CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY

FINAL

INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT

AND

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT

STATEMENT

U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS SOUTH FLORIDA WATER

JACKSONVILLE DISTRICT MANAGEMENT DISTRICT

APRIL 1999
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY

FINAL

INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT

AND

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

Responsible Agencies: The responsible lead agency is the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers,

Jacksonville District. The responsible cooperating agencies are the South Florida Water

Management District, the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, the U.S. Environmental

Protection Agency, the National Park Service, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish

Commission, the U.S. Geological Survey, the Natural Resources Conservation Service, and

the Florida Department of Environmental Protection.

Abstract: The south Florida ecosystem is a nationally and internationally unique and

important natural resource. It is also a resource in peril, having been severely impacted by

human activities for over a hundred years. This report recommends a comprehensive plan

for the restoration, protection, and preservation of the water resources of central and

southern Florida, including the Everglades. This is a final integrated feasibility report and

Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement, which identifies and discusses the plan’s

proposed project features, its beneficial effects and potential impacts on existing resources.

The recommended Comprehensive Plan contains over sixty project features. Principal

features of the plan are the creation of approximately 217,000 acres of new reservoirs and

wetlands based water treatment areas. These features vastly increase storage and water

supply for the natural system, as well as for urban and agricultural needs, while

maintaining current Central and Southern Florida Project purposes. The recommended

Comprehensive Plan achieves the restoration of more natural flows of water, including

sheetflow, improved water quality, and more natural hydroperiods in the south Florida

ecosystem. Improvements to native flora and fauna, including threatened and endangered

species, will occur as a result of the restoration of hydrologic conditions.

THE OFFICIAL CLOSING DATE If you require further

FOR THE RECEIPT OF COMMENTS information on this

IS 30 DAYS FROM THE DATE ON document, contact:

WHICH THE NOTICE OF AVAILABILITY

OF THIS FINAL PROGRAMATIC EIS Mr. Russell Reed

APPEARS IN THE FEDERAL REGISTER. U.S. Army Corps of Engineers

P.O. Box 4970

Jacksonville, Florida 32232-0019

Telephone: (904) 232-3967

NOTE: This report includes an integrated Programmatic Environmental Impact Statement (PEIS)

within the final feasibility report; sections required for compliance with the National Environmental

Policy Act (NEPA) are noted by an asterisk in the Table of Contents.
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xix

CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA PROJECT

COMPREHENSIVE REVIEW STUDY

FINAL

INTEGRATED FEASIBILITY REPORT

AND

PROGRAMMATIC ENVIRONMENTAL IMPACT STATEMENT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

*SUMMARY...................................................................................................................... i

SECTION 1 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Study Authority.............................................................................................................1-3

1.2 Study Purpose & Scope ...............................................................................................1-7

1.2.1 Study Purpose..................................................................................................1-7

1.2.2 Study Scope .....................................................................................................1-8

1.2.3 Report Organization..........................................................................................1-9

1.3 Study Area ...................................................................................................................1-9

1.3.1 Kissimmee River Basin...................................................................................1-10

1.3.2 Lake Okeechobee ..........................................................................................1-13

1.3.3 Upper East Coast ...........................................................................................1-13

1.3.4 Everglades Agricultural Area ..........................................................................1-15

1.3.5 Water Conservation Areas..............................................................................1-15

1.3.6 Lower East Coast Area...................................................................................1-17

1.3.7 Biscayne Bay..................................................................................................1-18

1.3.8 Everglades National Park ...............................................................................1-19

1.3.9 Florida Bay, Whitewater Bay, and the Ten Thousand Islands .........................1-20

1.3.10 Florida Keys....................................................................................................1-20

1.3.11 Florida Reef Tract...........................................................................................1-21

1.3.12 Big Cypress Basin ..........................................................................................1-21

1.3.13 Lower West Coast ..........................................................................................1-22

1.4 National Environmental Policy Act Requirements.......................................................1-22

1.5 Study Process............................................................................................................1-24

1.6 The Central And Southern Florida Project..................................................................1-25

1.7 Other Studies, Reports, And Projects.........................................................................1-28

1.7.1 C&SF Project Authorizations ..........................................................................1-28

1.7.2 Other Studies..................................................................................................1-30

SECTION 2 PRE-DRAINAGE CONDITION

2.1 Introduction ..................................................................................................................2-1

2.2 Description Of The Natural System ..............................................................................2-2

2.3 Fundamental Characteristics Of The Pre-Drainage System .........................................2-2

2.3.1 Dynamic Storage and Sheet Flow.....................................................................2-3

2.3.2 Large Spatial Scale...........................................................................................2-3

2.3.3 Heterogeneity in Habitat ...................................................................................2-4

2.4 Relationships With Spatial And Temporal Variation......................................................2-4
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xx

2.5 Overview Of Historic Water Quality Conditions.............................................................2-6

2.5.1 Kissimmee River Basin.....................................................................................2-6

2.5.2 Lake Okeechobee ............................................................................................2-6

2.5.3 Upper East Coast .............................................................................................2-7

2.5.4 The Central Everglades ....................................................................................2-7

2.5.5 Lower East Coast and Biscayne Bay ................................................................2-8

2.5.6 Florida Bay and the Florida Keys ......................................................................2-8

2.5.7 Big Cypress Basin ............................................................................................2-9

2.5.8 Caloosahatchee River Basin.............................................................................2-9

SECTION 3 *EXISTING CONDITIONS

3.1 Geology And Soils........................................................................................................3-2

3.2 Climate.........................................................................................................................3-4

3.3 Air Quality ....................................................................................................................3-4

3.4 Noise .........................................................................................................................3-4

3.5 Vegetation....................................................................................................................3-5

3.6 Fish And Wildlife ..........................................................................................................3-8

3.7 Threatened, Endangered And State Listed Species ...................................................3-13

3.8 Water Management....................................................................................................3-15

3.8.1 Kissimmee River – Istokpoga Basin................................................................3-15

3.8.2 Lake Okeechobee and Everglades Agricultural Area......................................3-16

3.8.3 Water Conservation Areas..............................................................................3-17

3.8.4 East Coast Canal Watersheds........................................................................3-18

3.9 Water Quality .............................................................................................................3-19

3.9.1 Regional Overview Of Water Quality Conditions.............................................3-21

3.9.2 Groundwater Conditions .................................................................................3-24

3.10 Water Supply..............................................................................................................3-25

3.11 Socio-Economics .......................................................................................................3-27

3.12 Land Use....................................................................................................................3-28

3.13 Recreation Resources................................................................................................3-30

3.14 Aesthetics ..................................................................................................................3-32

3.15 Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................3-34

3.16 Hazardous, Toxic And Radioactive Waste..................................................................3-36

SECTION 4 *FUTURE “WITHOUT PLAN” CONDITION

4.1 “With And Without” Comparisons .................................................................................4-1

4.2 Planning Horizon..........................................................................................................4-2

4.3 Climate.........................................................................................................................4-3

4.4 Sea Level Rise.............................................................................................................4-3

4.5 Population And Socio-Economic Conditions.................................................................4-6

4.6 Land Use And Land Cover...........................................................................................4-7

4.7 Water Quality .............................................................................................................4-10

4.7.1 Kissimmee River Region.................................................................................4-10

4.7.2 Lake Okeechobee ..........................................................................................4-10

4.7.3 Upper East Coast ...........................................................................................4-11

4.7.4 Everglades Agricultural Area ..........................................................................4-11

4.7.5 Natural Areas..................................................................................................4-17

4.7.6 Lower East Coast and Biscayne Bay ..............................................................4-17

4.7.7 Florida Bay .....................................................................................................4-18

4.7.8 Florida Keys....................................................................................................4-18
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxi

4.7.9 Big Cypress Basin ..........................................................................................4-18

4.7.10 Caloosahatchee River Region ........................................................................4-19

4.8 Urban And Agricultural Water Supply Demands.........................................................4-19

4.8.1 Lower East Coast Region ...............................................................................4-19

4.8.2 Everglades Agricultural Area Region ..............................................................4-22

4.8.3 Upper East Coast Region ...............................................................................4-23

4.8.4 Big Cypress And Caloosahatchee River Regions ...........................................4-24

4.9 Physical Facilities And Operations .............................................................................4-24

4.9.1 C&Sf Project Modifications .............................................................................4-24

4.9.2 Critical Projects...............................................................................................4-29

4.9.3 Interim Plan For Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply ............................4-30

4.9.4 Northwest Dade Lake Belt Area......................................................................4-33

4.9.5 East Cape And Homestead Canals ................................................................4-33

4.10 Land Acquisition Programs ........................................................................................4-33

4.10.1 Save Our Rivers Program, Preservation 2000 and Conservation and

Recreation Lands .......................................................................................................4-33

4.10.2 Miami-Dade County Environmentally Endangered Lands Program.................4-35

4.10.3 Farm Bill .........................................................................................................4-35

4.11 Recreation..................................................................................................................4-36

SECTION 5 PROBLEMS AND OPPORTUNITIES

5.1 Public Concerns ...........................................................................................................5-1

5.2 Ecological Problems And Opportunities .......................................................................5-3

5.3 Water Quality Problems And Opportunities ..................................................................5-5

5.3.1 Regional Overview............................................................................................5-5

5.3.2 Kissimmee River Region...................................................................................5-8

5.3.3 Lake Okeechobee ............................................................................................5-9

5.3.4 Upper East Coast and Indian River Lagoon....................................................5-10

5.3.5 Everglades Agricultural Area ..........................................................................5-11

5.3.6 Natural Areas..................................................................................................5-12

5.3.7 Lower East Coast and Biscayne Bay ..............................................................5-13

5.3.8 Florida Bay .....................................................................................................5-15

5.3.9 Florida Keys....................................................................................................5-16

5.3.10 Big Cypress Basin ..........................................................................................5-17

5.3.11 Caloosahatchee River Region ........................................................................5-18

5.3.12 Mercury ..........................................................................................................5-18

5.4 Economic And Social Well-Being Problems And Opportunities ..................................5-19

5.5 Planning Goals And Objectives ..................................................................................5-20

5.5.1 Enhance Ecologic Values ...............................................................................5-21

5.5.2 Enhance Economic Values And Social Well Being .........................................5-24

5.6 Ecosystem Restoration ..............................................................................................5-26

5.6.1 Why Restore The South Florida Ecosystems?................................................5-26

5.6.2 Certainties And Uncertainties .........................................................................5-28

5.6.3 Different Views ...............................................................................................5-29

5.6.4 The Recovered Ecosystems ...........................................................................5-30

5.6.5 Role Of Adaptive Assessment ........................................................................5-32

5.7 South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Vision..............................................................5-35
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxii

SECTION 6 GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE

RESTUDY

6.1. Governor’s Commission For A Sustainable South Florida ............................................6-1

6.2. Initial Report.................................................................................................................6-1

6.3. Development Of The Conceptual Plan .........................................................................6-3

6.3.1. Commission’s Planning Objectives ...................................................................6-3

6.3.2. Preferred Alternatives .......................................................................................6-5

6.4. Conceptual Plan Elements ...........................................................................................6-8

6.4.1. Concept 1: Regional Storage Within The Everglades Headwaters And Adjacent

Areas..............................................................................................................6-10

6.4.2. Concept 2: Lake Okeechobee Operational Plan .............................................6-12

6.4.3. Concept 3: Everglades Agricultural Area Storage ...........................................6-14

6.4.4. Concept 4: Water Preserve Areas ..................................................................6-15

6.4.5. Concept 5: Natural Areas Continuity...............................................................6-18

6.4.6. Concept 6: Water Supply and Flood Protection for Urban and Agricultural

Areas..............................................................................................................6-23

6.4.7. Concept 7: Adequate Water Quality for Natural System Functioning ..............6-24

6.4.8. Concept 8: Increased Spatial Extent and Quality of Wetlands Beyond the

Everglades .....................................................................................................6-28

6.4.9. Concept 9: Invasive Plant Control...................................................................6-30

6.4.10. Concept 10: Aquifer Storage and Recovery....................................................6-31

6.4.11. Concept 11: Protection and Restoration of Coastal, Estuarine, and Marine

Ecosystems ....................................................................................................6-33

6.4.12. Concept 12: Conservation of Soil....................................................................6-36

6.4.13. Concept 13: Operation, Management, and Implementation of the C&SF Project

Modifications and Related Lands....................................................................6-38

SECTION 7 PLAN FORMULATION AND EVALUATION

7.1 Plan Formulation And Evaluation Methodology ............................................................7-1

7.2 Identification And Screening Of Plan Components .......................................................7-2

7.2.1 Identification Of Plan Components....................................................................7-3

7.2.2 Screening Of Plan Components........................................................................7-3

7.2.3 Screening Conclusions .....................................................................................7-6

7.3 Formulation And Evaluation Of Alternative Plans .........................................................7-8

7.3.1 Methodology For Formulation And Evaluation Of The Alternative Plans ...........7-8

7.3.2 Formulation And Evaluation Iterations ............................................................7-14

7.3.3 Initial Draft Plan ..............................................................................................7-35

7.3.4 Conclusions Of Comprehensive Plan Formulation And Evaluation .................7-44

7.4 Other Project Elements ..............................................................................................7-45

7.4.1 Evaluation Of Other Project Elements.............................................................7-45

7.4.2 Conclusions Of The Evaluation Of The Other Project Elements......................7-46

7.5 Final Array Of Alternative Plans .................................................................................7-46

7.5.1 Economic Evaluation of the Alternative Plans .................................................7-46

7.5.2 Environmental Evaluation of the Alternative Plans..........................................7-51

7.5.3 Cost Effectiveness and Incremental Cost Analyses ........................................7-52

7.5.4 Fish and Wildlife Mitigation Analysis ...............................................................7-59

7.5.5 Uncertainty Analysis .......................................................................................7-60

7.5.6 Planning Criteria .............................................................................................7-61

7.5.7 Evaluation Accounts .......................................................................................7-61

7.6 Plan Formulation Process Summary ..........................................................................7-67
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxiii

7.7 Subsequent Iterations Of The Recommended Plan....................................................7-68

7.7.1 Scenario D-13R4 Description .........................................................................7-70

7.7.2 Evaluation of D-13R4......................................................................................7-72

7.8 Plan Formulation Conclusions....................................................................................7-74

SECTION 8 *ENVIRONMENTAL EFFECTS

8.1. Soils .........................................................................................................................8-1

8.2. Geology........................................................................................................................8-2

8.3. Climate.........................................................................................................................8-2

8.4. Air Quality ....................................................................................................................8-2

8.5. Noise .........................................................................................................................8-2

8.6. Vegetation....................................................................................................................8-3

8.7. Fish And Wildlife ..........................................................................................................8-4

8.8. Threatened And Endangered Species..........................................................................8-6

8.9. Water Management......................................................................................................8-6

8.10. Water Quality ...............................................................................................................8-9

8.11. Water Supply..............................................................................................................8-11

8.12. Socio-Economics .......................................................................................................8-12

8.13. Land Use....................................................................................................................8-14

8.14. Recreation Resources................................................................................................8-15

8.15. Aesthetic Resources ..................................................................................................8-16

8.16. Cultural Resources.....................................................................................................8-17

8.17. Hazardous, Toxic, And Radioactive Wastes...............................................................8-17

8.18. Unavoidable Adverse Environmental Effects..............................................................8-18

8.19. Relationship Between Short Term Uses And Long Term Productivity ........................8-19

8.20. Irreversible And Irretrievable Commitments Of Resources .........................................8-20

8.21. Cumulative Effects .....................................................................................................8-20

SECTION 9 RECOMMENDED COMPREHENSIVE PLAN

9.1 Construction Features..................................................................................................9-1

9.1.1 Kissimmee River Region...................................................................................9-2

9.1.2 Lake Okeechobee Region ................................................................................9-6

9.1.3 Caloosahatchee River Region ..........................................................................9-7

9.1.4 Upper East Coast .............................................................................................9-8

9.1.5 Everglades Agricultural Area ............................................................................9-9

9.1.6 Big Cypress Region........................................................................................9-10

9.1.7 Water Conservation Areas..............................................................................9-11

9.1.8 Lower East Coast Region ...............................................................................9-13

9.1.9 Southwest Florida Region...............................................................................9-26

9.1.10 Florida Bay and Keys......................................................................................9-28

9.1.11 System-wide...................................................................................................9-28

9.2 Operational Features..................................................................................................9-29

9.2.1 Lake Okeechobee Region ..............................................................................9-29

9.2.2 Caloosahatchee Region .................................................................................9-29

9.2.3 Upper East Coast Region ...............................................................................9-30

9.2.4 Water Conservation Areas and Everglades Regions ......................................9-30

9.2.5 Lower East Coast Region ...............................................................................9-31

9.3 Pilot Projects ..............................................................................................................9-32

9.3.1 Lake Okeechobee Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Pilot Project (GG)...........9-32
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxiv

9.3.2 Caloosahatchee River (C-43) Basin Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Pilot Project

(D) ..................................................................................................................9-32

9.3.3 Site 1 Impoundment and Aquifer Storage and Recovery – Pilot Project (M)....9-33

9.3.4 In-Ground Reservoir Technology – Pilot Project .............................................9-33

9.3.5 L-31N Seepage Management – Pilot Project (V) ............................................9-33

9.3.6 Wastewater Reuse Technology – Pilot Project (HHH, BBB, and OPE) ...........9-34

9.4 Real Estate ................................................................................................................9-34

9.4.1 Land Acquisition .............................................................................................9-35

9.4.2 Relocation Assistance (Public Law 91-646)....................................................9-35

9.5 Adaptive Assessment And Monitoring Program..........................................................9-38

9.5.1 Adaptive Assessment Program.......................................................................9-38

9.5.2 Monitoring Program ........................................................................................9-39

9.5.3 Monitoring Program Planning Guidelines........................................................9-41

9.6 Fish And Wildlife Mitigation ........................................................................................9-50

9.7 New Feasibility Studies ..............................................................................................9-51

9.7.1 Florida Bay And The Florida Keys Feasibility Study........................................9-51

9.7.2 Southwest Florida Feasibility Study ................................................................9-52

9.7.3 Comprehensive Integrated Water Quality Plan ...............................................9-52

9.8 Future Improvements To The Comprehensive Plan ...................................................9-54

9.9 Cost Estimate.............................................................................................................9-56

9.9.1 Initial Costs.....................................................................................................9-56

9.9.2 Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring Costs...................................................9-56

9.9.3 Operation, Maintenance, Repair, Replacement, and Rehabilitation (OMRR&R)

Costs ..............................................................................................................9-56

9.9.4 Annual Costs ..................................................................................................9-61

9.9.5 Cost Estimate Uncertainties............................................................................9-61

9.10 Cost Sharing ..............................................................................................................9-62

9.10.1 Cost Sharing of Water Quality Features..........................................................9-62

9.10.2 Cost Sharing of Construction and Land Costs ................................................9-64

9.10.3 Cost Sharing of Adaptive Assessment and Monitoring....................................9-65

9.10.4 Cost Sharing of Operations and Maintenance.................................................9-65

SECTION 10 IMPLEMENTATION PLAN

10.1. Introduction ................................................................................................................10-1

10.2. Guidelines For Implementing The Comprehensive Plan.............................................10-2

10.2.1. Utilize Interdisciplinary and Interagency Teams ..............................................10-3

10.2.2. Incorporate Outreach and Public Involvement ................................................10-3

10.2.3. Maintain Regional System Focus....................................................................10-3

10.2.4. Integration With Ongoing And Future Projects And Programs ........................10-4

10.2.5. Integrate Contingency Planning......................................................................10-6

10.2.6. Address Water Quality Needs.........................................................................10-6

10.2.7. Plan Evaluation Through Adaptive Assessment..............................................10-7

10.2.8. Uncertainties.................................................................................................10-11

10.2.9. Assurances To Water Users .........................................................................10-11

10.2.10.Development And Refinement Of Models And Tools...................................10-16

10.3. Project Implementation Process...............................................................................10-17

10.3.1. Project Implementation Reports....................................................................10-18

10.3.2. Restoration, Coordination, And Verification Process.....................................10-20

10.3.3. Independent Scientific Peer Review..............................................................10-22

10.3.4. Water Quality Considerations .......................................................................10-25

10.3.5. Flood Protection ...........................................................................................10-25
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxv

10.3.6. Project Management.....................................................................................10-25

10.4. Schedule Development ............................................................................................10-26

10.4.1. Assumptions And Rules................................................................................10-27

10.4.2. Implementation Schedule .............................................................................10-30

10.4.3. Funding Stream ............................................................................................10-34

10.4.4. Evaluation Of The Project Schedule .............................................................10-35

10.5. Implementation Program ..........................................................................................10-38

10.5.1. Approval Of The Comprehensive Plan..........................................................10-39

10.5.2. Initial Authorization .......................................................................................10-39

10.5.3. Programmatic Authority ................................................................................10-42

10.5.4. Future Water Resources Development Acts .................................................10-44

10.5.5. Components Not Needing Congressional Authorizations..............................10-47

10.5.6. Feasibility Studies.........................................................................................10-47

10.6. Recommended Features For Initial Authorization.....................................................10-48

10.6.1. Pilot Projects.................................................................................................10-48

10.6.2. Initial Features for Authorization ...................................................................10-52

10.6.3. Adaptive Assessment and Construction Monitoring Program........................10-64

10.6.4. Total Cost for Features Included in this Recommendation............................10-65

10.6.5. Cost Sharing.................................................................................................10-66

10.6.6. Financial Analysis.........................................................................................10-66

10.6.7. Local Cooperation ........................................................................................10-66

10.6.8. Sponsor’s Views ...........................................................................................10-69

10.7. Conclusion ...............................................................................................................10-70

SECTION 11 *PUBLIC INVOLVEMENT AND COORDINATION

11.1 Public Involvement Program.......................................................................................11-1

11.2 Scoping......................................................................................................................11-2

11.3 Other Required Coordination......................................................................................11-4

11.3.1 U.S. Fish And Wildlife Service ........................................................................11-4

11.3.2 Florida Game And Fresh Water Fish Commission ..........................................11-7

11.3.3 Florida State Historic Officer.........................................................................11-10

11.4 Reconnaissance Study Public Workshops ...............................................................11-10

11.5 Focus Groups ..........................................................................................................11-11

11.6 Stakeholder Involvement And Outreach ...................................................................11-15

11.6.1 Stakeholder Involvement ..............................................................................11-15

11.6.2 Public Information And Outreach ..................................................................11-23

11.6.3 Governor’s Commission For A Sustainable South Florida.............................11-29

11.6.4 South Florida Ecosystem Task Force And Working Group ...........................11-31

11.6.5 South Florida Water Management District Governing Board.........................11-32

11.7 Internet Web Site .....................................................................................................11-32

11.8 Review Conferences ................................................................................................11-33

11.9 Coordination.............................................................................................................11-34

11.9.1 Cooperating State And Federal Agencies .....................................................11-34

11.10 Review Of Draft Integrated Feasibility Report And Programmatic Enviromental Impact

Statement.................................................................................................................11-35

11.10.1 Report And Peis Recipients .................................................................11-35

11.10.2 Comments And Responses..................................................................11-39

11.11 Public Meetings........................................................................................................11-40

11.12 Implementation Plan Coordination............................................................................11-49
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxvi

SECTION 12. *COMPLIANCE WITH ENVIRONMENTAL REQUIREMENTS

12.1 National Environmental Policy Act Of 1969 ................................................................12-1

12.2 Fish And Wildlife Coordination Act Of 1958................................................................12-1

12.2.1 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service draft Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

Recommendations..........................................................................................12-2

12.2.2 U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service final Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

Recommendations........................................................................................12-10

12.2.3 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act Report, Part I Recommendations............................................................12-14

12.2.4 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act Report, Part II Recommendations...........................................................12-18

12.2.5 Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, Fish and Wildlife Coordination

Act Report, Part III Recommendations..........................................................12-21

12.3 Endangered Species Act Of 1973 ............................................................................12-22

12.4 National Historic Preservation Act Of 1966...............................................................12-23

12.5 Clean Water Act Of 1972 .........................................................................................12-23

12.6 Clean Air Act Of 1972...............................................................................................12-23

12.7 Coastal Zone Management Act Of 1972...................................................................12-23

12.8 Farmland Protection Policy Act Of 1981...................................................................12-23

12.9 Wild And Scenic River Act Of 1968 ..........................................................................12-24

12.10 Estuary Protection Act Of 1968 ................................................................................12-24

12.11 Federal Water Project Recreation Act Of 1965.........................................................12-24

12.12 Resource Conservation And Recovery Act Of 1976 .................................................12-24

12.13 Toxic Substances Control Act Of 1976.....................................................................12-24

12.14 Marine Protection, Research, And Sanctuaries Act Of 1972.....................................12-25

12.15 Rivers And Harbors Appropriation Act Of 1899 ........................................................12-25

12.16 Coastal Barrier Resources Act .................................................................................12-25

12.17 Section 904 Of The 1986 Water Resources Development Act .................................12-25

12.18 Section 307 Of The 1990 Water Resources Development Act .................................12-25

12.19 E.O. 11988, Floodplain Management .......................................................................12-25

12.20 E.O. 11990, Protection Of Wetlands.........................................................................12-26

12.21 E.O. 12114, Environmental Effects Abroad Of Major Federal

Actions ....................................................................................................................12-26

12.22 E.O. 12898, Environmental Justice ..........................................................................12-26

SECTION 13 RECOMMENDATIONS

SECTION 14 *LIST OF STUDY TEAM MEMBERS AND REPORT PREPARERS

SECTION 15 GLOSSARY OF TERMS, ACRONYMS AND ABBREVIATIONS,

AND CONVERSION TABLES

SECTION 16 *REFERENCES

SECTION 17 *INDEX
Table of Contents

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

xxvii

LIST OF ANNEXES (Volume 2)

A - Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act Report

B - Programmatic Biological Opinion

C - Section 404(b)(1) Evaluation

D - Coastal Zone Consistency Evaluation

LIST OF APPENDICES (Volumes 3 through 9)

A - Plan Formulation (Volume 3)

B - Hydrology and Hydraulics Modeling (Volume 4)

C - Engineering, Design, and Cost Estimates (Volume 4)

D - Environmental Evaluation Analyses (Volume 5)

E - Socio-Economics (Volume 6)

F - Real Estate (Volume 7)

G - Local Cooperation and Financial Analysis (Volume 7)

H - Water Quality (Volume 7)

I - Air Quality (Volume 7)

J - Existing Condition (Volume 8)

K - Environmental Effects of the Initial Draft Plan (Volume 9)

L - Prior Studies, Reports, and Projects (Volume 9)

M - Implementation Plan Scheduling and Sequencing (Volume 9)

N - Comment/Response (Volume 10)

O - Uncertainty (Volume 10)

Note: * Required for NEPA compliance
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

SECTION 6

GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION

CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE RESTUDY
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-i

TABLE OF CONTENTS

GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION ...................................................................................................1

CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE RESTUDY...............................................................................1

6.1. GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOUTH FLORIDA .....................1

6.2. INITIAL REPORT............................................................................................................1

6.3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN............................................................3

6.3.1. Commission’s Planning Objectives..........................................................................3

6.3.2. Preferred Alternatives..............................................................................................5

6.4. CONCEPTUAL PLAN ELEMENTS .................................................................................8

6.4.1. Concept 1: Regional Storage Within The Everglades Headwaters And Adjacent

Areas....................................................................................................................10

6.4.1.1. Kissimmee River Basin ...................................................................................11

6.4.1.2. St. Lucie Canal and Caloosahatchee River Basins..........................................11

6.4.2. Concept 2: Lake Okeechobee Operational Plan ....................................................12

6.4.3. Concept 3: Everglades Agricultural Area Storage..................................................14

6.4.4. Concept 4: Water Preserve Areas .........................................................................15

6.4.5. Concept 5: Natural Areas Continuity......................................................................18

6.4.5.1. Water Conservation Areas ..............................................................................20

6.4.5.2. Big Cypress National Preserve........................................................................21

6.4.5.3. Everglades National Park................................................................................22

6.4.5.4. Biscayne National Park ...................................................................................22

6.4.6. Concept 6: Water Supply and Flood Protection for Urban and Agricultural Areas..23

6.4.7. Concept 7: Adequate Water Quality for Natural System Functioning .....................24

6.4.8. Concept 8: Increased Spatial Extent and Quality of Wetlands Beyond the

Everglades ...........................................................................................................28

6.4.9. Concept 9: Invasive Plant Control ...........................................................................30

6.4.10. Concept 10: Aquifer Storage and Recovery.............................................................31

6.4.11. Concept 11: Protection and Restoration of Coastal, Estuarine, and Marine

Ecosystems ..........................................................................................................33

6.4.11.1. Sediment Removal and Control in Estuaries ...................................................36

6.4.12. Concept 12: Conservation of Soil............................................................................36

6.4.13. Concept 13: Operation, Management, and Implementation of the C&SF Project

Modifications and Related Lands..........................................................................38
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-1

SECTION 6

GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION

CONCEPTUAL PLAN FOR THE RESTUDY

This section describes the development of the Conceptual Plan for the

Restudy, which was developed by the Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable

South Florida. The Water Resources Development Act of 1996 directs that the

conceptual framework provided in the Conceptual Plan for the Restudy (GCSSF,

1996b) be considered in the development of the Comprehensive Plan. The

acknowledgement of the Commission that hydrologic restoration is the key and a

prerequisite to ecosystem restoration led to the development of the Conceptual Plan:

the vehicle to specifically address water resource issues and natural system

restoration. That document provided a framework for the formulation and evaluation

of alternative plans for the Restudy. Most of the information in this section was taken

directly from the Conceptual Plan for the Restudy published by the Commission.

6.1. GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION FOR A SUSTAINABLE SOUTH

FLORIDA

On March 3, 1994, Governor Lawton Chiles created the Governor’s

Commission for a Sustainable South Florida through the Governor’s Executive

Order 94-54. The Commission’s charge was to make recommendations that will

move south Florida toward a healthy ecosystem that can coexist with, and be

mutually supportive of, a sustainable south Florida economy and quality

communities. This Commission consists of business, agriculture, government, public

interest, and environmental organization representatives. A number of Federal

agencies are represented on the Commission as non-voting members. Toward this

end, the Commission unanimously adopted two successive documents: the Initial

Report, (GCSSF, 1995) containing overall recommendations for a sustainable South

Florida; and, A Conceptual Plan for the C&SF Project Restudy, (GCSSF, 1996b),

which provided initial recommendations for the Restudy.

6.2. INITIAL REPORT

The Commission’s Initial Report (GCSSF, 1995) contained 110

recommendations with a central theme of sustainability – meeting the needs of the

present without endangering the ability of future generations to meet their needs –

revolving around the management of water. In that report, the south Florida

ecosystem was defined as a community of organisms, including humans, interacting

with one another and the environment in which they live. The Commission recognized
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-2

that “Our quality of life is inextricably linked to the health and viability of natural

systems” and “that a healthy Everglades system is vital to natural plant, animal and

human population alike.” The Commission also unanimously agreed that the south

Florida ecosystem is not sustainable on its present course.

Many of the recommendations in the Initial Report addressed the need to

integrate all elements of water resource management including: water supply, flood

protection, water quality, and natural resources restoration, protection and

management. In addition the Initial Report also addressed a number of Restudyrelated recommendations (see Table 6-1).

TABLE 6-1

INITIAL REPORT: RESTUDY RECOMMENDATIONS

• The Corps and the District should “assure that the Restudy addresses the need to achieve a sustainable

south Florida economy by ... proposing reliable, cost-effective measures to provide the necessary

water supply.” (Recommendation 11)

• “The Commission should provide a mechanism to enable input and integration of the state’s concerns

and interests with the U.S. Army Corps of Engineers and the south Florida Ecosystem Restoration

Task Force in the Restudy and other Federal activities.” (Recommendation 12)

• The Corps and the District should: “(1) address water supply needs for urban and agricultural users;

(2) address natural water level fluctuations within the natural system and restoration of natural water

quality, timing, volumes, and distribution to the Everglades; and (3) expedite the Restudy schedule

without sacrificing thoroughness or quality of the final product.” (Recommendation 13)

• “The Restudy should integrate all elements of water management (water supply, flood protection,

water quality protection, and natural systems management). Redesign should provide for sustainability

for human and natural system requirements.” (Recommendation 15)

• “All plans, and especially the Restudy, should assure that new demands do not adversely affect the

sustainability of human and natural systems.” (Recommendation 16)

• “In the Restudy, the South Florida Water Management District and the Corps should ensure that

the redesign of the system allows for resilience for a healthy natural system.” (Recommendation

17)

• The agencies and interested parties should “redesign and develop new operations for the south Florida

water management system at all levels to conserve and sustain the natural system, to maximize the

capture of stormwater, and to conserve water for the benefit of all users.” (Recommendation 23)

• The Corps and the District “should reduce the extent of damage from flooding to human and natural

systems.” (Recommendation 27)
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-3

6.3. DEVELOPMENT OF THE CONCEPTUAL PLAN

The Commission’s Conceptual Plan for the Restudy consists of a strategy for

coordinating and implementing a number of the water resource projects in south

Florida into a cohesive whole, ensuring that they are consistent with the

Commission’s goals for a sustainable south Florida. While some projects are in various

phases of implementation, these projects, by themselves, do not result in restoration.

The Commission identified the need for additional and integrated efforts. The ongoing projects form a foundation from which they developed the Conceptual Plan for

the Restudy. Because the entire C&SF Project is hydrologically linked, all water

management activities impact one another. Therefore, the Commission believes that

implementation of the ongoing projects and programs must be closely coordinated by

sharing information as they proceed from planning and design through

implementation and operation. These on-going efforts, while not intended to be allinclusive, are included as elements of the thematic concepts.

6.3.1. Commission’s Planning Objectives

In developing the Conceptual Plan, the Commission first formulated a

number of planning objectives ranging from restoring fish and wildlife, to increasing

water supply for urban, agricultural and natural areas, to improving coastal and

marine conditions. The Commission’s objectives fall into three general categories:

ecologic, hydrologic, and socio-economic. The Commission believes that if these

objectives can be achieved, the goals of restoring the ecological health of the natural

areas (including adjacent watersheds and tributaries) and enhancing the region’s

economy and quality of life can be achieved. The 23 planning objectives are listed in

Table 6-2.

The ecologic planning objectives focus on restoring environmental quality to a

system that has experienced a massive loss of natural resources. They aim to expand

habitat through reclamation and to improve habitat quality and heterogeneity

consistent with the characteristic mosaic habitat of the pre-drained Everglades and

the coastal and associated marine ecosystems.

The hydrologic objectives focus on ensuring adequate water quality; water

supply; timing of flows; flood control for urban, natural, and agricultural needs;

restoring more natural hydropatterns, including sheetflow; regaining lost storage

capacity; reducing per capita consumption; and encouraging water reuse to achieve

the ecologic objectives stated earlier.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-4

TABLE 6-2

GOVERNOR’S COMMISSION

GENERAL PLANNING OBJECTIVES FOR THE RESTUDY

ECOLOGIC

• Improve habitat quality and heterogeneity.

• Improve connectivity and reduce fragmentation of habitats.

• Provide the spatial extent of natural areas required to support the mosaic habitat characteristic of

the pre-drained Everglades ecosystem.

• Improve and protect habitat quality, heterogeneity, and biodiversity in coastal and associated

marine ecosystems.

• Provide for sustainable populations of native plant and animal species with special attention to

threatened, endangered, or species of special concern.

• Restore and, where appropriate, improve functional quality of natural systems (including both

wetlands and uplands).

• Reduce the spatial extent of invasive nonnative species to the extent that they do not affect the

natural system.

• Halt and/or reverse the conditions causing the spread of native species that are threatening (and

perhaps dominating) areas as a result of disturbances such as nutrient enrichment.

HYDROLOGIC

• Restore more natural hydropatterns, including associated sheetflow.

• Provide more natural quality and quantity, timing and distribution of freshwater flow to and

through the natural Everglades.

• Provide more natural quality and quantity, timing, and distribution of freshwater flow to

estuaries and coral reef ecosystems.

• Ensure adequate water supply and flood protection for urban, natural, and agricultural needs.

• Regain lost storage capacity.

• Restore more natural organic and marl soil formation processes and arrest soil subsidence.

• Improve water quality, including reduction of toxins, and ensure appropriate water quality

consistent with designated uses including restoration and protection of the natural systems.

• Control saltwater intrusion into freshwater aquifers.

• Integrate the Project with local stormwater, wastewater, and other water management functions.

SOCIO-ECONOMIC

• Establish levels of provided flood protection in terms of frequency, depth, and duration.

• Reduce damages from flooding to public and private property.

• Provide water management that supports economic diversity and sustainability derived from the

natural and developed systems.

• Enhance economic opportunities consistent with sustainable marine ecosystems.

• Protect and preserve cultural and archeological resources and values.

• Increase recreational opportunities consistent with sustainable natural systems.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-5

Finally, the economic and social objectives provide for water management

that supports economic diversity and sustainability for natural, agricultural and

developed systems. The Commission believes the need to integrate regional water

management systems with local stormwater, wastewater, and other water

management functions must be considered when developing alternatives.

6.3.2. Preferred Alternatives

As a first step toward identifying the additional actions needed to develop the

Conceptual Plan for the Restudy, the Commission considered 66 options/ideas

formulated from a myriad of Federal, state, and local agencies; interest groups; and

other members of the public. Many of these options had been evaluated to varying

degrees during the reconnaissance phase of the Restudy and the South Florida Water

Management District’s Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Planning effort. The

ideas ranged from non-structural options to ones that require major structural

modifications or additions to the existing C&SF Project. Five additional options were

generated by members of the Commission.

Through a series of three workshops, the Commission considered and grouped

the options together to form alternative plans. This process helped the Commission

gain an understanding of the interrelationships among the various options and set the

framework for determining which options had common support and which ones did

not. Facilitated discussion allowed for a systematic review and screening of each

option.

The result of this process was a list of 40 preferred options, to be evaluated as

modifications to the C&SF Project. The Commission agreed to support these options

for technical evaluation in the Restudy, although conditions or limits were placed on

certain ones. The conditions were intended to clarify important issues and to provide

specific recommendations describing the Commission’s alternatives for consideration

in the Restudy in more detailed study of these options. Table 6-3 includes the list of

the 40 preferred options and the conditions (in italics) placed on those options.

Fundamental general concepts pertaining to the 40 preferred options were:

• The burden and responsibility for water storage should be shared across

the system.

• Water quality and treatment should be addressed and optimized

throughout the system.

• The Commission supports projects in general that salvage, clean up, and

reuse water.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-6

TABLE 6-3

40 PREFERRED OPTIONS (With Conditions)

Kissimmee River Area including Native American Tribal Lands

• Kissimmee River Pool A Restoration

• Paradise Run Restoration

• Kissimmee Region - Water Treatment Areas – Project design must address water quality

concerns. Holding areas should be multi-purpose.

Lake Okeechobee Area

• Maximize Lake Storage Without Environmental Harm - No significant impacts to the littoral

zone or water quality should be allowed. Damage to the east and west coast estuaries by the

current regulation schedule must be addressed.

• Restore More Natural Fluctuations of Lake Levels - No significant impacts to the littoral zone

or water quality should be allowed. Other state agencies (e.g., FGFWFC) should be involved.

• Restoration of Kreamer, Torry, and Ritta Islands

• Lake Okeechobee - Aquifer Storage and Recovery (Aquifer Storage and Recovery) - The

maximum additional storage and cost effectiveness should be evaluated. Impacts to the littoral

zone should be minimized.

Everglades Agricultural Area (Everglades Agricultural Area)

• Everglades Agricultural Area - Water Storage Areas (Reservoirs) – Sufficiency of land to

accomplish storage should be based on need, science, and appropriate cost-benefit analysis. Up

to the entire Talisman property should be considered as a target of opportunity for increased

storage with any portions not needed returned to agriculture; additional areas may be

considered as necessary. Land acquisitions should be made with willing sellers and in

consultation with local landowners. The burden of water storage should be shared across the

system.

• Increase Groundwater Levels to Control Soil Subsidence

Lower West Coast including Caloosahatchee River

• Caloosahatchee - Water Storage Areas (Regional Attenuation/Reservoir Facilities) – Locations

of potential storage areas should be chosen in consultation with local landowners.

• Caloosahatchee – Water Treatment Areas - Project design must address water quality concerns.

Holding areas should be multi-purpose and located in consultation with local land owners.

• Restoration of Golden Gate Estates - Consistent with the South Florida Water Management

District’s restoration plan.

• Caloosahatchee - Aquifer Storage and Recovery - The maximum additional storage and cost

effectiveness should be evaluated. Impacts to the littoral zone should be minimized.

• Remove Organic Sediment Deposits from Caloosahatchee Estuary - Any such removal should

be evaluated as to cost effectiveness; pollution impacts from removal process; sediment

disposal; and how to prevent resiltation.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-7

TABLE 6-3 (continued)

40 PREFERRED OPTIONS (With Conditions)

Western Basin including Native American Tribal Lands

• Water Treatment Area for L-28 (Interceptor)

Upper East Coast Area (UEC)

• UEC - Water Storage Areas (Regional Attenuation Facilities) - Locations of potential storage

areas should be chosen in consultation with local landowners.

• Stabilize St. Lucie Canal Banks

• Remove Organic Sediment Deposits from St. Lucie Estuary - Any such removal should be

evaluated as to: cost effectiveness; pollution impacts from removal process; sediment disposal;

and how prevent resiltation.

Water Conservation Areas (Water Conservation Areas) including Holey Land and Rotenberger

Wildlife Management Areas

• Modify Water Conservation Areas to Create Contiguous Natural Area – Restore the

connectivity of the Water Conservation Areas to the maximum feasible extent consistent with

the ability to maintain flood protection and habitat quality, and to replace, through storage in

the overall system, any existing urban water supply that may be lost.

• Modify each Water Conservation Areas to Enhance Wetland Habitat – Habitat should be

enhanced to the maximum extent feasible. Public water supply may be addressed through

storage in the overall system, and flood protection should be maintained.

• Remove Invasive Non-Native Plants

Lower East Coast Area

• Water Preserve Areas

• Seepage Control - All methods should be considered and evaluated.

• Saltwater Treatment (Reverse Osmosis, Blending) – Employ only as a last resort. Cost

effectiveness should be evaluated. The technology does not stand alone.

• LEC - Aquifer Storage and Recovery - Use in conjunction with storage in buffer areas. Cost

effectiveness, technical feasibility, and water quality should be addressed.

• Wastewater Reuse

• Raise Coastal Canal Stages Coupled with Increased Discharge Capacity

• Water Treatment Area for S-9

• Inter-connect Local Water Management Systems – There should be shared costs and a clear

delineation of responsibilities. The responsibility to solve regional concerns should be included.

• Implement Southern L-8 Basin / Loxahatchee Slough - There should be no negative

environmental impacts. This option is an example of a project that could salvage, clean-up, and

reuse water. It would require local governmental consultation and review in concert with the

Restudy.

• Lake Belt/Seepage Barrier - All methods of seepage control should be considered and

evaluated.

• Remove Invasive Non-Native Plants (LEC)

• 8 1⁄2 Square Mile Area - The progress of the East Everglades 8 1⁄2 Square Mile Area Study

should be monitored. The western 1/3 to 1⁄2 should be bought by the public and included in the

buffer.

• Control Structure in C-4 Canal
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-8

TABLE 6-3 (continued)

40 PREFERRED OPTIONS (With Conditions)

Big Cypress National Preserve

• Modify L-28 and L-28 Tieback Levees to Restore More Natural Flows Through Big

Cypress National Preserve – Increased conveyance through Tamiami Trail from CR 951

to 40 Mile Bend and Loop Road should be included.

Everglades National Park

• Degrade L-29 Levee and Raise Portions of Tamiami Trail

• Add More Culverts Under Tamiami Trail – Includes the entire reach of Tamiami Trail.

• Flamingo Road Improvements to Improve Hydrologic Flow

• Incorporate Water Quality and Supply into C-111 and Modified Water Deliveries Projects

Florida Bay/Biscayne Bay/Florida Keys

• Hydrologic Improvements in the Model Lands Basin in Dade County

• Hydrologic Improvements in North, Central, and South Biscayne Bay Basins in Dade

County

6.4. CONCEPTUAL PLAN ELEMENTS

After reaching consensus on the 40 preferred options, the Commission asked for

additional analysis and information in order to refine the preferred options for

possible inclusion into the Conceptual Plan for the Restudy. As part of the Restudy,

the Commission’s preferred options were screened and a process for analyzing them

further was developed. Due to the similarities in function, the 40 preferred options

were grouped into 13 thematic concepts to form a broad-based Conceptual Plan for the

Restudy. These concepts include the spectrum of the preferred options identified by

the Commission but are less specific. By generalizing the concepts, the Commission

hoped to provide the Restudy with sufficient information to evaluate the broad

spectrum of options and the trade-offs among them without restricting development of

new options. Together with the potential modifications to the C&SF Project contained

in the 40 preferred options, these concepts must be viewed holistically, not

individually, since they come together to form an overall vision for the Restudy. In

addition, many of the concepts will serve multiple purposes. For example, storage

areas can help supplement natural system needs as well as provide water supply for

agricultural and urban areas. The Commission recognized the need for detailed

analyses conducted as part of the Restudy to develop specific projects. However, the

concepts that comprise the Conceptual Plan for the Restudy provide a basis for the

formulation and evaluation of specific plans.

Table 6-4 identifies the various thematic concepts and illustrates how the 40

preferred options fit within these concepts. Table 6-4 also identifies ongoing projects

and the Federal Agriculture Improvement Act of 1996 (P. L. 104-127, known as the

“Farm Bill”) priority projects that fit under these thematic concepts. In addition,

Figure 6-1 schematically portrays many of the concepts in relative geographic

locales.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-9

TABLE 6-4

THEMATIC CONCEPTS

Includes Projects Underway and 40 Preferred Options (in Italics)

Concept 1 – Regional Storage Within the

Everglades Headwaters and Adjacent

Areas

Kissimmee River Restoration Project*

Upper Chain of Lakes – Operational Changes*

Caloosahatchee – Water Storage Areas

Upper East Coast – Water Storage Areas

Concept 2 – Lake Okeechobee Operational Plan

Lake Okeechobee SWIM Plan.*

Interim Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule

Study*

Maximize Lake Storage Without Environmental Harm

Restore More Natural Fluctuations of Lake Levels

Concept 3 – Everglades Agricultural Area Storage

Everglades Construction Project – STAs*,**

Bolles And Cross Canal Project*

Everglades Agricultural Area Water Storage Areas**

Concept 4 – Water Preserve Areas

East Everglades 8 1⁄2 Square Mile Area*

Water Preserve Areas**

Seepage Control

Lake Belt/Seepage Barrier

Control Structure in C-4

Concept 5 –Natural Areas Continuity

Experimental Program of Modified Water Deliveries

to Everglades National Park (Shark River

and Taylor Sloughs)*

C-111 Project*

Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National

Park*

Florida Bay Emergency Interim Plan (Taylor Slough

Demonstration Project)*

Modify Water Conservation Areas to Create

Contiguous Natural Area

Modify Each Water Conservation Areas to Enhance

Wetland Habitat

Modify L-28 and L-28 Tieback Levees to Restore

More Natural Flows through Big Cypress

National Preserve to Everglades National

Park

Incorporate Water Quality and Supply into C-111 and

Modified Water Deliveries Projects

Degrade L-29 Levee and Raise Portions of Tamiami

Trail

Add More Culverts Under Tamiami Trail

Seepage Control

Flamingo Road Improvements to Improve Hydrologic

Flow.

Hydrologic Improvements in the Model Lands Basin

in South Dade County **

8 1⁄2 Square Mile Area**

Seminole Water Conservation Project*,**

Rotenberger/Holey Lands**

Concept 6 - Water Supply and Flood Protection for

Urban and Agricultural Areas

South Florida Water Management District Water

Supply Planning*

Saltwater Treatment (Reverse Osmosis, Blending)

Wastewater Reuse

Raise Coastal Canal Stages Coupled with Increased

Discharge Capacity

Interconnect Local Water Management Systems

Implement Southern L-8 Basin / Loxahatchee Slough

Concept 7 – Adequate Water Quality for

Ecosystem Functioning

Everglades Construction Project - STAs*,**

Advanced Water Quality Treatment Technologies

- Research*

Seminole Water Conservation Project*,**

Miccosukee Water Management Area*,**

SWIM Plans*

Mercury Program*

State Water Quality Efforts*

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water

Quality Protection Program*

Kissimmee Region – Water Treatment Areas

Caloosahatchee - Water Treatment Areas

Water Treatment Area for L-28 (Interceptor)

Water Treatment Area for S-9

Best Management Practices for Agriculture **

Lower Western Basin STA**

Note: Projects Underway noted by *; Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida’s Farm Bill Priority

Projects noted by **
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-10

TABLE 6-4-(continued)

THEMATIC CONCEPTS

Includes Projects Underway and 40 Preferred Options (in Italics)

Concept 8 – Increase Spatial Extent and Quality of

Wetlands Beyond the Everglades

Kissimmee River Restoration*

Lake Kissimmee Drawdown*

Save Our Rivers Program*

Kissimmee River Pool A Restoration

Paradise Run Restoration

Restoration of Kreamer, Torry, and Ritta Islands

Restoration of Golden Gate Estates**

South Dade Wetlands Addition**

Fakahatchee Strand**

Belle Meade**

South Glades**

Concept 9 – Invasive Plant Control

Remove Invasive Nonnative Plants from Water

Conservation Areas

Remove Invasive Nonnative Plants from Urban Areas

Concept 10 – Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Lake Okeechobee – Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Caloosahatchee – Aquifer Storage and Recovery

LEC – Aquifer Storage and Recovery

Concept 11 - Protection and Restoration of Coastal,

Estuarine, and Marine Ecosystems

SWIM Plans*

C-111 Project*

Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park*

Florida Keys Carrying Capacity Study*,**

Florida Bay Emergency Interim Plan (Taylor Slough

Demonstration Project)*

Florida Bay Hydrodynamic Model*

Biscayne Bay Hydrodynamic Model*

Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary Water Quality

Protection Program*

Remove Organic Sediment Deposits from Caloosahatchee

Estuary

Stabilize St. Lucie Canal Banks

Remove Organic Sediment Deposits from St. Lucie Estuary

Concept 12 - Conservation of Soil

Increase Groundwater Levels in the Everglades Agricultural

Area

Concept 13 – Operation, Management, and

Implementation of the C&SF Project

Modifications and Related Lands

Note: Projects Underway noted by *; Governor’s Commission for a Sustainable South Florida’s Farm Bill Priority Projects

noted by **

 The following sections provide a description of each of the concepts which

include those projects currently underway or programmed and additional features

the Commission determined important to meet its objectives for the Restudy. The

description of the concepts is taken directly from the Commission’s report. The

thirteen concepts broadly covered four major themes: regional storage for natural

systems, water supply and flood protection; natural areas enhancement and

restoration; improved water quality; and improved operation, management and

implementation practices.

6.4.1. Concept 1: Regional Storage Within The Everglades Headwaters And

Adjacent Areas

Sufficient water to meet competing demands can only be provided by

maximizing storage. Water storage should be provided throughout the entire

system and in such a way that no single area is environmentally damaged by

excessive storage requirements or bears a disproportionate share of the storage

burden. This storage must be achieved in all areas of the south Florida system

using every practical option. As part of this concept, regional storage would be

evaluated for the northern reaches of the Everglades system (Caloosahatchee, St.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-11

Lucie, and Kissimmee River Basins). The additional storage in these basins should

increase the water supply capabilities of the system and could ultimately reduce

demands on Lake Okeechobee, thereby providing additional water during the dry

season and reducing damaging high water conditions and harmful discharges to the

east-west estuaries during the wet season.

6.4.1.1. Kissimmee River Basin

The Kissimmee Chain of Lakes forms the headwaters of the Everglades

system and provides a critical source of water for Lake Okeechobee. The Kissimmee

River Restoration Project, as currently planned, includes operational changes of

lake levels in Lakes Kissimmee, Hatchineha, and Cypress to increase storage

capacity necessary for the restoration of the Kissimmee River. Additional efforts

that should be considered under this concept include examination of the operational

plans for the remainder of the Upper Chain of Lakes to discern if they could provide

additional storage capabilities to benefit the health of Lake Okeechobee and

potentially reduce the volume of water shortages in the system.

Additional storage within the Kissimmee River Basin could reduce the

amount of runoff entering Lake Okeechobee during the wet season when the lake

typically approaches high levels. This could shorten the duration of high water

levels within the lake that damage its littoral zone and could reduce the frequency

of high volume discharges to the east and west coast estuaries. The increase in

water levels within the Upper Chain of Lakes could be restricted to avoid natural

system impacts of high water levels and the need to maintain flood protection to

lakeside residential development throughout the area. In support of the

Commission’s sociological and economic goals, this concept must be designed to

balance the need for storage with the need to maintain flood protection to lakeside

developments and should not result in the relocation of communities and

agricultural areas.

6.4.1.2. St. Lucie Canal and Caloosahatchee River Basins

Creating additional storage or enhancing the storage capacity on existing

private or public facilities and open areas within the St. Lucie Canal and

Caloosahatchee River Basins may reduce water supply demands on Lake Okeechobee

by providing a supplemental source of water for irrigation and environmental base

flow for the estuaries. The water conserved in Lake Okeechobee could be available for

sustaining the health of the lake and downstream natural areas and other uses.

Storage facilities could also attenuate local basin runoff that presently upsets the

salinity balance in estuaries and adversely impacts seagrasses, invertebrates, and

fisheries.

Pumping local basin urban and agricultural runoff into storage areas could

attenuate flows during the wet season and provide storage into the dry season.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-12

Restoring hydropatterns in large natural areas and storing excess water in wet

pastures could attenuate flows and help restore cleaner and more natural inputs to

the estuaries. Restoration of natural areas can also help meet the goal of expanding

and enhancing the spatial extent of short hydroperiod wetlands. Dry period releases

from these storage areas could be used for agricultural irrigation and for meeting

minimum flow requirements of the estuaries. During those periods when

supplemental irrigation requirements could not be met by the storage areas, water

supply releases from Lake Okeechobee could still be provided. Attenuating

stormwater runoff will provide some water quality benefits, although additional

treatment may be required depending on the use of the discharged water. Water

clarity is very important to aquatic vegetation, particularly grasses. For example,

storing stormwater may allow suspended solids to settle out, consequently improving

the transparency of the water.

The storage areas and their associated water treatment facilities should be

sized and designed to be ecologically consistent with the location. The total storage

volume, coupled with the size and depth of the storage areas, need to be optimized as

a part of detailed design during the Restudy. The storage areas could require

perimeter levees, pump stations, and conveyance canals to move water from the canal

system into the storage areas and to control water supply and environmental releases

from the storage areas. Ideally, individual upland storage areas would be divided

among the various sub-basins and would be interconnected to provide for maximum

flexibility of water management options among basins. The siting of these facilities

should, to the maximum extent practicable, avoid primary or secondary impacts to

existing wetlands and adjacent uplands, both of which contribute to a viable

ecosystem and economy. The Indian River Lagoon Feasibility Study is examining the

option of on-site retention for large dischargers within the St. Lucie Basin not

presently providing such facilities; this concept should be examined for other areas as

part of the Restudy effort.

6.4.2. Concept 2: Lake Okeechobee Operational Plan

Lake Okeechobee provides a critical source of water for the Everglades

Agricultural Area (EAA), the urbanized areas of the Lower East Coast, portions of the

Lower West Coast, the remaining portions of the historic Everglades system, and

other wetland components of the south Florida ecosystem. Prior to manmade

alterations, lake levels rose in response to rainfall and served as a valuable source of

freshwater spilling into the Everglades during a relatively small number of high

rainfall years. Today a lake regulation schedule triggers different management

activities according to different lake levels. The current regulation schedule, known as

Run 25, was developed for multiple purposes including water supply, flood control,

navigation, and environmental protection. Since some of these goals conflict, achieving

all of them under current conditions is impossible. Past efforts to meet all of these

conflicting goals have resulted in damage to the lake’s littoral zone and to the east and
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-13

west coast estuaries. The Commission believes a new operational plan for the lake is

needed that maximizes storage opportunities, protects the east and west coast

estuaries, restores the ecological health of the lake, and enhances wildlife populations.

The ability to accomplish these goals greatly depends on additional storage

throughout the system and on other improvements to the overall C&SF Project.

Within the constraints imposed by these conflicts, the operational guidelines for

Lake Okeechobee are currently being reviewed to attempt to optimize the natural

resources within the lake, water discharges for the purpose of restoring the natural

hydropattern of the Everglades, and flows to the estuaries without adversely

impacting flood control or urban and agricultural water supply. Avoiding

environmental harm to the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee Estuaries caused by massive

lake releases is an important goal. Equally important is protection of the lake littoral

zone from prolonged high water. Maximizing storage for environmental, agricultural

and urban needs while protecting the lake and estuaries will require creative new

operational schedules. This interim study of operational guidelines for the lake is

being conducted in conjunction with South Florida Water Management District’s

Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. In addition, the South Florida Water

Management District’s Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan requires

specific regulatory and non-regulatory activities to address water quality conditions,

including ongoing development and testing of agricultural Best Management

Practices to reduce pollutants and assure water quality compliance for discharges into

the lake. Additional actions may be necessary since current nutrient loads to the lake

remain above the established target. Nutrient levels contained in lake water would

need to be lowered before it could be discharged into the Everglades. These ongoing

efforts should serve to benefit the health of the lake through improved water quality

and operational changes which are more desirable for the lake’s littoral zone without

compromising other project purposes such as flood control and water supply. To fully

resolve these conflicting demands on the lake, additional storage areas throughout the

system and methods to improve water quality are required.

Until additional storage options are available elsewhere in the system,

temporary storage capacity in the lake could help meet projected demands for urban

and agricultural water supply and natural system needs. Revisions to the operational

plan for Lake Okeechobee may allow additional water to be stored in the lake during

wet periods and may help meet the projected demands during dry periods while

maintaining ecologically desirable water fluctuations and lake levels. This could be

accomplished by allowing periodic lower levels during droughts and higher water

levels during wet periods, providing there is no significant adverse impact to the lake’s

littoral zone, or the east and west coast estuaries. A new operational plan needs to be

identified that triggers management activities for high lake levels and “supply-side”

management actions for low lake levels. Modified lake operations could increase the

storage capacity of the lake, while reducing impacts to other parts of the regional

system. All operational options that seek to increase lake storage capacity, while
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-14

protecting the littoral zone and the east and west coast estuaries, must be carefully

examined.

Lake Okeechobee’s littoral zone provides important nursery grounds and

habitat for fish and other aquatic organisms. It also supports large populations of

wading birds and migratory waterfowl. The current location of the littoral zone is the

result of the construction of the existing dike system, and the lowering of the lake

level by drainage. Colonization by aquatic plants creates a littoral zone where

fluctuating water levels are sufficient to support emergent vegetation. A diverse

littoral zone cannot survive under periods of prolonged inundation. Timing of varying

water levels and light penetration in the shallows are key factors in maintaining a

viable littoral zone. The existing littoral zone was established when lake regulation

levels fluctuated between 13.0 and 15.5 feet NVGD. In 1978, the regulation schedule

was set at 15.5 to 17.5 feet to increase lake water storage. Assuring the continued

health of the existing littoral zone is an important goal. All available information

should be used to design a lake regulation schedule that preserves a healthy littoral

zone, maximizes lake storage, and allows attenuation of floodwaters to protect the

east and west coast estuaries. If it is determined to be feasible, raising the regulation

schedule above the current limits may require costly structural changes such as

raising existing levees, modifying or adding water control structures, constructing new

pump stations, canals, and tie back levees. Also, State Road 78 may need to be raised

and additional flood easements acquired. Recent high lake levels and the resulting

dike seepage problems indicate levee repairs and improvements may be required even

if the current regulation schedule is not raised. In addition, the Seminole Tribe’s

Brighton Reservation is located on the northwest side of Lake Okeechobee. As Federal

Trust Property, this reservation should be considered in any decision regarding

modifications to the water levels of the lake. The Restudy must consider all of these

aspects when evaluating the role that Lake Okeechobee will play in the future.

6.4.3. Concept 3: Everglades Agricultural Area Storage

Much of the supplemental water supply for the Everglades Agricultural Area in

the dry season is currently met by deliveries from Lake Okeechobee. Additional water

storage in the Everglades Agricultural Area will lessen its dependency on Lake

Okeechobee for irrigation water and potentially reduce the ecologically damaging high

water conditions in the Water Conservation Areas and backpumping into Lake

Okeechobee during the wet season. Regional above-ground impoundments or storage

areas within the Everglades Agricultural Area could capture and store Everglades

Agricultural Area runoff or excess water from Lake Okeechobee during the wet

season. During the dry season, reservoir releases could be made to the primary canals

for agricultural irrigation and for restoration of the downstream Everglades

ecosystem. Lake Okeechobee would then no longer serve as the only supplemental

source for meeting Everglades Agricultural Area irrigation demands. During the
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-15

periods when supplemental irrigation requirements could not be met by the storage

areas, water supply releases from Lake Okeechobee could still be provided.

The Commission recommends that the determination of sufficient land to

accomplish storage in the Everglades Agricultural Area be based on need, science, and

appropriate cost-benefit analyses. The Talisman property is currently being

considered for acquisition by the State for use as a water storage area. The

Commission supports the acquisition of up to the equivalent of the Talisman property

as a target of opportunity for increased storage. Additional areas may be considered.

Until the total storage volume, size, and depth of storage areas are designed and

optimized during the Restudy, based on analyses of costs, benefits, needs, and

impacts, all land acquisition should be made with willing sellers and in consultation

with local landowners. Acquired lands could be returned to agricultural use if not

needed for restoration activities.

Properly sized and designed storage areas have the potential of improving the

quality of water being delivered to the natural system by reducing Everglades

Agricultural Area runoff entering the stormwater treatment areas, thereby reducing

the nutrient loading coming from the Everglades Agricultural Area and aiding the

stormwater treatment areas in meeting target phosphorus levels entering the Water

Conservation Areas. Further, detention of stormwater for attenuation purposes will

improve water quality. However, additional water treatment may be required if the

water within these storage areas is to be used to meet natural system demands.

Ongoing efforts to improve flood control capacity within the Everglades

Agricultural Area and water quality of downstream flood control discharges, include

the Everglades Construction Project and the reevaluation of the Bolles and Cross

Canals. Presently, the design of the major canals of the Everglades Agricultural Area

is constrained in moving water internally within the Everglades Agricultural Area or

from Lake Okeechobee to the south. By incorporating expanded or modified

Everglades Agricultural Area canals with stormwater treatment areas and new water

storage areas, the increased operational flexibility could provide additional flood

protection to the Everglades Agricultural Area while protecting the Water

Conservation Areas and the coastal estuaries from damaging high water levels and

untimely discharges. When Lake Okeechobee exceeds its regulation schedule, water

that currently impacts the lake’s littoral zone or disrupts the east and west coastal

estuaries could be moved southward into new storage areas or, water quality

permitting, to the Water Conservation Areas.

6.4.4. Concept 4: Water Preserve Areas

The purpose of the Water Preserve Areas concept is to: (1) increase storage and

hold more water in the system by controlling seepage from natural areas; (2) capture

and store excess stormwater currently discharged to coastal waters, thus retaining an
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-16

important water supply source for both urban and natural systems; (3) provide a

buffer between the natural and developed areas; (4) preserve and protect wetlands

outside the publicly owned Everglades; and (5) provide important transitional land

uses between the natural and developed areas. The Water Preserve Areas concept

may also enhance flood control in areas to the east of the Water Preserve Areas.

Attempts to meet these various goals should be coordinated and developed in a

consistent manner.

Hydrologic modeling of the regional system has demonstrated seepage control

is a critical component for achieving restoration targets in the southern Everglades

and Florida Bay. Much of the water that seeps out of the Everglades is collected in the

secondary canal network and discharged into the regional canal system, resulting in

excessive releases to coastal waters. The Water Preserve Areas concept must include a

cost-effective implementation of one or all of these alternatives to achieve the

multi-purpose functions and operational flexibility needed to meet the Commission’s

objectives. Water Preserve Areas should enhance regional capabilities for meeting

environmental, urban, and agricultural water demands, while simultaneously

providing protection of certain designated wetlands outside the Water Conservation

Areas and Everglades National Park. The Water Preserve Areas concept consists of a

series of surface water impoundments, interconnected and managed as a system of

marshlands, storage areas, and/or aquifer recharge basins. These areas provide the

potential to backpump stormwater currently discharged to coastal waters and serve to

control urban sprawl into remaining peripheral wetlands. Some examples of seepage

control alternatives which should be evaluated for inclusion in the Water Preserve

Areas are creating areas to store excess urban runoff, creating a step down of water

levels toward the east, building collection and backpumping facilities, and installing

subterranean barriers.

Water quality becomes an important consideration where enhancement of

existing wetlands or backpumping into the Water Conservation Areas or wellfield

recharge areas is desired. Untreated stormwater should be diverted to a treatment

facility or should undergo other treatment options necessary to achieve water quality

standards prior to discharge to a wetland area, wellfield recharge area, or surface

water supply source areas. In particular, the S-9 pump station must also be

considered. The S-9 pump station is the only major C&SF Project facility that

currently discharges untreated urban stormwater into the Everglades. Other urban

stormwater discharge into the Everglades by local drainage districts must also be

addressed. Structures that discharge into Water Conservation Areas should have

appropriate permits to discharge effluent, should be monitored, and should meet all

applicable state and Federal water quality standards and laws. A water treatment

facility could remove phosphorus and other constituents from stormwater prior to

discharge into the Water Conservation Areas.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-17

The Water Preserve Areas concept includes the remaining natural areas and

open spaces along the eastern boundaries of Everglades National Park and the Water

Conservation Areas and extends north into the Upper East Coast area. This concept is

considerably more extensive than the existing South Florida Water Management

District East Coast Buffer Project boundaries, that is a land acquisition initiative that

preserves, where possible, design flexibility for future water preserve elements. For

example, Palm Beach County has proposed that the Water Preserve Areas concept be

extended east and northeast into the Loxahatchee Basin.

In June 1995, the Martin and St. Lucie County Commissions established a

Water Preserve Areas Task Force to facilitate selection of suitable sites for Water

Preserve Areas in those counties. In Martin and St. Lucie Counties, Water Preserve

Areas could provide for the diversion of surplus runoff from the C-23, C-24, and C-25

drainage basins to storage areas where the water could be used for agricultural

purposes or, with treatment, could be discharged into the estuary to enhance needed

baseflow. The Task Force has completed a draft report that evaluated a number of

potential Water Preserve Areas sites and conducted a design charette for a potential

site at Allapattah Ranch. Water Preserve Areas in these two counties could help

alleviate the problems caused by excessive inflows of freshwater to the St. Lucie

Estuary and Indian River Lagoon.

The area of northwestern Miami-Dade County proposed as a future “Lake Belt”

by the South Florida Limestone Mining Coalition lies east of Water Conservation

Areas-3B and comprises a large portion of land being considered for the Water

Preserve Areas. The Florida Legislature recognized that one of the few remaining

high-quality, construction grade limestone deposits suitable for the production of

aggregates, cements and road base materials in the state is located in this area.

Therefore, the legislature established the Northwest Dade County Freshwater Lake

Plan Implementation Committee and further defined the proposed lake plan

boundaries. The objective of the legislation is to develop a plan that:

“(a) enhances the water supply for Dade County and the Everglades; (b)

maximizes efficient recovery of limestone while promoting the social and

economic welfare of the community and protecting the environment; and (c)

educates various groups and the general public of the benefits of the plan.”

A public/private partnership may offset the cost or reduce the need for

acquiring portions of the Water Preserve Areas (including but not limited to land

donations, land swaps, and less than fee simple acquisitions). However Lake Belt Plan

development is proceeding in advance of the Water Preserve Areas design component

of the Restudy. Coordination between these two planning efforts is necessary to avoid

difficulties associated with Everglades restoration. It is important that the future lake

plan be consistent with economic and environmental sustainability and flexible
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-18

enough to ensure compatibility with south Florida natural system restoration and

other objectives set forth by the Governor’s Commission.

The Water Preserve Areas concept should extend seepage control south of

Tamiami Trail to the eastern panhandle of Everglades National Park including the 8

1/2 Square Mile Area and the C-111 Basin. The stretch of the L-31N from Tamiami

Trail to the 8 1/2 Square Mile Area is of significant concern because of the extreme

rates of seepage along the eastern border of Northeast Shark River Slough. Raising

water levels in the L-31N Canal is a critical element in restoring hydropatterns in

Everglades National Park. This cannot be achieved without seepage control due to the

flooding threat to the 8 1/2 Square Mile Area and areas to the east of the L-31N Canal.

One suggestion in support of the Water Preserve Areas concept is to install a divide

structure in the C-4 Canal. This would increase the potential volumes of stormwater

that could be captured by various backpumping configurations as well as help

recharge wellfields and improve flood protection for urban areas.

Because the 8 1/2 Square Mile Area is located adjacent to the Everglades

National Park boundary, flood control could affect restoration of natural

hydropatterns, flows and water quality within the Park. The currently authorized

flood mitigation for the 8 1/2 Square Mile Area does not provide adequate protection

for the community. The 8 1/2 Square Mile Area deserves consideration by the Restudy,

consistent with the recommendations of the Governor’s Committee on the 8 1/2

Square Mile Area.

The exact extent, design, and operation of the Water Preserve Areas should be

evaluated and determined as part of the Restudy. However, time is of the essence as

lands in some of the proposed Water Preserve Areas are rapidly being converted to

uses that are incompatible with their potential use as Water Preserve Areas.

Therefore, The Commission believes that accelerated acquisition of critical lands is

needed to ensure that this concept remains viable.

6.4.5. Concept 5: Natural Areas Continuity

Historic freshwater wetland habitats in south Florida have been reduced

spatially, compartmentalized, and hydrologically altered as a result of the C&SF

Project. Further, habitats have been unnaturally fragmented. Reestablishing the

hydrologic and ecologic continuity of the remaining natural areas is expected to

benefit the entire Everglades ecosystem by recovering the pre-drainage functions and

habitat values of historic freshwater wetlands, reducing the fragmentation, and

restoring more natural hydropatterns including associated sheetflow. These actions

may also help restore the ecological processes and relationships, and the diversity and

numerical abundance of animals that can only come by reestablishing the central and

southern Everglades and Big Cypress into a single, fully integrated ecosystem. This

concept proposes to restore ecological continuity to areas that are currently treated as
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-19

geographically and hydrologically distinct. These areas include the three Water

Conservation Areas, the Rotenberger/Holey Land Wildlife Management Areas, the Big

Cypress National Preserve, Ten Thousand Islands, Fakahatchee Strand, Mullet

Slough, Corkscrew Swamp, Caloosahatchee Slough, Rookery Bay, Everglades

National Park, the Model Lands, Florida Bay, the Florida Keys, and associated

estuarine and marine waters. This concept involves structural and/or operational

changes within the remaining natural areas for the benefit of the entire ecosystem.

These structural changes should also include examining the effects and/or proposing

changes to U.S. 27, which bisects the Water Conservation Areas, to enhance natural

conditions.

Water quantity and water quality are important aspects of this concept,

however, features to achieve these goals will generally come from outside the

boundaries of the remaining natural areas. This concept assumes that appropriate

quantity and quality of water needed to meet ecosystem goals in the natural areas will

be available and that the Water Conservation Areas will be managed to the maximum

extent feasible for natural values. Existing legislation by the State of Florida, the

Everglades Forever Act, addresses non-point source pollution from agricultural

activities in the Everglades Agricultural Area. Best Management Practices and

treatment of runoff from the Everglades Agricultural Area through stormwater

treatment areas are designed to reduce phosphorus levels in water released to the

Everglades to 50 parts per billion, an interim goal for the discharges. Additional water

quality treatment may be necessary if more stringent water quality standards are

applied and additional water for restoration is required. Where possible, the

Everglades Forever Act implementation schedule should also be accelerated.

Several efforts are currently underway that will help achieve the goals of

restoring the hydrological function and reestablishing ecological connections between

natural areas and wildlife communities. These ongoing projects include the

Experimental Program of Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park, the

C-111 Project, and the Florida Bay Emergency Interim Plan (Taylor Slough

Demonstration Project). The Commission believes implementation of these projects

will help achieve these goals while maintaining and, where possible, improving levels

of water supply and flood protection to the adjacent agricultural areas.

The Experimental Program of Modified Deliveries to Everglades National Park

was initiated in 1984 to test alternative operational plans and to provide more natural

hydrologic conditions in the Everglades during the testing process. Initial tests

addressed water deliveries to Shark River Slough and have since incorporated tests of

water deliveries to Taylor Slough. The program will continue through the design and

construction of the Modified Deliveries to Everglades National Park and the C-111

Projects. The Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project is aimed

at restoring the original deep water portion of Shark River Slough and reducing the

impacts of large flood releases in western Shark River Slough. The C-111 Project will
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-20

create a buffer area along the eastern boundary of the Park to allow increased water

levels in Taylor Slough and gradually lessen water levels from west to east. C-111

Project design modifications should also ensure natural water deliveries to the

panhandle area of Everglades National Park and the Model Lands area east of U.S. 1.

In addition, the Florida Bay Emergency Interim Plan, required by the Everglades

Forever Act, should increase the amount of freshwater reaching Florida Bay by

acquiring the Frog Pond and raising canal stages to promote more freshwater to flow

through Taylor Slough into Florida Bay. Flood protection will be maintained and,

where possible, improved for adjacent, existing urban and agricultural lands as these

projects are implemented. Results should be monitored to evaluate effectiveness or

identify needed modifications. The goal is to replicate flows, more natural

hydropatterns, and flows in natural areas to maintain and restore native wetland,

upland plant communities, and wildlife communities.

In the development of this Conceptual Plan for the Restudy, the Commission

identified additional efforts needed in the region to fully meet its objectives for

hydrologically and ecologically reconnecting natural areas. These are described as

follows:

6.4.5.1. Water Conservation Areas

Historically, the three Water Conservation Areas were an expansive mosaic of

habitats including uplands, hammocks, sawgrass plains, wet prairies, sloughs, lakes,

and marl-forming marshes that constituted the central and northeastern portions of

the historic Everglades. Construction of the three Water Conservation Areas has

resulted in the management of each of the areas according to a regulation schedule

based on inflow and outflow of water through water control structures and system

demands.

As part of this concept, structural modifications to the levees and structures

currently compartmentalizing the Water Conservation Areas and changes in

operational plans will be investigated for the purpose of restoring more natural

hydrologic and ecologic continuity within all of the Water Conservation Areas.

Preliminary hydrologic modeling conducted during the reconnaissance phase of the

Restudy indicated some levees and structures may still be necessary to create

desirable hydrologic and ecologic conditions throughout the area. Further, the current

Water Conservation Areas regulation schedules need to be modified to schedules

based on more natural conditions. The goal is to replicate more natural hydropatterns

within the Water Conservation Areas and to maintain and restore native wetland and

upland plant communities. It is important to note that the movement of water

through these areas has been altered by soil subsidence. Current flow patterns are

much different than historic flow patterns. For these and other reasons, more detailed

hydrologic modeling is necessary to determine changes in hydrologic patterns that

result from modifications to the amount, timing, and distribution of water flowing into
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-21

and through the Water Conservation Areas. As part of the Restudy, restoring the

connectivity of the Water Conservation Areas with the other portions of the

Everglades should be consistent with the ability to maintain flood protection and

existing water supply for agricultural and urban areas.

6.4.5.2. Big Cypress National Preserve

The Big Cypress National Preserve area is a mosaic of evolving habitat types

resulting from both natural and manmade forces. Historically, long hydroperiods

limited the invasion of shrubs and pines into cypress forests and frequent fires

prevented hardwoods from dominating cypress and pine forests. Infrequent hot fires

burned holes into peat soils that created new pools. The result of these conditions was

a balance of shifting successional communities. Construction of the L-28 levee,

Tamiami Trail, and Loop Road altered flows and changed the habitat cycles of floods

and fires.

As part of this concept, hydrological and ecological conditions will be improved

by providing more historic-like flows along the eastern border of Big Cypress National

Preserve. This will provide for more natural inter-annual and seasonal variations of

flow that will, in turn, result in a more natural cycle of floods and fires in the area. As

more natural patterns of fires and floods are restored, overall habitat heterogeneity

will increase and a more natural interspersion of uplands and wetlands will return.

Additional benefits of this concept may include improvements in water table

elevations in the coastal mangrove forests in the Ten Thousand Islands area of

Everglades National Park. Impacts to threatened and endangered species such as the

Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow and the West Indian manatee will need to be considered

and addressed.

The L-28 Levee presently separates Water Conservation Area 3A and the Big

Cypress National Preserve. To restore hydropatterns within Big Cypress National

Preserve, this levee, Tamiami Trail, and Loop Road may need to be modified. Further

upstream, the L-28 Interceptor Canal (L-28I) collects water from the Seminole

Reservation and upstream basins and discharges it into Water Conservation Area 3A.

Allowing this canal to discharge further upstream in the northeast corner of Big

Cypress National Preserve could rehydrate Mullet Slough and the headwaters of Big

Cypress Natural Preserve, while still providing flood protection to the Seminole and

Miccosukee Reservations. Facilities for water treatment will be necessary to improve

water quality entering natural areas from the C-139 and the L-28I canals that

presently flow directly into Water Conservation Area 3A. The Seminole Tribe’s Water

Conservation Plan provides a greater opportunity to restore more natural

hydropatterns in the Big Cypress National Preserve by creating flows further north

and west. Bypass structures will be placed under the West Feeder Canal on the Big

Cypress Reservation that will sheetflow clean water south along the length of the west

Feeder Canal into the Big Cypress Preserve Addition.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-22

6.4.5.3. Everglades National Park

Tamiami Trail (U.S. 41) and L-29 form an ecological and hydrological barrier

between Water Conservation Area 3 and Everglades National Park. Two on-going

projects have identified ways to improve hydrologic and ecologic conditions within

Everglades National Park; the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park

and C-111 Projects. These projects will help improve conveyance into Everglades

National Park and provide some seepage control south of Tamiami Trail. While these

projects will improve conditions in Everglades National Park in the interim,

additional measures may be needed to further control seepage and restore conveyance

to historical levels. These issues need to be addressed through the Restudy and

evaluated collectively. Structural modifications to the L-29 levee and improving

conveyance through Tamiami Trail (bridge structure) from CR 951 to 40 Mile Bend

and Loop Road need to be evaluated by the Restudy from the perspective of restoring

the hydrologic and ecologic continuity of Water Conservation Area 3, Everglades

National Park, the Big Cypress, and Ten Thousand Islands.

Groundwater seepage loss is the main impediment to any kind of restoration

within Everglades National Park. Its impact is far reaching, affecting every water

management decision along Tamiami Trail. To address this problem, the Water

Preserve Areas concept has been extended south of Tamiami Trail to control the

extreme seepage losses that occur on the east side of the Park. At a minimum, the

areas of concern include the 8 1⁄2 Square Mile Area, Bird Drive Basin, and the

Pennsucco Wetlands.

Flamingo Road, which is the main road through Everglades National Park, is

the only road providing access to the Flamingo visitor center. This roadway acts as a

levee during high flow conditions and impedes sheetflow through portions of

Everglades National Park. This concept addresses improving conveyance through this

road. Adding culverts, bridges, or other improvements to Flamingo Road will remove a

hydrological barrier and restore more natural flows within the area, resulting in

improved hydrologic and ecologic continuity.

6.4.5.4. Biscayne National Park

Large public works projects in South Miami-Dade County (e.g. U.S. 1, the

C&SF Project, etc.) have interrupted natural freshwater flows into Biscayne Bay. The

pending transfer of Homestead Air Force Base to Miami-Dade County, and the public

acquisition of the Model Lands provide important opportunities to improve these

hydropatterns. The Commission supports the sustainable conversion of the air base

and redevelopment of appropriate areas in southeast Miami-Dade County as critical

economic development projects. Water management changes that result from these

activities must be made in ways that protect Biscayne National Park and other vital

environmental resources in southeast Miami-Dade County, reconnect drained
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-23

wetlands east and west of U.S. 1, and reinforce the sustainable agricultural goals of

this Commission. The reconnection of Biscayne Bay to more natural freshwater flows

from the mainland will complete the “natural area continuity” at the southeastern end

of the natural system.

6.4.6. Concept 6: Water Supply and Flood Protection for Urban and

Agricultural Areas

The flood protection and water supply provided by the C&SF Project have

facilitated the development of urban and agricultural areas in south Florida.

Population growth and the intense development in south Florida are expected to

continue resulting in significant increases in the demand for water and pressure to

maintain and enhance flood protection. The Commission recognizes that flood

protection and water supply for all users are critical components of sustainability of

the region. The Commission also recognizes the continued importance of the C&SF

Project to meet these needs. It is the goal of the Commission to maintain existing

levels of water supply and flood protection and, where consistent with restoration

goals, to balance future flood protection and water supply.

C&SF Project facilities allow the Water Conservation Areas and Lake

Okeechobee to serve as a critical source of water for meeting urban needs during

periods of low rainfall. This includes providing recharge to the surficial aquifer along

the Lower East Coast and maintaining surface water supplies to the Caloosahatchee

Basin and the West Palm Beach Water Catchment Area. In addition, the lake serves

as a direct source of water for lakeside communities.

The South Florida Water Management District is currently developing four

water supply plans that, together, cover the entire boundaries of the South Florida

Water Management District. Each regional plan analyzes the available water supply

and makes projections of future demand through the year 2010. Working with public

advisory committees, the South Florida Water Management District is determining

the likelihood of future water supply problems, and is developing potential solutions to

these problems. The majority of the C&SF Project facilities fall within the boundaries

of the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. An interim plan was completed

in early 1998. The Lower West Coast Water Supply Plan was completed in 1994. The

Upper East Coast Water Supply Plan was completed in 1998 and the Kissimmee

Water Supply Plan is underway. The plans will make recommendations to address

immediate water supply issues and will also make long term recommendations to the

Restudy.

One important option under consideration in both the Lower East Coast

Regional Water Supply Plan and the Restudy is the Water Preserve Areas concept,

which will benefit regional water supply. Capturing and storing excess stormwater

runoff in the Water Preserve Areas could serve as additional storage areas for urban

water supply and enhance recharge of the Biscayne Aquifer. Other regional concepts,
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-24

such as modification of the regional and secondary canal systems to improve water

management and recharge capability are possible methods of increasing recharge to

the surficial aquifer. Options that have been identified for this purpose include raising

coastal canal stages (with appropriate means to maintain flood control) and

interconnecting local surface water management systems and the southern L-8

Project in northern Palm Beach County.

Other alternatives, while less regional in nature, include new inland wellfields,

public water supply aquifer storage and recovery, wastewater reuse, the reduction of

per capita water usage, and the use of brackish or saltwater sources of water. Utility

or local government programs for plumbing retrofit and landscape water conservation

programs may also be useful in slowing the increase in urban demands. It is

anticipated that the implementation of a combination of alternatives will be

necessary, depending on the type of user and the circumstances that the user

encounters. It is critical that the Restudy effort work closely with local water utility

departments to further develop these alternatives. The Commission believes the

Restudy must take a regional view toward water supply. Further, the Commission

recognizes that regional water supply deliveries from the C&SF Project are critical to

achieving sustainability. The Restudy must develop plans to mitigate and replace any

water supply lost through system modifications for environmental restoration.

The C&SF Project has provided regional flood protection throughout the entire

system. Flood protection provided to existing agriculture and development should be

maintained. In a number of areas, some features of the Project have never been

constructed and development and agriculture have occurred in areas not previously

anticipated to be converted. Of particular concern is the south Miami-Dade area

where projects such as the Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park

and the C-111 Project are underway. These south Miami-Dade projects must

incorporate appropriate flood protection into their design. The Commission has

identified a number of water storage options throughout the C&SF Project system

that will provide increased flood protection. These options, including the Water

Preserve Areas and storage areas, should also include flood protection as their

purpose.

6.4.7. Concept 7: Adequate Water Quality for Natural System Functioning

A fundamental requirement for maintenance and restoration of the Everglades

ecosystem, Florida Bay and the coastal estuaries is the delivery of adequate amounts

of clean water. Just as restoration of water quantity in proper volumes and timing to

the Everglades is the cornerstone of Everglades restoration, the Commission believes

that the natural system can only be restored through the supply of clean rainwater

and surface water from upstream marshes, rivers, sloughs, and Lake Okeechobee.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-25

Drainage from the extensive agricultural development in the Everglades

Agricultural Area delivered to the Everglades marsh via the C&SF Project structures

resulted in the degradation of Everglades marsh surface waters. Stormwater runoff

from extensive urban development on both coasts has degraded water quality in the

coastal estuaries and certain portions of the Everglades where urban

stormwater/drainage water is backpumped (i.e., the C-11 Basin) via the C&SF Project

structures. Since the natural Everglades ecosystem is oligotrophic, with high plant

biomass and very low nutrient concentrations in marsh surface waters, it is acutely

vulnerable to eutrophication by elevated nutrient levels. The estuaries, notably

Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and the St. Lucie Estuary, have been damaged by

degraded water quality or unnaturally high volumes of water facilitated by the C&SF

Project canals.

Large scale Everglades restoration planning and implementation must include

the delivery of clean water to the Everglades marsh. Ecological restoration cannot be

accomplished if water flowing to the Everglades contains high nutrients and

ecologically damaging levels of pesticides, heavy metals, and other constituents. If, in

the future, the Everglades marsh consists of large expanses of cattail monoculture, the

ecologic integrity of the Everglades will not be equivalent to restoration of a diverse,

heterogeneous system of sawgrass marsh intermingled with spikerush flats, deep

water sloughs, tree islands and upland hardwood hammocks.

A number of activities are currently underway or programmed by various

agencies to address the issue of water quality entering Lake Okeechobee, the

Everglades, Florida Bay and the region’s estuaries. These activities serve to improve

the quality of water currently being discharged into lake, wetland, and estuarine

ecosystems from existing water management infrastructure and are a critical and

integral component of the Commission’s Conceptual Plan for the Restudy. Evaluations

of these water quality improvement activities must occur to insure their adequacy in

meeting the goal of restoration.

The Florida Department of Environmental Protection’s water quality standards

program develops designated uses and classifications of State waters. Narrative and

numeric water criteria are set for various water quality parameters to protect the

designated use of the water body. The Everglades Forever Act mandates that the

Florida Department of Environmental Protection, in conjunction with the South

Florida Water Management District, develop numeric water quality criteria for

phosphorus in the Everglades Protection Area by the year 2001. The development of

numeric water quality criteria, particularly for phosphorus in the Everglades marsh,

is a critical step in developing ecosystem-wide water quality and ecological restoration

strategies. The Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes have also been delegated the

authority to set water quality standards. These standards will address protection of

wetlands with cypress and sawgrass communities.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-26

Because enforcement of state narrative and numerical water quality standards

is critical to protecting the ecological health of the Everglades ecosystem, the

Commission recommends that structures discharging into the Everglades Protection

Area be appropriately permitted, as provided by law, and that discharge effluents be

monitored to ensure all applicable state and Federal water quality standards and laws

are met.

Non-point source pollution associated with urban or agricultural land uses

adversely impacts both groundwater and surface water resources and must be

controlled in basins draining to both the Everglades Protection Area and the coastal

estuaries. Specifically, non-point source pollution associated with the backpumping of

untreated water into Water Conservation Area 3-A at pump structure S-9, in the C-11

drainage basin in western Broward County, must be adequately addressed and

controlled by local, state and Federal water pollution control agencies.

In addition, high levels of methyl mercury have been found in fish and wildlife

in Everglades marshes and canals. In Florida, the highest concentrations of mercury

in fish have been found in Water Conservation Area 3A. Human consumption

advisories have been issued by the State banning consumption of several fish species

in Water Conservation Areas 2A, 3A and the Park, and limiting consumption in

Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge (Water Conservation Area 1). Possible sources

of mercury include atmospheric deposition, effects of drainage, soil disturbance,

hydroperiod alteration and historic storage of mercury in the Everglades. An extensive

interagency state-Federal mercury research program is underway to identify and

quantify mercury sources and transport systems to the Everglades. The

Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), DEP and the United States Geological

Society (USGS) are developing models to evaluate the effect of various mercury source

control and water management strategies on the Everglades mercury problem. The

South Florida Water Management District and the Florida Game and Fresh Water

Fish Commission (FGFWFC) are also working as part of the multi-agency effort to

better understand this ecological problem and develop appropriate responses.

Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the South Florida Water

Management District are also involved with numerous water quality improvement

efforts throughout south Florida aimed at establishing appropriate criteria for

discharges and streamlining the permitting process. These efforts are consistent with

the Commission’s objectives for sustainability in that they support integration of

human activities with the needs of south Florida’s natural resources and allow for an

ecosystem management perspective.

About 700 million gallons of wastewater are treated and discharged in south

Florida daily, much of it to tide. Some urban areas in south Florida have experienced

problems with sewage overflow and lack of capacity. The tripling of population

anticipated in south Florida in the next few decades may result in three times as
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-27

much wastewater. There must be adequate capacity to treat this wastewater to a

quality that does not adversely impact groundwater or receiving surface waters such

as canals, estuarine areas or near-coastal waters. In addition, if properly treated,

reuse of this wastewater for appropriate purposes would help meet regional water

supply needs.

In addition to areas that generate large quantities of wastewater, there are also

numerous communities in south Florida that utilize on-site sewage disposal systems,

such as septic tanks and cesspits, for wastewater treatment. Throughout the region,

concentrations of such systems pose significant water quality problems. Replacement

of these systems with centralized wastewater disposal systems or other technologies

which significantly reduce nutrient impacts may be expensive, but necessary, and is

often beyond the means of many of the region’s small communities, particularly

around Lake Okeechobee and the Florida Keys.

The Seminole Tribe’s Water Conservation System Conceptual Project provides

for sustainable development of their Big Cypress Reservation and balances the needs

of the environment with the Tribe’s needs for economic sustainability on its homeland.

It provides for a network of surface water management structures and the

implementation of a comprehensive system of best management practices. This effort

helps the Tribe meet the numerical standard for phosphorus concentration in waters

discharged from the Reservation, thereby supporting sustainable agriculture while

contributing to restoration of the western Everglades ecosystem. The Seminole Tribe

is also contributing to the improvement of water quality in the Western Basins

through the Landowners Agreements and an Agreement with the South Florida

Water Management District. The Everglades Forever Act only covers flows from the

C-139 Basin and the C-139 Annex. These waters currently flow through the L-28 into

Water Conservation Area 3A. Water from these basins will be diverted and treated

through STA 5 and STA 6 of the Everglades Construction Project. In order to address

high phosphorus inflows to the Reservation, the Seminole Tribe has entered into these

agreements and will be embarking on an enhanced water quality monitoring program.

Of the 23 planning objectives developed by the Commission for the Restudy, 12

are either directly or indirectly dependent on attainment of adequate water quality

conditions (see Table 6-1). Many of the concepts considered for inclusion into the

Restudy require further water quality evaluation and could have either a positive or a

negative influence on the Everglades. As the Restudy progresses, the water quality

aspects of individual alternatives must be assessed. In particular, certain concepts

give rise to opportunities to address water quality issues including: the Everglades

Agricultural Area water storage concept, Water Preserve Areas, and the regional

storage within the Everglades headwaters concept. The Commission also proposes

specific water quality improvement projects to be considered under this concept

including water treatment facilities for the Kissimmee River, Caloosahatchee River,

S-9, C-111, and L-28 Interceptor Canal.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-28

6.4.8. Concept 8: Increased Spatial Extent and Quality of Wetlands Beyond the

Everglades

Roughly 50 percent of the Everglades have been destroyed by land conversion

to agricultural, urban, and industrial development. They continue to be lost through

wetland permitting programs. Wetland loss has reduced landscape heterogeneity,

eliminated habitat of wetland dependent species, and threatened the long-term

viability of vertebrate species that require extensive territory (e.g., wading birds and

panthers). The protection and restoration of wetlands outside the publicly owned

lands, not just the Everglades, could substantially increase success in reestablishing

many native communities. This concept focuses on the protection and restoration of

existing wetlands including smaller, isolated wetlands not contained in the remnant

Everglades. It includes ongoing restoration efforts, such as the wetland conservation

strategies and multi-species recovery planning, as well as additional efforts that

address the Commission’s objective for increasing the spatial extent and quality of

wetlands. A regulatory permitting strategy coupled with a land acquisition program

for the remaining wetlands is needed immediately to ensure their values are protected

and restoration opportunities are not precluded.

The State of Florida’s Conservation and Recreation Lands and Save Our Rivers

Programs use bond proceeds, supported by the general revenue portion of the State’s

Documentary Stamp Tax, to acquire lands for the purposes of water management,

water supply, and the conservation and protection of the State’s water resources.

Manageability, surface and groundwater systems, and the formation of corridors for

the critical interaction of wildlife populations are major considerations in this land

acquisition process. Prime requisites in managing these public lands continue to

ensure water resources, fish and wildlife populations, and native plant communities

are maintained in an environmentally acceptable manner, and that they are made

available for appropriate outdoor recreational activities consistent with their

environmental sensitivity.

The Kissimmee River, once a meandering river with associated marshlands

that provided water storage for the Everglades system and habitat for birds, fish, and

wildlife, was channelized into a 56-mile ditch (the C-38 Canal) as part of the C&SF

Project. Channelization drained approximately 20,000 acres of wetlands. The Corps

and the South Florida Water Management District are currently restoring portions of

the Kissimmee River’s floodplain.

Two areas of the Kissimmee River not presently under consideration for

restoration, but supported by the Commission, are Pool A and Paradise Run. Pool A is

situated south of Lake Kissimmee. The existing C-38 flood control channel there will

remain in place to ensure flood protection in the Upper Chain of Lakes. Flow-through

marshes, encompassing approximately 3,000 acres, could be created to improve the

quality of water delivered southward and to restore additional high quality floodplain
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-29

wetland habitat. Paradise Run, 8.5 miles in length, lies immediately north of Lake

Okeechobee and west of the old Kissimmee River channel. It now consists of 1,200

acres of wetlands. The restoration of Paradise Run would result in more natural

hydrologic conditions and improved habitat for fish and wildlife resources, and would

add an additional 2,200 acres of high quality floodplain wetlands.

The Herbert Hoover Dike was built around portions of Lake Okeechobee in the

1930s, largely as a consequence of the 1926 and 1928 hurricanes. The C&SF Project

completed the impoundment of the lake in the 1950s and 1960s. This impoundment

separated large natural areas located adjacent to the northern, western, and, to a

more limited extent, the southern portion of the lake from their connection to the lake.

These areas, once upper elevation marshlands, are drier than they were historically

and no longer function as they once did. Wetland enhancement to areas that once

formed the littoral system would contribute to the quality of fish and wildlife habitat.

Any activities related to this restoration need to consider impacts to the Seminole

Tribe’s Brighton Reservation on the northwest side of Lake Okeechobee.

Kreamer, Torry, and Ritta Islands, located in the southern end of Lake

Okeechobee, were formerly used for agricultural purposes. The restoration of these

islands would involve degrading selected levees to allow more natural water levels

and transplanting native vegetation. These actions would not affect existing private

properties. They could result in additional habitat for water birds, fish, and other

wildlife. Contaminant studies need to be completed prior to restoration design.

The Big Cypress Basin provides freshwater to the coastal marsh and mangrove

communities of the southwestern Everglades. Construction activities associated with

the defunct Golden Gate Estates development has altered the basin’s natural drainage

patterns through over-drainage and has affected biologic habitat and natural

hydropatterns. Restoration of the southern portion of the Golden Gate Estates

(between I-75 and Tamiami Trail) would restore sheetflow over an area of 113 square

miles. This, in turn, would improve habitat quality and heterogeneity, notably for the

endangered Florida panther, reduce the incidence of destructive wildfires, and

improve the quality and timing of freshwater discharges to Faka Union Bay, Pumpkin

Bay, Rookery Bay, Ten Thousand Islands, and Naples Bay.

The areas along the Lower East Coast are generally included in the Water

Preserve Areas concept and should be carefully examined to ensure remaining areas

are preserved or restored, where feasible. The Model Lands Basin that is located in

southern Miami-Dade County is one such area. It is predominately east of U.S. 1 and

encompasses approximately 79,000 acres. U.S. 1 and Card Sound Road have impeded

the flow of water to the basin, impacting wetland habitat and necessitating discharges

to downstream bays. Restoring hydrologic connections and functions to the Model

Lands, including improving the hydrologic connections under U.S. 1, would not only

improve the functional quality of these wetlands, but would also help restore Barnes
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-30

Sound, Card Sound, and Biscayne Bay. Additionally, it would complete a contiguous

wildlife corridor stretching from the basin southward to the Florida Keys National

Marine Sanctuary. Similarly, the Pennsucco wetlands, west of the Dade-Broward

levee in northwestern Miami-Dade County, are peripheral wetlands used by foraging

wading birds, including endangered species. Management of the Pennsucco wetlands,

the final footprint of which is being considered by the Northwest Dade County

Freshwater Lake Implementation Committee, should include maintaining and

enhancing the habitat and foraging benefits of this area for wildlife.

The South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working Group, the Chair of the

Governor’s Commission, and the Miami-Dade County Commissioners have supported

the need to protect open spaces and wetlands that serve vital hydrologic functions for

Biscayne Bay. This refers to lands between Biscayne National Park and Miami-Dade

County’s present Urban Development Boundary. These lands are all that remain of

once vast coastal uplands, prairies, and wetlands in the Biscayne Bay Basin that

filtered, conditioned, and dispersed freshwater flowing east into Biscayne Bay. These

lands have been drastically reduced in area and in hydrologic integrity. The protection

and hydrologic improvement of these areas is needed to sustain agriculture and the

marine systems of Biscayne National Park.

6.4.9. Concept 9: Invasive Plant Control

Non-native (“exotic”) plant species, such as melaleuca, Australian pine,

Brazilian pepper, torpedo grass, and hydrilla have invaded large portions of the south

Florida ecosystem. This occupation resulted in the displacement of native species

and/or the degradation of habitat essential to native plants and animals. Melaleuca is

especially damaging because of its high rate of evapotranspiration compared to native

grasses that may contribute to lowering water levels in the Everglades and Lake

Okeechobee. Aerial and other types of surveys reveal the proliferation of exotic plants

has resulted in the formation of melaleuca monocultures in some areas of the Water

Conservation Areas. Surveys also show their occurrence throughout most areas east of

the Water Conservation Areas, particularly those that may be included as Water

Preserve Areas. Even when these plants do not occur in natural areas, they act as

seed sources and pose a threat to natural areas. Control or eradication of invasive

exotic plants is necessary to improve and protect habitat quality and heterogeneity.

This concept includes the development and evaluation of methods to control

invasive (exotic) plants throughout south Florida, the application of these methods to

control exotics within the C&SF Project area, and the establishment of success criteria

combined with appropriate biological monitoring. Successful control of exotic pest

plants depends on the formation of cooperative intergovernmental and public/private

partnerships.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-31

Existing methods to remove invasive exotics are being used throughout south

Florida. These methods include mechanical harvesting, application of herbicides, and

use of biological agents. Because extensive use of herbicides is contrary to water

quality improvement, alternative methods, such as biological controls, need further

investigation or testing on a trial basis.

While past and present invasive exotic eradication activities have been limited,

it appears that future activities may be further reduced because of Federal budgeting

priorities. The Commission believes that a comprehensive invasive exotic plant control

program that includes monitoring activities designed to map the distribution and

abundance of exotics throughout south Florida must be developed and implemented to

control and eventually remove invasive exotics from natural habitats. Additionally,

melaleuca should be added to the Corps’ list of invasive aquatic plants so that funds

can be allocated for its control. The use of volunteers, analogous to the University of

Florida’s Institute for Food and Agricultural Science’s Lake Watch program, should

also be considered as part of a sustained eradication strategy.

The Science Subgroup of the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Working

Group, in their November 15, 1993, report, recommended that short hydroperiod

wetlands should be reestablished. The Restudy process should investigate the role of

short hydroperiod wetlands in south Florida natural system restoration and, if

additional short hydroperiod wetlands are determined to be necessary, their location

and spatial extent must be determined.

6.4.10. Concept 10: Aquifer Storage and Recovery

This concept addresses the potential use of Aquifer Storage and Recovery

technology as a means of storing water in aquifers for future use. Water is injected

into an aquifer during periods of surplus for later recovery during dry periods. Storing

water in an aquifer, such as the upper Floridan, using Aquifer Storage and Recovery

technology may provide greater storage efficiency when compared to the land

requirements and high seepage and evapotranspiration rates associated with above

ground reservoir storage. Areas that could potentially benefit from Aquifer Storage

and Recovery include the Everglades Agricultural Area, the Caloosahatchee Basin, St.

Lucie Basin, Lake Okeechobee and the urbanized lower east coast. Aquifer Storage

and Recovery technology should be investigated to determine its feasibility at a

regional scale, as well as its environmental impacts.

Water quality concerns, particularly regarding untreated surface water,

currently limit the ability to use Aquifer Storage and Recovery. Aquifer Storage and

Recovery should be tested to evaluate technical uncertainties with high capacity

applications (GCSSF, 1996a). In planning a pilot study for large-scale Aquifer Storage

and Recovery, several issues need to be addressed. These include environmental and
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-32

health concerns regarding water quality, current regulatory constraints, costs of the

project, and potential benefits of having additional clean water at the chosen site.

Potential locations for Aquifer Storage and Recovery pilot projects include sites

on the fringe of Lake Okeechobee, to store excess lake water that would either be lost

through discharge to tide or create harmful, prolonged high water conditions in the

lake’s 100,000 acre marsh. Since the higher lake regulation schedule was fully

implemented in 1979, discharges to the estuaries have exceeded 400,000-acre feet in

10 of the following 17 years. During six of those years, discharges exceeded 1,000,000-

acre feet; during two years discharges exceeded 2,000,000-acre feet; and during one

year discharges exceeded 3,000,000-acre feet. Damaging prolonged high water levels

also covered the lake’s marsh for a number of those years. When the rain comes, we

cannot refuse to accept it. When the lake rises to damaging or dangerous levels, our

current choices are limited to accepting damage to lake’s marsh, or the estuaries, or

both. If the goals of protecting the estuaries and the lake’s marsh, while improving the

quality, heterogeneity, and expanding the spatial extent of Everglades system natural

habitats are to be achieved, development of alternative water storage methods for the

massive amounts of water entering Lake Okeechobee is vital.

Current water supply demands are projected to increase to meet environmental

goals and expanding water supply needs. There is also a need to both protect the

lake’s marsh and to establish minimum levels for natural waterbodies. Storage of

excess water during years of surplus for use during drought years will become

increasingly important. Acquiring sufficient lands to hold all of an average year’s

estuarine discharge is cost prohibitive. Using Aquifer Storage and Recovery in

combination with Everglades Agricultural Area storage has the potential to store

large amounts of water at its source and close to the demand while protecting the

ecological health of the estuaries and the lake. A proposed Aquifer Storage and

Recovery project utilizing Lake Okeechobee water is currently under review by the

U.S. Environmental Protection Agency and Florida Department of Environmental

Protection. The Commission supports this pilot project.

The possibility of conducting pilot projects at other sites, using other aquifers,

should also be considered. Sites within the Lower East Coast which could store, in the

upper Floridan aquifer, water taken from the Water Preserve Areas should also be

considered. If large-scale Aquifer Storage and Recovery is shown to be feasible, more

extensive regional scale facilities utilizing untreated surface water runoff and Lake

Okeechobee discharges could be beneficial in meeting additional demands within the

region. Detention facilities or canals that intercept and hold excess water for injection

into the aquifer may be required at some sites. The quality of untreated stormwater

runoff may preclude its injection for Aquifer Storage and Recovery purposes under

current regulations
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-33

Regional scale Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities could be beneficial in

meeting demands in the Caloosahatchee River and St. Lucie River Basins, or other

basins. Water quality concerns would also be present in these areas. Regional scale

Aquifer Storage and Recovery in association with the Water Preserve Areas has also

been proposed for western Miami-Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties. The

source of water would be surface water backpumped into the Water Preserve Areas or

canal flow. Utilization of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in these areas may increase

the storage capability of the Water Preserve Areas and provide more urban water

supply benefits for these areas. The feasibility of Aquifer Storage and Recovery in

association with the Water Preserve Areas may be limited due to many of the same

water quality concerns that face projects using untreated surface water in other areas.

The Commission recognizes that water injected into the aquifer may not meet

appropriate water quality standards. Water recovered from the Aquifer Storage and

Recovery system may not have the appropriate quality for its intended use. A final

consideration is that Aquifer Storage and Recovery facilities are most useful at the

site of water treatment plants, where clean treated water can be injected, plant

operation economies can be realized, and conveyance losses can be eliminated.

6.4.11. Concept 11: Protection and Restoration of Coastal, Estuarine, and

Marine Ecosystems

Florida’s estuaries and bays have been harmed by human alterations to the

ecosystem within the last 50 years. Without drainage canals to divert storm and

surface waters, development in low-lying coastal areas would never have been

possible. Unfortunately, too much water is diverted too efficiently. Untreated

stormwater is rapidly funneled out to sea through the estuaries instead of being

stored in wetlands. What remains of the inland marshes seldom receive their full

share of water. Estuaries suffer from a glut of freshwater following heavy storms and

a lack of freshwater when not enough water is stored in the system to make it through

Florida’s dry winters and periodic droughts.

These alterations have radically changed the volume, timing, and quality of

freshwater flow to south Florida’s estuaries. From the Indian River and St. Lucie

estuaries to the Biscayne and Florida Bays, the Ten Thousand Islands to the

Caloosahatchee tidal river estuary, the quality of estuarine habitat for fish and other

marine resources has been affected by freshwater flow changes associated with the

C&SF Project and other water control efforts (e.g., the Golden Gate Estates canal

system). In general, channelization decreases the time lag between rainfall and runoff.

This increases the rate of flow to certain downstream estuaries during the wet season

and decreases the flow during the dry season. Estuarine life is negatively impacted

both by the wet season excesses and the extended dry season deficiencies. Surface

water also permeates the soil and becomes groundwater, whose quantity, quality, and

distribution is equally important to coastal systems, such as Biscayne and Florida

Bays. An extreme example of this problem is in the upper Ten Thousand Islands,

where 200 square miles of the Big Cypress wetlands is channelized into Faka Union
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-34

Bay. Freshwater flow has been diverted away from Florida Bay and the mangrove

estuaries of the Lower Southwest Coast (e.g., Whitewater Bay), possibly resulting in

both wet season and dry season deficits. In the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee

Estuaries, regulatory releases from Lake Okeechobee have exacerbated the problems

of excess flows.

Water quality in the Keys and on the reef tract is declining due to macro-scale

regional development in south Florida, the diversion of water away from Florida Bay,

and detrimental water quality activities locally and regionally. Over the years, the

cumulative effect of these changes is catastrophic. Murky water and algal blooms have

replaced the clear waters of Florida Bay. Similar degradation is occurring in northern

Biscayne Bay. The highly productive seagrass beds and fisheries of the St. Lucie and

Caloosahatchee Estuaries, as well as Florida Bay, are now in decline as a result of

dramatic fluctuations of freshwater input into estuarine and marine waters. Diseases

and eutrophication threaten the coral reef systems of the Florida Keys. The

Commission places a high priority on protecting and restoring south Florida’s coastal

and marine ecosystems, not only for their intrinsic value, but for protecting the

fisheries, the fishing and tourist industries, and the characteristic south Florida

lifestyles that depend on nature’s bounty. Understanding the linkage between the

lower watersheds, the Ten Thousand Islands, and Florida Bay is critical to developing

solutions that provide for sustainability of the Keys.

The Florida Keys, including Florida Bay and the offshore coral reefs and sea

grasses, are a threatened resource of international significance. In response to the

Governor’s Executive Order directing public agencies to take action to improve

environmental conditions in the Keys, a carrying capacity study of the Florida Keys

has been initiated by the Corps with funding provided by the Florida Department of

Community Affairs. The study will result in an information base upon which informed

development and infrastructure investment decisions can be made to achieve a

balance between the economic and environmental needs of the area. Research

activities in Florida Bay are being coordinated by the Florida Bay Program

Management Committee. The Program Management Committee has developed the

Florida Bay Research Plan and is utilizing adaptive management in the

implementation of that plan. Although numerous research and monitoring activities

are currently underway in Florida Bay by a variety of governmental agencies and

private organizations, a process to collectively evaluate the information and develop a

comprehensive plan of action is not currently planned or programmed. A program is

needed to ensure effective coordination of all efforts in Florida Bay, identify all the

problems and their sources, and develop a plan of action and implementation process.

A comprehensive literature search and data analysis will serve to ensure that all

activities influencing the bay are identified and that adequate monitoring activities

are implemented. The program should also include analyses that give sufficient

consideration to any improvements of current state and Federal water quality

standards that may be needed to achieve the Commission’s goal of sustainability.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-35

The programmed and proposed projects that form previously described concepts

of the Commission’s Conceptual Plan for the Restudy involve restoring appropriate

freshwater flows to bays and estuaries to protect natural salinity gradients, restore

water clarity and quality, and improve water supply through management changes

within the south Florida Region. The Florida Bay Emergency Interim Plan (Taylor

Slough Demonstration Project), the C-111 Project, Modified Water Deliveries to

Everglades National Park Project, the Lake Okeechobee Operational Plan, and the

creation of water storage areas in the Water Preserve Areas, Caloosahatchee Basin,

and the Upper East Coast area will help protect the region’s coastal estuaries from the

detrimental effects of excessive stormwater runoff and will improve essential baseflow

of freshwater during dry seasons. Projects identified as part of the regional Surface

Water Improvement and Management plans will serve to improve the quality of water

delivered to the coastal areas through development and implementation of best

management practices for agricultural and development activities, retrofitting of

existing stormwater management facilities to reduce pollutant loads, and elimination

of sewage effluent discharges and septic tank impacts. The various regional Surface

Water Improvement and Management plans need to be integrated and coordinated

with other adjacent local restoration efforts such as those for the Miami River and the

New River.

Other major projects underway to achieve the Commission’s goals for

sustainability include the development of hydrodynamic circulation models for

Biscayne Bay and Florida Bay. A hydrodynamic model of Florida Bay is under

development for use in simulating water movement patterns in the Bay. Among other

things, the model will enable salinity predictions from varying temporal and spatial

freshwater inflows. The Florida Bay model will accept output from the hydrologic

models used to predict overland flows to determine the impacts that the modifications

and operational changes to the C&SF Project will have on Florida Bay. (Often, the

hydrologic models can predict the volume and location of flows across the mangrove

zone.) The model will be multi-dimensional, allowing two dimensional vertically

averaged calculations at a minimum, and perhaps some three dimensional

calculations where stratification is evident. The hydrodynamic model will be linked

with a water quality model. Development of a mathematical computer simulation

model system for Biscayne Bay is currently underway as a first step to investigate the

effects of the C&SF Project on water circulation and salinity patterns. This effort must

be further developed to assess impacts to biological communities and water quality in

the Bay. The South Florida Water Management District developed a one-dimensional

hydrodynamic model that predicts salinity throughout the St. Lucie Estuary under

various inflow conditions from the watershed. This model was used to identify a

salinity range that is favorable to the development and maintenance of a healthy

estuarine ecosystem. This effort must be further developed and expanded to assess the

C&SF Project freshwater discharge impacts on the Indian River Lagoon. These model

efforts are essential to the identification of existing conditions and the evaluation of
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-36

the effects of any proposed modifications to the C&SF Project on these important

coastal resources.

6.4.11.1. Sediment Removal and Control in Estuaries

Accumulated organic sediments have been deposited in the Caloosahatchee and

St. Lucie Estuaries. Organic sediments settle out in the estuaries as a result of

sediment runoff and the interaction between fresh and estuarine water. These organic

sediments deplete the dissolved oxygen and degrade water quality through

resuspension during periods of physical disturbance. Removal of these sediments

could improve water quality and possibly expose coarse-grained substrate suitable for

aquatic plant growth along the littoral shelf of the estuaries. Small scale pilot projects

should be implemented to determine the feasibility and environmental effects of muck

removal or stabilization from the St. Lucie Estuary.

A report on a potential muck removal demonstration project for the St. Lucie

Estuary was previously completed. The report recommended that further studies be

conducted prior to proceeding with a demonstration project. The report concluded that

large scale sediment removal may improve water quality by reducing re-suspension of

fine sediments and would reduce oxygen demands in the water column, assuming

upstream sediment sources were eliminated.

The St. Lucie Canal was constructed in the 1920s by the Everglades Drainage

District. The canal banks are unstable in a number of areas along the length of the

canal and material from the banks that sloughs off is transported and deposited as

shoals in the St. Lucie Estuary. Stabilizing the canal banks with rip-rap, or reshaping

and restoring vegetation on the canal banks could reduce the sediment loading to the

estuary. The Restudy should include an analysis of the bank erosion and its impacts

to the estuary. It may be possible to acquire additional rights-of-way and reshape the

canal banks to create a functional littoral zone. Such projects could reduce erosion and

produce other benefits such as water quality and habitat improvements. Additional

study will be necessary to evaluate and quantify the benefits to the estuary from

environmentally sensitive bank stabilization measures.

6.4.12. Concept 12: Conservation of Soil

Conservation of soils in the agricultural areas bordering the Everglades

increases the opportunity for long-term sustainability of agriculture and natural

areas. In particular, organic soil subsidence, caused by man’s drainage facilities

including the C&SF Project, is adversely impacting natural areas and agriculture in

south Florida. Subsidence is created by a number of factors, including the oxidation of

organic soils resulting from lowered water tables for extended periods of time, fires,

wind erosion, and peat shrinkage.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-37

In the Everglades Agricultural Area, soil loss has diminished the higher ground

elevations that maintain the hydraulic head which drives water south. In some areas

more than eight feet of organic soil was lost by 1984. Soils continue to oxidize;

however, Best Management Practices should slow down the rate of oxidation. Some

areas in the southern Everglades Agricultural Area, where shallow soils overlie

bedrock, already have less than two feet of soil remaining. As soils subside, the

movement of stormwater out of the area requires increased pumping. Soil

conservation is also important in southern Miami-Dade County, where agriculture

still forms a vital part of the local economy as well as a buffer between urban

development and the natural system. In this area, soil conservation and sustainable

agriculture programs will enhance the long-term viability of the ecosystem.

Research has shown that if soil moisture content of the organic soils is

maintained for longer periods of time throughout the year, soil subsidence can be

significantly reduced. Limited research is now underway to develop sugar cane

varieties that can tolerate higher water levels, yet maintain an acceptable yield. These

types of crops, some conversion to traditional wet-pasture beef cattle production,

aquaculture, rice production, best management practices, and improved water

management may significantly increase the long-term sustainability of agricultural

activities in the Everglades Agricultural Area.

Increasing groundwater levels in the Everglades Agricultural Area will reduce

the overdrainage that has caused the oxidation of organic soils. Under this concept,

rainfall during the wet season will reduce the need for water from Lake Okeechobee to

be used in maintaining these higher water tables. This should result in benefits to the

natural system, including increased water storage in the Everglades Agricultural

Area, decreased vulnerability to floods, and decreased necessity to send large pulses

through the east coast and west coast estuaries. Further, water quality should be

improved by reducing phosphorus inputs from oxidation and erosion of the soil

through application of best management practices and maintenance of higher water

tables.

Soil subsidence has also impacted portions of the natural system. Restriction

and diversion of natural sheet flow has overdrained portions of the Water

Conservation Areas, the Holey Land and Rotenberger Wildlife Management Areas

resulting in areas of major subsidence. Overdrainage has also caused additional soil

loss as a result of severe muck fires. In addition, tree islands have been destroyed

through such soil loss. As soil elevations are altered, water levels change and the

associated biological community is altered. Restoration of more natural flows and

hydropatterns in the Everglades, Holey Land and Rotenberger Wildlife Management

Areas and other natural areas should control the subsidence and potentially reverse

the trend by creating conditions favorable to the accretion of peat soils.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-38

The goal of current public and private research efforts is for modified water

management to provide conditions enabling soil accretion rather than soil oxidation.

This soil conservation activity, in both natural and agricultural areas, can serve as a

measure of both the environmental and economic sustainability of restoration efforts.

Opportunities exist to expand on these research efforts through public/private

partnerships.

6.4.13. Concept 13: Operation, Management, and Implementation of the C&SF

Project Modifications and Related Lands

The south Florida ecosystem is a water-driven system encompassing a massive,

unique, and fragile natural system that is also home to five million human

inhabitants. The C&SF Project provides a physical and operational framework around

the south Florida ecosystem that offers options for managing the natural functions of

the Everglades and other natural areas. The C&SF Project also provides other

benefits, including flood control and water supply for the human population of south

Florida. The interconnection of the C&SF Project, both within and without its

boundaries, cannot be ignored for its contributions and complexity. This Project is a

multi-purpose public works system that has inherent conflicts among the competing

priorities of water management.

The Commission seeks to maximize the benefits of the C&SF Project while

reducing the problems it has caused. In addition to the structural changes to the

C&SF Project as expressed in the 40 options, and the other 13 thematic concepts, new

operational and management measures for the system will be required. How the

system is managed hydrologically affects virtually every aspect of the south Florida

ecosystem. This suggests that the operational changes throughout the system are

critical and thus require specific attention during the Restudy. The Restudy must

incorporate the best available research and modeling to ensure the multi-purpose

objectives are balanced and maximized. Effective monitoring programs must be

developed that allow for the implementation of adaptive management strategies to

ensure that the Commission’s objectives are met.

Where project operations are expected to affect lands (and their associated

communities) being protected and restored as natural wetlands, operational planning

needs to be consistent with sound biological science. Adequate provision is needed for

monitoring biological impacts, especially where these operational changes may affect

recovery efforts for endangered species and the protection of sensitive habitats.

As a first attempt to restore hydrology in Everglades National Park, a rainfallbased plan for water deliveries has been developed and implemented. A rainfall-based

plan is a delivery formula that delivers water to natural areas based on antecedent

climatic conditions. The Restudy should investigate the potential use of rainfall-based

delivery formulas to determine if natural areas, including the Water Conservation

Areas, and estuaries, can benefit from such operational changes to water deliveries.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-39

Further, the Restudy and other efforts to provide for the sustainability of the

south Florida ecosystem will ultimately determine both the extent of lands needed for

the Project and the management of these lands. Rapid development of some areas of

south Florida is limiting the ability to fully implement these modifications to the

C&SF Project, which are needed for sustainability. As a result, the Commission has

recognized the need to expedite certain land acquisitions prior to final planning and

design of the modifications to the C&SF Project. Because lands are such a critical

component to all restoration efforts in south Florida, recent Federal funding was

provided to expedite implementation of potential project features. This has required

the Commission and other decision makers to prejudge certain land acquisition

projects without having all the scientific and engineering analyses completed.

Acquisition of these identified priority lands should be limited to voluntary/willing

sellers. Careful consideration must be given to determine the potential uses of the

lands and, to the extent possible, the justification for acquisition of these lands should

be based on available science.

Once acquired, these lands must be managed to meet the environmental and

economic needs of the region. Meeting these needs will require the inclusion of

advanced planning and land management strategies as part of the acquisition process.

Such planning will ensure that the lands are properly utilized and managed

consistent with the intended objectives. For example, one mechanism to help promote

economic sustainability of the region would be to return agricultural lands back to

agriculture, so long as such use does not conflict with long-term land use/management

objectives, until a final project design utilizing these lands is completed. Therefore,

these lands could be secured at an overall lower cost with less disruption to the south

Florida economy.
Section 6 Governor’s Commission Conceptual Plan for the Restudy

Final Feasibility Report and PEIS April 1999

6-40

FIGURE 6-1