LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION …...LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT Planning...

LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT

Planning WorkshopSouth Florida Water Management District

July 27-28, 2017

Lake Okeechobee

Meeting Agenda

Overview of Final Array of Alternatives – USACEProject Siting Analysis and Refinement Considerations –

SFWMDModeling Results and Optimization Strategies – SFWMDEvaluation and Comparison of Alternative Plans –

SFWMD/USACECultural Resources and Geotechnical Exploration Update –

USACEUpcoming Events and Next Steps – SFWMDAdjourn

2

The original Everglades was an inter-connected mosaic of freshwater wetlands grading into mangroves and coastal marshes

Surface water runoff would pass down the Kissimmee River, then overflow Lake Okeechobee into the Everglades, before slowly entering the Atlantic Ocean and Gulf of Mexico

LakeOkeechobee

Pre-Drainage –Everglades Watershed

3

Kissimmee River Dredging – 1885 Caloosahatchee River Dredging – 1895 Major East Coast Canals – 1910-1920’s Hoover Dike/Saint Lucie Canal – 1930’s

Eastern Protective Levee System – 1953 Everglades Agric. Area Levees – 1960 Water Conservation Area Levees – 1968 South Dade Conveyance System – 1980’s

Pre-C&SF Projects

Post-C&SF Projects

Lox.NWR

WCA 2A

2BWCA 3A

WCA3B

Water Management Changes Affecting the Everglades Ecosystem

4

Lake Okeechobee outflows redirected east and west through man-made canals to tide

Declining estuary health Wading bird populations in

the Everglades have declined by 90%

Exotic and invasive plants and animals have altered the ecosystem

Disruption in quantity, timing and distribution of water

Degradation of water quality

Unintended Consequences

5

The Goal

6

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP)

68 Components

Storage

STAs for water quality

Seepage management

Removing barriers to flow

Revised operations

Surface ASR

7

Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park

Seminole Big Cypress Critical Project

Everglades Agricultural Area Storage, ASR & Decompartmentalization Phase 2

CERP GENERATION 1 PROJECTS

CERP GENERATION 2 PROJECTS

C-111 South Dade C-51/Storm Water Treatment Area (STA) 1E

Indian River Lagoon (IRL) – South Picayune Strand Site 1 Melaleuca Annex Facility

Broward County Water Preserve Areas (WPA) C-111 Spreader Canal Western Project Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1

C - 43 Reservoir

Kissimmee River Restoration

NON-CERP & FOUNDATION PROJECTS

Lake Okeechobee Watershed Restoration Project

Central Everglades Planning Project (CEPP)

PLANNING EFFORTS

Western Everglades Restoration Project

Restoration Strategies Tamiami Trail Bridging & Roadway Modifications

C-111 Spreader Canal Eastern & Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 2

SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION

N

ENP

WCA3

EAA WCA1

WCA2CALOOSAHATCHEE

ESTUARY

ST. LUCIEESTUARY

FLORIDABAY

Restoration Areas

BISCAYNEBAY

DECEMBER 2016 AUTHORIZATION

Loxahatchee River Watershed Restoration Project

Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule (LORS) Revision

Herbert Hoover Dike (HHD)Rehabilitation

LAKEOKEECHOBEE

NOT TO SCALE

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration

8

System-wide Storage ‘At-A-Glance’

9

Lake Okeechobee

Discussion and Feedback

Overview of Final Array of AlternativesLisa Aley, USACE

Lake Okeechobee

Alternative Formulation Approach

12

PHASE 1 Alternatives PHASE 2 AlternativesCombinations of reservoir(s)

and ASR WellsCombinations or stand alone

wetland/natural restoration sites

Identify best performing cost-informed alternative

Identify best performing cost-informed alternative

Combine Phase 1 and Phase 2 Alternatives into a Tentatively

Selected Plan (TSP)

Optimize TSP to reduce costs and maximize benefits

Alternative 1b

13

Reservoir Storage K-05 North and K-05 South 190,000 acre-feet

Aquifer Storage and Recovery 80 ASR wells 448,000 acre-feet of storage per year

Preliminary Project Cost Estimate: $1.8 billion

Reservoir Storage K-05 North, K-05 South, and K-42 361,000 acre-feet


Alternative 2a

14Preliminary Project Cost Estimate: $3.1 billion

Alternative 2b

15

Reservoir Storage K-05 North and K-42 276,000 acre-feet



Alternative 2c

16

Reservoir Storage K-42 171,000 acre-feet



Wetland Restoration Sites Under Consideration

17

Kissimmee River North Kissimmee River Center Kissimmee River South Paradise Run Lake Okeechobee West IP-10

Lake Okeechobee


Project Siting Analysis and Refinement Considerations

Matt Morrison, SFWMD

Lake Okeechobee

Project Siting and Refinement Considerations

20

Project Siting and Refinement Considerations Maximize use of publicly owned lands when possible

Public Safety Project feature costs Symmetry, infrastructure requirements and water depth

Land topography FEMA Flood Maps Operational flexibility Cultural resources Agrochemical considerations Infrastructure Roads and bridges Railroads Power lines Towers Buildings

Other …

21

Project Siting and Refinement Considerations

22

Lake Okeechobee


Modeling Results and Optimization Strategies

Walter Wilcox, SFWMD

Lake Okeechobee

Quick System Perspective

25

C-43 ReservoirIncreased Flow South

(e.g., Central Everglades)

Other Initiatives to the North (e.g., Kissimmee River Restoration)

Other Initiatives in the Watershed(e.g., BMAP, Dispersed Water

Management) Lake Okeechobee Schedule & HHD Repairs

In the LOWRP area, the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Program (CERP) envisioned a 200 kac-ft above ground reservoir off of Kissimmee / Lake Okeechobee, a ~ 50 kac-ftreservoir in the Taylor Creek Basin and 200 Aquifer Storage & Recovery (ASR) wells

C-44 Reservoir, Indian River Lagoon South

Lake Okeechobee Watershed Restoration Project Ongoing Progress

26

Broad, High Level Screening of Potential Options

Initial Detailed Evaluation of Plausible Options that Demonstrated Good

Performance

Summarize Previous Efforts and Available Information

Detailed Evaluation of Refined Options

Tentatively Selected Plan

Fall 2016

Summer 2016

March 2017

June 2017

August 2017We Are HERE

Model Output• Daily time series

of water levels,flows

• Demands not met

• Project Features• Operating Criteria

• Climatic Input– Rainfall– ET

• Boundary Conditions

Period of record: 1965-2005 Evaluation

(Environmental, Water Supply, etc…)

Scenario

Background: Regional Modeling Approach

27

2ND ROUND OF MODELING

2nd round of modeling and benefits calculation to optimize water management measures for improvement in undesirable regulatory discharges to northern estuaries along with wetland restoration measures

Alternative

Reservoir Component ASR Component

Reservoir (s)

Storage Capacity

(acre-feet)

# of ASR wells[UFA:APPZ]

Storage Capacity

(acre-feet/yr)

No Action (FWO)

Alternative 1bRevised K-05

(North and South)

190K 80[50:30] 448K

Alternative 2aRevised K-05

(North and South) and K-42

361K 110[60:50] 616K

Alternative 2b Revised K-05 North and K-42 276K 70

[50:20] 392K

Alternative 2c K-42 171K 50[40:10] 280K

Note: Upper Floridian Aquifer (UFA) has 70% recovery efficiencyAvon Park Permeable Zone (APPZ) has 30% recovery efficiency

K-42

K-05 North

K-05 South

Paradise Run

Lake O West

Kissimmee River

Second Round of Alternatives

28

Operational Considerations in LOWRP

In addition to infrastructure assumptions, there is a need to define rules for diverting water to and recovering water from reservoir and ASR storage.

Also, as storage is added and system infrastructure capability is increased, it makes sense to develop optimized Lake Okeechobee schedule rules that work with storage and focus on the events beyond what storage or authorized conveyance south can handle.

Approximately 10,000 unique operational strategies were analyzed for each alternative combining variety of storage diversion and recovery lines were analyzed along with parameters affecting the Lake Okeechobee decision outcomes (e.g. “up-to” limits, etc…).

29

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lake

Oke

echo

bee

Stag

e (ft

, NGV

D)

10.0

11.0

12.0

13.0

14.0

15.0

16.0

17.0

Jan Feb Mar Apr May Jun Jul Aug Sep Oct Nov Dec

Lake

Oke

echo

bee

Stag

e (ft

, NGV

D)

Water Shortage Trigger Line

Bottom of LORS08 Schedule

Desired Lake Stage Envelope

Above this Line, Divert to Available Storage

Below this Line, Recover from Storage

Operational Triggers for LOWRP Storage Components

30

Improvements in St Lucie Estuary Discharges from Lake Okeechobee

31

Average Annual Lake O Regulatory Discharge (kac-ft)

% Estuary Regulatory Flow

Reduction (relative to FWO)

Number of Months Lake O Causes a Damaging Event

% Estuary “Months with Impact”


FWO 126 20ALT1B 97 23% 14 30%ALT2A 68 46% 10 50%ALT2B 100 21% 14 30%ALT2C 111 12% 17 15%

St Lucie Estuary

Improvements in St Lucie Estuary Discharges from Lake Okeechobee

32



Reduction (relative to ECB)




ECB 165 31ALT1B 97 41% 14 55%ALT2A 68 59% 10 68%ALT2B 100 39% 14 55%ALT2C 111 33% 17 45%

St Lucie Estuary

Improvements in Caloosahatchee Estuary Discharges from Lake Okeechobee

33







FWO 257 23ALT1B 161 37% 13 43%ALT2A 132 49% 11 52%ALT2B 157 39% 12 48%ALT2C 206 20% 18 22%

Caloosahatchee Estuary

Improvements in Caloosahatchee Estuary Discharges from Lake Okeechobee

34







ECB 416 38ALT1B 161 61% 13 66%ALT2A 132 68% 11 71%ALT2B 157 62% 12 68%ALT2C 206 50% 18 53%

Caloosahatchee Estuary

Changes in Lake Okeechobee Stages

35

Lake Okeechobee FWO ALT1B ALT2A ALT2B ALT2C% TIME > 17.0 0% 1% 2% 1% 1%% TIME > 16.0 8% 7% 7% 7% 7%% TIME > 15.0 24% 18% 16% 18% 20%% TIME < 12.56 30% 25% 25% 25% 27%% TIME < 10.00 3.3% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.9%

% TIME Inside Stage Envelope 28% 34% 38% 36% 32%LOK MFL Exceedance Count 7 6 5 6 7

Note: Using RECOVER Ecological Performance Measures, all alternatives perform better than both Future Without Project and Existing Baseline Conditions

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

11/1/1997 11/1/1998 11/1/1999

Lake

Oke

echo

bee

Stag

e (ft

, NGV

D)Lake Okeechobee High Stage Comparison

ECB FWO

Improvements in Lake Okeechobee Stages:Example Events

36

14.5

15.0

15.5

16.0

16.5

17.0

11/1/1997 11/1/1998 11/1/1999

Lake

Oke

echo

bee

Stag

e (ft

, NGV

D)Lake Okeechobee High Stage Comparison

ECB FWO

ALT1B ALT2A

In these Events both Lake and Estuaries are Improved by LOWRP

In this Event, Short Higher Stage Excursions Allow

Improved Estuary Releases

Water Shortage Cutbacks are Improved

Compared to FWO

37

Characteristics of Different Storage Features

38

Peak Storage Volume (kac-ft)

Approximate Fill Time During Wet

Conditions

Approximate Storage Recovery

EfficiencyK05 Reservoir 190 2 months Close to 100%K42 Reservoir 171 1 year Close to 100%

Upper Floridian Aquifer ASR 990 5+ years 70%Avon Park Permeable Zone ASR 300 5+ years 30%

K-42

K-05 North

K-05 South

Paradise Run

Lake O West

Kissimmee River

UFA

APPZ

For Reference

Example for ALT2A

39

Perspectives on ASR Storage

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

1800

2000

2200

Jan-

65

Jan-

68

Jan-

71

Jan-

74

Jan-

77

Jan-

80

Jan-

83

Jan-

86

Jan-

89

Jan-

92

Jan-

95

Jan-

98

Jan-

01

Jan-

04

ASR VOLUME (kac-ft) RESTUDY

LOWRP ALT2A

Improved Operations Offset Reduced # Wells

LOWRP Storage Not Depleted in Worst Drought

Fewer Wells than CERP (RESTUDY) Envisioned

Available LOWRP Modeling Data

LOWRP Modeling data is permanently archived and available on the CERPZone Data Archival Storage and Recovery (DASR) system. Step by step instructions available upon request

(requires account setup)

For a short time, data is also available via ftp at: ftp://ftp.sfwmd.gov/pub/LOWP/

40

Lake Okeechobee


Habitat Unit CalculationsAndy Rodusky, SFWMD

Lake Okeechobee

Estuary, Lake, and Wetland Performance Measures

Caloosahatchee Estuary Reduce high and low flows from Lake Okeechobee to re-establish salinity range favorable to

juvenile marine fish, shellfish, oysters and submerged aquatic vegetation (SAV). Stabilize salinity regimes that maintain low salinities in the upper estuary.

St. Lucie Estuary Maintain salinity range favorable to fish, oysters, and SAV by reducing high flow and low flow

events from Lake Okeechobee.

Lake Okeechobee Reduce frequent or prolonged lake stage events outside the beneficial ecological stage envelope

(12.5 ft – 15.5 ft) and reduce extreme high (>17 ft) and low (<10 ft) lake stage events. Improve environmental health of the lake based on monitored ecological communities (Chara,

Cyanobacteria, Panfish, Periphyton, and SAV) in the nearshore and deep water regions.

Wetland Performance Measures (PMs) Increase native wetland vegetation and wading bird habitat, restore water depths and water

connection flows, and public recreational access based on distance from towns and cities.

43

The estuary and lake performance measure scores are a hydrologic functionality rating on a 0 to 1 scale based on the 41 year Period of Record (1965-2005) Estuary performance is based on flows that effect salinity range to improve habitat Lake Okeechobee performance is based upon how well the project achieves the

desirable stage envelope and ecological indicators

Wetland performance measure scores are based on a 0 to 1 scale using the 2015 land use or land cover codes

Habitat units are equal to the total acres impacted multiplied by the performance measure score and are calculated for both the with and without project conditions

Project benefits are calculated as the difference between the with and without project conditions

Performance Measures and Habitat Units

44

AlternativesProject Region ECB FWO 1b 2a 2b 2c

Lake O Ecological Indicator 109,052 106,938 110,990 113,633 111,695 108,876Lake O Stage Envelope 25,976 26,906 30,924 31,979 31,469 29,900Lake O Extreme Stage 43,200 42,971 42,172 41,574 42,208 42,005

Total Lake Okeechobee 178,228 176,814 184,086 187,186 185,371 180,781

Caloosahatchee Estuary 2,839 39,038 42,587 42,587 42,587 40,458

St. Lucie Estuary 2,099 6,447 7,797 8,547 7,797 7,347

Total Northern Estuaries 4,938 45,485 50,384 51,134 50,384 47,805

Total Habitat Units 183,166 222,299 234,470 238,320 235,755 228,586

Habitat UnitsLake Okeechobee and the Northern Estuaries

45

46

Wetland Site Acres ECB HUs FWO HUs FWP HUs

Lake Okeechobee West 2,792 620 486 2,792

IP-10 3,532 850 666 3,532

Paradise Run 4,083 1,632 1,278 4,083

Kissimmee River-North 537 232 182 537

Kissimmee River-Center #1 1,469 432 338 1,469

Kissimmee River-Center #2 1,196 343 269 1,196

Kissimmee River-South #1 553 267 209 553

Kissimmee River-South #2 553 267 209 553

Habitat UnitsFreshwater Wetlands

Lake Okeechobee


Evaluation CriteriaKevin Wittmann and Lisa Aley, USACE

Lake Okeechobee

We identify the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan

“the plan that meets planning objectives and constraints and reasonably maximizes environmental benefits while passing tests of cost effectiveness and incremental cost analyses, significance of outputs, acceptability, completeness, efficiency, and effectiveness.” (ER-1105-2-100 Appendix E, E-41)

49

“The selected plan must be shown to be cost effective and justified to achieve the desired

level of output”

How a Plan is Selected for Recommendation for Ecosystem Restoration Projects

Alternative Evaluation CriteriaPrinciples and Guidelines Criteria

50

Efficiency: Uses a cost effective/incremental cost analysis to identify plans that maximize environmental benefits compared to costs

Effectiveness: Extent to which an alternative plan alleviates the specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities

Acceptability: Workability and viability of the alternative plan with respect to acceptance by State and local entities and the public and compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public policies

Completeness: Extent to which a given alternative plan provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure the realization of the planned effects

How a National Ecosystem Restoration Project is Identified

Screen out plans that are not cost effective from further consideration.

Incremental cost analysis reveals changes in cost for increasing levels of environmental output.

Help decision makers allocate limited resources more efficiently and avoid selection of economically irrational plans.

Incremental cost analysis reveals changes in costs as levels of environmental outputs increase, assisting in answering the question of whether selecting a more costly alternative is “worth it”

51

What is a Cost-Effective Plan?

52

An alternative is defined as non-cost effective if:1. The same output level could be produced by another plan at

less cost;2. A larger output level could be produced at the same cost; or3. A larger output level could be produced at less cost.

Simply Speaking: DON’T SPEND MORE FOR LESS!(Defining the output is the hard part)

What is Incremental Cost Analysis?

53

A common misconception is that the plan and the output level which minimizes average costs should be selectedIncremental cost analysis is useful in determining if the extra level

of output is “worth it”. How do we determine if the increase in costs is worth the increase

in benefits? This may relate to acceptability, completeness, efficiency and significance of

an alternative or scarcity of a resource

Cost Effective and Incremental Cost Analysis Input

54

VS.Costs

• Construction • Real Estate• Annual maintenance,

operating and monitoring

Benefits• Ecological output (Habitat

Units)• Calculated as the

difference between with and without project

Annual Benefits Examples for Lake Okeechobee Performance

55

PM ECB FWO Alt 1b Alt 2a Alt 2b Alt 2cEcological PM 109,052 106,938 110,990 113,633 111,695 108,876

Stage Envelope PM 25,976 26,906 30,924 31,979 31,469 29,900Extreme Stage PM 43,200 42,971 42,172 41,574 42,208 42,005

Total Lake O Habitat Units 178,228 176,814 184,086 187,186 185,371 180,781

1b2b

2a

2c

0-2 years

2-5 Years

5-10 Years

25-50 Years

25% 50% 60% 100%

56

Cost-Effectiveness Results – Storage:All Alternatives are Cost-Effective

ALTERNATIVES2c 1b 2b 2a

Total Implementation Cost $1,405,000,000 $1,836,000,000 $2,490,000,000 $3,136,000,000

Lake O Annual Lift 2,847 5,598 6,668 8,179Estuary Annual Lift 2,204 4,654 4,654 5,367Combined Annual Lift 5,051 10,252 11,322 13,545

Cost Effective Yes Yes Yes Yes

57

Alternatives2c 1b 2b 2a

Total Implementation Cost $1,405,000,000 $1,836,000,000 $2,490,000,000 $3,136,000,000 Total Benefits 5,051 10,252 11,322 13,545Cost Per Habitat Unit $278,000 $179,000 * $220,000 $232,000

*Alternative 1b is the alternative that costs the least per unit of output. Is there a benefit to a larger plan

Alternatives

1b to 2b 1b to 2a

Increase in cost $654,000,000 $1,300,000,000 Percent increase in Cost 26% 71%

Increase in Environmental Benefits10% (No difference in

Estuary Benefits) 32%Decrease in Water Supply Cutbacks 4.5% 1%

Incremental Cost Analysis - Storage

Wetlands: Combinable Measures

FWOP (AAHU)

FWP(AAHU)

Lift (AAB)

Kissimmee N. 211 474 263 Kissimmee C. 312 1,234 922 Kissimmee S. 243 488 245 Paradise Run 1,484 3,606 2,121 IP10 773 3,128 2,355 LO-W 564 2,473 1,909

Component Implementation Cost

Kissimmee North $ 224,000,000 Kissimmee Center $ 24,000,000 Kissimmee South $ 24,000,000 Paradise Run $ 85,000,000 IP10 $ 132,000,000 LO-W $ 88,000,000

58

Incremental Cost Analysis Cost Effective/Best Buy Wetland Alternatives

ALT A: Kissimmee Center 2 $ 24,000,000 ALT B: Kissimmee Center 2; Paradise Run $ 109,000,000 ALT C: Kissimmee Center 2; Paradise Run; LO-W $ 197,000,000 ALT D: Kissimmee Center 2; Paradise Run; LO-W; IP10 $ 329,000,000 ALT E: Kissimmee Center 2; Paradise Run; LO-W; IP10; Kissimmee South 2 $ 353,000,000

ALT F: Kissimmee Center 2; Paradise Run; LO-W; IP10; Kissimmee South 2; Kissimmee North $ 577,000,000

Annual Habitat Units59

Effectiveness Analysis – Lake O and EstuariesReservoirs & ASR Wells

60

LAKE OKEECHOBEE HYDROLOGIC SUMMARYPerformance Criteria FWO Alt 1b Alt 2a Alt 2b Alt 2c% of time Lake Okeechobee > 17 feet 0.4% 1.3% 1.7% 1.4% 1.5%% of time Lake Okeechobee < 10 feet 3.3% 1.7% 1.6% 1.6% 1.9%

% of time Lake Okeechobee is within stage envelope (12.5-15.5 feet) 27.6% 34.3% 38.3%* 35.6% 32.1%

NORTHERN ESTUARIES

AlternativeAverage Annual

Lake O Regulatory Discharge (kac-ft)



Number of Years Lake O Causes a Damaging Event

% Estuary “Years with Impact”





St Lucie EstuaryFWO 126 0% 11 0% 20 0%

ALT1B 97 23% 8 27% 14 30%ALT2A 68 46% 7 36% 10 50%*ALT2B 100 21% 8 27% 14 30%ALT2C 111 12% 11 0% 17 15%

Caloosahatchee EstuaryFWO 257 0% 14 0% 23 0%

ALT1B 161 37% 10 29% 13 43%ALT2A 132 49% 9 36% 11 52%*ALT2B 157 39% 9 36% 12 48%ALT2C 206 20% 11 21% 18 22%

Effectiveness Analysis – Water SupplyReservoirs & ASR Wells

61

Water Supply Evaluation Criteria FWO Alt 1b Alt 2a Alt 2b Alt 2c

Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA) '8 Worst Years'- Total Demand Cutback Volumes (1000 ac-ft) 871.70 591.12 584.96 564.85 668.47

LOSA % improvement in cutbacks over FWO 0.00% 32.19% 32.89% 35.20% 23.31%Total number of water years with 3 or more consecutive months with restrictions for Lower East Coast (LEC) Service Areas 62 53 54 54 57

% Improvement for reduction in restrictions for LEC Service Areas 0.00% 14.52% 12.90% 12.90% 8.06%

Total Normalized LOSA and LEC Service Area improvements over FWO* 0.00% 30.42% 30.90% 32.97%* 21.79%LEC data used as a ‘tiebreaker’ score (LOSA weighted 90% and LEC weighted 10%)

Additional Cutback information within LOSA FWO Alt 1b Alt 2a Alt 2b Alt 2cSeminole Big Cypress Annual Demand Not Met 1.02 0.82 0.82 0.80 0.80% reduction in demands not met over FWO 0.00% 19.59% 19.81% 21.32%* 21.32%*

Seminole Brighton Reservation Annual Demand Not Met 0.93 0.60 0.60 0.57 0.69% reduction in demands not met over FWO 0.00% 34.84% 35.31% 38.00%* 25.60%

62

AcceptabilityStakeholder Feedback for all Alternatives

Private land acquisitionCultural resource impactsImpacts to water supply

Flood protection/seepageRecreational opportunities

Other considerations?

All alternatives score the same for completeness

ALT1b and ALT2c maximize use of public lands

More information is needed to consider cultural resources impacts

Water supply and flood protection will be analyzed on the selected plan

Recreational features will be considered on the selected plan

Acceptability and Completeness AnalysisReservoirs & ASR Wells

Completeness – All alternatives depend on other activities to achieve full benefits

Herbert Hoover Dike Dam Safety Modification Construction

Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Updates

Indian River Lagoon South ProjectC-43 Western Basin Storage Reservoir

ProjectCentral Everglades Planning Project

63

Effectiveness Analysis

Wetland ID Total Footprint (acres)

Average Annual Habitat Unit Lift

Kissimmee River North 537 263Kissimmee River Center 2 1,196 907Kissimmee River South 2 553 244

Paradise Run 4,083 2,121Lake Okeechobee West 2,792 2,355*

IP-10 3,532 1,909

Acceptability AnalysisStakeholder Feedback for all Alternatives

Private land acquisitionCultural resource impactsImpacts to water supply

Flood protection/seepageRecreational opportunities

Other considerations?

Completeness AnalysisAll wetlands designed as stand-alone features and are

therefore considered complete

Lake Okeechobee West site provides the most average annual ecologic lift

All sites score the same for completeness

Portions of Paradise Run and Kissimmee River sites on public lands

More information is needed to consider cultural resource impacts

Water supply and flood protection will be analyzed on selected plan

Recreational features will be considered on the selected plan

Effectiveness, Acceptability, and Completeness Analysis

Wetlands

Lake Okeechobee


Update on Cultural Resources and Geotechnical Exploration

Tim Gysan, USACE

Lake Okeechobee

Archaeological Survey

Purpose of survey Identify potential archaeological sites in the project area Develop information on cultural affiliation, time period, and significance of

identified sites Determine what sites will be of special concern for the Tribes, the State, and

USACE Determine level of effort and rough order of magnitude (ROM) costs for

options to avoid, minimize, or mitigate important resources Inform future siting decisions of features

Scope developed with input from Seminole Tribe of Florida

66

Archaeological Survey (cont.)

Survey will only be performed on SFWMD-owned lands 2,700 acres in survey focused on the K-05 reservoir footprint

Intensive field survey Performed on 100 meter grid Shovel tests every 25 meters in high probability areas/every 50

meters in medium probability areas

Timeline: July 10 – Background research began July 31 – Fieldwork begins Mid-Sept – Fieldwork complete

67

Archeological Survey Location

68

Geotechnical Data Collection

Purpose of data collection is to obtain a general understanding of soil characteristics for reservoir design and operation

Data collection is limited to publicly owned lands and rights-of-way within or adjacent to the K-05 and K-42 proposed reservoir locations

Geotechnical data collection will begin in mid-August and will take 4 weeks with lab analysis to follow

69

Geotechnical Data Collection Locations

70

Lake Okeechobee


Next StepsMatt Morrison, SFWMD

Lake Okeechobee

Next Steps

Identification of a Tentatively Selected Plan - August 15, 2017 Optimize project footprint Refine ecological and water supply benefits Finalize project costs

Federal Approval to release Project Implementation Report– January 25, 2018Publication of Project Implementation Report for Agency

and Public Review - February 27, 2018

73

74

Alternatives2c 1b 2b 2a

Total Implementation Cost $1,405,000,000 $1,836,000,000 $2,490,000,000 $3,136,000,000 Total Benefits 5,051 10,252 11,322 13,545Cost Per Habitat Unit $278,000 $179,000 * $220,000 $232,000

*Alternative 1b is the alternative that costs the least per unit of output. Is there a benefit to a larger plan

Alternatives

1b to 2b 1b to 2a

Increase in cost $654,000,000 $1,300,000,000 Percent increase in Cost 26% 71%

Increase in Environmental Benefits10% (No difference in

Estuary Benefits) 32%Decrease in Water Supply Cutbacks 4.5% 1%

Incremental Cost Analysis - Storage

Alternative 1b

75

Reservoir Storage K-05 North and K-05 South 190,000 acre-feet



Wetland Restoration Sites Under Consideration

76

Kissimmee River North Kissimmee River Center Kissimmee River South Paradise Run Lake Okeechobee West IP-10

Public Engagements

Upcoming opportunities for public project engagements Water Resources Advisory Commission (WRAC) Meeting –

August 3rd

Tentatively Selected Plan (TSP) Meeting – August 15th, Okeechobee Service Center

Governing Board Meeting –TSP Selection – September 14th, SFWMD Headquarters

LOWRP Website: www.sfwmd.gov/lowrp

E-mail: [email protected]

77

Lake Okeechobee


Date post:	26-Jun-2020
Category:	Documents
Upload:	others
View:	12 times
Download:	0 times

LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION …...LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT Planning...

Documents