LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION …...LAKE OKEECHOBEE WATERSHED RESTORATION PROJECT Planning...
Transcript of 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
Aquifer Storage and Recovery 110 ASR wells 616,000 acre-feet of storage per year
Alternative 2a
14Preliminary Project Cost Estimate: $3.1 billion
Alternative 2b
15
Reservoir Storage K-05 North and K-42 276,000 acre-feet
Aquifer Storage and Recovery 70 ASR wells 392,000 acre-feet of storage per year
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate: $2.5 billion
Alternative 2c
16
Reservoir Storage K-42 171,000 acre-feet
Aquifer Storage and Recovery 50 ASR wells 280,000 acre-feet of storage per year
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate: $1.4 billion
Wetland Restoration Sites Under Consideration
17
Kissimmee River North Kissimmee River Center Kissimmee River South Paradise Run Lake Okeechobee West IP-10
Lake Okeechobee
Discussion and Feedback
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
Discussion and Feedback
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”
Reduction (relative to FWO)
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
Average Annual Lake O Regulatory Discharge (kac-ft)
% Estuary Regulatory Flow
Reduction (relative to ECB)
Number of Months Lake O Causes a Damaging Event
% Estuary “Months with Impact”
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
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”
Reduction (relative to FWO)
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
Average Annual Lake O Regulatory Discharge (kac-ft)
% Estuary Regulatory Flow
Reduction (relative to ECB)
Number of Months Lake O Causes a Damaging Event
% Estuary “Months with Impact”
Reduction (relative to ECB)
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
Discussion and Feedback
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
Discussion and Feedback
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)
% Estuary Regulatory Flow
Reduction (relative to FWO)
Number of Years Lake O Causes a Damaging Event
% Estuary “Years with Impact”
Reduction (relative to FWO)
Number of Months Lake O Causes a Damaging Event
% Estuary “Months with Impact”
Reduction (relative to FWO)
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
Discussion and Feedback
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
Discussion and Feedback
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
Aquifer Storage and Recovery 80 ASR wells 448,000 acre-feet of storage per year
Preliminary Project Cost Estimate: $1.8 billion
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
Discussion and Feedback