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 DISTRICT
This 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 Implementation 

• 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 IMPLEMENTATION REPORT

AND 

ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

 

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

March 2010
This 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 project. Other agencies participating in the 

development of this Environmental Impact Statement include the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the Florida Department of 

Environmental Protection, the National Park Service, the Miami-Dade Department of Environmental Resources 

Management, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. The US Environmental Protection Agency, 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, and 

the National Oceanographic and the Atmospheric Administration / National Marine Fisheries Service 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 Coastal Wetlands project, in accordance with the 

requirements of Section 601(d) of the Water Resources Development Act of 2000 (WRDA 2000) and recommends 

authorization of this project. This project addresses the need to restore the ecosystem function in southeastern Florida by 

rehydrating coastal wetlands and reducing point source freshwater discharges into Biscayne Bay by replacing lost overland 

flow and partially compensating for the reduction in groundwater seepage by redistributing, through a spreader system, 

available surface water entering the area from regional canals. The proposed redistribution of freshwater flow across a 

broad front is also expected to help restore saltwater wetlands and nearshore bay habitat. 

The purpose of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is to contribute to the restoration of Biscayne Bay and adjacent 

wetlands as part of a comprehensive plan for restoring the south Florida ecosystem. The project intends to redistribute 

freshwater runoff from the watershed away from the existing canal discharges and into the coastal wetlands adjoining 

Biscayne Bay to provide a more natural and historic overland flow through existing coastal wetlands. This project will also 

help restore saltwater wetlands and the nearshore bay through the re-establishment of optimal salinity concentrations for fish 

and shellfish nursery habitat. 

This Draft Project Implementation Report and Environmental Impact Statement describes 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 Environmental Impact Statement within the Draft Project Implementation 

Report. An asterisk in the Table of Contents notes sections required for compliance with the National Environmental Policy 

Act. 
Abstract 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

ii 

This page intentionally left blank 
Executive Summary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

iii 

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT 

COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES 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 partner, the South Florida Water Management 

District (SFWMD), has prepared a Draft 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 guidelines of which are: 1) specify problems 

and opportunities, 2) inventory and forecast 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 wetlands and reducing damaging point 

source freshwater discharge to Biscayne Bay, the Tentatively Selected Plan is 

integral to the health of the south Florida 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 project’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 discharge, the Tentatively Selected Plan will 

help restore freshwater and saltwater 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 be 
Executive 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 the 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 Biscayne 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 variety of management measures (pump 

stations, spreader swales, stormwater treatment areas, flow ways, levees and 

culverts, and backfill canals). The project 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 indirectly 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 miles) since 1940, and the 

zone is expanding in areas cut off from freshwater 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 intricately linked to regional hydrology. The 

current status of fish and wildlife has been strongly influenced by the 

cumulative effects of drainage activities in the early 20th Century, the Central 

and Southern Florida (C&SF) project, and the ensuing agricultural and urban 

development made possible by those activities. 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 of the remaining 

wetlands east of the protective levees has further reduced their populations. 

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 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 Coastal Wetlands project is composed of a 

variety of privately-owned, local, state, and Federal lands. Privately-owned 

natural lands in south Florida have become 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 industrial 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 surfaces 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 within the study area has the potential to 

decrease considerably in the absence of project 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, pesticides, 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 mosquito 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, snails), 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 like 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 Team (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 the 
Executive Summary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

vi 

plans met the planning objectives, performance 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 without-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, approximately 14 miles of spreader canals, 

approximately seven miles of conveyance 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 attempt 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 nearshore 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 spreader 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 plugging 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 one 
Executive Summary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

vii 

mile of conveyance canals, and plugging 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 footprint 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 restoration of the Biscayne Bay nearshore and 

saltwater wetlands. 

After the Tentatively Selected Plan was identified, a Next-Added Increment 

(NAI) analysis was performed. The NAI 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 assumed to exist. The results of the NAI 

analysis showed that as a stand-alone project, the Biscayne Bay Coastal 

Wetlands Tentatively Selected Plan nearly 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” under NEPA guidelines. 

The Tentatively Selected Plan encompasses 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 approximately 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 include a pump station, a conveyance 

canal, a spreader canal, culverts and mosquito 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 97th Avenue, SW 87th Avenue (L-31E Levee), and across 

the L-31E 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. 

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 Levee 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 directly 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 PHASE 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 will be an advantage to the ecosystem that will, in turn, 

help restore freshwater and saltwater 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 discharges 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 reduce peak total phosphorus loading to 

the bay by approximately 50 percent over the future without-project condition. 

On the approximately 473.61 acres of freshwater wetlands acquired for this 

project, the Tentatively Selected Plan (Alternative O Phase 1) will provide a 

total of approximately 470 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 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 acres meeting the desired salinity target. 

The saltwater wetland acreage where the salinity is expected to improve is 

located within the approximately 3,287.59 acres 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 
Executive Summary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

xi 

meets the requirements for estuarine species which should benefit from this 

project. Out of a total possible nearshore acreage of 3,462 acres, 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 the 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 methodology that is logical and scientifically 

sound. The estimation of project benefits 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 into 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 project. 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 over 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 Regulations 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 coastal 
Executive Summary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

xii 

control structures will not be affected by the 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, entitled “Project-Specific Assurances”, and 

Section 385.35(b) of the Programmatic Regulations 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 allocated 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 combined C-100, C-1, C-102, and C-103 basins 

ranges from 113,619 acre-feet per year (10th percentile) to 282,982 acre-feet per 

year (90th percentile) based on historical records. The State of Florida will use 

its water reservation or allocation authority 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 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 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 best 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 construction 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 estimated 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 initial 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 estimated at $190,729,000; which is composed of 

the total initial (first) costs plus interest 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 of 

the Tentatively Selected Plan between the Federal Government and the nonFederal sponsor. Operations and maintenance (O&M) costs will be cost-shared 

50/50 in accordance with the O&M cost-sharing 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 COASTAL 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 $11,860,000 
Executive Summary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

xvi 

TABLE ES-3: COST APPORTIONMENT OF THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED 

PLAN 

(OCTOBER 2009 PRICE LEVELS) 

Item 

Federal Cost Non-Federal 

Cost Total 

Ecosystem Restoration (ER) 

 PED1 $ 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 Restoration2 $ 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 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 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. [Estimated as 480 acres of freshwater 

wetland rehydration, 1,575 acres of saltwater 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 Florida’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 Interim 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 testing and monitoring of the project. 

STAKEHOLDER PERSPECTIVES 

Initial public and agency comments received 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 restoration goals in Biscayne Bay. It was 

recommended that the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project should include 

features that help address these issues either directly, by capturing and 

supplying additional water for Biscayne Bay, or indirectly, by designing the 

project to accommodate additional deliveries 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 to 
Executive 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, which is an important consideration for 

hydration during the dry season. 

Additional concerns raised include the need 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 the 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 Wetlands 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 expected 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/environmental/operatingprinciples.asp), 

particularly with respect to the south 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. 

The Tentatively Selected Plan incorporates monitoring, and the CERP has an 

adaptive assessment and management program in place to ensure that projects, 

including the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 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 team consisting of technical staff from 

USACE outside of the Jacksonville District. Significant comments will be 
Executive 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 addressed and documented in the Final PIR. 

UNRESOLVED ISSUES 

The Tentatively Selected Plan is a significant 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 blank 
Table of Contents 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

xxi 

TABLE OF CONTENTS 

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

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

TABLE 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 Monitoring 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 Expedited 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 ........................................................................... 3-47 
Table 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, Performance 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 Final 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 ........................................................................... 6-24 
Table 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 Guidelines 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 SELECTED PLAN ................................................................ 7-1 

7.1 Description of Plan 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 ......................................... 7-17 
Table 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 Engineering 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 and 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 Interim 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 Engineering 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 for 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 Supply for Existing Legal Sources and 

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

8.3.2 Identification of Water Made Available for the Natural System and Water 

for Other Water-Related Needs ........................................................................ 8-5 

8.4 Project Monitoring Plan ....................................................................................... 8-6 

8.5 Subsequent Project Implementation Report ......................................................... 8-7 

8.6 Compliance with Environmental Laws, Statutes and Executive Orders ............. 8-7 

8.7 Compliance with Florida Statutes ...................................................................... 8-15 
Table 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 Water 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 Coordination Act of 1958 ....................................................... 9-3 

9.8 Migratory Bird Treaty Act and Migratory Bird Conservation Act ...................... 9-4 

9.9 Endangered Species Act of 1973 ......................................................................... 9-4 

9.10 Magnuson-Stevens Fishery Conservation 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 Preservation 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 ENGINEER’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 .......................................................................................................... 14-1 
Table 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 The Tentatively Selected Plan .................................... xvi

Table 3-1 Summary of Florida 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 Delivered io Biscayne Bay From Five South 

Miami-Dade Canals ........................................................................................ 3-26 

Table 3-4 Threatened, Endangered and Species of Special Concern; Plants and 

Animals Likely to be Affected by The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 

Project ............................................................................................................. 3-40 

Table 3-5 Comparison of Florida 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 Population 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 Planning 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 Objectives 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 Measures – Alternative Yb ........................................................ 5-23 

Table 5-5 Summary of Measures – Alternative E ........................................................... 5-25 

Table 5-6 Summary of Measures – Alternative J ............................................................ 5-27 

Table 5-7 Summary of Measures – Alternative M .......................................................... 5-29 

Table 5-8 Summary of Measures – Alternative Q .......................................................... 5-30 

Table 5-9 Summary of Measures – Alternative O .......................................................... 5-32 

Table 5-10 Summary of Measures–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 Rehydration Lift (Submetric A.1) for Each 

Alternative Calculated Using .......................................................................... 6-47 

Table 6-5 Saltwater Wetland Habitat Lift Summary ....................................................... 6-50 
Table 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 for Three Representative Years ......... 6-51 

Table 6-7 Nearshore Habitat Lift Summary .................................................................... 6-54 

Table 6-8 Nearshore Salinity Lift Estimated for Average Wet and Dry Season 

Hydrologic Conditions and Dry Season 10% Exceedance Flows .................. 6-55 

Table 6-9 Relationship Between Project Benefits and Water Availability ..................... 6-60 

Table 6-10 Salinity Response for Alternative O, Phase 1 ................................................. 6-61 

Table 6-11 Initial Cost of Construction, Real Estate and O&M ....................................... 6-70 

Table 6-12 Typical Ecological Response Time ................................................................ 6-72 

Table 6-13 Planning Level Construction and Investment Cost of Alternative Plans ........ 6-75 

Table 6-14 Costs and Outputs Used in CE/ICA ................................................................ 6-77 

Table 6-15 Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing 

Output for Each Output Category–Combined Habitat Units .......................... 6-77 

Table 6-16 Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: All Plans Arrayed by Increasing 

Output for Each Output Category– ................................................................. 6-79 

Table 6-17 Results of Cost Effectiveness Analysis: 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 Analysis: 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 Analysis: Cost Effective and Best Buy Plans 

Arrayed by Increasing Output for Combined Ecological Zone Habitat 

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

Table 6-20 Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Cost Effective and Best Buy Plans 

Arrayed by Increasing Output for Freshwater Habitat ................................... 6-84 

Table 6-21 Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: Cost Effective and Best Buy Plans 

Arrayed by Increasing Output for Saltwater Ecological Zone ........................ 6-85 

Table 6-22 Results of Incremental Cost Analysis: 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 Alternative O Phase 1 Structures ................................................. 7-4 

Table 7-2 Summary of Recreation 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 Functional 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 Compliance and Coordination.................................................. 8-7 
Table of Contents 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

xxviii 

List of Figures 

Figure ES-1 Alternative O Phase 1 (Tentatively 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 Coastal 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 East Coast of Florida ........................................................ 3-9 

Figure 3-5 Monthly Exceedance Frequency Flows for C-100 Basin ............................... 3-10 

Figure 3-6 Monthly Exceedance Frequency Flows for C-1 Basin ................................... 3-11 

Figure 3-7 Monthly Exceedance Frequency Flows for C-102 Basin ............................... 3-12 

Figure 3-8 Monthly Exceedance Frequency 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 Biscayne 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-Likely Population Scenario Municipal and 

Industrial Conservation-Adjusted Forecast, by Water Use Sector ................. 4-20 

Figure 4-4 Miami-Dade County Urban Development Boundary ..................................... 4-22 

Figure 5-1 Alternative D13R (Yellow Book) – 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 Wetlands Conceptual Project Area ............................... 5-9 

Figure 5-4 Alternative Yellow Book ................................................................................ 5-22 

Figure 5-5 Final Array of Alternatives – Alternative Yellow Book ................................. 5-36 

Figure 5-6 Final Array of Alternatives – Alternative M ................................................... 5-37 

Figure 5-7 Final Array of Alternatives – Alternative O ................................................... 5-38 

Figure 5-8 Final Array of Alternatives – Alternative Q ................................................... 5-39 

Figure 5-9 Final Array of Alternatives – Alternative O, Phase 1 ..................................... 5-40 

Figure 6-1 Exceedance Probability of Total 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 Available and Diverted Flows in The C-1 

Basin ............................................................................................................... 6-12 
Table 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 Projected 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 Flow Way Project Features ............................................... 7-8 

Figure 7-5 Southern L-31 East Flow 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 South - Alternative O 

Phase I ............................................................................................................ 7-26 

Figure 7-9 Habitat Benefit Zones – Homestead North – Alternative O Phase I .............. 7-27 

Figure 7-10 Habitat Benefit Zones - Homestead 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 Coordination 
Table 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

INTRODUCTION 
Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 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, protection and preservation of the water resources of central and 

south Florida. The purpose 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. The 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-Federal 

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) COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN.– 

(1) APPROVAL.– 

(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 protection. 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 the 
Section 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) AUTHORIZATION OF FUTURE PROJECTS – 

(1) IN GENERAL.–Except for a project authorized by subsection (b) or (c), 

any project included in the Plan shall require a specific authorization 

by Congress.

(2) SUBMISSION OF REPORT–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 developing 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 MiamiDade 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 Park (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 (FPL’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-103, 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 Canal 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 MAP
Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-5 

1.4 STUDY AREA DESCRIPTION

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 south 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 

seagrasses 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, crabs, 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 

diffuse 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. These 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 contributing 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 Biscayne 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 commercially 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-Federal 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 Service (FWS), 

National Park Service (NPS), National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration 

(NOAA) Fisheries, and U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (EPA). 

Additional information on public involvement in the study is included in 

Section 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 TO OTHER USACE/NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR 

EFFORTS, STUDIES, DOCUMENTS 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 MiamiDade County. The intent of 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 addresses water quality 

issues associated with discharging reclaimed water into the Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Wetlands Alternative O Phase 1 project. It also determines the level of 

superior treatment and the appropriate methodologies for that treatment. 

1.6.3 Stormwater Detention and Treatment Area Project 

A pilot 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 pulse 

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-Dade 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 projects 
Section 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 MEMORANDA 

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

establishment of additional procedures to achieve the goals and purposes of the 

Plan. The GMs 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 would be achieved. The GMs 

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 of 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 function 

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 measured 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 is very 

important to be able to measure and detect ecological and water quality changes 

resulting from project specific activities. Therefore, in order to detect projectspecific changes, additional parameters and sampling sites will be required and 

are addressed 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 entirety 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 is 
Section 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 MiamiDade 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) further 

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 Yellow 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, 

STAs, 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 plant, 

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 PLAN
Section 1 Introduction

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

1-11

1.9 COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN MASTER 

IMPLEMENTATION SEQUENCING PLAN

The sequencing plan for the implementation 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 CERP 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 their 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 Federal 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 Congress before becoming a part of 

the Federal CERP. The SFWMD is the state agency responsible for water 

resources management in south Florida and acts as the non-Federal sponsor for 

Federal 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 2011. 

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 124.75
Section 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 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 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 

Supplemental 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 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES
Section 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-1 

2.0 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

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 achieve; 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 success of each of the alternatives 

will be measured.

2.1 ECOSYSTEM PROBLEMS

Today, freshwater flows to Biscayne Bay through canals produce periods of 

abnormally high salinity (>40 practical salinity units [psu] at times) alternating 

with low salinity 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; Kohout 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 

abundant (Smith, 1896), but this species, which requires stable mesohaline 

(5–25 psu) 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 low 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). Pulsed point-discharge releases cause large and 

rapid shifts in salinity as water masses move into Biscayne 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 numbers 

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 unfavorable 
Section 2 Identification of Problems and Opportunities

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

2-2 

conditions for these organisms. Paleoecological studies from nearshore sites in

central and southern Biscayne Bay indicate that salinity levels have 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 large 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, salinity 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 habitats 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., 1997). 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 

(Davis, 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 spoonbills, wood storks, and white ibis, whose south 

Florida breeding populations have declined substantially in the past 60 years 

(Ogden, 1994). The low functional values of these wetlands have made them a 

target for conversion to other 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, water 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 creating 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. Loss 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. Redistribution 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 along the 

shoreline areas of Biscayne Bay by stabilizing 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 proposed 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. Tourism is a vital 

component of south Florida’s economy, employing more than 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 suppliers

• 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 expenditure 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 restoration 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 redistribute freshwater flows to 

Biscayne Bay.

2. Improve storage of freshwater 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 objectives are the purposes of a study. They are what we are trying to 

achieve and give direction to the management measures and alternatives. 

Objectives were developed by integrating the problem statements with the 

CERP programmatic goals that include increasing the spatial extent of natural 

areas, improving habitat function and quality, and improving native plant and 
Section 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. Restore 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 

constraints 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]).

• Minimizing impacts to cultural, historical and archaeological resources. 

• Minimizing adverse socioeconomic impacts on the local and regional

economies. 

• 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. 

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 ENVIRONMENT
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 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, and it contains a number of islands. In contrast 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 portion 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 south from Broward County to Rickenbacker Causeway. Major 

tributaries to North Bay include Arch Creek, the Biscayne Canal, Little River 

and Miami River. Tidal exchange with the Atlantic Ocean occurs at Bakers 

Haulover Cut, Government Cut and Norris Cut. 

Central 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. The 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 

management 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 ENP, west of U.S. 

Highway 1, north of SW 424th Street and south of State Road 9336, with the 

exception of active agricultural land. The eastern portion includes the wetlands 

south of SW 344th 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 acquisition 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 MAP
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-4 

FIGURE 3-2: BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL WETLANDS PROJECT AREA MAP
Section 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, droughts 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 

twentieth century and provided the main motivation for the creation of the 

Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project 50 years ago. It continues to drive 

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 

temperate 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 contributions 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 

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

Additional hydrologic and climatic information for the Biscayne Bay vicinity can 

be obtained from the SFWMD’s corporate environmental database, DBHYDRO. 

The database stores hydrological, meteorological, hydrogeological, 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 the 
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-6 

following formations: 1) Lake Flint Marl; 2) Miami Oolite; 3) Anastasia 

Formation; 4) Key Largo Limestone; 5) Fort Thompson Formation; and 6) 

Caloosahatchee Marl (relatively 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 which 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 differed 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 

This section provides an overall characterization of the current conditions and 

those that existed in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area and 

adjacent south Florida area prior to the C&SF project 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 the 

northern portion of the study area in the vicinity of the Deering Estates. The C1 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 C102 canal runs from 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 Biscayne 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 Aquifer system ranges from a depth of about 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 of 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 Aquifer; 3) reducing or eliminating seasonal westward 

movement of groundwater; 4) causing accelerated stormwater runoff and short 

groundwater flow paths; and 5) lowering the water table and inducing saltwater 

intrusion (FIGURE 3-3). Under pre-development conditions in western MiamiDade County, water entered the gray limestone aquifer by lateral movement 

from Broward and Collier counties 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 Surficial Aquifer System 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 Areas (WCAs) 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 

seasonal 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 Surficial Aquifer System 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 that circulates 

within the Surficial Aquifer System is discharged by canals (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 

from 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 maintain minimum levels of service for flood control and water supply 

protection. In addition, a coastal levee system (L-31 East) 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 seepage 
Section 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 Biscayne 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 the 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 structure. 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 (90th percentile 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

MONTH

ACRE-FT/MONTH

10 Percentile Flow

50 Percentile Flow

90 Percentile Flow

FIGURE 3-5: MONTHLY EXCEEDANCE FREQUENCY FLOWS FOR C-100 

BASIN
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-11

The exceedance frequency of flow through 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 (10th 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 (50th

percentile), the minimum monthly flow is approximately 1,000 acre-ft which 

occurs in the month of March. Under high flow conditions (90th percentile) the 

monthly flow varies 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

MONTH

ACRE-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 ten year drought (10th 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 that expected under median flow conditions (50th

percentile). Under median flow conditions (50th percentile), the minimum 

monthly flow is approximately 1,000 acre-ft which occurs in the month of April. 

Under high flow conditions (90th 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

MONTH

ACRE-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 (10th 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 (50th percentile). Under median flow 

conditions (50th percentile), the minimum monthly flow is approximately 2,000 

acre-ft which occurs in the months of April and May. Under high flow conditions 

(90th percentile) the monthly flow varies from 5,000 acre-ft in March to 

approximately 40,000 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

MONTH

ACRE-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 significantly 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 of 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 direction 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 and 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 inflow 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 Point
Section 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, sea-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 been 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 7.13.2.3 of 

Section 7, The Tentatively 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 water table commonly 

slopes eastward toward the coast, although in the Everglades it slopes 

southward. The construction 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 salinity 

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 coastal 
Section 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

canals, 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. 

Additional 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 1999, 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: DBHYDRO 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 approximately 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 

municipal and industrial (M&I) water supply and agricultural irrigation along 

the southeast coast.

The existing network 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 coastal 
Section 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 canals 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 tide. The drainage canals 

affect water quality by collecting runoff from urban and agricultural activities 
Section 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 to 

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 designation 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 discharge 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, 

experience 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 

FDEP Impaired Water Rule (IWR) analysis for the southeast coast of Florida did 

not identify any impaired water bodies within the Biscayne Bay Coastal 

Wetlands 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 watershed 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) dataset, 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, are 
Section 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 conditions starting at the 

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

conditions. 

TABLE 3-1 provides a summary of the mean and median values of the 

parameters of interest for both the FIU and DERM datasets. This table includes

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 

Biscayne 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 includes 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 INTERNATIONAL UNIVERSITY 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 invertebrates. 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 season 

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 BAY
Section 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 2008 IN 

SOUTH CENTRAL BISCAYNE BAY
Section 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 South Miami-Dade canals is strongly influenced by the 

predominant land-use which in the north is urban and in the south is 

agriculture. In TABLE 3-2, average pollutant concentrations were calculated 

using DERM data from one sampling location (for each canal) located upstream 

of the tidal 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: SOUTH MIAMI-DADE CANAL WATER QUALITY AT SELECTED 

MIAMI-DADE COUNTY DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL RESOURCES 

MANAGEMENT SAMPLING LOCATIONS 

(Upstream 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

Total Kjehldahl Nitrogen 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/L
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-26

TABLE 3-3: ESTIMATED 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 Total Nitrogen 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. Sediment cores 

collected in Barnes Sound at 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 composition 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.

Concentrations of 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 concentrations 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 of 
Section 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 postulates 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 

development, 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 

aquatic vegetation (SAV) (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). 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 

will 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 COVERAGE OF THE BISCAYNE BAY COASTAL 

WETLANDS PROJECT AREA BETWEEN SHOAL AND TURKEY POINTS
Section 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 northern 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 and 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 have 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 majority of 

commercial and recreational fish species spends at least some portion of their 

life history using seagrass beds or relies on their products (Laney, 1997). Other 

commercial fishery species, such as stone crab (Menippe mercenaria), shrimp 

and lobster species depend on seagrass 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 Forests 

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 atlanticus), 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 fish, 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 

physical support for an extremely 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 lowproductivity 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 miles) 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 or 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 Saline 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 emergent 
Section 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 

species 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 species 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, various 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. These 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 variety 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), which 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 project 

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 and 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). Australian 

pine provide some roosting and nesting habitat for birds, such as the great blue 

heron (Ardea herodias), brown pelican (Pelecanus occidentalis), and doublecrested cormorants (Phalacrocorax auritus). Pileated woodpeckers (Dryocopus 

pileatus) have been observed nesting 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 of 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 seedlings 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 increase 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 freshwater 
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-33

prairie, which was the highest 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 compared 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 sometimes co-occur with the Brazilian pepper. 

3.1.7.6 Other Non-Native 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 species 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 project, 

and the ensuing agricultural and urban development made possible by those 

activities. A major emphasis 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 those faunal 

groups that appear to have declined as a result of hydrologic changes caused by 

the C&SF project and that are expected to benefit from the CERP. The major 

linkages between hydrologic alterations and fauna that are addressed by the 

CERP and emphasized 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 Everglades 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 form 
Section 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 factors 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 

associated 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 (they 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 endangered 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 

found predominately in the Model Lands Basin portion of the project area. 

Suitable habitat exists in the Model Lands for the Florida panther, and although 
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-35

no panthers 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-sized. 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 carolinensis).

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 swell 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 (Casmerodius albus), Brown Pelican, Doublecrested 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 potentially 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 species 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 State 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 

abundant and problematic of these non-native reptiles in the project area. The 

American alligator (Alligator mississippiensis) and endangered American 

crocodile (Crocodylus acutus) 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 

Bay area are the green sea turtle (Chelonia mydas) and loggerhead sea turtle 

(Caretta caretta). These two species are the most common of the sea turtles 

inhabiting south Florida. The seagrasses and algae that are abundant along the 

shoreline of the project area represent suitable foraging habitat for the green sea 

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 waters of the project area. A third 

species of sea turtle, the hawksbill 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 (Carr, 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) indicates 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 these 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 goldfish [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 separates 

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 likely 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 summer 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 “abundant at all seasons” during the late 19th

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 failed 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 southern 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 snook, 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 Species

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), Eastern Indigo snake (Drymarchon corais 

couperi), and the Schaus swallowtail butterfly (Heraclides areistodemus 

ponceanus). Other Federally threatened or endangered animal species that are 

known to exist or potentially exist in Miami-Dade County, 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, Everglades snail kite 

(Rostrhamus sociablis plumbeus), Cape Sable seaside sparrow (CSSS) 

(Ammodramus maritimus), and roseate tern (Sterna dougallii dougalii). Five 

Federally 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 loggerhead 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 rocklands (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 starts 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 sounds 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 habitat 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 (Eumops glaucinus floridanus). 

Threatened 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 include 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: THREATENED, 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 Federal
Section 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 Federally 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 relation 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 manatees. 

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-102 
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-42

(Princeton Canal), Military 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 mortality 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, Panther #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 have been two additional panther road kills on Card Sound Road in the 

Model Lands. This underscores the fact that these portions of the project area 

remain suitable panther 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, the 

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 miles) zone surrounding the colony boundary. 

The two colonies affected by the Biscayne Bay Coastal 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 Federal 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 Eagle
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-43

Until recently, the nearest bald eagle 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 bald eagle nesting and foraging within the project area. Another known nest 

is located 13 miles northeast of the Deering Estate Flow Way subcomponent. 

Crocodiles are known to exist throughout the project area at densities ranging 

up to three crocodiles per 0.6 mile (Mazzotti and Cherkiss, 1998). 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 Bay Coastal 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 canal 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, habitat 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 relatively 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) eastwest 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 snakes are known to occur in the project area, and are regularly 

sighted along some of the levees, particularly the L-31E Levee (Dr. J.F. Meeder, 

FIU, personal communication. 2003). Eastern Indigo snakes 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 Indigo snakes 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 

Indigo 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 

Essential Fish Habitat (EFH). Federal agencies that fund, permit or carry out 

activities that may adversely impact EFH are required to consult with the 

National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) regarding the potential effects of 

their actions on EFH. In conformance with the 1996 amendment to the Act, the 

information provided in this PIR/EIS will comprise 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 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. 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 area of 

particular concern 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 considered 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 maximum allowed (before it is considered a serious 

health risk) by the EPA (source: USGS, Synergos Technologies Inc., and EPAAir Quality Trends, 2001). In the majority of cases ozone is the major pollutant 

facing most cities.

FIGURE 3-14: ALLOWABLE PERCENTAGE OF POLLUTANTS 

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 Plans being considered as well as the surrounding vicinities, which 

could affect, or be affected by, plan 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 National 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, and Disposal 

Facilities (TSDFs), the toxic release inventory system, solid waste landfills, 

underground storage tanks (USTs), leaking underground storage tanks, and 

above ground storage tanks. 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 environmental 

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 sponsor, 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 subjected to additional investigation. Several 

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. 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 Selected Plan, 

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) and 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 herbicides) used for their lawfully intended 

purpose are eligible for cost-sharing between the Government and the NonFederal Sponsor.

On lands needed for the Tentatively Selected Plan, remedial actions to address 

site contamination issues have been completed or will be accomplished in 
Section 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 

Section 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 the 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 20th

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 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. In 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 additional socio-economic information.
Section 3 Existing Conditions/Affected Environment

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

3-48

TABLE 3-5: COMPARISON OF FLORIDA AND MIAMI-DADE COUNTY 

SOCIO-ECONOMIC INFORMATION

TABLE 3-6: BISCAYNE 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 nine-county 

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 is 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 state 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 state 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 southwestern 

Miami-Dade County (90,000 acres), rapid 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 areas 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 

municipal 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 area 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 328th 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 coming 

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 opportunities 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). 

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 topographic rises such as hills or other geographic undulations. 

In the southern end of the study area, much 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, offer perspectives on mangrove and 
Section 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, welltrafficked roads, parking lots, strip malls, and industrial 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 blank
Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

SECTION 4 

FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS
Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

4-1

4.0 FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT 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 alternative 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 

consequence 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 project is 

composed of a variety of privately-owned, local, state and Federal 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 

wildlife 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 communities 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 of wetlands with new 

development occurring mostly on previously farmed lands. Under section 404 of 
Section 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. Unavoidable 

impacts to wetlands or other aquatic resources require compensatory mitigation. 

There are some exemptions under the Clean Water Act for agricultural 

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 permit. In that situation, 

mitigation may be done on site through enhancement and preservation of 

existing wetlands or offsite. In addition, through the Federal permit process the 

regulatory division of USACE evaluates compliance with other environmental 

laws such as the Endangered Species Act (ESA). 

4.2 FORECASTED ECOLOGICAL DESCRIPTION/SETTING 

The spatial extent of the natural areas within the project study area has the 

potential to decrease considerably through the Year 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, gasoline), 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 result 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) usage, and this is likely to increase 

in the future without-project 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 likely to result in increases in unauthorized 

dumping of solid waste in natural areas and even in urban areas. 

4.2.1 Climate

During the period between the present and Year 2050, south 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

transpiration, 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 2oF. Maps produced by the 

Intergovernmental Panel on Climate Change 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 historic conditions 

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 

In 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 agencies. 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 rise, 

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, sea 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 maintained 
Section 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 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 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 the 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 increased frequency of flooding events.

The functional population is expected to increase more than 100 percent by the 

Year 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 communities.) The shift in land use would 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 estimated 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 use 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 by Year 2020, 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 Year 2020 projections assume that 

modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park (ENP) have been 

implemented and are mitigated somewhat by the assumption that Miami-Dade 
Section 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 Year 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 Water 

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 increased 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 require 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 environmental 

impacts on coastal areas. Sea-level rise is discussed in Section 7.13.2.3 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 

projections for conservation-adjusted water use in Year 2050 would be 

505.6 million gallons per day (mgd). Water 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 conservation 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 region, groundwater is the predominant 

source of water for municipal and industrial (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-Dade County. Sea 
Section 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 3 
Section 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 

increase 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 these 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 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 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 which, 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 continue 

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, additional 

flood storage capacity 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-saltbushdominated 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 levees, 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 

effects that would increase in the future without-project condition scenario. 

Control of fire intensity and extent due to potential for impacts on human 

infrastructure can encourage establishment of woody plant 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 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-level 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 the 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 the 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, are 
Section 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 invasion 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 sensitive 

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 

Federally 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 productivity 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 causative 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 Everglades 

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 and private lands, as a result of Federal and non-Federal actions. Future 

Federal actions unrelated to the proposed action, but located in the study area, 

will require separate consultation pursuant to Section 7 of the ESA. In addition, 

future non-Federal actions will be coordinated with FWS through Section 10 of 

the ESA. 

Over the next 50 years, continued 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 

the 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 boatrelated manatee mortality due to increased human resident population and a 

corresponding increase in boating. Direct 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 population 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 in 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, and 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 

Conservation 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 considered suitable wood stork foraging habitat. In the future withoutproject condition, 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 future without-project 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 wildlife 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 large, open-water bodies for foraging 
Section 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 future without-project scenario 

in the Biscayne Bay Coastal 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 storks 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 (Ajaja 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-regions 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 implemented 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 hydroperiods 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 and 
Section 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 development 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 crocodile habitat based on salinity 

requirements of juvenile crocodiles. The future without-project 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 

presents 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, the 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 water management 

practices have, and should continue to result in, a high and unpredictable rate of 

nest flooding. Historically, maximum summer water levels were positively 
Section 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 shortened hydroperiod and lowered water tables in the Everglades 

caused by drainage (Fennema et al., 1994; Van Lent et al., 1993; VanZee, 1999), 

the alligator has mostly abandoned the southern marl prairies, and today and 

for the foreseeable future without-project 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 vulnerable 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 most substantial along the coasts, in the Florida Keys, and along the 

high ridges of south-central 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, 1999). However, continued habitat fragmentation would result in

increasingly isolated small groups of Eastern indigo snakes that 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 communities. 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 in a 

reduction of the functional capacity and overall spatial extent of those systems. 

The future without-project condition scenario is likely to result in an overall 

decrease in the abundance and diversity of species within those habitats. 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 nearshore 
Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

4-16

portions of the bay increases 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 future without-project 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 Old World 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 nonnative 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 addressed 

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. It is important to note that Hurricane Andrew, in 

1992, significantly impacted population growth during this time period because

it caused so many people to relocate out of the county. During the same period, 

the population of the State of Florida and the United States increased 23.5 

percent and 13.1 percent, respectively. 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 significant 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 Initial 
Section 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 POPULATION 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 area 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 permit. 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 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 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, migration of the underlying salt wedge leading to increased 

saltwater intrusion and shortages to wells and well fields would become more 

prevalent.

TABLE 4-4: ESTIMATED 2050 SERVICE AREA 3 CONSERVATION ADJUSTED, 

MOST LIKELY POPULATION DEMAND SCENARIO (MGD) 

End Use 2000

Demand

2050

Demand

Service Area 3 373.2 586.6
Section 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 INDUSTRIAL WATER USE, BY SERVICE AREA, 2000 

AND 2050, MOST-LIKELY POPULATION SCENARIO

0

50

100

150

200

250

300

350

2000 2005 2010 2015 2020 2025 2030 2035 2040 2045 2050

Year

Water Use (MGD)

Residential Commercial Industrial Government Unaccounted

FIGURE 4-3: SERVICE AREA 3, MOST-LIKELY POPULATION SCENARIO 

MUNICIPAL AND INDUSTRIAL CONSERVATION-ADJUSTED 

FORECAST, BY WATER USE SECTOR 
Section 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 “estate” and “low density residential” 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 

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 construction/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 in 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. However, the remaining undeveloped coastal 

areas landward of the environmental protection 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: MIAMI-DADE COUNTY URBAN DEVELOPMENT BOUNDARY
Section 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 Comprehensive 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, Region 11 is the planning region that encompasses the 

study area.

TABLE 4-5: COUNTIES WITHIN SCORP PLANNING REGIONS POTENTIALY

AFFECTED BY ALTERNATIVE RESTORATION PLANS 

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 presents descriptive information on 

the recreation facilities in SCORP Region 11 for study area specific recreation 

categories. These resource-based categories were selected as those that 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 linked 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 recreation 

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 family 
Section 4 Future Without Project Conditions

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

4-25

incomes greater 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 useroccasions 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 

applying the per capita participation rates to population projections.

TABLE 4-7 presents Year 1997 and projected Year 2010 demands for the 

selected recreation 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 for the selected recreation activities with a commensurate need to 

increase development of the regions’ recreation resources and facilities.

TABLE 4-7: DEMAND AND FACILITY NEEDS (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 summary, 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 development, is a SFWMD park that will provide facilities 

for active recreation.

As development continues in the southern tier of the county, particularly 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 project 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 PROJECT

CONDITIONS

The following table summaries the existing and future without project conditions 

for each of the project resources.
Section 4 Future W

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

4-27

TABLE 4-8: EXISTING VERSUS FUTURE WITHOUT PROJECT CONDITIONS ON PROJE

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 

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 

by the year 2100. Assuming a linear res

rainfall is expected over the 50 year life 

Evapotranspiration as well as average te

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 

to change in the southern Miami-Dade C

year 2050. In the absence of any mitiga

freshwater flux to Biscayne Bay will dim

increase, stormwater runoff intensity fro

increase, and the character of water qual

primary drivers for these changes are an 

greatly expanded impervious areas to ac

development in the watershed, and incre

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 source 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 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.

Water demand projections estimate the S

population scenario, conservation–adjus

505.6 MGD. Service Area 3 is expected 

total water demand in the nine-county In

Region. With more people drawing wat

for recharge, migration of the underlying 

increased salt-water intrusion and shorta

fields would become more prevalent. 

Flooding Areas may become flooded during heavy rainfall events due to 

antecedent conditions that cause saturation and high runoff from both 

developed and undeveloped areas. 

Flood damage reduction needs have incr

flood control project was constructed an

increase in the future. As agricultural an

continues, the volume, duration, and freq

may increase, and the actual level of floo
Section 4 Future W

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

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 impact

As agricultural lands are converted to ur

in the chemical constituents of the pollut

likely to have an adverse affect on the ec

flood storage capacity necessary to acco

development would result in additional p

within the nearshore bay as well as rapid 

the increase in magnitude of flood releas

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 e

saline conditions, reduced water quality, 

control, and increased ATV usage. Ove

will continue to alter the historical veget

coastal and freshwater wetlands, thus red

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 

within and adjacent to Biscayne Bay, alo

development and land conversion, is like

loss of fish and wildlife resources within 

Threatened & 

Endangered

Species

Federally listed endangered and threatened animal species known to 

exist or potentially exist within the project area include fifteen 

endangered 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 th

loss of habitat, as well as degradation of 

will likely result in a continued decline i

and state listed species within the next 5

Non-Native 

Wildlife

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, presenting a 

predatory threat or competing with indigenous species for food, 

territory, nest sites, or other resources. 

An increased coverage of exotic vegetat

continued land disturbance is anticipated 

without project scenario.
Section 4 Future W

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

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 

Bay will continue to increase salinity lev

estuarine biological communities, thus r

of those systems. A future without-proje

overall decrease in the diversity of speci

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 large portion of south Florida remains natural, although much 

of it is disturbed land. 

Much of the future development within t

on lands that are currently in agricultura

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 e

releases of waters into the Bay’s ecosyst

that improving the environmental quality 

ecosystem will substantially support and 

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 topographic rises, 

such as hills or other geographic undulations. 

With an anticipated increase in urbaniza

project area are expected to reflect popu

Aesthetically, there will be more high ri

Socio-Economic

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 significant 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 

million people from 2000 to 2050. Conv

other unimproved lands in southern Mia

including large areas within the BBCW 

to be fueled in significant part by this po

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 t

radioactive waste within the study area a

improved over today’s status, whether o

implemented.
Section 4 Future W

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

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, of

without further investigation, while a fut

plan provides some level of protection to 

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 

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 exp

are developed within designated growth 

noise from general traffic, construction a
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

SECTION 5

FORMULATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 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. The 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 nonstructural measures that address the planning objectives. In addition to the 

alternative plans developed by the team, a “future without project” plan is 

included. This “future without 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 reasonably 
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-2 

maximizes 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 MiamiDade 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 Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) or “Yellow Book” 

(YB) selected alternative - Alternative D13R: (1) BBCW (designated an Other 

Project 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 MiamiDade 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 D13R (YELLOW BOOK) – SOUTH BISCAYNE BAY 

AND COASTAL WETLANDS ENHANCEMENT COMPONENT

Source: Restudy Appendix A4–Description of Alternative D-13R (Page A4-47)
Section 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 terms 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 Matrix (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 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 CBEEM evaluation was accomplished in four steps: 1) calculate 

performance measure output, 2) normalize performance measure output, 3) 

compute quality index, and 4) compute HUs. 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 Measures

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 wetlands
Section 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. 
Section 5 Formu

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

5-5 

TABLE 5-1: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN OBJECTIVES AND PERFORMANCE MEAS

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 

habitat within the 

study area

Re-establish 

connectivity 

between Bisca

Bay Coasta

Wetlands, C-1

Basin, Model L

and adjacen

basins

1. Restore nearshore 

salinity regime Nearshore 

2. Restore tidal wetland 

salinity regime Saltwater Saltwater 

3. Reduce direct canal 

discharge Nearshore

Saltwater

Nearshore

Saltwater

Nearshore

Saltwater

Nearshore

Saltwater 

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

Saltwater
Section 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 four sub-basins defined by major drainage canals. 

Each sub-basin was assigned a component 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 C100B 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 golf 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 runs 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 North 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. Homestead 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 Biscayne Bay to the east; bounded by U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road to 

the west; and lower Biscayne Bay. 
Section 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 ZONES
Section 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 alternatives. 

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.
Section 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: 
Section 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 wetlands.

To assemble a suite of management measures 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 divert water that is currently 

being discharged directly into Biscayne Bay as point discharges. 

Increased overland flow to target freshwater and saltwater wetlands

would increase spatial extent of wetland habitats, restore existing 

wetland habitats, improve water quality and restore historic salinity 

levels in the Bay.

2. Stormwater Treatment Areas – These areas would be utilized for storing 

and treating water before it is discharged to freshwater wetlands and 

Biscayne Bay. Due 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 types of impoundments 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 Stations – 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. 
Section 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 to 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. Flowways – The creation of new flowways 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 Bay 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, canals) and therefore reduce the cost of 

alternative plans. 

5.3.5 Initial Array of Alternative Plans

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 ecological 

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 Sections 3 and 4. 
Section 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 major 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. All 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 passage in old Cutler 

Drain. 

These 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, all 

ultimately 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 involves routing water south from C-100A to the Cutler 

Wetlands area 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-
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-13

100B; and a levee seepage canal along the northern and southern end of the 

STA.

These 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 includes a flow redistribution system west of L-31E and existing 

wetlands restoration 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 boundary. 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 STAs. 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 seepage collection ditch may be required on the western side of the 

STA(s), as well as pumps to the STA. 

The 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, all 

ultimately benefiting the nearshore areas of 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 sheetflow 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 spreader 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. Additional 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.

These 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, all 
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-14

ultimately benefiting the 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 an 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 canals.

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. Removal of SW 360th Street and adjacent ditch in Model Lands. 

5.3.5.5 Alternative E

This alternative has the same management measures 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 backfilling major canals. This alternative 

prioritizes 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 

provide flexibility for inter-basin transfer of freshwater across the project. 
Section 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 it 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 similar 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 modification 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 and 
Section 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 relies on trenches and 

small detention areas to capture and store water and focuses the restoration 

effort on saltwater wetlands and nearshore areas of the Bay. It includes 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 

concern regarding costs. It includes 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 Plans

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 alternatives 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. Net features from Alt C and D were added 

to Alternative E and Alternatives 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.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-17

• Alternative I, which included a desalinization plant, was eliminated due 

to high operational costs and environmental degradation due to the 

creation of undesirable 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: INITIAL 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 L31E Levee to remove obstacle to flow.

Yes

C 

Similar to YB, but uses some gravity 

flow instead of pumps. Removes the L31E Levee 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 Levee.

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 M
Section 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 

Resembles G but in lieu of STAs, uses

polishing ponds and lateral ditches to 

provide water treatment.

No

Similarities to M; 

net features added to 

M

I 

Resembles YB but extends the C102/103 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. 
Section 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 construction 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 non-structural 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 secondary array of 

alternative plans.

5.3.7 Secondary Array of Alternative Plans

The secondary array of alternatives included:

• No Action Alternative

• Alternative YB

• Alternative E 

• Alternative J 

• Alternative M 

• Alternative P 

• Alternative Q 

• Alternative 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 the flood protection

constraint. 
Section 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 Homeland 

Security

* 2007 costs 

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).
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-21

No Action Alternative: Future without-project condition (FWO) or no action 

plan. This alternative reflects the most probable future scenario without a 

project 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).

Alternative YB: This is the Yellow 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.
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-22

FIGURE 5-4: ALTERNATIVE YELLOW BOOK
Section 5 Formulation of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

5-23

TABLE 5-4: SUMMARY OF MEASURES – ALTERNATIVE YB

Sub-component 

Deering Cutler

L-31E Flow/

North Canal 

Flowway

Barnes Sound 

Management Wetlands

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 

(160th Street N/A

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 L31E 

(1)SC-NC1

East of L-31E 

(1)SC-M1
Section 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)plugBackfill 

Military canal 

(1)plugBackfill North 

Canal 

(1)plug-C-1 

canal 

Backfill North 

Canal east to 

S.W. 112th

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-flapgated 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 C1, C-102 and C-103. The water budget was restricted to water currently 

available as no additional water sources could 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) it 

removed the L-31E Levee. 
Section 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-M1
Section 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-CC1 – 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) PGC1,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. 
Section 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 

Management Wetlands

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 acft

(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-M1 
Section 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) PGC1,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 were 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 restoration 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. 

 
Section 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-component 

Deering Cutler

L-31E Flow/

North Canal 

Flowway

Barnes Sound 

Management Wetlands

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 minimizes 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 discharges 
Section 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 other alternatives in 

producing nearshore benefits. 

 

TABLE 5-8: SUMMARY OF MEASURES – ALTERNATIVE Q

Sub-component 

Deering Cutler L-31E Flow Barnes Sound 

Management Wetlands

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/A
Section 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 Alternatives 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 Fiscal Year 1999 price 

levels. Increased by 20 percent over the 1999 cost and escalated to Fiscal Year

2007 price levels, following the principles of Section 902, the cost limit is 

estimated to be $461,983,000. Alternatives YB, E, J, and Q are above the 

escalated cost. Alternatives YB, E and J were therefore eliminated from further 

consideration though YB 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.
Section 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 

Management Wetlands

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” 
Section 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 Plans

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 Formulation Briefing Evaluation and Creation of 

Alternative O Phase I

The Alternative Formulation 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 through 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. National 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, a 
Section 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 features 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 PIRs 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 created Alternative O Phase 1 by 

determining which Alternative O features were the most suitable and beneficial 

additions to the State. The team identified 12 potential features based 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 adaptively 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).
Section 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 (acft)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–63in. 

(1) Weir S-D1

(2) Box Culvert –

6 ft, for flow way, 

road crossings 

(4)Culvert: S-23 –36in

(3)Culvert: S-706–36in

(1)Culvert: S-708 –36in

(2)Culvert: S-712 –36in

(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/feet
Section 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 

BOOK
Section 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 M
Section 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 O
Section 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 Q
Section 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 1
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

SECTION 6 

EVALUATION AND COMPARISON OF ALTERNATIVE 

PLANS
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 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, each 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 measures; and costs were 

calculated for each plan. An analysis was conducted using Cost Effectiveness

and 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 Guidelines (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 EFFECTS OF FINAL 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 overall health and 

productivity of these sensitive marine resources. Freshwater wetlands west of 

the L-31 E Canal 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 

same 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 objective 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 beneficial 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 nearshore 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 those 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. 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. 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 affect 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 to affect 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 affect 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 targeted for rehydration is the 

most affected by climate change induced additional evapotranspiration.

6.1.1.4 Alternative O 

Not anticipated to affect climate patterns in the region. Alternative O is 

somewhat less capable of mitigating the effects 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 affect 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 has 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 affected 

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 increase 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 be 

altered in the infiltration areas and the spreader canals because of soil removal 
Section 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 diversion 

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 groundwater 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 

stations. 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 soil 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 of 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 increase 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 geologic 
Section 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 groundwater. 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 into 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, spreader 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 conditions 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 model. 

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 

finite 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 addition 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 TABSMDS output for some of the initial plan formulation benefits 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 evaluate 
Section 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 TABSMDS 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

Way area, the Finite Element Surface Water Modeling System (FESWMS) was 

applied. In the Homestead Freshwater 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) also 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 on-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 freshwater 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 benefits 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 tool 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) required 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 flows 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 flows in the four basins by considered the current validity of some 

water demand assumptions used in the model, and comparing the simulated 

flows to DBHYDRO flows. The team decided to use DBHYDRO flows as the best 
Section 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 County watershed by Year 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 control 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 through 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 for 
Section 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 between 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 distribution 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 operations. 

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 wetlands 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 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. 

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 least 

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% of 
Section 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 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. 

Since the pump stations included in this alternative would be operated using 

on/off triggers very similar to the existing coastal structure operating schemes, 

and because most of the diversion points are located in the lower reaches of the 

C-102 and C-103 basins over drainage of adjacent wetlands and depressed canal 

stages (relative 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 flow 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 acreft/year available and this 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 through FIGURE 6-5 show the available and diverted flow for each basin on 

a monthly basin. FIGURE 6-2 shows that under drought (10 percentile flow) 

and median (50 percentile flow) conditions there will be little to no water 

available for 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 median 
Section 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 the Cutler Wetlands. FIGURE 6-4 shows that under drought 

conditions (10 percentile flow) there will be little to no water available in the C102 basin for diversion to the L-31E Northern Wetlands during the dry season 

(spring 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 

under 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 Probability

Annual Flow (ac-ft/yr) .

Total Available Canal Flow

Total Diverted Canal Flow

FIGURE 6-1: EXCEEDANCE PROBABILITY 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

MONTH

FLOW (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 PROBABILITY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND 

DIVERTED FLOWS IN THE C-100 BASIN 
Section 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

MONTH

FLOW (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 PROBABILITY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND 

DIVERTED FLOWS IN THE C-1 BASIN
Section 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

MONTH

FLOW (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 PROBABILITY OF TOTAL AVAILABLE AND 

DIVERTED FLOWS IN THE C-102 BASIN 
Section 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

MONTH

FLOW (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 PROBABILITY 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 inundation 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 damages. 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. This 

will limit future additional groundwater withdrawals at least within the BBCW 

study area. Nonetheless, with increased mean sea level and potentially less 
Section 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 discharges 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 structures 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 project 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 is expected to have minimal impact to M&I 

water supply. 

6.1.4.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Since Alternative O Phase 1 is closely related to Alternative O, its 

environmental goals are very similar: rehydrate and restore wetlands and 

nearshore 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. Alternative O Phase 1 includes 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 Risk 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 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 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 

control 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 quickly 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

Alternative 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 maintains existing levels of flood risk 
Section 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 provides 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 used 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 analyses are provided below though a full description of this 

work is included in Annex 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 conducted 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 located 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 available stormwater detention area 
Section 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 likely 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 nitrogen 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 nitrate loading to 

Biscayne Bay. A more detailed explanation of water quality impact calculations 

is found in the CBEEM portion of Appendix 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 the 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 water 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 result 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 to 
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-19

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. 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 will 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 concentrations in the 

diverted canal water is relatively low (<10 ppb[parts per billion] total 

phosphorus [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 Alternative M. 

To evaluate the reduction in nitrate loading, the project team used the estimated 

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 will 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 twothirds reduction expected for the No Action Alternative. Thus, Year 2050 water 

quality conditions under Alternative 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 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 

concentrations in the diverted canal water is relatively low (<10 ppb TP). The 

substantial use of lands west of the L-31 E Levee in Alternative 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 be 
Section 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 

relative 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 

concentrations in the diverted canal water is relatively low (<10 ppb TP). The 

substantial use of lands west of the L-31 E Levee in Alternative 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 Alternative 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 95 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 Alternative O Phase 1. To evaluate the 

reduction 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 Biscayne 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 the 
Section 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 vegetation 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 

mangroves 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 sawgrass 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 area 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 the 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 invasive 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 

additional 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, 

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 areas hydrated. Data from Epibenthic Vegetation

Baseline Surveys, Terrestrial Vegetation Mapping, and geographic information 

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 freshwater 

graminoid marshes, forested/shrub wetlands, marl prairie, tree island and 

mangrove ecotones. 

Additionally, sea level rise will create the potential for further expansion of salttolerant plant species, especially mangroves, into the freshwater marsh areas. 

Disruption 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 plant 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 component 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 occurrence 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 Action Alternative 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 monospecific 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 

not propose hydration south of the Florida City Canal; therefore, vegetative 

communities in the Model Lands and areas west of the L-31 E Canal 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 freshwater vegetation species. This effect would be 

most pronounced in the Cutler Wetlands area since uses pumped flow while the 

L-31E saltwater wetlands will be fed solely by gravity flow 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 Canal and the coastal 

wetlands to the west. Section 5, FIGURE 5-8 shows the areas where wetland 

rehydration is targeted. The 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 rehydration 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 freshwater 

wetland and saltwater wetland areas targeted for rehydration. The portion of 

targeted saltwater wetlands directly adjacent to the L-31E levee and just east of 
Section 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 to freshwater vegetation species. 

6.1.7.4 Alternative O

Since Alternative O contains elements of Alternatives M and Q, it has the 

capability of distributing water to both freshwater and saltwater wetlands, along 

with some 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 of 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 rehydration. 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 and 

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

Alternative O Phase 1 provides limited hydration to the freshwater wetlands, 

specifically between the C-103 Canal 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 herbaceous 

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 

Federally and state-listed endangered and threatened wildlife species. 
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 the 

proposed project may have on Federally 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 essential fish habitat 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 lobster, stone crab, gulf 

stone crab, red drum, Spanish mackerel, and gray snapper (juvenile and adult). 

Specifically, essential fish habitat in Biscayne Bay is comprised of seagrasses, 

estuarine mangroves, intertidal flats, estuarine water column, live/hard bottoms, 

and coral reefs.

Continued point source discharges of canal water into Biscayne Bay would limit 

the ability of affected organisms in essential fish habitat to sustain productivity 

levels generally consistent with natural marine communities. The absence 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. 

Data collected from agency wildlife investigations, outputs 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 

function 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 salmoides). 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 in 
Section 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 essential fish habitats.

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 ardisia (Ardisia 

elliptica) and Old World 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 estuarine 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 redistribution 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 Section 6.1.8.2. 

6.1.8.4 Alternative O 

Same as Alternative M above. See Section 6.1.8.2. 

6.1.8.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Same as Alternative M above. See Section 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-fired power plants would likely continue the trend for reduced atmospheric 

contributions of mercury to the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project area.

6.1.9.2 Alternative M

Construction activities associated with implementing Alternative M would 

temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area. However, best 

management practices will be implemented to control dust during construction. 

6.1.9.3 Alternative Q 

Construction activities associated with implementing Alternative Q would 

temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area. However, best 

management practices will be implemented to control dust during construction. 

6.1.9.4 Alternative O 

Construction activities associated with implementing Alternative O would 

temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area. However, best 

management practices 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 implementing Alternative O Phase 1

would temporarily increase dust within the proposed project area. However, 

best management practices 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 site contamination issues 50 years into the future are likely to be 

improved when compared with present conditions, regardless of CERP project

implementations. This statement is made in reference to historically 

contaminated superfund-type sites. Nationwide, several decades and billions of 

dollars have been spent to correct past practices that created site contamination. 

Added vigilance and increasingly strict regulation are now in place to prevent 

recurrence of extreme site contamination problems in the future. If the Biscayne 

Bay Coastal Wetlands project is not approved and not constructed, sites 

containing contaminated soil and/or groundwater are likely to undergo

continued environmental restoration governed by Federal, state and local 

statutes.

6.1.10.2 Alternative M

Alternative 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 

approach, having the smallest number of constructed features and the smallest 

footprint possible. It requires 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. 

Along 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 isomers Dichloro-DiphenylDichloroethylene (DDE) and Dichloro-Diphenyl-Dichloroethane (DDD) which 

would raise bio-accumulation concerns if the lands were to be flooded. However, 

the current design calls for a concrete conveyance channel to address seepage 

concerns, and those parcels would be acceptable for project use in that scenario. 

Just north of TA500-002, on parcel TA500-062, the non-Federal 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 the 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 eligible for costsharing 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 Health 
Section 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. 

No 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 alternatives 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 compared to Alternative M, the proposed footprint for Alternative Q expands 

westward from the L-31 E Canal toward Homestead Air Reserve Base. 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 northeast 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 project.

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. Because of this selective 

expansion, potential environmental impacts from site contamination are reduced

relative to Alternative Q along with projected remediation costs. Alternative O 

would rehydrate three former stream beds in the Model Lands area south of the 

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-Federal 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 remediation 
Section 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 

required. 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 Action 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 

With the addition of the Model Lands south of North Canal to Alternative Q, the 

area of potential effect to cultural resources for Alternative M, Alternative O, 

and Alternative Q is essentially the same. The area of potential effect stretches 

along approximately eight miles of the Biscayne Bay coastline. Several 

archaeological and historical sites are found within the area of potential effect, 

mostly 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. The 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). The 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 Section 6.1.11.2. 

6.1.11.4 Alternative O 

Same as Alternative M above. See Section 6.1.11.2. 

6.1.11.5 Alternative O Phase 1

Same as Alternative M above. See Section 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 continue 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 statistically 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 region, groundwater is the predominant source of water for 

municipal and industrial uses. With the projected increase in population and 

infrastructure, 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

Alternative M 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. Water 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

Alternative 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; however, the benefits to municipal well fields from this 
Section 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. Water 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 

Alternative 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 additional 

water. Water 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

Alternative 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. Water demands will increase as a result of future non-project related 

land use changes within the project study area.

6.1.14 Land Use

A review of local governments’ comprehensive plans and future land use maps 

indicates that the portion of the study area lying within the Urban Development 

Boundary (UDB) is designated as “estate” and “low density residential” 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 

some continued conversion of undeveloped lands is possible—those designated in 

the county land use map as “open lands” to rock mines and some undeveloped 

lands designated as agriculture 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 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 in the form 
Section 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 

Protected 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 environmental protection 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.

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 open lands to rock 

mines, and some undeveloped lands designated as agriculture to 

construction/demolition debris landfills, is possible. The undeveloped coastal 

areas landward of the environmental protection 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, sea level rise may ultimately impact the viability of some 

of the agricultural operations within the study area as flood 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 project 

condition, in the absence of a project, there is a high likelihood that agricultural 

and urban developers would pressure 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 includes 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 includes 

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 Alternative M 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.

6.1.15.3 Alternative Q 

Noise impacts associated with Alternative Q would not permanently increase 

over what presently exists within the project area. Temporary increases in noise 
Section 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 Alternative 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 Alternative 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. The 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 recreational resources and facilities. A significant 

portion of outdoor recreation related expenditures comes from tourists.

6.1.16.1 No Action Alternative 

As part of the FWO project conditions, the State of Florida will experience 

significant increases in demands for the selected recreation 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 within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area. 

Alternative M provides the fewest opportunities for recreation development. 

Public access along existing canal right-of-ways would be maintained 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 Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 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 Alternative M and Alternative Q. Alternative O 

is not likely to adversely affect existing recreation resources within the Biscayne 

Bay Coastal Wetlands study area. Alternative O proposes 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

Alternative O Phase 1 is not likely to adversely affect existing recreational 

resources within the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 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 Federal objective of water and 

related resources planning is to contribute to NED consistent with protecting the 

nation’s environment. USACE established a number of environmental 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 

Federal funds dictate that a greater level of discipline be applied in meeting 

USACE responsibilities to harmoniously blend projects with the surrounding 
Section 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 directly 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 area are 

expected to reflect population growth. Aesthetically, there would be more highrise buildings, 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 will support vigorous plant communities, larger 

fish and aquatic animal populations, large numbers of wading birds, alligators, 

and sustainable populations of wide-ranging mammals, in a natural setting, in 

perpetuity. With 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 saltwater 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 score, 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 economy. 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 6
Section 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 

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 Matrix (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 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) calculate 

performance measure output, 2) normalize performance measure output, 3) 

compute quality index, and 4) compute HUs. 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. Independent 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 includes 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 measures (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 included in 
Section 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 CALCULATIONS FOR 

EACH ECOLOGICAL ZONE

TOTAL HABITAT UNIT SUMMARY (NET FWO CONDITION)

Existing 

Conditio

n

Future 

Without Alternative 

O

Alternative 

M

Alternative 

Q

Alternative 

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 percent 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 meeting 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-indices 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 wetland 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 freshwater wetland habitat 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 subindices are 1) Acres of freshwater wetland with sufficient water, and 2) the 

acreage 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 study area. 

The results of the freshwater wetland benefits assessment are shown in TABLE 

6-3. Alternatives Q and YB provide the greatest freshwater wetland 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 shows the wet season and dry season net freshwater wetland 

rehydration lift (acre-lift) computed 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 season 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 lift 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. The fact that rehydration water is available to 
Section 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 specific 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 Compa

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

6-46

TABLE 6-3: FRESHWATER WETLAND HABATAT LIFT SUMMARY

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 NA

A. Rehydrated wetland lift

1. Wetlands 

with sufficient 

water (PM 4)

Acrelift

GIS 

Mapping 

/Seepage 

Analysis 9638 3997 3,997 

 

8,406 4,212 

 

9,110 

 

9,273 

 

4,465 

 

6,639 

B. Reduced invasive non-native plants *

1. Acres of 

Invasive/Exotics 

Removed (PM 

7)

Acrelift

GIS 

Mapping 

Analysis 9763 0 0 3051 160.5 6632 4555 495 305

Net FW Wetland Habitat Units (Net from 

Future Without Condition) (acre-lift) 0 0 3,730 188 5,873 4,916 482 2,847 

Key: Alt Alternative

 FWO Future Without

 GIS Geographical Information System

 PM Performance Measure
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-47

TABLE 6-4: ESTIMATED FRESHWATER WETLAND REHYDRATION LIFT

(SUBMETRIC A.1) FOR EACH ALTERNATIVE CALCULATED USING 

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 - 466 214
Section 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 portions 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 aspects 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 subindices and multiplying 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 target 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 measure 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 capacity. The 

overall percentage of water diverted for each basin was computed based upon 

the ratio of the total amount of water diverted to the total available as indicated 

by the historic flow record of releases at the coastal structures. 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 

located 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 measurement 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 alternative 
Section 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 Alternative 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, TABSMDS 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 approximately 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 lift 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 Compa

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

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

AL

N

A. Reduced canal discharge

1. Potential 

percent of 

surface water 

diverted to SW 

Wetlands (PM 

4)

acft/yr

Flow 

diversion 

using 

DBHydro 

Database 368,934 

 

- - 

166,1

18 

 

180,322 117,431 79,620 

 

181,623 146

 0% 0% 45% 49% 32% 22% 49% 40

B. Salinity performance

1. Acres of 

tidal wetlands 

meeting 0-20 

psu criterion 

(PM 2)

Acres

Average 

Daily SW 

Wetland 

Acres 

Meeting 

Criteria 

(TABSMDS model 

output) 21,035 

 

1,815 1,869 

 

3,916 3,219 3,177 3,177 

 

3,446 3

8.63

% 8.88%

18.62

% 15.30% 15.10% 15.10% 16.38% 16.

 

Saltwater Wetlands Mean Criteria Result 0.043 0.044 0.318 0.321 0.235 0.183 0.328 0.2

Total SW Wetland Acres Available

22,55

0 

22,550 22,55

0 

22,550 22,550 22,550 22,550 22,

Total SW Wetland Habitat Units (acre-lift) 973 1,002 7,176 7,236 5,292 4,136 7,398 6,3

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

Key: ac-ft/yr: acre-feet per year, Alt: Alternative, PM: performance measure, ppt: parts per thousand
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-51

TABLE 6-6: PERCENT OF TARGET SALTWATER WETLAND ACRES MEETING 

SALINITY TARGET OF LESS THAN 20 PSU DURING WET SEASON FOR 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 improvement 

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 

measure of the potential to improve nearshore habitat since salinity conditions are 

critical to these ecologically important species. Nearshore habitat lift was 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 percent nitrate and peak total 

phosphorus load targets achieved, 3) Percent of nearshore acres within 500 meters of 

the shoreline 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 load 
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison 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 water. 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 flows 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 the 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 requirements 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 subindices 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 

volume 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 approximately 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 salinity 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 

season, 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 be 
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison 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 season 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 Section 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 occur at the mouths of tidal creeks since these creeks are likely to receive a 

large proportion of the diverted freshwater. 
Section 6 Evaluation and Comp

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

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

A

N

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 

0% 0% 81% 39% 80% 61% 59% 

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 

0% 66% 97% 75% 96% 90% 85% 

2. Phosphorus 

Peak Load 

Reduction (PM 

6)

Mtons/yr

USGS Flow / 

Conc Eqn.

0 33 33 21 9 20 14 15 

 0% 0% 62% 27% 61% 44% 47% 

Average % Target Achieved

 

0% 33% 80% 51% 79% 67% 66% 

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 

25.6% 25.6% 33% 39% 21% 17% 37% 

Nearshore Mean Criteria Result 0.085 0.195 0.648 0.430 0.600 0.483 0.539 

Total Available Nearshore Acres 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 

Nearshore Habitat Units (Net from Future Without)

(acre-lift) -941 0 3,892 2,023 3,481 2,474 2,950 

Key: Alt Alternative PM performance measure M meter 

GIS Geographical Information System PSR preliminary scenario runs USGS US Geological Su
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-55

TABLE 6-8: NEARSHORE SALINITY LIFT ESTIMATED FOR AVERAGE WET AND 

DRY SEASON HYDROLOGIC CONDITIONS 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 55 364
Section 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 than 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 performance 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 habitat enhancement and 

preservation was critical in the 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 benefits 

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. After 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 benefit 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 uncertainty 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, the

most apparent sources of uncertainty in the estimated project benefits 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 level 

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, dry, 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. 

Each 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 and, 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, multi-year lags in ecological and/or 

hydrologic responses were not as critical to interpretation of the CBEEM benefit

model outputs. 

6.3.5.2 Uncertainty in the Availability of Water 

Benefits from this project are closely linked to the availability of water. The

CBEEM estimates of project benefits reflect average hydrologic conditions within 

the project area as computed using long-term historic canal discharge records. To 
Section 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 C100, 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 frequency 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 output 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 percent). 

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 quantity. 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 predicted for 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 differences 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 only 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 salinity 
Section 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 drought 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 existing 

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 be 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-transpiration, and temperature. Projections for rainfall show a 

reduction of up to 20% in rainfall in South Florida by 2100 as compared to the 

historic conditions 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 benefit calculations as well as in predictions of 

future weather patterns and water management strategies. Using a simple 

assumption that project benefits are linearly correlated to water availability, a 10% 

reduction in rainfall over the next 50 years would correspond to a 10% reduction in 

project benefits. 
Section 6 Evaluation and Compa

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

6-60

TABLE 6-9: RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN PROJECT BENEFITS AND WATER AVAILA

PROJECT BENEFITS UNDER DIFFERENT HYDROLOGIC CONDITIO

Hydrologic Conditions

Existing 

Condition

Future 

Without Alt. O Alt. M Alt. Q Alt. YB

Alt. O, 

P1

Alt. O

NAI

NEARSHORE BENEFITS (acre-lift)

10% Exceedance Freq. Flows 732 1,655 4,648 2,795 4,413 4,128 4,125 4,455 

50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 732 1,662 4,878 3,379 4,473 3,729 4,173 4,715 

90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 732 1,682 6,022 4,215 5,541 4,540 5,353 5,920 

SALTWATER WETLAND BENEFITS (acre-lift)

10% Exceedance Freq. Flows 415 427 4,138 5,510 3,079 2,757 4,590 2,897 

50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 973 1,002 6,435 6,538 4,541 3,742 6,682 5,485 

90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 3,721 3,608 13,349 13,302 9,975 7,733 13,667 11,991 

FRESHWATER WETLAND BENEFITS (acre-lift)

10% Exceedance Freq. Flows 0 0 3,429 185 5,413 4,496 480 2,422 

50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 0 0 3,677 186 5,800 4,867 482 2,764 

90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 0 0 3,949 188 6,137 5,098 484 3,175 

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 

50% Exceedance Freq. Flows 1,705 2,664 14,990 10,103 14,815 12,338 11,336 12,964 

90% Exceedance Freq. Flows 4,453 5,290 23,321 17,705 21,653 17,371 19,504 21,085 

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 

50% Exceedance Freq. Flows (959) 0 12,327 7,439 12,151 9,675 8,672 10,300 

90% Exceedance Freq. Flows (837) 0 18,031 12,415 16,363 12,081 14,214 15,795 

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 DBH

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 DBH

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 DBH
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, PHASE 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 nearshore 

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 quantified by comparing 

differences between hydrologic outputs such as wetland rehydration 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 vegetation 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 footprints. 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 within a wetland impoundment were used. These two “recession 

rate” estimates are from comparable wetlands located in Miami-Dade County (S332C Impoundment, and Military Canal Demonstration Wetland). Additional 

uncertainty in this sub-metric comes about from the simplicity of the rehydration 

equation that does not incorporate rainfall, evapotranspiration, or site specific 
Section 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 wetland 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 submetric. The reduced canal discharge provides 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 these 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 construction 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 they 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 their 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 

averaging of the two sub-metrics used in this performance measure is intended to

reduce the possibility of over-estimation of saltwater wetland benefits. Overall, the 

uncertainty in the estimates of saltwater wetland benefits is not considered to be a 

critical 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/load 

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 resulted 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 

robust 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 load reduction and in the use of the 

USGS regression equations to estimate phosphorus concentrations. The third submetric (nearshore salinity) provides the most direct measurement 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 TABSMDS Preliminary Scenario Runs (PSR) to estimate the effect on nearshore 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 most 

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 likely to occur as a result of distributing water into the saltwater wetland 

zone. As a result, the pattern of water distribution may not match that used in the 

PSR model runs. This may result in more or fewer nearshore acres meeting the 

salinity target than 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 possible, 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. The 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 the 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. Linear 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 17% over the 50 year life of the project as compared 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

Year

Percent of Projected Benefits

NEARSHORE

SALTWATER

FRESHWATER

FIGURE 6-6: EFFECT OF SEA LEVEL RISE ON PROJECTED BENEFIT STREAM 

FOR ALTERNATIVE O, PHASE 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 

scientifically 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 specific. 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 correct 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 change 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 of saltwater wetlands, 

and maintaining optimal salinity conditions in the nearshore. Critical aspects of 
Section 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. 

The 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, Phase 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 17% 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. During drought years, the dry periods can last three or more 

months which may be critically stressful to some of the target species. The 

diversion 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 populations of the target 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 expected 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 applying 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 

reviews (IEPR) of the metrics and methodologies used here were 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 its 
Section 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 diversion 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 recognition 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 ESTIMATES 

The cost estimate for the alternatives includes 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 

recurring costs for OMRR&R, have been developed through engineering design and 

cost estimation, and real estate appraisal efforts (refer to Appendix B - Cost 

Estimates for details of data development for cost estimates). 

For purposes of this report and analysis, national economic development (NED) 

costs, as defined by USACE, are expressed in fiscal year 2010 price levels, and are 
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-68

based on costs estimated to incur over a 40-year period of analysis. Costs of a plan 

represent the value of goods and services required for implementation, 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 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 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 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 defined.

Engineering Regulation (ER) 1105-2-100 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 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 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, 

characterized, 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 for 
Section 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. The 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 approximately 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 those 

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 require 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 Costs 

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 levels 

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 CONSTRUCTION, REAL ESTATE AND O&M

6.5 COMPARISON OF ENVIRONMENTAL 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 after 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 BAY 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 $1,400,000
Section 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, or 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 efficient 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 alternative 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 

first year benefits begin to accrue, is in 2010. The average annual HU lift is 

calculated as subtracting the future without project HUs from the future with 

project HUs 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 each 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 benefits. 

The analysis of ecological response times for large, diverse ecosystems is extremely 

difficult to calculate. For example, when analyzing an estuarine system, certain 

attributes would have to be examined when predicting the response to changes in 

salinity. Oysters may provide responses within a year of salinity change towards 

normal conditions. Seagrasses would normally respond quickly, but these 

responses are difficult to measure since there would be relocation of certain 

populations in response to specific currents and salinity concentrations. Small 
Section 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 mature and reach 

reproductive ages.

The same difficulty occurs in the examination of freshwater systems. Different 

attributes, such as sawgrass marshes, periphyton mats, and bayheads respond 

differently in time to changes in hydroperiods and hydropatterns. Sawgrass 

marshes are in intense competition with other grasses, sedges and freshwater 

marsh species. Changes in the content of certain species could occur fairly rapidly 

in certain areas; however, the competition of populations and/or communities along 

ecozones could take a much greater amount of time for species, populations and 

communities to become established. Periphyton has been shown to respond rapidly 

to changes in hydroperiod and hydropattern. Forested wetlands, including 

bayheads, 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: TYPICAL 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 90 100 100
Section 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

6,000

2012201520182021202420272030203320362039204220452048

Year

Habitat 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 

Federal and USACE policy), are expressed in 2010 price levels and are based 

generally on costs estimated to incur over a 40-year period of economic analysis,

depending on the length 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 project 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 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.
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 recognized 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 defined.

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 preconstruction, 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 Compa

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS 

6-75

TABLE 6-13: PLANNING LEVEL CONSTRUCTION AND INVESTMENT COST OF ALTERNA

BBCW INVESTMENT COST

Alternative M Alternative O Alternative Q Alternative P-

 

 

Construction $130,600,000 $146,900,000 $272,470,000 $45,100,0

S/A $10,450,000 $11,710,000 $21,780,000 $3,690,0

PED $13,060,000 $14,690,000 $27,250,000 $4,510,0

 

Total Construction $154,110,000 $173,300,000 $321,500,000 $53,300,0

Construction Schedule (Months) 33 34 38 

Real Estate $239,492,494 $360,210,986 $483,800,963 $76,662,2

Certification for IDC (Months) 36 37 41 

Total First Cost $393,600,000 $533,510,000 $805,300,000 $129,960,0

IDC Construction $9,440,000 $10,950,000 $25,340,000 $3,265,0

IDC Real Estate $21,120,000 $50,840,000 $76,220,000 $10,500,0

TOTAL INVESTMENT $424,160,000 $595,300,000 $906,860,000 $143,730,0

O&M $3,700,000 $3,700,000 $5,990,000 $1,400,0

First Year for Benefits 2010 2010 2010 20

Amortized Cost (38 Years) $22,640,000 $31,780,000 $48,410,000 $7,670,0

 

Average Annual Cost $26,340,000 $35,480,000 $54,400,000 $9,070,0

*Note – Final Costs of the Tentatively Selected Plan will be revised based on additional engineering and design. NER costs do not in

Plan Formulation
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans 

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 for cost effectiveness screening:

1. The same output level could be produced by another plan at less cost;

2. A larger output level could be produced 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 HUs 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 ecological 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 period 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 Plans 

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 alternatives, 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: COSTS 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 Alternatives 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 units 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: RESULTS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: ALL PLANS

ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR EACH OUTPUT CATEGORY–

COMBINED HABITAT UNITS

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 No
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-78

FIGURE 6-8: PLANNING 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 freshwater 

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 times the total output. Alternative O produces freshwater 

habitat units at the lowest average cost 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 Plans 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-79

TABLE 6-16: RESULTS OF COST EFFECTIVENESS ANALYSIS: ALL PLANS

ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR EACH OUTPUT CATEGORY– 

FRESHWATER 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 P1 $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 No
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans 

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 habitat. Alternative O produced 

just slightly less saltwater lift than Alternative M; the overlying 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 costs almost 

one-third less per unit of output than Alternative M. 

TABLE 6-17: RESULTS 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 No
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans 

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 while 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 Plans 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-82

TABLE 6-18: RESULTS 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 

HABITAT
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans 

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 show 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 without plan condition. The plan with 

the lowest incremental costs per unit of output of all plans is the first best buy plan. 

After the first best buy plan is identified, all larger cost effective plans are 

compared to the first best buy plan in terms of increases in (increments of) cost and 

increases in (increments of) output. The alternative plan with the lowest 

incremental cost per unit of output (for all cost effective plans larger than the first 

best buy plan) is the second best buy plan. There are no more than two best buy 

plans for any ecological zone for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands alternatives.

6.5.5.1 Incremental Cost Analysis – Combined Habitat Units 

TABLE 6-19 and FIGURE 6-12 show that there are two best buy plans for the 

combined ecological zone HU production, Alternative O Phase 1 and Alternative O. 

Upon examination of the graph, there is an obvious jump in cost per unit of output 

when comparing Alternative O Phase 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 increment 

of 3,662 (~35% increase) additional habitat units over Alternative O Phase 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 than for Alternative O Phase 1. 

TABLE 6-19: RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS: COST EFFECTIVE 

& BEST BUY PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT FOR COMBINED 

ECOLOGICAL 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 $7,212 
Section 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 

freshwater wetlands habitat: Alternative Q. 

TABLE 6-20: RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS: COST 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 $10,046 
Section 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 Phase 1. None of the other alternatives 

are cost effective in the production of saltwater habitat units. 

TABLE 6-21: RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS: COST 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 $1,536 
Section 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 show that there are two best buy plans for the 

production of nearshore 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: RESULTS OF INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSIS: COST EFFECTIVE 

& BEST BUY PLANS ARRAYED BY INCREASING OUTPUT 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 

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 3,106 $2,920 $9,070,000 3,106 $2,920 

Alternative 

O $35,480,000 3,974 $8,928 $26,410,000 868 $30,426 
Section 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 

most 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 eco-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 will provide substantial 

ecological restoration benefits. 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 Alternative O Phase 1 and Alternative O is attributed to 

substantially greater freshwater wetland improvements. 

TABLE 6-23: RESULTS OF CE/ICA 

 

6.6 NATIONAL ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION 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 Biscayne Bay nearshore 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 

Phase 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 Buy
Section 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 Alternative O Phase 1 configuration. 

6.7 PLANNING PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES EVALUATION CRITERIA

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 is 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 

problems and achieves the specified opportunities.

In the following table (TABLE 6-24), each plan, except the “No Action” alternative, 

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 obtaining 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 plan selection: “Any alternative 

plan may be selected and recommended for implementation if it has, 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 (OSE).” 

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 increases 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 benefits 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 implementing 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 Estates an early 20th 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 construction, 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 Environmental Quality outputs for this project were portrayed as habitat 

outputs/units and were assessed for cost effectiveness and incremental cost in 

Appendix G, Economic and Social Considerations. 

6.8.3 Regional Economic Development 

All alternatives are anticipated 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 features 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 construction 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 minority 

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 agencies 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 providing 
Section 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 into 

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 impacts 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 were 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 features of the Deering Estate sub-component including a 100 cfs pump, 

spreader canal, culverts and improvements to a canal. In the Cutler Wetlands subcomponent, the tentatively selected 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 subcomponent. 

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, the 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 PLAN
Section 6 Evaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

6-94

This page intentionally left blank
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

SECTION 7

THE TENTATIVELY SELECTED PLAN
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 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 project is planned and designed 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 increasing 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 

of 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 flows 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 

Appendix 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 refinements. 

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 region includes an approximately 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 

(TABLE 7-1 and FIGURE 7-2). 
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-2

The 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 on 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-foot lined 

conveyance canal that will run under SW 97th Avenue and SW 87th 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 plugged 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

STATE HWY 821

SW 248TH ST

SW 168TH ST

SW 216TH ST

STATE HWY 994

SW 268TH ST

SW 117TH AVE

SW 184TH ST

SW 137TH AVE

SW 77TH AVE

OLD CUTLER RD

SW 152ND ST

CARIBBEAN BLVD

STATE HWY 992

SW 127TH AVE

SW 112TH AVE

SW 107TH AVE

SW 160TH ST

SW 82ND AVE

SW 97TH AVE

BAILES RD

FRANJO RD

SW 232ND ST

SW 116TH AVE

SW 132ND AVE

W DIXIE HWY

TALLAHASSEE ST

SW 288TH ST

SW 174TH ST

211TH BLVD

SW 164TH ST

87TH AVE

SW 200TH ST

STATE HWY 821

SW 112TH AVE

SW 152ND ST

SW 184TH ST

SW 127TH AVE

SW 87TH AVE

SW 137TH AVE

C-701

C-711E

C-702

C-702

C-711W

CC-D3

C-102

C-1

C-1N

C-103

C-1W

C-100

L-31E

C-102N

C-100A

C-103N

C-100B

MILITARY CANAL

L-31E

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 I 
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-4

TABLE 7-1: SUMMARY OF 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 C100A 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 second
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-6

FIGURE 7-2: DEERING ESTATE PROJECT FEATURES
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-7

FIGURE 7-3: CUTLER WETLANDS PROJECT FEATURES
Section 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 FEATURES
Section 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 FEATURES
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-10

7.2 PROJECT MONITORING PLAN

A three part, Project Level Monitoring Plan (PLMP) 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 

hydroperiods. 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 monitoring 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 installation 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 $516,000. 

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 II, 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 monitoring 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 nutrient 

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 monitoring, 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 needed to maximize restoration. 

It is estimated that the costs associated with implementation of this monitoring 

will total approximately $577,000. It is important to note that much of these 

costs are related to installation 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 $355,000. It is recommended that these costs be fully 

cost shared as project construction costs, and the remaining $222,000 for the 
Section 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 project’s performance in meeting restoration goals and to 

facilitate effective, science based management decisions concerning project 

design and operation. Specifically, the recommended 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, abundance, 

and viability of oyster bars, submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV), wetland 

vegetation, and associated biota. Geographically, the monitoring will cover the 

nearshore habitat, submerged aquatic vegetation, estuary, and freshwater 

wetlands in and around 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 installation 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 will 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, the 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

An 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 of 
Section 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 aquatic 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 recommended that these costs be fully cost shared under 

OMRR&R. 

7.4 NUISANCE AND EXOTIC VEGETATION CONTROL PLAN

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 establishment 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 native 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 approximately $1,090,360, or $218,072 per 

year. Specifics of the nuisance and exotic vegetation control plan are contained 

in Annex E, Part 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 benefits, 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 benefit to cost ratio for the proposed recreation 

features is approximately 2.3 to 1. Appendix 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 $63,500

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 $118,000 IDC interest during construction 

 OMRR&R operation, maintenance, repair, replacement, and rehabilitation

 PED pre-construction, engineering and design

 S&A supervision and administration
Section 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 Activities

SW 87th Ave

SW 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

Old Cutler Trail

South Dade Trail

Biscayne Trail

Coral Reef Dr Sidewalk

Black Creek Trail

South Dade Trail

Coral Reef Dr Sidewalk

Black Creek Trail

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-100

C-102

C-1N

L-31E

C-100C

C-1W

C-100A

C-102N

C-100B

L-31E

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 PLAN 
Section 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. The 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 Supervision and Administration

 PED Planning, Engineering & Design

 LERR Lands, Easements, Rights-of-Ways, and Relocations
Section 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 $11,860,000. 

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/nonfederal 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 

advance 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 government 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 footprint.
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 $ 840,000 $ 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 shares were changed 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 costs 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 recommendations 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 would 

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 schedule 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 geotechnical 

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 Construction 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 ensure 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 SFWMD 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 

Construction 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 Selected 
Section 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 are 
Section 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, RIGHTS-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 relocations (LERRs) necessary 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 “Wetlands With 

Sufficient 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” estimates 

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 wetland 

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 which show that the “rehydrated wetland” lands 
Section 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 protect 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 

lift; 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 wetland 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 

Spreader 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 eastwest.) Though benefits 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

SaltwaterWetlands 3287.59 1578

Nearshore Salinity 0 1078
Section 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 I
Section 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 I
Section 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 I 
Section 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 I
Section 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 I
Section 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 435.42 acres to be 

acquired from private landowners. These acres would be provided in fee. 

Florida Power 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 will 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 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 

Supplemental 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 Analysis.

7.8.3 Hazardous, Toxic and Radioactive 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 features, 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 could affect, or be affected by, plan 

implementation. The priority for completing assessments was given to lands to 
Section 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 introduce 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 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. 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 

that, 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 Assessments 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-sharing 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 found 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 soil 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 (BBCW) 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) exemptions 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 collected 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 parcels 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 chemicals, 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 Assessments 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 possible 
Section 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 construction, 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 only 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 businesses. Information 

provided by the SFWMD would indicate that relocation assistance is not 

required. Upon certification of the LERR, the 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 housing 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 Biscayne 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, the 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 users be maintained. 

The Savings Clause analysis which discusses flood risk management and level of 
Section 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 Costs 

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 Coordination 

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. This 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 operational 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 the 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 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 reduce peak total phosphorus loading to 

the bay by approximately 50 percent over the future 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 salinity 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 

existing 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 benefit 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 conditions. 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 salinity 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 required the 

development of a series of programmatic Guidance Memoranda (GM) that 

includes guidance for performing plan formulation 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 general 

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 withproject alternatives considered in the TSP alternative evaluation included the 

project features and the rest of CERP. During the initial development of the 

Restudy final plan, the planners observed that the selected Alternative D13R 

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 lift 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 using 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 alternatives. 

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 wastewater 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 to 
Section 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 compared 

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 Biscayne 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 such, 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 or 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 

discharges 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 CONTRIBUTION 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 Part 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 progress 
Section 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 expected 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 persistence 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 increase 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 expected 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 the 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 about 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 Works 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 Uncertainty

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 discussed 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 Dade 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 existing 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 indicated that 

under with-project conditions Biscayne Bay was at risk of receiving less water. 

However, Section 385.36 of the Programmatic Regulations requires that PIRs 

determine if existing legal sources of water are to be eliminated or transferred as 

a result of project implementation (”existing legal users” includes the natural 
Section 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

The 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 account 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 SLR. 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 accorded 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 (Alternatives 

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 

provide 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 predictions 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 Project
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-45
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-46
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-47
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-48
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-49
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-50
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-51
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-52
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-53
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-54
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-55
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-56
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-57
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-58
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-59
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-60
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-61
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-62
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-63
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-64
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-65
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-66
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-67
Section 7 The Tentatively Selected Plan

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

7-68
Section 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 considered 

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.

Sustainability: 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 methods. 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 construction 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 the 
Section 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 

south 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 Jacksonville 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 improved 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 south Florida ecosystemwide 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 sustainability. 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 system. 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, degraded 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 redirecting 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 the 

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 local 

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 ecological 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 development 

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 restoration 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 are 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 implementation 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, loggerhead 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 system 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 three 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 also 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 provide 

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; 

communication; 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: 

Comprehensively 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, operations, 

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 sustainability 
Section 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 

Sciences/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 throughout 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 Public 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 IMPLEMENTATION
Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-1 

8.0 PLAN IMPLEMENTATION

8.1 DIVISION OF IMPLEMENTATION 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 Federal, state, 

and local agencies. USACE Jacksonville District is responsible for assigning 

staff for developing the PIR, and for seeking to obtain Congressional 

authorization for the project. 

The SFWMD is responsible for design and construction of the State’s Expedited 

Construction program features associated with this project. USACE

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 part 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 

Draft PIR will be published in the Federal Register. Public workshops on the 

Draft 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-construction engineering and design (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. 3658
Section 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 Phases, 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 when they 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 would acquire the 

necessary LERRs. 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-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 the

Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) 2000 provides an opportunity for inkind 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 recommends crediting the non-Federal sponsor for work 

completed under the State’s Expedited Construction program in advance of 

approval and authorization of the Federal project. TABLE 8-1 includes an 

apportionment 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: Lands, Easements, Rights-of-way and Relocations 

8.2.1 Construction and Land Costs for Restoration Features 

Section 601 of the WRDA of 2000 and USACE policy requires that the nonFederal sponsor will provide LERR.

The total first cost of the restoration features of the project, including the value

of LERR and pre-construction engineering and design costs will be shared

equally between the Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. The 

non-Federal 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 according 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), have been prepared and are included as Annex 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 accordance with Section 601(e)

of WRDA 2000 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 provide 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 Federal Government 

and the non-Federal sponsor. Consistent with the provisions of Section 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 Federal Government and the non-Federal sponsor. 

OMRR&R costs associated with recreation features of the plan will be funded 

100 percent by the non-Federal sponsor. 

8.3 PROJECT ASSURANCES 

Federal laws and regulations 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-Specific 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 Savings 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 PIRs 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 of an existing legal source of water, the PIR shall include an 
Section 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 

eliminated. 

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 applicable law. These conditions would be included in the 

pre-CERP baseline (Section C.1.2.1). 

This 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 geographically separate project components was analyzed 

individually, for potentially significant and adverse impacts to flood protection 

as described in Annex C. The project is designed so that there would not be any

significant or adverse affects 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 baseline 

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 Regulations 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 calculating 
Section 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 in 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 

Annex 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 combined C-100, C-1, 

C-102 and C-103 basins (as indicated in total water diverted) ranges from 

113,619 acre-feet per year (10th percentile) to 282,982 acre-feet per year (90th

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 state 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 canal 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 

Annex 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, submerged aquatic vegetation 
Section 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 monitoring is outlined in WRDA 2007:

SEC. 2039. MONITORING ECOSYSTEM 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 remaining 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 Section 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 

Clean Air Act will 

occur with the 

coordination and 

review of the 

PIR/EIS by 
Section 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 

diesel pumps; 

normally applied for 

during 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; (state 

permit); National 

Pollutant Discharge 

Elimination System

(NPDES) permit will 

be required (state 

delegation); Water 

Quality (WQ) is 

expected to improve 

with project. 

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 state. 

National 

Environmental 

Policy Act of 1969 

PC NOI published; 

scoping and 

stakeholder meetings 

held; no new issues 

have been identified; 

Draft 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 Final 

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 the 
Section 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 compliance 
Section 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 

Draft 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 

Final 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 

state reviewing 

agencies, the state has 

determined that, at this 

stage, the project is 

consistent with the 

Florida Coastal 

Management Program.

March 2003 Additional 

consistency review 

by the state will 

occur during 

coordination of the 

Draft and Final 

PIR/EIS. Full 

compliance will 

occur with issuance 

of the WQC by the 

state.

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 

mammals in the area. 

Coordination with the 

March 2003 and 

coordination 

through PDT 

meetings.

Full compliance 

after review of the 

Final 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 

Final 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 

Final 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 

Final 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 by 
Section 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 

compliance is 

anticipated. 

completion of the

Final 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 

process 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 being 

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 with 
Section 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 

evaluation 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 Federally 

induced development 

in floodplains. 

Commitment of lands 

to project restoration 

will preclude such 

development.

Ongoing. Full compliance 

expected after 

completion of the 

Final 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 wetlands.

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 is 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 

Final 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 MiamiDade 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 FLORIDA STATUTES

The State of Florida has enacted several laws pertaining to implementation of 

CERP projects. These include amendments to Section 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 receiving 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 Florida 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 requirements 

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 Annex 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 

Statutes 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 Florida Statutes. A detailed explanation of how 

the project complies with the applicable requirements for CERP projects 

contained in the Florida Statutes can be found in Annex C–Analyses Required 

by WRDA 2000 and State Law.

8.7.1 Permits, Entitlements and Certifications

Construction activities on the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project are 

scheduled to begin in 2009 in accordance with the schedule for the State of 

Florida’s advanced construction program. The 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 

Clean Water Act and any corresponding permits required by the State of Florida 

in accordance with Chapters 373 and 403 of the Florida Statutes. 
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 the SFWMD to obtain the

NPDES permits for the construction of project features under the State of 

Florida’s advanced construction program prior to Federal approval and 

authorization of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project. At this time, a 

NPDES permit would not be required for the operation of Biscayne Bay Coastal 

Wetlands project features, as the project does not involve the discharge of 

pollutants. 

Depending upon the schedule for obtaining Federal 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 Coastal Wetlands project 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 Wildlife.” 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 Tentatively Selected Plan for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands

project 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 

control 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 adaptive management actions. Upon completion of construction and 
Section 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 project Tentatively Selected Plan complies 

with public outreach requirements applicable 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 

disadvantaged 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 disadvantaged 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 where 
Section 8 Plan Implementation

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

8-18

a significant number 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 significant 

number of participants are expected to have limited English proficiency.

8.8 ENVIRONMENTAL COMMITMENTS

USACE, SFWMD (the non-Federal 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 Federal, state and local 

requirements. Disposal of concrete or paving materials would be in 

accordance with Federal, 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 agree 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 of 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 

event 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 and 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 Annex 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 Annex C of this report.

10.Compliance with the State of Florida’s requirements for approval of CERP

projects is also addressed in Annex C. 

8.9 VIEWS OF NON-FEDERAL SPONSOR

The non-Federal sponsor (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 blank
Section 9 Summary of Coordination

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

SECTION 9

SUMMARY OF COORDINATION, PUBLIC VIEWS AND 

COMMENTS 
Section 9 Summary of Coordination

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-1 

9.0 SUMMARY OF COORDINATION

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 Federal 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. These 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 Agency 

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 Appendix E for Cooperating Agency Letters. 

9.2 ENVIRONMENTAL COMPLIANCE

The following sections provide detailed information regarding environmental 

compliance activities. Please refer to Annex 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 Ambient

Monitoring 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 the 
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 would 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 state 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 Federal 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 of 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 80th Street, in Miami, Florida, a 

stakeholders meeting, consisting of concerned members of agricultural, fishing, 

and environmental groups, was held. 

Additionally, a public workshop, discussing issues, concerns, opportunities and 

constraints related to the project, took place on October 28, 2003, at the John D. 

Campbell Agricultural Center, located at SW 288th Street, Homestead, Florida. 

This information-gathering workshop served to exchange information among 
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 project 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 backfilling 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 wetland 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 Coastal 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 workshops scheduled in conjunction with USACE’s planning, 
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 Coastal 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

• December 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 Final PIR/EIS 

by the FWS and the FWC.

9.9 ENDANGERED SPECIES ACT OF 1973 

At the time of submittal of this Draft PIR, the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands

project was in full compliance with the Endangered Species Act of 1973.
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 of a Biological Assessment. 

In a letter dated December 14, 2004, USACE requested confirmation of a 

Federally threatened and endangered species list from the FWS. 

In a letter dated January 24 2005, the FWS responded stating that eleven 

Federally 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 may 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 essential fish habitat (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 Magnuson-Stevens 

Fishery Conservation and 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 

impacted by activities or operations of the project alternatives. An 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 1972. 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 Coordination 

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 existing 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 the Estuary Protection Act of 1968.

9.13 NATIONAL HISTORIC PRESERVATION ACT OF 1966 

Phase 1 cultural resources coordination with the State Historic Preservation 

Officer for 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 project 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 channel 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 determination that additional Alternative O Phase I features 

along the C-103 and L-31E Canal 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 and 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 lands, 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, site inspections and interviews. The 

assessments covered all lands within the footprint of the Biscayne Bay Coastal 
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 sites in the Comprehensive Environmental Response, 

Compensation and Liability Information System (CERCLIS) database; Resource 

Conservation and Recovery Act (RCRA) databases for large quantity and small 

quantity generators; treatment, storage, and disposal facilities (TSDFs); the 

toxic release inventory system, solid waste landfills, underground storage tanks 

(USTs), leaking underground storage tanks, and above ground storage tanks. 

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. 

Lands where site contamination concerns were not resolved during the Phase I 

studies were subjected to additional investigation. Phase II studies were 

initiated by the SFWMD to collect and analyze soil 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 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 always 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 the 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 

Section 7, Environmental Effects. 

9.15 FARMLAND PROTECTION POLICY ACT OF 1981 

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is in full compliance with the 

Farmland Protection Policy Act of 1981. 
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 

Appendix E). 

9.16 EXECUTIVE ORDER 11988, FLOOD PLAIN MANAGEMENT

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project has been evaluated in accordance 

with Executive Order (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 analyses, 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 JUSTICE 

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands project is in compliance with E.O. 12898, 

Environmental Justice, which requires the Federal 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 REEF 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 Coordination 

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 species. 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 Federal 

government review and Congressional authorization. Further legislative intent 

was to ensure that 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 project 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 needs;

(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 Coordination 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-10

1. The District shall convene a pre-application conference with all state 

and Federal 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 Federal 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 Federal 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 Sections 373.1501(5) and Section 

373.026(8)(b) F.S., for the recommended plan features of the Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Wetlands 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, ORGANIZATIONS AND PERSONS TO WHOM 

COPIES OF THE DRAFT PIR/EIS WILL BE SENT

The following agencies, groups, and individuals will be sent copies of the Draft 

PIR/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 Agency
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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. Department 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 Commission

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

Municipalities 

City of Florida City

City of Homestead 
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 Action 

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

Everglades 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 Council

SPCA Wildlife Care Center

Trail Glades Bassmasters

Treemendous Miami, Inc.

The Nature Conservancy
Section 9 Summary of Coordination 

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 individuals who will receive the Draft 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 Coordination 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

9-14

This page intentionally left blank
Section 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

SECTION 10

RECOMMENDATIONS 
Section 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

This page intentionally left blank
Section 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) Project 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 ecosystem. 

The Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project 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 the benefits 

of the Project as previously developed for the Comprehensive Everglades 

Restoration Plan (CERP). 

This Project is integral to achieving restoration of the nearshore bay and 

adjacent wetlands in the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands study area. Moreover, 

the Project 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 Project

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 Project is 

expected to produce a total of 9,986 average annual Habitat Units (HUs). 

Further, this Project 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 given consideration to all significant aspects in the overall public interest, 

including engineering feasibility, economic, social and environmental effects.

I find that the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project, located in eastern MiamiDade 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]) capacity, 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 Section 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 Project 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 Project is $174,242,000 (Fiscal Year 2010

price level). The total first cost for the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project

includes 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 Federal 

annual OMRR&R cost of $840,000 and an estimated Non-Federal 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-Federal Sponsor responsibility. 

The above recommendations are made with the provision that the Non-Federal 

Sponsor 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 Project, and that the NonFederal sponsor agrees to perform the following items of local cooperation: 

a) Provide 50 percent of total Project costs consistent with the provisions of 

Section 601(e) of the WRDA 2000 including authority to perform design and 

construction of Project features consistent with Federal law and regulation. 

b) Provide all lands, easements, and rights-of-way, including 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 Project. Valuation of the 

lands shall follow 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 such 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 entity 
Section 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, shall 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 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 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 NonFederal 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 That Are Not Required for Construction by Government or for 

Construction of In-Kind 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-Kind 

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 entity 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 Government a right to enter, at reasonable times and in a 

reasonable manner, upon land that the Non-Federal Sponsor owns or controls 
Section 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10-4 

for access to the Project for the purpose of inspection, and, if necessary, for 

the purpose of constructing, operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, or 

rehabilitating the Project.

d) Assume responsibility for operating, maintaining, repairing, replacing, 

and rehabilitating (OMRR&R) the Project or completed functional portions of 

the Project, including mitigation features, in a manner compatible with the 

Project’s authorized purposes and in accordance with applicable Federal and 

State laws and specific directions prescribed in the OMRR&R manuals and 

any subsequent amendments thereto. Cost sharing for OMRR&R will be in 

accordance 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-Federal Sponsor shall be 

responsible for 50 percent of the cost of OMRR&R activities authorized 

under this section... 

e) The Non-Federal Sponsor shall operate, maintain, repair, replace and 

rehabilitate the recreational features of the Project and is responsible for 100 

percent of the costs.

f) Unless otherwise provided for in the statutory authorization for this 

Project, 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 

construction of any water resources project or separable element thereof, 

until the Non-Federal Sponsor has entered into a written agreement to 

furnish its required cooperation for the Project or separable element.

g) Hold and save the Government free from all damages arising from the 

construction, OMRR&R of the Project and any Project-related betterments, 

except for damages due to the fault or negligence of the Government or the 

Government’s contractors.

h) Keep and maintain books, records, documents, and other evidence 

pertaining to costs and expenses incurred pursuant to the Project to the 

extent and in such detail as will properly reflect total Project costs and 

comply with the provisions of the Master Agreement including Article XI 

Maintenance 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 Comprehensive 
Section 10 Recommendations

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010

10-5 

Environmental Response, 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 

the Project; except that the Non-Federal Sponsor 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 Government determines 

necessary for the construction and O&M. 

k) As between the Government and the Non-Federal Sponsor, the NonFederal Sponsor shall be considered the operator of the Project for the 

purposes of CERCLA liability. To the maximum extent practicable, the NonFederal Sponsor shall OMRR&R the Project in a manner that will not cause 

liability to arise under CERCLA.

l) Prevent obstructions of or encroachments on the Project area (including 

prescribing and enforcing regulations to prevent such obstruction or 

encroachments) which might reduce ecosystem restoration benefits, hinder 

O&M, or interfere with the Project’s proper function, such that as any new 

developments on Project lands or the addition of facilities which would 

degrade the benefits of the Project.

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 Project, and 

inform all affected persons of applicable benefits, policies, and procedures in 

connection with said act.

n) Comply with all applicable Federal and State 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, “Nondiscrimination 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 et 
Section 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 Project.

p) Provide 50 percent of that portion of total cultural resource preservation 

mitigation and data recovery costs attributable to the Project that are in 

excess of one percent of the total amount authorized to be appropriated for 

the Project.

q) Do not use Federal funds to meet the Non-Federal Sponsor’s share of total 

Project costs unless the Federal 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 such regulations as may be necessary to 

prevent unwise future development and to ensure compatibility with 

protection levels provided by the Project.

3) The Non-Federal Sponsor shall comply with Section 402 of WRDA 

1986, as amended (33 U.S.C. 701b-12), which 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 project 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 implement such plan not later 

than one year after completion of construction of the Project. The NonFederal 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 regulations 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 Project, 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 information 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-Federal Sponsor 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 part of its initiative for early 

implementation of certain CERP projects, the non-Federal sponsor has stated 

that it will construct portions of the Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project 

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 NonFederal 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. The Non-Federal Sponsor is exploring alternative project 

delivery methods to expedite implementation of the Project through the State 

expedited program. Such delivery methods may include public-private 

partnerships in which the Non-Federal Sponsor contracts with a private or notfor-profit entity for services that may include 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 Federal lands and 

estuaries in other portions of the south Florida ecosystem. Therefore, I 

recommend that should the Non-Federal Sponsor construct portions of the 

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Project prior to the execution of a PPA for this 
Section 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-Federal sponsor 

be credited for such construction costs at the time the PPA for the Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Wetlands Project is executed. Such credit would be applied toward the 

Non-Federal 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, necessary, 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 Federal and State 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 

national 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 Federal 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 Commander 
Section 11 Report Preparers 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

SECTION 11 

LIST OF REPORT PREPARERS 
Section 11 Report Preparers 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 
Section 11 Report Preparers 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Mechanical Engineer 

Steve Blair DERM Biologist 

Candida Bronson USACE Coastal Engineer 

Eric Bush USACE Plan Formulation 

Elizabeth Carwell EPJV Associate Project Manager 

Bahram Charkhian SFWMD Lead Environmental 

Scientist 

Ernest Clarke USACE 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 USACE Civil Engineer 

Craig 

Grossenbacher 

DERM Chief, Natural Resources 

Planning Section 

Ryan Grove USACE Hydrologic Engineer 

Cynthia Irvin USACE Planning 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 

Coordinator 
Section 11 Report Preparers 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Project 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 Engineers 
Section 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

SECTION 12 INDEX 

 
Section 12 Index

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 
Section 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, iii, 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, vii, 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, 14-2 
Section 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 Construction 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, 13-20 
Section 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, xvii, 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 Treatment Area, 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, 7-40 
Section 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 Communities, 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 

Z 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

 

SECTION 13 

GLOSSARY OF TERMS AND ACRONYMS 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 feet. 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 needs to be done and when it needs 

to be completed. 

Activity — A specific project task that requires resources and time to complete. 

Adaptive Assessment — A process for learning and incorporating new 

information into the planning and evaluation phases of the restoration program. 

This process ensures that the scientific information produced for this effort is 

converted 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 measurements 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 Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

13-2 

B 

Baseline — The initial approved plan for 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, typically 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, which 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 coast 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 agricultural 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 Integrated 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 document, 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 time. One cubic foot per second equals 0.0283 meter 

/second (7.48 gallons per minute). One cubic 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 Integrated 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 attainment 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 portion 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 improve 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 program 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 fully 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 Integrated 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. Goals 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 fractures 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 that can grow on natural rises of 

only a few inches in the land. 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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, saturated 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 properties, 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 graphic 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 Integrated 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 irrigation requirements based upon land 

use, soil type, crop type, rainfall, 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 and its implementation; (3) rectifying an 

impact by repairing, rehabilitating or restoring the affected environment; 

(4) reducing or eliminating an impact over time by preservation and 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 responsibility 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 local sponsor under separate Design 

Agreements and Project Management Plans. 

Outreach — Proactive communication and productive involvement with the 

public to best meet the water resource needs of south Florida. 

Oxygen Demand — The biological or chemical demand of dissolved oxygen in 

water. Required by biological processes for respiration. 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 the 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 ecosystem while providing for the other 

water related needs of the region, including water supply and flood protection. 

The purpose of the regulations is to ensure 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 objectives of the plan are achieved; 

(2) processes that ensure new scientific, technical, or other information such as 

that developed through adaptive management 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 beginning and an end that uses time and 

resources to produce specific results. Each project has a specific, desired 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 and 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 established 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, funding 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 related 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 the agency's preferred alternative for a 

project. The proposed action and all 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. Required as a major input into any EIS. 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 overall 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 water 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 Federal 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 responsible 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 normally 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 Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

13-12 

Restoration — The recovery of a natural system’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 effective 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 south 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 pinewoods with a thick understory of oaks 

and saw palmetto, and which occupies well-drained, nutrient-poor sandy soils. 

Seepage — Water that escapes control through 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 broad, shallow rivers of the Everglades. 

South Florida Ecosystem — An area consisting of the lands and waters 

within the boundary of the South Florida 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 Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

13-13 

South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) — An integrated 

surface water groundwater model that simulates 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 structures 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 measures 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 where 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 the 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 relevant 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

13-14 

specific discussions from an environmental impact statement (EIS) of broader 

scope into a subsequent EIS of narrower scope. 

Trade-Off — Allowing one aspect of a project to change, usually for the worse, 

in return for another aspect of the project getting better. 

Tributary — A stream feeding into a larger 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 and 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 outflows to each one of them. 

Watershed — A region or area bounded peripherally 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 Florida, 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 Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

13-15 

X 

Y 

Yellow Book — See “Restudy” 

Z 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

13-16 

This page intentionally left blank
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Engineers, 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 Regulation 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Lead 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Engineering Society of America 

IMC Interagency Model Center 

ITR Independent Technical Review 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Implementation 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 Program 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Discharge 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 Inch 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Water 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 Method 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Plant 
Section 13 Glossary 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

13-24 

X 

Y 

YB Yellow Book 

Z 

ZSI Zones of Similar Influence 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

SECTION 14 

REFERENCES 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

This page intentionally left blank 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 surface 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 Study, 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 Research (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. The Turtles of the United States, Canada, 

and Baja California. Ithaca, NY: Cornell Univ. Press, 542 pp. 

Cherkiss, M.S. 1999. Status and distribution of the American crocodile 

(Crocodylus acutus) in southeastern Florida. Master’s Thesis at University of 

Florida, 34 pp. 

Chin-Fatt, J. and J. D. Wang. 1987. Canal 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. Breeding bird use of a mature stand of Brazilian pepper. 

Florida Field Naturalist 17:53-76. 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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, Flagstaff, 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. Florida Geological Survey Bulletin No. 25. 

De Sylva, D.P. 1976. Fishes of Biscayne Bay, Florida. Pages 181-202 in A. 

Thorhaug and A. Volker, editors. Biscayne Bay: Past/Present/Future, 

University of Miami. Sea Grant Special Publication No.5. 

Design Agreement Between The Department of the Army and South Florida 

Water Management District for the Design 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 June 30, 1993. Study no. 7506, Florida 

Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission; Tallahassee, Florida. 

Egler, F.E. 1952. Southeast saline Everglades vegetation, Florida, and its 

management. Veg. Acta Geobo. 3:213-265. 

Fennema, R.J., C.J. Neidrauer, R.A. Johnson, T.K. MacVicar, and W.A. Perkins. 

1994. A computer model to simulate natural Everglades hydrology. In: 

Davis, S.M. and J.C. Ogden (eds). Everglades, the Ecosystem and its 

Restoration. St. Lucie Press; Delray Beach, Florida. pp. 249-289. 

Fish, J.E. and M. Stewart. 1991. Hydrogeology of the surficial aquifer system, 

Dade County, Florida. USGS Water Resource Investigations Report 90-4108. 

56 pp. 

Florida Fish and Wildlife Commission (FWC). “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 hydrology of the eastern United States. 

USGS Water Supply Paper No. 102. 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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. Meredith (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 Works, 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. 1984. Mangroves in the estuarine food 

chain. Pp. 149-156 In: P.J. Gleason (ed.), Environments of South Florida, 

Present and Past II. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida. 551 pp. 

Irlandi, E., S. Macia and J.E. Serafy. 1997. Salinity reduction from freshwater 

canal discharge: Effects on mortality and feeding of an urchin (Lytechinus 

variegates) and gastropod (Astracea tecta). Bulletin of Marine Science. 61:869-

879. 

Ishman, Scott E., 1997, Ecosystem History 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 Integrated 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 organisms. 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. Perry. 2003. Rocky Glades fish assemblages 

and the influence of ISOP/IOP. Contribution to the IOP Congressional 

Report. National Park Service, Everglades 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. Journal 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 the ASMFCSAV Subcommittee. Pages 

11-33 in C.D. Stephan and T.E. Bigford, editors. Atlantic Coastal Submerged 

Aquatic Vegetation: A Review of its Ecological 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 Drymarchon 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. Crewz, and W.E. Odum. 1985. Mangrove 

habitat and fishery resources of Florida. Pages 281-336 in: Seaman, W., Jr. 

(ed.), Florida Aquatic Habitat and Fishery Resources. Florida Chapter, 

American Fishery Society, Kissimmee, Florida, 543 pp. 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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-term dynamics of an Everglades smallfish assemblage. In: Davis, S.M. and 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, Homestead, Florida, July 18, 1997, 193 pp. 

Lorenz, J.J. 2000. Impacts of water management 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, and 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 reefs of the Florida Keys, an ecosystem 

sourcebook. CRC Press, Boca Raton, Florida. pp. 555-598. 

Luo, J. and J. Serafy. 2002. Data quality control, time series analysis and 

statistical modeling of salinity and canal discharges in Biscayne National 

Park. Biscayne National Park, Homestead, Florida. 26 pp. 

MacIntosh, D.J. 1980. Ecological comparisons of mangrove swamp and salt 

marsh fiddler crabs. Pages 243-257 in Proceedings 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. Brandt. 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 Restoration. 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 endangered ecosystem. Final report to 

the National Park Service, Everglades National Park, Homestead, FL. 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

14-6 

Mazzotti, F.J. and M.S. Cherkiss. 1998. Status 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 ammonia concentrations in soil, sediments, 

surface water, and groundwater along the 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 Department. 1986. Draft Biscayne Bay aquatic 

preserve plan. Miami, Florida. 360 pp. 

Mir-Gonzalez, Danielle, and Joseph Boyer, 2003, Macrophye Benthic 

Communities and Groundwater Nutrient Dynamics 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 seasonal 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 possible 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. Llewellyn. 2004. Mangroves enhance the biomass of 

coral reef fish communities in the Caribbean. Nature 427:533-536. 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service. 

Odell, D.K. 1976. Distribution and abundance of marine mammals in south 

Florida: preliminary results. Pages 203-212 in A. Thorhaug and A. Volker, 

editors. Biscayne Bay: Past/Present/Future. University of Miami: Sea Grant 

Special Publication No. 5. 

Odum, W.E. and E.J. Heald. 1972. Trophic analyses of an estuarine mangrove 

community. Bulletin of Marine Science 22:671-768. 

Odum, W.E., C.C. McIvor, and T.J. Smith. 1982. The ecology of mangroves of 

south Florida: A community profile. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Office of 

Biological Services, Washington, D.C. FWS/OBS-18/24. 144 pp. 

Ogden, J.C. 1978. Status and nesting 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 ecosystem 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 Integrated 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 Greenway Network Master Plan, MiamiDade County, Florida, 2004. 

Ross, M.S, E.E. Gaiser, J.F. Meeder and M.T. Lewin. 2002. Multi-taxon analysis 

of the “White Zone,” a common ecotonal feature of the South Florida coastal 

wetlands. In: J.W. Porter and K.G. Porter (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 ecological characterization of the Lower 

Everglades, Florida Bay, and the Florida Keys. U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service, Office of Biological Services, 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 the 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 Curry. 2001. Coupling Biscayne Bay’s natural 

resources and fisheries to environmental 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 Integrated 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 Bay, 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 Guidance Memorandum No. 16. 

South Florida Water Management District. 2000. Lower East coast water supply 

plan. Water Supply Department. West Palm beach, FL. 

South Florida Regional Planning Council, 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/docs/MPO_sdgn_master_1994.pdf). 

State of Florida, Department of Environmental Protection, Division of 

Recreation and Parks, Florida Circumnavigational Saltwater Paddling Trail, 

www.dep.state.fl.us/gwt/paddling/Segments/Segment%20Home.htm (2007). 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 Department, Miami, Florida. 107 pp. 

Thayer, G.W., M.S. Fonseca, and J.W. Kenworthy. 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 Commission, 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 community 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 introductions 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, Unit 

Day Values for Recreation, Fiscal Year 2006. <ftp://ftpfc.sc.egov.usda.gov/Economics/recreate/ egm_0603.pdf> 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Central and Southern Florida Study (Yellow 

Book) (1999). 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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, South Atlantic Division (CESAD-PDD-J), 

OMRR&R Memorandum, Atlanta, GA (29 Sep 2005). 

U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, South 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 Guidance 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 (EP) 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, Planning 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 Resident Population by Age, Sex, Race, 

and Hispanic Origin: 1999 to 2100 28 July 2006, 

<http://www.census.gov/population/projections/nation/detail/d2041_50.pdf> 

(13 Jan. 2000). 
Section 14 References 

BBCW Phase 1 Draft Integrated 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 (Service). 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. South 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 Planning 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, Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences. 

2001. Eastern Indigo Snake. 

US Geological Survey, Synergos Technologies Inc., and EPA-Air Quality Trends. 

2001. Website: http://www.ersys.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, Everglades National Park, Homestead, 

Florida. 

VanZee, R. 1999. Natural System Model Version 4.5 Documentation Report. 

Draft report, South Florida Water Management District, West Palm Beach, 

Florida. 

Wang, JD, SV Cofer-Shabica, & J Chin-Fatt. 1988. Finite element characteristic 

advection model. Journal of Hydraulic Engineering. 114:1098-1114. 

Weisberg, S.B. and V.A. Lotrich. 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 Integrated 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. Marot, 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 Interior, 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 Integrated PIR and EIS March 2010 

14-14 

This page intentionally blank 

 

 South Florida Water

 Management District