U.S. GOVERNMENT PRINTING OFFICE

WASHINGTON : 

For sale by the Superintendent of Documents, U.S. Government Printing Office

Internet: bookstore.gpo.gov Phone: toll free (866) 512–1800; DC area (202) 512–1800

Fax: (202) 512–2250 Mail: Stop SSOP, Washington, DC 20402–0001

95–147 PS 2005

COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN--THE FIRST MAJOR

PROJECTS

(108–83)

HEARING

BEFORE THE

SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

OF THE

COMMITTEE ON

TRANSPORTATION AND

INFRASTRUCTURE

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES

ONE HUNDRED EIGHTH CONGRESS

SECOND SESSION

JULY 22, 2004

Printed for the use of the

Committee on Transportation and Infrastructure

(
COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE

DON YOUNG, Alaska, Chairman

THOMAS E. PETRI, Wisconsin, Vice-Chair

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

HOWARD COBLE, North Carolina

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

JOHN L. MICA, Florida

PETER HOEKSTRA, Michigan

JACK QUINN, New York

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

SPENCER BACHUS, Alabama

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

FRANK A. LOBIONDO, New Jersey

JERRY MORAN, Kansas

GARY G. MILLER, California

JIM DEMINT, South Carolina

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

ROB SIMMONS, Connecticut

SHELLEY MOORE CAPITO, West Virginia

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

TIMOTHY V. JOHNSON, Illinois

DENNIS R. REHBERG, Montana

TODD RUSSELL PLATTS, Pennsylvania

SAM GRAVES, Missouri

MARK R. KENNEDY, Minnesota

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

BOB BEAUPREZ, Colorado

MICHAEL C. BURGESS, Texas

MAX BURNS, Georgia

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

JON C. PORTER, Nevada

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana

VACANCY

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

NICK J. RAHALL, II, West Virginia

WILLIAM O. LIPINSKI, Illinois

PETER A. DEFAZIO, Oregon

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

CORRINE BROWN, Florida

BOB FILNER, California

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

JUANITA MILLENDER-MCDONALD,

California

ELIJAH E. CUMMINGS, Maryland

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

LEONARD L. BOSWELL, Iowa

TIM HOLDEN, Pennsylvania

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

SHELLEY BERKLEY, Nevada

BRAD CARSON, Oklahoma

JIM MATHESON, Utah

MICHAEL M. HONDA, California

RICK LARSEN, Washington

MICHAEL E. CAPUANO, Massachusetts

ANTHONY D. WEINER, New York

JULIA CARSON, Indiana

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

MICHAEL H. MICHAUD, Maine

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

(II)
SUBCOMMITTEE ON WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT

JOHN J. DUNCAN, JR., Tennessee, Chairman

SHERWOOD L. BOEHLERT, New York

WAYNE T. GILCHREST, Maryland

VERNON J. EHLERS, Michigan

STEVEN C. LATOURETTE, Ohio

SUE W. KELLY, New York

RICHARD H. BAKER, Louisiana

ROBERT W. NEY, Ohio

GARY G. MILLER, California

JOHNNY ISAKSON, Georgia

ROBIN HAYES, North Carolina

HENRY E. BROWN, JR., South Carolina

BILL SHUSTER, Pennsylvania

JOHN BOOZMAN, Arkansas

CHRIS CHOCOLA, Indiana

STEVAN PEARCE, New Mexico, Vice-Chair

JIM GERLACH, Pennsylvania

MARIO DIAZ-BALART, Florida

RODNEY ALEXANDER, Louisiana

DON YOUNG, Alaska

(Ex Officio)

JERRY F. COSTELLO, Illinois

ROBERT MENENDEZ, New Jersey

GENE TAYLOR, Mississippi

NICK LAMPSON, Texas

BRIAN BAIRD, Washington

JOSEPH M. HOEFFEL, Pennsylvania

MIKE THOMPSON, California

TIMOTHY H. BISHOP, New York

LINCOLN DAVIS, Tennessee

ELEANOR HOLMES NORTON, District of

Columbia

JERROLD NADLER, New York

EDDIE BERNICE JOHNSON, Texas

EARL BLUMENAUER, Oregon

ELLEN O. TAUSCHER, California

BILL PASCRELL, JR., New Jersey

JAMES L. OBERSTAR, Minnesota

(Ex Officio)

(III)

(V)

CONTENTS

TESTIMONY

Page

Barnett, Ernest, Director, Ecosystem Projects, Florida Department of Environmental Protection ........................................................................................... 5

Burns, John J., Chairman, Independent Scientific Review Panel Indian River

Lagoon-South Project ........................................................................................... 5

Carpenter, Colonel Robert M., Commander, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers ............................................................................................... 5

Foley, Hon. Mark, a Representative in Congress from the State of Florida ...... 2

Gromnicki, April H., Everglades Policy Coordinator, Audubon of Florida ......... 5

Smith, Doug, Chairman, Martin County Board of County Commissioners ........ 5

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY MEMBERS OF CONGRESS

Duncan, Hon. John J., Jr., of Tennessee ............................................................... 55

Foley, Hon. Mark, of Florida .................................................................................. 58

PREPARED STATEMENTS SUBMITTED BY WITNESSES

Barnett, Ernest ........................................................................................................ 20

Burns, John J. .......................................................................................................... 28

Carpenter, Colonel Robert M .................................................................................. 35

Gromnicki, April H .................................................................................................. 60

Smith, Doug ............................................................................................................. 65

SUBMISSIONS FOR THE RECORD

Barnett, Ernest, Director, Ecosystem Projects, Florida Department of Environmental Protection, responses to questions ................................................... 25

Carpenter, Colonel Robert M., Commander, Jacksonville District, U.S. Army

Corps of Engineers, responses to questions ....................................................... 47

Smith, Doug, Chairman, Martin County Board of County Commissioners,

responses to questions ......................................................................................... 83

ADDITION TO THE RECORD

Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida, Dione Carroll, General Counsel, statement ...................................................................................................................... 87

(1)

COMPREHENSIVE EVERGLADES RESTORATION PLAN—THE FIRST MAJOR PROJECTS

Thursday, July 22, 2004

HOUSE OF REPRESENTATIVES, COMMITTEE ON TRANSPORTATION AND INFRASTRUCTURE, SUBCOMMITTEE ON

WATER RESOURCES AND ENVIRONMENT, WASHINGTON,

D.C.

The subcommittee met, pursuant to call, at 2:00 p.m. in room

2167, Rayburn House Office Building, Hon. John J. Duncan, Jr.

[chairman of the subcommittee] presiding.

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to welcome everyone to our hearing today.

I am going to have to slip out in just a minute and get to a mandatory vote in the Government Reform Committee, so I am going

to place my full statement in the record.

This is a hearing on the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration

Plan. The Water Resources Development Act of 2000 authorized

the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan to be the framework for conserving and redistributing water in south Florida. The

principal goal of this effort is to restore water to the Everglades but

at the same time recognizing the water supply needs of agricultural

and urban areas.

I am going to turn at this time to the Ranking Member, Mr.

Costello. I will place my full statement in the record and I will

have additional comments when Mr. Foley arrives. I think he is on

his way at this time.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Chairman, I will place my statement in the

record as well.

Let me just say as everyone knows, this subcommittee has investigated the decline of the Everglades for years. I was pleased that

in WRDA 2000 that we defined a broadbased restoration plan for

the Everglades. It is our responsibility now. We all know that this

will be a long, ongoing project and will be very expensive and it is

our responsibility as this subcommittee to monitor both the plan to

see that it proceeds as intended and the resources are spent in a

consistent manner with not only this committee but in the interest

of the taxpayers as well.

I look forward to hearing from our colleague, Mr. Foley, and the

other witnesses who will be testifying as well.

Mr. DUNCAN. I want to first welcome the first witness we have

today, the Honorable Mark Foley, our good friend from Florida.

The way we handle member panels here, we go ahead and let you

give your statement. Your full statement will be placed in the

record but in consideration of other witnesses and the fact that we

do have a chance to question or to talk to you about these matters
2

on the floor at other times, we do not question the members in this

subcommittee. We are glad to have you here with us.

I do have one problem in that I have a mandatory vote going on

right at this moment and I am going to have to slip out. I will be

back just as soon as I possibly can but you may proceed with your

statement.

Mr. Foley?

TESTIMONY OF HON. MARK FOLEY, A REPRESENTATIVE IN

CONGRESS FROM THE STATE OF FLORIDA

Mr. FOLEY. I have Lance Armstrong’s bracelet. We obviously

wish him well and I hope my marathon on helping to restore the

Everglades is met with the same kind of success he has proven.

It is extraordinarily important, as Mr. Costello suggested. It is

not only important to move forward with the entirety of the Everglades restoration but I want to put in context the fact that we are

spending a considerable amount of taxpayers dollars and this is a

critical link in that proposal. To not fully implement this proposal

I think will lead to further degradation of our environmental quality of life in Florida, the sustainability of the Everglades and of

course all the other projects that tie together.

When Congress passed the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, we reaffirmed the Nation’s commitment to America’s

most imperiled national treasure. I underscore the nature of this

project is that it is an American treasure. Sometimes people consider this a Florida project. This is like the Grand Canyon, this is

like Yosemite, this is like any other wonderful, historic or great

landscaping in our country. This is an ownership of the American

people.

For almost 45 years, there has been a steady stream of clear and

compelling, scientific data detailing the perilous state of the Everglades. Unnatural levels of fresh water in our estuaries, lesion on

our fish, deposits of muck and phosphorous in our lakes and canals

and the declining of wading birds. CERP represents a historic partnership between all stakeholders, agricultural interests, the Administration, Governor Bush, the utilities, Indian tribes and environmental groups came together in a rare form of both bipartisan

and mutual cooperation in an unprecedented show of that cooperation to develop a plan that will protect and preserve our ecosystem.

It is built upon the initial commitment we as Congress made at

my request to provide $200 million in Federal funds for Florida’s

Everglades restoration back in the 1996 Farm Bill. Mr. Chairman,

I want to underscore, we are now at a crossroad in timing of this

project. It is critical. The Indian River Lagoon Plan, South IRL is

one of the first significant elements of CERP and it is responsible

for critically addressing environmental abuses visited on the St.

Lucie River, Indian River Lagoon, Lake Okeechobee by the old

Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project.

The Indian River Lagoon is a 156 mile long estuary located at

the mouth of the St. Lucie River in Martin County which is part

of my congressional district that I share with our colleague L.C.

Hastings. It is home to more than 4,300 species of plants and animals and supports an annual economic contribution of more than

$730 million. I can tell we have obviously important colleagues
3

from Martin County here to testify as well but I want to stress that

they not only are involved from a strategic standpoint as representatives of local government, but they have also stepped up to the

plate in voting by our constituents for a three year, one cent sales

tax to contribute over $50 million in revenue for the IRL effort.

This proves not only are we interested in asking the Federal Government for resources, my community has put its money where its

mouth is and voted unusually if you will under these times when

very few sales tax measures pass, the community recognized the

life and sustainability of our communities rests solely on this area.

There are other things I will leave for the record because I want

to give all parties a chance to speak but I want to once again underscore this is a most critical project in the bigger and larger

scheme of what we are trying to create for all of the Everglades

sustainability and restoration. I beg my colleagues, and I don’t use

that word often, if you would please carefully consider and look favorably on our request, it would be of enormous help to the communities, to the Everglades and to the sustainability of the quality of

life of our entire State.

Mr. DUNCAN. Mark, thank you very much and I apologize to you

once again. I know you have been extremely interested for quite

some time now and it is a honor and privilege to have you here

with us.

We will let you go so we can go ahead and get started with our

regular witnesses. Do you have any questions or comments, Mr.

Costello?

Mr. COSTELLO. No, other than to thank Mr. Foley for not only

his testimony but his leadership on this issue. We, as well, are

hopeful that it needs to occur this year. We firmly believe that. As

you know, we passed the WRDA bill last September and we are

waiting on the other body to act. Hopefully if they can take some

action and get out a bill this year, we can get it to conference and

address the issue.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

We will call our witnesses at this time. We have a very distinguished panel of witnesses. We have representing the Army Corps

of Engineers, Colonel Robert M. Carpenter, Commander, Jacksonville District from Jacksonville, Florida; representing the Florida

Department of Environmental Protection, Mr. Ernest Barnett, Director of Ecosystem Projects from Tallahassee, Florida; representing the Martin County Board of County Commissioners, Mr. Doug

Smith, the Chairman of that commission from Stuart, Florida; representing Audubon of Florida, Ms. April H. Gromnicki, Everglades

Policy Coordinator from Miami; and representing the Independent

Scientific Review Panel for the Indian River Lagoon-South Project,

Mr. John J. Burns, Chairman of that panel from Springfield, Virginia. We are honored and pleased to have each of you here with

us.

We always proceed in the order the witnesses are listed on the

call of the hearing and we will proceed in that manner. Your full

statements will be placed in the record. All the committees and

subcommittees of the Congress give witnesses five minutes to give

their statements. In this subcommittee, we give six minutes but we
4

ask that when you see this, that you stop in consideration for the

other witnesses who are here.

Before we do start, I notice our colleague, Mario Diaz-Balart has

come in. Congressman Diaz-Balart has been very involved and active in this both in the State Legislature in Florida and here in the

Congress. I am going to call on him for any statement or comments

he wishes to make at this time before we start with the witnesses.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Thank you.

Let me first thank you, Chairman Duncan, for your leadership,

by the way, historically on Everglades issues. Your commitment to

the Everglades is very well known. I happen to represent the Everglades so let me thank you publicly.

These two projects that we are dealing with now are close to $1.5

billion. It is real money, so I want to thank you, Mr. Chairman, for

reviewing this. I think it would be irresponsible of us to not review

how the money is being spent, to make sure the money is well

spent, to ensure they are properly planned, that they are well managed and obviously appropriately funded.

Indian River Lagoon, as we know much of the lagoon’s floor has

created a complicating effect on the health of waters bottom going

species and I am glad we are going to have an opportunity to talk

about that as well as southern Golden Gate Estates which while

protecting estuaries from excessive fresh water discharges, this

project will help restore water to the Everglades. In my opinion,

these projects are necessary to accomplish their intended goals.

None of the results we all want are just going to happen naturally, unfortunately. So we must ensure that we are prioritizing

correctly. We want to make sure the money that is being spent is

going to projects that work, making sure the money is achieving

the results we want and we are spending the money in a way this

is consistent with the project’s intent.

Again, I want to thank you for your support of the Everglades

and secondly, for your support of the taxpayer and making sure the

money is well spent and that it does achieve the results that we

are all hoping for. Thank you, I am really looking forward to this

hearing.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much. You are correct that the Indian River Lagoon Project is estimated at $1.2 billion and the Gold

Gates Project is estimated at $363 million according to the information I have been given. That does amount to a lot of money and

we have to see how it fits within our other priorities across the Nation but these are very, very important projects and this hearing

is a followup to hearings that we have been doing on other important work by the Army Corps and so forth across the country, on

the Upper Mississippi and the Louisiana Coastal Area and various

other major type projects, but certainly the Everglades work is

among the most important this Nation has to deal with at this

time.

We will go ahead and start with the statements of the witnesses.

Colonel Carpenter, you are first.
5

TESTIMONY OF COLONEL ROBERT M. CARPENTER, COMMANDER, JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT, U.S. ARMY CORPS OF

ENGINEERS; ERNEST BARNETT, DIRECTOR, ECOSYSTEM

PROJECTS, FLORIDA DEPARTMENT OF ENVIRONMENTAL

PROTECTION; DOUG SMITH, CHAIRMAN, MARTIN COUNTY

BOARD OF COUNTY COMMISSIONERS; APRIL H. GROMNICKI,

EVERGLADES POLICY COORDINATOR, AUDUBON OF FLORIDA; AND JOHN J. BURNS, CHAIRMAN, INDEPENDENT SCIENTIFIC REVIEW PANEL INDIAN RIVER LAGOON-SOUTH

PROJECT

Colonel CARPENTER. Thank you, Mr. Chairman and members of

the committee.

I am Colonel Robert M. Carpenter, Commander of the Jacksonville District, U.S. Army Corps of Engineers. I am pleased to have

the opportunity today to speak to you about two projects, the Indian River Lagoon-South Project and the Southern Golden Estates

Project which is now in draft implementation report form.

First, the Indian River Lagoon or IRL. The lagoon is an estuary

of national significance and is a critically important feature in the

Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan. The IRL Project is

the culmination of an unprecedented partnership between the

Corps of Engineers, South Florida Water Management District, the

State of Florida and many State, Federal and local governments.

This project has tremendous support from local and scientific communities. My testimony today will provide information about the

features of the recommended plan, the project costs and benefits

and authorization requirements.

As you know, my report is currently under final policy review at

Corps headquarters. The recommendations of the Chief of Engineers will be forwarded to the Assistant Secretary of the Army for

Civil Works by July 30th of this year. The draft recommended plan

is the National Ecosystem Restoration Plan. The Indian River Lagoon, St. Lucie River and St. Lucie Estuary are just like the Everglades and Lake Okeechobee are, natural systems in distress. They

suffer from water levels that fluctuate dramatically as they receive

huge volumes of fresh water during the storm season and too little

fresh water in times of drought. The IRL Project provides a unique

opportunity to correct this distress. This project will actually increase the spacial extent of the wetlands and the upland mosaic to

recreate areas that characterize the historic Everglades.

The primary features of the project include 12,600 acres of reservoirs capable of storing approximately 130,000 acre feet of water,

8,700 acres of stormwater treatment areas, 9,200 acres of restored

uplands and wetlands providing approximately 30,000 acre feet of

storage of water and water quality improvements, 3,100 acres of restored flood plain on the north fork of the St. Lucie River and additionally, 7.9 million cubic yards of muck will be removed from the

St. Lucie River in the middle estuary.

This project will restore the St. Lucie River, its estuary and the

Southern Indian River Lagoon The restoration will be demonstrated by important indicators of the health of the ecosystem.

Throughout the lagoon we will see improvements in the oyster

habitat, submerged aquatic vegetation and habitat. This will result

in the preservation and protection of a huge area of wetlands.
6

Above and beyond the restoration of hydrology to the historic wetlands, the project will also increase the spacial extent of wetlands

in the study area.

After explaining the technical benefits of the IRL Project, I would

like to describe them in more holistic terms or in terms of what

those benefits translate into for our society. The IRL recommended

plan does three things. First, by capturing the water now lost at

tide, the plan increases water supply. Second, even as the plan

holds this water back in the environment, current levels of flood

protections are maintained. We have ensured that reduced

stormwater runoff does not increase flooding. Finally, I know you

have heard the saying the environment is the economy and the

economy is the environment. There are probably few places in the

Nation where this is more true. Therefore, restoring the health of

the St. Lucie and Indian River not only protects the regional economy but actually increases the economic opportunities.

Scientists and engineers have determined the substantial restoration will occur in the study area from the IRL Project with or

without other CERP projects. The team has estimated that 88 percent of the estuary benefits and 100 percent of the watershed benefits will be achieved in the absence of construction of other CERP

projects.

I would like to speak for a moment about the cost of the plan.

You will not see traditional benefit cost ratios associated with this

project because it is an environmental restoration project and traditional economic values are not assigned to benefits that come from

these plans. However, the scale of the recommended plan features

were selected based on cost effectiveness and incremental cost analysis.

The cost of our draft recommendation is based on October 2003

price levels and is estimated at $1.2 billion including $699 million

for real estate. In accordance with the cost sharing requirements

of Section 601(e) of the WRDA 2000 bill, the cost of the project including annual operations and monitoring activities will be shared

equally between the Federal Government and non-Federal sponsors. WRDA 2000 specifically authorized the C-44 Basin storage

reservoir component of this project. However, adapted management

assessment of the needs of the C-44 Basin during the completion

of this report for the Indian River Lagoon has resulted in substantial changes to this component of the plan. The other components

of the recommended plan for IRL namely C-23, 24 and 25 components were included in the original Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and do require specific authorization in accordance

with Section 601(d). The natural storage area and muck removal

components are new features that significantly enhance the overall

performance of the project and also require specific authorization.

I have also recommended deauthorization of several projects totaling over $400 million. These include the C-44 reservoir, storage

reservoir at an updated cost of $131 million and several Martin

County irrigation and flood control projects dating back from the

Flood Control Act of 1968.

Maintaining and restoring one of the most unique and diverse

ecosystems in the world is a daunting challenge in and of itself.

With the fragile ecosystem located adjacent to the diverse and
7

thriving human population, the complexity and challenges compounded exponentially.

Regarding the draft PIR for the restoration project, this project

is another effort we are conducting in partnership with the South

Florida Water Management District and many other groups. This

project will bring great ecological benefits to the Big Cypress

Swamp and the Fakahatchee Strand. The draft plan consists of restoring 55,000 acres of wetlands at an estimated cost of $363 million. The Jacksonville District has completed a draft project implementation report that includes our tentative proposal for restoration. The public comment period closed last week and our staff is

now processing and analyzing the comments before the draft final

report is completed.

The Army recognizes the longer it takes before corrective action

is taken, the more difficult it will be to reverse the degradation.

Both IRL and Picayune Strand are solid foundations for future actions. The flexibility that is built into these two plans as well as

the Comprehensive Everglades Plan in total enables us to meet any

unforeseen challenges. With this flexibility, we have one of the

most important tools we need to incorporate the latest scientific advances into the program.

The coalition supporting each of these efforts are talented, resourceful and determined to succeed. With a commitment to the

long journey ahead and full recognition of the resources that will

be required, we will be successful.

Mr. Chairman, this concludes my statement. I stand ready to answer questions.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Colonel Carpenter.

Mr. Barnett?

Mr. BARNETT. We are pleased and honored to be here today. I am

also pleased to report that more progress has been made towards

Everglades restoration since the passage of WRDA 2000 than occurred in the previous decade. We are now beginning with our Federal partners to see measurable and tangible results.

We have already acquired, along with our Federal partners, over

half of the land needed to implement the entire Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and last year, we also broke ground on

the first construction project of this massive restoration effort years

ahead of schedule. We began restoring a more natural flow of water

to more than 50,000 acres of wetlands in southwest Florida. Also

since 2000, the State of Florida has invested over $915 million to

implement the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan and we

have made a commitment to also invest another $1.7 billion to the

end of the decade to implement the Comprehensive Everglades

Restoration Plan and restore America’s Everglades.

The secret to our success has been simple. It is working with our

Federal partners, with our local communities, the environmental

groups and others and staying focused on first rate science, engineering and management. We feel it is a proven formula that will

allow success in these two projects you are considering, the Southern Golden Gate and Indian River Lagoon South Projects.

In regards to the Indian River Lagoon-South, the State of Florida

is in strong support and endorsement of its inclusion in the Water

Resources Development Act of 2000. The Indian River Lagoon is
8

recognized as an estuary of national significance and it is also a

Florida aquatic preserve and outstanding Florida water.

The U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water

Management District’s plan to restore this critical part of the south

Florida ecosystem will restore more than 53,000 acres of wetlands,

reduce pollution, and provide water storage to return a more natural flow of fresh water to the St. Lucie and Indian River Estuaries.

The success of this plan is dependent upon its many contributors,

the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the South Florida Water

Management District who play key roles, the skilled and tenacious

support of Martin and St. Lucie Counties and important contributions from many other agencies as well as the environmental community and groups such as Audubon make this plan a stellar example of environmental restoration.

Finally, the plan received its most valued support from the citizens of Martin and St. Lucie County especially through organizations such as the St. Lucie River Initiative, the Conservation Alliances of Martin and St. Lucie Counties, the River Coalition and the

Indian River Citrus League.

We are pleased with Congress’ actions to date and urge your continued support for this very, very important part of Everglades restoration.

In regards to Picayune Strand, Southern Golden Gate Estates

hydrological restoration, the State is also in strong support of its

inclusion in the Water Resources Development Act of 2004. This

plan will restore over 36,000 acres of wetland habitat and the western part of the Everglades ecosystem. Restoring the hydrology will

restore vegetative communities, wildlife populations, including listed species as well as improve the downstream estuary conditions

to a more historic and less degraded state. This plan will also aid

in protecting the City of Naples’ eastern Golden Gate Well Field by

improving groundwater recharge.

In an effort to expedite the restoration of critical western lands

and implementation of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration

Plan, the State of Florida is actually moving ahead with the backfilling of a portion of this project, the Prairie Canal in Southern

Golden Gate. The Prairie Canal Project involves backfilling seven

miles of the canals, removing most roads adjacent to the canal and

clearing exotic plant species from canal banks. This early start

project is already reducing fresh water drainage from Fakahatchee

Strand and it is replenishing valuable water supplies and restoring

habitat for wildlife and will be completed by October 2005. This is

the first construction started as part of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan.

Several Federal trust resources will benefit from the overall restoration of Southern Gold Gate including the 10,000 Islands National Wildlife Refuge, the Panhandle of Everglades National Park,

and the Florida Panther National Wildlife Refuge, all will see environmental benefits from the completion of this important restoration project.

In summary, the State of Florida strongly supports the authorization and the recommended plans for both the Indian River Lagoon and Southern Golden Gate Hydrologic Restoration Project. We

look forward to our continued partnership with the Federal Gov-
9

ernment. The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan is a

broad solution for ecosystem restoration and complementary water

supply and flood control.

Florida has forged a complete and equal partnership with the

Federal Government to protect our Nation’s interests by restoring

the Everglades and we believe the next step in this long term partnership is implementation of the Indian River Lagoon-South and

Picayune Strands Southern Golden Gate Hydrologic Restoration

Projects.

We are most appreciative of Congress’ support and look forward

to years ahead of working toward restoring America’s Everglades.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Barnett.

Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. Mr. Chairman and members of the subcommittee, it

is my honor to express Martin County’s strong support for the authorization of the Indian River Lagoon Project, Southern Golden

Gate Project this year.

With me today is Vice Chairman of our board, Sarah Heard,

Commissioner; Commissioner Michael DiTerlizzi and Water Quality Chief, Gary Roderick. We appreciate the strong support of our

Florida delegation, especially Representatives Mark Foley, Mario

Diaz-Balart, LC. Hastings and Senators Bob Graham and Bill Nelson.

Martin County’s livelihood depends on the health of our waterways and the species that dwell there. Stuart, our county seat, is

the shellfish capital of the world. Tourists and sports fishing contribute over $730 million annually to our economy and some 7,000

jobs and the health of our sensitive waterways.

We live in the most biologically diverse ecosystem in North

America. However, man’s efforts to drain the Everglades long ago

threatened to destroy this great environmental treasure. Historically, the natural overflow of Lake Okeechobee supplied flow of

fresh water all the way to Florida Bay. Today that chief flow does

not exist. Instead, excess lake water is released through manmade

canals to the east and west into extremely sensitive estuaries. In

our case, vast amounts of polluted fresh water loaded with huge

amounts of muck surge into C-44 canal through the St. Lucie

River, St. Lucie Estuary and into the Indian River Lagoon. These

fresh water surges upset the natural saline balance rendering fish

and mammals susceptible to ulcers, tumors and lesions. Some 33

percent of dolphins, 55 percent of sea turtles in the estuary are inflicted with these maladies. Some species of fish no longer breed in

the estuary.

These water surges do great damage to our economy. Last September some 1,000 citizens gathered near a rampaging brown

water in support of IRL, demanding to stop this assault on the environment of our economy. IRL has the unified support of every

county in south Florida, agricultural interests, environmental

groups, business groups, and recreational interests. IRL will provide the needed surface storage water treatment areas, wetland

habitat restoration and muck removal. It will stop the destructive

discharges of dirty water into our sensitive estuaries, protect wildlife and supply cleansed fresh water for the Everglades ecosystem

and agricultural use.
10

After the President’s Earth Day announcement of this bold initiative to restore some 3 million acres of wetlands, the county wrote

him to applaud his support of wetlands restoration. We noted that

the IRL project alone will restore over 90,000 acres of wetlands. We

also asked the President to support congressional authorization for

the Indian River Lagoon South Program this year.

Mr. Chairman, we are not asking for a handout. Indeed, we have

invested our own money in this project. In 1998, the citizens of

Martin County enacted a three year one cent sales tax to generate

our own Indian River contribution. We raised over $50 million and

to date we have spent some $26 million to purchase land for that

project.

Indian River Lagoon is part of our lives. We have participated

every step of the way in its development by serving our communities, attending countless meetings, generating support from virtually every stakeholder in our area. We live in an area flush with

the wonders of the Everglades ecosystem, we feel it is our solemn

duty to preserve this marvelous asset for future generations to

come. Now we ask you to take this first step by authorizing the Indian River Lagoon Project this year.

The Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan offers great

promise for restoring this magnificent Everglades for all of America. It will be a long journey to achieve this great promise but this

journey as worthy as it is cannot begin without taken the first step.

On behalf of Martin County and the Board of County Commissioners and the residents of Martin County, I sincerely appreciate

your time and energy.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Smith. I do think it is

good that the local citizens are participating in this to that extent.

Ms. Gromnicki?

Ms. GROMNICKI. Thank you for this opportunity to express our

views on the Everglades Restoration Plan, particularly authorization of the Indian River Lagoon South Project and the Southern

Golden Estates now known as Picayune Strand Ecosystem Restoration Project.

We want to particularly recognize Congressman Mario DiazBalart for his commitment and leadership as well as the rest of the

Florida delegation and think that merits attention.

Clearly we support authorization of both CERP projects, recognizing that they are essential to meeting the congressional directive to restore the Everglades, protecting and preserving the south

Florida ecosystem in the process. We recognize three things, that

the measured success of Everglades restoration will be returning

abundant wildlife to the ecosystem; that the economic prosperity

and quality of life for citizens in south Florida are dependent upon

a healthy Everglades ecosystem; and that the partnership between

the State of Florida, the Federal Government, the local governments and stakeholders in the process is essential to success of the

restoration plan.

Audubon recognizes that the principal measure of success for

south Florida Everglades ecosystem restoration will be the return

of abundant bird life. Over the decades we have seen a reduction

of 90 percent in the birds lost from the ecosystem, the wading birds
11

lost from the ecosystem. By undoing the damage done from development and drainage, we can return the wildlife to the ecosystem.

Like other components of the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration Plan, these projects are largely an attempt to repair the damage that has been done by previous Federal and State projects with

the unintended consequences of unsustainable water management.

Of particular note in the Indian River Lagoon Project is the natural storage areas. These are a uniquely low tech option for storing

water, cleaning water and in the process, providing habitat for the

wildlife in the area. The long term cost savings for operation and

management of this low tech option are significant.

The Greater Miami Chamber of Commerce, Chamber South and

other chambers of commerce in southern Florida have recognized

the importance of restoration to the economy and the quality of life

and have ranked it one of the chambers’ priorities for several years.

We see the Everglades as a model for future ecosystem restoration projects, a 50-50 partnership between the Federal Government

and the partnering States. This is the ideal way to correct the unforeseen consequences of decades old Army Corps of Engineers

projects to repair the ecosystems as equal partners with the States.

Additionally, this restoration project, these two particular projects,

are a race against development. Every day that these projects are

delayed lands and options for restoration are lost to development.

We need to move forward now if we are to be successful in the long

run.

Indian River Lagoon and Picayune Strand and Southern Golden

Gate Estates are vital components of the comprehensive plan.

Local support is strong for both projects, every county in the State

had supported both Indian River Lagoon as mentioned by Chairman Smith as well as the Southern Golden Gate Estates Project.

To conclude, we urge Congress to move forward with an authorization of both Indian River Lagoon and Southern Golden Gate Estates this year, to move restoration toward success in the face of

encroaching urban development and pending estuarine collapse,

and to fulfill the congressional promise of Everglades restoration.

Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Ms. Gromnicki.

Mr. Burns?

Mr. BURNS. Thank you for inviting me here this afternoon to discuss the work of the Independent Scientific Review Panel for the

Indian River Lagoon-South Project implementation report and environmental impact statement.

I served on the committee along with my fellow committee members, Dr. Steven Bartell from the Cadmus Group in Maryville, Tennessee; Dr. Darrell Fontane from Colorado State University; Dr.

William McAnally from Mississippi State University; Dr. Louis

Motz from the University of Florida; and Dr. Robert Twilley from

Louisiana State University.

Today, I would like to summarize for you the process the panel

went through, our findings and the recommendations we made to

the project delivery team and conclude with a brief summary statement.

The panel was commissioned by the Corps earlier this year. We

began our work on March 6 when we received a copy of the final
12

report from the Corps. Each member of the panel individually reviewed the document, developed comments, provided those to the

Corps and to each of the other panel members. That process took

about two weeks. Following that, we met with the project delivery

team in Jacksonville, Florida on March 30. At that meeting we received a briefing from the project delivery team on the project but

the bulk of the meeting was spent discussing the comments and

the responses the project delivery team had developed.

Following that meeting, we developed a draft report sent to the

Corps by the 15th of April, the Corps then with input from the

project delivery team provided us with additional comments and we

finalized our activities on May 4.

In the way of findings, we were impressed by the document, its

comprehensiveness and its attention to detail. It addressed a substantial number of issues with an obvious concern for public goals

and for legislative directives. We were impressed by the project delivery team, truly an interagency, intergovernmental team. We

commend the team members for their efforts in completing this

dramatic task.

We concluded that the plans presented in the report have a high

likelihood of meeting the restoration objectives and the supporting

technical analyses were based on sound science. There are, however, considerable uncertainties inherent in any project of this complexity. Therefore the panel made recommendations to the project

delivery team for additional analyses to be conducted as the project

moves towards implementation.

I would summarize those in two areas, modeling and the other

area I want to talk about is adaptive management. In the area of

modeling, we would recommend additional effort in the following

areas, modeling in climate and sea level rise, the operation and definition of the reservoirs, additional modeling in that area, more

comprehensive, ecological models to forecast the likely outcomes of

proposed restoration actions on Indian River Lagoon, sediment

transportation and deposition modeling, review of the reliability of

the groundwater flow model that is being used and use of a proven,

three dimensional and numerical water quality model and more

comprehensive modeling to address the impact of harvesting and

grazing on the effectiveness of the subaquatic vegetation and oyster

restoration initiatives that are part of the project.

In summary, the restoration of Indian River Lagoon in the view

of the panel is a complex undertaking. We feel the project delivery

team has done a first rate, professional job in the planning stage

of the project. There are, however, considerable uncertainties

ahead. Therefore the panel has recommended additional detailed

analysis to be conducted during additional phases of the project.

That concludes my remarks. Thank you.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much, Mr. Burns. I thank all the

witnesses for outstanding testimony.

Colonel Carpenter, I am going to go to Mr. Diaz-Balart for first

questions but let me just ask you this. There are more than 60

component parts in this Comprehensive Everglades Restoration

Plan, why this project first? I am told by the staff that this project

does not directly benefit the Everglades and that it could even

delay some other parts of the Plan that are more beneficial to the
13

Everglades. Is that correct? Why did you choose to go with this one

first instead of one of all the others?

Colonel CARPENTER. There are several reasons why we chose Indian River Lagoon South to be the first. As you look at the heart

of the system, Lake Okeechobee and the system in general, our

most pressing need was water storage, so as we looked through

this and our abilities to get the water right, we are looking for

water storage first. We had to have someplace to put this excess

water as the initial thing, so that became a major search. Indian

River Lagood South Project provides 195,000 acre feet of storage,

it clearly became a key thing for us to look to.

We also looked at trying to get the most benefit for the buck

early in the program to get success. We looked at this project as

largely independent but as a large watershed that we could actually with reasonable certainty be able to produce results. We have

science that is going on and studies in the other areas, this one

was in a position where we could move it ahead. It has unprecedented support which has made the job of building the coalition

and the team much easier but the crux of the matter is that we

are able to capture the water needed for restoration up front.

Mr. DUNCAN. I am going to have some additional questions but

I am going to go to Mr. Diaz-Balart since he is the most directly

involved member on this operation.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I have a lot of questions and I will try to get

to them in the time allocated.

I want to first thank the panel. Mr. Barnett, it is good to see you

again.

Mr. Chairman, as you have seen, the Everglades restoration is

something supported by the entire State of Florida. It is not a partisan issue and those of us in south Florida have maybe a little better understanding of the Everglades than others but it is universally supported by everybody.

Mr. Barnett, I want to thank you again for the State’s incredible

efforts and involvement in putting taxpayers’ money where collectively the State’s mouth has been as well as local governments who

have done the same thing throughout the State of Florida.

Ms. Gromnicki, you mentioned something I thought was key

which is it is a fight against time. It is one of the fastest growing

States and one of the fastest growing areas in the State. Again, it

is a kind of fight, it is not like we are going to sit around and 30

years from now that land will still be there. It won’t, it will disappear, it will be developed.

I have a question I guess to you, Colonel. You have been wonderful to work with and I appreciate that as well. My staff harasses

your staff all the time. How important are both these projects to

the overall restoration efforts of the Everglades?

Colonel CARPENTER. They are pivotal to the success. Getting an

early start where we can restore and capture the water sets us up

for all 68 projects which are interconnected. It is one ecosystem

from north of the Lake all the way down to the Keys. So it is very

important that we capture in project sized bites things we can handle with the science and with our funding stream in a way that

makes sense. So we have picked the projects to do that. These first

ones are absolutely essential to our success.
14

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. How are those priorities taking place in relation to other components of Everglades restoration? There are a lot

of projects out there.

Colonel CARPENTER. As we look at all the projects, our job really

is to get the water right, quantity, quality and distribution and

timing are what we are trying to balance with the needs of where

we are on things like purchasing the lands needed for the project

and there are a lot of variables. It is a complicated thing. I am not

sure I could explain it all to you here.

I will tell you the team working on it, not just Corps, State, Federal, tribal and local community governments and individual citizenry that is involved in this thing, are really committed and we

are getting the best and the brightest working on this project.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. I was interested to hear what Mr. Burns said

and he kind of alluded to the fact that it is a very strong team and

a lot of people working together.

Obviously not all of those, if you look at the draft master project

and limitation schedule, not all of these are going to be able to be

done. We are talking about a lot of money immediately. Do we have

a list of components that would be done immediately if this is authorized right away? What are those first components? Do you already have that and do you have a handle on that already?

Colonel CARPENTER. Yes, sir. We have a plan based on the congressional language in the WRDA 2000 bill that lays out approximately $200 million State and $200 million Federal, looking to balance that and working simultaneously on plans and specs, construction and also project implementation reports, trying to strike

a balance as we work through the process and keep a level approach to long term success.

Mr. Chairman, this is a project that all of us up here obviously

are strong proponents of but also we have a lot of support from

local, State and other agencies. Lastly, Mr. Burns, you mentioned

some recommendations you have. What sort of cooperation are you

getting on these issues or is it no, thank you very much, we know

what we are doing, get the heck out of here?

Mr. BURNS. That is a good question, Congressman. We met with

the project deliver team as I indicated in March 30th. The meeting

I felt was excellent. The openness, the willingness to discuss issues

and to interact with the committee as exceptional. I would say the

cooperation we had was excellent. We have made recommendations

that could be followed up on. Our role has ended now so that remains to be seen, sir.

Mr. DIAZ-BALART. Mr. Chairman, thank you very much. Let me

thank you again for your support. You have been unbelievably supportive. I would feel remiss if I didn’t mention the fact that I think

this hearing and it is the first I have had of this type since I have

been up here, is crucial to make sure we are doing the right thing,

that the money is being well spent, that we are not blowing the

taxpayers’ money and that it is going to the right places. Again,

thank you for your stewardship of the Everglades issue and also

the taxpayers’ money.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Diaz-Balart. You certainly have

been a great, great member of this committee and subcommittee in

the short time you have been here. We appreciate your work.
15

Mr. Costello.

Mr. COSTELLO. I first want to thank all of our witnesses for their

testimony today. It is good to see Mr. Duke and Ms. Copeland here

today as well. They were very helpful to us when we visited the

Everglades. I have just a couple quick questions.

Colonel, first of all, to date how much has the Corps of Engineers

spent on the implementation of the project of the restoration of the

Everglades?

Colonel CARPENTER. For just the Indian River Lagoon or the entire project?

Mr. COSTELLO. The entire Everglades Project?

Colonel CARPENTER. I don’t have that number readily available.

I will provide it for the record.

Mr. COSTELLO. Can you take a stab at it? Dennis, could you take

a stab at it?

Colonel CARPENTER. Probably $150 million has been spent to

date is the number Dennis has provided.

Mr. COSTELLO. We won’t hold you to that but about $150 million?

Colonel CARPENTER. Yes, sir.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Barnett, the same question for the State of

Florida. How much as the State spent on the project?

Mr. BARNETT. Since WRDA 2000, the State legislature and the

governing board of the South Florida Water Management District

have appropriated and dedicated $915 million exclusively to the

implementation of CERP. Most of those funds have been used for

acquisition of critical lands needed to implement the infrastructure.

Mr. COSTELLO. In WRDA 2000, there is a 50-50 cost share as you

know for authorized projects. I am wondering since the State of

Florida is so far out in terms of how much has been spent on the

restoration of the Everglades, there are also provisions in WRDA

to give credits for the States. I am wondering has then been

worked out or have you discussed that yet?

Colonel CARPENTER. Yes, sir. There is a plan. The water bill requires that every five years the 50-50 split is evaluated and make

sure that we are accurate. Right now we are in fact accurate in our

accounting procedures which are as the State has spent a lot of

money on lands, the crediting for those lands is not put in the program until a project cooperation agreement is signed. That comes

after money is appropriated and we have not had a PCA for any

of the projects to have that real estate piece kick in.

The Federal Government has contributed some funds to land so

initially in the first evaluation which is 2005, we are comfortable

that it will be a 50-50 crediting issue and we are constantly watching to make sure the State doesn’t get too far ahead. It is another

one of those things we have to factor in as we look at which

projects we are working and which PIRs we are advancing to make

sure we meet the requirements set upon Congress on the CERP

plan.

Mr. COSTELLO. Do you have anything to add, Mr. Barnett?

Mr. BARNETT. I also want to make sure it is clearly understood

that this is a funding formula that we contemplated in early years

the State would expend at a higher rate than the Federal Government because that is very typical of a typical Corps of Engineers

local sponsor agreement where the primary responsibilities to ac-
16

quire the land fall on the back of the local sponsor. So we have not

been alarmed by the rate of Federal spending and when we went

into this, we anticipated that there was some risk in acquiring the

land up front but it is a proven formula that has worked in the

Kissimmee River and in other restoration projects we have done in

the State of Florida and are continuing to acquire land as we speak

today.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Burns, in your testimony you describe maybe

five pages of recommendations from the review panel and you indicated in your testimony today that you were impressed with the

document, that there are considerable number of questions or

issues that have to be addressed. It appears there is a lot of work

yet to be done either at the design stage or at some point and I

wonder if you might comment on that?

Mr. BURNS. That would be the assessment of the panel also that

just the uncertainty associated with projects as complex as Indian

River Lagoon and the Comprehensive Everglades Restoration

Project, that adaptive management is very important as you move

forward, gaining additional information as pieces or components of

the project are put in place and learning from that, dealing with

unanticipated consequences of building projects that haven’t been

thought of. For example, alga blooms in reservoirs or in the lagoon

because of increased residency time for nutrients in the system was

a major concern of the panel. This was discussed with the project

review team and they certainly understand the issues and we were

confident they would be dealing with them through adaptive management.

Adaptive management seems very complex because of the systemwide adaptive management program, integrating individual

projects and the data from individual projects into that program,

we believe is a complicated, daunting task that will have to be

dealt with as the project proceeds.

Mr. COSTELLO. So it is not out of the ordinary, it is typical?

Mr. BURNS. Sir, it is very big, very complicated.

Mr. COSTELLO. Mr. Burns, in your judgment, is the project ready

to be authorized for construction?

Mr. BURNS. I might answer that in the negative—I might answer

it indirectly. We spent only two weeks looking at the documents,

so our view is very narrow. We did not look at other projects in

CERP or compare it to other things but we found from a scientific

viewpoint that would prevent you from authorizing the project

should you see fit.

Mr. COSTELLO. Thank you. Thank you, Mr. Chairman.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you, Mr. Costello.

Colonel Carpenter, We have people from all over the country asking us to do projects big and small and it is pretty clear that everybody wants the Federal Government to pay for practically all the

cost or most of it, yet the State and local governments, as bad a

shape as they are in financially, they are in much better shape

than the Federal Government is. Are you satisfied that everybody

is working together to try to hold down these costs to some extent?

We were told the original estimate on this Indian River Lagoon

Project was $936 million and now it is $1.2 billion. It is $271 million higher than the original estimate which is about somewhere
17

between a 25 and 30 percent increase. What do you think about all

that?

Colonel CARPENTER. Mr. Chairman, the increase has a lot to do

with inflation.

Mr. DUNCAN. But these have been years of very, very low inflation.

Colonel CARPENTER. That is true but the real major part of this

is the additional things that have been added to the authorized

project in the WRDA bill when we studied and the adaptive management piece where we looked at the muck removal which provides significant, almost exponential benefits to the project by including that in the project.

When we looked through each component of the project, we were

able, using incremental analysis, to benefit costs, is it worth going

to that next level, this is where we came out with the optimal plan.

As to the contributions of the State and local governments, it is

unprecedented. The overwhelming, positive comments we got on

our plan when we sent it out there for the folks working on it who

spent years studying this program, it actually was like a boost of

adrenalin that everybody understood what we were trying to do

and committed to doing it and was kind of united in its effort. I

am comfortable on both those fronts.

Mr. DUNCAN. When I asked why we would put this Indian River

Lagoon Project ahead of the Southern Golden Gate Project or some

of these other 59 or whatever it is, one of the main reasons you

gave was water storage. Are there any plans to use that stored

water in some way?

Colonel CARPENTER. The water that is stored there, we have no

specific plans for that at the current time but we do know that

water needs to stay out of the lagoon in the short time. We also

know that as we bring other projects on-line, we will need that

water. At the end of the day, the areas of the Everglades that are

starving for water are going to need this capability that we have

harnessed right here in Indian River.

Mr. DUNCAN. Colonel Carpenter brought up the muck, the 7.9

million cubic yards of muck. I am certainly not an expert on that

or know very little about it but I am told Mr. Barnett or Mr. Smith

that some of the local people have some kind of unreasonable expectations about how much good that is going to do. They tell me

there is still going to be very harmful discharges of sediment or

poor water quality projects, poor water quality in the lagoon. What

do you all say about that? Do you realize that or do you disagree

with that? What is the situation in that regard?

Mr. BARNETT. Let me give you kind of a State perspective and

I will defer to the chairman from Martin County for a more local

view.

As we looked at implementing the Comprehensive Everglades

Restoration Project, although our key focus is restoring the Everglades, one of the ancillary and equally important benefits is to

undo some of the egregious harm that operation of the Central and

Southern Florida Flood Control Project has caused to the coastal

estuaries. Statistically, without these elements and other elements

in the plan, once in every three years, we blow out the estuaries

with unaccessible high discharges of fresh water that carry sedi-
18

ment laden flows into the estuary and the estuary is slowly being

filled in with this muck that is coming from an unnatural connection between Lake Okeechobee and the estuary.

Pre-drainage, pre-implementation of the CMSF project there was

not a direct hydrologic connection and the large flows that came

out of the lake, 90 percent flowed south. Today, about 80 to 85 percent of all the water that leaves Lake Ocheechobee is shunted to

the east and west to the Glucahatchee and the St. Lucie Estuary.

So to answer your question, of course we need to intercept and remove those harmful flows and store them in the reservoirs and the

dynamic storage areas that the Indian River Lagon 90,000 acres of

dynamic storage gives us but in addition to that, I think it is incumbent upon us in government to begin speeding up the healing

of the estuary by removing as much of the much as we can.

I will tell you when the plan is fully implemented, when these

project components along with the storage and the EA which was

already authorized, storage in the C-43 basin and storage above

Lake Okeechobee are fully implemented, we will take that one in

three year event cycle that is happening now and reduce it to a one

in 30 year occurrence. I feel strongly from the State perspective

why did we go first with these projects, why we expedite the interception of these flows and why we do something about the sedimentation is critically important to restoring that part of the ecosystem that has been unintentionally harmed by the operation of

the CMSF project.

Mr. DUNCAN. Do you want to add anything, Mr. Smith?

Mr. SMITH. I don’t know if I could add a heck of a lot more to

that other than the fact that we are an interconnected system.

Kissimee Basin has had tremendous restoration efforts thus far

and we are the next link in the chain. Being in between the

Kissimee and the Everglades, we do in Martin County clearly provide that next piece of the link. The Indian River Lagoon South

Program will function as that connection.

There are benefits in the future from both the storage capacity

but also the cleansing. When the Florida Bay needs the water, it

will be coming from the north from us and be coming clean versus

the sediment laden we experience now in the Indian River Lagoon

and the St. Lucie Rivers as well.

As for the muck removal, we are looking forward to the fact we

can get that muck out of the river. It is probably one of the most

damaging things we have had to deal with in terms of degradation

of the estuary and the river itself. We look forward to its challenge

but it is clearly a very important piece of the puzzle.

Mr. DUNCAN. Ms. Gromnicki, how important do you think this

Indian River Lagoon Project is to the entire comprehensive plan?

Would you rate this as the number one project that you had total

and complete control, do you think it is more important than the

Southern Golden Gate Estates Project or some other project?

Ms. GROMNICKI. I think it is very important. The Indian River

Lagoon Project is a priority for Audubon but the important thing

to keep in mind is what Congress authorized was a program to restore an entire ecosystem. We need to restore the entire ecosystem.

We can’t just cherry pick projects from the program.
19

This project uniquely, as well as Southern Golden Estates, are

very two unique opportunities to increase the spacial extent of

habitat for the 69 threatened and endangered species in the ecosystem. That is one of the reasons we think it is incredibly important to do it early given the fact that it is a land intensive project

and lands are under attack and values of lands are increasing exponentially ever year. If we don’t get this project implemented now,

we will not have the opportunity to increase the spacial extent of

habitat for those threatened and endangered species of the Everglades ecosystem.

Mr. DUNCAN. You say not to cherry pick, of course we almost

have to cherry pick to some extent because we can’t do all 60 of

these projects or whatever all at once.

Mr. Burns, what would happen if we didn’t do this project first?

Is this the best thing we can do right at this time, right now, or

do you think there are some questions or problems that you feel

are associated with it that need some more study and some more

work before we proceed?

Mr. BURNS. I don’t believe I could speak for the panel with a recommendation on this project in relationship to other projects in the

program because we really didn’t look at anything outside this

project. There are certainly things that have to be done on this

project as it moves forward and there are many uncertainties with

this or any other project.

From the panel’s viewpoint, we did not see anything in our review that would prevent you from authorizing the project at this

time.

Mr. DUNCAN. Thank you very much.

Mr. Costello, any comments to close out?

Mr. COSTELLO. No, Mr. Chairman, other than to again thank you

for holding this hearing and I thank the witnesses for offering their

testimony and being here today.

Mr. DUNCAN. We have three votes that are about to take place

on the floor. We appreciate you all being here, you have been very

helpful and informative.

That will conclude this hearing.

[Whereupon, at 3:05 p.m., the subcommittee was adjourned, to

reconvene at the call of the Chair.]
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
33
34
35
36
37
38
39
40
41
42
43
44
45
46
47
48
49
50
51
52
53
54
55
56
57
58
59
60
61
62
63
64
65
66
67
68
69
70
71
72
73
74
75
76
77
78
79
80
81
82
83
84
85
86
87
88
89
90
91
92Æ