Title: The South Florida Water Management District Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan
CITATION THUMBNAILS PAGE IMAGE ZOOMABLE
Full Citation
STANDARD VIEW MARC VIEW
Permanent Link: http://ufdc.ufl.edu/WL00001553/00001
 Material Information
Title: The South Florida Water Management District Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan
Physical Description: Book
Language: English
Publisher: SFWMD
 Subjects
Spatial Coverage: North America -- United States of America -- Florida
 Notes
Abstract: The South Florida Water Management District Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan By: Terry E. Lewis, Esq. Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
General Note: Box 8, Folder 7 ( Vail Conference, 1997 - 1997 ), Item 31
Funding: Digitized by the Legal Technology Institute in the Levin College of Law at the University of Florida.
 Record Information
Bibliographic ID: WL00001553
Volume ID: VID00001
Source Institution: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Holding Location: Levin College of Law, University of Florida
Rights Management: All rights reserved by the source institution and holding location.

Full Text





Vail, Colorado
January 18 21, 1997


THE SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

LOWER EAST COAST REGIONAL

WATER SUPPLY PLAN


Terry E. Lewis, Esq.
Lewis, Longman & Walker, P.A.
1700 Palm Beach Lakes Boulevard, Suite 1000
West Palm Beach, Florida 33401
Phone (561) 640-0820
Fax (561) 640-8202
E-Mail tlewis@llw-law.com


4.3.S.











SOUTH FLORIDA WATER MANAGEMENT DISTRICT
LOWER EAST COAST WATER SUPPLY PLAN




Table of Contents


Document Number


Revised Draft Preview Document (February 16, 1995)


Fact Sheet--Minimum Flows and Levels
Proposed Technical Criteria (May 8, 1996)


LECRWSP Preliminary Summary of Alternative 5
Modeling Results (November 13, 1996)


Alternative 5 Options Descriptions and
Cost Summaries (December 11, 1996)


4.3.1






**


Revised
Draft
Preview
Document


Lower East Coast Regional
Water Supply Plan






Prepared for the Lower East Coast Regional
Water Supply Plan Advisory Committee
by the Planning Department Staff

South Florida Water Management District
West Palm Beach, Florida
February 16,1995
(Second printing)


4-3.3











RES 16.14-03


REVISED
MEMORANDUM

TO: Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan Advisory
Committee Members
FROM: Dan Cary, Director ( tA
Planning DepartmenV
DATE: Febtruary--March 31,1995
SUBJECT: Corrections to the Revised Draft Preview Document

This is the second printing of the Revised Draft Preview Document. Two changes
have been made to the text to correct or clarify the document. Both changes occur on.
page eII-15 and are clearly designated by strikeout and underline.

hsThe February 16 version was i-the first revision of the Draft Preview Document
for the LE Plan. The major changes in this edition are found in Chapter III, where
the results of Alternative 2 are reported. Some minor changes have been made to
Chapters I and II. Chapter IV is unchanged. An appendix has been added to provide
more detailed descriptions of the options in both Alternative 1 and 2, including an
explanation of changes between the first two alternatives.

I think you will agree that Alternative 2 has brought us some significant
improvements to our future water supply picture, but is far from resolving a number
of complicated issues. Alternative 2 raises a significant new issue about the benefits
of some options verses the cost of the option. There are a significant number of
options remaining to be analyzed. We are not yet on the home stretch, but we are
getting closer. We at the District feel confident that this plan can positively influence
the future water supply picture for the region. We appreciate your continued hard
work and dedication to the planning process as we move toward bringing the plan to
closure later this year.

We will discuss Alternative 2 and these related issues when the committee meets on
February 23 at the Water Management District headquarters in West Palm Beach.
The meeting is from 10 a.m. to 4 pnm. in our auditorium.




DC/JM


4-3.4-





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Table of Contents


GLOSSARY ........ .................................... ................ v

L INTRODUCTION .................................................... I-1
A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN ........................................ I-1
B. OVERVIEW OF THE LEC PLAN ................................. I-1
C. PLANNINGAREA DESCRIPTION ............................... -2
D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION ...................................... I-3
E. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES ........................................ 1-3
F. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING
AND RESTORATION EFFORTS .............................. 1-4
1. C&SF ProjectRestudy. ....................................... I-7
2. Everglades Restoration. ...................................... 1-7
3. Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida. ......... 1-7
G. FUTURE PLANNING REFINEMENTS ........................... -7

II. DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PROCESS AND
BASELINE ANALYSIS ..................................... II-1
A. PLANNING PROCESS ........................................ II-1
1. Primary Computer Models .................................. II-2
2. Environmental Needs ...................................... 11-3
B. CURRENT AND FUTURE BASE LINES ......................... I-3
1. Water Supply Demands .................................... 1-4
2. Base Case Modeling Results. ................................. II-5
3. Goal Statements ........................................... II-6

II. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES .................................. I-1
A. INTRODUCTION ........................................... -1
B. ALTERNATIVE 1 ........................................... .... II-1
1. Description of Alternative 1. ................ ...... ............ II-1
2. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Alternative 1 ................. m-3
3. Overview of Modeling Results for Alternative 1 ............... -3
4. Goal Statements based on Alternative 1 Analysis ............. I-6
C. ALTERNATIVE 2 .......................... .............. -12
1. Description ofAlternative 2. ..... ... .................. m-12
2. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Alternative 2 ............... 11-15
3. Overview of Modeling Results for Alternative 2 .............. I-15
4. Lake Okeechobee Service Area Water Supply
Results for Alternative 2. ................................... -18



i 2/16/95
4-3.5





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


5. Lake Okeechobee Service Area Specific Results for
Alternative 2. ............................................. -1120
6. Lower East Coast Service Areas Regional Results
for Alternative 2. ........................................... -20
7. Lower East Coast Service Area Specific Results. ............. m-25
8. Regional Environmental Results. .......................... -26
9. Area Specific Environmental Results. ........................ 1-30
10. Goal Statements based on Alternative 1 Analysis ........... 1I40
D. FUTURE ALTERNATIVES .......................................


IV. IMPLEMENTATION ............................................ IV-1

APPENDIX A ......................................................... A.1


2/16/95





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


List of Figures


Figure I-1. Lower East Coast Regional Planning Boundaries and
Related Areas. ........................... ............ 1.5

Figure I-1. Location oftrigger wells and intensity ofwater shortages
predicted during the simulation ofthe Current (1990)
BaCase. ................................................. -7
Figure 1I-2. Location of trigger wells and intensity of water shortages
predicted during the simulation ofthe Future (2010)
BaseCase ................ ............................... -9
Figure II-3. Comparison of Generalized Major System Flow Components
(in Mean Annual 1,000 Acre-Feet) for the Current and
Future Base Cass ..................................... II-11
Figure 11-4. Goal Statements for Alternative 1 Resulting from the
Analysis of the Current and Future Base Cases. ............. 1-12

Figure m-1. Generalized Locations of Options in Alternative 1. .......... 11-2
Figure mI-2. Generalized Major System Flow Components (in
Mean Annual 1,000 Acre-Feet) for Alternative 1. .............. I-7
Figure m-3. Location of trigger wells and intensity of water restrictions
predicted during the simulation of Alternative 1. .............. m-9
Figure m-4. Goal Statements for Alternative 2. .......................... -11
Figure I-5. Generalied location of options in Alternative 2 .............1 -13
Figure MI-6. Generalized Major System Flows Components
(in Mean Annual 1,000 Acre-feet) for Alternative 2. .......... m-19
Figure I-7. Location of trigger wells and intensity of water restrictions
predicted during the simulation of Alternative 2. .............. -23
Figure MI-8. Percentage of the Areas within Each Landscape Pattern
Type that Match Natural System Model Mean
Hydroperiods within 80 days. ..........................1. -27
Figure m-9. NSM Hydroperiod Matches within the Remaining
Everglades. .......... ................ ............. 1-29
Figure m-10. Mean Hydroperiod Differences for Current and Future
Base Cases Relative to the Natural System Model. ........... -32
Figure m-11. Mean Hydrperd Differences for Alternative 1 and 2
Relative to the Natural System Model. ................... m-33
Figure III-12. Annual average overland flows from Shark River Slough
toward Florida Bay over the 26 year period of record
simulation. ......................................... III-36
Figure m-13. Mean annual surface water flows discharged into
Biscayne Bay for the 26-year simulation. .................. 1-40
O, Figure m-14. Goal Statementsfor Alternative 3.......................... 1-41


2/16/95






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan



List of Tables



Table n-1. Base Case Assumptions. ........................................ -4
Table 11-2. Overall Water Demands in the Lower East Coast (MGY*) ......... II-5

Table m-1. Options Considered inAlternative 1. ......................... .-3
Table m-2. Preliminary Total Costs for Alternative 1 in 1994 Dollars. ........ m4
Table m-3. Summary ofAlternative 1 Analysis. ........................... -5
Table m-4. Options Analyzed in Alternative 2 ........................... -14
Table m1-5. Preliminary Total Costs for Alternative 2 in 1994 Dollars. ...... m-16
Table m-6. Summary of Alternative 2 Analysis. ........................ 111-17
Table 1-7. Water Shortages Resulting from Supply-Side Management
Cutbacks and Conveyance Limitations for the Lake
Lake Okeechobee Service Area. ......................... -20
Table mI-8. Number of Months of Water Restriction by Phase for
1990 Base Case and Alternatives 1 and 2. .................. 11-22


2/16/95






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

I. INTRODUCTION

A. PURPOSE OF THE PLAN
The South Florida Water Management District is developing the Lower East
Coast Regional Water Supply Plan (LEC Plan) to uide public policy decision making
as it relates to water resources in the Lower East Coast region Broward, ade, Palm
Beach and Monroe counties, as well as portions of Hendry and Collier. In addition,
the Lake Okecobee Service Area, including segments of Martin Glades, and
Okemabiwe counties wl be directly influenced t lan. Public po-cyregarding
water resources is made by the federal and state governments, the SFWMD, loc
governments and special districts. Essential to informed decision making is
knowledge of future water demands, generated by both human users and the natural
system, and of the impacts associated with meeting those demands.
The District will use the LEC Plan to guide future planning for its facilities
and operations, as well as to guide rulemaking for consumptive use, surface water
and environmental resource permitting. The information and recommendations in
the LEC Plan are being developed to be useful to local governments as they make
land use and other decisions that may impact the availability of water in the future.
The plan will also provide information and guidance that will be useful in the
development of threquired Evaluation and Appraisal Reports (EAR) for local
government comprehensive plans.
The LEC Plan is not a plan to restore the Everglades, though it is inextricably
linked to that restoration. The primary purpose of the LC Plan is to evaluate long-
term environmental needs and future urban and agricultural water demands, and
recommend ways to ensure a sufficient supply to meet those needs and demands
and/or ways to reduce those demands.
This prviw document is intended to present the format and types of
information that will be included in the LEC Plan. There are several incomplete
areas in this document which cannot be addressed until additional alternatives are
evaluated and final recommendations developed.

B. OVERVIEW OF THE LEC PLAN
The need for an updated regional water supply plan for the Southeast Florida
area was identified in the late 1980s, when the region experienced severe water
shortage conditions. The resulting water use sections for 4.5 million people,
threats of salt water contamination in public water applies, and extensive wildfires
in the Everlades and other areas were dramatic evidence of the need for water
supply planning.
The current planning effort was initiated in late 1991 and has involved a large
scale public participation process and significant modifications to regional computer
models which can simulate surface and ground water conditions. The computer
models were used to assist District staff and the Lower East Coast Regional Water
Supply Plan Advisory Committee (LEC Advisory Committee) in evaluating various
water apply alternatives for the plan. Working with the LEC Advisory Committee,
the FW completed the analyia of initial modeling simulations to compare 1990
water supply conditions with those which are projected for the year 2010, using


I-1 2/16/95


4.3.7






Draft Preview Dncument Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

population and land use changes as determined from local government
comprehensive plans.
The analysis of these baseline conditions showed significant problems can be
expected throughout the region unless action is taken to improve future water
supplies or reduce demands. Within the urbanized coastal counties, unacceptable
levels of water restrictions were noted, and environmental problems were identified
in the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee.
Having defined the type and severity f potential problems in the future, the
planning process then entered the alternative development and analysis phase.
Based on he results of this phase, the plan will recommend a preferred alternative
with identified funding sources and implementation strategies to provide a blueprint
to address the future water needs of the region.
The final plan will consider and make recommendations related to:
e Identifying environmental needs for the regional system.
SNew operational policies for the regional water management system (C&SF
Constructing new physical facilities such as reservoirs and related structures.
SInorporating unresolved issues into other, long-range planning efforts.
SmCreaing f inmchanis for implementing then
SModi g the SFWMD's regulatory and land acquisition programs.
SIdenti future research and monitoring programs.
e Iden*tifi further studies and detailed deign necessary to implement
elements the plan.
The plan will analyze the ability of each proposed alternative to meet initial
hydrologic restoration targets for the Everglades as estimated by the Natural System
Model and the best available scientific judgment. The final plan will recommend that
the SFWMD reserve from allocatio that water sp required to maintain or
enhance protected natural systems, in accordance with-the SFWMD's Water Supply
Policy Document, accepted by the SFWMD Governing Board in 1991.
This plan has been developed in accordance with Chapter 373 of the Florida
Statutes and Chapter 62-40 of the Florida Administrative Code. The SFWMD's
interpretation of Florida water law is reflected in the Water Supply Policy Document.
Additionally, this plan has been developed in conjunction with and in sport of the
District Water Management Plan and it represents the SFWMD s current
understanding of future 2010 water demands and their impact on the LEC planning
area. Because the planning process is iterative, the plan will be reviewed and
amended at a minimum every fie years. The plan wil be updated to reflect new
information as the water resources and related issues of the Lower East Coast
planning area became better understood through research, monitoring and other
studies.

C. PLANNING AREA DESCRIPTION
The SFWMD is divided into four large planning regions, the Lower East Coast,
the Uppr East Coast, the Lower West Coast and the Kisimmee River Valley. The
Lower at Coast region is the mot populous of the four regions and includes all of
Dade, Broward and Palm Beach counties, and portions of Monre, Collier and Hendry


2/16/95


1-2





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

counties. Lake Okeechobee is considered an important resource for all four planning
regions and is especially important to the Lower East Coast because of the ability to
move water stored in the ke to the Everglades and to the coastal communities
during times of drought. Figure 1-1 shows the Lower East Coast regional planning
boundaries and two important related areas. These two areas include the portions of
the Lake Okeechobee service area outside of the Lower East Coast planning
boundary and also part of the Big Cypress National Preserve. While the areas are
not included in the planning boundaries, they will directly or indirectly affect, or be
affected by, the regional options considered in the plan.

D. PUBLIC PARTICIPATION
The Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan Advisory Committee was
created in January 1992 to allow extensive public participation i the plan
development process. The committee has played key s in eveo the plan's
objectives, and participated in designing solutions for the projected future water
supply problems.
Committee participants included representatives from urban, agricultural,
environmental interest groups, government agencies and others. The primary role of
the LEC Advisory Committee s to represent the public in the development of the
regional water supply plan and to make recommendations to the SFWMD concerning
the content and conclusions of the plan.
The 49-member committee met 15 times between February 1992 and
November 1994, and will continue to meet into 1995 to assist in the design and
review of the alternatives and to review the written documentation of the plan.
In addition, a Scientific Working Group consisting of technical experts from
state and federal agencies and other groups was created to identify initial hydrologic
patterns which could be used as restoration targets for the rmning Everlades.
The group recommended that the restoration area include the Holey Land Wildlife
Management Area, Rotenberger Wildlife Management Area, and Big Cypress
National Preserve and that the hydroperiods as simulated by the NSM, be used as a
restoration target. The information deelo through the Sientific Working Group
has been used by the LEC Advisory ttee and the District's Planning
Department in preparing this regional water supply plan.

E. GOAL AND OBJECTIVES
The overall goal of the SFWMD's Water Supply Policy Document is to
maximize the reasonable-beneficial use of water. This is consistent with the State's
Comprehensive Plan goal for management of water resources (Chapter 187, Florida
Statutes):
"Florida shall assure the availability of an adequate supply of water for all
competing uses deemed reasonable and beneficial andshall maintain the
functions of natural systems and the overall present level of surface and
ground water quality. Florida shall improve and restore the quality of
waters not presently meeting water quality standards."


2/16/95


" ~' CI






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

The State's goal was adopted by the LEC Advisoy Committee as the primary
goal of the water supply plan. I addition, the LEC Advisory Committee developed a
series of objectives to further define the polices listed in the SFWMD's Water Supply
Policy Document. The development of these objectives helped the committee and the
puic understand the intent of the State and District water supply policies. The
objectives were also useful in developing water supply performance measures which
helped the staff and the committee determine how well the various alternatives
satisfied the goal and objectives.
The purp of the LEC Plan is to improve the District's ability to predict the
impacts development and management decisions, to evaluate water resource
management strategies and to implement the chosen strategies to meet the following
objectives:
1. Protect and enhance the environment including federal, state and locally
identified natural resource areas.
2. Protect and conserve the water resources of South Florida to ensure their
availability for future generations.
3. Provide for the equitable, orderly, cost effective and economical
development of water supplies to meet South Florida's environmental,
itu urban and industrial needs.
4. Improve resource management through the integration of regional and
local water supply plans and land use planning.
The LEC Advisory Committee has stated that objective number one will have
the highest priority of all the objectives. There is no implied priority intended by
the numbering of the remaining objectives.

F. RELATIONSHIP TO OTHER PLANNING AND RESTORATION EFFORTS
Florida and District water policy concur on the primacy of water for the
environment. This policy is curly important in the Lower East Coast region,
wherethe restoration other Evglades is of the highest priority. The importance of
maintaining the availability of water for the environment is reflected in the various
planning and restoration projects that are underway.
The three different planning and implementation efforts discussed below
appear to be focused on the same issues. The LEC Plan is being developed in
recognition that these other efforts are addressing issues closely related to water
supply; obviously, the availability of an que suply of high-quality water is a
primary element of an effrt to restore the erlad. An important aspect of this
coordination is to avoid potential conflicts and duplcatio of effort between projects.
Accordingly, the District is coordinating development of the LBC Plan with each of
thee Proets inuding rng information. three major projects related to the
LfC PimS are~discusaedbelowp *-


2/16/95






Draft Preview Document --Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Figure I-1. Lower East Coast Regional Planning Boundaries and Related Areas.


I-5 2/16/95 4 .9





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


1. C&SF Project Restudy.
The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers has started work on the initial phase of a
Comprehensive Review Study ("restudy") of the Central and Southern Florida Project
for Flood Control and Other Purposes (C&SF Project). This restudy is intended to
identify changes to the system that will help to restore the Everglades ecosystem. In
addition, in 1993 the federal government created the Federal South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration Task Force the South Florida Management and Coordination
Working Group and Steering Com ttee as mehanism to facilitate better
coordination a the many federal agencies that deal with environmental issues
in the ar, u the National Park Service, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service,
the U. Golo the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency, the National
Oceanic and A heric Administration, the Department of Agriculture, and the
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. The District has a representative on the Corp's
Restudy team.
2. Everglades Restoration.
The 1994 Florida Legislature adopted the Everglades Forever Act which
directs the Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the SFWMD to
implement a plan for restoring the remaining Everglades ecosystem. The intent of
the Act is to "promote Everglades restoration .and protection....(and) to pursue
comprehensive and innovative solutions to the issues of water quality, water
quantity, hydropeiod, and invasion of exotic species which face the Everglades
ecosystem. The Act establishes an eightelement implementation project
"Everglades Program", which includes construction, regulation, and research efforts.
3. Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida.
In early 1994, Governor Lawton Chiles appointed this commission to develop a
five-year plan to achieve potive change that enhances the ecological, economic and
social systems of south Florida." The commission is comprised of representatives
from the south Florida business community, environmental groups, the agricultural
industry and government. The commissions plan is due in late 1995.

G. FUTURE PLANNING REFINEMENTS
The issues in south Florida are very complex and there are limitations in the
ability to predict future consequences of proposed actions based on the regional
nature of the planning process. To manage these uncertainties, a high degree of
adaptability must be built into the planning nd implmentatin processes. The plan
will focus on short to intermediate term solutions (2010 horizon) that maximize water
resource management flexibility. This means that the District, local governments
and other agencies should expect refinements during the implementation phase in
order to accommodate new or improved information and any resulting revisions to
policies and projects.
The potential need for subregional analyses to define more detailed local
solutions is recognized. The areas where such further refinement is needed will
become evident as the regional planning process continues. The LEC Advisory
Committee will be actively evolved in prioritizing these future planning efforts.


1.7 2/16/95


4-.3.o






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

The Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan is based on a planning
horizon of 20 years (1990 to 2010). The complexity of this first comprehensive
analysis of water supply conditions has resulted in a longer than anticipated plan
development process with completion scheduled for spring of 1995. This potentially
results in a 15 year (1995-2010) capital improvement period for new water supply
infrastructure construction to take place which has caused concerns among various
interests, especially local governments. Some interests have requested a longer
planmni horizon (2050) be considered for the plan in order to provide adequate
natiition for these improementsWile the District understds ese
uai nerna. timo recognizes the land use authority provided by the state to local
Swnt ~ S.To that end, the district has incorporated land use projections in this
tudy as ected by the Local Government Comrhensive Plans to the year 2010.
Any furtherextrapolation of these projections by e District would be inappropriate
at this time. Future updates of thisplan may consider longer planning horizons if the
local governments are able to provide the necessary land use projections.
The 2010 planning horizon also has implications on the types of options that
will be considered in the plan. The Alternative Subcommittee of the LEC Committee,
identified 127 potential options to be analyzed as part of the alternative development
recess. Most of these options were icrporated into the master list for analysis,
however approximately 30 options were not included, primarily due to one of three
reasons. In the first case, the options were of scope and complexity that clearly placed
them outside of the 20 year planning horizon such as removing levees within the
Water Conservation Areas or raising the levee around Lake Okeechobee. In the
second case, the options were of a more local nature which could not be analyzed by
regional modeling. These options included proposals such as utilization of cisterns, or
septic recharge of the surficial aquifer. The third group included options of a
regulatory nature such as a moratorium on discharges to Lae Okeechobee and a
moratorium on new development. While some of these options may ultimately prove
to be valuable for environmental restoration and long term water supply benefits,
they could not be realistically designed, permitted or onstructed, or reliable data is
not available to judge the long term impacts or benefits of mlemen such an
option. Therefore options which will not be considered apart of this plan have been
transmitted to other ongoing studies for evaluation (e.g., SCOE Restudy) or may be
considered in future plan updates when better information becomes available.


2/16/95





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


II. DESCRIPTION OF PLANNING PROCESS AND BASELINE ANALYSIS

A. PLANNING PROCESS
In a typical planning process it is necessary to clearly define the problems, and
then evaluate alternative strategies to determine the most effective and acceptable
means to achieve the desired go and objectives. By eamining the performance of
several alternative, comparisons can be made regarding their relative cost
effectiveness, the degree to which they achieve various objectives, and the differences
in practicality and tmne frames for implementation.
For the purposes of this plan, a water supply alternative is composed of options
which fall into four general categories increased storage, improved operation and
conveyance, increased conservation and demand management, and new or expanded
water sources. To the extent possible, these options were programmed into the South
Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) to aid in the alternative evaluation
procs. Several specific options are available to the Lower East Coast (LEC)
Regional Water Supply Plan Advisory Committee for each general category; for
example, increased storage options could include new surface water reservoirs, or
aquifer storage and recovery.
After the goal and objectives were defined by the LEC Advisory Committee,
two baseline scenarios were analyzed for current (1990) conditions and future (2010)
conditions. The modeling results estimated the severity of problems that might be
expected to occur by 2010 if no steps were taken to improve or enhance water supply
conditions. The analysis of these scenarios indicated that:
Hydropatterns within the Everglades need improvement to achieve
restoration oals.
_Hydrologic cements are needed within Lake Okeechobee's littoral zone.
Water use restrictions are too frequent and severe in the urbanized coastal
counties and in the agricultural areas around Lake Okeechobee.
At the request of the LEC Advisory Committee, problem statements identified
in the analysis were translated into "al statements which set the stage to select
site specific options for Alternative 1. The alternative evaluation pross is iterative
in that the characteristics of an alternative are reflected in the SFWMM, the model
results are evaluated and a new set of problem statements and goal statements are
developed. Additional options are then selected by the LEC Advisory Committee,
creating a new alternative. The model is modified to simulate the new alternative,
model results are evaluated, etc. This process continues until an alternative meets
the goal and objectives of the plan. The success of an alternative is based on a review
of regional performance criteria.
To reflect the importance of cost effectiveness and practicality of
implementation, the options included in the first alternative were less intense (less
complex, les costly and less difficult to implement) than options that may be
required later in the process. As additional alternatives are developed, those options
which performed successfully in previous alternatives will be retained and new, more
intense options will be included. The final selected alternative could include several
options tested under each earlier alternative.


II-1 2/16/95


4.3.11






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

In order to determine whether an alternative meets the goal, objectives and
performance criteria it is compared to the 1990 and 2010 Base Cases. These base
cases provide a point of reference to the present and future conditions from which
improvements can be made to meet future demands.
This chapter provides a brief overview of the computer models selected for this
plan. It also contains brief discussions of the process for estimating environmental
needs. Finally, this chapter describes the assumtions that were made to create 1990
and 2010 base cases, an the results of these baseline simulations.

1. Primary Computer Models
The South.Florida Water Management Model (SFWMM) was used to help
identify water supply problem areas inthe Lower East Coast region and to assist staff
in the evaluation ofproposed water supply plan alternatives. The SFWMM is an
integrated surface water ground water odel that simulates the existing and
proposed water supply conditions in the region based on 26 years of historical rainfall
(19 1990). The model boundaries include Lake Okeechobee, the Everlades
Agricultural Area, the Water Conservation Areas, Ever lades National Park, the
Lower East Coast Developed Arpas, and parts of the Bi National Preserve.
The model simulates the major components of the hydrolic cycle which includes
surface water and ground water levels, surface water flow, ground water flow,
rainfall, and evapotranspiration. The model simulates the operations of the regional
water management system, including pump stations, water control structures and
canals.
The SFWMM was developed in the early 1980s by the SFWMD for the U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and has been extensively modified and improved by the
SFWMD during the past 14 years. The model has been used for a number of
applications to evaluate proposed structural or operational changes to the regional
water management system.
The Natural System Model (NSM) was created primarily to estimate "natural"
flows and stages in rising Everglades areas, such as E lades National Park and
the Water Conservation Area (WCA) system, prior to igifint human influence on
the landscape. The current NSM (Version 4.2) was developed using the same
calibrated algorithms that are used by the SFWMM for the surface and ground water
flows or processes, but the canals and structures of the Central and Southern Florida
Flood Control Project as well as all of the wellftelds wereremoved. Estimates of pre-
subsidence hy and an approximation of historical vegetation cover are used
in lieu of the data sets. Output from the NSM includes surface water and
ground water levels, overland water flow, ground water flow, and
evaporanspration.
The SFWMM and the NSM perform, on a daily basis, a continuous simulation
for 26 years of historic rainfall and evaporation data. The NSM covers the same
geographical area as the SFWMM but includes an additional 1,576 square miles of
areas in Glades, Hendry and Highlands counties that were tributary to the original
Everglades.
There is more uncertainty in the NSM results than there is in the SFWMM
results, primarily because only minimal amounts of dr e hydrologic data are
available. Because of this lack of data, the NSM results cannot directly calibrated


2/16/95


n-2





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

to, or validated against, pre-draiage hydrologic conditions. Nevertheless, the NSM
is considered thebest available tool, when combined with good scientific judgment,
for estimating the hydrologic patterns needed to restore the remaining Everglades.

2. Environmental Needs
The LEC planning area includes some of the most productive wetland habitat
found anywhere in the world, and includes Everglades National Park and Biscayne
National Park. The study area also includes the extensive Everglades marshes that
are found in the Water Conservation Areas, including the Arthur R. Marshall
Loxahatchee Natonal Wildlife Refuge. To helprot these important ecosystems,
this plan identified the environmental needs that are considered the initial
restoration targets for the Everglades. A Scientific Wrking Group in support of the
plan was established in August 1994 to identify initial hydroperiod targets for the
Everglades.
The Scientific Working Group reached consensus that the Natural System
Model Version 4.1 represents a reasonable estimate of hydrologic patterns as
restoration targets for the Holey Land Wildlife Management Area, Rotenberger
Wildlife Management Area, Water Conservation Area 1, Water Conservation Area 2,
Water Conservation Area 3, Everglades National Park and Big Cypress National
Preserve. These hydrologic patterns will be used in the plan development process as
an estimate of the water supply needs for restoration of the Everglades.
In addition, the LEC Plan addresses issues related to estuaries both within and
outside the planning boundaries. Preliminary estimates of minimum flows for the St.
Lucie and Caloosahathee estuaries have been developed and are incorporated into
the planning effort. In the case of the Lake Worth Lagoon, a reduction freshwater
dscarges to the lagoon has been su ted. No minimum or desirable flows have
been established forBiscayne Bay, anfor the purposes of this planning effort, it has
been recommended that significant changes in the strical round water or surface
flows to Biscayne Bay be avoided until adequate research hasbeen done to determine
appropriate flows.
Minimum flows have not been identified for Florida Bay, bit the attempts to
achieve Natural System Model hydropatterns within Everglades National Park
should produce increased volumes and more natural freshwater flows to the bay.
Surface flows toward Florida Bay were determined as part of the evaluation of each
alternative and compared to the Natural System Model results.

B. CURRENT AND FUTURE BASE LINES
To evaluate the impacts of the future water supply needs for the LEC planning
area, two distin base lines or Base Cases were created. First, a Current (1990) Base
Case was d to reflect how t rional system performs using existing
operational poic, existing physical f ies, 989 public water supply demands
and 1988 lad use patterns. A Future (2010) Base Case was generated based on
Projections of water demands, land us. etc. Also, five major environmental
restoration and enhancement projects which are expected to be constructed by 2010
were incorporated into the Future Base Case. The purpose of these baselines was to
establish what problems could be expected by the year 2010 if no actions were taken


II- 2/16/95


4-. Z






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

to manage demands or to augment supplies. The assumptions of both Base Cases are
reflecten Table II1.
Tabtl II1- Base Case Assumntions.


'Based on local government comprehensive plan projection.
"Ecluding operational and faclit modifiatim as required for five environmental enhancement
projects.
*" Includes Kssimme River Restoration, WCA-1 Schedules as propod by USF&WS, Everglades
Construction Prect,USCOE Modified Deliveries to ENP GDM, and the C-111 GRR.

1. Water Supply Demands
As used in this plan, public water supply refers to all potable water supplied by
state-approved utility ems to all types of customers, includingresidentia,
commercial, etc. The other five categories of water use identified in this document
are self-supplied from wells or canals as opposed to receiving treated, potable water
from a public water supply. Industrial refers to water that is used by industrial
operations over 100,000 gllons per day. The golf course category includes only those
operations which obtain water from their own irrigation wells. The landscape
grouping includes water used from wells, canals or other self-supplied sources for
landscape irrigation inmludin residential areas, parks, and cemeteries, excluding
golf courses. Residential selfupplied is used to designate only those households
whose primary source of water for indoor use is private wells. Agriculture includes
water used to irrigate all crops, including nurseries and improved pasture; it also
includes cattle watering.
The population for the region is expected to increase by 1.8 million persons by
the year 2010. Total urban and agricultural demands for the planning area are
projected to increase from 709 billion gallons per year in 1990 to 822 billion gallons
per year in 2010, an increase of 16 percent. The largest overall increases are expected
to occur in public water supply and urban landscape demands. The 1990 public water
_supply demands were ba o pmpa information from public utilities while 2010
demands were based on population projections from local government comprehensive
plans. Changes in industrial, landscape, and residential self-supplied demands
(private wells were based on local government future land use maps while changes
in agricultural and golf course demands were based on an analysis of historical
trends in changes of acreage.



n1-4 2/16/95


1990 Base Case Elements 2010 Base Case Elements
1989 water supply demands Projected 2010 water supply demands*
1988 land use Projected 2010 land use*
Existing SWMD operational policies Existing SFWMD operational policies**
Existing water utility facilities and existing Future water utility facilities at existing
regional system infrastructure wellfleld locations and existing regional
system infrastructure*
Five major environmental enhancement
projects***


II






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


"Base Case" model simulations were developed using the 1990 water demand
level (1990 Base Case) and the 2010 projected demand level (2010 Base Case). Water
demands for both the current and future scenarios are summarized in Table 11-2.

Table 1-2. Overall Water Demands in the Lower East Coast (MGY*)

Estimated Of (MY) of Chan
Category (MOY) Total Total 1990-
190* 1
190 1990 2010 2010 2010
Agriculture 258,800 36.5 183,000 22.3 -29.3
Public Water Supply 278,500 39.3 885,400 46.9 38.4
Industrial 7,600 1.1 7,600 0.9 0.0
Golf 22,100 3.1 33,000 4.0 49.3
Landscape 136,200 19.2 203,400 24.7 49.3
Residential 5,400 0.8 9,700 1.2 79.0
TOTAL 708,600 _822,100_ 16.0
Public water supply is based upon 1989 pumpage data rather than 1990 pumpage data which was
influenced by water restrictions in place because of drought conditions that year. All others are
based upon calculated 1990 deanmds and represent self-supplied users.


2. Base Case Modeling Results.
An analysis of the 1990 and 2010 Base Case simulations showed that
significant water supply problems would result if the population growth projected
under local government comprehensive plans were allowed to occur without
corresponding action to improve water supplies at both the regional and local levels.
In particular, the simulations identified several water supply problem areas,
including unacceptable levels of water restrictions throughout the Lower East Coast
urban communities and in agricultural areas around Lake Okeechobee. The
frequency and severity of water restrictions in the Lower East Coast urban areas was
determined by evaluating the level of the ground water adjacent to the coast. If water
levels along the coast drop to a specified level (the trigger level) then a water
restriction s imposed to prevent the inland migration of seawater. Figures II-1 and
11-2 respectively depict the frequency and severity of water restriction triggers for
the Current (1990) Base Case and the Future (2010) Base Case.
In addition, the analysis found a need to improve the volume, timing and
distribution of water delivered to Everglades National Park (ENP), improve
Everglades hydropatterns within the WCAs and ENP, and improve the hydroperiod
of Lake Okeechobee's western marshes while achieving a reduction in the number of
excessive flood control discharges from the lake to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee
estuaries. Figure 11I- shows a generalized comparison between major flow
components of the regional system for the Current and Future Base Cases.




1-5 2/16/95
4.3.13






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


3. Goal Statements
After analyzing the 1990 and 2010 Base Case results, including draft problem
statements identifiedby both SFWMD staff and LEC Advisory Committee members,
the advisor committee asked the staff to translate the problem statements into "goal
statements" which would reflect desired positive outcomes that the plan should
attempt to achieve. The goal statements (Figure 1-4) have been modified as
neesmay to reflect the recommendations of the Scientific Working Group for
Everglas restoration targets.
The goal statements will be generated after each Alternative analysis and
then used to help select options for the next alternative. The goal statements can
likewise be used in analyzing the performance measures for each alternative to
determine whether the alternative has successfully achieved the preferred outcome.































1-6 2/16/95








Draft Preview Document --Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


71-''


WATER SHORTAGES
S TRIGGERED BY LAKE
1 OKEECHOBEE STAGES
SERVICE PHASE
AREA 1
NPBSA 11
SAl I 10
-SA2 11
.. 'SA3 9 \


)\ L ,TTEQUESTA


5- 1 \ \ I




:L '
i.A i


rr`I ..


-` -t


NUMBER OF TIMES WATER SHORTAGES
ARE TRIGGERED BY LOCAL
GROUND WATER CONDITIONS.


TRIGGER WELL
LOCATIONS P1
NORTHERN PALM BEACH
SERVICE AREA (NPBSA)
Tequesta 4
Jupiter 41
Palm Beach Gardens 0
Northwest 0
Riviera Beach 0
SERVICE AREA 1 (SA1)
Royal Palm Beach 0
Clear Lake 0
West Palm Beach 0
Lake Worth S
Boynton Beach 0
Delray Beach 0
Highland Beach 1
Boca Raton 5
Deerfield Beach 10
SERVICE AREA 2 (SA2)
Pompano Beach 9
N. ft. Lauderdale 7
Ft. Lauderdale 11
Ft. Laud. Airport 10
Davie 0
Pembroke Pines 0
Hollywood 16
SERVICE AREA 3 (SA3)
N. Miami Beach 6
N. Miami 1
Miami 11
Cutler Ridge 11
Everglades 0
Homestead 9
Florida City 3
Taylor Slough 9


PHASES
P2 P3


*I


I'--_, ~


Figure II-1. Location of trigger wells and intensity of water shortages predicted
during the simulation of the Current (1990) Base Case.


2/16/95


[ *


II-7








Draft Preview Document --Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


NUMBER OF TIMES WATER SHORTAGES
ARE TRIGGERED BY LOCAL
GROUND WATER CONDITIONS.
TRIGGER WELL PHASES
LOCATIONS P1 P2 P3 P4
NORTHERN PALM BEACH FT.
SERVICE AREA (NPBSA)
Tequesta 0 0 0 0
Jupiter 33 16 3 0 g |
Palm Beach Gardens39 35 28 19D
Northwest 0 0 0 0
Riviera Beach 0 0 0 0
SERVICE AREA I (SA1) N. I BEACH SEVERITY
Royal Palm Beach 0 0 0 0 OF WATER
Clear Lake 0 0 0 0
West Palm Beach 0 0 0 0 NORTH M SHORTAGES
Lake Worth 34 0 0 0
Boynton Beach 0 0 0 0 Phase 1
Delray Beach 0 0 0 0
Highland Beach 2 0 0 0 MIAMI Phase 2
Boca Raton 40 & 0 0 .
Deerfield 24 9 2 0 Phase 3
SERVICE AREA 2 (SA2) 0 Phase 4
Pompano Beach 14 7 0 0
N. Ft. Lauderdale 14 1 0 0
Ft. Lauderdale 18 4 0 0
Ft. Laud. Airport 14 1 0 0
Davie 0 0 0 0 E
Pembroke Pines 0 0 0 0 *
Hollywood 37 7 1 0
SERVICE AREA 3 (SA3)
N. Miami Beach 8 2 0 0 OMDA CTY
N. Miami 2 0 0 0"
Miami 11 0 0 0
Cutler Ridge 11 1 0 0
Everglades 0 0 0 0
Homestead 3 2 0 0
Florida City 4 3 0 0
Taylor Slough 8 1 0 0
Figure 11-2. Location of trigger wells and intensity of water shortages predicted
during the simulation of the Future (2010) Base Case.


2/16/95 4.3.15


II-9





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


n-11


2/16/95


4-.3.1







Draft Preview Docuent Lower Ea Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Goal Statements for Alternative 1


ST. LUCIE CALOOSAHATCIEE
ESUARIES
* ItRem fad ueomn diau I Ifta
Lab Oblerwes md wcal bImis
so S. Laim ad

* hoide iw&in 0 St.
Lais Mecd Iaua mub


LAKE OKEECHOBEE
jh* Ehos the lake
YbadIakee liawerl ao by
Spoueidina iors oe
leydroperi.
0* Iaose orage in Lake


SERVICE AREA
*Re&dus tfAs eque, durtio
Md vewiQf doter suply
amers.


EVERQADIS NATIONAL PAIR/
FLORIDA BAY
* Impr oeflows aN.f. Pdrds Byo
dloey mat Oat -sm
SIModd mLimu.
* 13pro'a I-opB W-iba Ever&c
NMid on &jam i s~l
NGiml rdt Bif CMnd
I1 M


LBC SERVICE AREA
* Rdam ftquecy, durati
md anvery dwar
fpply ctack.
* Eqoiably diit'ine wa
sPply caIk m OMB
uer ro -.
"* ham tae m a asluh
Mwar fdiscr d to tid&.
* MIinoan amiing avrp
maal Iowa so DisasY
Bnd.
* RaPe swmeage manuI tfkl
toLdakeor.


Figure I4.


Goal tateent for Altrnative 1 Resulting frm the Analysis of the
Current and Future Base Cas.


2/16/95


WATER CONSERVATION AREAS
(WCAN)

NJwl Sy= momear -* Ma
Namm jMumiOUnpB


i


n-II12





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


I. ANALYSIS OF ALTERNATIVES


A. INTRODUCTION
An alternative is a strategy for increased storage, improved operations and
conveyance, increased conservation and demand managements and new or expanded
sources. An alternative consists of a series of options paad together in an
attempt to achieve the oals ofthe plan. These options are the fmtional elements or
pieces of the water pply strategy. Options are selected to address a goal statement
that are developed based on problems that are identified from an analysis of a
computer simulation, starting with the Base Cases and continuing with each
alternative.
This section provides a summary ofthe analysis for each alternative, including
the options selected, a synopsis of te results of the computer simulation of the
alternative, and a listing o te eoal statements that resulted from the analysis. As
noted in the previous cheaters, tis plan's alternative development and analysis is an
iterative process. Part o the analysis of each alternative includes a determination of
which options were successful (i.e. achieved the goal statements) and which options
were partially or totally successful
When confronted with an option that fails to achieve the goal statement, a
decision is made to modify or replace that option in the next alternative. In some
cases, a partiay nsuccessl option is retained, but supplemented with another one
or more related options. It is possible that the implementation of some options will
cause an intensification of problems elsewhere in the system. In such a case, a
decision is made to determine whether the option causing the increased problems
should be modified, removed or whether other options are required to address the
newly created or worsened condition.
The analysis of an alternative involves the use of performance measures and in
most cases requires o a to the Base Case results or other targets which have
been identified hrou the planning process. A large number of performance
measures have been d lod, however only a limited number of these grahic
depictions have been iclued in this volume due to spac considerations. Complete
sets of the results from each computer simulation have been provided to the LEC
Advisory Committee as well as other interested parties who have requested this
information, and will be included in the appendices of the final plan.
B. ALTERNATIVE 1
1. Description ofAlternative 1.
The first alternative focused heavily on rational and minor structural
changes to the existing rional water management system. The options tested in
Alternative 1 are Identified in Figure m-1 and Table -III and described in
Appendix A. This alternative did not achieve every goal statement, but served as a
test to analyze the effects of the less intense option in solving problems identified in
the Base Case analysis.
The first alternative included the initial options to modify operations of the
regional system to attempt to meet Natural System Model hydrologic patterns within


2/16/95


m.1





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


SAlternative 1 Options Schematic


*Mdify oLe Obiedobe e aediue
*widbo ruaraD i Srovpplen
* Rvisd LA= Osbobm Spply
i Sido MeM


Modi Cnrl Opeaio r:
Prop d'li -des o lanm Fm
CoMf savi=A n


Figure ff-1. Generalized Locaions of Options in Alternative 1.


2/16/95


--


m-2


SModiiv c

Modifyvw d alry e
BigCypms
NoianoPnrve we!





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Table I-1. Options Considered in Alternative 1.
Increased Operational/ Conservation/ Additional
Demand
Storage Conveyance ManagementSource
B .to Modify Caa Oprations atr Relocate Sur
S P water supply S Rule for Aquifer wellfields
Bowad levee deliveries to Lower East urban landscape
area Coast Service Areas.____ ________
0Modif water deliveries to Rvise Lake
Evergdes National Park. keechobee supply-
de management
____ plan
Modify water su ply
deliveries to BigCypress
SNational Preserve
Modify water deliveries to
Water Conservation Areas.
Modify Lake Okeechobee
schedule with no structural
Provide mrinmum flows to
Caloosaatcee and St.
_________ Lucde estuaries ____________
Modify deliveries to the
Loahathee Slough via
afterr Catchment Area


the remaining Everglades and providing environmental water deliveries to other
major parts of the natural system. These options appear to have influenced the
magnitude of some of the identified problems and resulted in changes to the goal
statements for the next alternative.

2. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Alternative 1
The preliminary cost estimates for the options evaluated in Alternative 1
totaled approximately $283.8 million and are summarized in Table 1-.2. This cost
estimates include the construction, land acquisition and operation of facility options
which were not elements of the future base condition.

3. Overview of Modeling Results for Alternative 1
Results for Alternative 1 are summarized in Table mI3. Overall, Alternative
1 improved a variety of conditions when compared to the Current (1990) Base Case
and the Future (2010) Base Case. Some conditions, however, became worse.
Operational and minor structural changes to the regional system alone do not appear
adequate to address the 2010 needs of the Lower East Coast region.
Figure mI-2 shows a generalized summary of the regional distribution of flow
volumes for Alternative 1. When compared to the Current and Future Base Cases


2/16/95


m34






Draft Preview Document Lower Eat Coast Regional Water Supply Plan




Table M.2. Preliminary Total Costs for Alternative 1 in 1994 Dollars.
C f Alteative Estimated Annualization Estimated
Cot of Alternative 1 Option Cost Factor Annual Cost

Bakpump to Dade-Broward Levee
Land $180,000,000 .10 $18,000,000
Capital $8,700,000 .10 $370,000
Option Ttal $188,70,000 .10 $18,370,000
Relocate Sufcial WeBfields
land $0 $0
Capital $100,000,000 .10 $10,000,000
Option Ttal $100000,000 .10 $10,000,000
Deliver Water to Loaathee Slough
Land $0 $0
Capital $110,000 .10 $11,000
Option Total $110000 .10 811,000
Modify Canal Operai os, Pump $0 $0
Deliveries to LECSAs
Modify NPDeBiverle $0 $0
Modity Bi Cypres Delveries $0 $0
Modify WCA Deliveries $0 $0
Minimum Flows to Calooa. & St Laele $0 $0
Modify Lake Okeechobee Schedule $0 $0
Modify Shortage Rule. Landsmpe $0 $0
Modify LO. Supply Side Mgt $0 $0
Total Pumping Coa fAr Modifird $8300,000
Rgiaoal Opeaatios in Alternative 1
Total Cost of Alternative s$283810,000 8_0,881,000
Land 8180000,000
Capital 108,810,000


2/16/95


f) i






i













r)












F




i
i
i


II.4




uratt review Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Table i-3. Summary of Alternative 1 Analysis.


Overall Alternative 1
Performance


ii I


Hydrologic improvements were
noted inWCA-2A and Shark
River Slough with increased flow
to Florida Bay. However,
Alternative 1 impacts
hydropatterns and water levels
within the central and southern
portions of WCA-3A. While
WCA-2A hydroatterns closely
match NSM predictions, the
deeper water depths may impact
tree island communities as
compared to Current and Future
Base Cases. Hydropatters did
not significantly change in
WCA-1, but are fairly dose to
NSM.


Issues to be Addressed in
Next Alternative


(1) Regional storage should be
increased to improve
hydropatterns and increase the
volume of water delivered to the
Everglades and Florida Bay,
especially WCA-3A.
(2) Reduce the amount of water
lost as seepage from WCA-3B
and the East Everglades to
improve hydropenrods in ENP
and Florida Bay.
(8) Meet water quality standards
for water delivered to the
Everglades from Lake
Okeechobee and the agricultural
and urban areas.


Alternative 1 reduced long-term (1) Additional regional storage is
detrimental flooding of the needed to reduce water supply
Lake littoral zone. However during demands on the lake.
Okeechobee drought years, the lake (2) Develop a modified schedule
experienced extreme drawdowns that would better protect the
that are 2-3 feet below historical littoral zone.
low levels.
(1)Caloosahathee and St. Lucie (1) Additional reduction of
showed improvemet of max. maximum disha is
and mi. dichargs compared to desirable, cialy in the
Future ( Current) Base Cases. Caloosahathee. Reuc
Estuaries (2)Lake Worth Lagoon showed watershed runoff to estuaries.
improvement byreduction in (2) Additional reductions for
wet/dry season dischage. Lake Worth is desirable.
(3)Biscayne Bay is predicted to (3) Determine the significance of
receive less flow compared to the flow reduction to Biscayne
Future (& Current) Bas Cases. Bay.
Lake Increased severity of Supply Side Reduce severity of Supply-Side
Okeechobee Management when compared to Management cutbacks.
Service Area Current Base Cae.
Reduced water restrictions were Reduce the frequency and
LEC observed in Northern Palm severity of water restrictions in
Service Areas Beach County and LECSA 1 Northern Palm Beach County,
(Palm Beach County) compared LECSAs 1, 2,3.
to Current Base Case. Worsened
in LECSA 2 (Broward) and 3
(Dade) when compared to
Current Base Case.


m-5


2/16/95


4.3.1


Everglades
Florida Bay





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Lake Okeechobee Net
Inflows"


Alternative 1


Public Water
Supply
Withdrawals*
1,030


Ni: NMRt SaSU
Im- nmss -ativ
uhSec wmnr SumiO wKmmn..
or nona oWn ds ony.
Unts mn fason Mni 1.000 omaB4tm

a COlNsms w S mt Fws
spesu in Um mwows =e
dbmn s u ms ni m.
gLECnUa s alow as mM e

LEC trea ame 5.912 een-


S


Saote: SPWMM v2.4


Figure MI-2. Generalized Major System Flow Components (in Mean Annual 1,000
Acre-Feet) for Alternative 1.


2!16/95


F










r


III-6





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

(Figure 11-3), increased volumes leaving Lake Okeechobee are evident, as are
increased flows to the WCAs and ENP.
Palm Beach County showed reductions in the severity of water use restrictions
- a very positive step. However, a slight increase in water use restrictions resulted in
Broward and Dade counties when compared to the Current Base Case. A more severe
water restriction problem became apparent in the Lake Okeechobee Service Area,
which includes the Everglades Agricultural Area.
As shown in Figure 1-1 and Figure M4-, the number times water use
restrictions are triggered by low lake levels increased from approximately 10 per
service area in the Current Base Case to approximately 18 per service area in
Alternative 1.
Significant increases in water deliveries to the Water Conservation Areas and
Everglades National Park were required in attempting to meet Natural System
Model water depth targets at key water management gages, and resulted in major
improvements in flows toward Florida Bay. In some areas of the national park,
Alternative 1 came very close to matching the Natural System Model (NSM) target
for duration of flooding within selected marshes. However, the success in meeting
targets in ENP created an upstream problem in portions of WCA-3A, where the
southern and central region was impacted by the deliveries to ENP.
Reductions were noted in high volume flood control discharges to the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries, although additional reductions were
recommended. Preliminary estimates for minimum flows to both of these estuaries
were met from Lake Okeec obee, but contributed to extreme drawdowns of the lake.
Lake Okeechobee saw a reduction in prolonged, detrimental flooding of the
littoral zone, but increased demands placed on the lake in Alternative 1 could result
in negative impacts as well. Attempting to meet the NSM targets for the WCAs and
ENP had a significant impact on water levels within Lake Okeechobee and WCA-A.
Another major impact to the lake, which contributed to the intensified water use
restrictions nm the Lake Okeechobee Service Area, resulted from the reliance on the
lake to meet minimum flows to both the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries.

4. Goal Statements based on Alternative 1 Analysis
Figure m14 shows the Goal Statements which need to be addressed in
Alternative 2. These are based on the analysis of Alternative 1 which includes
unresolved issuespreviously discussed in the analysis and comparison of the Current
and Future Base Cases, and new issues which may have been created as "side effects"
of options incorporated into the initial alternative.









mI.7 2/16/95


43.20






Draft Preview Document -- Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


NUMBER OF TI
ARE TRIGGER
GROUND WATER
TRIGGER WELL
LOCATIONS
NORTHERN PA1
SERVICE ARE
Tequesta
up iter
Palm Beach
Northwest
Riviera Bea
SERVICE ARE.
Royal Palm
Clear Lake
West Palm
Lake Worth
Boynton Bei
Deiray Bea
Highland B
Boca Raton
Deerfield
SERVICE AREI
Pompano Be
N. Ft. Lau
Ft. Lauder
Ft. Laud.
Davie
Pembroke P
Hollywood
SERVICE ARE
N. Miami B
N. Miami
Miami
Cutler Rid
Everglades
Homestead
Florida Ci
Taylor Slo


'WATER SHORTAGES
TRIGGERED BY LAKE
OKEECHOBEE STAGES --
SERVICE PHASE JUPI
AREA 1 J 1
NPBSA 19
SAI 16
SA2 19
SA3 18





WORTH










DEERF LO BEACH
TIMES WATER SHORTAGES P 0 C
ED BY LOCAL
I CONDITIONS. LAI D
L PHASES
PI P2 P3 P4
LM BEACH
k (NPBSA)
0 0 0 0
22 5 1 0
Gradens 0 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
ach 0 0 0 0
A 1 (SA1) y N. IM-| BEACH S
Beach 0 0 0 0 C
Beach 0 0 0 0 NORTHM S
2 0 0 0 .
ach 0 0 0 0
ch 0 0 0 0 -- *
each 0 0 0 0 AMI
0 0 0 0
Beach 4 0 0 0
A 2 (SA2)
ach 4 1 0 0
derdale 15 2 0 0
dale 4 0 0 0
Airport 12 1 0 0
ines 0 0 0 0 -
25 S 1 0
A 3 (SA3)
each 6 2 0 0 ORIDA CITY
3 0 0 0
11 0 0 0
ge 11 0 0 0
0 0 0 0
4 1 0 0
ty 4 3 0 0
ugh 10 1 0 0


;EVERITY
)F WATER
HORTAGES

* Phase 1
* Phase 2
D Phase 3
) Phase 4







+ s


Figure III-3. Location of trigger wells and intensity of water restrictions predicted
during the simulation of Alternative 1.


2/16/95 4.3-1


III-9





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Goal Statements for Alternative 2


ST. UMCIE CALOOSAIATCHE ES`TUARIES
* ksmma m ainl butes aiaim addminl
rehauim of berd &W0a" 10Bdaas

M*Mi d iMS fw aSO dwiwr ID aSt
La rir. aid Cisihbs. gmmL
h ~-- rra#Sp' M rivrir S
LAWndrabombeftimamnst


LAIMOKESHOSEE

ofiin eekebop d fillo

" Plevr adw resionl is, M h
dennob NO Win 01 4 *
" Rfie Ldw 0knedobee mcbekle
Somp sd proae= L~ke


LAME OKECHOBEEE EA
" Reduace tbo huamy. idrain sed
-M co S"Wpy Sid& MIMqmm
" ho"id N~w rdk ampg a Lawe

WATER Ca4MAM AREA Mmmi Aw
baprm'n, -- uw VMICAs Cm)
Iprove bydmgsmus~Wi~ WCa mm
daily umin No"al Symm Modd etmu.o
espady inWCA-3A.
*I Iarum l awugiam D Wipa ve ydnpsmm
Ok~mak dmaeNm
Roe epog Mom WCA-3A a WCA-3D ID
-sopm hydpo a diess soe s Nod
dows No Eveopdin Nowe Pink aid
rMids Bay.
e Mom saw qv swisin forinwinl
u-ar ddiveri u hm Lak Ob.obs
a awhw ne Ntes ase

EVERMADESNAMOWALPARK.
FLORID DAY
-owly ahaw Srm MaiD

Impmhu rb*o n iMi EW*Bi
I Park and bg Cvpm MONIS
PiqinsuiWw dowdy snob Nasal

*bqgWS g uumpg and 10mp
I amuto hap wheo ktdr0PdWS.


LEC SERVICE AREA
" Radon Asq- -y. i"Md ui erit
d(Turppily=mu01ke
" s do awast of hub w

" AreW addifiad riia adm erin
average Owed mm 0Ii B s Bev.


1~


Figure I-4. Goal Statements for Alternative 2.



I-11


2/16/95


4.3.21






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

C. ALTERNATIVE 2
1. Description of Alternative 2.
Options for Alternative 2 are shown in Table I-4 and Figure M-5 with the
options descriptions included in Appendix A. Alternative 2 was designed to improve
regional water supply and environmental benefits by focusing more heavily on new
facilities to supplement the existing regional water management system. The
options in Alternative 2 were selected to address specific concerns identified in the
Alternative 1 analysis.
Six options identified in Alternative 1 remained unchanged in Alternative 2.
These unchanged options are summarized as follows:
1. Modified canal operations pumped water supply deliveries to the Lower East
Coast Service Area.
2. Modified water deliveries to Everglades National Park (ENP).
3. Modified water deliveries to Big Cypress National Preserve.
4. Modified water shortage rule for urban landscape.
5. Modified Lake Okeechobee Supply Side Management Plan.
6. Relocated surficial wellfields.
The combination of these options were found to have significant benefit in
achieving some of the goals and obtiv established for the plan and were therefore
retained n Alternative 2. In addition, some options which were part of Alternative 1
have been modified or replaced by imlar or superior options developed for
Alternative 2. Brief descriptions of Alternative 1 and 2 options can be found in
Appendix A.
An option in Alternative 1 which centered around backpumping to the Dade-
Broward Levee Area was found to be beneficial to hydrologic patterns in WCA-3B. In
order to further improve the Pennsuco Wetlands as well as other portions of the
Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) and ENP, the East Coast Buffer option was
included in Alternative 2 along the East Coast Protective Levee adjacent to the
WCAs to provide benefits in other areas. This option is proposed as a means to reduce
seepage losses from the verlades, improve ground water recharge potential and
increase environmental benefits in the heavily impacted, undeveloped areas east of
the WCAs.
Further refinements were made to the Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule
in Alternative 2. The following management objectives were considered in the
development of this schedule:
1. Reduction of regulatory discharges to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee
estuaries.
2. Make releases primary to the WCAs to meet environmental targets in the
Everglades and water supply demands of the Lower East Coast and the Lake
Okeechobee Service Area.
3. Improve the littoral zone hydroperiod.
4. Maintain the same level of flood protection as presently exists.


2/16/95


m.12




Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Alternative 2 Options Schematic

RUse ~oIL basin swtoage for
Rahe AbteaEtive 1w LaLe St. Lare nimnin a ows
Otcsob hedukle with o --
sanuctal iprovnments iy II_ Uae T Rivr
Refis Aberntive 1 LWkO minimum ows
OtdpeeSu*pplySide L Deudion Ats




_B ^^od~deliveries tolamawhree
Uw loal basin ant fr Slmgh via the West Palm Bea=
provi.d. g ru.. ...h..s.---e sCachnet Arm
ainiman oows


Modify Canal Operioarw. Ml diisdl
Pump deivaines a Lower Mi.v
East Coat Service Anas o* W" all ISnshane
1i k -- --qlalar




-o.- 10 fcr arban T.n*i
betW WCAs1





Nadooeal Paser









Figure i-o. Generalized location aof options in Alternative 2.

-III13 2/16/95


4.3.23






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


The modified schedule developed for Alternative 2 provides significant benefits
to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, reduces the lower level of Zone B to
14.0 feet, which will benefit the littoral zone of the lake, and provides operational
flexibility. The only difference between this proposed Lake Okeechobee regulation
schedule and the one proposed in Alternative is the elimination of regulatory
releases to the WCAs in Zone B if the stages in the WCAs are at or above the NSM
targets.
Modifications were made to the way which deliveries and releases are made in
the WCAs ENP and Lake Okeechobee in an attempt to come closer to Natural
System Model (NSM) targets for the Everglades. The water ponding depths for these
environmental areas developed from NSM estimates, were used as "targets" to
trigger deliveries to the WCAs and ENP. The specific water structures controlling
stages m the WCAs were operated so that water ponding depth estimates bthe N
are met. With this option, releases from Lake Okeeob e required less often
since water stored in the upstream WCAs are used before supply releases from the
lake are made.
Additional regional storage areas, in the form of surface water reservoirs, were
also added in the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Basins as an option in Alternative 2.
These reservoirs were proposed to provide storage of local basin runoff in order to
meet local water use demands and minimum water deliveries to the estuaries as well
as reducing excessive discharges to the estuaries. In this option, no additional water
from LakeOkeechobee was released to meet minimum estuary needs.


Table m4. Options Analed in Alternative 2
erationayConservation/ Additional
Increased Storage O ratonal/ Demand Source
_______ C _ance ~Management Source
e local basin Modif Canal Modified Water Relocate Surficial
tor ume in helping Operations-Pump Shortae Rule for urban Aquifer Wellfields
meet minimum flows to water lydeliveriee landscape.
the St Lucie estuary and toLCA
localwater supply.
St of local basin Modiy water deliries Reved Lake
unofor use in helping ENP Okeeobeeupplyde
meet minimum flow to management
the Calooahatche
estuary and local water
supply. ___________________ ________
East Coast Buffer & Modify water suppl
Land Aquisition deliveries to Big Cyp
excluding AS National Preserve
Mod__ t water deliveries

L-DetentionAeiaand
Land Aquistion to
improve deliveries to
Loahatchee Slough via
afterr Catchment Area
Refine Lake Okeechbee
schedule


- I-14


2/16/95


'V




L




.fL- .


Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Modification of the deliveries to Lozahatchee Slough via the West Palm Beach
Water Catchment Area is an option in Alternative 2 that is intended to improve
hydrologic patterns in the Slough. This option is a modification of a more limited
option which was part of Alternative 1. This option proposes conveyance
improvements to the M Canal and pump station, placement of a water control
structure at the north end of the Slough to mnpound and store delivered water, and a
water quality detention area adjacent to the L-8 Canal.
2. Preliminary Cost Estimates for Alternative 2
The preliminary cost estimates for the options evaluated in Alternative 2
totaled approximately "9. 1.6 billion and are summarized in Table III-5. These
cost estimates include the construction, land acquisition and operation of facility
options which were not elements of the future base condition. These cost estimates
did not include provisions for reservoirs in the St. Lucie Basin because that analysis
was incomplete.
3. Overview of Modeling Results for Alternative 2
The preliminary analysis of Alternative 2 indicates that significant
improvements were made by this combination of options when compared to
Alternative 1. The overall results of Alternative 2, which are summarized in Table
11-6, showed marked improvement in urban water supply and significantly reduced
the severity of water use restrictions in the Lake Okeechobee Service Area.
Nonetheless, the severity of water use restrictions in the Lake Okeechobee Service
Area continues to be unacceptable. Water shortage frequencies in three of the four
urban service areas (Northern Palm Beach County; Service Area 1, Palm Beach
County; and Service Area 3, Dade County) improved beyond the target of the 1990
Base Case results. Service Area 2 (Broward County) came close to achieving the 1990
Base Case conditions, and in fact had fewer months of Phase I water restrictions, but
just missed matching the Phase H and III performance target. It should be noted that
northern Palm Beach County had one additional Phase II restriction, the same as
Broward County. However, the North Palm Beach County area showed a significant
reduction in Phase 1 restrictions.
In the Everglades, hydroperiod and surface water ponding depth
improvements were noted in several areas including northeast and central Shark
River Slough, WCA-3B, and the "stairsteps" area of Big Cypress National Preserve.
For example Shark River Slough showed a 100 percent match of mean Natural
System Model hydroperiods, and most other areas showed at least slight
improvements. In several areas, surface water ponding and the length of marsh
flooding exceeded NSM targets and may be a problem. In northern WCA-3A,
hydroperiod and pondin depths exceededSM targets at of the Miami Canal and
did not achieve the targets west of the canal. ydrorio and surface water
ponding immediately upstream of this area in HoleyLand and otenberger wildlife
management areas exceed NSM targets. Overland flows toward Florida Bay also
increased in Alternative 2.
In Lake Okeechobee, the severity of extreme drawdowns are reduced by
measures to keep more water in the lake. Higher lake stages helped reduce water use
restrictions in all service areas. nd-The refined lake schedule lus the re voir
optn ided in "rlon ge"2 WE reaj ue Me numbe a unesiraneSg
avolu2me nd St. Lucle Estuaries when compared to
Alternative 1. One key difference between Alternatives 1 and 2 was Alternative l's


mI-15 3/31/95


4.3.24






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


tbl III5 Neliminar Total Costs fa Alternative: in 1994 Dollar 5.


reliance on the lake to meet the estuaries' minimum flow requirements (defined as
the requirements not met by local basin runoff). The lake successfully met 100
percent of these flows in Alternative 1 but this experimental policy contributed to
extreme drawdowns of the lake to the detriment of the lake itselfnd to all urban and
agricultural service areas. In Alternative 2, only local basin runoff and releases from
the proposed reservoirs were used to meet the estuaries' minimum flows, which
benited the lake. Based on preliminary information, it was assumed that proposed
reservoirs) in the St. Lucie bas were able to meet the desired minimum flows.
However, preliminary estimates in the Calooahathee Basin suggest that minimum
flows could be met only 73 percent of the time with local runf and the proposed
reservoir.
Overall, flows of freshwater to tide along the Lower East Coast were reduced
(Figure I1M ). Water supply deliveries from the regional system to Service Area 3
(Dade County) were reduced. This is due in part to positive impacts of the East Coast
Buffer option in reducing seepage from Water Conservation Area 3B. However,


2/16/95


Cost of Alternative 1 ptins Estimated Annualization Estimated
Cot of Alternative 1 Options Cost Factor Annual Cost

Lower East Coast Buffer $1000,00,000 .10 $100,000,000
Relocate Surflcial Welelds $100,000,000 .10 $10,000,000
L-8 Detention Area and Lozahatchee $84,00,000 .10 $3,420,000
Slough Impvemeaonts
Caloosahatchee Basn Reservoir 48,000,000 .10 $48800,000
"St. Lucie Basins Reservoir not available not available
Modify Canal Operations, Pump $0 $0
Deliveries to LC8As
Modify ENP Deliveries $0 $0
Modify Big Cypress Deliveries $0 $0
Modify WCA Deliveries $0 $0
Modify Lake Okeechobee Schedule $0 $0
Modify Shortage Rule Landscape $0 $0
Modify LO. Supply-Side Mgt $0 $0
Total Annual Pumping Cat for $11,00,000
Modified Regional Operation in
Alternative 2
Total Cot of Alternative* $1017,00,000 $173,020,000
Land S1,000,400,0
Capital 0016000,000
Cost estimate does not include any estites for rervos in the St. Lucie Basins.


III16





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Table 11-6. Summary of Alterntive 2 Analysis.
Issues to be
Overall Alternative 2 Performance Addressed in Next
Alternative
Hydroloical improvements were noted in (1) Reduce pondin depths
Shark River Slough, WCA-3B, the Pennsuco to NSM targets in WCA3A
wetlands, the "stairstep" area of ENP. Flows east of Miami Canal,
to Florida Bay increased. western WCA-2A, & Holey
WCA-I hydroptterns nearly match NSM Land/ Rotenr tract.
Ever aho water occurtothe (2)
sdiad sout, in ntral and suth WCA-
S otat western WCA-2A the northeast A and other areas falling
Ba prt WCA.A and the Hol Land/ short f NSM targets.
Bay B nber eats experienced hydropattern (8) Revie operation of
in exaes oNSM target. WCAs to return flow from
Alternative 2 reduced hydropriods and water WCA-2A into WCA.2B.
levels within the central and southern WCA- (4) Meet water quality
SA and also reduced hydropattems within standards for deliveries to
eastern WCA-2B. the Eelades from Lake
Okeechob, and the
agricultural urban areas
Lake stage increased an average of 1.3 ft. Refine schedule to further
resulting in less extreme drawdowns during increase water supply,
droughts compared to Alternative 1. potential.
Alternative 2 increases lake storage oidin
Lake more water for regional waterpp
Okee- apblities compared to Alternatve for
chobee and agricultural users and meeting
NSM targets in the Everglades. Alternative
2 als reduces impacts to the littoral some
caused by excessive drawdown.
regional storage options in the St. Lucie and (1) Additional reduction of
C ahe basis reduced the number of maximumdischarge is
volume discharge events and for the deirableto the
Sbasinw the amber oattimes o.
r mmn.e*tua protection criteria were (2) Minimiz additional
Estuaries exceeded as to Alternative 1. reduction in surface flows
Discharges into Lake Worth Lagoon remain Biscayne Bay
the same when compared to Alternative 1.
Total annual average flows to Biseayne Bay
were reduced by 0 with minimal reductions
to d season ws compared to Alternative 1.
within the za hee Slough mpared to
Alternative 1.
Severity ofupply-Side Managment cutbacks Refine Lake Okechobee
LOSA is reduced compared to Alternative however, schedule to further ncre
the severity remains greater than in the water supply potential.
Current Bas C
Water restrictions improved in all Service Reduce Phase 1 and m
LEC Ars compared to Alternative 1. Water water restrictions in
Srvi trictios in Alternative 2 ll Service Area 2
impod in Northern Palm Bch County
Areas L 1 (Palm Beach County) and 3 (Dade)
compared to Current Base. Phase I and MIs
slightly increased in LECSA 2 (Broward) when
Compared to Current Base Case.


2/16/95


II17






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

Alternative 2 also included an option which involved a series of operational changes
within the WCAs. This option resulted in the elimination of flood control discharges
from WCA-2A to WCA-2B, which has no other source of managed surface inflows.
The results of this change included periods of excess water in WCA-2A, undesirable
drawdowns of WCA-2B, and a slight intensification of water shortage problems in
parts ofBroward County.

4. Lake Okeechobee Service Area Water Supply Results for Alternative 2.
The primary measure of an alternative's performance in the LEC Service
Areas and theLake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA) is the frequency and severity of
water use restrictions. District rules for declaring water use restrictions, also
referred to as water use cutbacks, are simulated ythe South Florida Water
Management Model (SFWMM) and are briefly summaried below.
For the LOSA, the Supply-Side Management Plan was designed to manage the
allocation of Lake Okeechobee supplies during periods of low lake levels. Supply-Side
Management determines the amount of LOSA water use cutbacks that are needed to
achieve an 11.0 ft (NGVD) target lake stage by the end of the dry season (May 31). If
water supply deliveries from the lake to the LEC Service Areas are made before May
31, then the 11.0 ft target is lowered by the associated volume delivered to the Lower
East Coast Service Areas; and the LOSA water use cutbacks re recalculated based
on this adjusted target stage. This prevents the LOSA water use from being cutback
due to lower lake levels resulting from deliveries made to the LEC Service Areas.
For Alternatives 1 and 2, a modification to the Supp -Side Management Plan
was modeled. Lake stages declined when water supply de'veries were made to the
Everglades, so the 11.0 ft. target stage was lowered by the associated volume
delivered to both the LEC Service Areas and the WCA. This reduced the volume of
LOSA water use from being cutback due to Everglades water supply deliveries. The
modeling showed that even with this modification to pply- Mangement the
frequency and severity of LOSA water use restrictions increased significantly over
the Current and Future Bases.
The LOSA includes the Everglades Agricultural Arba (EAA), the
Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie River Basins, the 8-4 and 8-236 basins, the Brighton
Reservation, municipal water supplies taken directly from the lake and the northern
shore "rim" area of the lake. Simulation results indicate approximately a 40 percent
increase in the total volume of water use cutbacks in the LOSA when Alternative 2 is
ared to the Current Base Case. A total volume cutback of 2.2 million acre-feet is
cited for Alternative 2 cm rd to 1.6 million acre-feet for the Current Base
SAlternative 2 is a nt improvement over the 4.2 million acre-feet
cutback projected by Al tive 1. Although Alternative 2 is a major improvement
over Alternative 1, water use restrictions could still have a considerable economic
impact on the LOSA. The total volume of water use restrictions in the LOSA for the
Current Base, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2, are presented in Table II-7.




3


2/16/95


IIm.18




rrant rrevaew Uocument Lower'it Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Lake Okeechobee Net
Inflows -
1,630


Alternative 2

St. Lucie
Bsin/Eary
flows


Public Water
Supply
Wisdrdwals*
1,050


140


Nmms:Nmusase
Mowt. No to Scel |
Ma wmvr suir Mwavhere Inflows
or nm- -mon r 1,270
U imm mmii -1000 a L m.

Lisumm -a -A.npMsuin
a eftssee wdMM. tM@




keems -PW v24

Figure m11. Gneralized Maor SystemFlows Cxnponents(in Mean Annual 1,000
Acrefeet) for Alternative 2.


2/16/95


12 30


mI19






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Table m-7. Water Shortages Resulting from Supply-Side Management
Cutbacks and Conveyance Limitations for the Lake Okeechobee Service Area.
1990 Current 2010 Future Alternative 1 Alternative 2
Base Base
EAA 1,300,000 800,000 2,600,000 1,400,000
Other Areas 300,000 400,000 1,600,000 800,000
TOTAL 1,600,000 1,200,000 4,200,000 2,200,000
Al numbers a ee for the 26-year simulation pen

5. Lake Okeechobee Service Area Specific Results for Alternative 2.
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). For the EAA, the total cutback
volume over the 26-year simulation period was estimated to be 1.3 million acre-feet
for the Current Base Case and 1.4 million acre-feet for Alternative 2. These total
cutback volumes represent 11 percent of the irrition requirements of the Current
Base (approximately 440,000 acre-feet per year), but 24 percent of the irrigation
requirements of Alternative 2 (approximately 220,000 acre-feet per year).
The estimated reduction in EAA irrigation requirements is projected to occur
primarily as a result of the proposed BAA Best Management Practices (BMPs).
BMPs are part of the Everglades Construction Project which was included as a
component of the Future Base Case and the Alternatives for this plan. BMPs are
expected to reduce the mean annual runofffrom the EAA by up to 20 percent. One of
the effects of holding this runoff on-site is to increase the dependence on local EAA
storage for meeting crop demands, and consequently to reduce the dependence on
Lake Okeechobee for meeting supplemental irrigation requirements.
Other Are. For the remaining LOSA (Calooahatch. and St. Lucie River
Basins, the Brighton Reservation, S-4 and S-236, municipal water supplies
withdrawing directly from the lake and the northern "rim" of the lake), the total
projected cutback volume was estimated to be 0.3 million acre-feet for the Current
Base Case and 0.8 million acre-feet for Alternative 2, or approximately 7 percent and
19 percent of the total irrigation requirement, respectively.
6. Lower East Coast Service Areas Regional Results for Alternative 2.
The success of a specific option or alternative for the Lower East Coast Service
Areas (LECSAs) is measured by the frequency, severity and duration of water use
restrictions. Water use restrictions can be triggered by two mechanics: low levels
in Lake Okeechobee or the probable movement of the saltwater interface inland as
indicated by low ground water levels along the coast.
To monitor the potential for inland migration of the saltwater interface
towards coastal wellfields, a series of 25 trigger locations were selected along the
coast. These trigger locations are used to monitor ground water levels adjacent to the
coast in the vicinity of the saltwater interface. Water use restrictions are triggered
when ground water levels along the coast approach or fall below the level of the
ocean. The lower the ground water level adjacent to the ocean, the more severe the
water use restriction phase. Four inland trigger locations were also selected to
monitor for potential impacts to environmentally sensitive areas.


2/16/95


m.20




Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Current District procedures for declaring water use restrictions in the
LECSAs, were simulated using the SFWMM. These procedures involve evaluating
Lake Okeechobee stages relative to the time of year. Since the lake is considered the
backup water supply for the LECSAs, Phase I restrictions in the LECSAs are
declared when te Lake Okeechbe Service Area goes into Supply-Side
Management. Also, if any LEC8A goes into water use restrictions durit dry
season the area will remain in at least Phase I water use restrictions through the end
of the dry season (May 31) regardless of the local ground water or Lake Okeechobee
conditions.
The District's existing water shortage policy as specified in Chapter 40E-21
Florida Administrative Code was simulated for the Current Base Case. This policy
requires public water supply utilities to progressively cutback their pumpage 15
percent, 30 percent 45 percent and 60 percent for each of the four water use
restriction phases. significant irrigation reductions are required for all water use
restriction phases for nursery and golf cour sers. Landscape and agricultural
reductions are minimal and implemented only during the latter phases. Agricultural
overhead irrigation systems in south Dade County are the only LEC service area
agricultural operations to experience water use restrictions.
Water use cutbacks for public water suppliers were reduced to 10 percent, 25
percent, 40 percent and 55 percent for Phase I through IV respectively for both the
Future Bas Case and Alternatives 1 and 2 to account for .mcreased mandatory
conservation. For Alternatives 1 and 2, changes to the water use restriction policy
were implemented in an attempt to more suitably distribute water use restrictions
to other users. The existing liy regarding cutbacks for nursery and golf courses
was continued and urban andscape restrictions were modified to be more stringent
and generally consistent with golf course cutbacks.
For Alternative 1 the principal options that were used to address increasing
water use restrictions in the urban service areas were to expand the District's
capability to move water from Lake Okeechobe to the coast and to relocate coastal
public water supply demands to an inland location. Canal operations were modified
to allow pumping of water to the coastal areas instead of the existingpractice of using
only gravity-flow structures. In areas where excessive water restriction triggering
was occurring, the wellfields in the area were capped at the 1990 demand levels and
the increased demands were shifted inland to new wells. Due to excessive water use
restrictions predicted to occur in the Future Base Cas simulation, a portion of the
1990 demand was also transferred to an inland location for several wellfields to
minimize water use restrictions. Overall a total of 150 million gallons per day (MGD)
was shifted away from the coast to inland wellfields.
For Alternative 2, the major options incorporated to minimize the frequency,
severity and duration of water shortages in the urban areas were the East Coast
Buffer and the reservoirs in the Cal tche and St. Lucie basins to increase local
basin storage. The East Coast Buffer allows backpumping into a series of reservoirs,
marshes and recharge areas in the western section of the service areas which
provides environmental deliveries and recharge to the coastal wellfields. The local
basin storage option allows for the Cal oomshatee and St Ludce estuaries' demands
to be met fom local basin storage which results in more water available in Lake
Okeechobee for urban, environmental and agricultural needs.



MI-21 2/16/95


4.3.23(.1






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

A comparison of the severity and distribution of areas where water use
restrictions were triggered during Alternative 2 is presented in Figure 11-7. (A
similar water use restriction mapfor the Current Base Case is shown m Figure II.1,
the Future Base Case in Figure .2 and Alternative 1 in Figure mII). The number
of water use restrictions by month is presented in Table m-8. As shown, Phase I
restrictions are projected to significantly increase in Alternative 1 with the more
severe water use restrictions ected to slightly increase in the southern section of
the urban service areas decrease in the north. Alternative 2 projects a
significant reduction in Phase I water use restrictions compared to the base case and
Alternative 1, in all of the urban service areas. Additional reductions of Phase II
restrictions are predicted for LECSA-3.
The total volumetric cutbacks to the LECSAs as a result of water use
restrictions were analyzed to determine the differences a cited with the Current
Base Case, Alternative 1 and Alternative 2. The 26 year total volume cutback is
projected to increase from approximate 621,000 acrefeet for the Current Base Case
to 65,000 acre-feet for Alternative 2. The total volume cutback in Alternative 2 is
considerably less than the 1,113,000 acre-feet cutback predicted for Alternative 1. It
should be noted that Alternatives 1 and 2 include increased urban landscape
cutbacks which were not in effect in the Current Base Case.

Table I-8. Number of Months of Water Restriction by Phase for 1990 Base Case
and Alternatives 1 and 2 for the 26-year simulation period.
PhaseI PhaseII Phase Phase IV
1990 L1 Alt 1990 1990 .1 Alt 2 1990 Alt.1 Alt.2
N. Palm Beach 63 75 44 12 5 5 0 1 1 o o a
LECSA-1 42 1 28 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
LECSA-2 0 71 44 a 5 5 0 1 1 0 0 0
LECSA-3 46 72 s 4 4 2 0 0 0 0 0 0


An important point to consider when analying these results is the number of
LEC service area water use restrictions that are trigred by the level of Lake
Okeechobee vesus local ground water conditions. As sh in Figure I, Figure
III- and Figure III7, the number of water use restrictions triggered by lowlake
levels increased from approximately 10 per service area in the Current Base Case to
18 per service area in Alternative 1. pp lately 8 lake triggered water use
restrictions per service area were p eictd by Alternative 2, a dramatic
improvement over Alternative 1.
In terms of water supply deliveries from the regional system to the LEC
service areas, the average annual surface water flow delivered to the LEC for the
Current Base Case was 164,000 acre-feet For Alternative 2, the average flow was
projected to increase to 212,000 acrefeet. Average annual ground water and levee
seepage flows from the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park to
the LEC was 977,000 acre-feet for the Current Base Case. For Alternative 2 the flow
was projected to decrease to 919,000 acre-feet.


2/16/95






Draft Preview Document -- Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


NUMBER OF TIMES WATER SHORTAGES
ARE TRIGGERED BY LOCAL
GROUND WATER CONDITIONS.
TRIGGER WELL PHASES
LOCATIONS P1 P2 P3 P4
NORTHERN PALM BEACH
SERVICE AREA (NPBSA)
Tequesta 0 0 0 0
Jupiter 23 5 1 0
Palm Beach Gardens 0 0 0 0
Northwest 0 0 0 0
Riviera Beach 0 0 0 0
SERVICE AREA 1 (SA1)
Royal Palm Beach 0 0 0 0
Clear Lake 1 0 0 0
West Palm Beach 0 0 0 0
Lake Worth 2 0 0 0
Boynton Beach 0 0 0 0
Delray Beach 0 0 0 0
Highland Beach 0 0 0 0
Boca Raton 0 0 0 0
Deerfield Beach 5 0 0 0
SERVICE AREA 2 (SA2)
Pompano Beach 4 1 0 0
N. Ft. Lauderdale 16 2 0 0
Ft. Lauderdale 5 0 0 0
Ft. Laud. Airport 18 1 1 0
Davie 0 0 0 0
Pembroke Pines 0 0 0 0
Hollywood 26 5 1 0
SERVICE AREA 3 (SA3)
N. Miami Beach 7 1 0 0
N. Miami 1 0 0 0
Miami 10 0 0 0
Cutler Ridge 12 0 0 0
Everglades 0 0 0 0
Homestead 4 0 0 0
Florida City 4 1 0 0
Taylor Slough 8 1 0 0

Figure III-7. Location of trigger wells a
during the simulation of Alternative 2.


2/16/95 4.3.27


III-23





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


7. Lower East Coast Service Area Specific Results.
Northern Palm Beach County Service Area. A summary of the differences
in water use restrictions between the Current Base Case, Alternative 1 and
Alternative 2 for this and the other urban service areas, can be found in Table II-8
and Fpure III-7. In general, Alternative 2 reduced the number of water use
restrictions as ccm d to Alternative 1. Of the 312 months of the 26-year
simulation period. I water restrictions are projected to decrease from 63
months in the Current Base Case to 44 months in Alternative 2. Lake Okeechobee
induced water restriction triggers decrease from eight in the Current Base Case to
seven in Alternative 2. Phaseil restrictions are projected to decrease from twelve in
the Current Base Case to five in Alternative 2, while Phase I restrictions increase
slightly from none in the Current Base to one in Alternative 2. No Phase IV
restrictions are projected to occur for any of the three scenarios. Total 26-year
volumetric cutbacks decrease from 85,000 acre-feet for Alternative 1 to 59,000 acre-
feet for Alternative 2. Alternative 2, however, remains slightly higher than the
48,000 acre-feet cutback predicted for the Current Base Case simulation.
Lower East Coast Service Area 1. In general, water use restrictions have
improved from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2. For the 26 year simulation period,
Phase I water restrictions are projected to decrease from 42 months in the Current
Base Case to 28 months for Alternative 2. Lake Okeechobee induced water shortage
triggers decrease from ten in the Current Base Case to eight in Alternative 2. Phase
II restrictions are projected to decrease from two in the Current Base Case to none in
Alternative 2. No Phase or Phase IV restrictions are rcted to occur for any of
the three scenarios. Volumetric cutbacks decrease from 188,000 acre-feet for
Alternative 1 to 84,000 acre-feet for Alternative 2. Alternative 2 is also an
improvement over the 112,000 acrfeet cutback predicted for the Current Base
simulation. Average annual regional surface water deliveries to this service area
continue to increase from an average of 108,000 acre-feet per year for Alternative 1 to
an average of 114,000 acre-feet per year for Alternative 2. Regional surface water
deliveries are significantly higher for Alternative 2 when compared to the average of
61,000 acre-feet per year predicted for the Current Base Case.
Lower East Coast Service Area 2. In general, water use restrictions have
improved from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2, however no improvement was noted for
the Phase I or greater water restriction phases. For the 26 year simulation period,
Phase I water use restrictions are projected to decrease from 50 months in the
Current Base Case to 44 months in Altrnative 2. Lake Okeechobee induced water
ho e triggers decrease from nine in the Current Base Case to six in Alternative 2.
A sight increase in Phase n and Phae m water use restrictions are projected for
Alternative 2 when compared to the Current Base Cae. Although the number of
months for Phae I and Phe improved or remained constant when compared to
Alternative 1, additional wells were triggering during the same months. This
increase inthe real extent of the shortage are ia sresutof decreased seepage rates
in the North New River, L-36 and the L- canals, which provide recharge to central
Broward county. Volumetric cutbacks decrease from 414,000 acre-feet for
Alternative 1 to 314,000 acre-feet for Alternative 2. However, the 314,000 acre-feet
cutback for Alternative 2 is worse than the 193,000 acre-feet cutback predicted for
the Current Base simulation. Average annual regional surface water deliveries to
this service area increase from an average of 30,000 acre-feet per year in Alternative
1 to an average of 47,000 acre-feet per year for Alternative 2. Average annual


2/16/95


III-25






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

regional surface water deliveries are significantly higher for Alternative 2 when
compared to the average of 18,000 acre-feet per year predicted for the Current Base
Case.
Lower East Coast Service Area 8. In general, water use restrictions have
improved from Alternative 1 to Alternative 2. For the 26 year simulation period,
Phase I water restrictions are projected to decrease from 46 months in the Current
Base Case to 88 months in Alternative 2. Lake Okeehobee induced triggers decrease
from ten in the Current Base Case to eight in Alternative 2. Phase I restrictions are
d to decrease from four in the Current Base Case to two in Alternative 2. No
Ph or Phase V restrictions are projected to occur for either scenario.
Volumetric cutbacks decrease from 427,000 acre-feet in Alternative 1 to 229,000
acre-feet for Alternative two. Alternative 2 is also an improvement over the 269,000
acre-feet cutback predicted for the Current Base Case simulation. Average annual
regional surface water deliveries to this service area have decreased from an average
of 72,000 acre-feet per year in Alternative 1 to an average of 51,000 acre-feet per year
for Alternative 2. Regional surface water deliveries are also lower for Alternative 2
when compared to the average of 85,000 acre-feet per year predicted for the Current
Base Case. Regional surface water deliveries decrease in this service area because
the East Coast Buffer option is providing water to the area, replacing water which
previously would have come from the regional system.

8. Regional Environmental Results.
Regional Environmental Performance Measures were recommended by the
Scientific Working Group as a way to present a "Big Picture" analysis of how a
specific water s ly alternative affects t regional ecosystem. These measures are
currently under review. This preliminary description is designed to give the
committee a preview of how these measures will be used.
The primary regional performance measures for the Everglades are based on
how well a particular water supply alternative matches water depth and hydroperiod
targets that are assumed to restore and support natural Everglades landscape
patterns as estimated by the Natural system Model. To achieve this, the remaining
Everglades are characterized by three major landscapes types freshwaterr marsh,
sawgrass mosaic, and marl-forming wet prairie landscapes) plus a fourth category
(freshwater mas/sawgrs mosaic) which is a combination of two of the original
three. In Figure II-8, each lan ape pattern is identified geographically within the
remaining Evergldes. For each area Figure III-8 shows how lly the Current
and Future Base Cases and Alternatives 1 and 2 come to "matching" Natural System
Model mean hydroperiod estimates plus or minus 30 days in terms of the number of
grid cells within each landscape type that match the NSM estimate expressed as a
percentage.
Overall, Alternative 2 imp ed the number of NSM hydroperiod matches
within the remaining verlad by 4 percent (54,000 acres) as compared to
Alternative 1. Fue M-how that for Alternative 2, 62 percent or 841,000 acres
of the remaining Everglades match the NSM hydroperiod estimate as compared to
Alternative 1 (8 percent or 787,000 acres), the Future Base (51 percent or 692,000
acres), or the Current Base Case (48 percent or 651,000 acres).
Fresh Water Marsh Landscape. Hydroperiods within the historic
Hillsborough Lakes marsh region of the Evergad (WCA-1 and the northeast


2/16/95


III-26





Draft Preview Document -- Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


7;~4~1


Total Acres = 207.360
Current Base 36%
Future Base 38%
Allemative 1 4490
Altemative 2 46%
olal Area of Remaining Everglades = 1,356.800 Acmr-
Figure III-8. Percentage of the Areas within Each Landscape Pattern Type that
Match Natural System Model Mean Hydroperiods within 30 days.


III-27 2/16/95
41..9





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Current Base = 661,000 acre (48%) match NSM
FutureBae = 692,000 acre (51%) match NSM
h mo Alternative = 787,000 acres (58%) match NSM
o Alternative 2 = 841,000 acres (62%) match NSM
u m

d
ms
0

A 300
rm
S100
0l-
27065 day 180-270 ds 90.-10 day 30-00day 3 Oday hlaer 30.90day 900-180days
orto r w skr r sfr a -shaI laame limor
Hydroperiod Clawsses
(Number ofdays longer or shorter as compared to NSMv.42)
iure fl.9. N8M ydroperiod Matches within theTmining ;Rvergad-es.
portion of WCA-2A) were significantly improved by Alternatives 1 and 2. Under
Alternative 2, 85 percent of the area (144,000 acres) matched the NSM hydroperiod
target, a slight improvement over Alternative 1 (82 percent or 139,000 acres), and a
major improvement over the Future Base (59 percent or 99,700 acres) and the
Current Base Cases (42 percent, or 71,000 acres).
In the Central Shark River Slough region of Everglades National Park,
Alternative 2 significantly improved hydroriod with 100 percent of the area
(151,000 acres) mahig the NSM hydroperiod target. This was an improvement
over Alternative 1 which reported 93 percent (141,000 acres) of the area matching the
hydroperiod target as compared to 58 percent (88,000 acres) for the Future Base Case,
and 56 percent (85,000 acres) for the Current Base.
Sawgrass Mosaic Landscape. The sawgrass mosaic landscape represents
the largest historical vegetation type within the remaiing Everglades covering
more than 450000 acres within the eastern portion of WCA- and western WCA-
2A (Figure im8). Alternative 2 was only slightly better than Alternative 1 in
eating NSM hydperiod targets within this lndspe type. Results showed that
NSM hydropiod matches were similar for both Alternative 2 and the Current Base
Case with 5 percent (158,000 acres) of the area meeting the hydroperiod target as
compared to Alternative 1 (34 percent or 153,000 acres) and the Future Base Case (38
percent or 171,000 acres).
Freshwater Marsh/Sawgrass Mosaic Landscape. This landscape pattern
is located primarily within the western portion of WCA-3A. Although Alternative 2
shows some improvement over Alternative 1 for matching NSM hydroperiods within
the western portion of WCA-3A, these values are still ess than the Current and
Future Base Cases. Alternative 2 resulted in 68 percent (186,000 acres) of the area


2/16/95


mII-29






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

meeting the NSM hydroperiod target, in comparison to 60 percent (164,000 acres) for
Alternative 1, 72 percent (197,000 acres) for the Future Base Case, and 75 percent
(205,000 acres) for the Current Base Case. The lower values associated with
Alternatives 1 and 2 are the result of making increased water deliveries from WCA-
3A to Everglades National Park to meet NSM water level and hydroperiod targets.
Marl-forming Wet Prairie Landscape. This landscape type is found
primarily within Everglades National Park, east and west of Shark River Slough.
ydropeiods within the mar-forming wet prairies located west of Shark River
Slough (Figure II8) were improved by Alternatives 1 and 2 with 95 percent of the
area (99,700 acres) meeting the NSM hydroperiod target in both alternatives as
compared to 51 percent (54,000 acres) for the Current andFuture Bases Cases.
East of Shark River Slough, Alternative 2 was shown to slightly improve
hydroperiods within these marl-frming wet prairie marshes with 46 percent of the
area (95,400 acres) matching the NSM hydroperiod target as compared to Alternative
1 (44 percent or 91,200 acres), the Future Base (38 percent, 78,800 acres) and the
Current Base Case (86 percent, 74,600 acres).
9. Area Specific Environmental Results.
Overview. Comparison of hydroperiod difference maps developed for the
Current and Future Bases Cases and Alternatives 1 and 2 relative to the Natural
System Model (Figures m-10 and MII-1) show a number of hydrological
improvements to the regional system. Overall, these include improved hydroperiods
within WCA-3B, the Pennsuco wetlands, central and southern Shark River Slough
and the "stairstep" area of the Big Cypress Preserve. Increased flows in excess of
NSM estimates were also delivered to Florida Bay under Alternative 2 (Figure III-
12). In Water Conservation Area 1 (WCA-1), Alternative 2 resulted in hydropatterns
that nearly match NSM taet although excess surface water pondi still occurs
within the south end of the Refuge. In contrast, the western portion of WCA-2A, the
northeast region of WCA-A and the Holey Land and Rotenberger Tracts experienced
hydroperiods and surface water ponding in excess of NSM targets. Although
Alternative 2 did show a slight improvement in hydroperiod within WCA-3A,
delivery of flows to Everglades National Park has resulted in shortened hydroperiods
and reduced surface water pending within the central and southern portions of WCA-
3A. Alternative 2 also reduced water levels and hydroperiods within the eastern
portion of WCA-2B, an area already impacted by altered hydropatterns and invasion
by melaleuca.
In Lake Okeechobee, Alternative 2 resulted in lake stages increasing an
average of 1.3 ft. resulting in increased storage, less extreme drawdowns of thelake
during regional droughts and higher lake stages during very wet years as compared
to Alternative 1. Alternative 2 reduced long-tem flooding of the littoral zone,
improved hydroperiod, and has the potential to reduce the frequency of algal blooms
as compared to the Future and Current Base Cases.
For estuaries located downstream from the lake, Alternative 2 reduced the
number of high volume discharges events within the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie
estuaries as compared to the Current and Future Base Cases. Alternative 2 also
reduced the number of times recommended estuary minimum flows were not met
within the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie estuaries as compared to the Future and
Current Base Cases. However, an increase in the number of times minimum, flow
were not met increase for the Caloosahatchee River in Alternative 2 compared to


2/16/95


mIII0






Draft Preview Document -- Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Figure III-10. Mean Hydroperiod Differences for Current and Future Base Cases
Relative to the Natural System Model.


2/16/95


III-32







Draft Preview Document -- Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


9/lfi/Qr


to the


III-33






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

Alternative 1i Flows delivered to the Lake Worth Lagoon under Alternative
remained the same compared to Alternative 1; while Loahatchee Slough
exhibited significantly improved hyd riod and water depths. In contrast,
Alternative 2 reduced average annual flows to Biscayne Bay by 30 percent and
reduced peak stormwater flows to Manatee Bay (Barnes Sound) by 21 percent.
Everglades National Park/Florida Bay. Alternative 2 increased flow to
Florida Baymet NSM hydroperiod targets within central Shark River Slough, and
lenods within wet prarie marshes located east and west of Shark
River Overall, 76 p nt of Everglades Natioal Park met the NSM
hdroedtarget (pus or mius 30 days) as compared to Alternative 1 (70 percent),
and future a Current Base Cases (45 percent and 44 peret, respectively).
Downstream of Tamiami Trail, Alternative 2 met NSM hydroriod targets at a
number of key water management gauges, but was unable to achieve NSM surface
water ponding depths at those sites located within northeast, central and southern
portions of Srk River Slough. Results for selectedare areare presented below:
S lows toward Florida Ba. Alternatives 1 and 2 increased surface water flows
toward Florid Bayby apprimately 24 and 34 percent, respectively, when
compared to the Future Base Case. Figur II-12 shows Alternative 2
(581,000 acre-feet) and Alternative 1 (53700 acre-feet) provided greater flows
toward Florida Bay than predicted by the NSM (464,000 acre-feet).
Alternative 2 increased dry season flows by 6 percent and wet season flows by
11 percent as compared to Alternative 1. As expected, flows toward Florida
Bay within Taylor Slough and the Eastern Panhandle did not significantly
change as compared to the Future Bae.
SShark River loh. In Northeast Shark River Slough, Alternative 2 met the
r NSM hdroper target at the NESRS-2 gage but was less than the NSM
marsh oo target. Review of the region eiro mental performance
measure d l for this area shows Alterntive 2 significantly improves
hydroperods t this region of the Park with 100 percent the area
(51000 res) matching the NSM hydroperiod target plus or minus 30 days
(Fiure I-7). Alternative 2 also met, or came very ose to meeting, NSM
od targets at several key water management gages (NP-201, N-33),
lcate in northern Shark River Slough with several sites exhibiting
continuous (100 percent) inundation over the 26 year simulation period, but
fell short of meeting the NSM surface water ponding target.
ENP s o T ail. Alternative 2 significant increased average
annual overland flows east of L7A by approximately 27 percent (591,000
acre-feet) as compared to Alternative 1(464,000 acre-feet), and the Future
Base (379,000 acre-feet), and the Current Base (328,000 acre-feet). This was
largely due to incorporation of the East Coast Buffer option into Alternative 2
which reduced seepage losses from WCA-3B and directed increased flows into
Northeast Shark River Slough. West of L-67A, Alternatives 1 and 2
significantly increased the volume of water delivered to ENP (659,000 and
664,000 acrefeet, respectively) exceeding the NSM flow estimates (491,000
acre-feet) across the western portion of Tamiami Trail. Increased flows across
Tamiami Trail in excess of the NSM estimates are necessary to meet NSM
surface water ponding targets at key games located downstream of Tamiami
Trail within the central and southern portions of Shark River Slough.


2/16/95


m-35





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Figure MI-12.


Annual average overland flows from Shark River Slough toward
Florida Bay for the 26 year period ofrecord simulation


oumr=: Wr WUMS io paC eu row AuGeuIUma i-z1U


*


Q;1 Basin Alternative 2 generally improved hydroperiods and water levels
at the 121 gauge located within the C-111 basin. Marsh flooding west of
the C-111 Canal occurred 41 percent of the time for the NSM, 39 percent for
Alternative 2, 36 percent for Alternative 1 and the Current Base Case, and 35
percent for the Future Base Case.


Wet season monthly discharges from the C-111 Basin into Manatee Bay
through 8-197 were reduced by approximately 70 percent for Alternatives 1
and 2 and the Future Base Case compared to the Current Base. In addition,
Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Future Base reduced peak flows discharged
through S-197 during a major storm event from 20 to 27 percent, potentially
reducing impacts to marine biota within Manatee Bay as compared to the
Current Base Case. These reductions in flow were the result ofUSCOE's C-
111 Basin General Reevaluation Report (C-111 GRR) option which was
included as part of the Future Base Case and Alternatives 1 and 2 which
redirects flow away from Manatee Bay to the western C-111 Basin.
nAnalysis of a selected grid ce within the "stairstep" area
stream of Lostman's River) showed that Alternatives 1 and 2
slightly exceed NSM hydroperiod estimates for this region of the Everglades.
Alternatives 1 and 2 flood the marsh an average of 70 percent of the time as
compared to 67 percent for the NSM, and 60 and 61 percent for the Future and
Current Base Cases.
Water Conservation Areas. Alternative 2 did not improve hydropatterns as
well as expected within the WCA system. jor concerns identified were (a) WCA-2A
where deeper water depths and extended hydroperiods as estimated by the NSM have
the pontl to "drown out" regenerated tree islands communities, () reduced water
levels and hydroperiods within the astern portion of WCA-2B, an area already
impacted by altered hydropatterns and invasion by melaleuca, (c) the northeastern
portion of WCA-3A which experienced water levels and hydroperiods in excess of the


2/16/95


600
600 Dry Season
8 600 Wet Season





100-



0
NSM Curret Base Future Base Alternative l Alternative 2


3


M-36






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

NSM target, and (d) the central and southern portion of WCA-3A where water levels
and hydroperiod length were significantly reduced in order to provide increased
flows to Everglades National Park.
SW -. LoWildlife Refuge): Alternatives 1 and
S improved the length of marsh within the Refuge with 74
a 75 percent of the area matching the NSM h od target as compared
to the Future Base Case (68 percent) and the Curnt Base Case (40 percent).
In the north end of the Refuge, Alternative 2 increased water depths and the
length of marsh flooding (88 payment) the NSM estimate (92
recent In the central pti WCA1, native 2 came close to meeting
the S M hydroperiod trgt, but exceeded NSM surface water ponding
estimates by appxmately 0.3 ft At the south end of the Refuge,
Alternative 1 and 2, the Fture and Current Bases Caes, all exceeded NSM
surface water ponding depths and hydroperiod targets for this area. Deep
water pending within the southern portion of the refuge may present a
problem for maintaining or restoring Everglades tree island vegetation.
SWCA-2A: Overall, Alternative 2 did not perform as well as Alternative 1 or
the Current Base Case for meeting NSM hydroperiods targets in WCA-2A.
Alternative 2 resulted in longer periods of marh flooding within the western
portion of WCA-2A (downstream of Stonwater Treatment Area 2) exceeding
the NSM hydroperiod and water level targets for WCA-2A. Alternative 2
accounted r oly 61 percent of the area matching the NSM hydroperiod
target as compared to Alternative 1 (78 percent), the Current Base (66 percent)
and the Future Base Case (51 percent). At the north end of WCA-2A,
Alternatives 1 and 2 resulted in deeper water depths (0.3 ft. deeper than NSM)
and longer periods of marsh inundation (98 and 100 percent, respectively) than
predicted to occur by the NSM (84 percent). In the central portion of WCA-2A,
Alternative 2 came close to mathin the NSM marsh flooding target but
exceeded NSM surface water ponding depths. There is concern that the deeper
water depths predicted by the NM uld potentially impact regenerated tree
islands within this region of the Everglades.
WCA-A: North of Alligator Alley, Alternative 2 did not perform as well as
Alternative 1, the Future Base or the Current Base for meeting NSM
hydroperiods targets in WCA-3A. Alternative 2 resulted in longer periods of
marsh flooding and deeper surface water pondin levels east of the Miami
Canal downstream from proposed tormwater treatment Areas 3 and 4
exceeding the NSM hdroperiod target for the northeast portion of WCA-3A.
n contrast, overdraind wetlands located within the northwest corner of
WCA-SA were not gnificantly improved by Alternatives 1 and 2 and did not
meet the NSM hydroperiod ad water level targets for this area. South of
Alligator Alley within the central and southern portions of WCA-A,
Alternative 2 showed some improvement over Alternative 1 in meeting NSM
hydroperiod targets, but was still significantly l than both the Future and
Current Bas Cases. Delivery of increased flows to Everglades National Park
as a result of i mentation ofAlternatives 1 and 2 significantly reduced
water levels and hydroperiods throughout the central and southern portions of
WCA-3A.
WA-2B and WCA-B: Due to seepage problems from WCA-2B and WCA-3B,
no attempt was made in Alternatives 1 or 2 to meet NSM water levels or
hydroperods within these areas. Alternative 2 provided significant

mII37 2/16/95


4.1.M





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

improvements in terms of water levels and the average length of marsh
flooding within WCA-B as compared to Alternative 1 and the Future and
Current Base Cases. These improvements were the result of the East Coast
Buffer option included as part of Alternative 2 which reduced seepage losses
under the L-30 levee and increased water levels within WCA-3B. For
Alternative 2, 63 percent of WCA-3B matched the NSM marsh flooding target
as compared to Alternative 1 (19 percent), the Future Base (37 percent) and
the Current Base (44 percent).
In contrast, Alternative 2 had a sn ificant impact on the eastern portion of
WCA-2B causing reduced hdroperiods and lowered water levels as compared
to Alternative 1 and the Fuure and Current Base Cases. This was due to the
closure of structures S-144, S-145 and 8-146 under Alternative 2 which
historically provided flood control discharges from WCA-2A into WCA-2B.
Reduction of surface water inflows, combined with high seepage rates to the
east, accounted for reduced hydroperiods and lowered water levels within
WCA-2B.
Rotenberger and Holey Land Wildlife Management Areas. Alternatives
1 and 2 greatly exceeded the NSM water level and hydroperiods targets developed for
both widlie management areas. In the Rotenberger Tract, Alternatives 1 and 2
resulted in deeper water levels and marsh flooding for a greater percentage of the
year (95 percent) than predicted by the NSM (85 percent). in the Hoey Land Tract,
Alternatives 1 and 2 ovided some improvement in water levels and the percent of
time the marsh was flooded (87 and 88 percent of the year, respectively) as compared
to the Future (94 percent) and Current Base (97 percent) Cases, but still exhibited
deeper water levels and longer period of marsh flooding than predicted by the NSM
(82 percent).
Penasuco Wetlands. Alternative 2 resulted in marsh flooding a greater
percentage of the year (80 percent) as compared to Alternative 1 (70 percent), the
Future Base (66 parent) and Current Base Case (65 percent). Average water depths
within the marsh were 0.7 ft. for Alternative 2 and 0. ft. for Alternative 1.
Lake Okeechobee. Lake stages significantly increased under Alternative 2
where stages averaged 13.2 t. NGVD over the 26 year simulation period as compared
to Alternative 1 (11.9 ft. NGVD), but were less than those predicted for the Future
Base (13.5 ft. NGVD) and the Current Base Cases (14.0 t. NGVD). Alternative 2
responded less dramatically to regional drought conditions experienced during 1971,
1974 1981 and 1989-90 than Alternative 1 with a minimum stage of 7.6 ft. NGVD
simulated as compare to the 6.8 ft. NGVD minimum te simulated for Alternative
1. In contrast, during wet years (1966, 1969-70, 198 4), Alternative 2 lake stages
frequently exceeded both the Current and Future Base Cases by approximately 1.2 ft.
with a minimum stage simulated at 20.0 ft. NGVD in one instance.
Alternative 2 reduced long-term flooding of the littoral zone where lake stages
exceeded 15.0 t. NGVD twenty-four percent of the time as compared to the Future
Base (28 percent) and Current Base (4 percent). Alternative also increased the
percent of time (36 percent) the entire littoral one dried out as compared to the
Future (22 percent) and Current Base (13 percent). These drawdowns should benefit
seed germination and the regrowth of beneficial marsh and submerged littoral zone
vegetation. Overall, Alternative 2 resulted in littoral zone hydroperiod
improvements and less extreme drawdowns of the lake that should help to reduce
impacts to water supply and recreational use of the lake as compared to Alternative


2/16/95


i



))

i





j


j


i



Ij
ri
t
ab
i










h)


II-88






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

1. Recent information suggests that a positive relationship exists between lake
stage, phosphorus limitation, and the distribution of algal blooms along the western
littoral shoreline of Lake Okeechobee. Data collected from 1980 1992 indicates that
when lake stages exceed 14.0 ft NGVD during the months of May October, there is
rter potential for the formation of algal blooms along the lake's western shoreline.
Alternatives 1 and 2 both exhibit lower lake stages during the wet season and
therefore have the potential to reduce the frequency of algal blooms and improve lake
water quality when compared to the Future and Current Base Cass.
Estuaries. For the Calooshatchee Estuary, Alternative 2 significantly
reduced the number of h volme discharge events (mean monthly flows greater
than 4,000 cfs) that impa estuarin biota as compared to Alternative 1, the Future
and Current Base Cases. This was largely due to the addition of the Caloosahatchee
Basin Reservoir option (40,000 acres m size) which was included as part of
Alternative 2 to capture surface water runoff from the local watershed. Alternative 2
also significantly reduced the number of times recommended estuary protection
criteria (mean monthly flows greater than 2,500 cfs) were exceeded for the 26 year
simulation period as compared to Alternative 1, the Future and Current Base Cases.
The proposed reservoir option also helped meet minimum flow targets developed for
the estuary (ie., mean monthly flows o.500 cs for the dry season; 750 fs for the wet
season). One of the design criteria for siing the reservoir was to meet the minimum
flow target 100 percent of the time. Alternative 2 could only meet the minimum flow
target 73 percent of the time. It was assumed in Alternative 2 that Lake Okeechobee
water would not used to meet the needs of the estuary. Results indicate that
Alternative 2 would require an average of about 156,000 re-feet per year less water
from Lake Okeechobee for meeting estuary requirements as compared to Alternative
1.
For the St. Lucie Estuary, Alternative 2 is expected to significantly reduce the
number of high volume discharge events. The proposed reservoir option for the
drainage basins contributing to the estuary (C-2, C-24, C-44 and others) allows a
major portion of the runoff from those basin to be captured d stored for subsequent
use in supplyin irrigation and estuar demands. Alternative 2 is also expected to
significant reduce the number of times recommended estuary minimum flows
(mean monthly flows less than 350 efs) were not met. The primary advantage of the
reservoirs) option is to reduce the dependence on Lake Okeechoee for meeting
minimum estuary requirements. results indicate that Alternative 2 would require
an average of about 152,000 acre-feet less water from Lake Okeechobee for meeting
St. Lucie estuary demands as compared to Alternative 1.
Lozahatchee Slough. Alternative 2 significantly improves hydroperiod and
water levels within the Loxahatchee Slough as compared to Alternative 1, the Future
and Current Base Cases. Alternative 2 improved the duration of marsh flooding (87
percent) as compared to Alternative 1 (61 percent), the Future Base (35 percent) and
the Current Base (30 percent) and comes closer to meeting the USCOE'shydroperiod
target proposed for this area.
Lake Worth Lagoon. Average annual surface water discharges to the Lake
Worth Lagoon were icantly reduced from 30 to 32 percent under Alternative 1
(275,000 acre-feet), Alternative 2 (278,000 acrefeet) and the Future Base Case
(281,000 acre-feet) as compared to the Current Base Case (403,000 acre-feet). Dry
season discharges to the lagoon were also reduced from 29 to 31 percent for
Alternatives 1 and 2 and the Future Base as compared to the Current Base Case.
These reductions are primarily a result of the capture of excess stormwater runoff

Im39 2/16/95


4-.3!35






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


from the C-5i'west basin which is redirected to STA-1E in the Future Base Case and
Alternatives 1 and 2.

Biscayne Bay. Model results indicate that Alternative 2 reduces average
canal discharges to Biscayne Bay by 87,000 ace-feetyear (30 percent) as compared
to the Current Base Case. The majority of this reduced discharge occurs within
northern Biscayne Bay (Figure II-13). Reductions to the ntral and southern
ortions of Biscayne ay are considerably less. Dry season reductions in flows to
Biscayne Bay relative to Alternative 1 are minimal.
1


oCBCar-nSame, l=r Pa s N AIL=AhsloiAl t. SAhrammI7
+ l.a;8adhb hBy= s1 + SlA- + &-a + 8-OG + 8.1i
gu -1. mean anuaiualrfe water knows dishar into North Centra an
Southern Biscayne Bay for the 26-year simulation.


10. Goal Statements based on Alternative 2 Analysis

Figure II-14 shows the Proposed Goal Statements which need to be addressed
in Alternative 3.

D. FUTURE ALTERNATIVES

A number of options previously identified by the LEC Advisory Committee
remain for considerton to address goal statements and unresolved issues following
the analysis of Alternative 3. These options are identified in Table III-9 and would
be used in combination with selected options from the previous alternatives.


2/16/95


1I
oo

I
0
w 600

1
0
o

A
c

S00



0


CB FS AiL I AIL 2


M1-40






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Reiog l Water Supply Plan


Goal Statements for Alternative 3


ST. LUM-CALOOLAHATCHO 1111-143 IN
* AsWn 8diMl MbM d MEN Ad


.. ~. ; a.










"A urnm" a d M L&&Mbwlo
-ad OWA -
LAU
RO*M ft fiwmels &waf
Mulftef
N*Mf
O PrYftG6 ;-" aMrW i LM
ObM nftdMAkft=M

i fflyrrid=ner&
VA M OR- (WM
~"uiftvcftft

MM 111 1 1 AV

doggy& rU


Figure m-14. Goal Statements for Alternative 3.



m.41


2/16/95


4.33'


a h di ubr meol MrP ID M

mmimin amp nd pmum Ld






~'~ iAMr i
*AMK=Mdwrii
deambiBLAWWR
AM2.v






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Table 1I-9. Additional Options for Consideration in Future Alternatives.

Increased Operational/ C er Additional
Storage Conveyance Management Source

Utility ASR LEC Pipeline Modify water Floridan Aquifer
shortage rules Blending
for agriculture
Western Basin Conveyance Voluntary Rese in Problem Areas
Reservoirs) improvements to indoor retrofit
regional system to reduce
demand
Regional surface EAA Flowway(s) Agrialtural Brackish Water
water ASR irrigation Treatment (Floridan
associated with efBfiency Aquifer)
detention areas
Everglades structural modification Reuse Wide Spread
Agricultural Area to USCOE GDM for Implementation
Reservoir(s) ENP
Curtain walls and Raise Lake Okeechobee
other seepage control schedule to incrse
methodologies water supply benefits.
Everglades Land acquisition and
Agricultural Area hydrologic
ASR improvements in
coastal Everglades in .
Dade County
Water quality
Sec____e__ treatment facilities
Selected options from Alternatives 1, 2 and 3 will be included in Future Alternatives.


2/16/95


III-42





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


IV. IMPLEMENTATION
Editor's Note: In this preview document, the conclusions, recommendations,
and implementation strategies which are presented are hypothetical examples of the
tpes of information which will be presented in the draft Planning Document when
t preferred alternative is selected.
A. CONCLUSIONS
This section summaies the principle findings from the alternative analysis,
hihlihts the areas where the measures of success were met, indicates areas where
conditions improved but have not fulfilled the measures of success, and areas where
improvement has not occurred. The individual options which provide the most
benefit for each major g graphic area will be identified. This section will also
comment on those options which were rejected in the alternative analysis.
Findings will be presented by five geographic areas:
1. EvergladesFlorida Bay
2. Lake Okeechobee
3. Estuaries
4. Lake Okeechobee Service Area
5. Lower East Coast Service Areas
Example of a possible Lake Okeechobee Conclusion
The alternative analysis indicates that lake regulation schedule xyz with a
modified supply-ide manement option most fully meets the measures of success
established for Lake Okeechobee, environmental ydropattern enhancement in the
Everglades, and urban and agricultural water short Implementing a new
schedule and supply-side management plan are expected to marimize the storage
ability of the lake with major structural changes to the levees while enabling the
enhancement of the littoral zone habitat within the lake. Interim chance (short
term) to the lake schedule will also be necessary to maintain the viabity of the
littoral zone while additional storage areas are onstructed which will reduce the
volume of Lake Okeechobee water needed a supplemental supply source.
B. RECOMMENDATIONS
This section will summarize the actions that should be taken due to the
conclusions which were reached. This will also be snmmaried by the five major
geolgaphic areas. In the case of the Lake Okeechobee Service Area and Lower East
Coast Service Areas level of service will be identified relative to the final alternative.
In addition, information on options and associated costs which could enable a user to
further improve the level of service identified in the final alternative will be provided
which will not affect the operation of the regional system or reduce hydropatterns in
the Everglades. More detailed information on these options and their associated cost
will be contained in the plan appendices.
Example of possible Lake Okeechobee Recommendations
The SFWMD recommends that the USCOE adopt regulation schedule xyz as
the permanent regulation schedule for Lake Okeechobee.


2/16/95


IV.1






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


The SFWMD recommends that the USCOE adopt an interim schedule while
additional storage areas are designed and constructed to ensure the viability of
the lake's littoral zone, minimize excessive regulatory discharges to the St.
Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries, provide increased flows to the Everglades
system and provide agriculture and urban water supply.
The SFWMD recommends modifying the existing supply-side management
plan.
C. IMPLEMENTATION STRATEGIES
This section identifies specific projects, facilities and programs that need to be
implemented and how they should occur to make the LEC plan implementable.
Implemntatio srtegies will be split into interim and intermediate (210 planning
horizon) categories. Examples afthe types of implementation strategies are as
follows:
1. Rulemaking/Permitting Issues- The following rules may be revised or created as a
result of this plan:
a. Basis of Review for Consumptive Use Permits (Volume III)
b. Basis of Review for Surface Water Management Permits (Volume IV).
c. Water Shortage Rule
d. Minimum Flows and Levels
2. Design of facilities- Any physical facilities that are identified in the plan will
require more detailed design in order to be funded and built. It is expected that
General Design and Detailed Design Level enineerin will be required for
physical facilities such as canal improvements, structures, culverts, levees, and
reservoirs.
3. Operational Criteria- The following operational criteria may be revised or created
as a result ofthis plan:
a. Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule
b. Timing of releases from Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area
(EAA), and the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) to meet Lower East Coast
Service Area demands.
c. Supply-Side Management Plan for Lake Okeechobee
d. Utilizing key gages in the WCAs and Everglades National Park (ENP) as a
trigger for importing water for the purposes of approaching NSM
IhYMroatterns.
4. Research and Monitoring- Areas where additional research and monitoring may
need to be implemented due to the plan may include the following:
a. To determine the effects of more closely meeting NSM hydrologic patterns in
the Everglades and Florida Bay.
b. Monitor the quantity, quality and timing of environmental flows to the
Everglades and estuaries.
c. To determine the effects on the Lake Okeehobe ecosystem and associated
estuaries as a result of Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule changes.
d. To determine the economic impacts to agriculture and urban sectors from
physical and operational changes in the regional system.
5. Changes in Land Use Criteria- Results of the preferred alternative will indicate
the need for changes in the criteria that are used to review local government


2/16/95


IV.2





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


comprehensive plan land use niendments to further integrate and coordinate
land use planning issues. In addition, amendments to comprehensive plans may
be proposed to more adequately protect the water resources in certain areas.
6. Land Acquisition- A variety of methods of land acquisition may be identified
depending on the benefits which are expected to be derived from utilizing areas for
wetland enhancement and restoration, mitigation banking, ground water
recharge, surface water storage, or stormwater treatment areas. The following
probe utilid for land acquisition:
a. Preerwaton 2000
b. Save Our Rivers
c. Special Taxing Districts
d. Local Government Bond Issues
e. Federal Land Acquisition
f. Federal Cost Sharing
7. Future Planning Studies- Due to the planning horizon (2010) and the regional
scope of the LEC Plan, additional planning studies which are either broader in
scope such as the USCOE Restudy or more specific such as basin level or service
area level may be identified as a plan implementation strategy These plans will
be the means to resolve problems and issues which are identified through the LEC
planning process, but are beyond the scope of the plan.
Each category of implementation will include the following information:
a. Funding sources Agencies or governmental entities providing funding for
implementing recommended projects could include the USCOE, state,
SF WMD, Special Districts, Local Governments.
b. Responsible Agency- Agencies or governmental entities which would take the
responsibility for implementing recommended projects could include federal,
state, SFWMD, Special Districts, Local Governments.
c. Estimated Cost of Implementation- The estimated cost of each recommended
project will be provided.
d. Time Frames- An estimated schedule for implementing each project will be
provided.
e. Coordination with Other Studies and Plans- A recommended project which
should be further analyzed in other studies or plans will be identified. Other
studies that could be identified include the USCOE Restudy, local government
comprehensive plans, site specific county or utility service area plans.
Examples of Possible Implementation Strategies for Lake Okeechobee
Interim:
1. New interim regulation schedule for Lake Okeechobee
Responsible AgencyUSCOE
Estimated Cost ofImplementation- None
Schedule for Implementation


1994 1996 19 2000 202 2004 2006 200 2010
I I m I I I I I I I I S I I I
I I I ) I ) ) ( g a g I )
) I I I I I I I I I I
^__ S S 1 I Tt ~ !


IV- 2/16/95


4-3.36







Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Coordination with Other Studies and Plans- Lake Okeechobee SWIM

2. Revised Interim Supp -Side Management Plan
Responsible Agency etoFNMD
Estimated Cost of plementation None
Schedule for Implementation

14 1996 19 oo00 2002 o200 20o6 20 2010
U s g as I I I s I I I I
I I i i i I i 8 i I '


Coordination with Other Studies and Plans- None

Intermediate 2010 Planning Horizon
1. New permanent regulation schedule for Lake Okeechobee
Responsible Agency USCOE
Estimated Cost ofImplementation- None
Schedule for Implementation


14 1 1 2000 2002 2004 2006 20 2010

- '- a '
s a ss S a


Coordination with Other Studies and Plans- USCOE Restudy, Lake Okeechobee
SWIM

2. Revised Supply-Side Management Plan
Responsible Agency- SFWMD
Estimated Cost of Implmentation- None
Schedule for Implementation

1994 s9 19 S 00 2002 2004 2006 200s 2010

Coordination with Other Studies and P USCOE Restudy
I I I I I P I C I I R tu

Coordination with Other Studies and Plans- USCOE Restudy


2/16/95


IV.4




Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Appendix A



Option Descriptions














Table of Contents


Options for Alternative 1
Options for Alternative 2


A-1
A-5


4.3.-





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Appendix A

Alternative 1 Option Descriptions

Option: Backpumping To Dade-Broward Levee Area
This option involves the backpumping and storage of excess surface water runoff from
the western C-6 basin into the area west of the Dade-Broward levee and east of the L-
30 levee on the eastern boundary of Water Conservation Area 3B, known as the
Pennsuco Wetlands. This would be done to improve environmental conditions and
hydrologic patters in the area as well as increase ground water recharge and inhibit
seepage from WCA-3B.
This option, as proposed, involves the construction of a 300 cfs pump station on L-30,
between the L-0 levee and State Road 997. This pump station would lift water into a
canal segment which would move water east from the L-0 borrow canal, under S.R.
997 to a spreader canal located east of and parallel to the roadway. These facilities
would serve to move additional water into the Pennsuco area in a manner that would
improve both the timing and spatial distribution of deliveries to the WCA-3B and
ENP for environmental enhancement. The primary source of water from the area
would be runoff for the C- basin, which would be expected during the wet season,
however, dry season seepage into L.0 could also be an important source of high
quality water to help maintain environmental benefits.

r OOption: Modify Canal Operations Pump Water Supply Deliveries from Lake
Okeechobee to the LEC Service Areas
This option modifies the operation of the existing Everglades pump stations, -7 and
S-8, to pump water supplies from Lake Okeehobee to the Lower East Coast Service
areas via the North New River and Miami Canals. Current operational practice
utilizes the gravity flow structures adjacent to 8-7 and 8-8 pump stations. By
utilizing the capacity of the S-7 & 8-8 pumps for water supply during times when
insufficient ravity capacity exists, it is expected that increased quantities of LEC
water supply deliveries will be made available. This will require lowering the
intakes of some of the pump units at 8-7 and S-8 and may require corresponding canal
conveyance improvements in the future.

Option: Modify Water Supply Deliveries to the Everglades
This option provides changes in water deliveries to the Water Conservation Areas
(WCAs), Big Cypress Basm, and the Holey Land and would modify the manner in
which water supplies are currently delivered to Everglades National Park (ENP).
Hydropattern targets developed from the Natural System Model estimates will be
used to trigger deliveries to the Everglades in accordance with the recommendations
of the Scientific Working Group in support of the Lower East Coast Regional Water
Supply Plan.
Under current policy, the WCAs do not receive water supply deliveries, however,
they do receive EAA runoff and Lake Okeechobee regulatory (flood control)

A-1 2/16/95
45340






Draft Preview Document Lower ast Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

discharges. In addition, during times of drought when the WCA stages drop below
operation minimum levels, water supply deliveries from the WCAs to the Lower
East Coast Service Areas (LECSA) must be matched by equal inflows from Lake
Okeechobee. This "pass-through" water is a LECSA delivery and not a delivery to
the WCAs. The current policy for ENP is the Rainfall Plan which provides water
supply to ENP via a rainfall-driven statistical model.
In this option an attempt is made to meet the NSM's spatial and temporal variability
of water depth by using key water management gages located within the WCAs and
ENP to trigger deliveries.

Option: Modifications of Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule
This option involves revising the existing Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule
which is known as Run 25 (Fgure 1). The proposed schedule is intended to reduce
regulatory discharges to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries by making
releases primarily to the Water Conservation Areas. In addition, it is intended to
improve environmental conditions within the lake's littoral zone while maintaining
the current level of flood protection.
The schedule used in this option consists of four zones: Zone A, Zone L1, Zone B, and
Zone C (Figure 2). Zone A is a flood control zone in which releases are made to both
the St. Lucie and Calsahatchee Rivers at maximum capacity as well as to the
Water Conservation Areas (WCAs). The upper level of Zone A has been increased by
one-half foot to a maximum of 19 ft. during the dry season compared to the current
schedule (Run 25) of 18.5 ft. Prior to making large ltory releases in Zone A, a
pulse zone, Zone L, will provide for less harmful torypulse releases to the St.
Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries similar to the power pue release zone for Run
25.
Zone B fluctuates from a maximum stage of 17.25 ft on September 30th to a
minimum stage of 14 t. at the end of May. In Zone Ball regulatory releases are made
to the WCAs and the LECSAs through the Miami, North New River, Hillaboro and
the West Palm Beach Canals. The maximum Zone B level of 17.25 ft. occurs for only
one day for this schedule while Run 25 maintains 17.25 ft. for 2 months. In addition,
the lower level of Run 25 is 15.75 ft. while the lower level in this schedule is 14 ft.
Zone C is strictly a demand zone where releases are made only to meet
environmental, agricultural, and urban water supply demands.

Option: Minimum flows to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries
This option provides freshwater deliveries to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee
Estuaries in order to maintain the desired salinity balance for preserving existing
biological communities. Estimated water deliveries needed to maintain the
appropriate salinity balance for the St Lule Estuary is a mean monthly flow of 350
s. mean mnty flow ruirment for the Caloosahatchee Estuary are 750 cfs
for April through October, and 500 fs for November through March. Freshwater
inflows to both estuaries ginate from two sources: (1) local basin runoff, and (2)
regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee. If local basin runoff is insufficient to
meet desired salinity requirements, releases from Lake Okeechobee will be made to
supplement the local runoff.


2/16/95


A-2






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Option: Deliveries from the the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area to
Lozahatchee Slough
This option consists of improving the delivery of water from the West Palm Beach
Catchment Area to the headwaters of the Lozahatchee Slough in order to improve the
hydroperiod ofthe Slough and Lozahatchee River. Culverts with a capacity of 100 cfs
are proposed under State Road 710 to facilitate the transfer of water from the
Catchment Area to the Slough.


Option: Modify Urban Landscape Irrigation Water Shortage Rule
This option involves modifying the existing water shortage rule for urban landscape
in order to more equitably ustribute water restrictions among user types. The
estimated amount of allowable urban landscape irrigation per month for each water
shortage phase under the current District water shortage rule, 40E-21, are as follows:
Phase 20 inches/month, Phase II 13.3 inches/month, Phase I 6.7 inches/month,
and Phase IV 3.3 inches/month.
The revised rule in this option allows the following amount of urban landscape
irrigation for each month: Phase I 5 inches/month, Phase II 3.4 inches/month,
Phase I 1.7 inches/month, and Phase IV 0.5 inches/month.

Option: Revise Lake Okeechobee Supply-Side Management Plan
This option adjusts the water levels in Lake Okeechobee that are used to "trigger"
water restrictions in the Lake Okeechobee Service Area (LOSA). The current Lake
Okeechobee Supply-Side Management Plan (A. Hall 1991) is based on pre-2010
demand levels in the LOSA. The current plan determines the amount of water use
cutbacks needed to achieve an 11.0 ft. NGVD target lake stage for the end of the dry
season (May 31). If water supply deliveries from the lake to the Lower East Coast
Service Areas (LECSA) are made before May 31, then the 11.0 ft target is lowered by
the associated volume delivered to the LECSAs and the LOSA water use cutbacks are
calculated based on this adjusted target stage. This prevents the LOSA water use
from being cutback due to deliveries made to the LECSAs.
Modification of deliveries to the Everglades in order to meet Natural System Model
targets in this alternative has placed additional demands on Lake Okeechobee.
Therefore, to prevent LOSA water use from being cutback excessively due to
Everglades water supply deliveries, the 11.0 ft. target stage will be lowered by the
associated volume delivered to both the LECSA's and the Everglades.

Option: Relocate Surficial Aquifer Wellfield Withdrawals
The surficial aquifer wellfield withdrawal relocation option involves relocating
future and some existing withdrawals from existing wellfields to new locations. This
has been done to maximize the use of the surficial aquifer and minimize water
restriction frequencies. Future demand redistribution and wellfield relocation have
only been applied to those areas where excessive water use restrictions were projected
to occur in the 2010 base case. Future demands have been relocated to areas which


A-3 2/16/95
4.3.41






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


are not slated for preservation, do not contain a significant number of wetlands, are
not in the vicinity of a major wellfield threatened by salt water intrusion or within
one mile of the salt water front. Note: Wellfield relocation in this plan is being done
for planning purposes only and does not imply that a relocated wellfield meets the
criteria for obtaining a consumptive use permit.








































A-4 2/16/95






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan


Alternative 2 Option Descriptions

The development path for the various alternatives proposed in the LECRWSP is
expected to follow an incremental increase in operational, structural and functional
complexity. Therefore, as subsequent alternatives are developed, it may be necessary
to replace options proposed in earlier alternatives with new options that whose
funcons may overlap. This serves to avoid un-ecesary redundancy and the
associated additional coat in more complex alternatives.
The following options identified in Alternative 1 have remained unchanged in
Alternative 2:
1) Modified Canal Operations Pumped water supply deliveries to the Lower East
Coast Service Area,
2) Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park,
3) Modified Water Deliveries to Big Cypress National Preserve,
4) Modified Water Shortage Rule for Urban Landscape
5) Modified Lake Okeechobee Supply Side Management Plan,
6) Relocated Surficial Wellfields.
The following options identified in Alternative 1 have been modified or replaced by
similar options m Alternative 2:
1) Backpumping to Existing Dade-Broward Levee Area: This option has been
slightly modified and is part of the East Coast Buffer,
2) Modified Lake Okeechobee Schedule with no Structural Improvements: This
option has been replaced by a new lake schedule in Alternative 2,
3) Modified Water Deliveries to the Water Conservation Areas: This option has been
replaced by a new delivery schedule in Alternative 2,
4) Provide Minimum Flows to Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie Estuaries: This option
has been replaced by the Caloosahatchee and St. Lucie basin reservoir options in
Alternative 2,
5) Modify Deliveries to the Loxahatchee Slough via the West Palm Beach Water
Catchment Area: This option has be replaced by the facilities option dealing with the
Southern L-8 Basin,






A-5 2/16/95
4. .42






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

Option: St. Lue Basin Reservoirs
This option involves the development of regional reservoirs to store excess local basin
runoffto be used during dry periods to meet local water use and demands in the St.
Lucie Estuary. Local runoff during wet periods from the contributing basins would
be pumped into the reservoirs for storage. Dry period reservoir releases would be
mad t the canals for agricultural irrigation and to meet minimum deliveries to the
St. Lucie Estuary.

Option Caloosahathee Basin Reservoirs
This option involves the development of regional reservoirs to store excess local basin
runoffto be used during dry periods to meet local water use and demands in the
Caloosahatchee Etuary. Local runoff during wet periods from the C-43 basin would
be pumped into the reservoirs for storage. Dry period reservoir releases would be
made to the canal for agricultural irrigation and to meet minimum deliveries to the
Caloosahatchee Estuary. Preliminary estimates indicate that a total of
approximately 40,000 acres of reservoir area could be effectively utilized in the basin.
Any reservoir area greater than the proposed 40,000 acres would result in a
negligible increase in average annual yields. The proposed reservoirs) will be
designed to hold a maximum effective storage depth of eight feet.

Option: Modified Deliveries Between Water Conservation Areas
This option consists exclusively of operational modifications to the structures
controlling deliveries between the Water Conservation Areas, Everglades National
Park and Lake Okeechobee in order to meet Natural System Model (NSM) water
level targets. These hydropattern targets developed frm the NSM estimates are
used to trigger deliveries to the Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park in
accordance with the recommendations of the Scientific Working Group in support of
the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. The specific operation structures
controlling stages in the Water Conservation Areas are modified to allow variable
water deliveries and releases between the Conservation Areas such that target
elevations established by the Natural System Model are met. This method of
operation distinguishes between "deliveries" of water to reach specific target levels
versus "releases which must be made to avoid sta in excess ofthe targets. In this
alternative, releases from Lake Okeechobee wil required less often since water
stored in the Conservation Areas are used before supply releases from the Lake are
made. In actual application, this method of delivery will be based on a rainfall-driven
statistical model which will be developed after completion of the LECRWSP.











A-6 2/16/95





Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

Option: East'Cost Buffer
This option consists of a series of interconnected marsh areas, reservoirs and ground
water recharge areas located along the eastern fringe of Water Conservation Areas 1,
3A & 3B. These areas will receive pumped inflow of rainfall runoff from the adjacent
developed drainage basins. The marh component of the Buffer will be developed and
operated to maximie the preservation anenhancement of existing wetlands which
presently exist within the Buffer envelope. Stages within these areas will follow
season averages in order to avoid major impacts to wetland habitats. The reservoir
opponents wil be managed for the benefit of urban water users. Water
collected in t reservoir r wet periods will stored and useuently
released durindr periods to au ent urban water supplies. Finally, ground water
recharge components will be usedto maximie the ground water recharge potential of
areas within the Buffer which exhibit high ydrogeologic transmissivities and can
not effectively stores water on the ground surface for extended periods of time.
One of the primary goals ofthe East Coast Buffer is the potential of the facility to
significantly reduce ground water and levee seepage losses from the remnant
Everglades to the developed areas of the Lower East Coast. Another important
benefit is the creation of additional short to moderate hdroperiod wetlands which
are valuable to compliment the future long hydroperiod wetlands which will result
from restoration of more natural hydropatterns of the Everglades.
This option does not yet include the application f Aquifer Storae and Recovery
(ASR) to the various elements of the East Coast Buffer. This additional function may
be included in Alternative 3.

Option: Refine Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule
The Lake Okeechobee regulation schedule proposed for alternative 2, was based on
the following objectives on the management of the Lake and the areas affected by the
management actions.
1. Reduction of regulatory discharges to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries.
2. Make releases primary to the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) to meet
environmental targets in the Everglades and water supply demands of the Lower
East Coast.
3. Reduce the frequency of inundation of the littoral zone.
4. Maintain the same level of flood protection as it presently exists.
The proposed schedule consists of four sones, Zone A, Zone L1, Zone B and Zone C.
Zone A is a flood control zone in which releases are made to both the St Lucie and the
Caloosahatchee rivers at maximum capacity and also to the WCA.The sone A is
identical to the oe of Run 25 during the wet season but increases one half of a foot
during the dry season up to a maximum of 19.0 feet. The rationale behind the
increase of the level in zone A during the dry season is that the type of rainfall events
that occur during that time will not result in hurricane type surges that are typical of
wet season events and could jeopardize the integrity ofthe existing levees and or
control structures.


A-7 2/16/95
4.-.43






Draft Preview Document Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan

Prior to making large regulatory releases in zone A, a pulse zone, Zone Ll, will
provide the opportuty for moderate and less harmful gulatory releases in a 10 day
e format, similarly to the L1 zone in the run 25 schedule. The volume of the
pules to both the St ucie and the Calooahathee estuaries are given in Table 1.
Zone B fluctuates from a maximum state of 17.25 feet on September 30 to a minimum
of 14.0 feet at the end ofMay. Rleases In this nme are made only for the purpose of
meeting environmental targets in the Everglades and water supply demands. No
re t release are made to the St Lucie Canal, the Calooanatce River or the
Zea C a emanmd soe where releases are made only to meet
agricultural and water supply demands through out the Lower East
Coast Regon.
The main difference between this osd Lake Okechobee regulation schedule and
the one proposed in Alternative 1 s the elimition of regulatory releases to the
WCAs in Zone B whenever the stages in the Water Consrvation Areas are at or
above the environmental targets.
Table 1. 10 day pulse release schedule for the St Lucie and
Caloosahatchee estuaries.
Day Doy 2 Day Day 4 Day 5 Day 6 Day 7 Day 7 Day 9 Day 0l
-560 2880 I 81742777 196 1888 1190 798 798 0 0
S-77 1984 5554 6548 4760 8967 2975 2880 1587 9 992 992
All regulatory pulse releases are in acre-feet

Option: Lozahatchee Slough Minimum Flows and L4 Detention Area and
Land Acquisition
This option consist of a suite of proposed options which serve to improve hydrologic
patterns in the Lozahatcha Sa h maintain the minimum 50 cf delivery to the
Northwest Fork of the TImahatche River, provide water quality protection and
augment water supply deliveries to mitigate for the additional withdrawals from the
West Palm Beach Water Cathment Area to benefit t hatchee Slough and River.
These options were presented in a report or the District prepared by Brown and
Caldwell for the Southern L-8 Option. The specific options consist of construction of a
2000 acre Water Quality Treatment Flow-way, improvement of the M-Canal
conveyance capacity through canal and pump station improvements, construction of
culverts under the Bee Line Highway and m t of a water control structure at
the downstream reaches of the aatchee Slouh. Because of the local extent of
this option relative to the patial resolution of the South Florida Water Management
Model, the Water Quality atment Area can not be accurately modeled. However,
the hydroloic improvement with odifitions to water deliveries were
included to the degre possible in orr to evaluate the effects of the water delivery
modifications.


2/16/95


i



























i


r~


A-8






Governing Board Workshop
May 8, 1996
Item Number 5


Fact Sheet
Minimum Flows and Levels Proposed Technical Criteria
Lower East Coast Region


Lake Okeechobee

Objective: Prevent significant harm to the lake's plant and animal communities.

Focus: Marsh area (Littoral zone) region, which occupies 25% of the lake area along west and
south shores.

Proposed Technical Criteria:

Minimum Level and Return Frequency: Water levels in the lake should not fall below
12 ft. NGVD more often than one time every three years, and not below 11 ft. NGVD
more often than one time every seven years.

Duration Criteria: Water levels in the lake shall not remain below these designated
criteria for longer than 120 days per event.

Basis for Criteria: (1) ecological research University of Florida, 1988-92, (2) historical data
on littoral vegetation and lake level variation, and (3) GIS data of littoral flooding and
exposure at different water levels.

Everlades Protection Area (EPA)

Objective: Prevent significant harm to Everglades' plant and animal communities.

Focus: Prevent the loss of organic soils which are the predominant soils over 90% of the
Everglades.

Proposed Technical Criteria:

Protection of organic peat soils and associated wetlands:

Water levels within wetlands overlying organic peat soils should not fall 1.0 ft. or
more below ground level during any period when water levels are below ground
surface for a period of 30 days or greater, at a return frequency ranging from 1 in 3
years to 1 in 13 years depending upon the area of the EPA which the criterion is
applied.


4.3.44












Protection of marl-forming wetlands that flank Shark River Slough (being developed in
cooperation with Everglades National Park staff):

Water levels within marl-forming wetlands that are located east and west of Shark
River Slough, within Everglades National Park should not fall 2.0 ft. or more below
ground level during any period when water levels are below ground surface for a
period 75 days or greater, at a return frequency ranging from 1 in 9 years to 1 in 13
years depending on location.

Protection of marl-forming wetlands located within the Rocky Glades (being developed in
cooperation with Everglades National Park staff):

Water levels within marl-forming wetlands that are located within the Rocky Glades
should not fall 3.0 ft. or more below ground level during any period when water levels
are below ground surface for a period 150 days or greater, at a return frequency
ranging from 1 in 3 years to 1 in 4 years depending on location.

Basis for Criteria: (1) review of scientific literature, (2) review of associated historical data
from long-term water management gages, and (3) review of the results of the Natural System
Model.


Biscavne Aquifer (including the Surficial Aquifer in Palm Beach Countvy

Objective: Prevent significant harm to the surficial and Biscayne Aquifers in Palm Beach,
Broward and Dade counties.

Focus: Prevent saltwater intrusion into the freshwater aquifers along the Lower East Coast.

Proposed Technical Criteria:

1. On a regional scale: Maintain a minimum level for each of the 12 primary salinity
control structures along the Lower East Coast except when releases are necessary to
prevent upstream flooding or when regional water is not available to maintain levels at
the structure.

2. On the local scale: Consumptive uses and drainage will be regulated in a manner to
restrict the net annual inland movement of the saltwater/freshwater interface which is
potentially influenced by the individual and cumulative impacts of the projects
operation.

Basis for Criteria: (1) review of scientific literature and (2) review of existing wellfield
models to determine the relationship between groundwater levels, aquifer characteristics and
the degree of saltwater intrusion that could be expected during a major drought period.


4:s.4'S









MINIMUM FLOWS AND LEVELS

373.042 Minimum flows and levels.--Within each section, or the water
management district as a whole, the department or the governing board shall
establish the following:

(1) Minimum flow for all surface watercourses in the area. The minimum
flow for a given watercourse shall be the limit at which further withdrawals would
be significantly harmful to the water resources or ecology of the area.

(2) Minimum water level. The minimum water level shall be the level of
groundwater in an aquifer and the level of surface water at which further
withdrawals would be significantly harmful to the water resources of the area.

The minimum flow and minimum water level shall be calculated by the department
and the governing board using the best information available. When appropriate,
minimum flows and levels may be calculated to reflect seasonal variations. The
department and the governing board shall also consider, and at their discretion may
provide for, the protection of nonconsumptive uses in the establishment of
( minimum flows and levels.


4+.44P








Lower East Coast Regional
Water Supply Plan




Preliminary Summary of Alternative 5
Modeling Results









November 13, 1996


4.3.47








Preliminary Summary of Alternative 5 Modeling Results


This document contains a brief summary of the results of Alternative 5 of the Lower East Coast
Regional Water Supply Plan. Alternative 5 was simulated using the South Florida Water
Management Model. Alternative 5 was developed utilizing the options suggested by the LEC
Advisory Committee. These original 21 options were broken into three groups; Phase 1, Phase 2
and long term options based in part on staffs analysis of how the plan could be implemented.
Descriptions of the options and the groupings are shown in Table 1. Results of model simulations
were analyzed using performance measures developed for and by the Advisory Committee.

-The first group, labeled Phase 1, includes options which can be implemented in 5 to 7 years and
which, for the most part, could be implemented by the District or by local governments without
heavy participation by the federal government.

The second group, identified as Phase 2, includes options which would be more suitable for
implementation with federal assistance, but which, if necessary, could be implemented by the
District, potentially with local support.

The remaining options were identified as long term solutions which were not likely to be fully
implemented by 2010, although some variation of these options are expected to be under
construction by the 2010 planning horizon. These options will be simulated and analyzed in early
1997 and the results will be forwarded to the Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy) of the Central
and Southern Florida Project (C&SF Project). A list of these options is shown in Attachment A.

The options modeled in Alternative 5 are generally successful in meeting the projected 2010 demand
with the same or better level of dependability than currently exists. Depending upon the water
supply and demand characteristics of a particular area, there are a number of options available to
meet the future demands. One of the primary region wide problems encountered in the future base
case was the number of water shortages triggered due to low Lake Okeechobee levels. This problem
is resolved for all the service areas with the implementation of Everglades Agricultural Area Storage,
Caloosahatchee Basin Storage, and regional ground water ASR facilities under Phase 2. With
respect to the environment, Phase 1 significantly improved Everglades hydropatterns within both
the Water Conservation Areas and Everglades National Park. In Phase 2, additional water was
delivered to Everglades National Park resulting in major hydroperiod improvements within
northeastern, central, and western Shark River Slough.









Alt5con2.suml 1/13/96 1


43.46











Table 1. Options considered in Alternative 5


ALTERNATIVE 5- PHASE I MODELING
These options are those identified for potential short term (5-7 year) implementation with funding sources
primarily being SFWMD and local governments.

Option Option Description

Minimum Flows and Levels Operational implementation of minimum flows and levels for the Everglades
Protection, Lake Okeechobee, and Biscayne Aquifer.

Everglades Restoration Initiate rainfall driven schedules throughout the Everglades System with
Phase 1 environmental deliveries up to EAA BMP make-up water quantity.

C-4 Structures Installation of 2 structures in C-4 canal, one structure at the Dade/Broward Levee
east of Pennsuco wetlands and one structure east of the junction of C-4/C-2.
Must be implemented in conjunction with proposed pump station in the Modified
Water Deliveries GDM to provide benefit to the Everglades.

East Coast Buffer Reservoir in south Palm Beach County for urban water supply in areas adjacent to
Site 1 Reservoir the Hillsboro Canal.

Broward Secondary Canals Improved operation of a series of nortlhsouth Broward County secondary canals
Recharge from the Hillsboro to North New River Canal with additional pumps to enhance
stormwater diversion'retention and recharge capabilities to the secondary canal
system.

Utility Wellfield Expansion Additional surficial public water supply wellfields to meet future demands and
avoid saltwater intrusion. Additional options will be identified which could be
substituted for this option to meet future public water supply demands.

Utility Ground Water ASR ASR facilities located in conjunction with existing and new public water supply
wellfields to assist in meeting dry season utility demands. Other options could be
implemented to meet dry season demands.

Southern L-8 Project This project is designed to capture runoff in the Southern L-8 basin currently
discharged out the C-51, provide water quality treatment, and route water to West
Palm Beach Catchment Area and the Loxahatchee River and Slough when
needed. In addition, water would be directed from the C-18 to recharge a canal
system for Seacoast and Jupiter wellfields. This option will be further evaluated
and refined in the North Palm Beach County Water Management Plan

Central Palm Beach County A storage facility within Lake Worth Drainage District to capture stormwater
Storage runoff to be used for recharging LWDD canal network during dry periods. This
option was not modeled using the SFWMM due to its limited size, but does
appear to have some potential local benefits and will be recommended for further
analysis in the South Palm Beach County Water Management Plan.







Alt5con2.sum 11/13/96 2


































Urban East Coast Areas


All urban service areas show excellent response to Alternative 5, reducing, and in some cases
eliminating, locally triggered water shortages for the 26 year period of record. It is important to note
that the computer simulations focused on two utility level options -- wellfield expansion and utility
level aquifer storage and recovery. Local utilities in fact have an array of options which would
achieve the same results and which can be customized to meet the specific local conditions and
needs. A summary of water shortages by area for the current base case, future base case, and Phases
1 and 2 of Alternative 5 are shown in Table 2.

Northern Palm Beach County Service Area

Conditions improve significantly in Northern Palm Beach County in Alternative 5 compared to the
future base case. The Southern L-8 option appears, on a regional scale, to be beneficial in providing
more water to the Loxahatchee Slough and River which improve hydropatters in the Slough while
reducing discharge down the C-51 Canal to Lake Worth Lagoon. In addition, the wellfield recharge
component of this option improves the existing surficial aquifer capabilities for Jupiter and Seacoast
utilities. However, there may be limitations on the application of utility level ASR in the northern
part of the county due to the limitations of the surficial aquifer.


AltScon2.suml 1113/96


43.44


ALTERNATIVE 5- PHASE 2 MODELING
These options are those identified for implementation by 2010 with potential funding sources consisting of a
combination of the SFWMD, local governments and the federal government sources. These options will be
further refined in the C&SF Project Restudy process.
Option Option Description
EAA Storage A storage area of approximately 20,000 acres designed to capture local
stormwater runoff from within the EAA to be used to meet agricultural demands
with the EAA.
Caloosahatchee Storage Storage areas) including Lake Hicpochee totaling approximately 20,000 acres to
be used to capture local stormwater runoffto be used to meet basin demands.
Regional Ground Water A series of regional ground water ASR facilities withdrawing water from the
ASR surficial aquifer and injecting into the Upper Floridan Aquifer during the wet
season along the C-51, Hillsboro, North New River, and L-31N canals. Water
would then be withdrawn during the dry season to substitute for regional water
supply deliveries from the WCAs and Lake Okeechobee.
Model Lands Restoration An extension of the C-I 1 project spreader canal further east to improve
sheetflow and hydroperiod in the Model Lands area.
Everglades Restoration Additional environmental deliveries to the Everglades in order to restore more
Phase 2 NSM-like conditions. This would be an expansion of the rainfall driven
operations for the WCAs and ENP initiated in Phase I. It would deliver more
water than the BMP make up water.









Lower East Coast Service Area 1


The options considered in Alternative 5 effectively meet the projected 2010 demands for central and
southern Palm Beach and northern Broward counties. A limited amount of utility wellfield
expansion in association with widespread use of utility level ASR significantly improves the water
supply capabilities for public water supply utilities in the area. In addition, the Broward Secondary
Canal Recharge option significantly improves the ability to recharge existing eastern wellfields in
the northern portion of Broward County. While this option requires some additional regional water
supply, it appears to be a cost effective way to reduce the need to expand wellfields to the west.
Water stored during wet season then released during the dry season from the Regional Ground Water
ASR facilities option along the West Palm Beach and Hillsboro canals as well as the Site 1 Reservoir
option effectively reduce the regional demands for central and southern Palm Beach and northern
Broward counties. These facilities in conjunction with the Southern L-8 option also significantly
reduce the quantity of water discharged to Lake Worth Lagoon.

Lower East Coast Service Area 2

Widespread application of the utility level ASR option, continued development of the upper Floridan
Aquifer in southern Broward County, and the Broward Secondary Canal Recharge option in the
central portion of Broward County combine to reduce the number of water shortages in central and
southern Broward County. However, water shortages in southeastern Broward County still appear
to be a problem due to local ground water withdrawals. An improvement in meeting the Biscayne
Aquifer minimum level criteria for the area was observed. Water stored during wet season then
released during the dry season from the Regional Ground Water ASR facilities option along the
North New River Canal provides an alternative source of regional system recharge for the central
portion of the area. The development of the upper Floridan Aquifer in the southeastern portion of
the county has been necessitated by saltwater intrusion due to flood control drainage, low ground
elevations, and limited ability to receive regional surface water recharge in this part of the county.

Lower East Coast Service Area 3

Application of the utility ASR option along with the option of adding structures in the C-4 canal in
association with the Modified Deliveries to Everglades National Park project (in the future base
case) enable the existing wellfields in Dade County to meet the projected future demands. The
western C-4 structures option also appears to be beneficial to hydroperiods in WCA-3B and reducing
seepage losses from WCA-3B and Everglades National Park. However, the construction of the C-4
structures option reduces the ability to continually maintain minimum levels at the coastal salinity
structures in the area. The need to deliver regional water to Dade County in the future is also
reduced due to the application of these options. Reduced flows to Biscayne Bay were noted with
the greatest reduction occurring in the wet season. The Model Lands hydropattern improvement
option which includes extending a proposed spreader swale further east along with a larger pump
capacity is difficult to evaluate on a regional scale. However, small improvements in hydroperiods
can be seen within the Model Lands area.

AltScon2.suml 1/13/96 4

4 '









Table 2. Total number of months of water restrictions for 26-year (312-month) period of record.*

Area Current Base Future Base Alternative 5 Alternative 5
Case Case Phase 1 Phase 2

Northern Palm Beach 67 181 60 28
County Service Area
Lower East Coast Service 46 115 60 28
Area 1
Lower East Coast Service 51 90 76 45
Area 2
Lower East Coast Service 43 64 66 33
Area 3
Lake Okeechobee Service 28 52 60 28
Area Public Water
Supplies
SThis tables shows the combined number of months of water restrictions including restrictions triggered by local
ground water conditions, Lake Okeechobee levels, and by the District's "dry season" policy.


Lake Okeechobee Service Area


Lake Okeechobee Service Area Agricultural Water Users

Successfully meeting future water demands for both the Everglades Agricultural Area and the
Caloosahatchee River basin is contingent upon increasing storage capabilities within both basins.
These storage facilities as modeled for Alternative 5 are designed to capture local basin runoff which
is then used to meet a significant portion of each basin's early dry season demand. Water from Lake
Okeechobee is used to meet later dry season dema:id. Alternate means of storing water such as ASR
appear to be technically feasible, however, current regulatory constraints on utilizing surface water
ASR have made implementation of this option less viable in the short term. The District is
continuing to pursue resolution of the regulatory issues relative to using untreated, high quality
surface water as a source for ASR.

Lake Okeechobee Service Area Public Water Supplies

Public water supply within the Lake Okeechobee Service Area including Belle Glade, Pahokee,
South Bay, Clewiston, Okeechobee, Fort Myers, and Lee County will be successfully met in the
future. The number of months of water shortage is reduced from 52 months in the future base down
to 28 months in Phase 2 of Alternative 5, which equals the current base case conditions. A summary
of total months in water shortage is shown in Table 2. Storage facilities within the Everglades

AltScon2.suml 1/13/96 5


4:3.50








Agricultural Area and the Caloosahatchee River basin will be important in reducing the future
increased demand on Lake Okeechobee and to provide for early dry season demands. If average
stages in Lake Okeechobee become lower in the future, intakes for some utilities surrounding Lake
Okeechobee may need to be modified.

Lake Okeechobee and downstream estuaries

Alternative 5 results in significant hydroperiod improvements to Lake Okeechobee's littoral zone.
Significant reductions in the percent of time lake levels flood the littoral zone were noted in
Alternative 5 (34% of the time for the current base as compared to 26% of the time for Alternative
5). In addition, more frequent drying of the littoral zone also was shown to occur more often (thus
benefiting the littoral zone), without excessive lowering of the lake during drought periods. In
addition, proposed minimum water level criteria also were met successfully in Alternative 5.
Regional storage options, Lake Okeechobee supply side management, and placing limitations on the
quantity of water that can be delivered from WCA-3A to ENP, each played a role in preventing
excessive draw downs of the lake as experienced in previous model simulations (i.e., Alternatives
1-4). Although Alternative 5 results in small reductions in the number times large volumes of
freshwater are discharged to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee estuaries, these levels continue to be
much higher than desired levels. Further modification of the lake regulation schedule in the short
term could help to reduce the number of high discharge events.

The Everglades

Overall, hydrological conditions with the WCAs and ENP improve significantly in Alternative 5.
In Alternative 5, the Everglades are operated as a rainfall driven system with environmental
deliveries based on the Natural System Model (NSM) for Water Conservation Areas 1, 2A, and 3A
as well as for Everglades National Park. In addition, proposed minimum water level criteria for
Everglades peat and marl soils were implemented within the WCAs and ENP as part of Alternative
5. Results showed a significant increase in the total volume of water delivered from Lake
Okeechobee to the Everglades -- increasing from an average of about 159,000 acre feet/year for the
future base case, up to 392,000 acre feet/year in Phase 2 of Alternative 5. In addition, Alternative
5 resulted in a 20% increase in flows delivered to ENP. Overall, for the Water Conservation Areas
and Everglades National Park combined, Alternative 5 resulted in (1) a 11% improvement (149,200
acres) in the number acres of Everglades marsh that meets the NSM hydroperiod target; and (2) 36%
(488,500 acres) of the remaining Everglades showed some hydroperiod improvement relative to the
future base case.

Alternative 5 resulted in small hydroperiod improvements within the north end of WCA-1 as a result
of the initiation of rainfall driven deliveries. In contrast, Water Conservation Area 2A showed major
improvements in the number of acres of marsh that matched the NSM hydroperiod target. Although
more than 95% of WCA-2A matches the NSM hydroperiod target, there continues to be uncertainty
as to the appropriate restoration goal for this area that will allow for the recovery of drowned tree
island communities. Alternative 5 also results in major water level and hydroperiod improvements


AltScon2.suml 1/13/96








within both the northern and southern portions of WCA-3A. Hydroperiods are extended and deeper
in northern areas of WCA-3A which are presently overdrained, while hydroperiods are reduced in
southern portions of WCA-3A where excessive ponding currently occurs. Unfortunately, the attempt
to meet NSM hydropattem targets within southern WCA-3A and northern ENP has a tendency to
reduce hydroperiods and water levels within the central portion of WCA-3A, an area relatively
unaffected by present water management practices. In WCA-3B, the C-4 structure option was shown
to be beneficial for maintaining hydroperiods in WCA-3B. Many other structural limitations to
proper distribution of flows remain a problem in some areas due to existing levee, canals and
structures. Overall, 70% of the WCAs match the NSM hydroperiod target in Alternative 5 (a 10%
increase over the future base), and 32% (270,000 acres) of the WCAs showed some improvement
in hydroperiod.

Conditions within Everglades National Park improve significantly in Alternative 5. Average annual
deliveries to the Park increase by 153,000 acre feet with major improvements to flows directed to
northeast and central Shark River Slough. Overall, 68% of Everglades National Park matches the
NSM hydroperiod target (a 13% improvement over the future base) and 44% (213,000 acreas) of the
Park showed some kind of improvement in hydroperiod. Overland flows from Shark River Slough
toward Whitewater Bay increases significantly while overland flows toward Florida Bay remains
the same.


Alt5con2.sum 1113/96


4351









Attachment A- Long Term Options


* Lake Okeechobee ASR

* L-31 Seepage Control

* East Coast Buffer Broward County

* East Coast Buffer -- Dade County Lakebelt

* Curtain Wall- Hillsboro Canal to G-211

* Full Scale East Coast Buffer from Alternative 2


Alt5con2.sum 1/1 3/96







Alternative 5 Options Descriptions and Cost Summaries
r Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan
December 11, 1996


Introduction

This paper presents descriptions and costs for each of the options evaluated in Alternative
5. At the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan Advisory Committee meeting held
on November 19 and 20, 1996, members of the Committee requested additional
information to assist them in understanding the options included in Alternative 5. This
paper responds to that request. District Staff will be prepared to discuss, and further
elaborate on, the options at the technical workshop scheduled for December 17, 1996.

The options included in Alternative 5 were selected by the LEC Advisory Committee in
November 1995 and refined through a series of meetings throughout 1996. Many of the
options selected were evaluated in previous alternatives and refined based on the
modeling results of those alternatives. The options have been subdivided into two phases
based on the nature of the option, and what might be involved in implementing the option.
Phase 1 options are those that may be implementable in five to seven years, and, for the
most part, could be implemented by the District or local governments without major
financial participation by the federal government. Phase 2 options were those that could
Sbe constructed and on-line by 2010, but for which the District will require assistance from
the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and/or local governments because of the nature or cost
of the option. Phase 2 options are expected to receive additional analysis in the
Comprehensive Review Study (Restudy) of the Central and Southern Florida Project.


Phase 1 Options

Minimum Flows and Levels

Description/Purpose

Minimum Flows and Levels as required in Chapter 373, Florida Statutes have been
proposed for Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Protection Area, and the Biscayne
Aquifer. A brief summary of the criteria and how they are applied in the LEC Planning
process follows.

Lake Okeechobee: The technical criteria for minimum flows and levels for the lake are
focused on the littoral marsh community that supports the most diverse portion of Lake
Okeechobee's food web. The criteria are based on the best available scientific information


4.352.








that includes: (1) background data and observations; (2) results from Geographic
Information Systems evaluations of littoral zone drying versus water levels in the lake; (3)
documented hydroperiod requirements of native vegetation based on historical records of
plant community structure and water level fluctuation in the lake; (4) results from a five-year
study of the ecosystem and its responses to changing water levels; and (5) navigation and
boat access requirements.

The proposed criteria are that water levels in the lake should not fall below 11 ft NGVD for
longer than 120 days more often than once every seven years, and below 12 ft NGVD for
longer than 180 days per event more often than once every three years. The action
modeled to represent efforts to avoid violations of the minimum level criteria for Lake
Okeechobee is the existing Supply Side Management Plan for Lake Okeechobee. Under
this plan users are forced to restrict their use of lake water and these restrictions come into
effect before minimum level violations take place.

Everglades Protection Area: The technical criteria for minimum flows and levels for the
Everglades are intended to protect wetland habitats by preventing the loss of hydric soils
within the Everglades. The development of the criteria is based on: (1) a review of the
literature regarding potential environmental indicators that could be used to establish
minimum water level criteria within the Everglades; (2) comparison of the proposed criteria
to historical water levels and fire history at selected sites; and (3) comparison of output of
the Natural System Model (version 4.4) as an estimate of pre-drainage minimum surface
and groundwater levels at selected gaging stations in the Everglades. Criteria were
developed for both organic peat and marl soils that are present in the Everglades area and
are shown in the table below.

To model efforts to avoid violations of the minimum levels in the WCAs, the following steps
were taken. Locations away from canals and in the marsh within each WCA were selected
and minimum levels set for each location. These were added to and did not replace
existing canal minimum levels. When water levels fall below the minimum level for any of
the selected marsh locations for longer than 15 days and the water level is more than a
foot below land surface, then water supply releases originating in that Conservation Area
are discontinued. Under this procedure water can be released from the Conservation Area
only if an equivalent amount of water is brought in from upstream sources. Current
operations use trigger levels in the same way. Those triggers are located in the major
canals running through each WCA and continue to be operative in this proposed criteria.
The new proposed triggers are selected at key locations in marsh regions to help assure
that the minimum levels in the marsh are not violated.




w~. *.'~~'


Area Soil Type Depth below Duration Allowable
ground (ft.) below ground Return
(days) Frequency
(years)
Water Conservation Peat 1.0 30 1 in 3
Areas to
1 in 7*
Holey Peat 1.0 30 1 in 3
Land/Rotenberger to
1 in 5
Shark River Peat 1.0 30 1 in 7
Slough(ENP) to
1 in 10
Wetland adjacent to Marl 1.5 90 1 in 5
Shark River Slough to
(ENP) ____1 in 7
Rocky Glades (ENP) Marl 3.0 150 1 in 5
to
1 in 7
= return frequency depends on location relative to specific water management gages.


Biscayne Aquifer: The technical criteria for minimum flows and levels for the Biscayne
Aquifer are intended to prevent further inland migration of the saline interface. The
development of the criteria is based on: (1) an evaluation of observed water quality and
groundwater level data from monitoring wells along with canal stage data from coastal
structures; (2) evaluation of the Ghyben Herzberg relationship; (3) use of the SFWMM to
evaluate the influence of the maintained canal levels on coastal aquifer levels; and (4) the
use of a two-dimensional solute transport/flow model (SWICHA) to evaluate various canal
stages and their influence on the position of the saline interface. The proposed criteria on
a regional scale involve the maintenance of canal stages at eleven principle water control
structures along the southeast coast. The key requirement in selecting the structures was
their connection to the regional system and the existence of sufficient canal conveyance
capacity to receive water from outside the drainage basin. The canal, structure and
proposed criteria are shown in the table below. In areas away from the principle water
control structures, the District will continue to regulate users to ensure that additional inland
movement of the saline interface is avoided. To avoid violating the minimum level criteria,
District structure levels are constantly maintained at or, in most cases, above the minimum
level by making appropriate releases from upstream areas. In addition, during dry

3


4-353








conditions, water restrictions are triggered when ground water levels drop below
acceptable levels.


Canal/ Proposed Minimum Canal/ Proposed Minimum
Structure Level (ft. NGVD) Structure Level (ft. NGVD)

C-51/S-155 7.75 North New River/G- 3.50
54
C-51/S-41 7.75 C-9/S-29 2.00
C-51/S-40 7.75 C-6/S-26 2.50
Hillsboro/G-56 6.75 C-4/S-25B 2.50
C-14/S-37B 6.50 C-4/S-22 2.50
C-13/S-36 4.00


Everglades Restoration Phase 1: Rain-driven operations of the Everglades WCAs and
Everglades National Park.

Description/Purpose

Under past and current regulation schedules, the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs) are
operated as a primary source of water for the Lower East Coast and Everglades National
Park. The WCAs do not receive water from Lake Okeechobee to meet their environmental
demands. The WCAs receive Lake Okeechobee regulatory (flood control) discharges and
Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) runoff during high flow periods. During times of
drought when the WCA stages drop below operational minimum levels, the water supply
deliveries from the WCAs to the LEC must be matched by equal inflows from Lake
Okeechobee. This "pass-through" water from Lake Okeechobee, pursuant to the US Army
Corps Regulation Schedules, is a LEC delivery and not a water supply delivery to the
WCAs. Everglades National Park currently receives water supply deliveries from WCA-3A
according to a rainfall delivery plan in operation since 1985.

Recent implementation of Best Management Practices in the EAA has generally reduced
the amount of EAA runoff discharged to the WCAs. The Everglades Forever Act requires
the District to make up the difference, presumably from storage in Lake Okeechobee, and
distribute this quantity to the Everglades Protection Area (EPA) in a manner simulating
more natural conditions. Procedures for calculating the allocation from Lake Okeechobee
are now incorporated in District rules as part of Chapter 40E-63. The sections are referred







to as the "BMP Makeup Water Rule" or the "BMP Replacement Water Rule" and carry a
statutory priority.

This option proposes to replace the current calendar-based schedules for releasing BMP
Makeup Water to the WCAs with rainfall-driven operations, that are primarily based on the
estimated pre-drainage condition water levels from the Natural System Model (NSM
version 4.4) at appropriate target locations in WCA-1, WCA-2A and WCA-3A. In general,
this option proposes that the existing C&SF Project structures, and the proposed control
structures of the Everglades Construction Project be operated so as to make water levels.
at key monitoring locations throughout the WCAs and ENP mimic natural system-like target
water levels. During high flow periods, excess water will be discharged downstream
regardless of the receiving water levels.

If stages at appropriate monitoring locations are below their respective targets, water will
be delivered from upstream locations. On an annual basis, environmental water supply
deliveries from Lake Okeechobee to the WCAs would be limited to BMP Makeup Water
volumes. Environmental deliveries are limited to BMP Makeup Water to avoid additional
water supply impacts to the Lake Okeechobee Service Area. Water will be delivered to the
Lower East Coast Service Area (LECSA) from the appropriate WCA and Lake Okeechobee
according to the proposed Minimum Flows and Levels criteria.

For Everglades National Park, deliveries to northwestern Shark River Slough (NWSRS) will
be triggered by the appropriate water level indicators, and made via the S-12 structures
, if excess water is available in southern WCA-3A. Deliveries to northeast Shark River
Slough (NESRS) will be triggered by the appropriate water level indicators in the slough;
and will be made from WCA-3B via the proposed S-355's, and from WCA-3A via the
existing S-333. A constraint has been placed on the delivery of flows from the southern
part of WCA-3A to ENP by limiting flows when the water levels in the southern part of
WCA-3A fall below the appropriate target. This prevents the southern part of WCA-3A
from being drawn-down by ENP deliveries.

Estimated Cost

Construction /Design Cost: $ 4,000,000.
Land Cost: $ 0.
Total Cost: $ 4,000,000.

The construction costs are required to increase the proposed G-404 pump station capacity
from the 240 cfs, in the current Everglades Construction Project (ECP) design, to 1000 cfs,
to better distribute water entering WCA-3A. The operational costs are $4/acre-foot of
additional water.



5


4.3.54-








C-4 Structures


Description/Purpose

This option is intended to reduce excess runoff to tide and reduce the levee under-seepage
that causes a loss of water from the Everglades system. A water control structure on the
C-4 canal, with a control elevation at 6.5 feet NGVD would be located at the Dade-Broward
Levee. This structure would hold elevations in the wester-most reaches of C-4 higher,
thereby reducing seepage losses from WCA-3B and the Pennsuco wetlands.

A second water control structure on C-4 with a control elevation at 4.5 feet NGVD would
be located at 117th Street, just downstream of the intersection of the C-4 and the C-2
canals. This structure would divert stormwater flows from the westem C-4 to the C-2 canal
in an attempt to provide additional recharge for the Alexander Orr, Snapper Creek, and
Southwest wellfields located along or adjacent to the C-2 canal.

Flood protection may be an issue in certain areas. Concern over maintaining the existing
level of flood protection along the C-4 canal during the wet season (May to October) will
require the proposed structures be adequately sized so as not to create significant head
losses across the proposed structures during periods of high flow. Hydrologic and
hydraulic analyses will be required prior to implementation of this option.

This option was evaluated in conjunction with the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades
National Park (ENP) Project, which is part of the Future Base and which provides a means
of moving more water into the northeast Shark River Slough via proposed pump station S-
356. This linkage provides some flexibility in avoiding flooding problems.

Estimated Cost

Construction/Design Cost: $ 2,100,000.
Land Cost: $ 0
Total Cost: $ 2,100,000.


East Coast Buffer Site 1 Reservoir


Description/Purpose
This option consists of a 1600 acre above ground storage reservoir with a maximum depth
of four feet, and associated water management facilities designed to capture water from
the Hillsboro Canal Basin which would otherwise be lost to tide, to store this water and to
release it to augment water supplies in southern Palm Beach County and northern Broward
County. To avoid losses to tide during periods of excessive water elevations within the




I l.li 1 -, I -e
'"~c~'~T~rrnrwp,


impoundment, water deliveries may be made to WCA-2A, if WCA-2A can accept more
n water without suffering harm and if the quality of the water within the impoundment is at
an acceptable level.

A pump station on the Hillsboro Canal will be used to pump water into the Site 1 Storage
Area. Duringoimes of extreme high water in the Site 1 impoundment, discharges to WCA-
2A will be made via a second pump station and a siphon, discharging under the Hilsboro
Canal and L-36. This option includes a 100 cfs gravity control structure for releases from
Site 1 to the Hillsboro Canal for ielarge purposes. Releases from the Site 1 Reservoir
will be used to maintain water Jevels in coastal canals in conjunction with the facilities
described in the Broward Secondary Canals option. Site 1 will also be the first source for
recharge of the Lake Worth Drainage District canal system and the City of Boca Raton's
wellfields from their existing backpumping systems.

Estimated Cost:

Land Cost: $ 8,300,000.
Construction/Design: S 8.20QQQ.a.
Total Cost $16,000,000.


Broward County Secondary Canals Recharge

S Descripion/Pupose

This option includes the physical facilities which would increase the connectivity among the
coastal basins and the regional systemrWCAs, Lake Okeechotee, etc.), and potentially
the East Coast Buffer (ECB), in an attempt to increase dry season water elevations in the
selected coastal basins. Preliminary evaluations of the urban drainage basins in coastal
Broward County indicates that the control of seasonally higher canal elevations along the
coast could help recharge the aquifers utilized by local public water supply welifields and
further reduce saline encroachment into the coastal freshwater aquifers.

New pump stations will be required to maintain existing flood protection levels while
increasing general water levels for water supply and aquifer protection purposes. Water
supply will be provided by releases from the regional system and potentially the East Coast
Buffer impoundments, including the Site 1 Storage Area. Four pump stations, from the
Hillsboro Canal down to the North New River Canal, will capture the releases from the
regional system and potentially ECB's impoundments and direct thm to the Broward
County's coastal secondary canals to maintain head on the surficial aquifer and reduce
saltwater intrusion. The location and size of the four pumps are as follows: The first pump
station will direct flows from the Hillsboro canal south (100 cfs). The second pump station
will direct flows from the C-13 canal north (33 cfs). The third pump station will be located

7


4.3.55








to direct flows from the C-13 canal south (33 cfs). The fourth pump station will be located
to direct flows from the North New River south (33 cfs).

To maintain the canal stages proposed in the Broward Secondary Canal option, additional
water deliveries from the regional system (WCAs and Lake Okeechobee) will be required.
The ability to maintain desired water levels in these secondary canals will increase as
regional storage facilities such as Site 1 and regional aquifer storage and recovery (ASR)
projects are implemented. While it is anticipated that these storage areas will not serve as
an effective source of supply water during significant dry periods, they will reduce the local
dependence on regional water deliveries in the early dry season, leaving more water in
regional storage.

Modification of dry season flood control constraints for the secondary canal systems may
be required.

Estimated Cost

Construction/Design: $ 2,000,000.
Land: $ 0,
Total Cost: $ 2,000,000.


Utility Wellfield Expansion

Description/Purpose

This option relocates future and some existing withdrawals, from existing (1990) wellfield
locations, to new v allfield locations in order to maximize the use of the surficial aquifer
system and minimize water restriction frequencies. This option assumes that the number
of utilities which trigger water restrictions has been reduced as a result of the
implementation of other options. The utilities identified here are those which may need to
shift demand to new wellfield locations, or exercise other options, such as ASR, Floridan
blending and wastewater reuse, to protect their local water supplies.

Utility wellfield expansion was only applied to those areas where excessive water use
restrictions were projected to occur in the 2010 base case. Actual siting of the new
wellfield locations was determined on a utility by utility basis. The new wellfields are
generally located along the western boundary of the individual utility service area but are
not located in areas that are slated for preservation, contain a significant number of
wetlands, are in the vicinity of another major wellfield threatened by salt water intrusion or
are located within one mile of the salt water interface. The seven utilities for which
relocation of wellfield capacity was modeled are Lake Worth, Manalapan, Lantana, Boca
Raton, Fort Laluderdale, Hollywood and Hallandale. Note: The utility wellfield expansion


I








option in this plan is being done for planning purposes only. It does not imply that a new
wellfield location meets the criteria for obtaining a consumptive use permit nor does it
require that existing wellfields be restricted. Other options are available to utilities and
information on these options will presented in the plan.

The modeling of this option assumed the following: (1) In areas not threatened by salt
water intrusion, 2010 demands were withdrawn from 1990 withdrawal facilities; (2) In areas
with an increased potential for saltwater intrusion, wellfields were expanded to the westem
boundaries of the utility service area. Generally, 1990 demands continued to be withdrawn
from the existing facilities with the future demands being met from the newly expanded
wellfield.

Estimated Cost

A total of seven utilities require wellfield expansion under this option. Estimated cost was
determined by number of wells per utility and design of required transmission mains. Total
conceptual cost of construction is estimated to be $29,300,000.

Land costs for the expansion of utilities are not included in this estimate.


Utility Groundwater ASR

S Description/Purpose

This option consists of utilizing the wet season surplus capacity of utility surficial aquifer
wellfields to provide water for storage in the Upper Floridan Aquifer System. This water
would be recovered during the dry season and, in this mode of operation, would reduce
the demands of the utility wellfields on the surficial aquifer. This option was modeled for
77 public water supply utilities in the study area using existing wellfield locations. Projected
2010 demands were used and, with assumed recovery efficiencies of 90%, about 40% of
the dry season demand were met from this source, effecting a 40% reduction in
withdrawals from the surficial aquifer during the period of recovery.

Estimated Cost

Construction Costs: For 147 upper Floridan ASR wells @ $ 1,000,000/each, the cost will
be approximately $ 147,000,000.






9


4.3.5%








Southern L-8 Project


Description/Purpose

The Southern L-8 sub-basin has historically discharged runoff south through the L-8 borrow
canal and S-5A complex to either the C-51 Canal, where it discharges to tide, or to Water
Conservation Area 1 (WCA-1). A Stormwater Treatment Area, STA-1E, that is part of the
Everglades Construction Project is being constructed to treat runoff prior to entering WCA-
1, but it was not designed to'treat runoff from the Southern L-8 sub-basin. Therefore; the
goal of this option is to redirect runoff of the southern L-8 basin away from WCA-1 and the
C-51 canal to the West Palm Beach Catchment Area and the Loxahatchee Slough via the
M canal and C-18, respectively. The runoff from urban and agricultural lands in the
Southern L-8 sub-basin would be treated and subsequently used to meet demands
including urban water supplies to West Palm Beach, environmental water demand of the
Catchment Area and Loxahatchee Slough and the recharge of the Jupiter and Seacoast
Utility wellfields. In addition, this option is expected to reduce the incidence of harmful
freshwater releases from the basin to the Lake Worth Lagoon via the C-51 canal.

Phase I Upper Part of the Southern L-8 Basin Option

The upper part of the southern L-8 basin option includes the following surface water
storage/treatment area, conveyance system extensions/improvements, and flow control
facilities:

1) Construction of an eastward and northward extension (approximately two miles) of the
M-O Canal to allow for the conveyance of runoff from portions of Indian Trails Water
Control District (ITWCD) located north of the M-Canal, to the northern boundary of the
water control district where a water storage treatment area with a maximum operating
depth of four feet would be located near the end of the west leg of the C-18 Canal.

2) A stormwater pumping station that is proposed at the northern end of the M-O Canal
extension adjacent to the proposed reservoir to convey runoff from the M-O Canal
extension to the proposed reservoir. A water control structure would be required to allow
releases from the reservoir to the C-18 Canal. A second pumping station would be needed
at the eastern end of the west leg of C-18 to move water from the canal into the northern
end of the Loxahatchee Slough for hydroperiod restoration. These environmental water
deliveries to the Slough would require another water control structure to be constructed at
the top of the east leg of the C-18 Canal. This structure would maintain water levels in the
Slough above the remnant C-18 Canal.

3) A new canal (approximately ten miles long) connecting the surface water recharge
system which exists for the Town of Jupiter wellfield to the recharge system presently in
place for the Northern Palm Beach Water Control District. This will provide a means to







direct surface water from storage in the C-18 basin to two regional wellfields.


SPhase II LoWer Part of the Southern L-8 Option

The primary features of this option would include the following surface water treatment
area, conveyance system improvements to the West Palm Beach M-Canal's flow control
facilities and new culverts under Bee-Line Highway:

1) Construction of a surface water treatment area located adjacent to the L-8 borrow
canal, north of the intersection of the L-8 canal and the L-8 tieback. The area will have a
planned maximum operating depth of four feet. The diversion and treatment facilities are
sized to maintain the existing level of flood protection for the ITWCD and agricultural lands
in the southern L-8 basin. Major facilities include an inflow pumping station, distribution
and collection systems (canals and seepage pump stations), and an outflow pumping
station. Treated storm water, meeting Class I standards is to be discharged to the L-8
canal and conveyed to the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area (WPB-WCA) via the
M-Canal.

2) Conveyance improvements to the M-Canal and installation of additional, higher capacity
pumps at WPB pumping station to increase the canal flow capacity without increasing
canal stages. The increased pumping station capacity conveys additional volumes of
water to the WPB-WCA.

3) Installation of new culverts under the Bee-Line Highway allows the movement of water
f from the Water Catchment Area to the Loxahatchee Slough and River.

Estimated Cost

The total cost of the Southern L-8 option is estimated to be approximately $62 million which
includes about $19 million for the Upper Part and $43 million for the Lower Part of the
project.

Construction/Design: $ 32,400,000.
Land Cost $ 29.500.000.
Total Cost: $ 61,900,000.


Central Palm Beach County Storage

Description/Purpose

An analysis was completed to determine the feasibility of creating a water storage area in
central Palm Beach County to augment water supplies within the Lake Worth Drainage

11


4-357








District (LWDD). A proposed reservoir of approximately 800 acres with a planned
maximum operating depth of four feet located within the western region of LWDD, could
potentially collect runoff from an area of more than 10 square miles located west of the
Florida Turnpike. The stored water would be released from the impoundment during dry
periods to augment supplemental irrigation needs. One pump station (125 cfs) located
adjacent to the impoundment at LWDD's E-1 canal, south of LWDD's L-30 would serve to
divert local runoff to storage in the impoundment. Water supply releases would be made
through a gravity water control structure located on LWDD's E-1 canal.

This would potentially reduce dependency of the LWDD on WCA-1 to help meet
supplemental requirements. During dry periods, LWDD would initially rely on the
impoundment storage for supplemental irrigation water. However; this proposed
impoundment will not be able to meet the all of basin's water demands. Therefore; reliance
on other sources such as regional water deliveries would still be required.

Estimated Cost

The total cost of this option, including land, levees, pump and water control structure is
$23,900,000.

Construction/Design Cost: $ 20,200,000.
Land Cost $ 3.700.000.
Total Cost: $ 23,900,000.


Phase 2 Options


Everglades Agricultural Area Storage

Description/Purpose

In this option a surface water impoundment located in the EAA would be used to divert and
store both local runoff and Lake Okeechobee regulatory discharges. This water would
subsequently be released from the impoundment during dry periods to augment water
supplies to meet supplemental irrigation requirements. This, in tum, would reduce the use
of Lake Okeechobee to meet supplemental irrigation requirements. Preliminary
evaluations based on period-of-record data generated in the LEC Future Base Condition
simulation, indicate that a 20,000 acre impoundment with a maximum storage depth of 8
feet, utilizing local EAA runoff alone, could provide approximately 145,000 acre-feet per
year of agricultural water supply on an average annual basis. This could meet
approximately 46% of the agricultural supplemental irrigation demands for the Miami
Canal, North New River Canal and Hillsboro Canal (EAA) water use basins within the EAA.








Based on the results of these preliminary evaluations and the anticipated acquisition of the
S Talisman property, a 20,000 impoundment was chosen for this option.

Primary pump stations located adjacent to the impoundment at either or both the Miami
and North New River Canals would serve to divert excess local runoff and Lake flood
releases to storage in the impoundment Water supply releases would be made through
a series of proposed gravity structures located on each major canal, and along a northern
perimeter canal. During dry periods, the water users in the Miami, North New River and
Hillsboro (EAA) basins would rely on the impoundment storage as a primary source of
irrigation water, with Lake Okeechobee utilized as a secondary supply source.

Local runoff, which would be needed to meet environmental water delivery commitments
in the Everglades Protection Area, would not be diverted to the impoundment. These flows
would be routed to the STAs for treatment and subsequently release to the Conservation
Areas. Also local runoff which may be needed to meet coastal basin demands, would
bypass the impoundment and the STAs and be delivered to the coastal canals.

It is anticipated that the EAA Impoundment will not be able to meet the EAA's water
demands during all conditions. During these periods, water supply releases from Lake
Okeechobee will be a secondary source of supplemental irrigation water.

Estimated Costs

( Construction/Design Cost: $ 94,100,000.
Land Cost $ 50.000.000.
Total Cost $144,200,000.


Caloosahatchee Storage

Description/Purpose

The Caloosahatchee River basin is located in Hendry and Glades counties, and its primary
land use is agriculture dominated by citrus. The current sources of water to meet
supplemental irrigation demands in the Caloosahatchee basin are Lake Okeechobee
(Lake) and local ground water. As increased demands are placed on the lake, an increase
in future water shortages are expected to occur in the Lake Okeechobee Service Area.
Some type of regional storage facility could be constructed to offset these shortages. The
proposed stormwater storage facility would be used primarily to divert and store both local
stormwater runoff and Lake Okeechobee regulatory discharges during wet periods. This
water would subsequently be released from the facility during dry periods to augment water
supply needs within the Caloosahatchee Basin. This, in turn, would potentially reduce
dependency on Lake Okeechobee to help meet those supplemental irrigation

13


4.53.%








requirements. It is anticipated that the proposed Caloosahatchee storage facilities will
meet the basin's early dry season water demands. Water supply releases from Lake
Okeechobee may still be needed as the source for late dry season demands.

Levees in and around Lake Hicpochee could be constructed to create separate northern
and southern pools of a proposed Lake Hicpochee impoundment. The Hicpochee
impoundment would be approximately 5,000 acres in area. Additional storage in the
Caloosahatchee Basin could be provided with various types of facilities including: one
large or several small impoundments, Aquifer Storage and Recovery (ASR) facilities and
Best Management Practices (on-site retention, conservation, improved irrigation, etc). Any
storage facility requires a combination of internal levee systems, water control structures,
water supply canals and pumps to operate the system for diversions and releases.

Stormwater induced inflows to the Caloosahatchee Basin storage facilities (Lake
Hicpochee Impoundment and additional storage facilities) will be provided by pump
stations located on the Caloosahatchee River. During dry periods, water supply releases
would be made through a series of proposed gravity structures and /or pumps located at
the facilities.

Preliminary evaluations based on period-of-record data generated in the LEC Future Base
Condition simulation, indicate that storage equivalent to a 20,000-acre impoundment with
a maximum storage depth of 8 feet, and, utilizing local Caloosahatchee runoff alone, could
meet approximately 83 % of the water demands for the Caloosahatchee basin. Cost
estimates were based on a 20,000 acres of impoundments of which 5,000 acres will be
provided by the Lake Hicpochee facility.

Estimated Cost

Construction/Design Cost: $ 77,500,000.
Land Cost $112.500.000.
Total Cost $190,000,000.


Regional Groundwater ASR

Description/Purpose

This option consists of large-scale, regional ASR facilities located along several District
primary canals. Each facility would consist of a series of dusters consisting of two surficial
aquifer wells and one ASR well. The clusters would be located along the canals so that
canal water, that would otherwise go to tide during wet conditions, can more easily
recharge the aquifer by replacing water withdrawn via the surficial wells. Water quality
constraints make it likely that water withdrawn directly from canals would require treatment


~




University of Florida Home Page
© 2004 - 2010 University of Florida George A. Smathers Libraries.
All rights reserved.

Acceptable Use, Copyright, and Disclaimer Statement
Last updated October 10, 2010 - - mvs