1994 Annual Report
uo
o
c
o
51
CD
m
n
O
uo
r?
3
*3
rD
-------
£PA 90 •fA-3 I
Library $.©gi©a IV
US EBVQ-oBs&eotfiZ Frotodica Agency
34S C'lSirl'sRi! Sbreet
M&mz, Gas'/gk 3$3?>5
1994 REPORT
INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP
ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION AND MAINTENANCE
December 2, 1994
On September 23, 1993, a five-year Interagency Agreement on South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration was signed by the Departments of Interior, Commerce, Army, Justice, and
Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency. The task force resulting from this
agreement coordinates "the development of consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs
and priorities for addressing the concerns of the South Florida ecosystem." It has tasked an
11-member working group with responsibility annually to formulate and recommend to the
task force management policies, strategies, plans, programs, and priorities for ecosystem
restoration and maintenance. The first annual report follows.
-------
CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY iv
From The Interagency Working Group iv
Summary Of The Report vi
I. FROM KISSIMMEE THROUGH THE KEYS: INTRODUCTION TO THE
PROBLEM 1
Introduction 1
Partners In The Solution 2
II. MOSAIC OF WATER, LAND AND PEOPLE: UNDERSTANDING THE
PROBLEM 5
The Natural System 5
History of Change 5
Other Forces That Shaped The System 7
The Ecosystem Today 8
Restoration Issues 9
A Vision for the Ecosystem 10
Ecosystem Management Objectives 11
III. BUILDING BLOCKS OF RESTORATION: DEFINING ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION, PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE 13
The Altered Ecosystem 13
Process of Restoration 17
Establishing A Restoration Direction 19
Achieving Restoration 19
Conceptual Foundation of Restoration 21
Regional Restoration Success Criteria 22
Goals of Evaluation Process for Success Restoration 24
Requirements For Annual Evaluation Process 24
IV. WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES 26
V. WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS 27
Sustainability 27
Agency Coordination 28
Expediting Restoration 29
Water Quality and Supply 30
Wetland Permitting and Mitigation Strategy 31
Habitat Restoration—Exotic Plants and Animals 33
Habitat Restoration and Recovery Plan—Native Flora and Fauna 36
Habitat Restoration—Near Coastal Waters 38
Land-Based Protection 41
Science Program 43
-------
APPENDICES
A. Interagency Task Force Working Group Members 46
B. Sustainability 47
C. Coordinating Agency Positions and Actions 50
D. Expediting Corps Restoration Projects 52
E. Water Supply Issues: Agricultural, Urban, and Ecosystem Needs 59
F. Water Quality Management Strategies 63
G. Comprehensive Wetland Permitting and Mitigation Strategy 67
H. Harmful Nonindigenous Plants and Animals 77
I. Habitat Restoration and Management Plan Addressing the Decline of Native
Flora and Fauna 83
J. Multi-Species Recovery Plan 85
K. Habitat Restoration and Management Plan for Near Coastal Waters 89
L. Support Land Based Protection Strategy 92
M. Coordinated Ecosystem Based Science Program 96
N. Public Information and Education 103
O. State, Local and Tribal Partnerships 105
P. Bureau of Indian Affairs Perspective 107
Q. Integrated Financial Plan 113
TABLES AND MAPS 117
LIST OF ACRONYMS 126
BIBLIOGRAPHY 128
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
FROM THE INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP
On September 23, 1993, a five-year Interagency Agreement on South Florida
Ecosystem Restoration was signed by the Departments of Interior, Commerce, Army,
Justice, and Agriculture, as well as the Environmental Protection Agency. This agreement
was a first-a federal effort formally establishing the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
Task Force made up of assistant secretaries and taking on responsibility for coordinating the
development of "consistent policies, strategies, plans, programs and priorities for addressing
the concerns of the south Florida ecosystem."
To help accomplish this, the Task Force established a management and coordination
team, known as the Interagency Working Group, comprised of 11 agency managers with
management and/or regulatory responsibilities in south Florida. This group was charged
with developing and submitting a south Florida ecosystem restoration report to the Task
Force within a year.
To accomplish this task, the Interagency Working Group appointed three sub-groups:
on science, on infrastructure, and on management. These sub-groups were responsible for
reporting back to the Working Group, as well as contributing to the development of federal
ecosystem strategies and coordination in south Florida. The Working Group also met
regularly as its members began the complex and intensive process required to produce the
following report.
As you read, keep in mind the nature of this report. Fulfilling the requirements of the
Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA) has been an important obligation for the
Interagency Working Group, which has gone to great lengths to meet FACA's spirit and
intent. As far as possible under FACA, it has incorporated the resources and experience of
all levels of government currently involved in south Florida land and natural resource
management issues. Numerous state and local groups have been working for years on land
and water issues linked to Florida's agricultural, ecological and recreational interests. For
years individual federal agencies have been involved with them on various projects.
However, until recently, these projects have not been carried out within the framework of
an ecosystem management strategy. Such a framework is only now beginning to evolve.
The federal Task Force is one avenue through which ecosystem management is being
approached. The Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida, the Man and the
Biosphere program, the ecosystem management by the Florida Department of
Environmental Protection, and the work of the South Florida Water Management District
are other prominent efforts.
The Working Group is committed to more fully integrating the work of these
important partners in the coming year. This document is the first of five annual reports to
be developed under the initial Memorandum of Agreement establishing the Interagency
Task Force. It starts the process, providing recommendations for coordinated action that
guides the federal role in south Florida. A more developed plan, addressing priorities and
IV
-------
schedules, will come in successive reports as the nature of a sustainable ecosystem for
south Florida is identified and achieves broad consensus. Meanwhile, this document
reflects the commitment that exists and the effort that has begun on the part of 11 agencies
and the departments for which they work. It has drawn on the teamwork, the dedication,
the technical expertise and the professionalism of numerous individuals whose work on the
Task Force has crossed agency lines.
We are enormously proud of the tasks accomplished in the past year. Although every
member of the group has had other full-time jobs to carry out, they have juggled schedules
and doubled up on other deadlines in order to carry out the responsibilities of the Working
Group along with the responsibilities of their full-time jobs. Special acknowledgement is
due to the many agency staff who made substantial contributions to this report, and
especially, Editors Dolores Mescher and Mary Maruca.
In preparing the first annual report of the Working Group to the Task Force, an initial
draft was widely circulated to interested organizations and individuals throughout south
Florida and beyond. Four public meetings were also held at various locations in the area.
Comments received as a result of this process were important in shaping the final report.
This is the beginning of an exciting planning process for all of us. As we complete
this first of five reports on south Florida ecosystem restoration, we recognize the
importance of our partners in this significant effort and intend to achieve their full
integration into this planning endeavor.
Considered and adopted by resolution of the Working Group on December 2, 1994.
Richard G. Ring, Chairman, 1993-94
National Park Service
Col. Terrance Salt, through 7/94
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Suzanne Ponzoli, through 4/94
U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District
Dr. Brad Brown
National Marine Fisheries Service/NOAA
Bill Ott
Bureau of Indian Affairs
Billy Causey, Vice Chairman
National Ocean Service/NOAA
Col. Terry L. Rice, from 8/94
U.S. Army Corps of Engineers
Peter Outerbridge, from 5/94
U.S. Attorney's Office, Southern District
Mike McGhee
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
P.on Smola
Natural Resources Conservation Service
John Vecchioli James Weaver
U.S. Geological Survey National Biological Service
David Wesley
US. Fish and Wildlife Service
v
-------
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY:
SUMMARY OF THE REPORT
The Everglades is a geographical location. It is a place on a map. More than that,
however, it is an idea. As an idea, it is outside of time—eternal—changing only as our
views change. As a location, it is bound by time as humans keep it, "not in ages and in
centuries" as Marjory Stoneman Douglas writes, "but...in hours and days, the small events
of [a human] lifetime." In this dichotomy lies the roots of change—human ability to regard
an area as changeless throughout a lifetime while all around significant changes are taking
shape.
South Florida is much the same, subject to time and to timelessness, depending on
whether we are discussing physical location or idea. Yet if the Everglades-as-idea suggests
quiet, subtle forces that have remained much the same for centuries, south Florida suggests
a different context. Here is a canvas for change, with colors and textures fluctuating
according to trends in architecture, politics, and human history.
South Florida and the Everglades—two seemingly separate worlds with separate
lexicons-actually share the same natural and cultural roots. They also share responsibility
for resolving an issue as large as the territory they occupy: the question of whether it is
possible for human and natural cycles to become compatible in a way that sustains human
use. From the perspective of the federal interagency task force charged with responsibility
for south Florida ecosystem restoration and the preparation of this report, the answer is a
qualified "yes"—a "yes" based on the growing number of partners at the federal, state, local,
and private levels coming together to work toward ecosystem restoration in south Florida.
CREATING CONDITIONS FOR CHANGE
Once the Everglades was a river of grass, silent, miasmic, undisturbed except by the
species of birds, bugs and other animal life that called it home. In that distant time, the
Everglades—and much of south Florida—was a place to bypass—a "vast glittering openness,"
as Marjory Stoneman Douglas wrote, "a rotting shallow, inland sea" that beckoned its own
breed of rivermen and scoundrels, conquerors and pioneers, scientists and, finally, the rest
of us. some eager to be seen and others simply looking for a place to hide-a temperate
climate, a spot of sun, a beach, an easier life.
How did a place so eminently real, so wholly abundantly tangible become an idea, an
image in the mind? Primarily, it was the influx of humanity that created change. Increased
human activity encouraged the split between cyclical patterns and those that required more
resources than natural processes could provide. So human-directed processes came into
play and, slowly, the south Florida ecosystem of wet prairies, marshes, coastal estuaries,
and hardwood hammocks with their scattered human occupants began to change. First
settlements, then towns, then larger towns, and ultimately an intricate, interconnected
system of urban, suburban, recreational and commercial development added complex layers
of color and texture to the south Florida canvas. Slow-moving sloughs and marshland that
vi
-------
once changed according to the dictates of seasonal rainfall gave way to more regularized
water management dictated by human use. Some areas that had been wet dried up. Others
that once alternated cyclically between wet and dry became predictably one way or the
other.
Still, the image in the mind remained—a river of grass, an impenetrable
wetland where wading birds settled abundantly on the land like white and pink plumed
clouds and ancient crocodiles flaunted their roughly textured skin, as commercially valuable
as the gold once sought by early explorers. Animated by this image, south Florida and the
Everglades were seen at their best-the way they still are in pockets of the ecosystem, but
the way they are no longer throughout the original ecosystem that once stretched south of
Orlando to include Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, Big Cypress Swamp, the
Everglades and Florida Bay.
Although this image once was considered accurate by the majority of expectant
visitors, more and more details simply did not fit: toxic mercury accumulations in fish
pulled from the Everglades, algal blooms and sea grass die-offs, fewer and fewer wading
birds, and rapidly diminishing numbers of big cats—Florida panthers—all challenging south
Florida's image of abundance. Too much change was coming too fast to be ignored in a
state where commercial success required a healthy natural environment.
Today, change has made south Florida something other than it was. And it is
changing again. What is happening in south Florida is the result not of one step but of
many, of growing awareness based on a number of factors: on media attention, on political
support, and on just plain necessity. In an area with a population of slightly more than six
million, there no longer are sufficient resources for the present water management system to
meet human and wildlife needs equally. So change is evident in south Florida where
diverse constituencies are sometimes at odds, but where, at every level, challenging new
approaches to the issue of ecosystem restoration are taking shape.
Particularly impressive has been the State of Florida's more than 10-year commitment
to its "Save Our Everglades" program, launched by then-Governor Bob Graham in 1983.
The goal of the program-to make the Everglades look and function more like it did in
1900 than in 1983 by the year 2000—was reinforced by six objectives:
Re-establish the values of the Kissimmee River;
• Protect Lake Okeechobee;
• Protect the Water Conservation Areas;
Protect the Big Cypress Swamp;
Restore Everglades National Park and Florida Bay; and
• Protect endangered wildlife.
VII
-------
This has resulted in cooperation among government agencies, Congress, conservation
organizations and the public to produce the following accomplishments:
• Beginning of Kissimmee River restoration in full partnership with the U.S. Army
Corps of Engineers;
• Improvement of overland water flow through the Everglades, protection of the Florida
panther and other wildlife species against highway mortality, and expansion of the
Big Cypress National Preserve boundary by 146,000 acres as part of the conversion of
Alligator Alley (State Road 84) to intersect Highway 75 across the Everglades;
Creation of Florida Panther and Ten Thousand Islands National Wildlife Refuges, two
new refuges;
Enactment of the "Florida Everglades Forever Act," which provides for long-term
restoration of the Everglades and will help bring an end to 36 legal challenges to
cleanup plans; the Act authorized an "agricultural privilege tax" to help Finance the
construction of Storm water Treatment Areas on more than 40,000 acres of land in the
Everglades Agricultural Area;
Removal of more than 14,000 cows from Lake Okeechobee tributary basins and
required construction of Best Management Practices on 18 dairies remaining in those
basins;
• Beginning of a comprehensive program to restore fresh water flow to Everglades
National Park and Florida Bay;
• Completion of plans and execution of a federal/state agreement to restore the C- 111
basin;
Implementation of programs to conserve Florida panther habitat and restore panther
genetic health; and
• Enactment by Congress of the Everglades National Park Expansion Act to expand the
park by some 108,000 acres; in October 1991, Florida transferred 42,959 acres in the
expansion area to the National Park Service.
In addition to these efforts, the South Florida Water Management District, in
conjunction with other public and private organizations, has established a trust to protect the
Corkscrew Regional Ecosystem Watershed, a 54,000 acre mixture of uplands and wetlands
supporting such publicly-owned down-stream natural areas as Florida Panther National
Wildlife Refuge and Big Cypress National Preserve. At Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, the Corps of Engineers now floods marshlands year round to encourage nesting of
wading birds. In addition, the Corps' Central & South Florida Restudy project stands as an
important conceptual rethinking of water management in south Florida. While such land
use planning is generally a responsibility of state and local agencies, the federal government
recognizes its influence on land use through its programs and policies, and is committed to
viii
-------
interacting with state and local governments to protect regional ecosystems containing
valuable national parklands. Congressional establishment of Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary in 1990 is a strong example of federal/state partnership in the service of south
Florida ecosystem management.
For years, state and local groups have worked with such land and water issues linked
to Florida's agricultural, ecological and recreational interests. Also for years, individual
federal agencies have been partners with them on various projects. However, these projects
have not been carried out within the framework of an ecosystem management strategy.
Such a framework is now evolving. The Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South
Florida, the Man and the Biosphere program, the ecosystem management carried out by the
Florida Department of Environmental Protection, and the work of the South Florida Water
Management District represent prominent efforts through which an ecosystem management
strategy is being developed. The federal agencies represent another.
FEDERAL ACTIONS
At the federal level, the Departments of Interior, Commerce, Army, Justice, and
Agriculture, and the Environmental Protection Agency have been charged with
responsibility for developing consistent policies, strategies, plans and priorities with which
to restore the south Florida ecosystem. The role of these federal groups was defined in the
September 23, 1993, Interagency Agreement on South Florida Ecosystem Restoration. The
task force, established by this five-year agreement, created an 11-member management and
coordination team, known as the Interagency Working Group, whose goal was to develop
and submit a south Florida ecosystem restoration report to the task force within a year.
Fulfilling the requirements of the Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA) has been
an important obligation for the Interagency Working Group, which has gone to great
lengths to meet FACA's spirit and intent. As far as possible under FACA, it has
incorporated the resources and experience of everyone involved in south Florida land and
natural resource management issues. Cross-fertilization through public meetings has
brought groups involved with south Florida ecosystem issues closer together. The
Interagency Working Group continues to seek opportunities to increase consensus by
reaching out to south Florida interests through the public comment process. In this way
clearer understanding of which groups are responsible for which restoration actions is being
achieved, and the federal side of the restoration effort more firmly integrated with state and
local activities. This first annual report to the Task Force by the Working Group is the
result of these efforts and of strong cooperation among agency staffs.
Indeed, each federal, state, local and private group as well as every resident of south
Florida has a stake in ecosystem restoration. Water storage and delivery, agricultural run-
off, and water quality contaminants issues are among those with potentially mammoth
impact on this population of more than six million. On the one hand, the area's
commercial and industrial health depends on a healthy ecosystem, while, on the other,
increasing population and the demands of further infrastructure development strain the very
elements comprising ecosystem health.
IX
-------
The region faces major environmental issues. Population growth is expected to triple
in 50 years, making advanced planning critical to managing dramatic change. Increasing
population growth also means increasing competition for a finite water supply, as well as
increasing byproducts of growth: contaminants, introduced species, and resource overuse
associated with growing commercial development.
How does one accommodate continued growth in south Florida while simultaneously
reducing symptoms of ecosystem decline? Although the need to grow in order to maintain
economic health may seem a necessity at first, managers are recognizing the need for
potential trade-offs to maintain environmental integiity. Industrial growth that once
transformed apparently "useless" swamps and flatwoods into developed land is being
reevaluated as beneficial wetlands functions become better understood. In south Florida
now, the public places increased importance on preserving undeveloped lands and regaining
lost wetland benefits by restoring such areas as the Kissimmee River.
The public has expressed its support for change, and many voices have spoken out in
support of ecosystem conservation and its importance to south Florida's future. However, a
system as complex as the south Florida ecosystem and one on which so many demands
have been placed does not lend itself to a quick fix. Exactly what constitutes a viable
system for the south Florida area has yet to be determined.
No matter what ultimately is attempted, no one anticipates re-creating the south
Florida ecosystem the way it used to be. Too much has changed; too much of the original
ecosystem has been set aside for other purposes. It can never return to that vast, glittering
openness characteristic of its original condition. Whatever evolves from the current hard-
won ecosystem emphasis will have to be managed, because community needs for flood
control and water supply still must be accommodated. As a result, south Florida ecosystem
restoration emphasizes sustainability—balance between environmental needs and the needs
of human communities. This is the criteria against which any ecosystem management
projects will be measured, one that will be considered in all evaluations of proposed policy,
planning and design alternatives. Essentially, sustainability will be the criteria against
which any ecosystem management proposal is evaluated before it is approved to be carried
out. as well as the criteria against which it will be tested to measure its continuing success.
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
The Interagency Working Group studied the character of the south Florida ecosystem
as it existed prior to drainage. With that, it compared the character of the system as it
presently exists. The differences between them were many, as might be expected after
years of intensive human intervention. The 990 miles of levees, 978 miles of canals, and
30 pumping stations that, in part, comprise the water management system of south Florida
suggest the degree to which water flow has changed since the natural pattern of rainfall and
evaporation, wet and dry cycles, first were established.
The natural balance between land and water also has changed. Excessive drainage for
agricultural and other purposes has caused organic, porous soil to oxidize. Oxidation has
meant diminished soil thickness-significant in south Florida because, at its deepest, only 12
x
-------
to 14 feet originally existed. By 1984, 5 or more feet at these locations had been lost.
Though the amount of loss has slowed, it has had a far-reaching impact.
Soil loss has meant loss of elevation~the degree of incline that, prior to drainage,
shifted water south, supplying it to the farthest reaches of the ecosystem, feeding down
through sawgrass, soil and limestone to supply the system's two aquifers, the Biscayne and
Florida aquifers. Now, the movement that water makes is handled mechanically through an
extensive system of levees and canals.
Soil loss also has meant diminished water quality. The more soil oxidation that
occurs, the less the remaining soil is able to retain minerals and other components. These
wash downstream in the company of pesticides and assorted other run-off, with predictable
adverse impacts on native plants and animals. Increasingly, invasive non-native species
such as Brazilian pepper, Australian pine, and Melaleuca have found growth conditions
more favorable for them than for native species.
Ecosystem fragmentation has further contributed to current changes. Fire, once an
ally in habitat diversity, has been curtailed to a predictable schedule of use, leading to over-
drying of wetlands and a diminished mosaic of burned and unburned areas necessary for
habitat diversity.
Perhaps the most astounding byproduct of this report is simple recognition of how
much has changed—and how much will have to be undone in order sufficiently to approach
restoration of the ecosystem's natural components so as to achieve sustainability. Not only
has the entire integrated system of water flow been rearranged but soil composition, habitat,
the identity and numbers of land and water species, and the relationship between fresh and
salt water have all changed. In the face of such dramatic differences, how can restoration
proceed?
The report begins with hydrologic restoration. Without it, nothing else can happen
effectively. However, hydrologic restoration does not occur in a vacuum. With it comes
efforts to curb the invasion of exotic non-native species, eliminate the production of
contaminants, and stop soil erosion and oxidation. It also depends, in part, on the linkages
developed between computer-generated models of current hydrology and those of future
water quality, ecology and plant and animal populations. These scientific models should
enable researchers to determine relationships between water and plant and animal
communities at the ecosystem level.
SUCCESS INDICATORS
What will a restored ecosystem look like? Much of that is difficult to determine now,
during the earliest stages of the process. However, certain benchmarks do exist with which
we may start to determine ecosystem restoration success. Three characteristics that gave
the south Florida ecosystem resiliency and sustainability were dynamic storage and sheet
flow; large spatial extent; and habitat heterogeneity. These characteristics certainly will
serve as future indicators of restoration success. Increased native plant and animal diversity
would suggest habitat heterogeneity, an especially important element considering that
xi
-------
estimated benefits from simply removing the black and white Australian melaleuca tree
from the landscape would amount to approximately $168 million. Also, considering that
mercury contamination indicates ecosystem disruption, its opposite—mercury reduction in
large-mouth bass, alligators, and panthers—would suggest another important health indicator.
The re-establishment of pre-drainage wading bird nesting colonies, another indicator,
is already underway in such areas as the Loxahatchee National Wildlife Refuge where year-
round water provided through the Corps of Engineers is bringing back Florida kites and
endangered hawks. Moreover, a Corps of Engineers test project along a 1,000-foot section
of the Kissimmee River (Canal 38) installed a new series of structures to return water to the
Kissimmee's former channels and reestablish 300 acres of marshes on previously drained
flood plains. The success of this pilot project has encouraged the Corps to move forward
with plans to restore 56 miles of the Kissimmee, thus contributing to the goal of increasing
restored wetland acres—another important indicator.
There are other indicators also: reduced numbers of deformed fish in estuaries,
increased seagrass cover, no further wetland losses, increased abundance of fish and species
recovery. Indeed, as the restoration process gains momentum, further indicators are sure to
present themselves.
With ecosystem restoration still in its formative stages no one can fully predict the
configuration it will take once complete. Certainly the size and complexity of the south
Florida system, plus the amount of change it has undergone leave scientists, engineers, and
managers with numerous challenges and unknowns. As a starting point for restoration,
however, Interagency Working Group members in conjunction with agency staffs have
outlined the major issues, and proposed recommendations they regard as critical to change,
explained in full in the document that follows.
Already, changes are underway. Indeed, the manner in which federal agencies do
business in south Florida has been revamped. The actions underway in the federal sector
represented on the Interagency Working Group represent a new wind of change. Agencies
that, prior to the Interagency Working Group configuration, operated more or less on their
own have become aware of what their colleagues are doing, and now are working to avoid
overlapping tasks. Increased communication is taking place across agency lines, making it
possible for restoration to proceed within an environment of mutual support.
SUMMARY OF TASK FORCE PRIORITIES
The Interagency Task Force, through its Interagency Working Group, is not yet in a
position to propose a comprehensive, fully integrated restoration plan for the south Florida
ecosystem until it has fully integrated the approach with state, local and tribal interests. It
is able, however, to outline and recommend a restoration vision for south Florida as well as
management objectives to support this vision, as seen from the perspective of the federal
community. It is also in a position to recommend steps the federal community can take to
reinforce existing restoration efforts and to initiate new efforts. These items are
incorporated in the following report.
Xll
-------
In 1993, the Task Force adopted nine priorities, tasking the Working Group to carry
these out, as well as evaluate other priorities. Under each priority, a number of actions
have been accomplished and tasks projected for upcoming years.
1. Provide consolidated federal objectives on ecosystem restoration to the Corps'
reconnaissance study for the redesign of the Central and South Florida Project
and continue to provide timely support.
Accomplishments:
a. Produced Science Sub-Group Report on Ecosystem Restoration for C&SF
Restudy.
b. Worked with Corps of Engineers in public scoping meetings.
c. Reviewed and recommended final study objectives.
d. Professional staff assigned to the restudy team by three federal and two state
agencies (USF&WS, NPS, NMFS, SFWMD, FG&FWFC).
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Assign multi-agency staff to support next (feasibility) stage of C&SF Project.
b. Peer review River of Grass Environmental Model.
c. Develop detailed hydrological & ecological models to support next general
design stage.
2. Establish research priorities and implement a process for coordinating research
on the south Florida ecosystem, including Florida Bay, which includes
development of a base line scientific condition assessment and indicator
monitoring program, and appropriate biological and hydrological modeling to
evaluate ecosystem restoration objectives and programs.
Accomplishments:
a. National Park Service completed a comprehensive interagency research plan for
Florida Bay involving 15 federal, state, and local agencies and non-
governmental organizations; and began coordinating a program involving more
than $5 million in research undertaken by 15 different federal, state, and local
agencies along with private organizations.
b. Science Sub-group developed and released a draft comprehensive science needs
assessment for the south Florida ecosystem for peer, agency and public review.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Expand Florida Bay interagency research and provide periodic reports.
b. Finalize and distribute comprehensive ecosystem research plan addressing
priorities and implementation process.
c. Coordinate the implementation of priority research and associated monitoring
projects.
Xlll
-------
d. Target, review, and expand predictive hydrological and ecological models
including:
1. Natural System Model (hydrologic)
2. Across Trophic Level Systems (ATLSS) models
3. Florida Bay circulation dynamics model
e. Expand Systematic Reconnaissance Flights monitoring program.
f. Initiate a program of socio-economic research necessary to assess the full range
of ecosystem restoration management projects.
3. Establish partnerships with the state and local agencies to support land
acquisition initiatives in the south Florida ecosystem.
Accomplishments:
a. Everglades National Park Expansion Act Amendment passed, authorizing 25%
federal cost share partnership for acquisition of eastern transition lands.
b. National Park Service expanded East Everglades addition land acquisition
program, which includes a 20% state cost share.
c. National Park Service acquired Reefcomber property in Key Largo to support
expanded interagency science effort in Florida Bay.
d. Corps of Engineers supported state land acquisition in the Kissimmee River
basin.
e. Supported South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) in obtaining
acquisition approval from the state trustees for the Internal Improvement Fund
for the western three sections (1,920 acres) of the Frog Pond.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Support state & local efforts to acquire and protect coastal Everglades, including
Model Lands.
b. Support state and SFWMD efforts to acquire sufficient interest in remaining
areas of Frog Pond and Rocky Glades to implement approved C- 111 General
Reevaluation Report.
c. Support an accelerated program to preserve undeveloped lands, particularly
lands contiguous to natural areas, through quick land acquisition that may
require the development of a south Florida Restoration Land Trust.
4. Support development of an effort to integrate actions essential for the recovery of
threatened and endangered species, and undertake a multi-species recovery plan
with the south Florida ecosystem restoration program.
Accomplishments:
Fish & Wildlife Service proposed and outlined a recovery strategy for threatened and
endangered species in south Florida, for which partial funding was obtained.
xiv
-------
Recommended Critical Tasks:
Fish & Wildlife Service will initiate a multi-species management strategy in FY 95
and seek remaining funding in FY 96.
5. Support expedited implementation of Corps projects in the Everglades ecosystem
including Shark Slough, C-lll, and Kissimmee River.
Accomplishments - Shark Slough:
a. Modified Water Deliveries Program
1. Several feature design memoranda developed.
2. L-67 gap experiment undertaken.
3. Project Cooperative Agreement (PCA) signed with SFWMD.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Continue completion of feature design memoranda.
b. Support Governor's Commission on the 8.5 square mile area, and develop
alternative recommendations regarding the proposed mitigation seepage canal
surrounding the area.
c. Begin actual construction of approved project features.
Accomplishments - C-lll Project - Restoration of Taylor Slough:
a. C-lll project accelerated, approved and funded by Congress as a new
construction start.
b. Implemented Taylor Slough demonstration project under experimental water
deliveries program.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Finalize C-lll project cooperative agreement.
b. Support land acquisition and begin actual construction.
c. Develop and implement new version of experimental water deliveries program.
d. Begin environmental impact statement for operation of modified water deliveries
and C.-l 11 systems.
Accomplishments - Kissimmee:
a. PCA agreement executed with SFWMD.
b. Groundbreaking ceremony.
c. Test fill constructed and monitoring initiated.
xv
-------
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Complete Upper Basin project modification report.
b. Continue detailed design for Kissimmee restoration.
6. Support development of a comprehensive wetlands permit mitigation strategy for
south Florida that furthers ecosystem restoration.
Accomplishments:
EPA and the Corps initiated the planning proposal.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Finalize interagency scope of work.
b. Initiate plan and coordinate with state and SFWMD.
c. Seek broad interagency commitments for participation.
7. Develop an integrated, long-term proposal and budget for ecosystem restoration,
maintenance, and protection detailing current activities, achievements, and
projected accomplishments.
Accomplishments:
a. Working Group prepared a draft first annual report to the Task Force and
circulated it for public comment.
b. Task Force and Working Group coordinated support for FY 95 budget requests.
c. Task Force reviewed and reprioritized FY 95 funding to support and coordinate
critical ecosystem projects.
d. Working Group and Task Force prepared and submitted a cross-cut agency
budget proposal for FY 96.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Develop more detailed funding priorities and requirements for FY 97.
b. Develop cross-cut FY 96 budget briefing and presentations on Task Force
accomplishments/funding needs.
8. Implement a continuing process that identifies and integrates immediate
management goals, priority projects, and funding needs for the south Florida
ecosystem.
Accomplishments:
a. Working Group organized and established three sub-groups: 1) Science, 2)
Management, and 3) Projects/Infrastructure.
xvi
-------
b. Task Force established and filled the executive director position, and staff level
steering committee positions.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Establish fourth sub-group on Information & Education.
b. Obtain funding for field level agency staff support.
c. Develop and assign specific coordination, evaluation and goal setting tasks to
sub-groups.
9. Fully integrate the state and South Florida Water Management District into the
task force and build partnerships with appropriate local and tribal governments.
Accomplishments:
a. Scheduled Working Group meetings to coincide with those of Governor's
Commission on a Sustainable South Florida.
b. Task Force met concurrently with Governor's Commission and SFWMD
governing board.
c. Sponsored joint spatial data workshop with SFWMD and Florida Department of
Environmental Protection.
d. Task Force initiated review of options to formally integrate tribal, state,
regional, and local government with the federal task force.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Select and implement formal action to accomplish integration.
b. Whenever possible, continue scheduling overlapping Task Force, Working
Group, and Steering Group meetings with Governor's Commission and other
ecosystem efforts.
c. Establish office for executive director to support task force and working group
in Miami, near offices of Governor's Commission.
d. Create a C&SF project management/advisory team with federal and non-federal
participation in compliance with the Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA).
In addition to the previous nine priorities, the Working Group is recommending two
new priorities to address federal involvement with the south Florida ecosystem restoration.
1. Facilitate implementation of the Everglades Forever Act.
Accomplishments:
a. Supported negotiations leading to passage of the Everglades Forever Act by the
Florida legislature, which provides for water quality cleanup of the Everglades
Agricultural Area and related ecosystem restoration projects.
xvu
-------
b. EPA issued National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permit
for the Everglades Nutrient Removal Project, the first of several stormwater
treatment areas to be built.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Finalize, adopt, and begin implementation of a federal Everglades Forever Act
program management plan (draft completed 12/94).
b. Complete federal programmatic E1S.
c. Specifically begin work on C-51/STA IE.
d. Continue threshold/nutrient dosing research to provide basis for setting final
water quality standard.
e. Continue NPDES permitting for additional stormwater treatment area discharges.
f. Support development and implementation of emergency interim plan for Florida
Bay.
g. Establish an Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) office of the Natural
Resources Conservation Service and provide technical assistance to private
landowners in the EAA and C-139 Basin, encouraging implementation of best
management practices to reduce phosphorus loadings from farm runoff.
h. Continue mercury research and monitoring.
2. Support program to eradicate invasive exotics, particularly Melaleuca
(Australian Paperbark), Casurina (Australian Pine), and Schinus (Brazilian
Pepper).
Accomplishments:
a. Obtained funds to build Ft. Lauderdale quarantine research facility.
b. Partnership agreement executed to restore 5.000 acres of Brazilian pepper
infested land in Everglades National Park.
Recommended Critical Tasks:
a. Seek expanded eradication funding.
b. Develop a comprehensive control plan.
CONCLUSION
Although much remains to be done, much already is underway, and there are many
willing hands to complete the tasks that lie ahead. Marjory Stoneman Douglas concludes
The Everglades' River of Grass with the following words:
Perhaps even in this last hour, in a new relation of usefulness and beauty, the vast,
magnificent, subtle and unique region of the Everglades may not be utterly lost.
Substitute "south Florida" for "Everglades," and we are given the promise of
restoration—of a region, vast, magnificent, subtle and unique, not fragmented into its natural
XVlll
-------
and cultural identities but integrated in such a way that the restored south Florida ecosystem
becomes the bedrock from which an integrated, sustainable future springs.
Short of this, what remains of the natural system will be more than compromised.
Short of this, the ecosystem on which continued human occupation depends will lose
entirely its ability to replenish itself. Investing now in the south Florida ecosystem-
determining necessary changes to current practices and the best ways to carry them out-
helps to ensure that this region of sawgrass and sloughs, wading birds and open sky will
retain its regional character while providing more equally for the plants, animals, and
humans living within its boundaries.
xix
-------
I. FROM KISSIMMEE THROUGH THE KEYS: INTRODUCTION TO
THE PROBLEM
INTRODUCTION
Water is life in south Florida—from the head waters of the Kissimmee to the end of
the Florida Keys, which define the ecosystem. For the area's animal and plant populations,
as well as its human community, clean, abundant water has been fundamental to prosperity
and growth. Yet urban development of south Florida during the past 100 years has altered
natural processes, and shifted the centuries-old relationship between land and water.
Channelization of water flow and drainage, as well as the filling of wetlands-long
accepted means for land development—have gradually altered natural communities and the
hydrologic regime. Over the past years, the south Florida ecosystem has shown increasing
signs of stress, with a severe loss of its wading birds, and 56 plant and animal species
either threatened with, or endangered by, extinction. Wetlands loss, organic soils
subsidence, exotic plant and animal invasions, and such catastrophic events as algal blooms,
seagrass and mangrove die-offs, and coral diseases manifest ecosystem stress in south
Florida at a time when protection of the drinking water supply, as well as its diverse plant
and animal communities, depend on a stable, healthy system.
Many regard the catastrophic changes in Florida Bay as harbingers of south Florida's
future, failing corrective action. From estuary to marine lagoon, the Bay now contains
areas in which salinities exceed sea water strength, a condition that many feel has led to the
loss of thousands of acres of seagrass, continuing algal blooms, and fish kills.
Before human intervention in the south Florida area, a stable, predictable hydrologic
system sustained fish and wildlife populations and their habitat. Changes occurred when
human populations required increased acreage of dependable dry land. Few realized the
impact that lowering the water table could have on the overall system, only one of which
was allowing sea water to flow into the estuaries and infiltrate parts of the fresh-water
aquifer.
Although resource managers now better understand the interconnectedness of the
south Florida ecosystem, this understanding comes at a time when the area's human
population has grown to slightly more than six million—about half Florida's total
population. Attracted by the mild climate, they have contributed to South Florida's two
most significant industries, agriculture and tourism. South Florida's mild temperatures
provide an extended growing season which, in conjunction with effective water drainage,
has made agriculture a year-round endeavor. Citrus, cattle, sugarcane and vegetable
farming dominate, while commercial fishing for fin fish, shrimp, lobster and crab lead the
marine industries.
Tourism, the largest industry in south Florida, attracts international travelers to the
eastern and western seaboards, as well as to the Florida Keys. They come for diving,
1
-------
snorkeling, and recreational fishing, to relax in the sun and enjoy the climate. They
contribute approximately $77 million to the economy from recreational fishing. The
resulting economic growth, which has impacted population growth, has focused attention on
infrastructure, flood control, and drinking water supply issues.
Tourism and agriculture, as well as the quality of human life depend on environmental
quality. But if human populations have altered the natural system, how can commerce and
environmental quality coexist? Some have translated this dilemma into a debate between
the economy and the environment. In reality, the two are so closely linked that the
economy may not be sustainable if the ecosystem supporting it fails.
The challenge of the Task Force on South Florida Ecosystem Restoration is to help
propel the community of south Florida with its varied array of stake holders to a state of
balance where human activities and a healthy environment coexist.
PARTNERS IN THE SOLUTION
The September 1993 signing of the Interagency Agreement on the South Florida
Ecosystem led to the creation of the Task Force, as well as its Working Group, whose
membership comprises various federal agencies. As a federal entity, the Interagency
Working Group (IWG) conducts itself in accordance with the Federal Advisory Committee
Act, which makes it difficult for the group to comprehensively incorporate the resources
and experience of non-federal organizations currently involved in south Florida land
management issues. Given the legislative limits within which it has been necessary to
operate, the IWG still has attempted to encourage communication by keeping its meetings
public. Formal partnership with the state of Florida, the South Florida Water Management
District, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection, other state and regional
agencies, and local and tribal governments, as well as the public does not exist at the
present time. However, federal IWG members recognize that full restoration of the south
Florida ecosystem cannot be accomplished until local, state, scientific, and federal efforts
are combined, and they are working toward that end. Indeed, public involvement in this
restoration effort is critical, if change is to occur successfully at the grassroots level.
In a very broad sense each resident of south Florida holds a stake in the process. The
two dominant industries, agriculture and tourism, depend on ecosystem health. So does the
quality of urban life. Adequate drinking water not only impacts the way Floridians live but
also affects other components of the ecosystem. Certainly local, regional, state, and federal
agencies with trustee responsibilities for south Florida's natural resources are vested in this
effort. Working with the public for productive change, the following federal agencies play
important roles as Working Group members:
U. S. Department of Interior
The National Park Service administers three national parks (Everglades, Biscayne and
Dry Tortugas), and one national preserve (Big Cypress) in south Florida. It assists with
state and local conservation and recreation planning.
2
-------
The Fish and Wildlife Service administers 10 national wildlife refuges, manages all
actions under the Endangered Species Act, provides comments on comprehensive wetland
programs including permitting, carries out authorities of the Fish and Wildlife Coordination
Act and enforces federal wildlife laws.
National Biological Service, a newly formed agency, is responsible for inventorying,
monitoring, and conducting research on biological resources.
United States Geological Survey provides geologic, topographic, and hydrologic
information.
Bureau of Indian Affairs has trust responsibility for south Florida's federally
recognized Miccosukee and Seminole Indian Tribes.
U. S. Department of Commerce
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration (NOAA) has the trusteeship
responsibilities for U. S. marine resources, and extensive research capabilities in marine and
atmospheric research, some of which address south Florida issues. The agency has the
following main line components:
o National Marine Fisheries Service (NMFS) reconciles conflicts between water
resource projects and marine resources; handles review and permit processes pertaining to
marine resources; consults, evaluates, and reports on marine species; protects cetaceans; and
manages marine fishery resources.
o National Ocean Service (NOS) administers the Florida Keys National Marine
Sanctuary and administers the Coastal Zone Management Program which provides
assistance to states for planning.
o 00A R
U. S. Department of Agriculture
Natural Resources Conservation Service (formerly Soil Conservation Service)
provides technical assistance to farmers and ranchers; maps the nation's soils, and develops
erosion-resistant plants; delineates wetlands on agricultural lands for all federal programs;
provides flood prevention and water conservation assistance for irrigation, recreation,
wildlife habitat and other uses; and through local water resources research, enables local
governments and citizen groups to plan water-related needs.
Agricultural Research Service (ARS) is the primary in-house research arm of the
Department of Agriculture, carrying out research in categories ranging from soil, water and
air to systems integration.
3
-------
U. S. Department of the Army
U S Army Corps of Engineers (Corps) has flood control authority in central and
south Florida; and is responsible for water deliveries to Everglades National Park; for
restoration of the Kissimmee River; and for studying the effects of modifying the Central
and Southern Florida Flood Control Project on environmental quality, aquifer protection,
and urban water conservation. Under the Clean Water Act the Corps issues all federal
permits for dredge or fill of wetlands.
U. S. Department of Justice
U S Attorney's Office for the Southern District of Florida represents federal agencies
in judicial actions involving the United States in south Florida.
U. S. Environmental Protection Agency
The Environmental Protection Agency is charged with restoring and maintaining the
chemical, physical and biological integrity of the nation's water, as well as permitting
discharges. In addition, EPA is required to develop a water quality protection program for
the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and to recommend priority corrective actions
and compliance schedules addressing point and nonpoint pollution.
4
-------
II. MOSAIC OF WATER, LAND AND PEOPLE: UNDERSTANDING
THE PROBLEM
THE NATURAL SYSTEM
The south Florida ecosystem encompasses approximately 28,000 square kilometers
with at least 11 major physiographic provinces: Everglades, Big Cypress, Lake Okeechobee,
Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, Florida Reef Tract, nearshore coastal waters, Atlantic coastal
ridge, Florida Keys, Immokalee Rise, and Kissimmee River Valley. Kissimmee River,
Lake Okeechobee, and the Everglades form the watershed that connect a mosaic of
wetlands, uplands, coastal areas, and marine areas.
Prior to drainage, which began in the late 1800s, wetlands covered most of central
and southern Florida. The Everglades region, nearly flat and sloping slightly from east to
west, was nevertheless heterogenous in landscape, sculpted by 5,000 years of hydrologic
and biological evolution on a Pleistocene limestone platform. A circa 1850 military map
(Ives 1856) provides the best template for determining pre-drainage conditions.
The pre-drainage landscape was characterized by swamp forest; sawgrass plains;
mosaics of sawgrass, tree islands, and ponds; marl-forming prairies dominated by
periphyton; wet prairies dominated by Eleocharis and Nymphaea, cypress strands, pine
flatwoods, pine rocklands, tropical hardwood hammocks, and xeric hammocks chiefly of
oak. The estuarine-coastal system had its own identity: shallow seagrass beds, riverine and
fringe mangrove forests, intertidal flats, coral reefs, hard bottom communities, mud banks,
and shallow, open inshore waters. Land and water interconnected on a topographic gradient
ranging from about 20 feet above mean sea level at Lake Okeechobee to below sea level at
Florida Bay. Sustaining these communities was a hydrologic system that stored and
released water on a large scale over a vast territory of diverse habitats, home to
innumerable plants and animals.
HISTORY OF CHANGE
The first haphazard efforts in the late 1800s to drain portions of south Florida were
followed in the early 1900s by the creation of the Everglades Drainage District, established
to encourage Everglades drainage for agricultural and urban use, especially south of Lake
Okeechobee in what is now the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA). By 1929, 440 miles
of canals and levees had been constructed, including four major canals draining
southeastward from Lake Okeechobee to the Atlantic Ocean.
In 1926 a hurricane swept water from Lake Okeechobee southward killing 400 to 500
people. In 1928 another hurricane killed 2,400 people living in farming communities within
the EAA and the city of Okeechobee. Consequently, the federal government built Hoover
Dike around a portion of Lake Okeechobee in the 1930s. Drought and subsequent fires
prevailed until 1947, when two hurricanes inundated the region, causing about $60 million
of property damage.
5
-------
Congress declared the need for a regional master plan balancing flood control and
water supply protection. In 1948, the Army Corps of Engineers assumed responsibility for
a comprehensive state-federal water control program known as the Central and Southern
Florida Flood Control Project (C&SF) that would cover 15,000 square miles. Congress
authorized $208 million.
Designed and built by the Corps, the C&SF is maintained and operated both by the
Corps and by the South Florida Water Management District, the local sponsor. It includes:
990 miles of levees;
978 miles of canals;
30 pumping stations;
212 flood control or water diversion structures; and
• Secondary water management systems constructed by local interests.
Costing approximately $1 billion, with much of the work completed during the 1950s
and 1960s, C&SF work included:
• Channelization of the Kissimmee River into a 56-mile canal with control structures;
A levee surrounding Lake Okeechobee (730 square miles) with control structures,
hurricane gates and pumping stations;
• Encirclement of the 1000 square mile Everglades Agricultural Area by canals and
levees, with 7 pumping stations to provide forced drainage;
An east coast protective levee for urban flood control extending from the eastern
shore of Lake Okeechobee 130 miles southward to Homestead;
• Local protective works along the developed lower east coast; and
Three multi-purpose Water Conservation Areas—one the Loxahatchee National
Wildlife Refuge—(totaling 1137 square miles) in the Everglades west of the east coast
levee with control structures to effect water transfer, including transfer to Everglades
National Park.
Authorized project purposes include flood control, water supply, drainage, fish and
wildlife preservation, Everglades National Park water supply, recreation, navigation, and
saltwater intrusion prevention. The C&SF Project was designed to accommodate the high
evapotranspiration rates, significant overland flow, subsurface flow in highly transmissive
aquifers, pronounced wet and dry seasons, drought, intense rainfall, tropical storms, low
coastal elevations and other hydrologic characteristics. Complex water quality demands and
6
-------
growing environmental awareness made resolving conflicting priorities within the multi-
purpose C&SF Project more and more difficult.
OTHER FORCES THAT CHANGED THE SYSTEM
Population Growth: In the 1800s Seminoles and Miccosukees chiefly populated
south Florida because floods and hurricanes discouraged the region's urban and agricultural
development. Growth occurred only in such naturally well-drained areas as the Atlantic
Coastal Ridge. In 1890 the population of the area presently encompassed by Dade, Broward
and Palm Beach Counties was 861, while nearly all of the lower west coast population of
20,200 was located in Key West-in contrast to the current population of south Florida that
numbers more than 6 million. The population of what became the South Florida Water
Management District (SFWMD) was 32,000.
Comprehensive flood control has helped to transform the area, expanding developable
acreage, which resulted in increased population and appraised property value.
• The lower east coast population was about 215,000 in 1930, 694,000 in 1950, 2.2
million in 1970 and 4.0 million in 1990.
The population of the 18 counties within SFWMD boundaries was 727,097 in 1945,
and 6.3 million in 1990.
• Population projections show south Florida tripling within 50 years.
• The appraised property value was $1.2 billion in 1950, $240 billion in 1991.
Land Use Conversions: Highly fragmented, the south Florida ecosystem contains
four wetland landscapes now reduced to remnants: the cypress strands fringing the western
side of the Atlantic coastal ridge, the pond apple forest/swamp on the southern shore of
Lake Okeechobee, the tall sawgrass plain of what is now the Everglades Agricultural Area
(EAA), and the biologically important peripheral wet prairies (Davis et al. 1994).
On the east coast ridge, only 10% of the former rockland pinelands and 10% of the
tropical hardwood hammocks persist; stressed by a lowered water table and introduced
exotics, they are more vulnerable to natural disasters.
• Compartmentalizing the Everglades further fragmented the system by creating a series
of poorly connected wetlands.
• Urbanization fragmented the upland systems and placed stress on the ecosystem's
water supply and water storage capacity.
Roughly 50% of the pre-drainage wetlands have been lost to agricultural, industrial,
and residential development, especially the peripheral (short hydroperiod) wetlands on
the eastern side of the Everglades, and continue to be incrementally diminished by
wetland permitting programs.
7
-------
Wetland loss has reduced landscape heterogeneity and long-term population survival
for vertebrate species requiring extensive territory, among them wading birds, snail
kites, and panthers.
Decreasing the extent of south Florida's wetlands has reduced the solar collector area
feeding aquatic productivity.
By any measure of species richness, there has been a drastic erosion of south
Florida's biodiversity.
In their natural condition, the Everglades and other wetlands were naturally flowing
systems that not only covered a greater area but also exhibited longer inundations and more
sustained outflows to estuaries than exist in their current managed state. With decreased
wetlands has come a decrease in the function, sheet flow, and base flow of wetlands.
Water management significantly changed the volume and timing of water flow, as well as
overland flow patterns across wetlands and into estuaries.
Central & Southern Florida Project: The 1948 cost-benefit analysis that justified
the Central & Southern Florida (C&SF) Project projected the greatest benefit to be the
increased land use. Since the project's initiation in the late 1940s, rapid growth has
increased the demand for flood control and water supply to meet municipal, industrial,
agricultural, and environmental needs. Although millions of acres of south Florida have
been placed in public ownership, the ecological condition of the Everglades watershed
ecosystem continues to deteriorate. Increased concern and often conflicting expectations
regarding flood control, environmental restoration, and competition for water resources have
led to the need for an in-depth comprehensive study of the multi-purpose C&SF Project.
THE ECOSYSTEM TODAY
Though altered considerably from its pre-drainage condition, the south Florida
ecosystem is vitally important to both the economy and the ecology of the nation. It is-
The predominant source of fresh water for Florida's most populous region.
Home to 56 federally-listed threatened or endangered species and 29 candidate
species.
The principal nursery area (Florida Bay and adjacent estuaries) for the largest
commercial and sport fisheries in Florida: this area is important to bottlenosed
dolphin and is an important developmental and nesting habitat for nesting sea turtles.
• The home of the largest wilderness east of the Mississippi River.
The location of the only living continuous coral reef system adjacent to the
continental United States (the third largest barrier reef community in the world).
8
-------
The site of the two federally-recognized nations of the Seminole Tribe of Indians and
the Miccosukee Tribe of Indians of Florida.
• An international commercial and tourist center.
• The primary domestic producer of the nation's sugar and winter vegetables.
The home of an expanding population exceeding 6 million people.
The location of Lake Okeechobee and other world class sport fishing areas.
The most significant breeding ground for wading birds in North America, wintering
grounds for more than half the nation's wood stork population and more than 100,000
white ibises; staging area for glossy ibises, peregrine falcons, and swallow-tailed kites
migrating between breeding and wintering grounds.
The home of 3 national parks, 1 national preserve, 10 national wildlife refuges, 1
national marine sanctuary, and numerous areas protected under state or local
ownership.
• Home of the Everglades, designated by the United Nations as a World Heritage Site
and an International Biosphere Reserve, and by the International Union for the
Conservation of Nature as a Wetland of International Significance.
• The world's largest organic soil deposit.
RESTORATION ISSUES
Although vast areas of south Florida have been set aside as protected public areas,
symptoms of ecological decline continue to increase. The region faces major environmental
issues:
Planning for regional population growth (expected to triple within 50 years);
• Competition for a finite water supply among an expanding urban population and
agricultural interests and remnant natural resources;
Identification and implementation of the structural and operational modifications to
the C&SF Project needed to restore the ecosystem;
Nutrient enrichment of the Everglades and coastal marine ecosystem by agricultural
drainage or urban drainage and waste waters;
Declining health of the coral reef system;
Permitting and mitigation programs ineffective in preventing loss of remaining natural
uplands and wetlands;
9
-------
Purchase and public ownership of critical unprotected lands in south Florida's
watershed;
• Extensive mercury contamination of freshwater fish and other biota;
• Increase in introduced (exotic) plants and animals and decline in native species;
Incomplete understanding of what constitutes a functioning system for the area, as
well as conflicting views on restoring the water system;
• Lack of public understanding of ecosystem values and the human environment;
• Natural resource compatible recreational access;
Lack of consensus on the causes of and solutions for ecosystem degradation;
• Adequate financial commitment to ecosystem restoration;
• Organic soil subsidence;
Minimization of water quality degradation and maximization of water conservation
through structural and agronomic management practices in urban and agricultural
areas;
• Sustainable economic development; and
• Ecological degradation of Florida Bay including extensive algal blooms and seagrass
die-off.
A VISION FOR THE ECOSYSTEM
When the Interagency Working Group met in 1993. it began to consider what it
regarded as its collective "future vision" for the south Florida ecosystem. The document
produced as a result of the 1993 Management Objectives Workshop stated that "the purpose
of the Everglades Restoration program is to restore and maintain the elements of this
ecosystem to most resemble the natural functions of a healthy, balanced, and functioning
estuarine. and marine environment. [This should be a] system where human activities and
actions occur in such a manner so as to support healthy natural conditions and lead to
diversity and abundance of natural biological systems over the entire general area, and
specifically in the public lands set aside for their natural values."
10
-------
ECOSYSTEM MANAGEMENT OBJECTIVES
This vision was to be obtained through the following objectives:
Florida Bay, Estuaries, and Near Coastal Waters
Restore and sustain healthy ecosystem conditions in these waters, which allow natural
processes, functions, and cycles to continue or be re-established.
• Manage use of natural resources (commercial, sport fisheries, and others) to maintain
sustainable populations.
Maintain the health and biodiversity of the coral reef ecosystem component.
Fresh Water
• Manage the hydrological conditions in the remaining undeveloped and potentially
restorable lands in a way that maximizes natural processes characteristic of the
historic south Florida ecosystem (including water quality, quantity, distribution,
timing, and biological integrity). Restoration of the natural system will be evaluated
and implemented to maximize benefits to the overall ecosystem.
• Develop and manage the total hydrologic system to maximize ecosystem restoration
while providing appropriate consideration to meet the needs of urban, agricultural, and
man-made components. The Working Group recognizes that future management of
the system will require shared adversity where the full range of hydrologic needs
cannot be fully met.
Development
• Ensure that any development plans or permits for development are fully coordinated
among affected governmental agencies and are compatible with restoration of the
south Florida ecosystem.
• Ensure that existing development that has an adverse impact reduces or eliminates
degradation and that new development does not contribute to degradation.
Develop and use a system-wide integrated mitigation plan, coordinating all levels of
government, which contributes to overall restoration.
Ensure that regardless of any future development there is a sufficient land, water, and
resource base to conduct the required natural resource restoration efforts.
11
-------
Research
Implement a coordinated research program to develop an understanding of the
physical, chemical, and biological processes essential to achieving restoration of the
south Florida ecosystem.
Plants and Animals
Restore and maintain the biodiversity of native plants and animals in the upland,
wetland, marine, and estuarine communities of the south Florida ecosystem.
• Eradicate or control invasive exotic plants and animals.
Provide for adequate natural habitats for native plants and animals.
• Recover species that are threatened or endangered.
Education
Coordinate a multi-cultural information and education program to ensure that the
public is informed of the unique values of the south Florida ecosystem and that they
are regularly apprised of the environmental, social, and economic benefits of
restoration.
Indian Nations
Provide for the implementation of Tribal resource development consistent with sound
water management and environmental principles, and as compatible as possible with
restoration.
Provide protection of the reservations from adverse water quality and quantity
impacts, either through upstream controls for other use impacts or funded on
reservation mitigation for impacts.
Provide for timely restoration of the ecosystem in WCA-3A to protect tribal rights.
12
-------
III. BUILDING BLOCKS OF RESTORATION: DEFINING ECOSYSTEM
RESTORATION, PROTECTION AND MAINTENANCE
Water created the south Florida ecosystem, and water management practices have
critically altered it. This makes hydrologic restoration—the natural distribution of quality
water in space and time—a necessary starting point for ecological restoration. How the
hydrologic system is managed affects land use, a critical factor in planning for restoration.
In recognition of the role supportive land use planning and permitting can play in
restoration success, the Interagency Task Force follows three objectives:
Support development of a comprehensive wetland permit mitigation strategy for south
Florida that furthers ecosystem restoration.
• Reduce constraints on economic expansion by increasing the overall water supply and
improving quality of life.
Address south Florida's water quality and supply, as well as subsidence of organic
soils so as to provide for more sustainable economic opportunities while improving
natural ecosystem sustainability, recognizing that current urban, economic, and
agricultural growth rates are not sustainable.
THE ALTERED ECOSYSTEM
Changes in the hydrologic structure of south Florida, which began before the turn of
the century when Hamilton Disston connected the Caloosahatchee River with Lake
Okeechobee in 1883 and culminated with the 1948 implementation of the Central and
Southern Florida Project, created an intricate network of levees, canals, and pumping
stations for flood control, drainage, and water supply. Flood control made possible massive
land-use changes that decreased the availability of land for water storage and recharge. The
current hydrology of south Florida functions not at all as it did prior to the 1800s.
Soil Subsidence: Extensive drainage for agricultural purposes south of Lake
Okeechobee caused tremendous organic soil losses. Without water, the soil became denser
and drier—one of the first environmentally destructive effects of drainage—resulting in losses
of 5 or more feet of soil by 1984 (Stephens 1984) and now calculated at 3 cm per year, a
substantial loss when the maximum thickness was only 12 to 14 feet initially. Although
soil loss still continues, the process has been slowed by re-flooding fallow fields and
maintaining a high water table.
Soil loss of such magnitude has heavily impacted Everglades hydrology and ecology,
especially the elevation gradient from the upper to the central Everglades. Soil loss has
meant elevation loss, which has meant loss of the hydraulic head that once naturally drove
water south. Moving water from north to south now requires pumping, an effort that grows
more extensive as soils continue to subside. In addition to impacting elevation, soil loss
13
-------
has also meant reduction in water storage capacity—the area's ability to absorb water, thus
balancing seasonal and long-term variations in rainfall.
Add to the problems associated with soil loss the enormous spatial extent over which
the loss has occurred and the restoration issues are magnified. In fact, the loss extends
beyond the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA) into the Everglades.
Water Quality Implications of Soil Loss: The combination of 1) soil loss in EAA,
2) routing water around EAA, 3) EAA's water demands, and 4) materials leaching out of
the area have caused significant downstream impacts. Soil loss may have concentrated
compounds and minerals such as phosphorus in the remaining soil. As soil loss continues,
the binding capacity of remaining soil is likely to become so saturated it will be unable to
retain minerals, which will be released into downstream waters. The problem also is
magnified by pesticides and other chemical applications accumulating in the environment
for at least 50 years:
• High mercury concentrations found in large-mouth bass, alligators, panthers, and other
top predators demonstrate the existence of contaminants in aquatic food chains, even
though the sources and movement through the ecosystem remain uncertain.
• Water discoloration indicates dissolved organic carbons, precursors to trihalomethanes
(a known cancer causing agent) formed as a result of the chlorination treatment
process for drinking water; drinking water supplied by Lake Okeechobee and the
Everglades to east coast cities first passes through major canals traversing the EAA;
an EPA study found the Miami Preston-Hialeah well field to contain one of the
highest concentrations of trihalomethanes in drinking water supplies; Dade County
water treatment plants have switched to a chloramine-based purifying process, though
public health concerns may exist with this product also.
Organic soils oxidizing due to drainage in the EAA and elsewhere appear to be the
source of the dissolved compounds, which decrease in canal water with distance
south from the EAA (EPA, provisional data).
Nutrient Enrichment and Contamination: Eutrophication and water quality
degradation are growing concerns in south Florida. Nutrient-laden agricultural runoff has
altered marsh macrophyte and algal communities, diminishing their supporting role as food
chain bases and habitats. Extensive eutrophic zones have been found in the public
Everglades marshes. Elevated concentrations of chlorinated hydrocarbon pesticides or their
derivatives have been found in great egrets and other wading birds from Water
Conservation Area 1 (Winger 1987).
Mercury Contamination: A human health fish consumption advisory due to
mercury contamination either bans or restricts the consumption of freshwater fish from two
million acres encompassing the Everglades and Big Cypress National Preserve, and there is
extensive mercury contamination of other biota associated with aquatic food webs. Since
1989 mercury has been found at elevated concentration in varied Everglades biota,
including freshwater fish, raccoons, wading birds, and alligators. A Florida panther (an
14
-------
endangered species) found dead in Everglades NP in 1989 had a liver mercury
concentration of 110 ppm. The maximum concentrations found in bass (4.4 ppm) and
bowfin (over 7 ppm) collected from a WCA-3A canal are the highest concentrations found
in the state of Florida, and are higher than concentrations found at Superfund sites in the
Southeast that are contaminated with mercury. The source(s) of mercury, and the
mechanism(s) and environmental conditions resulting in the bioaccumulation of toxic
methyl mercury in the Everglades remain unknown.
Uncoupling Wetlands/Estuaries From Rainfall: Water impoundment in the Water
Conservation Areas and surface water diversion to the Atlantic coast, as well as ground
water and levee seepage losses eastward in the modified system have reduced flows to the
southern Everglades, shortening hydroperiods. Not only have these changes meant larger
intra-annual flow variations but also large volumes of rainwater drained to sea annually that
did not occur historically. This eastward water diversion occasions a several hundred-
thousand-acre-foot loss per year to the sea.
Reduction in flow from upstream also has reduced flood duration as well as the
maximum area annually inundated. Peak flows are higher after major rains and flow rates
drop off more abruptly at the end of the wet season than they wouid have in pre-drainage
days. Channelization and impoundment also have disrupted the annual pattern of rising and
falling water depths in remnant wetlands.
Altered Hydroperiods: The accelerated runoff rates that have accompanied
increased development have meant increased wetland drying over vaster areas. Land is
saturated with water for shorter periods of time, resulting in lower aquatic production at all
levels of the food chain. Surface water refugia supporting aquatic fauna and their predators
during drought are smaller and fewer in number, having been relocated and subdivided as
part of the currently-managed system.
In a few areas, such as the southern parts of the Water Conservation Areas,
channelization, coupled with impoundment, have increased depth and hydroperiods.
Resulting regulation water releases have caused unseasonable flooding of alligator nesting
sites in Everglades National Park and disrupted wading bird nesting, which depends on
concentrated food supplies.
Invasive Introduced Species: The canal networks have provided a kind of deep-
water refugia for introduced (exotic) plants and animals, encouraging communities
substantially different than the natural ones, particularly where predatory fish are concerned.
Furthermore, the water conveyance system may be a conduit for the dispersal of invasive
species. It also may foster introduced species by creating conditions favoring exotics above
natives.
Loss of Hydraulic Head and Recharge: Artificial drainage drastically lowered the
water table and increased water table recession rates on the east coast ridge. This impacted
water flow to both interior wetlands and estuaries. It also affected ridge plant communities,
the salt/fresh interface, and water supply.
15
-------
Fire Regime Changes: Fragmentation has interfered with the ability of fire to
maintain natural mosaics. In the natural system, fire increased habitat diversity; in the
current managed system, it reduces diversity due to altered seasonal burning accompanied
by over drying of wetlands. Human tendency to replace natural variations and extremes in
disturbances like fire with regular schedules can lead to the loss of biological diversity
because species tend to adapt to natural variations in environmental conditions.
Regularizing physical driving forces may favor some species over others and affect species
composition.
Lost Wetland Function Greater Than Lost Wetland Area: South Florida wetlands
have been reduced by half, but breeding wading bird populations have been reduced to less
than 10% of their former number. This suggests either: (1) that the particular wetlands that
were lost played an especially critical role in wading bird feeding and nesting success,
and/or (2) that the remaining wetlands are so degraded that their carrying capacity for
wading birds is only 20% of the former capacity. The estuarine system serves as a foraging
ground for wading birds, and loss of estuarine feeding opportunities may also have
decreased the wading bird carrying capacity of the ecosystem.
Estuarine Impacts: Water management has resulted in:
More short duration, high volume water flow to estuaries and less base flow;
• Regulatory releases to control lake and ground water levels according to prescribed
flood-preventive formulae, which have produced pulses of fresh water entering
estuaries, causing rapid, drastic decreases in salinity that stress estuarine organisms;
• Water flows diverted from one receiving basin to another, changing long-term salinity
regimes;
Water diversion and increased runoff rate, providing Florida Bay with less water flow
than it received historically and creating salinities exceeding oceanic concentrations
(Florida Bay salinities have reached 70 ppt during severe drought; Biscayne Bay may
exhibit abnormal negative or reverse salinity gradients, with hypersaline conditions
inshore; and salinities in Manatee Bay have dropped from 36 ppt to 0 ppt in a matter
of hours due to abrupt regulatory releases from the South Dade Conveyance System-
especially disruptive to Manatee Bay, which ordinarily experiences extremely high
salinities due to natural freshwater inflow loss);
• Long-term changes in freshwater inflow rates to estuaries, which have shifted salinity
zones upstream or downstream, resulting in areas within species' optimum salinity
ranges that no longer coincide with the estuary features supporting species' growth
and survival;
• Spatially compressed (steeper) salinity gradients providing less overall area within
some salinity zones and less opportunity to overlap with favorable structural habitat-
estuary salinity zone shifts and area changes within various salinity ranges may have
16
-------
reduced species' optimum habitat and even eliminated some species' habitat all
together.
Estuarine and Reef Resources Declines: Fisheries productivity depends on habitat
quality and quantity. One measure of habitat carrying capacity is the abundance of fish age
0 to 1 (known as recruitment). Decreased fisheries productivity may be reflected in catch
rate declines. Landings in the valuable Tortugas pink shrimp fishery, dependent upon
Florida Bay nursery grounds, have declined sharply since the mid 1980s. Long-term catch
rates, standardized for vessel power increases, declined from the 1960s through the 1970s.
Unstandardized catch rates declined precipitously beginning in the mid 1980s (Browder
1985).
In addition to declining catches, fish displaying abnormal dorsal fins and misaligned
scales are common in North Biscayne Bay (Browder et al. 1993), and present in the St.
Lucie Inlet and the lower Indian River (Kandrashoff pers. comm.). The same abnormalities
have been seen in at least 10 species, suggesting a cause common to the environment of
these species. On the reef tract, a declining community is also evident, exemplified by
coral bleaching, coral diseases (including black band disease), and a decline in coral cover
and recruitment. Recently, DDE and other chlorinated hydrocarbons have been found in
coral reef tissue (Skinner and Japp 1986). Extensive seagrass loss has occurred due to poor
water quality (increased nutrients and turbidity, decreased light penetration), alteration of
the natural freshwater inflow pattern, dredge and fill activities, and boating activities
(Kenworthy and Haunert 1990).
THE PROCESS OF RESTORATION
What Restoration Means: In the context of south Florida, restoration means a
return to pre-existing ecological conditions. The conceptual target for south Florida's
wetlands and estuaries is pre-drainage topography and hydrology evidenced by the 1858
military map, and for vegetative cover the 1943 natural vegetation map prepared by Davis,
expanded to include southwest Florida and the Kissimmee River Valley. In reality, the
irreversible loss of significant wetland areas (the large spatial scale was key to long-term
ecosystem maintenance), as well as the almost complete urbanization of the east coast ridge
(a major ground water recharge area) and the need to accommodate agriculture make the
restoration target only approachable. What we can hope to recapture are the essential
hydrologic and landscape characteristics critical to a sustained, healthy south Florida
ecosystem.
Rationale For Hydrologic Restoration: Hydrologic restoration is a necessary
beginning to ecological restoration. However, encouraging habitat heterogeneity may
require additional restoration efforts, among them:
• Reduction in water and airborne nutrients and contaminants;
• Ending soil subsidence;
• Control of invasive exotics; and
17
-------
• Re-establishment of natural corridors in uplands and wetlands for native biotic
dispersal and diversity.
The restoration approach has three overlapping components, discussed in terms of
alternative minimum, incremental, and maximum (unconstrained) restoration areas:
Restore the areal extent of the system, as well as its hydrological integrity to recover
sustainable biotic populations;
• Adjust hydrological restoration plans to maximize ecological restoration; and
• Establish a comprehensive, regional monitoring program to measure hydrological and
ecological responses (referred to as success criteria) to the hydrologic restoration
programs.
Certainly, the identity of the resulting landscape will emerge from the identity of the
re-established system. Management's challenge is understanding these new system
trajectories and guiding them toward ecosystem health and sustainability, possibly
supporting the design of enhancement projects.
Models, Rain-driven Formulae, and Adaptive Management: Linking current
hydrologic models and future models of water quality, ecology, and plant and animal
populations should help determine differences between pre-drainage and present-day
conditions. Developed at scales ranging from regional landscapes to constituent
communities (Appendix M), these models must have scientific credibility to guide
restoration.
Since quantitative measures of hydrological and ecological changes from pre-drainage
times to the present are lacking, the best guide is the family of natural system models
(NSMs), coupled with spatially explicit simulation models of species at the landscape level.
Existent models of natural system hydrology have been calibrated based on present system
hydrologic models, but with canals, levees, and control structures removed.
Assuming identical rainfall, comparisons of NSM with present model results allow
changes in flood stages, duration of flooding, spatial extent of Hooding, and other related
information to be assessed. For instance, they show the spatial distribution of hydroperiods
under pre-drainage and present conditions, indicating that hydroperiods in pre-drainage
times were longer. How to translate NSM output into a water delivery schedule adjusted
for rainfall at various landscape locations has yet to be determined. However, a rain-driven
formula (based on a regression of water flow rates on rainfall, paced to reflect natural
system delays from storage) currently is being used by SFWMD to schedule more natural
volume and timing for Everglades water deliveries from the upstream Water Conservation
Area. Similar formulas based on NSM (Fennema et al. 1994) output could provide
improved water deliveries system wide. Also the NSMs can provide perspective on how to
restore more natural water flow volume and timing to estuaries.
18
-------
To understand the role of water among biotic communities, ecosystem-level modeling
needs to be coupled with NSMs and the various hydrological alternatives. Currently,
several ecological models are being developed, among them an innovative approach to be
used by the Park Service, Biological Survey and the University of Tennessee/Oak Ridge
National Laboratory. Designed to accept calibrated input, suggest monitoring strategies,
and evaluate management alternatives, this approach uses integrated simulation models of
major trophic groups along with monitoring programs that include broad-scale landscape
characterization, water quality and quantity measures, and natural resources (e.g., wading
bird populations, fisheries, snail kites, vegetation communities, and contaminants in air,
water, sediments, and biota).
Modeling and monitoring, along with research, are part of the adaptive management
process-the repeated use of models, research, and monitoring to revise, improve, and fine
tune management procedures.
Structures V. No Structures: Potential hydrologic solutions to south Florida's
ecosystem dilemma lie within two restoration extremes: 1) remove all water control
structures, including canals and levees, or 2) add more structures/modify existing structures
to approximate natural hydrologic conditions despite constraints imposed by wetland and
upland losses.
Removing structures would reestablish natural patterns of wetland continuity, sheet
flow, and animal movements, as well as reduce conduits for introduced species and
pollutants. However, current reduced water storage capacity and recharge may make
restoration to pre-drainage flow rates, timing, and spatial patterns impossible.
Option 2—modifying and/or adding to existing water control structures-provides the
flexibility with which to adjust water management operations in response to system needs
(adaptive management). However, adding structures also may have undesirable effects,
unless innovative designs reduce negative long-term impacts on the restoration process.
Determining the most appropriate approach will have to be on a case-by-case basis, taking
into account ecological costs and benefits.
ESTABLISHING A RESTORATION DIRECTION
As previously stated, the over-arching intent is restoration of pre-drainage, landscape-
scale hydrology and ecology re-establishing ecosystem integrity and sustainable
biodiversity: a healthy, sustainable ecosystem that has room for human activities.
ACHIEVING RESTORATION
Maximize the system's spatial extent and landscape heterogeneity to recover
ecological structure and function. Prevent further wetland loss, recover undeveloped
degraded wetlands, and restore landscape elements lost to development.
Re-establish natural hydrologic structure and function through the restoration of: 1)
sheet flow; 2) strong hydrologic linkages between areas; 3) natural dynamic water
19
-------
storage capacity; 4) natural relationship of ground and surface water levels, as well as
water flow with rainfall; 5) natural quantity, timing, location, and quality of
freshwater flow throughout the system and into estuaries.
Gradually decompartmentalize the Water Conservation Areas (WCA) to reinstate sheet
flow from WCA1 through WCA3, perhaps making water movement from Lake
Okeechobee to the WCAs easier.
Recover threatened and endangered species.
Restore natural biological diversity.
Re-establish natural vegetation and periphyton communities spatially and
compositionally.
Strive to evolve an EAA agriculture allowing EAA to function hydrologically as the
area did in the pre-drainage system, providing delayed release of wet season rainfall
from Lake Okeechobee to downstream natural areas.
Promote water conservation and water reuse in urban and agricultural areas.
Restore natural rates of ecosystem productivity.
Re-establish sustainable breeding wading bird populations and colonies.
Halt and reverse the invasion of exotic plants and animals.
Prevent point and non-point airborne or waterborne pollution (contaminants, excessive
nutrients, and thermal pollutants).
Re-establish the corridors for movement, dispersion, and interactions among
vegetation and animals.
Increase the hard coral cover on Florida Keys reefs.
Restore natural estuarine and coastal productivity and fisheries, and natural seagrass
communities.
Link agricultural and urban growth management with ecosystem management.
Restore a natural system that is self-maintaining with little human intervention.
Implement best urban and agricultural management to improve water quality and
reduce water consumption.
20
-------
Restore the sustainability of human and natural systems supporting cities, farms, and
industries in an environment characterized by clean air, clean water and abundant
natural resources.
CONCEPTUAL FOUNDATION OF RESTORATION
The conceptual foundation of the restoration effort should be as follows:
• The fact that spatial extent is a critical aspect of the south Florida ecosystem indicates
the need to reverse the trend toward incremental loss of natural areas and
compartmentalization of the remaining systems. Fragmentation results in erosion of
biodiversity and must be corrected by restoring connections between biotic
communities.
Water is life. Without it, the ecosystem fails to function. The importance of
hydrology to the annual pulse of wet and dry cycles as well as to random disturbances
of those cycles mandates the development of rainfall-based water delivery plans with
built-in dynamic storage and delays. The plans should provide formulas derived from
present and future NSMs that will: 1) restore pre-drainage sheet flow volumes and
distributions in time and space; 2) restore pre-drainage depth patterns, and 3) mimic
pre-drainage hydroperiods, including extended periods of flooding.
The role of drought and fire in maintaining ecosystem heterogeneity suggests the
importance of allowing environmental fluctuations and extremes to occur as they
would have naturally.
Recognition of the damage caused by nutrients, contaminants, and other materials
introduced into this fragile ecosystem demands their significant reduction or
elimination from the airsheds and watersheds of the ecosystem to below-detrimental
levels.
The role of spatial salinity gradients in sustaining nursery and other supportive habitat
in coastal wetlands and estuaries requires creation of more natural volume, timing,
and locations of freshwater inflows to restore the historic salinity structure.
Altered water depths and hydroperiods, as well as water quality have given the edge
to introduced species; natural hydroperiods and water depths need to be reestablished
and water quality improved to control such species.
• The relationship between ground and surface water necessitates that water table levels
be raised to restore more natural flows to wetlands and estuaries.
The pre-drainage role of sheet flows in structuring and integrating the physical and
biotic landscape makes it imperative to reestablish sheet flow conveyance on the
system's historic north-south gradient. This must emanate from the top down and be
massive enough to restore historic water volume transport in time and space.
21
-------
Soil subsidence has diminished the natural hydrologic system, including the dynamic
storage and hydraulic head provided by the former soils and their associated marshes.
This function needs to be engineered in the short term, but in the long term may be
reinstated as conditions are created to promote the accretion of organic soils.
Agriculture in the Everglades Agriculture Area (EAA) is not sustainable as currently
practiced due to organic soil oxidation (Snyder and Davidson 1994). However, urban
development would be a poor alternative land use, as well as a poor use of resources
required to maintain drainage in what is, in effect, the middle of the basin.
Restoration efforts must strive to develop a productive EAA agriculture that halts soil
subsidence and contributes to ecological restoration.
• Agricultural practices decreasing airborne and waterborne export of nutrients and
contaminants need to be encouraged (e.g., use of native rangeland instead of improved
pasture, water tolerant strains of sugar cane, organic farming, and sterile cultivars of
ornamental non-native species).
Urban water consumption and contamination of ground and surface waters diminishes
available clean water. Water conservation and improved techniques for treating and
reusing urban waste water and storm water runoff need to be encouraged.
• Areas serving the ecosystem need to be retained in setting boundaries influencing
restoration. Rather than degrade functioning systems, degraded ones need to be
improved.
REGIONAL RESTORATION SUCCESS CRITERIA
Sustainability—balance between environmental needs and the needs of human
communities—is the criteria against which projects associated with ecosystem restoration
will be measured. It is a criteria that will be considered in all evaluations of proposed
policy, planning and design alternatives. Essentially, sustainability will be the criteria
against which any ecosystem management proposal is evaluated before it is approved to be
carried out, as well as the criteria against which it will be tested to measure its continuing
success.
Basically, the criteria of sustainability has two components: workability and longevity.
If a proposal is sustainable, it will: a) work according to the best scientific, social,
engineering and budgetary definitions, as well as b) demonstrate the flexibility necessary to
accommodate predicted and unknown demands. Its workability and longevity will be
measured by a range of indicators, among them:
• Scientific analysis
• Engineering analysis
• Cost benefit analysis
• Analysis of system's capacity to accommodate changing demands
• Lifecycle costs
22
-------
The great challenge of achieving sustainability for the natural components of the
ecosystem is the reestablishment of a healthy, functioning natural system overall, rather
than the reestablishment of any one species at its level of sustainability. However, certain
fish and wading bird species are used here to measure ecosystem restoration success
because holistic indices are more difficult to acquire. Using indicators such as these, south
Florida ecosystem management partners are examining the actions needed to restore a
sustainable natural environment.
Reinstatement of natural hydroperiods and sheet flow, as approximated by natural
system models.
Re-establishment of pre-drainage wading bird nesting colony locations and timing of
nesting.
No further wetland losses.
Restoration of degraded wetlands.
Wetland use permits require enhanced hydrologic connectivity, water quality, and
water storage.
Improved recruitment of fishery and non-fishery species in estuaries.
Increased fish abundance and species recovery in pre-disturbance locations.
Reduction in body burdens of mercury large-mouth bass, alligators, panthers, and
other top carnivores.
Elimination of organic soils subsidence.
Contaminant reduction in canal surface sediments at locations monitored by SFWMD.
Increased native landscape diversity and faunal diversity.
Reestablishment of lost vegetative landscapes.
Reduced numbers of deformed fish in estuaries.
Nutrient-tolerant plants reduced or eliminated.
Exotic plants or animals reduced or eliminated.
Periphyton community taxonomic composition characteristic of oligotrophic, natural
hydroperiods.
Increased populations of threatened and endangered species.
23
-------
Increased seagrass cover.
An equal number of factors must be outlined to achieve desired objectives for the
developed human environment in South Florida, and much of the work of the Governor's
Commission and the Interagency Task Force will involve defining these criteria further in
the coming year. Attention to both the natural and human components of ecosystem
management are critical if we are once again to integrate the human and natural
environment, a delicate balance that history, culture and other factors have altered, thus
necessitating present efforts. Indeed, all proposals for human and natural environments
have to be evaluated against workability and longevity to see if any are sustainable.
GOALS OF EVALUATION PROCESS FOR SUCCESSFUL RESTORATION
Restoring south Florida's ecosystem depends on agencies' ability to sustain long-term,
effective, coordinated actions. Success needs to be evaluated in terms of the entire
ecosystem. The evaluation process needs to:
• Assess Task Force effectiveness and individual agency actions in restoring the south
Florida ecosystem;
Provide information that is suitable and sufficient for making management decisions
about future actions; and
Provide information that enables the public to judge ecosystem restoration success.
REQUIREMENTS FOR ANNUAL EVALUATION PROCESS
To meet these objectives, the Task Force will establish an annual evaluation process:
Providing a reliable basis for federal managers to assess accomplishments and
prepare, revise, and execute management plans;
Having consistent format and standards;
Addressing the Regional Restoration Success Criteria in the November 15, 1993.
Science Subgroup Report;
Addressing agency-appropriate Sub-Region Success Criteria identified in the Science
Subgroup Report;
• Coinciding with annual agency budget preparation;
• Resulting in agency reports to the Task Force that precisely identify the extent of
success and describe planned corrective actions coordinated among Task Force
agencies; and
24
-------
Resulting in an annual report, with executive summary, at the Task Force level,
describing agency efforts, accomplishments, and adjustments in management actions
necessary to restore and maintain the south Florida ecosystem.
25
-------
IV. WORKING GROUP ACTIVITIES
During the past year, the Interagency Working Group has been actively engaged in
identifying, coordinating, and accelerating implementation of south Florida ecosystem-
related projects that were already in progress at the inception of the group. It has
accomplished this through numerous public meetings bringing people together both
formally and informally. Working Group members have been tasked with and have
accomplished activities ranging from research to report writing. Among the projects the
group has helped expedite are:
• The Army Corps of Engineers Central and South Florida Restudy, which defines
problems and opportunities connected with south Florida's interconnected water
system.
• The C-l 11 Project, which addresses modifications of the South Dade County
Conveyance Canal System intended to restore more natural hydrologic conditions in
Taylor Slough.
The Kissimmee ground breaking that should lead to restoration of natural wetland
habitat in a large part of the floodplain.
• L-67 de-grading, intended to restore more natural hydrologic conditions in Shark
River Slough.
The Florida Bay Science Plan, a comprehensive state-federal research and monitoring
strategy for Florida Bay.
26
-------
V. WORKING GROUP RECOMMENDATIONS
The Working Group has completed this report it was assigned to provide to the Task
Force. Expanding on the priorities approved by the Task Force at its inception in
September 1993, the Working Group makes the following individual recommendations that
it strongly feels must be addressed in order to approach ecosystem restoration for south
Florida. We intend to proceed with those the Working Group has appointed itself to carry
out. We are recommending the Interagency Task Force follow through with those it is
responsible for and establish priorities among them. Also, we are recommending similar
action with those recommendations assigned to specific agencies. (Note: The letters [A.]
do not correlate to the lettering of the appendices since many recommendations are
referenced in more that one appendix, as noted in each recommendation.)
SUSTAINABILITY
The following recommendations focus on sustainability, which is the primary criteria
against which successful ecosystem management is measured—the establishment of a
sustainable system that balances biodiversity and human activities. To accomplish
sustainability, the Working Group recommends actions that will draw together the major
participants in united action. For additional background on these issues, see Appendices B
and M.
1. Establish 1) a multi-agency federal initiative to assist and complement state or
regional sustainable development studies; and 2) an IWG federal advisory group
composed of industry, municipalities, agencies, environmental organizations, and
others. (Lead—Office of Coastal Zone Management, NOAA; ITF Executive
Director)
To encourage a basis for common understanding among federal, state and local policy
makers, the initiative would include:
Projections of future land, water and resource bases, as well as land uses (urban,
residential, and agricultural) as these pertain to population growth projected for 2010,
2030, and 2050;
A comprehensive inventory of economic development (residential and industrial) in
south Florida, resulting in a list of industries, with their financial contribution, their
environmental impacts, and their societal importance;
• A method whereby federal, tribal, state and local agencies may assess the economic,
social, and environmental consequences of proposals to restore the Everglades, as well
as the consequences of not adopting them; and
Identification of possible policy or legislative options (e.g., tax incentives, regulatory
program changes) encouraging sustainability.
27
-------
To carry out the second part of this recommendation, the establishment of the IWG
advisory group, the Interagency Task Force executive director would need to acquire the
necessary approvals pursuant to the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA).
2. Engage state agencies (FG&FWFC, SFWMD, FDEP) in restoration efforts.
(Lead-ITF)
An enormous base of expertise exists within institutions engaged in south Florida
research modeling and monitoring, expertise that needs to be recognized, coordinated, and
integrated into federal efforts. The Task Force should embark immediately upon engaging
these agencies as partners in south Florida's ecosystem restoration.
AGENCY COORDINATION
To implement ecosystem restoration, federal agencies not only have to work together
with partners but also to direct their united efforts beyond their own boundaries to keep the
public fully informed of developments as they occur. This group of recommendations aims
to increase communication among federal and non-federal groups as well as the public. For
additional background on these issues see Appendices C, E and L.
1. Assign responsibility for interagency coordination to several groups, including
Management, Science, and Projects sub-groups, also adding an
information/education sub-group. (Lead—IWG)
IWG members will work together to resolve communication, coordination, or
differing agency positions at their level, bringing issues that require higher level policy
review to the attention of agency superiors.
2. Actively participate with the Governor's Commission on a Sustainable South
Florida to ensure compatibility of water supply issues with development and
growth management; and coordinate with the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD) to ensure compatibility of Lower East Coast Water Supply
Plan with restoration efforts, as well as to adopt more efficient municipal and
industrial water use. (Lead—IWG, Corps)
3. Establish a public information and education sub-group, which would: 1)
establish a mechanism to provide timely information via media and others to
south Florida cultural groups; 2) inventory and coordinate existing educational
activities and sponsor new outreach efforts; and 3) adopt standard operating
procedures for public meetings. (Lead—IWG, Public Information and Education
Sub-group)
The Public Information and Education Sub-group, comprised of member agencies'
public information specialists, would meet periodically with their counterparts in other
agencies to coordinate activities on specific restoration endeavors. The mechanism they
develop to provide the public with information would include:
28
-------
A list of interested parties and media through which to communicate, such as public
notices, special mailings, newsletters, and electronic bulletin boards with access to
documents under consideration by IWG;
Information presented in various languages and disseminated in various ways
(speeches, exhibits, brochures); and
• Research on public perceptions of restoration, environmental activities, and possible
support of these activities.
Public education with an ecosystem focus includes information on ecosystem
structure, wetlands, water quality, water supply conservation measures, and ground water
protection. The IWG, through the Public Information and Education Sub-group, would 1)
conduct and maintain an inventory of on-going federal, state and local educational
activities; 2) help increase coordination in the content, presentation and distribution of
educational efforts; 3) suggest modification of existing efforts to include restoration-related
information; 4) identify and sponsor new educational efforts; and 5) help incorporate the
education program into local efforts, which might require establishing a speakers bureau
within the IWG.
Adopting standard operating procedures for public meetings and document publication
would provide the public with a reliable process for their involvement. Such considerations
might include: minimum amount of notice time prior to meetings; method of notice
distribution; meeting agenda/format; publication of results; and provisions for reaching
various cultural groups. The procedures would be drafted by representatives from federal,
state and local agencies, various interest groups and the general public.
EXPEDITING RESTORATION
This category includes research and data collection approaches to expediting
restoration. For additional background on these issues see Appendices D and M.
1. Implement a research program defining the correlation between water
management and ecosystem health, and including a detailed description of the
science required to support restoration. Workshops would be conducted to
assess monitoring needs and capabilities; adopt quality control procedures; and
coordinate efforts. (Lead—Science Sub-Group)
The South Florida Task Force, through its Science Sub-group, in conjunction with
state and regional agencies, will oversee and coordinate the south Florida ecosystem's
restoration research, avoiding duplication and identifying areas needing additional
investigation.
2. Identify ongoing data collection efforts and gaps, and recommend data format
and exchange methods. (Lead—Science Sub-group)
29
-------
3. Establish interagency project teams for each of the major Corps environmental
restoration projects. (Lead—Corps of Engineers)
Interagency project teams will provide the Corps with input regarding project
objectives, alternative plan formulation and evaluation, and project design and construction.
Periodic team meetings and updates should be held throughout project planning, design, and
construction, with participation, when appropriate, of Department of Agriculture and
Department of Transportation agencies.
WATER QUALITY AND SUPPLY
One of the keys to ecosystem restoration is water quality and supply. These
recommendations focus on water management from this perspective, emphasizing new ways
to re-use water, encourage its conservation, and move it effectively from one part of the
system to another. For additional background on these issues, see Appendices E, F, and M.
1. Restore more historic volume, timing, and location of freshwater flow to
Everglades, Florida Bay, Biscayne Bay, and other bodies. (Lead—Corps, with
coordination and cooperation of all federal agencies and SFWMD)
2. Encourage water conservation and re-use. (Lead—EPA and SFWMD)
SFWMD, with the cooperation of all federal agencies, will encourage such approaches
as use of nutrient-enriched waters for golf courses and agricultural lands; bricks or other
devices in toilets; and more efficient, water-saving shower heads; plus establishment of
water supply reserves.
3. Perform studies to reclaim waste water, and to redirect stormwater from western
Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties inland rather than toward the coast.
(Lead—Corps, with USGS)
Using G1S and other tools, prepare countywide comprehensive plans for the reuse of
treated wastewater in such areas as golf courses, county parks and the lands around public
buildings. Conduct waste water reuse pilot studies on different substrate, including rock
land of south Dade County, and examine the effects of waste water reuse on water quality
in associated ground and surface waters. Also determine the economic and ecological
impacts/costs of redirecting some stormwater runoff inland to proposed catchment areas.
4. Use hydrologic models to test various landscape scenarios on undeveloped lands
for their effect on supply and management flexibility. (Lead—USGS)
5. Study feasibility of reducing trihalomethane formation in drinking water through
water management to reduce organic carbon content of surface and seepage
water recharging the Biscayne aquifer. (Lead—EPA and DEP)
30
-------
6. Develop a water budget for south Florida. (Lead—Corps, with USGS and
SFWMD)
Accomplish this through authorization for a feasibility study.
7. Determine water quality status throughout the system and use a monitoring
program to determine constituent loads. (Lead—USGS, NBS, NPS, Corps, NOAA,
EPA)
8. Seek authority under Clean Water Act to regulate all nonpoint sources of
pollution in south Florida, and to provide up-front matching funds to local
governments for nonpoint pollution abatement, including authority to recover
costs from polluters. (Lead—EPA)
9. Determine critical pollutant numeric threshold levels adequate for native flora
and fauna preservation. (Lead—NPS, NBS, USFWS, EPA)
10. Determine sources, mechanisms, and environmental conditions resulting in
biological accumulation of mercury and take appropriate remedial action.
(Lead—EPA, NPS, USGS, NBS, USFWS, NOAA, State of Florida)
11. Investigate the biological hazards posed by other contaminants routinely applied
in south Florida and take remedial actions as warranted. (Lead—EPA)
Florida's sandy soils and highly permeable substrate make pesticide contamination a
particular concern with regard to protection of aquatic life and drinking water quality.
Several massive mortalities of fish and other aquatic life have been reported in association
with heavy rains shortly after the application of Neniacur (active ingredient fenamiphos) to
golf courses.
12. Identify and ensure numeric standards are in place for key pollutants in
ecosystem waterbodies. (Lead—EPA)
WETLAND PERMITTING AND MITIGATION STRATEGY
The way wetland permitting and mitigation are carried out will have a significant
impact on ecosystem restoration in south Florida. The following recommendations should
help ensure wetland protection as part of the restoration effort. For additional background
on this issue, see Appendix G.
1. Develop a South Florida Ecosystem Wetland Conservation Plan by September
1996, including completion of the 5 tasks identified under Appendix G.
(Lead-Corps, EPA, FWS, NRCS)
2. Require an annual report to be submitted by the Interagency Working Group to
the Task Force that summarizes the effect of the federal 404 wetland fill
permitting program on the south Florida environment. This report will contain
31
-------
information by county for the number of permit applications received (for
individual and general permits, including nationwide permits), number of
permits modified prior to approval, number of permits approved, number of
permits denied, number of veto actions, wetland acreage filled in original
application and in approved permit, and mitigation required. (Lead—Corps,
FWS, EPA, NRCS)
3. Develop and maintain a wetland permitting information database that facilitates
completion of these reports as well as ongoing efforts to assess the cumulative
effects of the wetland permitting program on the goal of south Florida ecosystem
restoration and the region's remaining natural resource base. (Lead—Corps,
EPA, FWS, NRCS)
4. Integrate the federal wetland permitting program with ongoing federal planning
activities and ongoing county comprehensive planning programs. (Lead—Corps,
EPA, FWS, NRCS)
5. Form a Wetland Interagency Coordination Group (WICG) that meets regularly
to ensure that wetland regulatory, permitting and planning activities arc
proceeding on a timely basis; discuss and resolve emerging permitting and
ecosystem restoration issues; and discuss pending permit applications. This
would cut review time, reduce correspondence, and lead to increased uniformity
and consensus. (Lead—Corps, EPA, FWS, NMFS, NRCS)
6. Identify wetlands of particular ecological significance (critical areas). Their
functionality should be assessed in a manner that incorporates a holistic
consideration of the functions that the particular wetland (and upland) provides
to the greater ecosystem. These assessments and identification of critical areas
must be performed in a coordinated manner by the federal agencies involved in
permitting processes. (Lead—Corps, EPA, FWS, NRCS)
7. Increase emphasis on wetland enforcement and on permit compliance to ensure
that the wetland regulatory program and mitigation requirements are providing
projected benefits. Expand funding of contracts for monitoring and compliance
to ensure that mitigation is providing projected benefits. (Lead—Corps, EPA,
FWS, NRCS)
8. If appropriate, Corps may deny a permit or EPA initiate a 404(c) action to avoid
wetland loss or irrevocable changes to a particular area so that restoration
initiatives are not precluded. (Lead—Corps, EPA)
9. Invite local governments to evaluate any programs they have that match the
current federal ones and invite them to submit delegation ideas. (Lead—Corps)
10. Increase the south Florida presence of agencies with limited or no local satellite
offices by increasing travel funds, co-location of offices, or relocating personnel to
south Florida. (Lead—IWG)
32
-------
11. Develop a uniform wetland assessment approach that produces consistent
assessments of wetland functions and filling impacts. (Lead—Wetlands
Interagency Coordination Group [WICG])
12. Identify specific critical areas that require watershed management plans and
recommend priorities. (Lead—WICG)
13. Prepare and update master map of activity along urban-natural edge, including
permits, restoration projects, and planning efforts. (Lead—FWS)
14. Evaluate potential conflicts between proposed development projects and the
recommended restoration projects contained within this plan. If appropriate,
initiate an EIS if there is a conflict in an identified critical area. (Lead-WICG)
15. Expedite completion of Advanced Identification of Disposal Area projects
(ADIDs). (Lead—EPA)
16. Invite state and local agencies to present their comprehensive plans to the group
and provide a formal opportunity to comment (or provide information on federal
efforts) on the plans. These comments would be coordinated with the other
entities of the Interagency Working Group. (Lead—WICG)
17. Encourage establishment of mitigation banks through new legislative authority to
provide seed money or loan guarantees and through expedited review of bank
applications. (Lead—ITF, in coordination with the federal/state review process)
18. Seek legislative authority to return fines and fees collected during the regulatory
process back to the restoration effort. Ensure that these funds are used to
achieve wetland conservation or preservation goals. (Lead—ITF, Corps)
HABITAT RESTORATION-EXOTIC PLANTS AND ANIMALS
The introduction of exotic flora and fauna have contributed to the decrease of native
communities. The following recommendations are aimed at controlling exotics in the south
Florida ecosystem. For additional background on this issue, see Appendices H and M.
1. Assign a representative(s) of the Working Group or Science sub-Group to the
Federal Interdepartmental Committee for the Management of Noxious Exotic
Weeds; help organize a similar interagency group to coordinate and integrate
research and management of nonindigenous animals. Integrate efforts with state,
local and non-government entities.
2. Establish separate working groups for plants and animals to develop
comprehensive multi-species management plans for control of invasive or
otherwise harmful nonindigenous species. (Lead—Departments of Interior and
Agriculture)
33
-------
Include state and county entities and assign responsibilities to specific agencies and
individuals at all government levels. Adopt the Exotic Pest Plant Council's current list to
identify invasive plant species recognized as problems. Determine the magnitude of
infestation and the relative threat to natural areas to help prioritize critical target areas and
species for eradication efforts. Encourage and assist the coordination of programs and
management efforts, as well as the sharing of information on eradication techniques.
Provide region-wide perspective for addressing issues. Assist with funding and incentive
programs.
3. Provide funding for increased research to prevent, halt, or reverse invasions by
nonnative species. (Lead—Corps, NBS, NPS)
With respect to plants, more work is needed on (1) biological control agents, (2)
factors that affect the invasibility of natural areas, (3) environmental requirements and
phenology of particular problem species as these relate to their vulnerability to specific
controlled burning or water management regimes, and (4) habitat restoration strategies to
control re-invasion by non-indigenous species after their removal. With respect to animals,
research is needed on how nonindigenous species reproducing in the wild have impacted
food webs, community structure, and populations of species in natural areas in which they
have become established.
For both animals and plants, research is needed to develop methods of screening and
risk assessment to prioritize efforts at all stages of control (importation, distribution,
eradication). Developing effective criteria for identifying and screening potentially invasive
exotics before they become well established will help to focus preventive efforts.
Coordinate through the Science Sub-group the use of research findings to support
management and operational procedures.
4. Fully fund the Melaleuca Biological Control Quarantine Facility and biological
control investigations and continued eradication efforts by federal, tribal, state,
and local agencies for melaleuca, brazilian pepper, and other high priority
problem species. (Lead—Corps, DOA/ARS)
Funds could be raised through user and recreational fees.
5. Promote development of organized, holistic control strategies to protect natural
areas that emphasize prevention of invasions by nonindigenous species. (Lcad-
FWS, ARS)
Target the three stages of introduction: importation, propagation, and distribution.
Preventive efforts might include import restrictions, local planting ordinances, and public
education. Implement the recommendations in OTA (1993) that address the problem of
potentially invasive new imports of both plants and animals. Consider proposing new
legislation and/or lengthening the list of species prohibited from importation under the
Lacey Act (Lead—FWS).
34
-------
6. Require the use of native species for all landscaping of federal property,
including federal buildings, prohibit the planting of invasive nonindigenous
species on public lands, and institute vigorous control actions against existing
stands. (Lead—ITF)
Adopt the Exotic Pest Plant Council's list for prohibition and eradication. Develop
policy requirements prohibiting the use of invasive nonindigenous species for landscaping
federally funded projects such as highways and greenbelts. Urge that state and local
governments act similarly. Urge state, local, and non-government groups to use native
vegetation, rather than drought- tolerant non-native species, in xeriscape programs.
7. Identify existing monitoring programs and ensure they are complementary, not
duplicative. (Lead-FWS, NBS, NPS)
Ensure that basic variables are defined and measured the same way so that data can
be analyzed across areas, not just locally. Support the activities of the COVER Group
(Colloqui of Vegetation Everglades Research). Develop a computerized atlas of ongoing
monitoring programs.
8. Reallocate existing funding or testify for appropriation of additional funding to
support a multi-pronged approach to controlling harmful nonindigenous species.
(Lead-FWS)
Emphasize non-aquatic species to close the gap in control efforts between aquatic and
non-aquatic species.
9. Document the present nature and extent of invasion of south Florida's natural
areas by non-native plant species and prepare a summary report. (Lead—NBS)
Quantify and map invasions of selected areas, prioritized according to
representativeness, sensitivity, or special concerns. Use the resulting report to prepare
brochures and to prioritize critical target areas. Coordinate with the Florida DEP effort and
the COVER group.
10. Design and implement public education and training programs. (Lead-FWS)
Raising public awareness of the role of invasive nonindigenous species in south
Florida's ecosystem degradation is integral to effective solutions. Certification training
classes should be developed for workers involved with screening imports or enforcing
ordinances. Landowners should be encouraged to remove exotic pest plants and replant
with natives.
11. Establish a horticultural program to develop sterile cultivars of popular and
widely used but invasive non-native ornamental plants, such as certain flowering
trees and Ficus species. (Lead—Department of Agriculture)
35
-------
12. Encourage and support the inclusion of nonindigenous species eradication efforts
in mitigation and compensation plans. (Lead—USFWS)
HABITAT RESTORATION AND RECOVERY PLAN-
NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA
Controlling or eradicating exotic plants and animals are not enough. Protection of
native flora and fauna also requires strong directive actions. Many species within the
region are declining: there are 56 federally listed threatened or endangered species and 29
candidate species. Because of the importance of habitat to survival, a major focus should be
protection and enhancement. Emphasis on habitat dictates a multi-species approach, that
will not only be more effective, but will provide better orientation toward whole ecosystem
restoration than single-species management. For additional background on these issues, see
Appendices I, J, and M.
1. Identify all federally listed threatened and endangered species; then refine the list
to exclude those with limited distribution in south Florida^ (Lead—FWS)
Review the project boundaries established by the Task Force and list threatened and
endangered species within those boundaries.
2. Map species distribution and key habitat associations, as well as land use
classification, master plan designations, and land ownerships. (Lead—FWS, NBS)
Compare species' spatial distribution with public land use maps, integrating species
information with land use classification, master plan designations, and ownership. Identify
gaps in habitat protected under public ownership or restricted land use categories. Develop
strategies to protect poorly covered species.
3. Develop a team of individuals representing involved agencies and land managers
to help develop a multi-species recovery report. (Lead—FWS)
4. Establish a south Florida ecosystem endangered species coordinator. (Lead—
FWS)
The coordinator will serve as the central contact for endangered species recovery
issues of the ecosystem.
5. Develop multi-species strategies and long-term goals, including analysis of
ongoing recovery efforts. (Lead—FWS)
Review on-going actions to determine if they can be combined to benefit multiple
species (e.g. combining snail kite and wood stork surveys with annual surveys for wading
birds). Develop recovery goals that identify essential research and management actions,
focusing on improving coordination among managers. Identify specific lands important to
recovery efforts and take actions toward land protection and/or land management (e.g.,
36
-------
prescribed burning or water management for improved hydroperiods or improved water
quality).
6. Conduct research aimed at restoring the structure of native floral and faunal
communities. (Lead—FWS, NBS)
Research must: 1) assess status and trends of wildlife populations and habitat
resources such as vegetative communities, periphyton, and coral reefs, and 2) identify and
understand effects on natural community structure and productivity of major influencing
factors (e.g., nutrients, mercury, pesticides, habitat alteration, hydrologic alterations, and
global change). Research on threatened and endangered species must: 1) identify species
"on the brink" of listed species status; 2) determine the ecological requirements for species
recovery, especially considering interaction with other native flora and fauna (using GIS-
based, integrated, multi-species approach); 3) assess status and trends of all threatened and
endangered species, and ongoing interactions with other native flora and fauna (also using
GIS-based, integrated, multi-species approach).
7. Initiate projects to improve habitat. (Lead—FWS)
These may include: 1) adding or removing water control structures; 2) changing
hydrologic operational criteria; or 3) implementing management actions involving control of
exotic plants, fire, or grazing, as well as establishment of sanctuary areas. Highest priority
should be given to increasing spatial extent of wetlands or sheet flow, or returning the
natural habitat heterogeneity of wetlands.
8. Predict and assess various water management alternatives using adaptive
management processes. Develop models to assess restoration alternatives.
(Lead—NBS)
9. Research and identify spatial thresholds that relate wildlife population dynamics
to conditions of water and vegetation patterns. Determine the response of
vegetative habitats to improved spatial and temporal water conditions.
(Lead—NBS)
Support research: 1) relating forage fish and invertebrate population dynamics to
conditions of water depth, timing, and duration over the habitat mosaics of south Florida's
ecosystem; 2) relating habitat conditions (hydroperiods, hydiopatterns, water depth, forage
base dynamics, and vegetation patterns) to wading bird abundance, distribution, and
reproductive success; and 3) relating spatial extent of the ecosystem to the sustainability of
viable populations of wading birds and their forage base (including relationship of spatial
thresholds and water condition constraints to sustained reproductive success of the wading
birds and their associated prey).
10. Determine recovery potential of habitats impacted by excessive nutrients, and
determine thresholds for undesirable conversions. (Lead—NBS)
37
-------
11. Initiate and sustain routine system-wide monitoring of wading bird populations,
as well as incorporate critical needs criteria for wading birds into permitting
process. (Lead—FWS, NBS)
Integrate systematic reconnaissance flights (SRF) and SFWMD efforts and expand to
cover entire ecosystem. (Lead—NBS)
12. Establish ecosystem-wide databases of contacts, jurisdiction and authorities, and
GIS-based spatial data. (Lead—USGS)
These data bases will include: 1) a list of contact points, agencies, and organizations
involved in habitat management throughout the ecosystem; 2) a summary of agency
jurisdiction and authorities over large tracts of natural areas; and 3) a GIS-based system for
compiling, organizing, and managing spatial data.
13. Restore the Richmond federal pineland and adjacent properties. (Lead—FWS)
Support the Dade County Park and Recreation Department in their FEMA funding
request to restore the Richmond federal pineland properties, as well as adjacent county- and
University of Miami-owned pineland and Navy Wells properties.
14. Restore natural fire regimes (including prescribed burns) and develop
educational material on the role of fire. (Lead—NBS)
15. Use disturbed sites (levees, abandoned railroad right- of-ways, and power line
right-of-ways) to develop wildlife corridors; and require use of native plant
species in greenways. (Lead—FWS and NPS)
Encourage, plant, and maintain native vegetation appropriate to the soil, microclimate,
hydrologic conditions, and nearby native plant communities. Also, require that projects
qualify for federal funding only if landscaped with native plant species and/or if existing
native vegetation is not destroyed.
16. Enforce laws and develop educational materials to prevent human disturbance of
rookeries, nesting areas, and den sites. (Lead—FWS)
HABITAT RESTORATION-NEAR COASTAL WATERS
To be successful, habitat restoration and recovery must include provisions to restore
the effectiveness of near coastal waters. These suggested provisions follow. For additional
background on these issues, see Appendix K.
1. Identify gaps in existing programs consistent with objectives identified for
ecosystem restoration. (Lead—NOAA)
38
-------
The first step to habitat restoration and recovery is identifying federal, state and local
programs consistent with south Florida's ecosystem restoration strategy. The next step is
identifying the "gaps" as they apply to the following areas:
Habitat Restoration: The following projects will help restore and sustain healthy
ecosystem conditions encouraging natural processes, functions, and cycles to continue or be
re-established:
Initiate the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project Restudy feasibility phase to
aid in long-term strategic identification of portions of the ecosystem where
hydrological restoration can occur, taking into consideration potential adverse impacts
to all coastal ecosystems from manipulating the flood control system;
Initiate construction on the C-111 environmental restoration project to provide more
freshwater into Taylor Slough;
Purchase lands identified in the Everglades Forever Bill and expedite restoration
necessary to prepare the land for hydrological use;
Implement the Lower East Coast Water Supply Plan;
Maximize restoration of water flow under US 1 along the 18 mile stretch proposed for
widening, including mitigation projects proposed by the Florida Department of
Transportation (e.g. filling in canals, restoring habitats, and installing culverts);
• Remove the old US I bridges in the Keys that impede water circulation between
Florida Bay, the Gulf, and the Atlantic Ocean (the new replacement bridges, built
after DOT widened US 1, are supported by smaller pilings that don't impede ebb and
flood tidal cycles like the older bridges);
• Continue Coastal America projects such as those used to install mooring buoys to
protect critical habitats;
• Implement NOAA's damage restoration plan for coral reefs impacted by ship and
small vessel groundings;
Expand NOAA's seagrass restoration project at a site damaged by prop-wash
deflectors; and
Remove old fill areas that impede water circulation along shorelines and between
embayments.
Water Quality Management: At a minimum, several Keys projects addressing water
quality must be implemented:
The Water Quality Protection Program (WQPP) for the FKNMS, with implementation
to address deterioration of water quality in Florida Bay, eutrophication of near-shore
39
-------
waters, sources of nutrients entering the near-shore waters of the Keys, and
stormwater run-off;
Point source discharge permit programs;
• Identification of non-point discharge sources, along with implementation of
management/grant programs;
Stormwater treatment programs;
Enforcement of septic tank regulations;
Identification and removal of illegal cess pits;
Installation of marina pump-out facilities;
• On-site Sewage Disposal System Demonstration projects;
• Alternative Waste Water Treatment demonstration projects;
Study of the Key West Sewage outfall plume; and
• Local existing water quality management plans for specific water bodies.
Species/Habitat Management: Managing use of natural resources (commercial,
sport fisheries, and others) to maintain sustainable populations depends on coordination
among involved state and federal agencies, as well as increased focus on such permit
programs as point source discharge and dredge/fill. What follows is a partial list of habitat
management plans and actions for the Florida Keys and the coral reef community that must
be implemented to ensure management of natural resources for sustainable populations:
Monroe County's land use plan;
• Proposed marine zoning plan (FKNMS);
Protection of significant habitats (e.g., seagrasses, hard bottoms, coral reefs) from
direct impacts (FKNMS DEIS/MP);
• Management action plans contained in the DEIS/MP for the FKNMS (e.g., channel
marking plan, mooring buoy plan, regulatory plan, etc.);
USFWS Backcountry Management Plan and other refuge management plans;
• Dredge and fill permitting program(s);
Endangered species recovery plans in Keys; and
40
-------
• agencies' management plans.
Public Education: The education staff of the FKNMS has prepared a directory of
the Florida Keys' environmental education programs. The programs that need support are:
• Florida Bay Watch Program, using citizens and various user-groups to monitor water
quality in and around the Florida Bay;
• Coral Watch Program, using interested individuals to monitor Florida Keys corals;
FKNMS' Education Action Plan;
• On-going NPS educational programs;
• On-going FWS education program used on refuges;
• Environmental education plans developed by grass roots, local, state, and federal
organizations, using FKNMS' Education Action Plan as a mechanism for
coordination; and
• Non-government organizations capable of getting information to the public.
2. Develop programs to expand existing programs and fill in the gaps.
(Lead—NOAA)
After existing programs have been integrated and research ascertains specific impacts
to the coastal areas, additional management measures will likely be necessary, among them:
Use acquired land in the proposed buffer zone for treating upland runoff;
Identify and prioritize sites suitable for habitat restoration/improvement activities and
pursue this under existing programs such as Coastal America or the dredge and Fill
permitting program (mitigation);
• Enhance enforcement of existing regulations (e.g. septic tank operation, dredge and
fill, NPDES, bilge dumping, prop dredging); and
• Implement public education efforts through radio/tv public service announcements,
brochures, school curriculum supplements, and speaker's bureau.
3. Identify sources of coastal system degradation through research efforts
coordinated with the Science sub-group. (Lead—NOAA and NPS)
LAND-BASED PROTECTION
Restoring the mosaic of land and water also requires land acquisition. Since
opportunities to restore spacial scale and habitat heterogeneity are diminishing as growth
41
-------
continues, it is critical that south Florida re-examine land use planning and move to
preserve critical wetlands that still exist and may be at risk. In many cases this may require
the quick acquisition of land that is possible only through the establishment of a South
Florida Restoration Land Trust. The federal government needs to work in partnership with
state and local governments responsible for land use planning, especially because it
influences land use through many of its programs and policies. The importance of land-
based protection is reflected in the following recommendations. For additional background
on these issues, see Appendix L.
1. Establish an ad hoc interagency team. (Lead—NPS)
A land acquisition strategy would be developed by an ad hoc interagency team made
up of agencies with land purchasing authority and those interested in preserving natural
resources impacted by land use (e.g. Corps, NPS, FWS, SFWMD, NOAA, EPA, local
county agencies).
2. Develop a land acquisition strategy (including the feasibility of a Restoration
Land Trust) and prioritization criteria. (Lead—ad hoc interagency team)
Tentative elements of the land acquisition strategy include: 1) Addressing relevant
issues identified above; 2) Exploring establishment of a South Florida Restoration Land
Trust with the following capabilities and benefits:
• Obtaining and holding land acquisition funds;
• Anticipating opportunities and needs for specific land parcels; and
• Streamlining the land acquisition process using avenues available to private
developers.
3) Developing criteria with which to establish priorities for:
• Natural resource value of the land;
Regional water table sensitivity to land development (based on elevation,
permeability, etc.);
Potential usefulness of land to south Florida's overall restoration;
A buffer between areas of differently managed water levels;
• A flowway for water conveyance;
• Along canals to create littoral zones (on gradual inclined banks);
• Predicting relevant land use changes;
42
-------
• Mapping organic soil thickness;
• Analyzinging master plan alterations/zoning changes; and
Analyzing permit applications.
SCIENCE PROGRAM
A strong science program is integral to ecosystem restoration. Without it effective
decisions could not be made on hydrology, flora and fauna, and all the other aspects critical
to restoration that have been expressed in the previous recommendations. A strong science
program is recommended here as a critical tool for carrying out all aspects of ecosystem
restoration. For additional background on these issues, see Appendix M, as well as other
related appendices indicated above.
1. Develop an assessment protocol that helps focus modeling and monitoring
activities on predicting and measuring restoration success indicators. In
workshop settings, in interaction with model and monitoring planning, define
practical and sensitive indicators, starting with the restoration success criteria
recommended in the Science Sub-group Report. (Lead—Science Sub-group)
First, select a set of indicators for which sufficient baseline information and
understanding is available to support their immediate use. Then propose a second set of
potential indicators for which baseline information should be developed to allow their
eventual use.
2. Develop a monitoring plan, bringing together in workshop settings the major
participants in present and proposed monitoring efforts. (Lead—Science Sub-
group)
Conduct special topic workshops, as for instance, the geospatial workshop of
September, 1994.
3. Establish groups to model the hydrologic, hydrodynamic, landscape,
meteorologic, and ecologic processes of the south Florida restoration area, taking
into account existing models. (Lead—Science Sub-group)
The first step will be development of a hydrologic model for the south Florida land
base. Existing models will be upgraded and new ones developed for areas not yet covered
by hydrologic models. Hydrologic models will provide input for hydro-dynamic models
being developed to predict circulation, mixing, and salinity patterns in Florida Bay as a
function of freshwater inflow and other variable factors. The set of models will consist of a
3-dimensional model for Florida Bay, quantified for operating in 2 dimensions until
sufficient data to support 3-D runs can be obtained, and a regional numerical ocean
circulation modeling system that can provide boundary conditions for the Florida Bay
model. Ecological models that relate species, populations, communities, and landscapes to
the simulation outputs of hydrologic or hydrodynamic models will provide an objective a
43
-------
prior way to evaluate alternative water management strategies for their influence on the
ecosystem.
4. Provide an institutional framework, including a home and consistent funding, for
each of the major types of modeling. (Lead--ITF, with advice from Science Sub-
group)
Support model development, maintenance, upgrading, and application to assessment
and other restoration needs.
5. Upgrade the hydrologic monitoring network to improve present flow estimates
and to cover areas presently not covered. (Lead—Science Sub-group, USGS,
NPS)
An expansion of the hydrologic monitoring network is needed to provide more
complete and accurate data on surface and groundwater flows to estuaries. This
information is critical to hydrologic model testing and refinement and to restoration
planning and assessment. It will enable more accurate water budgets to be constructed and
will provide baseline data from which to evaluate operational changes that affect surface
and groundwater flows to Biscayne Bay, Florida Bay, and west coast estuaries.
6. Develop the information base for application of the adaptive management
approach, emphasizing the building of understanding and assessment capability.
(Lead—Science Sub-group)
Promote research integrated with modeling and monitoring. Emphasize the
acquisition of information that can be used in assessment to support the adaptive
management strategy.
7. Encourage the developing landscape studies program consisting of modeling,
retrospective paleontological studies, trend and gradient analyses, and
monitoring. (Science Sub-group, NBS)
Landscape models are needed that simulate vegetation succession as a function of the
hydrologic regime and aperiodic events, incorporate land shaping processes such as soil
accretion and soil subsidence, can interact with hydrologic models to affect hydrologic
processes, and can provide the explicit spatial framework necessary for models of species
and communities that are influenced by landscape patterns.
A landscape studies program that includes landscape modeling is underway and needs
further support and some reorientation to meet the modeling needs described above.
Complementary projects are being carried out at the South Florida Water Management
District (ELM) and in a cooperative project by ENP/NBS/ORNL (ATLSS).
Paleontological studies provide retrospective perspectives and complement models that
hindcast previously existing conditions.
44
-------
8. Perform research to develop technology for maintaining current agricultural
harvest levels with zero soil subsidence in the Everglades Agricultural Area
(EAA). (Lead—Department of Agriculture/ARS)
Such research would help determine: 1) required annual period for maintaining
saturated soils; 2) required maximum water table depth during other times; and 3) most
water tolerant cultivars of existing crops. Plant breeding and biotechnology would be used
to encourage this trait.
Supporting work should evaluate the present C&SF Project for its capability to
support on-farm water management for zero-subsidence agriculture, and design
modifications to provide this support. Hydrologic models should be used to evaluate the
effect of a summer-flooding-based, zero-subsidence agriculture in the EAA and a supportive
redesigned C&SF Project on 1) the timing and volume of water released from the EAA to
the Water Conservation Areas and 2) seasonal conveyance capacity from Lake Okeechobee
through the EAA.
9. Use hydrologic models to test, for their effect on water supply and water
management flexibility, various land use scenarios for the undeveloped lands in
western Dade, Broward, and Palm Beach Counties east of the Water
Conservation Area levees. (Lead—Corps, USGS)
Both local governments and permitting agencies have little perspective on the
cumulative effects of land use decisions, particularly as they relate to water. Evaluations of
cumulative effects of potential land use changes on water supplies and water management
flexibility is needed.
10. Ensure agencies have the authority to address ecosystem-wide issues. (Lead—
ITF)
11. Provide continuous funding as an integral part of restoration operations budgets
for this multi-year adaptive management effort. (Lead—ITF)
Adaptive management for ecosystem restoration requires continual predictions and
feedback from the interactive modeling, monitoring, and research efforts—and thus,
continuous funding.
12. Ensure resources to support the planning, coordination, and oversight activities
of the Science Sub-group. (Lead—ITF)
45
-------
APPENDIX A:
INTERAGENCY TASK FORCE WORKING GROUP MEMBERS
David Wesley, State Supervisor
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310
Jacksonville, FL 32216
W: 904/232-2580
F: 904/232-2404
Billy Causey, Sanctuary Superintendent
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
P. O. Box 500368
Marathon, FL 33050
W: 305/743-2437
F: 305/743-2357
Ralph Gonzales, Eastern Area Office
Bureau of Indian Affairs
3701 N. Fairfax Drive
Arlington, VA 22201
W: 703/235-2571
F: 703/235-5565
Peter Outerbridge, Assistant U. S.
Attorney
U. S. Department of Justice
155 S. Miami Avenue, Suite 600
Miami, FL 33130-1693
W: 305/536-5477
F: 305/530-7139
Col. Terry L. Rice, District Engineer
U. S. Army Corps of Engineers
P. O. Box 4970
Jacksonville, FL 32232
W: 904/232-2241
F: 904/232-2237
John Vecchioli, District Chief
U. S. Geological Survey
227 North Bronough Street, Suite 3015
Tallahassee, FL 32301
W: 904/942-9500, ext. 3011
F: 904/942-9521
Dr. Brad Brown, Director
Southeast Fisheries Center
75 Virginia Beach Drive
Miami, FL 33149
W: 305/361-4284
F: 305/361-4219
Mike McGhee, Water Management
Division
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
345 Courtland St., NE
Atlanta, GA 30365
W: 404/347-4450
F: 404/347-5204
Col. Terrance Salt
Task Force Executive Director
U.S. Department of the Interior
6620 Southpoint Drive South, Suite 310
Jacksonville, FL 32216
Richard G. Ring, Superintendent
Everglades National Park
40001 State Road 9336
Homestead, FL 33034-6733
W: 305/242-7710
F: 305/242-7711
Ron Smola, Area Conservationist
Natural Resources Conservation Service
5700 Lake Worth Road
Lake Worth, FL 33466
W: 407/439-1770
F: 407/433-5233
James Weaver, Director
National Biological Survey
7920 N.W. 71st St.
Gainesville, FL 32606
W: 904/378-8181
F: 904/378-4956
46
-------
APPENDIX B:
SUSTAINABILITY
MAJOR ISSUE
Fundamental to ecosystem restoration and management is the concept of
sustainability. It must be the criteria by which any successful restoration effort is
measured. The concept recognizes that lasting solutions require a balance between
resolving urgent environmental concerns while providing for the essential needs of
development and industry-meeting the needs of the present without compromising the
ability of future generations to meet their own needs. More specifically, development and
economic activity in south Florida must be compatible with attainment of the over-arching
goal of south Florida ecosystem restoration and maintenance and the ecosystem must
support a healthy south Florida economy. Restoration must proceed within the context of a
healthy economic setting.
BACKGROUND
People are attracted to south Florida for many reasons. Some are very conscious of
the vast natural, undeveloped areas and routinely enjoy the recreational opportunities they
afford. Others choose to live in south Florida because of the mild climate or for family or
business interests. Many own undeveloped land which they plan to develop in the future as
retirement homes. All are part of a regional economy that is fundamentally based on how
the land is used or preserved. In general, economic growth in Florida is synonymous with
conversion of undeveloped "useless" land to another use. There is a growing recognition
that this "useless" land provides essential benefits to the general public. The challenge is to
describe these benefits in relevant terms and then determine the value of those benefits to
the general public.
In the past 90 years, the population of Florida has grown dramatically. The advent of
the railroad, modern conveniences such as air conditioning, channelization of water flow,
and subsequent drainage of wetlands have rendered once uninhabitable areas not only
inhabitable but, in concert with the mild climate of south Florida, most desirable.
The setting established by modernization created the nearly ideal conditions for south
Florida's two most significant industries, agriculture and tourism. A third key group of
regional industries is residential and light commercial development. Many commercial
enterprises and retirees are moving to Florida for its quality of life. Florida, particularly in
the south, continues to experience rapid growth. In 1945 the population of the 18 counties
that encompass the south Florida watershed was about 730,000. In 1990 the population in
these same counties was 6.3 million. Concurrent with this population growth has been the
conversion of natural lands (uplands and wetlands) within the region to urban, residential,
and agricultural land uses. Present estimates of population growth indicate an additional
tripling of the human population in south Florida within the next 50 years. The cycle of
increasing population requiring increasing commercial development paving the way for new
47
-------
population increases will repeat and will result in increased demands within the region for
water supply, flood control, shelter, transportation, and service needs.
The pressures of this growth on the ecosystem is producing clear signs of severe
stress. Loss of wetlands, invasions of non-native species, declines in water quality,
increases in the occurrence of ecological events such as marine-based algal blooms,
seagrass die-offs, mangrove decline, and coral diseases are a few of the manifestations of
ecosystem stress and if not corrected, threaten the economic vitality of key regional
economies. The ecosystem cannot sustain current pressures.
Recognition that humans are a part of the south Florida ecosystem is necessary to
ecosystem restoration planning. The restored south Florida ecosystem cannot and should
not be exactly the same as the system that existed prior to human intervention, because the
basic needs of human communities for flood control and water supply must be
accommodated.
Managers should not wait until scientific consensus is reached before taking action.
Ludwig et al. (1993) cite the California sardine fishery as an example of this danger. The
Pacific anchovy harvest plunged from 10 million metric tons per year to near zero
following a decision allowing liberal fishing limits and a series of El Nino events. There is
still scientific debate over the influence of exploitation versus El Nino events. Throughout
south Florida, and particularly in Florida Bay, this same dilemma appears. There are
conflicting opinions on the causes of the problems. Managers cannot wait for a complete
scientific understanding before taking prudent action. They must instead use the best
available information and be willing to accept reasonable risk in their actions.
In south Florida, the challenge is to restore the health and defining characteristics of
the regional ecosystem within the context of a vibrant economy. A healthy ecosystem is an
essential prerequisite to long-term sustainability of human communities and economic
endeavors. Water purification, clean air, and safe edible natural resources such as fish and
shellfish are provided by healthy ecosystems. We must develop and apply ecologically
friendly methods in agriculture, industry, and other human pursuits so that the health and
defining characteristics of the ecosystem are restored and its support functions for human
communities are operational. The future growth in south Florida must facilitate the halting
and eventual reversal of the varied and widespread symptoms of ecosystem decline. Public
and industry officials must embrace a sustainable development approach if the economy and
natural resources of south Florida are to thrive over the long term.
OBJECTIVES
The Interagency Working Group proposes four management objectives for sustainable
development:
Ensure that any development plans or permits for development are fully coordinated
among affected governmental agencies and are compatible with restoration of the
south Florida ecosystem.
48
-------
Ensure that existing development which has an adverse impact reduces or eliminates
degradation and that new development does not contribute to degradation.
• Develop and utilize a system-wide integrated mitigation plan, coordinating all levels
of government, which contributes to overall restoration.
• Ensure that regardless of any future development there is a sufficient land, water and
resource base to conduct the required natural resource restoration efforts.
Sustainability in south Florida will require an adaptive, multi-faceted approach
focusing on assessments, creative business alternatives, incentives and education. Enduring
solutions to economic and environmental problems are only as effective as the commitment
of the citizens who are part of that economy and environment. Therefore, public officials
should have a long-range view which provides the basis for the pragmatic, sequential
actions necessary for success.
49
-------
APPENDIX C:
COORDINATING AGENCY POSITIONS AND ACTIONS
MAJOR ISSUES
Ecosystem restoration activities are being undertaken by eleven agencies within six
federal departments. Numerous other federal agencies are engaged in significant programs
or projects in south Florida that have major effects on the success of restoration efforts
including: the widening of U.S. Route 1 to the Florida Keys, funded by the Federal
Highway Administration, and oil and gas permitting on federal lands and offshore waters
by the Bureau of Land Management. In addition, tribal governments and a wide variety of
state and local government agencies are actively involved in planning, regulatory activities,
and projects that target restoration goals or significantly affect ecosystem conditions. There
is a continuous need for the communication and coordination of strategies, plans, funding
proposals, project schedules, permit requirements, and program/project evaluations among
this array of agencies' activities to assure a comprehensive effort, avoid duplication,
maintain linkage of funding and schedules, resolve differing agency positions, and compare
results against overall objectives.
BACKGROUND
There are numerous groups, committees, advisory councils and commissions at work
in south Florida trying to address or coordinate some aspect of agency restoration effort.
Agencies' personnel regularly coordinate, consult, and resolve differences on specific
projects and programs.
While these extensive advisory and agency efforts accomplish a great deal, the total
number and compartmented nature of the efforts have substantial drawbacks. Typically,
these individual efforts can overlook some interested or affected party. Often they leave
agency differences unresolved, or without necessary approvals or realistic commitments.
This contributes to delays and misunderstandings until agency managers or higher
authorities are consulted.
The public and agency officials are often confused over which agency or
advisory/coordinating group is charged with, or can impact, a given restoration activity.
Frustration resulting from these circumstances often lead to misunderstanding,
confrontation, and/or unilateral action to obtain decisions or move a project forward. The
Interagency Working Group (IWG) has the charge and the opportunity to integrate the
federal side of the restoration effort and to create a strong link with state and local
activities.
50
-------
OBJECTIVE
Develop and implement a clear, unified process to: communicate status of restoration
plans and activities; coordinate priorities, funding, and implementation schedules among all
agencies; and quickly identify, confront, and resolve agency differences.
APPROACH
The Interagency Working Group will assign areas of coordination responsibility to
several sub-groups, including the existing Management, Science, and Projects Sub-groups
and add at least an information/education sub-group. Each will be required to routinely
meet and review all federal agency activity in the assigned area. The IWG will identify,
discuss, and work to informally coordinate and resolve matters of concern. It will provide
periodic opportunities for state and local agency presentations and public comment to
identify the full range of coordination issues and opportunities appropriate for consideration.
(Sub-group membership would be altered as appropriate to include state and local
government representatives and citizen advisors upon implementation of the
recommendations in Appendix M.) Each Sub-group will immediately bring items to the
attention of individual affected members, or to the full IWG if management action is
needed to expedite an effort or resolve an issue.
Each participating agency manager will dedicate the necessary personal time and staff
support to support this process on a continuing basis.
51
-------
APPENDIX D:
EXPEDITING CORPS RESTORATION PROJECTS
ISSUES/PROBLEMS
Congressional appropriations to the Corps for these projects have been adequate. Yet,
the rate of actual progress has often been disappointing, creating important problems in
expediting Corps restoration projects.
Environmental Evaluations: The single most difficult task in the design of any
environmental restoration project is predicting the potential benefits. Environmental
benefits must be described in a way that supports optimization of the project design and
justification of federal expenditures. This requires prediction of environmental impacts in
quantifiable terms. Unfortunately, in most cases, it is not possible to make quantifiable
predictions that are scientifically valid. This has necessitated the use of expert opinion and
has made documentation of project justification particularly difficult.
The lack of predictive ability has hampered design of restoration projects. For example,
both the Modified Water Deliveries to ENP and the C-lll projects were designed without
the benefit of a final operating plan. Necessary environmental data collection, evaluation,
and model development for use in developing an operating plan have not been completed.
This work will continue through construction of the project features. The structural systems
were designed to provide maximum operational flexibility.
Plan Formulation: The development of environmental restoration objectives and the
formulation of alternative plans to address those objectives have caused project delays.
Criticism of the Corps' plan formulation by other federal agencies has typically occurred as
a part of the final coordination of a plan formulation report and/or NEPA document. It is
very inefficient to attempt to modify project objectives or reformulate alternatives at this
stage of the process.
Environmental Monitoring: A lack of adequate environmental data has been a
consistent problem in environmental restoration projects. There is a lack of data that relates
ecologic and hydrologic parameters. Hydrologic data collection is generally adequate;
however, the available processes for sharing and transferring data need improvement.
There is generally a shortage of associated environmental data and a comprehensive
program to coordinate environmental monitoring studies is needed.
BACKGROUND
The Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project was designed and constructed by
the Corps of Engineers with the South Florida Water Management District (SFWMD) and
the St. Johns River Water Management District (SJRWMD) acting as the local sponsors.
The project serves the congressionally authorized purposes of flood control, urban and
agricultural water supply, prevention of salt water intrusion, recreation, navigation,
52
-------
protection of fish and wildlife resources, water supply for Everglades National Park (ENP),
and environmental restoration. The project area includes the Upper St. Johns River Basin,
the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, the Everglades Agricultural Area, the Water
Conservation Areas (WCA), and the lower east coast. In recent years, the dominant theme
of Corps studies and projects has been to develop and implement modifications to the water
management system that restore and enhance the region's natural resources while still
maintaining other authorized project purposes.
SCOPE
The Corps of Engineers is implementing a number of environmental restoration
projects in south Florida within the boundaries of the South Florida Water Management
District. The projects can be separated into four categories: operational modifications,
projects in the design and construction phase, plan formulation for authorized projects, and
plan formulation for projects to be recommended for authorization. These categories
encompass the full range of action from immediate improvements through operational
changes limited by the capability of the existing water management system to long-term
planning efforts addressing fundamental changes to the structural and operational system.
Operational Modifications: Operational modifications are changes to the operating
criteria of various features of the C&SF Project to restore more natural water conditions.
Operational modifications are constrained by the capabilities of the physical project features
and the need to protect the authorized project purposes.
(1) Lake Okeechobee Regulation Schedule Review: At the request of the SFWMD,
the regulation schedule is being reviewed to consider possible operational
modifications. High water levels associated with the current Lake Okeechobee
Regulation Schedule have altered the vegetative communities within the lake that
developed during years of lower lake schedules. A review of the regulation schedule
is being conducted to determine whether alterations should be made to correct this
problem. All associated impacts are being evaluated including water supply,
discharges to the estuaries, water quality, etc. Recommendations will be made in the
summer of 1994.
(2) WCA No. 1 Regulation Schedule Review: At the request of the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS), the regulation schedule for WCA No. 1 is being modified to
restore more natural water conditions for the benefit of nesting wading birds and snail
kites. The revised schedule will be implemented in the summer of 1994.
Design/Construction of Approved Projects: The basic designs of these projects
have been approved and detailed design and construction are proceeding, although some
modification of the design details may be appropriate as detailed design proceeds. NEPA
documentation for these projects is complete.
(1) Kissimmee River Restoration: The project consists of the revitalization of the
headwaters and restoration of the historic floodplain wetlands in the lower basin. In
the upper basin, Lakes Kissimmee, Cypress, and Hatchineha will be operated to
53
-------
achieve more natural water level fluctuations with respect to historic elevations and
seasonality. This will revitalize the peripheral marshes around the three lakes and will
reestablish historic flows to the lower basin. In the lower basin, about 25 miles of the
existing flood control canal will be filled and flow will be restored to about 50 miles
of the natural river channel. In so doing, about 29,000 acres of the historic wetland
habitat will be restored. Land acquisition is required in both basins for areas that will
be subjected to more flooding. The test fill construction contract has been awarded
and a ground-breaking ceremony was held in April 1994. Construction is scheduled
to take approximately 15 years.
(2) Modified Water Deliveries to ENP: The purpose of this project is to modify the
C&SF Project to restore more natural hydrologic conditions in Shark River Slough,
ENP's largest slough system. The project is being implemented in conjunction with
Department of Interior's acquisition of about 107,600 acres in the East Everglades for
incorporation into ENP. It includes the construction of water control structures,
canals, and levees in WCA No. 3 and the removal of a 10-mile-long canal and levee
to restore water flows through the historic flow-way. It also includes the construction
of two pump stations, a seepage levee, and a seepage collection canal to avoid adverse
impacts to adjacent developed areas. The first of five Feature Design Memorandums
for the project was approved in December 1993. Construction is scheduled to be
initiated in FY 1994.
(3) C- 111: The purpose of the C- 111 project is to modify the water management
system to restore more natural hydrologic conditions in Taylor Slough in ENP while
maintaining flood protection for the adjacent agricultural areas. The draft General
Reevaluation Report (GRR) recommends the acquisition of agricultural lands that lie
between the ENP boundary and L-31N and C- 111. A system of canals, levees, and
pumps will create a buffer zone and a floodwater detention/retention area between the
park and agricultural lands. This will enable the restoration of large areas of short
hydroperiod wetlands in the upper zone and headwaters of Taylor Slough. The
recommended plan also includes a pump and spreader canal to restore overland sheet
flow over an existing wetland north of the lower section of C-111. This project will
produce more natural flows to Florida Bay and a reduction in damaging freshwater
discharges to Manatee Bay/Barnes Sound. The GRR is undergoing final public and
agency review. If approved in June 1994, as scheduled, detailed design will be
initiated. Construction is scheduled to be initiated in FY 1996.
Plan Formulation of Authorized Projects: Only about 70 percent of the authorized
C&SF Project features have been constructed. For some of the authorized but
unconstructed projects, studies have been requested by SFWMD to determine whether
construction is still justified. Plan formulation and NEPA documentation for projects in
this category is under way.
(1) C-51 West: The original design for the C-51 project provided flood control
benefits to the eastern and western C-51 basins. Project features for the eastern basin
were completed in 1991. A Detailed Design Memorandum for the C-51 West project
features was under review in 1991. The report was withdrawn when negotiations
54
-------
related to the resolution of the Everglades litigation led to recommendations for
implementation of a modified C-51 plan. It was included in the Technical Mediated
Plan (TMP) that resulted from mediation discussions. Even though the mediation
reached an impasse, the federal government is still committed to implementing the
TMP, including the modified C-51 plan. The new plan would provide flood control
benefits, but it would also provide water quality enhancement and water supply
benefits. The physical features of the plan would be substantially altered. The
original 1,600 acre flood detention area would be expanded to form a larger shallower
Stormwater Treatment Area 1 East.
(2) Operational Studies for Shark Slough and Taylor Slough Water Deliveries:
Preliminary operating plans were developed for Modified Water Deliveries to ENP
and the C- 111 Projects as a part of the general design phase. However, reports for
both projects recognized the need for additional data collection and analysis and
recommended additional studies to develop operational strategies to optimize
environmental benefits. The Experimental Program of Modified Water Deliveries to
ENP has been underway since 1985. The testing program allows restoration of more
natural hydrologic conditions to the extent possible within the constraints of the
existing structural system. It is also enabling the collection of hydrologic and
ecologic data that can be used to develop an optimum operating plan. Although the
testing program initially only addressed Shark River Slough, it was expanded in July
1993 to include Taylor Slough. The testing program will continue through
completion of construction of the Modified Water Deliveries to ENP and C-lll
Projects. An adaptive management strategy is being used to enable the evolution of
the operational strategy as data is collected and analyzed, as the required hydrologic
and ecologic models are improved, and as other modifications are made to the water
management system (i.e., construction of Stormwater Treatment Areas,
implementation of the Lower East Coast Regional Planning Project recommendations,
construction of the West Dade well field, etc).
(3) Melaleuca Quarantine Facility: Federal and state agency efforts have been
underway to identify a biological control of Melaleuca infestation. To date, the
research has been performed in Australia, the native home of the trees. Congress has
authorized the Corps, in consultation with the U.S. Department of Agriculture, to
design and construct a quarantine facility required to complete the process of safely
identifying and introducing insects to south Florida. Once constructed, the facility
will be operated by the USDA.
(4) Manatee Protection: Manatees are a federally listed endangered species native to
Florida. The operation of certain C&SF Project water control structures and locks has
resulted in the death of manatees through crushing or drowning. A study is underway
to design modifications to the structures to prevent injury to manatees.
(5) Homestead and Cape Sable Canals: These canals are located at the southern end
of mainland Florida and are within ENP. They were constructed in the early 1900s
by local interests to drain wetlands. When ENP was established, the canals were
plugged with earthen dams. Extreme wind tides, waves, and water velocities that
55
-------
occurred as a result of Hurricane Andrew substantially damaged these plugs. Both
plugs leak badly and are in danger of total failure. If the plugs fail, fresh water
would drain from upstream shallow lakes and salt water would be allowed to intrude
freshwater areas. The Corps is designing a plan for permanent repair of these plugs.
Plan Formulation for Projects to be Recommended for Authorization: Congress
authorizes the Corps to study water resources problems to determine whether there is a
federal interest in implementing a solution. Currently, there are two pre-authorization
studies under way addressing environmental restoration in south Florida.
(1) C&SF Comprehensive Restudy: This study is reviewing the existing C&SF
Project with a view towards determining whether it should be modified to benefit the
environment. Flood control and water supply will also be evaluated. A
reconnaissance study will be submitted in November 1994. It is anticipated that
SFWMD will be the local sponsor. The Federal Interagency Task Force has played a
major role throughout the study process.
(2) Coast of Florida Erosion and Storm Effects Study: This study is a multi-year,
phased regional feasibility study examining the entire developed east coast ocean
shoreline and west coast gulf shoreline. The objective is to develop a comprehensive
understanding of the coastal processes and associated environmental resources to help
in the development of enhanced shore protection projects while reducing negative
project impacts. Geographic information system technology is being used in
developing the associated databases which will provide comprehensive information on
all associated natural and physical resources and processes in the region.
To help efficiently manage this study, the coastline has been sub-divided into five separate
regions, based on distinctive characteristics. The first region of study, presently nearing
completion, includes the Dade, Broward and Palm Beach County coastlines (Region III).
Two of the primary environmental databases include identification and quantification of
offshore hard grounds and sea turtle nesting information. Close to 1,000 new line miles of
side scan sonargrams were used to complete the hard ground database. Sand bypassing and
nearshore disposal/berm placement are two key alternatives under development in this
region. Over 20 such potential projects are being assessed in Region 111. Field
investigation of the four central east county coastlines will be initiated during FY 95. The
southwest coastline investigation is scheduled for initiation during FY 96.
OBJECTIVES
The Florida Working Group is expediting Corps projects that benefit the region's
natural resources by insuring that necessary information has been developed, creating
interagency project teams, and by installing and maintaining a hydrologic and ecologic
monitoring system.
No changes in the respective interagency roles are necessary in expediting Corps
restoration projects. The Corps of Engineers should continue to have the lead on these
projects with support provided from other agencies as appropriate. There should be a
56
-------
greater emphasis on interagency partnering continuously throughout the process. Of
particular note is the need for greater involvement of U.S. Department of Highway
Transportation in the execution of several restoration projects.
Central and South Florida Restudy Purpose
Find modification to restore the south Florida ecosystem while providing for other
water-related needs for the area.
The Interagency Working Group was asked by the Corps to provide consolidated
federal objectives of ecosystem restoration to the Corps' restudy team. Objectives were
provided to the Corps and were presented at public workshops conducted by the Corps.
Based on additional scientific information and public comments, they were refined by the
Corps' Study Team into a set of planning objectives.
• Objective #1 - Increase the total spatial extent of wetlands.
• Objective #2 - Increase habitat heterogeneity: (a) reestablish at least the minimum
threshold size of historic community types, (b) reestablish relative balance among
historic community types, (c) reduce fragmentation within and among community
types, and (d) reduce the extent of non-native plants and animals.
• Objective #3 - Restore hydrologic structure and function: (a) restore sheet flow, (b)
increase dynamic storage capacity, (c) restore hydrologic linkages, (d) restore more
natural hydroperiods, and (e) restore more natural water delivery characteristics to
estuaries and bays.
• Objective #4 - Restore water quality conditions: (a) restore more natural salinity
characteristics in estuaries and bays, and (b) restore more natural quality
characteristics.
• Objective #5 - Improve the availability of water: (a) improve efficiency in water use,
and (b) improve water supply.
Objective #6 - Reduce flood damages and improve water quality on Seminole and
Miccosukee tribal lands and deliver clean unpolluted water to the Everglades
ecosystem.
The Central and South Florida project is multi-purpose:
Flood control
Water control
• Water supply
• Fish and wildlife conservation
57
-------
Water delivery to Everglades National Park
Navigation
Recreation
58
-------
APPENDIX E:
WATER SUPPLY ISSUES-
AGRICULTURAL, URBAN AND ECOSYSTEM NEEDS
ISSUES/PROBLEMS
The increasing consumption of water by urban and agricultural areas and the resulting
competition for available water resources with the natural system may be the most serious
issue facing the south Florida ecosystem. The tremendous population growth in south
Florida during the last century and the urban growth and agricultural activities have placed
increasing demands on the region's water supply during the dry season. Dade County has
historically had the most rapid population growth; other counties within the region are
expected to experience greater future growth than Dade County, increasing fresh water
demands.
An underlying critical issue is providing a mandated adequate fresh water resource
base for restoration of wetlands and freshwater flow to Florida Bay and other estuarine
areas, while accommodating water needs of agriculture and urban interests. A critical issue
is providing for these water supply needs. Compounding the problem is the fact that pumps
in agricultural areas are not metered. Therefore, valid data regarding actual volumes of
water moving into and out of agricultural fields does not exist.
Ground water is the predominant source for public water supply in south Florida.
Ground water resources are utilized for potable, municipal, industrial, and agricultural
supplies virtually throughout the area. Surface waters are used for agricultural supply in the
BAA and for potable supply in a few communities bordering Lake Okeechobee. The
aquifers used for water supply are the Biscayne Aquifer in the southeast and surficial and/or
intermediate aquifers elsewhere.
Freshwater resources have been viewed as being abundant within south Florida.
Competition for the fresh water resources is of particular concern in those areas served by
the Biscayne Aquifer and the C&SF Project. The primary competitive demand is the need
for sufficient flow of water into the Everglades to support the unique wetland and aquatic
habitats that exist in the WCAs, ENP, Big Cypress National Preserve and other natural
resource assets. In the past, water supply was made a higher priority in decisions regarding
allocation of fresh water resources in the study area. Rainfall, the primary source of all
fresh water in the south Florida hydrologic system, is concentrated in May-October and
November-April is relatively dry.
Intensified withdrawals have stressed the aquifers used for water supply. One result
of these increased demands was an increase in salt water intrusion into fresh water aquifers.
In the Biscayne aquifer, the C&SF system of canals and control structures was effectively
used to minimize salt water intrusion from the ocean. Upward migration of mineralized
waters from deeper formations has not had a significant impact on water quality in the
Biscayne. In other areas, the surficial and intermediate aquifers have been affected both by
59
-------
landward migration of seawater in coastal areas and the upward migration of mineralized
waters from deeper formations in the interior. This trend will continue as these aquifers are
more intensively used as a result of growth.
A major issue regarding water resource management practices in south Florida is
conservation of the fresh water resource. Once conservation measures are in place, more
effective management practices, especially for the purpose of environmental protection
and/or enhancement, will be more easily implemented.
Water resources management activities have largely concentrated in the past on flood
control and water supply. Management activities are much more intense and
well-developed in the highly urbanized southeast coastline, the EAA, the WCAs, and the
agricultural areas in the vicinity of Homestead and Florida City, including the lands
managed by federal and state governments for their natural resource value, such as ENP.
Water supply practices in south Florida have the overall effect of diverting large
volumes of fresh water from natural system demands. Historically, this diversion has been
primarily from resources that might otherwise support hydrologic maintenance of wetland
and aquatic habitats in the Everglades. The periods of the greatest diversion occur in the
dry season when water resources are generally scarce and, therefore, when the potential for
adverse impacts to wetlands and aquatic habitats are greatest. This trend is likely to
increase in the foreseeable future, as major withdrawal points for water supply are moved
farther inland, closer to the recharge areas in the Everglades, and farther away from the
effects of salt water intrusion at the coastline, as in the Northwest well field, operational
since 1984, and the proposed West Dade well field, both owned and operated by the
Metro-Dade Water and Sewer Authority (MDWASA). These well fields are located
immediately adjacent to the WCAs in the western part of Dade County. Increased
agricultural pumpage in the East Everglades area will have a similar effect on the overall
availability of water for maintenance of natural resources in the overall Everglades system.
The Everglades Forever Act requires a 28 percent increase in the volume of water delivered
to the Everglades as compared to the annual volume delivered from 1979 to 1988. In
addition, Florida law requires the establishment of minimum flows and levels for the
Everglades.
Flood control practices in the study area have had the effect of reducing the volume
of fresh water storage in the overall system and of accelerating the movement and discharge
of excess wet season flows. In some areas, storage has been reduced through lowering of
the water table due to pumpage. In the EAA, subsidence of the land surface has occurred
due to oxidation of organic soils when exposed to unsaturated conditions. Greater volumes
of excess flow must therefore be routed to other storage points (the WCAs) or to discharge
points into estuarine or marine environments. This effect, coupled with expanding urban
and agricultural areas for which flood control must be provided, may necessitate the
movement of increasing volumes (estimated to be up to 25 percent) into storage or
discharge. This could accelerate the loss of fresh water resources from the system. Loss
also occurs from evapotranspiration in the open WCAs and from the large volumes
discharged to the marine environments.
60
-------
South Florida's rich deposits of organic soils are subsiding at a rate that suggests that
agriculture, as currently practiced in the EAA, is not sustainable. Maintenance of a low
water table as part of farming operations results in oxidation of the soil, which is underlain
by dense limestone rock. A review of research already conducted suggests it may be
feasible to grow conventional crops profitably practicing a zero subsidence agriculture. A
water management regime in phase with the seasonality of rainfall and more water-tolerant
cultivars could be the key. Such a management regime, while extending the lifetime of
agriculture in the area, could also be more hydrologically compatible with natural systems
downstream and could improve water quality.
The effects of the C&SF Project are in essence no different from those associated
with other flood control projects, and for that purpose the C&SF Project has functioned
effectively. Additional purposes to which the C&SF system have been put, such as
enhancing water supply and prevention of salt water intrusion, demonstrate the flexibility of
the system in responding to emerging water resource issues within the southeast portion of
the study area. The Modified Water Delivery Plan (MWDP), a proposed alteration of the
C&SF system of canals and control structures, has environmental enhancement as the main
purpose. This will be achieved by facilitating the delivery of fresh-water flow into Shark
River Slough, the major drainage feature of ENP. This is also a demonstration of the
inherent flexibility of the C&SF project, in that system modifications are proposed for a
purpose other than water supply or flood control.
Estuarine areas are impacted by freshwater releases from the C&SF Project. Large
regulatory releases adversely affect the salinity regime in the St. Lucie and Caloosahatchee
Estuaries. Estuarine areas, such as Florida Bay, have also been impacted by reductions of
freshwater flow. The Modified Water Deliveries to Everglades National Park Project, C-
111 General Revaluation Report, and Taylor Slough Demonstration Project are examples of
projects that could help improve freshwater flows.
Big Cypress Basin obtains ground water from unnamed surficial and intermediate
depth aquifers. The surficial aquifers are unconfined and the intermediate aquifers are
semi-confined to well-confined and all are vulnerable to contamination from surface
sources. These aquifers are generally more susceptible to saltwater intrusion both from a
landward migration of seawater and from up-welling of more mineralized waters from
underlying geologic formations.
BACKGROUND
Historically, the Kissimmee-Lake Okeechobee-Everglades watershed was part of one
large, hydrological and ecologically connected system. The watershed was a subtropical
landscape featuring shallow lakes, meandering river channels, sloughs, floodplains,
wetlands, and a gradual hydrologic gradient that moved water slowly from central Florida
to Lake Okeechobee through the Everglades, and ultimately discharging to Florida Bay,
Whitewater Bay, and the Gulf of Mexico.
The late 1800s brought the manipulation of the system to provide drainage, flood
protection, and water supply needs. The most extensive changes to the system are the
61
-------
result of construction of the Central & South Florida (C&SF) Project authorized by
Congress in 1948, designed and largely constructed by the Corps of Engineers. As a result
of the project, the existing hydrologic unit is a highly managed system of canals and levees,
and six major impoundment areas including Lake Okeechobee, a large (about 740 square
miles), shallow, subtropical lake with a marsh area of about 25 percent of the lake's
surface. At the southern end of the watershed lie the components of the historic Everglades
including the Everglades Agricultural Area (EAA), the Water Conservation Areas (WCAs)
and Everglades National Park (ENP). This highly managed hydrologic system has been
referred to as the lifeblood of south Florida.
Prior to drainage, the Everglades was up to 60 miles wide and stretched from Lake
Okeechobee southward to the southern tip of the state between Florida Bay and the Ten
Thousand Islands area. The EAA is a large (about 1100 square miles), highly productive
agricultural area of organic peat or muck soils south of Lake Okeechobee. The three
WCAs (located south and east of the EAA and west of the urbanized East Coast) make up
an area of about 1350 square miles: a large segment of the original Everglades. The
Everglades is an ecosystem that evolved under very limited nutrient supplies where minor
increases in nutrient supply have been attributed to have major ecosystem impacts.
Immediately west of the Everglades is the 2,400-square-mile Big Cypress Swamp
region. The Big Cypress National Preserve was established in 1974 and encompasses
574,000 acres (with an additional 146,000 acres authorized for acquisition).
The Florida Keys is a unique system composed of a string of islands 100 miles long
that extends from Key Largo in Biscayne Bay southwesterly to Key West. The Keys are
situated on the edge of an ocean shelf that separates the deep water of the Atlantic Ocean
from the shallow waters of the Gulf of Mexico. Biscayne Bay, a shallow, subtropical
ecosystem provides beauty, recreation, economic, and environmental benefits for south
Florida.
OBJECTIVES
Manage the hydrological conditions in the remaining undeveloped and potentially
restorable lands in a way that maximizes natural processes characteristic of the historic
south Florida ecosystem (including water quality, quantity, distribution, timing, and
biological integrity). Restoration of the natural system will be evaluated and implemented
to maximize the benefits to the overall ecosystem.
Develop and manage the total hydrologic system to maximize ecosystem restoration
while providing appropriate consideration to meeting the needs of urban, agricultural, and
man-made components. It is recognized that future management of the system will require
shared adversity where the full range of hydrologic needs cannot be fully met.
The Task Force, through the Interagency Working Group, needs to be an active
participant with the Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida to assure that
water supply issues are compatible with development and growth management in south
Florida.
62
-------
APPENDIX F:
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT STRATEGIES
MAJOR ISSUES
Water quality throughout the south Florida ecosystem has been a major issue for
many years. Nutrient enrichment has been identified as a concern for Lake Okeechobee,
the Everglades, the Indian River Estuary, and the Caloosahatchee River. Anthropogenic
nutrients or perturbations to nutrient cycling processes have been suggested by some as a
possible cause for symptoms of ecological degradation observed in Florida Bay (seagrass
die-off, algal blooms), the Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary, and the coral reef
system. Other water quality related issues include the widespread contamination of biota
throughout the Everglades region with mercury of unknown source(s), the contamination of
public drinking water supplies along the lower east coast with synthetic organic chemicals,
contamination of the Miami River, concern about the integrity of the Dade County Water
and Sewer Authority's Cross Biscayne Bay municipal sewer line, and seagrass loss due to
poor water quality. Toxicological contaminants of concern in the system have included
metals, organic compounds and pesticides.
BACKGROUND
The south Florida ecosystem contains varied aquatic natural resources, habitats, and
biological communities. Each of these aquatic systems developed under specific water
quality and hydrologic conditions. As such, the quality of the water in these aquatic
systems is an important driving force in defining habitats and determining the suitability of
a water for specific organisms.
The rapid and extensive urban and agricultural development in south Florida has had
negative impacts on system water quality. Urban and agricultural activities in the
watershed have affected the quality of water delivered to the natural resources of the
downstream water receivers. Some of the potential contaminant sources include marinas,
marine sewage, sanitary sewers, stormwater sewers, industrial effluents, and agricultural
runoff. The Central and Southern Florida Flood Control Project (C&SF) has affected water
movement and hydroperiod throughout much of the system. This in turn has affected water
quality. The canal system also has the potential to serve as a conduit for the conveyance of
pollutants to other portions of the system.
Any successful program to restore the south Florida ecosystem must view the system
holistically. Water quality conditions and processes throughout the system have been
greatly affected by modifications to the natural system over the past century resulting in
loss of wetlands, loss of mangroves, loss of grass beds, loss of coastal upland communities,
altered hydrology, and altered circulation in bays. Water quality conditions influence
ecological integrity and have a direct bearing on the ability to achieve various objectives
identified in the ecosystem restoration: habitat restoration strategy to address the ecological
degradation of Florida Bay and the coral reef system, and strategies intended to provide
63
-------
adequate habitat for native species of fauna such as wading birds. In addition, actions
undertaken to address water supply concerns and structural or operational modifications to
the C&SF Project may influence water quality.
Ground water contamination has impacted water supply activities in south Florida
urban areas. Plumes of ground water contamination from old landfills, Superfund sites,
leaking underground storage tanks and industrial activities have caused localized
degradation in the Biscayne Aquifer (a federally designated Sole Source Aquifer under the
Safe Drinking Water Act). Two major water supply well fields operated by the
Metropolitan Dade Water and Sewer Authority were contaminated with volatile organic
chemicals, presumably originating at nearby superfund sites. Numerous private wells were
contaminated by a plume emanating from the old 58th Street Landfill in Dade County.
Regional aquifers are highly vulnerable to contamination because of the lack of soil, high
transmissivities, and the nearness of the water table to the ground surface. Because of
widespread and increasing urbanization of the area, the incidence of ground water
contamination is likely to increase.
OBJECTIVE
The objective is to assure that the quality of water found throughout the south Florida
ecosystem is adequate for attaining ecosystem restoration, protection and maintenance.
APPROACH
A complex set of laws and institutions are in place to protect or restore the chemical
integrity of surface water and ground water. The federal strategy relies heavily on state
implementation and leadership. A suite of federal, state and local laws and regulations
disperse implementation responsibility among various federal, state, and local agencies.
Two concepts fundamental to any successful strategy are contaminant cleanup and pollution
prevention. A number of significant state or federal efforts are underway to address water
quality concerns throughout the south Florida ecosystem.
In general terms, components of an effective water quality management strategy must
include:
Appropriate water body classification;
Development and adoption of water quality standards and criteria that are adequate for
resource protection;
• Adequate regulatory and permitting programs including compliance determination and
enforcement;
Monitoring and research to define appropriate standards, identify status and trends,
and determine compliance; and
Public education and awareness.
64
-------
Federal Activities: Federal agencies have various programs in place to address water
quality issues. The objective of the Clean Water Act is "to restore and maintain the
chemical, physical, and biological integrity of the Nation's waters." Among federal
agencies EPA has assumed the dominant role in directing and defining water pollution
control programs.
The Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary (FKNMS) requires EPA and Florida, in
consultation with NOAA, to develop a Water Quality Protection Program for the Sanctuary
that addresses point and nonpoint sources of pollution to restore and maintain the chemical,
physical, and biological integrity of the sanctuary, including restoration and maintenance of
corals, shellfish, and fish and wildlife.
Monitoring and Research Programs: Federal agencies have invested much in water
quality monitoring and research efforts throughout the ecosystem. Ongoing efforts include
those of the USGS, NOAA, NBS, NPS and EPA. In addition Florida agencies such as
SFWMD have significant monitoring efforts in place throughout the ecosystem.
State Activities: The state of Florida plays a critical role in water quality issues in
south Florida. The Clean Water Act authorizes the states to establish ambient water quality
standards and water quality management plans. Two Florida agencies that have a major
influence on water quality in the south Florida ecosystem are the South Florida Water
Management District and Florida Department of Environmental Protection.
Out of concern for the declining quality of Florida's surface waters, the Florida
Legislature passed the Surface Water Improvement and Management (SWIM) Act of 1987.
This act required SFWMD to prepare SWIM Plans for Lake Okeechobee. Biscayne Bay,
and the Indian River Lagoon. Plans for these water bodies have been adopted. Nutrient
enrichment problems in the Kissimmee River, Lake Okeechobee, and the Everglades have
been difficult to resolve. For example, the issue of nutrient levels in the Everglades
Agricultural Area and the eutrophication of the Everglades has been a focus of many state
activities, including the Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Council (LOTAC) I (1985-
1986), LOTAC II (1987-1990), The SWIM Act of 1987, the Marjory Stoneman Douglas
Everglades Protection Act of 1991, and the SWIM planning process (1988-present). A
SWIM Plan for the Everglades adopted by the SFWMD Governing Board in 1992 has been
superseded by the Everglades Forever Act enacted in April 1994. The act requires BMP
based reductions in phosphorus released from the EAA, wetlands constructed for
phosphorus removal, and attempts to establish a method of payment.
A variety of water quality issues must be addressed by managers involved with south
Florida ecosystem restoration. Some of the issues and approaches for addressing them
include:
• The need to control urban stormwater runoff;
• The adequacy or inadequacy of voluntary BMPs in meeting water quality standards
throughout the south Florida region (Should voluntary BMPs not result in attainment
of water quality standards then appropriate regulation will be required.);
65
-------
The application of Total Maximum Daily Loads (TMDLs, section 303d of the Clean
Water Act) for water bodies that are not in compliance with water quality standards;
Numeric interpretation of the Class III narrative water quality standard for nutrients
and the need for appropriate research to determine a numeric standard that is adequate
for preservation intact of native flora and fauna
Determining sources of and appropriate and effective remediation strategies for the
contamination of biota throughout the Everglades region with mercury;
Addressing the pumping of untreated urban water pumped directly into the Everglades
through S-9 and untreated urban/agricultural drainage water pumped through S-332
and the C- 111 basin;
The rapid growth along the west coast of south Florida and water quality impacts on
wetlands or coastal resources in this region;
Agricultural expansion in the Big Cypress Watershed and potential water quality
impacts on downstream water receivers;
Effectively dealing with nutrient problems in the S-4 basin and the region
immediately west of the EAA;
Effective remediation of Superfund sites throughout the south Florida region;
The potential problem of wading birds being adversely affected by parasites and the
role nutrient enrichment may play;
The cause of deformities found in fish in Biscayne Bay and other estuaries;
Estrogen mimicking compounds and the effect that they may be having on South
Florida faunal populations;
The cumulative effects of pesticides on the environment, given the heavy use of a
large number of pesticides for a variety of purposes, including agriculture, golf
courses, mosquito control, aquatic plant control, right of ways and lawns; and
The contamination of drinking water supplies with trihalomethanes.
66
-------
APPENDIX G:
COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
STRATEGY
ISSUES
During the last century, about 50 percent of the wetland area within the south Florida
ecosystem has been drained or filled and converted to agricultural, residential or industrial
development. Critical peripheral short hydroperiod wetlands have been and continue to be
diminished in spatial extent by development. This overall loss of wetland area has reduced
the habitat options for the region's fauna and incrementally removed or diminished the
functions that these natural areas performed, such as water quality filtration, flood control,
aquifer recharge, and habitat.
The Clean Water Act requires a specific permit to dispose of dredge or fill material in
the nation's waters, including wetlands. This permit program is administered by the Corps
of Engineers (Corps), subject to and using the Environmental Protection Agency's (EPA)
Section 404(b) environmental guidelines. The Clean Water Act Section 404 wetland fill
permitting is an ongoing federal program that has a major impact on the south Florida
environment, and probably has as much of a cumulative impact as any ongoing federal
program. It affects the ability to attain many ecosystem restoration objectives—maximize
spatial extent to recover ecological function and structure, prevent further wetland loss,
recover undeveloped degraded wetlands, restore linkages, restore sheet flow, reestablish
biological corridors, halt exotic species spread, etc. It affects the ability to attain restoration
success criteria (no further wetland losses, degraded wetlands restored, reinstatement of
natural hydroperiods, wetland use permits stipulate requirements for enhanced hydrologic
connectivity, water quality, and water storage, etc.). Wetland permitting and subsequent
filling incrementally, and often irrevocably, reduces the land and natural resource bases
available for ecological restoration. Viewing a 1970-era and a 1990-era satellite image of
south Florida is illustrative. Resulting development often requires further infrastructure
demands, results in increased water supply and flood control demands, and complicates
water management decisions and ecological restoration alternatives.
Development: Development is proceeding faster than restoration planning and faster
than the current ability of the federal agencies to assess the cumulative impact. The
regulatory response has been to look at individual permit requests without a broader
watershed or ecosystem view. The regulatory process is also reactive in that it comes after
land-use plans are written and landowners make development decisions guided, in part, by
those plans. There is pressure for continued development caused by the climate, natural
and cultural amenities, and quality of life offered by south Florida. Development started on
the coasts and has moved inland into wilderness areas, remnant natural habitats and
wetlands. A significant and growing portion of the natural south Florida landscape has
been developed. Development is not the concentric expansion of cities with the creation of
urban metropolitan areas, but the march of large planned communities into undeveloped or
67
-------
agricultural tracts remaining under single ownership. There is a unique clash of
urbanization and relict wildlife populations.
Mitigation: The regulatory program currently requires mitigation to offset
unavoidable functional loss, but that requirement is largely dependent on the circumstances
of the individual permit. In the past, the ratios of impact area to mitigation area have
varied widely over time and throughout the region, especially when compared with other
parts of Florida. In a number of cases, past mitigation did not compensate for the loss of
wetland functions. Often, there is an ongoing lack of a large strategic view for appropriate
mitigation. There continues to be fragmentation of the ecosystem by the way the mitigation
is established and by development patterns. Disagreement among agencies on the amount
of mitigation necessary for a project, the value of on-site versus off-site mitigation and the
appropriate type of mitigation (preservation, restoration, enhancement, and/or creation)
continues. Fragmentation occurs when a wetland on a particular site is preserved or
enhanced, but then is later disconnected from the overall fabric of the ecosystem by
subsequent permit decisions.
Coordination: Federal level coordination has improved but needs further
coordination, especially with Water Management Districts and counties. Coordination
involves not only sharing of knowledge of the ecological resource, but also of knowledge
of transportation and other social or economic needs. Building a consensus at the local or
staff level on approaches to regulatory decisions is difficult due to different and, at times,
conflicting regulations, policies, and implementation strategies. Wetland regulatory
programs are fragmented, overlapping, and have duplicate authorities and responsibilities.
BACKGROUND
Regulatory Program: Section 404 of the Clean Water Act regulates the discharge of
dredge and fill material into waters of the United States that include wetlands, lakes,
estuaries, rivers, canals and borrow pits. The Jacksonville District of the Corps through its
regulatory offices in Jacksonville and satellite offices in Miami, Fort Myers, Vero Beach,
and the Keys, reviews and issues permits authorizing the fill. The EPA provides guidelines
for discharge of fill and, through its Region IV office in Atlanta comments on the
application of these guidelines for pending applications. The National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) Panama City office and satellite office in Miami, and the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service (FWS) Vero Beach office, and their satellite office in Naples, comment on
pending applications under the Fish and Wildlife Coordination Act and the Endangered
Species Act. These agencies also have separate responsibilities under these acts. The EPA
and the Corps cooperate in monitoring compliance with issued permits and enforcement of
unauthorized discharges. The Corps also regulates any activity (fill, excavation, and
structures) in navigable waters, including ocean areas to the limits of the territorial sea,
Florida Bay, rivers, and canals to the limit of navigation. The scope of jurisdiction over the
south Florida ecosystem has been refined over the years to now include land clearing, rock
mining, rock plowing, isolated waters, and drainage projects.
For the purpose of this plan, permit is defined to include Individual Permits and
General Permits (including Nationwide Permits).
68
-------
The federal agencies involved in the wetland permitting program have yet co provide
detailed summaries of the cumulative effect of the ongoing permitting activities on the
south Florida environment. It is imperative that a database is developed that will allow
these summaries to be prepared.
Permitting program decisions often are relevant to ongoing planning activities. South
Florida wetland regulatory programs should be integrated with pertinent planning activities,
such as the Corps ongoing C&SF Project reformulation study. Specific permitting actions
may have direct bearing on reformulation study considerations, such as the buffer concept
or water supply preserves.
Projects: Major types of projects include large residential developments that can
encompass several thousand homes and often incorporate light commercial areas in a
planned community concept, rock mining, and recreational complexes. Some areas where
the land ownership was subdivided in the past are now experiencing the cumulative impacts
of many small projects.
Ecosystem Impacts: The regulatory program has. not entirely addressed or
documented the loss of ecosystem wetland habitat caused by development or alleviated the
pressure on the ecosystem. But in recent years the program has slowed the rate of habitat
destruction and has increased mitigation requirements, an improvement based on the
refinement of the regulatory jurisdiction. However, documenting these improvements is
currently difficult. One of the greatest difficulties in determining the effectiveness of the
south Florida wetland regulatory program is the lack of a comprehensive understanding of
the system and the inability to assess the impacts from individual decisions. Geographic
Information System (GIS) technology and data must be developed to accomplish this.
Data Management: One of the difficulties associated with coordinating and
evaluating the various wetland regulatory programs, is that data, maps and other wetland
information are fragmented, duplicative and inaccessible to the various regulatory agency
personnel. This leads to case-by-case decisions with limited ability to address issues such
as cumulative effects, loss of important corridors, and other ecosystem-level impacts. A
tremendous amount of information, including GIS data, is available on the south Florida
wetland communities. However, this information is located in a variety of federal, state,
regional, and local agencies with limited coordination and no overall plan for assessing and
managing the ecosystem or improving information exchange. The goal must be to
ultimately put a system in place where the best available information (i.e. via GIS and
improved wetland assessment methods) would be at the fingertips of those reviewing and
deciding on individual permit applications.
Trends: There are several important trends that need to be recognized. In some
areas, almost all the uplands are in some sort of use or developed condition. Development
is encroaching inland from both coasts and south from Orlando. The rate of wetland loss
related to individual permits has been reduced but there is increasingly more fragmentation
of remaining wetlands. Because of the regulatory authority on wetlands, the regulatory
program has pushed development into uplands. Some of these uplands are of very high
quality and are a limited resource in some areas, such as the Florida Keys. The only time
69
-------
the regulatory program has been able to recognize and preserve uplands is when they are an
exceptional habitat (such as for endangered species) and where the wetland loss was of
lesser environmental impact than the loss of the uplands. This wetland loss is aggravated
by the intrusion of invasive exotics. There continues to be a time lag, or at least a difficulty
in assessing the impact of the time lag, between the occurrence of impact and the point
when mitigation reaches full functionality. There are also problems with some mitigation
actions-reaching full success or, in some cases, even being implemented as required by
permit. Up-front mitigation by developers has not been regularly required by the permitting
agencies.
OBJECTIVES
The overall objective is to develop a system-wide integrated wetland permitting,
preservation and mitigation strategy, including coordination among all levels of government,
which furthers south Florida ecosystem restoration. The following elements have been
identified as necessary:
• Develop a pro-active regulatory approach;
• Develop a South Florida Wetland Conservation Plan that coordinates and prioritizes
all regulatory and non-regulatory programs affecting wetlands at all levels of
government, the private sector, conservation groups and the general public;
• Increase the speed of the planning process (shorten the time between recognition of a
critical concern and implementation of a regulatory reaction);
Promote greater involvement in the development and implementation of plans by
agencies, the public, and by the regulated community;
• Conduct planning that spans all government levels that have an interest in, the
resource to address, or the authority to act on a concern (horizontal coordination with
federal and vertical coordination with state and local agencies);
• Promote mitigation strategies that work toward the overall goal of ecosystem
restoration;
• Develop uniform functional assessment methodologies;
• Recognize when regulatory actions make an irreversible commitment that would
preclude future options for ecosystem restoration;
• Eliminate fragmented or duplicative authorities and processes;
Engender feedback that brings all viewpoints into the regulatory decision processes;
70
-------
• Reduce the confrontational aspects of the program by emphasizing team building
based on a uniform view of what south Florida should look like now and in the
future; and
• Identify research and monitoring needs.
APPROACHES
Development and implementation of a South Florida Comprehensive Wetland
Permitting and Mitigation Strategy (SFCWPM Strategy) will require improved coordination
between federal resource agencies involved in the Section 404 program and increased
interaction between the federal agencies and state/regional/local planning and regulatory
agencies involved with wetlands. Reliable and scientifically valid wetland quality data
bases must be developed to guide the wetland permitting and planning process. Within
given watersheds, ecosystem-level wetland quality/restoration needs information is currently
not available to enable analysis of cumulative impact assessments of individual wetland
permit decisions. Currently individual wetland permit decisions are made with little or no
data available to assess ecosystem impacts or the short- or long-term impacts of permit
decisions on the larger south Florida ecosystem restoration goals.
It is imperative to develop the SFCWPM Strategy expeditiously. The administration's
initiative on permitting is that decisions must be made in a timely manner upon receipt of
an application. The best decision must be made using available information. Increased
staffing and funding resources must be directed at the south Florida ecosystem area by the
involved federal wetland regulatory agencies in order to accomplish SFCWPM Strategy
objectives. Agencies must target resources based on the assumption that there are limits to
the resources that can be devoted to south Florida. These resources need to be applied
where the greatest need or benefit to the overall restoration plan will be realized. This
means that (1) resources must be targeted where needed to provide intensive review on
critical projects, (2) consensus must be reached quickly to free and direct some of the
attention to (3) increase pro-active planning. The plan for permitting and mitigation must
and will adapt as information and experience is gained.
The following approaches would facilitate development and implementation of a
SFCWPM Strategy that furthers ecosystem restoration. Much of the following will require
additional resources or significant reprogramming of existing resources.
Wetland Permitting Program Summaries: Beginning in 1994, the Interagency
Working Group will submit to the Task Force ari annual summary of the federal wetland
permitting program in south Florida. This summary will include information by county for
the number of permit applications received (includes individual, general and nationwide
permits), number of permits denied, number of permits vetoed, number of permits
approved, number of permits modified prior to approval, acreage of wetland to be filled in
permit application, acreage of wetland filled in approved permit, and mitigation required.
The development of these annual reports should be a high priority of the permitting
program. The Corps, EPA and FWS will develop and maintain the wetland permitting
71
-------
information database that makes this possible. This will require additional resources or
reprogramming existing resources.
Interagency Coordination: A Wetland Interagency Coordination Group (WICG)
will be formed.
South Florida Wetland Conservation Plan: This is a major element of the wetland
permitting and mitigation strategy. A South Florida Wetland Conservation Plan (SFWCP)
should be developed that coordinates and prioritizes all regulatory and non-regulatory
activities affecting wetlands at all levels of government, private interests, conservation
groups and the general public. Initial SFWCP tasks to be completed by September 1996
include:
Identify and map all wetlands within the SFWMD on public and private lands.
Designate the relative ecological functional value of all identified wetlands in
high/medium/low functional quality categories. Landscape ecology concepts and GIS
analysis will be used to perform the wetland functional assessments.
• Identify and prioritize wetland restoration/enhancement sites SFWMD-wide.
• Identify and prioritize wetland acquisition or preservation lands based on an
ecological needs basis, independent of present Florida CARL and Save Our Rivers
program lists. Acquisition or preservation could be through public or private means.
• Identify critical areas, wetlands where intense development pressures require further
detailed wetland assessments to be performed as quickly as possible in order to assist
the wetland regulatory program decision making process.
(Resources: The Corps and EPA intend to equally dedicate resources to accomplish
this, however, additional resources will be required.)
Identify Critical Areas: These are wetlands of particular ecological significance.
Their function should be assessed by the federal agencies involved in permitting processes.
FWS contract for reports on changes in natural cover types over the years.
FWS assess whether the total area of any one or more cover types is at the point
where any further reduction would impact the species mix now found in the area.
FWS identify cover types or topographic features that are remnant. That is, no longer
provide full function and not part of the restoration plan.
FWS prepare a document mapping these critical areas with an assessment that will be
used in permitting decisions, including denial or determining mitigation requirements.
72
-------
Increase Emphasis on Wetland Enforcement and Permit Compliance by EPA
and Corps. EPA should increase emphasis on wetland enforcement and the Corps should
increase emphasis on permit compliance to ensure that the wetland regulatory program and
mitigation requirements are providing projected benefits.
Corps expand funding of contracts now in use for monitoring compliance with issued
permits and for surveillance for unauthorized activities.
• Corps distribute a synopsis document to the IWG describing techniques that have
worked or failed.
Wetlands to be Protected: The Clean Water Act Section 404(c) can be used to stop
projects with unacceptable impacts or to protect areas in advance of development. Projects
that have unacceptable impacts can also be denied a permit. Both denial and 404(c) actions
can be very labor intensive, are very project specific, and in the case of 404(c), is limited to
the five factors in the law. Some permit denials could result in takings claims by
applicants.
Corps and EPA prioritize the importance that various geographical areas remain
available and unchanged in order that restoration initiatives are not precluded.
Priority may be based on their potential as a critical link in the ecosystem or their
critical role or location as defined by planning activities. If appropriate, Corps deny a
permit or EPA initiate a 404(c) to prevent irrevocable changes.
Watershed Management Plans and Advanced Identification: Watershed
management plans and advanced identification of wetlands will encourage local government
sponsorship and/or implementation through grants or contracts from EPA or Corps. Local
governments will be involved with project planning, data gathering and analysis, and public
outreach.
Prepare Watershed Management Plans (WMPs). WMPs would have the advantage of
addressing cumulative impacts to wetland ecosystems, having a unified ecosystem approach
that can cross watersheds, can be used to locate mitigation banks, and can result in a high
level of predictability for the regulated community. However, they can be time and
resource intensive, need to have the buy-in to avoid controversy, could cause the focus on
some critical issues or portion of the watershed to be diffused, and is a relatively new
approach so regulatory programs do not have experience in conducting them.
Expedite completion of Advanced Identification of Disposal Area projects (ADIDs).
An ADID produce good resource information and simple, easily understood maps for public
use. An ADID is flexible in the level of detail that is used to make the identifications,
ranging from heavy reliance on aerial geographic information system (GIS) data for a large
geographic area to more site specific studies. While this flexibility is an advantage, the
result is that there is no overall clear statement of purpose for ADIDs in general, and
therefore the purpose or goal must be defined individually at the start of each ADID.
However, performing ADIDs can be a slow process due to the need for consensus building,
the need to ground truth information, and ADIDs have been perceived by some as only a
73
-------
planning tool with little or no regulatory teeth. The time required for completion of some
ADIDs is a concern. It is crucial that the completion of an ADID be expedited in order to
increase its usefulness and timely application to the permitting process.
• EPA send representatives to expedite the interagency team to finish the ground
truthing for the Florida Keys ADID.
EPA expedite the preparation of the functional assessment for the Rookery Bay
ADID.
The Wetland Interagency Coordination Group will identify specific critical areas that
require watershed management plans and recommend priorities. This will include
identification of local players or sponsors.
EPA provide grant money for gathering and interpretation of data.
FWS and NMFS support habitat evaluations.
Delegation of Administration of General Permits: Delegation of some role in the
regulatory process to non-federal agencies offers ways to increase efficiency of the
program, has more local site specific input, reduces duplicative efforts, and generates
cooperation among federal and other agencies. The potential exists for delegation of the
administration of any General Permit. Federal oversight is important to ensure the
achievement of preservation or restoration goals. Delegation will only be to entities that
have demonstrated an interest in and commitment to ecosystem restoration.
Increase Local Presence in South Florida: Increasing the federal agencies'
presence in South Florida would facilitate development of the wetland permitting and
mitigation strategy, expedite permitting decisions, and facilitate coordination.
Wetland Assessment Methods: Wetland assessment approaches must be developed
at two scales: landscape level and site-specific level. The landscape level wetland
assessment method will be developed for all wetlands within the SFWMD boundary during
the development of the South Florida Wetland Conservation Plan, which is to be completed
by September 1996. This landscape level wetland assessment method will employ GIS
analysis and landscape ecology concepts to evaluate the functionality of wetland areas into
general high/medium/low functional categories. This information will be used in all future
404 wetland permitting decisions in the south Florida ecosystem.
With the site specific wetland functional assessment methodology, presently there are
a number of different approaches to assessing development impacts and determining
required mitigation. These include analyses based on ratios, by relative scoring values, or
by an integrated matrix. There frequently is no continuity of assessment techniques among
projects and difficulty in comparing results. There can be a wide disparity in the how a
particular method is applied for the same project by different participants in the process, as
well as among projects in the same area. There is a need to develop a consensus on a
scientifically based approach and uniform set of assumptions for one or more assessment
74
-------
methodologies. The methodology should be relatively easy and rapid to employ by
professionals in the geographic area of application and must produce consistent assessments
of wetland impacts as well as uniform determinations of mitigation requirements.
• WICG decide the scope of the assessment methodology. This could be (1) uniform
approach for the entire ecosystem, (2) develop sub-regional methodologies, or (3)
continue to create tailored made protocols for each project.
• Corps prepare a report to summarize current practices of assessment.
EPA in cooperation with the WICG will assist in the development of the chosen
assessment model to adapt it to the scope decided on.
National Environmental Policy Act Compliance: A Generic Environmental Impact
Statement (GEIS) or other types of EIS, environmental assessments, or other National
Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) documents that encompass a geographic or industry
scope is a proven process that has the benefit of being proactive, very broad in scope, very
flexible in the issues addressed, and encompass the participation of a wide variety of
concerns including the regulated community, resource agencies, conservation groups, and
the general public. However, the scope of a GEIS can be hard to define or limit and can be
perceived as potentially slowing development in an area. It may be possible under NEPA
to delay the processing of permit applications that are pertinent to a specific EIS.
State and local comprehensive planning: Increased involvement in state and local
comprehensive planning can lead to good information exchange, avoid conflicts between
state plans and federal regulation, engender federal support for local plans, and lend support
to the local planning process. The FWS has already been involved in local planning efforts
related to endangered species at the invitation of the local governments. However, there is
some concern regarding the appropriate level of federal involvement in local planning.
Establishing Mitigation Banks: Mitigation banking has the advantage of a high
level of predictability and quicker permit issuance and review, can set aside large blocks of
land in advance of ecosystem impacts that include both wetlands and uplands, and can
incorporate connectivity needs. Mitigation banks have a greater probability of success due
to management expertise (can be placed in the hands of an ecosystem manager rather than a
developer), but there have not been many banks in existence for an extended period of time
so there is a concern about the long term success of biological maintenance and protection
from development or development encroachment. Mitigation banking is a new industry ripe
for entrepreneurial efforts. The potential for establishing a bank can add value to a
property by providing another economic use for the land. However, mitigation banking can
result in off-site or out-of-kind mitigation, but this can be used to restore the balance of
vegetative communities or habitat lost in the ecosystem by previous development.
Mitigation banking can give the perception that the regulated community is buying a permit
but also could be viewed as a mechanism to better use the dollars committed to mitigation.
The ITF could seek legislative authority to provide seed money or loan guaranty for
the establishment of mitigation banks through a revolving fund or outright grants.
75
-------
This would be available to the private entrepreneur as well as to conservation
organizations, such as The Nature Conservancy, who have considerable volunteer and
other expertise to implement a Bank but not the capital. The Department of
Agriculture may be an appropriate entity to administer this new program since it
already administers banking type programs for wetlands and soil conservation.
Return User Regulatory Fees and Fines to the regulatory program or the restoration
effort.
76
-------
APPENDIX H:
HARMFUL NONINDIGENOUS PLANTS AND ANIMALS
MAJOR ISSUES/PROBLEMS
Invasive plants and animals from other parts of the world are becoming established in
south Florida's natural areas, altering landscapes, community structure, and food webs; and
too little is being done in defense of the south Florida ecosystem, considering the
magnitude and seriousness of the threat. Although a concerted effort is being made at
manual, mechanical, and chemical control of melaleuca, biological control, an essential
element in control of widespread, prolific pest plants such as melaleuca, is seriously under-
funded. As a result, although promising control organisms have been found,
implementation of biological controls for melaleuca and Brazilian pepper has been delayed.
Although much attention is being given to the control of well established pests such as
melaleuca, many other plants are invading natural areas with little or no human resistance.
Of possibly even greater concern is the lack of attention given to prevention.
Virtually nothing is being done by any federal, state, regional, or local agency to prevent
the propagation and distribution of the 126 plant species listed as invasive, problematic
species in Florida by the Exotic Pest Plant Council (1993). It is possible to appraise the
potential invasiveness of new species being imported (EPPC 1993, OTA 1993) and to use
this information to establish appropriate regulations, however, neither the screening nor the
regulation are presently being performed (OTA 1993). Meanwhile, new species with
invasive potential continue to be imported, propagated, and distributed.
Within the state of Florida, some local, state, and federal agencies are actually
encouraging the use of EPPC-listed species for landscaping. Agencies sometimes distribute,
at no cost to homeowners, nonindigenous plants listed by EPPC as invasive (e.g..
carrotwood). This practice is quite widespread and occurs in the face of the tremendous
economic costs some of these same agencies are incurring in controlling species such as
melaleuca.
¦ In the name of water conservation, some agencies currently are promoting xeriscape
programs in which many of the recommended species are nonindigenous and may
compound the problem. Xeriscape species, because they tolerate extended periods of
drought, may be more likely to escape cultivation in south Florida than landscape plants
that require irrigation, so xeriscape programs should emphasize the planting of native
species, many of which are adapted to periods of sustained drought and are not a threat to
the ecosystem.
Some of the listed species are used in landscaping on government lands, including
highway rights of way. In addition, there are few control programs for removal of invasive
nonindigenous plants from government lands, except parks.
77
-------
Laws controlling imports of harmful nonindigenous species, as administered, are
ineffective in preventing the entry to this country of plants and animals potentially
damaging to natural ecosystems. No screening mechanism and protocol exists for
identifying imports not already present in this country that are potential threats to natural
areas.
At the heart of the issue is the lack of awareness and knowledge of the potential
damage that these species can cause. Education can be a means of reducing the threat from
invasive nonindigenous species. People who are concerned about environmental
degradation often will change their habits if they realize that what they are doing is having
a negative environmental impact. But educational programs are not well organized and are
poorly funded. An intensive effort is needed to reach the influx of newcomers to the state,
including people from many different cultures.
The poor defense on all fronts against invasive nonindigenous species is partly a
reflection of the lack of recognition by the public and government policy makers of the
magnitude and seriousness of this problem. The insufficient education effort is part of the
reason why the public is not more concerned.
One might say that the greatest obstacle in combating nonindigenous species is lack
of funding and human resources to stay ahead of problems. But solutions are made more
costly by failure to act promptly and effectively, once problems are recognized, and the
lack of emphasis on preventive programs.
BACKGROUND
Nonindigenous species are those not native to a specific area but introduced
anthropogenically. They are sometimes referred to as nonnative species or exotic species.
Some of these species are also referred to as pest, nuisance, harmful, or invasive species.
Many such plant and animal species have escaped cultivation and become established
in south Florida. Some have not only colonized disturbed sites, but also invaded natural
lands that have been set aside for preservation of natural communities and landscapes.
South Florida probably has more problems with aggressive nonindigenous species than any
other state. The state as a whole has approximately 925 established nonindigenous plant
species growing outside of cultivation (OTA 1993). Over 100 of these are listed as
invasive in Florida by the Exotic Pest Plant Council (1993). At least 23 nonindigenous
plants now are found in Florida's waters (McCann et al. 1994). Nonindigenous plants and
land animals constitute about 25 percent of all species in the state (OTA 1993).
Many nonindigenous animal species have become established in Florida's aquatic
systems: 83 fish, at least 26 insects since 1970, 2 amphibians, 3 birds, 1 mammal, 1
reptile, 5 mollusks, 1 Crustacea and an unknown number of pathogens (McCann et al.
1994). Many nonindigenous terrestrial animals, particularly birds, reptiles, and amphibians,
have escaped captivity and are reproducing in south Florida; 63 percent of the introduced
nonindigenous bird species in the continental U.S. are found in Florida, which also has the
78
-------
largest number of established nonindigenous amphibians and reptile species in the U.S.
(OTA 1993).
Not all nonindigenous species are harmful. Many exotic plant species never escape
cultivation. Nor are all those that spread beyond their planting site invasive. In south
Florida, however, the potential for harm to natural areas from even one invasive plant
species is enormous. The magnitude of the present and potential damage to south Florida's
remaining natural areas from invasive nonindigenous species and the urgency for resolution
are greatly under-recognized.
Problems Caused by Invasive Nonindigenous Species
Nonindigenous plant species cause severe ecologic, economic, and resource
management problems in the state. Aquatic plants such as hydrilla, water lettuce and water
hyacinth clog streams, canals, rivers and lakes. Aquatic weeds create a continual problem
by obstructing navigable waterways throughout the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-Everglades
system. Nonindigenous aquatic plants also interfere with recreation, natural vegetation,
water flow, water quality and natural wildlife. By requiring control, they have been
responsible for the release of tons of herbicides into south Florida canals and estuaries.
Invasive nonindigenous plants negatively impact natural areas by out-competing and
replacing native species, decreasing natural diversity, decreasing local species richness, and
altering topography and soils. Melaleuca quinquenervia is one of the key problems for the
natural environment. Introduced in the early 1900s, melaleuca trees have rapidly expanded,
in recent times showing a 50-fold increase; some 450,000 acres of south Florida are now
infested to some degree (OTA 1993). Fire and water management have enhanced its
spread. Melaleuca monocultures have replaced sawgrass marshes, sloughs, cypress stands,
and other natural plant communities. By replacing native vegetation, dense melaleuca
monocultures can decrease the availability of nesting and foraging habitat for endangered
species such as the Snail Kite and Cape Sable Seaside Sparrow (OTA 1993).
Disturbed sites such as canal banks and fallow fields may be the first sites colonized
by nonindigenous plant species escaping cultivation because the typical cover of such sites
is nonnative species. The urban and agricultural development of south Florida has created
many such sites where these species can become established. Water management practices
that alter hydroperiods and water tables have created disturbed conditions that make natural
areas vulnerable to invasions by nonindigenous plants. Catastrophic events such as
hurricanes and fires increase the vulnerability of natural areas. Colonization of disturbed
sites allows the nonindigenous species to develop the reproductive power with which to
invade natural areas when disturbances make these areas more vulnerable. Nonindigenous
species that escape cultivation can spread rapidly because the predators, parasites, or
diseases that naturally control their growth and reproduction were left behind in their
country of origin. Consequently, a virtually uncontrolled expansion of harmful
nonindigenous plants is altering the south Florida landscape and natural biological integrity.
The potential threat of nonindigenous plant species to Florida's remaining natural
areas has increased in the decades since melaleuca, Australian pine, and Brazilian pepper
79
-------
trees were introduced. Ornamental plants from around the world are distributed in the
nursery trade and used intensively in landscaping. Development has caused the acreage
planted in nonindigenous species to greatly expand, while at the same time decreasing the
acreage of native vegetation. Because of relative seed supply alone, the potential for
nonindigenous species to colonize newly available sites in both disturbed and natural areas
is much greater now than it was 40 or 50 years ago.
Some non-native plant species with invasive tendencies currently have larger
populations in south Florida than many native plant species. For instance, while there now
remains only about 8,000 to 10,000 acres of rock-ridge pine savanna community in south
Florida (Doren et al. 1993), there currently exists over 700,000 acres of Brazilian pepper in
nondeveloped areas and at least 50,000 to 60,000 acres of melaleuca growing as a
monoculture (R. Doren, pers. comm.).
Several hundred species of normative animals are established in developed areas of
south Florida (Robertson and Frederick 1994). Birds, herpetofauna, and fish are the most
noticeable of these. The aquatic species appear to pose the most serious threat to natural
areas. Many aquatic nonindigenous fish and invertebrate species are imported for sport,
aquarium, or aquaculture purposes. Most are imported from tropical climates and are well
adapted to the South Florida region. Accidental or intentional releases into canals, lakes,
and other water bodies have resulted in the establishment of reproducing populations of a
number of these species. The blue tilapia, walking catfish, black acara, oscar, Mayan
cichlid, and the blackchin tilapia are the most problematic and widespread of nonindigenous
tropical fishes. Almost nothing is known about the ecological effects of these
nonindigenous Fish and invertebrates on native populations. Prolific nonindigenous aquatic
species may degrade the quality of habitat for native species, introduce diseases or
pathogens, or out-compete or prey on native species. Nonnative herpetofauna such as
Anoles segrii have displaced native congenitors such as Anoles carolinensis. Wild hogs are
problems in some natural areas, causing extensive damage and disturbance in pinelands and
hammocks, creating sites that are vulnerable to colonization by invasive nonnative plants.
Economic Consequences of Exotics
The economic costs of control of nonindigenous plants, once established in the
ecosystem, are enormous. In 1992, almost $1 million was spent by three agencies to
control melaleuca (OTA 1993). The cost to eradicate melaleuca from Water Conservation
Area A alone is estimated at $12.9 million over 5 years, based on current rates of expansion
(OTA 1993). Roughly $14 million and extensive labor are spent in Florida each year to
reduce the impediment caused by aquatic weeds; $11 million alone is spent on hydrilla,
water hyacinth, and water lettuce control (McCann et al. 1994).
On the other hand, the economic costs of NOT controlling the harmful nonindigenous
plants in south Florida are substantial. The estimated benefits of melaleuca removal, $168.6
million (OTA 1993), provide one estimate of the cost associated with melaleuca dominated
landscapes. A study of Orange Lake in north central Florida indicated that tourism and
recreational fishing amounting to $11 million annually is all but lost in years when hydrilla
80
-------
covers the lake (OTA 1993). Brazilian pepper growing in proximity to croplands is
believed to support large populations of vegetable damaging insects (OTA 1993).
Existing Control Efforts and Their Limitations
The extensive effort to control harmful nonindigenous species extends far beyond the
federal realm to encompass state, local, private, and university initiatives.
The Exotic Pest Plant Council (EPPC) is a nongovernmental group formed in 1982 to
address the dilemma of invasive nonindigenous plants in Florida. One major activity of this
group has been to develop an extensive, prioritized list of harmful nonindigenous plants.
The list is updated every other year. Four nonindigenous plant species were suggested as
the most significant concerns when the group was first formed: Melaleuca (Melaleuca
quinquenervia), Giant Sensitive Catsclaw {Mimosa pigra), Australian Pine (Casurina
equisetifolia) and Brazilian Pepper (Schinus terebinthifolius). The present list includes 126
problematic nonindigenous species.
The Melaleuca Task Force is composed of several concerned entities that have joined
together to systematically eradicate melaleuca. Several control operations and methods are
currently being researched and implemented. A complete explanation of these management
programs and techniques is found in Melaleuca Task Force (1994).
The Florida Department of Environmental Protection and the Corps of Engineers
contribute to and support numerous exotic removal programs. The South Florida Water
Management District leads several exotic eradication efforts. The Florida Department of
Transportation continually reduces and maintains invasive nonindigenous plants on right-of-
ways. National Wildlife Refuges, such as Ding Darling NWR, Florida Panther NWR, and
Loxahatachee NWR and National Parks and Preserves, such as Big Cypress Preserve,
Everglades and Biscayne National Parks, have implemented ongoing exotic elimination
projects within their boundaries. On the local level, a persistent concern for the spread of
the exotic Cogongrass (Imperata cylindrica), led to a campaign that classified it as a
Noxious Weed in July 1993. Local county park and recreation departments' efforts have
concentrated on removing invasive nonnative plants from natural areas throughout the south
Florida region. The Dade County Park and Recreation Department has a multi-million
dollar exotic control program under way in tropical hammock areas to help the park natural
areas recover from invasions of nonindigenous plants and some prolific native vines after
Hurricane Andrew.
The U.S. Department of Agriculture and the University of Florida are investigating
various biological control organisms on several nonindigenous plants. Host-specific
organisms are tested for their effectiveness as control agents and evidence for general
safety. The introduction of host-specific insects, such as seed and sapling eaters, can safely
and economically decrease the spreading of pest plants. Considerable progress has been
made on the identification and testing of a biological control agent for melaleuca. At a
proposed quarantine facility in Ft. Lauderdale, USDA plans to investigate the possibilities
of using insects or plant pathogens to control or reverse the expansion of invasive
nonindigenous plants such as melaleuca, but the quarantine facility is not fully funded.
81
-------
Several federal laws deal with the importation of nonindigenous species. The Non-
indigenous Aquatic Nuisance Prevention and Control Act of 1990 and the Lacey Act
authorize the U. S. Fish and Wildlife Service to issue regulations on aquatic and other
nuisance species and restrict importations of exotic species. The U.S. Department of
Agriculture (APHIS) also has responsibilities under the Lacey Act and administers the
Federal Noxious Weed Act of 1974 and the Federal Plant Pest Act. USDA responsibility
includes the identification of actual or potential noxious weeds and preventing their entry
into the United States (OTA 1993). Neither the U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service nor the
Department of Agriculture have been effective in preventing the importation of
nonindigenous species potentially harmful to natural ecosystems. Under the Lacey Act,
only a small number of organisms are considered nuisances: 2 families, 13 genera, and 6
species. The USDA/APHIS only inspects imported species that are risks to agricultural
activities and does not screen for nonindigenous species that may be detrimental to natural
communities (OTA 1993).
Recently a federal interagency group was formed entitled the Federal
Interdepartmental Committee for Management of Noxious Weeds. Seventeen or 18
agencies within the Departments of Interior, Transportation, Energy, and Agriculture are
involved. They are responsible for coordinating noxious weed management. They are
attempting to reorient the emphasis of control efforts toward protecting natural lands and
rangelands, not just croplands.
The Office of Technology Assessment report on harmful nonindigenous species (OTA
1993) is a major step forward because it provides an overview of the problem and the
present institutional framework for addressing the problem and an evaluation of the current
way the problem is—or is not— being addressed. The Florida Department of Environmental
Protection is planning to write a similar document specific to the state. The National Park
Service is planning a similar report for the Park Service.
OBJECTIVES
The objectives of the South Florida Restoration effort, with respect to harmful
nonindigenous species are to:
Halt or reverse the spread of invasive species already widespread in the environment;
Eradicate invasive species that are still locally contained; and
Prevent the introduction of new invasive species to the south Florida environment,
including both those now present in cultivation in south Florida and those that would
be imported.
82
-------
APPENDIX I:
HABITAT RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT STRATEGY THAT
ADDRESSES THE DECLINE OF NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA
ISSUES
The problems for wading birds and other natural flora and fauna are related to the
diminishing size of the ecosystem itself. Much of the area eliminated was prime short
hydroperiod habitat critically important to wading birds. The remaining wetlands are
seriously degraded. The hydrologic character of the entire Everglades has been altered,
consequently reducing habitat capacity and refugia. The distribution, timing, and quantity
of water throughout the system have been disrupted, seriously constraining wading bird
reproduction to narrow time frames subject to numerous drastic and catastrophic disruptive
conditions.
In addition, excessive nutrient loading from agriculture has resulted in major
vegetative conversions to both the macrophyte and periphyton communities in vast areas of
the remaining Everglades: enormous areas in the Water Conservation Areas and the littoral
system of Lake Okeechobee have been converted to monotypic stands of cattail and
periphyton communities.
Although declining wading birds are indicators of system function, there is at present
no dependable funding source for monitoring of animal groups including wading birds. A
coordinated aerial wading bird census (systematic reconnaissance flights) has been
underway in portions of south Florida for several years. Rookery counts and some nesting
success information are collected in some areas by some agencies. Except for current small
scale projects underway in the Everglades National Park and Loxahatchee National Wildlife
Refuge, there has been only minimal effort to study the distribution, abundance, and trophic
relations of forage fish and invertebrates that are important prey for wading birds and other
vertebrate predators. Virtually nothing is known of the life history and requisite
requirements of the apple snail that could be considered a keystone species to the system.
Upland habitats have been reduced to remnant areas, but still support a high diversity
of native plants and animals, including several listed threatened or endangered species.
Rockland pinelands in southern Dade County were heavily damaged by Hurricane Andrew
and recovery has been impeded by invasion by non-native plants and a post hurricane
invasion by pine bark beetles, which killed many pines. Only Long Pine Key within
Everglades National Park survived relatively intact. The next largest stands are on publicly
owned land (including federal property) for which the Dade County Park and Recreation
Department has unsuccessfully sought funding from FEMA and the state. FEMA's
unwritten policy is not to fund restoration of natural areas. The state did not appropriate
requested funds in the recently passed budget. The opportunity to recover these pinelands
may be lost. Loss of these pinelands could affect pineland dependent species in Everglades
National Park.
83
-------
BACKGROUND
The vast and heterogeneous wetland landscape that characterized the pre-drainage
south Florida ecosystem supported enormous numbers of water birds, particularly wading
birds. The whole system was a complex heterogenous mix of various extents of water
depths and vegetative types. It was this vast heterogenous mix, maintained by fire, freezes,
and rainfall extremes, that provided the habitat support for the production and survival of
the diverse, yet immense populations of wading birds. The productivity, dispersal, and
survival of these wildlife—the birds and their forage fish base—were regulated by the
annual periodicity of the wet-dry cycles and rates of drying and flooding that concentrated
the dispersed nutrient base of the system.
These wading birds represent a critical component in the trophic structure of the
wetland landscapes that comprise the south Florida ecosystem. Because of their wide
foraging range and their narrow foraging requirements in terms of water depth and
concentrated prey, they reflect the health of the ecosystem, particularly in their ability to
reproduce successfully.
Wading birds numbers have seriously declined concurrent with the drainage and
development associated with the C&SF Project. The number of successful wading birds
nesting throughout the system has declined more than 90 percent according to historical
records. The wood stork, on the Federal Endangered Species list, is closely identified with
the Everglades and its current status indicates the serious problems inherent in the entire
Everglades system.
OBJECTIVES
In 1993 the federal interagency Task Force on the South Florida Ecosystem adopted
several management objectives. These included:
Restore and maintain the biodiversity of native plants and animals in the upland,
wetland, estuarine and marine communities of the South Florida ecosystem;
• Provide for adequate natural habitats for native plants and animals; and
• Recover species that are threatened or endangered.
84
-------
APPENDIX J:
MULTI-SPECIES RECOVERY PLAN
ISSUES
The south Florida ecosystem contains numerous listed species, many of which already
have approved recovery plans. Each plan addresses only one species. A review of the
plans indicates that depending on the ecological status of the species and the type of habitat
they occupy, some plans are complementary and some may be at odds with one another.
Thus, it may be possible to conduct an action that benefits one species while creating
problems for another. The development of a comprehensive plan that looks at the
ecosystem as a whole, rather than its parts, is needed. The importance of each part must be
considered, but efforts need to be made to put all the parts together as a whole.
Furthermore, there needs to be close coordination between the National Marine Fisheries
Service (NMFS) and the Fish and Wildlife Service (FWS) to ensure that the federalagencies
assigned the responsibilities are working together.
Recovery plan development and implementation is further compounded because of the
wide variety of land ownership and land uses. The variety of uses, management and owner
expectations is even evident on public land. With a host of agencies charged with a
multitude of purposes, it is difficult to arrive at mutually acceptable goals.
The problem is further compounded because of the degraded nature of many of the
habitats. Large and expanding human populations, intensive agriculture, complex water
control structures and invasion by a host of exotic species have made management of
remnant natural systems extremely difficult.
Recovery can be a slow and difficult process where results are costly and sometimes
not immediately obvious. Some of the problems associated with recovery are:
• The lack of funds available to conduct the most critical recovery actions.
Lack of information on a species makes it difficult to design an effective recovery
plan; research is necessary to answer some of the questions.
Research will often produce unanticipated results and a new approach must be
developed.
• Recovery is a very gradual process. Several generations of success may be needed
before the FWS is confident that a species can be de-listed.
• Just as it took many years for a particular species to decline, it may take many years
to reverse the decline.
85
-------
BACKGROUND
A large number of federally listed threatened or endangered species occur within the
south Florida ecosystem. One of the purposes of the Endangered Species Act of 1973 is to
provide a mechanism to protect threatened and endangered species and provide a program
for their conservation. Conservation is defined as bringing a species to the point where the
measures outlined in the law are no longer necessary. The process of taking the species
from its listed status to full conservation, that is reversing the decline and neutralizing the
threats, is called recovery. A species restored to a healthy condition no longer needing the
protection of the act is considered recovered. Our goal will be to recover all listed species
in the south Florida ecosystem.
Section 4 of the Endangered Species Act requires that the Fish and Wildlife Service
and the National Marine Fisheries Service develop recovery plans for all listed species.
These plans are an integral part of the overall recovery program whose primary goals are:
• Identification of those ecosystems and organisms that face the highest degree of
threat;
Determination of the tasks necessary to reduce or eliminate the threats; and
Application of the resources available to the highest priority recovery tasks.
The first step in the recovery process is the development of a recovery plan that
delineates, justifies, and schedules the research and management actions necessary to
recover a species. The plans are comprehensive documents that identify all known recovery
actions and anticipated costs. These plans serve as blueprints for private, federal, state,
regional, and local interagency cooperation because they identify specific actions and the
appropriate responsible agency.
Recovery plans serve as a catalyst to encourage all participants to work toward
species recovery. They have been very effectively used as an impetus for budget
formulation, agency policy review and development of agency management plans.
OBJECTIVE
The management objective is to recover species that are threatened or endangered.
This recovery will involve restoring health to the entire ecosystem. Such an approach will
prove beneficial to many other organisms in the ecosystem. Efforts will be focused on
ensuring the protection of biodiversity emphasizing the importance of community
associations and habitat protection and enhancement.
CURRENT ACTIVITIES AND APPROACH
The Fish and Wildlife Service and the National Marine Fisheries Service have
developed individual recovery plans for most of the species in the south Florida ecosystem.
These plans vary greatly in quality and some are in need of revision. Some species are
86
-------
receiving funding attention and some are not. There are active recovery programs under
way for a number of the more visible species.
The state of Florida is also actively involved in recovery efforts for many listed
species. Through Section 6 of the Endangered Species Act (ESA), the Fish and Wildlife
Service can provide funding on a three-to-one ratio to states that have a cooperative
agreement. In Florida, the Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission, the Florida
Department of Environmental Protection (for marine species) and the Division of Forestry
(part of the Florida Department of Agriculture and Consumer Services) have agreements
with the Fish and Wildlife Service. These three agencies cover all listed species from
marine mammals to plants. All three agencies are actively involved in recovery of listed
species in south Florida and work closely with the services in accomplishing actions
identified in approved recovery plans.
The services also use recovery plans and the actions they contain to make specific
recommendations to federal agencies and applicants who are required to enter into
consultation under Section 7 of the ESA. Through the Section 7 program federal agencies
are required to consult with the Fish and Wildlife Service (and the National Marine
Fisheries Service) on actions they authorize, fund, or carry out that "may affect" listed
species or "destroy or adversely modify" critical habitat. The services conduct hundreds of
consultations each year on federal agency actions which range from permits for wetland Fill
authorized by the Corps of Engineers to road and runway projects funded by the Federal
Highway Administration and the Federal Aviation Administration. During these
consultations the services make recommendations on how project impacts can be reduced or
encourage actions to be taken to improve the status of listed species. The basis for most of
these recommendations is approved recovery plans.
The vast array of recovery efforts and the development and implementation of
recovery plans need to be coordinated in a cohesive manner. The goal is to develop a
comprehensive, ecosystem wide-recovery/management plan that recognizes the needs of
each species and is responsive to the varying objectives of the agencies charged with
managing the land. It is hoped that we can develop a consolidated and unified strategy
that, within the objectives of the Endangered Species Act, would look at all endangered
species and their habitats in the system and deal with them holistically rather than on an
individual basis. Only a system-wide approach will ensure that all species are protected
and none are protected at the expense of others. It must be recognized that actions to
protect listed species associations will benefit many other life forms that occur in the same
area. Threatened and endangered species do not exist as independent species, they are
active components of the larger system. Responsible management actions that benefit listed
species will in most cases benefit the overall ecosystem.
FUNDING AND LEAD AGENCY
The Fish and Wildlife Service, in close coordination with the National Marine
Fisheries Service, will lead this effort. Staff of each agency will work together in a
complimentary fashion. Funding may be supplied to the State agencies, universities or
private consulting firms to carry out individual tasks. The goal is to have a comprehensive
87
-------
plan that embraces all agencies and interest groups and solicits support from agriculture and
business to federal, state, regional, county and city government.
It is estimated that the development and approval of a Multi-species Recovery Plan
will take two years; one year to prepare a draft and one year of review and refinement. In
order to meet the two year date it will require three full-time staff biologists with
appropriate clerical support. These individuals will need to be experienced in the Recovery
Program of the Fish and Wildlife Service and will be assigned this responsibility as their
full-time job.
There will be additional costs associated with reproduction of plans, public meetings,
etc. A comprehensive plan will be of great value to land owners and managers alike.
88
-------
APPENDIX K:
HABITAT RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
STRATEGY--FOR NEAR COASTAL WATERS INCLUDING FLORIDA
BAY, THE FLORIDA KEYS AND THE CORAL REEF SYSTEM
MAJOR ISSUES
Much of the interest in south Florida ecosystem restoration has focused on the
Everglades National Park and the historic Everglades terrestrial and freshwater ecosystems.
While restoration efforts directed at the Everglades ecosystem may benefit the coastal,
nearshore and offshore systems of south Florida, additional efforts will be necessary to
restore these areas. Chronic losses in near-coastal waters have been amplified by recent
dramatic events such as massive seagrass, mangrove, and faunal die-offs as well as other
symptoms such as increased algal blooms, reduced fish landings, overall deterioration of
fringe reef systems, and decreased species diversity in flora and fauna (aquatic and
terrestrial).
Alteration of Freshwater Flow to Estuaries: The C&SF Project altered the
quantity, timing and distribution of freshwater entering the estuaries. Hypersalinity in the
bays, presumably resulting from the freshwater flow alterations, has been suggested as one
causative factor in the seagrass and mangrove die-offs. Channelized freshwater flow,
chronic, and episodic voluminous releases from control structures have caused marine
faunal and floral mass mortalities and habitat loss.
Water Quality Degradation: Pollutant input, particularly excess nutrients, has
contributed to the observed loss and degradation of nearshore and offshore habitats such as
seagrass and coral reefs. Likely primary sources of pollutants include urban runoff within
the Florida Keys and upstream, agricultural runoff and industrial runoff. Other possible
sources include recreational and commercial boating activity and point/nonpoint source
discharges from other countries which end up in ocean currents moving along the south
Florida coastline.
Loss of Habitats to Development: Aquatic and terrestrial habitats have been
affected directly and indirectly by the development boom. The resulting methods of sewage
disposal (e.g. septic systems, shallow well injection, cess pits), lawn care, traffic, etc., also
contribute as nonpoint sources of pollution, resulting in the degradation of local water
quality and loss of habitat (seagrass, mangrove, "live" hard bottom) from dredge and fill
activities.
Impacts to Habitats From Recreation and Commercial Activities: Boating
impacts have caused significant damage to both seagrass and coral reefs. Over 10,000
acres of seagrasses have been destroyed by propeller scarring in the Florida Keys. An
average of over 40 small vessel groundings occur each month in the FKNMS; many result
in direct impact to coral reefs. Additional impacts occur from boats anchoring on corals, or
improperly moored live-aboards that directly impact seagrasses and other important marine
89
-------
habitats. Hard bottom habitats, coral rubble, and coral reef substrate that support a wide
diversity of reef organisms are under increasing pressure from harvest as the demand for
live rock in the aquarium industry increases. An increase in commercial sponging in the
Keys has added additional pressure on the sponge community, another important component
of the ecosystem. The cumulative impact of a wide range of commercial and recreational
activities contributes to habitat and water quality degradation.
BACKGROUND
Coastal and nearshore communities are highly productive ecosystems that support a
wide variety of species and provide economic and social benefits. Commercial and
recreational fisheries, diving and snorkeling, wildlife observation, boating and swimming
are just a few of the activities that contribute to the economic and social well being of
south Florida. The continued health and productivity of these natural systems depend on
maintaining a viable balance among their various components and the pressure of the
human activities.
Local fishers and divers have noted subtle changes in south Florida's nearshore and
offshore habitats for the past decade: changes in water color and transparency, reduced
fisheries landings, and a general decline in the coral reef habitats. Symptoms of these
ecological changes began in the early 1980s with fish die-offs, coral disease outbreaks,
coral bleaching, and other changes in the health of the natural resources. This general
degradation was dramatically illustrated in 1987 when Florida Bay began experiencing a
sudden, massive die-off of seagrass. Around the same time, and in many of the same
general areas, mangroves on wash-over islands also experienced die-offs. In addition, a
coral bleaching event occurred along the length of the coral reef tract that parallels the
Florida Keys. Some of the causes of degradation are obvious: increased development,
boating activities, a proliferation of septic tanks and artificial canals, etc. However, there
are disparate theories within the scientific community regarding the specific causes of
many of these occurrences. Theories include reduced freshwater inflow to the estuaries due
to the C&SF Project, excess nutrients from upland runoff and contaminants from upland
runoff. Until specific causes of the degradation are identified, management of these
habitats must depend on existing knowledge and best professional judgment.
OBJECTIVES
Restore natural or near natural freshwater distribution to south Florida bays and
estuaries, including Florida Bay.
Provide adequate treatment of runoff from urban, agricultural and industrial areas to
remove contaminants and excess nutrients (primarily nitrogen and phosphorus).
Treatment activities should include Florida Keys upland areas as well as upstream
areas on the mainland.
• Identify, reduce and eliminate pollution from septic systems, bilge pumps, "heads",
foreign sources, etc.
90
-------
Achieve a no-net habitat loss due to development.
• Produce a net increase in value and function of existing habitats through restoration,
enhancement and management.
• Restore historic fisheries productivity.
• Eliminate adverse impacts of recreational and commercial activities on existing
habitats.
Identify additional causes of ecosystem degradation.
GEOGRAPHIC SCOPE
For consistency, the geographic scope of this habitat restoration and management plan
is the same as Subregion 8 for the Science Subgroup. It encompasses the coastal, nearshore
and offshore areas from Biscayne Bay on the Atlantic Ocean, around the Florida Keys, and
up to Rookery Bay on the Gulf of Mexico. Consideration may be given to expanding the
scope at a later date to include all of the three "focus areas" identified in the U.S. Fish and
Wildlife Service's South Florida Coastal Ecosystem Restoration Initiative (FWS Coastal
Initiative). The three focus areas include Florida Bay/Florida Keys, Indian River
Lagoon/Lake Worth and Charlotte Harbor.
91
-------
APPENDIX L:
SUPPORT LAND BASED PROTECTION STRATEGY
ISSUES
Public protection of land values critical to sustainable environment and development
in south Florida, is based in local, county, and regional land use plans and zoning.
Compliance is achieved through information and education or through regulatory
enforcement. While these plans usually reflect a good sense of community needs and
interests, they often do not reflect clearly how to integrate into broader ecosystem based
strategies of environmental restoration and sustainable economic development.
Significant efforts must be undertaken by federal agencies, coordinated through the
ITF and its Florida-based IWG to offer and provide scientific and technical planning
assistance to state, regional, county, and local comprehensive land-use planning efforts to
fully integrate ecosystem-based sustainability objectives and conforming solutions.
Successfully conforming a plan with provisions to assure its implementation should be met
with authority for expedited clearance of required federal permits and approval necessary
for implementation.
As effective as these efforts can be to accomplishing environmental protection and
sustainable development strategies, public acquisition and direct management of critical land
remains an important component of restoring environmental values and sustaining
development and the population of the south Florida ecosystem. It is not the purpose of
this appendix to propose specific lands for acquisition. This is being accomplished by
several ongoing activities interwoven into the restoration effort. Existing approved public
acquisition activities pertinent to sustainable ecosystem goals are identified in the
Objectives segment of this appendix. We endorse the completion of these actions. Further,
there are several strategies that pertain to land acquisition that need to be more fully
developed. Among these are:
• A methodology or evaluation criteria for identifying and prioritizing specific types of
lands that must be publicly acquired and directly managed to accomplish and sustain
ecosystem restoration; some are critical, some important, others marginal;
Responsibilities (who), scheduling and funding for land acquisition will need to be
clarified; and
• Strategies for land acquisition need to be developed.
BACKGROUND
The general trend of water resource development in south Florida during the 100
years before the Central and Southern Florida Project had been more or less defined before
Florida became a state. Leaders of the day had grand visions of extensive agricultural
92
-------
development of the muck lands around the Kissimmee Valley lakes and Lake Okeechobee.
On admission into the Union in 1845, the Florida Legislature instructed the senators and
representative from the state to press upon the Congress the importance of reclaiming the
Everglades.
In connection with all the activities revolving around the Everglades, one of the
state's first two U. S. Senators, J. D. Westcott, proposed to the Congress that the United
States grant to the state those lands lying south of a line from Sarasota on the west coast to
Walton on the east coast (with certain exceptions) provided the state would undertake the
reclamation of the lands. Senator Westcott introduced a bill making specific provision for
the grant. The bill was referred to the Committee on Public Lands, which considered it in
connection with other available information.
Largely as a result of Senator Westcott's activities, and that of other states, Congress,
in 1850, passed what is generally referred to as the Swamp and Overflowed Lands Grant
Act. The act granted to Florida those swamp and overflowed lands which remained unsold
at the time of the passage of the act, with the stated purpose to enable the state to reclaim
the swamp and overflowed lands. This donation included the major part of the peninsula,
large areas of which were not wetlands or identified swamp and overflowed lands. At the
time it was thought to be about 12 million acres, but was later discovered to be over 20
million acres, including the Everglades. An important stipulation in the act was that the
sale of the lands to private interests should finance the necessary work of reclamation.
The fate of the lands in the Everglades then went through a series of events
punctuated by the state's creation of the Trustees of the Internal Improvement Fund to sell
the donated land; the Civil War; the era of Hamilton Disston, hired by the state to drain the
Everglades; the Everglades Drainage District, created to take up where Disston left off; the
opening of the area south of Lake Okeechobee to farming; the Florida land boom; the
major hurricanes of 1926 and 1928 which led to the levees around Lake Okeechobee; the
Great Depression; the creation of the Everglades National Park; and the Central and
Southern Florida Flood Control Project in 1948.
The cumulative effect of these actions including the features of the Central & South
Florida Project has succeeded in accommodating and supporting a 5.5 million population
along with a large and diverse economy.
The state and the federal governments now find themselves in the position of having
to repurchase or provide regulatory protection to large tracts of land included in the original
land grant to preserve and restore critical hydrological and biological functions of the same
Everglades considered 150 years ago to be "utterly worthless to the United States for any
purpose whatever."
Other lands are being identified by state, county, and local governments for
repurchase or zoning protection to ensure a clean and sufficient supply of water for a
growing population and economy.
93
-------
Significant contributions to these purposes are also being made voluntarily by some
private landowners and non-governmental organizations.
The result is a mosaic of land uses, protection activities, and strategies across the
south Florida ecosystem.
OBJECTIVES
Probably the best vehicle to tackle these issues would be the development of a multi-
agency land protection strategy. It would outline the land protection process from
identification through management of acquired land.
Development of evaluation criteria for the specific types of lands required for
ecosystem restoration;
Identification and inventory of all lands currently in public ownership, lands being
and to be acquired by public entities, and lands identified in current reports which
may be acquired by public entities. This would include lands owned by, to be
acquired by, or identified by various federal, state, or local government agencies;
including any lands identified by the Interagency Task Force and Working Group and
sub-groups; by the Corps restudy; and any other source interested in Everglades
restoration. This would be an iterative process, and would be included in the land
protection strategy.
Prioritization of identified lands. Determine which are the most important lands and
types of lands with respect to restoration/availability; which are the least important.
Determination of levels of title needed for various lands or types of lands identified
for acquisition. Where would fee acquisition be needed, where would easements be
adequate, where would zoning be appropriate, etc.
Availability of land use mapping Using on-line GIS systems, county master plans,
wetland mapping, etc.
Existing mechanisms for land protection by responsible agencies, include:
• negotiated free market acquisition;
eminent domain and/or necessary legislative authority;
funding sources (input from another sub-sub-group);
land swap potential;
• zoning ordinances;
• tax incentives in return for land donations;
94
-------
mitigation banking;
private initiatives, such as the Trust for Public Lands;
establishment of real estate arrangements to facilitate donation of private lands
or private funds for restoration; and
any other initiatives available to acquire interest in land.
Development of a land management strategy for all lands acquired by federal, state,
and local government agencies for ecosystem restoration to provide for consistency.
• Obstacles to land protection initiatives including mineral rights, tax losses,
infrastructure changes, community acceptance, relocation services, ad infinitum.
The charge for the group would be to deliver a report that addresses all the issues
identified herein, and all others that are determined at a later date. The end product would
be a stand alone document that could be used by the task force, the Corps study team, and
all other interested parties to understand the land acquisition ramifications of the restoration
efforts.
95
-------
APPENDIX M:
COORDINATED ECOSYSTEM BASED SCIENCE PROGRAM
INTRODUCTION
This Science Plan and its extended version is designed to provide scientific
information to help guide the restoration. The Science Plan outlined here is directed at the
following themes:
• Characterizing the pre-drainage system;
Determining the key characteristics of the natural hydrologic system that supported
the rich diversity and abundance of wildlife that has been lost;
Predicting effects of alternative structural modifications and operational changes;
Assessing the hydrologic and ecological results of these changes;
• Evaluating the impact of present and alternative urban and agricultural practices; and
• Recommending modifications of design and urban and agricultural practices.
PROJECT MANAGEMENT
The Science Sub-group is developing a detailed description of the scientific support
required for the south Florida ecosystem restoration effort. The objective is to formulate an
overall research plan, describe relevant ongoing efforts that will be integrated into the
overall plan, and identify gaps. Interagency planning efforts are being initiated to ensure
efficiency and integration of efforts. This approach involves broad involvement of the
scientific community and appropriate peer review. Regular communication of progress will
be scheduled to obtain essential feedback from primary constituents: restoration managers,
environmental and economic interest groups, and the general public. Data management
requirements for all projects follow the policies agreed to by the interagency U.S. Global
Climate Change program to ensure data compatibility. A difficulty in achieving these goals
is that management responsibilities for south Florida ecosystem restoration are currently
fragmented. Ludwig et al. (1993) in the third principle of effective management states that
scientists should be relied on to recognize problems, but not to remedy them, noting that
individual scientists are heavily influenced by their discipline training and that interactions
involving many disciplines are critical to solving ecosystem management problems.
Ludwig also notes that individual scientists in management situations have often been
subject to intense political pressure that influences their decisions, but without a broader
community aware of the impact of such pressures. The Science Sub-group has attempted to
deal with these issues by being a collective body with a significant mix of disciplines and
interacting directly through the Interagency Working Group made up of agency managers
with responsibilities for decision making.
96
-------
The Florida Bay Science Plan has already been developed. Its management structure
involves an interagency program management committee, an interagency technical advisory
group, and a scientific panel of nationally recognized scientists.
COOPERATION
Research currently underway or planned at the South Florida Water Management
District (SFWMD), Florida Department of Environmental Protection, the University of
Florida, and the Florida Game and Fish Commission is a vital component of this Science
Plan. For example, the existing hydrologic models (the South Florida Water Management
Model [SFWMM] and its natural system corollary [NSM]) that will be the core of the
proposed hydrologic modeling system were developed by SFWMD and already are
undergoing considerable upgrading that will make them even more useful in restoration
modeling. SFWMD also is developing a landscape model (Everglades Landscape Model
[ELM]) that could be expanded in scope to be extremely useful to the restoration effort.
SFWMD is engaged in other modeling, monitoring, and process-oriented studies in support
of the Surface Water Improvement Act, the Everglades Forever Act. and the Settlement
Agreement. These efforts are focused primarily on resolution of water quality problems,
particularly phosphorus. Integration of all public and private activities with federal efforts
into a South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Science Plan is essential to a successful
restoration.
MONITORING
Monitoring is essential to the restoration process. It will provide necessary
information for fine tuning the predictive models and ultimately evaluating the degree to
which the restoration is successfully meeting its stated goals and objectives. Therefore,
development and implementation of a comprehensive system-wide monitoring plan is a
critical first step in the restoration process. "Numerous on-going and planned monitoring
programs exist throughout the region. The need to assess, coordinate, and integrate these
programs into the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Science Plan is absolutely
imperative.
As a first step at integration and coordination of monitoring activities among the
various interested agencies, representatives from the Science Sub-group, the Federal
Geographic Data Committee (FGDC), the Florida Department of Environmental Protection,
and the SFWMD have jointly arranged workshops to encourage the coordination, sharing,
and mutual archival of all geo-spatial information regarding the Kissimmee-Okeechobee-
Everglades watershed. The workshops are preliminary to establishing a joint federal, state,
and local geo-spatial data agreement that insures format QA/QCs, metadata protocols, and
electronic retrieval-archival capabilities for coordination and data sharing. The workshops
will be useful in identifying data gaps in terms of geographic areas and types of
information not covered. They will highlight opportunities for further coordination and
resource sharing (e.g., NBS GAP, NOAA C-CAP, USGS NAWQA, NWI Wetlands, and
GFC Integrated Habitat Plan).
97
-------
MODELING
Modeling activities include the design or adaptation of several categories of models:
models of physical processes (hydrologic, hydrodynamic, transport, and meteorological
models), ecosystem models (landscape and ecological models), and water quality models
(models of nutrient uptake and cycling in waters, soils, and the biota—and models of the
movements, chemical transformations, and bioaccumulation of contaminants such as
mercury). One important task will be to integrate the models into an interactive capability.
An integrated hydrologic modeling system covering the entire south Florida
ecosystem, developed from existing sub-regional models, is the critical first need of the
restoration effort. The output of hydrologic models will drive all the other types of models.
The hydrologic models will support model-based research related to natural resource
rehabilitation, as well as agricultural and urban sustainability. Critical components of the
hydrologic modeling system will be natural systems model versions in which all canals and
other control structures have been removed and the pre-drainage topography has been
reconstituted. Their output will provide the most objective view of the structure and
function of the pre-drainage hydrologic system.
A present impediment to the development of system-wide modeling capability is that
there is no mandate for any state or federal entity to model the entire south Florida
restoration region. It is imperative that a group dedicated to this task be established.
Landscape and ecological models involving populations and communities will enable
hydrologic information to be evaluated in terms of ecological effects. Since the landscape
influences water flow and is subsequently shaped by it, hydrologic and landscape models
eventually will be linked to allow two-way interactions so that the effect on water flow of
long-term processes such as soil building and landscape pattern formation can be followed.
Individual-based species models will assess the effect of changes in hydroperiods and
hydro-patterns on the reproduction responses of populations such as colonial nesting wading
birds. Because the foraging area of such species is so broad and foraging success is closely
coupled with hydrologic patterns, modeled trends in abundance and recruitment in these
populations will reflect trends in ecosystem function. In a parallel effort, statistically based
habitat association models will be used to evaluate potential species responses to various
conditions of changing hydropatterns, hydroperiods, and vegetation types.
Ecological model development will start at the beginning of the restoration effort.
Only the development and application of ecological models, even with cursory data, can
reveal the type of information that is necessary from hydrologic and hydrodynamic models
and demonstrate why it is needed. Research and monitoring will be fully integrated with
the modeling.
Estuarine hydrodynamic models will allow the output of hydrologic models to be
translated into salinity and circulation patterns in estuaries. This information will help
determine how proposed modifications in the C&SF Project will affect the estuarine
resources in Florida Bay and, eventually, other estuaries. Fine-scale hydrodynamic and
98
-------
transport models will enable the movement of nutrients and contaminants such as mercury
in freshwater wetlands to be followed.
Meteorological modeling will be used to improve the grid of rainfall estimates needed
as input to hydrologic models. South Florida's rainfall is so spatially variable that the
current monitoring network may not adequately reflect the spatial pattern. Surface water
and soil moisture influence rainfall and are required inputs to the meteorological model.
Therefore, the meteorological model will eventually be used to determine the extent to
which the C&SF Project and its predecessors may have affected south Florida's rainfall and
evaluate restoration alternatives for their potential effect on rainfall. This will require
linking the meteorological and hydrologic models so that two-way interactions can occur.
MODELING, MONITORING, AND RESEARCH
Hypothesis testing research must be closely linked to the modeling and monitoring
effort. By conducting research, we can develop an understanding of the physical and
ecological processes regulating the south Florida ecosystem status, test model predictions,
and evaluate cause and effect relationships.
HYDROLOGIC PROCESSES
The hydrologic modeling effort has three parallel tracks: model improvement, model
development, and model application. Models are used in conjunction with process studies
and monitoring. Both water quantity and water quality issues can be addressed with
hydrologic research because water movement influences water quality.
The first step in the hydrologic modeling effort will be to develop a hydrologic
modeling system that covers the entire south Florida ecosystem land base. In the
immediate term, existing models will be upgraded, models will be developed for areas not
yet covered by appropriate hydrologic models, and the models will be integrated with one
another.
Several areas of south Florida have no adequate existing models to assist restoration
efforts. Spatially explicit models that include both surface and ground water do not
presently exist for southwest Florida. Existing models do not have the topographic detail
needed to adequately model freshwater flows to estuaries. Therefore, more detailed models
for the coastal areas are needed. Such a model is particularly important to determining how
to establish a more natural timing and volume of freshwater inflow to Florida Bay.
At the same time existing models are being improved, a more advanced and
comprehensive modeling system will be developed. New models will take advantage of
more powerful programming languages and support systems.
These are the fundamental steps of the hydrologic research plan for the entire south
Florida ecosystem:
• Characterize natural hydrologic structure and function;
99
-------
Assess present-day conditions;
• Formulate specific restoration objectives that consider natural system requirements and
societal demands;
• Develop and evaluate alternative strategies for achieving the objectives;
• Define success criteria;
• Implement the above through the structure and operation of the C&SF Project system;
and
Evaluate implementation consequences using success criteria.
Process studies and measurements are needed to improve algorithms and parameters
such as evapotranspiration, flow resistance, levee leakage, and seepage in the hydrologic
models. With respect to associated water quality modeling, process studies will examine
geochemical processes, nutrient cycling, and biological activity in the water column and
sediments.
Hydrodynamic and transport models for wetlands may be needed to provide input to
water quality models concerning nutrients and contaminants. These have not yet been
defined. A meteorological model to provide improved rainfall estimates and interact with
the hydrologic models is another model of physical processes to be used in the restoration
effort.
HYDRODYNAMIC PROCESSES
Many of the major issues concerning Florida Bay could be better addressed by the use
of a hydrodynamic model that simulates salinity patterns and circulation processes with the
bay as a function of freshwater inflow, local precipitation, wind, and regional circulation
processes. These regional processes need to be defined by regional circulation models of
the eastern Gulf of Mexico and the Florida Straits. Therefore, the scope of the
hydrodynamic modeling program must of necessity extend beyond the boundaries of Florida
Bay to the processes influencing conditions along the boundaries of the bay.
A workshop sponsored by Everglades National Park and organized by the Florida
Institute of Oceanography, in cooperation with NOAA, was held October 13-14, 1993.
LANDSCAPE PROCESSES
The tools to address landscape issues are landscape models, trend and gradient
analyses, and paleo-ecological investigations. Some major questions of restoration can only
be answered with landscape models. For instance, what processes shape landscape
structure? How are these processes and landscape structure affected by barriers such as
roads, levees, and canals? What are the landscape-scale ecosystem functions in this
100
-------
system? How are landscape-scale ecosystem functions affected by barriers? How are these
functions affected by water management?
Landscape modeling is dependent upon hydrologic modeling and needs to be fully
integrated with hydrologic modeling studies. Landscape models, in combination with
hydrologic models, are needed to address ecosystem-level questions concerning wildlife.
Models and paleo-ecological results can be mutually supportive.
The landscape model can be verified by imposing the C&SF Project on the pre-
drainage landscape and simulating the landscape change over time; the resulting landscape
can then be compared to the present landscape.
A seascape model—for example, Florida Bay estuarine and Keys model that includes
bottom topography and the overseas highway—is required to adequately model salinity and
circulation patterns and nutrient/biota dynamics in Florida Bay and the Florida Reef Tract.
In addition to models, trend and gradient analyses in both a monitoring and research
mode and retrospective paleo-ecological studies are required to support the modeling and to
generate additional information.
ECOLOGICAL PROCESSES
Ecological models are an essential component of the South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration Program. Ecological models that relate species, communities, and landscapes to
the simulation outputs of hydrologic models are the only objective way to evaluate
alternative water management strategies for their influence on landscapes, plant
communities, and wildlife. These models must demonstrate how certain key features of the
pre-drainage Everglades—large spatial extent, spatial heterogeneity, sheet flow, and
dynamic storage—supported a healthy ecosystem. A quantitative explanation of the
connections is needed to strengthen understanding about why these system attributes must
be reinstated and to communicate this understanding to others.
Comparison of population trends, plant community succession, and various ecological
processes simulated under present and pre-drainage conditions, given the same time series
of rainfall, can be used to gain perspective on how the system has been changed, an
understanding of the natural relationship of spatial and temporal patterns of hydrologic
conditions with species, communities, and landscapes characteristic of South Florida, and an
ecologically supportable, objectively determined, and relatively unbiased target for
restoration efforts.
Models are needed for key categories of species. For example, Wood Storks and
snail kites, which, because of their wide foraging area and specific foraging requirements,
reflect ecosystem functioning at the landscape level in their recruitment. Pink shrimp,
which, because of their position at the lower end of the food chain, represent the overall
productivity of the ecosystem with their recruitment.
The capability to predict community-level responses to water management changes is
needed. Important communities to examine include periphyton communities in the
101
-------
freshwater Everglades, nuisance algal blooms in Florida Bay, freshwater macrophyte
communities experiencing a change in species dominance, wading bird communities, and
the fish communities supporting the birds. The need to control the spread of invasive non-
native species into native plant communities is another community-level concern that will
be addressed by modeling.
Understanding the entry of mercury into the ecosystem, its transport, transformations,
and accumulation in food chains requires models capable of integrating across several
scales.
URBAN AND AGRICULTURE
The management goal is to recreate the overall hydrologic support functions for our
remaining natural areas that, prior to drainage, were provided by the lands now occupied by
urban and agricultural areas—while, at the same time, improving quality of life for human
populations. Working to achieve this and related goals is a major scientific challenge.
The increased human population and human activity in south Florida have brought
with them not only an increased need for water but also a decrease in water supply and
deterioration in water quality. Issues of land use, routing of stormwater runoff, and
disposition of treated waste water all relate to concerns for human water supply. Loads of
nutrients, various contaminants, and total organic carbons associated with human alterations
of the systems affect the quality of water vital to both human and natural systems. Several
proposed science plan topics address these problems.
South Florida has productive agricultural systems that could contribute to—and
benefit from—ecosystem restoration. The EAA now contains a productive agriculture of
major economic importance to the region. However, this agriculture is on organic soils that
are losing depth, primarily due to microbial oxidation resulting from drainage. This
continued loss of soil depth is a severe concern. The release of phosphorus and dissolved
organic carbons into drainage waters are environmental concerns associated with soil
subsidence. Previous studies suggest that a zero subsidence agriculture producing present
crops and maintaining current harvest levels is an achievable goal through research. A
research program is proposed with the objective of developing the technology for this zero
subsidence system. It is possible that successful research would help modify the hydrologic
function of the EAA, with respect to downstream natural ecosystems, to more closely
resemble the hydrologic function of the area prior to drainage (i.e., providing dynamic
storage and allowing conveyance of water from Lake Okeechobee). One of the following
science plan initiatives relates to this topic.
In general, studies must address these questions: What are the critical feedbacks of
the natural system to urban and agricultural systems and vice versa? How will the natural
system and its support functions for humans be affected by different population levels and
land-use configurations? What landscape combination will allow healthy natural systems
and urban and agricultural systems to coexist?
102
-------
APPENDIX N:
PUBLIC INFORMATION AND EDUCATION
ISSUES/PROBLEMS
While the public often recognizes the importance of the ecosystem and, according to a
recent study, supports the clean-up of the Everglades, there are "strong doubts over
government's ability to use the money for its intended purpose." The survey also reported
thai the public did not differentiate clean-up of the Everglades from restoration. During
December 1993 public workshops for the C&SF restudy, opposition was expressed by
many to restoration which meant loss of homes and businesses while others expressed
opposition to a continuing degradation of the ecosystem to support the economy. This
points out the need to present information and educate the public about restoration and
sustainable development.
Litigation further complicates the scenario with parties filing suit over enforcement of
water quality standards, payment for damages and clean-up, and to stop proposed
restoration projects. Ongoing litigation and the threat of further litigation has fostered
polarization of the stakeholders as well as a climate of distrust in south Florida.
The objective of the restoration effort is to develop and foster a coordinated, well-
supported, balance among the federal, state, regional, and local agencies; interest groups;
and the public. This plan will be doomed to failure if the state agencies are not seated as
full partners on the Interagency Working Group or the Task Force. Therefore, fulfilling the
requirements of the Federal Advisory Committee Act (FACA) is necessary.
BACKGROUND
There are numerous stakeholders in restoration efforts in south Florida. These
stakeholders have competing goals and expectations. Federal agencies' ongoing activities
include the Central and Southern Florida (C&SF) Project restudy, the restoration of the
Kissimmee River, and the Everglades Expansion Act land purchases. State agencies' plans
and activities include the South Florida Water Management District's Save Our Rivers
program which has acquired over 150,000 acres of land for public ownership, the Save Our
Everglades plan which has acquired over 326,000 acres of land, and the South Florida
Water Management District Lower East Coast Water Supply Study. The Everglades
Construction Project under the state's Everglades Forever Act, will involve a massive
construction effort. Special interest groups have also joined in the restoration efforts: the
Everglades Coalition has published a Greater Everglades Ecosystem Restoration Plan.
While restoration proceeds, development and water supply must keep pace for the rapidly
expanding population of south Florida. The state provides 25 percent of the sugar grown in
the United States (all from the south Florida ecosystem) and its citrus crops and winter
vegetables contribute jobs and millions of dollars to the economy. The tourism industry
which is in part dependent on fishing, beaches, and diving contributes enormously to the
economy and creates a wide variety of employment. The Miccosukee and Seminole Indian
103
-------
Tribes make their home in South Florida and have an historical and legal interest in
restoration.
Many Federal agencies have ongoing public information, education, and involvement
activities that vary from minimal to very extensive. In many instances, they are project or
issue specific, but are not usually multi-agency in their approach. Recently, there have
been some efforts to develop more comprehensive public involvement strategies: The
Corps of Engineers C&SF Project Comprehensive Review Study has attempted to involve a
large segment of the public through the use of workshops.
SCOPE
Restoration activities of the Interagency Task Force and the Interagency Working
Group will take place in the south Florida area and possibly impact natural resources and
activities of local residents. Because the Everglades ecosystem is a resource that can
positively impact the entire state, there is a need for the activities to be understood not only
in south Florida, but in the entire state. Additionally, agencies will propose activities
whose benefits will need to be communicated to Congress and national interest groups.
OBJECTIVES
The ultimate objective of public information, education, and involvement is to develop
and foster a coordinated, well-supported, balanced restoration effort among the federal,
state, regional, and local agencies; interest groups; and the public. The activities proposed
will:
Provide stakeholders and the public facts on the purposes, costs, and benefits of the
activities of the Interagency Task Force and the Interagency Working Group so that
informed decisions can be made;
Increase public awareness of the importance of ecosystem restoration and actions that
can possibly contribute to the restoration; and
• Provide a mechanism for input from stakeholders to the Interagency Task Force and
the Interagency Working Group on proposed activities.
These activities should be coordinated by a Public Information and Education
Working Sub-Group, made up of public information specialists at the member agencies.
The Public Information and Education Working Sub-group would be responsible for
implementing the activities outlined in this public information, education, and involvement
plan. In addition, each agency should ensure that its public information specialists
coordinate activities with the Interagency Working Sub-group. The lead agency should be
the Everglades National Park. As such, it should ensure that all provisions of FACA and
NEPA are met insofar as public coordination of Working Group activities and reports are
concerned.
104
-------
APPENDIX O:
STATE, LOCAL, AND TRIBAL PARTNERSHIPS
BACKGROUND
There are myriad public agencies and private organizations working on various
aspects of the restoration of the south Florida ecosystem. In the past year this altogether
confusing array has distilled into major groups. The federal effort, made up of the
Interagency Task Force and the Interagency Working Group and sub-groups, is only one
focal point; others include:
On the state level, the Florida Department of Environmental Protection Ecosystem
Initiative;
• On a regional level, the South Florida Water Management District;
• The academic effort chartered as a case study through the Man and the Biosphere
program;
• The Governor's Commission for a Sustainable South Florida that pulls together, in an
advisory capacity, people representing all levels of the private sector—from agri-
business to the conservation community;
Other organizations of government including the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes as
sovereign governments and the county land-use planning departments; and
• A wide range of private interests and concerns, such as the Everglades Coalition.
All of these entities have significant interests and responsibilities that can feed into
one of the processes discussed in the report of the Interagency Working Group.
We feel that the myriad efforts and integrated systems associated with ecosystem
management and sustainability need to work together toward unifying their visions for
restoration in south Florida. The best mechanism for accomplishing ecosystem restoration
seems to be a synthesis of all of these efforts. The federal Interagency Task Force is only
one of a number of essential participants. Our mutual vision cannot be fully articulated or
accomplished until all the participants are fully integrated.
PROPOSED ACTIONS
To date, while there has been communication and some effort at coordination among
these groups, this in no way represents the development of an integrated process that must
be the objective for the coming year. Further steps must be taken to:
105
-------
Schedule coordinated public meetings by the Interagency Working Group that provide
regular opportunities for the major groups involved at the federal, state, and regional
level in ecosystem management to communicate and coordinate with the Interagency
Working Group (This has been started with the Governor's Commission on a
Sustainable South Florida);
Seek an amendment to the Federal Advisory Committees Act (FACA) to categorically
exempt employees of other government agencies with responsibilities so they can
work together on ecosystem strategies;
Recommend the establishment of a federal advisory committee under FACA to
provide a forum for other knowledgeable and interested individuals and organizations
to provide expert opinion and recommendations to the Task Force and Working
Group; and
Support efforts to establish and maintain a publicly accessible electronic directory of
all projects, organizations, and meetings related to ecosystem management and
restoration.
106
-------
APPENDIX P:
BUREAU OF INDIAN AFFAIRS PERSPECTIVE
ON 1994 INTERAGENCY WORKING GROUP REPORT
Areas Having the Potential to Impact Both the Trust Resources and the Rights of the
Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes:
WATER QUALITY MANAGEMENT
MAJOR ISSUES
Surface water quality entering and leaving the Indian lands.
Heavy metals (especially methylated mercury) in the surface water.
• Establishment of tribal water quality standards - impacts on the restoration efforts.
Sludge disposal on nearby lands.
Enforcement of current State and Federal Water Quality Standards.
Pollution from the West Basin.
• Full tribal participation in all federal water quality management planning activities.
• Federal government's trust responsibility to protect tribal trust resources i.e., water
and tribal rights to clean water.
Protection needed for WCA-3A water quality at the same level as Everglades National
Park and the Loxahatchee NWR.
Establishment and enforcement of final numerical water quality standards necessary to
save and restore the Everglades.
• Protection from sediment nutrient loading.
• Coordinated research and real time monitoring.
Protection from eutrophication and resulting imbalance in flora and fauna.
BACKGROUND
The Seminole and Miccosukee Indian Tribes are federally recognized tribes and the
federal government is the trustee of their lands and resources and the protector of their
rights. Indian lands of the Seminole and Miccosukee Tribes are subjected to run-on of water
107
-------
from upstream sources of surface water contaminated with high levels of nitrogen,
phosphorous, heavy metals and other pollutants.
These pollutants are generally attributed to intensive upstream agricultural
development and recently, possibly to the spreading of sludge from municipal waste
treatment plants. This pollution has, over the years, resulted in contaminated fish and
wildlife which tribal members consume as part of their traditional subsistence hunting and
fishing lifestyle. Additionally, tribal lands have not been offered the trust resource
protection that is required of the federal government, resulting in the lands being used as
filters and treatment areas for polluted waters. This has resulted in the conversion of a
large part of the wetlands to areas lacking natural floral and faunal diversity of the past.
Indian lands which are adversely impacted total approximately 462,000 acres
including much of WCA-3A which is perpetually leased by the state of Florida to the
Miccosukee Tribe. The traditional and modern lifestyles of approximately 2,500 tribal
members are also adversely impacted.
OBJECTIVES
Restoration of floral and faunal diversity in WCA-3A.
Establishment and protection of the tribal rights to clean water.
Elimination of heavy metal pollution.
• Reduction of phosphorous pollution to natural background levels.
• Restoration of dissolved oxygen levels (approx. 5mg/L).
APPROACH
Development, implementation and enforcement of tribal water quality standards.
Full tribal participation tn all federal water quality management planning activities.
Conducting of essential research (coordinated) and development of real-time systems
for the reservations which will be capable of monitoring both water quality and
quantity.
COMPREHENSIVE WETLAND PERMITTING AND MITIGATION
STRATEGY
MAJOR ISSUES
• National Pollution Discharge Elimination System (NPDES) permitting of STAs with
non-degradation standards.
108
-------
Moratorium on permitting within the Everglades buffer strip pending analysis of
cumulative impacts on restoration efforts.
Establishment of minimum flows and levels.
BACKGROUND
The Seminole and Miccosukee tribal lands have been adversely impacted by both
reduced quantity and quality of available surface water. The degradation of these trust
resources is principally due to non-tribal agricultural/commercial/residential and
infrastructure development within the historic boundaries of the Everglades Ecosystem. No
one knows how much more development can be sustained without (if it already has not
happened) rendering the Everglades completely dysfunctional and beyond feasible
restoration.
OBJECTIVES
Protection of the Everglades and tribal lands from further and possibly irrevocable
degradation caused by further development of wetlands in the buffer zone.
APPROACH
Require that significant development be permitted in areas on the eastern coast buffer
strip to the Everglades ecosystem, only after an Environmental Impact Statement is
prepared in accordance with the National Environmental Policy Act.
• Provide Bureau support for maintaining the requirement that STAs must have NPDES
permits that contain non-degradation standards and feasible compliance schedules.
SUSTAINABLE DEVELOPMENT
MAJOR ISSUES
• Continued development, without enforcement of numerical non- degradation water
quality standards, will continue to further degrade tribal trust water resources.
Tribal economic and social needs (especially the Miccosukee Tribe) are tied directly
to and are dependent upon the quality of the Everglades environment much more so
than the average citizen of Florida.
The federal government is obligated to support the development of tribal lands as long
as there are no significant adverse environmental impacts. There is concern that as
more development occurs outside of Indian lands, the probability of significant
impacts is increased i. e., the tribes will not be able to rightfully develop their land
because it is needed for resource protection.
109
-------
• No one knows how much development can be sustained without a complete and
irreparable breakdown of the Everglades ecosystem.
BACKGROUND
There will be continued pressure to develop the remaining areas of the Everglades
buffer zone etc. Without proper assessment, the cumulative impact of development and the
breaking point of the system are not known. Current trends in the Everglades ecosystem
indicate that environmental quality continues to decline. Additional development around
the fringes will further restrict the opportunities for system restoration and make it more
difficult to reverse the negative trend. Serious restoration efforts to reverse the trend may
not work with the limited area currently available - the trend should become positive before
more Everglades area is lost to development.
Additionally, the long term problem of restricting tribal development rights because of
the cumulative impacts of surrounding development, must be addressed. The federal
government, unlike the State of Florida, has an obligation to protect these rights.
Tribal populations can be expected to increase with time as will the need for housing,
infrastructure, and economic development. Tribal population growth is slow and from
within. Tribal members live on the reservation because it is their traditional homeland and
their sovereign nation as established by Congress. There are no options for them to move
elsewhere. Their right to grow and prosper and utilize their resources for the benefit of
their people must be protected and be a high priority when limitations on sustainable
development are addressed.
OBJECTIVES
• Protection of the Everglades ecosystem from the negative impacts of excessive further
development.
• Protection of tribal development rights.
APPROACH
Assure that tribal development rights are a key component of any federally approved
sustainable development plans or recommendations.
HABITAT RESTORATION AND MANAGEMENT PLAN
ADDRESSING THE DECLINE OF NATIVE FLORA AND FAUNA
MAJOR ISSUES
• Polluted surface water entering Indian lands has caused areas to become cattail
monocultures.
110
-------
Indian lands which are subject to a flowage easement in the Everglades and WCA-3A
should receive the same consideration for protection and restoration as parks and
preserves.
• Protection of tribal hunting and fishing rights in WCA-3A.
BACKGROUND
As stated in Water Quality Management and additionally that approximately 353,000
acres of tribal land, including all of WCA 3A, should receive environmental equity with the
parks and preserves. Existing cattail monoculture occupies portions of Indian lands.
APPROACH
Restoration of cattail areas to traditional floral and faunal diversity after phosphorous
levels are reduced to normal.
Environmental equity for Indian lands and WCA-3A.
STRATEGY
• Full tribal participation in the planning and restoration process.
• Assertion of federal trust responsibility by all federal agencies to protect tribal trust
resources from degradation.
COORDINATING AGENCY POSITIONS AND ACTIONS
MAJOR ISSUES
Are any of the currently implemented activities designed to improve the ecosystem
showing success as measured by success criteria?
• The Indian tribes are only seeing continued system degradation with resultant adverse
impacts to trust resources.
• Individual uncoordinated agendas are the rule for restoration efforts without
conducting a complete cumulative impact analysis.
• How are we going to know when the feasible restoration efforts have been
completed?
BACKGROUND
As stated by the Miccosukee Tribal Elders "The snakes are dead;
111
-------
the turtles are dying; we cannot eat the frogs and the fish. Are we Indians next to perish in
the Everglades? You (BIA) do something about it." From the Native American
perspective the visible degradation of the Everglades and its wildlife resources is adequate
measure that nothing is yet working. A statement by a tribal elder fifty, one-hundred or
two-hundred years from now reflecting worse or hopefully better conditions will still be an
accurate reflection of the condition of the Everglades. To go beyond a personal reflection
will require a coordinated effort by federal, tribal, state, and local agencies; industry;
agricultural interests; and environmental groups to monitor the health of the entire
Everglades ecosystem. The problem is less one of determining indicators than it is of
coordination.
OBJECTIVES
To establish, on a real-time basis, changes in the health of the Everglades ecosystem.
• To know, from a management standpoint, when enough is enough be it restorative
action or development that degrades the ecosystem.
APPROACH
To develop a real-time remote sensing system for the tribal lands which will monitor
environmental conditions as restoration efforts progress.
• To be part of a coordinated effort to determine the overall health of the ecosystem.
• To be a full partner in the ongoing restoration planning and implementation process.
112
-------
APPENDIX Q:
INTEGRATED FINANCIAL PLAN
ISSUES/PROBLEMS
Multiple Possible Funding Source: It is possible that, upon an individual agency's
budget request reaching the Office of Management and Budget (OMB), the level of priority
for funding of that individual agency's efforts towards the restoration initiative may or may
not be the same priority accorded other involved agencies. If all the involved OMB
examiners consider the restoration initiative efforts of the agency under their review to be a
high priority for that agency it would reduce the possibility of individual agency funding
gaps that could delay the project. Obviously, if one or more agencies having responsibility
for work products that are on the overall critical path should not receive sufficient funding
for their required effort, the entire restoration initiative could be delayed.
In preparing individual agency budget requests for the initiative, a high degree of
coordination and cooperation from all involved agencies will be necessary. This will be
required not only to ensure that there is not an overlap in work to be performed, thereby
increasing costs, but to be sure that funds will be available for a particular agency's
individual efforts at the time they are required. Proper coordination may result in the
individual agency requests being adequate for the proposed future work, however, this is by
far no solid indication that the budget request will be approved, either in its entirety or
partially Once an individual agency's budget comes before its appropriation
subcommittees and/or committees, funding for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
may not be viewed with the same priority. For this reason, it would be beneficial to have
each agency's budget request for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration initiative be
reviewed by a single examiner at OMB.
Agencies signatory to the Interagency Agreement on South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration are funded through five separate federal appropriations bills. In addition, funds,
lands, uork-in-kind, etc., may be received/required by the state of Florida, the South Florida
Water Management District, and numerous private corporations, trusts, and concerns.
Signatory agencies ana their respective appropriation bills are shown in the following table
along uith other possible non-federal sources of funding'
BACKGROUND
AGENCY
APPROPRIATION BILL
U.S. Department of Agriculture
U.S. Department of the Army
U.S Department of Commerce
U S. Department of the Interior
U.S. Department of Justice
Environmental Protection Agency
Agriculture
Energy - Water Development
Commerce-Justice-State
Interior
Commerce-Justice-State
VA-HUD-Independent Agencies
113
-------
State
Local
Private
State of Florida
South Florida Water
Management District
Private Corporations,
Trusts, Concerns
At present, each agency requests its own funding through its own standard procedures.
OBJECTIVES/APPROACH
Budgeting Options: There are three budgeting alternatives that could be used to
obtain necessary federal funding for the south Florida ecosystem restoration initiative. The
first is to maintain the status quo and let each department/agency compete for funding
independently. The second alternative would be to proceed with a cross-cut approach
whereby each agency attempts to receive its own funding through their respective
appropriation process after coordinating requirements within the Task Force. The third
alternative would be to have all required funding requested by a single lead agency.
Status Quo: Each agency would be responsible for requesting and obtaining the
funds required for its particular items of work. This option does not allow for any
synergistic savings and runs the risk of dealing with various OMB examiners.
Cross-Cut: A high level of cooperation and coordination would be needed to ensure
that agencies know what work items would be required of their agency, when the particular
work would be taking place, and an accurate estimate of the cost of the work to be
performed. Lead time for a budget request would normally be about 18 months prior to
actually receiving funding.
Intense coordination at the working group level would be required to the maximum
extent practicable in order to ensure adequate funding requests without duplication of work
by two or more involved agencies. The agencies would then submit their budgets through
normal channels. Once budgets had reached the departmental level, a meeting of Task
Force members would be held to review the requests of the separate agencies portion
related to the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration efforts After any changes, the budget
would then be submitted individually to OMB.
With numerous federal agencies involved, the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration
initiative should be reviewed by a single examiner at OMB. In this way. it may be possible
to prevent funding delays by any particular agency whose work efforts may be on the
critical path for the restoration effort. With all the various agency requirements looked at
by the same examiner, the funding stream could be more fluid and prevent delays in desired
efforts.
Each participating agency should use a common accounting system for the funds
provided for and used on the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration initiative. A standard
system that all agencies could readily understand should be used to provide an accurate
accounting of all initiative expenditures. A single agency should be appointed as the lead
114
-------
for financial reporting of ecosystem efforts. All involved agencies would submit monthly
financial information to the lead financial agency for consolidation and compilation of data
and statistics.
Lead Agency Budgeting: A possible benefit of having one agency budget for
necessary funding would be to help reduce the possibility of any particular agency not
receiving necessary funding for the initiative, thereby possibly delaying the entire effort.
Additionally, if one agency, as the lead, were to request funding for all the major
agencies involved in the initiative, it would be necessary that the budget ceilings for the
affected agencies be adjusted downward accordingly. It should be obvious that the other
programs of the budgeting lead agency should not be penalized by the fact that the agency
is requesting funding that will be sent to other agencies, thereby effectively reducing the
lead agency's other programs' ability to receive adequate funding because part of its budget
authority was used for funding that is for the other agencies. It also stands to reason that
the agencies receiving the funding from the lead agency should have their budget ceiling
reduced by the amount of funding they receive from the lead agency.
In most agencies, the lead time for submitting an initial budget request and receiving
actual funding is between 16 and 18 months. During this time many unforeseen problems
and/or circumstances can arise which provides either a surplus of required funds or a need
for additional funds in the budgeted fiscal year. It is possible that this scenario could
happen for the South Florida Ecosystem Restoration Initiative. A particular agency may
experience a delay creating a funding surplus or encounter some unforeseen circumstances
that would require funding beyond the level available to them Some agencies may have
authorities which permits the reprogramming of funds from one project or study to another,
thereby offsetting or even reducing the shortfall. These authorities in and of themselves
may not prevent a shortfall from delaying work as there can be no assurance that surplus
funds would be found from another project In more likelihood, in this ever competitive
environment for federal funding, it will be more and more difficult to make up for funding
shortfalls in this manner. Another possible solution ma\ be a cooperative effort among
participating agencies. Coordination among these agencies may help to alleviate such a
funding problem by having agencies experiencing a funding surplus do additional work that
would have been done by an agency experiencing a funding shortfall.
TRANSFERS
Currently, the Jacksonville District requests additional Department of the Interior
funds for the Modified Water Deliveries Project from their Washington headquarters.
Additional approval is required through the Department of the Interior chain of command
beginning in Atlanta. The ability to transfer the required funding from the one agency to
another should reside at the lowest level possible. This would help to ensure that there
would be no unnecessary delays in an agency receiving necessary funds.
115
-------
DISCRETIONARY FUNDING
Authority and appropriation for the expenditure of $5 million per annum by the South
Florida Ecosystem Restoration Task Force would be requested. These funds would only be
used on the initiative and could help fill funding gaps for unseen work or unexpected
situations that might develop. Monies could be appropriated piecemeal to each agency or
in a lump sum to a lead agency and distributed as needed.
FUNDING LEVELS
It is our intention to list an integrated system of financial requirements characterizing
the level of activities occurring and the efforts to undertake the recommendations in this
report. From the statement of needs, individual agencies can make decisions for the future
funding on an agency-by-agency basis along programmatic categories. Attached is a
sample matrix.
RECOMMENDATION
It is recommended that individual agencies continue to budget for the ecosystem
restoration effort through their normal budgeting procedures using the cross-cut approach.
Coordination, as discussed above, would be required at the Working Group and Task Force
level to ensure adequate funding for individual agencies needs.
116
-------
FUNDING LEVELS
(Sample Matrix)
AGENCY
FEDERAL
COST
NON-
FEDERAL
COST
THROUGH
FY 94
FY 95
BALANCE
DEPARTMENT OF INTERIOR
0
0
0
0
0
DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
0
0
0
0
0
DEPARTMENT OF AGRICULTURE
0
0
0
0
0
U.S. ARMY CORPS OF ENGINEERS
1,218,000
665,000
404,468
24,747
787,900
DEPARTMENT OF JUSTICE
0
0
0
0
0
E.P.A.
0
0
0
0
0
TOTAL
1,218,000
665,000
404,468
24,747
787,900
-------
TASK FORCE
ASSISTANT SECRETARIES
USEPA. DEPARTMENTS OF INTERIOR, ARMY,
COMMERCE. JUSTICE, AGRICULTURE
MANAGEMENT AND COORDINATION
WORKING GROUP
SENIOR MANAGERS
EPA, NPS, USFWS, USGS, NBS
BIA, COE, NRCS, DOJ, NOAA
RESEARCH/SCIENCE
WORKING SUB-GROUP
12 FEDERAL SCIENTISTS
MANAGEMENT
WORKING SUB-GROUP
PROJECTS/
INFRASTRUCTURE
WORKING SUB-GROUP
INFORMATION/
EDUCATION
WORKING SUB-GROUP
SOUTH FLORIDA ECOSYSTEM RESTORATION FEDERAL TASK FORCE ORGANIZATION
12/9-4
-------
Historic
hydrological feature:
from 1850s military i
(Ives, 1856)
119
-------
SOUTH FLORIDA POPULATION 1890-2010
CO
Q
z
<
CO
Z)
o
X
10,000
8,000
6,000
4,000
2,000
0
NORTH
EAST: DADE, BROWARD,
PALM BEACH COUNTIES
WEST: LEE, HENDRY, COLLIER
MONROE COUNTIES
8,939
4,750
3,219
2,220
53
66
114 107
426
1,077
647
1890 1900 1910 1920 1930 1940 1950 1960 1970 1980 1990 2000 2010
YEAR
(U.S. CENSUS; STATE OF FLORIDA)
-------
SOUTH FLORIDA POPULATION 1890-2010
COUNTY
1890
1900
1910
1920
1930
1940
1950
1960
1970
1980
1990
2000*
2010*
DADE
861
4,955
11,933
42,753
142,955
267,739
495,084
935,047
1,267,972
1,625,979
1,937,094
2,170,410
2,383,217
BROWARD
X
X
X
5,135
20,094
39,794
83,933
333,946
620,100
1,014,043
1,255,488
1,467,987
1,656,463
PALM
BEACH
X
X
5,577
18,654
51,781
79,989
114,688
228,106
348,753
573,125
863,518
1,089,716
1,298,620
EAST
TOTAL
861
4,955
17,510
66,542
214,830
387,522
693,705
1,497,099
2,236,645
3,213,147
4,056,100
4,728,1 13
5,338,300
MONROE
18,786
18,006
21,563
19,550
13.624
14,078
29,957
47,921
52,586
63,098
78,024
90,366
100,930
COLLIER
X
X
X
X
2,883
5,102
6,488
15,753
38,040
85,791
152,099
218,937
277,879
HENDRY
X
X
X
X
3,492
5,237
6,051
8,1 19
11,859
18,599
25,773
32,837
38,304
LEE
1,414
3,071
6,294
9,540
14,990
17,488
23,404
54,539
105,216
205,266
335,113
442,007
542,275
WEST
TOTAL
20,200
21,077
27,857
29,090
34,989
41,905
65,900
126,332
207,701
372,754
591,009
784,147
959,388
GRAND
TOTAL
21,061
26,032
45,367
95,632
249,819
429,427
759,605
1,623,431
2,444,346
3,585,901
4,647,109
5,512,260
6,297,688
* - Population estimates
X - County did not exist. Population for that area is included in another reported county
Source
US Census, 1890-1990,
University of Florida Bureau of Economic and Business Research, 2000-2010
-------
Workshop Drati DWMP - Juno <994
District Overview * Cultural Resources and Development
Past Land
South Florida Water
Miles
0 10 20 SO
SFWMD
Planning Department
March 1994
LEGEND
Agriculture
Lake: &. Riven
Natural
Urban
Figure 5
122
-------
Workshop Draft DWMP - June 1994
District OverviBw - Cultural Resources and Duvelopment
Existing Land Use
South Florida Water Management District
ORLAXDO
fort rajtcx
rurrra
LEGEND
tJjgaiSl Agriculturt
Lakes 4 Riven
Natural
Urban
Miles
o jo 20 so
FORT
LAUDERDALE
b£*v$.
KEY WEST
Figure 6
SFWMD
Planning Department
March 1994
123
-------
I *11114 1
i ,*<
\
CENTRAL AND SOUTHERN FLORIDA
FLOOD CONTROL PROJECT
kbb m aaiwa irouin m wMmun
r P
us. mwy bwiee* bstwci jaoshyille south Florida water kaxagekeiit
CORPS Of EKMEEIS 01STRICT
jg—iLffH win fimnicn, njMt
\ fn m.
124
-------
Ecological Systems
of South Florida
Lake
I i Mangrove
Coral Reef
I Pinelands
I Tropical Hardwoods
[ j Wet Prairie
HI Cypress
II Seagrass
125
-------
LIST OF ACRONYMS
ADID
Advanced Identification
AF
acre-feet
APHIS
Animal and Plant Health Inspection Service
ARS
Agricultural Research Service
ATLSS
Across Trophic-Level System Simulation Model
BIA
Bureau of Indian Affairs
BMP
best management practice
CARL
Conservation and Recreational Lands Program
cfs
cubic feet per second
COE
Corps of Engineers
COP
Coastal Oceans Program
COVER
Colloqui of Vegetation Everglades Research
DEIS
Draft Environmental Impact Statement
DEP
Florida Department of Environmental Protection
DOA
Department of Army
DOC
Department of Commerce
DOI
Department of Interior
DOT
Department of Transportation
EA
environmental assessment
EAA
Everglades Agricultural Area
EIS
Environmental Impact Statement
ELM
Everglades Landscape Model
ENP
Everglades National Park
EPA
Environmental Protection Agency
EPCC
Exotic Pest Control Council
ESA
Endangered Species Act
ET
evapotranspiration
FACA
Federal Advisory Committee Act
FDEP
Florida Department of En\ ironmental Protection
FEMA
Federal Emergency Management Agenc\
FGDC
Federal Geographic Data Committee
FG&FWFC
Florida Game and Fresh Water Fish Commission
FKNMS
Florida Keys National Marine Sanctuary
FWS
U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service
FY
fiscal year
GAP
Gap Analysis PRogram
GEIS
Generic Environmental Impact Statement
GIS
geographic information system
IFAS
Institute of Food and Agricultural Sciences
ITF
Interagency Task Force
IWG
Interagency Working Group
LOTAC
Lake Okeechobee Technical Advisory Committee
MDWASA
Metropolitan Dade Water and Sewer Authority
126
-------
mg
milligram
mgd
million gallons per day
mg/L
milligram per liter
MP
management plan
MWDP
Modified Water Delivery Plan
NAWQA
National Water Quality Assessment
NBS
National Biological Service
NEPA
National Environmental Policy Act
NGO
non-governmental organization
NGVD
National Geodetic Vertical Datum
NMFS
National Marine Fisheries Service
NOAA
National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration
NPDES
National Pollution Discharge Elimination System
NRCS
Natural Resources Conservation Service
NPS
National Park Service
NSM
natural system model
NWI
National Wetlands Inventory
NWR
National Wildlife Refuge
OMB
Office of Management and Budget
00 A R
Office of Oceanic and Atmospheric Research
PPb
parts per billion
ppm
parts per million
ppt
parts per thousand
QA/QC
quality assurance/quality control
SCS
Soil Conservation Service
SFCWPM
South Florida Comprehensive Wetlands Permitting and Mitigation Strategy
SFWCP
South Florida Wetlands Comprehensive Plan
SFWMD
South Florida Water Management District
SFWMM
South Florida Water Management Model
SJRWMD
St Johns River Water Management District
SOR
Save Our Rivers
SRF
Systematic Reconnaissance Flights
STA
stormvvater treatment area
SWIM
Surface Water Improvement and Management Plan
TMDF
total maximum daily flow
TMDL
total maximum daily load
IMP
Technical Mediated Plan
TOC
Technical Oversight Committee
US DA
U.S. Department of Agriculture
USGS
U.S. Geological Survey
WCA
Water Conservation Area
WES
Waterways Experiment Station, COE
WICG
Wetland Interagency Coordination Group
WMP
watershed management plan
WQPP
Water Quality Protection Program
127
-------
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Anonymous. 1992. Catastrophic mortality of sponges affects juvenile spiny lobster
populations. The Lobster Newsletter 5(2): 1-2.
Bancroft, G. T., W. Hoffman, R. J. Sawicki, and J. C. Ogden. 1992. The importance of the
Water Conservation Areas in the Everglades to the Endangered Wood Stork (Mycteria
americana). Conservation Biology 6:392-398.
Brooks, J. E. and E. F. Lowe. 1984. U.S. EPA Clean Lakes Program, Phase I. Diagnostic-
feasibility Study of the Upper St. Johns River Chain of Lakes. Vol. 2: Feasibility
Study. St. Johns River Water Management District, Technical Publ. SJ84-15, Palatka,
Florida.
Browder, J. A. 1976. Water, wetlands, and Wood Storks. Ph.D. Dissertation. University of
Florida. Gainesville.
Browder, J. A. 1978. A modeling study of water, wetlands, and Wood Storks. Wading
Birds, Research Report #7, National Audubon Society.
Browder, J. A. 1984. Wood Stork feeding areas in southwest Florida. Florida Field
Naturalist 12:81-116.
Browder, J. A. 1985. Relationship between pink shrimp production on the Tortugas grounds
and water flow patterns in the Florida Everglades. Bull. Mar. Sci. 37:839-856.
Browder, J. A., P. J. Gleason, and D. R. Swift. 1994. Periphyton in the Everglades: spatial
variation, environmental correlates, and ecological implications. In: S. M. Davis and J.
C. Ogden (Eds.). Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press,
Delray Beach, Florida.
Browder, J. A., D. B. McClellan, D. E. Harper, M. G. Kandrashoff, and W. Kandrashoff.
A major developmental defect observed in several Biscayne Bay. Florida, fish species.
Environmental Biology of Fishes 37:181-188.
Browder, J. A., J. Wang, J. Tashiro, E. Coleman-Duffie, and A. Rosenthal. 1989.
Documenting estuarine impacts of freshwater flow alterations and evaluating proposed
remedies. Proc. Int. Wetland Symp. 5-9 July, 1989, Charleston, S.C. The Association
of Wetland Managers. Berne, NY.
Burns, L. A. 1975. Water quality renovation by natural floodplain marshes: systems
analysis and computer simulation. Report to Florida Department of Administration,
Division of State Planning, Tallahassee, Florida.
128
-------
Burns, L. A. and R. B. Taylor, III. 1979. Nutrient-uptake model in marsh ecosystems.
Journal of the Technical Councils, ASCE 105(TC 1): 177-196.
Carroll, J.D., and A. Banner. 1991. Kissimmee River Restoration Project Revised Draft Fish
and Wildlife Coordination Act Report. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service, Vero Beach,
Florida.
Cowardin, L. M., V. Carter, F. C. Golet, and E. T. Laroe. 1979. Classification of Wetlands
and Deepwater Habitats of the United States. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service.
FWS/OBS-79/31.
Davis, J. H., Jr. 1943. The natural features of southern Florida, especially the vegetation
and the Everglades. Florida Geological Society Bulletin No. 25., Tallahasee.
Davis, S. M. 1990. Sawgrass and cattail production in relation to nutrient supply in the
Everglades, pp. 325-341 In: R. R. Sharitz and J. W. Gibbons (Eds.). Freshwater
wetlands and wildlife. Department of Energy Symposium Series No. 61. U.S.
Department of Energy, Office of Scientific and Technical Information, Oak Ridge,
Tennessee.
Davis, S. M. and J. C. Ogden. 1994. Toward ecosystem restoration. In: S. M. Davis and J.
C. Ogden (Eds.). Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie Press,
Delray Beach, Florida.
Davis, S. M., L. H. Gunderson, W. A. Park, J. Richardson, J. Mattson. 1994. Landscape
dimension, composition, and function in a changing Everglades ecosystem. In: S. M.
Davis and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St.
Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
Enos, P. and R. D. Perkins. 1977. Quarternary sedimentation in South Florida. Geological
Society of America Memoir 147.
;
Fennema, R. J., C. J. Neidrauer, R. A. Johnson, W. A. Perkins, and T. K. MacVicar.
1994. A computer model to simulate natural south Florida hydrology. In: S. M. Davis
and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration. St. Lucie
Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
Fleming, D. M., J. Schortemeyer, W. Hoffman, and D. L. DeAngelis. In press. The
importance of landscape heterogeneity to Wood Storks in the Florida Everglades.
Environmental Management.
Fleming, D. M., W. F. Wolff, and D. L. DeAngelis. In review. Colonial wading bird
nesting in the pre and post drainage landscapes of the Everglades. Oecologia.
Fleming, D. M. Submitted. American alligator nest distribution, nest abundance, and
reproductive performance in the southern Everglades. Ecology.
129
-------
Fong, P. and M. A. Harwell. In press. Modeling seagrass communities in tropical bays and
estuaries: a mathematical synthesis of current hypotheses. Bull. Mar. Sci.
Gray, J. D., T. L. King, and R. L. Colura. 1991. Effect of temperature and hypersalinity on
hatching success of spotted seatrout eggs. The Progressive Fish-Culturist 53:81-84.
Gunderson, L. H. and C. S. Holling. 1991. Central and Southern Florida Ecosystem
Modeling Reconnaissance Study. Results of July 1991 Workshop sponsored U.S.
Army Corps of Engineers and Everglades National Park. University of Florida,
Gainesville.
Harper, D. E. 1993. The spiny lobster monitoring report on trends in landings, CPUE, and
size of harvested lobster. NOAA/NMFS/SEFSC Miami Laboratory Contribution MIA-
92/93-92.
Hoffman, W., G. T. Bancroft, and R. J. Sawicki. 1990. Wading bird populations and
distributions in the Water Conservation Areas of the Everglades, 1985 through 1988.
Report to the South Florida Water Management District.
Iversen, E. S. and A. W. Moffett. 1962. Estimation of abundance and mortality of a spotted
seatrout population. Trans. Am. Fish. Soc. 91:395-398.
Ives, J. C. 1856. Memoir to accompany a military map of the peninsula of Florida south of
Tampa Bay. Wynkoop, Book and Job Printer, New York.
Kinne, O. 1971. Marine Ecology Vol. I, Part 2. Wiley Interscience, New York.
Klein, H. K., M. C. Schroeder, and W. F. Lichtner. 1964. Geology and ground water
resources of Glades and Hendry Counties, Florida. Florida Geological Survey Report
of Investigations No. 37. Tallahasee, Florida.
Klein, H., W. J. Schneider, B. F. McPherson, and T. J. Buchanan. 1970. Some hydrologic
and biologic aspects of the Big Cypress Swamp drainage area, southern Florida.
Open-File Report 70003. U.S. Geological Survey, Tallahassee.
Lambou, V., et al. 1991. Mercury Technical Committee Interim Report to the Florida
Governor's Mercury in Fish and Wildlife Task Force and the Department of
Environmental Regulation. Center for Biolmedical and Toxicological Research and
Waste Management, Florida State University, Tallahassee.
Loftm, M.K., L.A. Toth, and J.T.B. Obeysekera. 1990. Kissimmee River Restoration
Alternative Plan Evaluation and Preliminary Design Report. South Florida Water
Management District, West Palm Beach, Florida.
130
-------
Loftus, W. F., R. A. Johnson, and G. H. Anderson. 1992. Ecological impacts of the
reduction of groundwater levels in short hydroperiod marshes of the Everglades, pp.
199-208 in: J. Stafford and J. Simons (Eds.). Proc. First International Conference on
Groundwater Ecology. Convened by the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) and
the American Water Resources Association (AWRA), Bethesda, Maryland.
Loftus, W. F., J. D. Chapman, and Roxanne Conrow. 1986. Hydroperiod effects on
Everglades marsh food webs, with relation to marsh restoration efforts. G. Larson and
M. Soukup (Eds.). Fisheries and Coastal Wetlands Research Vol. 6, Proc. Conference
on Science in the National Parks, July 13-18, 1986, Ft. Collins, Colorado.
Lowe. 1986. The relationship between hydrology and vegetational pattern within the
floodplain marsh of a subtropical Florida Lake. Florida Scientist 49:213-233.
Maul, G. A. and D. M. Martin. 1993. Sea level rise at Key West, Florida, 1846-1992:
America's longest instrument record?: Geophysical Research Letters V. 28:1955-1958.
Mazzotti, F. J., L. A. Brandt, L. G. Perlstine, W. M. Kitchens, and T. O'breza, F. C.
Depkin, N. Morris, and C. E. Arnold. 1992. An evaluation of regional effects of new
citrus development on the ecological integrity of wildlife resources in southwest
Florida. Final Report to the South Florida Water Management District. WPB.
Mclvor, C. C., J. A. Ley, and R. D. Bjork. 1994. A review of changes in freshwater inflow
from the Everglades to Florida Bay including effects on biota and biotic processes. In:
S. M. Davis and J. C. Ogden (Eds.). Everglades: The Ecosystem and Its Restoration.
St. Lucie Press, Delray Beach, Florida.
Ogden, J. C. 1993. Comparisons between wading bird nesting colony patterns: 1931-1946
and 1974-1989, as indications of ecosystem change in the southern Everglades.
Manuscript, Everglades National Park.
Paul, R. T. 1977. Banding studies of the White-crowned Pigeon in Florida and the
Bahamas, pp. 25-31 In: Proc. Int. White-crowned Pigeon Conference, Bahamas
National Trust, Nassau, Bahamas.
Rogers, B. D., W. H. Herke, and E. E. Knudsen. 1992. Effects of three different water-
control structures on the movements and standing stocks of coastal fishes and
macrocrustaceans. Wetlands 12:106-120.
Rutherford, E. S., E. B. Thule, and D. G. Buker. 1982. Population characteristics, food
habits and spawning activity of gray snapper, Lutjanus griseus, in Everglades National
Park. SFRC-83/02. Everglades National Park, South Florida Research Center,
Homestead, Florida.
South Florida Water Management District. 1989. Surface Water Improvement and
Management Plan for Biscayne Bay.
131
-------
South Florida Water Management District. 1992. Surface Water Improvement and
Management Plan for the Everglades.
South Florida Water Management District. 1989. Interim Surface Water Improvement and
Management Plan for Lake Okeechobee.
South Florida Water Management District. 1993. Draft Working Document in Support of
the Lower East Coast Regional Water Supply Plan. Planning Department Staff. West
Palm Beach, FL.
Stephens, J. C. 1984. Subsidence of organic soils in the Florida Everglades—a review and
update, pp. 375-384 in: P. J. Gleason (Ed.). Environments of South Florida Present
and Past II. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, FL.
Skinner, R. H. and W. Japp. 1986. Trace metals and pesticides in sediments and organisms
in John Pennekamp Coral Reef State Park and Key Largo national Marine Sanctuary.
Florida Department of Natural Resources Report.
Strong, A.M., R.J. Sawicki, and G.T. Bancroft. In press. A population estimate of White
Crowned Pigeons based on flight-line counts. Journal of Wildlife Management.
Stephens, J. C. 1984. Subsidence of organic soils in the Florida Everglades—a review and
update, pp. 375-384 in: P. J. Gleason (Ed.). Environments of South Florida Present
and Past II. Miami Geological Society, Coral Gables, Florida.
Swain, E. D. in prep. Documentation for the USGS Modbranch Model for southeastern
Florida. USGS Open-File Report.
Tabb, D. C. 1967. Prediction of estuarine salinities in Everglades National Park, Florida, by
the use of groundwater records. Ph.D. Dissertation, University of Miami, Coral
Gables, Florida.
Thayer, G. W. and A. J. Chester. 1989. Distribution and abundance of fishes among basin
and channel habitats in Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:200-219.
Thomas, T. M. 1974. A detailed analysis of climatological and hydrological records of
South Florida with reference to man's influence upon ecosystem evolution: pp. 82-122
In: P. A. Gleason (Ed.). Environments of South Florida: Present and Past, Miami
Geological Society Memoir 2.
USACE. 1991. Final Integrated Feasibility Report and EIS: Environmental Restoration of
the Kissimmee River, Florida.
USDA Soil Conservation Service. 1981. Agricultural Handbook 296: Land Resource
Regions and Major Land Resource Areas of the United States.
132
-------
USFWS. 1986. North American Waterfowl Management Plan: A Strategy for Cooperation.
U.S. Department of the Interior, Washington, D.C.
USFWS. 1993. U.S. Fish and Wildlife Service Action Plan for South Florida Ecosystem
Restoration. July 1993.
Van Lent, T. J. and R. J. Johnson. (Submitted). Water management for Taylor Slough,
Everglades National Park, Florida. ASCE Journal of Water Resource Planning and
Management.
Walters, C., L. Gunderson, and C. S. Holling. 1992. Experimental policies for water
management in the Everglades. Ecological Applications 2:189-202.
Zieman, J. C., J. W. Fourqurean, and R. L. Iverson. 1989. Distribution, abundance, and
productivity of seagrasses and macroalgae in Florida Bay. Bull. Mar. Sci. 44:292-311.
133
------- |