FEBRUARY 28_ 2000 - The Everglades Plan by wuzhenguang

VIEWS: 1 PAGES: 69

									FINAL                                        February 2002

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA
PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES
RESTORATION PLAN




                     COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES
                         RESTORATION PLAN




PROJECT MANAGEMENT PLAN

Florida Bay & Florida Keys Feasibility Study




U.S. Army Corps of Engineers               South Florida
Jacksonville District                      Water Management District
                                                           TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF APPENDICES ...................................................................................................................................III

LIST OF ACRONYMS .....................................................................................................................................IV

INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................................................... 1
    STUDY DESCRIPTION ......................................................................................................................................... 2
    STUDY BACKGROUND ........................................................................................................................................ 2
      Florida Bay .................................................................................................................................................. 3
      Florida Keys Marine Environment............................................................................................................... 4
    STUDY AUTHORITY............................................................................................................................................ 5
      Federal Authority ......................................................................................................................................... 5
      State Authority.............................................................................................................................................. 7
    DESCRIPTION OF THE STUDY AREA.................................................................................................................... 8
      Florida Bay .................................................................................................................................................. 9
      Florida Keys Marine Environment............................................................................................................. 10
    RELATED PROJECTS, STUDIES, PLANS AND PROGRAMS ................................................................................... 11
      C-111.......................................................................................................................................................... 11
      C-111 North Spreader Canal ..................................................................................................................... 11
      Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS) ...................................................................................... 12
      Florida Keys Tidal Restoration (FKTR) Project ........................................................................................ 13
      Biscayne Bay Feasibility Study .................................................................................................................. 13
      Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems Science Program.................................................................... 14
      Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Programs ................................................................................. 15
      Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (MWD) Project. ................................................ 16
      Decompartmentalization of WCA 3 – Phase 1 ........................................................................................... 18
      Little Venice Wastewater Improvement Project ......................................................................................... 20
      Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (SWMP) ..................................................................... 20
      Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan (SMMP) .............................................................. 21
STUDY SCOPE.................................................................................................................................................. 22
    MODEL DEVELOPMENT AND APPLICATION ...................................................................................................... 24
    PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES ...................................................................................................................... 37
      Upland Hydrologic Inputs/Physical Oceanography .................................................................................. 37
      Water Quality and Algal Blooms................................................................................................................ 39
      Benthic Habitat (Sea Grasses and Hard Bottom Communities)................................................................. 39
    STUDY OBJECTIVES ......................................................................................................................................... 39
    ALTERNATIVE MEASURES ............................................................................................................................... 40
      Structural Alternatives ............................................................................................................................... 40
      Non-Structural Alternatives ....................................................................................................................... 40
    PLANNING PROCESS ......................................................................................................................................... 40
      Step 1 – Identify Problems and Opportunities............................................................................................ 41
      Step 2 – Inventory and Forecast Conditions .............................................................................................. 41
      Step 3 – Formulate Alternative Plans......................................................................................................... 41
      Step 4 - Evaluate Alternative Plans............................................................................................................ 42
      Step 5 - Compare Alternative Plans ........................................................................................................... 44
      Step 6 – Select a Plan ................................................................................................................................. 44
    DETAILED ENGINEERING DESIGN AND REPORT PREPARATION ........................................................................ 44
    STATE REVIEW PROCESS ................................................................................................................................. 45




                                                                                   I
    LEVEL OF DETAIL ............................................................................................................................................ 46
DECISION/STUDY MANAGEMENT APPROACH..................................................................................... 46
    STUDY TEAM ................................................................................................................................................... 46
    CERP DESIGN COORDINATION TEAM (DCT) .................................................................................................. 49
    COORDINATION AND PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT ................................................................................................... 49
      South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force ..................................................................................... 50
      Governor's Commission for the Everglades............................................................................................... 50
      General Public ........................................................................................................................................... 50
STUDY COST AND SCHEDULE.................................................................................................................... 51
    STUDY COST ACCOUNTING .............................................................................................................................. 51
    LOCAL SPONSORSHIP ....................................................................................................................................... 51
    STUDY COST ESTIMATE ................................................................................................................................... 52
    STUDY SCHEDULE............................................................................................................................................ 52
    SCOPE, SCHEDULE AND COST CHANGES .......................................................................................................... 52
      Project Management Plan Revisions.......................................................................................................... 54
      Cost Change Authority ............................................................................................................................... 55
      Schedule Change Authority ........................................................................................................................ 55
QUALITY CONTROL...................................................................................................................................... 55

CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITION ......................................................................................................... 56

TASK ORDER AND DELIVERABLE REVIEW PROCESS....................................................................... 57

IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FB&FK FS................................................................................................... 58
    PRE-CONSTRUCTION ENGINEERING AND DESIGN (PED) PHASE ...................................................................... 58
    CONSTRUCTION PHASE .................................................................................................................................... 58
    STUDY CLOSEOUT PROCEDURES ...................................................................................................................... 59
APPROVALS ..................................................................................................................................................... 60




                                                                                II
                               LIST OF APPENDICES
A:   Detailed Scope of Work
B:   Organization Breakdown Structure
C:   Study Cost Estimate by Code of Accounts
D:   Study Schedule
E:   Technical Requirements and References




                                           III
                           LIST OF ACRONYMS
8.5 SMA    8.5 Square Mile Area
AFB        Alternatives Formulation Briefing
ASA(CW)    Assistant Secretary of the Army for Civil Works
AWT        Advanced Wastewater Treatment
BA         Biological Assessment
BCOE       Biddability, Constructibility, Operability, and Environmental
BO         Biological Opinion
BRD        Biological Resources Division
C-111      Canal 111
CARL       Conservation and Recreation Lands
CCAM       Carrying Capacity Analysis Model
CEQ        Council on Environmental Quality
CERP       Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan
C&SF       Central and Southern Florida
CSOP       Combined Structural and Operational Plan
CWA        Clean Water Act
DCT        Design Coordination Team
DDR        Detailed Design Report
DERM       Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources Management
DM         Design Memorandum
EA         Environmental Assessment
EC         Engineering Circular
E&D        Engineering and Design
EDU        Equivalent Dwelling Unit
EIS        Environmental Impact Statement
ELM        Everglades Landscape Model
ENP        Everglades National Park
EQ         Environmental Quality
ER         Engineering Regulation
FB&FK FS   Florida Bay & Florida Keys Feasibility Study
FCSA       Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement
FDCA       Florida Department of Community Affairs
FDEP       Florida Department of Environmental Protection
FDOF       Florida Division of Forestry
FDOT       Florida Department of Transportation
FFWCC      Florida Fish and Wildlife Conservation Commission
FIU        Florida International University
FKAA       Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority
FKCCS      Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study




                                       IV
FKNMS     Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
FKTR      Florida Keys Tidal Restoration
FMRI      Florida Marine Research Institute
FONSI     Finding of No Significant Impact
FRC       Feasibility Review Conference
FS        Feasibility Study
FSM       Feasibility Scoping Meeting
FWCA      Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act
FWCAR     Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report
GDM       General Design Memorandum
GIS       Geographic Information System
GRR       General Re-Evaluation Report
H&H       Hydrology and Hydraulics
HMS       Hydrologic Modeling System
HQUSACE   Headquarters, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
HSE       Hydrologic Systems Engine
HSPF      Hydrologic Simulation Program-Fortran
HTRW      Hazardous, Toxic, and Radioactive Waste
IPR       In Progress Review
ITR       Independent Technical Review
IWR       Institute for Water Resources
LERRD     Lands, Easements, Rights-of-way, Relocations, and Disposal
LWCWSP    Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan
MCACES    Micro Computer Aided Cost Engineering System
MDRT      Model Development and Refinement Team
MEG       Model Evaluation Group
MPMP      Master Program Management Plan
MWD       Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project
NED       National Economic Development
NEPA      National Environmental Policy Act
NER       National Ecosystem Restoration
NESS      Northeast Shark Slough
NGP       Noticed General Permit
NMFS      National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA      U.S. National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPS       National Park Service
NRCS      U.S. Natural Resources Conservation Service
O&M       Operations and Maintenance
OBS       Organization Breakdown Structure
OMB       Office of Management and Budget
OMRR&R    Operation, Maintenance, Rehabilitation, Repair, and Replacement
OSE       Other Social Effects
PAL       Planning Aid Letter



                                         V
PAR       Planning Aid Report
PCA       Project Cooperation Agreement
PDT       Project Delivery Team
PE        Project Engineer
PED       Pre-construction, Engineering, and Design
PGL       Planning Guidance Letter
PIR       Project Implementation Report
PL        Public Law
PM        Project Manager
PMC       Program Management Committee
PMP       Project Management Plan
POP       Public Outreach Plan
PRB       Project Review Board
P&S       Plans and Specifications
QCM       Quality Control Manager
QCP       Quality Control Plan
RA        Remedial Action
RD        Remedial Design
RECOVER   Restoration, Coordination, and Verification
RED       Regional Economic Development
RES       Real Estate Supplement
Restudy   Central and Southern Florida Project Comprehensive Review Study
ROD       Record of Decision
SAD       South Atlantic Division
SCS       Soil Conservation Service
SFWMD     South Florida Water Management District
SFWMM     South Florida Water Management Model
SHPO      State Historic Preservation Officer
SICS      Southern Inland and Coastal System
SMMP      Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan
SWMP      Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan
SOE       Save Our Everglades
SOW       Scope of Work
TIME      Tides and Inflows in the Mangroves of the Everglades
TMDL      Total Maximum Daily Load
TRC       Technical Review Conference
USACE     U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
USEPA     U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
USFWS     U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
USGS      U.S. Geological Survey
VE        Value Engineering
WBS       Work Breakdown Structure
WCA       Water Conservation Area



                                        VI
WQC    Water Quality Certification
WQPP   Water Quality Protection Program
WRDA   Water Resources Development Act




                                    VII
                                   INTRODUCTION
        The Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project was a multi-purpose project that
was first authorized in 1948 to provide flood control, water control, water supply, and other
services to the area that stretches from Orlando to Florida Bay. The project has performed its
intended purposes well. However, the project has also contributed to an unintended decline
in the south Florida ecosystem. The purpose of the C&SF Project Comprehensive Review
Study (Restudy) was to re-examine the C&SF Project to determine the feasibility of
providing water resources infrastructure that supports the sustainability of south Florida.
Specifically, as required by the authorizing legislation, the Restudy investigated making
structural and operational modifications to the C&SF Project to improve the quality of the
environment; improve protection of the aquifer; improve the integrity, capability, and
conservation of agricultural and urban water supplies; improve other water-related purposes;
and maintain current levels of flood protection.

    The Restudy resulted in the Final Integrated Feasibility Report and Programmatic
Environmental Impact Statement that was transmitted to Congress on July 1, 1999. The
recommended Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) is contained within the
Integrated Feasibility Report. CERP was authorized as part of the Water Resources
Development Act (WRDA) of 2000 on December 11, 2000.

      The timeframe for the Restudy did not permit a thorough investigation of all of the
regional water resource problems of south Florida. Therefore, CERP recommended the
Florida Bay & Florida Keys Feasibility Study (FB&FK FS) be conducted to comprehensively
evaluate Florida Bay and to determine the types of modifications that are needed to
successfully restore water quality and ecological conditions of the Bay. The FB&FK FS is
included in CERP as a "New Feasibility Study". It will be conducted under the authority of
WRDA of 1996, which allows for continuation of studies and analyses that are necessary to
further the CERP.

        The purpose of this Project Management Plan (PMP) is to establish the scope, define
a schedule, and determine costs associated with conducting the FB&FK FS. This PMP
documents the assumptions, work tasks, products, and level of detail necessary to define the
natural pre-development system, existing, and future “without project” conditions; to
formulate a range of alternative plans; to assess the effects of the alternative plans; and to
present a clear rationale for project features selected for implementation. The PMP acts as a
general guide for the FB&FK FS. Specific alternatives, performance measures, restoration
targets and implementation goals will be determined during the feasibility phase resulting in
project implementation once Congressional approval has been received. This PMP was
developed, and will be updated as necessary, in collaboration between the USACE, the non-
Federal sponsor, South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD), and the state, federal
and tribal interagency Project Delivery Team (PDT).




                                              1
Study Description

        The FB&FK FS will comprehensively examine the Florida Bay and Florida Keys
marine environments, and the actions and land uses upstream, to determine the modifications
that are needed to successfully restore water quality and ecological conditions of the Bay.
The study may also include analyses of alternatives for restoration of the marine environment
surrounding the Florida Keys, if there are positive impacts on Florida Bay. For example,
additional tidal creek restoration projects (beyond those authorized in the Florida Keys Tidal
Restoration Project) may be considered.

       The study goal, developed by the Project Delivery Team (PDT) for the FB&FK FS,
is: “Evaluate Florida Bay and its connections to the Everglades, the Gulf of Mexico and the
Florida Keys marine ecosystem to determine the modifications that are needed to
successfully restore water quality and ecological conditions of the Bay, while maintaining or
improving these conditions in the Keys’ marine ecosystem.”

       Likewise, the PDT has determined that the objectives of the FB&FK FS are:

• Determine the quantity, timing, distribution and quality of freshwater that should flow to
Florida Bay and provide recommendations for any modifications of water deliveries that will
result from current CERP plans for Everglades wetlands.
• Determine the nutrient sources and loads to the study area, evaluate their impacts to reef
and Bay ecosystems, and recommend restoration targets and implementation plans.
• Establish water quality and ecological performance measures.
• Evaluate the effects of restoring historical connectivity between Florida Bay and the
Atlantic Ocean.
• Evaluate management alternatives in a holistic manner employing, where necessary,
hydrodynamic, water quality and ecological models.

Study Background

       The background for the FB&FK FS is best divided into two separate discussions
regarding Florida Bay and the Florida Keys marine environment. The majority of the
information on Florida Bay was obtained and repeated verbatim in most cases from the
Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems Science Program Overview Website,
www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/program_overview.html. A reference is included at the end of
each quoted paragraph. Likewise, the majority of the information on the marine waters
surrounding the Florida Keys was obtained and repeated verbatim in most cases from the
FKNMS Final Management Plan/Environmental Impact Statement. A reference is also
included at the end of each quoted paragraph.




                                              2
Florida Bay

        Florida Bay is shallow and often hypersaline. Until recently, Florida Bay has been
characterized by clear waters and lush seagrass meadows covering the complex array of
shallow mud banks and basins that are distributed throughout the Bay. In central and western
Florida Bay, seagrasses have been dying since the summer of 1987 (Fourqurean and Robblee
1999). A phenomenon such as this had not been observed previously in Florida Bay. The
cause of this die-off appears to be associated with several factors, including changes in
freshwater flow to the Bay (Zieman et al. 1999). Unlike seagrass mortality events in many
other estuaries, mortality in Florida Bay has not been clearly linked to the growth of algae
and acute nutrient enrichment (Fourqurean and Robblee 1999). In some areas, vegetative
cover has been partially re-established by either the original species or another species, but in
other areas recolonization has been slow and large areas of the bottom are still devoid of
vegetation. (Florida Bay Website: www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/program_overview.html, June
2001)

        There are other indications that the environmental health of Florida Bay has
deteriorated. Fishing success has declined for some commercial and recreational species that
depend upon the Bay as a juvenile nursery habitat, suggesting a decline in recruitment.
Atypical algal blooms have been reported since 1991 across much of central and western
Florida Bay and have extended into the Florida Keys (Fourqurean and Roblee 1999). These
blooms are thought to have contributed to the Loggerhead sponge die-off. This is significant
because these sponges provide habitat for juvenile lobster. While the causes of ecological
change in the Bay and the relationships among changes are not well understood, there is no
question that, like the sawgrass habitat of the Everglades, the Florida Bay ecosystem is in
jeopardy. (Florida Bay Website: www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/program_overview.html, June
2001)

        More freshwater alone will not return Florida Bay to its pristine condition. The
quantity, timing, distribution, and quality of freshwater released to Florida Bay must also be
considered. Water quality is particularly important, and measures to address pollution
specific to the Everglades may not be adequate to protect Florida Bay. Increasing freshwater
flow to the Bay could increase nutrient (particularly nitrogen) loading (Rudnick et al. 1999),
which might induce more frequent and more extensive phytoplankton blooms. However,
there is no scientific consensus that increased blooms are likely. Regardless of their cause,
phytoplankton blooms decrease light penetration in the Bay and continued blooms could thus
cause further seagrass mortality. Deterioration of the water quality of the Bay and the
Florida Keys may also have a negative impact on the Keys' coral reefs. Changing water
circulation patterns through the Keys by changing freshwater flow or changing the
configuration of Keys' passess (some of which were filled early in the twentieth century)
could thus affect water quality conditions and the health of the reefs. Lastly, increasing the
water flow could also increase trace contaminant loading, depending on sources and flow




                                               3
pathways. (Florida Bay Website: www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/program_overview.html, June
2001)

       At present, there is insufficient scientific knowledge to predict with confidence the
consequences of anticipated alterations in freshwater input to Florida Bay. Although
increased flow can certainly reduce the frequency and severity of hypersalinity, fine-tuning
of water flow, reduction in nutrient concentrations of in-flowing water, and other corrective
measures may also be necessary to restore the health and productivity of the Bay. (Florida
Bay Website: www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/program_overview.html, June 2001)

        A series of compromises and tradeoffs will have to be made in restoring and
maintaining a healthy South Florida coastal ecosystem, including Florida Bay. It is essential
that decisions be based on reliable scientific information. To generate the requisite
information, a group of federal and state agencies are collaborating in an interagency Florida
Bay Science Program that conducts complementary research, monitoring, and modeling
projects, which together will answer the most critical scientific questions about the Bay
ecosystem. This program is guided by a Program Management Committee (PMC) that has
recently expanded to ensure coordination and collaboration with developing programs at
Biscayne Bay, Rookery Bay, the FKNMS and the Dry Tortugas in so far as they are germane
to South Florida ecosystem restoration. The Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems
Science Program is a scientific component of the much larger South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration initiative headed by a Task Force consisting of state and federal agency heads
and representatives from other stakeholder groups. (Florida Bay Website:
www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/program_overview.html, June 2001)

Florida Keys Marine Environment

        The lure of the Florida Keys has attracted explorers and visitors for centuries. The
clear tropical waters, bountiful resources, and appealing natural environment were among the
qualities that attracted visitors to the Florida Keys. However, warning signs that the Keys’
environment and natural resources were fragile, and not infinite, came early. In 1957, a
group of conservationists and scientists held a conference at the ENP and discussed the
demise of the coral reef resources in the Keys. That conference resulted in actions that
created the world’s first underwater park, the John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park in
1960. However, in the decades following the establishment of the park through to the
1990’s, concerns continue to be voiced by environmentalists and scientists regarding
pollution, overharvesting of marine species, physical impacts, and overuse and use conflicts
in the marine environment surrounding the Keys. (NOAA 1996)

       Other management efforts were instituted to protect the coral reefs of the Florida
Keys. The Key Largo National Marine Sanctuary was established in 1975 to protect 103
square nautical miles of coral reef habitat stretching along the reef tract from north of




                                              4
Carysfort Lighthouse to south of Molasses Reef, offshore of the Upper Keys. In 1981, the
5.32 square nautical mile Looe Key National Marine Sanctuary was established to protect the
very popular Looe Key Reef located off Big Pine Key in the Lower Keys. Throughout the
1980’s, mounting threats to the health and ecological future of the coral reef ecosystem in the
Florida Keys prompted Congress to take action to protect this fragile natural resource. The
threats included reports of deteriorating water quality, coral bleaching, the die-off of the
long-spined urchin, loss of living coral cover on reefs, a major seagrass die-off, declines in
reef fish populations, and the spread of coral diseases. With the reauthorization of the
National Marine Sanctuary Program in 1988, the U.S. Congress directed the Sanctuary
Program to conduct a feasibility study of possible expansion of Sanctuary sites in the Keys.
Those study sites were in the vicinity of Alligator Reef, Sombrero Key, and westward from
American Shoals. This endorsement for expansion of the Sanctuary program in the Keys
was a Congressional signal that the health of the resources of the Florida Keys was of
national concern. The feasibility study was overtaken by several natural events and ship
groundings that precipitated the designation of the FKNMS (NOAA, 1996).

         Three large ships ran aground on the coral reef tract within a brief 18 day period in
the fall of 1989. Shortly thereafter, the U.S Congress took action to protect the coral reef
ecosystem of the Florida Keys. Congressman Dante Fascell introduced a bill into the U.S.
House of Representatives in November of 1989. The bill was sponsored in the Senate by
Senator Bob Graham. It was passed by the U.S Congress through bi-partisan support and
was signed into law as the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary and Protection Act by
President George Bush on November 16, 1990. (NOAA 1996)

Study Authority
Federal Authority

        The Restudy was authorized by Section 309(l) of the Water Resources Development
Act of 1992 (P.L.102-580) which states:

"(1) CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA. -- The Chief of Engineers shall review the
report of the Chief of Engineers on central and southern Florida, published as House
Document 643; 80th Congress, 2nd Session, and other pertinent reports, with a view to
determining whether modifications to the existing project are advisable at the present time
due to significantly changed physical, biological, demographic, or economic conditions, with
particular reference to modifying the project or its operation for improving the quality of the
environment, improving protection of the aquifer, and improving the integrity, capability,
and conservation of urban water supplies affected by the project or its operation."




                                                5
       The Restudy was also authorized by two resolutions of the Committee on Public
Works and Transportation, United States House of Representatives, dated September 24,
1992. The first resolution states:

"Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
United States House of Representatives, That the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors, is requested to review the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Central and Southern Florida, published as House Document
643, Eightieth Congress, Second Session, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether
modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time, in
the interest of environmental quality, water supply and other purposes."

       The second resolution is directly applicable to the FB&FK FS and states:

"Resolved by the Committee on Public Works and Transportation of the
United States House of Representatives, That the Board of Engineers for
Rivers and Harbors, is requested to review the report of the Chief of
Engineers on Central and Southern Florida, published as House Document
643, Eightieth Congress, Second Session, and other pertinent reports, to determine whether
modifications of the recommendations contained therein are advisable at the present time, in
the interest of environmental quality, water supply and other purposes for Florida Bay,
including a comprehensive, coordinated ecosystem study with hydrodynamic modeling of
Florida Bay and its connections to the Everglades, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Florida Keys
Coral Reef ecosystem."

       The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 was enacted on October 12, 1996.
Section 528 of the Act (Public Law 104-303) entitled “Everglades and South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration” authorizes a number of ecosystem restoration activities and also
provides specific direction and guidance for the CERP. The specific provisions of Section
528 concerning the FB&FK FS are:

“(b) RESTORATION ACTIVITIES-
(1) COMPREHENSIVE PLAN-
(A) DEVELOPMENT-
(i) PURPOSE- The Secretary shall develop, as expeditiously as practicable, a proposed
comprehensive plan for the purpose of restoring, preserving, and protecting the South
Florida ecosystem. The comprehensive plan shall provide for the protection of water quality
in, and the reduction of the loss of fresh water from, the Everglades. The comprehensive plan
shall include such features as are necessary to provide for the water-related needs of the
region, including flood control, the enhancement of water supplies, and other objectives
served by the Central and Southern Florida Project.
(ii) CONSIDERATIONS- The comprehensive plan shall—




                                              6
(I) be developed by the Secretary in cooperation with the non-Federal project sponsor and in
consultation with the Task Force; and
(II) consider the conceptual framework specified in the report entitled ‘’Conceptual Plan for
the Central and Southern Florida Project Restudy’’, published by the Commission and
approved by the Governor.
(B) SUBMISSION- Not later than July 1, 1999, the secretary shall—
(i) complete the feasibility phase of the Central and Southern Florida Project comprehensive
review study as authorized by section 309(l) of the Water Resources Development Act of
1992 (106 Stat. 4844), and by 2 resolutions of the Committee on Public Works and
Transportation of the House of Representatives, dated September 24, 1992; and
(ii) submit to Congress the plan developed under subparagraph (A)(i) consisting of a
feasibility report and a programmatic environmental impact statement covering the proposed
Federal action set forth in the plan.
(C) ADDITIONAL STUDIES AND ANALYSES- Notwithstanding the completion of the
feasibility report under subparagraph(B), the Secretary shall continue to conduct such
studies and analyses as are necessary, consistent with subparagraph (A)(i).

State Authority

        During the 1999 legislative session, Florida lawmakers created Section 373.1501 of
the Florida Statues and amended Section 373.026 of the Florida Statutes. Section 373.1501 of
the Florida Statues provides a legislative finding that the Comprehensive Plan is important
for restoring the Everglades ecosystem and for sustaining the environment, economy, and
social well being of south Florida. Its purpose is to facilitate and support the Comprehensive
Plan through an approval process concurrent with Federal government review and
congressional authorization. Further, this section ensures that all project components are
implemented through appropriate processes and are consistent with the balanced policies and
purposes of Chapter 373 of the Florida Statutes, specifically Section 373.026. Section
373.026 (8)(b) directs the Florida Department of Environmental Protection to collaborate
with the SFWMD and to approve each project component, with or without amendments,
within a specified period.

        In the 2000 legislative session, the Florida Legislature created an act relating to
Everglades restoration and funding, amending Section 215.22 of the Florida Statutes and
creating Section 373.470 which is cited as the “Everglades Restoration Investment Act.” The
purpose of this act is to establish a full and equal partnership between the state and the
federal governments for the implementation of the Comprehensive Plan. This act requires
that a Project Implementation Report be approved in accordance with Section 373.026 of the
Florida Statutes before the SFWMD and the USACE execute a Project Cooperation
Agreement.




                                              7
Description of the Study Area


                                                                Miami
          Gulf of Mexico                                          Biscayne
                                                                     Bay

                    N

                                            Everglades
                                            National
                                            Park
                                                             Key Largo
                                        Florida Bay
    STUDY AREA                                                     Atlantic
                                                                   Ocean
                            FKNMS
                                           Marathon

                         Big Pine Key
         Key West



                                        Figure 1
                    Florida Bay & Florida Keys Feasibility Study Area

        The FB&FK Feasibility Study area is shown in Figure 1. The study area includes all
of Florida Bay and the marine environment adjacent to the Florida Keys, including the coral
reef tract. The northeastern boundary of the study area begins at the intersection of Card
Sound Road with the mainland Florida coastline. The study area then follows the coastline in
a westerly direction to Flamingo and on to the southernmost point of Cape Sable, including
embayments and ponds along this northern Florida Bay coastline (e.g. Joe Bay and Seven
Palm Lake). Thence, the study area follows the southwest Florida coastline in a northerly
direction to Northwest Cape Sable. From Northwest Cape Sable, the study area extends
westward into the Gulf of Mexico to intersect with the Everglades National Park (ENP)
boundary offshore of Northwest Cape Sable. Thence, the study area extends due south to the
intersection with the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) boundary and
follows the FKNMS boundary westward to slightly west of longitude 82, which is north and
west of Key West. Then, the study area again extends south in the vicinity of Boca Grande
Channel to intersect with the FKNMS boundary again and follows the FKNMS
eastward/northeastward to a point offshore of Card Sound Road, and thence extends
northwestward along Card Sound Road to the intersection of Card Sound Road with the
mainland Florida coastline.



                                             8
       The study area boundary excludes the marine environment surrounding the Dry
Tortugas. However, if the model boundaries in the vicinity of Key West indicate that there
may be nutrients from the freshwater discharged from the Everglades that could impact the
Dry Tortugas, then the study area boundaries will be extended to included a qualitative
impact assessment (of those nutrients) on the Dry Tortugas marine environment.

        The study area includes mangrove fringes and tidally influenced embayments. The
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP) has not directly addressed restoration
opportunities for mangrove systems. The CERP team responsible for Restoration,
Coordination and Verification (RECOVER) has listed mangroves as areas in need of further
research and monitoring. The FB&FK FS will consider how mangroves interact with both
upstream wetlands and downstream estuaries, especially in terms of consequences to water
quality and nursery habitat. If negative impacts are predicted in the mangrove areas, then
restoration opportunities will be considered.

       The study area boundaries will not necessarily coincide with the boundaries of the
models that will be utilized in the FB&FK FS. However, northern modeling boundaries for
the FB& FK FS will abut the southern modeling boundaries utilized for the Southwest
Florida Feasibility Study. Issues regarding Biscayne Bay will be identified in order to
maintain and acknowledge the connectivity with the marine systems of Florida Bay and
Biscayne Bay.

Florida Bay

        Florida Bay is located at the southern tip of the Florida peninsula and covers about
850 square miles, including 700 square miles within ENP. The Bay is relatively shallow and
average depths are less than three feet. The Bay is bounded by the Florida Everglades on the
north and the Florida Keys on the southeast that include over 200 small islands or “keys”.
The shorelines of most of the keys are vegetated with mangroves, and a few have interior
supertidal “flats” that are flooded during spring high tides and are lined with calcareous algal
mats. Sheetflow across marl prairies of the southern Everglades, as well as numerous creeks
fed by Taylor Slough and the C-111 canal, provide fresh surface water inflows into northern
Florida Bay. Surface water from the Shark River Slough system flows into Whitewater Bay
and the Gulf of Mexico. Some of this freshwater enters Florida Bay across its western
boundary. Shark Slough water may also provide groundwater recharge for central and
western Florida Bay.

        While Florida Bay is known as the principal inshore nursery for the offshore Tortugas
pink shrimp (Browder et al. 1999), it also provides critical habitat for juvenile spiny lobsters,
stone crabs, and many important finfish species. The Bay supports numerous protected
species including the bottle-nosed dolphin, the American crocodile, the West Indian manatee




                                               9
and several species of sea turtles. (Florida Bay Website:
www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/program_overview.html, June 2001)

Florida Keys Marine Environment

        The Florida Keys archipelago is composed of 120,000 year old limestone extending
southwest over 200 miles from the southern tip of the Florida mainland to the Dry Tortugas,
63 miles west of Key West. The FB&FK FS includes only the Keys within the study area
boundaries described above. The Keys are made up of over 200 islands encompassing
approximately 103 square miles. They are broad, with little topographic relief. Key Largo
and Big Pine Key are the largest islands. The Keys are frequently divided into three regions:
(1) the Upper Keys, north of Upper Matecumbe Key, (2) the Middle Keys, from Upper
Matecumbe Key to the Seven Mile Bridge and (3) the Lower Keys, from Little Duck Key to
Key West. (USACE & SFWMD, C&SF Restudy Report, April 1999)

        Located adjacent to the Keys’ islands are spectacular, unique and nationally
significant marine environments, including seagrass meadows, mangrove islands, and
extensive living coral reefs. These support rich biological communities possessing extensive
conservation, recreational, commercial, ecological, historical, research, educational and
aesthetic values that give this area special national significance. The marine environment of
the Florida Keys supports over 6,000 species of plants, fishes, and invertebrates, including
the third-largest bank-barrier reef system in the world and one of the largest seagrass
communities in this hemisphere. The warm, clear and naturally low-nutrient waters in this
region are conducive to coral reef development. Attracted by this natural diversity and
tropical climate, approximately four million tourists visit the Keys annually, where they
participate primarily in water-related sports such as fishing, diving, boating and other
activities. (NOAA, 1996)

        Hawk Channel lies to the south of the Keys, between the Keys and the coral reef tract,
which is about five miles offshore. The coral reef tract is an arcuate band of living coral
reefs paralleling the Keys. The Straits of Florida lie beyond the reef, separating the Keys
from Cuba and the Bahamas.

       All of the waters surrounding the Keys and the Florida Reef Tract within the FB&FK
FS area are included in the FKNMS. The FKNMS encompasses approximately 3,668 square
miles of submerged lands and waters between the southern tip of Key Biscayne and the
FKNMS also contains part of Florida Bay and the entire Florida Reef Tract, the largest reef
system in the continental United States. The FKNMS contains components of five distinct
physiographic regions: Florida Bay, the Southwest Florida Shelf, the Florida Reef Tract, the
Florida Keys and the Straits of Florida.




                                             10
Related Projects, Studies, Plans and Programs
C-111

        The C-111 project is located in the extreme southeastern portion of Florida, adjacent
to ENP. Canal 111 (C-111) is a part of the southern Miami-Dade County portion of the
Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) project, authorized in 1962 to provide flood control to
agricultural lands in south Miami-Dade County and to discharge flood waters to Taylor
Slough in the ENP. In 1968, modifications were authorized to provide water supply to ENP
and Miami-Dade County. Environmental concerns caused construction to be discontinued
before all authorized project features were completed.

        C-111 separates Everglades National Park from highly productive subtropical
agricultural lands to the east. Because of the extreme permeability of the Biscayne Aquifer in
the Miami-Dade County area, the project canals have a direct impact on water levels in
adjacent areas. The C-111 General Reevaluation Report (GRR) with integrated
Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) was completed and approved in 1994. It
recommended project modifications designed to maintain existing flood protection and other
C&SF project purposes in developed areas east of C-111 while restoring natural hydrologic
conditions in the Taylor Slough and eastern panhandle areas of the ENP. Increased
freshwater flows in these areas will also help conditions in Florida Bay, a part of the ENP.
The C-111 GRR, approved in July 1994, recommends the development of an operational
plan for Shark River Slough and Taylor Slough. At this stage, ecological restoration
planning is guided by the objective of hydrological restoration because hydrology is the
driving ecological force, and a hydrologic model that simulates historical water flow is
available for use in plan evaluation. Hydrologic monitoring of each test leads to model
improvement and insight into future management practices that would lead to more natural
hydrology. The USACE and SFWMD are currently in the process of finalizing a GRR
supplement which addresses incorporating water quality imperatives and 50/50 land crediting
issues, both authorized by WRDA 1996 and ENP land swap.

C-111 North Spreader Canal

        Also under the CERP authority is the C-111N Spreader Canal. This project includes
levees, canals, pumps, water control structures, and a stormwater treatment area to be
constructed, modified or removed in the Model Lands and Southern Glades (C-111 Basin)
area of Miami-Dade County. This project enhances the C-111 Project design for the C-111N
Spreader Canal with the construction of a stormwater treatment area, the enlarging of pump
station S-332E and the extension of the canal under U.S. Highway 1 and Card Sound Road
into the Model Lands. The initial design of this project pumps water from the C-111 and the
C-111E Canals into a stormwater treatment area prior to discharging to Southern Everglades
and Model Lands. This project also calls for filling in the southern reach of the C-111 Canal




                                             11
and removal of structures S-18C and S-197. The final size, depth, location and configuration
of this project will be determined through more detailed planning and design. The purpose of
this project is to improve deliveries and enhance the connectivity and sheetflow in the Model
Lands and Southern Glades areas, reduce wet season flows in C-111, and decrease potential
flood risk in the lower south Miami-Dade County area.

Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study (FKCCS)

         The Florida Keys have long been recognized at local, state and national levels as
ecologically rich, culturally significant and environmentally sensitive. The Florida Keys
attract a growing number of visitors and new residents. To assure the sustainability of the
Keys unique resources, comprehensive planning is required to address the complexity of the
effects of various user groups on the natural resources. The FKCCS is a cost-shared study
under development by the USACE and the Florida Department of Community Affairs. The
FKCCS will provide an information database and an analysis of consequences (i.e. a
planning tool) that may be used to determine the level of land development activities that will
avoid further irreversible and/or adverse impacts to the Florida Keys ecosystem.

         The goal of the FKCCS is to determine the ability of the Florida Keys ecosystem, and
the various segments thereof, to withstand all impacts of additional land development
activities. The carrying capacity analysis shall consider aesthetic, socioeconomic (including
sustainable tourism), quality of life and community character issues, including the
concentration of population, the amount of open space, diversity of habitats, and species
richness. The analysis shall reflect the interconnected nature of the Florida Keys’ natural
systems, but may consider and analyze the carrying capacity of specific islands or groups of
islands and specific ecosystems or habitats, including distinct parts of the Keys’ marine
system. (Florida Administrative Weekly, April 12, 1996)

        This study explores past (where possible), present and future impacts on that
ecosystem. Several scenarios are included in the study to represent potential future
conditions. Each scenario, with its set of assumptions, projects any impacts it may have on
identifiable Florida Keys components, such as natural resources, human infrastructure and
the social environment. An interactive, spatially explicit Carrying Capacity Analysis Model
(CCAM) will be developed that will simulate the conditions of land development activities
and population growth, through time, described by the various input assumptions. Land uses
within the Florida Keys have been identified by the PDT as having a potential impact on the
study area for the FB&FK FS. In that regard, the FKCCS will provide valuable data for use
in the FB&FK FS, e.g. wastewater and stormwater loadings into nearshore waters.




                                              12
Florida Keys Tidal Restoration (FKTR) Project

        Also under CERP authority is the FKTR Project. This project includes the use of
bridges or culverts to restore some tidal connections between Florida Bay and the Atlantic
Ocean in Monroe County. The four locations are located in the Middle Keys near Marathon
and include: 1) Tarpon Creek, just south of Mile Marker 54 on Fat Deer Key (width 150
feet); 2) unnamed creek between Fat Deer Key and Long Point Key, south of Mile Marker 56
(width 450 feet); 3) tidal connection adjacent to Little Crawl Key (width 300 feet); and 4)
tidal connection between Florida Bay and Atlantic Ocean at Mile Marker 57 (width 2,400
feet).

        The purpose of this project is to restore the tidal connection in a section of the middle
Keys that was eliminated in the early 1900’s during the construction of Flagler’s railroad.
Restoring the circulation to areas of surface water that have been impeded and stagnant for
decades will significantly improve water quality, benthic floral and faunal communities, and
larval distribution of both recreational and commercial species (e.g. spiny lobster) in the
nearshore waters in the vicinity of these restoration sites.

Biscayne Bay Feasibility Study

        As stated previously, Biscayne Bay issues will be identified only with respect to
maintaining and acknowledging the connectivity with the marine system of Florida Bay. The
Biscayne Bay study began in the early 1980's when Senate and House Resolutions (dated
December 5, 1980, and September 23, 1982, respectively) authorized the USACE to review
existing Federal projects to determine if modifications are advisable to alleviate problems
associated with water quality, biological productivity and related factors. A reconnaissance
report was completed in March 1984. The report recommended that environmental
assessments were warranted to determine the significance of these impacts and further review
of selected works in the study area. The primary federal concern is the discharge of
freshwater into Biscayne Bay from several C&SF canals. A feasibility study was initiated in
fiscal year 1984; however, the study was not funded after fiscal year 1985.

        The U.S. Congress added funds in fiscal year 1994 to reactivate the feasibility study.
In discussions with the Miami-Dade County Department of Environmental Resources
Management (DERM) it was determined that priorities and concerns for Biscayne Bay had
changed significantly during the nine years since the original feasibility study had been
discontinued. Therefore, it was decided to conduct an updated reconnaissance study, before
proceeding to the feasibility study. An inter-agency scoping workshop was conducted in
August 1994 to discuss the problems and needs of Biscayne Bay, as well as inventory data
collection, research and modeling efforts. It was concluded that before any recommendation




                                               13
to modify the C&SF Project can be made, a hydrodynamic model is needed to assist in
understanding the Biscayne Bay ecosystem.

         The Biscayne Bay Florida Updated Reconnaissance Report, completed in July 1995
recommended developing and operating a hydrodynamic simulation model, in addition to
other ecosystem models of Biscayne Bay. The circulation, or hydrodynamics, of the system
are critical to the understanding of many other issues such as water quality, sediment
transport, and biological processes.

Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems Science Program

        The Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine Systems Science Program is a scientific
component of the much larger South Florida Ecosystem Restoration initiative. An
interagency Program Management Committee (PMC) was formed in 1994 to coordinate the
scientific programs of the many agencies involved in Florida Bay and nearby waters, and to
ensure that high quality and comprehensive scientific information is available to address key
environmental management issues. The primary functions of the PMC are to:

• Develop and implement a strategy to merge scientific understanding of the Bay with
management’s decision making process;
• Facilitate a consensus-based process for determining science needs and priorities;
• Promote funding of critical science needs;
• Develop and maintain an open and scientifically sound review process for evaluating
research results and for advancing the program; and
• Communicate research results and program progress to management as well as the
scientific and public community.

       The scientific program organized by the PMC includes monitoring, research, and
modeling. The program includes scientists from many agencies, universities, and other
organizations. These scientists have been organized into topical research teams that collect
and analyze information related to paleoecology, algal blooms, water quality and nutrient
dynamics, circulation and hydrology, seagrass and benthic ecology, higher tropic levels, and
model integration. The spatial domain of this program includes all waters that are within the
boundaries of the FB&FK FS.

         The FB&FK FS will welcome the support of the Florida Bay and Adjacent Marine
Systems Science Program and its organization to promote the success of the Study. Most of
the scientific information that will be analyzed within the FB&FK FS has been collected as
part of this program and it is expected that the Federal, State, and local agencies that have
participated in this effort will continue to contribute information and expertise. These
agencies will also be represented within the FB&FK FS Project Delivery Team (discussed
later in this PMP), but this Team and the PMC will remain distinct groups. It is expected that



                                             14
these groups and participating agencies will cooperate such that some parts of the FB&FK FS
may be co-sponsored by other agencies (through Memoranda of Understanding and/or
Cooperative Agreements) and opportunities to improve the FB&FK FS through the synergy
of many agencies can be realized.

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Programs

       There are five program committees, panels, and teams within the FKNMS that have
resource management responsibilities in the geographic area of the FB&FK FS: Water
Quality Protection Program (WQPP) Steering Committee, Sanctuary Management Team,
Science Management and Coordination Committee, Technical Advisory Committee and the
Ad hoc Science Advisory Panels. Each committee or team and their duties are summarized
below.

        The WQPP Steering Committee is composed of representatives of federal, state and
local agencies and governments, and informed citizens. Their duties include:

•   Establish guidance and policy for development and implementation of the WQPP.
•   Insure all components of the WQPP Document are implemented in a timely manner.
•   Coordinate activities among various governmental entities.

       The Sanctuary Management Team is composed of federal and state managers and
advised by a Citizens Advisory Council. Their duties include:

•   Develop and implement FKNMS management plans.
•   Develop and oversee permitting and enforcement policies and activities.

       The Science Management and Coordination Committee is composed of federal and
state managers that conduct and/or fund research in the FKNMS. Their duties include:

• Develop a comprehensive science plan for the FKNMS.
• Prepare budgets for research and monitoring programs and promote interagency funding.
• Serve as liaison between all other elements of the program.
• Organize and coordinate meetings of other program elements.
• Develop and maintain an open and objective peer review process for evaluating research
and monitoring proposals and results.
• Assure that the program’s goals and objectives are implemented and are based on sound
science.
• Communicate scientific findings and progress to the public, management, and scientific
communities.




                                             15
       The Technical Advisory Committee is composed of scientists, informed citizens, and
representatives of public interest groups with expertise and knowledge on the structure and
function of the Florida Keys ecosystem. Their duties include:

• Provide guidance and advice to the Science Management and Coordination Committee
on preparation of the comprehensive science plan.
• Develop and provide technical review of research, monitoring, and data management
programs.
• Provide regional expertise on Ad hoc Science Advisory Panels.

        The Ad hoc Science Advisory Panels are convened as required by the Science
Management and Coordination Team. The purpose of the Ad hoc Science Advisory Panels is
to provide independent, objective review of science issues and disagreements and provide
recommendations to the Science Management and Coordination Committee on scientific
direction and resolution of scientific disagreements. Ad hoc Science Advisory Panels will
consist of one or more members of the Technical Advisory Committee and other qualified
experts with national/international experience from outside the geographical area of south
Florida. The duties include:

• Provide technical review of comprehensive science plan and program strategies.
• Provide critical review of research, monitoring and modeling efforts.
• Advise Science Management and Coordination Committee on resolution of controversies
concerning data collection, interpretation, and science management.

Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park (MWD) Project.

        Structural modifications and additions to the existing Central and Southern Florida
(C&SF) Project are required to enable water deliveries for the restoration of more natural
hydrologic conditions in Everglades National Park. These improvements include: (1)
Structures S-349A,B&C in the L-67A borrow canal to prevent overdrainage of northern
Water Conservation Area 3A(WCA 3A), (2) Structures S-345A,B&C for the discharge of
water from WCA 3A to WCA 3B, (3) Structures S-355A&B in L-29 to enable the release of
water from WCA 3B to Everglades National Park (ENP), (4) modifications to existing S-334,
and (5) raising Highway US41 (Tamiami Trail) where it crosses L-31N. Together, these
improvements will enable the reestablishment of the historic Shark River Slough flow-way
from WCA 3A through WCA 3B to ENP.

        In order to prevent this redistribution of water from adversely impacting existing
development, several mitigation features are included in the plan. One Miccosukee Indian
camp (Tigertail Camp) will be raised above the anticipated flood stages (completed). Under
the authorized project, the East Everglades residential area, also known as the 8.5 square mile
area (8.5 SMA), will be provided with perimeter levees and a seepage collector canal. A new



                                              16
pump station S-357 will remove water from the seepage collector canal to prevent increased
water levels inside the 8.5 SMA after project implementation (i.e. flood mitigation). A new
pump station S-356 will be constructed adjacent to existing S-334, and will remove
additional seepage from ENP into the L-31N borrow canal and thereby prevent increased
flood damages east of L-31N or in the downstream C-111 basin. Existing roads and borrow
canals within the ENP expansion area that would act as hydrologic barriers will be degraded
to natural ground.

         The General Design Memorandum (GDM) for the Modified Water Deliveries to
Everglades National Park project was approved in May 1993. The Project Cooperation
Agreement (PCA) was executed in September 1994 and construction was initiated in 1995.
Construction of new spillway structures S-355A&B and raising of Tigertail Camp have been
completed. Land acquisition is near completion for the 1992 flood mitigation levee/canal
right-of-way around the 8.5 Square Mile Area residential area (8.5 SMA).

        Since completion of the 1992 GDM for the Modified Water Deliveries
Project, several issues have occurred that warrant a review of the original project
features. These issues have resulted in the identification of three potential problems
with the original project scope:

        (1) Conveyance between Water Conservation Area 3A and Water Conservation
Area 3B. The 1992 authorized conveyance portion of the project consists of: (1) water
control structures in the L-67 A&C canal/levee to discharge water from Water Conservation
Area 3A (WCA3A) into Water Conservation Area 3B (WCA3B); (2) water control structures
in the L-29 levee to discharge water from WCA3B into Northeast Shark Slough (NESS) and;
(3) removal of the existing levee and canal that runs along part of the park’s original eastern
boundary and cuts across the center of Shark Slough (L-67 extension canal and levee).
Structures include gated culverts, headwall water control structures, and weir-type spillways;
discharge, intake, and bypass canals; containment, interceptor, and tie-back levees. The
USACE completed a Value Engineering Report in January 2001 recommending
modifications to the 1992 project features. This document recommends replacing the 1992
GDM features (S-345’s and S-349’s structures) with a passive weir system. Operations of the
features will be assessed by the USACE in an Environmental Impact Statement for a
Combined Structural and Operational Plan (CSOP) for the MWD and C-111 Projects,
scheduled for completion in 2002. The 1992 GDM also specified the construction of two
structures (S-355A and S-355B) to convey water from Water Conservation Area 3B into the
L-29 canal. These structures have been completed. The need for additional conveyance
through the L-29 was also addressed in the in the USACE Value Engineering Report and
recommended three additional weirs through the L-29 levee. Seepage Control is provided
through the construction of pump station S-356. This structure is designed to return the
seepage losses from NESS into the L-31N canal back into NESS via the L-29 canal. Since
CERP plans on relocating this pump station east of the L-31N canal, the S-356 pump station




                                               17
that will be used for the MWD Project requirements until CERP implementation will be a
500 cfs capacity temporary structure located at the 1992 authorized site.

        (2) Conveyance between Water Conservation Area 3B and Northeast Shark
Slough (Tamiami Trail). The Tamiami Trail, under the 1992 GDM, specifies only raising
the road over a short distance to accommodate the 1992 conveyance feature design flows
described above. It is now anticipated that up to 11 miles of the road would need to be
modified to accommodate increased water flows and levels resulting from implementation of
the MWD Project. Additionally, these modifications must be further augmented to
accommodate the future increases in flow associated with CERP implementation. The
modifications to Tamiami Trail specified in the 1992 GDM (S-334 modifications and raising
the eastern portion of the road profile) will still be required. Only the gate modifications to S-
334 have been completed on this project feature to date. In order to implement modifications
to Tamiami Trail, alternatives are currently being reevaluated in a Supplemental
Environmental Impact Statement, scheduled for completion in 2002.

        (3) 8.5 Square Mile Area: The 1992 GDM components of the 8.5 SMA included the
construction of a seepage collector canal and levees starting on the north side of the area and
extending along the northern and western perimeters of the area adjacent to the boundaries of
ENP. Two pump stations are also specified. A supplement to the original Environmental
Impact Statement was completed in September 2000 and a Record of Decision was signed by
the USACE in December 2000 substantially modifying the original 1992 design. While the
flood mitigation concept remains unaltered, the new federally selected plan includes a
combination of land acquisition/ flowage easements in conjunction with the structural
components needed to attain flood mitigation for the area. The revised plan meets the intent
of the authorizing legislation to both restore more natural hydrologic conditions in NESS
while also providing flood mitigation for the 8.5 SMA. Structure S-357, originally located to
discharge from the seepage collector canal into L-31N, has been relocated in the new
federally selected plan for the 8.5 SMA. Instead of discharging the water into the L-31N
canal according the original 1992 design, the pump station will now discharge water from the
seepage collector canal into the C-111 project to the south of the MWD Project.

Decompartmentalization of WCA 3 – Phase 1

        This project was designed to restore natural landscape patterns, and native flora and
fauna in WCA-3 and Everglades National Park by removing barriers to sheet flow, and by
restoring natural hydroperiods, water depths and flow directions. This region is composed of
ridge and slough habitats. The scope of this project includes all structural elements within
and on the edge of WCA 3A and 3B that are capable of influencing sheet flow and ecological
restoration of the ridge and slough landscapes of the Everglades. This project was included
in the initial authorization for two reasons: 1) to provide immediate opportunities for
enhanced sheet flow within Water Conservation Area 3 and Everglades National park, and 2)




                                               18
to integrate with ongoing modifications that are being made in the plan formulation, detailed
design and construction of the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park
project.

        Modified Water Deliveries addresses restoring the natural hydrologic flows to the
Everglades National Park up to predetermined quantities. The Decompartmentalization
project will provide additional opportunities for sheet flow, connectivity and hydroperiod
restoration for greater quantities of water.

        Phase 1 of the project focuses on restoring sheet flow, water depth, and hydroperiods
to the east side of WCA-3A and WCA-3B. Features include filling in the Miami Canal south
of S-8 to the east coast protective levee; increasing the conveyance capacity of the North
New River Canal between WCAs 2 and 3 to recoup loss conveyance from the Miami Canal;
degrading the L-29 Levee east of the L-67s and filling in the borrow pit in the same location;
and raising and bridging the eastern portion of Tamiami Trail, east of the L-67’s. Phase 2 of
the project will continue the process of restoring sheet flow, hydroperiods and water depths
to WCA-3 and ENP.

       Some of the objectives of the this project include:

•   Restore rainfall driven sheet flow and hydroperiods within WCA 3A and 3B, and
    between WCA 3A and 3B and ENP.
•   Remove unnatural landscape discontinuities such as those caused by roads, levees,
    canals, drainage ditches, and spoil banks which are barriers to sheet flow.
•   Create opportunities for passive management of WCA 3 and ENP.
•   Recommend features, assumptions, constraints and sequencing to be considered in
    Decompartmentalization of WCA 3 Phase 2 and other related CERP projects
•   Promote rainfall driven hydrologic recession rates throughout the ridge and slough
    landscape.
•   Promote recreational opportunities consistent with Everglades restoration.
•   Reduce the artificial pathways for the occurrence and dispersal of exotic plant and animal
    species.
•   Restore, maintain and sustain ridge and slough topography, and patterns of native
    vegetation.
•   Integrate project objectives and features with other related projects (i.e., Modified Water
    Deliveries, Combined Structural and Operational Plan, Water Preserve Area Feasibility
    Study, Rainfall Driven Operations, L-31N Seepage Management and C-111 Projects).
•   Restore and recover populations of migratory birds, particularly species of wading birds,
    and other wildlife species listed as endangered, threatened, or species of special concern
    by the State and Federal governments




                                              19
Little Venice Wastewater Improvement Project

        The Little Venice neighborhood was selected in the Monroe County Sanitary
Wastewater Master Plan as the first phase of wastewater improvements for the Marathon area
because of the large concentration of cesspools and inadequate septic systems, small average
size of lots, high development density, and known water quality problems in the canals in the
area. The Little Venice service area includes approximately 600 equivalent dwelling units
(EDU), mostly residential with a few commercial establishments. Planned wastewater
improvements in this area will consist of replacing all cesspools and septic tanks with a
sewage collection system and an advanced wastewater treatment (AWT) facility meeting all
current State requirements. This project is partially funded by USEPA and will be managed
by the Florida Keys Aqueduct Authority (FKAA). The engineering/design phase of this
project has been completed and all required FDEP permits have been issued. FKAA is
currently working on requesting construction bids for this project. The proposed schedule
calls for completion of construction and connection of all EDU’s to the new system by June
2003. In order to measure water quality improvements that may result from elimination of
cesspools and connection to the AWT facility, the Little Venice neighborhood canals will be
monitored for selected water quality parameters (including nutrients and fecal bacteria)
before and after the wastewater upgrades are implemented. In addition, a benthic community
monitoring program will be conducted in adjacent near-shore waters. These monitoring
programs will be funded by USEPA and the State of Florida (FDCA and SFWMD).

Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master Plan (SWMP)

        The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated that a sanitary
wastewater master plan be prepared to determine acceptable levels of sanitary service and
treatment for all developed and undeveloped areas in Monroe County. The objective of the
SWMP was to develop a plan that would provide an equitable, ecologically sound, and
economical implementation strategy for managing wastewater and improving the water
quality in the Florida Keys. More specifically, the intent of the Comprehensive Plan is:

• To establish more stringent nutrient limits so as not to exceed the maximum nutrient
loads that can be tolerated by the County’s nutrient-sensitive waters and ecosystems without
experiencing short- or long-term adverse impacts.
• To prevent further degradation to groundwater, as well as confined, nearshore, and
offshore waters.
• To ensure improvement of these waters to levels that have been demonstrated to support
healthy, diverse, and productive populations of fish and other marine resources.

        The Governor’s Executive Order 98-309 charges the relevant agencies and entities to
participate and coordinate with Monroe County in carrying out all aspects of the Monroe
County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan, including planning and implementation of an



                                             20
improved wastewater management system (Monroe County Sanitary Wastewater Master
Plan, June 2000).

       Section 109, entitled Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, of Public Law (PL)
106-554, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, authorizes the Secretary of the Army (through the
USACE) to provide technical and financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning,
design and construction of treatment works to improve water quality in the FKNMS. The
next Congressional action necessary is the funding appropriation for the work authorized in
Section 109 of PL 106-554. The USACE and the non-Federal sponsor will utilize the
appropriated funds to further the implementation of the Monroe County SWMP and the
SMMP (see below).

       The federal, state and tribal interagency Project Delivery Team (PDT) for the FB&FK
FS recognize the critical water quality restoration and protection requirements in the FKNMS
and supports the implementation of the Monroe County SWMP. The FB&FK FS may
recommend additional authorizations to ensure successful implementation of the Monroe
County SWMP in order to satisfactorily meet the water quality restoration and protection
requirements in the FKNMS.

Monroe County Stormwater Management Master Plan (SMMP)

       The Monroe County Year 2010 Comprehensive Plan mandated that a Stormwater
Management Master Plan be prepared to assess the adequacy of existing systems, prioritize
stormwater management needs for each island, identify regulations and policy needs, and
develop a plan to finance the construction, operation and maintenance of required facilities.
The geographic area of this project consists of the islands or Keys, which are traversed by
U.S. Highway 1, or are connected via a bridge to one of these islands (Draft Monroe County
Stormwater Management Master Plan).

       Section 109, entitled Florida Keys Water Quality Improvements, of Public Law (PL)
106-554, Departments of Labor, Health and Human Services and Education, and Related
Agencies Appropriations Act of 2001, authorizes the Secretary of the Army (through the
USACE) to provide technical and financial assistance to carry out projects for the planning,
design and construction of treatment works to improve water quality in the FKNMS. The
next Congressional action necessary is the funding appropriation for the work authorized in
Section 109 of PL 106-554. The USACE and the non-Federal sponsor will utilize the
appropriated funds to further the implementation of the Monroe County SWMP and the
SMMP.

       The federal, state and tribal interagency Project Delivery Team (PDT) for the FB&FK
FS recognize the critical water quality restoration and protection requirements in the FKNMS




                                             21
and supports the implementation of the Monroe County SMMP. The FB&FK FS may
recommend additional authorizations to ensure successful implementation of the Monroe
County SMMP in order to satisfactorily meet the water quality restoration and protection
requirements in the FKNMS.

                                        Study Scope
        The FB&FK FS is one of several feasibility studies recommended in CERP. The
purpose of the FB&FK FS is to comprehensively evaluate Florida Bay and the Florida Keys
marine environments, and the actions and land uses upstream, to determine the modifications
that are needed to successfully restore water quality and ecological conditions of the Bay.
The FB&FK FS may also include analyses of alternatives for restoration of the marine
environment surrounding the Florida Keys, if there are positive impacts on Florida Bay. The
end-product of the FB&FK FS will be a Feasibility Report, with the appropriate National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) document that will serve as the basis for obtaining
Congressional authorization of the plan components determined to be feasible and cost-
effective.

        The FB&FK FS will focus on alternative plans that will benefit and successfully
restore water quality and ecological conditions of the Bay and the Florida Keys marine
environments, while protecting fish and wildlife and their associated habitat and sustaining
economic and natural resources. The FB&FK FS will include comprehensive modeling
(hydrodynamic, water quality, upland, groundwater, mangrove, and ecological) to evaluate
alternative plans. The modeling process is described below.

Establish targets for restoration. Establishing restoration targets for the Florida Bay is an
essential component of the Florida Bay and Florida Keys Feasibility Study (FB&FK FS).
These targets will be explicitly defined during the first stage of the Study and will provide the
basis for the selection and definition of performance measures, which are the metrics by
which restoration alternatives will be evaluated. These targets and measures will include
both environmental conditions, such as the magnitude and variability of salinity, and
ecological status, such as the species composition and distribution of seagrass beds in the
Bay. Restoration targets will be selected based on the best available information from
studies of the ecological history of the Bay and Keys region. This information may be
derived from quantitative paleoecological research, such as from studies of the record of the
changing composition of mollusk species within Bay sediment cores and from the anecdotal
history of the Bay’s environmental conditions and ecology. The USGS is currently working
on a methodology that, if successful, will allow derivation of data on the historical seasonal
variations in salinity by using the biochemistry of incremental shell layers. The following
two websites provide paleoecological data, publications on the ecosystem history and other
databases: http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/pmcpaleo.html and
http://geology.er.usgs.gov/eespteam/fla/home.htm. Restoration target selection will also take




                                               22
into account the societal value of ecosystem components, such as targets that may be
associated with recreational or commercial fisheries.

     The process of restoration target and performance measure selection and definition includes
reviews of existing information and evaluation of this information in public workshops. A
comprehensive review of paleoecological and historical literature will first be done. This review
will elucidate how the structure and function of Florida Bay and Keys ecosystems have changed
in response to both human activities and the variability of natural forces. To the extent possible,
specific causes of ecological change will be inferred. Historic changes in the Keys, including
construction of the Flagler railway and the extent to which natural passes between the Keys were
filled, will be described. Following delivery of these written reviews, a peer reviewed, public
workshop will be held to assess the results of the reviews and solicit suggestions for target and
performance measure definition. Based on output from this workshop, draft targets and
measures will be described and then reviewed by the Project Delivery Team (PDT) and
independent peer reviewers and posted for public comment. After consideration of their
comments, final targets and a set of preliminary performance measures will be adopted.

    Develop Restoration Alternatives. A set of alternative strategies and potential actions to
restore Florida Bay will be defined and evaluated. These alternatives will include considerations
of changes in distribution, timing, quantity, and quality of water flowing from the Everglades, as
well as the configuration of Keys’ passes. One alternative that has no changes from existing
CERP plans will be evaluated. This “base” (without project) alternative will assume that the
Restudy’s recommended plan, Alternative D13R, is implemented. If subsequent modifications
of D13R are more likely to be implemented by CERP, these modifications may be used as the
FB&FK FS base (without project) alternative. Specific structural and operational changes of the
watershed, as well as changes in the Keys’ passes, will be considered among possible
alternatives. Each alternative will consider and reflect the climatic variations encountered by the
Florida Bay ecosystem, including storm events, such as winter fronts and tropical disturbances,
and longer term low-high precipitation cycles. A scoping workshop and subsequent workshops
to develop and select alternatives will be held. All workshops will solicit the input of the PDT,
scientific experts, and the public. Following these workshops, a report describing the strategy
and criteria for alternative selection and the details of an initial set of alternatives will be written,
provided for public comment and PDT and independent peer review.

    Develop standard data set for modeling. The success of hydrological, water quality, and
ecological modeling, which is needed for alternative evaluation, will depend upon data
availability and quality. The interagency Florida Bay Science Program has supported the
collection of a large information base that can be used for model development, calibration,
and validation. However, despite recommendations by a peer review panel in 1998
(http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/megrep.html ), an effort is still required to organize and
distribute much of the data from the Program. The evaluation and comparison of past
modeling output has suffered from the absence of a standard data set, with differences in




                                                 23
output being caused partly by differences in data inputs (see
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/sal_mod_stat_rec.html).

    In order to facilitate a timely and accurate modeling effort in support of this Feasibility
Study, a standard data set will be compiled for model calibration and validation. The time,
space, and variable domains of this set will be defined during the first year of the Study, but a
workshop that was held in March 2000 (see
http://www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay/standard_dataset_wkshp.html) provides a basis for the
formation of this data set. Decisions regarding the content of the data set will be made in
consultation with the PDT and modeling teams. We expect that this standard data set will
include hydrologic and water quality data from the Everglades and bathymetric, hydrodynamic,
water quality, and biological data from Florida Bay and the Keys. Management of this data set
will be coordinated with the larger CERP and RECOVER data managers and be consistent with
the CERP Data Management Plan. Distribution of the Florida Bay standard data set may be
implemented by posting it on a web site for this Study. An assessment of data quality, based on
the QA/QC procedures and documentation of the original data sources, should be provided with
the data set.

Model Development and Application

        Table 1 (found later in this PMP under the Study Cost Estimate section) provides the
cost estimate for the FB&FK FS. As indicated in Table 1, half the study effort and cost,
$2,950,000, is associated with the development and application of interrelated modeling tools
(wetland, hydrodynamic, water quality, habitat and upper trophic level modeling) necessary
in the study process. Development and application of the necessary state-of-the-art models
requires considerable sophistication, coordination, communication, and quality field data for
the development of model boundary forcing function conditions and for model validation.
The first few requirements for each of the associated modeling components (define
performance measures, assess and define the detail desired and required, establish an expert
model evaluation group, public and interagency scoping workshops, initiate model selection,
assess/develop data standards and boundary forcing conditions, determine data gaps, and
identify new pertinent field data requirements) dictate the remaining modeling and study
needs, levels of effort, and associated costs. Since many unknowns presently exist with most
of the associated components of this study, the developed cost estimates for modeling are
based on the best available assessment of a likely, although not fully defined, level of effort.
Also, the study schedule may need to be refined once the first few tasks have been completed
and a clearer understanding of the necessary required levels of detail have been better defined
and identified. Accordingly, modeling efforts will be prioritized upon initiation of the
FB&FK FS, with the hydrodynamic and water quality models as the highest priority.




                                              24
Wetland modeling: estimate freshwater and nutrient inflow for bay model boundary
conditions

       The FB&FK FS needs to assess how structural and operational modification of the water
management system may affect Florida Bay. This assessment requires an accurate estimation of
how such modifications alter the quantity, timing, distribution and quality of water that flows
through the Everglades and into Florida Bay. Ideally, hydrologic and water quality models of
the southern Everglades that could be used for such estimation will be available. However,
physics-based models that predict flow and material (such as nutrient) loads to the entire
landward boundary of the Study area are not currently available.

        Tools and information that are currently available include a five-year data set on
freshwater flow through five major creeks (West Highway Creek, Trout Creek, Mud Creek,
Taylor River, and McCormick Creek) that flow into Northeastern Florida Bay. Additional
information in northeastern Florida Bay is available at 4 creeks (East Highway, Oregon, and
Stillwater Creek in Long Sound, and East Creek in Little Madeira Bay) and Joe Bay that were
not originally instrumented as USGS gaging stations, but have estimated flow and/or salinity
data using the instrumented sites as comparisons. A shorter term data set is also available for
some southwest coast creeks and rivers. An estimate of total creek flow can be based on these
data. However, measurements of non-point flow such as seepage and over-bank flow is not
available and may require hydrologic modeling. Such a hydrologic model used to estimate total
flow is being validated for the northeast and north-central coast of Florida Bay (USGS Southern
Inland and Coastal System (SICS) model; website), but not for the remaining land boundary.
Larger scale models for the entire boundary (the SFWMD’s Hydrologic Systems Engine (HSE)
model and Everglades Landscape Model (ELM), and USGS’s Tides and Inflows in the
Mangroves of the Everglades (TIME) model) are under development.

        Information on nutrient inputs, transport, transformations, and output to Florida Bay is
available for Taylor Slough and the C-111 basin, and to a lesser extent for Shark River Slough.
Measurement of nutrient inputs to Everglades National Park from canals have been made since
the early 1980s and measurements of outputs to the Bay in some mangrove creeks have been
made by SFWMD and USGS since the mid 1990s. Information on transport and transformations
within the freshwater wetlands and mangrove wetlands is less readily available, but is currently
being researched as part of Florida International University's (FIU’s) Florida Coastal Long Term
Ecosystem Research project (http://fcelter.fiu.edu/), which is funded by the National Science
Foundation. The question of how different restoration alternatives will affect nutrient
(particularly nitrogen) inputs to the Bay is likely to be important for the FB&FK FS to address.

        Without fine scale (in time and space, matching Florida Bay models) total freshwater and
nutrient inflow data, a calibration of any Florida Bay hydrodynamic and water quality models
will be inaccurate. We propose a combination of numerical approaches for providing these
boundary inputs to the Bay. The first approach will be associated with the development of the




                                             25
“standard data set” (see above). With the compilation of all available freshwater flow, water
levels, salinity, nutrient concentrations, and other environmental data, a statistical approach will
be used to estimate total creek flow and nutrient inputs to the Bay. The second approach will use
hydrologic mass balance calculations of canal inflow, creek outflow, groundwater, rainfall, and
evaporation to estimate total freshwater flow to the coastline. The third approach will develop
and use dynamic hydrologic models to estimate freshwater flow to the coast. Initially, we
propose to evaluate wetland hydrologic and water quality models that exist or are in development
and apply such models to estimate flows and nutrient inputs to northeast Florida Bay for the
period of the standard data set. Further development of such models will be needed if structural
modifications within the southern Everglades are to be part of alternative restoration scenarios to
be tested within this Study. Because the success of such models depends upon extensive data
sets needed for calibration and validation (especially flow data at the creeks and topographic data
for the estimation of overland flow), and these data sets are only partially available, this study
cannot rely solely on this approach. Decisions regarding the performance criteria and identity of
any hydrologic, water quality, and ecological models used in the Study will be made based on
the definition of Study performance measures (see above) by the PDT and peer review, including
external expert peer review. Funding to support model development, application, and peer
review will be part of this Study.

   Some specific steps required for the development and use of any dynamic southern
Everglades surface water / groundwater model that is developed for this study are as follows:

1. Identify Performance Measures & Requirements - Performance measures will be
developed to identify critical outputs of the wetland model, such as period-of-record, time
step of output, density and water quality capability. These performance measures will
largely be dictated by the inputs needed of Florida Bay models and the specific features of
restoration alternatives.

2. Establish and Maintain Model Evaluation Group (MEG) – A standing independent
engineering review (peer review) committee that is composed of recognized expert modelers
who are independent of the Study, CERP, the USACE, and the SFWMD, and south Florida
interests will be formed and funded by this Study. The MEG will review the progress of the
Study’s modeling at least twice per year and advise Study managers, the PDT, and
contractors regarding the technical aspects of the modeling process, including model
development, data needs, and quantifying the accuracy and precision of the Study’s models.
RECOVER's Model Development and Refinement Team (MDRT) will also provide review
and assistance to the PDT and the MEG.

3. Model Selection - Review existing models and, based on performance measures, select
the most suitable models. Models will be evaluated based on spatial definition, run times,
platform availability and linkage to the South Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM),
and Bay circulation and water quality models. Several available model codes will be




                                              26
evaluated for use. A peer review Model Evaluation Group (see above), as well as the MDRT
and PDT, will evaluate model capabilities and the model deemed most appropriate to satisfy
identified performance measures will be selected for continued development. The selection
process will be fully documented.

4. Develop Standard Data Set – see above.

5. Develop Boundary Conditions - Model boundary conditions are the forcing functions to
be applied in the wetland modeling effort. Development of appropriate model boundary
conditions is a critical work product. Experience has shown that the quality of boundary data
significantly impacts the model’s ability to reproduce existing conditions and evaluate
alternatives. For southern Everglades wetland models, inflows from the SFWMM, rainfall,
and seawater, and output via evapotranspiration are essential. Other essential information is
ground topography, creek outflows, resistance to flow by vegetation, and water quality for
these boundary waters (including atmospheric deposition).

6. Model Calibration/Validation – Southern Everglades wetland models will be calibrated
and validated using wetland and creek hydrologic and water quality data, including stages,
flow rates, salinities, and nutrient concentrations.

7. Scenario Development and Assessment - The southern Everglades wetland models will be
run to evaluate how selected restoration influence the input of water and materials to the
Florida Bay boundary.

8. Reporting - The methodology, its validation, and scenario assessment will be documented.

Mangrove Model development (including groundwater)

        The southern Everglades wetland models may need to include a separate groundwater
hydrologic model and a water quality / ecological model for the mangrove dominated salinity
transition zone. The following steps will be followed if these models are developed.

1. Identify Performance Measures and Requirements – Necessary capabilities of
groundwater and mangrove transition model will be determined by the definition of
associated performance measures. These performance measures standards will be based on
known process and response characteristics that have been identified in the literature as
conditions of importance.

2. Establish and Maintain Model Evaluation Group (MEG) – A standing independent
engineering review (peer review) committee that is composed of recognized expert modelers
who are independent of the Study, CERP, the USACE, and the SFWMD, and south Florida
interests will be formed and funded by this Study. The MEG will review the progress of the




                                             27
Study’s modeling at least twice per year and advise Study managers, the PDT, and
contractors regarding the technical aspects of the modeling process, including model
development, data needs, and quantifying the accuracy and precision of the Study’s models.
RECOVER's Model Development and Refinement Team (MDRT) will also provide review
and assistance to the PDT and the MEG.

3. Select/Apply Methodology or Model – The methodology or model to be developed will be
based upon the identified performance measures. For the salinity transition zone, existing
models will be evaluated.

4. Develop Boundary Conditions - Appropriate boundary conditions required for the selected
models will be developed.

5. Model Calibration/Validation/Sensitivity – Validation and/or sensitivity of the selected
methodology and its application to the salinity transition zone and groundwater systems will
be undertaken.

6. Scenario Development - The required scenarios for the transition zone assessments will be
developed.

7. Scenario Assessments - Salinity transition zone and groundwater models will be run to
determine the influence of alternative restoration scenarios on the delivery of freshwater and
materials to the Florida Bay boundary.

8. Reporting - The methodology, its validation, and scenario assessment will be documented.

Hydrodynamic modeling: develop, validate, and review hydrodynamic model of Florida
Bay and the Keys

        The FB&FK FS must have tools that enable an evaluation of the effects of changing
freshwater flow and the physical configuration of the Keys’ passes on the advective pathways,
residence time, salinity fields, and sediment transport of the Bay. To meet this requirement, a
physics-based hydrodynamic model is needed. Past attempts to develop such a model for Florida
Bay have shown that the shallow depth and complex structure of banks and islands in the Bay
present a formidable challenge. As with the wetland modeling effort of this Study (see above),
success will largely depend upon data availability, as well as the ability to provide appropriate
boundary condition information. Given this known difficulty, this Study will not only develop
and utilize a computerized hydrodynamic circulation model, but also utilize a simple and less
data intensive mass balance modeling approach to estimate general salinity and residence time
responses to management alternatives. This simpler model will be used as a screening tool to
help develop restoration alternatives early in the Study.




                                              28
       The essential, desirable characteristics of any hydrodynamic model to be used in this
Study have been previously described in the Circulation Modeling Terms of Reference (FL Bay
PMC website: www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay, June 2001). The model should have the ability to: (1)
conserve mass (because of the paramount importance of salinity prediction); (2) be scalable
(amenable to adjusting the model grid such that it can conform to the complex structure of the
bay and adjust to the different scales associated with different issues); (3) run at least decade-
long simulations (because of the long residence time and potentially slow biological response) in
a reasonable time (e.g. two to three days); (4) be linked to the water quality model used in the
Study, with retention of mass conservation; and (5) be portable (capable of running on standard
computer platforms that are available to the environmental management agencies that will be
responsible for the future restoration and adaptive assessment of the Bay). The boundaries of the
model may deviate from the Study boundaries, although approximate coherence is expected.

    Tasks involved in hydrodynamic model development and application include specification of
performance measures and requirements for the model; establishment of a standing external peer
review panel (Model Evaluation Group); selection of a model or models; compilation of the
standard data set; identification of new data needs and boundary condition needs; model
calibration, validation, and documentation; and scenario assessments. Some key needs and
aspects of these tasks are summarized here.

1. Identify Performance Measures & Requirements – Necessary capabilities of the
circulation model will be determined by the required physical, chemical, and biological
performance measures. Performance measure standards will be developed and selected
based on their ability to indicate critical ecological responses and discern among various
alternatives.

2. Model Evaluation Group (MEG) – A standing independent engineering review (peer
review) committee that is composed of recognized expert modelers who are independent of
the Study, CERP, the USACE, and the SFWMD, and south Florida interests will be formed
and funded by this Study. The MEG will review the progress of the Study’s modeling at
least twice per year and advise Study managers, the PDT, and contractors regarding the
technical aspects of the modeling process, including model development, data needs, and
quantifying the accuracy and precision of the Study’s models. RECOVER's Model
Development and Refinement Team (MDRT) will also provide review and assistance to the
PDT and the MEG.




                                              29
3. Model Selection – After specifying required performance measures, models will be
evaluated based on spatial definition and flexibility, run times, platform requirements, ability
to conserve mass and accurately predict salinity, linkage to sediment transport and water
quality models, cost, availability, and other criteria that may influence the successful
simulation of a shallow estuary and that may be recommended by the PDT or MEG early in
the Study. The selection process will be fully documented.

4. Develop Standard Data Set – see above.

5. Develop Boundary Conditions - Model boundary conditions are the forcing functions to
be applied in the circulation modeling effort. Development of appropriate model boundary
conditions is a critical work product. Experience has shown that the quality of boundary data
significantly impacts the model’s ability to reproduce existing conditions and evaluate
alternatives. These boundary forcing conditions, which may be derived from empirical data
or from other models (and be part of the standard data set), generally include the following:

• Tidal Elevations – Astronomical forcing functions will be developed for the desired
calibration and validation periods. This data set will also include wind forcing, which
strongly affects field circulation conditions (see subtask C.5.).

• Freshwater Inflows - Freshwater inflows from Everglades National Park and C-111 will
be developed from wetland hydrologic models and verified from available field
measurements (see above).

• Rainfall (Evaporation/Transpiration - ET) - Rainfall and evaporation data will be
developed for the modeling period of record. Spatial variation will be evaluated using radar
and/or other available meteorological models.

• Temperature – Temperature plays an important role in the circulation physics of the area.
Existing data bases will be used to develop the necessary model input conditions for the
period of record.

• Wind/Wave – Literature studies have documented the importance of wind and wave
conditions and their influence in overall Bay circulation and mixing. Available data will be
incorporated into the standard data set.

• Gulf/Loop/Gulf Stream Currents - A review will be made to determine the importance
and relevance of the Gulf of Mexico Loop Current, the Florida Straits Current, and the Gulf
Stream on circulation patterns in Florida Bay and the Florida Keys. If determined to be
important, they will be incorporated into the model using a broader scale circulation model.




                                               30
• Bathymetry – Accurate bathymetric reproduction is one of the key underlying
components required for accurate circulation reproduction for Florida Bay and the Florida
Keys. The most recent available bathymetric information (conventional, LIDAR, and/or
photographic) will be obtained and used in the development of the circulation model. New
measurements may be required for some shallow areas of the Bay, including banks and near
shore zones.

• Sediment/Bottom Classification – Sediment bottom classification is required in setting up
the model for accurate determination of roughness, friction dissipation, and resuspension.
USGS has developed an extensive sediment bottom map for Florida Bay (Prager and Halley,
1997).

• Sediment Transport, Resuspension, and Deposition – If necessary, sediment transport,
resuspension, and deposition algorithms will be developed and incorporated into the
circulation modeling effort.

6. Model Calibration/Validation – The accuracy of circulation model simulations will be
assessed after calibration using a data set that is independent of the data set used for model
calibration. Isotopic tracers or other tracers of freshwater flow and circulation patterns may
be measured and used as one type of validation.

7. Alternative Assessments – Selected restoration scenarios will be assessed using the
hydrodynamic model. At this time, the number of such alternatives is unknown, but for
budgeting purposes, at least five simple scenario conditions will be assessed.

8. Reporting - A complete circulation modeling report will be prepared to document the
development of the model, its validation, and alternative assessments.

Water quality modeling: develop, validate, and review water quality model of Florida
Bay and the Keys

        A water quality model (or models) is needed to assess the effects of restoration options
on many of the major ecological components of the Bay, including salinity, nutrient and
dissolved oxygen availability, light fields, algal blooms, and seagrass coverage and productivity.
For all of these components, responses to changing freshwater flow and bay circulation, will be
evaluated. Particular attention will be give to two outstanding unknowns. First, the effect of
changing fresh water flow from the Everglades on nitrogen inputs to the Bay and the potential
response of phytoplankton to this nutrient input will be assessed. This is needed because
hydrologic restoration could stimulate algal blooms via nitrogen enrichment and this may be
considered unacceptable. Second, the direct and indirect effects of changing salinity on seagrass
mortality and productivity and community structure will be assessed. Seagrass is included in the
water quality model because it has very strong interactions with water quality and is the most




                                              31
important habitat in the Bay. Accurately predicting the response of the seagrass community to
changing freshwater flow and consequent salinity fields is thus essential. USGS and other
agencies have been investigating the historical distribution of nutrient supplies and looking at the
long-term sequence of events that lead up to seagrass die-offs in relation to salinity, nutrients,
turbidity and light extinction, disease, etc. in the recent past (1987- present die-off) and in
historical die-offs that may have occurred prior to significant human influence in the region.

         As with the other major modeling components of this Study, a multi-tiered approach will
be used, including: the analysis of statistical relations among water quality and habitat
parameters; the simulation of water quality dynamics within a simple mass balance model for the
purpose of screening restoration scenarios; and the development and application of a spatially
explicit and dynamic model. For the latter, dynamic model, compatibility with the
hydrodynamic model is essential. Also, as for other model components of this Study, model
criteria, development and application will be reviewed not only by the PDT and the public, but
also by independent experts (MEG).

        Considerable progress in the development of a dynamic water quality model for Florida
Bay has already been made, including peer reviewed scoping workshops (Florida Bay website:
www.aoml.noaa.gov/flbay, June 2001) and the presentation of a preliminary model. The basic
components of this model will be part of a model used in this Study, including major water
quality parameters (salinity, dissolved oxygen, inorganic carbonate system, inorganic and
organic nutrients, organic carbon, light penetration, phytoplankton, benthic algae, at least two
seagrass types (Thalassia and Halodule, and possibly additional types representing Ruppia and
Syringodium), and sediment diagenesis. Additionally, parameters needed for assessment of
water quality and ecological responses (such as algal growth) in the Keys’ ecosystem will be
included. The water quality model may include sub-models, such as water column, sediment,
seagrass, and reef modules.

        In addition to the parameters noted above, this Study will also assess the effects of
restoration alternatives on inputs, fates and effects of toxic substances, such as pesticides and
mercury. Recent surveys of mercury in fish from eastern Florida Bay report concentrations up to
1.5 ppm in spotted seatrout, which is the criterion for “no consumption” advisories for the
protection of human health (Evans et al. 2001). Furthermore, some evidence suggests that
surface water flows from the mainland may contribute significant quantities of methylmercury to
eastern Florida Bay (Evans et al. 2001). Given the possibility that increasing surface water
deliveries could increase inputs of toxics to the Bay, these compounds must be assessed within
the Study. It is not expected that this will be done within the dynamic water quality model, but
rather be done via a separate modeling approach.

    Tasks involved in the development and application of a water quality model for Florida Bay
are similar to those described for the other major models of the Study. These include:




                                              32
1. Identify Performance Measures & Requirements – Necessary capabilities of water quality
models will be determined by the required chemical and biological performance measures.
Performance measure standards will be developed and selected based on their ecological
importance, their ability to indicate critical ecological responses, and their likely sensitivity
to various management alternatives.

2. Model Evaluation Group (MEG) – A standing independent engineering review (peer
review) committee that is composed of recognized expert modelers who are independent of
the Study, CERP, the USACE, and the SFWMD, and south Florida interests will be formed
and funded by this Study. The MEG will review the progress of the Study’s modeling at
least twice per year and advise Study managers, the PDT, and contractors regarding the
technical aspects of the modeling process, including model development, data needs, and
quantifying the accuracy and precision of the Study’s models. RECOVER's Model
Development and Refinement Team (MDRT) will also provide review and assistance to the
PDT and the MEG.

3. Model Selection – After specifying required performance measures, models will be
evaluated based on their ability to accurately simulate the primary chemical and biological
variables of concern. Criteria for selection will consider spatial definition and flexibility, run
times, platform requirements, ability to conserve mass and accurately predict salinity, linkage
to hydrodynamic and sediment transport models, cost, availability, and other criteria that may
influence the successful simulation of a shallow estuary and that may be recommended by
the PDT or MEG early in the Study. The selection process will be fully documented.

4. Develop Standard Data Set – see above.

5. Develop Boundary Conditions – As for the other major models of this Study (see above),
provision of proper boundary conditions is needed. For a water quality model, this includes
all of the forcing functions of the hydrodynamic model plus many of the dissolved and
particulate material fluxes that are associated with those forcing functions. Accurately
quantifying nutrient loads from external sources is particularly important because a primary
aspect of the model is the simulation on nutrient cycling, sequestration, and transport within
the Bay. Primary forcing functions include the following.

• Everglades’ inputs – Data on material inputs (dissolved and particulate nutrients, toxics,
etc.) associated with freshwater inflows from Everglades National Park and C-111 will be
provided via ongoing empirical measurements and wetland hydrologic and water quality
modeling. Changing inputs as a function of changing freshwater flow and management
alternatives is required.

• Groundwater inputs – This input is not well quantified and information needed for
modeling is not readily available. Because the magnitude of this input could be relatively




                                               33
high, it will be considered within the water quality model. A sensitivity analysis that
assesses the importance of a wide range of values is one possible approach.

• Keys’ inputs – Data on inputs of nutrients and other materials from Keys’ stormwater and
wastewater will be provided from existing estimates of the U.S. EPA (Kruczynski 2000) and
the Florida Keys Carrying Capacity study.

• Atmospheric inputs – This input has not been well quantified, but available data from the
Keys and Everglades that satisfy reasonable QA/QC protocols will be used.

• Oceanic and Gulf inputs – This input will be provided by the hydrodynamic model’s
estimate of advection and existing data on material concentration fields (with necessary
statistical interpolations).

• Light energy inputs – Light energy inputs are not only important as a driver of
evaporation, but also as a driver of photosynthesis. In order to model the extinction of light
within the water column by particulate matter and availability of light for primary producers,
a standard time-series data set of incident solar radiation is required.

6. Model Calibration/Validation – The accuracy of water quality model simulations will be
assessed after calibration using a data set that is independent of the data set used for model
calibration. Both concentration fields (such as nutrient concentrations) and processes that
affect important ecological and water quality characteristics will be simulated, so a broad
range of data sets will be utilized. While most data needed for this exercise already exist and
will initially be compiled in the standard data set, some additional field data collection and
analysis will be required.

7. Alternative Assessments – Selected restoration scenarios will be assessed using a water
quality model. At this time, the number of such alternatives is unknown, but for budgeting
purposes, at least five simple scenario conditions will be assessed.

8. Reporting - A complete modeling report will be prepared to document the development
of the model, its validation, and alternative assessments.

Ecologic modeling

      Ecologic modeling for the FB&FK FS will include habitat and upper tophic level
modeling.




                                              34
1. Habitat Modeling: develop, validate, and review benthic habitat models of Florida Bay
and the Keys

       Three existing projects to develop seagrass models for Florida Bay restoration have been
funded by USGS. These projects will provide a basis for seagrass evaluations during the
FBFKFS and need to be considered and reviewed before the development of a water quality
model proceeds. Two of these seagrass models (one in development at the SFWMD) can
become the basis for a seagrass module within the water quality model (see above). Within this
model, only basic aspects of seagrass ecology, such as primary production, respiration, net
growth, changing biomass and coverage will be simulated. It is expected that the seagrass
module would simulate these properties for Thalassia and Halodule, and possibly Ruppia and
Syringodium.

        Additional efforts may be made to assess the response of the seagrass community, and
the habitat it constitutes, to restoration scenarios. A simple approach, such as statistical
modeling of seagrass relationships to salinity and other water quality parameters could provide a
means for rapidly screening restoration alternatives. A complex approach may assess detailed
physiological, life history, population, or community responses at a landscape level. However,
such a complex approach may not be possible within the timeframe of this Study. Regardless of
the details of the approach, some additional field measurements, manipulations, and analyses
will be required for the accurate simulation of this essential component of the Florida Bay and
Keys ecosystems. As noted above, the response of Florida Bay seagrasses to salinity changes
has not been well documented, and is particularly important for this Study. Likewise, responses
to changing light availability and nutrient conditions will need to be predicted as part of this
Study.

        Other important habitats that must be considered in this Study are nearshore hard bottom
habitats and communities and nearshore patch reefs in the Bay and Keys. These include areas
dominated by sponges and corals. At this time, it is not expected that sponge and coral habitat
will be modeled in great detail, but the viability and growth of this habitat must be carefully
considered and accurately predicted. We anticipate that within the water quality model, an
energetic approach, similar to that for seagrass, will be employed. Critical functions, such as
clogging of sponges by water column algae or shading of coral reefs by algae would be included
in such an approach. Light penetration to the reef and the extinction of light by algae and
suspended or deposited sediment is an important concern regarding reef responses to restoration
alternatives. More detailed, but separate, assessments of these habitats may be needed.

2. Upper trophic level modeling: develop, validate, and review upper trophic level models
for Florida Bay and the Keys

        Considering the response of upper trophic level species, including shrimp, fish, and
bird species is central to providing recommendations for Florida Bay’s restoration. While a




                                             35
central premise of the restoration is that improved water quality (especially salinity) and
habitat will effectively restore the ecosystem and its main component species, special
attention must be provided to some species. These include economically important species
(especially shrimp and fish) and endangered species (especially the American crocodile) and
other protected species (e.g. bottlenose dolphin, West Indian manatee).

        Assessment of species responses will be done using relatively simple models. We do not
expect to develop or utilize complex models that would integrate species dynamics within a
dynamic physical and water quality model. Rather, species will be modeled either separately,
interacting with forced environmental or habitat variables, or interacting with generalized
functional groups (e.g. prey base) in addition to these forced variables. A statistical modeling
approach, such has been used to assess pink shrimp populations (Browder 1985) is a likely
approach. If dynamic population models, such as those developed in the ATLSS program are
available for important Florida Bay species, these may be used in the Study.

   The main steps involved in upper trophic level species assessments in the Study are as
follows:

   A. Identify Performance Measures & Requirements – The first essential step is to identify
species that must be included in this Study. Endangered species assessment is required as
part of the NEPA process, but other species that are of special economic importance (e.g pink
shrimp) or are important ecological indicators (e.g. spotted sea trout) should also be included.
Criteria for selecting species will include the ability to predict how well the species will
respond to restoration and the ability to monitor and evaluate the response. The number of
species considered will need to be minimal; considering the great diversity of Florida Bay
and the Keys, an assessment of many species is not possible within the timeframe of this
study. After these species are selected (with detailed consideration of performance measure
options at a peer reviewed, public workshop), performance measures for each species will be
specified.

   B. Model Evaluation Group (MEG) – As for the other modeling components of this
Study, the MEG will provide independent engineering review (peer review) of upper trophic
level models that will be developed and applied in the Study.

   C. Model Selection – After specifying required performance measures, a modeling
framework for predicting the responses of the selected species to restoration alternatives will
also be specified. It is not expected that the upper trophic level models used in this study will
be spatially explicit. The primary criteria for model selection will be the ability of the
approach to accurately predict population growth as a function of environmental factors and
habitat that are affected by restoration alternatives. The selection process will be fully
documented.




                                               36
  D. Develop Standard Data Set – see above.

   E. Develop Boundary Conditions / Model Calibration and Validation – Essential forcing
functions, such as temperature and salinity, will be provided from empirical data sets or
model output. Likewise, habitat availability and quality will be provided from other models.
The specific calibration and validation procedure employed will depend upon the modeling
approach that is selected. Most data needed for this exercise already exist and have been
organized as part of a NOAA National Marine Fisheries Service project; these data will be
incorporated into a standard data set.

   F. Alternative Assessments / Reporting – Selected restoration scenarios will be assessed
using the upper trophic level models. At this time, the effort and cost associated with these
assessments are expected to be less than that of the hydrologic, hydrodynamic, and water
quality models. A complete report will be prepared to document the development and
application of upper trophic level assessments.

Problems and Opportunities

        The deterioration of the marine ecosystem of Florida Bay and the Florida Keys has
stimulated significant concerns regarding the present and future environmental health of
these ecosystems and has led to the recommendation and authorization of the FB&FK FS.
The FB&FK FS will address a series of issues, identified by the PDT, regarding upland
hydrologic inputs, physical oceanography, water quality and algal blooms, and benthic
habitat, especially sea grasses and hard bottom communities. A summary of these issues
specific to the FB&FK FS is presented below.

Upland Hydrologic Inputs/Physical Oceanography

        Because of their relationship, these two issue categories were combined.
Development of a physics-based model versus using historical data and monitoring is an
issue that must be resolved by the PDT. Acquisition and statistical analysis of data provides
insight into the system; however, it does not provide a means of extrapolating beyond the
known record or analyzing new variables, such as the impact of injection wells or impact of
new or added boundary flows provided by CERP. Physics-based modeling requires
considerable calibration and verification before the results are considered defendable.

        A critical part of building a physics-based model is quantifying fluxes at the
boundaries of the model. Freshwater inflows to the study area are sometimes very difficult to
estimate. Aerial distribution of rainfall is best defined by multiple stations or by radar.
Evaporation is affected by several factors including sunlight, wind and temperature, therefore
a local pan is needed, rather than extrapolation from a remote site. Estimating overland and
estuarine creeks flows from recursive models has not proven to be reliable, therefore, field




                                              37
measurements are used to verify estimates of boundary flows. Also, acquisition of detailed
topography is critical to estimating overland flow.

        A primary use of a model would be to analyze water management scenarios and their
impact on the FB/FK ecosystem. The distribution of freshwater inflows surrounding
Everglades National Park has considerable impact on FB/FK. Bay salinities and nutrient
loadings are impacted by the quantity and quality of coastal transport and the distribution of
flows from Shark River Slough, Taylor Slough and lower C-111. While water management
is crucial to the health of the upland portions of ENP, Florida Bay is the ultimate receiver of
these managed freshwater flows.

        What effect do hurricanes and frontal storms have on Florida Bay? Changes in
circulation within the bay are primarily influenced by high energy events such as frontal
storms and hurricanes. Lunar tides drive the circulation within the bay for most of the year;
however, episodic wind driven currents have a much greater impact on the bay because of
their ability to move large volumes of water and resuspend sediment which can reshape the
bottom contours and mud banks. The PDT will determine if modeling these large storm
events is needed to understand the changing ecosystem of the bay.

        Circulation impediments by man-made barriers to flow, such as causeways, have
been a continuing question for bay scientists. Since the construction of the Florida East
Coast railroad there have been many hypotheses on the railroads effects on bay circulation
and salinities. Research by the University of Miami and the U.S. Geological Survey have
accurately identified pre-railroad conditions. A physics-based circulation and salinity model
would be the most efficient method to test these circulation hypotheses.

        As mentioned above, accurate boundary conditions data sets are needed. Fluxes
provided by upland groundwater and surface water models are not reliable estimates of flow.
The most reliable flow estimates are field-measured data; however, these data are only
available at selected sites and for short periods of time. Continued field data collection of
coastal estuaries in concerted effort with model flow calibration is needed to provide the data
sets for model scenario testing. The Gulf of Mexico loop current and the Gulf Stream also
have significant influences along the boundary of the FB&FK FS. A larger global circulation
model may be needed to simulate these important currents and supplemented with field data
for calibration and water quality loadings.

        Modeling issues abound. The model platform and run time are critical issues. The
model should be portable (usable on various agency and university computer systems);
should be capable of 3D in areas that experience layered flow characteristics; exhibit run
times such that multi-year runs can be made for studies of seagrass species succession;
should be physics-based incorporating measured bathymetry; capable of modeling the
reflectivity and wetting and drying of mangrove areas; scalable to the differing requirements




                                              38
of the scientists using the output; and follow the guidelines of the Florida Bay/Biscayne Bay
Physical Science Team Terms of Reference Report.

Water Quality and Algal Blooms

        There are two main questions regarding water quality and algal blooms: How does
changing freshwater flow affect nutrient loading and how does this affect algal blooms? This
involves both direct effects via nutrient supply and indirect effects via changing salinity and
subsequent biotic structure and activity. There are two perspectives to consider concerning
water quality, regulatory and ecological. In this case, both perspectives largely merge
because regulatory framework emphasizes that nutrient concentrations or loads that cause
“imbalance” (similar to long-term perturbation) should be regulated. For Florida Bay, the
occurrence of algal blooms in the bay is considered the most important indicator of such
imbalance and restoration actions should not cause increased blooms. Likewise, algal
blooms on the reef are undesirable. Increased transport and deposition of suspended solids
on the reef is also undesirable.

        The water quality conditions and the effects on the biota shall be included in a water
quality model. The model shall be linked to the hydrodynamic model such that iterations
may be performed as alternatives are developed.

Benthic Habitat (Sea Grasses and Hard Bottom Communities)

      See Habitat modeling: develop, validate, and review benthic habitat models of Florida
Bay and the Keys (above).

Study Objectives

        The identification of problems and opportunities by the PDT during the development
of the PMP resulted in a set of study or planning objectives, which will serve as the basis for
formulating alternative plans in the FB&FK FS:

• Determine the quantity, timing, quality and distribution of freshwater that should flow to
Florida Bay and provide recommendations for any modifications of water deliveries that will
result from current CERP plans for Everglades wetlands.
• Determine the nutrient sources and loads to the study area, evaluate their impacts to reef
and Bay ecosystems, and recommend restoration targets and implementation plans.
• Establish water quality and ecological performance measures.
• Evaluate the effects of restoring historical connectivity between Florida Bay and the
Atlantic Ocean.
• Evaluate management alternatives in a holistic manner employing, where necessary,
hydrodynamic, water quality and ecological models.



                                              39
Alternative Measures

        An alternative recommended in the FB&FK FS can be considered as a
complementary, separable element to the overall CERP. The FB&FK FS will evaluate both
structural and non-structural alternatives. The list of alternatives provided herein is not all
inclusive of all types of structural and non-structural features that may be considered.

Structural Alternatives

       Structural alternatives to be evaluated could include alterations to Flamingo Road, or
additional projects to re-connect historic tidal connections that were eliminated during the
construction of Flagler’s railroad in the early 1900’s.

Non-Structural Alternatives

        Non-structural alternatives will evaluate the quantity, timing, quality and distribution
of freshwater that should flow to Florida Bay. The FB&FK FS may provide
recommendations for modifications of water deliveries to Florida Bay; however, the type of
operational change to the water management facilities upstream of the study area will not be
specified. An operational modification to the water management facilities upstream of the
study area is more appropriately the responsibility of the RECOVER team (Restoration,
Coordination, and Verification), which was organized to examine all projects and feasibility
study recommendations in a systematic manner to ensure the success of CERP. RECOVER
ensures that a system-wide perspective is maintained as each project is planned and
implemented.

Planning Process

       The end-product of the FB&FK FS will be a Feasibility Report with the appropriate
NEPA document that will serve as the basis for obtaining Congressional authorization of the
plan components (alternatives) determined to be feasible and cost-effective. Because the
document must receive Congressional approval, it is imperative that the process described in the
Principles and Guidelines (P&G) for Water and Related Land Resources and outlined below is
employed.

         The USACE planning process consists of six steps defined in the Principles and
Guidelines (P&G) for Water and Related Land Resources. The process identifies and responds
to problems and opportunities associated with the study goal and objectives and specific federal,
state, and local concerns, and culminates in the selection of a recommended plan. This process
involves a systematic approach to making determinations at each step so that the interested
public and decision makers are fully aware of the basic assumptions employed, the data and



                                               40
information analyzed, the areas of risk and uncertainty, the reasons and rationales used and the
significant implications of each alternative plan.

Step 1 – Identify Problems and Opportunities

        Initial study efforts will involve problem and opportunity identification and the
development of planning objectives and constraints. This scoping effort will refine the
problem identification process performed during development of the PMP and elaborate on
problems specific to the study area. As part of this scoping effort, public concerns are
identified, technical analyses are conducted to investigate the public and scientific concerns,
and the planning objectives and constraints are developed. Using the planning objectives and
constraints as a guide, plan components or groups of components will be developed to solve
the problems that have been identified.

Step 2 – Inventory and Forecast Conditions

         This step includes developing an inventory and forecast of resources and conditions
(e.g., physical, demographic, economic, and social) within the study area relevant to the
identified problems and opportunities. This information will be used to identify the existing and
future “without-project” conditions to which alternative plans will be compared and evaluated in
terms of the extent to which they meet the planning objectives. Also included in this effort are
the identification of data needs, the collection of data, and the development of models to be used
in the subsequent analysis of plan alternatives.

        For evaluation purposes, the future “without project” condition to be assumed for this
study is expected to include the authorized CERP components and critical projects,
recommendations identified in several water supply plans conducted by the SFWMD, and
projects planned for implementation by local governments. The CERP components and critical
projects will be incorporated in the “without project” condition based on detail of design at the
time that the “without project’ condition is defined.

Step 3 – Formulate Alternative Plans

        Alternative plans shall be formulated to identify specific ways to achieve planning
objectives, within constraints, for the purpose of solving the problems and realizing the
opportunities identified in Step 1. The alternative plans identified for the study area during the
scoping phase are conceptual in nature in that they lack detail and specific form. Plan
formulation is a dynamic process with various steps that can be iterated one or more times. The
resultant alternative plans will become more refined through additional development and
through subsequent iterations.




                                                41
Step 4 - Evaluate Alternative Plans

        Four accounts are established in the P&G to facilitate the evaluation of alternative plans.
Contributions to National Economic Development (NED) are increases in the net economic
value of the national output of goods or services (e.g., flood damage reduction, water supply,
recreation), expressed in monetary units. The Environmental Quality (EQ) account displays
non-monetary effects on ecological, cultural, and aesthetic resources including the positive and
adverse effects of ecosystem restoration plans. Both NED and EQ are required to be calculated.
The other two accounts, which are discretionary, are the regional economic development (RED)
account and the other social effects (OSE) account. The RED account displays changes in the
distribution of regional economic activity (e.g., income and employment). The OSE account
contains qualitative outputs such as urban and community impacts; life, health and safety
factors; displacement; energy requirements and energy conservation; and long-term
productivity. The evaluation process includes assigning social values to the plans using
technical information gathered for comparison of plan alternatives. Additional categories of
effects determined to be institutionally, publicly or technically recognized as important to
people will be considered and taken into account in the decision-making process.

        USACE planning policy requires that the plan which maximizes NED benefits shall be
selected as the recommended plan unless the Secretary of the Army grants an exception when
there are overriding reasons for selecting another plan. The USACE ecosystem restoration
program is unique in the fact that it offers an objective that is not NED-oriented. For ecosystem
restoration projects, a plan that reasonably maximizes ecosystem restoration benefits compared
to costs shall be selected. An ecosystem restoration project must be justified on the basis of its
contribution to restoring the structure and function of a degraded ecosystem when considering
the costs of the project.

        For projects which produce both economic and restoration benefits, the plan that
maximizes the sum of net NED and National Ecosystem Restoration (NER) benefits and offers
the best balance between the two Federal objectives should be selected. This is known as the
Combined NED/NER Plan. The FB&FK FS will likely result in a project that produces both
NED and NER benefits. This will require a comprehensive effort to identify and evaluate
potential NED benefits. One key element in the evaluation of multiple purpose projects is the
potential need for tradeoffs between the two outputs. In some cases, more of one type of output
can only be obtained by accepting less of another type of output. In these cases, tradeoffs
between NED outputs and NER outputs are permissible, and should be made as long as the
value of what is gained exceeds its implementation cost plus the value of what is foregone.

        The evaluation of effects is a comparison of the "with-project" and "without-project"
condition for each alternative. First, an assessment of each plan alternative will be made to
quantify plan effects. An appraisal process will then be utilized to assign significance and value
to the effects measured in the assessment phase. This evaluation of plan alternatives will




                                                42
incorporate four general tasks. The first task is to forecast the most likely "with-project"
condition expected under each alternative plan. The second task is to compare each "with-
project" condition to the "without-project" condition and document the differences. The third
task is to characterize the beneficial and adverse effects by magnitude, location, timing, and
duration. The fourth task is to identify the plans that will be further considered, based on a
comparison of the adverse and beneficial effects and the evaluation criteria.

         As specified in the P&G, the criteria to be used in the appraisal process include a plan's
completeness, effectiveness, efficiency and acceptability. Completeness is the extent to which a
given plan provides and accounts for all necessary investments or other actions to ensure
realization of the planned effects. Effectiveness is the extent to which a plan alleviates the
specified problems and achieves the specified opportunities. Efficiency is the extent to which a
plan is the most cost-effective means of alleviating the problems and realizing the opportunities.
Acceptability is the workability and viability of the plan with respect to acceptance by State and
local entities and the public and compatibility with existing laws, regulations, and public
policies. Each alternative plan will be evaluated against these criteria to measure its relative
success in meeting the criteria.

        Through qualitative analysis and public workshops, the plans will be screened to
identify the most viable components for detailed study. Results of the qualitative screening
effort will be presented in a public workshop format. This process will ensure that the plans to
be evaluated are consistent with local interests and perspectives with regard to wetlands and
wildlife conservation and restoration, economic development, comprehensive land planning,
maintenance of agricultural and urban water supplies, and flood control. This effort will be
extremely important to the process of developing the components and plan alternatives to be
evaluated in detail.

        Modeling will be used for detailed design and environmental output evaluation
purposes. Hydrodynamic, water quality, upland, groundwater, mangrove and ecological models
will be required to refine plan formulation and evaluate proposed project outputs. Cost
effectiveness and incremental cost analysis will be used to compare different outputs resulting
from the various levels of expenditures.

        During the comparison of plan alternatives, the differences among the plans will be
examined, weighed and traded-off. The basis for the trade-offs and weights for the various plan
effects will be determined through a combination of professional judgement by the interagency,
interdisciplinary study team and the views of the study partners, stakeholders and the public.
Public input will be obtained throughout the course of the study through an extensive public
involvement process which includes opportunities for public workshops, community meetings,
media opportunities, publications and other public outreach activities. In addition, the study
sponsor will utilize a resource team to further promote public involvement and participation.




                                                43
         The evaluation of plans will yield information for use in the decision process as well as
the iterative plan formulation process. Plans will be evaluated according to their costs,
environmental benefits, social effects, effects on significant resources (such as endangered
species), ability to meet planning objectives and other findings. During plan evaluation, the
results will be analyzed to determine which types of actions provide the most benefits as well as
to identify which actions will accomplish compliance with statutory requirements. A plan-
effects matrix will be developed to illustrate the relative effects of plan alternatives in meeting
the stated planning objectives for the decision-makers. The decision matrix will be useful to
planners, members of the public, and decision-makers alike. As discussed above, many
activities (including workshops, meetings, etc.) will involve identifying items, which will be
addressed on the decision matrix. This effort, which will require the use of incremental/cost
effectiveness analysis procedures, will ultimately identify the plan, which provides the optimum
level of benefits to meet the study objectives and will result in identification of the
recommended plan.

Step 5 - Compare Alternative Plans

        Plans shall be compared against each other, with emphasis on the outputs and effects
that will have the most influence in the decision-making process. These include monetary and
non-monetary benefits and costs. This will involve the application of incremental/cost
effectiveness analysis procedures. The output of the comparison step shall be a ranking of
plans.

Step 6 – Select a Plan

        The culmination of the planning process is the selection of the recommended plan or the
decision to take no action. One alternative plan will be selected for recommendation from
among all those that have been considered. It is likely that the recommended plan will be
comprised of features from multiple alternatives that were evaluated. The criteria for selecting
the recommended plan differ, depending on the type of plan and whether project outputs are
NED, NER, or a combination of both. For projects that produce both NED and NER benefits,
the plan shall attempt to maximize the sum of net NED and NER benefits and offer the best
balance between the two Federal objectives.

Detailed Engineering Design and Report Preparation

        This phase of the FB&FK FS will also include detailed engineering design of the
recommended plan components determined to be feasible and cost-effective at a level of detail
sufficient to obtain Congressional authorization for construction.

       The results of the FB&FK FS will be documented in a Feasibility Report with the
appropriate NEPA document. The Feasibility Report will identify a recommended plan and a




                                                44
process for its implementation. The Feasibility Report will include an evaluation of Florida Bay
and its connections to the Everglades, the Gulf of Mexico, and the Florida Keys marine
ecosystem to determine the modifications that are needed to successfully restore water quality
and ecological conditions of the Bay, while maintaining or improving these conditions in the
Keys’ marine ecosystem. The detailed plan will address identified problems and opportunities,
including the health of native ecosystems, water flows, water quality, flood protection and
natural biodiversity of plant and animal communities. The level of detail for plan components
determined to be feasible and cost-effective, will be sufficient to proceed with detailed design
work upon completion of the FB&FK FS. The appropriate NEPA documentation will address
specific impacts for all recommended plan components.

        The FB&FK FS will describe the economic, environmental, and social benefits and
costs of the recommended plan and the alternatives evaluated. The report will also describe the
purpose, scope, scale, public acceptability, and Federal and non-Federal participation for the
recommended plan. The report will document that the state, other non-Federal interests and
Federal agencies have been consulted in the development of the recommended plan.

         The draft Feasibility Report, with appropriate NEPA document, will be released for
official public, state and other agency comment. The final Feasibility Report will incorporate
any changes necessary to respond to comments received during the review period. Finally, the
Feasibility Report review process involves the submittal, assessment, and processing of the
report to Congress. The scope of work for the FB&FK FS is presented in Appendix A.

State Review Process

        In April 1999, the Florida Legislature passed the Restudy Bill (Senate Bill 1672),
which was later codified in Sections 373.1501 and 373.026 of the Florida Statutes.
Legislative intent was to facilitate and support the CERP through a process concurrent with
Federal government review and Congressional authorization. The Restudy Bill authorizes
the SFWMD to: (1) be local sponsor on components included in the CERP; (2) continue
monitoring, researching, and pre-construction, engineering and design for components
included in the CERP; and (3) construct pilot projects that will assist in determining the
feasibility of technologies included in the CERP. Section 373.026(8)(b) of the Florida
Statutes directs the Florida Department of Environmental Protection (FDEP) to collaborate
with the SFWMD in the Restudy and to approve each component with or without
amendments prior to submission of such components to Congress for authorization. This is
the process that will be followed for the FB&FK FS. Specifically, prior to submittal to
Congress, the FDEP will review the draft Feasibility Report for compliance with Senate Bill
1672.




                                              45
Level of Detail

        The feasibility study will be conducted to ensure the timely and economical completion
of a quality Feasibility Report that is expected to recommend an implementable solution for
restoring the water quality and ecological conditions of Florida Bay, while maintaining or
improving these conditions in the Florida Keys’ marine environment. The Feasibility Report
will be a complete decision-making document that will:

1) present study results and findings;

2) indicate compliance with applicable statutes, executive orders and policies;

3) provide a sound and documented basis for decision makers at all levels to judge the
recommended solutions;

4) provide complete NEPA documentation; and

5) provide detailed engineering design and other plan components determined to be feasible
and cost effective at a level of detail sufficient to obtain Congressional authorization for
implementation.

               DECISION/STUDY MANAGEMENT APPROACH
        The complexity, scope and widespread agency and public interest in the sustainability of
south Florida requires an approach that will provide all interests, including the USACE higher
authority and the SFWMD’s Governing Board, with opportunities to provide oversight and
input at the local, regional and national levels. Since the FB&FK FS is an integral part of the
Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan (CERP), the planning, study management and
decision-making process for this feasibility study will conform to the approach being used for
other elements of the CERP.

Study Team

        Accomplishment of the FB&FK FS will be primarily the responsibility of the USACE,
Jacksonville District, and the non-Federal cost-sharing partner, the SFWMD. The study team
will consist of an interdisciplinary/interagency professional team drawn from the technical
disciplines required to accomplish the study. A Project Delivery Team (PDT) has been formed
to assist with development of the products necessary to deliver the FB&FK FS (e.g. this
Project Management Plan (PMP); the Feasibility Report, including all Feasibility Study
components; plans and specifications; etc.). The PDT will be interdisciplinary in
composition. The SFWMD and USACE have issued a joint invitation to federal, state, local
and tribal governments to participate in the PDT and development of the FB&FK FS. In



                                               46
general, agency participation on the PDT will be the financial responsibility of the
participating agencies. An exception to this is the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service’s (USFWS)
preparation of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report (FWCAR), which will be
funded by the FB&FK FS. The PDT will contribute additional expertise toward the
development and implementation of the FB&FK FS, facilitate the flow of information among
agencies, reduce redundant efforts among agencies, and help achieve concurrence and
ownership by the key public agency stakeholders throughout development of the FB&FK FS.
Should issues arise within the PDT that are not resolved by the team, the project managers
will elevate the issues to the CERP Design Coordination Team.

       Involvement of specific individuals on the USACE and SFWMD core working group
and the interagency PDT may change during the course of the FB&FK FS. At this time, the
following individuals have participated in development of the PMP through attending PDT
meetings and providing input and review of this PMP.

       USACE and SFWMD core working group members for the FB&FK FS are:

Individual                   Organization           Responsibility

Cheryl Ulrich                USACE, DR-S           Project Manager
Deborah Peterson             USACE, PD-PN          Planning Technical Leader
Diana Gerland                USACE, CO-CS          Construction Services
Griselle Gonazalez           USACE, CT-C           Contracting
Tambour Eller                USACE, DR-P           Public Outreach Coordinator
Mike Choate                  USACE, DR-R           Hydraulic Investigation
Anthony Dipiero              USACE, EN-C           Cost Engineering
Bob Henderson                USACE, EN-DL          Engineering Design Branch
Candida Koenig               USACE, EN-GS          Geotechnical Studies
Brian Files                  USACE, EN-HH          Engineer Hydraulic Data & Design
Mitch Granat                 USACE, EN- HI         Hydraulic Investigation
Stephanie Jenkins            USACE, EN-HW          Water Management & Meteorology
John Pax                     USACE, OC             Counsel
Bill Hunt                    USACE, PD-D           Socio-Economic
Steve Traxler                USACE, PD-E           Planning Division, Environmental
Hansler Bealyer              USACE, RE-A           Real Estate Acquisition
Dave Rudnick                 SFWMD                 Project Management
Nenad Iricanin               SFWMD                 Environmental Coordination
Chris Madden                 SFWMD                 Environmental Coordination
Stephen Kelly                SFWMD                 Environmental Coordination
Chelsea Donovan              SFWMD                 Environmental Coordination
Tomma Barnes                 SFWMD                 Fort Myers Office
Zaki Moustafa                SFWMD                 Hydrologic Systems Modeling




                                            47
Jayantha Obeysekera       SFWMD               Hydrologic Systems Modeling
Ken Tarboton              SFWMD               Hydrologic Systems Modeling
Rhonda Haag               SFWMD               Public Outreach Coordinator
Darren Rumbold            SFWMD               West Palm Beach Office
Steve Davis               SFWMD               West Palm Beach Office
Melody Hunt               SFWMD               West Palm Beach Office

      Interagency PDT members are:

Federal

Richard Curry             Biscayne Bay National Park
Tom Armentano             ENP
Robert Brock              ENP
Tom Schmidt               ENP
Dave Sikkema              ENP
DeWitt Smith              ENP
Brian Keller              NOAA/FKNMS
John Lamkin               NOAA/National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS)
Peter Ortner              NOAA
Bill Kruczynski           USEPA
Dave Ferrell              USFWS
Clinton Hittle            USGS
Maria Irizary             USGS
Christopher Reich         USGS
Pam Telis                 USGS
Lynn Wingard              USGS
Mike Robblee              USGS/Biological Resources Division (BRD)

State and Local

Bill Baker                City of Homestead (Consultant)
Curt Ivy                  City of Homestead
Tom MacVicar              City of Homestead (Consultant)
Beth Berg                 FDCA
Rebecca Jetton            FDCA
Randy Grau                FDEP
Gus Rios                  FDEP
Gordon Romeis             FDEP
Steve Wolfe               FDEP
Herb Zebuth               FDEP
Barbara Culhane           Florida Department of Transportation (FDOT)




                                        48
Jeff Marcus, Ph.D              FDOT (Consultant)
Rob McMullen                   FDOT (Consultant)
Christine Pritchard            FDOT (Consultant)
John Hunt                      FFWCC/Florida Marine Research Institute (FMRI)
Mary Ann Poole                 FFWCC
Jolynn Cates                   FKAA
Charles Baldwin                Islamorada, Village of Islands
Greg Tindle                    Islamorada, Village of Islands
Steve Blair                    Miami-Dade County DERM
Susan Markley                  Miami-Dade County DERM
George Garrett                 Monroe County
Nora Williams                  Monroe County

CERP Design Coordination Team (DCT)

       The CERP DCT, comprised of USACE, SFWMD and FDEP staff will meet regularly
throughout the period of design for the CERP to provide for consistent and effective
communication, coordination, and issue resolution on projects included in the Design
Agreement for CERP.

        For the FB&BK FS, the DCT will review budget and schedule. On a monthly basis,
project managers (PM’s) will provide the DCT with an overview of the technical and funding
status of the FB&FK FS, as well as a summary of any technical, schedule, or budget issues,
and actions being taken to resolve these issues. Slippage of major milestones and significant
changes in the FB&FK FS budget will be elevated to the USACE, Jacksonville District,
Project Review Board and the SFWMD’s Corporate Review Group. The responsibility for
coordinating any approved changes in scope, schedule, or budget lies completely with the
PM’s.

Coordination and Public Involvement

         The interests of the public in this and other water resource projects in south Florida
require that the Study must include a process that involves all stakeholders. The FB&FK FS
will utilize several existing and established stakeholder groups and committees to expand
opportunities for local and regional interests to provide guidance and input into the process.
Coordination with other groups will also occur on an as needed basis, or when requested by the
group.

        In addition to the local and regional interests, the FB&FK FS progress and decisions will
be coordinated with local, state Tribal and other Federal interests, and the general public. This
will be accomplished through coordination with the Interagency South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Task Force and associated Working Groups and Sub-groups; the Governor's




                                               49
Commission for the Everglades; as well as coordination with the general public and other
interested parties.

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force

         In an effort to ensure the coordination of Everglades restoration efforts at the Federal
level, the U.S. Interior Secretary created the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force in
1993, through an interagency agreement. Establishment of the Task Force at the Cabinet level
led to the formation of a more local, Federal manager-level South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Working Group to help assist the Task Force in technical issues and actual
implementation of restoration efforts. Subsequently, the Task Force and Working Group were
expanded to include Tribal and state members and were formally established by Section 528 of
the Water Resources Development Act of 1996.

        In accordance with the provisions of the Water Resources Development Act of 1996, one
of the duties of the Task Force includes consulting with, and providing recommendations to, the
Secretary of the Army during the development of CERP. As part of its charter, the Working
Group was charged with generally supporting and assisting the Task Force in undertaking its
duties, especially the development of the CERP.

        The FB&FK FS progress and decisions will be coordinated with local, state, Tribal and
other Federal interests as well as all other interested parties through the Working Group.
Appropriate sub-groups of the Working Group may be utilized throughout the study process to
review and comment on certain products produced by the study team.

Governor's Commission for the Everglades

        On June 24, 1999, Governor Jeb Bush created the Governor’s Commission for the
Everglades through Executive Order 99-144, as amended. The Commission’s charge is to serve
as a forum for improving decision-making and public participation in Everglades restoration and
south Florida economic and community sustainability, evaluate and make recommendations on
the funding and implementation of the CERP, consider the needs of rural and low income
communities as Everglades restoration progresses, and recommend actions to better integrate
land, water and transportation planning for the south Florida region. The Commission will be
periodically briefed on the status of the FB&FK FS, as a means to further this charge. This
Commission consists of business, agriculture, government, public interest, and environmental
organization representatives.

General Public

       Involving the general public is a critical component of the study effort. Public
involvement will require extensive coordination with the public, minority and low-income




                                               50
communities, elected officials, local political jurisdictions, special interests, and other agencies
to obtain their input for the study. Three goals for public involvement have been identified:

        (1) gather input from the diverse groups outside of the study team to assist in problem
definition and identification of opportunities and potential solutions;

        (2) develop relationships critical to the success of the study and the implementation of
the recommendations of the study; and

        (3) promote realistic expectations about the FB&FK FS. This is complicated by a lack
of awareness about the USACE study process and the requirements for the study to meet
Federal planning guidelines, such as, including the public in the process, formulating alternative
plans, assessing impacts, and estimating costs.

                            STUDY COST AND SCHEDULE
         This feasibility study is scheduled to be complete in five years. The feasibility study
starts with the execution of the Feasibility Cost Sharing Agreement (FCSA) and concludes
with the issuance of the USACE, Division Engineer’s Public Notice. The public notice will
announce the completion of the Feasibility Report and provide for a 30-day comment period
on the final report. Following issuance of the Division Engineer's Public Notice, the report
will undergo a policy review at the Washington level before it is transmitted to Congress.

Study Cost Accounting

        All study tasks, including in-kind services provided by the SFWMD, will be organized
in a "Code of Accounts" format as required by USACE ER 1105-2-100. The use of the
standardized code of accounts is required for accounting and administrative purposes. Cost
Code 22 is the section of the code of accounts dedicated to feasibility studies. This cost code
has been broken down into a series of sub-accounts for project activities to be accomplished
during the feasibility study phase. In general, the sub-accounts relate to activities performed by
a specific technical or administrative work element for each account code.

Local Sponsorship

        The South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) has agreed to cost share in
this study with the USACE and will provide cash and/or in-kind services as described in this
document. The in-kind services will be performed in accordance with the schedules and
narrative descriptions included in this document (Table 1 and Appendices C and D).
Acceptance of the in-kind service products will be the responsibility of the USACE,
Jacksonville District. Upon completion of the FB&FK FS, the USACE will review the report of
audit done on the SFWMD records for all project costs to be applied as credits. The SFWMD



                                                 51
may likewise review the audit of USACE records to ascertain the completeness and validity of
expenditures.

Study Cost Estimate

        The total estimated cost of this study is $5,890,000 in 2001 price levels (Table 1). This
estimate is the "baseline" estimate, and does not account for future price escalation. However,
price escalation may occur during the feasibility study. A fully funded estimate, reflecting
anticipated price escalation based on standardized future escalation factors from the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB), also has been developed to identify projected study costs.
The fully funded estimate is $6,299,900. Both the baseline cost estimate and the fully funded
estimate are summarized in Appendix C.

Study Schedule

         The study schedule and related milestones are developed to provide study managers,
project managers, and the Executive Committee a means of assessing study progress. The
schedule was developed by entering a multitude of individual, yet interconnected activities,
information about the activities, and logical relationships between the activities into a project
management software package. This information was then processed to create the scheduled
start and finish dates for the activities. Appendix D contains a study schedule summarizing
activities for the study. Table 2 displays major milestones and the associated scheduled
completion date.

Scope, Schedule and Cost Changes

         Throughout the study process, the schedule of individual tasks developed for the PMP
will likely require adjustments to ensure the overall project stays on schedule and within budget.
While the project will be managed, insofar as possible, to comply with the schedule developed
for the PMP and within the currently estimated cost, it is inevitable that changes will be
necessary. To accommodate any required additional level of effort or detail in any one
element, either a corresponding reduced level of effort or detail would be required in another
element, or the study cost and schedule would have to be increased.




                                                 52
                                         TABLE 1
                                   STUDY COST ESTIMATE
                                                                         SAJ                  SFWMD
COST                  DESCRIPTION                      TOTAL COST IN HOUSE               IN HOUSE
                                                                                AE                    AE
CODE
 22A   Public Involvement                                  250,000    20,000 170,000       60,000
 22B   Institutional Studies                                10,000    10,000
 22C   Social Studies                                       10,000    10,000
 22D   Cultural Resources Studies                           10,000    10,000
 22E   Environmental Studies                               330,000   270,000    30,000     30,000
 22F   Fish and Wildlife Studies                           100,000    20,000    80,000
 22G   Economic Studies                                    147,000   147,000
 22H   Real Estate Analysis                                100,000    90,000               10,000
 22J   Hydrology/Hydraulics Studies                      2,950,000   300,000    50,000    600,000 2,000,000
 22K   Geotechnical Studies                                295,000   145,000 130,000       20,000
 22L   HTRW Assessments                                     45,000    10,000    35,000
 22M   Monitoring/Post Planning Considerations              75,000    75,000         0
 22N   Surveys and Mapping                                 280,000    40,000 240,000
 22P   Design/Project Cost Estimates                       300,000    20,000 280,000
 22Q   Planning Technical Management                       220,000   200,000               20,000
 22R   Plan Formulation and Evaluation                     218,000   168,000         0     50,000
 22S   Report Preparation                                  320,000   180,000 100,000       40,000
 22T   Programs & Project Management                       200,000   100,000         0    100,000
 22Y   Washington Level Review                              30,000    15,000               15,000
                                     TOTALS-BASELINE     5,890,000 1,830,000 1,115,000    945,000 2,000,000




                                              53
                               TABLE 2
              MAJOR MILESTONES AND KEY DECISION POINTS

                                                            SCHEDULED
          ACTIVITY                                          COMPLETION
                                                            DATE
          Problem Identification/Plan Formulation Phase
          Initiate Feasibility Study                        March 2002
          NEPA Scoping Public Workshop (Workshop #1)        April 2002
          Problem Identification Complete                   May 2002
          Performance Measures Workshop (Workshop #2)       July 2002
          Evaluation Model Development/Validation (1)       July 2003
          Alternative Plans Evaluation Phase
          Feasibility Scoping Meeting(2)                    October 2002
          Alternative Plans Evaluation Complete             February 2004
          Alternative Formulation Workshop (Workshop        February 2004
          #3)
          Alternatives Formulation Briefing(2)              April 2004
          Engineering Design and Report Preparation Phase
          Draft Report Complete                             August 2004
          Release of Draft Report (Workshop #4)             November 2004
          Study Complete (Division Engineer's Notice)       October 2005

(1)
    Evaluation of alternatives will require the timely completion of model development
/validation/calibration. Therefore, the completion of the FB&FK FS on schedule (August
2005) is highly dependent upon meeting this milestone.
(2)
    FSM and AFB will be preceded by an Independent Technical Review / Project Delivery
Team meeting.

Project Management Plan Revisions

       The scope of work for this feasibility study, which is outlined in Appendix A, was
developed in collaboration between the USACE and the SFWMD. Due to the complexity of



                                             54
the study, changes to this PMP may become necessary as the study progresses. Flexibility is
needed to adapt the study to changing conditions or priorities. Therefore, this PMP is
anticipated to be a "living document" which will be revised as necessary to reflect
modifications to the scope of work that the USACE and the SFWMD determine are
necessary. Changes to the PMP may include modifications to tasks, study strategy, or
schedules.

Cost Change Authority

       Any cost modification that increases a study work item by less than 25% of the total
study cost may be approved by the USACE PM in collaboration with the SFWMD PM. Any
cost modification that increases a study work item by 25% of the total study cost must be
approved by the Design Coordination Team specified in the FCSA. Any increase in the total
study cost will require an amendment to the FCSA.

Schedule Change Authority

        The USACE project manager in collaboration with the SFWMD project manager is
authorized to revise project schedules that do not impact the major milestones outlined above.
Changes that extend major milestone activities require approval of the USACE Jacksonville
District Project Review Board and the SFWMD Corporate Review Group. Any changes which
would extend the completion dates of the feasibility phase beyond the current approved estimate
must be submitted via a Schedule and Cost Change Request, and will also require approval of
the SFWMD Governing Board.

                                  QUALITY CONTROL
         Before a USACE report is approved, it must undergo a technical review and a policy
compliance review. A technical review will be conducted to ensure the proper selection and
application of clearly established criteria, regulations, laws, codes, principles and professional
procedures to ensure a quality product. This review will confirm the utilization of clearly
justified and valid assumptions that are in accordance with Federal and State policies. The
policy compliance review will address the development and application of decision factors and
assumptions used to determine the extent and nature of Federal interest in project
implementation, project cost sharing and cooperation requirements, and related issues. The
policy compliance portion of the review process will ensure that there is uniform application of
clearly established policy nationwide and will address policy issues that must be resolved in the
absence of clearly established criteria, regulations, laws, codes, principles and procedures.

       Beginning October 1, 1995, the USACE procedure for technical review was shifted
from the USACE Division level to the District level. Under the new procedures, the
Jacksonville District has prepared a quality control plan (QCP) which describes the procedures



                                                55
that will be employed to insure compliance with all technical and policy requirements and
describes the review process to be implemented by the District. Tasks and costs for
implementing the technical review in accordance with the QCP have been included in Appendix
A, Section 22Q of this PMP.

                      CONTRACTING AND ACQUISITION

        Contract specific acquisition strategies will be developed for each individual contract
to be advertised and awarded under the FB&FK FS. The Project Manager will be
responsible for coordinating the Contracting representative on the Study Team, the procuring
Agency office responsible for socio-economic programs and the procuring Agency
Contracting Officer to develop the appropriate acquisition strategy as early as possible in the
plan formulation process. The assigned Contracting representative is responsible for
ensuring coordination is maintained with the procuring agency Contracting Officer and/or
Contract Manager and appropriate procuring agency approving officials, as required during
the acquisition strategy formulation process. Procurement statutes, regulations and
procedures applicable to the procuring Agency (USACE or SFMWD) will dictate the
acquisition process. Factors to be considered in determining the specific acquisition
strategies include but are not limited to: technical complexity of the work, environmental
considerations/constraints, and study schedule. Socioeconomic statutes, regulations and
procedures applicable to the respective procuring Agency will be applied to each individual
acquisition. Acquisition strategies will be fully staffed through the Study Team, the Design
Coordination Team and appropriate procuring Agency approving Officials.

        All project elements designated for performance by contract will be processed in
accordance with the procuring agency’s (USACE or SFWMD) standard acquisition policies,
and in accordance with all applicable state and federal laws, regulations and executive orders.
Procurement for USACE feasibility study work is normally handled by issuing a task order
against an existing Indefinite Delivery/Indefinite Quantity Architect/Engineer contract. The
procuring agency will have exclusive authority over contractual actions; however, the
USACE and the SFWMD agree to provide each other with the opportunity to review and
comment on solicitations for all contracts, including relevant draft scopes of work, prior to
issuance of solicitations, once the USACE Procurement Integrity Certificates are executed.
USACE and the SFWMD will offer each other the opportunity to review and comment on
contract modifications, including change orders, prior to issuing the contractor a Notice to
Proceed, once the Procurement Integrity Certificates are executed. If a new contract is to be
solicited and the procuring agency is the USACE, it will be solicited and negotiated in
accordance with the Brooks Architect/Engineer Act. All procurement information will be
managed to maintain the integrity of the procurement process as required by the procuring
agency.

      The USACE and the SFWMD agree to share available information that will help
expand the list of qualified firms for  participation in procurement opportunities.


                                              56
The parties agree to develop and conduct outreach activities designed to keep prospective
contractors and vendors informed of procurement opportunities and to promote to the
maximum extent practicable participation by small, disadvantaged and women-owned
businesses. These activities will be conducted in a manner consistent with applicable state
and Federal laws, regulations, executive orders, and policies.

         TASK ORDER AND DELIVERABLE REVIEW PROCESS
       To ensure that both the USACE and SFWMD are included in the development and
review of scopes of work and the review of products for the FB&FK FS, the following
process will be utilized:

1. Joint Drafting of the Task Order. It is anticipated that both the USACE and the SFWMD
will collaborate on the development of each task order (scope of work) developed for the
FB&FK FS. Development time will vary based on the complexity of the work addressed in
the task order.

2. USACE and SFWMD Review. Both the USACE and the SFWMD will process the draft
task order through an internal review as necessary. This review process will provide a
measure of quality control and serve as a review on content within the task order. Both
agencies are expected to collect comments and/or proposed revisions to the task order. This
step will also include any external review by the PDT or other relevant individuals, groups,
etc., as deemed appropriate by the USACE and SFWMD.

3. Finalize Task Order. All proposed revisions will be reviewed by both the USACE and
the SFWMD and appropriate revisions will be made to the task order.

4. Task Order Work Performed. This step is the actual performance of the work. During
this time it is expected, depending on the complexity of the task order, that meetings between
the USACE, SFWMD, contractor, and other relevant individuals or groups as appropriate,
will be required to answer questions and conduct in-process reviews of work products. Both
the USACE and SFWMD will provide opportunities to each other to attend all such review
meetings. The participation of PDT members will be encouraged when substantive issues or
results are to be considered.

5. Draft Product Review. The draft product will be reviewed by both the USACE and the
SFWMD for consistency and completeness of requirements specified in the task order. This
step will also include any external review by the PDT or other relevant individuals, groups,
etc., as deemed appropriate by the USACE and SFWMD. All comments and proposed
revisions to the draft product (if required) will be document and forwarded to the contractor
for final modifications to the product.

6. Final Product Acceptance. The USACE             and SFWMD will review the revised product



                                              57
to ensure all comments and proposed revisions have been made by the contractor. Once both
agencies are satisfied with revised product, pursuant to task order requirements, the revised
product will be accepted as final.

                    IMPLEMENTATION OF THE FB&FK FS
        The following description of plans for implementing the results of the FB&FK FS
will be refined as agreed by the SFWMD and USACE during the feasibility and pre-
construction, engineering and design (PED) phase.

Pre-Construction Engineering and Design (PED) Phase

         The purpose of the PED phase is to finalize the detailed engineering and design to
ready the project for construction, including the preparation of plans and specifications for
the first significant construction contract, and preparing the construction contract(s) for
advertising. This phase begins with the Division Engineer’s Public Notice, followed by the
execution of a PED Agreement between the USACE and the non-Federal sponsor, SFWMD.
It ends with the completion of the first set of construction plans and specifications for each
project. During this phase, a Detailed Design Report (DDR) documenting the technical work
performed and the draft Project Cooperation Agreement (PCA) will be prepared. SFWMD
will obtain all lands, easements, rights-of-way, and relocations and disposal areas (LERRDs)
necessary for the construction work.

Construction Phase

       The construction phase for each project begins after Congressional authorization,
execution of the PCA for that project, acquisition of all LERRDs, and availability of Federal
and non-Federal sponsor funds to perform the work.

        Construction of functional portions to be built by SFWMD will begin after they
receive a written request from the USACE to perform that work for in-kind credit, have
completed design, reviewed the designs with the USACE, satisfied all permitting
requirements, and obtained all necessary lands. SFWMD will be responsible for preparing
all contract documents associated with those functional portions. They will manage those
portions of the project and will select all contractors and subcontractors, subject to review
and approval of contract solicitations and plans and specifications by the USACE.

       Construction of functional portions to be built by the USACE and will begin after
completion of reviews of contract solicitations and plans and specifications both internally
and with SFWMD, subject to the availability of adequate Federal and non-Federal
construction funds. Real estate interests necessary for construction will be certified;




                                              58
necessary permits will be obtained; and all necessary relocations will be made. The USACE
and SFWMD will perform a value engineering review of the designs.

        Once the lands have been certified and initial construction funding is available, the
USACE will advertise and award the construction contract. The advertisement and award
will be subject to the Federal Acquisition Regulations and open to the competitive bidding
process. Upon contract award and subsequent issuance of Notice to Proceed, the USACE’
South Florida Area Office will supervise and inspect the work of the construction contractor.
The USACE Area Engineer will monitor the construction progress, perform periodic on-site
inspections to ensure that the project is being constructed in accordance with agreed designs
and objectives, and inform PM’s for the USACE and SFWMD. The USACE PM will
coordinate contract changes and funding requirements with the USACE Area Engineer as the
project progresses through the construction phase. All changes in the work shall be made
only through the Area Engineer in charge of the contract. No change instructions of any kind
shall be given directly to the construction contractor in order to prevent financial obligations
for which funds might not have been made available. As construction on each functional unit
nears completion, the USACE PM will advise and schedule a final inspection date with the
SFWMD PM. After final inspection, the completed project works will be transferred to
SFWMD.

Study Closeout Procedures

       The USACE will review the report of audit done on the SFWMD records for all
Study costs to be applied as credits. The SFWMD may likewise review the audit of the
USACE records to ascertain the completeness and validity of expenditures. Based upon final
accounting of all Study costs, the final apportionment of Study costs between the Federal
government and SFWMD will be made in accordance with the stipulations of the Feasibility
Cost Sharing Agreement. Following final adjustments, any excess funds contributed by
SFWMD will be returned or any deficiency adjusted with a cash payment.




                                              59

								
To top