cores taken in the central bay area off of Black Point, Pelican Bank and Featherbed Bank were characteristic of areas that experience frequent tidal flushing.

C oncentrations o f several heavy metals ( e.g. copper, lead, zinc and mercury) are found in Biscayne Bay sediments at levels not typically found in marine sediments (Lidz

, 2002). Heavy metal concentrations were highest at nearshore
locations and lowest at the center of the bay. There was a north

- south gradient,
with c oncentrations generally highest in the northern bay associated with densely urbanized downtown Miami, and lowest at the less developed southern end of the bay.

In a microfaunal survey of benthic forams, Lidz (2002) found the highest percentage of deformed foram shells off of Black Point, which is adjacent to the South Dade Landfill and nearby Old Dade Landfill. Opportunistic forams, which are indicators of ecosystem stress, were found at a higher percentage o fSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 27 the total population for nearshore areas as compared to the central bay. Additionally, Lidz found a lower percentage of desirable forams at all locations when compared to a previous study conducted in the mid 1990s. Based on this last finding Lidz post ulates that general water quality in the bay may be declining.

3.1.7 Vegetative Communities

The location of south Florida between temperate and subtropical latitudes, its proximity to the West Indies, the expansive wetland system of the greater Everglades, and the low levels of nutrient inputs under which the Everglades evolved, all combine to create a unique flora and vegetation mosaic. Today nearly all aspects of south Florida’s native vegetation have been affected by developmen t, altered hydrology, nutrient input and spread of non

- native species that have resulted directly or indirectly from a century of water management.

Generally, five habitat types dominate the project area. They include submerged

a quatic v egetation (SAV) (primarily seagrasses and algae), mangrove forests, saline emergent wetlands, fre shwater wetlands and non

- native dominated wetlands (primarily wetlands dominated by Australian pine, Casaurina spp . or Brazilian pepper

, Schinus terebinthifolius ). Of these, mangrove forests cover the majority of the project area north of Turkey Point and east of L

- 31E, whereas

non

- native dominated forested wetlands dominate the area west of L

- 31E.
Herbaceous flats occupy the majority of the project area south of Turkey Point in the area known as the Model Lands, except for the coastal fringe, which is dominated by mangroves. A brief description of these five habitat types, and their associated wildlife value, are provided below. It should be noted that other habitat types exist in the project area, such as tree islands and Melaleuca dominated wetlands, but they occupy a small fraction of the project area, and

w ill not be described. FIGURE 3- 13 displays the major vegetative types within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 28 FIGURE 3-13 : VEGETATION COVERA GE OF THE BISCAYNE B AY COASTAL

WETLANDS PROJECT ARE A BETWEEN SHOAL AND TURKEY POINTSSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 29 3.1.7.1 Seagrasses

Seagrass beds and mangrove communities dominate the flora of Biscayne Bay. The major seagrasses found in Biscayne Bay are T. testudinum (turtle grass), Halodule wrightii (Cuban shoal grass), Syringodium filiforme (manatee grass),
and Ruppia maritima (widgeon grass). H. wrightii tends to grow closer to the western shoreline and in northern Biscayne Bay. T. testudinum dominates most of Biscayne Bay where salinity and light penetration is higher. Seagrasses in
the northe rn part of the Bay may be the most stressed due to variable conditions and lower light penetration. There are tens of thousands of acres of seagrass beds and hard bottom communities in the bay that are at risk from degraded water quality. Fragmentation a nd scarring of seagrass beds caused by boat propellers is an increasing problem in Biscayne Bay. Approximately six percent of the seagrass beds in Miami

- Dade County hav e moderate to severe scarring.

Ecosystem functions of the bay are supported by seagrass, algal beds, and mixed hardbottom species of plants and animals (sponges, corals and algae). These highly productive seagrass beds are important not only in terms of the plant biomass produced to supply the Bay food web, but also as a physically stable refuge and nursery ground for fish, shrimp, crabs and their predators (Zieman, 1982; Thayer et al

., 1984; Kenworthy et al

., 1988). Species diversity and densities of organisms are typically very high in seagrass beds. The majorit y of

commercial an d recreational fish species spends at least some portion of their life history using seagrass beds or rel ies on their products (Laney, 1997). Other commercial fishery species, such as stone crab ( Menippe mercenaria ), shrimp and lobster species depend on s eagrass for both nursery and adult habitat. Seagrass meadows provide important habitat for other species, including wading

birds , waterfowl and manatee

.

3.1.7.2 Mangrove Forest s

The mangrove species found in the Biscayne Bay area are the red mangrove ( Rhizophora mangle ); the black mangrove ( Avicennia germinans ); the white mangrove ( Laguncularia racemosa ); and the buttonwood ( Conocarpus erectus ). Most of the mangrove habitat in the project area can be sub

- divided into four forest types (Gaiser and Ross, 2003). Closest to the bay shoreline is the coastal mangrove forest, whose canopy is comprised mainly of red and black mangroves exceeding 30 feet in height. Landward of this zone is the interior mangrove forest that is dominated by black and white mangroves approximately 15

- 30 feet tall, with an understory of red mangroves. Adjacent to and landward of the interior mangrove forest is the transitional mangrove forest. This vegetative type is dominated by white mangroves, approximately 7- 15 feet high, with red and black mangroves, and buttonwood found emerging from the canopy. The most landward forest type is the dwarf mangrove forest, which is dominated by red mangroves generally less than six feet in stature.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 30 In south Florida, the mangrove community is vital in the support of bay fisheries, including shrimp, tarpon ( Megalops a tlanticus ), and gray snapper ( Lutjanus griseus ) (Odum and Heald, 1972), and invertebrate

- wading bird food webs (Heald et al

., 1984). In Biscayne Bay, sport and commercial fisheries rely on mangrove community function to support 11 important species of fis h, such as red grouper ( Epinephelus morio ), gray snapper, and common snook ( Centropomis
undecimalis ), and shellfish such as the spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus ), blue crab ( Callinectes sapidus ), and stone crab. Red mangroves prop roots also provide physica l support for an extremel y diverse invertebrate community.

Mangroves provide habitat for numerous species

. For example, bald eagles and ospreys are top carnivores that utilize mangrove forest (Heald et al

., 1984). Wading birds such as great blue herons , little blue herons, tricolor herons, and roseatte spoonbills feed on small forage fish that occupy the tidal creeks and open areas of mangrove forests. The presence of mangroves may also have a strong positive influence on coral reef fish community structure and biomass (Mumby et al

., 2004).

Significant areas within the project boundary can be characterized as a low

productivity dwarf mangrove forest, known as the “white zone because it appears as a distinct reflective white band on remotely sensed images. The white zone is a region of low vegetation cover and canopy height comprised primarily of dwarf red mangrove and sparse graminoids that occurs between more densely vegetated coastal/interior/transitional mangrove forests and more
interior freshwater wetlands. The white zone has been present in the wetlands near Card Sound, Barnes Sound, and northern Florida Bay since at least the time when described by Egler (1952). Recent studies in this area indicate that the inner boundary of the white zone has moved inland by an average of one and
a half kilometers (0.9 mi les ) since 1940, and the zone is expanding (Ross et al

., 2000). The most significant changes to the white zone boundary and width occur in areas cut off from freshwater sources by canals o r roads. Ross et al

. (2002) suggest that the low productivity of the white zone may be primarily the result of wide seasonal fluctuations in salinity and moisture content and the absence of freshwater input from upstream sources, among other factors.

3.1.7.3 Sal ine Emergent Wetlands

This habitat type lies above mean sea level, but below the mean high water level, and so is continuously flooded only during the annual water level peak
that occurs in the fall. The vegetation is generally dominated by herbaceous, halophytic species such as seaside tansy ( Borrichia frutescens ), cordgrass ( Spartina spp .), saltgrass (Distichlis spicata ), common rush ( Juncus spp. ) and sometimes spike rush ( Eleocharis spp. ). There is often a mixture of succulent herbaceous species such as saltwort ( Batis maritime) and glasswort ( Salicornia virginica ) with scattered black mangrove (Lewis et al

., 1985). Saline emergentSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 31 wetlands are a prominent feature in the Model Lands Basin. Historically, this
habitat type was widespread in the project area north of Turkey Point , but is poorly represented in this area today.

Because these wetlands are intermittently flooded, productivity occurs in pulses, which is important to certain species, such as the mummichog killifish ( Fundulus heteroclitus) (Weisberg and Lotrich, 1982). This pulse productivity is important to various other fishes and wading birds, and may play a crucial role in determining wading bird nesting success. Many species of larval or juvenile vertebrate and invertebrate species utilize the available habitat, including fishes (some of which depend on the marsh for at least some phase of their life cycle), decapod crustaceans, and birds. Gilmore (1987) documented 84 species of fish, 29 species of decapod crustaceans, and 38 species of birds utilizing subtropical
coastal herbaceous flats associated with the IRL.

These periodically flooded marshes serve as important habitat for various

spec ies of fiddler crab, considered by some to be a keystone species in this habitat type. Fiddler crabs are extremely important to the coastal ecosystem, as a major prey item, recycler of nutrients and an agent in oxygenating the soils. As many as six speci es of the genus Uca may exist in the coastal marsh of the project area. Small fishes feed on the larval forms, whereas wading birds

, particularly the night herons, prefer adult fiddler crabs as a food source. Snakes, variou s predator crab species, clapper rails, and raccoons have been documented feeding on Uca (MacIntosh, 1980).

3.1.7.4 Freshwater Wetlands

Freshwater wetlands in the project area can be comprised of various freshwater wetlands vegetation types, including sawgrass ( Cladium jamaicense ), cattail ( Typha spp. ), and coastal plain willow ( Salix caroliniana ). This habitat type is found mostly south of the Mowry Canal (C

- 103), and includes extensive areas of
the Model Lands Basin. T hese vegetation types may be found as monocultures, but more often occur as mixed species. A variety of other freshwater wetland plant species, including numerous periphyton species, also occur in freshwater
wetlands.

These wetland types provide a variet y of habitats for fish, amphibians, reptiles,

birds and mammals. Under the appropriate conditions they can support a relatively large biomass of freshwater fish species, such as mosquito fish ( Gambusia affinis ) and sailfin molly ( Poecilia latipinna ), whic h in turn provide prey for the large variety of wading birds utilizing these wetlands. Freshwater wetlands are a preferred habitat for the American alligator ( Alligator mississippiensis ). For additional information on the wildlife value of these wetland types refer to Schomer and Drew (1982).Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 32 3.1.7.5 Non -native Dominated Wetlands

There are primarily two types of non

- native dominated wetlands in the p roject

area: Australian pine

- dominated wetlands and Brazilian pepper -dominated
wetlands. The type of non

- native species that dominates a given area is generally related to the topography of the wetland. The majority of the Australian pine dominated wetlands occur in artificially elevated mangrove

areas. Often the pines occur as linear features along berms created by the digging of drainage and mosquito ditches. Scattered Australian pine mixed with shrubs (usually mangrove) and/or sawgrass occurs in much of the project area north of Turkey Point and on both sides of L

- 31E. Brazilian pepper dominated wetlands are generally intermediate in elevation, hydroperiod, and function
between the native wetland an d upland types in the project area ( EPA

, 1994). Brazilian pepper can occur as dense mono

- specific stands that are difficult to penetrate or as stands mixed with willow, buttonwood and/or other mangrove species.

The wildlife value for the Australian pine dominated areas is primarily provided by the food and habitat contributions of the associated native plant species occurring as co

- dominants in the canopy and the understory. These associated species are generally a combination of mangrove species, which provide significant food and habitat value as discussed above in the mangrove section. The pines themselves have been noted to provide shade for ground dwelling animals, and habitat for a variety of insects and spiders (EPA

, 1994). A ustralian pine provide some roosting and nesting habitat for birds, such as the great blue heron ( Ardea herodias ), brown pelican ( Pelecanus occidentalis ), and double

crested cormorants ( Phalacrocorax auritus ). Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus pileatus ) have been observe d nest ing in the trunks of dead Australian pines in the project area (EPA, 1994).

The limited habitat value provided by Australian pines is offset by negative impacts that include the loss of higher value native habitat, the loss of primary productivity o f the native species, and change in elevation due to build

- up of organic matter (EPA, 1994). Fallen leaves accumulate as a “duff” layer several inches thick, which suppresses understory development. It is unclear if the duff physically smothers native se edlings or if some sort of allelopathic chemical is leached from the leaves, retarding seedling germination. The duff build

- up may also slightly increase the local elevation, which results in more favorable habitat for the pines and may help the species i ncrease its spatial expansion.

Little information on the wildlife habitat value of Brazilian pepper dominated
wetlands is available. A survey of herptofauna found in Brazilian pepper
habitat in ENP revealed a total of 21 species of reptiles and amphibians, out of a total of 37 species occurring over all habitat types in the area (Dalrymple, 1988). By comparison, 30 species of herptofauna were found in nearby freshwaterSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 33 prairie, which was the highe st number of species found in any one

- habitat type. Curnutt (1989) compared breeding bird usage of this habitat type with pinelands

in ENP

. Curnutt’s results indicate that 35 percent fewer breeding pairs were utilizing the Brazilian pepper habitat compar ed with the pinelands habitat. Also, only six bird species were found to breed in the Brazilian pepper habitat compared to 28 species in the pinelands.

The species does produce an edible fruit that is consumed by a variety of wildlife, particularly avifauna and raccoons. However, the berry has relatively low food value as evidenced by the large numbers of intact berries observed in raccoon

scat. Most of the food value of this habitat type is derived from the native plant species, such as willow, that so metimes co

- occur with the Brazilian pepper

.

3.1.7.6 Other Non -N ative Vegetation

A variety of other non

- native flora can be found scattered throughout the project

area. Shoebutton ardisia ( Ardisia elliptica ) is often found associated with the extensive stands of Brazilian pepper

. Small isolated stands of Bishopwood ( Bischofia javanica ) occur along the western edge of the project area, usually adjacent to urban development. Other exotic specie s known to exist in the project area include napier grass ( Pennisetum purpureum ), seaside mahoe ( Thespesia populnea ), paperbark tree ( Melaleuca leucadendron ), wild taro ( Colocasia esculenta ), and primrose willow ( Ludwigia peruviana ).

3.1.8 Fish and Wildlife Resources

The distribution, life cycles, community structures, and population densities of the fauna of south Florida are intricately linked to regional hydrology. The current status of fish and wildlife has been strongly influenced by the cumulative effects of drainage activities early this century, the C&SF p roject, and the ensuing agricultural and urban development made possible by those
activities. A major empha sis of the CERP is to remedy many of the hydrologic aspects of the flood control project that in hindsight have been deleterious to fish
and wildlife. Likewise the major emphasis in this section is on th os e faunal groups that appear to have declined as a result of hydrologic changes caused by
the C&SF p roject and that are expected to benefit from the CERP. The major linkages between hydrologic alterations and fauna that are addressed by the CERP and emphas ized here include the collapse of aquatic food webs and populations of higher level consumers that depend upon them, shifts in habitats to those less favorable to faunal communities, and the reduction in the spatial extent of the undeveloped greater Evergl ades wetland system.

A critical link in the aquatic food webs, and one that appears to have been broken by hydrologic alterations, is the intermediate trophic level of the small aquatic fauna. Small marsh fishes, macro

- invertebrates, and herptofauna formSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 34 the link between the algal and detrital food web bases of the Everglades and the larger fishes, alligators and wading birds that feed upon them. Small aquatic animal populations are currently diminished due to two fact ors related to water
management. Reduction in the spatial extent of Everglades wetlands by half has resulted in a proportional reduction in habitat of aquatic organisms, and changes in the hydrology in remaining wetlands east of the protective levees has further reduced their populations.

A minimum of 268 fish species, 16 amphibian species, 57 reptilian species, 294 avian species, and 35 mammalian species have been observed in or near the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area (FWS , 2004). An additional nine fish species, one amphibian species, seven reptilians, ten bird species, and eleven mammalian species may exist in the area. The following sub

- sections describe in greater detail the occurrence and habitat utilization in the project area of the five major classes of vertebrates.

3.1.8.1 Mammals

Mammals constitute a relatively small number of the vertebrate wildlife

as sociated with the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area. Species diversity is relatively low, with only 35 species having been observed in or near the project area (FWS , 2004). Of those species, there are several that would not be of concern to the project. Namely, the whales appearing on the list were likely observed in the open ocean environment of BNP (the y appear only on BNP’s species list). Another 11 species may exist in the area according to the supporting literature (see references cited in FWS

, 2004).

A total of 12 mammalian species utilizing the area are federally or state listed
threatened or enda ngered species. Some of the most notable species include the Florida panther ( Felis concolor coryi ) and West Indian manatee ( Trichechus

manatus ). Others, such as the Lower Keys marsh rabbit and Key Largo cotton mouse ( Peromyscus gossypinus allapaticola ), are unlikely to be found in the project area. However, both of these species can be found on Elliot Key across the bay.

The most common large mammals observed in the project area are the West
Indian manatee and the bottlenose dolphin ( Tursiops truncates ). Both species are protected by the Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, making it illegal to take, injure, molest or kill any marine mammal. The bottlenose dolphin is common to inshore Florida waters, and normally forages in the open waters of the bay, feeding on mullet and other available fishes (Odell

, 1976 ). Biscayne Bay is considered important habitat for this species. White

- tailed deer are likely
f

ound predominately in the Model Lands Basin portion of the project area. Suitable habitat exists in the Model Lands for the Florida panther , and althoughSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 35 no panther s had been observed in the area since the late 1980s, two panther road kills have occurred within the past two years.

Most of the mammalian species occurring in the project area are small to
medium

- size d. The most common medium

- sized mammal is the raccoon ( Procyon lotor ). They are often observed foraging throughout the wetland and upland areas. Another species often spotted in the project area is the river otter ( Lutra canadensis ), which utilizes the extensive and complex network of canals, drainage ditches and mosquito ditches found in the project area for hunting fish and other prey. Some of the more common small mammals include the cotton rat ( Sigmondon hispidus ) and gray squirrel ( Sciurus caroline nsis ).

3.1.8.2 Birds

Avifauna is particularly well documented in and around the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project area, and they represent the most diverse group of vertebrates utilizing the area. At least 294 bird species have been observed in or near the project area, and ten additional species may exist (FWS

, 2004). The species list includes a wide variety of bird groups including gulls, wading birds

, water birds, raptors, warblers, woodpeckers and thrushes. Many of the species are migratory birds and winter residents, which commonly s well the avian populations during the late fall to early spring months.

The most commonly observed birds are water and wading birds , such as the
Great Blue Heron , Great Egret ( Casmerodi us albus ), Brown Pelican, Double

crested Cormorant and Osprey ( Pandion haliaetus ). Common Grackles ( Quiscalus quiscula ) and Boat

- tailed Grackles ( Quiscalus major ) are also highly
visible birds in this area. Less noticeable, but relatively common, are the Mockingbird ( Mimus polyglottos ), Northern Cardinal ( Cardinalis cardinalis ) and various warbler species during spring and fall migration periods.

The FWS (2004) describes 16 exotic avian species existing or potential ly existing in the project area. These are comprised mostly of a variety of tropical species such as parrots and parakeets. For example, the Monk Parakeet ( Myiopsitta
monachus ) is particularly common in south Florida. Other common non

- native avian speci es include the Eurasian Collared Dove ( Streptopelia dacaocto ) and the European Starling ( Sturnus vulgaris ).

There are four species of federally listed endangered birds and four species of federally listed threatened birds expected to occur in the project area. Section 4. 2.6.1 provides greater detail regarding the federally and state listed threatened and endangered species.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 36 3.1.8.3 Reptiles

A total of 57 reptile species have been observed in or near the project area (FWS

, 2004), and another seven reptile species are anticipated to occur in the area. These numbers represent a relatively high fraction of the total number of reptile species present in the S tate of Florida, which probably is a reflection of the diversity of habitat types found in the project area. At least seven non

- native reptile species may occur in the project area (FWS

, 2004). The brown anole ( Anolis sagrei ) and spectacled caiman ( Caiman crocodiles ) are likely the most
abu ndant and problematic of these non

- native reptiles in the project area. The American alligator ( Alligator mississippiensis ) and endangered American
crocodile ( Crocodylus acu tus ) assume the dominant ecological position in the project area. Alligators, in particular, are important to the ecosystem because they create small ponds or “gator holes” that are particularly important in the dry season as they provide habitat for aquatic organisms and serve as staging
areas for re

- colonization of the marshlands when the rainy season returns.

Two additional high

- profile reptile species that occur in the nearshore Biscayne

B ay area are the green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ) and logge rhead sea turtle ( Caretta caretta ). These two species are the most common of the sea turtles inhabiting south Florida. The seag rasses and algae that are abundant along the shoreline of the project area represent suitable foraging habitat for the green se a turtle. The diet of loggerhead sea turtles consists primarily of benthic invertebrates such as gastropod and pelecypod molluscs and decapod crustaceans, which occur in the nearshore wate rs of the project area. A third species of sea turtle, the hawksbi ll sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), may also utilize the nearshore waters of the project area, as it has been documented to inhabit mangrove

- fringed bays and estuaries, particularly along the eastern
shore of continents where coral reefs are absent (Ca rr , 1952).

3.1.8.4 Amphibians

The extensive, yet degraded wetlands within the project area support a relatively large variety and number of amphibians. Sixteen species have been observed and one additional species is anticipated to occur in the project area (FWS

, 2004). Of the observed species, three are non

- native, including the Cuban tree frog ( Osteopilus septentrionalis ), greenhouse frog ( Eleutherodactylus planirostris ), and giant toad ( Bufo marinus ).

Amphibians associated with deeper marsh systems observed in the project area include the pig frog ( Rana grylio ), Florida’s second largest frog, and the green tree frog ( Hyla cinerea ), one of the smallest amphibians in south Florida. Other amphibians, such as the little grass frog ( Limnaoedus ocularis ) and eastern

narrow

- mouthed frog ( Gastrophryne carolinensis ) prefer the slightly drier shallow marsh and wet prairie systems.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 37 Although the FWS (2004) indicate s that generally the amphibians were observed in the Barnes Sound wetlands area or outside the project boundary, this finding is likely to reflect a lack of data for suitable habitat types within other parts of the project area rather than a lack of thes e species in those areas.

3.1.8.5 Fishes

The FWS (2004) reports that 268 species of fish have been observed in or near the project area and another nine species may exist there. Three of these fish species are listed by the State of Florida as Species of Special Concern, including the common snook, mangrove rivulus ( Rivulus marmoratus ), and Key blenny ( Starksia starcki ). Ten species are non

- natives (e.g. various cichlids , Tilapia species and go ldfish [ Carassius auratus ] ) that primarily inhabit relatively deep freshwater habitats provided by conveyance canals.

It is important to note two qualifiers when discussing information concerning fish species appearing in the project area. First, a relatively large number of the fish species appearing in recorded species lists are primarily associated with
coral reef habitats. Although hard

- grounds, a type of submerged habitat that is usually comprised of a few scattered coral species, exists within the project area, the main reef tract is located well offshore of the barrier islands that separate s the bay from the open ocean. These reefs are likely outside the influence of the project. Secondly, some lists may omit a number of fish species that li kely exist in the project area. De Sylva (1976) documented at least 512 species of fish occurring in Biscayne Bay. Both temperate and tropical species are represented, and somewhat seasonal fluctuations occur with tropical species more prevalent
in the s ummer and temperate species partially replacing them in winter (Alleman et al

., 1995).

Recent studies have shown that estuarine fishes and shellfishes have precipitously declined in abundance within the project area due to loss of estuarine habitat along the bay’s southwestern shore (Serafy et al

. , 2001). Abrupt salinity fluctuations due to canal discharges have negatively affected fish populations (Serafy et. al.

, 1997). Redfish and other species of sciaenids that rely upon estuarine areas were “abundan t at all seasons” during the late 19 th Century in some areas of Biscayne Bay (Smith, 1896)

, but are conspicuously absent today in southern Biscayne Bay. Spanish mackerel, spotted seatrout and Crevalle jack were abundant in the past (Gregg, 1902). Attempts to restore redfish to the bay fail ed due in large part to the stocking of juveniles to areas that no longer contained suitable (consistently brackish) estuarine environments (Serafy et al

., 1996). In souther n Biscayne Bay, the salinity of marine waters (30

- 35 parts per thousand [ ppt ] ) downstream of flood canal locks frequently drops by 20 ppt within 60 minutes and returns almost as rapidly (Wang et al

., 1988). As currently operated, these dramatic salinity fluctuations can occur several times per day during the wet season (May

– October).Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 38 Still, seagrass beds and intertidal mangrove forests in the area support a variety of fish species, including recreationally or commercially important ones such as spotted seatrout ( Cynoscion nebulosus ), common sno ok, permit ( Trachinotus falcatus ), and various members of the grunt, snapper, mullet and grouper
families.

Small, minnow

- sized fish species dominate most of the freshwater wetlands in the project area. This dominance is most likely due to the water level fluctuations and periodic dry downs that occur in this area. Many of the small native fish are adapted for survival in shallow, warm stagnant water that is typically low in oxygen, especially during the summer months. A good example is the mangrove rivulus ( Rivulus marmoratus ), which exists in mangrove habitats and spends most of its life in land crab burrows. This fish is listed as a Species of Special Concern by the State of Florida.

3.1.8.6 Threatened, Endangered and State

- Listed Spec ies

TABLE 3 -4 lists 15 federally listed threatened and endangered animal species as either known to exist or potentially exist within the project area and, subsequently, may be affected by the proposed action (FWS

, 2005). Federally listed animal species include the American crocodile ( Crocodylus acutus ), West
Indian manatee ( Trichechus manatus ), Florida panther ( Puma concolor coryi ),
wood stork ( Mycteria Americana ), E astern I ndigo snake (Drymarchon corais couperi ), and the Schaus swallowtail butterfly ( Heraclides areistodemus

ponceanus ). Other F ederally threatened or endangered animal species that are
known to exist or potentially exist in Miami

- Dade Co unty, but which would likely not be of concern in this study due to the lack of suitable habitat in and within close proximity of the project area include, Everglade s snail kite ( Rostrhamus sociablis plumbeus ), Ca pe Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS ) ( Ammodramus maritimus ), and roseate tern ( Sterna dougallii dougalii ). Five

F ederally listed sea turtles species exist or potentially exist in the project area, including the green sea turtle ( Chelonia mydas ), hawksbill sea turtle ( Eretmochelys imbricata ), leatherback sea turtle ( Dermochelys coriacea ), Kemp’s ridley sea turtle ( Lepidochelys kempii ), and the l oggerhead sea turtle ( Caretta

caretta ). Federally listed plant species that may occur in the project area include the crenulated lead plant ( Amorpha herbacea var. crenulata ), Garber’s spurge ( Chamaesyce garberii ), tiny polygala ( Polygala smallii , deltoid spurge ( Chamaesyce [= Euphorbia ] deltoidea ssp. deltoidea ), Small’s milkpea ( Galactia
smallii ), beach jacquemontia ( Jacquemontia reclinata ), and Johnson’s seagrass ( Halophila johnsonii ). Most of these plant species are associated with pine rocklands, which only occur at the northern extreme of the project area and are highly unlikely to be affected by the project. A number of candidate plant species are known to exist or potentially exist in the project area, most of which are also associated with pine roc klands ( FWS

, 2004).Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 39 The project area includes designated critical habitats for both the American
crocodile and the West Indian manatee

. The crocodile’s critical habitat st arts at the easternmost tip of Turkey Point and continues southeast and southwest across the southern part of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area. The Model Lands, including the wedge area between U.S. Highway 1 and Card Sound Road, lie within critical habitat for this species. The West Indian manatee’s critical habitat includes all waters of Card, Barnes, Blackwater, Little Blackwater, Manatee, and Buttonwood s ounds between Key Largo, Monroe County, and the mainland of Miami

- Dade County. Card and Barnes sounds are in the southern part of the project area. The northern part of the project area lies close to another segment of designated critical ha bitat for the West Indian

manatee. This component is defined as “Biscayne Bay, and all adjoining and connected lakes, rivers, canals, and waterways from the southern tip of Key Biscayne northward to and including Maule Lake, Dade County.” ( Code of
Federal Regulations [ CFR ] 50 Parts 1 to 199).

The project area provides habitat for several state

- listed species ( TABLE 3-4 ). State listed endangered species include the arctic peregrine falcon ( Falco peregrinus tundrius ) and Florida mastiff bat ( Eum ops glaucinus floridanus ).

T hreatened species include the White

- crowned Pigeon ( Columba leucocephalus ), Least Tern ( Sterna antillarum ), Piping Plover ( Charadrius melodus ), Miami
Black

- headed Snake ( Tantilla olitica ), and the Everglades Mink ( Mustela vison evergladensis ). State

- listed species of special concern includ e the Roseate Spoonbill ( Ajaia ajaia ), Limpkin ( Aramus guarauna ), Little Blue Heron ( Egretta
caerulea ), Reddish Egret ( E. rufescens ), Snowy Egret ( E. thula ), Tricolored Heron ( E. tricolor ), White Ibis ( Eudocimus albus ), Brown Pelican ( Pelecanus
occidentalis ), Black Skimmer ( Rynchops niger ), Mangrove Rivulus ( Rivulus

marmoratus ), Gopher Tortoise ( Gopherus polyphemus ), American Alligator ( Alligator mississippiensis ), and the Florida Tree Snail ( Liguus fasciatus ).Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 40 TABLE 3-4 : TH REATENED, ENDANGERED AND SPECIES OF SPECIAL CONCERN; PLANTS AND ANIMALS LIKELY TO BE AFFECTED BY THE

BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PROJECT

Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Listing Agency

Mammals

Florida mastiff bat Eumops glaucinus floridanus Endangered State Everglades mink Mustela vison evergladensis Threatened State Florida panther Puma concolor coryi Endangered Federal

West Indian manatee* Trichechus manatus Endangered Federal

Birds Arctic peregrine falcon Falco peregrinus tundrius Endangered State

Black skimmer Rynchops niger Special Concern State Brown pelican Pelecanus occidentalis Special Concern State Cape Sable seaside sparrow* Amodramus maritimus

mirabilis Endangered Federal

Everglade snail kite Rostrhamus sociabilis plumbeus Endangered Federal

Least tern Sterna antillarum Threatened State Limpkin Aramus guarauna Special Concern State

Little blue heron Egretta caerulea Special Concern State Piping plover Charadrius melodus Threatened State Reddish egret Egretta rufescens Special Concern State Roseate spoonbill Ajaja ajaja Special Concern State

Roseate tern Sterna dougallii dougallii Threatened Federal Snowy egret Egretta thula Special Concern State

Tricolored heron Egretta tricolor Special Concern State

White

- crowned pigeon Columba leucocephalus Threatened State

White ibis Eudocimus albus Special Concern State

Wood stork Mycteria americana Endangered Federal Reptiles American alligator Alligator mississippiensis Threatened/SA Federal

American crocodile* Crocodylus acutus Threatened Federal

Eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi Threatened Federal Gopher tortoise Gopherus polyphemus Special Concern State

Green sea turtle Chelonia mydas Endangered Federal

Hawksbill sea turtle Eretmochelys imbricata Endangered Federal Kemp’s ridley sea turtle Lepidochelys kempii Endangered Federal

Leatherback sea turtle Dermochelys coriacea Endangered Federal Loggerhead sea turtle Caretta caretta Threatened Federal

Miami black

- headed

snake Tantilla oolitica Threatened State

Fish Mangrove rivulus Rivulus marmoratus Special Concern State

Smalltooth sawfish Pristia pectinata Endangered FederalSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 41 Common Name Scientific Name Listing Status Listing Agency

Invertebrates

Elkhorn coral Acropora palmata Endangered Federal

Florida tree snail Liguus fasciatus Special Concern State

Schaus swallowtail butterfly Heraclides aristodemus

ponceanus Endangered Federal

Staghorn coral Acropora cervicornis Endangered Federal

Plants Beach jacquemontia Jacquemontia reclinata Endangered Federal Crenulate lead plant Amorpha crenulata Endangered Federal

Deltoid spurge Chamaesyce deltoidea

deltoidea Endangered Federal

Garber’s spurge Chamaesycegarberi Threatened Federal Johnson’s seagrass Halophila johnsonii Endangered Federal

Small’s milkpea Galactia smallii Endangered Federal Tiny polygala Polygala smallii Endangered Federal

* Critical habitat designated for this species

SA: Similarity of Appearance species

Detailed accounts of the F ederally listed species, including description of their distribution, habitat, critical habitat, reproduction, foraging, movements, status and trends, and respective recovery plan objectives, are contained within the
South Florida Multi

- Species Recovery Plan (FWS

, 1999); or the FWS endangered species website at http://www.fws.gov/endangered/

. The FWS (2004) provides additional information regarding these species in r elation to the project area. Some of this information appears in the following sub

- sections.

Manatees occur throughout Biscayne Bay on a year

- round basis, but are most consistently observed in tributaries ( i.e. conveyance canals) and nearshore seagrass beds, which are used as foraging areas. The extensive acreages of seagrass beds in the bay provide important feeding areas for manate es. Manatees depend upon canals as a source of freshwater and resting sites. It is highly likely that manatees depend on the deep canals as a cold

- weather refuge. The relatively deep waters of the canals respond more slowly to temperature
fluctuations at the air/water interface than the shallow bay waters. Thus, the canal waters remain warmer than open bay waters during the passage of winter
cold fronts. West Indian Manatee

Manatees have been observed in virtually all conveyance canals lying within the project boundary according to data collected by the Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) and Miami

- Dade County DERM. These include (from north to south), the C

- 100, C

- 1 (Black Creek Canal ), C

- 102Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 42 (Princeton Canal), Mi litary Canal , C

- 103 (Mowry Canal), Florida City Canal, North Canal, FPL Canal, Card Sound Road Canal, and C

- 111 (Aerojet Canal). Manatee sightings are especially high in Black Creek Canal, Mowry Canal, North Canal, FPL Canal, Card Sound Road Canal, and Aerojet Canal. Unfortunately, the water control structures associated with the canals are directly responsible for a significant percentage of reported manatee deaths (boating

- related mortal ity is the other leading cause of manatee deaths). The
FWC and Miami

- Dade County DERM data also include mortality information. Manatee mortality appears to be particularly high in Black Creek Canal and Mowry Canal (FWC, 2004: www.floridamarine.org ). It is unclear from the data
if the cause of death in the canal is due to the water control structures or collisions with boats utilizing the canals.

According to FWC telemetry data, P anther #21 utilized a large portion of the Model Lands Basin between the FPL’s Turkey Point Power Plant cooling canals
and Card Sound Road in 1988. Unfortunately, this panther was a victim of a motor vehicle collision and perished the same year. In the past couple of years,
there hav e been two additional panther road kills on Card Sound Road in the

M odel Lands. This underscores the fact that these portions of the project area remain suitable pa nther habitat. Florida Panther

Wood Storks are commonly observed in the project area, and appear on virtually all references of wildlife sightings in or near the project area (FWS

, 2004). The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project lies well outside all known wood stork colonies, as well as the colonies’ primary and secondary zones. However, t he Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area lies within the Core Foraging Area (CFA) of two active Wood Stork colonies (FWS, 2001 data). The CFA is defined

as a 30

- kilometer diameter (18.6 mile s ) zone surrounding the colony boundary. The two colonies affected by the Biscayne Bay Coas tal Wetlands project are located approximately 16 miles and 18 miles northwest of the Deering Estate , so the CFAs overlap the Deering Estate and parts of the Cutler and Black Creek wetlands in the northern part of the project area. Wood Stork

On July 9, 2007, the FWS published the final rule in the Federal Register announcing the removal of the bald eagle from the F ederal list of endangered
and threatened wildlife. The rule became effective on August 8, 2007. However, this species remains protected under the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Bald Eagle Protection Act, therefore potential impacts from project activities are
discussed below. Bald EagleSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 43 Until recently, the nearest ba ld e agle site was located on West Arseniker Key, which is southeast of Turkey Point and approximately 3.4 miles from the project boundary (T. Obenaur, BNP , personal communication, 2003). However, a nest has recently been recorded in the Black Creek wetlands within the project area.
Due to the confirmation of this nest it can be surmised that habitat is conducive
for b ald e agle nesting and foraging within the project area. Another known nest
is located 1 3 miles northeast of the Deering Estate Flow W ay subcomponent.

Crocodiles are known to exist throughout the project area at densities ranging up to three crocodiles per 0.6 mile ( Mazzotti and Cherkiss , 199 8 ). Although no nests are known to occur within the project boundaries, the cooling canals of FPL’s Turkey Point Power Plant, which are in close proximity to project boundary, support the most successful crocodile nesting population in south Florida (Mazzotti et al

., 2002). Individuals from this population disperse
northward and southward into the Biscayne B ay Coas tal Wetlands project area. These cooling canals offer premium nesting habitat because they satisfy the crocodile’s two primary nesting requirements : suitable substrate that lays above
the normal high water level and adjacent deep

- water refugia. While crocodiles prefer sandy substrates, they will often utilize cana l spoil banks ( Kushlan and Mazzotti, 1989). American Crocodile

Watershed flow through conveyance canals has robbed these wetlands of vital freshwater for the last several decades, creating an unnaturally high salinity environment, a loss of graminoid marshes and a landward migration of mangrove wetlands. Juvenile crocodiles require low salinity for growth and survival, presumably because they have limited physiological capability to osmoregulate. The ideal salinity range for crocodiles is 0

– 20 ppt (Mazzotti et al

., 2002). As salinity levels increase above 20 ppt, ha bitat suitability decreases.

An extensive mosquito and drainage ditch system that interferes with historic flow patterns exists in much of the project area between Shoal Point and Turkey
Point

. This ditch system forms a grid of rela tively shallow ( less than one meter deep), closely spaced, north

- south oriented mosquito ditches crossed by larger, deeper (up to two meters deep), and more widely spaced (every 400 meter) east

west oriented drainage ditches. Because the mosquito ditches are relatively shallow, they offer little, if any, crocodile refuge. It is anticipated that these
ditches would naturally fill in if their connection to the larger east

- west ditches
is severed. Restoring a more natural flow across these ditches should enhance restoration of the mangrove wetlands by providing a more stable mesohaline condition, which would enhance overall crocodile habitat. The larger east

- west drainage ditches are more suitable as crocodile refuge areas, and backfilling these ditches could eliminate potential deep water crocodile refuge.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 44 Eastern Indigo snake s are known to occur in the project area, and are regularly sighted along some of the levees, particularly the L

- 31E L evee (Dr. J.F. Meeder, FIU, personal communication. 2003). Eastern Indigo snake s utilize a wide variety of habitats, many of which are found in the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands project area. However, at least one research scientist believes that the

Eastern I ndigo sn ake s occurring in the project area comprise an artificial population due to manmade effects on topography (e.g

. levees and other artificial high ground; G.H. Dalrymple, The Everglades Group, personal communication, February 26, 2003). This project area is at the southern extreme of the Eastern

I ndigo snake ’s range, and the snakes in this area survive in suboptimal
environments. Eastern Indigo Snake

The Magnuson

- Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act , 16 USC 1801 et seq. PL 104

- 208 reflects the Secretary of Commerce and Fishery Management Council authority and responsibilities for the protection of

E ssential F ish H abitat (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. In conformance with the 1996 amendment to the Act, the information provided in this PIR /EIS will comp rise the required EFH
assessment and will be coordinated with NOAA Fisheries. Essential Fish Habitat

This project falls within the jurisdiction of both the South Atlantic Fishery Management Council (SAFMC) and the Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council (GOMFMC). They are lo cated in areas designated as EFH for coral, coral reef and live bottom habitat, red drum ( Sciaenops ocellatus ), shrimp, spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus ), other coastal migratory pelagic species, and the

snapper

- grouper complex. Specifically, EFH in Biscayne Bay is comprised of seagrasses, estuarine mangroves, intertidal flats, estuarine water column, live/hard bottoms, and coral reefs. Seagrasses occur in a broad band near the western and eastern shores of Biscayne Bay and surround a relatively large area
of hard bottom. Seagrass areas have been designated as an EFH a rea of

p articular c oncern for post larval and juvenile shrimp, red drum, and juvenile

gray snapper. Intertidal flats occur in a narrow band shoreward of the seagrasses, and estuarine mangroves occur as a shoreline fringe, particularly along the western edge of the Biscayne Bay. Isolated coral patches occur on the
hard bottom areas of the Biscayne Bay, but coral reefs occur only seaward of the fringing keys on the eastern boundary of the Biscayne Bay.

3.1.9 Air Quality

The existing air quality within south Florida is consid ered good, and the region attains all National Ambient Air Quality Standards.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 45 FIGURE 3-8 shows the quantity of six major air pollutants monitored by the EPA as a percentage to the m ax imum allowed (before it is considered a serio us health risk) by the EPA ( source: USGS, Synergos Technologies Inc., and EPA

Air Quality Trends

, 2001). In the majority of cases ozone is the major pollutant facing most cities.

FIGURE 3-14 : ALL OWABLE PERCENTAGE OF POLLUTANT S

An air quality concern that is not addressed by National Ambient Air Quality Standards is the atmospheric deposition of mercury. For additional specific and detailed information on air quality and the atmospheric deposition of mercury within the study area, refer to Appendix I of the Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement dated April 1999.

3.1.10 Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste

Phase I Preliminary Assessments (Phase I PA) for Hazardous, Toxic and
Radioactive Waste (HTRW) were conducted to address the existence or potential for occurrence of HTRW on lands, including submerged lands, in the study area. The assessment included a project review, review of site literature and Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project features, database searches, review of available records and aerial photography, site inspections and interviews. The assessment covered all lands within the footprint of Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands
Alternative P lans being considered as well as the surrounding vicinities, which could affect, or be affected by, p lan implementation.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 46 The HTRW Phase I Assessment reviewed the Nati onal Priority List ( NPL ) and similar sites in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database, RCRA databases for Large Quantity and Small Quantity Generators, Treatment, Storage, an d Disposal Facilities (TSDFs), the t oxic release i nventory system, solid waste landfills,

u nderground s torage t anks (USTs), l eaking u nderground storage t anks, and above g round storage t anks. As part of the process, reviews of aerial photographs and site investigations were performed. Results of the Phase I studies indicate that the potential for hazardous and toxic wastes and residual agrochemicals exists within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area.
While landfills and other hazardous waste sites have been identified and evaluated, the issue of greatest concern stems from historical use of agricultural

chemicals.

Reclaiming/re

- hydrating former agricultural land could pose an env ironmental risk when residual contaminants are present in the soil. These contaminants (pesticides and herbicides) could bio

- magnify and become increasingly concentrated in higher levels of predator species.

As the project s ponsor, the SFWMD is responsible for the acquisition of project
lands. Those lands where site contamination concerns were not resolved during
the Phase I studies have been subject ed to additional investigation. Several

P hase II studies were initiated by the SFWMD to collect and analyze soil and/or water samples; results were used to determine if the land under consideration was suitably clean for the intended use, or if some form of remediation would be necessary prior to project implementation. Since many of the potentially affected species may be threatened or endangered or migrating birds, the FWS has reviewed, and continues to review Phase I and Phase II results generated by
the SFWMD and its consultants.

In cases where contaminated lands are needed for the Tentatively Selecte d P lan

, the first consideration is to require the seller to remediate the property to the highest level enforceable under the law. If the property will be inundated to rehydrate wetlands , any additional remediation would be undertaken prior to, or during, construction. In accordance with the CERP Master Agreement (August 13, 2009) a nd supplemental guidance (September 16, 2009)

, the cost of
remediation required only to achieve ecological restoration objectives on former agricultural lands contaminated by the application of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides and/or herbi cides) used for their lawfully intended purpose are eligible for cost

- sharing between the Government and the NonF ederal S ponsor.

On lands needed for the Tentatively Selected Plan , remedial actions to address site contamination issues have been completed or will be accomplished inSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 47 conjunction with construction of the project features

. A more detailed discussion
of known site contamination associated with each alternative can be found in
S ect ion 6.1.10

.

3.1.11 Cultural Resources

USACE is reviewing information regarding historical properties that might be affected by the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, in compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89

- 665), as amended in 2000; its implementing regulations (36 CFR Part 800) and th e Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93

- 291), as amended.

Human occupation and usage within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands area has occurred over the past 12,000 years

. As the character of the landscape changed from upland prairie to the current wetlands, the ways in which people have used the land has changed. A review of the Florida Master Site Files indicated several known archaeological sites and historic structures within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area. One of the oldest prehistoric sites in the state is found at the Deering Estate ; other sites include an early 20 th
C entury historic site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the
“Old Cutler Road ” designated as a State Historic Highway. Due to the existence of known historical properties, tree islands, and the high probability of unrecorded sites within the general vicinity that have the potential to be impacted by construction, a professional archaeological survey will be required.

3.1.12 Socio -Economic Conditions

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project site does not coincide exactly with
the census tracts. The census tract provides a convenient area for which data is available, and is closer to the relatively small sub

- county component site footprint. This census tract data provides a blueprint for the surrounding area, not exact characteristics of the project site. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands site has few permanent residents or existing businesses, and most of the owners of the land do not occupy the property . I n many instances, the land owners reside outside of the region

. The most current information regarding the detailed demographics of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands census tracts was published in Year 2000.

Describing the demographic characteristics for the project site’s census tract,

Miami

- Dade County, and the State of Florida, helps to provide a basis for understanding the existing socio -economic context in which plan implementation
would take place. Some of these characteristics are outlined below while

TABLE 3-5 describes ad ditional socio

- economic information.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 48 TABLE 3-5 : COMPA RISON OF FLORIDA AND MIAMI

- DADE COUNTY

SOCIO

- ECONOMIC INFORMATION

TABLE 3-6 : BISC AYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS 2000 CENSUS TRACT

Census Tract 106.02 107.04 114.01 Total

Population 2,915 7,914 4,330 15,159

Percent below poverty level 43% 24% 9% 23%

White 16% 53% 77% 53%

Black 79% 32% 11.8% 35%

Hispanic 20.1% 48.8% 31% 38%

Some other Race 5% 15% 11.2 12%

Population in Miami

- Dade County increased from 1,937,540 to 2,253,362 (16.3
percent ) during the period from 1990 to 2000. The population of Florida and the
United States increased 23.5 and 13.1 percent respectively over the same period. Population in Miami

- Dade County is expected to increase nearly 70 percent from 2000 to 2050, while the projected growth of the entire south Florida n ine -c ounty area is projected to grow 78 percent during the same period. Florida Population 2000 15,982,378 Change in population, 1990

- 2000 23.5% Below poverty level, 1999 estimate 12.5% White, 2000 78.0% Black, 2000 14.6% Hispanic, 2000 16.8% Other, 2000 7.4%

Miami

- Dade County Population 2000 2,253,362 Change in population, 1990

- 2000 16.3% Below poverty level, 1999 estimate 18% White, 2000 69.7% Black, 2000 20.3% Hispanic, 2000 57.3% Other, 2000 10%Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 49 Additional characteristics of the study area include a strong service sector, fishing, tourism and recreation. Florida ’ s economy i s generally characterized by strong wholesale and retail trade, government and service sectors. Florida ’ s warm weather and extensive coastline attract vacationers and other visitors and helps to make the s tate a significant retirement destination for people from all over the country. Easily developed land, accessible water supply, abundant natural resources, and the aesthetic beauty of the region are the fundamental building blocks of the local economy. Relative to the national economy, the manufacturing sector has played less of a role in Florida, including the study

area. However, high technology manufacturing has begun to emerge as a significant sector in the s tate over the last decade.

3.1.13 Land Use

Existing land use within the study boundaries varies widely from agriculture to high

- density multi

- family and industrial urban uses. Urban development is generally concentrated along the lower east coast of Miami

- Dade County. Although there remains substantial agricultural acreage in sout hwestern
Miami

- Dade County (90,000 acres ), r apid population growth and land development practices have resulted in notable western urban sprawl; the predominant land use is single

- family residential

. The once significant rural population in the western ar eas of Miami

- Dade County is rapidly evolving into an urbanized population.

The Turkey Point Nuclear Power Plant is located on the shoreline near the project area. Some water used in the reactor is piped in from the Miami

- Dade
munici pal water supply. A separate supply of water that cools the turbine steam supply for reuse comes from a unique, closed system of 36 interconnected canals totaling over 168 miles on length

. The existing use of the land that is being considered for the project primarily consists of mixed open land with agriculture, degraded wetlands and fallow fields. Homestead Air Reserve Base borders a portion of the study area on the west, and BNP borders the study ar ea on the

east. Inside the study area boundary there is a landfill toward the northern end of the study area as well as a water treatment facility. The majority of the agricultural land use is ornamental trees, with a mix of row crops and nursery

crops.

3.1.14 Noise

Within the major natural areas of south Florida, external sources of noise are
limited and have low occurrence. Rural areas have typical noise levels in the range of 34

- 70 decibels, and urban areas may attain 90 decibels or greater.
Noise is not considered to be an issue in the development of the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project components.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 50 3.1.15 Recreational Resources

BNP is comprised of about 180,000 acres in Miami

- Dade County, Florida, just
south of Miami and 21 miles east of ENP

. It was established as a national monument in 1968, and subsequently enlarged and designated as a national park in 1980. The ENP is about 22 miles long, with its northern boundary near Key Biscayne and its southern boundary near Key Largo. The only overland

access to ENP is at the Convoy Point Visitor Center via Southwest 328 th Street (North Canal Drive).

The ENP provides abundant opportunities for recreation , including boating, snorkeling, diving, fishing, bird watching and nature study

. Multiple self

- guided nature trails are located in the park offering views of tropical hardwood hammock of rare vines, flowers, and trees. There are over 500,000 visitors to

ENP every year. Eighty percent of United States visitors to the ENP were from
Florida. Nine percent of all visitors were international, with the most comi ng from Canada. A majority of the visitors to ENP spend less than a day at the park. The most common activities are nature viewing, walking/hiking and fishing ( BNP Visitor Study, 2001).

There are many other recreational op portunities within and adjacent to the study area. They include: ENP , Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, Wildlife Refuges, Fish Management Areas, Wildlife Management Areas, State of Florida Greenways, Florida Circumnavigational Paddling Trail, State of Florida Parks, Florida Community Trust Sites, Florida Artificial Reef Program Sites,
and Miami

- Dade County parks. Refer to Appendix H ; page H

- 5, for more
detailed information.

3.1.15.1 Aesthetics

The aesthetics of the study area are characteristic of the dominant three land use categories (natural areas, agricultural lands and urban areas).

T he natural areas are composed of a variety of upland and wetland based ecosystems including lakes, sloughs, ponds and vast expanses of marsh and wet prairie with varying vegetative components. Overall, the land is remarkably flat with few natural topographic rises such as hills or other geographic undulations. In the southern end of the study area, m uch of the visible topographic features

are man

- made, including ubiquitous canals and levees. Additional man

- made features of the landscape include landfills, agricultural fields, pump stations, navigation locks, secondary and primary roads, highways, electrical wires, communication towers, occasional buildings (some abandoned), borrow pits and other features which may or may not detract from the regional aesthetic. Views, from a high perspective such as atop a levee, offe r perspectives on mangrove andSection 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 51 freshwater marsh, as well as scenic views of Biscayne Bay, often with sightings
of birds and other wildlife. Views of the Biscayne Bay study area are panoramic and can be stunning during sunrise and sunset.

The northern and western portion of the study area borders on medium density urban development. These areas are visually congested with immense residential areas, composed mostly of one

- story or two

- story buildings, well

trafficked roads, parking lots, strip malls, and i ndustrial and commercial enterprise. It includes intensively developed residential communities and highways

.Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3- 52 This page intentionally left blankSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 4
FUTURE WITHOUT PROJE CT CONDITIONSSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-1 4.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJE CT CONDITIONS

This section describes changes expected in the study area over the period of analysis assuming an ecosystem restoration project is not built as a result of this study. This description of the assumed without

- project condition serves as the baseline against which alte rnative plans will be evaluated to determine their effectiveness and to identify effects that would result from them. Consistent
with the revised final draft CERP Programmatic Regulations GM #2 (USACE

, 2007), the planning period of analysis ends in 2050.

4.1 STUDY AREA

Undeveloped areas contain predominantly wetland vegetation, plus disturbed, rural upland areas with roads, levees and other man

- made features. As a

conseque nce of past and current water management practices, land development
and sea

- level rise, freshwater wetlands in the project area have been altered, degraded and reduced in spatial extent. Anthropogenic changes to freshwater flow patterns and volumes have reduced the occurrence of mesohaline, oligohaline, freshwater marshes, and sloughs, and have allowed the landward expansion of saltwater and mangrove wetlands.

The study area for the proposed Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands p roject is composed of a variety of privately

- owned, local, state and F ederal lands. Privately owned natural lands in south Florida have become scarce due to development; therefore, it is believed these lands would be developed in the near
future. The ecosystem within this area is unique and fragile. Extension of current development trends (including increase in impervious surface area) would lead to increased runoff velocity and higher, more frequent freshwater discharges in the area. These increases would exacerbate the damage that already is present due to canal drainage. Increased development within this
area would also lead to increased habitat fragmentation and a loss of critical

w ildlife corridors.

Residential development in the project area would require the dredging and filling of wetlands. The creation of stormwater ponds and drainage facilities would have an extremely detrimental effect on groundwater flow into Biscayne Bay. Freshwater groundwater flow into Biscayne Bay is necessary to maintain existing salinity regimes in the dry season and reduce hypersalinity levels that already exist. Additionally, foraging opportunities for wildlife would be reduced as native plant comm unities would be replaced with invasive exotic species.

Regulatory impacts were considered when compiling the future without project
conditions. The future without

- project land coverage used in the hydrologic modeling and benefit assessment assumed minimal loss o f wetlands with new development occurring mostly on previously farmed lands. Under section 404 ofSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-2 the Clean Water Act permits are required for the discharge of dredge or fill material in waters of the United States including wetlands. U navoidable impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources require compensatory mitigation. There are some exemptions under the Clean Water Act for ag ricultural activities. Digging ditches and farming uplands does not require a permit so this activity could occur in the basin without any USACE permit. Clearing and filling for development would likely require a perm it. In that situation, mitigation may be done on site through enhancement and preservation of existing wetlands or offsite. In addition, through the F ederal permit process the regulatory division of USACE evaluates compliance with other environmental
law s such as the Endangered Species Act ( ESA ).

4.2 FORECASTED ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION/SETTIN G

The spatial extent of the natural areas within the project study area has the potential to decrease considerabl y through the Y ear 2050. Much of this area is not currently in public ownership or in public land acquisition plans and is therefore likely to be developed for urban and possibly agricultural uses

. Urbanization is accompanied by an increase in runoff of a wide range of pollutants including herbicides, pesticides, fertilizers, aromatic compounds ( hydrocarbons, oils, greases, gas oline ), heavy metals and other emerging pollutants of concern (hormones, organic and inorganic compounds). In urban developments near wetlands, residents often request and obtain frequent mosquito control spraying. Agricultural development is accompanied by the use of herbicides, pesticides and fertilizers. The increased release of pollutants into
the natural environment would res ult in the decline of macroinvertebrates ( e.g., insects, snails), which in turn would adversely impact resident and migratory birds, as well as other insectivores. Observations from field visits indicate that this area has high all terrain vehicle ( ATV) u sage, and this is likely to increase
in the f uture w ithout -p roject condition scenario. Although there is current and

near

- future development planned for the area, the City of Miami would not provide solid waste disposal. This is l ikely to result in increases in unauthorized dumping of solid waste in natural areas and even in urban areas.

4.2.1 Climate

D uring the period between the present and Year 2050, s outh Florida should experience a full multi

- decadal cycle of Atlantic hurricane activity. Currently, the area is in an active phase of this cycle that started in 1995. This active phase followed a 25

- year period of low hurricane activity. This suggests that between the present and Year 2050, the area would complete this active phase, pass through another low activity period and begin another active phase.

There is now evidence of anthropogenic changes to global climate patterns that will likely have an impact on South Florida in terms of rainfall, evapo

-Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-3 transpira tion, and temperature. The Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change (2007) estimates that by 2060 (near the end of the projected life of the project average air temperature will increase by 2 o F. Maps produced by the Intergovernmental Panel on Climate C hange indicate that evapotranspiration will likely increase by an estimated 15% by 2100 relative to historic conditions (1980 to 1999). Similar maps for rainfall show a reduction of up to 20% in rainfall in South Florida by 2100 as compared to the histor ic conditi ons experienced between 1980 and 1999. The Florida Oceans Council (2009) predicts more frequent intense rainfall events will occur coupled with longer dry periods in between. This is likely to lead to higher peak canal flows and longer periods of little to no canal flow within the BBCW study area.

4.2.2 Physical Landscape : Geology, and Soils

4.2.2.1 Geology

I n the future without

- project scenario, the subsurface geologic conditions are not expected to significantly change from the current conditions. Groundwater is the notable exception. The average groundwater stage (elevation) may be impacted by increased development within the area as well as sea level rise and the resulting changes to the canal operating plans. Increased saltwater intrusion along the shoreline is expected to occur.

4.2.2.2 Soils

Soil conditions may be altered in the agricultural and upland areas by residential and/or industrial development. This soil may be removed, accreted or built upon. Soils within the upland and coastal wetlands are not expected to be
disturbed. In rare instances, some development may occur in wetland areas with proper permitting from the local governing agenc ies. As a result, these wetland soils would be drained and/or displaced with fill materials to support development.

4.2.3 Hydrology

Some fundamental aspects of hydrologic conditions are expected to change in the

southern Miami

- Dade County watershed by the Year 2050. In the absence of any mitigation or restoration, freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay may diminish, flooding may increase, and stormwater runoff intensity from large storms would likely increase. The primary drivers for these changes are sea

- level ris e, expanded impervious areas due to increased development in the watershed, and increased water use demands from the aquifer as a result of population increase

.

By 2050, s ea level is expected to rise 0.8 to 2.0 feet from the existing condition ( year 2000) level in Biscayne Bay

. If the freshwater heads currently maintainedSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-4 under operational rules remain the same in Year 2050, the rise in sea level
would effec tively reduce the groundwater slope from the coastal ridge toward Biscayne Bay, thus reducing head pressure and groundwater flux toward the Bay. Under this scenario, the Biscayne Aquifer is likely to experience greater
intrusion of saltwater possibly rendering some of the current urban water supply
well fields unusable due to contamination. Higher groundwater stages in the project area will reduce t he ability of water managers to store rainfall runoff

either within wetlands or the surficial aquifer, resulting in increased intensity of

stormwater discharges through the primary canals. Reduced water storage reduces the capacity of the flood control system to accommodate runoff and would likely lead to i ncreased frequency of flooding events.

The functional population is expected to increase more than 100 percent by the

Y ear 2050 within the primary drainage basins of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Water Preserve (BBCWP) ( SFRPC et al., 2007 ). To accommodate the increased population within the watershed, land use would shift from open and agricultural lands to residential and commercial uses. Within the southern
Miami

- Dade county watershed, about 50 percent of the lands are currently built, with the balance split roughly between agricultural uses and wetlands. By Year 2050, the built environment is expected to be the dominant land use with a 180 percent increase of households (Keith and Schnars, 2004). Most of the increase
in urban land uses will occur west of the project area in Homestead and Florida City. (Note that the referenced predictions of land use and population were made prior to more recent thinking regarding the impact of sea level rise on South
Florida coastal c ommunities.) The shift in land use wo uld likely impose
additional demands on the flood risk management system, especially during heavy rainfall events. The percentage of impervious surface typical of agricultural land is estimated to be less than one percent, but in residential
areas it is e stimated at 65 to 70 percent. Heavy rainfall may quickly overwhelm

on- site stormwater retention systems of the future built environment and overflow into the primary flood risk management system that has been affected by sea

- level rise.

Increased water u se could effectively reduce the overall quantity of surface and groundwater flow into Biscayne Bay. Hydrologic modeling results using the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) published in 2000 indicate that water withdrawals for agriculture and urban uses affect the quantity of
fresh water that ultimately flows into Biscayne Bay (SFWMD

, 2000). These simulation results predict that b y Year 20 20, well field demand in the BBCWP

area would increase by 89 percent and agricultural demand by four percent, resulting in up to a 23 percent decrease of surface water discharges to Biscayne Bay through the primary canals. The Y ear 2020 projectio ns assume that
modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park ( ENP ) have been implemented and are mitigated somewhat by the assumption that Miami

- DadeSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-5 Water and Sewer Department has implemented a supplemental aquifer storage and recovery system of 150 million gallons per day ( mgd ). Demand for water in
the Y ear 2050 would likely be greater with a commensurate impact to
freshwater flow into Biscayne Bay.

More recently, the SFWMD, DEP, and the Miami Dade Sewer and Wate r Authority (MDWASA) agreed in 2008 to move forward with a moratorium on new consumptive use permits within the study area and to implement water reuse projects within the southern portion of Miami

- Dade County. These actions should significantly limit inc reased potable water demand within the project area that result from increased populations. If municipal demand is held to no increase as agreed to by SFWMD, DEP, and MDWASA, the overall increase in water demand within the basin should be around 3 percent by 2020. By 2050 agricultural demand will decrease as a result of sea level rise impacting farming operations in the vicinity of Biscayne Bay.

4.2.3.1 Sea

- Level Rise

Sea- level rise would have the most impact on coastal canals and communities, with loss of flood protection and increased saltwater intrusion being the primary impacts. Additionally, coastal ecosystems and estuaries may be adversely
affected and may requir e additional deliveries of fresh water to maintain desirable salinity patterns and healthy ecosystems.

Sea- level rise is one of the more certain consequences of climate change, and because it affects the land/ocean interface, it has the potential for envi ronmental impacts on coastal areas. Sea

- level rise is discussed in Section 7.1 3 .2.3 of
Section 7

, The Tentatively Selected Plan

.

4.2.4 Water Management

Using the most likely population scenario for Service Area 3, the water demand

pro jections for conservation

- adjusted water use in Year 2050 would be

505.6 million gallons per day ( mgd ). W ater demand for Service Area 3 is expected to comprise one

- third of the total water demand of the nine

- county
Initial CERP Update Region. Due to the exceptionally small rate of growth projected between Year 2050 and Year 2060, water demands for Year 2060 are not expected to be substantially higher than in Year 2050, after taking into

account co nservation measures. With the increase in population and infrastructure, the demand for water would increase, and the shortages and
restrictions would become more prominent, leading to both economic and environmental damages. In the LEC r egion, groundwater is the predominant
source of water for m unicipal and i ndustrial ( M &I ) uses

. This trend is expected
to continue in the future though there are efforts underway to prohibit future increases in groundwater withdrawal in southern Miami

- Da de County . SeaSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-6 level rise combined with increased water demand is likely to result in increased
salt

- water intrusion along the coast line.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-7 FIGURE 4-1 : LOWER EAST COAST REGION SERVICE AREA 3Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-8 4.2.4.1 Flooding

Flood damage reduction needs have increased since the original flood control project was constructed and would likely continue to increase in the future. As agricultural and urban development continues, the volume, duration and frequency of floodwaters may increase, and the actual level of flood risk management service may decline in some areas. Sea level rise is likely to impact flood protection effectiveness as tailwater conditions at the coastal structures

i ncrease and limit maximum discharge rates

. The negative effects associated with flooding are expected to increase significantly over current conditions by the year 2050.

4.2.5 Water Quality

Future water quality conditions in southern Biscayne Bay would be influenced by multiple factors. The changes in land use and runoff hydrographs are likely to affect the water quality of surface and ground waters within the watershed. The high nitrate loads from the C

- 102 and C

- 103 basins that result from the current agricultural land uses would be reduced by Year 2050 as agriculture gives way to urban development. However, this land use conversion would result in runoff quality in the se basins becoming more like the C

- 1 and C

- 100
basins

, which is characterized by elevated phosphorus, hydrocarbons and heavy metal concentrations that are typical of urban stormwater ( Alleman et al.

, 1995). The changes in land use and runoff hydrographs a re likely to affect the water quality of surface water and groundwater within the watershed. Presently, the most prolific contaminant is nitrate, which has been linked to agricultural

sources. As agricultural land uses diminish in the watershed, other

co ntaminants such as ammonia, phosphorus, trace metals and hydrocarbons more typical of urban settings are likely to become more common (Alleman et al.

, 1995). In addition to the reduction in nitrate loads from agricultural runoff, the
nearshore bay should experience a reduction in ammonia loading from the South Dade landfill and its predecessors. Though modern stormwater controls should limit the impact of urban development, changes in runoff volume and timing may increase the amount of suspended solids wh ich, in addition to reducing water transparency, often transport phosphorus and trace metals.

The nearshore area within a couple of kilometers of the shoreline will continue to experience hypersalinity conditions during the dry season. This will contin ue to limit the numbers of juvenile fish, pink shrimp, oysters and other species that prefer mesohaline (10

- 20 psu) conditions. During the late wet season, mesohaline salinity conditions should continue to occur. However, a dditional flood storage capacit y necessary to accommodate new urban development may result in additional periods of high salinity within the nearshore bay as well as rapid swings in salinity due to the increase in magnitude of flood releases.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4-9 4.2.6 Vegetative Communities

It is likely that native forested/shrub wetlands and graminoid marshes east of Card Sound Road not in public ownership would cease to exist as a natural area due to urban development. This is almost certainly to be true of areas north of Turkey Point

. Future development would also have numerous secondary effects. The wetlands in the northern part of the sawgrass marshes in the Model Lands could transition from a sawgrass

- dominated marsh to cattail

- salt bush

dominated wetlands due to poor water quality from residential runoff and
decline of available fresh water.

Changes in availability and distribution of fresh water and further disruption of natural sheet flow from discontinuities in hydrology due to l evees, roads and canals would further exacerbate the changes occurring in the natural freshwater graminoid marshes, forested/shrub wetlands, marl prairie, tree islands and
mangrove ecotones. Disruption of natural fire cycles and extent can have several
ef

fects that would increase in the f uture w ithout -p roject c ondition scenario. Control of fire intensity and extent due to potential for impacts on human infrastructure can encourage establishment of woody plant species that would

nor mally be eliminated as well as selection against more fire tolerant species such as sawgrass and muhly grass. Reduction of water availability can cause fires to burn more intensely than otherwise , killing plant species that would normally survive a more natural “cool burning” fire as well as permitting organic
soils to burn. Concurrently, unnatural flooding can inhibit fires and beneficial vegetation changes. All of these processes would be exacerbated due to
increased urbanization in the future.

Sea-l evel rise would create the potential for further expansion of salt tolerant plant species, especially mangroves, into the freshwater marsh areas. If sea level rise is as much as 2 ft over the next 50 years, it is possible that historic
wetlands west of th e L- 31E levee that are presently farmed will revert to wetlands as farmers abandon fields due to unmanageable flooding conditions.
Overtime these re

- converted wetlands will transition to salt tolerant species beginning first with areas just west of t he L

- 31E levee and progressing westward. Of course, the speed at which these lands re

- convert first to freshwater wetlands then to salt tolerant wetlands will depend upon the water management practices put in place to deal with increased sea level conditions.

Urbanization and associated habitat changes and anthropogenic effects ( e.g., pets, exotic species releases, wildlife mortality) would negatively affect native vegetative and wildlife species number and occurrence. These negative effects are expected to intensify from current conditions.

Tree islands, an important component of the Everglades habitat for a variety of native plant species not adapted to growing directly in flooded marshes, areSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 10 being variously impacted by changes in water management and in vasion of exotic plant species.

The impacts resulting from unauthorized ATV usage in the natural areas include killing the vegetation and changing the microtopography of the area. This has implications for the hydrology and vegetation, which are very s ensitive to slight ( in terms of inches) changes in topography. ATV usage and its
associated detrimental effects to the environment would likely increase with the anticipated increase in population in or near the project area.

4.2.7 Fish and Wildlife Resources

The region supports a variety of wetland dependent wildlife, including several

F ederally and state

- listed endangered and threatened wildlife species. A
reduction of the wetland function and value of coastal and inland habitats within and adjacent to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area associated with the spread of development and land conversion, would result in an overall loss of fish and wildlife resources within the project area in the future. Disruption of the natural hydrology has resulted in aquatic vegetation community changes and a resultant disruption of aquatic produc tivity and function that has had repercussions throughout the food chain, including effects on wading birds

, raptors, larger predatory fishes, reptiles (crocodiles and alligators), and

mammals. These effects would undoubtedly worsen given demands associated with environmental changes for the next 50 years.

Productivity of native fish species, many important as prey species for wading

birds , has been and would continue to be depressed due to water management practices (Ogden, 1994; Loftus and Eklund, 1994) and other factors previously
discussed.

Introduction and spread of a wide range of exotic fish species has increasingly been problematic in the project study area. The ca usative factors for this exotic fish problem include illegal introductions, unnatural habitat due to construction of canals and impoundments, and the establishment of vectors for travel and refugia (linear canals and deeper water) unlike the natural Evergl ades
environment. Evaluation of the effects on occurrence and productivity of native fish species is controversial at best, but some studies report that the effect is negative and would be exacerbated in the next 50 years (Turner et al.

, 1999;
Trexler et al.

, 2000; Kline et al.

, 2003).

Maintenance of the popular sport fishery for non

- native species such as the butterfly peacock ( Cichla ocellaris ), and native largemouth bass ( Micropterus
salmoides ) should remain largely unaffected in the future without the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 11 4.2.7.1 Threatened, Endangered and State

- Listed Species

Direct loss of habitat, as well as fragmentation of habitat in surrounding areas caused by the conversion of agricultural lands to urban and agricultural uses, is likely to result in a continued decline in threatened, endangered, and state listed species. Section 9 of ESA prohibits the unauthorized “take” of listed species on public a nd private lands, as a result of Fe deral and non -F ederal actions. Future

F ederal actions unrelated to the proposed action, but located in the study area, will require separate consultation pursuant to S ection 7 of the ESA. In addition,
future non -F ederal actions will be coordinated with FWS through Section 10 of
the ESA.

Over the next 50 years, c ontinued increase in urbanization, water management practices , direct habitat loss, and other land requirements, as well as the degradation of existing habitat function, are likely to result in the continuance of negative population trends of threatened, endangered and state

- listed species of special concern. A discussion of species of particular concern follows.

West Indian Manatee The major threats faced by the West Indian manatee today and continuing into

t he future are from two primary anthropogenic causes : collisions with watercraft and entrapment in water control structures. The future without the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project would likely witness an increase in boat

related manatee mortality due to increase d human resident population and a corresponding increase in boating. D irect manatee mortality rates from water control structures would likely be similar to current figures.

The future of the current system of warm -water refuges for manatees is uncertain as deregulation of the power industry in Florida occurs. The lack of establishing minimum flows and levels for Biscayne Bay may compromise the natural springs on which many manatees depend for drinking sources, as well as warm water refugia. There are threats to habitat caused by coastal development throughout much of the manatee ’s Florida range. Florida’s human popula tion is growing significantly in conjunction with intensive coastal development with the greater part occurring in the 35 coastal counties. An increase in boating traffic
associated with this human population increase would potentially cause an increase i n manatee collisions with watercraft and associated manatee deaths. Natural wintering sites in south Florida have been and continue to be altered by activities such as rip

- rapping and bulkheading shorelines, diverting or capping sources of warmer water, a nd elimination of foraging and resting areas. Demands for water for residential, industrial and agricultural purposes from the aquifer have and would continue to diminish spring flows as would paving and water diversion projects in spring recharge areas. Nutrient loading from residential and agricultural sources is promoting the growth of algae and clouded water columns, reducing available forage in seagrass beds and refuges.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 12 There are threats from natural events such as red tide and cold events. Survival of manatees would depend ultimately on maintaining the integrity of natural ecosystems and habitat sufficient to support a viable manatee population.

Florida Panther Florida panther ( Puma concolor coryi ) habitat in the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands project area includes habitat designated as a primary/dispersal zone in the Landscape Conservation Strategy for the Florida panther in south Florida. This habitat (primary/dispersal zone) is considered to be the most important area needed to support a self

- sustaining panther population.

The Florida panther ’s existence is threatened by extinction processes. Population viability analysis projections indicate that under existing demographic and genetic conditions the panther could be extinct in 24 to 63 years (Seal et al.

, 1992). Environmental factors affecting the panther include: habitat loss and fragmentation, contaminants, prey availability, human -related disturbance and mortality, disease and genetic erosion (Dunbar

, 1993). Present and probable future human population growth , urban expansion and agricultural expansion in south Florida, including the project area, are compromising the ability of natural habitats to support a self

- sustaining panther population. The recovery of the south Florida panther and the Landscape
Conser vation Strategy will be in jeopardy if development and anthropogenic expansion trends continue over the next 50 years.

Wood Stork The prognosis of the United States wood stork ( Mycteria americana ) population over the next 50 years is partially dependent on the success of the CERP

. Almost all of the freshwater marsh and estuarine areas in the project study area
can be c onsidered s uitable wood stork foraging habitat. In the f uture w ithout

p roject c ondition, wood stork habitat would be eliminated by development or would continue to be degraded as foraging habitats in much of the remaining
wetlands. As noted earlier, the CFAs of two wood stork colonies overlap the northern part of the project area, including the Deering Estate and parts of the
Cutler and Black Creek wetlands. Continued urban development in this part of the project area under the f uture w ithout -p roject condition scenario would certainly reduce or even eliminate this important foraging area for wood storks.

Bald Eagle Although the bald eagle was removed from the Federal list of endangered and
threatened wildlif e in August 2007, it remains protected under the Migratory

Bird Treaty Act and the Bald Eagle Protection Act.

Suitable nesting and foraging habitat exists throughout the project area. Preferred habitat for bald eagles consists of la rge, open

- water bodies for foragingSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 13 and suitable perch and nesting sites nearby. The f uture w ithout -p roject scenario
in the Biscayne Bay Coa stal Wetlands project area would offer no habitat
enhancements to expand eagle populations in the project area and new electrical lines associated with urbanization could present an increased electrocution hazard for eagles.

Wading Birds Although there are fluctuations of nesting success for wading birds that are driven by climatic as well as water control related issues, in general, nest numbers and success of wading birds have decreased dramatically across south Florida over the past 100 years. These results are especially evident in data
collected for wood stork s and white ibis ( Eudocimus albus ). Although data is less complete and suggests regional and short

- term population increases for species such as the little blue heron ( Egretta caerulea ), evidence suggests that the degree to which these species populations have increased system

- wide

, and over longer periods of time

, is less convincing.

A long

- term scenario that does not include habitat restoration components of the
CERP currently being evaluated would undoubtedly result in a continued overall decline in wading bird species populations due to continued encroachment into habitat and anthropogenic influences on water supply.

Historically, the area northeast of Florida Bay was one of the most productive
sub

- regions of the bay for roseate spoonbill ( Aj aja ajaja ) (Lorenz et al.

, 2002). Over the last 60 years, this area has been heavily impacted by anthropogenic water control practices, which have led to negative impacts to spoonbill nesting success (Lorenz, 2000). Nesting success in other active sub

- re gions compared to
the northeastern sub

- region gives increased credibility to the conclusion that the observed decline is anthropogenic in nature. Other sub

- regions in roseate spoonbill nesting habitat, such as western Florida Bay, are buffered by distance from water management practices. The future without the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project would likely witness a further degradation of spoonbill habitat due to continued conveyance of fresh water through existing canals that disrupts natural patterns of spoonbill prey base production and concentration. Unless major changes are implem ented to water management practices that affect roseate spoonbill habitat and Florida Bay in general, these areas would continue to decline in ecologic health with resultant further detrimental effects on roseate spoonbill.

Continually decreasing hydroper iods in presently over

- drained marl is likely to worsen. Wading birds will be directly affected by the decreased foraging opportunities provided by shorter and less

- frequent hydroperiods in shallow ‘grass

- sea’ areas. The pattern of marsh degradation, hydroperiod decrease andSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 14 habitat loss for wading birds is expected to continue in the future without

- project
scenario.

American Crocodile Compared to historical estimates of 1,000 to 2,000 animals, populations declined to a low that apparently occurred sometime during the 1960s or 1970s with an
estimated 100 to 400 non

- hatchlings (Ogden, 1978). The American crocodile population in south Florida increased substantially over the last 25 years and is estimated at approximately 1,400 to 2,000 individuals

, not including hatchlings (72 FR 13027

- 13041). Habitat protection has accounted for much of this increase but would be unlikely to produce a much greater population increase given potential future human encroachment, development, and land use changes.

Habitat loss due to developmen t and water management practices along coastal areas has been and continues to be the primary factors endangering the
American crocodile in Florida. Field and laboratory data suggest that low nest success combined with high hatchling mortality are the primary factors affecting

survival. The disruption of water flowing to the bay across a broad front has severely reduced the spatial extent of suitable crocodil e habitat based on salinity requirements of juvenile crocod iles. The f uture w ithout -p roject condition scenario would likely result in no improvement of habitat for juvenile crocodiles

, and may result in further degradation.

Collisions with automobiles continue to be the major documented cause of mortality of crocodiles in Florida, with most of these occurring on
U.S. Highway 1 or Card Sound Road. Both of these roads lie within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area. Continued human expansion
threatens Crocodylus actus populations by way of incidental death from traffic, and decreased frequency of natural prey. The future without

- project scenario

prese nts all of these anthropogenic threats along with the continuance of habitat degradation. This could potentially cause niche overlap and subsequently competition between C. actus and Alligator mississippiensis , t he effects of which can not be estimated without further study.

American Alligator The American alligator ( Alligator mississippiensis ) is a keystone species of the south Florida ecosystem. The American alligator’s role as a top predator and its effect on the structuring of plant communities and associated aquatic animals (Mazzotti and Brandt, 1994) make it an ideal indicator of ecosystem health. Population growth and survival depends directly on the hydrologic functioning of
south Florida watersheds. Each of these watersheds has experienced, and continues to experience, substantial degradation. Current w ate r management practices have

, and should continue to result in

, a high and unpredictable rate of nest flooding. Historically, maximum summer water levels were positivelySection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 15 correlated with water levels during alligator nest construction. This natural predictability has been lost. Historically, alligators were abundant in prairie habitats of the eastern floodplain and along the edge habitats of deeper sloughs.

Pre

- drainage occupancy of the deep water central sloughs was relatively low.
Given the shor tened hydroperiod and lowered water tables in the Everglades caused by drainage (Fennema et al.

, 1994; Van Lent et al.

, 1993; V anZee, 1999), the alligator has mostly abandoned the southern marl prairies, and today and
for the foreseeable f uture w ithout -p roject condition scenario, the distribution of the alligator in the southern Everglades is shifted to sloughs, canals and some deeper areas (Craighead, 1968; Mazzotti and Brandt, 1994).

Eastern Indigo Snake In south Florida, the Eastern indigo snake ( Drymarchon corais couperi ) is widely distributed but is not commonly found in great numbers in the wetland complexes of the Everglades. They can however be found in pine rocklands

, tropical hardwood hammocks, tree islands, coastal prairies, mangroves, freshwater marshes, abandoned agricultural land and human

- altered habitat
such as levee banks. Because of its relatively large home range, this snake is especially vulnerabl e to habitat loss, degradation and fragmentation caused by residential and commercial construction and agriculture (Lawler, 1977; Moler, 1985). Habitat destruction and alteration for the present and foreseeable future
would be m ost substantial along the coasts, in the Florida Keys, and along the high ridges of south

- centra l Florida, where human population growth would
continue to accelerate. Urban and agricultural developmental interests continue to destroy large expanses of suitable habitat throughout the project area. Even with continued habitat destruction and alterations, this species would probably persist in most areas if large, unfragmented pieces of suitable habitat persist ( FWS , 19 99). However, continued habitat fragmentation would result in increasingly isolated small groups of Eastern indigo snakes tha t cannot ensure the continuation of viable populations.

4.2.7.2 Essential Fish Habitat

Continued point source discharges of canal water into Biscayne Bay would
reduce the ability of affected organisms to sustain productivity levels in a

manner generally consistent with natural marine comm unities. The absence of
freshwater overland flow into the coastal areas of Biscayne Bay would promote hyper

- saline conditions in the near

- shore and estuarine biological communities, thus reducing the survivorship of juvenile shrimps and fishes resulting i n a reduction of the functional capacity and overall spatial extent of those systems.

The f uture w ithout -p roject condition scenario is likely to result in an overall decrease in the abundance and diversity of species within those h abitats. Sea level rise over the next 50 years will exacerbate some of these impacts and moderate others. For instance, the frequency, duration, and magnitude of hyper and hypo salinity events may decrease as the average depth of the nearshoreSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 16 portions of the bay increase s as sea level comes up. Changes to hyper and hypo salinity events in the nearshore will also depend upon how water management practices such as structure operating rules are changed in response to increased
sea level. Translocation of juvenile fish habitat westward further into the mangrove zone is likely to occur as a result of sea level rise though it is difficult to predict whether this will be an improvement over existing conditions.

4.2.7.3 Non

- Native Wildlife

An increase is anticipated in the Year 2050 f uture w ithout -p roject condition in the spatial coverage of invasive non

- native (exotic) plant species, such as Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), Australian pine ( Casuarina spp.), and melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia ), due to land disturbance and projected
lower water levels. With the lack of project monitoring and maintenance, there

would be an increase in other exotic plants including shoebutton ardisia ( Ardisia elliptica ) and O ld W orld climbing fern ( Lygodium microphyllum ). The spread of all these invasive non

- native plant species has resulted in the conversion of large acreages with a variety of native vegetative species to less diverse and in some cases monospecific vegetative cover with reduced value as
wildlife habitat. Detrimental affects to wildlife habitat value caused by non

native vegetation invasion was described in detail in the previous section.

4.2.8 Air Quality

Air quality between the present and Year 2050 is not expected to change significantly from existing conditions. Atmospheric contribution of mercury to the area would continue to decrease as existing controls on major mercury sources are fully implemented. Future, more restrictive regulations on mercury
emissions from coal

- fired power plants would likely continue the trend for reduced atmospheric contributions of mercury to the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands area.

4.2.9 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste

Site contamination issues 50 years into the future are likely to be improved over today’s status, whether or not this and other CERP projects are implemented. This statement is made in reference to historically contaminated superfund

- type
sites. Several decades and billions of dollars have been spent to correct past practices, and added vigilance and increasingly strict regulations should prevent recurrence of this type of site in the future. Major events such as supertanker spills or refinery explosions are accidents that may happen but would be difficult to predict. If such accidents were to occur, they would be addre ssed immediately, which is critical to minimizing long

- term impacts.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 17 4.2.10 Cultural Resources

Under future without

- project conditions, there may be some degradation and loss of existing cultural resources within the study area due to the continuation of current development trends, assuming that existing regulatory processes are not completely effective in preventing such losses

.

4.2.11 Socio -Economic Conditions

4.2.11.1 Population

Current statistics demonstrate that countywide , Miami

- Dade County is characterized by a slower population growth rate than the rest of the state, but a larger population growth than the nation as a whole. However, for lands within and adjacent to Miami

- Dade County’s Urban Development Boundary ( UDB ) in
the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area, growth rates are projected to be much higher.

Miami

- Dade County had a Year 2000 census population of 2,253,362 persons. The population of this county experienced a relatively modest increase of 16.3 percent from 1990 to 2000

. I t is important to note that Hurricane Andrew

, in

1992

, significantly impact ed population growth during this time period because
it caused so many people to relocate o ut of the county. During the same period,

t he population of the State of Florida and the United States increased 23.5 percent and 13.1 percent

, respect ively

. The State of Florida added over three million persons from 1990 to 2000, ranking third in the nation in numerical change.

Population in Miami

- Dade County is expected to increase by almost one and a half million people from 2000 to 2050. Due to this anticipated population growth, the county is expected to remain the most populated county in Florida.
The dense urban area of the LEC of Florida has contributed to development pressure and population increases in Miami

- Dade County. Miami

- Dade County is expected to grow faster than the national trends until at least Year 2050. Conversion of agricultural and other unimproved lands in southern Miami

- Dade County including large areas within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study
area would continue to be fueled in s ignificant part by this population growth.

TABLE 4-1 summarizes existing and projected population in Miami

- Dade County; the Year 2000 figures are from the U.S. Census. The future estimates

to Year 2030 were based on the University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research (BEBR) projections in Projections of Florida Population by County, 2001

- 2030 , dated February 2002. The Miami

- Dade County Department of Planning and Zoning developed the long

- term projections from 2030 to 2050. These population projections were calculated for, and accepted by, the InitialSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 18 CERP Update. TABLE 4-2 displays the population rates of growth for each
decade from 2000 to 2050. As shown in TABLE 4-3

, the population growth rate of the study area is expected to be lower than that of the state from 2000 to 2050.

TABLE 4-1: POPULATION ESTIMATES , 2000-2050 Population (1,000s)

Year

2000 2010 2020 2030 2040 2050

Miami

- Dade 2,253 2,554 2,862 3,148 3,499 3,811

Share of

Florida Total 14.10% 13.54% 13.13% 12.83% 12.90% 12.83%

Florida Total 15,982.40 18,866.70 21,792.60 24,528.60 27,118.70 29,714.50

TABLE 4-2: STUDY AREA POPULATION RATES OF GROWTH 2000-2050
Average (% Per Year) Population Growth

2000-2010 2010-2020 2020-2030 2030-2040 2040-2050

Miami

- Dade 1.3% 1.2% 1% 1.10% 0.90%

Florida Total 1.8% 1.55% 1.26% 1.06% 0.96%

TABLE 4-3: STUDY AREA POPULATIO N GROWTH 2000-2050

* Note: Florida population projections are only published through 2050

4.2.11.2 Water Demand

The south Florida LEC Region Municipal and Industrial (M &I ) water demand
forecast is shown in the following table

. Figures are derived from the University
of Florida BEBR population and employment projections, and were collected for
the 2000 Initial CERP Update. The section of the Initial CERP Update that applies to the Biscayne Bay study are a is Service Area 3, which encompasses
Miami

- Dade and Monroe counties. Water demand projections estimate the Service Area 3 most likely population scenario, conservation

- adjusted water use

in Year 2050 at 505.6 mgd

. Service Area 3 is expected to be using one

- third of
the total water demanded in the nine

- county Initial CERP Update Region. Due % Change 2000

- 2050*
Miami

- Dade 70 .0 %

Florida 85.9%Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 19 to the exceptionally small rate of growth projected between Year 2050 and Year 2060, it is not expected that water demands in Year 2060 would be substantially higher than in Year 2050, after taking into account conservation measures.

The SFWMD requires the development of water conservation plans as a prerequisite for water utilities to obtain a water use p ermit. With the implementation of conservation plans, water demand should change. Most conservation plans incorporate passive water conservation measures that include increasing block rate structures, the required use of ultra

- low flow water
fixtures on new or renovated construction, restrictions on lawn watering, required use of rain sensors on automatic sprinkler systems, a leak detection program, and public education concerning water conservation measures.

With the increase in population and infrastru cture, the demand for water would increase and the shortages and restrictions would become more prominent, leading to both economic and environmental damages. In the LEC region, groundwater is the predominant source of water for M&I uses

. This trend is expected to continue in the future though the SFWMD has recent place a moratorium on new consumptive use permits within the south Miami

- Dade County

. With more persons potentially drawing water and less water available for recharge, migrat ion of the underlying salt wedge leading to increased saltwater intrusion and shortages to wells and well fields would become more prevalent.

TABLE 4-4 : E STIMATED 2050 SERVICE AREA 3 CONSERVATION ADJUSTED,
MOST LIKELY POPULATI ON DEMAND SCENARIO ( MGD )

End Use 2000

Demand 2050

Demand

Service Area 3 373.2 586.6Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 20 2000 Distribution

LOSA SubAreas 2-5

4.8% Northern Palm Beach County

Service Area

8.0% Service Area 1

24.6%

Service Area 2

27.9% Service Area 3

34.8% 2050 Distribution

LOSA SubAreas 2-5

4.7%

Service Area 3

31.3%

Service Area 2

28.1% Service Area 1

26.8% Northern Palm
Beach County

Service Area

9.1%

FIGURE 4-2 : DISTRIBUTION OF TOTAL CONSERVATION ADJUSTED
MUNICIPAL AND INDUST R IAL WATER USE, BY SERVIC E AREA, 2000 AND 2050, MOST- LIKELY POPULATION SC ENARIO

0 50 100 150 200 250 300 350

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

YearWater Use (MGD)

Residential Commercial Industrial Government Unaccounted

FIGURE 4-3 : S ERVICE AREA 3, MOST

- LIKELY POPULATION SC ENARIO
MUNICIPAL AND INDUST R IAL CONSERVATION

- ADJUSTED FORECAST, BY WATER USE SECTORSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 21 4.2.12 Land Use

A review of various local governments (county and municipality) comprehensive plan future land use maps indicate that the portion of the study area lying
within the UDB is designated as “ e state” and “ low d ensity r esidential” land uses, which ranges in density from two and a half to six dwellings per acre. Much of the future development within the study area would occur on lands that are currently in agricultural use. Additionally, a majority of land currently
des ignated for agricultural use and lying outside of the UDB

, but within the Urban Expansion Area (UEA)

, is projected to be developed with similar uses once the UDB is expanded

. Based on increasing residential demand in this area, it is highly probable that th is section of the UD B would be expanded within the
next ten years.

In areas east and south of the UDB

, but landward of the coastal areas, at least some continued conversion of undeveloped lands designated in the county land use map as “Open Lands” to rock mines and some undeveloped lands designated as “Agriculture ” to constructio n/demolition debris landfills is possible. In addition, pressure to remove conservation easements on wetland mitigation areas within the UDB to allow development is already occurring. In cases where existing (and/or future) wetland mitigation areas are developed, additional mitigation areas would be needed to offset the loss of wetland functional values. However, based on development pressures, land costs and the proximity of the FPL mitigation bank; it is likely that the additional mitigation would be i n the form of wetland enhancement, resulting in a further net loss of the spatial extent of wetlands and other open lands within the study area.

Portions of the coastal areas adjacent to BNP that are currently designated in the county land use map as “Environmental Protection” and “Environmentally
Protected Parks” within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area are anticipated to remain in this use. Howeve r, the remaining undeveloped coastal
areas landward of the e nvironmental p rotection designation within the current UDB are expected to be developed within the next ten to 15 years. With a few exceptions such as the expansion of Turkey Point Power Plant, the remaining coastal wetland areas adjacent to BNP and outside the UDB are likely to remain largely unfilled and undeveloped with the exception of governmental facilities
such as fire stations

.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 22 FIGURE 4-4 : M IAMI

- DADE COUNTY URBAN DE VELOPMENT BOUNDARYSection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 23 4.2.13 Noise

As additional areas are developed within designated growth boundaries around cities, noise from general traffic, construction, and other vehicles would be expected to increase modestly between the present and Year 2050.

4.2.14 Recreational Resources

The State Co mprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) is the best source of information on recreation demand and supply at the state and regional scales.
It divides the state into 11 planning regions, each with clusters of counties. As
indicated in TABLE 4-5

, Regio n 11 is the planning region that encompasses the study area.

TABLE 4-5 : COUNT IES WITHIN SCORP PLANNIN G REGIONS POTENTIALY
AFFECTED BY ALTERNATIVE RESTORATION PLAN S

Region Counties

Region 11 Broward

Miami

- Dade

Monroe

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2000

The SCORP organizes outdoor recreation in Florida into 47 categories that encompass a variety of recreation activities including team sports (e.g., basketball and baseball), individual sports (e.g., golf and tennis), hunting, fishing, swimming and boating

. TABLE 4-6 p resents descriptive information on the recreation facilities in SCORP Region 11 for study area specific recreation categories. These resource

- based categories were selected as those tha t could potentially be affected by the hydrologic changes or ecological changes associated with the alternative restoration plans. This table includes percentages of the statewide totals for the recreation categories.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 24 TABLE 4-6: REGIONAL OUTDOOR RECREATION FACILITIES REGION 11, 1998

Resource / Facility Region

11 % of

State

Total State

Total

Outdoor Recreation Areas 2,080 16% 13,097

Outdoor Recreation Acres 3,038,475 28% 10,850,904

Land Acres 1,831,363 20% 9,077,004

Water Acres 1,207,112 68% 1,773,900 Hunting Acres 871,151 14% 6,168,716

Land Acres 869,573 14% 6,046,955

Water Acres 1,578 1% 121,761 Camping RV / Trailer Camp Sites 10,603 8% 138,576 Tent Camp Sites 1,081 11% 10,214

Trails Hiking Trails (miles) 277 7% 3,904 Horseback Riding Trails (miles) 91 6% 1,443 Nature Trails (miles) 107 10% 1,043

Freshwater Catwalks 40 5% 748 Boating Canoe Trails (miles) 296 11% 2,587 Freshwater Boat Ramp Lanes 235 12% 1,973

Freshwater Marinas 6 1% 511 Freshwater Slips / Moorings 303 3% 11,758

Saltwater Marinas 366 33% 1123 Saltwater Marina Slips 14,470 32% 45,839

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection

, 2000

.

4.2.14.1 Recreation Demand

Profiles of existing and future recreation demand in the study area can be developed by drawing on a variety of information at the national, state, regional
and local levels. In general, the variety of recreational interests in the United States appears to be increasing along with recreational participation rates. As future recreation needs and interests develop, it is important to recognize that participation in specific types of recreational activities is often linke d to demographic factors such as age and income

. For example, participation in activities requiring vigorous exercise is considerably higher for young people
than for senior citizens. However, the elderly population is increasing recreatio n participation because of the growing awareness of the importance of physical
fitness. Participation in most activities is low for those with family incomes below $25,000 per year. Interestingly, participation is low for those with familySection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 25 incomes greate r than $100,000 per year. Most outdoor recreational activities appear to be enjoyed largely by the middle class, those with family incomes between $25,000 and $75,000 per year.

4.2.14.2 State Recreation Trends

Recreation demands were developed for the SCORP through surveys of residents
and tourists. The Division of Recreation and Parks conducts periodic surveys of resident and tourist participation in recreation activities to estimate outdoor
recreation in Florida. The recreation participation information was derived from the 2000 surveys conducted by the University of Florida, Department of Recreation, Parks and Tourism. Participation in outdoor recreation activities is expressed in terms of user

- occasions, which occur each time an individual participates in a single outdoor recreation activity. The number of user

occasions was calculated for each planning region as well as the entire state by type of activity. Demand was estimated for 1997, 2000, 2005 and 2010 by

app lyi ng the per capita participation rates to population projections.

TABLE 4-7 presents Year 1997 and projected Year 2010 demands for the

selected rec reation activities in SCORP Planning Region 11. This table includes

user

- occasions as well as facility/resource needs. As part of the without

- project conditions, all of the regions are expected to have significant increases in
demands fo r the selected recreation activities with a commensurate need to increase development of the regions’ recreation resources and facilities.

TABLE 4-7 : DEMA ND AND FACILITY NEED S (1997 AND 2010)

SELECTED RECREATION ACTIVITIES (SCORP REGION 11)

Activity Units Demand (user

- occasions) Resources / Facility Needs

1997 2010 1997 2010

Hunting Acres 663,841 772,849 79,348 235,427

RV/ Trailer Camping Camp Sites 2 , 203,445 2 , 779,565 0 0 Tent Camping Camp Sites 888,761 1,136,981 10 317

Hiking Miles 1,282,041 1,672,767 252 413

Horseback Riding Miles 1,780,575 2,189,849 0 0

Nature Study Miles 1,456,739 1,988,143 0 0

Canoeing N/A. 108,405 142,253 N/A. N/A.

Source: Florida Department of Environmental Protection, 2000

.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 26 In sum mary , the Biscayne Bay ecosystems support a significant amount of
outdoor recreation in the LEC of south Florida. A significant portion of the expenditures comes from tourists.

4.2.14.2.1 Local Parks and Recreation

Miami

- Dade County owns or operates several parks within the study area. They include the Deering Estate , Black Point Park and Marina, and Homestead Bayfront Park that provide direct access to the Bay both visually and by water. In addition, Lakes by the Bay Park is under development and will provide both active recreation areas and nature trails and preserves. Homestead Air Force Base Park, also under developmen t, is a SFWMD park that will provide facilities
for active recreation.

As development continues in the southern tier of the county

, particular ly in the area just inside the eastern boundary of the UDB, there will be continuing pressure to acquire additional park land in order to meet the county’s level of service for local park and recreation acres.

4.2.14.3 Aesthetics

With an anticipated increase in urbanization, changes in the proje ct area are expected to reflect population growth. Aesthetically, there would be more high rises, roads and infrastructure associated with development and less open land.

4.3 SUMMARY OF EXISTING AND FUTURE WITHOUT P ROJECT

CONDITIONS

The follow ing table summaries the existing and future without project conditions for each of the project res our c es.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 27 TABLE 4-8: EXISTING VERSUS FUTU RE WITHOUT PROJECT C ONDITIONS ON PROJECT LANDS

Resources Existing condition Future without condition

Landscape Soils in and adjacent to the project area consist of several types including peat, Everglades peat, Lake Flint Marl, and weathered Miami Oolite, marl, marly peat, red mangrove peat, black mangrove peat, sandy mud, and skeletal sand gravel. BBCW project lands would be disposed and developed consistent with surrounding land use patterns.

Climate The subtropical climate of south Florida, with distinct wet and dry seasons, high rates of evapotranspiration, and climatic extremes of floods, droughts and hurricanes Climate change is expected to result in a 20% decrease in rainfall by the year 2100. Assuming a linear response, a 10% decrease in rainfall is expected over the 50 year life of the project. Evapotrans piration as well as average temperature will increase as a result of climate change.

Hydrology Presently, freshwater runoff from the watershed is discharged to the bay through a system of conveyance canals. Some fundamental aspects of hydrologic conditi ons are expected to change in the southern Miami

- Dade County watershed by the year 2050. In the absence of any mitigation or restoration, freshwater flux to Biscayne Bay will diminish, flooding may increase, stormwater runoff intensity from large storms w ill likely increase, and the character of water quality will change. The primary drivers for these changes are an increased sea level, greatly expanded impervious areas to accommodate expected development in the watershed, and increased water use demands from the aquifer.

Water Management The Biscayne Aquifer provides water for municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply and agricultural irrigation along the southeast coast. Well fields, which are the s ource of municipal water supplies, are significantly recharged by Water Conservation Area water. Water
stored in the Water Conservation Areas can be used to maintain groundwater levels in the coastal area for public water s upply, to irrigate the vast agricultural areas interspersed within the project area, and to maintain a freshwater head along the lower east coast for prevention of saltwater intrusion. Water demand projections estimate the Service Area 3 most likely popula tion scenario, conservation

– adjusted water use in 2050 at 505.6 MGD. Service Area 3 is expected to be using 1/3 of the

total water demand in the nine

- county Initial CERP Update Region. With more people dr awing water and less water available for recharge, migration of the underlying salt wedge could lead to

increased salt

- water intrusion and shortages to wells and well fields would become more prevalent.

Flooding Areas may become flooded during heavy rai nfall events due to antecedent conditions that cause saturation and high runoff from both developed and undeveloped areas. Flood damage reduction needs have increased since the original flood control project was constructed and will likely continue to

i ncrease in the future. As agricultural and urban development continues, the volume, duration, and frequency of floodwaters may increase, and the actual level of flood damage reduction maySection 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 28 decline in some areas.

Water Quality Drainage canals have adversely impacted the timing, quality and quantity of freshwater to the bay. The flood protection discharges from the canals transport nutrients, heavy metals and pesticide pollution from urban and agricultural activities and create rapidly fluctuating salinity concentrations within the bay. Water quality will continue to be impacted by changes in land use. As agricultural lands are converted to urban development changes in the chemical constituents of the pollution will change but is still likely to have an adverse affect on the ecosystem. Additional flood storage capacity necessary to accommodate new urban development would result in additional periods of high salinity within the nearshore bay as well as rapid swings in salinity due to the increase in magnitude of flood releases

. Vegetative

Communities Generally, five habitat types dominate the project area. They include submerged aquatic vegetation (primarily seagrasses and algae), mangrove forests, saline emergent wetlands, freshwater wetlands, and

non

- native dominated wetlands (primarily wetlands dominated by Australian pine [ Casaurina spp .] or Brazilian pepper [ Schinus terebinthifolius ]). Continued urbanization will lead to the exacerbation of hyper

saline conditions, reduced water quality, reduced natural fire

co ntrol, and increased ATV usage. Over the next 50 years this will continue to alter the historical vegetative composition of the coastal and freshwater wetlands, thus reducing the special extent

and functional value of those habitats

Fish & Wildlife

Resources A minimum of 268 fish species, 16 amphibian species, 57 reptilian species, 294 avian species, and 35 mammalian species has been observed in or near the project area. A reduction of the wetland function and value to coastal habitats within and adjacent to Biscayne Bay, along with increased development and land conversion, is likely to result in an overall loss of fish and wildlife resources within the project area.

Threatened & Endangered Species Federally listed endangered and threatened animal species known to exist or potentially exist within the project area include fifteen endangere d vertebrate and invertebrate species and ten threatened vertebrate species. In addition, six endangered and one threatened plant species are known to exist or potentially exist within the project

area. Without the environmental benefits of the BBCW project, direct loss of habitat, as well as degradation of existing habitat function will likely result in a continued decline in threatened, endangered, and state listed species within the next 50 years.

Non

- Native

Wildli fe In many cases, non

- native animals have adapted to the sub

- tropical

environment of south Florida and have established themselves as breeding residents. Whereas some species pose little or no known threat to natives, others are particularly invasive, pre senting a predatory threat or competing with indigenous species for food, territory, nest sites, or other resources. An increased coverage of exotic vegetation associated with continued land disturbance is anticipated in a 50

- year future

without project scenario.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 29 Essential Fish

Habitat The project is located in areas designated as EFH for coral, coral reef

, and live bottom habitat, red drum ( Sciaenops ocellatus ), shrimp, spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus ), other coastal migratory pelagic species, and the snapper

- grouper complex. Specifically, EFH in Biscayne Bay is comprised of seagrasses, estuarine mangroves, intertidal flats, estuarine water column, live/hard bottoms, and coral reefs. A lack of freshwater sheet flows into the coastal areas of Biscayne Bay will continue to increase salinity levels in the nearshore and estuarine biological communities, thus reducing the spatial extent of those systems. A future without

- project is likely to result in an overall decrease in the diversity of species within those habitats.

Land Use The existing use of land within the study boundaries varies widely from agriculture to high

- density multi

- family and industrial urban uses. A larg e portion of south Florida remains natural, although much

of it is disturbed land. Much of the future development within the study area will occur on lands that are currently in agricultural use.

Recreational

Resources The urbanized east coast includes good quality marine based recreation activities such as underwater diving, salt water and estuary fishing, boating, surfing, and, of course, the beach. County and state parks, scenic rivers, state reserves and forests, and Federal refuges provide wildlife viewing, nature interpretation, hiking, and canoeing opportunities. Based on the adverse effects related to environmentally damaging releases of waters into the Bay’s ecosystem, it can be concluded that improving the environmental quality of the Biscayne Bay ecosystem will substantially support and sustain local recreation

based businesses.

Aesthetics The natural areas are composed of a variety of upland and wetland based ecosystems, including lakes, sloughs, ponds, and vast expanses of marsh and wet prairie with varying vegetative components. Overall, the land is remarkably flat with few natural topog raphic rises, such as hills or other geographic undulations. With an anticipated increase in urbanization, changes in the project area are expected to reflect population growth. Aesthetically, there will be more high rises and less open land.

Socio

- Eco nomic

Conditions The 2000 census tract for Miami

- Dade County indicates a population of 2,253,362. The BBCW site, however, has few permanent residents or existing businesses. The three most sign ificant employment sectors
in the Miami

- Dade economy are retail trade, administrative support, and guest services (accommodation and foodservice). Population in Miami

- Dade is expected to increase by almost 1.5 million people from 2000 to 2050. Conversion of agricultural and other unimproved lands in southern Miami

- Dade County, including large areas within the BBCW study area, will continue to be fueled in significant part by this population growth.

Hazardous, Toxic

& Radioactive

Waste Numerous hazardous waste sites (e.g., Superfund and Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) sites) have been identified in the area underlain by the Biscayne Aquifer. Remedial action to clean up existing contamination is underway at many of these sites. All sites will be fully investigated and remedial action will be taken as necessary. Waste management practices are generally monitored to prevent further contamination. The conditions that exist today relative to hazardous, toxic, and radioactive waste within the study area are expected to be

im proved over today’s status, whether or not CERP projects are implemented.Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

4- 30 Cultural

Resources A review of the Florida Master Site Files has indicated several known archaeological sites within the BBCW project area. The future, without a protection plan, offers little or no protection without further investigation, while a future with a conservation plan provides some level of protection to cu ltural resources.

Air Quality Existing air quality within south Florida is considered good, and the

BBCW region attains all National Ambient Air Quality Standards. In the future

, air quality is not expected to change significantly.

Noise Within the major natural areas of south Florida, external sources of

noise are limited and have low occurrence. A moderate increase in noise is to be expected as additional areas are developed within designated growth boundaries around cities, noise from general traffic, construction and other vehicles.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 5
FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANSS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-1 5.0 PLAN FORMULATION

Plan formulation is the process of building alternative plans that meet planning objectives and avoid planning constraints. Th e USACE uses a six step planning process that provides a structured approach for problem solving, through a rational framework that leads to sound decision making. The six steps are:

**•** Identification of problems and opportunities;

**•** Inventory of existing and forecasting of future conditions;

**•** Formulation of alternative plans;

**•** Evaluation of alternative plans;

**•** Comparison of alternative plans; and

**•** Selection of a recommended plan.

This process was followed to ensure the recommended plan adequately addresses the problems identified and is cost effective. USACE guidance relating to the planning process and the preparation of a Project Implementation Report (PIR) is found in “Principles and Guidelines” and ER 1105 -2- 100.

Documentation of the plan formulation process was prepared and incorporated into an integrated PIR and Environmental Assessment (EA) according to
USACE policy and regulations and NEPA regulations.

This section of the report contains the formulation, evaluation, and comparison of alternative plans, and finally, the identification of the Tentatively Selected
Plan (TSP). The problems and opportunities section and the existing and future without project conditions sections can be found in Sections 2, 3 and 4 respectively.

5.1 FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

The plan formulation and evaluation process involves identifying, organizing, and combining management measures to create the different alternative plans for the project that will solve the problems and realize the opportunities . The formulation completed and described in the Restudy serves as the foundation for
the formulation of alternatives for this project . The BBCW Project Delivery Team used the Restudy alternative as a starting point for the basis of developing

alternatives.

Alternative plans are developed from a combination of structural and/or non

structural measures that address the planning objectives. In addition to the
alternative plan s developed by the team, a “future without project” plan is
included. This “future wi thout project” plan is equivalent to the “no action” plan required by NEPA . Plans are then evaluated and compared using multiple criteria, followed by selection of a recommended plan. The plan that reasonablyS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-2 max imizes the production of benefits , best solves the problems and realizes the opportunities while avoiding constraints, and is cost effective, was identified as
the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan

. This is the project’s Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP).

5.2 PRIOR FORMULATION

Restoration in the project area was investigated in the early 1980s in Miami

Dade County’s Biscayne Bay Management Plan (Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners 1986) and SFWMD ’s Biscayne Bay SWIM Plan (Alleman et al. 1995) further considered restoration opportunities. A conceptual restoration plan for the area was included as two elements of the authorized and approved C omprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) or “Yellow Book” (YB) selected alternative

- Alternative D 13R: (1) BBCW (designated an Other Proj ect Element (OPE) ) and (2) Biscayne Bay Coastal Canals (component FFF of CERP). This conceptual plan includes pump stations, spreader swales, STAs, flowways, levees, culverts and backfilling canals located in southeast Miami

Dade County and covers 13,600 acres from the Deering Estate area at C

- 100C, south to the FPL Turkey Point power plant, generally along L

- 31E

. FIGURE

5-1 is a conceptual rendering from the CERP and illustrates the basics of the project ( CERP Alternative D13

- R).

FIGURE 5-1 : ALTERNATIVE D 13R (YELLOW BOOK)

– SOUTH BISCAYNE BAY

AND COASTAL WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT COMPONENT

Source: Restudy Appendix A4

– Description of Alternative D

- 13R (Page A4

- 47)S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-3 5.3 PROJECT EVALUATION CRITERIA, PERFORMANCE MEASURES
, FORMULATION METHODS, AND MODELS

5.3.1 Evaluation Criteria and Models

USACE ecosystem restoration studies typically measure the ecosystem benefits of alternative plans in term s of physical dimensions (number of acres of wetlands, for example), or population counts (number of wading birds , for example), or various habitat

- based scores (habitat units [HU] based on the
FWS ’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures [ HEP ] , for example). The BBCW team devised a project

- specific tool referred to as the Criterion Based Ecological
Evaluation M atrix (CBEEM ) to quantify the ecological output of alternatives. CBEEM is a Microsoft (MS) Excel spreadsheet tool that utilizes hydrologic modeling results, management measure size and operation, and available hydrologic data to derive a HU score that repres ents the ecological lift achieved by each alternative. This method evaluated benefits within each of the three major ecological zones present within the project area (nearshore bay, saltwater wetlands, freshwater wetlands).

The CBEEM eval uation was accomplished in four steps: 1) c alculate

p erformance measure o utput, 2) normalize p erformance measure o utput, 3)
compute q uality i ndex, and 4) compute HU s. The logic and equations used in each of these steps can be seen in more detail and with supporting documentation in Appendix C (Environmental Information). A detailed documentation sheet for each performance measure can also be located in the Appendix C . CBEEM is presently being reviewed by the USACE National Ecosystem Planning Center of Expertise at Mississippi Valley Division

.

5.3.2 Performance M easures

Performance measures have been developed to evaluate how well alternatives fulfill project objectives. The following eight CBEEM performance measures address each of the original five project objectives that were identified in the Restudy and BBCW Project Management Plan (PMP) as follows:

1. Restore nearshore salinity regime

2. Restore tidal wetland salinity regime

3. Reduce direct canal discharge

4. Potential freshwater wetland rehydration

5. Reduce nitrogen concentrations

6. Reduce TP loading to Biscayne Bay

7. Reduce non

- native vegetation

8. Restore connections between basins and wetlandsS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-4 TABLE 5-1 shows the relationship between objectives and performance measures, and indicates the pertinent ecological zone.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-5 TABLE 5-1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE MEASURES

Performance

Measures Objectives

Reestablish productive nursery habitat along

shoreline of Biscayne Bay Redistribute

freshwater flow to

minimize point source discharges

at canals to

improve

freshwater and

estuarine habitat Restore and improve quantity, quality, timing and

distribution of

freshwater to Biscayne Bay Preserve and restore the spatial

extent of natural

coastal glades

habita t within the study area Re

- establish connectivity between Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, C- 111 Basin, Model Land and adjacent

basins Restore nearshore

and saltwater wetland salinity regimes

1. Restore nearshore salinity regime Nearshore Nearshore

Saltwater

2. Restore tidal wetland salinity regime Saltwater Saltwater Saltwater

3. Reduce direct canal discharge Nearshore

Saltwater Nearshore

Saltwater Nearshore

Saltwater Nearshore

Saltwater Nearshore

4. Potential freshwater wetland rehydration Freshwater Freshwater

5. Reduce nitrogen

concentrations Nearshore

6. Reduce peak phosphorus loading Nearshore

7. Reduce non

- native vegetation Freshwater

8. Restore connections

between basins and wetlands (not presently used in CBEEM) Freshwater

Saltwater Freshwater

Saltwater Freshwater

SaltwaterS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-6 5.3.3 Formulation Method

The study area is composed of f our sub

- basins defined by major drainage canals.
Each sub

- basin was assigned a c omponent area and management measures were
formulated. FIGURE 5-2 illustrates the location of each component area. Descriptions of each are provided below.

Deering Estate Flowway : This component area is bounded by Biscayne Bay to the east, with C

- 100A running in a north/south direction to the west, and C

100B running in an easterly direction to the south. Proximity to the canals provides opportunities for access to available water for wetland rehydration. Several ditches dissect the property, as well as Cutler Drain which is a major tributary to Biscayne Bay. Canal C- 2 runs north of the property in an easterly
direction.

Cutler Wetlands : Major infrastructure in the component area includes

- to the north, C

- 100B as it exit to the Bay; C

- 100A to the west; and Biscayne Bay to the east. The area runs south along Biscayne Bay, mostly east of L

- 31 E and ends
where C

- 1 meets the Bay. A small go lf club shaped area reaching toward the turnpike, extends west of L

- 31E, resting on the lower portion of C

- 1. Like the other component areas, it too includes a number of ditches to the Bay.

L- 31E Flowway : This component area r uns in a southerly direction and is completely dissected in a north/south direction by L

- 31E levee and canal. It is bounded to the south by Florida Canal running in an easterly direction and is further dissected in an easterly direction by Nort h Canal, C- 103, Military Canal

, and partially by C

- 102. Like the other component areas, it too includes a number of ditches to the Bay. L

- 31E provides unique opportunities for the development of an extensive spreader canal. Homest ead Air Force Base is located to the west of this component area.

Model lands/Barnes Sound : This area is bounded to the north by the easterly running Florida Canal ; to the east by L

- 31E and the FPL complex, disconnecting the area to Biscayn e Bay to the east; bounded by U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road to the west; and lower Biscayne Bay.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-7 FIGURE 5-2 : BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS COMPONENT AREA MAP

WITH ECOLOGICAL ZONESS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-8 The team further defined three ecological zones within the study area: freshwater wetlands, saltwater wetlands, and nearshore Biscayne Bay (defined

as one kilometer seaward of the shoreline) for determining and weighing the ecological benefits of the alte rnatives

.

An understanding of the ecological zones in relationship to the component areas and the study area as a whole will provide insight into the selection of measures
for each alternative. FIGURE 5-3 below illustrates the ecological zones, desired salinity levels, species at risk, component areas and basic infrastructure in the study area.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-9 FIGURE 5-3 : BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS CONCEPTUAL PROJECT

AREA

5.3.4 Management Measures

Management measures are defined as features or activities that can be implemented at a specific location to address one or more planning objectives : they can be either structural or non

- structural. Management measures form the building blocks of alternative plans. Measures are used to meet one or more of the planning objectives by:S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 10 **•** redistributing point source discharges through a mix of measures such as spreader canals, spreader swales, canal and ditch backfill, land acquisition, road removal, levee removal, and/or culverts;

**•** improving flexibility in the delivery of water with a mix of pump stations, weirs, conveyance or connector canals, flowways, stormwater treatment

areas (STAs) and/or reservoirs;

**•** eliminating harmful point source discharges with canal backfill, plugs
and/or weirs;

**•** improving water quality with STAs and/or detention ponds;

**•** encouraging the growth of native vegetation by removing invasive growth and rehydrating we tlands.

To assemble a suite of management measure s for the BBCW project, the team
used the YB alternative as a starting point. The team verified the continued need for each measure and added additional features or activities as necessary. The following is a list of management measures considered and/or used in the development alternatives :

1. Spreader Canals

– Spreader canals would diver t water that is currently being discharged directly into Biscayne Bay as point discharges

. I ncreased overland flow to target freshwater and saltwater wetlands

would increase spatial extent of wetland habitats, restore existing wetland habitats, improve wa ter quality and restore historic salinity levels in the Bay.

2. Stormwater Treatment Area s – These areas would be utilized for storing and treating water before it is discharged to freshwater wetlands and Biscayne Bay. Du e to the extremely porous substrate in this area of
Florida

, the STAs would likely be constructed above

- ground with a liner. The primary benefit of these type s of impoundment s would be improved water quality, with some measure of water supply and habitat value.

3. Reservoirs – Reservoirs were considered and added as a measure that would provide needed water for restoration during periods of low flows (i.e., the dry season). The reservoirs would be filled during peak storm
events and would be utilized for wetland rehydration during low flow periods in the major canals. Reservoirs constructed above

- ground would need to be lined in order to retain water in the porous South Florida geology, adding cost.

4. Pump Station s – Pump stations would be required to divert flow from major conveyance canals into reservoirs, STAs, and spreaders. They would also aid the control of water when needed for restoration purposes during low flow events and also maintain authorized flood damage reduction levels for urban or agricultural areas.

5. Removal of existing levees

– The major levee that obstructs overland flow
is the L

- 31E Levee

.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 11 6. Culverts

– Culverts provide gravity water flow underneath levees or roadways where the distribution of additional water is proposed. Culverts would be necessary in order to render some of the existing obstacles to flow (levees) as transparent as possible.

7. Construction of new levees

– New levees may need to be constructed in
order t o provide for flood damage reductions where wetland restoration is proposed in close proximity to any municipalities. Levees may be used in
combination with other measures to achieve project objectives

. 8. Flowway s – The creation of new flowway s provide a means to convey water from major conveyance canals to spreader features or directly to
wetlands.

9. Stormwater Treatment Plant

– This measure could be used to add water into the project area, by routing water from urban areas through the plant
for treatment.

10. Desalinization Plant

– This measure could be used to add water into the project area, by converting saltwater from the B ay into freshwater for use in other part of the project area.

11. Removal of minor drainage and structural features

– This would include the plugging or backfilling of ditches and removal of minor roads that are negatively affecting the movement of water

. 12. Operations

– This measure is non

- structural in nature

. The existing study area is complex in terms of C&SF water management features. Efficient operations of such a complex system would reduce infrastructure needs (i.e., more pumps, culverts, canal s) and therefore reduce the cost of alternative plans

.

5.3.5 Initial Array of Alternative P lans

Based on the above management measures, the team created conceptual alternative plans. A brief description of the alternatives is provided below. Detailed descriptions can be found in Appendix F of this report.

5.3.5.1 No Action Alternative

The first alternative considered is always the No

- Action or “do nothing” alternative. It includes the changes expected in the study area over the period of analysis ending in 2050 assuming that no ecosystem restoration project is built as a result of this study. It includes the continuation of the degraded ecologica l state currently exhibited in the study area. For this study, this alternative is
labeled No Action Alternative . A narrative description and table comparison of existing and future conditions can be found in Section s 3 and 4.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 12 5.3.5.2 Alternative YB (Yellow Book)

Because the YB plan was conceptual, a sub

- team was created to develop a detailed description of what it believed the YB plan intent was. The team crafted additional alternatives all drawing on the perceived attributes and
drawbacks of this YB alternative. TABLE 5-2 synopsizes this initial array of alternatives, including main summary differences between the YB alternative and the alternative being crafted and/or a m ajor feature that is distinctive. Detailed narratives have been prepared and included with this package as Appendix F.

This alternative is the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project as conceptualized
in the YB

. A major goal stated in the YB is to improve freshwater deliveries to Biscayne Bay. Management measures for this alternative are included in each of the four component areas. Since Alternative YB serves as the origin for development of all other alternatives (by feature, cost and intended benefits), it is discussed in detail to understand the nature of feature development in
component areas . A ll other alternatives are discussed in comparative terms to reduce redundancy.

Deering Estate Flowway
– Alternative YB Involves pumping water from the SW 160th Street ditch (a tributary to C

- 100C) through property adjacent to the Deering Estate and ultimately into Cutler Drain, which runs through the Deering Estate. The design involves adding a pump station at the end of SW 160th Street Canal , filling in mosquito ditches in coastal mangroves, and constructing weirs to delay water p assage in old Cutler
Drain

.

The se combined measure s would rehydrate both freshwater and saltwater wetlands, restore some overland flow to Biscayne Bay, improve water quality, and eliminate or slow the release of freshwater through point sources, all

ulti mately benefiting the nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay. Rehydrating freshwater wetlands will also improve groundwater flows to Biscayne Bay.
These measures contribute to multiple planning objectives, potentially improving habitat in all three ecological zones.

Cutler Wetlands
– Alternative YB
This alternative i nvolves routing water south from C

- 100A to the Cutler
Wetlands a rea via a shallow distribution swale to C

- 100B, pumping water from
C- 100B to a spreader swale, and pumping water from C

- 100A south into a spreader swale to allow sheetflow to Biscayne Bay. For water quality, flows are routed through an STA . Construction includes a spreader swale from C

- 100A
south to C

- 100B with a levee west of the spreader swale, and a pump along the north end of the spreader swale at C

- 100A; a pump adjacent to the STA and C

-S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 13 100B; an d a levee seepage canal along the north ern and southern end of the
STA.

The se combined measures would rehydrate mostly saltwater wetlands, and some freshwater wetlands in the component area, improve overland flow across a large spatial extent, and improve water quality. As a result, both the saltwater wetlands ecological zone and salinity levels in the nearshore ecological zone stand to benefit significantly from the proposed improvements.

L- 31E Flowway
– Alternative YB
This alternative i ncludes a flow redistribution system west of L

- 31E and existing
wetlands restor ation in the area between L

- 31E and the western boundary of the redistribution system. A distribution swale with a western levee will be constructed along this bou ndary. The wetland area west of L

- 31E should be
used for short

- term, shallow ponding of water to maintain wetlands and help
drive freshwater flow to the nearshore Bay out of the east bank of L

- 31E. For water quality purposes , flows are routed through STA s. Construction involves
installation of culverts and risers under L

- 31E; construction of a spreader swale
east of L- 31E; backfilling Military Canal ; a plug in C

- 100B; a new a canal west of
the landfill to intersect with the L- 31E borrow canal; and filling in mosquito
ditches. A se e page collection ditch may be required on the western side of the
STA (s)

, as well as pump s to the STA.

The com bined measures would rehydrate both freshwater and saltwater wetlands, restore some overland flow to Biscayne Bay, improve water quality, and eliminate or slow the release of freshwater through point sources, all ultimately benefiting the nearshore areas o f Biscayne Bay. Rehydrating freshwater wetlands will also improve groundwater flows to Biscayne Bay.

In the North Canal Flowway area, the features involve pumping available water
from C

- 103 and the Florida City Canal to re

- establish sh eetflow across
freshwater and saltwater wetlands to Biscayne Bay with flows routed through
an STA

. Construction involves a pump on C

- 103; a pump on Florida City Canal ; installation of culverts and risers under L

- 31E; a delivery canal from C- 103 south to North Canal; a sp reader swale east of L

- 31E; backfilling the North
Canal east of SW 112 Avenue ; and a flowway south of the Florida City Canal
from SW 127th Avenue to SW 107th Avenue. Ad ditional construction includes
an STA on the western edge of the coastal wetlands in between the C

- 103 and
the Florida City Canal

, an STA associated with the flowway south of the Florida City Canal, and construction of seepage management facilities around the STAs.

The se combined measures would rehydrate both freshwater and saltwater wetlands, restore some overland flow to Biscayne Bay, improve water quality, and eliminate or slow the release of freshwater through point sources, allS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 14 ultimately benefiting t he nearshore areas of Biscayne Bay. Rehydrating freshwater wetlands will also improve groundwater flows to Biscayne Bay.

Model Lands/Barnes Sound
– Alternative YB Operation of this component involves pumping available water from the Florida City Canal to a shallow east

- west spreader canal with flows routed through an
STA . Design involves construction of a pump at the Florida City Canal ; a new canal south from Florida City Canal to a shallow spreader swale along the edge
of the saltwater wetlands with a n STA and seepage management facility.

There are some general problems and considerations that apply to the entire

area. These include existing ditches, which are extensive, the presence of exotic plants and animals, potential water quality problems, and land ownership
constraints. The areas under review for restored sheet flow were extensively ditched early in the 1900s. This cross ditching interferes with providing restored historic flow patterns. For these reasons, the ditches may need to be filled. In addition, the area would require an extensive and possibly ongoing invasive exotic plant removal program.

5.3.5.3 Alternative C

This alternative is similar to Alternative YB in purpose

, including features in each of the four component areas, but seeks to recreate historic slough patterns using gravity conveyance instead of pumps. This plan removes the L

- 31E levee and backfills all major c anals.

5.3.5.4 Alternative D

This alternative is identical to C but adds minor features including:

1. Backfill of all north

- south mosquito ditches in all sub

- regions (if it can be achieved without destroying desirable vegetation) ; 2. Removal of Tallahassee Road in Model Lands ; 3. Remov al of SW 360 th Street and adjacent ditch in Model Lands

.

5.3.5.5 Alternative E

This alternative has the same management m easures as Alternatives C and D with the exception of reservoirs to provide water to the project area during dry periods and uses plugs instead of backfill ing major canals

. This alternative

p riorit izes rehydrating and restoring the wetlands and embayments associated with Black Point and Fender Point. The morphology of the coastline in these two
areas includes embayments that are likely to provide the most likely areas for restoring estuarine conditions year round. This alternative was also designed to

p rovide flexibility for inter

- basin transfer of freshwater across the p roject

.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 15 5.3.5.6 Alternative F

This alternative is designed to improve on Alternative YB by adding reservoir
storage

. This resulted in smaller STA acreage however i t was assumed that the spatial extent/treatment capacity of the STAs for this alternative would be
sufficient to adequately treat water. This alternative was crafted to adjust the specific boundaries of the STAs as necessary based on available lands. The
intent was to save costs on real estate acquisitions to the extent practicable.

5.3.5.7 Alternative G

This alternative is a low cost , primarily non

- structural approach greatly relying on water management operational changes; uses limited construction of features such as smaller pumps and spreader canals and has less acreage dedicated to
STAs relative to the YB.

5.3.5.8 Alternative H

Like Alternative G , this alternative minimizes construction. However it is
smaller in scale; for example, it uses small polishing ponds instead of STAs to

cleanse water.

5.3.5.9 Alternative I

This alternative is s imilar to Alternative YB , but extends the connector canal northward and proposes a desalinization plant for water supply.

5.3.5.10 Alternative J

Uses a combination of reservoirs and STAs to capture and treat water. Existing canals are not backfilled and although the alternative does not attempt to recreate historic sloughs , it does degrade the L

- 31E levee in an attempt to
restore the saltwater to freshwater ecotone transition. The L

- 31E levee would be
rebuilt further west.

5.3.5.11 Alternative K

Similar to Alternative YB , but uses package water treatment plants instead of STAs to significantly reduce land acquisition costs.

5.3.5.12 Alternative L

This alternative is a m odifi cation of Alternative YB with heavy emphasis on the
use of reservoirs to rehydrate the wetland areas. The reservoirs would be located adjacent to primary canals (C

- 1, C

- 102 and C

- 103) upstream of STAs andS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 16 be fed by pumps. Water conveyed out of the reservoirs into the STAs would be
controlled.

5.3.5.13 Alternative M

This alternative is a minimal approach that reduces both the number of project
features and has the smallest footprint practicable

. It r elies on trenches and small detention areas to capture and store water and focuses the restoration
effort on saltw ater wetlands and nearshore areas of the Bay. It i nclud es pump stations, culverts, spreader canals and plugging of mosquito ditches.

5.3.5.14 Alternative N

This is a “no holds barred” alternative designed for ecological lift with little

con cern regarding costs. It i ncludes an upstream impoundment and a full array
of construction features wherever needed , as well as water treatment plants

. L- 31E is completely removed south of the Florida City Canal

.

5.3.6 Initial Screening of Alternative P lans

After initial review of the alternatives, the team concluded that some alternatives were extremely similar and some features should be combined

, therefore eliminating some alternatives. The rationale for the combination of certain alternatives was that the features and operations of these alternatives were too similar in cost and expected benefits such that there would be no discernible differences when comparing plans. Further consideration led to the
decision to eliminate some alternatives based on anticipated significant construction or operating costs, environmental impacts, or expected benefits. In other words, if the same array and level of benefits could be achieved at a lesser cost, the more expensive of the alternative s was eliminated

. TABLE 5-2 lists
each alternative that was eliminated as well as the reason for elimination. In

summary:

**•** Alternative C , D and E features were substantially the same and would likely achieve similar benefits

. N et f eatures from Alt C and D were added
to Al ternative E and Alt ernatives C and D were eliminated

.

**•** Alternatives F and L were both built from the basics in the Yellow Book Plan but also incorporated a combination of STAs and reservoirs to capture, store and release flows. Due to their similarity to Alternative J which also uses a combination of reservoirs and STAs, net features from
both Alternatives were added to Alternative J and Alternatives F and L
were eliminated.

**•** Alternatives G and H were both minimal approaches similar to
Alternative M ; therefore, Alternatives G and H were eliminated and net
features from both alternatives were added to Alternative M.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 17 **•** Alt ernative I, which included a desalinization plant

, was eliminated due to high operational costs and environmental degradation due to the
creation of un desirable brine by

- product.

**•** Alternative K , which included package treatment plants instead of STAs, was eliminated due to high operational cost and environmental degradation due to the creation of undesirable effluent by

- product.

**•** Alternative N , a “no holds barred” approach to restoration was deemed too costly and was eliminated from further consideration.

TABLE 5-2: IN ITIAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

INITIAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

Alternative Description Carried

Forward
? Reason
for Elimination

A Future Without Project Condition Yes

YB Yellow Book (Restudy) alternative; includes extensive use of STAs, some canal and ditch backfilling, pumps, and

connector canals from C

- 102 to C -103,

and from C

- 1 to the L

- 31E borrow

canal. Uses culverts and risers under L

31E L evee to remov e obstacle to flow. Yes

C Similar to YB, but uses some gravity flow instead of pumps. Removes the L

31E L evee to remove obstacle to flow and backfills all major drainage canals to recreate historic sloughs. No Similarity to Alternative E; net

features carried

over to E

D Identical to C but adds minor features including road removal and more ditch backfilling. No Similarity to Alternative E; net

features carried

over to E

E Deviates from YB and C by adding reservoirs to provide water to the project areas during the dry season;

unlike C does not remove L-31E L evee. Yes, with

net
features

from C &

D

F Largely resembles YB but attempts to improve the ecological lift by adding reservoirs and reducing STA sizes. No Benefits are similar to YB but at a higher cost; also similar to J& L; net features

added to J

G Minimizes construction for a less expensive approach: for examples, smaller pumps and spreader canals, less

STA acreage , and greater reliance on No Similarity to M; net

features added to MS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 18 water management operational changes to achieve objectives.

H Resemble s G but in lieu of STAs , uses polis hing ponds and lateral ditches to provide water treatment. No Similarities to M;

net features added to

M

I Resembles YB but extends the C

102/103 connector canal northward and proposes a desalinization plant for water supply. No High operational costs

and environmental degradation due to

desalinization plant byproducts

J Maximizes redirection of flow to natural flowways; includes a

combination of reservoirs and STAs to capture flows from canals; does not
attempt to recreate historic sloughs. Yes, with

net
features

from F &

L

K Resembles YB but uses package treatment plants in lieu of STAs to significantly reduce land acquisition

costs. No High operational costs

and environmental degradation due to

water treatment plant byproducts

L Resembles YB but uses a combination

of reservoirs and STAs instead of STAs alone to cleanse and store water; improves water availability and reduces cost in comparison to YB. No Similarity to F & J;

net features added to J

M Strives to meet project objectives with the smallest footprint and smallest

number of constructed features possible. Yes, with

net
features

from G &

H

N A “no holds barred” approach with limited concern with costs; provides for

construction features wherever needed seeking maximum ecological lift. No Projected cost more

than twice the inflated

YB cost

As a result of the initial screening

, Alternatives A, YB, E, J, and M were carried forward. Three more alternatives were developed to ensure a full array of project measures was considered . These are:

**•** Alternative P: Designed to maximize ecological benefits while disregarding costs or other potential constraints. It includes features such as culverted roadways and a complete removal of the L

- 31E levee . This would allow target salinity levels in Biscayne Bay to be met, benefitting
the nearshore area and saltwater wetlands.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 19 **•** Alternative Q : Crafted to provide an alternative that was more aligned with the possible location of the proposed C

- 111 Spreader Canal

. The team attempted to design this alternative to avoid the more costly real estate and also to utilize more passive water flow to reduce costs rather than using pumps. Alternative Q does not include reservoirs. This alternative is intended to reduce proposed infrastructure to the minimum needed for the redistribution of canal discharges

. It also maintains existing infrastructure to the extent possible to reduce constru ction costs

, including the L- 31E Levee

, but allows eastward surface water flow through this levee. The intent of this alternative is to provide maximum passive storage of water particularly in the Model Lands area and the areas just west of the L

- 31E Levee.

**•** Alternative S : Added as a n on-s tructural alternative that proposed operational changes to hold water higher in the existing canals. Benefits would be achieved by increasing the groundwater flow to the Bay. Concerns for this alternative include purchase of lands that may become flooded and effects on the level of service of flood protection.

The addition of the three plans resulted in the following secon dary array of alternative plans.

5.3.7 Secondary Array of Alternative P lans

The secondary array of alternatives included:

**•** No Action Alternative

**•** Alt ernative YB

**•** Alt ernative E

**•** Alt ernative J

**•** Alt ernative M

**•** Alt ernative P

**•** Alt ernative Q

**•** Alt ernative S

The team continued to screen the alternatives, eliminating Alternative P because it produced results similar to the less expensive Alternative E

. Alternative S was eliminated because it would reduce the ability to control water
levels west of the L

- 31E levee and therefore not meet t he flood protection
constraint

.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 20 TABLE 5-3: SECONDARY ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES SECONDARY ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES: A, YB, E, J, M plus new O, P, Q, S

Alternative Description Carried

Forward? Reason
for Elimination

A Future Without Project Condition Yes

YB Yellow Book (Restudy) alternative Yes, as a point

of comparison Above allowable

inflated YB cost
limit ($461,983,000*)

E See description above No Above allowable

inflated YB cost
limit

J See description above No Above allowable

inflated YB cost
limit

M See description above Yes

O Developed as a compromise between M & Q. Reduces cost by removing a spreader canal (southern spreader) which has high real estate costs. Yes

P Another “no holds barred” alternative; this alternative is designed to achieve target salinity levels in the Bay. No Benefits similar to E but at a higher cost

Q Designed to align with possible location

of C

- 111 spreader canal; seeks passive water flow versus pumps; does not include reservoirs; attempts to avoid costly real estate. Yes,
maintained

to refine

constructio

n costs Above allowable

inflated YB cost
limit

S Non

- structural alternative that uses operational changes to hold water higher in existing canals; benefits achieved by increasing groundwater flow to the Bay. No Would cause groundwater to rise

within communities west of project area; would likely cause flooding at

Homestead Air

Force Base, impacting Hom eland Security

* 200 7 cost s

As a result, the remaining alternatives included No Action Alternative , YB, E, J, M and Q

. General descriptions of these intermediate alternatives are provided below, and specific details are included in Appendix F (Plan Formulation ).S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 21 No Action Alternative : Future w ithout

- project condition (FWO) or no action plan. This alternative reflects the most probable future scenario without a proj ect being constructed; no costs were included for this plan. The study area is most influenced by the land use projections for 2050, which project a decrease in agricultural and natural land uses and an increase in urban land uses. Potential effects of this change include: decreasing groundwater recharge, decreasing dry season canal flows, increasing stormwater flows, and decreasing agricultural nutrient outflows. Secondary impacts on the environment may include: increasing exotic vegetation, decreasing native vegetation, decreasing freshwater wetland habitat, and decreasing fish and wildlife. A full description
of this alternative is included in Section 4 (Future Without Project Condition).

Alterna tive YB : This is the Y ellow Book plan as further developed by the
BBCW team. The plan includes pump stations, spreader swales, STAs, flowways, levees, culverts and backfilling canals

. The plan covers 13,600 acres from the Deering Estate at C

- 100C, south to the FPL Turkey Point power plant, generally along L

- 31E. The costs from the 1999 Restudy for this alternative were escalated to 2005 price levels for comparison with the other alternatives. Real estate costs were recalculated based on current land use and development.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 22 FIGURE 5-4 : ALTERNATIVE YELLOW BOOKS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 23 TABLE 5-4 : SU MMARY OF MEASURES

– ALTERNATIVE YB
Sub-component Deering Cutler L- 31E Flow/

North Canal

Flowway Barnes Sound

Wetlands Management

Measure

Reservoir (ac.) N/A N/A N/A N/A

STA in acre

- ft

(ac@depth) N/A (1)STA -C1

400 ac @ 3’ =

1,200 ac- ft (1)2250ac@3’= 6,750ac- ft (1)1650x3’=

4950 ac- ft (1)STA

- M1

350@3’=1050

ac

- ft

Pump(s)/sizes (cfs) (1) PU

- D1

50 cfs (1) PU

- C1
- 200 cfs (1) PU

- C2
-

200 cfs (1) – 200 cfs C1 (1) – 300 cfs C1 (2) 200 cfs

C-102 / C-103

into STA (1)PU

- NC1

- 200cfs (1)PU

- NC1

- 200cfs (1)PU

- M1 -50

cfs

Levees (ft./cyd) N/A (1)L

- C1

- west of spreader (4+ miles) N/A N/A

Canals (ft./cyd) (1)C -D1600 ft (160 th N/A Street Ditch) (1)

- new linking canal (1) lined canal

west of landfill

– connect C -1

at diversion plug (1)3,800’ (1)C

- M1

Southward into

Model Lands

Spreader canals N/A 1 size TBD Approx 4+

miles (1) spreader

swale east of L

31E (1)SC

- NC1

East of L -31E (1)SC

- M1S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 24 Plugs vs. backfilling

canals Fill mosquito

ditches in

wetlands – 20 plugs, 3ft deep

x 8ft wide 1-Plug (1)plug

Backfill Military canal(1)plugBackfill North

Canal (1)plug-C-1

canal

Backfill North

Canal east to
S.W. 112 th N/A

Ave

Culverts weirs & pipes (2)CC

- D1 -1

42”- Culverts (1)S

- D1 -100ft long set 2.5 ft

NGVD weirs (4)CC -C

–Culverts (43)CC -H- flap

gated Culverts

36” (7)CC

- NC CC

- M1

Southern end

of L -31E

Unique

measures N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative E : A combination of reservoirs, STAs and pumps were sized to capture up to 90 percent of the water currently available from existing canals C

1, C

- 102 and C

- 103. The water budget was restricted to water currently
available as no additional water sources coul d be identified. This alternative also attempted to recreate some of the historic sloughs that were located in the area and fed Biscayne Bay. Alternative E differed from YB and Alternative C in two areas: 1) it included reservoirs to provide water to the project area during the dry season (only one of two alternatives to have this feature); and 2) i t
removed the L- 31E Levee

.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 25 TABLE 5-5 : SUMMARY OF MEASURES

– ALTERNATIVE E

Management

Measure Sub-component

Deering Cutler L- 31E Flow/

North Canal

Flowway Barnes Sound

Wetlands

Reservoir (ac.) N/A (1) R -C1 -725

ac@10’ 7,250ac- ft (1) R

- H1

- 450

ac@10’= 4500

ac

- ft (1) R

- H2

- 820ac@10’=

8200 ac- ft (1) R

- H3

- 525@10’= 5250

ac

- ft (1) R

- H4

- 725ac@10’=7250

ac

- ft N/A

STA in acre

- ft

(ac@depth) N/A (1) STA

- C1

- 207 ac@3ft

621 ac- ft (1) STA

- H1

- 475

ac@3’=1425 acft (1) STA

- H2

- 965ac@3’=

2895ac- ft (1) STA

- H3

-

510@3’=

1530ac- ft (1) STA

- H4

-840@3’=2520acft N/A

Pump(s)/sizes (cfs) (1) PU

- D1 - 50

cfs (1) PU

- C1

– 200cfs (1) PU -C2 – 5

cfs (1) PU -C3 –

620 cfs (1) PU

- H1

- 100cfs (1) PU

- H2
-

370cfs (1)PU -H3 250cfs (1)PU -H4 400cfs (1) PU

- M1

- 40cfs (1) PU

- M2

- 10cfs

Levees (ft./cyd) (1)L -C1 size 3ft H, 8,000ft long

Canals (ft./cyd) (1)

– CC

- D1
- 600’ BP -C1 5000’ (620 cfs cap.) (1) CC

- D2
- 3,500’ lined (1) BP

- H1 (1)BP

- H2 Bypass canals for

C-102 reservoirs (1)

- CC

- M1S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 26 Spreader canals N/A BP

- C1 N/A (1) SC

- M1

- 5,000’

Plugs vs. backfilling

canals All mosquito

ditches are plugged and

allowed to fill

in. (1)

– SC

- CC

1 – 5.5 miles long. (1)PG

- H1 plug/Backfill

North Canal plug e-w and mosquito ditches Backfill L

- 31E from FL City

to Card Sound

&

Remove
Tallahassee

roadway

200’ sections removed every

1000’

Culverts weirs & pipes (1) S

- D1

- 40’long- Weir

( 1) CC

- D3

culvert 70 ft (2) PG

C1,PG- C2 &

Backfill mosquito

ditches (10) S

- H1 -10-

culverts

Culverts under

FPL service road (3)S

- M1 -3

culverts

Unique

measures N/A (1) CC

- C2 (1) CC

- C5 (1) CC

- C7

100 cfs WWR Grade sloughs

100 cfs WWR

Remove L -31E

Levee Recreated slough’s Long Slough

Alternative J : A combination of reservoirs and STAs attempting to capture flows of varying amounts per canal (78 percent for C

- 1; 88 percent for C

- 102 and 81 percent for C

- 103) based on water currently available. The rationale for using current water budget information as opposed to future values is the same
as for Alternative E . The scientific focus for establishing reservoir size was based on attempting to achieve certain durations of consecutive days of zero flow to the coastal wetlands via canal structures. This alternative did not attempt to recreate any historic sloughs and in brief used less water than Alterative E

.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 27 TABLE 5-6 : SUMMARY OF MEASURES

– ALTERNATIVE J

Sub-component Deering Cutler L- 31E Flow Barnes Sound

Wetlands Management

Measure

Reservoir (ac.) N/A (1) R -C1 -100

ac@10’= 1,000ac- ft (1) R

- H1

- 100

ac@ 10’=1000

ac

- ft (1) R

- H2

- 100ac@10’=1000

ac

- ft N/A

STA in acre

- ft

(ac@depth) N/A (1) STA -C1 (East) -207

ac@ 3ft =621

ac

- ft (1) STA -C1 (West)

500 ac @ 3

ft= 1,500 ac- ft (1) STA

- H1 333

ac @ 3’ = 999 ac

ft (1) STA

- H2 1,283 ac @

3’=3849 ac- ft (1) STA

- H3

– 1085

ac@3’=3255 acft (1) STA

- H4

– 540 ac@3’=1620

ac

- ft N/A

Pump(s)/sizes (cfs) (1) PU

- D1 -50

cfs (1) PU

- C1

- 400 cfs (1) PU

- C2
- 5cfs (1) PU

- D2

- 150cfs (1) PU

- H1

- 400cfs (1) PU

- H2
-

400cfs (1) PU

- M1

- 25cfs (1) PU

- M2

- 10cfs (1) PU

- M3

- 25cfs

Levees (ft./cyd) (1)L

- C1 size 3ft H, 8,000ft long N/A Remove L -31E

levee

Canals (ft./cyd) (1)

– CC

- D1

– 600’ (1) CC

- D2

- 3,500’ lined (1) BP -C1 –

5000’ (1) CC

- H1 (1)CC

- H2 (1)

- CC

- M1

Spreader canals N/A (1)

– SC

- CC -1

– 5.5 miles long. N/A (1) SC -M1S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 28 Plugs vs. backfilling

canals All mosquito

ditches are plugged and

allowed to fill

in. (2) PG

C1,PG- C2

& Backfill mosquito

ditches (3)PG

- H9 -11 plug/ backfill military

canal from

coastal structure

west to L -31E, plug drainage & mosquito ditches Backfill L

- 31E from FL City

to Card Sound

& Remove

Tallahassee

roadway

200’ sections removed every 1000’, Plug drainage

& mosquito

ditches

Culverts weirs & pipes (1) S

- D1
- 40’long- Weir

( 1) CC

- D3

culvert 70 ft (1) CC

- C2 (1) CC

- C3 (1) CC

- C4 (1) CC

- C5 (1) CC

- C7 (10) S

- H1 -10-

culverts (3)S

- M1 -3

culverts

Unique

measures WWR
50 cfs Operational

Changes WWR
25cfs Operational

Changes Long Slough

restoration/

Spreader

system Operational

Changes

Alternative M : This is the minimal alternative that uses the smallest number of constructed features and the smallest footprint possible to make use of mutual water management features to attain the objectives of the project. This alternative also attempts to reduce costs by eliminating some features in addition to using trenches and detention areas instead of reservoirs and STAs.
Detention areas wer e sized based on capturing 80 percent of current flows in the canals. As detention areas cannot pond water as high as reservoirs, a greater
amount of land was used for the detention areas. Revisions to Alternative M reduced the scope by limiting restorat ion to only those wetlands east of L

- 31 E and using the L

- 31 E Canal to convey water and act as a spreader canal.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 29 TABLE 5-7 : SUMMARY OF MEASURES

– ALTERNATIVE M

Sub-componen t Deering Cutler L- 31E Flow/

North Canal

Flowway Barnes Sound

Wetlands Management

Measure

Reservoir (ac.) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Detention Areas

in acre

- ft (ac@depth) N/A (1)DA

- C1

100ac@3.75’=

375ac- ft STA -C1 – 100 ac@ 3.75’ deep N/A

Pump(s)/sizes (cfs) (1)PU

- D1

20cfs (1) PU

- C2

- 20

cfs (1)PU

- C1

620cfs N/A

Levees (ft./cyd) N/A (1)L

- C1 N/A

N/A N/A

Canals (ft./cyd) (1)C

- D1

600’ N/A (1)

- new linking

lined canal west

of landfill

– connect C

- 1 at diversion plug N/A

Spreader canals N/A (1)SC

- C1

- spreader (1)SC

- NC1

East of L -31E (1)SC

- M1

Plugs vs. backfilling

canals N/A (1)PG

- C1 N/A N/A

Culverts weirs & pipes (1)CC

- D2 -70’ (1)S

- D1
40’ weir (1)CC

- C1

Subterranean

pipe 3500’ (20)CC

- H1 -36” N/A

Unique

measures N/A WWR 50cfs WWR 150 cfs N/A

Alternative Q : The intent of Alternative Q is to provide maximum passive storage of water particularly in the Model Lands area and the areas just west of

L- 31 E Levee, and to be aligned with the possible location of the proposed C

- 111 Spreader Canal . This alternative m inimizes costly real estate and utilizes passive water flow rather than pumps to reduce cost. Alternative Q does not include reservoirs. This alternative is intended to reduce proposed
infrastructure to the minimum needed for the redistribution of canal dischargesS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 30 and water volumes associated with anticipated reuse water, while maintaining existing levels of flood risk management in developed areas. It relies on existing infrastructure to the extent possible to reduce construction costs including L

- 31
E Levee but allows eastward surface water flow through this levee. The alternative relies on canal plugs instead of canal filling in specific locations where canals are no longer needed, to reduce costs. Alternative Q assumes
wastewater reuse is available to hydrate lands in presently abandoned and/or underutilized farming areas as polishing wetlands instead of building engineered STAs. Alternative Q is effective in rehydrating both the freshwater and saltwater ecological zones, but not as effective as oth er alternatives in producing nearshore benefits.

TABLE 5-8 : SUMMARY OF MEASURES

– ALTERNATIVE Q

Sub- component Deering Cutler L- 31E Flow Barnes Sound

Wetlands Management

Measure

Reservoir (ac.) N/A N/A N/A N/A

STA in acre

- ft

(ac@depth) N/A (1)FW

- C1 (Flowway)

207 ac@3’=

621ac

- ft N/A N/A

Pump(s)/sizes (cfs) (1)PU

- D1

20cfs (1)PU

- C1

- 5cfs (1)PU

- C2 - 5

cfs (1)PU

- C3

-

400cfs (1)PU

- D2

150 cfs (1)PU

- H1

- 400cfs (1)PU

- H2

-

400cfs (1)PU

- H3

- 50cfs (1)PU

- HM

(relocate existing) (1)PU

- M1 -50cfs

Levees (ft./cyd) N/A (1)L

- C1

3’x2500’ (1)L

- C2

3’x2500’ (1)L

- H1 20,000’x3’ (1) L -M2

4000’x3’x30’wide

Canals (ft./cyd) (1)CC

- D1

600’ (1)LC

- C1

3500 ft (1)CC

- C2

Convey

canal/ pipe (1)SP

- H1 Seepage

Collector Canal N/AS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 31 Spreader canals N/A (1)SC

- C1 12,000 (1)SC

- C2

5,000ft (1)SC

- H1 (1)SC

- H1
- 10’x5’

Plugs vs. backfilling

canals Mosquito

ditches are plugged and

allowed to fill

naturally

-- (1) PG -C1 plug

Fill 3000 ‘ deep and 8’

wide (1)PG

- H1

- 2 plugs, Plug mosquito

ditches - 20 plugs total and

allow to fill

naturally Remove obsolete

roads

Culverts weirs & pipes (1) S

- D1

– culvert (1) S

- D2

– weir 40 ft (?) culverts (5)S

- H1

- 5 (3)CU

- H1 -3 Submerged

culvert (1)CU

- M1 (3)S

- M1 -3

Unique

measure N/A Lennar Flowway N/A N/A

5.3.7.1 Secondary Array of Alternative s Screening

Cost is an important factor in plan selection and was therefore used to screen the intermediate plans. Specifically the principles of Section 902 of WRDA 1986 which limits cost overruns for authorized projects were applied although BBCW is not authorized. Section 902 of WRDA 1986 allows for increases in total project costs of up to 20 percent due to modifications that do not materially change the project’s scope or function without requiring additional authorization.

The total initial cost (including construction and real estate ) reported in the
Yellow Book for the BBCW project was $299,583,000 at F iscal Year 1999 price levels. Increased by 20 percent over the 1999 cost and escalated to Fiscal Year

200 7 price levels, following the principles of Section 902, the cost limit is estimated to be $46 1,983,000

. Alternatives YB, E, J, and Q are above the
escalated cost. Alternatives YB, E and J were therefore eliminated from further consideration though Y B was carried through to the final array as a point of comparison to the Restudy. While Alternative Q exceeded the inflated YB cost
limit it was carried forward to further refine the construction costs.

Alternative O was introduced after this screening as a compromise between
Alternative M and Alternative Q

. Alternative O is described below.S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 32 Alternative O : Blend of Alternatives M and Q that includes the use of flowways, spreader canals, culverts, piping, weirs, canal plugs, mosquito ditch plugs (102 total) and pumps to achieve the overall project goals of restoring and enhancing wetlands and near shore bay habitat by minimizing point source discharges and improving the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water to freshwater and tidal wetlands and to the bay.

TABLE 5-9 : SUMMARY OF MEASURES

– ALTERNATIVE O

Sub-component Deering Cutler L- 31E Flow/

North Canal

Flowway Barnes Sound

Wetlands Management

Measure

Reservoir (ac.) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Detention Areas

in acre

- ft (ac@depth) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pump(s)/sizes (cfs) (1) PU

- D1

- 100 cfs (1) PU

- C1

- 100 cfs (1) PU

- C2 -10

cfs (1) PU

- C3 -10

cfs (1) PU

- H1

– 50cfs (1) PU

- H2 – 500

cfs (1) PU

- H3 – 300

cfs (1) PU

- H5 – 50

cfs (1) PU

- M2

– 50

cfs (1) PU -M1 – 30

cfs (1) PU -M4 – 50

cfs (1) PU -M3 – 20

cfs

Levees (ft./cyd) N/A L- C1

- 6000 ft,

H 3 ft N/A L- M1

Canals (ft./cyd) (1) C -100A –

100 cfs N/A N/A N/A

Spreader canals East ROW of

Old Cutler Rd SC -C1 – 19,700 ft SC

- H1

– SC

- H3

– N/A

Plugs vs. backfilling

canals Plug ditches

downstream

of weir Plug mosquito

ditches Plug ditches east

of L31E Plug mosquito

ditches

Culverts weirs & pipes (1) CC

- D1

– 600 ft (1)CC

- D2 (1) weir S

- D1 (1) CC

- C1

– 100 cfs, 4700

ft (1) CC -C2 pipe 1000ft

– (1) CC

- H1

– 50

cfs (6) CC

- H2 – 48” (1) CC

- H3

– gated (1) CC

- M2 (2) CC -M1 –

12” to 24”S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 33 10 cfs (1) CC

- C3

- 1000 ft – 10

cfs (8) CC

- H4

– 48” (1) CC

- H5 gated (5) CC

- H6 – 48” (1) CC

- H8 – 48” (6) CC

- H7 – 48” (2) CC

- H9 – 48” (3) CC -H10 –

48”

Unique

measures Grade South

1⁄2 of Powers

property N/A N/A N/A

5.3.8 Final Array of Alternative P lans

Five alternatives remained after intermediate plans were screened: No Action
Alternative ( No Action), Alternative YB ( Restudy plan), Alternative M

, Alternative O , and Alternative Q . A sixth alternative, Alternative O Phase 1

, was added to explore opportunities to implement the project in stages. The development of Alternative O Phase 1 is discussed below.

5.3.8.1 Pre

- Alternative F ormulation Briefing Evaluation and Creation of

Alternative O Phase I

The Alternative F ormulation Briefing (AFB) is a major milestone in USACE ’s plan formulation and selection process that occurs when district office is prepared to present the formulation, evaluation and comparison of alternative plans (steps 3 thro ugh 5 of the planning process) and other information that supports the recommended Tentatively Selected Plan ( TSP) . At that time, the district office is expected to address policy issues identified by the division office and USACE Headquarters and raise any known significant issues for discussion with policy reviewers. The chief issue that arose during BBCW AFB meeting in December 2007 and subsequent meeting in January 2008 related to implementation of the project in two stages. This issue resulted in the creation
of an additional alternative called Alternative O Phase 1

.

The BBCW AFB Documentation (USACE September 2007) reported the results of the ecological evaluation and Cost

- Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analyses of
Alternatives No Action , YB, M, O and Q. The analyses identified Alternative O
as the plan that reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits compared to costs, consistent with the Federal objective (i.e. Nation al Ecosystem
Restoration or NER plan). While the NER plan would typically also be the TSP

, Alternative O was instead identified as a conceptual or watershed plan for the entire study area to be implement via two PIRs. The first PIR would contain the analysis to support implementation of a first meaningful stage of restoration, aS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 34 plan called Alternative O Phase I. This plan’s f eatures have stand

- alone benefits

not dependent on other CERP projects

. The second PIR would contain additional analysis and information gained through adaptive management actions to support implementation of the rest of the conceptual plan. The decision to implement the project via two P IRs was based on technical uncertainties and sponsor preference.

Several factors were considered to determine Alternative O Phase I features: lands are in current public ownership that may offer earlier realization of restoration, uncertainties and opportunities to refine knowledge, and the
SFWMD ’s early implementation plans through the now defunct Acceler8

program

. Through the State’s Expedited Construction program , the SFWMD intended to jumpstart restoration in three of the four sub -components comprising the BBCW study area : Deering Estate Flowway, Cutler Wetlands
and L- 31 East Flowway. The BBCW PDT create d Alternative O Phase 1 by determining which Alternative O features were the most s uitable and beneficial
additions to the State . The team identified 12 potential features ba sed on the following three criteria:

**•** provide significant additional benefits ;

**•** provide critical information for development of a second PIR to complete
construction of the TSP and to adapt ively manage the project, consistent with the National Research Council’s Incremental Adaptive Restoration
recommendation for CERP ;

**•** below in cost.

This list of 12 features was additionally refined by considering cost, acres benefited, adaptive management benefits and uncertainties, Savings Clause compliance, and schedule impacts. Alternative O Phase 1 is summarized in

TABLE 5- 10 and described in greater detail are included in Appendix F (Plan
Formulation ).S ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 35 TABLE 5-10 : SUMMARY OF MEASURES

– ALTERNATIVE O PHASE 1

Sub

- component Deering Estate Cutler Wetlands L

- 31E Flow/ North Canal Flow Way Barnes Sound

Wetlands Management

Measure

Reservoirs (ac.) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Detention Areas (ac

ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A

Pumps (cfs) (1) S

- 700

- 100 cfs (1) S

- 701

- 400 cfs (1) S

- 703

– 50cfs (1) S

- 705

– 100 cfs (1) S

- 709

– 40 cfs (1) S

- 710

– 40 cfs (1) S

- 711

– 40 cfs N/A

Levees (ft) N/A N/A N/A N/A
Canals (cfs) (1) C

- 100A

Extension

– 100 cfs (1) C

- 701 Open

Channel

– 400 cfs N/A N/A

Spreader canals (ft) N/A (1) C

- 702

– 19,700

ft (1) C

- 711

– 2,400 ft N/A

Backfilling N/A Plug mosquito

ditches N/A N/A

Culverts / Structures (1) Culvert

– 63 in. (1) Weir S

- D1 (2) Box Culvert

– 6 ft , for flow way, road crossings (4)Culvert: S

- 23

– 36 in (3)Culvert: S

- 706

– 36 in (1)Culvert: S

- 708

– 36 in (2)Culvert: S

- 712

– 36 in (1) Inverted Siphon

S- 707

– two @ 63in N/A

Unique measures Grade south 1⁄2 of Powers property N/A N/A N/A

Key: ac acre ft/cyd feet per cubic yard

ac

- ft acre

- feet in inches

cfs cubic feet per second N/A not applicable

ft foot/feetS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 36 FIGURE 5-5 : FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

– ALTERNATIVE YELLOW
BOOKS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 37 FIGURE 5-6 : FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

– ALTERNATIVE MS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 38 FIGURE 5-7 : FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

– ALTERNATIVE OS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 39 FIGURE 5-8 : FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

– ALTERNATIVE QS ection 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5- 40 FIGURE 5-9 : FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

– ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 6
EVALUATION AND COMPA RISON OF ALTERNATIVE
PLANSSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-1 6.0 EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Upon identification of the final array of alternatives, e ach alternative plan was
evaluated for its effects on the environment (ecological and social benefits) ; how
well it met the project objectives and avoided constraints; benefits were quantified using the previously described performance meas u res ; and costs were calculated for each plan . A n analysis was conducted using Cost Effectiveness

a nd Incremental Cost Analysis (CE/ICA) which maximizes environmental benefits compared to costs and resulted in the identification of the National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) plan. Subsequently all alternatives were evaluated using the Principles and Guide lines (P&G) criteria, the four system of accounts (Completeness, Acceptability, Efficiency and Effectiveness), and the

Next- Added Increment Analysis. Upon completion of the evaluation and comparison the TSP was identified.

6.1 ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECT S OF FINA L ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVES

Under the No Action Alternative, there would be a continual degradation of biological communities that are presently exposed to point source canal discharges, and the estuarine communities along Biscayne Bay would continue to experience hypersaline conditions adversely affecting the ove rall health and productivity of these sensitive marine resources

. Freshwater wetlands west of
the L

- 31 E C anal would be subject to urban and commercial development.

The project alternatives (Alternative M , Alternative Q , Alternative O and
Alternative O Phase 1 ) would all cause similar effects on resources within the study area and immediately adjacent to the project site since they utilize the

sa me project footprint

. Therefore, some of the resources in this chapter are impacted by all four alternatives equally

. The difference among alternatives, in the cases where they do differ, would be of magnitude rather than type of impact, as the primary o bjective of all the alternatives is to provide overland flow and hydrological connectivity to rehydrate freshwater wetlands, saltwater wetlands, and nearshore bay habitat while reducing point source discharges into Biscayne Bay.

The most significant bene ficial effects of the proposed project would be achieved in the coastal wetlands and adjacent estuaries

. Generally, project benefits would increase directly as canal water is spread overland through the coastal wetlands, into the estuaries and along the n earshore of Biscayne Bay

. All alternatives can reduce point source canal water discharge and provide overland flow to hydrate the coastal marine biological communities

. Minimizing the damaging canal discharges during peak flows and redistribution of thos e flows through culverts into adjacent wetlands will improve the salinity regime and
result in a healthier estuarine environment.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-2 The environmental baseline used to evaluate project impacts vary for the
evaluations of different resources. Wetland habitats along with fish and wildlife resources were evaluated against an existing condition baseline, whereas land use and population projections were based on urban development boundary predictions.

6.1.1 Climate

None of the with or without project conditions will have a measurable impact on climate conditions within the study area. During the period between the present
and Year 2050, south Florida should experience a full multi

- decadal cycle of Atlantic hurricane activity. Curr ently, the area is in an active phase of this cycle that started in 1995. This active phase followed a 25

- year period of low hurricane activity. This suggests that between the present and Year 2050, the area would complete this active phase, pass through another low activity period, and begin another active phase. Global climate change is expected to result in increased temperature, increased evapotranspiration and reduced rainfall.

6.1.1.1 No Action Alternative

Not anticipated to a ffect climate patterns in the region. Of the considered alternatives, the no action alternative provides the least ability to mitigate the probable changes in the regional climate.

6.1.1.2 Alternative M

Not anticipated t o a ffect climate patterns in the region. Relative to the other with project alternatives, Alternative M provides the least ability to mitigate for the probable changes in the regional climate.

6.1.1.3 Alternative Q

Not anticipated to a ffect climate patterns in the region. Of the considered alternatives, Alternative Q provides the greatest ability to augment storage to partially mitigate against climate change effects such as decreased rainfall; however, the large freshwater wetland area tar geted for rehydration is the most affected by climate change induced additional evapotranspiration.

6.1.1.4 Alternative O

Not anticipated to a ffect climate patterns in the region. Altern a tive O is somewhat less capable of mitigating the eff ects of climate change induced reduction in rainfall; however, it is less likely to fail due to increased evapotranspiration as compared to Alternative Q.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-3 6.1.1.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Not anticipated to a ffect climate patterns in the region. Alternative O, Phase 1 is somewhat less capable of mitigating the effects of climate change induced reduction in rainfall than Alternative O; however, it is less likely to fail due to increased evapotranspiration since it h as a smaller freshwater wetland footprint.

6.1.2 Physical Landscape: Geology, Topography and Soils

Soils and topography within the project site are expected to change under all
alternatives

. It is not expected that geology would be impacted under any
alternative.

6.1.2.1 No Action Alternative

The geologic conditions below the surface would remain relatively unchanged, with the exception of the groundwater. The groundwater would be most affect ed by sea level rise which is expected to be in the range from 8 inches to 24 inches over the 50 year span of the project. Despite changes to water management operations within the basin, sea level rise is expected to alter groundwater flow patterns and i ncrease the potential for saltwater intrusion along the South Dade
Coastline.

Soil conditions may be altered in the agricultural and upland areas by residential and/or industrial development. This soil may be removed, accreted, or built upon. Soils within the upland and coastal wetlands are not expected to
be disturbed. In rare instances, some development may occur in wetland areas with proper permitting from the local governing agencies. As a result, these wetland soils would be drained and/or displaced with fill materials to support development.

6.1.2.2 Alternative M

The soil and groundwater conditions for this Alternative would be very similar to
that of the No Action Alternative for most of the project study area. Along the
Cutler Wetlands and L

- 31E Saltwater Wetlands, increased groundwater stages
will reduce saltwater intrusion at least relative to that which is expected under
the No Action Alternative. Rock beneath the surface would be impacted only in
the immediate area of excavations.

Soil condition changes resulting from land use changes would be somewhat less than that expected for the No Action Alternative. Soil conditions would b e alter ed in the infiltration areas and the spreader canals because of soil removalSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-4 at excavations or accretion over flow ways due to increased vegetative growth

. Additionally, construction of levees would result in soil disturbance.

6.1.2.3 Alternative Q

Given that this project has the largest footprint of the final array of alternatives, its impact to soil and groundwater conditions is the most significant relative to the No Action Alternative. Relative to the No Action Alternative, the diversio n of water into Alternative Q freshwater wetlands that are located miles from the shoreline will probably result in an acceleration of saltwater intrusion into the groundwater system in the immediate vicinity of the L

- 31E levee though it may protect the gr oundwater aquifer immediately below the targeted freshwater
wetlands. Rock beneath the surface would be impacted only in the immediate
area of excavations.

Soil conditions may be altered by levee construction, spreader canals and pump
statio ns

. These features would locally degrade soil conditions, but creation of hydration areas will eventually increase the soil through increased organic accumulation from decomposing plant life. Since this project has the largest footprint its impact on soi l conditions would be the greatest of the final array of
alternatives.

6.1.2.4 Alternative O

The magnitude of soil and topographic impacts of this alternative are less than that expected for Alternative Q since its footprint is smaller. The geologic conditions below the surface would remain relatively unchanged, with the exception of the groundwater

. Since the freshwater wetlands targeted for rehydration in this project are located closer to the shoreline and because a significant portion o f the available water will be diverted directly to the saltwater wetlands, this project should result in a reduction of saltwater intrusion into the groundwater aquifer relative to the No Action Alternative. Rock beneath the surface would be impacted only in the immediate area of
excavations.

Soil conditions may be altered by levee construction, spreader canals and pump
stations

. These features would locally degrade soil conditions, but creation of hydration areas will eventually increas e the soil through increased organic accumulation from decomposing plant life. The impact on soil conditions for this alternative would be less than that projected for Alternative Q.

6.1.2.5 Alternative O Phase 1

The magnitude of soil and topographic impacts of this alternative are less than that expected for Alternative O since its footprint is smaller. The geologicSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-5 conditions below the surface would remain relatively unchanged, with the exception of the groun dwater

. Since the freshwater wetlands targeted for rehydration in this project are minimal and a greater proportion of available water will be diverted directly to the saltwater wetlands, this project should
result in a reduction of saltwater intrusion in to the groundwater aquifer relative
to the Alternative O as well as Alternative M and the No Action Alternative. Rock beneath the surface would be impacted only in the immediate area of

excavations.

Soil conditions may be altered by levee, s preader canal and pump station
construction

. These features would locally degrade soil conditions, but creation of hydration areas will eventually improve the soil through increased organic accumulation from decomposing plant life. The impact on soil con ditions for this alternative would be less than that projected for Alternative P.

6.1.3 Hydrology

The hydrologic evaluation of the project alternatives was done using various hydrologic, hydrodynamic, and hydraulic models in order to estimate project benefits, determine flood impacts, and predict nearshore salinity impacts.

The South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM 2x2) is the regional hydrologic model used in the original CERP planning process. Though this model was not used to directly simulate the various project alternatives, many of the assumptions and boundary conditions for the existing conditions, base conditions, and future conditions are derived from the SFWMM itself. For this reason, this document references several versions of the 2x2 mod el.

To determine the impact of the project on nearshore salinity patterns, a coupled watershed / hydrodynamic modeling effort was undertaken. This modeling system was composed of the WASH 123D upland hydrology model and the
TABS

- MDS hydrodynamics bay model. WASH 123D is a physics

- based numerical code that simulates the upland watershed as a combination of 1

- dimensional canal networks, 2

- dimensional overland flow regimes, and 3

- dimensional groundwater flow. The TABS

- MDS model is a 2 or 3

- dimensional
f inite element hydrodynamic and salinity model as applied to Biscayne Bay. The upland WASH 123D model was used to feed surface and subsurface freshwater flows as boundary conditions on the western side of the TABS

- MDS Biscayne Bay Salinity model. In addit ion to using these two models to predict nearshore salinity, the PDT originally intended to use the WASH / TABS modeling system to estimate project benefits. Though the PDT did use WASH123D and TABS

MDS output for some of the initial plan formulation bene fits evaluations, the final array of alternatives was evaluated using a less complex benefits quantification system that relied only upon some of the TABS results. The WASH 123D output was not used in the final benefits calculations to evaluateSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-6 freshwater wetland rehydration effects because the PDT considered this WASH 123D output as no more reliable than estimates provided by a simplified rehydration estimation equation. A discussion of the WASH123D and TABS

MDS modeling efforts is included in Appendix A

.

The flood impacts analysis of the tentatively selected plan was accomplished using several modeling tools. In the Deering Estates and L

- 31E Flow Way areas, the flood protection analysis was done using the Hydrologic Engineering Center River Analysis System (HEC

- RAS) model. In the Cutler Wetlands Flow

W ay area, the Finite Element Surface Water Modeling System (FESWMS) was applied. In the Homestead F reshwater Wetlands Impoundment, the USGS MODBRANCH model was applied. All of the flood

- protection modeling efforts
are discussed in detail in Annex C of this document.

The benefits assessment tool CBEEM (Criterion Based Ecological Evaluation Matrix) al so includes two simple hydrologic modeling tools. The first is the CBEEM spreadsheet itself which estimates the daily amount of water available for diversion by project features using the historic coastal structure flows as
recorded in the SFWMD DBHYDRO o n- line database. Within the CBEEM spreadsheet is a simplified wetland rehydration equation which is used to estimate the net acreage of freshwater that could be rehydrated given a quantity
of diverted water. This simplified method of estimating freshwate r wetland rehydration does not take into account rainfall, evapo

- transpiration, or groundwater conditions so its predictions are considered to have a high degree of uncertainty. While the use of a very simple equation to estimate freshwater
wetland benefi ts may have resulted in an increase in the uncertainty surrounding the estimates of freshwater wetland benefits, the decision to forego additional WASH 123D modeling efforts did reduce the time and cost of evaluating the various alternatives. The CBEEM to ol uses a limited amount of output from the TABS

- MDS Biscayne Bay model as part of estimating benefits that arise from changes to nearshore or saltwater wetland salinity conditions. The water reservations analysis (Annex C) re quired to identify water made available to the natural system by the project was done using historic flows
extracted from the DBHYDRO database.

Underlying the modeling efforts conducted for this study were the assumptions
used to drive these models. In the case of coastal structure f lows used in the CBEEM benefits estimation tool, the team had the choice of using either
simulated flows from CERP versions of the SFWMM2x2 or historic flows from the DBHYDRO database. The team evaluated the uncertainty in the accuracy of 2x2 predicted fl ows in the four basins by considered the current validity of some water demand assumptions used in the model, and compar ing the simulated
flows to DBHYDRO flows. The team decided to use DBHYDRO flows as the bestSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-7 available data for representing future flow conditions since they appeared to provide the most conservative estimate of future flow conditions.

6.1.3.1 No Action Alternative

Some fundamental aspects of hydrologic conditions are expected to change in the
southern Miami

- Dade C ounty watershed by Y ear 2050

. Sea level is expected to
rise between 8 and 24 inches over the next 50 years. If the freshwater heads currently maintained under operational rules remain the same in Year 2050, the
rise in sea level would effectively reduce the groundwater slope from the coastal ridge toward Biscayne Bay, thus reducing head pressure and groundwater flux toward the Bay

. Under this scenario, the Biscayne Aquifer is likely to experience greater intrusion of salt water

. The ability of the watershed to store water either within wetlands or the aquifer is expected to diminish, resulting in increased intensity of stormwater discharges through the primary canals

. Reduced water storage reduces the capacity of the flood cont rol system to accommodate runoff, and would likely lead to increased frequency of flooding

events.

Hydrologic modeling results generated by the South Florida Water Management
Model indicate that water withdrawals for agriculture and urban uses affect the quantity of fresh water that ultimately flows into Biscayne Bay (SFWMD

, 2000)

. Results from the SFWMM modeling done prior to 2006 indicate that without

constraints on groundwater withdrawals , well field demand in the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project area will increase by 89 percent and agricultural demand by four percent by 2020. This would result in up to a 23 percent decrease of surface water discharges to Biscayne Bay through the primary
canals . Subsequent to this modeling effort, the SFWMD has agreed with the

Miami

- Dade Water and Sewer Authority (MDWASA) that future water demands
would be met t hrough an increase in reuse and conservation measures and would not require new groundwater withdrawal authorizations. These conservation / reuse measures should help ensure that future reductions in
water available to the basin are minimal.

In summary, under the No Action Alternative, freshwater flux to Biscayne Bay is likely to diminish, flooding may increase, and stormwater runoff intensity from large storms will likely increase

. The primary drivers for these changes

are sea

- level rise, and greatly expanded impervious areas due to development in
the watershed

.

6.1.3.2 Alternative M

Alternative M includes the capacity to pump up to 20 cfs at Deering Estates, 620 cfs at the Cutler Wetlands, no water from the C

- 102 basin (gravity flow), and 50
cfs in the C

- 103 basin. Using the pump sizes and the historic flow records forSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-8 each of the basins, an estimated 9% of the C

- 100 flows, 90% of the C

- 1 flows,
none of the C

- 102 flows, and 20% of the C

- 103 flows would be diverted into
freshwater and saltwater wetlands by this alternative. Using pump stations,
this alternative would divert an average of approximately 144,000 acre ft annually out of an average annual total canal flow of 368,000 acre

- ft. An
additional volume of water estimated to be b etween 10,000 and 20,000 ac

- ft would flow by gravity through the culverts installed through the L

- 31E levee.
Under the full CERP build out that includes the Wastewater Reuse Project, an additional 108,000 acre

- ft of water would be available for distributio n to the
various wetlands.

Since the pump stations included in this alternative would be operated using on/off triggers very similar to the existing coastal structure operating schemes, over drainage of adjacent wetlands is not anticipated from pump op erations.

6.1.3.3 Alternative Q

Alternative Q includes the pumping capacity to divert up to 170 cfs at Deering Estates, 400 cfs at the Cutler Wetlands, 400 cfs at the C

- 102 Basin, and 500 cfs
at the C

- 103 Basin. Using the pump sizes and the historic flow records for each of the basins, an estimated 46% of the C

- 100 flows, 78% of the C

- 1 flows, 87% of
the C

- 102 flows, and 85% of the C

- 103 flows would be diverted into freshwater
and saltwater w etlands by this alternative. In total, this alternative would divert an average of approximately 294,000 acre ft annually out of an average annual total canal flow of 368,000 acre

- ft . In other words, approximately 80% of
the available flow would be diver ted on an average annual basis

. Under the full
CERP build

- out which includes the Wastewater Reuse Project, an additional 108,000 acre

- ft of water would be available for distribution to the various

wetlands.

A review of some of the preliminary WASH123D modeling output indicated that because this project diverts water from the canals several miles upstream of the existing coastal structures on the C

- 102 and C

- 103 canals, there is a potential for reducing groundwater stages in the reach between the Alternative Q diversion structures on these two canals and the existing coastal structures. Given this apparent effect of alternative, it may be possible that this particular alternative
would exacerbate saltwater intrusion in the C- 102 and C

- 103 basins at leas t directly along the coastline.

6.1.3.4 Alternative O

Alternative O includes the pumping capacity to divert up to 200 cfs at Deering Estates, 400 cfs at the Cutler Wetlands, 550 cfs in the C

- 102 Basin, and 520 cfs
in the C

- 103 Basin. Using the pump sizes and the historic flow records for each of the basins, an estimated 51% of the C

- 100 flows, 78% of the C

- 1 flows, 92% ofSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-9 the C

- 102 flows, and 86% of the C

- 103 flows would be diverted into freshwater and saltwater wetlands by this alternative. In total, this alternative would divert an average of approximately 300,000 acre ft annually out of an average annual total canal flow of 368,000 acre

- ft. In other words, approximately 82% of the available flow would be diverted on an average annual bas is. Under the full
CERP build

- out which includes the Wastewater Reuse Project, an additional 108,000 acre

- ft of water would be available for distribution to the various

wetlands.

Since the pump stations included in this alternative would be operated u sing on/off triggers very similar to the existing coastal structure operating schemes,
and because most of the diver s ion points are located in the lower reaches of the
C- 102 and C

- 103 basins over drainage of adjacent wetlands and depressed canal stages (re lative to the No Action Alternatives) should be minimal for this
alternative.

6.1.3.5 Alternative O Phase 1

This alternative is similar to Alternative O except that most of the features that target freshwater wetlands are not included. Alternative O, Phase 1 includes the pumping capacity to divert up to 100 cfs at Deering Estates, 400 cfs at the Cutler Wetlands, 150 cfs in the C

- 102 Basin, and 120 cfs in the C

- 103 Basin. Using the pump sizes and the historic fl ow records for each of the basins, an
estimated 34% of the C

- 100 flows, 78% of the C

- 1 flows, 66% of the C

- 102 flows,
and 43% of the C

- 103 flows would be diverted into freshwater and saltwater wetlands by this alternative. In total, this alternative would divert an average of approximately 300,000 acre ft annually out of an average annual total canal flow of 216,000 acre

- ft. In other words, approximately 58% of the available flow would be diverted on an average annual basis. Under the full CERP build

- out which includes the Wastewater Reuse Project, an additional 108,000 acre

- ft of
water would be available for distribution to the various wetlands.

FIGURE 6-1 shows the exceedance probability of the total available and diverted flows for all four basins. Based on this figure, it appears that under drought conditions (10 percentile flow) there will be approximately 150,000 acre

ft/year available and t his alternative will divert roughly 80% of it. Under wet conditions (90 percentile flow) there will be approximately 520,000 acre

- ft available of which roughly 55% will be diverted by project features. FIGURE

6-2 t hrough FIGURE 6-5 show the available and diverted flow for each basin on a monthly ba sin

. FIGURE 6-2 shows that under drought (10 percentile flow) and median (50 percentile flow) conditions there will be little to no water
available f or diversion at the Deering Estates features during the dry season (spring months). FIGURE 6-3 shows that under drought conditions (10 percentile flow) there will be little to no water available for diversion to the Cutler Wetlands during the dry season (spring months). During medianSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 10 conditions (50 percentile flow), water will be available in the C

- 1 basin for
diversion to th e Cu tl er Wetlands. FIGURE 6-4 shows that under drought conditions (10 percentile flow) there will be little to no water available in the C

102 basin for diversion to the L

- 31E Northern Wetlands during the dry season (spri ng months). Under median conditions, there is water available in every month of the year for diversion from the C

- 102 canal. FIGURE 6-5 shows that

un der drought conditions (10 percentile flow) in the C

- 103 Basin, the lowest monthly flows available are approximately 70 and 40 acre

- feet which occur in April and May respectively. Under median conditions, the minimum monthly
flow available in the C

- 103 Basin is 1,300 acre

- feet which occurs in April and May.

Exceedance Probability of Total Available and Diverted Flows Within BBCW Study Area (C-100, C-1, C-102, and C-103 Canals) ( DBHYDRO Data 1986-2006)

0 100000 200000 300000 400000 500000 600000 700000 800000

0.00 0.10 0.20 0.30 0.40 0.50 0.60 0.70 0.80 0.90 1.00

Exceedance ProbabilityAnnual Flow (ac-ft/yr) . Total Available Canal Flow

Total Diverted Canal Flow

FIGURE 6-1 : EXCEEDANCE PROBABILI TY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND DIVERTED FLOWS FOR ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 11 C-100 CANAL (Deering Estates)

AVAILABLE AND PUMPED MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY FLOWS FOR ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000 12000 14000 16000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHFLOW (ACRE-FT/MONTH) 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

10 Percentile Pumped Flow

50 Percentile Pumped Flow

90 Percentile Pumped Flow

FIGURE 6-2 : EXCEEDANCE PROBABILI TY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND

DIVERTED FLOWS IN THE C -100 BASINSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 12 C-1 CANAL (Cutler Wetlands)

AVAILABLE AND PUMPED MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY FLOWS FOR ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHFLOW (ACRE-FT/MONTH) 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

10 Percentile Pumped Flow

50 Percentile Pumped Flow

90 Percentile Pumped Flow

FIGURE 6-3 : EXCEEDANCE PROBABILI TY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND

DIVERTED FLOWS IN THE C

- 1 BASINSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 13 C-102 CANAL (L-31E Wetlands North)

AVAILABLE AND PUMPED MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY FLOWS FOR ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHFLOW (ACRE-FT/MONTH) 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

10 Percentile Pumped Flow

50 Percentile Pumped Flow

90 Percentile Pumped Flow

FIGURE 6-4 : EXCEEDANCE PROBABILI TY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND

DIVERTED FLOWS IN THE C -102 BASINSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 14 C-103 CANAL (L-31E Wetlands South)

AVAILABLE AND PUMPED MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY FLOWS FOR ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1

0 5000 10000 15000 20000 25000 30000 35000 40000 45000

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12

MONTHFLOW (ACRE-FT/MONTH) 10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

10 Percentile Pumped Flow

50 Percentile Pumped Flow

90 Percentile Pumped Flow

FIGURE 6-5 : EXCEEDANCE PROBABILI TY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND

DIVERTED FLOWS IN THE C -102 BASIN

6.1.4 Water Management

Quantities and distributions of water through water management operations can
have environmental effects

. These effects include changes to water quality, salinity, and inundat ion of wetlands

. The various alternatives may have different environmental effects based on the quantity, timing, and locations of
the distributions of water

. The water management operations for the different
alternatives are outlined below:

6.1.4.1 No Action Alternative

With the increase in population and infrastructure, the demand for water will increase, and the shortages and restrictions will become more prominent, leading to both economic and environmental d amages

. In the LEC region of
south Florida , groundwater is the predominant source of water for M&I uses ; however, the SFWMD has recently initiated a moratorium on future permitting of addition groundwater consumptive use in southern Miami

- Dade County

. Th is will limit future additional groundwater withdrawals at least within the BBCW study area. None theless, w ith increased mean sea level and potentially lessSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 15 water available for recharge, migration of the underlying salt wedge landward is expected to occur

.

6.1.4.2 Alternative M

Alternative M includes the use of flow ways, culverts, piping, weirs, and plugs and pumps to achieve the overall project goal of restoring nearshore bay habitat by minimizing point source disch arges and improving the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of fresh water to the bay through a more natural flow
pattern.

6.1.4.3 Alternative Q

Alternative Q is intended to reduce the proposed infrastructure to the minimum needed for the redistribution of canal discharges and water volumes associated with anticipated (Yellow Book) reuse water, while maintaining existing levels of
flood risk management in developed areas. The intent is to provide maximum passive storage of water

, particularly in the Model Lands area and the areas just
west of the L- 31 E Levee

. Given the distance between the diversion pump
stations on the C

- 102 and C

- 103 canals, this alternative is the most likely to result in depressed canal stages (relative to the No Action Alternative) in areas directly upstream of the existing coastal struct ures on these two canals.

6.1.4.4 Alternative O

Alternative O includes the use of flow ways, spreader canals, culverts, piping, weirs, canal plugs, 102 mosquito control ditch plugs and pumps to achieve the overall pro ject goals of rehydrating and restoring wetlands and nearshore bay habitat by minimizing point source discharges and improving the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water to freshwater and saltwater wetlands and to the bay. This alternative i s expected to have minimal impact to M&I water supply.

6.1.4.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Since A lternative O Phase 1 is closely related to A lternative O, its

env ironmental goals are very similar: rehydrate and restor e wetlands and

near shore bay habitat by minimizing point source discharges and improve the quantity, quality, timing, and distribution of water to freshwater and saltwater wetlands and to the bay. Al ternative O Phase 1 i ncludes the use of flow ways, spreader canals, culverts, piping, weirs, canal plugs; mosquito control ditch plugs (102 total) and pumps. This alternative is expected to have minimal impact to M&I water supply.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 16 6.1.5 Flood R isk Management

The existing east

- west canal network and the L

- 31E Levee /Canal were designed to provide flood protection and water supply. Flood risk management needs have increased since the original flood control project was constructed and may continue to increase in the future

. As agricultural and urban development continues, the volume, duration, and frequency of floodwaters may increase, and
the actual level of flood risk management may decline in some areas . Sea level rise is expected to reduce the existing level of flood protection. There are opportunities within the B iscayne B ay C oastal W etlands project area to further reduce the extent of damages from flooding through operational and structural changes ; however, the improvement of flood risk management is not an objective of this project

.

6.1.5.1 No Action Alternative

The shift in land use would likely impose additional demands on the flood

cont rol system, especially during heavy rainfall events. The percentage of impervious surface typical of agricultural land is estimated to be less than one percent, but in residential areas it is estimated at 65 percent to 70 percent. Heavy rainfall can quic kly overwhelm onsite stormwater retention systems of
the future constructed environment and overflow into the primary flood control
system which will likely be less effective due to sea

- level rise.

Sea level rise will reduce the ability of the watershed to store runoff water either within wetlands or the aquifer resulting in increased intensity of stormwater discharges through the primary canals. Reduced water storage reduces the capacity of the flood control system to accommodate runoff, and would likely lead to increased frequency of flooding events.

6.1.5.2 Alternative M

A lternative M includes the use of flow ways, culverts, piping, weirs, plugs and pumps to achieve the goal of restoring nearshore bay habitats. Alternative M minimizes point source discharges and improves the quantity, quality, and timing of the freshwater distribution to the bay. Alternative M would maintain existing levels of flood risk management in developed areas through project operations.

6.1.5.3 Alternative Q

Alternative Q includes a new north

- south canal for redistribution of canal discharges and water volumes associated with anticipated wastewater reuse

. None of the alternative features are designed specifically for flood risk management; however, this alternative maintain s existing levels of flood riskSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 17 management in the developed areas and provide s maximum passive storage of
water in the Model Lands areas

, and areas west of L

- 31

.

6.1.5.4 Alternative O

None of the Alternative O features are designed for flood protection; however, existing levels of flood risk management in developed areas would be maintained through project operations of existing and proposed infrastructure.

6.1.5.5 Alternative O Phase 1

None of the Alternative O Phase 1 features are designed to improve flood protection. However this alternative will maintain the existing level of flood risk
management through further optimization of project operations of the existing and proposed control structures. The project team use d a combination of modeling tools ( the HEC

- RAS, FESWMS and MODBRANCH ) to perform an analysis of the flood protection impacts of the various project features. Short summaries of these analys e s are provided below though a full description of this
work is in cluded in A nnex C

A flood impact analysis was performed using HEC

- RAS to determine if the Deering Estates project features would cause or contribute to flooding. This analysis showed that the project features in this area do not cause any significant or adverse increase of water surface elevations in residential areas or local roadways. For the Cutler Wetlands area a HEC

- RAS modeling effort was performed and a review of the existing permitted stormwater facilities was done to determine if the operation of the project features in this area would result in offsite flooding impacts. The conclusions from these two analyses indicate that the project would not cause offsite flooding impacts to adjacent properties. A
third HEC

- RAS modeling effort was condu cted to determine if water diverted
from the C

- 102 and C

- 103 canals in order to rehydrate saltwater wetlands to the
east of the L

- 31E Borrow Canal would result in flooding of non

- project lands. This analysis showed that there was a potential for flooding of lands to the west
of the L

- 31E Borrow Canal if pumping continued once the water surface elevation in the borrow canal reached the elevation of the berm located just west and adjacent to the borrow canal. To eliminate this flooding potential, the Draft Operating Manual (DPOM) includes pump operation triggers that limit pumping
into the L

- 31E Borrow Canal once the critical stage in the borrow canal is
achieved.

A MODBRANCH model was set up to simulate the effect of rehydrating
freshwater wetlands lo cated in the North Canal Impoundment Wetlands feature. In addition to this modeling effort, data from a nearby stormwater detention
area was reviewed to ascertain actual field conditions. Based on the results from
the MODBRANCH simulations and the availa ble stormwater detention areaSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 18 data, it was concluded that the operation of the North Canal Impoundment Wetland would not significantly or adversely affect the level of service for flood protection of adjacent properties.

6.1.6 Water Quality

Future water quality conditions in southern Biscayne Bay are influenced by multiple factors

. The changes in land use and runoff hydrographs are likely to affect the water quality of surface water and groundwater within the watershed

.

Presently, the most prolific contaminant is nitrate, which has been linked to agricultural sources

. As agricultural land uses diminish in the watershed, other contaminants such as ammonia, phosphorus, trace metals and hydrocarbons more typical of urban settings are lik ely to become more common (Alleman et al.

, 1995)

.

Changes to nitrate loading was selected as the primary measure of water quality effects of the project because the east

- west drainage canals within the project area contribute a significant load of nitrog en to Biscayne Bay which is considered to be nitrogen limited. The project team used existing water quality data, existing land use, future land use, and nitrate uptake from water diverted to freshwater and saltwater wetlands to estimate changes to nitrat e loading to Biscayne Bay. A more detailed explanation of water quality impact calculations
is found in the CBEEM portion of A ppendix C

.

In addition to the reduction in nitrate loads from agricultural runoff, the nearshore bay should experience a reduction in ammonia loading coming from the South Dade Landfill and its predecessors

. Though modern stormwater controls should limit the impact of urban development, changes in runoff volume and timing that will occur regardless of whether t he project is constructed may increase the amount of suspended solids, which in addition to reducing water transparency, often transport phosphorus and trace metals

.

6.1.6.1 No Action Alternative

The project team used existing wate r quality data, existing land use, and future land use to estimate changes to nitrate loading due to land use conversion expected under the No Action Alternative

. Approximately two thirds of the existing nitrate loads that r esult from the current agricultural land uses will be eliminated by Year 2050 as agriculture gives way to urban development

. This land use conversion will result in runoff quality, which is characterized by elevated phosphorus, hydrocarbons, and heavy metal concentrations that are typical of urban stormwater (Alleman et al.

, 1995)

. The nearshore bay should experience a reduction in ammonia loading coming from the South Dade Landfill and its predecessors

. Additional flood storage capacity necessary toSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 19 acc ommodate new urban development may result in additional periods of high salinity within the nearshore bay as well as rapid swings in salinity due to the increase in magnitude of flood releases. These high salinity events should be somewhat reduced in magnitude, frequency, and duration as a result of sea level rise over the next 50 years.

6.1.6.2 Alternative M

The diversion of some canal water into the saltwater wetland areas w ill result in a reduction of nutrient loading to the bay and an increase in nutrient loading to rehydrated wetlands. The effect of increased nutrient loading to rehydrated wetlands is not expected to result in significant adverse impact to the vegetation in these wetlands primarily because the phosphorus concentration s in the diverted canal water is relatively low (<10 ppb[parts per billion] total phosphorus [TP]). G iven the limited use of lands west of the L

- 31 E Levee , most of the changes to basin water quality that result from the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses are expected to occur even with A lternative M

. To evaluate the reduction in nitrate loading, the project team used the e stimated volume of water diverted from the canal system by Alternative M and used a wetland nitrate uptake equation (Kadlec and Knight

, 1996) to calculate the reduction in nitrate load delivered to Biscayne Bay. It is assumed that
denitrification rates wi ll not decrease over the life of the project since wetlands are very efficient denitrifiers. Nitrate loading under this alternative is expected to be reduced by approximately 70 percent, which is slightly better than the two

thirds reduction expected for the No Action Alternative

. Thus, Year 2050 water quality conditions under A lternative M are expected to be very similar , or slightly improved

, relative to the No Action Alternative conditions.

6.1.6.3 Alternative Q

The diversion of some canal water into the freshwater wetlands and saltwater
wetland areas w ill result in a reduction of nutrient loading to the bay and an increase in loading to rehydrated wetlands. The effect of increased nutrient loading to rehydrated wetlands is not expected to result in significant adverse impact to the vegetation in these wetlands primarily because the phosphorus concentrations in the diverted canal water is relatively low (<10 ppb TP). T he
substantial use of lands west of th e L

- 31 E Levee in A lternative Q

, should improve water quality in the C

- 102 and C

- 103 basins relative to present conditions given the natural treatment provided by rehydrated wetland areas and the reduction in agricultural runoff. To evaluate the reduction in nitrate loading, the project team estimated the volume of water diverted from the canal system by Alternative Q and used a wetland nitrate uptake equation (Kadlec and Knight, 1996) to estimate the reduction in loads delivered to Biscayne Bay.
The rate of denitrification within the wetlands is assumed to be constant over the life of the project. Approximately 94 percent of the nitrate load will beSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 20 eliminated relative to existing conditions. Thus, Year 2050 water quality conditions under this alternative are expected to be significantly improved

re lative to present and No Action Alternative conditions.

6.1.6.4 Alternative O

The diversion of some canal water into the freshwater and saltwater wetland areas will result in a reduction of nutrient loading to the bay and an increase in loading to rehydrated wetlands. The effect of increased nutrient loading to rehydrated wetlands is not expected to result in significant adverse impact to the vegetation in these wetlands primarily because the phosphorus

concent rations in the diverted canal water is relatively low (<10 ppb TP). The
substantial use of lands west of the L

- 31 E Levee in A lternative O , should improve water quality in the C

- 102 and C

- 103 basins relative to present conditions given the natural treatment provided by rehydrated wetland areas and the reduction in agricultural runoff. To evaluate the reduction in nitrate loading, the project team estimated the volume of water diverted from the canal system by Alternativ e O and used a wetland nitrate uptake equation (Kadlec and Knight, 1996) to estimate the reduction in loads delivered to Biscayne Bay.
The rate of denitrification within the wetlands is assumed to be constant over the life of the project. Approximately 9 5 percent of the nitrate load will be eliminated relative to existing conditions. Thus, Year 2050 water quality conditions under this alternative are expected to be significantly improved relative to present and No Action Alternative conditions. Relative to Alternative Q , this alternative provides essentially the same improvement in water quality
conditions.

6.1.6.5 Alternative O Phase 1

The diversion of some canal water into the freshwater and saltwater wetland areas will result in a reduction of nutrient loading to the bay but an increase in loading to the rehydrated wetlands. The effect of increased nutrient loading to rehydrated wetlands is not expected to result in significant adverse impact to the vegetation in these wetlands primarily because the phosphorus concentrations in the diverted canal water is relatively low (<10 ppb TP). Given
the limited use of lands west of the L

- 31 E Levee , most of the changes to basin water quality that result from the conversion of agricultural lands to urban uses are expected to occur even with A lternative O Phase 1 . To evaluate the

r eduction in nitrate loading, the project team estimated the volume of water diverted from the canal system by Alternative O Phase 1 and used a wetland nitrate uptake equation (Kadlec and Knight, 1996) to estimate the reduction in loads delivered to Biscayn e Bay. The rate of denitrification within the wetlands is assumed to be constant over the life of the project. Approximately 84 percent of the nitrate load will be eliminated by this alternative which is better than theSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 21 results expected for the No Action Alternative

, but less than the results expected
for the full Alternative O or Alternative Q

.

6.1.7 Vegetative Communities

The primary factors influencing the distribution of ve getation in this region are hydropattern, salinity, previous disturbance, and to a lesser extent, nutrient loading and soil type

.

The dominant vegetation community in the region is a matrix of sawgrass prairie with tree islands

. The tree islands vary in vegetation composition, depending upon elevation

. At the highest elevations, the sawgrass prairie
alternates with forested wetlands

. At the lowest elevations near the coast, mangroves replace the freshwater wetlands

. The transition zone between the

man groves and the freshwater prairie is a needle rush

- salt grass zone on the freshwater side, but stunted scrub mangrove on the coastal side

.

The plant community types present in the South Dade Wetlands Management
Area include sa wgrass glades, spike rush and beak rush flats, muhly prairie, cypress stands, native

- dominated forested wetlands, tree islands, mangrove flats, hydric hammocks, and exotic

- dominated forests.

Non- native invasive vegetation species present in the project ar ea include melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia ), Australian pine ( Casuarina spp.), and Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), among others

. The heaviest impacts from invasive species tend to occur in disturbed areas within th e South Dade
Wetlands Management Area, such as abandoned farmland and lands in the immediate vicinity of roads and berms

. Such areas are frequently dominated by nearly monotypic stands of invasive plants

. Elsewhere, these inva sive plants are present in smaller, but no less important numbers in tree islands, marshes, and mangrove forests as a result of long distance seed dispersal

. In other regions of the county, such outlier populations have rapidly expanded to create

addition al problems when left untreated.

All of the alternatives include elements of exotic plant removal

. That action, along with successful redistribution of fresh water into wetland communities

,

w ould retard the growth and spread of invasive, non

- native plant species

. Implementation of any of the alternatives w ould allow for the successful return of native vegetation to areas hydrated. Data from Epibenthic Vegetation Baseline Surveys, Terrestrial Vegetation Mapping, and geographic informat ion system ( GIS ) were used in evaluating impacts amongst the alternatives.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 22 6.1.7.1 No Action Alternative

It is likely that native forested/shrub wetlands and graminoid marshes east of
Card Sound Road not in public ownership will no longer exist as a natural area due to urban development. This is almost certainly true of areas north of Turkey Point

. Future development would also have numerous secondary effects.
There is a possibility that the wetlands in the northern part of the sawgrass marshes in the Model Lands could transition from a sawgrass

- dominated marsh
to cattail

- saltbush

- dominated wetlands due to poor water quality from
residential runoff and decline of available fresh water.

Changes in availability and distribution of fresh water and further disruption of natural sheet flow from discontinuities in hydrology (i.e., due to levees, roads,
canals ) will further exacerbate the changes occurring in the natural freshwat er graminoid marshes, forested/shrub wetlands, marl prairie, tree island and
mangrove ecotones.

Additionally, sea level rise will create the potential for further expansion of salt

tolerant plant species, especially mangroves, into the freshwater marsh a reas.

D isruption of natural fire cycles, and related consequences, would increase in the
future without

- project scenario. Control of fire intensity and extent due to potential for impacts on human infrastructure can encourage establishment of woody plan t species that would normally be eliminated, as well as selection against more fire

- tolerant species such as sawgrass and muhly grass. Reduction of water availability can cause fires to burn more intensely, killing plant species that would normally survive a more natural “cool burning” fire, and permit organic soils to burn. Concurrently, unnatural flooding can inhibit fires and beneficial vegetation changes. Increased urbanization would exacerbate all of these processes.

Tree islands, an important comp onent of the Everglades habitat for a variety of native plant species not adapted to growing directly in flooded marshes, are being impacted by changes in water management and invasion of exotic plant species. The No Action Alternative appears to offer little benefit to offset ongoing detrimental effects.

Urbanization and associated habitat changes and anthropogenic effects (i.e., pets, exotic species releases, wildlife mortality) would negatively affect the
number and occur rence of native vegetative and wildlife species. As the population increases, activities such as all terrain vehicle ( ATV ) usage are expected to increase along with additional associated detrimental effects to the

environment.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 23 An increase is anticipated in the No A ction A lternative project scenario in the spatial coverage of invasive non

- native plant species, such as Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), Australian pine ( Casuarina spp.), and melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia ) due to land disturbance and projected lower water
levels. With the lack of project monitoring and maintenance, there would be an
increase in other exotic plants including shoebutton ardisia ( Ardisia elliptica ) and old world climbing fern ( Lygodium spp.)

. The spread of all these invasive

non

- native plant species has resulted in the conversion of large acreages with a variety of native vegetative species to less diverse, and in some cases mono

specific vegetative cover with reduced value as wildlife habitat.

6.1.7.2 Alternative M

Section 5, FIGURE 5 -6 shows the project footprint and expected areas where wetland vegetation is expected to be impacted by the project. This alternative is designed to focus on rehydrating saltwater wetlands that lie east of the L

- 31E levee. However, a small area of less than 10 acres of freshwater wetlands located at Deering Estates is also targeted for rehydration. Alternative M does

n ot propose hydration south of the Florida City C anal ; therefore, vegetative
communities in the Model Lands and areas west of the L

- 31 E C anal would be exposed to an increase in exotic plant domination and the probability of urban development similar to that of a No- action Alternative for those areas

. The portion of targeted saltwater wetlands directly adjacent to the L

- 31E levee and just east of the Cutler Wetlands Spreader Canal should see some transitioning from salt tolerant plants to fres hwater vegetation species. This effect would be most pronounced in the Cutler Wetlands area since uses pumped flow while the

L- 31E saltwater wetlands w ill be fed solely by gravity fl ow through culverts.

6.1.7.3 Alternative Q

Alternative Q would be effective in rehydrating the sawgrass prairies that
constitute the freshwater wetlands west of L

- 31 E C anal and the coastal
wetlands to the west

. Section 5, FIGURE 5 -8 shows the areas where wetland rehydratio n is targeted. T he targeted freshwater rehydration area lies generally north of the Florida City Canal between Homestead Joint Air Reserve Base and
the L

- 31E levee. A small freshwater wetland at Long Slough, near Florida City may contribute to rehydratio n of some of the Model Lands south of the Florida City Canal. A small area of less than 10 acres of freshwater wetlands located at Deering Estates is also targeted for rehydration. The saltwater wetland rehydration areas are east of the L

- 31E levee in the area north of Florida City
Canal. Diverting water into the targeted areas should result in a reduction of woody vegetation and resurgence of herbaceous vegetation in both freshwa ter
wetland and saltwater wetland areas targeted for rehydration. The portion of targeted saltwater wetlands directly adjacent to the L

- 31E levee and just east ofSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 24 the Cutler Wetlands Spreader Canal should see some transitioning from salt tolerant plants t o freshwater vegetation species.

6.1.7.4 Alternative O

Since A lternative O contains elements of Alternatives M and Q, it has the capability of distributing water to both freshwater and saltwater wetlands, along
with s ome hydration to the sawgrass prairies in the Model Lands. Section 5,
FIGURE 5 -7 shows the targeted wetland rehydration lands for this alternative. In this alternative, the targeted freshwater wetlands are located just west of the

L- 31E levee and south o f the Florida City Canal at three locations downstream of the planned PU

- M1, PU

- M2, and PU

- M3 pump stations shown in Section 5,
FIGURE 5 -7

. A small area of less than 10 acres of freshwater wetlands located at Deering Estates is also targeted for rehydrati on. The targeted saltwater wetland areas for this project are identical to that of Alternative Q. Diverting water into the targeted areas should result in a reduction of woody vegetation and resurgence of herbaceous vegetation in both freshwater wetland a nd saltwater wetland areas targeted for rehydration. The portion of targeted saltwater wetlands directly adjacent to the L

- 31E levee and just east of the Cutler Wetlands Spreader Canal should see some transitioning from salt tolerant plants to freshwater vegetation species.

6.1.7.5 Alternative O Phase 1

A lternative O Phase 1 provides limited hydration to the freshwater wetlands, specifically between the C

- 103 C anal and the North Canal

. Most of the restoration focus, however, is in the coastal wetland communities. Section 5,
FIGURE 5 -9 shows the wetlands targeted for rehydration in this alternative. The targeted freshwater wetlands are limited to a 400 or so acre parcel located along the North Canal and a small area of less than 10 acres at Deering Estates.
Saltwater wetlands east of the L

- 31E levee in the vicinity of C

- 102/C

- 103 and in the Cutler Wetlands will be rehydrated by diversions of freshwater from the canals. Saltwater wetlands directly adjacent to the diversion outfalls will likely see a greater density and extent of freshwater wetland vegetation. Saltwater wetland areas farther from the diversion outfalls will be less affected by freshwater discharges. The vegetation in the targeted freshwater wetlands adjacent to North Canal will transition from woody vegetation to herba ceous vegetation as a result of extending the hydroperiod.

6.1.8 Fish and Wildlife Resources

The region supports a variety of wetland

- dependent wildlife, including several

F ederally and state

- listed endangered and threatened wildlife sp ecies.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 25 The FWS has been an active member of the project team for the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project and has provided guidance through informal consultation during plan formulation and evaluation on the potential effects th e proposed project may have on F ederally listed threatened and endangered species that may be present in the project study area. USACE has coordinated with the National Marine Fisheries Service, Protected Resource Division, on proposed impacts to species under their purview.

The project is located in areas designated as e ssential f ish h abitat for corals, coral reef and live bottom habitat, red drum ( Sciaenops ocellatus ), shrimp, spiny lobster ( Panulirus argus ), other coastal migratory pelagic species and the

snapper

- grouper complex. Species generally present in the Florida region include brown shrimp, pink shrimp, white shrimp, spiny lobst er, stone crab, gulf stone crab, red drum, Spanish mackerel, and gray snapper (juvenile and adult). Specifically, e ssential f ish h abitat in Biscayne Bay is comprised of seagrasses, estuarine mangroves, intertidal flats, estuarine water column, live/hard b ottoms, and coral reefs.

Continued point source discharges of canal water into Biscayne Bay would limit the ability of affected organisms in e ssential f ish h abitat to sustain productivity levels generally consistent with natural marine communities. The a bsence of
freshwater overland flow into the coastal areas of Biscayne Bay would promote hyper

- saline conditions in the nearshore and estuarine biological communities, thus reducing the survivorship of juvenile shrimps and fishes, resulting in a reduction of the functional capacity and overall spatial extent of those systems.

D ata collected from a gency w ildlife i nvestigations, o utputs from the TABS
model ; and results of Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method (UMAM) field

surveys were used in evaluating impacts amongst the alternatives.

6.1.8.1 No Action Alternative

Development and land conversion would result in an overall loss of fish and wildlife resources within the project area in the future. Aquatic vegetation community changes and subsequent disruption of aquatic productivity and
fu nction will continue to worsen under the No Action Alternative

. Other issues
include: 1) depression of productivity of native fish species, many are important as prey species for wading birds

, due to water management practices, 2) the introduction and spread of a wide range of exotic fish species, and 3) the popular sport fishery for non

- native species such as the butterfly peacock ( Cichla
ocellaris ), and native largemouth bass ( Micropterus sal moides ). Sport fish populations should remain largely unaffected.

Without the environmental benefits of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, urbanization, water demands, direct loss of habitat, and other demands for land, as well as degradation of existing habitat function would likely result inSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 26 a continued decline in populations of threatened, endangered and state

- listed species.

A future without

- project (FWO) scenario is likely to result in an overall decrease in the abundance and diversity of species within e ssential f ish h abitats.

An increase is anticipated in the 2050 FWO scenario in the spatial coverage of

invasive non

- native plant species, such as Brazilian pepper ( Schinus terebinthifolius ), Australian pine ( Casuarina spp. ), and melaleuca ( Melaleuca quinquenervia ) due to land disturbance and projected lower water levels. There would be an increase in other exotic plants including shoebutton ard isia ( Ardisia elliptica ) and O ld W orld climbing fern ( Lygodium microphyllum ).

6.1.8.2 Alternative M

Presently, there are an estimated total of 45 fish species, 14 amphibian species,

46 reptilian species, 14 mammalian species, and 178 avian species documented to occur throughout the project area

. Alternatives with the capability of
freshwater distribution to both freshwater and coastal wetlands have the highest potential of increasing the functional values of habitats utilized by these
fish and wildlife resources in the area

. However, implementation of any of the alternatives has the capacity to enhance the viability of wading birds , raptors, larger predatory fishes, reptiles, and mammals that presently inhabit the project

area.

Species and critical habitat identified as potentially affected by the proposed project include 17 Federally listed threatened or endangered species, including designated critical habitat for the American crocodile , Everglade snail kite, West
Indian manatee , elkhorn coral, and staghorn coral. Project impacts to threatened and endangered species are considered significant (largely beneficial), and similar for all alternatives. Implementation of any of the alternatives would increase the habitat functional capacity necessary to sustain the threatened, endangered species within and adjacent to the project area.

The proposed redistribution of freshwater flow across a broad front is expected to rehydrate and restore freshwater wetlands, saltwater wetlands, and nearshore bay habitat. The project is expected to create conditions that would be conducive
to the re

- establishment of oysters and other components of the oyster reef community, nursery habitat along the shoreline, and reduced freshwater discharges into the bay

. With improvements in water deliveries and quality, the appropriate conditions for sensitive es tuarine biota, such as species dependent on this habitat for egg, larval, and juvenile stages, are anticipated to benefit or
rebound

.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 27 Alternative M includes elements of exotic plant removal. That action, along with
successful redis tribution of fresh water into wetland communities would retard the growth and spread of invasive, non

- native plant species. Implementation of any of the alternatives would allow for the successful return of native vegetation to hydrated areas.

6.1.8.3 Alternative Q

Same as Alternative M above. See S ection 6.1 .8.2

.

6.1.8.4 Alternative O

Same as Alternative M above. See S ection 6.1 .8.2

.

6.1.8.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Same as Alternative M above. See S ection 6.1 .8.2

.

6.1.9 Air Quality

6.1.9.1 No Action Alternative

Air quality through the Year 2050 is not expected to change significantly from existing conditions

. Atmospheric contribution of mercury to the area would continue to decrease as existing controls on major mercury sources are fully implemented

. Future, more restrictive

, regulations on mercury emissions from

coal -f ired power plants would likely continue the trend for reduced atmospheric contributions of mercury to the B iscayne B ay C oastal W etlands project area.

6.1.9.2 Alternative M

Con struction activities associated with implementing A lterna tive M would temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area . However, best management practice s will be implemented to control dust during cons truction

.

6.1.9.3 Alternative Q

Construction activities associated with implementing A lterna tive Q would temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area . However, best
management practice s will be implemented to control dust during construction

.

6.1.9.4 Alternative O

Construction activities associated with implementing A lterna tive O would temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area . However, best management practice s will be implemented to control dust during construction

.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 28 6.1.9.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Construction activities associated with impl ementing A lterna tive O Phase 1 would temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area . However, best management practice s will be implemented to control dust during
construction

.

6.1.10 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste

Ultimately, environmental and ecological conditions will be improved as projects such as the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project come online and provide
natural wetland treatment areas. Phase 1 and Phase 2 Environmental Site
Assessments were used in evaluating existing contamination levels and possible impacts amongst the alternatives.

6.1.10.1 No Action Alternative

Future s ite contamination issue s 50 years into the future are likely to be improved when compared with present conditions

, regardless of CERP project implement ations. This statement is made in reference to historically
contaminated s uperfund

- type sites . Nationwide, s everal decades and billions of dollars have been spent to correct past practices that created site contamination.
A dded vigilance and increasingly strict regulation are now in place to prevent recurrence of extreme site contamination problems in the future

. If the B iscayne

B ay C oastal W etlands p roject is not approved and not constructed, sites
contain ing contaminated soil and/or groundwater are likely to undergo
continued environmental restoration governed by F ederal, state and local

statutes.

6.1.10.2 Alternative M

A lternative M is comprised of three segments: (1) the Deering Estate in the north, (2) the centrally located Cutler Wetlands Flow Way, and (3) the L

- 31 E
Culverts in the south. Alternative M has been described as a minimalist

appr oach, having the smallest number of constructed features and the smallest footprint possible. It require s the least use of contaminated lands as part of its project footprint.

Soil contaminated with pesticides from past agricultural activity and a builder’s former construction and demolition disposal area were identified along the alignment of the proposed conveyance channel on the Cutler Flow Way lands. On parcel TA500

- 038 the builder has removed construction wastes; groundwater monitoring at that location is in progress, but problems are not anticipated.
A long the proposed channel alignment, adjacent parcels TA500

- 001 and TA500

- 002 have residual concentrations of the pesticide Dichloro

- Diphenyl

-Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 29 Trichloroethane (DDT) and its related isomer s Dichloro

- Diphenyl

Dichloroethylene (DDE) and Dichloro

- Diphenyl -Dichloroethane (DDD) which
would raise bio

- accumulation concerns if the lands were to be flooded . H owever, the current design calls for a concrete conveyance channel to address seepage

conce rns, and those parcels would be acceptable for project use in that scenario.

Just north of TA500

- 002

, on parcel TA500

- 062, the non -F ederal sponsor (SFWMD ) has excavated soils that have been contaminated with pesticides and poly

- cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons (PAHs [resulting from combustion of fossil fuels]) to make that land acceptable for project use.

Approximately three miles north

- northeast of the east end of the conveyance channel, Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments have identified organochloride pesticide contamination in soil samples on parcel TA500

- 015

. The western portion of this property has documented agricultural activity between 1938 and 1991, which is the cause attributed to the presence of the pesticides. A Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) was performed, and calculated a hazard quotient exceeding 1.0 for the Great Blue

Heron based on exposure to DDE, DDT, and total chlordane. The SLERA also considered effects on the aquatic community when the site is flooded, and on other Trustee receptor species based on all contaminants, but no other significant ecological risks were identified. Depth to limestone at t he site is approximately 0.5

- ft., and the consultant is recommending removal of the contaminated soil cover in this single sampling grid as the most cost -effective approach.

In accordance with the CERP Master Agreement and supplemental guidance, when remediation is required only to achieve ecological restoration objectives on former agricultural lands contaminated by the lawful application of commercially available products, the cost of remediation is e ligible for cost

sharing between the Government and the non

- Federal sponsor.

All other parcels within the Cutler Flow Way segment have been evaluated and have been cleared for the intended project use.

Land known as the Powers Parcel and used for tree farming, located in the Deering Estate segment, has been found to be contaminated with low levels of arsenic and chlorinated pesticides. Remediation of the site was delayed until the layout of site features was confirmed. The contaminated soil borings were collected on the northern half of the property which will be developed as wooded uplands without the need for remediation. The project will develop wetlands on the southern half of the Powers parcel, but the level of contaminants there will not pose an ecological risk. A Soil Management Plan and a site

- specific HealthSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 30 and Safety Plan will be developed to ensure the proper handling of excavated soils and to provide adequate protection of construction workers.

N o environmental contamination issues have been identified in the

L- 31 E Culverts segment or other project lands for Alternative M

.

Additional details regarding the investigation of site contamination issues for all project alternat ives can be found in the Summary of Environmental Conditions (PSI, Inc., Sept 2008), which can be found in Appendix C.

6.1.10.3 Alternative Q

As c ompared to Alternative M , the proposed footprint for Alternative Q expands
westward from the L

- 31 E Canal toward H omestead A ir R eserve B ase

. In doing so, the project lands would experience significant impacts from site contamination issues, primarily due to pesticide use on former agricultural lands and unregulated solid waste disposal. In some cases, such as the former quarry
near the northea st end of the base runway, cleanup is taking place under consent agreements between the property owners and Miami

- Dade County. In other cases, contaminated parcels would need to be isolated from inundation or remediated at a significant cost to the projec t.

6.1.10.4 Alternative O

Compared to Alternative M , the full Alternative O expands westward from the

L- 31E Canal , but not to the extent of Alternative Q

. Becaus e of this selective expansion, potential environmental impacts from site contamination are reduced relative to Alternative Q along with projected remediation costs . A lternative O would rehydrate three former stream beds in the Model Lands area south of th e Florida City Canal. Generally, the areas around the stream beds are believed to
be free of contamination, but further analysis would be required before the land would be accepted for rehydration.

6.1.10.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Although the footprints for the L

- 31 E Culverts segment and the Cutler
Wetlands Flow Way differ slightly in Alternative M and the full Alternative O ; the areas of confirmed environmental impacts which would require remediation
for Alternative O Phase 1 are identical. In the Cutler Flow Way, the required remediation has been completed by the builder and by the non -F ederal sponsor. The Cutler parcel TA500

- 015 would not be utilized in the Alternative O Phase 1 project , so the cost to excavate and relocate those pesticide

- contaminated soils
would not be incurred

. Use of the Powers Parcel in the Deering Estate segment would be subject to the same constraints as in Alternative M . Specifically, precautions would be required to protect construction workers, but remediationSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 31 to achieve ecological objectives in the constructed wetlands would not be

req uired. The Alternative O Phase 1 project benefits by conservatively avoiding
contaminated lands west of the L

- 31 E Canal and south of the Florida City
Canal.

6.1.11 Cultural Resources

A Phase 1 cultural resource survey for Deering Estate was used in evaluating impacts amongst the alternatives.

6.1.11.1 No Action Alternative

The No A ction Alternative offers little or no cultural resources protection without further investigation . However, the implementation of the project would include a conservation plan, thus providing some level of protection to cultural

resources.

6.1.11.2 Alternative M

W ith the addition of the Model L and s south of North Canal to Alt ernative Q, t he area of potential effect to cultural resources for Alternative M , Alternative O,
and Alternative Q is essentially the same

. The ar ea of potential effect stretches along approximately eight miles of the Biscayne Bay coastline

. Several
arch a eological and historical sites are found within the area of potential effect

, most ly within the Deering Estate component of the project

.

In cooperation with USACE , the State Historic Preservation Officer has determined that the installation of four culverts along the L

- 31 E Canal would have no effect on historic properties

. T he State’s Expedited Construction project would have no effect on historical sites 8DA2815 (Deering Estate historic district), 8DA2815D (historic wall), 8DA6518 (historic road), or 8DA11247 (historic road)

. Th e proposed repairs to the Deering Estate Bridge (8DA2815C) and channel maintenance will prevent the rise in water levels from having an adverse effect on the bridge

.

6.1.11.3 Alternative Q

Same as Alternative M above. See S ection 6.1.11.2

.

6.1.11.4 Alternative O

Same as Alternative M above. See S ection 6.1.11.2

.

6.1.11.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Same as Alternative M above. See S ection 6.1.11.2

.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 32 6.1.12 Socio -Economic Conditions: Population

Population in Miami

- Dade is expected to increase by almost 1.5 million people
from 2000 to 2050. Due to this anticipated population growth, the county is expected to remain the most populated county in Florida. The dense urban area
of the LEC of Florida has contributed to development pressure and population
increases in Miami

- Dade County. Miami

- Dade County is expected to grow faster
than the national trends until at least Year 2050. Conversion of agricultural and other unimproved lands in southern Miami

- Dade County

, including large areas within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area

, will con tinue to be fueled in significant part by this population growth. Miami

- Dade County Urban Boundary Development projections were used in evaluating impacts amongst the
alternatives.

6.1.12.1 No Action Alternative

With an anticipated increase in urbanization, changes in the project area are expected to reflect population growth

.

6.1.12.2 Alternative M

The implementation of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project will not significantly affect the population of the study area

. The project will not create new water for consumption and the developable lands that are being utilized are geographically and spatially limited

. Any impacts to the population as a result of the project would be statistically insignificant.

6.1.12.3 Alternative Q

The implementation of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project will not significantly affect the population of the study area

. The project will not create new water for consumption and the developable lands that are being utilized are geographically and spatially limited

. Any impacts to the population as a result of the project would be statistically insignificant.

6.1.12.4 Alternative O

The implementation of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project will not significantly affect the population of the study area

. The project will not create new water for consumption and the developable lands that are being utilized are geographically and spatially limited

. Any impacts to the population as a result of the project would be statist ically insignificant.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 33 6.1.12.5 Alternative O Phase 1

The implementation of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project will not significantly affect the population of the study area

. The project will not create new water for consumption and the developable lands that are being utilized are geographically and spatially limited

. Any impacts to the population as a result of the project would be statistically insignificant.

6.1.13 Socio -Economic Conditions: Water Supply Demands

In the LEC r egion, groundwater is the predominant source of water for

m unicipal and i ndustrial uses. With the projected increase in population and
infras tructure, demands for water will increase. Water shortages and restrictions are expected to become more prominent, leading to both economic and environmental damages.

As groundwater levels continue to decrease, salinity levels will increase in wells in the study area. With more persons drawing water and less water available for recharge, migration of the underlying salt wedge leading to increased saltwater intrusion, and shortages to wells and well fields would become more prevalent.

6.1.13.1 No Action Alternative

With an anticipated increase in urbanization, changes in the project area are expected to reflect population growth under No Action Alternative

. Water demands are expected to increase within the study area ; however, the increased demand is expected to be largely met through reuse and conservation measures.

6.1.13.2 Alternative M

A lternative M would utilize water that is being diverted fro m canals and currently discharged to tide

. No impacts to upstream water users would be recorded; and

, this alternative will not demand new water or store additional

water

. W ater demands will increase as a result of future non

- project related land use changes within the project study area.

6.1.13.3 Alternative Q

A lternative Q would utilize water that is being diverted from canals and currently discharged to tide

. Of the with

- project alternatives, Alternative Q has
the greatest potential to positively affect M&I water supplies because the targeted freshwater wetlands in this area are closest to the existing municipal
well fields. Rehydration of these wetlands would theoretically positively benefit nearby well fields; ho wever, the benefits to municipal well fields from thisSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 34 alternative are expected to be minimal. W ater demands will increase as a result
of future non

- project related land use changes associated with agricultural or urban development

.

6.1.13.4 Alternative O

A lternative O would utilize water that is being diverted from canals and currently discharged to tide

. No impacts to upstream water users would be recorded; and

, this alternative will not demand new water or store a dditional

water

. W ater demands will increase as a result of future non

- project related land use changes within the project study area.

6.1.13.5 Alternative O Phase 1

A lternative O Phase 1 would utilize water that is being diverted from canals and currently discharged to tide

. No impacts to upstream water users would be recorded; and

, this alternative will not demand new water or store additional

water

. W ater demands will increase as a result of future non

- pr o ject related land use changes within the project study area.

6.1.14 Land Use

A review of local governments’ comprehensive plan s and future land use maps indicates that the portion of the st udy area lying within the Urban Development Boundary (UDB) is designated as “ e state” and “ low d ensity r esidential” land uses, which ranges in density from two and a half to six dwellings per acre. Much of the future development within the study area would occur on lands that are currently in agricultural use. Additionally, a majority of land currently designated for agricultural use and lying outside of the UDB

, but within the Urban Expansion Area (UEA)

, is projected to be developed with similar uses

once the UDB is expanded. Based on increasing residential demand in this area, it is highly probable that this section of the UDB would be expanded within the
next ten years.

In areas east and south of the UDB

, but landward of the coastal areas, at least

som e continued conversion of undeveloped lands is possible

— those designated in the county land use map as “ o pen l ands” to rock mines and some undeveloped lands designated as a griculture to construction or demolition debris landfills. In addition, pressure to remove conservation easements on wetland mitigation areas within the UDB to allow development is already occurring. In cases where existing or future wetland mitigation areas are developed, additional mitigation
areas would be needed to offset the loss o f wetland functional values. However, based on development pressures, land costs, and the proximity of the FPL mitigation bank, it is likely that the additional mitigation would be in the formSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 35 of wetland enhancement, resulting in a further net loss of the spatial extent of wetlands and other open lands within the study area.

Portions of the coastal areas adjacent to BNP that are currently designated in the county land use map as Environmental Protection and Environmentally

P rotected Parks within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area are anticipated to remain in this use. However, the remaining undeveloped coastal
areas landward of the e nvironmental p rotection designation within the UDB are expected to be developed within the next ten to 15 years. With a few exceptions such as the expansion of Turkey Point Power Plant, the remaining coastal wetland areas adjacent to BNP and outsid e the UDB are likely to remain largely unfilled and undeveloped.

6.1.14.1 No Action Alternative

Much of the future development within the study area would occur on lands that are currently in agricultural use. At least some continued conversion of undeveloped lands designated in the county land use map as o pen l ands to rock
mines

, and some undeveloped lands designated as a griculture to
construction/demolition debris landfills

, is possible. The undeveloped coastal
areas landward of t he e nvironmental p rotection designation within the UDB are expected to be developed within the next ten to 15 years. With a few exceptions such as the expansion of Turkey Point Power Plant, the remaining coastal wetland areas adjacent to BNP and outside the UDB are likely to remain largely unfilled and undeveloped.

Over the next 50 years, s ea level rise may ultimately impact the viability of some of the agricultural operations within the study area as fl ood events become more frequent. As a result, the agricultural lands directly west of the L

- 31E levee in
the C

- 102 and C

- 103 basin may be abandoned and revert to wetlands. The abandonment of some farms due to unmanageable flooding conditions that result from sea level rise will occur regardless of whether this project is implemented.

6.1.14.2 Alternative M

The implementation of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project would not significantly alter the current land use of the study area; instead, the project would restore the functionality and preserve some of the limited remaining
wetlands in southern Miami

- Dade County

. A majority of the land that is being
utilized for the project is either nearshore or saltwater wetlands, and would not be developable in the absence of a project

. As mentioned in the FWO p roject condition, in the absence of a project, there is a high likelihood that agricultural and urban developers would pr essure local governments to develop the existing freshwater wetlands and open lands.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 36 6.1.14.3 Alternative Q

Same as Alternative M above except that this alternative includes substantial freshwater wetland acreage located west of the L

- 31E levee. See Section

6.1.14.2

.

6.1.14.4 Alternative O

Same as Alternative M above except that this alternative includ es substantial freshwater wetland acreage located west of the L

- 31E levee. See Section

6.1.14.2

.

6.1.14.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Same as Alternative M above except that this alternative incl udes approximately 400 acres of freshwater wetlands located west of the L

- 31E levee

. See Section 6.1.14.2

.

6.1.15 Noise

Within the major natural areas of south Florida, external sources of noise are
limited and of low occurrence

. As additional areas are developed within designated growth boundaries around cities, noise from general traffic, construction, and other vehicles would be expected to increase modestly between the present and Year 2050.

6.1.15.1 No Action Alternative

Within the major natural areas of south Florida, external sources of noise are
limited and of low occurrence

. As additional areas are developed within designated growth boundaries around cities, noise from general traffic, construction, and other vehicles would be expected to increase modestly between the present and Year 2050.

6.1.15.2 Alternative M

Noise impacts associated with A lternative M would not permanently increase over what prese ntly exists within the project area

. Temporary increases in noise levels would be expected during construction of any of the alternatives; however,
this would be limited to the immediate area of construction.

6.1.15.3 Alternative Q

Noise impacts associated with A lternative Q would not permanently increase over what presently exists within the project area

. Temporary increases in noiseSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 37 levels would be expected during construction of any of the alternatives; however,
this would be limited to the immediate area of construction.

6.1.15.4 Alternative O

Noise impacts associated with A lternative O would not permanently increase over what presently exists within the project area

. Temporary increases in noise levels would be expected during construction of any of the alternatives; however,
this would be limited to the immediate area of construction.

6.1.15.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Noise impacts associated with A lternative O Phase1 would not permanently increase over what presently exists within the project area

. Temporary increases in noise levels would be expected during construction of any of the alternatives; however, this would be limited to the immediate area of

construction.

6.1.16 Recreational Resources

Ecosystems support a significant amount of outdoor recreation in the LEC of
Florida . T he State of Florida is expected to experience significant increases in
demands for selected recreation activities with a commensurate need to increase development of the region ’s recreation al resources and facilities. A significant porti on of outdoor recreation related expenditures comes from tourists.

6.1.16.1 No Action Alternative

As part of the FWO p roject conditions, the State of Florida will experience significant increases in demands for the selected recreatio n activities with a commensurate need to increase development of the region’s recreational
resources and facilities. The SCORP for Region 11 projects a lack of recreational resources and facilities to meet future demands for hiking, freshwater fishing, tent camping, hunting, fresh and saltwater beach activities, and bicycle riding

activities.

6.1.16.2 Alternative M

Alternative M, the minimum alternative, is not likely to adversely affect existing
recreation resources w ithin the B iscayne B ay C oastal W etlands study area

. Alternative M provide s the fewest opportunities for recreation development

. Public access along existing canal right -of- ways would be ma intained for potential hiking, biking, fishing, environmental interpretation

, and bird watching.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 38 6.1.16.3 Alternative Q

Alternative Q is not likely to adversely affect existing recreation resources
within the B iscayne Ba y C oastal W etlands study area

. Alternative Q proposes reduced infrastructure construction that may result in reduced recreation proposals

. It would connect with the C

- 111 Spreader Canal project for potential regional trail linkages (hiking, biking) and associated recreation (environmental interpretation, bird watching, and fishing).

6.1.16.4 Alternative O

Alternative O blends aspects of A lternative M and Alternative Q . A lternative O is not likely to adversely affect existing recreation resources within the B iscayne

B ay C oastal W etlands study area

. Alternative O propose s the full array of project features that may provide the most recreation development potential to include: hiking, biking, paddling, tent camping, environmental interpretation, bird watching

, and fishing.

6.1.16.5 Alternative O Phase 1

A lternative O Phase 1 is not likely to adversely affect existing recreational
resources within the B iscayne B ay C oastal W etlands study area

. Potential
restoration- compatible recreation includes: hiking, biking, paddling, tent camping, environmental interpretation, bird watching, and fishing.

6.1.17 Aesthetics

Major aesthetic qualities to be considered include geology, topography, water and vegetation. Factors to be considered for evaluating quality include air and water pollution, pests, poor climate and unsightly adjacent areas.

Current planning guidance specifies that the F ederal objective of water and related resources planning is to contribute to NED consistent with protecting the
nation’s environment. USACE established a number of environm ental goals, including:

1) Preservation of unique and important aesthetic values 2) Restoration and maintenance of the natural and man

- made environment in terms of variety, beauty, and other measures of quality

However, to meet these goals, a standard of reasonableness must be applied in defining the appropriate level of expenditures for aesthetic quality for Civil Works projects. Current budgetary constraints and the intense competition for

F ederal funds dictate that a greater level of discipline be applied in meeting
USACE responsibilities to harmoniously blend projects with the surroundingSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 39 environment while avoiding excessive expenditures (ER 1105 -2- 100, Appendix C ).

All aesthetic measures must be designed so that they are fully compatible with the project purpose and in no way compromise the safety, integrity or function of the project. For example, it may be appropriate to screen a floodwall with vegetative plantings but it would be inappropriate to plant trees direc tly on a levee that might endanger its structural integrity or diminish its hydraulic characteristics (ER 1105 -2- 100, Appendix C ).

6.1.17.1 No Action Alternative

With an anticipated increase in urbanization, changes in the project ar ea are expected to reflect population growth

. Aesthetically, there w ould be more high

rise building s, roads and infrastructure associated with development ; and less open land.

6.1.17.2 Alternative M

This alternative would result in restoration of saltwater wetland areas located
east of the L

- 31E levee. Restoration of the targeted wetland is expected to result
in a healthier environment that w ill support vigorous plant communities, larger fish and aqu atic animal populations, large numbers of wading birds , alligators, and sustainable populations of wide

- ranging mammals, in a natural setting, in perpetuity

. W ith the implementation of this alternative

, wading bird
communities within the saltwater wetland areas are expected to increase

.

6.1.17.3 Alternative Q

This alternative would result in significant restoration of freshwater wetland
areas located west of the L- 31E levee. Relative to the other with project alternatives, this project offers the largest footprint of restored area and thus should offer the greatest improvement to aesthetically valued natural resources.

6.1.17.4 Alternative O

This alternative would result in significant restoration of freshwater wetland
areas located west of the L

- 31E levee though not as many acres as Alternative Q. Relative to the other with project alternatives, this project offers the second largest footprint of restored area and thus should offer the second greatest improvement to aesthetically valued natural resources.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 40 6.1.17.5 Alternative O Phase 1

This alternative would result in significant restoration of saltwate r wetland
areas located east of the L

- 31E levee and approximately 400 acres of freshwater
wetlands located west of the L

- 31E levee. Relative to the other with project alternatives, this alternative restores less total natural area than Alternative O,
but more than Alternative M.

6.2 ABILITY OF EACH PLAN TO MEET OBJECTIVES, CONSTRAINTS

The following table summarizes the ability of each plan to meet the project objectives and avoid the project constraints. Each alternative was ranked on a scale of 1 to 6 as to its relative ability to meet the objectives and constraints. The higher the s core, the better the plan meets the objectives.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 41 TABLE 6-1 : SUMMARY OF EACH PLAN’S ABILITY TO MEET THE PROJECT

OBJECTIVES AND AVOID PROJECT CONSTRAINTS

Alternatives No
Action YB M Q O O

- P1

Objectives

Reestablish productive nursery habitat along the shoreline. 1 2 4 3 5 5

Redistribute freshwater flow to minimize point source discharges to improve freshwater and estuarine habitat. 1 3 2 5 6 4

Restore and improve quantity, quality, timing, distribution of freshwater to the bay, including Biscayne National Park. 1 2 4 3 5 6

Preserve and restore spatial extent of natural coastal glades habitat. 1 5 2 6 4 3

Reestablish connectivity between Biscayne coastal wetlands, C

- 111 Basin, Model Lands, and adjacent basins. 1 5 2 6 4 3

Restore nearshore and saltwater wetland salinity regimes. 1 2 4 3 5 5

Constraints

Comply with all Federal, state and local laws, regulations and policies. 2 3 4 5 6 6

Maintain existing levels of flood protection to agricultural and urban lands (Savings Clause [Section 601 (h)(5)(B) of WRDA 2000]). 6 2 5 1 6 6

Maintain levels of service for existing legal users (Savings Clause [Section 601 (h)(5)(A) of WRDA 2000]). 6 2 2 4 6 6

Minimize impacts to cultural, historical and archaeological resources. 6 2 5 1 4 5

Minimize adverse socioeconomic impacts on the local econom y

. 6 2 4 1 4 5

Avoiding, minimizing, or providing compensatory mitigation for any impacts to pre

- existing compensatory mitigation sites within the project

area under Section 404 of the Clean Water Act

. 6 2 5 1 6 6

Do not increase salinity intrusion into the freshwater Biscayne aquifer within the study area. 1 4 5 4 6 6

Do not adversely affect the habitats of threatened or endangered species in the study area, such as the American crocodile or the West Indian

manatee

. 1 3 3 4 6 6

Do not use water that violates State water quality standards for discharge into the wetlands being rehydrated/restored in the project. 2 3 4 4 6 6Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 42 6.3 ECOLOGICAL BENEFITS EVALUATION

USACE ecosystem restoration studies typically measure the ecosystem benefits of alternative plans in terms of physical dimensions (number of acres of wetlands, for example), or population counts (number of wading birds , for exampl e), or various habitat

- based scores (habitat units [HU] based on the
FWS ’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures [ HEP ] , for example). The BBCW team devised a project

- specific tool referred to as the Criterion Based Ecological
Evaluation M atrix (CBEEM ) to quantify the ecological output of alternatives. CBEEM is a Microsoft (MS) Excel spreadsheet tool that utilizes hydrologic

modeli ng results, management measure size and operation, and available hydrologic data to derive a HU score that represents the ecological lift achieved by each alternative. This method evaluated benefits within each of the three major ecological zones present within the project area (nearshore bay, saltwater wetlands, freshwater wetlands). The following eight CBEEM performance measures address each of the original five project objectives that were identified in the Restudy and BBCW Project Management Plan (PMP) as follows:

1. Restore nearshore salinity regime

2. Restore tidal wetland salinity regime

3. Reduce direct canal discharge

4. Potential freshwater wetland rehydration

5. Reduce nitrogen concentrations

6. Reduce TP loading to Biscayne Bay

7. Reduce non

- native vegetation

8. Restore connections between basins and wetlands

The CBEEM evaluation was accomplished in four steps: 1) c alculate

p erformance measure o utput, 2) normalize p erformance measure o utput, 3)
compute q uality i ndex, an d 4) compute HU s. The logic and equations used in each of these steps can be seen in more detail and with supporting documentation in Appendix C (Environmental Information). A detailed documentation sheet for each performance measure can also be located in the Appendix C. I ndependent reviews of the metrics and methodologies used in CBEEM were conducted under the guidance of the Corps Center for Planning Excellence in September 2009 and January of 2010. Many of the reviewers suggestions were incorporated into the benefits assessment tools and the revised product has improved in terms of its scientific credence and overall quality.

TABLE 6-2 include s a list of the performance measures and the normalized value for each performance measure

. This table displays the average percent target achieved of the combined performance measure s (the quality indices), the total acreage within each ecological zone, the HUs per alternative, and the average annual lift through the year 2050 for each alternative. Detail regarding the development of the performance measures and sub

- measures is inclu ded inSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 43 the full benefits assessment write

- up found in Appendix C

– Environmental Information . A summary discussion of the benefits accorded each ecozone is

below.

TABLE 6-2: CBEEM ANALYSIS: TOTAL HABITAT UNIT C ALCULATIONS FOR

EACH ECOLOGICAL ZONE

TOTAL HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY (NET FWO CONDITION)

Existing
Conditio

n Future
Without Alternative
O Alternative

M Alternative Q Alternativ e YB Alternative O, P1

NEARSHORE HABITAT LIFT *

Nearshore

Indices 0.09 0.19 0.65 0.43 0.60 0.48 0.54

Acres 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585

Habitat Units (acre

- lift) 732 1,673 5,565 3,696 5,154 4,147 4,624

2050 HU Lift 941 3,892 2,023 3,481 2,474 2,950

SALTWATER WETLAND HABITAT LIFT **

Saltwater Indices 0.04 0.04 0.32 0.32 0.23 0.18 0.33

Acres 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550

Habitat Units (acre

- lift) 973 1,002 7,176 7,236 5,292 4,136 7,398

2050 HU Lift 29 6,174 6,234 4,290 3,134 6,396

FRESHWATER WETLAND HABITAT LIFT ***

Freshwater Acres 0 0 3,730 188 5,873 4,916 482

Habitat Units (acre

- lift) 0

- 3,730 188 5,873 4,916 482

2050 HU Lift

- 3,730 188 5,873 4,916 482

TOTAL HABITAT LIFT

Total Habitat
Units (acre

- lift) 970 13,796 8,445 13,644 10,524 9,828
Key: FWO future without

HU habitat unit

* Nearshore Habitat Lift is computed by averaging the three sub

- indices and multiplying this result by the total available nearshore acreage. The three sub

- indices are: 1) Percent of available water diverted from coastal structure, 2) The average of the per cent nitrogen and phosphorus load targets achieved, 3) Percent of nearshore acres within 500 meters of the shoreline meeting the target salinity conditions. This habitat

lift is measured in units of “acres of lift”.

** Saltwater Wetland Habitat Lift is computed by averaging the two sub

- indices and multiplying this result by the total saltwater wetland acreage. The two sub

- metrics are 1) Percent of available water diverted directly to saltwater wetlands, and 2) Percent of saltwater wetland acreage meeti ng the target salinity

condition. This habitat lifts is measured in units of “acres of lift”. *** Freshwater Wetland Habitat Lift is computed by averaging two sub

- indices and multiplying this result by the total freshwater wetland acreage. The two sub

- in dices are 1) Acres of freshwater wetland with sufficient water, and 2) the acreage of freshwater wetland free of invasives and exotics. This habitat lift

is measured in units of “acres of lift”.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 44 6.3.1 Freshwater Wetland Benefits

The freshwater w etland areas considered for rehydration by the BBCW project
are located west of the L

- 31E levee. The targeted freshwater wetlands are presently degraded as a result of lack of hydration and invasion of exotic plants. The estimation of freshwater wetland restoration benefits incorporates two aspects of restoration, the rehydration of wetlands and the removal/control of exotic species from the wetlands

. The CBEEM tool described in Appendix C was
used to estimate f reshwater w etland h abitat Lift as measured in units of “acre
lift”. Freshwater habitat units are computed by averaging two sub

- indices and multiplying this result by the total freshwater wetland acreage. The two sub

indices are 1) Acres of freshwater wetland with sufficient water, and 2) the

acre age of freshwater wetland free of invasive and exotic vegetation

. Estimation of acres with sufficient hydration was done using a simply equation that tracked daily flow diverted to freshwater wetlands and the expected rate of groundwater
recession within the wetland. The overall rehydration acreage estimate was computed as the average daily rehydration acreage computed over the entire period of available flow records within each basin. The estimates for acres of
land without exotics / invasives were made by assuming that acreage of invasives/exotics within the freshwater wetland component of each alternative would be kept free of these undesirable plants. The estimates of exotics/invasive acreage were derived from GIS coverage of vegetation within the st udy area.

The results of the freshwater wetland benefits assessment are shown in TABLE

6-3

. Alternatives Q and YB provide the greatest freshwater w etland benefits due to their large footprint in areas west of the L

- 31E levee. Alternative O provides approximately 2/3rds of the freshwater benefits achieved by Alternative Q as a result of having a smaller freshwater wetland footprint and also sending a greater proportion of available water directly to the saltwater wetlands. Alternative O, Phase I provides about 15% of the freshwater wetland benefits provided by Alternative O due to its small freshwater wetland footprint.

TABLE 6-4 show s the wet season and dry season net fres hwater wetland rehydration lift (acre

- lift) c omputed for sub

- metric A .1 in TABLE 6-3

. The net freshwater rehydration lift in this table was computed by subtracting out the hydration estimates provided by the future without project. This table shows
that the average dry seas on rehydration lift for most of the alternatives is approximately 50 to 60 percent of that predicted for the average wet season
conditions

. During extreme dry seasons , the project will provide approximately 50% of the average annual freshwater wetland lif t as indicated by the dry season rehydration results estimated for the estimated annual 10% exceedance frequency flows shown at the bottom of TABLE 6-4 . The 10% exceedance frequency flows are the daily flows that occurred during the year in which the
total flow from all four sub

- basins is exceeded by the total flows of 90% of the years in the period of record. Th e fact that rehydration water is available toSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 45 divert to the targeted freshwater areas even under dry season drought
conditions indicates that the associated habitat lift should be sustainable.

It is not possible to provide maps showing geographically sp ecific locations
where the freshwater wetland habitat lift will occur since habitat lift is calculated as an average improvement over the target area. However, the alternative maps ( Section 5, FIGURES 5 -6

, 5-7

, 5-8 , and 5-9 ) provide the
boundaries of the targeted freshwater wetland rehydration areas. For alternatives such as YB and Q and O, the bulk of the freshwater wetland lift is likely to be located in areas in close proximity to the diversion outfalls since the targeted areas generally are oversized relative to the available water. For Alternative O, Phase 1, the entire targeted area will experience significant habitat lift since the area is limited in size relative to the pump capacity and water availability.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 46 TABLE 6-3 : FRESHWATER WETLAN D HABATAT LIFT SUMMA RY

CRITERION BASED ECOLOGICAL EVAULATION MATRIX

DBHYDRO FLOWS

FRESHWATER WETLAND ECOLOGICAL ZONE

Objectives and
Criteria Units Method Target Existing
Condition Future
Without Project Alt
O Alt

M Alt Q Alt

YB Alt O,

Part I ALT
O NAI ALT O, P I, NAI ALT M,
NAI A. Rehydrated wetland lift

1. Wetlands
with sufficient water (PM 4) Acre

lift GIS Mapping

/ Seepage Analysis 9638 3997 3,997 8,406 4,212 9,110 9,273 4,465 6,639 4,373 4,112

B. Reduced invasive non

- native plants *

1. Acres of

Invasive/Exotics Removed (PM 7) Acre

lift GIS Mapping Analysis 9763 0 0 3051 160.5 6632 4555 495 3051 495 160.5

Net FW Wetland Habitat Units (Net from
Future Without Condition) (acre

- lift) 0 0 3,730 188 5,873 4,916 482 2,847 435 138
Key: Alt Alternative

FWO Future Without

GIS Geographical Information System

PM P erformance M easureSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 47 TABLE 6-4 : ESTIMATED FRESHWA TER WETLAND REHYDRAT ION LIFT (SUBMETRIC A .1) FOR EACH ALTERNA TIVE CALCULATED USIN G

DBHYDRO FLOWS (REPORTED IN UNITS OF ACRE

- LIFT)

AVERAGE ANNUAL ACRES OF FRESHWATER REHYDRATION LIFT

C

- 100 C

- 1 C

- 102 C

- 103 Reuse With

Reuse Without

Reuse

Alt O 7 124 422 2089 1767 4409 2642
Alt Q 7 124 582 2,442 1,958 5114 3155

Alt M 7 108
- - 101 216 115

Alt YB 7 179 1,021 1,944 2,125 5276 3151
Alt O, Phase I 7

- - 369 92 469 376

Alt O, NAI 7 124 422 2,089

- 2642 2642
Alt M, NAI 7 108

- - - 115 115

Alt O, Phase I, NAI 7

- - 369

- 376 376

DRY SEASON ACRES OF FRESHWATER WETLAND REHYDRATION LIFT

Alt O 5 94 345 1645 1879 3968 2089
Alt Q 6 94 489 1,902 2,020 4,511 2,491

Alt M 6 80
- - 123 209 86

Alt YB 6 137 825 1,571 2,125 4,664 2,539
Alt O, Phase I 6

- - 327 136 469 332

Alt O, NAI 5 94 345 1,645
- 2,089 2,089
Alt M, NAI 6 80

- - - 86 86
Alt O, Phase I, NAI 6
- - 327
- 469 332

WET SEASON ACRES OF FRESHWATER WETLAND REHYDRATION LIFT

Alt O 8 154 500 2534 1655 4851 3196 Alt Q 9 154 674 2,983 1,896 5,716 3,820

Alt M 9 136

- - 78 222 144

Alt YB 9 221 1,216 2,317 2,125 5,889 3,764
Alt O, Phase I 9

- - 412 48 469 420

Alt O, NAI 8 154 500 2,534
- 3,196 3,196
Alt M, NAI 9 136

- - - 144 144
Alt O, Phase I, NAI 9
- - 412
- 469 420
REHYDRATION UNDER 10 PERCENT EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY FLOW CONDITIONS

DRY SEASON ACRES OF FRESHWATER WETLAND REHYDRATION LIFT

C- 100 C-1 C- 102 C- 103 Reuse With

Reuse Without

Reuse

Alt O 3 42 143 699 2078 2965 887
Alt Q 3 42 200 777 2,120 3,143 1,023

Alt M 3 34
- - 169 206 37

Alt YB 3 66 342 726 2,125 3,262 1,137

Alt O, Phase I 3
- - 211 252 466 214

Alt O, NAI 3 42 143 699

- 887 887

Alt M, NAI 3 34

- - - 37 37

Alt O, Phase I, NAI 3
- - 211
- 466 214Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 48 6.3.2 Saltwater Wetland Benefits

The saltwater wetland areas targeted for restoration by this project lie east of
the L

- 31E levee. These wetlands are characterized by saltwater tolerant vegetation such as mangrove forest with a limited coverage of freshwater wetland species on western po rtions of the Cutler Wetlands. Hydration of these saltwater wetlands using freshwater diverted from the coastal canals was deemed to be an important potential benefit of the project since greater water delivery and lower salinities would better mimic historic hydrology in this zone. The target salinity range was selected after considering the requirements of juvenile American crocodile which is a listed endangered species

. The estimation of saltwater wetland restoration benefits incorporates two aspe cts of restoration, the diversion of canal flow into the saltwater wetlands, and the restoration of saltwater wetlands salinity conditions (target = <20 psu).
Saltwater Wetland Habitat Lift was computed in CBEEM by averaging two sub

indices and multiplyin g this result by the total saltwater wetland acreage
downstream of the location of diverted water . The two sub

- metrics are 1) Percent of available water diverted directly to saltwater wetlands, and 2) Percent of saltwater wetland acreage meeting the targe t salinity condition (<20 psu) during the critical season for juvenile crocodile which is from June through
November. This habitat lift is measured in units of “acres of lift”. The percent available water diverted directly to saltwater wetlands is a meas ure of the capability of the alternative to direct water into saltwater wetlands. It was computed for each of the four basins by determining what fraction of the daily flow would be diverted by project pump stations discharging to saltwater
wetlands. In basins where multiple pump stations are diverting water to both saltwater wetlands and freshwater wetlands, the available water was assigned to each of the pump stations in proportion to the total pump capacit y . The overall percentage of water diverted fo r each basin was computed based upon
the ratio of the total amount of water diverted to the total available as indicated by the his toric flow record of releases at the coastal structure s . The length of the period of record used for each basin varied from 20 years of daily flows to more than 30 years of daily flows. The estimates of saltwater wetland acreage meeting the salinity target were derived from output from the TABS

- MDS model. This model was configured to simulate the saltwater wetland area
locate d between the bay shoreline and the L

- 31E levee. Post processing of
TABS

- MDS model output provided average annual estimates of acreage within the target saltwater wetland zone that met both hydration and salinity targets.
This TABS

- MDS output is a measur ement of the effectiveness of the diversion of water into the saltwater wetlands. The PDT decided to use an average of the
two sub

- metrics to quantify the potential for saltwater wetland habitat lift.

TABLE 6-5 shows the saltwater wetland lift estimates for all of the considered alternatives computed using the CBEEM tool. Alternatives O, Phase 1 provides the greatest saltwater wetland lift (6, 396 HU) primarily because this alternativeSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 49 diverts a high percentage (49%) of available water into the saltwater wetlands than even the larger Alternative O which diverts 45% of the available water to saltwater wetlands. Though Alternat ive M diverts as much water as Alternative O, Phase I to the saltwater wetlands it scores somewhat less than Alternative O, Phase I because it provides fewer acres of saltwater wetlands with the appropriate salinity. This may be due to its sole reliance on gravity discharge which is constrained by higher ground elevations in the saltwater wetland areas
north of C

- 102. Alternatives Q and YB provide the two

- thirds to one

- half of the
saltwater wetland benefits provided by Alternative O, Phase 1 primarily due to the focus on freshwater wetland rehydration which limits the amount of water
that is available for tidal wetland restoration.

TABLE 6-6 shows the estimated percentage of targeted saltwater wetlands meeting the 20 psu target salinity for sub

- metric B.1 (from TABLE 6-4 ) under wet, dry, and average year hydrologic conditions. Note that in this table, TABS

MDS results were not available for the dry year simulation so these estimates were derived by adjusting the average year results proportionately based upon the availability of water during a dry year. These results show that the percentage of the available target saltwater acreage meeting the target salinity condition under dry year conditions is approxima tely 1⁄2 of the average year
conditions. This indicates that there is some assurance that the habitat lift will be provided during low flow years. The table shows that wet year conditions provide two to three times as many acres meeting the salinity target as average year conditions.

The alternative maps ( Section 5, FIGURES 5 -6

, 5-7

, 5-8 , and 5-9 ) that show the boundaries of the targeted saltwater wetland rehydration areas provide the
best available indication of the locations where saltwater wetland lif t is expected. The zones of greatest saltwater wetland habitat lift are expected to be
closest to the locations where freshwater will be diverted into these areas as well as in the tidal creeks that form downstream of the spreader ditches. The
locations of these tidal creeks are not presently known to the degree required for mapping them since flow patterns depend upon micro topography as much as on how the spreader ditches are constructed and operated.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 50 TABLE 6-5 : SALTWATER WETLAND HABITAT LIFT SUMMARY

CRITERION BASED ECOLOGICAL EVAULATION MATRIX

DBHYDRO FLOWS

SALTWATER WETLAND ECOLOGICAL ZONE

Objectives
and Criteria Units Method Target Existi

ng Cond

ition Future
Without Project
Alt O Alt M Alt Q Alt YB Alt O,

Part I ALT O
NAI ALT O, P I,
NAI ALT M, NAI

A. Reduced canal discharge

1. Potential percent of

surface water

diverted to SW Wetlands (PM 4) ac

ft/yr Flow

diversion

using DBHydro

Database 368,934

- - 166,1

18 180,322 117,431 79,620 181,623 146,218 163,245 134,057

0% 0% 45% 49% 32% 22% 49% 40% 44% 36%
B. Salinity performance

1. Acres of

tidal wetlands meeting 0

- 20 psu criterion (PM 2) Acres Average Daily SW

Wetland

Acres Meeting

Criteria (TABS

MDS model output) 21,035 1,815 1,869 3,916 3,219 3 ,177 3,177 3,446 3,446 3,446 3,219

8.63

% 8.88% 18.62

% 15.30% 15.10% 15.10% 16.38% 16.38% 16.38% 15.30%

S altwater Wetlands Mean Criteria Result 0.043 0.044 0.318 0.321 0.235 0.183 0.328 0.280 0.303 0.258

Total SW Wetland Acres Available 22,55

0 22,550 22,55

0 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550

Total SW Wetland Habitat Units (acre

- lift) 973 1,002 7,176 7,236 5,292 4,136 7,398 6,316 6,836 5,822 Net SW Wetlands Habitat Units (Net from Future
Without Condition) (acre

- lift)

- 29 0 6,174 6,234 4,290 3,134 6,396 5,3 14 5,8 34 4,8 20 Key: ac

- ft/yr : acre

- feet per year

, Alt : Alternative

, PM : performance measure , ppt: parts per thousandSection 6 Evaluation and Com parison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 51 TABLE 6-6 : PERCENT OF TARGET SALTWATER WETLAND ACRE S MEETING

SALINITY TARGET OF L ESS THAN 20 PSU DURING WET SEASON FO R THREE

REPRESENTATIVE YEARS

ALTERNATIVE Percent Target Saltwater Acreage Meeting Salinity Target (<20 psu) Dry

Year (1999

- 2000) 

### * Percent Target Saltwater Acreage Meeting Salinity Target (<20 psu) Average Year (1998

- 1999) Percent Target Saltwater Acreage Meeting Salinity Target (<20 psu)

Wet Year (1995

- 1996) Existing

Condition 4% 9% 33%

FWO 4% 9% 32%

ALT O 8% 19% 46%

ALT M 7% 15% 38%
ALT Q 6% 15% 37%

ALT YB 6% 15% 37%

ALT O,P I 7% 16% 44% * Dry year estimates were not available from the TABS

- MDS modeling so these estimates are derived by multiplying the average year results by the ratio of dry year flows to average year flows.

6.3.3 Nearshore Benefits

The estimation of nearshore restoration benefits incorporates three aspects of restoration, the diversion of water from point

- source canal discharges, the improvement in water quality due to upstream wetland application of canal water,

and the maintenance of nearshore salinity to less than 20 psu. Diversion of water
from the coastal structures was considered an important measure of an alternatives ability to improve nearshore habitat because diversion is thought to limit rapid and ecologically undesirable salinity changes that occur in the bay immediately east of the canal mouths as a result of large discharge events. Water quality improvement was

considered an important measure of the potential for nearshore habitat imp rovement
because poor water quality associated with untreated discharge of canal water adversely affects nearshore seagrass habitat. Achieving nearshore salinity targets favorable to oysters , pink shrimp, and juvenile fish was considered an important

meas ure of the potential to improve nearshore habitat since salinity conditions are critical to these ecologically important species. Nearshore h abitat l ift wa s computed by averaging the three sub

- indices and multiplying this result by the total available

near shore acreage. The three sub

- indices are: 1) Percent of available water diverted from coastal structure, 2) The average of the percent nitr ate and peak total phosphorus load targets achieved, 3) Percent of nearshore acres within 500 meters of
the shorelin e meeting the target salinity conditions. This habitat lift was measured
in units of “acres of lift”. The water diversion index was computed for each of the four basins by determining what fraction of the daily flow would be diverted by all project

pump stations. The water quality improvement index was computed as the average of the nitrate and total phosphorus target load removal achieved. The nitrate loadSection 6 Evaluation and Com parison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 52 reduction was based on an estimate of the nitrate uptake in the wetlands receiving
the diverted w ater. The peak total phosphorus load reduction was based on the percent of total available water diverted into the target wetlands. The index for nearshore acreage within 500 meters meeting the salinity target was estimated using historic daily canal flo ws and estimates of the target freshwater flow volume required to achieve the salinity target within the zone. The target freshwater flow volume in
each basin necessary to maintain nearshore salinity within the desired range was determined by analyzing th e results of Scenario 10 of the preliminary scenario runs (PSR) of the Biscayne Bay TABS

- MDS model. The ability of each alternative to meet the target salinity was evaluated by comparing the volume diverted to the saltwater wetlands to the flow requiremen ts predicted by the Scenario 10 flows. Though a daily estimate of the percent target achieved was computed, the overall salinity sub

- index was reported based on the average daily percent flow target achieved. The three sub

indices were weighted equally in computing an overall nearshore habitat lift estimate.

TABLE 6-7 shows the nearshore benefits predicted using the CBEEM tool.
Alternative O provides the greatest nearshore lift primarily because it provides a high level of water quality improvement and also diverts the greatest amount of water from the point source canal discharges. Alternative Q provides the second best lift to the nearshore area also because of the extensive water quality improvement and
volum e of water diverted from the canal outfalls. Alternative YB does not perform as well as Q, or P primarily due to its reduced efficiency with regard to maintaining nearshore salinity. Alternative O, Phase 1 provides approximately two

- thirds of the nearshore benefits accorded Alternative O as a result of having smaller pump capacity available to divert flows from the canals. Also its reduced footprint provides less water quality improvement.

TABLE 6-8 shows the wet and dry season nearshore acres meeting the salinity target as estimated for average hydrologic conditions. In addition, the table includes the dry season acreage meeting the salinity target for the drought conditions as represented by the 10 % exceedance probability flows. This data shows that the dry season acreage is approximately 60 to 75 percent of the wet season acreage for average hydrologic conditions. Dry season response under drought conditions (10% exceedance frequency flows) is ap proximately one

- third of the acreage of the average wet season hydrologic
conditions. Under drought conditions (10% exceedance probability flows), Alternative O, Phase 1 provides approximately 25% of the average wet season nearshore acreage meeting the sa linity target as shown in TABLE 6-7

. Though this is an indication

that low

- salinity estuarine habitat may be maintained on average during the dry

sea son, even during drought years, there may be periods of 30 days or more when little to no water is available for diversion into the nearshore areas. The monthly
available and diverted flows in the C

- 100, C

- 1, C

- 102, and C

- 103 canals (shown in
FIGURES 6-3

, 6-4

, 6-5

, and 6-6 ) indicate that under average hydrologic conditions (50% exceedance probability flows) water will be available during all of the dry season
months in the C

- 1, C

- 102 and C

- 103 basins. Under drought conditions (10%
exceedance probability flow conditions), only a small amount of water will beSection 6 Evaluation and Com parison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 53 available during a couple of dry season months. The C

- 100 canal system has almost no flow under average and dry hydrologic conditions during the dry season. Under the 1 in 10 year dry se ason drought conditions, there are a couple of months with
almost no flow available in any of the four sub

- basins to sustain nearshore salinity within the target range. However, during these low flow periods, suitable refugia should be available in enclosed tidal creeks and pools located along the shoreline as evidenced by the existing populations of juvenile fish and pink shrimp in the

nearshore habitat zone.

The best indication where nearshore habitat lift will occur for each alternative is
shown in Sec tion 5, FIGURES 5 -6

, 5-7

, 5-8 , and 5-9

. Nearshore habitat lift is expected to occur within the 500 or so meters directly east of the targeted saltwater wetland shown in the figures for each alternative. The greatest nearshore habitat lift is likely to oc cur at the mouths of tidal creeks since these creeks are likely to receive a large proportion of the diverted freshwater

.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 54 TABLE 6-7 : NEARSHORE HABITAT LIFT SUMMARY

CRITERION BASED ECOLOGICAL EVAULATION MATRIX

DBHYDRO FLOWS

NEARSHORE ECOLOGICAL ZONE

Objectives and
Criteria Units Method Target Existing
Condition Future
Without Project Alt O Alt M Alt Q Alt YB Alt O,

Part I ALT O
NAI ALT O, P I,
NAI ALT M,
NAI
A. Reduced canal discharge

1. Potential percent of

surface water

diverted from canal (PM 3) ac

- ft/yr Flow quantity

diverted from

canals (DBHYDRO) 368,934

- - 300,496 144,549 294,952 223,557 216,943 300,496 216,943 144,549

0% 0% 81% 39% 80% 61% 59% 81% 59% 39%

B. Reduced contaminant concentrations and loads

1. Nitrate Load Reduction (PM 5) Mtons/yr GIS Land use / Nitrate

Removal

Eqn. 23 847 305 49 232 54 104 143 49 143 232

0% 66% 97% 75% 96% 90% 85% 97% 85% 75% 2. Phosphorus

Peak Load Reduction (PM 6) Mtons/yr

USGS Flow / Conc Eqn. 0 33 33 21 9 20 14 15 21 15 9

0% 0% 62% 27% 61% 44% 47% 62% 47% 27% Average % Target Achieved

0% 33% 80% 51% 79% 67% 66% 80% 66% 51%
C. Salinity performance

1. Acres of Bay bottom meeting 20 psu criterion (within 500 M of shore) (PM 1) Acres TABS / PSR Run Analysis

with Flow

Diversion

Calcs 3462 886 886 1157 1348 744 605 1268 973 1089 909

25.6% 25.6% 33% 39% 21% 17% 37% 28% 31% 26%

Nearshore Mean Criteria Result 0.085 0.195 0.648 0.430 0.600 0.483 0.539 0.631 0.521 0.388

Total Available Nearshore Acres 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585

Total Nearshore Habitat Units (acre

- lift) 732 1,673 5,565 3,696 5,154 4,147 4,624 5,413 4,475 3,333 Nearshore Habitat Units (Net from Future Without ) (acre

- lift)

- 941 0 3 ,8 92 2,023 3 ,4 81 2 ,4 74 2, 950 3, 740 2, 802 1 ,6 60 Key: Alt Alternative PM performance measure M meter
GIS Geographical Information System PSR preliminary scenario runs USGS US Geological Surve ySection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 55 TABLE 6-8 : NEARSHORE SALINIT Y LIFT ESTIMATED FOR AVERAGE WET AND

DRY SEASON HYDROLOGIC CONDITION S AND DRY SEASON 10%

EXCEEDANCE FLOWS

WET SEASON RESPONSE (AVERAGE HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS) NEARSHORE ACRES OF BAY BOTTOM MEETING SALINITY CONDITION (<20 PSU) WITHIN 500 METERS OF SHORELINE (acres)

ALTERNATIVE DEERING CUTLER NORTH
HOMESTEAD SOUTH
HOMESTEAD TOTAL

ALTERNATIVE O 22 840 310 183 1355
ALTERNATIVE Q 14 837 0 0 851

ALTERNATIVE M 2 1078 0 393 1473

ALTERNATIVE YB 0 682 0 0 682

PHASE I, ALTERNATIVE O 10 870 446 145 1471

NAI ALTERNATIVE O 22 668 310 183 1183

NAI ALTERNATIVE M 2 672 0 393 1067

NAI ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1 10 703 446 145 1304

DRY SEASON RESPONSE (AVERAGE HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS) NEARSHORE ACRES OF BAY BOTTOM MEETING SALINITY CONDITION (<20 PSU) WITHIN 500 METERS OF SHORELINE (acres)

ALTERNATIVE O 12 632 199 116 958
ALTERNATIVE Q 7 630 0 0 637

ALTERNATIVE M 1 913 0 308 1223

ALTERNATIVE YB 0 528 0 0 528

PHASE I, ALTERNATIVE O 5 651 303 107 1066

NAI ALTERNATIVE O 12 437 199 116 763

NAI ALTERNATIVE M 1 441 0 308 751

NAI ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1 5 459 303 107 875

DRY SEASON RESPONSE (10% EXCEEDANCE FLOWS) NEARSHORE ACRES OF BAY BOTTOM MEETING SALINITY CONDITION (<20 PSU) WITHIN 500 METERS OF SHORELINE (acres)

ALTERNATIVE O 2 402 81 47 533
ALTERNATIVE Q 1 402 0 0 403

ALTERNATIVE M 1 750 0 189 939

ALTERNATIVE YB 0 368 0 0 368
PHASE I, ALTERNATIVE O 1 416 125 55 598

NAI ALTERNATIVE O 2 166 81 47 296

NAI ALTERNATIVE M 1 170 0 189 360

NAI ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 1 1 183 125 55 364Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 56 6.3.4 Overall Ecological Benefit Estimates

The CBEEM tool integrates multiple performance metrics into a single value to represent the habitat enhancement provided by each alternative. The overall Total
Habitat Units for each of the alternatives is shown in the bottom line of TABLE

6-2 . Alternative O provides the highest lift, followed closely by Alternative Q . The
difference between these two alternatives is reflected in the sub

- measure scores. For instance, Alternative Q features are designed to favor freshwater wetland restoration and subsequently scores higher tha n Alternative O in terms of freshwater habitat lift. Conversely, Alternative O features are designed to restore both freshwater wetlands and saltwater wetland so it scores higher in saltwater wetland restoration relative to Alternative Q. The difference between Alternative O and Alternative O, Phase I is primarily a result of the reduced freshwater wetland
restoration that will occur in Phase I.

The Project Delivery Team (PDT) considered several options for weighting the evaluation metrics and performa nce measures prior to applying ecological benefits indices to the acreages in the various ecological zones of the project. These options included weighting performance measures applicable to a given objective and weighting objectives applicable to a given region. Given the likelihood of sea level rise impacting the project area, the PDT considered applying different weights to
the three ecozones. For instance, benefits to the nearshore zone appear to be most susceptible to sea level rise while freshwater wetland benefits appear to be least susceptible to sea level rise. Using this logic, the team might have given a low weight to nearshore benefits while giving a higher weight to freshwater wetland benefits. However, the team determined that nearshore ha bitat enhancement and preservation was critical in t he short

- term given the relative scarcity of high functioning nearshore habitat within the project area. In the long

- term, the team believes that the preserved nearshore habitat would translocate inland as mean sea level increases. The team discarded overweighting the freshwater wetland be nefits
since in the intermediate time

- frame (20

- 30 years) sea level rise may result in the involuntary conversion of farmland to abandoned farmland which will revert to freshwater wetlands and ultimately saltwater wetlands. Over or under weighting the saltwater wetland benefits was not considered by the team probably because the saltwater wetland zone is necessary to move water from the upland to the
nearshore zone. Af ter due consideration, the PDT decided to treat the evaluation metrics, performance measures, and objectives with equal weighting since this scheme satisfied the greatest number of team members and provided the best separation between alternatives.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 57 6.3.5 Benefit Assessment Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

There is no standardized methodology for predicting ecosystem benefits that result from habitat restoration projects. For the Corps planning process, the most apparent adverse risks of employing a given ben efit estimation methodology are: 1) the most effective project alternative is not selected for implementation, 2) the selected project provides significantly fewer benefits than estimated, or 3) the selected project significantly harms the resource. An u ncertainty analysis is typically used to quantify risks and potentially avoid the likelihood of the three
adverse outcomes listed above. For the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, t he most apparent sources of uncertainty in the estimated project benef its and the selection of the preferred plan arise from the use of the CBEEM model for the prediction of project benefits, the uncertainty in habitat response to hydrologic change, the effect of climate change on water availability, and the effect of sea le vel rise on future project benefits

.

6.3.5.1 Uncertainty in Habitat Response to Hydrologic Change

One source of uncertainty in project benefits results from the lag between hydrologic change and the expected habitat response. Ecological patterns and processes in Everglades wetlands respond to interannual variability in rainfall (amount & timing) and canal flows and inputs (which are management driven and do not always parallel rainfall patterns) in many ways. Ecological processes often respond to environmental drivers with time lags of longer than months (e.g. years) and changes in ecological patterns nearly always lag environmental changes by several years. The performance measures average a time series of results across different hydrologic conditions (wet, dr y, average years) and across seasons to
create one habitat unit score for each of the three habitat types

. The habitat improvement that results from this project will not occur immediately after project features begin operation but rather will occur over a period of 10 years as vegetation and wildlife respond to the altered hydrology.

E ach year type and season may not be an equally important predictor of ecological benefits. For example, extreme salinity during dry years may be ecologically limiting a nd, thus, perhaps weigh more heavily on overall habitat improvement

. Since these ecological response lags are likely on the order of 5 to 10 years while the project planning timeframe is 50

- years, m ulti

- year lags in ecological and/or hydrologic responses were not as critical to interpretation of the CBEEM benefit model output s.

6.3.5.2 Uncertainty in the Availability of Water

Benefits from this project are closely linked to the availability of water. T he CBEEM estimates of project benefits reflect average hydrologic conditions within the project area as computed using long

- term historic canal discharge records. ToSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 58 determine the sustainability of the project, project benefits were estimated under

extreme hydrologic conditions. Total annual flow estimates for the 10, 50 and 90 percent exceedance frequencies were calculated using DBHYDRO flow data from C

100, C

- 1, C

- 102, and C

- 103 for the 1986 to 2006 period. The total annual flows for
all four canals were summed to calculate the annual flow available to the project. These annual total available flows were sorted and ranked. The years chosen to represent the 10, 50, and 90 percent flow conditions were then selected based upon the ranking of total flows as well as the ranking of annual total flows in each basin. The 10 percent exceedance frequency annual total flow is approximately 150,000

acre

- feet which occurred in 1990

. The 50 percent exceedance frequency annual total flow is approximately 360,000 acre

- feet which occurred in 1992. The 90 percent exceedance frequency annual total flow is approximately 490,000 acre

- feet which

occurred in 2002. Three special CBEEM model runs were completed using the 10, 50, and 90 percent flow records. TABLE 6-9 shows the project benefits estimated for dry, average, and wet hydrologic conditions as represented by the 10 percent, 50 percent, and 90 percent exceedance fr equency annual total flows. To generate comparable 10 and 90 percent nearshore benefits, the target flow diversion quantity was set to the median (50% exceedance frequency) flow volume for all three exceedance frequencies. Also, where TABS

- MDS model out put was not available
for the sub

- metric of tidal wetland acres meeting target salinity conditions, estimates were generated by multiplying the average hydrologic condition response by the ratio of exceedance flows (10 and 90 percent) to median flows (50 p ercent).
The TABLE 6-9 results indicate that for Alternative O, Phase I, drought years (10 percent exceedance) will provide about 80 percent of the median benefits estimated for the 50 percent exceedance flow quant ity. Wet hydrologic conditions (90 percent exceedance flows) appear to provide approximately 20 to 80 percent more benefits
than the benefits estimated for median flow conditions. The impact of water availability on the freshwater wetland benefits predic ted fo r Alternative O, Phase 1 is not large primarily due to the fact that less than 500 acres of freshwater wetlands are targeted for rehydration in this alternative. The alternatives with larger freshwater wetland target zones such as Alternatives O, Q and YB are more likely to have freshwater wetlands that are insufficiently hydrated under drought conditions. Alternatives O, Phase 1, and Alternative M with their limited freshwater wetland target areas are more likely to have sufficient water supplies to hydrate the targeted freshwater wetland areas.

Nearshore and tidal wetland zones show greater correlation between water availability and predicted benefits than that shown for the freshwater wetland

zone. The limited difference s between the benefit estimates for the 10 percent and 50 percent exceedance particularly for nearshore and tidal wetland zones is due to
the inclusion of non

- hydrologic sub

- metrics in the calculation of benefits for the three ecosystem benefit zones. If o nly hydrologic metrics are used in the calculation of habitat improvement, the impact of low flow and high flow conditions is more evident. The estimated acres of nearshore bay bottom meeting the target salinitySection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 59 condition of less than 20 psu under drought , average, and wet hydrologic conditions
are shown in TABLE 6- 10

. For Alternative O, Phase 1, the acres meeting the target salinity condition for dro ught years is less than 15% of the acreage meeting the target for median conditions (50 percent exceedance flows). Under wet conditions (90 percent exceedance flows) the acreage meeting the target salinity is more than twice the acreage under the median condition for Alternative O, Phase I. The importance of reuse flows is shown in the results for the next added increment versions (NAI). For Alternative O, Phase 1 without reuse water (NAI conditions), nearshore acreage meeting the target salinity is less than that expected for the
Future Without Alternative. This is due to diversion of water to the freshwater
wetlands. Overall this analysis shows that project benefits, particularly in the nearshore ecozone, will be limited under drought conditions equivalent to the 10 percent exceedance frequency flows. While drought conditions are expected to reduce habitat productivity, they occur infrequently (1 in 10 years). The target species (juvenile fish, shrimp, oysters) are able to survive as evident by exist ing populations of these species within the project area.

The impact of water availability on project benefits as shown in TABLE 6-9 and

TABLE 6- 10 were computed under the assumption that future water availability

can b e estimated using historic hydrologic conditions. As noted in the hydrology discussion of Section 4.0, there is now evidence of anthropogenic changes to global climate patterns that will likely have an impact on South Florida in terms of rainfall, evapo -t ranspiration, and temperature. Projections for rainfall show a reduction of up to 20% in rainfall in South Florida by 2100 as compared to the
historic condit ions experienced between 1980 and 1999. Climate change is likely to result in fewer project benefits than those projected in the CBEEM results because of reduced rainfall, higher evapotranspiration, and longer durations between
rainfall events. The impact of climate change on project benefits is difficult to predict given the uncertainty in the benef it calculations as well as in predictions of future weather patterns and water management strategies . Using a simple assumption that project benefits are linearly corre lated to water availability, a 1 0%
reduction in rainfall over the next 50 years would correspond to a 1 0% reduction in project benefits.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 60 TABLE 6-9 : RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROJECT BENEFITS AND WATER AVAILABILI TY



### PROJECT BENEFITS UNDER DIFFERENT HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS

Hydrologic Conditions Existing
Condition Future
Without Alt. O Alt. M Alt. Q Alt. YB Alt. O,

P1 Alt. O,
NAI Alt. O

P1,
NAI Alt. M,
NAI

NEARSHORE BENEFITS (acre

- lift)
10% Exceedance Freq. Flows 732 1

, 655 4

, 648 2

, 795 4

, 413 4

, 128 4

, 125 4

, 455 3,934 2

, 324 50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 732 1

, 662 4

, 878 3

, 379 4

, 473 3

, 729 4

, 173 4

, 715 4

, 096 2

, 987
90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 732 1, 682 6, 022 4, 215 5, 541 4, 540 5, 353 5, 920 5,262 4, 000

SALTWAT ER WETLAND BENEFITS (acre

- lift)
10% Exceedance Freq. Flows 415 427 4

, 138 5

, 510 3

, 079 2

, 757 4

, 590 2

, 897 3

, 456 2

, 677 50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 973 1

, 002 6

, 435 6

, 538 4

, 541 3

, 742 6

, 682 5

, 485 6

, 034 4

, 914
90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 3

, 721 3

, 608 13

, 349 13

, 302 9

, 975 7

, 733 13

, 667 11

, 991 12

, 534 10

, 469

FRESHWATER WETLAND BENEFITS (acre

- lift)
10% Exceedance Freq. Flows 0 0 3

, 429 185 5

, 413 4

, 496 480 2

, 422 408 115 50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 0 0 3

, 677 186 5

, 800 4

, 867 482 2

, 764 429 124
90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 0 0 3, 949 188 6, 137 5, 098 484 3, 175 451 164

TOTAL PROJECT BENEFITS (acre

- lift)
10% Exceedance Freq. Flows 1,147 2,082 12,216 8,490 12,905 11,381 9,195 9,774 7,799 5,116 50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 1,705 2,664 14,990 10,103 14,815 12,338 11,336 12,964 10,559 8,025
90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 4,453 5,290 23,321 17,705 21,653 17,371 19,504 21,085 18,247 14,634

NET TOTAL PROJECT BENEFITS (acre

- lift) (Net Future Without Conditions)
10% Exceedance Freq. Flows (935) 0 10,134 6,408 10,824 9,300 7,113 7,693 5,717 3,034 50% Exceedance Freq. Flows (959) 0 12,327 7,439 12,151 9,675 8,672 10,300 7,896 5,362
90% Exceedance Freq. Flows (837) 0 18,031 12,415 16,363 12,081 14,214 15,795 12,957 9,344

Note: 10% Exceedance Frequency Flow is estimated as 150,000 acre

- ft/yr Total for C

- 100, C

- 1, C

- 102, and C

- 103 (1990 flows DBHYDRO)
50% Exceedance Frequency Flow is estimated as 360,000 acre

- ft/yr Total for C

- 100, C

- 1, C

- 102, and C

- 103 (1992 flows DBHYDRO) 90% Exceedance Frequency Flow is estimated as 490,000 acre

- ft/yr Total for C

- 100, C

- 1, C

- 102, and C

- 103 (2002 flows DBHYDRO)Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 61 TABLE 6-10 : SALINITY RESPONSE FOR ALTERNATIVE O, P HASE 1 

### NEARSHORE SALINITY RESPONSE (NET FWO CONDITION)

Hydrologic Conditions Alt. O Alt.

M Alt. Q Alt.

YB Alt. O, P1 Alt. O,
NAI Alt. O P1,
NAI Alt. M,
NAI

NEARSHORE SALINITY PERFORMANCE SUBMETRIC C.1 Acres of Bay bottom meeting 20 ppt criterion (within 500 M of shore)

10 Percent Exceedance Flows (99) 279 (362) (419) 43 (333) (188) (292)

50 Percent Exceedance Flows 164 372 (246) (356) 297 (33) 203 (103)

90 Percent Exceedance Flows 712 672 160 (87) 813 588 703 412

6.3.5.3 Uncertainty in the CBEEM Benefits Tool

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is a water resource based ecosystem restoration effort targeting freshwater wetlands , tidal wetlands, and near shore estuarine zones. As such, the primary means of altering habitat functionality is through the diversion of freshwater from water supply / drainage canals into or
toward the three habitat zones. The premise of the benefits assessment methodology is that changes to habitat functionality can be quantif ied by comparing differences between hydrologic outputs such as wetland rehydr ation and salinity
conditions that result from alternative implementation

. There is uncertainty in the degree to which the post

- processing methods used to convert CBEEM inputs into performance metric signals accurately reflects the direction and magnitude of changes to habitat functionality.

The freshwater wetland performance metric is composed of the exotic/invasive vegetation sub

- metric and the wetlands rehydration sub

- metric. The exotic/
invasive sub

- metric was performed using available GIS vegetat ion maps and best professional judgment regarding the effectiveness of vegetation management activities. It is possible that the lift associated with vegetation management within the targeted freshwater wetland areas may not be maintained over the life of the project. This risk is the least for Alternatives O, Phase I and M that have small freshwater wetland footprint s

. The rehydration sub

- metric relies upon a simple equation that incorporates wetland stage recession rates and daily water availability to estimate acres of wetlands sufficiently rehydrated. To reduce uncertainty in the results for this sub

- metric, two estimates for the rate at which water stage falls wi thin a wetland impoundment were used. These two “recession
rate” estimates are from comparable wetlands located in Miami

- Dade County (S

332C I mpoundment , and Military Canal Demonstration Wetland) . Additional uncertainty in this sub

- metric comes about from the simplicity of the rehydration equation that does no t incorporate rainfall, evapotranspiration, or site specificSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 62 groundwater stage conditions. This rehydraton equation is most likely to provide high estimates of freshwater w etland acres rehydrated for alternatives with large freshwater wetland footprints such as Alternative O, Q, and YB. This is particularly so for the YB alternative given the relatively small size of the total diversion pump capacity (600 cfs) in comparison to the size of the target wetland area (>9,000 acres). The freshwater wetland rehydration estimates for Alternative O, Phase I and Alternative M suffer from less risk of over estimation since these two alternatives have smaller target freshwater wetland areas and proportionally larger diversion pumps for these areas. The estimate of freshwater wetland acres rehydrated under Alternative O, Phase I is considered to be fairly certain given the
limited area targeted for rehydration ( 400 acres) , appropriately sized pump capacity (120 cfs), and availability of water (particularly under drought conditions). If the selected plan is other than Alternative O, Phase I or Alternative M, then additional modeling of freshwater rehydration using MODBRANCH and/ or DRAINMOD is warranted to verify the freshwater wetland rehydration estimated provided by
CBEEM.

The saltwater wetland performance metric is computed by averaging the results from the reduced canal discharge sub

- metric and the tidal wetland salinity sub

metric. Th e reduced canal dis charge provide s a strong signal of the relative ability of a given alternative to maximize saltwater wetland lift . This assumes that there is a linear relationship between the fraction of water diverted to these wetlands and the habitat suitability of the se wetlands. While linearity may not necessarily be the case, the two endpoints are known from the present condition with no water diverted to the wetlands and the past condition when overland flow resulted in fully functional habitat prior to the constru ction of the canals and levees. The tidal wetland salinity sub

- metric provides the strongest link between the proposed hydrologic changes and the resulting habitat condition; however, since these
estimates come from the TABS

- MDS model for Biscayne Bay the y suffer from the inherent uncertainty of numerical model inputs. The topographical data used in
the TABS

- MDS model provides one significant source of uncertainty. The diversion of freshwater into the saltwater wetland area will likely result in preferential flow paths within these wetlands. These preferential flow paths were not incorporated
into the TABS

- MDS model simply because the i r location and size are unknown at
this time. While preferential flow paths will tend to limit the areal extent of rehydrated saltwater wetlands, these flow paths are expected to develop into tidal creeks which are ecologically productive features of the tidal wetland area. The

ave raging of the two sub

- metrics used in this performance measure is intended to reduce the possibility of over

- estimation of saltwater wetland benefits. Overall, t he uncertainty in the estimates of saltwater wetland benefits is not considered to be a

critic al factor in the selection of the preferred plan given that all of the alternatives have similar saltwater wetland footprints.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 63 The nearshore performance metric is computed by averaging the results from the reduced canal discharge sub

- metric, the reduced contaminant concentration /lo ad
sub

- metric, and the nearshore salinity sub

- metric. The reduced canal discharge provides a strong signal of the relative ability of a given alternative to maximize nearshore lift by avoiding point source discharges from the canal mouths . These discharges cause rapid and severe salinity swings in the nearshore zone. In CBEEM, the assumption is that there is a linear relationship between the quality of

nearshore habitat and the percentage of available water diverted from the canals

. While linearity may not necessarily be the case, the two endpoints are known as indicated from the present degraded habitat condition with all canal water discharged through the coastal structures and the past condition when overland
flow resulte d in fully functional nearshore habitat

. In CBEEM a simple linear relationship is used to tie contaminant concentration/load sub

- metric to nearshore habitat improvement. While this may be an oversimplification of the underlying relationship between water quality and habitat suitability, developing a more

r obust mathematical relationship was not possible given the available data

. Other sources of uncertainty in this sub

- metric come from the use of average
concentrations in the estimation of the nitrate loa d reduction and in the use of the USGS regression equations to estimate phosphorus concentrations. The third sub

metric (nearshore salinity) provides the most direct measure ment of the nearshore area where salinity conditions are likely to be favorable to target species (juvenile fish, pink shrimp, and oysters)

. This sub

- metric is evaluated using measured salinity in the nearshore area for existing conditions and Scenario 10 of the TABS

MDS Preliminary Scenario Runs (PSR) to estimate the effect on near shore salinity of diverting water into the tidal wetlands. The Scenario 10 PSR runs were set up to determine the spatial and temporal distribution of freshwater inflow necessary to continuously meet the target nearshore zone salinity of <= 20 ppt. The mo st significant source of uncertainty related to this sub

- metric is related to the assumption used in the PSR model runs that the available water will be equally
distributed between 11 tidal creeks located along the shoreline. Preferential flow paths are l ikely to occur as a result of distributing water into the saltwater wetland zone. As a result, the patt ern of water distribution may not match that used in the PSR model runs. This may result in more or fewer nearshore acre s meeting the salinity target t han that predicted in this sub

- metric.

The estimation of all three of the ecozone performance metrics suffer from the use of averaging either of inputs and outputs. Averaging inputs and results is a necessary and many times unavoidable simplification required to develop a single result by which different alternatives are compared. The danger of using average conditions is that extreme conditions (high salinity, extended drought periods, etc.) can be the factors that limit project benefits. Where pos sible, the BBCW PDT looked at annual, seasonal and monthly hydrologic inputs and outputs to make sure that the “average” results also reflected to some extent the potential for benefits during extreme hydrologic conditions.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 64 6.3.5.4 Uncertainty in Effect of Sea Level Rise on Predicted Benefits

Since the study area elevation varies between +10.0

– 0.0 feet NGVD29, it is apparent that sea level rise will affect project features and the expected ecological benefits. Corps planning guidance (EC 1165 -2- 211) calls for evaluating the effects of sea level rise (SLR) under multiple scenarios. T he multiple scenarios recommended include analysis of sea level rise at low, intermediate and high levels at 20, 50, and 100 years following the completion of project construction. FIGURE

6-6 below shows the expected benefit response pattern as it is impacted by sea level

rise. The response curves in this figure are based on the assumption that it takes 10 years to build up to t he expected maximum habitat improvement. The expected impacts to the three ecozones that result from the 20 year and 50 year high sea level rise scenarios analyzed for EC

- 1165 -2- 211 are shown by the decline in annual benefit performance after year 10

. Li near interpolation is used to estimate benefit performance between the inflection points. In this analysis, there is not expected to an impact to nearshore benefits at year 20 but at year 50, these benefits are estimated to be reduced by approximately 12 percent. At year 20 the saltwater wetland benefits are estimated to be reduced by approximately 12 percent while at year 50, these benefits would be reduced by approximately 54 percent. There is not expected to be an impact to freshwater wetland benefits at year 20 but at year 50, these benefits are estimated to be reduced by approximately 52 percent. Average annual project benefits for Alternative O, Phase 1 are expected to be reduced by sea level rise by 1 7 % over the 50 year life of the project as comp ared to the annualized benefit estimates for future conditions not impacted by sea level rise. Alternatives O, Q, and YB should be somewhat less affected given that a larger percentage of
their benefits come from freshwater wetland habitat.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 65 Alternative O, Phase 1 Benefits as Impacted by Sea Level Rise

0% 20% 40% 60% 80% 100% 120%

2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050 2055

YearPercent of Projected Benefits

NEARSHORE

SALTWATER

FRESHWATER

FIGURE 6-6 : EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL RISE ON PROJECTED BENEFIT STRE AM FOR ALTERNATIVE O, P HASE I

6.3.5.5 Conclusions

In general, the estimation of habitat restoration benefits is less a science than an art. In addition to a lack of universal measurements of “habitat condition”, there is little agreement within the scientific community regarding what constitutes
scientif ically defensible metrics and evaluation procedures. For each project, the study team is responsible for conceiving and implementing benefit assessment methods that likely are unique since study areas as well as hydrologic modeling tools are project speci fic. As with any ecosystem benefits estimation exercise , there are unlimited ways in which modeling results can be mathematically manipulated to arrive at a single number that represent the net project benefits. One methodology is not necessarily more co rrect than the next; however, it is important that logical methods are used and can be adequately defended. For the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, the project delivery team created performance metrics with the goal of quantifying the expected chan ge to habitat functionality that will result from project implementation. The team limited the assessment to three performance metrics that were design to address the critical aspects of project hydrology: rehydration of freshwater wetlands, rehydration o f saltwater wetlands, and maintaining optimal salinity conditions in the nearshore. Critical aspects ofSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 66 project success such as water quality improvement and exotic/invasive vegetation management were included in the evaluation process as sub

- metrics.

T he risk and uncertainty analysis of the benefits assessment results was done in a qualitative manner since the benefit stream could not be fully characterized stochastically. Though there is uncertainty in the magnitude of the predicted benefits, there is little question that each of the proposed alternatives will improve the targeted habitat. Alternative M and Alternative O, Phase 1 presents the lowest risk of project failure simply because they have the smallest footprints. Of the two, Alternative O, P hase 1 is the least risky in terms of delivering the predicted benefits because it relies on pumps to deliver water to the saltwater wetlands east
of the C

- 102 and C

- 103 rather than gravity flow as in Alternative M. The impact of sea level rise on the predicted benefit stream for Alternative O, Phase 1 is estimated
to be 1 7 % over the 50 year life of the project assuming that sea level rise is as much as 24 inches over this time period.

The greatest risk to project success is the uncertainty in the future availability of water, particularly during the late dry season. The hydrologic information provided
here indicates that in the C

- 1, C

- 102, and C

- 103 basins there are months during the dry season where there is limited water available for diversion into the saltwater
wetlands. These dry periods are only about two months long during average hydrologic years. D uring drought years, the dry periods can last three or more
months which may be critically stres sful to some of the target species

. The
diver s ion of water into the saltwater wetlands will have the effect of extending the residence time of freshwater in the nearshore, particularly in tidal creeks. This is expected to result in larger population s of the tar get species since long duration events of no freshwater in the nearshore should be minimized by the project. During drought years, the project is not likely to result in improved nearshore habitat; however, given that the drought events are expect ed to occur once in 10 years, the target species are not likely to be critically affected since their lifespan is on the order of less than a year to two or so years. Climate change (excluding sea level rise) may result in a reduction of up to 10% of the project benefits assuming a linear response to the expected reduction in rainfall over the next 50 years.

One significant complexity with developing a benefit estimation system is that the outcome and utility of the system is difficult to predict before a pplying it to the project plan formulation efforts. In this case, a benefits estimation system created to utilize both simulation outputs and best professional judgment was successfully applied to the evaluation of the project alternatives. While there is no single “right answer” to the estimation of habitat restoration benefits, independent external peer

review s (IEPR) of the metrics and methodologies used here w ere conducted under the guidance of the Corps Center for Planning Excellence in September of 2009 and January of 2010 . Many of the reviewers ’ suggestions were incorporated into the
benefits assessment tools and the revised product was improved in terms of itsSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 67 scientific credence and overall quality. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project

team believes that the methodology for estimating habitat benefits used here employs available models, local knowledge, and scientific rigor to the extent practicable. The results of the benefits assessment are believed to adequately
reflect the merits of the project alternatives . The BBCW PDT believes that using the CBEEM tool to help select the project plan minimizes the risk of selecting an alternative that causes harm or is not an optimal solution for the problems targeted by this project.

6.3.6 Significance of Ecological Benefits

As stated, the purpose of the BBCW project is to restore the natural hydrology and ecosystem in an area degraded by drainage systems and land development. The principal benefit of the project, therefore, is to redirect the fresh water that is currently discharged directly to the Bay through man

- made canals to coastal wetlands in order to restore a more natural water flow pattern to Biscayne Bay.
The diversi on of water from canals would re

- establish sheet flow, tidal creek flow, more natural hydropatterns, spatial extent of wetlands, and desirable salinity ranges for the benefit of aquatic fauna, submerged aquatic vegetation, and commercial marine resources, including threatened and endangered species inhabiting the area.

In determining the significance of project benefits to wetlands and the adjacent nearshore area of Biscayne Bay, the following factors were evaluated: institutional, technical, and public re cognition of importance. Wetlands are significant from an institutional perspective because they are a rare and unique resource. This resource is technically significant due to the economic value of increased productivity of commercial shrimps and fishes. Wetlands, estuaries, and nearshore coastal areas are significantly important to the public for aesthetic and recreational

purposes. Thus, the overall significance of restoring wetland and nearshore
habitats is because the public cares about them, because they perform an important function in our ecosystems, and because they are protected by law.

6.4 PLANNING LEVEL COST ESTIMATE S

The cost estimate for the alternatives incl udes construction, lands, easements, right -of- ways, and relocation (LERR ), pre

- construction, engineering and design (PED ) costs, and construction management. Data for initial construction/implementation, land acquisition, monitoring, and periodically

recu rring costs for OMRR&R , have been developed through engineering design and cost estimation, and real estate appraisal efforts (refer to Appendix B

- Cost

Estimate s for details of data development for cost estimates).

For purposes of this report and analysis, n ational economic development (NED)

c osts, as defined by USACE , are expressed in fiscal year 2010 price levels, and areSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 68 based on costs est imated to incur ove r a 40

- year period of analysis. Costs of a plan represent the value of goods and services required for implement ation, O&M of the selected plan. These costs are included in TABLE 6- 11 and were used in the cost effectiveness analysis of the alternatives.

The timing of a plan’s costs is important. Construction and other initial implementation for component costs cannot simply be added to periodically recurring costs for project operation, maintenance and monitoring. Construction costs incurred in a given year of the project cannot simply be added to constructi on costs incurred in other years if meaningful and direct comparisons of the costs of the different components are to be made. A common practice of equating sums of money across time with their equivalent at an earlier single point in time is the

process known as discounting. Through this mathematical process, which involves the use of an interest rate (or discount rate) officially prescribed by federal policy for use in water resource planning analysis (currently set at 4.375 percent per year),
the cost time stream for the alternative plans were mathematically translated into an equivalent time basis value.

There is some uncertainty as to how any of the plans, if approved and adopted, would be implemented. It is recognized that any of the plans would li kely be implemented over a considerable length of time. For purposes of this evaluation, construction costs are assumed to incur on an equal monthly basis during the implementation of the alternative plans as defined.

Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105 -2-1 00 requires that interest during construction (IDC) be computed, which represents the opportunity cost of capital incurred during the construction period. Interest was computed for PED costs from the middle of the month in which the expenditures were incu rred until the first of the month following the estimated construction completion date. Interest during construction was computed for both real estate and construction costs. Interest during construction was computed for the total real estate cost starting from the month prior to construction commencing. The cost of a project is the investment incurred up to the beginning of the period of analysis. The investment cost at that time is
the sum of construction and other initial cost such as real estate and PED cost plus interest during construction.

6.4.1 Real Estate Costs

A detailed analysis of the real estate requirements of the final array was completed. Each parcel required for construction or restoration activities was identified,
chara cterized, and a value calculated. The real estate was valued in fee, however,
lesser estates and interests in land could be considered.

The project footprint for Alternative M is comprised of approximately 6,561 acres with an estimated real estate cost of $ 239,492,000 . The project footprint forSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 69 Alternative O is comprised of approximately 11,312 acres with an estimated real estate cost of $ 360,211,000

. Th e project footprint for Alternative Q is comprised of approximately 19,035 acres with an estimated real estate cost of $ 483,801,000. The project footprint for Alternative O , Phase 1 is comprised of appro ximately 3, 761 acres with an estimated real estate cost of $ 76,662,000

.

The area of expected benefit for Alternative O exceeds the 11,312 acres of lands to be acquired for this project. The acquisition of the 11,312 acres covers thos e freshwater and tidal wetlands where project related hydrologic impacts necessitate the acquisition of lands from either private parties or local government agencies. Nearshore benefited areas do not requir e acquisition as they are geographically
located in state/federal waters. Some BNP lands would be benefited but would not require acquisition. Within the tidal wetland area, the benefited acreage that is below the mean high water line and subject to federal navigation servitude would not require acquisition.

6.4.2 Construction Cost s

Data for initial construction/implementation, land acquisition and periodically recurring costs for operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (OMRR&R ), 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. The main issues requiring economic evaluation attention include equivalent time basis calculations, price levels, and timing of project spending.

Costs represent the difference between conditions without any plan (the “base condition” or “without project condition”) and with a plan or alternative. For purposes of this report and analysis, NED costs (National Economic Development costs, as defined by federal and USACE policy) are expressed in 2010 price l evels and are based generally on costs estimated to incur over a 40

- year period of analysis. Costs of a plan represent the value of goods and services required to implement and operate/maintain the plan . The costs presented in TABLE 6- 11 are total initial costs of construction and real estate. The operation and maintenance (O&M) cost are annual estimates for fully implemented components.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 70 TABLE 6-11: INITIAL COST OF CONS TRUCTION, REAL ESTAT E AND O&M

6.5 COMPARISON OF ENVIRO NMENTAL BENEFITS AND COSTS OF
ALTERNATIVE PLANS

This analysis is based on and follows guidance from the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Institute for Water Resources publication, Evaluation of Environmental Investment Procedures Manual, Interim: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Analyses, May 1995, IWR Report #95 -R- 1. Costs are based initially on a rough order of magnitude (ROM) and include pre

- construction engineering and design (PED) and construction costs, Interest During Construction , as well as operations
and maintenance costs af ter construction. The most feasible cost effective plans reflect estimates based on ROM quantities. Benefits are based on the result of the CBEEM analysis and are presented in an average annual form.

As per this guidance, CE/ICA analysis compares the alternative plans’ average annual costs against the appropriate average annual habitat unit estimates. The average annual outputs are calculated as the difference between with

- plan and
without

- plan conditions over the period of analysis (through year 2050 ). The following sections present the average annual costs, average annual benefits and the results of cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis for the alternative plans

6.5.1 Cost

- Effectiveness/Incremental Cost Analyses

The purpose of a CE/ICA is to evaluate and compare the production efficiency of a given set of alternatives, thus helping to identify the plan that reasonably BISCAYNE BA Y COASTAL WETLANDS COSTS

Alternative

YB Alternative O Alternative M Alternative Q Alternative O

Phase 1

Construction $277,660,000 $146,900,000 $130,600,000 $272,470,000 $45,100,000

S/A $27,250,001 $14,690,000 $13,060,000 $27,250,000 $4,510,000

PED $22,210,000 $11,710,000 $10,450,000 $21,780,000 $3,690,000

Total
Construction $327,120,001 $173,300,000 $154,110,000 $321,500,000 $53,300,000

Real Estate $559,854,000 $360,210,000 $360,210,000 $483,800,000 $76,660,000

Total First
Cost $886,970,000 $533,510,000 $393,600,000 $805,300,000 $129,960,000

Annual
OMRR&R $5,900,000 $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $5,990,000 $1,400,000Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 71 maximizes ecosystem restoration, which is considered the NER plan. Cost effectiveness analysis begins with a comparison of the costs and outputs of alternative plans to identify the least cost plan for every level of output considered. Alternative plans are compared to identify those that would produce greater levels of output at the same cost, o r at a lesser cost, as other alternative plans. Alternative plans identified through this comparison are the cost effective alternative plans. Next, through ICA , the cost effective alternative plans are compared to identify the most economically efficien t alternative plans, that is, the “Best Buy” alternative plans that produce the “biggest bang for the buck.” Cost effective plans are compared by examining the additional (incremental) costs for the additional (incremental) amounts of output produced by successively larger cost effective plans. The plans with the lowest incremental costs per unit of output for successively larger levels of output are the best buy plans. The results of these calculations and comparisons of costs and outputs between altern ative plans provide a basis for addressing the decision question “Is it worth it?” i.e., are the additional outputs worth the costs incurred to achieve them?

6.5.2 Average Annual Benefits

CE/ICA requires a comparison of average annual costs and average annual benefits. The average annual outputs were calculated as the difference between with

- plan
and without

- plan conditions over the period of analysis (through year 2050). Costs and output used for the CE/ICA are displayed in TABLE 6- 11

. The period of analysis for benefit amortization that was utilized is 40 years. The base year, or the
fir st year benefits begin to accrue, is in 2010. The average annual HU lift is calculated as subtracting the future without project HU s from the future with project HU s for each year and averaging over the life of the project, which in this case is 40 years. Note that the output values shown reflect the differences between without project and with project on an average annual basis (i.e., ecological “lift” provided by each of the alternatives). In order to calculate the average annual lift
associated with e ach alternative per ecozone, it is important to project the anticipated time it will take to realize the benefits. The annual lift is calculated by measuring the delta between the no action alternative and each respective alternative for each year of the period of analysis. Since the full benefits are not achieved in the first year of construction, it becomes important to project the expected lift for each year and average each year over the period of analysis, to account for the temporal aspect of the be nefits.

The analysis of ecological response times for large, diverse ecosystems is ext remely
difficult to calculate. For example, when analyzing an estuarine system, certain
attributes would have to be examined when predicting the response to changes i n salinity. Oysters may provide responses within a year of salinity change towards

normal conditions. Seagrasses would normally respon d quickly, but these responses are difficult to measure since there would be relocation of certain populations in response to specific current s and salinity concentrations. SmallSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 72 invertebrate and fish species should respond quickly; however, large vertebrate species would take longer to increase as they take longer to matur e and reach reproductive ages.

The same difficult y occurs in the exam ination of freshwater systems. Different attributes, such as sawgrass marshes, periphyton mats, and bayheads respond differently in time to changes in h ydroperiods and hydropatterns. Sawgrass marshes are in intense competition with ot her grasses, sedges and freshwater marsh species. Changes in the content of certain species could occur fairly rapidly in certain areas; however, the competition of populatio ns and/or communities along

ecoz ones could take a much greater amount of time for species, populations and

comm unities to become established. Periphyton has been shown to respond rapidly to changes i n hydroperiod and hydropattern. Forested wetlands, including
b ayheads, would take a much longer time to respond to hydrologic changes in terms of tree species transitions. As such, the team took a linear approach to predict ecological response time in each of the three ecozones that were defined as can be
noted in the below table ( TABLE 6- 12 ) and for a graphical representation see
FIGURE 6-7

.

TABLE 6-12: T YPICAL ECOLOGICAL RESPONSE TIME Ecological Response Times of Ecozones

% benefit achieved over time

Years 0

- 2 2

- 5 5

- 10 10

- 15

Freshwater Wetlands 20 80 90 100

Saltwater Wetlands 30 90 100 100

Nearshore Habitat 40 90 100 100Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 73 

### Nearshore Response Time

- 1,000 2,000 3,000 4,000 5,000 6,0002012201520182021202420272030203320362039204220452048

YearHabitat Units Alternative M

Future Without

Alternative O

Alternative Q

Alternative YB

FIGURE 6-7 : NEARSHORE RESPONSE TIME

6.5.3 Average Annual Costs

For purposes of this report and analysis, NED costs ( NED

TABLE 6- 11 costs, as defined by

F ederal and USACE policy), are expressed in 20 10 price levels and are based generally on costs estimated to incur over a 40

- year period of economic analysis, depending on the len gth of construction. These costs are included in and were used in the cost effectiveness analysis of the alternatives.

The timing of a plan’s costs is important. Construction and other initial implementation for component costs cannot simply be added to periodically recurring costs for project operation, maintenance and monitoring. Construction costs incurred in a given year of the proj ect cannot simply be added to construction costs incurred in other years if meaningful and direct comparisons of the costs of the different components are to be made. A common practice of equating sums of money across time with their equivalent at an earl ier single point in time is the process known as discounting. Through this mathematical process, which involves the use of an interest rate (or discount rate) officially prescribed by Federal policy for use in water resource planning analysis (currently set at 4.375 percent per year), the cost time stream for the alternative plans were mathematically translated into an equivalent time basis value.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 74 There is some uncertainty as to how any of the plans, if approved and adopted, would be implemented. It is r ecognized that any of the plans would likely be implemented over a considerable length of time. For purposes of this evaluation, construction costs are assumed to incur on an equal monthly basis during the implementation of the alternative plans as define d.

ER 1105 -2- 100 requires that interest during construction be computed, which represents the opportunity cost of capital incurred during the construction period. Interest was computed for pre

- construction, engineering and design costs from the
middle of the month in which the expenditures were incurred until the first of the month following the estimated construction completion date. Interest during construction was computed for both real estate and construction costs. Interest during construction was computed for the total real estate cost starting from the month prior to construction commencing. The cost of a project is the investment incurred up to the beginning of the period of analysis. The investment cost at that
time is the sum of construction and other initial cost such as real estate and pre

construction, engineering and design cost plus interest during construction

. TABLE 6- 13 summarizes the total investment cost and total annual equivalent costs of each alternative plan.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 75 TABLE 6-13 : PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT COST OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

BBCW INVESTMENT COST

Alternative M Alternative O Alternative Q Alternative P

- 1 Alternative YB

Construction $130,600,000 $146,900,000 $272,470,000 $45,100,000 $277,660,000

S/A $10,450,000 $11,710,000 $21,780,000 $3,690,000 $22,210,000

PED $13,060,000 $14,690,000 $27,250,000 $4,510,000 $27,250,001

Total Construction $154,110,000 $173,300,000 $321,500,000 $53,300,000 $327,120,001
Construction Schedule (Months) 33 34 38 33 40

Real Estate $239,492,494 $360,210,986 $483,800,963 $76,662,218 $559,854,000
Certification for IDC (Months) 36 37 41 36 43

Total First Cost $393,600,000 $533,510,000 $805,300,000 $129,960,000 $886,970,000

IDC Construction $9,440,000 $10,950,000 $25,340,000 $3,265,000 $24,500,000

IDC Real Estate $21,120,000 $50,840,000 $76,220,000 $10,500,000 $92,840,000

TOTAL INVESTMENT $424,160,000 $595,300,000 $906,860,000 $143,730,000 $1,004,310,000

O&M $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $5,990,000 $1,400,000 $5,900,000

First Year for Benefits 2010 2010 2010 2010 2010

Amortized Cost (38 Years) $22,640,000 $31,780,000 $48,410,000 $7,670,000 $54,130,000

Average Annual Cost $26,340,000 $35,480,000 $54,400,000 $9,070,000 $60,030,000

* Note

– Final Costs of the Tentatively Selected Plan will be revised based on additional engineering and design

. NER cost s do not include Recreation Cost for

Plan FormulationSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 76 6.5.4 Cost Effective Analysis

Cost effectiveness analysis begins with a comparison of the annual costs and annual outputs of alternatives to identify the least cost plan for every level of output considered. Alternative plans are compared to identify those that would produce greater levels of output at equal or lower costs than other alternative plans. The
three criteria f or cost effectiveness screening:

1. The same output level could be produced by another plan at less cost;

2. A larger output level could be produ ced at the same cost; or

3. A larger output level could be produced at less cost.

Sometimes it is difficult to summarize the results of CE/ICA when the analyses are performed separately on HU s for distinct species or communities. This phenomenon often occurs simply because different management measures or alternative plans “do” different things

- provide different types of output, and provide benefits to different biological communities. This is the case for the BBCW features and alternatives, in which certain features or alternatives provide greater benefits to the freshwater wetlands in the watershed, while other alternatives provide greater benefits for the nearshore habitats. It was determined that the
separate e cological zones were all considered to be of equal importance . It was also believed that a combined HU score summing all three zones, while not appropriately representing the significance of each ecological zone, would provide a valuable cumulative impact analysis for determining the plan which best meets the needs of the watershed. The results of the CE/ICA on each ecological zone were examined both independently and combined and plan selection was based upon utilizing an aggregate of these results.

The results will be demonstrated in the various following charts and graphs. In summary, CE/ICA was performed using the following four metrics to represent various ecosystem outputs of the BBCW alternatives:

1. Combined HU Score

2. Freshwater Ecological Zone

3. Saltwater Ecological Zone

4. Nearshore Ecological Zone

CE/ICA was conducted for each of the BBCW alternative plans. The analyses compared the alternative plans’ average annual costs against the appropriate average annual HU estimates. The average annual outputs were calculated as the
difference between with

- plan and without

- plan conditions over the peri od of analysis (through year 2050). A summary of the average annual lift calculations and average annual costs used in the CE/ICA analysis are provided in

TABLE 6- 14

.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 77 The total cost of CERP is not included in this CE/ICA . The cost of the balance of the CERP features, those not included in the BBCW alternative s, is the same for all the BBCW alternatives. As such, including it in this analysis does not bring any additional insight or differentiation between alternatives. For this analysis, the difference between the alternatives can be shown through a display of the outputs
and costs of each BBCW alternative without the cost of the “other CERP” features.

TABLE 6-14: C OSTS AND OUTPUTS USED IN CE/ICA

Alternative Annual
Cost Freshwater
HU's Saltwater
HU's Nearshore
HU's Total SystemWide HU's

Alternative O $35,480,000 3,439 5,704 3,974 13,116

Alternative M $26,340,000 173 5,760 2,250 8,183 Alternative Q $54,400,000 5,415 3,967 3,595 12,976

Alternative YB $60,030,000 4,532 2,902 2,667 10,101 Alternative O, P1 $9,070,000 444 5,905 3,106 9,456

Notes: Values for alternatives are differences between “Without” plan and “With” plan on an average annual basis. Values assume system benefits (ecosystem outputs that would accrue to the BBCW study area if rest of

CERP were constructed).

6.5.4.1 Cost Effectiveness Analysis – Total System- Wide Combined Outputs

TABLE 6- 15 and FIGURE 6-8 show that Alternative s O and Alternative O Phase 1 are cost effective in the overall production of habitat units. Alternatives YB and Q has a much higher average annual cost than that of Alternative O, while providing less total benefits, rendering them non cost

- effective. Alternative O has more than thirty

- five hundred more habitat units than does Alternative O Phase 1.
Alternative O Phase 1 produces habitat unit s at the lowest average cost per unit of
output at $959 per habitat unit, which is about one third of the cost per habitat unit
of Alternative O.

TABLE 6-15: R ESULTS OF COST EFFEC TIVENESS A NALYSIS : A LL P LANS

ARRAYED BY INCREASIN G OUTPUT FOR EACH OU TPUT CATEGORY

– COMBINED HABITAT UNI TS

Name Annual Cost Combined Cost Per HU Cost Effective

No Action Plan 0 0 Best Buy

Alternative P

- 1 $9,070,000 9,455 $959 Best Buy

Alternative M $26,340,000 8,183 $3,219 No

Alternative O $35,480,000 13,117 $2,705 Best Buy

Alternative Q $54,400,000 12,977 $4,192 No

Alternative YB $60,030,000 10,101 $5,943 NoSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 78 FIGURE 6-8 : P LANNING SET “ CE/ICA ON TOTAL SYSTEM

- WIDE HABITAT

UNITS ” COST AND OUTPUT

6.5.4.2 Cost Effectiveness Analysis – Freshwater Zone Outputs

TABLE 6- 16 and FIGURE 6-9 show that Alternative O, Alternative Q, Alternative
YB and Alternative O Phase 1 are all cost effective in the production of fr eshwater
habitat. Alternative M provides the least average annual habitat unit lift, and this
alternative also has a higher average annual cost than Alternative O Phase 1 making it non cost -effective in the production of freshwater habitat. Alternative O
has more than twenty times the total output as Alternative M, and Alternative Q
has more than thirty time s the total output. Alternative O produces freshwater

habitat unit s at the lowest average cos t per unit of output , rendering it the first best buy alternative. Alternative O and Alternative Q both produce habitat units at an average annual cost of around $10,000 per habitat unit.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 79 TABLE 6-16: R ESULTS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS A NALYSIS : A LL P LANS

ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR EACH OUTPUT CATEGORY

– F RESHWATER HABITAT UNITS

FIGURE 6-9: BBCW ALTERNATIVE PLANS

– CE/ICA RUN ON FRESHWATER
WETLAND HABITAT Name Annual Cost Freshwater Cost Per HU Cost Effective

No Action

Plan $0 0 Best Buy

Alternative P

1 $9,070,000 444 $20,428 Yes

Alternative M $26,340,000 173 $152,254 No

Alternative O $35,480,000 3,439 $10,317 Yes

Alternative Q $54,400,000 5,415 $10,046 Best Buy

Alternative

YB $60,030,000 4,532 $13,246 NoSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 80 6.5.4.3 Cost Effectiveness Analysis – Saltwater Wetlands Habitat Units

TABLE 6- 17 and FIGURE 6- 10 show that only Alternative O Phase 1 is cost effective in the production of saltwater wetlands habi tat. Alternative O produced just slightly less saltwater lift than Alternative M; the overl ying reason for the cost
difference between Alternatives O and Alternative M is related to freshwater and
nearshore features. Alternative O Phase 1 provides approximately three percent fewer average annual habitat units than Alternatives O and M, yet cost s almost

one

- third less per unit of output than Alternative M

.

TABLE 6-17: R ESULTS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: ALL PLANS &

COST EFFECTIVE PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR EACH

OUTPUT CATEGORY

– SALTWATER HABITAT UNITS

Name Annual Cost Saltwater Cost Per HU Cost Effective

No Action Plan $0 0 Best Buy

Alternative P -1 $9,070,000 5905 $1,536 Best Buy

Alternative M $26,340,000 5760 $4,573 No

Alternative O $35,480,000 5704 $6,220 No

Alternative Q $54,400,000 3967 $13,713 No

Alternative YB $60,030,000 2902 $20,686 NoSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 81 FIGURE 6-10: BBCW ALTERNATIVE PLANS

– CE/ICA RUN ON SALTWATER

HABITAT

6.5.4.4 Cost Effectiveness Analysis– Nearshore Habitat Units

TABLE 6- 18 and FIGURE 6- 11 show that Alternative O Phase 1 and Alternative O

are the only alternatives that are cost effective in the production of nearshore habitat. Alternative O Phase 1 has a much lower average annual cost per unit of output than does either Alternative O or Alternative M. Alternative O Phase 1 has
almost 800 more habitat units than Alternative M wh ile the average annual cost per habitat unit is less than one quarter of the average annual cost per habitat unit for Alternative M. Alternative O Phase 1 has about 25 percent fewer benefits than Alternative O while costing approximately 70 percent less.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 82 TABLE 6-18: R ESULTS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: ALL PLANS &

COST EFFECTIVE PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR EACH

OUTPUT CATEGORY

– NEARSHORE HABITAT UNITS

Name Annual Cost Nearshore Cost Per HU Cost Effective

No Action Plan $0 0 Best Buy

Alternative P

- 1 $9,070,000 3,106 $2,920 Best Buy

Alternative M $26,340,000 2,250 $11,707 No

Alternative O $35,480,000 3,974 $8,928 Best Buy

Alternative Q $54,400,000 3,595 $15,132 No

Alternative YB $60,030,000 2,667 $22,508 No

FIGURE 6-11: BBCW ALTERNATIVE PLANS

– CE/ICA RUN ON NEARSHORE

HABITATSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plan s

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 83 6.5.5 Incremental Cost Analysis

TABLE 6- 19 through 6- 22 and FIGURE 6- 12 through 6- 15 present the results of the incremental cost analysis for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands alternative plans for respective ecological zones and the combined results

. Only the cost effective plans are arrayed by increasing output to clearly s how changes in cost (i.e., increments of cost) and changes in output (i.e., increments of output) of each cost effective alternative plan compared to the w ithout p lan condition. The plan with the lowest incremental costs per unit of output of all plans is the first b est b uy plan.
After the first b est b uy plan is identified, all larger cost effective plans are compared to the first b est b uy plan in terms of increases in (increments of) cost and increases in (increments of) output. The alternative plan wit h the lowest incremental cost per unit of output (for all cost effective plans larger than the first

b est b uy plan) is the second b est b uy plan. There are no more than t wo b est b uy plans for any ecological zone for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands altern atives.

6.5.5.1 Incremental Cost Analysis – Combined Habitat Units

TABLE 6- 19 and FIGURE 6- 12 show that there are t wo best buy plans for the combined ecological zone HU production, Alternative O P hase 1 and Alternative O

. Upon examination of the graph, there is an obvious jump in cost per unit of output when comparing Alternative O P hase 1 to Alternative O

. Alternative O Phase 1 has the lowest incremental costs per unit of saltwater habitat output of any of the alternatives ($ 959 per combined habitat unit ). The next best alternative in terms of average cost per combined habitat unit is Alternative O. It provides an in crement of 3,662 (~35% increase) additional habitat unit s over Alternative O P hase 1 at an incremental cost of over $ 26,400,000 ($7,212 per habitat unit). Alternative O also has a higher average cost ($ 2,705 per habitat unit), and the incremental cost per unit of output is about ten times greater th a n for Alternative O Phase 1.

TABLE 6-19 : R ESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS: C OST EFFECTIVE

& BEST BUY PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR COMBINED

ECOLOG ICAL ZONE HABITAT UNITS

Average
Annual

Cost Output Average
Cost Per
Unit of Output Incremental Average
Annual

Cost Incremental Output Incremental
Cost Per

unit of Output

Combined Habitat Units

Without

Plan $0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative

O

- P1 $9,070,000 9,455 $959 $9,070,000 9,455 $959

Alternative

O $35,480,000 13,117 $2,705 $26,410,000 3,662 $7,212Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 84 FIGURE 6-12: BEST BUY PLANS FOR COMBINED HABITAT UNITS

6.5.5.2 Incremental Cost Analysis – Freshwater Ecological Zone

TABLE 6- 20 and FIGURE 6- 13 shows that there is only one best buy plan for
f reshwater wetlands habitat: Alternative Q.

TABLE 6-20: R ESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS : C OST EFFECTIVE

& BEST BUY PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR FRESHWATER

HABITAT

Average
Annual

Cost Output Average
Cost Per
Unit of Output Incremental Average
Annual

Cost Incremental Output Incremental
Cost Per

unit of Output

Freshwater Habitat Units

Without

Plan $0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative Q $54,400,000 5,415 $10,046 $54,400,000 5,415 $10,046Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 85 FIGURE 6-13 : PLANNING SET FOR FRESHWATER WETLANDS INCREMENTAL

COST AND OUTPUT

6.5.5.3 Incremental Cost Analysis – Saltwater Ecological Zone

FIGURE 6

- 14 and TABLE 6- 21 show that there is only one best buy plans for saltwater wetland habitat, Alternative O P hase 1

. None of the other alternatives are cost effective in the production of saltwater habitat units.

TABLE 6-21 : R ESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS: C OST EFFECTIVE

& BEST BUY PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR SALTWATER

ECOLOGICAL ZONE

Average
Annual

Cost Output Average
Cost Per
Unit of Output Incremental Average
Annual

Cost Incremental Output Incremental
Cost Per

unit of Output

Freshwater Habitat Units

Without

Plan $0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative

O

- P1 $9,070,000 5,905 $1,536 $9,070,000 5,905 $1,536Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 86 FIGURE 6-14: BEST BUY PLANS FOR SALTWATER WETLAND HABITAT

6.5.5.4 Incremental Cost Analysis – Nearshore Ecological Zone

TABLE 6- 22 and FIGURE 6- 15 sh ow that there are two best buy plan s for the production of nearshor e wetland habitat, Alternative O and Alternative O Phase 1.
Alternative O Phase 1 has the lowest incremental costs per unit of nearshore output than all of the other alternatives ($ 3,106/habitat unit). Alternative O provides approximately thirty percent more output than does Alternative O Phase 1, but comes at an incremental cost per unit of output that is almost ten times greater than the incremental cost per unit of output that Alternative O Phase 1 produces.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 87 TABLE 6-22: R ESULTS OF INCREMENTA L COST ANALYSIS : C OST E FFECTIVE

& BEST BUY PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING O UTPUT FOR NEARSHORE

HABITAT

FIGURE 6-15 : BEST BUY PLANS FOR NEARSHORE HABITAT UNITS

6.5.5.5 Summary of Cost Effectiveness /Incremental Cost Analysis

As can be seen in the following summary table, Alternative O Phase 1 is the only plan that is cost effective for the combined ecological zone and all of the ecological zones separately while examining the system

- wide impacts of the Biscayne Bay Average
Annual

Cost Output Average
Cost Per
Unit of Output Incremental Average
Annual

Cost Increment al Output Incremental
Cost Per

unit of Output

Combined Habitat Units

Without

Plan $0 0 N/A N/A N/A N/A

Alternative

O

- P1 $9,070,000 3,106 $2,920 $9,070,000 3,106 $2,920

Alternative

O $35,480,000 3,974 $8,928 $26,410,000 868 $30,426Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 88 Coastal Wetlands alternatives implementation. Alternative O Phase 1 is also the

mo st efficient at producing Nearshore, Saltwater and Combined Wetland Habitat Units. None of the other alternatives are cost effective in all three ecological zones, and only Alternative O is also effective and best buy plans in the production of
combined e co

- zone output. Alternative Q is the most efficient plan at producing
habitat for the freshwater zone. Alternatives M and YB are not cost effective for any of the ecological zones. Alternative O Phase 1 w ill provide substantial ecological restoration be nefits. Alternative O is not considered a cost effective plan in saltwater restoration since it produces approximately the same saltwater habitat units as Alternative M, but at a much higher cost. It should be noted that the cost
increase between Alterna tive O Phase 1 and Alternative O is attributed to substantially greater freshwater wetland improvements.

TABLE 6-23 : R ESULTS OF CE/ICA

6.6 NATIONAL ECOSYSTEM R ESTORATION PLAN

As a result of the cost effective/incremental cost analysis, Alternative O Phase 1

was identified as the National Ecosystem Restoration plan. It is the plan that reasonably maximizes the production efficiency for each of the ecological zones, in that it contains the lowest average cost per unit of output, is cost effective for all ecological zones, and is a logical first step towards achieving restoration of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area. This alternative provides a substantial improvement in the much needed restoration of the Bisca yne Bay ne arshore and
saltwater wetlands.

It is recognized that Alternative O would provide a more comprehensive watershed restoration plan than Alternative O Phase 1 (due to the large increases in Alternative O

P hase 1 Alternative

M Alternative

O Alternative

Q Alternative

YB

Combined

Habitat
Units Cost Effective and Best Buy Cost Effective and Best Buy

Freshwater Ecological

Zone Cost Effective Cost Effective Cost Effective and Best Buy

Saltwater Ecological

Zone Cost Effective and Best Buy

Nearshore Ecological

Zone Cost Effective and Best Buy Cost Effective and Best BuySection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 89 freshwater benefits), and therefore has been identified as the environmentally preferred plan and as the Conceptual Watershed Alternative. Alternative O Phase 1 is a compatible subset of Alternative O and as such, the remaining components of Alternative O could be further studied and constructed in the future, with no
conflicts to the current Alternativ e O Phase 1 configuration.

6.7 PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES EVALUATION CRI TERIA

The final array of alternatives was evaluated using the Planning Principles and Guidelines (P&G) evaluation criteria. These are:

**•** Acceptability,

**•** Completeness,

**•** Efficiency, and

**•** Effectiveness.

Acceptability is the workability and viability of the alternative plan with respect to acceptance by state and local entities and the public and compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public policies.

Completeness is the extent to which a given alternative plan provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure the realization of the planned effects.

Efficiency is the extent to which an alternative plan i s the most cost

- effective means of alleviating the specified problems and realizing the specified opportunities, consistent with protecting the nation’s environment.

Effectiveness is the extent to which an alternative plan alleviates the specified problem s and achieves the specified opportunities.

In the following table ( TABLE 6- 24), each plan, except the “No Action ” alte rnative, was rated on a scale of 0 to 2 on the ability of each plan to meet the specified criteria (0 = does not meet; 1 = partially meets; 2 = fully meets).

TABLE 6-24 : P&G EVALUATION CRITERIA Alt A (No

Action) Alt YB (Restudy) Alt M Alt Q Alt O Alt O,

Phase 1 Acceptability 0 0 1 0 1 2 Completeness 0 2 1 2 2 1 Efficiency 0 1 1 0 2 2

Effectiveness 0 2 1 2 2 1

Alternative O is the alternative that best meets the P&G evaluation criteria. The “No Action ” alternative does not meet any of the P&G criteria.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 90 6.8 SUMMARY OF OUTPUTS FOR THE FOUR ACCOUNTS

While the CE/ICA of the various alternatives in o btaining habitat outputs is the primary evaluation technique in the selection of the NER plan. Engineering Circular (EC) 1105 -2- 409 states that in regards to p lan selection: “ Any alternative plan may be selected and recommended for implementation if it h as, on balance, net beneficial effects after considering all plan effects, beneficial and adverse, in the
four Principles and Guidelines evaluation accounts: NED, Environmental Quality (EQ), Regional Economic Development (RED), and Other Social Effects (O SE). ”

This section provides a full discussion and display of the beneficial and adverse effects of each plan, and a comparison of costs and effects among plans as well as
cumulative effects.

6.8.1 National Economic Development

NED benefits are defined as incr eases in the economic value of the goods and services that result directly from a project. These are benefits that occur as a direct result of the project and are national in perspective. Benefit categories considered by the BBCW analysis include recreation, water supply and flood control. While these three categories represent important national considerations this project is
not formulated to maximize NED benefit streams. NED benefits of the BBCW project would therefore be classified as incidental. Water supply and flood control
benefits would be included only as a qualitative discussion. Recreation benefit quantification is necessary as those benefit s would be used to offset costs of construction of proposed recreation features.

6.8.2 Environmental Quality

Cultural Resources : The USACE is reviewing information regarding historical properties that might be affected by the BBCW project, in compliance with Section
106 of the National Historic Preservation Act of 1966 (PL 89

- 665), as amended in 2000; its imple menting regulations (36 CFR Part 800) and the Archaeological and Historic Preservation Act of 1974 (PL 93

- 291), as amended.

A review of the Florida Master Site Files indicated several known archaeological
sites within the BBCW project area. These sites include one of the oldest prehistoric sites in the state, Deering Estate s an early 20 th century historic site listed on the National Register of Historic Places, and the “Old Cutler Road ” designated as a State Historic Highway. Due to the existence of known historical properties, tree islands and the high probability of unrecorded sites within the general vicinity that have the potential to be impacted by construc tion, a professional archaeological survey would be required. Potential existence of cultural resources includes prehistoric archeological sites as well as historic structural and archeological sites.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 91 Coordination with the State Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been initiated and would continue until the Section 106 Process is complete. No issues are foreseen to conflict with compliance of the BBCW project by the time of draft report/EIS submission.

The Envir onmental Quality outputs for this project were portrayed as habitat outputs/units and were assessed for cost effectiveness and i ncremental c ost in Appendix G, Economic and Social Considerations

.

6.8.3 Regional Economic Development

All alternatives are anticipa ted to provide RED benefits. In particular the construction of any recommended features would have a beneficial effect on employment and demand for local goods and services during the construction period. In addition, if recreational f eature s are included it is anticipated that some lasting benefits would accrue to the area as a result of additional recreational use
and the associated economic activity. The Economic Appendix contains the economic impact the constructi on expenditures have on employment, sales and gross regional product.

6.8.4 Other Social Effects

Potential areas of social effects have been assessed as part of the study process. The key areas analyzed to date are summarized below. Relatively similar impacts would be anticipated for all alternatives, greater water supply benefits could result from the larger reservoir alternatives.

Prime and Unique Farmland: The majority of land within the project area is coastal wetlands and nearshore/open bay habitat with minimal potential for reduction in unique farmland. While some property has already been purchased there will be some loss of farmland associated with the project.

Environmental Justice : Executive Order 12898, Federal Actions to Address Environmental Justice in Minority Populations and Low

- Income Populations

, requires the federal government to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing high, adverse and disproportionate effects of its activities on mino rity
and low

- income populations. It requires the analysis of information such as the race, national origin and income level for areas expected to be impacted by environmental laws, regulations and policies. It also requires federal agencie s to identify the need to ensure the protection of populations relying on subsistence consumption of fish and wildlife, through analysis of information on such consumption patterns and the communication of associated risks to the public.

BBCW project would provide benefits to quality of life by improving the estuarine environment. The project would improve the quality of human life by providingSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 92 improved estuarine conditions for fish and wildlife. It would translate i nto
aesthetic and economic benefits for sport fishing and other recreational communities. No home owners would be displaced by the project.

The BBCW project does not present any environmental impact s that are high, adverse and disproportionate to low income , minority, or Tribal populations. Through the public participation process of the outreach and NEPA scoping, no high or adverse impacts we re identified. There was sufficient public input to feel confident that scoping was successful and that the breadth of the potential impacts were communicated and understood by the public.

6.9 TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN

It is tentatively recommended to authorize and construct Alternative O Phase 1 , the
first increment of the BBCW project, a subset of the Watershed Plan Alternative O.
The first increment has been identified to provide benefits towards achieving the project objectives, but also acknowledging the risk and uncertainty inherent in this project and incorporate the concepts of AM. The first increment contains most of
the featur es of the Deering Estate sub

- component including a 100 cfs pump, spreader canal, culverts and improvements to a canal. In the Cutler Wetlands sub

component, the tentatively selec ted plan includes a 400 cfs pump, culverts, a canal, and restoration of the Lennar Flowway. In the L- 31E Flowway/North Canal Flowway sub

- component, the tentatively selected plan includes pumps, a spreader
canal and several culvert structures to manage water flow between C

- 102, L

- 31E, Military Canal , C

- 103 and nearby wetland restoration areas. No construction
activities are recommended in the first increment for the Barnes Sound sub

component.

Construction costs were summed up, consistent with those in the Watershed plan, Alternative O. The recommended features for construction cost $62,612,000. Real
estate costs for the tentatively selected plan include 3,761 acres valued at $ 76,662 ,000 . The total cost, including construction and real estate, is $218,466,000 or approximately 44 percent of the total cost of Alternative O, $498,187,000.

In order to describe the benefits attributable to the recommended construction features, t he amount of flow diverted from canals and into wetlands was calculated. The acres of land estimated to benefit from rehydration was calculated. No qualitative adjustments were made to the acres calculated to arrive at HUs. For Alternative O, the total of nearshore, freshwater and tidal wetlands that could be hydrated with the available water (as shown in the NAI analysis) was 10,134 acres. The recommended construction features would be able to hydrate 4,594 acres or 45 percent of the acres for Alternative O.Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 93 FIGURE 6-16 : RECOMMENDED PLANSection 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6- 94 This page intentionally left blankSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BB CW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTI ON 7

THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLANSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BB CW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-1 7.0 THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands p roject is planned and desi gned to rehydrate coastal wetlands and reduce damaging point source freshwater discharge to Biscayne Bay . The project will be implemented in two phases. The Tentatively Selected Plan of this PIR , Alternative O Phase 1 , seeks to restore approximately 400 acres of freshwater wetlands, reestablish overland flows to the estuary, and improve salinity patterns in Biscayne Bay. The remaining features of Alternative O, which will be studied in a subsequent report, would further achieve the goals of the CERP by increas ing the extent of freshwater wetlands and further restoration of historic overland flow patterns.

In addition to the ecosystem benefits, the Tentatively Selected Plan would provide incidental benefits of improved flood risk management through diversion

o f canal discharges to the coastal wetland/spreader system. This potentially reduces the capacity demand on the regional flood control system while providing more natural and historic overland flow s through the rehydrated coastal wetlands and producing a more natural and desirable distribution of estuarine salinities within Biscayne Bay.

7.1 DESCRIPTION OF PLAN COMPONENTS

Alternative O Phase I was identified as the Tentatively Selected Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project through the formulation process
described in Section 5.0 . The Tentatively Selected Plan was subsequently refined based on the engineering and design and described below and in Appe ndix A . The additional engineering and design analysis does not affect the plan formulation, as the cost changes and project refinements would apply to all alternatives. Similarly, the total benefits derived by the plan do not change
based on these refin ements.

The Tentatively Selected Plan encompasses a footprint of approximately 3, 761
acres and includes features in three of the four sub

- components studied: Deering Estate , Cutler Wetlands , and L

- 31 E Flow Way ( FIGURE 7-1 ) . There are no features in the fourth region, Model Lands.

7.1.1 Deering Estate

This r egion includes an approximatel y 500

- foo t extension of the C

- 100A Spur
Canal through the Power’s Addition Parcel (Power’s Parcel) , construction of a freshwater wetland on the Power’s Parcel and delivery of fresh water to the Cutler Drain and ultimately to coastal wetlands along Biscayne Bay ( TABLE 7-1 a nd FIGURE 7-2 )

.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-2 T he pump station S- 700 located on the Power’s Parcel would discharge to a surcharge chamber and then to the 60

- inch diameter discharge pipe running
under Old Cutler Road to the outlet

, a structure will be located o n the east side
of Old Cutler Road.

7.1.2 Cutler Wetlands

Features in this region include a pump station, a conveyance canal, a spreader
canal

, culverts and mosquito control ditch plugs ( TABLE 7-1 and FIGURE 7-3 )

. The pump station

, located on C -1 , would deliver water to a 6,900

- foo t lined conveyance canal that will run under SW 97 th Avenue and SW 87 th Avenue (L

- 31 E Levee ), and across the L

- 31 E Canal via concrete box culverts and deliver water to the spreader canal located in the saltwater wetlands. This spreader canal is divided into four segments.

Approximately 2,500 linear feet of mosquito control ditches will be plu gged to discourage the unnatural channelization of the water delivered to the area by the spreader canals.

7.1.3 L-31 East Flow Way

Features in this region will isolate the L

- 31 E Canal from the major discharge canals (C

- 102, Military Canal and C

- 103) and allow freshwater flow through the

L- 31 E Levee to the saltwater wetlands. Gated culverts and inverted siphon
structures will isolate L

- 31 E Levee from these canals, allowing the L

- 31 E Levee
to maintain higher water levels. Two pump stations and a series of culverts will move fresh water directly to the saltwater wetlands east of L

- 31 E Levee. Two more pump stations and a spreader canal will deliver water to the freshwater
wetlands south of C

- 103 ( TABLE 7-1

, FIGURE 7-4 , and FIGURE 7-5 )

.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-3 Homestead
Air Force Base Biscayne Bay Deering
Estate

L-31 East Flow-way Cutler
Wetlands S-D1

S-708 S-707

S-712B S-706C S-706B S-706A

S-712A CC-H6 (A8 S-23D) CC-H6 (A8 S-23C) CC-H4 (A8 S-23B) CC-H4 (A8 S-23A)

S-710 S-700

S-705

S-709 S-711 S-703 S-701

1 S T A T E H W Y 8 2 1

S W 2 4 8 T H S T S W 1 68 T H S T

S W 2 1 6 T H S T S T

A T E H W Y 9 9 4

S W 2 6 8 T H S T S W

1

1 7 T H A V
E

S W 1 8 4 T H ST S W 1

3 7 T H A V E S W

7 7 T H A V E

O L D C U T L E R R D S W 1 5 2 N D S T

C A R I B B E A N B L V D S T

A T E H W Y 9 9 2

S W 1 2 7 T H A V E S W

1

1 2 T H A V E S W

1 0 7 T H A V E S W 1 6 0 T H S T SW 8 2 N D A V E

S W

9 7 T H A V
E

B A I L E S R

D F R A N J O R D

S W 2 3 2 ND S T S W 1 1 6 T H A V E

S W 1 3 2 N D A V E W D I X I E H W Y

T A L L A H A S S E E S T S W 2 8 8 T H S T S W 1 7 4 T H S T

2 1 1T

H B

L V D S W 1 6

4 T H S

T

8 7 T H A V E

S W 2 0 0 T H S T S T A T E
H W Y

8 2

1

S W 1 1 2 T H A V E S W 1 5 2 N D S T

S W 1 8 4 T H S T S W

1 2 7 T H A V E

S W 8 7 T H A V E

S W 1 3 7 T H A V E C

- 7 0 1

C - 7 1 1 EC-702

C - 7 0 2

C - 7 1 1 W C C

- D 3

C

- 1 0

2 C

- 1 C

- 1 N

C

- 1 0 3 C

- 1 W C

- 1 0 0

L - 3 1 E

C - 1 0 2 N C - 1 0 0 A

C

- 1 0 3 N C

- 1 0 0 B

M I L I T

A R Y C A N

A L L - 3 1 E S21 G114

S179

S20F S20G

S21A S123

S122

S149 S118

S195

S165 S148

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands

Alternative "O" Phase 1

Map Date: July 31, 2008 Map Author: Laura Biddison, CERP Map Technician Map Location: \\cerp\projects\GIS\PROJ_28\map_docs\cmn8976_PIRUpdate\PIR08_Sec06_Fig6_1_P1_Regions_cmn8976.mxd 0 0.5 1

0.25 Miles Legend

Alternative "O" Phase 1 Features

Potential Structures

Box Culvert

FPL-Installed Culvert

Flap-Gated Riser Culvert

Flume

Gated Structure

Inverted Siphon

Pump

Riser Culvert

Spreader Box

Weir Potential Improvements

Canal Enhancements

Conveyance Channel

Ditch Filling

Pipe

Seepage Ditch

Spreader Canal

Potential Areas

Rehydrated Wetlands

Vegetation Removal

Wetland Restoration

Other Features

SFWMD Structures

Culvert

Spillway

Weir

Existing Canals Highway

Local Roads
Acceler8 Projects
CERP Projects
Biscayne Bay National Park

FIGURE 7-1: THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN-ALTERNATIVE O PHASE ISection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-4 TABLE 7-1 : SUMMARY O F ALTERNATIVE O PHASE 1 STRUCTURES

Structure

Number Structure Type Design Capacity (cfs) Location Tech Specs & Notes

DEERING ESTATE

S- 700 Pump
Station 100 East of C

- 100A Spur Canal, Power’s Addition

Parcel Delivers water from C

- 100A Spur

Canal to historic flow way on Deering Estate, Culvert from pump station under Old Cutler road, including outlet spreader structure

C- 100A Canal

Extension 100 Extension of Existing C

100A Spur Canal Power’s

Addition Parcel Delivers water to historic flow way on Deering Estate

CUTLER WETLANDS

S- 701 Pump
Station 400 On C

- 1 Canal Delivers water from C

- 1 to C

- 701 and eventually to C- 702 (Spreader Canal)

C- 701 Lined Canal 400 Lennar Property Delivers water from S

- 701 Pump
Station to the Cutler Spreader Canal (C

- 702)

C- 702 Spreader

Canal 400 Cutler Wetlands Delivers water to the saltwater

wetlands via overland sheetflow

L

- 31 EAST

S- 703 Pump
Station 50 On L

- 31 E Canal, just

north of C

- 102 Delivers water to the saltwater wetlands, utilizes an outlet spreader

structure

S- 705 Pump
Station 100 On L

- 31 E Canal, just

south of C

- 102

intersection Delivers water from C

- 102 to

southern reach of L

- 31 E Borrow

Canal

S- 706A, B,

C Culvert Varies L- 31E Levee Delivers water from L

- 31 E Canal to
saltwater wetlands to the east

S- 708 Culvert Varies L- 31 E Levee Delivers water from L

- 31 E Canal to
saltwater wetlands to the east

S- 23 A, B, C, D Culvert Varies L- 31 E Levee Delivers water from L

- 31 E Canal to
saltwater wetlands to the east

S- 707 Inverted Siphon Varies Intersection of L

- 31 E

Canal and Military Canal Will connect L

- 31 E Canal on the north and south sides of Military

Canal while isolating flows from Military Canal

S- 709 Pump
Station 40 On L

- 31 E Canal, just

north of C

- 103

intersection Delivers water from C

- 103 north to

L- 31 E Canal

S- 710 Pump
Station 40 Approximately 0.7 miles

west of L

- 31 E Canal on south bank of C

- 103 Delivers water from C

- 103 to the freshwater wetland (between C

- 103 and North Canal, west of L

- 31 E Canal) via a spreader structure

S- 711 Pump
Station 40 Approximately 1.4 miles

west of L

- 31 E Canal on south bank of C

- 103 Delivers water from C

- 103 to the freshwater wetland (between C

- 103

and North Canal, west of L

- 31 E Canal) via a spreader canal (C

- 711)Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-5 Structure

Number Structure Type Design Capacity (cfs) Location Tech Specs & Notes

C- 711E Spreader

Canal 40 Approximately 1.4 miles

west of L

- 31 E Canal,

between C

- 103 and North

Canal Delivers water from S

- 711 Pump

Station to the freshwater wetland via

overland sheetflow

C- 711W Seepage

Collection

Ditch Varies Approximately 1.4 miles

west of L

- 31 E Canal,

between C

- 103 and North

Canal Collects seepage from C

- 711E spreader canal and delivers it back to
C- 103

S- 712A&B Culvert Varies L- 31 E Levee Delivers water from L

- 31 E Canal to
saltwater wetlands to the east

Key: cfs =cubic feet per secondSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-6 FIGURE 7-2: DEERING ESTATE PROJECT FEATURESSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-7 FIGURE 7-3 : CUTLER WETLANDS PROJECT FEATURESSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-8 FIGURE 7-4 : NORTHERN L- 31 EAST FLOW WAY PROJECT FEATURESSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-9 FIGURE 7-5 : SOUTHERN L- 31 EAST FLOW WAY PROJECT FEATURESSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 10 7.2 PROJECT MONITORING P LAN

A three part, Project Level Monitoring Plan (P L MP) has been included as Annex E Parts I through Parts III. Part I, Hydrometeorological Monitoring, largely describes the measurement of surface and/or groundwater levels needed to operate the project features, understand flow distributions, and monitor

h ydroperiods. Although described in detail in Annex E Part I, this type of monitoring will generally be limited to upstream and downstream of proposed structures, and to a lesser degree the receiving marshes. It is believed that the majority of this monit oring will be able to be discontinued after five years. In addition to supporting day

- to

- day decision making regarding feature operations, the hydrometeorological monitoring data will also be used to help implement the adaptive management measures needed to maximize restoration, and will likely be required by permit. It is estimated that the costs associated with implementation of this monitoring will total approximately $ 626 ,000. It is important to note that much of these costs are related to installati on of equipment. Based on the foregoing, it is anticipated that the costs associated with the period of construction, which is assumed to include two years of construction, and 1 year of operational testing and monitoring will be $ 5 16,000.
It is recommended that these costs be fully cost shared as project construction costs, and the remaining $110,000 for the first 2 years after the project becomes operational be fully cost shared under OMRR&R

.

Part I I

, Water Quality Monitoring

, describes the water quality parameters needed to demonstrate compliance with applicable regulatory requirements, and to necessary to evaluate project feature performance. Similar to the hydrometeorological monitoring, water quality mo nitoring will generally be limited to upstream and downstream of proposed structures, and is intended to identify water quality status and trends, assess compliance with federal and state water quality statutes, acts, and agreements, aid in determining nut rient removal rates, and guide resource management decisions. Because this plan is intended to address regulatory permitting requirements, the duration of this monitoring shall be as required by applicable permits

. Similar to the hydrometeorological moni toring, it is believed that the majority of this monitoring will be able to be discontinued after five years. In addition to being required by permit, the water quality monitoring data will also be used to help implement the adaptive management measures n eeded to maximize restoration. It is estimated that the costs associated with implementation of this monitoring will total approximately $5 77,000. It is important to note that much of these costs are related to installation of equipment. Based on the fo regoing, it is anticipated that the costs associated with the period of construction, which is assumed to include two years of construction, and 1 year of operational testing and monitoring will be $3 55,000. It is recommended that these costs be fully cost shared as project construction costs, and the remaining $222,000 for theSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 11 first 2 years after the project becomes operational be fully cost shared under
OMRR&R

.

Part III

, Ecological Monitoring

, describes the parameters needed to be measured
in order to evaluate the p roject’s performance in meeting restoration goals and to facilitate effective, science based management decisions concerning project design and operation

. Specifically, the recomme nded ecological monitoring will determine if restoring beneficial patterns of freshwater flow, salinity, and water quality to nearshore waters and adjacent wetlands of southwestern Biscayne Bay will achieve the expected community structure, distribution, a bundance, and viability of oyster bars, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), w etland vegetation, and associated biota

. Geographically, the monitoring will cover the nearshore habitat, submerged aquatic vegetation, estuary, and freshwater
wetlands in and ar ound the project features. Although the team believes the need for monitoring beyond five years may extend beyond five years, for purposes of estimating costs, it has been assumed that the monitoring will not extend beyond five years. It is estimated that the costs associated with implementation of this monitoring will total approximately $738,000. It is important to note that this estimate assumes that the system wide Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP) will continue to receive funding at its current levels. It is also important to note that a significant portion of these costs are

related to inst allation of equipment, and other start up costs. Based on the foregoing, it is anticipated that the costs associated with the period of construction, which is assumed to include two years of construction, and 1 year of operational testing and monitoring w ill be $474,000. It is recommended that these costs be fully cost shared as project construction costs, and the remaining $264,000 for the first 2 years after the project becomes operational be fully cost
shared under OMRR&R

.

In summary, t he combined monitoring effort is estimated to cost a total of $1, 941 ,000 with the costs associated with the period of construction, which is assumed to include two years of construction, and 1 year of operational testing and monitoring costing an estimated $1,345 ,000. It is recommended that these costs be fully cost shared as project construction costs, and the remaining $596,000 for the first 2 years after the project becomes operational be fully cost
shared under OMRR&R

.

7.3 ADAPTIVE MANAGEMENT PLAN

A n Adaptive Management (AM) Plan has been included as Annex E Part IV. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Adaptive Management plan has been designed to utilize project

- level and system

- wide Ecological Monitoring data to determine what changes or additions to management measures and operations are required to attain the project’s intended restoration goals and objectives. Specifically, the suggested adaptive management measures should help ensure the restoration ofSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 12 beneficial patterns of freshwater flow, salinity, and water quality to nearshore waters and adjacent wetlands of southwestern Biscayne Bay to achieve the desired community structure, distribution, abundance, and viability of oyster bars, submerged aquat ic vegetation, wetland vegetation, and associated biota. This plan facilitates the National Research Council’s recent (2006) recommendation for the Incremental Adaptive Restoration approach for Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan

.

The decision

- framework provided within the AM Plan are intended to help link performance measures to monitoring, targets, and potential management options to ensure the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands goals and objectives are
reached. While not the only possible management action, the management actions provided within the plan are meant to serve as an initial set of actions which are likely to help reach the intended goal and/or objective, and have therefore been included as a cost of plan implementation. Because neither the scale, nor scope, of AM can be fully defined prior to the project becoming fully operational, the estimated cost of AM implementation has been presented as a range. It is estimated that the costs associated with implementation of Adaptive Management will range between $486,000 and $727,000. Because these measures should not be implemented until after the features have become fully operational, it is recommend ed that these costs be fully cost shared under
OMRR&R

.

7.4 NUISANCE AND EXOTIC VEGETATION CONTROL P LAN

In addition to the Project Level Monitoring Plan, a nuisance and exotic vegetation control plan has been developed in conjunction with USACE policy. This policy compliments the National Invasive Species Act and strives to either prevent or reduce establis hment of invasive and non

- native species at project
sites. The primary objectives of this effort for the BBCW project is to establish favorable conditions suitable for the long

- term maintenance control of non

- native species, and the re

- establishment of na tive flora. To achieve these goals, this plan proposes to complete both initial and long

- term invasive plant control efforts necessary to achieve maintenance control levels of invasive vegetation within the project area.

Recognizing that anticipated costs could escalate or be reduced due to unanticipated spread of exotic and/or nuisance species, increased labor costs, or an increase chemical applications; it is estimated that the initial control effort will take five years at a total cost of approximate ly $1,090,360, or $218,072 per

year. Specifics of the nuisance and exotic vegetation control plan are contained
in Annex E, P art V

.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 13 7.5 RECREATION FEATURES

The recreation activities proposed for the Tentatively Selected Plan include: biking/walking trails, environmental interpretation, canoeing/kayaking, bank fishing, tent camping, and nature study. Proposed facilities include: interpretive signage and shade shelter, handicapped accessible waterless restrooms, handicapped parking, tent platforms, pedestrian bridge, benches, bike rack, trash receptacles, park security gate, trail signage , potable water source and a bird watching platform. Recreational features will be constructed on lands owned or acquired in fee by the SFWMD, therefore there are no real
estate costs associated with the recreation features.

The construction costs for proposed recreation features were estimated to be $ 970,000

. An additional twenty percent for planning, engineering and design, supervision and administration (S&A), and interest during construction (IDC) brings the estimated total costs for recreation to $ 1,164,400.

The justification for incurring additional costs for recreation features is derived by utilizing a benefit to cost ratio. The tangible economic justification of the proposed project can be determined by comparing the equivalent average annual costs with the estimate of the equivalent average annual benefi ts, which would be realized over the period of analysis. These average annual recreation benefits
and costs are summarized in TABLE 7-2

. The conceptual recreation plan is
illustrated in FIGURE 7-6

. The be nefit to cost ratio for the proposed recreation
features is approximately 2.3 to 1

. A ppendix H describes in greater detail the recreation plan and associated benefits and costs.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 14 TABLE 7-2 : SUMMARY OF RECREATION COSTS AND BENEFITS (OCTOBER 2009 PRICE LEVEL)

Annual Costs

Total Recreation Costs $ 970,000

PED / Construction S&A (20%) $ 194,000

Total Cost $1,164,000 Interest During Construction $26,000 Total Investment Cost (rounded) $ 1,189,000

Amortized Investment Cost $ 63,5 00

OMRR&R $ 25 ,000

Total Annual Cost $ 89, 000

Annual Benefits

Unit Day Value $ 7.08 Daily Use 80

Annual Use 29,200 Average Annual Benefit $ 207,000

Benefit to Cost 2. 3

Net Annual Benefits $1 18 ,000

IDC interest during construction

OMRR&R operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation

PED pre

- construction, engineering and design

S&A supervision and administrationSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-15 Biscayne Bay

C-102 Recreation Area West C-102 Recreation Area West

Facilities and Activities Facilities and ActivitiesSW 87th AveSW 97th Ave TOWN OF
CUTLER BAY Phase 2 Phase 2 Cutler Bay Recreation Area Cutler Bay Recreation Area

Facilities and Activities Facilities and Activities A

Cutler Flow-Way/C-1 Cutler Flow-Way/C-1

Wetland Recreation Area Wetland Recreation Area

Facilities and Activities Facilities and Activities

Phase 1 Phase 1 Lennar Wetland Mitigation Lennar Wetland Mitigation Birdwatching Area Birdwatching Area

Facilities and Activities Facilities and Activities

C-102 Recreation Area East C-102 Recreation Area East

Facilities and Activities Facilities and Activities

Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1 Phase 1

Phase 1 Phase 1 Florida Circumnavigational Saltwater Paddling Trail (Biscayne Segment) VILLAGE OF
PALMETTO BAY PINECREST

CORAL GABLES

1 O l d C u t l e r T r a i l

S o u t h D a d e T r a i l

B i s c a y n e T r a i l C o r a l R e e f D r S i d e w a l k

B l a c k C r e e k T r a i l

S o u t h D a d e T r a i l C o r a l R e e f D r S i d e w a l k

B l a c k C r e e k T

r a i l S-D1

CC-H2 CC-D2

CC-H1

CC-H4 CC-H4 CC-H3 CC-C6

CC-H5 PU-C3 PU-C2

PU-C4 PU-C1 PU-D1

PU-H1

PU-H2 BISCAYNE NATIONAL PARK

C

- 1 C

- 1 0 0

C

- 1 0 2 C

- 1 N

L - 3 1 E C

- 1 0

0 C

C

- 1 W C

- 1 0 0 A

C - 1 0 2 N C

- 1 0

0 B

L - 3 1 E

Northern Region - Conceptual Recreation Plan Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands - Alternative "O"

Map Date: April 18, 2008 Map Author: Laura Biddison, CERP Map Techinican Map Location: \\cerp\projects\GIS\PROJ_28\map_docs\cmn7588_MRP_North_Amend\BBCW_MRP_North_8x11_cmn7588.mxd 0 0.5 1

0.25 Miles

NOTE: Aerial Photography 2004-2005 USGS DOQQs - 1 Meter Color This map is a conceptual tool utilized for project development and implementation only. This map is not self executing or binding, and does not otherwise affect the interests of any person including any vested rights or existing uses of real property. Any information, including but not limited to maps and data, received from the SFWMD is provided "as is" without any warranty and the SFWMD

expressly disclaims all express and implied warranties of merchantibility and fitness for a particular purpose. The District does not make any representations regarding the use, or the results of the use, of the information provided to you by the District in terms of correctness, accruacy, reliability, timeliness or otherwise. The entire risk as to the results and performance of any information obtained from the District is entirley assumed by the recipient. DISCLAIMER Legend

Alternative "O" Features

Master Recreation Plan Features

Existing Recreation Networks Potential Structures

Box Culvert

FPL Installed Culvert

Flap-Gated Riser Culvert

Flume

Gated Structure

Pump

Riser Culvert

Spreader Box

Submerged Riser Culvert

Weir Potential Improvements

Canal Enhancements
Conveyance Channel

Degrade Berms to West

Ditch Filling

Levee

Pipe

Spreader Canal

Potential Areas

Rehydrated Wetlands

Reuse Wetlands
Vegetation Removal

Wetland Restoration

Existing Greenway Network
Biscayne Bay Saltwater Paddling Trail

Florida Trails

FPL Transmission Lines

0 KV

138 KV

230 KV

500 KV
Municipal Boundaries CERP Boundaries

Acceler8

CERP Study Areas
Biscayne National Park Other Features Hiking Biking

Non-Motorized Boats Fishing

Wildlife Viewing Activities

Visitors Kiosk Vaulted Toilet

Trail Head

Trail Shelter Parking Camping Foot Bridge Facilities

A Viewing Tower Viewing Platform

FIGURE 7-6: CONCEPTUAL RECREATION PLANSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 16 7.6 COST ESTIMATES

TABLE 7-3 includes a breakdown of the estimated cost of the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project formatted by construction and non

- construction costs.

Non- construction costs include LERR (lands, easements, rights -of- way and relocations), PED and S&A costs. Costs are estimated at Fiscal Year 2010 price
levels and are rounded to the nearest $1

, 000. Included in the table are IDC, operations and maintenance (O&M) and annualized costs. Th e Federal discount
rate of 4.375 % was utilized to amortize the costs.

TABLE 7-3 : BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS INVESTMENT COSTS

Construction Item Lands & Damages Cost
76,662,000

Elements

09 Channels & Canals 1,393,000 13 Pumping Plant 44,863,000

15 Floodwall Control Diversion

Structure 4,567,000

14 Recreation Facilities 970,000

Sub

- Total $128,455,000

Planning, Engineering, and Design (PED, E&D) 31,667,000

Construction Management (S&A) 14,120,000

Total First Cost $174,242,000

Investment Costs Interest During Construction

-- Construction $5,978,000

-- Real Estate $10,509,000

Total Investment Cost $190,729,000

Average Annual Costs

Interest and Amortization of Initial

Investment $10,180,000

OMRR&R 1,680,000

Total Average Annual Costs $11,860,000

* Initial costs rounded to the nearest $1,000.

S&A S upervision and A dministration

PED Planning , Engineering & Design

LERR Lands, Easements, Rights

- of

- Ways, and RelocationsSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 17 Based on the engineering and design of the Tentatively Selected Plan for this study, the average annual cost for the Tentatively Selected Plan (Alternative O
Phase 1 ), is $1 1,860,000

.

7.6.1 Apportionment of Federal and Non

- Federal Costs

Responsibilities for implementing the TSP would be shared by USACE , on behalf of the federal government, and the non

- federal sponsor, SFWMD . The
USACE and SFWMD would cost

- share equally in the design, construction and O&M of the restoration projects resulting from this plan. The SFWMD would acquire the necessary LERR. Construction contracts to build the projects would be managed by either USACE or SFWMD to maintain as close to a 50/50 cost share as possible to meet the overall CERP program goal of a 50/50 federal/non

federal cost share.

Rules, which determine how project responsibilities are shared, are established in federal law and the administration's implementing policies. Section 601 of WRDA 2000 provides in

- kind cost sharing credit to the non

- federal sponsor for design, construction, and O&M, and for treatment of credit between projects to
maintain a 50/50 cost share. The PIR recommends crediting the non

- federal sponsor for work completed under the State Expedited Construction program in
advan ce of approval and authorization of the federal project. TABLE 7-4 includes an apportionment of the costs of the Tentatively Selected Plan

.

Since recreational opportunities are one of the original CERP objectives, planning, design, and construction of recreation features are cost

- shared equally by the federal gov ernment and the non

- federal sponsor; however, O&M of the
recreation features is a non

- federal responsibility. No additional LERR costs would be required for the recreational features, since they would be constructed within the restoration project footprin t.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 18 TABLE 7-4 : COST APPORTIONMENT OF THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED

PLAN

Item Federal Cost Non

- Federal

Cost Total
Ecosystem Restoration (ER)

PED $ 28,656,000 1 $ 2,817,000 $ 31,473,000

Construction Management $ 7,060,000 $ 7,060,000 $ 14,120,000

LER&R $

- $ 76,662,000 $ 76,662,000
Ecosystem Restoration $ 50,823,000 2 $

- $ 50,823,000

ER Subtotal $ 86,539,000 $ 86,539,000 $ 173,078,000

Recreation (ER)

PED $ 97,000 $ 97,000 $ 194,000

Recreation $ 485,000 $ 485,000 $ 970,000

Subtotal

Recreation Subtotal $ 485,000 $ 485,000 $ 1,164,000

Total Project Cost $ 87,121,000 $ 87,121,000 $ 174,242,000
Total Project Level Monitoring Costs $ 970,606 $ 970,606 $ 1,941,212
Total ESA Monitoring Costs $ 0 $ 0 $ 0

Associated Annual Costs $ 80,884 $ 80,884 $ 161,768

OMRR&R (non

- recreation) $ 840,000 $ 8 40,000 $ 1,680,000

OMRR&R (vegetation management) $ 545,180 3 $ 545,180 $ 1,090,360

OMRR&R (vegetation management) $ 109,036 3 $ 109,036 $ 218,072

OMRR&R (recreation) $ 25,000 $ 25,000

1 PED estimates for non

- recreation components are derived directly from the MCACES . PED of the Federal

Government includes development of the PIR

. 2 The ecosystem restoration construction cost and PED cost are not detailed as being shared equally due to the

non

- Federal Sponsor’s land costs. The Federal share s w ere chang ed to bring the total project cost to a 50/50

share basis.

3

Note: Total costs shown are consistent with costs shown throughout the report. Due to rounding to the nearest $1,000, numbers may not total correctly. MRR&R for vegetation management is separated into two rows due to the annual costs being greater during the first 3 years of OMRR&R. After the first 3 years of OMRR&R for vegetation management the co sts of continued vegetation management greatly decreases

.

7.6.2 Description of the Federal and non

- Federal Implementation Responsibilities

Responsibilities for implementing the Tentatively Selected Plan would be shared by USACE , on behalf of the federal government, and the non

- federal sponsor,Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 19 SFWMD . USACE and SFWMD would cost share equally in the design of the projects resulting from this plan. SFWMD has acquired the necessary LERR and would O&M the completed project. Construction contracts to build the projects would be managed by either USACE or SFWMD to maintain a 50/50 cost. Rules which determine how project responsibilities are shared are established in federal law and related implementing policies. Section 601 of
WRDA 2000 provides in

- kind cost sharing credit to the non

- federal sponsor for design, construction, and O&M and for treatment of credit between projects to
maintain a 50/50 cost share. The draft PIR would include recommendation s to
credit the non

- federal sponsor for work completed under the State Expedited
Construction program in advance of approval and authorization of the federal project. At this time, it is anticipated that the Tentatively Selected Plan woul d include SFWMD’s State Expedited Construction program for the BBCW project.

Detailed design of the State Expedited Construction program would be accomplished by SFWMD with coordination and review by USACE under the State Expedited Construction program. All project features would be designed in accordance with USACE regulations and standards. Construction activities for the State Expedited Construction program project would be in accordance with the State Expedited Construction program and would be the responsibility
of SFWMD . Crediting for work performed by SFWMD would be subject to project authorization and adherence to USACE design standards and regulations.

7.6.3 Project Implementation Schedule

The project s chedule is included in Appendix B Cost Estimates.

7.6.4 Pre -Construction Engineering and Design Activities

PED activities would be in accordance with USACE construction standards. Preliminary design activities, which include survey and geo technical investigations as well as cultural resources compliance, commenced in early 2005. Under the State Expedited Construction program, SFWMD has prepared a Basis of Design Report (BODR) for the BBCW State Expedited Construction

program . The BODR presents approximately 30 percent level of design, and includes all engineering assumptions and conceptual designs for the State Expedited Con struction program features. Upon final approval of the BODR, SFWMD would prepare initial, intermediate and final plans and specifications for construction contract award. All design work would be coordinated and
reviewed with USACE to en sure that the work to be constructed as part of the State Expedited Construction program would meet USACE standards and regulations.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 20 7.6.5 Implementation of Project Operations

The Draft Project Operating Manual for the BBCW Phase I Project would be modified and revised, as necessary, through several project phases. During the Detailed Design and Plans and Specifications Phase, the Draft Project Operating Manual would be modified as needed to define temporary operations to be used during construction. These temporary operations are known as Interim Operations during Construction. As construction of the project nears completion, the Draft Project Operating Manual would be further modified to focus on operations during the Operational Testing and Monitoring Phase. Knowledge gained from the Operational Testing and Monitoring Phase would then be incorporated into a revision of the Draft Project Operating Manual,
which would be coordinated with SFWMD and the USACE South Atlantic Division (SAD), and would supersede all other iterations of the Draft Operating Manual. The final version of the Project Operating Manual would be used by SFWMD when the SFWMD accepts responsibility for long

- term operations of the project.

7.7 DESIGN AND CONSTRUCTION CONSIDERATIONS

7.7.1 Engineering and Design

Planning

, engineering and design activities would be in accordance with USACE
and SFWMD requirements. Preliminary design activities, which include survey and geotechnical investigations as well as cultural resources compliance, commenced in early 2004. Under the State’s Expedited Construction program, the SF WMD prepared a Basis of Design Report (BODR). The BODR includes all engineering assumptions and conceptual designs for each of the project features. Upon reviewing the BODR, the SFWMD prepared initial, intermediate and final plans and specifications for construction contract award. All design work has
been coordinated and reviewed with USACE to meet USACE standards and regulations.

Alternative O Phase 1 includes more than just the State’s Expedited
Con struction program features. Some project features have not yet been fully designed. The design of these features, which lack detailed survey and geotechnical investigations, will be completed by USACE after the PIR document has been approved.

7.7.2 Construction and Implementation of the Plan

The non

- Federal sponsor is exploring alternative project delivery methods to expedite implementation of a portion of the project through the State’s Expedited Construction program . The remainder of the Tentatively SelectedSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 21 Plan would be implemented by standard USACE processes. The following are lists of construction features to be constructed by the SFWMD and USACE:

SFWMD constructed features (under the State’s Expedited Construction program):

**•** S- 700 (includes all Deering Estate features)

**•** S- 701

**•** C- 701

**•** C- 702 ( sections a, b, and c )

**•** S- 23 A, B, C, and D

USACE constructed features:

**•** C- 702 (section d)

**•** C- 711 E and W

**•** S- 703

**•** S- 705

**•** S- 706 A, B, and C

**•** S- 707

**•** S- 708

**•** S- 709

**•** S- 710

**•** S- 711

**•** S- 712 A and B

7.7.3 Outstanding Design Issues

Further detailed data collection is required for several existing culverts that were discovered late in the design process. These culverts are located on the
western side of the L

- 31 E Borrow Canal , between C

- 102 and C

- 103. These culverts have the potential to affect the extent that the L

- 31 E Canal water levels can be raised. A recent site visit seemed to show that these culverts are no longer needed for drainage of lands to the west of L

- 31 E Canal, however additional study is needed to assure the flood control for the area is not diminished and the full potential benefits of the proposed L

- 31 E Culverts are
realized.

The siphon, S

- 707, that is proposed to be installed underneath Military Canal

, will require a large open work area. There are existing constraints at the site which cannot be impacted but could hamper construction. To the east of the
confluence of the L

- 31 E Canal with Military Canal is the spillway structure
S- 20G and the associated control building used for its operation. To the west areSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 22 several parallel 230,000 volt power lines operated by Florida Power and Light (FPL) which need a clear perimeter maintained.

7.8 LANDS, EASEMENTS, RI GHTS

- OF

- WAY AND RELOCATIONS

CONSIDERATIONS

Section 601 of the WRDA 2000 and USACE policy requires that the non

- Federal sponsor obtain and provide certification of all lands, easements, rights -of- way and relocatio ns (LERRs) ne cessary for project implementation.

7.8.1 Real Estate Requirements

The lands required for the Tentatively Selected Plan are based on the benefits assessment modeling and on the analysis of the lands needed for construction, and operation, maintenance, repair, replacement and rehabilitation (OMRR&R ) of the project. TABLE 7-5 shows the total land requirement and estimated functional lift for the three area based performance metrics. The net freshwater
wetland lift shown in this table was computed using PM #4 “Wet lands With
Su fficient Water”. The complete results for this performance metric are included

in TABLE C -4 of Appendix C . The net saltwater wetland lift in TABLE 7-5 was estimated using the results from PM #2, “Acres of Saltwater Wetland Meeting 0

- 20 ppt Criterion”. A summary of PM #2 results are included in
TABLE C -6 of Appendix C . The net nearshore salinity lift was computed using PM #1, “Acres of Bay Bottom within 500 Meters of Shore Meeting 20ppt
Criterion”. The results from PM #1 are included in TABLE C

- 13 of Appendix
C . There are no land requirements for the nearshore salinity functional lift component of the project since these benefits occur in Biscayne Bay which is subject to navigational servitude. (Note that the total “habitat lift” estima tes from CBEEM for each ecozone are aggregates of several PMs and are not reported as acres. For this reason, TABLE 7-5 uses the results from the three performance measures that are reported in units of acres as a comparison with the land use requirements for the project.)

FIGURE 7-7 through FIGURE 7

- 11 show the geographic relationship between the lands required for Alternative O Phase I and the aerial coverage of each
benefit ecozone. These maps include polygons identified as “BBCW Zones of

Potential Habitat Lift”. For the saltwater wetlands and freshwater wetlands, the zones of potential habitat lift were sized based on a target of maximum restoration. However, the lands required for each alternative are less than the maximum restoration acreage because none of the alternatives affect all of the land within the zones of potential habitat lift. In other words, the wetla nd acreage required by a given alternative is a sub

- set of the maximum restoration acreage. These lands are those within the zones of potential habitat lift that are directly impacted by a given alternative. This is illustrated in FIGURE 7-7 through FIGURE 7

- 11 w hich show that the “rehydrated wetland” landsSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 23 required for Alternative O, Phase 1, are much less extensive than the acreage identified within the zones of potential habitat lift. While the lands identified for inclusion in Alternative O, Phase I will prote ct the associated project benefits, this project will not preserve the potential for future benefits on lands within the zones of potential habitat lift but outside of the Alternative O, Phase I project footprint.

A comparison of the land requirements and the habitat benefits computed for each alternative generally indicates that land requirements are greater than
acres of habitat lift. This is because acres of improved wetland habitat are computed by multiplying the increase in functionality by the total acreage affected by the feature or project. For example, if a feature targets a 1,000 acre parcel of degraded freshwater wetlands for restoration and the feature will improve the functionality by 50 to 90%

, then the total habitat lift is 400 acres of
lif t; however

, the required footprint is 1,000 acres. For the freshwater wetlands, the lands required to achieve the associated benefits for a given alternative were determined by the actual footprint of the targeted wetlands. For instance, the
freshwater w etland land requirements identified for Alternative O , Phase 1 are the 400 plus acres targeted for rehydration by the S

- 709, S

- 710, and S

- 711 pumps. The areal extent of rehydration in this area is constrained by the C

- 103 canal on the north, North Canal on the south, L

- 31E borrow canal on the east, and the seepage collector canal (C

- 711 Canal) on the west. Lands adjacent but outside of these boundaries will not be rehydrated as a result of the groundwater stage control provided by the boundary canals. For the saltwater wetlands, the area estimated to be rehydrated or flooded was generally determined to be those lands lying between the water distribution features (L

- 31E Culverts, Cutler Spre ader Canal) of a given alternative and the shoreline to the east. (In the Shoal Point area, the topography of the remnant tidal creek resulted in project lands boundaries that generally follow elevation contours rather than run east

west.) Though benefit s to significant acres of nearshore habitat acreage will result from the implementation of Alternative O Phase I, no land purchase, in fee or otherwise, is required to protect these benefits since subject lands are submerged.

The real estate component of the Tentatively Selected Plan is tentative in nature and intended for planning purposes only. Total estimated cost of real estate is $ 41,560,000. Both the final real property acquisition lines and the real estate cost estimates provided herein and in Appendix D are subject to change. More detail on the real estate requirements for the Tentatively Selected Plan is
discussed in Section 6.7.2 below and Appendix D

.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 24 TABLE 7-5 : PROJECT ACREAGES AND FUNCTIONAL LIFT BY BENEFIT
ZONE

Land Requirements and Functional Lift Summary Project Lands

Area Net Functional Lift (acres) (acres)

Freshwater

Wetlands 473.61 190

Saltwater Wetlands 3287.59 1578 Nearshore Salinity 0 1078Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 25 FIGURE 7-7: HABITAT BENEFIT ZONES
- ALTERNATIVE O PHASE ISection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 26 FIGURE 7-8 : HABITAT BENEFIT ZONES
- LENNAR FLOWWAY AND

CUTLER SOUTH
- ALTERNATIVE O PHASE ISection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 27 FIGURE 7-9 : HABITAT BENEFIT ZONES

– HOMESTEAD NORTH

– ALTERNATIVE O PHASE ISection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 28 FIGURE 7-10 : HABITAT BENEFIT ZONES
- HOMESTEAD SOUTH
- ALTERNATIVE O PHASE ISection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 29 FIGURE 7-11 : HABITAT BENEFIT ZONES
- SHOAL POINT

– ALTERNATIVE O PHASE ISection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 30 7.8.2 Land Acquisition

Within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project , there are approximately 3,761.2 acres required for the project. The SFWMD owns 1,243.34 acres within the footprint of the project with an additional approximately 43 5.42 acres to be acquired from private landowners. These acres would be provided in fee.
Florida Pow er and Light (FPL) owns approximately 124.75 acres within the footprint of the project and will convey a perpetual flowage easement to the SFWMD for the project. The United States of America, National Park Service owns approximately 937.27 acres which wil l be provided by Letter Agreement or Memorandum of Agreement.

The Trustees of the Internal Improvement Trust Fund (TIIF), State of Florida, owns fee title to approximately 111.06 acres within the project footprint. The State will convey a perpetual ease ment to the SFWMD or execute a Supplemental Agreement which will contain language sufficient to ensure that TIIF and SFWMD provide the interest held by TIIF to the project for the life of the pr oject.

Miami

- Dade County Water and Sewer Department owns approximately 403.4
acres and Miami

- Dade Parks and Recreation owns approximately 202.26 acres within the project footprint. Miami

- Dade County regulations prohibit the conveyance of an interest to the SFWMD . Miami

- Dade County DERM owns approximately 303.7 acres within the Alternative O , Phase 1 portion of the project footprint. These Miami

- Dade County governmental entities will execute Supplemental Agreements which will contain language sufficient to ensure that
Miami

- Dade County and SFWMD provide the interest held by Miami

- Dade
Cou nty to the project for the life of the project

.

Refer to the Real Estate Appendix

, Appendix D , Paragraph D.16 for the Estate Analysis. Refer to Appendix D , Paragraph D.17 for the Proposed Estates Analysis.

7.8.3 Hazardous , Toxic and Radi oactive Waste

Phase I Preliminary Assessments for hazardous, toxic and radioactive waste (HTRW ) were conducted to address the existence or potential for occurrence of HTRW on lands, including submerged lands, in the study area. The assessment included a project review, review of site literature and Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands project feat ures, database searches, review of available records and aerial photography, site inspections and interviews. The assessments covered the majority of lands within the footprint of the Tentatively Selected Plan as well as the surrounding vicinities which c ould affect, or be affected by, plan implementation. The priority for completing assessments was given to lands toSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 31 be inundated in the Tentatively Selected Plan and lands which were suspected of past agricultural activity or other actions likely to introd uce contaminants.

Results of the Phase I studies indicated that the potential for hazardous and toxic wastes and residual agrochemicals exists within the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands proj ect area. While landfills and other hazardous waste sites have been identified and evaluated, the issue of greatest concern stems from historical use of agricultural chemicals. Residuals of pesticides and herbicides remaining
in the soil can bio

- magnify and become increasingly concentrated in higher levels of predator species.

Those lands where site contamination concerns were not resolved during the Phase I studies were subject to additional investigation. Phase II studies were initiated by the SFWMD to collect and analyze soil and/or water samples; results were used to determine if the land under consideration was suitably clean for the intended use, or if some form of remediation would be necessary prior to project implementation . Acceptable levels of contaminants are not always determined by adherence to a fixed regulatory value. In several cases, Ecological Risk Assessments have been undertaken seeking site

- specific contaminant values

t hat, although somewhat elevated, would remain protective for the actual receptor species on the site. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) reviewed Phase I, Phase II, and Ecological Risk As sessments results generated by the
SFWMD and its consultants.

As the project sponsor, the SFWMD is responsible for the acquisition of project
lands. In cases where contaminated lands are needed for the selected alternative, the first consideration is to require the seller to remediate the property to the highest level enforceable under the law. If the property becomes wetland habitat, any additional remediation necessary would be undertaken prior to or during construction. To date, remediation has been completed for contaminated parcels along the Cutler Flow Way by the former owner and the

non

- Federal sponsor. Consistent with recent ASA (CW) guidance on PIR

content , the cost of remediation required only to achieve ecological restoration objectives on former agricultural lands contaminated by the application of commercially available products (e.g., pesticides and/or herbicides) used for their lawfully intended purpose are eligible for cost -s haring between the Government
and the Non

- Federal Sponsor.

Additional details regarding site contamination issues for the Tentatively Selected Plan, and all of the project alternatives, can be f ound in Section 6.1.10

, or in the Summary of Environmental Conditions (PSI, Inc., Sept 2008) , which can be found in Appendix C

.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 32 7.8.4 Remediation of Agricultural Chemicals

As described in Section 7 .7.3 s oil sampling results from Phase I and Phase II Environmental Site Assessments (ESAs) have identified chemicals of potential ecological concern (COPECs) on a number of parcels within the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands (B BCW) Alternative “O” project boundary. The COPECs identified, which include chlorinated pesticides

, and to a lesser extent, heavy metals, have been attributed to past agricultural activity, and are covered by the Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (FIFRA) exemption s codified in Sections 103 (e) and 107(i) of the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Act (CERCLA )

. It is important to note that the
detected concentrations of these pesticides in the soil samples col lected as part of the Phase II ESA exceed ecological risk thresholds, but did not exceed the State’s regulatory standards for the existing land use.

In collaboration with USFWS, the non

- Federal sponsor conducted a Screening Level Ecological Risk Assessment (SLERA) to assess potential ecological impacts associated with flooding portions of the formerly farmed land. The SLERA concluded that rehydration of affected parcels may result in unacceptable risk to USFWS Trust Species protected under the Migratory Birds Treaty Act and/or Endangered Species Act

, and to the water column community , as a result from
exposure to residual chlorinated pesticides.

In response to the detection of these chemicals, the non

- Federal sponsor conducted additional testing on these parcels to attempt to delineate the extent of these impacts. Follow

- up testing results indicated significantly lower pesticide concentrations than the original results, and results were therefore considered inconclusive. Although not yet completed, because of the inconclusive results, additional testing has been recommended. It is important to note that many of the par cels in question are densely wooded, and land clearing will be necessary to access the interior portions of these parcels.

Because of uncertainties regarding the extent and degree of contamination associated with the presence of these CERCLA exempted che micals, the cost
associated with remediation of the contaminated soils has not yet been determined, but could be substantial, approximately $1,500,000. In addition to the sites discussed above, it is important to note that, although historically farmed, several parcels within the Tentatively Selected Plan ’s footprint remain in private ownership, and/or have not been investigated for other reasons. For those properties which have not yet been acquired, Phase I, and possibly Phase II, Environmental Assessme nts will be required at the time these properties are acquired.

It is recommended that all costs associated with additional Phase I

- II EAs, further sampling to delineate the extent of pesticide impacted soils and possibleSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 33 corrective actions, as necessary to render any impacted lands suitable for their proposed purpose within the project be cost shared as a project construction cost. It is important to note that this recommendation for cost

- sharing is only for
additional costs of detection, and construc tion, resulting from the presence of residual agro

- chemicals that are exempt from CERCLA regulation

, via FIFRA, that do not exceed any regulatory limits for the land use at the time of acquisition, and that removal or isolation of these impacted soils is o nly required because the project will change the land use to an aquatic environment with more stringent ecological targets.

7.8.5 Relocation Assistance

In accordance with the Uniform Relocation Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, as amended ( Public Law [PL] 91

- 646), relocation
assistance must be provided to affected residents and business es. Information provided by the SFWMD would indicate that relocation assistance is not required. Upon certification o f the LERR, t he SFWMD would be required to demonstrate compliance with the requirements of PL 91

- 646 including that landowners have been properly advised of their rights under the program and that which evidence appropriate benefit determinations. To include:

Number of persons, farms and businesses displaced
Estimate of all PL 91

- 646, Title II costs and contingencies Discuss/describe availability of replacement h ousing and any need for last resort housing benefits

Based on current information, it appears that there are no relocation assistance payments made or required.

7.9 OPERATIONS AND MAINTENANCE CONSIDERATIONS

The major considerations for the O&M of the Biscayn e Bay Coastal Wetlands are to maximize project benefits while maintaining existing flood protection levels, maintaining existing levels of service for legal users, minimizing operations and maintenance costs, and monitoring project impacts.

7.9.1 Flood Risk Management and Water Supply

None of the features included in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is intended to enhance flood risk management or alter water supply to any existing legal user. However, th e project features must be operated in accordance with
the Savings Clause (Section 601 (h)(5) of WRDA 2000) which requires that existing levels of flood risk management to agricultural and urban lands be maintained and that the level of service to existing legal user s be maintained. The Savings Clause analysis which discusses flood risk management and level ofSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 34 service is found in Annex C. The draft operations plan in Annex D provides details on how the project will be operated to minimize changes in flood risk management and water supply.

7.9.2 Operations and Maintenance C osts

Annual O&M costs were estimated for the construction features of the Tentatively Selected Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project. The O&M costs were determined by extrapolation from operational costs histories supplied by the SFWMD , USACE operational history and by using industry standard cost data and data from past and projected cost trends. O&M activities include such items as mowing, erosion control, pump maintenance, levee road maintenance, invasive species control and building maintenance. The annual (OMRR&R ) costs are estimated to be $1,400,000.

7.9.3 Monitoring and Adaptive Management Costs

The estimated cost for water quality monitoring during the initial year is $146,000 which would be construction funded. The estimated cost for water quality monitoring during operations of the project is $115,300 per year, which
would be OMRR&R funded. The Water Quality Monitoring plan is included in

Annex E . The Ecological Monitoring plan ( Annex E ) includes recommendations to detect ecological and water quality changes resulting from project -level implementation in order to adaptively manage the project and to evaluate project success. The plan has been recommended to Restoration Coordinati on and Verification (RECOVER ) for funding as part of the Monitoring and Assessment Plan (MAP). Most of the ecological monitoring recommended for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 project is currently recommended by the MAP. A hydrologic monitoring plan is included in Annex E which includes recommendations for monitoring of water levels, flow, groundwater, weather and

structures. Th is cost is included in the OMRR&R estimate cited above in
Section 7.8.2

.

The adaptive management plan included in Annex E is a guidance document
intended to assist the CERP implementing agencies, USACE and SFWMD , and
RECOVER staff in understanding project level ecological responses and the array of potential o perational or design changes that might be employed to improve restoration response.

Described management actions are not self

- executing and any described operational or design changes would be implemented at the discretion of the leadership of USACE and the SFWMD Governing Board. Management actions would be implemented based on consideration of other agency restoration and water management priorities, and t he availability of state and Federal funds.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 35 7.10 PLAN ACCOMPLISHMENTS

The project will divert an average of 59 percent of the annual coastal structure discharge (from structures S

- 123, S

- 21, S

- 21A, S

- 20F) into freshwater and saltwater wetlands instead of direct discharges into Biscayne Bay. This
diversion will reduce the fu ture nitrate load to Biscayne Bay by 163 thousand tons which is approximately 50 percent of the projected future nitrate load to Biscayne Bay. The diversion will also reduce peak total phosphorus loading to the bay by approximately 50 percent over the fut ure without

- project condition.

Of the 473.61 acres (approximate) of freshwater wetlands acquired for this project, the Tentatively Selected Plan (Alternative O Phase 1 ) will provide a
total of 190 acres of freshwater wetland rehydration benefit while also resulting in approximately 500 acres of invasive exotic vegetation management. Overall functional benefit to freshwater wetland habitat is expected to be 340 acres. This is an increase of approximately 8.5 percent over the estimated 3,977 acres of existing functional freshwater wetland acreage within the project area.

Out of the total available saltwater wetland acreage of 22,500, this project will
increase the acres of saltwater wetlands with salini ty below 20 parts per thousand (ppt) from approximately 2,000 acres to approximately 3,700 acres by diverting approximately 40 percent of the available canal discharge directly to these wetlands. This is an increase of approximately 80 percent over the

ex isting number of saltwater wetland acres meeting the desired salinity target. The additional 1,700 acres of saltwater wetland habitat lift will occur within the 3, 287.59 acres (approximate) of saltwater wetlands identified for acquisition for this project

.

This project will also benefit the nearshore area of Biscayne Bay, defined as the zone within 500 meters of shore, by allowing the water in this zone to meet the desired salinity concentrations of less than 20 ppt. This concentration better
meets the requirements for estuarine species which should benef it from this project. Out of a total possible nearshore acreage of 3,462 acres, the project will provide an average of 258 acres of additional nearshore habitat meeting the desired target salinity cond itions. This is an increase from 886 acres to 1,144 acres of nearshore habitat that meets the desired salinity requirement of less than 20 ppt. This is an increase of approximately 30 percent over the existing nearshore acreage meeting the desired salini ty conditions.

The benefits to recreation in the project area result in an average annual net benefit of $115,000.

In terms of total average annual habitat units (HUs), this project results in a total of 9,986 HUs. This total is comprised of 2,525 HUs in freshwater wetlands,Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 36 5,155 HUs in saltwater wetlands, and 2,306 HUs in the nearshore area of Biscayne Bay.

7.11 NEXT ADDED INCREMENT ANALYSIS

Section 385.26 of the CERP Programmatic Regulations requir ed the development of a series of programmatic Guidance Memoranda (GM) that includes guidance for performing plan formulat ion and evaluation process and NAI justification. Next- added increment (NAI) is defined in the CERP Programmatic regulations as “the next project to be added to a system of projects that includes only those projects that have been approved according to ge neral provision of law or specific authorization of Congress and likely to be implemented by the time the project being evaluated is completed.” The NAI analysis evaluates the effects, or outputs, of the TSP as the next project to be added to the group of already approved CERP projects. This analysis helps illuminate the amount of benefits the selected alternative plan contributes without regard to future CERP projects. It also helps to ascertain whether sufficient benefits would accrue to the selected alternative plan to justify the cost if no additional CERP projects (other than those already existing or authorized) were implemented. In the case of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project NAI analysis, no other CERP projects are assumed to exist.

7.11.1.1 Ecological Analysis– Next Added Increment

A system analysis was conducted to determine the system habitat benefits for the CE/ICA and assist in the selection of the recommended plan. All of the with

project alternatives considered in the TSP alternative evaluation included the project features and the rest of CERP . During the initial development of the

Res tudy final plan, the planners observed that the selected Alternative D 13R resulted in a change in flow to southern Biscayne Bay. The most significant changes were that C

- 103 flows were decreased by approximately 50 percent
while C

- 1 flows increased by 100 percent. The net change in flow to the bay was a reduction of approximately 120,000 acre

- feet/year. To replace this lost water, the South Dade Wastewater Reuse project was added to the Restudy program’s final project array.

The NAI analysis was conducted to justify and describe the benefits of the
BBCW as a stand

- alone project without the system wide benefits attributed to other CERP projects. The difference between the average annual HU lif t for the
system

- wide analysis and the NAI was calculated to demonstrate the change in benefits if the rest of CERP is not constructed. The NAI analysis utilized the same performance measures as were used for the system

- wide analysis, and was
conducted us ing the combined HUs scores.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 37 The following table ( TABLE 7-6 ) includes results of the HU analysis for the NAI analysis for each of the alternative s.

TABLE 7-6 : NEXT ADDED INCREMENT HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY

Existing
Condition Future
Without Alternative O, P1 Alternative
O

- P1, NAI
Nearshore

Indices 0.09 0.19 0.54 0.52

Acres 8,585 8,585 8,585 8,585

Habitat Units 732 1,673 4,624 4,475

2050 HU Lift 941 2,950 2,802

Saltwater Indices 0.04 0.04 0.33 0.30

Acres 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550

Habitat Units 973 1,002 7,398 6,836

2050 HU Lift 29 6,396 5,834

Freshwater Acres 0 0 482 435

Habitat Units 0

- 482 435

2050 HU Lift

- 482 435

Total Habitat
Units 970 9,828 9,072

In comparing the NAI benefits with the system

- wide analysis, TABLE 7-6 shows that there is a slight, but measurable difference between benefit calculations. Both analyses used the same CBEEM methodology for calculating benefits, and

the conclusion can be drawn that much of the benefits of the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands TSP could be achieved with little correlation to the remainder
of the CERP being constructed. The next added increment results are lower for the equivalent alternatives due to the lack of supplemental water provided by
the CERP wastewa ter reuse project planned for South Miami

- Dade County.

The analysis shows that the NAI analysis for Alternative O

- P1 provides benefits
of 9,072 HUs across the three ecological zones. The system

- wide analysis for
Alternative O

- P1 accounted for 9,828 total HU’s across the three ecological
zones. As a stand

- alone project, the BBCW restoration nearly doubles the spatial extent of the wetlands expected to exist in the future. Also, there is only a reduction of 10 percent in HUs within the study area created as compared to
the system

- wide analysis of all CERP components including BBCW. It is reasonable to expect that the system

- wide project benefits would be very similar to the NAI benefits given that the reuse project mostly replaces water lost toSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 38 other CERP projects; however, benefit calculations reflect the fact that the constant flow of reuse water flow provides more potential benefits as compar ed to highly variable canal flows. One explanation for the limited difference between the predicted system

- wide benefits and the NAI benefits is that the
system

- wide analysis does not capture most of the benefits that are being provided outside of the Bisc ayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area by other CERP components. Due to the nature of the available models and uncertainty in the independent CERP features included in the system

- wide analysis, it was not practical to characterize all of the system benefits. If all of the benefits to the other conceptual CERP features were characterized, it is fully expected that the cumulative system

- wide benefit analysis would greatly exceed the cumulative NAI benefits of the stand alone Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project. It is important to note that the BBCW project study area is furthest downstream of the CERP components. As suc h, this project has little to no impact on the achievement of CERP system

- wide benefits that occur upstream of the BBCW study area. That is to say, that upstream benefits are not dependent upon the BBCW project; though, the achievability of BBCW benefits is dependent on CERP induced hydrologic changes that occur upstream. Fortunately, the CERP “Savings Clause” requirements of Section 601(h)(5) of WRDA 2000 requires that equivalent replacement water must be identified and available prior to the
transfer o r elimination of water supplies from any legal user within the CERP implementation area. This requirement should protect the Biscayne Bay project area from future potential CERP related water supply reductions that might threaten the benefits expected for the BBCW project.

Overall, the project design is consistent with attaining project goals and objectives. Operational flexibility would lead to increased benefits by further minimizing potential high flows to the estuary as well as by minimizing
dischar ges and associated sediment loads, and preserve the opportunity to construct remaining features of Alternative O in a future effort. Both the system
formulation and the NAI evaluations of Alternative O Phase 1 (the TSP ) demonstrate significant ecological benefits due to implementation of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project.

7.12 CONT RIBUTION TO ACHIEVEMENT OF INTERIM GOALS AND

INTERIM TARGETS

Section 601(h)(3)(C)(III) of the WRDA 2000 (PL 106

- 541) required the CERP Programmatic Regulations to include the “establishment of interim goals to provide a means by which the restoration success of the Plan may be evaluated throughout the implementation process.” Section 385.38 of the CERP Programmatic Regulations (33 CFR P art 385) further described the intent and the underlying principles for establishing interim goals, and a process for developing them. Section 385.39 of the CERP Programmatic Regulations established the requirement to develop interim targets to measure pr ogressSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 39 toward meeting the other water

- related needs of the south Florida region, and described the intent, underlying principles, and the process for establishing interim targets.

Consistent with the Programmatic Regulations, the RECOVER team, using the best science and information available at the time (2003), developed recommendations for interim goals and targets and provided these
recommendations to USACE , Department of Interior, and SFWMD for their consideration prior to executing the Intergovernmental Agreements (Agreements) to establish interim goals and interim targets for the CERP . The RECOVER recommendations, along with associated documentation and appendices, provide greater detail on the interim goals and interim targets and
are contained in a document entitled RECOVER Team’s Recommendations for Interim Goals and Targets for the Comprehensive Everglades Plan dated 17 February 2005.

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 project is expected to make progress toward 10 of the 29 interim goals of restoration ( TABLE 7-8 ), and none of the interim targets. Since the project is located along the southeast coast, the effects are contained within the southeastern glades area and Biscayne Bay.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 40 TABLE 7-7 : EXPECTED PROJECT EFFECTS FOR CERP INTERIM GOALS

Indicator Summary of Project Effects

3.2 Sheet Flow Fresh water would be diverted out of canals using pumps and culverts restoring overland flow to about 3,000 acres of wetlands, and create more natural gradients of flow into Biscayne Bay.

3.3 Hydropattern Natural timing and pattern of inundation are expec ted to improve within freshwater wetlands within the project area. Hydropatterns may also be improved in unimpounded wetlands.

3.4 System- wide Spatial

Extent of Natural Habitat The spatial extent of higher quality wetlands would

increase due to control on non

- native species through improved hydroperiods and other means, if necessary (mechanical or chemical removal). 3.6 Periphyton Mat Cover, Structure, and Composition Periphyton cover and p ersistence is expected to increase in

wetlands that are not salt intruded. 3.9 Aquatic Fauna Regional Populations in Everglades

Wetlands The abundance and diversity of aquatic fauna is expected to improve in the freshwater impoundments as a result of improved hydroperiods.

3.10 American Alligator Maintaining deeper water on average within the impounded wetlands should increa se alligator foraging

habitat.

4.1 Salinity Patterns in Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay The nearshore salinity pattern would improve by an increased linear extent of lower salinity, and salinity patterns within the saltwater wetlands are exp ected to provide salinity gradients that support important ecotones.

4.2 Submerged Aquatic Vegetation in Southern

Estuaries The diversity of seagrasses in the nearshore zone should increase with a greater abundance of estuarine species such as shoal ( Halodule wrightii ) and wigeon ( Ruppia

maritima ) grasses.

4.3 Juvenile Shrimp Densities in Florida Bay and Biscayne Bay An increased abundance of shoal grass and more stable nearshore salinity patterns would increase the preferred habitat of juvenile pink shrimp ( Farfantepenaeus

duorarum ).

4.4 American Crocodile Reduced salinity within saltwater wetlands along the shoreline would improve habitat for juvenile crocodiles ( Crocodylus acutus ). 5.1 Quantity of Fresh water

Lost to Tide Water currently discharged through canals is redirected through wetlands.

In addition to the indicators listed in TABLE 7-7 , the project is expected to improve the spatial extent and abundance of Eastern oysters along t he shoreline of the project area, and create a more suitable habitat for estuarine finfish such as spotted seatrout and yellowfin mojarra, which are indicative of a restored
estuary.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 41 7.13 DISCUSSION OF MAJOR RISK AND UNCERTAINTY

The major uncertainties associated with implementing this project are primarily related to the accuracy of the project costs and benefits. A short summary of
these risks and uncertainties is included below.

7.13.1 Cost Risk and Uncertainty

Cost risk analysis is the process of determining the probability of cost and schedule overruns and assigning a studied growth potential to contract costs as a percentage of a value applied as a contingency. It is a formal process that
includes involvement of the project delivery team, utilizing nationally

- recognized software based on the Monte Carlo principles. When considerable uncertainties are identified, cost risk analysis can pinpoint areas of high cost uncertainty and provide valuable information ab out that uncertainty. This gives the management team an effective additional tool to assist in the decision making process. Recent USACE guidance requires that a formal cost risk analysis be prepared for all Civil Wor ks decision documents requiring Congressional authorization for projects exceeding $40 million. See Appendix B for a discussion on Risk and Uncertainty Analysis

.

7.13.2 Benefit Risk and Uncert ainty

The key assumptions regarding project benefits are the availability of water, future land use conditions, and the magnitude of sea level rise (SLR). The risk and uncertainty associated with each of these assumptions is d iscussed below.

7.13.2.1 Water Availability

Benefits associated with rehydration of wetlands as well as improved salinity conditions in the nearshore are directly related to the amount of water available
to divert and distribute from the south Dad e conveyance canals. The largest water demands come from urban/agricultural users and the natural system. The projected 2050 urban/agricultural water demands were incorporated into project modeling efforts. Though there is a risk that the 2050 water use projections will be exceeded, recently this became less likely since the local water consumptive use permitting agency has required that the major urban water user (Dade County Water and Sewer Authority) no longer increase groundwater
withdrawals over exi sting permit volumes. The distribution of water supplies within the natural system will be altered as a result of the full implementation
of CERP or other restoration projects. The original Restudy indica ted that
under with

- project conditions Biscayne Bay was at risk of receiving less water. However, Section 385.36 of the Programmatic Regulations requires that PIR s determine if existing legal sources of water are to be eliminated or transferred as
a resul t of project implementation (”existing legal users” includes the naturalSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 42 system). This means that if a CERP project is expected to result in an elimination or transfer of an existing legal source of water , such as Biscayne Bay , the PIR shall include an implementation plan that ensures a new source of water of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the source that is being transferred or eliminated.

7.13.2.2 Future Land Use Conditions

T he benefit assessment methodology included an analysis of the effect of land use changes on project water quality as well as availability of some agricultural
lands for use as wetland restoration sites. The benefit assessment assumes that agricultural lands near L

- 31E Levee will be available for use as wetland restoration sites. These lands are currently outside of the Dade County Urban Boundary so they are difficult to convert to urban and commercial land uses. The conversion of some of these lands would likely reduce overall project benefits; however, the local regulatory agencies (DERM, FDEP, SFWMD ) negotiate with permit applicants within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area to minimize development impacts.

7.13.2.3 Sea Level Rise

An analysis was performed to look at the effect of sea level rise (SLR) on the benefits predicted for the tentatively selected Alternative O, Phase 1, per the guidance provided in EC 1165 -2- 211. This guidance requires that sea level rise impacts be determined at the 20 year, 50 year, and 100 year post

- construction
timeframes. For the sea level rise analysis, the timing of project construction and benefit accrual is based upon having construction complete by 2012. The
results indicate that within the 20

- year planning horizon, approximately 8
percent of the project ecosystem benefits are likely at risk to SLR. At the end of
the 50

- year planning horizon, the benefits attributed to the tentatively selected plan will be diminished by approximately 41 percent as determined by comparing the flood prediction maps for 2 ft of SLR (high projection for 50 years) with the benefited area projection. Limited impacts to project benefits are anticipated at the low and moderate SLR projections at 50

- years. Under the high SLR scenario at 100 years, the project benefits will not occur. Given the delayed ecological response to project induced changes, the restoration benefits resulting from this project are expected to ramp up from zero benefits at time of construction to maximum project benefits at 10 years post construction. Taking
into acc ount sea level rise, the period of maximal project benefits will occur during the period between 10 and 20 years post construction. After 20 years until the end of the project life 30 years later, project benefits are expected to
decrease as a result of S LR. The expected impact of SLR is a reduction of around 17% in average annual benefits estimated over the 50 year life of the project.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 43 The effects of SLR on project benefits that occur after the 50

- year project lifespan should be treated the same as benefits that occur after the project lifespan. In other words, effects that occur after the 50 year project lifespan should not be considered for plan selection or determination of project viability.

A qualitative comparison of SLR impacts to benefits a ccorded other project alternatives was done. This analysis showed that the tentatively selected plan will likely experience a greater percent reduction in overall benefits as compared to the alternatives that focus on freshwater wetland rehydration (Alter natives YB and Q); however, these alternatives would not provide as much preservation of the critical oligohaline and mesohaline habitat located east of the L

- 31E levee. In comparison to the No Action Alternative, the tentatively selected plan will provid e more protection to oligohaline and mesohaline habitat located east of the

L- 31E levee. The tentatively selected plan should perform the same as the No
Action Alternative in terms of effects to freshwater wetland habitat west of the
levee.

As with the p redictions of future rates of SLR, there is uncertainty in the estimation of effects to project related ecosystem benefits due to the accuracy and reliability of the datasets used in this analysis. The MSL flood prediction maps are based upon topographic data that is known to be accurate to within plus or minus 0.5 ft. The land elevation is assumed to be static over the 20, 50, and 100 year periods; however, topographic change is likely to occur in the
saltwater wetland areas as a result of SLR and other natural processes. Despite these limitations and inherent uncertainties, the analysis is presented here since
it is the most reliable information available at this time.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 44 7.13.2.3.1 Evaluation of the Effect of Sea Level Rise on the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands ProjectSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 45Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 46Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 47Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 48Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 49Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 50Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 51Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-52Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 53Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 54Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 55Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 56Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 57Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 58Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 59Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 60Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 61Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 62Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 63Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 64Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 65Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 66Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 67Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 68Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 69 7.14 ADDITIONAL CONSIDERATIONS

7.14.1 Chief of Engineers Actions for Change

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is consistent with the Chief of Engineers Actions for Change for Applying Lessons Learned during Hurricanes Katrina and Rita. These actions require a focus on system analysis, sustainability, risk

- informed decision making and communication of risks, incorporate professional and technical expertise, and dynamic independent
review.

System Analysis : The project is an integral part of the larger Everglades system, and is a priority for any system wide restoration. The project cons idered compatibility of the proposed features with future potential south Florida restoration efforts, with existing Modified Water Deliveries project features, and with the purposes and features of the Central and Southern Florida multipurpose project.

S ustainability : The recommended plan was developed to be a sustainable restoration feature, and as a foundation for the larger Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan . In particular, the following items were considered during the planning:

**•** Minimizing O&M requirements to help facilitate long term, low cost
benefits.

**•** Engineering flexibility, through the use of design features to help manage water under a variety of future scenarios.

**•** Stand alone benefits. The project was formulated to provide immediate benefits to the marsh, and work in conjunction with a variety of future
scenarios.

Risk : Risk informed decision making was a vital element in the study, and has been integrated through the study process. In particular, two sources of risk and uncertainty were incorporated into the project planning:

**•** Cost risk and uncertainty : Resulting in the potential for cost growth. In order to manage these risks, the study incorporated new risk

- based cost estimating m ethods. Bridge construction and road excavation methods involve relatively low uncertainty. The costs of fuel and oil

- based materials, aggregate, concrete, and steel were the major risk factors affecting cost estimates. The proposed early start of const ruction is the best method to mitigate and minimize these risks.

**•** Ecological response uncertainty : There is uncertainty in regard to the landscape changes associated with restored hydrology. This project will be one of the first major restoration construction projects in theSection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 70 Everglades ecosystem. Existing hydrologic and ecological monitoring in

sou th Florida will be used to assess the performance of the recommended plan and to aid decisions whether and how to modify operations of the
system.

Technical Expertise and Independent Reviews : The report was prepared by highly experienced staff from the J acksonville District, Everglades National
Park , and other agencies located in south Florida. Draft versions of the report were reviewed several times: Agency Technical Review by subject

- matter experts throughout USACE who were not involved in the development of the project; External Peer Review by a panel of independent non -government experts; and by members of the public. The PIR was amended and i mproved in response to each of these reviews.

7.14.2 Environmental Operating Principles

The Tentatively Selected Plan is consistent with each of USACE “Environmental Operating Principles” particularly with respect to the sout h Florida ecosystem

wide approach for plan formulation, evaluation and selection, and a holistic
consideration of water resources needs and solutions to water resources problems in the study area.

Principle One : Strive to achieve environmental sustainab ility

. An environment maintained in a healthy, diverse condition is necessary to support life.

Natural resource specialists agree that the remaining ecosystems in south Florida no longer maintain the functions and richness that defined the

pre

- drainage s ystem. These measures of ecological health would continue to decline without preventative actions. Not only is it certain that these natural systems would not recover their defining attributes under current conditions, it is unlikely that the current, de graded ecological conditions could be sustained in
the future.

The Tentatively Selected Plan would contribute to the restoration of historic tidal creeks and estuarine ecosystems of southwestern Biscayne Bay by re

directing flow from canals into the coastal wetlands to re

- establish more natural overland flow patterns that would provide appropriate hydro

- patterns and salinity regimes to re

- establish and maintain unique and productive estuarine
habitats.

Principle Two : Recognize the interdependence of life and the physical

environment. Proactively consider environmental consequences of
USACE programs and act accordingly in all appropriate circumstances.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 71 Outside of small

- scale farming, life within the coastal community of Biscayne Bay is generally dependent upon the natural resources of that area and by th e recreational opportunities provided through ENP such as fishing, boating, hiking, kayaking and other activities. The re

- establishment of overland flow regimes through coastal wetlands is essential to the restoration of l ocal resources and the assurance of increased productivity of estuarine habitats that include commercially harvested shrimps and food fishes. As a result, implementation of the BBCW project is expected to provide ecol ogical conditions suitable for expanded and intensified wildlife utilization through improvements in wetland habitat functional quality, and improvements in native plant and animal species diversity and abundance.

The BBCW project would provide immediate benefits to southwestern BBCW and estuarine communities, a part of the South Florida Everglades Ecosystem. The damaging effects of point source canal discharges would be reduced. Untimely discharges of fresh water to the estuaries would be partially equalized, leading to more natural salinity levels and the recovery of the estuarine ecosystem in the project area. By maintaining salinity balance and preventing salinity intrusion, the Tentatively Selected Plan would reduce the need for desalinization technologies.

The Tentatively Selected Plan footprint is located primarily on degraded freshwater and coastal wetlands that support marginal farming employment in the local community. Any loss of jobs related to the construction and operational actions of the project would be offset by farming relocation, increased recreation opportunities, and overall restoration of prime estuarine habitat.

Principle Three : Seek balance and synergy among human devel opment activities and natural systems by designing economic and environmental solutions that support and reinforce one another.

The BBCW project was designed to meet the needs of competing municipal, agricultural and environmental water supplies in the basin. Every effort was made to provide for a beneficial effect in the adjacent natural system and to ensure that the proposed project would not impact the current water supply needs. The proposed res toration would provide a functional lift to wetland habitats benefiting both the natural resources and the human environment. The BBCW project would have no negative effect on water resources for urban utilities, agricultural or flood damage reduction.

Principle Four : Continue to accept corporate responsibility and accountability under the law for activities and decisions under our control that impact human health and welfare and the continued viability of natural systems.Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 72 The BBCW PIR complies with all applicable laws such as the NEPA , the Clean
Water Act , the Endangered Species Act , and all other applicable legislation. The proposed habitat restoration would enhance both ecologic values and economic
values and social well

- being.

Principle Five : Seek ways and means to assess and mitigate cumulative impacts to the environment: bring systems approaches to the full life cycle of our processes and work.

The BBCW project is one of 68 different projects that are a part of the CERP

. Congress approved the CERP as the “framework for modifications and operational changes to the C&SF project that are needed to restore, preserve and protect the south Florida ecosystem while providing for other water

- related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection (WRDA, 2000). As such, the primary purpose of the CERP is the restoration of the Everglades ecosystem, including specific safeguards to ensure that the benefits to the natural system ar e achieved and maintained, while providing for other

water- related needs of the south Florida region. By doing this, USACE is able to avoid and minimize any potential project impacts that may occur as a result of
the i mplementation of any project.

Potential impacts to the natural system have been assessed as part of the PIR process and considered in the plan selection. Specifically, NEPA consultation is being performed for the American crocodile, American alligator, West Indian

manatee , Florida panther , smalltooth sawfish, wood stork, eastern indigo snake, Schaus swallowtail butterfly, green sea turtle, hawksbill sea turtle, leatherback sea turtle, Kemp’s Ridley sea turtle, log gerhead sea turtle, crenulated lead plant, Garber’s spurge, tiny polygala, deltoid spurge, and Small’s milkpea. Guidelines for fill rates, operations and control structures have been established to minimize impacts to these species. In addition, a system

- wide monitoring plan of the natural environment would be in place to continue to assess all impacts, and used along with AM of the project and other CERP components, in order to maximize benefits to the sy stem while identifying and limiting any negative
effects.

Principle Six : Build and share an integrated scientific, economic and social knowledge base that supports a greater understanding of the environment and impacts of the work.

As part of the AM strategy for the CERP , three sub

- teams from RECOVER meet monthly to discuss ways to improve the overall effects of the CERP program.
The th ree RECOVER teams are the Planning , Evaluation and Assessment teams. These three teams collectively are composed of many individuals with separate disciplines in order to integrate their specific knowledge of science,Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 73 economics and sociology. The teams evaluate the different environmental effects that are expected to occur as a result of CERP implementation, and also assess possible impacts to any areas that could be beneficially adjusted through AM. RECOVER reviewed the proposed BBCW PIR as it was being developed and provided input as to how the project could best be implemented and operated.

Additionally, extensive modeling was performed to mimic the natural system in the project area, both hydrologically and ecologically, in order to better understand how the system would function with the Tentatively Selected Plan in place.

Principle Seven : Respect the views of individuals and groups
interested in USACE activities, listen to them actively, and learn from their perspective in the search to find innovative win

- win solutions to the nation’s problems that al so protect and enhance the environment.

USACE fully addressed and considered all public comments concerning the proposed BBCW project. Comments were received from state and Federal agencies as well as non

- governmental agencies, tribal interests, and the general public. As part of the NEPA process, USACE sent out a scoping notice to pro vide information to the public and/or other agencies in order to encourage participation and receive comments about the proposed project. Further public input was encouraged through public meetings, stakeholder meetings, and Regional PDT meetings.

The Tentatively Selected Plan is consistent with USACE ’s “12 Actions for Change”. The 12 Actions for Change can be grouped into three overarching themes: effectively implement a comprehensive systems approach;
communicati on; and reliable public service professionalism. Below is a summary of the grouped actions for change, and how the BBCW is consistent with those
actions.

Effectively Implement a Comprehensive Systems Approach : Compr ehensively design, construct, maintain and update engineered systems to be more robust, with full stakeholder participation.

1. Employ integrated, comprehensive and systems

- based approach

2. Employ risk

- based concepts in planning, design, construction, operati ons, and major maintenance

3. Continuously reassess and update policy for program development, planning guidance, design and construction standards

4. Employ dynamic independent review

5. Employ adaptive planning and engineering systems

6. Focus on sustainabilitySection 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7- 74 7. Review and inspect completed works

8. Assess and modify organizational behavior

In order to effectively implement a comprehensive systems approach the Tentatively Selected Plan was formulated to optimize system

- wide benefits to
further CERP goals and objectives. The PDT reviewed CERP program guidance and applied lessons learned from other projects to this project. Independent review was conducted at the programmatic level by the National Academy of
Scienc es/National Research Council. Lessons learned from those programmatic reviews were applied in the planning and design of the Tentatively Selected
Plan . In addition, external independent technical review (ITR) was conducted at key milestone points through out the planning and decision document preparation process. The Tentatively Selected Plan includes program -level adaptive assessment and ecological monitoring that would study the long

- term system

- wide contributions of the Tentatively Selected Plan

.

Communication : Effective and transparent communication with the public,
and within USACE , about risk and reliability.

1. Effectively communicate risk

2. Establish public involvement risk reduction strategies

Information has been provided regularly via public notices, PDT meetings and summaries, newsletters, internet and other methods. Risk reduction strategies have been communicated through the utilization of the above methods

, as well as by gathering the input of the public through public meetings , PDT meetings and by public review of the draft PIR

. Risk and uncertainty analyses have been documented throughout the PIR

.

Reliable Pu blic Service Professionalism : Improve the state of the art and
USACE ’s dedication to a competent, capable workforce on a continuing basis. Make the commitment to being a "learning organization" a reality.

1. Manage and enhance technical expertise and professionalism

2. Invest in research

USACE , SFWMD and SFWMD consultants have extensive expertise in spreader canals, pump station construction and operation, and other technologies used in this project.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 8
PLAN IMPLEMENTATIONSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-1 8.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

8.1 DIVISION OF IMPLEMENTAT IO N RESPONSIBILITIES

SFWMD and USACE Jacksonville District will be jointly responsible for the preparation of this PIR and ancillary studies. Support in the development of the PIR and ancillary studies will be provided by the FWS and other F ederal

, state

, and local agencies. USACE Jacksonville District is r esponsible for assigning staff for developing the PIR, and for seeking to obtain Congressional authorization for the project.

The SFWMD is responsible for d esign and construction of the State’s Expedited
Construction program features associated with this project

. U SACE Jacksonville District is responsible for the design and construction of project
features not covered under the State’s Expedited Construction program portion
of the effort.

The O&M associated with this project is the responsibility of the SFWMD

. 1 Regional ecosystem monitoring would be performed as p art of the CERP Adaptive Assessment and Management Program implemented by RECOVER

.

8.1.1 Schedule

Public availability of the draft PIR is scheduled for April 2010

, at which time the

D raft PIR will be published in the Federal Register. Public workshops on the

D raft PIR will also be scheduled for April 2010

. The following bulleted list provides an overview of the important dates remaining for the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project.

**•** April 2010 : Draft Report Published in Federal Register

**•** August 2010 : Civil Works Review Board

**•** September 2010 : Final Report Published in Federal Register

**•** June 2012 : Project Cooperation Agreement Complete

**•** March 2013 : Real Estate Acquisition Complete

**•** November 2013

- June 2016 : Construction

**•** Operational Start

- Up and Testing: July 2016

8.1.2 Pre

- Construction Engineering and Design

Pre -c onstruction e ngineering and d esign (PED) of some of the project’s features has been completed by the State’s Expedited Construction program

. The design of the rest of the features, which lack detailed survey and geotechnical investigations, will be completed by USACE after the PIR document has been

1 PUBLIC LAW 106

- 53, “Water Resources Development Act of 1996 ”, § 528(d)(3), 12 OCT 1996, 110 STAT. 3658Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-2 approved. See Section 6.4.2 (Construction and Implementation of the Plan) for lists of plan features to be constructed by each agency.

8.1.3 Implementation of Project Operations

The Draft Project Operating Manual (DPOM) for the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands Phase 1 project would be modified and revised as necessary through the Detailed Design

, and Plans and Specifications Phase s , to define temporary operations to be used during construction. These temporary operations are known as interim operations during construction. As construction of the project nears completion, the DPOM would be further modified to focus on operations during the operational testing and monitoring phase. Knowledge gained from the operational testing and monitoring phase would then be incorporated into a revision of the DPOM, which would be coordinated with SFWMD and USACE South Atlantic Division (SAD), and would supersede all other iterations of the DPOM. The final version of the Project Operating Manual would be used by the
SFWMD wh en the y accept responsibility for long

- term operations of the project.

8.2 COST SHARING

Responsibilities for implementing the Tentatively Selected Plan would be shared by USACE and the SFWMD . USACE and SFWMD would cost share equally in the design, construction and O&M of the plan. The SFWMD w ould acquire the necessary LERR s. The costs to remediate HTRW contaminated lands , if any, would be the responsibility of SFWMD in accordance with the cost sharing agreement and USACE regulations. Construction contracts to build the project
features would be managed by either USACE or SFWMD to maintain as close to a 50/50 cost share as possible to help meet the overall CERP program goal of a

50/50 Federal/non-F ederal cost share.

Rules which determine how project responsibilities are shared are established in

F ederal law and the administration’s implementing policies. Section 601 of the Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2000 provides an opportunity for in

kind cost sharing credit to the non -Feder al sponsor for design, construction and O&M, and for treatment of credit between projects to maintain a 50/50 cost
share. The Draft PI R recommends crediting the non -F ederal sponsor for work completed under the State’s Expedited Construction program in advance of approval and authorization of the F ederal project. TABLE 8-1 includes an apportion ment of the costs of the Tentatively Selected Plan

.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-3 TABLE 8-1 : COST APPORTIONMENT OF THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED
PLAN

Item Total Federal Non

- Federal

Construction $51,793,000 $20,179,000 $31,614,000

S&A $14,120,000 $1,741,000 $12,379,000

PED $31,667,000 $21,728,000 $9,939,000

LERR $76,662,000 $752,000 $75,910,000

Total $ 174

, 242 ,000 $ 44, 400 ,000 $ 129

, 842 ,000
Key: S&A: Supervision & Administration (Construction Management) PED: Planning , Engineering, & Design

LERR : L ands, E asements, R ights

- of

- way and R elocations

8.2.1 Construction and Land Costs for Restoration Features

Section 601 of the WRDA of 2000 and USACE policy requires that the non

F ederal sponsor will provide LERR.

The total first cost of the restoration features of the project, including the value
of LERR a nd pre

- construction engineering and design costs will be shared equally between the F ederal G overnment and the non -F ederal sponsor. The

non -F ederal sponsor will provide cash or manage a portion of construction as necessary to meet its 50 percent share of the total first cost of the project to be

balanced accordin g to Section 601 of WRDA 2000.

8.2.2 Monitoring

A project monitoring plan, including hydrometeorological (Part 1)

, regulatory water quality (Part 2) , and ecological monitoring (Part 3)

, as well as adaptive management (Part 4), ha ve been prepared and are included as A nnex E of this

PIR

. Cost sharing of the construction and O&M phases of the project for all four elements of the project monitoring plan will be in accordan ce with Section 601 (e)
of WRDA 20 0 0 and USACE policy for cost

- sharing and operational monitoring. Regional data collected as part of the monitoring program are critical to the refinement of the features and operation of the selected alternative plan because they provid e the basis for any needed modifications to design and operational
criteria.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-4 8.2.3 Operations and Maintenance

For most typical USACE Civil Works projects, after project implementation is complete, the Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R ) phase begins. The term "OMRR&R" is sometimes shortened to "O&M", Operations and Maintenance. This lasts for the life of the project, and accounts for any sort of operation activities and maintenance needed to keep the project features functioning as intended.

Section 601(e)(4) of the WRDA 2000 specifies that the O&M of authorized projects of the CERP would be cost shared equally by the F ederal Government
and the non -F ederal sponsor. Consistent with the provisions of S ection 601(e)(4) of the WRDA of 2000 and given the multi

- objective nature of the features in this plan, it is appropriate for the OMRR&R associated with this plan to be shared equally between the F ederal G overnment and the non -F ederal sponsor. OMRR&R costs associated with recreation features of the plan will be funded

1 00 percent by the non -F ederal sponsor.

8.3 PROJECT ASSURANCES

Federal law s and regulation s implementing the CERP require PIRs to address certain assurances as part of the project recommendation for approval and implementation. This section addresses provisions of Section 601(h) of WRDA 2000 and the Programmatic Regulations for the CERP (33 CFR Part 385) for Savings Clause requirements and Project -S pecific Assurances.

The following sections describe the specific requirements from WRDA 2000 and
the CERP Programmatic Regulations and present the methods and results of the analyses necessary to meet those requirements.

8.3.1 Savings Clause-Effects on Water Supply for Existing Legal Sources and
Level of Service for Flood Protection

The Sa vings Clause analysis was required by WRDA 2000 as a means to protect users of legal sources of water supply and flood protection that were in place at
the time of enactment. Briefly, Section 601(h)(5) of WRDA 2000, entitled

“ Savings Clause ” , requires an analysis of each project’s effects on legal sources of water supply that were in existence on the date of enactment of WRDA 2000 (December 2000), and its effects on levels of service for flood protection in
existence on the date of enactment of WRDA 2000.

Section 385.36 of the Programmatic Regulations requires that PIR s determine if existing legal sources of water are to be eliminated or transferred as a result of project implementation. If a project is expected to result in an elimination or
transfer o f an existing legal source of water, the PIR shall include anSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-5 implementation plan that ensures a new source of water of comparable quantity and quality is available to replace the source that is being transferred or
el iminated.

Section 385.37 of the Programmatic Regulations requires that PIRs include an analysis of the project’s impacts on levels of service for flood protection that existed on the date of enactment of WRDA 2000, December 2000, and in

accordance with a pplicable law. These conditions would be included in the

p re

- CERP b aseline ( S ection C.1.2.1 ).

Th is project results in no elimination or transfer of water from existing legal sources because canal flows and levels upstream of the coastal control structures

would not be affected by the project.

Each of the four geographic ally separate project component s was analyzed individually

, for potential ly significant and adverse impacts to flood protection

as described in A nnex C

. The project is designed so that there would not be any significant or adverse affect s to the pre

- CERP level of service for flood protection of adjacent properties.

8.3.2 Identification of Water Made Available for the Natural System and Water
for Other Water

- Related Needs

Subsection 601(h)(4) of WRDA 2000, entitled “Project

- Specific Assurances,” contains requirements for PIRs and requires the identification of the appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system. The WRDA contains additional requirements to identify the amount of water to be reserved or allocated for the natural system necessary to implement under state law

.

Section 385.35(b) of the Programmatic Regulations requires that each PIR identify the quantity , timing and distribution of water to be dedicated and managed for the natural system necessary to meet the restoration goals of the
CERP . This evaluation considers the availability of the pre

- CERP baselin e water and previously reserved water, and whether improvements in water quality are necessary. The existing conditions for this project do not include any previously reserved water within the project area.

Section 385.35(b) of the Programmatic Regulatio ns requires that procedures be developed for identifying water generated by the CERP for use in the human environment and that the quantity, timing and distribution of water for other

water- related needs be identified in PIRs.

Water made available by the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project ’ s Tentatively Selected Plan

, Alternative O Phase 1

, was identified by calculatingSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-6 the quantity of water diverted by all the project features (i.e., water diverted from canals) on a daily basis. In general, the features in Alternative O Phase 1 use just a portion of the total amount available on any given day. This is especially true i n the wet season when runoff is greatest. The project features are not designed to capture all water available, because it would be impractical to install pumps large enough to capture all peak flows. FIGURE C- 14

, in

A nnex C

, provides an estimate of the quantity of water the project would divert to the natural system. No water is made available for other water

- related needs by this project.

The water made available by Alternative O Phase 1 for the comb ined C

- 100, C

- 1,
C- 102 and C

- 103 basins (as indicated in total water diverted) ranges from 113,619 acre

- feet per year (10 th percentile) to 282,982 acre

- feet per year (90 th percentile). The State of Florida would use its water reservation or allocation authority to protect the water made available by the project for the natural system as required by Section 601 of WRDA 2000. The s tate has elected to protect the existing water in the natural system that the PIR identifies as necessary to achieve the benefits of the project, using resource protection authority under Florida law. If the difference between the quantity indicated as
total water diverted and total available c anal flow is required to protect the natural system, it would be reserved or allocated through a state process pursuant to §373.223 Florida Statutes. The SFWMD would protect water for Biscayne Bay based on the best available science to support the identification of water for the natural system at the time such protection is undertaken. The SFWMD is engaged in an ongoing effort to collect and analyze the best available science, which will be the basis for defining flows to the natural system in Biscayne Bay.

8.4 PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

The Tentatively Selected Plan includes water quality, hydrologic and ecological monitoring activities to ensure that the intended purposes of the project would be achieved through long

- term operations.

Water quality and hydrologic monitoring activities are described in detail in

A nnex E (Project Monitoring Plan ). Water quality monitoring involves sample collection and analysis for baseline, startup, and operational phases of the project. Water quality parameters to be monitored include physical parameters (i.e., temperature and dissolved oxygen concentration), turbidity, nutrients, and organochlorine compounds. Hydrologic monitoring includes measurements of stage and elevation (groundwater) and flow at water control structures.

A project

- specific ecological monitoring plan was prepared, focusing on estuarine performance measures that include oysters, s ubmerged a quatic vegetationSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-7 (SAV), estuarine fishes, juvenile crocodiles, nearshore salinity, wetland vegetation and wetland algae.

Guidance for moni toring is outlined in WRDA 2007:

SEC. 2039. MONITORING ECO SYSTEM RESTORATION. (a) IN GENERAL.

-- In conducting a feasibility study for a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall ensure that the recommended project includes, as an integral part of the project, a plan for monitoring the success of the ecosystem restoration. (b) MONITORING PLAN.

-- The monitoring plan shall

-- (1) include a description of the monitoring activities to be carried out, the criteria for ecosystem restoration success, and the estimated cost and duration of the monitoring; and (2) specify that the monitoring shall continue until such time as the Secretary determines that the criteria for ecosystem restoration success will
be met. (c) COST SHARE.

-- For a period of 10 years from completion of construction of a project (or a component of a project) for ecosystem restoration, the Secretary shall consider the cost of carrying out the monitoring as a project cost. If the monitoring plan under subsection (b) requires monitoring beyond the

10

- year period, the cost of monitoring shall be a non

- Federal responsibility.

8.5 SUBSEQUENT PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

The r emaining features of Alternative O , other than those included in
Alternative O Phase 1

, will be studied in a future PIR

.

8.6 COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL LAWS, STATUTES AND
EXECUTIVE ORDERS

For complete information on all coordination, please see S ection 9

, Summary of Coordination, Public Views and Comments in this PIR

.

TABLE 8-2: ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE AND COORDINATION Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected

Clean Air Act of

1972 PC Project Implementation Report (PIR)/ Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) will be

coordinated with public agencies. Air Notice of Intent (NOI) 3/7/03; subsequent project workshops. Compliance with
Section 309 of

C lean A ir A ct will

occur with the

coordination and

review of the PIR/EIS bySection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-8 Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected emissions permit may be required for large

dies el pumps; normally applied forduring Preconstruction Engineering and Design (PED) phase. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA).

Clean Water Act
of 1972 PC 404 (b) (1) Evaluation will be prepared after Tentatively Selected

Plan and included in

the Draft PIR /EIS for Biscayne Bay Coastal

Wetlands (Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands) ; Water Quality Certification (WQC) will be required; (s tate permit); National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit will be required (s tate delegation); Water Quality (WQ) is expected to improve with pr oject. Informal

coordination

with Florida Department of

Environmental

Protection (FDEP) through participation in Project Delivery Team (PDT) meetings. Full compliance upon issuance of the WQC and NPDES permits by

the s tate.

National

Environmental Policy Act of 1969 PC N OI published; scoping and stakeholder meetings held; no new issues have been identified;

D raft PIR/ EIS for Biscayne Bay Coastal

Wetlands will be prepared after the Tentatively Selected

Plan

. Central and

Southern Florida (C&SF) Restudy 1999;

NOI on 3/07/03; scoping letter sent on 3/01/03; with subsequent scoping meetings held
on 10/29/02 and

10/28/03. Full compliance upon coordination

of the F inal

PIR/ EIS, public

outreach activities completed and signing of the

Record of Decision (ROD).

Fish and Wildlife

Coordination Act PC Funds transferred annually to U.S. Fish Ongoing. The

FWS has Full compliance

with issuance of theSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-9 Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected

of 1958 and Wildlife Service (FWS); Planning Aid

Letters (PALs) received; FWS and

NMFS have been

active team participants and have provided information

on fish and wildlife elements on project. An ongoing consultation process between USACE, FWS, the FWC, and

the NMFS has involved regular

communication and exchange of input between the agencies through monthly interagency coordination meetings, public scoping meetings, and official correspondence. participated in

PDT meetings

and creation of

draft National

Environmental Policy Act (NEPA)

document.

PALs and Planning Aid Reports (PARs)

received dated 03/25/02, 06/21/02, 12/24/02, 06/05/03, 10/23/03, 05/13/04, 06/21/04, 01/27/05, 06/09/05, 11/21/05, 01/20/06, and

09/26/06.

Draft FWCA
report was submitted July 9, 2008. final Fish and

Wildlife

Coordination Act (FWCA) report by

U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service (USFWS),

scheduled for 2010.

Endangered Species Act of

1973 PC Initial letter sent to USFWS regarding

Threatened and Endangered (T&E) species. A list of potentially affected

Threatened and Endangered species has been confirmed by

the FWS along with listed species under the purview of the NMFS.

Coordination with both

FWS and NMFS is ongoing. Confirmation of

T&E species by letter dated, January 24,

2005. Full compliance expected by final

PIR/EIS. Informal

consultation with FWS, FWC and

NMFS has resulted in agency

concurrence with the Corps’ affect determination;

formal letters of

concurrence will be

contained in the

FPIR/EIS.

Magnuson

- Stevens PC Overall project is Informal Full complianceSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 10 Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected Fishery Mgt Act expected to benefit

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH); National

Oceanic and Atmospheric

Administration (NOAA) will accept

Draft EIS as the EFH

assessment. coordination

has been

conducted with NOAA. Agency representative

has attended PDT meetings. after review of the

D raft PIR/ EIS by

NMFS.

Fishery

Conservation and Management Act PC The project is being

coordinated with

National Marine

Fisheries Service (NMFS)

. Informal

coordination

with NOAA representative at PDT meetings

. Full compliance

after review of the

F inal PIR/ EIS by

NMFS.

Coastal Zone Management Act
of 1972 PC Based on a review of

the March 2003 scoping notice and comments provided by

s tate reviewing agencies, the s tate has determined that, at this stage, the project is

consistent with the

Florida Coastal Management Program. March 2003 Additional consistency review by the s tate will occur during

coordination of the

D raft and F inal

PIR/ EIS. Full compliance will

occur with issuance of the WQC by the

s tate.
Coastal Barrier

Resources Act and

Coastal Barrier Improvement Act NA There are no designated coastal

barrier resources in the project area that will be affected by this project. These Acts do not apply.

Marine Mammal

Protection Act PC The West Indian

Manatee does occur

near some of the project sites. Incorporation of the safeguards used to protect T&E species during construction and operation will protect any marine

mamm als in the area.

Coordination with the March 2003 and

coordination through PDT meetings. Full compliance

after review of the

F inal PIR/ EIS by

NMFS.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 11 Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected

USFWS will continue

as construction and operational guidelines are incorporated to avoid impacts to this species. Marine Protection,

Research and

Sanctuaries Act NA The term “dumping”

as defined in the Act (3[33 U.S.C. 1402] (f)) does not apply to this project. Therefore the

MPRSA does not apply. Estuary Protection

Act of 1968 PC It is anticipated that

estuaries will be positively affected by this project. March 2003 and

coordination through PDT meetings. Full compliance

after review of the

F inal PIR/ EIS by

NMFS.

Anadromous Fish

Conservation Act PC Anadromous fish species will not likely be adversely affected. The project is being

coordinated with

NMFS. March 2003 and

coordination through PDT meetings. Full compliance

after review of the

F inal PIR/ EIS by

NMFS.

Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird

Conservation Act PC No migratory birds will likely be adversely affected by project activities. Opportunities exist to promote usage of additional foraging areas provided by the project. Coordination through PDT meetings with

FWS and FWC. Full compliance

after review of the

F inal PIR/ EIS by

FWS and FWC.

Wild and Scenic

River Act of 1968 NA No designated Wild

and Scenic river

reaches will be affected by project

related activities.

Federal Water Project Recreation

Act C The principles of this Act (PL 89 -72) have been fulfilled by complying with the recreation cost sharing

criteria. Submerged Lands PC The project will Full compliance bySection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 12 Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected

Act of 1953 eliminate point source freshwater discharges and provide freshwater

overland flow that will ultimately benefit the ecological habitats that occur on submerged

lands of the State of

Florida. No

construction is expected on submerged lands; therefore, full

co mpliance is anticipated. completion of the

F inal PIR/ EIS.

Rivers and

Harbors Act of

1899 NA The proposed work

will not obstruct navigable waters of the

United States.

National Historic

Preservation Act
of 1966 and the Archaeology and

Historic

Preservation Act C Coordination with State

Historic Preservation Officer (SHPO) has been completed

. See

SHPO letters : March 5, 2007 (DHR no. 2007- 803), January 11, 2008 (DHR no. 2007-7384- B), July 16, 2008 (DHR no. 2009

- 3961) Section 106

p rocess is complete. Full compliance has been completed.

Resource
Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA), Comprehensive

Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA, or Superfund Act) PC Phase II investigations are ongoing during land acquisition. Some

site contamination has been identified, and options are b eing

addressed. FWS review is ongoing. If significant site

remediation is required,

remediation and full compliance will be achieved during construction phase.

Farmland Protection Policy

Act of 1981 C Coordination with the

Natural Resources

Conservation Service (NRCS) was initiated As a result of stated coordination, the project is in full compliance withSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 13 Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected through a letter dated April 30, 2008 providing project information regarding

farmland conversion. It is anticipated that some unique farmland (commodity row crops) will be taken out of production by implementation of this project. Submittal of

Form AD

- 1006 was

sent to NRCS for their

eval uation and a

determination of no impact to Unique

Farmland was provided by the NRCS through a letter on May 9, 2008 (see Appendix E). this Act.

Executive Order (E.O.) 11988 Floodplain Management PC (Floodplain Development). The areas for proposed

restoration in the project area are virtually all considered floodplain. The purpose of the EO is to discourage F ederally induced development in floodplains.

Commitment of lands to projec t restoration will preclude such development. Ongoing

. Full compliance expected after completion of the

F inal PIR/ EIS

.

E.O. 11990

Protection of

Wetlands PC (Wetlands protection) The areas proposed for

restoration are a

combination of

freshwater and coastal

wetlands. A net

functional “lift” is Ongoing habitat mapping and other analysis

of w etlands. The project is in full compliance

with this Executive

Order

.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 14 Law, Regulation or Policy Status

* Comments Last
Coordinated Full Compliance Expected expected.

E.O. 12898

Environmental

Justice PC The team is in compliance for this phase of the study, as no minority or economically disadvantaged population clusters

have been identified in

the immediate

southern Miami- Dade County region where project features are proposed. 1999 Restudy The project i s in full compliance

with this Executive

Order

.

E.O. 13089 Coral

Reef Protection PC This project is expected to provide
overall benefits to hard

bottom communities

and coral reef

resources. March 2003 and

coordination through PDT meetings. Full compliance

after review of the

F inal PIR/ EIS by

NMFS.

E.O. 13112 Invasive Species C Project is expected to

reduce the abundance and variety of invasive plant species in the project area. Ongoing

coordination

with USFWS

and Miami

Dade County Department of

Environmental

Resources Management (DERM). The project is in full compliance

with this Executive

Order

.

E.O. 13186 Migratory Birds C No migratory birds would be adversely affected by project

activities. This

coordination

has been ongoing throughout the

duration of the planning

process. This project is in compliance with

this Executive

Order.

C: Complies fully; PC: partial compliance due to plan development; NC: non

- compliant; NA: not applicable

.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 15 8.7 COMPLIANCE WITH FLOR IDA STATUTES

The State of Florida has enacted several laws pertaining to implementation of
CERP projects. These include amendments to S ection 373.026 (8), Florida Stature (F.S.), which establishes a requirement for the SFWMD to submit a report for review and approval by the FDEP prior to formal submission of a request for authorization from Congress and prior to receivi ng an appropriation of state funds for construction and other implementation activities (except the purchase of lands from willing sellers); the enactment of Section 373.1501 F.S.

, which establishes the intent of the Flor ida Legislature with respect to the CERP and the criteria for FDEP approval and the procedures to be followed by the SFWMD and FDEP for submitting and reviewing requests for approval; the
enactment of Section 373.1502 F.S. , which establishes permitting req uirements and a process for the submittal, review, and issuance of certain regulatory permits for CERP projects; and the enactment of Section 373.470 and Section

373.472 F.S., establishing the “Save Our Everglades Trust Fund,” funding and reporting requirements, and procedures for distributions from the trust fund. The SFWMD’s State Compliance Report addressing the criteria for approval
listed in Section 373.1501 F.S. is included in A nnex C

–

Analyses Required by
WRDA 2000 and State Law

.

In addition to the above

- described statutory requirements, other sections of Chapters 373 (Water Resources) and 403 (Environmental Control) of the Florida
Statute s include requirements that may apply to various aspects of CERP project planning and implementation. In particular, Chapter 403 F.S. and the administrative laws adopted in accordance with Chapters 373 and 403 F.S., contain the requirements for facilities that involve the discharge or potential discharge of pollutants to surface and groundwaters

, and the discharge of air pollutants, including facilities regulated under the Federal Clean Water and Safe Drinking Water Acts and the Federal Clean Air Act . Based on the information contained in the PIR, the Tentatively Selected Plan complies with the applicable provisions of the F lorida S tatutes . A detailed explanation of how the project complies with the applicable requirements for CERP projects
contained in the F lorida S tatutes can be found in A nnex C

–

Analyses Required by WRDA 2000 and State Law.

8.7.1 Permits, Entitlements and Certifications

C onstruction activities on the Biscayn e Bay Coastal Wetlands project are scheduled to begin in 2009 in accordance with the schedule for the State of
Florida’s advanced construction program . T he SFWMD would be responsible for obtaining permits issued by the Regulatory Division of USACE under the authority of Section 404 (discharge of dredged or fill material into waters) of the
C lean Water Act and any corresponding permits required by the State of Florida in accordance with Chapters 373 and 403 of the F lorida S tatutes

.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 16 Section 402 of the National Pollutant Discharge Elimination System (NPDES)

notes permits required under the Clean Water Act may be necessary for the construction (non

- point source runoff) of project features. This program has been delegated by the Environmental Protection Agency ( EPA) to the FDEP for implementation. It would be the responsibility of t he SFWMD to obtain the NPDES permits for the construction of project features under the State of
Florida’s advanced construction program prior to F ederal approval and
authorization of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands p roject . At this time, a NPDES permit would not be required for the operation of Bis cayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands p roject features, as the project does not involve the discharge of pollutants.

Depending upon the schedule for obtaining F ederal review and approval of the project, USACE would obtain the necessary permits to construct and perform initial operational testing and verification of the remaining project features that have not been constructed by the state’s advanced construction program (Deering Estate , C

- 1 Flow Way, and four L

- 31E Culverts) . The cost and schedule for obtaining the necessary permits are included in the PMP

.

8.7.2 Compliance with Applicable Water Quality Standards and Permitting Requirements

The Biscayne Bay Coa stal Wetlands p roject Tentatively Selected Plan complies with water quality standards applicable to the project and adjacent waters. The Tentatively Selected Plan’s features are located in and adjacent to waters designated as Class III

. In accordance with Florida Administrative Code (F.A.C.) Rule 62

- 302 (“Surface Water Quality Standards”), the use classification
of Class III waters is “Recreation , Propagation, and Maintenance of a Healthy,
Well

- Balanced Population of Fish and Wildlif e.” In addition to the minimum and general criteria for surface waters found in Section 62

- 302.500(1) F.A.C.

, there are numerous water quality criteria for specific parameters for Class III
waters listed in Section 62

- 302.530, F.A.C.

Although the Tenta tively Selected Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands

p roject is not expected to affect most of the parameters listed in this rule, certain parameters (e.g., turbidity, dissolved oxygen and nutrients) listed in the criteria may be affected by construction and operations activities.

In general, any short

- term impacts to water quality associated with construction
of the Tentatively Selected Plan would be ameliorated by construction sequencing, best management practices (BMPs) for erosion and sedimentation

co ntrol and monitoring during construction. If potentially adverse effects are observed or predicted, longer

- term impacts to water quality associated with the operation of project features would be addressed through operational monitoring
and a daptive m anag ement actions. Upon completion of construction andSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 17 initiation of operations, water quality and hydrology would be monitored to determine whether project design and operational objectives are being achieved.

8.7.3 Compliance with Public Outreach Requirements

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands p roject Tentatively Selected Plan complies
with public outreach requirements appli cable to the project and project area as
outlined in WRDA 2000 and CERP Programmatic Regulations below.

WRDA 2000; Section 601(k):

(2) COMMUNITY OUTREACH AND EDUCATION.

— (A) IN GENERAL.

— The Secretary shall ensure that impacts on socially and economically disadvantaged individuals, including individuals with limited English proficiency, and communities are considered during implementation of the Plan, and that such individuals have opportunities to review and comment on its implementation. (B) PROVISION OF OPPORTUNITIES.

— The Secretary shall ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that public outreach and educational opportunities are provided, during implementation of the Plan, to the individuals of South Florida, including individuals with limited English proficiency, and in particular for socially and economically disadvantaged

communities.

CERP Programmatic Regulations ; § 385.18 Public outreach :

(c

) Outreach to socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and

communities. (1) The Corps of Engineers and non

- Federal sponsors shall develop and conduct public outreach activities to ensure that socially and economically
disadvanta ged individuals, including individuals with limited English proficiency, and communities are provided opportunities to review and comment during implementation of the Plan. (2) The Corps of Engineers and non

- Federal sponsors shall monitor the effectiveness of outreach activities conducted to ensure that socially and economically disadvantaged individuals and communities, including
individuals with limited English proficiency, are provided opportunities to review and comment during implementation of the Plan

. (3) Project Management Plans and Program Management Plans shall include information, concerning any outreach activities to be undertaken during the implementation of the project or activity, to socially and economically di sadvantaged individuals and communities, including individuals of limited English proficiency. (4) The Corps of Engineers and non

- Federal sponsors shall make project
and program information available in languages other than English whereSection 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 18 a significant numb er of individuals in the area affected by the project or program activity are expected to have limited English proficiency. (5) The Corps of Engineers and non

- Federal sponsors shall provide translators or similar services at public meetings where a signifi cant number of participants are expected to have limited English proficiency.

8.8 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMIT MENTS

USACE

, SFWMD ( the non -F ederal sponsor ) , and all contractors who are or will be associated with the project will commit to avoiding, minimizing or mitigating adverse effects during construction activities by taking the following actions:

1. Employ BMPs with regard to erosion and turbidity control. Prior to and throughout construction, the construction team should examine all areas of proposed erosion/turbidity control in the field, and make adjustments as warranted by actual field conditions at the time of construction.

2. The contract specifications would prohibit the contractor from dumping oil, fuel or hazardous wastes in the work area and would require that the contractor adopt safe and sanitary measures for the disposal of solid wastes. The contractor would be required to prepare a spill prevention plan.

3. Construction and Demolition debris would be transported to a landfill or otherwise disposed of in accordance with F ederal, state and local requirements. Disposal of c oncrete or paving materials would be in
accordance with F ederal, state and local requirements.

4. Inform contractor personnel of the potential presence of threatened and endangered species in the project area, the need for precautionary measures, and Endangered Species Act (ESA) prohibitions.

5. Any measures or restrictions resulting from ESA Section 7 consultation shall be implemented.

6. USACE and SFWMD ag ree to maintain an open and cooperative informal consultation process with the FWS and Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission (FWC) throughout the design, construction and operation o f this restoration project.

7. To protect cultural resources, conditions stipulated by the State Historic Preservation Officer would be followed. Language would be included in construction contract specifications outlining the steps to be taken in the

eve nt that undiscovered historical properties or unmarked human burials are encountered. An informational training session, developed by a professional archaeologist, would be conducted for the contractor’s personnel to explain what kinds of archaeological a nd cultural materials might be encountered during construction, and the steps to be taken in the event these materials are encountered. A professional archaeologist would conduct periodic monitoring of the project area during ground

-Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 19 disturbing activities to determine if activities are impacting unanticipated
cultural resources.

8. As required under WRDA 2000, the Project Delivery Team (PDT) has identified water to be reserved for ecosystem restoration. This requirement is addressed in A nnex C of this PIR

. 9. As required under WRDA 2000, the Tentatively Selected Plan has been evaluated in the light of its potential effects on existing legal sources of

water and the level of service for flood protection. This requirement is
addressed in A nnex C of this report.

10. Compliance with the State of Florida’s requirements for approval of CERP projects is also addressed in A nnex C

.

8.9 VIEWS OF NON

- FEDERAL SPONSOR

The non-F ederal s ponsor ( the SFWMD ) supports Alternative O Phase 1 of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project, and , as of the generation of this document, the expedited features within the Tentatively Selected Plan have been fully designed by SFWMD, and SFWMD intends to begin phased construction of the expedited features early in 2010

.Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8- 20 This page intentionally left blankSection 9 Summary of Coordination

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 9
SUMMARY OF COORDINAT ION, PUBLIC VIEWS AN D
COMMENTSSection 9 Summary of Coordination

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-1 9.0 SUMMARY OF COORDINAT ION

9.1 PUBLIC AND AGENCY COORDINATION

While not officially noted as cooperating agencies for the purposes of National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA), the following state and F ederal agencies are members of the PDT, and have contributed to the development of the

PIR /Environmental Impact Statement (EIS): FWS , FDEP, National Park Service (NPS), and DERM. Thes e agencies are considered to be partners in the
CERP projects.

In accordance with regulations pertaining to the NEPA (Title 40 of the Code of Federal Regulations [ C.F.R.], part 1501.6), the following agencies were formally invited to become a cooperating agency for an EIS on the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands project:

US Environmental Protection Agenc y US Fish and Wildlife Service
National Park Service
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission Florida Department of Environmental Protection US Geological Survey
Miami

- Dade Department of Environmental Resources Management National Oceanographic and Atmospheric Administration / National Marine
Fisheries Service

See A ppendix E for Cooperating Agency Letters.

9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

The following sections provide detailed information regarding environmental compliance activities. Please refer to A nnex B for a summary of compliance and coordination for environmental statutes and regulations.

9.3 CLEAN AIR ACT OF 1972

The existing air quality within south Florida is considered good. Additionally, the region meets current National Ambient Air Quality Standards, a condition requisite for its declaration as a “non

- attainment area” (PBC Amb ient

Mon itoring Group, 2004).

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project has been and would continue to be coordinated with the EPA for compliance with Section 309 of the Clean Air Act of

1972. A Title V Source air permit application would be submitted to theSection 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-2 Environmental Health and Engineering Section of the county’s Department of Health prior to construction.

The only potential source of air pollution woul d be from pump station(s).
Pursuant to rule 62

- 210.300(3)(a)(21)(b), operations staff would be required to determine if stations would be exempt from air permitting or if an air general permit would be required.

9.4 CLEAN WATER ACT OF 1972

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is in compliance with the Clean
Water Act of 1972. A Section 404 (b)(1) evaluation will be prepared and included
in the Draft PIR / EIS

. The Water Quality Certification (WQC) will be met by a
NPDES permit. All s tate water quality standards will be met.

9.5 COASTAL ZONE MANAGEMENT ACT OF 1972

The State of Florida Clearinghouse provided comments in response to a scoping letter of March 2003 and indicated probable consistency with the Coastal Zone Management Act (CZMA). A F ederal consistency determination in accordance with 15 CFR 930 Subpart C is included in the Draft PIR /EIS. The consistency review, delegated to the State of Florida, is performed during the coordination of the Draft PIR prior to final report approval.

9.6 NATIONAL ENVIRONMENTAL POLICY ACT OF 1969

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is in compliance with the NEPA of

1969

. Initial coordination began with a three

- day workshop October 28

- 30, 2002, at the Deering Estate in Miami, Florida. The workshop, advertised through newspapers, radio news releases and email notices, introduced the project’s goals and objectives, discussed preliminary ecological performance measures, facilitated numerous presentations by non

- agency scientists on the history and
present status o f the Biscayne Bay area, and provided opportunities for the public to voice their concerns on an array of project issues.

On March 7, 2003, a Notice of Intent to prepare an EIS was published in the Federal Register (Vol. 68, Number 45). And on October 22 , 2003, at the Chamber
South Conference Center on 6410 SW 80 th Street, in Miami, Florida, a stakeholders meeting, consisting of concerned members of agricultural, fishing, and environmental groups, was held.

Additionally, a public workshop, discussing is sues, concerns, opportunities and constraints related to the project, took place on October 28, 2003, at the John D. Campbell Agricultural Center, located at SW 288 th Street, Homestead, Florida.
This information

- gathering workshop served to exchange infor mation amongSection 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-3 team members and helped assist in the development of alternative plans, as well as point out potential constraints to project development.

In general, the resource agencies and public attendees expressed overall support of the proposed proje ct and the potential for improved habitat to benefit fish and
wildlife resources. Initial concerns focused on continued saltwater intrusion along the coast; the potential leaching of soil contaminates into surface water and groundwater; the need for backfi lling mosquito ditches; and the lack of
water available and the amounts needed for restoration. Recommendations encouraged the continued pursuit of utilizing reclaimed wastewater from the
South Dade Wastewater Treatment Plant to ensure the amount of freshwater required for restoration goals.

A number of subsequent Project Delivery Team meetings were held throughout the planning process of the project where stakeholders and representatives of

non

- governmental environmental organizations provided written comments and statements. The primary focus of their concerns centered on splitting the original plan into two phases; uncertainties about full restoration opportunities and the need to identify additional sources of water to fulfill restoration goals, specifically in the dry season to sustain salinities conducive for estuarine biological and vegetative communities. One recommended component was the need to include storage features in the upland for hydration during the dry

season.

Additional concerns raised included uncertainties inherent to all modeling outputs; the need to define long

- term management options; potential impacts associated with sea level rise; and the design of the project should incorporate polishing wetlan d components such as storm water treatment areas to allow for
maximum restoration to freshwater and coastal wetlands.

9.7 FISH AND WILDLIFE COORDINATION ACT OF 1958

The central objective of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 (FWCA) is to allow for equal consideration of wildlife resources. The Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project is in full compliance with this Act.

This project has been coordinated with the FWS and the FWC. From the onset
of the Biscayne Bay Coasta l Wetlands project, representatives from both agencies have been involved in the project planning, development and evaluation, with particular interests in effects to fish and wildlife resources and natural wildlife
management areas. The project team continues to coordinate with the FWS and
the FWC.

Transfer funds have been made available to the FWS in order to participate in PDT meetings and workshop s scheduled in conjunction with USACE ’s planning,Section 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-4 implementation and evaluation process. Funding has been provided for the FWS to conduct surveys and investigations necessary to determine impacts of
the Biscayne Bay Co astal Wetlands project on wildlife resources, and to make recommendations to USACE on measures to prevent loss of or damage to wildlife
resources. Recommendations for optimizing opportunities related to the conservation and enhancement of fish and wildlife resources have been provided through the submittal of Planning Aid Letters and Planning Aid Reports dated:

**•** March 25, 2002

**•** June 21, 2002

**•** Decembe r 24, 2002

**•** June 5, 2003

**•** October 23, 2003

**•** May 13, 2004

**•** June 21, 2004

**•** July 14, 2004

**•** January 27, 2005

**•** November 21, 2005

**•** June 9, 2005

**•** January 20, 2006

**•** September 26, 2006

A draft Coordination Act Report (CAR) was submitted July 09, 2008, with the
final CAR due in July 2009.

9.8 MIGRATORY BIRD TREATY ACT AND MIGRATORY BIRD
CONSERVATION ACT

Because migratory birds are a public trust resource, and because shorebirds migrate along the Atlantic coast of Florida on their way to and from South America and use habitats found in the project area, migratory birds must be
taken into consideration during project planning and design.

At this time project activities are not anticipated to negatively impact migratory birds and are anticipated to benefit migratory birds. The Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands project will be in full compliance with both the Migratory Bird Treaty Act and the Migratory Bird Conservation Act upon review of the F inal PIR /EIS by the FWS and the FWC.

9.9 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973

At the time of submittal of this D raft PIR , the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlan ds project was in full compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.Section 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-5 In a Planning Aid report dated May 13, 2004, the FWS recommended several actions to be taken by USACE in determining an effect on potentially threatened species through the eventual submittal o f a Biological Assessment

.

In a letter dated December 14, 2004, USACE requested confirmation of a

F ederally threatened and endangered species list from the FWS

.

In a letter dated January 24 2005, the FWS responded stating that eleven

F ederally listed endangered animal species and four threatened animal species are known to exist or could possibly exist in the general project area.

USACE continues to work with the FWS in gathering more information on endangered species in the project area and toward creating design modifications
that ma y actually benefit the species. Informal consultation with FWS, FWC and NMFS has resulted in agency concurrence with the Corps’ affect determination; formal letters of concurrence will be contained in the FPIR/EIS.

9.10 MAGNUSON

- STEVENS FISHERY CONSERVATION AND
MANAGEMENT ACT

Federal agencies that fund, permit or carry out activities that may adversely impact e ssential f ish h abitat (EFH ) are required to consult with the Nation al
Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential effects of their actions

on EFH. In conformance with the 1996 amendment to the Magnuson -Stevens Fishery Conservation a nd Management Act , the information provided in this

PIR /EIS would comprise the required EFH assessment and would be coordinated
with NMFS.

Consultation for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project was initiated in
March 2003. The NMFS has been a participant of the Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands PDT and has indicated that beneficial effects to fish resources and

EFH may occur as a result of this project. The NMFS requested an evaluation of potential impacts to living marine resources, including mangroves, seagrasses, live bottom communities, and the marine/estuarine water column that may be impac ted by activities or operations of the project alternatives. A n EFH

assessment is being submitted to the NMFS for coordination as a part of this
Draft PIR /EIS . This EFH assessment is located in Annex B.2.2.8 through Annex

B.2.2.10.

9.11 MARINE MAMMAL PROTECTION ACT OF 1972

It is not anticipated that the project would result in takings as defined by
Marine Mammal Protection Act of 197 2. Incorporation of the safeguards used to protect threatened or endangered species during construction and operation should protect any marine mammals in the area.Section 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-6 The West Indian manatee does occur within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area. Manatee protection is managed by the FWS

. USACE will continue
coordination and consultation with the FWS to help insure effective and appropriate safeguards are maintained

.

9.12 ESTUARY PROTECTION ACT OF 1968

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is designed to eliminate canal point source freshwater discharges to Biscayne Bay and re

- route freshwater flows
overland to the downstream estuaries. Freshwater flows would ultimately rehydrate the existin g hyper

- saline habitats and re

- establish a salinity regime more suitable for the survivorship of estuarine communities. This project is anticipated to benefit coastal wetlands and associated estuarine habitats and is, therefore, in full compliance with th e Estuary Protection Act of 1968.

9.13 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966

Phase 1 cultural resources coordination with the State Historic Preservation
Officer fo r Alternative O Phase 1 is complete. The State Historic Preservation Officer concurred on March 5, 2007 (DHR no. 2007

- 803) that the installation of four culverts along the L

- 31E Canal will have no effect on historic properties. In a letter dated January 11, 2008 (DHR no. 2007

- 7384

- B) the State Historic
Preservation Officer concurred with Janus Research’s determination that the State’s Expedited Construction projec t will have no effect on historical sites 8DA2815 (Deering Estate historic district), 8DA2815D (historic wall), 8DA6518 (historic road), or 8DA11247 (historic road). The proposed repairs to the Deering Estate Bridge (8DA2815C) and c hannel maintenance will prevent the rise in water levels from having an adverse effect on the bridge. In a letter dated July 16, 2008 (DHR no. 2009

- 3961) the State Historic Preservation Officer concurred
with USACE ’s d etermination that additional Alternative O Phase I features along the C

- 103 and L

- 31E C anal and levee will have no effect on historic properties.

9.14 RESOURCE CONSERVATION AND RECOVERY ACT OF 1976; TOXIC
SUBSTANCES CONTROL ACT OF 1976

This project is in compliance with the Resource Conservation a nd Recovery Act
of 1976 and the Toxic Substances Control Act Of 1976. Phase I Preliminary
Assessments for HTRW were conducted to address the existence, or potential for occurrence, of HTRW on lands, including submerged land s, in the study area. The assessments included a project review, review of site literature and Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project features, database searches, review of available records and aerial photography, sit e inspections and interviews. The assessments covered all lands within the footprint of the Biscayne Bay CoastalSection 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-7 Wetlands alternative plans being considered, as well as the surrounding vicinities which could affect, or be affected by, plan implementation.

Several databases have been created to track HTRW actions in accordance with
the above laws. The HTRW Phase I Assessment reviewed the National Priority List (NPL) and similar sit es in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database; Resource Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) databases for l arge q uanti ty and s mall

q uantity generators; t reatment, s torage, and d isposal f acilities (TSDFs); the

t oxic release i nventory system, solid waste landfills, u nderground storage t anks (USTs), l eaking u nderground storage t anks, and above g round storage t anks.

As part of the process, reviews of aerial photographs and site investigations were performed. Results of the Phase I studies indicate that the potential for hazardous and toxic wastes and residual agrochemicals exists within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetla nds project area. While landfills and other hazardous waste sites have been identified and evaluated, the issue of greatest concern stems from historical use of agricultural chemicals.

La nds where site contamination concerns were not resolved during the Phase I studies were subject ed to additional investigation. Phase II studies were initiated by the SFWMD to collect and analyz e soil or water samples. R esults
were used to determine if the land under consideration was suitably clean for the intended use, or if some form of remediation is necessary prior to project implementation.

Additionally, the FWS reviewed, and continues to review

, Phase I and Phase II results generated by the SFWMD and its consultants. Acceptable levels of
contaminants are not alw ays determined by adherence to a fixed regulatory
value. At least one Phase III study has been undertaken seeking site

- specific contaminant values that, although somewhat elevated, would remain protective for the actual receptor species on the site.

In cases where contaminated lands are needed for the Tentatively Selected Plan

, the first consideration is to require the site owner to remediate the property to the highest level enforceable under t he law. If the property becomes critical habitat, any additional remediation would be undertaken prior to, or during,
construction. A detailed discussion of known site contamination is located in
S ection 7

, Environmental Effects

.

9.15 FARMLAND PROTECTION POL ICY ACT OF 1981

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is in full compliance with the

F armland Protection Policy Act of 1981

.Section 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-8 Coordination with the Natural Resources Conservation Service (NRCS) was initiated through a letter dated April 30, 2008 providing project information regarding farmland conversion. Submittal of Form AD

- 1006 was sent to the NRCS for their evaluation and a determination of no impact to Unique Farmland was provided by the NRCS through a letter on May 09, 2008 (see

A

ppendix E )

.

9.16 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOOD PLAIN M ANAGEMENT

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project has been evaluated in accordance
with E xecutive O rder (E.O.) 11988, Flood Plain Management and is in compliance.

9.17 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11990, PROTECTION OF WETLANDS

The areas proposed for restoration are a combination of freshwater and coastal

wetlands. Habitat mapping and other analysis of wetlands have been conducted.
As a result of these analys es , a net functional “lift” to wetlands within and adjacent to the project is expected. This project is in compliance with the goals
of E.O. 11990 , Protection of Wetlands

.

9.18 EXECUTIVE ORDER 12898, ENVIRONMENTAL JUSTIC E

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is in compliance with E.O. 12898

, Environmental Justice, which requires the F ederal government to achieve environmental justice by identifying and addressing disproportionately high adverse effects of its activities on minority or low

- income populations, and by involving potentially affected minorities in the public coordination process. No minority or economically disadvantaged population clusters have been identified
in the immediate southern Miami

- Dade County region where project features are proposed. Additionally, this project would not result in adverse human health or environmental effects. Stakeholder meetings with minority groups took place in 2003 to address concerns.

9.19 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13089, CORAL RE EF PROTECTION

This project is in compliance with E.O. 13089 , Coral Reef Protection. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands restoration project is designed to reduce extreme discharges of fresh water and nutrients to Biscayne Bay and return it to a more natural regime. Seagrasses and nearshore habitats would benefit from this restoration plan. However, the proposed action may indirectly affect some coral reef ecosystems, as defined by E.O. 13089, just outside of the project area. This effect should be a reduction of freshwater inputs, which should serve to benefit these coral reef ecosystems.Section 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-9 9.20 EXECUTIVE ORDER 13112, INVASIVE SPECIES

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is expected to reduce the abundance and variety of invasive plant species in the project area by restoring the area’s natural hydrology. Restored hydroperiods, and the restoration of more natural sheet flow are changes that would benefit native vegetation to the detriment of exotic species. This project would not authorize, fund or carry out any action that might spread or introduce invasive specie s. Therefore, the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands project complies with the E.O. 13112

.

9.21 FLORIDA STATUTES 373 .1501 AND 373.026 (AMENDED)

During the 1999 legislative session, Florida lawmakers created Section 373.1501 Florida Statutes (F.S.) and amended Section 373.026 F.S

. Section 373.1501 F.S. provides a legislative finding that the Comprehensive Review Study is important for restoring the Everglades ecosystem and for sustaining the environment,

economy and social well

- being of south Florida. Legislative intent was to facilitate and support the CERP through a process concurrent with F ederal government review and Congressional authorization. Further legislative intent
was to ensure tha t all project components are implemented through appropriate processes and are consistent with the balanced policies and purposes of Chapter

373 F.S

. Specifically, Section 373.026(8)(b) F.S. directs the FDEP to collaborate
with the SFWMD in the CERP and to approve each project component, with or without amendments prior to submission of such components to Congress for
authorization.

The criteria upon which the FDEP is to base its approval of pr oject components
is contained within Section 373.1501 (5) F.S. and is incorporated below:
Section 373.1501 (5) In its role as local sponsor for the project, the District shall comply with its responsibilities under this chapter and implement project components through appropriate provisions of this chapter. In the development of project components, the District shall : (a) Analyze and evaluate all needs to be met in a comprehensive manner and consider all applicable water resource issues, including water supply, water quality, flood protection, threatened and endangered species, and other natural system and habitat nee ds; (b) Determine with reasonable certainty that all project components are feasible based upon standard engineering practices and technologies and are the most efficient and cost

- effective of feasible alternatives or combination of alternatives, consistent with restudy purposes, implementation of project components, and operation of the project; (c) Determine with reasonable certainty that all project components are consistent with applicable law and regulations, and can be permitted and operated as proposed. For purposes of such determination:Section 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9- 10 1. The District shall convene a pre

- application conference with all stat e and F ederal agencies with applicable regulatory jurisdiction; 2. State agencies with applicable regulatory jurisdiction shall participate

in the pre

- application conference and provide information necessary for the District's determination; and 3. The District shall request that F ederal agencies with applicable regulatory jurisdiction participate in the pre

- application conference and provide information necessary for the District's determination; (d) Consistent with Chapter 373, the purposes for the restudy provided in the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, and other applicable F ederal law, provide reasonable assurances that the quantity of water available to existing legal users shall not be diminished by implementation of project components so as to adversely impact existing legal users, that existing levels of service for flood protection will not be diminished outside the geographic area of the project component, and that water management practices will continue to adapt to meet the needs of the restored natural environment; (e) Ensure that implementation of project components is coordinated with existing utilities and public infrastructure and that impacts to and relocation of existing utility or public infrastructure are minimized.

The PIR would include a State Compliance Report, to be submitted by the
SFWMD to the FDEP for approval, pursuant to Section s 373.1501 (5) and Section

373.026 (8)(b) F.S. , for the recommended plan features of the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetland s project. The compliance report is intended to provide the FDEP with the technical information necessary to make a determination of compliance with state law for CERP projects.

9.22 LIST OF AGENCIES, OR GANIZATIONS AND PERS ONS TO WHOM
COPIES OF THE DRAFT PIR /EIS WILL BE SENT

The following agencies, groups, and individuals will be sent copies of the Draft

P IR /EIS:

Native American Tribes
Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida
Seminole Tribe of Florida Muscogee (Creek) Nation of Oklahoma
Seminole Nation of Oklahoma
Poarch Creek Indian Nation

Federal Agencies
Federal Emergency Management Agency U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
U.S. Center for Environmental Health U.S. Environmental Protection AgencySection 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9- 11 U.S. Department of Agriculture Forestry Service U.S. Department of Commerce National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
National Marine Fisheries Service U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development U.S. Departme nt of the Interior
Bureau of Indian Affairs
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service U.S. Geological Survey
National Park Service Office of Environmental Policy and Compliance U.S. Department of Justice

U .S. Department of Transportation Federal Highway Administration
U.S. Senate U.S. House of Representatives

State Agencies
Office of the Governor Florida House of Representatives, Environmental Protection Committee Florida Coastal Management Program
Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services Florida Department of Community Affairs Florida Department of Environmental Protection Florida State Clearinghouse
Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Com mission Florida Department of Transportation Florida Division of Forestry
Florida Division of Historical Resources

– SHPO
Florida Division of State Lands
Florida State Senate
South Florida National Parks Trust South Florida Water Management District Florida Geological Survey University of Florida

County Governments
Miami

- Dade County

Municipaliti es City of Florida City City of HomesteadSection 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9- 12 City of Miami City of Miami Beach City of North Miami

Groups
Atlantic Gamefish Foundation American Littoral Society Audubon Society of the Everglades
Audubon of Florida Center for Earth Jurisprudence
Clean Water Act ion
Citizens for a Better South Florida
Common Ground for Conservation
Environmental Coalition of Miami Beach
Environmental & Land Use Law Center Everglades Coordinating Council Everglades Foundation

Ever glades Protection Society Everglades Research Group, Inc.
Florida International University Florida Atlantic University Florida Biodiversity Project
Florida Wildlife Federation Friends of the Everglades
Institute for Regional Conservation
International Gamefish Association Izaac Walton League Marine Animal Rescue Society
Marine Council
Miami River Commission
National Parks Conservation Association
National Resources Defense Council Pelican Harbor Seabird Station, Inc.
Reef Relief
Save the Manatee Club
Sierra Club Miami
Sierra Club of South Florida
Southeast Florida Coral Reef Initiative South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force Southwest Florida Regional Planning C ouncil
SPCA Wildlife Care Center
Trail Glades Bassmasters Treemendous Miami, Inc. The Nature ConservancySection 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9- 13 The Trust for Public Land Tropical Audubon Society
World Wildlife Fund , South Florida Program
1000 Friends of Florida

Individuals
A list of individual s who will receive the D raf t PIR /EIS is on file in the
Jacksonville District of USACE at the address shown on the cover page of this
document.Section 9 Summary of Coordinatio n

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9- 14 This page intentionally left blankSection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 10
RECOMMENDATIONSSection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -1 10.0 JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT ENGINEER’S RECOMMENDATIONS

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (BBCW) P roject will utilize fresh water currently discharged to Biscayne Bay to rehydrate wetlands adjacent to the Bay to achieve freshwater and estuarine restoration benefits in Biscayne Bay, which is integral to achieving system

- wide benefits in the south Florida ecos ystem. The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject will help reduce wet season high volume flows to Biscayne Bay by redistributing water to previously impacted
freshwater and saltwater wetlands. In addition, the plan achieves th e benefits
of the P roject as previously developed for the Comprehensive Everglades

Restoration Plan (CERP).

This P roject is integral to achieving restoration of the nearshore bay and adjacent wetlands in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area. Moreover,
the P roject plays an important role in meeting the CERP system

- wide ecosystem restoration goals and objectives, and other water

- related needs of the region.
Fish and wildlife habitat benefits of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject
include: increasing habitat for the eastern oyster, blue crab, and other fish and marine organisms

, improving seagrass beds in the estuary, and re

- establishing more natural hydropatterns within existing natural wetland areas and providing an improved salinity range suitable for a healthy estuarine ecosystem by improving the timing of freshwater deliveries to the estuary

. The P roject is expected to produce a total of 9,986 average annual Habitat Units (HUs). Further, this P roject is a critical building block upon which a subsequent study
will be able to evaluate and achieve even broader ecosystem restoration benefits in Biscayne Bay.

I have give n consideration to all significant aspects in the overall public interest, including engineering feasibility, economic , so cial and environmental effects.

I find that the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject, located in eastern Miami

Dade County, is an integral part of the CERP

. The Biscayne Bay Coastal
Wetlands Tentatively Selected Plan includes:

1. Deering Estate

– pump (100 cubic feet per second [ cfs ]) c apacity, spreader canal, culverts and improvements to a canal;

2. Cutler Wetlands

– pump (400 cfs), culverts, a canal and restoration of the Lennar Flow Way;

3. L- 31 East Flow Way

– pumps, a spreader canal and several culvert structures to manage water flow between C

- 102, L

- 31E, Military Canal

, C- 103 and nearby wetland restoration areas.

The Tentatively Selected Plan is described in greater detail in S ection 7.Section 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -2 Therefore, I recommend that the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject as described in the section of the report entitled “ The Tentatively Selected Plan ,”
with such modifications thereof as in the discretion of the Chief of Engineers, may be advisable, be authorized for construction. The total estimated first cost
for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject is $ 174

, 242,000 (Fiscal Year 2010 price level). The total first cost for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject

i ncludes recreation features totaling $ 970,000 . The estimated total annual cost of Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R ) of the ecosystem restoration elements is $1, 680 ,000 with an estimated F ederal
annual OMRR&R cost of $ 840 ,000 and an estimated Non-F ederal annual OMRR&R cost of $ 840 ,000. The estimated cost for OMRR&R of the recreation elements is $25 ,000, which is a 100 percent Non-F ederal S ponsor responsibility

.

The above recommendations are made w ith t he provision that the Non-F ederal
S ponsor and the Secretary of the Army shall enter into a binding Project Partnership Agreement (PPA) defining the terms and conditions of cooperation for implementing the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject, and that the NonF ederal sponsor agrees to perform the following items of local cooperation:

a) Provide 50 percent of total P roject costs consistent with the provisions of Section 601(e) of the WRDA 2000 including authority to perform design and
construction of P roject features consistent with Federal law and regulation.

b) Provide all lands, easements, and rights -of- way, incl uding suitable borrow and dredged or excavated material disposal areas, and perform or assure the performance of all relocations determined to be necessary for the construction, operation, and maintenance of the P roject. Valuation of the
lands shall follo w the below procedures taken from the Date of Valuation provision, Art.IV.D.1 , of the CERP Master Agreement, August 13, 2009.

1

. Real Estate Interests Acquired Before the Effective Date of
the PPA and Government Performs Construction: The fair market value of lands, easements, or rights -of- way owned by the Non

- Federal Sponsor on the effective date of the PPA, or owned by the State of Florida or another Florida governmental entity on the effective date of such PPA (and obtained by the

Non- Federal Sponsor and dedicated to the Project), that are required for construction by the Government, shall be the fair market value of suc h real property interests as of the date the Non

- Federal Sponsor provides the Government with authorization for entry thereto for construction.

2

. Real Estate Interests Acquired Before the Effective Date of
the PPA and Non

- Federal Sponsor Performs Construction Prior to the Effective Date of the PPA: The fair market value of lands, easements or rights of way owned by the Non

- Federal Sponsor on the effective date of the PPA, or owned by the State of Florida or another Florida governmental entitySection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -3 on the effective date of such PPA (and obtained by the Non

- Federal Sponsor and dedicated to the Project), that were required for In

- kind Work initiated by the Non

- Federal Sponsor prior to the effective date of such PPA, shal l be the fair market value of such real property interests on the effective date of
such PPA.

3. Real Estate Interests Acquired Before the Effective Date of

the PPA and Non

- Federal Sponsor Performs Construction After the Effective Date of the PPA: The fair market value of lands, easements, or rights -of- way owned by the Non

- Federal Sponsor on the effective date of the PPA, or owned by the S tate of Florida or another Florida governmental entity on the effective date of such PPA (and obtained by the Non

- Federal Sponsor and dedicated to the Project) that are required for In

- kind Work to be initiated by
the Non

- Federal Sponsor after the effective date of such PPA, shall be the fair market value of such real property interests as of the date the Non

Federal Sponsor awards the construction contract that requires such real property interests; or if the Non

- Federal Sponsor performs the construction with its own forces, as of the date the Non

- Federal Sponsor initiates the
construction of the In

- kind Work that requires such real property interests.

4. Real Estate Interests Acquired Before the Effective Date of
the PPA T hat A re N ot Required for Construction by Government or for
Const ruction of In -K ind Work by the Non

- Federal Sponsor: The fair market value of lands, easements or rights

- of

- way owned by the Non

- Federal Sponsor on the effective date of the PPA, or owned by the State of Florida or another Florida governmental entity on the effective date of such PPA (and obtained by the Non

- Federal Sponsor and dedicated to the Project), that were not required for construction by the Government nor construction of In -K ind Work by the Non

- Federal Sponsor but that are otherwise required for the
OMRR&R of the Project shall be the fair market value of such real property
interests as of the date that the Non

- Federal Sponsor provides land certification documentation to the Government for such real property
interests.

5. Real Estate Interests Acquired After the Effective Date of the
PPA: The fair market value of lands, easements, or rights -of- way acquired by
the Non

- Federal Sponsor or acquired by the State of Florida or another Florida governmental e ntity after the effective date of the PPA (and to be obtained by the Non

- Federal Sponsor and dedicated to the Project), shall be the fair market value of such real property interests at the time the interests are acquired.

c) Give the G overnment a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a reasonable manner, upon land that the Non-F ederal S ponsor owns or controlsSection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -4 for access to the P roject for the purpose of inspection, and, if necessary, for the purpose of constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or rehabilitating the P roject.

d) Assume responsibility for operating, maintaining, repairing

, replacing, and rehabilitating (OMRR&R ) the P roject or completed functional portions of
the P roject , including mitigation features, in a manner compatible with the

P roject’s authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and
S tate laws and specific directions prescribed in the OMRR&R manuals and any subsequent amendments thereto. Cost sharing for OMRR&R will be in

accor dance with Section 601 of WRDA 2000:

(e) COST SHARING

- (4) Operations & Maintenance: Notwithstanding section 528(e)(3) of the WRDA 1996 (110 Stat. 3770), the Non-F ederal S ponsor shall be responsible for 50 percent of the cost of OMRR&R act ivities authorized
under this section

...

e) The Non-F ederal S ponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace and
rehabilitate the recreational features of the P roject and is responsibl e for 100 percent of the costs.

f) Unless otherwise provided for in the st atutory authorization for this

P roject, comply with Section 221 of PL 91

- 611, Flood Control Act of 1970, as amended, and Section 103 of the WRDA of 1986, PL 99

- 662, as amended which provides that the Secretary of the Army shall not commence the

construct ion of any water resources project or separable element thereof,
until the Non-F ederal S ponsor has entered into a written agreement to furnish its required cooperation for the P roject or separable element.

g) Hold and save the G overnment free from all damages arising from the construction, OMRR&R of the P roject and any P roject

- related betterments,
except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the G overnment or the
G overnment’s contractors.

h) Keep and maintain books, records, docu ments, and other evidence pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to the P roject to the extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total P roject costs and comply with the provisions of the Master Agreement including Art icle XI
Maintenanc e of Records and Audit.

i) Perform, or cause to be performed, any investigations for hazardous substances that are determined necessary to identify the existence and extent of any hazardous substances regulated under the ComprehensiveSection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -5 Environmental Respon se, Compensation, and Liability Act (CERCLA), 42
USC 9601

- 9675, that may exist in, on, or under lands, easements or rights -ofway necessary for the construction and operation and maintenance ( O&M ) of

th e P roject; except that the Non-F ederal S ponsor shall not perform such investigations on lands, easements, or rights -of- way that the Government determines to be subject to the navigation servitude without prior specific written direction by the Government.

j) Assume complete financial responsibility for all necessary cleanup and response costs of any CERCLA regulated materials located in, on or under lands, easements, or right -of- ways that the G overnment determines necessary for the construction and O&M.

k) As between the G overnment and the Non-F ederal S ponsor, the NonF ederal S ponsor shall be considered the operator of the P roject for the purposes of CERCLA liability. To the maximum extent practicable, the NonF ederal S ponsor shall OMRR&R the P roject in a manner that will not cause
liabil ity to arise under CERCLA.

l) Prevent obstructions of or encroachments on the P roject area (including prescribing and enforcing regulations to prevent such obstruction or encroachments ) which might reduce ecosystem restoration benefits, hin der O&M, or int erfere with the P roject’s proper function, such that as any new developments on P roject lands or the addition of facilities which would degrade the benefits of the P roject.

m) Comply with the applicable provisions of the Uniform Relocation
Assistance and Real Property Acquisition Policies Act of 1970, PL 91

- 646, as amended by the Title IV of the Surface Transportation and Uniform Relocation Assistance Act of 1987 (PL 100

- 17), and Uniform Regulations contained in 49 CFR part 24 , in acquiring lands, easements, and rights -ofway, and performing relocations for construction, O&M of the P roject, and inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in
connection with said act.

n) Comply with all applicabl e F ederal and S tate laws and regulations, including, but not limited to, Section 601 of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, PL

88

- 352, and Department of Defense Directive 5500.11 issued pursuant thereto, as well as Army Regulation 600

- 7, entitled, “Nondiscrimina tion on the Basis of Handicap in Programs and Activities Assisted or Conducted by the Department of the Army,” and all applicable Federal labor standards and requirements including, but not limited to, 40 U.S.C. 3141

- 3148 and 40
U.S.C. 3701

- 3708 (revising, codifying and enacting without substantive change the provisions of the Davis

- Bacon Act [formerly 40 U.S.C. 276a etSection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -6 seq.], the Contract Work Hours and Safety Standards Act [formerly 40 U.S.C. 327 et seq.] and the Copeland Anti

- Kickback Act [formerly 40 U. S.C. 276c]).

o) Comply with Section 106 of the National Historic Preservation Act in completion of all consultation with Florida ’s State Historic Preservation Office and, as necessary, the Advisory Council on Historic Preservation prior to construction as part of the Pre

- construction Engineering Design phase of

the P roject.

p) Provide 50 percent of that portion of total cultural resource preservation mitigation and data recovery costs attributable to the P roject that are in excess of one percent of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for

the P roject.

q ) Do not use F ederal funds to meet the Non-F ederal S ponsor’s share of total

P roject costs unless the F ederal granting agency verifies in writing that the expenditure of such funds is expressly authorized.

r) Participate in and comply with applicable Federal floodplain management and flood insurance programs consistent with its statutory authority, including:

1) Not less than once each year the Non

- Federal Sponsor shall inform affected interests of the extent of protection afforded by the Project.

2) The Non

- Federal Sponsor shall publicize flood plain information in the area concerned and shall provide this information to zoning and other regulatory agencies for their use in preventing unwise future development in the flood plain and in adopting su ch regulations as may be necessary to prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with protection levels provided by the Project.

3) T he Non

- Federal Sponsor shall comply with Section 402 of WRDA 1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701b

- 12), whi ch requires a non

- Federal interest to have prepared, within one year after the date of signing a project partnership agreement for the Project, a floodplain management plan. The plan shall be designed to reduce the impacts of future flood events in the pr oject area, including but not limited to, addressing those measures to be undertaken by non

- Federal interests to preserve the level of flood protection provided by the Project. As required by Section 402, as amended, the non

- Federal interest shall impleme nt such plan not later than one year after completion of construction of the Project. The Non

Federal Sponsor shall provide an information copy of the plan to the Government upon its preparation.Section 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -7 4) The Non

- Federal Sponsor shall prescribe and enforce re gulations to prevent obstruction of or encroachment on the Project or on the lands, easements, and rights

- of

- way determined by the Government to be required for the construction, operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation of the Projec t

, that could reduce the level of protection the Project affords, hinder operation or maintenance of the Project, or interfere with the Project’s proper function

.

s) The Non

- Federal Sponsor or the Florida Department of Environmental
Protection shall execute under State law the reservation or allocation of water for the natural system as identified in the PIR for the Project as required by Section 601(h)(4)(B)(ii) of WRDA 2000, and the Non

- Federal Sponsor shall provide inf ormation to the Government regarding such
execution. The Non

- Federal Sponsor shall notify the Government of any change to such reservation or allocation of water which shall require an amendment to any executed PPA after the District Engineer verifies in writing in compliance with 33 CFR 385 that the revised reservation or allocation continues to provide for an appropriate quantity, timing, and distribution of water dedicated and managed for the natural system after considering any changed circumstances or new information since completion of the PIR for the Project.

Section 601(e)(5)(B) of the WRDA 2000 authorizes the Secretary of the Army to provide credit to the Non-F ederal S ponsor for work completed by it during the period of construction pursuant to a PPA and a determination by the Secretary that the work is integral to the CERP

. As pa rt of its initiative for early implementation of certain CERP projects, the non -F ederal sponsor has stated
that it wil l construct portions of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject consistent with this report, in advance of Congressional authorization and the signing of a PPA. Under the authority of Section 6004 of WRDA 2007 , the Non

Federal Sponsor executed the required pre

- partnership credit agreement (PPCA) to preserve its opportunity for credit for in

- kind work completed in advance of
execution of a PPA. T he Non-F ederal S ponsor is exploring alternative project delivery m ethods to expedite implementation of the Project through the State expedited program. Such delivery methods may include public

- private partnerships in which the Non-F ederal S ponsor contracts with a private or not

for

- profit entity for services that may in clude designing, building, operating or financing these components. I believe that it would be in the public interest for this Project to be implemented expeditiously due to the early benefits to the surrounding habitat, as well as hydrologic benefits to F ederal lands and estuaries in other portions of the south Florida ecosystem. Therefore, I
recommend that should the Non-F ederal S ponsor construct portions of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands P roject prior to the execution of a PPA for thisSection 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10 -8 Project, and this work is covered by the executed PPCA, the non

- Fe deral sponsor be credited for such construction costs at the time the PPA for the Biscayne Bay
Coastal Wetlands P roject is executed. Such credit would be applied toward the

Non-F ederal sponsor’s share of the costs associated with the implementation of the CERP as authorized by Section 601(e)(5)(C) of WRDA 2000, shall not include cash reimbursements, and shall be subject to: a ) the authorization of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project by law; b ) a determination by the Secretary of the Army that the work performed under the PPCA is integral to
the authorized CERP restoration project; c ) a certification by the District Engineer that the costs are reasonable, allowable, necess ary, auditable, and allocable; and d ) a certification by the District Engineer that the activities have been implemented in accordance with USACE design and construction standards and applicable F ederal and S tate laws. The recommendations
contained herein reflect the information available at this time and current Departmental policies governing formulation of individual projects. They do not reflect program and budgeting priorities inherent in the formulation of a

nat ional Civil Works construction program nor the perspective of higher review

levels within the Executive Branch. Consequently, the recommendations may be modified before they are transmitted to the Congress as proposals for authorization and implementation funding. However, prior to transmittal to the Congress, the Sponsor, the State, interested F ederal agencies, and other parties will be advised of any modifications and will be afforded an opportunity to
comment further.

________________________________ Alfred A. Pantano, Jr. Colonel, U.S. Army
District CommanderSection 11 Report Preparers

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 11
LIST OF REPORT PREPARERSSection 11 Report Preparers

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 11 Report Preparers

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

11-1 11.0 PREPARERS OF THE PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

Preparer Agency Discipline/Expertise

Rick Alleman SFWMD Lead Environmental

Scientist Jim Baker USACE Biologist Steve Barth USACE Civil Engineer Sarah Bellmund NPS Biologist

Donald Beter USACE M echanical Engineer Steve Blair DERM Biologist Candida Bronson USACE Coastal Engineer

Eric Bush USACE Plan Formulation

Elizabeth Carwell EPJV A ssociate Project Manager

Bahram Charkhian SFWMD Lead Environmental

Scientist

Ernest Clarke USAC E Biologist/Planning

Technical Lead Susan Conner USACE Biologist

Don Dorn USACE Real Estate Eddie Douglass USACE Hydraulic Engineer Eunice Ford USACE Project Manager Natalie Garrett USACE Archaeologist

Martin Gonzalez USAC E Civil Engineer Craig

Grossenbacher DERM Chief, Natural Resources Planning Section Ryan Grove USACE Hydrologic Engineer Cynthia Irvin USACE Pl anning Technical Lead Jerry Krenz SFWMD CERP Recreation Manager Tracey Leeser USACE Cost Engineer James Miller USACE Cost Engineer

Don Nelson USACE Office of Counsel

Karl Nixon USACE Real Estate Callie McMunigal USFWS Supervisory Hydrologist Steve Myers USACE Geology

Brenda Mills SFWMD Lead Planner Patrick Pitts USFWS Biologist Randy Rabb USACE Geotechnical Engineer Laura Reilly SFWMD Senior Scientist Mark Shafer USACE Environmental Engineer John Shaffer SFWMD Project Manager Erik Stabenau NPS Biologist Paul Stevenson USACE Biologist/Landscape

Architect Brad Tarr USACE Biologist/NEPA

CoordinatorSection 11 Report Preparers

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

11-2 Larry Taylor USACE Biologist/Operations Logan Wilkinson USACE Hydraulic Engineer

Kevin Wittmann USACE Economist/Planner Rudy Wynn EPJV Projec t Manager/Biologist Autumn Zeigler USACE Electrical Engineer John Zediak USACE Chief, Water Management

Section Frank Zepka USACE Environmental Engineer

Key: DERM Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management EPJV Everglades Partners Joint Venture

FWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service

NPS National Park Service SFWMD South Florida Water Management District USACE U.S. Army Corps of EngineersSection 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 12 INDEXSection 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

12-1 12.0 INDEX



## A

Abstract, i, 14-1 Acceler8, 5-34, 7-17, 7-19 Acronyms, 13-1 Adaptive Assessment, 8-1, 13-1 Aesthetics, 3-50, 4-26, 4-29, 6-38 Agricultural Areas, 4-20, 9-11 Air Quality, 3-44, 3-45, 4-16, 4-30, 6-27, 9-1, 13-1, 14-12

Alternative Final Array, 6-1 Initial Array, 5-11, 5-17 No Action, vi, 5-11, 5-19, 5-20, 5-21, 5- 33, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-7, 6-14, 6-16, 6- 18, 6-19, 6-20, 6-21, 6-22, 6-23, 6-25, 6-27, 6-28, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33, 6-35, 6- 36, 6-37, 6-39, 6-89 Alternative A, vi Alternative C, 5-14, 5-16, 5-24 Alternative D, 5-2, 5-14, 7-36 Alternative E, 5-14, 5-16, 5-17, 5-19, 5- 24, 5-26 Alternative F, 5-15, 5-33, 13-17 Alternative G, 5-15 Alternative H, 5-15 Alternative I, 5-15, 5-17 Alternative J, 5- 15, 5-16, 5-19, 5-26 Alternative K, 5-15, 5-17 Alternative L, 5-15 Alternative M, vi, 5-16, 5-19, 5-28, 5-31, 5-33, 6-1, 6-2, 6-3, 6-7, 6-15, 6-16, 6- 19, 6-23, 6-26, 6-27, 6-28, 6-30, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33, 6-35, 6-36, 6-37, 6-38, 6-39, 6-41, 6-43, 6-49, 6-68 Alternative N, 5-16, 5-17 Alternative O, iii, vi, vii, x, xvii, xix, 1-7, 1-12, 5-31, 5-32, 5-33, 5-34, 6-1, 6-2, 6- 3, 6-4, 6-8, 6-9, 6-15, 6-17, 6-20, 6-24, 6-27, 6-28, 6-30, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33, 6-34, 6-36, 6-37, 6-38, 6-39, 6-40, 6-41, 6-43, 6-44, 6-49, 6-52, 6-56, 6-69, 6-89, 6-92, 7-1, 7-17, 7-20, 7-22, 7-23, 7-30, 7-35, 7-37, 7-38, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, 8-19, 9-6 Alternative O Phase 1, ii i, vii, x, xvii, 1-7, 1-12, 5-33, 5-34, 6-1, 6-3, 6-4, 6-9, 6- 15, 6-17, 6-20, 6-24, 6-27, 6-28, 6-30, 6-31, 6-33, 6-34, 6-36, 6-37, 6-38, 6-40, 6-49, 6-52, 6-69, 6-92, 7-1, 7-17, 7-20, 7-23, 7-30, 7-35, 7-38, 8-1, 8-5, 8-6, 8- 7, 8-19, 9-6 Alternative P, 3-45, 5-11, 5-16, 5-18, 5-19, 5-33, 6-70 Alternative Q, vi, 5-19, 5-29, 5-31, 5-33, 6-1, 6-2, 6-4, 6-8, 6-15, 6-16, 6-19, 6- 20, 6-21, 6-23, 6-27, 6-30, 6-31, 6-32, 6-33, 6-36, 6-38, 6-39, 6-41, 6-43, 6-44, 6-52, 6-56, 6-69 Alternative S, 5-19 Alternative YB, vi, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-19, 5-21, 5-33, 6-41, 6-43, 6-52 Anadromous Fish Conservation Act, 8-11 Annual Costs, xvi, 7-18 Aquifer Biscayne, 3-5, 3-7, 3-15, 3-16, 3-17, 4- 4, 4-27, 4-29, 6-7 Aquifer Storage and Recovery, 13-17 Benefits, xii, xv, 5-17, 5-19, 5-20, 6-42, 6- 48, 6-67, 6-70, 6-71, 6-73, 7-41



## B

Best Management Practices, 13-2, 13-17 Biodiversity, 9-12 Biological Assessment, 9-5 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands, i, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, x, xii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3- 5, 3-6, 3-14, 3-19, 3-27, 3-34, 3-35, 3- 39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 4-1, 4-10, 4-11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-21, 4-27, 4-28, 4-29, 4-30, 5-1, 5-2, 5-3, 5-5, 5-9, 5-10, 5-12, 5-21, 5-31, 5-33, 5-34, 6-7, 6-16, 6-25, 6-27, 6-28, 6-32, 6-33, 6-35, 6-37, 6-38, 6-42, 6-67, 6-76, 6-77, 6-79, 6-81, 6-82,Section 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

12-2 6-90, 6-91, 6-92, 7-1, 7-11, 7-12, 7-16, 7-19, 7-20, 7-22, 7-30, 7-31, 7-32, 7-33, 7-34, 7-36, 7-37, 7-38, 7-39, 7-42, 7-69, 7-71, 7-72, 7-73, 8-1, 8-2, 8-5, 8-8, 8- 15, 8-16, 8-17, 8-19, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 9-10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-7, 13-17, 14-7, 14-12 Biscayne National Park, 1-5, 2-5, 3-1, 3- 13, 3-15, 3-34, 3-43, 3-49, 3-50, 4-21, 6-35, 6-41, 6-69, 13-17, 14-1, 14-5, 14- 6, 14-7 Brazilian Pepper, 3-27, 3-32, 3-33, 4-16, 4-28, 6-21, 6-23, 6-26, 14-1



## C

Canal, vi, viii, xii, 1-3, 1-7, 3-1, 3-2, 3-9, 3-20, 3-25, 3-26, 3-31, 3-41, 3-50, 5-6, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-16, 5-19, 5-23, 5-24, 5-25, 5-26, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-32, 6-1, 6-16, 6-23, 6-24, 6-30, 6-31, 6-38, 6-92, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, 7-5, 7-21, 7-23, 9-6, 10-1, 13-2, 13-18, 13-21, 14-1 Borrow, 7-4, 7-21, 13-2 CBEEM, 5-3, 5-5, 6-18, 6-42, 6-43, 6-56, 7-22, 7-37, 13-17 CERP, 1-11 Clean Air Act of 1972, 8-7, 8-15, 9-1 Clean Water Act of 1972, 1-11, 2-5, 4-2, 6-41, 7-72, 8-8, 8-15, 8-16, 9-2, 9-12 Climate, xi, 3-5, 4-2, 4-27, 6-2 Coastal Barrier Improvement Act of 1990,

8-10 Coastal Barrier Resources Act, 8-10 Coastal Zone Management Act of 1972, 8- 10, 9-2 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, iii, iv, v, vi, v ii, x, xii, xiii, xvii, xviii, xix, 1-1, 1-7, 1-8, 1-9, 1-11, 2-3, 2-4, 3-5, 3-33, 3-46, 4-1, 4-5, 4-12, 4- 13, 4-16, 4-18, 4-27, 4-29, 5-2, 5-34, 6- 28, 6-29, 6-39, 6-77, 7-1, 7-12, 7-17, 7- 34, 7-36, 7-37, 7-38, 7-39, 7-40, 7-41, 7-69, 7-72, 7-74, 8-1, 8-2, 8-4, 8-5, 8- 15, 8-17, 8-19, 9-1, 9-9, 9-10, 10-1, 10- 2, 10-7, 11-1, 13-2, 13-7, 13-8, 13-9, 13-12, 13-17, 13-18, 13-21, 14-9, 14-11 Construction, xiv, xv, xvi, xvii, 5-11, 5-12, 5-13, 6-27, 6-28, 6-31, 6-68, 6-69, 6-70, 6-92, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-15, 8-18, 9-6, 10-2, 10-3, 13- 18, 13-19, 13-20 Conveyance Capacity, 13-3 Cooperating Agency, 9-1

Cost Effectiveness, 6-1, 6-70, 6-77, 6-78, 6- 80, 6-81, 6-87 Estimate, 6-67 Critical Habitats, 13-3 Cubic feet per second, 5-23, 5-25, 5-26, 5- 27, 5-28, 5-29, 5-30, 5-32, 5-33, 5-32, 6-92, 7-4, 7-5, 10-1, 13-3, 13-18 Cultural Resources, 3-47, 4-17, 4-30, 6-31,

6-90 Cutler Wetlands, viii, xiv, 5-6, 5-12, 5-34, 6-28, 6-30, 6-92, 7-1, 7-2, 7-4, 10-1



## D

Deering Estate, viii, xiv, 1-9, 3-42, 3-43, 3-47, 4-12, 4-26, 5-2, 5-6, 5-12, 5-21, 5- 34, 6-28, 6-29, 6-30, 6-31, 6-90, 6-92, 7-1, 7-4, 7-21, 8-16, 8-19, 9-2, 9-6, 10-1 Detailed Design Phase, xvii



## E

Ecology, 13-3, 14-4, 14-5, 14-9, 14-12 Economics, x, 1-1, 1-6, 1-11, 2-4, 3-47, 4- 5, 4-19, 6-14, 6-33, 6-67, 6-69, 6-90, 6- 91, 6-92, 7-13, 7-71, 7-72, 10-1, 13-1,

13-7 Economy, 2-4, 3-49, 4-29, 9-9 Ecosystem Habitat, 3-44, 4-14, 4-15, 5-3, 6-42, 6- 43, 6-56, 6-72, 6-78, 6-80, 6-81, 6-83, 7-22, 7-37, 7-40, 8-10, 9-8, 10-1, 13- 3, 13-5, 13-14, 13-18, 13-19, 14-4,

14-10 South Florida, 9-12, 13-12, 14-2Section 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

12-3 Wetlands, i, iii, iv, v, vi, vii, viii, x, xii, xiv, xv, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-2, 1-5, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 2-2, 2-4, 2-5, 3-1, 3-5, 3-6, 3-14, 3-19, 3-27, 3-30, 3-31, 3-32, 3- 34, 3-35, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 3-43, 3-44, 3-45, 3-46, 3-47, 3-49, 4-1, 4-10, 4- 11, 4-12, 4-13, 4-14, 4-16, 4-17, 4-21, 5-2, 5-23, 5-25, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5- 32, 6-7, 6-16, 6-21, 6-25, 6-27, 6-28, 6-30, 6-32, 6-33, 6-35, 6-37, 6-38, 6- 67, 6-72, 6-80, 6-85, 7-1, 7-2, 7-16, 7-22, 7-24, 7-30, 7-31, 7-33, 7-34, 7- 36, 7-37, 7-38, 7-39, 7-40, 7-42, 7-69, 8-1, 8-2, 8-5, 8-8, 8-13, 8-15, 8-16, 8- 17, 8-19, 9-1, 9-2, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-8, 9-9, 9-10, 10-1, 10-2, 10-7, 13-14, 13-22, 14-3, 14-4, 14-5, 14-7,

14-12 Employment, 4-18, 4-29, 6-91, 7-71 Endangered, 3-38, 3-40, 3-41, 4-2, 4-11, 4-28, 7-72, 8-9, 8-18, 9-4, 13-4 Endangered Species Act of 1973, 4-2, 7- 72, 8-9, 8-18, 9-4 Environment, 9-12, 13-1, 13-4 Affected, 13-1, 13-4 Environmental Justice, 6-91, 8-14, 9-8, 13-

4 Environmental Protection Agency, i, 1-6, 8-8, 8-16, 9-1, 9-10, 13-18, 13-23, 14-

12 Essential Fish Habitat, 3-44, 4-15, 4-29, 8- 10, 9-5, 13-18 Estuary Protection Act of 1968, 8-11, 9-6 Everglades Constructi on Project, 13-20 Everglades National Park, 3-1, 3-2, 3-32, 3-50, 4-4, 7-70, 7-71, 13-14, 13-18, 14- 2, 14-3, 14-4, 14-5, 14-12

Executive Orders E.O. 11990, Protection of Wetlands, 8- 13, 9-8 E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice, 8- 14, 9-8 E.O. 13089, Coral Reef Protection, 8- 14, 9-8 E.O. 13112, Environmental Effects Abroad of Major Federal Actions, 8- 14, 9-9 Exotics, 13-4



## F

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981, 8-12, 9-7 Federal Water Project Recreation Act, 8- 11, 14-8

Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958, 8-8, 8-9, 9-3, 13-19 Flood Protection, 8-4, 13-20 Florida Department of Transportation, 9- 11, 13-19

Florida Statutes 373.026, 8-15, 9-9, 9-10 373.1501, 8-15, 9-9, 9-10 FONSI, 13-19



## G

Geology, 3-5, 4-3, 6-3, 11-1 Glossary, 13-1



## H

Habitat Fish, 3-44, 4-15, 8-10, 13-18 Units, 6-43, 6-56, 6-78, 6-80, 6-81, 6- 83, 7-37, 10-1 Wildlife, 13-14 Habitat Suitability Index, 13-19 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive Waste, 3-45, 3-46, 4-16, 6-28, 7-30, 8-2, 9-6, 9- 7, 13-19 HSI, 13-19



## I

Impact Adverse, 13-1 Implementation Schedule, 1-11, 13-20Section 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

12-4 Income, 4-24, 6-91, 6-92, 9-8 Incremental Cost Analyses, 5-33, 6-70 Introduction, 4-10



## J

K

L

Land Acquisition, 7-30 Land Use, 3-49, 4-20, 4-29, 6-34, 7-42, 9-

12 Levee, viii, 1-3, 3-44, 5-10, 5-17, 5-19, 5- 24, 5-26, 5-29, 6-15, 6-16, 6-19, 6-20, 7-2, 7-4, 7-5, 7-42, 13-7 Listed Species American Alligator, 3-31, 3-36, 3-39, 3- 40, 4-14, 7-40 American Crocodile, 3-2, 3-43, 4-14, 7-

40 Eastern Indigo Snake, 3-38, 3-44 Florida Panther, 3-34, 3-38, 3-40, 3-42, 4-12, 7-72, 14-2, 14-8 Gopher Tortoise, 3-40 Roseate Spoonbill, 3-40, 4-13 West Indian Manatee, 1-5, 2-5, 3-29, 3- 34, 3-38, 3-39, 3-40, 3-42, 4-11, 6-26, 6-41, 7-72, 9-6 Wood Stork, 2-2, 3-38, 3-42, 4-12, 4- 13, 7-72



## M

Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation and Management Act, 3-44, 9-5 Mammals, 3-34, 3-40, 14-2 Mangrove Forest, 3-29 Marine Mammal Protection Act of 1972, 3-34, 8-10, 9-5 Marine Protection, Research and Sanctuaries Act, 8-11 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act, 8-11, 9-4 Military Canal, viii, 3-1, 3-9, 3-25, 3-42, 5-6, 5-13, 6-92, 7-2, 7-4, 7-21, 10-1 Mitigation, 6-25, 13-7, 13-18, 13-23 Modeling, 14-10 Monitoring Plan, 1-8, 7-10, 8-6



## N

National Environmental Policy Act, i, iv, viii, 1-1, 1-2, 5-1, 6-92, 7-72, 7-73, 8-8, 8-9, 9-1, 9-2, 11-1, 13-4, 13-9, 13-12,

13-21

National Historic Preservation Act of 1966, 3-47, 6-90, 8-12, 9-6, 10-6 Natural System, 8-5, 14-12 Noise, 3-49, 4-23, 4-30, 6-36, 6-37



## O

Old Cutler Road, 3-47, 6-90, 7-2 OMRR&R, xvi, 6-67, 6-69, 7-10, 7-11, 7- 12, 7-14, 7-18, 7-22, 7-34, 8-4, 10-2, 10-3, 10-4, 10-5, 13-8, 13-21, 14-11 Outreach, 8-17, 13-8, 13-11 Outstanding Florida Water, 1-5, 3-19, 13-

21



## P

Performance Measures, 5-3, 5-5 Plan Formulation, 5-1, 5-20, 5-34, 11-1 Planning, xiv, 2-4, 2-5, 3-14, 4-17, 4-25, 5-3, 6-67, 6-78, 6-85, 6-89, 7-16, 7-20, 7-72, 8-3, 8-9, 9-4, 9-5, 9-12, 11-1, 13- 20, 13-21, 14-6, 14-7, 14-9, 14-11, 14-

12 Poverty, 3-48 Problems and Opportunities, 2-1 Project Cooperation Agreement, 8-1, 13-9, 13-10, 13-21 Project Implementation, i, iii, 1-1, 1-2, 5- 1, 7-19, 8-7, 11-1, 13-9, 13-10, 13-21 Project Implementation Report, i, iii, iv, vii, viii, xii, xvi, xv ii, xviii, xix, 1-1, 1- 2, 1-6, 1-7, 3-44, 5-1, 5-33, 5-34, 7-1, 7-Section 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

12-5 17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-42, 7-70, 7-72, 7-73, 7-74, 8-1, 8-2, 8-3, 8-4, 8-5, 8-6, 8-7, 8-8, 8-9, 8-10, 8-10, 8-11, 8-12, 8- 13, 8-14, 8-15, 8-19, 9-1, 9-2, 9-4, 9-5, 9-10, 9-13, 10-7, 11-1, 13-9, 13-10, 13-

21 Project Management Plan, 5-3, 6-42, 8-17, 13-8, 13-10, 13-21 Pump Station, 5-10, 7-4, 7-5, 13-11



## Q

R

Real Estate, xv, 1-12, 6-68, 7-22, 7-30, 8- 1, 10-2, 10-3, 11-1, 13-22 Recommendations, 7-39, 9-3, 9-4 Recreation, xiv, xvi, 1-12, 4-23, 4-24, 4- 25, 4-26, 6-90, 7-13, 7-18, 7-30, 8-11, 8-16, 11-1, 13-22, 14-7, 14-8, 14-9, 14- 10, 14-11 References, 14-1 Relocation Assistance, 7-33, 10-5 Reservoir, 5-23, 5-25, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 5- 32, 13-5, 13-11 Resource Conservation and Recovery Act of 1976, 3-16, 4-29, 8-12, 9-6, 9-7, 13-

22 Restoration, Coordination and Verification, 1-8, 7-34, 7-39, 7-72, 8-1, 13-12, 13-22 Risk and Uncertainty, 7-41 Risk and Uncertainty Analysis, 7-41 Rivers and Harbors Act of 1899, 8-12



## S

Salinity, 3-15, 3-21, 7-24, 7-40, 14-3 Scoping, 13-12 Screening Alternatives, vi, 5-18, 5-31 Sea level, 7-42, 14-9 Sea Level Rise, 7-42, 14-9 Seagrass, 1-5, 3-29, 3-44 SFWMD, iii, v, xii, xvii, 1-1, 1-6, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 3-2, 3-5, 3-46, 4-3, 4-4, 4- 19, 4-26, 5-2, 5-34, 6-7, 6-29, 7-13, 7- 17, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 7-30, 7-31, 7-33, 7-34, 7-39, 7-42, 7-74, 8-1, 8-2, 8-6, 8- 15, 8-16, 8-18, 8-19, 9-7, 9-9, 9-10, 11- 1, 11-2, 13-7, 13-10, 13-22, 14-9, 14-11 Sheet Flow, 7-40, 13-12 Socio-Economic, 3-47, 4-17, 4-29, 6-32,

6-33 Soil, 3-8, 4-3, 6-3, 6-4, 6-5, 6-28, 6-29 Soils, 3-5, 3-6, 4-3, 4-27, 6-3 South Florida Water Management District, i, iii, v, xii, xvii, 1-1, 1-6, 1-7, 1-9, 1-11, 1-12, 3-2, 3-5, 3-46, 4-3, 4-4, 4-19, 4- 26, 5-2, 5-34, 6-7, 6-29, 7-13, 7-17, 7- 19, 7-20, 7-21, 7-30, 7-31, 7-33, 7-34, 7-39, 7-42, 7-74, 8-1, 8-2, 8-6, 8-15, 8- 16, 8-18, 8-19, 9-7, 9-9, 9-10, 9-11, 11- 1, 11-2, 13-7, 13-10, 13-12, 13-22, 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-6, 14-8, 14-9, 14-11, 14-

12 Spatial Extent, 7-40, 13-13 Species Invasive, 8-14, 9-9 Spur Canal, viii, 7-1, 7-4

Stormwater TreatmentArea, vi, 1-7, 5-10, 5-12, 5-13, 5-14, 5-15, 5-17, 5-23, 5-25, 5-27, 5-29, 5-30, 13-22 Submerged Lands Act of 1953, 8-12 System, 3-8, 3-18, 3-46, 6-42, 6-77, 6-78, 7-40, 7-69, 8-5, 8-8, 8-16, 9-7, 13-10, 13-17, 13-18, 13-19, 13-20, 13-21, 13- 22, 13-23, 14-12



## T

Tentatively Selected Plan, i, iii, vii, viii, ix, x, xii, xiii, xvi, xvii, xviii, xix, xxiii, 1- 1, 1-11, 3-46, 5-1, 5-2, 5-33, 5-34, 6-75, 6-92, 7-17, 7-31, 7-36, 7-37, 7-38, 8-2, 8-5, 8-6, 8-8, 8-15, 8-16, 8-17, 8-19, 9- 7, 10-1, 10-2, 13-23 Threatened and Endangered, 8-9, 8-10 Threatened and Endangered Species American Alligator, 3-39, 4-14, 7-40Section 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

12-6 American Crocodile, 3-43, 4-14, 7-40 Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow, 3-38, 13-

18 Eastern Indigo Snake, 3-44, 4-15, 14-12 Florida Panther, 3-42, 4-12 Roseate Spoonbill, 3-39 West Indian Manatee, 3-41, 4-11, 8-10 Wood Stork, 2-2, 3-38, 3-42, 4-12, 4- 13, 7-72 Toxic Substances Control Act of 1976, 9-6 Turkey Point, 1-3, 1-9, 3-27, 3-31, 3-32, 3- 39, 3-42, 3-43, 3-49, 4-9, 4-21, 5-2, 5- 21, 6-22, 6-35



## U

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, i, iii, v, xiii, xvii, xviii, 1-1, 1-6, 1-11, 3-47, 4-1, 4-2, 4-3, 5-1, 5-3, 5-33, 6-25, 6-31, 6- 38, 6-42, 6-67, 6-69, 6-70, 6-90, 7-17, 7-18, 7-19, 7-20, 7-21, 7-22, 7-34, 7-39, 7-41, 7-70, 7-72, 7-73, 7-74, 8-1, 8-2, 8- 3, 8-4, 8-9, 8-15, 8-16, 8-18, 9-3, 9-5, 9- 6, 9-10, 9-13, 10-8, 11-1, 11-2, 13-7, 13-10, 13-23, 14-9, 14-10, 14-11, 14-12 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, i, 1-6, 3- 34, 3-35, 3-36, 3-37, 3-38, 3-41, 3-42, 3-46, 4-11, 4-15, 5-3, 6-25, 6-42, 7-31, 8-1, 8-9, 8-8, 8-9, 8-9, 8-11, 8-12, 8-18, 9-1, 9-3, 9-4, 9-5, 9-6, 9-7, 9-11, 11-2, 13-2, 13-4, 13-13, 13-23, 14-7, 14-8, 14-10, 14-12, 14-13



## V

Vegetation, 3-33, 6-21, 7-40, 13-22, 14-4, 14-8, 14-10 Vegetative Commun ities, 3-27, 4-9, 4-28,

6-21



## W

Wading Birds, 4-13 Great Blue Heron, 3-35, 6-29 Little Blue Heron, 3-39 Water Budget, 13-14 Demand, 4-18 Management, i, iii, 1-1, 3-16, 4-4, 4-5, 4-27, 6-7, 6-14, 9-11, 11-2, 13-7, 13- 12, 13-13, 13-22, 14-1, 14-2, 14-3, 14-6, 14-8, 14-9, 14-12 Quality, 3-18, 3-19, 3-25, 4-8, 4-28, 6- 18, 7-10, 7-34, 8-8, 8-16, 9-2, 13-23,

14-3 Supply, 3-17, 6-90 Surface, v, 1-9, 8-16, 13-22 Water Conservation Area, 3-8, 4-27, 8-9, 13-14, 13-23 Wetland, vi, 6-2, 6-44, 6-48, 7-22, 13-17 Wild and Scenic River Act of 1968, 8-11

Wildlife Amphibians, 3-36, 14-2 Bird, 3-42, 4-12, 8-11, 9-4 Birds, 3-35, 3-40, 4-13, 8-14 Fish, i, v, 1-6, 2-2, 3-7, 3-33, 3-40, 3-41, 3-44, 3-50, 4-10, 4-15, 4-28, 6-24, 7- 31, 8-8, 8-9, 8-10, 8-11, 8-16, 8-18, 9-1, 9-3, 9-11, 10-1, 11-2, 13-2, 13-4, 13-13, 13-18, 13-19, 13-23, 14-2, 14- 3, 14-4, 14-6, 14-7, 14-8, 14-9, 14-10, 14-12, 14-13 Habitat, 13-14 Invertebrates, 3-41 Reptiles, 3-36, 3-40, 14-2 Wading birds, 2-2, 3-29, 3-31, 3-34, 3- 35, 4-10, 4-13, 4-14, 5-3, 6-25, 6-26, 6-39, 6-42, 7-32 Without Project, 4-2, 4-9, 4-12, 4-13, 4- 14, 4-15, 4-16, 4-26, 5-17, 5-20, 5-21,

13-19



## X

Y

ZSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 13
GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMSSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-1 13.0 GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS

13.1 GLOSSARY OF TERMS



## A

Acre — Area of land equal to 43,560 square f eet. In S.I. metric system, one acre is equal to 4,046.9 square meters or 2.471 hectares.

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).

Action Plan — A plan that describes what need s to be done and when it needs to be completed.

Activity — A specific project task that requ ires resources and time to complete.

Adaptive Assessment — A process for learning and incorporating new information into the planning and evaluati on phases of the restoration program. This process ensures that the scientific information produced for this effort isconverted into products that are continuously used in management decisionmaking.

Adverse Impact — The detrimental effect of an environmental change relative
to desired or baseline conditions.

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.

Air Quality — Measure of the health-related and visual characteristics of the air, often derived from quantitative me asurements of the concentrations of specific injurious or contaminating substances.

Aquatic — Consisting of, relating to or being in water; living or growing in, on or near the water; or taking place in or on the water.

Aquifer — An underground geologic formation, a bed or layer of earth, gravel or porous stone, that yields water or in which water can be stored.

Authorization — An act by the Congress of the United States, which authorizes use of public funds to carry out a prescribed action.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-2 

## B

Baseline — The initial approved plan fo r schedule, cost or performance management, plus or minus approved changes, to which deviations will be compared as the project proceeds.

Best Management Practices (BMPs) — The best available land, industrial and waste management techniques or processes that reduce pollutant loading from land use or industry, or which optimize water use.

Borrow Canal — Canal or ditches where material excavated is used for earthen construction nearby. Also, typica lly denotes a canal with no conveyance or water routing purpose.



## C

Canal — A human-made waterway that is used for draining or irrigating land or for navigation by boat.

Candidate Species — Plant or animal species not yet officially listed as threatened or endangered, but which is undergoing status review by the U.S.
Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Central and Southern Florida Project (C&SF) — A multi-purpose project, first authorized by Congress in 1948, whic h provides flood control, water supply protection, water quality protection and natural resource protection.

Channel — Natural or artificial watercourse, with a definite bed and banks to confine and conduct continuously or periodically flowing water.

Coastal Ridge — Area of land bordering the co ast whose topography is elevated higher than land further inland.

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) — The plan for the restoration of the greater Everglades and to meet water supply and flood protection needs in the urban and agri cultural regions of south Florida.

Comprehensive Plan — See Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

Control Structure — A human-created structure that regulates the flow of
waters or the level of waters.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-3 Conveyance Capacity — The rate at which water can be transported by a canal, aqueduct, or ditch. In this do cument, conveyance capacity is generally measured in cubic feet per second (cfs).

Cost-Benefit Analysis — An analysis, often stated as a ratio, used to evaluate a proposed course of action.

Critical Habitat — A description, which may be contained in a Biological Opinion, 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.

Cubic feet per second (cfs) — A measure of the volume rate of water movement. As a rate of streamflow, a cubic foot of water passing a reference
section in 1 second of ti me. One cubic foot per second equals 0.0283 meter /second (7.48 gallons per minute). One cu bic foot per second flowing for 24 hours produces approximately 2 acre-feet.

Culvert — A concrete, metal or plastic pipe that transports water.



## D

Discharge — The rate of water movement as volume per unit time, usually expressed as cubic feet per second.

Dissolved Oxygen(D.O.) — The concentration of oxygen dissolved in water, sometimes expressed as percent saturation, where saturation is the maximum amount of oxygen that theoretically can be dissolved in water at a given altitude and temperature.

Dry Season — Hydrologically, for south Florida, the months associated with a lower incident of rainfall, November through May.

Duration — The period of time over which a task occurs, in contrast to effort, which is the amount of labor hours a task requires; duration establishes the schedule for a project, and effort establishes the labor costs.



## E

Ecology — The science of the relationships between organisms and their environments, also called bionomics; or the relationship between organisms and
their environment.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-4 Ecosystem — A functional group of animal and plant species that operate in a unique setting that is mostly self-contained.

Effectiveness — A measure of the quality of a ttainment in meeting objectives; this is distinguished from efficiency, which is measured by the volume of output achieved for the input used.

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 portio n of its range. Federally endangered species are officially designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service and published in the Federal Register.

Enhancement — Measures which develop or impr ove the quality or quantity of existing conditions or resources beyond a condition or level that would have occurred without an action; i.e., beyond compensation.

Environmental and Economic Equity (EEE) — A program-level activity, referred to in early phases of the prog ram as Socioeconomic and Environmental
Justice.

Environmental Consequences — The impacts to the Affected Environment that are expected from implementation of a given alternative.

Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) — An analysis required by the National Environmental Policy Act for all major Federal actions, which
evaluates the environmental risks of alternative actions.

Evaluate — To appraise or determine the value of information, options or resources being provided to a project.

Exotic species — Introduced species not native to the place where they are
found.



## F

Fallowed Land — Cultivated land that lies idle during a growing season.

Feasibility Study — The second phase of a project. The purpose is to describe and evaluate alternative plans and fu lly describe recommended project.

Federally Endangered Species — An endangered species which is officially designated by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service and published in the Federal Register.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-5 Flood Control Storage Capacity — Reservoir capacity reserved for the purpose of regulating flood inflows to reduce flood damage downstream [compare with reservoir storage capacity].

Flow — The volume of water passing a given point per unit of time.

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

Geospatial Data — Information, which includes, but is not limited to surveys, maps, aerial photography, aerial imagery, and biological, ecological and hydrological modeling coverages.

Goal — Something to be achieved. Goal s can be established for outcomes (results) or outputs (efforts).

Groundwater — Water stored underground in pore spaces between rocks and
in other alluvial materials and in frac tures of hard rock occurring in the
saturated zone.

Groundwater Level — Refers to the water level in a well, and is defined as a measure of the hydraulic head in the aquifer system.

Groundwater Pumping — Quantity of water extracted from groundwater
storage.

Groundwater Seepage — Groundwater flow in response to a hydraulic gradient.

Groundwater Table — The upper surface of the zone of saturation, except where the surface is formed by an impermeable body.



## H

Habitat — Area where a plant or animal lives.

Hammock — Localized, thick stands of trees th at can grow on natural rises of only a few inches in the land.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-6 Hectare — A unit of measure in the metric system equal to 10,000 square

meters or 2.47 acres.

Hydraulic Gradient — Denotes slope of watercourse, above or below ground water level. Typically, defines energy loss or consumption in the conveyance

process.

Hydraulic Head (Lift) — Denotes relative comparison of water stages for gravity flow. Pump stations generally provide lift or increase water level
elevations.

Hydrologic Condition — The state of an area pertaining to the amount and form of water present. For example, sa turated ground (water table at surface), lake stage and river flow rate.

Hydrologic Response — An observed decrease or increase of water in a particular area.

Hydrology — The scientific study of the prop erties, distribution and effects of water on the earth’s surface, in the soil and underlying rocks, and in the atmosphere.

Hydropattern — Refers to depth as well as hydroperiod is hydropattern. Hydropatterns are best understood by a gr aphic depiction of water level (above as well as below the ground) through annual cycles.

Hydroperiod — For non-tidal wetlands, the average annual duration of flooding is called the hydroperiod, which is based only on the presence of surface water and not its depth.



## I

Impoundment — An above ground reservoir used to store water.

Independent Technical Review Team — A group autonomous of the Project
Team established to conduct reviews to ensure that design products are consistent with established criteria, guidance, procedures and policies.

Indicator Species — Organism, species, or community which indicates presence of certain environmental conditions.

Invertebrate — A small animal that does not have a backbone, examples include crayfish, insects and mollusks, which can be indicators of ecosystem

status.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-7 

## J

K

L

Lag — The amount of time after one task is started or completed before the next task can be started or completed.

Land Classification — An economic classification of variations in land reflecting its ability to sustain long-term agricultural production.

Levee — A human-created embankment that controls or confines water.

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.

Local Sponsor — The South Florida Water Management District.



## M

Macrophytes — Visible plants found in aquatic environments, including sawgrass, sedges and lilies.

Marsh — An area of low-lying wetland.

Master Program Management Plan (MPMP) — A document which describes the framework and processes to be used by the USACE and the SFWMD for managing and monitoring implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades
Restoration Plan.

MIKE SHE — An integrated surface water/ground water model, which includes a module for estimating supplemental irri gation requirements based upon land use, soil type, crop type, rain fall, and evapotranspiration.

Mitigation — To make less severe; to alleviate, diminish or lessen; one or all of the following may comprise mitigation: (1) avoiding an impact altogether by not taking a certain action or parts of an action; (2) minimizing impacts by limiting the degree or magnitude of an action an d its implementation; (3) rectifying an impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; (4) reducing or eliminating an impact over time by preservation andSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-8 maintenance operations during the life of an action; and (5) compensating for an impact by replacing or providing substitute resources or environments.

Model — A tool used to mathematically represent a process which could be based upon empirical or mathematical functions. Models can be computer programs, spreadsheets, or statistical analyses.

Monitoring — The capture, analysis and reporting of project performance, usually as compared to plan.

Muck lands — Fertile soil containing putrid vegetative matter.



## N

National Economic Development (NED) — Corps of Engineers benefit evaluation process used to justify Recretion expenditures.



## O

Objective — A goal expressed in specific, directly measurable terms.

Off-peak — Less than peak design flow rate during storm runoff producing

events.

Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Rehabilitation, Replacement (OMRR&R) — 100% local sponsor responsi bility to OMRR&R recreation
facilities and amenities.

Other Program Element (OPE) — One of twelve components identified in the Comprehensive Plan which will be implemented through programs other than CERP, including the Critical Restoration Projects Authority, or which will be implemented with an appropriate lo cal sponsor under separate Design Agreements and Project Management Plans.

Outreach — Proactive communication and pr oductive involvement with the public to best meet the water re source needs of south Florida.

Oxygen Demand — The biological or chemical demand of dissolved oxygen in water. Required by biologic al processes for respiration.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-9 

## P

Performance Measure — A desired result stated in quantifiable terms to
allow for an assessment of how well th e desired result has been achieved.

Periphyton — The biological community of microscopic plants and animals attached to surfaces in aquatic environments, for example algae.

Phosphorus (P) — Element or nutrient required for energy production in living organisms. Distributed into the environment mostly as phosphates by agricultural runoff (fertilizer) and life cycles . Frequently the limiting factor for growth of microbes and plants.

Program— A group of related projects managed in a coordinated manner; programs usually include an element of on-going activity.

Program Management — A structure and set of strategies to be used during the implementation phase, which build upon the interagency partnership, implementation guidelines and successful strategies developed during the Restudy’s feasibility planning phase.

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS) — An environmental impact statement prepared prior to a Federal agency’s decision regarding a major program, plan or policy, which usually is broad in scope and followed by subsequently more narrowly focused National Environmental Policy Act compliance documents.

Programmatic Regulations — Section 601(h) of WRDA 2000 states that the overarching purpose of the Comprehensive Plan is the restoration, preservation and protection of the south Florida ec osystem while providing for the other water related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. The purpose of the regulations is to ensu re that the goals and objectives of CERP are achieved. The regulations will contain: (1) processes for the development of Project Implementation Reports, Project Cooperation Agreements and operating manuals that ensure the goals and ob jectives of the plan are achieved; (2) processes that ensure new scientific, technical, or other information such as that developed through adaptive ma nagement is integrated into the implementation of the plan; and (3) processes to establish interim goals to provide a means by which the restoration success of the plan may be evaluated throughout the implementation process.

Project — A sequence of tasks with a beginni ng and an end that uses time and resources to produce specific results. Each project has a specific, desiredSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-10 outcome, a deadline or target completion date and a budget that limits the
amount of resources that can be used to complete the project.

Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) — A document that describes the roles and responsibilities of the USACE an d SFWMD for real estate acquisition, construction, construction management and operations and maintenance.

Project Team — An interdisciplinary group formed from the resources of the implementing agencies, which develops the products necessary to deliver the project.

Project Duration — The time it takes to complete an entire project from starting the first task to finishing the last task.

Project Implementation Report (PIR) — A decision document that will bridge the gap between the conceptual design contained in the Comprehensive Plan and the detailed design necessary to proceed to construction.

Project Management — A discipline of combining systems, techniques and people to complete a project within estab lished goals of time, budget and quality.

Project Management Information System — A system used to chart activities and data and to track progress and information flow in a project.

Project Management Plan (PMP) — A document which establishes the project’s scope, schedule, costs, fundin g requirements and technical performance requirements, including the various functional area’s performance and quality criteria that will be used to produce and deliver the products that comprise the project.

Project Manager — A person who takes overall responsibility for coordinating a project to ensure the desired result comes in on time and within budget.

Project Phase — A collection of logically rela ted project activities, usually culminating in the completion of a major deliverable.

Proposed Action — Plan that a Federal agency intends to implement or undertake and which is the subject of an environmental analysis. Usually, but not always, the proposed action is th e agency's preferred alternative for a project. The proposed action and a ll reasonable alternatives are evaluated against the no action alternative.

Public Involvement — Process of obtaining citizen input into each stage of the development of planning documents. Re quired as a major input into any EIS.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-11 Public Outreach — A program-level activity with the objectives of keeping the public informed of the status of the ov erall program and key issues associated with restoration implementation and providing effective mechanisms for public participation in the restoration plan development.

Pump Station — A human constructed structure that uses pumps to transfer
water from one location to another.



## Q

Quality Assurance (QA) — The process of evaluating overall project performance on a regular basis to provide confidence that the project will satisfy the relevant quality standards.

Quality Control (QC) — The process of monitoring specific project results to determine if they comply with relevant quality standards, and identifying means of eliminating causes of unsatisfactory performance.



## R

Recharge — The processes of wate r filling the voids in an aquifer, which causes the piezometric head or water table to rise in elevation.

Reconnaissance Study — The first phase of a project. It has four phases (1) to define problem, (2) asses sponsor’s level of interest and support, (3) decide to progress to feasibility phase based on Fe deral interest, (4) estimate time and money to complete feasibility study.

Record of Decision — Concise, public, legal document which identifies and publicly and officially discloses the re sponsible official's decision on the alternative selected for implementation. It is prepared following completion of an Environmental Impact Statement.

Regional Water Supply Plan — Detailed water supply plan developed by the District under Ch. 373.0361, F.S.

Reservoir — Artificially impounded body of water.

Reservoir Storage Capacity — Reservoir capacity no rmally usable for storage and regulation of reservoir inflows to meet established reservoir operating requirements.

Flood Control Storage Capacity — Reservoir capacity reserved for the purpose of regulating flood inflows to reduce flood damage downstream.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-12 Restoration — The recovery of a natural syst em’s vitality and biological and hydrological integrity to the extent that the health and ecological functions are self-sustaining over time.

Restoration Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) — A programlevel activity whose role is to organize and apply scientific and technical information in ways that are most effect ive in supporting the objectives of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

Restudy — The Central and South Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study, authorized by the Water Resources Development Act of 1992, which examined the Central and Southern Project to determine the feasibility of modifying the project to restore the so uth Florida ecosystem and provide for other water-related needs of the region, and which resulted in The Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which was transmitted to Congress on July 1, 1999.

Risk Analysis — An evaluation of the feasibility or probability that the outcome of a project or policy will be the desired one; usually conducted to compare alternative scenarios, action plans or policies.



## 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.

Scrub — A community dominated by pinewood s with a thick understory of oaks and saw palmetto, and which occupies we ll-drained, nutrient-poor sandy soils.

Seepage — Water that escapes control throug h levees, canals or other holding
or conveyance systems.

Sheet Flow — Water movement as a broad front with shallow, uniform depth.

Slough — A depression associated with swamps and marshlands as part of a bayou, inlet or backwater; contains areas of slightly deeper water and a slow current; can be thought of as the broa d, shallow rivers of the Everglades.

South Florida Ecosystem — An area consisting of the lands and waters within the boundary of the South Florid a Water Management District, including the Everglades, the Florida Keys and the contiguous near-shore coastal waters
of South Florida.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-13 South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) — An integrated surface water groundwater model that si mulates the hydrology and associated water management schemes in the majority of south Florida using climatic data from January 1, 1965, through December 31, 1995. The model simulates the major components of the hydrologic cycle and the current and numerous proposed water management control struct ures and associated operating rules. It also simulates current and proposed water shortage policies for the different subregions in the system.

Spatial Extent — Area that is continuous without non-integrating internal barriers or land usage.

Spillway — Overflow structure of a dam.

Stakeholders — People or organizations having a personal or enterprise interest in the results of a project, who may or may not be involved in completing the actual work on that project.

Stormwater — Surface water resulting from rainfall that does not percolate into the ground or evaporate.

Success Indicator — A subset of performance me asures selected as a good representation of overall performance.

Surficial Aquifer — An aquifer that is closest to the surface and is unconfined; the water level of a surficial aquifer is typically associated with the groundwater
table of an area.

Sustainability — The state of having met the needs of the present without endangering the ability of future generations to be able to meet their own needs.

Swamp — A generally wet, wooded area wh ere standing water occurs for at least part of the year.



## T

Threatened species — Legal status afforded to plant or animal species that are likely to become endangered within th e foreseeable future throughout all or a significant portion of their range, as determined by the U.S. Fish and Wildlife
Service or the National Marine Fisheries Service.

Tiering — Procedure which allows an agency to avoid duplication of paperwork through incorporation by reference of the general discussions and relevantSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-14 specific discussions from an environmen tal impact statement (EIS) of broader scope into a subsequent EIS of narrower scope.

Trade-Off — Allowing one aspect of a projec t to change, usually for the worse, in return for another aspect of the project getting better.

Tributary — A stream feeding into a larg er stream, canal or waterbody.



## U

V

W

Water Budget — An account of all water inflows, outflows and change in storage for a pre-specified period of time.

Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) — Marshland areas that were designed for use as storage to prevent flooding, to irrigate agriculture and recharge well fields and as input for agricultural an d urban runoff; the Water Conservation Areas WCA-1, WCA-2A, WCA-2B, WCA-3A and WCA-3B comprise five surface water management basins in the Everglades; bounded by the Everglades Agricultural Area on the north and the Everglades National Park basin on the south, the WCAs are confined by levees and water control structures that regulate the inflows and outf lows to each one of them.

Watershed — A region or area bounded peri pherally by a water parting and draining ultimately to a particular watercourse or body of water.

Wetlands — Areas that are inundated or saturated by surface water or groundwater at a frequency and duration sufficient to support a prevalence of vegetative or aquatic life that requires saturated or seasonally saturated soil conditions for growth and reproduction.

Wet Season — Hydrologically, for south Florid a, the months associated with a higher than average incident of rainfall, June through October.

Wildlife Corridor — A relatively wide pathway used by animals to transverse
from one habitat arena to another.

Wildlife Habitat — An area that provides a water supply and vegetative
habitat for wildlife.Section 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-15 

## X

Y

Yellow Book — See “Restudy”



## ZSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-16 This page intentionally left blankSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-17 13.2 GLOSSARY OF ACRONYMS



## A
AAHTO American Association of Highway and Transportation
Officials ADaPT Automatic Data Processing Tool ADCP Acoustic Doppler Current Profiler AFB Alternative Formulation Briefing Ag Silver
Al Aluminum AM Adaptive management
Homestead ARB Homestead Air Reserve Base
As Arsebuc ASA(CW) Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works ASR Aquifer Storage and Recovery
ASTM American Society for Testing and Materials
ATV All Terrain Vehicle



## B
BBCW Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland BBCWP Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetland Preserve BBPI Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative
BEBR Bureau of Economic and Business Research BKH Burger King Headquarters BMP Best Management Practice BNP Biscayne National Park BODR Basis of Design Report bpf blows per foot



## C

CAR Coordination Act Report
C&SF Central and Southern Florida CBEEM Criterion-Based Ecological Evaluation Methodology CCV Continuing Calibration Verification CDOM Color Dissolved Organic Matter CE/ICA Cost-Effective/Incremental Cost Analysis CECW-AG US Army Corps of Engineer s, Civil Works, Policy Division CERCLA Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation, and Liability Act CERCLIS Comprehensive Environmental Response, Compensation and Liability Information System CERP Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan CFA Core Foraging Area CFR Code of Federal RegulationSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-18 cfs cubic feet per second
CGM CERP Guidance Memorandum
Cr Chromium CSSS Cape Sable seaside sparrow CSV Comma-Separated Values CVM Contingent Valuation Method CWCCIS Civil Works Construction Cost Index System
CWRB Civil Works Review Board



## D
DCM Design Criteria Memorandum DDD Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethane DDE Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethylene DDT Dichloro-Diphenyl-Trichloroethane DERM Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resource Management DOC Dissolved Organic Carbon DOI Department of Interior DQO Data Quality Objectives



## E
EB Equipment Blank EC Engineering Circular
ECC East Coast Canal
EDD Electronic Data Deliverables
EFH Essential Fish Habitat
EGM Economic Guidance Memorandum
EHZ Estuarine Habitat Zone EI Engineering Instructions EIS Environmental Impact Statement EM Engineering Manual EMB Everglades Mitigation Bank ENP Everglades National Park
E.O. Executive Order EPA Environmental Protection Agency EQ Environmental Quality ER Engineering Regulations ERDC Engineering Research and Development Center
ERP Environmental Resource Permit ERRA Everglades Restoration Resource Area ETL Engineering Technical LeadSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-19 

## F

F.A.C. Florida Administrative Code FCEB Field Cleaned Equipment Blank FDEP Florida Department of Environmental Protection FDOH Florida Department of Health FDOT Florida Department of Transportation

Fe Iron FIFRA Federal Insecticide, Fungicide and Rodenticide ACT FIU Florida International University FKNMS Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary FMP Fisheries Management Plan FONSI Finding of No Significant Impact FPL Florida Power and Light
F.S. Florida Statute FSQM Field Sampling Quality Manual
FWC Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FWCA Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act of 1958 FWO Future Without Project Conditions



## G

GM Guidance Memorandum GOMFMC Gulf of Mexico Fishery Management Council GPS Global Positioning System



## H
H&H Hydrology and Hydraulics
HAFB Homestead Air Force Base HCl Hydrochloric acid HDPE High Density Polyethylene HDS Horizontal Doppler System
HEP Habitat Evaluation Procedures HSI Habitat Suitability Index HTRW Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
HU Habitat Unit
HW Headwater



## I
IAR Incremental Adaptive Restoration IDC Interest During Construction IEEE Institute of Electrical & Electronics Engineers IESNA The Illuminating Engi neering Society of America IMC Interagency Model Center ITR Independent Technical ReviewSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-20 IWR Impaired Water Rule



## J

K
kg/L kilograms per liter ksi 1,000 psi (pounds per square inch) kVA kilo volt amperes



## L
LCS Laboratory Control Spike
LEC Lower East Coast LER Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way LERR Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Way, and Relocations LIMS Laboratory Information Management System
LOS Level of Service
LOSFP Level of Service for Flood Protection LPG Liquified Petroleum Gas



## M
M&I Municipal and Industrial MAP Monitoring and Assessment Plan MCACES Micro-Computer Aided Cost Engineering System
MCC Motor Control Center
MDL Method Detection Limit
MDS Multi-dimensional Sediments Mg Magnesium mg/L Milligrams per Liter MGD Million Gallons per Day MIS 1.0 Master Implementation Schedule MISP 1/0 Master Implemen tation Sequencing Plan 1.0 Mn Manganese
Modwaters Modified Water Deliveries MPMP Master Program Management Plan MPO Metropolitan Planning Organization
MS Microsoft
MWD Modified Water Deliveries



## N

NAI Next-Added Increment
NEC National Electrical Code non-ECP Non-Everglades Construction Project NELAP National Environmental Laboratory Accreditation ProgramSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-21 NED National Economic Development (Plan) NEPA National Environmental Policy Act NER National Ecosystem Restoration
NFPA National Fire Protection Association
NGVD National Geodetic Vertical Datum
Ni Nickel
NMFS National Marine Fisheries Service NOAA National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration NOX Nitrogen Oxide
NPDES National Pollutant Di scharge Elimination System NPL National Priority List
NPS National Park Service
NRCS Natural Resources Conservation Service NSRS Northeast Shark River Slough



## O

O&M Operations & Maintenance OFW Outstanding Florida Waters OMRR&R Operation, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Repair, and Replacement OPE Other Project Elements
OSE Other Social Effects
OWRN Other Water Related Needs



## P
PA Planning and Assessment P&S Plans and Specifications PAH poly-cyclic aromatic hydrocarbons PCA Project Cooperation Agreement
PCB1 Pre-CERP Baseline
PCCD Parallel Canal Collector Ditches PDF portable Document Format PDT Project Delivery Team
PEC Probable Effects Concentrations PED Planning, Engineering, and Design PEIS Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement PIR Project Implementation Report
PL Public Law
PM Performance Measure PMP Project Management Plan POM Project Operating Manual Ppt parts per thousand PSI Pounds per Square InchSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-22 

## Q
QA/QC Quality Assurance / Quality Control QASR Quality Assurance Systems Requirement QC Quality Control QM Quality Manual



## R

RCC Reinforced Cement Concrete RCRA Resource Conservation and Recovery Act RECOVER Restoration, Coordination, and Verification RED Regional Economic Development
REP Real Estate Plan RPM Revolutions per Minute Restudy Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study
ROD Record of Decision



## S
S&A Supervision & Administration
SAD South Atlantic Division SAFMC South Atlantic Fishery Management Council SAV Submerged Aquatic Vegetation SCADA Supervisory Control and Data Acquisition
SCC Station Control Center SCORP State Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan
SDA Stormwater Detention Area SDCS South Dade Conveyance System
SDW South Dade Wetlands SEEP2D 2 Dimensional Seepage Analysis
SFWMD South Florida Wate r Management District SFWMM South Florida Water Management Model
SHPO State Historic Preservation Officer SOP Standard Operating Procedure SPF Standard Project Flood
SPT Standard Penetration Test SQAG Sediment Quality Assessment Guidelines
STA Stormwater Treatment Area
STDA Stormwater Treatment and Detention Area SWIM Surface Water Improvement and Management



## T
TCE Trichloroethylene
TCM Travel Cost MethodSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-23 TDS Total Dissolved Solid
TEC Threshold Effects Concentrations TIA/EIA Telecommunications Industry Association/Electronic
Industries Association TKN Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen TMDL Total Maximum Daily Load TN Total Nitrogen TP Total Phosphorus TPC Total Project Cost (Fully Funded) TPCS Total Project Cost Summary TSDF Treatment, Storage, and Disposal Facilities TSP Tentatively Selected Plan



## U

U.S. United States UDB Urban Development Boundary UDV Unit Day Value UEA Urban Expansion Area UFGS Unified Facilities Guide Specifications UMAM Uniform Mitigation Assessment Method USACE United States Army Corps of Engineers USCOE United States Corps of Engineers USEPA U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service USGS U.S. Geological Survey
USNMFS U.S. National Marine Fisheries Service UST Underground Storage Tanks



## V
VE Value Engineering VEO Value Engineering Officer VDS Vertical Doppler System



## W
WASD Water and Sewer Department (Miami-Dade County)
WCA Water Conservation Area WQ Water Quality WQC Water Quality Certification
WPA Water Preserve Area WRDA Water Resources Development Act

WWR Wastewater Reuse
WWTP Wastewater Treatment PlantSection 13 Glossary

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

13-24 

## X

Y

YB Yellow Book



## Z

ZSI Zones of Similar InfluenceSection 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

## SECTION 14
REFERENCESSection 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 This page intentionally left blankSection 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-1 14.0 REFERENCES

Alleman, R.W., S.A. Bellmund, D.W. Black, S.E. Formati, C.A. Gove and L.K. Gulick. 1995. An update of the surfac e water improvement and management plan for Biscayne Bay. Technical Supporting Document and appendices. South Florida Water Management District, 3301 Gun Club Rd., West Palm Beach, Florida.

Biscayne National Park Visitor St udy, Report Summary. 2001. Website: http://www.psu.uidaho.edu/files/ vsp/summaries/125_BISC_sum.pdf

Brand, L.E. 1988, Assessment of Plankton Resources and their Environmental Interactions in Biscayne Bay, Florida; Final Report, Miami: Rosenstiel School of Marine and Atmospheric Science, University of Miami.

Brook, I.M. 1982. The effect of freshwater canal discharge on the stability of two seagrass benthic communities in Biscayne National Park. Eds. P. Lasserre and H. Postma. Oceanol. Acta., vol. 5, no. 4 suppl. pp. 63-72.

Bureau of Economic and Business Rese arch (BEBR), UF, Bureau of Economic and Business Research, Warrington College of Business. Florida Statistical Abstract 2004 38 (2004).

Carr, A.F. 1952. Handbook of Turtles. Th e Turtles of the United States, Canada, and Baja California. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 542 pp.

Cherkiss, M.S. 1999. Status and distri bution of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in southeastern Florid a. Master’s Thesis at University of Florida, 34 pp.

Chin-Fatt, J. and J. D. Wang. 1987. Cana l discharge impacts on Biscayne Bay salinities. United States Department of the Interior, National Park Service, Southeast region, Atlanta, GA. Research/Resources Management Report SER-89. December, 1987. 229 pp.

Craighead, F.C. 1968. The role of the alligator in shaping plant communities and maintaining wildlife in the southern Everglades. Florida Naturalist 41:2-7, 69-74, 94.

Curnutt, J.L. 1989. Breedin g bird use of a mature stand of Brazilian pepper.
Florida Field Naturalist 17:53-76.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-2 Dalrymple, G.H. 1988. The herptofauna of Long Pine Key, Everglades National Park, in relation to vegetation and hydrology. Pages 72-86 in Szaro, R.C., K.E. Severson, and D.R. Patton, editors. Management of Amphibians, Reptiles, and Small Mammals in North America, Proceedings of the Symposium, July 19-21, 1988, Flagsta ff, Arizona, USDA Forest Service General Technical Report RM-166.

Davis, J.H. 1943. The natural features of south Florida, especially the vegetation, and the Everglades. Florid a Geological Survey Bulletin No. 25.

De Sylva, D.P. 1976. Fishes of Biscay ne Bay, Florida. Pages 181-202 in A. Thorhaug and A. Volker, editors. Biscayne Bay: Past/Present/Future, University of Miami. Sea Gr ant Special Publication No.5.

Design Agreement Between The Department of the Army and South Florida Water Management District for the Desi gn of Elements of the Comprehensive Plan for the Everglades and South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Project (12 May 2000).

Dunbar, M.R. 1993. Florida panther biomedical investigation. Annual performance report, July1, 1992 to J une 30, 1993. Study no. 7506, Florida
Game and Fresh Water Fish Co mmission; Tallahassee, Florida.

Egler, F.E. 1952. Southeast saline Ever glades vegetation, Florida, and its management. Veg. Acta Geobo. 3:213-265.

Fennema, R.J., C.J. Neidrauer, R.A. Johnso n, T.K. MacVicar, and W.A. Perkins. 1994. A computer model to simulate na tural Everglades hydrology. In: Davis, S.M. and J.C. Ogden (eds). Everglades, the Ecosystem and its Restoration. St. Lucie Press; Delr ay Beach, Florida. pp. 249-289.

Fish, J.E. and M. Stewart. 1991. Hydrog eology of the surficial aquifer system, Dade County, Florida. USGS Water Reso urce Investigations Report 90-4108. 56 pp.

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (F WC). “Boating Access to the South Region Counties”, http://myfwc.com/boating/ access/ramps/so-ramps.html#180> (12 Feb. 2007).

Fuller, M.L. 1904. Contributions to the hy drology of the eastern United States. USGS Water Supply Paper No. 102.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-3 Gaiser, E.E., and M.S. Ross. 2003. Water flow through coastal wetlands. Annual Report to Everglades National Park CESI Contract 1443CA5280-01-019, 62 p.

Gilmore, R.G. 1987. Fish, macrocrustacean and avian population dynamics and cohabitation in tidally influenced impounded subtropical wetlands. Pages 373-394 in: Whitman, W.R. and W.H. Me redith (eds.), Proceedings of a Symposium on Waterfowl and Wetlands Management in the Coastal Zone of the Atlantic Flyway. Delaware Department of Natural Resources and Environmental Control, Dover, Delaware.

Gregg, W.H. 1902. When, Where and How to Catch Fish on the East Coast of Florida. The Mathews-Northrup Wo rks, Buffalo and New York, NY.

Halley, R.B. and C.C. Evans. 1983. The Miami limestone. A guide to slected outcrops and their interpretation. Miami Geological Society. Miami, FL. 67

pp.

Hazen and Sawyer, P.C. 2005. Biscayne Bay Economic Study: C-15869 Task 3 Economic Baseline and Trend Report. Draft Report submitted to the South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, FL.

Heald, E J., W.E. Odum, and D.C. Tabb. 1 984. Mangroves in the estuarine food chain. Pp. 149-156 In: P.J. Gleason (ed. ), Environments of South Florida, Present and Past II. Miami Geological So ciety, Coral Gables, Florida. 551 pp.

Irlandi, E., S. Macia and J.E. Serafy. 1997. Salinity reduction from freshwater canal discharge: Effects on morta lity and feeding of an urchin ( Lytechinus variegates ) and gastropod ( Astracea tecta ). Bulletin of Marine Science. 61:869-

879.

Ishman, Scott E., 1997, Ecosystem Hist ory of South Florida: Biscayne Bay Sediment Core Descriptions, USGS Open File Report 97-437, US Geological Survey, Reston, Virginia.

Jones, R.D., Boyer, J.N., Black, N., 1997, The South Florida Estuarine Water Quality Monitoring Network: 1997 Cummulative Report: Part 1 – Data Synthesis and Discussion, Southeast Environmental Research Center, Florida International University.

Kadlec, Robert H. and R.L. Knight, 1996, Treatment Wetlands, p 420, ISBN 0- 87371-930-1, CRC Press LLC, Boca Raton, Florida.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-4 Kenworthy, W.J., G.W. Thayer, and M. S. Fonseca. 1988. The utilization of seagrass meadows by fishery organism s. Pages 548-560 in D.D. Hook et al., editors. The ecology and management of wetlands, Vol. 1. Ecology of Wetlands. Timber Press, Portland, Oregon.

Kline, J.L., W.F. Loftus, and S.A. Pe rry. 2003. Rocky Glades fish assemblages and the influence of ISOP/IOP. Contribution to the IOP Congressional Report. National Park Service, Evergl ades National Park. October 6, 2003.

Kohout, F.A. and M.C. Kolipinski. 1967. Biological zonation related to groundwater discharge along the shore of Biscayne Bay, Miami, Florida. Estuaries, 83: 288-499.

Kushlan, J. and F. Mazzotti. 1989. Historic and present distribution of the
American crocodile in Florida. Jo urnal of Herpetology, 23(1): 1-7.

Laney, R.W. 1997. Relationship of Submerged Aquatic Vegetation (SAV) Ecological Value to Species Managed by the Atlantic States Marine Fisheries Commission (ASMFS): Summary for th e ASMFCSAV Subcommittee. Pages 11-33 in C.D. Stephan and T.E. Bigford, editors. Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ec ological Role, Anthropogenic Impact, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish Stocks. Atlantic Marine Fisheries Commission, Habitat Management Series No. 1.

Lawler, H.E. 1977. The status of Dryma rchon corais couperi (Holbrook), the eastern indigo snake, in the southeastern U.S.A. Herpetological Review 8(3):76-79.

Leach, S.D., H. Klein and E.R. Hampton . 1972. Hydrologic effects of water control and management of the southeastern Florida. USGS Report of Investigations No. 60.115 pp.

Lee, D.J and A. Bwenge. 2007. Estimating the benefits from restoring coastal ecosystems: A case study of Biscayne Bay, Florida. In Land Management Impacts on Coastal Watershed Hydrology, Progress in Water Resources Series, A. Fares and A.El-Kadi, eds., WIT Press, Ashurst. UK.

Lee, T.N. 1975. Circulation and exchange processes is southeast Florida’s coastal lagoons. Univers. Miami Tech . Report No. TR75-3. 71 pp.

Lewis, R.R. III, R.G. Gilmore, D.W. Cr ewz, and W.E. Odum. 1985. Mangrove habitat and fishery resources of Florida. Pages 281-336 in: Seaman, W., Jr. (ed.), Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fi shery Resources. Florida Chapter, American Fishery Society, Kissimmee, Florida, 543 pp.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-5 Lidz, Barbara H., 2002, Chemical Pollutants and Toxic Effects on Benthic Organisms, Biscayne Bay: A Pilot Study Preceding Florida Everglades Restoration, USGS Open File Report 02-308, US Geological Survey, St. Petersburg, Florida.

Loftus, W.F and A. Eklund. 1994. Long-t erm dynamics of an Everglades smallfish assemblage. In: Davis, S.M. an d J.C. Ogden (eds.). Everglades, The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press; Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 461-

483.

Lorenz, J.J. 1997. The effects of hydrology on resident fishes of the Everglades mangrove zone. Final Report to the South Florida Research Center, Everglades National Park, Homestea d, Florida, July 18, 1997, 193 pp.

Lorenz, J.J. 2000. Impacts of water mana gement on roseate spoonbills and their piscine prey in the coastal wetlands of Florida Bay. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral Gables, Florida.

Lorenz, J.J., J.C. Ogden, R.D. Bjork, an d G.V.N. Powell. 2002. Nesting pattern of roseate spoonbills in Florida Bay 1935-1999; implications of landscape scale anthropogenic impacts. In: Porter, J.W. and K.G. Porter (eds.). The Everglades, Florida Bay and coral reef s of the Florida Keys, an ecosystem sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 555-598.

Luo, J. and J. Serafy. 2002. Data qualit y control, time series analysis and statistical modeling of salinity and cana l discharges in Biscayne National Park. Biscayne National Par k, Homestead, Florida. 26 pp.

MacIntosh, D.J. 1980. Ecological compari sons of mangrove swamp and salt marsh fiddler crabs. Pages 243-257 in Proc eedings of the First International Wetlands Conference, New Delhi, India, September 10-17, 1980. International Association for Ecology and National Institute of Ecology.

Mazzotti, F.J. and L.A. Br andt. 1994. Ecology of the American alligator in a seasonally fluctuating environment. In : Davis, S.M. and J.C. Ogden (eds). Everglades, the Ecosystem and Its Rest oration. St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida. pp. 485-505.

Mazzoti, F.J., M.S. Cherkiss, G.S. Cook and E. McKercher. 2002. Status and conservation of the American crocodile in Florida: Recovering and endangered species while restoring an en dangered ecosystem. Final report to the National Park Service, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-6 Mazzotti, F.J. and M.S. Cherkiss. 1998. Stat us and distribution of the American crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) in Biscayne Bay. Final Report to South Florida Water Management District. West Palm Beach, FL.

Meeder, J.F.; Alvord, J; Byrns, M.; Ross , M.S.; Renshaw, A., 1997. Distribution of benthic nearshore communities and their relationship to groundwater nutrient loading: Final Report to Biscayne National Park, SERC, FIU, 41p.

Meeder, J.F.; Boyer J.N., 2001, Total ammoni a concentrations in soil, sediments, surface water, and groundwater along th e western shoreline of Biscayne Bay with the focus on Black Point and a Reference Mangrove Site, Final Report to Biscayne National Park, Southeast Research Center, Florida International University, Miami.

Metropolitan Dade County Board of County Commissioners. 1986. Environmental Resource Management Department and Metropolitan Dade County Planning Department. 1986. Biscayne Bay Aquatic Preserve Management Plan (draft, not adopted). Metropolitan Dade County, Miami, Florida, 348 pp.

Miami-Dade County Planning Departme nt. 1986. Draft Biscayne Bay aquatic preserve plan. Miami, Florida. 360 pp.

Mir-Gonzalez, Danielle, and Joseph Boyer, 2003, Macrophye Benthic Communities and Groundwater Nutrient Dy namics in Biscayne Bay, Florida,
Presentation at Joint Conference on the Science and Restoration of the Greater Everglades and Florida Bay Ecosystem, April 2003, Palm Harbor,
Florida.

Moler, P.E. 1985. Home range and season al activity of the eastern indigo snake Drymarchon corais couperi, in northern Florida. Final performance report, Study E-1-06, III-A-5. Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida.

Montegue, C.L. and J.A. Ley. 1993. A possi ble effect of salinity fluctuations on abundance of benthic vegetation and associated fauna in Northeastern Florida Bay. Estuaries. 16:707-717.

Mumby, P.J., A.J. Edwards, J.E. Arias-Gonzalez, K.C. Lindeman, P.G. Blackwell, A. Gall, M.I. Gorcynska, A.R. Harborne, C.L. Pescod, H. Renken, C.C.C. Wabnitz, and G. Ll ewellyn. 2004. Mangroves enhance the biomass of
coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Nature 427:533-536.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-7 Murley, J.F., Moure, E., 2001, Survey Team Final Reports, Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative.

Obenaur, T. 2003. Personal communication . Biologist with Biscayne National Park. Telephone communication with th e U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.

Odell, D.K. 1976. Distribution and abund ance of marine mammals in south Florida: preliminary results. Pages 203-212 in A. Thorhaug and A. Volker, editors. Biscayne Bay: Past/Present/Fut ure. University of Miami: Sea Grant Special Publication No. 5.

Odum, W.E. and E.J. Heald. 1972. Trophi c analyses of an estuarine mangrove community. Bulletin of Marine Science 22:671-768.

Odum, W.E., C.C. McIvor, and T.J. Smit h. 1982. The ecology of mangroves of south Florida: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washingt on, D.C. FWS/OBS-18/24. 144 pp.

Ogden, J.C. 1978. Status and nestin g biology of the American crocodile, Crocodylus acutus (Reptilia, Crocodylidae ) in Florida. Journal of Herpetology 12(2):183-196.

Ogden, J.C. 1994. A comparison of wading bird nesting colony dynamics (1931- 1946 and 1974-1989) as an indication of ec osystem conditions in the southern Everglades. In: Davis, S.M. and J. C. Ogden (eds.). Everglades, The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 533-

570.

Palm Beach County Ambient Monitoring Group. 2004.

PSI, Inc. 2008. Summary of Environmental Conditions for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project. Professional Service Industries, Tampa, FL, September 2, 2008.

Parker, G.G., G.E. Furgeson, S.K. Love and others. 1955. Water resources of southeast Florida. USGS Water Supply Paper 1255. 965 pp.

Personal Communication: Evans, Patricia, Planning Consultant, Division of Recreation and Parks, Department of Environmental Protection, 14 February

2007.

Personal Communication: Heinicke, Mark, Park Planner III, Miami-Dade County Parks and Recreation, 2 February 2007.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-8 Personal Communication: Krenz, Jerry, Everglades Recreation Program Manager, South Florida Water Management District, 6 July 2006.

Public Law (PL) 78–534. Flood Control Act of 1944

.

PL 89-72. The Federal Water Project Recreation Act of 1965

.

PL 99-662. Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1986

.

PL 104-303. Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

PL 106-541. Water Resources Development Act of 2000.

Redland Conservancy, South Dade Gr eenway Network Master Plan, MiamiDade County, Florida, 2004.

Ross, M.S, E.E. Gaiser, J.F. Meeder an d M.T. Lewin. 2002. Mu lti-taxon analysis of the “White Zone,” a common ecotonal feature of the South Florida coastal
wetlands. In: J.W. Porter and K.G. Po rter (Eds.), The Everglades, Florida Bay, and Coral Reefs of the Florida Keys: An Ecosystem Sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida, pp. 205-238.

Ross, M.S., J.F. Meeder, J.P. Sah, P. L. Ruiz, and G.J. Telesnicki. 2000. The Southeast Saline Everglades revisited: a half-century of coastal vegetation change. J.Vegetation Sci. 11:101-112.

Schomer, N.S., and R.D. Drew. 1982. An ecol ogical characterization of the Lower Everglades, Florida Bay, and the Fl orida Keys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Serv ices, Washington, D.C., FWS/OBS-82/58.1, 246p.

Seal, U.S., R.C. Lacey, and Workshop Participants. 1992. Genetic management strategies and population viability of th e Florida panther. Report to the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, by the Conservation Breeding Specialist Group, Species Survival Commission, IUCN; Apple Valley, Minnesota.

Serafy, JE, JS Ault P Ortner & R Cu rry. 2001. Coupling Biscayne Bay’s natural
resources and fisheries to environmen tal quality and freshwater inflow management. pp. 163-174, In: Biscayne Bay Partnership Initiative. Science Team Final reports. Miami, Florida.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-9 Serafy, JE, JS Ault, & ME Clarke. 1996. Red drum stock enhancement program: Biscayne Bay fishery-independent assessment. Final report on contract MR018 to the Florida Department of Environmental Protection. 98p with appendices.

Serafy, JE, KC Lindeman, TE Hopkins & JS Ault. 1997. Effects of canal discharge on fish assemblages in a subtropical bay: field and laboratory observations. Marine Ecology progress Series 160:161-172.

Shaler, N.S. 1890. The topography of Florida. Harvard College Mus. Comp. Zoology Bulletin. Vol. 16, No. 7. Site of a marine hatching and experiment station. Report of the Commissioner [ US Commission of Fish and Fisheries] for the year ending June 30, 1895. pp169-191.

Smith, HM 1896. Notes on Biscayne Ba y, Florida with reference to its adaptability as the site of a marine hatching and experiment station. Report of the Commissioner [US Commission of Fish and Fisheries] for the year ending June 30, 1895. pp169-191.

South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), Public Access Rule 40E-7, Florida Administrative Code, Tallahassee, FL (Feb 2007).

South Florida Water Management District and U.S. Army Corps of Engineers.
2004. Sea Level Rise Considerations for Formulation and Evaluation of CERP Projects. CERP Guidan ce Memorandum No. 16.

South Florida Water Management Distri ct. 2000. Lower East coast water supply plan. Water Supply Department. West Palm beach, FL.

South Florida Regional Planning Co uncil, Miami-Dade County and South Florida Water Management District. 2007. South Miami-Dade Watershed Study and Plan. Miami, FL.

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of
Recreation and Parks. Outdoor Recreation in Florida – 2000. Florida’s Statewide Comprehensive Outdoor Recreation Plan (SCORP) (www.miamidade.gov/mpo/doc s/MPO_sdgn_master_1994.pdf).

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Florida Circumnav igational Saltwater Paddling Trail, www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/paddling/Se gments/Segment%20Home.htm (2007).Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-10 State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of Recreation and Parks, Recreational Boating Access in Florida State Parks, Tallahassee, FL (Jan 2006).

Swakon, E.A. and J.D. Wang. 1977. Modeling of tide and wind-induced flow in south Biscayne Bay and Card Sound. Univ Miami Sea Grant Bull. No. 37.

Teas, H.J. 1974. Mangroves of Biscayne Bay, August 1974. Dade County report, Dade County Public Works Depar tment, Miami, Florida. 107 pp.

Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and J.W. Ke nworthy. 1997. Ecological value of seagrasses. Pages 5-10 In: C.D. Stephan and T.E. Bigford (eds.), Atlantic Coastal Submerged Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological Role, Anthropogenic Imact, State Regulation, and Value to Atlantic Coastal Fish
Stocks. Atlantic Marine Fisheries Co mmission, Habitat Management Series No. 1. 68 pp.

Thayer, G.W., W.J. Kenworthy, and M.S. Fonseca. 1984. The ecology of eelgrass
meadows of the Atlantic coast: A comm unity profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. USFWS/OBS-84/02. 148 pp.

Thorhaug, A. 1973, An ecological study of South Biscayne Bay and Card Sound, the Thalassia microcosm. Rep. Congr. atom. Energy Commn US [AT (40-1)- 4493].

Trexler, J.C., W.F. Loftus, F. Jordan, J. J. Lorenz, J.H. Chick, and R.M. Kobza. 2000. Empirical assessment of fish introd uctions in a subtropical wetland: an evaluation of contrasting views. Biological Invasions 2: 265-277.

Trust for Public Land, Get Your Feet Wet: The Public Access Plan for Biscayne Bay; Executive Summary, www.discoverbiscaynebay.com.Miami, FL.

Turner, A.M., J.C. Trexler, C.F. Jordan , S.J. Slack, P. Geddes, J.H. Chick, and W.F. Loftus. 1999. Targeting ecosystem features for conservation: Standing crops in the Florida Everglades. Conservation Biology 13(4): 898-911.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Economic Guidance Memorandum, 06-03, UnitDay Values for Recreation, Fiscal Year 2006. <ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/Economics/recreate/ egm_0603.pdf>

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Centra l and Southern Florida Study (Yellow Book) (1999).Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-11 U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South Atlantic Division (CESAD-PD-J), MultiPurpose Project Memorandum (15 Sep. 2004).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sout h Atlantic Division (CESAD-PDD-J), OMRR&R Memorandum, Atlanta, GA (29 Sep 2005).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Sout h Atlantic Division (CESAD-PDD-J), Recreation Authority Memorandum, Atlanta, GA (26 Jan 2007).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, Water Resources Policies and Authorities (CECW-A), Economic Guid ance Memorandum (EGM) 06-03, Unit Day Values for Recreation Fiscal Year 2006 (24 Oct. 2005).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Ecosystem Restoration - Supporting Policy Information Engineer Pamphlet (E P) No. 1165-2-502 (30 Sep. 1999).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Civil Works, Policy Division (CECW-AG), Policy Guidance Letter (PGL) No. 59, Recreation Development at Ecosystem Restoration Projects. Memorandum (11 June 1998).

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Pla nning Guidance Notebook, ER 1105-2-100 (APR 2000). Washington, D.C.

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Design of Recreation Areas and Facilities - Access and Circulation (DEC 1982), Washington, D.C.

USACE/SFWMD, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Master Recreation Plan, Public Involvement Summary Report, (Jan 2007).

USACE/SFWMD, Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, Programmatic Regulations, Six Program-Wide Guidance Memoranda #2, http://evergladesplan.org/pm/pm_docs/ prog_regulations/072707_prog_regs_re v_final_dft_gm.pdf (July 2007)

U.S. Census Bureau. “State and County Quick Facts.” 28 June 2006, <http://quickfacts.census.gov/qfd/states/12/12093.html> (2005).

U.S. Department of Commerce, Population Projections Program, Population Division. (NP-D1-A) Projections of the Re sident Population by Age, Sex, Race, and Hispanic Origin: 1999 to 2100 28 July 2006, <http://www.census.gov/population/pro jections/nation/detail/d2041_50.pdf> (13 Jan. 2000).Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-12 U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. 1994. Technical summary document for the advance identification of possible future disposal sites and areas generally unsuitable for disposal of dredged or fill material in wetlands adjacent to southwest Biscayne Bay, Dade County, Florida, 93 pp. plus appendices and maps.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service (Servi ce). 1999. South Florida Multi-species Recovery Plan. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Southeast Region; Atlanta, Georgia.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Bald Eagle (Haliaeetus leucocephalus). 1995. Website: http://species. fws.gov/bio_eagle.html.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 1999. Sout h Florida multi-species recovery plan. Atlanta, Georgia. 2172 pp.

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 2004. Wildlife Utilization in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project Area. Draft Pl anning Aid Report to the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers (Jacksonville Office).

University of Florida, Department of Wildlife Ecology and Conservation. Florida Cooperative Extension Service, Institut e of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 2001. Eastern Indigo Snake.

US Geological Survey, Synergos Technolo gies Inc., and EPA-Air Quality Trends. 2001. Website: http://www.ers ys.com/usa/12/1245000/air.htm

Van Lent, T.A., R.A. Johnson, and R.J. Fennema. 1993. Water management in Taylor Slough and effects on Florida Bay. Technical Report 93-3, South Florida Natural Resources Center, Ever glades National Park, Homestead,
Florida.

VanZee, R. 1999. Natural System Mode l Version 4.5 Documentation Report. Draft report, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach,
Florida.

Wang, JD, SV Cofer-Shabica, & J Chin-Fa tt. 1988. Finite element characteristic advection model. Journal of Hy draulic Engineering. 114:1098-1114.

Weisberg, S.B. and V.A. Lotr ich. 1982. The importance of an infrequently flooded intertidal marsh surface as an energy source for the mummichog ( Fundulus
heteroclitus ): an experimental approach. Marine Biology 66:307-310.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-13 Wingard,G. L, T.C. Cronin, G.S. Dwyer, S.E. Ishman, D.A. Willard, C.W. Holmes, C.E. Bernhardt, C.P. Williams, M.E. Maro t, J.B. Murray, R.G. Stamm, J.H. Murray and C. Budet. 2003. Ecosystem history of Southern and Central Biscayne Bay: Summary report on sediment core analyses. Open File Report 03-375. U.S. Department of Inte rior, U.S. Geological Survey, Reston,
VA.

Zieman, J.C. 1982. The ecology of seagrasses of south Florida: a community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-82/25.Section 14 References

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrat ed PIR and EIS March 2010

14-14 This page intentionally blankSouth Florida Water Management District