South FloridaEcosystem Restoration

Integrated Delivery Schedule

South FloridaSouth FloridaEcosystem RestorationEcosystem Restoration

Integrated Delivery Schedule Integrated Delivery Schedule

Karen TippettKaren TippettJacksonville DistrictJacksonville District

U.S. Army Corps of EngineersU.S. Army Corps of Engineers

South Florida Ecosystem Restoration

Historic Flow Current Flow “Restored” Flow

Integrated Delivery Schedule Through 2020

5 Jun 09

• Background

• Development of the Initial Integrated Delivery Schedule

• Current Status and Next Steps

Topics

• CERP Implementation Plan

• Master Implementation Sequencing Plan (MISP)

• GAO Report

• NAS Reports to Congress

IDS Background

1999 CERP Implementation Plan

• Contained implementation plan with detailed charts showing sequencing of more than 60 major CERP projects

• Based on annual funding level of $200M Federal and $200M non-Federal

• 35+ year implementation period, with most projects completed by 2020+

• Coordinated with stakeholders prior to inclusion in Yellow Book

1999 CERP Implementation Plan

Master Implementation Sequencing Plan

• Required by Programmatic Regulations

• MISP defined the order in which CERP projects would be planned, designed and constructed

• MISP based on banding -grouping project efforts within five-year time periods

2000

or Prior 20052010

2015 20202025

2030 2035Fiscal Years

Surface Storage Reservoirs

Stormwater Treatment Areas

Seepage Management

Decompartmentalization Phase I

Aquifer Storage & Recovery

Wastewater ReuseIn-ground Storage

Reservoirs

Adaptive Assessment

Pilot Projects 20172017

20332033

20332033

20142014

20092009

20282028

20232023

20192019

20362036

Decompartmentalization Phase II

20362036

Foundation Projects

Critical Projects

20122012

20072007

Band 6Band 2

Band 3Band 4

Band 5Band 1

Master Implementation Sequencing Plan

2007 GAO Report

• No overarching sequencing criteria used for decision-making

• Implementation decisions mostly driven by availability of funds

• Core group of projects behind schedule

2006 and 2008 NAS Reports to Congress

• There have been significant delays in the expected completion dates of several construction projects

• Recommended Incremental Adaptive Restoration (IAR) approach to accelerate natural system restoration

• Developing a realistic schedule and sound project sequence is a critical need for the restoration effort

The Bottom Line…

• Many changes since 1999 Restudy• Current sequencing does not provide for

early project benefits• IAR concept not incorporated into

sequencing • Non-CERP (i.e. “foundation projects”) not

included in sequencing• Need to better focus limited resources--

“Trying to do too much with too little”

What’s Needed?An Integrated Delivery Schedule

• Focus on delivering meaningful restoration benefits as early as possible

• Phase large projects as necessary to provide early benefits and learning

• Include non-CERP programs and projects• Include new programs and projects such as

Northern Everglades restoration• Update existing project schedules to provide current

status and practical timelines for implementation

Initial IDS Development

• Interagency team effort started in early 2007• Team members included USACE, SFWMD, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife

Service, Everglades National Park, and the Florida Department ofEnvironmental Protection.

• The team collaborated closely with various stakeholder groups• NAS Committee on Independent Scientific Review of Everglades

Restoration Progress• South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force and Working Group• CERP Quality Review Board• CERP Design Coordination Team• SFWMD Governing Board• SFWMD Water Resources Advisory Commission• CERP REstoration COordination & VERification Team

Initial IDS Development

Task Force5-6 December 2007

Task Force26-27 September 2007

Water Resources Advisory Committee6 September 2007

NAS CISRERP29 August 2007

Public Workshop20 August 2007

Quality Review Board25-26 July 2007

Working Group19-20 July 2007

Quality Review Board25 June 2007

Quality Review Board17 May 2007

Task Force16-17 May 2007

Working Group19-20 April 2007

Quality Review Board3-4 April 2007

Interagency/Public MeetingDate

Task Force17-18 September 2008

Governing Board10-11 September 2008

Working Group28 August 2008

Working Group16-17 July 2008

Governing Board9-10 July 2008

Task Force21-22 May 2008

Governing Board14-15 May 2008

Working Group28-29 April 2008

Water Resources Advisory Committee3 April 2008

Task Force27-28 February 2008

Water Resources Advisory Committee7 February 2008

Quality Review Board29-30 January 2008

Interagency/Public MeetingDate

Initial IDS DevelopmentMethodologies and Tools

• Guiding Principles• Scenarios/Approaches for Sequencing• Interactive Schedule

• No CERP projects are being taken off the table.• The Integrated Delivery Schedule acknowledges the Federal and State commitment

to complete implementation of key ongoing projects. The term “commitment” refers to projects currently authorized, under construction or both.

• IDS should include all projects related to the Everglades--State and Federal initiatives (Hebert Hoover, Dike, Northern Everglades Plan, Long-Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goals in the Everglades Protection Area).

• Projects should be implemented in a sequence that achieves restoration objectives at earliest practicable time, consistent with funding constraints.

• As appropriate, projects should be broken into multiple PIRs to facilitate the Incremental Adaptive Restoration (IAR) approach. Each separable element will conform to NEPA guidance, as well as other Federal and State laws.

• The IDS will be the basis for the updated MISP for CERP. The updated MISP, in turn, will be a major component of the wider-ranging IDS.

• Project and component interdependencies will drive the sequencing order for constructing projects. (e.g. pilot projects must be completed prior to a full scale project).

• As appropriate, the Interim Goals and Targets should be used to measure restoration progress.

• Key points in implementation will be defined by new system operating manuals.

Initial IDS DevelopmentGuiding Principles

Initial IDS DevelopmentScenarios

• Themes Approach– Restore sheetflow to the Everglades and southern estuaries– Focus on Lake Okeechobee and the northern estuaries– Optimize storage and flexibility

• “Finish What’s on our Plate” Approach– Focus on completing projects that are already “committed”

• Hybrid Approach– Combined “Finish What’s on Our Plate” approach with

common desire to pull certain projects forward (and slip “committed” projects)

Initial IDS DevelopmentInteractive Schedule

Initial IDS DevelopmentInteractive Schedule

Pull Decomp forward?

Initial IDS DevelopmentInteractive Schedule

Cash flow updated

Red bar indicates constraint

Initial IDS Development

• Interactive schedule allowed for exploring scenarios with recognized planning, design, and real estate constraints

• Selected a hybrid approach, incorporating “what’s on our plate” with other non-authorized projects (most notably Decomp and ENP Seepage Management)

• Includes sequencing through 2020

Integrated Delivery Schedule Through 2020

Total CostCERP Planning and Design CostConstruction CostSeminole Big CypressWest Palm Beach Canal/STA-1EC-111 South DadeKissimmee River RestorationModified Water DeliveriesPicayune Strand Restoration - MerrittSite 1 ImpoundmentBroward County - C-11 ImpoundmentDecomp PIR 1ENP Seepage ManagementPicayune Strand Restoration - Faka UnionBroward County - C-9 ImpoundmentPicayune Strand Restoration - MillerDecomp PIR 2Decomp PIR 3Lake Okeechobee WatershedBroward County - WCA 3A&3B Levee/S-356Decomp Physical ModelC-111 SC Design TestL-30 Seepage Management Pilot ProjectHerbert Hoover Dike Rehabilitation (see note 1)Long-Term Plan for Achieving Water Quality Goalsin the Everglades Protection Area Projects (see note 2)EAA Reservoir Phase A-1 (see note 2)C-44 Reservoir/STA (see note 2)C-43 West Reservoir (see note 2)C-111 SC Phase 1 (see note 2)Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands Phase 1 (see note 2)Northern Everglades Projects (see note 2)Lakeside Ranch (see note 2)Project Colors (from previous IDS Project Matrix):

$171

Note 1 : The construction costs are not included above.

$64 $64$118

$64$184 $132

TO BE DETERMINEDTO BE DETERMINED

Note 2 : Construction of these projects are currently planned to be led by SFWMD.

$167 $198

$262$64 $64 $64 $64 $64 $64$64

2009 2010 2011 2012

$117 $142

$206 $171$18120202013 2014 2015 2016

$116$64 $64

CERP PilotExpedited CERP

$107 $107

TO BE DETERMINED

TO BE DETERMINEDTO BE DETERMINED

TO BE DETERMINED

TO BE DETERMINED

2017 2018 2019$180 $182 $208 $231$250 $248 $196

Foundation

$144$186

Other CERP

Syst

em O

pera

ting

Man

ual

Syst

em O

pera

ting

Man

ual

17 Sept 2008

IDS Current Status

• Three minor revisions have occurred since September 2008 : – Schedules were provided for the State projects initially listed

as “TBD,” and the Melaleuca Eradication project was added– C-44 Component was moved to USACE for construction;

FY09 Omnibus, FY10 Budget, and ARRA increased federal funding, so Picayune Strand Faka Union and Site 1 projects were pulled forward

– The Decomp Physical Model effort was slipped from FY09 implementation

Integrated Delivery Schedule Through 2020

5 Jun 09

IDS Next Steps

• Include additional state and local ecosystem restoration projects and funding

• Develop process for revising the Integrated Delivery Schedule

Questions?Questions?