CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY

FINAL

INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT

AND

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

APRIL 1999
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY

FINAL

INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT

AND

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Responsible Agencies: The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Jacksonville District. The responsible cooperating agencies are the South Florida Water

Management District, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Abstract: The south Florida ecosystem is a nationally and internationally unique and

important natural resource. It is also a resource in peril, having been severely impacted by

human activities for over a hundred years. This report recommends a comprehensive plan

for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of central and

southern Florida, including the Everglades. This is a final integrated feasibility report and

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which identifies and discusses the plan’s

proposed project features, its beneficial effects and potential impacts on existing resources.

The recommended Comprehensive Plan contains over sixty project features. Principal

features of the plan are the creation of approximately 217,000 acres of new reservoirs and

wetlands based water treatment areas. These features vastly increase storage and water

supply for the natural system, as well as for urban and agricultural needs, while

maintaining current Central and Southern Florida Project purposes. The recommended

Comprehensive Plan achieves the restoration of more natural flows of water, including

sheetflow, improved water quality, and more natural hydroperiods in the south Florida

ecosystem. Improvements to native flora and fauna, including threatened and endangered

species, will occur as a result of the restoration of hydrologic conditions.

THE OFFICIAL CLOSING DATE If you require further

FOR THE RECEIPT OF COMMENTS information on this

IS 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON document, contact:

WHICH THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

OF THIS FINAL PROGRAMATIC EIS Mr. Russell Reed

APPEARS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 4970

Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019

Telephone: (904) 232-3967

NOTE: This report includes an integrated Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

within the final feasibility report; sections required for compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) are noted by an asterisk in the Table of Contents.
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xix

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY

FINAL

INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT

AND

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

*SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... i

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Authority.............................................................................................................1-3

1.2 Study Purpose & Scope ...............................................................................................1-7

1.2.1 Study Purpose..................................................................................................1-7

1.2.2 Study Scope .....................................................................................................1-8

1.2.3 Report Organization..........................................................................................1-9

1.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................................1-9

1.3.1 Kissimmee River Basin...................................................................................1-10

1.3.2 Lake Okeechobee ..........................................................................................1-13

1.3.3 Upper East Coast ...........................................................................................1-13

1.3.4 Everglades Agricultural Area ..........................................................................1-15

1.3.5 Water Conservation Areas..............................................................................1-15

1.3.6 Lower East Coast Area...................................................................................1-17

1.3.7 Biscayne Bay..................................................................................................1-18

1.3.8 Everglades National Park ...............................................................................1-19

1.3.9 Florida Bay, Whitewater Bay, and the Ten Thousand Islands .........................1-20

1.3.10 Florida Keys....................................................................................................1-20

1.3.11 Florida Reef Tract...........................................................................................1-21

1.3.12 Big Cypress Basin ..........................................................................................1-21

1.3.13 Lower West Coast ..........................................................................................1-22

1.4 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements.......................................................1-22

1.5 Study Process............................................................................................................1-24

1.6 The Central And Southern Florida Project..................................................................1-25

1.7 Other Studies, Reports, And Projects.........................................................................1-28

1.7.1 C&SF Project Authorizations ..........................................................................1-28

1.7.2 Other Studies..................................................................................................1-30

SECTION 2 PRE-DRAINAGE CONDITION

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Description Of The Natural System ..............................................................................2-2

2.3 Fundamental Characteristics Of The Pre-Drainage System .........................................2-2

2.3.1 Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow.....................................................................2-3

2.3.2 Large Spatial Scale...........................................................................................2-3

2.3.3 Heterogeneity in Habitat ...................................................................................2-4

2.4 Relationships With Spatial And Temporal Variation......................................................2-4
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xx

2.5 Overview Of Historic Water Quality Conditions.............................................................2-6

2.5.1 Kissimmee River Basin.....................................................................................2-6

2.5.2 Lake Okeechobee ............................................................................................2-6

2.5.3 Upper East Coast .............................................................................................2-7

2.5.4 The Central Everglades ....................................................................................2-7

2.5.5 Lower East Coast and Biscayne Bay ................................................................2-8

2.5.6 Florida Bay and the Florida Keys ......................................................................2-8

2.5.7 Big Cypress Basin ............................................................................................2-9

2.5.8 Caloosahatchee River Basin.............................................................................2-9

SECTION 3 *EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology And Soils........................................................................................................3-2

3.2 Climate.........................................................................................................................3-4

3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................3-4

3.4 Noise .........................................................................................................................3-4

3.5 Vegetation....................................................................................................................3-5

3.6 Fish And Wildlife ..........................................................................................................3-8

3.7 Threatened, Endangered And State Listed Species ...................................................3-13

3.8 Water Management....................................................................................................3-15

3.8.1 Kissimmee River – Istokpoga Basin................................................................3-15

3.8.2 Lake Okeechobee and Everglades Agricultural Area......................................3-16

3.8.3 Water Conservation Areas..............................................................................3-17

3.8.4 East Coast Canal Watersheds........................................................................3-18

3.9 Water Quality .............................................................................................................3-19

3.9.1 Regional Overview Of Water Quality Conditions.............................................3-21

3.9.2 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................3-24

3.10 Water Supply..............................................................................................................3-25

3.11 Socio-Economics .......................................................................................................3-27

3.12 Land Use....................................................................................................................3-28

3.13 Recreation Resources................................................................................................3-30

3.14 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................3-32

3.15 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................3-34

3.16 Hazardous, Toxic And Radioactive Waste..................................................................3-36

SECTION 4 *FUTURE “WITHOUT PLAN” CONDITION

4.1 “With And Without” Comparisons .................................................................................4-1

4.2 Planning Horizon..........................................................................................................4-2

4.3 Climate.........................................................................................................................4-3

4.4 Sea Level Rise.............................................................................................................4-3

4.5 Population And Socio-Economic Conditions.................................................................4-6

4.6 Land Use And Land Cover...........................................................................................4-7

4.7 Water Quality .............................................................................................................4-10

4.7.1 Kissimmee River Region.................................................................................4-10

4.7.2 Lake Okeechobee ..........................................................................................4-10

4.7.3 Upper East Coast ...........................................................................................4-11

4.7.4 Everglades Agricultural Area ..........................................................................4-11

4.7.5 Natural Areas..................................................................................................4-17

4.7.6 Lower East Coast and Biscayne Bay ..............................................................4-17

4.7.7 Florida Bay .....................................................................................................4-18

4.7.8 Florida Keys....................................................................................................4-18
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxi

4.7.9 Big Cypress Basin ..........................................................................................4-18

4.7.10 Caloosahatchee River Region ........................................................................4-19

4.8 Urban And Agricultural Water Supply Demands.........................................................4-19

4.8.1 Lower East Coast Region ...............................................................................4-19

4.8.2 Everglades Agricultural Area Region ..............................................................4-22

4.8.3 Upper East Coast Region ...............................................................................4-23

4.8.4 Big Cypress And Caloosahatchee River Regions ...........................................4-24

4.9 Physical Facilities And Operations .............................................................................4-24

4.9.1 C&Sf Project Modifications .............................................................................4-24

4.9.2 Critical Projects...............................................................................................4-29

4.9.3 Interim Plan For Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply ............................4-30

4.9.4 Northwest Dade Lake Belt Area......................................................................4-33

4.9.5 East Cape And Homestead Canals ................................................................4-33

4.10 Land Acquisition Programs ........................................................................................4-33

4.10.1 Save Our Rivers Program, Preservation 2000 and Conservation and

Recreation Lands .......................................................................................................4-33

4.10.2 Miami-Dade County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.................4-35

4.10.3 Farm Bill .........................................................................................................4-35

4.11 Recreation..................................................................................................................4-36

SECTION 5 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 Public Concerns ...........................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Ecological Problems And Opportunities .......................................................................5-3

5.3 Water Quality Problems And Opportunities ..................................................................5-5

5.3.1 Regional Overview............................................................................................5-5

5.3.2 Kissimmee River Region...................................................................................5-8

5.3.3 Lake Okeechobee ............................................................................................5-9

5.3.4 Upper East Coast and Indian River Lagoon....................................................5-10

5.3.5 Everglades Agricultural Area ..........................................................................5-11

5.3.6 Natural Areas..................................................................................................5-12

5.3.7 Lower East Coast and Biscayne Bay ..............................................................5-13

5.3.8 Florida Bay .....................................................................................................5-15

5.3.9 Florida Keys....................................................................................................5-16

5.3.10 Big Cypress Basin ..........................................................................................5-17

5.3.11 Caloosahatchee River Region ........................................................................5-18

5.3.12 Mercury ..........................................................................................................5-18

5.4 Economic And Social Well-Being Problems And Opportunities ..................................5-19

5.5 Planning Goals And Objectives ..................................................................................5-20

5.5.1 Enhance Ecologic Values ...............................................................................5-21

5.5.2 Enhance Economic Values And Social Well Being .........................................5-24

5.6 Ecosystem Restoration ..............................................................................................5-26

5.6.1 Why Restore The South Florida Ecosystems?................................................5-26

5.6.2 Certainties And Uncertainties .........................................................................5-28

5.6.3 Different Views ...............................................................................................5-29

5.6.4 The Recovered Ecosystems ...........................................................................5-30

5.6.5 Role Of Adaptive Assessment ........................................................................5-32

5.7 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Vision..............................................................5-35
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxii

SECTION 6 GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE

RESTUDY

6.1. Governor’s Commission For A Sustainable South Florida ............................................6-1

6.2. Initial Report.................................................................................................................6-1

6.3. Development Of The Conceptual Plan .........................................................................6-3

6.3.1. Commission’s Planning Objectives ...................................................................6-3

6.3.2. Preferred Alternatives .......................................................................................6-5

6.4. Conceptual Plan Elements ...........................................................................................6-8

6.4.1. Concept 1: Regional Storage Within The Everglades Headwaters And Adjacent

Areas..............................................................................................................6-10

6.4.2. Concept 2: Lake Okeechobee Operational Plan .............................................6-12

6.4.3. Concept 3: Everglades Agricultural Area Storage ...........................................6-14

6.4.4. Concept 4: Water Preserve Areas ..................................................................6-15

6.4.5. Concept 5: Natural Areas Continuity...............................................................6-18

6.4.6. Concept 6: Water Supply and Flood Protection for Urban and Agricultural

Areas..............................................................................................................6-23

6.4.7. Concept 7: Adequate Water Quality for Natural System Functioning ..............6-24

6.4.8. Concept 8: Increased Spatial Extent and Quality of Wetlands Beyond the

Everglades .....................................................................................................6-28

6.4.9. Concept 9: Invasive Plant Control...................................................................6-30

6.4.10. Concept 10: Aquifer Storage and Recovery....................................................6-31

6.4.11. Concept 11: Protection and Restoration of Coastal, Estuarine, and Marine

Ecosystems ....................................................................................................6-33

6.4.12. Concept 12: Conservation of Soil....................................................................6-36

6.4.13. Concept 13: Operation, Management, and Implementation of the C&SF Project

Modifications and Related Lands....................................................................6-38

SECTION 7 PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION

7.1 Plan Formulation And Evaluation Methodology ............................................................7-1

7.2 Identification And Screening Of Plan Components .......................................................7-2

7.2.1 Identification Of Plan Components....................................................................7-3

7.2.2 Screening Of Plan Components........................................................................7-3

7.2.3 Screening Conclusions .....................................................................................7-6

7.3 Formulation And Evaluation Of Alternative Plans .........................................................7-8

7.3.1 Methodology For Formulation And Evaluation Of The Alternative Plans ...........7-8

7.3.2 Formulation And Evaluation Iterations ............................................................7-14

7.3.3 Initial Draft Plan ..............................................................................................7-35

7.3.4 Conclusions Of Comprehensive Plan Formulation And Evaluation .................7-44

7.4 Other Project Elements ..............................................................................................7-45

7.4.1 Evaluation Of Other Project Elements.............................................................7-45

7.4.2 Conclusions Of The Evaluation Of The Other Project Elements......................7-46

7.5 Final Array Of Alternative Plans .................................................................................7-46

7.5.1 Economic Evaluation of the Alternative Plans .................................................7-46

7.5.2 Environmental Evaluation of the Alternative Plans..........................................7-51

7.5.3 Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses ........................................7-52

7.5.4 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Analysis ...............................................................7-59

7.5.5 Uncertainty Analysis .......................................................................................7-60

7.5.6 Planning Criteria .............................................................................................7-61

7.5.7 Evaluation Accounts .......................................................................................7-61

7.6 Plan Formulation Process Summary ..........................................................................7-67
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxiii

7.7 Subsequent Iterations Of The Recommended Plan....................................................7-68

7.7.1 Scenario D-13R4 Description .........................................................................7-70

7.7.2 Evaluation of D-13R4......................................................................................7-72

7.8 Plan Formulation Conclusions....................................................................................7-74

SECTION 8 *ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

8.1. Soils .........................................................................................................................8-1

8.2. Geology........................................................................................................................8-2

8.3. Climate.........................................................................................................................8-2

8.4. Air Quality ....................................................................................................................8-2

8.5. Noise .........................................................................................................................8-2

8.6. Vegetation....................................................................................................................8-3

8.7. Fish And Wildlife ..........................................................................................................8-4

8.8. Threatened And Endangered Species..........................................................................8-6

8.9. Water Management......................................................................................................8-6

8.10. Water Quality ...............................................................................................................8-9

8.11. Water Supply..............................................................................................................8-11

8.12. Socio-Economics .......................................................................................................8-12

8.13. Land Use....................................................................................................................8-14

8.14. Recreation Resources................................................................................................8-15

8.15. Aesthetic Resources ..................................................................................................8-16

8.16. Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................8-17

8.17. Hazardous, Toxic, And Radioactive Wastes...............................................................8-17

8.18. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects..............................................................8-18

8.19. Relationship Between Short Term Uses And Long Term Productivity ........................8-19

8.20. Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources .........................................8-20

8.21. Cumulative Effects .....................................................................................................8-20

SECTION 9 RECOMMENDED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

9.1 Construction Features..................................................................................................9-1

9.1.1 Kissimmee River Region...................................................................................9-2

9.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Region ................................................................................9-6

9.1.3 Caloosahatchee River Region ..........................................................................9-7

9.1.4 Upper East Coast .............................................................................................9-8

9.1.5 Everglades Agricultural Area ............................................................................9-9

9.1.6 Big Cypress Region........................................................................................9-10

9.1.7 Water Conservation Areas..............................................................................9-11

9.1.8 Lower East Coast Region ...............................................................................9-13

9.1.9 Southwest Florida Region...............................................................................9-26

9.1.10 Florida Bay and Keys......................................................................................9-28

9.1.11 System-wide...................................................................................................9-28

9.2 Operational Features..................................................................................................9-29

9.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Region ..............................................................................9-29

9.2.2 Caloosahatchee Region .................................................................................9-29

9.2.3 Upper East Coast Region ...............................................................................9-30

9.2.4 Water Conservation Areas and Everglades Regions ......................................9-30

9.2.5 Lower East Coast Region ...............................................................................9-31

9.3 Pilot Projects ..............................................................................................................9-32

9.3.1 Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Pilot Project (GG)...........9-32
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxiv

9.3.2 Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Pilot Project

(D) ..................................................................................................................9-32

9.3.3 Site 1 Impoundment and Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Pilot Project (M)....9-33

9.3.4 In-Ground Reservoir Technology – Pilot Project .............................................9-33

9.3.5 L-31N Seepage Management – Pilot Project (V) ............................................9-33

9.3.6 Wastewater Reuse Technology – Pilot Project (HHH, BBB, and OPE) ...........9-34

9.4 Real Estate ................................................................................................................9-34

9.4.1 Land Acquisition .............................................................................................9-35

9.4.2 Relocation Assistance (Public Law 91-646)....................................................9-35

9.5 Adaptive Assessment And Monitoring Program..........................................................9-38

9.5.1 Adaptive Assessment Program.......................................................................9-38

9.5.2 Monitoring Program ........................................................................................9-39

9.5.3 Monitoring Program Planning Guidelines........................................................9-41

9.6 Fish And Wildlife Mitigation ........................................................................................9-50

9.7 New Feasibility Studies ..............................................................................................9-51

9.7.1 Florida Bay And The Florida Keys Feasibility Study........................................9-51

9.7.2 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study ................................................................9-52

9.7.3 Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan ...............................................9-52

9.8 Future Improvements To The Comprehensive Plan ...................................................9-54

9.9 Cost Estimate.............................................................................................................9-56

9.9.1 Initial Costs.....................................................................................................9-56

9.9.2 Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Costs...................................................9-56

9.9.3 Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R)

Costs ..............................................................................................................9-56

9.9.4 Annual Costs ..................................................................................................9-61

9.9.5 Cost Estimate Uncertainties............................................................................9-61

9.10 Cost Sharing ..............................................................................................................9-62

9.10.1 Cost Sharing of Water Quality Features..........................................................9-62

9.10.2 Cost Sharing of Construction and Land Costs ................................................9-64

9.10.3 Cost Sharing of Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring....................................9-65

9.10.4 Cost Sharing of Operations and Maintenance.................................................9-65

SECTION 10 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

10.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................10-1

10.2. Guidelines For Implementing The Comprehensive Plan.............................................10-2

10.2.1. Utilize Interdisciplinary and Interagency Teams ..............................................10-3

10.2.2. Incorporate Outreach and Public Involvement ................................................10-3

10.2.3. Maintain Regional System Focus....................................................................10-3

10.2.4. Integration With Ongoing And Future Projects And Programs ........................10-4

10.2.5. Integrate Contingency Planning......................................................................10-6

10.2.6. Address Water Quality Needs.........................................................................10-6

10.2.7. Plan Evaluation Through Adaptive Assessment..............................................10-7

10.2.8. Uncertainties.................................................................................................10-11

10.2.9. Assurances To Water Users .........................................................................10-11

10.2.10.Development And Refinement Of Models And Tools...................................10-16

10.3. Project Implementation Process...............................................................................10-17

10.3.1. Project Implementation Reports....................................................................10-18

10.3.2. Restoration, Coordination, And Verification Process.....................................10-20

10.3.3. Independent Scientific Peer Review..............................................................10-22

10.3.4. Water Quality Considerations .......................................................................10-25

10.3.5. Flood Protection ...........................................................................................10-25
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxv

10.3.6. Project Management.....................................................................................10-25

10.4. Schedule Development ............................................................................................10-26

10.4.1. Assumptions And Rules................................................................................10-27

10.4.2. Implementation Schedule .............................................................................10-30

10.4.3. Funding Stream ............................................................................................10-34

10.4.4. Evaluation Of The Project Schedule .............................................................10-35

10.5. Implementation Program ..........................................................................................10-38

10.5.1. Approval Of The Comprehensive Plan..........................................................10-39

10.5.2. Initial Authorization .......................................................................................10-39

10.5.3. Programmatic Authority ................................................................................10-42

10.5.4. Future Water Resources Development Acts .................................................10-44

10.5.5. Components Not Needing Congressional Authorizations..............................10-47

10.5.6. Feasibility Studies.........................................................................................10-47

10.6. Recommended Features For Initial Authorization.....................................................10-48

10.6.1. Pilot Projects.................................................................................................10-48

10.6.2. Initial Features for Authorization ...................................................................10-52

10.6.3. Adaptive Assessment and Construction Monitoring Program........................10-64

10.6.4. Total Cost for Features Included in this Recommendation............................10-65

10.6.5. Cost Sharing.................................................................................................10-66

10.6.6. Financial Analysis.........................................................................................10-66

10.6.7. Local Cooperation ........................................................................................10-66

10.6.8. Sponsor’s Views ...........................................................................................10-69

10.7. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................10-70

SECTION 11 *PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION

11.1 Public Involvement Program.......................................................................................11-1

11.2 Scoping......................................................................................................................11-2

11.3 Other Required Coordination......................................................................................11-4

11.3.1 U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service ........................................................................11-4

11.3.2 Florida Game And Fresh Water Fish Commission ..........................................11-7

11.3.3 Florida State Historic Officer.........................................................................11-10

11.4 Reconnaissance Study Public Workshops ...............................................................11-10

11.5 Focus Groups ..........................................................................................................11-11

11.6 Stakeholder Involvement And Outreach ...................................................................11-15

11.6.1 Stakeholder Involvement ..............................................................................11-15

11.6.2 Public Information And Outreach ..................................................................11-23

11.6.3 Governor’s Commission For A Sustainable South Florida.............................11-29

11.6.4 South Florida Ecosystem Task Force And Working Group ...........................11-31

11.6.5 South Florida Water Management District Governing Board.........................11-32

11.7 Internet Web Site .....................................................................................................11-32

11.8 Review Conferences ................................................................................................11-33

11.9 Coordination.............................................................................................................11-34

11.9.1 Cooperating State And Federal Agencies .....................................................11-34

11.10 Review Of Draft Integrated Feasibility Report And Programmatic Enviromental Impact

Statement.................................................................................................................11-35

11.10.1 Report And Peis Recipients .................................................................11-35

11.10.2 Comments And Responses..................................................................11-39

11.11 Public Meetings........................................................................................................11-40

11.12 Implementation Plan Coordination............................................................................11-49
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxvi

SECTION 12. *COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

12.1 National Environmental Policy Act Of 1969 ................................................................12-1

12.2 Fish And Wildlife Coordination Act Of 1958................................................................12-1

12.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

Recommendations..........................................................................................12-2

12.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

Recommendations........................................................................................12-10

12.2.3 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act Report, Part I Recommendations............................................................12-14

12.2.4 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act Report, Part II Recommendations...........................................................12-18

12.2.5 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act Report, Part III Recommendations..........................................................12-21

12.3 Endangered Species Act Of 1973 ............................................................................12-22

12.4 National Historic Preservation Act Of 1966...............................................................12-23

12.5 Clean Water Act Of 1972 .........................................................................................12-23

12.6 Clean Air Act Of 1972...............................................................................................12-23

12.7 Coastal Zone Management Act Of 1972...................................................................12-23

12.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act Of 1981...................................................................12-23

12.9 Wild And Scenic River Act Of 1968 ..........................................................................12-24

12.10 Estuary Protection Act Of 1968 ................................................................................12-24

12.11 Federal Water Project Recreation Act Of 1965.........................................................12-24

12.12 Resource Conservation And Recovery Act Of 1976 .................................................12-24

12.13 Toxic Substances Control Act Of 1976.....................................................................12-24

12.14 Marine Protection, Research, And Sanctuaries Act Of 1972.....................................12-25

12.15 Rivers And Harbors Appropriation Act Of 1899 ........................................................12-25

12.16 Coastal Barrier Resources Act .................................................................................12-25

12.17 Section 904 Of The 1986 Water Resources Development Act .................................12-25

12.18 Section 307 Of The 1990 Water Resources Development Act .................................12-25

12.19 E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management .......................................................................12-25

12.20 E.O. 11990, Protection Of Wetlands.........................................................................12-26

12.21 E.O. 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad Of Major Federal

Actions ....................................................................................................................12-26

12.22 E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice ..........................................................................12-26

SECTION 13 RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION 14 *LIST OF STUDY TEAM MEMBERS AND REPORT PREPARERS

SECTION 15 GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS,

AND CONVERSION TABLES

SECTION 16 *REFERENCES

SECTION 17 *INDEX
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxvii

LIST OF ANNEXES (Volume 2)

A - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

B - Programmatic Biological Opinion

C - Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation

D - Coastal Zone Consistency Evaluation

LIST OF APPENDICES (Volumes 3 through 9)

A - Plan Formulation (Volume 3)

B - Hydrology and Hydraulics Modeling (Volume 4)

C - Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates (Volume 4)

D - Environmental Evaluation Analyses (Volume 5)

E - Socio-Economics (Volume 6)

F - Real Estate (Volume 7)

G - Local Cooperation and Financial Analysis (Volume 7)

H - Water Quality (Volume 7)

I - Air Quality (Volume 7)

J - Existing Condition (Volume 8)

K - Environmental Effects of the Initial Draft Plan (Volume 9)

L - Prior Studies, Reports, and Projects (Volume 9)

M - Implementation Plan Scheduling and Sequencing (Volume 9)

N - Comment/Response (Volume 10)

O - Uncertainty (Volume 10)

Note: * Required for NEPA compliance
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

SECTION 7

PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION................................................................................1

7.1 PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY..........................1

7.2 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF PLAN COMPONENTS......................2

7.2.1 Identification of Plan Components......................................................................3

7.2.2 Screening of Plan Components..........................................................................3

7.2.2.1 Screening Using the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Planning

Process..............................................................................................................4

7.2.2.2 Screening Using the Water Preserve Areas Land Suitability Analysis................4

7.2.2.3 Screening Using the Hydrologic Screening Models............................................5

7.2.2.4 Screening Using Cost Effectiveness Analysis ....................................................5

7.2.2.5 Screening Using Other Analyses and Best Professional Judgement..................6

7.2.3 Screening Conclusions.......................................................................................6

7.3 FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS......................8

7.3.1 Methodology for Formulation and Evaluation of the Alternative Plans ................8

7.3.1.1 Alternative Development Team ..........................................................................8

7.3.1.2 South Florida Water Management Model...........................................................9

7.3.1.3 Alternative Evaluation Team...............................................................................9

7.3.1.3.1 Performance Measures..............................................................................10

7.3.1.3.2 Across Trophic Level System Simulation Model.........................................11

7.3.1.3.3 Water Quality Models.................................................................................12

7.3.1.4 Basis for Formulation and Tradeoffs for the Alternative Plans..........................12

7.3.2 Formulation and Evaluation Iterations ..............................................................13

7.3.2.1 Starting Point ...................................................................................................14

7.3.2.2 Alternatives 1-6 ................................................................................................15

7.3.2.3 Alternatives A-D ...............................................................................................19

7.3.2.4 River of Grass Evaluation Methodology, Alternatives A - D..............................27

7.3.2.4.1 Summary Evaluation Criteria, Alternatives A-D..........................................27

7.3.2.4.2 Keystone and Endangered Species Evaluation of Alternatives A-D ...........32

7.3.2.4.3 Water Quality Evaluation of Alternatives A - D...........................................32

7.3.2.4.4 Evaluation Conclusions for Alternatives A - D ............................................33

7.3.3 Initial Draft Plan................................................................................................35

7.3.3.1 Features of Alternative D-13R..........................................................................35

7.3.3.2 Evaluation of Alternative D-13R .......................................................................36

7.3.3.3 Uncertainty Analysis of D-13R Components.....................................................36

7.3.3.4 Sensitivity Analysis of D-13R Components.......................................................40

7.3.4 Conclusions of Comprehensive Plan Formulation and Evaluation....................44

7.4 OTHER PROJECT ELEMENTS.......................................................................45

7.4.1 Evaluation of Other Project Elements...............................................................45

7.4.2 Conclusions of the Evaluation of the Other Project Elements...........................46

7.5 FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS......................................................46

7.5.1 Economic Evaluation of the Alternative Plans ..................................................46

7.5.2 Environmental Evaluation of the Alternative Plans ...........................................51

7.5.3 Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses .........................................52

7.5.4 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Analysis ................................................................59
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-ii

7.5.5 Uncertainty Analysis.........................................................................................60

7.5.6 Planning Criteria...............................................................................................61

7.5.7 Evaluation Accounts.........................................................................................61

7.6 PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS SUMMARY................................................67

7.7 SUBSEQUENT ITERATIONS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN.....................68

7.7.1 Scenario D-13R4 Description ............................................................................70

7.7.2 Evaluation of D-13R4........................................................................................72

7.8 PLAN FORMULATION CONCLUSIONS..........................................................74
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-1

SECTION 7

PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION

The purpose of this Section is to explain the process, called plan formulation,

used in the Restudy to develop and evaluate alternative plans. This process

involved the development of potential solutions to the water resource problems and

the evaluations used to select the Comprehensive Plan. The iterative planning

process followed during the Restudy is fully presented in this Section. In being so

transparent and thorough, this Section presents information about planning

iterations that is not typically found in a Corps feasibility report. While the process

of following several progressive and comparative iterations is not unusual in water

resources planning, it may be unusual to find it so rigorously documented. It would

be more likely to find a simple presentation of the final array of alternatives (see

Section 7.5), with only a brief overview of the iterations that led to that array. In

presenting all of the iterations, the Restudy has fully disclosed the decision making

process that led to the recommended plan. Such full disclosure may carry the price

of some confusion when it so clearly shows that the basis for making decisions

continue to change with each iteration.

7.1 PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

Plan formulation is a repetitive, or iterative, process of identifying

alternative plans that achieve a set of planning objectives and allows those plans to

be modified as more information becomes available. Each subsequent iteration of

this process provides an opportunity to refine and sharpen the planning focus. Key

steps in formulating the alternative plans are shown in Figure 7-1.

This plan formulation process evolved over three years, ultimately resulting

in selection of a recommended plan. During this time frame, the Restudy team used

an iterative process to identify and evaluate the merits of individual components

and the effect of combining these components into “comprehensive plans.” This

process involved separate sequential steps that allowed plans to be modified, as

more information became available, allowing the opportunity to refine and sharpen

the planning focus. This process resulted in discreet steps of formulation results

that are displayed, as such, in this section. These discreet plan formulation steps

are displayed in Table 7-1.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-2

FIGURE 7-1

ALTERNATIVE PLAN

FORMULATION & EVALUATION PROCESS

TABLE 7-1

PLAN FORMULATION STEPS

 Formulation Process (Steps) ‡ Resulting Recommendation

Component Screening Formulation of Alternatives 1-6

Alternatives 1-6 Additional Formulation of Alternatives 3-6 (A-D)

Alternatives A-D Further formulation of Alternative D

Alternative D-13R Selected as Initial Draft Plan

Other Project Elements (Separable Elements) Added to Initial Draft Plan to form Recommended

Plan

7.2 IDENTIFICATION AND SCREENING OF PLAN COMPONENTS

Plan formulation began by developing a list of the many different ideas to

achieve the planning goals and objectives. These different ideas are called

“components”. Components are the individual building blocks that can be combined in

various ways to form alternative plans. They include both structural measures, such

as reservoirs, pump stations, and canals, and nonstructural measures, such as

reservoir operating schedules.

Starting Point

Alternative

Identify

Components

Alternatives

1-6

Recommended

Plan

Alternatives

A-D

Alternative

Evaluation

Alternative

Development

Computer

Model

Simulations

Alternative

D-13R

(Initial Draft Plan)

Component

Screening

Other Project

Elements
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-3

7.2.1 Identification of Plan Components

The Restudy was not the first effort to develop a list of components for water

management in south Florida. Rather, it was able to take advantage of a vast array

of previous studies and plans with similar planning goals and objectives. The

Restudy’s first list of components was developed in January 1996 and included

components identified in the Reconnaissance Study (U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

1994), the South Florida Water Management District’s Draft Lower East Coast

Regional Water Supply Plan (SFWMD, 1994a), and other sources. These sources

were reviewed and discussed by the Restudy Team, and a first group of components

were subsequently listed, described and linked to the planning goals and objectives.

This first list of components was considered and refined by the Governor’s

Commission for a Sustainable South Florida in its development of the Conceptual

Plan for the Restudy (GCSSF, 1996b). The Conceptual Plan contained 40 components

(“preferred options”), assembled into 13 thematic concepts, and served as the

Restudy’s initial framework for organizing components and developing a

Comprehensive Plan (see Section 6 of this report). 

The Restudy Team met again in November 1996 to design a formulation and

evaluation strategy for developing comprehensive plans. This meeting resulted in

the development of the document entitled Restudy Plan Formulation (see Appendix

A of this report) which outlined the Restudy goals and objectives, and listed and

briefly described the components to be considered in developing alternative

comprehensive plans.

The Restudy Plan Formulation document was subsequently used at 20

stakeholder focus group meetings throughout south Florida between January 1997

and May 1997 (see Section 11 of this report). These meetings helped to ensure that

most stakeholders were satisfied with the range of components to be considered and

the strategy for formulating and evaluating alternative plans.

7.2.2 Screening of Plan Components

By the end of 1996, these efforts had produced an extensive inventory of

potential components. Even after an initial screening of these ideas, the list of

components numbered 112 (see Appendix A, Section 1 of this report). The approach

adopted by the Restudy Team to use these components in formulating a

Comprehensive Plan was to begin with the formulation of a single plan. This plan,

which the Restudy Team called the “Starting Point”, would combine many of the

listed components and could progressively be refined and shaped into the best

possible Comprehensive Plan. In order to determine which components to include in
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-4

the Starting Point plan, as well as in subsequent refinements, the list of components

were evaluated to:

(1) optimize the general size, location, and configuration of certain

components based on hydrologic criteria;

(2) rank order similar components in terms of their dollar costs and the

magnitude of their non-dollar outputs; and

(3) reduce the number of components to a more manageable number for

consideration in subsequent steps.

This evaluation process was called screening, and involved developing

information bases from the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply planning

process and the Water Preserve Areas Land Suitability Analysis; hydrologic

modeling primarily using the Everglades Screening Model; and a cost effectiveness

analysis. The conclusions of the screening analysis are in Appendix A, Section 1 of

this report.

7.2.2.1 Screening Using the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Planning

Process

The South Florida Water Management District’s Lower East Coast Regional

Water Supply planning process modeled and evaluated a series of five alternatives.

Of the 112 Restudy components, 35 were previously modeled and evaluated in the

Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply planning process.

Preliminary results from these alternatives provided information about the

relative storage capabilities of components. In addition, it also provided insight into

the system-wide affects and interactions among components. For example, the plan

revealed the combined effects of modifications of the Lake Okeechobee operation

schedule and storage facilities outside the Lake. This information was useful in

establishing the best range of storage volumes. In addition, the benefits of rainfall

driven delivery schedules for the Everglades were also evaluated.

7.2.2.2 Screening Using the Water Preserve Areas Land Suitability Analysis

The Water Preserve Areas concept was initially proposed by the National

Audubon Society (1994) as a way to capture and store excess surface waters that

are normally discharged into the coastal waters through the C&SF Project canals.

This area would also serve as a buffer between the Everglades and the urban areas

to the east. This concept has evolved from a number of studies including the South

Florida Water Management District’s East Coast Buffer Feasibility Study (CH2MHill, 1994) as part of the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply planning

process.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-5

In 1995, a feasibility study for the Water Preserve Areas was initiated by the

Corps and the South Florida Water Management District to accelerate the

formulation and evaluation of Water Preserve Areas components. This study’s land

suitability analysis provided information about land cover, hydroperiod regime, and

soils that was useful in determining the best places to: (1) store water, (2) recharge

the aquifer, and (3) restore degraded wetlands.

This information provided considerable insight to determine the best

locations for the Water Preserve Areas components. For example, the land

suitability analysis identified sensitive wetlands that should be restored and less

sensitive wetlands that could be used for water management purposes.

7.2.2.3 Screening Using the Hydrologic Screening Models

The Everglades Screening Model was the primary hydrologic computer model

used for screening. This model simulates how water moves through south Florida

and how operational and structural modifications to the C&SF Project may affect

water movement. A complete discussion of the hydrologic modeling is in Appendix

B.

The Everglades Screening model was used to quickly evaluate and narrow

the range of water storage concepts in the Everglades Agricultural Area, the

Kissimmee River Basin, the Caloosahatchee Basin, and the St. Lucie Basin. It was

also used to identify the range of storage options for: alternative Lake Okeechobee

operation schedules; Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery systems; and

Water Preserve Areas reservoirs and wetlands. It also provided information about

how much water could be retained in the Water Conservation Areas using seepage

barrier components.

7.2.2.4 Screening Using Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Cost effectiveness analysis was used to help identify the least expensive

options to achieve a desired effect. Cost effectiveness analysis is typically done near

the end of a study to compare complete alternative plans. However, the analysis can

also be used earlier to compare similar components to assist in the formulation of

cost effective alternative plans. A summary of how the analysis was used in the

Restudy Plan Formulation is included in Appendix A, Section 2 of this report.

Of the 112 Restudy components, 47 were analyzed using the cost

effectiveness analysis. These components were grouped into seven different

functional categories of output including, for example: reducing phosphorus loading

to Lake Okeechobee, increasing water storage capacity in the Lower East Coast,

and increasing acres of wetlands throughout the study area.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-6

The cost effectiveness analysis provided information about the least costly

way to achieve each level of output. For example, the analysis revealed that storage

reservoirs in the Caloosahatchee Basin were more cost effective than Aquifer

Storage and Recovery around Lake Okeechobee. Therefore, the reservoirs would be

a better initial financial investment. This type of information was useful in

selecting the best size of a component as well as a priority for selecting components

based on the cost for the level of output achieved. However, the analysis was limited

in scope such that only a single output was measured for each component. For

example, a storage reservoir in the St. Lucie Basin not only increases water supply

but it also reduces damaging flows to the St. Lucie Estuary. In this case, the onedimensional approach used for the analysis resulted in under-estimating the

effectiveness of the component. However, in other cases there were negative effects

that were not measured. For example, backpumping to Lake Okeechobee results in

increased water supplies but it could impact the Lake’s littoral zone and this impact

was not measured during this analysis.

Further, without a target, the screening conclusion was limited to

identification of the most efficient component. That is, the component with the

lowest cost per unit of output desired. If an output target was available, and the

most efficient component failed to meet its target, the analysis was used to identify

the next most efficient component or group of components.

7.2.2.5 Screening Using Other Analyses and Best Professional Judgement 

In addition to the other screening techniques, the Restudy Team used

information from a variety of sources including previous C&SF Project studies, and

South Florida Water Management District Surface Water Improvement and

Management (SWIM) Plans. The Restudy Team also took advantage of the

extensive knowledge and experience of the team members and others that have

lived and worked in south Florida and had a day-to-day familiarity with the water

resources issues being addressed in this feasibility study.

7.2.3 Screening Conclusions

A summary of the major findings from the screening analysis is shown in

Table 7-2. For more detailed screening conclusions about each of the 112

components, see Table 5 in Appendix A, Section1.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-7

TABLE 7-2

SCREENING CONCLUSIONS SUMMARY

KISSIMMEE RIVER REGION

• Storage reservoirs effective for Lake level management

• Water quality treatment very cost effective for improving Lake Okeechobee

• Paradise Run most cost effective way to increase spatial extent of wetlands in this basin

UPPER EAST COAST REGION

• Storage reservoirs for C-44 Basin effective to improve estuary conditions

• Increased backpumping of treated water to Lake Okeechobee cost effective; however, adverse impacts to Lake’s

littoral zone were not evaluated

• Adding Aquifer Storage & Recovery to storage reservoirs should be considered

• Opportunities to increase spatial extent of wetlands in this basin

• C-23, C-24, and C-25 Basins being considered in detail as part of Indian River Lagoon Study

CALOOSAHATCHEE RIVER REGION

• Storage reservoirs effective.

• Lake Hicpochee should be considered as first increment for storage

• Increased backpumping of treated water to Lake Okeechobee cost effective; however, adverse impacts to Lake’s

littoral zone were not evaluated

• Adding Aquifer Storage & Recovery to storage reservoirs should be considered

LAKE OKEECHOBEE REGION

• Increases to Lake levels cost effective; however, adverse impacts to Lake’s littoral zone were not evaluated

• Regional Aquifer Storage & Recovery not cost effective in this area for Lake level management (however, later

screening analyses showed that this component was effective at reducing flows to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee

Estuaries)

EVERGLADES AGRICULTURAL AREA REGION

• Storage reservoirs effective

• Increased backpumping of treated water to Lake Okeechobee cost effective; however, potential adverse impacts to

Lake’s littoral zone were not evaluated

WATER CONSERVATION AREAS REGION

• Detailed modeling required to evaluate components to reconnect habitats

• Rainfall driven delivery schedules are needed to achieve hydropattern restoration

BIG CYPRESS REGION

• Restoration of southern Golden Gate Estates very cost effective to increase spatial extent of wetlands

LOWER EAST COAST REGION

• Southern L-8 project effective in delivering water to North Palm Beach County and Loxahatchee Slough

• Urban Water Supply: (depending on location) wellfield relocation/expansion, utility Aquifer Storage & Recovery,

and secondary canal operations are effective

• Regional Aquifer Storage & Recovery is very effective on C-51 and Hillsboro Canals

• Opportunities to increase spatial extent of wetlands in Northern Palm Beach County, Model Lands, and Biscayne

Bay coastal areas

WATER PRESERVE AREAS

• Storage reservoirs adjacent to Water Conservation Areas effective in a number of basins

• Aquifer Storage & Recovery should be considered to reduce size of storage reservoirs

• Seepage collection and backpumping generally most cost effective seepage management component

• Water quality treatment needed if drainage water is backpumped to natural areas

• Opportunities to increase spatial extent of wetlands
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-8

7.3 FORMULATION AND EVALUATION OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

The next phase of plan formulation involved assembling components into

alternative plans to meet the planning goals and objectives. These plans came from

an iterative process that began with the formulation of a Starting Point plan based

on the screening conclusions. Subsequent iterations methodically created new plans

based on how well they performed relative to the objectives and associated

performance measures and targets.

7.3.1 Methodology for Formulation and Evaluation of the Alternative Plans

Alternative plans were formulated and evaluated by two teams, the

Alternative Development Team (ADT) and the Alternative Evaluation Team (AET).

Each of these teams had a specific planning purpose. The Alternative Development

Team was responsible for designing each alternative plan in response to the

Alternative Evaluation Team’s evaluations of the previous plan iteration. The

designs of these alternative plans were built into the South Florida Water

Management Model, a regional-scale hydrologic model (see Appendix B of this

report), to identify plan effects. The Alternative Evaluation Team was responsible

for evaluating each plan’s strengths and weaknesses, and describing plan shortfalls

to the Alternative Development Team. This repetitive formulation and evaluation

process progressively refined and improved the performance of subsequent

alternative plans. 

Communication between these teams and among team members was

facilitated by several mechanisms. First, a small cadre of interdisciplinary experts

participated on both the Alternative Evaluation Team and the Alternative

Development Team to assure timely and consistent communication between the

teams. Second, the over 100 members of the overall Restudy Team met seven times

during this process and had the opportunity to participate in both the formulation

and evaluation processes.

Finally, because of the large and geographically dispersed number of people

involved and interested in the Restudy, the Internet was used to communicate

formulation and evaluation results. This allowed the Restudy Team to solicit

comments from a broad base of the public and permitted people to participate as

team decisions were being made. The Restudy Internet address is

http://www.restudy.org.

7.3.1.1 Alternative Development Team

The Alternative Development Team was a multi-agency team of about 30

planners, engineers and scientists. The team identified and designed specific

components to be simulated in the South Florida Water Management Model with

the intent to improve the performance of each alternative plan and to test different
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-9

strategies for component modification identified by the Alternative Evaluation

Team.

7.3.1.2 South Florida Water Management Model

The South Florida Water Management Model (see Appendix B) is a

regional-scale computer model of the water resources system from Lake Okeechobee

to Florida Bay. This is an integrated surface water – groundwater model based on

historical climatic data for the 31-year period between 1965 and 1995. This period

includes a range of drought and wet periods that are believed to encompass a

number of extreme hydrologic events for simulation purposes.

The model simulates the major elements of the hydrologic cycle in south

Florida including rainfall, evapotranspiration, infiltration, overland and

groundwater flow, canal flow, canal-groundwater seepage, levee seepage and

groundwater pumping. As the water management control structures and

operational rules are changed, the model simulates the effects on these hydrologic

conditions.

The model has been calibrated and verified using water level and discharge

measurements at hundreds of locations distributed throughout the region.

Technical experts have extensively reviewed and accepted this model as the best

available tool for analyzing regional-scale structural and operational changes to the

complex water management system in south Florida.

The model was used to estimate hydrologic responses to proposed structural

and operational modifications to the water management system in south Florida.

The large scale and spatial extent of the model allows it to perform system-wide

evaluations. For example, the model can estimate hydrologic conditions, such as the

depth of water, in the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park, if

changes are made in Lake Okeechobee's operations.

7.3.1.3 Alternative Evaluation Team

The Alternative Evaluation Team was also a multi-agency team of about 50

biological and physical resource specialists, planners, and engineers. The team was

responsible for plan evaluation, including:

(1) developing quantitative indicators of plans’ performance (called

performance measures) and targets for each indicator,

(2) comparing model results against performance targets to identify the most

significant strengths and shortfalls of each alternative plan,

(3) providing the “top 10” shortfalls of each plan to the Alternative
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-10

Development Team,

(4) performing the evaluation and comparison of the final array of

comprehensive alternative plans, and

(5) collating and considering comments from the public and Restudy Team

regarding each alternative plan.

The Alternative Evaluation Team used multiple analytical tools to

accomplish the alternative plan evaluations: performance measures from the South

Florida Water Management Model computer simulations, the Across-Trophic-Level

System Simulation (ATLSS) model, and water quality models.

7.3.1.3.1 Performance Measures

The Alternative Evaluation Team developed a set of performance measures

as the basis of its evaluations for all areas of concern. Each performance measure

was implicitly linked to one or more of the planning objectives, and consisted of a

measurable indicator and target. The performance measures were largely indicators

of hydrologic characteristics. The performance measures were used to judge how

well each alternative met the objectives.

Many of the performance measures used to measure progress toward the

ecological objectives were based on hydrologic patterns revealed by the Natural

System Model. This model was developed from the South Florida Water

Management Model by removing the complex network of canals, structures and

levees in the current system and replacing them with the pre-drainage rivers,

creeks, and transverse glades. The topography of subsided areas are adjusted in the

Natural System Model to estimated pre-drainage levels. The output from the

Natural System Model represents the best available approximation of the predrainage condition and is the basis for many of the restoration targets. Refer to

Appendix B of this report for a more detailed description of the Natural System

Model.

The hydrologic patterns shown by the Natural System Model are generally

consistent with what is known or hypothesized about the optimum hydrologic

patterns for a number of characteristic plant and animal communities in the

historic Everglades. The Alternative Evaluation Team agreed that it was

appropriate to use the model as a basis for setting targets if appropriate scales were

used. For example, it would be appropriate to use the model to get targets for the

duration of inundation, depth and distribution patterns over a broad area; but it

would not be appropriate for development of depth targets at scales less than

plus/minus 0.5 feet, or to be used for estimates of flow volumes.

Performance measures were also developed to evaluate the degree to which
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-11

the alternative plans are likely to meet water supply objectives. These considered

the frequency, duration and severity of water supply restrictions for both urban and

agricultural areas. Flood protection performance measures were also developed.

However, due to the coarse spatial resolution of the South Florida Water

Management Model, these performance measures were simply used to identify

areas of concern.

For each alternative plan, the South Florida Water Management Model

produced information about the performance measures in the form of tables, graphs

and maps. This information was useful for two reasons. First, the results could be

compared against the performance measure targets to evaluate plan success at

achieving the objectives. Second, the information was used to compare different

conditions including: the Existing Condition (1995 Base), the Future “Without Plan”

Condition (2050 Base), and any of the previously simulated alternative plans. For

example, a graph may compare Alternative 1 with the Natural System Model

(Historic Condition), the Existing Condition, and the Future without Plan

Condition.

7.3.1.3.2 Across Trophic Level System Simulation Model

The Across Trophic Level System Simulation (ATLSS) model (Appendix D)

is a set of computer models that integrates several approaches for different levels of

the ecologic hierarchy. The model uses hydrologic information from the South

Florida Water Management Model simulations of the alternative plans and predicts

biological responses of several species and species groups. The basic models of

ATLSS model included:

• Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Breeding Potential Index

• Wading Bird Foraging Condition Index

• White-tailed Deer Breeding Potential Index

• Landscape Fish Model

• Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow Individual Based Model

• Snail Kite Breeding Potential Index

The nature and extent of ATLSS model results depended on the progress of

each model’s development and therefore varied among species and species groups.

For example, detailed results were available for the Cape Sable seaside sparrow’s

western population and for fish abundance because development of these models

was nearly complete at the time the alternative plans were evaluated. Less detailed

results were available for foraging and breeding condition indices for the snail kite,

wading birds, and others because these models were in earlier stages of

development.

ATLSS model results for each alternative were compared with results for
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-12

other alternatives, the 2050 Base, and in most cases, with 1995 Base. When results

indicated that an alternative would improve species’ biological responses as

compared to the other conditions, the Restudy Team concluded that there was

evidence to suggest that the alternative was beneficial for those species as

compared to the other conditions.

7.3.1.3.3 Water Quality Models

The effects of alternative plans on water quality were evaluated using three

analytical tools. The Lake Okeechobee Water Quality Model (James et al., 1997)

simulated lake eutrophication processes. The Everglades Water Quality Model

(SFWMD, 1997h) simulated phosphorus transport in the Everglades Protection

Area. In addition to these two models, an analysis (Walker, 1998) of the

performance of the Everglades Construction Project and proposed reservoirs in

reducing phosphorus was utilized.

7.3.1.4 Basis for Formulation and Tradeoffs for the Alternative Plans

In formulation for ecological restoration, the team agreed that it was

important to make progress toward all the targets and that achieving a target in

one area should not cause damage to another area. Recovery of an Everglades-like

system is more likely to occur through recovery of a strong balance of all of the

hydrological features that characterized the pre-drainage system. These features

include spatial extent, duration of hydroperiods, sheet flow, flow volumes into

estuaries and depth patterns.

Fundamentally different strategies for achieving Everglades restoration have

been characterized as the “cookie cutter” and “Xerox reduction” approaches. Should

the goal be “point-for-point” matches with pre-drainage characteristics in the

remaining portions of the Everglades (“cookie cutter”), or should the goal be to

recreate all the original community and landscape proportions in an Everglades

that is now one-half its pre-drainage size (“Xerox reduction”)? While this question

prompted a healthy debate, most recent views have been (a) we should do neither,

or (b) we should do some combination of the two.

Plan formulation for the Restudy was based on a variety of approaches.

Alternative plans were formulated in an attempt to achieve pre-drainage targets,

that is, a “cookie cutter” approach was followed. Additionally, a “Xerox reduction”

approach was also achieved because the proportion of long-hydroperiod sloughs to

short-hydroperiod prairies in the current Everglades is similar to the proportion

between these two landscapes in the pre-drainage system.

The Restudy Team began formulation with the expectation that it would be

possible to design a plan that would meet all of the performance measure targets.

The team assumed that the targets could be met by increasing the amount of stored
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-13

water, minimizing the amount of excess water to tide and re-distributing it.

As the process proceeded, it became increasingly apparent that, given the

physical, operational, legal, and societal constraints in south Florida, it would not

be possible to fully achieve every performance measure target. The constraints

created situations where alternative plans could not meet all targets in all areas at

all times resulting in the need to make tradeoffs among competing objectives.

Tradeoff situations included cases where the volume of water was insufficient, or

management options for local or sub-regional water supplies were sufficiently

limited. Since it was not possible to reach all targets, the Restudy Team

established the following guidelines for setting priorities among competing

performance measure targets:

(1) The pre-drainage hydrological patterns shown by the Natural System

Model are most likely to lead to the recovery of natural systems, and should

be a priority for the natural wetlands of south Florida over other targets.

(2) Where not all pre-drainage hydrological parameters can be recovered, or

where meeting these targets reduces the ability of a plan to meet predrainage targets in a different part of the system, the Conceptual Ecological

Models (see Section 5 of this report) set the priority for hydrological targets.

Each Conceptual Ecological Model identifies critical ecological pathways

which show the critical hydrological parameters related to ecological changes,

and which should be given priority.

(3) Restoration should not cause additional, long-term ecological damage.

However, the Restudy Team, recognizing that substantial changes in

community structure and natural system boundaries have occurred over the

past 100 years, is willing to see additional local community shifts (short-term

“damage”) occur if these would allow the realization of larger scale

restoration targets. This view is consistent with the recognition by most

Everglades ecologists that a successful Everglades restoration program will

be one that recovers those ecological characteristics that defined the original

system to a sufficient degree so that a “new” Everglades-type ecosystem is

created (Davis and Ogden, 1994).

(4) Priorities for ecological targets may be based on criteria other than those

shown by the pre-drainage model where there is a compelling technical basis

for doing so. However, such targets may not have priority if, in meeting these

targets, it becomes substantially more difficult to reach ecological targets in

other regions.

7.3.2 Formulation and Evaluation Iterations
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-14

The formulation of alternative plans was generally an iterative process in

which each plan was developed as a result of the evaluation of the previous

alternative. Through the first three iterations, each alternative plan was developed

in an attempt to improve upon the previous plan’s performance. The iterative

nature of this process allowed the team to learn more about particular components

of the plans including how the components perform under a range of conditions.

Through the last few alternative plans, a different approach to Everglades

ecosystem restoration was explored, namely restoration through removal of the

canals and levees within the remaining Everglades to restore connectivity and

unrestricted sheetflow.

Each iteration began with an alternative plan. The components of that plan

were built into the South Florida Water Management Model to simulate the plan’s

hydrologic effects. The model results were then posted on the Internet, and the

Alternative Evaluation Team and others reviewed the results. These results were

used as input into other models as described above to evaluate the plan’s

performance. Comments were provided to the Alternative Development Team,

which in turn modified the alternative plan to improve performance shortfalls, thus

creating the next alternative.

The iterative process to formulate and evaluate alternative plans began in

September 1997 and was completed in June 1998.

7.3.2.1 Starting Point

The Starting Point was the first alternative plan formulated. It combined

many of the features that were considered to solve system-wide problems. It was

formulated by a Restudy sub-team with extensive experience in the C&SF Project

and related studies such as the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

process and the Restudy Reconnaissance study.

The screening analysis provided the information needed to assemble the

components into the Starting Point plan. Screening identified solutions for specific

problems and the Starting Point integrated the individual solutions into a whole

system-wide response. The components of the Starting Point are listed in Table 7-

3. The general philosophy of the Starting Point, and the first few alternatives, was

to start small and build components with the intent to provide a clear justification

as to why additional components were added in subsequent iterations.

The evaluation of the Starting Point showed the need for increased water

storage throughout the system to meet ecological restoration and water supply

objectives. In addition, the Starting Point included extensive seepage control

components to keep more water in the natural system. However, the reduced

seepage led to increased saltwater intrusion into the Biscayne Aquifer and urban
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-15

wellfields. Therefore, formulation of Alternative 1 proceeded by increasing the

storage capacity of the components proposed in the Starting Point and scaling back

the rate of seepage management. It also included additional storage components

and additional, more passive, seepage management components. The theme of

adding additional storage continued throughout the plan formulation process.

TABLE 7-3

MAJOR COMPONENTS OF THE

“STARTING POINT”

EAA Storage Reservoir

Caloosahatchee/C-43 Basin Storage Reservoir

St. Lucie/C-44 Basin Storage Reservoir

North of Lake Okeechobee Storage Reservoir

Everglades Rainfall-Driven Operations

Water Preserve Areas Components:

 Site 1 Impoundment

 Water Conservation Area-2B Seepage

Management

 C-11 Impoundment

 Western C-9 Recharge Area

 Central Lakebelt In-Ground Storage Reservoir

 Bird Drive Impoundment

 L-31N Seepage Management

7.3.2.2 Alternatives 1-6

Alternative 1 was formulated to overcome the water storage shortfalls

identified in the Starting Point plan and to reduce the negative impacts of

aggressive seepage management. Table 7-4 lists the major features and design

criteria used in Alternative 1 as well as the Starting Point and Alternatives 2-6. 

The evaluations of Alternative 1 and subsequently Alternative 2 continued to show

the need for improved seepage management and greater storage throughout the

system. However, it became evident that the remaining options to store additional

water in surface reservoirs were more costly and other non-traditional storage

options, such as aquifer storage and recovery (ASR, see Appendix C), would have

to be considered.

Alternative 3 substantially increased water storage capacity by including a

series of aquifer storage and recovery components. However, the plan needed

improvement in the timing and distribution of the water deliveries. Further, none of

the plans had attempted to reestablish unrestricted sheetflow (connectivity)

through the remaining Everglades.

Alternative 4 included partially decompartmentalizing the remaining natural

system by removing physical barriers to flows. The alternative evolved from
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-16

analyses of a series of South Florida Water Management Model computer

simulations, called scenarios, that combined components of Alternative 3 with

different amounts of levee and canal removal within the remaining Everglades. At a

Restudy Team meeting on December 15, 1997 various approaches for modeling

levee and canal removal within the natural areas of the Everglades were discussed.

 Three scenarios were formulated as a result of that discussion. Each scenario

progressively removed more of the internal compartments between the Water

Conservation Areas. The Alternative Evaluation Team evaluation of these

scenarios showed that as levee and canal removal increased from south to north

flows to Shark River Slough increased and some benefit was seen in the southern

portion of Water Conservation Area 3A where extreme high water was greatly

reduced -- because of removal of the L-29. However, removal of the levees and

canals also resulted in extreme high water conditions in Water Conservation Area

3B and eastern Water Conservation Area-3A. With complete removal of the levees

and canals from within the Water Conservation Areas, high water in Water

Conservation Area 3B was the most extreme of any scenario or alternative

considered by the Restudy Team. Further, drying conditions in Loxahatchee

National Wildlife Refuge (WCA 1), Water Conservation Area 2A, and Northeast

Shark River Slough were exacerbated, increasing the burden on Lake Okeechobee

and impacting the littoral zone. Lower East Coast Region’s dependence on the Lake

for water supply increased as well.

Because one of the basic tenets of the Restudy is to do no harm to one part of

the natural system in order to restore another, the team recommended taking a

more moderate approach to levee and canal removal, understanding that if ways to

mitigate the problems could be found, levee and canal removal of the upper part of

the system could be reexamined at a later date.

Therefore, for Alternative 4 and each subsequent alternative, the barriers in

the northern part of the system were retained. Specifically, the barriers between

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge and Water Conservation Area-2A and

between Water Conservation Area-2A and Water Conservation Area-3A were kept

to prevent excessive dry-downs in the Refuge and Water Conservation Area-2A and

to protect Lake Okeechobee’s littoral zone. The barrier between Water

Conservation Area-2A and Water Conservation Area-2B was retained to prevent the

excessive depths in Water Conservation Area-2B seen in the more extensive levee

and canal removal scenarios.

The resulting alternative, Alternative 4, removed levees and canals within

Water Conservation Area 3 and eliminated barriers between this Water

Conservation Area and Everglades National Park. However, this alternative still

produced unintended adverse consequences to Lake Okeechobee, water supply, and

parts of the Water Conservation Areas.

Alternative 5 attempted to address problems created in Alternative 4. Many
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-17

areas were substantially improved, but at this point it was clear that it would not

be possible to precisely meet all targets. In addition, the timing and distribution of

water in the Water Conservation Areas remained problematic.

Another plan, Alternative 6, was formulated to address the continuing

problems identified from Alternative 5. This plan added additional high cost

features including wastewater reuse. However, this plan was not evaluated in the

same manner as the previous plans because the team recognized that the plans

were no longer comparable. The formulation of the previous alternatives allowed

the team to learn more about the individual plan components with each iteration.

This led to component modifications and improvements in the later alternatives

that were not included in the earlier alternatives. For example: excess flows in the

Caloosahatchee Basin were identified and, as such, were available to store in the

Caloosahatchee Basin or to backpump to Lake Okeechobee; and Biscayne Bay water

demands were identified, resulting in degradation to the ecology of the Bay.

Further, engineering designs of the components were improved upon with each

iteration. For example, a stormwater treatment area was reduced in size from

earlier plans because the land initially assumed to be available was not. An

unintended consequence of these modifications and improvements was that the

alternatives could not be fairly compared to each other. Therefore, the team decided

to reformulate and redesign the alternative plans to place them on an equal footing

for comparison.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-18

TABLE 7-4

MAJOR FEATURES OF STARTING POINT – ALTERNATIVE 6

Alternatives

Major Features Starting

Point 1 2 3 4 5 6

North L.O. Storage 100K ac-ft 200K ac-ft 200K ac-ft 200Kac-ft 200K ac-ft 200K ac-ft 200K ac-ft

C-44 Basin Storage 20K ac-ft 20K ac-ft 40K ac-ft 40K ac-ft 40K ac-ft 40K ac-ft 40K ac-ft

C-43 Basin Storage 80K ac-ft 160K ac-ft 160K ac-ft

220 mgd ASR

160K ac-ft

220 mgd ASR

160K ac-ft

220 mgd ASR

160K ac-ft

220 mgd ASR

160K ac-ft

220 mgd ASR

EAA Storage Area 240K ac-ft 240K ac-ft 240K ac-ft 360K ac-ft 360K ac-ft 360K ac-ft 360K ac-ft

Additional L-8

Improvements 25 mgd ASR 25 mgd ASR 50 mgd ASR

48K ac-ft

Site 1 Impoundment 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft

25 mgd ASR

10K ac-ft

75 mgd ASR

10K ac-ft

75 mgd ASR

14.8K ac-ft

150 mgd ASR

Western C-11 & North

New River Diversion 6.4K ac-ft 6.4K ac-ft 6.4K ac-ft 6.4K ac-ft 6.4K ac-ft 6.4K ac-ft 6.4K ac-ft

C-9 Impoundment and

Diversion 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft

Central Lake Belt

Storage 80K ac-ft 80K ac-ft 80K ac-ft 100K ac-ft 135.2K ac-ft 135.2K ac-ft 187.2K ac-ft

Bird Drive Basin

Impoundment 11.5K ac-ft 11.5K ac-ft 11.5K ac-ft 11.5K ac-ft 11.5K ac-ft 11.5K ac-ft 11.5K ac-ft

L-31N Seepage

Management

100% Levee

100%

Groundwater

100%Levee

100% Levee

100% Wet

Season

Groundwater

100% Levee

100% Wet

Season

Groundwater

100% Levee

100% Wet

Season

Groundwater

100% Levee

100% Wet

Season

Groundwater

100% Levee

100% Wet

Season

Groundwater

Taylor Creek/Nubbin

Slough Storage and

Treatment

50K ac-ft

Reservoir

20K ac-ft STA

50K ac-ft

Reservoir

20K ac-ft STA

50K ac-ft

Reservoir

20K ac-ft STA

50K ac-ft

Reservoir

20K ac-ft STA

50K ac-ft

Reservoir

20K ac-ft STA

Lake Okeechobee ASR 1K mgd ASR 1K mgd ASR 1K mgd ASR 1K mgd ASR

C-51 Regional Ground

Water ASR 340 mgd ASR 540 mgd ASR 540 mgd ASR 340 mgd ASR

C-23/24/Northfork and

Southfork Storage

Reservoirs

165K ac-ft 190K ac-ft 192K ac-ft

North New River

Regional Ground Water

ASR

250 mgd ASR

Hillsboro Canal Basin

Regional Groundwater

ASR

370 mgd ASR 220 mgd ASR 220 mgd ASR

WCA-3 and ENP

(Remove Canals and

Levees)

9 miles of

Canal

146 mi of

Canal

82 mi of

Levee

127 mi of

Canal

54 mi of

Levee

127 mi of

Canal

56 mi of

Levee

Palm Beach County

Agriculture Reserve

Reservoir

10K ac-ft 10K ac-ft

75 mgd ASR

19.9K ac-ft

75 mgd ASR

North Lake Belt Storage 70K ac-ft 70K ac-ft 90K ac-ft

Lower East Coast Water

Conservation

6% Reduction

in 2050 Utility

Demands

6% Reduction

in 2050 Utility

Demands

South Dade County

Reuse

131 mgd

Capacity

131 mgd

Capacity

C-51/Southern L-8

Reservoir

120K ac-ft 

Capacity

West Dade Reuse 100 mgd

Capacity

Ac-ft - Acre-Feet, K- unit of 1,000’s, STA - Stormwater Treatment Area, mi – miles, mgd - million Gallons per Day
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-19

7.3.2.3 Alternatives A-D

The next phase of plan formulation focused on developing a comparable array

of alternative comprehensive plans. The team recognized that neither the Starting

Point nor Alternatives 1 or 2 would achieve the planning objectives at levels that

would be acceptable. Alternative 3, which had evolved from these first three plans,

was clearly superior to its predecessors. Therefore, the Starting Point and

Alternatives 1 and 2 were not considered further.

Next, the remaining alternatives were modified to reflect more current design

assumptions that would make them comparable, and improve their performance.

These changes fell into the following categories:

(1) Operational changes that would allow better performance of the

alternatives (for example, climate forecasting for Lake Okeechobee

operations and related reservoirs) or operational changes required due to a

change to another component.

(2) Changes to the South Florida Water Management Model input data to

account for better information (for example, runoff estimates from basins

contributing inflow to the St. Lucie Estuary).

(3) Modifications to correct design deficiencies identified during formulation

of Alternatives 1-5 (for example, canal design and location for backpumping

water from C-17 to the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area) or; design

modifications to improve performance without an increase in cost (for

example, relocating aquifer storage and recovery facilities from Hillsboro

Canal to Site 1 Reservoir).

(4) Exclusion of components that were consistently poor performers (for

example, North New River Regional Groundwater Aquifer Storage and

Recovery).

(5) Inclusion of components that proved to be extremely good performers, but

were omitted from earlier alternatives due to insufficient data (for example,

Caloosahatchee Backpumping to Lake Okeechobee).

(6) Inclusion or exclusion of components as a result of changes to the base

conditions (for example, inclusion of the C-4 Divide Structure that was

previously believed to be implemented by the non-Federal sponsor but was

subsequently proposed as an element of the Critical Projects Program).

In view of these changes, the team elected to rename the reformulated and

redesigned alternative plans to clearly differentiate them from their earlier

iterations. The final array of plans included:
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-20

• Alternative A, which was a reformulated and redesigned Alternative 3.

• Alternative B, which was a reformulated and redesigned Alternative 4.

• Alternative C, which was a reformulated and redesigned Alternative 5.

• Alternative D, which was Alternative 6.

Alternative A had the greatest number of changes from its original form,

followed by Alternative B then C. Tables 7-5 and 7-6 list the components in each

alternative. Further, Figures 7-2, 7-3, 7-4, and 7-5 display select features of

Alternatives A – D, respectively. For a more complete description of the components

included in Alternatives A – D, see Appendix A, Section 3.

The reformulation provided an opportunity to make other modifications in

the modeling including using the most recent version of the Natural Systems Model

(NSM v4.5). Previous alternatives (Starting Point – Alternative 5) had been

evaluated and compared to a provisional version of this model. This newer version

of the Natural System Model became available in December 1997, so the team

agreed to use this newer version for the evaluation of Alternatives A through D.

With the reformulation of the alternative plans, the final set of Alternatives

A through D underwent a rigorous evaluation using a variety of analytical tools and

processes. These included: River of Grass Evaluation Methodology, Summary

Evaluation Criteria, Keystone and Endangered Species analysis, and Water Quality

analysis. The results of these analyses were arrayed and compared to identify

significant differences among plans.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-21

TABLE 7-5

COMPONENTS COMMON TO ALTERNATIVES A – D

Component Alternatives

Title A

(Alt 3 Rev)

B

(Alt 4 Rev)

C

(Alt 5 Rev)

D

(Alt 6)

A North L.O. Storage  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

B C-44 Basin Storage  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

C Environmental Water Supplies to St. Lucie Estuary  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

D C-43 Basin Storage  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

E

Environmental Water Supplies to Caloosahatchee

Estuary  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

F Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

G EAA Storage Area  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

H Everglades Rain-Driven Operations  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

K Additional L-8 Improvements  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

L Relocate Wellfield Operations  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

M Site 1 Impoundment  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

O

Water Conservation Area 3A and 3B Levee

Seepage Management  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

Q Western C-11 Diversion  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

R C-9 Impoundment and Diversion  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

S Central Lake Belt Storage  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

T C-4 Divide Structures  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

U Bird Drive Basin Impoundment  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

V L-31N Levee Seepage Management  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

W Taylor Creek/Nubbin Slough Storage and Treatment  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

X C-17 Backpumping to Water Catchment Area  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

Y C-51 East Backpump to Water Catchment Area  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

BB Dade Broward Levee Improvement  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

CC Improve Broward County Secondary Canals  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

DD New Regulation Schedule for Holey Land  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

EE Modify Reg Schedule for Rotenberger  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

FF Construction of S-356 A and B Structures  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

GG Lake Okeechobee ASR  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

II Modify G-404 Structure (ECP)  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

KK LNWR Internal Canal Structures  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

LL C-51 Regional Ground Water ASR  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

OO Modifications to South Dade in southern portion of

L-31N and C-111  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

UU C-23/24/Northfork and Southfork Storage

Reservoirs  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

DDD Caloosahatchee Backpumping w/STA  ̧  ̧  ̧  ̧

 ̧ - indicates that the component is included in the respective alternative
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-22

TABLE 7-6

COMPONENTS DIFFERENT IN ALTERNATIVES A - D

Component Alternatives

Title A

(Alt 3 Rev)

B

(Alt 4 Rev)

C

(Alt 5 Rev)

D

(Alt 6)

I

Improve Conveyance between Water

Conservation Area-3B and ENP  ̧ Merged with QQ

N

Water Conservation Area-2 B Levee Seepage

Management  ̧ Merged with YY

P North New River Diversion and Treatment  ̧ Merged with YY

AA Additional S-345 Structures  ̧  ̧  ̧

HH Modify S-343 A&B Operations  ̧  ̧  ̧

MM Hillsboro Canal Basin Regional Groundwater

ASR  ̧  ̧  ̧

PP Backpumping of the C-7 Basin to the Central

Lake Belt Storage System via the C-6 Canal  ̧

QQ Decompartmentalize Water Conservation Area3

 ̧  ̧  ̧

RR Flow to Central Water Conservation Area 3A  ̧  ̧  ̧

SS Relocate Miami Canal Water Supply Deliveries

to NNR  ̧  ̧  ̧

VV Palm Beach County Agriculture Reserve

Reservoir  ̧  ̧  ̧

WW C-111N Spreader Canal  ̧  ̧  ̧

XX North Lake Belt Storage  ̧  ̧  ̧

YY Divert Water Conservation Area-2 flows to

Central Lake Belt Storage  ̧  ̧  ̧

ZZ Divert Water Conservation Area-3A/3B flow to

Central Lake Belt or South Dade  ̧  ̧

AAA Lower East Coast Water Conservation  ̧  ̧

BBB South Dade County Reuse  ̧  ̧

CCC Big Cypress L-28I Modifications  ̧  ̧

EEE Flow to eastern Water Conservation Area-3B  ̧  ̧

FFF Biscayne Bay Coastal Canals  ̧  ̧

GGG C-51/Southern L-8 Reservoir  ̧

HHH West Dade Reuse  ̧

 ̧ - indicates that the component is included in the respective alternative

Components J, Z, JJ, NN and TT are not included in alternatives A-D
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-23

Water Preserve Areas:

Above-ground Storage,

ASR and Seepage

Management

L-8 Modifications

Lake Okeechobee ASR

Indian River Lagoon

Water Preserve Areas:

Storage in C-23,24,25,

44, North and South

Fork Basins

Taylor Creek/ Nubbin Slough

Storage and Treatment Area

Water Preserve Areas:

Central Lake Belt

Everglades Rain Storage

 Driven Operations

Additional S-345 Spillways

and Replace S-355 Spillways

 with Pumps

North of Lake

Okeechobee Storage

Revised Lake Okeechobee

Regulation Schedule

Caloosahatchee

Reservoir with ASR and

Caloosahatchee

Backpumping with STA

Everglades Agricultural

 Area (EAA) Storage

WCA-1 Internal 

Canal Structures

Caloosahatchee Estuary

Water Supply

St. Lucie Estuary

Water Supply

FIGURE 7-2

SELECT FEATURES OF

ALTERNATIVE A

L-31N Levee Seepage

Management

Broward County

Secondary Canals

Modify G-404 Pump

Modify S-343 Operations
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-24

Water Preserve Areas:

Above-ground Storage,

ASR and Seepage

Management

L-8 Modifications

Lake Okeechobee ASR

Indian River Lagoon

Water Preserve Areas:

Storage in C-23,24,25,

44,North and South

Fork Basins

Taylor Creek/ Nubbin Slough

Storage and Treatment Area

Everglades Rain

 Driven Operations

North of Lake 

Okeechobee Storage

Revised Lake Okeechobee

Regulation Schedule

Caloosahatchee

Reservoir with ASR and

Caloosahatchee

Backpumping with STA

Everglades Agricultural

 Area (EAA) Storage

WCA-1 Internal 

Canal Structures

Caloosahatchee Estuary

Water Supply

St. Lucie Estuary 

Water Supply

FIGURE 7-3

SELECT FEATURES OF

ALTERNATIVE B

Degrade Levees and Fill Canals

Water Conservation Area 3

C-111N Spreader

Canal

Modify G-404

and S-140 Pumps

Broward County

Secondary Canals

Water Preserve Areas:

Central and North

Lake Belt Storage

L-31N Levee Seepage

Management
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-25

Water Preserve Areas:

Above-ground Storage,

ASR and Seepage

Management

L-8 Modifications

Lake Okeechobee ASR

Indian River Lagoon

Water Preserve Areas:

Storage in C-23,24,25,

44, North Fork and

South Fork Basins

Taylor Creek/ Nubbin Slough

Storage and Treatment Area

North of Lake 

Okeechobee Storage

Revised Lake Okeechobee

Regulation Schedule

Caloosahatchee

Reservoir with ASR and

Caloosahatchee

Backpumping with STA

Everglades Agricultural

 Area (EAA) Storage

WCA-1 Internal 

Canal Structures

St. Lucie Estuary

Water Supply

FIGURE 7-4

SELECT FEATURES OF

ALTERNATIVE C

Lower East Coast

Water Conservation

and Broward County

Secondary Canals

Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Canals

South

Miami-Dade Reuse

Big Cypress/L-28I 

Modifications

Modify S-343

Operations

Additional S-345

Spillways

Everglades Rain

 Driven Operations

C-111N Spreader 

Canal

Water Preserve Areas:

Central and North

Lake Belt Storage

Degrade Levees and Fill Canals

in Water Conservation Area 3

Modify G-404

and S-140 Pumps

L-31N Levee Seepage

Management

Caloosahatchee Estuary

Water Supply
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-26

Water Preserve Areas:

Above-ground Storage,

ASR and Seepage

Management

L-8 Modifications

and Storage

Lake Okeechobee ASR

Indian River Lagoon

Water Preserve Areas:

Storage in C-23,24,25,

44, North and South

Fork Basins

Taylor Creek/ Nubbin Slough

Storage and Treatment Area

Revised Lake Okeechobee

Regulation Schedule

Caloosahatchee

Reservoir with ASR and

Caloosahatchee

Backpumping with STA

Everglades Agricultural

 Area (EAA) Storage

WCA-1 Internal 

Canal Structures

St. Lucie Estuary

Water Supply

FIGURE 7-5

SELECT FEATURES OF

ALTERNATIVE D

Lower East Coast

Water Conservation

and Broward County

Secondary Canals

Biscayne Bay 

Coastal Canals

Big Cypress/L-28I 

Modifications

Additional S-345

Spillways and Modify

S-343 Operations

C-111N Spreader

Canal

Water Preserve Areas:

Central and North

Lake Belt Storage

Degrade Levees and Fill Canals

in Water Conservation Area 3and

Replace L-67 with Passive Weir

Everglades Rain

 Driven Operations

West and South

Miami-Dade Reuse

Modify G-404

and S-140 Pumps

L-31N Levee Seepage

Management

Caloosahatchee Estuary

Water Supply

North of Lake

Okeechobee Storage
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-27

7.3.2.4 River of Grass Evaluation Methodology, Alternatives A - D

The River of Grass Evaluation Methodology (Appendix D) was a tool used to

determine the habitat quality of the alternative plans based on a subset of the

performance measures. The methodology provided a process to select key

performance measures, by sub-region, that are critical to achieving the ecologic

objectives. Through mathematical equations and best professional judgement, each

set of performance measures was normalized to generate a numeric score between 0

and 1.0. The result is a value that represents the habitat quality based on the

relationship between hydrologic characteristics and habitat restoration targets. For

water supply, a similar method of developing numerical output was followed to

allow comparison of the plans relative to the water supply objectives.

The output from this analysis was used to compare the relative differences in

habitat quality between alternative plans for each sub-region. It was not used to

compare the habitat quality of one sub-region with the habitat quality of another

sub-region. For example, it is appropriate to compare results for Shark River

Slough to determine how well each alternative plan performed for that region.

However, because different equations were used for each sub-region, it is not

appropriate to make a comparison between Shark River Slough and Lake

Okeechobee. The numeric scores are presented in Table 7-7 and are explained in

Appendix D, which includes a detailed interpretation of the effect of the alternative

plans on the sub-regions. Alternative Plan D-13R which is included in this table is

discussed in Section 7.3.3.

7.3.2.4.1 Summary Evaluation Criteria, Alternatives A-D

The Alternative Evaluation Team made its final comparisons of the

alternative plans by using three summary evaluation criteria:

• plan ranking

• plan grade

• plan color

These criteria were designed to convert the numerical scores from the River

of Grass Evaluation Methodology into more qualitative descriptions of plan

performance. Plan rankings compared relative performance among the plans,

based on a tally of the ordinal scores created from the numerical scores. Plan

grades were created by combining numerical scores, and converting these groupings

of scores into letter grades, equivalent to the grading system in academic schools. 

Color schemes (green for successful, yellow for uncertain; red for unsuccessful) were

used to express the team’s best professional opinion of how likely each plan will

result in the attainment of the long-term ecological or water supply objectives. A
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-28

range of numerical scores could be given the same color evaluation, if the sub-team

felt that the objectives could be realized within a range of hydrological conditions.

TABLE 7-7

RIVER OF GRASS EVALUATION METHODOLOGY

NUMERICAL SCORES

(0=lowest, 1=highest)

Alternatives

Sub-Regions Affected

Acres 1995 Without

Plan A B C D D-13R

Lake Okeechobee 467,000 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.9 0.9 0.9

Caloosahatchee Estuary 9,000 0 0.1 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

St. Lucie Estuary 5,000 0 0.1 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.9

Loxahatchee National Wildlife

Refuge

143,000 1.0 0.6 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0 1.0

Water Conservation Area-2A 105,000 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.4 0.6

Water Conservation Area-2B 28,000 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1

Northwest Water Conservation

Area-3A

118,000 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Holey Land and Rotenberger

WMAs

61,000 0.4 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8 0.8

Northeast Water Conservation

Area-3A

54,000 0.1 0.4 0.8 0.6 0.1 0.1 0.4

Eastern Water Conservation

Area-3A

74,000 0.1 0.4 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.4

Central and Southern Water

Conservation Area-3A

276,000 0.4 0.4 0.8 0.8 0.4 0.4 0.8

Water Conservation Area-3B 69,000 0.8 0.4 1.0 0.1 0.1 0.1 0.6

Pennsuco Wetlands 18,000 0.4 0.4 0.6 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8

Shark River Slough 204,800 0.2 0.3 0.5 0.6 0.6 0.6 0.8

Rockland Marl Marsh 77,000 0.2 0.6 0.7 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

Model Lands 18,000 0.6 0.6 0.5 0.7 0.8 0.8 0.8

Florida Bay 448,000 0.2 0.3 0.8 0.9 0.8 0.8 0.8

Biscayne Bay 138,000 0.9 0.8 0.5 0.6 0.8 0.8 0.8

South and Southeast Big

Cypress

364,000 0.9 0.9 1.0 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0

Lake Okeechobee Service

Area N/A 0.6 0.3 0.8 0.7 0.8 0.9 0.9

Lower East Coast Service

Area N/A 0.8 0.7 0.9 0.9 1.0 1.0 1.0
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-29

Ranking of the Alternative Plans: For each sub-region, the alternative

plans and the Without Plan Condition were ranked from one through five. The best

plan for each sub-region was awarded a one (1) and the worst plan a five (5). Ties

were dealt with by averaging. For example, if two plans were tied for first place,

they each received a score of 1.5, the average of 1 and 2. If three plans tied for first

place, they each received a score of 2, the average of 1, 2, and 3. This system

ensured that fifteen points for each sub-region were allocated across the

alternatives, equalizing the contribution of each sub-region to the final sum of

rankings. The results of this evaluation are included in Table 7-8. The plan with

the lowest cumulative score received the highest rank. For example, Plan D, the

highest ranked plan, scored 44 points compared to the Without Plan condition

which received 98 points.

TABLE 7-8

PERFORMANCE OF THE WITHOUT PLAN CONDITION AND

ALTERNATIVES

BASED ON RELATIVE RANKING

(1=best, 5=worse)

Alternatives

Subregion Without

Plan A B C D

Lake Okeechobee 5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5

Caloosahatchee Estuary 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

St Lucie Estuary 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Lake Worth Lagoon 5 4 1 2.5 2.5

Holey Land & Rotenberger Wildlife

Management Areas 3 3 3 3 3

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge 5 4 2 2 2

Water Conservation Areas 2 & 3 5 1 3 3 3

Shark River Slough 5 4 1.5 3 1.5

Rockland Marl Marsh 5 3.5 3.5 2 1

Model Lands 4 5 2 2.5 1.5

Florida Bay 5 1.5 1.5 3.5 3.5

Biscayne Bay 2.7 4.3 4.3 2.2 1.5

Southern Big Cypress 4 4 4 2 1

Southeastern Big Cypress 5 2 4 2 2

Connectivity 5 4 1 2 3

Sheet Flow 5 4 1 2.5 2.5

Fragmentation 4.5 4.5 1 2.5 2.5

Water Quality 5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5

Dade Agricultural Area 5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5

Lake Okeechobee Service Area 5 3 4 2 1

Lower East Coast Service Area 5 3.5 3.5 1.5 1.5

Total Sum of Rankings 98.2 69.8 54.8 48.7 44
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-30

Grading the Alternative Plans: Plan grades were created based on the

numerical output from the River of Grass Evaluation Methodology for most subregions. All sub-regions except the Northern and Central Everglades, which

developed letter grades independently, assigned letter grades (A, B, C, D, or F)

based on the numerical scores (refer to Table 7-7). The results of this evaluation

are included in Table 7-9. Letter grade A was best, or excellent at meeting the

performance measures; and letter grade F was worst, or failed to meet the

performance measure targets, just like the letter grading system used in academia.

The letter grades indicate how well each alternative plan and the Without Plan

Condition performed at meeting the performance measure targets. If two or more of

the plans performed similarly for the performance measures for the sub-region,

then more than one plan could receive a similar grade for a sub-region. For

example, Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge earned a letter grade A for

alternative plans A-D.

TABLE 7-9

PERFORMANCE OF THE WITHOUT PLAN CONDITION AND

ALTERNATIVES

RELATIVE TO PERFORMANCE MEASURES

LETTER GRADE

Alternatives

Sub-region Without

Plan A B C D

Lake Okeechobee C B B A A

Caloosahatchee Estuary F A A A A

St Lucie Estuary F C C C B+

Lake Worth Lagoon F D B C C

Holey Land & Rotenberger Wildlife

Management Areas C B B B B

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge C A A A A

Water Conservation Areas 2 & 3 D C D D D

Shark River Slough F F D D D

Rockland Marl Marsh D C C B B

Model Lands F F C B B

Florida Bay F C C C C

Biscayne Bay C F F C B

Southern Big Cypress B B B B A

Southeastern Big Cypress B A B A A

Connectivity D D A B B

Sheet Flow F B B B B+

Fragmentation F F A B B

Lake Okeechobee Service Area F B C B A

Dade Agricultural Area F A A A B

Lower East Coast Service Area D B B A A

Water Quality D C C C C
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-31

Color Assessment of the Alternative Plans: The alternative plans were

also scored using colors (green, yellow, and red) by converting plan grades into a

"best professional opinion" prediction of how likely each plan would achieve the

long-term ecological or water supply objectives. The results are displayed in Table

7-10. Each color provides two kinds of information: (a) a prediction of how likely a

plan will achieve the recovery and long-term sustainability objectives defined by the

performance measure(s); and (b) a recommended priority for further improvement

in the design and operation of the currently modeled plan. Green means that the

current plan is likely to recover and sustain the ecological or water supply objective

described by the performance measures. Yellow means that achievement of the

long-term objectives is marginal or uncertain, and that improvement in the plan is

a moderate priority. Red means that the recovery and long-term sustainability of

the objectives are unlikely, and that the current plan requires improvement if these

targets are to be met.

TABLE 7-10

PERFORMANCE OF THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS

TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM OBJECTIVES

COLOR RANKING

G = successful, Y = marginal or uncertain, R = unsuccessful

Alternatives

Sub-region Without

Plan

A B C D

Lake Okeechobee Y G G G G

Caloosahatchee Estuary R G G G G

St Lucie Estuary R Y Y Y Y

Lake Worth Lagoon Y R R Y Y

Holey Land & Rotenberger Wildlife

Management Areas

Y G G G G

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge Y G G G G

Water Conservation Area 2 & 3 R Y R R R

Shark River Slough R R R R R

Rockland Marl Marsh R Y Y G G

Model Lands R R Y G G

Florida Bay R Y Y Y Y

Biscayne Bay Y R R Y G

Southern Big Cypress Y Y Y Y G

Southeastern Big Cypress Y G Y G G

Connectivity Y Y G G G

Sheet Flow R G G G G

Fragmentation R R G G G

Dade Agricultural Area R G G G Y

Lake Okeechobee Service Area R G Y G G

Lower East Coast Service Area R Y Y G G

Water Quality ne ne ne ne ne

ne – not evaluated using color ranking
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-32

7.3.2.4.2 Keystone and Endangered Species Evaluation of Alternatives A-D

Evaluation of alternative plans' performance with regard to threatened,

endangered and keystone species was accomplished through a combination of

several methods. The Across Trophic Levels System Simulation model results

provided information on expected biological responses of several species and species

groups. Other methods to predict species response to the alternative plans included:

(1) the additional Crocodile Habitat Suitability and Wood Stork Nesting Patterns

performance measures; (2) information on known hydrological responses of species

gleaned from Volume I of the Multispecies Recovery Plan for the Threatened and

Endangered Species of south Florida, Technical/Agency Draft (U.S. Fish and

Wildlife Service, 1998b); and (3) discussions with research biologists widely

recognized as experts on particular species. These additional sources of information

were considered along with results from the Across Trophic Level System

Simulation model to form a “weight of the evidence” or “consensus” conclusion

among members of the Restudy Team and species experts. The relative ranking of

the plans for the keystone and endangered species are included in Table 7-11.

TABLE 7-11

KEYSTONE AND LISTED SPECIES

(1=best, 5=worse)

Alternatives

Species Without

Plan Alt A Alt B Alt C Alt D

CSS Sparrow 5 4 1 1 1

Snail Kite 5 3 3 1 1

Wood Stork 5 1 1 1 1

Panther 1 1 1 1 1

Crocodile 5 2 2 2 1

Deer 5 2 1 2 2

Wading Birds 5 3 3 1 1

Fish 5 3 3 1 1

7.3.2.4.3 Water Quality Evaluation of Alternatives A - D

Model output from the South Florida Water Management Model and the

water quality models were evaluated in the context of performance measures

developed by the Restudy Water Quality Team. The Water Quality Team’s

empirical evaluation was conducted on a slightly different sub-regional basis than

the Alternative Evaluation Team. The Water Quality Team did not develop an

empirical evaluation of alternative plans on water quality conditions in the Big

Cypress Basin or the Holey Land and Rotenberger Wildlife Management Areas. 

For those areas, a qualitative assessment was made based upon the proposed

operation of the components contained in the alternatives.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-33

From this evaluation, the Water Quality Team ranked the base conditions

and alternative plans on a scale of 1 to 6, with higher scores indicating a more

preferred condition from a water quality perspective. It should be noted that this

method of ranking is reverse from the previous ranking evaluations, meaning a

lower score indicates a more preferred condition. The rankings are included in

Table 7-12.

TABLE 7-12

WATER QUALITY RANKINGS

1=worse, 6=best1

Alternatives

Sub-Region 1995

Base Without

Plan A B C D

Lake Okeechobee 1.5 4.5 1.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Everglades Agricultural Area and

the Everglades Construction

Project

1 2 6 5 3.5 3.5

Water Conservation Areas 2 & 3 1 2.5 5 2.5 5 5

St. Lucie Watershed 1 2 3.5 3.5 5 6

Caloosahatchee Watershed 1.5 1.5 3 4 5 6

Loxahatchee National Wildlife

Refuge 1 2 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.5

Everglades National Park 1.5 5 3.5 6 1.5 3.5

Lower East Coast Service Area 6 3.5 1.5 1.5 5 3.5

Cumulative Score 14.5 23 28 31.5 34.0 36.5

1 Care should be taken when comparing the water quality rankings with other evaluation rankings due to the differences in scale.

7.3.2.4.4 Evaluation Conclusions for Alternatives A - D

Results presented in the previous tables show that Alternative D is generally

the best plan at achieving the ecologic, water supply, and water quality objectives.

For these same criteria, Alternative C is the second best plan. Table 7-11 shows

that for Listed Species, Alternative D ranks slightly higher than the other

alternatives, with Alternative C ranking second. All tables show that for most subregions, the plans provide substantial benefits (i.e., improvements) over the

Without Plan Condition.

The Alternative Evaluation Team selected Alternative D, with the

provision that steps be taken to correct specific weaknesses in the alternative. 

Overall, Alternative D performed best for:

• Lake Okeechobee Service Area

• Caloosahatchee Estuary
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-34

• Lake Okeechobee Service Area

• Lower East Coast Service Areas

• Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge

• Holey Land and Rotenberger Wildlife Management Areas

• Southern and southeastern Big Cypress Basin

• Southern Everglades Rocky Glades

Alternative D, was inadequate (reds in Table 7-10) at meeting performance

targets for:

• Portions of Water Conservation Areas 2 and 3

• Shark River Slough

Alternative D was moderately adequate (yellows in Table 7-10) at meeting

performance targets for:

• St. Lucie Estuary

• Florida Bay

• Lake Worth Lagoon

• South Dade Agricultural Region

From a water quality perspective, Alternatives C and D were preferred over

Alternatives A and B. The Without Plan Condition was considered not acceptable.

Due to a lack of model results (particularly the Everglades Landscape Model

results), the alternative plans could not be ranked based upon water quality

impacts or benefits in Big Cypress National Preserve and the Holey Land and

Rotenberger Wildlife Management Areas.

The Alternative Evaluation Team recommended that ad hoc teams of

ecologists, hydrologists and modelers be created to determine both the immediate

and long-term strategy for improving the performance of Alternative D in the red

and yellow scored areas.

The Alternative Evaluation Team also highlighted three specific strengths of

Alternative B, which, if incorporated into Alternative D, would bring the different

ecological strengths of these two plans together to form a more robust restoration

plan. These included:

• Higher volumes of flow into the Florida Bay Estuary compared to other

plans.

• Greater success at reestablishing system connectivity.

• Improved levels of sheet flow, compared to other plans.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-35

These three features were a consequence of the greater extent of system-wide

decompartmentalization, by the removal of levees and canals that create barriers

between natural areas, which characterized Alternative B. The Alternative

Evaluation Team recommended that the same ad hoc team explore the feasibility of

merging these features of Alternative B into D.

At a Restudy Team meeting in early June 1998, the full team agreed with the

conclusions of the Alternative Evaluation Team and selected Alternative D as the

preferred alternative. The full team also accepted the Alternative Evaluation

Team’s recommendation that Alternative D should be refined to improve

performance in five key areas: Water Conservation Areas 2 and 3, Shark River

Slough, Florida Bay, and the St. Lucie Estuary.

7.3.3 Initial Draft Plan

In June 1998, a team of engineers and ecologists conducted an intense

iterative process to improve the hydrologic performance of Alternative D in the five

key areas. During the first seven iterations, the team attempted to achieve the

improved performance by making only operational changes. However, such changes

proved inadequate to meet the desired performance, and structural changes to the

plan were considered. The next six iterations included both operational changes and

structural changes to achieve the desired performance. The thirteenth and final

iteration included component modifications and improvements to Alternative D that

rectified performance inadequacies in portions of the Water Conservation Area,

Everglades National Park, Florida Bay, and the St. Lucie Estuary. The plan that

resulted was called Alternative D-13R. Alternative D-13R was designated as the

Initial Draft Plan by the Restudy Team.

7.3.3.1 Features of Alternative D-13R

The most significant change between Alternative D and D-13R was the

removal of additional levees and canals between Water Conservation Area 3A and

Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National Preserve. Unlike Alternative

B, Alternative D-13R left a barrier between Water Conservation Areas 3A and 3B.

This barrier, a levee known as L-67, was modified in Alternative D-13R to include a

conveyance canal and a series of passive weirs to promote high flows between these

areas, in addition to allowing for managed flows during the dry season. Alternative

D-13R also included several new operating rules for triggering when surface water

is allowed to enter the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park.

Furthermore, additional surface water storage capacity was included for the C-23,

C-24, Northfork and Southfork Basins in the Upper East Coast to further reduce

damaging local basin runoff to the St. Lucie Estuary. The major features of

Alternative D-13R are displayed in Figure 7-6. For a complete description of this

plan, refer to Appendix A, Section 4.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-36

7.3.3.2 Evaluation of Alternative D-13R

The modifications to Alternative D resulted in substantial improvements in

the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park without

compromising Lake Okeechobee water levels or water supply to Lake Okeechobee

and Lower East Coast Service Areas. The modifications relieved adverse high and

low water conditions in the Water Conservation Areas. Flow volumes to Shark

River Slough were increased while maintaining seasonal distribution of flows

indicated by Natural System Model. The number of dry-downs in Shark River

Slough was reduced to three events over the period of record compared to two

events under Natural System Model. Salinity in Florida Bay coastal basins was

improved as well. These improvements were achieved through partial

decompartmentalization of Water Conservation Area 3 and Everglades National

Park, which makes Alternative D-13R more like Alternative B as desired by the

Alternative Evaluation Team and the Restudy Team. Additional storage acreage in

the Upper East Coast basins reduced high volume local basin runoff to the St. Lucie

Estuary. This enabled Alternative D-13R to come closer to meeting the performance

measure target described by the number of times high local basin runoff occurred to

the estuary.

Table 7-13 is a summary table of letter grades for the Without Plan

Condition, and Initial Draft Plans D and D13R. Table 7-14 shows the same by

color ranking. Table 7-7 includes the River of Grass Evaluation Methodology

results for Alternative D-13R. A separate water quality evaluation was also

conducted for Alternative D-13R (see Appendix D). From a water quality

perspective, the performance of Alternative D-13R was improved when compared to

Alternative D.

7.3.3.3 Uncertainty Analysis of D-13R Components

In selecting the components that are in Alternative D-13R, the Restudy Team

recognized the high level of technical and implementability (due to high cost)

uncertainties associated with some of the components. These uncertainties can be

viewed as a question of whether an uncertain component will achieve the desired

effect. If the component fails to achieve the desired effect, the feasibility of

implementing an alternative component along with or as a replacement to the

uncertain component may need to be considered to assure that the Comprehensive

Plan meets its stated objectives.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-37

C-111N Spreader

Canal

Big Cypress/L-28I 

Modifications

Biscayne Bay

Coastal Canals

West and South

Miami-Dade Reuse

L-8 Modifications

 and Storage

Lake Okeechobee ASR

Taylor Creek/ Nubbin Slough

Storage and Treatment Area

Water Preserve Areas:

North and Central

Lake Belt Storage Everglades Rain

 Driven Operations

North of Lake

Okeechobee Storage

Revised Lake Okeechobee

Regulation Schedule

Caloosahatchee

Reservoir with ASR and

Caloosahatchee

Backpumping with STA

Everglades Agricultural

 Area (EAA) Storage

WCA-1 Internal 

Canal Structures

St. Lucie Estuary 

Water Supply

Modify G-404

and S-140 Pumps

FIGURE 7-6

SELECT FEATURES OF

ALTERNATIVE D-13R

Partial Decompartmentalization

of Water Conservation Area 3

and Everglades National Park

Lower East Coast

Water Conservation

and Broward County

Secondary Canals

Water Preserve Areas:

Above-ground Storage,

ASR and Seepage

Management

Indian River Lagoon

Water Preserve Areas:

Storage in C-23,24,25,44,

North and South Fork Basins

L-31N Levee Seepage

Management

Caloosahatchee Estuary

Water Supply
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-38

TABLE 7-13

PERFORMANCE OF D & D13R

RELATIVE TO ECOLOGICAL PERFORMANCE

MEASURES

LETTER GRADE

Sub-Region Without

Plan Alt D D-13R

Lake Okeechobee C A A

Caloosahatchee Estuary F A A

St Lucie Estuary F C B+

Lake Worth Lagoon F C C

Holey Land & Rotenberger WMA C B B

Loxahatchee NWR C A A

Water Conservation Area 2A D C

Water Conservation Area 2B F F

Northwestern Water Conservation

Area 3A B B

Northeastern Water Conservation

Area 3A F D

Eastern Water Conservation Area

3A F D

Central & Southern Water

Conservation Area 3A D B

Water Conservation Area 3B

D

F C

Pennsuco Wetlands ne B B

Shark River Slough F D B

Rockland Marl Marsh D B B

Florida Bay F C B

Biscayne Bay C B B

Model Lands F B B

Southern Big Cypress B A A

SE Big Cypress B A A

Connectivity D B B+

Sheet Flow F B B

Fragmentation F B A

Water Quality D C C

ne – not evaluated
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-39

TABLE 7-14

PERFORMANCE OF D AND D-13R

TO ACHIEVE LONG-TERM ECOLOGICAL OBJECTIVES

COLOR RANKING

Sub-Region Without

Plan Alt D D-13R

Lake Okeechobee Y G G

Caloosahatchee Estuary R G G

St Lucie Estuary R Y G

Lake Worth Lagoon Y Y Y

Holey Land & Rotenberger WMA Y G G

Loxahatchee NWR Y G G

Water Conservation Area 2A R/Y G/Y

Water Conservation Area 2B R R

Northwestern Water Conservation Area 3A G G

Northeastern Water Conservation Area 3A R Y

Eastern Water Conservation Area 3A R Y

Central & Southern Water Conservation

Area 3A R/Y G/Y

Water Conservation Area 3B

R

R Y

Pennsuco Wetlands ne G G

Shark River Slough R R G

Rockland Marl Marsh R G Y

Florida Bay R Y G

Biscayne Bay Y G G

Model Lands R G G

Southern Big Cypress Y G G

SE Big Cypress Y G G

Connectivity Y G G

Sheet Flow R G G

Fragmentation R G G

Water Quality ne ne ne

ne – not evaluated
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-40

To understand the extent of these uncertainties, the team identified

contingency plans to address potential performance deficiencies or cost-effectiveness

problems related to these uncertain components. As a first step in identifying the

scope of contingency plans, the Restudy Team identified the components with the

highest degree of uncertainty and the most likely alternatives that could be

implemented as partial or complete substitutes for the uncertain components. The

team also identified the sources of the uncertainty as well as the contribution these

components make to the overall system. The results of this investigation are

included in Table 7-15.

In addition, sensitivity analyses were conducted for the uncertain

components using the South Florida Water Management Model. These computer

simulations were evaluated to determine the extent of degraded performance. The

results are documented in Section 7.3.3.4.

7.3.3.4 Sensitivity Analysis of D-13R Components

Special investigations were undertaken to assess the sensitivity of

Alternative D-13R (Appendix B). The analysis included removing components or

reducing efficiency of components with the highest uncertainty from Alternative

D-13R and then analyzing the simulated performance of D-13R under these

conditions. These simulations were undertaken, in addition to other special

investigations, at various stages in the alternative development process in order to

assist in the design of alternatives or to investigate particular effects that could not

be built into the alternatives. Although some of the sensitivity analyses indicate

that the overall system performance does not change significantly when certain

components are removed, this does not necessarily mean that the feature is not

important or needed. No operational modifications or structural components were

added to replace the function of the removed components. It was found that one or

more of the remaining components was typically utilized more extensively to

compensate for the removal of a component.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-41

TABLE 7-15

COMPONENT UNCERTAINTY

Component Key Performance Attributes of

Component Sources of Uncertainty Potential Alternatives Expected Downsides ofPotential Alternatives

Lake Okeechobee

ASR

A. Attenuates high Lake levels

B. Keeps Lake levels up in dry

periods

C. Greatly reduces regulatory

releases to Caloosahatchee and St.

Lucie Estuaries

D. Stores excess water for future use

1. High construction and O&M

costs, especially potential

treatment costs for water to be

stored

2. Technical uncertainty,

especially as regards how much

water can ultimately be

recovered

a) Increase storage by raising levels in Lake

Okeechobee (B, C, D) (1, 2)

b) Partition Lake into ecologically and water

supply managed areas (A, B, C, D) (1, 2)

c) Expand capacity of reservoirs in Alternative

D13-R that can store Lake water, by making

them larger and/or deeper (A, B, C, D) (2)

d) New reservoir(s) (A, B, C, D) (2)

Deep disposal wells (A, C) (1, 2)

• Increased

evapotranspiration or loss

of water to saline aquifers

(c, d)

• Negative ecological

impact on Lake (a, b)

• Higher Costs (c, d)

Lower East Coast

ASR

A. Improves efficiency of reservoirs

B. Reduces flows to tide (Lake Worth

Lagoon)

C. Stores water for future use

1. Technical uncertainty,

especially as regards how much

water can ultimately be

recovered

2. High construction and O&M

costs, especially potential

treatment costs for water to be

stored

a) Deepen surface storage reservoirs (B, C)

(1)

b) Construct new or expand reservoirs

(include alternative location) (B, C) (1)

c) Alternative water sources including reuse

and Floridan aquifer water with membrane

treatment (1)

• Higher costs (a, b, c)

• Additional Land Required

for Water Management

(b)

Caloosahatchee

ASR

A. Reduces excessive flows and

helps meet minimum flows to

Caloosahatchee Estuary

B. Improves efficiency of reservoir

C. Stores water for future use

1. Technical uncertainty,

especially as regards how much

water can ultimately be

recovered

a) Deeper surface storage (A, C) (1)

b) New expanded reservoirs (include

alternative location) (A, C) (1)

c) Deep disposal wells (A – excessive)

• Increased Evapotranspiration or loss of

water to saline aquifers

(b)

• Higher Costs (a, b)

• Additional Land Required

for Water Management

(b)

North Lake Belt A. Water supply to canal system

B. Reduce deliveries from WCA/L

C. Maintain canal stages (C-2, C-4,

C-6, C-7, C-9)

D. Flood protection

1. Ability to fluctuate levels in

storage area may be limited by

influx of poor quality water from

deeper aquifers

a) Configure North Lake Belt Storage

Reservoir with more above ground level

storage capacity

b) ASR if technical and cost uncertainties are

successfully solved

c) Alternative water supply/R.O./Reuse

d) Store water in an alternative surface

storage area which may be located locally or in

the EAA

• Usable storage may still

be reduced (a, c)

• Costs per unit of storage

capacity may be

higher(b,d)
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-42

TABLE 7-15

COMPONENT UNCERTAINTY

Component Key Performance Attributes of

Component Sources of Uncertainty Potential Alternatives Expected Downsides ofPotential Alternatives

Central Lake Belt A. Reduces high stages in WCAs

and ENP

B. Improves dry season flows to ENP

1. Ability to fluctuate levels in

storage area may be limited by

influx of poor quality water from

deeper aquifers

a) Configure Central Lake Belt Storage

Reservoir with more above ground level

storage capacity

b) Intercept water – store in EAA for later use

c) Deepen above ground reservoirs in

Alternative D13 such as C-9, C-11 and Bird

Drive

d) Increase delivery of water from west Dade

to ENP

• Usable storage may still

be reduced (a, c)

• Costs per unit of storage

capacity may be higher (a,

b, c)

• Coastal basin water

shortages may be

increased and flows to

Biscayne Bay may be

reduced (d)

Reuse – South

Dade

A. Provides a base flow to Biscayne

National Park

B. Helps prevent saltwater intrusion

by providing water to maintain canal

and groundwater levels

1. Funding due to high costs

related to treatment operations

and maintenance

2. Treatment effectiveness

and reliability

a) ASR if ASR technical and cost

uncertainties are successfully solved (B)

(1)

b) In-ground storage (B) (1)

c) Alternative water supply – R.O.

Conservation (A, B) (1)

d) Floridan Aquifer (A,B)

e) Alternative surface water sources (A,B)

• Provides less water for

Biscayne Bay when water

is being placed into

storage (a, b)

• Quantity and quality of

source water

uncertainty(d,e)

Reuse – West Dade A. Provides groundwater recharge for

west wellfields

B. Reduces deliveries from WCA/LO

to Service Area 3

C. Provides flow to Biscayne National

Park and to South Dade Conveyance

system which helps recharge Taylor

Slough

D. Provides groundwater recharge to

L-31N area from which water is

withdrawn to deliver to ENP

1. Funding due to high costs

related to treatment operations

and maintenance

2. Treatment effectiveness

and reliability

a) ASR if ASR technical and cost

uncertainties are successfully solved (A, B, D)

b) In-ground storage (A, B, D) (1)

c) Alternative water supply – reverse osmosis

and conservation (A, B, C, D) (1)

d) Floridan Aquifer (C)

e) Alternative surface water sources (C)

• Provides less water for

uses when water is being

placed into storage (a, b)

• Quantity and quality of

source water

uncertainty(d,e)

L-31N Seepage

Management

A. Provides ability to seasonally

manage groundwater seepage out of

ENP

B. Protects water levels in ENP

C. Protects necessary groundwater

flows to coastal Miami-Dade County

1. Ability of pumping

technology to seasonally

manage groundwater seepage

2. Effectiveness and feasibility

of the levee seepage barrier and

resulting downstream impacts

a) Curtain wall with improved surface water

deliveries to enhance coastal basin

groundwater recharge

b) Partial curtain wall with enhanced surface

deliveries to ENP to mitigate for groundwater

outflows.

c) Seepage collection system

• Higher costs (a, b)

• Reduced effectiveness (c)

(A, B, C, etc>) corresponds to key attributes of a component

(1, 2, 3, etc.) corresponds to the uncertainties related to a particular component

(a, b, c, etc.) corresponds to the potential alternative
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-43

Due to the high construction, operation and maintenance, and potential

treatment costs for water stored in aquifers, and the technical uncertainty

regarding the recovery efficiency of aquifer storage and recovery, two sensitivity

modeling scenarios were run and evaluated. Modeling scenarios were run and

evaluated for each of the aquifer storage and recovery components included in the

Caloosahatchee Basin, the Lake Okeechobee area, and the Lower East Coast area.

The two scenarios were evaluated against Alternative D-13R. The first scenario

considered reduction in recovery efficiency of aquifer storage and recovery from 70

to 35 percent. The second scenario considered total removal of the aquifer storage

and recovery component. These sensitivity analyses showed the following results.

The scenarios with decreased aquifer storage and recovery efficiency at the

Caloosahatchee and Lower East Coast Basins aquifer storage and recovery facilities

required additional water from Lake Okeechobee and Water Conservation Area 1 to

offset deficits. Scenarios with reduced efficiency for Lake Okeechobee and Lower

East Coast Basins aquifer storage and recovery showed increased discharges to tide

and more high flows to Lake Worth Lagoon. The scenario removing Lake

Okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery more than tripled Lake Okeechobee Zone

A regulatory discharges to the St. Lucie Estuary and doubled discharges to the

Caloosahatchee Estuary. In addition, when Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage and

recovery was removed southerly discharges from the lake to the Everglades

Agricultural Storage Area and Water Conservation Areas increased.

In the North and Central Lake Belt Storage Areas, concern was expressed

that the ability to fluctuate water levels within the storage areas may be limited

due to the potential for introduction of poor quality water from deeper aquifers. 

Sensitivity analysis modeling scenarios were carried out to individually remove

each of these storage components. The removal of the North Lake Belt Storage Area

resulted in a significant increase in water deliveries from Lake Okeechobee and

Water Conservation Area 3A to the Lower East Coast Service Area 3, to maintain

water levels in the canals. As a result, lake stages were lower and there were

increases in water restrictions in Lower East Coast Service Area 2 with the reduced

ability to maintain coastal canals, and a redistribution of flows to Biscayne Bay. 

The removal of the Central Lake Belt Storage Area resulted in a significant

increase in eastward diversions of excess water from Water Conservation Area 3A

and 3B. This resulted in lowered stages in Water Conservation Area 3A and 3B

and reduced flows south to Northeast Shark River Slough. Discharges to Biscayne

Bay increased as a result of increased seepage from Water Conservation Area 3.

The wastewater reuse components were evaluated due to their high

construction, operation and maintenance costs. Removal of the West Miami-Dade

reuse component significantly lowered stages in the Bird Drive Recharge Area and

in L-31N, decreased flows to Central Shark River Slough and Everglades National

Park, lowered Lake Okeechobee stages during droughts, and increased Lake

Okeechobee triggered water restrictions in the Lower East Coast Service Area. 
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-44

Removal of the South Miami-Dade reuse component reduced discharges to Biscayne

Bay and slightly increased locally triggered water restrictions in Lower East Coast

Service Area 3. Water deliveries from Lake Okeechobee in particular increased to

compensate for the removal of the reuse components.

Four Everglades Agricultural Area reservoir sensitivity scenarios were

developed and resulting performance was compared to that of Alternative D13-R. 

Findings show that the 20,000 acre compartment dedicated to capturing Everglades

Agricultural Area runoff and meeting Everglades Agricultural Area irrigation needs

has a large region-wide benefit. The two-20,000 acre surge tank storage areas,

dedicated to capturing excess Lake Okeechobee water and meeting Everglades

water needs, are useful for reducing the dependence on Lake Okeechobee for

meeting Everglades water needs. The analysis revealed that the adverse systemwide effects from removing the surge tanks were minimized by increased usage of

the Lake Okeechobee aquifer storage and recovery component.

Component uncertainty for the L-31N Seepage Management results from

concern regarding the effectiveness and feasibility of the levee seepage barrier and

resulting downstream impacts and the ability of pumping technology to seasonally

manage groundwater seepage. This sensitivity analysis was not modeled, however,

the modeling results of the removal of the Central Lake Belt Storage Area and its

perimeter seepage barrier could be extrapolated for general analysis. Wet season,

groundwater seepage would be expected to raise the L-31N Borrow Canal levels,

increase groundwater levels east of L-31N, flows to Biscayne Bay can be expected to

increase due to seepage, and stages and hydroperiods in Everglades National Park

west of L-31N can be expected to decrease.

7.3.4 Conclusions of Comprehensive Plan Formulation and Evaluation

The Restudy Team formulated and evaluated 10 alternative plans and in

excess of 20 intermediate computer simulations (termed scenarios) that culminated

in the selection of Alternative D-13R as the Initial Draft Plan. This plan was then

further evaluated by identifying components that have a high degree of uncertainty

and analyzing the sensitivity of these features. The results of these analyses

suggest that Alternative D-13R, even with all of its uncertainties, is the plan that

best achieves the planning objectives. However, a number of components had yet to

be evaluated because they were outside the purview of the analytical tools being

used to evaluate the alternative plans. Therefore, a subsequent analysis was

initiated to evaluate these components, which the Restudy Team termed Other

Project Elements.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-45

7.4 OTHER PROJECT ELEMENTS

During the iterative plan formulation process, it became apparent that some

components could not be evaluated using the South Florida Management Model

because either they were outside the boundary of the model or they were too small

to be simulated at the scale of the model. These components were termed Other

Project Elements (OPEs) and underwent a separate evaluation (See Appendix A,

Section 6).

An initial list of Other Project Elements was developed by the Restudy Team

from a number of sources including: the Critical Projects, the Restudy Plan

Formulation document, and new proposals from Restudy Team members.

The Water Resources Development Act (WRDA) of 1996 authorizes the

Secretary of the Army, subject to specific criteria, to proceed expeditiously with the

implementation of restoration projects that are deemed critical to the restoration of

the south Florida ecosystem (see Appendix A5). These projects were termed

“Critical Projects.” This authority resulted in an expedited study to identify projects

that would meet the criteria set forth in the authorizing legislation. A total of 35

projects were nominated as Critical Projects under this authority. However, the

cumulative cost estimate for these projects exceeded the legislatively mandated

limit. Therefore, it is anticipated that only a fraction of the projects will actually be

implemented under the Critical Projects authority. Hence, to ensure that all of

these projects received full consideration, the Restudy included the Critical Projects

that had not yet been approved for construction in its planning process. Some of

these Critical Projects are included in alternative plans such as the C-4 Divide

Structure. The remainder of the Critical Projects were considered in this Other

Project Element evaluation.

7.4.1 Evaluation of Other Project Elements

The first step in the evaluation of the Other Project Elements involved

screening the initial list using the following criteria:

(1) The project element could not be evaluated using the South Florida Water

Management Model.

(2) The project element must support and be consistent with the Restudy

planning objectives.

(3) The project element must have a Federal interest.

(4) The project element should not be a stand alone research or data

collection activity.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-46

This screening resulted in 37 potential Other Project Elements. These were

then evaluated by an interagency - interdisciplinary team in four benefit categories

including: (1) ecological values based on hydrology, spatial extent, habitat quality,

and improvement to native flora and fauna; (2) urban and agricultural water

supply, (3) flood damage reduction; and (4) water quality. In addition, the team

considered two other parameters including geographic extent and the significance to

the Initial Draft Plan.

7.4.2 Conclusions of the Evaluation of the Other Project Elements

Of the 37 potential Other Project Elements, the team rated 26 of them

(eleven of them were not rated due to lack of information). Of the 26 rated, 11 of

them were recommended to be included with the Initial Draft Plan. Further, many

of the other proposed Other Project Elements, including many of the lower-priority

Critical Projects, were recommended for further study. However, in response to

public and agency comments recommending the implementation of the

Comprehensive Plan be accelerated to expedite ecologic restoration, many of these

Critical Projects and additional Other Project Elements are now included in the

final plan. Accordingly, 21 Other Project Elements are now recommended for

inclusion in the Comprehensive Plan as displayed in Table 7-16.

7.5 FINAL ARRAY OF ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Subsequent to the selection of Alternative D-13R as the Initial Draft Plan, an

evaluation of the final array of alternative plans was conducted. This included an

analysis of the economic benefits and impacts, an analysis of the environmental

planning objectives, a cost effectiveness and incremental analysis, mitigation

analysis, and an evaluation of the plans to meet various policy and regulatory

requirements.

7.5.1 Economic Evaluation of the Alternative Plans

Many of the benefits afforded by the alternative plans are environmental in

nature and were not converted to monetary units for evaluation. As a result, a

major focus of the economic evaluation was on the cost effects of the alternatives.

Such effects can result at both the national and regional levels.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-47

TABLE 7-16

RECOMMENDED OTHER PROJECT ELEMENTS

Other Project Elements Title CP1

Rank

Melaleuca Eradication – Renovation of Existing Facility and Biological Agent

Rearing components (CP)

3

Seminole Tribe Big Cypress Reservation Water Conservation Plan (CP) 6

Southern Golden Gate Estates Hydrologic Restoration (CP) 7

Southern CREW Project Addition/Imperial River Flowways (CP) 9

Lake Okeechobee Watershed Water Quality Treatment Facilities ( includes

Lake Okeechobee Water Retention/Phosphorus Removal (CP)) 10

Lake Trafford Restoration (CP) 15

Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands (includes L-31E Flow Redistribution (CP) 16

Henderson Creek Belle and Meade Restoration (CP) 17

Lake Okeechobee Tributary Sediment Dredging (CP) 18

Florida Keys Tidal Restoration (CP) 22

Lake Worth Lagoon Restoration (CP) 23

Palm Beach County. Wetlands Based Water Reclamation Project (CP) 24

Miccosukee Water Management Plan (CP) 26

Lakes Park Restoration (CP) 31

Palm Beach County Winsberg Farms Constructed Wetlands Project (CP) 33

Restoration of Pineland & Tropical Hardwood Hammocks in C-111 Basin (CP) 35

Lake Istokpoga Regulation Schedule N/A

Protect & Enhance Existing Wetland Systems along Loxahatchee National

Wildlife Refuge including Strazzulla Tract

N/A

Pal Mar and Corbett Hydropattern Restoration N/A

Acme Basin B Discharge N/A

1CP – Critical Project

Evaluation of economic effects of the alternatives was concerned with various

aspects of the relationships between the economy and water. For example, water is

necessary for agricultural and manufacturing processes, and individual survival. It

is important for recreation and tourism. It is necessary for navigation. It plays a

significant and obvious role in commercial and recreational fishing. The costs of

transporting and treating water before and after its use, as well other costs

associated with water use, are imbedded in the network of relationships and

transactions of the economy. These interrelationships between the economic system

and the ecosystem from which water is either consumed, or used in a nonconsumptive way, by the economic system are the focal point for measuring some of

the costs and benefits of the alternative plans.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-48

The water-economy linkages briefly discussed above are perhaps the more

obvious ones. There are also important linkages between the health of south

Florida's natural ecosystem, and adequate amounts and timing of water, discussed

elsewhere in this and other documents. The more elusive, hard-to-measure

linkages, are those between the economic system and the natural ecosystem. This

set of relationships is harder to see on a case-by-case basis (some polluted runoff

here, some wildlife habitat lost there). In the aggregate, however, it is clear that a

healthy functioning ecosystem is part of the requisite infrastructure for a healthy

functioning economy. For purposes of this study, economic benefits were not used to

"justify" ecosystem restoration plans.

The economic evaluation considered the effects on: agricultural water use,

municipal and industrial water use, potential changes in flooding damages,

navigation, recreation, and commercial fishing. A summary of the findings of this

evaluation are displayed in Table 7-17 and for a complete description of the

evaluation, refer to Appendix E.

Agricultural Water Supply – Since all plans involve some change in the

management of water, the potential exists for changes in the amount and timing of

water available for irrigation of crops, as well as changes in the water table. Such

changes could in turn affect agricultural productivity (different productivity for

existing crops, different crops, changes in crop practices, etc.). For the Everglades

Agricultural Area and the Lower East Coast, changes in water deliveries to

agriculture were converted to changes in agricultural crop yields, and in turn, to

changes in net farm income. The agricultural water supply effects in the St. Lucie

and Caloosahatchee Basins were measured by estimating the difference between

the amount of irrigation water provided for a particular alternative and the

demands of that basin. The result is a “demands-not-met” measurement that was

compared to the Without Plan Condition. This analysis revealed that the

alternative plans should result in a positive effect.

Municipal and Industrial Water Supply – Projections of future water demand

were made using the IWR-MAIN Water Demand Forecasting software, and were

used as input to the South Florida Water Management Model. Changes in water

deliveries to the urban users were converted to estimated willingness to pay values.

There is expected to be a positive effect for each of the alternative plans compared

to the Without Plan Condition.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-49

TABLE 7-17

ECONOMIC EFFECTS OF THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS

($Millions)

Alternatives

Economic Category How Measured Without

Plan A B C D D-13R

Agricultural Water Supply:

 Everglades Agricultural

Area and Lower East Coast

Average Annual value of

unmet demands

(lower is better)

$2.6 $.58 $.88 $.66 $.74 $.71

 St Lucie Basin 22.4% 4.1% 6.5% 4.1% 3.1% 3.1%

 Caloosahatchee Basin

Percentage of Demands Not

Met

(lower is better) 31.6% 9.2% 14.9% 9.0% 7.5% 7.5%

Municipal and Industrial

Water Supply

Average Annual Value of

Unmet demand

(lower is better)

$31.8 $10.2 $10.3 $6.4 $4.6 $4.6

Commercial Navigation Percent of time Lake

Okeechobee falls below

critical stage (12 feet)

(lower is better)

30% 16% 20% 16% 11% 11%

Recreation See Appendix E NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ

Commercial and

Recreational Fishing See Appendix E NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ

Flood Control See Appendix E NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ NQ

NA .08% .08% .10% .13% .14%

NA .06% .07% .07% .10% .11%

Regional Economic:

Earnings

Employment

Output

Expressed as percent of

regional economy*

(higher is better) NA .08% .09% .08% .12% .14%

NQ – effects were not quantified

% - percent

* - Regional Economic effects for the alternatives are the difference between with and without a plan.

Commercial Navigation – Low lake levels affect the ability of commercial

navigation traffic to safely navigate the Lake Okeechobee Waterway, and can also

result in lock operation restrictions. Prior to this study, it was felt that changes in

Lake Okeechobee water levels associated with some of the plans could impact

navigation in Lake Okeechobee. However, for the alternative plans, this is not an

issue. Lake level fluctuations appear to be moderated in the plans being considered

compared to the Without Plan Condition. High levels are not as high as, and low

levels are not as low as in the Without Plan Condition. The navigation effects could

have been translated into monetary units, but the data uncertainty is such that the

effects were evaluated by identifying when Lake Okeechobee stages fall below 12

feet.

Recreation – Recreation is a major industry in south Florida, and the natural

ecosystems play a potentially important contributing role. Besides opportunities for

ecosystem-related tourism (visitor centers, educational programs, etc.), there are

potentially major implications for that part of the economy linked to the health of

Florida Bay (mainly Monroe County, which includes the Florida Keys). While there

is the possibility of a significant positive effect associated with any of the

alternative plans being examined, but there is so much uncertainty at this stage of

the planning process, that such effects were not monetized. Appendix E includes a
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-50

lengthy discussion about this topic and the context within which possible changes

will take place. However, the kind of detailed information that is necessary to

estimate recreation effects of the different alternative plan was not available during

this study.

Commercial Fishing – It is possible that economic commercial and

recreational fishing benefits could result from the alternative plans. If fish stocks

were to increase as a result of positive Florida Bay responses to Everglades

ecosystem restoration, and commercial fish catch were to increase, then the

difference in the value of fish catch would be an economic benefit. Some studies

reveal strong evidence suggesting that such could be the case, particularly for pink

shrimp. The potential exists for similar positive effects in the other affected areas

of St. Lucie Estuary, Caloosahatchee Estuary, and Biscayne Bay. These effects

could extend to offshore fisheries as well, due to the relationship between conditions

in the bays and estuaries, which provide nursery functions for the offshore fisheries.

 Again, details necessary to identify monetary effects of each alternative plan were

not available during this study. Similar to the recreation analysis, a discussion of

the role commercial fishing plays in the economy is provided in Appendix E to

highlight the relative significance of potential impacts in this area.

Flood Damage Reduction – A major justification for much of the existing

C&SF Project was to control flooding. Modifications to achieve ecosystem

restoration have the potential to change flood control. For example, alternative

plans that increase canal capacities or include additional water storage capacity

enhance flood control provided by the system. For this study, neither additional

benefits nor costs (increased damages) have been quantified. This was because the

South Florida Water Management Model, which was the primary tool used to

simulate the alternative plans, did not have the spatial resolution, nor was it

sufficiently calibrated in the urban areas to definitively evaluate flood damage

changes expected to result from any of the alternative plans. However, known

(existing) problem areas were defined and cross-compared with some of the South

Florida Water Management Model output that identifies gross changes in annual

peak stage. Further, during the engineering design of the plan components, steps

were taken to minimize potential flooding that could result from any of the

components. Therefore, the flood damage reduction analysis, which can be found in

Appendix E, identified areas which have a strong potential for follow-on flood

damage reduction or mitigation analysis that may be needed in the more detailed

implementation analyses which will follow the Restudy.

Regional Economic Development Effects – Regional economic impact effects

were estimated for the alternative plans. This included the “multiplier” effects of

project spending, as well as agricultural water supply changes, and the impact of

agricultural land taken out of production due to project components (e.g., water

storage facilities). In the context of the 12- county area of economic influence, the
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-51

alternative plans would result in a relatively small positive effect on the regional

earnings, sales, and employment. The analysis, which can be found in Appendix E,

showed that the positive effects associated with project spending and increased

agricultural production due to fewer water restrictions would be greater than the

negative effects of agricultural land removed from production for storage facilities.

7.5.2 Environmental Evaluation of the Alternative Plans

Two different methods were used to assess the ecological performance of the

alternative plans. The color assessment scheme developed by the Alternative

Evaluation Team was the first method of assessment. This provides information

about the potential for achieving the long-term ecologic objectives. The team used

“green” to indicate that an alternative plan will likely result in the recovery and

long-term sustainablility of the ecologic and water supply objectives in the subregion. The goal was to achieve a green assessment for all areas throughout the

study area indicating potential system-wide restoration.

This assessment was used to quantify the spatial extent in meeting the

planning objective by summing the acreage of each sub-region that was assessed as

green. The result of this evaluation is displayed as “Green Acres” in Table 7-18.

Alternative D-13R resulted in a substantially larger area of predicted sustainable

ecosystems than any of the other plans evaluated. Had all sub-regions achieved this

goal, approximately 2.7 million acres would be restored to levels capable of

sustaining long term ecological objectives. The without plan condition has no areas

assessed green; therefore, 0 acres.

A second evaluation was conducted to determine the success of alternative

plans in meeting the planning objective for improving habitat quality of natural

areas in south Florida. Habitat quality is critical to reestablishing sustainable

populations of fish and wildlife resources in the central and south Florida

ecosystem. To measure this objective, “Habitat Units” were calculated by

multiplying the area of a sub-region (acres) by the numeric output from the River of

Grass Evaluation Methodology. When summed, the habitat units provide an

indication of the potential system-wide habitat quality. The result of this evaluation

is displayed in Table 7-18. If all sub-regions were restored, the result would be 2.7

million habitat units. Alternative D-13R resulted in 2.2 million habitat units, the

most for any of the plans evaluated.

The Other Project Elements are not included within the domain of the South

Florida Water Management Model; therefore, the environmental evaluations of

these features were not included in the color assessment nor the River of Grass

Evaluation Methodology. An estimate was prepared using principles similar to the

River of Grass Methodology but at a more localized scale. The evaluation of the

Other Project Elements included development of habitat units for the localized
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-52

benefits produced within the “footprint” of the feature. No attempt was made to

assess benefits that were expected to accrue offsite or benefits from Other Project

Elements without a discrete footprint, such as the Biological Control for Melaleuca

and Other Invasive Exotic Species project. The construction of this feature would

have system-wide benefits but the assumptions necessary to make an estimate of

habitat unit improvement would be overly gross and were not attempted. 

Accordingly, the estimate of Other Project Elements benefits is considered

underestimated at 9,000 habitat units.

7.5.3 Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses

Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses reveal information about

good financial investments given the dollar costs and non-dollar outputs (“benefits”)

of alternative investment choices. The analyses are conducted in a series of steps

that progressively identify alternatives that meet specified criteria and screen-out

those that do not. Corps Engineer Regulation 1105-2-100 requires cost effectiveness

and incremental cost analyses to support recommendations for ecosystem

restoration.

Cost effectiveness analysis begins with a comparison of the costs and outputs

of alternative plans to identify the least cost plan for every possible level of output. 

The resulting least cost alternative plans are then compared to identify those that

will 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, the cost effective alternative plans are compared

to identify the most economically efficient alternative plans, that is, the “best buy”

alternative plans that will progressively produce the “biggest bang for the buck”. 

Finally, the additional costs for the additional amounts of output (“incremental

cost”) produced by the best buy alternative plans are calculated. The results of all

of the calculations and comparisons of costs and outputs provide a basis for

addressing the decision question “Is it worth it?” In the case of the Restudy, the

question is how much ecosystem restoration is worth the dollar cost? Additional

information about the analyses is in Evaluation of Environmental Investments

Procedures Manual, Interim: Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses by

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers, Institute for Water Resources (USACE, 1995).
This page is intentionally left blank.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-54

TABLE 7-18

ENVIRONMENTAL EVALUATION

OF THE ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Existing Without Plan A B C D D-13R Sub-Region Acres ROGEM HU ROGEM HU ROGEM HU ROGEM HU ROGEM HU ROGEM HU ROGEM HU

Lake Okeechobee 467,000 0.6 280,200 0.6 280,200 0.8 373,600 0.8 373,600 0.9 420,300 0.9 420,300 0.9 420,300

Caloosahatchee

Estuary 9,000 0.0 0.0 0.1 900 1.0 9,000 1.0 9,000 1.0 9,000 1.0 9,000 1.0 9,000

St. Lucie Estuary 5,000 0.0 0.0 0.1 500 0.8 4,000 0.8 4,000 0.8 4,000 0.8 4,000 0.9 4,500

Loxahatchee NWR 143,000 1.0 143,000 0.6 85,800 1.0 143,000 1.0 143,000 1.0 143,000 1.0 143,000 1.0 143,000

WCA-2A 105,000 0.4 42,000 0.4 42,000 0.4 42,000 0.4 42,000 0.4 42,000 0.4 42,000 0.6 63,000

WCA-2B 28,000 0.1 2,800 0.1 2,800 0.1 2,800 0.1 2,800 0.1 2,800 0.1 2,800 0.1 2,800

Northwest WCA-3A 118,000 0.1 11,800 0.4 47,200 0.8 94,400 0.8 94,400 0.8 94,400 0.8 94,400 0.8 94,400

Holey Land and

Rotenberger WMAs 61,000 0.4 24,400 0.6 36,600 0.8 48,800 0.8 48,800 0.8 48,800 0.8 48,800 0.8 48,800

Northeast WCA-3A 54,000 0.1 5,400 0.4 21,600 0.8 43,200 0.6 32,400 0.1 5,400 0.1 5,400 0.4 21,600

Eastern WCA-3A 74,000 0.1 7,400 0.4 29,600 0.1 7,400 0.1 7,400 0.1 7,400 0.1 7,400 0.4 29,600

Central and

Southern WCA-3A 276,000 0.4 110,400 0.4 110,400 0.8 220,800 0.8 220,800 0.4 110,400 0.4 110,400 0.8 220,800

WCA-3B 69,000 0.8 55,200 0.4 27,600 1.0 69,000 0.1 6,900 0.1 6,900 0.1 6,900 0.6 41,400

Pennsuco

Wetlands

18,000 0.4 7,200 0.4 7,200 0.6 10,800 0.6 10,800 0.8 14,400 0.8 14,400 0.8 14,400

Shark River Slough 204,800 0.2 40,960 0.3 61,440 0.5 102,400 0.6 122,880 0.6 122,880 0.6 122,880 0.8 163,840

Rockland Marl

Marsh 77,000 0.2 15,400 0.6 46,200 0.7 53,900 0.7 53,900 0.8 61,600 0.8 61,600 0.8 61,600

Model Lands 18,000 0.6 10,800 0.6 10,800 0.5 9,000 0.7 12,600 0.8 14,400 0.8 14,400 0.8 14,400

Florida Bay 448,000 0.2 89,600 0.3 134,400 0.8 358,400 0.9 403,200 0.8 358,400 0.8 358,400 0.8 358,400

Biscayne Bay 138,000 0.9 124,200 0.8 110,400 0.5 69,000 0.6 82,800 0.8 110,400 0.8 110,400 0.8 110,400

South & Southeast

Big Cypress 364,000 0.9 327,600 0.9 327,600 1.0 364,000 0.9 327,600 1.0 364,000 1.0 364,000 1.0 364,000

Total Habitat Units 1,298,360 1,383,240 2,025,500 1,998,880 1,940,480 1,940,480 2,186,240

Green Acres

(Sustainable

Ecosystem)

2,712,800 NE 0 680,000 680,000 793,000 1,331,000 2,405,800

NE-- Not Evaluated HU – Habitat Unit
This page is intentionally left blank.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-56

In practice, Corps 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” based on the U.S. Fish

and Wildlife Service’s Habitat Evaluation Procedures, or “HEP”, for example). Any

of these metrics may be used in conducting cost effectiveness and incremental cost

analyses. For the purposes of the Restudy, the analyses were conducted using the

“habitat unit” and “green acre (sustainable ecosystem)” measurements of plan

outputs; see Section 7.5.2 Environmental Evaluation of the Alternative Plans and

Table 7-18 for additional information about these metrics. Recognizing the

cautions and limitations on using these metrics in a comparative manner and the

uncertainties inherent in the metrics as well as the cost estimates, the habitat unit

and green acre estimates were used in the analyses to illustrate the type of

information they may reveal.

Cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses were conducted for

Alternatives A, B, C, D and D-13R. The analyses compared the alternative plans’

average annual costs (over a 20-year construction period) against the habitat unit

and green acre estimates. In preparation for the analyses, the effects of each

alternative were calculated by subtracting the Without Plan Condition value from

the with-alternative value (“with-and-without analysis”) to determine the value of

the alternative’s change. Table 7-19 displays the resulting scores for the habitat

unit and green acre outputs, as well as costs, used in the cost effectiveness and

incremental cost analyses.

The results of the cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses for the

final Restudy alternative plans are summarized in Table 7-20 and Figure 7-7 and

provide the following information about the plans:

• In comparing costs against habitat units, Alternatives B, C and D would

not be good choices because each would produce fewer habitat units at a

greater cost compared to Alternative A. Therefore, if Alternatives B, C and D

are set aside based on this reason, the remaining cost effective plans would

be Alternatives A and D-13R. A subsequent analysis to identify the “best

buy” plans indicated that Alternative A is the first best buy plan (with an

incremental cost per habitat unit of $390), followed by Alternative D13R as

the second and final best buy plan (with an incremental cost per habitat unit

of $930).

• In comparing costs against green acres, Alternative B would not be a good

choice because it would produce the same number of acres but at a greater

cost compared to Alternative A. Therefore, if Alternative B is set aside based

on this reason, the remaining cost effective plans would be Alternatives A, C,

D and D-13R. A subsequent analysis to identify the “best buy” plans
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-57

indicated that Alternative D-13R is the only best buy plan (with an

incremental cost per green acre of $170).

TABLE 7-19

COSTS AND OUTPUTS USED

IN COST EFFECTIVENESS AND INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSES

OF FINAL ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Without

Plan

Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

D-13r

Average Annual Cost ($1,000) $0 $253,540 $286,305 $340,937 $382,831 $402,292

Habitat Units 0 642,260 615,640 557,240 557,240 803,000

Green Acres 0 680,000 680,000 793,000 1,331,000 2,405,800

TABLE 7-20

RESULTS OF THE

COST EFFECTIVENESS AND INCREMENTAL COST ANALYSES

OF FINAL ALTERNATIVE PLANS

Output Indicators Alternative

A

Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Alternative

D-13r

Habitat Units

Cost

effective and

best buy

plan

Cost

effective and

best buy

plan

Green Acres Cost

effective plan

Cost

effective plan

Cost

effective plan

Cost

effective and

best buy

plan

Table 7-21 presents the incremental cost information for the best buy

alternative plans for both habitat units and green acres output indicators. 
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-58

TABLE 7-21

INCREMENTAL COST INFORMATION

FOR THE BEST BUY ALTERNATIVE PLANS

HABITAT UNITS

Best Buy

Alternative plans

Average

Annual Cost

($1,000)

Habitat

Units

Additional

Average

Annual Cost

Additional

Habitat

Units

Incremental

Cost per

Habitat Unit

Average Cost

per Habitat 

Unit

Without Plan

Condition

(No Action)

$ 0 0 $ 0 0 Not applicable Not Applicable

Alternative A $253,540 642,260 $253,540 642,260 $0.39 $0.39

Alternative

D-13R $402,292 803,000 $148,752 160,740 $0.93 $0.50

GREEN ACRES

Best Buy

Alternative plans

Average

Annual Cost

($1,000)

Green

Acres

Additional

Average

Annual Cost

Additional

Green

Acres

Incremental

Cost per

Green Acre

Average Cost

per Green

Acre

Without Plan

Condition

(No Action)

$ 0 0 $ 0 0 Not applicable Not applicable

Alternative

D-13R $402,292 2,405,800 $402,292 2,405,800 $0.17 $0.17
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-59

FIGURE 7-7

COST EFFECTIVE ALTERNATIVE PLANS

7.5.4 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Analysis

Some of the components in the alternative plans have the potential to cause

localized adverse environmental impacts. For example, the construction of levees,

canals, reservoirs and stormwater treatment areas, could adversely impact

wetlands and other aquatic sites as well as native upland habitats. The locations of

many features are known, while others are only conceptually proposed within a

study region or basin. As site-specific details for the components are developed

during the Project Implementation Process, land suitability analyses will be

utilized as part of the site selection process. Sites with extensive wetland and/or

aquatic habitats and native upland habitats will be avoided to the greatest extent

practicable. For selected sites where impacts to these habitats are unavoidable,

impacts will be minimized through project design. Notwithstanding the current

uncertainty regarding component siting and design, an analysis was conducted to

determine the approximate extent of these potential impacts. 

For the features that involve large areal extent like reservoirs, estimates

were made for the affected wetland acreage. For the known sites, the acreage

estimates were based on available information, such as existing studies, aerial Average Annual Cost ($100,000)

Habitat Units G reen Acres

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90 100

Norm a lized Score

0.5

1.0

1.5

2.0

2.5

3.0

3.5

4.0

4.5

A A

C

D

D -13R
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-60

photography and other physiographic data. Due to the variety of native upland

habitats that could be encountered and the inability to discern them at the level

this estimate was made, potential impacts to uplands were not included in this

analysis. Furthermore, it is anticipated that the land suitability analyses to be

utilized during the Project Implementation Report processes will minimize the

potential effects on native habitat types in favor of disturbed sites. For sites that

were only conceptually located, conservative estimates were made of the percent of

wetland area expected to be encountered. For linear features such as canals and

levees, the worst case scenario was used and it was assumed these features would

be located entirely within wetlands.

In addition to the estimates of wetland acreage that could be affected, habitat

quality estimates were made for both the existing and with-plan conditions. These

wetland habitat quality estimates were made using a scale of zero to one, with 0.0

representing very poor habitat quality and 1.0 representing optimum habitat

quality. For the existing condition estimates, habitat quality was based on

available data for project features with known locations and best professional

judgement was used for project features with conceptual locations. To estimate the

habitat quality for the with-plan condition, operational details of the feature are

needed. For example, the hydrologic operation and vegetative management of the

Water Preserve Areas will dictate the effect on habitat quality as either beneficial

or detrimental. Again, a conservative approach was taken and all features were

assumed to produce an adverse impact. The total estimate of the potential adverse

impacts of Alternative D-13R and the Other Project Elements is a loss of

approximately 10,000 “wetland habitat units”. These units were derived by

multiplying the estimated area of affected wetlands by the difference between the

existing and with-plan habitat quality estimates.

7.5.5 Uncertainty Analysis

The primary purpose of the uncertainty analysis (see Appendix O) was to

identify which of the remaining uncertainties are most significant. That is, which

have the most potential to affect the effectiveness of the project that will eventually

be implemented. A secondary purpose of the analysis was to identify broad

strategies that can be used to address or reduce the remaining uncertainties.

Much of the uncertainty that attends this study effort is considered routine

uncertainty. Planning is an iterative process. The iterations are distinguished by

an increasing quantity and quality of information and a corresponding decrease in

uncertainty. In any planning study there are things that are unknown at one point

in time that must and will be known before the project can be implemented. That

includes such things as specifically where project elements will be located, how

much they will cost, and who will pay for them, among many other issues. While

there is a great deal of routine uncertainty attending the current iteration of this
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-61

planning study, processes have been developed to ensure that they are resolved in

due time.

Although much of the uncertainty that remains in the Restudy is routine and

will be addressed in time, there are some uncertainties that are too unique to

ignore. For example, although the basic workings of Aquifer Storage and Recovery

(ASR) technology are a perceived uncertainty, there are some unique uncertainties

associated with their application on a magnitude of this scale. Four key

uncertainties were identified in the analysis that are unique enough to warrant

special attention in the future. They include:

• Uncertainties about major Restudy models;

• Uncertainties about the linkage between hydrologic change and ecosystem

restoration;

• Uncertainties about new technologies; and,

• Uncertainties about the risks associated with the Comprehensive Plan.

Appendix O includes the commitments that the Restudy Team has made to

address these key uncertainty issues in subsequent planning and design activities

and recommendations for additional studies to help resolve outstanding uncertainty

issues including a qualitative risk assessment.

7.5.6 Planning Criteria

Performance of the alternative plans with respect to the planning objectives

including ecologic, economic, and hydrologic criteria, is displayed in Table 7-22.

7.5.7 Evaluation Accounts

Planning by Federal agencies for water resource development and

management is guided by the requirements of the U.S. Water Resources Council’s

Principles and Guidelines. The Principles and Guidelines establish the Federal

Objective for water projects, set forth a six-step planning and decision making

process, and prescribe four accounts of evaluation.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-62

TABLE 7-22

PLANNING CRITERIA EVALUATION

PLANNING CRITERIA

WITHOUT

PLAN A B C D

D-13 R and

OPEs

ECOLOGIC

Increase the total spatial extent of

natural areas (Acres of Sustainable

Ecosystem, Green ranking)

0 acres 680,000 acres 680,000 acres 793,000 acres 1,295,000 acres 2,370,000 acres

Improve habitat and functional quality

(ROGEM Numeric Score x effected

acres) HU = Habitat Units

1,383,000 HU 2,025,000 HU 1,000,000 HU 1,940,000 HU 1,940,000 HU 2,186,000 HU

Improve native plant and animal species

abundance and diversity (Number of

Ecologic Landscape Types that are

Sustainable, Green Ranking)

NA 58 58 58 56 58

ECONOMIC

Increase availability of fresh water

(volume of water restriction cutback for

agricultural / urban, Acre-feet)

6,665,000 1,798,000 2,325,000 1,767,000 1,395,000 1,333,000

Reduce flood damages Evaluation did not result in quantification of benefits and impacts since SFWMM is not designed for flood studies. Refer to

Appendix E for description of the analysis.

Provide recreational and navigation

opportunities:

Lake Okeechobee

(percent time Lake Okeechobee falls

below 12 feet) 30% 16% 20% 16% 11% 11%

Other recreational opportunities Problematic to quantify effects of alternative plans; current expenditures $404 million (parks and preserves), $598 million (region);

current consumer surplus $290 million (parks and preserves), $764 million (region)

HYDROLOGIC

Regain lost storage capacity

(Additional Storage – total for 31 year

period of record)

(Coastal Discharges – water wasted to

tide)

NA

1,774,000 ac-ft

44,016,000 ac-ft

67,000 ac-ft

48,315,000 ac-ft

138,000 ac-ft

48,369,000 ac-ft

383,000 ac-ft

52,469,000 ac-ft

311,000 ac-ft

52,005,000 ac-ft

311,000 ac-ft

Restore more natural hydropatterns

(acres with improved ROGEM scores)

NA 2,725,358 2,656,188 2,344,142 1,669,263 2,777,045

Improve timing and quantities of fresh

water deliveries to estuaries

(Flood Discharge Volumes from Lake

Okeechobee)

9,114,000 ac-ft 1,116,000 ac-ft 682,000 ac-ft 868,000 ac-ft 930,000 ac-ft 868,000 ac-ft

Restore water quality conditions

(Cumulative Score from combined

ranking matrix, higher = better)

27.0 32.5 35.5 30.5 40.5 45.5
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-63

The four accounts facilitate the evaluation, display, and comparison of the

effects of alternative plans. These accounts are national economic development

(NED), environmental quality (EQ), regional economic development (RED) and

other social effects (OSE). The EQ account shows effects on ecological, cultural, and

aesthetic attributes of significant natural and cultural resources that cannot be

measured in monetary terms. The OSE account shows urban and community

impacts and effects on life, health and safety. The NED account shows effects on

the national economy. The RED account shows the regional incidence of NED

effects, income transfers, and employment effects.

These four accounts encompass all significant effects of plan implementation,

including economic, socioeconomic and environmental effects that must be

considered in water resources planning as prescribed in the following Federal laws:

• The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (Public Law 91-190);

• Section 122 of the 1970 Rivers and Harbors Act (Public Law 91-611);

• Sections 904 and 905 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act

(Public Law 99-662).

The 1969 National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA). Public Law 91-190 (42

USC 4321) requires assessment of alternative plan impacts on the human

environment. NEPA also requires documentation of the planning process,

alternative plan comparison and plan selection.

Section 122 of the Rivers and Harbors Act of 1970 (Public Law 91-611, 84

STAT. 1823) requires that consideration be given to possible adverse economic,

social and environmental effects. It also requires that final decisions on the project

be made in the best overall public interest, taking into consideration the need for

flood control, navigation and associated purposes; and the associated costs of

eliminating or minimizing the following adverse affects:

• Air, water and noise pollution;

• Destruction or disruption of man-made and natural resources, esthetic

values, community cohesion, and availability of public facilities and

services;

• Adverse employment effects;

• Tax and property value losses;

• Injurious displacement of people, businesses and farms;

• Disruption of desirable community and regional growth.

Section 904 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 99-

662, 100 STAT. 4185, 33 USC 2281)) describes additional requirements that must

be addressed in the formulation and evaluation process for Federal water resources
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-64

projects. These requirements are listed below. The formulation and evaluation

process must consider the associated benefits and costs of these items, both

quantifiable and unquantifiable, and must be displayed in the benefits and costs of

such projects.

• Enhancing national economic development;

• Quality of the total environment;

• The well-being of the people;

• Prevention of loss of life;

• Preservation of cultural and historical values.

Section 905 of the 1986 Water Resources Development Act (Public Law 99-

662 (100 STAT. 4185, 33 USC 2282) describes the requirements for feasibility

reports for any water resources project or related study authorized to be undertaken

by the Secretary. The feasibility report will describe, with reasonable certainty, the

economic, environmental and social benefits and detriments of the recommended

plan and alternative plans considered by the Secretary.

Effects of the alternative plans in the four evaluation accounts are displayed

in Tables 7-23 and Table 7-24.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-65

TABLE 7-23

EVALUATION ACCOUNTS LISTED IN THE

"PRINCIPLES AND GUIDELINES"

(all dollar values in $ millions)

WITH- AND WITHOUT-PROJECT CONDITIONS

Evaluation Accounts 2050 Base

Condition

Alternative A Alternative

B

Alternative

C

Alternative

D

Recommended

Plan

National Economic Development

Account

Agricultural Water Supply:

Avg. annual value of unmet demand* $2.6 $0.6

(+$2.0)

$0.9

(+$1.7)

$0.7

(+$1.9)

$0.8

(+$1.8)

$0.7

(+$1.9)

M&I Water Supply:

Avg. annual value of unmet demand*

$31.8 $10.2

(+$21.7)

$10.3

(+$21.5)

$6.4

(+$25.4)

$4.6

(+$27.2)

$4.6

(+$27.2)

Flood Control • Limited evaluation of impacts, since SFWMM not designed for flood studies.

Commercial Navigation • No significant difference expected between with- and without-project conditions.

Recreation

• Problematic to quantify effects of alternative plans.

• Current Expenditures: $404 million (parks/preserves); $598 million (region).

• Current Consumer Surplus: $290 million (parks/preserves); $764 million (region).

Commercial/Recreational Fishing

• Annual revenues estimated for commercial and guided & recreational sportfishing in five

areas: Lake Okeechobee, St. Lucie & Caloosahatchee estuaries, and Biscayne & Florida bays.

• Significant positive economic impacts are expected to result from hydrologic modifications

and consequent ecological impacts to all five areas with the exception of Biscayne Bay.

Project Costs

Total Construction & Real Estate Costs

Annual Operations & Maintenance Costs

Annual Monitoring Costs

Annualized Costs

$5,229

$70

$10

$254

$6,023

$72

$10

$286

$6,725

$126

$10

$341

$7,335

$162

$10

$383

$7,789

$165

$10

$402

Regional Economic Development Account

Average annual effects (% of regional economy)

Output

Employment (jobs)

Earnings

$173 (.08%)

1,707 (.06%)

$59 (.08%)

$195 (.09%)

1,934 (.07%)

$65 (.08%)

$192 (.09%)

2,057 (.07%)

$78 (.10%)

$277 (.12%)

2,903 (.10%)

$103 (.13%)

$307 (.14%)

3,165 (.11%)

$108 (.14%)

Environmental Quality Account • Refer to Table 7-22 and 7-24 for a display of ecologic, cultural, and aesthetics attributes.

Other Social Effects Account • Potential community disruption from conversion of agricultural land to reservoirs.

Note, A “+” indicates a reduction in unmet water demand.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-66

TABLE 7-24

SUMMARY OF EFFECTS

CATEGORIES

OF

EFFECTS

EXISTING

CONDITION

WITHOUT

PLAN A B C D

Selected

Plan

Air Quality H H 0 0 0 0 0

Noise Pollution L L -** -** -** -** -**

Water Quality L-M M -**/+ -**/+ -**/+ -*/+ -**/+

Natural Resources M M +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+ +/+

Wetlands M L + + + + ++

Endangered and Threatened

Species

4 Critical

Habitats 0 + + + ++ ++

Fish and Wildlife M L + + + ++ ++

Wild and Scenic Rivers 8 miles 8 miles + + + + +

Coastal Zone -- -- + + + + ++

Flood Plains M M 0 0 0 0 0

Aesthetic Values M M 0 0 0 0 0

Man-made Resources M M +/- +/- +/- +/- +/-

Community Cohesion M M N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A

Historic and Cultural

Properties L L 0 0 0 0 0

Public Facilities and Services M M + + + + +

Employment M M + + + + +

Tax Values M M + + + + +

Property Values M M + + + + +

Displacement of People L-M L-M - - - - -

Displacement of Businesses L-M M-H - - - - -

Prime and Unique Farmlands L M -*** -*** -*** -*** -***

Displacement of Farms M M-H -- -- -- -- --

Desirable Community Growth M M + + + + +

Desirable Regional Growth M M + + + + +

Existing and Without Plan Conditions display estimates of each resources relative values: H = high, M = moderate, L = low.

Plans' effects are estimates of net overall changes from the Without Plan Condition:

++ = very beneficial change - = adverse change

 + = beneficial change -- = very adverse change

 0 = no change N/A = not applicable

** During construction, localized

*** Unique Farmland will be taken out of production however no Prime Farmland will be impacted
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-67

7.6 PLAN FORMULATION PROCESS SUMMARY

The planning process used by the Restudy Team evolved over three years,

ultimately resulting in selection of a recommended Comprehensive Plan. The team

used an iterative decision making process to identify and evaluate the merits of

individual components and the effects of combining these components into different

comprehensive plans. The Restudy’s major iterations are illustrated in Figure 7.1.

Table 7-25 highlights the purpose, decision criteria and results of the major

iterations.

TABLE 7-25

PLAN FORMULATION MAJOR ITERATIONS

ITERATION

We started

with:

PURPOSE

Our intent was to:

CRITERIA

We made decisions based on:

RESULT

The iteration

ended with:

Goals and

Objectives

Progressively identify

components to meet

the goals and

objectives

Ideas from technical experts and

the public Components

Components

Comparatively array

and screen

components

• Lower East Coast Regional

Water Supply Plan

• Water Preserve Areas Land

Suitability Analysis

• Everglades Screening Model

• Cost Effectiveness Analysis

Starting Point

Alternative

Starting Point

Alternative

Progressively

formulate plans Performance measures

Alternatives 1-

6, which were

screened to

Alternatives

A-D (3-6)

Alternatives

A-D

Comparatively array

and screen plans

• River of Grass Evaluation

Methodology

• Ranking Score

• Grade Score

• Color Score

• Keystone and Endangered

Species Evaluation

• Water Quality

Alternative D

Alternative D Progressively

reformulate plans Performance measures AlternativeD-13R

Alternatives

A-D

and

 D-13R

(Final array)

Comparatively array

and screen plans

• Economic Evaluation

• Environmental Evaluation

• Cost Effectiveness and

Incremental Cost Analyses

• Mitigation Analysis

• Planning Criteria

• Evaluation Accounts

D-13R plus

Other Project

Elements
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-68

As the Restudy planning iterations evolved, the criteria that were the basis

for deciding the fate of solutions were refined and modified, but the planning

objectives remained the same throughout. During the early iteration of screening

components, it was possible to make such decisions using more qualitative

information that was readily available from a limited number of analyses. This is

in stark contrast to the final iteration in which new and more quantitative analyses

were required to make more sophisticated judgments across a more extensive set of

criteria. During each iteration, the decision criteria reflected the best available

information that could be used to support decisions for dropping or retaining the

solutions at hand.

This iterative planning process progressively eliminated inferior plans and

carried superior plans forward for reformulation into even better plans. Subsequent

iterations to improve the plans were based on criteria (and their related metrics)

that had been refined and improved from criteria used in the previous iterations. 

Each iteration flowed from and built upon the decisions reached in the previous

iterations. As such, the team did not carry along plans eliminated in previous

iterations so that all plans are continually evaluated on an ever-evolving

comparable basis. An iteration was not an opportunity to revisit previous decisions

(although, on occasion, some iterations were indeed just that). Rather, each

iteration sought to move decision making closer to a final recommendation.

7.7 SUBSEQUENT ITERATIONS OF THE RECOMMENDED PLAN

The U. S Department of Interior, and the Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission listed a number of concerns about the draft Comprehensive Plan

in the draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Reports presented to the Corps of

Engineers in August, 1998 (see Annex A). Some of these issues were considered

critical to acceptance of the Comprehensive Plan. While it was considered

unreasonable to expect these issues could be completely resolved before completion

of this report, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group agreed they

warranted additional attention and additional modeling, if possible. 

The Alternative Evaluation Team agreed to develop a short-term issue

identification and resolution process for addressing the outstanding issues

associated with the Comprehensive Plan. Task teams were formed. The

Everglades Basin task team combined the former Total Systems, Northern and

Central Everglades, Southern Everglades and Florida Bay, and Big Cypress

subteams. The Southeastern Estuaries task team combined the Biscayne Bay and

Model Lands/C-111 Basin subteams. The Water Quality subteam was already in

existence and a small Northern Estuaries team was formed. 
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-69

The four teams identified all outstanding issues including, but not limited to,

those coming from the two Coordination Act Reports. Some of the issues were plan

formulation, evaluation, and modeling issues occurring in each Alternative

Evaluation Team sub-region. These issues were considered to be within the scope of

the Alternative Evaluation Team. Other agency concerns, such as policy issues,

were listed, but because they were beyond the scope of the Alternative Evaluation

Team, they were not pursued further during this process. The issue teams then

agreed that six issues were exceptionally important and deserved additional

attention prior to completion of the final report.

Team members drafted issue papers on each of the five most important issues

following an agreed-upon outline developed by the Everglades Basin team and

ratified by the others. The purpose of each issue paper was to better define the

issues, propose a process for resolving the issue by creating a common

understanding of the specific tasks that will be required and the information needed

to resolve each issue either for the final report or during the future planning and

implementation of the recommended Comprehensive Plan. Each paper was to

propose a time line for reaching closure on each issue.

The six issues can be paraphrased as follows:

1. The plan needs to increase total overland flow to Florida Bay, Northeast

Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough to fully meet Natural System

Model depth and duration targets.

2. The plan needs to improve ecological performance in the Water

Conservation Areas by eliminating damaging high and low water

conditions.

3. The plan should improve ecological conditions in Biscayne Bay by

restoring more natural freshwater inflows.

4. The risks and uncertainties associated with using wastewater reuse as a

water source for Biscayne Bay should be closely examined.

5. Restoration targets in the St. Lucie Estuary should be more closely met.

6. The plan needs to improve ecological performance in the Model Lands and

C-111 Basins by providing adequate freshwater to maintain target

hydropatterns.

The Alternative Evaluation Team also undertook to draft a white paper to

refine the team’s working definition of restoration.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-70

The Alternative Evaluation Team and its issue resolution task teams had an

array of both short-term and long-term opportunities for addressing the remaining

issues. Possible avenues included: optimization modeling, model refinements,

technical peer review for questions of science, additional field studies and measures,

refinement and creation of new performance measures, the development of review

papers (white papers) on key issues, recommending operational and structural

improvements during the detailed design phases, the use of an adaptive assessment

strategy, and the design of a comprehensive ecological monitoring program.

The short-term strategy outlined above was an interim strategy intended to

feed into and support the implementation and adaptive assessment strategies

currently being developed for this report and to satisfy the recommendations of the

U.S Fish and Wildlife Service and the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission Final Coordination Act Reports.

Four papers have been completed, reviewed by the Alternative Evaluation

Team and accepted: the St. Lucie issue paper, the two Biscayne Bay issue papers,

and the “defining restoration” white paper. The two Everglades basin teams

combined and completed a draft issue paper. The issue papers can be found in the

U.S. Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (Annex A).

Understanding that two of the issues (numbers 1 and 3) would be resolved if

the plan provided more water for Biscayne Bay and Shark River Slough, an

initiative was begun to investigate the capture of additional water discharged to

tide beyond the quantity captured in Alternative D-13R. This investigation included

additional model runs of the SFWMM hydrologic model. These model runs were

referred to as D-13Rx scenarios, with the x representing each of the additional

scenarios. For example, the first scenario developed was called D-13R1. The purpose

of these scenarios was to increase the water supply to Northeast Shark River

Slough and Biscayne Bay by capturing and directing water currently discharged to

tide in previous alternative plans. An intense effort by the interagency Alternative

Evaluation Team subteam chairs and hydrologic modelers involved daily meetings

to view model outputs, evaluate them, and quickly suggest improvements for model

runs to be made that night for review the following day. A total of four scenarios

were developed during this process with scenario D-13R4 producing the greatest

additional water flow. Therefore, only alternative D-13R4 is described further in

this report. The description of the other scenarios can be found on the Restudy web

site (www.restudy.org).

7.7.1 Scenario D-13R4 Description

The components of D-13R4 scenario were designed to provide peak flood

attenuation, reduction of freshwater discharges to tide and increase flows to

Northeast Shark River Slough, Water Conservation Area 2A and Biscayne Bay
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-71

while recharging Miami-Dade County's coastal canals. This was accomplished by

backpumping excess runoff from the C-51 Canal through the Lake Worth Drainage

District’s canal system (which will require conveyance improvements) and pumped

into the Palm Beach County Agricultural Reserve Reservoir. From the Agricultural

Reserve Reservoir, runoff will be discharged south into the Lake Worth Drainage

District E-1W canal and routed into the Site 1 Impoundment. Further, the Site 1

Impoundment (Component M) had to be modified to accept the runoff routed south

from the C-51 Canal. In addition, more runoff from the Hillsboro Canal was

captured by increasing the inflow pump capacity. The Site 1 reservoir would be

modified from the D13-R design (6 feet deep, 2,460-acre reservoir) to a 12 feet deep

300-acre reservoir and a 2,160-acre stormwater treatment area. This component

modification also assumes that urban runoff that is pumped into the 300-acre

reservoir provides recharge for the 30-5 MGD ASR wells proposed in D-13R.

Further, water from the reservoir will gravity flow to the stormwater treatment

area for treatment prior to discharging into the northeast corner of Water

Conservation Area 2A. It is assumed that flood protection in all affected areas will

be maintained.

Further, urban runoff from the C-14, C-13, North New River Canals and

Water Conservation Area 2B levee seepage will be backpumped to the US 27 west

borrow canal via C-42 and North New River Canals. This runoff will be directed

south to the North Lake Belt Storage Area if storage is available in that facility. 

Discharges from the North Lake Belt Storage Area are described in Component XX.

If storage is not available in North Lake Belt Storage Area, the backpumped water

will be routed either to the Bird Drive Recharge Area or Biscayne Bay via the US 27

west borrow canal, the North Lake Belt Storage Area conveyance system

improvements, and the C-1, C-2, C-4 and C-6 Canals. Deliveries will not be made

during storm peaks to avoid impacting flood protection. If storage is not available

in North Lake Belt Storage Area and conveyance capacities are also not available

(without impact to flood protection), backpumping will not occur. Water quality of

deliveries to Northeast Shark River Slough must be of acceptable quality for

restoration or water will not be delivered. Additional types of water quality

treatment may be required and it is assumed that flood protection in all affected

areas will be maintained. Backpumping will not occur if the conveyance systems

can not adequately pass flows to storage and/or treatment areas.

Finally, while the Everglades Construction Project is designed to backpump

runoff from urban areas to the Water Conservation Areas after treatment within

Stormwater Treatment Areas, this scenario denotes the first time the Restudy

included a proposal to direct urban runoff into the Everglades Protection Area. 

These scenarios propose to direct water from C-51 into Water Conservation Area 2A

after treatment and from North Lake Belt Storage Area, which receives runoff from

C-6, C-9, C-11 and in this scenario C-14, C-13 and North New River to Northeast

Shark River Slough after treatment. There are concerns about the level and

practicality of treatment needed to provide water of appropriate quality to the
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-72

Everglades. Without completion of a pilot project, the quality of the water coming

out of in-ground storage areas remains an unknown.

7.7.2 Evaluation of D-13R4

The Alternative Evaluation Team conducted a preliminary evaluation of the

D-13R1-4 scenarios during a meeting of the full Alternative Evaluation Team on 20

January 1999. The objective of these additional scenarios was to determine the

feasibility of improving D-13R, by capturing additional surplus water from the

amount discharged to tide each year, and conveying that “new” water (plus

redistributing excessive water in the Water Conservation Areas) to better meet

performance targets in the natural system. These scenarios were designed to

convey urban runoff water into the natural system, an alternative water

management scheme that had not been included in any previous comprehensive

plan alternative due to the high cost and the risk associated with contamination of

the Everglades from urban runoff. The D-13R4 scenario was clearly the most

successful of the four scenarios that were developed during this intensive, multiagency planning and modeling process, which began in November 1998.

The Alternative Evaluation Team found that the overall performance of

Scenario D-13R4, as modeled included both gains and losses when measured against

the existing and the future without plan conditions, and D-13R. D-13R4 captured an

average of 245,000 acre-feet/year of new water for the natural system from Palm

Beach and Broward counties. This new water, when combined with excessive water

from the Water Conservation Areas, provided an average of 271,000 acre-feet of new

water each year to Everglades National Park and an average of 77,000 acre feet of

new water to Biscayne Bay each year. The increased annual mean flows to the park

and Biscayne Bay are expected to produce substantial improvements towards

meeting the hydrological performance targets for these two areas. Although D-13R4

also provided modest improvements in northeast Water Conservation Area 3A and

northeast 2B, by reducing the number of undesirable high water events in these two

subregions, this scenario increased the number of undesirable high water events in

Water Conservation Areas 2A and 3B to a level greater than that predicted for the

two base conditions and D-13R. Further, D-13R4 created undesirable increases in

the depth and duration of flooding in the Pennsuco wetlands. By delivering urban

water to the natural system, this scenario raises a number of new water quality

questions.

The Alternative Evaluation Team recognizes that much new information

regarding the potential performance of D-13R was gained during the modeling of

the four scenarios. The hydrological responses during the modeling of these four

scenarios convincingly demonstrated the operational flexibility of D-13R, and offers

encouraging documentation that additional improvements can be achieved during

the detailed planning phases of the restoration program. The Alternative

Evaluation Team recommended that the specific features of D-13R4 that allowed for
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-73

the capture and conveyance of substantial amounts of new water for the natural

system be incorporated into the Recommended Plan, D-13R, contingent upon:

(1) Finding a way to reduce the number of damaging high water events in

Water Conservation Area 2A and 3B and the Pennsuco Wetlands to a

level at or below the level predicted for D-13R.

(2) Adequately treating the stormwater runoff from the C-51 east and

C-13/14 basins directed into the Everglades Protection Area to meet all

state and federal water quality standards to enable ecological restoration

to be achieved.

It was agreed that these concerns can best be resolved during the finer scale

modeling and planning, which will occur as a part of detail design work. The

addition of these features should allow greater operational flexibility during future

efforts to improve the overall performance of D-13R. Further, an issue paper is

required from the Restudy’s Water Quality Team, to more fully explore the

questions being raised by the use of urban water to meet natural system targets in

the Everglades.

Following the Alternative Evaluation Team’s evaluation of D-13R1-4,

comments were received from Lake Worth Drainage District concerning the possible

detrimental affects on flood protection that could be experienced within their

system if the proposed modifications to their secondary canals are made. Lake

Worth Drainage District recommended that the specific features of D-13R4 not be

incorporated into the recommended Comprehensive Plan until it can be

demonstrated that the existing level of flood protection will not be compromised.

Finally, it should be noted that the Natural System Model topography in

Northeast Shark River Slough is assumed to be the same as current topography,

although recent data collected by the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency

scientists indicate that substantial soil subsidence has occurred since the 1940's. 

This discrepancy in the topographic data in the model very likely affects the depth

targets for Northeast Shark River Slough. Hence, if consistent topographic data

assumptions were used for both Northeast Shark River Slough and Water

Conservation Area 3B, target depths in Northeast Shark River Slough would be

shallower, excess depths in Water Conservation Area 3B reduced and less water

would be needed to meet Northeast Shark River Slough performance measure

targets.
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-74

7.8 PLAN FORMULATION CONCLUSIONS

The initial screening effort identified the pressing need to capture more

water in south Florida to restore the Everglades, protect the estuaries, and to

provide for adequate water supply for urban and agriculture needs in the future. 

During the screening phase, the Restudy Team used modeling combined with an

economic “best buy” approach to reduce to a workable number the vast array of

components available for capturing and storing water and for conveying that water

to the right parts of the system at the right time. Detailed plan formulation

followed. In a nine-month period, representatives from every concerned agency -

federal, state and local - worked closely together with other stakeholders to decide

which features would be included in each alternative plan. Each alternative plan

was modeled, the results reviewed by the team, and new alternative plans were

formulated based on the improvements the team believed were needed. After

looking at 10 alternative plans and over 25 modeling scenarios including D-13R4,

Alternative D-13R is by far the best of the alternative plans. This alternative,

coupled with the 21 Other Project Elements, contains the array of components that

has the most potential to achieve the Restudy’s planning goals and objectives.

Implementation of this plan will make restoration of healthy, sustainable south

Florida ecosystems possible. Hence, Alternative D-13R, in combination with the

Other Project Elements makes up the recommended Comprehensive Plan.

Economic and environmental evaluations of the plan show that the

recommended plan is strongly justified. The environmental benefits are great and

despite the scale of the project, it is extremely cost effective. The recommended plan

appears to do what the varied participants in the study asked for it to do. More

water has been captured and conveyed to areas where it is needed. Extreme events

like regulatory releases to the estuaries, excessive flooding in the Water

Conservation Areas and severe damaging dryouts in the marshes will be

significantly reduced. Urban and agriculture areas will benefit from the extra

water storage and be less dependent on the natural areas to meet their needs.

Substantially more water makes its way into the large sloughs of Everglades

National Park and the seasonal timing of flows throughout Everglades is more

natural. In short, by balancing the needs of the natural system with the needs of

urban areas and agriculture, a plan was developed which results in considerable

benefits throughout the system. South Florida has clearly outgrown its old water

management infrastructure and this plan provides sustainable solutions. 

In response to comments made by the public and in the draft Fish and

Wildlife Coordination Act reports the Alternative Evaluation Team produced a

series of issue papers and developed additional modeling scenarios from D-13R. A

major impetus for developing these scenarios was to determine if additional water

could be captured in the Lower East Coast urban areas and used to better meet

performance measure targets in the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades
Section 7 Plan Formulation and Evaluation

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

7-75

National Park as well as for investigating alternative sources of water for Biscayne

Bay. Preliminary evaluation by the Alternative Evaluation Team of scenarios

D13R1-4 indicate that additional captured water helps to meet hydrologic targets for

Everglades National Park, Biscayne Bay and some areas within the Water

Conservation Areas. However, in other areas of the Water Conservation Areas and

the Pennsuco Wetlands, performance declines markedly relative to D-13R. In

addition, issues relative to treating urban runoff prior to discharge into the Water

Conservation Areas and the Everglades, and potential flooding impacts to

secondary canals have not been resolved. These remaining areas of concern and the

ultimate amount of additional water recaptured and its distribution will be

determined in the subsequent more detailed design phase of individual components.

In summary, the recommended Comprehensive Plan contains the array of

components that has the most potential to achieve the Restudy’s planning goals and

objectives. The subsequent detailed design phase of individual components will

address the outstanding performance issues associated with the recommended

Comprehensive Plan including:

1. The plan needs to increase total overland flow to Florida Bay, northeast

Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough to fully meet Natural System

Model depth and duration targets.

2. The plan needs to improve ecological performance in the Water

Conservation Areas by eliminating damaging high and low water

conditions.

3. The plan should improve ecological conditions in Biscayne Bay by

restoring more natural freshwater inflows.

4. The risks and uncertainties associated with using wastewater reuse as a

water source for Biscayne Bay should be closely examined.

5. Restoration targets in the St. Lucie Estuary should be more closely met.

6. The plan needs to improve ecological performance in the Model Lands and

C-111 Basins by providing adequate freshwater to maintain target

hydropatterns.