CENTRAL EVERGLADES GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE EVERGLADES. PRESENTED BY Kim Taplin, Chief Central Everglades Study Branch. Gina Paduano Ralph, Ph.D.

Size: px
Start display at page:

Download "CENTRAL EVERGLADES GETTING TO THE HEART OF THE EVERGLADES. PRESENTED BY Kim Taplin, Chief Central Everglades Study Branch. Gina Paduano Ralph, Ph.D."


1 PRESENTED BY Kim Taplin, Chief Central Everglades Study Branch Gina Paduano Ralph, Ph.D. DECEMBER 14, 2011 PLANTATION, FLORIDA U.S. Army Corps of Engineers Jacksonville District

2 Introduction Where we are in Everglades Restoration What s Next How we propose to accomplish what s next National Environmental Policy Act 2



5 68 Components Storage Surface ASR STAs for water quality Seepage management Removing barriers to flow Revised operations 30+ year implementation 5

6 Foundation Projects Kissimmee River C-111 South Dade C-51/STA-1E Modified Water Deliveries 1 st Generation CERP Site 1 Impoundment IRL-South Picayune Strand 2 nd Generation CERP C-43 Reservoir Broward County WPA C-111 Spreader Canal Biscayne Bay Coastal Wetlands 6

7 Central Everglades in context of center of the wishbone Goals Restore habitat in the central Everglades, focusing on the River of Grass Deliver new sources of clean water to the central Everglades and ENP Reduce damaging discharges to east and west coast estuaries Considerations Land Available Water Quality Herbert Hoover Dike Savings Clause 7

8 Storage, treatment and St. Lucie conveyance in the EAA River Decompartmentalization and sheetflow enhancement Seepage management Operational changes Feasible 1 st INCREMENT 8

9 Public and Stakeholder Input Public and Stakeholder Input CURRENT CERP (1999 Plan) Incorporate Updated Science & Hydrology Develop Next Increment for Authorization Develop PIR for Next Increment to be Authorized INPUTS Updated Science Updated Information SFWMD Recent Efforts SFWMD Tools CONSIDERATIONS Land already purchased Water Quality standards Available program credits REQUIREMENTS Assurances (WRDA 2000) Agency Technical Review Independent External Peer Review Policy Review 9

10 CURRENT PLANNING PROCESS: 6+ YEARS (approximate timeframes) RECONNAISSANCE STUDY NEGOTIATIONS FEASIBILITY FEASIBILITY FEASIBILITY FEASIBILITY Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Year 4 Year 5 Year 6 Federal Interest Feasibility Study Problems & Alternative Plan Plan Selection Public Assessed Scoped Opportunities Development Review Identify Sponsor RECONNAISSANCE STUDY CERTIFICATION Feasibility Study Agreement Executed FEASIBILITY COST SHARING AGREEMENT SIGNED Future Without Project Management Measures FEASIBILITY SCOPING MEETING Design & Cost Estimate Plan Evaluation & Comparison Agency Technical Review ALTERNATIVE FORMULATION BRIEFING Independent External Peer Review Agency Technical Review Cost Certification CIVIL WORKS REVIEW BOARD Report Finalization Overly detailed, expensive, and takes a long time! The amount of time and data being invested in studies are not leading to a better product or decision Sponsors and Congress, as well as the Corps, are increasingly i frustrated t with the situation ti CHIEF S REPORT 10

11 New process is about changing Corps decision i making processes Focuses on early decision making Focuses on robust, clear scoping of analyses and decision-making criteria Reduces unnecessary detail Early vertical coordination Designed to shave years off of the process 11

12 TARGET - 18 MONTHS 3 MONTHS SCOPING Incorporate Updated Information Develop Next Authorization Increment Develop TSP & PIR IPR 1 1 EXECUTION Coordinated Review IPR 2 IPR 3 IPR 4 REVIEW Decision Point 1 Determine Study Direction Decision Point 2 Tentatively Selected Plan 2 IPR 5 IPR 6 CONFIRMATION Decision Point 3 Civil Works Review Board 3 IPR 7 State1501 Submittal State1501 Approval 4 Decision Point 4 Final Chief s Report IPR: In-Progress Review with Corps Leadership 12

13 We are not starting ti CERP over Incorporate updated information and science Prepare PIR for next project(s) to be authorized We will use existing legal authorities NEPA still applies WRDA 2000 requirements still apply Programmatic Regulations still apply Authorization and Appropriation processes still apply Independent External Peer Review laws still apply We will use models and tools developed by SFWMD for their recent planning process We will accomplish this study using the Corps Planning Transformation pilot process Level of analysis appropriate to the decision with acceptable risk 13

14 14

15 NEPA is a Federal law that requires federal agencies to consider the environmental impacts of a proposed project that are: Major j Federal Actions that may have a significant affect on the quality of the human environment 15

16 Requires Federal agencies to consider environmental consequences before making final decisions Solicit and consider public views on proposals Consult with Tribal, state, and local governments concerning plans Provide agencies with a mechanism to coordinate overlapping, jurisdictional responsibilities 16

17 Under NEPA, Federal agencies must prepare detailed statements addressing the potential environmental impacts related to a major Federal action: Categorical Exclusion (CAT-EX) Environmental Assessment (EA) Environmental Impact Statement (EIS) 17

18 NEPA analysis evaluates a proposed action using 10 significant factors to measure the intensity of potential impacts on the surrounding environment (context of action) Adverse effects associated with Beneficial Projects Effects on public health and safety Unique characteristics of the geographical area Degree of controversy Degree of uncertain effects, unique or unknown risks Precedent-setting effects Cumulative effects Effects on scientific, cultural or historical i resources Effects on endangered or threatened species, habitat Violations of Federal, state or local environmental law 18

19 19

20 Comments Due: January 20, 2012 Public Comment Cards Mail: Dr. Gina Paduano Ralph U.S. Army Corps of Engineers P.O. Box 4970 Jacksonville, FL